Mr. Bush’s new pet phrase early on in today’s press conference seemed to be to say how “interesting” something was whenever he answered a question.  It is a more subtle way of dismissing people who disagree with him–“good, decent people” (his other new phrase), you understand, not like those terrorist-loving isolationists he normally talks about–than saying, “I just strongly disagree.”  Perhaps he saw Joe Scarborough’s discussion of Mr. Bush’s apparent lack of intellectual curiosity and decided that he was going to show everyone how “interested” he was in things.  Here are the examples:

You know, it’s an interesting debate we’re having in America about how we ought to handle Iraq. There’s a lot of people —- good, decent people —- saying: Withdraw now.

———-

And what’s very interesting about the violence in Lebanon and the violence in Iraq and the violence in Gaza is this: These are all groups of terrorists who are trying to stop the advance of democracy.

But that doesn’t mean that he won’t go back to his trusty style of concocting straw men and then strongly disagree with a position that no one holds:

Now, I recognize some say that these folks are not ideologically bound. I strongly disagree.

Who says that?  “Some folks”–good, decent folks…you know, not like those damn Lamont voters giving aid and comfort to “al Qaeda types” or George Will.  But Mr. Bush is not without his generosity.  He allows as how his critics are also Americans, Americans with whom he strongly disagrees:

And again, I repeat: These are decent people. They’re just as American as I am. I just happen to strongly disagree with them.

Well, we just happen to strongly disagree with Mr. Bush when he says silly things like this:

But, in the long term, the only way to defeat this terrorist bunch is through the spread of liberty and freedom.

But at least Mr. Bush would never suggest any kind of connection between Iraq and 9/11!

And so my answer to your question is that —- imagine a world in which Saddam Hussein was there, stirring up even more trouble in a part of the world that had so much resentment and so much hatred that people came and killed 3,000 of our citizens.

Well, all right, he might occasionally make those sorts of connections, but he doesn’t deny that his critics are Americans, and that’s a big step forward!  So what does Mr. Bush think is necessary to combat all of this resentment?

And one way to defeat that —- you know, defeat resentment —- is with hope. And the best way to do hope is through a form of government.

Nobody “does” hope like Mr. Bush’s does hope–he’s hoping mightily that rejiggering a few institutions will eliminate resentment against policies that have next to nothing to do with the form of government in any of these countries, least of all in Iraq.  But that doesn’t get Mr. Bush down, because he “fully believes” in what he’s doing:

I fully believe it was the right decision to remove Saddam Hussein, and I fully believe the world is better off without him.

Well, as long as he fully believes it and he’s not holding out on us, how can we good and decent people say anything against him?  That’s a very interesting question.