Well it is good news whatever way you look at it... And you look at as an exoneration of GWB, I see it more as an example of even the best laid plans backfiring.

I don't see it as an exoneration of anyone. I see it as a simple case of reality trumping hysteria and conspiracy theories turning out to be bollocks. As usual.

I'll just reply further to your "best laid plans" remark.

Bush has consistently picked judges who believe that it is their job to uphold the Constitution, not to "interpret" it in exciting new ways. That's something the American Left generally oppose, largely because of abortion -- whether you're for or against abortion, the idea that every woman is given a right to abort in the Constitution is patent bollocks, and got through thanks to the sort of judicial "interpretation" that Bush opposes. In this particular case, the Constitution insists upon a division of church and state, and a Bush-nominated judge has, unsurprisingly, upheld it. This doesn't go against Bush's plan. It is Bush's plan. He opposes judicial activism. This decision is the direct result of a lack of judicial activism.

Bush is on record as saying he'd like to see ID taught in schools. That's not hysteria or a conspiracy theory.

So when a Bush-appointed judge describes that proposal as "breathtaking inanity", and then you claim that this is Bush's plan, I say "yeah right".

Bush has always drawn a distinction between what he'd like and what he makes policy. He's been on record from the start as saying that he personally is against abortion, but he hasn't gone anywhere near Roe vs Wade. Whatever he may have said about his personal preferences, when it comes to policy, he's done nothing whatsoever to promote the teaching of ID in science lessons — as indeed he can't, since America's education isn't centrally controlled like the UK's. The British are so used to seeing everything in the country controlled directly by Whitehall that we interpret statements from Cabinet members about health, education, and most other things as policy directives, and usually they are. It is wrong to apply the same reasoning to US politics. Bush has sod all say in school curricula. All he was doing was expressing his opinion on the fight; it's not one he can take part in. And one of the things that I think makes him a good president is that, when something is outside his remit, he leaves it there.

Meanwhile, when it comes to things that are in his remit, he's against judicial activism and has consistently nominated judges who will defend, not change, the Constitution. That's an actual policy plan, and it's hardly backfired when a judge defends the Constitution.


> That's not hysteria or a conspiracy theory.

No. But what is hysteria is to say that the Republicans are fighting a war against science and that they will see science in America destroyed if they're not stopped. It's hysterical to look at one local court judgment in favour of ID in Kansas, which was quickly overturned, and conclude from it that science itself is being destroyed across the entire USA. We hear a lot of both these things.

And the popular conspiracy theory that Bush and his party and his judicial appointees are united in a plan to destroy the teaching of evolution in schools has turned out to be bollocks. Unless you really do think that this is a remarkable double-bluff of some sort.