In response to the question, "Mr. President, your State Department has reported that terrorist attacks around the world are at an all-time high. If we're winning the war on terrorism, as you say, how do you explain that more people are dying in terrorist attacks on your watch than ever before?", Bush said, "Well, we've made the decision to defeat the terrorists abroad so we don't have to face them here at home. And when you engage the terrorists abroad, it causes activity and action." Apparently, though, he isn't responsible for any of it. Terrorists just do these things for no reason.

In response to the question, "What do you think of Putin now that he has expressed a willingness to supply weapons to outlaw regimes, specifically his recent comments that he said he would provide short-range missiles to Syria and nuclear components to Iran?", Bush replied, "Yes. First, just on a broader -- kind of in a broader sense, I had a long talk with Vladimir there in Slovakia about democracy and about the importance of democracy. And as you remember at the press conference, or, if you weren't there, somebody will remember, he stood up and said he strongly supports democracy. I take him for his word. . . .

"Now, we're working closely with the Russians on the issue of vehicle-mounted weaponry to Syria. We didn't appreciate that, but we made ourselves clear.

"As to Iran, what Russia has agreed to do is to send highly enriched uranium to a nuclear civilian power plant and then collect that uranium after it's used for electricity, power purposes. That's what they've decided to do. . . .

"And I appreciate that gesture. So I think Vladimir was trying to help there. I know Vladimir Putin understands the dangers of an Iran with a nuclear weapon. And most of the world understands that as well."

If you can't trust an ex-KGB guy who says he supports democracy, whom can you trust?

A reporter asked, "Mr. President, under the law, how would you justify the practice of renditioning, where U.S. agents who bust terror suspects abroad, taking them to a third country for interrogation? And would you stand for it if foreign agents did that to an American here?"

Here's the biggest non-answer of them all:

"That's a hypothetical.

"We operate within the law, and we send people to countries where they say they're not going to torture the people.

"But let me say something. The United States government has an obligation to protect the American people. It's in our country's interests to find those who would do harm to us and get them out of harm's way.

"And we will do so within the law. And we will do so in honoring our commitment not to torture people.

"And we expect the countries where we send somebody to not to torture as well.

"But, you bet, when we find somebody who might do harm to the American people, we will detain them and ask others from their country of origin to detain them. It makes sense. The American people expect us to do that. We're still at war.

"You know, I've said this before to you, I'm going to say it again: One of my concerns after September the 11th is the farther away we got from September the 11th, the more relaxed we would all become and assume that there wasn't an enemy out there ready to hit us.

"And I just can't let the American people -- I'm not going to let them down by assuming that the enemy is not going to hit us again. We're going to do everything we can to protect us.

"We've got the guidelines. We've got law.

"But, you bet, we're going to fight people before they harm us."

In other words, we'll do whatever we darn well please with these people we have designated as terrorists, and we'll pretend that they aren't being tortured in the places where we're sending them because their governments have said they wouldn't torture them.

More doublespeak about No Child Left Behind:

"Look, I'm a former governor. I believe that the states ought to control their own destiny when it comes to schools. They're by far the biggest funder of education. And it should remain that way.

"But we spend a lot of money here at the federal level, and have increased the money we spend here quite dramatically at the federal level.

"And we just changed the policy. Instead of just spending money and hoping for the best, we're now spending money and saying,

"Measure."

Well, which is it, Mr. President? Should the states control their own school systems or not?

Finally, here's how the conservative president really feels about taxes:

"You know, I was amazed by the report the other day that there's some $330 billion a year that goes unpaid by American taxpayers. It's a phenomenal amount of money.

"To me, it screams for making the tax system easier to understand, more fair, so that we can -- and to make sure people pay their taxes. More fair means pay what you owe."

How could any self-respecting conservative not love this guy?