The thing that strikes me about this excellent (and well-travelled) article from Norman Podhoretz is the extent to which he quotes from and references Bush's speeches to demonstrate that Bush has a doctrine- a rationale, if you prefer- for his foreign policy.

Now if an individual speech is good, that could be a good job from a speechwriter, but if a series of speeches emphasize the same themes, the same rationale, that seems to me like a pattern that can be set by only one man- the man who has to deliver them and then live with them.

Which rather undercuts the view of Bush as a man without a strategy, wouldn't you say?

What the article also makes clear is that Bush has been navigating uncharted waters in US foreign policy- a change of direction Podhoretz, offering a vast historical perspective, considers to have been absolutely necessary. Given that scenario, it's no surprise the passage should be bumpy or the progress erratic. That's what pioneering is about.