Because that would explain his recent article over at the NYT (subscription only).
It must be newsworthy that a world leader, an ally of Israel, fighter of terrorism, one who was not in a coma, recently blamed Hezbollah for the hostilities in the Middle East:
Bush Places Blame Squarely on HezbollahOh there's more:
By DAVID STOUT
Published: August 14, 2006
WASHINGTON, Aug. 14 — President Bush offered a vigorous defense of his Middle East policies today...
Mr. Bush has often described the American-led campaign in Iraq as part of a wider battle against terrorism, and his inclusion of the Lebanon fighting in a bigger struggle was probably not accidental. Nor did he leave any doubt which side he blames.
When Israel has been engaged in conflict before, the president has spoken of the country’s right to defend itself, while also urging as much restraint as possible to minimize bloodshed among civilians. But he shunned such language today, declaring that no matter what Hezbollah claims, it has suffered a defeat it deserves.So by saying Hezbollah had it coming, the sympathy for civilians is now shunned?
The article is loaded with subtle anti-Bush sentiment.
And note that the phrase President Bush was mentioned only once while the phrase Mr. Bush was used 10 times. Trivial? Sure, but it's icing on the not-so-objective-anti-Bush cake.