The Economist is not a particularly liberal publication, though is it not particularly a fan of George W. Bush (it endorsed John Kerry in 2004). In its coverage of the President, the periodical tends to be evenhanded and fair, so the article in this week's issue entitled "Shock and Awe" is noteworthy.

Yet the gap between Mr Bush's rhetoric and what is actually happening, or is likely to happen, is embarrassingly wide. The day after his “freedom speech” his officials fanned out to explain that he didn't really mean anything specific. In Iraq things are not going according to plan—if indeed the administration actually has a plan (see article). Tax reform has been sidelined to a commission, with action this year, next year, sometime. His attempt to privatise part of the Social Security system is in trouble even before it starts.

The gap between ambition and follow-through at home can partly be blamed on the fact that Mr Bush has yet to start revealing the details of his policy. But in foreign policy, the contradiction looks well established. Neo-conservatives, who loved the inauguration speech, claim that Mr Bush is undermining it through the people he has appointed. Condoleezza Rice, the newly confirmed secretary of state, needs watching. Bob Zoellick, her chosen number two, seems to know far too many foreign ambassadors. As for Nicholas Burns, touted for number three, he lives in Belgium. And now Douglas Feith, one of the few neocons with real power, is leaving the Pentagon “for personal reasons”.

Check out the whole piece (it's free) and to get an idea of the degree to which this President will go to deceive the nation. Pass it on to your friends, as well, because the Economist carries a lot of weight in the arena of political discourse.