This is the headline for David Brooks' column today in the New York Times. I looked at it and said "WTF"? Well, of course, the implication in the headline is not really borne out in the story, but how many people actually read the whole story. In fact, the truth doesn't come out until the last paragraph. "Obama Admires Bush"
Brooks quotes a conversation with Senator Obama in which he says:
I have enormous sympathy for the foreign policy of George H. W. Bush. I don’t have a lot of complaints about their handling of Desert Storm. I don’t have a lot of complaints with their handling of the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Then Brooks follows it up with his opinion:
In his heart, Obama talks like the Democrats of that era [the 1990's], viewing foreign policy from the ground up. But in his head, he aligns himself with the realist dealmaking of the first Bush.
I find it extremely frustrating to have headline writers change the context of a story. Perhaps this one is meant to confuse everyone. People who heard about Bush's "appeasement" comments may think that Obama admires Bush's statements about him.
Probably the idea is just to get people to read the story to find out what Brooks is really saying. And, to some extent, Brooks admits that Obama has a better grasp of foreign policy than many people are willing to credit him with. I, however, am offended to see a headline that implies something that is not true.