Bush isn't interested in making good policy

I know, it's absolutely shocking. But this from John Cole summed it up for me:

I can think of no real reason to constantly attack a beleagured minority party and her surrogates, when we should be concerned with governing. Is this really worth it?

So I thought it would be a good time to look back at Bush's agenda, and realize how utterly unconcerned he is with making good policy. In almost all cases, the administration's utterly selfish and power-mongering strategies are utterly transparent, even as they pretend to act in the interest of the American people.

CAFTA/Free Trade
Stated Purpose: Free trade agreements are good for the United States, because they increase wealth for everybody, and it will help us be more competitive with China.
Actual Purpose: Just a big favor for the drug companies and textile industry, and other companies who want to outsource.
How we know: The tremendous intellectual property rights provisions for the drug companies in CAFTA, along with the lack of labor and environmental standards. There's also discussion of continuing to allow sugar quotas. The abolition of these quotas is pretty much the only real good that might come out of CAFTA. Also, if Bush was really committed to free trade, he would be pushing hard to eliminate our wasteful agricultural subsidies, which would demonstrate our willingness to cooperate at the WTO Doha Round to help decrease farm subsidies.
Why it's bad: CAFTA will outsource jobs to Central American countries, while not helping standards of living. The increased patent protections for US drug companies will make drugs more expensive for Central American countries. In essence, it packages everything that is good for corporations about free trade into a neat little package, conveniently weeding out everything that might be good for the rest of us (cheaper sugar?).

Terri Schiavo/Culture of Life
Stated Purpose: Maintaining a culture of life in this country is paramount, and the Federal Government must do everything possible to preserve all life.
Actual Purpose: Fire up the wingnuts.
How we know: Oh, come on now. Did you see those protesters? In all seriousness, those people are maniacally obsessed with "life" issues, and expect their Repubs to do whatever necessary to come to their aid.
Why it was bad: It was a big waste of government time, primarily. It also underminded the idea of federalism and an independent judiciary that might act outside of Cogressional authority. Furthermore, the "telediagnoses" of Mrs. Schiavo's condition certainly undermined the credibility of the medical profession. Is everyone a shrink now?

Stem Cells/Culture of Life
Stated Purpose: Maintaining a culture of life in this country is paramount, and the Federal Government should not fund destruction of life.
Actual Purpose: Satisfy the wingnut base.
How we know: Vetoing the Senate's bill wouldn't actually protect life, since only superflous stem cells would be used.
Why it's bad: Slowing stem cell research could cost real, adult lives, as potentially curable diseases continue to kill. Also, putting religion over science once again sets an extremely bad precedent.

War in Iraq/Staying the Course
Stated Purpose: Sending more troops might give the Iraqis the impression of a permanent occupation, but when the Iraqis stand up, we'll stand down.
Actual Purpose: We can't send more troops, because there aren't any more.
How we know: The stated purpose is an inherent contradiction. If sending more troops would cause them to "stand down," wouldn't pulling the troops out cause them to "stand up?" And conversely, if our presence there isn't preventing the Iraqis from standing up, how would sending more soldiers make them stand down?
Why it's bad: The Iraq war is a debacle. We deserve a reevaluation.

Torture/Global War on Terror
Stated Purpose: The Geneva Conventions should be suspended for the GWOT because this is a different kind of war. The administration's silence on the actual torture scandal has been deafening, so we don't know why there hasn't been a thorough investigation.
Actual Purpose: This is speculation, but I suspect that an investigation would lead pretty high up on the food chain, and cause the Bush administration to stink even worse than it does.
How we know: It's speculation. We don't.
Why it's bad: Torture by Americans sets a bad example for the world, and violates our very justifications for war in Iraq. It puts American soldiers in danger, and American violation of civil liberties and human rights is a threat to all Americans

Valerie Plame
Stated Purpose: Find and fire the leaker.
Actual Prupose: Find and fire a fall guy who is sufficiently high on the food chain to satisfy the American people, but sufficiently low to save Bush and Cheney's skins.
How we know: Rove was involved. Why no firing?
Why it's bad: This is a case of national security, where there needs to be a full investigation and absolute honesty from the administration. It's no time to play politics.

Social Security Privatization
Stated Purpose: Resolve the Social Security Crisis before it goes bankrupt.
Actual Purpose: This may be the one case where Bush is actually trying to do right, but unfortunately, his timing is terrible on this one.
Why it's bad: Why take a problem that's at least 30 years away, and add to our ballooning debt to solve it right now? If you want to leave my generation with a solvent country, let alone Social Security System, get your act together and balance some budgets. As it is, privatization would just force us to borrow a bunch more money from Japan and China, to the extent where interest on the debt would be even more crippling, and the debt load would be quite harmful to the economy.

These seem to be the seven biggest political issues of the President's second term, and he has been disingenious about his intentions on six of them, and wrong on the seventh. Obviously, I'm leaving out the Supreme Court nomination(s), because it would be unfair to analyze an action that hasn't been taken yet. But with this kind of track record, does anyone think he's worried about appointing the best person for the job?