[CNN on Bush's first inauguration day. Demonstrating once again the gulf between White House secret aims and public perception, including media perception, of the new administration:]

“CROWLEY: Let me ask you a couple of quick questions about some things that are out there: California electricity. They have had, you know, half-a-million people in the sort of rolling blackouts. Is there something that the federal government ought to be looking at in the short term in terms of helping California? Is that purely a state problem? What is your current take on that?

BUSH: Well, to the extent that we can help California maximize power production at its plants, we need to do so. In other words, if there is any environmental regulations, for example, that's preventing California from having 100 percent max output at their plants -- like I understand there may be -- then we need to relax those regulations.

California has a faulty law on its books. And it needs to correct it. Secondly, the situation in California underlies what I was saying in the course of the campaign. We have an energy problem. And although we need to promote conservation, the best way to make sure we have energy independence is to encourage more exploration. And we need to do so in places that -- where there is oil and gas. And we need to do so in places that can stand, you know, industry.

In other words, there are some places where we don't need -- shouldn't explore. But there are a lot of places where some think we shouldn't explore what we should, because I am convinced we can do so in an environmentally friendly way.”

[As we now know, while the state of California under Gov. Gray Davis was battling rolling blackouts, Enron was among entities manipulating the power market in the first half of 2001. Typically, Bush tried to deflect blame onto “environmental regulations” even on the nonpartisan occasion of his inaugural.]

[cut to]

“CROWLEY: Saddam Hussein -- we're just going to go from one personality to the other.

BUSH: No parallel there, is there?

CROWLEY: Ten years since the Gulf War.

BUSH: Yes.

CROWLEY: Lots of talk this week about, you know, should they have taken him out? Lots of talk about how the sanctions are extremely leaky; lots of Western goods that make their way into Iraq.

Do you foresee a Bush administration in any way, shape, or form dealing with Saddam Hussein?

BUSH: We're going to deal with him. It is very important for people to understand that this is a man who appears to be bent upon developing weapons of mass destruction -- I say "appears" -- and that would be very damaging to our nation's interests. It would be damaging to our -- it could be damaging to our friends, the Israelis. And his ability to threaten countries in the Persian Gulf would be damaging to our friends the Saudis or the Kuwaitis.

And we will deal with him. I am concerned that the sanctions -- sanction regime is -- appears to be unraveling. I think I referred to it the other day, kind of like Swiss cheese. But that's not going to prevent my administration from working to rebuild alliances necessary to keep the pressure on Saddam Hussein not to develop weapons of mass destruction.

CROWLEY: But when you say dealing with him, you're talking about freezing him out? You're not talking about opening up diplomatic relations with him? You say, dealing with him, you mean...

BUSH: Dealing with him means making it clear to the best of our abilities that we're not going to tolerate his developing of weapons of mass destruction. That doesn't mean, you know, walking down arm- in-arm with the man. It's the opposite. It says that we're going to watch you very carefully and we're going to completely -- we'll assess all policy, of course. And this is one area that requires a lot of reassessment.”

[Following Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill’s book among other sources, it is now apparent that the incoming White House wanted war with Saddam – “dealing with him” only in the saloon-fight sense of the phrase.]