Ready or not: dangers of the second Bush term.(The Presidency II)

THIS is the presidency of living dangerously. George W. Bush has dared more, done more, and risked more than any president since Ronald Reagan's first term. Now in this second term, when most presidents take it easier, Bush is upping the ante again. That is impressive. It is also worrisome--because this administration is failing to take many necessary precautions to protect itself against the risks for which it is volunteering.

Over the past few weeks, Washington has filled up with happy Republicans celebrating the second inaugural. They have seen parties, and musical entertainment, and fireworks. We permanent residents enjoy the fun as much as anyone. But we are also seeing dangers ahead.

The first danger is the continuing threat to this administration from within. Leaked story after leaked story buffeted the administration during the election campaign--and since Election Day, the pace has if anything picked up. Seymour Hersh and The New Yorker printed a story about covert operations inside Iran sourced to past and present CIA officials; Barton Gellman in the Washington Post whooped up a new clandestine-intelligence operation inside the Pentagon. Unlike Hersh's, Gellman's story did not expose details of any ongoing operations. But it did make clear that much of the national-security apparatus remains so implacably opposed to President Bush that it is willing to leak secrets to stop him.

The mentality of much of the CIA was splendidly summed up last month by A. B. Krongard, who served from 1998 to 2004 as the Agency's number three. "You can make the argument that we're better off" with bin Laden at large, Krongard told the London Times. Michael Scheuer, the former head of the CIA's bin Laden unit, also makes an argument that implies that the U.S. would do better to abandon the whole War on Terror. In his view, Islamic terror is an understandable response to Western provocations. The surest way to bring terror to an end, according to Scheuer, is to find out what the Islamic world wants and give it to them.

New CIA chief Porter Goss does seem to be doing an effective cull of the agency's defeatists, appeasers, and timeservers. But they are not going quietly--and they seem determined to inflict maximum damage on the way out.

That damage has been intensified by the second danger ahead: the escalating cost of the administration's inability to make an effective case for itself at home and abroad. The Bush administration excels in making big, eloquent speeches--like the second inaugural--that present its goals in broad, abstract terms. It is not so eager to offer details about the means by which it will achieve those goals.

This mismatch makes it possible for critics to accuse the administration of failing to think things through. And the same mismatch makes it difficult for defenders of the administration to rebut those accusations. We have heard the administration's strategy and we can see its tactics, but it is often difficult to figure out the connection between the two.