So I guess this had to be expected:

....Bush is truly a Trotskyite, a believer in permanent revolution. We have never had one as a president before. He wouldn't understand that, but Wolfowitz would. He truly is. And he's doing it -- what he thinks he has to do, the revolutions he has to create, without any information, without any -- without an ability to absorb information that's counter to what he wants to hear. And so, I don't know where you are when you have a man with as much power as he controls and as much ability to do something. I don't know how we can get at him.

But what if Hersh is right?

How can we ever hope to get at him?

UPDATE (06/29/05): While I didn't see President Bush's speech last night, other bloggers have commented on it extensively, but nowhere did I see any discussion or mention of Trotskyist (or Trotskyite) tendencies in Bush's speech.

Well, Trotsky's name did come up in Roger L. Simon's post, but only in a Jeffersonian context. (Link and general roundup to speech reactions via Glenn Reynolds.)

Obviously, further studies (like this one positing a "Trotskyist ascendancy over the conservative movement") are needed.