... there will be a virtually unlimited number of potential interpretations of that data. Some will just be more plausible than others.

Frankly, my dear, ... Was Bush the only one who entered studying the floor and not shaking hands with those already on the first riser? From examining the clips Shaw has, I can't honestly say. It did appear to me that Bush did acknowledge, and was acknowledged by, some on that first riser, although, clearly, no handshakes were exchanged. I imagine one would have to still the film and examine it frame by frame to see where eye contact might have been made, or words exchanged. I think it's fair to argue that the cropped version of the film supports a theme many would want to accept. And, IMHO, by using a longer bit of film, Shaw makes a credible case for a different interpretation.

Yes, there are many possible interpretations. Bush may have put the word out that he didn't want to shake hands because there was no handy aide with a bottle of hand sanitizer around. But even his BFF Silvio Berlusconi doesn't seem to want to make eye contact. Barroso shakes hands with those before and after Bush but seems to look right through Bush. Only Gordon Brown seems to exchange more than a word with Bush and be willing to look in his direction. Angela Merkel clearly does not want to make eye contact with Bush and looks practically anywhere else. Zapatero seems to acknowledge Bush with a nod of the head but has his hands firmly behind his back to obviate any possibility of shaking hands.

I can't say anyone else's interpretation is wrong — there are too many factors that are unknown and may not be expressed by the film clip. But what the film clip shows is unmistakable: No one shakes hands with Bush; Bush does not offer to shake hands with anyone. Bush proceeds doggedly, for the most part with his head down as if he is indeed absorbed in trying to find his mark without tripping over his shoelaces, and exchanges remarks with perhaps two people of the seven or eight that he files past. Either it's all random and coincidenty, or else no one is interested in making a fuss over Bush and Bush is not interested in giving anyone any recognition. What happens is clear — how and why are different questions.

Regarding the snubbing. I recommend you take a look at Michael Shaw's (BAGnewsNotes) deconstruction of the clip shown on American television in the context of a much larger bit of film. It is Shaw's contention that Bush was neither engaging nor receiving a snub. It appears that Bush was looking for his marks on the floor - as illustrated in the same behavior exhibited by others, doing the same thing. It was a carefully staged photo op.
— bystander

Then it is encouraging that there are world leaders who find it possible to shake hands and chat with others even while looking for their marks. Or was Bush the designated mark-finder, leaving others free to interact normally with their contemporaries?

... the circle of advisers that Obama seems to be surrounding himself with reminds me of a scene early in the movie Lawrence of Arabia:

Lawrence is in Egypt and while talking with a young subaltern casually puts out a match by pinching it with his fingers. The subaltern tries this and exclaims "Ouch! That hurts!" to which Lawrence replies "Of course it hurts." The subaltern then inquires "What's the secret then?" "The secret," Lawrence explains, "is not to mind that it hurts."

By the same token, the secret to enjoying the Obama electoral victory, in the face of selections like John Brennan, is not to mind that it hurts.

First omooex said:

Now, what the hell does that mean?

But then omooex said:

Ridiculing someone and reducing their argument to a caricature may be fun, but I can't see much to defend the habit.

So it becomes difficult to tell whether omooex is practicing what he condemns or condemning what he practices. But assuming that "Now, what the hell does that mean?" was not meant to ridicule nor even to reduce an argument to a caricature, but is in fact a plea for enlightenment, the answer can be found at <http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/57JNHY>. The article begins:

The Martens Clause has formed a part of the laws of armed conflict since its first appearance in the preamble to the 1899 Hague Convention (II) with respect to the laws and customs of war on land:

"Until a more complete code of the laws of war is issued, the High Contracting Parties think it right to declare that in cases not included in the Regulations adopted by them, populations and belligerents remain under the protection and empire of the principles of international law, as they result from the usages established between civilized nations, from the laws of humanity and the requirements of the public conscience."

I suggest reading the entire piece. Even though you probably won't know much more about it afterwards because there are differing interpretations, you will at least know what the most generally taken possibilities of its meaning are.

Keep in mind that this is connected fairly firmly to the rules of land warfare. If one were to look in other areas I would think that our own founding documents came close to their own expression of this, viz. "the laws of humanity" corresponds to "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God" and "the requirements/dictates of the public conscience" corresponds to "a decent Respect for the Opinions of Mankind". Many probably wouldn't see it that way.