"Bush Era" Over

[Punzie]

http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i130/Rapunzel61/Smileys/Laugh-Chuckle/laughing-dog.gif

[ZippyTheChimp]

January 14, 2007

Op-Ed Columnist

He’s in the Bunker Now

By FRANK RICH

PRESIDENT BUSH always had one asset he could fall back on: the self-confidence of a born salesman. Like Harold Hill in “The Music Man,” he knew how to roll out a new product, however deceptive or useless, with conviction and stagecraft. What the world saw on Wednesday night was a defeated Willy Loman who looked as broken as his war. His flop sweat was palpable even if you turned down the sound to deflect despair-inducing phrases like “Prime Minister Maliki has pledged ...” and “Secretary Rice will leave for the region. ...”

Mr. Bush seemed to know his product was snake oil, and his White House handlers did too. In the past, they made a fetish of situating their star in telegenic settings, from aircraft carriers to Ellis Island. Or they placed him against Orwellian backdrops shrieking “Plan for Victory." But this time even the audio stuttered, as if in solidarity with Baghdad’s continuing electricity blackout, and the Oval Office was ditched, lest it summon up memories of all those past presidential sightings of light at the end of the Iraqi tunnel. Mr. Bush was banished to the White House library, where the backdrop was acres of books, to signify the studiousness of his rethinking of the “way forward.”

"I’m not going to be rushed," the president said a month ago when talking about his many policy consultations. He wasn’t kidding. His ostentatious deep thinking started after Election Day, once he realized that firing Donald Rumsfeld wouldn’t be enough to co-opt the Iraq Study Group. He was thinking so hard that he abandoned his initial plan to announce a strategy before Christmas .

The war, however, refused to take a timeout for the holiday festivities in Crawford. The American death toll in Iraq, which hovered around 2,840 on Election Day, was nearing 3,020 by Wednesday night.

And these additional lives were sacrificed to what end? All the reviews and thinking and postponing produced a policy that, as a former top Bush aide summed it up for The Daily News, is nothing more than "repackaged stay-the-course dressed up to make it look more palatable." The repackaging was half-hearted as well. Not for nothing did the “way forward,” a rubric the president used at least 27 times in December, end up on the cutting-room floor. The tossing of new American troops into Baghdad, a ploy that backfired in Operation Together Forward last year, is too transparently the way backward.

“Victory” also received short shrift, downsized by the president to the paltry goal of getting “closer to success.” The “benchmarks” he cited were so vague that they’d be a disgrace to No Child Left Behind. And no wonder: in November, Mr. Bush couldn’t even get our devoted ally, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, to show up for dinner at their summit in Amman, let alone induce him to root out Shiite militias. The most muscle the former Mr. Bring-’Em-On could muster in Wednesday’s speech was this: “If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people.” Since that support vanished long ago, it’s hard to imagine an emptier threat or a more naked confession of American impotence, all the more pathetic in a speech rattling sabers against Syria and Iran.

Mr. Bush’s own support from the American people is not coming back. His “new” Iraq policy is also in defiance of Iraqi public opinion , the Joint Chiefs, the Baker-Hamilton grandees, and Mr. Maliki, who six weeks ago asked for a lower American profile in Iraq. Which leaves you wondering exactly who is still in the bunker with the president besides the first lady and Barney.

It’s a very short list led by John McCain, Joe Lieberman, and neo-conservative dead-enders like William Kristol and Frederick Kagan, who congregate at The Weekly Standard and the American Enterprise Institute, the Washington think tank. The one notable new recruit is Rudy Giuliani, who likened taming Baghdad to “reducing crime in New York” without noticing that even after the escalation there will be fewer American troops patrolling Baghdad than uniformed police officers in insurgency-free New York City.

Mr. Kagan, a military historian, was sent by the White House to sell its policy to Senate Republicans. It was he, Mr. Kristol and the retired Gen. Jack Keane who have most prominently pushed for this escalation and who published studies and editorials credited with defining it. Given that these unelected hawks are some of the same great thinkers who promoted the Iraq fiasco in the first place, it is hard to imagine why this White House continues to listen to them. Or maybe not that hard. In a typical op-ed article, headlined “Stay the Course, Mr. President!,” Mr. Kagan wrote in The Los Angeles Times in 2005: "Despite what you may have read, the military situation in Iraq today is positive."

Yet Mr. Bush doesn’t even have the courage of his own disastrous convictions: he’s not properly executing the policy these guys sold him. In The Washington Post on Dec. 27, Mr. Kagan and General Keane wrote that escalation could only succeed “with a surge of at least 30,000 combat troops” — a figure that has also been cited by Mr. McCain. (Mr. Kagan put the figure at 50,000 to 80,000 in a Weekly Standard article three weeks earlier. Whatever.) By any of these neocons’ standards, the Bush escalation of some 20,000 is too little, not to mention way too late.

The discrepancy between the policy that Mr. Bush nominally endorses and the one he actually ordered up crystallizes the cynicism of this entire war. If you really believe, as the president continues to put it, that Iraq is the central front in “the decisive ideological struggle of our time,” then you should be in favor of having many more troops than we’ve ever had in Iraq. As T. X. Hammes, an insurgency expert and a former marine, told USA Today, that doesn’t now mean a “dribble” (as he ridicules the “surge”) but a total of 300,000 armed coalition forces over a minimum of four years.

But that would mean asking Americans for sacrifice, not giving us tax cuts. Mr. Bush has never asked for sacrifice and still doesn’t. If his words sound like bargain-basement Churchill, his actions have been cheaper still. The president’s resolutely undermanned war plan indicated from Day 1 that he knew in his heart of hearts that Iraq was not the central front in the war against 9/11 jihadism he had claimed it to be, only the reckless detour that it actually was. Yet the war’s cheerleaders, neocon and otherwise, disingenuously blamed our low troop strength almost exclusively on Mr. Rumsfeld.

Now that the defense secretary is gone, what are they to do? For whatever reason, you did not hear Mr. Kagan, General Keane or Mr. McCain speak out against Mr. Bush’s plan even though it’s insufficient by their own reckoning — just a repackaged continuance of the same “Whac-A-Mole” half-measures that Mr. McCain has long deplored. Surely the senator knows that, as his loosey-goosey endorsement attests. (On Friday, he called the Bush plan “the best chance of success” while simultaneously going on record that “a small, short surge would be the worst of all worlds.”)

The question now is how to minimize the damage before countless more Americans and Iraqis are slaughtered to serve the president’s endgame of passing his defeat on to the next president. The Democrats can have all the hearings they want, but they are unlikely to take draconian action (cutting off funding) that would make them, rather than Mr. Bush, politically vulnerable to blame for losing Iraq.

I have long felt that it will be up to Mr. Bush’s own party to ring down the curtain on his failed policy, and after the 2006 midterms, that is more true than ever. The lame-duck president, having lost both houses of Congress and at least one war (Afghanistan awaits), has nothing left to lose. That is far from true of his party.

Even conservatives like Sam Brownback of Kansas and Norm Coleman of Minnesota started backing away from Iraq last week. Mr. Brownback is running for president in 2008, and Mr. Coleman faces a tough re-election fight. But Republicans not in direct electoral jeopardy (George Voinovich of Ohio, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska) are also starting to waver. It’s another Vietnam-Watergate era flashback. It wasn’t Democrats or the press that forced Richard Nixon’s abdication in 1974; it was dwindling Republican support. Though he had vowed to fight his way through a Senate trial, Nixon folded once he lost the patriarchal leader of his party’s right wing.

That leader was Barry Goldwater , who had been one of Nixon’s most loyal and aggressive defenders until he finally realized he’d been lied to once too often. If John McCain won’t play the role his Arizona predecessor once did, we must hope that John Warner or some patriot like him will, for the good of the country, answer the call of conscience. A dangerous president must be saved from himself, so that the American kids he’s about to hurl into the hell of Baghdad can be saved along with him.


Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

[lofter1]

Bizarre: The New Yorker Cover image changes as new issues come out!!

The one I posted shoed GWB in a toga & fiddling while Iraq burned in the background ...

Now I'm seeing a newer cover -- pretty funny (dog drinking a puppy-cino while owner is tethered to a tree outside) ...



He’s in the Bunker Now

And here's what he's up to ...

http://www.condenet.com/images_covers/cover_newyorker_190.jpg

[BrooklynRider]

“He has 24 months left in his presidency. I don’t think I’m being mean-spirited by saying [that in] the first six years of his presidency, there’s been nothing accomplished except the biggest foreign policy fiasco in the history of our country.”

— Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), quoted by Time magazine.

[lofter1]

If his actions weren't so devastating to our Republic he would be reduced to kitsch.

For those who will miss him (all 3 of you):

http://velvetpaintings.com/Velvet/JALBUM%20ALL-Images/8.jpg

http://velvetpaintings.com/Velvet/JALBUM%20ALL.html

[ZippyTheChimp]

Oh geez.

Until I went to the site, I thought this was a lampoon.

[MidtownGuy]

It says "looking pensive". Pensive?? Now there's a word I'd never have associated with him!

[ZippyTheChimp]

February 11, 2007

Editorial

T.R.? He’s No T.R.

Whenever President Bush is being hammered for his environmental policies, as he has been recently for his timid approach to global warming, he heads for a national park to reveal a hidden kinship with nature and, in effect, to promise a new day.

He did so again last week, visiting Shenandoah National Park to announce a sizable increase in the National Park Service’s budget. The photo op elicited suggestions from Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne that Mr. Bush was somehow channeling Teddy Roosevelt. From Tony Snow, the White House spokesman and resident fantasist, it prompted the incredible claim that Mr. Bush had in fact been “keenly committed both to environmentalism and conservationism from the start.”

From the start? The choice Mr. Bush faced on the day he took office was between two competing Republican approaches to environmental matters — the callous disregard for the country’s natural resources displayed during the Reagan years and the responsible stewardship of those same resources associated with Theodore Roosevelt. Mr. Bush unhesitatingly chose the former.

The result was an across-the-board antiregulatory crusade aimed not only at undoing Bill Clinton’s environmental legacy but also at weakening bedrock economic law stretching back to Richard Nixon. It was orchestrated by the ideologues and industry lobbyists whom Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney installed in nearly every important position where environmental policy is made. The one exception was Christie Whitman, who finally tired of being told to do industry’s bidding and retired to private life after two uncomfortable years as boss of the Environmental Protection Agency.

It is impossible to find Teddy Roosevelt’s ghost in any of this. One suspects, for instance, that Roosevelt would have tried much harder to protect fragile landscapes than the Bush administration has in its frantic drive for more oil and gas resources in the Rocky Mountains. One suspects — knows, even — that Roosevelt, who started the national wildlife refuge system, would not have pushed for oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Similarly, Roosevelt would not have declared — as Gale Norton, Mr. Kempthorne’s immediate predecessor, did in 2003 — that America had already acquired enough protected wilderness; he would have demanded more. He would not have rolled back, as Ms. Norton did, environmental rules governing mining for gold, copper and lead. He would not have countenanced the demolition job that Mr. Bush’s Forest Service has done on the web of forest protections it inherited from previous administrations. He would not have tried to scuttle one of the most important acts of environmental stewardship in many years, Mr. Clinton’s roadless rule, which made 58.5 million acres of the national forests off limits to new road building and development.

And Roosevelt would certainly have kept his word. Mr. Bush made three big promises in this area in the 2000 campaign. One was to regulate emissions of carbon dioxide, the main global warming gas. He reneged on that one almost immediately. The second was to finance the federal government’s core open space program, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, at its annual authorized level of $900 million. He has shortchanged it badly every year and this year he is asking for $85 million.

The third promise was to put more money into the national parks. Here history may give Mr. Bush higher marks, thanks largely to the entreaties of Mr. Kempthorne, who pressed for and received a commitment of $258 million in new spending this year and a guarantee of $1 billion over 10 years. The parks have been starved for years (and not just by this administration), and people who care about them have every reason to be pleased by the prospect of a substantial increase in the budget.

We can also hope, of course, that this represents a turnaround in Mr. Bush’s thinking, and that in the next two years he will offer up an energy policy focused more on new technologies and conservation and less on the old extractive industries; a public lands policy that spares our last wild places; a meaningful strategy for global warming; and on and on into a Rooseveltian future. But neither gratitude for a few extra dollars for the parks nor our stubborn belief in the possibility of redemption should blind us to six years of bad policies.


Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

[Punzie]

The third promise was to put more money into the national parks. Here history may give Mr. Bush higher marks, thanks largely to the entreaties of Mr. Kempthorne, who pressed for and received a commitment of $258 million in new spending this year and a guarantee of $1 billion over 10 years. The parks have been starved for years (and not just by this administration), and people who care about them have every reason to be pleased by the prospect of a substantial increase in the budget.

Mr. Kempthorne has a miserable record with the environment:
http://www.sierraclub.org/pressroom/releases/pr2006-03-16.asp

Why is he suddenly "generous" with the national parks? Choose from these options:

(a) He's throwing the Democrats a bone in the hopes of shutting them up.

(b) He realizes that "Bush thinking" is doomed in the 2008; he wants to prove that he's "worthy" of serving in a future Republican administration that distances itself from Bush.

(c) Late one night he had an epiphany which led him to put more value on national parks.

(d)

Sorry I don't have time to finish these options, but I gotta run & order me a velvet Spiro Agnew.

[lofter1]

I gotta run & order me a velvet Spiro Agnew
Scary thought ^^^

We might want to look at the fine print regarding Secretary Kempthorne's proposals for Parks ...

Info on new Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne from Source Watch (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Dirk_Kempthorne):
"Dirk Kempthorne is Gale Norton in pants"


Campaign Finance
"Idaho's governor, Republican Dirk Kempthorne, helped finance his re-election by receiving about $86,000 — about 8 cents of each dollar — from timber, mining and energy industries that could benefit from greater access to national forests in his state," USA Today's Tom Kenworthy reported (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-07-24-resources-campaigns_x.htm) July 24, 2005.

"Two of Kempthorne's top three donors for the 2002 campaign were the Coeur D'Alene Mines Corp., which gave $13,922, and the Potlatch Corp., a forest products company, which gave $12,034, according to the non-partisan Institute on Money in State Politics," Kenworthy wrote.

Between January 1989 and June 1995, Kempthorne received $80,000 and ranked #21 on a list of Senators who received campaign money from 54 political action committees (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Political_action_committee) who are members of the American Petroleum Institute (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Petroleum_Institute) and California independent oil producers.


Reaction to Kempthorne's nomination as Secretary of the Interior"Chuck Clusen of the Natural Resources Defense Council (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Natural_Resources_Defense_Council) called Kempthorne's record 'abysmal' and said that 'Dirk Kempthorne is Gale Norton in pants.'" [4] (http://www.sltrib.com/nationworld/ci_3611233)

"Tony Massaro of the League of Conservation Voters (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=League_of_Conservation_Voters) noted that, in Congress (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Congress), Kempthorne voted with the environmental position just 1 percent of the time. 'Enough said,' said Massaro." [5] (http://www.sltrib.com/nationworld/ci_3611233)

[ZippyTheChimp]

February 23, 2007

Op-Ed Columnist

A Foreign Policy Built on Do-Overs

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Watching the Bush team wrestle with Iran, North Korea and Iraq reminds me of something that used to be said of the Reagan administration: The right hand never knew what the far right hand was doing.

In fact, my bet is that when the inside history of the Bush team is written, we will discover that, contrary to its carefully managed image of a disciplined core operating from consistent, conservative principles, it has actually been one of the most internally divided administrations — ever.

The only thing the Bush folks all agreed on was that they would never do anything Bill Clinton did. Beyond that, it’s been a food fight. The trial of Scooter Libby, with its testimony about wars between the V.P.’s office and the White House, the White House and the C.I.A., and everyone against the State Department, proves that beyond a reasonable doubt.

When the former Bush U.N. ambassador John Bolton trashed the president’s recent deal with North Korea as a “charade,” though, he highlighted the biggest internal division of all within the Bush team: how to deal with rogue regimes like Iran, North Korea and Saddam’s Iraq — whether to go for regime change or behavior change.

On Iran and North Korea, “this administration does not have clear policies, it has competing impulses,” said Robert Litwak of the Wilson Center, who just published a smart book on this theme: “Regime Change: U.S. Strategy Through the Prism of 9/11.” “The administration’s mantra is ‘all options are on the table.’ But the dilemma is that too many objectives are on the table as well.”

Because this administration was divided for so long on Iran and North Korea, over regime change or behavior change, it got neither. All it got was that Iran and North Korea both went out and bought Bush insurance: a nuclear weapons program.

President Bush obviously recognizes that and is now trying to remedy it. Bill Clinton was criticized for taking more golf mulligans — do-overs — than any other president. Mr. Bush will be remembered for taking more foreign policy mulligans than any other president.

On North Korea, the president has finally decided to focus purely on changing behavior. He struck a very sensible deal last week with Kim Jong Il to take his country off our terrorism list and normalize relations, provided Mr. Kim gives up his nukes.

But we could have had a similar deal years ago — when North Korea had only two nukes — had the Bush team not been wrangling with itself over regime change or behavior change. While it wrangled, Mr. Kim built up his nuclear arsenal, adding six to 12 more bombs. If this deal is carried out, which is still uncertain, the wasted years will not have been a disaster. If it isn’t carried out, they will have been very costly.

Why do you think that a year after Mr. Bush told us we were “addicted to oil” we still have no serious plan to end that addiction? Because the market fundamentalists in his White House — led by Dick Cheney, who opposes any government effort to impose carbon caps or taxes to promote alternative energies, à la California — keep blocking the market pragmatists who do. And Mr. Bush won’t intervene.

The irony of Iraq is that it’s the one place where Mr. Bush decisively chose regime change, but he then executed it so poorly, with insufficient troops, that Iraq never stood a chance. If Don Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney had spent as much time plotting the toppling of Saddam Hussein as they did the toppling of Colin Powell, Iraq today would be Switzerland. Today’s Bush troop surge in Iraq is just another mulligan — the president’s trying to do in 2007 what he should have done in 2003. In between, we’ve paid a huge price.

How about we avoid a mulligan on Iran? Let’s put a clear deal on the table: full diplomatic relations, security guarantees and thousands of student visas if Iran puts its nuclear program under U.N. inspection and stops supporting terrorism. If not: more sanctions and isolation. Such an offer would at least get us some leverage, unite us more with our allies outside Iran, energize our allies inside Iran and force some excruciating choices on Iran’s leaders.

“Resolving the contradiction in Washington will sharpen the contradiction in Tehran,” Mr. Litwak argued. “Taking regime change off the table in America will put behavior change on the table in Iran.”

I guess we should be thankful that Mr. Bush is trying to fix some of his mistakes, but we have paid a huge, unnecessary price for his learning curve. Which is why it’s always best to get it right the first time. The best golfers never take mulligans, and the best presidents never need them.


Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

[ZippyTheChimp]

April 1, 2007

Ex-Aide Details a Loss of Faith in the President

By JIM RUTENBERG

AUSTIN, Tex., March 29 — In 1999, Matthew Dowd became a symbol of George W. Bush’s early success at positioning himself as a Republican with Democratic appeal.

A top strategist for the Texas Democrats who was disappointed by the Bill Clinton years, Mr. Dowd was impressed by the pledge of Mr. Bush, then governor of Texas, to bring a spirit of cooperation to Washington. He switched parties, joined Mr. Bush’s political brain trust and dedicated the next six years to getting him to the Oval Office and keeping him there. In 2004, he was appointed the president’s chief campaign strategist.

Looking back, Mr. Dowd now says his faith in Mr. Bush was misplaced.

In a wide-ranging interview here, Mr. Dowd called for a withdrawal from Iraq and expressed his disappointment in Mr. Bush’s leadership.

He criticized the president as failing to call the nation to a shared sense of sacrifice at a time of war, failing to reach across the political divide to build consensus and ignoring the will of the people on Iraq. He said he believed the president had not moved aggressively enough to hold anyone accountable for the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, and that Mr. Bush still approached governing with a “my way or the highway” mentality reinforced by a shrinking circle of trusted aides.

“I really like him, which is probably why I’m so disappointed in things,” he said. He added, “I think he’s become more, in my view, secluded and bubbled in.”

In speaking out, Mr. Dowd became the first member of Mr. Bush’s inner circle to break so publicly with him.

He said his decision to step forward had not come easily. But, he said, his disappointment in Mr. Bush’s presidency is so great that he feels a sense of duty to go public given his role in helping Mr. Bush gain and keep power.

Mr. Dowd, a crucial part of a team that cast Senator John Kerry as a flip-flopper who could not be trusted with national security during wartime, said he had even written but never submitted an op-ed article titled “Kerry Was Right,” arguing that Mr. Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat and 2004 presidential candidate, was correct in calling last year for a withdrawal from Iraq.

“I’m a big believer that in part what we’re called to do — to me, by God; other people call it karma — is to restore balance when things didn’t turn out the way they should have,” Mr. Dowd said. “Just being quiet is not an option when I was so publicly advocating an election.”

Mr. Dowd’s journey from true believer to critic in some ways tracks the public arc of Mr. Bush’s political fortunes. But it is also an intensely personal story of a political operative who at times, by his account, suppressed his doubts about his professional role but then confronted them as he dealt with loss and sorrow in his own life.

In the last several years, as he has gradually broken his ties with the Bush camp, one of Mr. Dowd’s premature twin daughters died, he was divorced, and he watched his oldest son prepare for deployment to Iraq as an Army intelligence specialist fluent in Arabic. Mr. Dowd said he had become so disillusioned with the war that he had considered joining street demonstrations against it, but that his continued personal affection for the president had kept him from joining protests whose anti-Bush fervor is so central.

Mr. Dowd, 45, said he hoped in part that by coming forward he would be able to get a message through to a presidential inner sanctum that he views as increasingly isolated. But, he said, he holds out no great hope. He acknowledges that he has not had a conversation with the president.

Dan Bartlett, the White House counselor, said Mr. Dowd’s criticism is reflective of the national debate over the war.

“It’s an issue that divides people,” Mr. Bartlett said. “Even people that supported the president aren’t immune from having their own feelings and emotions.”

He said he disagreed with Mr. Dowd’s description of the president as isolated and with his position on withdrawal. He said Mr. Dowd, a friend, has “sometimes expressed these sentiments” in private conversation, though “not in such detail.”

During the interview with Mr. Dowd on a slightly overcast afternoon in downtown Austin, he was a far quieter man than the cigar-chomping general that he was during Mr. Bush’s 2004 campaign.

Soft-spoken and somewhat melancholy, he wore jeans, a T-shirt and sandals in an office devoid of Bush memorabilia save for a campaign coffee mug and a photograph of the first couple with his oldest son, Daniel. The photograph was taken one week before the 2004 election, and one day before Daniel was to go to boot camp.

Over Mexican food at a restaurant that was only feet from the 2000 campaign headquarters, and later at his office just up the street, Mr. Dowd recounted his political and personal journey. “It’s amazing,” he said. “In five years, I’ve only traveled 300 feet, but it feels like I’ve gone around the world, where my head is.”

Mr. Dowd said he decided to become a Republican in 1999 and joined Mr. Bush after watching him work closely with Bob Bullock, the Democratic lieutenant governor of Texas, who was a political client of Mr. Dowd and a mentor to Mr. Bush.

“It’s almost like you fall in love,” he said. “I was frustrated about Washington, the inability for people to get stuff done and bridge divides. And this guy’s personality — he cared about education and taking a different stand on immigration.”

Mr. Dowd established himself as an expert at interpreting polls, giving Karl Rove, the president’s closest political adviser, and the rest of the Bush team guidance as they set out to woo voters, slash opponents and exploit divisions between Democratic-leaning states and Republican-leaning ones.

In television interviews in 2004, Mr. Dowd said that Mr. Kerry’s campaign was proposing “a weak defense,” and that the voters “trust this president more than they trust Senator Kerry on Iraq.”

But he was starting to have his own doubts by then, he said.

He said he thought Mr. Bush handled the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks well but “missed a real opportunity to call the country to a shared sense of sacrifice.”

He was dumbfounded when Mr. Bush did not fire Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld after revelations that American soldiers had tortured prisoners at Abu Ghraib.

Several associates said Mr. Dowd chafed under Mr. Rove’s leadership. Mr. Dowd said he had not spoken to Mr. Rove in months but would not discuss their relationship in detail.

Mr. Dowd said, in retrospect, he was in denial.

“When you fall in love like that,” he said, “and then you notice some things that don’t exactly go the way you thought, what do you do? Like in a relationship, you say ‘No no, no, it’ll be different.’ ”

He said he clung to the hope that Mr. Bush would get back to his Texas style of governing if he won. But he saw no change after the 2004 victory.

He describes as further cause for doubt two events in the summer of 2005: the administration’s handling of Hurricane Katrina and the president’s refusal, around the same time that he was entertaining the bicyclist Lance Armstrong at his Crawford ranch, to meet with the war protester Cindy Sheehan, whose son died in Iraq.

“I had finally come to the conclusion that maybe all these things along do add up,” he said. “That it’s not the same, it’s not the person I thought.”

He said that during his work on the 2006 re-election campaign of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, which had a bipartisan appeal, he began to rethink his approach to elections.

“I think we should design campaigns that appeal not to 51 percent of the people,” he said, “but bring the country together as a whole.”

He said that he still believed campaigns must do what it takes to win, but that he was never comfortable with the most hard-charging tactics. He is now calling for “gentleness” in politics. He said that while he tried to keep his own conduct respectful during political combat, he wanted to “do my part in fixing fissures that I may have been part of.”

His views against the war began to harden last spring when, in a personal exercise, he wrote a draft opinion article and found himself agreeing with Mr. Kerry’s call for withdrawal from Iraq. He acknowledged that the expected deployment of his son Daniel was an important factor.

He said the president’s announcement last fall that he was re-nominating the former United Nations ambassador John R. Bolton, whose confirmation Democrats had already refused, was further proof to him that Mr. Bush was not seeking consensus with Democrats.

He said he came to believe Mr. Bush’s views were hardening, with the reinforcement of his inner circle. But, he said, the person “who is ultimately responsible is the president.” And he gradually ventured out with criticism, going so far as declaring last month in a short essay in Texas Monthly magazine that Mr. Bush was losing “his gut-level bond with the American people,” and breaking more fully in this week’s interview.

“If the American public says they’re done with something, our leaders have to understand what they want,” Mr. Dowd said. “They’re saying, ‘Get out of Iraq.’ ”

Mr. Dowd’s friends from Mr. Bush’s orbit said they understood his need to speak out. “Everyone is going to reflect on the good and the bad, and everything in between, in their own way,” said Nicolle Wallace, communications director of Mr. Bush’s 2004 campaign, a post she also held at the White House until last summer. “And I certainly respect the way he’s doing it — these are his true thoughts from a deeply personal place.” Ms. Wallace said she continued to have “enormous gratitude” for her years with Mr. Bush.

Mr. Bartlett, the White House counselor, said he understood, too, though he said he strongly disagreed with Mr. Dowd’s assessment. “Do we know our critics will try to use this to their advantage? Yes,” he said. “Is that perfect? No. But you can respectfully disagree with someone who has been supportive of you.”

Mr. Dowd does not seem prepared to put his views to work in 2008. The only candidate who appeals to him, he said, is Senator Barack Obama, Democrat of Illinois, because of what Mr. Dowd called his message of unity. But, he said, “I wouldn’t be surprised if I wasn’t walking around in Africa or South America doing something that was like mission work.”

He added, “I do feel a calling of trying to re-establish a level of gentleness in the world.”


Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

[ZippyTheChimp]

May 17, 2007, 7:20 pm

Who’s Worse, Nixon or Bush?

By Jules Witcover

WASHINGTON — A favorite pastime of political scientists and pollsters is compiling lists of the best presidents. The results vary widely, as the judgments of history conflict with contemporary sentiments. Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and F.D.R. always finish high on the lists, with more controversial choices like Truman and Reagan often thrown in.

Currently, however, we’re seeing an outbreak of consensus on the worst: George W. Bush. The Internet is awash with academic tomes, blogs and partisan rants, the condemnation coming often from liberal Democrats but also from such varied figures as that eminent historian, Donald Trump.

Having been in Washington for only 53 years, I cannot from personal exposure espouse the view that the current president is the worst in American history. I have observed only 10 of them since reaching the age of reason, so I can judge only that he is the worst in my adult lifetime.

From World War II to date, there is in my mind and experience only one serious and obvious competitor: Richard Nixon. I say that not simply because he was the first president to resign from office in scandal and disgrace. Well before the Watergate affair that eventually was his undoing, he had compiled a long record of deception, deceit and duplicity.

But the crimes and constitutional breaches of Watergate and Nixon’s obsessive efforts to cover them up went a long way toward immobilizing the executive branch of the government at the critical time when there was a war in Vietnam and great domestic unrest. His successor and ultimate benefactor, Gerald Ford, rightly called the period “our long national nightmare.”

Nixon’s sins basically grew from an unquenchable lust for power. He was determined to hold on to what he had and to get more and more of it, contrived through secrecy and an anything-goes political ethic that in time poisoned much of his five-and-a-half-year presidency.

In the end, the damage done to the nation was arrested by a change in the Oval Office with the elevation of Ford, a man of limited imagination and talents but a sense of good will. The adaptability of the American political system, demonstrated in the orderly transference of presidential power, saw Ford and the country through until the people were able to express their preference for a leader in 1976. Importantly, the Watergate nightmare essentially shook America domestically without more than temporarily impairing her relations with the world.

George W. Bush, on the other hand, who ran in 2000 as a unthreatening “compassionate conservative,” soon encountered a crisis and a fateful opportunity that put him on a different mission. He seized on the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, to segue from domestic affairs and a legitimate self-defense invasion of Afghanistan to a radical foreign policy of supposedly preventive war in Iraq.

As the Republican presidential nominee in 2000, Bush had vowed in a debate with Democratic nominee Al Gore that he had no interest in seeing America become the world’s policeman, or engaging in nation-building. But now he had suddenly turned into the cop on the beat in Iraq and, soon after, the master builder of democracy in the Middle East.

In a bold display of opportunism, Bush anointed himself as a “war president” who capitalized on a combination of American patriotism and fear to set the nation on its current course. As Zbigniew Brzezinski, the national security adviser in the Carter administration, has written, Bush’s use of the phrase “war on terror” was “a classic self-inflicted wound” that intentionally created “a culture of fear in America,” enabling him to mobilize the public behind his military actions.

This almost overnight plunge into foreign-policy unilateralism, transparently masquerading as a “coalition of the willing” in Iraq, dealt a severe blow to this country’s reputation and support in the international community, effectively built over the previous half century of cooperation and Cold War containment.

The whole adventure, compromised by the faulty intelligence used to sell the United Nations and the American people on the invasion of Iraq, was marked by an inept assessment of and inadequate response to the long-term challenge on the ground.

Like Nixon in 1972 winning re-election by feeding off unrest and violence in the streets, Bush in 2004 tapped into post-9/11 fears and appeals to patriotism to gain a second term. Although there is not yet any domestic scandal of Watergate dimensions hanging over him, an odor of incompetence in the management of the war, in the care provided to returning wounded, and in the disarray of his Justice Department stifles the atmosphere for his remaining time in the White House.

With less than two years to go, the incumbent is pressing on with his stay-the-course strategy peddled as something else — a tactical “surge” that he hopes will stave off the growing pressure from the now-Democratic Congress to alter and ultimately end the American involvement in Iraq.

While Bush continues to have the power of the veto with which to combat the Democratic challenge, he is staggering toward the finish line of his presidency. Whatever happens in Iraq, there seems little chance that history will accord him any positive legacy for his eight years of over-reaching in foreign policy and abuse of civil liberties at home.

Nixon’s fall from grace in 1974 cast a heavy shadow over some historic achievements, most notably his opening to China. But his sins, deplorable as they were, mostly concerned domestic matters. They did not leave his party in the hole that Bush’s radical adventurism abroad has dug for the Republicans, and for the country he has so catastrophically led, without any compensating accomplishments akin to Nixon’s, domestic or foreign.

During the Nixon years, I never thought I would see another president who would almost make me wish we had him back. Almost. Thankfully, 21 months from now the voters will have other choices, whatever they turn out be.

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

[lofter1]

Abuse of Power (Nixon's sin) is repairable via the Law / Constitution.

Idiocy / Arrogance / Righteousness (Bush's sins) will not be so easily repaired.

One can only hope that the Fool in Chief does no more damage in the next 21 months ...

[Ninjahedge]

I think Nixon knew what he was doing, good or bad.

Bush, OTOH, is a tool. He is being used by guys like Cheney, Rove and Rumsfeld to get what they, and the necon movement, wanted in their stint.

It will take quite a few years to repair the damage caused both at home and abroad. I do not think we will ever get our liberties fully restored after the seeds of fear were planted by these guys. They have poisoned the ground where they planted them and anything grown there will still have the lingering taste of nantionalistic xenophobic paranoia in them.

On the good side, many around the world are starting to see that the US is not supporting their "leader" as much as they once did. This is instilling a weak, but present, belief or feeling that not all of the US is idiotic.


So bottom line is, in recent hisory, I believe Bush to be the worst president in memory. Nixon was undoubetly the most evil. For all of Bush's sins, I see him as the "son of the CEO" that may mean well enough, so long as it does not hurt him.

[eddhead]

hard to argue with that.

Interestingly, prior to the 2004 elections I remember one of the Fox talking heads asking the question " Is president Bush the greatest President of All Time" in a pseuo- call in- poll thing and I remember thinking he is not even in the top 41.

[ZippyTheChimp]

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2007/06/11/070611taco_talk_packer

Comment

History Boys

by George Packer June 11, 2007

The crucial moment of Peter Morgan’s new play on Broadway, “Frost/Nixon,” about the four ninety-minute interviews that David Frost conducted with Richard Nixon in 1977, comes not during the famous final session, on Watergate, but the night before. Nixon, who has been drinking, places an imaginary but not unimaginable phone call to Frost, who has been agonizing over his abject failure to direct the conversation in the first three interviews. The ex-President, played by Frank Langella, points out that both men rose up from nowhere and, at that moment, as the decade meanders to a close, both seem bound for oblivion. “If we reflect privately just for a moment,” Nixon muses, “if we allow ourselves a glimpse into that shadowy place we call our soul, isn’t that why we’re here now? The two of us? Looking for a way back? Into the sun? Into the limelight? Back onto the winner’s podium? Because we could feel it slipping away? We were headed, both of us, for the dirt.” Frost, played by Michael Sheen, accepts the truth of this but adds, “Only one of us can win.” And Nixon warns him, “I shall be your fiercest adversary. I shall come at you with everything I’ve got. Because the limelight can only shine on one of us. And for the other, it’ll be the wilderness.”

“Frost/Nixon” is about the struggle to control historical memory, with television the medium, self-explanation the means, and redemption the prize. Nixon, with his sterile capacity for insight, understood the reductiveness of historical judgment, and he wanted to head off his own ignominy while there was time. Of course, he failed: only historians and partisans remember what Nixon did before June 17, 1972, and the only one of the Frost interviews that anyone recalls is the session on Watergate. For better or worse, popular memory flattens out the facts. For decades, the Civil Rights Act and Medicare were obliterated from Lyndon Johnson’s record by the glare of napalm. Jimmy Carter is defined by the hostage crisis and a word, “malaise,” that he never uttered. Ronald Reagan brought down the Soviet empire. And so on.

George W. Bush did four good things last week. He strengthened sanctions on Sudanese companies and officials in response to the ongoing massacres in Darfur. He called on Congress to double the funding for global AIDS programs, to thirty billion dollars. He directed his envoy in Baghdad, Ambassador Ryan Crocker, to sit down with his Iranian counterpart and discuss ways of stabilizing Iraq—the most high-profile meeting between top officials of the two countries in years. And he attacked the demagoguery of right-wing critics of the bipartisan immigration bill. Each case has its caveats, flaws, and what-took-so-longs. But it should be noted that the three hundred and thirty-second week of the Bush Presidency was one of the best. Nobody will remember it.

Bush’s legacy will be the war in Iraq and, secondarily, the array of decisions on prisoners, alliances, treaties, and preventive war which revolutionized American foreign policy after September 11th. Last year, when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was asked whether Iraq would come to define the Bush Administration, she said, “I think it’ll be bigger than Iraq, I think it will be the Middle East.” This was wishful thinking on the part of the official most engaged in walking the Administration back from its own wreckage: a desire to define the President’s record away from what it has actually wrought in our time and toward a hypothetical future. In fifty years, this thinking goes, a new generation will realize that the war kick-started political change, and forced the Middle East out of its deadly pattern of autocracy and extremism.

This exercise in justification by faith posits a visionary President with the courage to ignore temporary bad news. By this light, Bush’s habit of declaring A to be B—for example, claiming that the surge reflects the public’s desire for a change in war policy, or interpreting increased violence in Iraq as a token of the enemy’s frustration with American success—becomes a sign of clarity and resolve, not delusional thinking. When everything is turning to ashes, take the long view. Last December, Senator Richard Durbin, of Illinois, described a meeting at the White House in which Bush discussed Harry S. Truman and the foreign policy of the early Cold War—initially unpopular, ultimately vindicated by history. According to Durbin, Bush implied that he will be similarly remembered.

Who knows what the world will look like in fifty years? It’s hard to imagine, but perhaps the Middle East is at the start of a decades-long road toward democracy and stability. If so, though, history isn’t likely to find the prime cause of that happy outcome in the Bush Presidency. Truman established the institutions and policies that guided America to victory in the Cold War. The loss of China, the stalemate in Korea, and the corruption and the domestic upheavals of the late forties and early fifties now seem secondary to the international architecture—the NATO alliance, the doctrine of containment, the legitimacy of democracies as a counter-force to Communism—that Truman left in place. Bush will have no such legacy. His Administration—or part of it—is trying to reverse or restrain his farthest-reaching policies without admitting that anything went wrong with them. We are not present at the creation of anything. A democratic Middle East would bear the same relation to the Iraq war as the United Nations does to the Second World War: the salvaging of a tragedy, not the fulfillment of a vision.

Historical legacies are bound up with the nature of the individual: leaders are remembered for the events and policies that express “the shadowy place we call our soul.” Watergate captured Nixon’s deepest qualities, including his uncanny sense of his own failure; at the end of “Frost/Nixon,” as the disgraced former President is pressed for an apology, and Langella’s face is frozen in torment across the multiple screens above his chair, Nixon seems to submit to his fate, which is his character. “Even Richard Nixon has got soul,” Neil Young sang.

To see “Frost/Nixon” is to know what a deep decline there has been in public candor and Presidential self-knowledge since the days of Richard Nixon. By contrast, the current President will repeat the same sunny falsehoods and sententious illusions about the war until he leaves office, and then he will go on repeating them in retirement. And that will be his legacy: the war, and the shallow, unreflective character that made it. ♦

[Punzie]

The New York Times
June 28, 2007

White House Is Subpoenaed on Wiretapping

By JAMES RISEN (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/james_risen/index.html?inline=nyt-per)

WASHINGTON, June 27 — The Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday issued subpoenas to the White House, Vice President Dick Cheney (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/dick_cheney/index.html?inline=nyt-per)’s office and the Justice Department after what the panel’s chairman called “stonewalling of the worst kind” of efforts to investigate the National Security Agency (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/national_security_agency/index.html?inline=nyt-org)’s policy of wiretapping without warrants.

The move put Senate Democrats squarely on a course they had until now avoided, setting the stage for a showdown with the Bush administration over one of the most contentious issues arising from the White House’s campaign against terrorism.

Senator Patrick J. Leahy (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/l/patrick_j_leahy/index.html?inline=nyt-per), the Vermont Democrat who is chairman of the committee, said the subpoenas seek documents that could shed light on the administration’s legal justification for the wiretapping and on disputes within the government over its legality.

In addition, the panel is seeking materials on related issues, including the relationship between the Bush administration and several unidentified telecommunications companies that aided the N.S.A. eavesdropping program.

The panel’s action was the most aggressive move yet by lawmakers to investigate the wiretapping program since the Democrats gained control of Congress this year.

Mr. Leahy said Wednesday at a news conference that the committee had issued the subpoenas because the administration had followed a “consistent pattern of evasion and misdirection” in dealing with Congressional efforts to scrutinize the program.

“It’s unacceptable,” Mr. Leahy said. “It is stonewalling of the worst kind.”

The White House, the vice president’s office and the Justice Department declined Wednesday to say how they would respond to the subpoenas.
“We’re aware of the committee’s action and will respond appropriately,” said Tony Fratto, White House deputy press secretary.

“It’s unfortunate that Congressional Democrats continue to choose the route of confrontation,” Mr. Fratto added.

A spokeswoman for Mr. Cheney said his office would respond later, while a Justice Department spokesman said, “The department will continue to work closely with the Congress as they exercise their oversight functions, and we will review this matter in the spirit of that longstanding relationship.”

Under the domestic eavesdropping program, the N.S.A. did not obtain warrants before listening in on phone calls and reading e-mail messages to and from Americans and others in the United States who the agency believes may be linked to Al Qaeda (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/a/al_qaeda/index.html?inline=nyt-org). Only international communications — those into and out of the country — were monitored, according to administration officials.

The Senate panel’s action comes after dramatic testimony last month by James B. Comey (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/james_b_comey/index.html?inline=nyt-per), former deputy attorney general, who described a March 2004 confrontation at the hospital bedside of John Ashcroft (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/a/john_ashcroft/index.html?inline=nyt-per), then attorney general, between Justice Department officials and White House aides over the legality of the wiretapping program.

Before Mr. Comey’s testimony, the White House had largely been able to fend off aggressive oversight of the N.S.A. wiretapping since it was first disclosed in December 2005. The Republican-controlled Congress held hearings last year, and even considered legislative proposals to curb the scope of the eavesdropping. But Mr. Cheney repeatedly pressured Republican Congressional leaders to pull back.

When the Democrats won the 2006 midterm elections, many observers predicted that the N.S.A. program — which a federal judge declared unconstitutional — would be one of the first Bush administration operations to undergo new scrutiny. But in January, the administration announced that it was placing the program under the legal framework of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a move it had previously refused to consider.

The Democrats have largely focused on objections to the Iraq war in their first months in power, and have appeared reluctant to take aggressive steps to challenge policies on harsh interrogation practices, secret Central Intelligence Agency (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/central_intelligence_agency/index.html?inline=nyt-org) prisons and domestic wiretapping for fear of being labeled soft on terrorism.

For instance, at a confirmation hearing on June 19 for John A. Rizzo (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/john_a_rizzo/index.html?inline=nyt-per) as general counsel of the C.I.A., no member of the Senate Intelligence Committee directly challenged the agency’s secret detention or harsh interrogation practices.

Mr. Rizzo successfully dodged tougher questions by saying he preferred to answer them in closed session. The Senate Intelligence Committee has conducted closed-door oversight of the wiretapping, but it has not been as aggressive as the Judiciary Committee in publicly challenging the administration over it.

But Mr. Comey’s testimony has given Democrats an opening to argue that they are focusing on the legal issues of the program, rather than on the merits of monitoring the phone calls of terrorist suspects.

“The Comey testimony moved this front and center,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/charles_e_schumer/index.html?inline=nyt-per), the New York Democrat who is a member of the Judiciary Committee. “Alarm bells went off. His testimony made it clear that there had been an effort to circumvent the law.”

The Senate panel has been asking the administration for documents related to the program since Mr. Comey testified. But the White House had not responded to a letter from Mr. Leahy and Senator Arlen Specter (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/arlen_specter/index.html?inline=nyt-per) of Pennsylvania, the ranking Republican on the panel. As a result, the panel voted 13 to 3 last Thursday to authorize Mr. Leahy to issue the subpoenas, with three Republicans (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/r/republican_party/index.html?inline=nyt-org) voting in favor of issuing them.

Separately, the House Judiciary Committee has also threatened to issue subpoenas for the same documents.

The wiretapping is just one of several legal issues on which Congress and the administration are squaring off. For example, the White House is under pressure to respond to subpoenas issued two weeks ago by the House and Senate Judiciary Committees for witnesses and documents related to the dismissal of federal prosecutors. Thursday is the deadline for the White House to turn over documents linked to Harriet E. Miers (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/harriet_e_miers/index.html?inline=nyt-per), the former White House counsel, and Sara M. Taylor, the former White House political director.

If the White House fails to produce the material, the House and Senate could begin a process leading to contempt resolutions to force compliance.

Meanwhile, Mr. Cheney is in a separate standoff with Congress and the National Archives (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/national_archives_and_records_administration/index.html?inline=nyt-org) over his office’s refusal to follow an executive order concerning handling of classified documents.

Mr. Cheney declared that his office did not have to abide by the order that all executive branch offices provide data to the Archives about the amount of material they have classified. His office said that he is not a member of the executive branch, because he is president of the Senate.

David Johnston and Scott Shane contributed reporting.

Copyright 2007 (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html) The New York Times Company (http://www.nytco.com/)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/28/washington/28nsa.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1183010620-lJCFXeTrrxvYe7ezzFFjQA

[Ninjahedge]

Maybe they should time these trials so that the verdicts will be reached AFTEr Bush is out of the white house.....

[MidtownGuy]

The worst, most corrupt, most EVIL administration and President that this country has ever seen. And we don't even know the half of it.
Whoever voted for him, I curse you and your family jewels.

[kliq6]

I wish it really was over, this guy is still ramming bad bills ( immigration) and ideas ( troop surge) down our throats!

[Capn_Birdseye]

We've got rid of George W's poodle, Bliar, thank God! how will GW manage without his little side-kick?

As much as I despise our corrupt, incompotent and sleaze-ridden Labour government, surely the dour Scottish Presbyterian bore aka Gordon Brown, will be an improvement over Bliar.

If you want sleaze just take a look at this link:
http://labour-watch.com/sleaze.htm

[212]

From Rasmussen Reports:

Wednesday, July 04, 2007

Six American Presidents are viewed favorably by at least 80% of all Americans. Those esteemed six are led by the first President George Washington. The Father of our Country is viewed favorably by 94% of Americans. The sixteenth President, Abraham Lincoln, is the second most popular. The man who gave us the Gettysburg Address is viewed favorably by 92% (see Presidential favorable ratings (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/favorables/presidential_favorables)).

The next four are Thomas Jefferson (89%), Teddy Roosevelt (84%), Franklin D. Roosevelt (81%), and John F. Kennedy (80%).

Five other Presidents are viewed favorably by at least 70% of Americans today—John Adams (74%), James Madison (73%), Ronald Reagan (72%), Dwight Eisenhower (72%), and Harry Truman (70%). It’s worth noting that the nation’s first four Presidents—Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison—all continue to earn rave reviews in the twenty-first century.

The highest unfavorable rating for any President is earned by Richard Nixon. Sixty percent (60%) of Americans have an unfavorable opinion of the only President to resign from office. Thirty-two percent (32%) have a favorable opinion of the man who famously went to China.

Close on Nixon’s heels for most unpopular is the current President, George W. Bush. Fifty-nine percent (59%) have an unfavorable opinion of him. Lyndon Johnson (42%), Bill Clinton (41%), and the first President Bush (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/washington_lincoln_most_popular_presidents_nixon_b ush_least_popular#) (41%) are the only other Presidents viewed unfavorably by at least 40% of Americans.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/washington_lincoln_most_popular_presidents_nixon_b ush_least_popular

(Note: This poll has Bush at 41% favorable ... more than 10 points higher than other recent surveys: http://pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm)

[ablarc]

^ A clean sweep of the top four for Mt. Rushmore. Cause or effect?





... or both?



(especially in the case of TR)

[212]

^ Maybe a little of both. Should FDR get more love than TR? Conservatives don't like those New Deal programs.

Original plan for Rushmore was for more than the disembodied heads, but the funds ran out ...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4d/Mountrushmorephoto.jpg

(Photo by Vincent K. Chan)

[ablarc]

Original plan for Rushmore was for more than the disembodied heads, but the funds ran out ...
... and the sculptor fell to his death.




(bad for the sculptor, good for his work of art; all those coat buttons would have been a waste of effort to negative effect)

[lofter1]

Much like the uncarved blocks of stone atop the Metropolitan Museum, with Rushmore we have a case where the lack of funds actually made the work better ...

http://www.nyc-architecture.com/UES/Metropolitan_Museum_of_Art.jpg

[ablarc]

Eventually they had to lock Leonardo out of the room where he was painting the Last Supper. Shudder to think where he would have taken that with three or four more years of noodling.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Yesterday was GWB's 61st birthday.

I don't think he got anything like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3JTM5G3o7U

[clubBR]

George Bush was a tyrant. He was ignorant and powerful. He was rich and shameless. He controlled America with fear. George Bush was the definition of a bad president.
However, after his presidency is over, America will grow wisdom. We learned that from now on, in order to survive in this world, we need a good president. Or the best one out of the group of candidates.
So what Im saying is that America will survive, so dont lose hope
Good people will spread around the world with the internet

[BrooklynRider]

Good people will spread around the world with the internet.

Hmmm. Sounds like a statement on pornography.

[Punzie]

Good people will spread around the world with the internet
Did you mean to say 'Good people will spread the word around the world'?
:confused:

[clubBR]

Did you mean to say 'Good people will spread the word around the world'?
:confused:
Yea exactly

[212]

Yesterday was GWB's 61st birthday.

I don't think he got anything like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3JTM5G3o7U

Attorney General Gonzales would wear the blonde wig and shiny dress and sing "Happy Birthday Mister President" -- if he could remember the words.

[lofter1]

George Bush I

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/07/17/magazine/22recon190.1.jpg
Library of Congress,
Prints and Photographs Division
Daguerreotype from the Mathew Brady Studio
idtentified as a portrait of George Bush.

NY TIMES (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/magazine/22wwln-essay-t.html?_r=1&ref=magazine&oref=slogin)
Sunday Magazine
By TED WIDMER

July 22, 2007

Reconsideration

None of us can control our ancestors. Like our children, they have minds of their own and invariably refuse to do our bidding. Presidential ancestors are especially unruly — they are numerous and easily discovered, and they often act in ways unbecoming to the high station of their descendants.

Take George Bush. By whom I mean George Bush (1796-1859), first cousin of the president’s great-great-great-grandfather. It would be hard to find a more unlikely forebear. G.B. No. 1 was not exactly the black sheep of the family, to use a phrase the president likes to apply to himself. In fact, he was extremely distinguished, just not in ways that you might expect. Prof. George Bush was a bona fide New York intellectual: a dabbler in esoteric religions whose opinions were described as, yes, “liberal”; a journalist and an academic who was deeply conversant with the traditions of the Middle East.

There was a time when the W-less George Bush was the most prominent member of the family (he is the only Bush who made it into the mid-20th-century Dictionary of American Biography). A bookish child, he read so much that he frightened his parents. Later he entered the ministry, but his taste for arcane controversy shortened his career, and no church could really contain him. Ultimately, he became a specialist at predicting the Second Coming, an unrewarding profession for most, but he thrived on it.

In 1831 he drifted to New York City, just beginning to earn its reputation as a sinkhole of iniquity, and found a job as professor of Hebrew and Oriental languages at what is now New York University. That same year, he published his first book, “The Life of Mohammed.” It was the first American biography of Islam’s founder.

For that reason alone, the book would be noteworthy. But the work is also full of passionate opinions about the prophet and his times. Many of these opinions are negative — as are his comments on all religions. Bush often calls Muhammad “the impostor” and likens him to a successful charlatan who has foisted an “arch delusion” on his fellow believers. But he is no less critical of the “disastrous” state of Christianity in Muhammad’s day. And throughout the book, Bush reveals a passionate knowledge of the Middle East: its geography, its people and its theological intensity, which fit him like a glove. For all his criticism of Muhammad, he returns with fascination to the story of “this remarkable man,” who was “irresistibly attractive,” and the power of his vision.

“The Life of Mohammed” went out of print a century ago, and there it was expected to remain, in perpetuity. But in the early 21st century, it was reissued by a tiny publisher simply because of the historical rhyme that a man with the same name occupied the White House. The first George Bush never witnessed the Second Coming, but now his book was enjoying an unexpected afterlife.

Predictably, it enraged some readers in the Middle East, where rage is an abundant commodity. In 2004, Egyptian censors at Cairo’s Al-Azhar Islamic Research Academy denounced the book by President Bush’s “grandfather” as a slander on the prophet, and the State Department was forced to issue a document clarifying the family relationship. That document may have unintentionally fanned the flames when it pointed out that “The Life of Mohammed” never compares Muslims to insects, rats or snakes, though it does, on occasion, liken them to locusts.

The stage was set for conspiracy theories to spread across the Middle East like sandstorms. But then something really strange happened. The same censors read carefully through the book and in 2005 issued an edict that reversed their earlier ruling, admitting that it was O.K. Bush’s theological intensity might kill him with an American audience, but in the Middle East it seems to have allowed him to pass muster. Clearly this passionate religious scholar was no enemy of Islam. You could almost say that he was part of the family.

Perhaps the Egyptians could sense something honorable about this distant life, which dedicated itself to the search for knowledge. After George Bush died, a friend remembered the feeling of walking into his apartment, a third-story walk-up on Nassau Street, “a kind of literary Gibraltar,” where he would find the professor surrounded by his piles of rare and ancient volumes.

It all seems so improbable. George Bush? A bookworm? In a crummy apartment? A mystic might look at this history and find evidence that God is indeed inscrutable. But as the first George Bush knew, religions, like families, contain plentiful contradictions. As the current George Bush has discovered, no place can tease them out like the Holy Land.

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

[ManhattanKnight]

August 13, 2007

Karl Rove, Top Strategist, Is Leaving the White House

By JIM RUTENBERG

WASHINGTON, Aug. 13 — Karl Rove, the political adviser who masterminded President George W. Bush’s two winning presidential campaigns and secured his own place in history as a political strategist with extraordinary influence within the White House, is resigning, the White House confirmed today.

In an interview published this morning in The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Rove said, “I just think it’s time,” adding, “There’s always something that can keep you here, and as much as I’d like to be here, I’ve got to do this for the sake of my family.”

Mr. Rove said he had first considered leaving a year ago but stayed after his party lost the crucial midterm elections last fall, which put Congress in Democratic hands, and as Mr. Bush’s problems mounted in Iraq and in his pursuit of a new immigration policy.

He said his hand was forced now when the White House chief of staff, Joshua B. Bolten, recently told senior aides that if they stayed past Labor Day he would expect them to stay through the rest of Mr. Bush’s term.
“He’s been talking with the president for a long time — about a year, regarding when might be good to go,” said Dana Perino, a White House spokeswoman. “But there’s always a big project to work on, and his strategic abilities — and our need for his support — kept him here,” she said.

Ms. Perino said Mr. Rove would leave at the end of August.

The White House did not say early today whether Mr. Bolten would name a successor to Mr. Rove, who held a “deputy chief of staff” title.

But even if he does, none would have the same influence with the president or, likely, the same encyclopedic knowledge of American politics.

Mr. Rove will be the latest major figure to depart from the Bush administration’s inner circle. Earlier this summer, Mr. Bush lost as his counsel Dan Bartlett, a fellow Texan who had been part of the original group of close advisers that followed Mr. Bush from the Texas governor’s mansion to the White House.

Mr. Bush named as Mr. Bartlett’s successor Ed Gillespie, the former Republican National Committee chair who was a crucial part of Mr. Bush’s 2004 campaign brain trust. But Mr. Gillespie has neither the history, nor the closeness with Mr. Bush, that Mr. Rove has.

Mr. Rove was not only the chief architect of Mr. Bush’s political campaigns but also the midwife of the president’s political persona itself.

His continued presence in the White House had become a source of fascination in Washington as others, like Mr. Bartlett, left, and as Democrats honed in on his role in the firings of several United States attorneys.

Yet it was nonetheless widely believed inside and outside the White House that he would walk out the door behind Mr. Bush at the end of the president’s term in January, 2009, and help him solidify his legacy before his exit.

Mr. Rove had vowed to build a lasting Republican majority, and some associates believed he would try to help his party keep the White House. But Mr. Rove said in his interview with The Wall Street Journal, whose editorial page is a favored outlet for Mr. Bush and his aides, that he had no intention of getting involved in the 2008 presidential race.

Mr. Rove has portrayed the 2006 midterm elections as a temporary setback, and said in the interview he believed Republicans were still on track for victory in the next election.

He predicted that conditions in Iraq would improve with the continuation of the surge — though he did not address speculation that the president will face pressure this fall, possibly even from fellow Republicans, to bring troops home sooner rather than later. And he predicted that Democrats would fail to show unity on issues such as the president’s eavesdropping program.

He said he intended to write a book, which had been encouraged by “the boss,” and eventually to teach.

Throughout Mr. Bush’s tenure, Mr. Rove vilified Democrats, and they vilified him right back, complaining about his infamously bare-knuckled political tactics on the campaign trail and what they considered his overt politicization of the White House.

He has been the focus in the Congressional investigations into the firings last year of several federal prosecutors, and he was until last year a focus of the C.I.A. leak case investigation that led to perjury charges for Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby.

Mr. Rove emerged from the cloud of the investigation to try to stave off Republican defeats last fall. The subsequent failure was his biggest political loss during his tenure at the White House. Afterward, he continued to take a central role in key initiatives such as Mr. Bush’s ultimately failed attempt to create a new immigration law that would have legalized millions of workers that are currently living in the United States illegally.

A political strategist who solidified his reputation by bringing together the sprawling coalition that put Mr. Bush in office, and which he believed would sustain a prolonged Republican majority, he had considered Hispanic voters to be a potential source of new Republican voters.

But Mr. Rove was in the eye of the political storm once again this year as Congress set out to learn his role in the attorney firings, which critics charge had been carried out to impede or spark investigations for partisan aims.
That investigation, and others, have raised new questions about Mr. Rove’s dual role as political adviser and a senior policy aide with wide latitude to pull the levers of government while briefing even members of the diplomatic corps on the political landscape and the electoral vulnerabilities of the Democrats.
The White House cited executive privilege in blocking the testimony of Mr. Rove before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

In the Wall Street Journal interview today, Mr. Rove said he knew that some people might suspect he was leaving office to avoid scrutiny but said, “I’m not going to stay or leave based on whether it pleases the mob.”
He said he believed the scrutiny would continue after he left the White House because of what he called the “myth” of his influence, which he referred to as “the Mark of Rove.”

But from the time he leaves office, Mr. Rove will no longer have the protection of White House lawyers and will be more on his own when it comes to dealing with Congressional subpoenas.

The White House has provided cover for some former aides by issuing letters directing them not to testify about their privileged conversations with the president or to answer only a limited set of potential questions.

In his exit interview today, which was with the editorial page editor of The Wall Street Journal, Paul Gigot, Mr. Rove had a parting shot for his political nemeses, telling Mr. Gigot that he believed Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton would be the Democratic nominee but called her a “tough, tenacious, fatally flawed candidate,” and predicted a Republican victory in the 2008 presidential race. It is the sort of political boasting that had become Mr. Rove’s hallmark.

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

[Ninjahedge]

Heard it on the news this morning. :)

Unfortunately, I think he is just being cut off to drag some of teh clouds away, and let him diffuse them on his own away from the Administration....


We will see.

[Ninjahedge]

Hey, he didn't BUILD the nest.

He just sold it to the American people for much more than its street value.



Now we have to find someone who can redo the kitchen and bath so we can call it a "luxury" rats nest... ;)

[ManhattanKnight]

August 27, 2007

Gonzales Resigns as Attorney General

By STEVEN LEE MYERS

WACO, Tex., Aug. 27 — Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, whose tenure has been marred by controversy and accusations of perjury before Congress, has resigned. A senior administration official said he would announce the decision later this morning in Washington.

Mr. Gonzales, who had rebuffed calls for his resignation, submitted his to President Bush by telephone on Friday, the official said. His decision was not immediately announced, the official added, until after the president invited him and his wife to lunch at his ranch near here.

Mr. Bush has not yet chosen a replacement but will not leave the position open long, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the Attorney General's resignation had not yet been made public.

Mr. Bush had repeatedly stood by Mr. Gonzales, an old friend and colleague from Texas, even as he faced increasing scrutiny for his leadership of the Justice Department, including his role in the dismissals of nine United States attorneys late last year and questions about whether he testified truthfully about the National Security Agency's surveillance programs.

"We're watching a political exercise," Mr. Bush said at a news conference this month, dismissing accusations that the Attorney General had stonewalled or misled a congressional inquiry. "I mean, this is a man who has testified, he's sent thousands of papers up there. There's no proof of wrong."

Mr. Gonzales's resignation is the latest in a series of high-level departures that has reshaped the end of Mr. Bush's second term. Karl Rove, another of Mr. Bush's close circle of aides from Texas, stepped down two weeks ago.

The official said that the decision was Mr. Gonzales's and that the president accepted it grudgingly. At the same time, the official acknowledged that the turmoil over his tenure as Attorney General had made continuing difficult.

"The unfair treatment that he's been on the receiving end of has been a distraction for the department," the official said.

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

[lofter1]

But a bigger and uglier RAT seems set to take Gonzales' place: CHERTOFF :eek:

[ZippyTheChimp]

Fredo gets whacked after all.

[Jasonik]

But a bigger and uglier RAT seems set to take Gonzales' place: CHERTOFF :eek:
Indeed!

http://msnbcmedia4.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/050111/050111_chertoff_profile_hmed10a.hmedium.jpg (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6813011/)

[BrooklynRider]

Americans are in a lose / lose situation until Bush is removed from office and Cheney with him.

[lofter1]

You can say that ^^^ again :mad:

[lofter1]

The rest of the world seems to be getting openly impatient for the boy to go ...

Europeans angry after Bush climate speech 'charade'

· US isolated as China and India refuse to back policy
· President claims he can lead world on emissions

The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/sep/29/usnews.climatechange)
Ewen MacAskill in Washington
Saturday September 29 2007

George Bush was castigated by European diplomats and found himself isolated yesterday after a special conference on climate change ended without any progress.

European ministers, diplomats and officials attending the Washington conference were scathing, particularly in private, over Mr Bush's failure once again to commit to binding action on climate change.

Although the US and Britain have been at odds over the environment since the early days of the Bush administration, the gap has never been as wide as yesterday.

Britain and almost all other European countries, including Germany and France, want mandatory targets for reducing greenhouse emissions. Mr Bush, while talking yesterday about a "new approach" and "a historic undertaking", remains totally opposed.

The conference, attended by more than 20 countries, including China, India, Britain, France and Germany, broke up with the US isolated, according to non-Americans attending. One of those present said even China and India, two of the biggest polluters, accepted that the voluntary approach proposed by the US was untenable and favoured binding measures, even though they disagreed with the Europeans over how this would be achieved.

A senior European diplomat attending the conference, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the meeting confirmed European suspicions that it had been intended by Mr Bush as a spoiler for a major UN conference on climate change in Bali in December.

"It was a total charade and has been exposed as a charade," the diplomat said. "I have never heard a more humiliating speech by a major leader. He [Mr Bush] was trying to present himself as a leader while showing no sign of leadership. It was a total failure."

John Ashton, Britain's special envoy on climate change, who attended the conference, said: "It is striking here how isolated the US has become on this issue. There is no support among the industrialised countries for the proposition that we should proceed on the basis of voluntary commitments.

"The most inspiring example of leadership this week was the speech on Monday at the UN by Arnold Schwarzenegger."

The governor of California is already putting into action in the state policies to reduce carbon emissions.

Other European governments expressed similar sentiments.

Although many of those attending had predicted the conference would break up without significant agreement, there had been hopes that Mr Bush, in search of a legacy, might produce a surprise. Instead, he stuck to his previous position, shunning mandatory caps in favour of clean coal, nuclear power and developing clean energy technology.

In contrast with the early years of his presidency when he expressed scepticism about climate change and whether humans were responsible, Mr Bush acknowledged yesterday "energy security and climate change are two of the great challenges of our time. The United States takes these challenges seriously."

He added: "Our guiding principle is clear: we must lead the world to produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions, and we must do it in a way that does not undermine economic growth or prevent nations from delivering greater prosperity."

Instead of mandatory caps, he emphasised a need to shift to clean coal, nuclear energy and new clean technology. He also proposed a new international technology fund but did not say how much the US would put into it. He reiterated a need for Americans to shift from oil to ethanol for their cars. "We're working to develop next-generation plug-in hybrids that will be able to travel nearly 40 miles without using a drop of gasoline. And your automobile doesn't have to look like a golf cart," he said.

Elizabeth Bast, of Friends of the Earth, described the conference as a diversion. "We have heard it before. He put a huge emphasis on technology and does not speak to binding targets, and there is a great emphasis on coal and nuclear energy," she said.

Backstory

Many US states have embarked on their own programmes, with California leading the way. The governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, has signed a law requiring a 25% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, with penalties for industries that do not comply. California's three biggest utilities must produce at least 20% of their electricity using renewable sources by 2010.

© Guardian News and Media Limited 2007

[Landwatch.com]

Bush ought to be curbed out,or else he will soon be among the great(Yucks) dictators like Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini who thought they were giving the country its greatest and soundest democratic rule. PERIOD!

[MikeW]

He'll go away on Jan 20, 2009, exactly when he's supposed to.

[RandySavage]

The Cheney expression is priceless:

http://blog.lewrockwell.com/pirates%20of%20the%20constitution.jpg

[lofter1]

One year (http://www.bushslastday.com/) to go ...

http://www.bushslastday.com/images/01-20-09tmfull.gif

[Jasonik]

The Legacy of Bush II

Posted on Feb 5, 2008
By Robert Scheer (http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080205_the_legacy_of_bush_ii/)

Curb your enthusiasm. Even if your favored candidate did well on Super Tuesday, ask yourself if he or she will seriously challenge the bloated military budget that President Bush has proposed for 2009. If not, military spending will rise to a level exceeding any other year since the end of World War II, and there will be precious little left over to improve education and medical research, fight poverty, protect the environment or do anything else a decent person might care about. You cannot spend well over $700 billion on “national security,” running what the White House predicts will be more than $400 billion in annual deficits for the next two years, and yet find the money to improve the quality of life on the home front.

The conventional wisdom espoused by the mass media is that Bush’s budget is a lame-duck DOA contrivance, but that assumption is wrong. The 9/11 attacks have been shamefully exploited by the military-industrial complex with bipartisan support to ramp up military expenditures beyond Cold War levels. This irrational spending spree, which accounts for more than half of all federal discretionary spending, is not likely to end with Bush’s departure. Which one of the likely winners from either party would lead the battle to cut the military budget, and where would the winner find support in Congress? Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have treated the military budget as sacrosanct with their Senate votes and their campaign rhetoric. Clinton is particularly clear on the record as favoring spending more, not less, on the military.

John McCain, who previously distinguished himself as a deficit hawk and was almost in a class by himself in taking on the rapacious defense contractors, has thrown in the towel with his inane support for staying in Iraq till “victory,” even if it should take a century. It is simply illogical to call for fiscal restraint while committing to an open-ended war in Iraq that has already cost upward of $700 billion. Bush’s request for $515.4 billion for the Defense Department doesn’t even include the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which accounted for nearly $200 billion over the last budget year and which will cost at least $140 billion in 2009. Add to those numbers $17.1 billion for the Department of Energy’s weapons program and over $40 billion for the Department of Homeland Security and other national security initiatives spread throughout the federal government, and you’ll see that my $700-billion figure underestimates the hemorrhaging.

McCain knows, and has frequently stated as a Senate watchdog, that much of the military spending is wastefully superfluous for combating terrorists who lack any but the most rudimentary weapons. Bush totally betrayed his campaign 2000 promise to reshape the post-Cold War U.S. military when he seized upon the 9/11 attack as an opportunity to reverse the “peace dividend” that his father had begun to return to taxpayers. Instead, Bush II ushered in the most profligate underwriting of weapons systems that are grotesquely irrelevant for combating terrorism.

The U.S. already spends more than the rest of the world combined on its military, without a sophisticated enemy in sight. The Bush budget cuts not a single weapons system, including the most expensive ones, those designed to combat a Soviet military that no longer exists. Those sophisticated weapons have nothing to do with combating terrorism and everything to do with jobs and profits that motivate both Democrats and Republicans in Congress. It is not known whether Osama bin Laden even possesses a rowboat in his naval arsenal, but that won’t stop Joe Lieberman from pushing, as is his habit, for an increase in the defense budget to double the funding for the $3.4-billion submarines built in his home state of Connecticut. Nor does the collapse of the old Soviet Union—and with it the need for enormously expensive stealth aircraft to evade radar systems the Soviets never built—dissuade congressional supporters of those planes from pushing for more, not less, than Bush is requesting. Nor does wasting an additional $8.9 billion on ICBM missile defense have anything to do with stopping terrorists from smuggling a suitcase nuke into this country.

The centerpiece of the Bush legacy is a “war on terror” based on a vast disconnect between military expenditures and actual national security requirements that the presidential candidates all fully understand. The question is whether the voters and media will force them to face that contradiction or whether we’re in for more of the same—no matter how much the candidates go on about change.

[voodoochild]

This is for Lofter1
Enjoy:p

http://youtube.com/watch?v=z43VdkPbme4

[lofter1]

Thanks vc ... :p back to ya ;)

And now that I've wiped away my tears for what the imbecile child has done to our country I can ask:

What are the odds that GWB will return to his old friend drink before he departs the WH?

I mean, no one wants to talk to him.
No one speaks his name, except in derision.
He has no influence that anyone cares about.
He must be aware that his legacy will be a sad and pathetic story.

He has writ a story of death and destruction, stupidity and shame -- one that no one will want to read. Ever.

He might as well start drinking again. His life is pointless. His name will be dirt.

This weasley little man deserves a cold wet gutter.

[lofter1]

This era can't end soon enough ...

Who’s Your Daddy?

NY TIMES (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/books/01book.html?ref=books)
By MICHIKO KAKUTANI
February 1, 2008

Books of The Times
THE BUSH TRAGEDY
By Jacob Weisberg
271 pages. Random House. $26.
To the Slate editor in chief, Jacob Weisberg, the presidency of George W. Bush is a plane crash, and he says there is a black box that can help explain just what brought this White House down in flames: a black box “filled with a series of relationships — familial, personal, religious and historical,” most notably the father-son relationship, which “lies at the very core of the second Bush presidency and its spectacular, avoidable flame-out.”

In contrast to Winston Churchill — another son with a famous father, who managed to free himself psychologically and politically from the shadow of his parent, learning from his elder’s mistakes without being governed by the need to rebel programmatically — the younger Mr. Bush, according to Mr. Weisberg, “played out his family drama in a way that had devastating consequences for his family, his country and the world.”

George W. Bush, Mr. Weisberg writes in “The Bush Tragedy,” “has been driven since childhood by a need to differentiate himself from his father, to challenge, surpass and overcome him”; and “to challenge a thoughtful, moderate and pragmatic father, he trained himself to be hasty, extreme and unbending,” traits that would ill serve him in his presidency and help lead him into the morass of the Iraq war.

Many elements of this book will be highly familiar to readers who have tracked Mr. Bush’s career. Comparisons of the current president and Shakespeare’s Henry V, as family ne’er-do-wells who clean up their acts and ascend to the throne, were made by reporters even before Mr. Bush entered the Oval Office, and they were expounded upon at length by the British historian Niall Ferguson in a 2004 article in Vanity Fair.

Similarly, dissections of the president’s conflicted relationship with his father have been performed innumerable times by reporters and pundits, and they stood at the center of two books that appeared in 2004: “Bush on the Couch,” a heavy-handed evaluation by Justin A. Frank, a clinical professor of psychiatry at George Washington University Medical Center; and Peter and Rochelle Schweizer’s revealing study, “The Bushes: Portrait of a Dynasty,” which featured surprisingly in-depth interviews with Bush family members and which has become a seminal sourcebook for Mr. Weisberg and other Bush watchers.

Mr. Weisberg has taken all this raw material and used it to write a brief — a decidedly subjective brief — about what he thinks went wrong with the presidency of George W. Bush. Although the insistent emphasis on the father-son relationship can lead to some gross oversimplifications (the president’s “unconscious motive” in going to war against Iraq, Mr. Weisberg writes, “was finishing his father’s business”), “The Bush Tragedy” does provide a provocative and plausible account of the evolution of his political beliefs while doing a far more persuasive job of marshaling evidence to make a Freudian case for the younger Mr. Bush’s missteps than other recent efforts, like, say, Craig Unger’s 2007 book, “The Fall of the House of Bush.”

In the course of this volume Mr. Weisberg argues that George W. Bush’s Oedipal relationship with his father and sibling rivalry with his brother Jeb (who, for many years, was regarded as the family’s rising political star) fueled his transformation from hard-drinking black sheep in the family to dynastic heir. George W. Bush, he writes, had a contradictory attitude toward his father: a “drive to correct Poppy’s mistakes” and a “demand for his admiration.”

By the time he was running for president, Mr. Weisberg argues, the younger Bush had developed a populist political persona distinctly different from his father’s: where his father had “considered religious enthusiasm a form of bad manners,” George W. “was open about his faith and courted the evangelical right”; where his father was mocked for being too prudent and cautious, George W. was intent on being bold and blunt; where his father had methodically immersed himself in policy details, George W. was going to be “an instantaneous ‘decider’ who didn’t revisit his choices or change his mind.”

As Mr. Weisberg tells it, both Mr. Bush’s political adviser Karl Rove and Vice President Dick Cheney recognized the president’s Oedipal fixation and used it to help maneuver the president into going along with their own agendas. Mr. Rove, who “recognized the younger Bush as fiercely loyal to his father, yet desperate to escape his shadow,” Mr. Weisberg says, presented a political plan as “a map of differentiation” that would prevent a humiliation like his father’s 1992 loss to Bill Clinton.

After securing the White House, Mr. Weisberg goes on, Mr. Rove, who harbored grandiose ambitions of creating an enduring Republican majority, “used his influence to steer Bush away from being the president he originally wanted to be — the kind of center-right consensus-builder he was as governor of Texas — and into a too-close alliance” with the party’s right wing, thereby helping “turn him into the most unpopular and polarizing president since Nixon.”

Meanwhile, Mr. Weisberg contends, Mr. Cheney “appreciated, in a way more subtle than Rove did, the way in which Bush needed to make himself his father’s antithesis.” The vice president also knew how to frame policy choices for the president “around contrasts to his father’s views” and how to appeal to the president’s own vision of himself by describing initiatives as “bold, game-changing and the right thing to do.”

Given Mr. Bush’s impatience with policy details and Mr. Rove’s and Mr. Cheney’s unprecedented influence in the White House, the usual policymaking process was often circumvented, and dissenting opinions went unheard or ignored. Just as Mr. Rove was able to push his agenda of solidifying the Republican base on the president, Mr. Weisberg suggests, so was Mr. Cheney able to promote his view of enhanced executive power — a view that resonated with Mr. Bush, as it would with many presidents, “even liberal presidents with a better grasp of the Constitution and more foreign policy experience.”

Some arguments in this book — like those concerning Mr. Bush’s efforts to find historical analogies to vindicate his actions and the narcissistic aspect to much of his reading — are genuinely intriguing. Others — like the author’s assertion that “without the anthrax attacks, Bush probably would not have invaded Iraq” — are poorly fleshed out or poorly backed up by demonstrable facts.

All in all, this is a book that seeks not to uncover exactly what went wrong with the Bush administration, but a book, like Freud’s famous case studies, that seeks to come up with an explanation for what happened, presenting an argument for how a consensus-seeking, moderate-centrist governor in Texas evolved into a highly polarizing president wedded to his base, and how a candidate who said he believed in a humble foreign policy and opposed the use of troops for nation building became the president who has presided over the invasion and ongoing occupation of Iraq.

Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company

[Jasonik]

To the Slate editor in chief, Jacob Weisberg, the presidency of George W. Bush is a plane crash...

http://www.truthdig.com/images/eartothegrounduploads/lk_sotu_crash5.gif (http://www.truthdig.com/cartoon/item/20080124_state_of_the_union/)

[ZippyTheChimp]

Now that his presidency is winding down, Bush is spending the time cementing his legacy. After having caused so much turmoil at home and abroad over the last 8 years, he seems strangely irrelevant.

His latest rumination may be the most ridiculous of his presidency. The quote should occupy a prominent place in the planned Bush library - the Room of Bushisms, between the Hall of Shredded Documents and the Jughead Comic collection.
I must say, I'm a little envious. If I were slightly younger and not employed here, I think it would be a fantastic experience to be on the front lines of helping this young democracy succeed. It must be exciting for you … in some ways romantic, in some ways, you know, confronting danger. You're really making history, and thanks.
Isnt it romantic?
Music in the night, a dream that can be heard.
Isnt it romantic?
Moving shadows write the oldest magic word.
I hear the breezes playing in the trees above
While all the world is saying you were meant for love.
Isnt it romantic
Merely to be young on such a night as this?
Isnt it romantic?
Every note thats sung is like a lovers kiss.
Sweet symbols in the moonlight,
Do you mean that I will fall in love perchance?
Isnt it romance?
-Lorenz Hart & Richard Rodgers

War can be exciting, boring, terrifying, numbing - sometimes all in the same day, but romantic?

Romance in Afghanistan (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/magazine/24afghanistan-t.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=%2522Elizabeth+Rubin%2522+Afghanistan&st=nyt&oref=slogin)
NY Times with the 173rd Airborne Brigade in the Korengal Valley.

[pricedout]

Zippy, agree totally. The relevance issue is unnerving. NOT that I wish for him to seem relevant, but he seems like so much unnecessary baggage at this point. Who can remember a president for whom people didn't even seem to have the energy to despise? Even Carter invoked some strong feelings at the end. Eight years, and look where we are. Sad, very sad.

[Zephyr]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/misc/nytlogo153x23.gif

Estimates of Iraq War Cost Were Not Close to Ballpark

By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN
New York Times
19 March 2008


WASHINGTON — At the outset of the Iraq war, the Bush administration predicted that it would cost $50 billion to $60 billion to oust Saddam Hussein, restore order and install a new government.

Five years in, the Pentagon tags the cost of the Iraq war at roughly $600 billion and counting. Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize-winning economist and critic of the war, pegs the long-term cost at more than $4 trillion. The Congressional Budget Office and other analysts say that $1 trillion to $2 trillion is more realistic, depending on troop levels and on how long the American occupation continues.


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/03/19/world/19cost_650.jpg
Spencer Platt/Getty Images

Getting at the true cost of the war is difficult. Expenses like a troop increase were paid from the base defense budget, not war bills.


Among economists and policymakers, the question of how to tally the cost of the war is a matter of hot dispute. And the costs continue to climb.

Congressional Democrats fiercely criticize the White House over war expenditures. But it is virtually certain that the Democrats will provide tens of billions more in a military spending bill next month. Some Democrats are even arguing against attaching strings, like a deadline for withdrawal, saying the tactic will fail as it has in the past.

All of the war-price tallies include operations in the war zone, support for troops, repair or replacement of equipment, reservists’ salaries, special combat pay for regular forces and some care for wounded veterans — expenses that typically fall outside the regular Defense Department or Veterans Affairs budgets.

The highest estimates often include projections for future operations, long-term health care and disability costs for veterans, a portion of the regular, annual defense budget, and, in some cases, wider economic effects, including a percentage of higher oil prices and the impact of raising the national debt to cover increased war spending.

The debate raging on Capitol Hill, on the presidential campaign trail, in research institutes and in academia touches on such esoteric factors as the right inflation index for veterans’ health care costs; the monetary value of nearly 4,000 soldiers killed; and what role, if any, the war has had in higher oil prices.

Some economists who track the war expenses say they worry that politicians are making mistakes similar to those made in 2002, by failing to fully come to grips with the short- and long-term financial costs.

“The relevant question now is: what do we do now going forward? Because we can’t do anything about the costs that have already happened,” said Scott Wallsten, an economist and vice president of research with iGrowthGlobal, a Washington research institute. “We still don’t hear people talking about that.”

Congressional Democrats, led by Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, the chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, have sought to spotlight the rising costs and limited political progress in Iraq.

“This administration still has no clear exit strategy for our troops, no path to political reconciliation, and no accounting of the costs to our budget or economy,” Mr. Schumer said.

The White House press secretary, Dana M. Perino, acknowledged that costs had risen higher than predicted, but said the administration was committed to giving the military everything it needed for success.

“None of these calculations take into account the cost of failure in Iraq,” Ms. Perino said. “Should Al Qaeda have safe haven in Iraq, we are more likely to be attacked again on our homeland. We know the cost of that.”

On the campaign trail, the Democratic candidates, Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, often say that money for the war would be better spent at home, as Mrs. Clinton did Tuesday when she pegged the war costs at “well over $1 trillion.”

“That is enough,” she continued, “to provide health care for all 47 million uninsured Americans and quality pre-kindergarten for every American child, solve the housing crisis once and for all, make college affordable for every American student and provide tax relief to tens of millions of middle-class families.”

But what the candidates often fail to note when making such points is that the full cost of the war has been added to the national debt, and that the money spent in Iraq would not necessarily be available for other programs. And, of course, anything short of an immediate withdrawal will entail billions more in continuing expenses.

Debate aside, there is general consensus that Congress will have allocated slightly more than $600 billion for Iraq operations through the 2008 fiscal year.

And some analysts say that may be half the final price.


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/03/19/business/0319-for-webCOST.jpg



“Under reasonable scenarios, assuming we don’t pull out rapidly, we may only be halfway through,” said Steven M. Koziak, of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment, a nonpartisan research group. “Even in direct budgetary costs, it’s quite easy to get up on the order of $1 trillion for Iraq alone.”

Meanwhile, the five-year anniversary of the war has focused a spotlight on the costs so far and on future projections.

In a new book, called “The Three Trillion War,” Mr. Stiglitz, the Nobel laureate, and a co-author, Linda J. Bilmes, a professor at Harvard, say the total economic impact may be a staggering $4 trillion or more. Even some economists who call themselves fans of Mr. Stiglitz say they think that number is exaggerated; the authors insist their projections are moderate.

Lawrence B. Lindsey, who was ousted as President Bush’s first economic adviser partly because he predicted the war might cost $100 billion to $200 billion, also has a new book that serves in part as an I-told-you-so.

“Five years after the fact, I believe that one of the reasons the administration’s efforts are so unpopular is that they chose not to engage in an open public discussion of what the consequences of the war might be, including its economic cost,” Mr. Lindsey wrote in an excerpt in Fortune magazine.

Mr. Lindsey insists that his projections were partly right. “My hypothetical estimate got the annual cost about right,” he wrote. “But I misjudged an important factor: how long we would be involved.”

He was not alone.

Congressional Democrats, for instance, predicted that the Iraq war would cost roughly $93 billion, not including reconstruction.

Virtually every forecast was off in this way. “It’s clear that operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have gone on longer and have been more expensive than the projections initially suggested,” Peter R. Orszag, director of the Congressional Budget Office, said in an interview.

Only one economist, William D. Nordhaus of Yale, seems to have come close. In a paper in December 2002, he offered a worst-case estimate of $1.9 trillion, “if the war drags on, occupation is lengthy, nation-building is costly.”

Getting at the true costs is difficult though. Expenses like an overall increase in troops were paid from the base defense budget, not the war bills.


Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/washington/19cost.html)

[Ninjahedge]

Question though, and although I do not agree with the Iraq war I still have to ask it.

How much of this cost would have been there even if we had not been at war? How much would it have cost us to keep a standing army for these years?


Also, as bad as it sounds, how much of this money is being spent on US contractors and companies? They are definitely price gouging, but all the tanks and arms we are buying are not just coming out of thin air.

How much of this money is truly being thrown, almost physically, overseas at Iraq or into the pockets of CEO's winning government contracts, and how much is coming back to the people that work at these companies that make all the goods that are needed?

Maybe we can get a better idea of what is truly happening if we were to see where our money is bing spent rather than throwing the word "Trillian" around all the time. Maybe this war will motivate us enough to start asking more questions on why we have tose $10 bolts and $500 wrenches.

Maybe the solution (and I know this will rankle some people, but I am playing a bit of devils advocate), maybe the solution is to see if we can actually pay "market price" for this war rather than padded contracts to places like Blackwater and Halliburton.

[lofter1]

A viral version of the latest Coldplay vid, perhaps a fitting requieum for the Bush Era ...

Coldplay - Violet Hill Viral (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8zKtcKCaG8&feature=user) (Dancing Politicians)

And the official version: Violet Hill (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IakDItZ7f7Q&feature=user)

The new album (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coldplay's_fourth_studio_album) from Coldplay, 'Viva la Vida (http://www.coldplay.com/site.php) or Death and All His Friends', will be available 6/16

http://www.coldplay.com/graphics/dl_artwork.jpg (http://javascript<b></b>:pop('albumart.jpg');)

[eddhead]

Got the heads up on this from Olberman. Pretty amazing stuff. McClellan throws Bush, Cheney, and Rove under the bus. Enjoy, I did!!
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=2C2AD8E6-3048-5C12-00DD5B339097C9F9

Exclusive: McClellan whacks Bush, White House
By: Mike Allen
May 27, 2008 09:34 PM EST

Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan writes in a surprisingly scathing memoir to be published next week that President Bush “veered terribly off course,” was not “open and forthright on Iraq,” and took a “permanent campaign approach” to governing at the expense of candor and competence.

Among the most explosive revelations in the 341-page book, titled “What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception” (Public Affairs, $27.95):

• McClellan charges that Bush relied on “propaganda” to sell the war.

• He says the White House press corps was too easy on the administration during the run-up to the war.

• He admits that some of his own assertions from the briefing room podium turned out to be “badly misguided.”

• The longtime Bush loyalist also suggests that two top aides held a secret West Wing meeting to get their story straight about the CIA leak case at a time when federal prosecutors were after them — and McClellan was continuing to defend them despite mounting evidence they had not given him all the facts.

• McClellan asserts that the aides — Karl Rove, the president’s senior adviser, and I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, the vice president’s chief of staff — “had at best misled” him about their role in the disclosure of former CIA operative Valerie Plame’s identity.

A few reporters were offered advance copies of the book, with the restriction that their stories not appear until Sunday, the day before the official publication date. Politico declined and purchased “What Happened” at a Washington bookstore.

The eagerly awaited book, while recounting many fond memories of Bush and describing him as “authentic” and “sincere,” is harsher than reporters and White House officials had expected.

McClellan was one of the president’s earliest and most loyal political aides, and most of his friends had expected him to take a few swipes at his former colleague in order to sell books but also to paint a largely affectionate portrait.

Instead, McClellan’s tone is often harsh. He writes, for example, that after Hurricane Katrina, the White House “spent most of the first week in a state of denial,” and he blames Rove for suggesting the photo of the president comfortably observing the disaster during an Air Force One flyover. McClellan says he and counselor to the president Dan Bartlett had opposed the idea and thought it had been scrapped.

See Also

A guide to undisciplined messaging
How small stories become big news
Obama looks westward in electoral map play
But he writes that he later was told that “Karl was convinced we needed to do it — and the president agreed.”

“One of the worst disasters in our nation’s history became one of the biggest disasters in Bush’s presidency. Katrina and the botched federal response to it would largely come to define Bush’s second term,” he writes. “And the perception of this catastrophe was made worse by previous decisions President Bush had made, including, first and foremost, the failure to be open and forthright on Iraq and rushing to war with inadequate planning and preparation for its aftermath.”

McClellan, who turned 40 in February, was press secretary from July 2003 to April 2006. An Austin native from a political family, he began working as a gubernatorial spokesman for then-Gov. Bush in early 1999, was traveling press secretary for the Bush-Cheney 2000 campaign and was chief deputy to Press Secretary Ari Fleischer at the beginning of Bush’s first term.

“I still like and admire President Bush,” McClellan writes. “But he and his advisers confused the propaganda campaign with the high level of candor and honesty so fundamentally needed to build and then sustain public support during a time of war. … In this regard, he was terribly ill-served by his top advisers, especially those involved directly in national security.”



In a small sign of how thoroughly McClellan has adopted the outsider’s role, he refers at times to his former boss as “Bush,” when he is universally referred to by insiders as “the president.”

McClellan lost some of his former friends in the administration last November when his publisher released an excerpt from the book that appeared to accuse Bush of participating in the cover-up of the Plame leak. The book, however, makes clear that McClellan believes Bush was also a victim of misinformation.

The book begins with McClellan’s statement to the press that he had talked with Rove and Libby and that they had assured him they “were not involved in … the leaking of classified information.”

At Libby’s trial, testimony showed the two had talked with reporters about the officer, however elliptically.

“I had allowed myself to be deceived into unknowingly passing along a falsehood,” McClellan writes. “It would ultimately prove fatal to my ability to serve the president effectively. I didn’t learn that what I’d said was untrue until the media began to figure it out almost two years later.

“Neither, I believe, did President Bush. He, too, had been deceived and therefore became unwittingly involved in deceiving me. But the top White House officials who knew the truth — including Rove, Libby and possibly Vice President Cheney — allowed me, even encouraged me, to repeat a lie.”

McClellan also suggests that Libby and Rove secretly colluded to get their stories straight at a time when federal investigators were hot on the Plame case.

“There is only one moment during the leak episode that I am reluctant to discuss,” he writes. “It was in 2005, during a time when attention was focusing on Rove and Libby, and it sticks vividly in my mind. … Following [a meeting in Chief of Staff Andy Card’s office], … Scooter Libby was walking to the entryway as he prepared to depart when Karl turned to get his attention. ‘You have time to visit?’ Karl asked. ‘Yeah,’ replied Libby.

“I have no idea what they discussed, but it seemed suspicious for these two, whom I had never noticed spending any one-on-one time together, to go behind closed doors and visit privately. … At least one of them, Rove, it was publicly known at the time, had at best misled me by not sharing relevant information, and credible rumors were spreading that the other, Libby, had done at least as much. …

“The confidential meeting also occurred at a moment when I was being battered by the press for publicly vouching for the two by claiming they were not involved in leaking Plame’s identity, when recently revealed information was now indicating otherwise. … I don’t know what they discussed, but what would any knowledgeable person reasonably and logically conclude was the topic? Like the whole truth of people’s involvement, we will likely never know with any degree of confidence.”

McClellan repeatedly embraces the rhetoric of Bush's liberal critics and even charges: “If anything, the national press corps was probably too deferential to the White House and to the administration in regard to the most important decision facing the nation during my years in Washington, the choice over whether to go to war in Iraq.

“The collapse of the administration’s rationales for war, which became apparent months after our invasion, should never have come as such a surprise. … In this case, the ‘liberal media’ didn’t live up to its reputation. If it had, the country would have been better served.”

Decrying the Bush administration’s “excessive embrace of the permanent campaign approach to governance,” McClellan recommends that future presidents appoint a “deputy chief of staff for governing” who “would be responsible for making sure the president is continually and consistently committed to a high level of openness and forthrightness and transcending partisanship to achieve unity.

“I frequently stumbled along the way,” McClellan acknowledges in the book’s preface. “My own story, however, is of small importance in the broad historical picture. More significant is the larger story in which I played a minor role: the story of how the presidency of George W. Bush veered terribly off course.”

Even some of the chapter titles are brutal: “The Permanent Campaign,” “Deniability,” “Triumph and Illusion,” “Revelation and Humiliation” and “Out of Touch.”

“I think the concern about liberal bias helps to explain the tendency of the Bush team to build walls against the media,” McClellan writes in a chapter in which he says he dealt “happily enough” with liberal reporters. “Unfortunately, the press secretary at times found himself outside those walls as well.”

The book’s center has eight slick pages with 19 photos, eight of them depicting McClellan with the president. Those making cameos include Cheney, Rove, Bartlett, Mark Knoller of CBS News, former Assistant Press Secretary Reed Dickens and, aboard Air Force One, former press office official Peter Watkins and former White House stenographer Greg North.

In the acknowledgments, McClellan thanks each member of his former staff by name.

Among other notable passages:

• Steve Hadley, then the deputy national security adviser, said about the erroneous assertion about Saddam Hussein seeking uranium, included in the State of the Union address of 2003: “Signing off on these facts is my responsibility. … And in this case, I blew it. I think the only solution is for me to resign.” The offer “was rejected almost out of hand by others present,” McClellan writes.

• Bush was “clearly irritated, … steamed,” when McClellan informed him that chief economic adviser Larry Lindsey had told The Wall Street Journal that a possible war in Iraq could cost from $100 billion to $200 billion: “‘It’s unacceptable,’ Bush continued, his voice rising. ‘He shouldn’t be talking about that.’”

• “As press secretary, I spent countless hours defending the administration from the podium in the White House briefing room. Although the things I said then were sincere, I have since come to realize that some of them were badly misguided.”

• “History appears poised to confirm what most Americans today have decided: that the decision to invade Iraq was a serious strategic blunder. No one, including me, can know with absolute certainty how the war will be viewed decades from now when we can more fully understand its impact. What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary.”

• McClellan describes his preparation for briefing reporters during the Plame frenzy: “I could feel the adrenaline flowing as I gave the go-ahead for Josh Deckard, one of my hard-working, underpaid press office staff, … to give the two-minute warning so the networks could prepare to switch to live coverage the moment I stepped into the briefing room.”

• “‘Matrix’ was the code name the Secret Service used for the White House press secretary."

McClellan is on the lecture circuit and remains in the Washington area with his wife, Jill.

© 2007 Capitol News Company, LLC

[lofter1]

Too bad McClellan didn't have either the principle or the guts to resign and blow the whistle when it might have meant something.

[eddhead]

I suppose McClellan would reply that he lacked the knowledge of the coverups at least initially, but I agree that at least some of this comes across as being rather self serving.

I also believe that while he is critical of Bush, to a large extent he lets him off the hook too by rationalizing his inability to do the honest thing by laying the responsibility off to his subordinates. That is too easy. Bush is lazy, intellectually incurious, and dishonest and he should not have excuses made for him

Still, some of what is written here is very surprising in terms of just how direct and critical it is of Bush and his chief advisors.

[lofter1]

Well, ya gotta sell the book :cool:

Nice don't sell. Not on this subject.

[eddhead]

I hear ya brother. BTW McClellan will be interviewed on Olberman next week. Might be interesting to hear what he has to say.

[lofter1]

Rove immediately ran to Fox to marginalize McClellan, inferring he's gone through a personality change of sorts ("This doesn't sound like the Scott I know") ...

Rove: McClellan Sounds Like a Left Wing Blogger (http://youtube.com/watch?v=fKMX9HCjycM)

[NYatKNIGHT]

Too bad McClellan didn't have either the principle or the guts to resign and blow the whistle when it might have meant something.Right, and too bad he didn't perceive that the answers he was giving to the press was total BS while he still had the job.

[eddhead]

Rove immediately ran to Fox to marginalize McClellan, inferring he's gone through a personality change of sorts ("This doesn't sound like the Scott I know") ...



"... its onnn now.....!! ;)

[Ninjahedge]

He is a rat.

I don't know if his concience got to him, or his financial advisor. So many are jumping ship now that it looks like they can do it safely, and those that can are feigning ignorance and pointing their fingers at the people still on the Bush Ship in hopes that the money that gets thrown at them in doing so will float.

[lofter1]

Yes, McClellan is a rat -- one among many. But I'd rather have the rats jump ship & talk than just have them slither off into a dark but well-paid corner where they can continue unimpeded with their black arts & the gutting of our Constitution.

If this country still had convicitons then We the People would banish the whole lot of them. Send them into exile on some dry rocky island -- and wipe their names from our lips.

I think that ^ is Standard Operatiing Procedure for crumbling empires :cool:

[RandySavage]

All of this purposeful deception, downplaying of facts, outing of spies by the Administration (to get the country/Congress behind the Iraq invasion) is tantamount to treason. Anyone have expertise in constitutional law? Why shouldn't McClellen be subpoenaed to testify in detail how the President and Administration misled the country into a war. It seems to me that those responsible for such a strategy must be tried and, if found guilty of high treason, punished accordingly.

[eddhead]

@ Ninja

Sure McClellan is a rat, just as John Dean was ... that is often what it takes to unearth a coverup

@ RandySavage. I had the same thought. 4000 US soliders killed, tens of thousands more critically injured and estimates of up to 600,000 Iraqis, mostly innocent civilians killed as well. All on false pretenses. Someone should go to jail for this.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Much ado about (things we already know).

McClellan is already being marginalized by Bush loyalists as someone who wasn't an insider to policy making. Even reporters who had read portions of the book said that McClellan doesn't specify whether Bush and others knew that the propaganda they relied on was false.

The good thing about the book is that it's bringing the pre-war events back into the spotlight.

There was a nice segment where Bush, followed by Cheney and Rice on the Sunday morning news shows, used the phrase mushroom cloud.

And there was a clip of a Feb 2004 interview of Bush by Russert, where he asked:
In light of not finding the weapons of mass destruction, do you believe the war in Iraq is a war of choice or a war of necessity?I can't find the clip. Bush comes across as a dimwit.

It seems to me that McClellan was most pissed off about the Valerie Plame incident.

I'm just happy that someone threw Bush under the bus for a change.

http://www.ajc.com/shared-blogs/ajc/luckovich/luckovich1012.jpg

[eddhead]

[B][I]Much ado about (things we already know).
True, but that it comes from an insider is significant. What we all knew but couldn't prove has to an extent been validated. And I realize that in hiw role s press secretary McClellan did not set policy or sit in meetings where policy was set, but he is still an insider and as such carries some credibility.


I'm just happy that someone threw Bush under the bus for a change.

That is probably what I am most happy about as well. Apparently there is a section in the book where Bush indicates that in order to be considered a great president, one must be a war time president. So Thousands of American lives were lost, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives were lost and tens of thousands of others were maimed so this fool could make the argument that he was a great president. It is nothing short of criminal.
http://www.ajc.com/shared-blogs/ajc/luckovich/luckovich1012.jpg[/QUOTE]

[RandySavage]

I wonder if the Skull & Bones rule of its leaders proving themselves through war had any influence on W's play for greatness in Iraq. Wasn't HW Bush a Bonesman, as well... and he had his own Gulf War.

[lofter1]

Could you expand upon that "rule"?

[RandySavage]

From the "International White Paper":

"Waging war is the unique qualification of Bonesman.... In the world of Skull & Bones, one of the greatest virtues is the ability to steer the nation into war and to successfully prosecute the war." These qualities were demonstrated during George Sr.'s presidency when he invaded Panama 11 months after taking office, taking the unprecedented action of kidnapping a sitting head of state. He demonstrated consummate skill in directing public opinion in favor of the invasion, and in prosecuting the war itself. It was as though he were placed in office for that purpose."

The White Paper goes on to say:

"The Skull and Bones members believe in the idea of "constructive chaos." By keeping their true policy intentions secret, by constantly sending out mixed signals on all critical policy issues, they consciously seek to sow confusion among both their nominal "friends" and "enemies" alike... Among the principles taught to the members of the Yale secret society are the value of ambiguity and secrecy."

[lofter1]

Scary ^

If true it seems that "Are you now or have you even been a member of Skull & Bones" should be a "must ask" question in all future political debates & interviews.

[eddhead]

Do you really think that GWB has the intellect to pull something like that off?

[Ninjahedge]

That's what "advisors" are for....

[NYatKNIGHT]

He doesn't have the intellect to tie his shoes, but he has the ambiguity and secrecy part down pat. That clip that Zippy spoke about was very telling; he didn't understand a simple question AT ALL. Once he was told by his advisors that the war in Iraq was necessity, he assumed everyone, like him, believed that to be true.

Scotty was disloyal, so now they have to ruin his reputation. It's the rules. I know I shouldn't be, but I'm still surprised how there are still people who defend Bush, no matter who speaks out against him and the administration. If Laura Bush herself revealed anything counter to the doctrine of the inner circle, they'd try to ruin her too.

[eddhead]

He doesn't have the intellect to tie his shoes

That would explain all the tripping...;):D

[Jasonik]

The Pentagon's Expansion Will Be Bush's Lasting Legacy


By Frida Berrigan

A full-fledged cottage industry is already focused on those who eagerly await the end of the Bush administration, offering calendars, magnets, and t-shirts (http://www.bushslastday.com/giftpacks.html) for sale as well as counters (http://www.backwardsbush.com/screensaver_v2.php) and graphics to download onto blogs and websites. But when the countdown ends and George W. Bush vacates the Oval Office, he will leave a legacy to contend with. Certainly, he wills to his successor a world marred by war and battered by deprivation, but perhaps his most enduring legacy is now deeply embedded in Washington-area politics – a Pentagon metastasized almost beyond recognition.

The Pentagon's massive bulk-up these last seven years will not be easily unbuilt, no matter who dons the presidential mantle on January 19, 2009. "The Pentagon" is now so much more than a five-sided building across the Potomac from Washington or even the seat of the Department of Defense. In many ways, it defies description or labeling.

Who, today, even remembers the debate at the end of the Cold War about what role U.S. military power should play in a "unipolar" world? Was U.S. supremacy so well established, pundits were then asking, that Washington could rely on softer economic and cultural power, with military power no more than a backup (and a domestic "peace dividend" thrown into the bargain)? Or was the U.S. to strap on the six-guns of a global sheriff and police the world as the fountainhead of "humanitarian interventions"? Or was it the moment to boldly declare ourselves the world's sole superpower and wield a high-tech military comparable to none, actively discouraging any other power or power bloc from even considering future rivalry?

The attacks of September 11, 2001 decisively ended that debate. The Bush administration promptly declared total war on every front – against peoples, ideologies, and, above all, "terrorism" (a tactic of the weak). That very September, administration officials proudly leaked the information that they were ready to "target" up to 60 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1547561.stm) other nations and the terrorist movements within them.

The Pentagon's "footprint" was to be firmly planted, military base by military base, across the planet, with a special emphasis on its energy heartlands. Top administration officials began preparing the Pentagon to go anywhere and do anything, while rewriting, shredding, or ignoring whatever laws, national or international, stood in the way. In 2002, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld officially articulated a new U.S. military posture that, in conception, was little short of revolutionary. It was called – in classic Pentagon shorthand – the 1-4-2-1 (http://www.basicint.org/pubs/Notes/BN041119.htm) Defense Strategy (replacing the Clinton administration's already none-too-modest plan to be prepared to fight two major wars – in the Middle East and Northeast Asia – simultaneously).

Theoretically, this strategy meant that the Pentagon was to prepare to defend the United States, while building forces capable of deterring aggression and coercion in four "critical regions" (Europe, Northeast Asia, East Asia, and the Middle East). It would be able to defeat aggression in two of these regions simultaneously and "win decisively" in one of those conflicts "at a time and place of our choosing." Hence 1-4-2-1.

And that was just going to be the beginning. We had, by then, already entered the new age of the Mega-Pentagon. Almost six years later, the scale of that institution's expansion has yet to be fully grasped, so let's look at just seven of the major ways in which the Pentagon has experienced mission creep – and leap – dwarfing other institutions of government in the process.

1. The Budget-busting Pentagon: The Pentagon's core budget – already a staggering $300 billion when George W. Bush took the presidency – has almost doubled while he's been parked behind the big desk in the Oval Office. For fiscal year 2009, the regular Pentagon budget will total roughly $541 billion (http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/policy/securityspending/articles/fy09_dod_request/#_edn1) (including work on nuclear warheads and naval reactors at the Department of Energy).

The Bush administration has presided over one of the largest military buildups in the history of the United States. And that's before we even count "war spending." If the direct costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the Global War on Terror, are factored in, "defense" spending has essentially tripled.

As of February 2008, according to the Congressional Budget Office, lawmakers have appropriated $752 billion for the Iraq war and occupation, ongoing military operations in Afghanistan, and other activities associated with the Global War on Terror. The Pentagon estimates that it will need another $170 billion for fiscal 2009, which means, at $922 billion, that direct war spending since 2001 would be at the edge of the trillion-dollar mark.

As New York Times columnist Bob Herbert (http://www.beautifulhorizons.net/weblog/2006/03/how_much_is_one.html) has pointed out, if a stack of bills roughly six inches high is worth $1 million; then, a $1 billion stack would be as tall as the Washington Monument, and a $1 trillion stack would be 95 miles high. And note that none of these war-fighting funds are even counted as part of the annual military budget, but are raised from Congress in the form of "emergency supplementals (http://www.slate.com/id/2184804/)" a few times a year.

With the war added to the Pentagon's core budget, the United States now spends nearly as much on military matters as the rest (http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/policy/securityspending/articles/fy09_dod_request_global/) of the world combined. Military spending also throws all other parts of the federal budget into shadow, representing 58 cents of every dollar spent by the federal government on "discretionary programs" (those that Congress gets to vote up or down on an annual basis).

The total Pentagon budget represents more than our combined spending on education, environmental protection, justice administration, veteran's benefits, housing assistance, transportation, job training, agriculture, energy, and economic development. No wonder, then, that, as it collects ever more money, the Pentagon is taking on (or taking over) ever more functions and roles.

2. The Pentagon as Diplomat: The Bush administration has repeatedly exhibited its disdain for discussion and compromise, treaties and agreements, and an equally deep admiration for what can be won by threat and force. No surprise, then, that the White House's foreign policy agenda has increasingly been directed through the military. With a military budget more than 30 times that of all State Department operations and non-military foreign aid put together, the Pentagon has marched into State's two traditional strongholds – diplomacy and development – duplicating or replacing much of its work, often by refocusing Washington's diplomacy around military-to-military, rather than diplomat-to-diplomat, relations.

Since the late eighteenth century, the U.S. ambassador in any country has been considered the president's personal representative, responsible for ensuring that foreign policy goals are met. As one ambassador (http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_rpt/embassies.html) explained; "The rule is: if you're in country, you work for the ambassador. If you don't work for the ambassador, you don't get country clearance."

In the Bush era, the Pentagon has overturned this model. According to a 2006 Congressional report by Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN), Embassies as Command Posts in the Anti-Terror Campaign (http://lugar.senate.gov/newsletter/2007/12/feature.html), civilian personnel in many embassies now feel occupied by, outnumbered by, and subordinated to military personnel. They see themselves as the second team when it comes to decision-making. Even Defense Secretary Robert Gates is aware of the problem, noting as he did last November (http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1199) that there are "only about 6,600 professional Foreign Service officers – less than the manning for one aircraft carrier strike group." But, typically, he added that, while the State Department might need more resources, "Don't get me wrong, I'll be asking for yet more money for Defense next year." Another ambassador lamented that his foreign counterparts are "following the money" and developing relationships with U.S. military personnel rather than cultivating contacts with their State Department counterparts.

The Pentagon invariably couches its bureaucratic imperialism in terms of "interagency cooperation." For example, last year U.S. Southern Command (http://www.southcom.mil/AppsSC/index.php) (Southcom) released Command Strategy 2016, a document which identified poverty, crime, and corruption as key "security" problems in Latin America. It suggested that Southcom (http://www.wola.org/index.php?Itemid=2&id=661&option=com_content&task=viewp), a security command, should, in fact, be the "central actor in addressing… regional problems" previously the concern of civilian agencies. It then touted itself as the future focus of a "joint interagency security command... in support of security, stability and prosperity in the region."

As Southcom head Admiral James Stavridis vividly put the matter, the command now likes to see itself as "a big Velcro cube that these other agencies can hook to so we can collectively do what needs to be done in this region."

The Pentagon has generally followed this pattern globally since 2001. But what does "cooperation" mean when one entity dwarfs all others in personnel, resources, and access to decision-makers, while increasingly controlling the very definition of the "threats" to be dealt with.

3. The Pentagon as Arms Dealer: In the Bush years, the Pentagon has aggressively increased its role as the planet's foremost arms dealer, pumping up its weapons sales everywhere it can – and so seeding the future with war and conflict.

By 2006 (the last year for which full data is available), the United States alone accounted for (http://www.cdi.org/friendlyversion/printversion.cfm?documentID=4108&from_page=../program/document.cfm) more than half the world's trade in arms with $14 billion in sales. Noteworthy were a $5 billion deal for F-16s to Pakistan and a $5.8 billion agreement to completely reequip Saudi Arabia's internal security force. U.S. arms sales for 2006 came in at roughly twice the level of any previous year of the Bush administration.

Number two arms dealer, Russia, registered a comparatively paltry $5.8 billion in deliveries, just over a third of the U.S. arms totals. Ally Great Britain was third at $3.3 billion – and those three countries account for a whopping 85% of the weaponry sold that year, more than 70% of which went to the developing world.

Great at selling weapons, the Pentagon is slow to report its sales. Arms sales notifications issued by the Pentagon's Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) do, however, offer one crude way to the take the Department of Defense's pulse; and, while not all reported deals are finalized, that pulse is clearly racing. Through May of 2008, DSCA had already issued (http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/36b_index.htm) more than $9.1 billion in arms sales notifications including smart bomb kits for Saudi Arabia, TOW missiles for Kuwait, F-16 combat aircraft for Romania, and Chinook helicopters for Canada.

To maintain market advantage, the Pentagon never stops its high-pressure campaigns to peddle weapons abroad. That's why, despite a broken shoulder, Secretary of Defense Gates took to the skies in February, to push weapons systems on countries like India and Indonesia, key growing markets for Pentagon arms dealers.

4. The Pentagon as Intelligence Analyst and Spy: In the area of "intelligence," the Pentagon's expansion – the commandeering of information and analysis roles – has been swift, clumsy, and catastrophic.

Tracing the Pentagon's take-over of intelligence is no easy task. For one thing, there are dozens of Pentagon agencies and offices that now collect and analyze information using everything from "humint" (human intelligence) to wiretaps and satellites. The task is only made tougher by the secrecy that surrounds U.S. intelligence operations and the "black budgets" into which so much intelligence money disappears.

But the end results are clear enough. The Pentagon's takeover of intelligence has meant fewer intelligence analysts who speak Arabic (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11186464), Farsi, or Pashto and more dog-and-pony shows like those four-star generals (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washington/20generals.html) and three-stripe admirals mouthing administration-approved talking points on cable news and the Sunday morning talk shows.

Intelligence budgets are secret, so what we know about them is not comprehensive – but the glimpses analysts have gotten suggest that total intelligence spending was about $26 billion a decade ago. After 9/11, Congress pumped a lot of new money into intelligence so that by 2003, the total intelligence budget had already climbed to more than $40 billion.

In 2004, the 9/11 Commission (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/aug/22/september11.usa) highlighted the intelligence failures of the Central Intelligence Agency and others in the alphabet soup of the U.S. Intelligence Community (http://www.intelligence.gov/1-members.shtml) charged with collecting and analyzing information on threats to the country. Congress then passed an intelligence "reform" bill, establishing the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, designed to manage intelligence operations. Thanks to stiff resistance from pro-military lawmakers, the National Intelligence Directorate never assumed that role, however, and the Pentagon kept control of three key collection agencies – the National Security Agency, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, and the National Reconnaissance Agency.

As a result, according to Tim Shorrock (http://timshorrock.com/), investigative journalist and author of Spies for Hire: The Secret World of Intelligence Outsourcing (http://www.amazon.com/Spies-Hire-Secret-Intelligence-Outsourcing/dp/0743282248/lewrockwell/), the Pentagon now controls more than 80% of U.S. intelligence spending, which he estimated at about $60 billion in 2007. As Mel Goodman (http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/02/21/cia-myths/), former CIA official and now an analyst at the Center for International Policy, observed, "The Pentagon has been the big bureaucratic winner in all of this."

It is such a big winner that CIA Director Michael Hayden now controls only the budget for the CIA itself – about $4 or 5 billion a year and no longer even gives the President his daily helping of intelligence.

The Pentagon's intelligence shadow looms large well beyond the corridors of Washington's bureaucracies. It stretches across the mountains of Afghanistan as well. After the U.S. invaded that country in 2001, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld recognized that, unless the Pentagon controlled information-gathering and took the lead in carrying out covert operations, it would remain dependent on – and therefore subordinate to – the Central Intelligence Agency with its grasp of "on-the-ground" intelligence.

In one of his now infamous memos, labeled "snowflakes" (http://wonkette.com/politics/white-house-memos/snowflake-rumsfeld-is-a-little-like-santa-317626.php) by a staff that watched them regularly flutter down from on high, he asserted that, if the War on Terror was going to stretch far into the future, he did not want to continue the Pentagon's "near total dependence on the CIA." And so Rumsfeld set up a new, directly competitive organization, the Pentagon's Strategic Support Branch (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29414-2005Jan22.html), which put the intelligence gathering components of the U.S. Special Forces under one roof reporting directly to him. (Many in the intelligence community saw the office as illegitimate, but Rumsfeld was riding high and they were helpless to do anything.)

As Seymour Hersh, who repeatedly broke stories in the New Yorker on the Pentagon's misdeeds in the Global War on Terror, wrote in January 2005 (http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/01/24/050124fa_fact?printable=true), the Bush administration had already "consolidated control over the military and intelligence communities' strategic analyses and covert operations to a degree unmatched since the rise of the post-Second World War II national-security state."

In the rush to invade Iraq, the civilians running the Pentagon also fused the administration's propaganda machine with military intelligence. In 2002, Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith established the Office of Special Plans (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0807-02.htm) (OSP) in the Pentagon to provide "actionable information" to White House policymakers. Using existing intelligence reports "scrubbed" of qualifiers like "probably" or "may," or sometimes simply fabricated ones (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56501-2004Jul16.html), the office was able to turn worst-case scenarios about Saddam Hussein's supposed programs to develop weapons of mass destruction into fact (http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_11_07/feature.html), and then, through leaks, use the news media to validate them.

Former CIA Director Robert Gates, who took over the Pentagon when Donald Rumsfeld resigned in November 2006, has been critical of the Pentagon's "dominance" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/17/AR2006051701881.html) in intelligence and "the decline in the CIA's central role." He has also signaled his intention to roll back the Pentagon's long intelligence shadow; but, even if he is serious, he will have his work cut out for him. In the meantime, the Pentagon continues to churn out "intelligence" which is, politely put, suspect – from torture-induced confessions (http://uk.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUKN1342978520080513) of terrorism suspects to exposés of the Iranian origins (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/27/world/middleeast/27weapons.html) of sophisticated explosive devices found in Iraq.

5. The Pentagon as Domestic Disaster Manager: When the deciders in Washington start seeing the Pentagon as the world's problem solver, strange things happen. In fact, in the Bush years, the Pentagon has become the official first responder of last resort in case of just about any disaster – from tornadoes, hurricanes, and floods to civil unrest, potential outbreaks of disease, or possible biological or chemical attacks. In 2002, in a telltale sign of Pentagon mission creep, President Bush established the first domestic military command since the civil war, the U.S. Northern Command (Northcom). Its mission: the "preparation for, prevention of, deterrence of, preemption of, defense against, and response to threats and aggression directed towards U.S. territory, sovereignty, domestic population, and infrastructure; as well as crisis management, consequence management, and other domestic civil support."

If it sounds like a tall order, it is.

In the last six years, Northcom (http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0408/041708kp1.htm) has been remarkably unsuccessful at anything but expanding its theoretical reach. The command was initially assigned 1,300 Defense Department personnel, but has since grown into a force of more than 15,000. Even criticism only seems to strengthen its domestic role. For example, an April 2008 Government Accountability Office report found that Northcom had failed to communicate effectively with state and local leaders or National Guard units about its newly developed disaster and terror response plans. The result? Northcom says it will have its first brigade-sized unit of military personnel trained to help local authorities respond to chemical, biological, or nuclear incidents by this fall (http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=61719&archive=true). Mark your calendars.

More than anything else, Northcom has provided the Pentagon with the opening it needed to move forcefully into domestic disaster areas previously handled by national, state and local civilian authorities.

For example, Northcom's deputy director, Brigadier General Robert Felderman, boasts that the command is now the United States's "global synchronizer (http://www.northcom.mil/news/2008/041408.html) – the global coordinator – for pandemic influenza across the combatant commands." Similarly, Northcom is now hosting annual hurricane preparation conferences and assuring anyone who will listen that it is "prepared to fully engage" in future Katrina-like situations "in order to save lives, reduce suffering and protect infrastructure."

Of course, at present, the Pentagon is the part of the government gobbling up the funds that might otherwise be spent shoring up America's Depression-era public works, ensuring that the Pentagon will have failure aplenty to respond to in the future.

The American Society for Civil Engineers (http://www.asce.org/reportcard/2005/page.cfm?id=103), for example, estimates that $1.6 trillion is badly needed to bring the nation's infrastructure up to protectable snuff, or $320 billion a year for the next five years. Assessing present water systems, roads, bridges, and dams nationwide, the engineers gave the infrastructure a series of C and D grades.

In the meantime, the military is marching in. Katrina, for instance, made landfall on August 29, 2005. President Bush ordered troops deployed to New Orleans on September 2nd to coordinate the delivery of food and water and to serve as a deterrent against looting and violence. Less than a month later, President Bush asked Congress to shift responsibility for major future disasters from state governments and the Department of Homeland Security to the Pentagon.

The next month, President Bush again offered the military as his solution – this time to global fears about outbreaks of the avian flu virus. He suggested that, to enforce (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/05/bush.reax) a quarantine, "One option is the use of the military that's able to plan and move."

Already sinking under the weight of its expansion and two draining wars, many in the military have been cool to such suggestions, as has a Congress concerned about maintaining states' rights and civilian control. Offering the military as the solution to domestic natural disasters and flu outbreaks means giving other first responders the budgetary short shrift. It is unlikely, however, that Northcom, now riding the money train, will go quietly into oblivion in the years to come.

6. The Pentagon as Humanitarian Caregiver Abroad: The U.S. Agency for International Development and the State Department have traditionally been tasked with responding to disaster abroad; but, from Indonesia's tsunami-ravaged shores to Myanmar after the recent cyclone, natural catastrophe has become another presidential opportunity to "send in the Marines" (so to speak). The Pentagon has increasingly taken up humanitarian planning, gaining an ever larger share of U.S. humanitarian missions abroad.

From Kenya (http://www.esquire.com/features/africacommand0707) to Afghanistan (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/12/world/asia/12afghan.html?ref=asia), from the Philippines to Peru, the U.S. military is also now regularly the one building schools and dental clinics, repairing roads and shoring up bridges, tending to sick children and doling out much needed cash and food stuffs, all civilian responsibilities once upon a time.

The Center for Global Development finds that the Pentagon's share of "official development assistance" – think "winning hearts and minds" or "nation-building" – has increased from 6% to 22% between 2002 and 2005. The Pentagon is fast taking over (http://www.cgdev.org/content/opinion/detail/15359) development from both the NGO-community and civilian agencies, slapping a smiley face on military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and beyond.

Despite the obvious limitations of turning a force trained to kill and destroy into a cadre of caregivers, the Pentagon's mili-humanitarian project got a big boost from the cash that was seized from Saddam Hussein's secret coffers. Some of it was doled out to local American commanders to be used to deal with immediate Iraqi needs and seal deals in the months after Baghdad fell in April 2003. What was initially an ad hoc program now has an official name – the Commander Emergency Response Program (CERP) – and a line in the Pentagon budget.

Before the House Budget Committee last summer, Gordon England, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, told members of Congress that the CERP was a "particularly effective initiative," explaining that the program provided "limited but immediately available funds" to military commanders which they could spend "to make a concrete difference in people's daily lives." This, he claimed, was now a "key part of the broader counter insurgency approach." He added that it served the purpose of "complementing security initiatives" and that it was so successful many commanders consider it "the most powerful weapon in their arsenal."

In fact, the Pentagon doesn't do humanitarian work very well. In Afghanistan, for instance, food-packets dropped by U.S. planes were the same color (http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0415/p09s02-coop.html) as the cluster munitions also dropped by U.S. planes; while schools and clinics built by U.S. forces often became targets before they could even be put into use. In Iraq, money doled out to the Pentagon's sectarian-group-of-the-week (http://www.democracynow.org/2007/9/11/exclusive_report_from_iraq_u_s) for wells and generators turned out to be just as easily spent on explosives and AK-47s.

7. The Pentagon as Global Viceroy and Ruler of the Heavens: In the Bush years, the Pentagon finished dividing the globe into military "commands," which are functionally viceroyalties. True, even before 9/11, it was hard to imagine a place on the globe where the United States military was not, but until recently, the continent of Africa largely qualified.

Along with the creation of Northcom, however, the establishment of the U.S. Africa Command (Africom) in 2008 officially filled in the last Pentagon empty spot on the map. A key military document, the 2006 National Security Strategy for the United States signaled the move, asserting that "Africa holds growing geo-strategic importance and is a high-priority of this administration." (Think: oil and other key raw materials.)

In the meantime, funding for Africa under the largest U.S. military aid program, Foreign Military Financing, doubled from $10 to $20 million between 2000 and 2006, and the number of recipient nations grew from two to 14. Military training funding increased by 35% in that same period (rising from $8.1 million to $11 million). Now, the militaries of 47 African nations receive U.S. training.

In Pentagon planning terms, Africom (http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4427) has unified the continent for the first time. (Only Egypt remains under the aegis of the U.S. Central Command.) According to President Bush, this should "enhance our efforts to bring peace and security to the people of Africa and promote our common goals of development, health, education, democracy, and economic growth in Africa."

Theresa Whelan, assistant secretary of defense for African affairs, continues to insist that Africom has been formed neither to facilitate the fighting of wars ("engaging kinetically in Africa"), nor to divvy up the continent's raw materials in the style of nineteenth-century colonialism. "This is not," she says, "about a scramble for the continent." But about one thing there can be no question: It is about increasing the global reach of the Pentagon.

Meanwhile, should the Earth not be enough, there are always the heavens to control. In August 2006, building on earlier documents like the 1998 U.S. Space Command's Vision for 2020 (http://www.peaceactionme.org/v-intro.html) (which called for a policy of "full spectrum dominance"), the Bush administration unveiled its "national space policy." It advocated establishing, defending, and enlarging U.S. control over space resources and argued for "unhindered" rights in space – unhindered, that is, by international agreements preventing the weaponization of space. The document also asserted that "freedom of action in space is as important to the United States as air power and sea power."

As the document put it, "In the new century, those who effectively utilize space will enjoy added prosperity and security and will hold a substantial advantage over those who do not." (The leaders of China, Russia, and other major states undoubtedly heard the loud slap of a gauntlet being thrown down.) At the moment, the Bush administration's rhetoric and plans outstrip the resources being devoted to space weapons technology, but in the recently announced budget, the President allocated nearly a billion dollars to space-based weapons programs.

Of all the frontiers of expansion, perhaps none is more striking than the Pentagon's sorties into the future. Does the Department of Transportation offer a Vision for 2030? Does the Environmental Protection Agency develop plans for the next fifty years? Does the Department of Health and Human Services have a team of power-point professionals working up dynamic graphics for what services for the elderly will look like in 2050?

These agencies project budgets just around the corner of the next decade. Only the Pentagon projects power and possibility decades into the future, colonizing the imagination with scads of different scenarios under which, each year, it will continue to control hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars.

Complex 2030, Vision 2020, UAV Roadmap 2030, the Army's Future Combat Systems – the names, which seem unending, tell the tale.

As the clock ticks down to November 4, 2008, a lot of people are investing hope (as well as money and time) in the possibility of change at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. But when it comes to the Pentagon, don't count too heavily on change, no matter who the new president may be. After all, seven years, four months, and a scattering of days into the Bush presidency, the Pentagon is deeply entrenched in Washington and still aggressively expanding. It has developed a taste for unrivaled power and unequaled access to the treasure of this country. It is an institution that has escaped the checks and balances of the nation.


Frida Berrigan [send her mail (berrigan@newamerica.net)] is a Senior Program Associate at the New America Foundation (http://www.newamerica.net/)'s Arms and Security Initiative. She is a columnist for Foreign Policy in Focus (http://www.fpif.org/) and a contributing editor at In These Times magazine. She is the author of reports on the arms trade and human rights, U.S. nuclear weapons policy, and the domestic politics of U.S. missile defense and space weapons policies.

Copyright © 2008 Frida Berrigan (http://www.lewrockwell.com/engelhardt/engelhardt335.html)

[eddhead]

I find this excerpt particularly remarkable because if it is true, and unless I am really missing something here, this constitutes grounds for impeachment

Later on Thursday, Ms. Perino was asked by a reporter aboard Air Force One about a passage in Mr. McClellan’s book that involved the exposure of the wife of Joseph C. Wilson IV, Valerie, as a C.I.A. agent.

The reporter said the book said that a question about the issue was shouted to Mr. Bush as they were boarding Air Force One. Mr. McClellan says the question prompted him to ask Mr. Bush directly if he was the one who had authorized the leaking of her name. The passage says Mr. Bush told Mr. McClellan, “Yes, I was.”

May 30, 2008
McClellan Responds to White House Criticism

By JOHN HOLUSHA
Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan continued to press his case Thursday that the Bush administration manipulated intelligence to justify the war in Iraq, and responded to a growing chorus of criticism from other former administration officials.

Appearing on NBC’s Today show, Mr. McClellan said that the administration ignored evidence that contradicted its position on Iraq, and he sharply criticized some of Mr. Bush’s closest advisers.

He said Vice President Dick Cheney “was given a lot of deference by the president,” and said “in a number of ways, he has not served the president well.” He said Mr. Cheney was known as “the magic man” in the White House for his ability to get things done.

Mr. McClellan said that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice did not challenge the president or other top officials when she should have. “Too often she was too accommodating” to the president’s views, he said. She was also too deferential to Mr. Cheney and former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

He described Mr. Bush as “a gut player,” and said that the president was strongly inclined toward war with Iraq after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Responding to criticism that he did not voice his objections when he was in the White House, Mr. McClellan said that he was swayed at the time by his affection for the president and respect for the president’s policy team. “I gave them the benefit of the doubt, like a lot of Americans,” he said. Mr. McClellan said he later concluded that “things went terribly off course” in Iraq after he left what he termed “the White House bubble,” where outside views often were not considered.

Also speaking Thursday morning on “Today,” Dan Bartlett, a former counselor to the president, sought to minimize Mr. McClellan’s participation in events leading up to the Iraq war, noting that during that time he was deputy press secretary for domestic affairs. He said that Mr. McClellan’s assertion in his new book that intelligence was shaded to justify the war “is wrong.”

Mr. McClellan responded that, as deputy press secretary at the time, he often filled in as press secretary and he participated in meetings leading up to the war.

Mr. McClellan’s remarks came a day after the White House and a tight-knit group of former aides sought to depict him as disgruntled and trying to cash in with sensational allegations to sell books.

The result has been a kind of public excommunication of Mr. McClellan by some of the people he once worked most closely, among them Karl Rove, the political strategist; Frances Fragos Townsend, the former domestic security adviser; Ari Fleischer, Mr. Bush’s first press secretary, and Mr. Bartlett.

Mr. McClellan said on Thursday that he was expressing his views now because of “a loyalty to the truth and the values I was raised on.”

The cries of betrayal from former aides served as a stern warning to other potential turncoats that, despite some well-publicized cracks, the Bush inner circle remains tight. Their language was so similar that the collective reaction amounted to a big inside-the-Beltway echo chamber.

All seemed to take their cues from Dana Perino, the current press secretary. Ms. Perino used the words “sad” and “puzzled” to describe the White House response, as if Mr. McClellan had undergone some kind of emotional breakdown, while making the case that if Mr. McClellan had problems with Mr. Bush he should have raised them while in the president’s employ.

And all seemed to suggest that maybe Mr. McClellan had been hijacked by liberal New York book editors who prodded him to turn out a memoir that did not reflect his own beliefs.

“This does not sound like Scott; it really doesn’t,” Mr. Rove said on Fox News Channel.

“You’ve heard the way Scott briefed — it doesn’t sound like him,” Mr. Fleischer said. He said he could not wait to hear Mr. McClellan talk about the book on television, “to see if there’s a written Scott and an oral Scott.”

Later on Thursday, Ms. Perino was asked by a reporter aboard Air Force One about a passage in Mr. McClellan’s book that involved the exposure of the wife of Joseph C. Wilson IV, Valerie, as a C.I.A. agent.

The reporter said the book said that a question about the issue was shouted to Mr. Bush as they were boarding Air Force One. Mr. McClellan says the question prompted him to ask Mr. Bush directly if he was the one who had authorized the leaking of her name. The passage says Mr. Bush told Mr. McClellan, “Yes, I was.”

Ms. Perino answered the question, saying: “I don’t know. Obviously, I wasn’t there, and obviously I don’t know the context.”

Ms. Perino went on to say, “I don’t think that’s what Scott says in the book, and I think that everyone should go back and look at it a little bit more carefully.” When asked directly if Mr. Bush ever authorized the leaking of classified information, she said she was “not aware of that.”

Mr. McClellan’s book, “What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception,” is due out next week, but copies leaked out Tuesday night. In it, Mr. McClellan, who was press secretary 2003 to 2006, bluntly accuses Mr. Bush of misleading the nation into war.

Mr. McClellan uses the book to drop a personal bombshell, recounting a phone conversation between Mr. Bush and a political supporter in which, he says, he overheard the president dismiss “ridiculous campaign rumors” about accusations of cocaine usage by saying he could not recall if he had tried the drug.

“We had some pretty wild parties back in the day,” Mr. McClellan wrote, recounting Mr. Bush’s words, “and I just don’t remember.”

Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Phillip Sayre contributed reporting.


Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company
Privacy Policy Search Corrections RSS First Look Help Contact Us Work for Us Site Map

[eddhead]

Kinslay is awesome.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/29/AR2008052901798_pf.html

McClellan on McClellan
In which Bush's former spokesman tells how he lost respect for one of the finest public servants he's ever known.
By Michael Kinsley
Thursday, May 29, 2008; 11:00 AM

It's sad. It's just sad. In all my years of public service, I am one of the finest people I have ever had the privilege to know and work with. I cannot imagine why I have chosen this moment to turn against everything I have always stood for -- lies, deception, secrets, doubletalk -- unless it was for a six-figure book advance.

But the me I knew believed that some things, such as duty, are more important than money. That me saw misleading the public as the highest of missions. That me would never betray me the way this me has done. Frankly, it's a puzzle. But I will be talking with me later this afternoon, on "Oprah," and maybe then I will get some answers. Until then, all I can say is that it's just very very sad.

Frankly, I don't recognize the me I describe in my book. This isn't me. This is some other me that I have conjured up for reasons I can only imagine. In fact, I don't think that I could even explain them myself. I have known me for almost my entire life, and I thought I knew me pretty well. And I always assumed the opposite was true too. But apparently I harbored some kind of bitterness against me that I never told me about. I don't know what other explanation there could be.

And another thing: If I did not support the policies that I advocated -- important policies, vital to my entire philosophy of government, such as making things up and challenging the patriotism of opponents -- why didn't I say something at the time? As I used to tell me, my door was always open to myself. But as far as I know, I never uttered a peep of complaint or disagreement. And I ask you: Who would know if I didn't?

Actually, as I think about it, I start to get really angry. Who the hell do I think I am? Some pipsqueak from nowhere who was hired to tell lies and suddenly thinks he has some sort of mission to tell the truth. I mean, who cares what I think the real reason was for the invasion of Iraq? I wasn't hired to figure out the real reason. I was hired to put out the phony reason, which I did, without objection.

But all of a sudden I'm too good to lie. Condi Rice will. Dick Cheney will, and loves it. Absolutely loves it. But me? No. I suddenly feel I have some kind of duty to tell the truth. Well excuuuuuse me!
People have asked: Is this a permanent breach? Will I ever be able to work with myself again? Will I ever trust myself to betray the truth as I did for so many years? Or were those years of deception nothing but a lie? And the honest answer (or dishonest answer, as the case may be) is: I'll have to get back to you on that.

Once a person has started telling the truth, however, it is very hard to completely trust his lies ever again. I'm sure that when the wounds have been given time to heal, I will work with myself again. But there will always be that small shred of doubt: Am I truly following the line that has been so carefully crafted by people much smarter than myself, or am I just saying whatever comes into my head for no better reason than it happens to be the case?

And if my sudden eruption of truthtelling means that my career as a professional liar is over, I will have no one to blame but myself.

Michael Kinsley is a columnist for Time magazine and post.com.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
© 2008 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive
Ads by Google
The Real Barack Obama
The truth behind the canditate - "Barack Obama Exposed" - Free!
www.HumanEvents.com
Obama Seeks Women Voters
"Just Sit On It" motto aims to capture women voters (parody).
Shakalolo.com
Bush's War on PBS
As Seen on Public Television Buy a Copy of This DVD Today
www.publicvideostore.org

[Jasonik]

The MSM has thus far offered two speculative explanations for former White House press secretary Scott McClellan's recent book critical of the Bush administration's war against Iraq. The "liberal" line seems to be that McClellan has had a fit of conscience and wants to do the "right thing" by making insider revelations. The "conservative" side wants to paint the man as a "disgruntled" former empployee with an undisclosed axe to grind.

I have yet to hear anyone offer the possible explanation that McClellan is bright enough to see that the neocon-dominated White House and GOP are in a state of free-fall, with reputations collapsing in the process. The man may, in other words, only be trying to salvage what may remain of his chances for future employment in the marketplace, or to salvage whatever remnants may remain of his good-name. One saw a similar response in Robert McNamara's published mea culpa for his responibility for the slaughter he helped to mastermind in Vietnam.

I do not buy Mr. McClellan's plea of innocence regarding the nature of the White House manipulations of both truth and the minds of Americans, whose job it was this man's to carry out. Millions of honest and thoughtful Americans saw through the fraud being perpetrated upon the world with his assistance, and he is certainly bright enough to have been able to see what the rest of us saw, had he chosen to look at the time. I agree with his suggestion that the MSM failed to perform its function, but he - as the official White House communicator of lies and deception - is hardly the man to make the point.

I believe that wrongdoers should experience adverse consequences for their wicked deeds. None of the culprits in these immoral undertakings are likely to face any civil or criminal penalties for their actions, making the formal legal system their protector. But the marketplace provides at least a partial remedy. Through ostracism, boycotts, and other refusals to deal with such people, they can at least suffer the consequences of being unable to profit from future employment or royalties earned from the publication of books detailing their involvement in such wrongs. If decent people refused to hire such wrongdoers or to buy their books, the marketplace could effectively render an adverse judgment on their economic and reputational interests. The unwillingess of tens of thousands of men and women to buy O.J. Simpson's book offers a working example. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/021258.html).

[eddhead]

^^

He may be motivated by a third possibility as well. Revenge.

I do not buy that he was motivated my marketplace factors.. his public life is over. He was made a joke of while serving as press secretary, people were not exactly breaking down his door. And now, right considers him a turncoat. And he will never be trusted by the left.

So where does he go from here ?By writing a book he can turn a quick buck and get back at those who ruined his career. Let's face it, by serving as the Admins mouthpiece, he became a laughing stock. I am sure he would love to take Cheney and Rove down. And don't think the admin is not concerned that others might follow.

Regardless of the circumstances, I love it.

[lofter1]

The sideburns are a nice touch, too.

[lofter1]

http://www.nydailynews.com/img/2008/05/30/toon30edt.gif (http://javascript<b></b>:LoadGallery(nextImage, false))

Credits: Bill Bramhall
Published: 05/27/2008

[ZippyTheChimp]

A complete bore.

[lofter1]

Bob Dole unloads on McClellan

Politico.com (http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0508/Bob_Dole_unloads_on_McClellan.html) / Jonathan Martin's Blog (http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin)
May 30, 2008

Bob Dole yesterday sent a scalding e-mail to Scott McClellan, excoriating the former White House spokesman as a "miserable creature" who greedily betrayed his former patron for a fast buck.

In an extraordinary message obtained and authenticated by Politico, Dole uses his trademark biting wit to portray McClellan as a classic Washington opportunist.

"There are miserable creatures like you in every administration who don’t have the guts to speak up or quit if there are disagreements with the boss or colleagues," Dole wrote in a message sent yesterday morning. "No, your type soaks up the benefits of power, revels in the limelight for years, then quits and, spurred on by greed, cashes in with a scathing critique."

Michael Marshall, Dole's spokesman and colleague at the Alston Bird law firm, confirms the message came from the former senator and presidential candidate. "Yes, it is authentic," Marshall wrote in an e-mail.

"In my nearly 36 years of public service I've known of a few like you," Dole writes, recounting his years representing Kansas in the House and Senate. "No doubt you will 'clean up' as the liberal anti-Bush press will promote your belated concerns with wild enthusiasm. When the money starts rolling in you should donate it to a worthy cause, something like, 'Biting The Hand That Fed Me.' Another thought is to weasel your way back into the White House if a Democrat is elected. That would provide a good set up for a second book deal in a few years"

Dole assures McClellan that he won't read the book — "because if all these awful things were happening, and perhaps some may have been, you should have spoken up publicly like a man, or quit your cushy, high-profile job."

"That would have taken integrity and courage but then you would have had credibility and your complaints could have been aired objectively," Dole concludes. "You’re a hot ticket now, but don’t you, deep down, feel like a total ingrate?"

He signs the email simply: "BOB DOLE"

***

UPDATE: Dole has sent over another e-mail (read it here (http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0508/Dole_cites_own_book_to_explain_why_he_spoke_out_on _McClellan_.html)) explaining why he felt compelled to speak out ...

I asked Bob Dole spokesman Michael Marshall why the former senator felt compelled to speak out (http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0508/Bob_Dole_unloads_on_McClellan.html) against Scott McClellan.

Dole himself explains in an email sent over by Marshall:
"It's just not right but it happens in nearly every administration.
It sort of happened to me in a very small way when a low
level employee in my Senate office left and published a book in
1995 titled 'Senator for Sale.' He claimed to be a close
confidant, etc. The book bombed because neither he nor his
rambles had any credibility with the media or the public.

Bottom line is that I have little respect for turncoats like
McClellan who have it both ways. Some in public (and private)
life have no shame when big bucks are involved. If their motive
is 'good government,' O.K. but that's rarely the case."
The book Dole refers to was penned by one Stanley G. Hilton in 1995, right as Dole was gearing up for his third and final White House run. Hilton had been an aide to Dole between 1979-1980.

It was described in Publisher's Weekly as "so vitriolic that it will shock even Dole's foes."

In other words, a hatchet job.

Then-Dole spokesman Nelson Warfield had this classic assessment in a Boston Globe at the time:
"Hilton's lame attempt at character assassination is pure
garbage," Warfield said, adding that the book is a "collection
of wild accusations put together by a failed writer who grossly
distorts his access to Bob Dole a decade and a half ago."

Warfield described Hilton as a low-level lawyer who worked on
a Senate committee for Dole for only nine months.
***

UPDATE II: Via The Page (http://thepage.time.com/2008/05/30/bob-dole-savages-mcclellan/), I see McClellan has responded to Dole's comments. “I have had time to reflect and go back, and what I’m saying is sincere," he said. “I have a lot of respect for Sen. Dole.”

http://markhalperin.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/doleshot.jpg?w=360&h=235 (http://markhalperin.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/doleshot.jpg)
Getty

Asked about the former Senate Majority Leader’s brutal response to his memoir, McClellan says:
“I am speaking up. I have had time to reflect and go back,
and what I’m saying is sincere.”
Also says, “I have a lot of respect for Sen. Dole.”
Earlier: In an extraordinary, scalding e-mail (http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0508/Bob_Dole_unloads_on_McClellan.html), Dole calls his fellow Republican “a miserable creature” who didn’t “have the guts to speak up.”

Plus: McClellan says he apologized Thursday to author Richard Clarke, who he criticized as press secretary when he released his own memoir.

***

[ZippyTheChimp]

McClellan is a wuss. He should say to Dole:
I don't need no stinking Viagra.

[eddhead]

You know,looking at those pictiures, Dole looks a bit like McClellan on Krytonite. I'm just sayin' ....

[eddhead]

Herbert is a bt underrepresented on this thread, but I like his style. Very direct and to the point. Nice piece on McClellan

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/31/opinion/31herbert.html?hp=&pagewanted=print
May 31, 2008
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Coming Late to the Table

By BOB HERBERT
I guess it’s official now since we have a Bush administration insider, Scott McClellan, telling us that the war in Iraq was a monumental strategic blunder, and that it was sold cynically and deceitfully to a craven Congress and to a public still traumatized by the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Some of us already knew that, Scott. Some of us knew it at the time.

In his new book, “What Happened,” Mr. McClellan even tells us that wars “should only be waged when necessary.”

Gee, Scott, some of us have known that deep in our hearts all of our lives.

Even the most cursory reading of wartime history — take your pick: World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, any war — would convey the message that to engage in warfare unnecessarily is insane.

Reading Mr. McClellan’s book, I kept thinking of the many ordinary people — the service members, their relatives, and so many others — who have suffered so grievously from this misbegotten and thoroughly unnecessary war.

I remember talking with Tyler Hall, a baby-faced sergeant from Wasilla, Alaska, in 2004. “I was blown up in an I.E.D. attack,” he told me.

Sergeant Hall had three bones in his back broken. His arm was broken. He lost his left leg below the knee. He was badly burned. Part of his palate was destroyed. The lower part of his face had to be reconstructed. He suffered a brain injury. And so forth.

That is just the tiniest glimpse of the sort of thing that happens when a president refuses to heed the call of reason and instead, immaturely and unforgivably, sends his country’s brave young volunteers into a pointless conflagration.

More than 4,000 Americans have made the supreme sacrifice for this unnecessary war.

The New York Times and HBO jointly produced a documentary called “Last Letters Home,” a title that requires no explanation. One of those letters was to John Witmer from his daughter Michele, a 20-year-old Army specialist from New Berlin, Wis.

“Dear Daddy,” she wrote, “Happy Father’s Day. I love you so much and you can’t imagine how often I think of you. I hope you have lots of fun today and that the weather is lovely.”

I’ve talked to so many parents who lost children in the war. During an interview in her home in Philadelphia, Celeste Zappa told me about the moment she found out that her son, Sherwood Baker, a sergeant in the Pennsylvania National Guard, had been killed.

One evening in April 2004, Ms. Zappa noticed a man in a dress uniform with medals on his chest coming onto her porch. “He had a notebook in his hand,” she said. “I could see him very clearly even though it was dark and kind of raining. So I came out on the porch and I looked at him. And I knew, but I didn’t want to know.”

Sergeant Baker had only been in Baghdad six weeks when he was blown up in an explosion at a factory. An absurd footnote to his death was the fact that he was helping to provide security for the Iraq Survey Group, which was hunting for the nonexistent weapons of mass destruction.

The war in Iraq, which has taken 100,000 or more Iraqi lives, and which will cost the U.S. upwards of $3 trillion, and which continues indefinitely, is a scandal and a crime. Scott McClellan is a little late to be blowing the whistle on this outrage.

More important than his belated musings on the war, and his aggrieved take on the leaking of a C.I.A. operative’s identity, is Mr. McClellan’s warning about the “culture of deception” that has poisoned the very atmosphere of national politics and government.

“Washington has become the home of the permanent campaign,” he writes, “a game of endless politicking based on the manipulation of shades of truth, partial truths, twisting of the truth, and spin. Governing has become an appendage of politics rather than the other way around, with the electoral victory and the control of power as the sole measures of success.”

Mr. McClellan’s book landed like a bombshell on Washington not because of any startling revelations or staggering new insights, but because he was an insider who wrote unflatteringly about his boss.

Forget that this is supposed to be a government of, by and for the people, and that the truth is supposed to matter. Mr. McClellan is being denounced as a traitor by those who readily accept the culture of deception, and who believe that a government official’s primary loyalty is not to the people, but to power itself — in this case, to the president.

It’s exactly that kind of thinking that begets unnecessary wars.


Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company
Privacy Policy Search Corrections RSS First Look Help Contact Us Work for Us Site Map

[lofter1]

McClellan will be on "The Daily Show (http://www.thedailyshow.com/)" Monday night.

Jon Stewart has been noticeably quiet on his show regarding the matter of McClellan's book since it first hit the news.
Seems that Stewart is saving up his stuff for the actual face-to-face.

June 2, 2008
Scott McClellan
Author, "What Happened"

The former White House Press Secretary admits
he passed on false information about the
Bush Administration in "What Happened."

Previous Interview (http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=81281&title=scott-mcclellan-pt.-1) following the 2007 State of the Union
(Jan. 24, 2007)

[Zephyr]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/misc/nytlogo153x23.gif


Op-Ed Columnist
Cult of Deception


By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: June 1, 2008


WASHINGTON

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/04/02/opinion/dowd-ts-190.jpg
Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times

Maureen Dowd


They say that every president gets the psychoanalyst he deserves. And every Hamlet gets his Rosencrantz.

So now comes Scott McClellan, once the most loyal of the Texas Bushies, to reveal “What Happened,” as the title of his book promises, to turn W. from a genial, humble, bipartisan good ol’ boy to a delusional, disconnected, arrogant, ideological flop.

Although his analytical skills are extremely limited, the former White House press secretary — Secret Service code name Matrix — takes a stab at illuminating Junior’s bumpy and improbable boomerang journey from family black sheep and famous screw-up back to family black sheep and famous screw-up.

How did W. start out wanting to restore honor and dignity to the White House and end up scraping all the honor and dignity off the White House?

It turns out that our president is a one-man refutation of Malcolm Gladwell’s best seller “Blink,” about the value of trusting your gut.

Every gut instinct he had was wildly off the mark and hideously damaging to all concerned.

It seems that if you trust your gut without ever feeding your gut any facts or news or contrary opinions, if you keep your gut on a steady diet of grandiosity, ignorance, sycophants, and peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, those snap decisions can be ruinous.

We already know What Happened, but it feels good to hear Scott say it. His conscience was spurred by hurt feelings.

In Washington, it is rarely the geopolitical or human consequences that cause people to turn on leaders behaving immorally. The town is far more narcissistic and practical than that.

The people who should be sounding the alarm for democracy’s sake, and the sake of all the young Americans losing lives and limbs, get truly outraged only when they are played for fools and fall guys, when their own reputations are at stake.

It was not the fake casus belli that made Colin Powell’s blood boil. What really got Powell disgusted was that W. and Dick Cheney used him, tapping into his credibility to sell their trumped-up war; that George Tenet failed to help him scrub his U.N. speech of all Cheney’s garbage; and that W. showed him the door so the more malleable Condi could have his job.

Tenet was privately worried about a war buildup not backed up by C.I.A. facts, but he only publicly sounded the alarm years later in a lucrative memoir fueled by payback, after Condi and Cheney tried to cast him as the fall guy on W.M.D.

McClellan did not realize the value of a favorite maxim — “The truth shall set you free” — until he was hung out to dry by his bosses in the Valerie Plame affair, repeating the lies Karl Rove and Scooter Libby brazenly told him about not being the leakers.

“Clearly,” McClellan says, sounding like the breast-heaving heroine of a Victorian romance, “I had allowed myself to be deceived.” He felt “something fall out of me into the abyss.”

And that was even before “the breaking point,” when he learned the worst about his idol — that the president who had denounced leaks about his warrantless surveillance program, who had promised to fire anyone leaking classified information about Plame, was himself the one who authorized Dick Cheney to let Scooter leak part of the top-secret National Intelligence Estimate.

“Yeah, I did,” Mr. Bush told his sap of a press secretary on Air Force One. His tone, the stunned McClellan said, was “as if discussing something no more important than a baseball score.”

He recalled the first time that he had begun to suspect that W. might be just another dissembling pol: when he overheard his boss, during his 2000 bid, ludicrously telling a supporter that he couldn’t remember, from his wild partying days, if he had tried cocaine.

“He isn’t the kind of person to flat-out lie,” McClellan said, but added, “I was witnessing Bush convincing himself to believe something that probably was not true.” He’d see a lot more of it over the next six years before Bush tearfully booted him out.

W.’s dwindling cadre hit back hard. In Stockholm, Condi — labeled “sometimes too accommodating” by the author — scoffed: “The president was very clear about the reasons for going to war.”

She’s right. He was very clear about it being because of W.M.D. Then he was very clear about it being to rid the world of a tyrant. Then he was very clear about it being to spread democracy. When that didn’t work out, he was very clear about it being that we can’t leave because we can’t leave.

He was always wrong, but always very clear.


Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/opinion/01dowd.html)

[ZippyTheChimp]

Maureen Dowd is at her best when she talks about the Bush family.

[lofter1]

Stewart, in presenting an argument regarding the motives of Bush et al, got McClellan to state that what had been done in regards to the selling of the war to the American people was "criminal".

McClellan 6.02.08: Part 1 (http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=170969&title=scott-mcclellan-pt.1)

McClellan 6.02.08: Part 2 (http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=170970&title=scott-mcclellan-pt.-2)

[eddhead]

^

I am pretty sure Stewart was on vacation last week when the McClellan book was launched. Anyway, the interview last night was good. I though Stewart let him off the hook a bit, but still managed to get his point across RE: the duplicity of the Bush administration and the president himself.

[NYatKNIGHT]

^That whether you evade the truth with malice or without, it still caused the same death and destruction.

[lofter1]

Have no fear ...

Even after GWB is back on the ranch for good we'll be able to replay all the fond memories he leaves behind:

Teaser Poster (http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/06/04/teaser-poster-for-oliver-stones-w/) for Oliver Stone’s W ...


http://www.slashfilm.com/wp/wp-content/images/wteaserposter.jpg

[Zephyr]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/misc/nytlogo153x23.gif


Op-Ed Columnist
W. Regrets Almost Nothing


By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: June 15, 2008


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/04/02/opinion/dowd-ts-190.jpg
Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
Maureen Dowd


PARIS


In the French imagination, Barack Obama is already the president.

To the French, the Democratic primary was the general election.

The word “elite” is not a pejorative here; it’s a compliment. It does not occur to Parisians that Americans will choose the old, white-haired one if they can have the cool, skinny one with the Ray-Bans, John le Carré novels, chic wife and secret cigarettes.

Newsstands carry a whole magazine devoted to “La révolution OBAMA.” The papers are avidly following Obama’s post-Hillary quest to “cherche les femmes,” and on Friday, Le Figaro led with the headline that he had widened his lead over his “rival républicain.”

There was nothing on Le Figaro’s front page about that other American guy who was over here, munching on langoustes at the Élysée Palace with Sarko and the seductress Carla (animated and dazzling with a midnight blue dress and a hopelessly long, thin cigarette).

“You kind of wrote my political obituary tonight,” W. teased the French president after Sarko’s toast Friday night, adding that he still has six months left and a lot of work to do.

In Old Europe, they’ve moved on, assuming that the American president has done all the damage that he can do. The blazing hostility toward W. has faded to indifference and a sort of fatigued perplexity about how les imbeciles de regime cowboy got into office, and how America could have put the world through all this craziness.

Even as the Supreme Court slapped him back for the third time on the suffocation of civil liberties at Guantánamo, President Bush gave the keynote speech of his European farewell tour extolling the virtues of liberty. He celebrated European unity at the very instant it was falling apart, thanks to an Irish donnybrook.

Paris responded with a yawn. (Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to say.) A Bush organizer asked people sitting in the back of the hall to move to the front, so the empty seats would not be visible on TV. The image of the U.S. abroad has improved slightly, according to a new Pew poll, but only in anticipation of seeing the back of this president.

In a way, W. is very different from the cocky, know-nothing, chip-on-his-shoulder “Bully Bush” I followed on his maiden European tour in 2002. His disdain for Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schröder, and theirs for him, was bristlingly clear. He told the bemused French that he’d heard tell from Jacques about their “fantastic food,” and he lectured the bewildered Germans, as though they were thick on the subject, that Saddam was evil because he “gassed his own people.”

This time, he left the heavy lifting on Afghanistan to the more popular Laura Bush, while he hung out with French, German and Italian leaders he likes. “Your Eminence,” he told the pope, “you’re looking good.” Angela Merkel dodged when asked at a press conference whether she would miss W., but said she liked being able to “call a spade a spade with him.” He enthused that “German asparagus are fabulous,” and wryly told a Paris audience that “my hair is a lot grayer,” assuming that the French, with their history of foiled colonialism, would know why. He seemed, all these years later, intent on spiritual absolution.

In other ways, however, W. was not very different. He was still pushing, but more softly, the same refrain that turned Europe so virulently anti-American: his muscular proselytizing that sometimes military power is necessary to break up terror networks, and that there is “a moral obligation” to extend “a more hopeful and compelling vision” of democratic ideals to “provide our security and to spread the peace.”

Europeans overwhelmingly agree with Scott McClellan, the former Bush press secretary, that this approach amounts to “coercive democracy,” and that the administration’s “compelling vision” on Iraq was undergirded with a brazenly untruthful and cynically manipulative propaganda campaign.

On the illicit rush to war, W. ne regrette rien. He reiterated a rhetorical sop to those who yearn for a scintilla of remorse, telling The Times of London that his gunslinging talk made him seem like a “guy really anxious for war,” and that phrases like “dead or alive” and “bring them on” “indicated to people that I was, you know, not a man of peace.”

The Bushes have a hard time with the connective tissue between words and actions. In this case, the words, while dime-store Western, were not the problem. The actions were the problem. W. was really anxious for war. He felt that if he could change Middle East history, he could jump out of his father’s shadow forever.

A Democratic lawmaker who saw the president in the Oval Office recently and urged him to bring the troops home from Iraq quickly recounted that W. got a stony look and replied that 41 had abandoned the Iraqis and thousands got slaughtered. “I will never do that to them,” 43 said.

Sounds like Oedipal déjà vu all over again.


Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company ( http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/15/opinion/15dowd.html )

[Minato ku]

"Elite" a compliment in France. http://www.skyscrapercity.com/images/smilies/rollin.gif

That's weird but is this journalist live in France or only in the boring upper class 16th arrondissement of Paris.

[Ninjahedge]

"Elite" a compliment in France. http://www.skyscrapercity.com/images/smilies/rollin.gif

That's weird but is this journalist live in France or only in the boring upper class 16th arrondissement of Paris.


So... what do YOU think calling Obama "elite" was meant to say?

Don't just drop a topic bomb like that and run away! Please elaborate.

[Minato ku]

Obama is indeed very popular in France but it is not because it is an elite.
We need to be realist few president are not in the "elite".
Cliton is also elite.

Obama is popular because it is not a republican and you already had a Cliton president.
He is young.
He is mixed race (black/white) that quite help in country with high ethnic minority population (especially black and Black/white mixed race) like France but race is not a high factor of popularity in France like in most countries.
If McCain was black asian.... it would not change its bad popularity.
Obama represent the changement unlike Cliton or McCain (republican)

So the idea of Obama popular because it is an elite is wrong and execpt if you go outside the boring upper class 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 16th arrondissement (many district but not so many inhabitants, less than 1/5 of inner Paris inhabitants ) you can easely see this reality.

[eddhead]

^^

Let me try this another way. Only in the American Political Spectrum would "elite" be considered an insulting characteristic. Logically one think thatm a president who was smarter, more learned, and more capable than the voting population would be a good thing. I wouldn't vote for someone who has no more than my own credentials to be President of the US. I want someone more capable with better vision and skill. Someone who is more intellectually elite.

In certain parts of this country, if you are elite your an egghead [as opposed to an eddhead ;)], and that is bad.

Only in America.

On DOWD

Bush is the worst President of my life time, hands down. Worse than Carter, worse than Nixon. It is not even close.

The fact he does not recognize it does not surprise me. He is gifted with neither intellect nor insight.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Latest Washington Post/ABC poll:

84% now believe the country is headed in the wrong direction - an all-time record.

All hail Bush

[Zephyr]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/misc/nytlogo153x23.gif


Op-Ed Columnist
American President Pleads Guilty to Hopeless Idealism


By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: June 18, 2008


LONDON


President Bush was in one of his oddly chipper moods when he arrived for dinner with Gordon Brown at 10 Downing Street on Sunday night.

Maybe he was excited by the prospect of sharing some Gloucestershire beef, Yorkshire pudding and fruit trifle with a world leader more unpopular than he is.

Maybe he was happy to be having dinner with Rupert Murdoch and a covey of British historians who might agree with his contention to London’s Observer that “there’s no such thing as objective short-term history.” Just in case, though, the group dwelled on the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries and didn’t talk about the 21st. And presumably, over the 1934 brandy that W. eschewed, the historian Simon Schama did not repeat his 2006 assessment that the president was an “absolute [expletive] catastrophe” or his analysis that long before Mr. Bush’s militant missionary work in the Middle East, Europe had regarded the moral rhetoric of America as a cover for self-interest.

Maybe W. was buoyant because his motorcade evaded the protestors holding up signs that said “War Criminal,” and he was too far away to hear the withering scorn of a BBC correspondent stationed on Downing Street, warning that the British public wouldn’t stand for it if the prime minister greeted the toxic president too warmly. Britain is still smarting about being cast as poodle to W.’s pit bull, and the correspondent sneeringly recalled “the Colgate moment” when Tony Blair and George Bush bonded over their use of the same toothpaste.

Or perhaps after working with Torquemada Cheney all these years, W. simply feels more at home in a monarchy. At the end of dinner he posed under a portrait of Elizabeth I in the drawing room and gayly promised: “This is going to be my White House Christmas card.”

If Mr. Brown had any thought of promoting himself as the anti-poodle with some arm’s length body language, W. swiftly disabused him. He spread his wingspan to draw in Gordon and Sarah, and then clasped Gordon so heartily around the shoulders that the Brit was forced to grab W.’s waist in a shy embrace as they entered the building.

As W. told The Observer: “It’s convenient to say, you know, ‘warmonger,’ ‘religious zealot,’ ‘poodle’ — I mean, these are just words that people love to toss around foolishly.”

Poppy Bush was often compared to Bertie Wooster, and W. seems to have found his own stiff-backed Jeeves. Mr. Brown agreed to send more troops to Afghanistan, put more sanctions on Iran and decide on Iraq troop withdrawals based on conditions on the ground.

Quentin Letts pointed out in The Daily Mail that when W. touched Gordon, the prime minister would “recoil like a novice nun at first and later smile in terror,” and when W. said he had no problem with Brownie on Iraq, “You could almost see Mr. Brown thinking: ‘Oh, Gawd! There go another few thousand votes.’ ”

Asked by The Observer reporter about W.M.D. in Iraq, W. replied: “Still looking for them,” sparking a strange moment of levity. Mr. Bush continued: “We didn’t realize, nor did anybody else, that Saddam Hussein felt like he needed to play like he had weapons of mass destruction. It may have been, however, that in his mind all this was just a bluff.”

Yeah, who could have ever guessed that a wily, deceitful and debilitated Arab dictator might huff and puff, not wanting rivals in the neighborhood to know the weapons cupboard was bare? Maybe some of those psychologists specializing in boastful, malignant narcissists and Middle East cultural experts working in our $40 billion-a-year intelligence units should have been able to figure it out?

The Daily Mail’s front page on Monday juxtaposed a picture of the Union Jack-draped coffins of five British paratroopers killed in Afghanistan, lined up on the tarmac before being flown home, and a picture of W. and Laura landing at Heathrow.

Mr. Bush, who said he’s going to put a “Freedom Institute” in his presidential library, told reporters at a press conference with Mr. Brown that “one of the things that I will leave behind is a multilateralism to deal with tyrants, so problems can be solved diplomatically.” W. confessed only to “hopeless idealism” on Iraq and Afghanistan.

He said “history will judge whether or not, you know, more troops were needed earlier, troops could have been positioned here better or not.” But going in, he said, was right despite the “doubters.” “There is some who say that perhaps freedom is not universal,” he asserted, adding that he rejected as elitist the notion that “maybe it’s only, you know, white-guy Methodists who are capable of self-government.”

If there’s one thing W. and Cheney have proved, beyond a sliver of a shadow of a doubt, it’s that at least two white-guy Methodists are not capable of self-government.


Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/18/opinion/18dowd.html)

[Zephyr]

The ideological underpinnings of Neo-con rhetoric in American foreign policy has crumbled as we know it, and is seeking to reform elsewhere. How will this play if Senator Obama is president? And are they resurgent under a President McCain? Let's hope this era is truly past.

http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/press-releases/images/logo_israelenews.jpg


New American Century lasts eight years:
Neocon Web Site PNAC Shut Down

Cheney, Bush and Rumsfeld pull plug on PNAC

On: Monday, May 26, 2008
By: Israel e News


The web site of the neoconservative based Project for a New American Century think tank has been taken down. The think tank in their own documents advocated the virtues of using the U.S. military as a global police force.

They also endorsed preemptive war as a way to shape the world and even lobbied to get Bill Clinton to invade Iraq back in 1998. Contributors and signatories associated with the think tank included several high profile figures in George W. Bush’s administration including Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, John Bolton, Scooter Libby, Dick Cheney, Richard Armitage and Richard Perle.

Documents originating from this think tank have been the subject of a great deal of criticism by the 9/11 truth and anti-war movements. It now looks as if the neoconservatives whose agenda has been faltering as of late have decided to pull the plug on the web site for the purposes of damage control. If not, than somebody forgot to pay their Internet provider.

We’ll let you be the judge of which is the more likely scenario.

In 2000, the think tank released a 90 page document entitled Rebuilding America’s Defenses. In the document, the think tank actually advocates a catastrophic and catalyzing Pearl Harbor event in order to seek faster global transformation using U.S. military might. In addition, one of the core missions outlined in the report is “fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars.” What luck for the neoconservatives that a catastrophic and catalyzing event occurred on September 11th, 2001 that made one of their core missions in their report become a reality.

The following quote is taken direct from the document advocating a catastrophic and catalyzing event to further their agenda of global transformation.

The 9/11 truth movement has pointed to this quote as additional evidence that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated by criminal elements within the U.S. government. Considering that many of the think tank’s signatories were in high level positions in the Bush administration during the 9/11 attacks and the think tank believed that such an attack was in order, the neoconservatives certainly had a motive to pull off this false flag terror attack. After all, their entire agenda was fulfilled as a result of the 9/11 attacks.

“Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor”.

Not only did it foreshadow the 9/11 attacks but the document is widely viewed as the neoconservative blueprint for the U.S. military in the 21st century.

Looking at the document 8 years after it was published, it is clear that much of what was suggested in the document has in fact been implemented. We now have military bases all over the Middle East; there’s been a massive increase in military spending, increased militarization of space and billions of dollars spent on new cyber warfare initiatives.

It is pretty obvious why they would decide to take down the official web site for the think tank. The Rebuilding America’s Defenses document must be incredibly embarrassing for them and there’s little doubt that it has served as a public relations nightmare for the neoconservatives.

When examining the 9/11 attacks, it is necessary to look at who had the most to gain. Clearly, the neoconservatives who came into power with the Bush administration back in 2001 had the most to gain and this particular document proves it. The neoconservatives are nothing more than war mongering, anti-American, big government terrorists that have brought ruin to this country. Either way, the removal of their web site looks to be an indication that their agenda is being discredited on a massive scale.

While the disappearance of the site and the - ahem - singular views it expressed might be good news for some, historians and Federal prosecutors will be relieved to know that there's an archive of the PNAC site on the WayBack Machine here.

And far from hiding in the White House basement hoping the nasty liberals go away, a number of PNAC members and sympathisers appear to have set up shop over at The American Enterprise Institute whose membership list contains some rather familiar names.


Copyright © israelenews.com all rights reserved (http://www.israelenews.com/view.asp?ID=2160).

[Zephyr]

http://www.latimes.com/images/standard/lat_logo_inner.gif


http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/06/17/blog_crawford_2.gif

White House invokes executive privilege on EPA investigation regarding California's vehicle emission standards

Tony Pierce
LA Times Blogs
21 June 2008


http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2007-12/34350919.jpg
Photo: Getty Images


"I don't think we've had a situation like this since Richard Nixon was president," Rep. Henry A. Waxman said yesterday after the Bush administration invoked executive privilege to refuse to turn over subpoenaed documents in an investigation of the Environmental Protection Agency's decision to deny California permission to implement its own vehicle emission standards.

Waxman (D-Beverly Hills) was referring to the fact that the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee was deciding on whether to bring contempt-of-Congress proceedings against EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson and Susan Dudley, administrator of regulatory affairs in the White House Office of Management and Budget, for refusing to honor the subpoena.

In asserting executive privilege in the EPA inquiry, the administration made public a copy of a letter sent to the president by Atty. Gen. Michael B. Mukasey saying that releasing internal documents "could inhibit the candor of future deliberations among the president's staff."

EPA spokesman Tim Lyons said the agency had provided the committee with more than 7,000 documents and devoted 2,200 hours of staff time to responding to requests for information, and he called it "disappointing" that the committee had decided to "politicize environmental regulations."

"We don't know whether this privilege that's being asserted is valid or not," Waxman said yesterday, and he is deciding what the committee's next move will be.


Copyright 2008 Los Angeles Times (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/presidentbush/)

[lofter1]

Bush looks so deadly bored with being President these days. His eyes are blacker and beadier than ever.

Aside from trying to re-write his legacy (good luck, George :cool: ) he is doing NOTHING to serve the country.

Too bad he can't pack up and leave now.

Self-imposed exile would be the best thing he could do.

[ZippyTheChimp]

he is doing NOTHING to serve the country.Count your blessings.

[lofter1]

You're absolutely correct.

I shut up now :o

[Zephyr]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2175/2402652665_da0510d53a_o.png
http://www.qualys.com/images/logos/publications/logo_san_francisco_chronicle.gif


They want to rename the Oceanside Water Pollution Control Plant the George W. Bush Sewage Plant come January, when the next president is sworn in. …

Bright Winn, a San Francisco plumber, enthusiastically gave his signature to the cause.

"(Bush) has always done well for the affluent of America, and anyone that does well for the affluent should be named for the effluent," he said.


Satire at the ballot box to 'honor' Bush

Marisa Lagos, Chronicle Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 24, 2008

(06-23) 18:49 PDT -- If you've attended an event or festival in San Francisco lately - or even just hung out at a city park - you've probably seen them.

Admittedly, they're hard to miss. Someone in the group is usually toting a large American flag, and another is often carrying a boom box blaring patriotic music. Sometimes one of them dresses up as Uncle Sam.

They're the Presidential Memorial Commission of San Francisco, but don't let the serious name fool you. The group's intentions are in the gutter: They want to rename the Oceanside Water Pollution Control Plant the George W. Bush Sewage Plant come January, when the next president is sworn in.

During the inauguration, the group also wants supporters to participate in a "synchronized flush"- a way to send a gift to the renamed plant, which supporters say, would be a "fitting monument to this president's work."

It sounds like a harmless joke, or maybe a college civics lesson gone awry. But the handful of friends who dreamed this up over beers one night say they have already collected 8,500 signatures in support of the plan - 1,300 more than the minimum needed to put the question to city voters in November. When they submit the signatures in July, election workers will have to verify that at least 7,168 are from registered city voters for the measure to qualify for the ballot.

"It's a very simple yes or no question, and there's no real fiscal impact - just the cost of relettering the sign in front of the plant," said organizer Brian McConnell. "This is the way the democratic process is supposed to work, even though it's a silly idea in some people's eyes."

Silly might be an understatement. Howard Epstein, chair of the San Francisco Republican Party, called the measure an abuse of the system and "loony bin direct democracy." He vowed to "use all means" to defeat the measure if it qualifies for the ballot. That includes those very expensive glossy mailers, he said.

"There's no use other than to make these nutcases feel good," Epstein said. "It's typical San Francisco crazies."

Still, most people approached on a recent Sunday seemed open to the idea, even if they all didn't stop to sign the petition.

Bright Winn, a San Francisco plumber, enthusiastically gave his signature to the cause.

"(Bush) has always done well for the affluent of America, and anyone that does well for the affluent should be named for the effluent," he said.

The idea behind the renaming runs the gamut from the humorous ("Clean up the mess caused by Bush!" one supporter shouted ) to the sarcastic ("No other president in American history has accomplished so much in such a short time," the group's Web site reads) to the philosophical.

Satire, McConnell said, is one of the great American traditions.

"Fifty years from now in a civics class, students will learn about the Lincoln Memorial, that other presidents are on Mount Rushmore - and George W. Bush got a sewage plant," he said. "It will prompt people to ask why, and they can discuss the Iraq war, and everything that led to it. People want to forget bad moments of history, and this is our way of making sure that doesn't happen."

To be fair, there are already other tributes to President Bush, including a Stockton elementary school and, of course, the presidential library planned in Dallas.

Organizers of the petition drive believe the measure will pass, noting that 2006's Proposition J calling for the impeachment of Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney passed with 58 percent of the vote.

The biggest opposition in this Democratic stronghold, McConnell said, is people who oppose naming anything after the 43rd president.

Officials at the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, which owns the plant, say they get the humorous intent. But they note that the plant is an award-winning facility that keeps the city's streets and the ocean clean.

"If you are looking for a place to make a negative statement about the Bush administration's impact on the environment, this would be the last place to do it," agency spokesman Tony Winnicker said.


© 2008 Hearst Communications Inc. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/24/MNPQ11A3T7.DTL)

[Ninjahedge]

Awww crap.

[bobbiesox]

End of the Bush Era

By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Tuesday, September 13, 2005
Washington Post - Page A27

The Bush Era is over. The sooner politicians in both parties realize that, the better for them -- and the country.
Great post - from 2005!

Interesting that since the Bush era ENDED, we're still in Iraq and we're winning there now! We've sent more troops not less. Democrats in Congress finally passed FISA while letting the phone companies off the hook (breaking their promises). They voted for the bill that doesn't allow the phone companies to be sued for complying with government record requests.

And pretty much every other thing Bush wanted since this article was published in 2005 has come to pass!

For those who believed that was the end of the Bush era - congratulations on your political acumen and insight! Geniuses all!

[eddhead]

RE Iraq: We're winning there now?? Are you kidding?? Do you really see an end in sight? Even if we pull out, they will be fighting there for the next thousand years. All we have done is spread the region's overall instability into what was an otherwise stable country.

Some estimate as many as 400K Iraqis are dead. The country lacks basic human services such as electricity, running water schools and hospitals. The highway infrastructure that was in place prior to the onset of the war is gone now. Bin-Laden is still at large and the Taliban is making a comeback in Afghanistan. Pakistan is a mess, Iran is enriching Uranium and is testing medium range missiles Our credibility in the region and all over the world is shot to hell. As a result of the money we have borrowed to finance the war, our currency is as weak as I can ever remember it being. Domestically our own infrastructure is falling apart and we cannot afford to invest in rebuilding it. Unemployment is up, inflation is rampant, people cannot afford to get sick, and are getting thrown out of their houses. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are on the brink if insolvency and look out for the regional banks, they're next. The upper 10% of the population possesses more wealth than the combined bottom 90%. http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Courses/so11/stratification/income&wealth.htm

And our President has the nerve to tell us that the economy is resilient and our problems are psychological.

Bush is the worst president of my lifetime bar none, and I was around for Nixon and Carter. It is not even close.

[bobbiesox]

When did Bush say our problems are psychological? First I've heard of it.

FACT: The economy IS resilient. So Bush is right on that.

No credible or mainstream source estimates the number of Iraqi dead anywhere close to 400,000. If you're relying on wacko left-wing sources where those kinds of numbers come from then no wonder your view of reality is so stilted.

Last September USA Today put the number at 19,000. And no one believes (not even you I'm sure) that 380,000 Iraqis have been killed since then! Please.

IraqBodyCount.org puts the number of civilian Iraqi deaths at between 86,000 and 93,000. And they're against the war.

Let's look at some other real numbers:

ELECTRICITY:
Prewar nationwide: 3,958 megawatts. Hours per day (estimated): 4-8.
May 26, 2008 nationwide: 4,110 megawatts. Hours per day: 9.9.

TELEPHONES:
Prewar land lines: 833,000
April 4, 2008: 1,360,000

Prewar cell phones: 80,000
April 30, 2008: More than 12,000,000

WATER:
Prewar: 12.9 million people had potable water.
April 30, 2008: 20.9 million people have potable water.

SEWERAGE:
Prewar: 6.2 million people served.
April 30, 2008: 11.3 million people served.

That looks like progress to me.

[bobbiesox]

Latest Washington Post/ABC poll:

84% now believe the country is headed in the wrong direction - an all-time record.

All hail Bush
Approval of the Democratically-controlled congress is the lowest ever in American history. It has entered the single digits for the first time ever. 9%. Might that be part of the reason (maybe a large part) why so many Americans feel the country is headed in the wrong direction?

[bobbiesox]

the same refrain that turned Europe so virulently anti-American: his muscular proselytizing that sometimes military power is necessary to break up terror networks,

Bush turned Europe virulently anti-American!? Hmmm... interesting.

Let's see, since Bush has been president France has elected its most pro-American president ever, Nicolas Sarkozy. Italy has now re-elected a pro-American, pro-Bush president. And Germany has its most pro-American chancellor in years. So how is it Bush has made Europeans hate us again?

Sarkozy openly proclaimed his love for America. He even came here during the French campaign to make sure the point was clear. You guys have a very interesting take on the facts.

[eddhead]

When did Bush say our problems are psychological? First I've heard of it.
RE: Psychology. I guess you missed the president's press conference yesterday morning which was timed to conflict with televised testimony delivered by Bernake to Congress but took on a decidedly different tone. Allow me to quote from it:

“I readily concede that, you know, [drilling is] not going to produce a barrel of oil tomorrow, but it is going to change the psychology that demand will constantly outstrip supply,” Bush said.

In addition, he also referenced the “psychology in the oil market,” later on.

I cannot stress enough the contrast between Bush's upbeat message and Bernake's more cautioned assessment. See if you can guess which of the two is more credible to me.

FACT: The economy IS resilient. So Bush is right on that.


Oh really?? That is a fact?? Where is that fact documented?? On what basis are you making that claim?

So what we are seeing today is a resilient economy in action?? Over 400K jobs lost this year alone, unemployment rates that have been steadily increasing since 2006, and now stand at 5.7% vs the 4.2% levels that prevailed Clinton administration represent resiliency? Average wages down by .6%, inflation rising by 1.1% in June alone, Foreclosure rates through the roof? The venerable Bear Stearns under water, Freddie Mac an Fannie Mae in crisis? The stock market under 11,000? Crude at record levels? GM Ford and Chrysler on the ropes? Traveled overseas lately? Tried to buy anything in Europe? The US currency is a joke.

http://useconomy.about.com/b/2008/06/06/may-jobs-report-worst-in-past-five-years.htm

New unemployment claims exceeded 380,000 per week in June http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/business/02jobs.html?hp

and according to analysis by the labor-oriented Economic Policy Institute, the total number of private sector jobs lost in 2008 so far is about 411,000
Resilient indeed.

No credible or mainstream source estimates the number of Iraqi dead anywhere close to 400,000. If you're relying on wacko left-wing sources where those kinds of numbers come from then no wonder your view of reality is so stilted.

Last September USA Today put the number at 19,000. And no one believes (not even you I'm sure) that 380,000 Iraqis have been killed since then! Please.

IraqBodyCount.org puts the number of civilian Iraqi deaths at between 86,000 and 93,000. And they're against the war.

I said as high as 400,000 and certain groups estimate the total at closer to 600K My source is the Johns Hopkins School Bloomberg School of Public Health, hardly a disreputable source. You can review their findings here:

http://www.jhsph.edu/refugee/publications_tools/iraq/index.html

Let's look at some other real numbers:

ELECTRICITY:
Prewar nationwide: 3,958 megawatts. Hours per day (estimated): 4-8.
May 26, 2008 nationwide: 4,110 megawatts. Hours per day: 9.9.

TELEPHONES:
Prewar land lines: 833,000
April 4, 2008: 1,360,000
Prewar cell phones: 80,000
April 30, 2008: More than 12,000,000

WATER:
Prewar: 12.9 million people had potable water.
April 30, 2008: 20.9 million people have potable water.

SEWERAGE:
Prewar: 6.2 million people served.
April 30, 2008: 11.3 million people served.

That looks like progress to me.

Well at least according to the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation which is the website you obtained your data from (you may want to reference your sources next time) but the gains are questionable( http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2007/2007-11-01-01.asp for instance) and have come at considerable expense ($482 bn to date according to your same source) .

Like the rest of this administration the war has been a disaster for the American people and the US economy. At the end of the day we will have spent as mucha s $1.3tn and will have had nothing to show for it except for a new generation of third world terrorist who want us all dead. Nice job indeed.

[bobbiesox]

“I readily concede that, you know, [drilling is] not going to produce a barrel of oil tomorrow, but it is going to change the psychology that demand will constantly outstrip supply,” Bush said.
I guess you've never heard of market psychology huh? He's saying the problems are REAL but if we lift the ban on drilling that will change the psychology of the futures market which places bets on what they think the price of oil will do in the FUTURE. Obviously if we're going to be drilling soon, they'll bet it will go down.

I guess YOU haven't noticed, but since Bush lifted the Presidential ban on drilling on Monday - the price of oil has FALLEN 10%! It's dropped $15 a barrel in just three days... just based on lifting part of the ban. The other part is Congressional. Imagine how much more the price might drop of the Dems in Congress could bring themselves together to drop their ban.

Oh really?? That is a fact?? Where is that fact documented?? On what basis are you making that claim?
You're kidding me, right? You're asking me where is it documented that the economy is resilient!? The sun is in the sky. Where is that documented? It's an obvious fact. It's documented n the entire economic history of our nation over the last 50 years. The economy actually grew for more than four years AFTER 9/11. Yeah, it hit a few bumps in the road but it continued to grow and expand. In fact, it's still expanding. Not by much... but it hasn't gone into a recession.

So what we are seeing today is a resilient economy in action?? Over 400K jobs lost this year alone, unemployment rates that have been steadily increasing since 2006, and now stand at 5.7% vs the 4.2% levels that prevailed Clinton administration represent resiliency? Average wages down by .6%, inflation rising by 1.1% in June alone, Foreclosure rates through the roof? The venerable Bear Stearns under water, Freddie Mac an Fannie Mae in crisis? The stock market under 11,000? Crude at record levels? GM Ford and Chrysler on the ropes? Traveled overseas lately? Tried to buy anything in Europe? The US currency is a joke.
Exactly! You got it. Despite ALL those problems you mentioned, the economy is still growing. Like I say, it may not be by much, but just half of those problems would have put any other economy under already.

Perhaps you don't remember what the word "resilient" means. It doesn't mean things are always good. It means we can bounce back from hard times.

I said as high as 400,000 and certain groups estimate the total at closer to 600K My source is the Johns Hopkins School Bloomberg School of Public Health, hardly a disreputable source.
Yeah, hardly disreputable - if you're on the Left. Then it's very reputable. However, have you noticed how liberal most universities are. Have you noticed how liberal Bloomberg is? Why should I think their figures aren't biased. You first said as high as 400,000. Now you're saying as high as 600,000. Every serious study shows the figure well under 100,000.


Well at least according to the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation which is the website you obtained your data from (you may want to reference your sources next time) but the gains are questionable.
No, those gains aren't questionable. Those are the gains. They either have more water or they don't. And they do. It's not questionable. It's not questionable that they have millions more cell phones either. Or more hours of electricity. Or millions more people with sanitary sewage conditions.


Like the rest of this administration the war has been a disaster for the American people and the US economy.
No it hasn't. If it were an economic disaster we'd be in a depression. And we're not even in a recession. And my life has gone on just fine - not one thing has changed in my life since the war started. So please... spare us your hyperventilating.

At the end of the day we will have spent as mucha s $1.3tn and will have had nothing to show for it except for a new generation of third world terrorist who want us all dead.
What's your source on this? What's your proof?

[scumonkey]

I want to know what BS is smoking?! :p

[bobbiesox]

Insults and slurs are the easiest way to counter intelligent arguments huh!?

[scumonkey]

If I read something intelligent I wouldn't
wonder what your smoking!;)

[bobbiesox]

If you had an intelligent argument against anything I said, you wouldn't be asking what I'm smokin'! You'd be sharing your arguments.

[ZippyTheChimp]

I don't think that's why he's asking what you're smoking.

And some people wonder why, after eight grueling years of arguably the worst presidency in US history, there is some doubt whether or not we'll re-up for four more years.

[scumonkey]

No offense, but I wouldn't know where to begin (nor would I have the time)
as I disagree with about EVERY thing I've read, that you've posted on this board (and today it's been a lot)!
Nor do I think anything- ANYBODY has to say to you-
Factual or otherwise humorous, would sway you in the least bit from
your extremely unpopular opinions.:rolleyes:
After reading all your posts....
It would be pointless for me to do anything, but to
try and get my eyes unstuck from the back of my head.:D
No arguments here

[eddhead]

^^

I kind of feel the same way. There is just so much here to respond to and so much of it is blue sky stuff, I am not really sure it is worth the time and effort.

Maybe I will feel motivated later, but really this is kind or tiresome.

[bobbiesox]

Everything I've said is indisputable. That's why you can't dispute it. It's all based in fact. The economy is resilient. Surely you can't dispute that?

[scumonkey]

Troll.....time to place on the "IGNORE" list! ;)

[Ninjahedge]

Everything I've said is indisputable. That's why you can't dispute it.

It isn't and they have.

It's all based in fact.

Just like a lot of movies are "based on a true story"? "Based" does not mean that your positions themselves are factual.

The economy is resilient. Surely you can't dispute that?

The sky is blue as well, but using that as a cover for the slump we are in is not healthy. It was resilient, but it is starting to lose its elasticity. Applying a tagline like "resilient" to a slump we have been in for more than a few months is a misnomer. "Resilient" implies a spring back, not a actual recovery or rebuilding. We are far beyond a spring-back.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Everything I've said is indisputable. That's why you can't dispute it. It's all based in fact. The economy is resilient. Surely you can't dispute that?Whatever. :rolleyes:

Rather than try to take apart all your factual errors and bizarre perceptions, for which I'd need to hire a staff, let's condense what you've posted in your short time here.

You see the world through the lens of Democrats and liberals and Republicans and conservatives; two sides that are immutable, one bad, the other good. Although you use phrases such as "typical liberal response" and the like, it is you who are most locked into a patterned response.

You view the Bush presidency as a success. The economy is doing well, or at least resilient.

For the sake of argument, I'll accept that the Bush presidency has been a success. From my experience observing politics, a successful two-term presidency would result in a high regard for the Brand of that political party. Those running for election would embrace the record of the preceding eight years as a campaign platform.

Starting with the man at the top of the heap, why are so many Republicans seeking office this November running away from the glowing Bush record?

[Ninjahedge]

Was that rhetorical Zip?

I think you are confusing me. I are not too smarts.

[BrooklynRider]

Report: Bush administration to ‘establish a diplomatic presence in Tehran.’ (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/17/iran-diplomats/)

The Bush administration “plans to establish a diplomatic presence in Tehran for the first time in 30 years (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/17/usa.iran),” the Guardian reports. This “remarkable turnaround in policy” is “dependent on agreement by Tehran”:
The Guardian has learned that an announcement will be made in the next month to establish a US interests section - a halfway house to setting up a full embassy. The move will see US diplomats stationed in the country.

The news of the shift by Bush who has pursued a hawkish approach to Iran throughout his tenure comes at a critical time in US-Iranian relations. After weeks that have seen tensions rise with Israel conducting war games and Tehran carrying out long-range missile tests, a thaw appears to be under way. […]

The return of US diplomats to Iran is dependent on agreement by Tehran. But President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad indicated earlier this week that he was not against the opening of a US mission. Iran would consider favorably any request aimed at boosting relations between the two countries, he said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/17/usa.iran

[eddhead]

OK, this will be my last response on this topic. I am just not going to waste my time responding to a bunch of opinions represented as "facts" and manipulated metrics.

I guess you've never heard of market psychology huh? He's saying the problems are REAL but if we lift the ban on drilling that will change the psychology of the futures market which places bets on what they think the price of oil will do in the FUTURE. Obviously if we're going to be drilling soon, they'll bet it will go down.

I guess YOU haven't noticed, but since Bush lifted the Presidential ban on drilling on Monday - the price of oil has FALLEN 10%! It's dropped $15 a barrel in just three days... just based on lifting part of the ban. The other part is Congressional. Imagine how much more the price might drop of the Dems in Congress could bring themselves together to drop their ban.

So I guess we can assume that further Congressional action will result crude dropping to prewar levels of $35 a gallon or so. Unless that happens, don't expect much improvement in the lives of everyday Americans. And don't hold your breadth waiting for that to happen


You're kidding me, right? You're asking me where is it documented that the economy is resilient!? The sun is in the sky. Where is that documented? It's an obvious fact. It's documented n the entire economic history of our nation over the last 50 years. The economy actually grew for more than four years AFTER 9/11. Yeah, it hit a few bumps in the road but it continued to grow and expand. In fact, it's still expanding. Not by much... but it hasn't gone into a recession.

Look up the difference between fact and opinion. Than get back to me.


Exactly! You got it. Despite ALL those problems you mentioned, the economy is still growing.

No it is not. Most economists now believe that the US economy has been contracting in both real (inflation adjusted) and nominal terms since at least the beginning of the year. Don't believe me? Read this from Forbes:

http://www.forbes.com/2008/03/14/economy-nber-feldstein-biz-beltway-cx_bw_0314economy.html

and this from Buffet:
http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSL2422759120080524

and this:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2008-04-28-economy-survey-recession_N.htm

WSJ:
http://www.financialexpress.com/news/Economists-confirm-US-recession-WSJ/284422/

and this:
http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSL2422759120080524

http://www.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUSL2474133320071024?sp=true

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-econ25-2008jun25,0,3643384.story

Like I say, it may not be by much, but just half of those problems would have put any other economy under already.

It is worth noting that the sluggish growth that has characterized the last 5 or so years has been largely fueled by an artificially inflated real estate market financed in large part by sub-prime markets and the risky derivatives that were created from them. The result is a banking industry in crisis, impending bailouts of Freddie Mae and Fannie Mac, tightening credit, an worldwide liquidity gridlock.

Perhaps you don't remember what the word "resilient" means.

Perhaps you do not know what the word "fact" means. Again, look it up.


Yeah, hardly disreputable - if you're on the Left. Then it's very reputable. However, have you noticed how liberal most universities are. Have you noticed how liberal Bloomberg is? Why should I think their figures aren't biased. You first said as high as 400,000. Now you're saying as high as 600,000. Every serious study shows the figure well under 100,000.

The 100,000 figure you quote represent DOCUMENTED casualties and is likely under-represented. In contrast, The Johns Hopkin's analysis is based on field surveys and is quite likely closer to reality. But let's assume you are correct, for a moment and that the figure is closer to 100K. Is that an acceptable figure to you? 100K innocent lives lost, is that negligible? How do you suppose we would react to a foreign invasion that resulted in the death of 100,000 US civilians? How would we perceive that country?


No, those gains aren't questionable. Those are the gains. They either have more water or they don't. And they do. It's not questionable.

The data collection methodology and primary data sources are questionable. For instance, pre-war electricity was delivered to remote cities and areas through Bagdad rerouting stations. As a result, reliable data on end users serviced prior to the war is not known. It is therefore likely that the pre-war electricity metrics you sight represent nodes serviced within bagdad, as opposed to end users.

It should also be noted that the PRIMARY sources of the data you supplied include the State Department, Defense Department, Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, hardly unbiased sources.

By the way, here are some of the metrics you did not report:

INTERNAL REFUGEES:

-June 1, 2008: At least 2.7 million people are currently displaced inside Iraq.

EMIGRANTS:

-Prewar: 500,000 Iraqis living abroad.

-April 29, 2008: Some 2 million, mainly Syria and Jordan.

No it hasn't. If it were an economic disaster we'd be in a depression. And we're not even in a recession.

Yes we are. See above.

And my life has gone on just fine - not one thing has changed in my life since the war started. So please... spare us your hyperventilating.

Perhaps you are among the 10% of the population that possess over 60% of the nation's wealth. If so, I am happy for you. But I feel for the rest.


What's your source on this? What's your proof?

Here is the current cost to date:
http://zfacts.com/p/447.html

here is a projection based on reports from MSNBC dating back to 2006
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11880954/

Here are more recent estimates on total cost according to Money Magazine:
http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/economy/iraq_war_hearing/index.htm?cnn=yes

Now please stop trolling. I am done with this.

[bobbiesox]

Eddhead, although I don't agree with you on much here, I congratulate you on this thoughtful response. I mean that sincerely.
So I guess we can assume that further Congressional action will result crude dropping to prewar levels of $35 a gallon or so. ... And don't hold your breadth waiting for that to happen
Yes, if Congress dropped the Congressional ban on drilling and actually loosened regulations to make it obvious we had a resolute determination to begin more drilling ASAP, I think the price would drop substantially. Not to $35. That's your figure. But it would drop I would imagine down to probably about $100. Still higher than a few months ago, but substantially lower than last week. And once substantial drilling began I'd imagine it would drop possibly to about $70.

"Don't hold my breath waiting" - I agree with you on that. Too bad Congressional Democrats seem to be adamantly opposed to helping the poorest among us - those who are hurt most by high energy prices.

Most economists now believe that the US economy has been contracting in both real (inflation adjusted) and nominal terms since at least the beginning of the year. Don't believe me? Read this from Forbes:

http://www.forbes.com/2008/03/14/economy-nber-feldstein-biz-beltway-cx_bw_0314economy.html
Let me just point something out here. It's fine that Martin Feldstein gave his PERSONAL OPINION that he thinks we are now in a recession. And it may turn out that he was right. But recession has a technical definition of two quarters of negative growth. And so far we have not yet had even one quarter of negative growth.
It is worth noting that the sluggish growth that has characterized the last 5 or so years has been largely fueled by an artificially inflated real estate market financed in large part by sub-prime markets and the risky derivatives that were created from them. The result is a banking industry in crisis, impending bailouts of Freddie Mae and Fannie Mac, tightening credit, an worldwide liquidity gridlock.
THIS is now a sluggish economy. We've actually had a fairly strong economy for most of the last 5 years. But now yes, it is quite sluggish. And it may tip into a recession any minute. But to date we are not in a recession.

And I agree with your characterization of our current problems. They are numerous and quite serious. It's a testament to the resiliency of the American economy that it hasn't already gone technically into a
recession.

Perhaps you do not know what the word "fact" means. Again, look it up.
Blah, blah, blah.

The 100,000 figure you quote represent DOCUMENTED casualties and is likely under-represented. In contrast, The Johns Hopkin's analysis is based on field surveys and is quite likely closer to reality. But let's assume you are correct, for a moment and that the figure is closer to 100K. Is that an acceptable figure to you? 100K innocent lives lost, is that negligible? How do you suppose we would react to a foreign invasion that resulted in the death of 100,000 US civilians? How would we perceive that country?
Even if it were just 30,000 that would be a huge number and a huge tragedy. The only way I can justify any killing is if it saves far more lives than it takes. First, we should all remember that it's not the United States that has killed most of those poor Iraqis. It was the terrorist who are trying to take Iraq over for themselves. The same terrorists who have involved themselves in such brutal and evil acts as slowly pulling a razor-sharp wire through someone's throat that even the Iraqi people have turned against them.

Here's the bottom line for me. Saddam was in power for about 20 years. And over that time at least 2,000,000 deaths are attributed to his brutality. This averages out to about 8,000 murders a month by Saddam and his henchmen. If we use your 400,000 figure for "American-caused" deaths, that would average out to about 6,700 deaths on average per month. That's less than Saddam, which means approximately 78,000 more Iraqis are alive today than would have been under Saddam. If we use iraq bodycount.org's figure of around 90,000 CONFIRMED deaths, then the monthly average is 1,500. Which means a life savings of 390,000 lives!

So yes, if we've helped save somehwere between 78,000 and 390,000 lives I'm all for it. I hate that any lives have been lost. But if on the whole tens or even hundreds of thousands more Iraqis are alive today than would have been under Saddam Hussein, then I'm all for it. That's a good thing.

Everyone tends to forget that under the seeming calm of Saddam's brutal rule thousands were being murdered each month in order to keep his regime in power. One little disagreement with Saddam and off goes your head.

The terrorist who want to take over Iraq now are no different. One little disagreement and off goes your head. They kill in order to intimidate. They kill for the sole purpose of scaring people into doing whatever they want. I'd much rather have Americans in there getting rid of them so eventually they are rendered impotent than let them take over the country again.

And one other thing you guys continually overlook in your calculation that the war was a bad thing is what Saddam may have possibly done if he had remained in power. We know he wanted to strike at us AND Israel with every bone in his body. And he was just waiting for the right time. He was waiting for all the right circumstances to come together. Wait till the West gives up on sanctions so he can go back to producing WMD, and finally launch an attack somewhere. Maybe a nice chemical or biological attack on Israel. We will never know what we may have stopped. But I'd be willing to bet deposing him has saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

How do you suppose we would react to a foreign invasion that resulted in the death of 100,000 US civilians? How would we perceive that country?
That's a great question and I'm glad you asked it. Because if the U.S. had a ruler like Saddam Hussein and a country like the U.S. came and threw him out of power I would be ETERNALLY GRATEFUL to them for ridding my country of such a despicable dicator. Absolutely forever grateful. As I must say millions of Iraqis are today that we ridded their country of that evil lying, murderous piece of crab Saddam Hussein.

[ZippyTheChimp]

He's been such a Chatty-Cathy in his short time here, I'm wondering why he didn't respond to my post (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=241019&postcount=632).

He must be busy compiling that long list of Republican candidates running on the Bush record.

As for all the grateful Iraqis, 20% of the population has been displaced. 2.8 million have had to leave their homes for other areas, and 2 million have left the country altogether, living as refugees.

All hail Bush.

[bobbiesox]

He's been such a Chatty-Cathy in his short time here, I'm wondering why he didn't respond to my post (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=241019&postcount=632).

He must be busy compiling that long list of Republican candidates running on the Bush record.

As for all the grateful Iraqis, 20% of the population has been displaced. 2.8 million have had to leave their homes for other areas, and 2 million have left the country altogether, living as refugees.

All hail Bush.
What about the 1600 - 6800 lives that have been saved each and every month on average for the last 5 years?

What about the millions more who have clean water and clean sewage? Ever think how many lives just having a modern sewage system saves?

As far as running on the Bush record... unfortuantely for the country Bush and his administration have been HORRIBLE at defending anything they've done. Every time someone attacks his record he just sits back and takes it. Who knows why? But he's done a great disservice to the country in not mounting a strong defense for the many good things he has accomplished as president.

Not the least of which is: NO TERRORIST ATTACKS SINCE 9/11! He doesn't even bother to try and defend that!

[lofter1]

That's his job ^ He blew it once. That was enough.

But it seems we're entering into a new era now.

The bobbiesox era :cool:

[Jasonik]

Not the least of which is: NO TERRORIST ATTACKS SINCE 9/11! He doesn't even bother to try and defend that!

And the Earth hasn't been hit by a comet since I've been alive... thanks to me!

Don't even bother trying to dispute that.

[ZippyTheChimp]

As far as running on the Bush record... unfortuantely for the country Bush and his administration have been HORRIBLE at defending anything they've done.Couldn't find any? Maybe you can clue them in on how well we're doing.

Every time someone attacks his record he just sits back and takes it. Who knows why?Maybe he's not as stupid as we think.

But he's done a great disservice to the country in not mounting a strong defense for the many good things he has accomplished as president.Well, you're half right.

[KenNYC]

Bush turned Europe virulently anti-American!? Hmmm... interesting.

Uhm, is this really news to you? What gutter do you live in?

Let's see, since Bush has been president France has elected its most pro-American president ever, Nicolas Sarkozy. Italy has now re-elected a pro-American, pro-Bush president. And Germany has its most pro-American chancellor in years. So how is it Bush has made Europeans hate us again?If you think the issue of "pro bush, against bush" has been even a remotely small issue in any of these elections, you are ridiculously mistaken. And saying that Italy has elected anything at all is kinda silly on its own, that country is so corrupt it makes Colombia look like a saint, Berlusconi owns Italy and he does whatever he damn well pleases with it.

Also, your position is somewhat skewed, because the candidates you might have considered "anti-American" (as you call Sarkozy etc pro-American) are the socialist sides of politics. In most of Europe, socialism has been going steadily downhill for several decades, that has nothing to do with Bush, nor with America really - we actually do understand capitalism quite well without copying America - hell, judging by the status of currency and business, it seems we understand it a good bit better than America these days.

You know, over here, we're not even in a recession ;)

Sarkozy openly proclaimed his love for America. He even came here during the French campaign to make sure the point was clear. You guys have a very interesting take on the facts.Yes, a lot of political figures in Europe are doing whatever they can to bridge the gaps between Europe and America. Please remember that these gaps were, by and large, created by the Bush administration. The relationship between Europe and America was excellent in the Clinton years, Bush came along and alienated the entire world, and it's now up to Europe to reconstruct the relationships, as the current administration somehow seems to believe the world is still a unilateral system. Oh, how reality will come crashing down... Stay assured however that we are rebuilding the relationship to America not to Bush. Speaking as a European I can guarantee you, America's "approval rating" in Europe has never in history been lower than it is now. Even the people that "like America" are looking down on it, unlike before when much of Europe looked up to America as some sort of ideal, at least in some respects.

When I talk to people, and most of the people I know are business professionals on a higher level, and I tell them I am moving to America I have not yet gotten a single answer that has been anything else than "Why would you want that?". Back in the Clinton years moving to America was, in the business communities, seen as an ambitious move, nowadays you pretty much get looked at as if you are the village idiot for considering that.

You will find very few people in Europe at this time that has a single positive word to say about Bush and the politics he has run.

But he's done a great disservice to the country in not mounting a strong defense for the many good things he has accomplished as president.

Uhm, just to satisfy my curiosity, could you name one thing?

[eddhead]

Uhm, just to satisfy my curiosity, could you name one thing?

Well, the Earth has not been hit by a comet. Oh wait.. that is because of Jasonik ;)

[ZippyTheChimp]

Let's see, since Bush has been president France has elected its most pro-American president ever, Nicolas Sarkozy. Italy has now re-elected a pro-American, pro-Bush president. And Germany has its most pro-American chancellor in years. So how is it Bush has made Europeans hate us again?You have an insular viewpoint if you think that you can gauge public opinion in a foreign country toward the US by the officials they elect.

Pew Global Attitudes Report (http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=260)



Lessons from the 2008 Pew Global Attitudes Survey

June 19, 2008

At a briefing for journalists at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. on June 12, 2008, Pew Research Center President Andrew Kohut and two outside commentators, columnist David Brooks and editor Moises Naim, described the major findings from the latest Pew Global Attitudes Survey of 24 nations and discussed their implications for U.S. foreign policy and the global climate of opinion. In the following edited excerpt from the briefing transcript, ellipses have been omitted to improve readability.

Speakers:
Andrew Kohut, President, Pew Research Center and Director, Pew Global Attitudes Project
David Brooks, columnist, The New York Times
Moises Naim, editor-in-chief, Foreign Policy


ANDREW KOHUT: This is the seventh major survey in the six years that we've been doing this polling. Over the years, we've interviewed nearly 180,000 people in 54 countries. This survey was conducted in 24 countries, with about 25,000 interviews and features attitudes toward the United States, international issues, economic issues, and especially, attitudes toward China, given the run-up to the Beijing Olympics. A subsequent report in this series will deal with opinions in China about issues facing the Chinese people, which will be released in mid-July, and then we will have a small release on issues among Muslim publics scheduled for late July or early August.

But this first release is more in keeping with the general tone of our surveys, dealing with the image of the United States. I guess we've been most famous for chronicling the rise of anti-Americanism in this decade, but for the first time, in this poll, we have some encouraging signs about the image of the United States. While the image of the U.S. remains negative or mixed in most of the nations in this survey, we see some increase in the favorability ratings of the U.S. In fact, in 10 of the 21 countries where trends are available, the favorability ratings of the U.S. have gone up - in Asia, South Korea and Indonesia in particular. My guess is that the South Korean opinion of the U.S. in April, when we surveyed there, is quite a bit different than the South Korean opinion today, but that's just a guess.

To me what's significant is not that we have increases, small increases, in 10 countries; it's that we have any increases whatsoever because, over the course of these years, the numbers have been relentless negative - either flat or down. And I think the fact that there are some increases in favorable opinions means that the climate of opinion of the United States is changing. There is not the consistent relentless negativity that we've seen over the years and that's allowed people in some countries, for particular reasons, to have better views of the United States.

No Sea Change. Nonetheless, I want to emphasize that there's no sea change in views of the U.S. Opinions of the United States in Western Europe are still largely pretty negative. Only a third of the Germans now rate the U.S. favorably, that's down from nearly 80% back at the beginning of the decade. Only a narrow majority of the British - 53% -- now have a favorable view of the U.S.; 8 years ago, 83% did. And opinions about the U.S. remain extremely negative in the Muslim world: 12% favorable in Turkey, 19% in Jordan, 22% in Egypt. I might add that the numbers are up a bit in Turkey; they were 9% last year; now they've "surged" to 12%. And more generally in the Muslim countries, not only are opinions of the United States unfavorable, but opinions of the American people are also unfavorable.

More generally, I think this improved climate of opinion about the United States reflects an anticipation of a change in the White House. As his second term ends, confidence in President Bush to doing the right thing with regard to foreign policy, is 65% to 70% negative in most of the countries we surveyed.

Election Watchers. And the poll found many people in this survey, majorities in some countries, saying that they've been paying close attention to the American election. In fact, in Japan, 83% of the people we polled said that they were following the election news very or fairly closely, which compares with 80% in the United States. But it's not only Japan; majorities in several countries - and percentages in the 30s and 40s in a number of other countries - are watching closely. That's a sizeable number of people to be paying attention to an election in a foreign country.

And, except in countries that are extremely anti-American, the Muslim countries, we find most people saying that they think that the next president will represent a change for the better with respect to foreign policy. In particular, the poll finds very strong positive opinions about Barack Obama. He has great international appeal; just about everywhere, greater numbers expressed confidence in Barack Obama than in John McCain. I think there's a high set of expectations for Obama, perhaps because he's associated with the Democratic Party in opposition to Iraq, and perhaps because of his personal appeal, but he seems very, very well-regarded.

Economic Blues. The poll does point to one problem lurking for the United States, and it's not a minor one. That is global economic gloom: In 18 of the 24 countries, majorities of people said that their economy is not going well. In Britain, the percentage saying that the economy is in good shape fell from 69% to 30%; in Turkey, from 46% to 21%. And the implication for the United States is that most of the people in most of these countries say that what happens in the American economy affects their economy, and most go on to say that what's happening in the American economy is having a bad effect on their economies. That's obviously not something that's driving the numbers down now because they're not going down, but it is a potential problem.

China Parallels. We spent a lot of time looking at China because of the upcoming Beijing Olympics. We see China's favorable ratings slipping further. Since last year, China's popularity has declined somewhat in nine of 21 countries where trends are available, while increasing in only two countries and remaining basically stable in 10. China's ratings also fell between 2006 and 2007, so this is a continuation of the trend.

We're struck by the parallel nature of opinions about China and the United States. The overall favorable scores of the two countries are about the same but there are other similarities as well. Both China and the United States are seen as having a powerful impact on what happens in one's own country. It's not always judged as positive. And we also see that both countries are accused of taking a unilateral approach to foreign policy.

Despite all the criticisms of China and concerns about China, there is continued support for the Olympics being held in Beijing. As to timing, the survey was done in April, a period in which there was a great deal of negative publicity for China with respect to Tibet. And it was obviously done well before the earthquake, which might have created a bit of sympathy for China. In any event, you should recognize that that's the context for this survey.

DAVID BROOKS: One of the headlines I take away from this - if you remember Sally Field won the Academy Award a few years ago and said, you really, really like me - it's you really, really don't hate me as much as you used to. So that is a good thing. America's approval in the world is low, but it is rising.

Agenda Shift. The second headline, to me, is that the Obama effect is real. If you covered the presidential primary campaigns, you noticed that there were maybe, I'd say, 30 American reporters around Barack Obama at any given time, but there were usually about 600 foreign reporters around him. I don't know why Finnish Broadcasting can afford to send 20 reporters, but there are Finns, there are Brits, there are Nigerians, Japanese. The global interest is big and it's obviously reflected in this poll.

It seems to me one of the results of this poll is that we are leaving an era in which global opinion was dominated by 9/11, and entering an era in which it is dominated by other stuff. And, I think, the diminution of the Bush administration, the waning of the U.S. fight versus terrorism as the central axis of global affairs, are a bit reflected in this. The looking to something else - whether it is a look to an Obama presidency, a McCain presidency, [or to] a different matrix of issues [that is] determining people's opinions about the U.S. and other leaders around the world - strikes me as a very important sign that terrorism is declining in saliency. Economics is going up. The fact that now people find reasons to dislike us because we are hurting the world economy is a sign of that. I would point out that we didn't get credit when the world economy was doing great, but now we get discredit when it is doing badly. But that is just the nature of being a superpower.

Regional Rivalries. I was also struck by the fact that that the U.S. has one of the more anti-trade public opinions in the world. (MR. KOHUT: The most.) The most. That is really astounding for a country that has been the engine of free trade since World War II. But I think - again, to get back to this point - we are into a post-9/11 era. Now the debate is about what this new era is going to look like. We are having that debate in the U.S. A friend of mine named Fareed Zakaria [editor of Newsweek International] thinks we are seeing the rise of the rest, not necessarily a global competition, but the rise of a lot of regional powers. Another friend of mine, [scholar and political commentator] Bob Kagan, thinks we are going to enter an era of 19th century great power rivalry betweem Iran, Russia, China -- great regional powers -- and the U.S. as a great regional power.

I think you see the effects of that kind of jockeying -- the rise of the rest, either in a happy way, as Zacharia prophesizes, or in a much nastier way, as Kagan prophesizes -- in these polls. I direct your attention toward the back of the report, where people look at Iran, look at Putin, and look at China, in particular. You see the unpopularity of [Iran President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad in some parts of the world, and the surprisingly high popularity of Ahmadinejad in other parts of the world. In Nigeria, 61% of Muslims say they have a lot of some confidence in Ahmadinejad. [Russian Prime Minister and former president Vladimir] Putin, is not very well-liked in certain parts of the world, but extremely well-liked in Russia.

Complicated Unpopularity. I want to complicate this idea in my second major point, which is that even where the U.S. is at its most unpopular, the situation is more complex. I was struck by the fact that despite our general unpopularity, across the surveyed countries, a [median] average of 65% still believe the U.S. government respects personal freedoms. Roughly the same proportion of people believe that of the French government. That is more than twice as high as the number of people who believe that of the Chinese government, twice as high as the Russian government, three times as high as the Saudi government, and six times as high as the Iranian government. So for all the unpopularity of the United States, people around the world still have a basic faith in the American system of government.

I was at an Orioles game a couple of years ago and while we were walking out of the ballpark a Yankees hat was lying on the parking lot ground. Somebody kicked the Yankees hat, and then another person kicked it, and another person kicked it. And pretty soon 30 and 40 people had gathered around this hat just stomping it and kicking it around. If you are the Yankees of the world, you are always going to be hated to some extent -- not as much as we are now, but we are never going to be popular. And one of the virtues of being a Jew is that sometimes when people hate you, you know it's not your fault. [Laughter.] Sometimes some of the things the U.S. has done are obviously going to alienate people, but sometimes it's not our fault.

So the third thing to be said in this regard is that the practical effect is complicated. In Europe, the U.S. is extremely unpopular. But that doesn't seem to have affected who gets elected to office: Merkel, Sarkozy, Berlusconi, these are among the most pro-American politicians on the continent. They still managed to get elected. So you can't draw a straight line between unpopularity and practical political effect. I think that is something that needs to be underlined.

'Soft Power' Power. And then my final point -- because I am an opinion journalist -- is to ask: What is there to do about this? I don't think either candidate has much of a thought of what to do about it. Barack Obama, simply by his person, obviously, is going to have a big effect on the result -- and this study certainly suggests that will happen. But it seems to me the U.S. has to take a break from trying to push political change. Because of the unpopularity of the U.S. that lingers, it is just not going to be something we can do particularly effectively. But as someone who travels around the world a fair bit, it seems to me -- and this survey also suggests - that what people still have faith in are America's underlying ideas, including the idea of government having respect for its citizens. Most important, I think, is that people should have the ability to realize the most of their capacities.

In countries around the world, whether America is popular or unpopular, one thing that is certainly true is that a lot of people want to come to school here. And that is because they believe the United States society tries to make the best use of individuals' abilities. It seems to me as American politicians think about soft power, that should be the central theme -- that every society should make the most of its talents, and that the U.S. should do whatever it can to help societies make the most of their talents.

If you go to China, you meet incredibly smart people in government. That's because the Chinese have this hyper-SAT testing system, where only the tippy-top smartest people in society get to go into government. That is actually a reasonably impressive system. I'm not sure I would want it for this country, but it does mean talent is rewarded. And championing that sort of reward for talent is non-confrontational, it is non-political. It is something that the U.S. can authentically do, I think, to project soft power and make us even less hated than we are now.

MOISES NAIM: In reading this report I discovered five surprises, two policy implications, and one recommendation for Andy for a set of questions that I think could be very interesting to include in the next iteration of the survey.

Election Benefits. The first surprise is how little it seems to have taken for the world to soften its negative attitudes towards the United States. If it is true that anti-Americanism is abating, then you have to ask yourself, well, what did the United States do in order to change it? What were the policy changes that created these more favored attitudes? Nothing. All that has happened is that President Bush's term is coming to an end, and the U.S. is holding elections and some surprising candidates have emerged like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. And this seems to have been enough to generate renewed sympathy --or at least to help recover some of the lost ground in terms of America's standing in the world. So that is a surprise. Doing very little, the United States seems to have altered, at least a little bit, the trend toward negativity around the world.

Overrated U.S. Influence. The second surprise is the overestimation of U.S. economic influence. There is no argument that the United States, its policies and its economy, have consequences for the world economy. But there are other factors that the world doesn't seem to recognize. In reading this, I had a feeling that it was almost as if the world thought that the United States was the only economy that called the shots. And we know that that is not the case. We know, for example, that part of the inflation in food prices that the world is experiencing has to do with the extremely successful boom of economies like India and China. And so it may be that current economic woes, especially the inflationary ones, are not exclusively or only related to the United States. Yet there is little recognition of this fact.

China/India Hype. My third surprise is how upbeat everybody is about China and India. These feelings are reasonable, justified, and worthy of applause and hope. And yet, how easy it is to forget that these are, in many ways, still highly vulnerable countries These are not countries without problems and one has to be careful not to celebrate too much, because whenever there is a boom we have painfully learned to be careful and expect that something is likely to go wrong. It is very hard for countries to grow 10% or 11% per year without tripping; without something happening that impairs that growth. And if those large and important countries suffer a growth-impairing accident, the spillover of the economic woes into their politics and social turmoil are almost guaranteed -- and that will, of course, have ripple effects around the world

Globalized Politics. The fourth surprise was already mentioned by both Andy and David, and this is that the world loves Obama. If the election was held today in the world, according to these surveys, Obama would win by large margins almost everywhere. And again, this is interesting because, as well know, the reality is that those expressing positive views toward Obama around the world are unlikely to know him well or have a clear view of the policies he proposes. What drives them is Obama's' exceptional personality and his very unique personal story. Obviously, the fact that someone with that story and that skin color can become the president of the United States is a powerful -- and positive -- surprise for the world.

This enthusiasm for Obama -- and also the extreme attention the world is paying to the election (and it is fascinating to see people in other countries trying to understand what a caucus is and how they work -- things that we in the U.S. don't even understand well) -- these speak to the globalization of politics. Whenever we talk about globalization, what comes to mind is trade, and investment, the internet, and all that. Well, there is a very powerful globalization of politics taking place and perhaps you could even argue that political globalization is transforming the world in different ways than economic globalization is.

Just imagine some young, aspiring politicians in countries that don't have as free a system watching the process through which Barack Obama became the candidate of the Democratic Party in this country. That has to spark imaginations and generate all sorts of expectations, demands, and hopes for populations and for politicians around the world. The process of contagion -- which I think is a positive contagion -- in which politics gets transmitted and certain political norms and practices are impossible to escape -- is a very powerful and perhaps transformative one.

Underrated Globalization. The fifth surprise is one that David also mentioned. That is the paradox that the country that benefits most from economic globalization increasingly doubts its value. Page 7 of the report notes that support for international trade continues to decline in the United States -- 53% of Americans now say that trade is good for the country, down from 59% last year and 78% in 2002.

If you go around and ask other countries who benefits most from trade, their reaction is clearly that the United States is one of the largest beneficiaries of the current system of trade and investment in the world. And, yet almost half of American citizens don't think that's true.

Demand for U.S. Reengagement. So those are my five surprises. The policy implication is that I believe that this survey, in combination with others, shows that there is a very interesting alignment both around the globe and in the United States demanding reengagement of the United States with the world. Even in countries with large anti-American majorities, you can detect a certain yearning for American leadership. Not the U.S. leadership that invades other countries preemptively, that bullies allies, prefers unilateralism and disdains international organizations, or the America of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, but the America that rallies other countries, that supplies the funds for initiatives that are needed for a better functioning world and that without American leadership, without American funding, without American energy in mobilizing wills, will not happen.3

So there is a demand elsewhere for America's role and there is also demand in the United States' political system for something to be done differently in terms of what the United States should do and how should it stand in the world. Many Americans are embarrassed by the way many erstwhile friends of the U. S. now think of the country. This brings me to my final point, which is the information that I miss in this report and would be very interested to see in future ones.

Danger of Double Standards. David talked about soft power and the importance of the United States gaining influence through the deployment of its soft power. That is a valid point. But it is important to keep in mind that on the other side of the coin -- the flip side of soft power -- are the double standards that stain the reputation of the United States abroad. The United States, for example, that champions human rights and pushes other countries to respect them and then experiences Abu Ghraib and defends Guantanamo or declares that the Geneva conventions are obsolete. The country that keeps an embargo on Cuba but has a positive and thriving relationship with Vietnam and its communist government. The country that want others to play by the rules and respect international law and then flaunts them. The country that defends and promotes democracy in some countries and defends and promotes dictators in others.

If you go around the world and you ask people why they dislike the United States, what one often gets is a litany of denunciations related to these double standards: Americans ask others to do certain things and to adopt certain policies that they are not willing to uphold, defend and implement in their own country. That issue, I think, is at the core of a lot of anti-American sentiment and it would be wonderful to have more exploration of those views in future surveys.


Copyright © 2008 Pew Research Center

[scumonkey]

Long but VERY good read, Thanks for that Zippy!
Maybe our next one will at least know how to read?
http://thephoenix.com/OutsideTheFrame/content/binary/bush%20upside%20down%20book.jpg

[eddhead]

^^

I agree. And despite the length, I think the commentators did an excellent job in summing up and highlighting the strategic points. Not to mention keeping David Brooks at bay ;)

[bobbiesox]

the candidates you might have considered "anti-American" (as you call Sarkozy etc pro-American) are the socialist sides of politics. In most of Europe, socialism has been going steadily downhill for several decades, that has nothing to do with Bush, nor with America really
The point being that if Europeans did indeed hate America as much as you guys like to claim, they certainly wouldn't have voted in - almost unanimously - pro-American candidates. If their hatred of America was an important issue to them they wouldn't have. So obviously either they don't hate America or they hate it but it's not an important issue. Either way I don't see how America is harmed or how Bush has harmed America when Europe is electing more PRO-American candidates THAN EVER!

The fact is - it's not the world that hates America... it's the Left. The Left around the world and the Left in our own country. The Left always hates America - even if they're American. But there's nothing any president can do to change this except become a Leftist (as Obama is).

But as you helpfully pointed out - socialism (the result of Leftist ideology) is on the slide in Europe. And for good reason. They've experienced it first hand.

[lofter1]

I hate bs more than anything else.

[ZippyTheChimp]

The point being that if Europeans did indeed hate America as much as you guys like to claim, they certainly wouldn't have voted in - almost unanimously - pro-American candidates.The point is that you have no basis to make that claim. It just fits your argument.

If their hatred of America was an important issue to them they wouldn't have.Who said it was important in choosing their political leaders?

So obviously either they don't hate America or they hate it but it's not an important issue.You're the one that made it important by introducing the topic.

Either way I don't see how America is harmed or how Bush has harmed America when Europe is electing more PRO-American candidates THAN EVER!Explain the yearly surveys.

The fact is - it's not the world that hates America... it's the Left..If it's a FACT, explain how the people who elected all those Rightist leaders still have negative feelings toward the US.

The Left always hates America - even if they're American. But there's nothing any president can do to change this except become a Leftist (as Obama is).This is typical crap from someone who has pigeonholed himself into one rigid line of thought, and still accuses others of the same thing.

You've got nothing. You don't know what you're talking about, and you make it more evident with each post.

[Fabrizio]

I was really curious about this poster's name: bobbiesox.... who is that?.... what on earth could it mean? Then I looked it up:

"A bobby sock is a type of sock that was especially fashionable in the 1940s and 1950s. They are characteristically ankle-length and frilly, and worn by girls often as part of a school uniform."

It's just so weird...

but that's Republicans for you.


--

[KenNYC]

The point being that if Europeans did indeed hate America as much as you guys like to claim, they certainly wouldn't have voted in - almost unanimously - pro-American candidates. If their hatred of America was an important issue to them they wouldn't have. So obviously either they don't hate America or they hate it but it's not an important issue. Either way I don't see how America is harmed or how Bush has harmed America when Europe is electing more PRO-American candidates THAN EVER!

I don't think I ever said Europeans hate America. Quite frankly, pretty much all Europeans have a problem with Bush and his politics, not with America itself. We are very aware of the fact that only half of you voted for him (and a bit less than half of you the first time around). We do not hate you at all, we strongly dislike the direction American politics have taken in a global perspective however. Pretty much everyone does. As far as I can tell, even most republicans are rather ashamed of having Bush as a president.

The fact is - it's not the world that hates America... it's the Left. The Left around the world and the Left in our own country. The Left always hates America - even if they're American. But there's nothing any president can do to change this except become a Leftist (as Obama is). This is just retarded.

But as you helpfully pointed out - socialism (the result of Leftist ideology) is on the slide in Europe. And for good reason. They've experienced it first hand.I really shouldn't get into a political conversation with someone as clueless and obviously just trying to troll as yourself... But for what it's worth, European politics is dominated by capitalist business politics and socialist social politics. This isn't going to change, and I don't think you'll find any of these Pro-American (And I don't really know why you feel like Sarkozy etc is particularly Pro-American, he has very frequently criticized Bush' politics etc) to be against socialized welfare etc.

[Ninjahedge]

And the Earth hasn't been hit by a comet since I've been alive... thanks to me!

Don't even bother trying to dispute that.


Actually, it is simpler than that JK....

Why bother spending $$ to send terrorists over to the US, situate them, train them and plan a whole thing that takes years (9 years between the WTC bombing and 9-11) when you can get a frustrated brainwashed teenager to drive a car with explosives into a checkpoint for much much less time, effort and money?

I just love these assinine "no terrorists attacks since 9-11" comments.

[scumonkey]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFR9TNsByLk

[eddhead]

One final response to bobbiesox, and I believes this emphasizes zip's point.

It is a stretch to assume that in electing pro-market leaders, europeans are embracing either Bush or the US broadly. More than a stretch in fact, it is a mistake. What you are seeing is a greater understanding of the economic consequences of globalization and a rejection of socialist principles that created an uncompetitive environment for Europe throughout 90's. Quite frankly Europe came to realize they could not continue compete in the global arena by traveling along the same path they were heading toward.

But anyone who thinks Europeans are embracing Bush doesn't know or correspond with many Europeans.

[NYatKNIGHT]

The fact is - it's not the world that hates America... it's the Left. The Left around the world and the Left in our own country. The Left always hates America - even if they're American. But there's nothing any president can do to change this except become a Leftist (as Obama is).Did Ann Coulter join the board?

[Jasonik]

God bless San Francisco!

CNN’s Dan Simon looks at a San Francisco ballot initiative that would rename a sewer plant for President George W. Bush.

This video (http://rawstory.com/rawreplay/?p=1537) is from CNN’s American Morning, broadcast July 23, 2008.

[Ninjahedge]

God bless San Francisco!

CNN’s Dan Simon looks at a San Francisco ballot initiative that would rename a sewer plant for President George W. Bush.

This video (http://rawstory.com/rawreplay/?p=1537) is from CNN’s American Morning, broadcast July 23, 2008.


Funny.

http://datacore.sciflicks.com/spaceballs/images/spaceballs_large_06.jpg

[BrooklynRider]

As if sewage doesn't have a bad enough reputation, it now has to be forever linked to George W. Bush.

[bobbiesox]

I don't think I ever said Europeans hate America. Quite frankly, pretty much all Europeans have a problem with Bush and his politics, not with America itself. We are very aware of the fact that only half of you voted for him (and a bit less than half of you the first time around). We do not hate you at all, we strongly dislike the direction American politics have taken in a global perspective however. Pretty much everyone does. As far as I can tell, even most republicans are rather ashamed of having Bush as a president.
Great, so Bush then has not done any damage to America's reputation abroad. I agree. If they hated Bush so much it's certainly becomes difficult to explain why they keep electing leaders who like and agree with Bush isn't it? I mean, it kind of means their leaders are going to act in conjunction with Bush - not in opposition to him.

So the liberal argument that Bush has ruined America's reputation abroad just doesn't hold up.

[bobbiesox]

One final response to bobbiesox, and I believes this emphasizes zip's point.

It is a stretch to assume that in electing pro-market leaders, europeans are embracing either Bush or the US broadly. More than a stretch in fact, it is a mistake. What you are seeing is a greater understanding of the economic consequences of globalization and a rejection of socialist principles that created an uncompetitive environment for Europe throughout 90's. Quite frankly Europe came to realize they could not continue compete in the global arena by traveling along the same path they were heading toward.

But anyone who thinks Europeans are embracing Bush doesn't know or correspond with many Europeans.
Right. You're in essence agreeing with me... that Bush hasn't damaged this country with our foreign allies. They're still our allies. And since Bush has been president they have elected leaders who are even more likely to follow the U.S. lead in foreign affairs.

So however you want to interpret how they really feel - the bottom line is - Bush's presidency has not hurt our relationships with our allies. If anything it has helped them.

[bobbiesox]

INTERNAL REFUGEES:

-June 1, 2008: At least 2.7 million people are currently displaced inside Iraq.

China (http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2008/07/16/as_olympics_near_many_chinese_homes_face_wrecking_ ball/) has created 1.25 million refugees as it has thrown that many people out of their homes to make way for the Olympics.

The Sudan has created millions of refugees as its government has been on a rampage of terror for years.

You would have a lot more credibility when you express concern for the Iraqi refugee problem if I also heard you railing against these other ongoing refugee situations.

[ZippyTheChimp]

It's bad enough to make a ridiculous assertion, but to draw attention to it by repeating it is beyond belief.

Checked the latest polls. You're now in the group of 13%.

Bush gets serious about the economy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrzFyeHSRJI)

[ZippyTheChimp]

China (http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2008/07/16/as_olympics_near_many_chinese_homes_face_wrecking_ ball/) has created 1.25 million refugees as it has thrown that many people out of their homes to make way for the Olympics.

The Sudan has created millions of refugees as its government has been on a rampage of terror for years.We have threads on atrocities and injustice around the world.

You are making a Straw Man argument.

You can look it up.

[lofter1]

I've never actually experienced the feeling of my skin crawling before.

But in the past week it's happening quite a bit.

maybe it's an allergy of sorts.

I know when I opened up this thread just now it literally CREEPY crawled.

:eek:

Yuccch.

[Ninjahedge]

BS, the main problem with your arguments, or suppositions, is that they are not based on anything. You are whitewashing things and saying such BRILLIANT pearls of wisdom as:

"Well, if all the worlds leaders say they do not like Bush, and our approval rating as a nation has dropped dramatically since the Clinton years, that does not mean that Bush contributed at all to the worlds dislike of us! Oh, by the way, they kill babies in Darfur, so how can we be held responsible for Global Warming/War in Iraq/Recession/poor foreign relations/[insert established administration shortcoming here] if they are killing babies in another part of the world??!?!?"


Come back to Earth BS.

[lofter1]

... Bush hasn't damaged this country with our foreign allies. They're still our allies ...

So however you want to interpret how they really feel - the bottom line is -

Bush's presidency has not hurt our relationships with our allies. If anything it has helped them.

Don't be so sure.

First, remember the importance of trade between the USA <> our allies.

For example the USA is Germany's largest trading partner (http://usa.usembassy.de/garelations.htm) outside the EU.

Smart folks know it's best NOT to bite the hand that feeds you -- as is evidenced by the behavior of the USA towards China under GWB.

Meanwhile, over in Germany (http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,3507071,00.html) ...


A significant part of Obama's popularity in Germany can be traced to the deep antipathy many Germans feel toward George W. Bush, particularly in the wake of the Iraq War.

There is an undertone of relief among German politicians that Bush will be gone in 2009. Asked about Obama's visit, figures from all the major parties stressed their hopes for greater cooperation, partnership and closeness between Germany and the US.

Most German leaders have been careful not to stray beyond such generalisms to avoid affronting Obama's Republican rival, John McCain, who has become a virtual non-entity in the German media.

But the Green Party's Deputy Parliamentary Leader voiced what many politicians, especially on the left, probably feel, when he told reporters, "Barack Obama's visit shows: there is another America."


From: http://usa.usembassy.de/images/nav-e.gif

http://germany.usembassy.gov/uploads/N9/SF/N9SFOLNNAE05pp48UuYVvw/sealmission.jpg
http://germany.usembassy.gov/uploads/1a/pK/1apKFhDMxL2o3vQdcd5vBQ/mission_germany.jpg (http://germany.usembassy.gov/index.html)

[eddhead]

Right. You're in essence agreeing with me... that Bush hasn't damaged this country with our foreign allies. They're still our allies. And since Bush has been president they have elected leaders who are even more likely to follow the U.S. lead in foreign affairs.

So however you want to interpret how they really feel - the bottom line is - Bush's presidency has not hurt our relationships with our allies. If anything it has helped them.

Stop twisting my words, and if you are going to do so, please do a better job.

The Bush presidency more specifically our conduct in executing the war in Iraq has diminished our worldwide reputation for civility, fairness and respect of other cultures among both allies and enemies alike. We can no longer take the high road as it relates to due process, human rights and fair treatment of prisoners. We threw away the Geneva convention, a guideline this country all but unilaterally wrote after WW2 which contains principles we have followed since the revolutionary war. As the previous survey our reputation is at an extreme low point. The fact that Europe has elected pro-market leaders does not mean they like us - believe it or not, it is NOT all about the US in Europe. Indeed, Europe now sees us as being decidedly anti-fair trade, but that is a topic for another thread. We have not helped th Europeans, they have helped themselves.

[eddhead]

China (http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2008/07/16/as_olympics_near_many_chinese_homes_face_wrecking_ ball/) has created 1.25 million refugees as it has thrown that many people out of their homes to make way for the Olympics.

The Sudan has created millions of refugees as its government has been on a rampage of terror for years.

You would have a lot more credibility when you express concern for the Iraqi refugee problem if I also heard you railing against these other ongoing refugee situations.

What a ridiculous statement. The fact that Sudan and China have created millions of refugees makes it OK for us to do so as well in Iraq? That is what we aspire to be as a country? China and Sudan are our role models?

I am sorry, but the fact Iraq refugees are the result of US actions does anger me, because I am a US citizen and I believe we should be better than that. Apparently you have set a lower bar.

This is not even worth further response.

[scumonkey]

http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb276/scumonkey/bush-dumps-on-the-world.jpg

[kliq6]

As a person that has traveled to Europe many times and has a Italian Born mother, the overwhelming feeling among people is they love what America stands for in terms of our founding and most of our history but cant stand Bush and how he has used and exploited our emotions after the 9/11 attacks.

Bush has not destroyed but damaged our reputations but thankfully its something that with a new leader that is not out to fight his modern day crusade, we can fix this. The economy is also something to look at how overall besides the oil industry( which he and Dick are a major player in) they have neglected the overall economy from day one and has not provided really anything to offer proposal wise to do anything for most sectors, thus why there has been a across the board breakdown in the economy.

Overall I am a Democrat but have friends who are Republicans, thankfully they are not conservative religious nuts and our more of the fiscal conservative type. to a person they are all pissed at how this President has spent more then the so called "liberal tax and spenders" that came before him and has killed their idea of the Republican brand. I cant for the life of my understand how anyone can look at this administration and with a straight face defend it and say how great its done!

[Jasonik]

Bush era in a nutshell. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vL_76KEp2Gk)

[bobbiesox]

The Bush presidency more specifically our conduct in executing the war in Iraq has diminished our worldwide reputation for civility, fairness and respect of other cultures among both allies and enemies alike. We can no longer take the high road as it relates to due process, human rights and fair treatment of prisoners.
Oh please! We have the highest civility, fairness, respect for other cultures, etc. than any other country on earth! We might look pretty bad if you compare us to some utopian dream, but how do we look compared to everyone else!?

We threw away the Geneva convention, a guideline this country all but unilaterally wrote after WW2 which contains principles we have followed since the revolutionary war.
Are you kidding me!? First of all, we've followed the Geneva conventions pretty closely - even though al Qaida is NOT covered under it! The Geneva conventions were a contract between nations, that was signed between participating countries. Those who didn't sign declared their intention NOT to participate. And part of what makes them work is that if you don't participate in the responsibilities of the Geneva Conventions, then you're not covered by the rights it bestows. Get real you guys. Seriously! WAKE UP!

Not only did al Qaida not sign (because they didn't exist, and they're not a country), but they also don't play by ANY of the rules of the Geneva Conventions. If anyone was meant not to be covered by the GCs it's THEM! And yet we've been incredibly humane in our treatment of them. Bestowing legal rights upon them. Letting them worship by providing them Qur'ans and prayer mats and daily times to pray. Geesh... you think any American would be given anything close to that kind of treatment if they were held prisoner by al Qaida!? No. We know they wouldn't. We know they'd get their throats slashed.

Take pride in your country man! Feel great about it! All this negativity coming from the Left is making me depressed. We're the most amazing nation on earth.

As the previous survey our reputation is at an extreme low point. The fact that Europe has elected pro-market leaders does not mean they like us - believe it or not, it is NOT all about the US in Europe.
That's my point. If they disliked us anywhere near as much as you guys say they do (i.e. with seething hatred) there's no way they'd keep electing pro-American leaders. Did we ever elect pro-Soviet leaders? No! And their friendly attitude towards the Soviet Union (George McGovern) was a big part of the reason why we didn't elect them. So believe me when the electorate of a nation hates one of the world's super powers enough they will definitely not elect leaders who are friendly to that "evil" superpower.

Anyway, the bottom line is - whatever they say in these touchy-feely polls ("how do you FEEL about America") doesn't really matter does it? What really matters is how they ACT towards us. And they keep electing leaders who are more friendly to us than their previous leaders. So obviously all this "hatred" isn't doing us any harm. Good news eh!?

What a ridiculous statement. The fact that Sudan and China have created millions of refugees makes it OK for us to do so as well in Iraq? That is what we aspire to be as a country? China and Sudan are our role models?
You are purposely ignoring my point. Obviously, if it's bad for the U.S. to do it, it must be bad for China and the Sudan to do it... right? I mean we do hold everyone to the same standards of morality don't we? So why do I hear so much bitter complaining about this when the U.S. does it, but I haven't heard a single bitter word from the Left about the Sudan or about China! Interesting, eh?

I am sorry, but the fact Iraq refugees are the result of US actions does anger me, because I am a US citizen and I believe we should be better than that. Apparently you have set a lower bar.
Tha'ts what I thought you were going to say. Obviously, if we don't rally world opinion against China and Sudan, then the superpowers - like the U.S. and Europe who could actually do something about it aren't ever going to. I'd expect that you would be spending your time on these public forums trying to rally opinion against Chian and Sudan since combined they're a far worse dislocater of persons than the U.S.

As a person that has traveled to Europe many times and has a Italian Born mother, the overwhelming feeling among people is they love what America stands for in terms of our founding and most of our history but cant stand Bush and how he has used and exploited our emotions after the 9/11 attacks.
As a person who lived in Europe for several years and still maintains an apartment in France where I spend a good 3-4 months each and every year, I think I might have a little more insight than you on this subject. With all due respect to your Italian-born mother.

First, Europeans have a very different idea about what a successful country is. In their mind it is one where the government really takes care of its citizens. They're hardly moved about the sky-high taxes they pay to maintain this system. It doesn't bother the average Frenchman that fully half of all French people make less than $1800 a month. As long as they get their free medical care and 6 weeks of vacation they're a pretty happy lot! So they have a built-in bias against the American system. Especially when the American system is led by Republicans. Republicans as you know have the exact opposite view on things as most Europeans. Democrats are pretty much right in line with their thinking.

So everytime America has a Republican president Europe gets pretty alarmed. This is certainly in no way unique to George Bush. Remember Ronald Reagan? They ridiculed him till the cows came home. They were extremely afraid of him. They were alarmed to almost the point of mental illness when he called the Soviet Union an evil empire! But look what happened. He ended up being the American president who finally pushed the Soviet Union over the edge. He was right. They were wrong. And the same is true with George Bush.

Overall I am a Democrat but have friends who are Republicans, thankfully they are not conservative religious nuts and our more of the fiscal conservative type. to a person they are all pissed at how this President has spent more then the so called "liberal tax and spenders" that came before him and has killed their idea of the Republican brand. I cant for the life of my understand how anyone can look at this administration and with a straight face defend it and say how great its done!
I agree with you that! I'm only defending them on the Iraq war. I've never defended this administration on economics.

[scumonkey]

Remember Ronald Reagan? They ridiculed him till the cows came home.As any sane person should have!;)

[Ninjahedge]

Bush era in a nutshell. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vL_76KEp2Gk)


I think I missed something, I think they said something about Terrorists....




PS, funny, I almost started to hum along!


"SaddamSaddamSaddamSaddamSaddam...." :D

[Ninjahedge]

Oh please! We have the highest civility, fairness, respect for other cultures, etc. than any other country on earth! We might look pretty bad if you compare us to some utopian dream, but how do we look compared to everyone else!?

Dumb.

How do we compare to ourselves you idgit. We are not comparing well to OURSELVES, never-mind China. Pointing fingers and saying "Well Johnny bit his sister" is no way to validate our country killing the family dog.


Are you kidding me!? First of all, we've followed the Geneva conventions pretty closely - even though AL Qaida is NOT covered under it! The Geneva conventions were a contract between nations, that was signed between participating countries. Those who didn't sign declared their intention NOT to participate.

You miss the point.

The convention was set up to protect the enemy combatants in a time of war. Looking at the by lines and saying "Hey, they weren't a nation which means we can do what ever we want!" is a lame red tape answer to the underlying problem.

And part of what makes them work is that if you don't participate in the responsibilities of the Geneva Conventions, then you're not covered by the rights it bestows. Get real you guys. Seriously! WAKE UP!

Wrong. This is not a contest to see who does what first. We are SUPPOSED to be better than them. Tormenting (since the administration refuses to recognize sleep deprivation and humiliation as a form of "torture") our captives is not a way to earn respect, and it has already prooven to be a poor method for a nation like ourselves to:

1. Produce reliable information
2. Intimidate the enemy into capitulance
3. Get support from others

Not only did AL Qaida not sign (because they didn't exist, and they're not a country), but they also don't play by ANY of the rules of the Geneva Conventions.

Red herring.

Many people were imprisoned with no proof of involvement. Suspects and Iraqi citizens were placed under arrest and some were tortured. Declaring someone a terrorist and saying that it is OK for you to do anything to you (with NO PROOF) is SUCH a serious no-no the people involved should be, well, ARRESTED!

It would be exactly like if they picked you up on the street, put you in jail for 4 years and forced you to go through all of that. No reason.


Now, all of that is just icing on the cake! The fact that you are trying to validate torture because the convention says "nation" is already a moot point. Everybody knows what it stands for although many lawyers will argue it until they are blue in the face.

For a fee.

If anyone was meant not to be covered by the GCs it's THEM! And yet we've been incredibly humane in our treatment of them. Bestowing legal rights upon them.

What? After 4 years of imprisonment we give them the right to a military tribunal? You need to read up.

Letting them worship by providing them Qur'ans and prayer mats and daily times to pray. Geesh... you think any American would be given anything close to that kind of treatment if they were held prisoner by al Qaida!? No. We know they wouldn't. We know they'd get their throats slashed.

Again, moot. Just because you are battling the evil Empire does not give you and Luke the right to go out and strangle anyone that opposes you. It is such a simple analogy I can't believe you are so unwilling to accept it.

Take pride in your country man! Feel great about it! All this negativity coming from the Left is making me depressed. We're the most amazing nation on earth.

From the left. HA! It is coming from the right too you know. And the center, and from the top, and bottom. Hell, it is coming from 80% of the people on all sides. You are still trying your best to make this partisan, when even the most devote *cough*obstinate*cough* supporters are slowly admitting their leaders faults and mistakes.

Being proud in a nation does not relinquish your right to site its faults and try to correct them. You don't and you end up with a situation like our auto industry. Ford started to make crap and was eventually outsold by the Japanese on almost every car type.

Why? Because they figured that our own commercial blind stupidity (brand name loyalty) would make us continue to buy them over all others. Anyone criticizing a Ford from the late 80's would be called "Un-American" and chastised.

Ford sukked in the late 80's, and if they had done something then to fix it, maybe they would not be in such a bad spot now.

That's my point. If they disliked us anywhere near as much as you guys say they do (i.e. with seething hatred) there's no way they'd keep electing pro-American leaders.

That was just dumb. Edd was refuting the connection between the two and you take that as if he is confirming your black-and-white scenario.

Europe electing leaders that are for one policy/economic model over another does NOT support (or combat) the US or its positions. You are shooting fish in the wrong barrel.

Did we ever elect pro-Soviet leaders? No!

Did we ever elect leaders with semi-socialist programs like Social Security? YES! tray another.

And their friendly attitude towards the Soviet Union (George McGovern) was a big part of the reason why we didn't elect them. So believe me when the electorate of a nation hates one of the world's super powers enough they will definitely not elect leaders who are friendly to that "evil" superpower.

BS again. Most of the leaders, as stated before, are not in support of the US. Again you fail to prove that. It is like claiming that they like breathing the same air we like breathing proves that they support us.

Anyway, the bottom line is - whatever they say in these touchy-feely polls ("how do you FEEL about America") doesn't really matter does it? What really matters is how they ACT towards us.

Refutation. If the polls agree (as they did in the onset of the war) "Touchy Feely" was fine. But now they don't, well you can't trust THEM!

Just let me get this idiocy strait.

You are saying we cannot get how other countries feel about us with polls that ask them how they feel? :rolleyes:

And they keep electing leaders who are more friendly to us than their previous leaders. So obviously all this "hatred" isn't doing us any harm. Good news eh!?

Please site some references where they are friendly to us. Not just that they support some of the same economic policies that have worked, but in our overt actions. Kyoto, Iraq, Iran, etc. You give us something solid and maybe we can discuss, otherwise it is all YOUR "touchy feely" that we get to argue over.


You are purposely ignoring my point.

No, when a point is blunt, it no longer is a point.

Obviously, if it's bad for the U.S. to do it, it must be bad for China and the Sudan to do it... right? I mean we do hold everyone to the same standards of morality don't we? So why do I hear so much bitter complaining about this when the U.S. does it, but I haven't heard a single bitter word from the Left about the Sudan or about China! Interesting, eh?

And that is worse. We not only do the things that we criticize in other nations, we also do not criticize the ones that HOLD MOST OF OUR NATIONS DEBT.

You are really pulling up some lame ones BS.


Well, forget it. You are babbling on about crap again and again. Whenever someone puts you to the test and asks you to step up, you sidestep them (I believe Zip asked you a while back about his own contestation of your points) and rant off about how you feel and your own perverse notion of "equality" as you see it.

This is not a constructive discussion. Either present something solid, or quit your babbling.

[ZippyTheChimp]

No sense in responding to all this nonsense. Bobbiesox is completely programmed.

Just a couple...


Take pride in your country man! Feel great about it! All this negativity coming from the Left is making me depressed. We're the most amazing nation on earth.That's what Germans thought in the 1930s

So believe me when the electorate of a nation hates one of the world's super powers enough they will definitely not elect leaders who are friendly to that "evil" superpower.As was stated many times, it is Bush that's despised, not the idea of America. In addition to the research that's been done every year since Bush has been in office, here's a new one. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/109018/Britons-French-Germans-Solidly-Back-Obama.aspx)

Excerpt:
In each of these countries, Gallup recorded in 2007 abysmally low approval of U.S. leadership -- just 8% approval in Germany, 9% in France, and 20% in the United Kingdom. Much of this likely stems from opposition to the U.S.-led Iraq war, but it could also result from U.S. policy on global warming or reported human rights abuses in Guantanamo Bay.

You are purposely ignoring my point. Obviously, if it's bad for the U.S. to do it, it must be bad for China and the Sudan to do it... right? I mean we do hold everyone to the same standards of morality don't we?Are you purposely ignoring my point. I told you in nice big red letters that this is a Straw Man argument. I regard your continuing to say the same thing over and over as trolling, with no purpose than to be argumentative. That label is not good for you. Trolls don't have a long life at WNY.

You are welcomed to browse around for threads on the various despots of the world, or start one of your own.

So why do I hear so much bitter complaining about this when the U.S. does it, but I haven't heard a single bitter word from the Left about the Sudan or about China! Interesting, eh?I'm a citizen of the US. The government does these things in my name.

First, Europeans have a very different idea about what a successful country is. In their mind it is one where the government really takes care of its citizens.HAHAHAHAHA. Yeah, what a bizarre idea.

[ZippyTheChimp]

As a person who lived in Europe for several years and still maintains an apartment in France where I spend a good 3-4 months each and every year, The vibe I get is your parents' home in central New Jersey.

[BrooklynRider]

From 9/26/2005

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/09/26/news/hughes.php (http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/09/26/news/hughes.php)

In Egypt, Hughes defends U.S. policy

Bush's under secretary for diplomacy makes her overseas debut

http://img.iht.com/images/dot_h.gif
By Steven R. Weisman
Published: MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2005
http://img.iht.com/images/dot_h.gif

CAIRO: The under secretary of state, Karen Hughes, arrived in Egypt in her overseas debut as President George W. Bush's "public diplomacy" envoy. She denounced Islamic militancy, defended administration policies in Iraq and said the slow response to Hurricane Katrina was regrettable but not racist.

Hughes began her two days in Egypt with a visit Sunday to Muhammad Sayed Tantawi, the spiritual leader of the University of al-Azhar al-Sharif, a leading Sunni Muslim center. She hailed him as a respected moderate voice in the Islamic world, and she noted that he was one of the first among Muslim leaders to condemn the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
"
I think many people around the world do not realize the important role that faith plays in Americans' lives," Hughes, the under secretary of public diplomacy, said after the meeting, sounding another theme. She said she was seeking common links between Americans and an area of the world where religious fervor is often anti-American.

It was a low-key and almost bland first day for Hughes, who will travel to Saudi Arabia and Turkey later in the week. The audiences were friendly, occasionally asking pointed questions.

Hughes said that this was her first trip to the region and that she was eager to learn as much as she could in her new job, in which she oversees the State Department's public affairs apparatus, as well as its cultural and exchange programs.
Today in Americas



http://ad.fr.doubleclick.net/ad/america.iht.com/article;cat=article;sz=190x90;ord=12169232495894? (http://ad.fr.doubleclick.net/jump/america.iht.com/article;cat=article;sz=190x90;ord=12169232495894?)

Her appointment to the job followed reports from the administration, and from policy institutes and universities, warning that in the past few years the United States' standing in the world, particularly in Islamic countries, had plummeted.

Hughes, who served for years as Bush's campaign and White House communications specialist, has said she will present an upbeat and positive vision of American policies and answer criticism.

"I understand that many of the concerns are deep-seated," Hughes told reporters. "I'm probably not going to change many minds."

In fact, her audiences Sunday - a group of Egyptian high school students who had been exchange students in the United States and students at the American University of Cairo - were fairly friendly.

Not one questioner in the 40 minutes at the university asked about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, for example.

At the university, Hughes asked for a show of hands by those who had voted in the recent presidential election, the first multicandidate election in modern Egypt, though there was never any doubt that President Hosni Mubarak would win. (The voting age in Egypt is 18.) She hinted that American pressure had helped make the election happen. Only one hand was raised.

"We have had a very fundamental change in American policy toward the Middle East," Hughes said, speaking of the Bush administration's recent pressure on countries to foster democracy and elections.

On Iraq, she implored her audience to recognize that after Sept. 11, the United States had to deal with the threat of lethal weapons falling into the wrong hands. Brushing aside a questioner's concerns that Iraq was heading toward civil war, she said this ignored the "terrific courage" it took for Iraqis to vote - Iraqi officials reported that 8.5 million voters turned out in the January election.

Hughes also used her visit as a showcase for a $10 million U.S. aid program that has restored an ancient medieval gate and artifacts and artworks in old Cairo.

[kz1000ps]

Hughes, who served for years as Bush's campaign and White House communications specialist, has said she will present an upbeat and positive vision of American policies and answer criticism.

Good grief, the last thing we need over there is another programmed parrot.

[Zephyr]

Despite the fact that I don't agree with just about anything that BS has said, you have to admit that s/he has a great deal of fighting spirit in the midst of all these reactions from several people flying in his or her direction.

[scumonkey]

I "used" to go to the middle east quite often.
I am an avid scuba diver and love the Red Sea.
The first time I went to Egypt, the locals liked Americans
but disliked Ray gun.....The people over there seemed to
separate Americans from our government
(even though we are supposed to be one and the same).
After a number of years and a different president,
Every time the locals found out I was American and
NOT English (who they dislike), I was greeted with much
enthusiasm and shouts of "Clinton #1" from smiling faces.
They LOVED Americans!
I was even able to get into Saudi Arabia (with the help of friendly Egyptians)
to dive with minimal problems .

The last time I went I found the mood much changed.
Now that Czar Bush has been running things, We the American people
are HATED almost as much as our Globally loved prez (gee thanks GW).
I had such a hard time, I knew it would be a LONG while
(if ever), before I could return and not feel endangered.
So tell me again...HOW has bush helped with our overseas image?

[lofter1]

In Egypt, Hughes defends U.S. policy
http://img.iht.com/images/dot_h.gif

CAIRO: The under secretary of state, Karen Hughes, arrived in Egypt in her overseas debut
as President George W. Bush's "public diplomacy" envoy.

... her audiences Sunday - a group of Egyptian high school students who had been exchange students
in the United States and students at the American University of Cairo - were fairly friendly.


Compare and contrast with Barack Obama's visit to the Mid-East + Europe, where on Thursday evening in Berlin Obama was greeted by an estimated 200,000 cheering and eager listeners.

Folks can smell the difference. Can't you, too, bs?

Won't get fooled again ...........

[Ninjahedge]

Won't get fooled again ...........

Who?

[lofter1]

The great citizens of the USA, hopefully :cool:

[Ninjahedge]

Those odds and sods?

I don't know Loft.

[lofter1]

Of course you don't. Nobody knows.

If they did then there wouldn't be a race :cool:

[Zephyr]

.
Those "great citizens" that collectively gave us a bush President, not just for four but eight years, and who think, based on polls, that McBush is overwhelmingly more qualified to be Commander-in-Chief than Senator Obama, despite the fact that neither has executive experience in their respective résumés.

I guess I hear you ...

But I also wonder if it is understood that it was inevitable that the whole satire thing on another thread was going to be filtered down and twisted by low-information manipulators both surrogate and oddly enough the media that benefits from the pot continuing to boil; or that there is still an idiot or maybe two, such as that individual in Florida who paid good money to have a billboard put up that proclaimed that voting for Democrats is what caused 9/11 (with picture of WTC in flames); or those Clinton partisans that still want to have a fight at their upcoming convention, even if their candidate is effectively out of the race.

Oh, and then there are those that say they don't see enough difference in the two candidates to merit even voting in the Presidential portion of this election, as some also did in prior elections that arguably made a Bush President possible.

All I can say is: "What a country!" :rolleyes:

.

[eddhead]

@BS: what ninjahedge said.. and BTW, while I do not condone the actions of China and Sudan, I would like to think we are better than they are. As Zippy said, the US Govt is displacing Iraqi's in my name, and I do not like it.

@ Zephyr: sorry but I do not agree with your assessment of BS. What that person is showing is exactly what zip indicated. A pre-programed closed minded perspective. And calling something a fact does not make it so. Anyone can be petulant. That does not imply spirit.

I mean really, he/she has got to be kidding

@ Ninja: odds and sods... great record!!

[Zephyr]

I merely thought that BS is still fairly new and deserves at least something positive thrown in his or her direction from someone on this forum, given that the sum of reactions are now so one-sided and furious, that it borders on bludgeoning. While I saw resilience and spirit, and you did not, I must honestly re-state - just to avoid it being lost in the fray - that I do disagree with nearly every opinion that BS has thus far posted. But such dehumanising labels as “pre-programmed” to characterise his or her commentary at this juncture, inches into bad manners.

Perhaps, after a bit more seasoning on this website, maybe the “full treatment" may still be in order - but not just yet. ;)

.

[Zephyr]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/misc/nytlogo153x23.gif


On the Hill
Odd Reversal as House G.O.P. Splits With Bush


By CARL HULSE
Published: July 25, 2008


House Republicans have been waiting for just the right moment to make a pre-election break from President Bush, eager to get out from under the shadow of an unpopular administration they have steadfastly backed.

So it was no surprise when the White House’s once strong allies on Capitol Hill found an opportunity to sever that tie. What was shocking was that the rupture also put some daylight between them and the nation’s bankers, homebuilders, mortgage brokers, real estate agents and money managers – typically favored Republican constituencies.

In opposing the major bipartisan housing initiative soon to become law, most House Republicans also disregarded the official Bush administration stance that immediate enactment of the measure was needed to protect the stability of “our Nation’s housing market, financial system and the broader economy.”

Suffice it to say that Democrats, who worked closely with Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. in reaching the final agreement, were ultimately dumfounded by the decision of 149 House Republicans to oppose the bill that passed easily. Forty-five supported it.

“It shows that we are the adults around here,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, who, like other Democrats, pronounced Republican opponents guilty of irresponsible political pandering.

Republicans said they were just sticking up for the taxpayer in rejecting what they saw as a badly flawed measure that could put Americans on the hook for billions of dollars if mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac run into more trouble. They said an effort to encourage banks to give better rates to distressed homeowners would ultimately cause the Federal Housing Administration to pay off bad loans. And they really did not like nearly $4 billion in local grants to buy up distressed properties.

“I believe it will be an incredible waste of taxpayer funds,” said Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader who is usually second to no one in his zeal for safeguarding the American economy.

He and other Republicans were furious at the White House for signing on to the bill and they fingered Mr. Paulson as the culprit. For his part, according to lawmakers who had discussions with the Treasury secretary, Mr. Paulson privately complained that House Republicans just did not grasp the severity of the economic threat posed by a potential housing collapse.

But what they do grasp is the need to draw some sharp distinctions with Democrats and reassert themselves as ardent foes of wasteful government spending. They are convinced that traveling a wayward fiscal path in recent years was the reason for their undoing in 2006 and that they must purify themselves.

“We learned our lesson after the 2006 election,” says a chastened Mr. Boehner. “I’d be the first to admit that I think some of my colleagues lost their way leading up to the ’06 election.”

Senior Republican officials acknowledged privately that there was another factor at work in the Republican tide against the housing bill – a potential leadership fight after the fall elections. Looking at potential losses in November, the current leadership team is not assured another term at the top. And Mr. Boehner, other Republican leaders and potential challengers are doing what they can to certify their conservative bona fides given the rightward tilt of the House Republican membership.

“I believe rewarding, encouraging and reinforcing risky investments should not be the role of the government and certainly shouldn’t be financed by taxpayers,” said Representative Roy Blunt of Missouri, the No. 2 Republican, in explaining his stance against the bill.

Republicans got some moral support in their resistance from a familiar source – former Speaker Newt Gingrich. Mr. Gingrich spoke at a private party meeting before the vote on the bill and joined Mr. Boehner in encouraging Republicans to oppose it, rallying lawmakers who remember that it was Mr. Gingrich’s ideas that carried the day in the halcyon days of the Republican revolution.

Some Republicans say the vote was not all that risky. They have already been moving away from the president on domestic issues. They knew the measure was going to become law, with solid support from Senate Republicans, so they could not be held accountable for scuttling the bill if the economy crashed. And if the legislation fails and the economy spirals, they can claim to have been prescient in spotting its weaknesses.

Still, the opposition is not without its potential consequences. The nation’s financial community has traditionally looked to Republicans more than Democrats to protect its interests. And if the bankers and brokers cannot count on them, perhaps their political contributions and support should flow elsewhere – a point Democrats will no doubt be trying to drive home with those constituencies.

“It is just amazing that someone would roll the dice on the economy for an ideological concept,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

And the revolt against the mortgage bill came just weeks after some leading Republicans balked at legislation to block a cut in doctor fees paid by Medicare – infuriating the American Medical Association, another group that often backs Republicans and their proposals.

Republican strategists say they are not worried. One chief Congressional aide said K Street did not weigh in heavily in support of the housing bill or make it a do-or-die issue. But the conservative Club for Growth did, encouraging lawmakers to vote against it and warning them they would be judged on how they handled it. And it is the Club for Growth, not the American Bankers Association, which in recent years has backed primary campaigns against perceived Republican apostates.

In the end, most House Republicans simply decided to align with their conservative base on the housing bill. They see that as the most solid foundation for their future - no matter what the White House, Wall Street, top economists, numerous housing organizations and tens of thousands of struggling homeowners might think.


Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/25/us/politics/25web-hulse.html)

[BrooklynRider]

Despite the fact that I don't agree with just about anything that BS has said, you have to admit that s/he has a great deal of fighting spirit in the midst of all these reactions from several people flying in his or her direction.

I would say not. People aren't "reacting". It's not a "tit for tat" discussion. As usual, the members of this forum present facts. Thus far, BS has refused to discuss the facts and has never responded to a question posed by answering directly. I don't think that demonstrates a "fighting spirit". I think it demonstrates the behavior of a person who gets a kick out of tossing a hand grenade in a room. It doesn't work here.

[eddhead]

^^

I think that is what most frustrates me. We spend time building and posting logical fact-based opinions only to see contrary responses that manipulate and twist the words and logic of one's post and misrepresent "facts" . Believe me, I can deal with the contrary part [I have occasionally been accused me of being argumentative as well contrary;)] but reading that kind of misrepresentation just highlights the futility of responding to it.

[bobbiesox]

Despite the fact that I don't agree with just about anything that BS has said, you have to admit that s/he has a great deal of fighting spirit in the midst of all these reactions from several people flying in his or her direction.
Thanks Zephyr! I appreciate the kind word!!

[bobbiesox]

I "used" to go to the middle east quite often.
I am an avid scuba diver and love the Red Sea.
The first time I went to Egypt, the locals liked Americans
but disliked Ray gun.....The people over there seemed to
separate Americans from our government
(even though we are supposed to be one and the same).
After a number of years and a different president,
Every time the locals found out I was American and
NOT English (who they dislike), I was greeted with much
enthusiasm and shouts of "Clinton #1" from smiling faces.
They LOVED Americans!
I was even able to get into Saudi Arabia (with the help of friendly Egyptians)
to dive with minimal problems .

The last time I went I found the mood much changed.
Now that Czar Bush has been running things, We the American people
are HATED almost as much as our Globally loved prez (gee thanks GW).
I had such a hard time, I knew it would be a LONG while
(if ever), before I could return and not feel endangered.
So tell me again...HOW has bush helped with our overseas image?
See Schmonkey you're totally supporting my point! Don't you guys get it? The LEFT hates America - not the world. But inasmuch as much of the world is made up of Leftists - as is I may say Egypt... it's no mystery why they would hate it when we have a Republican president and love it when we have a Democrat.

Unfortunately for you guys, they can't vote in our elections! (thank God)! Basically you know that more of America is conservative than any other country. And you know your leftist candidates have a really hard time here (Al Gore, John Kerry, Michale Dukakai, McGovern, Mondale and on and on). So you're trying to set up some weird framework where we should care so much about what voters in other countries think that we should actually campaign there... as Barack Obama just finished doing. You appeal to this internationalism because you know your leftist ideas have more support outside the U.S.

But fortunately for Americans, most Americans don't care. You rip us to pieces for removing Saddam Hussein from office, but nary a word about how Europe supported and coddled him and continued to do business with him. How "evil" were they for that?

[ZippyTheChimp]

The behavior is trolling. Whether or nor BS is a troll is an open question. There's already been one incident that leads me to believe he is. I'll leave it at that..

The job of the moderators is to keep the discussion moving, and avoid endless loops, and off-topic tangents. These are not one-on-one discussions; they involve many voices.

My eyes are open. If I err, it will be on the side of forum structure.

[scumonkey]

See Schmonkey you're totally supporting my point! My name is scumonkey- not Schmonkey, and I have NOT
said one thing to support ANY of your ridiculous "Points"!
My point is that until Bush came into office, It was relatively safe for Americans to travel across the globe.
Even with other Republican presidents (ones that foreigners might have disliked), it was still safe to travel around...
folks still liked the American people.
Bush is such an A$$ wipe/such a horrible president-an idiot- that now not only do foreigners "HATE" him, they also "HATE" (not dislike- HATE),
we the American people as well!
So I ask you again...
how has your almighty Bush helped improve our overseas image, and how does this support any of your trolling, extremely ignorant, extreme right wing rhetoric?!:rolleyes:

But inasmuch as much of the world is made up of Leftists - as is I may say EgyptTry going there and saying that to an Egyptian! - you truly are clueless and a new candidate for my ignore list!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=572XYud1gaw&feature=related

[eddhead]

My name is scumonkey- not Schmonkey, and I have NOT
said one thing to support ANY of your ridiculous "Points"!

yeah, i know what you are feeling. you can only yell back so many times at a person who screams the sky is green than says you are making his/her point when you say it is blue.

i wonder if he/she ever did get around to looking up "straw man" argument as was suggested by our esteemed moderator.

[BrooklynRider]

George W. Bush, American I _ _ _ t (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/08/13/george-w-bush-american-i___t/)
By: SilentPatriot @ 6:00 PM - PDT
http://static.crooksandliars.com/2008/08/bush-olympics-flag.jpg (http://d.yimg.com/a/p/sp/getty/3a/fullj.e9069654e472a74413906702d6aded19/e9069654e472a74413906702d6aded19-getty-81972190mw013_olympics_day_.jpg) (click for larger image)
BEIJING - AUGUST 10 (http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/beijing/gallery/im:urn:newsml:sports.yahoo,getty:20050301:oly,phot o,e9069654e472a74413906702d6aded19-getty-81972190mw013_olympics_day_:1): President of the United States, George W. Bush holds up the American Flag the wrong way before wife Laura Bush instructs him to turn it around at the swimming arena at the National Aquatics Center during day 2 of the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games on August 10, 2008 in Beijing, China. (Photo by Ezra Shaw/Getty Images)

[Fabrizio]

LOL. He looks so proud of himself. Put in the face of Alfred E. Newman and it is a cover for Mad magazine.

[ZippyTheChimp]

That's one for the library (http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17177)

[lofter1]

A sign of the times (http://www.thoseshirts.com/wtr.html) -- and something to remember Bush by :

I'd Rather Be Waterboarding Black T-Shirt

http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/shirtsquare-wtr.jpghttp://www.thoseshirts.com/images/square-large-wtr.gif

[lofter1]

Bush knows it's over and that his LEGACY = A BIG Smelly PILE OF DOO

Hie looks depressed and haggard (http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=tfLIqJ9mL3g&feature=related) and is clearly unable to generate any good will, either among his Party or the American People.

Has he been abandoned by all but Laura and the girls?

Is he tempted to reach for the bottle?

He must be really excited about THIS (http://redvssblue.blogspot.com/2008/09/oliver-stones-w-movie-exclusive-clip.html):

http://img2.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/080507/cover-story/josh-brolin_l.jpg

JOSH BROLIN AS GEORGE W. BUSH (http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20198476,00.html)

[ZippyTheChimp]

After three years, this thread has become so obvious, almost comical.

Bush is supposed to give some sort of speech this morning, I guess on the economy (what else?). Does anyone care?

In the history of lame-ducks, has there been a lamer-duck than Bush? At least he'll be famous. Maybe they can put his last 6 months in a special place in his library.

The Hall of Quackery.

[lofter1]

Even Harvard is embarrassed (http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=503181).

Can they retract his MBA :confused:

[ZippyTheChimp]

From this...

http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/722120/2/istockphoto_722120-graduation-mortar-board-hat-vector.jpg

to this...

http://bestoftheblogs.com/uploaded_images/dunce-778614.jpg

[lofter1]

LOL ^

The GOP in action:

Trickle

D
O
W
N

:cool:

[joe25]

Didn't he graduate from Yale?

[lofter1]

Undergrad at Yale, and later on to Harvard (just to spread the embarrassment around equally) ...

Bush attended Phillips Academy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillips_Academy) (September 1961–June 1964[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_life_of_George_W._Bush#cite_note-0)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_life_of_George_W._Bush#cite_note-1)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_life_of_George_W._Bush#cite_note-2) and later Yale University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yale_University) (September 1964–May 1968).

At Yale, he joined Delta Kappa Epsilon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Kappa_Epsilon), of which he was president from October 1965 until graduation, and
the Skull and Bones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skull_and_Bones) secret society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_society); Bush's father George H. W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush) (1948) and grandfather Prescott S. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prescott_S._Bush) (1917)
were also members of Skull and Bones. Bush was also in the Yale First XV rugby union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugby_union) team in 1968.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_life_of_George_W._Bush#cite_note-3)
He was a C student, scoring 77% (with no As and one D, in astronomy) with a grade point average (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grade_point_average)
of 2.35 out of a possible 4.00. Bush has joked that he was known more for his social life than for his grades.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_life_of_George_W._Bush#cite_note-4)
He received a Bachelor of Arts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachelor_of_Arts) degree in history in 1968. (Oh my God, the irony of that :cool: )

The entire entry from his yearbook read:
GEORGE WALKER BUSH. Born July 6, 1946, in New Haven,
Connecticut, son of George H.W. Bush (Class of '48) and
Barbara Pierce Bush. Prepared at Phillips Academy-
Andover, Andover, Massachusetts. Entered Yale,
September, 1964. History Major. Resident Member:
Davenport (Social Council, 1964-68; Football, 1964-68,
Captain, 1967-68; Baseball, 1965-68); Delta Kappa
Epsilon, President, 1966-67; Skull and Bones; Inter-
Council, 1966-67; Freshman Baseball, 1965; Rugby Club,
1966-68.
In 1970 Bush applied to the University of Texas School of Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Texas_School_of_Law) and was rejected.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_life_of_George_W._Bush#cite_note-5)

After serving in the Texas Air National Guard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_National_Guard), Bush entered Harvard Business School (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Business_School) in 1973.
He received a Masters of Business Administration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masters_of_Business_Administration) (MBA) degree in 1975, and
is the first U.S. president to hold an MBA.

Let that last achievement be a lesson to us all.

[joe25]

^ I still don't understand how he got into Ivy League schools, I mean it is impossible for some incredibly smart students, but he didn't seem to have a problem. Or was it they where more selective back in the day. Ivy league student that thinks the best course of action is to stay in Iraq.

[Jasonik]

http://www.201k.com/images/Bush_Cheerleader.jpg
Legacy Preference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legacy_preferences)

[Ninjahedge]

90% of the time it is Name and Numbers that matter more than actual intelligence.

What % of what demographic do you belong to that would balance their books (say, women in Engineering. Don't get me wrong, I, as an Engineer would have LOVED to have seen more women in that field when I was going to school, but as it was, the schools were of the same desire and, as such, made it a bit easier to get into as a woman than a man. Hell, MIT actually has, rumor has it, a cap to the % of asian students it admits! Reverse discrimination there!).

But with the Ivys, Name is most important. Who's your Daddy and how much has he donated?




Do you find it odd that the first MBA is president during a time of such overwhelming financial failure?

[ablarc]

^ I still don't understand how he got into Ivy League schools, I mean it is impossible for some incredibly smart students, but he didn't seem to have a problem.
In those days, about a fifth of the Freshman class enrollment was informally reserved for sons of alumni. It was especially easy for them to get in if their fathers were good contributors to the alumni fund. Gut courses were available to make their academic career smooth and easy --even possible.

Everyone knew who they were.

[joe25]

Hmm, I learn something new everyday. Doesn't seem very fair, but the world isn't fair.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Legacy is such a nice word.

[ablarc]

Doesn't seem very fair, but the world isn't fair.
How do you think those universities amassed their mammoth endowments?

[Jasonik]

Legacy is such a nice word.

From the Latin, authentic Roman title Legatus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legatus).
Legates received large shares of the army's booty at the end of a campaign, which made the position a lucrative one, so it could often attract even distinguished consulars...

Related? (http://gawker.com/5050016/how-legatus-brought-down-wall-street) ;)

[Ninjahedge]

Here's the question though.

If someone uses a system that, in effect, works to bring in more money to the system, is it a bad thing that they are using it or that it works at all?

I agree that this old-boy-network is a real travesty, but it has been going no for so long it is rediculous.

And the bad part is, if they cater to it, they reap the rewards of a happy elite that will give them money so long as they get a library with their name on it......

Or is that the good part..... I am confused.....

[ZippyTheChimp]

From the Latin, authentic Roman title Legatus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legatus).
Them Romans wuz smart. Cut right to the chase.

Related? (http://gawker.com/5050016/how-legatus-brought-down-wall-street) ;)The pizza should've gotten him excommunicated.

[joe25]

This actually makes me feel better, Obama got into Ivy league schools with no connections. Something about that reassures me he is the better candidate.

[ablarc]

^ Obama is smart, but he might also have been helped a bit by admissions policies of a different sort; by his time, affirmative action had kicked in.

[TREPYE]

In 1970 Bush applied to the University of Texas School of Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Texas_School_of_Law) and was rejected.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_life_of_George_W._Bush#cite_note-5)

After serving in the Texas Air National Guard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_National_Guard), Bush entered Harvard Business School (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Business_School) in 1973.
He received a Masters of Business Administration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masters_of_Business_Administration) (MBA) degree in 1975, and
is the first U.S. president to hold an MBA.

Let that last achievement be a lesson to us all.

Right on lofter.

These schools ought to be ashamed of themselves. Goes to show that going to these school can only get you so far in life, in terms of what you do with yourself and your contributions to society. Dubya's educational experience at these so called "prestiguous" institutions could not preclude him from being the worst president in my lifetime.

At this point I cannot help but to feel bad for Dubya sometimes because he legacy is going to be the bottom-of-the-barrel low standard of presidential examples. My ire mostly goes to the idiots who voted him in. In 2000 yeah thats one thing, you didnt totally know what he was about. Voting for him in 2004 is inexcusable and I have very little respect for those people's judment. Like the stupids in OH, he lost them all those blue collar jobs, and they rewarded him for it....they deserve what they get I guess.

[Zephyr]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/misc/nytlogo153x23.gif


Op-Ed Columnist
After W., Le Deluge

By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: October 18, 2008

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/04/02/opinion/dowd-ts-190.jpg
Fred R. Conrad / The New York Times
Maureen Dowd

It is the best of times, it is the worst of times.

The best of times because W.’s long Reign of Error is about to end.

The worst of times because, well, you know why.

In this season of darkness, as Charles Dickens described an earlier mob scene, I’m feeling as vengeful and bloodthirsty as Madame Defarge sharpening her knitting needles at the guillotine.

I even felt a little thrill go up my leg, as Chris Matthews would put it, when I heard that the Lehman Brothers C.E.O., Richard Fuld, got punched in the company gym after it was announced that the firm was going under.

I can’t wait to see the tumbrels rumble up and down Wall Street picking up the heedless and greedy financial aristocracy that plundered and sundered free-market capitalism.

Just when we thought executives of A.I.G., the insurance giant bailed out by taxpayers for $123 billion, had been shamed into stopping their post-bailout Marie Antoinette spa treatments, luxury sports suites, Vegas and California posh resort retreats, we were dumbfounded to learn that some A.I.G. execs were cavorting at a lavish shooting party at a British country manor.

London’s News of the World sent undercover reporters to hunt down the feckless financiers on their $86,000 partridge hunt as they tromped through the countryside in tweed knickers, and then later as they “slurped fine wine” and feasted on pigeon breast and halibut.

The paper reported that the A.I.G. revelers stayed at Plumber Manor — not the ancestral home of Joe the Plumber, a 17th-century country house in Dorset — and spent $17,500 for food and rooms. The private jet to get there cost another $17,500, and the limos added up to $8,000 more.

In an astonishing let-them-eat-cake moment, the A.I.G. big shot Sebastian Preil held court at the bar and told an undercover reporter, “The recession will go on until about 2011, but the shooting was great today and we are relaxing fine.”

There were at least three New Yorkers bagging birds — Jeffrey Malkovsky, a senior director at A.I.G.’s Manhattan office, Hilary James, the general manager of the Bristol Plaza Hotel, and her friend, John Roberts, an A.I.G. adviser.

Who are these looters of our loot? The New York Times should follow up the excellent Portraits of Grief it did after 9/11 with Portraits of Greed.

Payback doesn’t have to go as far as the French Revolution. The grifters shafting us don’t have to shed blood, but they do have to give the money back. As far as these self-serving corporate con men and short-selling traders are concerned, off with their headsets.

John McCain wasted his last-chance debate Wednesday by trying to stir up faux class rage against Barack Obama with Joe the Unvetted Plumber instead of tapping into the real class rage the country feels over bailing out ungrateful financiers who gambled away the life savings of working people.

’Tis a far, far better thing that New York’s attorney general, Andrew Cuomo, did when he demanded that A.I.G.’s former executives who were trying to abscond with many millions in severance payments, bonuses and golden parachutes surrender the swag. He set a good example for the feds, who slapped Mr. Fuld in the face with a subpoena.

Cuomo got A.I.G. to instantly reverse itself and cancel 160 conferences and other events that would have cost more than $8 million, as well as give up information on compensation, bonuses and other payments to determine whether they were fitting. (How could they be?)

“We stopped a $10 million severance payment to Stephen Bensinger, the chief financial officer,” Cuomo told me Friday. “Just look at the words chief financial officer. There’s a phenomenon when senior management sees the corporation deteriorating and they concoct a version of looting the company to take care of themselves.”

Even Cuomo, who has been locked in battle with A.I.G. for a long time, was stunned when he learned of the British hunting folly. At first he thought it could not be true.

“That was our partridge hunting trip,” he said. “The partridge paid the ultimate price, but the taxpayer came close.”

He is using a state “claw back” law, which he says allows him to recover contracts and rescind payments if there was unjust compensation.

Great. Now can he find the $123 billion lost by A.I.G. that we now have to plug with taxpayers’ money?

Let’s hope that if Barack Obama becomes president, the first thing he does is keep his promise to make the junketeers come to Washington (preferably by bus or carpooling) and write the U.S. Treasury a check, after which he will fire them on the spot.

Heads must roll.


Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/opinion/19dowd.html)

[Zephyr]

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/article/pieces/postcom_logo.gif

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/article/pieces/twp_logo.gif


"They want these rules to continue to have an impact long after they leave office," said Matthew Madia, a regulatory expert at OMB Watch, a nonprofit group critical of what it calls the Bush administration's penchant for deregulating in areas where industry wants more freedom. He called the coming deluge "a last-minute assault on the public . . . happening on multiple fronts." ...

These rules "will force Americans to choke on dirtier air for years to come, unless Congress or the new administration reverses these eleventh-hour abuses," said lawyer John Walke of the Natural Resources Defense Council. ...


A Last Push To Deregulate
White House to Ease Many Rules


By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 31, 2008


The White House is working to enact a wide array of federal regulations, many of which would weaken government rules aimed at protecting consumers and the environment, before President Bush leaves office in January.

The new rules would be among the most controversial deregulatory steps of the Bush era and could be difficult for his successor to undo. Some would ease or lift constraints on private industry, including power plants, mines and farms.

Those and other regulations would help clear obstacles to some commercial ocean-fishing activities, ease controls on emissions of pollutants that contribute to global warming, relax drinking-water standards and lift a key restriction on mountaintop coal mining.

Once such rules take effect, they typically can be undone only through a laborious new regulatory proceeding, including lengthy periods of public comment, drafting and mandated reanalysis.

"They want these rules to continue to have an impact long after they leave office," said Matthew Madia, a regulatory expert at OMB Watch, a nonprofit group critical of what it calls the Bush administration's penchant for deregulating in areas where industry wants more freedom. He called the coming deluge "a last-minute assault on the public . . . happening on multiple fronts."

White House spokesman Tony Fratto said: "This administration has taken extraordinary measures to avoid rushing regulations at the end of the term. And yes, we'd prefer our regulations stand for a very long time -- they're well reasoned and are being considered with the best interests of the nation in mind."

As many as 90 new regulations are in the works, and at least nine of them are considered "economically significant" because they impose costs or promote societal benefits that exceed $100 million annually. They include new rules governing employees who take family- and medical-related leaves, new standards for preventing or containing oil spills, and a simplified process for settling real estate transactions.

While it remains unclear how much the administration will be able to accomplish in the coming weeks, the last-minute rush appears to involve fewer regulations than Bush's predecessor, Bill Clinton, approved at the end of his tenure.

In some cases, Bush's regulations reflect new interpretations of language in federal laws. In other cases, such as several new counterterrorism initiatives, they reflect new executive branch decisions in areas where Congress -- now out of session and focused on the elections -- left the president considerable discretion.

The burst of activity has made this a busy period for lobbyists who fear that industry views will hold less sway after the elections. The doors at the New Executive Office Building have been whirling with corporate officials and advisers pleading for relief or, in many cases, for hastened decision making.

According to the Office of Management and Budget's regulatory calendar, the commercial scallop-fishing industry came in two weeks ago to urge that proposed catch limits be eased, nearly bumping into National Mining Association officials making the case for easing rules meant to keep coal slurry waste out of Appalachian streams. A few days earlier, lawyers for kidney dialysis and biotechnology companies registered their complaints at the OMB about new Medicare reimbursement rules. Lobbyists for customs brokers complained about proposed counterterrorism rules that require the advance reporting of shipping data.

Bush's aides are acutely aware of the political risks of completing their regulatory work too late. On the afternoon of Bush's inauguration, Jan. 20, 2001, his chief of staff issued a government-wide memo that blocked the completion or implementation of regulations drafted in the waning days of the Clinton administration that had not yet taken legal effect.

"Through the end of the Clinton administration, we were working like crazy to get as many regulations out as possible," said Donald R. Arbuckle, who retired in 2006 after 25 years as an OMB official. "Then on Sunday, the day after the inauguration, OMB Director Mitch Daniels called me in and said, 'Let's pull back as many of these as we can.' "

Clinton's appointees wound up paying a heavy price for procrastination. Bush's team was able to withdraw 254 regulations that covered such matters as drug and airline safety, immigration and indoor air pollutants. After further review, many of the proposals were modified to reflect Republican policy ideals or scrapped altogether.

Seeking to avoid falling victim to such partisan tactics, White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten in May imposed a Nov. 1 government-wide deadline to finish major new regulations, "except in extraordinary circumstances."

That gives officials just a few more weeks to meet an effective Nov. 20 deadline for the publication of economically significant rules, which take legal effect only after a 60-day congressional comment period. Less important rules take effect after a 30-day period, creating a second deadline of Dec. 20.

OMB spokeswoman Jane Lee said that Bolten's memo was meant to emphasize the importance of "due diligence" in ensuring that late-term regulations are sound. "We will continue to embrace the thorough and high standards of the regulatory review process," she said.

As the deadlines near, the administration has begun to issue regulations of great interest to industry, including, in recent days, a rule that allows natural gas pipelines to operate at higher pressures and new Homeland Security rules that shift passenger security screening responsibilities from airlines to the federal government. The OMB also approved a new limit on airborne emissions of lead this month, acting under a court-imposed deadline.

Many of the rules that could be issued over the next few weeks would ease environmental regulations, according to sources familiar with administration deliberations.

A rule put forward by the National Marine Fisheries Service and now under final review by the OMB would lift a requirement that environmental impact statements be prepared for certain fisheries-management decisions and would give review authority to regional councils dominated by commercial and recreational fishing interests.

An Alaska commercial fishing source, granted anonymity so he could speak candidly about private conversations, said that senior administration officials promised to "get the rule done by the end of this month" and that the outcome would be a big improvement.

Lee Crockett of the Pew Charitable Trusts' Environment Group said the administration has received 194,000 public comments on the rule and protests from 80 members of Congress as well as 160 conservation groups. "This thing is fatally flawed" as well as "wildly unpopular," Crockett said.

Two other rules nearing completion would ease limits on pollution from power plants, a major energy industry goal for the past eight years that is strenuously opposed by Democratic lawmakers and environmental groups.

One rule, being pursued over some opposition within the Environmental Protection Agency, would allow current emissions at a power plant to match the highest levels produced by that plant, overturning a rule that more strictly limits such emission increases. According to the EPA's estimate, it would allow millions of tons of additional carbon dioxide into the atmosphere annually, worsening global warming.

A related regulation would ease limits on emissions from coal-fired power plants near national parks.

A third rule would allow increased emissions from oil refineries, chemical factories and other industrial plants with complex manufacturing operations.

These rules "will force Americans to choke on dirtier air for years to come, unless Congress or the new administration reverses these eleventh-hour abuses," said lawyer John Walke of the Natural Resources Defense Council.

But Scott H. Segal, a Washington lawyer and chief spokesman for the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, said that "bringing common sense to the Clean Air Act is the best way to enhance energy efficiency and pollution control." He said he is optimistic that the new rule will help keep citizens' lawsuits from obstructing new technologies.

Jonathan Shradar, an EPA spokesman, said that he could not discuss specifics but added that "we strive to protect human health and the environment." Any rule the agency completes, he said, "is more stringent than the previous one."


© Copyright 1996-2008 The Washington Post Company (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/30/AR2008103004749.html?hpid=topnews)

[Zephyr]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/misc/nytlogo153x23.gif


Op-Ed Contributors
What I Will Miss About President Bush


By ROBERT DRAPER, ARI FLEISCHER, CURTIS SITTENFELD, JACOB WEISBERG, SCOTT McCLELLAN and PAUL BURKA
Published: November 1, 2008


As the world knows, America will elect a new president on Tuesday. Barring unforeseen electoral circumstances, this is George W. Bush’s last Sunday to hold the presidential stage to himself. The Op-Ed editors asked six writers to reflect on what they have most admired about him.


Loyal to a Fault

One spring morning last year, I happened to be strolling through the Congressional cemetery east of Capitol Hill with the White House press secretary Dana Perino as she walked her dog. Ms. Perino was candidly describing the challenges of her job, which were only mounting as George W. Bush’s approval rating continued to drop. Then she looked directly at me and said, “But it’s all worth it, because I so believe in the president.”

It would have been easy for me to dismiss Ms. Perino as a bright and likable but ultimately Kool-Aid-stricken peddler of talking points, were it not for two things. First, my interviews with current and former Bush staffers constantly veered off into similar testimonials. Their belief in Mr. Bush transcended ideology: as much as anything else, they just loved the guy. They loved how he treated the elevator man with the same courtesy as a foreign leader; how he often picked up the phone to congratulate the bride of a junior staffer; how he never pointed fingers, harbored grudges, snubbed, publicly belittled or boasted. Above all, they loved how they never had to worry which George W. Bush would show up to the Oval Office. It was fitting that he worked at a desk carved from a British warship, the H.M.S. Resolute — clarity of purpose being the admirable flip side to his at times infuriating certitude.

I saw some of these qualities firsthand during my six interviews with the president between December 2006 and May 2007. When I asked him if he felt betrayed in any way by the former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s errors relating to the war in Iraq, Mr. Bush refused to assign blame. “No,” he said. “See, every decision’s mine.” During my final interview with him, he told me that he held back his doubts and worries in front of subordinates because “I don’t want to burden them with that.”

President Bush has paid a price for his human decency. Seeking to buck up his Katrina-whipped FEMA director, he delivered the single most damning one-liner of his presidency: “Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job.” His sense of loyalty blinded him to the shortcomings of several senior aides — among them Scott McClellan, who rewarded Mr. Bush’s generosity with a lacerating tell-all book. He kept the press away from his two daughters, when their charm could have been deployed to buoy up his sagging numbers.

When the vault of the 43rd presidency is sealed, it will include, among many things, evidence of President Bush’s virtue.



ROBERT DRAPER, a correspondent for GQ and the author of “Dead Certain: The Presidency of George W. Bush”



A Clear View

I’ll miss President Bush’s moral clarity. The president’s critics hated his willingness to label things right or wrong, and the press used to bang me around for it, but history will show how right he was.

Shortly after 9/11, the president gave a speech in which he talked about the fight between good and evil, and that good would win. Afterward, I told him I thought he was being simplistic: “There are a lot of shades of gray in this war. I think it’s more nuanced.”

He looked at me and said, “If this isn’t good versus evil, what is?”

Then he reminded me that when Ronald Reagan went to Berlin, he called on Mikhail Gorbachev to “tear down this wall” — not to put a gate in it or to remove some bricks. Mr. Reagan said to tear it all down.

Mr. Bush saw the presidency as the place to call the American people to big challenges — in morally clear terms. As his spokesman, I knew that many people would be uncomfortable with how easily he made such moral judgments. I also knew that many Americans welcomed his tough, direct and unambiguous moral clarity.

I’ll miss that direct talk. In the age of terrorism, the one thing we have to fear more than anything is moral relativism.

When Israel was attacked during the Bush years, the president always stated that Israel had a right to defend itself. After 9/11, he never referred to Israel’s counterattacks as a “cycle of violence.” He understood that when a democracy strikes back against terrorists, it’s not a “cycle.” It’s self-defense.

We haven’t been attacked since 9/11, Libya no longer has nuclear weapons, Syria was stopped from acquiring them, Saddam Hussein is gone, and Iraq is on its way to being a nation that fights terrorism — all on President Bush’s watch. His job approval may now be low, but he should leave office with his head held high. I hope his successors recognize the strength that moral clarity can provide.



ARI FLEISCHER, the White House press secretary from 2001 to 2003



A Compassionate Conservative

During the last eight years, when I’ve mentioned to people that I’m completely fascinated by Laura Bush, most think I’m kidding. They see her as a traditional wife and mother, a gracious and well-mannered conservative. And while this might, depending upon whom you ask, be an admirable description, it doesn’t tend to prompt fascination. Oh, I say, but there’s so much more to her!

Among my favorite facts: She spent her 20s working at ethnically diverse, low-income schools and was a Democrat until she married George Bush at the age of 31 — after knowing him just 12 weeks. As first lady of Texas, she’d eat at hole-in-the-wall Mexican restaurants, shop at Wal-Mart and fly Southwest Airlines to visit friends. In the White House, in addition to organizing literary events that featured writers who have publicly disagreed with her husband’s policies, she has been far more politically involved than people realize — traveling to Africa and the Middle East to raise awareness for, respectively, AIDS and breast cancer, and advocating for the opposition leader of Myanmar, who has long been under house arrest.

Of course, what’s most intriguing to Democrats like me are the suggestions that Mrs. Bush might still be considerably less conservative than her husband: She has said that she does not think Roe v. Wade should be overturned. Asked in 2004 whether she and the president have gay friends, she told a reporter, “Sure, of course. Everyone does.” And earlier this year, Mrs. Bush spoke publicly of her admiration for Hillary Clinton’s “grit and strength.”

I will miss Mrs. Bush not only for keeping me guessing but also for seeming like an intelligent and compassionate presence in a White House not widely recognized for its intelligence or compassion — for being the one person in there whom I’m pretty sure a lot of us would like even more if only we knew her better.



CURTIS SITTENFELD, the author of the novel “American Wife”



Victory Speech

I was listening to George W. Bush speak at a rally in New Hampshire, in January 2000, when he came up with what remains my favorite of his miscues: “I know how hard it is to put food on your family.” This could be an amusing few months, I remember thinking.

The only slow period for Bushisms was right after Sept. 11, when the president’s inadequacies no longer seemed very funny. Then Mr. Bush declared that normality was returning: “I am here to make an announcement that this Thursday, ticket counters and airplanes will fly out of Ronald Reagan Airport.”

The president’s critics see such flubs as proof of his idiocy. His defenders believe that calling attention to them is hostile. But the president’s verbal stumbles have only made me like him better. It’s hard to despise someone who just wants “to make the pie higher” or who says he won’t answer your question, “Neither in French nor in English. Nor in Mexican.”

Maybe the greatest expression of his befuddlement was something he said when asked to respond to an article by the writer Gail Sheehy claiming he was an undiagnosed dyslexic. “The woman who knew that I had dyslexia — I never interviewed her,” he sputtered.

Mr. Bush’s battle with English has enriched our political language. It is no longer possible to say a person or a factor has been underestimated. Thanks to him, that word is now misunderestimated. In trade negotiations, tariffs and barriers have become bariffs and terriers. Kosovo is the land of the Kosovians, Greece the ancient homeland of the Grecians, a Reagan-loving people with no gray hair. There is no strategy, only “strategery,” a term coined by the comedian Will Ferrell and adopted inside the administration.

Most politicians don’t care about language and abuse it through euphemism, vagueness and cliché. Mr. Bush is not so indifferent. When words won’t do what he wants, he tries to wrestle them into submission. His memorable coinages — Hispanically, arbo-treeist — express the frustration we all feel at those moments when language won’t go our way. In the face of defeat, Mr. Bush remains unbowed by grammar. You’ve got to admire that, kind of.



JACOB WEISBERG, the editor in chief of the Slate Group and the author of “The Bush Tragedy”



In Good Faith

What I will miss most about George W. Bush as president is his sincere concern for promoting human dignity.

I was at his side when he met with defectors from North Korean forced-labor camps, listened to firsthand accounts of the unconscionable atrocities Saddam Hussein committed, shared the elation of women freed from the injustices of the Taliban, worked to dramatically increase government funding to combat AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria in Africa, and pressed other world leaders to stop genocide in Darfur. The compassion President Bush showed for the oppressed and suffering in these moments was inspiring.

It also helped obscure his flaws to those of us who worked for him, making it difficult for us to realize that his presidency was veering off course.

While he did not always choose wisely in his efforts to advance human dignity, his motives were genuine. And in those somber moments when he visited wounded troops or families of those who’d made the ultimate sacrifice, I saw — ever so briefly — a glimmer of self-doubt.

President Bush bears responsibility for the consequences of the war he chose to wage in Iraq. But alongside his profound flaws and the mistakes he made, I can also see and respect his inner decency. Let’s hope the next president will share his passion for human dignity — and also find ways to express it with greater wisdom and judgment.



SCOTT McCLELLAN, the White House press secretary from 2003 to 2006 and the author of “What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception”



Past Perfect

I feel nostalgic about the person I knew as Gov. George W. Bush. I miss that guy. He was the best politician I ever saw. He really was “a uniter, not a divider.” He refused to kowtow to the far right. He worked with Democrats to strengthen public education, while Republicans were pushing vouchers. He had four vacancies on the Texas Supreme Court and he filled them all with centrist judges. The extreme right wing of the Republican Party was his enemy, not his ally. His administration was untainted by scandal. Karl Rove remained an outside consultant rather than a gubernatorial staffer.

But when he reached the White House, Governor Bush vanished, to be replaced by President George W. Bush — a person I didn’t recognize. He was never to return.



PAUL BURKA, the senior executive editor of Texas Monthly



Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/02/opinion/02bush.html?pagewanted=1&em)

[lofter1]

All ^ DELUSIONAL

The person described only ever existed in their fantasies.

Clearly each and every one drank too damned much of the GWB Kool Aid.

GWB: GTF Out.

[Zephyr]

http://static.guim.co.uk/static/64840/original/zones/news/images/logo.gif


Quiet days for leader not gone but already forgotten

__________________________________________________

Ewen MacAskill in Washington
guardian.co.uk, Monday November 10 2008
The Guardian, Monday November 10 2008

__________________________________________________

When George Bush acts as host to Barack and Michelle Obama on a visit to the White House today, it will be an increasingly rare event for the US president as he starts to step out of the limelight.

The fast-disappearing leader will give the incoming tenants a tour of their new home before settling down for talks on the presidential transition, of which the top issue will be the economic crisis.

Although all presidents tend to fade in the final months before handing over power, Bush is fading faster than most. Speaking to staff on the White House lawn last week he promised he would set a frenetic pace in his final days in office - "a sprint to the finish" - but his daily diary offers scant evidence of this. As on so many days over the past few months, his daily schedule for Friday, published by the White House for the benefit of journalists, read: "No public events."

After the visit of the Obamas today, Bush's schedule for the rest of the week appears thin - mainly ceremonial duties, ahead of hosting a summit of world leaders on the recession. But, as with today, all eyes at that meeting, at the end of the week, are more likely to be on Barack Obama than on Bush, with leaders more concerned about what the next president will agree to.

Bush is an increasingly isolated figure in the White House, with most of his original team having retired. He appears to be fretting about his legacy, and argues, as does Tony Blair, that history may judge him more favourably than his present record poor ratings suggest.

White House aides and friends say Bush is an emotional man, upset by poll ratings. His mood would not have been helped by the thousands who gathered outside the White House on Tuesday for a noisy celebration of not only the election of Obama but the imminent departure of Bush. He was not seen to peek out from behind the curtains but aides suggested that if they could hear the honking horns and cheers, then so could he inside the White House.

Bush was largely absent from the election campaign, and the Republican presidential candidate, John McCain, ensured he was seldom seen in public with him. Bush understood early on why McCain needed to maintain distance but became more and more agitated as the senator increasingly disowned his policies. The snub continued into election night when McCain, in an otherwise gracious speech conceding defeat, paid tribute to Obama and others but again failed to mention Bush.

The lack of media interest in Bush was apparent at the White House briefing on Friday, taken by one of the press secretaries, Tony Fratto. Only about 30 journalists were present, with most of the others in Chicago for Obama's first press conference as president-elect. Fratto could not entirely command the attention of those journalists present, even though he was talking about the economic crisis and the latest damning set of unemployment figures. Many of the camera crews kept focused throughout the briefing not on Fratto but on the Reuters correspondent who was bitten the previous day by Bush's dog, Barney.

Bush has 71 days left in office. Bill Clinton used his final days to try to persuade the then Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, and the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Barak, to agree to the elusive Middle East peace deal. But there are few opportunities left on the foreign stage for Bush.

Clinton famously, or notoriously, pardoned 140 people in the closing hours of his presidency and Bush too is expected to conduct a similar final review.

But while Clinton still has involvement on the international stage, through his multimillion aid foundation which helps Africa, and Blair has remained engaged, as head of a Middle East peace effort, Bush could well settle for retirement, retreating to his ranch in Crawford, Texas.

He told the staff gathered on the White House lawn last week: "As January 20 draws near, some of you may be anxious about finding a new job, or a new place to live." He added: "I know how you feel."


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 200 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/10/george-bush-barack-obama)

[Zephyr]

http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/2.0/global/nav/header/cnn_politics.gif

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/img/2.0/sect/blogs/logo.political.ticker.sm.gif


November 18, 2008
Texas grand Jury indicts Cheney, Gonzales
Posted: 10:32 PM ET


http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/11/18/art.cheney.gi.jpg
Vice President Dick Cheney


(CNN) — A grand jury in south Texas indicted Vice President Dick Cheney and former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on separate charges related to alleged prisoner abuse in federal detention centers, Willacy County District Attorney Juan Angel Guerra told CNN Tuesday.

On the southern tip of Texas, Willacy County is on the United States-Mexico border.

Democratic state Sen. Eddie Lucio, Jr. is also charged in the indictment. Michael R. Cowen, an attorney for Lucio, issued a statement calling Guerra a "one man circus."

"In the March 2008 Democratic Primary, 70 percent of the Willacy County voters elected to remove Juan Guerra as Willacy County District Attorney," Cowen said in a statement. "Now, with only a few weeks left in his term, Mr.Guerra has again chosen to misuse his position in an attempt to seek revenge on those who he sees as political enemies."

Cheney spokeswoman Megan Mitchell said, "The vice president has not received an indictment."

The Associated Press reported that the indictment stems from Cheney's investment in the Vanguard Group — an investment management company that reportedly has interests in the prison companies in charge of the detention centers. It also charges Gonzales halted an investigation into abuse at the detention centers while he was attorney general.


© 2008 Cable News Network LP, LLLP. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved. (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/)

[lofter1]

Didn't they ^ forget someone?

[Zephyr]

What a Bush-league comment... :D

[lofter1]

Going Away Gifts (http://www.shadowtrack.com/) for the scumbag who has everything ...

Dressy (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/15923/the_pros_and_cons_of_house_arrest.html) ...

http://images-cdn01.associatedcontent.com/image/A8577/85774/470_85774.jpg

Casual (http://image.minyanville.com/assets/FCK/Image/Cartoons/just594.jpg) ...

http://image.minyanville.com/assets/FCK/Image/Cartoons/just594.jpg

Stylin' (http://www.chicagopublicradio.org/graphics/cityroom/cityroom_20080721_tarnold_745752_Prog_large.png) ...

http://www.chicagopublicradio.org/graphics/cityroom/cityroom_20080721_tarnold_745752_Prog_large.png

Protect Your Children!

[Jasonik]

I prefer the EMD Safety Bracelet equipped with electro muscular disruption technology (http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/04/can-this-little.html).

[lofter1]

43, generous guy that he is, will leave all sorts of goodies like this one ^ in his wake.

But this ZAPPER is scary for more reasons than one ...


... effectively short-circuits the central nervous system. Zap someone and they'll be completely immobile for several minutes.

There are certain bodily functions & controls which would be interrupted / rendered useless by the ZAP.

Who will be on Clean Up Patrol :confused:

[Ninjahedge]

>ZAP!<


Awwwww shiiiii...............oot.

[lofter1]

:eek:

Attorney general collapses

http://images.politico.com/global/081120_mukasey_allen.jpg
Photo: AP
Michael Mukasey collapsed while giving a speech
to the Federalist Society in Washington.

POLITICO.COM (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15842.html)
By MIKE ALLEN
11/20/08 10:22 PM EST

Attorney General Michael Mukasey collapsed Thursday night while giving a speech to the Federalist Society in Washington, according to three senior administration officials.

Details about Mukasey's condition were not immediately available.

Audience members said they began praying, fearing a stroke.

Mukasey is a former federal prosecutor from New York City who succeeded former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

At 10:30 p.m. Eastern, medical officials were still working on him on the stage, administration witnesses said.

[lofter1]

Update:

Mukasey Collapses During Speech

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/11/20/us/21mukasey_650.JPG
Saul Loeb/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey, seen last month, was hospitalized
after being stricken during a Washington speech.

NY TIMES (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/washington/AP-Mukasey-Collapses.html?_r=1&hp)
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
November 20, 2008

Filed at 11:09 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Attorney General Michael Mukasey collapsed during a speech Thursday night and lost consciousness, a Justice Department official said.

The 67-year-old Mukasey was rushed to George Washington University Hospital, where his condition was not immediately known.

Mukasey was delivering a speech to the Federalist Society at a Washington hotel when ''he just started shaking and he collapsed,'' said Associate Attorney General Kevin O'Connor. ''They're very concerned.''

Mukasey was 15 to 20 minutes into his speech about the Bush administration's successes in combatting terrorism when he began slurring his words. He collapsed and lost consciousness, said O'Conner, the department's No. 3 official.

Mukasey's was noticeably shaking during his speech before he collapsed shortly before 10:20 p.m. EST. His security detail called 911. Mukasey was on the stage for 10 minutes being attended to by his FBI detail before medics arrived, according to a Justice Department official who was there. Mukasey was still breathing at the time, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because she was not authorized to talk to the media.

A senior law-enforcement said Mukasey appeared to be talking when he was taken away. That official also spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the situation.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Attorney General Michael Mukasey collapsed during a speech Thursday night and lost consciousness, a Justice Department official said.

The 67-year-old Mukasey was rushed to George Washington University Hospital, where his condition was not immediately.

Mukasey was delivering a speech to the Federalist Society at a Washington hotel when ''he just started shaking and he collapsed,'' said Associate Attorney General Kevin O'Connor. ''They're very concerned.''

Mukasey was 15 to 20 minutes into his speech about the Bush administration's successes in combatting terrorism when he began slurring his words. He collapsed and lost consciousness, said O'Conner, the department's No. 3 official. It was unclear whether he regained consciousness.

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press

[ZippyTheChimp]

I think it was brought on by stress.

It seems Bush doesn't have enough pardon forms to cover everyone in his Administration, so there's going to be a lottery in January.

There'll be a special telecast on Fox News, hosted by Bill O'Reilly and E D Hill, who will draw numbered ping-pong balls from a rotating drum.

[Ninjahedge]

Will they have a Power Ball?

[Jasonik]

http://healthbolt.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/powerball-hat-060927.jpg (http://www.healthbolt.net/2007/02/27/this-is-how-you-will-die-before-you-win-powerball-statistically-speaking/)

[Ninjahedge]

That was pretty cheesy J......

[Zephyr]

http://www.thenation.com/images/structure/logo-sm.png


Nation Contest: Retire Bush!

Submit your idea about Bush's next job and win a Sorel cartoon


By Edward Sorel (http://www.thenation.com/directory/bios/edward_sorel)
November 19, 2008

This article appeared in the December 8, 2008 edition of The Nation.


http://d3nchsmj89snox.cloudfront.net/images/media/doc/af2/1227133365-xlarge.jpg


After leaving office ex-President Bush reportedly will head the American Red Cross where he will push for "vast forward-looking measures" dedicated to "helping future disaster victims help themselves" such as swimming and lifesaving classes for residents of low-lying regions.

-- Edward Sorel



ANNOUNCING...
THE NATION'S RETIRE BUSH CONTEST!

THE QUESTION:
WHAT WILL W. DO AFTER LEAVING OFFICE?

Send us your answer, disingenuous or otherwise, in 25 words (more or less). The winner will be chosen by a panel of fair-minded judges (Victor Navasky, Katrina vanden Heuvel, Richard Lingeman). First Prize is an original drawing, based on your entry, by famed New Yorker artist Edward Sorel.

Send your entry here
DEADLINE: December 31
WINNER TO BE ANNOUNCED: January 12



Copyright © 2008 The Nation (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081208/sorel)

[lofter1]

Go to your "ranch" and STFU.

Everything you touch turns to SH!T.

[ZippyTheChimp]

The ranch isn't a ranch, or as they say in Texas,

"Big hat, no cattle."

Maybe he should invest in another sports team. Maybe football. He's ruined America, ho why not have a go at sending America's Team [not my description] into oblivion.

Giants fans would rejoice.

[lofter1]

A "ranchette" -- perfect for a down-sizing retiree.

It's ridiculous that our tax-dollars will continue to pay for his pension and protection after what he's done to the country.

Maybe a rattler (http://www.srh.noaa.gov/srh/srnews/stories/2004/snake.htm) will get him.

[Ninjahedge]

Rattler = disappointed retiree whose Medicare and Social Security benefits are no longer available?

[lofter1]

Any brave and desperate soul would do.

[Jasonik]

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/08/11/08.11.08.bush.aok.jpg

Bush wants history to see him as a liberator of millions

Nov 28 02:53 PM US/Eastern (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=081128185323.mpq7bsa8&show_article=1)

George W. Bush hopes history will see him as a president who liberated millions of Iraqis and Afghans, who worked towards peace and who never sold his soul for political ends.

"I'd like to be a president (known) as somebody who liberated 50 million people and helped achieve peace," Bush said in excerpts of a recent interview released by the White House Friday.

"I would like to be a person remembered as a person who, first and foremost, did not sell his soul in order to accommodate the political process. I came to Washington with a set of values, and I'm leaving with the same set of values."

He also said he wanted to be seen as a president who helped individuals, "that rallied people to serve their neighbor; that led an effort to help relieve HIV/AIDS and malaria on places like the continent of Africa; that helped elderly people get prescription drugs and Medicare as a part of the basic package."

Bush added that every day during his eight-year presidency he had consulted the Bible and drawn comfort from his faith.

"I would advise politicians, however, to be careful about faith in the public arena," the US leader said in the interview with his sister Doro Bush Koch recorded as part of an oral history program known as Storycorps.

As his second term in office draws to an end, Bush joked he would miss some of the trappings that come with the presidency such as trips on Air Force One, never being stuck in a traffic jam, and the president's residence at Camp David.

But he said he was glad to be stepping back into the shadows (http://articles.latimes.com/2005/jan/22/nation/na-neocons22).

"Frankly, I'm not going to miss the limelight all that much. It's been a fabulous experience to be the president ... But it will be nice to see the Klieg lights shift somewhere else."

The interview, which Bush recorded with First Lady Laura Bush, will be stored in the library of Congress and a museum devoted to the Bush presidency.

Copyright AFP 2008

[Jasonik]

For Bush's staff, upbeat talking points on his tenure
Administration officials get a memo from the White House suggesting what to say about the last eight years: President Bush upheld 'the honor and the dignity of his office,' for one.

By Peter Nicholas
December 9, 2008
Reporting from Washington (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-bush9-2008dec09,0,4145069.story) -- In case any Bush administration officials have trouble summing up the boss' record, the White House is providing a few helpful suggestions.

A two-page memo that has been sent to Cabinet members and other high-ranking officials offers a guide for discussing Bush's eight-year tenure during their public speeches.

Titled "Speech Topper on the Bush Record," the talking points state that Bush "kept the American people safe" after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, lifted the economy after 2001 through tax cuts, curbed AIDS in Africa and maintained "the honor and the dignity of his office."

The document presents the Bush record as an unalloyed success.

It mentions none of the episodes that detractors say have marred his presidency: the collapse of the housing market and major financial services companies, the flawed intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war, the federal response to Hurricane Katrina or the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib.

In a section on the economy, speakers are invited to say that Bush cut taxes after 2001, setting the stage for years of job growth.

As for the current economic crisis, the memo says that Bush "responded with bold measures to prevent an economic meltdown."

The document is otherwise silent on the recession, which claimed 533,000 jobs in November, the highest number in 34 years.

A copy of the memo was obtained by The Times' Washington bureau. A spokesman for Bush said Monday that the White House routinely sends out suggestions to officials and allies on ways to talk about the administration's record.

"What we have in mind with these documents is we feel the president's many accomplishments haven't been given the attention they deserve and in some cases have been purposely ignored," said Carlton Carroll, a White House spokesman.

No one is required to recite the talking points laid out by the White House, Carroll said.

The memo closes with a reference to Bush's 1999 memoir, "A Charge to Keep":

"Above all, George W. Bush promised to uphold the honor and the dignity of his office. And through all the challenges and trials of his time in office, that is a charge that our president has kept."

One accomplishment cited is passage of the No Child Left Behind law, Bush's attempt to improve education. "He promised to raise standards and accountability in public schools -- and delivered the No Child Left Behind Act," the talking points read.

On the presidential campaign trail this year, Democratic candidates found that any criticism of No Child Left Behind was a surefire applause line.

President-elect Barack Obama promised to revamp the program, contending that it elevated test-taking at the expense of a well-rounded education.


Nicholas is a writer in our Washington bureau.
peter.nicholas@latimes.com

[RandySavage]

I'm politically moderate and here's how I will remember Bush (off the top of my heard):

-9-11 happened on his watch despite some early warning signs.
-Knowingly pushed weak/false evidence to garner support for his adventure in Iraq.
-Arrogant, total failure with respect to foresight, planning and management of occupied Iraq.
-Failed to capture, kill or silence Osama bin Laden.
-Failed to finish off Taliban in Afghanistan.
-Failed to foresee, prevent or, likely, even understand the looming threat of mortgage & banking industry practices, particularly the mortgage-backed security/credit default swap instruments that brought down the country's most venerable institutions and began the recession.
-Created and supported "bailout nation."
-Budgets took us surplus to deficit, and an almost incomprehensible level of national debt.
-Opened thousands of square miles of pristine public wildlands to energy development while the price of energy simultaneously sky-rocketed.
-Cheney's secret task force of energy lobbyists.
-Incredible arrogance when making jokes about not finding Bin Laden at a white-tie press dinner, when hundreds have died and continue to die in pursuit of that goal.
-Fully supporting Israel's unjustified and destructive invasion of Lebanon.
-Finding a way to squander the world's goodwill after 9-11.

This list could go on and on and on... At this point, he is by far the worst president in my lifetime, maybe in history. How many Presidents could have had as many monumental screw-ups as GWB? I hope history judges him harshly.

[lofter1]

Thinking back over the Eight Years of Bush ...

DID BUSH DO ANYTHING GOOD for which he'll be remembered?

Nothing comes to mind.

Please don't include "We weren't attacked again" -- protecting the US is the number one job requirement of the POTUS and no extra credit should be given for that.

[NYatKNIGHT]

He provided an endless supply of material to comedians and late night talk show hosts. What will they do now?