Michael B. Mukasey; Will Justice Be Served?
Bush Announces New Attorney General
copyright © 2007 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org
On this auspicious occasion, the nominee for America's Attorney General is announced, I cannot help but notice the lack of enthusiasm in the voice of the President of the United States. As the George W. Bush introduced Michael B. Mukasey, it was obvious, he felt no connection to the man he met for the first time only weeks ago.
George W. Bush solemnly noted with little passion the "remarkable" record of the man that stood before him and the nation. Expressionless, the President apathetically proclaimed the Judge brings impressive credentials to the office of Attorney General. Mister Bush selected a candidate that was able to assure allies and appease foes.
Bush attested to the vital role an Attorney General plays in protecting the nation, particularly in a time of war. He offered the Mukasey biography and stressed the significance of the resume as it relates to terrorism.
Judge Mukasey Was Appointed By President Ronald Reagan To Serve On The United States District Court For The Southern District Of New York, A Position He Held For Over 18 Years. Judge Mukasey was a strong leader during his six years as Chief Judge of this court, one of the country's most important and prestigious Federal district courts. His distinctive service earned him the Federal Bar Council's Learned Hand Medal for Excellence in Federal Jurisprudence in 2004 and an honorary degree from Brooklyn Law School in 2002.Judge Mukasey Presided Over The 1995 Trial Of 10 Individuals Accused Of Plotting Terrorist Attacks In New York City – Including Omar Abdel Rahman, The "Blind Sheikh" Involved In Planning The 1993 World Trade Center Bombing. Judge Mukasey sentenced Rahman and another man, El Sayyid Nosair, to life in prison, a decision that required him to keep armed guards with him for protection. Judge Mukasey Issued The First Ruling On Jose Padilla's Challenge To His Detention As An Enemy Combatant. He found that the Government had the right to hold Mr. Padilla as an enemy combatant without charging him for a crime. Judge Mukasey also granted a defense motion to allow Mr. Padilla to meet with his attorneys. A Former Prosecutor, Judge Mukasey Served For Four Years (1972-76) As An Assistant United States Attorney For The Prestigious And Demanding Southern District Of New York Office. While in the United States Attorney's office, Judge Mukasey demonstrated strong leadership and management skills as the Chief of the Official Corruption Unit.
Many noted Mukasey was not, and is not an inner circle crony. Possibly, it was for that reason George W. Bush droned on as he delivered what for him may have felt as an obligatory speech. I could not be certain. Nevertheless, the confluence was striking. Here is a qualified Judge, a Conservative, a Jurist that ruled in Bush's favor and yet, the President seemed less than satisfied. I was intent. I wanted to understand. I was mesmerized by the tone the tenor of this tentative overture.
The President spoke in an almost monotone voice. None of the characteristic cadence was evident. Where was the smile, the smirk, or the silly side comments that are standard Bush? I was captivated as I heard and observed the man that often is as background in my life. Something was very, very, very wrong with this picture. I waited and watched. I did not do as I typically do, go about my day while the President expounds. I stood in front of the television until I understood.
A Justice Department mired in controversy was about to see some relief. Morale so low among lawmakers could rise again. A President hindered by a distraction, by many an unwanted diversion, possibly will be able to truly move forward. Yet, the President of the United States is somber.
Finally, the light shined through. The spark in Bush's voice returned. His face lit up as he shared the story of the soon to be former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Some of the fire in his eyes stemmed from fury. A fraction was the expression of heart-felt love for a man that the President has long called "my friend." Glowing with pride and pleasure, while furious with the flame of rage Mister Bush said . . .
When he takes his place at the Department of Justice, he will succeed another fine judge, Alberto Gonzales. From his days as a Supreme Court Justice in Texas, to his years as White House Counsel and as Attorney General of the United States, this honorable and decent man has served with distinction. I've known Al and his family for more than a decade. He's a dear friend and a trusted advisor. I will miss him and I wish Al and Becky all the best.
Mister Bush has many dear friends. They follow him, and have, just as a posse adheres to the wants of its leader. The Bush flock is as a herd that trails behind its shepherd. Perhaps, that has long been the problem. President George W. Bush and his minion Attorney General Gonzales were too close. The supposed subordinate had ample power, the ability to change America in ways that destroyed the Constitution and he did. His constant contact with the Chief, blind faith in the Commander, ultimately broke the will of the Republican Gonzales backers, just as it devastated morale at the Justice Department.
Justice Department morale at low point over Gonzales
By Philip Shenon and Jim Rutenberg
New York Times. San Francisco Chronicle
Saturday, July 28, 2007(07-28) 04:00 PDT Washington -- Daniel Metcalfe, a lawyer who began his government career in the Nixon administration and retired from the Justice Department last winter, said morale at the department is worse under Attorney General Alberto Gonzales than during Watergate.
John Koppel, who continues to work at the department as a civil appellate lawyer in Washington, wrote this month that he was ashamed of the department and that if Gonzales told the truth in recent congressional testimony, "he has been derelict in the performance of his duties and is not up to the job."
Even though they worry that it may hinder their career prospects, a few current and former Justice Department lawyers have begun to add to the chorus of Gonzales' critics who say that the furor over his performance as attorney general, and questions about his truthfulness under oath, could do lasting damage to the department's work.
It is a view that is widely shared on Capitol Hill, even more so after the grueling questioning of Gonzales on Tuesday at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing at which his credibility was repeatedly challenged. After the hearing, several Democratic senators called for the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate whether he committed perjury.
Lawmakers and senior congressional aides from both parties said Gonzales had lost almost all ability to influence the administration's agenda in Congress, denying the president what should be an important voice on issues including terrorism, immigration, and civil rights.
"The attorney general's loss of credibility not only harms him personally, it diminishes the Justice Department and undermines the president's ability to move some of his most sensitive legal issues through the Hill because the trust factor doesn't exist with his attorney general," said Rep. Adam Putnam of Florida, a Gonzales critic who is chairman of the House Republican Conference.
Gonzales is expected to be sidelined from any significant part in the debate on Capitol Hill this summer over legislation eagerly sought by the administration to update terrorist surveillance laws.
Administration officials and close allies acknowledge that some of President Bush's aides might be eager to see Gonzales go, but they say the attorney general continues to have the confidence of Bush, who has repeatedly shown that he resists making personnel decisions under political pressure.
In separate interviews, White House officials used virtually the same words in describing why Gonzales might remain at the department indefinitely: "Only one person matters" -- the president.
The President, for years, remained loyal to his good friend Alberto Gonzales. George W. Bush, when confronted with concerns about any of those he thought prized, consistently stated he had confidence in his appointees. Nonetheless, the claims of incompetence continued to haunt the President. Ultimately, his buoyancy, his decision to bolster the ineffective and less than authentically qualified waned.
Bush's herd of loyal Texas advisers continues to thin
By Dave Montgomery
McClatchy Newspapers
August 27, 2007 08:04:36 PMWashington — They were fiercely loyal, unfailingly disciplined and, as a unit, offered the president a comforting touchstone from his home state.
Now, Team Texas is moving ever closer to extinction. The already thinning cadre of advisers who followed George W. Bush from Austin to Washington is unraveling even further, with Alberto Gonzales and Karl Rove heading toward the door.
Although Texans are still dotted throughout the administration, most of the influential Lone Star transplants who've worked at Bush's side since his days as Texas governor either have left town or removed themselves from day-to-day influence at the White House.
Gonzales, a steadfast loyalist who served as Bush's counsel in the governor's office, announced his resignation as attorney general Monday after enduring a months-long uproar over his stewardship of the Justice Department. Rove, the architect of Bush's victorious presidential campaigns, will leave at the end of the week.
They join a parade of other departed Bush insiders from Texas, including White House adviser Dan Bartlett, former Press Secretary Scott McClellan, former Federal Emergency Management Agency director Joe Allbaugh and White House lawyer Harriet Miers, who Bush briefly nominated to the Supreme Court before a conservative backlash forced him to withdraw the nomination.
Perhaps, Americans might learn from the Bush example. While many Americans criticize the President for his faithful devotion to friends, even when they fail to prove themselves worthy of deference, citizens of this country do the same in respect to their President.
George W. Bush has shown that he does not have the people's best interest at heart. This Commander-In-Chief, has lied, cheated, and stolen the Constitution. Yet, we cling to the charade that he is our protector. Numerous Americans say they do not see him as such. Nonetheless, actions, or more accurately inactions speak. Few dare to insist that we impeach this Administration.
George W. Bush remains the "decider." Indeed, often we hear that this President has protected us from further terrorist attacks. Rarely do Americans consider that worldwide our national leaders are seen as "insurgents" and "occupiers." Assaults are ample. They are evident on the tattered parchment we call the Constitution.
Americans, as a whole, may also wish to accept what a few of the Bush cohorts learned to appreciate. It is possible to separate our selves from this President and still survive intact.
Some of the originals that remain in Washington District of Columbia are able to function with less fanfare and nary a word of farewell. Constituents do not disparage the deeds of those that chose to disconnect themselves from their guru. Those that stay in the Capital understand what the common folk seem to dismiss. George W. Bush may have been brought them to this place; however, they, and we, need not stay with him and allow him to do us harm.
Perchance, Americans might do as those that were once considered part of the clan. For safety and sanity, some of the original Texas team acknowledged that they could make it on our own. Possibly, citizens might acknowledge the same.
Karen Hughes, one of Bush's most trusted advisers in Austin and during the early days at the White House, remains in town but is focused on her current duties as a top State Department official charged with bolstering the U.S. image abroad.Three other vintage Bushites are still in Washington but, like Hughes, they're largely focused on their own turf: Education Secretary Margaret Spellings, the author of Bush's education initiatives in Austin; Housing and Urban Development Secretary Alphonso Jackson, Bush's former neighbor in Dallas; and former Bush college roommate Clay Johnson, who serves as the deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget.
The departures are to be expected toward the end of a second term. For the most part, many of Bush's original teammates chose to stay on long past the traditional tenure in a city known for burnout and destroyed families.
"The only surprise is not that any of the Texans have left but that they stayed so long," said Mark McKinnon, a former Bush media consultant who's now the vice chairman of Public Strategies of Austin.
The longevity of many Texas transplants — particularly those who remained at Bush's side deep into his second term — in many ways reflects the mutual loyalty that bonded the former Texas governor and those who joined him at the outset of his political career in the mid-1990s.
Loyalty, while a lovely trait can create much chaos. Indeed, it has in the Justice Department and by extension throughout the United States of America. In this country, as Alberto Gonzales proclaimed the President has powers awarded in times of war. Thus, privacy is righteously lost. Telephone trolling is no longer a temptation for those in "authority" that wish to spy on average citizens; it is law. Habeas corpus is denied, and Rules of the Geneva Convention are deemed quaint.
David R. Gergen, professor of public service at Harvard University and an adviser to Presidents Nixon, Gerald R. Ford, Ronald Reagan and Clinton, said Mr. Gonzales “will be remembered as riding shotgun with Dick Cheney on the expansion of presidential power.”Mr. Gergen and other legal analysts and former government officials said Mr. Gonzales came to stand for the government-by-fiat approach adopted by the Bush White House after the Sept. 11 attacks.
“You can’t just change government through strong-willed policy,” said Stanley Brand, an ethics lawyer in Washington and a former House Democratic counsel. “People who ride into Washington on a high horse of ideology or ignorance are inevitably headed toward a blow-up.”
That may be true; however, it seems the high horse in recent years was a stallion like no other. Its stance was firm; it conviction strong, and oh that saddle. The polished leather placed on the back of the Bush, Cheney steed carried quite a load and maintained its balance for seven long and difficult years. While Alberto Gonzales may have seemed to ride along side for a time, he was never off course. History demonstrates that frequently the now resigned Attorney General held the reigns.
Mr. Gonzales’s role — and particularly his derision of some provisions of the Geneva Conventions as “quaint” in one memorandum — led to a bruising confirmation battle in 2005 after Mr. Bush had tapped him to become the country’s first Hispanic attorney general. Even then, Mr. Gonzales and his senior aides were well aware of the perception, unfair though they thought it was, that his first loyalty was to the president, not to his position as the nation’s chief law enforcement officer.“I will no longer represent only the White House; I will represent the United States of America and its people,” he told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee at his confirmation hearing in January 2005. “I understand the differences between the two roles.”
For Gonzales, the distinction may be similar to what the President experiences. George W. Bush understands he is Commander-In-Chief and appointees serve at his pleasure. Bush and his Cabinet work to represent and protect the American people. However, the President understands that he serves a higher authority. His purpose is providence. George W. Bush serves his savior, Jesus Christ and the Lord guides him. Apparently, Gonzales understood, he walked a similar line.
Though few knew it at the time, John Ashcroft, Mr. Gonzales’s predecessor at the Justice Department, had shown a willingness to stand up to the White House at critical times — most famously in a March 2004 visit to his hospital room over the wiretapping program, when he refused efforts by Mr. Gonzales to certify its legality.By naming Mr. Gonzales as Mr. Ashcroft’s successor in November 2004, the White House was apparently seeking to assert its control over the department. Mr. Gonzales brought several important aides from the White House, and in the view of many Justice Department veterans, never adequately established his independence of the president’s political circle in the new job.
After the wiretapping program was publicly disclosed in December 2005, Mr. Gonzales’s handling of the controversy exacerbated those concerns. He became the most prominent public defender of the program, but his legal explanations were often ridiculed by lawmakers who accused him of stonewalling by refusing to turn over crucial documents.
Republicans remained publicly supportive of Mr. Gonzales while they were in power on Capitol Hill. But with the Democrats’ takeover of both chambers this year, Democrats feasted on his political vulnerabilities by mounting an aggressive investigation into the United States attorneys affair, and Republicans soon joined in.
The first flash point in the episode, turning the dismissals from a low-grade nuisance to a front-page scandal, came on Feb. 7, when Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty said at a Senate hearing that at least one of the ousted prosecutors had been moved out to make way for a former aide to Karl Rove.
Each week seemed to bring new evidence and batches of e-mail suggesting that the removals might have been politically motivated, and Mr. Gonzales’s honesty came under sharp attack in an April 19 Senate appearance that was widely panned by Democrats and Republicans.
Possibly, then Bush might have realized what he reluctantly ultimately accepted only weeks ago. It was time to cut his loses. However, he did not. George W. Bush could not, would not remove a member of the Executive Branch. Bush was certain to do so would be wrong. He did not wish to put the country through such a proceeding. The President held on tight to his commitment, just as the American people do. However . . .
Mr. Gonzales’s testimony “was very, very damaging to his own credibility” and his continued presence had hurt the Justice Department as a whole, Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, said at the time. “Charges are being made that the Department of Justice was the political arm of the White House,” Mr. Specter said.After an April appearance before the Senate on the United States attorneys controversy, one critic counted 74 times that Mr. Gonzales had said that either he could not recall events or did not know the answer. Even conservative icons like Robert H. Bork, the former solicitor general, thought Mr. Gonzales had mishandled the dismissals. “The way he responded made a nonscandal a scandal,” Mr. Bork said Monday.
The testimony in May of James B. Comey, deputy attorney general under Mr. Ashcroft and Mr. Gonzales, about the 2004 confrontation in the hospital over the wiretapping program further undermined Mr. Gonzales, who had testified previously that there had been no disagreement over the program. Officials later said the disagreement was chiefly over the security agency’s data mining, not its closely related eavesdropping, but Mr. Gonzales’s legalistic distinction was rejected as misleading by some senators who had been briefed on the secret surveillance.
By then, Mr. Gonzales was daily fodder for political cartoons and television comedians. With Congressional leaders calling for a perjury investigation, the controversy over the visit to Mr. Ashcroft’s hospital room appears to have become the final blow to Mr. Gonzales’s already shaky status as attorney general.
Finally, the President understood what the American people refuse to grasp. The Attorney General could not function any longer. Gonzales, just as Bush, is considered the source for comic relief. However, laughter does not relieve the pain. George W. Bush did not appreciate this truth; however, he could not change it.
This morning the President may have reminded us of ourselves. We may love to hate the Commander-In-Chief. We may wish to blame him for all the nation's ills. Perchance, some of us think there is not enough time to release him from his service. Hearings would take time and destroy the country. We must attend to deeds that are more important.
Yet, might we consider what we witnessed today and accept the analogy. George W. Bush loves Gonzales, his loyal disciple, for whatever reasons, good or bad. Yet, he did not wish to let go. Even as he did so, it was evident his heart was not in it.
Some of us might realize we, in our reluctance to accept that this Administration needs to be removed, are as Mister Bush. We got used to the "good old boy," torn and tattered as he may be. George W. Bush was familiar with his friend. We are well acquainted with him.
Some loved Mister Bush when he was first elected. They would hate to think they might have been wrong. None of us wish to believe that a vote for George W. Bush, or an endorsement for the war in Iraq would place this country in the terrible quagmire it is in.
President Bush certainly was unable to admit to the error of his appointment. Americans may declare their error now, belatedly; yet, they do nothing to correct the circumstances. We, the people wait, just as George W. did.
To this day, Mister Bush defiantly praised his earlier choice. As disciplined as the President pretended to be as he introduced his new nominee, he could not, would not, separate himself from the man that helped fashion his favor. Perhaps, we might see ourselves in George W. Bush. Might we think that if we dared impeach, that admission, admonishment of the Executives, would lead this country into chaos. Perhaps, Americans think we would appear weak. I invite each of us to ask, why are we unwilling to break free from the man that shaped our course, and continues to stay it?
I welcome reflection. On this day of induction, we must be realistic. An Attorney General, Michael Mukasey. Whether he is as Conservatives fret, too liberal, or if he is a others express, the New York Jurist is prudent, a perfect balance. This single man cannot do what we, the people have not done. We can hope as we read assessments. Slate Magazine, Journalist Emily Bazelon states in Measuring Mukasey . . .
Given the administration's past go-it-alone mentality (known more formally as the "unitary executive theory"), it's certainly reassuring that Mukasey thinks that Congress, not the president, has the constitutional authority to make the sweeping changes he advocates. At least we won't have a new special court by executive order.
Nonetheless, we have what we have. If Congress approves a man that respects the Constitution, he alone cannot restore the document to its original form.
I can only hope it is not too late. Time is an interesting construct. It heals nothing. What we do in time moves us forward, or backward.
From my own perspective, I look at the number of days that George W. Bush remains in office and I shutter. Four hundred and ninety days is quite a term. One amenable, fair, and just Attorney General alone cannot possibly give the country back to the American people. A single man with an impressive record cannot alter the course of a war gone wrong. Only we the people can do this deed.
I muse; might we consider impeachment of the Bush/Cheney clan. Perhaps, there is a chance, justice will be served, if we do as the President has done. Let us resign ourselves and reluctantly admit, it is time. Some that stayed in the White House must go.
Gonzales Goes; Will Justice Return, or Will Bush/Cheney Continue to Reign . . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on September 17, 2007 at 01:00 PM in Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General , Bush 43 Administration, Bush Press Conference, Impeach GW Bush, Surveillance, Innocent Americans | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Bush Cuts Funds For Troops. Is Veto Victory?
© copyright 2007 Betsy L. Angert
Murtha Slams Bush for Veto Threat
Please pardon the obligatory commercial prologue. Bush Renews Veto Threat
Dear President George W. Bush . . .
I was among the Americans willing to settle for some semblance of support for the troops. I was willing to say bring them home months from now; although it seems to me a time in 2008 is more than a year. Nevertheless, I called my Congressman and said please sign on to the silly Bill, the one setting an absurd and somewhat arbitrary time for bring the soldiers home. However, in each of my conversations with Congressional Aides, I added my truer feelings. I want the funds cut! It seems that now, you do as well.
I did not want the troops to travel abroad, to bomb innocent children and civilians. Placing servicemen and women in "harms way" never seemed wise to me!
The reason for this war and for the "rally 'round the flagpole" was always obvious to me. Ego and egocentric attitudes abound! America and its President arrogantly presumed to know what is best for people in the Middle East. Posturing and propaganda were produced to support this swaggering stance. If there was a battle to be had, my position was and is, let those that think there is reason to go to war go. I am not referring to the young and agile, those led into service for they need the funds just to survive, I am speaking of the nations leaders, those that posture that combat will protect us [and our interests.]
That is enough of my musings. I am writing to state, George, you have the funds for the troops now. Congress gave these to you!
The Senate today defied a White House veto threat and narrowly approved a $122 billion war spending billTo veto the Bill leaves you and our military forces, those that you placed is such a deadly and precarious situation without funds! Mister Bush, if I may be so bold, you are the person that is not "Supporting the soldiers!" Stop.
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) shot back that Bush's vow to veto the spending bill carries its own cost. In a joint letter, they warned him against following "a political strategy that would needlessly delay funding for our troops."Mister Bush, please, acknowledge the funds were granted. It is your actions, or reactions, that will delay war efforts! President Bush, you declare we must stop this silliness. For the first time ever, we agree. We can cease and desist. Let us Stop the war! This "caldron of chaos" boggles the mind; it is madness. [However, I do submit my compliments to the speechwriter that created that phrase. I truly admire such a classic construction.]
George, you blame Congress for putting our boys and girls at risk, while ignoring the premise that your orders sent them to fight on false pretenses.
The Associated Press helpfully chronicles administration statements on WMD before and after the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Among them:It seems finding fault with others is your habit. You blame "Intelligence" and Congress. Might we expect the American people are next in line to receive your wrath. After all, they did vote to end this war, to exit Iraq. Nonetheless you persist, you resist. Mister Bush you place the onus on the House and Senate, proclaiming these persons are not funding the feud."Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." -- Vice President Cheney, Aug. 26, 2002. And:
"Saddam Hussein is a man who told the world he wouldn't have weapons of mass destruction, but he's got them." -- Bush, Nov. 3, 2002. And let's all remember that these comments came considerably before then-CIA Director George J. Tenet's assertion that the WMD case was a "slam dunk," in late December of 2002. By that point, Bush and Cheney had clearly already made up their minds.
In combative speech yesterday, Bush said "the American people will know who to hold responsible" if funding for the war stalls.Dear Commander-In-Chief, the legislative branch has given you billions to play with! Even this latest Bill finances this futile folly. It will be your rejection of the measure that leaves the Defense Department without dollars to provide for this military mission.
Bush ventured into sarcasm about the political battle Tuesday saying, "If Democrat leaders in Congress are bent on making a political statement, then they need to send me this unacceptable bill as quickly as possible when they come back. I'll veto it and then Congress can get down to the business of funding our troops without strings and without delay."Please, as you say, let us have no delay; cut the funds immediately! Who knew that your own antics would slash the cash? You Mister Bush are slicing your own allowance. I am fine with that. I only hope that Congress will realize, just as there will not be a win in this war, there is no triumph when battling with the Bushman.
Perhaps Congress will listen to the speech you delivered today and conclude, we must "Bring the troops home, now!" I would have preferred soldiers were never sent. Nevertheless, since military maneuvers I must be realistic. I can fantasize that the troops needed to be back in the states yesterday. However, they were not.
President Bush, since you are now planning to "cut the funds" with your own veto pen, I say, let us do it.
"If Congress fails to pass a bill that I can sign by mid-April, the Army will be forced to consider cutting back on equipment, equipment repair and quality of life initiatives for our Guard and Reserve forces," Bush saidSlice and dice as you will, as you are. Do not send cash or soldiers. The surge and the war need to end. There was never a valid reason to start this crusade. It is time; the hour, just as our young men and women, has long since passed!
Exit Iraq! Eliminate all Funding! The reasons and rationale . . .
The Text. The Transcript. George W. Bush Tells it his way. . .
President Bush Makes Remarks on the Emergency SupplementalLet the Battle begin or end. Again I plead, Exit Iraq Now!
April 3, 2007 10:09 A.M. EDTTHE PRESIDENT: Good morning. I've just had a good meeting with Secretary of Defense Bob Gates, and General Pete Pace, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Secretary Gates and General Pace updated me on the deployment of American reinforcements to Iraq.
At this moment, two of the five additional U.S. Army brigades we are sending for this mission are operating in Baghdad. A third brigade is now moving from Kuwait, and will be fully operational in Baghdad in the coming weeks. And the remaining two brigades will deploy in April and May. It will be early June before all U.S. forces dedicated to the operation are in place. So this operation is still in its beginning stages.
The reinforcements we've sent to Baghdad are having a impact. They're making a difference. And as more of those reinforcements arrive in the months ahead, their impact will continue to grow. But to succeed in their mission, our troops need Congress to provide the resources, funds, and equipment they need to fight our enemies.
It has now been 57 days since I requested that Congress pass emergency funds for our troops. Instead of passing clean bills that fund our troops on the front lines, the House and Senate have spent this time debating bills that undercut the troops, by substituting the judgment of politicians in Washington for the judgment of our commanders on the ground, setting an arbitrary deadline for withdrawal from Iraq, and spending billions of dollars on pork barrel projects completely unrelated to the war.
I made it clear for weeks that if either the House or Senate version of this bill comes to my desk, I will veto it. And it is also clear from the strong support for this position in both Houses that the veto would be sustained. The only way the Democrats were able to pass their bill in the first place was to load the bill with pork and other spending that has nothing to do with the war.
There was -- one leading Democrat in the House said, "A lot of things had to go into that bill that certainly those of us who respect great legislation did not want there." That's an honest appraisal of the process that we just witnessed. Still, the Democrats in Congress continue to pursue their bills, and now they have left Washington for spring recess without finishing the work.
Democrat leaders in Congress seem more interested in fighting political battles in Washington than in providing our troops what they need to fight the battles in Iraq. If Democrat leaders in Congress are bent on making a political statement, then they need to send me this unacceptable bill as quickly as possible when they come back. I'll veto it, and then Congress can get down to the business of funding our troops without strings and without delay.
If Congress fails to act in the next few weeks, it will have significant consequences for our men and women in the Armed Forces. As the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Pace, recently stated during his testimony before a House subcommittee, if Congress fails to pass a bill I can sign by mid-April, the Army will be forced to consider cutting back on equipment, equipment repair, and quality of life initiatives for our Guard and reserve forces. These cuts would be necessary because the money will have to be shifted to support the troops on the front lines.
The Army also would be forced to consider curtailing some training for Guard and reserve units here at home. This would reduce their readiness and could delay their availability to mobilize for missions in Afghanistan and Iraq. If Congress fails to pass a bill I can sign by mid-May, the problems grow even more acute. The Army would be forced to consider slowing or even freezing funding for its depots, where the equipment our troops depend on is repaired. They will also have to consider delaying or curtailing the training of some active duty forces, reducing the availability of these forces to deploy overseas. If this happens, some of the forces now deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq may need to be extended because other units are not ready to take their places.
If Congress does not act, the Army may also have to delay the formation of new brigade combat teams, preventing us from getting those troops into the pool of forces that are available to deploy. If these new teams are unavailable, we would have to ask other units to extend into the theater.
In a letter to Congress, Army Chief of Staff General Pete Schoomaker put it this way: "Without approval of the supplemental funds in April, we will be forced to take increasingly draconian measures, which will impact Army readiness and impose hardships on our soldiers and their families."
In a time of war, it's irresponsible for the Democrat leadership -- Democratic leadership in Congress to delay for months on end while our troops in combat are waiting for the funds. The bottom line is this: Congress's failure to fund our troops on the front lines will mean that some of our military families could wait longer for their loved ones to return from the front lines. And others could see their loved ones headed back to the war sooner than they need to. That is unacceptable to me, and I believe it is unacceptable to the American people.
Members of Congress say they support the troops. Now they need to show that support in deed, as well as in word. Members of Congress are entitled to their views and should express them. Yet debating these differences should not come at the expense of funding our troops.
Congress's most basic responsibility is to give our troops the equipment and training they need to fight our enemies and protect our nation. They're now failing in that responsibility, and if they do not change course in the coming weeks, the price of that failure will be paid by our troops and their loved ones.
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on April 3, 2007 at 01:00 PM in Aggression, Bush 43 Administration, Bush Press Conference, Congress and Bush, Defiant Diplomacy, Iraq War, Military Missions, Politics, President Protects America , Spread Democracy, War is in the Wind, Wars Bush Commanded | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Bush; 'I'm "Trainable" and the Decision-maker' on Iraq Troop Levels
© copyright Betsy L. Angert
Please preview the press conference. Pardon the obligatory advertisement. Bush: 'I'm The Decision-Maker'
Today, President Bush meeting with his new top commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, and the press bought back memories. As I listened to George W. Bush speak on Iraq, I was reminded of my youth. The once self-proclaimed "decider" explained he is "the decision maker."
Back in the day, my parents worked with patients labeled "mentally retarded." Often these "special needs" persons were not as they appeared to be. Diagnosis means and methods were poor. People's chosen perceptions played a more prominent role than "reality" might have. The same may still hold true today and likely, it does. Nevertheless, I recall dinner conversations and terms flying around our family table. One was "trainable."
Apparently, there are differences even within the dynamic of "retardation." Some are mildly affected, thus "educable." Others are moderately influenced; thus, they are considered "trainable." The severely or profoundly slow may require life-long care and supervision. These persons are often confined to institutions.
I have never thought George W. was or is as others state, the stu*** word. Nor do I think he meets the criteria for special needs. I think the man is infinitely shrewd. Yet, I do wonder; perchance, is the White House the proper setting for such a character. Might this haloed hall be the best prescribed treatment center for a chap such as Bush?
This morning I realized that my own analysis was flawed. George W. Bush is trainable. The "decider" spoke, as he had never done before. He labeled himself the "decision maker."
I pondered. I recall when Mister Bush articulated his regret. He acknowledged that the characteristically George rhetoric may be too dramatic. George W. Bush expressed his intent to capture Osama Bin Laden and bring him home, "dead, or alive!" President Bush, when proclaiming his frustration offered, "You are either with us or against us." He told his enemies, "Bring it on" and they have.
Most surprisingly to me was that George W. Bush stated his wife spoke to him of his cowboy-like language. Laura advised him to watch his tongue. It seems the leader had; he is learning his lessons. Thus, I conclude, George W. Bush is "trainable." That is good to know. You go George. Please impress them, preferably, with your intellect and give up the statements of grandeur!
As I read the text and reviewed the video of this last exchange with the press I can only conclude, training a tyrant is a slow process. Once a "decider" decides, as far as they are concerned, they are done. No further discussion is needed. Mister Bush may speak to the media more eloquently; however, little has changed.
Bush says 'I'm the decision-maker' about sending troops to IraqHold onto your hats. Grab your saddles. People we are again in for a rough ride!
By Jennifer Loven
Associated Press9:50 a.m. January 26, 2007
WASHINGTON – President Bush, on a collision course with Congress over Iraq, said Friday “I'm the decision-maker” about sending more troops to the war. He challenged skeptical lawmakers not to prematurely condemn his buildup.
“I've picked the plan that I think is most likely to succeed,” Bush said in an Oval Office meeting with senior military advisers.
The president had strong words for lawmakers on both sides of the aisle who are lining up to support resolutions opposing his decision to send 21,500 troops to Iraq. He challenged them to put up their own ideas.
“I know there is skepticism and pessimism and that some are condemning a plan before it's even had a chance to work,” the president said. “They have an obligation and a serious responsibility therefore to put up their own plan as to what would work.”
Despite doubts in Congress and among the public about his strategy, Bush said lawmakers agree that failure in Iraq would be a disaster and that he chose a strategy that he and his advisers thought would help turn the tide in Iraq.
Rally 'round. The Trainable Decider is expecting or creating trouble again . . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on January 26, 2007 at 02:00 PM in Bush 43 Administration, Bush Press Conference, Iraq War | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
President Bush Meets The Press; Oops, It's Tony Snow ©
This week, within a two-day period, we the American people had the privilege of hearing President George W. Bush twice. On Sunday, January 14, 2007, the President spoke with CBS News, Journalist, Scott Pelley. The two casually walked through the woods at Camp David. The, sat face-to-face and chatted. Pelley posed poignant questions. The men met with families of the fallen soldiers, and Mister Bush explained his surge strategy to the troops while with Pelley.
Despite or perhaps because of national disfavor and "condemnation on Capitol Hill," President George W. Bush met with the press. Characteristically, in years past when times were tough the President hid from the press. That posture seemed to be effective. Now it seems, such a stance has proven itself to be ineffective. Perhaps that is why W. is changing his course. Possibly poor planning in the past forced Mister Bush to reassess. Perchance he decided it would be wise to meet with the media now. It could not hurt, or could it.
Days later, on Tuesday, January 16, America was given another chance to assess. The President, again sat for the cameras. This time he appeared on Public Broadcasting, Nightly News Hour.
In an extensive conversation with Jim Lehrer, President Bush explains why sending more troops into Iraq will help stem the violence, why withdrawing now would be a expedited failure, and how Americans can participate in the struggle for freedom.Transcripts from these interviews are infinitely interesting. I invite you to read the full text from 60 Minutes broadcast as well as the content of the conversation between Jim Lehrer and George W. Bush. There is much to assess.
Presidential proposals are worthy of note as is the appearance of the President. We might wonder why this long cloistered leader now appears before us.
The forty-third President, well known for his disdain of media is now making use of the airwaves as he never has. Little more than a year ago, Eric Alterman of The Nation wrote . . .
White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card has insisted that the media "don't represent the public any more than other people do . . . I don't believe you have a check-and-balance function."Now much has changed. Currently, media savvy magistrate, Tony Snow rules the roost or at least this former Fox News commentator determines when the "decider" needs to speak to the nation.Bush himself, on more than one occasion, has told reporters he does not read their work and prefers to live inside the information bubble blown by his loyal minions. Vice President Cheney feels free to kick the New York Times off his press plane, and John Ashcroft can refuse to speak with any print reporters during his Patriot-Act-a-palooza publicity tour, just to compliant local TV. As an unnamed Bush official told reporter Ron Suskind, "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality--judiciously, as you will--we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors...and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do." For those who didn't like it, another Bush adviser explained, "Let me clue you in. We don't care. You see, you're outnumbered two to one by folks in the big, wide middle of America, busy working people who don't read the New York Times or Washington Post or the LA Times."
Since Mister Snow was appointed Press Secretary, there is a notable increase in Presidential meeting with the press. Granted the trials and tribulations as they relate to terrorism, Iraq, and hopes of retaining Republican dominance in Congress contribute to the upsurge; however, it seems obvious that Tony Snow bring us Bush at his best or worst.
After all, we cannot ignore that George W. Bush is still George W. Bush. His smirk and secretive stance lingers. It looms larger as we listen to this inept Executive Officer discuss his newest combative campaign.
Mister Lehrer inquires and President responds . . .
MR. LEHRER: But to be very direct about it, Mr. President, you had a few years here and you've been in charge. And you've made a lot of decisions; you've made a lot of judgments about things and they haven't worked. And so now, you've made a new one. So why should anybody expect the new ones to work when the prior ones did not?Contrary to the Bush premise, there is no unity in Iraq. Witness the hanging of Saddam Hussein. Rumors were realized; the hanging was a revenge killing.PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, actually - I will sound defensive - but some of my decisions actually have worked, like getting rid of Saddam Hussein and helping the Iraqi government form a unity government that is based on a novel constitution for the Middle East. As a matter of fact, in 2005, I thought - I mean, in 2006, I thought I'd be in a position to remove troops from Iraq, in other words, hand over more of the authorities to the Iraqis so they could take the fight, and then this sectarian violence that you described broke out. And the question is, do we try to stop it? Do we help the Iraqis stop it? And a year ago, I felt pretty good about the situation; I felt like we were achieving our objective, which is a country that can govern, sustain, and defend itself. No question, 2006 was a lousy year for Iraq. And so the question I'm now faced with is do I react to that or do we just begin to leave, which is - some people - decent people on Capitol Hill think we ought to do. I made the decision, let's succeed; let's work for success not work for failure.
MR. LEHRER: What does success mean in these terms now, Mr. President?
PRESIDENT BUSH: Yeah, well, success, Jim, means a government that is providing security for its people. A success means for the American people to see Iraqi troops chasing down killers with American help initially. A success means a Baghdad that is, you know, relatively calm compared to last year so that people's lives can go forward and a political process can go forward along with it. Success means the government taking steps to share the oil wealth or to deal with a de-Baathification law, to encourage local elections. Success means reconstruction projects that employ Iraqis. Success also means making sure al-Qaida doesn't get a foothold in Iraq, which they're trying to do in Anbar province. So success is measurable; it's definable; and last year was a year in which there was a setback to success.
Tensions between the White House and the Iraqi government resurfaced today as the US president, George Bush, criticised the manner of Saddam Hussein's execution.The President simultaneously referenced unity as he reluctantly admitted the likelihood of revenge. George W. Bush could not ignore the words of puppet Prime minister Nuri al-Maliki, though he would have liked to. The Iraqi leader also addressed the issue of division.Mr. Bush said the hanging had looked like "kind of a revenge killing" and had dented the US public's faith in the Iraqi government.
In remarks bound to grate on Baghdad, Mr. Bush said the episode had shown that the government of the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, still had "some maturation to do."
The execution of Saddam, amid taunting by his Shia guards, and the subsequent hanging of two of the dictator's co-defendants sparked anger among Iraq's Sunnis, deepening the country's sectarian divide.
Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, who didn't attend the execution, used it as an opportunity to plead for national unity to ward off deadly sectarian violence which is straining Iraq's fledgling government.The smell of death hangs in the air. Americans may wish to believe that Saddam was a tyrant and a killer of the masses. Their assessment may be correct. However, if we are to judge, we must also consider and evaluate our own actions. Nation columnist Robert Dreyfuss remarks . . ."In the name of the people I call on all men of the past regime and manipulated by it to reconsider their stances," al-Maliki said in a written statement released after the execution.
Since the US invasion of Iraq, by one widely reported estimate, as many as 655,000 Iraqis have been killed, in air strikes, by bombs, in death-squad executions and generalized civil strife. Now, add one by hanging: the kangaroo-court trial and execution of Saddam Hussein. In life, even in prison, he inspired many loyalists to fight for his legacy; but his death is certain to spark even fiercer violence, not just from his remaining lieutenants and senior Baath party officials but throughout the broader Sunni Arab community in Iraq. It pushes any hope of Sunni-Shiite reconciliation farther away, inflames passions on both sides, and solidifies the image of the United States in Iraq as a bloodthirsty occupier.Convicted of war crimes by a puppet Iraqi regime that dispensed with niceties such as evidence and rebuttal, Saddam Hussein was blamed by his fiercest critics--such as Kanan Makiya, author of Republic of Fear, and others with strong motive to inflate the scale of Saddam's crimes--of killing 300,000 Iraqis during his thirty-five-year rule (1968-2003). In less than four years, George W. Bush has more than doubled that, with no end in sight. As war criminals go, Bush wins hands down.
The 655,000 US victims in Iraq do not include the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, mostly children, who died during a twelve-year era of US-imposed sanctions on Iraq from 1991 to 2003, but those deaths, at least, were obscured by a fig leaf of legality, since the sanctions had been approved by the UN Security Council. Bush's Iraq War had no such cover: It was deemed "illegal" by Kofi Annan, the former UN secretary general.
Yet, the President of the United Sates wants us to believe that what we did was best for the Iraqi people. Those in Iraq will tell you, they are worse off since America and its dwindling allied forces imposed their will. Numerous individuals "living" in Iraq wish for what was under Saddam Hussein's rule.
CBS News Journalist Harry Smith went to Iraq to speak with the citizens in Baghdad. A distressed Iraqi citizen declared . . .
"When the Americans started this whole war issue, we started to see the light at the end of the tunnel, and we walked toward it. But when the war happened, that light was the American train coming the other way that ran us overAnother Iraqi expressed . . .
"I think we had higher expectations of what the Americans can do. I hear it from many friends, who say, 'Do you really want me to believe that America cannot fix this?' "Perhaps our President might re-think his decisions. How does he want to be remembered. The President says he ignores the polls. He does not worry that his numbers are down and are decreasing steadily. According to our Commander-In-Chief, it matters not that he is no longer popular. However, historians muse.So, asked Smith of the young men, "You know people who would like it better the old way?"
"Yes," responded No. 1. [a name given to identify the participants while maintaining their anonymity] "It breaks my heart knowing that, because it was so bad, but now, they feel it's worse, and they just wish that Saddam's regime could come back."
As President Bush enters the last two years of his White House tenure, the question of his legacy has become a lively topic among historians and political commentators.Maybe the younger Bush is considering the same. Perchance the widespread Republican losses during the recent midterm elections gave George W. reason to pause. The passing of former President Gerald R. Ford may have brought forth the idea of "legacy." President Bush may be considering the quality of his own. The coupling of these events may have stimulated his mind. Possibly Mister Bush reflected and decided to reach out to the American people, or is Tony Snow the mastermind behind these novel public Presidential appearances.If the attacks of 9/11 were the transcendent moment of the Bush presidency, analysts say, the long and difficult war in Iraq has fundamentally defined it.
The war has gone badly, the president's approval ratings have plummeted, and voters rebuked the GOP in November by giving Democrats control of Congress. Some experts predict Mr. Bush will be among the bottom rung of American presidents.
Supporters point to accomplishments: tax cuts and the appointment of conservative judges at home, routing the Taliban in Afghanistan and efforts to protect the U.S. homeland from attack after 9/11.
"It may be some time before we know really what the outcome is in Iraq," said Ross Baker, a political scientist at Rutgers University.
There also are questions about whether Mr. Bush's choice to invade Iraq jeopardized the hunt for Osama bin Laden and a wider war against terrorism.
Poor Tony; he has his work cut out for him. We saw this in 2006. George W. Bush is not necessarily a welcome guest. He did not advance the cause. The conventional wisdom; coattails can carry a candidate along. However, this President's presence is not now thought persuasive nor is it helpful. In Florida, Republican gubernatorial candidate Charlie Crist left town when George W. Bush came a courting. Christ knew as did many party loyalists throughout the country, a Bush appearance could bring a contender down. Charlie Christ wanted to win and George W. Bush is not a winner.
Bush out on the stump might not be the best strategy Mister Snow. Though George W. admires former President Reagan, the junior George is not the charismatic man with a childlike charm Reagan is or was.
George W. is one of the boys. As many voters remarked over the years, he is the guy you want to go have a beer with. Yet, there are those of us that do not hang out at the bars backslapping. Some of us long for substance! We welcome it. In assessing the lack-luster plan the President presented before the war began, the strategy he later proposed, or the newer strategy he now endorses, we recognize, this man does not exude depth.
Sadly, Mister Snow you may be fighting a losing battle. A President, even one that is the son of another prominent Head of State is not presidential by default. Birthrights do not breed brilliance. George W. Bush can be trained, tutored, taught to be other than he is; however, he is, whom he is. A smirk is a smirk is a smirk. Did you see the sneer on our Commander's face when Jim Lehrer stated . . .
MR. LEHRER: The best route. How would you define, finally, where the best route is going to end? If you - in other words, you have a plan now –Yikes!!! Mister Snow was that not what existed prior to our invasion. People in Iraq led stable lives. There was less violence than there is now. It was possible to live a life. Communities functioned. There was electricity, running water, schools, and hospitals to serve the citizens. Currently, there is just chaos.PRESIDENT BUSH: Right.
MR. LEHRER: -- and eventually, the plan is going to have to result in something. You said yourself it's going to have to result in something on the ground.
PRESIDENT BUSH: Right. Right. Right.
MR. LEHRER: What is that result going to be?
PRESIDENT BUSH: A Baghdad which is less violent, neighborhoods that are not being cleansed of sectarian violence, and a government that has got a security force - army and national police force - that is chasing down killers, whether they be Sunni killers or Shia killers. In other words, a country that is beginning to function, first and foremost - a government functioning as - to provide security for people. Most people want to live in peace, and yet, the violence is such that they're not able to do so.
Oh, Mister Snow, as much as I enjoy watching Gorge W. attempt to justify his foibles and fumbles, and I do, I feel so badly. While fighting the war in Iraq is "difficult," doing your job must be beyond belief.
Snow Sources. Bush References . . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on January 19, 2007 at 07:00 PM in Bush 43 Administration, Bush Press Conference, Failure, Iraq War, Manipulated Media, Presidential Politics, Success. Failure., Tony Snow, Press Secretary , Wars Bush Commanded | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Bush Believes, Bellows, Boasts, Bows, Perhaps Blind-Sides ©
I vigorously took notes as I listened intently. I typed quickly; I apologize for any inaccuracies. I hope I captured the essence.
Please feel free to correct my errors in your comments. I invite you to discuss the Presidential Press Conference on this December 20, 2006.
I thank you for your continued commitment to the health and happiness of America and Americans.
The President begins with his beliefs.
"I believe the mission is tough. I know what I am asking them to do is going to be accomplished."
"I believe we are going to win."
"We are going to succeed."
"Our enemy cannot rush us out. They cannot intimidate America!"
On surge . . .
"I haven’t made up my mind yet about more troops.’’[regardless of what the are American people favor.]
“Hypothetical questions – I’m not going to answer those today . . ."
"I will tell you, we are looking at all options, and one of those options is . . . more troops."
"I am willing to follow a path that leads to victory"
"Of course, I want public opinion to support the path. I understand that."[However . . .]
Bush boasts of his decisions . . .
"I know it is the right decision for America to stay engaged to take the lead."He speaks of what ails him . . .
"The most painful aspect of the presidency is I know that my decisions have caused young Americans to lose their lives."[Bush mentioned his heart hurts. Might he consider the hearts of young service men and women bleed. While he is pained they pass from this Earthly existence! There are those that live, wounded Iraqi innocents, allies, and Americans too. Tens of thousands have lost limbs or sight. Bush believes he is hurt. Might he consider those whose injuries will never heal properly. Oh what of the posttraumatic stress. Will those suffering ever feel safe. The pain they feel lingers, perhaps for a lifetime.]
On energy, Mr. Bush advocates a technology that exists and has for more than one and one half centuries, hydrogen fuel cells. With thanks to oil Dynasty's such as the Bush Bunch, this tool has not been developed further. The influence of power moguls led to a lack of dollars for development and research. Bush is devoted to further the use of such cells, oh really. Might we assess his history!
"What fascinates me is the leader of Iran is willing to say things that hurt his country. You can do better than having someone re-write history!"[Mirror, mirror . . .]
Leaks,
"Clearly against the law and they need to be held to account."[Hello Dick!]
"Absolutely Jim. It is important for us to move forward to assess what went wrong!" "We are making good progress. It is hard work!" "We have not made as much progress as we had hoped to have made."[Bush is the Master of understatement!]
The question was asked, "You said the presidential microphone has never been louder" . . . please assess the recent campaigns and elections. The implication was perhaps the President's voice was not heard or appreciated.
"The microphone being loud means I am able to help . . . I am able to speak about priorities."[Can and does he communicate to the average American; did he address the concerns of the people? The last election may provide the answer. Certainly, the President did not!]
"We are in the beginning stages of an ideological struggle." "Everyone is trying to rewrite the history of America! It is true of any administration . . . it is gonna take awhile to determine . . ."The President bows out and thanks the people, the press, and wishes them Happy Holidays. One wonders; will that gesture fare well with those that object to any salutation other than Merry Christmas?
One footnote . . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on December 20, 2006 at 12:59 PM in Bush Press Conference | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Bush Bellows, "It's Bad In Iraq! [Does that help?]" ©
President Bush repeatedly tells us he understands. He understands that we, as a nation, have a responsibility to lead. Mr. Bush believes that he as a man must guide his "broad" coalition, regardless of its size. The alliance consists mostly of one country, the United Kingdom. Bush tells, his citizens that there is a job to "do" and some his job is to make war in the name of peace.
Prime Minister Blair and I understand that we have a responsibility to lead and to support moderates and reformers who work for change across the broader Middle East.King George W. understands "peace" and how important this prospect is for our children and grandchildren. Does he understand that if "defeat" is part of your vocabulary than peace is not what you are proposing? Tranquility is the understanding that comes with talk. Calm, caring conversation gives birth to peace.We also recognize that meeting this responsibility requires action. It will take concerted efforts to advance the cause of peace in the Middle East.
We stand together because we understand the only way to secure a lasting peace for our children and grandchildren is to defeat the extremist ideologies and help the ideology of hope and democracy prevail.
George W. Bush continually asserts he will not talk to rogue nations. Bush will not come to the table. Yet he states,
But one thing is for certain: When people -- if people come to the table to discuss Iraq, they need to come understanding their responsibilities -- to not fund terrorists, to help this young democracy survive, to help with the economics of the countryRather than approach disagreements diplomatically, this martyr, fights and then, frequently frets, "Yes, it is tough." I consistently wonder, as I listen to his constant whine, "Mr. Bush, perhaps it is too tough for you?" War and peace seem to weigh heavy on your heart.
You speak of these struggles often.
You know, in all due respect, I've been saying it a lot. I understand how tough it is, and I've been telling the American people how tough it is. And they know how tough it is.Oh, yes, it is Mr. Bush. It is tough for me to understand. Why did you choose such a path. Clearly, it causes you such angst. George, there is no reason to take on tasks that are just too tough.And the fundamental question is: Do we have a plan to achieve our objective? Are we willing to change as the enemy has changed?
And what the Baker-Hamilton study has done is it shows good ideas as to how to go forward. What our Pentagon is doing is figuring out ways to go forward -- all aiming to achieve our objective.
Make no mistake about it: I understand how tough it is, sir.
Oh, George W., our "fair" leader I fear for you. You seem to be deeply immersed in cognitive dissonance. You say you understand there's sectarian violence. I wonder. Did you comprehend such a notion before you chose to unilaterally attack? Did the Baby Bush discuss religious wars with his Dad or did he simply decide to surround himself with yes men and women. Boy Bush, my heart bleeds when I think of your family. You know how important families' are.
I talk to the families who die. I understand there's sectarian violence.The President understands we are "hunting down al-Qaida on a regular basis. It seems to me we are strengthening this group and all other "terrorists" enclaves.I also understand that we're hunting down al-Qaida on a regular basis and we're bringing them to justice.
How are we bringing al-Qaida to justice? I do not understand. I know that innocent people are imprisoned at Guantanamo. These individuals rarely if ever have access to an attorney. Is that judicious?
Perchance I do not recognize, realize, or appreciate your benevolent actions President, Bush. It seems to me Mr. Shrub sending the blameless off to jail, to serve indeterminate sentences in detention centers continents away is an odd way of pursuing and imposing decency. When I think of democracy I do not consider what I currently see to be so. Soldiers do not spread freedom. The military is not the messenger for liberty. Yet, you say,
I understand how hard our troops are working. I know how brave the men and women who wear the uniform are.Mr. President, you claim to understand the struggle. You acknowledge that we are not winning an un-winnable war. According to reports, you see the threat. Still, rather than go forward and fight for what you believe is "right" you send our youth. Mr. Bush you put our soldiers in harms way and you ask our troops to slaughter the innocent. I do not understand!And, therefore, they'll have the full support of this government.
I understand what long deployments mean to wives and husbands and mothers and fathers, particularly as we come into a holiday season. I understand. And I have made it abundantly clear how tough it is.
I also believe we're going to succeed. I believe we'll prevail. Not only do I know how important it is to prevail, I believe we will prevail.
"Gentle" George, you say that you read the reports and realize that Americans are loosing their lives, their limbs; however, you continue to choose to ignore the death and destruction. Would the war be different if you were in harm's way. I cannot help but wonder.
Is winning your only vision; is this even possible? Does anyone win in a war? I only see loss and I sigh. I think war is never a solution; However, I hear you. You claim we must triumph. Yet, again this task is hard.
I understand how hard it is to prevail. But I also want the American people to understand that, if we were to fail -- and one way to assure failure is just to quit -- is not to adjust and say it's just not worth it.If we were to fail, that failed policy will come to hurt generations of Americans in the future.
And as I said in my opening statement, I believe we're in an ideological struggle between forces that are reasonable and want to live in peace and radicals and extremists.
And when you throw into the mix a radical Shia and radical Sunni trying to gain power and topple modern governments with energy, which they could use to blackmail Great Britain or America or anybody else who doesn't kowtow to them, and a nuclear weapon in the hands of a government that would be using that nuclear weapon to blackmail to achieve political objectives, historians will look back and say, How come Bush and Blair couldn't see the threat? That's what they'll be asking.
And I want to tell you, I see the threat. And I believe it is up to our governments to help lead the forces of moderation to prevail. It's in our interests.
And one of the things that has changed for American foreign policy is the threat overseas can now come home to hurt us. And September the 11th should be a wake-up call for the American people to understand what happens if there is violence and safe havens in that part of the world.
And what happens is people can die here at home.
Dear George, in my mind, your mission created greater violence. It increases exponentially. People from home are dying. They are killed and maimed far from our shores and farther still from their families. Many breathe their last breath miles away from those they love. It is heartbreaking to consider, worse still to behold. If only you understood this!
I appreciate your question. As you can tell, I feel strongly about making sure you understand that I understand it's tough.Oh my! The bellowing Bush asserts he appreciates the question. He thanks us, his audience for listening to his lengthy answer. George W. Bush avows he understands; however, I must ask, if he did would we have gone to war? Would we as a nation continue to confront a problem that worsened with thanks to the malicious mastermind of our "Commander-In-Chief." I do not understand. It is tough for me. I am truly trying to comprehend. Yet, consistently I conclude, boast as you do Mr. Bush, you understand nothing!But I want you to know, sir, that I believe we'll prevail. I know we have to adjust to prevail, but I wouldn't have our troops in harm's way if I didn't believe that, one, it was important; and, two, we'll succeed.
Thank you.
Bad Boy Bush Understands Iraq. . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on December 7, 2006 at 02:00 PM in Blair/Bush, Bush Press Conference, Iraq War, Military Missions, War and Peace, War is in the Wind, Wars Bush Commanded | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Bush. Rice. The “Root Causes” of War. ©
America allowed its friend and ally Israel to pummel the Lebanese countryside. Thus far, 700,000 people have been displaced within Lebanon. Women and children are killed day after day; and all Bush can say is “Hezbollah is to blame.” Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers and had they not done so Lebanon and Israel would be at peace, or so is the world according to the Shrub.
Hezbollah has fired Katyusha rockets daily. On some days, hundred sprinkle Israeli territories. As weeks turn into a month, these missiles come closer to the capital. These projectiles are penetrating more deeply into the nation state of Israel. There are many injuries. However, the fight must continue, according to Israeli officials. “We must win.”
Numerous persons worldwide are disturbed. When will this crisis end? Will it ever?
The people of this republic clamor; they ask their President to talk to the warring nations. Americans insist; we must step in. The requests fall on deaf ears. Days pass and the public begs; they pray, “Please Mr. Bush speak with the Israelis. Send Condie in. She will save the day.” Americans want the Administration to meet with the Lebanese. Negotiate with Hezbollah. Work with other nations to reach an accord. Do something. The Emperor delays.
Mr. Bush, with the blessings of his Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, continues to explain, the time will come. For now, “Israel has the right to defend herself.”
However, ultimately, after all the aggression and all the assertions Bush and his Bunch did enter the fray. Diplomatic talks did begin. They progress slowly. However, days ago an announcement was made; an agreement had been reached.
This morning a press conference was held. King George II and the lovely Miss Rice met with journalists. They made a statement and took questions.
Secretary Rice and diplomats from other countries are developing United Nations resolutions to bring about a cessation of hostilities and establish a foundation for lasting peace.The first resolution, which the Security Council is now considering, calls for a stop of all hostilities. Under its terms, Hezbollah will be required to immediately stop all attacks; Israel will be required to immediately stop all offensive military operations.
The President and his pride are pleased; yet, those concerned are not. Some ask, “Why does the text of the resolution state “all hostilities” must stop, and then clarify, Hezbollah is required to stop all attacks; Israel need only end offensive operations. “ Why is there a cessation and no ceasefire?
Bush explains, a resolution is not requested or required because “root causes” must be addressed. We are reminded of the statement Secretary Rice made weeks ago, “A ceasefire would be a false promise if it simply returns us to the status quo”.
A second resolution, which the Security Council will begin working on as soon as possible, will help establish a sustainable and enduring cease-fire.Perchance, that armistice will address the “root causes.”
Dear reader, you might note that I referred to “root causes” twice within a given paragraph. I am being redundant, perhaps, to make a point. I know not. I only understand that the term must be reiterated over and over, and over again. At least that is my assumption, for I hear the President and his persuasive Secretary of State using the same phrase repetitively. I began to count the number of usages in today’s speech and then again, within answer; however, I lost count early on.
Just before the meeting began, I was watching an interview with Former Senate Majority Leader, also Mideast Envoy for the Clinton administration, George Mitchell. Soledad O’Brien of Cable News Network and the esteemed Mr. Mitchell were discussing the Middle East situation and possible solutions.
During this dialogue, Ms. O’Brien asked, “If you were advising this president, what would you tell him to do to solve this crisis now?”
Former Senator Mitchell replied,
Well, the administration was very slow to get involved. It has concentrated all of its effort, resources, and attention on Iraq over the past few years, and as a result, the central concern, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, really hasn't had the attention it deserves. But now after a slow start, even in the past few weeks, they're into it. And I think what they've got to do is persevere and make it clear that they're going to stay with this until it's resolved.Ms. O’Brien interjects, inquiring, “Direct negotiations, you mean, with the U.S.?”The problem has been that, other than Iraq, the administration's involvement, particularly in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, has been episodic, irregular -- come in one day, go out next week. I think they have to say -- the president has to make clear that they're determined to stay with this and get an ultimate resolution.
The second point is -- I simply don't agree with Secretary Rice's formulation that here's our resolution, if you're not for it, you're not for peace. That's the attitude that I think has reduced American credibility around the world. That we've presented this, we know what is best, and if you don't agree with us, you're not a good person. That's not the approach that they should be taking. It ought to be, here's an effort, let's all sit down and talk together. Let's listen to the concerns of people. Let's try to work them out. In the end, you may not be able to get everybody on board, but I think that's a better approach. ?
And the third thing is, this isn't going to be resolved in any final way until Syria is involved. This is on Syria's border. They're exposed to...
The former Middle East Envoy replies,
We ought to be talking to them. And I would be amazed if there were not indirect negotiations. To say they're bad people, we won't talk to them, has the benefit of clarity and it's easily understood. But when you want someone to do something, it's hard to get them to do it if you won't talk to them.Thus we have it, the root cause stated clearly. I think the “root cause” is not Hezbollah; nor would I claim that it is Israel, or Lebanon. For me, the “root cause” for wars worldwide, be they in the Middle East or elsewhere is the same. It is the babyish Bush Bunch attitude, “You are either with us or against us.” Play by our rules or you cannot play at all. Tantrums, what tantrums, I just refuse to talk to you until . . . Welcome to the world of Bush; battles are blazing. Rome is on fire and Nero plays the fiddle, foolishly.
Reference the Root Causes for the Resolution . . .
• Protesters Want End To Battering Of Lebanon, By Lynne Tuohy. The Hartford Courant. August 6, 2006
• American and British inaction will turn a crisis into a catastrophe. Sunday Herald. July 23, 2006
• President's Radio Address. Office of the Press Secretary. July 22, 2006
• Bush Blames Hezbollah, Syria for Mideast Violence; WTO Talks Break Down, Associated Press. Sunday, July 16, 2006
• Lebanon: Hezbollah bombs deeper into Israel. Gleaner Company. Thursday, August 3, 2006
• Bush: 'Israel Has Right to Defend Itself'. By Voice of America News. July 13, 2006
• President Bush and Secretary of State Rice Discuss the Middle East Crisis. Office of the Press Secretary. August 7, 2006
• Transcript: Bush, Rice news conference. Seattle Post. Monday, August 7, 2006
• PDF Transcript: Bush, Rice news conference. Seattle Post. Monday, August 7, 2006
• Bush: Mideast violence must stop, CNN News. Aired August 7, 2006
• American Morning. Transcripts. U.N. Mideast Resolution. CNN News. Aired August 7, 2006
• Rice sees Mideast progress among the bombs. CNN News. Thursday, August 3, 2006
• Rice: Cease-fire won't help, By Shmuel Rosner. Haaretz.
• Special Briefing on Travel to the Middle East and Europe. Secretary Condoleezza Rice. Washington, DC. U.S. State Department. July 21, 2006
• Lebanon's objections delay UN Council Mideast vote. Reuters. August 7, 2006
• The Root Cause Of War In The Middle East, By Claude Salhani. United Press International. July 31, 2006
• What Are the Root Causes, Mr. Bush and Ms. Rice? Opinion: Am Johal. Scoop Independent News. Thursday, 27 July 2006
• What Are the Root Causes, Mr. Bush and Ms. Rice? By Am Johal. The Electronic Intifada. July 26, 2006
• Village attack stirs outrage; tactics isolate Israel, U.S., By Susan Page, Andrea Stone and Jeffrey Stinson, USA Today. July 31, 2006
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on August 7, 2006 at 06:53 PM in Aggression, Bush 43 Administration, Bush Press Conference, Condoleezza Rice, Condoleezza Rice, Ph.D., Current Affairs, Failure, George Mitchell, Senator, Mideast Envoy, Israel and Lebanon, Jews, Hezbollah, Middle East Resolution, Short-term Solutions, United Nations Security Council , Violence, War and Peace, War is in the Wind, “Root Causes”, “You are either with us or against us” | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
President Bush, Prime Minister Blair Come To Visit, Converse With Me ©
Possibly, you, as I, look forward to our meetings with the President, infrequent as they are. Perhaps, that is why we treasure them so. These conferences are rare, though, nevertheless, a treat. When President George W. Bush asks Prime Minister Tony Blair to accompany him, well that is truly a delight. I am overjoyed. I revel in these exchanges. I can hardly wait to invite the two in my parlor for a chat. This Thursday night was such an occasion.
While the hour was late in London, and therefore, few Englishmen and women would be able to join us, I acknowledged that I was fortunate. Two men of such great stature, power, and fame [infamy] were coming to visit me. We would gather in my living room. They stated earlier that they were ready, willing, and of course able to discuss politics, particularly the Iraqi war. This was such a dream come true.
I invited each of my guests to speak first. I requested they share their points of view; I would listen, and then discuss. Blair spoke some, though his words were not as poignant as those of the President. Mr. Bush has a style and finesse that is engaging, thus, he and I conversed.
President Bush proposed, “The United States and Great Britain will work together to help this new democracy succeed.” I inquired, is it not true that a Democracy is a government chosen by the people and not forced upon them through war?
He ignored me and continued, “We'll take advantage of this moment of opportunity and work with Iraq's new government to strengthen this young democracy and achieve victory over our common enemies.” “Common enemies,” I blurted out. Might we the aggressors not be seen as adversaries?
Did we not invade a country without reason or a request? Did America and Great Britain not choose to unilaterally attack a nation of people merely to overthrow their leader? Did the “allies” and “broad coalition” not create turmoil in a land that once entertained at least a sense of stability and could they have not achieved a similar turn without all the killing? President Bush remained placid.
Mr. Bush remained good-natured and composed. His stilted smirk never betrayed him. His monologue, his mantra was steady. The naked Emperor said, “Despite setbacks and missteps, I strongly believe we did and are doing the right thing.”
Mr. President I retorted loudly, “Do you really believe it was correct to enter a country on false and contrived pretenses?” “Do you think killing the young, the innocent, and the unarmed in worthy?” Do you honestly believe, battles such as the ones that you yourself, even in your youth were never willing to engage in are just?” “Mr. President,” I declared, “I think not!”
George W. Bush looked over at me, wincingly, and said, “The decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power was controversial. We did not find the weapons of mass destruction that we all believed were there, and that's raised questions about whether the sacrifice in Iraq has been worth it.”
He repeated, “Despite setbacks and missteps, I strongly believe we did and are doing the right thing.” After all, “Saddam Hussein was a menace to his people. He was a state sponsor of terror. He invaded his neighbors.” “Oh, sir,” I proclaimed with a shrug, “Is it only because there is an ocean and other countries between us that you do not believe that we too, America, invaded one or more of its neighbors?” “Are we not as a state, as a nation, sponsoring terror? Look what we have and are repeatedly creating worldwide. Both before and after our aggressions, I see little evidence of US diplomacy.”
King George II mused for a time and then replied, “We've learned from our mistakes, adjusted our methods, and have built on our successes.” Have we Mr. President?
Smugly George W. acknowledged, “No question that the Iraq war has, you know, created a sense of consternation here in America. I mean, when you turn on your TV screen and see innocent people die day in and day out, it affects the mentality of our country.” Turn on your television see what? Mr. Bush, it has been documented repeated, not since Vietnam has there been so little coverage of a war. Your administration and Pentagon have flown the fallen and wounded in at night so that photographs cannot be taken. Your own personnel have spoken of the Dover Effect and have worked to control against it!
Only recently, since citizens began exposing the truth of this war, has American been given more access. Dear George, is it not true that without citizen activism, this conflict would still be invisible?
Hemming and hawing, King George reluctantly offered, “Listen, I want our troops out, don't get me wrong. I -- you know, I -- I -- I understand what it means to have troops in harm's way, and I -- and I know the -- there's a lot of families making huge sacrifices here in America. I'll be going to a Memorial Day ceremony next Monday, paying tribute to those who've lost their life. I'm sure I will see families of the fallen. I fully understand the pressures being placed upon our military and their families.” He mumbled, “But I also understand that it is vital that we -- that we do the job, that we complete the mission.”
Apologetically, though resolute, the President affirmed, “And it has been tough. It's been tough, because we're fighting an unconventional enemy that is willing to kill innocent people. There are no rules of war for these people. But make no mistake about it. What you're seeing in Iraq could happen all over the world if we don't stand fast and achieve the objective.”
A friend of mine then reflected aloud, “Mr. President, you spoke about missteps and mistakes in Iraq. Could I ask both of you which missteps and mistakes of your own you most regret?”
Bush recounted, “It sounds like kind of a familiar refrain here.” The living room filled with laughter, nervous chuckling. “Saying "Bring it on.” Kind of tough talk, you know, that sent the wrong signal to people. That I learned some lessons about expressing myself maybe in a little more sophisticated manner. You know, "Wanted dead or alive," that kind of talk. I think in certain parts of the world it was misinterpreted. And so I learned -- I learned from that.” I mumbled inaudibly, “you learned that good ole boy ‘plain speaking’ is unwise; nothing more?”
Perhaps he heard me, for he then suggested there were other lessons. “And, you know, I think the biggest mistake that's happened so far, at least from our country's involvement in Iraq, is Abu Ghraib. We've been paying for that for a long period of time. And it's -- unlike Iraq, however, under Saddam, the people who committed those acts were brought to justice; they've been given a fair trial and tried and convicted.” Were they Mr. President? Did America actually judge all those that were responsible or only the “peons,” the persons that were expendable?
With that, President Bush thanked me for my hospitality and said his good-byes. Would we meet again soon? I suspect the answer is as the one frequently asked, “When will the war end?” No timetable will be given.
For Fun or Fears . . .
• Transcript of Bush-Blair News Conference National Public Radio
• Blair and Bush Are Duo Even in Descent By Glenn Kessler. Washington Post. Friday, May 26, 2006
• President Bush Meets with Prime Minister Blair The White House. January 31, 2003
• President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours The White House. March 17, 2003
• President Addresses the Nation The White House. September 7, 2003
• President Bush Announces Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended President George W. Bush, USS Abraham Lincoln, At Sea Off the Coast of San Diego, California. U.S. State Department. May 1, 2003
• Iraq election at-a-glance BBC News Monday, 24 January, 2005
• International Responsibilities Task Force
• Iraq Coalition Casualty Statistics
• Iraq Coalition Casualty Count
• Forces: U.S. & Coalition/Casualties CNN News
• War Tracker/Archive CNN News
• Bush's Guard Service In Question, By Lois Romano. Washington Post Tuesday, February 3, 2004
• Saddam statue toppled in central Baghdad CNN News. Wednesday, April 9, 2003
• The Tragedy of American Diplomacy in Iraq By Carl Mirra. CommonDreams.Org January 30, 2005
• Bush Legitimizes Terrorism, By Robert Fisk. The Independent and CounterPunch. April 16 - 18, 2004
• Administration hides reality of war. Wednesday, By Daniel A. Weiner, Rabbi. Seattlepi.com. February 4, 2004
• Photos of Military Coffins (Battlefield and Astronaut Fatalities) at Dover Air Force Base
• PDF The invisible wounded, By Mark Benjamin. Salon.com or html The invisible wounded
• Camera/Iraq
• Arab Opinions, By Khaled Dawoud. Al-Ahram Weekly, July 30, 2004
• Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America
• Bush: 'Bring on' attackers of U.S. troops USA Today July 2, 2003
• Bush: bin Laden 'prime suspect' CNN News. September 17, 2001
• Annals of National Security, The Gray Zone How a secret Pentagon program came to Abu Ghraib. By Seymour M. Hersh. The New Yorker. May 15, 2004
• Torture at Abu Ghraib. By Seymour M. Hersh. The New Yorker. April 30, 2004
• The Abu Ghraib Prison Photos AntiWar.com
• Defense rests in case of Abu Ghraib dog handler, By Stuart Grudgings. Reuters and Washington Post. Friday, May 26, 2006;
• Bush and Blair turn their backs on exit plans By Michael Gawenda. Fairfax Digital, The Age Company. May 27, 2006
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on May 26, 2006 at 07:30 PM in 'Regime Change' , Afghanistan, Aggression, Blair/Bush, Bush 43 Administration, Bush Press Conference, Discussion, Iraq War, Lies, Politics, Presidential Politics, Propaganda and Politics, Saddam Hussein, Spread Democracy, Terrorism, Violence, War and Peace, War, The Last Option, “Freedom” and “Justice” | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
