THE LAST DAYS OF PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH

2011-03-03T03:34:00.000+11:00

Very good.

2011-02-05T01:51:00.001+11:00

A Q & A with Bush from January 2011

(the link to the original story is here if this video doesn't work)

2010-04-29T13:29:00.004+10:00

I Am The Decisioner

So George W. Bush is helping out those in the media who want to get his public rehabilitation started by writing a book about his presidency, called Decision Points.

According to Crown Publishers, "Decision Points" will offer "gripping, never-before-heard detail" on such historic events as the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and the 2000 presidential election along with Bush's decision to quit drinking, his relationship with his family and other personal details.

Here's the cover :

Gawker supplies alternative, far more accurate covers :

More From Gawker Here

2010-03-25T01:40:00.003+11:00

Bill Clinton = Improvised Hand Cleanser

George W. Bush returns to the news headlines, after he is videod wiping his hand on Bill Clinton's shirt after shaking hands with Haitians as the two former presidents toured the earthquake aftermath :

When president, George W. Bush used to have someone carry a bottle of hand sanitiser for him. Now, with his personal assistants budget cut to the bone, he has had to find alternatives for a bit of hand cleansing, post-handshakes.

The look on Clinton's face, as he realises Bush has just wiped his hand on his shirt, is absolutely priceless.

.

2010-03-04T02:02:00.002+11:00

Karl Rove : I Failed Bush

It's enough to make you want to hurl chunks :

Political strategist Karl Rove says President George W. Bush made the right decision to launch the Iraq war in 2003, but the former White House adviser admits the failure to find weapons of mass destruction badly damaged the administration's credibility.
In his new memoir, "Courage and Consequence," Rove blames himself for not pushing back against claims that Bush had taken the country to war under false pretenses, calling it one of the worst mistakes he made during the Bush presidency.

Rove says Bush did not knowingly mislead the American public about the existence of such weapons.

So Bush unknowingly misled the American public?

Sounds like Karl Rove is trying to create one of those new realities he used to be infamous for.

.

2010-03-02T02:13:00.004+11:00

What Did George W. Bush Know, And When Did He Know It?

Will George W. Bush ever have to explain himself in a full and open-to-the-public investigation into the 9/11 attacks?

2009-10-21T23:13:00.000+11:00

Get Confident, Stupid!

Unconvicted war criminal, and ex-president, George W. Bush has found a new job.

From TPM :

As part of the sales pitch for Get Motivated!, George W. Bush is referred to as "America's foremost success expert."

I hope at least one person at every seminar attempts a citizen's arrest.

Maybe a very motivated person could spend $20,000 or $40,000 to hire Bush to speak at their 'business lunch' (in the US that is, he's a little worried about traveling internationally, too often), then have him detained and arrested for war crimes.

A great set piece for a documentary on the financial and human misery George W. Bush left behind, in the United States, in Afghanistan, in Iraq.

2009-10-15T02:19:00.003+11:00

Fox Cheerleaded Bush? No Way, Says O'Reilly

Fox News shouter Bill O'Reilly tries to rewrite the history of how the network routinely went out of its way to vilify those who publicly criticized the Bush administration, and demanded they be held to account, for 9/11, for the War On Iraq, for the failure to catch Osama Bin Laden....

O'Reilly : I have to say that when President Bush was in trouble in Iraq, this network and this program, and your program as well, routinely, routinely hammered President Bush. On Iraq.
Hume: Well, we certainly -- we, we were very faithful about covering all the bad news that came out of Iraq for a very long period of time. The criticisms that were made of him were reported and discussed at length on Fox News. Um, now, he had his defenders, the war had its defenders, there was commentary on Fox --

O'Reilly: But there was no cheerleading -- There was no cheerleading of President Bush on this network when his administration ran into trouble. There was no cheerleading, you know -- it was skeptical coverage, Iraq's going south, when the economy started to wobble last September, we were right on that.

Here's Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch admitting he used his network, and worldwide media empire, to help the Bush administration try and shape public opinion all through the War On Iraq :

January 2007 : Bill O'Reilly Continues To Push "Six More Months" In Iraq To Help Bush Administration

2009-05-19T23:43:00.004+10:00

Bush Has Already Been Tossed Overboard By Cheney On Torture

Frank Rich, from the New York Times, sees former vice president Dick Cheney already distancing himself from his president, but at the same time plunging Bush into the same pit that he already occupies :

It will soon be every man for himself.

“Did President Bush know everything you knew?” Bob Schieffer asked Cheney on “Face the Nation” last Sunday. The former vice president’s uncharacteristically stumbling and qualified answer — “I certainly, yeah, have every reason to believe he knew...” — suggests that the Bush White House’s once-united front is starting to crack under pressure.

I’m not a fan of Washington’s blue-ribbon commissions, where political compromises can trump the truth. But the 9/11 investigation did illuminate how, a month after Bush received an intelligence brief titled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.,” 3,000 Americans were slaughtered on his and Cheney’s watch. If the Obama administration really wants to move on from the dark Bush era, it will need a new commission, backed up by serious law enforcement, to shed light on where every body is buried.

There's a lot of bodies....

And some more on the bizarre use of scripture by Donald Rumsfeld to convince Bush that the War On Terror was exactly the kind of biblical war he imagined it was :

(Official Bush biographer Robert) Draper reports that Rumsfeld’s monomaniacal determination to protect his Pentagon turf led him to hobble and antagonize America’s most willing allies in Iraq, Britain and Australia, and even to undermine his own soldiers. But Draper’s biggest find is a collection of daily cover sheets that Rumsfeld approved for the Secretary of Defense Worldwide Intelligence Update, a highly classified digest prepared for a tiny audience, including the president, and often delivered by hand to the White House by the defense secretary himself. These cover sheets greeted Bush each day with triumphal color photos of the war headlined by biblical quotations. GQ is posting 11 of them, and they are seriously creepy.

Take the one dated April 3, 2003, two weeks into the invasion, just as Shock and Awe hit its first potholes. Two days earlier, on April 1, a panicky Pentagon had begun spreading its hyped, fictional account of the rescue of Pvt. Jessica Lynch to distract from troubling news of setbacks. On April 2, Gen. Joseph Hoar, the commander in chief of the United States Central Command from 1991-94, had declared on the Times Op-Ed page that Rumsfeld had sent too few troops to Iraq. And so the Worldwide Intelligence Update for April 3 bullied Bush with Joshua 1:9: “Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be terrified; do not be discouraged, for the LORD your God will be with you wherever you go.” (Including, as it happened, into a quagmire.)

What’s up with that? As Draper writes, Rumsfeld is not known for ostentatious displays of piety. He was cynically playing the religious angle to seduce and manipulate a president who frequently quoted the Bible. But the secretary’s actions were not just oily; he was also taking a risk with national security. If these official daily collages of Crusade-like messaging and war imagery had been leaked, they would have reinforced the Muslim world’s apocalyptic fear that America was waging a religious war. As one alarmed Pentagon hand told Draper, the fallout “would be as bad as Abu Ghraib.”

Read The Whole Story Here

2009-02-12T08:53:00.001+11:00

2009-01-22T12:54:00.005+11:00

"I'm Coming Home With My Head Held High"

Back in Texas, now former president George W. Bush, spoke to his true believers. The only major news channel to carry the speech live was Fox News. All the others were distracted by something happening in Washington DC.

The faithful say goodbye to Bush at YouTube :

"He SHOULD return home with his head held high. His accomplishments will only be realized in the history books of our children and grandchildren. Thank you, Mr. President. You made me feel like a true U.S. patriot. Good job, sir."

"Bush is the man"

"thank you BUSH may you be safe welcome home."

"America did not deserve someone of your characte, Mr. Bush."
"Thank You President Bush for putting America first and popularity last. You will be missed. I just hope we survive these next four years...."

"I'm thankful for our safety, tax cuts and two new conservative justices on the Supreme Court. Thank you President Bush."

From McClatchy's :

On his last day as president, he had a typical morning at the White House, according to departing White House Press Secretary Dana Perino. He spoke with outgoing Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other aides, then took a walk around the White House grounds.

"He's the president of the United States, the way he always is," Perino said. "He hasn't changed. He gave me a big kiss on the forehead."

Bush kept with presidential tradition, leaving new President Barack Obama a personal letter in the drawer of the desk in the Oval Office.

Bush was accompanied on his last day by first lady Laura Bush, by his parents, former President George H.W. Bush and former first lady Barbara Bush, daughters Barbara and Jenna and son-in-law Henry Hager.

The family members were part of the former president's entourage to Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland to board what had been Air Force One — now designated Special Air Mission 28000 — as he returned home to Texas, stopping first at a welcome celebration in Midland and then on to Waco and his nearby Crawford ranch.

The Bush team on board was a who's who of his former closest aides: Karl Rove, Karen Hughes, Dan Bartlett, Joe Allbaugh and Ed Gillespie. Longtime Texas friends Don Evans, who was commerce secretary in Bush's first term; Alberto Gonzales, the attorney general who left under a cloud; Harriet Miers, the former White House counsel who withdrew as a Supreme Court nominee; and Tom Schieffer, Bush's former partner in the Texas Rangers, who served as U.S. ambassador to Japan and, earlier, to Australia.

2009-01-22T11:39:00.003+11:00

Some of the last photos, under the headline title The Bush Record, that appeared on the Bush administration Whitehouse.gov website :

2009-01-20T02:37:00.004+11:00

A Sort Of Sign-Off On This Last Day Of The Last Days

The Bush Presidency As Foretold....By A Fake Newspaper

By Darryl Mason

I've been thinking for months about what kind of post will best sum up the Bush presidency on this day, the last day of President George W. Bush in the White House.

It was only going through my blogs' archives, for another story entirely, that I stumbled across something that perfectly sums up the Bush presidency for me. Something written as fiction that became fact.

Back in 2001, when George W. Bush, first arrived at the White House, the online satirical newspaper, The Onion, ran the following story. Few others in the American media so effectively prophecised what was to come :

"My fellow Americans," Bush said, "at long last, we have reached the end of the dark period in American history that will come to be known as the Clinton Era, eight long years characterized by unprecedented economic expansion, a sharp decrease in crime, and sustained peace overseas. The time has come to put all of that behind us."
"You better believe we're going to mix it up with somebody at some point during my administration," said Bush, who plans a 250 percent boost in military spending.
On the economic side, Bush vowed to bring back economic stagnation by implementing substantial tax cuts, which would lead to a recession, which would necessitate a tax hike, which would lead to a drop in consumer spending, which would lead to layoffs, which would deepen the recession even further.
Bush concluded his speech on a note of healing and redemption.

"We as a people must stand united, banding together to tear this nation in two," Bush said. "Much work lies ahead of us: The gap between the rich and the poor may be wide, be there's much more widening left to do. We must squander our nation's hard-won budget surplus on tax breaks for the wealthiest 15 percent. And, on the foreign front, we must find an enemy and defeat it."

"The insanity is over," Bush said. "After a long, dark night of peace and stability, the sun is finally rising again over America. We look forward to a bright new dawn not seen since the glory days of my dad."

So Bush is gone.

Is it over, then, for The Last Days Of President George W. Bush blog?

Yes.

Well, kind of.

I have a few dozen story notes and article excerpts on Bush in draft that will pop up on this site, but not as new stories, when I get around to finishing them. That work is not exactly a high priority right now.

But I will be doing a couple of round-up posts of stories from this blog, from the past couple of years, in the weeks to come, to remember what exactly it was we lived through.

And I will come back here to update when there is news of particular interest about Bush, and in a couple of months I will write a Looking Back At Bush essay here. If you do the RSS for this blog, any new posts should pop up there.

And, if Blogger doesn't disappear in the meantime, there will be a day when I come back here to write about the death of former US President George W. Bush. If he goes back to hitting the booze as hard as he did in the 1970s, that day won't be too many years into the future.

As I write this, Bush is preparing to head back to Washington DC, from the ranch in Crawford, Texas, and he will soon shake the hand of President Barack Obama, and then head for Andrews Airforce Base, where he will ride a plane stripped of its official title - Air Force One - back to Texas.

Bush won't return to Washington DC again, in any major way, until the real investigations of criminal behaviour in the Bush White House get underway late this year, or early next year, if he bothers to front the hearings.

I started this blog because I thought it would be a good way to keep track of the scandals and mindfucking news that seemed to flow almost daily, back then, from the Bush White House. They were involved in some serious reality-warping and redefining, and I needed to write about it to make sense of it.

I also thought there might be a book in it all, one day. I think now it will have to be a science fiction novel, instead of a non-fiction book, there are already too many of them about Bush, and this blog will prove very handy as a refence tool for any novel like that I may end up writing.

Doing this blog didn't exactly work out the way I wanted it to. It should have been daily updated, but sometimes it wasn't updated for six or seven weeks at a time. I missed whole months of President Bush history because, well, I had better things to do, but I got down most of what I wanted to write about those days. And writing about it did help greatly in making sense of it.

And how interesting it is to write those words in regard to Bush : Those Days.

Those Last Days Of President George W. Bush.

If you're interested, you can find more of my writing on these blogs, both of which are usually updated daily :

The Orstrahyun

Your New Reality

UPDATE : I just found this, again looking through the blog archives for something else. It's from January 2007. Wouldn't You Cry, Too?

By Darryl Mason, January 2007

You're the President of the United States.

Your country is locked into a war that no-one, really, anymore, believes you can win.

You have met, privately, with the family members of at least one third of the men and women who have died in the war you insisted, for reasons that don't even make sense anymore, had to be fought.

You were surrounded by people who told you it would be "a cake walk", that "Americans would be greeted with flowers and sweets" and that the country you invaded was crying out for all that was good and true and right about America.

You look around today, and most of the people who were there with you, in the dark hours after 9/11, who said, "Yes, Mr President, we must do Iraq", you look around, and most of them aren't there anymore. There's Condi. God bless Condi, but she too was caught up in the filth that flowed in those darkest days. One day, people will read of how she held you in the darkest hours of the darkest days, held you as only a true friend can. You cried then, but you cry more now.

You know it was always a lie, that real men didn't cry. It was illusion. And it made it harder for you to cope when the tears started to come. Because it wasn't supposed to be that way. This was not what men did. At least, that's what you were always taught.

You wished you had been stronger, that you didn't listen to all those voices, all those people, all those front pages stories saying that what you were going to do was the right thing to do. That it was necessary. To do Iraq. To get rid of Saddam.

You did it for your own reasons, too, of course. You did it to become the legend. To make the dream of a world ruled by freedom and democracy a reality. How were you to know that it could never be? That it was all a fantasy? These were supposed to be the best minds in America. The brightest of all the shining stars. But they didn't know anything more than you in the end.

And you did it to show them all. All those who said you were a loser. From the days when your dynasty of privilege and opportunity offered you the world, but locked you out of it as well.

And you did it, in the end, to avenge your father. Or did you do it to show the old man?

To say to him, "Look, I can finish what you started. I can set these people free."

But he shakes his head at you now and says you don't understand, you never understood, this is not the way the world works, there is no black or white, or even shades of grey. The complexity of all would melt the mind of anyone man who tried to take it all in.

But how you were supposed to know that?

He never told you. He never wanted to tell you anything. Only until it was too late. And then he sent in his old friends. But he felt shame when he thought of you. That you could come from him. But who was he? A living joke, when you were the rising star.

Life was easy, for a long time. Drink some beers, have some lunch, go watch your baseball team play a game, chew some tobacco right there in the bleachers, next to your wife. Man, you were king of the world back then. Well, King of Texas, anyway. And that was all the world you knew, and that was all the world you needed to know.

But it's not then, it's now.

Today.

And you wonder, you wonder...

Like anyone would wonder.

What happened?

What the fuck happened?

How did it all go so fucking wrong?

This is now. This is your world. Your country. Your people. Your war.

And you're trying to get it right, in the time you have left.

You want to get it right. You would give your life like Jesus to get this right. To make it good.

God told you, this was the right thing to do. That when he said Love, he meant Freedom. That's what you wanted to give to the world as your gift as the most powerful man on the planet.

But your dreams lie in ruins now.

Your world has turned dark. Your dad isn't well. He doesn't understand why you did what you did. He warned you about those people. All those who told you were right, that you would be remembered as greater than George Washington. One day. If only you did what they said.

Get him. Get Saddam. Take his country. Kill them all.

Greater than Washington?

Not now.

Not ever, now.

And they want you gone.

All those who told you you had to do this. That you had to seize the moment in history provided by 9/11 to change the future. They want you gone in the worst way. Because everyday you're still there, you remind them of their own failings. Of their own hatred and their pitiful fancy, and their shame, and egret.

If they even know how to feel shame and regret.

They want you gone so bad, you don't even know if you will make it to your last days, if you will even be alive in January, 2009.

How can two hundred million Americans hate you so much?

Don't they understand? You're not God. You're just...you. The one who was not supposed to succeed. Who was not supposed to become President. You were written off before you even got out of high school. You drank too much, you did too many drugs, you made so many mistakes, but you got your shot at the golden fleece.

The greatest prize in history.

You were so close. Like a god on earth, maybe. For a few weeks perhaps.

So close.

And now it's all gone. All gone.

You dream about the Americans who died in Iraq, in Afghanistan, like you dream about all those other talented, brilliant young people who were engaged in black budget activities that never reached the newspapers, the successes and the failures, all those who will never be granted medals, or even recognised by name for the ways they tried to change the future. Tried to change the world. Like you did.

You keep going back to George Washington.

You keep returning to the same books. Re-reading them, trying to find something in those words, in that history, in those legendary days of the 1770s to guide you now. God isn't there anymore. You call to him, but there's no answer. Not like before.

You pray to Washington now. He was written off, like you are now, nobody believed he could turn it all around and defeat those who were unbeatable. But he did it. He proved them all wrong. And he changed the world forever.

Can you do this now?

Can you make it?

Can you prove them all wrong?

Are you strong enough?

You cry today for that young man, that brave young man who saw a grenade in the street and threw his helmet on it, and then blocked the rest of the blast with his chest. He died back home, with his parents by his side.

That poor kid. He died to save his friends, not only from death, but from shrapnel wounds. How brave is that? You cry because you don't know if you would have done the same thing in the place of the man whose family you just gave a medal to.

You want to cry?

Of course you want to cry.

What man wouldn't.

To see all this horror, and to know it is your own making.

They won't blame Saddam.

Not in two hundred years.

They won't blame Richard Perle and Frank Gaffney Jnr and Karl Rove and Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz, and all those who signed their names to that fantasyland doctrine in the late 1990s.

Their names will fade.

Some of them, some of those who cried loudest for war against Iraq, their names are already forgotten. They've gone back to being nobody fuck-alls and the nothings they were before you let them walk the halls of the White House and get a lend of your ear.

But your name, George W. Bush, it is your name that will be remembered in the centuries to come.

You are already the most famous President of the United States. Ever.

The poor, starving masses huddled in mud huts in the middle of bone-dry, food-bare Africa, and their equivalents in all the regions of the world, they don't know who the fuck Lincoln and Washington were.

But they know your name.

Oh yeah, they know who you are.

And they blame you for everything.

Everything.

So you cry now. You cry now for all the dead American soldiers, and all the dead Iraqis and Afghans, and all those dead Somalis from this week as well. You weep for them all. And you cry for your country, and the wars to come, in far off lands, and the wars to come at home.

It won't end well.

There will be more horror to come. For everyone.

And for you, too.

If they let you live that long.

Someone has to pay. Someone always has to pay. To clean the slate. To restore the balance. To clear the halls of the ghosts. To let the world breathe a sigh of relief.

To start at the beginning, to begin again.

Did you give it your all? Did you give it your best shot?

2009-01-19T23:46:00.002+11:00

Three Years Of Bush Presidency Spent Away From Washington

Almost 1000 days of Bush's eight year term in the White House was spent at Camp David, or at the Crawford ranch :

Bush has made 77 visits to his ranch in Crawford during his presidency, and spent all or part of 490 days there.

Bush said he really "wanted to change the tone in Washington." Maybe he could have changed that tone if he'd spent just a little bit more time there, in the nation's capital.

2009-01-18T22:26:00.001+11:00

Eight Years Of Bush In Eight Minutes

I'm not sure what the full impact of video sharing sites like YouTube have had in total on the presidency of George W. Bush. But put it this way, they certainly haven't helped him. Not at all.

Eight years of Bush in eight minutes from Keith Olbermann :

2009-01-18T00:47:00.002+11:00

The Greatest Moments In Presidential Speeches : The Bush Years

The David Letterman Show built an extremely popular short segment out of Bush verbal blunders. This compilation of clips acts as a Letterman show farewell to Bush :

2009-01-14T11:04:00.001+11:00

Bush Tours The Nation Wide Disaster Zone Caused By His Presidency

The Onion says goodbye :

Bush Tours America To Survey Damage Caused By His Disastrous Presidency

2009-01-12T22:48:00.001+11:00

From January 7, 2009

PRESIDENT BUSH: I want to thank the President-elect for joining the ex-Presidents for lunch. And one message that I have and I think we all share is that we want you to succeed. Whether we're Democrat or Republican, we care deeply about this country. And to the extent we can, we look forward to sharing our experiences with you. All of us who have served in this office understand that the office transcends the individual. And we wish you all the very best. And so does the country.

2009-01-12T10:33:00.001+11:00

Another excellent Bush retrospective. No president has ever been so generous to those who will mock him

Get the latest news satire and funny videos at 236.com.

2009-01-11T21:16:00.002+11:00

Top Ten Golden Comedy Moments Of The Bush Presidency

The presidency of George W. Bush has been good to the writers of the David Letterman show. And every other late night variety show, comedy show, skit show, stand-up comedian, newspaper cartoonist and general satirist in the world. There will never be another American president like George W. Bush, and the whole world will breathe a, brief, sigh of relief in just over a week's time :

2009-01-09T13:42:00.003+11:00

Cheney Announces Official End To Bush Presidency

In recent days, soon to be no longer Vice President Dick Cheney has used his final round of media interviews to make sure everybody understands that all the illegal, morally questionable and controversial things George W. Bush did as president, were all decisions Bush made for himself :

“The notion that somehow I was pulling strings or making presidential-level decisions. I was not,” he said.

“There was never any question about who was in charge. It was George Bush. And that’s the way we operated. This whole notion that somehow I exceeded my authority here, was usurping his authority, is simply not true. It’s an urban legend, never happened.”

Which is Cheney's way of saying: "Don't look at me, I didn't do it!"

2009-01-06T00:17:00.003+11:00

The Perks Of Being An Ex-President

As an ex-president, Bush gets only a slightly better deal than ex-Australian prime ministers. Still, when tens of millions of Americans will find themselves amongst the New Poor, Bush will be soaking up more almost $200,000 a year in cash, and another few hundred grand in "expenses" as he focuses on building a $300 million monument to his presidency :

George W. Bush's "after-life," as Laura Bush calls the post-presidency, is shaping up to be pretty comfortable, with a Dallas office, staffers, Secret Service protection, a travel budget, medical coverage and a $196,700 annual pension, all at taxpayers' expense.

The Bushes will move to their new $2 million , 8,500-square-foot Dallas home — not paid for by taxpayers — on Jan. 20 , and there Bush will be close to his future presidential library at Southern Methodist University .

"We're working on a conceptual design for the building," said Mark Langdale , president of the George W. Bush Foundation .
The president will help develop the $300 million structure, which will include a library, museum and policy institute.

Fundraising is just beginning, Langdale said. Construction will be paid for with private funds, and Bush is expected to be involved in organizing the fundraising drive.

Bush made a lot of his old friends in the US War Industry richer than they've ever been before, so presumably they will cough up the delayed kickbacks to fund most of the library's construction. Then again, if Bush is actually pursued very publicly for war crimes, he may find 'donors' for his library projects few and far between.

Secret Service protection will only last for ten years.

Bush will maintain an office nearby in space acquired by the General Services Administration, which, under the Former Presidents Act, will pay for the office suite and staff to assist him for the rest of his life.

The GSA also covers travel expenses for any official activities attended by a former president, as well as two staff members.

Taxpayers footed the $50,000 travel bills of Bill Clinton and George W.'s dad in 2008.

And then there's the state funeral, with full military honours.

2009-01-05T23:59:00.005+11:00

Spoken Like A True Harvard MBA Graduate

We'll probably never know whether a diagnosis of "pre-senile dementia" is correct, but years and years of severe alcohol abuse, which President Bush has admitted to, can result in brain damage that takes a couple of decade or more to show itself. However, it's a remarkable comparison of Bush's verbal skills in the early 1990s, compared to the mid-2000s :

Then again, it's not exactly a secret that Bush was, at the very least, an occasional cocaine user in the early 1990s. Just a little bit can give you that kind of gleam in your eye, and appealing confidence.

2009-01-05T23:51:00.003+11:00

When Bush Tried To Sell "A Humble Foreign Policy" Without Smirking

From the Election 2000 campaign :

2008-12-12T11:51:00.003+11:00

Bush : The Bible Is Not Meant To Be Taken Literally

George W. Bush, who saw great potential in ditching alcoholism for evangelicalism, drops a bomb on the true believers :

President George W. Bush has shocked some evangelical Christians by suggesting that the Bible is not "literally true." While most of the 85 percent of believing Christians in America would be comfortable with that sentiment, evangelicals will not be.

President George W. Bush made the statement on ABC's Nightline. Bush said, when asked about the Bible's literal truth, "Probably not. No, I'm not a literalist, but I think you can learn a lot from it." On the subject of the creation of the universe, President Bush went on to say, "I think that God created the Earth ... and I don't think it's incompatible with the scientific proof that there is evolution." Bush also suggested that Christians, Jews, and Muslims pray to the same God.

Of course, if he he had been so frank as to say that he didn't believe the Bible was a fax from God, and that creationism doesn't rule out evolution, back in 2000, he probably wouldn't have become president.

2008-12-06T02:51:00.002+11:00

I know Bush has little time left in the White House, and this blog has been woefully under-updated in recent months. We are now literally in the last days of the Bush II administration. I'm hoping to get back to some serious round-ups of BushCo. news I've missed here, before he leaves the White House in late January.

2008-08-08T12:03:00.005+10:00

BushCo. Buried British Intelligence Stating Iraq Had No WMDs

Those who knew the Bush White House was full of shit in its claims of Iraq threatening neighbours and the world with WMDs and nukes are finally being proven right.

The lies worked, however, the War On Iraq is heading towards its sixth year, more than 4100 US soldiers and hundreds of Coalition of the Willing solders are dead, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed and wounded, BushCo. fleeced the American taxpayers for more $600 billion to pay for the war and the Middle East is no more peaceful.

Ron Suskind, author of two excellent and headline-making books on BushCo. lays out the evidence for the lies that made the War On Iraq a reality :

MI6 told Tony Blair before the invasion of Iraq that a high-placed Iraqi source said that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction. The intelligence was passed to the US but was buried by the White House, according to a new book.
The book claimed that the former Prime Minister sent a top British spy to the Middle East in 2003 — three months before the invasion — to dig up enough intelligence to avoid war but that President Bush and Dick Cheney, the Vice-President, dismissed any claims or possible evidence that would stop military action.
In The Way of the World, the Pulitzer prize-winning author Ron Suskind also claimed that the White House ordered the CIA to forge a backdated, handwritten letter purportedly from the head of Iraqi Intelligence to Saddam. The letter, which came to light nine months after the invasion, was meant to demonstrate a link between the Baathist regime and al-Qaeda.
The forgery, adamantly denied by the White House, was passed to a British journalist in Baghdad and written about as if genuine by The Sunday Telegraph on December 14, 2003. The article received significant attention in the US and provided the White House with a new rationale for the invasion, Suskind claimed. The White House called the allegation absurd.

Suskind said that at the beginning of 2003 MI6 sent one of its top agents, Michael Shipster, to the region. Mr Shipster held secret meetings in Jordan with Tahir Jalil Habbush, the head of Iraqi Intelligence. The meetings were confirmed by Nigel Inkster, former assistant director of MI6.
Mr Inkster also confirmed that Mr Shipster was told by Mr Habbush that there were no illicit weapons in Iraq. Mr Inkster refused to comment last night.
Sir Richard Dearlove, the former head of British Intelligence, was also interviewed by Suskind. The author said that Sir Richard confirmed the Shipster meetings and report. He added that he asked why Mr Blair had not acted on the intelligence.
Sir Richard was quoted as saying that the mission was an eleventh-hour “attempt to try, as it were, I’d say, to diffuse \ the whole situation”. He added: “The problem was the Cheney crowd was in too much of a hurry, really. Bush never resisted them quite strongly enough.”
Suskind wrote that Sir Richard flew to Washington in February 2003 to present the Habbush report to George Tenet, then the Director of the CIA. The report stated that according to Mr Habbush, Saddam had ended his nuclear programme in 1991 — the same year that he destroyed his chemical weapons programme — and ended his biological weapons programme in 1996. These assertions turned out to be true.
Mr Tenet briefed Mr Bush and Condoleezza Rice, at the time his National Security Adviser.
Suskind wrote: “The White House then buried the Habbush report. They instructed the British that they were no longer interested in keeping the channel open.”
Rob Richer, a former CIA officer in the Near East division, told Suskind: “The Brits wanted to avoid war — which was what was driving them. Bush wanted to go to war in Iraq from the very first days he was in office.”
Mr Habbush was put on the White House’s list of most-wanted Iraqis but according to Suskind he was paid by the CIA in October 2003 to write the forged letter to Saddam, dated July 1, 2001, saying that the putative September 11 ringleader Mohammed Atta had trained for his mission in Iraq. This was the letter publicised in The Sunday Telegraph.
Of the forgery allegation, Mr Tenet said: “There was no such order from the White House to me or, to the best of my knowledge, was anyone from the CIA ever involved in any such effort.” Of Mr Habbush, Mr Tenet said that the claims in the book were a complete fabrication. He said that Mr Habbush had “failed to persuade” the British that he had “anything new to offer by way of intelligence”.

Ron Suskind explains why the White House is now calling him names :

What just happened? Evidence. A secret that has been judiciously kept for five years just spilled out. All of what follows is new, never reported in any way:

The Iraq Intelligence Chief, Tahir Jalil Habbush -- a man still carrying a $1 million reward for capture, the Jack of Diamonds in Bush's famous deck of wanted men -- has been America's secret source on Iraq. Starting in January of 2003, with Blair and Bush watching, his secret reports began to flow to officials on both sides of the Atlantic, saying that there were no WMD and that Hussein was acting so odd because of fear that the Iranians would find out he was a toothless tiger. The U.S. deep-sixed the intelligence report in February, "resettled" Habbush to a safe house in Jordan during the invasion and then paid him $5 million in what could only be considered hush money.

In the fall of 2003, after the world learned there were no WMD -- as Habbush had foretold -- the White House ordered the CIA to carry out a deception. The mission: create a handwritten letter, dated July, 2001, from Habbush to Saddam saying that Atta trained in Iraq before the attacks and the Saddam was buying yellow cake for Niger with help from a "small team from the al Qaeda organization."

The mission was carried out, the letter was created, popped up in Baghdad, and roiled the global newcycles in December, 2003 (conning even venerable journalists like Tom Brokaw). The mission is a statutory violation of the charter of the CIA, and amendments added in 1991, prohibiting the CIA from conducting disinformation campaigns on U.S. soil.

So, here we go again: the administration is in full attack mode, calling me names, George Tenet is claiming he doesn't remember any such thing -- just like he couldn't remember "slam dunk" -- and reporters are scratching their heads. Everything in my book is on the record, with many sources. And so, we watch and wait....

2008-07-30T12:43:00.005+10:00

Anti-Bush Graffiti From Around The World

Go here for more from anti-Bush graffiti from dozens of countries, and details on the above images.

2008-07-28T12:51:00.002+10:00

As Far As The US Media Goes, The Bush Presidency Is Already Over

There's still six months to go before the presidency of George W. Bush comes to an end, and it would appear (today at least) that Bush may leave office with a growing peace taking root in Iraq, and some solid signs of progress in changing the course of Iran and North Korea's nuclear ambitions.

The mainstream American media, infected by Obamania, could care less :

President Bush - remember him? He has long ceased to be a hot story. Across all forms of mainstream media, news coverage of the president has fallen significantly this year.

The drop-off has big implications for Bush, whose ability to influence the public debate is weakened by less exposure, and for the country, which ends up with lighter scrutiny of the nation's highest office.
The nation is tired, worn down by wars and a weak economy. Much of the country seems ready to move on, even though Bush remains relevant thanks mainly to his veto power and his command over the military.
For the reporters still following Bush, the big stories still happen, but far less often. TV correspondents find it harder to get on the air, photographers doubt whether their pictures will get any play, and writers often see their work buried in the back of the newspaper.
Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain make news every time they speak, a luxury of attention once afforded to Bush. He used it to his advantage as a candidate in 2000 and an incumbent in 2004.

Now he watches as Obama's trip to the Middle East and Europe gets coverage that seems, well, presidential. Many of the people who long have covered Bush have abandoned the White House post for the presidential campaign. When it's over, they may return, when the White House beat is deemed juicy again.
Over the first four months of the year, Bush got about half as much coverage on nightly network broadcasts as he did in 2007, according to an analysis by Lichter's center. Bush's coverage on major network news is running more than 60 percent below what he got during his first seven years in office.

More broadly, Bush has faded in the primary places people get their news: major newspapers, TV networks, cable TV news, radio and online sites. The nonpartisan Project for Excellence in Journalism, which conducts an ongoing analysis of those media, found the presidential campaign is consistently dominating coverage.
While McCain and Obama run for president, Bush actually is president. He is still making or influencing decisions of enormous consequence.

His administration is aggressively trying to settle conflicts with Iran and North Korea. Largely on his terms, Bush got legislation to extend spying on suspected terrorists and to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He will be in charge for almost six more months, media attention or not.

The Full Story Is Here

2008-07-28T12:49:00.000+10:00

After Bush : Who Will 'Liberals' Have To Hate?

Nick Cohen in the UK Guardian argues that the world post-Bush will still be a violent, brutal, fearful and confusing place, and that 'liberals' will miss their long-hated, easy target of derision :

Obama is riding the crest of the global wave of relief that Bush is leaving. A wave that is about to break. It doesn't know it, but the liberal-left in Europe and North America has been lucky to have Bush.
By building him up into a great Satan, the oil man who invades countries to seize their reserves and the Christian who orders bloody crusades, they have hidden the totalitarian threats of our age from themselves and anyone who listens to them. Bush allowed them to explain away radical Islam as an understandable, even legitimate, response to the hypocrisies and iniquities of American policy. Even those in the European elites who do not buy the full 'America has it coming' package believe that Bush is a cowboy who doesn't understand that the postmodern way to end conflict is to compromise rather than fight.
In January, Bush will be history, leaving liberals all alone in a frightening world. Little else will change. Radical Islam will still authorise murder without limit, Iran will still want the bomb and the autocracies of China and Russia will still be growing in wealth and confidence. All those who argued that the 'root cause' of the Bush administration lay behind the terror will find that the terror still flourishes when the root cause has retired.

Fair enough, but why does Cohen erroneously assume that only 'liberals' have a problem with Bush? There's tens of millions of die-hard Republicans in the United States right now who hold their leader in utter contempt, if only because he has so gratuitously damaged the conservative brand. An elderly librarian was removed by police from a John McCain function because she dared to hold up a sign that read "McCain = Bush".

Cohen doesn't seem to understand that there will be a massive global shift in the way the rest of the world views the United States when Bush and Cheney leave the White House. The most globally unpopular US president in history's departure will allow the world to breathe a sigh of relief, should 2009 begin without a greater conflict having broken out in the Middle East over Iran's nuclear energy ambitions.

Obama, should he win the presidency, will have a rare opportunity to undo some of the damage BushCo. has done, even if most of it will be not much more than re-branding, and fresh Compassionate Peaceful New America marketing.

2008-07-28T12:36:00.002+10:00

"Who Do You Think You Are? A Kennedy? You're A Bush. Act Like One."

I truly believe those who think the upcoming Oliver Stone biopic of George W. Bush will be a polemic of hate and bile against the president are going to be very, very disappointed indeed.

Oliver Stone is one of the great American film-makers, and his new film 'W.' shows all the signs of being something remarkable : a movie about a sitting president that is not afraid to tell the truth about the good and the bad of the 'fortunate son'.

Here's the first trailer for 'W', due in cinemas in October :

2008-06-20T10:48:00.005+10:00

Bush Farewells Europe, No Sign Of Regret For Wars Or Torture

Dan Froomkin notes that President George W. Bush is still, after almost eight years, unable to avoid disturbing and hilarious gaffes when he dares to be interviewed by anyone other than American corporate media :

President Bush's contempt for those who question him or doubt his accomplishments has been on full display lately.
That two thirds of Americans are now in that category apparently hasn't made him any more receptive to their concerns-- quite the opposite.
When British Sky News reporter Adam Boulton today challenged Bush on his dedication to freedom, suggesting that Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib represented "the complete opposite of freedom," Bush accused Boulton of "slander[ing] America."
Evidently still smarting about the Supreme Court's rejection of his detainee policies last week, Bush noted defensively that the lower courts had agreed with him -- as if that mattered.
While Americans increasingly blame him for record-high gas prices and the toll on their pocketbooks, Bush dismissively referred to domestic concerns about those high prices as "squawking."
And in an interview on Friday with Ned Temko of Britain's Observer, Bush actually joked that he was "still looking" for the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction that were the main reason he
gave to the public for going to war.

From the transcript of the Boulton-Bush Sky News interview :

Boulton: "I mean, you've talked a lot about freedom. I've heard you talk about freedom -- I think every time I've seen you."
Bush: "Yes."
Boulton: "And yet there are those who would say, look, let's take Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib and rendition and all those things, and to them that is the, you know, the complete opposite of freedom."
Bush: "Of course if you want to slander America, you can look at it one way. But you go down -- what you need to do -- I think I suggested you do this at a press conference -- if you go down to Guantanamo and take a look at how these prisoners are treated -- and they're working it through our court systems. We are a land of law. "
Boulton: "But the Supreme Court have just said that -- you know, ruled against what you've been doing down there."
Bush: "But the district court didn't. And the appellate court didn't."
Boulton: "The Supreme Court is supreme, isn't it?"
Bush: "It is, and I accept their verdict. I don't agree with their verdict. And it's not what I was doing down there. This was a law passed by our United States Congress that I worked with the Congress to get passed and sign into law."
Boulton: "But it looked like an attempt to bypass the Constitution, to a certain extent."
Bush: "This was a law passed, Adam. We passed a law. Bypassing the Constitution means that we did something outside the bounds of the Constitution. We went to the Congress and got a piece of legislation passed."
Boulton: "Which is now being struck down, I think."
Bush: "It is, and I accept what the Supreme Court did, and I necessarily don't have to agree with it.
"My only point to you is, is that yes, I mean, we certainly wish Abu Ghraib hadn't happened, but that should not reflect America. This was the actions of some soldiers. That doesn't show the heart and soul of America. What shows the heart and soul of America is the sacrifice of our troops willing to defend our country and liberate 50 million people, or the generosity of America when it comes to providing money for HIV/AIDS in Africa, or the fact that America feeds more of the hungry in the world than any other country. That's the true America."

Froomkin also notes that most who interview Bush "try to get Bush to express some remorse" on the War On Iraq, and its consequences. From the Temko (UK Observer) interview :

Temko : "One of the questions, of course, [Britons] ask, is, do you feel a sense of personal pain --"
Bush: "Course I do."
Temko: "-- over the Iraqi civilians who have --"
Bush: "I feel a sense of pain for those who were tortured by Saddam Hussein, by the parents who watched their daughters raped by Saddam Hussein, by those innocent civilians who have been killed by inadvertent allied action, by those who have been bombed by suicide bombers. I feel a sense of pain for death. I feel a sense of pain for the families of our troops. I read about it every night. Or I used to read about it every night; the violence has changed. But I get a report every day about whether or not the U.S. has suffered casualties. And when I get those reports, I think about those mothers and fathers."

Much of the pain Bush feels, of course, comes from the media coverage of his presidency, and its wars. Bush remains obsessed by how historians will view his presidency, and sounds more and more like the American extremist right bloggers who believe that every kid who joins the Army knows full well what they're in for :

"This is a volunteer army, and these kids are in this fight because they want to be in the fight and they believe in it. And yet these poor parents are looking at -- often times looking at negativity, just people quick to report the ugly and the negative. But it's hard to report on the schools that are opening or the clinics that are opening or the playgrounds that are filling up, the society is coming back."

From the Temko interview :

Q : "Gordon Brown a couple weeks ago phoned a voter who was upset about Iraq, and apologized on behalf of the government, not for the war, which he still thinks was the right thing, but for the kind of suffering of the Iraqi people. Do you think that's a wise thing to do?"
Bush : "I think the Iraqi people -- yes, some have suffered, no question. But they're living in a free society. Everybody is going to have to handle their own internal business the way they want to. I'm not going to second-guess one way or the other. But my view is, is that when you talk to Iraqis, they're thrilled with the idea of living in a free society. Do they like the fact that violence is still there? No. But every society reaches a level of violence that's tolerable. And has that reached Iraq? I don't know yet. But I do know life is improving. . . ."
Temko: "But the existence of the war has led to the deaths of innocent people, and the fact is --"
Bush: "It has, but before the war, hundreds of thousands were discovered in mass graves."
Temko: "So on balance, you have --"
Bush: "Freedom trumps tyranny every time. And it's hard for people to see that."
Temko: "[W]hat's your greatest achievement or your greatest pride as President? And what's your greatest regret?"
Bush: "Well, first of all, just so you know, I'm not going to be around to see it. There's no such thing as objective short-term history. It takes a while for history to have its -- you know, to be able to have enough time to look back to see why decisions were made and what their consequences were. So, you know, I'd hope it'd be somebody who would use the influence of the United States to help transform societies by working on disease and hunger and freedom. And the liberation of 50 million people from the clutches of barbaric regimes is noteworthy, at the minimum. "
Temko: "Does this job take its toll on you? I mean, can you --"
Bush: "My spirits are pretty high. I mean, I'm -- you got to believe, you know? You got to have a set of beliefs that are the foundation for your very being. Otherwise these currents and tides and 24-hour news and politics will kind of leave you adrift."

From the UK PM Gordon Brown-Bush press conference :

Q: "Mr. President, in his last major speech, Tony Blair said on Iraq, 'Hand on heart, I did what I thought was right. But if I got it wrong, I'm sorry.' Is it possible you got it wrong? Would you share at this point those slightly more reflective sentiments? And in particular, should you, in retrospect, perhaps have concentrated a little more on Afghanistan?"
Bush : "History will judge the tactics. History will judge whether or not, you know, more troops were needed earlier, troops could have been positioned here better or not. Removing Saddam Hussein was not wrong. It was the right thing to do.
"[T]he fundamental question is, will we work to see [freedom] have a transformative effect in the Middle East? Now, there are many doubters. I understand that, because there is some who say that perhaps freedom is not universal. Maybe it's only Western people that can self-govern. Maybe it's only, you know, white-guy Methodists who are capable of self government. I reject that notion. I think that's the ultimate form of political elitism."

2008-06-17T13:20:00.005+10:00

Historians Gush Over Bush At No. 10 Send Off

On his final visit to the UK as POTUS, George W. Bush sat down for a dinner in No. 10 Downing Street with PM Gordon Brown and a gaggle of historians.

Bush, of course, is obsessed with how historians will view his presidency, usually pushing a point that it will take decades before his war-making White House can be accurately assessed by those who write the history.

Bizarrely, claims at least one historian, there was little or no talk of war in the 21st century. Bush's era of war. They instead focused on the past.

The dinner saw Bush being introduced to and debated past wars with the following historians :

Simon Schama A History of Britain
Alistair Horne A Savage War of Peace
Valmai Holt Major & Mrs Holt’s Battlefield Guide
Max Arthur Forgotten Voices series
Piers Brendan The Decline and Fall of the British Empire
Linda Colley Britons: Forging the Nation, 1707–1837
David Cannadine The Decline and Fall of the British Aristocracy
Martin Gilbert Official biographer of Sir Winston Churchill
Andrew Roberts A History of the English Speaking Peoples since 1900

This London Times story claims Bush has read, or is reading, all of these books :

In one corner was Simon Schama, who labelled Mr Bush as an “absolute f***ing catastrophe” in 2006. In another was Andrew Roberts, who is close to Mr Bush and his inner circle and was displaying a pair of presidential cufflinks he was given the last time they met.
He told The Times that it was “a completely wonderful and fabulous occasion — I sat next to the President. We talked about the interaction between history, politics, and personalities. That is about as far as I can go because it was a private dinner.”
Alistair Horne, another of the guests, had also met Mr Bush before and has discussed with him in the White House the parallels between Iraq and the “savage war of peace” in Algeria half a century ago.
He said: “You think about prime ministers and presidents being surrounded by cabinet officials, aides and so forth but at the end of the day, they are alone. They’re lonely.”
Downing Street aides said that Mr Bush changed seats several times over the evening, as Mr Brown strove to introduce his guest to as many people as possible.
The evening allowed both President and Prime Minister to wallow in their favourite subject of British history, with many of the guests, including Alistair Horne, David Cannadine and Valmai Holt, experts in military history and the rise and fall of Empire.
The topic of conversation appeared to avoid any direct judgment on Mr Bush’s presidency.
According to Roberts, they talked about “the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries, but not the 21st” — when Mr Bush took much of the world to war.
Mr Bush ended his dinner by posing for a group photograph underneath a portrait of Elizabeth I in the Downing Street drawing room.
As they lined up for the shot, he was heard to remark: “This is going to be my White House Christmas card” — his last before he leaves office in January and is himself consigned to history.

The Rupert Murdoch owned London Times didn't see any need to mention another guest at the dinner : Rupert Murdoch. The ex-Australian media mogul and war profiteer is believed to have had a private chat with Gordon Brown, with President Bush by his side.

Murdoch played historian himself in the days before the start of the Iraq War, when he said :

"He will either go down in history as a very great president or he'll crash and burn."

2008-06-12T06:24:00.002+10:00

Bush's Last European Junket Greeted With Disinterest, Disgust By Locals

Why no massive anti-Bush protests in Europe as he stages his farewell presidential tour? Well, why bother? :

U.S. President George W. Bush is making his last major visit to a continent where many dismiss him as yesterday's man.
As his presidency winds down, Bush — reviled by many Europeans and simply ignored by others — can do little this week but smooth the way for his successor.

His tour kicks off Tuesday with a one-day summit of U.S. and European leaders in Slovenia, where officials have alluded to long-standing misgivings in Europe over Bush's foreign policy in Iraq and its approach to climate change and other issues.

"As in all relationships, the EU and U.S. sometimes have different views," Slovenian Foreign Minister Dimitrij Rupel told reporters before Bush's scheduled arrival Monday evening.
Bush and U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice planned to meet with Slovenian President Danilo Turk and Prime Minister Janez Jansa, and later with European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso and EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana at a castle that the late Yugoslav leader Josip Broz Tito once used as a retreat.

Later Tuesday, Bush was to head to Germany to meet with Chancellor Angela Merkel. He also planned stops in Italy, the Vatican, France, England and Northern Ireland.

Like many Americans, Europeans have Bush fatigue. His decision to invade Iraq stirred anti-American sentiment in many countries, although that has receded as Europeans watch the U.S. presidential campaign and weigh prospects for change under a new president.

"A lot of people like America. They may not sometimes necessarily like the president but they like America," Bush said in an interview with POP TV of Slovenia. "They like what America stands for."
Although Bush will meet with key European leaders again at next month's summit in Japan of the Group of Eight major industrialized nations, this week's trip was likely to be his last major tour across the continent before the U.S. presidential elections in November.
When Bush first visited this ex-Yugoslav republic in 2001 for a summit with then-Russian President Vladimir Putin, he was met with large and boisterous demonstrations.

This time, reflecting deep-seated apathy for a president increasingly viewed as yesterday's man, only a few small, loosely organized protests were planned. And though security was tight, unlike his 2001 stop, there were no American flags to welcome Bush.

2008-06-11T12:28:00.002+10:00

Germany Turns It Back On Bush During Europe Farewell Tour

During his last European tour as POTUS, George W. Bush encountered widespread hostility, dissent and just plain old bad manners. The overwhelming mood in Europe as Bush hits the road to say goodbye and to whip up angst against Iran appears to be one of, 'Please, just go away' :

Typically when US presidents visit Germany they walk through the Brandenburg Gate and take in the city and its historical sites.

It has not been lost on any commentator that on his farewell visit to the country, which kicks off on Tuesday night, George Bush will not be received at the heart of the capital.
Attempts to persuade him to open the brand new US embassy - back in its place after a gap of over six decades - failed. His father, George Bush Snr, a less despised figure, will come to do the honours instead, on July 4.
Instead Bush Jr is heading for the sandy plains of Brandenburg, 40 miles north of Berlin, to Schloss Meseberg, the idyllic but isolated country pad of the German government.
It is called keeping a low profile, probably a sensible thing to do for a man who has never been considered a friend by the majority of Germans. He is said to be the least popular US president in German history, and in a recent survey for the opinion pollsters Forsa, the majority of respondents went so far as to deem him to be the biggest single threat to world peace.
But neither did he, for a long time, want to have much to do with Germans either, particularly after the former chancellor Gerhard Schröder secured an election victory in 2002 thanks to his dogged insistence that he would not support the Iraq war.
German gratitude for the role the US has played in much of its 20th century history - the Marshall Plan, the Berlin airlift, protection against the Soviet Union - still endures, but it has been greatly overshadowed by seven Bush years, the Iraq invasion, Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib.
It has often been said that Germans became more anti-American during this period than at any time, but the more thoughtful ones have always been quick to point out that it was rather "antibushismus".
Now they appear to be happy at the prospect of being able, as they see it, to put this unpleasant period behind them. Almost 70% have said they would vote for Barack Obama if they were able (while sympathy for John McCain is scant). They admit they donít know what Obama really stands for, but what most appeals to them is that he is not Bush.

2008-06-11T12:24:00.004+10:00

"I'm Not A WarPig!" Claims WarPig Bush

President Bush is desperately trying to change global public perceptions about his abhorrent White House administration, and his personal role in cheerleading the US into the illegal War On Iraq.

Regrets? He has a few.

From Times Online :

President Bush has admitted to The Times that his gun-slinging rhetoric made the world believe that he was a “guy really anxious for war” in Iraq. He said that his aim now was to leave his successor a legacy of international diplomacy for tackling Iran.
In an exclusive interview, he expressed regret at the bitter divisions over the war and said that he was troubled about how his country had been misunderstood. “I think that in retrospect I could have used a different tone, a different rhetoric.”
Phrases such as “bring them on” or “dead or alive”, he said, “indicated to people that I was, you know, not a man of peace”. He said that he found it very painful “to put youngsters in harm’s way”. He added: “I try to meet with as many of the families as I can. And I have an obligation to comfort and console as best as I possibly can. I also have an obligation to make sure that those lives were not lost in vain.”
The unilateralism that marked his first White House term has been replaced by an enthusiasm for tough multilateralism. He said that his focus for his final six months in office was to secure agreement on issues such as establishing a Palestinian state and to “leave behind a series of structures that makes it easier for the next president”.

Mr Bush is concerned that the Democratic nominee Barack Obama might open cracks in the West’s united front towards Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. At the EU-US summit in Slovenia, he pressed for tougher sanctions against Iran unless it agreed to suspend its uranium enrichment programme verifiably: “They can either face isolation, or they can have better relations with all of us.”
Mr Bush told The Times that when his successor arrived and assessed “what will work or what won’t work in dealing with Iran”, he would stick with the current policy.
Shaul Mofaz, a hardline Israeli minister, has suggested that a military strike on Iran is “unavoidable”. But Mr Bush said: “We ought to work together, keep focused. His comments really should be viewed as the need to continue to keep pressuring Iran.”
The President was keen to bind his successor into a continued military presence in Afghanistan and Iraq, but offered only cautious optimism about a recent decline in violence. Asked about corruption allegations dogging Hamid Karzai, the Afghan President, Mr Bush insisted: “I have found him to be an honest man.”
The President knows that Republican nominee-in-waiting John McCain will have to distance himself from the current Administration. "He's an independent person who will make his decisions on what he thinks is best."
Asked if the US is ready for a black president, Mr Bush says: "I think the fact that the Democratic Party nominated Barack Obama is a statement about how far America has come.
"Having that all that, it's going to be important for the American people to figure out who can handle the task of the 21st Century. It's a challenging job."

More on Bush's somewhat bizarre claims to be a 'Man Of Peace', after deceiving America into an illegal War On Iraq from the UK Guardian :

To some it may come as too little too late. But setting out on his final trip to Europe as president, George Bush has expressed regret that his rhetoric in the run-up to the war in Iraq may have created the impression that he was a warmonger.
Bush, who met the German chancellor Angela Merkel on Tuesday on a tour that will take in Rome, Paris and London, also disputed the notion that the war had harmed the image of the US abroad.
Noting that he finds it difficult "to put youngsters in harm's way", he added: "I try to meet with as many of the families as I can. And I have an obligation to comfort and console as best as I possibly can. I also have an obligation to make sure that those lives were not lost in vain." Bush's statements come as his presidency enters its final six months. They also come as the two presidential candidates spar over the differences between them, notably their stances in the build-up to the war.
Far from being a lame duck, Bush said he was full of vigour.

2008-06-11T12:16:00.004+10:00

Crafty Bush Fired Rove In Church To Avoid Scene

When it came time for President Bush to dump loyal attack dog Karl Rove last year, he chose to give his old friend the bad news in the one place he knew Rove would not create a scene. Bush was clearly worried that Rove's infamous temper might show itself :

“On a Sunday in midsummer, George W. Bush accompanied Karl Rove to the Episcopalian Church Rove sometimes attended,” writes Alexander. “They made their way to the front of the congregation. Then, during their time in the church, Bush gave Rove some stunning news. ‘Karl,’ Bush said, ‘there’s too much heat on you. It’s time for you to go.’”

Maybe Bush knew what he was doing in breaking such bad news in such serene atmosphere: As Alexander documents, Rove has quite the temper.

"He's got a temper and a loud voice and he used it," said Bill Miller, a consultant who worked for and against Rove in Texas. "He's known for getting hot. There are buttons people know about. Losing and getting screwed with will [upset] him in a hurry."

Many key Republicans now view the Bush administration as a failure, and incredibly damaging to the Republican brand. They heap plenty of the blame on Karl Rove.

Examiner.com has the full story.

2008-06-11T00:58:00.003+10:00

Bush Tries To Force Through Secret Deal To Keep American Troops In Iraq For Years To Come

Dan Froomkin, the world's best President Bush chronicler, takes a closer look at the Bush White House plan that will extend the occupation of Iraq by American troops, and why the Iraq-US 'security deal' may be not much more than another attempt to contain Iran :

Despite opposition from both the Iraqi and American people, President Bush appears to be forging ahead on a multi-year security agreement with the Iraqi government that would lock in the occupation status quo.
A British newspaper reports new details about the ongoing secret negotiations: Bush wants to retain the use of more than 50 military bases in Iraq and is insisting on immunity from Iraqi law for U.S. troops and contractors, as well as a free hand to carry out military activities without consulting the Baghdad government. The pact, which Bush has said he does not intend to submit for Congressional approval, would take effect shortly before he leaves office. Reversing it, while possible, would force a future president to break an international commitment.
But there are signs of increasing resistance on the Iraqi side. At a congressional hearing yesterday, two members of the Iraqi parliament said Bush's terms would infringe on Iraqi sovereignty and perpetuate the violence there. They said any agreement should include a timetable for a quick departure of U.S. troops.
And in case the stakes weren't already high enough, the agreement is shaping up to be yet another proxy battle with Iran.
Patrick Cockburn writes in the Independent: "A secret deal being negotiated in Baghdad would perpetuate the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of the US presidential election in November.
"The terms of the impending deal, details of which have been leaked to The Independent, are likely to have an explosive political effect in Iraq. Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq's position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country.
"But the accord also threatens to provoke a political crisis in the US. President Bush wants to push it through by the end of next month so he can declare a military victory and claim his 2003 invasion has been vindicated. . . .
"The US has repeatedly denied it wants permanent bases in Iraq but one Iraqi source said: 'This is just a tactical subterfuge.' Washington also wants control of Iraqi airspace below 29,000 feet and the right to pursue its 'war on terror' in Iraq, giving it the authority to arrest anybody it wants and to launch military campaigns without consultation. . . .
"Iraq's Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, is believed to be personally opposed to the terms of the new pact but feels his coalition government cannot stay in power without US backing."
Anne Flaherty writes for the Associated Press: "Iraqi lawmakers told Congress on Wednesday that they have serious misgivings about a long-term security agreement being negotiated this year with President Bush, putting themselves squarely in line with Democrats who say hashing out a deal before Bush leaves office is bad timing.
"Opposition in the U.S. and Iraqi legislative bodies underscores the political hurdles facing Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki as they try to settle the terms under which U.S. troops can continue operating in Iraq after a United Nations authorization expires at the end of the year."
Flaherty writes that the Iraqi lawmakers "said they thought violence in their country would subside after U.S. troops leave, and they embraced the idea of setting a timetable for the troops' departure."
Reuters reports: "A majority of the Iraqi parliament has written to Congress rejecting a long-term security deal with Washington if it is not linked to a requirement that U.S. forces leave, a U.S. lawmaker said on Wednesday.
"Rep. William Delahunt, a Massachusetts Democrat and Iraq war opponent, released excerpts from a letter he was handed by Iraqi parliamentarians laying down conditions for the security pact that the Bush administration seeks with Iraq.
Robert H. Reid writes for the Associated Press about how the proposed agreement "is shaping up as a major political battle between America and Iran. . . .
"The agreement, which both sides hope to finish in midsummer, is likely to be among the issues discussed this weekend when Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is due to visit Iran -- his second trip there in a year.
"Ahead of the visit, his party sought to calm worries by insisting that the deal would not allow foreign troops to use Iraq as a ground to invade another country -- a clear reference to Iranian fears of a U.S. attack. . . .
"A lawmaker from al-Maliki's party told reporters Tuesday that the Iraqis and the Americans are far apart on the security agreement. He said negotiations 'are at a standstill, and the Iraqi side is studying its options.'
"'The Americans have some demands that the Iraqi government regards as infringing on its sovereignty,' lawmaker Haidar al-Abadi said. 'This is the main dispute, and if the dispute is not settled, I frankly tell you there will not be an agreement.' . . .
"Most Iraqis view the U.S. insistence that American troops continue to enjoy immunity under Iraqi law as an infringement on national sovereignty. U.S. officials maintain they respect Iraqi sovereignty and are not seeking permanent bases."

2008-06-05T23:17:00.005+10:00

Fallout From Scott McClellan Expose Of Bush White House Continues...

Bush Critics Were Right On Just About Everything

From Dan Froomkin, Washington Post :

As the response to former White House press secretary Scott McClellan's new book enters its second week, the focus has shifted to the messenger rather than his message.
McClellan is a flawed vessel for any serious communication. From behind the podium, he made a mockery of the press and the public's right to know, most notably by repeating non-responsive and sometimes ludicrous talking points. He has yet to persuasively explain his change of heart. And his insistence that self-deception rather than a conscious disregard for the truth was behind what he now describes as the White House's consistent lack of candor is spectacularly self-serving.
But the significance of McClellan's book is that his detailed recounting of what he saw from the inside vindicates pretty much all the central pillars of the Bush critique that have been chronicled here and elsewhere for many years now. Among them:
* That Bush and his top aides manipulated the country into embarking upon an unnecessary war on false pretenses;
* That Bush is an incurious man, happily protected from dissenting views inside the White House's bubble of self-delusion;
* That Karl Rove's huge influence on the Bush White House erased any distinction between policy and politics, so governing became about achieving partisan goals, not the common good;
* That Vice President Cheney manipulates the levers of power;
* That all those people who denied White House involvement in the leak of CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity were either lying or had been lied to;
* That the mainstream media were complicit enablers of the Bush White House and that its members didn't understand how badly they were being played.
By coming back again and again to the CIA leak story, McClellan also validates a key theme of the Bush critique: That the Plame case was a microcosm of much that was wrong with the way the Bush White House did business.
No one could have predicted that the Plame case would play such a central role in McClellan's personal conversion to Bush critic. But his eventual recognition that Rove and then-vice presidential chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby had flatly lied to him when they denied any involvement in the leak, along with his sudden realization that Bush and Cheney declassified secrets when it was politically convenient, were evidently two major factors. (A third was his unceremonious firing by Chief of Staff Josh Bolten.)
McClellan's revelation that on Oct. 4, 2003, Bush and Cheney directed him to vouch for Libby's innocence once again raises the question of how the president and particularly the vice president have been able to avoid any kind of public accountability. McClellan even raises the possibility, repeatedly hinted at by special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, that Cheney directed Libby to disclose Plame's identity.
McClellan also makes clear how baldly Bush broke his original pledge to fire anyone involved in the leak. In an appearance on NBC's Meet the Press yesterday, McClellan told Tim Russert: "I think the president should have stood by the word that we said, which is if you were involved in this any way, then you would no longer be in this administration. And Karl was involved in it. . . .
"The president said he was going to restore honor, integrity. He said we were going to set the highest of standards. We didn't live up to that. When it became known that his top adviser had been involved, then the bar was moved. And the bar was moved to, 'If anyone is indicted, they would no longer be here.'"
McClellan also describes a bizarre relationship with the truth within the Bush White House. His central thesis -- which also serves as his own personal defense -- is that the persistent lack of candor that afflicted the White House regarding key initiatives such as the Iraq war just sort of happened. There wasn't any real intention to lie; it was just well-meaning people getting caught up in the political game that consumes modern-day Washington.
Here's how he explained his own experience it to Keith Olbermann on MSNBC's Countdown Thursday night: "I got caught up in the Washington game in terms of the spinning and obfuscation and secrecy and stone walling and things like that."
But when, time and again, the "lack of candor" conveniently furthers political goals, how are we not to conclude that it is, well, pretty much the same thing as lying?
Consider the way McClellan describes Bush in one particularly seminal case study. Recalling a conversation he overheard between Bush and a supporter in the 2000 race, when questions were being raised about Bush's possible cocaine use as a young man, McClellan quotes Bush as saying: "You know, the truth is I honestly don't remember whether I tried it or not. We had some pretty wild parties back in the day, and I just don't remember."
McClellan notes the absurdity of such a statement, then writes: "I know Bush, and I know he genuinely believes what he says. He isn't the kind of person to flat-out lie, particularly when speaking in private to a supporter or friend. So I think he meant what he said in that conversation about cocaine. It's the first time when I felt I was witnessing Bush convincing himself to believe something that probably was not true and that, deep down, he knew was not true. And his reason for doing so is fairly obvious: political convenience. . . .
"In the years to come, as I worked closely with President Bush, I would come to believe that sometimes he convinces himself to believe what suits his needs at the moment. . . .
"Bush is certainly not the first or last politician to deceive himself, but the extent to which he resorts to self-deception beyond personal matters, which one can argue should be off-limits anyway, and the sincerity with which he embraces self-deluding beliefs amount to a personality trait that goes directly to larger issues of characters and leadership style and carry over into real issues of governance."
Saying something that you know "deep down" isn't true, for personal gain -- isn't that the definition of lying?
McClellan repeatedly insists that Bush and his top aides were not actually liars (with the exception of Rove and Libby, of course). He writes near the end: "As I've detailed in this book, the campaign mentality at times led the president and his chief advisers to spin, hide, shade and exaggerate the truth, obscuring nuances and ignoring the caveats that should have accompanied their arguments. Rather than choosing to be forthright and candid, they chose to sell the war, and in so doing they did a disservice to the American people and to our democracy. However, this is not the same as saying they deliberately misled and lied."
And yet, as McClellan himself notes, most key decisions were made in secret by a small circle of advisers. Sometimes, he acknowledges, it wasn't even a circle: "Cheney had greater power and influence than any other vice president in history, and no one really knew how extensively he wielded it. Being shut out from his thinking and from the ways he advised the president left a large black hole in my understanding of what was really going on inside the administration."
Later, he writes: "[L]urking behind it all remained the magic man, Vice President Cheney. No one knew better how to orchestrate what was happening from behind the curtain while the grand production was playing out on stage. Quietly slipping in and out of internal deliberations, his influence and wand waving barely discernible to the outside world, Cheney rarely showed all his cards and never disclosed how he made things happen. Yet somehow, in every policy area he cared about, from the invasion of Iraq to expansion of presidential power to the treatment of detainees and the use of surveillance against terror suspects, Cheney always seemed to get his way."
Some Excerpts
From page 131: "Every president wants to achieve greatness but few do. As I have heard Bush say, only a wartime president is likely to achieve greatness, in part because the epochal upheavals of war provide the opportunity for the transformative change of the kind Bush hoped to achieve. In Iraq, Bush saw his opportunity to create a legacy of greatness."
Here is the book's preface: "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. In these pages, I've tried to come to grips with some of the truths that life inside the White House bubble obscured.
"My friends and former colleagues who lived and worked or are still living and working inside that bubble may not be happy with the perspective I present here. Many of them, I'm sure, remain convinced that the Bush administration has been fundamentally correct in its most controversial policy judgments, and that the dis-esteem in which most Americans currently hold it is undeserved. Only time will tell. But I've become genuinely convinced otherwise. . . .
"When words I uttered, believing them to be true, were exposed as false, I was constrained by my duties and loyalty to the president and unable to comment. But I promised reporters and the public that I would someday tell the whole story of what I knew. After leaving the White House, I realized that the story was meaningless without an appreciation of the personal, political, and institutional context in which it took place. So the story grew into a book. . . .
"Waging an unnecessary war is a grave mistake. But in reflecting on all that happened during the Bush administration, I've come to believe that an even more fundamental mistake was made -- a decision to turn away from candor and honesty when those qualities were most needed."
Here are some more excerpts from the Wall Street Journal: "The most obvious evidence that the Bush White House embraced the permanent campaign is the expansive political operation that was put in place from day one. Chief political strategist Karl Rove was given an enormous center of influence within the white House from the outset. This was only strengthened by Rove's force of personality and closeness to the president. . . .
"The permanent campaign also ensnares the media, who become complicit enablers of its polarizing effects. They emphasize conflict, controversy and negativity, focusing not on the real-world impact of policies and their larger, underlying truths but on the horse race aspects of politics -- who's winning, who's losing, and why."
On Bush's decision to go to war, which McClellan dates back all the way to November 2001: "[I]it's not asking too much that a well-considered understanding of the circumstances and history of Iraq and the Middle East should have been brought into the decision-making process. The responsibility to provide this understanding belonged to the president's advisers, and they failed to fulfill it. Secretary of State Colin Powell was apparently the only adviser who even tried to raise doubts about the wisdom of war. The rest of the foreign policy team seemed to be preoccupied with regime change or, in the case of Condi Rice, seemingly more interested in accommodating the president's instincts and ideas than in questioning them or educating him.
"An even more fundamental problem was the way his advisers decided to pursue a political propaganda campaign to sell the war to the American people. It was all part of the way the White House operated and Washington functioned, and no one seemed to see any problem with using such an approach on an issue as grave as war. A pro-war campaign might have been more acceptable had it been accompanied by a high level of candor and honesty, but it was not. "
A few of the laugh-out-loud absurdities from McClellan's book:
McClellan repeatedly claimed from behind the podium that "ongoing legal proceedings" precluded him from answering important questions, such as about the Plame case, even when this was an incredibly obvious dodge. (See, for instance, my April 10, 2006, column: Some Explaining To Do.)
Here's McClellan on page 260 of his book: "Eventually, long after leaving the White House, I came to see that standing in front of the speeding press bus in those days had much more to do with protecting the president and White house from further political embarrassment than respecting the sanctity of the investigation."
You don't say.
And McClellan also would like us to believe that he thinks Bush should have demanded an internal investigation into the CIA leak case early on, and "should have ordered the public release of as much information as possible as soon as it was known, to that the scandal would not take on a life of its own."
But McClellan seems to forget a key point: The stonewall that Bush ordered, that McClellan so dutifully enforced, and that the media largely accepted, arguably won Bush the 2004 election. The politically damaging truth -- that Rove and Libby were indeed involved, and that Cheney may have been as well -- remained obscured for years.
One of the biggest surprises in McClellan's book is his ferocious criticism of the media -- for being lapdogs.
Here are some excerpts of his thoughts on the media:
"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 have never come as such a surprise. The public should have been made much more aware, before the fact, of the uncertainties, doubts, and caveats that underlay the intelligence about the regime of Saddam Hussein. The administration did little to convey those nuances to the people, the press should have picked up the slack but largely failed to do so because their focus was elsewhere -- on covering the march to war, instead of the necessity of war.
"In this case, the 'liberal media' didn't live up to its reputation. If it had, the country would have been better served."
Warren P. Strobel and Jonathan S. Landay, who as reporters for Knight-Ridder were almost alone in reporting skeptically about the campaign for war, blog for McClatchy Newspapers: "It's not news. At least not to some of us who've covered the story from the start. . . .
"The news media have been, if anything, even more craven than the administration has been in defending its failure to investigate Bush's case for war in Iraq before the war."
Flashback
Press blogger Jay Rosen reminds us of the key role -- stooge -- that McClellan played in the White House's attack on the press: "It denied the whole theory of the 'fourth estate,' ridiculed the idea that the press is part of the system of checks and balances, told reporters they were a special interest group rather than a conduit to the public-at-large, wiped out all remaining distinctions between propaganda and public information, and welcomed the de-legitimizing of the news media by allies in the culture war.
"'Back 'em up, starve 'em down and drive up their negatives' is the way I summarized this approach. In July 2003 Bush took it further when he installed in the White House briefing room a stooge figure, a pathetic character who had no power, no in-in-the-loop knowledge, no respect from key players in the Administration, no talent for improvised explanation under the lights, and no problem being made to look like an ass in front of the country, the cameras and the rest of the world."

Scott McClellan is now rumoured to be preparing to testify against the Bush White House in congressional hearings.

2008-06-05T12:58:00.003+10:00

Bush Reveals US In Iraq For Four Decades

From a previously unreleased President George W. Bush interview come some amazing revelations :

When NBC News correspondent Richard Engel sat down with President Bush last year for an interview, he had little idea how much Bush would reveal about his true intentions and his real sentiments about the war on terror and America’s allies and enemies.

Among the excerpts of the interview captured in Engel’s new book, “War Journal: My Five Years in Iraq”:

- “‘This is the great war of our times. It is going to take forty years,’” [Bush told Engel]. “Bush said in forty years the world would know if the war on terrorism, and conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, had reduced extremism, helped moderates, and promoted democracy.”

- Bush admits to Engel that going to war was a decision based on his personal instinct and not on any long-range strategy for the Mideast:

“I know people are saying we should have left things the way they were, but I changed after 9/11. I had to act. I don’t care if it created more enemies. I had to act.”

- Bush tells Engel that the election of Hamas was actually a positive development because it pressured Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas to make reforms:

“I think the election of Hamas was a good thing. It proved to Abbas he was failing. I told Abbas, ‘You lost the election because you aren’t providing for your people, jobs, education, what people want.’ Now they know they have to compete.”

- And he says that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is an obstacle to peace in the region:

“The problem is Olmert. This is a man who came to power on a promise that he was going to unilaterally define a Palestinian state. You can’t pressure democracies.”

- Bush also explains that he’s open to meeting with Iran, describing the administration’s attempt at dialogue with Syria, but that he’s doubtful it would be effective:

“We can have meetings. Talking is not the problem. We can talk to Iran. But Iran wants nuclear weapons and I’m not going to let that happen. Not on my watch. We tried to have dialogue with Syria, right after the war, didn’t get much.

[Syrian President Bashar] Asad didn’t deliver. We’d ask for ten al-Qaeda guys. They’d give us one.”

2008-05-29T21:34:00.004+10:00

The Betrayal, Part One

Former White House press secretary, and long time member of the Bush Family inner circle, spills his guts.

The Politico and Washington Post have excerpts from Scott McClellan's scathing book on the Bush Administration.

From The Washington Post:

Bush is depicted as an out-of-touch leader, operating in a political bubble, who has stubbornly refused to admit mistakes. McClellan defends the president's intellect -- "Bush is plenty smart enough to be president," he writes -- but casts him as unwilling or unable to be reflective about his job.
"A more self-confident executive would be willing to acknowledge failure, to trust people's ability to forgive those who seek redemption for mistakes and show a readiness to change," he writes.

In another section, McClellan describes Bush as able to convince himself of his own spin and relates a phone call he overheard Bush having during the 2000 campaign, in which he said he could not remember whether he had used cocaine. "I remember thinking to myself, 'How can that be?' " he writes.

The former aide describes Bush as a willing participant in treating his presidency as a permanent political campaign, run in large part by his top political adviser, Rove.

"The president had promised himself that he would accomplish what his father had failed to do by winning a second term in office," he writes. "And that meant operating continually in campaign mode: never explaining, never apologizing, never retreating. Unfortunately, that strategy also had less justifiable repercussions: never reflecting, never reconsidering, never compromising. Especially not where Iraq was concerned."

From The Politico:

• 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.

The Wall Street Journal also has a series of excerpts:

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. In these pages, I've tried to come to grips with some of the truths that life inside the White House bubble obscured.
My friends and former colleagues who lived and worked or are still working inside that bubble may not be happy with the perspective I present here. Many of them, I'm sure, remain convinced that the Bush administration has been fundamentally correct in its most controversial policy judgments, and that the dis-esteem in which most Americans currently hold it is undeserved.

Only time will tell. But I've become genuinely convinced otherwise.

The book has already hit number 1 on Amazon.

From the Huffington Post :

In a shocking turnabout, the press secretary most known for defending President Bush on Iraq, Katrina and a host of other controversial issues produced a memoir damning of his old boss on nearly every level _ from too much secrecy to a less-than-honest selling of the war to a lack of personal candor and an unwillingness to admit mistakes.

In the first major insider account of the Bush White House, one-time spokesman Scott McClellan calls the operation "insular, secretive and combative" and says it veered irretrievably off course as a result.

The White House responded angrily Wednesday to McClellan's confessional memoir, calling it self-serving sour grapes.

"Scott, we now know, is disgruntled about his experience at the White House," said current White House press secretary Dana Perino, a former deputy to McClellan. "We are puzzled. It is sad. This is not the Scott we knew."

McClellan was the White House press secretary from May 2003 to April 2006, the second of four so far in Bush's presidency.

He reveals that he was pushed to leave earlier than he had planned, and he displays some bitterness about that as well as about being sometimes kept out of the loop on key decision-making sessions.

He excludes himself from major involvement in some of what he calls the administration's biggest blunders, for instance the decision to go to war and the initial campaign to sell that decision to the American people. But he doesn't spare himself entirely, saying, "I fell far short of living up to the kind of public servant I wanted to be.

He includes criticism for the reporters whose questions he fielded. The news media, he says, were "complicit enablers" for focusing more on "covering the march to war instead of the necessity of war."

And McClellan issues this disclaimer about Bush: "I do not believe he or his White House deliberately or consciously sought to deceive the American people."

But most everything else he writes comes awfully close to making just this assertion, all the more stunning coming from someone who had been one of the longest-serving of the band of loyalists to come to Washington with Bush from Texas.

The heart of the book concerns Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq, a determination McClellan says the president had made by early 2002 _ at least a full year before the invasion _ if not even earlier.

"He signed off on a strategy for selling the war that was less than candid and honest," McClellan writes in "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception."

The book, which had been scheduled for release on Monday, was being sold by bookstores on Wednesday after the publisher moved up its release amid intense media coverage of its contents.

McClellan says Bush's main reason for war always was "an ambitious and idealistic post-9/11 vision of transforming the Middle East through the spread of freedom." But Bush and his advisers made "a marketing choice" to downplay this rationale in favor of one focused on increasingly trumped-up portrayals of the threat posed by the weapons of mass destruction.

During the "political propaganda campaign to sell the war to the American people," Bush and his team tried to make the "WMD threat and the Iraqi connection to terrorism appear just a little more certain, a little less questionable than they were." Something else was downplayed as well, McClellan says: any discussion of "the possible unpleasant consequences of war _ casualties, economic effects, geopolitical risks, diplomatic repercussions."

In Bush's second term, as news from Iraq grew worse, McClellan says the president was "insulated from the reality of events on the ground and consequently began falling into the trap of believing his own spin."

All of this was a "serious strategic blunder" that sent Bush's presidency "terribly off course."

"The Iraq war was not necessary," McClellan concludes.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton referred to the book and its author while campaigning Wednesday in Rapid City, S.D., saying, "In this book this young man essentially apologizes for having been part of misleading America for three years."

Reporters in Los Angeles with John McCain, the Republicans' candidate for president, asked if he believed that Bush used propaganda or deception regarding the war in Iraq. "I have no information on that fact. I am glad for one that Saddam Husein is no longer there," McCain said. He declined to comment on other assertions in the book, saying he had not read it.

McClellan draws a portrait of Bush as possessing "personal charm, wit and enormous political skill." He says Bush's administration early on possessed "seeds of greatness."

But McClellan ticks off a long list of Bush's weaknesses: someone with a penchant for self-deception if it "suits his needs at the moment," "an instinctive leader more than an intellectual leader" who has a lack of interest in delving deeply into policy options, a man with a lack of self-confidence that makes him unable to acknowledge when he's been wrong.

McClellan also writes extensively about what he says is the Bush White House's excessive focus on "the permanent campaign."

"The Bush team imitated some of the worst qualities of the Clinton White House and even took them to new depths," he writes.

McClellan is most scathing on the topic of the administration's embrace of secrecy.

"The Bush administration lacked real accountability in large part because Bush himself did not embrace openness or government in the sunshine," he writes.

Three top Bush advisers come in for particularly harsh criticism.

McClellan calls Vice President Dick Cheney "the magic man" who "always seemed to get his way" and sometimes "simply could not contain his deep-seated certitude, even arrogance, to the detriment of the president."

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who was national security adviser earlier in Bush's presidency, "was more interested in figuring out where the president stood and just carrying out his wishes while expending only cursory effort on helping him understand all the considerations and potential consequences" of war. Rice "was somehow able to keep her hands clean, even when the problems related to matters under her direct purview," McClellan says, but he predicts that "history will likely judge her harshly."

And former Bush political guru Karl Rove "always struck me as the kind of person who would be willing, in the heat of battle, to push the envelope to the limit of what is permissible ethically or legally."

The White House was severely damaged by blunders beyond the war, McClellan says.

When Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast in August 2005, for instance, the administration went on autopilot "rather than seizing the initiative and getting in front of what was happening on the ground."

And Bush's drive to remake the Social Security program after his 2004 re-election failed in large part because the White House focused almost exclusively on "selling our sketchily designed plan" instead of doing behind-the-scenes work with lawmakers.

McClellan explains his dramatic shift from defender to critic as a difficult act of personal contrition, a way, to learn from his mistakes, be true to his Christian faith and become a better person. He says he started the book to explain his role in the CIA leak case, in which some of his own words turned out to be what he called "badly misguided," though sincere at the time.

McClellan says Bush loyalists will no doubt continue to think the administration's decisions have been correct and its unpopularity undeserved. "I've become genuinely convinced otherwise," he says.

Indeed, former Bush aides joined current White House aides in expressing disbelief and disappointment at McClellan's account.

"Not once did Scott approach me _ privately or publicly _ to discuss any misgivings he had about the war in Iraq or the manner in which the White House made the case for war," McClellan's predecessor as press secretary, Ari Fleischer, said.

Said Fran Townsend, former head of the White House-based counterterrorism office and now a CNN commentator: "This now strikes me as self-serving, disingenuous and unprofessional."

Perino described Bush as "surprised" by the book but said the president wouldn't have anything to say about it. "He has more pressing matters than to spend time commenting on books by former staffers," she said.

Headlines from the Drudge Report : White House reacts negatively to ex-aide's book... Obama: McClellan 'confirmed what a lot of us have thought for some time'... PELOSI: 'I TOTALLY AGREE'... **VIDEO** Rove: McClellan Sounds Like Left Wing Blogger... Ex-Colleagues Ask, 'What Happened?' Congressman: McClellan Must Testify Under Oath... Bashed Tell All Memoirs, Before He Wrote His Own...

Headlines from the Huffington Post :

McClellan: Bush Relied On "Propaganda" To Sell The War...Engaged In Self Deception, Believed His Own Spin...

White House: "Sad... Not The Scott We Knew... He's Disgruntled"

Karl Rove: McClellan "Sounds Like A Left-Wing Blogger"

Dan Bartlett: McClellan's Allegations "Total Crap"

Ari Fleischer: I'm "Heartbroken"

Nancy Pelosi: Maybe The Lies Became "Too Heavy For Him To Carry"...

2008-05-20T10:44:00.002+10:00

Bush Says Obama Is Will Appease 'Terrorists'

If the Bush administration really stuck to its guns on not negotiating with 'terrorists', there would be no back room negotiations with Syria and Iran, but of course, such talks have been going on for years. Now Israel is negotiating Syria, Iran, Hamas and Hizbullah, but Bush says nothing.

From Justin Raimando, antiwar.com :

The unseemly spectacle of an American chief executive denouncing a Democratic presidential candidate in a foreign venue, in front of the parliament of a nation whose interests are inextricably intertwined with the issue at hand, has no precedent in our history. It's as if, say, Lyndon Baines Johnson had journeyed to South Vietnam and attacked the antiwar movement as "appeasers" before an audience of that country's rulers. In our Bizarro World universe, however, where all moral and political values have been stood on their heads, this is what passes for "patriotic" and "pro-American" activism on the part of our chief executive – upholding the interests of a foreign nation over and above your own.
After hailing the history of the fight for Israeli sovereignty minus any mention of the Nakba, and without so much as obliquely referring to the ongoing occupation of Palestinian territories, the president hit at his political enemies back home:

"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is – the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

The White House is now saying these comments were directed at Jimmy Carter, but it seems clear that Barack Obama was who the speechwriters had in mind – after all, Carter is about as politically relevant as, say, George W. Bush will be in January. Obama's answer at the YouTube Democratic debate that, yes, he would meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmahdinejad, among other world leaders considered unfriendly to the U.S., makes him the obvious target of Bush's remarks.

What's interesting, however, is that the senator Bush referred to was a Republican, William E. Borah of Idaho, whose opposition to U.S. intervention in what was then often referred to as "the European war" (i.e., Word War II) was indicative of mainstream GOP opinion circa 1939. One of the great sorrows of Borah's political career was that he had voted for U.S. entry into the first World War, and he resolved never to make such a grievous error again. Borah fought against the very injustices that led directly to the reanimation of that global conflict, which we call World War II, such as the Treaty of Versailles and the imposition of draconian war debts on a prostrate Germany. Perhaps this explains his intractability. I will leave it to historians to defend Sen. Borah at greater length, but suffice to say here that "the Lion of Idaho" deserves better than this.

Aside from the historical sleight-of-hand, Bush's blast at Obama over this particular issue from this particular podium is a display of such supreme arrogance – and political calculation – that it takes one's breath away. The U.S. has every interest in negotiating with the Iranians, if only to ensure the physical safety of our troops in Iraq, not to mention all the other outstanding issues [.pdf] between the two nations that have festered, unattended, for so long. When we destroyed Iraq's Ba'athist regime, we handed regional hegemony to Iran on a silver platter, tilting the balance of power in a direction that now cannot be reversed – except by negotiation.

Yet negotiation, in Bush's parlance, is "appeasement." Of course, we have talked to the Iranians, in a series of highly publicized meetings (and probably some not so publicized) over events in Iraq. Was that appeasement? No doubt the Israel lobby considered it so. But are those the interests our president is representing?

This nonsense about "negotiating with terrorists" when it comes to Hamas ought to evoke in my readers a sense of déjà vu. After all, isn't that the same line they trotted out when it came to the Palestine Liberation Organization and its leader, the late Yasser Arafat? Yet didn't two American presidents bring Arafat to the negotiating table? And aren't we now supporting President Abbas, Arafat's heir and successor?

One has to wonder why an American president would take to the hustings in a foreign land and champion that nation's interests over and above our own. What treason is this?

Well, it isn't exactly treason. It's loyalty to party, as opposed to the nation – a Republican Party that has been whittled down to its hard core of Christian fundamentalists whose first loyalty is not to their own country, but to their peculiar theology, which just happens to be based on a fierce allegiance to the government of Israel. For these are no ordinary Christian fundamentalists, say, of the snake-handling type: these are dispensationalists who believe that after the elect are Raptured up into the heavens, the church on earth (the "new dispensation") will consist of the children of Israel, whose in-gathering will have foretold Christ's second coming. In the dispensationalist theology – really, a future history of the world – the final battle, Armageddon, will take place between the Israelis and the Forces of Evil. They firmly believe that God and all His angels will stand should-to-shoulder with the IDF.

This is where Bush's political calculation comes into the picture. For the dispensationalists, there is no issue in the foreign policy realm more important than unconditional support for the state of Israel. They are more fanatically pro-Israel than the Lobby itself, more Likudnik than the Likudniks. Their importance in the rapidly shrinking GOP electoral coalition was made manifest by John McCain's active pursuit of the Rev. John Hagee, a principal exponent of the "born again" Israel-first line and founder of Christians United for Israel. This is a pastor who drapes an Israeli flag on the altar as he preaches in his 5,000-seat Cornerstone Church.

These are the foot-soldiers of the neocons, the flying monkeys who do the Lobby's dirty work – an army of religious fanatics whose idiosyncratic theological delusions are a major driving force behind American foreign policy in the Middle East. They are not, however, the only such force. Aside from the organizational muscle of the Lobby itself, mostly confined to such groups as AIPAC and the neoconservative network, there is a Democratic Party component that finds the prospect of dealing with Hamas, Iran, and Hezbollah utterly horrifying. Many of these people are big contributors to the party, as Wesley Clark pointed out, and one risks a lot by crossing them. By lashing out at Obama in the way he did, Bush seeks to not only unite and energize his Republican base, but to also disrupt and split the Democrats as they struggle with a very difficult primary process.

What is striking about all this is that it gives us a very troubling perspective on how American foreign policy is made – much like sausage, in that you don't really want to know. In response to the endless problems and subtleties that our Middle East dealings confront us with, our president gives us a textbook example of political pandering couched in the crudest sort of rhetoric.

We are living in dangerous times. We have a president who formulates policy prescriptions in terms meant to please a cult of religiously motivated ideologues and foreign lobbyists, both of whom are working in tandem to undermine American interests in the Middle East. Ever since Sept. 11, 2001, we have faced an implacable enemy more than ready to take advantage of our one-sided policies when it comes to that region of the world. Yet we continue on the same course – on what is essentially a suicide mission – solely because of domestic political considerations and without regard for our actual interests.
For years, I've been saying and writing that, when it comes to the Middle East, Washington's policies are ridiculously skewed in Israel's favor, much to our own detriment. What's more, it appears that our policy-making apparatus has been hijacked by agents of a foreign power, who are determined to pursue their alien agenda no matter what the consequences for the U.S. Nothing could have underscored this point more emphatically than George W. Bush's Knesset speech – a peroration that surely indicates Bush missed his true calling and somehow wound up as the president of the wrong country

2008-05-20T10:41:00.003+10:00

Bush Tells Arab World To Get Free

From AP :

President Bush lectured the Arab world Sunday about everything from political repression to the denial of women's rights but ran into Palestinian complaints he is favoring Israel in stalled Mideast peace talks. "Freedom and peace are within your grasp," Bush said despite scant signs of progress.
Winding up a five-day trip to the region, Bush took a strikingly tougher tone with Arab nations than he did with Israel in a speech Thursday to the Knesset. Israel received effusive praise from the president while Arab nations heard a litany of U.S. criticisms mixed with some compliments.
"Too often in the Middle East, politics has consisted of one leader in power and the opposition in jail," Bush said in a speech to 1,500 global policymakers and business leaders at this Red Sea beach resort. That was a clear reference to host Egypt, where main secular opposition figure Ayman Nour has been jailed and President Hosni Mubarak has led an authoritarian government since 1981.
"America is deeply concerned about the plight of political prisoners in this region, as well as democratic activists who are intimidated or repressed, newspapers and civil society organizations that are shut down and dissidents whose voices are stifled," Bush said.
"I call on all nations in this region to release their prisoners of conscience, open up their political debate and trust their people to chart their future," Bush said.
Scattered applause followed, with barely a ripple of reaction later to his declaration than Iran must not be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon.
Bush headed back to Washington with little to show for the trip. Saudi Arabia rebuffed his plea for help with soaring oil prices, Egypt's leader questioned his seriousness about peacemaking and there was not enough progress in the peace talks to warrant a three-way meeting of Bush with Israeli and Palestinian leaders.
The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, did not conceal his disappointment over Bush's remarks to the Israeli parliament. The speech barely mentioned Palestinian hopes.
"We do not want the Americans to negotiate on our behalf," Abbas said Sunday after talks with Mubarak. "All that we want from them is to stand by (our) legitimacy and have a minimum of neutrality." Abbas had dinner Saturday with Bush.
"In principle, the Bush speech at the Knesset angered us, and we were not happy with it," Abbas said Sunday. "This is our position and we have a lot of remarks (about the speech) and I frankly, clearly and transparently asked him that the American position should be balanced."
Abbas told Israeli parliament member Yossi Beilin on Sunday he would resign if there was no substantial progress in peace talks over the next six months, according to the lawmaker's office.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, on Air Force One with Bush returning to Washington, said there were serious peace negotiations going on in private and that she expected them to intensify in the months ahead. She said Bush inserted the wording in the speech that "I believe" the Palestinians will build a democracy, as a sign of his confidence that will happen.
As for Arab criticism Bush leans too far in supporting Israel, Rice said, "The president isn't pro this or pro that. The president is pro-democracy and pro-peace."
The trip was Bush's second to the Mideast this year. His national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, said Bush might return again before his term ends in January if "there is work for him to advance the peace process."
The White House made clear that Bush's goal for a peace accord before his leaves office does not mean it will be put into place by then or produce an immediate Palestinian state. "That would be a process that would take years," Hadley said.
Bush ended his visit with an address to the World Economic Forum on the Middle East, an offshoot of the annual gathering of political and business leaders in Davos, Switzerland.
After talking privately with key leaders, the president in public touched only broadly on Mideast peacemaking. He did not suggest concrete steps to resolve the generations-old differences standing in the way of an agreement.
"Palestinians must fight terror and continue to build the institutions of a free and peaceful society," Bush said. "Israel must make tough sacrifices for peace, ease the restrictions on Palestinians. Arab states, especially oil-rich nations, must seize this opportunity to invest aggressively in the Palestinian people and to move past their old resentments against Israel."
"And all nations in the region must stand together in confronting Hamas, which is attempting to undermine efforts at peace with acts of terror and violence" from the Gaza Strip, Bush said. Hamas, which the U.S. considers a terrorist group, controls that territory; the U.S.-backed Abbas is in charge of the West Bank.
The heart of Bush's speech was a warning that Mideast nations lag behind the developing world and cannot count on their oil wealth forever.
Bush urged countries to make their economies more diverse, open to free trade, with lower taxes and protection for intellectual property rights.
He called for political changes that bring competitive, legitimate elections where leaders are held to account and appealed to nations to push back against the negative influence of "spoilers" such as Iran and Syria.
He urged an expansion of women's rights as "a matter of morality and of basic math. No nation that cuts off half its population from opportunities will be as productive or prosperous as it could be. Women are a formidable force, as I have seen in my own family and my own administration."
At the same time, Bush hailed democratic advances in countries such as Turkey, Afghanistan, Iraq, Morocco and Jordan and said, "The light of liberty is beginning to shine."
Bush's speech recalled his promise in his second inaugural address to work in every nation for "ending tyranny in our world." One of the obvious targets of his message was Egypt, the country hosting the conference.
Egypt has often been publicly singled out by his administration, especially in its early years, as a country that needs to do more in terms of political liberalization and democracy. Egypt did hold its first presidential elections in 2005 but pulled back following strong gains by the Muslim Brotherhood in later parliamentary elections.
In addition to Nour's jailing, independent newspaper editors were sentenced to prison for criticizing the president and his government, and hundreds of members of the Muslim Brotherhood were put behind bars. Public criticism of Mubarak's government by the Bush administration, however, has been increasingly muted in recent years as the situation in Iraq worsened and worries grew over Iran, and as the U.S. sought Egypt's help on a Palestinian-Israeli peace deal.
Bush said political changes must accompany economic ones in Egypt.

2008-05-16T01:40:00.003+10:00

Bush The Prophet

President Bush visited Israel to pledge eternal American friendship, funding and military support, and, being in holy lands, started getting all prophetic :

"So as we mark 60 years from Israel's founding, let us try to envision the region 60 years from now...
"Israel will be celebrating its 120th anniversary as one of the world's greatest democracies... the Palestinian people will have a homeland, a democratic state that is governed by law, respects human rights and rejects terror".

...from Cairo to Riyadh to Baghdad and Beirut, people will live in free and independent societies". Iran and Syria "will be peaceful nations, where today's oppression is a distant memory".

Al Qaeda, Lebanon's Hezbollah movement and the Palestinian Islamist group Hamas "will be defeated, as Muslims across the region recognize the emptiness of the terrorists' vision", Bush predicted.

Hopeful, but almost childishly simplistic.

Bush will leave the White House with no two state deal in place between the Israelis and Palestinians, after seven years of attempts at solidifying a lasting peace.

2008-05-15T01:55:00.002+10:00

Bush's Personal Sacrifice

Psychotic Bush haters will scream that President Bush has sealed himself off from the realities of the wars he has launched and that he makes no great sacrifices or endures the kind of suffering that millions of Americans with loved ones in the war zones have to live with everyday.

Well, they couldn't be more wrong.

President Bush explains just what he has sacrificed during this time of war :

"I don't want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander in chief playing golf," he said. "I feel I owe it to the families to be in solidarity as best as I can with them. And I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal."

Bush shows solidarity with the mothers and fathers of the dead and wounded by...giving up golf.

Bush said he made that decision after the August 2003 bombing of the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad, which killed Sergio Vieira de Mello, the top U.N. official in Iraq and the organization's high commissioner for human rights.

"I remember when de Mello, who was at the U.N., got killed in Baghdad as a result of these murderers taking this good man's life," he said. "I was playing golf -- I think I was in central Texas -- and they pulled me off the golf course and I said, 'It's just not worth it anymore to do.'"

Such selfless sacrifice has won me over. This great president has suffered, too.

You would be foolish to deny it.

UPDATE : Turns out Bush lied about when he quit playing golf. He wanted to show solidarity with military families by giving up golf, but it took a couple of more months and a few more yuks with friends on the greens before he did so.

2008-05-06T02:13:00.003+10:00

Cheney Thinks Bush Will Be Remembered As Hope Maker

From Raw Story :

"When the history is written, it will be said this is a safer country and more hopeful world because George Bush was president," Cheney said...

He means when his NeoCon pals, and enthusiastic revisionists, try to reframe the Bush White House legacy in a decade or two, and play down the chaos their war plan unleashed in Iraq. And perhaps Iran as well.

2008-05-05T11:50:00.004+10:00

Paraguay May Be No Safe Haven For Bush

AfterDowningStreet.org takes a look at what a change in government in Paraguay means for President Bush's alleged plan to beat international war crimes charges after he leaves the White House by retreating to a 100,000 acre in the Latin America haven :

The country, ruled for six decades by the dictatorial and fascist Colorado Party of Gen. Alfredo Stroesser, an almost cartoon charicature of a Latin American dictator, has no extradition treaty with any nation.
That's why it has long harbored aging Nazis, bank robbers, and a string of ousted or retired Latin American dictators and their assistants over the years.
...trouble is, Paraguay may not be such a safe haven for long.
Last month, a former Roman Catholic Bishop with leftist, populist tendencies, Fernando Lugo, surprised almost everyone in Paraguay, and no doubt President Bush, by winning the national presidential election, ousting the Colorado Party for the first time in 61 years. There is talk that among other things, Lugo is thinking of returning Paraguay to the community of nations, by signing some of those extradition agreements.

Go Here For The Full Story

2008-02-21T00:07:00.003+11:00

Bush Gets Geldof's Love For African Charity

From the Washington Times :

Bob Geldof has parachuted into the White House travel pool here in Rwanda, and will join us on the flight from Air Force One to Ghana tonight.

He's going to interview President Bush for Time magazine and several European outlets, such as Liberacion, about aid to Africa for HIV/AIDS, malaria, and business development.

Mr. Geldof is an Irish rock and roll singer and longtime social activist who has helped, along with U2 rocker Bono, raise awareness about need in Africa. His most well known achievement is organizing the Live Aid concert in 1985, which raised money for debt relief for poor African countries.

But Mr. Geldof has remained closely engaged with African affairs since then, and he spoke off the cuff to reporters today who were waiting for a press conference with Mr. Bush and Rwandan President Paul Kagame.

Mr. Geldof praised Mr. Bush for his work in delivering billions to fight disease and poverty in Africa, and blasted the U.S. press for ignoring the achievement.

Mr. Bush, said Mr. Geldof, "has done more than any other president so far."

"This is the triumph of American policy really," he said. "It was probably unexpected of the man. It was expected of the nation, but not of the man, but both rose to the occasion."

"What's in it for [Mr. Bush]? Absolutely nothing," Mr. Geldof said.

Mr. Geldof said that the president has failed "to articulate this to Americans" but said he is also "pissed off" at the press for their failure to report on this good news story.

"You guys didn't pay attention," Geldof said to a group of reporters from all the major newspapers.

Bush administration officials, incidentally, have also been quite displeased with some of the press coverage on this trip that they have viewed as overly negative and ignoring their achievements.

2008-02-16T02:40:00.002+11:00

Bush Loved By Africa's Poor - US President "Helped Us Live"

Not everyone in the world hates George W. Bush :

They may not be George Bush's natural constituency but Rwanda's prostitutes have good things to say about him. So do poor South Africans abandoned by their quixotic government, and doctors across Africa who otherwise regard the American president as a walking crime against humanity.
As Bush arrives in Africa today at the start of a five-country tour he will be welcomed chiefly for an initiative which has gone largely unnoticed outside the continent but which has saved the lives of more than a million people with HIV.
The $15bn (£7.6bn) President's Emergency Plan for Aids Relief (Pepfar) is in its fifth year and has been hailed as a "revolution" that is transforming healthcare in Africa and has been praised as the most significant aid programme since the end of colonialism.
Bill Clinton's legacy in Africa was the debacle of Somalia and the abandonment of Rwanda's Tutsis to the 1994 genocide. But with Pepfar, Bush's primary contribution will be greatly extending millions of lives even though the programme has been criticised for emphasising abstinence in Aids education and using religious organisations to deliver care.
"This is the best thing that ever happened to the poor people I work with," said Edward Phillips, a Catholic priest overseeing the distribution of life-saving antiretroviral drugs (ARVs) in Nairobi, Kenya. "It's one of the few times I've seen US government money really reach down to the poorest of the poor. It's kept a hell of a lot of people alive."
Dr Francois Venter, head of the HIV Clinicians Society in South Africa, where Pepfar is providing 200,000 people with ARVs, is one of a number of Aids doctors almost disbelieving in praise of Bush. "I look at all the blood this man has on his hands in Iraq and I can't quite believe myself but I would say it's a bold experiment from the last people in the world I would expect to do it, and it is saving a lot of lives. To intervene on such a scale and make such a difference is huge," he said.
Bush confronted the pandemic under pressure from his then secretary of state, Colin Powell, who warned that Aids threatened to wipe out a large part of the working-age population of some African countries. He saw that as a national security issue. So did the CIA. Bush was also lobbied by American Christian evangelicals with strong and expanding ties to Africa, and conservative Republican senators usually instinctively hostile to foreign aid.
In Rwanda - on Bush's tour and one of Pepfar's 15 priority countries - Dr Agnes Binagwaho, the head of the national Aids council, says the US programme is the major contributor to a tenfold increase over the past four years in the numbers of Rwandans on ARVs to nearly 50,000 people. Today about 70% of Rwandans who need the drugs receive them. "The impact is huge. The average life expectancy of Rwandans has improved by four years because of Pepfar," she said. "The impact is also really big in the health sector because of the equipment and training. It is putting children through school."
In a busy Kigali bar, Linda, a 24-year-old HIV-positive prostitute, explained that she had been afraid to be tested because she didn't want to know that she might soon die. "Then they said they could make us well, they have these drugs. So I got tested and I have the drugs," she said.
So whom does she thank? "The Americans. George Bush has helped us live."

2008-02-09T03:33:00.000+11:00

History Will Now Record George W. Bush As 'The President Who Tortured'

After years of denial, obfuscation and the frequent use of supreme powers of spin, President George W. Bush will now go down in history as the president who signed off on torture, then lied about it.

This Washington Post lead editorial explains why :

The admission this week by CIA Director Michael V. Hayden that three terrorism suspects were subjected to waterboarding in 2002 and 2003 puts to rest any doubt about whether President Bush authorized torture.
For centuries, civilized countries have considered waterboarding, or simulated drowning, to be torture. The United States rightly condemned as war criminals Japanese soldiers who employed the technique against U.S. personnel during World War II. It prosecuted U.S. military officers who waterboarded prisoners at the turn of the 20th century. The practice, which causes its victims to feel that they are about to die, is unquestionably cruel. Every administration prior to this one has judged it to be prohibited by U.S. law and treaty obligations. It is incontestably a blot on the reputation of this country and a breach of the very values we claim to want to export to the rest of the world.
Congress must act now to put an end to the continued twisting of the law and fundamental American values. Lawmakers can do so by passing legislation requiring all U.S. interrogators to abide by the techniques authorized in the Army Field Manual, which military officials have said allows them the flexibility they need to gather intelligence. The administration has balked at this restriction, and President Bush may well veto it. If he does, it will be but another stain on his legacy.

2008-02-02T16:26:00.000+11:00

World Can't Wait For Bush Administration To End

There has been a flurry of stories all over the world's media announcing that we are now in the last year of the Bush White House, as if most people needed to be alerted to that fact. According to this story, much of the world already knows they're in the Last Days Of President Bush, and they can't wait for him to be gone, explaining why there is such unheralded interest in the US presidential primaries.

Well, all that and the fact that coverage of US presidential primaries is a hell of an easy way to fill a few minutes of the evening news with video wire reports :

Germans are gaga over Barack Obama. He's got Japan pretty jazzed, too, along with Hillary Rodham Clinton. Russia's leaders, not so much: They prefer a Republican — as long as it's not Kremlin critic John McCain.

And Mexico's president? He doesn't have much use for any of them.

America's extraordinary presidential campaign has captivated politicians and ordinary people around the globe.

After eight years of President Bush, the latest mantra in U.S. politics — "transformational change" — is resonating across the rest of a planet desperate for a fresh start.

"They feel there's a real chance to work with the U.S.," said Julianne Smith, a senior fellow at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies. "America's image in the world is really on the line."

Non-Americans, she said, are looking for someone who can "restore faith in the United States."
In the post-Bush era, the bottom line is blunt and simple, Dunleavy said.
"People all around the world are pretty worried," he said. "They want a president who will restore a kind of U.S. legitimacy in the world."

2008-02-02T16:18:00.000+11:00

The Tragedy Of President Bush II

Excerpts from a New York Times review of what sounds like one of the more interesting books on the endless shipwreck that is the George W. Bush administration :

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.”
...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.
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.”

2008-01-30T13:17:00.000+11:00

Bush's Final State Of The Union Spin Can't Hide The Failures And Tragedy Of His Administration

For a president obsessed with how history will view his time in the White House, George W. Bush would have spent a great deal of time considering his final State Of The Union speech, over the years.

No doubt before the Iraq War began, Bush imagined that the last SOTU speech he would deliver as president would be one in which he could talk happily about how right he was about the decision to go to war on Iraq, because democracy, freedom and liberty were now spreading throughout the Middle East.

Instead, Iraq is still gripped by incredible violence, democracy is in retreat in the Middle East, and Bush is set to go down as one of, if not the most, unpopular presidents In American history :

George Bush used his final state of the union address last night to try to reassert his primacy in American political life and demonstrate his commitment to Republican principles.
But it was impossible to escape comparisons between the Bush of seven years ago, newly arrived from Texas with a reputation as a uniter and with a vision for sweeping change, with the modest proposals put forward by the president tonight.
With 51 weeks left in his presidency, and a personal approval rating in the low 30s, the night was one of the few remaining moments in the national spotlight for the man overshadowed by the race to choose his successor.
Bush made it clear in a speech lasting nearly an hour that he would resist being cast as a lame duck president, and would fight hard for Republican goals. He threatened to veto bills from Congress that included funding for special interest projects, or earmarks, and warned of the dangers of accelerating US troop withdrawals from Iraq.
Mindful of his waning presidency, Bush announced none of the sweeping new initiatives that are typically unveiled in the annual address. Although he repeatedly referred to the last seven years, he spent little time talking about his legacy.
Instead, Bush attempted to use his diminishing political capital to allay anxiety about the economy, which has replaced the Iraq war as the issue of most concern to Americans.
Amid his ritualistic assertions that the state of the union was strong, Bush conceded: "our economy is undergoing a period of uncertainty".
The centrepiece of last night's address was an appeal to Congress to pass a $150bn (£75bn) temporary economic stimulus package that would ward off a recession by giving tax rebates to 117 million families.
The bill, agreed between Bush and the House of Representatives last week, is already facing amendments in the Senate, and Bush called for its passage. "This is a good agreement that will keep our economy growing and our people working and this Congress must pass it as soon as possible."
...Bush used the address to tie up what his officials called "unfinished business" of his presidency: the tax cuts of his first term, which will expire in 2010, and legislation on wire taps without court oversight.
Bush repeated his demands for Congress to pass legislation that would protect telephone companies involved in the surveillance from lawsuits.
On the Iraq war, he used the occasion to remind Americans of the gains achieved during the past year when he ordered an additional 27,000 troops to Iraq. The president spoke on a day when five soldiers were killed by a roadside bomb in the northern city of Mosul, but Bush was adamant his strategy was working.
"While the enemy is still dangerous and more work remains, the American and Iraqi surges have achieved results few of us could have imagined just one year ago," he said.
"Some may deny the surge is working, but among the terrorists there is no doubt."
Bush went on to issue a stern warning to Iran. "America will confront those who threaten our troops, we will stand by our allies, and we will defend our vital interests in the Persian Gulf," he said.
The speech, which was in the works when Bush made his visit to the Middle East earlier this month, called for a Palestinian state. It also included strong statements on Darfur, and a continued committment to $30 billion to fight Aids in Africa
Despite Bush's reluctance to go over his record at length, in many ways, the speech was a reminder of the failures of the Bush presidency.
The ambitious domestic agenda unveiled in previous state of the union addresses never got off the ground as Bush acknowledged himself last night when he talked about the failed efforts to overhaul social security and America's immigration laws.

What might have been...

2008-01-30T12:09:00.001+11:00

Bush On Hardcore Alcoholism

President Bush doesn't often speak about his days as an alcoholic. He'll make the occasional reference, or joke, but it's a rare day when Bush speaks at length about the dark days when he couldn't he couldn't live without the booze :

US President George W. Bush says religion helped him overcome alcoholism and he hasn't had a drink since he quit more than 21 years ago.

In a rare reference to having once been an alcoholic, Mr Bush told a Protestant church-sponsored organisation which helps prisoners reintegrate into society that a "higher power'' helped him beat alcohol.

"Addiction is hard to overcome,'' Mr Bush said in Baltimore, Maryland.

"As you might remember, I drank too much at one time in my life. I understand faith-based programs. I understand that sometimes you can find the inspiration from a higher power to solve an addiction problem,'' he said.
(Bush)...quit cold after a bout of heavy drinking on his 40th birthday.

"I had too much to drink one night, and the next day I didn't have any,'' he said.

"I haven't had a drink since 1986.

"I doubt I'd be standing here if I hadn't quit drinking whiskey, and beer and wine and all that,'' the President said.

Packing away whiskey, beer and wine makes Bush sound like the alcoholic that would throw down whatever was within reach.

2008-01-28T04:50:00.002+11:00

Evangelical Insider : Bush More Interested In Talking About Sex Than God

Jacob Weisberg digs into the truth about President Bush's God-related beliefs, and what he finds is strange, unusual, troubling. An extract from Weisberg's excellent book, The Bush Tragedy :

One of the defining aspects of George W Bush’s presidency is his professed belief in God. Yet what really are his religious beliefs? The question, which seems central to understanding his presidency, never receives a satisfactory answer. Indeed, one religious figure close to him soon after his conversion was shocked to find that he talked about sex rather than theology and says that a lot of his faith seemed to be politically calculated.
Bush’s religion has often been described as evangelical. But unlike most other evangelicals, he blithely uses profanity and as governor of Texas he would play poker. He doesn’t pay tithes, he doesn’t try to convert others – one of the central obligations in most evangelical denominations. And he didn’t raise his daughters in the faith.
What Bush clearly does believe in is the personal, transforming and sustaining power of belief in God. Having a personal relationship with God, praying and reading the Bible daily were the tools he used to get control of his life more than 20 years ago.
They made it possible for him to control his drinking, keep his family together after his wife Laura threatened to leave him, manage his aggressive behaviour, cope with the burden of a heroic father and attain success.
With his behaviour under control, he began to gain the confidence of his father, Vice-President George H W Bush, who was having a problem winning the support of evangelical Christians for his bid for the presidency in 1988. Bush Sr regarded televangelists as snake-handlers and swindlers. But with the help of his eldest son and an evangelical minister called Doug Wead, he won the presidency.
The crucible of the campaign forged a close relationship between George W and Wead. “Weadie”, as George W called him, says the candidate’s son spent an inordinate amount of time talking about sex.
Bush Jr was so anxious to avoid any whiff or rumour of infidelity (there were rumours about his father) that he asked Wead to stay in his hotel room one night when he thought a young woman working on the campaign might knock on his door.
“I tried to read to him from the Bible, because by that time he was sending me these signals,” Wead told me. “But he wasn’t interested. He just rolled over and went to sleep.”
Wead said Bush resisted religious overtures as firmly as sexual ones. “He has absolutely zero interest in anything theological – nothing,” Wead said. “We spent hours talking about sex . . . who on the campaign was doing what to whom – but nothing about God. And I tried many, many times.”
Wead also recalls the son’s expressions of his own political interest. The campaign had prepared state-by-state analysis of the electorate. “When he got the one on Texas, his eyes just bugged out,” Wead remembered. He recalled that Bush said: “This is just great! I can become governor of Texas just with the evangelical vote.”
With the various roles he played as Bush Jr’s life counsellor, political adviser and spiritual companion, Wead became in the late 1980s the first in a series of what might be described as surrogate family members to George W.
What Karl Rove would do in helping Bush launch his political career in Texas, and Dick Cheney in helping him define his presidency, Wead did in helping Bush assert and establish his independent identity as a person of faith. But the experience left Wead troubled about the sincerity of Bush’s beliefs. “I’m almost certain that a lot of it was calculated,” he says.
He was particularly concerned about Bush’s rebellious daughters, Barbara and Jenna. Why hadn’t Bush called in the preacher Billy Graham who had helped to convert Dubya?
“If you really believed that there’s some accountability to life, wouldn’t you have Billy Graham come down and have a magic moment with your daughters? Are you just going to let them go to hell? You have all these religious leaders coming through. If it changed your life, wouldn’t you invite them to sit down in the living room and have a talk with your daughters? Or is it all political?”
Once elected, Bush Sr mishandled the religious right. In 1992 his share of the evangelical vote fell and he lost to Bill Clinton. George W became the keenest student of that defeat and he followed Wead’s advice when successfully bidding to become governor of Texas, where the political landscape had been reshaped by the rise of the evangelical movement.
As he and Rove later mapped out his presidential bid, Bush faced a new problem: how to retain the support of the right-wing evangelical leaders that he privately called “wackos” without being so closely identified with them that the association would alienate other voters. The answer was to expand his support for religiously based treatment for drug and alcohol abuse into “faith-based initiatives”, his signature social policy.
The phrase he picked up from Wead that encapsulated this philosophy was “compassionate conservatism”. The word “compassionate” had special overtones to born-again Christians, referring to their duty to be Good Samaritans. But to nonevangelicals, it simply sounded like a way of saying “not all that conservative”. It exemplified Bush’s ability to speak in code, using language with special meaning for evangelicals that sounded innocuous to everyone else.
An agnostic, Rove thought talking the talk was enough and that the candidate did not need to stroke the leaders of the religious right, to Wead’s dismay. Envy over Rove’s closer relationship with Bush may have pushed Wead towards an act of betrayal that he tried to portray as a service to history: secretly tape-recording nine hours of his private telephone conversations with Bush in 1999 and 2000. These tapes, of which I’ve obtained a partial copy (not from Wead), provide a glimpse of the man behind the public mask. They capture Bush thinking aloud and rehearsing answers to questions expected on the campaign trail.
On one, he acknowledges illegal drug use decades back. “Doug,” Bush says, “it doesn’t just matter [about] cocaine, it’d be the same with marijuana. I wouldn’t answer the mari-juana question. You know why? Because I don’t want some little kid doing what I tried . . . I don’t want any kid doing what I tried to do [pause] 30 years ago.”
But the more interesting revelation is how politically Bush thinks about religion. Speaking of an upcoming meeting with evangelical leaders, he notes: “As you said, there are some code words. There are some proper ways to say things and some improper ways. I am going to say that I’ve accepted Christ into my life. And that’s a true statement.”
The tapes reveal how political the faith of George W Bush is. Wead said that during the countless hours the two spent talking about religion over a dozen years, they discussed endlessly the implications of attending services at different congregations, how Bush could position himself in relation to various tricky questions and how he should handle various ministers and evangelical leaders. But the substance of Bush’s own faith never came up.
Wead told me that he now struggles with the question of how sincere Bush’s expressions of devotion ever were. He often goes over their conversations and the many memos he sent to Bush advising him how to woo the religious vote. “As these memos started flowing to him, he started feeding back to me what his faith was,” Wead said. “Now what is interesting for me, and I’m trying to understand is, was I giving him his story?”
Bush’s skill at “Jesus talk” raises an interesting problem. I’ve edited six books of Bushisms which collect hundreds of examples of the president’s verbal clumsiness. The patterns of these slips testify to some sort of relatively minor, undiagnosed language processing impairment akin to dys-lexia. But Bushisms are only one aspect of a complex verbal picture.
Growing up, Bush developed a glib facility with language that compensates for his disability. In private conversation he is quick-witted and funny, using focused tools of memory and physicality to create intimacy. In private he can be profane and get in your face, swearing “like a sailor” in a 1999 campaign interview with Tucker Carlson, a conservative reporter he expected to protect him, or telling staff that he would kick Saddam Hus-sein’s “sorry motherf****** ass all over the Mideast”. But in scripted and more formal settings, Bush is capable of dignified eloquence.
The greatest surprise is that Bush’s verbal clumsiness is sometimes matched by an impressive degree of precision. In a political context he is sensitive to the resonance and nuance of his terminology. He has always avoided the kind of evangelese that arouses the concern of secular citizens. He seldom uses such terms as born again, saved, Jesus, sinner, heaven or hell. Instead, during the 2000 campaign he chose more generic words: God, charge, heart, love, faith, spirit, service and prayer. To irreligious ears these sounded merely like elevated diction. Christian evangelicals, however, recognised them as references to the born-again religious experience.
In the event, Bush won only 68% of the evangelical vote in the presidential election in 2000, and nearly lost the contest. According to Rove’s calculations, 4m evangelical voters stayed home on election day. This poor performance meant Bush had a big job to do in cultivating the religious right in advance of the next election in 2004. It made passing a faith-based bill urgent. But implementing a faith-based policy proved far more difficult than promoting one. What worked in Texas ran aground in Washington because the national political spectrum was more liberal and secular.
John Dilulio, the first head of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, left in disgust after six months and, in an interview for Esquire magazine, complained that there was no serious discussion of domestic policy or apparatus for developing it. His deputy, David Kuo, quotes Bush shouting: “Well, is he [Dilulio] right, or isn’t he? Have we done compassion or haven’t we? I wanna know.”
Years later he might still be wondering. There is essentially no faith-based programme beyond a minuscule $30m “compassion fund” that channels grants to politically sympathetic Christian groups. The chief work of the White House faith-based office turned into putting on conferences in swing states at which it touted breaking down largely nonexistent barriers and encouraged church groups to apply for grants that weren’t available. In his memoirs, Kuo quotes Rove at the outset of the administration demanding: “Just get me a f****** faith-based thing.”
Margaret Spellings, Bush’s first domestic policy adviser, expressed a similar frustration. “Just get me a damn faith bill. Any bill. I don’t care what kind of bill. Just get me a damn faith bill,” she said.
Kuo’s view is that Bush got snookered by Rove and other aides. The president never understood – or noticed – that the faith-based programmes he dictated never got implemented. He soon discovered, anyway, that what mattered to religious leaders was not government funding but influence on policy throughout the government where it intersected with abortion, evolution and other matters on the evangelical agenda. And this Bush and Rove gave them.
Kay Coles James, a prominent evangelical, was made head of the White House office of personnel. She put evangelicals in sensitive positions at justice, interior, state, health, the Food and Drug Administration, Nasa and the Centers for Disease Control. Even applicants to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq were vetted for evangelical status – not because it mattered to their work, but on the straightforward principle of political patronage. The spoils system appeased Bush’s evangelical constituents.
The secular misunderstanding of Bush is that his relationship with God has turned him into a harsh man, driven by absolute moral certainty and attempting to foist his evangelical views onto others. Many of those who know Bush best see the religious influence in his life cutting in precisely the opposite direction. As one of the evangelical staff members in the White House told me over lunch last summer, Bush’s religion has made him more genuinely humble and less absolutist in the way he defends his views.
Believing that he, too, is a lowly sinner, he has learnt to be more tolerant of the faults of others. But if his eternal perspective improves his personality, it diminishes any ability to take in ambiguity or complexity. He told Senator Joe Biden early in his presidency: “I don’t do nuance.”
That line was probably spoken with self-deprecating irony, but it captures a truth about the intellectually constricting lens of his faith. Bush rejects nuance not because he’s incapable of engaging with it, but because he has chosen to reject it. Applying a crude religious lens that clarifies all decisions as moral choices rather than complicated trade-offs helps him fend off the deliberation and self-contradic-tion he identifies with his own father.
But closing one’s mind to complexity isn’t mere intellectual laziness; it’s a fundamental evasion of freedom, God-given or otherwise. A simple faith frees George W from the kind of agonising struggle that his father went through in handling the largest questions of his presidency and helps him to cope with the heavy burden of the job. But it comes at a tragic cost. A too crude religious understanding has limited Bush’s ability to comprehend the world. The habit of pious simplification has undermined the decider’s decision-making.

Again, Weisberg's book, The Bush Tragedy, is well worth tracking down, if you can stand to hear anymore about President Bush right now. Make it one for the shelf, to look back on in a decade or two, when Bush's championers are trying to re-cast his role in American history, and the bungled fuckarama that was his presidency. This book will remind you just what a tragedy Bush was as president.

2008-01-23T18:18:00.000+11:00

BushCo. Told '1000 Lies' In Lead Up To Iraq War

For two years before the War On Iraq began, President Bush, US Vice President Dick Cheney, White House media wranglers, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary Of State Colin Powell and a coterie of media-friendly NeoCons took part in an unrelenting, insidious propaganda campaign to convince Americans, and the rest of the world, that not only did Iraq have WMDs and nuclear weapons, but if War On Iraq did not begin soon, Saddam would attack Israel, the UK, Europe and the United States.

From AP :

A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat. from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.

The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."

The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism.
The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both.

"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida," according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members, writing an overview of the study. "In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003."

Named in the study along with Bush were top officials of the administration during the period studied: Vice President Dick Cheney, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan.

Bush led with 259 false statements, 231 about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 28 about Iraq's links to al-Qaida, the study found. That was second only to Powell's 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq and al-Qaida.

The center said the study was based on a database created with public statements over the two years beginning on Sept. 11, 2001, and information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches and interviews.

"The cumulative effect of these false statements — amplified by thousands of news stories and broadcasts — was massive, with the media coverage creating an almost impenetrable din for several critical months in the run-up to war," the study concluded.

"Some journalists — indeed, even some entire news organizations — have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional, 'independent' validation of the Bush administration's false statements about Iraq," it said.

Some of the key "false public statements" made during the lead up to the start of the Iraq War :

On August 26, 2002, in an address to the national convention of the Veteran of Foreign Wars, Cheney flatly declared: "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." In fact, former CIA Director George Tenet later recalled, Cheney's assertions went well beyond his agency's assessments at the time. Another CIA official, referring to the same speech, told journalist Ron Suskind, "Our reaction was, 'Where is he getting this stuff from?' "
In the closing days of September 2002, with a congressional vote fast approaching on authorizing the use of military force in Iraq, Bush told the nation in his weekly radio address: "The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. . . . This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year." A few days later, similar findings were also included in a much-hurried National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction — an analysis that hadn't been done in years, as the intelligence community had deemed it unnecessary and the White House hadn't requested it.
In July 2002, Rumsfeld had a one-word answer for reporters who asked whether Iraq had relationships with Al Qaeda terrorists: "Sure." In fact, an assessment issued that same month by the Defense Intelligence Agency (and confirmed weeks later by CIA Director Tenet) found an absence of "compelling evidence demonstrating direct cooperation between the government of Iraq and Al Qaeda." What's more, an earlier DIA assessment said that "the nature of the regime's relationship with Al Qaeda is unclear."
On May 29, 2003, in an interview with Polish TV, President Bush declared: "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories." But as journalist Bob Woodward reported in State of Denial, days earlier a team of civilian experts dispatched to examine the two mobile labs found in Iraq had concluded in a field report that the labs were not for biological weapons. The team's final report, completed the following month, concluded that the labs had probably been used to manufacture hydrogen for weather balloons.
On January 28, 2003, in his annual State of the Union address, Bush asserted: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." Two weeks earlier, an analyst with the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research sent an email to colleagues in the intelligence community laying out why he believed the uranium-purchase agreement "probably is a hoax."
On February 5, 2003, in an address to the United Nations Security Council, Powell said: "What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. I will cite some examples, and these are from human sources." As it turned out, however, two of the main human sources to which Powell referred had provided false information. One was an Iraqi con artist, code-named "Curveball," whom American intelligence officials were dubious about and in fact had never even spoken to. The other was an Al Qaeda detainee, Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi, who had reportedly been sent to Eqypt by the CIA and tortured and who later recanted the information he had provided. Libi told the CIA in January 2004 that he had "decided he would fabricate any information interrogators wanted in order to gain better treatment and avoid being handed over to [a foreign government]."

The false statements dramatically increased in August 2002, with congressional consideration of a war resolution, then escalated through the mid-term elections and spiked even higher from January 2003 to the eve of the invasion.

Some of the key "false statements" made by President Bush :

....on September 25, 2002, in response to a reporter's question, President Bush said: "They're both risks, they're both dangerous. The difference, of course, is that Al Qaeda likes to hijack governments. Saddam Hussein is a dictator of a government. Al Qaeda hides, Saddam doesn't, but the danger is, is that they work in concert. The danger is, is that Al Qaeda becomes an extension of Saddam's madness and his hatred and his capacity to extend weapons of mass destruction around the world."
In a national radio address on September 28, 2002, President Bush flatly asserted: "The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. The regime has long-standing and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and there are al Qaeda terrorists inside Iraq. This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year."

What the American people did not know at the time was that, just three weeks before Bush's radio address, in early September, Central Intelligence Agency Director George Tenet told the Senate Intelligence Committee that there was no National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Such an assessment had not been done in years because nobody within the intelligence community had deemed it necessary, and, remarkably, nobody at the White House had requested that it be done.

The CIA put the NIE together in less than three weeks. It proved to be false. As the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence later concluded, "Postwar findings do not support the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) judgment that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.
In his State of the Union address on January 28, 2003, President Bush said: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

But as early as March 2002, there was uncertainty within the intelligence community regarding the sale of uranium to Iraq.
In an interview with Polish television on May 29, 2003, President Bush stated: "We found the weapons of mass destruction." Bush was referencing two trailers or "mobile labs" discovered in Iraq.

Just days earlier, the Defense Intelligence Agency had concluded that the trailers "could not be used as a transportable biological production system as the system is presently configured." It was ultimately acknowledged that the trailers had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction and were probably used to manufacture hydrogen employed in weather balloons.

BushCo. wanted to go to War On Iraq, and every lie, "false statement" and downright untruth was spoken to advance the case for the war.

BushCo. was going to War On Iraq regardless of whether it was proven that Saddam Hussein had WMDs or not. War On Iraq was a focus of the Bush administration within weeks of seizing control of the White House in January, 2001, eight months before the 9/11 attacks on New York City and Washington DC.

2008-01-22T13:25:00.000+11:00

Get Out Of My Face

Andrew Sullivan spotted this amazing picture of President Bush talking to a child after a speech on the importance of Martin Luther King Jr.

The expression says it all.

Some comments from Bush about MLK's birthday :

Martin Luther King Day means two things to me. One is the opportunity to renew our deep desire for America to be a land of promise for everybody, a land of justice, and a land of opportunity. It's also an opportunity to serve our fellow citizens.
...our fellow citizens have got to understand that by loving a neighbor like you'd like to be loved yourself, by reaching out to someone who hurts, by just simply living a life of kindness and compassion, you can make America a better place and fulfill the dream of Martin Luther King.
Martin Luther King is a towering figure in the history of our country...

Bush didn't explain why he thought this was so.

2008-01-22T12:02:00.001+11:00

One More Year - Good Riddance To Bush, Hell Awaits The Next US President

From the UK Independent :

Arabia is the land of illusion and desert mirages. And as he jetted last week from kingdom to sheikdom, to be regaled with feasts and falcons, jewels and ornamental swords, George Bush might have imagined that all was well with his presidency. But this, his longest and most ambitious trip to the Middle East, will surely be remembered – if it is remembered at all – as a gaudy, irrelevant footnote to a presidency that has long since failed.

Today is a sombre milestone, marking the start of the last of Mr Bush's eight years in the White House. This being a leap year, exactly 366 days remain until 20 January 2009, when his successor will be sworn into office. It is a time when incumbents look to their legacies. And for this President the view could scarcely be bleaker.

Is he the worst President in US history? Mr Bush faces stiff competition from the likes of James Buchanan, who watched as America slipped towards civil war, or Warren Harding with his corrupt administration, or Herbert Hoover, who failed to halt the slide into the Great Depression, or, more recently, Richard Nixon, the only President to be forced to resign. But in terms of dogmatism, incompetence, ignorance and divisiveness, Mr Bush surely compares with any of the above.

His first, albeit far from most important, bequest is seemingly inevitable defeat for his own party in November, ending almost 30 years of Republican dominance since Ronald Reagan took power. As David Frum, a one-time Bush speech-writer, put it the other day: "I fear the Republicans are heading to an epochal defeat, 1980 in reverse. Every gain we have made since then has been wiped out since 2002."

That, it should be noted, is a Republican speaking. But Frum's evidence is overwhelming, from the President's consistently abysmal approval rating, to the 70 per cent of the population who believe the country is "on the wrong track" (a level not seen in two decades, and that before all-but-certain recession began to bite), to the 51 per cent of Americans who identify themselves as Democrats. By contrast, just 36 per cent of Americans call themselves Republicans – the widest such margin in two decades. Even on the Republicans' signature issue of national security, Democrats are at level pegging. All other things being equal, it is hard to see them losing in November.

In politics, of course, all other things are not equal. The chances of Bush ordering military strikes on Iran may have receded, after last month's report by the US intelligence community that Tehran halted its nuclear weapons programme in 2003. But some other foreign calamity, a lethal domestic terrorist attack or even a scandal could reshuffle the electoral cards.
....the Bush era leaves its own nasty odour. Corporate cronyism has been rife. Globalisation and cuts driven by ideology have turned the wealth gap between rich Americans and the rest from an embarrassment into an obscenity. Since 2001 the real income of ordinary Americans has stagnated.

And the mind-boggling losses suffered by such pillars of the financial establishment as Merrill Lynch and Citibank, followed by humiliating foreign bail-outs, suggest something is fundamentally amiss with capitalism, American-style. Like Enron and WorldCom, these colossal financial shipwrecks will forever be associated with Bush's tenure.
The new occupant of the Oval Office can but hope today's dislike for America is directed at a leader, not at a country. That may well be, but one thing is for sure. Never again will the US occupy that extraordinary position of supremacy – military, moral and economic – that it held in the interlude between the demise of Communism and the attacks of September 2001.

To the 44th President falls the task of explaining that truth to the country, as well as dealing with the concrete day-to-day problems left by George Bush. Indeed, one wonders, why would anyone want the job?

2008-01-21T03:24:00.000+11:00

How Bush Can Change The World In 365 Days

Two stories examining what President Bush hopes to, and could realistically, achieve in his final year in office. It really all comes down to this, his last year in the White House. Will Bush be remembered for helping to plunge the world into the fourth great global conflict of the past century, or will his legacy become that of a visionary leader who defied much of the world, and most of his own people, to change the world for the better?

The first piece is from the Los Angeles Times (excerpts) :

One year from today, the next president of the United States will take the oath of office. If history is any guide, for the next 365 days, President Bush is likely to be one of the lamest ducks in history. Deeply unpopular, mired in the fifth year of war in Iraq and presiding over an economy slipping toward recession, he will be given no quarter by the Democratic-controlled Congress whose powers he has consistently sought to crimp. But history must not be permitted to circumscribe what Bush and Congress could yet accomplish. Both must reject the election-year paralysis that has become a self-defeating political tradition.

Lame-duck years typically feature torpor broken by last-ditch presidential foreign policy initiatives, usually unsuccessful. This year, the world faces problems far too serious to shelve for 12 months in deference to the American political calendar.

The seizure of highly enriched uranium in the Republic of Georgia last year proves once again that the most likely source for terrorists to obtain nuclear weapons materiel isn't Pakistan or Iran, at least not yet. It's Russia, which has secured only about half of its nuclear materiel. To its credit, the Bush administration has embraced the Global Threat Reduction Initiative to secure such materiel overseas, but at the current pace, it will take 15 years to complete the job. Experts say it can be done in four or five years. And it must.

Amazingly, there is no senior official in the U.S. whose sole responsibility is to prevent nuclear terrorism. Bureaucracies being what they are, it's essential that one person coordinate efforts and be accountable. Bush could appoint a White House deputy national security advisor for preventing nuclear terrorism. Best of all, he wouldn't even need congressional approval.

Bush could do his country and his legacy a big favor by closing the detention center that has become an international symbol of U.S. injustice. Terrorism suspects should be indicted and transferred to prisons such as Ft. Leavenworth, repatriated or released.

The second piece is from the Washington Post (excerpts) :

With one year left in the White House, Bush is trying to turn the normal plight of a lame-duck president to his advantage in an effort to salvage his foreign-policy legacy -- not only seeking an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal but also attempting to stabilize Iraq, isolate Iran and curb North Korea's nuclear ambitions.
...Bush's power to sway world events during his final months in the White House is dwindling, along with his political influence at home. While polite and warm to the president in their private meetings and phone conversations, the world's leaders are making their own calculations: Should they work with Bush, or are they better off waiting him out in favor of an unknown president in 2009?
Those deliberations differ from country to country and hinge on who foreign officials believe might be the next occupant of the Oval Office. Some leaders -- such as Olmert, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki -- appear to have strong political incentives to work with Bush during his final year. Others, in places such as North Korea or Iran, or even in friendly nations interested in progress on global warming, may be playing for time, hopeful that a new U.S. president might be more responsive to their concerns.
....Bush and his advisers left the region believing they made some headway in convincing officials that the president will use his final year in office to make progress on key issues such as Iraq and Iran. With a new administration likely to accelerate a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, this might be the last year for the Maliki government to push toward political reconciliation with U.S. protection.
While heartened by the administration's new vigor in trying to broker an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal, others in the region believe the new engagement from the administration -- after seven years of allowing problems to fester, in their view -- is a case of too little, too late.
Bush spent much of his Middle East trip trying to address such perceptions, acknowledging them in an interview in Riyadh last week with some of the reporters who accompanied him. "After years of disappointment," he said, "those of us directly involved in the process have a lot of work to try to instill confidence in the people."

But however Bush changes the world the world for the better, or for the worst, most Americans will remember him for what he did to his own country during his time in the White House, and how he handled the great dramas of the past decade : 9/11, the Iraq War, the 'War on Terror', Hurricane Katrina and the immolation of the American economy.

Bush is likely to leave the White House, one year from now, as one of the most unpopular and controversial American presidents in history.

One year is not enough to repair the damage of his NeoCon-infected vision for changing the world, or to renew the faith of Americans who feel so utterly betrayed by the Iraq War and the endless lies and controversies that have poisoned and fouled his eight years in the White House.

2008-01-21T03:23:00.000+11:00

Bush : "I'm A Peacemaker, Not A Warmonger"

President Bush's first visit to Saudi Arabia is primarily so he can seal the deal on a remarkable $20 billion arms sale. All the rest is mostly fluff and photo opps. Bush won't get down on his knees and beg the Saudis to ramp up oil production to get the price at the pumps to fall, Bush is an oil man himself, and oil men don't beg. They particularly don't beg in front of each other.

Despite overseeing some of the biggest arms and weapons deals in history, Bush insists he's "not a warmonger". Most Saudis, most Palestinians, most people anywhere, find this hard to believe.

But Bush keeps on signing that same tune. As he's said before, sometimes you have to keep repeating the propaganda to try and make it stick in peoples' minds.

From ABC News :

In Riyadh....the president participated in a traditional sword dance with one of the princes of the royal family. It was a public, and a little awkward, display of affection, all part of Bush's first visit to Saudi Arabia aimed at repairing strained relations between the world's biggest oil producer and the world's biggest oil consumer.

The president sat down with "Nightline" co-anchor Terry Moran at one of the vast royal palaces, and it became clear who holds the cards right now in the oil markets, with the price up near $100 a barrel.
The president, who once said he'd "jawbone" Saudi leaders into lowering prices, told Moran what he intended to say to King Abdullah on the topic in their meeting.
"I will say to him that, 'If it's possible, your majesty, consider what high prices is doing to one of your largest customers,'" Bush said. "In other words, the worst thing that can happen to an oil-producing nation is that the price of oil causes the economy to slow down, because that will inevitably lead to fewer purchases [of oil]."
Bush said he's worried about an economic slowdown in the United States and around the world because of those high oil prices.
"These are smart people. They know that the price of oil can affect our economy, and they know that if our economy weakens and there's less purchasing power that it will affect their ability to sell barrels of oil."
Today, however, Saudi Oil Minister Ali Naimi said that Saudi Arabia would allow market forces to dictate oil production and prices. "We will raise production when the market justifies it," he said. "This is our policy."
When Bush took office, the United States imported just about 53 percent of its oil. Today, that number stands at 60 percent.
"That's why I've got these alternative energy projects going on that I think will make a difference," the president said. "They don't make a difference in the short term because we're talking about actually beginning to encourage people to change habits, such as using ethanol. And we're also not exploring for oil and gas in our own country like we should be."

The president acknowledged that he had something to prove on this trip.
"I do, but it's not so much to prove for my sake. It's really to prove for peace," he said. "And I believe the time is right to push for a Palestinian state. The time is right because there's an Israeli leader who understands that and a Palestinian leader who understands that."
The president said he believes it is the right time to renew the Israeli-Palestinian peace process because "the environment has changed," both with the leaders involved and the support of the Arab world.
"It's going to be tough," the president said, but he believes that by the end of his term in office there will be a deal for a Palestinian state.
When asked whether that deal would address "core issues," for the first time the president said, "I do believe so."
"I have talked to these leaders face to face," he said. "I have asked them point blank, 'Do you understand how difficult these issues are?' Yes. 'Are you prepared to make the painful political compromises?' They say they are."
Despite that optimism, the president also said that he feels misunderstood in the Middle East.
"My image [is] 'Bush wants to fight Muslims.' And, yes, I'm concerned about it. Not because of me, personally. I'm concerned because I want most people to understand the great generosity and compassion of Americans," he said.
"I'm sure people view me as a warmonger and I view myself as peacemaker," the president said. "They view me as so pro-Israeli I can't be open-minded about Palestinian peace, and yet I'm the only president ever to have articulated a two-state solution. And you just have to fight through stereotypes by actions."
The president said he hopes to change that image by opening a dialogue and letting "the results speak for themselves."
"I mean, when this democracy in Iraq solidifies and emerges and is whole, people will understand what I meant about the democracy agenda. People will know that my view is not American democracy, but it's freedom based upon certain principles that honors the traditions and culture of the host country."

Bush said despite Saudi Arabia's connection to some of the Sept. 11 hijackers and terrorism ideology in general, he views the Saudis as "our friends." He spoke of meeting with Saudi entrepreneurs and business leaders during his trip who worry that Americans view them as enemies, not friends.
"There's a lot of really good people here," Bush said. "Look, you can't deny the fact that some, a majority, of the terrorists came from Saudi, but you should not condemn an entire society based upon the actions of a handful of killers."
The president stressed the importance of fostering business connections and cultural and education exchanges between the two countries.
"If Americans are concerned about U.S. perceptions in the Middle East, the best way to defeat that perception is through opening up our colleges and universities," he said. "And I believe we can make sure that, as best as we can, terrorists don't come to our country, and at the same time, be more open."
The president said he was surprised by the "deep concern that people won't welcome Middle-Eastern investments into the United States. & And I found that in most of my stops, not the Israeli-Palestinian stops, of course, but in the Gulf, I found that to be the case. And it's disturbing to me."
The president says he still believes that freedom and democracy are possible in the region, and will ultimately be the way to bring an end to terrorism against the United States.
"Look, I know I've been accused of being a hopeless idealist. On the other hand, I don't see any alternative, if you believe it's an ideological struggle."
"The way to protect America in the short term is to use our intelligence services to find [terrorists] and bring them to justice. In the long term is to offer a better alternative than the status quo, or societies that don't give people their rightful place, or societies that don't listen to the demands of people."
"And so the freedom agenda is absolutely essential. And the freedom agenda doesn't develop in one man's term of office. It takes a while. My job is to plant the seeds. [The] truth of the matter is that freedom is advancing quite amazingly in the Middle East."
"The other thing is, if I could be perfectly blunt about it, I think people who say we can be free, but you shouldn't be, are elitist," the president added.
The president said that "elections themselves represent freedom," even when they put in power leaders who are against the interest of the United States.
At the same time, the president defended his support of undemocratic regimes in countries such as Saudi Arabia.
"The American president doesn't come and lecture somebody. The American president develops a relationship where he can work with somebody. And as I told you, his majesty is, he is modernizing his society. Is it going to meet somebody's standards sitting in Washington, D.C.? Probably not overnight. Can it eventually? Yes. And for us to say that you can't have a democracy if you've got a king is just not right."

During his trip, the president visited the Mount of the Beatitudes where, by tradition, Jesus is understood to have said the words, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God."
When asked to respond to the fact that many Americans do not view him as a peacemaker, the president replied, "We'll see what history says. I happen to believe that the actions I've taken were necessary to protect ourselves and lay the foundation for peace. That's what I believe. But history...I've often said this...I don't think the history of my administration is going to be written during your time as a newscaster, or my time on Earth. I believe that it's going to take a while for people to determine whether or not the foundation of peace has truly been laid."

2008-01-09T03:22:00.000+11:00

Bush Protected By Robots During Middle East Visit

If a robot goes nuts and assassinates the president, who's responsible?

The roll-out of security for President Bush's first visit to Israel and Palestine is mind-boggling. And yes, it's true, robots will be protecting him, along with all this :

Snipers posted on rooftops, entire city blocks sealed off, thousands of police on duty - Israel and the Palestinian Authority are going on full alert for US President George W. Bush's visit.

For weeks, Israeli and Palestinian officials have grappled with how to ensure the safety of the leader of the world's biggest superpower in densely-populated urban centres in one of the most volatile regions on the planet.

Israeli police say 10,500 officers and border guards will be on duty and all intelligence services in the security-obsessed country placed on high alert for operation "Clear Sky" when Air Force One touches down on Wednesday.

On the Palestinian side, 4000 law enforcement officials will be deployed in Ramallah alone, with additional personnel in the city of Bethlehem.
Streets and whole city blocks are to be closed in Jerusalem and the West Bank capital of Ramallah during the three-day visit, the first by an American president in more than nine years.
"The visit will paralyse Jerusalem," one Israeli official said. "It will be impossible to move around and get anywhere close to where he is staying and visiting."
Residents of Jerusalem, Ramallah and Bethlehem will face checkpoints, streets closed to cars and pedestrian traffic and swarms of security personnel.
The president is coming with his own plane, helicopters, transport planes and 20 armoured limousines, the Yediot Aharonot newspaper reported.

Some 400 American security personnel are due to arrive with him, as well as 200 White House staff, it said. In addition, 15 US canine teams trained in explosive detection will be on hand, it said.

In Jerusalem itself, blocks around the historic King David Hotel where the president is staying will be closed, with snipers due on rooftops and a balloon with cameras and night-vision hovering above, local media reported.

Robots were even sent into the sewers below the King David to check the subterranean area, the Jerusalem Post quoted a hotel official as saying.
People who live near the King David - scene of a deadly 1946 bombing by an underground Zionist group seeking to overthrow British rule in Palestine - are to receive special tags from the Shin Beth internal security service to access their homes, according to media.

2008-01-08T13:44:00.002+11:00

Bush "Worse Than Nixon"

Bush & Cheney at a minimum should face impeachment, or failing that, international war crimes charges, with Donald Rumsfeld thrown in for good measure. Will this ever happen? Probably not, but it should, that much is clear.

From the Washington Post :

...what are the facts?
Bush and Cheney are clearly guilty of numerous impeachable offenses. They have repeatedly violated the Constitution. They have transgressed national and international law. They have lied to the American people time after time. Their conduct and their barbaric policies have reduced our beloved country to a historic low in the eyes of people around the world. These are truly "high crimes and misdemeanors," to use the constitutional standard.
From the beginning, the Bush-Cheney team's assumption of power was the product of questionable elections that probably should have been officially challenged -- perhaps even by a congressional investigation.
In a more fundamental sense, American democracy has been derailed throughout the Bush-Cheney regime. The dominant commitment of the administration has been a murderous, illegal, nonsensical war against Iraq. That irresponsible venture has killed almost 4,000 Americans, left many times that number mentally or physically crippled, claimed the lives of an estimated 600,000 Iraqis (according to a careful October 2006 study from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health) and laid waste their country. The financial cost to the United States is now $250 million a day and is expected to exceed a total of $1 trillion, most of which we have borrowed from the Chinese and others as our national debt has now climbed above $9 trillion -- by far the highest in our national history.
All of this has been done without the declaration of war from Congress that the Constitution clearly requires, in defiance of the U.N. Charter and in violation of international law. This reckless disregard for life and property, as well as constitutional law, has been accompanied by the abuse of prisoners, including systematic torture, in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.
How could a once-admired, great nation fall into such a quagmire of killing, immorality and lawlessness?
It happened in part because the Bush-Cheney team repeatedly deceived Congress, the press and the public into believing that Saddam Hussein had nuclear arms and other horrifying banned weapons that were an "imminent threat" to the United States. The administration also led the public to believe that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks -- another blatant falsehood. Many times in recent years, I have recalled Jefferson's observation: "Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just."
The basic strategy of the administration has been to encourage a climate of fear, letting it exploit the 2001 al-Qaeda attacks not only to justify the invasion of Iraq but also to excuse such dangerous misbehavior as the illegal tapping of our telephones by government agents. The same fear-mongering has led government spokesmen and cooperative members of the press to imply that we are at war with the entire Arab and Muslim world -- more than a billion people.

2008-01-04T03:04:00.000+11:00

Bush's Last Year In The White House Set To Be Grim And Lonely

President Bush's last 370 or so days in the White House are unlikely to provide him with the legacy and positive historical turn of events that he seems so currently obsessed with. Economists shake their heads in disbelief, and shame, when they hear Bush say that the American economy is "solid" and "firm". With Pakistan opposition leader Benazir Bhutto's assassination and continued widespread attacks and instability in Iraq and Afghanistan,Bush's 'War on Terror' is looking more than ever like a complete bust.

He is about to leave for a trip to the Middle East, where he is expected to face hostility from both Israelis and Palestinians.

Bush, like most Americans, must be counting down the days to when his run in the White House is over.

This story from UPI explains why Bush's final twelve months in power will be both grim, and lonely :

Grim, because Bush’s signature "war on terror" is nowhere near the kind of "victory" on which he had placed so much hope. Hundreds of billions of dollars from the U.S. Treasury have been spent, but the democratic transformation of the Middle East and the wider Islamic world has not materialised.

Grim, because the economic news -- which has generally remained upbeat over Bush’s tenure -- has turned decidedly negative in recent months. The chances that his successor may inherit a recession, as well as the many foreign-policy fiascos created by the disastrous combination of the administration’s ideological rigidity and incompetence, are growing steadily.

Lonely, not only because of the departure during the past year of virtually all of his closest and most long-standing loyalists -- Dan Barlett, Karen Hughes, Harriet Miers, Alberto Gonzales, and Karl Rove -- but also because he is seen increasingly as both a lame duck and an albatross around the necks of his party’s candidates.

Indeed, the focus of national and international attention -- so far as the U.S. is concerned -- appears to have shifted to the race to succeed him in next November’s elections. Remarkably, the mainstream U.S. media this week devoted as much space to the reactions of the main presidential candidates to Bhutto’s assassination as to the administration’s.

The fact that all of the major Republican candidates not only rarely evoke his name, but often suggest that his performance in office has been less than stellar, serves only to underline his marginalisation.

Bush, of course, is still hoping that 2008 may yet deliver his presidency from the fate of being judged as one of the very worst -- if not the worst -- in history.

A number of eminent historians have in fact already reached that judgement, based, among other things, on the strategic disaster of the Iraq war; the squandering of Washington’s overseas image as a champion of international law and human rights; the defiance of constitutional safeguards at home; the politicisation of the system of justice; and the distortion of scientific research regarding global warming and other critical issues.

His hopes of escaping that assessment rest primarily in the area of foreign policy, on which, as a "war-time president", he has staked his reputation.

Go Here To Read The Full Story

2008-01-03T04:38:00.000+11:00

Hammered

It's very interesting to see this video of Bush half-zonkered and compare his behaviour to some of his more recent, uhhh, senior moments. Bush says he hasn't had a drink in more than 20 years, so presumably this video is pre-1986. Presumably :

2008-01-02T04:20:00.000+11:00

Mind Your Manners, Mr President

This is often referred to as "the banned interview" with an Irish journalist. Bush is faced with more detailed and somewhat more probing questions than he gets from the mostly neutered White House press corps and he doesn't like it one bit. There's a genuine nastiness in Bush's face, and voice, as he answers some of these questions.

2007-12-29T14:59:00.000+11:00

Why 2007 Was "A Very Good Year" For Bush

2007 must have been one of the worst years for George W. Bush during his entire two term presidency? Right? Wrong. Well, 'wrong' according to this columnist from the Bush-loving Washington Times. It's not the way you view the events of 2007, it's the way you spin them, relentlessly :

Against all odds, and despite the usual drumbeat of criticism, President Bush had a very good year.

The troop surge in Iraq is succeeding. America remains safe from terrorist attacks. And the Goldilocks economy is outperforming all expectations.

At his year-end news conference, Mr. Bush said with optimism that the economy is fundamentally sound, despite the housing downturn and the subprime credit crunch. The very next day, that optimism was reinforced with news of the best consumer spending in two years.

The prophets of recessionary doom, such as former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, Republican adviser Martin Feldstein, ex-Democratic Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, and bond-maven Bill Gross have been proven wrong once again.

Calendar year 2007 looks set to produce 3 percent growth in real gross domestic product, nearly 3 percent growth in consumer spending, and more than 3 percent growth in after-tax inflation-adjusted incomes.

Meanwhile, headline inflation (including food and energy) will have run at 2½ percent, with only 2 percent core inflation. Jobs are rising more than 100,000 monthly and the stock market is set to turn in a respectable year despite enormous headwinds. Low tax rates, modest inflation, and declining interest rates continue to boost Goldilocks, which is still the greatest story never told.

Mr. Bush's optimism is well-earned, in Congress too. He has stopped a lot of bad legislation on higher taxing and spending. He won on S-CHIP (State Children's Health Insurance Program) and the alternative minimum tax.

He mostly prevailed on domestic spending. And he got much of what he wanted on war funding without any pullout dates. And he is not yet finished.

In the most dramatic statement of his holiday news conference, Mr. Bush said he will not stand for continuing congressional proliferation of pork-barrel earmarks. "Another thing that's not responsible is the number of earmarks the Congress included in the massive spending bill," said Mr. Bush. "The bill they just passed includes about 9,800 earmarks. Together with the previously passed defense spending bill, that means Congress has approved about 11,900 earmarks this year. And so I am instructing Budget Director Jim Nussle to review options for dealing with wasteful spending in the omnibus bill."

This is huge. The statute of limitations for Republican overspending, over-earmarking, and over-corrupting that caused huge congressional losses in last year's campaign will not run out until the GOP shows taxpayers it again can be trusted on key issues of limited government and lower taxes.

In these matters, Republicans must be holier than the pope.

And while President Bush has been doing the Lord's work with his newfound veto pen, he must continue to wage war on earmarks if the GOP is to cleanse the political memory of Tom DeLay, Jack Abramoff, and Randy "Duke" Cunningham.

Looking ahead, the economy also would benefit from a corporate tax cut for both large and small businesses, including corporate capital-gains. The U.S. dollar would reap the rewards as new investment flowed in from the world. Several recent studies also show businesses would pass on tax-cost savings to the work force, thereby bolstering wages and ultimately creating new jobs.

Read The Full Story Here

2007-12-29T02:06:00.000+11:00

"We're Tinkering With The Boundaries Of Human Life Here"

A remarkable, detailed and insightful insider account on how President Bush formulated his policy on stem cell research has been published in Commentary Magazine.

It's certainly rare to find stories that supply such detail on how Bush researches, discusses and ultimately reaches a position on an issue as contentious as stem cells. Regardless of whether you agree with Bush on limiting stem cell research, the process discussed in this story is fascinating, particularly the 'scene' where the advisor reads to Bush from Aldous Huxley's 'Brave New World'. Some excerpts from the insider account :

In the United States, domestic policy is usually made when Congress sends the President a piece of legislation. He and his administration will often have been deeply involved in the crafting of that legislation, which he is then given to sign or to veto. In this case, in part by statute, and in part (as we shall see) because of a legal finding by the Clinton administration, Bush found himself with the sole authority to decide how the National Institutes of Health (NIH) should apportion its research dollars on stem cells. The decision was his to render, and his alone.
Months before his final announcement, Bush personally set in motion a highly unusual process of deliberation inside the White House. The process combined philosophical and scientific research with investigations into both the morality and the practicality of various policy options.

In my first meeting with the President about stem cells, we discussed the basic issue in broad strokes. He was not being asked to assess the legality or even the wisdom of stem-cell research per se. No law in the country banned it, nor was anyone in either party pressing for such a ban. Rather, the question being put to him was whether he would authorize the use of federal funds—i.e., monies allocated by Congress for scientific investigation, to be conducted by the National Institutes of Health, in the area of embryonic stem cells alone.
As a first step, Bush asked me to prepare a set of background reading materials on the scientific aspects of stem-cell research. He also asked for a summary of the relevant laws of other countries, and a description of what the world’s leading religions had to say on the issue. Once I began turning in my memos, a day rarely passed when he did not call with a follow-up request or a question about something he had read. It was clear that in addition to the material I submitted, he was also finding other things to read and was talking about stem cells with friends and intimates.
I brought into the Oval Office my copy of Brave New World, Aldous Huxley’s 1932 anti-utopian novel, and as I read passages aloud imagining a future in which humans would be bred in hatcheries, a chill came over the room.

“We’re tinkering with the boundaries of life here,” Bush said when I finished. “We’re on the edge of a cliff. And if we take a step off the cliff, there’s no going back. Perhaps we should only take one step at a time.”

The Full Commentary Magazine Story Is Here

2007-12-29T02:01:00.000+11:00

Bush Quietly Advises Hillary Clinton On Iraq War And 'War On Terror'

Bush Says His White House Successor Will Find Gitmo And The War On Iraq "Necessary"

The War On Iraq will not end if Hillary Clinton is elected POTUS at the end of next year, just as the War On Iraq came no closer to ending when the Democrats won the mid-term elections last year.

President Bush wants to make sure that Hillary Clinton knows, as if she didn't already know, that shutting down the War On Iraq will be bad news for the United States, and the political and business elite.

Remember Vietnam is the chant, and the Democrats are not only listening, they're already singing along :

President Bush is quietly providing back-channel advice to Hillary Rodham Clinton, urging her to modulate her rhetoric so she can effectively prosecute the war in Iraq if elected president.
In an interview for the new book “The Evangelical President,” White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten said Bush has “been urging candidates: ‘Don’t get yourself too locked in where you stand right now. If you end up sitting where I sit, things could change dramatically.’ ”
Bolten said Bush wants enough continuity in his Iraq policy that “even a Democratic president would be in a position to sustain a legitimate presence there.”
“Especially if it’s a Democrat,” the chief of staff told The Examiner in his West Wing office. “He wants to create the conditions where a Democrat not only will have the leeway, but the obligation to see it out.”
To that end, the president has been sending advice, mostly through aides, aimed at preventing an abrupt withdrawal from Iraq in the event of a Democratic victory in November 2008.
“It’s different being a candidate and being the president,” Bush said in an Oval Office interview. “No matter who the president is, no matter what party, when they sit here in the Oval Office and seriously consider the effect of a vacuum being created in the Middle East, particularly one trying to be created by al Qaeda, they will then begin to understand the need to continue to support the young democracy.”
To that end, Bush is institutionalizing controversial anti-terror programs so they can be used by the next president.
“Look, I’d like to make as many hard decisions as I can make, and do a lot of the heavy lifting prior to whoever my successor is,” Bush said. “And then that person is going to have to come and look at the same data I’ve been looking at, and come to their own conclusion.”
As an example, Bush cited his detainee program, which allows him to keep enemy combatants imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay while they await adjudication. Bush is unmoved by endless criticism of the program because he says his successor will need it.
“I specifically talked about it so that a candidate and/or president wouldn’t have to deal with the issue,” he said. “The next person has got the opportunity to analyze the utility of the program and make his or her decision about whether or not it is necessary to protect the homeland. I suspect they’ll find that it is necessary. But my only point to you is that it was important for me to lay it out there, so that the politics wouldn’t enter into whether or not the program ought to survive beyond my period.”
The Examiner asked Bush why Democratic candidates such as Clinton and Barack Obama, who routinely lambaste his handling of Iraq, should take his advice.
“First of all, I expect them to criticize me. That’s one way you get elected in the Democratic primary, is to criticize the president,” Bush replied. “I don’t expect them to necessarily take advice from me. I would expect their insiders to at least get a perspective about how we see things.”
He added: “We have an obligation to make sure that whoever is interested, they get our point of view, because you want somebody running for president to at least understand all perspectives, apart from the politics.”
Vice President Dick Cheney was philosophical about the possibility of a Democratic president fundamentally reversing the policies that he and Bush have worked so hard to implement in Iraq.
“It’s the nature of the business, in a sense,” he shrugged during an interview in his West Wing office. “I mean, you get two terms. We were fortunate to get two terms. And I think we’ll increasingly see a lot of emphasis on deciding who the next occupant of the Oval Office is going to be.”

The War On Iraq will not end, regardless of who is elected president in 2008.

2007-12-24T13:08:00.000+11:00

Happy Christmas (War Is Over) By George W. Bush

It's easy to imagine that John Lennon would think this is a masterpiece :

2007-12-21T23:41:00.000+11:00

Checking The Silverware

President Bush doesn't mind recycling old jokes, and bad ones at that, to show how he's not all serious and really is just an average guy who likes a laugh, like you and me.

He also doesn't mind borrowing his, err, material from past presidents :

Good morning. I hope you all enjoyed the holiday reception at the White House as much as Laura and I enjoyed it. We took an inventory of the silverware, and this year only a few pieces were missing. So like if you see Gregory, tell him to bring them back.
-- President Bush at today’s press conference (referring to NBC's David Gregory)

I love meeting with the Members. For those of you who have been to our office, thanks for coming. For those of you that have not been to our office yet, you're coming. Just don't take any silverware. [Laughter]
-- President Bush, February 2, 2001, two weeks after taking office; remarks at the Republican Congressional Retreat in Williamsburg, Virginia

It's good to see my old fellow owner, "the Boss." [Laughter] What a record you've had -- a man who demands excellence and oftentimes gets it. [Laughter] But thank you for coming, George. I know the real boss of the Yankees is here, too, Arthur Richman. [Laughter] How are you, Arthur? Good to see you. I told you one of these days we would get to the White House. Just don't take any silverware, Arthur. [Laughter]
-- President Bush, May 4, 2001, referring to Yankees owner George Steinbrenner and senior advisor Arthur Richman during remarks honoring 2000 World Series Champion New York Yankees.

Thank you all for coming. I'll see you Thursday, coats and ties. [Laughter] This year, Gregory, don't take any silverware. [Laughter]
-- President Bush, December 15, 2003 press conference; referring to upcoming holiday party

I want to thank Bob Wallace, the executive director. He spends a lot of time in the Oval Office. I'm always checking the silverware drawer. [Laughter]
-- President Bush, August 22, 2007, referring to VFW executive director Robert E. Wallace during remarks at Veterans of Foreign Wars National Convention in Kansas City, Missouri.

As you know, this is the second time that we've had editorial cartoonists here during this term. Last May 1 had some of you over for lunch. We're still looking for the missing silverware. [Laughter] -- President Ronald Reagan, May 7, 1987; remarks to Members of the American Association of Editorial Cartoonists

2007-12-19T12:34:00.000+11:00

The Bushes & The Clintons : The Best Of Friends

George W. Admits He Took Advice On Being President From Bill Clinton

In a follow-up to the story here yesterday about Bill Clinton's bizarre claim that the very first priority of a Hillary Clinton presidency would be to send Bill and Pappa Bush on the road to repair the international damage wrought by George W. here's some interesting photos and details of the close relationship between the Bushes and the Clintons :

From Your New Reality :

Hillary Clinton likes to give the impression that she stands utterly opposed to President George W. Bush, and that she believes he has ruined the United States during his seven years in power.

But it's all a lie. The Clintons and the Bushes are really the best of friends, as we pointed out on this blog almost two years ago.

They're supposed to be enemies. But they're really good friends

From Your New Reality, January 2006 :

Mr Bush said he checked in with Mr Clinton occasionally.
"And you know, he says things that make it obvious … that we're kind of, you know, on the same wavelength about the job of the presidency," he said.

And what "wavelength" is that? President Bush didn't explain.

More on the very close relationships in the Bush-Clinton Presidential Family :

US President George W. Bush thinks it's funny that Senator Hilary Clinton could be the next President of the United States.

Despite the fact that both her and her husband Bill Clinton have savaged the Bush 2 Administration, and mocked the President for being dumb and careless and out of touch, there are no hard feelings from the Bush Family.

Bill Clinton spends an awful amount of time doing charity gigs with his former rival and fellow ex-President George Herbert Walker Bush. They've become great friends and current President Bush thinks of Bill as a member of the family now.

"That's a good relationship," Bush said of his dad's flourishing mateship with "my new brother".

President Bush thought it was "fun" to watch his father and Clinton together at the funeral of Pope John Paul.

When asked about who might be the next President of the United States, Bush mused about how future historians might look back and view the decades when only a few key members of two old American families held the most powerful office in the world as "Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton", he said.

Who needs elections?

Guess who they're laughing at? YOU

The Bush-Clinton Family Album : W. On Bill "He's My Brother"

2007-12-19T01:28:00.000+11:00

Bill Clinton : Me And Pappa Bush Will Repair US International Image Damage Wrought By George W.

Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton

Bill Clinton is claiming that when Hillary 'wins' the White House, he will be sent on a world tour with George W. Bush's father to announce that the US is "open for business and cooperation again".

So voting for Hillary Clinton will launch the original Bush The Destroyer back onto the world stage?

The fake attacks by Hillary Clinton on President George W. Bush are clearly part of the theatre that they hope will keep the Bush-Clinton families at the top of America's political and power elite. They're not enemies. It's a con, a jape, an odious scam.

Hillary has refused to back ending the Iraq War and is opposed to President Bush's impeachment. She also backs President Bush on his railing against Iran, and has refused to rule out opposing air strikes on Iran if it comes to that. She is just as militarily-minded as President Bush, and will keep bushing the shared Bush-Clinton agenda for as long as she stays in the White House. If she even gets there. And her husband sure ain't helping.

That Bill Clinton would announce this tour, as part of the celebrations of another Bush-Clinton victory, and as though it were a good thing, as though it would help to win his wife votes, is just plain bizarre.

Considering how deeply unpopular the former President Bush was, and how staggeringly unpopular his son now is, most Americans would rather have acid poured in their eyes than to see any Bush representing their country on the world stage. Which is why Jeb Bush has decided to stay away from running for the White House for another decade or so.

Truly, truly weird :

Former President Bill Clinton said Monday that the first thing his wife Hillary will do when she reaches the White House is dispatch him and his predecessor, President George H.W. Bush, on an around-the-world mission to repair the damage done to America's reputation by the current president - Bush's son, George W. Bush.

"Well, the first thing she intends to do, because you can do this without passing a bill, the first thing she intends to do is to send me and former President Bush and a number of other people around the world to tell them that America is open for business and cooperation again," Clinton said in response to a question from a supporter about what his wife's "number one priority" would be as president.

This would be Hillary's Number One Priority on becoming president?

What planet are these people from?

UPDATE : To the surprise of absolutely no-one, except perhaps Bill Clinton, Pappa Bush has now nixed the idea of hitting the road with Clinton to badmouth his presidential son's legacy.

2007-12-13T11:21:00.000+11:00

Bush Is King Of The Signing Statements

Dictatorship By 'Alternative Veto'

An interesting interview with Boston Globe journalist Charlie Savage on how President Bush uses signing statements to become "a government unto himself" :

More from Raw Story :

Dan Abrams examined the Bush administration's unprecedented use of signing statements in the second installment of his week-long MSNBC series on "Bush League Justice."

"President Bush doesn't like to veto laws," Abrams began. "He doesn't have to. Since he took office, he's been attaching conditions to laws already passed by Congress, allowing him to essentially disobey the will of Congress and dramatically expand his own power."

Bush has issued 1100 signing statements -- almost twice as many as all previous presidents put together -- often completely reversing the intended effect of legislation. For example, when Congress voted overwhelmingly to ban torture, Bush announced that this would "make it clear to the world that this government does not torture." Two weeks later, he added a signing statement to the bill that allowed him to ignore it.

Similarly, when a bill required the Justice Department to report to Congress on the use of the Patriot Act, Bush added a proviso that he could override this requirement any time he thought necessary.

Law professor Jonathan Turley told Abrams that the practice has two very serious effects. On one hand, "by using signing statements to this extent, the president becomes a government unto himself." But it also gives lower-level officials cover for their own illegal behavior by creating a deliberate area of ambiguity about the meaning of the laws.

"How does he get away with it?" Abrams asked Boston Globe reporter Charlie Savage. Savage explained that signing statements have previously been considered merely as instructions to the executive branch on how to interpret legislation, and typically no one outside the executive branch even reads them.

According to Savage, Cheney's aide David Addington, who has been with him since the 1980's "is said to be the chief architect of these signing statements" and is the leader of the legal team pushing the most radical theories of presidential power.

The Imperial (Vice) Presidency of Dick Cheney rolls on.

Why do Bush and Cheney continue to gather unprecedented presidential powers, when they supposedly have only a year left in control of the White House? Are they preparing the ground for a Democrat President, or do they really believe the next POTUS will be a Republican?

If, as polls suggest, the next president is likely to be a Democrat, wouldn't Cheney be more interested in making it harder for the Dems to rule with the untold powers that Bush has enjoyed?

2007-12-13T11:13:00.000+11:00

'I Fell In Love With Alcohol'

Bush On Getting Hammered

President Bush has made plenty of jokes about how much he used to drink. But it's rare indeed that he opens up about the dark, seductive side off alcoholism :

"I doubt I'd be standing here if I hadn't quit drinking whiskey, and beer and wine and all that..."
The president told ABC News he quit drinking over 20 years ago -- cold turkey.
"I had too much to drink one night, and the next day I didn't have any," Bush said. "The next day I decided to quit and I haven't had a drink since 1986."
"And you did it just cold turkey?" asked Raddatz.
"I'm a better man for it," Bush said.
The president said his alcohol problem wasn't severe, but said he still had a hard time quitting.
"I wasn't a knee-walking drunk," Bush said. "It's a difficult thing to do, which is to kick an addiction."
Earlier in the day after briefing the media on a report on teen drug abuse, Bush told a teenage girl who had struggled with drug addiction that he too had kicked an addiction.
"Your president made the same kind of choice," he told her. "I had to quit drinking. & Addiction competes for your affection & You fall in love with alcohol."
Later, Bush told ABC News he opened up to the girl about his alcohol abuse, because he was touched by her story.
"I was trying to encourage her to stay strong," Bush said. "I wanted her, this young girl who's struggling with drug addiction, to know that others who might be famous have the same issue, that she's not alone."
Bush said in his case, he made the decision to quit when he realized drinking was interfering with his family.
"Alcohol can compete with your affections. It sure did in my case," Bush said, "affections with your family, or affections for exercise."
"It was the competition that I decided just wasn't worth it," he said.

2007-12-08T04:42:00.000+11:00

Military Families Abandon Bush Over Iraq War

Most Think Iraq War Sacrifices "Not Worth It"

Majority Of Military Families Support Dissenting Generals Who Speak Out Against The War

Some reality to cut through all the propaganda :

Families with ties to the military, long a reliable source of support for wartime presidents, disapprove of President Bush and his handling of the war in Iraq, with a majority concluding the invasion was not worth it, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found.

The views of the military community, which includes active-duty service members, veterans and their family members, mirror those of the overall adult population, a sign that the strong military endorsement that the administration often pointed to has dwindled in the war's fifth year.

Nearly six out of every 10 military families disapprove of Bush's job performance and the way he has run the war, rating him only slightly better than the general population does.

And among those families with soldiers, sailors and Marines who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan, 60% say that the war in Iraq was not worth the cost, the same result as all adults surveyed.

Patience with the war, which has now lasted longer than the U.S. involvement in World War II, is wearing thin -- particularly among families who have sent a service member to the conflict. One-quarter say American troops should stay "as long as it takes to win." Nearly seven in 10 favor a withdrawal within the coming year or "right away."

Military families are only slightly more patient: 35% are willing to stay until victory; 58% want the troops home within a year or sooner.

Here, too, the military families surveyed are in sync with the general population, 64% of whom call for a withdrawal by the end of next year.

"You generally expect to see support for the president as commander in chief and for the war, but this is a different kind of war than those we've fought in the past, particularly for families," said David Segal, a military sociologist at the University of Maryland.

"The man went into Iraq without justification, without a plan; he just decided to go in there and win, and he had no idea what was going to happen," said poll respondent Mary Meneely, 58, of Arco, Minn. Her son, an Air Force reservist, served one tour in Afghanistan. "There have been terrible deaths on our side, and it's even worse for the Iraqi population. It's another Vietnam."

...disapproval of Bush appears to have transferred to his party. Republican leanings of military families that began with the Vietnam War -- when Democratic protests seemed to be aimed at the troops as much as the fighting -- have shifted, the poll results show.

"We support the troops; we don't support Bush," said respondent Linda Ramirez, 52, of Spooner, Wis., whose 19-year-old son is due to be deployed with the Marines early next year. "These boys have paid a terrible, terrible price."

..most military families and others surveyed took no exception to retired officers publicly criticizing the Bush administration's execution of the war. More than half of the respondents in both groups -- 58% -- say such candor is appropriate. Families with someone who had served in the war are about equally supportive at 55%.

2007-11-30T16:46:00.000+11:00

President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Karl Rove and three other officials of the Bush administration feature in a controversial gallery of doctored photos on display in the New York Public Library.

The New York Daily News doesn't sound happy about it, and neither does Fox News, no surprises there, who managed to create an entirely new genre of art when talking about the images - "political attack art." Great title.

The date when Bush was 'arrested' in the image is the day he delivered the State Of The Union speech with the infamous 16 words about how Saddam Hussein had supposedly sought "significant amounts" of nuclear material from Niger.

2007-11-30T15:51:00.000+11:00

History Will Not Be Kind To President Bush

In twelve months, a new government will be elected in the United States. Only a few weeks later, President Bush will leave the White House and his controversial, history changing administration will come an end. Many Americans will obviously be very grateful, and happy, when that day comes.

With only 400 or so days left in power, President Bush is searching for a legacy, a final mission that will mark the end of his administration with a gleam of major success. A final peace between Israel and Palestine was one of Bush's dream, and while the Annnapolis talks currently underway may provide yet more routes on the roadmap, they are unlikely to be judged a great success.

Freedom for Iraq, and the spread of democracy across the Middle East was the key goal, according to Bush, of his two terms of presidency.

Bush will leave the White House with Iraq and the Middle East in a state of chaos. The early histories will claim that Bush failed to bring a lasting peace to the Middle East, but Bush himself claims that future decades will judge him more kindly.

Acclaimed historian, Professor David Kennnedy, believes historians in the decades to come will be even more harsh on Bush than the 2009 and 2010 histories of his presidency will turn out to be. Kennedy says the loss of American moral authority will one of the more lasting legacies of Bush in the White House.

From ABC Radio :

Q : ....polls show that America's moral authority around the world has been damaged post-September 11, and also your own domestic opinion polls show that many Americans disapprove of their President. Are there any comparisons in history, points at which America's reputation in the world has been at a low but it's bounced back?

DAVID KENNEDY: Well, I suppose there's some kind of a parallel in the Vietnam era, in which the same phenomenon, both aspects of the same phenomenon were manifest. That is to say both majorities of the American public and public opinion around the world at large turned very sharply against the United States as the Vietnam War went on, but the country managed to put that episode behind it, by and large, and get on with things through the decades of the 70s and the 80s and the 90s.

The damage that we've done to our moral authority and our legitimacy as an international citizen I think, in my own view again right now, is probably even more severe than it was in the 1960s, in the Vietnam era, but I'm hopeful that we can find our way out of this.

Q: You mentioned the way that America was able to bounce back after Vietnam. Are there any lessons that the next administration in the US can take from administrations that were running the country in that era, in terms of trying to get their own bounce back happening now?

DAVID KENNEDY: Well, yes, absolutely. I mean if you remember the way that President Nixon and Secretary of State, Kissinger, found the exit from Vietnam was by deepening their relationship with the two great communist states of that era, China and the Soviet Union.

So, in a sense, the United States embraced a kind of multilateralism and normal diplomacy with its two principal adversaries as a way of finishing the Vietnam episode, and I think something like that, there won't be an exact parallel, but some way for the United States to find its way back to multilateral relationships, to sharing power.

Q: You once wrote that history tends to reduce people to one sentence - 'Washington founded the nation', 'Lincoln freed the slaves and preserved the union', 'Churchill saved Europe'. What will Bush's one sentence be?

DAVID KENNEDY: Actually, that formula is not original with me. I was quoting Claire Booth Luce. But it's a very good way to think about this kind of thing, and I think George Bush's sentence will probably be something like, 'He vastly overreacted, indeed virtually panicked, in the aftermath of the 9-11 attacks and took the United States on a unilateralist course of foreign policy that seriously undermined the multilateral and mutualistic kinds of institutions the United States had done so much to build after World War II'.

Now, that's a pretty long-winded sentence (laughs), but you get the idea.

2007-11-29T00:48:00.000+11:00

Rice Pulls Bush Back From Cheney's Clutches, Tries To Teach Him To Use Diplomacy

A very interesting story from the New York Times detailing how, over many years, Condoleezza Rice has forced her way into the middle of the Bush-Cheney boys-with-war-toys club, and in the process coerced President Bush to favour diplomacy over war. After the Afghanistan and Iraq wars obviously.

Now Rice is even pushing Bush to "sit down and talk" with his dreaded enemy one, Iranian president Mahmoud Admadinejad :

Condoleezza Rice and President Bush are often described as opposites, but their closest advisers say they are remarkably alike. Both are products of their own elites — Mr. Bush from the old East Coast establishment, Ms. Rice from Southern black professionals — who are supremely self-confident on the surface but harbor resentments underneath. Ms. Rice, like Mr. Bush, has been underestimated her entire life, as an African-American, as a woman and often as the youngest person in the room.
Ms. Rice’s unusually tight bond with Mr. Bush has helped her as secretary of state in his second term to prod the president toward diplomacy with Iran and North Korea. But administration officials have long said that her devotion to Mr. Bush made her unwilling to challenge the president when needed during his first term, when she served as a less than confident national security adviser.

More often in those years, Ms. Rice used her relationship with Mr. Bush to try to gain control over the national security process as well as two powerful men who drove much of the agenda in the first term, Vice President Dick Cheney and Donald H. Rumsfeld, then the defense secretary. In January 2001, Ms. Rice went to Mr. Bush to stop Mr. Cheney from taking a major part of her job, running National Security Council meetings in the president’s absence, as Mr. Cheney had proposed to Mr. Bush that he do. “She threw a fit,” a former administration official close to Mr. Cheney recalled.
Ms. Rice, in an interview earlier this year, said that she went to the president because she was determined “to get it fixed,” and that she made the argument to him that it “wasn’t appropriate” for Mr. Cheney to run the meetings since that had not been the role of vice presidents in the past. “Mr. President, this is what national security advisers do,” Ms. Rice recalled that she told the president, who sided with her.

In August 2002, Ms. Rice went to Mr. Bush to tell him that Mr. Cheney had to be reined in after the vice president gave a speech to a Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Nashville that effectively threatened war with Saddam Hussein and asserted that there was “false comfort” in sending United Nations weapons inspectors to Iraq.
“The president said, ‘Well, why don’t you call Dick and tell him what you want him to do?’”said Ms. Rice, who said she told Mr. Cheney that his speech was going to “trap” the president because Mr. Bush was planning to call for weapons inspections. The vice president, she said, agreed to temper his next speech. Mr. Cheney had no comment on Ms. Rice’s remarks.

In September 2003, Ms. Rice went to Mr. Bush to try to wrest control of the administration’s Iraq policy from Mr. Rumsfeld and L. Paul Bremer III, then the administration’s top civilian administrator in Iraq, whose dictates from Baghdad had frustrated Ms. Rice for months.
“I explained the problem, how we were starting to get decisions out there that we would know after the fact, that had huge policy implications, and we just couldn’t work that way,” Ms. Rice said she told the president, who by October had put Ms. Rice in charge of what the White House called the Iraq Stabilization Group to manage policy during the American occupation.

In the fall of 2006, when administration officials knew that the president would dismiss Mr. Rumsfeld once he found a replacement, Ms. Rice had a hand in his ouster when she went to Mr. Bush and enthusiastically recommended Robert M. Gates, an old friend and a superior from her days on the National Security Council staff of Mr. Bush’s father.
“I told the president, ‘We have to reach out to him,’” Ms. Rice recalled. She had battled for years with Mr. Rumsfeld, whose Department of Defense, she said, withheld so much crucial war planning information from her during the period before the Iraq war that she had to send members of her staff to the Pentagon to secretly ferret out documents.

In recent months, Ms. Rice has gone so often to Mr. Bush to push him on diplomacy with Iran and North Korea that he has started to needle her that she expects him to talk to people like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the radical Islamist who is president of Iran, or Kim Jong-il, the North Korean leader whom Mr. Bush has said he loathes.
“You want me to sit down with Ahmadinejad?” a White House official recalled that Mr. Bush had archly asked Ms. Rice. “Kim Jong-il? Is he next?” The White House official said that Mr. Bush had also taken to calling Ms. Rice “Madame Rice,” as in “Madame Rice, you’re not coming in to tell me that we ought to change our position?”

A sit down sessions of talks between the US and Iran? It's about two decades overdue. And what a legacy for the final year of Bush's presidency. Chances of it actually becoming reality? About 0.002%

2007-11-21T16:17:00.001+11:00

McClellan : President Bush Made Me Lie

When Scott McClellan was White House spokesman, he didn't want to lie to the media and the people about the involvement of key White House officials in the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame. But Bush made him do it.

From Raw Story :

President Bush, Karl Rove, and other top administration officials were "involved" in misleading the White House press corps about the outing of ex-CIA agent Valerie Plame, a forthcoming book from former Press Secretary Scott McClellan alleges.
Entitled What Happened, the new tell-all features McClellan's account of his days as the White House's top spokesman -- including a behind-the-scenes look at the Bush administration's handling of the Plame affair, according to a tantalizing excerpt from the book released on its publisher's website.

"The most powerful leader in the world had called upon me to speak on his behalf and help restore credibility he lost amid the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq," writes McClellan. "So I stood at the White house briefing room podium in front of the glare of the klieg lights for the better part of two weeks and publicly exonerated two of the senior-most aides in the White House: Karl Rove and Scooter Libby."

But his press performances weren't based on the facts, McClellan continues.

"There was one problem. It was not true," he writes. "I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice President, the President's chief of staff, and the president himself."

McClellan conducted a number of often-heated press events centering on Plame. In one September 2003 briefing, he expressly denied Rove's involvement in the matter.

"I've made it very clear, from the beginning, that it is totally ridiculous," said McClellan at the time. "I've known Karl for a long time, and I didn't even need to go ask Karl, because I know the kind of person that he is, and he is someone that is committed to the highest standards of conduct."

Later, in an October 10 press conference the same year, McClellan said that Rove, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff Scooter Libby, and another senior administration staffer had all denied being connected to the leaking of Plame's name.
"I spoke with those individuals, as I pointed out," said McClellan, "and those individuals assured me they were not involved in this. And that's where it stands."

McClellan is still spinning the truth.

2007-11-21T14:53:00.000+11:00

What Might Have Been...

George W. Bush is opposed to nation building, interfering in the affairs of foreign countries and spending America's taxpayer dollars launching military missions that are not essential to the nation's interests.

Oh, wait. That was in 2000. Before he became president. Before, as they say, "9/11 Changed Everything".

A remarkable series of quotes from George W. Bush when he was campaigning for the presidency. It makes you wonder what sort of country America would have become if Bush had stuck to his mission statements of 2000.

What a remarkable prediction from Bush about why the "Ugly American" image would become an international reality.

2007-11-20T02:14:00.000+11:00

Things Start Looking Better For Bush...Sort Of

The mantra of 'No News Is Good News' is used as a golden frame by this Washington Post story to argue that while world events may not be total smooth sailing for President Bush right now, they could be a whole lot worse :

The war in Iraq seems to have taken a turn for the better and the opposition at home has failed in all efforts to impose its own strategy. North Korea is dismantling its nuclear program. The budget deficit is falling. A new attorney general has been confirmed despite objections from the left.
After more than two years of being buffeted by one political disaster after another, President Bush and his strategists think they may finally be getting back at least a bit of their footing. While still facing enormous challenges, from the crisis in Pakistan to the backlash over children's health care, they hope Bush has arrested his downward spiral and established a better foundation for the remainder of his time in office.
In many ways, the shifting political fortunes may owe as much to the absence of bad news as to any particular good news. No one lately has been indicted, botched a hurricane relief effort or shot someone in a hunting accident. Instead, pictures from Iraq show people returning to the streets as often as they show a new suicide bombing. And Bush has bolstered morale inside the West Wing and rallied his Republican base through a strategy of confrontation with the Democratic Congress, built on the expansive use of his veto pen.
Yet none of this has particularly impressed the public at large, which remains skeptical that anything meaningful has changed and still gives Bush record-low approval ratings. The disconnect highlights his dilemma heading into the last year of his administration: Can anything short of a profound event repair an unpopular president's public standing so late in his tenure? Can tactical victories in Washington salvage a wounded presidency?

No.

2007-11-18T00:28:00.000+11:00

Bush 'Death Watch : One More Year And "Long National Nightmare Of George W. Bush" Will Finally Be Over

An op-ed in the San Fransisco Chronicle urges readers to mark their calendars and set a long date alarm on their watches because in just on a year, Americans will go to the polls to elect a new president, and the "long national nightmare of George W. Bush" will come to an end :

"It is now less than one calendar year until the next presidential election. It is less than one year until the country finally takes a deep breath and flexes its atrophied muscles and opens its bloody, Cheney-punched mouth and lets it be known to the world, to the universe, to its own numb and dejected soul just exactly how unwell it has felt, how much pain has raked its heart, lo, these past seven (eight, by then) years, by ushering in an entirely new political era, as we all exhale a massive sigh of long overdue relief...
"You think maybe it's too soon? Too early to let the tingle of positivism and hope take hold? Far from it. After all, the signs of decay and utter GOP desperation keep pouring in. For example, it has now been officially recorded in history what everyone already knows: Bush is nearly exactly as unpopular as Richard Nixon was at his lowest point, and no president in history has had as long a streak at the bottom of the job-approval rankings as Dubya. Heckuva job, Bushie!
"What's more, the glorious collapse of the evangelical Christian right marches on apace, as Pat Robertson, now a dejected, lonely widower after the death of secret boy-toy husband Jerry Falwell, has officially endorsed pro-choice, pro-gay, thrice-married, massively unbalanced moral pit bull Rudy Giuliani for president, which is a bit like a militant vegan endorsing Hot Dog on a Stick for the title of Lord of the Food Court. Desperate times indeed."

I would say that as the nation moves closer to the date when President Bush finally exits the White House, such an adrenalized, semi-incoherent editorial will look positively tame compared to what other writers will be saying.

In the last few months of his presidency, there will be many mainstream media journalists who were always too afraid, or bound by ethics, who will cut loose with the secrets of the George W. Bush presidency they could never before disclose. It will come on like a tidal wave. People will expect the Big Secrets to stay secret until after Bush is gone from the West Wing, but once a few start singing like canaries, most of the rest of the White House press corps will follow, and fast.

2007-11-17T02:24:00.000+11:00

Blogs For Bush Bails On Bush Early

With more than 14 months to go before President George W. Bush leaves the Oval Office, the dedicated Blogs For Bush site has decided to bail on their hero early.

We'll keep following The Last Days Of President Bush to the very end.

2007-11-15T00:48:00.000+11:00

Bush Vetoes Greatly Needed Health And Education Funds For Poor Americans

Then Demands More Money For More War

It is now abundantly clear, if it wasn't already, that President Bush's final mission of his two term presidency is to divert every single American dollar that he can from health and education for the poor to the profit sheets of America's biggest defence and arms contractors.

It is remarkable, even for Bush, that within hours of vetoing health and education funding, he was on TV demanding Congress pull its finger out and sign over tens of billions of more dollars, immediately, for the war industries.

From the Associated Press :

President Bush on Tuesday vetoed a spending measure for health and education programs prized by congressional Democrats. He also signed a big increase in the Pentagon's non-war budget.
The president's action was announced on Air Force One as Bush flew to Indiana for a speech expected to criticize the Democratic-led Congress on its budget priorities.
More than any other spending bill, the $606 billion education and health measure defines the differences between Bush and majority Democrats. The House fell three votes short of winning a veto-proof margin as it sent the measure to Bush.
Rep. David Obey, the Democratic chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, pounced immediately on Bush's veto.
"This is a bipartisan bill supported by over 50 Republicans," Obey said. "There has been virtually no criticism of its contents. It is clear the only reason the president vetoed this bill is pure politics."
Since winning re-election, Bush has sought to cut the labor, health and education measure below the prior year level. But lawmakers have rejected the cuts. The budget that Bush presented in February sought almost $4 billion in cuts to this year's bill.
Democrats responded by adding $10 billion to Bush's request for the 2008 bill. Democrats say spending increases for domestic programs are small compared with Bush's pending war request totaling almost $200 billion.
The $471 billion defense budget gives the Pentagon a 9 percent, $40 billion budget increase. The measure only funds core department operations, omitting Bush's $196 billion request for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, except for an almost $12 billion infusion for new troop vehicles that are resistant to roadside bombs.
Much of the increase in the defense bill is devoted to procuring new and expensive weapons systems, including $6.3 billion for the next-generation F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, $2.8 billion for the Navy's DD(X) destroyer and $3.1 billion for the new Virginia-class attack submarine.
Huge procurement costs are driving the Pentagon budget ever upward. Once war costs are added in, the total defense budget will be significantly higher than during the typical Cold War year, even after adjusting for inflation.

2007-11-13T23:28:00.000+11:00

In 1997 Bush Warned Against War On Iraq And Rise Of "Guerrilla War"

George W. Bush wasn't always for finishing off the Iraq job that many NeoCons came to believe he had left unfinished.

In 1997, while governor of Texas, President Bush was actively opposed to further war on Iraq, and believed deposing Saddam Hussein would lead to the rise of an insurgency, as this story details :

"There are a lot of Americans (who say), 'Why didn't you go get him?'" Bush told the San Antonio Express-News, referring to Saddam Hussein. "Well, I'm confident that losing men and women as a result of sniper fire inside of Baghdad would have turned the tide of public opinion very quickly."

..Bush said efforts to ferret out Saddam from his many Baghdad hideouts would have transformed the battle from a desert conflict to an unpopular "guerrilla war."

A decade later, proponents of the Iraq war, including President Bush and his father, dismiss those reservations, saying the 9-11 terrorist attacks forced the conflict.

"The world has changed since 1997," White House spokesman Blair Jones said Friday. "Since that time this nation experienced one of the most horrific moments in our history — the attacks on September 11, 2001.

"As the president has said many times, one of the lessons learned from that day is that we have to take emerging threats seriously. We have to deal with them before they fully materialize."

Still, the fears expressed 10 years ago have become reality.
The United States is mired in a ground war, with no military or political solutions in near sight. Insurgents, using increasingly sophisticated roadside bombs to target coalition troops, are waging the very guerrilla war that Bush predicted.

(President George W. Bush and his father) have consistently supported one another on how they handled their conflicts in the Persian Gulf. Back then, the elder Bush told the Express-News his son "got it right" in his assessment of the first Gulf War.

The former president also suggested that the decision he did not make — to send U.S. troops all the way into Baghdad — would have led America into another Vietnam-like conflict, "and one guerrilla war in my lifetime was enough."
The comments of both men a decade ago stand in contrast to statements they made at the end of last week. President Bush said at a Terrell Hills fund-raiser Thursday that history would vindicate his decision.

"Some day people are going to look back at this time and day and say, 'Thank God there was a generation that did not lose faith ... because the Middle East is a place free of suiciders..."
As the president met with troops and his backers before heading to Crawford, his father lashed out at critics of the war.

"Do they want to bring back Saddam Hussein, these critics?" he told USA Today on Thursday. "Do they want to go back to the status quo ante? I don't know what they are talking about here. Do they think life would be better in the Middle East if Saddam were still there?"
The younger Bush told the Express-News a decade ago that people didn't "really fully understand" why Gens. H. Norman Schwarzkopf Jr. and Colin Powell, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs, decided to stop the invasion "because it seemed so easy out in the battlefield."

"The mission wasn't to destroy his forces, the mission wasn't to destroy Saddam Hussein, the mission was damned sure not to occupy Baghdad," the elder President Bush told the Express-News at the time in a phone interview. "The mission was to end the aggression, kick him out of Kuwait. So when the commanders said mission accomplished, I was very happy to declare victory."
...long before crafting the policy of pre-emption, Bush had a different position. Pointing to Iraqi efforts to toss the U.S. inspectors, he said 10 years ago this week that Clinton would be wise to talk with his father, saying, "I think my dad conducted himself brilliantly during Desert Storm and understands the situation pretty clearly."

The subject came up again in an Express-News interview with the elder Bush when the USS San Antonio was commissioned last year in Texas.

Asked about the wisdom of invading Iraq, Bush said, "I support the president 100 percent on that, but you know our mission as you may remember wasn't to do anything other than to eject this guy from Kuwait, which we did. Salute, come home, and that's what we did. You don't hear it much anymore, incidentally, 'Why did you not march into Baghdad?' You don't hear that so much."

Old interviews like this explain why Bush and the NeoCons always say "9/11 changed everything." They have to say that, to explain why they thought so differently about Iraq and Saddam Hussein after the attacks.

But there are numerous books quoting highly placed insiders of the first George W. Bush administration who said the 'War On Iraq' was on the cards from virtually they day President Bush took over the White House, some eight months before the 9/11 attacks.

It's fascinating to see that President Bush was actually more prescient about what would result from a new war on Iraq in 1997 than he was in 2002.

2007-11-11T03:51:00.000+11:00

President Bush And The Death Of The American Dollar

The American Dollar is dying. Some would say it is already dead. China is now preparing to bail out on the American Dollar to the tune of some $1.4 trillion in reserves. They call it 'diversifying'. International money traders, privately, call China's move The Coffin. The US Dollar, of course, is the corpse in that coffin.

For years, numerous so-called 'conspiracy websites' have been warning that it has been President George W. Bush's mission to destroy the US Dollar as a world beating currency. Some theories go that the death of the Dollar will pave the way for the introduction of a new currency for all of North America - that is, including Mexico and Canada. Make of that theory what you will.

The mainstream media, naturally, has long refused to face the fact that the US Dollar under President Bush has become a dead currency. But some are now starting to hint at a grand conspiracy, mostly by highlighting just how unconcerned President Bush is by what is happening to the US Dollar, and how he insists the current Federal Reserve strategy is working when it clearly is not.

Here's Dan Froomkin of the Washington Post, sounding the alarm, now that it's all but too late :

President Bush doesn't talk about the dollar much, but when he does, he's got exactly one thing to say about it: "We have a strong dollar policy."
It's becoming increasingly clear, however, that Bush's "strong dollar policy" is driving the greenback into the ground.
The dollar is hitting record lows this week amidst fears that the mortgage-market meltdown will spread to other parts of the economy and as the Chinese make noise about moving more of their investments into euros. But it is the underlying dynamics of the American economy -- continued massive trade deficits and a whopping national debt -- that have put the dollar in such a precarious position.
A true strong dollar policy, aimed at increasing the confidence of international investors, would require Bush to do a bunch of things he doesn't want to do. For instance, he would have to stop borrowing so much money to fund his tax cuts and his wars. He would need to encourage the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates, rather than depend on it to keep propping up the domestic economy by decreasing them. That sort of thing.
Instead, Bush just offers the strong-dollar line, without specifics, and moves on.
Consider how eager he was to drop the subject last month during a Wall Street Journal interview:
WSJ: "[T]here has been a lot of concern, obviously, about the value of the dollar around the world, and some calls for the U.S. to put more action behind its vow that we support a strong dollar. How do you respond to them, and do you think Treasury needs to intervene at all at this point?"
Bush: "Secretary Paulson, of course, is our main spokesman on this issue, and he reflects the view of this administration that the strong dollar policy is the correct policy. And we also believe that the best way for a currency to become valued is through the market."
WSJ: "That's it?"
Bush: "Yes."

The policy is for a 'strong dollar'. That's it.

Mike Whitney provides a more thorough dismantling of the shocking state of the American dollar and the financial tsunami now bearing down on the United States.

Bush wants to let "the market decide" what the US Dollar is worth.

The market has already decided. And it's beyond grim.

2007-11-09T09:19:00.000+11:00

First Bush Veto Override In Seven Years

The Senate has surprised President Bush today with a vote to override his veto of a $25 billion water funding bill. It's a first for the Senate, and a remarkable show of defiance against the increasingly anti-democratic Bush administration.

Let's wait and see if this just a freak occurrence before anyone begins claiming that lawmakers are now standing up to Bush. No one can deny it's a good sign of how 2008 might play out, however :

A year after Democrats won control of Capitol Hill, Congress delivered its clearest victory yet over President Bush today, resoundingly overturning Bush's veto of a $23 billion water resources measure -- the first veto override of his presidency.
The Senate voted to override the veto, 79-14, with 34 Republicans abandoning the president and just 12 standing by him. The Senate vote followed one in the House, which rejected the veto Tuesday, 361-54. Both votes were well over the two-thirds majorities needed to defy Bush.
"I hope that the Congress feels good about what we've done," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). "I believe in the institution of the legislative branch of government. I think it should exist, and for seven years, this man has ignored us."
"We have said today as a Congress to this president, 'You can't just keep rolling over us like this. You can't make everything a fight, because we'll see it through'," said Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and a primary architect of the law.
Today's override marks only the 107th time that Congress has overridden a presidential veto in the nation's history. Congress overrode two of Bill Clinton's 22 vetoes and just one of George H.W. Bush's 44 vetoes. Gerald R. Ford, who vetoed 66 bills, and Harry S. Truman, who vetoed 250, each had 12 overridden, the most of any president other than Andrew Johnson in the mid-19th century.
As obscure as the Water Resources Development Act may be, Congress's action sets the stage for much larger spending and tax fights to come in the next few weeks. The House tonight is scheduled to send Bush a $151 billion measure to fund federal health, education and labor programs, a bill that Bush has promised to veto because it exceeds his request by nearly $10 billion.
The Senate is likely to give final approval to a $459.3 billion defense spending this evening as well, one that increases defense spending by $35.7 billion -- or 9.5 percent -- over last fiscal year. Bush is expected to sign that legislation.
Democrats made clear today they will relentlessly compare the president's willingness to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on defense and war, while he rejects much smaller increases for domestic spending.

2007-11-09T08:54:00.000+11:00

Bush : If Israel Gets Nuked, World War 3 Begins

President Bush has refused to back off his previous comments about how nations that want to avoid World War 3 should help ramp up the pressure on Iran to end its nuclear energy program.

In fact, he's now ramping up the rhetoric and clearly threatening World War 3 :

U.S. President George W. Bush defended in a television interview on Wednesday his recent comments suggesting Iran's nuclear ambitions might trigger World War Three and insisted he wanted a diplomatic solution.
Bush told a news conference last month that preventing Iran from building nuclear weapons would be a means of avoiding a new global conflict.

"The reason I said that is because this is a country that has defied the IAEA -- in other words, didn't disclose all their program -- have said they want to destroy Israel," Bush said in the interview with German broadcaster RTL.

"If you want to see World War Three, you know, a way to do that is to attack Israel with a nuclear weapon," Bush added. "And so I said, now is the time to move. It wasn't a prediction, nor a desire."

The only country in the Middle East who currently has nuclear weapons and refused to detail its program and stockpile is Israel.

2007-11-08T14:23:00.001+11:00

Finally, Bush Now More Unpopular Than Nixon

He's worked hard for this. It's taken years of failed policy, brutal war, incomprehensible speeches and plenty of smirking when talking about dead American soldiers for President Bush to bring down his November 2001 popularity rating of about 95% to Nixonian levels.

And now Bush has gone one better. The president is now, officially, more unpopular than Richard Milhouse Nixon.

Congratulations!

From Raw Story :

For the first time, George W. Bush has surpassed Richard M. Nixon in unpopularity in the Gallup Poll, receiving the highest "strongly disapprove" rating for a president in Gallup's history.
The little noticed statistic -- publicly noted on Gallup's poll writeup -- made a single headline in Google News. The story, at Editor and Publisher, was titled "GALLUP: Bush Finally Tops Nixon -- In Unpopularity -- As Call for Iraq Pullout Hits New Peak."
"Gallup has followed its classic job approval measure with this “strongly” probe on only an intermittent basis over the years, so it is important to note that the historical context is fairly limited," the pollsters note. "Additionally, other variations in polling over the years make comparisons of this measure inexact. Still, it is worth noting that the current 50% “strongly disapprove” figure for Bush is as high as Gallup has ever measured. (A February 1974 poll showed Richard Nixon’s strongly disapprove number at 48%, statistically equivalent to Bush’s current reading on this measure.)"

That remarkable spike in approval and drop in disapproval on the left of the graph followed the 9/11 attacks.

2007-11-06T04:03:00.000+11:00

The Bush 'Toolbox'

President Bush is increasingly holding special meetings with select journalists from the White House press corps. All these sessions are conducted off-camera, but many are also off-the-record.

Why does Bush sit around with some of the most powerful journalists in the American media for hours at a time, holding talk sessions when most of the information cannot be made public?

Raw Story explains :

Fourteen White House reporters were given a rare hour of access to President Bush on Monday, but the issues they discussed won't be making any headlines -- the session was all off-the-record.

The informal meeting, as reported by the Los Angeles Times, took place as part of a new White House plan to reach out to the press without having to rely on "full-blown news conferences."
"Thursday's effort was one of several recent steps he has taken to amplify his message as he wrestles with his lame-duck status, low approval ratings and increasingly independent congressional Republicans," according to the LA Times.

White House Press Secretary Dana Perino told the paper that the meetings were part of "a desire to be creative to try to provide some access to the president...It was just a new tool we'd like to have in our toolbox."

That Perino quote says it all about how the Bush administration views White House reporters. As a box of tools.

The Full Story Is Here

2007-11-06T02:40:00.000+11:00

Bush : Bin Laden Is Like Lenin...And Hitler

In Pumping Terror Threats, US President Becomes Al Qaeda's Most Successful Promoter And Publicist

President Bush believes the Democrat-controlled Congress is not taking his 'War On Terror', and the threat of terror, seriously enough.

So what to do?

What else? Invoke Hitler, of course.

And while you're at it, throw in a few lines about how Osama is just like Lenin, as well :

He said that six years after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, there is "a temptation to think that the threats to our country have grown distant," but warned that "the terrorists who struck America that September morning intend to strike us again."

"History teaches that underestimating the words of evil, ambitious men is a terrible mistake. In the early 1900s, the world ignored the words of Lenin, as he laid out his plans to launch a Communist revolution in Russia - and the world paid a terrible price. The Soviet Empire he established killed tens of millions, and brought the world to the brink of thermonuclear war," Bush said.

The president highlighted Washington's role in bringing down the Soviet Union. He told the gathering, attended by leading conservative lobbyists, "Together with a great President named Ronald Reagan, you championed a policy of rolling back communism oppression and bringing freedom to nations enslaved by communist tyranny."

He also compared Islamist plans to "build a totalitarian Islamic empire... stretching from Europe to North Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia" to the Third Reich.

"In the 1920s, the world ignored the words of Hitler, as he explained his intention to build an Aryan super-state in Germany, take revenge on Europe, and eradicate the Jews - and the world paid a terrible price."

He insisted that the people of Iraq and Afghanistan have been "liberated" by U.S.-led campaigns: "We removed regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq that had supported terrorists and threatened our citizens, and in so doing, liberated 50 million people from the clutches of tyranny."
"...this is no time for Congress to hold back vital funding for our troops as they fight al Qaeda terrorists and radicals in Afghanistan and Iraq."

Bush has some interesting problems with this kind of rhetoric. He needs to say that the war is being won against Al Qaeda in Iraq to keep the national faith and support, which dwindles by the day. But he also needs to constantly enforce in the minds of Americans the threat posed by Al Qaeda, in order to convince Congress to keep funding the 'War On Terror'.

Few intelligence, terrorism or military experts will let any media quote them in saying that Al Qaeda is a worldwide force, an Army of millions or hundreds of thousands, comparable to the Nazis or the Soviet Army under Stalin.

In pumping the threat of Al Qaeda, President Bush is becoming their best publicist, constantly putting the name 'Al Qaeda' and rattling off their mantras and threat lists for the daily headlines and evening news.

2007-11-02T12:54:00.000+11:00

Bush's Team Texas : From Nine To One

'Imagemaker' Karen Hughes Resigns In Non-Clash With Condi Rice

President Bush's right hand gal before Condi Rice became his right hand has quit the White House. But it's not because of some kind of tension or clash with Rice that Karen Hughes, the second to last member of Bush's Team Texas who remained in the White House, has up and quit.

How do we know this? Because the mainstream media has ruled this out, before anybody asked. Weird :

While Hughes’ record as head of public diplomacy is very mixed — her aides insist this decision is not about any disagreement with Rice or the White House – rather Hughes wants to return to her husband and her family, who she has been regularly commuting to see in Texas. Rice and Hughes are very close, and Hughes still advises Bush, aides say.

Rice told the assembled State Department staff that Hughes carried out her public diplomacy work in “spectacular fashion.” She listed her efforts toward Muslim outreach and other public diplomacy programs like a rapid response unit to counter negative stories about America and setting up regional media hubs around the world that deployed Foreign Service officers into local communities, as successes.

Hughes called Rice “a great friend” and “a great role model,” and she said, “I feel that I’ve done what Secretary Rice and President Bush asked me to do by transforming public diplomacy and making it a national security priority central to everything we do in government.”

That's right. The two women who who clambered most for the attention of Bush had absolutely no problem with each other.

A short description of Hughes' recent mission in the Bush Team :

President Bush had asked Karen Hughes to go to the State Department and help sell America’s ideas about democracy and the war on terror around the world. Polls show that there has been no improvement in the way the world views the United States since Hughes took over.

She has apparently told friends that task will outlast the Bush White House. Really?

Here's an excellent graphic from The Seminal showing the true extent of just how far Bush's Team Texas has come since they all relocated and moved to Washington to be with their leader back in early 2001. None of those who've quit have gone on to achieve anything of true note. After the White House, every career move is a step down.

Image From The Seminal

Everybody Overboard! Bailing On The Bushtanic

2007-10-29T23:52:00.001+11:00

Bush Has World's Biggest Entourage

Bigger than that of any mega-rock star or movie star, or cult of personality inflated dictator, or king or queen in centuries - when President Bush goes on the road, he takes with him the world's biggest entourage. A truly mind boggling number of vehicles and staff and security.

The graphic below is almost identical in detail to the stats touted on the news here when President Bush toured Australia.

2007-10-27T02:31:00.000+10:00

CNN Viewers Call For Anti-Bush Revolution, Overthrow Of The Government

That a commentator on CNN would read out loud comments from viewers like those quoted below would have been unimaginable even two years ago. Now actual calls for revolution and the overthrow of the government are finding their way onto American news shows watched by millions, with increasing frequency.

From Raw Story :

CNN commentator Jack Cafferty speculated on Wednesday about how George W. Bush's unilateral grab for presidential power might be reversed.
"The president of the United States didn't have the power to spy on Americans ... operate secret prisons ... suspend due process ... torture ... hide the conduct of the government from the public," Cafferty stated. "It's not like anybody gave President Bush any of these powers -- he took them, as a brain-dead Congress just stood there and watched."
...Cafferty read a selection of emails from clearly outraged -- and outspoken -- viewers.

"Remember the 60's?" wrote one Baby Boomer. "Well, they're back. Only this time it's not a decade. It's the age on our driver's licenses. Let's start another revolution. ... It's time to overthrow the government."

Another viewer stated more cynically, "King Bush. Queen Hillary. America is now a democratic dictatorship, nobody is going to change that. Power is everything; get used to it."

And a third suggested. "George Bush is the next president. He and Darth Cheney will be surrendering none of their bounty. Forty years of planning to hand it all to Hillary Clinton? Not a chance. If you think there'll be a November 8 election, give my regards to the Easter Bunny."

Go Here For Video Of Jack Cafferty's Show

2007-10-26T23:19:00.001+10:00

Bush On Cheney : The Man Who Pulls My Strings

A new documentary from Frontline, here, takes a deep look at the relationship between Cheney and Bush, and comes up with some fascinating and troubling answers. While Bush devotes hundreds of hours giving speeches and Q & As to diehard Bush supporters in rural America, Cheney remains firmly in the seat of power back in Washington, pursuing what Dan Froomkin describes as his "relentless, secretive and smashingly successful quest to expand executive power."

If Bush is unable to finish out his term, or is unable to serve in the aftermath of an election canceling series of terror attacks or national disasters in 2008, Cheney would take over, and presumably make full use of all that expanded executive power.

A reporter for the New Yorker is quoted in the documentary as saying,"The strange thing about this administration is all of the most crucial decisions seem to be taking place in the vice president's office, or even the vice president's counsel's office."

Bush gave an interview to a stunningly uncritical Fox News special about Cheney, to provide some 'insight' into his relationship with his vice president. Bush appeared to have great trouble putting that relationship into firm focus.

Q : "What is the relationship between you and Vice President Cheney? There's a lot of people here who say it's a mystery."
Bush: "It's not a mystery to me. I've gotten to know him well over seven years -- six and a half as sitting vice president and half a year as a candidate. First, I would classify our relationship as very comfortable with each other. Dick Cheney is an easy guy to be around."
(voiceover) "The president even seemed to have a hard time characterizing his relationship with his vice president."
Bush: "I've come to admire him. So I would say it's a very comfortable, close relationship."
Q: "Is he a man of few words inside the White House? What's his style when you meet?"
Bush: "Well, we have several constant meetings. One, when it's just the vice president and me -- which happens on a weekly basis, you know -- he's quite verbose. He comes with things that he wants to talk about, issues that he wants to share concerns about, or things that he's seen or heard."
Q: "Some critics claim he's pulling the strings in this administration. Others don't go that far, they say he's managed to figure out the angles and present you with certain options that limit your options when it's time to make a decision comes."
Bush: "I think I'm wiser than that -- than to be pigeonholed or, you know, to get cornered by a wily advisor. Look, that's not the way it works. Dick Cheney walks in and I say, 'What's your advice on this subject?' And he gives it to me and I make up my mind based upon a variety of factors including the advice of key advisors and he is one of them."
Q: "Some people describe him as the most powerful vice president ever. Do you agree with that?"
Bush: "I would say he's very influential. But he was no more influential than a Condi Rice or a Bob Gates or a Steve Hadley. And the thing about Vice President Cheney is that his decision-making -- or his recommendations about my decision-making -- are based upon a core set of principles that are deeply rooted in his very being. He is predictable in many ways because he brings a set of beliefs. And they're firm beliefs."

Maybe Bush is afraid of saying too much.

2007-10-26T11:53:00.000+10:00

Bush & Cheney "Psychotic" : Don't Impeach, Commit Them

Years after bloggers realized the truth about Bush & Cheney, the mainstream media begins chiming the 'Bush Is Insane & Cheney Is Nuts' line, long after a somewhat serious push by the MSM ceased to make any difference at all. There will be no Bush impeachment, no war crimes trials, there will be just fifteen more months of the Bush-Cheney White House, with America, and the world, fearing the next act of madness they will unleash.

From the LA Times :

George W. Bush and Dick Cheney shouldn't be treated like criminals who deserve punishment. They should be treated like psychotics who need treatment.

Because they've clearly gone mad. Exhibit A: We're in the middle of a disastrous war in Iraq, the military and political situation in Afghanistan is steadily worsening, and the administration's interrogation and detention tactics have inflamed anti-Americanism and fueled extremist movements around the globe. Sane people, confronting such a situation, do their best to tamp down tensions, rebuild shattered alliances, find common ground with hostile parties and give our military a little breathing space. But crazy people? They look around and decide it's a great time to start another war.

That would be with Iran, and you'd have to be deaf not to hear the war drums. Last week, Bush remarked that "if you're interested in avoiding World War III . . . you ought to be interested in preventing [Iran] from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon." On Sunday, Cheney warned of "the Iranian regime's efforts to destabilize the Middle East and to gain hegemonic power . . . [we] cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its most aggressive ambitions." On Tuesday, Bush insisted on the need "to defend Europe against the emerging Iranian threat."

Huh? Iran is now a major threat to Europe? The Iranians are going to launch a nuclear missile (that they don't yet possess) against Europe (for reasons unknown because, as far as we know, they're not mad at anyone in Europe)? This is lunacy in action.

...a dangerously loopy Bush prediction about the future behavior of a nuclear Iran -- the idea being, presumably, that possessing "the knowledge" to make a nuclear weapon would so empower Iran's repressive leaders that they'll giddily rush out and start World War III.

But you could read Bush's remark as a madman's threat rather than a madman's prediction -- as a warning to recalcitrant states, from Germany to Russia, that don't seem to share his crazed obsession with Iran. The message: Fall into line with administration policy toward Iran or you can count on the U.S.A. to try to start World War III on its own. And when it comes to sparking global conflagration, a U.S. attack on Iran might be just the thing. Yee haw!

What's a constitutional democracy to do when the president and vice president lose their marbles?

The U.S. is full of ordinary people with serious forms of mental illness -- delusional people with violent fantasies who think they're the president, or who think they get instructions from the CIA through their dental fillings.

The problem with Bush is that he is the president -- and he gives instructions to the CIA and military, without having to go through his dental fillings.

By enlisting the aid of mental health professionals and the court system, Congress can act to remedy that constitutional oversight. The goal: Get Bush and Cheney committed to an appropriate inpatient facility, where they can get the treatment they so desperately need. In Washington, the appropriate statutory law is already in place: If a "court or jury finds that [a] person is mentally ill and . . . is likely to injure himself or other persons if allowed to remain at liberty, the court may order his hospitalization."

2007-10-21T02:03:00.000+10:00

'Great' Moments From George W. Bush Speeches

It's downright nasty to preface this compilation of 'great' moments from the speeches of President Bush with JFK, but that's what this YouTuber has gone and done.

Some of this is funny, some of this is jaw-dropping, too much of it is downright sad and grim.

But then, that's George W. Bush.