Bush's Legacy Not Yet Defined?

From the St Petersburg Times :

In the Lincoln Bedroom, President George W. Bush likes to show off one of the most treasured historical artifacts in the White House, a handwritten copy of Abraham Lincoln’s 1863 Gettysburg Address.

The building’s walls speak of past battles, victories, defeats, heartache. President George Washington’s portrait hangs in the Oval Office. Civil War Commander and two-term President Ulysses Grant is placed in Bush’s private study.

The Queen’s Bedroom offers memories of Winston Churchill, who stayed there before and after World War II, as Bush told C-SPAN, “waddling around… with a cigar in one hand, a brandy in the other, demanding attention.”

As Bush marks the Presidents Day holiday and George Washington’s 275th birthday on Monday, he faces a drumbeat of criticism for the event that will likely be a big part of his legacy — the Iraq war.

The president believes it will take some time to determine his place in the pantheon of presidents, despite the negative assessments some historians have already made.

“I don’t think you’ll really get the full history of the Bush administration until long after I’m gone. I tell people I’m reading books on George Washington and they’re still analyzing his presidency,” Bush told CBS’ “60 Minutes” in an interview last month.

Many in the current crop of historians are already prepared to declare Bush’s presidency a failure.

In a December opinion article in The Washington Post, Columbia University history professor Eric Foner wrote that Bush was likely to join mediocre presidents like Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan and Andrew Johnson.

“Even after being repudiated in the midterm elections of 1854, 1858 and 1866, respectively, they ignored major currents of public opinion and clung to flawed policies. Bush’s presidency certainly brings theirs to mind,” Foner wrote.

Foner’s article was headlined, “He’s the worst ever.”

But Vanderbilt University history professor Thomas Alan Schwartz said it was too soon to judge Bush. “Presidential reputations tend to go up and down,” he said.

He cited Dwight Eisenhower as a president whose stock has risen in the decades since he handed over power to John Kennedy in 1961.

“But Bush will face some enormous obstacles to being fully rehabilitated. Much does depend on Iraq, but even if that does not end in disaster — still an open question — the mistakes made in the occupation will be ascribed to him. Were Osama Bin Laden to be captured or killed before Bush leaves office, that could help, but the uncertainties involving Afghanistan will also hurt him,” Schwartz said.

Bush, a Republican, sees historical parallels in Democrat Harry Truman’s presidency. Truman set in motion the Cold War doctrine that shifted U.S. foreign policy from one of getting along with the Soviet Union to trying to contain its expansion.

Bush sees his ultimate legacy as starting a years-long effort to check a radical Islamist militant movement from spreading globally. He sees Iraq as a central battleground.

“Today, at the start of a new century, we are again engaged in a war unlike any our nation has fought before. And like Americans in Truman’s day, we are laying the foundations for victory,” he said last May.

Bush Attempts To Draw Comparisons Between His War On Terror And George Washington's War Of Independence



President Bush continues to cling to the personal belief that he and George Washington are not all that dissimilar. He's tried before to draw comparisons between Washington's struggle to free the independent colonies from the grip of England, and his own struggle to, as he puts it, preserve the freedoms of the United States and Western democracy from the tyranny of global Islamism.

A few days back, Bush used the occasion of the 275th birthday of the first president, George Washington, to give the comparisons another shot.


From the Associated Press :

"Today, we're fighting a new war to defend our liberty and our people and our way of life," said Bush, standing in front of Washington's home and above a mostly frozen Potomac River.

"And as we work to advance the cause of freedom around the world, we remember that the father of our country believed that the freedoms we secured in our revolution were not meant for Americans alone."

Bush chose the national Presidents Day holiday to make his first visit as president to Mount Vernon. He and first lady Laura Bush helped lay a wreath at Washington's tomb, then the president gave a speech from a platform on the bowling green lawn of the estate.

"On the field of battle, Washington's forces were facing a mighty empire, and the odds against them were overwhelming. The ragged Continental Army lost more battles than it won, suffered waves of desertions, and stood on the brink of disaster many times. Yet George Washington's calm hand and determination kept the cause of independence and the principles of our Declaration alive...

"In the end, General Washington understood that the Revolutionary War was a test of wills, and his will was unbreakable," said Bush.

More from the speech :

"With the advantage of hindsight, it is easy to take George Washington's successes for granted and to assume that all those events were destined to unfold as they did. Well, the truth is far different.

"America's path to freedom was long and it was hard. And the outcome was really never certain. Honoring George Washington's life requires us to remember the many challenges that he overcame, and the fact that American history would have turned out very differently without his steady leadership.

"George Washington's long struggle for freedom has also inspired generations of Americans to stand for freedom in their own time.

"Today, we're fighting a new war to defend our liberty and our people and our way of life. And as we work to advance the cause of freedom around the world, we remember that the father of our country believed that the freedoms we secured in our revolution were not meant for Americans alone. He once wrote, "My best wishes are irresistibly excited whensoever in any country I see an oppressed nation unfurl the banners of freedom."

So according to his speech, Bush sees himself as repeating the efforts of George Washington to free the oppressed, but unlike Washington, Bush is trying to do this on a worldwide scale, something Washington knew was impractical and impossible more than 200 years ago.

No wonder Bush talks about the 'War on Terror' being a struggle that will last generations.

Bush's Washington's Birthday Speech In Full

"Put Your Hands Down"

Bush Tries To Stifle Child-Level Anti-War Dissent



President Bush popped into a YMCA on Wednesday to trot out his favourite "armies of compassion" spiel about the need for more volunteers to help carry society's burden.

No doubt he wasn't expecting to find himself surrounded by anti-war dissenters, particularly when a raucous debate was going on at the exact same time in Congress, over the future of the Iraq War.

During the photo shoot, in which the kids repeatedly broke out the V, peace sign, Bush tried to keep the dissent out of the view of all the cameras and failed.

Fantastic photo, however. Look at the determination on the face of the young boy in the centre of the shot.

As quoted on White House Watch :

"While the House of Representatives debated weighty matters of war and peace yesterday, President Bush headed to the YMCA.

"In a brightly lighted basement gym, he visited children bending paperclips into different shapes and urged Americans to volunteer as mentors. He talked not of armies in Iraq but of 'armies of compassion' at home.

Even the kids seemed confused.

One asked why he came.

'I came to see you,' the president responded.

As the cameras clicked away, a 7-year-old boy made peace signs. 'Put your hands down,' Bush chided playfully.

And this exchange was overheard by one reporter :

1st kid: 'He's my favorite president.' (referring to Bush)

"2d kid: 'My favorite president is President Obama.'

"1st kid: 'Who's that?'

"2d kid: 'He's the first black president.'"

"Turn Off The TV, Dad"

In his early 1970s, George W. Bush squared off against his dad, challenging him to a fight. George was drunk, His father held back from smacking his loudmouth, wayward son across the chops and, according to some biographies, brother Jeb was there to cool down young George.

The mythology of the Bush family tells us that Papa Bush never thought his son was cut out for politics, and few were more surprised than he when George Jnr decided he wanted to become President Of The United States.

Now Papa Bush is basically retired, and suffering what appears to be mild dementia, he is spending far too much time, according to his wife, watching endless cable news programs, most of which regularly trash his son, the president, and berate and insult George Jnr in ways that few would have dared to have done when he was president.

Father and son have both claimed they never talk about politics, and rarely, if ever, discuss the War On Iraq. Which seems impossible. How could they not? Papa Bush pulled out of Iraq because his advisers made sure he understood the chaos that would be unleashed if they went ahead and overthrew Saddam Hussein.

George Jnr claimed, in late 2002, that he had to overthrow Saddam for a variety of reasons, including the fact that Saddam had supposedly ordered an assassination attempt on the old man when he was visiting Saudi Arabia, or Jordan (the claims differ) in 1993. The car bomb didn't go off. Papa Bush survived.

But the spectacular failure of the current Bush administration has wrought damage to the Bush dynasty way beyond anything even Papa Bush expected. Jeb Bush was supposed to make a run for president himself, to keep the political dynasty alive. Had the Iraq War gone the way it was hyped to go in early 2003, no doubt Jeb would the number one or number two most likely Republican contender right now.

But that only happened in the fantasy world of Papa Bush's insomnia-punctured dreams.

The reality is horrendous, for the Middle East, for Iraq, and for the Bush dynasty.

Who doesn't blame the father when the son turns out to be dangerous and destructive?

Papa Bush's public tears a few months back, while giving a speech, where he had to comforted by Jeb, was obviously a venting of his feelings about what his son has done, and what has happened to the name of Bush in American politics.

But George Jnr is now publicly reassuring his dad, telling him not to worry, "I'm fine," and warning him to keep away from the TV during the current, fiery debates in the Senate over the future direction of the war President Bush simply had to have.

From the Washington Post :

"I am actually more concerned about him than I have ever been in my life, because he's paying too much attention to the news," the president told C-SPAN...

"And I understand how difficult it is for a person who loves somebody to see them out in the political process and to kind of endure the criticism. My answer to him is: 'Look, don't pay attention to it. I'm doing fine.' "

Bush's comments were not the first hint at frustration inside the Bush family over his political troubles. After the November elections, which ousted Republican majorities from both houses of Congress, the elder Bush bristled at those disparaging his son. At a conference in the United Arab Emirates, he responded to Arab critics. "When your son's under attack, it hurts," he said. "You're determined to be at his side and help him any way you possibly can."

Ever the optimist, George Jnr also thinks his father will be recognised, some time in the distant future, as one of the greatest American presidents. It hasn't happened yet, theorises George Jnr, because of the political legacy of Ronald Reagan.

"Well, George H.W. Bush is one of them...He followed President Reagan, who was such a really strong president that people have yet to take a look at my dad."

Everybody needs their fantasies.

Watergate Reporter : For Lies And Distortions, Bush Even Tops Nixon

Carl Bernstein spent years trying to carve a coherent path through the intricacies of the Nixon administration, along with fellow journo Bob Woodward, to tell the story of the Watergate scandal that eventually led to President Richard M. Nixon resigning, live on TV.

After years following the mutated truths and outright lies of the Bush administration, Bernstein recently gave an interview for a PBS documentary where he ripped into the most powerful man in the world, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and today's underwhelming crop of White House correspondents, who he views as mostly toothless and too involved in the system of spreading disinformation and pre-packaged propaganda on behalf of President Bush.

Here's some of Bernstein's key quotes, as published on Raw Story and Editor & Publisher :

Nixon's relationship to the press was consistent with his relationship to many institutions and people. He saw himself as a victim. We now understand the psyche of Richard Nixon, that his was a self-destructive act and presidency.

The lying in the Nixon White House had most often to do with covering up Watergate, with the Nixon administration's illegal activities. Here, in this presidency, there is an unwillingness to be truthful, both contextually and in terms of basic facts that ought to be of great concern to people of all ideologies. ...

The Bush administration is a far different matter in which disinformation, misinformation and unwillingness to tell the truth -- a willingness to lie both in the Oval Office, in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, in the office of the vice president, the vice president himself -- is something that I have never witnessed before on this scale.

This president has a record of dishonesty and obfuscation that is Nixonian in character in its willingness to manipulate the press, to manipulate the truth. We have gone to war on the basis of misinformation, disinformation and knowing lies from top to bottom.

It's very difficult, as a reporter, to get across that when you say, "This is a presidency of great dishonesty," that this is not a matter of opinion. This is demonstrable fact. If you go back and look at the president's statements, you look at the statements of the vice president, you look at the statements of Condoleezza Rice, you go through the record, you look at what [counterterrorism expert] Richard Clarke has written, you look at what we know -- it's demonstrable.

It's fact. Now, how do you quantify it? That's a different question.

But to me, if there is a great failure by the so-called mainstream press in this presidency, it's the unwillingness to look at the lies and disinformation and misinformation and add them up and say clearly, "Here's what they said; here's what the known facts were," because when that is done, you then see this isn't a partisan matter. This is a matter of the truth, particularly about this war. This is a presidency that is not willing to tell the truth very often if it is contrary to its interests. It's not about ideology from whence I say this.

It's about being a reporter and saying: "That's what the story is. Let's see what they said; let's see what the facts are."

Victory In Iraq : Freedom, Liberty, Peace & Car Bombings

This post originally appeared on the Road To Surfdom blog.

We've come a long way from the days when Victory In Iraq was defined by Coalition of the Willing leaders as something close to the peace and security we enjoy.

When a democratic and West-friendly Iraq would be free of violence and terror, and the fear of sudden death-by-explosion had faded like the memory of Saddam's torture brigades.

The definition of what will constitute "victory" in iraq has been consistently watered down by President Bush, Tony Blair and John Howard over the past twelve months. Howard now gives entire interviews on Iraq without even mentioning what he thinks "victory" would look like.

But President Bush has set the bar set the bar at a new low, where victory is now defined as...well, something close to the Iraq we see today. Car bombings and all.

From Bush's press conference yesterday :

Q: You talk about victory, that you have to have victory in Iraq; it would be catastrophic if we didn't. You said again today that the enemy would come here, and yet you say it's not an open-ended commitment. How do you sqaure those things?

BUSH : You know, victory in Iraq is not going to be like victory in World War II. It's one of those challenges I have to explain to the American what Iraq will look like in a situation that will enable us to say we have accomplished our mission.

First..Iraq will be a society in which we have relative peace. I say "relative peace" because if it's like zero car bombings, it never will happen that way...the fundamental question is, can we help this government have the security force level necessary to make sure that the ethnic cleansing that was taking place in certain neighbourhoods has stopped.

So, the definition for 'Victory In Iraq' for Bush, right now at least, is having Iraqi security forces in place to stop ethnic cleansing, but with car bombings of crowded markets accepted as just part of the colourful mix of newfound "freedom and liberty".

But what can you do?

Apparently, some people in Iraq will always want to pack their backseat with 50 kilos of fertiliser and fuel oil and drive it into the local pet market.

As some people will always want to dump a suitcase full of thermite and a remote control detonator into the boot of a stranger's vehicle, when they're not looking, and then follow them through the streets of Baghdad until the bomb-laden car ahead passes a desireable target.

I get the feeling we're going to be hearing Coalition of the Willing leaders using the term "relative peace" a lot more often than the word "victory", in the months ahead, as Bush gets closer to the Baker-Hamilton phased withdrawal plan he now thinks isn't such a dodgy idea after all.

War With Iran? What A Laugh

An interesting exchange with President Bush, who's always ready with a laugh, regardless of how serious the issue is that brings on the guffaws.

From UPI :

At a farewell reception at Blair House for the retiring chief of protocol, Don Ensenat, who was President Bush's Yale roommate, the president shook hands with Washington Life Magazine's Soroush Shehabi.

"I'm the grandson of one of the late Shah's ministers," said Soroush, "and I simply want to say one U.S. bomb on Iran and the regime we all despise will remain in power for another 20 or 30 years and 70 million Iranians will become radicalized."

"I know," President Bush answered.

"But does Vice President Cheney know?" asked Soroush.

President Bush chuckled and walked away

Al Qaeda Provide Bush Character Assessment

"Alcoholic" Gambler, "Addicted" To "Lies"

Ayman al-Zawahri, 2nd in command of 'Al Qaeda' in Afghanistan, has claimed that President Bush is a "lying gambler" who made the ultimate double-or-nothing bet on the Iraq War, and lost.

From the Associated Press :

"Bush suffers from an addictive personality, and was an alcoholic. I don't know his present condition ... but the one who examines his personality finds that he is addicted to two other faults — lying and gambling," al-Zawahri said in the audiotape.

On the tape, al-Zawahri said Bush has gone down in history as one of the world's "most notorious liars."

"So pay attention before it's too late, and beware of Bush's losing gambler's lie which claims that he, with the corpses of your killed and limbs of your wounded, is spreading democracy around the world," said al-Zawahri, apparently addressing the American people.

Al-Zawahri also said recent congressional elections in the United States that elected a majority of Democrats would change nothing.

"The people chose you due to your opposition to Bush's policy in Iraq, but it appears that you are marching with him to the same abyss," al-Zawahri said of the Democrats according to the transcript.

Al-Zawahri called what he described as Bush' failure in Iraq and the growing Taliban resistance in Afghanistan the "most important events" of the past year. He also said "the people cooperating with the United States in Afghanistan and in Iraq would be abandoned by the Americans once they fail, the same way they did in Vietnam."

Two Years Left Of 'Packing Up The Desk' To Go

Bush Raises Only Disinterest With The US Media

There's a consensus that seems to be growing amongst the US media, and it's one already well explored by media across Europe, the Middle East and Asia.

President Bush is over. He's had his final big moments in the spotlight. Since the State Of The Union address in January, he's become less and less a front page media prize. This means he has lost his cache. The media seems vastly uninterested in what he's doing now.

The focus has shifted completely to Iraq and to the new US Congress, and their battles to supposedly end the war and rein in Bush's war spending.

It's a silly argument in many ways, that Bush has become a non-story, and will remain so for the next 22 months of presidency.

A war on Iran, another huge terrorist attack in the US, a withdrawal from Iraq, or something close to a tangible victory in that war will turn all the world's media attention back on him again.

Of course, none of those key events may happen, and Bush may well continue to be of next to no interest for the mainstream media.

But again, in other ways, the claims that Bush has worn out his newsworthiness, for now, is also true. He has announced he will be working with Congress to reform social security, immigration, energy use and resources and Medicare, primarily, before his days in the White House draw to a close. And he may make great or even extraordinary progress on all four key reform issues.

But homeland reforms of this nature are rarely ever international news.

And Bush has been pushing social security, immigration and Medicare reform from his first year in office. The feeling, or vibe, in the Letters To Editor pages across traditional Red and Blue American states is : "Just shut up and get on with it."

Does the media itself feel betrayed by Bush, particularly the right wing conservative media, now that Bush is pumping reforms and ideas that have long been within the domain of Democrats and progressives?

Is President Bush really yesterday's news?

This piece in the Washington Post further explores how the spotlight is drifting away from President Bush :

These days, many in the media seem to be writing off President Bush.

"The American people basically fired George Bush in the last election," writes New York Times columnist Tom Friedman. "We're now just watching him clean out his desk."

"A lot of Americans consider this presidency over," says CNN's Bill Schneider.

"If America were a parliamentary democracy, we would have a no-confidence vote and a new prime minister by spring," writes New York Daily News columnist Michael Goodwin.

Are these and other pundits giving us the unvarnished truth, that we are witnessing the historic collapse of a presidency? Or is this the triumph of quick-draw, poll-driven journalism?

"If we had a straight dictatorship," writes the New Republic's Jonathan Chait, "Bush would long ago have been dragged out of the White House either by an angry mob or by disgruntled generals." (Not that he's in favor of either.)

Chait agrees in an interview that the president still has power, but notes: "Psychologically, it does feel that people are starting to move past Bush. No one has changed his mind about Bush in the last two years. It's kind of boring to write about him anymore because he's so unchanging."

The media, as always, are mesmerized by polls. When Bush was riding high in the "Mission Accomplished" days of 2003, some of the coverage was almost giddy. If Bush's current approval ratings were at 50 percent, his media portrayal would look very different. With the president having sunk as low as 28 percent in a CBS News survey, it is all too easy to dismiss him, even as he mounts an escalation of the war in Iraq.

That war, of course, is the reason why the mainstream media see no possibility of Bush bouncing back. Things are a mess in Iraq; the country has turned against the war; and few journalists think the "surge" is going to work. Therefore, the reasoning goes, Bush will continue to sink into the quagmire of the war he chose to wage.

Other unpopular war presidents have staggered to the ends of their terms -- Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson come to mind -- and Bush may do the same. But because Iraq is now widely viewed as having been an unnecessary personal crusade on Bush's part, there seems to be an extra element of derision in the political commentary, especially from the left.

Bush's father recently vented his frustrations with the coverage. "It's one thing to have an adversarial . . . relationship -- hard-hitting journalism. It's another when the journalists' rhetoric goes beyond skepticism and goes over the line into overt, unrelenting hostility and personal animosity," the former president said.

Actually, even some of the journalists who are especially aggressive in their coverage of Bush like him in private settings, where the president has a joshing manner and enjoys handing out nicknames. But professional resentment may still be behind some of the increasingly negative coverage. "In the press corps," Chait says, "there's a little bit of a realization that they had been played."

From Iraq, where the media fell down on the WMD debate, to Bush's 2000 campaign persona as a compassionate conservative, many journalists now believe they were led astray. That has given an extra edge to their stories and columns on Bush being out of touch and has fueled an effort to vindicate their darker picture of the war. In short, the mainstream media no longer give this president the benefit of the doubt.

Bush Hometown Sees Massive Tourist Slowdown

Presidential Bobbleheads Just Don't Sell In Crawford Like They Used To

When Texas Governor George W. Bush brough his 1600 acre ranch seven miles outside of Crawford, Texas, in 1999, he kicked off a mini-tourism and trinket industry in the town of 700 people.

According to the Associated Press, the Crawford Chamber of Commerce claimed $813,000 worth of t-shirts, coffee mugs, cowboy boots, posters, postcards and other assorted retailia were sold by souvenir shops in that first year that Bush called Crawford home.

His name and presence and campaign to seize the White House generated more than $1 million in 2000. In 2004, the Crawford stores saw sales hitting $2.66 million. That was the boom year.

As Bush's popularity has plunged to Nixonian levels, so to has Bush-related paraphenalia.

Naturally, the locals blame the Cindy Sheehan crowd and other protestors for driving away genuine tourists and Bush pilgrims.

From the Associated Press :

Near the lone stoplight on Main Street, a for-sale sign hangs from a dusty window where a souvenir shop used to sell cufflinks, cowboy boots and denim shirts emblazoned "The Western White House."

Another gift store across the street is shuttered too, though a sign says it will reopen elsewhere. And the biggest souvenir shop in Crawford is reporting a drop in sales.

The Washington professionals have their polls, their focus groups and their newspaper editorials. But Crawford, the 700-person town where President Bush's ranch is located, has its trinket stores, and they have fallen on hard times, in what some say reflects the president's sinking popularity over the war in Iraq and a daunting influx of anti-war protesters.

Norma Nelson Crow closed her Crawford Country Style store three months ago.

"I feel so strongly about the president that I wanted to continue to support him any way I could," she said. "But I'm distressed about the poll numbers and think it was a combination of things: that and the protesters."

Bill Johnson, owner of Crawford's largest gift shop, Yellow Rose, said he plans to continue running his store, which also sells crosses, saddles, guns and Western clothing in addition to coffee mugs, T-shirts and other souvenirs.

"I think the president's ratings will go up, and when that happens, the sales go up," he said. "As far as Crawford's future, I think it looks bright. Is it going to be as hectic as it was a few years ago? No. But Crawford's name is known far and wide, and when he retires, people who are endeared to him will want to come to Crawford."

When Bush Promised To Kick Saddam's "Ass All Over The Mid East"

Below you will find an excerpt from the first chapter of the book 'Hubris', that sets the scene of President Bush in early-to-mid 2002, when he first began to create the reality that was 'The War On Iraq'.

It's an interesting moment in time captured by the authors, and the rest of 'Hubris' easily stands up to the challenge of following on from such an exceptional opening chapter. A great book on a terrible war.

This chapter excerpt also says a lot about President Bush's motivations for going to war on Saddam Hussein, and the easy optimism that seemed to infect the White House during those now halcyon days :

Early on the afternoon of May 1, 2002, George W. Bush slipped out of the Oval Office, grabbed a tennis racquet, and headed to the South Lawn. He had a few spare moments for one of his recreational pleasures: whacking tennis balls to his dogs, Spot and Barney.

It was a pleasant spring day in Washington and not an especially taxing one for the president. He had no pressing political worries. Having routed the Taliban regime in Afghanistan the previous fall, Bush was standing tall in the polls, with an approval rating hovering at 70 percent.

That morning, there had been his usual terrorism briefings, then meetings with congressional leaders where Bush had talked about moving forward his domestic proposals, including a measure promoting faith-based social programs.

Later in the day, the president was due to meet the vice president of China. Bush also had an unusual press interview on his schedule that afternoon. As he hit the balls and watched the dogs scamper, Bush prepared for that session with two press aides by reviewing questions he would likely be asked about one of his predecessors he admired most: Ronald Reagan.

Ever since September 11, 2001, Bush had increasingly identified with Reagan: his optimism, his firm convictions, his stark, uncompromising stand against Soviet communism. Bush had come to consider Reagan's battle against the Soviet Union a parallel of his own struggle against Islamic extremism. The Evil Empire was now the Axis of Evil-that trio of tyrannies, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, that Bush had proclaimed the nation's foes months earlier during his first State of the Union speech.

Frank Sesno, the veteran newscaster, was due shortly at the White House to query Bush about Reagan and the parallels between his presidency and Bush's. The interview was for a History Channel special that would air upon the death of the former president, who was ninety-one years old and suffering from advanced Alzheimer's disease.

On a two-page "pre-brief" memo prepared by his staff and containing questions that might be asked, Bush had written out by hand points he wanted to emphasize. The presidential scribbles, his aides thought, were revealing-perhaps a window onto Bush's view of himself. "Optimism and strength," Bush had scrawled on top of the memo. Also, "decisive" and "faith." Next to a question about Reagan's direct, blunt style, Bush had written, "moral clarity." He had drawn an arrow next to the word "forceful." Alongside a question about the 1983 suicide bombing attack on the U.S. Marines barracks in Lebanon (which killed 241 American troops) and how a president copes with such losses, Bush had written, "There will be casualties."

On the South Lawn, Press Secretary Ari Fleischer and another member of the communications staff, a burly, irrepressible former television producer named Adam Levine, reviewed these points with Bush. Then they all moved inside and headed upstairs to the Red Room so Bush could have makeup applied for the interview.

Bush casually asked Fleischer how his day had been going and what the talk in the pressroom was. Fleischer mentioned Helen Thomas, the longtime correspondent then writing for Hearst News Service. She was a gadfly and constantly giving Fleischer a tough time about an issue much in the news: Iraq. Bush and other administration officials had been decrying Saddam Hussein, the dictator of Iraq, as a threat to the United States and the world.

To many, it sounded like war talk. The media were filled with speculation that the White House was preparing for an invasion. But Bush had steadfastly refused to state his intentions. His aides repeatedly claimed that Bush had reached no decisions. Interviewed by a British broadcaster a few weeks earlier, Bush had resorted to a Clintonesque evasion: "I have no plans to attack on my desk."

At that day's daily press briefing, Thomas had peppered Fleischer with questions about Iraq. Referring to stories in the media about secret plans for military action, she asked, "What is the president's rationale for invading Iraq?" What made Saddam different from other dictators and worth an invasion? Fleischer bantered with Thomas and pointed out that "regime change" in Iraq had been the official policy of the U.S. government since President Bill Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998. Thomas shot back: Did the law mandate that the United States overthrow the Iraqi government by force?

Bush, Fleischer said, "believes that the people of Iraq, as well as the region, will be more peaceful, better off without Saddam Hussein." Thomas retorted, "That's not a reason" to go to war. "Well, Helen," Fleischer replied, "if you were the president, you could have vetoed the law." The reporters chuckled, and Fleischer called on another journalist.

As Fleischer recounted this exchange for the president, Bush's mood changed, according to Levine. He grew grim and determined-steely. Out of nowhere, he unleashed a string of expletives.

"Did you tell her I don't like motherfuckers who gas their own people?" the president snapped.

"Did you tell her I don't like assholes who lie to the world?"

"Did you tell her I'm going to kick his sorry motherfucking ass all over the Mideast?"

Fleischer paused. "I told her half of that," he replied. Bush laughed, as did his aides. Still, Bush's visceral reaction was telling.

This wasn't bluster; this was real. The president had meant what he said-every word of it.

This was the Bush that Levine admired. "You know where we're going here," Levine thought.

Go Here To Read The First Chapter Of 'Hubris'

Always Time For A Few Jokes

President Bush doesn't like to miss any opportunity to try out his stand-up comedy stylings, even in the midst of the most horrific, most expensive and mostly deadly foreign policy debacle the United States has seen for decades, if not in the entire history of the nation.

So Bush hit the Alfalfa Club for his annual celebration of the birthday of Civil War Confederate Leader Robert E. Lee.

The Alfalfa Club "jokingly" elected George W. Bush President Of The United States in January, 1998. A bigh laugh was had by one and all. Shortly after, Bush and Karl Rove began his campaign to make that joke into a reality in 2000.

Here's Bush's attempts this year to lighten the mood of a few hundred of America's most elite political and business leaders :

"As always, I'm delighted to be back at Alfalfa. When I was here last year, my approval rating was in the 30s, my nominee for the Supreme Court had just withdrawn and my vice president had shot someone -- ah, those were the good old days.

"What with the polls and everything, the Washington Post said the other day that I was, quote, 'at the nadir of my presidency.' The press always underestimates me. I can go lower."

And: "Hey, let me give you an update on that satellite that was blown out of the sky last week. The Chinese didn't do it. Cheney was out hunting again."

Ho, ho, ho.

As Democrat And Republican Opposition Mounts Over Bush Troop "Surge" Plan, Bush Claims He Doesn't "Feel Abandoned"

Capitol Hill in the past two weeks has been the scene for some of the most dramatic, and democratic, Senate hearings since the Watergate and Vietnam era.

The Democrats promised that when they took control of Congress, they were going to go over all aspects of the Iraq War with a fine-tooth comb, including increases to the number of troops in the field, and so far they've lived up to their promises.

The most divisive of all the hearings should have been those concerned with the president's plan to "surge" more than 20,000 extra troops into Iraq, mostly to try and quell the appalling daily violence filling Baghdad streets with blood and ruin.

But a growing number of Republicans are now joining the Democrats in their opposition to the troop "surge" plan. It is clear that the vast majority of Americans now want nothing more than for the troops to be withdrawn from Iraq, come what may, and this antipathy is clearly reaching the Republican senators, who are now jumping ship in greater and greater numbers.

But the president doesn't seem to care, nor mind. He has made it repeatedly clear that he is "The Decider" and the commander in chief, and he will do what he said he will, what he sincerely believes he must, in bringing the Iraq War to some kind of close that will allow the United States to claim a victory, of sorts.

The president will not be swayed, even by the opposition of Republican senators who backed the war from the beginning, and who've fought running media battles week in, week out, for the past four years, to keep the American public on side.

A battle they've clearly now lost.

The fight, as far as Congress is concerned, is not over, even if Bush seems remarkably unfazed by the massive falloff in support for the war from within his own party.

From Reuters (excerpts) :

President George W. Bush said on Wednesday "I don't feel abandoned" by fellow Republicans in Congress who are working with Democrats to protest his Iraq policy with a congressional resolution.

In a television interview, Bush shrugged off criticism of his plan to send 21,500 more U.S. troops to Iraq and said he hoped lawmakers would give U.S. forces what they needed to get the job done.

"I don't feel abandoned," Bush said on Fox News Channel's "Neil Cavuto" program.

"And what do you expect? When times are good, there's millions of authors of the plan. When times are bad, there's one author, and that would be me."

Some of Bush's Republican allies are breaking with him over Iraq as the war becomes more unpopular and his job approval numbers wane.

The Senate is poised to take up a resolution opposing Bush's new strategy with a debate expected next week.

At the White House, Bush met members of a congressional delegation that just returned from a visit to Iraq and Afghanistan, a bipartisan group that included some of his sharpest critics on Iraq, like House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, and Pennsylvania Democratic Rep. John Murtha.

Bush last week called himself the "decision-maker" with the power to decide what to do with U.S. troops. Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record) said on Tuesday the president "is not the sole 'decider,"' that Congress had a role as well.

Bush said he saw the comment as Specter wanting to make sure Congress was heard.

"They get to decide funding levels, for example. And my hope is of course that they would make sure our troops have what it takes to do the jobs that I've asked them to do. But you shouldn't be surprised that members of the legislative body want to have input," Bush said.

With some in Washington predicting Bush only has four to six months to show his plan can work before demands grow for a U.S. disengagement from Iraq, Bush said he understands the skepticism.

He said he believes Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki is starting to fulfill his pledges.

"I say he is in the process of performing. Well, let me tell you what that means. It means moving more Iraqi troops into Baghdad. It means going after murderers regardless of their religious persuasion," Bush said.

With two years left in office, Bush insisted he is not thinking about the end of his term and expressed no worries about his job approval numbers, which show barely a third of Americans like the job he is doing.

"I guess I could try to be popular. But I've always found that somebody who tries to be popular is one who may end up compromising principle, and I'm not that kind of person," he said.

And this from the Associated Press (excerpts) :

Two senators, a Republican and a Democrat, leading separate efforts to put Congress on record against President Bush's troop buildup in Iraq joined forces Wednesday, agreeing on a nonbinding resolution that would oppose the plan and potentially embarrass the White House.

Sens. John Warner, R-Va., and Carl Levin, D-Mich., had been sponsoring competing measures opposing Bush's strategy of sending 21,500 more U.S. troops to the war zone, with Warner's less harshly worded version attracting more Republican interest. The new resolution would vow to protect funding for troops while keeping Warner's original language expressing the Senate's opposition to the buildup.

The resolution is likely to pose a threat to the White House because of its potential appeal to Republicans who have grown tired of the nearly four-year war and want a chance to express their concerns. The White House has been hoping to avoid an overwhelming congressional vote criticizing Bush's handling of the war.

The agreement comes as several leading Republicans who support the troop buildup said they will give the administration and the Iraqis about six months to show significant improvement. Many other Republicans say they are deeply skeptical additional troops in Iraq, rather than a political settlement, would help calm the sectarian violence.

In an interview with Fox News, Bush took issue with McConnell's statement that his plan needs to be successful over the next six to nine months.

"I think it's a mistake to put timetables on difficult missions because an enemy can adjust," Bush said. "On the other hand, I certainly understand the urgency in Mitch's voice. I also understand the skepticism on Capitol Hill. I mean, no doubt, there's a lot of pessimism there today."

Bush also criticized a proposal by Sen. Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record), a Democratic presidential candidate from Illinois, to have all U.S. combat forces out of Iraq by spring 2008.

"I say that it's important to succeed and that failure in Iraq will cause chaos," Bush said.

"My admonition to those who are speaking out is let us back the troops and let us hope for the success" of their mission.

More Republicans Distance Themselves From Bush's Iraq Policy

Bush Seen To Be "Spoiling For A Fight" With Iran

President Signs Executive Order That Grants Him Increased Powers Over Most Important Federal Agencies

Bush Says United States "Will Respond Firmly" If Iran Increases Military Action Inside Iraq

"I Have No Intent Upon Going Into Iran," Says Bush, But Doesn't Rule Out Air Strikes

Bush Tries To Run Down Media With Giant Tractor

A boy and one big toy. This image has been accessed from this Reuters website


It's worth running this story just to use that headline.

A funny, and somewhat dramatic report, about President Bush getting behind the wheel of a monster tractor and then appearing to attempt to run down some of the White House press corps. The reaction to this story on other blogs has been an interesting mix of "Run the bastards down!" and "This is another sign of how pyschotic the president really is."

Isn't the president entitled to just a little fun?

From Newsweek blog :

Does President Bush have it in for the press corps?

Touring a Caterpillar factory in Peoria, Ill., the Commander in Chief got behind the wheel of a giant tractor and played chicken with a few wayward reporters.

"I would suggest moving back," Bush said as he climbed into the cab of a massive D-10 tractor.
"I'm about to crank this sucker up."

As the engine roared to life, White House staffers tried to steer the press corps to safety, but when the tractor lurched forward, they too were forced to scramble for safety.

"Get out of the way!" a news photographer yelled.

"I think he might run us over!" said another.

...Secret Service got involved, as one agent began yelling at reporters to get clear of the tractor.

Watching the chaos below, Bush looked out the tractor's window and laughed, steering the massive machine into the spot where most of the press corps had been positioned.

The episode lasted about a minute, and Bush was still laughing when he pulled to a stop. He gave reporters a thumbs-up.

"If you've never driven a D-10, it's the coolest experience," Bush said afterward.

Don't Believe Bush's Sudden Awakening On Global Warming

Oil Barons To Be Replaced By Grain Barons

13% Of Americans Have Never Heard Of Global Warming

Global warming prophet and full-blown evangelical, George Monbiot, takes President Bush to task for his suspiciously sudden embrace of the realities of drastic climate change and global warming.

From 'Comment Is Free' :

....Bush's avowed conversion to the cause of cutting emissions is illusory. He is simply drumming up new business for his chums. In his state of the union address last week, he spoke of "the serious challenge of global climate change" and announced that he was raising the government's mandatory target for alternative transport fuels fivefold. This is wonderful news for the grain barons of the red states, who will grow the maize and rapeseed that will be turned into biofuel. It's a catastrophe for everyone else.

An analysis published last year by the Sarasin Bank found that until a new generation of vegetable fuels, made from straw or wood, is developed, "the present limit for the environmentally and socially responsible use of biofuels [is] roughly 5% of current petrol and diesel consumption in the EU and US".

Bush now proposes to raise the proportion to 24% by 2017. Already, though the rich world has replaced just a fraction of 1% of its transport fuels, the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation reports that using crops to feed cars has raised world food prices, with serious consequences for the poor. Biofuels fall into the same category as atmospheric smoke and mirrors - a means of avoiding difficult decisions.

But at least, or so we are told, the argument over whether or not manmade climate change is happening is now over.

On Friday the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change publishes the first installment of its vast report, which collates the findings of the world's climate scientists. Though conservative in its assumptions, it shows that if you persist in believing that there is no cause for concern, you must have buried your head till only your toes are showing.

If even Bush now grudgingly acknowledges that there's a problem, surely we've seen the last of the cranks and charlatans who had managed to grab so much attention with their claims that global warming wasn't happening?

...with Bush's defection, the band of quacks making (claims that global warming isn't a scientific reality) is diminishing fast.

Now the oil and coal companies that support such people have changed their target.

Instead of trying to persuade us that man-made global warming is a myth, they are seeking to divert us into doing everything except the one thing that has to happen: reducing our consumption of fuel.

It is another species of denial.

George Bush's purpose - to insulate these companies from the need to cut production - is unchanged. He has simply found a new way of framing the argument

Go Here To Read The Fully Monbiot Column


And here's the Bush quotes from the 2007 State Of The Union speech that Monbiot was referring to :

For too long our nation has been dependent on foreign oil. And this dependence leaves us more vulnerable to hostile regimes, and to terrorists -- who could cause huge disruptions of oil shipments, and raise the price of oil, and do great harm to our economy.

It's in our vital interest to diversify America's energy supply -- the way forward is through technology. We must continue changing the way America generates electric power, by even greater use of clean coal technology, solar and wind energy, and clean, safe nuclear power.

We need to press on with battery research for plug-in and hybrid vehicles, and expand the use of clean diesel vehicles and biodiesel fuel. We must continue investing in new methods of producing ethanol -- using everything from wood chips to grasses, to agricultural wastes.

Let us build on the work we've done and reduce gasoline usage in the United States by 20 percent in the next 10 years. When we do that we will have cut our total imports by the equivalent of three-quarters of all the oil we now import from the Middle East.

To reach this goal, we must increase the supply of alternative fuels, by setting a mandatory fuels standard to require 35 billion gallons of renewable and alternative fuels in 2017 -- and that is nearly five times the current target. At the same time, we need to reform and modernize fuel economy standards for cars the way we did for light trucks -- and conserve up to 8.5 billion more gallons of gasoline by 2017.

Achieving these ambitious goals will dramatically reduce our dependence on foreign oil...

America is on the verge of technological breakthroughs that will enable us to live our lives less dependent on oil. And these technologies will help us be better stewards of the environment, and they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change.

An interesting story here, detailing the awareness of global warming issues in the United States compared to the rest of the world :

Thirteen percent of Americans have never heard of global warming even though their country is the world's top source of greenhouse gases, a 46-country survey showed on Monday.

People in Latin America were most worried while U.S. citizens were least concerned with just 42 percent rating global warming "very serious."

The United States emits about a quarter of all greenhouse gases, the biggest emitter ahead of China, Russia and India.

Thirteen percent of U.S. citizens said they had never heard or read anything about global warming, the survey said.

A U.N. report due on Friday is set to say it is at least 90 percent probable that human activities are the main cause of warming in the past 50 years.

People in China and Brazil were most convinced of the link to human activities and Americans least convinced.

State Of The Union Already Forgotten

But Bush Gave Clear Warnings Of The Wider Middle East War To Come

It's just over a week since President Bush delivered his 2007 State Of The Union address, and it has sunk without a trace. Unlike previous SOTU speeches, this one has already fallen away from the media's attention and polls indicate it provided absolutely none of the predicted 'bounce' in positive numbers that SOTU speeches usually do.

While the domestic issues are no doubt important for Americans, it is the 'War on Terror' and the 'War On Iraq' that will thoroughly determine Bush's impact on history, and determine his legacy.

The speech itself won few plaudits. It certainly wasn't hailed as visionary, outside of the usual media suspects scattered across the globe. The language ticked with Biblical phrasing and softball-to-hardcore doom warnings.

It is important to remember that Bush uses his speeches to reach who he regards as his true believers, primarily evangelicals in the United States, and those who still believe Bush was right to say, in the days after September 11, "this crusade...is going to take a while."

With the right phrasing, and use of terms like 'The Holy Land' in reference to disputed territories of Palestine and Israel, Bush knows he is speaking the language they understand, and telling them the war he promised - "this crusade" - is still moving forward.

But Bush is also aware that his SOTU speeches reach a worldwide audience, far larger than any president before him. For example, in Australia, the speech was carried live on ABC TV, the national broadcaster.

By declaring that the 'War On Iraq' is set to spill out across the rest of the Middle East, Bush let it be known that not only is he thinking about how to deal with a conflict involving Iran and Syria and Israel and Sunni-Arab states, he has already prepared for it, and is waiting for it to break out.

A wider Middle East war is not something he fears, it is something he expects to occur. And he talks of it like is simply unavoidable, as though the only choice now is to fight the wide war, by more use of the pre-emptive attacks doctrine.

For the record, here are the key WoT and WoI quotes from the State Of The Union :

"We enter the year 2007 with large endeavors underway, and others that are ours to begin...

* * * * * * * * *

With the distance of time, we find ourselves debating the causes of conflict and the course we have followed. Such debates are essential when a great democracy faces great questions. Yet one question has surely been settled: that to win the war on terror we must take the fight to the enemy. (Applause.)

From the start, America and our allies have protected our people by staying on the offense. The enemy knows that the days of comfortable sanctuary, easy movement, steady financing, and free flowing communications are long over. For the terrorists, life since 9/11 has never been the same.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

In the mind of the terrorist, this war began well before September the 11th, and will not end until their radical vision is fulfilled. And these past five years have given us a much clearer view of the nature of this enemy.

Al Qaeda and its followers are Sunni extremists, possessed by hatred and commanded by a harsh and narrow ideology. Take almost any principle of civilization, and their goal is the opposite. They preach with threats, instruct with bullets and bombs, and promise paradise for the murder of the innocent.

Our enemies are quite explicit about their intentions. They want to overthrow moderate governments, and establish safe havens from which to plan and carry out new attacks on our country.

By killing and terrorizing Americans, they want to force our country to retreat from the world and abandon the cause of liberty. They would then be free to impose their will and spread their totalitarian ideology.

Listen to this warning from the late terrorist Zarqawi: "We will sacrifice our blood and bodies to put an end to your dreams, and what is coming is even worse."

Osama bin Laden declared: "Death is better than living on this Earth with the unbelievers among us."

These men are not given to idle words, and they are just one camp in the Islamist radical movement.

In recent times, it has also become clear that we face an escalating danger from Shia extremists who are just as hostile to America, and are also determined to dominate the Middle East. Many are known to take direction from the regime in Iran, which is funding and arming terrorists like Hezbollah -- a group second only to al Qaeda in the American lives it has taken.

The Shia and Sunni extremists are different faces of the same totalitarian threat. Whatever slogans they chant, when they slaughter the innocent they have the same wicked purposes. They want to kill Americans, kill democracy in the Middle East, and gain the weapons to kill on an even more horrific scale.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

This war is more than a clash of arms -- it is a decisive ideological struggle, and the security of our nation is in the balance. To prevail, we must remove the conditions that inspire blind hatred, and drove 19 men to get onto airplanes and to come and kill us. What every terrorist fears most is human freedom

-- societies where men and women make their own choices, answer to their own conscience, and live by their hopes instead of their resentments. Free people are not drawn to violent and malignant ideologies -- and most will choose a better way when they're given a chance. So we advance our own security interests by helping moderates and reformers and brave voices for democracy. The great question of our day is whether America will help men and women in the Middle East to build free societies and share in the rights of all humanity. And I say, for the sake of our own security, we must. (Applause.)

In the last two years, we've seen the desire for liberty in the broader Middle East -- and we have been sobered by the enemy's fierce reaction.

In 2005, the world watched as the citizens of Lebanon raised the banner of the Cedar Revolution, they drove out the Syrian occupiers and chose new leaders in free elections.

In 2005, the people of Afghanistan defied the terrorists and elected a democratic legislature. And in 2005, the Iraqi people held three national elections, choosing a transitional government, adopting the most progressive, democratic constitution in the Arab world, and then electing a government under that constitution.

Despite endless threats from the killers in their midst, nearly 12 million Iraqi citizens came out to vote in a show of hope and solidarity that we should never forget.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

A thinking enemy watched all of these scenes, adjusted their tactics, and in 2006 they struck back.

In Lebanon, assassins took the life of Pierre Gemayel, a prominent participant in the Cedar Revolution.

Hezbollah terrorists, with support from Syria and Iran, sowed conflict in the region and are seeking to undermine Lebanon's legitimately elected government.

In Afghanistan, Taliban and al Qaeda fighters tried to regain power by regrouping and engaging Afghan and NATO forces.

In Iraq, al Qaeda and other Sunni extremists blew up one of the most sacred places in Shia Islam -- the Golden Mosque of Samarra. This atrocity, directed at a Muslim house of prayer, was designed to provoke retaliation from Iraqi Shia -- and it succeeded. Radical Shia elements, some of whom receive support from Iran, formed death squads. The result was a tragic escalation of sectarian rage and reprisal that continues to this day.

This is not the fight we entered in Iraq, but it is the fight we're in. Every one of us wishes this war were over and won. Yet it would not be like us to leave our promises unkept, our friends abandoned, and our own security at risk.

Ladies and gentlemen: On this day, at this hour, it is still within our power to shape the outcome of this battle. Let us find our resolve, and turn events toward victory.

We're carrying out a new strategy in Iraq -- a plan that demands more from Iraq's elected government, and gives our forces in Iraq the reinforcements they need to complete their mission. Our goal is a democratic Iraq that upholds the rule of law, respects the rights of its people, provides them security, and is an ally in the war on terror.

In order to make progress toward this goal, the Iraqi government must stop the sectarian violence in its capital. But the Iraqis are not yet ready to do this on their own. So we're deploying reinforcements of more than 20,000 additional soldiers and Marines to Iraq.

The vast majority will go to Baghdad, where they will help Iraqi forces to clear and secure neighborhoods, and serve as advisers embedded in Iraqi Army units. With Iraqis in the lead, our forces will help secure the city by chasing down the terrorists, insurgents, and the roaming death squads.

And in Anbar Province, where al Qaeda terrorists have gathered and local forces have begun showing a willingness to fight them, we're sending an additional 4,000 United States Marines, with orders to find the terrorists and clear them out. (Applause.) We didn't drive al Qaeda out of their safe haven in Afghanistan only to let them set up a new safe haven in a free Iraq.

The people of Iraq want to live in peace, and now it's time for their government to act. Iraq's leaders know that our commitment is not open-ended. They have promised to deploy more of their own troops to secure Baghdad -- and they must do so. They pledged that they will confront violent radicals of any faction or political party -- and they need to follow through, and lift needless restrictions on Iraqi and coalition forces, so these troops can achieve their mission of bringing security to all of the people of Baghdad.

Iraq's leaders have committed themselves to a series of benchmarks -- to achieve reconciliation, to share oil revenues among all of Iraq's citizens, to put the wealth of Iraq into the rebuilding of Iraq, to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation's civic life, to hold local elections, and to take responsibility for security in every Iraqi province. But for all of this to happen, Baghdad must be secure. And our plan will help the Iraqi government take back its capital and make good on its commitments.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

If American forces step back before Baghdad is secure, the Iraqi government would be overrun by extremists on all sides.

We could expect an epic battle between Shia extremists backed by Iran, and Sunni extremists aided by al Qaeda and supporters of the old regime. A contagion of violence could spill out across the country -- and in time, the entire region could be drawn into the conflict.

For America, this is a nightmare scenario. For the enemy, this is the objective.

Chaos is the greatest ally -- their greatest ally in this struggle. And out of chaos in Iraq would emerge an emboldened enemy with new safe havens, new recruits, new resources, and an even greater determination to harm America.

Ladies and gentlemen, nothing is more important at this moment in our history than for America to succeed in the Middle East, to succeed in Iraq and to spare the American people from this danger.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The war on terror we fight today is a generational struggle that will continue long after you and I have turned our duties over to others.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The United Nations has imposed sanctions on Iran, and made it clear that the world will not allow the regime in Tehran to acquire nuclear weapons.

With the other members of the Quartet -- the U.N., the European Union, and Russia -- we're pursuing diplomacy to help bring peace to the Holy Land, and pursuing the establishment of a democratic Palestinian state living side-by-side with Israel in peace and security.

In Afghanistan, NATO has taken the lead in turning back the Taliban and al Qaeda offensive -- the first time the Alliance has deployed forces outside the North Atlantic area. Together with our partners in China, Japan, Russia, and South Korea, we're pursuing intensive diplomacy to achieve a Korean Peninsula free of nuclear weapons...

Bush Now Faces An All Too Real Republican Revolt

From the UK Guardian's Comment Is Free (excerpts) :

Sidney Blumenthal

When the hopelessly prodigal son mounts the podium to deliver his sixth State of the Union address, seated behind him will be the parents he never had: the good mother, caring yet demanding responsibility, and the bad father, granting license for misadventure. As he evades and rebuffs the speaker of the house, Nancy Pelosi, President Bush clings to the vice-president, Dick Cheney, as his permissive authority figure.

...Bush has decided that public opinion is no longer a factor that concerns him. Every other president coping with the hazards of war, from Lincoln to Nixon, strained to manage public support. At a similar stage in the Nixon presidency, Nixon was drunk, speaking to the portraits on the White House walls, and forcing Henry Kissinger to pray with him on his knees.

With the public hardening and broadening its opposition to his policy, Bush has simply cut himself off from its opinion. He has abandoned caring what the country thinks, except in his imagined end of the story, where he is the victor. For now, he will escalate as he pleases, blessed by Cheney.

"Have you read about Lyndon Johnson in Vietnam? Do you draw any lessons from that?" a reporter from USA Today asked the president in an interview published on Monday. In response Bush telescoped the entire tragic history of the Vietnam war and Johnson's agonies into slogans, slurring Johnson's patriotism in order to create a contrast with his own.

"Yes, win," he replied. "Win, when you're in a battle for the security ... if it has to do with the security of your country, you win."

In another interview a week earlier, on January 14, on CBS's 60 Minutes, Bush repelled any suggestion of responsibility for error in his Iraq policy. He located the lack of public support in the United States in the insufficient thanks offered by the Iraqis. "Do you think you owe the Iraqi people an apology for not doing a better job?" asked correspondent Scott Pelley.

"That we didn't do a better job or they didn't do a better job?" replied the president.

"Well, that the United States did not do a better job in providing security after the invasion."

"Not at all," said Bush. "I am proud of the efforts we did. We liberated that country from a tyrant. I think the Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of gratitude, and I believe most Iraqis express that. I mean the people understand that we've endured great sacrifice to help them. That's the problem here in America. They wonder whether or not there is a gratitude level that's significant enough in Iraq."

Two days later, Gianni Magazzeni, the chief of the UN assistance mission for Iraq, declared that 34,452 Iraqi civilians had been killed and 36,685 wounded in 2006.

As Bush's popularity continued to plummet, Cheney appeared on January 14 on Fox News to wave away the polls.

"I've seen embattled administrations, and this isn't one of them."

On the podium, as Bush confronts his first Democratic Congress, the state of the parties could not be more sharply divergent. In a little more than the two weeks since the new Congress was sworn in, Pelosi has commandingly dispelled nearly every stereotype about the Democrats that was propagated in the campaigns against them while they were out of power.

The Republican party, disoriented by defeat, its leadership unable to whip its troops into line without the incentives of entrenched power, and crushed by Bush's unpopularity, has turned into a scene from bedlam.

Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, who is rumoured to be thinking of retiring, called Bush's policy "Alice in Wonderland".

Another Republican facing re-election, Senator Norm Coleman of Minnesota, said, "I just don't believe this makes sense," adding that he would "stand against" Bush's Iraq policy.

On Monday, Senator John Warner of Virginia, the ranking Republican on the armed forces committee, introduced a resolution opposing Bush's "surge" (co-sponsored by Coleman and Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine).

"I personally, speaking for myself, have great concern about the American GI being thrust into that situation, the origins of which sometimes go back over a thousand years," Warner said.

When Republicans in Congress see Bush, they are staring into the abyss.

Oblivious to realities in Iraq, Bush is also increasingly oblivious to political realities at home.

Herbert Hoover, acclaimed as the most talented and skilful man of his time, was incapable of rising above his narrow perspectives in the face of the Depression, and his stubborn limitations marked his party for two generations.

Bush views his State of the Union speech as another occasion for declaring what he will do regardless of what anyone thinks (with Cheney's approval).

His intention is not to report on the state of the union. It is to express his state of indifference to the union.

The Whole Piece Is Worth A Read, For The Nixon Juxtapositions Alone

52% Want Bush To Pull Troops Out Of Iraq Before Taking More Casualties, Before Civil Order Is Restored To Iraq

Bush Goes Into State Of The Union Speech With America's Confidence In His Ability To Lead The Nation At Home And At War At An All-Time Low

None of the press cons or addresses to the nations or supremely high-energy spin machinry of the White House in the past few months have managed to change the minds of Americans.

For the first time in his presidency, major speeches and addresses have failed to see a boost in his favourability or confidence ratings. The numbers continue to drop.

He is rating almost as badly as Nixon (only a few percentage points away) during the heights of the Watergate scandal, and the extended, and still bloody, pullout from Vietnam.

It is an utterly remarkable time for Bush, comparable to any history changing crisis to have faced any president since Washington.

The images pouring from the television screens on Iraq, and the corpses flowing back home, just blot out anything Bush has to say to his people. He cannot compete with the reality of the war he wanted, and got.

They think their president is a loser, and that he is losing the War On iraq.

With two years still to go before he empties the drawers of the desk built from the timbers of the Resolute, it appears there is nothing, not even a withdrawal from Iraq, that will now change their minds about their president.

And unlike 9/11, a major terrorist attack will likely make Americans trust him less, not more.

Two years to go, with some of the worst numbers in presidential history.

65% of Americans are now totally opposed to his key plan in 'winning' the War On Iraq : sending in more troops.

A mere 21% of Americans think Bush is leading the country down the right track.

71% think Bush is leading them all down the wrong track : towards greater danger, death and destruction.

For the first time, more than half of all Americans, 52%, want Bush to withdraw the troops instead of taking more casualties and staying until civil order is restored to Iraq.


From the Washington Post :

President Bush will deliver his State of the Union address on Tuesday at the weakest point of his presidency, facing deep public dissatisfaction over his Iraq war policies and eroding confidence in his leadership, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

With a major confrontation between Congress and the president brewing over Iraq, Americans overwhelmingly oppose Bush's plan to send an additional 21,500 troops to the conflict. By wide margins, they prefer that congressional Democrats, who now hold majorities in both chambers, rather than the president, take the lead in setting the direction for the country.

Iraq dominates the national agenda, with 48 percent of Americans calling the war the single most important issue they want Bush and the Congress to deal with this year.

No other issue rises out of single digits. The poll also found that the public trusts congressional Democrats over Bush to deal with the conflict by a margin of 60 percent to 33 percent.

The Post-ABC poll shows that 65 percent of Americans oppose sending more troops to Iraq; it was 61 percent immediately after the president unveiled the plan on Jan. 10 in a nationally televised address.

More broadly, Bush will be speaking on Tuesday night to a nation that is deeply pessimistic, with just 26 percent of Americans saying the country is heading in the right direction and 71 percent saying the country is seriously off track. That is the worst these ratings have been in more than a decade.

Bush's overall approval rating in the new poll is 33 percent, matching the lowest it has been in Post-ABC polls since he took office in 2001. Sixty-five percent say they disapprove. Equally telling is the finding that 51 percent of Americans now strongly disapprove of his performance in office, the worst rating of his presidency. Just 17 percent strongly approve of the way he is handling his job.

Only two presidents have had lower approval ratings on the eve of a State of the Union speech. Richard Nixon was at 26 percent in 1974, seven months before he resigned in disgrace because of the Watergate scandal. Harry S. Truman was at 23 percent in January 1952, driven down by public disapproval of the Korean conflict and his firing of Gen. Douglas MacArthur.

Just 29 percent approve of Bush's handling of the Iraq war, which is only one percentage point off his career low recorded a month ago, and 70 percent disapprove. Similarly, Bush's approval rating on handling terrorism is at a near-low, with just 46 percent giving him positive marks and 52 percent negative.

Just 42 percent say he can be trusted in a crisis, with 56 percent saying he cannot -- the first time a majority has given him a negative rating on a crucial element of presidential leadership. Only 45 percent call him a strong leader, which is also the lowest mark of his presidency. His previous low, 47 percent, came two months after Katrina ravaged New Orleans and the Gulf Coast.

But the negative assessments of the president continue to stem overwhelmingly from public attitudes about Iraq. Nearly two-thirds of Americans say it was a mistake to go to war there, the highest negative response since the war began. And 55 percent of Americans now say the president has not made the country safer, the first time a majority of the country has reached that conclusion.

Another first-time majority, 52 percent, would prefer to see U.S. forces withdrawn from Iraq to avoid further casualties rather than leaving them until civil order is restored. The poll did not ask about a timetable for such a withdrawal.

Many Americans see Bush falling short of many of the goals he has outlined for his Iraq policy. Just 28 percent say it has contributed to long-term peace and stability in the region, and only 36 percent think it has encouraged the spread of democracy to other Arab countries. At this point, the public is evenly divided on the question of whether the war has made the lives of Iraqi citizens better.

Woodward On Bush And The State Of The Union

Legendary Washington Post investigative reporter, Bob Woodward, took questions from the public in an online Q & A the day Bush delivered his 2007 State Of The Union speech.

Here's some of his thoughts on Bush today, the War In Iraq, and what the last two years in the White House may hold for him..

We've paraphrased the questions posed to Woodward, but you can read them all in full here :


If Bush sees the outcome of the Iraq War as his legacy, at what point of ongoing disaster, would volatile and rebellious Republicans go to Bush and tell him to change course?

Woodward : That is a great question, and a similar situation occured in August 1974, when Sen. Barry Goldwater went to the White House to tell then-President Richard Nixon that he would be impeached and certainly removed from office in a Senate vote.

Within 24 hours, Nixon announced he was going to resign.

If this gets to be a similar situation as the Iraq War becomes graver and the situation further deteriorates, the question is, Who is the conscience of the Republican party?

Sen. John Warner, the Republican from Virginia who until recently headed the Senate Armed Services Committee, is already challenging the president's policy.

The big question mark is Senator McCain and other Republican leaders.


Is it true that Bush has some deep and troubling psychological problesm when it comes to accepting responsibility for failure in Iraq?

Woodward : People who strongly oppose the war don't necessarily want to hear this, but I have interviewed Bush for hours on the question of the Iraq war and there is a lot of idealism driving his decisions.

He told me in late 2003, nine months after the invasion, "I believe we have a duty to free people" -- to liberate and bring democracy to other countries.

He jumped in his chair in the Oval Office when he said this. The problem is, as I pointed out in my book, "State of Denial," he has not told the truth about what Iraq had become as the insurgent violence and sectarian violence have gotten totally out of hand.


If Bush continues to disagree the feelings and will of the American people, what can he hope to accomplish in his final two years in the White House?

Woodward : He has a very hard road ahead of him, particularly on Iraq.

The challenge in Iraq is not just to show progress but to clearly define some sort of exit strategy or timeline because the political system in this country will not continue to tolerate such an unpopular war with such high casualties.

The political system at some point -- and no one knows when that might be -- will force a new, different resolution unless things get better. That may not be until January 2009, when a new president takes office. Under the Constitution, that's the one thing Bush, his admirers and his detractors can count on.


If the new "surge" troop inscrease fails, will Congress move to censore the president?

Woodward : I haven't heard much talk at all about censure.

A formal censure of a president or commander in chief at a time of war would be to my knowledge unheard of. But maybe somewhere in the past there have been such actions.

I think it more likely that the hydraulics in the political system will create so much pressure that the president himself would alter course. But we'll have to wait and see.


Key Quote From Woodward : All the polling and discussions that I've seen show that the Iraq war is Topic A, B and C in the country,


Why did Bush do a 180 when it comes to "nation building"? He said in 200, repeatedly, that the United States should not be in the business of "nation building"...

Woodward : I've spent a number of years examining this question, and in Bush's mind, 9/11 did change everything. It is the pivot point of his presidency, and he argues either convincingly or unconvincingly that as president, it is his chief responsibility to protect the country.

After 9/11, Bush and his war cabinet examined the question: What are the lessons we should learn from 9/11? The lesson the president, the vice president and others took away was simply "take care of threats early."

In 2002-2003, the president deemed Saddam Hussein a significant threat. The available evidence shows that Bush believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

We now know that Saddam didn't, and that has pulled the carpet out from under Bush's core argument. The Iraq war is controversial not just because it has been long and violent and seemingly unending, but that the basic rationale disappeared.

This is a reality the president has only acknowledged very reluctantly.


How has this administration defined "winning" or "victory" in Iraq?

Woodward: It's not at all clear, and that's one of the problems in the war. On a common-sense level, victory in a war is the sort of thing that you know it when you see it, but this war may be so complex and entangled in other Middle East, terrorism and domestic political debates that we won't recognize it if we ever see it.

Several years ago, someone in the administration suggested to me that the president should have declared victory at the end of 2003 and simply said the two main goals have been achieved: Saddam Hussein is out of power and there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. As time goes on, that look like a better and better exit strategy.

Bush has serious lame duck status, and is regarded as the worst president since Nixon. What is the point of the State Of The Union address? Is it just pomp and protocol?

Woodward: President George W. Bush still holds office, and if there's anything we've learned over the last decades, it's that the president has incredible, real power, so everything the chief executive says, intends and actually does is at the center of what's happening.

I don't think Bush is overjoyed with the low poll ratings, but I also suspect he doesn't brood about them in the way some other presidents might have.

Recall after the Baker-Hamilton report, the debate was, how are we going to start withdrawing troops from Iraq? But Bush surprised everyone except those who know him by deciding to add troops.

So he still has the job and can make important decisions, but tonight is probably going to be mostly theater.