Bush asks networks for primetime farewell

WASHINGTON � President George W. Bush will give a farewell address to the nation Thursday night, billed by the administration as a chance to reflect on his tenure and welcome Barack Obama without fighting old battles one last time.

Bush will deliver the speech, expected to run 10 to 15 minutes, from the ornate East Room of the White House. He will have a small audience of people in the room, chosen for their stories of personal courage.
White House press secretary Dana Perino said Monday that Bush will "uphold the tradition of presidents using farewell addresses to look forward _ by sharing his thoughts on greatest challenges facing the country, and on what it will take to meet them."

The president also will defend his record, Perino said, but will show graciousness toward Obama and not attempt to revisit the old battles of his presidency.

Bush will speak in prime time, although no specific time has been set. The White House has requested airtime from the major television networks.

Perino said the speech will be the last scheduled public event for Bush as president until he appears on the North Portico to greet Obama on Inauguration Day, which is Jan. 20. Bush held his final news conference on Monday.
The White House says the ritual of a farewell address dates to the time of George Washington. Presidents Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan delivered goodbye speeches from the White House; Presidents Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford gave a final State of the Union address on Capitol Hill, Perino said.

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

It's working, too!! So far, American citizens have donated a whopping $39.00!!

By Cam Simpson Washington BureauSun Sep 18, 9:40 AM ET

From the Indian Ocean tsunami to the church around the corner, Americans have shown time and again they are willing to open their pocketbooks for charity, for a total of about $250 billion last year alone.

But now, amid pleas for aid after Hurricane Katrina, the Bush administration has launched an unusual effort to raise charitable contributions for another cause: the government's attempt to rebuild Iraq.

Although more than $30 billion in taxpayer funds have been appropriated for Iraqi reconstruction, the administration earlier this month launched an Internet-based fundraising effort that it says is aimed at giving Americans a further stake in building a free and prosperous Iraq.

Contributors have no way of knowing who's getting the money or precisely where it's headed because the government says it must keep the details secret for security reasons.

But taxpayers already finance the projects for which the administration is seeking charitable donations, such as providing water pumps for farmers. And officials say any contributions they receive will increase the scope of those efforts rather than relieve existing taxpayer burdens.

The campaign is raising eyebrows in the international development and not-for-profit communities, where there are questions about its timing--given needs at home--and whether it will set the government in competition with international not-for-profits.

On a more basic level, experts wonder whether Americans will make charitable donations to a government foreign aid program and whether the contentious environment surrounding Iraq will make a tough pitch even tougher.

I'm a little skeptical, and the timing certainly isn't the best, said James Ferris, director of the Center on Philanthropy and Public Policy at the University of Southern California. It's going to be a hard sell.

Cost of rebuilding skyrockets

The U.S. Agency for International Development, the federal government's primary distributor of foreign aid, said Friday, Charitable contributions play an important role in enriching and extending U.S. government efforts.

The effort is just the newest twist in the administration's struggle to rebuild Iraq. Andrew Natsios, head of USAID, first predicted it would cost taxpayers no more than $1.7 billion. The tab has since risen to more than $30 billion, with congressional Republicans and Democrats sharply critical of the high cost and slow pace of progress.

In addition, the new campaign comes amid increasing concerns that some of the administration's major projects in Iraq will be scrapped or only partially completed because of rising costs, especially for security. Some officials fear money may run out before key projects are completed.

Natsios announced the campaign in a speech Sept. 9. In a press release issued the same day, USAID said its new Web site will help American citizens learn more about official U.S. assistance for Iraq and make contributions to high-impact development projects.

Although USAID has received private donations from corporations in the past, this might be the first time it has geared a charity pitch for U.S. foreign aid dollars to citizens.

Initially, the Web site, called Iraqpartnership.org, is offering potential contributors a choice of eight projects, each seeking $10,000 or less. They include purchasing computers for centers designed to assist Iraqi entrepreneurs, buying furniture and supplies for Iraqi elementary and high schools, paying for the production of posters to promote awareness of disabilities and rights issues, and buying water pumps for farmers.

There is also a general Iraq country fund, offering donors another high-impact giving opportunity without making them have to specify a project.

All of the projects are from USAID's existing portfolio of reconstruction programs in Iraq, according to the agency.

Security issues obscure details

Heather Layman, a USAID spokeswoman, said the efforts are being carried out by five private organizations working on Iraq reconstruction with USAID funding. The site does not provide details about the groups involved or the project locations because of security issues in Iraq.

The government says all contributions are tax-deductible.

William Reese, the president and CEO of the International Youth Foundation, said USAID officials did not discuss the campaign with a special advisory committee that he serves on and formerly headed.

That committee, made up primarily of representatives from non-profit groups working overseas, is supposed to help provide the underpinning for cooperation between the public and private sectors in U.S. foreign assistance programs, according to USAID.

Reese said some not-for-profit groups may see the effort as competition, but he predicted few would be concerned because of a more basic issue: While Americans are generous, he said, I don't think your average Joe is going to write a check to the U.S. government.

Carol Lancaster, a foreign aid expert and associate professor at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service, also questioned the premise of the program.

Places that are seen as public agencies or clones of public agencies don't get private donations, said Lancaster, a former deputy administrator at USAID. People generally believe, `It's government, so government should pay for it.'

Nassarie Carew, a spokeswoman for InterAction, an umbrella group of more than 160 non-profits working overseas, said her organization also was not aware of the effort. Its CEO, Mohammad Akhter, serves on the USAID advisory panel. Carew declined to comment until the group had a chance to survey its members.

Layman, the USAID spokeswoman, called the Web site a passive solicitation, saying potential donors would likely find it only if they were looking for a way to support Iraq's redevelopment.

She also said some people who might have donated to projects in Iraq will now choose to put money toward Katrina relief, but that others will still want to help in Iraq.

She said Iraqi-Americans specifically had asked USAID to help them find an avenue for contributions.

Raising charitable contributions for overseas projects can be a challenge even when the U.S. government is not at the center of the pitch. And Iraq is one of the government's more controversial foreign policy ventures in decades.

DevelopmentSpace Foundation Inc., the group that set up the Web site for USAID, operates its own, separate Web site seeking charitable donations for small-scale projects in developing countries.

Since its founding in 2001, that effort has raised a total of about $2 million, said Allison Koch, a foundation spokeswoman.

The organization keeps a 10 percent commission for contributions and has received most of its operating funds through major grants from several other foundations. USAID also gave it a grant of $1.5 million.

So far, $39 donated

Although in its infancy, the Iraqpartnership.org Web site had generated contributions totaling $39 as of Friday night.

According to the Giving USA Foundation, which tracks annual charitable donations by Americans, international giving accounted for 2.1 percent of all charity in the U.S. last year.

Ferris, the director of the USC philanthropy center, said that's because people want to donate to causes closer to home.

Except for the fact that the aim of foreign aid is to bolster U.S. foreign policy objectives overseas, Ferris said the new USAID campaign seems like a natural extension of the growing trend toward public-private partnerships.

There is this blurring of the lines, he said. A lot of things once paid for by the public are now paid through private sources.

----------

csimpson@tribune.com

gives them time to answer. When they try to move off the question into a talking point, he insists they answer the question. Show is called Hardball. If you want to appear, you must answer the question.

wearing it that he should and that he should also not use the story in his campaign, but did it ever occur to anyone that the story actually did happen and that maybe the family thought better of what was said and wants it taken back?

I would have to wonder why they gave it to him in the first place if they knew his position on the war. His position certainly wasn't a well-kept secret. If they felt this way, they should haev given it to McCain. I mean no disrespect here, but it is possible. In any case, if the family has requested that he stop exploiting the story, O definitely should. To not do so would be in very poor taste.

Although I am named in this suit in my own behalf, I am motivated to join it by concerns well beyond my own. I have been frankly appalled by the discrepant and contradictory positions taken by the Administration in this matter. First, the entire existence of the NSA's monitoring was a secret, and its very disclosure denounced as a threat to national security.

Then it was argued that Congress had already implicitly granted the power to conduct warrantless surveillance on the territory of the United States, which seemed to make the reason for the original secrecy more rather than less mysterious. (I think we may take it for granted that our deadly enemies understand that their communications may be intercepted.)

It now appears that Congress may have granted this authority, but without quite knowing that it had, and certainly without knowing the extent of it.

This makes it critically important that we establish an understood line, and test the cases in which it may or may not be crossed.

Let me give a very direct instance of what I mean. We have recently learned that the NSA used law enforcement agencies to track members of a pacifist organisation in Baltimore. This is, first of all, an appalling abuse of state power and an unjustified invasion of privacy, uncovered by any definition of national security however expansive. It is, no less importantly, a stupid diversion of scarce resources from the real target. It is a certainty that if all the facts were known we would become aware of many more such cases of misconduct and waste.

We are, in essence, being asked to trust the state to know best. What reason do we have for such confidence? The agencies entrusted with our protection have repeatedly been shown, before and after the fall of 2001, to be conspicuous for their incompetence and venality. No serious reform of these institutions has been undertaken or even proposed: Mr George Tenet (whose underlings have generated leaks designed to sabotage the Administration's own policy of regime-change in Iraq, and whose immense and unconstitutionally secret budget could not finance the infiltration of a group which John Walker Lindh could join with ease) was awarded a Presidential Medal of Freedom.

I believe the President when he says that this will be a very long war, and insofar as a mere civilian may say so, I consider myself enlisted in it. But this consideration in itself makes it imperative that we not take panic or emergency measures in the short term, and then permit them to become institutionalised. I need hardly add that wire-tapping is only one of the many areas in which this holds true.

The better the ostensible justification for an infringement upon domestic liberty, the more suspicious one ought to be of it. We are hardly likely to be told that the government would feel less encumbered if it could dispense with the Bill of Rights. But a power or a right, once relinquished to one administration for one reason, will unfailingly be exploited by successor administrations, for quite other reasons. It is therefore of the first importance that we demarcate, clearly and immediately, the areas in which our government may or may not treat us as potential enemies.

"Anyone in my office involved with a leak will be fired" to "Anyone who is found guilty of leaking," I figured he had a handle on what the decision is going to be by the special prosecutor, who, incidentally, was appointed by BUSH.

A year ago the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers proposed to study how New Orleans could be protected from a catastrophic hurricane, but the Bush administration ordered that the research not be undertaken. After a flood killed six people in 1995, Congress created the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project, in which the Corps of Engineers strengthened and renovated levees and pumping stations. In early 2001, the Federal Emergency Management Agency issued a report stating that a hurricane striking New Orleans was one of the three most likely disasters in the U.S., including a terrorist attack on New York City. But by 2003 the federal funding for the flood control project essentially dried up as it was drained into the Iraq war. In 2004, the Bush administration cut funding requested by the New Orleans district of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for holding back the waters of Lake Pontchartrain by more than 80 percent. Additional cuts at the beginning of this year (for a total reduction in funding of 44.2 percent since 2001) forced the New Orleans district of the Corps to impose a hiring freeze. The Senate had debated adding funds for fixing New Orleans' levees, but it was too late.

The New Orleans Times-Picayune, which before the hurricane published a series on the federal funding problem, and whose presses are now underwater, reported online: No one can say they didn't see it coming ... Now in the wake of one of the worst storms ever, serious questions are being asked about the lack of preparation.

The Bush administration's policy of turning over wetlands to developers almost certainly also contributed to the heightened level of the storm surge. In 1990, a federal task force began restoring lost wetlands surrounding New Orleans. Every two miles of wetland between the Crescent City and the Gulf reduces a surge by half a foot. Bush had promised no net loss of wetlands, a policy launched by his father's administration and bolstered by President Clinton. But he reversed his approach in 2003, unleashing the developers. The Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency then announced they could no longer protect wetlands unless they were somehow related to interstate commerce.

In response to this potential crisis, four leading environmental groups conducted a joint expert study, concluding in 2004 that without wetlands protection New Orleans could be devastated by an ordinary, much less a Category 4 or 5, hurricane. There's no way to describe how mindless a policy that is when it comes to wetlands protection, said one of the report's authors. The chairman of the White House's Council on Environmental Quality dismissed the study as highly questionable, and boasted, Everybody loves what we're doing.

My administration's climate change policy will be science based, President Bush declared in June 2001. But in 2002, when the Environmental Protection Agency submitted a study on global warming to the United Nations reflecting its expert research, Bush derided it as a report put out by a bureaucracy, and excised the climate change assessment from the agency's annual report. The next year, when the EPA issued its first comprehensive Report on the Environment, stating, Climate change has global consequences for human health and the environment, the White House simply demanded removal of the line and all similar conclusions. At the G-8 meeting in Scotland this year, Bush successfully stymied any common action on global warming. Scientists, meanwhile, have continued to accumulate impressive data on the rising temperature of the oceans, which has produced more severe hurricanes.

In February 2004, 60 of the nation's leading scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, warned in a statement, Restoring Scientific Integrity in Policymaking: Successful application of science has played a large part in the policies that have made the United States of America the world's most powerful nation and its citizens increasingly prosperous and healthy ... Indeed, this principle has long been adhered to by presidents and administrations of both parties in forming and implementing policies. The administration of George W. Bush has, however, disregarded this principle ... The distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends must cease. Bush completely ignored this statement.

In the two weeks preceding the storm in the Gulf, the trumping of science by ideology and expertise by special interests accelerated. The Federal Drug Administration announced that it was postponing sale of the morning-after contraceptive pill, despite overwhelming scientific evidence of its safety and its approval by the FDA's scientific advisory board. The United Nations special envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa accused the Bush administration of responsibility for a condom shortage in Uganda -- the result of the administration's evangelical Christian agenda of abstinence. When the chief of the Bureau of Justice Statistics in the Justice Department was ordered by the White House to delete its study that African-Americans and other minorities are subject to racial profiling in police traffic stops and he refused to buckle under, he was forced out of his job. When the Army Corps of Engineers' chief contracting oversight analyst objected to a $7 billion no-bid contract awarded for work in Iraq to Halliburton (the firm at which Vice President Cheney was formerly CEO), she was demoted despite her superior professional ratings. At the National Park Service, a former Cheney aide, a political appointee lacking professional background, drew up a plan to overturn past environmental practices and prohibit any mention of evolution while allowing sale of religious materials through the Park Service.

On the day the levees burst in New Orleans, Bush delivered a speech in Colorado comparing the Iraq war to World War II and himself to Franklin D. Roosevelt: And he knew that the best way to bring peace and stability to the region was by bringing freedom to Japan. Bush had boarded his very own Streetcar Named Desire.

Sidney Blumenthal, a former assistant and senior advisor to President Clinton and the author of The Clinton Wars, is writing a column for Salon and the Guardian of London.

succeeded in passing his privitization of Social Security. Then we would be seeing all you gung-ho True Believer Repubs freaking out at the devastation of your retirement money. You would have to walk the walk instead of pontificating endlessly on your favorite subjects - scarey terrorists, Ayers, socialism, Salinsky, yak, yak, yak. It would serve ya all right.

posters have said, "He is our president and we should respect him" (in response to posts about O.

I disagreed with a lot of Bush's policies, but at least he stood up for the country for 911 (and let's not get into an argument over that). It's all been hashed over and over and over.

You can now add another 9500 people (from DHL) to your list of unemployed citizens. You just keep sitting up there doing nothing while the country crashes around you. Awesome!

Remember, OBAMA IS NOT PRESIDENT YET. You can't begin to blame anything on him until AFTER he takes the oath of office.

Everything that has happened in the last eight years happened and is continuing to happen under the BUSH ADMINISTRATION and a REPUBLICAN SENATE that still holds fillibuster control, and a lot of things Bush "signs into law" are later secretly amended to include "signing statements" that really mean "only if I decide I want to." Hopefully, Obama will be able to find all of Bush's abuses and undo the damage, but it would probably take eight years of just doing THAT to find them all.

The "myth" of the Democrats being totally in charge hopefully is slowly moving more toward a reality, but it isn't there yet.

By the way, as an example of how gracious and kind Obama is, after all the terrible things Lieberman said about him, he still wants to include him in the Democratic Party. Obama and his beautiful family are definitely a class act!

ONLY care about the richest of the rich and have always only cared about them. They simply don't care about the average American and have practically eliminated the middle class over the last eight years.

Bush believes in that old "trickle down" theory. That obviously hasn't worked because of all the greed at the top.

Obama believes in the "bottom up" theory, which, to me makes perfect sense. Create the market by the consumers, and then, in good old capitalism style, the market will bear what the consumers can afford.

Bush has been the socialist (actually, more in line with fascism after buying banks and all the corporate welfare), so if we're going to continue to have "socialism" that instead helps the average American who is working two or three jobs to survive, am I in favor of that? You betcha!

A friend of mine said some time ago during the election: *Bush and Cheney are looking for another 4 years in office, but if we're lucky they'll get 10 to 20.*