First Iraq and now Bush leaves New Orleans rebuilding to future President.
Posted By: Liberal on 2006-08-29 In Reply to:
Bush: New Orleans may need a decade
NEW ORLEANS, Aug. 28 (UPI) -- As he headed for the Gulf Coast on Monday, U.S. President George Bush told an interviewer he expects the rebuilding of New Orleans to take a decade.
Bush planned to spend the anniversary of the U.S. Gulf Coast landfall of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans after a visit to Biloxi, Miss. It was his 13th visit to the devastated area.
We can rebuild buildings, the question is can we rebuild its soul, he told April Ryan of American Urban Radio Networks. We can. I believe, 10 years from now April, you and I will be thinking about our time here, and trying to remember what it was like 10 years ago
Bush came under fire last year for apparently ignoring Katrina immediately after New Orleans flooded and then flying over the city in Air Force One.
Later White House spokeswoman Dana Perrino said she wasn't aware of a specific time period but that the president has said all along that it would take more than a year to rebuild New Orleans.
In terms of like, 10 years, I don't know about exact time frame, but it's certainly going to take several years, Perrino said.
Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread
Wouldn't it be nice if precautions could be taken to build this city correctly to prevent another tragedy? Nah.... Bush won't go for that. Killing people in Iraq is more important.
The Associated Press Thursday, September 1, 2005; 5:04 PM
WASHINGTON -- It makes no sense to spend billions of dollars to rebuild a city that's seven feet under sea level, House Speaker Dennis Hastert said of federal assistance for hurricane-devastated New Orleans.
It looks like a lot of that place could be bulldozed, the Illinois Republican said in an interview Wednesday with The Daily Herald of Arlington, Ill.
Hastert, in a transcript supplied by the newspaper, said there was no question that the people of New Orleans would rebuild their city, but noted that federal insurance and other federal aid was involved. We ought to take a second look at it. But you know we build Los Angeles and San Francisco on top of earthquake fissures and they rebuild too. Stubbornness.
Hastert's press secretary, Ron Bonjean, said Hastert was not suggesting New Orleans should be abandoned or relocated. The speaker believes that we should have a discussion about how best to rebuild New Orleans so as to protect its citizens, he said. What he is saying is that rebuilding the city in the same way is not sensible.
There are some real tough questions to ask, Hastert said in the interview. How do you go about rebuilding this city? What precautions do you take?
Hastert announced Thursday that the House, currently at the end of its summer break, would return for an emergency session Friday to approve some $10 billion in federal aid for hurricane victims.
In the wake of this disaster, the people of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida should know that the United States Congress stands ready to help them in their time of need, he said in a joint statement with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.
I feel better knowing Congress is smart enough to not believe BU_ _ SH _ _ twice from this farce of a president.
Roberts: Iraq Will Affect Future War Votes Experience With Faulty Data Has Made Senators More Wary, Panel Chairman Says
By Walter Pincus Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, November 14, 2005; A04
The Republican chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence said yesterday that one lesson of the faulty prewar intelligence on Iraq is that senators would take a hard look at intelligence before voting to go to war.
I think a lot of us would really stop and think a moment before we would ever vote for war or to go and take military action, Sen. Pat Roberts (Kan.) said on Fox News Sunday.
We don't accept this intelligence at face value anymore, he added. We get into preemptive oversight and do digging in regards to our hard targets.
He said that agreement has been reached on the Phase 2 review that the intelligence panel is doing to look into whether the Bush administration exaggerated or misused prewar intelligence. The review may not be finished this year, he said.
The intelligence panel vice chairman, Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), also appearing on Fox, called the review absolutely useful because if it is the fact that they [the Bush administration] created intelligence or shaped intelligence in order to bring American opinion along to support them in going to war, that's a really bad thing -- it should not ever be repeated.
Appearing on CNN's Late Edition, national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley said the White House is supporting the study, adding: I think that what you're going to find is that the statements by the administration had backing at the time from accepted intelligence sources.
He said that when administration statements turned out to be wrong, that was because the underlying intelligence was not true, but that's not the same as manipulating intelligence, and that is not misleading the American people.
Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), appearing with Roberts on Late Edition, said that Iraq became the center of terrorism after the March 2003 invasion.
I'm afraid we're going to see Iraq is not only the center of the war on terror, which it was not before we attacked Iraq, but now it is going to, I'm afraid, export it.
He added that Iraq has become the heartland of terrorism. It was not before we attacked.
Levin, a member of both the Senate intelligence committee and Armed Services Committee, has been a leading critic of the Bush administration's handling of the war.
Levin also said that the United States must get allies, as many as we can, including in the Muslim world because this is a form of fanatic Islam which has to be defeated by the moderate Islamic people.
In a column in yesterday's Washington Post, former senator John Edwards (N.C.), the Democratic vice presidential candidate in 2004, said the failures of the Bush administration turned Iraq into a far greater threat than it ever was. It is now a haven for terrorists [and] has made fighting the global war on terrorist organizations more difficult rather than less.
The president and his senior aides have said since before the invasion that Washington went to war primarily because Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was a threat to the United States and its neighbors because of his connection to terrorists. Once fighting began, they argued that Iraq was the central front in the battle against terrorism.
In his Veterans Day speech on Friday, the president turned his original argument around, saying, The terrorists regard Iraq as the central front in their war against humanity, and therefore, We must recognize Iraq as the central front in our war against the terrorists.
But give him ROOM FOR ACTION, without criticizing every little decision.
You know, he IS the future president, time to accept it and, as Kaydie's father states, to adapt to it.
Bush leaves legacy of 'Bushisms'
07:49 PM CST on Saturday, January 3, 2009
Associated Press
President George W. Bush will leave behind a legacy of Bushisms, the label stamped on the commander in chief's original speaking style. Some of the president's more notable malaprops and mangled statements:
-- "I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." -- September 2000, explaining his energy policies at an event in Michigan.
-- "Rarely is the question asked, is our children learning?" -- January 2000, during a campaign event in South Carolina.
-- "They misunderestimated the compassion of our country. I think they misunderestimated the will and determination of the commander in chief, too." -- Sept. 26, 2001, in Langley, Va. Bush was referring to the terrorists who carried out the Sept. 11 attacks.
-- "There's no doubt in my mind, not one doubt in my mind, that we will fail." -- Oct. 4, 2001, in Washington. Bush was remarking on a back-to-work plan after the terrorist attacks.
-- "It would be a mistake for the United States Senate to allow any kind of human cloning to come out of that chamber." -- April 10, 2002, at the White House, as Bush urged Senate passage of a broad ban on cloning.
-- "I want to thank the dozens of welfare-to-work stories, the actual examples of people who made the firm and solemn commitment to work hard to embetter themselves." -- April 18, 2002, at the White House.
-- "There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again." -- Sept. 17, 2002, in Nashville, Tenn.
-- "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." -- Aug. 5, 2004, at the signing ceremony for a defense spending bill.
-- "Too many good docs are getting out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country." -- Sept. 6, 2004, at a rally in Poplar Bluff, Mo.
-- "Our most abundant energy source is coal. We have enough coal to last for 250 years, yet coal also prevents an environmental challenge." -- April 20, 2005, in Washington.
-- "We look forward to hearing your vision, so we can more better do our job." -- Sept. 20, 2005, in Gulfport, Miss.
-- "I can't wait to join you in the joy of welcoming neighbors back into neighborhoods, and small businesses up and running, and cutting those ribbons that somebody is creating new jobs." -- Sept. 5, 2005, when Bush met with residents of Poplarville, Miss., in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.
-- "It was not always a given that the United States and America would have a close relationship. After all, 60 years ago we were at war." -- June 29, 2006, at the White House, where Bush met with Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi.
-- "Make no mistake about it, I understand how tough it is, sir. I talk to families who die." -- Dec. 7, 2006, in a joint appearance with British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
-- "These are big achievements for this country, and the people of Bulgaria ought to be proud of the achievements that they have achieved." -- June 11, 2007, in Sofia, Bulgaria.
-- "Mr. Prime Minister, thank you for your introduction. Thank you for being such a fine host for the OPEC summit." -- September 2007, in Sydney, Australia, where Bush was attending an APEC summit.
-- "Thank you, Your Holiness. Awesome speech." April 16, 2008, at a ceremony welcoming Pope Benedict XVI to the White House.
-- "The fact that they purchased the machine meant somebody had to make the machine. And when somebody makes a machine, it means there's jobs at the machine-making place." -- May 27, 2008, in Mesa, Ariz.
-- "And they have no disregard for human life." -- July 15, 2008, at the White House. Bush was referring to enemy fighters in Afghanistan.
-- "I remember meeting a mother of a child who was abducted by the North Koreans right here in the Oval Office." -- June 26, 2008, during a Rose Garden news briefing.
-- "Throughout our history, the words of the Declaration have inspired immigrants from around the world to set sail to our shores. These immigrants have helped transform 13 small colonies into a great and growing nation of more than 300 people." -- July 4, 2008 in Virginia.
-- "The people in Louisiana must know that all across our country there's a lot of prayer -- prayer for those whose lives have been turned upside down. And I'm one of them. It's good to come down here." -- Sept. 3, 2008, at an emergency operations center in Baton Rouge, La., after Hurricane Gustav hit the Gulf Coast.
-- "This thaw -- took a while to thaw, it's going to take a while to unthaw." Oct. 20, 2008, in Alexandria, La., as he discussed the economy and frozen credit markets.
Bush didn't destroy Iraq. He helped to liberate Iraq.
m
Bush is not responsible for New Orleans' plight
Their wonderful mayor is and he loves it and still loves it. Bush didn't cause Katrina; sorry but you obviusly needed to hear that. Bush didn't cause all those folks to be standing around screaming for the government to help them. Now, on the other hand, their previous mayor WAS DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for much of the disaster that took place afterwards and before. Why didn't he fix the levy with the 60 million dollars he was given years ago? Why isn't the citizens of New Orleans having a pissfit over that? I'll tell you why........because he's a black mayor. Bush had nothing to do with their situation, just like Obama would have had nothing to do wiht their situation. Mayor Ray Negan had LOTS to do with it. The only reason he wants everyone to come back and live there is because the more moochers living there, the more federal money, i.e., MY MONEY and YOURS, he will receive to once again squander away just like he has done for years.
They needed a new charity hospital; he could have built several with all the billions he has received but he didn't. Didn't hear any of those poor folks yelling about that did ya? No! They go for the white guy in power, which was Bush. Now, if that had been Obama, you would not have heard all the screaming and preaching about the big bad President.
On the other hand, the ones really hit hard by Katrina, the gulf coast of Mississippi, where was all their help? Why weren't they standing in the streets blaming the president for their plight? Because they were folks who worked for a living and never thought for a minute a human being cause a hurricane! They got up and got to work clearing and doing what they could until help came, which by the way should have been them first but it was those screaming in the streets down in New Orleans. Katrina hit the Mississippi gulf coast the hardest, a direct blow!
Your president only cares about killing people in Iraq.
That's first and foremost in his mind, and Americans can go to hell, as far as he's concerned.
He thinks the war is more important than anything, including funding of projects to prevent a hurricane from destroying vulnerables, including funding border patrols, including forcing Americans to go broke just because they want to stay warm in the winter.
I overheard a conversation last night in a store. A woman was complaining of gas prices and said she didn't know if she'd be able to afford to heat her home this winter. Another woman told her about Jessie Jackson and his visit to Chavez and Chavez' offer to help low-income Americans with heating fuel.
This woman (who reminded me very much of some of you who post here, always in attack mode) said she and her children would FREEZE before she'd take any welfare from a communist. She then went on a tirade about the kind of people who receive welfare (not fit to print on a public forum like this). I was shocked, and the first three things that popped in my mind were Jim Jones, David Koresh and PEOPLE LIKE YOU.
Is there any length you people WON'T go to to defend this idiot president who doesn't care enough about YOU to make gasoline and heating oil affordable?
I would like to call him "The Hitler of the 21st Century". Any comments?
Bush: It's bad in Iraq....sm (no you think?)
Is democratic house and senate control what Bush needed to wise up about Iraq. I'm glad to see he's considering other options in Iraq, than policing the country indefinitely.
-----------------------------------------
(AP) President Bush, admitting that it's bad in Iraq, acknowledged Thursday that the United States needs a new approach in the unpopular war and promised to unveil details in an upcoming speech.
Bush said he was disappointed in the progress in Iraq, but continued to oppose direct U.S. talks with Iran or Syria and remained steadfastly committed to spreading democracy across the Middle East.
One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line. - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. - President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction. - Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998
He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983. - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs. Letter to President Clinton. - (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998
Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process. - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies. - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them. - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country. - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power. - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction. - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons... - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security. - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction. - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real... - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
Still think Bush lied?
bush tried to connect 9/11 and iraq
I disagree cause Cheney has many times stated that 9/11 and Iraq were linked up together..And...if we need to get rid of the nutcases, why werent we and why arent we focused on getting the head of the nutcases..bin laden? Why did we lose focus three years ago and let him live and build up his army against America? Listen very carefully and open your eyes..WE INVADED IRAQ FOR OIL, LOGISTICS..I.E., AN AMERICAN BASE IN THE MIDDLE EAST FOR OIL AND PROTECTION OF ISRAEL..WE INVADED FOR CONTROL OF THE MIDDLE EAST..Something we would never have agreed to, to send our children to die for this stupid idiotic asinine idea but, however, this lying murderous administration linked it up with 9/11 and most Americans (not me I state proudly) went along with it cause they were still hurting from 9/11 and wanted revenge..I have three republican friends who were so for the war and wanting to blow away anyone possibly connected..Now all three agree with me and also agree Bush is a monster and America is on the wrong track.
Fox News is pro-Bush, pro-war in Iraq. sm
There may be a few reports on that broadcast that play devil's advocate for the other side, but all in all they lean more to the right on most issues.
Bush: All or nothing with booze and with Iraq = Dysfunctional
MSNBC.com
Murtha’s Moment The White House is still attacking critics by questioning their patriotism. But Congress—and the public—are becoming more skeptical.
Nov. 18, 1005 - Pennsylvania Democrat John Murtha is a burly ex-Marine with a Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts who rarely speaks to the press. But he came out of the shadows Thursday to call for a complete pullout from Iraq within six months. “Our military has done everything that’s been asked of them. It is time to bring them home,” he said. Murtha’s hawkish record on military matters made his announcement all the more surprising. “It’s like George W. Bush saying he wants to raise taxes,” says Lawrence Korb, a defense analyst who served in the Reagan administration.
Democrats gave Murtha a standing ovation behind closed doors, but most kept their distance in public. “It’s a trap,” explained a Democratic strategist. “If the party comes out for a unilateral six-month withdrawal, that would become the issue for ’06, and they [Republicans] would kill us again.”
Administration officials were less reticent. A White House statement said Murtha was “endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic party.” Indeed, the election campaign tactics are back in all but name, with the president and the vice president attacking critics by questioning their patriotism. The strategy may rally some of the Republican base. However, the broader public has made up its mind about this administration’s credibility, and Murtha isn’t the only member of Congress paying attention.
We learned in Vietnam that in a democracy you can’t sustain a war without public support, and time is running out for the Iraq war. Senate Republicans joined with Democrats to demand accountability on the progress of the war, a meaningless gesture in the sense it requires the administration to do nothing other than supply quarterly reports. But it signals the first cracks in the Republican coalition, and it emboldens Democrats to keep up their drumbeat assailing the credibility of the leaders who took us into a war we can’t win and don’t know how to end.
Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel, for example, defends the right of critics to question and criticize their government and its policies. Hagel served in Vietnam, which he says was “a lie at the beginning.” He explained in an interview aired last weekend on C-Span how his views about Vietnam were altered when he learned how his government falsified information in order to win congressional approval for the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which gave President Lyndon Johnson the authority to prosecute the war unchecked. “And so we have now pretty much come to the same place,” he said, meaning our government committed us to military action based on bits and pieces of evidence that bolstered its case for war. Hagel did have qualms about the invasion, but he voted for the resolution that gave President Bush a blank check for war with Iraq. Now that we’re there, he says, “We cannot allow this to become a 1975 when we took the last remnants of our influence out on a helicopter on top of the U.S. Embassy in Saigon.”
There is a parallel with Vietnam in the falsehoods advanced by government to rally congressional support and public opinion for war. Take the ongoing controversy over exactly what happened in the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964. Although analysts on the scene radioed back to Washington that there was no cause for alarm, President Johnson and Defense Secretary Robert McNamara glossed over doubts about a second attack on American ships and trumpeted the alleged expansion of the war by the North Vietnamese to rally Congress and the American people to escalate a war that had been losing public support. Sen. William Fulbright, one of only two senators to oppose the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, said in a speech on the Senate floor, “We will rue this day.”
Johnson and McNamara perpetrated an untruth for the larger good of increasing American firepower in the war, which they believed would deal a decisive blow to the enemy. Fifty-eight thousand American soldiers lost their lives in that senseless conflict. Does the fact that their political leaders thought they were acting in good faith at the time excuse the deception? President Bush and Vice President Cheney accuse Democrats of “rewriting history” by objecting to a war they voted for and claiming they were misled. But the information presented to lawmakers was selective, and efforts to learn more were stymied. Democratic Rep. Shelley Berkeley recalls being invited to a pre-war briefing at the White House with Bush and Cheney. When she expressed concern about Israel’s security in the event of a war, Cheney told her not to worry, that the administration knew where the missiles were that could reach Israel, and the U.S. military would go in and get them first thing. Using a pointer, he showed her the location on a map. Berkeley voted for the war in part because of false information.
Was this conscious deception? Should Bush and Cheney get a pass because they believed a show of strength in Iraq would serve U.S. interests? If Bush wants to retrieve his credibility, he should call off the attack dogs and make a televised speech to the American people conceding that the certainty he presented about weapons of mass destruction was not there, and that the administration relied on a single source, aptly named “Curveball,” who was later discredited. Bush can then present his case--what he saw, why he acted, and why he still believes he did the right thing.
Bush won’t give that speech because he can’t tolerate ambiguity. It’s part of his personality. He gave up drinking cold turkey, and it’s all or nothing. He demands simplicity, and he equates dissent with disloyalty. The result is a White House that has become dysfunctional.
Like George did, the new generation of Bushes let other Americans do the dying for them.
Bush has derided the mothers and fathers of our nation's war dead for not wanting any more young American men and women to die in Iraq. We owe them [the already killed and wounded soldiers] something, he told veterans in Salt Lake City (even though his administration tried to shortchange the veterans agency by $1.5 billion, according to Maureen Dowd). We will finish the task that they gave their lives for.
BUSH EXTENDED FAMILY PHOTO taken January 20, 2005
Yet, not one -- not one -- of any of Bush's children or his nieces and nephews have volunteered for service in any branch of the military or volunteered to serve in any capacity in Iraq. Not one of them has felt the cause was noble enough to put his or her life on the line.
Here is the full list of the children of Bush and his siblings who have chosen to let other young men and women -- mostly poor, rural and minorities -- die for them, because they have no desire to die for George W. Bush's alleged noble cause (assuming an eligible age of 17 with parental consent to join the military):
Military Service Eligible Children of George W. Bush Jenna Bush Barbara Bush
Military Service Eligible Children of Jeb Bush George P. Bush Noelle Bush John Ellis Bush Jr.
Military Service Eligible Children of Neil Bush Lauren Bush Pierce Bush
Military Service Eligible Children of Marvin Bush Marshall Bush
Military Service Eligible Children of Dorothy Bush Koch Samuel LeBlond Ellie LeBlond
Furthermore, not one of George's siblings served in the military when they were eligible, and Bush got a cozy stateside position in the Texas Air National Guard to avoid risking his life in another noble war, Vietnam.
Why do George W. Bush, his siblings, and their children think that the war is noble enough for kids like Casey Sheehan to die in, but not them?
Sign this petition, demanding that the Bush sibling children serve in George's noble war or he must bring the troops home now. Because if it's not noble enough for the Bush family to risk their lives fighting for, it's just a disastrous graveyard for poor and middle class Americans, dug deep to advance Bush's partisan agenda.
Bush can be brave with other people's children, because he has nothing personally to risk.
Bush tell your daughters they are needed in Iraq for a *noble* cause
Oh really, going off the deep end, LOL..by asking Bush and his daughters and other young people in his family to sign up for duty in Iraq since the Bush family thinks it is so important and the *Noble* thing to do? And Im going off the deep end, LOL. You are so silly sometimes in your posts. I see nothing wrong in asking the chickenhawk warmongers to urge their children to join up..after all our country is fighting a *war on terrorism*..or..wait a minute..what is the new saying the WH is throwing out there..*a global war on extremists*..or....oh geez..I need to start writing down the reasons for our blood shed in Iraq..I cant remember all the reasons why we pre-emptively invaded Iraq..Cant keep up with the spin cycle of the WH..
Chavez Takes Bush to Task Over Iraq War
See link
Bush Lays Groundwork for Iraq Pullout
We noted last week that even as President Bush rejected a pullout from Iraq, the Pentagon was planning for a major withdrawl of troops. Now, the Los Angeles Times says Bush will give a major speech on Wednesday in which aides say he is expected to herald the improved readiness of Iraqi troops, which he has identified as the key condition for pulling out U.S. forces.
The administration's pivot on the issue comes as the White House is seeking to relieve enormous pressure by war opponents. The camp includes liberals, moderates and old-line conservatives who are uneasy with the costly and uncertain nation-building effort... The developments seemed to lay the groundwork for potentially large withdrawals in 2006 and 2007, consistent with scenarios outlined by Pentagon planners.
http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/delegates.htm (a conservative site, no less!)
President Bush has decided to stay out of the lion's share of decisions made by his administration.
Sources close to the administration said that over the last year, Mr. Bush has chosen to focus on two issues, leaving the rest to be decided by Cabinet members and senior aides. They said the issues are Iraq and the Republican congressional campaign in the 2006 elections.
Lots of important issues that deal with national security are never brought to the president because he doesn't want to deal with them, a source familiar with the White House said. In some cases, this has resulted in chaos.
The White House has acknowledged that Mr. Bush was not informed of the administration’s decision to approve a $6.85 billion takeover by the United Arab Emirates of a British firm that operates at least six major ports in the United States. The decision triggered a public firestorm and strong bipartisan opposition on Capitol Hill. This prompted the Dubai-owned company last week to bail on its bid to operate terminals in U.S. ports.
Vice President Dick Cheney also was not informed of the approval of the port takeover by the state-owned Dubai Ports World. The process was administered by the Treasury Department-aligned Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which sparked opposition from most of the Republican leadership in Congress.
My take on this is that the president relied on his CFIUS board, this Committee on Foreign Investment; that they did a superficial scrub on this, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter said on March 7.
They've been trained to be more of a business, or more of an arm of the administration which is designed to expedite or to shape acquisitions so that they can take place rather than to stop acquisitions, said Mr. Hunter, California Republican.
The sources said Mr. Bush's lack of involvement on most issues has led to numerous errors in judgment. They said the DP World episode was handled by the Treasury and Commerce departments. From there, the proposed sale was meant to have been relayed through the National Security Council for a White House decision.
It should have gone to Karl Rove and then gone up the chain, the source said. For some reason, it didn't. I don't think people understood how important this was in terms of both national security and politics.
Mr. Hunter and other members of the House Armed Services Committee were shocked over how little White House staffers knew of the security record of the UAE, cited in testimony to the 9/11 commission as having withheld cooperation regarding al Qaeda in 1999. Last week, Mr. Hunter and Rep. Jim Saxton, New Jersey Republican, brought evidence of how the UAE port of Dubai allowed shipments of nuclear components as well as heavy water and a precursor to nerve gas to countries such as Iran, Libya and Pakistan.
In 2003, Mr. Hunter said, Dubai allowed the shipment of 66 high-speed electrical switches designed to trigger and detonate nuclear weapons. He said Dubai rejected a U.S. request to stop the shipment.
The point is that if you are an outlaw regime, and you want to develop a nuclear weapons program, you have your components transshipped through Dubai, Mr. Hunter said. Dubai is a master at masking both the recipient of illegitimate weapons systems and the party that is sending, developing, selling those illegitimate weapons systems. I don't think those are the folks you want to have running your ports.
Neither Mr. Bush nor any of his aides ordered a change in CFIUS deliberations that would stress the security aspect of any foreign investments or operations in the United States. Mr. Saxton said the 9/11 attacks by al Qaeda had virtually no affect on the process.
The current system was designed, from what we can understand, to encourage foreign investment in our country, Mr. Saxton said. And 9/11 changed a lot of things, and CFIUS didn't change. And I guess it changed in some respects. We added a representative from the Department of Homeland Security, but it was still under the leadership of the Department of the Treasury. And so the mission of CFIUS remains pre-9/11, while the situation in post-9/11 is much different.
Washington Post Staff Writers Friday, May 26, 2006; Page A01
President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair last night acknowledged a series of errors in managing the occupation of Iraq that have made the conflict more difficult and more damaging to the U.S. image abroad, even as they insisted that enough progress has been made that other nations should support the nascent Iraqi government.
In a joint news conference, Bush said he had used inappropriate tough talk -- such as saying bring 'em on in reference to insurgents -- that he said sent the wrong signal to people. He also said the biggest mistake for the United States was the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, in which guards photographed themselves sexually tormenting Iraqi prisoners, spawning revulsion worldwide. We've been paying for that for a long period of time, he said.
Blair, who visited Baghdad this week, said he and Bush should have recognized that the fall of president Saddam Hussein would not be the rise of a democratic Iraq, that it was going to be a more difficult process because you're talking about literally building the institutions of a state from scratch.
While Bush increasingly has begun to acknowledge missteps in handling the war, his comments last night -- together with Blair's -- represent his most explicit acknowledgment that the administration underestimated the difficulty of the central project of his presidency
Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, November 23, 2005; Page A03
CHICAGO, Nov. 22 -- Sen. Barack Obama said President Bush should admit mistakes in waging the Iraq war and reduce the number of troops stationed there in the next year. But the Illinois Democrat, a longtime opponent of the war, said U.S. forces remain part of a solution in the bitterly divided country and should not be withdrawn immediately.
Without citing specific numbers, Obama called for a limited drawdown of U.S. troops that would push the fragile Iraqi government to take more responsibility while deploying enough American soldiers to prevent the country from exploding into civil war or ethnic cleansing or a haven for terrorism.
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) greets well-wishers at the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations after he said the administration has not given straight answers to critical questions on Iraq. (By Jeff Roberson -- Associated Press)
Obama also faulted the administration for tarring its critics as unpatriotic naysayers and said it launched the war to topple Saddam Hussein in March 2003 without giving either Congress or the American people the full story.
Straight answers to critical questions. That's what we don't have right now, the high-profile freshman senator told the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations. Members of both parties and the American people have now made clear that it is simply not enough for the president to simply say 'We know best' and 'Stay the course.'
As other Democrats are finding their voice against Iraq policy, Obama took an approach closer to one taken by Senate Foreign Relations Committee colleague Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) than to that of Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.). Murtha, a former Marine, called last week for an immediate pullout of nearly 160,000 U.S. troops.
Four prospective Democratic presidential candidates -- Biden, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.) and former North Carolina senator John Edwards -- have advocated a more gradual approach, with no sudden steps. Biden called Monday for the withdrawal of 50,000 troops by the end of next year and all but 20,000 to 40,000 out by January 2008.
Obama told the audience of about 500 people that the war has siphoned assets from homeland security and the global anti-terrorism fight. He said the administration's attempt to equate the defeat of the Iraqi insurgency with the defeat of international terrorism is overly narrow and dangerously short-sighted.
In a 35-minute speech scheduled just days ago, Obama argued that public opinion has raced ahead of politicians in seeking a clearly etched policy that helps produce stability in Iraq and the Middle East without exposing the United States to a war without end -- a war where our goals and our strategies drift aimlessly, regardless of the cost in lives or dollars spent.
Those of us in Washington have fallen behind the debate that is taking place across America on Iraq. We are failing to provide leadership on this issue, Obama said.
He maintained that Bush could take politics out of the Iraq discussion once and for all if he would simply go on television and say to the American people: 'Yes, we made mistakes. Yes, there are things I would have done differently. But now that I'm here, I'm willing to work with both Republicans and Democrats to find the most responsible way out.'
Well it didn't take a rocket scientist to know that this mess was not going to get cleaned up on his watch.
This statement alone lets you know Bush is out of touch and in his own bubble. * There's a certain unease as you head into an election year, he said.* Of course GOP unrest has a lot to do with the election year because they know they will have to answer to the people on election day, not Bush.
Bush says "progress is uneven" in Iraq, but accentuates positive evidence and mostly ignores the negative.
June 30, 2005
Standing before a crowd of uniformed soldiers, President Bush addressed the nation on June 27 to reaffirm America's commitment to the global war on terrorism. But throughout the speech Bush continually stated his opinions and conclusions as though they were facts, and he offered little specific evidence to support his assertions.
Here we provide some additional context, both facts that support Bush's case that "we have made significant progress" in Iraq, as well as some of the negative evidence he omitted.
Analysis
Bush's prime-time speech at Fort Bragg, NC coincided with the one-year anniversary of the handover of soverignty to Iraqi authorities. It was designed to lay out America's role in Iraq amid sinking public support for the war and calls by some lawmakers to withdraw troops.
The Bloodshed
Bush acknowledged the high level of violence in Iraq as he sought to reassure the public.
Bush: The work in Iraq is difficult and dangerous. Like most Americans, I see the images of violence and bloodshed. Every picture is horrifying and the suffering is real. Amid all this violence, I know Americans ask the question: Is the sacrifice worth it?
What Bush did not mention is that by most measures the violence is getting worse. Both April and May were record months in Iraq for car bombings, for example, with more than 135 of them being set off each month. And the bombings are getting more deadly. May was a record month for deaths from bombings, with 381 persons killed in "multiple casualty" bombings that took two or more lives, according to figures collected by the Brookings Institution in its "Iraq Index." The Brookings index is compiled from a variety of sources including official government statistics, where those are available, and other public sources such as news accounts and statements of Iraqi government officials.
The number of Iraqi police and military who have been killed is also rising, reaching 296 so far in June, nearly triple the 109 recorded in January and 103 in Febrary, according to a tally of public information by the website Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, a private group that documents each fatality from public statements and news reports. Estimates of the total number of Iraqi civilians killed each month as a result of "acts of war" have been rising as well, according to the Brookings index.
The trend is also evident in year-to-year figures. In the past twelve months, there have been 25% more U.S. troop fatalities and nearly double the average number of insurgent attacks per day as there were in the preceeding 12 months.
Reconstruction Progress
In talking about Iraqi reconstruction, Bush highlighted the positive and omitted the negative:
Bush: We continued our efforts to help them rebuild their country. . . . Our progress has been uneven but progress is being made. We are improving roads and schools and health clinics and working to improve basic services like sanitation, electricity and water. And together with our allies, we will help the new Iraqi government deliver a better life for its citizens.
Indeed, the State Department's most recent Iraq Weekly Status Report shows progress is uneven. Education is a positive; official figures show 3,056 schools have been rehabilitated and millions of "student kits" have been distributed to primary and secondary schools. School enrollments are increasing. And there are also 145 new primary healthcare centers currently under construction. The official figures show 78 water treatment projects underway, nearly half of them completed, and water utility operators are regularly trained in two-week courses.
On the negative side, however, State Department figures show overall electricity production is barely above pre-war levels. Iraqis still have power only 12 hours daily on average.
Iraqis are almost universally unhappy about that. Fully 96 percent of urban Iraqis said they were dissatisfied when asked about "the availability of electricity in your neighborhood." That poll was conducted in February for the U.S. military, and results are reported in Brookings' "Iraq Index." The same poll also showed that 20 percent of Iraqi city-dwellers still report being without water to their homes.
Conclusions or Facts?
The President repeatedly stated his upbeat conclusions as though they were facts. For example, he said of "the terrorists:"
Bush: They failed to break our coalition and force a mass withdrawal by our allies. They failed to incite an Iraqi civil war.
In fact, there have been withdrawals by allies.Spain pulled out its 1,300 soldiers in April, and Honduras brought home its 370 troops at the same time. The Philippines withdrew its 51 troops last summer to save the life of a Filipino hostage held captive for eight months inIraq. Ukraine has already begun a phased pullout of its 1,650-person contingent, which the Defense Ministry intends to complete by the end of the year. Both theNetherlands and Italy have announced plans to withdraw their troops, and the Bulgarian parliament recently granted approval to bring home its 450 soldiers. Poland, supplying the third-largest contingent in the coalition after Italy's departure, has backed off a plan for full withdrawal of troops due to the success of Iraqi elections and talks with Condoleezza Rice, but the Polish Press Agency announced in June that the next troop rotation will have 200 fewer soldiers.
Bush is of course entitled to argue that these withdrawals don't constitute a "mass" withdrawal, but an argument isn't equivalent to a fact.
The same goes for Bush's statement there's no "civil war" going on. In fact, some believe that what's commonly called the "insurgency" already is a "civil war" or something very close to it. For example, in an April 30 piece, the Times of London quotes Colonel Salem Zajay, a police commander in Southern Baghdad, as saying, "The war is not between the Iraqis and the Americans. It is between the Shia and the Sunni." Again, Bush is entitled to state his opinion to the contrary, but stating a thing doesn't make it so.
Terrorism
Similarly, Bush equated Iraqi insurgents with terrorists who would attack the US if they could.
Bush: There is only one course of action against them: to defeat them abroad before they attack us at home. . . . Our mission in Iraq is clear. We are hunting down the terrorists .
Despite a few public claims to the contrary, however, no solid evidence has surfaced linking Iraq to attacks on the United States, and Bush offered none in his speech. The 9/11 Commission issued a staff report more than a year ago saying "so far we have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States." It said Osama bin Laden made a request in 1994 to establish training camps in Iraq, but "but Iraq apparently never responded." That was before bin Laden was ejected from Sudan and moved his operation to Afghanistan.
Bush laid stress on the "foreign" or non-Iraqi elements in the insurgency as evidence that fighting in Iraq might prevent future attacks on the US:
Bush: I know Americans ask the question: Is the sacrifice worth it? It is worth it, and it is vital to the future security of our country . And tonight I will explain the reasons why. Some of the violence you see in Iraq is being carried out by ruthless killers who are converging on Iraq to fight the advance of peace and freedom. Our military reports that we have killed or captured hundreds of foreign fighters in Iraq who have come from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Egypt, Sudan, Yemen, Libya and other nations.
But Bush didn't mention that the large majority of insurgents are Iraqis, not foreigners. The overall strength of the insurgency has been estimated at about 16,000 persons. The number of foreign fighters in Iraq is only about 1,000, according to estimates reported by the Brookings Institution. The exact number is of course impossible to know. However, over the course of one week during the major battle for Fallujah in November of 2004, a Marine official said that only about 2% of those detained were foreigners. To be sure, Brookings notes that "U.S. military believe foreign fighters are responsible for the majority of suicide bombings in Iraq," with perhaps as many as 70 percent of bombers coming from Saudi Arabia alone. It is anyone's guess how many of those Saudi suicide bombers might have attempted attacks on US soil, but a look at the map shows that a Saudi jihadist can drive across the border to Baghdad much more easily than getting nearly halfway around the world to to the US.
Osama bin Laden
Bush quoted a recent tape-recorded message by bin Laden as evidence that the Iraq conflict is "a central front in the war on terror":
Bush: Hear the words of Osama bin Laden: "This Third World War is raging" in Iraq..."The whole world is watching this war." He says it will end in "victory and glory or misery and humiliation."
However, Bush passed over the fact that the relationship between bin Laden and the Iraqi insurgents – to the extent one existed at all before – grew much closer after the US invaded Iraq. Insurgent leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi did not announce his formal allegiance with bin Laden until October, 2004. It was only then that Zarqawi changed the name of his group from "Unification and Holy War Group" to "al Qaeda in Iraq."
In summary, we found nothing false in what Bush said, only that his facts were few and selective.
--by Brooks Jackson & Jennifer L. Ernst
Researched by Matthew Barge, Kevin Collins & Jordan Grossman
President Bush
Surely you don't mean that. I think in years to come we will be sorry we thought such thoughts. Time will tell, maybe long after he is president. Will we apologize for attacking him or will we try and justify why we thought the way we did. He is a good president. Like the rest of us, he is not perfect. He is faithful to his family, and that should speak volumes.
Bush as president, OMG
I hear ya, Lurker. When Bush first ran, I warned friends, this guy will ruin America, he is a dummy. Well, he got into office..I dont believe legally..I truly believe the vote was fixed. I have read the conclusion by the University of Chicago which did a recount and Gore would have gotten in..But,. however, we had the Supreme Court Five who decided all of our fates..Anyway, when Bush was running once again, I could not believe it..I warned my friends, family, anyone I could speak to..do not vote this guy in..He will destroy America and the world..Now, Im sitting here, three years to go with Bush and Im watching it come to reality..I fear what the next three years have to hold..God help us all.
You mean thanks for nothing President Bush!
The largest terrorist attack on US soil happened on George Bush's watch. He has done nothing positive during the past 8 years. He has created wars that have killed and maimed thousands and thousands of innocent people in countries in which we had no business being, and he is leaving the United States in financial shambles.
It's working, too!! So far, American citizens have donated a whopping $39.00!!
New twist on aid for Iraq: U.S. seeks donations
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.
I may not agree with some of the things that have occurred over the past eight years, but it is a fact. He has kept us safe since 9/11, and has been ever vigilante on his watch, with his policies he has put in place for the safety of our country, here at home.
Thank you, Mr. President. God bless you and yours.
President Bush owes me no apology.
He has my profound gratitude for keeping us safe since 9/11. Nuff said.
No matter how you feel about President Bush, he at least
deserves respect. These crappy posts calling him all sorts of names, slurs, etc. is unbecoming of an American citizen. Is this just because you're democrats or just because you have no couth?
Bush is not running for president...nice try.
As far as JOhn McCain's birthday...is there some law or moral wrong to eating cake on your birthday? Where was Obama when katrina hit? What was he eating?
First, Ray Nagin refused to make evacuation mandatory until a full 24 hours after he was asked to do so. He is the first line of defense for his city. He dropped the ball. I don't see you ragging him here. Second, the President expected FEMA to do its job. Just like Barack Obama would have done.
However...this is a nonissue. George Bush is not running.
Again...John McCain's birthday, and yes, he was eating cake. I want to know where Obama was, and what he was eating.
Neither President Bush or the VP are attending the convention....
Laura Bush will be representing him. I think there will be some kind of satellite link thing from him. I am sure this was expected by most of us. It is in doubt whether John McCain will. He and Sarah Palin are going to Mississippi today at the request of Gov. Haley Barbour to look at their MEMA plans and procedures.
Throwing Shoes at President Bush
I just saw a story on Headline News Network about the shoe-throwing incident, and they said the people of Iraq are divided on how they feel about it, but nobody feels it was wrong, half of them think it was the right thing to do and half think it was an embarrassment but not necessarily the wrong thing to do.
so if they feel that way, let's bring our precious sons and daughters home, and never go back. Our finances are in crisis, we can't afford to be spending billions where we're not wanted. What's the point of being there and spending all this money we could be using in much better ways. Why keep risking the lives of our troops for people who don't appreciate it at all? I'm no political genius, far from it, but plain old common sense says this is just wrong!
President Bush's strength of character.....sm
was tested this weekend, when two shoes were hurled at his head in fast succession, while the owner of said shoes, (size 10, by the way, per our prez), had hoped they would hit him, not to mention embarass with the intended podiatric insult.
However, President Bush showed great strength of character in the aftermath of said attack, calling off the secret service, and making light of the matter.
Somebody has to pay for 9/11. Somebody has to pay for the USS Cole. The right people are locked up. Excuse me for not crying about their civil rights or worrying about how they are interrogated. National security is why President Bush locked those terrorists up, national security and justice.
And I do have a grip -- a firm grip on reality. I don't live in Obama-land.
Trying to rehab the terrorists who haven't killed yet and releasing them is better than just letting them all go and dropping charges against the ones who have murdered.
And obviously Bush made his point -- you can't rehab terrorists, you can't reason with them, you can't make peace with them.
I'm surprised Dubya didn't attend this since he recently told Larry King that Lay was such a *good guy.*
Friends remember Lay at memorial service
By KRISTEN HAYS, AP Business WriterWed Jul 12, 7:17 PM ET
Enron Corp. founder Kenneth Lay was a high-powered businessman, philanthropist and family man who didn't succumb to despair despite the scandal that destroyed his company and left him a vilified felon, friends and family members said at a memorial service Wednesday where mourners included former President George Bush.
Lay's 90-minute service drew some of the high-profile guests who were close to him before he was convicted in May of fraud and conspiracy for lying to investors and the public about the energy company's financial health. Enron collapsed in late 2001.
Neither the Bushes nor former Secretary of State James Baker III, Houston Astros owner Drayton McLane Jr. and noted heart surgeon Denton Cooley spoke. The Bushes sat directly behind Lay's wife, Linda.
Instead, Lay's family and friends sought to show a kinder view of him than had been seen publicly since the company's collapse. Some expressed bitterness over their — and Lay's — steadfast belief that he was wrongly convicted in one of the biggest corporate frauds in history.
I am angry because of the way he was treated in the last five years of his life, and I think I'll leave it there, leave it at that, said Lay's stepson, David Herrold, who attended much of the four-month trial.
I am glad he's not in a position anymore to be whipped by his enemy, Herrold said to the hundreds in attendance at Houston's First United Methodist Church, which Lay attended for 12 years.
His mother, Linda Lay, dabbed tears with a handkerchief.
Lay died of heart disease July 5 in Aspen, Colo., where he was vacationing with his wife. About 200 friends and family, including his co-defendant, former Enron chief executive Jeffrey Skilling, attended a small memorial service there on Sunday.
But Skilling decided not to attend Wednesday's service because of heavy media coverage, said his attorney, Daniel Petrocelli. His wife, former Enron corporate secretary Rebecca Carter, attended both services.
As guests entered the sanctuary, they passed a framed photo of a smiling Lay wearing a red Enron T-shirt, blue athletic shorts and gym shoes. Two large bouquets of sunflowers sat on either side of the pulpit, while two burning candles sat on each side of an open Bible in the center.
The Rev. Bill Lawson, prominent pastor of the African-American Wheeler Avenue Baptist Church in Houston, said the Lay he knew wasn't the target of late-night TV jokes or a pariah. Lawson called Lay a victim of a lynching and praised mourners for staying friends with him through the scandal.
The folks who don't like him have had their say. I'd like to have mine and I don't care what you think about it, he said, eliciting brief applause. Now his grandchildren won't ask, `Why is Papia in jail?' No more persecution. That is behind him, Lawson said.
Lawson evoked leaders who he said were vilified in life but vindicated by history, including the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., John F. Kennedy and our Lord Jesus Christ.
Minutes before Wednesday's service began, shrieks pierced the sanctuary as Lay friend and former Houston Mayor Bob Lanier, 81, collapsed in an aisle. Carter and Lawson comforted Lanier's distraught wife, Elyse, before paramedics whisked him to a hospital, where was in stable condition with an irregular heartbeat.
Lay and Skilling were the faces of Enron throughout the company's meteoric rise from a stodgy pipeline company to a powerhouse energy trader.
Their reputations shattered alongside the company as their images switched from business visionaries to perpetrators of fraud that fueled a spectacular crash that evaporated $60 billion in market value and left thousands jobless.
A jury convicted Lay of six counts of fraud and conspiracy and Skilling of 19 of 28 counts of fraud, conspiracy, insider trading and lying to auditors. Lay also was convicted of bank fraud and lying to banks in a separate, non-jury trial related to his personal banking.
Lay died awaiting their Oct. 23 sentencing, and his lawyers are expected to ask a judge to erase his conviction because his death left his case unfinished. Skilling still faces sentencing on that date and could be ordered to serve decades in prison.
Beau Herrold, another Lay stepson who manages the family's finances, read from a letter he had begun writing to U.S. District Judge Sim Lake that he intended to deliver before Lay's sentencing.
In the letter, he described Lay as a devoted husband, father, grandfather and brother who always found a way to make time for family. Lay is survived by his wife, children, two sisters and 12 grandchildren.
___
Associated Press photographers David Phillip and Pat Sullivan, viedographer Rich Matthews and writer Chris Duncan contributed to this report.
I would be interested in hearing that. One quote from the article:
The debate should be uncensored in order for the American people to be able to listen to what we say and they should not restrict the American people from hearing the truth.
marks the location of current message within thread
MSNBC.com
