Bush, George Walker
From Bwtm
George Walker Bush (born July 6, 1946) is the current President of the United States and a former governor of Texas. He is currently in his second and final term as president, which runs until January 20, 2009.
George Bush is the son of former President George H. W. Bush; brother of the current governor of Florida, Jeb Bush, grandson of former U.S. Senator Prescott Bush, and is the second president to be the son of a former United States president (the first was John Quincy Adams).
Bush was elected the 46th governor of Texas in 1994 and re-elected in 1998 as a member of the Republican Party. He won the nomination of the Republican Party for the 2000 presidential race and was appointed over Democratic Vice President Al Gore in a close, disputed election, the legal contests for which ended with the Supreme Court decision Bush v. Gore. In 2004, Bush was barely elected to a second presidential term, defeating John Kerry, the junior Democratic Senator from Massachusetts in an election that was rigged in the state of Ohio.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush
Contents |
Mission Accomplished Speech
Remarks by President Bush announcing the end of major combat operations in Iraq Thursday evening from the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln:
Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.
In this battle, we have fought for the cause of liberty, and for the peace of the world. Our nation and our coalition are proud of this accomplishment — yet it is you, the members of the United States military, who achieved it. Your courage — your willingness to face danger for your country and for each other — made this day possible. Because of you, our nation is more secure. Because of you, the tyrant has fallen, and Iraq is free.
Operation Iraqi Freedom was carried out with a combination of precision, and speed, and boldness the enemy did not expect, and the world had not seen before. From distant bases or ships at sea, we sent planes and missiles that could destroy an enemy division, or strike a single bunker. Marines and soldiers charged to Baghdad across 350 miles of hostile ground, in one of the swiftest advances of heavy arms in history. You have shown the world the skill and the might of the American Armed Forces.
This nation thanks all of the members of our coalition who joined in a noble cause. We thank the Armed Forces of the United Kingdom, Australia, and Poland, who shared in the hardships of war. We thank all of the citizens of Iraq who welcomed our troops and joined in the liberation of their own country. And tonight, I have a special word for Secretary (Donald) Rumsfeld, for General (Tommy) Franks, and for all the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States: America is grateful for a job well done.
The character of our military through history — the daring of Normandy, the fierce courage of Iwo Jima, the decency and idealism that turned enemies into allies — is fully present in this generation. When Iraqi civilians looked into the faces of our servicemen and women, they saw strength, and kindness, and good will. When I look at the members of the United States military, I see the best of our country, and I am honored to be your commander in chief.
In the images of fallen statues, we have witnessed the arrival of a new era. For a hundred years of war, culminating in the nuclear age, military technology was designed and deployed to inflict casualties on an ever-growing scale. In defeating Nazi Germany and imperial Japan, Allied Forces destroyed entire cities, while enemy leaders who started the conflict were safe until the final days. Military power was used to end a regime by breaking a nation. Today, we have the greater power to free a nation by breaking a dangerous and aggressive regime. With new tactics and precision weapons, we can achieve military objectives without directing violence against civilians. No device of man can remove the tragedy from war. Yet it is a great advance when the guilty have far more to fear from war than the innocent.
In the images of celebrating Iraqis, we have also seen the ageless appeal of human freedom. Decades of lies and intimidation could not make the Iraqi people love their oppressors or desire their own enslavement. Men and women in every culture need liberty like they need food, and water, and air. Everywhere that freedom arrives, humanity rejoices. And everywhere that freedom stirs, let tyrants fear.
We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We are bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We are pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes. We have begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons, and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated. We are helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people. The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. And then we will leave — and we will leave behind a free Iraq.
The Battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001, and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men — the shock troops of a hateful ideology — gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the "beginning of the end of America." By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation's resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed.
In the Battle of Afghanistan, we destroyed the Taliban, many terrorists, and the camps where they trained. We continue to help the Afghan people lay roads, restore hospitals, and educate all of their children. Yet we also have dangerous work to complete. As I speak, a special operations task force, led by the 82nd Airborne, is on the trail of the terrorists, and those who seek to undermine the free government of Afghanistan. America and our coalition will finish what we have begun.
From Pakistan to the Philippines to the Horn of Africa, we are hunting down al-Qaida killers. Nineteen months ago, I pledged that the terrorists would not escape the patient justice of the United States. And as of tonight, nearly one-half of al-Qaida's senior operatives have been captured or killed.
The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We have removed an ally of al-Qaida, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more.
In these 19 months that changed the world, our actions have been focused, and deliberate, and proportionate to the offense. We have not forgotten the victims of September the 11th — the last phone calls, the cold murder of children, the searches in the rubble. With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got.
Our war against terror is proceeding according to principles that I have made clear to all:
Any person involved in committing or planning terrorist attacks against the American people becomes an enemy of this country, and a target of American justice.
Any person, organization, or government that supports, protects, or harbors terrorists is complicit in the murder of the innocent, and equally guilty of terrorist crimes.
Any outlaw regime that has ties to terrorist groups, and seeks or possesses weapons of mass destruction, is a grave danger to the civilized world, and will be confronted.
And anyone in the world, including the Arab world, who works and sacrifices for freedom has a loyal friend in the United States of America.
Our commitment to liberty is America's tradition — declared at our founding, affirmed in Franklin Roosevelt's Four Freedoms, asserted in the Truman Doctrine, and in Ronald Reagan's challenge to an evil empire. We are committed to freedom in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and in a peaceful Palestine. The advance of freedom is the surest strategy to undermine the appeal of terror in the world. Where freedom takes hold, hatred gives way to hope. When freedom takes hold, men and women turn to the peaceful pursuit of a better life. American values, and American interests, lead in the same direction: We stand for human liberty.
The United States upholds these principles of security and freedom in many ways — with all the tools of diplomacy, law enforcement, intelligence, and finance. We are working with a broad coalition of nations that understand the threat, and our shared responsibility to meet it. The use of force has been, and remains, our last resort. Yet all can know, friend and foe alike, that our nation has a mission: We will answer threats to our security, and we will defend the peace.
Our mission continues. Al-Qaida is wounded, not destroyed. The scattered cells of the terrorist network still operate in many nations, and we know from daily intelligence that they continue to plot against free people. The proliferation of deadly weapons remains a serious danger. The enemies of freedom are not idle, and neither are we. Our government has taken unprecedented measures to defend the homeland — and we will continue to hunt down the enemy before he can strike.
The war on terror is not over, yet it is not endless. We do not know the day of final victory, but we have seen the turning of the tide. No act of the terrorists will change our purpose, or weaken our resolve, or alter their fate. Their cause is lost. Free nations will press on to victory.
Other nations in history have fought in foreign lands and remained to occupy and exploit. Americans, following a battle, want nothing more than to return home. And that is your direction tonight. After service in the Afghan and Iraqi theaters of war — after 100,000 miles, on the longest carrier deployment in recent history — you are homeward bound. Some of you will see new family members for the first time — 150 babies were born while their fathers were on the Lincoln. Your families are proud of you, and your nation will welcome you.
We are mindful as well that some good men and women are not making the journey home. One of those who fell, Corporal Jason Mileo, spoke to his parents five days before his death. Jason's father said, "He called us from the center of Baghdad, not to brag, but to tell us he loved us. Our son was a soldier." Every name, every life, is a loss to our military, to our nation, and to the loved ones who grieve. There is no homecoming for these families. Yet we pray, in God's time, their reunion will come.
Those we lost were last seen on duty. Their final act on this earth was to fight a great evil, and bring liberty to others. All of you — all in this generation of our military — have taken up the highest calling of history. You are defending your country, and protecting the innocent from harm. And wherever you go, you carry a message of hope — a message that is ancient, and ever new. In the words of the prophet Isaiah: "To the captives, 'Come out!' and to those in darkness, 'Be free!"'
Thank you for serving our country and our cause. May God bless you all, and may God continue to bless America.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/01/iraq/main551946.shtml
Lack of Military Service
Bush's military service in question – again
Records appear to show that the president failed to fulfill his duty to the Air National Guard
- A new examination of payroll records and other documents released by the White House earlier this year appear to confirm critics' assertions that President George W. Bush failed to fulfill his duty to the Air National Guard during the Vietnam War.
Most of the documents, which have been reviewed by U.S. News, and former military and Defense Department personnel, were released last February, when reporters raised new questions about Bush's service during the Vietnam War. After the release, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said he considered the case closed and noted that, "these records I'm holding here clearly document the president fulfilling his duties in the National Guard."
The White House also included a signed memorandum from the man who headed personnel matters for the Guard during Bush's tenure, certifying the administration's position. President Bush had "completed his military obligation in a satisfactory manner," wrote Albert C. Lloyd Jr., a retired Air Force colonel.
A recent examination of the records by U.S. News does not appear to support Lloyd's conclusions. Among the issues identified by the magazine:
- The White House used an inappropriate–and less stringent–Air Force standard in determining that President Bush fulfilled his National Guard duty.
- Even using this lesser standard, the president did not attend enough drills to complete his obligation to the Guard during his final year of service.
- During the final two years of his service obligation, Bush did not comply with Air Force regulations that impose a time limit on making up missed drills. Instead, he took credit for makeup drills he participated in outside that time frame. Five months of drills missed by the President in 1972 were never made up, contrary to assertions made by the White House.
The White House declined to respond to specific questions submitted by U.S. News last week, but today defended Bush's Guard service. "The president completed the necessary points to qualify for an honorable discharge. He fulfilled his obligation to both the Texas Air National Guard and the Alabama National Guard during his service there," says Claire Buchan, White House spokeswoman. "The president is proud of his service and is pleased to release his records and they confirm that the President served honorably."
For several experts contacted by U.S. News, how President Bush received his honorable discharge from the Guard remains a mystery. Lawrence Korb, a former Assistant Secretary for Defense for Manpower and Reserve Affairs during the Reagan Administration, said it was apparent that President Bush "had not fulfilled his obligation."
"When I look at his records it is clear he didn't do what he was supposed to do," Korb says. "Since he didn't do these those things, he should have been called to active duty."
Bush became interested in the Texas Air National Guard shortly after graduating from Yale University and becoming eligible for the draft in 1968. According to his own account, he was told that the Guard was looking for pilots willing to go through the lengthy training required to fly fighter jets. Although he scored poorly on the pilot aptitude test, Bush received a high mark for officer qualities. Guard officials decided to offer him a slot, and on May 27, 1968, Bush signed up for a six-year military service obligation to the Guard, writing in his "statement of intent" that he planned to make "flying a lifetime pursuit."
At the time, Bush also was informed of the regulations that would govern his service for the next six years. In his "statement of understanding," he acknowledged that "satisfactory participation" included participating in "48 scheduled inactive duty training periods," and 15 days of annual active duty every year. He also acknowledged that he could be ordered to active duty for two years if he failed to meet these requirements.
The public records on Bush's service show that for much of the first four years of his commitment, he appeared to do exceedingly well. Instructors noted he was an eager learner and showed a true interest in the Guard. At one point, Bush even expressed an interest in joining an elite Guard unit called the "Palace Alert," according to an interview with one of his instructors. The unit flew jets over Europe and the Far East, including, on occasion, over Vietnam, but Bush was turned down because he lacked the amount of flying experience the unit required.
As the Vietnam War began to wind down, however, Bush's performance began to slump, and his attendance at required drills fell off markedly. On May 24, 1972, apparently after already going there to begin work on a Republican Senate campaign, documents show that Bush asked for a transfer to an Air Reserve squadron in Alabama that had no aircraft or practiced regular drills. Although the Commander of the Squadron accepted his application, the Air Reserve Personnel Center cancelled the move, noting that Bush had not fulfilled his military service obligation and had to remain with what it terms a "Ready Reserve Unit."
In September, Bush applied to perform equivalent duty at a Ready Reserve Unit in Alabama. He was accepted. He was also told by the chief of the personnel branch, Capt. Kenneth K. Lott, to report to Lt. Col William Turnipseed, who would determine what scheduled drills he could attend. But there is no record of Bush attending the scheduled drills in Alabama during this period, and Turnipseed told U.S. News that he did not recall seeing Bush ever train with his unit. The same month he was accepted to Turnipseed's unit, Bush failed to take a physical and was grounded. On May 2, 1973, his superiors in Texas apparently could not locate him or identify records showing that he had trained; they were unable to evaluate Bush's Guard performance, his superiors wrote, because "he has not been observed."
It is these last two years of service that have continued to perplex the president's critics and provide a headache for the White House.
In an interview with U.S. News this week, Lloyd stood by his analysis and said he was sick of reporters dredging up the past. He put it this way: "I am perfectly content that Bush preformed his duty. I have seen the records. Could he have done better? Yes, but again everybody could have done better. There were people that didn't do near what he did, so I'm not upset about it."
After a reporter cited the Air Force regulations from the period governing how many drills had to be attended, when drills could be made up and how many months of service could be missed, an exasperated Lloyd added that if the entire unit was judged by such standards, then "90 percent of the people in the Guard would not have made satisfactory participation."
But others who have reviewed the records insist that the rules must be followed. "A regulation is meant to be complied with. Period," says Scott L. Silliman, a retired colonel who was legal counsel to U.S. Air Force commanders during the first Gulf War and now directs Duke Law School's Center for Law, Ethics and National Security. "It is there to be fulfilled, and it is meant to apply to everyone, whether you are the son of a prominent politician, or me. There is no sometimes we have compliance and sometimes we don't. That is a nonsensical statement and an insult to the Guard to suggest it."
There are two standards that apply to Guardsmen when deciding if they have completed their service each year. One standard is used to determine if the year's duty will count toward retirement and retention. The other, more stringent standard is applied to anyone with a military service obligation, as President Bush had.
But there are two main differences between the standards. One is the span of time used in the calculation and the other is the amount of service required to meet the obligation.
Retirement is calculated on a point system with each 12-month period beginning with the month of enlistment. In President Bush's case, that was May 1968. For Bush to count the year towards retirement, he would have had to earn 35 points of active and inactive duty and have completed a full year of service to gain an additional 15 "gratuitous points." The total necessary to count the year for retirement, therefore, was a minimum of 50 points.
Satisfactory service in the military, by contrast, is counted by looking at the number of training sessions attended through the fiscal year, which during Bush's service began on July 1 and ended on June 30 of the following calendar year. According to Air Force regulations from the time, to complete his military obligation, President Bush would have needed to attend at least 13 days of active-duty training each year and at least 44 sessions of inactive training–Unit Training Assemblies and equivalent training–during that same period.
This aspect of President Bush's service was first brought to the attention of U.S. News earlier this summer by Gerald A. Lechliter, a veteran Army officer who also served in the Marines during the Vietnam War. Lechliter provided an analysis of Bush's record to the magazine, and to The Boston Globe, which carried its account in today's editions. Although some guardsmen have disputed that the drills should have been calculated on the fiscal year, both the Air Force Manual and U.S. Code from the time confirm Lechliter's assertion.
Using this standard, Bush's records show that during the fiscal year of July 1, 1972, through June 30, 1973, Bush fell significantly short of this requirement to do inactive duty, obtaining only 36 points that year. He fared worse the following year, gaining only 12 points. Even if one uses May, the date of his induction, as the starting point in the points calculation, President Bush falls short of the minimum number of weekend drills required by his military service obligation his last two years.
When judging President Bush's Guard service by the simple number of points gained for retirement, it is clear that he didn't make the grade there either.
Lloyd certified that President Bush met this requirement for both the May 1972-May 1973 and May 1973-May 1974 retirement/retention years, saying that in each of these years President Bush managed to attain 56 points.
There are several problems with his calculation, the U.S. News analysis shows. One is that Lloyd failed to correctly calculate the points he determined Bush would have earned during the 1973-1974 retirement year. They only add up to 50, not 56. Asked about this, Lloyd said this was just a "typo." The Bush administration has never corrected the error.
More significantly, the calculations done by Lloyd appear not to be supported by the retirement/retention documents themselves. Lloyd says Bush received 35 points for active duty and for weekend drills during his last year of service, and received 15 gratuitous points just for remaining active in the Guard. But according to the final point-credit summary released by the White House, Bush was deemed eligible to receive only 33 points for service that year and was given only five gratuitous points because he was going on inactive status to attend Harvard Business School before completing his final year of service.
Asked about this discrepancy, Lloyd said that Bush would have received the other ten gratuitous points during the time he was attending Harvard. Lloyd said this was because President Bush could have still been called to active duty. But other Guardsmen and military experts disagree, explaining that the gratuitous points are calculated on a sliding scale, based on how much of the year a guardsman is participating in training, and note that guardsmen are not eligible to receive them when they are no longer attending drills.
Among those who countered this claim was retired Brig. Gen. John Scribner, who now heads the Texas Military Forces Museum. Scribner is no critic of President Bush. He gained notice last year when a fellow guardsman accused him of helping to destroy parts of President Bush's military file in 1997, a charge Schribner vehemently denied.
Even had Bush received the points, he still would not have attended enough drills to claim his final year for retirement, and his attendance fell well short of what was necessary under his military obligation. The summary, which allowed Bush to note any needed correction, was sent back to the Guard without comment on April 8, 1974. The White House did not produce any later documents showing a change in the number of retirement points given to the President.
Military experts and former Guardsmen said President Bush would have only been eligible to receive the additional points had he joined another Guard unit in the Boston area, as President Bush noted he was required to do on July 30, 1973, when he signed a Guard document stating so.
A look at how Bush made up missed drills raised other questions about his Guard service. An Air Force statute from that period maintains that all "substitute training" had to be approved in advance and had to be performed "within 15 days immediately before, or 30 days immediately after the regularly scheduled" drills. The statute also says that Bush was required to attend 90 percent of the scheduled drills and could miss them only if there was an event beyond his control, "such as illness or other personal hardship."
The Bush records contain only one document indicating that permission to make up drills was granted. That document contains the dates of drills he could attend; his payroll records show that they were then missed and made up still later.
In most cases, Bush used drills done prior to the missed drill to count for his absence. But in several cases, the makeups should not have been credited for payment because they fell well outside the prescribed time limit authorized by the Air Force, some experts said. The regulations themselves appear to show that they should not be credited either. For example, payroll records show that Bush was credited with training allegedly done on January 9, 1973, to make up for training he missed on March 10, 1973, just over two months later.
Despite the contradiction of the Air Force regulations, Lloyd says that none of this is a problem as long as Bush had authorization to do the make-ups. He adds that all records authorizing makeup drills would have been destroyed six months after the drill was completed. "He was paid" for the duty, Lloyd says, "so he did it."
Lloyd is equally dismissive of the five months of service Bush missed between May and September 1972. Bush had moved to Alabama to work on a political campaign during this period and was supposed to train with the Alabama Guard while there. But the head of the unit he was supposed to train with told U.S. News that he never saw Bush. This period also falls within the time frame–May 1, 1972, thru April 30, 1973–that Bush's superior officers wrote that they were unable to complete their evaluation of the pilot. Both President Bush and the White House have maintained that all of the missed drills were made up prior to Bush's honorable discharge. Payroll documents released by The White House indicate when Bush was making up specific drills, but U.S. News could not find any listed that were being applied to this five-month period of time.
Not everyone is concerned about the laxity shown to President Bush during his last two years. As Maj. Gen. Paul A. Weaver Jr. a former director of the Air National Guard, pointed out, the war was winding down and Bush did a fairly good job his first three years. "One thing a commander is given is common-sense leeway, and I think that is what happened here," he said. "Here we had Lt. Bush not wanting to stay in the airplane and not interested in keeping up his status and wanting to be a full-time student. The commander probably said, 'I'll take that flying spot and give it to someone who will be an active participant.'"
Asked if he faulted President Bush for not following the regulations governed by his military-service obligation, Weaver said his only disappointment was that Bush had signed up to fly jets in the first place, adding that his training cost a great deal of taxpayer money. "If you're going to fly a high-performance airplane," he added, "then you need to be there flying it."
But others who have reviewed the documents say President Bush should have been treated more strictly. Eugene R. Fidell, a military law expert in Washington, notes that nothing in Bush's military file shows he received prior approval to miss any of the required drills. Under Air Force regulations, Bush was non-compliant with his military service obligation the moment he missed more than one month of weekend drills and by the third month he was in serious breach of his duty. "By then," Fidell says, "you should be thrown out of the program or, if there is a draft, called up for active duty."
James T. Currie, a retired colonel who is a professor at the Industrial College of The Armed Forces and the author of an official history of the Army Reserve, said that while the Guard had a reputation as being a "good old boy's club" during Vietnam, that didn't mean regulations shouldn't apply. "You make a commitment, and in return for what is a fairly minor inconvenience, you avoid getting drafted and sent to Vietnam, so I think the least you could do was fulfill the letter of that commitment," he said. "Clearly if you were the average poor boy who got drafted and sent into the active force, they weren't going to let you out before you had completed your obligation."
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/roane040908.htm click again to read
Thug
Loyalty appears to be a one-way street for Bush.
A Bad Omen in Rumsfeld's Firing, By Robert D. Novak
November 23, 2006 Donald Rumsfeld, one week after his sacking as secretary of defense, was treated as a conquering hero, accorded one standing ovation after another at the conservative American Spectator magazine's annual dinner in Washington. The enthusiasm may have indicated less total support for Rumsfeld's six-year record at the Pentagon than resentment over the way President Bush fired him.
Rumsfeld had recovered his usual aplomb as he basked in the Spectator's glow. But the day after the election he had seemed devastated -- the familiar confident grin gone and his voice breaking. According to administration officials, only three or four people knew he would be fired -- and Rumsfeld was not one of them. His fellow presidential appointees, including some who did not applaud Rumsfeld's performance in office, were taken aback by his treatment.
- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and President Bush leave the Oval Office on Nov. 8.
In the two weeks since the election, I have asked a wide assortment of Republican notables their opinion of the Rumsfeld sacking. Only one went on the record: Rep. Duncan Hunter, the House Armed Services Committee chairman. A rare undeviating supporter of Rumsfeld, Hunter told me that "it was a mistake for him to resign." The others, less supportive of Rumsfeld, said they were "appalled" -- the most common descriptive word -- by the president's performance.
The treatment of his war minister connotes something deeply wrong with George W. Bush's presidency in its sixth year. Apart from Rumsfeld's failures in personal relations, he never has been anything short of loyal in executing the president's wishes. But loyalty appears to be a one-way street for Bush. His shrouded decision to sack Rumsfeld after declaring that he would serve out the second term fits the pattern of a president who is secretive and impersonal.
Lawrence Lindsey had been assured that he would be retained as the president's national economic adviser, but he received word around 5 p.m. on Dec. 5, 2002, that he would be fired the next day. Before Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill embarked on a dangerous mission to Afghanistan, he requested and received assurances that he would still have a job when he returned. Instead, he was dismissed in tandem with Lindsey.
Bush is no malevolent tyrant who concocts unpleasant surprises for his Cabinet members. Rather, letting the terminated official be one of the last to know of his imminent removal derives from congenital phobia over White House leaks that I have seen exhibited by Republicans dating to President Dwight Eisenhower (and leading to President Richard Nixon's fateful use of "plumbers" to plug leaks). The Bush team took pride in keeping secret Harriet Miers's nomination to the Supreme Court before keeping mum on the fate of Rumsfeld.
Former House speaker Newt Gingrich claimed that the replacement of Rumsfeld two weeks before the election would have saved Republican control of the Senate as well as at least 10 GOP House seats. Many Republicans have bought into that dubious speculation, especially those who lost their seats Nov. 7. Presidential adviser Karl Rove told Rep. Clay Shaw of Florida, one of the defeated Republican veterans of Congress, that a preelection exit by Rumsfeld would have been too political.
Shaw appeared to accept this explanation, but many other Republicans do not. They see the White House dedicated to the "24-hour-cycle theory of politics." They believe the removal of Rumsfeld, falling into the 24-hour news cycle, was intended to crowd out continued rehashing of disastrous election returns.
It is hard to find anyone in the Bush administration who endorses the way Rumsfeld was handled. His friend and comrade, Vice President Cheney, is reported to be profoundly disturbed. But even before the election, Cheney appeared melancholy. A high-ranking administration official who visited the vice president then reported him to be nothing like the upbeat Cheney of earlier years in this administration.
The last two years of eight-year presidencies are historically difficult, particularly after a loss in the final midterm elections. Eisenhower in 1959-60 assumed a more aggressive conservative posture by firing off multiple vetoes of excessive spending legislation. During the Iran-contra scandal, Ronald Reagan in 1987-88 was steadfast in pursuing Cold War victory. But the way George W. Bush handled Rumsfeld was not a good sign for his concluding years as president.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/22/AR2006112201620.html
Elder Bush takes on son's Arab critics
Dear 41, Wake up. Your kid's a punk and a thug and a greedy asshole! You're an idiot! ed
"My son is an honest man," Bush told members of the audience harshly criticized the current U.S. leader's foreign policy.
"We do not respect your son. We do not respect what he's doing all over the world," a woman in the audience bluntly told Bush after his speech.
Bush, 82, appeared stunned as others in the audience whooped and whistled in approval.
A college student told Bush his belief that U.S. wars were aimed at opening markets for American companies and said globalization was contrived for America's benefit at the expense of the rest of the world. Bush was having none of it.
"I think that's weird and it's nuts," Bush said. "To suggest that everything we do is because we're hungry for money, I think that's crazy. I think you need to go back to school."
The hostile comments came during a quesion-and-answer session after Bush finished a folksy address on leadership by telling the audience how deeply hurt he feels when his presidential son is criticized.
"This son is not going to back away," Bush said, his voice quivering. "He's not going to change his view because some poll says this or some poll says that, or some heartfelt comments from the lady who feels deeply in her heart about something. You can't be president of the United States and conduct yourself if you're going to cut and run. This is going to work out in Iraq. I understand the anxiety. It's not easy."
"I can't begin to tell you the pride I feel in my two sons," Bush said. "When your son's under attack, it hurts. You're determined to be at his side and help him any way you possibly can."
Bush said he was surprised by the audience's criticism of his son.
"He is working hard for peace. It takes a lot of guts to get up and tell a father about his son in those terms when I just told you the thing that matters in my heart is my family," he said. "How come everybody wants to come to the United States if the United States is so bad?"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061121/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_defending_bush_1
Incompetence
Mr. Bush is a very shallow man, uninterested in the world or people around him. He is barely coherent at best.
Bushisms
Mr. Speaker, Vice President Cheney, members of Congress, distinguished citizens and fellow citizens:
This is historic times.
The past is over. There may be some tough times here in America. But this country has gone through tough times before, and we're going to do it again. Our nation must come together to unite. A leadership is someone who brings people together. When you're marching to war, it's not a very optimistic thought, is it? In other words, it's the opposite of optimistic when you're thinking you're going to war. Presidents, whether things are good or bad, get the blame. I understand that.
I think the American people -- I hope the American -- I don't think, let me -- I hope the American people trust me.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/01/29/INGT0GTK0O1.DTL
