Maybe Ted Olson did not want the job.

Perhaps he removed himself from the short list of candidates considered for Attorney General, or better yet, maybe he was never really on the list. I never heard from the President or Mr. Olson that this assertion had any teeth.

Did Chuck Schumer get a heads up from one of those career Democrats in the Justice Department that Judge Michael Mukasey was the Presidents choice allowing him to come out along with Senator Reid and let all conservatives know they would support this man if nominated? And did the base buy this trick that the left has used effectively before?

We’ll see exactly how pleased the Democrats are with this choice at the Senate confirmation hearing. I would bet even money that it won’t be a love fest and I would lay the same odds that within the first few months of confirmation something will be done at Justice which will be on the front page of the papers for weeks to come and it won’t be positive.

I have read many blogs today on this issue and while almost everyone admits they know little about this gentleman,(I was enlightened as to his credentials after reading this,) many are simply disappointed because they preferred Ted Olson. If we don’t hold our powder on this and create another foot stomping firestorm it will serve no purpose but trouble for the Right. It will play, once again, right into the hands of some of the most devious politicians Washington has ever known. Maybe if we lose the White House and both houses of Congress remain in the hands of the Democrats some will learn their lesson.

Is Ted Olson a good man, certainly. Was he the only option President Bush had for this position, no. I’d make one last bet, this selection was not about Chuck Schumer or Harry Reid or bloggers opinions or anything in the major media.

There was one man in the end deciding what he felt would be best for the Department of Justice at this time. And I for one will at least allow the Judge the opportunity to succeed before I condemn him. If his nomination proves to have been a mistake it will lie with one man, the President, and I am certain there will not be enough bandwidth, paper or words to make it known.

Many were revved up for a bruising battle in the Senate. Why? It was not their name or reputation which would have been smeared by pompous politicians or the press. Another good man would have been drug through the mud in a dog and pony show. Ted Olson deserves better than that, and if he was in the running maybe the circus atmosphere in Washington convinced him and his family to respectfully decline. I don’t know the backstory and I doubt many others do either.

Conservatives had better be very careful in this last year leading up to a very important election. In January 2009 will it really make any difference who the Presidents chose as his Attorney General, I think not. But our political landscape could be changed for a number of years if we once again jump the shark on this issue.

UPDATE: We won’t even have to wait for the hearings, the Democrats have already begun their maneuvers.

Just hours after President Bush said he will nominate Michael B. Mukasey, a former federal judge from New York, as his next attorney general, Senate Democrats threatened today to hold up Mr. Mukasey’s confirmation unless the White House turns over some documents they are seeking.

One would hope this would be enough to convince many on the right that the Democrats have chosen to do nothing but obstruct. This type of behavior should anger and unite the Republican base and make them all the more determined to see the President’s nominee confirmed. We’ll see.

What an honor it must have been for several milbloggers to have an opportunity to meet President Bush and have him answer their questions. I am certain the President felt much gratitude towards these men and women, as they have tirelessly worked to deliver the true message on issues military.

It was difficult to select the blog to link to in this post, but I ultmately chose Mudville Gazette as Mrs. Greyhawk provides excellent photos and also links to the sites of others in attendance.

The anticipation of meeting the President was far more nerve wracking than actually meeting him. Matt joked before hand that he wasn’t sure if Mohammed would be able to go the whole meeting without a cigarette. I worried I’d have to excuse myself during the meeting to go to the ladies room after gulping down an extra large white chocolate mocha coffee from Starbucks. But after the President entered the room, worked his way around the table, shaking hands and sitting comfortably in his chair, we all immediately felt at ease. He thanked us for coming and acknowledged it was the “first time a president had met with bloggers at the White House”. It was history in the making. This alone was awe-inspiring and I did have to concentrate hard to keep from having an idiotic grin on my face thru out the meeting, especially since we were all discussing serious issues.

I cannot think of a group more deserving of some one on one time with President Bush and I hope they recognize how many of us also appreciate their (in many instances) first hand commentary.

I will attempt to transcribe the President’s address to the nation made this evening.

President Bush:

Good evening.

In the life of all free nations there come moments that decide the direction of a country and reveal the character of its people.

We are now at such a moment. In Iraq, an ally of the United States is fighting for its survival. Terrorists and extremists who are at war with us around the world are seeking to topple Iraq’s government, dominate the region, and attack us here at home.

If Iraq’s young democracy can turn back these enemies it will mean a more hopeful middle east and a more secure America. This ally has placed its trust in the United States and tonight our moral and strategic comparitives are one. We must help Iraq defeat those who threaten its future and also threaten ours.

Eight months ago we adopted a new strategy to meet that objective, including a surge in U.S. forces that reached full strength in June.

This week General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker testified before Congress about how that strategy is progressing. In their testimony these men made clear that our challenge in Iraq is formidable, yet they concluded that conditions in Iraq are improving; that we are seizing the initiative from the enemy and that the troop surge is working.

The premise of our strategy is that securing the Iraqi population is the foundation for all other progress. For Iraqis to bridge sectarian divides they need to feel safe in their homes and neighborhoods.

For lasting reconciliation to take root Iraqis must feel confident that they do not need sectarian gangs for security. The goal of the surge is to provide that security and to help prepare Iraqi forces to maintain it.

As I will explain tonight our success in meeting these objectives now allows us to begin bringing some of our troops home.

Since the surge was announced in January it has moved through several phases. First was the flow of additional troops into Iraq; especially Baghdad and Anbar Province.

Once these forces were in place our commanders launched a series of offensive operations to drive terrorists and militias out of their strongholds.

And finally, in areas that have been cleared we are surging diplomatic and civilian resources to insure that military progress is quickly followed up with real improvements in daily life.

Anbar Province is a good example of how our strategy is working. Last year an intelligence report concluded that Anbar had been lost to Al Qaeda. Some cited this report as evidence that we had failed in Iraq and should cut our losses and pull out.

Instead we kept the pressure on the terrorists. The local people were suffering under the Taliban-like rule of Al Qaeda, and they were sick of it so they asked us for help.

To take advantage of this opportunity I sent an additional 4,000 to Anbar as part of the surge. Together, local sheikhs, Iraqi forces and coalition troops drove the terrorists from the capital of Ramadi and other population centers.

Today, a city where Al Qaeda once planted its flag is beginning to return to normal. Anbar citizens who once feared beheading for talking to an American or Iraqi soldier now come forward to tell us where the terrorists are hiding.

Young Sunnis who once joined the insurgency are now joining the army and police. And with the help of our provincial reconstruction teams new jobs are being created and local governments are meeting again.

These developments do not often make the headlines, but they do make a difference. During my visit to Anbar on Labor Day local Sunni leaders thanked me for America’s support. They pledged they would never allow Al Qaeda to return and they told me they now see a place for their people in a democratic Iraq. The Sunni governor of Anbar Province put it this way: “Our tomorrow starts today.”

The changes in Anbar show all Iraqis what becomes possible when extremists are driven out. They show Al Qaeda that it cannot count on popular support, even in a province its leaders once declared their home base. And they showed the world that ordinary people in the Mid-East want the same things for their children that we want for ours: a decent life and a peaceful future.

In Anbar the enemy remains active and deadly. Earlier today one of the brave tribal sheikhs who helped lead the revolt against Al Qaeda was murdered. In response a fellow Sunni leader declared, “We are determined to strike back and continue our work.” And as they do they can count on the continued support of the United States.

Throughout Iraq too many citizens are being killed by terrorists and death squads, and for most Iraqis the quality of life is far from where it should be.

Yet General Petreaus and Ambassador Crocker report that the success in Anbar is beginning to be replicated in other parts of the country.

One year ago much of Baghdad was under seige. Schools were closed, markets were shuttered, and sectarian violence was spiraling out of control. Today most of Baghdad’s neighborhoods are being patrolled by Coalition and Iraqi forces who live among the people they protect. Many schools and markets are re-opening, citizens are coming forward with vital intelligence. Sectarian killings are down and ordinary life is beginning to return.

One year ago much of Diyala Province was a sanctuary for Al Qaeda and other extremist groups, and its capital of Baquoba was emerging as an Al Qaeda stronghold. Today Baquoba is cleared, Diyala Province is the site of a growing popular uprising against the extremists. And some local tribes are working alongside Coalition and Iraqi forces to clear out the enemy and reclaim their communities.

One year ago Shiia extremists and Iranian-backed militants were gaining strength and targeting Sunnis for assassination. Today, these groups are being broken up and many of their leaders are being captured or killed.

These gains are a tribute to our military. They are a tribute to the courage of the Iraqi security forces and they are a tribute to an Iraqi government who has decided to take on the extremists.

Now the Iraqi government must bring the same determination to achieving reconciliation. This is an enormous undertaking after more than three decades of tyranny and division. The government has not met its own legislative benchmarks, and in my meetings with Iraqi leaders I have made it clear that they must.

Yet Iraq’s national leaders are getting some things done. For example, they have passed a budget, they’re sharing oil revenues with the provinces. They are allowing former Baathists to rejoin Iraq’s military or receive government pensions. Local reconciliation is taking place. The key now is to link this progress in the provinces to progress in Baghdad. As local politics change, so will national politics.

Our troops in Iraq are performing brilliantly. Along with the Iraqi forces they have captured or killed an average of more than 1,500 enemy fighters per month since January. Yet ultimately the way forward depends on the ability of Iraqis to maintain security gains.

According to General Petraeus and a panel chaired by retired General Jim Jones the Iraqi Army is becoming more capable, although there’s still a great deal of work to be done to improve the national police.

Iraqi forces are receiving increased cooperation from local populations and this is improving their ability to hold areas that had been cleared.

Because of this success General Petraeus believes we have now reached the point where we can maintain our security gains with fewer American forces. He has recommended that we not replace about 2,200 marines scheduled to leave Anbar Province later this month. In addition, he says it will soon be possible to bring home an army combat brigade for a total force reduction of 5,700 troops by Christmas. And he expects that by July we will be able to reduce our troop levels in Iraq from 20 combat brigades to 15.

General Petraeus also recommends that in December we begin transitioning to the next phase of our strategy in Iraq. As terrorists are defeated, civil society takes root, and Iraqis assume more control over their own security our mission in Iraq will evolve.

Over time our troops will shift from leading operations to partnering with Iraqi forces and eventually to over-watching those forces. As this transition in our mission takes place our troops will focus on a more limited set of tasks including counter-terrorism operations and training, equipping and supporting Iraqi forces.

I have consulted with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, other members of my national security team, Iraqi officials and leaders of both parties in Congress. I have benefitted from their advice and I have accepted General Petraeus’ recommendations.

I have directed General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker to update their joint campaign plan for Iraq so we can adjust our military and civilian resources accordingly. I have also directed them to deliver another report to Congress in March. At that time they will provide a fresh assessment of the situation in Iraq and of the troop levels and resources we need to meet our national security objectives.

The principle guiding my decisions on troop levels in Iraq is Return on Success. The more successful we are the more American troops can return home. And in all we do I will insure that our commanders on the ground have the troops and flexibility they need to defeat the enemy.

Americans want our country to be safe and our troops to begin coming home from Iraq. Yet those of us who believe success in Iraq is essential to our security and those who believe we should begin bringing our troops home have been at odds. Now because of the measure of success we’re seeing in Iraq we can begin seeing troops come home. The way forward I have described tonight makes it possible for the first time in years for people who have been on opposite sides of this difficult debate to come together.

This vision for a reduced American presence also has support of Iraqi leaders from all communities. At the same time they understand that their success will require U.S. political, economic, and security engagement that extends beyond my presidency. These Iraqi leaders have asked for an enduring relationship with America. And we are ready to begin building that relationship in a way that protects our interests in the region and requires many fewer American troops.

The success of a free Iraq is critical to the security of the United States. A free Iraq will deny Al Qaeda a safe haven. A free Iraq will counter the destructive ambitions of Iran. A free Iraq will marginalize extremists, unleash the talent of its people and be an anchor of stability in the region. A free Iraq will set an example for people across the Middle East. A free Iraq will be our partner in the fight against terror, and that will make us safer here at home.

Realizing this vision will be difficult but it is achievable. Our military commanders believe we can succeed. Our diplomats believe we can succeed and for the safety of future generations of Americans we must succeed.

If we were to be driven out of Iraq extremists of all strains would be emboldened, Al Qaeda could regain new roots and new sanctuaries. Iran would benefit from the chaos and would be encouraged in its efforts to obtain nuclear weapons and dominate the region. Extremists could control a key part of the global energy supply. Iraq could face a humanitarian nightmare, democracy movements would be violently reversed. We would leave our children to face a far more dangerous world. And as we saw on September 11, 2001, those dangers can reach our cities and kill our people.

Whatever political party you belong to, whatever your position on Iraq we should be able to agree that America has a vital interest in preventing chaos and providing hope in the Middle East. We should be able to agree that we must defeat Al Qaeda, counter Iran, help the Afghan government, work for peace in the Holy Land and strengthen our military so we can prevail in the struggle against terrorists and extremists.

So tonight I want to speak to members of the United States Congress: Let us come together on a policy of strength in the Middle East. I thank you for providing crucial funds and resources for our military and I ask you to join me in supporting the recommendations General Petraeus has made and the troop levels he has asked for.

To the Iraqi people: You have voted for freedom and now you are liberating your country from terrorists and death squads. You must demand that your leaders make the tough choices needed to achieve reconciliation. As you do have confidence that America does not abandon our friends and we will not abandon you.

To Iraq’s neighbors who seek peace: The violent extremists who targeted Iraq are also targeting you. The best way to secure your interests and protect your own people is to stand with the people of Iraq. That means using your economic and diplomatic leverage to strengthen the government in Baghdad. And it means the efforts by Iran and Syria to undermine that government must end.

To the international community: The success of a free Iraq matters to every civilized nation. We thank the 36 nations who have troops on the ground in Iraq and the many others who are helping that young democracy. We encourage all nations to help by implementing the international compact to revitalize Iraq’s economy, by participating in the neighbors’ conferences to boost cooperation and overcome differences in the region and by supporting the new and expanded mission of the United Nations in Iraq.

To our military personnel, intelligence officers, diplomats and civilians on the front lines in Iraq: You have done everything America has asked of you and the progress I have reported tonight is in large part because of your courage and hard effort. You are serving far from home. Our nation is grateful for your sacrifices and the sacrifices of your families.

Earlier this year I received an email from the family of Army Specialist Brandon Stoudt of Michigan. Brandon volunteered for the National Guard and was killed while serving in Baghdad. His family has suffered greatly, yet in their sorrow they see larger purpose. His wife Audrey says that Brandon felt called to serve and knew what he was fighting for. And his parents Tracy and Jeff wrote me this: “We believe this is a war of good and evil and we must win even if it cost the life of our own son. Freedom is not free.”

This country is blessed to have Americans like Brandon Stoudt who make extraordinary sacrifices to keep us safe from harm. They are doing so in a fight that is just and right and necessary. And now it falls to us to finish the work they have begun.

Some say the gains we are making in Iraq come too late. They are mistaken. It is never too late to deal a blow to Al Qaeda. It is never too late to advance freedom. And it is never too late to support our troops in a fight they can win.

Good night, and God bless America.

I felt the president touched on every important subject in this debate over Iraq.

The surge is working and if allowed, the new strategy will also work and we can bring most of our troops home in victory instead of defeat.

We already know the Democratic leadership has denounced the Petraeus report and the president’s speech before either was ever heard, but this speech is meant to keep those who have opposed the cut and run strategy of that leadership on the side of victory.

I believe the president succeeded.

If you’d rather see the video go here.

One of our frequent commenters, Big Mo, who has been kind enough to let us share his Presidents series with you, has written an excellent piece on what he says is a different view of the decline of the Bush presidency.

In this essay, I’ll probably catch some heat. If it were posted on some other conservative sites, I’d probably be figuratively tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail, or I’d be stupidly labeled a Bush boot-licker. So be it.

But I haven’t been studying the presidents for nothing, and I’ve noticed a lot of things about the American character that are just as apropos today as they were then. So, here goes.

What went wrong with the Bush presidency? How could we have gone from the magnificent response to 9/11 (when he appeared at the WTC site on 9/14/01 and then at the Congress on 9/20/01) to what we have today? Is he even the same man we voted for?

Actually, yes.

Bush hasn’t changed. But our expectations of him haven’t been met, because we expected things of him that he either never intended, or he was not capable of doing.

I had a different piece written to explain what had gone wrong with the Bush presidency. I was going to examine specific policies, proposals, appointments, his handling of the war, etc. However, I’ll save all of that for my actual evaluation of his presidency next year. So, please keep in mind that I won’t be talking about specific things Bush has done or not done. Rather, I want to explore some broader themes. If you want to argue about a specific misstep or give a litany of Bush’s supposed sins, save it for another time, because that’s not what this essay is about — now, anyway, because I did some serious rewriting when I read this:

Please go over to Hang Right Politics and read the entire piece. You will find it well-worth your time.

*Updated and bumped to include this video of President Bush’s remarks.

Good for him. At least he goes over there to see how things are going by talking to the commanders and troops on the ground.

AL-ASAD AIR BASE, Iraq (AP) - President Bush made a surprise visit to Iraq on Monday, using the war zone as a backdrop to argue his case that the buildup of U.S. troops is helping stabilizing the nation.

The president secretly flew 11 hours to Iraq as a showdown nears with Congress over whether his decision in January to order 30,000 more U.S. troops to Iraq is working.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates arrived ahead of Bush, and convened a meeting with the country’s top political leaders to highlight Bush administration hopes for prodding Iraq into a “bottom-up” approach to national reconciliation.

Gates conferred with senior U.S. officials, including Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, before opening a session with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, President Jalal Talabani, and other top Iraqi officials from Baghdad.

Bush and his national security team flew directly to this air base in a remote part of Anbar province, bypassing Baghdad in a symbolic expression of impatience with political paralysis in the nation’s capital. The gesture underscored the U.S. belief that the spark for progress may come at the local level.

Story here.

And from this source we get a little more information:

To a large degree, the setting was the message: Bringing al-Maliki, a Shiite, to the heart of mostly Sunni Anbar province was intended to show the administration’s war critics that the beleaguered Iraqi leader is capable of reaching out to Sunnis, who ran the country for years under Saddam Hussein.

Bush has held up Anbar as an example of recent progress, especially on the security front, although the province is still economically deprived and not yet stable enough to turn over to full Iraqi control.

He may be a beleaguered president, but don’t call him a lame duck yet, as he is still fighting for what he believes.

President Bush has said, in spite of Democrats asking for a say in the Attorney General pick, that he will nominate someone who agrees with his policies.

A half-dozen or so lawyers are being discussed among administration officials as possible candidates to replace Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, but no clear favorite has emerged, and President Bush is willing to fight for the right candidate, administration officials and Republican advisers said yesterday.

Democratic Senate leaders have called on the White House to consult them closely during the selection process, but administration officials warned yesterday that the president intends to nominate an attorney general who agrees with his policies. “It is the president’s prerogative to appoint someone who shares his views,” a senior administration official said.

I suppose we could put Janet Reno back in. She should pass with flying colors.

We could also go the rest of the term with an acting Attorney General if the Senate wants to block his nominee.

Good for you, Mr. President. Now stick to it.

I didn’t think that Karl was out. I can’t prove it but I think that he still has his nasty little fingers in the pie.

K arl Rove may be leaving the Bush administration, but at least one aspect of Rovism — the effort to try to pivot off a perceived political liability and turn it into a strength — seems hard-wired into the White House psyche.

That could be seen in President Bush’s widely discussed speech last week drawing lessons from America’s engagement in Asia since World War II. From the beginning of the Iraq War, the White House has resisted analogies to Vietnam, apparently convinced that any association with such an unpopular venture was a political loser for the president.

When Bush was asked at a news conference in June 2006 whether he saw any parallels between Iraq and Vietnam, he replied with a simple “No.”

That posture changed markedly with Bush’s Kansas City, Mo., address to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, as the president waded into the thicket of Vietnam reinterpretation. While suggesting that he did not want to re-litigate the war, Bush sought to focus the audience on what he described as the horrific consequences of the U.S. withdrawal — Vietnamese reeducation camps in which many perished and the hundreds of thousands of people murdered by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.

The inference was clear: The people who think America can get out of Iraq with minimal human costs are sadly mistaken. “Whatever your position is on that debate,” Bush said, “one unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America’s withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like ‘boat people,’ ‘reeducation camps’ and ‘killing fields.’ “

Story

Speaks for itself.

The American withdrawal from Vietnam is widely remembered as an ignominious end to a misguided war — but one with few negative repercussions for the United States and its allies.

Now, in urging Americans to stay the course in Iraq, President Bush is challenging that historical memory.

In reminding Americans that the pullout in 1975 was followed by years of bloody upheaval in Southeast Asia, Mr. Bush argued in a speech on Wednesday that Vietnam’s lessons provide a reason for persevering in Iraq, rather than for leaving any time soon. Mr. Bush in essence accused his war critics of amnesia over the exodus of Vietnamese “boat people” refugees and the mass killings in Cambodia that upended the lives of millions of people.

President Bush is right on the factual record, according to historians. But many of them also quarreled with his drawing analogies from the causes of that turmoil to predict what might happen in Iraq should the United States withdraw.

“It is undoubtedly true that America’s failure in Vietnam led to catastrophic consequences in the region, especially in Cambodia,” said David C. Hendrickson, a specialist on the history of American foreign policy at Colorado College in Colorado Springs.

“But there are a couple of further points that need weighing,” he added. “One is that the Khmer Rouge would never have come to power in the absence of the war in Vietnam — this dark force arose out of the circumstances of the war, was in a deep sense created by the war. The same thing has happened in the Middle East today. Foreign occupation of Iraq has created far more terrorists than it has deterred.”

The record of death and dislocation after the American withdrawal from Vietnam ranks high among the tragedies of the last century, with an estimated 1.7 million Cambodians, about one-fifth of the population, dying under the rule of Pol Pot, and an estimated 1.5 million Vietnamese and other Indochinese becoming refugees. Estimates of the number of Vietnamese who were sent to prison camps after the war have ranged widely, from 50,000 to more than 400,000, and some accounts have said that tens of thousands perished, a figure that Mr. Bush cited in his speech, to the Veterans of Foreign Wars. Mr. Bush did not offer a judgment on what, if anything, might have brought victory in Vietnam or whether the war itself was a mistake. Instead, he sought to underscore the dangers of a hasty withdrawal from Iraq.

But the American drawdown from Vietnam was hardly abrupt, and it lasted much longer than many people remember. The withdrawal actually began in 1968, after the Tet offensive, which was a military defeat for the Communist guerrillas and their North Vietnamese sponsors. But it also illustrated the vulnerability of the United States and its South Vietnamese allies.

Story

Speaks for itself.

Democrats Wednesday strongly rejected President Bush’s comparison of the Vietnam War to the conflict in Iraq, saying that drawing parallels is inaccurate and irresponsible.

Bush, in a speech to the annual convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, used the example of the Vietnam War to show the possible consequences of withdrawing troops from Iraq. The president said that millions of people “paid the price” when the U.S. left Vietnam.

But Democratic leaders insisted that was a false comparison.

“Invoking the tragedy of Vietnam to defend the failed policy in Iraq is as irresponsible as it is ignorant of the realities of both of those wars,” said Sen. John Kerry (Mass.), the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate.

Democrats were also quick to point out that the White House had in the past rejected comparisons between the wars in Iraq and Vietnam. Among others, they point to a statement from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who said during a visit to Vietnam in 2006 that “historical parallels of that kind are, I think, not very helpful, and I don’t think they happen to be right” when asked to compare the conflicts.

“If anything, an examination of history and the situation on the ground shows us the importance of creating a new direction in Iraq,” said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.). “We must initiate a strategic redeployment from Iraq so that we may focus our resources on the greatest danger — the war on terror — rather than keep our military mired in Iraq’s sectarian war.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said that Bush, “instead of providing the country with a history lesson … should be reevaluating his flawed strategies that have led to one of the worst foreign policy blunders in our nation’s history.”

The president, in his speech, said “one unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America’s withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like ‘boat people,’ ‘re-education camps’ and ‘killing fields.’”

Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) said that the “disastrous consequences described by President Bush are already in motion and are a direct result of a war that should never have been authorized.”

Story

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary
(Montebello, Canada)
___________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release August 21, 2007

STATEMENT BY THE COUNSELOR TO THE PRESIDENT, EDWARD GILLESPIE, AND SPEECH EXCERPTS, AS PREPARED FOR DELIVERY

In a few weeks General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker will deliver their assessments of military and political progress in Iraq, and appropriately much debate and discussion will follow. The President will provide broader context for this long-term debate in two speeches beginning tomorrow at the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Kansas City and continuing on August 28 at the American Legion convention in Reno, Nevada.

In his remarks tomorrow the President will talk about the challenges we face in Iraq against the historic background of our successes in Asia. He will describe how America’s presence and perseverance in Asia led to a freer, more stable, and more prosperous continent, transforming American enemies into American allies and making the world safer for our citizens. As we face challenges in Iraq today, we do so knowing we have done this kind of transformative work before and the benefits to America made the sacrifices worthwhile.

Next Tuesday, the President is expected to follow up with remarks to the American Legion in which he will put Iraq in the regional context of the Middle East, and discuss why the only realistic path to a more secure America is defeating the extremists in Iraq and allowing a free and stable government to take root.

Following are excerpts from tomorrow’s remarks, as prepared for delivery:

(more…)

Some people just do not want to democracy. I think you gave it one helluva shot.

By the time he arrived in Prague in June for a democracy conference, President Bush was frustrated. He had committed his presidency to working toward the goal of “ending tyranny in our world,” yet the march of freedom seemed stalled. Just as aggravating was the sense that his own government was not committed to his vision.

As he sat down with opposition leaders from authoritarian societies around the world, he gave voice to his exasperation. “You’re not the only dissident,” Bush told Saad Eddin Ibrahim, a leader in the resistance to Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. “I too am a dissident in Washington. Bureaucracy in the United States does not help change. It seems that Mubarak succeeded in brainwashing them.”

If he needed more evidence, he would soon get it. In his speech that day, Bush vowed to order U.S. ambassadors in unfree nations to meet with dissidents and boasted that he had created a fund to help embattled human rights defenders. But the State Department did not send out the cable directing ambassadors to sit down with dissidents until two months later. And to this day, not a nickel has been transferred to the fund he touted.

Two and a half years after Bush pledged in his second inaugural address to spread democracy around the world, the grand project has bogged down in a bureaucratic and geopolitical morass, in the view of many activists, officials and even White House aides. Many in his administration never bought into the idea, and some undermined it, including his own vice president. The Iraq war has distracted Bush and, in some quarters, discredited his aspirations. And while he focuses his ire on bureaucracy, Bush at times has compromised the idealism of that speech in the muddy reality of guarding other U.S. interests.

The story of how a president’s vision is translated into thorny policy is a classic Washington tale of politics, inertia, rivalries and funding battles — and a case study in the frustrated ambition of a besieged presidency. Bush says his goal of “ending tyranny” will take many generations, and he aims to institutionalize it as U.S. policy no matter who follows him in the White House. And for all the difficulties of the moment, it may yet, as he hopes, see fruition down the road

Story

I read this story and it tickles the heck out of me. Amazing.

CRAWFORD, Texas - President Bush, who was criticized for a slow federal response to Hurricane Katrina, took a pre-emptive strike Saturday against Hurricane Dean blowing through the Caribbean and threatening the Texas coast.

Bush, who received two hurricane briefings at his ranch, signed a pre-landfall disaster declaration, allowing the federal government to move in people, equipment and supplies immediately in case Hurricane Dean hits the state.

White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said that after Katrina, the federal government began reaching out to states facing a disaster and suggesting they request the declaration sooner rather than later. Texas Gov. Rick Perry asked FEMA for the declaration late Saturday morning and Bush approved it hours later.

“We are working closely with the state of Texas to address the special-needs populations along the south Texas border, which is the current, projected path of the storm,” Johndroe said.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and FEMA Administrator R. David Paulison have been in radio contact with Perry and Texas state officials to make sure the federal government is supplying needed support, he said.

Dean, which forecasters said could threaten the United States by Wednesday, moved through the Caribbean with wind speeds up to 150 mph. It was expected to steer next week into the Gulf of Mexico, with its 4,000 oil and gas platforms. Perry has initiated full-scale preparations. Fuel trucks were dispatched to coastal communities, storm-response task forces were put on alert and supply trucks and other resources were pre-positioned along evacuation routes.

Story

I try my best not to be a Bush basher but things like this make it hard. Why on Gods great earth would this report not be released? Does this administration have a conscience?

A surgeon general’s report in 2006 that called on Americans to help tackle global health problems has been kept from the public by a Bush political appointee without any background or expertise in medicine or public health, chiefly because the report did not promote the administration’s policy accomplishments, according to current and former public health officials.

The report described the link between poverty and poor health, urged the U.S. government to help combat widespread diseases as a key aim of its foreign policy, and called on corporations to help improve health conditions in the countries where they operate.

Three people directly involved in its preparation said its publication was blocked by William R. Steiger, a specialist in education and a scholar of Latin American history whose family has long ties to President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Since 2001, Steiger has run the Office of Global Health Affairs in the Department of Health and Human Services.

Richard H. Carmona, who commissioned the “Call to Action on Global Health” while serving as surgeon general from 2002 to 2006, recently cited its suppression as an example of the Bush administration’s frequent efforts during his tenure to give scientific documents a political twist. At a July 10 House committee hearing, Carmona did not cite Steiger by name or detail the report’s contents and its implications for American public health.

Carmona told lawmakers that, as he fought to release the document, he was “called in and again admonished . . . via a senior official who said, ‘You don’t get it.’ ” He said a senior official told him that “this will be a political document, or it will not be released.”

Story

When Bernie Sanders is against you, you know you have a problem.

Virtually all of Sen. Russ Feingold’s Democratic colleagues share his displeasure with President Bush.

But so far, only a handful seem prepared to even consider supporting his push for a nonbinding measure to censure Bush — an action that is forcing Democrats to choose between expressing their dissatisfaction with an unpopular president and getting hammered for supporting yet another symbolic resolution while key national issues go unaddressed.

“I do think it would behoove us to put some pressure on the president to start listening to what is going on in the country,” said freshman Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.). “But I came here to get stuff done — not to vote on procedural motions.”

“I really don’t know if there is any appetite for [censure] in the Senate,” said Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), one of three co-sponsors of a Feingold censure last year rebuking the Bush administration for its warrantless domestic surveillance program.

“There is a lot of anger and frustration [here],” Kerry said, “but I am not sure it’s gravitated towards that.”

Even Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who has called Bush the “worst president in the modern history of America,” would not definitively say he’ll support Feingold’s measure.

Story

Self-explanatory.

According to a new American Research Group poll, just 25% of Americans approve of the way President Bush is handling his job as president and 71% disapprove. These are record lows for the survey.

When it comes to Bush’s handling of the economy, 23% approve and 73% disapprove.

Poll