Posted by Mark Silva at 9:20 am CST
One year ago, President Bush returned from the year-end holiday at his Prairie Chapel Ranch in Texas with a New Year's Day stop at Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio to honor the young American men and women "making great sacrifice'' for their country overseas.
"I've been thinking long and hard about 2006,'' Bush said that day. "My hopes, of course, are for peace around the world.'' And, with a stop three days later at the Pentagon, the president reported on the briefing that his generals – and then Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld – had given him on "the war on terror'' – its major fronts, in Bush's words, being Iraq and Afghanistan.
The president's words then, at the start of 2006, remain informative today, as he prepares to return from another year-end holiday at his Texas ranch with a New Year's day stop at the Capitol to pay respect to the late President Gerald Ford, and as he prepares to announce "a new way forward'' in Iraq at the start of 2007. At the start of '06, Bush spoke of U.S. forces standing down as Iraqi forces "stand up.'' At the start of '07, he will speak of U.S. forces supporting the Iraqi government until it is able to "sustain, govern and defend itself.'' As much he promises a new course this year, the new way forward may well sound like the old way forward. Consider his remarks, nearly one year ago:
At his New Year's Day appearance at the Army hospital in Texas, Bush was asked: "Mr. President, as we start the New Year, what is your outlook for U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq in 2006?
"The conditions on the ground will dictate our force level,'' the president said. "As the Iraqis are able to take more of the fight to the enemy, our commanders on the ground will be able to make a different assessment about the troop strength. And I'm going to continue to rely upon those commanders, such as General Casey, who is doing a fabulous job and whose judgment I trust, and that will determine -- his recommendations will determine the number of troops we have on the ground in Iraq.''
After his Jan. 4 stop at the Pentagon, Bush spoke about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as the "two major fronts'' in the war on terror.
"In Iraq, 2005 was a year of progress toward meeting our goal of victory,'' Bush said then. "We had the January elections, we had the constitution elections, we had elections last December when nearly 11 million people defied the terrorists to vote. The turnout in that country was 70 percent. Part of our strategy for defeating the enemy in Iraq is for there to be a viable political process. And when 70 percent of the people show up to vote, that's a good sign. See, people are saying, I want to participate in the democratic process. The Iraqis showed great courage.
"The formation of a unity government is going to be important to the stability of the future of Iraq,'' he said. "And to form this inclusive government, the Iraqi leaders must compromise and negotiate and build consensus, and this is going to take some time.
"What the American people will see during the weeks ahead is a political process unfold; that people will be making decisions not based upon who has got the biggest gun, but who has got the capacity to rally the will of the people,'' Bush said at the Pentagon. "And that's positive.
"The second part of our strategy…for victory, is to train the Iraqis so they can take the fight against the few who would stop the progress of many,'' he said. "The Iraqis were in the lead on election day. In other words, they were responsible for the security of the elections. We were in a position to help them, but they were responsible for securing the voting booths. And they did a fine job. The number of attacks during the election were down dramatically. They performed. And that's part of our calibrating whether or not the Iraqi troops are becoming more capable.
"Numbers are one thing, but the ability to perform is another,'' he said. "And during these elections, the Iraqi troops showed our commanders on the ground and showed the American people that they're becoming more and more capable of performing their duty to provide security to the Iraqi people.
"There will still be violence. And there will still be some who believe that they can affect the political outcome of Iraq through violent means. We understand that. And we're going to stay on the offense against these - "we" being coalition forces, as well as the Iraqi forces
"So in 2006, the mission is to continue to hand over more and more territory and more and more responsibility to Iraqi forces,'' the president said on Jan. 4. "A year ago there was only a handful of Iraqi army and police battalions ready for combat, ready to take the lead; today, there are more than 125 Iraqi combat battalions fighting the enemy, and 50 of those are in the lead. That's progress. And it's important progress, and it's an important part of our strategy to win in Iraq.
"And as these forces become more battle-hardened and take the lead, we're going to see continued confidence in the Iraqi people of the Iraqis being able to defend themselves, and that's important,'' he said. "And as we see more of these Iraqi forces in the lead, we'll be able to continue with our desire, our stated strategy that says as Iraqis stand up, we'll stand down. ''
Today, the president has a new defense secretary, Robert Gates. Today, the president no longer parries questions about the secret National Security Agency surveillance of phone calls and emails with suspected terrorists outside the U.S. communicating with people inside the U.S. -- with revelations of that surveillance consuming the news as he returned from his ranch a year ago.
As we fast-forward to January 2007, Americans will watch for a new way forward in Iraq. But it's always worth rewinding the tape and tracking the way here.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
But it's always worth rewinding the tape and tracking the way here.
The "way here" will always be a constant....It's the reasons for the way here that has changed.
Posted by: bill r. | December 31, 2006 11:08 AM
How much longer do we have to wait until he's Impeached ??
Posted by: John E. | December 31, 2006 12:45 PM
If rumor is correct, it appears he is about to have more of OUR soldiers stand up instead of "standing down". I hope he's doing a lot of praying at Prairie Chapel
Posted by: lochnessmonster | December 31, 2006 1:06 PM
Happy New Year Swamp Not you John D or Paulo Na just kidding. For your new years read
http://es1.pva.org.independentbudget/pdf/CI_FY08.pdf
Posted by: Dale Peters | December 31, 2006 1:18 PM
3000 RIP --- http://icasualties.org/oif/
Posted by: Dale Peters | December 31, 2006 1:58 PM
Bush: "My hopes, of course, are for peace around the world.''
What a joke.
Posted by: bb | December 31, 2006 2:13 PM
...Ding Dong Bell...peals the same BS as it has since Bush attacked Iraq.....WS
Posted by: WS | December 31, 2006 4:10 PM
Something for John E. and the rest of the HateBush crowd. This is what an unalawful dictatorship looks like. A dictatorship that John E. no doubt supports:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6215815.stm
Posted by: Bill | December 31, 2006 6:39 PM
Bill read the links this is what you support. You sir are a rightwinger of the worse kind. A danger to America Just like the people who hit us on 9/11
Posted by: Dale Peters | December 31, 2006 9:15 PM
I like John E. would like to know when the impeachment hearings will begin against Bush and Cheney!
Posted by: Pat Wiley | December 31, 2006 10:14 PM
I, like John E. would like to know when the impeachment hearings will begin against Bush and Cheney!
Posted by: Pat Wiley | December 31, 2006 10:18 PM
Bill,
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Chavez freely elected, and largely on the strength of a anti-Bush platform? That doesn't exactly fit the definition of an illegal dictatorship. The guy's a nut-case yes, but his support was fueled, in part, by Bush's destructive foreign policy.
There was a time when Central and South America, for the most part, were supportive of the U.S. and it's policies. Leave it to Bush and his neocon friends to make us reviled throughout the World in the period of six short years.
I was down in Argentina a year ago and got an earful from the natives about Bush, "the reckless Cowboy". They say the U.S. condones torture, that it can make people "disappear". You'd think they were talking about a banana republic, not the leaders of the free world. It's pretty hard to argue with them when your President has yielded the high ground on so many fronts.
Posted by: unlettered | January 1, 2007 1:33 AM
Dale Peters... Why would you call Bill a right winger of the worst kind and a danger to America?
The "people that hit on us on 9/11" were people that were let loose by Jimmy Carter(dem) because of his failure to back The Shaw of Iran,therefore letting the Iatola Kohmeni to turn Iran into a Muslim radical state and also let's not foget about B.J.Clinton(dem) that had 8-12 chances to take out Obama bin Ladin,but failed.
9/11 took place because of democrat presidents that were too weak to take action and see the future threat on our soil and around the world....sure,blame everyting on Bush,but he saw the future threat,it is nasty,it cost lives,but he never lost focus and we haven't been attacked since 9/11/2001,50,000,000 people are free,Saddam and his sons are dead.....yep,that Bill is a rightwinger,so am I..of the Right Kind!
Dale,You and your ilk are the threat,not us!
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | January 1, 2007 3:58 AM
Has there ever been a more out-of-touch president?
"Iraqis" equal Shiites. (No Sunnis need apply.) "Victory" means the Shiites dominate the Sunnis, bring them to heel. The Sunnis then equal dead meat. Democracy in Iraq? Never had a chance.
Posted by: Ray Spiess | January 1, 2007 6:23 AM
Posted by: Bill | Dec 31, 2006 6:39:11 PM
I was disappointed in Chavez closing down that station too.
He's acting more and more like Bush and the Republicans every day.
Posted by: bb | January 1, 2007 8:17 AM
This quote " As the Iraqis are able to take more of the fight to the enemy..." illustrates the inability of this administration to grasp the consequences of our invasion. We have put a Shiite theocracy in power that is going to be worse than Saddam ever was. What we just saw in Saddams execution was a Shiite death squad in action. The hooded executioners, the hostile taunting, the chants for al Sadr...are clear signs that the people we have put in power have no interest in what we consider "democracy". This execution was yet another colossal blunder in an endless list of colossal blunders on our part. We are told that Saddam was responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths yet he is executed after one trial for 148 Shiite deaths to satisfy Shiite bloodlust. It has been pointed out that Iraq was secular under Saddam but has now become an islamist theocracy.
Our last election was nothing less than a bloodless coup. It was a complete repudiation of Bush Iraq policy. We can't afford two more years of this incompetent failure.
Posted by: Fred carani | January 1, 2007 8:20 AM
Paulo very simple you people from the right talk but do nothing. We from the left demand that the US be protected and we will do that. While you do nothing at all like the do-nothing Republican Congress . Tell rightwingers why are out ports,boders , nuke and chem plants still open for attack. Oh thats right your tax cuts. Look an read the link provided tell me you claim to support the troops and veterans proff is you don.t just like the people you support all talk but do nothing. When you support Bush now after all the lies he has been caught in and the lies that will be exposed you are a danger to this Country like your free republic who went after a mother who lost her son in Iraq just because she wrote a letter to the newspapers. Or the person who tires where flaten because he dared call Bush a liar your days are over a lot of you will be sitting in jail.
Posted by: Dale Peters | January 1, 2007 9:32 AM
I am honored to be called a right winger by someone like Dale Peters who claims to think for himself but is really just a tool of ultra left wing groups. I am willing to support any argument I make with facts from major news organizations such as the New York Times and the Washington Post, but look through the "evidence" that backs up Dale's posts. It's all from Moveon.org and other extremist leftist organizations, not anybody concerned at all with the truth.
Peters claims to care about port security and our homeland's safety yet he supports the same people who refused to pass the bill that created the Department of Homeland Security because they were afraid their union campaign supporters wouldn't get a new stream of cash from the DHS. Yep, you guessed it, these people weren't republicans.
If Dale was as concerned about security as he claims to be he wouldn't support putting all of our security at risk over a few union jobs.
So, yes, Dale, I'll wear the mantle you push on me proudly. Enjoy your rallies of "hooray for our side" in the New Year and whatever you do don't dare entertain the possibility that your side might be wrong.
Posted by: Bill | January 1, 2007 11:01 AM
Unlett, read the article, it's about Chavez using the machinery of the government to unlawfully shut down a television station that's been critical of his administration, a first class violation of freedom of the press.
While it's true that Chavez was freely elected, let's remember that Hitler was too and it's not impossible for a freely elected leader to become a dictator. One of the first signs is unlawfully using their power to quiet dissenting voices. Say whatever you want about Bush - and I have no doubt you people will - he has not ONCE tried to stop the orthodox left wing from making movies that fantasize about his murder, question his competence and question his policies. Chavez has. That's the difference.
Posted by: Bill | January 1, 2007 11:07 AM
Bill, give it up.Chavez is Venezuela's problem.
You need to concentrate on rebuilding the GOP that W.,Cheney,and Rove have destroyed,"swiftboating" is not the way to go.
Good luck!
Happy New Year Everyone!!!
Posted by: John E. | January 1, 2007 11:58 AM
Bill....You're right!!! Bush "is" better than
Chavez.
Posted by: bill r. | January 1, 2007 12:26 PM
Bill you are so full of it. The Bill you speak about had nothing to do with security it took American right away. Who sold the ports to our enemies Republicans. Who refuse to let the report out about a Nuke and Chem plants who failed every security test Republicans. You party is off of it rocker. You don;t care about protecting America your records are public. You talk and do nothing. You try to scare us you don't. You lie to our troops and veterans. You lie to America. But now sir your lies are about to come out to the public and must of your people will be charged. Just like your companies charge American troops for food when they are wounded. Bill like I said Your Lies are over America has spoken.
Posted by: Dale Peters | January 1, 2007 1:09 PM
Bill,
I did read the article, was just wondering how it was related to the topic of the blog. That's o.k. though, I'm not going to defend Chavez but are you defending Bush's use of illegal wiretaps and suspending of habeas corpus? Do you believe that government commissioned scientific studies such as those of the EPA should be adulterated by Bush's hack censurer's when they don't fit neatly into his destructive policy making. Sounds a lot like what Chavez is doing, only sneakier.
Don't know how to post a link, but check out Slate article, "Bill of Wrongs", for a more comprehensive list of Bush's shenanigans.
Peace and Happy New Year!
Posted by: unlettered | January 1, 2007 2:04 PM
I'm not sure why Bill felt it necessary to interject Chavez into the article,but as always,leaves out why Chavez might be a little "ticked" at the Bushies.Read this one paragraph,then ask yourself,self,would Bush/Cheney try and help the Oil companies?
In December 2001, Chavez introduced new laws—including land and oil industry reforms—that led to a widespread uprising against his government. He was ousted from power five months later by a group of discontented senior military officers. Although the United States condemned the takeover, Washington appeared quick to welcome the transitional government. When Chavez returned to the presidency two days later, he believed the United States provided covert support for the coup and continues to allege Washington is planning for his ouster.
Posted by: Raving Loon | January 1, 2007 2:13 PM
Is there a supporting fact in there anywhere, Dale? The port security act of 2006 was passed by the republican congress and signed into law by Bush. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/sap/109-2/hr4954sap-s.pdf
The major hold-up that still haunts this bill is security technology language - technology that could detect nuclear weapons miles from shore - that would eliminate the jobs of some longshoremen. Again the democrats and their unions are the sticking point.
When you say "who sold our ports to our enemies. Republicans" I can only assume you mean the ports deal that would've given control of our ports in Long Beach, Calif., New Jersey and 4 others to a state-owned company based in Dubai, UAE. Here's a clue. Dubai is in no way our enemy. The United Emirates is one of the few states that supports the U.S. in the region and a key ally in the War on Terror. To say that they are the U.S.'s enemy is tantamount to racism and hate of all Muslims regardless of nationality or belief in extremism.
Don't get me wrong, Dubai is not perfect, but we're going to need allies in the Middle East to ensure our security. Angering the Emirates, as the democrats did by scuttling the ports deal, is no way to make Arabs trust the U.S. Beyond that, the company that would've taken over the ports, Dubai Ports World might be state-owned (as many companies are in Dubai) but it's a huge multinational that's in no way a Muslim-only company. The deal would've transferred control of six U.S. ports from one huge multinational to... another huge multinational. Security STILL would've been controlled by the U.S. Coast Guard and nothing would have changed. The only thing that kept this deal from happening is Chuck Schumer's well-played campaign of prejudice that convinced DPW that all the fuss wasn't worth it and they decided to divest themselves of the six ports. Apparently prejudice is now something for a democrat to be proud of.
I know your masters at the DNC tell you to post these things Dale because they're easy to make political grist out of. "They don't want us to be safe! They sold out our ports to our ENEMIES!" but a scratch below the surface of this political sloganeering would reveal how laughably thin all your arguments are.
Here's a link to the USC center for public policy's analysis of the "controversy" that spells out in detail how it will hurt U.S. interests abroad in the longterm. This decision shifted the center of concern from the implications for US-Arab collaboration and President Bush’s political vulnerability to more general speculation that the US may move towards a more protectionist and isolationist trading strategy. Most recent coverage has focused on whether the ports controversy will initiate declines in international investment in the United States and detrimentally effect the American economy.
Here's some reading for you, Dale. http://uscpublicdiplomacy.com/index.php/newsroom/specialreports_detail/the_dubai_ports_controversy_an_uproar_heard_round_the_world/
Posted by: Bill | January 1, 2007 3:13 PM
I warn you right winger if something happen to my family in Iraq you would pay for your support of the lies Bush told to take us into this war. And IED took his hand and foot. You are the danger to all in this Country. You say you are God Fearing People again that a lie. No one support liars who brak God Laws.
Posted by: Dale Peters | January 1, 2007 7:04 PM
Unl,
Just copy the link in to your post. The Swamp will make the link work.
Posted by: c.morris | January 1, 2007 7:41 PM
I wonder, is the Chavez thing suddenly coming up the latest 'talking point'? Maybe the war party thinks Ven. would be a push over?
Maybe 'things' are being discussed on RRR radio that we should be hearing?
Posted by: c.morris | January 1, 2007 8:36 PM
Mr. Bill,
Here's that link to Slate article on the Ten Most Outrageous Civil Liberties Violations of 2006.
http://www.slate.com/id/2156397/fr/flyout
C Mo be there...thx
Posted by: unlettered | January 1, 2007 8:44 PM
Well, I'll try not to break any God Laws. Your threats are idle, Dale Peters, you don't scare me. I doubt you frighten anyone who doesn't take their walking papers from the DNC like you do. Although I will pray for the safety of your relatives in Iraq, as I do for all soldiers and sailors.
Loon, Unlett, I interjected Chavez into this conversation because many of you were posting that you wondered how long it would take Bush to be impeached. To show the work of a real leader who was overstepping his authority I posted the example of Chavez using his presidential power to shutdown a television station that's been critical of his administration, a CLEAR violation of freedom of the press.
Bush and Cheney should support Chavez's ouster. The same way that Roosevelt supported Panama's independence. Chavez is little more than a legitimized madman who rode anti-American venom to an election victory. Look at his past if you don't believe me.
I'm not what Chavez did has anything to do with the NSA and the Bush administration's wiretaps. Everybody knows the FBI, CIA and NSA were doing that to people they perceived as threats WAY before Bush arrived in office (just ask J. Edgar Hoover). I'm just saying Chavez is the worst type of banana republic dictator and because of the relative wealth of Venezuela his madness could be a real threat to national security.
Did you know that under your hero Chavez's leadership, Loon, South America has become the largest arms dealer in South America? What possible motive could Chavez have for selling that many small arms? Let me tell you, it's not because he's jealous of Destro.
On November 29th, Venezuela received the final shipment of the 100,000 AK-103 assault rifles that it purchased from Russia last year. Despite the high-profile nature of this sale, little is known about Venezuela’s plans for safeguarding the rifles, which would be a hot commodity on the region’s vibrant black market. It’s time to start asking some tough questions about the rifles and President Chavez’s plan for protecting them.
Would you like to know more? Read what the Federation of American Scientists reports on its blog (sorry about breaking the margins): http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2006/12/venezuelas_military_buildup_wh_1.php
Posted by: Bill | January 1, 2007 9:01 PM
Bill,
I stand by my earlier comment.
How much longer until we can Impeach W. ??
If you or I had performed at our jobs the way team Bush has we would've been canned.....yesterday.
Let it rip "Bulldog" Waxman!
Posted by: John E. | January 1, 2007 10:53 PM
Mr. Bill,
Don't want to prolong the Chavez diversion any longer but what Bush has done and what Chavez has done both represent violations of basic civil rights. ( I included the link above to Slate article). Also politicizing agencies like the EPA and suppressing information or altering scientific reports may not be illegal, but is slimy at the very least.
Posted by: unlettered | January 1, 2007 11:36 PM
Did you know that under your hero Chavez's leadership, Loon, South America has become the largest arms dealer in South America?
Posted by: Bill | Jan 1, 2007 9:01:01 PM
Bill,while we're on the subject,who would be the "Largest" arms dealer in the world?
Chavez is not my hero.I just wanted to point out what extreme measures your party will reach to support the oil companies.
Posted by: Raving Loon | January 2, 2007 8:34 AM
To show the work of a real leader who was overstepping his authority I posted the example of Chavez using his presidential power to shutdown a television station that's been critical of his administration, a CLEAR violation of freedom of the press.
Posted by: Bill | Jan 1, 2007 9:01:01 PM
Anyone remember that story a few months ago where authorities yanked a teenage girl out of school and questioned her about her vent on her MySpace page about Bush? All done without parents or representation. You think Bush wouldn't shut down a TV station, newspaper, website or two if he could? Wonder how little we would hear or know without the Internet...
Posted by: DD | January 2, 2007 9:54 AM
This isn't a 'talking point' or anything of the sort. It's something I read this weekend that alarmed me. Our government should support American oil companies over those in Venezuela especially when a madman like Chavez is running things over there.
Posted by: Bill | January 2, 2007 10:02 AM
let's not foget about B.J.Clinton(dem) that had 8-12 chances to take out Obama bin Ladin,but failed.
9/11 took place because of democrat presidents that were too weak to take action and see the future threat on our soil and around the world....sure,blame everyting on Bush,but he saw the future threat,it is nasty,it cost lives,but he never lost focus and we haven't been attacked since 9/11/2001
Posted by: Paulo | Jan 1, 2007 3:58:35 AM
Bush never lost focus on the war on terror?? Why, then, are there 140,000 troops traipsing around the streets of Iraq getting picked off by IEDs and snipers like fish in big, not-so-armored barrels?
Clinton may have failed to pick off bin Laden, yes. But what kind of message are we sending to terrorists when Bush -- who had the world's support behind him after 9/11 -- can't find the man who orchestrated an attack on our country, and instead of "staying the course" in pursuit of him, "cuts and runs" from Afghanistan and desides to disrupt life in a sovereign nation?
Do you really think we wouldn't have found bin Laden if we had 140,000 troops combing the mountains of Afghanistan? And for those who say he's in Pakistan, when we had the world's support after 9/11 and all eyes were on Afghanistan, do you really think Musharraf would have wasted a golden diplomatic opportunity and stopped coalition troops from crossing the border to take out bin Laden and his cohorts?
Clinton failed to act after the U.S.S. Cole bombing and the attacks on our embassies, but that failure pales in comparison to the gross negligence demonstrated by the current administration to root out bin Laden at all costs, especially when we had a unanimous green light from the world at large.
Posted by: Jeff C. | January 2, 2007 10:43 AM
Bush and Cheney should support Chavez's ouster.
Posted by: Bill | Jan 1, 2007 9:01:01 PM
Our government should support American oil companies over those in Venezuela
Posted by: Bill | Jan 2, 2007 10:02:27 AM
Ahh yes, once again a brave Republican willing to sacrifice lives, this time in Venezuela, to further increase the profits of the international oil companies at a time when they are raking in cash hand over fist.
Remember Halliburton! Our new battle cry.
Posted by: Tony | January 2, 2007 10:56 AM
Name one DD. Go ahead, I double dare you. Find me one newspaper or television station that Bush has tried to shut down.
Posted by: Bill | January 2, 2007 11:33 AM
Jeff C,
"And for those who say he's in Pakistan, when we had the world's support after 9/11 and all eyes were on Afghanistan, do you really think Musharraf would have wasted a golden diplomatic opportunity and stopped coalition troops from crossing the border to take out bin Laden and his cohorts?"
This is a point I have brought up many times in terms of Mr. Bush's "toughness." If Bush were such a tough guy and a unilateralist, why didn't he tell our "friend" Pervez during Tora Bora that we are going to catch Osama Bin Laden if it is the last thing that we do.
We will be airlifting troops to the Pakistan side of the border to surround the area, and if his forces or tribal troops fire on U.S. soldiers than they will be handled with deadly force. With all the money and arms we are giving to Mr. Musharaf, does anyone really believe that Pakistan would even bring up, much less follow through on a threat to nuke India in retaliation?
We had all the leverage we needed including world support, but Mr. Bush didn't have the cajones to stand up to our ostensible "ally" Gen. Musharaf. The same thing is occurring in Saudi Arabia where appeasing the ruling party seems to be the part and parcel of U.S. foreign policy there.
"Clinton failed to act after the U.S.S. Cole bombing and the attacks on our embassies"
Here you seem to be buying into the propaganda. In retaliation for the Embassy Bombings and despite GOP howls of "wag the dog," Clinton bombed the hiedout where Osama Bin Laden was believed to have been. Intelligence estimates are that we missed him by about 45 minutes.
As for the Cole, the bombing took place weeks before the election in Mr. Clinton's lame duck term. Furthermore, responsibility for the bombing was not established until days before Bush 43 took office. Clinton wisely, I believe, decided not to tie the hands of the incoming president by establishing new facts on the ground before the turnover.
He did explictly warn President-elect Bush that the USS Cole bombing was an act of war and should be dealt with directly and fiercely. George Bush ignored this advice as well as all other advice Clinton gave him upon leaving office.
Bush 41 entered Somalia right before Clinton took office, and I believe that experience made him reticent to place a similar military engagement in the lap of the incoming president. Failure to act in response to the Cole bombing lies at the feet of Mr. Bush.
Posted by: Bryan | January 2, 2007 12:47 PM
Bill-
Bush wanted to bomb Al-Jazeera.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/22/AR2005112201784.html
That would be shutting down a network with extreme prejudice, now, wouldn't it?
Posted by: Tony | January 2, 2007 12:55 PM
No dice, Tony, joking about bombing Al Jazeera and actually yanking a TV station's license, as Chavez has done, are two drastically different things.
"sounds like one of the president's one-liners that is meant as a joke." But, the diplomat said, "it was foolish for someone to write it down, and now it will be a story for days."
That's the sad state of politics today. Someone unscrupulous, like you, can take a joke out of context and use it as justification that Bush "talked about" something he never endorsed or followed as policy.
I think most thinking people can see the distinction.
Posted by: Bill | January 2, 2007 1:15 PM
Again, Tony, these comments are taken completely out of context. Can you intelligently arguing anything without cutting pasting things to fit your agenda?
Yes, the U.S. should support domestic oil companies over those in Venezuela. But I never said we should fight for them. There are many other ways to give preference to domestic companies such as tariffs, tax breaks, etc.
The U.S. should support candidates that don't run on socialist, anti-American platforms in Venezuela. This is not an endorsement of going to war with Venezuela in any way. The situation in Venezuela is not exacly stable. If a coup could topple Chavez (Chavez, himself, has led coups of the legitimate gov't there, before) why should we not allow it?
Posted by: Bill | January 2, 2007 1:21 PM
From the Washington Post-
"One source is quoted as saying Bush's alleged remark concerning the network's headquarters in Qatar was "humorous, not serious," while the other said, "Bush was deadly serious."
"According to a source quoted in the Daily Mail, Blair told Bush that bombing al-Jazeera "would cause a big problem." The source was also quoted as saying: "There's no doubt what Bush wanted to do -- and no doubt Blair didn't want him to do it."
Bill, is it unscrupulous to cherry pick quotes from an article? Just curious.
Hugo Chavez is the eleceted leader of Venezuela. It is no more our business to support a coup against him, than it is for him to support a coup against Bush.
Posted by: Tony (unscrupulous) | January 2, 2007 1:37 PM
Bill,
Make up your mind. In one post you railed against protectionism and in this you advocate it. What are we to believe about you, that you change your opinion w/ every shift of the wind?
Posted by: jethro | January 2, 2007 4:13 PM
Paulo says: "9/11 took place because of democrat presidents that were too weak to take action and see the future threat on our soil and around the world....sure,blame everyting on Bush,but he saw the future threat"
Where are those WMDs, Paulo?
>Paulo: "it is nasty,it cost lives,but he never lost focus"
Six short months after 9/11 Bush said he didn't care where Osama was. Some focus, eh?
>Paulo: "and we haven't been attacked since 9/11/2001,"
Don't forget the anthrax attacks.
>Paulo: "50,000,000 people are free,Saddam and his sons are dead....."
Five years after invading Afghanistan, the Taliban are still there and each year is breaking the previous year's record for opium production. Instead of doing one war right, little boy Bush has created two messes.
Thanks to Bush's illegal war of the Iraqi people, 600,000 innocents are dead. He must answer for his war crimes.
Posted by: Bill Fultz | January 8, 2007 4:55 AM