On Saturday, Bush explained how he understands the financial stress that many Americans are dealing with, attempting to express that he is not living inside a bubble and ignoring the plight of the average American. He got off to a :
"Some of you worry about your ability to afford health care coverage for your families," Bush said in his weekly radio address, recorded at his Texas ranch.
"Some of you are concerned about meeting your monthly mortgage payments," Bush said. "Some of you worry about the impact of rising energy costs on fueling your cars and heating your homes. You expect your elected leaders in Washington to address these pressures."
Then of course, he couldn't help himself. He proceeded to paint a favorable picture of the economy and falling back on what he's comfortable with, blamed congress for it's wasteful spending in a futile attempt to link the two issues.
Just another indicator of a presidency in its last throes.
From the liberal point of view, if only time could speed up a bit and this presidency could reach its conclusion. Though, the reality is that we still have more than one year left -- plenty of time for the Bush Administration to launch a unilateral war with Iran.
Due to the fires in California, the media overlooked what years from now might be considered Bush's most significant speech on Iran. The President claimed on Tuesday that Iran's missiles could hit the United States by , hinting at preventive military force to remove the Iranian capability:
Our intelligence community assesses that, with continued foreignassistance, Iran could develop an intercontinental ballistic missilecapable of reaching the United States and all of Europe before 2015. If itchooses to do so, and the international community does not take steps toprevent it, it is possible Iran could have this capability. And we need totake it seriously -- now.
Recently, the Bush Administration changed its strategy of letting China control negotiations with North Korea to engaging with Kim Jong IL's regime directly. The State Department is to thank for persuading Bush to . Ironically, this is just a few years after Condoleezza Rice was that bilateral talks would not work. Now they are on the edge of a breakthrough.
This new approach is upsetting Dick Cheney. One of the Vice President's loyal soldiers, John Bolton, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, is to undercut any bilateral successes with the North:
Former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton is urging GOP lawmakers tooppose the Bush administration’s recent agreement with North Korea toend its nuclear programs, according to House Republican sources.
WhileBolton’s skepticism of North Korea is well-known, this is believed tobe the first time a former top adviser to the president has taken theunusual step of lobbying against a pillar of the administration’scurrent foreign policy. It is particularly surprising given the valuethe administration has placed on loyalty.
If North Korea disarms, that would give the U.S. a reason to stop flexing its sticks as much in Southeast Asia. Cheney's allies do not want that.
Remember, it was John Bolton that Bush brought in by way of recess appointment because the Senate Foreign Relations Committee him. And it was this same John Bolton who was responsible for the with North Korea earlier this decade when he had a different job under Bush.
Bolton desperately wants to prevent any breakthrough with the North, and will go to great lengths to do that -- even if it goes against Bush. And as we have seen from , Bolton never does anything without Dick Cheney's approval.
Just think: a sitting Vice President trying to undercut a sitting President. Has this happened before?
The deadline to renew funding for the federal government for the 2008 fiscal year has passed. When Congress returns on Monday, it will be October, which is when the . Today President Bush signed a document that gives Congress a to pass a budget.
Of course, Congress already supports a budget, but Bush won't sign it because it exceeds his request by $23 billion -- the cost of for less than two months. Last year though, the President allowed the Republican Congress to exceed his budget request by $53 million.
In his , Bush took aim:
"Earlier this year, congressional leaders promised to show that theycould be responsible with the people's money. Unfortunately they seemto have chosen the path of higher spending," the president said in hisweekly radio address.
Who is choosing the path to higher spending? Is it a President that never chose to until the Democrats took Congress this January?
Instead of turning this into one of my typically redundant posts about Bush hypocrisy (oops, pardon the title!), how about we just let the facts do the talking.
In 2006, President Bush allowed Congress to exceed his budget request by .
In 2007, President Bush is scolding Congress for exceeding his budget request by just $22 billion.
So what are the this year?
The additional funding has long been sought by Democrats and includesbudget increases for dozens of favored domestic programs, includinggrants to local governments, education, homeland security, lawenforcement and health research.
Bottom line: Bush -- the same Bush that campaigned on wanting to protect this country -- is threatening to veto a bill that would protect our homeland from terrorism, increase money for police and give local municipalities the breathing room in their budgets to make their communities more secure.
If you want to expand on the whole "Bush hypocrisy" theme, remember that this was a President who did when the Republicans had control of Congress.
For the last time, can you say 'hypocrisy'? In the end, how can anyone blame us for being redundant when this happens over and over again.
President Bush announced Saturday that he will be vetoing a measure by Congress to expand federally funded Health Care for children. The measure, which is expected to pass the Senate and House next week, would expand Health Care for children in low-income households by $35 billion over the next five years, adding 4 million people to program; bringing the grand total up to approximately 10.6 million people. Bush referred to the Democrats pushing the bill as
"Democrats in Congress have decided to pass a bill they know will bevetoed," Bush said of the measure that draws significant bipartisansupport, repeating in his weekly radio address an accusation he madeearlier in the week. "Members of Congress are risking health coveragefor poor children purely to make a political point."
Yes, giving poor children medical treatment. How "irresponsible" and partisan can you get? Congress is seriously putting these children in harms way by trying to expand their health coverage. Can't someone from the Democratic Party counter this ridiculous claim?
In the Democrat's response, also broadcast Saturday, Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendellturned the tables on the president, saying that if Bush doesn't signthe bill, 15 states will have no funding left for the program by theend of the month.
There we go! Bush must sign this bill or risk being branded as negligent in protecting American citizens. But then again, after looking at his track record in protecting poor American citizens, it becomes very clear where this "man" stands.
What's the point in protecting Americans from terrorism when children will suffer and die in the United States due to inadequate health care? How can a person talk about how we're fighting a war for to protect or children's future, and then threaten to sign a death warrant for some of those very same children? Hypocrisy doesn't begin to describe it.
If President Bush vetoes this Bill, the responsibility for those children's pain will rest solely at his doorstep. The deaths of those who could not see a doctor will lie on his conscience. His negligence borders on the criminal, and he says the Democrats are the ones being "irresponsible."
A few years removed from his retirement as Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan is speaking his mind about the current Administration. His new book, , is in stores starting today. In an with the New York Times, Greenspan highlighted his opinion that President Bush is more concerned with power and control than with being a true conservative:
“I’m just very disappointed,†he said glumly, as he sat in hisliving room. “Smaller government, lower spending, lower taxes, lessregulation — they had the resources to do it, they had the knowledge todo it, they had the political majorities to do it. And they didn’t.â€
In the end, he said, “political control trumped policy, and they achieved neither political control nor policy.â€
Maybe it had something to do with the fact that President Bush did when Republicans had control of Congress, helping add at least $2.5 trillion to the .
The White House readily responded to Greenspan yesterday regarding the former Fed Chair's belief that the US went into Iraq for oil. White House spokesman Tony Fratto called Greenspan's comments a "."
According to the Los Angeles Times, Alan Greenspan's memoir is really :
Book One: Who Greenspan is.
Book Two: Greenspan's world view.
Book Three: Greenspan's account of public policy.
Of his failures, Greenspan he failed to recognize the importance of the adjustable rate mortgage problem.
Everything went so well for them earlier this week when Bush was able to hide behind his generals. However, once Bush went front and center, a number of Republican strategists got queasy. Why have a President that already has a wide credibility problem try to make another used car sale to the American public? explains the GOP tension:
Bush's trumpeting of what he called a "return on success" could end upbackfiring. Bringing the war into America's living rooms is never asafe political bet. And if news of a slow drawdown may be popular, Bushhimself still is not. Some key Hill Republicans, in fact, were upsetthat he returned front and center on the issue at a time when the WhiteHouse had so carefully ceded the selling of the surge to Petraeus andCrocker. "Why would he threaten the momentum we have?" says onefrustrated Capitol Hill Republican strategist with ties to the GOPleadership. "You have an unpopular President going onto prime timetelevision, interrupting Americans' TV programs, to remind them of whythey don't like him." Republicans in Congress who were finallybreathing a sigh of relief after months of bludgeoning on Iraq feltBush was risking the progress he had made with those closely followingthe war by thrusting it in the faces of those who may not be payingattention. It didn't help that Bush said American forces would be onthe ground in Iraq, as part of an "enduring relationship," well pastthe end of his term in office.
, it won't matter what the American public thinks.
Last night, President Bush tried to get his nationwide audience to believe that the mission in Iraq is about to enter a brand :
“Yet those of us who believe success in Iraq is essential to oursecurity, and those who believe we should bring our troops home, havebeen at odds. Now, because of the measure of success we are seeing inIraq, we can begin seeing troops come home.â€
I would not be surprised if by the end of Bush's presidency this quote goes down as the most misleading statement of the last eight years. In those two sentences lies George W. Bush's free ticket to pass this crisis on to the next commander-in-chief. Even after next summer, troop levels will be no lower than 130,000 -- same as in 2006, a year in which more than 800 young men and women .
The troop surge has simply exhausted the military of its reserves. The Army is so overstretched that the NAVY is now tactics. There are no more troops to send. That is why Bush is drawing down forces by next summer, including by the end of this year -- but not because we are winning. If we were winning, there would not be 1,000 , as there are now.
In the coming weeks, the President will ask Congress for more war money. This is where Congress ought to put its foot down. No money unless it is tied to a bill that safely redeploys all of our soldiers out of Iraq, and eliminates the possibility of future bases inside the country. Unless we change course now, at least another $150 billion will be spent before Bush leaves office, and more thereafter when the next president, hopefully a Democrat, pulls them out.
Please call your and in your district. Tell them not to spend another dime on this war unless it is tied to a rapid withdrawal plan.
The Blue State will be blogging live during President Bush's Address on Iraq. Tune into MSNBC, because immediately after John Edwards will give a two-minute address. We will continue updating this blog entry throughout the speech, every three minutes or so. (Keep refreshing this page.)
9:03: "(Petraeus and Crocker) They concluded that conditions in Iraq have improved."
9:05: "Anbar Province is a good example of how our strategy is working." (Actually, that is not true! We are not surging in .)
9:07: "..the success in Anbar is being replicated in other parts of the country." (Anbar is a COMPLETELY different situation than in other parts of Iraq. In Anbar, there is political reconciliation. In other parts of Iraq, there is not.)
9:10: Maybe Bush could remind people that 57% of Iraqis support attacks on US troops.
9:13: Bush is really trying to declare victory. He smirked when announcing that 30,000 US troops will be redeployed from Iraq by next summer. But that is not an authentic draw-down. We have run out of troops. So they have to some down anyway. Even with 30,000 troops coming home by next summer, that leaves 130,000 left in Iraq until the end of Bush's second term. Bush even just admitted in the speech that he will pass this mess onto the next leader. He said that the Iraq war is something "that extends" past "my presidency."
9:15: Bush just admitted that we are there for oil. He said if we leave Iraq, Iran would "control" a vast "energy supply."
9:17: "We encourage all nations to help." Yeah, that's sure going to happen. They love us!
9:17: Bush just began talking about the internets.
9:18: Oxymoron of the night!! "Freedom is not free."
9:21: Jack Reed: "President Bush's own advisers tell us" that the surge is not working.
9:22: Jack Reed wants to speed up the "rapid redeployment" from Iraq. An "unlimited presence in Iraq is not an option," Reed added.
9:23: Jack Reed completed his speech. Getting ready for John Edwards' address.
9:26: Chris Matthews: "If we're , how come we're not getting towards a government that we can defend?"
9:27: Great line by Keith Olbermann: "Did we know this was not a date, but a wedding, five years ago?"
9:30: Biden is on MSNBC.
9:31: Joe Biden: "95% of the problem is a civil war -- Sunnis killing Shia."
9:32: Biden: "Who is the government in Iraq?" Great question!
9:33: Biden: "There is no one to sign a treaty with."
9:35: Biden: The violence is down from "1,600 a week to 1,000." Funny! Bush is cheering the fact that we are down to 1,000 attacks! Wow.
9:37: Mike Huckabee is on! Good Lord! He is attacking the so-called Washington "politicians." As Chris Matthews challenged Huckabee, Isn't Bush a politician too?
Below is the Edwards Ad:
And so concludes our live blogging of the presidential speech coverage. The Blue Nightowl Clips will be posted at Midnight Eastern.
Recent Comments