Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Obama Calls on Bush To Admit Iraq Errors

Posted By: Democrat on 2005-11-23
In Reply to:


Obama Calls on Bush To Admit Iraq Errors


'Limited' Troop Reduction Urged



By Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 23, 2005; Page A03



CHICAGO, Nov. 22 -- Sen. Barack Obama said President Bush should admit mistakes in waging the Iraq war and reduce the number of troops stationed there in the next year. But the Illinois Democrat, a longtime opponent of the war, said U.S. forces remain part of a solution in the bitterly divided country and should not be withdrawn immediately.


Without citing specific numbers, Obama called for a limited drawdown of U.S. troops that would push the fragile Iraqi government to take more responsibility while deploying enough American soldiers to prevent the country from exploding into civil war or ethnic cleansing or a haven for terrorism.







src=http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/largerPhoto/images/enlarge_tab.gif
Sen.
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) greets well-wishers at the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations after he said the administration has not given straight answers to critical questions on Iraq. (By Jeff Roberson -- Associated Press)




Obama also faulted the administration for tarring its critics as unpatriotic naysayers and said it launched the war to topple Saddam Hussein in March 2003 without giving either Congress or the American people the full story.


Straight answers to critical questions. That's what we don't have right now, the high-profile freshman senator told the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations. Members of both parties and the American people have now made clear that it is simply not enough for the president to simply say 'We know best' and 'Stay the course.'


As other Democrats are finding their voice against Iraq policy, Obama took an approach closer to one taken by Senate Foreign Relations Committee colleague Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) than to that of Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.). Murtha, a former Marine, called last week for an immediate pullout of nearly 160,000 U.S. troops.


Four prospective Democratic presidential candidates -- Biden, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.) and former North Carolina senator John Edwards -- have advocated a more gradual approach, with no sudden steps. Biden called Monday for the withdrawal of 50,000 troops by the end of next year and all but 20,000 to 40,000 out by January 2008.


Obama told the audience of about 500 people that the war has siphoned assets from homeland security and the global anti-terrorism fight. He said the administration's attempt to equate the defeat of the Iraqi insurgency with the defeat of international terrorism is overly narrow and dangerously short-sighted.


In a 35-minute speech scheduled just days ago, Obama argued that public opinion has raced ahead of politicians in seeking a clearly etched policy that helps produce stability in Iraq and the Middle East without exposing the United States to a war without end -- a war where our goals and our strategies drift aimlessly, regardless of the cost in lives or dollars spent.


Those of us in Washington have fallen behind the debate that is taking place across America on Iraq. We are failing to provide leadership on this issue, Obama said.


He maintained that Bush could take politics out of the Iraq discussion once and for all if he would simply go on television and say to the American people: 'Yes, we made mistakes. Yes, there are things I would have done differently. But now that I'm here, I'm willing to work with both Republicans and Democrats to find the most responsible way out.'




Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

Bush didn't destroy Iraq. He helped to liberate Iraq.
m
Sullivan is a RINO himself, so he's a hypocrit if he calls Bush one. sm
The fact is, Bush is not a true conservative and I have a lot of problems with some of his agendas.  Iraq is not one of them.  No one I know paints all liberals with the same brush.  Most of us who post here regularly have made the distinction between leftists and liberals. You just have chosen to ignore that.
And Obama calls this man his political father, his
who got him interested in politics. Why is that? You can believe there isn't racism there if you want, but I can't put my head in the sand.
Al Qaeda calls Obama a "house negro" harder to recruit
Bush made it easier for AL Qaeda and Obama is making it harder.  That says a lot.
Oh jeeze, admit you are pro-Obama
Instead of spewing this crap. McCain is not and never has been a Muslim, and they would love to get Obama in there. Think about it. :)
Of course Obama didn't admit to that.
I heard Biden's speech - on MSNBC and then again on Fox. That was exactly what he was talking about.
Iraq And Bush

I would like to call him "The Hitler of the 21st Century". Any comments?


Bush: It's bad in Iraq....sm (no you think?)
Is democratic house and senate control what Bush needed to wise up about Iraq. I'm glad to see he's considering other options in Iraq, than policing the country indefinitely.
-----------------------------------------
(AP) President Bush, admitting that it's bad in Iraq, acknowledged Thursday that the United States needs a new approach in the unpopular war and promised to unveil details in an upcoming speech.

Bush said he was disappointed in the progress in Iraq, but continued to oppose direct U.S. talks with Iran or Syria and remained steadfastly committed to spreading democracy across the Middle East.

see link for full article
Still think Bush lied about Iraq?

One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998


If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program.
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998


We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction.
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998


He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998


[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998


Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998


Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999


We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them.
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002


We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002


Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002


We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002


The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons...
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002


I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002


There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002


In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002


We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002


Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real...
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003







Still think Bush lied?


bush tried to connect 9/11 and iraq
I disagree cause Cheney has many times stated that 9/11 and Iraq were linked up together..And...if we need to get rid of the nutcases, why werent we and why arent we focused on getting the head of the nutcases..bin laden?  Why did we lose focus three years ago and let him live and build up his army against America?  Listen very carefully and open your eyes..WE INVADED IRAQ FOR OIL, LOGISTICS..I.E., AN AMERICAN BASE IN THE MIDDLE EAST FOR OIL AND PROTECTION OF ISRAEL..WE INVADED FOR CONTROL OF THE MIDDLE EAST..Something we would never have agreed to, to send our children to die for this stupid idiotic asinine idea but, however, this lying murderous administration linked it up with 9/11 and most Americans (not me I state proudly) went along with it cause they were still hurting from 9/11 and wanted revenge..I have three republican friends who were so for the war and wanting to blow away anyone possibly connected..Now all three agree with me and also agree Bush is a monster and America is on the wrong track.
Fox News is pro-Bush, pro-war in Iraq. sm
There may be a few reports on that broadcast that play devil's advocate for the other side, but all in all they lean more to the right on most issues.
Bush: All or nothing with booze and with Iraq = Dysfunctional





  MSNBC.com

Murtha’s Moment
The White House is still attacking critics by questioning their patriotism. But Congress—and the public—are becoming more skeptical.


WEB-EXCLUSIVE COMMENTARY


Newsweek

Updated: 3:12 a.m. ET Nov. 20, 2005



Nov. 18, 1005 - Pennsylvania Democrat John Murtha is a burly ex-Marine with a Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts who rarely speaks to the press. But he came out of the shadows Thursday to call for a complete pullout from Iraq within six months. “Our military has done everything that’s been asked of them. It is time to bring them home,” he said. Murtha’s hawkish record on military matters made his announcement all the more surprising. “It’s like George W. Bush saying he wants to raise taxes,” says Lawrence Korb, a defense analyst who served in the Reagan administration.


Democrats gave Murtha a standing ovation behind closed doors, but most kept their distance in public. “It’s a trap,” explained a Democratic strategist. “If the party comes out for a unilateral six-month withdrawal, that would become the issue for ’06, and they [Republicans] would kill us again.” 


Administration officials were less reticent. A White House statement said Murtha was “endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic party.” Indeed, the election campaign tactics are back in all but name, with the president and the vice president attacking critics by questioning their patriotism. The strategy may rally some of the Republican base. However, the broader public has made up its mind about this administration’s credibility, and Murtha isn’t the only member of Congress paying attention.  


We learned in Vietnam that in a democracy you can’t sustain a war without public support, and time is running out for the Iraq war. Senate Republicans joined with Democrats to demand accountability on the progress of the war, a meaningless gesture in the sense it requires the administration to do nothing other than supply quarterly reports. But it signals the first cracks in the Republican coalition, and it emboldens Democrats to keep up their drumbeat assailing the credibility of the leaders who took us into a war we can’t win and don’t know how to end. 


Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel, for example, defends the right of critics to question and criticize their government and its policies. Hagel served in Vietnam, which he says was “a lie at the beginning.” He explained in an interview aired last weekend on C-Span how his views about Vietnam were altered when he learned how his government falsified information in order to win congressional approval for the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which gave President Lyndon Johnson the authority to prosecute the war unchecked. “And so we have now pretty much come to the same place,” he said, meaning our government committed us to military action based on bits and pieces of evidence that bolstered its case for war. Hagel did have qualms about the invasion, but he voted for the resolution that gave President Bush a blank check for war with Iraq. Now that we’re there, he says, “We cannot allow this to become a 1975 when we took the last remnants of our influence out on a helicopter on top of the U.S. Embassy in Saigon.”


 


There is a parallel with Vietnam in the falsehoods advanced by government to rally congressional support and public opinion for war. Take the ongoing controversy over exactly what happened in the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964. Although analysts on the scene radioed back to Washington that there was no cause for alarm, President Johnson and Defense Secretary Robert McNamara glossed over doubts about a second attack on American ships and trumpeted the alleged expansion of the war by the North Vietnamese to rally Congress and the American people to escalate a war that had been losing public support. Sen. William Fulbright, one of only two senators to oppose the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, said in a speech on the Senate floor, “We will rue this day.” 


Johnson and McNamara perpetrated an untruth for the larger good of increasing American firepower in the war, which they believed would deal a decisive blow to the enemy. Fifty-eight thousand American soldiers lost their lives in that senseless conflict. Does the fact that their political leaders thought they were acting in good faith at the time excuse the deception? President Bush and Vice President Cheney accuse Democrats of “rewriting history” by objecting to a war they voted for and claiming they were misled. But the information presented to lawmakers was selective, and efforts to learn more were stymied. Democratic Rep. Shelley Berkeley recalls being invited to a pre-war briefing at the White House with Bush and Cheney. When she expressed concern about Israel’s security in the event of a war, Cheney told her not to worry, that the administration knew where the missiles were that could reach Israel, and the U.S. military would go in and get them first thing. Using a pointer, he showed her the location on a map. Berkeley voted for the war in part because of false information.


Was this conscious deception? Should Bush and Cheney get a pass because they believed a show of strength in Iraq would serve U.S. interests? If Bush wants to retrieve his credibility, he should call off the attack dogs and make a televised speech to the American people conceding that the certainty he presented about weapons of mass destruction was not there, and that the administration relied on a single source, aptly named “Curveball,” who was later discredited. Bush can then present his case--what he saw, why he acted, and why he still believes he did the right thing. 


Bush won’t give that speech because he can’t tolerate ambiguity. It’s part of his personality. He gave up drinking cold turkey, and it’s all or nothing. He demands simplicity, and he equates dissent with disloyalty. The result is a White House that has become dysfunctional.


© 2005 Newsweek, Inc.




src=http://c.msn.com/c.gif?NC=1255&NA=1154&PS=85588&PI=7329&DI=305&TP=http%3a%2f%2fmsnbc.msn.com%2fid%2f10101981%2f

src=http://msnbcom.112.2o7.net/b/ss/msnbcom/1/G.9-Pd-R/s03790180415547?[AQB]&ndh=1&t=20/10/2005%208%3A33%3A16%200%20300&pageName=Story%7CNewsweek%20H%7CPolitics%7C10101981%7CMurtha%27s%20Moment%7C%7C03%3A12%2C%2020/11/05&g=http%3A//www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10101981/site/newsweek/print/1/displaymode/1098/&ch=Newsweek%20Home&c3=Eleanor%20Clift&c4=Newsweek%20Home&c5=Politics&c7=handheld&c8=N&c15=10101981&c16=Story&c18=03&pid=Story%7CNewsweek%20H%7CPolitics%7C10101981%7CMurtha%27s%20Moment%7Cp1%7C03%3A12%2C%2020/11/05&pidt=1&oid=javascript%3AprintThis%28%2710101981%27%29&ot=A&oi=693&s=1024x768&c=32&j=1.3&v=Y&k=Y&bw=644&bh=484&ct=lan&hp=N&[AQE]

© 2005 MSNBC.com




URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10101981/site/newsweek/


Hey, Bush, sign your daughters up for Iraq, such a *noble* cause

Like George did, the new generation of Bushes let other Americans do the dying for them.


Bush has derided the mothers and fathers of our nation's war dead for not wanting any more young American men and women to die in Iraq. We owe them [the already killed and wounded soldiers] something, he told veterans in Salt Lake City (even though his administration tried to shortchange the veterans agency by $1.5 billion, according to Maureen Dowd). We will finish the task that they gave their lives for.







BUSH EXTENDED FAMILY PHOTO taken January 20, 2005

Yet, not one -- not one -- of any of Bush's children or his nieces and nephews have volunteered for service in any branch of the military or volunteered to serve in any capacity in Iraq. Not one of them has felt the cause was noble enough to put his or her life on the line.


Here is the full list of the children of Bush and his siblings who have chosen to let other young men and women -- mostly poor, rural and minorities -- die for them, because they have no desire to die for George W. Bush's alleged noble cause (assuming an eligible age of 17 with parental consent to join the military):


Military Service Eligible Children of George W. Bush
Jenna Bush
Barbara Bush


Military Service Eligible Children of Jeb Bush
George P. Bush
Noelle Bush
John Ellis Bush Jr.


Military Service Eligible Children of Neil Bush
Lauren Bush
Pierce Bush


Military Service Eligible Children of Marvin Bush
Marshall Bush


Military Service Eligible Children of Dorothy Bush Koch
Samuel LeBlond
Ellie LeBlond


Here is the complete chart:







Furthermore, not one of George's siblings served in the military when they were eligible, and Bush got a cozy stateside position in the Texas Air National Guard to avoid risking his life in another noble war, Vietnam.


Why do George W. Bush, his siblings, and their children think that the war is noble enough for kids like Casey Sheehan to die in, but not them?


Sign this petition, demanding that the Bush sibling children serve in George's noble war or he must bring the troops home now. Because if it's not noble enough for the Bush family to risk their lives fighting for, it's just a disastrous graveyard for poor and middle class Americans, dug deep to advance Bush's partisan agenda.


Bush can be brave with other people's children, because he has nothing personally to risk.


Bush tell your daughters they are needed in Iraq for a *noble* cause
Oh really, going off the deep end, LOL..by asking Bush and his daughters and other young people in his family to sign up for duty in Iraq since the Bush family thinks it is so important and the *Noble* thing to do?  And Im going off the deep end, LOL.  You are so silly sometimes in your posts.  I see nothing wrong in asking the chickenhawk warmongers to urge their children to join up..after all our country is fighting a *war on terrorism*..or..wait a minute..what is the new saying the WH is throwing out there..*a global war on extremists*..or....oh geez..I need to start writing down the reasons for our blood shed in Iraq..I cant remember all the reasons why we pre-emptively invaded Iraq..Cant keep up with the spin cycle of the WH..
Chavez Takes Bush to Task Over Iraq War
See link
Bush Lays Groundwork for Iraq Pullout

Bush Lays Groundwork for Iraq Pullout

We noted last week that even as President Bush rejected a pullout from Iraq, the Pentagon was planning for a major withdrawl of troops. Now, the Los Angeles Times says Bush will give a major speech on Wednesday in which aides say he is expected to herald the improved readiness of Iraqi troops, which he has identified as the key condition for pulling out U.S. forces.

The administration's pivot on the issue comes as the White House is seeking to relieve enormous pressure by war opponents. The camp includes liberals, moderates and old-line conservatives who are uneasy with the costly and uncertain nation-building effort... The developments seemed to lay the groundwork for potentially large withdrawals in 2006 and 2007, consistent with scenarios outlined by Pentagon planners.

I guess that would mean he was against it before he was for it.
Bush only interested in Iraq, ག campaign

http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/delegates.htm (a conservative site, no less!)


 


President Bush has decided to stay out of the lion's share of decisions made by his administration.


 


Sources close to the administration said that over the last year, Mr. Bush has chosen to focus on two issues, leaving the rest to be decided by Cabinet members and senior aides. They said the issues are Iraq and the Republican congressional campaign in the 2006 elections.


 


Lots of important issues that deal with national security are never brought to the president because he doesn't want to deal with them, a source familiar with the White House said. In some cases, this has resulted in chaos.


 


The White House has acknowledged that Mr. Bush was not informed of the administration’s decision to approve a $6.85 billion takeover by the United Arab Emirates of a British firm that operates at least six major ports in the United States. The decision triggered a public firestorm and strong bipartisan opposition on Capitol Hill. This prompted the Dubai-owned company last week to bail on its bid to operate terminals in U.S. ports.


 


Vice President Dick Cheney also was not informed of the approval of the port takeover by the state-owned Dubai Ports World. The process was administered by the Treasury Department-aligned Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which sparked opposition from most of the Republican leadership in Congress.


 


My take on this is that the president relied on his CFIUS board, this Committee on Foreign Investment; that they did a superficial scrub on this, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter said on March 7.


 


They've been trained to be more of a business, or more of an arm of the administration which is designed to expedite or to shape acquisitions so that they can take place rather than to stop acquisitions, said Mr. Hunter, California Republican.


 


The sources said Mr. Bush's lack of involvement on most issues has led to numerous errors in judgment. They said the DP World episode was handled by the Treasury and Commerce departments. From there, the proposed sale was meant to have been relayed through the National Security Council for a White House decision.


 


It should have gone to Karl Rove and then gone up the chain, the source said. For some reason, it didn't. I don't think people understood how important this was in terms of both national security and politics.


 


Mr. Hunter and other members of the House Armed Services Committee were shocked over how little White House staffers knew of the security record of the UAE, cited in testimony to the 9/11 commission as having withheld cooperation regarding al Qaeda in 1999. Last week, Mr. Hunter and Rep. Jim Saxton, New Jersey Republican, brought evidence of how the UAE port of Dubai allowed shipments of nuclear components as well as heavy water and a precursor to nerve gas to countries such as Iran, Libya and Pakistan.


 


In 2003, Mr. Hunter said, Dubai allowed the shipment of 66 high-speed electrical switches designed to trigger and detonate nuclear weapons. He said Dubai rejected a U.S. request to stop the shipment.


 


The point is that if you are an outlaw regime, and you want to develop a nuclear weapons program, you have your components transshipped through Dubai, Mr. Hunter said. Dubai is a master at masking both the recipient of illegitimate weapons systems and the party that is sending, developing, selling those illegitimate weapons systems. I don't think those are the folks you want to have running your ports.


 


Neither Mr. Bush nor any of his aides ordered a change in CFIUS deliberations that would stress the security aspect of any foreign investments or operations in the United States. Mr. Saxton said the 9/11 attacks by al Qaeda had virtually no affect on the process.


 


The current system was designed, from what we can understand, to encourage foreign investment in our country, Mr. Saxton said. And 9/11 changed a lot of things, and CFIUS didn't change. And I guess it changed in some respects. We added a representative from the Department of Homeland Security, but it was still under the leadership of the Department of the Treasury. And so the mission of CFIUS remains pre-9/11, while the situation in post-9/11 is much different.


Bush, Blair Concede Missteps on Iraq...sm

Bush, Blair Concede Missteps on Iraq


But Leaders Say War Was Justified



Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, May 26, 2006; Page A01



President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair last night acknowledged a series of errors in managing the occupation of Iraq that have made the conflict more difficult and more damaging to the U.S. image abroad, even as they insisted that enough progress has been made that other nations should support the nascent Iraqi government.


In a joint news conference, Bush said he had used inappropriate tough talk -- such as saying bring 'em on in reference to insurgents -- that he said sent the wrong signal to people. He also said the biggest mistake for the United States was the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, in which guards photographed themselves sexually tormenting Iraqi prisoners, spawning revulsion worldwide. We've been paying for that for a long period of time, he said.


Blair, who visited Baghdad this week, said he and Bush should have recognized that the fall of president Saddam Hussein would not be the rise of a democratic Iraq, that it was going to be a more difficult process because you're talking about literally building the institutions of a state from scratch.


While Bush increasingly has begun to acknowledge missteps in handling the war, his comments last night -- together with Blair's -- represent his most explicit acknowledgment that the administration underestimated the difficulty of the central project of his presidency


Bush Says U.S. Troops Will Stay in Iraq Past ང

GOP Unrest Dismissed As Sign of Election Year


Well it didn't take a rocket scientist to know that this mess was not going to get cleaned up on his watch.


This statement alone lets you know Bush is out of touch and in his own bubble.  * There's a certain unease as you head into an election year, he said.* Of course GOP unrest has a lot to do with the election year because they know they will have to answer to the people on election day, not Bush.


See link.


Bush's Iraq Speech: Long On Assertion, Short On Facts

Bush says "progress is uneven" in Iraq, but accentuates positive evidence and mostly ignores the negative.


June 30, 2005


Standing before a crowd of uniformed soldiers, President Bush addressed the nation on June 27 to reaffirm America's commitment to the global war on terrorism. But throughout the speech Bush continually stated his opinions and conclusions as though they were facts, and he offered little specific evidence to support his assertions.


Here we provide some additional context, both facts that support Bush's case that "we have made significant progress" in Iraq, as well as some of the negative evidence he omitted.



Analysis



 


Bush's prime-time speech at Fort Bragg, NC coincided with the one-year anniversary of the handover of soverignty to Iraqi authorities. It was designed to lay out America's role in Iraq amid sinking public support for the war and calls by some lawmakers to withdraw troops.


The Bloodshed


Bush acknowledged the high level of violence in Iraq as he sought to reassure the public.



Bush: The work in Iraq is difficult and dangerous. Like most Americans, I see the images of violence and bloodshed. Every picture is horrifying and the suffering is real. Amid all this violence, I know Americans ask the question: Is the sacrifice worth it?


What Bush did not mention is that by most measures the violence is getting worse. Both April and May were record months in Iraq for car bombings, for example, with more than 135 of them being set off each month. And the bombings are getting more deadly. May was a record month for deaths from bombings, with 381 persons killed in "multiple casualty" bombings that took two or more lives, according to figures collected by the Brookings Institution in its "Iraq Index."  The Brookings index is compiled from a variety of sources including official government statistics, where those are available, and other public sources such as news accounts and statements of Iraqi government officials.


The number of Iraqi police and military who have been killed is also rising, reaching 296 so far in June, nearly triple the 109 recorded in January and 103 in Febrary, according to a tally of public information by the website  Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, a private group that documents each fatality from public statements and news reports.  Estimates of the total number of Iraqi civilians killed each month as a result of "acts of war" have been rising as well, according to the Brookings index.


The trend is also evident in year-to-year figures. In the past twelve months, there have been 25% more U.S. troop fatalities and nearly double the average number of insurgent attacks per day as there were in the preceeding 12 months.


Reconstruction Progress


In talking about Iraqi reconstruction, Bush highlighted the positive and omitted the negative:



Bush: We continued our efforts to help them rebuild their country. . . .  Our progress has been uneven but progress is being made. We are improving roads and schools and health clinics and working to improve basic services like sanitation, electricity and water. And together with our allies, we will help the new Iraqi government deliver a better life for its citizens.


Indeed, the State Department's most recent Iraq Weekly Status Report  shows progress is uneven. Education is a positive; official figures show 3,056 schools have been rehabilitated and millions of "student kits" have been distributed to primary and secondary schools. School enrollments are increasing. And there are also 145 new primary healthcare centers currently under construction. The official figures show 78 water treatment projects underway, nearly half of them completed, and water utility operators are regularly trained in two-week courses.


On the negative side, however, State Department figures show overall electricity production is barely above pre-war levels. Iraqis still have power only 12 hours daily on average.


Iraqis are almost universally unhappy about that. Fully 96 percent of urban Iraqis said they were dissatisfied when asked about "the availability of electricity in your neighborhood." That poll was conducted in February for the U.S. military, and results are reported in Brookings' "Iraq Index." The same poll also showed that 20 percent of Iraqi city-dwellers still report being without water to their homes.


Conclusions or Facts?


The President repeatedly stated his upbeat conclusions as though they were facts. For example, he said of "the terrorists:"



Bush: They failed to break our coalition and force a mass withdrawal by our allies. They failed to incite an Iraqi civil war.


In fact, there have been withdrawals by allies. Spain pulled out its 1,300 soldiers in April, and Honduras brought home its 370 troops at the same time. The Philippines withdrew its 51 troops last summer to save the life of a Filipino hostage held captive for eight months in Iraq. Ukraine has already begun a phased pullout of its 1,650-person contingent, which the Defense Ministry intends to complete by the end of the year. Both the Netherlands and Italy have announced plans to withdraw their troops, and the Bulgarian parliament recently granted approval to bring home its 450 soldiers. Poland, supplying the third-largest contingent in the coalition after Italy's departure, has backed off a plan for full withdrawal of troops due to the success of Iraqi elections and talks with Condoleezza Rice, but the Polish Press Agency announced in June that the next troop rotation will have 200 fewer soldiers.


Bush is of course entitled to argue that these withdrawals don't constitute a "mass" withdrawal, but an argument isn't equivalent to a fact.


The same goes for Bush's statement there's no "civil war" going on. In fact, some believe that what's commonly called the "insurgency" already is a "civil war" or something very close to it. For example, in an April 30 piece, the Times of London quotes Colonel Salem Zajay, a police commander in Southern Baghdad, as saying, "The war is not between the Iraqis and the Americans. It is between the Shia and the Sunni." Again, Bush is entitled to state his opinion to the contrary, but stating a thing doesn't make it so.


Terrorism


Similarly, Bush equated Iraqi insurgents with terrorists who would attack the US if they could.



Bush: There is only one course of action against them: to defeat them abroad before they attack us at home. . . . Our mission in Iraq is clear. We are hunting down the terrorists .


Despite a few public claims to the contrary, however, no solid evidence has surfaced linking Iraq to attacks on the United States, and Bush offered none in his speech. The 9/11 Commission issued a staff report more than a year ago saying "so far we have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States." It said Osama bin Laden made a request in 1994 to establish training camps in Iraq, but "but Iraq apparently never responded." That was before bin Laden was ejected from Sudan and moved his operation to Afghanistan.


Bush laid stress on the "foreign" or non-Iraqi elements in the insurgency as evidence that fighting in Iraq might prevent future attacks on the US:



Bush: I know Americans ask the question: Is the sacrifice worth it? It is worth it, and it is vital to the future security of our country . And tonight I will explain the reasons why.
Some of the violence you see in Iraq is being carried out by ruthless killers who are converging on Iraq to fight the advance of peace and freedom. Our military reports that we have killed or captured hundreds of foreign fighters in Iraq who have come from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Egypt, Sudan, Yemen, Libya and other nations.


But Bush didn't mention that the large majority of insurgents are Iraqis, not foreigners. The overall strength of the insurgency has been estimated at about 16,000 persons. The number of foreign fighters in Iraq is only about 1,000, according to estimates reported by the Brookings Institution. The exact number is of course impossible to know. However, over the course of one week during the major battle for Fallujah in November of 2004, a Marine official said that only about 2% of those detained were foreigners. To be sure, Brookings notes that "U.S. military believe foreign fighters are responsible for the majority of suicide bombings in Iraq," with perhaps as many as 70 percent of bombers coming from Saudi Arabia alone. It is anyone's guess how many of those Saudi suicide bombers might have attempted attacks on US soil, but a look at the map shows that a Saudi jihadist can drive across the border to Baghdad much more easily than getting nearly halfway around the world to to the US.


Osama bin Laden


Bush quoted a recent tape-recorded message by bin Laden as evidence that the Iraq conflict is "a central front in the war on terror":



Bush: Hear the words of Osama bin Laden: "This Third World War is raging" in Iraq..."The whole world is watching this war." He says it will end in "victory and glory or misery and humiliation."


However, Bush passed over the fact that the relationship between bin Laden and the Iraqi insurgents – to the extent one existed at all before – grew much closer after the US invaded Iraq. Insurgent leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi did not announce his formal allegiance with bin Laden until October, 2004. It was only then that Zarqawi changed the name of his group from "Unification and Holy War Group" to "al Qaeda in Iraq."


In summary, we found nothing false in what Bush said, only that his facts were few and selective.


--by Brooks Jackson & Jennifer L. Ernst


Researched by Matthew Barge, Kevin Collins & Jordan Grossman


First Iraq and now Bush leaves New Orleans rebuilding to future President.

Bush: New Orleans may need a decade


NEW ORLEANS, Aug. 28 (UPI) -- As he headed for the Gulf Coast on Monday, U.S. President George Bush told an interviewer he expects the rebuilding of New Orleans to take a decade.


Bush planned to spend the anniversary of the U.S. Gulf Coast landfall of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans after a visit to Biloxi, Miss. It was his 13th visit to the devastated area.


We can rebuild buildings, the question is can we rebuild its soul, he told April Ryan of American Urban Radio Networks. We can. I believe, 10 years from now April, you and I will be thinking about our time here, and trying to remember what it was like 10 years ago


Bush came under fire last year for apparently ignoring Katrina immediately after New Orleans flooded and then flying over the city in Air Force One.


Later White House spokeswoman Dana Perrino said she wasn't aware of a specific time period but that the president has said all along that it would take more than a year to rebuild New Orleans.


In terms of like, 10 years, I don't know about exact time frame, but it's certainly going to take several years, Perrino said.


Bush asks Americans for charitable contributions to help Hallib..oops..to rebuild Iraq

It's working, too!!  So far, American citizens have donated a whopping $39.00!!


New twist on aid for Iraq: U.S. seeks donations





By Cam Simpson Washington BureauSun Sep 18, 9:40 AM ET



From the Indian Ocean tsunami to the church around the corner, Americans have shown time and again they are willing to open their pocketbooks for charity, for a total of about $250 billion last year alone.


But now, amid pleas for aid after Hurricane Katrina, the Bush administration has launched an unusual effort to raise charitable contributions for another cause: the government's attempt to rebuild Iraq.


Although more than $30 billion in taxpayer funds have been appropriated for Iraqi reconstruction, the administration earlier this month launched an Internet-based fundraising effort that it says is aimed at giving Americans a further stake in building a free and prosperous Iraq.


Contributors have no way of knowing who's getting the money or precisely where it's headed because the government says it must keep the details secret for security reasons.


But taxpayers already finance the projects for which the administration is seeking charitable donations, such as providing water pumps for farmers. And officials say any contributions they receive will increase the scope of those efforts rather than relieve existing taxpayer burdens.


The campaign is raising eyebrows in the international development and not-for-profit communities, where there are questions about its timing--given needs at home--and whether it will set the government in competition with international not-for-profits.


On a more basic level, experts wonder whether Americans will make charitable donations to a government foreign aid program and whether the contentious environment surrounding Iraq will make a tough pitch even tougher.


I'm a little skeptical, and the timing certainly isn't the best, said James Ferris, director of the Center on Philanthropy and Public Policy at the University of Southern California. It's going to be a hard sell.


Cost of rebuilding skyrockets


The U.S. Agency for International Development, the federal government's primary distributor of foreign aid, said Friday, Charitable contributions play an important role in enriching and extending U.S. government efforts.


The effort is just the newest twist in the administration's struggle to rebuild Iraq. Andrew Natsios, head of USAID, first predicted it would cost taxpayers no more than $1.7 billion. The tab has since risen to more than $30 billion, with congressional Republicans and Democrats sharply critical of the high cost and slow pace of progress.


In addition, the new campaign comes amid increasing concerns that some of the administration's major projects in Iraq will be scrapped or only partially completed because of rising costs, especially for security. Some officials fear money may run out before key projects are completed.


Natsios announced the campaign in a speech Sept. 9. In a press release issued the same day, USAID said its new Web site will help American citizens learn more about official U.S. assistance for Iraq and make contributions to high-impact development projects.


Although USAID has received private donations from corporations in the past, this might be the first time it has geared a charity pitch for U.S. foreign aid dollars to citizens.


Initially, the Web site, called Iraqpartnership.org, is offering potential contributors a choice of eight projects, each seeking $10,000 or less. They include purchasing computers for centers designed to assist Iraqi entrepreneurs, buying furniture and supplies for Iraqi elementary and high schools, paying for the production of posters to promote awareness of disabilities and rights issues, and buying water pumps for farmers.


There is also a general Iraq country fund, offering donors another high-impact giving opportunity without making them have to specify a project.


All of the projects are from USAID's existing portfolio of reconstruction programs in Iraq, according to the agency.


Security issues obscure details

Heather Layman, a USAID spokeswoman, said the efforts are being carried out by five private organizations working on Iraq reconstruction with USAID funding. The site does not provide details about the groups involved or the project locations because of security issues in Iraq.

The government says all contributions are tax-deductible.

William Reese, the president and CEO of the International Youth Foundation, said USAID officials did not discuss the campaign with a special advisory committee that he serves on and formerly headed.

That committee, made up primarily of representatives from non-profit groups working overseas, is supposed to help provide the underpinning for cooperation between the public and private sectors in U.S. foreign assistance programs, according to USAID.

Reese said some not-for-profit groups may see the effort as competition, but he predicted few would be concerned because of a more basic issue: While Americans are generous, he said, I don't think your average Joe is going to write a check to the U.S. government.

Carol Lancaster, a foreign aid expert and associate professor at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service, also questioned the premise of the program.

Places that are seen as public agencies or clones of public agencies don't get private donations, said Lancaster, a former deputy administrator at USAID. People generally believe, `It's government, so government should pay for it.'

Nassarie Carew, a spokeswoman for InterAction, an umbrella group of more than 160 non-profits working overseas, said her organization also was not aware of the effort. Its CEO, Mohammad Akhter, serves on the USAID advisory panel. Carew declined to comment until the group had a chance to survey its members.

Layman, the USAID spokeswoman, called the Web site a passive solicitation, saying potential donors would likely find it only if they were looking for a way to support Iraq's redevelopment.

She also said some people who might have donated to projects in Iraq will now choose to put money toward Katrina relief, but that others will still want to help in Iraq.

She said Iraqi-Americans specifically had asked USAID to help them find an avenue for contributions.

Raising charitable contributions for overseas projects can be a challenge even when the U.S. government is not at the center of the pitch. And Iraq is one of the government's more controversial foreign policy ventures in decades.

DevelopmentSpace Foundation Inc., the group that set up the Web site for USAID, operates its own, separate Web site seeking charitable donations for small-scale projects in developing countries.

Since its founding in 2001, that effort has raised a total of about $2 million, said Allison Koch, a foundation spokeswoman.

The organization keeps a 10 percent commission for contributions and has received most of its operating funds through major grants from several other foundations. USAID also gave it a grant of $1.5 million.

So far, $39 donated

Although in its infancy, the Iraqpartnership.org Web site had generated contributions totaling $39 as of Friday night.

According to the Giving USA Foundation, which tracks annual charitable donations by Americans, international giving accounted for 2.1 percent of all charity in the U.S. last year.

Ferris, the director of the USC philanthropy center, said that's because people want to donate to causes closer to home.

Except for the fact that the aim of foreign aid is to bolster U.S. foreign policy objectives overseas, Ferris said the new USAID campaign seems like a natural extension of the growing trend toward public-private partnerships.

There is this blurring of the lines, he said. A lot of things once paid for by the public are now paid through private sources.

----------

csimpson@tribune.com


Egaads - please ignore my errors
I was just reading this post and noticed a few errors. Sorry bout that. Fingers flew faster than my mind was thinking.
I think I hit a nerve because you get caught in errors often
...if you want to succeed in this business
And that statement is ridiculous, Iran and Iraq enemies, remember the Iran-Iraq war? Iraq would jus
nm
Ignore my spelling errors in the above post
Just read it and have a couple spelling errors, please ignore them.
Obama is calling for keeping troops in Iraq....
for how long he does not say, but that we need MORE in Afghanistan. He does not differ from McCain on that stance. Diplomacy does not work with terrorists (the Taliban were in charge there when bid Laden was parading around in the open after 9-11). Taliban = terrorists. With all due respect...you cannot negotiate with terrorists. Do you remember the horrific images of 9-11? I do. Of the Khobar Towers bombing? I do. The first World Trade Center bombing? I do... the bombing of the marine barracks in beirut? I sure remember those images.
whoops, typing too fast and made errors .. be 4 the spelling police get me
s
anyone who calls upon the name of sm
the Lord shall be saved. His sins are forgiven, under the blood of Jesus never to be remembered again. That is the beauty of salvation, it is a free gift for all who repent and believe.

You are placing salvation in good works. You can "believe" what you like but it WILL NOT get you to heaven. There are many sincere people out there but they are sincerely wrong and mistaken. Only REPENTENCE and belief in the blood of Jesus Christ, HIS son for the remission of our sins will get you into heaven. There IS ONLY ONE WAY. I hate to believe that you would "think" you have a "chance" at heaven when you can KNOW where you are going without a shadow of a doubt by placing your faith and trust in the shed blood of Jesus Christ.
Ya calls 'em the same way I do.

It's what the left calls
'having an agenda,' (except not when they do it.)  Then I think they call it 'reporting.'   Go figure.
The Bible calls
homosexual acts an "abomination." Look it up. It means "something to be hated." God tells us to hate that act. We obviously do not serve the same God. Mine teaches me to love all men and to hate sin such as homosexual acts. I believe you missed my point. Of course, it is possible to hate the sin and love the sinner but NOT if you are a member of the homosexual community. Once again, an opinion is not a judgement and it is a fact that homosexuality is abominable, ergo, disgusting if you worship the same God I do as I believe what He says. Of course, I have sinned. And I do not expect others to accept my sins as well and good. I don't even do that myself, so why should I accept that homosexuality is a good thing? My point is....We all sin, me included. You are not to accept my sin as good even though I may label myself as the sin I commit. You are not to hate me because of my sin but only hate my sin. People who commit homosexual acts and call themselves homosexuals would have us accept that sin because that is "who" they are not their sin. I don't think it's that difficult to understand.
She definitely calls them out on their flip flops
xx
I realize YOU don't care about the calls but
I ain't a republican... I'm independent........thank goodness.
If these calls did not amount to a hill of
beans when it came time for my representatives to *roll up their sleeves* and do *THEIR JOBS,* then it is time to fire them and elect someone who will listen to the calls. That is why we elected them, to listen to their constituents and REPRESENT us! You just do not get the picture at all.
One of you call them enemies...the other one calls them terrorists!
Could you please figure out what you are talking about and let the rest of us know? Are you talking about enemies (people who do not like the US) or terrorists (people who want to destroy the US). Do you really believe that Obama is friends with terrorists? What right-wing rag baloney have you been buying lock, stock, and barrel?
Oprah calls O "The One". The man is a politician,
nm
Capital hill is being flooded with calls
to stimulus. So, if Obama states one more time during his speeches with a bunch of pronouns and adjectives, "The people want this!" I am going to..... well, barf! I still WANT MY MONEY BACK FROM THE BAILOUT. GOVERNMENT SUCKS!
Capital hill is being flooded with calls
to stimulus. So, if Obama states one more time during his speeches with a bunch of pronouns and adjectives, "The people want this!" I am going to..... well, barf! I still WANT MY MONEY BACK FROM THE BAILOUT. GOVERNMENT SUCKS!
United Methodist Church Calls For Withdrawal ...sm

Sweet Victory: United Methodist Church Calls For Withdrawal


It's one thing when former high-ranking members of your own Administration come out against your war. It's another thing when two-thirds of the country calls the invasion and occupation a mistake. It's really something when your own church issues a statement urging you to pull out the troops now.


Last week, the United Methodist Church Board of Church and Society--the social action committee of the church that both President Bush and Vice President Cheney belong to--resoundingly passed a resolution calling for withdrawal with only two 'no' votes and one abstention.


As people of faith, we raise our voice in protest against the tragedy of the unjust war in Iraq, the statement read. Thousands of lives have been lost and hundreds of billions of dollars wasted in a war the United States initiated and should never have fought.... We grieve for all those whose lives have been lost or destroyed in this needless and avoidable tragedy. Military families have suffered undue hardship from prolonged troop rotations in Iraq and loss of loved ones. It is time to bring them home.


The board also issued a strong statement against torture, urging Congress to create an independent, bipartisan commission to investigate detention and interrogation practices at Guantanamo, Iraq and Afghanistan.


It is my hope and prayer that our statement against the war in Iraq will be heard loud and clear by our fellow United Methodists, President Bush and Vice President Cheney, said Jim Winkler, General Secretary of the UMC's Board of Church and Society. Conservative and liberal board members worked together to craft a strong statement calling for the troops to come home and for those responsible for leading us into this disastrous war to be held accountable.


With its bold stands against the Administration, the UMC is fulfilling the words of Martin Luther King Jr., who called for the church to be not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion but a thermostat that transformed the mores of society.


Bush has asserted that he entered Iraq on a direct order from God. Now, he has a direct order from his own church to leave. Is he listening?


Yes, Lurker, it's time to make more phone calls and get these

Hillary Clinton Calls for Privacy Bill...sm
Now I agree with Senator Clinton on this and I have said all along wire tapping should have checks and balances, goverment 101.

Also, living in an information society there has to be something in place to protect citizens privacy. This past week I read a blog with pictures of unknowing obese or tacky dressed people posted in the blog with comments about them. These people were enjoying a private day at the pool and this blogger was snapping their pictures. Not only was this downright evil and disrespectful but it should be illegal.
---------------


(AP) Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, drawing on her experiences as a young Watergate lawyer who decades later was investigated as first lady, urged creation of a privacy bill of rights Friday to protect people's personal data.

Modern life makes many things easier and many things easier to know, and yet privacy is somehow caught in the crosshairs of these changes, Clinton said in a speech to a left-leaning legal group.

Clinton's speech on protecting consumers from identity theft and citizens from government snooping was the latest in a series of talks billed as major addresses by aides. Previous speeches were on energy and the economy.

A potential presidential candidate in 2008 whose eight years as first lady were marked by numerous investigations, Clinton noted her work on a House committee investigating the Nixon administration's illegal snooping and other abuses.

And she ruefully called herself an expert in the loss of privacy.

Having lost so much of my own privacy in recent years I have a deep appreciation of its value and a firm commitment to protecting it for all the rest of you, she said, prompting laughter from the audience of the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy.

Clinton wants to create a privacy czar within the White House to guard against recent problems like the theft of personal data from the Department of Veterans Affairs.

She also wants legislation to let consumers know what information companies are keeping about them and how it is used, and create a tiered system of penalties for companies who are not careful with consumer data.

Clinton also waded into the debate over anti-terror eavesdropping. For months Democrats have hammered at the Bush administration over the National Security Agency's program of domestic wiretapping without warrants from judges. The administration insists it is both legal and necessary.

Clinton said any president should have the latest technology to track terrorists, but within laws that provide for oversight by judges.

The administration's refrain has been, Trust us,' said Clinton. That's unacceptable. Their track record doesn't warrant our trust. ... Unchecked mass surveillance without judicial review may sometimes be legal but it is dangerous. Every president should save those powers for limited critical situations.


MMVI The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Piglet: Kasparov calls Russia's elections...s/m

meaning the recent Putin reelection.....the *dirtiest* in their history.....


http://newsfromrussia.com/news/russia/03-12-2007/102126-kasparov_elections-0


What kind of man of character calls Chelsea Clinton
Looks like JM thinks family is fair game as long as it's dem family. Obama does not go down that path.
I didn't say I wanted our reps to ignore the calls.
it appears that is what they are doing...ignoring the embittered partisan protests (the likes of which I took issue with in my original post) and hammering out a compromise. In other words, they are doing their jobs. i.e., coming up with something that will move us forward and float SOMETHING that will address the ECONOMY, not partisan interests. So no, your assumption that I am proud of this would be false and your indignation, misplaced.
Calls for *maturity* from a childish SORE LOSER??
Pot meet kettle.  SNORT.  LOL!
I was no Bush fan, but I see Obama as much
nm
Tammy Bruce Calls The Obamas "Trash In The White House"

Tammy Bruce, guest host for Laura Ingram's radio show, had some harsh words for First Lady Michelle Obama.


Discussing the first lady's visit to a Washington D.C. classroom last week, Bruce incredulously recalled Obama's story about wanting to get A's in school and called out her use of a "weird, fake accent."


"That's what he's married to," Bruce said. "...You know what we've got? We've got trash in the White House. Trash is a thing that is colorblind, it can cross all eco-socionomic...categories. You can work on Wall Street, or you can work at the Wal-Mart. Trash, are people who use other people to get things, who patronize others, who consider you bitter and clingy..."


Tammy Bruce Calls The Obamas "Trash In The White House"

Tammy Bruce, guest host for Laura Ingram's radio show, had some harsh words for First Lady Michelle Obama.


Discussing the first lady's visit to a Washington D.C. classroom last week, Bruce incredulously recalled Obama's story about wanting to get A's in school and called out her use of a "weird, fake accent."


"That's what he's married to," Bruce said. "...You know what we've got? We've got trash in the White House. Trash is a thing that is colorblind, it can cross all eco-socionomic...categories. You can work on Wall Street, or you can work at the Wal-Mart. Trash, are people who use other people to get things, who patronize others, who consider you bitter and clingy..."


Because Obama is not as friendly with Bush

serving caviar for anyone who attends that meeting.  I'm sorry but I'm tired of the rich getting richer.  I think Obama is right; let's stay on task which is the debate. 


Biden could easily step in as President, why do you think he ran intially?  Palin, hmmm, dunno, she seems so "not ready" even though she thinks her name should come first; hmmm, slip up, I doubt it.  She probably thinks in her mind she's going to be the next president, but she's sadly mistaken.  She needs to get back in the kitchen where she belongs, yup, with her family issues, they need her right now.  It sounds like Alaska really loves her too and she should stay there in Alaska and take care of her business there in between tanning sessions.


Bush/McCain/Obama
I already hid my money.  Might be if Obama is elected I can bring it out of hiding.  Keep it hid if McCain is elected...........more of G.W. Bush.