GW Bush Slams the Ball Home at World Series

Former President G. W. Bush threw out the first pitch of Game 4 at the World Series, and while the final result is difficult for me to see just how perfect the pitch was, you can hear Nolan Ryan walk up and say "nice going." For further verification, Gateway Pundit says it was "a strike to home plate," with Ryan catching, and Karen at The Lonely Conservative declaring it "perfect - right over the plate.

George W. Bush

Take a look at how easy this was for G.W. and then remember this and this from King Charlie?

Bush 41 - Bush 43 at World Series - GW throws a perfect pitch (video)

I just posted some information on G. W.'s book and 9/11. Read it here.

Linked by:
Memorandum - Follow the thread - Thank You to Memorandum!
RightKlik - Righty v. Lefty

Posted by Maggie @ Maggie's Notebook
Content Scrapers: Until I can figure out what to do about your confiscation of my work for your own website, please be sure to give a link back as shown above.

G.W. Bush Revelation: Bush Thought 9/11 Flt. 93 Was Shot Down on His Orders

An interesting short revelation coming via George W. Bush's new book, Decision Points. The president thought United 93 was brought down in the field in Pennsylvania, after being shot down on his orders.

George W. Bush

Of course, that is not what happened. Passengers stormed the cockpit after learning of the two attacks on the World Trade Towers, and the plane crashed during the fight that ensued.

Bush issued the order to shoot down any hijacked flight that day. Think of the anguish of believing you ordered innocent Americans to die. How he felt after learning the truth is not mentioned in this tease of the coming release of Decision Points on November 9th.

Posted by Maggie @ Maggie's Notebook
Content Scrapers: Until I can figure out what to do about your confiscation of my work for your own website, please be sure to give a link back as shown above.

G.W. Bush Talks About His New Book, Decision Points (Video)

Former President George W. Bush spoke at the University of Alabama this week and talked about his new book, Decision Points. The video below points out that G.W. has never spoken-out about his "decisions," and has been loathe to speak out against the ugly dialog coming from Barack Obama and the years of pummeling from the mainstream media.

George W. Bush

He apparently does speak candidly in the book. There will be revelations, and I believe this book will be a huge seller - but we will not hear him bash the Obama administration. We have long-waited to hear the stories of the decisions this principled, good-hearted man faced.

Bush speaking at the University of Alabama:

"It's about the decisions I made as president, and it's very anecdotal. Here are the stories, and you can decide what you would have done," he was quoted as saying in the the Press-Register of Mobile.  The 64-year-old said the tome gives some understanding to the decisions he made on tough issues like the handling of 9/11 and the Iraq war. The president, who has become a target of both Democrats and President Obama since he left office, refused to comment on the current state of political affairs. "You're not going to see me out opining or offering my critique. Frankly, I don't think it's good for the country to have a former president criticize his successor," Bush said.

In keeping with G.W.'s non-confrontational manner, the book will not be released until after the mid-term elections, with a Decision Points release date of November 9th, 2010.



George W. Bush - Decision Points (video)

Government Worker Benefits Getting Rich on Backs of Private Sector

"David Walker, the U.S.Comptroller for Clinton and then G. W. Bush says under the Obama administration, government workers, through pensions and salaries, are growing "prosperous" on the backs of the private sector. Walker says the only way to stop this is to inform the public, and for us to understand that "We the People" have the power to do something about it.

David Walker

From David Walker, now the CEO of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation

“There is a huge gap. State and local plans on average … are much more lucrative than typical plans for employees. State and local government employees, on average, have greater job security than people in the private sector. And state and local government employees, in the middle of government, in many cases make more money than their private sector counterparts,” Walker said during a speech at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. According to Pew numbers provided by the Chamber, the budget gap to cover state employees’ benefits totals $1 trillion.

“Therefore, if governments expect taxpayers to pay more taxes to fund lucrative benefit programs that are much better than the average employee gets, in jobs that more job security and in some cases make more money than their private sector counterparts, that ain’t gonna happen,” he said. “But the only way it’s not going to happen is if there’s transparency and if the cover is blown, so that pressure is brought to bear to make changes.”

"We the People" will have a private sector rebellion on November 2nd.

Charges Against Bush DOJ Dropped: Prosecuting Voter Fraud is Politically Incorrect

After millions of taxpayer dollars, and years of investigation, the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) says all charges are dropped against the Bush DOJ for the firing of U.S. attorney David Iglesias, and nine other U.S. Attorneys.  Iglesias was fired because New Mexico's Republican party said he was "soft on voter fraud." The final decision coming today is, firing an attorney for being soft on voter fraud is politically incorrect, but not criminal.

Alberto Gonzales

How incredible is that? Stopping voter fraud is politically incorrect? It backs up the testimony of a former DOJ attorney in the Obama regime, who has testified the current DOJ says they will not investigate voter intimidation or fraud because doing so will not increase voters!

Bush Attorney General Alberto Gonzales resigned over the incident in 2007:

"Evidence did not demonstrate that any prosecutable criminal offense was committed with regard to the removal of David Iglesias," the Justice Department said in a letter to lawmakers Wednesday. "The investigative team also determined that the evidence did not warrant expanding the scope of the investigation beyond the removal of Iglesias."

Prosecutors also said there was insufficient evidence to charge someone with lying to Congress or investigators.

Iglesias was fired after the head of New Mexico's Republican Party, complained to the White House that Iglesias was soft on voter fraud. He asked that Iglesias be replaced so that the state could "make some real progress in cleaning up a state notorious for crooked elections."

Alberto Gonzales has been on the hook for years, knowing that if there was any way possible, this DOJ would hang him. It's sickening that our government will protect a U.S. attorney who refuses to investigate voter fraud and/or intimidation. The Obama DOJ lost this one, but there is a creeping lawlessness in that body and throughout the administration that bodes ill for November. Keep your powder dry, friends.

Background and Related of current DOJ incidents with voter intimidation and voter fraud:

J. Christian Adams Testifies Against DOJ in New Black Panther Voter Intimidation


Megyn Kelly and Christian Adams on DOJ Bias
Christian Adams with Megyn Kelly: DOJ Attorney Resigns DOJ Black Panther Protest - Video
Black Panther DOJ Coverup: In Your Face DOJ Racism

Bush Tax Cuts to Save Democrats in November?

Well, well, well! Democrats may keep George W. Bush's tax cuts in a desperate move to keep their seats in November.  How will the Marxist Propaganda Squad (once known as the mainstream media) spin this? Whether Democrats dare to do it or not, it's on the table. We have the quotes. We won't forget.

Tax Cuts - The Rich Pay More

The irony of trying to use President Bush's tax cuts by Democrats who have maligned them as a way to make the rich richer, is sweet. Three months before the elections, we have some Democrats on record saying the Bush Tax Cuts, which expire at the end of this year, worked and will continue to work.

Some Democrats want to postpone the sunset - obviously until after November 2010 and maybe until after November 2012.  Sen Byron Dorgon (D-ND) believes the spending of the rich doesn't amount to much...they need to be taxed more, and taxed now. In the graphic above, you can see that the rich in either category are taxed at a rate almost double the proportion of the income received.

To set the scene, a chief economist with Moody's said a drop in spending by the rich has slowed the economy. The highest income earners in the U.S. are credited with 30 percent of spending. They stopped spending, and the "recovery" they're trying to sell was affected negatively.

Allowing income tax rates to reset to pre-Bush levels for individuals earning more than $200,000 and families earning more than $250,000 could generate close to $700 billion over the next 10 years.

From The Hill:

Obama promised that families earning less than $250,000 would not see their taxes increase.

But vulnerable Democrats in Congress are worried about talk of raising taxes, even on the wealthiest families, when the national economic recovery has slowed.

[Rep. Gerry Connolly D-VA]  said Democrats should not allow the 2001 Bush tax cuts to expire for anybody. “People in the upper tax brackets have a huge impact, a disproportionate impact on consumer spending,” he said.  Gerry Connolly is defending the Virginia District 11 House seat in 2010.

Connolly is up for reelection in November. His Republican opponent is Keith Fimian.

Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND), a senior Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, said he could support a short-term extension of the Bush tax cuts for the highest income earners. “My reaction would be don’t cut spending, don’t raise taxes and that would mean on anyone,” he said.

Rep. Bobby Bright, a Democrat facing a tough reelection race in Alabama, said tax increases, even if limited to the wealthiest families, could imperil the recovery. “I don’t care if it’s the wealthiest of the wealthy, you don’t raise their taxes,” he said. “In a recession, you don’t tax, burden and restrict. The economy is like a ship, and if you sink the ship, all the good you might do goes down with it.”

Bright is up for reelection in November. His Republican opponent is Martha Roby. 

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) would like to see the Bush tax cuts expire for families earning $200,000 a year, or even less.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) (paraphrased) wants some tax adjustments to reflect the regional cost of living. Nadler represents Manhattan. 

From Tax Cuts Increase Revenue "the way to soak the rich is with low tax rates...":

If Mr. Obama does succeed in raising tax rates on the rich, we'd also wager that the rich share of tax payments would fall. The last time tax rates were as high as the Senator wants them -- the Carter years -- the rich paid only 19% of all income taxes, half of the 40% share they pay today. Why? Because they either worked less, earned less, or they found ways to shelter income from taxes so it was never reported to the IRS as income.

It's not pleasant being a Democrat in 2010, and its downright terrifying to be a Democrat up for reelection in 2010.

Jeb Bush Blasts GW Bashers: Good God Man Read a Book!

President G. W. Bush's brother Jeb, the former governor of Florida is finally...finally taking exception to Obama's continual bashing of older brother George.

Jeb Bush

Jeb said Obama's remarks are "childish," and shows his lack of maturity and habit of never accepting responsibility. JB suggested Obama is so caught up in listening to and listening for stories about himself, that he does little else:

“I mean, good God, man, read a book!” Mr. Bush said with a laugh. “Go watch ESPN!”

I think Jeb has this one a bit wrong, although I agree that BO is thoroughly immersed in himself, I believe he watches plenty of ESPN when he should be preparing for the important matters of the nation - like maybe, that Spring meeting when General McChrystal accused Obama of not being prepared.

“By and large, I think the president, instead of being a 21st-century leader, is Hubert Humphries on steroids,” Mr. Bush said. “I don’t think there’s much newness in spending more money as the solution to every problem.”

“The issue to me is what we do now,” Jeb Bush said. “Who cares who’s to blame?” 

Now maybe GHW and Barbara Bush will follow their youngest son's lead and speak out about the slanderous GW talk coming from this administration - and while they're at it, perhaps they will invite Bill and Hillary to not come sniffing around for their far-too many charitable photo ops. 

Obama Seeking Bullhorn Moment: Compares Oil Spill to 9/11: Emulates G.W. on 9/11 from Oval Office?

I won't soon forget George W. Bush speaking to the Nation on 9/11 from the Oval Office. He addressed "despicable acts of terror" against our country. Tomorrow night, Barack Obama will speak to the Nation from the Oval Office, the first time he has done so. Yesterday, he compared the Deep Water Horizons oil spill to September 11, 2001. Tuesday night he will hope to emulate the sober, saddened yet determined demeanor of G.W. on that terrible night almost nine years ago. Obama is looking for his bullhorn moment. He will start with the Oval Office address, pack up his presidential podium and haul it all down to the oil-laden sand in Louisiana, and don't be surprised if he pulls out a bullhorn.

Obama with Podium and Politicians

Somewhere in the blogosphere, there is a long-shot version of the photo above; Obama standing alone with his little podium, on a Louisiana beach. I have seen the long-shot of it, but can't locate it right now. The above photo is a close-up with Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) on the left and Gov. Charlie Crist (I-FL) on the right.

He has a little podium set up near some rocks, protecting him fro the oil and mud and dead animals and unemployment. 

I don't remember G.W. Bush taking his little podium to classrooms or the rubble of 9/11. Maybe I'm wrong. See his "bullhorn moment in the second video below. Note that Bush didn't plan it, it just happened.

Yesterday, Obama compared the Deep Water Horizons oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico to September 11th, 2001. This from CBSNews:

While the Obama administration has fended off comparisons between its response to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill and the Bush administration's response to Hurricane Katrina, the president is not averse to making comparisons with the worst terrorist attack on American soil.

In an interview with Politico.com's Roger Simon on Friday, Mr. Obama likened the effect upon the national psyche of what may become the largest oil spill in history with that of 9/11.

Never one to let a crisis go to waste, Obama will push for Cap and Trade from the Oval Office - he says he will make a "bold" push for a new energy law. A reasonable person might think plugging "the damn hole" should be his priority, and consume his energy, rather than cantankerous legislation.

The first video below is Bush in the Oval Office on the night of 9/11 below.

Bush spoke of the Americans responding - the daring of rescue workers, others lining up to give blood, He called the attacks 'evil,' and mass murder. He said Americans, a "great people moved to defend a great nation."

On 9/11 public buildings were attacked and 3,000 died, the Pentagon was attacked, and fierce heros died in a field at Shanksville, Pennsylvania as they protected further buildings, probably in Washington, D.C. from being a target. The loss of the eleven BP workers on the exploding Deep Water Horizons rig are important and a tragedy. This post in no way negates their deaths or the affects on their grieving loved ones. But America knows 9/1l, and this Sir, is no 9/11 - as terrible as it is, and as long-reaching its effects, this oil spill is no 9/11.




President G. W. Bush on September 11, 2001 (video)
George W. Bush's Bullhorn Moment (video)

The Obama Mystique: Why it is all a Joke. McCartney, too

Another party in the White House and Sir Paul McCartney was the star, but on this evening "Sir" did not fit his rude and inane behavior. The Obama's presented McCartney with the Gershwin Prize for Popular Song. The whole scene is just too delicious: The Obamas surrounded by, and being serenaded by, some of the biggest names in the music industry - no captain's of industry, of course - none of those in the Obama White House. No one there really making the country run. No one there creating jobs. No one there manufacturing anything tangible.  Perhaps no one there with an over-sized I.Q. but the Obama mystique was as thick as an oil spill.

George W. Bush

Adding to the mystique, Michelle wore a dress in silk satin silk (the pool reporter wasn't certain, but it looks like silk to me) charmeuse in a shade of "blush, with a jeweled belt, and here it is - the chicest touch: as The First Lady "sat, a pink petticoat peeked out. The adoration was palpable, and McCartney was soon to show his rear-end, and his I.Q. See two videos below.

Standing inside our White House, McCartney said this:

After the last eight years, it's great to have a President who knows what a library is

In the video, Jerry Seinfeld is standing in the White House right next to McCartney. Anyone know why the taxpayers should be wining and dining Jerry Seinfield? Stevie Wonder was there...again. Faith Hill (she's a Liberal folks), Elvis Costello and Emmy Lou Harris were there. The bright spot of the evening (because it is always about the Obama's) was Paul serenading Michelle with "Mee-shelll."

Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) replied about the G.W. comment:

Like millions of other Americans, I have always had a good impression of Paul McCartney and thought of him as a classy guy, but I was surprised and disappointed by the lack of grace and respect he displayed at the White House. I hope he'll apologize to the American people for his conduct which demeaned him, the White House and President Obama.

Connie Hair, writing at Human Events, leveled her site:

McCartney is the third recipient of the Gershwin Prize. Hailing from England and having earned no university degrees of his own, the Beatle may not know W. as the first American president to earn a master's degree in business administration. (The fact the MBA is from Harvard really irks the left.) Not to mention Bush is married to a librarian. 

G.W. was the first and only President to hold an MBA. He also received a BA in History from Yale. Lord knows, we could use some knowledge of business and true history in the White House.

From Thomas Lifson at American Thinker, speaking of the Left's fondness for denigrating W.'s education and/or ability to learn:

Having attended Harvard Business School at the same time as the President, graduating from the two—year program a year after he did, and then serving on its faculty after a year's interval spent writing a PhD thesis, I am intimately familiar with the rigors of the program at the time, and the minuscule degree of slack cut for even the most well—connected students, when their performance did not make the grade.

There is simply no way on earth that the son of the then—Ambassador to China (technically, head of the Beijing Liaison Office), or anyone else, could have coasted through Harvard Business School with a 'gentleman's C.' I never, ever heard of a case of an incompetent student being allowed to graduate, simply because a certain family was prominent. On the contrary, I did hear stories of well—born students having to leave prior to graduation. The academic standards were a point of considerable pride.

Hopeful Liberals can only estimate Barack Obama's intelligence "quotient," his SAT, LSAT score and his college GPA. We hear a lot of very high numbers, making Liberals go all misty-eyed and weak-kneed at thought of the capabilities of his pristine half-African brain...but there nothing - not one single thing to base it on. It's all myth, as are his policies, which have yielded nothing for this country. All of his records - that's ALL of his records, are hidden from the public. An inquiring mind would wonder why. If they were stellar, they would not be hidden. But that doesn't stop Progressives from telling us that Obama would be a member of MENSA if he provided the pertinent records and surely his IQ is in the 130 to 145 range. It's all myth.

They don't stop there. There is no information on Michelle's scores either, but this website, which writes for our gullible children, says "it is safe to say that she is just as smart as her husband." Personally, I have no doubt of that. I "doubt" plenty, but do not doubt that the two share similar brains - but don't forget, Barack gets the benefit of "the other side of Valerie Jarrett's brain (his Senior Adviser).

Obama received a J.D. from Harvard Law. He surrendered his law license. His hometown paper, the Chicago Tribune, says as a civil rights lawyer, Obama was the "strong, silent type."

A review of the cases Obama worked on during his brief legal career shows he played the "strong, silent type" in court, introducing himself and his client, then stepping aside to let other lawyers do the talking. 

Transcripts show that at court hearings, Obama identified himself, then let [Paul] Mollica begin speaking. Maria Valdez of the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund sometimes spoke. The U.S. Justice Department joined in.

Letting the heavy-hitters at the Justice Department make the arguments appears to have been a sound strategy -- Obama's side won, even without him talking.

Odd, because the man hasn't shut-up since the day he won the presidential nomination.

"I was one of the better writers [Obama said]. I ended up doing the more cerebral writing, less trial work," Obama added. "That's actually something I regret -- not doing more trial work."

"He wrote lots of substantial memos, but he didn't try any cases," said Judson Miner, a partner in the firm who was Obama's boss.

A search of all the cases in Cook County Circuit Court in which Obama made an appearance since he graduated from Harvard in 1991 shows: Zero.

His practice was confined mainly to federal court in Chicago, where he made formal appearances in only five district court cases and another five in cases before the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals -- a total of 10 cases in his legal career.

Obama sued on behalf of ACORN for Motor-Voter registration. For this, he is idolized today:

Transcripts show that at court hearings, Obama identified himself, then let [Paul] Mollica begin speaking. Maria Valdez of the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund sometimes spoke. The U.S. Justice Department joined in.

Letting the heavy-hitters at the Justice Department make the arguments appears to have been a sound strategy -- Obama's side won, even without him talking.

Among Bush's finest attributes - he is not a lawyer. Among Obama's finest attributes, he's tall. Among McCartney's finest attribute: Penning Let it Be.

Paul McCartney Bashing Half of America (video)
Michelle Obama wearing...oh, who cares? (video)

WaPo Skews Joe Stack's Manifesto?

Clifton at Another Black Conservative catches WaPo's Jonathan Capehart doing some heavy-handed editing to Joseph Andrew Stack's suicide/rant/manifesto. Surprise, surprise, an omission here, an omission there, and a mad man's words just might make him appear to be a Tea Party enthusiast. And a  an unsuspecting reader might think Stack's politics were in line with Janet Napolitano's "far right wing extremists," like maybe, returning warriors and retired vets.

If you missed the big story of Joseph Andrew Stack flying his small plan into a 7-story office building in Austin, Texas this week, killing himself and one other, wounding many, while attempting to take down the IRS offices there, you can read that story here.

Here's what Jonathan Capehart said:

There's no information yet on whether he was involved in any anti-government groups or whether he was a lone wolf. But after reading his 34-paragraph screed, I am struck by how his alienation is similar to that we're hearing from the extreme elements of the Tea Party movement.

When you sit a a big important news desk, at an elite newspaper like the Washington Post, and you can't make the latest sensational story what you want it to be, what do you do? Well, maybe you leave out the inconvenient parts. That's what JonathanCapehart appears to have done in his reporting on the suicide pilot's last words.

Capehart kind/sorta covers himself by saying "here are excepts I was able to snag before the FBI took Stack's site down," but of course, the complete manifesto is all over the Internet. You can read it here. The text in green text below are quotes from Stack that Capehart omitted.

Stack seemed to be suicidal mainly because of the IRS. Everything led back to taxes. He was distressed that religious organizations get tax breaks not available to the individual taxpayer, and he called the Catholic Church "vulgar" and "corrupt," and he referred to "the monsters of organized religion," making a "mockery of people who earn an honest living." "The inquisition is still alive and well today in this country."

Stack railed about GM receiving government assistance, and Capehart printed that, but Stack's diatribe against health care was curiously omitted...because this is no Tea Party position:

Yet at the same time, the joke we call the American medical system, including the drug and insurance companies, are murdering tens of thousands of people a year and stealing from the corpses and victims they cripple, and this country’s leaders don’t see this as important as bailing out a few of their vile, rich cronies.  Yet, the political “representatives” (thieves, liars, and self-serving scumbags is far more accurate) have endless time to sit around for year after year and debate the state of the “terrible health care problem”.  It’s clear they see no crisis as long as the dead people don’t get in the way of their corporate profits rolling in.

Tea Partiers like their health insurance. They want government to stay the heck away from it until the critical issues can be fixed - like tort reform and buying private insurance in the open marketplace, or across state lines. Tea Partiers want to retain their choices and promote competition among private insurers - never government-directed insurers, and they want the lawsuit scams to stop for the good of physicians, hospitals and patients.

Capehart omits Stack's remarks on patriotism -  the "incredible stupidity of the American public; ...you know, all that "crap about their "freedom...." When was the last time you heard Tea Partiers characterize freedom as "crap?"

Capehart ignores that as an 18-year-old college student, Stack was broke...was living on peanut butter and bread (or Ritz crackers when I could afford to splurge). But most college students are broke, and by the time a student reaches his 50's, chances are it will be a fond memory, not a battlecry. At the time he was living off peanut butter and bread, Stack met an elderly widow, who's husband's pension was raided by management and unions. The widow ate "cat food" to survive! Stack decided at the tender age of 18 he would never trust "big business."

Tea Party afficianados don't hate big business, because they know from big business comes small business, the lifeblood of America, and they would likely wear their "broke" stories as a badge of honor.

Capehart skips over Stack's comments about having a new wife and "a boatload of undocumented income," which led to a newly hired, but dishonest accountant. Over and over, Stack talks about the government stealing from the middle class - but that is not a Tea Party position. Tea Partiers want everyone to pay their fair share and not one penny more - no matter how much you have, or do not have. Everyone should be vested in our country, and no one should be penalized because of what they have, or do not have.

Then Capehart skips over Stack's stark disdain of G.W. Bush:

The recent presidential puppet GW Bush and his cronies in their eight years certainly reinforced for all of us that this criticism rings equally true for all of the government.

And somewhere in this, Stack says "violence not only is the answer, it is the only answer." Again, not a Tea Party position, but it would be a position of CNN and the Huffington Post.

At the end of Stack's rant, he closed with these two quotes, both of which Capehart omitted.

The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.

How can we ignore that the communist creed quoted by Stark sounds noble,  is intended to be a noble statement - but was left out of Capehart's analysis. Why? Because it is decidedly unAmerican, and decidedly unTeaParty-ish.

The capitalist "creed," however, accuses every American of gullibly serving up taxes to the tax masters, without knowing we are doing so, while others greedily feed out of our trough. Among those actually paying taxes, there is no gullibility, and that's why Tea Partiers want smaller government. But one thing you won't find among the general Tea Party population, is the mindset that violence is the only answer, including racking up a body count, his and those around him, or those who loved him, as the only way to make America set up and take notice. Both are a part of Stack's manifesto.

So what do you think? Could Capehart have actually not been able to "snag" enough of Stack's manifesto to point out the obvious, or did he just choose not to?  Visit Another Black Conservative and read his comments on Joseph Capehart's agenda.

Others talking about Jonathan Capehart:
Ace of Spades
Hot Air
Newsbusters

George W. Bush Miss Me Yet Billboard Paid for by Small Business Owners

The George W. Bush "Miss Me Yet?" billboard has been a sensation for the past few days. The identities of those behind the billboard on I-35 near Wyoming, Minnesota were not known, but now Schubert and Hoey Outdoor Advertising reveals a group of small business owners commissioned the outdoor signs. See video below.

 

Miss Me Yet? G.W. Bush Billboard

Mary Teske, the general manager of the Advertising company, says the group feels like Washington is "against them." They want to remain anonymous.

Miss Me Yet Billboard (video)

Others talking about the G.W. Bush Billboard - Miss Me Yet?
Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit

Olbermann Conservatives Crazy: Conspiracy Against Olbermanns Ratings: Olbermann Blames Bush Video

Hehehe. Olbermann says conservatives are "crazy" to think his ratings are down. Can't wait to hear O'Reilly on this one. Olbermann didn't mention the FOXNews primetime star, who bashes Olbermann and MSNBC daily, but his photo, all done up in a tux does flash on the screen. In the video below you'll hear a rant about former First Lady Laura Bush's press secretary. Still blaming Bush.

Keith Olbermann thinks Conservatives Crazy for Bashing his Ratings (video)

 Here are some stats from Daily Caller, who tracked Olbermann's insanity this week (it's their job!):

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 4: I haven’t mentioned it yet, but it’s been a rough week for Keith Olbermann. January’s viewership numbers were released a few days ago, and “Countdown” was down 44% among adults ages 25 to 54 from last year at this time. He drew 268,000 viewers a night in that key group, compared to his rival Bill O’Reilly’s 964,000. The New York Post asked, “Has the countdown begun for the end of ‘Countdown with Keith Olbermann?’” Earlier in the week, Olbermann had bashed the AOL-owned website DailyFinance, not known for any particular partisan bent, as a “right-wing site” (that phrase has been erased from the transcript, but you can see it here: Link) TRANSCRIPT, SEGMENT

Tonight Olbermann fought back yet again against some of the ratings chatter that has been plaguing him all week. He boasted that his numbers grew between December and January, which unfortunately is not the relevant comparison and not a measurement anyone uses, unless they’re desperately trying to prove their own relevance. Well, for what it’s worth, Keith, you still have one loyal viewer who hopes “Countdown” has a long life on MSNBC. I really need this job.

George W. Bush Ideas in Action: PBS GWB February Premiere

The George W. Bush Institute's "action oriented think tank" is co-producing a live audience, panel-format discussion, titled "Ideas in Action," and is planned to air on PBS in February 2010. Source: The HuffingtonPost. See a video below.

George W. Bush

[James[ Glassman, the former Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy under President Bush and one-time moderator of CNN's "Capital Gang Sunday," will lead a discussion on public policy issues in front of a live audience at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. He will remain executive director of the Institute.

The first episode, a discussion on pay for performance in education, includes one panelist from the George W. Bush Institute and panelists from the Economic Policy Institute and the Progressive Policy Institute.

"The idea is to discuss a difficult issue with a balanced panel," Glassman said.

The Bush Institute has a special focus on education policy -- along with economic growth, global health, human freedom and a women's initative -- but Glassman said the shows will tackle other topics as well. The second episode, for instance, highlights the use of online tools by dissident groups, such as those active in Iran. 

In November 2009, President Bush announced the groundbreaking for his Presidential Center at Southern Methodist University, scheduled for late 2010. Here are a few of his comments:

As I tell Laura, we may be retired, but I'm not tired. I've given speeches in eight states, six countries, and five Canadian provinces. I'm writing a book that gives readers my perspective on my toughest decisions, which will hit the shelves next fall. Most importantly, Laura and I are working to build the Presidential Center here at SMU. The Center will provide a platform for us to continue our public service for the rest of our lives. Which I hope is a long time. The Center will be housed in an elegant building designed by a first class architect, Robert Stern. It will be landscaped by an innovative genius, Michael Van Valkenburgh. Inside, visitors will find three components: an archive, a museum, and a policy institute....

First, the Archive will preserve the documents and records of my Presidency. There will be about four million photos, thousands of boxes of documents, and hundreds of millions of e-mails – not one of them mine. (Laughter.)...

Second, the museum will tell the story of my Presidency through the most consequential decisions. We'll use technology and innovative design to make the exhibits interactive, educational, and relevant to the future. Visitors will see the bullhorn I used on my first visit to Ground Zero … the Oval Office … they will be able to romp in a Texas rose garden.

We have selected four initial areas of focus: education, global health, human freedom, and economic growth. Programming will start this spring under the leadership of the Institute's first Executive Director, an innovative journalist, scholar, and ambassador, Jim Glassman...

Throughout my Presidency, Laura and I met with democratic activists, defenders of religious freedom, and families of political prisoners. The Bush Institute will continue this cause by supporting advocates of freedom around the globe. As a first step we will assemble a Freedom Collection, a repository of video histories and memoirs and documents from democratic activists. The Freedom Collection will be online for the world to see. Among the leaders who have agreed to participate are former President Vaclav Havel of the Czech Republic; President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf of Liberia; Mohsen Sazegara, the founder of Iran's Revolutionary Guard, who became an advocate for democratic change; Kang Chol Wan, who spent ten years in a North Korean gulag and authored the book, Aquariums of Pyongyang....

Read it all here.

I have a good idea of what President Obama's "Presidential Center" might feature: A collection of Chairman Mao's most probative thinking; a compendium of GLSEN's roadmap to keep American students safe; the memoirs of Barak Hussein Obama, the father of the current President, and his advocacy for communal land ownership, and government-forced confiscation of privately controlled land, and Obamas plans to make Valerie Jarrett the Dutchess of Chicago after he is officially crowned King of the U.S., rather than only thinking himself so. The focus will be the greening of agriculture and the growing of ACORNS. I can hardly wait to travel to Hawaii to visit this Presidential Center, and view the fake birth certificate, prominently displayed behind impentratable glass in the vast lobby with a video of Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. discretely flipping us the bird.





President Obama In Action

George W. Bush vs Barack Obama West Point Speeches

In June 2002, President George W. Bush delivered the graduation speech at West Point. His speech was all about the troops. Seldom did he use the word "I," a stark difference from Obama's speech tonight.

George W. Bush

While Bush's comments were delivered to a graduation class, he was talking to soon-to-be warriors and so he spoke of war, and he acknowledged what was ahead, as well as acknowledging that the "threat" of the current war was "unprecedented. By contrast, Obama spoke of the economic cost of the war. Here's is a portion of President Bush at West Point:

History has also issued its call to your generation. In your last year, America was attacked by a ruthless and resourceful enemy. You graduate from this Academy in a time of war, taking your place in an American military that is powerful and is honorable. Our war on terror is only begun, but in Afghanistan it was begun well. (Applause.)

I am proud of the men and women who have fought on my orders. America is profoundly grateful for all who serve the cause of freedom, and for all who have given their lives in its defense. This nation respects and trusts our military, and we are confident in your victories to come. (Applause.)

This war will take many turns we cannot predict. Yet I am certain of this: Wherever we carry it, the American flag will stand not only for our power, but for freedom. (Applause.) Our nation's cause has always been larger than our nation's defense. We fight, as we always fight, for a just peace -- a peace that favors human liberty. We will defend the peace against threats from terrorists and tyrants. We will preserve the peace by building good relations among the great powers. And we will extend the peace by encouraging free and open societies on every continent.

Building this just peace is America's opportunity, and America's duty. From this day forward, it is your challenge, as well, and we will meet this challenge together. (Applause.) You will wear the uniform of a great and unique country. America has no empire to extend or utopia to establish. We wish for others only what we wish for ourselves -- safety from violence, the rewards of liberty, and the hope for a better life.

In defending the peace, we face a threat with no precedent. Enemies in the past needed great armies and great industrial capabilities to endanger the American people and our nation. The attacks of September the 11th required a few hundred thousand dollars in the hands of a few dozen evil and deluded men. All of the chaos and suffering they caused came at much less than the cost of a single tank. The dangers have not passed. This government and the American people are on watch, we are ready, because we know the terrorists have more money and more men and more plans.

The gravest danger to freedom lies at the perilous crossroads of radicalism and technology. When the spread of chemical and biological and nuclear weapons, along with ballistic missile technology -- when that occurs, even weak states and small groups could attain a catastrophic power to strike great nations. Our enemies have declared this very intention, and have been caught seeking these terrible weapons. They want the capability to blackmail us, or to harm us, or to harm our friends -- and we will oppose them with all our power. (Applause.)...

We cannot defend America and our friends by hoping for the best. We cannot put our faith in the word of tyrants, who solemnly sign non-proliferation treaties, and then systemically break them. If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long. (Applause.) 

President Obama's speech tonight was much about Obama:

I opposed the war in Iraq  ...

I believe that we must exercise restraint in the use of military force...

I have signed a letter of condolence to the family of each American who gives their life...

I have read the letters from the parents and spouses of those who deployed...

I have visited our courageous wounded warriors at Walter Reed...

I have travelled to Dover to meet the flag-draped caskets...

I see firsthand the terrible wages of war...

If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety...

I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow....

I do not make this decision lightly....

I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake...

I have asked that our commitment be joined...

I want the Afghan people to understand...

I recognize that there are a range of concerns...

I refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility...

I must weigh all of the challenges...

I do not have the luxury of committing...

I am mindful of the words of President Eisenhower...

I took office the cost of the wars  ...

I am committed to addressing these costs openly and honestly...

I will work closely with Congress...

I have made it a central pillar of my foreign policy...

I have spent this year renewing...

I have prohibited torture and...

I also know that we, as a country,...

I refuse to accept the notion...

I believe with every fiber of my being...

Read a few more very odd things about Obama's West Point speech here.



Related:
Obama's West Point Afghanistan Speech Transcript: Breaking it down

Chris Matthews West Point is Enemy Camp video

Obama Administration Human Capital: Republican Civil Service Jobs Denied?

The administration's Office of Personnel (OPM) is changing the rules for civil service jobs at the Executive and Senior Executive Service levels.The impact of the change, probably means that a Republican political appointee (Bush appointee) will have a much more difficult time winning a Federal job. In fact, it may be impossible to be hired for a high level Civil Service job - no matter your qualifications.

Obama Human Capital - Office of Personal Management

Via RedState, via Glen Reynolds at Instapundit: Reynolds received an email from a reader, with a Chief Human Capital Officers Council banner, and on OPM letterhead with the OPM seal. The "memorandum" is from John Berry, Director, and has the name Marlene Lightburn, Dallas, Texas office, at the bottom. The memorandum is directed to "Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies."

The short story is, in the past the OPM approves all Federal jobs for high-level political appointees in an election year. High-level is considered the Executive Branch and the Senior Executive Service positions. Executive Branch political appointees include U.S. Ambassadors, U.S. Attorney Generals, U.S. Marshals and others. Note that it is unlawful to deny a Federal job based on a person's political persuasion - excepting the election year requirement for a review at the highest level within the OPM.

The new OPM memo requires that all political appointees be approved for Federal jobs only by the highest levels of the OPM. The idea is to prevent political appointees from "converting" or "burrowing" into lifetime career jobs, and all the enormous perks that come with such a position. While a Bush appointee is not automatically rejected, they will now receive a more stringent review of their application.

Republicans are screwed on this one, at least for the next five years (until January 1, 2015), and note that if Barack Obama is ousted in 2012, it is conceivable Bush appointees will still not be accepted for a position for another three years - although I assume an incoming President can revert to previous rules, or ban Democrats for life?

The OPM is supposedly "independent" of the government and is considered neutral. The generally liberal Brookings Institute explains it this way:

Each new president who comes to office appoints thousands of men and women ot help lead the executive branch. While the career civil servants who work under their direction are recruited on a continual basis by the Office of Personnel Management and individual agencis, the leaders themselves are recruited by the White House Office of Presidential Personnel, which is formed anew by each president.

This means the White House personnel office decides who runs the OPM. This means the White House influences how many, if any, opposition party applicants get hired - for a full five years. While a one-year stringent review may be appropriate, a five-year stringent review period seems inappropriate.

The Federal News Radio offered some statistics about "converting" and "burrowing." According to FNR, out of 1,600 political positions reviewed by OPM in 2008, "only two required further evaluation." So they asked OPM why the memo with the new five year plan?

OPM's Jeff Sumberg said it all has to do with Obama's goal of open and transparent government (...that's what the article said):

"Director Berry says it's not enough just look at conversion cases only during presidential election year. We need to focus on merit principles all the time," Sumberg says.

"The policy in government regarding looking at hiring of political appointees extends back to President Carter's years. It's about safeguarding the hiring process and paying particular attention when politicals or former politicals appointees try to get jobs."

Then, Sumberg said something that should snap you out of that slumber, if you are napping through this exceedingly boring, but important subject:

He emphasizes that OPM did not change the fact the rule applies to not only current political positions, but anyone who has served as a political appointee in the last five years.

Does that mean you might lose a Federal job you have now, if you took the position as a Republican in the last five years? Or does it mean your job reviews will be more thoroughly scrutinized - maybe unfairly scrutinized, or does it mean you may not receive a deserved promotion?

 About the Chief Human Capital Officers Council  moniker. "Human Capital" and "Human Resources" - both are obscene and disrespectful tags for employees. What is wrong with "employees?" Obama administration Human Capital?  Who thinks these things up? Consider this, the CHCO Act was enacted as part of Homeland Security in 2002, and the Council developed from that, so maybe that explains it - and yes, I know that would have been under a Republican administration, but knowing President Bush, he likely left Bill Clinton's Democrats to run the OPM.

Dick Cheney Center for Security Policy Speech: Dick Cheney Keeper of the Flame Award

Here is the text of former Vice President Dick Cheney speaking to the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C. Commentary coming. Just added the video.

Dick Cheney

Pull-out quotes for a fast read. Full text and video below:
(1) Most anyone who is given responsibility in matters of national security quickly comes to appreciate the commitments and structures put in place by others who came before....And whatever course you follow, the essential thing is always to keep commitments, and to leave no doubts about the credibility of your country’s word.

(2) So among my other concerns about the drift of events under the present administration, I consider the abandonment of missile defense in Eastern Europe to be a strategic blunder and a breach of good faith.

(3) It is certainly not a model of diplomacy when the leaders of Poland and the Czech Republic are informed of such a decision at the last minute in midnight phone calls....Seventy years to the day after the Soviets invaded Poland, it was an odd way to mark the occasion [the U.S. dumping the promise of a missile shield].

(4) Only last year, the Russian Army moved into Georgia, under the orders of a man [Putin] who regards the collapse of the Soviet Union as the greatest geopolitical disaster of the 20th century. 

(5) ...President Obama’s cancellation of America’s agreements with the Polish and Czech governments was a serious blow to the hopes and aspirations of millions of Europeans. For twenty years, these peoples have done nothing but strive to move closer to us, and to gain the opportunities and security that America offered. These are faithful friends and NATO allies, and they deserve better. The impact of making two NATO allies walk the plank won’t be felt only in Europe. Our friends throughout the world are watching and wondering whether America will abandon them as well.

(6) Big events turn on the credibility of the United States – doing what we said we would do, and always defending our fundamental security interests [Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran]. 

(7) ...he [Obama] has outstretched his hand to the Islamic Republic's [Iran] authoritarian leaders, and all the while Iran has continued to provide lethal support to extremists and terrorists who are killing American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Islamic Republic continues to provide support to extremists in Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories. Meanwhile, the regime continues to spin centrifuges and test missiles. And these are just the activities we know about. 

(8) Iraq has the potential to be a strong, democratic ally in the war on terrorism, and an example of economic and democratic reform in the heart of the Middle East. 

(9) the President has been largely silent about the violent crackdown on Iran's protestors, and has moved blindly forward to engage Iran's authoritarian regime.

(10) Now suddenly – and despite our success in Iraq – we’re hearing a drumbeat of defeatism over Afghanistan. These criticisms carry the same air of hopelessness, they offer the same short-sighted arguments for walking away, and they should be summarily rejected for the same reasons of national security. 

(11) Having announced his Afghanistan strategy last March, President Obama now seems afraid to make a decision, and unable to provide his commander on the ground with the troops he needs to complete his mission. 

(12) ...signals of indecision out of Washington hurt our allies and embolden our adversaries. Waffling, while our troops on the ground face an emboldened enemy, endangers them and hurts our cause. 

(13) It’s time for President Obama to make good on his promise. The White House must stop dithering while America’s armed forces are in danger.  

Here's the quote about the Obama administration saying the Bush admin had no strategy for Afghanistan. 

(14) Recently, President Obama’s advisors have decided that it’s easier to blame the Bush Administration than support our troops. This weekend they leveled a charge that cannot go unanswered. The President’s chief of staff claimed that the Bush Administration hadn’t asked any tough questions about Afghanistan, and he complained that the Obama Administration had to start from scratch to put together a strategy.


In the fall of 2008, fully aware of the need to meet new challenges being posed by the Taliban, we dug into every aspect of Afghanistan policy, assembling a team that traveled to Pakistan and Afghanistan, reviewing options and recommendations, and briefing President-elect Obama’s team. They asked us not to announce our findings publicly, and we agreed, giving them the benefit of our work and the benefit of the doubt. The new strategy they embraced in March, with a focus on counterinsurgency and an increase in the numbers of troops, bears a striking resemblance to the strategy we passed to them. They made a decision – a good one, I think – and sent a commander into the field to implement it. 

(15) It’s time for President Obama to do what it takes to win a war he has repeatedly and rightly called a war of necessity. 

(16) When we faced that problem [captured terrorists] in the days and years after 9/11, we made some basic decisions. We understood that organized terrorism is not just a law-enforcement issue, but a strategic threat to the United States.

(17) So you would think that our successors would be going to the intelligence community saying, “How did you did you do it? What were the keys to preventing another attack over that period of time?”

Instead, they’ve chosen a different path entirely – giving in to the angry left, slandering people who did a hard job well, and demagoguing an issue more serious than any other they’ll face in these four years.  

(18) There are policy differences, and then there are affronts that have to be answered every time without equivocation, and this is one of them. We cannot protect this country by putting politics over security, and turning the guns on our own guys.


(19)We cannot hope to win a war by talking down our country and those who do its hardest work – the men and women of our military and intelligence services. They are, after all, the true keepers of the flame.

Text From Fox News:

Thank you all very much. It’s a pleasure to be here, and especially to receive the Keeper of the Flame Award in the company of so many good friends.

I’m told that among those you’ve recognized before me was my friend Don Rumsfeld. I don’t mind that a bit. It fits something of a pattern. In a career that includes being chief of staff, congressman, and secretary of defense, I haven’t had much that Don didn’t get first. But truth be told, any award once conferred on Donald Rumsfeld carries extra luster, and I am very proud to see my name added to such a distinguished list.

To Frank Gaffney and all the supporters of Center for Security Policy, I thank you for this honor. And I thank you for the great energy and high intelligence you bring to as vital a cause as there is – the advance of freedom and the uncompromising defense of the United States.

Most anyone who is given responsibility in matters of national security quickly comes to appreciate the commitments and structures put in place by others who came before. You deploy a military force that was planned and funded by your predecessors. You inherit relationships with partners and obligations to allies that were first undertaken years and even generations earlier. With the authority you hold for a little while, you have great freedom of action. And whatever course you follow, the essential thing is always to keep commitments, and to leave no doubts about the credibility of your country’s word.

So among my other concerns about the drift of events under the present administration, I consider the abandonment of missile defense in Eastern Europe to be a strategic blunder and a breach of good faith.

It is certainly not a model of diplomacy when the leaders of Poland and the Czech Republic are informed of such a decision at the last minute in midnight phone calls. It took a long time and lot of political courage in those countries to arrange for our interceptor system in Poland and the radar system in the Czech Republic. Our Polish and Czech friends are entitled to wonder how strategic plans and promises years in the making could be dissolved, just like that – with apparently little, if any, consultation. Seventy years to the day after the Soviets invaded Poland, it was an odd way to mark the occasion.

You hardly have to go back to 1939 to understand why these countries desire – and thought they had – a close and trusting relationship with the United States. Only last year, the Russian Army moved into Georgia, under the orders of a man who regards the collapse of the Soviet Union as the greatest geopolitical disaster of the 20th century. Anybody who has spent much time in that part of the world knows what Vladimir Putin is up to. And those who try placating him, by conceding ground and accommodating his wishes, will get nothing in return but more trouble.

What did the Obama Administration get from Russia for its abandonment of Poland and the Czech Republic, and for its famous “Reset” button? Another deeply flawed election and continued Russian opposition to sanctioning Iran for its pursuit of nuclear weapons.

In the short of it, President Obama’s cancellation of America’s agreements with the Polish and Czech governments was a serious blow to the hopes and aspirations of millions of Europeans. For twenty years, these peoples have done nothing but strive to move closer to us, and to gain the opportunities and security that America offered. These are faithful friends and NATO allies, and they deserve better. The impact of making two NATO allies walk the plank won’t be felt only in Europe. Our friends throughout the world are watching and wondering whether America will abandon them as well.

Big events turn on the credibility of the United States – doing what we said we would do, and always defending our fundamental security interests. In that category belong the ongoing missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the need to counter the nuclear ambitions of the current regime in Iran.

Candidate Obama declared last year that he would be willing to sit down with Iran's leader without preconditions. As President, he has committed America to an Iran strategy that seems to treat engagement as an objective rather than a tactic. Time and time again, he has outstretched his hand to the Islamic Republic's authoritarian leaders, and all the while Iran has continued to provide lethal support to extremists and terrorists who are killing American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Islamic Republic continues to provide support to extremists in Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories. Meanwhile, the regime continues to spin centrifuges and test missiles. And these are just the activities we know about.

I have long been skeptical of engagement with the current regime inTehran, but even Iran experts who previously advocated for engagement have changed their tune since the rigged elections this past June and the brutal suppression of Iran's democratic protestors. The administration clearly missed an opportunity to stand with Iran's democrats, whose popular protests represent the greatest challenge to the Islamic Republic since its founding in 1979. Instead, the President has been largely silent about the violent crackdown on Iran's protestors, and has moved blindly forward to engage Iran's authoritarian regime. Unless the Islamic Republic fears real consequences from the United States and the international community, it is hard to see how diplomacy will work.

Next door in Iraq, it is vitally important that President Obama, in his rush to withdraw troops, not undermine the progress we’ve made in recent years. Prime Minister Maliki met yesterday with President Obama, who began his press availability with an extended comment about Afghanistan. When he finally got around to talking about Iraq, he told the media that he reiterated to Maliki his intention to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq. Former President
Bush's bold decision to change strategy in Iraq and surge U.S. forces there set the stage for success in that country. Iraq has the potential to be a strong, democratic ally in the war on terrorism, and an example of economic and democratic reform in the heart of the Middle East. The Obama Administration has an obligation to protect this young democracy and build on the strategic success we have achieved in Iraq.

We should all be concerned as well with the direction of policy on Afghanistan. For quite a while, the cause of our military in that country went pretty much unquestioned, even on the left. The effort was routinely praised by way of contrast to Iraq, which many wrote off as a failure until the surge proved them wrong. Now suddenly – and despite our success in Iraq – we’re hearing a drumbeat of defeatism over Afghanistan. These criticisms carry the same air of hopelessness, they offer the same short-sighted arguments for walking away, and they should be summarily rejected for the same reasons of national security.

Having announced his Afghanistan strategy last March, President Obama now seems afraid to make a decision, and unable to provide his commander on the ground with the troops he needs to complete his mission.

President Obama has said he understands the stakes for America. When he announced his new strategy he couched the need to succeed in the starkest possible terms, saying, quote, “If the Afghan government falls to the Taliban – or allows al-Qaeda to go unchallenged – that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can.” End quote.

Five months later, in August of this year, speaking at the VFW, the President made a promise to America’s armed forces. “I will give you a clear mission,” he said, “defined goals, and the equipment and support you need to get the job done. That’s my commitment to you.”

It’s time for President Obama to make good on his promise. The White House must stop dithering while America’s armed forces are in danger. 

Make no mistake, signals of indecision out of Washington hurt our allies and embolden our adversaries. Waffling, while our troops on the ground face an emboldened enemy, endangers them and hurts our cause.

Recently, President Obama’s advisors have decided that it’s easier to blame the Bush Administration than support our troops. This weekend they leveled a charge that cannot go unanswered. The President’s chief of staff claimed that the Bush Administration hadn’t asked any tough questions about Afghanistan, and he complained that the Obama Administration had to start from scratch to put together a strategy.

In the fall of 2008, fully aware of the need to meet new challenges being posed by the Taliban, we dug into every aspect of Afghanistan policy, assembling a team that traveled to Pakistan and Afghanistan, reviewing options and recommendations, and briefing President-elect Obama’s team. They asked us not to announce our findings publicly, and we agreed, giving them the benefit of our work and the benefit of the doubt. The new strategy they embraced in March, with a focus on counterinsurgency and an increase in the numbers of troops, bears a striking resemblance to the strategy we passed to them. They made a decision – a good one, I think – and sent a commander into the field to implement it.

Now they seem to be pulling back and blaming others for their failure to implement the strategy they embraced. It’s time for President Obama to do what it takes to win a war he has repeatedly and rightly called a war of necessity.

It’s worth recalling that we were engaged in Afghanistan in the 1980’s, supporting the Mujahadeen against the Soviets. That was a successful policy, but then we pretty much put Afghanistan out of our minds. While no one was watching, what followed was a civil war, the takeover by the Taliban, and the rise of bin Laden and al-Qaeda. All of that set in motion the events of 9/11. When we deployed forces eight years ago this month, it was to make sure Afghanistan would never again be a training ground for the killing of Americans. Saving untold thousands of lives is still the business at hand in this fight. And the success of our mission in Afghanistan is not only essential, it is entirely achievable with enough troops and enough political courage.

Then there’s the matter of how to handle the terrorists we capture in this ongoing war. Some of them know things that, if shared, can save a good many innocent lives. When we faced that problem in the days and years after 9/11, we made some basic decisions. We understood that organized terrorism is not just a law-enforcement issue, but a strategic threat to the United States.

At every turn, we understood as well that the safety of the country required collecting information known only to the worst of the terrorists. We had a lot of blind spots – and that’s an awful thing, especially in wartime. With many thousands of lives potentially in the balance, we didn’t think it made sense to let the terrorists answer questions in their own good time, if they answered them at all.

The intelligence professionals who got the answers we needed from terrorists had limited time, limited options, and careful legal guidance. They got the baddest actors we picked up to reveal things they really didn’t want to share. In the case of Khalid Sheik Muhammed, by the time it was over he was not was not only talking, he was practically conducting a seminar, complete with chalkboards and charts. It turned out he had a professorial side, and our guys didn’t mind at all if classes ran long. At some point, the mastermind of 9/11 became an expansive briefer on the operations and plans of al-Qaeda. It happened in the course of enhanced interrogations. All the evidence, and common sense as well, tells us why he started to talk.

The debate over intelligence gathering in the seven years after 9/11 involves much more than historical accuracy. What we’re really debating are the means and resolve to protect this country over the next few years, and long after that. Terrorists and their state sponsors must be held accountable, and America must remain on the offensive against them. We got it right after 9/11. And our government needs to keep getting it right, year after year, president after president, until the danger is finally overcome.

Our administration always faced its share of criticism, and from some quarters it was always intense. That was especially so in the later years of our term, when the dangers were as serious as ever, but the sense of general alarm after 9/11 was a fading memory. Part of our responsibility, as we saw it, was not to forget the terrible harm that had been done to America … and not to let 9/11 become the prelude to something much bigger and far worse.

Eight years into the effort, one thing we know is that the enemy has spent most of this time on the defensive – and every attempt to strike inside the United States has failed. So you would think that our successors would be going to the intelligence community saying, “How did you did you do it? What were the keys to preventing another attack over that period of time?”

Instead, they’ve chosen a different path entirely – giving in to the angry left, slandering people who did a hard job well, and demagoguing an issue more serious than any other they’ll face in these four years. No one knows just where that path will lead, but I can promise you this: There will always be plenty of us willing to stand up for the policies and the people that have kept this country safe.

On the political left, it will still be asserted that tough interrogations did no good, because this is an article of faith for them, and actual evidence is unwelcome and disregarded. President Obama himself has ruled these methods out, and when he last addressed the subject he filled the air with vague and useless platitudes. His preferred device is to suggest that we could have gotten the same information by other means. We’re invited to think so. But this ignores the hard, inconvenient truth that we did try other means and techniques to elicit information from Khalid Sheikh Muhammed and other al-Qaeda operatives, only turning to enhanced techniques when we failed to produce the actionable intelligence we knew they were withholding. In fact, our intelligence professionals, in urgent circumstances with the highest of stakes, obtained specific information, prevented specific attacks, and saved American lives.

In short, to call enhanced interrogation a program of torture is not only to disregard the program’s legal underpinnings and safeguards. Such accusations are a libel against dedicated professionals who acted honorably and well, in our country’s name and in our country’s cause. What’s more, to completely rule out enhanced interrogation in the future, in favor of half-measures, is unwise in the extreme. In the fight against terrorism, there is no middle ground, and half-measures keep you half exposed.

For all that we’ve lost in this conflict, the United States has never lost its moral bearings – and least of all can that be said of our armed forces and intelligence personnel. They have done right, they have made our country safer, and a lot of Americans are alive today because of them.

Last January 20th, our successors in office were given the highest honors that the voters of this country can give any two citizens. Along with that, George W. Bush and I handed the new president and vice president both a record of success in the war on terror, and the policies to continue that record and ultimately prevail. We had been the decision makers, but those seven years, four months, and nine days without another 9/11 or worse, were a combined achievement: a credit to all who serve in the defense of America, including some of the finest people I’ve ever met.

What the present administration does with those policies is their call to make, and will become a measure of their own record. But I will tell you straight that I am not encouraged when intelligence officers who acted in the service of this country find themselves hounded with a zeal that should be reserved for America’s enemies. And it certainly is not a good sign when the Justice Department is set on a political mission to discredit, disbar, or otherwise persecute the very people who helped protect our nation in the years after 9/11.

There are policy differences, and then there are affronts that have to be answered every time without equivocation, and this is one of them. We cannot protect this country by putting politics over security, and turning the guns on our own guys.

We cannot hope to win a war by talking down our country and those who do its hardest work – the men and women of our military and intelligence services. They are, after all, the true keepers of the flame.

Thank you very much.

Thanks again to Fox News for providing the text of this sobering message.




Dick Cheney - Center for Security Policy Speech