Reagan's son got the right idea.
apparently ron told the bushies to quit using his dad's name. as did caroline kennedy re; jfk
DontTreadOnMe wrote:apparently ron told the bushies to quit using his dad's name. as did caroline kennedy re; jfk
Good thing neither of them owns the copyright on their Dads' names.
They don't need to own the copyright
panzade wrote:They don't need to own the copyright
They do if they want their prohibitions enforced.
In any case, I suspect that Michael Reagan is all for Republicans (and Bush & Co. in particular) using his father's name.
Taking Bush at His Word
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: October 30, 2004 New York Times et al.
I often criticize statements by President Bush, so today let me praise some of his real wisdom:
Oct. 11, 2000: "If we're an arrogant nation, [foreigners] will resent us. If we're a humble nation but strong, they'll welcome us. ... We've got to be humble."
It's a good thing Mr. Bush tried to be humble, or the U.S. would have an approval rating even lower than 5 percent in Jordan, and Osama bin Laden's approval rating in Pakistan would be higher than 65 percent.
Feb. 27, 2001: "I hope you will join me to pay down $2 trillion in debt during the next 10 years. ... We should approach our nation's budget as any prudent family would."
But Mr. Bush, with the help of a weak economy, has transformed the Clinton budget surpluses into huge deficits. Since Mr. Bush took office, the federal debt has increased by $2.1 trillion, or 40 percent.
Sept. 25, 2000: "It is clear our nation is reliant upon big foreign oil. More and more of our imports come from overseas."
Hmm. And many of our exports go abroad. Meanwhile, despite the lackluster economy, oil imports are 1.3 million barrels per day higher than in Mr. Clinton's last year in office.
June 11, 2001: "My administration is committed to a leadership role on the issue of climate change."
Great! Because America's carbon dioxide emissions, associated with global warming, have risen 1.7 percent since then.
June 26, 2003: "Notorious human rights abusers, including, among others, Burma, Cuba, North Korea, Iran and Zimbabwe, have long sought to shield their abuses from the eyes of the world by staging elaborate deceptions and denying access to international human rights monitors."
It takes a big man to admit mistakes, like his administration's practice of hiding certain Arab prisoners from Red Cross and other inspectors.
Nov. 5, 2003: "In the debate about the rights of the unborn, we are asked to broaden the circle of our moral concern. ... We're asked by our convictions and tradition and compassion to build a culture of life, and make this a more just and welcoming society."
Abortions declined in the U.S. in the Clinton years; the abortion rate dropped by 22 percent in the 1990's. But while data are incomplete, abortions appear to have increased sharply since Mr. Bush took office. Glen H. Stassen, a Christian pro-life theologian, estimates that 52,000 more abortions occurred in 2002 than would have been expected based on the previous trend. Professor Stassen attributes the rise in abortions in part to the troubled economy and concerns among pregnant women that they cannot afford to have babies.
May 25, 2004: "One of the challenges we face is to make sure the health care system responds to the needs of the citizens."
But five million more Americans don't have health insurance, compared with when Mr. Bush took office.
Sept. 9, 2003: "We must focus early to make sure every child can read and write and add and subtract."
But Mr. Bush's budget guidelines translate into inflation-adjusted reductions in 2006 alone of more than $900 million for Head Start and childhood education.
May 24, 2003: "We will not tolerate nuclear weapons in North Korea."
On Mr. Bush's watch, North Korea is generally believed to have gone from two nuclear weapons to about eight.
2001: "Not on my watch."
Scrawled note by Mr. Bush on a report to him about the 1994 genocide in Rwanda that had occurred under President Clinton. That's reassuring to the 100,000 or more people in Darfur who have died in a spasm of murder and rape that Mr. Bush acknowledges as genocide.
Sept. 30, 2004: "The biggest threat facing this country is weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a terrorist network."
But the single most important step to reducing the risk that a nuclear weapon will destroy New York is to secure loose nukes abroad, and Mr. Bush has been lackadaisical about that. Only 135 out of 600 metric tons of Russian nuclear materials have been given comprehensive upgrades, and Mr. Bush initially proposed cutting funds for that program.
Sept. 2, 1999: "Effective reform requires accountability. ... It is a sad story. High hopes, low achievement. Grand plans, unmet goals. My administration will do things differently."
Oh?
What a wasted four years.
How anyone can possibly want to give this guy more time to screw up our country is beyond me.
Believe it or not your choice
BUSH GHOST WRITER SHOWS TRUTH ABOUT FATHER AND SON
Mickey Herskowitz - a ghost writer for both George W. Bush and George H.W. Bush - has revealed startling information about both men, which he learned from extensive candid conversations with the 41st and the 43rd presidents. Herskowitz revealed the information in a series of interviews with investigative reporter Russ Baker, which Baker tape recorded.[1]
Baker's article reveals that "in 2003, Bush's father indicated to [Herskowitz] that he disagreed with his son's invasion of Iraq."[2]
George W. Bush was reluctant to talk to Herskowitz about his National Guard service. But Bush did tell him "that after transferring from his Texas Guard unit two-thirds through his six-year military obligation to work on an Alabama political campaign, he did not attend any Alabama National Guard drills at all, because he was 'excused.'"[3] Bush's comments to Herskowitz "directly contradicts his public statements that he participated in obligatory training with the Alabama National Guard."[4]
According to Herskowitz, "two years before the September 11 attacks, presidential candidate George W. Bush was already talking privately about attacking Iraq."[5] In 1999, Bush said to Herskowitz, "My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it. If I have a chance to invade.... if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency."[6]
Sources:
1. "Bush Wanted To Invade Iraq If Elected in 2000," Russ Baker, 10/27/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=65896.
2. Ibid.,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=65896.
3. Ibid.,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=65896.
4. Ibid.,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=65896.
5. Ibid.,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=65896.
6. Ibid.,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=65896.
Could Rumsfeld be acknowledging he made a mistake. Bush will slap his hand. This administration makes no mistakes. The devil told me so.
Commentary > The Monitor's View
from the November 01, 2004 edition
Winning the Peace Next Time
In what amounts to a list of "lessons learned," the Pentagon has drafted a directive to the military's four-star regional commanders who oversee US forces around the world to develop plans that would reduce in future conflicts the instability seen in post-Hussein Iraq.
The 11-page draft, as described by The Wall Street Journal, mirrors Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's goal to reinvent the military into a leaner, more flexible force. The draft reportedly states that officers should be able to track and penetrate terrorist activity by learning foreign languages and cultures. The Pentagon is to develop technology to tag and then track terrorists. War planning should be integrated with postwar planning, and the State Department needs to be involved in the postwar plans and operations.
Considering the administration's mistake of not anticipating a post-invasion insurgency, the secretary should be congratulated for trying to find better ways to "win the peace" next time. But the draft directive - as reported so far - is a mixed bag.
Its strongest points correct two mistakes. One of those errors was to largely separate postwar planning from war planning. Another was the Pentagon's usurping of the State Department's role in running the post-conflict phase. Historically, America's diplomatic corps has taken charge after the military has done its job.
But what seems to be a plan to turn military officers into spies raises key questions. The US already has a branch of government devoted to penetrating the language and culture of terrorists - the Central Intelligence Agency. Is it not the performance of the CIA, as well as its coordination with the Pentagon, that needs the attention?
Officers adept at intelligence gathering fit Mr. Rumsfeld's vision of a lean, nimble, and technologically sophisticated military. But one wonders whether the secretary puts too much emphasis on his transformed forces and not enough on how to decide the number of forces to deploy for a post-conflict situation.
Before the Iraq war started, experienced military commanders and the Army War College warned about using an undersized force to take charge in Iraq. Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki told Congress that significant ground forces would be needed after an invasion.
Many more voices will weigh in on the draft directive before the process is over. Undoubtedly, more light will be shed on the new intelligence gathering function of military officers. Let's hope that the bigger lessons of listening to alternative voices, especially regarding troop numbers, are heeded by the Pentagon.
