« November 2006 | Main | January 2007 »
Take a walk down memory lane with cartoonist Tom Tomorrow.
It's Sunday. The Iraq Study Group is being beaten like a pinata by the rabid right. Laugh a little before your head explodes:
Year in Review, by Tom Tomorrow
This Modern World
WASHINGTON, DC – Under pressure from the White House to give oversight to the Iraq Study Group’s recommendations, the 9/11 Commission will begin hearings next week on the group’s information-gathering techniques.
“Before we implement any of the Iraq Study Group’s recommendations, we owe it to our soldiers in harm’s way and their families, and to the American people, to first get to the bottom of these findings,” Bush said today at an impromptu press conference in the Rose Garden. “Human intelligence is just that – human. And humans make mistakes. In other words, we want to be sure that, uh, moving forward, we, uh, make things better and not worse. That’s my job. My job is to ensure success.”
Previously, former Secretary of State James Baker, co-chair of the Iraq Study Group, expressed concern over the Bush administration's application of the report, cautioning, “I hope we don’t treat this like a fruit salad and say, ‘I like this but I don’t like that. I like this but I don’t like that.’” After hearing of Bush’s decision today, however, Baker adjusted his fruit salad metaphor. “Initially, my biggest fear is that our proposals would be treated like a fruit salad. Clearly, now they intend to treat our comprehensive strategy more like a tuna salad, in which they leave out the tuna. What you get then is a mayonnaise sandwich, which, I might add, is not very nutritious and high in saturated fat. I guess one could flip this metaphor and say they’re actually using the tuna but leaving out the mayonnaise, in which case everything would crumble and fall apart, making construction of a cohesive sandwich simply untenable. Either way, I think you get the picture.”
Former Democratic Congressman Lee Hamilton, co-chair of both the 9/11 Commission and the Iraq Study Group, also spoke at the press conference, saying he was “committed to the new task at hand and expected to reach a sound, bi-partisan conclusion just after the 2008 Presidential Election.” Asked if he thought there might be a conflict of interest, as co-chair of both oversight panels, Hamilton replied, “Some hesitancy may be warranted on that matter. But I think overriding any such concerns is my experience in leading neutered committees to deliver delayed and watered-down conclusions, with sprinklings of harsh criticisms usually embedded deep enough within a report to provide sufficient cover for those in power.”
Andrea Mitchell, Senior White House Correspondent for NBC Nightly News, called it a victory for the White House. “With this deft move, President Bush has wrested the mantle of pragmatism from these elder statesmen while simultaneously stealing the thunder from James Baker. The president, you might say, has sent this study group to detention.”
But some critics of the Iraq Study Group do not think the Bush administration is going far enough. Radio personality Melanie Morgan told her audience, “Surrender monkeys is too tame a label to convey their anti-American tactics. An investigation by the 9/11 Commission should be just the first step. What the Baker-Hamilton crew perpetrated on America is criminal. Treasonous. And treason, by law, is punishable by death. Let’s face it, Jim Baker, Lee Hamilton and the rest of this group can only be described as ‘enemy combatants.’ I don’t think Gitmo or the gas chamber should be ruled out.”
Senator Russ Feingold, one of the only Democrats who voiced an opinion that the Iraq Study Group’s recommendations were too meek, called Bush’s announcement, “A flagrant attempt to end any further debate about whether he is the worst president in the history of America. Apparently, President Bush is more concerned about cementing his place as the most criminally incompetent and inane president in our nation’s history than he is about doing what’s best for our troops in Iraq.” Added Feingold, “He refuses to leave even the most minute shadow of a doubt as to the churning chasm of death and destruction and horror he has shaped by his own hand, so that future generations will feel the dark reverberation of all he has left in his wake and utter in perpetuity, ‘Bush…’”
Reached for comment on his son’s decision today, Former President George H.W. Bush replied only, “Jeb…Jebbie, Jeb-Jeb…Jeb’s never gonna…” before sobbing loudly into the phone.
White House officials said that Lee Hamilton is expected to cross-examine himself on the first day of the hearings, which is scheduled for this coming Wednesday. It will be carried live on C-SPAN for the four Americans who will be watching.
While our petulant boy-king works diligently to undercut the Iraq Study Group's report (which is astonishing in that, if heeded, it would largely give Bush a pass on his monumental catastrophe, the "graceful exit" he pre-emptively and so irrationally snubbed before its release), it was refreshing to see our soldiers' views on this report. Such stories are extremely rare in the mainstream media.
From the AP:
American troops in one of the most dangerous corners of Iraq welcomed plans for change Wednesday as the Pentagon prepared for a new chief and a bipartisan commission urged a new war strategy.
But many of the soldiers from Company C, 1st Battalion, 37th Armored Regiment were skeptical they'll be going home anytime soon, despite a high-level U.S. panel's recommendation that most combat troops leave Iraq by early 2008.
"There's no way we're leaving in two years no matter what any recommendation says," Spc. Eisenhower Atuatasi, 26, of Westminster, Calif., said. He thought 2012 was more realistic.
And why is that?
Sgt. Christopher Wiacik, 28, of Lavonia, Mich., also was pessimistic.
"It's just a study group. It's not really going to affect the president. I don't see any major changes happening until presidential elections start," Wiacik said. "I think both sides will promise to get troops out and give timelines then, but not before."
Now there's some real straight talk. His Commander-in-Chief is failing him; his strategy, or lack thereof, has long been a dead end. Yet no one, not even the Iraq Study Group, with the eyes of America and the rest of the world on him, is going to substantively change Bush's mind. This soldier, and certainly many like him, has lost all faith in Bush's ability to lead. In other words, as Bush likes to say, he paints the picture of a president who believes he has absolute power. A dictator, you might say.
Yet these soldiers, and the Iraqi people, are the ones who are suffering and paying with their lives daily because of our president's extreme state of denial.
The U.S. Army troops, based in the Sunni insurgent stronghold of Ramadi, are still reeling from learning two months ago that their tour was being extended until at least February.
"We've been here for 12 months now and there's been no progress," said Spc. Richard Johnson, 20, of Bridgeport, Conn., as he manned a machine gun on the rooftop of an outpost ringed by a shallow moat of sewage.
Nearby buildings have been leveled by rocket or tank fire, and others are riddled with bullet holes. The neighborhood only has electricity a few hours a day and most streets are barricaded with barbed wire and blast walls.
"It's like holding a child's hand. How long can you hold onto his hand before he does something on his own?" Johnson said. "How much longer do we have to get shot at or blown up?"
Will Bush label our soldiers' views as nothing but the beliefs of a "focus group," as he did with the millions of people, in America and around the world, who told him this war would be a disaster before the invasion? Sure looks that way.
1st Lt. Gerard Dow said he agreed with the commission's assessment that the situation in Iraq was "grave and disappointing."
"In Iraq, we try to win the hearts and minds of population," said Dow, 32, of Chicago. "They want Americans out of here. They blame us for all their problems. They look at us as the terrorists and then they turn around and help the terrorists who are trying to kill us."
If only Bush had a heart and a mind, maybe we could bring 1st Lt. Gerard Dow home. But Bush refuses to admit that it is an unwinnable quagmire.
"U.S. soldiers are dying trying to help people who don't want their help," he said. "That makes you angry."
...
The soldiers here also welcomed news that Robert Gates had been named to replace Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. Gates told a Senate committee Tuesday that "all options are on the table" about how to resolve the Iraq crisis.
"Yes, please! All of us want to change what we're doing because we're not doing very much," said Staff Sgt. Rony Theodore, 33, of Brooklyn, N.Y.
Wiacik also hoped for change.
"We're just sitting around not making any progress. It's annoying. You're not motivated to help anybody," he said, adding his contract was up in 2008 and he did not plan to re-enlist.
"I don't want to live my life like this," he said.
George W. Bush desperately wanted to be a war president. It was his only shot to avoid being a one-termer like his daddy. His only shot to inject some gravitas into his empty swagger. His only shot to be remembered for anything.
Well, he succeeded.
And to his already abysmal legacy, you can now add the enmity of his own fighting forces. Another triumph, GWB-style. The only man who couldn't find oil in Texas strikes again!
Not one more soldier should have to die because this man is incapable of admitting he's wrong. This man who giggles maniacally in the middle of a press conference when the subject of his ongoing state of denial is raised. A state of denial that has contributed to over a half million deaths and counting. It's time for his Oedipal issues to be worked out elsewhere (and I don't mean in Iran), in a personal atmosphere where other human beings are no longer paying for his wounded male psyche.
This president needs more than a timeout. He needs to be grounded.
AP Polls U.S. Soldiers in Iraq on Study Group Report: 'I Don't Want to Live My Life Like This'
The Associated Press (via Editor & Publisher)
NBC's Andrea Mitchell tonight exemplified the kind of sloppy and intellectually dishonest reporting that not only contributed to the United States getting into the war of choice in Iraq, but has also helped Bush avoid accountability since his declaration of "mission accomplished."
Here's Mitchell's gross misrepresentation of our Pragmatist-in-Chief:
MITCHELL: And the president has proved he can be pragmatic. He embraced the 9-11 Commission after opposing it, let Harriet Miers withdraw her nomination to the Supreme Court, accepted former chief of staff Andy Card's resignation, and let Donald Rumsfeld go, only days after saying his defense chief would stay.
After Bush and Cheney did everything they could to prevent the formation of the 9/11 Commission, they "embraced" it because they had no choice. Though, of course, both then set out to use this commission in the same way they are using the Iraq Study Group: to give the impression of stern oversight while whitewashing their criminal negligence. Additionally, Mitchell leaves out that Bush then failed to implement the majority of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations. In a follow-up report card (on which members of the mainstream media spent little or no time), the commission gave his administration failing and near-failing grades nearly across the board.
Similarly, he only withdrew Harriet Miers' nomination after eventually buckling under the weight of overwhelming opposition, much of which came from members of his own party (one of the only times this do-nothing Congress did something - though, of course, for the wrong reason: in their eyes, Harriet, you see, wasn't a guaranteed abortion slayer). Any president with a shred of flexibility, a wisp of pragmatism, would have nipped this one in the bud. But not Bush. Petulantly, he refused to rescind this nomination until the bitter end. So intractable, in fact, was Bush on this matter that, at the time, it became - ironically enough considering the context now - emblematic of his decision making on the war, his inability or outright refusal to adjust to the realities on the ground. But that's much too long ago for Mitchell to concern herself. This fact doesn't jibe with her baseless assessment of a president who is about as pragmatic (though far more incompetent) as deceased crocodile hunter Steve Irwin.
Pointing to Andy Card's departure as evidence of Bush's pragmatism may be the most disingenuous example of them all. There was no controversy surrounding Card's resignation. There was no public outcry, no Democrat, no Republican, no one outside the administration fiercely demanding that Card be removed. So Mitchell gives Bush credit for eventually accepting a resignation from one of the most loyal members of his administration? What choice did he have? Card had been one of the longest-serving chief's of staff in history. Moreover, Card has done nothing but continue to provide cover for this White House since leaving, popping up on the Sunday morning talk shows to, ostensibly, dispense insights on the inner workings of this administration while his hosts pretend he is not simply a freelancing shill for his former employers.
And relenting on Rumsfeld? Mitchell, please. Scores of decorated former generals, in addition to Democrats, Republicans and the rest of America, pleaded for this man to go for years now. To hold up Bush's acceptance of Rumsfeld's past-expiration-date resignation as more evidence of Junior's pragmatic flair is like seeing Geraldo's decision to skip conditioning his mustache for a day proof of his lack of vanity.
Meanwhile, back on planet Earth, here's the AP's Jennifer Loven on the same subject:
"He [Bush] often strenuously resists outside recommendations for action, then pivots to embrace them as his own when pressure becomes irresistible."
Exactly.
Paging Andrea Mitchell. You're wanted in the reality-based community.
Remember George W. Bush’s $15 billion initiative to combat AIDS abroad? Remember when you may have said to yourself, “Well, though he's probably doing this only to lay some shred of claim to his ‘compassionate conservative’ moniker, if it helps it’s still a good thing? Well, it turns out our inner skeptic wasn’t skeptical enough. While the mainstream media was quick to tout this seeming humane move at the time, its coverage of the outrageous truth behind this crackpot plan - as with its coverage of most humanitarian crises abroad (Darfur, Chad, Sri Lanka, Congo, Burma) – has been either non-existent or shamefully scarce considering the magnitude.
If you could find it, what has been known for some time is that the $15 billion was being thrown at an ideologically driven strategy that was as sure to fail as, say, invading Iraq and expecting to be greeted as liberators. Now the Center for Public Integrity has released a report that confirms the abysmal failure of this program, a monumental tragic waste of both dollars and lives. The Bush administration has not only imperiled future generations of Americans with unparalleled debt, but, in the process, has stained our country’s soul once again - this time by refusing to do what it takes to prevent millions of people from being infected with HIV.
This White House truly puts the “c” in criminal negligence.
From Democracy Now! with Amy Goodman:
The report, titled "Divine Intervention," was released as countries across the globe observed World AIDS day on Friday. It is the result of a yearlong investigation and is the first of its kind to examine the policies, politics and goals of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief known as PEPFAR. The center worked with reporters in eight countries who found that PEPFAR's faith-based ideology - including promotion of abstinence - often trumps science. The report states, "PEPFAR is failing to stop the global spread of AIDS and failing to help lead the world to stop this deadly disease. Instead of empowering people we are restricting them. We have a flawed framework with flawed policies."
Marina Walker Guevara and Sarah Fort, investigative journalists who worked on this report, joined Goodman and revealed exactly what’s happened as a result of this administration again promoting ideology over common sense:
MARINA WALKER GUEVARA: Yes, the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief has a series of very strict rules and funding restrictions that, we found, are very disconnected with the reality that those rules are supposed to serve in the field in the countries abroad, restrictions such as the type of work that you can do with commercial sex workers, restrictions around who can get information about condoms and who cannot get information about condoms, restrictions about how much money must be spent in abstinence-only programs. So all of these programs are disconnected or in some cases do not seem to fit the reality, the reality where very young girls get married in many areas in Africa, in Haiti, a reality where commercial sex work is a widespread profession in many countries, and in most cases, because these women do not have economic alternatives, do not have education opportunities and they must resort to this type of work.
AMY GOODMAN: One of the things in the report, in South Africa, almost one of every three pregnant women attending prenatal clinics in 2004 was infected with AIDS.
MARINA WALKER GUEVARA: Exactly, so South Africa continues to be the epicenter of the epidemic around the world. It’s a very difficult situation. They have had their own internal problems to come to terms with the disease, to finally address it, to work on it. And now, as I said before, these restrictions and these roles put another stone in the way, another difficulty, to really address the disease as it should be addressed.
AMY GOODMAN: As we travel through Africa, in Uganda, the report says, in the two years since the new US emphasis on youth abstinence began, the rate of new HIV infections has almost doubled. Since the arrival of PEPFAR money, the student and teacher materials in schools now stress abstinence. One student handbook advises, young people do not need condoms, they need skills for abstaining from premarital sex.
MARINA WALKER GUEVARA: Exactly. And one interesting thing is that a lot of the condoms information that used to be included in the students’ books was required by the Inter-Religious Council of Uganda to be -- they required that that information be excised from the books. Well, the Inter-Religious Council of Uganda has been awarded a $15 million PEPFAR grant very recently to run prevention, treatment and cure programs, which tells you which are the priorities of the US government at the time.
AMY GOODMAN: PEPFAR requires its partners to emphasize condom failure rates?
MARINA WALKER GUEVARA: They do require that partners in the field emphasize failure rates of up to 20%. They say most groups are saying these days, especially the faith-based groups, I should say, that condoms are effective between 80% to 85%. And other studies have found that they’re a much higher rate of effectiveness. And people in the field, what they say is that in countries where condom use is still taboo, it’s very, very dangerous to be emphasizing these type of very high failure rates.
AMY GOODMAN: Marina Walker Guevara is an investigative reporter with the Center for Public Integrity. I want to ask her about Ethiopia, but before we do, I want to go to Sarah Fort, who is another of these reporters who worked on this report for the Center for Public Integrity. You spent time, Sarah, in Haiti. What did you find?
SARAH FORT: While I was in Haiti, I found that one of the most serious issues that wasn’t being addressed by the President’s emergency relief plan was that of gang rape. There is a very serious issue of rape right now, especially in Port-au-Prince, and it’s something that is not being addressed by any of the prevention programs that I observed.
AMY GOODMAN: Explain further.
SARAH FORT: So, for example, what I understood is that in particularly low-income areas of Port-au-Prince, gang rape is a serious problem for many women, women who are trying to, for example, go get water or go buy food at the market. They're quite fearful of leaving areas that they feel safe. And there aren’t programs that are addressing women's insecurity or fear or economic vulnerability in these areas. And several women that I spoke to, several organizations that I spoke to said that they wish that there were more funding dedicated to these causes.
…
AMY GOODMAN: I mean, the numbers are quite astounding. When condom use [sic] enforced on sex workers in the brothels, the number of annual new HIV infections fell from 143,000 in 1991 to about 20,000 by 2003.
MARINA WALKER GUEVARA: Exactly. Exactly. So that shows you how important it is to have comprehensive programs. What most people are saying in the field is that all three components -- abstinence, being faithful and condom use -- should be taught. The choice should be there for people to choose what best fits their situation and that there also should be programs addressing violence, gender inequality, economic empowerment and all these other situations that are unfortunately part of the landscape in many developing countries.
Of course, the Bush administration was as forthcoming with information on its $15 billion faith-based boondoggle as it is with all matters.
AMY GOODMAN: How difficult was it to get information, Marina? You filed lawsuits?
MARINA WALKER GUEVARA: Yes, we filed three lawsuits against the State Department, Human Services and the US Agency for International Development. It was very difficult to get information. We filed more than two dozen Freedom of Information Act requests during the year that the investigation lasted, and in the end we got some information, because of the lawsuits, basically, which is scary because this is information that is public, that should be available. It’s information that has nothing to do with national security or with any other topic that may concern the government. And basically, if you don’t have the money to file a lawsuit, you don’t get information. And we didn’t get the funding information that we were expecting. The government released some sort of database that contained errors, and they acknowledged that they still don’t have a good database, that they are improving, that they are trying. So this also raised concerns about the accountability of the project, of the PEPFAR program.
AMY GOODMAN: They’re blacking out financial information. This is public funding. This is funding using taxpayer dollars.
MARINA WALKER GUEVARA: Exactly. They have, you know, excuses as to why they do that. Fortunately, we were able to get some financial information from the groups that are receiving money.
The mainstream media's complicity in this egregious program is simple: Bush knew from the beginning how little scrutiny and coverage this "bold" plan would draw. The U.S.-centric focus of our news has, rightfully, long been ridiculed by Europeans who, in comparison, receive far more information on what's happening outside their respective countries. Tuning into the BBC for a minute is enough to spot the stark contrast. That's precisely why this cynical initiative has, in reality, served as a successful PR campaign for Bush regardless of its predictable - and now confirmed - ineptitude.
Had it received the media focus it deserved, Bush's "compassionate" plan might've been unmasked before the damage was done. Sadly, even armed now with proof of its devastation, most in the mainstream media will continue their silence and disregard.
Report: Bush's Program to Combat HIV Abroad Fails Countries Struggling With the Pandemic
By Amy Goodman
Democracy Now!
Tom Tomorrow speaks for all of us who tried to prevent this insane war from happening. Those millions of voices worldwide that Bush chalked up to nothing more than a "focus group." But that makes sense, doesn't it? He is, after all, truly a CEO president - a failed CEO but a CEO, nonetheless. Only a CEO president could equate the largest day of protest in human history to a focus group.
It's Sunday. Here's your solution to happiness:
Solution to Iraq? Build a Time Machine
By Tom Tomorrow
This Modern World
On the heels of the media debate about whether to use the term “civil war” to describe the conflict in Iraq, The Wounded-Courier has uncovered a wave of new editorial decisions regarding previously accepted terminology. Each news organization has confirmed that announcement of these decisions will be forthcoming in the following week. Here are some of those key changes and their respective explanations:
Media Outlet: The New York Times
Old Term = Murder
New Term = Elimination
“While use of the term ‘murder’ is long-standing, it’s a rather ghastly phrase that may unnecessarily evoke horrors far worse than what that act might imply. Plenty of us, for example, know that many people throughout history have been murdered for good reason. Our fear, as a newspaper with great influence, is that if we continue to use this word indiscriminately we risk turning off far more readers before finishing an article than if we were to employ a less unsettling word. ‘Elimination’ serves us well here. Though I want to make it clear that the phrase ‘murder’ may still be used when justified. The New York Times will leave this, of course, up to the discretion of our seasoned journalists. As the Paper of Record, we owe it to our readers to leverage language with which they feel most comfortable.”
- Bill Keller, executive editor of The New York Times
-------------------------------------------
Media Outlet: Fox News
Old Term = Rape
New Term = Aggressive Dancing
“Well, we’ve bandied this one about for years over here at Fox News. Most of us, Geraldo and O’Reilly included, have agreed for a long time that the word ‘rape’ unfairly saddles men. I mean the lesbian lobby has used this unfairly for years. It has become nothing more than a castration tool. Then, women turn around and cry that men are too liberal, er, uh, I mean soft in the sack. Additionally, for others, the word automatically brings to mind genitalia and it’s simply unfit for broadcast on that level. We at Fox News are proud to announce our designation of ‘aggressive dancing’ to replace this sexist word. Correctly, it denotes an overly assertive act without casting aspersions on men everywhere. We think it will make America stronger and will deliver on the kind of traditional values and fairness and balance that our viewers demand.”
- Brit Hume, Washington, D.C. managing editor of Fox News
-------------------------------------------
Media Outlet = USA Today
Old Term = Death
New Term = New Beginning
“Traditionally, our readers have turned our multicolored pages and delved into our in-depth articles with relish. But as the world becomes a more and more dangerous place, we have noticed a slight drop in our readership. After much deliberation, we’ve decided that the word ‘death’ is unnecessarily depressing. There’s a finality to it that pushes readers away rather than draws them in. Therefore, going forward, ‘new beginning’ will be used in its place. Like the fine line between tragedy and comedy, we at USA Today think it’s time to acknowledge the razor’s edge between death and whatever it is that follows. ‘New beginning’ gives hope where ‘death’ never could. Whether it’s a grandfather in Des Moines or an 18-year-old U.S. soldier in Iraq, we think we owe it to them to present their untimely passing in the brightest possible light.”
- John Hillkirk, co-executive editor of USA Today
-------------------------------------------
Media Outlet = CNN
Old Term = War Criminal
New Term = Pundit Royalty
“This is Wolf Blitzer coming to you from The Situation Room. Two words. ‘War criminal.’ Two more words. Henry Kissinger. Some say he is one. But we would disagree. I’ve interviewed him many times over the years and I’ve seen no evidence during my multiple interactions with Dr. Kissinger of any war criminal activity. What I have witnessed is the workings of an extraordinary guest with an extraordinary mind. In the future, I imagine a more recently purported war criminal, Donald Rumseld, might follow in his footsteps. To coincide with our findings, CNN has decided to drop the term ‘war criminal’ altogether in favor of the more accurate designation ‘pundit royalty.’ If brilliant strategic military thinking - not to mention an uncanny flair to chew up an hour like nobody’s business - makes someone a war criminal, then I’m not a journalist. Dr. Kissinger and others have earned this appellation. And our viewers, as always, have entrusted us to bring them the truth.”
- Wolf Blitzer, CNN anchor and host of The Situation Room
Normally, I post satire every Friday. But since Bush's press conference yesterday with Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki was replete one-liners and because I do not have time to write a Wounded-Courier piece today, I present to you the comedy stylings of George W. Bush (it helps if you imagine a rim shot after each joke):
"Good morning. It's good to be in Amman."
"Prime Minister Maliki and I just had a very productive meeting."
"During our meetings, the Prime Minister and I heard an update from an important group that our government established last month: the Joint Committee on Accelerating the Transferring of Security Responsibility."
"I want to hear all advice before I make my decisions about adjustments to our strategy and tactics in Iraq to help this government succeed."
"Part of the Prime Minister's frustration is, is that he doesn't have the tools necessary to take care of those who break the law."
"Well that's -- killers taking innocent life is, in some cases, sectarian. I happen to view it as criminal, as well as sectarian."
"I know there's a lot of speculation that these reports in Washington mean there's going to be some kind of graceful exit out of Iraq."
"He [Prime Minister Maliki] was explaining to me that occasionally the house in which he lives gets shelled by terrorists who are trying to frighten him."
"As opposed to saying, America, you go solve the problem, we have a Prime Minister who's saying, stop holding me back, I want to solve the problem."
"In other words, this is a sophisticated operation to get a unifying army stood up."
"And one of the reasons I appreciate the Prime Minister is that he, on the one hand, sees that it's a sophisticated operation to get a military up from zero, but on the other hand, is frustrated by the pace."
"As a matter of fact, I was the -- our government strongly believes in the two-state solution, and I believe it's in the Palestinian people's interest that they have their own state."
"Isn't it interesting that the radicals and extremists fear democracy so much that they're willing to kill innocent people?"
"And therefore, Condoleezza Rice will be going to talk to Abu Mazen tomorrow, as well as Prime Minister Olmert, working with both parties together to see how we can advance the vision that the Prime Minister himself talked about earlier this week."
"Understand that most people want to live in peace and harmony and security."
"It's an interesting analysis: the biggest loser for a free society is the Iraqi citizen when this society was just liberated from the grips of a brutal tyrant that killed thousands and thousands of the Iraqi citizens."
"Secondly, this country has a constitution, which is one of the most modern constitutions ever written in the Middle East."
"It didn't take but 19 people who were trained in Afghanistan to get on airplanes and come and kill over 3,000 citizens in my country."
"Freedom and liberty is the great alternative to the hateful vision of those who are willing to murder innocent lives to achieve their objective."
George W. Bush, ladies and gentlemen! Let's give him a big round of applause! Well, that's our show, tonight. I want to thank you all for coming. Remember, be kind to your waitresses and drive safely.
President Bush Participates in Joint Press Availability with Prime Minister Maliki of Iraq
The White House
