President Bush Press Conference

From CBS News.

Molten Carbon

Bush's Talking Points are Nixonian

Here's a short and incomplete comparison of various statements by President Bush and statements made by President Nixon during his November 3, 1969 televised speech. At least we know where he gets his talking points, and they aren't from Rove. I've highlighted some of the more egregious examples of plagiarism:

Nixon:

We have adopted a plan which we have worked out in cooperation with the South Vietnamese for the complete withdrawal of all U.S. combat ground forces, and their replacement by South Vietnamese forces on an orderly scheduled timetable. This withdrawal will be made from strength and not from weakness. As South Vietnamese forces become stronger, the rate of American withdrawal can become greater.

Bush:

Our strategy can be summed up this way: As Iraqis stand up, we will stand down, and when our commanders on the ground tell me that Iraqi forces can defend their freedom, our troops will come home with the honor they have earned. (Applause.)

Nixon:

The South Vietnamese have continued to gain in strength. As a result they have been able to take over combat responsibilities from our American troops.

Bush:

As more Iraqi battalions come online, these forces are assuming responsibility for more territory.

Nixon:

We must retain the flexibility to base each withdrawal decision on the situation as it is at the time rather than on estimates that are no longer valid.

Bush: via Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman:

There should not be hard and fast timetables associated with our force adjustments..the commanders on the ground need the flexibility to be able to adjust the troop levels based on the conditions that exist.

Nixon:

I have not and do not intend to announce the timetable for our program. And there are obvious reasons for this decision which I am sure you will understand...an announcement of a fixed timetable for our withdrawal would completely remove any incentive for the enemy to negotiate an agreement. They would simply wait until our forces had withdrawn and then move in.

Bush:

I recognize that Americans want our troops to come home as quickly as possible. So do I. Some contend that we should set a deadline for withdrawing U.S. forces. Let me explain why that would be a serious mistake. Setting an artificial timetable would send the wrong message to the Iraqis, who need to know that America will not leave before the job is done. It would send the wrong message to our troops, who need to know that we are serious about completing the mission they are risking their lives to achieve. And it would send the wrong message to the enemy, who would know that all they have to do is to wait us out.

Nixon:

I recognize that some of my fellow citizens disagree with the plan for peace I have chosen. Honest and patriotic Americans have reached different conclusions as to how peace should be achieved.

In San Francisco a few weeks ago, I saw demonstrators carrying signs reading: "Lose in Vietnam, bring the boys home."

Well, one of the strengths of our free society is that any American has a right to reach that conclusion and to advocate that point of view. But as President of the United States, I would be untrue to my oath of office if I allowed the policy of this Nation to be dictated by the minority who hold that point of view and who try to impose it on the Nation by mounting demonstrations in the street.

Bush:

There are a lot of people in the Democratic Party who believe that the best course of action is to leave Iraq before the job is done. Period. And they're wrong.

I will never question the patriotism of somebody who disagrees with me...this has nothing to do with patriotism. It has everything to do with understanding the world in which we live.

Bush's Talking Points are Nixonian

$230 Million = Chump Change

President Bush is playing big politics with the announcement that he will make available $230 million for the reconstruction efforts in Lebanon. One estimate puts the reconstruction costs at $3.6 billion and lost tourism revenue at $1.5 billion, with the Jiyahh power station oil spill clean up efforts alone to top $64 million.

What about other countries? How are they helping out? Kuwait has pledged almost 3.5 times as much as the US to the tune of $800 million. Saudi Arabia? 2 times with $500 million guaranteed. The interesting thing is that Lebanon was founded as an enclave for Christians who still make up 40 percent of the population, but these Arab countries don't seem to have any problem with that. From the Kuwaiti Times:

"We Kuwaitis support all the Lebanese people from Muslims to Christians and donating is the least we can do," said Abdullah, a Kuwaiti who owns a summer home in Lebanon.

We spend $250 million a DAY in Iraq, not to mention the $110 BILLION alloted to the Katrina cleanup efforts/scandal. Is $230 million really going to do anything? Its a strange and duplicitous person who gives political cover to one government as they destroy another country and then offers a consolance package worth a couple hundred million for the trouble.

$230 Million = Chump Change

Bush staff wanted bomb-detect cash moved

I received an update on the liquid explosives debacle from a commenter on a diary post over at Kos' place. Here's how it starts, from the Associated Press:

Bush staff wanted bomb-detect cash moved
WASHINGTON - While the British terror suspects were hatching their plot, the Bush administration was quietly seeking permission to divert $6 million that was supposed to be spent this year developing new homeland explosives detection technology.

Congressional leaders rejected the idea, the latest in a series of steps by the
Homeland Security Department that has left lawmakers and some of the department's own experts questioning the commitment to create better anti-terror technologies.

Homeland Security's research arm, called the Sciences & Technology Directorate, is a "rudderless ship without a clear way to get back on course," Republican and Democratic senators on the Appropriations Committee declared recently.

Bush staff wanted bomb-detect cash moved

Who'd a Thunk?

How can it be that after spending billions of dollars on the 'War on Terror' that this week, 5 years after 9/11, we collectively as a nation found out that the Department of Homeland Security hasn't equipped a single airport with the technology to detect liquid explosives? It must have been a small threat, less likely than someone taking over a plane with nail clippers because while I've had my clippers confiscated, they've looked the other way when it came to my sun tan lotion or that big bottle of green Gatorade tucked into the outside pocket of my backpack. Do we really trust that it just wasn't on their radar? The first return from a Google search of the phrase 'liquid explosives' is a site with a recipe for:

Astrolite A-1-5, said to be the world's MOST POWERFUL NON-NUCLEAR EXPLOSIVE, and Astrolite-G, claimed to be the world's highest detonation-velocity liquid explosive

There are plenty of reports coming to the defense of DHS claiming that they knew about this risk and have been planning for it, but if so, why didn't they start confiscating liquids and gels prior to this week? Are we waiting on technology to protect us from a threat that now the DHS believes can be eliminated by asking people to voluntarily hand over the banned items? The only way to deal with this right is by using the Israeli method: hand search everything.

If the Bush administration is serious about defeating terrorists, then they'd better start getting serious about how they manage the problem. Throwing more money at Iraq to referee a centuries old grudge-match between Sunni and Shia isn't going to stop the real al-Qaeda threat, but then again it appears that neither will the current DHS strategies, or lack thereof.

Molten Carbon DailyKos Diary Entry

This clip, though funny, is actually about right>>

Taliban Democrats

In a commentary published by the Washington Times, Cal Thomas went on a name calling spree and actually coined a brand new, evil, divisive and childish phrase: "Taliban Democrats".

The narrow primary defeat of veteran Sen. Joe Lieberman in Connecticut's Democratic primary is more than a loss for one man. It is a loss for his party and for the country. It completes the capture of the Democratic Party by its Taliban wing.

They used to be "San Francisco Democrats," a phrase coined by former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Jeane Kirkpatrick to describe the party's 1984 convention. But they have now morphed into Taliban Democrats because they are willing to "kill" one of their own, if he does not conform to the narrow and rigid agenda of the party's kook fringe.

Mr. Lieberman's one "sin," in the eyes of the Taliban Democrats, was that he supported the effort to defeat the insurgent-terrorists in Iraq. As a Jew, Mr. Lieberman is particularly sensitive to those who have targeted the Jewish people for extinction. But even if he weren't Jewish, he would still "get it," because he understands what's at stake in the region and has correctly concluded that the consequences of American failure in Iraq would be catastrophic. [...]

Taliban Democrats have effectively issued a political "fatwa" that warns all Democrats not to deviate from their narrow line, or else face the end of their careers through a political jihad. Perhaps the few remaining rational Democrats should put on their burkas now and submit to the will of the party mullahs.

The Republican Bloc is facetiously overwhelmed that the Democratic voters in Connecticut decided to oust Joe Lieberman for a simple and selfish reason: They are losing their war footing, and along with that they will actually have to hold themselves accountable for the billions of dollars wasted and fraudulently spent on a war that has only brought about more chaos, justify why tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens were killed for an American war, and tell our children how we let thousands of American soldiers die to build a nation that quite possibly the people living there didn't even want, and not least of all explain why they allowed the President to selectively ignore and violate the The Constitution and the rule of law.

Even with a party-majority Congress is only slightly more effective at legislating than AG Alberto Gonzalez, but with a smaller ideological majority they will be on even shakier ground, by which I mean legal ground. Mr. Thomas' cowardly, divisive and evil statements may only reflect his point of view, but he isn't the first or last to demonize the Democratic party for doing what they do best: understand and follow the will of the American public, which, last time I checked, is what our representatives are supposed to do.

Lieberman vs Lamont - Real Time Results

To view real-time results for the Lieberman-Lamont primary challenge, go here or for a graph go here

You Can Lead a Sunni to a Shiite, But You Can't Make Him Blink

Since the early 1900's, and arguably as early as the 1600's, Western powers have conquered, shaped and divided the Middle East in the search for oil and influence, with a casual disregard for autonomous governence.

The failed British occupation of Mesopotamia in the 1900's was undertaken to gain control of the known oil fields, especially Mosul, and was ratified by the League of Nations under the pretext that the British would stand down as the new Iraqi's stood up, to use modern rhetoric.

Britain controlled and framed the new nation of Iraq according to the needs of the British Empire with little regard for the disparate tribes and religious groups that occupied the arid land. In 1920 the Iraqi's decided it was time to stand up against the British occupation in what is now called The Great Iraqi Revolution.

For a great read regarding the Revolution and a chilling feeling of "this sounds so familiar" go here and go here

The Weekend Break

If President Bush is going on vacation we are too! Not really, but we are starting a new tradition at Molten Carbon. Every weekend we are going to post something NOT related to politics in an effort to reduce 'activist fatique'. Feel free to comment or add your own material, but remember, come Monday, we are all about politics. Have a great weekend!

The Constitution in Crisis - Rep. John Conyers

Rep. John Conyers has released a 'must read' 350 page report 'The Constitution in Crisis'. His report is a compilation and examination of the Bush administration's willful disregard for the rule of law and our Constitution. Here is an excerpt of Representative Conyers blog-release from The Huffington Post:

Today, I am releasing the final version of my report, the "Constitution in Crisis." The report, which is some 350 pages in length and is supported by more than 1,400 footnotes, compiles the accumulated evidence that the Bush Administration has thumbed its nose at our nation's laws, and the Constitution itself. Approximately 26 laws and regulations may have been violated by this Administration's misconduct.

Please Do Not Disturb

The Middle East is coming closer every day to an all out regional catastrophe with Iraq on the brink of civil war, the Israeli-Hezbollah and Israel-Palestine wars threaten to draw in Syria and further involve Iran while a humanitarian crisis is reaching critical mass.

General John Abizaid had this to say to the Senate Armed Services Committee on August 3, 2006:

"The sectarian violence is probably as bad as I've seen it...If not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move toward civil war."(The Seattle Times)

Tony Blair, just about to go on vacation, decided that things were too grave to take time off:

"British Prime Minister Tony Blair will delay the start of his holiday to work on a U.N. deal for a cease-fire in Lebanon, his office says...Basically he's delayed to try and do further work to try and get this U.N. deal together. And he thinks the next few days will be critical, a spokesman said, adding he expected Blair to delay his departure by several days".(CNN)

While we know President Bush is deeply concerned with the situation, he still decided to go on vacation and even stopped by a Texas Border Patrol station before heading off to his ranch for a week and a half:

"He got an up close look at several tools the Border Patrol uses to catch people sneaking across — helicopters, a boat and a small plane — and he stopped to pet some horses that are used on old-fashioned patrols." (MSNBC)

Molten Carbon