Fact Checking Bush's Presser

President Bush gave his Exit Presser Monday, January 12, 2009. In doing so he gave his accounting of his take on his term, and how it looked from his perspective. He had much to say, some good, some bad, some angry, some just plain dumb.

I want to look at some of the things he said, and then point out the truth, now I didn't do all of this, I had some help. But some of them I did do. I also want to put in a picture of his faces during the presser I think is pretty funny.

President George W. Bush claimed to have inherited a recession that in fact began on his watch in a legacy-polishing news conference Monday often at odds with his record. A look at some of the president's claims in his final news conference, and the facts:

BUSH: "In terms of the economy - look, I inherited a recession, I'm ending on a recession. In the meantime, there were 52 months of uninterrupted job growth."

THE FACTS: There have been two recessions during Bush's time in office. The first was a relatively mild downturn that began in March 2001 and lasted eight months, ending in November 2001. Since the first one did not begin until after he took office in January 2001, it is not strictly accurate to say he "inherited" it.
The second downturn began December 2007 and has already lasted longer than any recession in a quarter century. If it does not end until the second half of this year, which many economists believe is likely, the current recession will have surpassed in length all other downturns of the post World War II period.
As to his claim of 52 months of uninterrupted job growth, that is factual, although perhaps misleading in what it says about overall job growth during his term. Job growth after the 2001 recession did not resume on a sustained basis until September 2003, continuing until January 2007, a period of 52 months.
However, jobs have declined in every month since then. A staggering 2.6 million jobs disappeared in 2008, the most since World War II, and unemployment hit a 16-year high of 7.2 percent in December.
Overall, during Bush's eight years in office, a net total of 3 million jobs were created. In the two terms of his predecessor, President Clinton, roughly 21 million jobs were generated.
---
In a side note to this, here is a link to a story that was done by Rachel Maddow, and by Anderson Cooper,(who was there, on the ground every day in the water) and he has a different memory than Bush does too.

Also check out my friend Enigma4Ever @ Watergate Summer she has a lot of stuff on Katrina. It is something her and I discuss and she has blogged on it. Bush is such a jerk for saying these things when he knows it is just an out and out LIE..and yes I said it was a LIE!!!!!!!!!!

BUSH: Asked about the government's response to Hurricane Katrina, Bush said, "You know, people said, well, the federal response was slow. Don't tell me the federal response was slow when there was 30,000 people pulled off roofs right after the storm passed... That's a pretty quick response."

THE FACTS: The president's defense is based on one very narrow measure in the 2005 storm's immediate aftermath. He ignored numerous other facets that depict a more sober picture.
There were 9,000 Louisiana families still living in trailers as of last Sept. 1, and more than 30,000 residents of Gulf states receiving disaster housing assistance. Five of 23 acute-care hospitals in the New Orleans area remain closed. The city's bus system carries less than a third of its pre-storm passengers. Many neighborhoods remain largely vacant.
Bush noted that $121 billion in federal aid was approved. But much of that went to rescue operations and other short-term needs. The Louisiana Recovery Authority estimates that about $15 billion has been spent on rebuilding in the state.
Bush said New Orleans schools have improved, which is true. But of 125 public schools in New Orleans before Katrina, only about 85 remain.
---
BUSH: Predicted that Israel and the Palestinians will eventually make peace more or less on terms he outlined early in his tenure, and said his administration "worked hard" to advance peace by defining a goal of two peaceful countries and working to strengthen Palestinian security forces.

THE FACTS: Bush's 2002 speech calling for an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel did mark a surprisingly explicit and detailed endorsement of that idea by an American president. But he didn't mention that in those early years his administration put active peacemaking in a deep freeze and only tried to restart negotiations late in his term. In the years between, Israel expanded Jewish settlements on land claimed by the Palestinians for an eventual state, with only mild complaint from the United States.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has said the administration waited until the timing was better, meaning until after the death of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and the election of a moderate leader to succeed him. Bush wrote off Arafat early on, with advisers saying the PLO chief was corrupt and probably incapable of delivering a deal that Israel and its U.S. backers could live with.
But by the time the U.S. made Mideast peace a diplomatic priority conditions were changing again. Bush pushed Arafat's successor, Mahmoud Abbas, to hold elections in early 2006 that he feared, correctly, would legitimize his rivals in the Islamic Hamas movement. Those rivals are now in control of the Gaza Strip, splitting the territory and people Abbas theoretically governs.
Bush sponsored a high-level peace conference in late 2007, and visited Israel and the West Bank in early 2008. Rice stopped by often to check on secret negotiations between Abbas' West Bank leadership and Israel.
Hamas is now at war with Israel in Gaza, in the most intense fighting in years. Israel may succeed in wounding Hamas leadership and its ability to fire rockets into Israel, but it probably cannot defeat the well-organized group outright. In the meantime, civilian deaths in Gaza erode Palestinian support for negotiations.

Now that we have fact checked some of Bush's statements of his pressers and you can see that he wasn't quite on the mark, I am sure you have others you can add. Feel free.

One other little thing he had to say I found odd... The president declined to talk about any plans to issue further pardons, but he did talk about what he'd do after Obama takes over, saying he'd likely start working again immediately. "I'm a type-A personality. I just can't envision myself [with] the big straw hat and Hawaiian shirt sitting on some beach," Bush said. "Particularly since I quit drinking."

I sure hope he doesn't issue any more pardons, I worry he will issue a blanket pardon for himself and Cheney before he leaves office. But I wonder about the quitting drinking part. Sometimes I think that's the only thing that explains some of his behavior.

Bill Moyers video about the conflict in the Middle East.

This is such a hard subject to talk about and write about still. I just couldn't do it the other day and so only posted copies of news reports I found. I am still struggling with this. We are 14 days into this situation in the Middle East with no resolution in sight. This video is one of the most sensible I have seen on it. At least he has a level head on his shoulders. Of course Bill Moyers always does. But he talks about it in a clear, concise manner.

Watch this, and listen to what he says.



Here is a link to the Miller story he spoke of in the video.

Some other thoughts, the UN issued a resolution to stop this insanity and Israel and Hamas both said no. Here is Israel's response:

The Israel Air Force has dropped leaflets on the Gaza Strip warning residents that it plans to escalate its two-week-old offensive.

The army says it has dropped the fliers throughout Gaza. It says the notices are meant as a "general warning."

The notice says Israel is about to begin a "new phase in the war on terror." It says it will "escalate" an operation that already has killed more than 800 Palestinians.

How can they justify a new escalation of this "operation" when they have already killed 800 people in Gaza? This is just craziness. More than 1/3 of these 800 deaths are children...CHILDREN...and there are more than 3,000 wounded and over 1/3 of them are children...CHILDREN.

Glenn Greenwald asks in Salon at his blog:

I have a question for supporters of the Israeli attack on Gaza: Prior to the Iraq War, if it were known that the war would last six years, that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis would die and millions more would be internally and externally displaced, there would presumably have been some number of supporters of the U.S. invasion who would have changed their minds, concluding that the costs (human, financial and otherwise) were too great to render the invasion justifiable.

For supporters of the Israeli war in Gaza: is there some number of Palestinian civilian deaths that, once exceeded, renders this war unjustifiable? 1,000? 10,000? 25,000? Or is the idea that because Israel is justified in the mission itself, then the number of Palestinian civilian deaths is irrelevant -- i.e., Israel should do what it thinks it needs to do and, provided it exercises some form of "restraint," then it is justified regardless of how many innocent human beings (Palestinians) die as a result?

I would like to know the answer to that also. How many would it take??

An Unnecessary War By Jimmy Carter

From the Washington Post
An Unnecessary War

By Jimmy Carter

Thursday, January 8, 2009


I know from personal involvement that the devastating invasion of Gaza by Israel could easily have been avoided.

After visiting Sderot last April and seeing the serious psychological damage caused by the rockets that had fallen in that area, my wife, Rosalynn, and I declared their launching from Gaza to be inexcusable and an act of terrorism. Although casualties were rare (three deaths in seven years), the town was traumatized by the unpredictable explosions. About 3,000 residents had moved to other communities, and the streets, playgrounds and shopping centers were almost empty. Mayor Eli Moyal assembled a group of citizens in his office to meet us and complained that the government of Israel was not stopping the rockets, either through diplomacy or military action.

Knowing that we would soon be seeing Hamas leaders from Gaza and also in Damascus, we promised to assess prospects for a cease-fire. From Egyptian intelligence chief Omar Suleiman, who was negotiating between the Israelis and Hamas, we learned that there was a fundamental difference between the two sides. Hamas wanted a comprehensive cease-fire in both the West Bank and Gaza, and the Israelis refused to discuss anything other than Gaza.

We knew that the 1.5 million inhabitants of Gaza were being starved, as the U.N. special rapporteur on the right to food had found that acute malnutrition in Gaza was on the same scale as in the poorest nations in the southern Sahara, with more than half of all Palestinian families eating only one meal a day.

Palestinian leaders from Gaza were noncommittal on all issues, claiming that rockets were the only way to respond to their imprisonment and to dramatize their humanitarian plight. The top Hamas leaders in Damascus, however, agreed to consider a cease-fire in Gaza only, provided Israel would not attack Gaza and would permit normal humanitarian supplies to be delivered to Palestinian citizens.

After extended discussions with those from Gaza, these Hamas leaders also agreed to accept any peace agreement that might be negotiated between the Israelis and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who also heads the PLO, provided it was approved by a majority vote of Palestinians in a referendum or by an elected unity government.

Since we were only observers, and not negotiators, we relayed this information to the Egyptians, and they pursued the cease-fire proposal. After about a month, the Egyptians and Hamas informed us that all military action by both sides and all rocket firing would stop on June 19, for a period of six months, and that humanitarian supplies would be restored to the normal level that had existed before Israel's withdrawal in 2005 (about 700 trucks daily).

We were unable to confirm this in Jerusalem because of Israel's unwillingness to admit to any negotiations with Hamas, but rocket firing was soon stopped and there was an increase in supplies of food, water, medicine and fuel. Yet the increase was to an average of about 20 percent of normal levels. And this fragile truce was partially broken on Nov. 4, when Israel launched an attack in Gaza to destroy a defensive tunnel being dug by Hamas inside the wall that encloses Gaza.

On another visit to Syria in mid-December, I made an effort for the impending six-month deadline to be extended. It was clear that the preeminent issue was opening the crossings into Gaza. Representatives from the Carter Center visited Jerusalem, met with Israeli officials and asked if this was possible in exchange for a cessation of rocket fire. The Israeli government informally proposed that 15 percent of normal supplies might be possible if Hamas first stopped all rocket fire for 48 hours. This was unacceptable to Hamas, and hostilities erupted.

After 12 days of "combat," the Israeli Defense Forces reported that more than 1,000 targets were shelled or bombed. During that time, Israel rejected international efforts to obtain a cease-fire, with full support from Washington. Seventeen mosques, the American International School, many private homes and much of the basic infrastructure of the small but heavily populated area have been destroyed. This includes the systems that provide water, electricity and sanitation. Heavy civilian casualties are being reported by courageous medical volunteers from many nations, as the fortunate ones operate on the wounded by light from diesel-powered generators.

The hope is that when further hostilities are no longer productive, Israel, Hamas and the United States will accept another cease-fire, at which time the rockets will again stop and an adequate level of humanitarian supplies will be permitted to the surviving Palestinians, with the publicized agreement monitored by the international community. The next possible step: a permanent and comprehensive peace.

The writer was president from 1977 to 1981. He founded the Carter Center, a nongovernmental organization advancing peace and health worldwide, in 1982.

US Blocks UN statement on Gaza

Full story at MSNBC


UNITED NATIONS - The United States late Saturday blocked approval of a U.N. Security Council statement calling for an immediate cease-fire in the Gaza Strip and southern Israel and expressing concern at the escalation of violence between Israel and Hamas.

U.S. deputy ambassador Alejandro Wolff said the United States saw no prospect of Hamas abiding by last week's council call for an immediate end to the violence. Therefore, he said, a new statement at this time "would not be adhered to and would have no underpinning for success, would not do credit to the council."

France's U.N. Ambassador Jean-Maurice Ripert, the current council president, announced that there was no agreement among members on a statement. But he said there were "strong convergences" among the 15 members to express serious concern about the deteriorating situation in Gaza and the need for "an immediate, permanent and fully respected cease-fire."

Arab nations demanded that the council adopt a statement calling for an immediate cease-fire following Israel's launch of a ground offensive in Gaza earlier Saturday, a view echoed by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

Libya's U.N. Ambassador Giadalla Ettalhi, the only Arab member of the council, said the United States objected to "any outcome" during the closed council discussions on the proposed statement.
(snip)
The 15-member council had met behind closed doors to discuss a proposed presidential statement that would also call for all parties to address the humanitarian and economic needs in Gaza, including by opening border crossings.

The five permanent council members — the U.S., Britain, France, Russia and China — along with Libya, the only Arab nation on the council, then met privately to discuss possibly issuing another press statement.

"We need to have from the Security Council reaction tonight to bring this latest addition of aggression against our people in Gaza to an immediate halt," Riyad Mansour, the Palestinian U.N. observer told reporters.

The statement would have become part of the council's official record but would not have the weight of a Security Council resolution, which is legally binding.

Mansour said 3,000 Palestinians have been killed and injured since Israeli warplanes starting bombing Gaza a week ago. More than 480 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza and four killed in Israel.
(snip)
Before the council met Saturday night, Ban telephoned Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and said he was disappointed that Israel launched a ground offensive and "alarmed that this escalation will inevitably increase the already heavy suffering" of Palestinian civilians, the U.N. spokesman's office said in a statement.
(snip)
Several Arab foreign ministers are expected at U.N. headquarters on Monday to urge the Security Council to adopt a resolution ending the Israeli offensive. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas delayed his arrival until Tuesday so he can meet French President Nicolas Sarkozy in the West Bank.

Day 6 has begun with no let up.

Did Israel Use Disproportionate Force?

by: Lionel Beehner**

Once again Israel is under fire for using disproportionate force in response to Hamas rocket fire from Gaza. Israeli bombs have left hundreds of Palestinians dead, the bulk of them Hamas militants but dozens of citizens have died as well. So is Israel justified in its retaliation or did it violate international norms on proportionality?

The operative phrase tossed around is "self-defense," enshrined by Article 51 in the UN Charter. If a country -- or non-state actor for that matter -- attacks you, you are entitled to respond to defend yourself. But you cannot respond with disproportionate force. I cannot burn your house down if you spit on me. But I can slug you one in the face and be in the clear.

The targeting of civilians, whether deliberate or not, violates the 1949 Geneva Conventions. As such, Hamas sprinkles its militants around population centers as a form of deterrence but also to maximize world outrage when Israel responds with overwhelming force and ends up killing scores of civilians. What's remarkable is that time and again Israel falls for the bait. Regardless of how many Hamas fighters it kills or what kind of signal it sends to Syria and Iran, world perception is what ultimately matters, not body counts. And the tide of public opinion seems to invariably side with the underdog, regardless of who's to blame.

Hence, Israel now finds itself in the awkward yet familiar position of defending its actions. A state is legally allowed to unilaterally defend itself and right a wrong provided the response is proportional to the injury suffered and is immediate, necessary, refrains from targeting civilians, and requires only enough force to reinstate the status quo ante. Also implied in this argument is the right of Israel to prevent Hamas from carrying out future cross-border attacks.

Yet there is growing confusion as to what constitutes a legitimate military target. Arguably, if a hospital or church is used to house enemy troops, or a bridge is vital to moving militants, then these areas would become fair targets. The same goes for an electric grid. As international legal expert Michael Glennon told me after the 2006 Israeli-Hezbollah conflict, "Virtually no target can, ipso facto, be de-listed from a list of potential military targets."

Critics say Israel has a history of using disproportionate force. For example, its war with Hezbollah drew international condemnation for its use of cluster bombs and disproportionate use of force, regardless of the fact that Hezbollah provoked the war. In 1993, Israel's seven-day bombing campaign of Lebanon in retaliation for Hezbollah rocket attacks was also criticized. And in 1981, Israel struck Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor without provocation, a move Israelis said was justified under international norms on anticipatory self-defense.

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and French President Nicolas Sarkozy have condemned Israel's "disproportionate use of force" against Hamas. The Obama camp has been mum on the issue, only to issue anodyne statements standing by Israel's right to defend itself and urge a peaceful solution. But this issue -- what is an acceptable level of violence in response to attacks by non-state actors -- will rear its ugly head again, whether along the Turkish-Iraqi border, in northwest Pakistan, or in Gaza. There is no agreed-upon definition of what constitutes a proportionate response to terrorist attacks.

States, especially those with hyperactive militaries and nukes at their disposal, cannot be given carte blanche to retaliate. But it should be in their own self-interest not to respond with disproportionate force. After all, non-state actors tend not to be deterred much less defeated militarily. All that results is a surge in recruits and international sympathy for the non-state actor -- in this case, Hamas. Yes, it's tough for states to sit on their hands in the face of incoming rockets. But to respond, especially with disproportionate force, is suicidal.

** BIO of Lionel Beehner
Lionel Beehner blogs at www.lionelbeehner.com. He is formerly a senior writer for the Council on Foreign Relations, where he wrote about Iraq, Iran, and the former Soviet Union. His writing has appeared in the New York Times, Christian Science Monitor, Los Angeles Times, Guardian Online, Baltimore Sun, Chicago Tribune, USA Today, The New Republic Online, Foreign Policy, Russia Journal, Kiev Post, Seed, New York, and Worth Magazine. His commentary has appeared on NPR's All Things Considered, CNN International, BBC Radio, CNBC's Closing Bell with Maria Bartiromo, C-SPAN's Washington Journal, CBC, Bloomberg TV, and Voice of America, as well as in publications like the New York Times Magazine, Washington Times, Newsweek International, Weekly Standard, and San Francisco Chronicle. He teaches Op-Ed and Political Writing at Mediabistro.com. He was the 2006 recipient of a German Marshall Fund journalism fellowship for a research project on post-Soviet youth movements in Ukraine and Belarus. He is a graduate of Holy Cross College and holds a master’s degree in international relations from Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs.

The George W. Bush Legacy

The George W. Bush Legacy as seen through the eyes of George W. Bush

President Bush tells interviewers he does not care how history will portray him.
The Los Angeles Times has obtained an internal White House memo giving cabinet members talking points for painting history a rosy portrait of Mr. Bush even though his image will only get worse, as new, damning facts emerge.
What does the memo say? And how are we obliged to correct its bizarre claims?

To start, it says Mr. Bush, quote, "...promised to raise standards and accountability in public schools -- and delivered the No Child Left Behind Act," an act so poorly received, that the Times points out it became a standard applause line this year... for Democrats.

Also from the memo: he curbed AIDS in Africa.
Its spread has slowed, and Mr. Bush has won praise for this but he has not won any praise for withholding funds from groups that promote condom use, a proven life-saver in favor of abstinence-only programs, which have also failed in this country.
Also, Mr. Bush's foreign-aid puritan, Randall Tobias quit last year after patronizing an escort service linked to prostitution.

Also from the memo: Mr. Bush lifted the economy with his tax cuts and, quote, "responded with bold measures to prevent an economic meltdown."
In 2005, Mr. Bush told a 57-year-old single mother of three, one of them mentally challenged, that it was "fantastic", "uniquely American" that she had to work three jobs unlike half a million people who have no job as of November... in the first presidency for decades during which family earning power fell, and income disparity continued to rise.
The "meltdown" he "prevented" now having claimed several Wall Street institutions which had weathered 1929, and 9/11... but not 43.

And, of course, the old standby, quote, he "kept the American people safe"...

Not counting 20 percent of his first term, January 20th, 2001, until September 11th, 2001.
On 9/11, he sat reading "My Pet Goat" for seven minutes after learning America was under attack.
Then covered up environmental dangers at Ground Zero, and failed to provide for the health of rescue workers.
Helped bin Laden's family flee the country.
Opposed the 9/11 Commission, the Department of Homeland Security.
Tried to outsource America's port security to Dubai.
Did not keep us safe from the shoe-bomber... alert passengers and crew did that...
Did not keep five Americans safe from anthrax... and never caught their killer.
Still hasn't caught the killer of 17 sailors aboard the USS Cole.
Still hasn't caught the killer of 3,000 on 9/11... outsourcing that to Afghans... turning that country into a narco-state, giving bin Laden a safe haven in the region of Waziristan by literally endorsing a truce that Pakistan signed with the Taliban there.
And most of all, not keeping safe 4,200 Americans dead in his war, a war that made us less safe, invading a country that posed no grave or gathering threat, provided a check on Iran... then igniting insurrection by disbanding the Baathist Party, creating a Muslim theocracy purged of its moderate intelligentsia. One in which freedom has marched backward for women.
And Lebanon, too, elected a Muslim theocracy... run by Hamas, no less.
Keeping us safe?
Terrorism is rising worldwide.
The still-thriving enemy has claimed Pakistan's Benazir Bhutto...
And thousands of people in India... including 200 in Mumbai last month.
Russia can now invade U-S allies without fear of retribution.
And Mr. Bush failed to prevent Kim Jong Il from joining the ranks of nuclear powers.
Despite even more ample warning than he received prior to 9/11, he lifted not a finger to keep a major American city safe from wind and water.

And what, finally, of the claim in the talking points... that Mr. Bush has always upheld, quote, "the honor and the dignity of his office"?
You must define dignity downward to find it in a lie.
The lie of "Mission Accomplished."

Of upholding the Constitution... or protecting habeas corpus.
That we do not eavesdrop without warrants... do not eavesdrop on Americans.
The lie that we do not torture.
That we do not play politics with justice... that we do not use the wheels of justice... to crush dissent.
That we do not betray those who serve us in secret.
That we uphold, rather than commute, the penalties for those who do.
That we do not stage fake news conferences, do not censor science... do not plant propaganda in Iraqi newspapers... nor pay US columnists to write it in American newspapers.
Or push respected Americans to vaporize their honor and dignity with lies to the world.
Or lie about the causes of the credit crisis, high gas prices, or even that he watched the first plane hit the North Tower on TV.
Where is the honor in vowing a crusade? Of daring those who would kill American troops to "bring it on?"

Of promising to care for the troops after you put them in harm's way, without body armor or up-armored vehicles?
Where was the honor, the dignity in giving a dead soldier's mother a presidential coin and telling her "don't sell it on eBay."?

His memo, revealing yet another lie.He does care how history will portray him.
And now... he knows.