Tag Archives: George W. Bush

Carter surprises on 'Meet the Press'

Former President Jimmy Carter amazes me.

He’s 89 years young. His voice is still strong. His mind is still sharp. He apparently can still pound a nail with a hammer while building houses for Habitat for Humanity. He also surprises folks with candid answers to difficult questions.

He did so twice today on a “Meet the Press” interview with NBC correspondent Andrea Mitchell.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/former-president-jimmy-carter-im-being-spied-on-nsa

First, he said he fears the National Security Agency is monitoring his e-mails. So, when he corresponds with foreign leaders, he does so the old-fashioned way: He writes notes with pen and paper and mails them via the Postal Service. He is concerned about people’s privacy being harmed by NSA snooping.

Frankly, I believe the former president — being who he is and the job he once held — might have reason to be concerned far more than, say, yours truly or almost any other of the 300 million American citizens.

The second thing he told Mitchell was surprising, and disappointing. Does President Obama consult with the 39th president on foreign policy matters? Mitchell asked. Carter said no.

He noted that other men who succeeded him as president — Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush — all have sought his counsel over the years during difficult crises. Barack Obama hasn’t done so.

It’s disappointing to learn that about Obama. It’s not entirely surprising, given what some of his critics have said about his go-it-alone strategy in thinking through some stressful problems. Others in Washington have noted that President Obama doesn’t prefer to dicker and negotiate with legislators and that, too, is in keeping with what President Carter said in the interview broadcast Sunday.

The ex-presidents’ club is one of the most exclusive “organizations” in the world. So few of them are alive at any given time. In Barack Obama’s case, he’s got four of them with whom he can consult. Few men have made decisions as monumental as these men have made and their counsel should be welcome.

I have no knowledge, of course, about who the president calls when the going gets tough. It does sadden me to learn he hasn’t bothered to call one of them with a good bit of knowledge and life experience upon which to lean.

What would Mitt have done?

Mitt Romney’s hindsight is as good as it gets.

It’s picture perfect. The former Republican presidential nominee can see the past. Can he see the future? Well, no better than the man who beat him in the 2012 presidential election.

Still, the former Massachusetts governor blames President Obama’s “naivete” for the escalating tensions in Ukraine precipitated by the surprising virtual annexation of Crimea by Russia.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/mitt-romney-blasts-president-obama-naivete-ukraine-crisis

Romney did tell the world during the most recent presidential campaign that he considered Russia to be this nation’s No. 1 geopolitical foe. I recall thinking at the time that Romney seemed to be selling short the international terror network with which this country has been at all-out war since 9/11.

Did he know in advance that Russia was going to interfere with Ukraine’s internal political squabble? Did he foresee Russian troops moving into Crimea, or did he envision Crimean residents of Russian descent voting to ally the region with Russia and pull out of Ukraine?

I think not.

But more than a year after making that seemingly absurd claim, Romney’s assertion now seems oddly prescient.

Still, it’s fair to ask: How would President Romney have handled the Russian incursion?

He says leaders are able to foresee the future better than Barack Obama foresaw it. I guess he would have been more proactive in working our European allies to head off any Russian threat. That would have worked … how? What would have the Euros been able to do?

Russian President Vladimir Putin is a bully’s bully. My own sense is that he wouldn’t be dissuaded from acting no matter what NATO or the European Union threatened to do. The Russians faced another U.S. president in 2008, George W. Bush, when they invaded Georgia. W’s reputation was that of a no-nonsense guy who was unafraid to use force, right? Well, President Bush’s rep didn’t forestall military action by the Russians, either.

The sanctions that the United States and others have imposed on Russia’s key leaders are beginning to bite. They’re going to hurt. Will they force the Russians to back out? Probably not. Short of going to war with the Russians, I’m thinking the president of the United States is handling it about it right.

Cheney makes my head spin

My head is spinning.

I just caught up with former Vice President Dick Cheney’s interview on “Face the Nation” in which he ridicules the Obama administration’s efforts to manage the crisis in Ukraine.

President Obama is weak, indecisive, he’s lost the confidence of our allies, he’s wrong to take military options off the table — those are just some of the things Vice President Cheney offered in his assessment of Obama’s handling of the crisis.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/03/09/cheney_no_question_putin_thinks_obama_is_weak.html

I want to declare that Dick Cheney has no credibility — none whatsoever — on matters relating to managing international crises. How he can assert the things he does blows my ever-lovin’ mind.

Let us remember that Dick Cheney was in the Situation Room when President George W. Bush decided to go to war with Iraq in 2003. Cheney had declared time and again publicly that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein possessed chemical weapons and that he would use them on our allies in the Middle East. Cheney made the case for war, argued that the United States had to invade a nation, topple a sovereign government, rebuild a nation, and create a more democratic society where none ever had existed. We would be seen as “liberators, not occupiers,” he said.

Well, Mr. Vice President, it didn’t quite work out that way.

The weapons were nowhere to be found. We toppled the government and installed one more to our liking. The war went on even after Saddam Hussein had been hanged. We lost more than 4,000 American lives.

Let us also remember that Saddam Hussein played no role at all in the 9/11 attacks. Our “allies” in Saudi Arabia are far more complicit in that heinous and dastardly act than the Iraqis. Why didn’t we topple that government, too, Mr. Vice President?

It’s almost laughable how Cheney glossed over the U.S. response to the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008, saying that it occurred near the end of the Bush administration and as the Obama administration was preparing to take over. What’s the implication, Mr. Vice President? Might you be suggesting that Russia’s brass felt more comfortable invading Georgia as President Bush was about to leave office?

The Bush administration was as powerless to stop the Georgia incursion single-handedly as the Obama administration is now with the crisis in Ukraine.

My next task is to get my head to stop spinning.

Listen to one of your own, GOP

No one ever has accused Robert Gates of being a Barack Obama apologist.

He’s a Republican. Gates served as defense secretary in the George W. Bush administration; he stayed in that post during part of the first term of the Obama administration. He left office, and then wrote a memoir that was quite critical of many aspects of President Obama’s handling of foreign policy and defense matters.

So, when Robert Gates scolds his fellow Republicans for their incessant criticism of the president’s handling of the crisis in Ukraine, well, the man’s got some credibility.

http://mediamatters.org/video/2014/03/09/former-defense-secretary-robert-gates-admonishe/198417

Gates told Fox News Channel’s Chris Wallace on Sunday that the critics ought to back off. He noted that in 2008, when Russia invaded Georgia, no one accused President Bush of being unwilling to use military force if the need arose.

The current president deserves a bit of breathing room to “manage this crisis,” Gates told Wallace. Indeed, the constant carping from those on the right seem to be giving aid and comfort to an adversary — Russian President Vladimir Putin — who’s unafraid to exploit any perceived weakness from someone on the other side.

Of course, Wallace had to bring up Obama’s golf outing during this crisis. Gates answered that all presidents need time to chill out, given that they often “work 20 hours a day.”

I only would add that presidents of the United States never are off the clock.

Here comes Bush 3.0

George Prescott Bush likely is going to become the next Texas land commissioner.

He’s setting the stage for yet another Bush to stand tall over the Texas political landscape, now that he’s won the Republican Party primary for the statewide office.

Oh, boy.

http://www.connectamarillo.com/news/politics/story.aspx?id=1014927#.UxxUOFKYat8

Bush — who’s known as “P” — has never held elected office. He’s a fairly recent resident of Texas, where he’s been practicing law. On paper, P’s political resume looks pretty thin.

Except that he’s got some pretty good Texas political blood running through his veins. His grandpa is George H.W. Bush, the 41st president of the United States; his uncle is George W. Bush, the 43rd president. That makes him a third-generation Bush — and a Texan to boot — who’s entering the political arena.

I should add that he’s got another key element working in his favor. His mother is Columba, born in Mexico and married to Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor. P speaks Spanish fluently and figures to employ his bilingual skills quite nicely as he tours the state in the next several months in search of votes.

I am not going to poke fun at P for seeking to follow the trail blazed by grandpa, Uncle W and Dad. The landscape is full of political dynasties. Does the name “Kennedy” mean anything? How about Cuomo? The Rockefellers have done pretty well, too. “Udall” remains a pretty strong brand in the Southwest and Mountain West.

All of this dynasty talk does bring to mind, though, the shutting out of other candidates who otherwise might have at least as much to offer the votes as someone named Bush, or Kennedy, or Cuomo.

These are like the sons and daughters of famous actors who end up with starring roles even though they might not possess the talent of their famous forebears. Or the sons of famous athletes who take roster spots on teams that should go to other, more talented players; Mickey Mantle Jr. and Pete Rose Jr. are two notable sports failures who come to mind immediately.

If P succeeds as land commissioner — and I hope he does — then he’ll have shown that he’s more than just a famous name.

Irony taints Obama critics

There’s a certain irony attached to the criticism that keeps pouring in from the right regarding President Obama’s handling of the Ukraine-Russia crisis.

They gripe that the president is feckless and ineffective in his handling of the crisis that has seen Russian troops roll into Crimea after Ukraine ousted its pro-Russia president.

The irony? It is that the criticism itself undermines the president/commander in chief as he seeks to work out some kind of response in conjunction with our allies.

Putin dismisses warnings from Obama

Didn’t we hear similar concerns about the left’s continual carping during President Bush’s two terms? Russia sent troops into Georgia in the final full year of Bush’s presidency, which caused a lot of hand-wringing and teeth-gnashing. The left was wrong to undermine President Bush’s efforts — and the right is wrong to do the very same thing to President Obama.

It was the great Republican U.S. senator from Michigan, Arthur Vandenberg, who coined the axiom about politics “ending at the water’s edge.” He meant that partisan critics of presidents ought to hold their fire when the president is acting in his role as head of state during an international crisis.

This is precisely what Barack Obama is trying to do now as he works with our allies to find some kind of diplomatic solution to Russia’s meddling in what should be a solely internal matter to be decided by Ukraine.

The carping from the right is emboldening Russian president/strongman Vladimir Putin and it isn’t helping end the crisis.

Hey, didn’t Russia invade Georgia … in 2008?

The criticism of President Obama’s handling of the Russia-Ukraine crisis of 2014 ignores the Russia-Georgia crisis of 2008.

Six years ago, Russian dictator/president Vladimir Putin invaded Georgia, another one of those former Soviet satellite states. The U.S. president at the time, George W. Bush, let it happen. What could President Bush to stop Putin? Nothing. What should he have done? Go to war? That’s a tough call, given that the United States was already involved in two shooting wars at the time, Iraq and Afghanistan.

I’m left to wonder: Where was the criticism from the right back then? It was silent.

Move forward to the present day. Russian troops are sitting in Crimea, a region of Ukraine. There might be more military involvement from Russia, which is nervous over the ouster of pro-Russia president by insurgents in Ukraine.

What’s President Obama supposed to do? What can he do? Does he go to war with Russia? Well, of course not.

Yet the criticism is pouring in from the right, from the likes of Sen. John McCain, former defense boss Donald Rumsfeld, former half-term Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, every right-wing talking head this side of Sean Hannity. They’re all bemoaning the “invasion” of Russian troops of a sovereign country, Ukraine.

Oh, but wait. Didn’t this country invade a sovereign country, Iraq, in March 2003 because — we were told — the late dictator Saddam Hussein had this big cache of chemical weapons?

President Bush told us once that he peered into Putin’s “soul” and saw a man of commitment and integrity. Well, that soul also belongs to a former head of the KGB, the former Soviet spy agency.

I’m thinking another key Republican, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, has it right. He’s telling his fellow GOPers to tone down the criticism while the president tries — along with our allies — to manage a dangerous crisis.

Time for some more apologies?

The columnist Larry Elder has posed a fascinating — and quite appropriate — notion about political apologies.

He notes that Second Amendment firebrand Ted Nugent, the rocker who sort of apologized for calling President Obama a “subhuman mongrel” — was correct in offering up at least that tepid statement of regret. Although the one-time rock star didn’t actually apologize, he’s gotten his share of deserved media criticism over his many remarks about the president of the United States.

Elder then wonders whether it’s now time others on the left to say they’re sorry for the things they’ve said over the years.

He mentions film director Spike Lee — who, like Elder, is an African-American.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/02/27/ted_nugent_apologized_–_when_will_spike_lee_121737.html

Elder ticks off a list of some of Lee’s outrageous statements.

* Louis Farrakhan, the Nation of Islam leader, was right to suggest that the George W. Bush administration deliberately blew up the levees and caused New Orleans to flood in 2005, affecting tens of thousands of African-American residents of that city.

* Someone should shoot National Rifle Association chairman Charlton Heston.

* Former U.S. Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., is a “card-carrying member of the Ku Klux Klan” because he said some kind things about one-time segregationist Sen. Strom Thurmond.

You know, Elder is spot on with his analysis of the political climate these days. In fact, I think a whole round of apologies would be in order in an effort to clear the air, let bygones be bygones and perhaps enable all sides to get back to discussing intelligently the pertinent issues of the day.

The tone of these comments — and I’ll include Nugent’s among them — disgrace the right of free speech. Yes, the Constitution gives citizens the right to speak their minds.

With that right, though, ought to come some sense that citizens are contributing constructively to whatever debate we’re having.

Well, Mr. Lee, how about an apology? It’ll be good for your soul. Besides, it might start a cleansing process.

Former president takes up cudgel for vets

My goodness, we have come so far as a country in lifting awareness of the needs of our military veterans.

Take the latest initiative headed by former President George W. Bush.

The 43rd president talked today on ABC’s “This Week” with correspondent Martha Raddatz about a effort he has launched through his presidential library in Dallas in conjunction with Syracuse University.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/02/president-george-w-bush-fights-to-take-disorder-out-of-ptsd/

His intention is to help veterans returning from combat reintegrate into civilian life. The former president told Raddatz about the “military-civilian divide.” Civilians, said the president, don’t understand all that veterans have endured fighting for their country.

He talked of the emotion he feels when he is in the presence of these heroes, many of them he sent into combat during his two terms as president.

How far has the nation come? Many, many figurative miles.

We can go back to the Vietnam War. Did returning veterans get this kind of attention when they returned from that conflict? Hardly. They were ignored and often scorned. No need to rehash that sorry episode.

It all began to change when the Persian Gulf War vets returned home from that brief, but intense, conflict in 1991. Then came the 9/11 attacks, which led to the war we have been fighting against al-Qaida in Afghanistan and the Iraq War.

Bush wants to remove the “D” from the PTSD label. Post traumatic stress isn’t a “disorder,” said the president. It is a condition that requires the nation’s attention.

President Bush has made quite an effort to stay out of the partisan political battles that have raged since he left the White House in 2009. This battle, though, is worth his time and effort.

I am glad he is willing to fight it on behalf of our veterans.

This veteran thanks you, Mr. President.

George P. campaigns in the dark

George P. Bush — nephew and grandson of two presidents and the son of a former governor — was thought to be a natural candidate for public office in Texas.

Then he launched a campaign for Texas land commissioner and promptly hid from view, more or less.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/burka-blog/george-p-bush-snubbed

He hasn’t submitted to lengthy interviews by newspaper editorial boards or made speeches from the stump of any substance. “P” — as he says he’d like to be called — makes brief appearances here and there and then drives or flies off to the next stop.

Well, P, what gives?

P was a huge hit at the 1992 Republican National Convention when, as a 16-year-old speaking for his grandfather — President George H.W. Bush — he exhorted the Houston Astrodome crowd with his enthusiastic “Viva Boosh!” declaration. P’s parents, of course, are Jeb and his Mexico-born mother, Columba and the then-teenager was thought to embody the GOP’s outreach to Latino voters.

He brought that cachet to this year’s land commissioner race, or so many observers thought.

As Paul Burka notes in the blog link attached here, the Austin American-Statesman endorsed businessman David Watts for the GOP nomination. The paper apparently was frustrated by P’s refusal to meet with the editorial board, which is a curious posture for a neophyte candidate campaigning for a statewide office, given that Austin is Texas’s capital city.

I won’t predict how this land commissioner primary will turn out March 4.

If P wins and then takes office in January, he’ll need to acquire some media relations skills, which would come in handy if he hopes to parlay a land commissioner post into something more visible.