Posted on 10/09/2008 9:58:33 AM PDT by BGHater
President Bush on Thursday signed an executive order directing his staff to start preparing either John McCain or Barack Obama and their future staffs for the highest office in the land.
Bush's executive order creates a Presidential Transition Coordinating Council, consisting of several high-ranking members of the president's staff and headed by White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten.
White House press secretary Dana Perino told reporters Wednesday morning that the council "will help to coordinate efforts already under way to ensure a seamless presidential transition."
"This is especially important as our nation is fighting a war, dealing with a financial crisis and working to protect ourselves from future terrorist attacks," Perino said in an e-mail. "The smooth and collegial transfer from one presidential administration to the next is a hallmark of American democracy. It is always an enormous undertaking and requires hard work and a lot of coordination. The president has directed us to be forward-leaning in all of our efforts to ensure as smooth and effective a transition as possible."
The president's order comes 26 days before Election Day.
A peaceful exchange of powerful that America does not get enough credit for.
How well did the New Tone work out for ya, George?
But...but...he was going to suspend elections and declare himself dictator!!! (/DUmmie mode off)
Please donate to the Foundation to Prevent BDS today. Because a thread is a terrible thing to waste.
Did he make a set of Air Force One keys for Barack Hussein and the Missus?
W is probably more anxious to see next January than all of the BDS sufferers combined.
Why doesn’t he just leave. Resign. Let Cheney finish it out.
People are still going on with this “if you bash Bush you have BDS” business? I figured even the hardcore loyalists have come to realize how much he sucks.
Maybe he wants to pull a Klintoon and remove all the O from the keyboards. And stock up on silverware first.
I never considered myself a "hard-core" defender of Dubya. Still, I came to the realization that I, and many others, defended Bush against his critics more than Bush himself.
My support began waning with Harriett Miers, Dubai, and a listless strategy in Iraq. His concept, and McCain's, of immigration reform changed my attitude forever.
George W. Bush is a good man, though, and I never regretted casting my vote for him twice. Especially when you consider the alternatives.
I’m thinking one problem we aren’t likely to have is all of the “O” keys disappearing from keyboards.
As Americans prepare for the transition into a lower standard of living.
I don't disagree with that, for the record.
But he sucks as the leader of a political party.
LOL—if I have to explain how the symptoms manifest themselves, then you probably won’t get it.
I guess I wouldn’t. Being disappointed with a crappy politician is hardly “deranged” in my mind.
Think of it this way, if you wanted to proclaim your opposition to the Iraq War, should you do it here or on another thread? Not saying you can't proclaim your opposition anywhere you want--just that if you did so here people would roll their eyes. Precisely what happened.
George W. Bush is a good man, though, and but I never regretted casting my vote for him twice. Especially when you consider the alternatives, because I'd much rather be blaming either Kerry or Gore for this god-awful mess than him! (fixed for you)
I don't oppose the Iraq War.
“I’m going to blame someone anyway, so I’d rather draw a false equivalency and blame someone I dislike even more?”
You certainly earned your handle with that post! LOL!!!
Thus the “if.” I warned you that you wouldn’t understand.
The first thing he’s probably going to do is buy back the Texas Rangers from Tom Hicks.
Actually, I don't see that much of a "false equivalency". True, Gore and Kerry, I believe, would have been bad for the country as far as the economy, and most certainly Supreme Court picks so their overall records much worse. Still, Bush's legacy is going to be more like theirs would have been (the Clinton and Carter model) in that there isn't much standing out that Bush can hang his hat on as great accomplishment. I would have to believe that they'd have gone after Bin Laden too, after 9-11, and probably even have ventured into Iraq (especially, glory-hunting Kerry).
People here too often use the Truman model to define Bush. But Truman ended WWII with atomic bombs, Bush has ended nothing as he let opportunity, after opportunity go wasted in Rumsfeld's inane approach to limited warfare.
Other than Alito and Roberts, what has he accomplished? He didn't end a Cold War (Reagan), get us on a path to the moon (Kennedy), build an Interstate Highway (Eisenhower), Establish Civil Rights (LBJ); like Clinton, there is nothing there (even Carter has an Israeli/Egyptian peace accord).
I've heard, time and again here, "why he kept us safe from further attack"! Well, excuse me, but even Millard Fillmore, Frankiin Pierce and James Buchanan (three on the bottom list of presidents) kept us from Civil War. Like LBJ, he's ended no war, just started one (and, if Obama gets elected and pulls the plug like Ford did on Vietnam, he'll suffer the blame for Iraq like LBJ does for Vietnam).
Bush will be remembered for Osama being safe in his cave, the stock market falling apart, major Wall Street firm failing, gas more than $3/gallon, illegal aliens pouring across our southern border, a majority Congress turning over into gridlock after "the thumpin'," Brownie doing a heckuva job in Katrina, and generally a rotten job when it came to public speaking. On the positive side, he did respond well in the 9-11 aftermath and gave us two outstanding justices after his initial choices of Gonzo and Myers were shouted down.
The Bush staff probably won’t pull the “O” from whitehouse keyboards...
I think history will be quite kind to George W. Bush, for one he virtually fought with one hand tied behind his back with the treasonous media and hypocrats, practically subverting the troops and their CIC at virtually each and every turn, absolutely desperate for America’s failure.
I also think with the distinct possibility that the executive and congressional branches of govt in liberal hands anxious to lose both wars, his appointments of Alito and Roberts may well be the one thing that saves this country in the future, but of course time will tell.
These two issues I don’t think can be overstated in their importance.
Please! History won't be kind to someone who willingly signed on to conducting warfare in a limited way when he had overwhelming force, resources, and multipliers to use. The best example I can think of to compare Bush (in a negative way) to is Jefferson Davis who, despite sound advise from Lee, State Sec. Judah Benjamin, and others about fighting all out in one defensible theater of war, was content to spread his thin forces willy-nilly around insignificant places in Tennessee and the West.
Bush let Rumsfeld and Bremer conduct Iraq "so we don't get into nation building" when that was exactly what was needed and he only opted on to the Petreaus surge strategy AFTER the "we took a thumpin'" in the 2006 election.
Like with the current financial crisis, Bush has never proactively done anything to stem the oncoming tide of bad fortune; he's only reacted. That isn't what I call leadership.
I also think with the distinct possibility that the executive and congressional branches of govt in liberal hands anxious to lose both wars, his appointments of Alito and Roberts may well be the one thing that saves this country in the future, but of course time will tell.
Every president who serves two terms gets to appoint justices...Bush is no different. Besides, I remind you, those names came after he floated both Harriett Myers and Roberto Gonzales about.
I don’t buy it at all.
The point is we won Iraq, like I said despite an internal U.S. effort to sabotage him and our troops each and every step along the way.
NO president makes NO mistakes, but we shall see, we shall see.
And in the end we DID get Alito and Roberts.
Look I’ve got tons to criticize the man about, the borders, the agents in jail, FARM Bill, Education Bill, ZERO self-defense, poor communication with the public, but his, like no other presidency was a complete ordeal as close to a full blown insurrection in modern times, talk of war crimes impeachment and he DID go to congress and got “approval”, and gave Saddam 18 chances after 12 years of breaking the no fly zone agreements, etc. etc. etc.
I’ll remind you the hypocrats were screaming for Saddam’s removal under Bubba’s watch who also let Osama go 5 times. I think we took down Saddam within two weeks.
The aftermath would have gone alot smoother had the drive-by media and hypocrats had not been planting seeds all around the world of U.S. failure!
Even the media was on Reagan’s side a good bit of the time and he had Tip O’Neill, but it seemd to me, to this day if someone’s walking down the sidewalk with their shoe untied, it’s got to be all Bush’s fault.
We can all be armchair quarterbacks but I think he stuck to his principoles, is a good man and history will concur with me.
It may take time and of course if we have bambi, Pelosi and more hypocrats on the supreme court, our nation’s history books will keep calling him a stupid monkey but I know better.
The comparison is false. Between Franks and Petraeus, President Bush didn't have a Lee. He had to reach outside the Pentagon to get one.
The military leadership dropped the ball on Iraq. The Surge - meaning both the men and the strategy - turned the tides in Iraq, as we all know. Of all the proponents of the Surge, none were in the Pentagon; only General Petraeus was active military. The Pentagon leadership disagreed with the Surge; they considered it risky to tie up 20,000 troops - the military's "strategic reserve" - in a war. They were worried about straining the force. They didn't want to change the strategy.
This wasn't only Rumsfeld, and it certainly wasn't Bremer. This was the military leadership of America - and General Casey and John Abizaid were among them. President Bush's failure wasn't in not taking the advice of the generals. Iraq only began to turn around when he stopped taking it.
I know that one general - Shineski, I believe - wanted the initial invading force to be larger. It may be that this would have had a positive effect, but I don't believe the idea that lots and lots of troops ensure victory. Lots of boots on the ground=overwhelming force=victory is a false equation. Remember, there were half a million men in Vietnam, too.
And let it be noted: Petraeus saved Iraq without even approaching 200,000.
You think Cheney wants to deal with this?
The point you're making is similiar to the one that I'm showing: Bush has been underserved by his subordinates!
But the difference between our opinions of the president is that I believe this fact illustrates his weakness as commander-in-chief. Let me point out the fact that Lincoln, when he felt he was underserved, got rid of people. And his War Secretary, Simon Cameron, (Rumsfeld) was the first to go...Stanton (a Gates), who replaced him, knew what he was doing. Lincoln also went through 5 generals before getting to Grant (Pope, Burnside, Hooker, McClellan and Meade) and one of them (Meade) got fired on what is acknowledged as the turning point victory (Gettysburg) of the Civil War because he didn't follow it up when he had the advantage (just consider what would have happened in the Pacific had Adm. Nimitz not followed up his victory at Midway or Eisenhower in Europe after D-Day in WWII--but both did and kept the Axis powers on the defensive).
I believe Bush to be a good man, but a weak president who will pay the price for missed opportunity in the history books of tomorrow.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.