Posted on 05/26/2008 4:49:53 PM PDT by STARWISE
First, the White House spoke out against NBC News and its editing of Richard Engel's interview with President George Bush.
And, today, the White House takes on the New York Times editorial page for its editorial, "Mr. Bush and the GI Bill."
From the White House statement:
Once again, the New York Times Editorial Board doesn't let the facts get in the way of expressing its vitriolic opinions - no matter how misleading they may be.
In today's editorial, "Mr. Bush and the GI Bill", the New York Times irresponsibly distorts President Bush's strong commitment to strengthening and expanding support for America's service members and their families.
This editorial could not be farther from the truth about the President's record of leadership on this issue. In his January 2008 State of the Union Address, while proposing a series of initiatives to support our military families, President Bush specifically called upon Congress to answer service members' request that they be able to transfer their GI Bill benefits to their spouses and children.
In April, he sent a legislative package to the Hill that would expand access to childcare, create new authorities to appoint qualified spouses into civil service jobs, provide education opportunities and job training for military spouses, and allow our troops to transfer their unused education benefits to their spouses or children.
As Congress debates the best way to expand the existing GI Bill, Secretary Gates has laid out important guidelines to ensure that legislation meets our service members' needs and rewards military service.
First, since our servicemen and women have regularly requested the ability to transfer their GI bill benefits to their family members, legislation should include transferability.
Second, legislation should provide greater rewards for continued military service in the all volunteer force.
There are several GI bill proposals under consideration in both the House and Senate. The Department of Defense has specific concerns about legislation sponsored by Senator Webb because it lacks transferability and could negatively impact military retention.
The President specifically supports the GI Bill legislation expansion proposed by Senators Graham, Burr, and McCain because it allows for the transferability of education benefits and calibrates an increase in education benefits to time in the service.
Though readers of the New York Times editorial page wouldn't know it, President Bush looks forward to signing a GI bill that supports our troops and their families, and preserves the experience and skill of our forces.
~~~
Sure makes sense, but to hear Obama and the other slicksters and lame media, Pres. Bush is against helping our military, which couldn't be farther from the truth.
Perhaps the time has come to deal with these Copperheads as Pres. Lincoln dealt with them.
Reagan effectively ignored the press and took his case straight to the people. This was SO much more effective.
If Bush simply emulated Reagan's strategy of TALKING TO THE PEOPLE his popularity ratings would triple and people would be a whole lot smarter about the issues. So what idiot is advising the White House to throw Bush's weight behind stupid press statements “attacking” the press?
In a battle of wits, why attack an unarmed enemy?
Pity Bush has had such incompetent advice and staff for his entire Presidency, but especially over the past 4 years.
Johnson, Andrew 1865-69 (Democrat) let the minutemen wives and children starve. I have documented proof.
The first worthless Johnson to rise to high office.
It is about time, do you think he finally GREW A PAIR?
Even FDR did the same thing with his regular fireside chats when he promoted the New Deal and the WWII effort through earnest conversation with the public.
I'm sure the NYSlimes will print this press realease on the front page.....not. No one will ever see this effort except freepers and the Time's janitor who empties waste baskets in the editorial offices.
Ninety-Nine point Ninety Nine percent of Bush's woes (and by extention, those of the Republican Party) can be laid at the feet of a tone-deaf, stubborn, non-aggressive president devoid of aggressive leadership in the communications arena......along with the worst and most ineffective White House PR staff and speech writers since the hapless Herbert Hoover administration.
Leni
Thank you.
“It is about time, do you think he finally GREW A PAIR?”
-
There are none so blind as those who refuse to see (anatomically or otherwise):
GLAD BUSH IS STILL AROUND
By Paul Johnson (eminent British historian and author)
Looking back over the last few years, I find it hard to fault Mr. Bush on any major point. He has always been brave. He has never shown the slightest fear of unpopularity, putting the needs of the nation before his political fortunes. He has shown himself ready at all times to make big, risky and venturesome decisions, being persuaded they were in the U.S.’ (and the West’s) interests, and then sticking to them. Indeed, IF THERE’S ONE THING THAT EXCEEDS MR. BUSH’S COURAGE, IT’S HIS RESOLUTION, HIS PERTINACITY, HIS STEADFAST CONSISTENCY.
He is a leader who will not give way to threats, criticisms and abuse, A MAN OF VALOR WHEN TIMES ARE HARD. In this election year, when the Constitution demands that he must give way to another President, I salute him and applaud his conduct of affairs.
Some may call President Bush obstinate; others may say, with some reason, that he is not skilled in explaining his policies. But I insist that beneath it all he has been a heroic leader in a time of testing, and I am glad that he will still be in charge for the rest of this year.
You can read the entire commentary here:
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2008/0505/027_print.html
No. He had them long before your chromosomal makeup was still dice-roll.
He just uses them wisely. Again, it's an old-school thing. You wouldn't get it.
The people that write him off really have written themselves off as being incapable of appreciating true human greatness.
Bush has been slammed for not going on the offensive against biased press now you are slamming him for doing so..........
Damned if you do and damned if ya don't I guess.............
Long since past but I ain't holding out hope. Best case scenario for him is he veto's it and it gets overridden. But I expect he'll sign it since it's tied to Iraq funding.
Forget Obama, there were Freepers on this story a couple days ago who were attacking Bush and McCain for not supporting the Webb bill.
We are losing the education war when our own side is confused enough to attack the wrong people.
You need great communication skills to be able to do that. Unfortunately, in this one area, the President is severely lacking. I really don't think you can blame it on his staff. They are trying their best to do with what they've got (i.e. a Chief Executive with average communication skills).
Never happen...our country has too many sad sacks, and no politicians with the backbone to do the right thing.
Gotcher communications outreach right here on FR.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/search?m=all;o=time;q=quick;s=radio%20address
Yes, W could do better but the bias out there is breathtaking. W’s communication skills don’t bother me. Some of his policies do, although not Iraq.
The press is full of liberal liars. That just what they do.
I agree and thanks for link DrDeb
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.