Plain speaking (Interview with W)

As President Bush wraps up his second year in the White House, he finds himself juggling an armful of new crises and old problems. In recent weeks, he fired his two chief economic advisers and replaced them with a supposedly more telegenic and persuasive team led by Treasury Secretary-designate John Snow. He ordered the construction of a rudimentary and controversial antimissile system to be based in Alaska and California. He tried to balance his calls for "compassionate conservatism" with tepid support for the besieged Mississippi conservative Trent Lott, who finally withdrew from his post as Senate Republican leader five days before Christmas. Most important, the president took another step toward war by citing omissions and deceptions in Saddam Hussein's new United Nations-required report on the status of Iraq's weapons programs.

Yet, in a revealing year-end interview with U.S. News, Bush was optimistic about the future even as he acknowledged the daunting tasks ahead. He showed none of the cowboy swagger and Lone Ranger impulses for which he has been caricatured. "I hope the American people trust me," Bush said, sitting in front of an Oval Office fireplace bordered with pine cones, apples, and holiday greenery. "I hope they trust me when it comes to fighting this war on terror, and I hope they trust me when it comes to leading toward a more compassionate tomorrow, because I'm a compassionate person. The only thing I know to do is to speak my mind, show my heart as best I can, and to lead."

What came across most vividly was his desire not to settle for small victories in 2003 but to think big. In a separate interview, White House counselor Karl Rove told U.S. News: "You've got to stick with trying to achieve what you set out to do in the first place. But leadership is creating political capital and then expending it on behalf of big things, new big things that are in keeping with your philosophical approach. Once you pass a big idea that's part of your platform–tax cut, education reform, trade promotion authority, and so forth–you have to go back and refresh the agenda and keep expanding it."

No bigotry. Lott's withdrawal as Senate leader gives the president the opportunity to renew his campaign to prove he is a different kind of Republican, without the complication of working with a man tainted as a sometime defender of segregation. In the interview, Bush was eager, for the first time, to detail his views on America's continuing racial divide. But just 48 hours before Lott stepped down, Bush said Lott "shouldn't leave his position." The president did not want to give Lott the final public shove, even while his allies were working behind the scenes to force Lott out. "My attitude about race is that we ought to confront bigotry, all forms of bigotry," Bush said, "and I believe the American–I know the American people are good, honorable, decent people. And occasionally the bigot has his day. I don't think Trent Lott is a bigot. I find him to be a, you know, he's a friend. . . . My job is to continue to work for an America that welcomes all and that is nondiscriminatory, and I will do that."

The controversy over whether Lott was fit to lead Senate Republicans ensures that Bush will feel compelled to address the racial issue in his State of the Union speech in late January. U.S. News has learned that White House aides were drafting what they called a "healing speech" for the mid-January Africa trip that Bush canceled the day Lott withdrew.

A visibly tired Bush–who was nursing a cold–volunteered that he was shaking hands with 1,500 people a night at the seemingly endless series of White House holiday parties. He emphasized that he didn't really mind the chore, but aides said he was looking forward to a brief vacation at his ranch in Texas.

Weighing war. When he returns from that getaway, he may face the most critical decision of his presidency: whether to go to war against Iraq. It is clear that this possibility is never far from Bush's mind. He argued that his foreign policy "has got to be bold, but it's also got to be understanding in that the nature of the new wars we face, in the nature of the problems we face, understanding the sense that we've got to work with others to achieve common objectives, and we're doing that."

"The biggest issues facing us in '03 will be continuing the war on terror," Bush said. "The al Qaeda is in 40, 50, 60 countries; they're scattered around. We will have to continue to pursue them, which means that we must continue to work hard to keep this coalition together. The war on terror will require a constant evaluation of progress. . . .

"A second phase of the war on terror, and an important part of the peace platform, will be Iraq. And we have worked closely with friends and allies in convincing them to join us and insisting that Saddam Hussein disarm. As you know, I have made it clear that if he won't disarm that we will lead a coalition of the willing to disarm him. My hope is that he will disarm."

If Saddam does not, the men and women of the armed forces may be called to do the job. "You know, when you've got kids off in Afghanistan, the remote regions of Afghanistan, hunting in caves for al Qaeda killers, you're asking a lot of people. And we'll continue asking them to make that sacrifice." As Bush knows all too well, ordering Americans into combat is a burden that only the commander in chief can fully understand–and it is a decision he may face in Iraq all too soon.

Most likely, the "seaborne" attack is a deception, designed to keep Saddam's mind concentrated on Kuwait and away from the Turkish frontier.

A seaborne attack is useless to us, which is why it won't be attempted. The chief targets on D-Day will be the airport around Al-Basrah and the oilfields in the south. Saddam will try to blow these up. However, it will be the chief duty of the 101 and the 82nd: a seaborne assault doesn't do that-not when you can go overland out of Western Kuwait.

The capture of Al Basrah early on puts us on the northern and southern banks of the Euphrates. In our rear will be Shiites, who will use this as a signal to go into open revolt. With our base secure, we can motor up the highway to Baghdad and bypass the marsh country that is the Tigris-Euphrates basin.

At the same time, I believe that mech infantry units and armored cavalry will snake down from Turkey to connect with Ranger and Airborne units that had seized airfields between Mosul/Kirkuk and Baghdad's northern approaches.

Wasting energy on seaborne assault when the same assets will be needed to move freight up the Shatt-Al-Arab waterway to Al-Basrah is silly, and won't be done.

Be Seeing You,

Chris Be Seeing You,

Chris

Sorry you don't like 'W' but he was up close and personal with his dad in the house and if you think he didn't learn anything, you're a fool. But don't take my word for it...look at the record.

------------------------

I din't care foor his father either. As far as there being a record, there isn't any of any depth. What you gave me was high school cheerleader hype.

I don't think it will be 18 months! Bush cancelled his trip to Africa that was scheduled for January.

I'm sure Bush has better things to do with his time right now than visit Africa. The central problem of Bush's first administration is: can we remove Saddam Hussein from power, without taking millions of casualties and the total economic loss of our cities from the retaliation promised in the letter to Daschle? Everything is coordinated around that extremely difficult problem -- including the strategic deception which has prevented the economy from cratering over the attendant uncertainty since 9/11. No immediate solution to the problem is at hand. If such a solution were possible, we would simply have taken out Saddam a few days after his attacks on New York and Washington, DC. It will be the work of years before we can move against him with something like impunity. In the mean time, every saber will be rattled, every favor will be called in, every pressure will be applied, without let up or surcease. I therefore wouldn't read much into the latest leak of an invasion plan. There have been many of those over the past 12 months, and there will be many more before the problem of Saddam Hussein is finally resolved.

THANK THE LORD it wasn't algore at the helm.p -------------------

How right you are. If Owlgore were president who knows what would have happened. We might have come under unopposed invasion from Mexico at the rate of millions per year. The economy might have gone down hill with entire industries shipped off to China. Bill and Hillary Clinton's corruption might have never been confronted and instead we would just move on. What a horrifying senario.

democrats like you are really tough to stomach during a time of war.

-------------------------------

MY GOD! WE"RE AT WAR! WHO CAN BOTHER TO THINK AT A TIME LIKE THIS!

I was a worker for Goldwater probably before you were born. I voted for Reagan three times.

When the history of this country is written in decades to come, Bush will be recorded as preciding over its destruction with his economic policies, his immigration policies, his failure to confront the left, and his repeating of Bill Clinton's and Kofi Annan's speeches and policies.

Well, I guess I don't agree with you but I certainly appreciate your viewpoint.

Thank you. Click on the link for a few quotes which I think may give you a leg up on understanding the real state of affairs, including even why Bush has been so keen to get Bill Frist running the show in the Senate:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/808877/posts?page=36#36

He is a good man..and a helluva improvement over the pervert.
No one prepares for Presidency for 20 years....It is
there and when you get it- you do it your way...it sure
as hell is working for President Bush..not just "Bush"
as his assinine critics usually spout....Right man at the
right time...no apologies..just rip out their heart
and jam it up their...a$$. Jake

There is no question in my mind, that after 2 years in office GWB knows how to get, and use power very effectively. He could become the most powerful President in USA history. That is certainly of concern to me, but after 2 years of a most unusual presidency, I have come to trust W. I think he is a sincere, honest, and truly compassionate(his actions in 9.11.01 convinced me so)person. I also believe that when he uses his power, it will be for the good of the American people. I pray that my assessment is right. I also believe that we have no choice, we either rally behind the President, or our enemies(islamist, ultra left wingers, even nations who pretend to be our friends) will finish us off, if we show weakness.

I am very impressed with Dubya, consider his motives honorable, and am glad he is our president right now.

My concerns about potential government excesses are based more on the long view, than worries about GWB becoming a tyrant. Even with dictatorial authority, I think Bush would rule with an even hand. I cannot assume that his successors in the presidency would do the same, however.

We should always be wary of government power grabs, and never so much as when they are made in times of emergency.

Your remarks are worthy of Al, Hillary or Bill, and last, but not least, Senator Murray. Definately in the wrong forum.

-------------------------------------

I have a sudden flash for you and others here. Some of you think you a conservatives and are here because yo objected to Clinton's pawing the clothes off high school girls in the Oval office. Some of you think Bush is a conservative because he doesn't paw women in the Oval Office. Some of you may think or wigh you are conservatives because you believe in certain theories of economics. Some of you may convince yourselves Bush is a conservative because you would like to believe Bush believes in certain views of economics even thogh he stands with Kofi Annan and Bill Clinton in declaring the U. S. has an obligation to share its wealth with the rest of the world. Many of you believe conservativism consists of not disagreeing with George Bush. Conservativism is far more than that. Conservativism is not what many of you think it is. Many of you here are not conservatives. Not only are you not conservativism, you aren't anything. You think I'm on the wrong forum. It's not me, but you, who are on the wrong forum. If you can't stop thnking like dizzy high school kids your vote ma be useful but you are not conservatives and you are dangerous.

"Each event taking place does not occur within previously thought out considerations, but is a bolt out of the blue requiring instant decisions that should have been thought out years before, but weren't."

This sort of policy making is rather like throwing a pair of dice and saying "just what I wanted" after every roll. It may be considered characteristic of the generation. Pathological reactions based on momentary impressions are about as much as can be expected, and are as much as we can hope for. For some people on this forum, it is considered evidence of the Divine Finger of Providence guiding Bush's hand, because it's the way they make decisions themselves. There is no thought, there is no contemplation, there is no awareness of anything beyond what can be comprehended at a glance, and a generalized silly, condescending, bemused assertion of a transcendent knowledge of the ulterior motivations behind any criticism of the President. There is no in-depth understanding of the principles of the Declaration of Independence or the intellectual, cultural, and philosophical environment in which it was written, or the historical progression that preceded the Declaration or the historical events which proceeded from it.

Obviously nobody reads anything which can properly be called a book, and apparently watching a movie based on a screen adaptation of a book is thought to be the equivalent of actually having read it.

I would argue that Cliff Notes are too hard and tedious for folks to read these days. Very few people seem to be aware that an awareness of the existence of something is not the same as actually understanding it.

Here's a short political fill-in-the-blank /multiple choice test.

The following are excerpts from a March 23, 2002 Washington Times piece by Bill Sammon.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------- Urges More Foreign Aid

"MONTERREY, Mexico: -------- yesterday said Americans are duty-bound to 'share our wealth' with poor nations and promised a 50 percent increase in foreign aid, but 'We should give more of our aid in the form of grants, rather than loans that can never be repaid,' he said. 'We should invest in better health and build on our efforts to fight AIDS, which threatens to undermine whole societies.'

"In addition to the moral, economic and strategic imperatives of increasing foreign aid, ------ said, it could also help in the war against terrorism.

"'We will challenge the poverty and hopelessness and lack of education and failed governments that too often allow conditions that terrorists can seize and try to turn to their advantage"

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who is quoted above?
a) Bill Clinton
b) Al Gore
c) Hillary Clinton
d) Jessie Jackson
e) Reverend Al What's-His-Name
f) Bono and the pop band U2
g) Whoopie Goldberg
h) George W. Bush

Hint: he's very popular here at Free Republic.

Yeah, it's very tempting to whip out the list of his dubious "accomplishments". It could take all night to type them in though, I think I listed eighteen or maybe it was twenty eight, road to hell, accomplishments in his first months in office, the list now is pretty boggling.

Trust him? Not in this lifetime. Vote for him again? Never.

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.

The president talks with U.S. News about plans for the new year, racism–and the prospect of war