SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: PROLIFE who wrote (752272)10/23/2006 6:30:49 PM
From: pompsander  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 769670
 
Your unquestioning loyalty to a President who seems to be the last to see that "stay the course" (whatever that means...he doesn't seem to want to admit to the term now...)is not feasible.

A new course will be determined soon. Mr. Bush can either formulate the course, or it will be forced upon him...probably both.

One of your many problems, Pro, is that you can't get past the "them and us" attitude. Nobody wants America to be weaker. How priorities are set and how America sets course for its role in the World are fair subjects for debate. For you, anything which shows that the President screwed up, or his trusted advisors, screwed up is "a demolib lie".

Don't know exactly what a demolib is. But 70% of the people in this country think it is on the wrong track. 82% think congress is screwed up. They can't all be demolibs.

Maybe you ought to step back and rethink your unswerving loyalty to Mr. Bush. If he now says his policy was never "stay the course", maybe we all ought to take another look.

James Baker will bail him out. Wait and see. It's pappa Bush's last gift to his wayward son.



To: PROLIFE who wrote (752272)10/23/2006 6:32:07 PM
From: pompsander  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
Do you think Christians have a duty to bring christianity to Iraq or other Muslim countries?



To: PROLIFE who wrote (752272)10/23/2006 7:00:14 PM
From: pompsander  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
Although some would howl...I think the bolded part below is a good idea...sure, it treats people differently, but it would add security to the system and we already treat people differently...a 3% vs. 3.4% increase for some recipients could mean a lot actuarily
______________________________

Bush suggests would favor indexing retirement benefits 19 minutes ago


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush on Monday put Social Security reform on his list of "big items" to deal with in the final two years of his presidency, possibly including indexing benefits for wealthier Americans.

ADVERTISEMENT

Interviewed on CNBC television, Bush said: "I want to deal with the unfunded liabilities inherent in Social Security and Medicare."

"I believe we can do that and at the same time assure those who are on Social Security they have nothing to worry about and those who are going to pay into Social Security that you don't pay into a bankrupt system," he added.

Bush said "my idea" is that Americans at lower income levels would see benefit payments continue on the current basis, but "if you're a wealthier citizen, your benefits increase at the cost of living...so everybody's benefits go up but some go up faster than others."

He said he still believes workers should have an option to put some of their retirement savings into private accounts, a proposal that proved highly unpopular when Bush administration officials promoted it in 2005.

Bush had hoped to make an overhaul of Social Security his signature issue for his second term. However, Democrats are attacking Republican candidates in congressional elections over the possibility of a makeover of retirement benefits.

Many polls indicate Democrats will take control of at least one house of Congress in next month's vote, which likely would make it extremely difficult for Bush to make headway on his idea for establishing private retirement accounts.

In a wide-ranging interview during which he insisted he did not feel his Republican party would lose control of Congress in the November 7 elections, Bush said he backs stern measures for corporate executives who abuse their positions but said America must remain competitive.

"We want to make it clear that our country will not tolerate any malfeasance from corporate executives. On the other hand, we understand that if you over-regulate, it will drive capital elsewhere," Bush said.

Asked if Sarbanes-Oxley rules on corporate executive responsibilities enacted in the aftermath of the Enron scandal need to be "rolled back," Bush said a more modest "fine-tuning" was sufficient.

Bush said he was concerned about U.S. dependence on imported oil and wanted to promote alternative energy sources. But he said some of the run-up in oil prices that pushed them to July peaks above $78 a barrel were speculative and had ended.

Oil prices are back to around $58 a barrel, and Bush said he hoped member countries of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries will help keep them down.

"I would hope that the OPEC nations understand that high prices of oil could wreck economies and if they wreck economies it means the purchasers will be fewer," he said.

OPEC, whose members pump more than a third of the world's oil, last week said it would cut output by 1.2 million barrels per day in the face of soaring global crude inventories and falling prices.



To: PROLIFE who wrote (752272)10/23/2006 7:04:39 PM
From: pompsander  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
Pro, you MUST stop using "stay the course". Your last post is incorrect...please review today's talking points from Tony Snow, below.
__________________________

Tony Snow on 'Stay the Course' Correction

editorandpublisher.com

By E&P Staff

Published: October 23, 2006 5:55 PM ET

NEW YORK Much was made on Monday, in and out of the blogosphere, concerning top White House aide Donald Bartlett stating on TV this morning that President Bush really did not believe in "stay the course" in Iraq, but actually was quite flexible in his views. This surprised many observers, since the president had often used this phrase to describe our Iraq policy, in press or public meetings, as recently as Aug. 30.

Naturally, at press briefing today, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow was asked about this. One exchange follows.

*
Q Tony, it seems what you have is not "stay the course." Has anybody told the President he should stop calling it "stay the course" then?

MR. SNOW: I don't think he's used that term in a while.

Q Oh, yes, he has, repeatedly.

MR. SNOW: When?

Q Well, in August, because I wrote a story saying he didn't use it -- and I was quite sternly corrected.

MR. SNOW: No, he stopped using it.

Q Why would he stop using it?

MR. SNOW: Because it left the wrong impression about what was going on. And it allowed critics to say, well, here's an administration that's just embarked upon a policy and not looking at what the situation is, when, in fact, it's just the opposite. The President is determined not to leave Iraq short of victory, but he also understands that it's important to capture the dynamism of the efforts that have been ongoing to try to make Iraq more secure, and therefore, enhance the clarification -- or the greater precision.

Q Is the President responsible for the fact people think it's stay the course since he's, in fact, described it that way himself?

MR. SNOW: No.



To: PROLIFE who wrote (752272)10/23/2006 7:17:40 PM
From: pompsander  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
Not Stay the Course...but something different..lots of repubs looking to Baker.
________________________________________
AP News Analysis: GOP fears war fallout By TOM RAUM, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 16 minutes ago

WASHINGTION - Republicans worried about losing Congress are challenging President Bush on Iraq, eroding his base of support for the unpopular war just two weeks before midterm elections.

Increasing calls from restive Republicans for new ideas to extricate the U.S. come as the White House itself seems to struggle for a better course, or at least a better way to describe the current course.

Republican Sen. John Warner (news, bio, voting record) of Virginia, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, seemed to open the floodgates to GOP criticism this month when he warned after a trip to Iraq that the war was "drifting sideways" and a course correction might soon be warranted.

In recent days:

• Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (news, bio, voting record), R-Texas, said she would not have supported the invasion had she known there were no weapons of mass destruction, and she has proposed splitting Iraq into three parts.

• Virginia Republican Sen. George Allen (news, bio, voting record), in a difficult re-election battle with Democratic challenger James Webb, dropped his stay-the-course mantra to assert, "We cannot continue doing the same things and expect different results. We have to adapt our operations, adapt our tactics."

• Sen. Conrad Burns (news, bio, voting record), R-Mont., said in a debate last week with Democratic challenger Jon Tester that he agreed with Warner's call for a change in strategy — and believed Bush already had a plan to win the war but for now was keeping it quiet. That remark drew ridicule from Democrats who likened it to Richard Nixon's "secret plan" to end the war in Vietnam.

Also challenging Bush's Iraq policy have been former Secretary of State Colin Powell, Republican Sens. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, and several House Republicans.

More and more, the issue is dominating election campaigns and altering the political landscape. That, and the historic pattern of midterm losses for the party holding the White House, has cast a heavy gloom over rank-and-file Republicans, particularly those on the ballot.

The GOP doubts, coupled with widespread Democratic opposition to Bush's strategy, put intense pressure on the White House to do something differently, and momentum for that will build if Republicans lose the House or Senate. Bush has stopped saying he is staying the course because that suggested he was locked into a losing policy. Now Bush asserts that he is constantly switching tactics.

Sen. James A Baker III, a former secretary of state who has a long history of loyalty to the Bush family, has said the Iraq Study Group — which he leads with former Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton of Indiana — will wait until after the Nov. 7 elections to present its recommendations.

But he has suggested the panel will present Bush with options somewhere between the extremes of "stay the course" and "cut and run."

Michael O'Hanlon, a foreign policy scholar at the Brookings Institution who is part of the Baker-Hamilton study group, deemed it unlikely that Baker would lend his support to a phased withdrawal such as some Democrats have advocated. "Baker's not a political novice," O'Hanlon said.

Still, he said, the Iraq government could be told that "you've got to make some big changes" and that U.S. military backing was not forever. Might Bush announce a change in strategy before the election? "Who knows? I wouldn't rule it out," said O'Hanlon.

Bush could portray it to the world "as being not about the election but about the failed Baghdad security plan, and give his party a little boost before the midterms," O'Hanlon said.

Mindful of the political ramifications, the White House sought on Monday to tamp down the growing GOP criticism by portraying the president as engaged — and flexible.

He met over the weekend with his generals, and on Monday with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

White House officials said U.S. and Iraqi leaders had established "milestones" and "benchmarks" to gauge security, economic and political improvements — but that the U.S. had not issued ultimatums nor withdrawal targets.

"What we aren't doing is sitting there with our heads in the ground," said White House counselor Dan Bartlett as he made the rounds of five morning television news shows. He said that the administration was "making tactical changes on a week-by-week basis as we respond to the enemy's reactions to our strategies."

Sen. Joseph Biden (news, bio, voting record) of Delaware, the senior Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, told reporters that two Republicans — whom he declined to name — had told him they would demand a new policy on Iraq after the election. He said the GOP lawmakers were told not to make waves before then because it could cost the party seats.

Biden predicted many GOP defections on Iraq if Democrats win control of one or more chambers of Congress. Polls suggest there is a likelihood Democrats could take at least the House.

As to Bush's oft-repeated statement that U.S. troops will stand down as Iraqi ones stand up, Biden said, "The reason we cannot stand down is that they aren't standing together. They're killing each other."

"I don't see a big surprise with respect to Iraq that turns it around, and that's the only thing that would help the Republicans," said James Thurber, an American University political scientist. "I think it just keeps getting worse and worse, and that is not good news for the president and the incumbent party in the House and the Senate."

___