NBC's Media Bias- Distorting An Interview With The President By Editing His Answers

Richard Engel from NBC interviewed President George Bush this past weekend while on a trip to Israel and Egypt.

The controversy which is rapidly spreading online seems to be how NBC edited the footage of that interview, which has many, including the White House Counselor to the President, saying that NBC deliberately tried to distort the Presidents answers by not showing the full exchanges between the interviewer and the person interviewed, who was Bush.

Below are both versions of the interview... first the unedited version and directly under that is the edited version.

Unedited:



Edited by NBC to show on NBC Nightly News and The Today Show:



They are both provided for readers to decide whether the editing was a deliberate attempt to distort by NBC.

Ed Gillespie, Counselor to the President, went as far as to write a letter to NBC News President Steve Capus, in which he requested that "NBC Nightly News and The Today Show air for their viewers President Bush's actual answer to correspondent Richard Engel's question about Iran policy and "appeasement," rather than the deceptively edited version of the President's answer that was aired last night on the Nightly News and this morning on The Today Show."

NBC's selective editing of the President's response is clearly intended to give viewers the impression that he agreed with Engel's characterization of his remarks when he explicitly challenged it. Furthermore, omitted the references to al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas and ignored the clarifying point in the President's follow-up response that U.S. policy is to require Iran to suspend its nuclear enrichment program before coming to the table, not that "negotiating with Iran is pointless" and amounts to "appeasement."

This deceitful editing to further a media-manufactured storyline is utterly misleading and irresponsible and I hereby request in the interest of fairness and accuracy that the network air the President's responses to both initial questions in full on the two programs that used the excerpts.

One of the portions in question, for those that did not want to watch and compare the two interviews was when Engels asked, "Good morning, Meredith. I started by asking the President about his controversial comments he made in Israel, which Democratic candidates interpreted as a political attack. You said that negotiating with Iran is pointless and then you went further. You’re saying, you said that it was appeasement. Were you referring to Senator Barack Obama? He certainly thought you were."

In the edited version shown on NBC Nightly News and The Today Show, showed the President's answer as, "You know, my policies haven’t changed, but evidently, the political calendar has."

That is where they ended the answer. What they edited out and did not show their viewers was the rest of the answer which was, " People need to read the speech. You didn’t get it exactly right, either. What I said was is that we need to take the words of people seriously. And when, you know, a leader of Iran says that they want to destroy Israel, you’ve got to take those words seriously. And if you don’t take them seriously, then it harkens back to a day when we didn’t take other words seriously. It was fitting that I talked about not taking the words of Adolph Hitler seriously on the floor of the Knesset. But I also talked about the need to defend Israel, the need to not negotiate with the likes of al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas. And the need to make sure Iran doesn’t get a nuclear weapon.

But I also talked about a vision of what’s possible in the Middle East. "

You can read the full letter to the President of NBC from Gillespiehere.

NBC maintains that although they showed the edited version of the interview on NBC Nightly News and The Today Show, they did post the whole interview unedited on their website and their editing decisions are not subject to interference because o f "free press in a free society".

Their official response is:

Richard Engel's interview with President Bush has been available, unedited, in its entirety, for the past day, on our website. Our reporting accurately reflects the interview. Just as the White House does not participate in the editorial process at the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal or USA Today, NBC News, as part of a free press in a free society, makes its own editorial decisions.

The LA Times mentions another portion of Gillespie's objections to the editing when they point out where he said, "It's simply absurd for people to have to log onto the Internet and stream video to get accurate information from NBC News."

Other media outlets are jumping on this controversy and it leaves the same unanswered questions of whether NBC deliberately distorted the President's answers, via how they edited the interview to show on their programs, or whether it was simply edited in a time saving manner?

Last but not least is the question of, is it fair to their viewers to expect them to get the full story from the website while only a portion of the interview was shown to their viewers on national television?

.

Democrats Hysterical Over The Word Appeasement- If The Shoe Fits

Opinion

Bush's statement regarding appeasement, which was part of a longer speech made in Jerusalem, included the following comment:

Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history. (Applause.)

As was explained the day it happened, this started a war of words, with Obama responding as if his very name had been said, Joe Biden calling Bush's words "bullshit", John McCain saying the President had it exactly right and Joseph Lieberman issuing a statement agreeing with Bush's appeasement statement as well.

Since then, this has started a public brawl between McCain and Obama in which I saw one of the truest statements yet from the McCain campaign about Obama and the Democrats overreactions to Bush's words, where McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds says:

It was remarkable to see Barack Obama’s hysterical diatribe in response to a speech in which his name wasn’t even mentioned.

These are serious issues that deserve a serious debate, not the same tired partisan rants we heard today from Sen. Obama. Sen. Obama has pledged to unconditionally meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — who pledges to wipe Israel off the map, denies the Holocaust, sponsors terrorists, arms America’s enemies in Iraq and pursues nuclear weapons. What would Sen. Obama talk about with such a man? It would be a wonderful thing if we lived in a world where we don’t have enemies.
But that is not the world we live in, and until Sen. Obama understands that, the American people have every reason to doubt whether he has the strength, judgment and determination to keep us safe.

There is a lot of talk about how aides have "anonymously" said Bush's words were directly aimed at Barack Obama but I disagree with that conclusion.

I think they were aimed at all of those who would appease terrorists and since Obama himself has said and has written on his own website, he would sit down and talk with leaders of terrorist states, with no "preconditions".... guess what? THAT is appeasement.

If the shoe fits why such a public display from the Democratic leaders?

Nancy Pelosi unconditionally met with al-Assad from Syria, where she delivered a "message" that Israel had to publicly correct because she not only tried to "appease" a state that sponsors terror, but she couldn't even deliver a simple message without getting it wrong.

Jimmy Carter just went over and played footsie with Hamas terrorists and lets not forget Carter's pathetic attempt at appeasement on behalf of Bill Clinton with North Korea, which didn't work out so well.

Those are but a couple examples of a long list of examples of how Democratic leaders believe appeasement is the answer. The list is out there, in the public and yet they become hysterical when ti is publicly stated?

Mark Steyn makes a few very good points regarding this issue in the Orange County Register where he says:

It says something for Democrat touchiness that the minute a guy makes a generalized observation about folks who appease terrorists and dictators the Dems assume: Hey, they're talking about me. Actually, he wasn't – or, to be more precise, he wasn't talking only about you.

That is exactly the point. George Bush did not need to name any names because it applies to a very large portion of the Democratic politicians.

The shoe is a perfect fit, the problem is, Obama and the rest of the Democrats do not want to be seen wearing it.

.

Earmarks: Will Bush Or Won't Bush Issue an Executive Order

"Can Bush issue an executive order to instruct all Federal agencies to ignore non-legislative earmarks tucked into committee reports and statements of managers?"

If the answer is no, it is a moot point.

If the answer is yes, then the question becomes, will he?

Let's start with The Examiner, Mark Tapscott's article, which caught my eye, showing that a number of groups sent an open letter to the president, citing a December 18, legal opinion of the Congressional Research Service (CSR) "because the language of committee reports do not meet the procedural requirements of Article I of the Constitution -- specifically, bicameralism and presentment - they are not laws and, therefore, are not legally binding on executive agencies."

The rushed way in which Congress passed the omnibus - one of the largest pieces of legislation ever considered - made a mockery of our legislative process, and Congress itself bears the responsibility and shame for that. But you have the power to send a message both to Congress and the American people that the waste and corrupting influence of earmarks will not be tolerated. A December 18 legal analysis by the Congressional Research Service concluded that "because the language of committee reports do not meet the procedural requirements of Article I of the Constitution -- specifically, bicameralism and presentment - they are not laws and, therefore, are not legally binding on executive agencies... Given both the implied legal and constitutional authority as well as the long-standing accepted process of Presidents, it appears that a President can, if he so chooses, issue an executive order with respect to earmarks contained solely in committee reports and not in any way incorporated into the legislative text."

The signatories of that letter were:

Alabama Policy Institute
American Conservative Union
American Values
Americans for Prosperity
Americans for Tax Reform
Calvert Institute for Policy Research
Citizens Against Government Waste
Club for Growth
Commonwealth Foundation
Eagle Forum
Evergreen Freedom Foundation
Family Research Council
Freedom Works
Illinois Policy Institute
Larry Kudlow, Kudlow & Company, LLC
The National Tax Limitation Committee
National Taxpayers Union
Porkbusters.org
Taxpayers for Common Sense

In President Bush's December 20th, 2007, press conference, he said " Another thing that's not responsible is the number of earmarks that Congress included in a massive spending bill. Earmarks are special interest items that are slipped into big spending bills like this one -- often at the last hour, without discussion or debate. Congressional leaders ran in the last election on a promise that they would curb earmarks. And they made some progress and there's more transparency in the process, but they have not made enough progress. The bill they just passed includes about 9,800 earmarks. Together with the previously passed defense spending bill, that means Congress has approved about 11,900 earmarks this year. And so I'm instructing Budget Director Jim Nussle to review options for dealing with the wasteful spending in the omnibus bill."

Who is the CSR and how serious can their "legal analysis" be taken? From their website we find this out.

In 1914, Congress passed legislation to establish a separate department within the Library of Congress. President Woodrow Wilson signed the bill into law, and CRS, then called the Legislative Reference Service, was born to serve the legislative needs of the Congress.

With the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, Congress renamed the agency the Congressional Research Service and significantly expanded its statutory obligations. The services provided today by CRS are a direct result of congressional directives and guidance.

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) serves shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. CRS experts assist at every stage of the legislative process — from the early considerations that precede bill drafting, through committee hearings and floor debate, to the oversight of enacted laws and various agency activities.

According to the Washington Post, a vast majority of earmarks are included only in conference reports rather than in the appropriations bill itself. Although traditionally honored, language in such reports is not legally binding.

Most earmarks are not written into the actual appropriations bills that are signed into law. Rather, they are included in conference reports, which are explanatory statements that accompany the legislation to the President's desk. Because they are not technically part of the bill, the Executive Branch is not legally bound to implement conference reports. The President could simply direct agencies to ignore the earmarks listed in the conference reports. The funds would still be spent, but the agencies would have the discretion to distribute the funds by merit rather than congressional diktat. (Source)

The National Taxpayers Union names just a couple out of the 9,000-plus earmarks that were "airdropped" into the bill but are not written into the actual appropriations bill nor considered by either chamber.

"Congress's procrastination led to a reprehensible free-for-all," said Moylan, who noted that over 300 of the 9,000-plus earmarks in the final omnibus package had never been previously considered by either chamber. Some of the earmark lowlights include a $1.95 million project honoring Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) to help build the "Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service" at City College of New York. The bill also includes $213,000 for olive fruit fly research in France, and $200,000 for a hunting and fishing museum in Pennsylvania.

They also claim that although some of the earmarks in the latest omnibus bill are "embedded in statutory language", many others can be canceled with an executive order.

Bush has allowed far too much pork in bills during his terms, angering fiscal conservatives that want less corruption and waste from our government and more accountability for where and how tax dollars are being spent.

He and the Republican party have promised to get back to fiscal conservatism and now is the time to either do so or stop talking about it.

The question at the beginning of this article is the one we end it with, will President Bush sign an executive order regarding earmarks that were air dropped into conference but are not written into the appropriations bill itself?

.

House and Senate Democrats at Each Others Throats

The politicians will definitely need their Christmas vacation to recover from the major blitz that has followed these last chaotic days in session.

Lets start with the titled reference first, Senate and House Democrats are starting to get nasty with each other, each side making accusations against the other.

The House Democrats accusations:

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) accuses Senate Democratic leaders of developing "Stockholm syndrome," showing sympathy to their Republican captors by caving in on legislation to provide middle-class tax cuts paid for with tax increases on the super-rich, tying war funding to troop withdrawal timelines, and mandating renewable energy quotas. If Republicans want to filibuster a bill, Rangel said, Reid should keep the bill on the Senate floor and force the Republicans to talk it to death.

What Rangel seems to be forgetting is Reid tried that exact method last summer, over war funding and it didn't work out quite the way he was hoping, it didn't gain him anything but a sleepless night.

The accusations from the Senate Democrats against the House Democrats is something I have pointed out many times. The house consistently takes their famous roll call votes, supposedly proving that they are doing their jobs, ignoring the basic, simple, fact that if the bill holds no compromises, it will not pass the Senate and neither house has enough votes to override a Presidential veto, even it did manage to get passed the Senate, which means the House didn't do their job at all.

Senate Democrats have fired back, accusing Pelosi and her liberal allies of sending over legislation that they know cannot pass in the Senate, and of making demands that will not gain any GOP votes. Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) noted that, this summer, Reid employed just the kind of theatrics Rangel and other House Democrats are demanding, holding the Senate open all night, pulling out cots and forcing a dusk-till-dawn debate on an Iraq war withdrawal measure before a vote on war funding. Democrats gained not a single vote after the all-night antics.

"I understand the frustration; we're frustrated, too," Bayh said. "But holding a bunch of Kabuki theater doesn't get anything done."

It has gotten so nasty that David Obey (D-Wis), told Roll Call, "I'll tell you how soon I will make a decision when I know how soon the Senate sells us out."

The House continues to send bill after bill to the Senate, knowing before it every gets there that the Senate does not have the votes to pass the bill and many simply die there and the ones that don't die, are compromised to garner enough votes to pass.

A perfect example of this is the AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax), the House passed it with major tax increases (instead of simply reducing spending to pay for it) and the Senate scaled it back, cut the tax increases out of it and passed it, which meant it had to go back to the House.

The house, added in another clause,to stop hedge fund managers from deferring compensation in offshore tax havens, once again knowing it cannot pass the Senate, and now it goes back to the Senate where in order to get it passed, that clause has to come out, or it will be vetoed and neither house has the votes to override the veto.

The House continues to play this game, knowing full well that the Department of Treasury told them, in writing, back in late October, that if the AMT wasn't passed by mid November, million upon millions of American taxpayers may have their refunds delayed.

Another example of this, the SCHIP (State Childrens Health Insurance Plan), like gerbils running on that stupid little wheel in their cage and getting nowhere, the politicians pass a bad bill meant for children, which in actuality covers over 500,000 adults, meant for children of low income families, which in actuality covers children from families that earn up to 300% above poverty level, it gets vetoed and they did not have the votes to override the veto. (Which they knew before they started this process)

What did they do next?

They passed a bill that still did not address those concerns and yesterday it got vetoed and, once again, they do not have the votes to override the veto.

The House seems to think that their supporters are so stupid they cannot tell the difference between a 'record number" of house votes that have no chance of becoming law, and passing legislation that can actually be signed into law.

The games keeps getting played and nothing gets done, then right before their vacation they go on a mad dash to get everything passed and because they shot for the moon the first dozen times around, when they finally compromise as they should have done to begin with, they are accused of caving in, or of bowing to Bush's demands, as the two headlines from The Hill and the Washington Post state.

All these political games the House is playing could be the reason that in the latest Gallup poll, Bush's approval ratings have risen and Congressional approval ratings have not.

Bush's numbers could have risen for a number of reasons, the recent progress in Iraq, the economy, the low unemployment rate, maybe even because he is fighting against raised taxes and possibly a combination of all of that.

It is no surprise at all though why the numbers for Congress remain virtually unchanged.


.

Bush's Ratings Rise, Congressional Ratings DON'T

Gallup's latest poll shows President Bush's approval ratings have risen since the last poll from early November where they were at 31% to today where they are at 37%, yet congressional approval has stayed at 22%, essentially unchanged from last month.

In early November, 31% of Americans approved of Bush as president -- just two points off his term-low rating of 29%. Since then, his rating has improved on each Gallup Poll, and although none of these individual changes have been statistically significant, the long-term increase from 31% in early November to 37% in the new poll is.

Congress on the other hand isn't getting any uplift in approval.

Congress' ratings are likewise low from a historical perspective. The 22% approval rating is just four points higher than the record low of 18% registered in March 1992 and again this past August. Congress' job scores have fluctuated throughout the year, showing significant improvement in some polls and significant declines in others. The one constant is that Congress' job ratings have been below 30% each month since May.

At the end of the poll results page over at Gallup it reports that Congress now has lower approval ratings than it did at the end of Republican rule in 2006.

At the time of last year's midterm elections, when voters transferred partisan control of Congress from the Republicans to the Democrats, 26% of Americans approved of Congress. After a brief "honeymoon period" at the beginning of the year, and nearly a year after the Democrats took control, Americans' views of Congress are no more positive (and are actually a bit more negative) than at the tail end of Republican rule.

One of the funniest reasons I have seen given for Bush's rise in approval came from Huffington post, where, now get this, it is because of the writers strike!!!!!

HYSTERICAL. If you want a really good belly laugh, go read that whole thing. I am still laughing.

More realistically it is because the American public is seeing and expressing, as the latest polls also tell us, a rise in support for progress in Iraq, or that Bush is actively fighting Congress about out of control spending (finally), or maybe because people are happy that he is threatening to veto any major taxes, or the economy or unemployment rate being at a low, or any number of reasons like that.

Congress and their DISapproval ratings rising while their approval ratings are going nowhere can be explained by a few of those same points or perhaps because the American public (as well as the world) sees how chaotic is has been, with nothing getting done, partisanship beating out working together or maybe their attempt to blackmail the administration by saying they want $9 billion in earmarks in exchange for funding our troops, or that because of their inability to do their job the AMT bill still isn't on the President's desk even though the Senate passed one in a bipartisan manner, the House is rejecting it, which will make millions of taxpayers get their refunds late.... too many possibilities or maybe a combination of all of them.

Days like today certainly aren't going to be helping the approval numbers for Congress any.

If you like this piece thenVOTE FOR IT AT RCP.

.

When Success Is More Important Than Polls

On the front page of Wapo is an analysis of the recent successes that Bush has accomplished from Iraq to North Korea to the budget deficit as they point out that his approval ratings have stopped their downward spiral but have not revived themselves yet.

The war in Iraq seems to have taken a turn for the better and the opposition at home has failed in all efforts to impose its own strategy. North Korea is dismantling its nuclear program. The budget deficit is falling. A new attorney general has been confirmed despite objections from the left.

After more than two years of being buffeted by one political disaster after another, President Bush and his strategists think they may finally be getting back at least a bit of their footing. While still facing enormous challenges, from the crisis in Pakistan to the backlash over children's health care, they hope Bush has arrested his downward spiral and established a better foundation for the remainder of his time in office.

In many ways, the shifting political fortunes may owe as much to the absence of bad news as to any particular good news. No one lately has been indicted, botched a hurricane relief effort or shot someone in a hunting accident. Instead, pictures from Iraq show people returning to the streets as often as they show a new suicide bombing. And Bush has bolstered morale inside the West Wing and rallied his Republican base through a strategy of confrontation with the Democratic Congress, built on the expansive use of his veto pen.

Yet none of this has particularly impressed the public at large, which remains skeptical that anything meaningful has changed and still gives Bush record-low approval ratings.....

Interestingly enough the article missed a major revelation in an otherwise balanced and obviously begrudging analysis.

President Bush doesn't have and hasn't been basing his decisions on poll numbers and approval ratings because as of next year his term is up, so he has been able to focus on but one thing, his job...the business of the country, success in our endeavors, National Security and turning around the situation is Iraq without the mill stone of his "next" election around his neck like an albatross that guides his every decision.

In the meantime, those that have been basing all their decisions and actions on polls and their next election, the politicians in Congress, have watched as their approval ratings continue to plummet to record lows, and their disapproval ratings have spiked to record highs, with the latest AP/Ipsos disapproval rating at 70% in a survey done this month.

Other polls include NBC/Wall Street Journal conducted from 11/01-05/07 which has their disapproval rating at 68%;

ABC/Washington Post from 10/29 to 11/01/07 has their disapproval rating at 65%;

Quinnipiac from 10/23-29/07 their disapproval rating at 70%.

Fox poll, the poll all liberals hate the most, actually has the disapproval rating the lowest at 54% disapproval rating.

White House counselor Ed Gillespie said:

"A year ago, people were saying that the president and Republicans in Congress were ignoring any sign of bad news out of Iraq, You could make a compelling case today that Democratic leaders and Democratic members in Congress are ignoring any signs of good news out of Iraq. But the American people see the benefit of the surge."

Yes, but it is a good thing the American public isn't ignoring all the news coming from Iraq and the numbers supporting have risen steadily over the last 3 months.

I still say, the Democratic politicians have but two choices ( scroll to the bottom at that link to see the two choices that face the Democratic politicians) and we are waiting with bated breath to see which of those two they choose and if they will make that choice in time to stop those approval ratings from hitting single digits.

All in all it is safe to say that when success is more important than polls and the next election, it is easier to get what needs to be done, accomplished, and when polls are the guiding factor, nothing gets done.

All we have to do is look to the 110th "Do One Thing Congress" to prove that point.

(Cartoon by Eric Allie, via Townhall)


Open Trackbacks (Link to this post and trackback/ping)
Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Rosemary's Thoughts, guerrilla radio, Right Truth, The Populist, Leaning Straight Up, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, Big Dog's Weblog, Conservative Cat, third world county, DragonLady's World, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, High Desert Wanderer, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

.

Bush Slams Congress With Some Harsh Truths: GOOD FOR BUSH

Some harsh truths about SCHIP and the constant attempts of Congress to add tax hikes in every bill they send to him and about Congress trying to hold veteran funding hostage so they could add $11 billion in social spending.

These are things the American people need to hear and it is about time the president starts telling them exactly what Congress is up to and how they are unwilling and incapable of doing their jobs.

(video found at YouTube) Hat tip to Red State.



Text of President Bush's statement:

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. I just had a very constructive and important meeting with the leadership and the Republican members of the United States House of Representatives. And I want to thank you all for coming down, and thank you for your leadership.

Appropriations bills. Out of 12 due, not one has reached his desk and the fiscal year ended September 30, 2007.

Congress is not getting its work done. We're near the end of the year, and there really isn't much to show for it. The House of Representatives has wasted valuable time on a constant stream of investigations, and the Senate has wasted valuable time on an endless series of failed votes to pull our troops out of Iraq. And yet there's important work to be done on behalf of the American people.

They have not been able to send a single annual appropriations bill to my desk, and that's the worst record for a Congress in 20 years. One of the important responsibilities of the Congress is to pass appropriations bills. And yet the leadership that's on the Hill now cannot get that job done.

TAXES:

They've also passed an endless series of tax increases. You know, they proposed tax increases in the farm bill, the energy bill, the small business bill, and of course, the SCHIP bill. They haven't seen a bill they could not solve without shoving a tax hike into it. In other words, they believe in raising taxes, and we don't.

The reason the need those tax hikes is to support their out of control spending habit:

Spending is skyrocketing under their leadership -- at least proposed spending is skyrocketing under their leadership. After all, they're trying to spend an additional $205 billion over the next five years. Some have said, well, that doesn't matter much; it's not that much money. Well, $205 billion over the next five years in the real world amounts to this: $4.7 million per hour, every hour, for every day, for the next five years. That's a lot of money.

SCHIP:

And that doesn't even include spending that would actually pay for 2 million people to move from private health insurance to an inefficient, lower-quality, government-run program. Despite knowing it does not have a chance of becoming law, the Senate will now take up the second SCHIP bill the House passed last week. I believe the Senate is wasting valuable time. This bill, remarkably, manages to spend more money over five years than the first bill did.

After going alone and going nowhere, Congress should instead work with the administration on a bill that puts poor children first; a bill that will take care of the poor children that the initial bill said we got to do; a bill that would stop diverting money to adults. You realize some major states in the United States spend more money on adults than they do on children? We want a bill that enrolls the more than 500,000 poor children currently eligible for the program who are not a part of the program.

Holding Veterans funding hostage:

We want to sit down in good faith and come up with a bill that is responsible, because Congress has been unable or unwilling to get its basic job done of passing spending bills. There are now reports that congressional leaders may be considering combining the Veterans and Department of Defense appropriations bills, and then add a bloated Labor, Health and Education spending bill to both of them.

It's hard to imagine a more cynical political strategy than trying to hold hostage funding for our troops in combat and our wounded warriors in order to extract $11 billion in additional social spending. I hope media reports about such a strategy are wrong, I really do. If they're not, if the reports of this strategy are true, I will veto such a three-bill pileup. Congress should pass each bill one at a time in a fiscally responsible manner that reflects agreement between the legislative branch and the executive branch.

I again ask Congress to send me a clean Veterans funding bill that we have already agreed to by Veterans Day, so we can keep America's promise to those who have defended our freedom and are recovering from injury. I again urge them to pass a clean Defense appropriations bill, and a war supplemental bill to fund our troops in combat.

Supporting the Troops:

I know some on the Democrat side didn't agree with my decision to send troops in, but it seems like we ought to be able to agree that we're going to support our troops who are in harm's way. I know the members feel that way, standing with me. I hope the leadership feels that way, and they ought to give me a bill that funds, among other things, bullets, and body armor, and protection against IEDs, and mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles. It would be irresponsible to not give our troops the resources they need to get their job done because Congress was unable to get its job done.

Again, I want to thank the members here. I appreciate us working together for the good of the United States of America. God bless.

Just today I was watching C Span and instead of working on any of these issues and getting actual work done, what did I see them voting on?

Naming another post office.

Is it any wonder this congress holds the lowest approval ratings in the history of polling congressional approval?

They keep showing us, day after day, why that is.

No wonder he called them out the other day on "wasting his time", they are and they are wasting our taxpayer money to boot.

.

Bush To Democrats: You're Wasting My Time

Wasting his time and taxpayers money.

They used the California fires to take advantage of the fact that lawmakers were taking care of their constituents, to pass the SCHIP bill again, without the two-thirds majority that will be needed to override his veto and he makes that clear.

The vote unfolded one week after the House failed to override Bush's earlier veto, and indicated that the changes Democrats had made failed to attract much, if any, additional support.

The 265 votes cast for the measure came up seven shy of the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto. In addition, 14 Republicans who voted to sustain Bush's original veto were absent.

He also shows how much the Democratic lawmakers have not accomplished.

Bush said Congress had "set a record they should not be proud of: October 26 is the latest date in 20 years that Congress has failed to get a single annual appropriations bill to the president's desk."

He also complained that Congress had failed to pass a permanent extension of a moratorium on state and local taxes on Internet access, and that the Senate had not yet confirmed Michael Mukasey as attorney general. Further, he chided Congress for failing to approve more money for Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Senate on Thursday night approved a seven-year extension of the Internet tax moratorium; differences with a House-passed version still have to be worked out.

Bush made his comments to reporters in the Roosevelt Room a day after the House passed new legislation to expand children's health coverage. Bush vetoed an earlier version, and Republicans argued the latest bill was little changed from the earlier measure. The bill — approved with less than the two-thirds majority needed to overturn another veto — now goes to the Senate. The House vote was 265-142.

Bush said that Congress needs to "stop wasting time and get essential work done on behalf of the American people."

The fiscal year ended September 30th, 2007 and not one appropriations bill has made it to Bush's desk.

More from Bush's statement:

I returned to Washington late last night. And when I got back to the White House, I was disappointed by what Congress had been doing -- and even more disappointed by what they had not been doing. This week, the majority in the House passed a new SCHIP bill that costs more over the next five years than the one I vetoed three weeks ago. It still moves millions of American children who now have private health insurance into government-run health care. It raises taxes to pay for it. And it fails to do what needs to be done: to put poor children first.

After I vetoed their last SCHIP bill, I designated members of my administration to work with Congress to find common ground. Congressional leaders never met with them. Instead, the House once again passed a bill that they knew would not become law. And incredibly enough, the Senate will take up the same bill next week, which wastes valuable time.

As the House was debating SCHIP, the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee unveiled a massive tax package that raises taxes on more than a million small business owners, among others. Earlier this week, Congress sent me a fiscally irresponsible water resources bill. The House version came in at $15 billion. The Senate version came in at $14 billion. So the House and Senate compromised -- and sent me a bill that costs $23 billion. In Washington, they call that "splitting the difference."

And today Congress set a record they should not be proud of: October the 26th is the latest date in 20 years that Congress has failed to get a single annual appropriations bill to the President's desk. And that's not the only thing congressional leaders have failed to get done.

[...]

They have yet to move Judge Michael Mukasey's nomination to be Attorney General out of the Senate Judiciary Committee -- even as members complain about the lack of leadership at the Department of Justice.

They have yet to act on our emergency war funding supplemental -- even though our troops on the front lines depend on these vital funds to fight our enemies and to keep us safe at home.

This is not what congressional leaders promised when they took control of Congress earlier this year. In January, one congressional leader declared, and I quote: "No longer can we waste time here in the Capitol, while families in America struggle to get ahead." He was right. Only a few weeks left on the legislative calendar -- Congress needs to keep their promise, to stop wasting time, and get essential work done on behalf of the American people.

The irony here is what the Democrats are doing while not doing their job.

What are the Democrats so busy doing that they cannot get the appropriations bills finished and to the Presidents desk?

The are having meetings to discuss how to tout their accomplishments and how to "get their message out".

House Democrats are launching a major message push this week in an attempt to reverse their sagging approval ratings as Congress tackles a heavy legislative docket before the end of the year.

Late last week, the top aides to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) and Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) called a mandatory meeting for top Democratic staff on Monday afternoon to announce "a major member-driven message campaign" the leadership aides hope to sustain through the end of the year.

This comes on the heels of a renewed drive by Pelosi herself this fall to tout Democratic achievements so far this year in the face of polling that indicates support is slipping for the new majority.

They are more worried about the poll numbers than getting our troops their funding.

Once again, proving without a doubt that they do, indeed, deserve the lowest approval numbers in the history of polling Congressional approval.

"We will discuss a major member-driven message campaign that the New Direction Congress will be carrying out in the coming weeks," the aides wrote in an e-mail.

There will also be plenty of pizza.

No worries, they might not be making sure our soldiers have bullets and armor, but they damn well are making sure their staffers have plenty of pizza.

"This could be the biggest crisis communications meeting ever assembled, but they're going to need a lot more than 800 staffers and 200 pizzas to convince the American people that the 'new direction' Congress has accomplished something in the last ten months," a Republican leadership aide said. "The only thing that has taken a new direction is Congress’ approval ratings."

Not a problem, the Democrats still have 11 perecntage points to play with. One would think their goal is to see if they can get to a 0 (zero) approval rating.

Do you think I am being too harsh on the Democratic politicians because I am a Republican blogger?

Well, ok, fair enough so lets look at what a left leaning, liberal has to say, via Comments from the Left Field:

And they are committing these flaws against the Republican party, a party, I must add, that despite being on the wrong side of the issues Americans care about the most, is STILL the party better equipped to play politics.

No single thing can make this glaring error more apparent than the damage control plan that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are intending to enact as a result of the catastrophically low polling numbers. If you think it would be to rethink their congressional strategy on how to override vetoes, get legislation passed, and start getting things done according to the will of the majority of the American people, you would be so wrong I would be forced to wonder how you even got here. Such naive thinking belongs only to people who maybe get their political information by watching the evening news once in a while.

[...]

Further, Nancy Pelosi wants to focus on the accomplishments, but the obvious question would have to be, WHAT ACCOMPLISHMENTS? Iraq is progressing unfettered by the voice of congressional dissent (though there are a brave few who seem to be in the early stages of doing something about it), FISA is currently worse than ever (again, Chris Dodd exemplifies the spirit of a Democrat with a backbone with his intent to filibuster the upcoming FISA vote. But even here Harry Reid is attempting to block him), and in the House we couldn’t even come up with a handful of Republicans to hop the fence to override the Bush veto.

There was a single win, as far as I’m concerned, and that was on a modest increase in the minimum wage, one that was not even close to what is needed, and had to be snuck in on a defense appropriations bill. They couldn’t even make a real fight out of it.

So stop with the message campaign, we don’t want to hear it. Don’t try and tout how great the current Congress is because it fails at every opportunity for success. Don’t try and sell to us what we know not to be true. Instead, if you want to see your poll numbers go up, drop the shenanigans, give all the Sens of the Senate and House bills a rest, and GET SOMETHING DONE!

Then, maybe, you’ll see a little movement in the polls in your favor.

That my friends is from someone that is self admittedly left leaning. Just go through his site, you will see, it cannot be called a conservative site, even by the farthest of left liberals.

Nothing is getting done and the politicians are more worried about getting their message out and their horribly low poll numbers than they are about getting anything accomplished.

.

Bush Slams Congress On Lack Of Appropriation Bills & SCHIP

From the President's press conference on Appropriation Bills:

Now, that's not what the leadership in the Congress wants me to do. They want the executive branch to accept an increase in spending over the next five years to $205 billion. Put that in perspective, that's $1,300 in new spending every second of every minute of every hour of every day of every year for the next five years. That's about $13,000 as long as it took me to say that -- (laughter) -- $205 billion of additional spending will mean they're going to have to raise taxes to pay for it. I think that would be bad for the economy. I don't think it makes sense to be taking money out of the pockets of the individuals in America, or money out of the pockets of small businesses -- particularly if we set priorities, we can fund that which we need to fund.

And so you're fixing to see what they call a fiscal showdown in Washington. One of the reasons why they --(applause) -- the Congress gets to propose, and if it doesn't meet needs, as far I'm concerned, I get to veto. And that's precisely what I intend to do. I wish Congress would get me some appropriations bills. (Applause.) I don't know if the people in Rogers understand our calendar, but the fiscal year ended on September the 30th. And yet I hadn't seen one appropriations bill. I think we're like 15 days into the fiscal year and not one appropriations bill has made it to my desk.

Congress needs to be responsible with your money, and they need to pass these appropriations bills, one at a time. And then we can work together to see whether or not they make fiscal sense for the United States. I don't think it makes sense, though, for a new Congress to come in and make promises about how they're going to be wise about what they're going to do with your money and get bills to my desk, and not be able to perform.

So I'm looking forward to getting back to Washington and remind people in the United States Congress that they said they were going to do a better job with getting these bills to my desk, and I'm going to remind them they hadn't got one yet. Not one bill has come out of United States Congress that appropriates your taxpayers' money.

Out of the 12 appropriations bills that are due, not one has reached his desk.

On the Armenian Genocide Bill from The Swamp:

“With all these pressing responsibilities, one thing Congress should not be doing is sorting out the historical record of the Ottoman Empire,’’ the president said of a resolution condemning the slaughter of Armenians nearly a century ago as genocide – a resolution in the House which has strained relations with Turkey. “Congress has more important work to do than antagonizing an important ally in the Muslim world.’’

From the press conference in the James S. Brady Briefing Room, regarding SCHIP:

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. We're now more than halfway through October, and the new leaders in Congress have had more than nine months to get things done for the American people. Unfortunately, they haven't managed to pass many important bills. Now the clock is winding down and in some key areas Congress is just getting started.

Congress has work to do on health care. Tomorrow Congress will hold a vote attempting to override my veto of the S-CHIP bill. It's unlikely that that override vote will succeed, which Congress knew when they sent me the bill. Now it's time to put politics aside and seek common ground to reauthorize this important program. I've asked Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt, National Economic Council Director Al Hubbard, and OMB Director Jim Nussle to lead my administration's discussions with the Congress. I made clear that if putting poor children first requires more than the 20 percent increase in funding I proposed, we'll work with Congress to find the money we need. I'm confident we can work out our differences and reauthorize S-CHIP.

More on the SCHIP veto from the original press conference I first mentioned:

Recently, I did make a decision to veto a piece of legislation. I want to spend a little time talking about why. And then I'll be glad to answer some questions. There's a -- what's called S-CHIP -- it's a Children's Health Insurance Program -- made it to my desk and I vetoed it. And I'm going to tell you why -- (applause) -- I'm going to tell you why.

First of all, it's important for our citizens to understand that we spend $35 billion a year for poor children's health care, through Medicaid -- $35 billion. So if you hear rhetoric out of Washington saying we're not taking care of poor children in America, they're just not reminding you of the fact that because of your generosity, we're spending $35 billion a year.

Secondly, a program was created to help poorer children with struggling families; when I was the governor of Texas, I supported it. And as President, I support it. But the piece of legislation I got doesn't focus on the poorer children. Many Americans don't understand a half a million kids eligible for this program that aren't getting help under the program.

The bill sent to me didn't say, we're going to focus on those half-million that are eligible; the bill sent to me said, we can expand eligibility for the program up to $83,000. I want you to think about that. If you're making up to $83,000 in certain states you're eligible for the program. And yet half a million poorer children aren't being helped. My attitude is, let's help the poorer children. Let's make sure the program does what it's supposed to do.

Now, there's some in Washington, D.C. who genuinely believe that the best health care policy is to expand the role of the federal government. I don't subscribe to that. I think the best health care policy is to encourage private medicine, is to make sure the decisions are between doctors and patients. (Applause.) And yet, if you're saying you can make up to $83,000 and be a part of this program, it sounds like to me somebody wants to extend the reach of the federal government into medicine. That's what it sounds like to me.

Another factor that came into my thinking was not only a half a million children not being taken care of under the program, and not only is the eligibility requirements being expanded way beyond the scope of the program -- which sounds like there's a nationalization of medicine going on here -- but in six or seven states, more money is spent on adults than children. In other words, these states have taken that money and hadn't used it for its initial purpose. So I vetoed the bill. The House is going to decide whether or not they're going to sustain my veto, and if they choose to sustain my veto, I call upon the leadership in the Congress to come to the table and let us make sure we get money to those families that are -- that the program was intended to help, first and foremost. (Applause.)

Now,we have listed the links to the statistical data and the facts about this most recent badly written SCHIP bill, facts that the numbers and data back up and cannot be disputed. Facts that everybody that has been trying to get this version of the bill passed keeps avoiding and trying to distract from and at the same link (below) is the phone numbers of the members of Congress that need to be called today and tomorrow to tell them to uphold the presidents veto until the bill is written in a way to insure low income children instead of adults and people that can afford private insurance but chooses not to.

Facts and links about SCHIP and phone numbers can be found here.

.

Reid's popularity falls among Nevadans

I am only writing this one because it amuses me to see that Harry Reid, in his own state, is more unpopular to his constituents than George Bush is.

Thats what you call a state that is not happy with their Senator.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's appeal among Nevadans has plunged dramatically in a new Review-Journal poll, which finds him viewed unfavorably by most likely voters in his home state.

Reid is still slightly more well-liked than Gov. Jim Gibbons. Both the Democratic senator and the Republican governor are less favorably viewed than President Bush.

Thats funny.

The Review-Journal last asked Nevadans their opinion of Reid in early May. At that time, he was seen favorably by 46 percent and unfavorably by 42 percent.

Even that was seen as alarming for Reid because his favorability did not top 50 percent and because the difference between the two numbers was only 4 percentage points. It continued a slide for Reid that coincides with his taking the Democratic leadership after his re-election in 2004, with 61 percent of the vote.

The new poll marks the first time the Review-Journal has measured Reid's unfavorable rating higher than his favorable number.

That is even funnier.

[Update] Rush Limbaugh is on that list also and he holds a higher approval rating than Reid also!!!!

Ok, so now, I am just giggling my ass off.

.

General Peter Pace Leaves, Admiral Mike Mullen Replaces Him

(From left: General Peter Pace, President Bush, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen, 01 Oct 2007)

Excerpt from General Peter Pace's parting speech:

“What worries me is that in some instances right now we have individuals who are more interested in making somebody else look bad than they are in finding the right solution.

“They are more interested in letting their personal venom come forward instead of talking about how do we get from where we are to where we need to be. And if we as a country can accept the fact that, yes, fellow citizens have a right to object -- I can hear voices right now of folks out in the street who are exercising their right of free speech in this democracy to say what they want to say.

“And I take pride in knowing that the men and women on the parade deck in front of us are going to ensure that they continue to have that opportunity. But I want them to understand -- I just want everyone to understand that this dialogue is not about can we vote our way out of a war.

“We have an enemy who has declared war on us. We are in a war. They want to stop us from living the way we want to live our lives. So the dialogue is not about are we in a war, but how and where and when to best fight that war to preserve our freedom and to preserve our way of life and to do so with the least damage to our own society and the least damage to those we're fighting against so we can -- we can put the pieces back together on the end of this.”

President Bush's remarks:

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Vice President, Mrs. Cheney, Secretary Gates, members of the Cabinet, members of Congress, members of the Diplomatic Corps, members of the finest military ever, that United States military, Secretary Rumsfeld, General Myers, members of the Pace and Mullen family and distinguished guests. Today we pay tribute to an outstanding Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and we welcome his distinguished successor.

Ceremonies like this are a storied military tradition. It is a time when families, friends and comrades honor those who have fulfilled great duties to their nation. It is a time when we show admiration to those who step forward to assume new obligations. It's a time when we make generous use of words like "honor" and "character." Sometimes those words are used too often. In the case of the two men we celebrate today, those words cannot be used too much.

Admiral Mike Mullen comes to this post with a broad and unique range of talents and experience. Some of you may not know that his parents were highly-regarded members of the Hollywood community, who worked for some of the greatest entertainers of the day. Many people are surprised when told about the Admiral's show business roots. After all, he's humble, well-grounded, and filled with common sense. (Laughter.) Not exactly what one thinks about when they think of Hollywood values. (Laughter.)

Admiral Mullen left California to attend the United States Naval Academy to pursue a career in military service. He soon found himself stationed on a destroyer on the gun line off the coast of Vietnam. During that tour, Admiral Mullen was part of operations so intense that the gun barrels on his ship glowed red. That was the beginning of a distinguished career.

The Admiral has commanded three ships, an aircraft carrier battle group, and the U.S. Second Fleet. He served as the commander of all U.S. naval forces in Europe and the NATO Joint Force Command. And later, as Chief of Naval Operations, he championed the construction of new types of vessels needed to deal with the threats of the 21st century.

Admiral Mike Mullen understands what's at stake in the war on terror. He was on duty at the Pentagon when Flight 77 made its doomed plunge. He felt the plane slam into the building. He saw the carnage and devastation. And like all who worked there that terrible day, he still carries the pain and the loss. Admiral Mullen was there when war reached America's shore -- and he brings the talent, vision and judgment needed to help us fight and win that war.

As Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen will follow his strong belief that every member of our Armed Forces is, as he put it, part of "one team and one fight." He will continue to set a sterling example to our men and women in uniform. He will bring judgment and candor to decisions that may mean the difference between life and death for young Americans who are serving our nation. He will demonstrate the same love of country and dedication to duty that inspired his sons to follow him into military service.

Admiral Mike Mullen is a man of decency and honor, and I congratulate you on your new assignment. And I know your parents would be proud. And I thank you and Deborah and Jack and Michael for your service to our nation. (Applause.)

As Admiral Mullen begins his service as Chairman, he is fortunate to have as an example the man we honor today. General Pete Pace is one of the most respected and accomplished military leaders I have ever known. He helped craft America's response to an unprecedented assault on our homeland. He helped liberate two nations from brutal tyrannies and helped bring freedom to millions of people. He began the process of transforming our military into a more efficient and effective force.

Yet these accomplishments do not begin to tell the full story of this remarkable man. That story begins in Teaneck, New Jersey, where General Pace grew up the proud son of an Italian immigrant. His dad worked two and sometimes three jobs to provide for his family. His mom attended church service every Sunday, and, according to the good General, still lights candles to pray that her children are happy, healthy and safe.

General Pace was a good student and a good athlete. His mom said the General has been good at everything he's ever done. Some of you may think mothers are required to say only admiring things about their sons. Well, take it from me, it's not always the case. (Laughter.)

General Pace's dad died before he could see his son reach the height of his career -- yet he always knew that his son would be a success. His family believed in his potential -- and they weren't the only ones. There is something about General Pete Pace that makes believers out of nearly everyone. That includes the men who served with him in Vietnam and whom he led during some of the most vicious urban combat in American military history. It includes the troops he led in Somalia who looked to him for resolve and guidance during difficult times. It includes Marines who look with pride on the first of their ranks to lead the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It includes two Secretaries of Defense who relied on the General during tough and trying times. And it includes a President who has counted on General Pace's candor and sound judgment during some of the most difficult times in our country's history.

During his service at the Pentagon, General Pete Pace has shown us many talents. He's shown an intellect sharpened by post-graduate studies at George Washington and Harvard. He's shown us great oratorical skills -- this is a man who frequently speaks without notes -- I really don't recommend this to everyone. (Laughter.) He's shown a sharp wit. When a Naval commander once made an edgy joke in front of the Secretary of Defense, the General stepped right in and gave the young officer some advice. He said, "Never let a promising career stand in the way of a good joke." (Laughter.)

The most important attribute General Pete Pace has shown us is a quiet strength. It is a strength that has won the admiration of friends and peers. It is a strength built on the love and support of a strong and devoted wife, Lynne, and their family, Peter, Lynsey and Tiffany. It is a strength that gave Pete solace in the tough, and sometimes bitter, world of Washington, D.C. It helped him bring selflessness to a city filled with egos, and a dignity to a political process that might have worn down lesser men. He now leaves active service with a distinguished team in place and a talented successor. And yet I also have the sense that General Pace is not going to end it all here. He's a man who has always put country first and he will find new ways to serve.

General Pete Pace always understood what's important. It wasn't titles received, or honors bestowed -- and it certainly was not the good graces of official Washington. What mattered most were the young men and women who serve our country and risk their lives for its honored cause. He kept a picture on his desk of the first Marine who died under his command in Vietnam. He can still recite the names of all other Marines who died under that first command -- and because this is a man with a tender heart, sometimes it's hard for him to get through all the names without choking up a little bit.

Pete has devoted his life to those who wear our country's uniform. And they are devoted to General Pace. They're among the hundreds who've received his advice and friendship. They're among the thousands who lined up at military bases during his final tour to shake his hand and wish him well and say goodbye. They're among the millions whose names he will never know but who will always remember him. And they include that single soldier who came up to the General on his last visit to the war zone. He looked at General Pace with gratitude, respect and pride, and said, "Thanks for your service. We'll take it from here."

General Pace, throughout your life, you have led those troops to honorable achievements and into the pages of history. Because of your example, you can know that with courage, valor and confidence, they will take it from here.

And so Godspeed to my friend, General Pete Pace. Thanks for your courage. Thanks for your leadership. And thanks for your service to a country we love. (Applause.)

More about General Pace at Gazing at the Flag.





.

Ooooops, sorry, wrong translation

Once again we have a perfect example of the left, being so full of Bush Derangement Syndrome, they willingly jump out of a plane BEFORE finding out that they are not wearing a parachute.

Ooooops.

Last night it was reported from the Editor and Publisher that "Scoop for Spanish Daily: Transcript of Private 2003 Bush Talk Promising Iraq Invasion ".

The left, being so full of Bush Derangement Syndrome, jumped so fast and furiously (as they did with Jesse Macbeth, Scott Thomas, the burning six, just to name a few other times they made fools of themselves) they forgot one very important thing.

VERIFICATION.

Enter BarcePundit, (Link is to the English Edition) who translates the original transcript to verify the machine translation that was used for the original story.

Here's the relevant section:

Bush: Sadam Husein no cambiará y seguirá jugando. Ha llegado el momento de deshacerse de él. Es así. Yo, por mi parte, procuraré a partir de ahora utilizar una retórica lo más sutil posible, mientras buscamos la aprobación de la resolución. Si alguien veta [Rusia, China y Francia poseen junto a EE UU y Reino Unido derecho a veto en el Consejo de Seguridad en su calidad de miembros permanentes], nosotros iremos. Sadam Hussein no se está desarmando. Le tenemos que coger ahora mismo. Hemos mostrado un grado increíble de paciencia hasta ahora. Quedan dos semanas. En dos semanas estaremos militarmente listos. Creo que conseguiremos la segunda resolución. En el Consejo de Seguridad tenemos a los tres africanos [Camerún, Angola y Guinea], a los chilenos, a los mexicanos. Hablaré con todos ellos, también con Putin, naturalmente. Estaremos en Bagdad a finales de marzo. Existe un 15% de posibilidades de que en ese momento Sadam Hussein esté muerto o se haya ido. Pero esas posibilidades no existen antes de que hayamos mostrado nuestra resolución. Los egipcios están hablando con Sadam Hussein. Parece que ha indicado que estaría dispuesto a exiliarse si le dejaran llevarse 1.000 millones de dólares y toda la información que quisiera sobre armas de destrucción masiva. [Muammar El] Gaddafi le ha dicho a Berlusconi que Sadam Hussein quiere irse. Mubarak nos dice que en esas circunstancias existen muchas posibilidades de que sea asesinado.

Nos gustaría actuar con el mandato de las Naciones Unidas. Si actuamos militarmente lo haremos con una gran precisión y focalizando mucho nuestros objetivos. Diezmaremos a las tropas leales y el ejército regular rápidamente sabrá de lo que se trata. ... Estamos desarrollando un paquete de ayuda humanitaria muy fuerte. Podemos ganar sin destrucción. Estamos planteando ya el Irak post Sadam, y creo que hay buenas bases para un futuro mejor. Irak tiene una buena burocracia y una sociedad civil relativamente fuerte. Se podría organizar en una federación. Mientras tanto estamos haciendo todo lo posible para atender las necesidades políticas de nuestros amigos y aliados."

[Bush: Saddam won't change and will keep playing games. The moment of getting rid of him has arrived. That's it. As for me, from now on I'll try to use the softest rhetoric I can, while we look for the resolution to be approved. If some country vetoes [the resolution] we'll go in. Saddam is not disarming. We must catch him right now. We have shown an incredible amount of patience until now. We have two weeks. In two weeks our military will be ready. I think we'll achieve a second resolution. In the Security Council we have three African countries [Cameroon, Angola, Guinea], the Chileans, the Mexicans. I'll talk with all of them, also with Putin, naturally. We'll be in Baghdad at the end of March. There's a 15% chance that by then Saddam is dead or has flown. But these possibilities won't exist until we have shown our resolution. The Egyptians are talking with Saddam Hussein. It seems he has hinted he'd be willing to leave if he's allowed to take 1 billion dollars and all the information on WMDs. Ghadaffi told Berlusconi that Saddam wants to leave. Mubarak tells us that in these circumstances there are big chances that he'll get killed.

We would like to act with the mandate of the UN. If we act militarily, we'll do with great precision and focalizing our targets to the biggest degree possible. We'll decimate the loyal troops and the regular army will quickly know what it's all about. ... We are developing a very strong aid package. We can win without destruction. We are working already in the post-Saddam Iraq, and I think there's a basis for a better future. Iraq has a good bureaucracy and a relatively strong civil society. It could be organized as a federation. Meanwhile we're doing all we can to fulfill the political needs of our friends and allies. -- note: my emphasis and translation]

If anything, the transcript proves precisely the opposing point that critics want to make. The conversation shows both Bush and Aznar trying to avoid war; that they were concerned of its human toll, and that Saddam wanted to flee with money... and WMD information. I guess all the people who are trumpeting this will stop saying now that Bush lied and mislead us on the WMD issue. Won't hold my breath, though.
At one point Bush explicitely says: "Yo no quiero la guerra. Sé lo que son las guerras. Sé la destrucción y la muerte que traen consigo. Yo soy el que tiene que consolar a las madres y a las viudas de los muertos. Por supuesto, para nosotros esa sería la mejor solución. Además, nos ahorraría 50.000 millones de dólares" ["I don't want war. I know what war is like. I know the death and destruction they bring. I am the one who has to comfort the mothers and wives of the dead. Of course, for us [a diplomatic solution] would be the best one. Also, it would save 50 billion dollars" -- again, my emphasis and translation]

Keep up with Barcepundit, they are going to post the whole, correct translation asap.

Give credit where credit is do, Joe Gandelman made sure to point out the translation differences over at the Moderate Voice. " All In The Translation: Leaked Spanish Memo Does NOT Show Bush “Planned To Invade Iraq No Matter What”.

Once again though it seems that the lefty blogs are hoping that they screamed and screeched loud enough that their readers won't notice that the information they gave them was completely wrong.

Others discussing this:
Jules Crittenden, Flopping Aces, Fausta, Macsmind and Weekly Standard.

One would think after all the embarrassments from the last dozen times they did this, the left side of the blogosphere would actually start verifying things before making asses of themselves, but alas, nope. Their obsession with Bush far outweighs silly things like truth, facts and verification.

They don't need no stinkin facts!! What they need is a mental institution.

[Update] Full translation is finished and can be found at PJM.

Time for the men in white coats to pick up the far left liberal unhinged.





.

President Bush Addresses the UN- Text:Update-Sarkozy Speaks at UN

From the White House: (Video of the Cuban delegation walking out when Bush mentioned them is below)

PRESIDENT BUSH: Mr. Secretary General, Mr. President, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen: Thank you for the opportunity to address the General Assembly of the United Nations.

Sixty years ago, representatives from 16 nations gathered to begin deliberations on a new international bill of rights. The document they produced is called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights -- and it stands as a landmark achievement in the history of human liberty. It opens by recognizing "the inherent dignity" and the "equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family" as "the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world." And as we gather for this 62nd General Assembly, the standards of the Declaration must guide our work in this world.

Achieving the promise of the Declaration requires confronting long-term threats; it also requires answering the immediate needs of today. The nations in this chamber have our differences, yet there are some areas where we can all agree. When innocent people are trapped in a life of murder and fear, the Declaration is not being upheld. When millions of children starve to death or perish from a mosquito bite, we're not doing our duty in the world. When whole societies are cut off from the prosperity of the global economy, we're all worse off. Changing these underlying conditions is what the Declaration calls the work of "larger freedom" -- and it must be the work of every nation in this assembly.

This great institution must work for great purposes -- to free people from tyranny and violence, hunger and disease, illiteracy and ignorance, and poverty and despair. Every member of the United Nations must join in this mission of liberation.

First, the mission of the United Nations requires liberating people from tyranny and violence. The first article of the Universal Declaration begins, "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights." The truth is denied by terrorists and extremists who kill the innocent with the aim of imposing their hateful vision on humanity. The followers of this violent ideology are a threat to civilized people everywhere. All civilized nations must work together to stop them -- by sharing intelligence about their networks, and choking their -- off their finances, and bringing to justice their operatives.

In the long run, the best way to defeat extremists is to defeat their dark ideology with a more hopeful vision -- the vision of liberty that founded this body. The United States salutes the nations that have recently taken strides toward liberty -- including Ukraine and Georgia and Kyrgyzstan and Mauritania and Liberia, Sierra Leone and Morocco. The Palestinian Territories have moderate leaders, mainstream leaders that are working to build free institutions that fight terror, and enforce the law, and respond to the needs of their people. The international community must support these leaders, so that we can advance the vision of two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, living side-by-side in peace and security.

Brave citizens in Lebanon and Afghanistan and Iraq have made the choice for democracy -- yet the extremists have responded by targeting them for murder. This is not a show of strength -- it is evidence of fear. And the extremists are doing everything in their power to bring down these young democracies. The people of Lebanon and Afghanistan and Iraq have asked for our help. And every civilized nation has a responsibility to stand with them.

Every civilized nation also has a responsibility to stand up for the people suffering under dictatorship. In Belarus, North Korea, Syria, and Iran, brutal regimes deny their people the fundamental rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration. Americans are outraged by the situation in Burma, where a military junta has imposed a 19-year reign of fear. Basic freedoms of speech, assembly, and worship are severely restricted. Ethnic minorities are persecuted. Forced child labor, human trafficking, and rape are common. The regime is holding more than 1,000 political prisoners -- including Aung San Suu Kyi, whose party was elected overwhelmingly by the Burmese people in 1990.

The ruling junta remains unyielding, yet the people's desire for freedom is unmistakable. This morning, I'm announcing a series of steps to help bring peaceful change to Burma. The United States will tighten economic sanctions on the leaders of the regime and their financial backers. We will impose an expanded visa ban on those responsible for the most egregious violations of human rights, as well as their family members. We'll continue to support the efforts of humanitarian groups working to alleviate suffering in Burma. And I urge the United Nations and all nations to use their diplomatic and economic leverage to help the Burmese people reclaim their freedom.

In Cuba, the long rule of a cruel dictator is nearing its end. The Cuban people are ready for their freedom. And as that nation enters a period of transition, the United Nations must insist on free speech, free assembly, and ultimately, free and competitive elections.

In Zimbabwe, ordinary citizens suffer under a tyrannical regime. The government has cracked down on peaceful calls for reform, and forced millions to flee their homeland. The behavior of the Mugabe regime is an assault on its people -- and an affront to the principles of the Universal Declaration. The United Nations must insist on change in Harare -- and must insist for the freedom of the people of Zimbabwe.

In Sudan, innocent civilians are suffering repression -- and in the Darfur region, many are losing their lives to genocide. America has responded with tough sanctions against those responsible for the violence. We've provided more than $2 billion in humanitarian and peacekeeping aid. I look forward to attending a Security Council meeting that will focus on Darfur, chaired by the French President. I appreciate France's leadership in helping to stabilize Sudan's neighbors. And the United Nations must answer this challenge to conscience, and live up to its promise to promptly deploy peacekeeping forces to Darfur.

Second, the mission of the United Nations requires liberating people from hunger and disease. Article 25 of the Universal Declaration states: "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food and clothing and housing and medical care." Around the world, the United Nations is carrying out noble efforts to live up to these words.

Feeding the hungry has long been a special calling for my nation. Today, more than half the world's food assistance comes from America. We send emergency food stocks to starving people from camps in Sudan to slums in -- around the world. I've proposed an innovative initiative to alleviate hunger under which America would purchase the crops of local farmers in Africa and elsewhere, rather than shipping in food from the developed world. This would help build up local agriculture and break the cycle of famine in the developing world -- and I urge our United States Congress to support this initiative.

Many in this hall are bringing the spirit of generosity to fighting HIV/AIDS and malaria. Five years ago, in Sub-Saharan Africa, an AIDS diagnosis was widely considered a death sentence, and fewer than 50,000 people infected with the virus were receiving treatment. The world responded by creating the Global Fund, which is working with governments and the private sector to fight the disease around the world. The United States decided to take these steps a little further by launching the $15 billion Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. Since 2003, this effort has helped bring cutting-edge medicines to more than a million people in sub-Sahara Africa. It's a good start. So earlier this year, I proposed to double our initial commitment to $30 billion. By coming together, the world can turn the tide against HIV/AIDS -- once and for all.

Malaria is another common killer. In some countries, malaria takes as many lives as HIV/AIDS -- the vast majority of them children under the age of five years old. Every one of these deaths is unnecessary, because the disease is preventable and treatable. The world knows what it takes to stop malaria -- bed nets and indoor spraying and medicine to treat the disease. Two years ago, America launched a $1.2 billion malaria initiative. Other nations and the private sector are making vital contributions, as well. I call on every member state to maintain its focus, find new ways to join this cause, and bring us closer to the day when malaria deaths are no more.

Third, the mission of the United Nations requires liberating people from the chains of illiteracy and ignorance. Article 26 of the Universal Declaration states: "Everyone has the right to education." And when nations make the investments needed to educate their people, the whole world benefits. Better education unleashes the talent and potential of its citizens, and adds to the prosperity of all of us. Better education promotes better health and greater independence. Better education increases the strength of democracy, and weakens the appeal of violent ideologies. So the United States is joining with nations around the world to help them provide a better education for their people.

A good education starts with good teachers. In partnership with other nations, America has helped train more than 600,000 teachers and administrators. A good education requires good textbooks. So in partnership with other nations, America has distributed tens of millions of textbooks. A good education requires access to good schools. So in partnership with other nations, America is helping nations raise standards in their schools at home, and providing scholarships to help students come to schools in the United States. In all our education efforts, our nation is working to expand access for women and girls, so that the opportunity to get a decent education is open to all.

Finally, the mission of the United Nations requires liberating people from poverty and despair. Article 23 of the Universal Declaration states: "Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, [and] to just and favorable conditions of work." In the 21st century, this requires ensuring that people in poor countries have the same opportunity to benefit from the global economy that citizens of wealthy countries have.

The United Nations provides vital economic assistance designed to help developing nations grow their economies and reach their potential. The United States agrees with that position; we've dramatically increased our own development assistance -- and we're delivering that aid in innovative ways. We started the Millennium Challenge Account to reward nations that govern justly, fight corruption, invest in their people, and promote economic freedom. With this aid, we're reaching out to developing nations in partnership, not paternalism. And we're ensuring that our aid dollars reach those who need them -- and achieve results.

In the long run, the best way to lift people out of poverty is through trade and investment. A nation that is open and trading with the world will create economic rewards that far exceed anything they could get through foreign aid. During the 1990s, developing nations that significantly lowered tariffs saw their per capita income grow about three times faster than other developing countries. Open markets ignite growth, encourage investment, increase transparency, strengthen the rule of law, and help countries help themselves.

The international community now has an historic chance to open markets around the world by concluding a successful Doha Round of trade talks. A successful Doha outcome would mean real and substantial openings in agriculture, goods, and services -- and real and substantial reductions in trade-distorting subsidies. The world's largest trading nations, including major developing countries, have a special responsibility to make the tough political decisions to reduce trade barriers. America has the will and flexibility to make those necessary decisions. Our negotiators are demonstrating that spirit in Geneva. I urge other leaders to direct their negotiators to do the same. And I'm optimistic that we can reach a good Doha agreement -- and seize this once-in-a-generation opportunity.

In the meantime, America will continue to pursue agreements that open trade and investment wherever we can. We recently signed free trade agreements with Peru, Colombia, Panama, and South Korea. These agreements embody the values of open markets -- transparent and fair regulation, respect for private property, and resolving disputes under international law rules. These are good agreements, and they're now ready for a congressional vote, and I urge the Congress to approve them as soon as possible.

As America works with the United Nations to alleviate immediate needs, we're also coming together to address longer-term challenges. Together, we're preparing for pandemics that could cause death and suffering on a global scale. Together, we're working to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Together, we're confronting the challenges of energy security, and environmental quality, and climate change. I appreciate the discussions on climate change led by the Secretary General last night. I look forward to further discussions at the meeting of major economies in Washington later this week.

The goals I've outlined today cannot be achieved overnight -- and they cannot be achieved without reform in this vital institution. The United States is committed to a strong and vibrant United Nations. Yet the American people are disappointed by the failures of the Human Rights Council. This body has been silent on repression by regimes from Havana to Caracas to Pyongyang and Tehran -- while focusing its criticism excessively on Israel. To be credible on human rights in the world, the United Nations must reform its own Human Rights Council.

Some have also called for reform to the structure of the Security Council, including an expansion of its membership. The United States is open to this prospect. We believe that Japan is well-qualified for permanent membership on the Security Council, and that other nations should be considered, as well. The United States will listen to all good ideas, and we will support changes to the Security Council as part of broader U.N. reform. And in all we do, I call on member states to work for an institution that adheres to strict ethical standards, and lives up to the high principles of the Universal Declaration.

With the commitment and courage of this chamber, we can build a world where people are free to speak, assemble, and worship as they wish; a world where children in every nation grow up healthy, get a decent education, and look to the future with hope; a world where opportunity crosses every border. America will lead toward this vision where all are created equal, and free to pursue their dreams. This is the founding conviction of my country. It is the promise that established this body. And with our determination, it can be the future of our world.

Thank you, and God bless. (Applause.)

Hat Tip to Hot Air, we have the video of the Cuban delegation walking out when Bush spoke of them.



[Update] French President Nicolas Sarkozy also spoke in front of the UN with some harsh words about Iran.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy said Tuesday the international standoff over Iran's nuclear program will only be resolved with a combination of "firmness and dialogue," and that appeasement may only lead to "war."

Sarkozy, addressing the UN General Assembly for the first time since becoming president in May, said allowing Iran to arm itself with nuclear weapons would be an "unacceptable risk to stability in the region and in the world."

Iran was entitled to nuclear power for civilian purposes, he said, "but if we allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, we would incur an unacceptable risk to stability in the region and in the world".

"Weakness and renunciation do not lead to peace. They lead to war," he declared.

"There will not be peace in the world if the international community falters in the face of the proliferation of nuclear arms," Sarkozy said. The Iranian crisis "will only be resolved if firmness and dialogue go hand-in-hand."

I am REALLY beginning to like this guy.



.