Ready for a new president?

Tomorrow Barack Obama will be sworn in as the 44th president of the United States. CBS News' political blog has all the day-before details...

Obama has been pushing for the release of the second half of the $700bn bailout, and this time he promises oversight — a new concept, it seems, for today's federal bureaucracy. Not even the feds know where the first (roughly) $350bn truly went. Another reassuring Obama move is the promise to close Guantanamo Bay as soon as possible.

Meanwhile, Bush is expected to pardon Republican cronies, corrupt businessmen, etc. (the usual Bush supporters) at the last minute. Politico lists 10 potential pardons here. Political pardons like these are yet another reason the American justice system lacks fairness, especially if a super-corrupt felon like Ted Stevens gets off... (Remember what happened with Scooter Libby?)

I'm looking very much forward to a new political era, though certainly not one without challenges like the current economic downturn and the state of the environment.

Bush reverses 35 years of endangered species protection...

...in order to help his bigwig pals — concerned only with their money — who have gained from the past eight years of environmental injustice. Pulling America backwards, thanks George W!

AP:

Just six weeks before President-elect Barack Obama takes office, the Bush administration issued revised endangered species regulations Thursday to reduce the input of federal scientists and to block the law from being used to fight global warming.

The changes, which will go into effect in about 30 days, were completed in just four months. But they could take Obama much longer to reverse.

They will eliminate some of the mandatory, independent reviews that government scientists have performed for 35 years on dams, power plants, timber sales and other projects, a step that developers and other federal agencies have blamed for delays and cost increases.

The rules also prohibit federal agencies from evaluating the effect on endangered species and the places they live from a project's contribution to increased global warming.

Bush is trying to maximize the damage he does to America during his last days in office (mostly to the environment, but also abortion/employment rights).

From a must read Rolling Stone article:

"It's what we've seen for Bush's whole tenure, only accelerated," says Gary Bass, executive director of the nonpartisan group OMB Watch. "They're using regulation to cement their deregulatory mind-set, which puts corporate interests above public interests."

While every modern president has implemented last-minute regulations, Bush is rolling them out at a record pace — nearly twice as many as Clinton, and five times more than Reagan. "The administration is handing out final favors to its friends," says Véronique de Rugy, a scholar at George Mason University who has tracked six decades of midnight regulations. "They couldn't do it earlier — there would have been too many political repercussions. But with the Republicans having lost seats in Congress and the presidency changing parties, Bush has nothing left to lose."

Easily the worst president in the past 100 years — yes, it's my personal opinion that Bush has had a more destructive reign than recent blunders like Reagan and Nixon. One hopes there will be no worse leaders in this century.

Just imagine folks — in less than a month and a half we'll have a new president with a reasonably level head! It's going to feel good.

I expect President-elect Obama not only to reverse these horrendous last-minute executive actions by Bush, but also to move America forward in terms of environmental regulation. Hopefully the government will begin to protect what needs protecting (the poor, the environment) instead of powerful business interests who already hold far too much sway. Hopefully the value of what can not be replaced (including human lives) will overtake the value of a dollar. One can only hope.

Bush's pushes through last-minute anti-abortion plan

A friend pointed this out to me today:

A last-minute Bush administration plan to grant sweeping new protections to health care providers who oppose abortion and other procedures on religious or moral grounds has provoked a torrent of objections, including a strenuous protest from the government agency that enforces job discrimination laws.

The proposed rule would prohibit recipients of federal money from discriminating against doctors, nurses and other health care workers who refuse to perform or to assist in the performance of abortions or sterilization procedures because of their “religious beliefs or moral convictions.”

It would also prevent hospitals, clinics, doctors’ offices and drugstores from requiring employees with religious or moral objections to “assist in the performance of any part of a health service program or research activity” financed by the Department of Health and Human Services.

But three officials from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, including its legal counsel, whom President Bush appointed, said the proposal would overturn 40 years of civil rights law prohibiting job discrimination based on religion.

There are so many things wrong with this, as is common with orders coming out of the Oval Office in these Bush years. Often things like this go unnoticed; there really isn't much in the media on this abortion ruling.

Religion should not get in the way of healthcare, and of the patient's personal choice. In addition, last time I checked the government's role didn't include endorsing job discrimination. In effect the administration is trying to withhold funds from health institutions who don't let their employees' views on abortion get in the way of them doing their jobs. Another step backwards for a woman's right over her body fueled by the Catholic church and an ultra-conservative executive.

Still-President says 'Don't fight the system!'

BBC News:

US President George W Bush has admitted the financial system needs reforming, but insists the credit crunch was not a failure of the free-market system.

Speaking in New York, Mr Bush said that while financial markets did need some new regulation and more transparency, free trade should not be restricted.
...
Yet he said state action was not a "cure-all", and what was now needed was a reform of the global economy "without trying to re-invent the system".

As readers know, I'm quite ambivalent about the free-market system that represents the economic status quo, most of all in countries like the US, many of my views tending to be on the negative side of things. I do think that the sham we pass off as 'free trade' between developed countries and less developed ones needs to stop. It's not fair if African nations aren't allowed to have food subsidies yet their American and European trading partners pump massive amounts of government money into local agriculture.

As far as the system in general goes, the Reagan era of deregulation has caught up with us (as has the great shift away from train transport that also occurred under his reign).

There'll be a meeting consisting of leaders from the major world economies this weekend in Washington, the topic of course being the current global financial instability.

Say no to offshore drilling

In a move of populist pandering in an age of high gas prices, President George W. Bush...

has called on Congress to end a 27-year ban on drilling for oil in US coastal waters, to reduce dependence on imports.

We should not greatly endanger the environment when we should be looking for real solutions to the energy crisis. Offshore drilling -- like the loosening of gas taxes, or increased oil production -- is not a long-term solution. It will only make Americans more dependent on oil, and more dependent on something that destroys the environment in many more ways than one.

John McCain has made a complete U-turn on his offshore drilling policy, now following Bush in saying he supports it. His electoral opponent Barack Obama opposes both offshore drilling and the opening of ANWAR in Alaska.

Senator Obama dismissed Mr McCain's call as "political posturing" that would not bring down petrol prices and could endanger the country's coastal environment.

America's coastal environments have already been put in enough danger as the government takes a step back from regulating polluting industries. We have seen the vital role the coastal environment plays in protecting against hurricanes (New Orleans' natural defenses were down when Katrina hit) to soaking up what we pollute.

We shouldn't revert to old policies of drill-and-spill. I fail to see how this Republican ploy will do anything but hurt the United States in the long term. Isn't it time we moved beyond oil anyways?

The new 'appeasement' controversy

Make diplomacy, not war
President Bush made an attack on Barack Obama and other Democrats in a speech in the Israeli parliament.

The president, at Israel's 60th anniversary celebration in Jerusalem, suggested that some Democrats were acting in the same way some Western leaders did when they appeased Hitler in the runup to World War II.

Those ready to talk to hostile regimes are not cowardly appeasers; they are actually courageous. Anyone can start a war (see George W. Bush), but it takes someone with diplomatic tact to keep the peace. Diplomacy, and thus engaged discussions, is required to do so. This is one of many reasons Obama is better-suited for the Oval Office than the incumbent officeholder. The Bush administration is responding to Iran's saber-rattling just the way Iran wants them to respond: with more saber-rattling. This makes war a greater possibility and raises tensions on both sides. It's time for both sides to back down.

It is not 'appeasement' to talk to the enemy, and in fact that word has become all-too-dirty since the appeasement of Hitler before the Second World War. To label everyone who does not support your every whim an 'enemy' is also a dangerous move this administration has chosen to take at a time where the world needs more peace, not more hostility.

The Republicans' need to smear Obama on foreign policy lies not only on their own warped views of the world, but also their insecurity as America is increasingly Democratic (by a 10% margin). Furthermore, Bush's speech was entirely inappropriate as it was in the Israeli Knesset. Is Bush trying to prove to the world we are the world's most polarized nation when he makes a veiled attack in his speech, or what? Hillary Clinton, Obama's competitor for the Democratic presidential candidacy, and looking more like she belongs on the other side of the aisle than ever, has also struck low blows, criticizing Obama's position on diplomacy with countries like Iran.

We need a president who's not afraid to talk with the other side.

The Bush administration: ABOVE THE LAW

Another one of John Yoo's masterpieces
Not like we didn't know this before, but this time it's official! The George W. Bush administration is ABOVE FEDERAL LAW. The statutes and limitations applying to us mere mortals do not apply to the office of the commander-in-chief or his subordinates. Imagine that.

The Justice Department sent a legal memorandum to the Pentagon in 2003 asserting that federal laws prohibiting assault, maiming and other crimes did not apply to military interrogators who questioned al-Qaeda captives because the president's ultimate authority as commander in chief overrode such statutes.
...
Sent to the Pentagon's general counsel on March 14, 2003, by John C. Yoo, then a deputy in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, the memo provides an expansive argument for nearly unfettered presidential power in a time of war. It contends that numerous laws and treaties forbidding torture or cruel treatment should not apply to U.S. interrogations in foreign lands because of the president's inherent wartime powers.

Oh yeah, and they don't torture either.

As Andrew Sullivan recently stated,

One day this president and vice-president will be prosecuted for war crimes.

Mission accomplished (take two)!

I have never read of a man who applied such flawed logic, so long, and on numerous occasions, as the American president.

Reuters story from earlier this week:

President George W. Bush said on Wednesday he had no regrets about the unpopular war in Iraq despite the "high cost in lives and treasure" and declared that the United States was on track for victory.

Marking the fifth anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion with a touch of the swagger he showed early in the war, Bush said in a speech at the Pentagon, "The successes we are seeing in Iraq are undeniable."

With less than 11 months left in office and his approval ratings near the lows of his presidency, Bush is trying to shore up support for the Iraq campaign, which has damaged U.S. credibility abroad and is sure to define his legacy.

All we've got to do is stay the course folks, we're almost there!

Bush's continued assault on human rights

Another nasty veto...
BBC News:

US President George Bush says he has vetoed legislation that would stop the CIA using interrogation methods such as simulated drowning or "water-boarding".

He said he rejected the intelligence bill, passed by Senate and Congress, as it took "away one of the most valuable tools in the war on terror".

The president said the CIA needed "specialised interrogation procedures" that the military did not.

Make no mistake: waterboarding is torture. All human rights organizations agree, as well as other nations and even the American FBI! Waterboarding simulates drowning and leaves the victim psychologically — and sometimes physically — damaged.

There is no reason for torture. This is not a fight between human rights and national security. Torturous interrogation techniques do not get reliable information, countless studies have confirmed this common sense notion. In addition, the declining perception of the US because of the use of torture leaves it more open for attack and helps terrorist recruiters.

The issue of the CIA lies in the fact that by not leaving it objective, the White House opened the door for flawed, politically-motivated intelligence reports such as the ones justifying the Iraq war. The CIA has had continual use as a dirty political tool in the 'war on terror', where it has tortured and detained innocent people without respect to US or international law, whether in Guantanamo, 'black sites', or cases of extraordinary rendition.

"This is no time for Congress to abandon practices that have a proven track record of keeping America safe." Bush says. Mr. President, if I may counter. You have failed to produce any reliable evidence that torture has helped the United States. Yes, I know you don't use the exact term "torture". It's politically sticky. You stick to the euphemism "enhanced interrogation". Let's see how you would feel about having to stand up, shackled, for 40 hours or so, while being threatened by a CIA thug. Maybe that would change your mind about the true meaning of torture. You use the same justification for torture as you do for (previously) illegal domestic wiretapping: It has saved lives, it will save lives! We must counter the most dangerous terrorists! We must prevent another attack! While it is compelling for me to follow along with most Americans and politicians on your national security programs, you see, I have a respect for the law. I also recognize the fact that torturing terror suspects will get us nowhere in our fight against those who have wronged us.

The president's actions are inexcusable; this is one of the times I am seriously angry at George W. Bush and his ludicrous national security policies. Why can't he use at least one of his vetoes to cut spending like he has promised instead of fighting popular stem call initiatives or legalizing torture?

America's troubling abstinence program in Africa

President Bush has been on a tour of Africa, where he maintains at least a modicum of popularity due to his aid programs there (although that aid sometimes makes things worse). Also on the American leader's agenda was dealing with China's growing influence in the region, fueled by its thirst for oil in nations such as Nigeria and Sudan.

The New York Times reported

Mr. Bush used a news conference to address the widespread suspicion that the United States planned to establish military bases in Africa as it expanded its strategic role on the continent. And for the first time, he suggested that he might consider dropping a requirement that one-third of AIDS prevention dollars be spent on abstinence programs — but only if he was convinced that the approach was not working.
...
Mr. Bush faced tough questioning from an African reporter about his administration’s requirement that one-third of the AIDS initiative’s prevention funds be spent on programs promoting abstinence.

The independent Institute of Medicine has said the abstinence requirement is hindering prevention efforts. Democrats in Congress, debating reauthorization of the initiative, want it dropped.

A president needs to be elected who won't require a certain amount of money be spend on abstinence programs. People will continue to have sex no matter what, and that means the spread of STDs and unwanted pregnancies. Contraception and overall sexual education should be one of the highest priorities for HIV/AIDS prevention programs.

Belief in abstinence-only programs —  confusing teachers, harming schools, and not properly educating people — is one of Bush's more dangerously irrational religious beliefs, which exists primarily to gain the support of the supposed millions of people who believe that condoms are the devil. Why do you think America has the highest teen pregnancy rate in in the developed world (see map)? In fact, "pro-life" people should like contraception, since it would lower the rate of abortions and terminations of unwanted pregnancies. America's domestic program of withholding important sexual information and instead supplying abstinence-only programs has been listed as a human rights concern by Human Rights Watch.

The US's foreign policy relating to aid for AIDS program not only needs more funding — one improvement this administration has brought about — but the abstinence requirement must be dropped. Who knows how many have contracted STDs and died because of lack of proper education of sex, and lack of options. There is nothing promiscuous about governments handing out condoms or information on contraception. Withholding those devices and that information is harmful to cause of most of us who want to stop the spread of AIDS and let a woman choose whether she wants to get pregnant.

Bush tells everyone to back off on CIA tape probe

CNN:

The Bush administration wants a federal court and congressional committees not to pursue investigations into the destruction of videotapes showing CIA interrogations of two al Qaeda suspects.

It says the inquiries would interfere with an ongoing probe by the Justice Department in collaboration with the CIA.

Defense attorneys for some terror suspects have asked U.S. District Judge Henry Kennedy to look into whether the tapes' destruction violated a June order.

The measure requires the government to preserve evidence and information regarding detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

A bit disturbing, but not at all surprising. (See background.) The Justice Department has also dodged questions on the destruction of CIA tapes showing extreme interrogation — e.g. torture. The White House is strongly against all forms of oversight. One wonders what it has to hide...

The hyped-up Iranian nuclear threat

Not to rain on the hawks' parade, but apparently Iran stopped nuclear weapons production back in 2003.

In a blow to Bush administration hawks demanding military strikes on Iran, a US intelligence report reveals that Tehran's secret nuclear weapons programme was shut down four years ago.

The finding which has come as a surprise to friends and foes of the US concluded: "We do not know whether [Iran] currently intends to develop nuclear weapons." That is in sharp contrast to an intelligence report two years ago that stated Iran was "determined to develop nuclear weapons".

US officials said the report showed that the Bush administration was right to conclude that Tehran intends to develop nuclear weapons in the long term. They also said that Iran was forced to end its secret programme because of financial sanctions and diplomacy backed up with the threat of force.

Perhaps peaceful means such as diplomacy and sanctions (creating political pressures within a country) work after all.

The report is sure to cause a stir within the hawkish White House, but the NIE did put in a few good words about the Bush administration, just to ease the strain of conflicting views.

Here are some facts about the National Intelligence Estimate report.

President Bush, after spending years raising the hype around Iran's nuclear program, found a way to twist the tension-relieving report into just another warning about the Iranian threat. Never mind the evidence his jousts with Iran over nukes have been relying on have been pulled out from under him; I am sure hawks are not too pleased either with the recent intelligence report.

If anything it is good news that there is less pressure on all parties to make a move in the Iran nuke stalemate. But even though Iran may have stopped developing nuclear weapons for now, it's good to keep up the pressure, says a Guardian commentator. Iran may have suspended its program, but that doesn't mean it cannot, or will not, start it up again. What Bush predicted as WWIII with Iran seems very unlikely at this point.

What can the Annapolis peace talks accomplish?

There are hopes that Annapolis will pave the way for a 2008 peace treaty between Israelis and Palestinians.

The US, Israeli and Palestinian leaders have voiced hope that a conference in Maryland could produce a starting point for serious peace negotiations.

Bush said that peace was 'worth it to try' and that he 'work[s] the phones' in the peace process.

This peace conference is the first of its kind since 2000. The US is actively taking a role in the talks, after sitting on the sidelines on many previous occasions.

Israel has argued that initiatives that have isolated the Palestinian territories are needed for its security. The general pattern of Israel-Palestinian skirmishes is militant fires rocket into Israel or attacks army, Israel responds with raids which result with civilian deaths, more rocket fire and retaliations by Palestinians, and collective punishment upon already-angry Palestinians by Israel. This is how it has been for years.

There are several firsts for this conference. Syria will be in attendance — a first for the dictatorial, terror-supporting-yet-marginalized (and under-utilized) nation. The country will, of course, be on the side of the Palestinians and is still pushing for the return of its Golan Heights from Israel. As a reminder, Syria is on President Bush's "axis of evil". This will also be the first big job for British PM turned peace negotiator Tony Blair. Lastly, Saudis and Israelis will be sitting at the same table — but Israeli diplomats beware: the Saudi representative has stated he will not shake hands with you.

A total of 40 countries are attending the summit in Annapolis, Maryland. Hamas, which rules Gaza, will not be coming. In fact, it wouldn't see the point in such a meeting as it neither recognizes Israel nor diplomacy as a good way to achieve results.

This is an odd, if possibly inappropriate, time for peace talks. Tensions are high over Iraq; the Bush administration faces hurdle after hurdle with shear incompetence and poor diplomacy. Perhaps Bush is making a last-ditch effort at setting the stage for the creation of a free and independent Palestinian state, an aspiration of his. Secretary of State Condi Rice may be vying for a good diplomatic spot in history, odd since she helped block former Sec. of State Colin Powell's attempts at a similar Mideast peace conference.

CFR's Richard Haass argues that one will have to wait for the time to be right before a real drive for peace can be effectively made. But talking in the meantime can't hurt. It isn't good to be impervious to reality just for the sake of optimism.

There is an overall mood of skepticism as talks get underway. The best and most realistic hope is that some progress can be made in bringing Israel and Palestine out of decades of conflict using diplomacy. Hopefully both sides will make valuable concessions, but considering Palestinian Authority President Abbas only has control of the West Bank, his options are even more limited. Seven years ago US President Clinton made a large effort at Mideast peace — it failed miserably. Even though I don't care at all for this White House or its historical legacy, I hope this summit's results aren't the same.

Bush warns of WWIII with Iran

And he calls Al Gore an alarmist?

New York Times:

Mohamed ElBaradei, the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, urged the Bush administration on Sunday to soften its statements about Iran while maintaining diplomatic pressure to halt the nuclear enrichment that could lead to the production of a nuclear weapon.

But American lawmakers appearing on Sunday television talk programs were divided on whether efforts to influence Iran had been helped or hindered by the administration’s tough talk.

“We cannot add fuel to the fire,” Dr. ElBaradei said on “Late Edition” on CNN. “I would hope we would stop spinning and hyping the Iranian issue.” He also expressed frustration about the Israeli bombing in September of a building in Syria that analysts say may have contained the beginnings of a North Korean-designed nuclear reactor.

“To bomb first and ask questions later,” he said, was decidedly unhelpful.

In an Oct. 17 news conference, Mr. Bush said President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran had “announced that he wants to destroy Israel,” referring to Mr. Ahmadinejad’s comments that Israel “will disappear soon.” Mr. Bush also said he had “told people that if you’re interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.”

World War III? Bush's rhetoric was extreme enough before, but this is going way too far. Equating the 'Axis of Evil' to the WWII 'Axis' may be a next step for the Bush administration, drawing more parallels between the fake 'war on terror' and the 'Great War', the Second World War. Russia and Iran both pose potential threats, but neither is close to harming America enough to beat the war drum for. Some people, especially Republicans, are beating the same drum as the president, and that is worrying. You'd think they would have learned their lesson in the years of needless war in Iraq since 2003.

Baradei is right: the hype echoing from the White House and elsewhere can only make things worse. As far as scaring Iran into submission, the US has pursued some form of that policy for years, and look how it has worked out. People are as riled against the United States as ever, and an attack against Iran would surely not only be disastrous, but counterproductive. As for Russia, Putin is primarily posturing — although Moscow's partnership with Tehran is worrying.

I don't know about you all, I do not want another war waged against a nation on false premises and neoconservative spin.

A look at 'Islamofascism'

In a recent Slate article, Christopher Hitchens tried his hardest to defend what has so far only served as a term for political — not objective or scholarly — use: 'Islamofascism', a mix of Islam, which some people fear, and fascism, which virtually everyone dislikes (I'd like to think so, at least). The word is a neologism, a pejorative term has taken the political right by storm.

Let's just look at definitions for a minute; maybe the dictionary can help sort this out. The OED defines "Islam" as:

noun 1 the monotheistic religion of the Muslims, regarded by them to have been revealed through Muhammad as the Prophet of Allah. 2 the Muslim world.

and "fascism" as:

noun 1 an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government. 2 extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.

Adolph Hitler was a fascist; he advocated a specific system of government; Osama Bin Laden leans towards a theocracy following a twisted version of Islam (his terrorist orginization, Al Qaeda, and its followers are but fractured cells of fear- and hate-fueled Muslims who use terrorism to accomplish political and (pseudo-)religious means). But both figures inspire fear and hatred, making 'Islamofascism'. It is more than a stretch to call Al Qaeda fascist. Even the semi-theocracy of Iran probably couldn't be considered fascist.

Fascism is a centralized, authoritarian system of government; fascists are those who advocate such a government. So how are Osama and his crazed followers fascist? 'Islamofacism' is clearly not the right term to describe these terrorists. As despicable as they are, as a whole, the terrorists we are talking about are neither advocating what could be considered fascist governance nor are part of such a government.

The person who claims to have first used the word, Stephen Schwartz, wrote in the Weekly Standard, a conservative American publication, professing to the word's lack of objectivity while explaining it in his terms. Schwartz put the meaning of 'Islamofascism' in clear terms:

In my analysis, as originally put in print directly after the horror of September 11, 2001, Islamofascism refers to use of the faith of Islam as a cover for totalitarian ideology.

Why not just use Islamic extremism, or a more descriptive and accurate term than 'Islamofascism'? Because 'Islamofascism' (yes I will continue to put it in inverted quotes) is yet another political buzzword in the 'war on terror's lingual campaign towards spin supremacy.

There always has to be a 'war on' something. War is an emotionally-evocative and politically-charged word, as is terrorism (see definitions). 'Islamofascism' is yet another way to tie Islamic extremism to the so-called war on terror; it's just another lingual technique with political motives that advocates use to slant the debate (see surge), or as Jack Shafer, also writing in Slate, calls it, 'unspeak'.

US President Bush has used the word to describe Muslim terrorists, which inflamed religious sentiment in areas of the world that often need no more inflammation — i.e. the word was perceived as advocating a 'war on Islam', another reason against its use. In addition, calling the extremists a "fundamentalist empire" as Bush did is entirely misleading. There is no one enemy, despite what the White House would want us to believe. The conservative historian Niall Ferguson has denounced the term as "misleading" because it is meant to connect the "Great War" of WWII with the non-war of the 'war on terrorism'; it is an emotional, feel-good idiom that also serves for political use.

Blog Action Day + Bush's inept global warming policy

Today is Blog Action Day, a day for bloggers to focus on the pressing issue of the environment.

http://www.blogactionday.org/resources

Tomorrow, as usual, I will do an "Earth-friendly living tip of the week"; but today I will focus on the political, as opposed to practical, side of global warming...

Mr. President, define 'flexible'
At his own climate change meeting a couple of weeks ago, President Bush stated a vague plan that is far from a compromise with even the moderates on the global warming issue. The American president's biggest step to meeting in the middle with the rational people who believe in scientific data instead of what lobbyists and pastors tell them — and this should be an indicator of not only how stubborn this man and his administration are, but how blind their policy is — was speaking of 'flexible' (i.e. industry-written) greenhouse gas targets, which mean nothing. Bush is sticking with White House policy of denying global warming and the human impact on the earth, and occasionally making a side-comment on how America shouldn't have to save the world if no one else will. (Perhaps the last thing he wanted to do was start a scientific debate against him, but that's what happened.)

Mr Bush stressed that combating climate change should not damage the economy.

And he again hinted that the US would not commit itself to mandatory CO2 cuts.

A few points on President George Bush's climate change policy:

Bush doesn't to justice to the climate change issue;

He pussyfoots the important issue of global greenhouse gas caps;

He is trying to appear somewhat eco-friendly to an increasingly aware American and global audience

Bush does know that global warming will hurt the economy more in the long run than can even be imagined now, right? The costs will be much greater the longer America and the world wait to take action. It's amazing, but not altogether surprising, that such a person of power can value money, an artificial human creation, over nature, a target of man's massive destructive powers.

Pundits have asked if Bush's latest environmental moves are stunts or real, albeit very small, progress; for now I'm erring on the side of the former.

Bush veto kills public health win-win

Bush sinks the SCHIP
Today, President George Bush (mis)used his veto power the fourth time in a move that hurts the health of American children as it helps the tobacco industry (see other bad Bush vetoes here). He received swift backlash for the move. The bill had many supports on both sides of the aisle in Congress. The only party I can think of who really wins from this veto is the tobacco lobby.

State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) would provide government-subsudized health insurance to children whose parents are not poor enough to be eligible for Medicaid, but do not have enough money to provide healthcare for their children. Like any other similar program, SCHIP could be taken advantage of, but the pros outweigh the cons. The vast majority of people polled (over 70%) in a CNN poll, as well as in a Washington Post/ABC poll, were in favor of a government-sponsored move that would raise funding by $35 billion to insure around 10 million kids by raising tobacco taxes (win-win for public health!).

Bush's appeasement plan for limited withdrawal

As expected, President Bush announced Thursday night that 5,700 US troops will be pulled out of Iraq by Christmas time, following the advice of his military commanders.

President Bush appealed to the nation in a prime time address on Iraq Thursday night -- his latest effort to buy time for his Iraq War strategy and shore up support among Republicans who have become increasingly frustrated with the lack of political progress and stability in Iraq.

The president framed the Iraq conflict as he has in the past, as a key component of a broader war against al Qaeda and Islamic extremists.

So basically Bush's eighth address to the nation on the Iraq war was nearly 17 minutes of recycled rhetoric...

These are superficial changes to appease the increasingly discontent public of America and Iraq. Bush wants to show that he's in charge and he is listening to military advisors as well as popular opinion. This partial-withdrawal plan is, however, deceptive.

Bush's plan is to withdraw five brigades by mid-July -- approximately 23,000 troops, leaving about 137,000 U.S. troops in place by next summer.

While Bush portrayed the redeployment as a troop withdrawal, there will actually be 7,000 more troops in Iraq next summer than there were before Bush deployed additional forces to Iraq in January as part of a troop surge plan to quell sectarian violence.

With spin mode activated, Bush said that as more 'progress' is made, more troops can leave Iraq. This is a way for him to stick to his existing, if questionable, line that progress is being made and also looking like he is bowing to the wishes to experts and the general public alike. He is trying to court the more — for lack of a better word — moderate (naive), on-the-fence anti-war forces in the US with a move like this. Perhaps he can even get the moderate forces that aren't totally against the war to be angry at the stronger anti-war forces' demands for more withdrawal. Some appeasers will argue that Bush has pledged some measure of troop pullout, and we should take what we get. It depends, in part, on how his own Republican Party reacts to this news: will they paint it as a real step forward, or not a step at all?


We will have to see if this "return on success" plan is actually successful, at home and in Iraq. If all goes wrong, we do know who the administration will blame for future failure in Iraq: the 'defeatists' at home, the al-Qaeda terrorists (which actually comprise a very small amount of the extremists in Iraq), and Iran, the king of diabolical meddlers.

See also...

See here for more on this week's Petraeus-Crocker report on 'surge';

See here for some Iraq security statistics.

Bush's support could mean death for Iraqi leaders

Among the reasons people don't want to align themselves with Bush: death

BBC News reports:

A key Sunni ally of the US and Iraqi governments has been killed in a bomb attack in the Iraqi city of Ramadi.
Abdul Sattar Abu Risha, 37, led what was known as the "Anbar Awakening", an alliance of Sunni Arab tribes that rose up against al-Qaeda in Iraq.

US President George Bush met and endorsed the sheikh last week in Iraq.

The White House, which has held up the movement in Anbar province as an example for the rest of Iraq, condemned his assassination as "an outrage".

Abu Risha's assassination will be a severe blow to the "Awakening" in Anbar, says the BBC's Hugh Sykes in Baghdad.

This could be a blow to the progress in Anbar, as well as the stability the Bush administration has said the 'surge' has brought to Iraq. Was Abu Risha killed because of his opposition to al-Qaeda in Iraq, or because he carried George Bush's seal of approval? Is the White House's model province about to see more disarray?

By dividing groups by sectarian lines, perhaps the US is partially at fault for provoking more of a nationalist rise. Then again, the killing of leaders who have ties to the United States is not a good thing at all. If the fear the perpetrators of such killings hope to bring works, ties to moderate forces and outside parties will be severed and extremist support will be on the rise.

Let's hope political leaders aren't shaken enough by killings like that of Abu Risha to abandon their causes and the people trying to help, or more imbalance in favor of the extreme will come. Unity and cooperation among forces, not division between sects and isolation from the moderates, need to be stressed for the rebuilding of Iraq. Handshakes shouldn't be a reason for murder.

'We will be treated as occupiers'

If only America's leaders could have foreseen the contempt — at home, abroad, and even in the country they 'liberated' — their long-term presence in Iraq would bring.

BBC News:

The US should reduce its troop presence in Iraq so as not to appear an "occupying force", a key 20-member US security commission has recommended.

The panel of retired police and military officers told the Senate that Iraqi forces should be replacing US troops by early next year.

But the report also warned Iraqi troops would not be ready to take over fully within the next 18 months.

It also said the Iraqi police force was ineffective and should be scrapped.

The report is the latest in a series to be considered by the US Congress as it debates the Iraq war.

This is another September report on United States progress in Iraq. A GAO study also came out recently; the mother of all reports will be presented to Congress by the lead US commander in Iraq Gen. George Petraeus and US ambassador to the nation Ryan Crocker on Monday.

The White House is hoping that the "surge", the subject of the Petraeus report, will work or is working, if not in reality than in the minds of the public (i.e. even if it doesn't actually help the conditions on the ground in Iraq, people would think so thanks to the ample spin echoing from the press briefing room).

American policy in Iraq has been making many headlines lately; I expect more and more pressure will be mounted on the Bush administration from politicians, including from the Republican Party, as well as the American public, nations abroad, and the Iraqis. Will President Bush be forced to the international diplomatic table? Will he have much leverage left or many people willing to cooperate with him by then?

Update
According to a wide-scale BBC World Service survey, most of the world's people want the United States out of Iraq soon.