Bush's Increasing Mental Lapses and Temper Tantrums Worry White House Aides

'Who am I? What am I?'

'You're the president and you're an idiot.'

'An uncivil war rages inside the walls of the West Wing of the White House, a bitter, acrimonious war driven by a failed agenda, destroyed credibility, dwindling public support and a President who lapses into Alzheimer-like periods of incoherent babbling. On one side are the dwindling numbers of die-hard loyalists to President George W. Bush, those who support his actions and decisions without question and remain committed to both Bush and scandal-scarred political advisor Karl Rove.

On the other side are the increasing numbers of those who say Rove must go and who worry about the President's declining mental state and his ability to restore credibility with Congress, our foreign allies and the American people.'

To read more go to:

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7606.shtml

*Deep breath*... "only 3 more years of this s**t."  I get to vote over there    It didn't help last time though    and I wonder if my ballot was actually counted even though I got a confirmation letter   but as much as don't want him or anyone of his train of thought (domestic and foreign) in office, politics has gotten to be a horrible case of mudslinging in the US and I've been more careful about the bad things I beleive on either side now.  It seems to me that it used to just be Republicans that stooped down to low leves in order to get their point across but now many Democrats are doing the same for political survival and it's a dog eat dog environment without exception.  I think Mike Myers opened up the avenue of acceptability for other lefties who hold a pen and a job that involves publishing.  Not to say the article is valid or invalid though, I haven't even read it  

[whinging rant]
I don't like Bush, most people don't like Bush, I went for a drive all around the city last weekend and one suburb had bunches of stop signs tagged with "Bush" right under "Stop" and I laughed and smiled and it lit up my day.  If everyone hates Bush, why is there a carbon copy of him leading the nation here?  It really baffles the hell out of me.  I know Labour wasn't a great choice at the time but damnit wasn't it still a better alternative?  To make a bad analogy, if the choices are Hitler and Satan, shouldn't we choose Hilter?[/whinging rant]

And another thing.  Oh wait (forgot the rant tag)

[whinging rant]
And another thing, what's going to happen if Bush does the slightest thing right in the next 3 years while every lefty is busy bashing him.  They will all lose their credibility, and fast... that's what.  Maybe it's what's needed though... for all those idiots, on both sides, to lose their credibility and let some amount of sanity creep back and then maybe people will think for themselves.  A popularity poll shouldn't be something that determines what people think because not only is it just retarded, it makes the popularity half random in the process.
Also, as much as I don't like him, I'm sick of politicians being judged on mistakes that are legitamate things to make a mistake on such as the lack of... whatever the hell, in the hurricane that wiped out New Orleans.  I've been in hurricanes.  I've lived in that same region.  There is no effective preparation for something of that nature.  It's hard enough just to evacuate because cars are bumper to bumper all the way up into the next state.  Calling him racist as a result of the hurricane was ridiculous.  If people didn't have cars they didn't have cars and if they were black they were black and that's that and that's a good example of how journalists make themselves look like asses and how people who beleive it hopefully feel stupid later and how people who repeat it but don't beleive it will also look like asses later on.
[/whinging rant]

Edit: Um, right, so I should point out that this really doesn't have much to do with the perspective of an Australian.  This post anyway, haven't read over the other one but I stand behind that anti Howard and pro Labor referance.

Were you a democrat MD when you were living in the states?
I wonder what Howard's chances would be like if the system of voting here was similiar to America in that voting would not have to be compulsory. Do you think The liberals would still be running office?

Yeah, I'm registered as a Democrat.  I actually voted on a couple local issues not too long ago which I really shouldn't have but had every legal right to.  One was wheather gambling should be made legal under some specific circumstances in the county.  The other was initially a wet dry issue about banning alchohol sales in the county but ended up being put forth as a question of anything other than wine and beer.  I voted no to gambling and yes to drinking (or no to government control of it especially since beer gets a person just as drunk).

I don't know how the election would have gone if it was the same system.  The 2 big political parties have heaps of time and heaps of resources to campaign and when we pay taxes you can even tick a box if you want a dollar to go to Democrat or Republican campaign funds.  Here, you have the party playing games and then an election date is set or it becomes time and it's a short campaign on both sides.  At the end of the day, it perhaps it comes down to the fact that the more suave looking guy wins and in Australia that's probably going to be true more often because compulsory voting creates a bigger swing vote of undecided people and the many people that would not vote in the US out of uncertainty, genuine or because of political apathy, do vote here.

To draw back on the US election with Kenedy and Nixon running against each other, the television was not at all in every home yet and the people who listened to the debate on the radio were overwhelmingly sure that Nixon had won the people over in that debate but the people who saw it on TV were sure that Kennedy had won the people over.  Nixon is kind of ugly, Kennedy looked young, alert, had good posture, etc.  Here in Australia, Howard isn't anything to look at but he knew how to work the camera a lot better than Latham.  Howard looked confident, smiled, and kept moving as not to get trapped down by interviewers but give them a quick response that didn't answer the question and would keep on walking.  Latham was so serious looking that if you didn't think it was bogus then it still left a person (me anyway) feeling unsettled about it.  He didn't know how to smile when he was on camera, and he always, always, always let himself get trapped down by cameras and journalists and taking the time to answer their questions over and over again to the point where every time he said something he started the sentance with "look."  "Look, it's the policy of the party, it's what people want" but then he'd go on to explain it even further.  It made him look like a doormat.  He also allowed himself to get pinned down by common people when cameras were on him but the media of course is going to play the bad bits so all we see is the guy stading there looking serious as a heart attack, pretending to be interested, and all that's happening is that Betty redneck with nasty hair, unwashed clothes, and 2 teeth is telling him her pchizophrenic take of her life's situation that involves her son losing his job after the dog died, so we see that clip right after the news anchor says "And Latham promises more jobs and a more proportioned tax structure to take weight off of the working man."

I don't think it would have gone much differant.  The margin would have been narrower I think.  The US system has tended to show a smaller percentage of Democrats turning out to vote than Republicans but I don't know what it was in this last election.  It's a shame that most people in Australia are voting for one person for prime minister and in doing so (usually voting above the line) elect a whole government that can end up being so one sided.  I'de rather see buerocracy slow things down to a snails pace than have it rule at extremity.  I suppose it can be just as bad in the US with a mjority of people belonging to one of 2 parties.

I guess the 2 systems are differant enough that it's impossible to speculate very far.  I couldn't make any assumptions about the government as a whole.  I think Howard would still have taken it though.  The media's lack of scrutiny on a wider range of issues helped Howard as well.

By all accounts Bush should not have won the last election BUT... there he is for a second term. So in the US you register as a member for a particular party?! So what if like me you decide to vote against the party you may have supported the last time? You can still do that can't you? The US way of electing a President is way more comlicated and convoluted than the Aussie way.

You can register as an independant, which is nothing, if you don't want to associate with a political party.  The advantage of registering with a party is that you can vote in their primary and select a candidate.  You must register to vote though, the reason for that was to curtail fraudulant votes.  A lot of dead people were voting so reregistering was necisarry.  And you can vote for whoever you want.  You can fill in the blank with someone's name and if they are running, registered as running or "on a ticket", then that vote counts.  Many people write in John Doe for an office they aren't sure of.  Ozzy Osbourne and Bozo The Clown are popular fake candidates.  Used to be a lot of "Ozzy for President" concert t shirts when I was in school.  I voted for Ozzy for a congressional position last time  

Also, the smaller parties take more and more votes it seems.  It's only like 4 and 6% but it's 4 or 6% that didn't go to a major party in close elections.  In 92 Ross Perot ran against Bush and Clinton as an independant and did very, very well considering his non affiliation with 19% of the vote.  Many people were upset that it took votes away from what would have gone to Clinton but he still won.  Now people are trading votes online so that say, California is a sure shot for democrats and Texas is a not, then Texas Libretarians will vote Democrat in trade for a California Democrat voting Libretarian.  It keeps the numbers the same for the minor party but gives the real contender a better chance.  It sounds pretty warped, but it's quite sane when you consider that these are people who are trying to keep people like Bush out of office.

The screwed up part I see in the US process is the electoral count where each state gets x amount of votes based on it's population instead of just counting votes.  That's what makes the vote swapping possible.  It also makes it possible for someone to get elected who won the electoral vote but not the popular vote, so they won more state votes but would have lost if it came to counting individual votes.  Bush won like that in 2000 and was the second person to win like that (I think).

Quoted from MeanDean

It also makes it possible for someone to get elected who won the electoral vote but not the popular vote, so they won more state votes but would have lost if it came to counting individual votes.  Bush won like that in 2000 and was the second person to win like that (I think).

Yeah thats what discourages alot of Americans to vote I think. I spoke to some family in Washington a week before the election and one of them were telling me that because WA is pretty much a strong blue state there was no real point in voting even though they were registered democrats. That and the fact that the hours to vote were ridiculous and the lines were as long as 1 to 2 blocks long.

Dont they have postal votes in the states?
I always vote postal, makes life a lot simpler. (I live more than 8k from my polling booth). You just ring up the candidate you are not going to vote for (hey you dont want to cost your bloke any postage!) a couple of weeks before the election and they send you all the forms.

Quoted from SuziH

The US way of electing a President is way more comlicated and convoluted than the Aussie way.

True!. . one gets to abandon the B.B.BQ and beers to go and 'do the deed'.

Quoted from BB

Dont they have postal votes in the states?
I always vote postal, makes life a lot simpler. (I live more than 8k from my polling booth). You just ring up the candidate you are not going to vote for (hey you dont want to cost your bloke any postage!) a couple of weeks before the election and they send you all the forms.

I voted by post but with an absentee ballot because I'm overseas and I'm not entirely sure, but I think a person can vote by absentee ballot when they have not left home as long as they send it the paperwork in advance.  I think that's the only way to do it.

Clinton: Bush 'flat wrong' on climate

Friday, December 9, 2005 Posted: 2056 GMT (0456 HKT)



MONTREAL, Quebec (AP) -- Former U.S. President Bill Clinton told a global audience of diplomats, environmentalists and others on Friday that the Bush administration is "flat wrong" in claiming that reducing greenhouse-gas emissions to fight global warming would damage the U.S. economy.

With a "serious disciplined effort" to develop energy-saving technology, he said, "we could meet and surpass the Kyoto targets in a way that would strengthen and not weaken our economies."

Clinton, a champion of the Kyoto Protocol, the existing emissions-controls agreement opposed by the Bush administration, spoke in the final hours of a two-week U.N. climate conference at which Washington has come under heavy criticism for its stand.

Most delegations appeared ready Friday to leave an unwilling United States behind and open a new round of negotiations on future cutbacks in the emissions blamed for global warming.

"There's no longer any serious doubt that climate change is real, acclerating and caused by human activities," said Clinton, whose address was interrupted repeatedly by enthusiastic applause.

"We are uncertain about how deep and the time of arrival of the consequences, but we are quite clear they will not be good."

Canadian officials said the U.S. delegation was displeased with the last-minute scheduling of the Clinton speech.

But U.S. delegation chief Paula Dobriansky issued a statement saying events like Clinton's appearance "are useful opportunities to hear a wide range of views on global climate change."

The former U.S. chief executive spoke between the official morning and afternoon plenary sessions of the conference, representing the William J. Clinton Foundation, which includes a climate-change program in its activities.

In the real work of the conference, delegates from more than 180 countries bargained behind closed doors until 6:30 a.m. Friday, making final adjustments to an agreement to negotiate additional reductions in carbon dioxide and other gases after 2012, when the Kyoto accord expires.

Efforts by host-country Canada and others to draw the United States into the process were failing. The Bush administration says it favors a voluntary approach, not global negotiations, to deal with climate issues.

"It's such a pity the United States is still very much unwilling to join the international community, to have a multilateral effort to deal with climate change," said Kenya's Emily Ojoo Massawa, chair of the African group of nations at the conference.

Clinton's vice president, Al Gore, was instrumental in final negotiations on the 1997 treaty protocol that was initialed in the Japanese city of Kyoto and mandates cutbacks in 35 industrialized nations of emissions of carbon dioxide and five other gases by 2012.

A broad scientific consensus agrees that these gases accumulating in the atmosphere, byproducts of automobile engines, power plants and other fossil fuel-burning industries, contributed significantly to the past century's global temperature rise of 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.7 degree Celsius). Continued warming is expected to disrupt the global climate.

In the late 1990s the U.S. Senate balked at ratifying Kyoto, and the incoming President Bush in 2001 formally renounced the accord, saying it would harm the U.S. economy.

The Montreal meeting, attended by almost 10,000 delegates, environmentalists, business representatives and others, was the first annual U.N. climate conference since Kyoto took effect last February.

The protocol's language requires its member nations to begin talks now on emissions controls after 2012, when the Kyoto regime expires.

The Canadians and others also saw Montreal as an opportunity to draw the outsider United States into the emission-controls regime, through discussions under the broader 1992 U.N. climate treaty.

But the Americans have repeatedly rejected the idea of rejoining future negotiations to set post-2012 emissions controls.

The Canadians continued to press for agreement early Friday, offering the U.S. delegation vague, noncommittal language by which Washington would join only in "exploring" "approaches" to cooperative action.

While rejecting mandatory targets, the Bush administration points to the U.S. government's spending of $3 billion a year on research and development of energy-saving technologies as a demonstration of U.S. efforts to combat climate change.

Quoted from MeanDean

I voted by post but with an absentee ballot because I'm overseas and I'm not entirely sure, but I think a person can vote by absentee ballot when they have not left home as long as they send it the paperwork in advance.  I think that's the only way to do it.

You are right Dean. I am a member of the American Legion here in Brisbane, and they always hand out information on elections being held in what state etc. What I find interesting is that some of the members have lived here since WW2 and still vote even though they have no interest in politics back in the U.S.

I tend to believe George Bush is neither racist, sexist, anti-gay nor anti-abortion. I do believe he is an idiot! He is too dumb to give a fluff about those things. In fact during his first months in office he wanted to withdraw American troops from many places around the world they were stationed (for oil/money reasons) saying they didn't need to be there and only helped the world view the U.S. as imperialists. And then 9/11 happened.

I think he's just a puppet, the hand that's up his rear end is that of the neo-conservatives who are the real ones running the show in the U.S.

Quoted from MeanDean

Also, as much as I don't like him, I'm sick of politicians being judged on mistakes that are legitamate things to make a mistake on such as the lack of... whatever the hell, in the hurricane that wiped out New Orleans.  I've been in hurricanes.  I've lived in that same region.  There is no effective preparation for something of that nature.  It's hard enough just to evacuate because cars are bumper to bumper all the way up into the next state.  Calling him racist as a result of the hurricane was ridiculous.  If people didn't have cars they didn't have cars and if they were black they were black and that's that and that's a good example of how journalists make themselves look like asses and how people who beleive it hopefully feel stupid later and how people who repeat it but don't beleive it will also look like asses later on.

I question why Bush took days to respond, his vacation was more important? Do you think if it were beverley hills help would have taken a week to arrive and the president days to respond?

I could not believe my ears when I heard tonights news.  G.W gave a speech about the War in Iraq. . and  pleads with Americans to keep the faith in what he is doing. . at $8 BILLION dollars a month!!!  

Does that qualify him as a 'War Criminal'???  

Dubya provides punch line, again
From: AAP

December 30, 2005


Multi-media ... The President could also write his Bushisms / Reuters

AN ill-timed endorsement of the now-disgraced former head of the agency responsible for the Hurricane Katrina relief effort has won a popular vote of US President George W. Bush's 'Bush-isms' for 2005.
Call it the wrong phrase at the wrong time but "Brownie, you're doing a heckuva job" was named President Bush's most memorable phrase of 2005.

The ill-timed praise of a now disgraced agency head became a national punch line for countless jokes and pointed comments about the administration's handling of the Hurricane Katrina disaster and added to the president's reputation for verbal gaffes and clumsy turns of phrase.

Paul Payack of Global Language Monitor, which tracks language use, said Mr Bush's statement in support of the then-director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency may be remembered for years to come.

"The 'Brownie' quote leads our 2005 list of Bushisms, memorable phrases or new words coined by the president," Mr Payack said, adding that President Bush may be the foremost White House creator of new words, citing such past efforts as "misunderestimate" (to seriously underestimate) and "embetter" (to make emotionally better).

Ten days after Mr Bush verbally patted Michael Brown on the back before the TV cameras, Brown resigned amid a public uproar over his qualifications and the administration's failure to get aid to New Orleans after the devastation of Hurricane Katrina.

Although the President did not originate any new words this year, he had several notable statements, Mr Payack said, citing the following:

"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda," Bush said in explaining his communications strategy last May.

"I think I may need a bathroom break. Is this possible?" Bush asked in a note to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during a U.N. Security Council meeting in September.

"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous. And having said that, all options are on the table," Bush said in Brussels last February.

"In terms of timetables, as quickly as possible – whatever that means," the president said of his timeframe for passing Social Security legislation in March.

"Those who enter the country illegally violate the law," Bush said in describing illegal immigrants in Tucson, Arizona, last month.

He IS precious isn't he *sarcasm*

Impeach President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez.

http://www.impeachbush.org/site/PageServer

Sounds like a fun idea. . but with Google facing court to hand over search details of all its customers. . and that site wanting my e.mail addy . . there is no  way I am joining to get all the spam it will bring. . or the FBI at my door by June.      

Quoted from x452

I question why Bush took days to respond, his vacation was more important? Do you think if it were beverley hills help would have taken a week to arrive and the president days to respond?

Do a Google search on George Bush Vacations. I could post dozens of links but doing a net search is easier to illustrate the point.

George W Bush takes more time off by a country mile than any other President in history, and the one who comes second is his father. The amount of time he spends at his ranch actually became embarrasing to the administration, as staffers all around the White House and Washington DC began to comment on how little time he spent in Washington. So the administration made up this PR story that George does most of his best work from a specially equiped office at his ranch, and showed photos of Dubya sitting at a desk at his ranch looking like he's working hard. That was all bullshit obviously and has been proven to be nothing more than a PR stunt. Dubya in fact does absolultely no government work at the ranch and insists on not being bothered there no matter how grave the situaion.

To make this matter worse, even for the short times George is at the Whitehouse he starts late and takes 2 hour lunches, where he spends most of the time in the gym, not to be disturbed.

Don't forget George goes to bed at 9PM.

George W Bush is the laziest president in US history. and the only time he gets his arse into gear and works like a demon is when he does his whirl wind fund raising tours, which always nets the Republicans record amounts of donations, but at a massive cost as the donars expect to be reimbursed by his adminstration in kind.

Well said boomslanger, I enjoyed your post immensley. How true is that! I think the English could say that Tony Blair doesn't work hard for the country either. So, a boomslang is a snake, correct?! A pretty interesting one from what I have just researched!

Quoted from SuziH

. . . . .  So, a boomslang is a snake, correct?! A pretty interesting one from what I have just researched!

   I just hope it is 'Gizmo' friendly . .  and prefers tall ,bald , dinners and not short fuzzy ones! . . perhaps a G.W.B meal today?  

OT. Yes the boomslang (Dispholidus typus) is an interesting tree snake with very deadly and potent Hemotoxic venom, so Gizmo wouldn't stand much of a chance, sorry.

I chose it more for it's mean look (as you can see from the avatar) and thought it was a really cool name when I came across it researching another snake species. Id like to say Dubya is a snake in the bush but I like reptiles and he is lower than a snake's belly.

Quoted Text

The Boomslang Snake is a rather large, highly poisonous tree dwelling snake found throughout sub-Saharan Africa. Boomslangs are greenish to brown or even black in color. These coloring variations are the greatest of any other snakes in their Afrotropic regional habitat. It is the adult females that are usually brown in color, with males a light green color often with black or blue highlights outlining the edges of their scales. This snake is a one deadly animal because of its preference for aerial positioning in tree top and shrub cover. Hard to see in the thick forested cover of the savanna, the Boomslang Snake is well camouflaged and strikes without giving any warning signal. The Boomslang delivers a potent Hemotoxic venom to its victim through large, deeply grooved Folded Fangs positioned in the rear of its mouth and this snake bite can be fatal if left untreated.
     
Average length is 100-160 centimeters (approximately 3.5 to just over 5 feet in length) with some snakes recorded over 6 feet in length. The most readily identifiable physical feature of the Boomslang is exceptionally large eyes proportionate to its distinctive egg-shaped head. If agitated, the Boomslang moves quickly and will inflate its neck to double its normal size right before striking its victim. Equipped with stereoscopic vision, the Boomslang hunts during the day in its arboreal territory making meals of chameleons, arboreal lizards, frogs, and occasionally small mammals, birds and eggs from nesting birds which they swallow whole.

The Boomslang is a very unusual snake in that it is one of the very few poisonous snakes identified in the Colubridae snake family. Colubrids are the most common snakes with over 2,000 species worldwide, most of which are non-venomous snakes, including the Kingsnakes & Milk Snakes, Black Racers and Ribbon Snakes, all very popular species in the captive bred reptile industry. Boomslangs shares this rare poisonous Colubrid classification with only one other snake, the Bird Snake (thelotornis kirtlandii). The bite strike of the Boomslang, with dominant Hemotoxic venom, affects the circulatory system destroying red blood cells causing organ degeneration and generalized tissue damage. Snakes with this deadly venom are classified in the group known as Solenoglypha which includes many of the snakes in the Viper families. Viperidae (True Vipers) such as the American Copperhead, Crotalidae (Pit Vipers) like the Cottonmouth and Rattlesnakes, and the Asian Pit Vipers have bites causing intense pain, swelling and necrosis even when delivered in small amounts, these snake bite causes severe hemorrhaging continuing for extended periods, even 24-48 hours after strike contact, making the Boomslang very dangerous to man.

These excellent tree climbing snake are oviparous, laying up to 8-25 eggs usually in the hollows of a tree or in mounds of leaf litter. Young Boomslang snakes hatch in the Spring, some 70-100 days later. Fairly common throughout sub-Sarahan Africa, the Boomslang occupies the same territory as the Twig Snake, Cobra, Puff Adder, the Green Mamba and the greatly feared Black Mamba.

Common Name: Boomslang
Scientific Name: Dispholidus typus
Snake Family: Colubridae
Description: Long, agile tree-dwelling snakes with wide color variations from Light Brown (females), Greens (males) to black.
Characteristics: Difficult to see in their natural environment, not overly aggressive but approach is swift and without warning when attacking.
Reproduction: Oviparous (egg bearing) with as many as 8-25 young hatched in the Spring.
Length: 100-160 centimeters (Approx. 3.5-5.5 ft)
Habitat Distribution: Common throughout the countries of sub-Saharan Africa, which includes some of the poorest countries in the world and the Island of Madagascar, throughout the Comoros archipelago, Mauritius, and Seychelles.

So George is lower than a snakes belly, I agree. Does that mean he is a grub or a worm!? Heheheheh.

Quoted from SuziH

So George is lower than a snakes belly, I agree. Does that mean he is a grub or a worm!? Heheheheh.

No. . .he is a politician!. . (the lowest form of life). .*stop insulting grubs and worms. . they make my garden nice. *    

I knew when I wrote it I was doing Grubs and Worms a disservice! Americans call low life's 'Grubs' and I thought it was applicable for Dubbya to be referred to as that. I too love the worms and grubs in my garden. They have no place in 'office' though.

Grub is what Americans call good eating or just as a synonym for food, careful not to insult someone's cooking on accident if you find yourself there.  

Aussies call food grub also, well we used to anyway. Jon Stewart quite often refers to those people like D ick Cheney and Dubbya as Grubs. No fear of me going OS ever unless I win lotto and I have heard you have to buy tickets to win.

I keep screwing up with the ticket buying part of it too  

Bush predicts Iraq 'victory'

March 20, 2006 - 9:39AM

Three years after the US-led invasion, President George W. Bush said his government had a strategy for "victory in Iraq" while administration officials dismissed claims the country had sunk into civil war.

But with a mounting Iraqi death toll from bombs and assassinations and the failure of Baghdad's political leaders to agree on forming a new government, a top member of Bush's own Republican Party said US policy needs "some new thinking".

"It's important that we stop this talk about we're not going to leave until we achieve victory," said Republican Senator Chuck Hagel.

"We need some new thinking here," Hagel told ABC television.

Bush said he had been informed by US ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad "of the progress the Iraqis are making toward forming a unity government" three months after national elections were held.

"We are implementing a strategy that will lead to victory in Iraq and a victory in Iraq will make this country more secure and will help lay the foundation of peace for generations to come," the president told reporters on the White House lawn.

Meanwhile, Vice President d**k Cheney and General George Casey, commander of US military forces in Iraq, said in television interviews they remain optimistic that a stable democratic society can emerge.

Both also rejected claims by former Iraqi premier Iyad Allawi that the country has already plunged into civil war.

Cheney told CBS that ongoing violence only reflects "desperation" by Al-Qaeda to foment civil war.

"That's been their strategy all along, but my view would be they've reached a stage of desperation ... They are doing everything they can to stop the formation of a democratically elected government."

"I don't think they've been successful," Cheney said.

Casey told Fox News that an Iraq civil war was neither "imminent" nor "inevitable".

"I personally don't believe ... that we're there now (in a civil war)," he said.

"I believe that as the leadership of this country comes forward, forms the government of national unity and that begins to move forward ... you'll gradually see these tensions ebb."

The Bush administration faced rising doubts about its Iraq policy following weeks of deadly violence across the country, three years after the March 20, 2003 US-led invasion to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

US opinion polls this week showed support among Americans for Bush and the war had plunged to all-time lows.

Newsweek magazine's newest poll showed that approval of Bush's handling of Iraq plummeted to 29 per cent while those who disapprove of his Iraq policy shot up to 65 per cent.

A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll put Bush's overall approval rating at 37 per cent.

With political party and faction leaders in Baghdad still deadlocked over forming a national government, top US senators called on Bush to put greater pressure on them.

Hagel, who said the country had been in a "low-grade" civil war for as long as a year, said the United States has to stop talking about "victory" and think through responses to a worst-case scenario, like all-out civil war.

"Are we better off today than we were three years ago? Is the Middle East more stable than it was three years ago? Absolutely not," Hagel told ABC.

"We've got to think in a big picture way here that we haven't thought before," he said, mentioning talking more with Iraq's neighbours including Iran.

Also on ABC, Democratic Senator Jack Reed said that the United States needs to threaten Iraq's leaders with the pullout of US troops if they cannot come to an accord over governing the war-riven country.

"I think we have to make it clear to the Iraqi political leaders that if they're not able or willing to come together with a political solution that recognises the differences and pulls together different factions, that our presence can't be indefinite there," Reed said.

AFP

Source:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/wor.....ullpage#contentSwap1

Bush turned down chances to kill Zarqawi: ex-CIA spy

A former top CIA spy says the United States deliberately turned down several opportunities to kill terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in the lead-up to the Iraq war.

Mike Scheuer headed the CIA's bin Laden unit for six years before resigning in 2004.

He has told the ABC's Four Corners program the Bush administration had Zarqawi in its sights almost every day for a year.

He says a plan to destroy Zarqawi's training camp in Kurdistan was abandoned for diplomatic reasons.

"The reasons the intelligence service got for not shooting Zarqawi was simply that the President and the National Security Council decided it was more important not to give the Europeans the impression we were gunslingers," he said.

"Mr Bush had Mr Zarqawi in his sights for almost every day for a year before the invasion of Iraq and he didn't shoot because they were wining and dining the French in an effort to get them to assist us in the invasion of Iraq."

The full story will air on Four Corners tonight on ABC television.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200605/s1627197.htm

I have no doubt that they had Zarqawi in their crosshairs all this time. It's the same as Bin Laden. Bush waits until this popularity is low or for the most opportune time (when he needs the most publicity) then goes and does something 'heroic' like this. And people are stupid enough to fall for it, so they vote for him again because he gets things done

US Senate committee rejects Iraq plan

The United States President's decision to send more American troops to Iraq has been rebuffed by a powerful Senate committee.

During yesterday's State of the Union address, President George W Bush pleaded with the country to give his plan a chance to work.

But the Democratic-controlled Senate Foreign Relations Committee expressed its disapproval 12 votes to nine, passing a resolution stating that the increased US troop strength in Iraq is not in America's interest.

Committee chairman Senator Joe Biden says President Bush should not take it personally.

"Our resolution of disapproval is not, emphasise, not an attempt to embarrass the President," he said.

"It's an attempt to save the President from making a significant mistake."

The full Senate is expected to begin debate on the resolution next week.

Before the vote was taken, Republican Senator Chuck Hagel told the committee it was important those making the decisions knew what they were doing.

"These young men and women that we put in Iraq are not beans, they're real lives and we better be damned sure we know what we're doing, all of us, before we put 22,000 more Americans in to that grinder," he said.

"We better be as sure as you can be."

- ABC/BBC

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200701/s1833205.htm

Now he is talking the incomprehensible . .  

3 Trillion Dollar budget with 1 $Tril going toward the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  

I feel for the poor, elderly, sick and homeless of USA now. . they have NO hope at all.  

http://news.monstersandcritics....._boosts_war_spending

. .*patting my pocket to feel how much money I carry around*    . .Trillions ??. . I just can't imagine it!!  

Yes... isn't it wonderful. I cannot see why the US govt would spend so much on a war (?) they cannot win oh...... gee that happened in the 1960's also. Hmmm they've not learnt from history, of course not, they are boys with toys and cannot help themselves. In the meantime as blahnii points out, the poor, homeless, sick and elderly are suffering (and dying) and the Govt does so little to help it doesn't even cause a ripple. I always thought spending billions on space research (N.A.S.A) was a huge waste of money when it would be better spent on the people in such great need in the states (on Earth)... but that's another subject... or maybe it isn't!

Quoted from blahNii

3 Trillion Dollar budget with 1 $Tril going toward the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  

Coincidentally that's about how much money would be required to eradicate poverty which in turn will help change the mindset of those who hate the west which in turn would reduce the number of people wanting to become terrorists which would in turn make the world a safer place.

But I guess that's just a sickening fairytale for some.

It's clear to see where America's priorities lie isn't it?