Archive for the ‘George W. Bush’ Category

Bush criticized on Iraq, N.Korea

November 18, 2008

President Bush’s efforts to resolve two major foreign-policy challenges in his waning days in office have prompted double-barreled criticisms, with leaders here and abroad questioning concessions his administration has made to Iraq and North Korea.

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton said Monday that he was “deeply troubled” by a pending status-of-forces agreement (SOFA) with Iraq because it could result in American troops being prosecuted in Iraqi courts.

Across the globe, Japan and South Korea have gone public with rare dissent, saying they are worried over an agreement on how to verify North Korean pledges to give up making fuel for nuclear weapons.

Mr. Skelton, the leading House Democrat responsible for the U.S. military, said: “I do not believe it was wise to push off major decisions about the legal protections U.S. troops would have in such cases or the crimes for which they could be charged.”

By Sara A. Carter and Nicholas Kralev 
The Washington Times

Read the rest:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/
nov/18/bush-criticized-on-iraq-nkorea/

Graciousness, Class Mark Republican Defeat, Start of Turnover to Obama

November 6, 2008

When Mr. Clinton handed over the reins to George W. Bush in 2000, it wasn’t the best environment from the start. The election decision was a month late (hanging chads ring a bell?), and the General Services Administration handed the Bush team another setback when it refused to allow transition funding until there was a clear winner in the presidential contest. Afterward, chaos ensued when the Clinton administration vandalized offices by removing all the “W” keys from computer keyboards, cutting wiring and taking official government signs.

A lot can be said for the art of graciousness, especially in politics.

Yesterday, the day after Barack Obama became the president elect, Both George W. Bush and John McCain showed real graciousness and real class….

U.S. President George W. Bush speaks with President-elect Sen. ... 
U.S. President George W. Bush speaks with President-elect Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) during a congratulatory phone call, from the Treaty Room at the White House in Washintgton, November 4, 2008. REUTERS/Eric Draper

Editorial
The Washington Times

Read the rest:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/
2008/nov/06/patriotic-grace/

******************************

McCain Concedes, Promises to Help Obama

From Jeff Mason, Andy Sullivan, Reuters

Republican John McCain congratulated Democrat Barack Obama for winning the U.S. presidency on Tuesday, saying “the American people have spoken” and promising to help his former rival address the country’s many challenges.

McCain addressed his supporters in an emotional speech at a Phoenix hotel after telephoning Obama to concede the election. Obama later said McCain’s call had been “extraordinarily gracious.”

“We have come to the end of a long journey. The American people have spoken, and they have spoken clearly,” McCain said.

Read the rest:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081105/pl_nm/us_
usa_election_mccain_concession_6

See the video of McCain’s Concession:
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup
/?rn=3906861&cl=10543843&ch=4226716&src=news

McCain More Hawkish Than Bush on Russia, China, Iraq

March 12, 2008
Hans Nichols

March 12 (Bloomberg) — John McCain is at least as determined as George W. Bush to stay the course in Iraq and more confrontational than the president on foreign policy issues ranging from Russia and China to North Korea.

Presumptive Republican presidential nominee US Senator John ...
Senator McCain photographed by Brian Snyder, Reuters.

The perception that McCain is less bellicose than the administration is belied by his own positions. He’s skeptical about Bush’s plan to provide nuclear fuel to North Korea. He has signaled he would be tougher on China. And he called Russia’s elections “rigged” even as Bush said he wanted a “close” relationship with the president-elect.

Read the rest:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/2008
0312/pl_bloomberg/apzut4blweek_1

George W. Bush Endorses John McCain for President

March 5, 2008
By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON – President Bush endorsed Republican nominee-in-waiting John McCain on Wednesday, two bitter rivals from the 2000 presidential race joining together now in hopes of preventing Democrats from winning the White House this fall.

U.S. President George W. Bush welcomes presumptive Republican ...
“John showed incredible courage, strength of character and perseverance in order to get to this moment and that’s exactly what we need in a president — somebody who can handle the tough decisions, somebody who won’t flinch in the face of danger,” Bush said, appearing with McCain in the Rose Garden.

Bush’s embrace of the Arizona senator as the party’s next standard-bearer….

Related:
Back From Near Death Again: Cinderella McCain

Read the rest:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080305/ap_on_el_pr/bush_mccain
;_ylt=AoarDRIN60elfAs1TlS3zuWs0NUE

U.S. Is Blogging for Freedom

November 20, 2007

By Damian Lanigan
The Telegraph (UK)
November 20, 2007

So the US State Department is seeking to wean impressionable young Muslims off terrorism by introducing pro-American blog posts. It’s not the worst idea to come out of the current administration (it’s up against some pretty stiff competition after all), but one can’t help picking up the whiff of desperation.

The problem is that most young people in the Islamic world probably have a good idea that they’d be much better off if their governments did what the Americans want them to.

George W Bush is right about one thing: people everywhere long to be free, to be able to conduct their business without the clerics and secret police invigilating quite so closely. But his appeal to the aspiring spirit can only work if it’s in keeping with America’s actions…..

Read the rest:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/society/damianlanigan/nov07
/bloggingforfreedom.htm

Diplomat Jack Croddy: You Don’t Want to Go To Iraq? Step Forward and Meet the Families of the Fallen and Those that Serve

November 4, 2007

By John E. Carey
Peace and Freedom
November 4, 2007

Last Wednesday, October 31, 2007, Senior Foreign Service Officer Jack Croddy stood up at a “Town Hall Meeting” at the United States Department of State and addressed the Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice with these words:

“Incoming is coming in every day, rockets are hitting the Green Zone….It’s one thing if someone believes in what’s going on over there and volunteers, but it’s another thing to send someone over there on a forced assignment. I’m sorry, but basically that’s a potential death sentence and you know it. Who will raise our children if we are dead or seriously wounded?”

After 36 years of service, Mr. Croddy, this is the example you set for young and eager Foreign Service Officers?

O.K., Mr. Crotty: Who will raise the children of the fallen Soldiers? Who will raise the children of the fallen Marines and Airmen, Sailors and Civilians in the service of America? Who will raise the children of the fallen from the USS Cole, from the embassy bombings at of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya? Who will raise the children of those that died in the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon and on flight 93? Who raised the children of those Marines killed in the Beirut Embassy bombing?

We want you to meet all of the families of the fallen and all of the families who serve their country. We want you to explain why you take the money from the taxpayers, took the oath, and now like a mule refuse to cross the bridge.  You are now refusing to follow orders and would closely fit the military definition for a deserter or mutineer

I could go on and there are no words to express my rage.

You sir, were sworn to serve. You took the same oath military men and women take. You have taken my tax dollars for years – long enough for your hair to become grey. And now you are spitting on your flag, your oath, your fellow citizens (and taxpayers) and your president.

Mr. Bill Crystal on “Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace” on Sunday, November 4, 2007, called you “disgraceful” and an “embarrassment.” Britt Hume said you were a “black mark on the Foreign Service.”

But these are measured and articulate men. You and your family could not bear to hear the words I have for you in my mind. My pastor would have to restrain me.

Mr. Crotty: if you feel so strongly that you are ready to refuse assignment: you should resign immediately. You have served enough. More than enough.

Do the honorable thing, man. Go home.

Related:

Halfhearted at State?

State Department Memories from The Hanoi Hilton

Diplomats Who Refuse Assignments: “Hit The Road, You are Terminated with Prejudice and Without Pay”

The Abyss Between State and Defense

In Iraq: Reporters More Dedicated than the U.S. Foreign Service?

Diplomatic Infighting Hurts Terror War Effort

Rice Tells State Department Staff: You Took an Oath

A Diplomacy of neighborhoods

“Gaffe Machine” Karen Hughes Leaving State Department

Diplomats Who Refuse Assignments: “Hit The Road, You are Terminated with Prejudice and Without Pay”

November 2, 2007

By John E. Carey
Peace and Freedom
November 2, 2007

Members of America’s famously proud and elitist diplomatic corps have said they will not serve in Iraq so apparently we now live in an America where an oath, a commitment, responsibility, the team and orders don’t count for a thing: even in wartime.

My response to the so called “diplomats” and such “public servants” is analogous to that of Ronald Reagan when air controllers who were Federal Government employees decided to go on strike. The President basically said: “You guys are all fired. Clean out your desks and lockers.”

Ronald Wilson Reagan
Ronald Reagan

There are times when the team is more important than the individual. There are times when an oath has meaning. Who are these bastard that think they are more important than our troops who are fighting and dying in war in behalf of all of us?

Dear members of the American Foreign Service and Diplomatic Corps: your freedom and your cushy jobs are being bought and paid for every day by members of the U.S. Military.  In blood.  You are no longer fit to be called “American” if you cannot take on the occasional tough job between the “cocktail postings.”

In my view, these renegade State Department employees should never again receive a U.S. Government check. They should never again be paid with taxpayer money. And if the president had the power to banish them: he should send them to Uzbekistan or some other garden spot to serve out the remainder of their miserable and disloyal years on this earth.

In my younger years, I briefly aspired to become a United States Foreign Service Officer. I was drawn by the opportunity to serve my nation, to proudly represent the American people, while dealing with the other proud peoples of the globe.

But many of my advisors dissuaded me. Several said “You won’t like the members of the Foreign Service. They are all elitist snobs.” My Father, who served his country in the F.B.I., and two brothers who were U.S. Army Officers, said, “You can do what you want but isn’t there ANY OTHER group of people you’d rather spend your adult life with?”

There was: I became a career U.S. Naval Officer.

And as the years passed, and I had more and more experience with our so called “diplomats,” I knew I made the right decision. We have many fine diplomats and Foreign Service Officers. More than 1,500 members of the foreign service have served in Iraq and Afghanistan already. But this gang of scum who believe they can refuse their oath and continue in “service” of the nation need some awakening. Or they need to find new careers.

In the U.S. Military men and women are starkly aware that they serve “at the pleasure of the President.” That goes for every cabinet member and every member of their staffs. And I for one detest the notion that my taxes are paying for the cushy lifestyles of scum that refuse the orders of their government and their President; no matter the reason.

Related:

State Department Memories from The Hanoi Hilton

 Diplomat Jack Croddy: You Don’t Want to Go To Iraq? Step Forward and Meet the Families of the Fallen and Those that Serve

Condi Rice: Failure is a New Experience

The Abyss Between State and Defense

In Iraq: Reporters More Dedicated than the U.S. Foreign Service?

Diplomatic Infighting Hurts Terror War Effort

Rice Tells State Department Staff: You Took an Oath

A Diplomacy of neighborhoods

“Gaffe Machine” Karen Hughes Leaving State Department

China Watch

October 16, 2007

John E. Carey
The Washington Times
October 21, 2007

“With China’s rapid rise and relentless military build-up, the ‘China threat’ is no longer confined to confrontation across the Taiwan Strait. In fact, it has already seriously impacted world peace,” said Taiwan’s President Chen Shui-bian on Oct. 10, 2007.

He urged the international community to “strongly demand that China immediately withdraw missiles deployed along its southeastern coast targeted at Taiwan, stop military exercises simulating attacks on Taiwan.”

Mr. Chen was kicking off Taiwan’s annual National Day parade. The parade featured, for the first time in 16 years, military troops and equipment. Yet Taiwan took out of the parade line up, at the last minute, its secret cruise missile, the HF-2E, that analysts say could reach Shanghai.

Said one China-watcher we spoke to on the phone from Shanghai: “We have to assume Taiwan just wanted to keep this missile from being photographed. Certainly President Chen’s remarks would provoke China but there was not too much new or surprising here. Chen has been outspoken before.”

President Chen accused Beijing of ignoring peace overtures and using “ever more belligerent rhetoric and military intimidation.”

At the Asia-Pacific regional summit on Sept. 7 in Sydney, Australia, President Hu Jintao of China reportedly told President Bush the next two years will be a time of “high danger” for Taiwan. “This year and next year are a period of high danger for the Taiwan situation,” Mr. Hu told Mr. Bush in bilateral talks, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman said.
Former President Jiang Zemin standing side-by-side with his successor, Hu Jintao, at the 16th Party Congress.

Former President Jiang Zemin standing
side-by-side with his successor, Hu Jintao,
at the 16th Party Congress.
************************
“We must give stronger warnings to the Taiwan authorities,” Liu Jianchao quoted the Chinese president as saying. “We cannot allow anyone to use any means to split Taiwan from the motherland.”

But Taiwan’s Mr. Chen has been unrelenting. In his National Day address, he said: “Taiwan and the People’s Republic of China are two sovereign, independent nations, and neither exercises jurisdiction over the other. This is a historical fact. This is the status quo across the Taiwan Strait.”

China doesn’t see it that way. China views Taiwan as a renegade breakaway province that needs to be returned to Beijing’s control. China has been beefing up ballistic missile and other forces facing Taiwan and has been promoting more senior military officers with experience in planning operations against Taiwan.

Within the last six weeks, China replaced its chief of general staff for the People’s Liberation Army. A commander once tasked with making war preparations against Taiwan, Chen Bingde, was named to run the day-to-day operations of the PLA.

China also recently again blocked Taiwan’s recognition by the United Nations — a sore point in Taiwan since 1949. “Only the people of Taiwan have the right to decide their nation’s future,” President Chen said.

Early last July a Defense White Paper from Japan expressed concern about China. “There are fears about the lack of transparency concerning China’s military strength,” the paper said. “In January this year, China used ballistic missile technology to destroy one of its own satellites. There was insufficient explanation from China, sparking concern in Japan and other countries about safety in space as well as the security aspects.”

That same week, Australia’s Prime Minister John Howard said, “The pace and scope of [China’s] military modernization, particularly the development of new and disruptive capabilities such as the anti-satellite missile, could create misunderstandings and instability in the region.”

What are the implications for the United States? The 1979 Taiwan Relations Act stipulates the United States will “consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including by boycotts or embargoes, a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area are of grave concern to the United States” but does not mandate intervention.

With the United States increasingly interlocked with China in trade and both nations seeking a successful Beijing Olympics next summer, it is increasingly important that the U.S. keep crystal-clear its foreign policy intentions with China and Taiwan.

John E. Carey is former president of International Defense Consultants Inc and a frequent contributor to The Washington Times.
******

Related:

China Claiming “Major Advances” in U.S. Relationship

On China: “Trust But Verify”
http://washingtontimes.com/article/20070826/COMMENTARY/
108260018/1012/COMMENTARY03

Cold War Redux?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070822/COMMENTARY/108220021

China: Less than the Entire Truth
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070808/
COMMENTARY/108080004/1012/COMMENTARY03

China’s Hu Jintao: State Of China Address Opens Party Congress

China’s tightens Internet controls

China rulers ’silencing dissent’