This is good news to me.

Good for Bush for at least being open to ending it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080718/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq

Reminds me of President Lyndon Johnson and the bombing halt prior of North Vietnam prior the 1968 presidential election. In the end, it didn't help elect his Vice President, Hubert H. Humphrey, president. And it took President Nixon nearly four years to end US involvement in Vietnam.

I wonder how Senator McCain will respond to this – given his unqualified support of the current US policy in Iraq?

I care, and yet I don't. You know? I mean, yeah, the next President will either continue the policy or not. Either way, just to have Bush show that he's not as stubborn as he sometimes acts, is refreshing. I'll even give him credit for starting the process. I've always been willing to do that. No problem.

It just feels good to have Bush do something I can get behind.

I think it's a total face saving move, nothing more.

That administration is in hot water all over the place for a bunch of criminal crap.

Really, the best part about all of it for me is that Obama called the shots on a lot of that stuff, and that does not look good for McCain.

On the other hand, maybe they can both be called Mavericks! And that's either a plus or minus, depending on if you are in the 23 percent club or not.

I don't give Bush "credit" for anything at this point. This man has perpetrated a disaster for five years that has incurred incalculable loss in lives (lost and damaged) and money and damage to America. Clearly Obama if elected would be going way beyond whatever Bush would agree to, so I hardly see some slight Bush concessions now as anything commendable. Great, so by December a few things may change on Bush's watch. Instead of February on Obama's. Big deal. It's like a guy stops beating his wife after five years because he knows the cops are coming and he wants to get her cleaned up before they get there.

The only thing Bush could do at this point that might have me feel at least a bit of approval for him would be going on TV tonight and addressing the nation, admitting he has realized that he was completely wrong about Iraq, that he is very sorry for his poor judgment, and that he has working on bringing American troops home as soon as possible. But you know that is never going to happen.

Andrew

I completely agree with Andrew. And if it isn't Iraq, it's his handling of the economy. His unwillingness to work with Congress in any meaningful sort of way these past two years proves his continued incompetence. There have been plenty of examples of divided government (GOP Executive and Democratically controlled US Congress) where the parties found common ground. This president seems hell bent on none of that -- in fact his ONLY real priority seems those War Supplementals. Everything else is irrelevant. It’s shameful.

Well, I guess my point is that I will take this about face and know why, and not care why. It set's up Obama nicely ( in my opinion ) and I see it as nothing but good. Yeah, I want more of it. But I'll take it whenever I can get it.

I have plenty of baggage I am trying to shed. My mindset is top right now. Holding on to how much I hate Bush needs to be lightened so I can go on without that. I'm just speaking for me. There are a lot of deep issues I have and this is a step in the right direction.

To me.

Bush is be damned if he does, be damned if he doesn't. The liberals are never satisfied.

George W. Bush deserves to be damned because he's been a genuinely lousy president. He’s proven himself unworthy of the office and we’re all paying for his disastrous turn as the nation’s chief executive. Had he been the CEO of an major (or minor) US corporation, he would have been shown the door years ago. And the Board of Directors who hired him would have been sued by shareholders for negligence and incompetence for hiring him in the first place. The day he leaves office will be a great day indeed.

Yes, and Bush be praised by the fascists no matter what he does. Right Deane?

Andrew

Really stupid, pridful people, choking on too much dogma, tend to get themselves in that scenario.

" Bush is be damned if he does, be damned if he doesn't. The liberals are never satisfied."

And you wouldn't recognize someone not doing that anyway. So I guess it's balanced.

Love it. I think it's completely hilarious that Bush supporters will continue to try to place blame anywhere but right at the feet of their guy in charge.

Man, not only was he in charge, but he asserts his executive authority to the MAXIMUM degree possible!

Break it, you own it.

Well, it's broken and there is absolutely no doubt as to who owns it.

Bush sits at the top of a party that did whatever it took to get their power so they could push their economic reform agenda.

Now we know what happens when too many people vote Republican.

This is where George W. Bush's unitary executive has gotten us. Can’t forget to thank Dick Cheney, too. He’s a big unitary man. Plus the GOP Congress for rolling over and playing dead for six years. A rubber stamp run amuck. Nothing like a worthless, do nothing GOP Congress to bring war and economic insecurity to the table -- without any end in sight. Thank you despot and chief and his faithful servant.

Bush is be damned if he does, be damned if he doesn't. The liberals are never satisfied.

If I remember right I think the GOP did this on a consistent basis when Clinton was getting ready to leave office.

Inthemiddle: If I remember right I think the GOP did this on a consistent basis when Clinton was getting ready to leave office.

What do you mean did? They still blame Clinton for nearly everything that has befallen America in the last eight years, including 9/11.

Andrew

Actually, I'll agree that Bush has done a poor job in the White House. Now, can we move on?

What's the politically smart thing to do now? Start to do what the opposition says they will do in order to blunt their message. Obama says he'll bring the troops home on a time table. OK, Bush should set a time table for withdrawing the troops. Whatever Obama says he will do that make sense, just start doing it. No more message impact.

No.

The party has to come to grips too, and it has to be accountable.

I'm sorry, but I want the message impact. People need to know what Republicans have been doing for the last 30 years. They did it all for this crap too.

There is another spin to that and that is perhaps start doing some of the right things so the party does not get it's ass completely kicked.

That is what this really is about. The people want more of what Obama brings to the table than what they have been getting. If that were just not true, then Bush would be fine and would not have to safe face as he is clearly trying to do now.

And there is a bonus!!

We get some movement now, instead of having to wait. All good.

We are suffering a deregulated Republican economy.

We are paying out the ass for a Republican war.

Our civil liberties are diminished Republican style.

We are having to recover from being divided and polarized because Republicans win that way.

Republicans, Republicans, Republicans.

They broke most of it, so now they own up to that. It's really just that simple.

Go ahead and call it liberal, partisan, biased, whatever you want. It's the truth. And if a growing majority of Americans didn't agree, then it wouldn't be an issue would it?

Closely related, In shift, U.S. to try diplomacy in Iran.

I guess this now makes Bush "an appeaser," singing Kum Ba Yah with the terrorists.

Yeah, isn't that just great?

Sure don't hear that tune now do we? It's all about anything but that. ANYTHING.

Missing, you are beginning to lose it. I'd recommend you find a hobby or something to occupy your thinking time.

Maybe that the problem?
Perhaps if you spent more time thinking, you'd come to the same conclusions.

Me? Lose it?

No way Deane.

If we go back 8 years, (well mostly 8) we see KSKD involved in mostly tech advocacy issues. That's a focused kind of politics, where the assumption is the national fundamentals are solid enough to not be a significant worry, leaving the new and forming boundary where technology, society and the law all intersect.

That's an interesting place, and we currently are seeing history unfold there. Fun stuff.

Bush gets elected, and about half the nation starts to ask, "WTF?"

Not a cause for alarm yet however. All of us had seen this before. Republicans have a different take on core issues, but it's still largely academic, so long as things don't cross the sight line where ordinary life begins to not align with policy.

Sometime in 2003, that really began to happen, and the implications of it entered into ordinary life.

That's the red flag that got me into political issues in general.

You see, it's very simple. If I'm gonna have to live at risk, then I'm gonna have to know why. That's the criteria for ignoring stuff for me.

Lots of things had an impact, but 9/11 and our reaction to it in the form of the Iraq lies, no bid rebuild contracts, torture and the games being played with the courts crossed that line.

The fundamentals were now clearly at risk. I had many peers tell me this was true prior to these things, and they knew it from their own dip into the subject.

(continued)

Now, this pissed me off!

It was clear that we were gonna have to go through some pretty difficult times, largely because not enough of us chose to consider the subject and speak our minds.

Seems those primary school civics lessons carried some weight after all! And I'm not kidding either. I went back there, thought about what I was told and why and started to question every last bit of it forward through to present day shit.

I did this every day on my half our commute. Sometimes entertaining talk programs, other times just driving and thinking through how we got here, what our founders wanted, and the motivations, players, people and things that have taken us off the path, or that have broken the process.

Somewhere in there, the simple realization that we all need to speak or be spoken for hit, and I started engaging people online. This place is my guilty pleasure. I've good friends here, very real conversation, and enough diversity to work through things and actually get something out of it.

That something is tools for advocacy in real life, use of the online mirror to sort out who I was politically and why, and to vet core ideological positions for their viability.

Sound complex?

Yeah, it is. This is just how I work. Been that way since I was a kid. Open questions just kind of sit there until resolved. Bummer sometimes, but it's not dull.

So it pissed me off because too many of us were being lazy! We are often distracted with things, we are limited by dependencies, and we are exploited through our differences.

The Republican core positions we see today, would not be viable in the marketplace of ideas, if it were not for their very focused efforts to divide us and cultivate tension and fear.

Before being able to write that, I did spend a LOT of time --years literally, working through lots of things to see what caused what and who did it.

Here we are today, really at a key point in politics. Who ever gets this one will define the nation for a good long time. We've given Republicans a test drive and the result isn't the America that's aligned well with most people's ordinary life expectations.

That's clear, there is no discussion.

Now, if Republican supporters can call the 23 percenters their base, and accept those axe grinders, bigots, criminals, racists, theocrats as members of the party, then they deserve everything they get.

None of those positions are high ground positions, given how this nation was formed and what it is really supposed to be about.

Remember primary school. This is really basic stuff, and the only people who really don't want to go there are the 23 percenters, more interested in self-serving behavior than they are doing the right things, because they just don't grok that this world is what we make of it.

I express this misalignment (and I'm being very charitable right now) regularly in conversation, ALL THE TIME.

Why?

Because if I don't, and if enough of us don't, then it will somehow be OK when it's just not.

Going forward then, win or lose, I will sleep easy because I've not ignore my civics and I've taken the time and energy to stand from a position very well supported by physical realities and empathy for the condition of my fellow Americans.

You Deane, simply have not.

Rather than step up and show us all you really do have a pair, you prefer to take others down so that perhaps the perception will be that they are as shitty of people as you currently are presenting as.

Not this time man. It won't work. Too much is at stake here, and I think enough people get it this time.

But I want to make sure, so I'll keep expressing this stuff, just so others know it's ok to vote their self-interests and we all will be better for it.

For the first time in my life, I completely and unabashedly understand who I am, what really matters and why and have few to no inhibitions about expressing that to others in the hopes they can do the same.

You should be so lucky that I even give you the time of day, given the shit you've supported.

Truth is, I think down deep you are a pretty decent person Deane. If I didn't I would absolutely have let you know that long before now.

I also think you are a long way from having done what I've done, and are worried about those things you accepted as being solid somehow not being so solid.

Grow a pair man.

Rather than dodge that stuff, confront it, transcend it and do not fear it. You want things better the same as everybody else, so do the work to see that happen instead of lamenting about how you thought it was done, but were fooled instead.

Missing, are you sure you're not just involved in a lot of mental masturbation?

Yes, I'm sure I'm largely not. Some of it is though. This is true for anybody with any level of passion for understanding the world around them, and engaging others.

Happens. I've few worries.

Totally fair question though. For what it's worth, I've hobbies and such. I've also nice chunks of time where I can consider this stuff, so I simply do. Driving is awful boring and there are times when I do a fair amount of it.

Really, the core stuff is done. I don't like leaving contradictory, incomplete, or ambigious matters laying around when they have significance.

Again, I hear things like those you say from people and the cost of buying into them is signifiant enough to warrant understanding if that is really worth it.

Mostly it just isn't.

Also, if one is going to endure some person costs to do the right things, or at the least, take the higher ground, it's gotta be solid, or the whole thing is just futile.

Call it making sure that moral and ethical compass is operating correctly.

Finally, there is a LOT of very Orwellian redefinitions of things that were under my radar for way too long. Frankly, the exercise in dealing with labels, and analysis of dodges that people will do rather than confront these things, has been extremely valuable professionally.

I had no idea it would, as it was really just soul searching.

One thing I didn't make clear above, that I should now and that is why speech matters. There are lots of reasons, but one of the bigger ones is to check ourselves.

Say we've got a bigot. If it's bad form to call them out on being a bigot, they have no real social pressure to not be a bigot. The result then will be a world with a lot of bigots in it, because it's simply easy to be a bigot.

That's not ok.

Take it the other way too. We've got a non-bigot, living among bigots. And I'm picking bigot just as an example, nothing more.

Not being one, and expressing why is important. One person might not impact the community of bigots, but then again, maybe a few are on the fence, and want to know more, or just know they are not alone in their thoughts about maybe not being bigots.

Because of these very necessary dynamics, I generally push back fairly hard against people trying to call others out on form.

Take the Bush sucks thing. He absolutely does.

Now, I hear, "let's just move on" a lot.

Why?

If we've reached acceptance on that, and have done what we can reasonably do, well ok. Time to move on.

However, that's often not the case. Most of the time I hear this from people wanting to limit the damage to the Republican party.

There is no reason to do that. Truth is, if the damage is significant, the party will absolutely change and grow and adapt. We are highly likely to get better Republicans out of the deal, and we need those, far more than we need the peace of mind that comes from just getting hosed and forgetting about it.

Don't you remember the people that hosed you over? I do. Pretty much don't want it to happen again. Why take it when you don't have to?

So, turn that around.

Isn't it just masturbation when people work really, really hard to avoid facing tough things, because they would much rather serve themselves?

I think so.

Now having said that, I do it. Everybody does it. The key is the significance of the thing being ignored or rationalized away.

Flipping the guy next to you off, because it feels good, is not taking the higher ground, but it's also just something we do once in a while and the world goes around.

Giving the Republicans a pass on what appears to be a LOT of hard work to tear down this nation, for what also appear to be very self-serving ends, is a completely different thing.

Speaking of "horizon event" (the title of this thread), I'd like to give Bush a little bump across the Event Horizon!


Whats an Event Horizon you ask? Well, here's an edited wiki quote:

" . . an event horizon is defined around general relativity's description of a black hole, a celestial object so dense that no matter or radiation can escape its gravitational field. . . . anything that passes through the horizon from the observer's side is never seen again."

Yup, NEVER SEEN AGAIN!

Ok so that is the wiki definition. So what do we get realistically if Bush is a victim of an event horizon? History unfortunately will most likely be repeated again because we would have easily forgotten what kind of leader Bush was. Out of sight, Out of mind is never a good attitude to have!

I personally want Bush to live a nice long life post White House so that the world and Bush and his cronies can be constantly reminded of the fucked up world in which we live in that they were responsible for leaving behind!

I wish the last 8 years were all a dream and we would wake up do it all over again but that ain't gonna happen and doesn't guarantee that things might still be problematic with that alternate universe.

I'm thinking the longer Bush lives after his presidency ends, the better history will remember him. It worked for Reagan and Nixon. Its working for Carter.

So, anyone know where the nearest Black Hole is?

Reagan is well-remembered because the Cold War ended soon after he left office, and he is often (wrongly) credited as the sole reason for that. Both Nixon and Carter worked very hard post-presidency to re-invent themselves and improve their reputations.

So if Iraq in hindsight turns out to be the absolute best thing anyone could have done for America, then yes Bush may well be better remembered than he is now. But I wouldn't bet on it (I see Bush being remembered more like Lyndon Johnson than Harry Truman.) And it is hard to imagine what he might do post-presidency to improve his reputation. He certainly doesn't have the brains to write books the way Carter and Nixon did, unless that book is called "See Barney Clearing Brush on my Ranch."

Andrew

George W. Bush is interested in one thing, and that’s making money – and maybe a lesser degree his library. And that’s not unlike any other former US president. And he’s made a statement to that effect – about making money that is. He’ll write a book and give speeches. If President Clinton can make $100,000,000 in his early post presidency, I’m sure George W. Bush can as well.

Former presidents these days make money, and it started with President Nixon. And President Nixon had a legitimate reason, he was financial strapped. His wealth was tied up in real estate (San Clemente) but he owed the government tons of money on the place. Plus lawyer’s fees -- ala President Clinton. His way out was writing his memoirs, the David Frost interviews – plus many other well received books. President Ford wrote a book and sat on the boards of US companies. Another financially strapped politician was President Jimmy Carter. The peanut business was nearly broke when he left office. He, like Nixon, wrote books -- just as well recevied as Presidnet Nixon. He’s written over a dozen I’m sure, maybe more. President Reagan had some wealth, the help of wealthy friends who helped he and his wife purchase their home in Bel Air, California plus he delivered speeches. President George H. W. Bush wrote a book and delivered speeches. President Clinton owed millions in legal fees when he left office. He wrote his memoirs and delivers speeches to offset his early post-presidency expenses. George W. Bush will do the same.

It should be noted that president didn’t receive any sort of pension until the 1950’s, with President Truman being the first. And George W. Bush will be the first president in recent history who will not receive lifetime protection from the US Secret Service. That ends after 10 years. And as much as I don’t like George W. Bush, I think that’s wrong. I think a former president and first lady should be entitled to lifetime protection. They would be easy targets for terrorists or kidnappers without appropriate protection.

To be fair to Nixon, he liked to claim that he gave speeches for free, unlike Ford and Reagan after him. Maybe not free interviews, but apparently, when he spoke in front of people, he was not paid.

As you point out, modern presidents wind up being very wealthy into their post-presidency. So it's not that they don't need security and protection, it's that they can afford to pay for it themselves, without having taxpayers foot the bill.

Andrew

Lest we forget, Presidential libraries were once a depository for memoirs and mementos. Now, they are used extensively to launder money for favors and to keep dark secrets hidden from the American public.

I agree. And it seems each former president tries to outdo his predecessor. In order to achieve this, copious amounts of money is raised to build these multi-million dollar facilities. Once such example of questionable giving, perhaps influence peddling, is that of Denise Rich to President Clinton’s Library Foundation. As much as I like President Clinton, he received a handsome donation for his library from Denise Rich. Her ex-husband, Mark Rich, was a fugitive from justice and received a pardon from President Clinton in the closing hours of his second term. What’s kind of ironic, I. Lewis Libby, a former Chief of Staff to Vice President Cheney and aide to George W. Bush, helped lobby President Clinton on the Rich pardon. Just another example of how Washington DC works.

I think the libraries can serve a legitimate purpose. I’ve watched enough authors on C-SPAN and other programs to know how much they mean to authors and historians – and I’m sure the role of the National Archives is hugely important in managing the documents and historical items in possession of these libraries. But the fundraising efforts by the Presidential Library Foundations makes one wonder. And too, they become economic development tools. Communities vie to get libraries located in their communities. At a cost of $100 plus million dollars these days, why wouldn’t you want one of these located in your community?

As for access to presidential papers, George W. Bush signed an executive order making it easier for a former president to keep his documents out of the reach of the public. Some say he did it in part to keep his father’s Vice-Presidential papers out of public scrutiny because of incriminating things they might say about his father’s role in the Iran-Contra Affair.

"Now, they are used extensively to launder money for favors and to keep dark secrets hidden from the American public."

And, which ex-President started that trend?

Obviously, President Clinton accepted money from donors he shouldn't have when raising funds for his library foundation. Did he start a trend? Well, presidents have been building these monuments to themselves since Herbert Hoover. Were there ever any questionable donations to these individuals while they were sitting presidents during the fundraising period of the libraries? I’m sure we could find a few. But again, President Clinton used poor judgment in vetting some of his donors.

Working to out raise President Clinton, George W. Bush. Bush is working to raise a reported $250,000,000 for his library.

"Bush is working to raise a reported $250,000,000 for his library."

It takes a much larger building to be noticed on the Texas prairie.

How big of a building do you need to house a copy of "My Pet Goat", a Skull and Bones cape, an unused pilot uniform with beer stains, his frat-house steins, and a coke-encrusted straw and a mirror?

Maybe he can either rent space in the big phony-Mormon cult temple, or pay them to build him one just like it!

The George W. Bush Presidential Library.

Will the books be colored in?

How about a nice section of water color books?

I'll take my brood to the Scratch and Sniff section.

How come there's such a back order on the "Diplomacy for Idiots" series?

I think the highlight of the George W. Bush Presidential Library would be the Dick Cheney Hunter Safety Course that happens every Tuesday evening at 8 in the courtyard. Bring your own 12-gauge, personal protection is optional.

I find it encouraging that Bush is going forward with a Presidential Library. It means that he believes may get a few years out of it before bringing on Armageddon. Seriously, his taste in books have that ring to it.

Oh, and The Very Hungry Caterpillar provides some balance.

Bush could realistically house his library in San Fransisco in the public restroom of the George W Bush Waste Treatment Facility. I bet there is even room for a gift shop too! After all its going to be a tourist destination moreso than a stand alone presidential library.

And besides Bush can save some money with this plan because he can't earn $100,000,000 post presidency like Clinton when all he has got for potential speeches are readings of "My Pet Goat". I mean would you pay to hear Bush read that book, or best case scenario hear to have him mispronounce and constantly stumble over his idiotic brain fried thoughts.