Postscripts

QUOTABLE QUOTES

Our etymological love affair with President George W. Bush’s malapropisms has come to an end, at least temporarily until he starts giving interviews at his home in Crawford, Texas, and wherever he may travel.

The time has come to say goodbye to now ex-President Bush. You were always good for a chuckle, if not a hearty laugh, at the way you mangled the English language. Have a happy retirement and do let us hear from you in the months to come when we will surely need a smile to cheer up those around us.

In the meantime, here are five choice examples of Bushspeak, the unique language you invented and polished to near perfection:

“I guess it's OK to call the Secretary of Education here 'buddy.' That means 'friend.'" Philadelphia, Jan. 8, 2009.

"One of the very difficult parts of the decision I made on the financial crisis was to use hardworking people's money to help prevent there to be a crisis." Washington, D.C., Jan. 12, 2009.

"In terms of the economy, look, I inherited a recession, I am ending on a recession." Washington, D.C., Jan. 12, 2009.

"The best way to ensure that there is a sustainable cease-fire is to work with Egypt to stop the smuggling of arms into the Gaza." Washington, D.C., Jan. 12, 2009.

"I'm telling you there's an enemy that would like to attack America, Americans, again. There just is. That's the reality of the world. And I wish him all the very best." Washington, D.C., Jan. 12, 2009.

Labels: Bushspeak, George W. Bush, Quotable Quotes

OP-ED

Labels: George W. Bush

QUOTABLE QUOTES

Our collection of excruciating examples of President George W. Bush's disastrous encounters with the English language continues to grow. The number is now so large it is no longer convenient to publish them by updating the original collection. Here are some gems of unintentional humor we have accumulated during the first half of 2007:

ALBERTO GONZALES
"This process has been drug out a long time, which says to me it's political." Describing the controversy surrounding Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Sofia, Bulgaria, June 11, 2007.

BULGARIA
"These are big achievements for this country, and the people of Bulgaria ought to be proud of the achievements that they have achieved." Sofia, Bulgaria, June 11, 2007.

HEALTH CARE
"What I'm telling you is there's too many junk lawsuits suing too many doctors." Washington, D.C., May 10, 2007.

"One of my concerns is that the health care not be as good as it can possibly be."About benefits provided to military personnel, Tipp City, Ohio, April 19, 2007.

GAZA STRIP
"We understand the fright that can come when you're worried about a rocket landing on top of your home." About the outbreak of violence in the Gaza Strip, Washington, D.C., May 17, 2007.

POLITICS
"There's a lot of blowhards in the political process, you know, a lot of hot-air artists, people who have got something fancy to say. "Washington, D.C., May 17, 2007.

"And there is distrust in Washington. I am surprised, frankly, at the amount of distrust that exists in this town. And I'm sorry it's the case, and I'll work hard to try to elevate it." Said on National Public Radio, Jan. 29, 2007.

TONY BLAIR
"My relationship with this good man is where I've been focused, and that's where my concentration is. And I don't regret any other aspect of it. And so I—we filled a lot of space together." Said about British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Washington, D.C., May 17, 2007.

GOVERNMENT
"Forms of government matter, in my opinion. It matters how—the nature of the government in which people live." Tipp City, Ohio, April 19, 2007.

"And everybody wants to be loved—not everybody, but—you run for office, I guess you do. You never heard anybody say, 'I want to be despised, I'm running for office.' " Tipp City, Ohio, April 19, 2007.

ALL ABOUT ME
"Wisdom and strength, and my family, is what I'd like for you to pray for." Washington, D.C., May 2, 2007.

"The question is, who ought to make that decision? The Congress or the commanders? And as you know, my position is clear—I'm a commander guy." Washington, D.C., May 2, 2007.

"I said to her, make sure the rug says 'optimistic person comes to work.'" Recalling his instructions to first lady Laura Bush in choosing a rug for the Oval Office, Tipp City, Ohio, April 19, 2007.

IRAQ AND THE WAR ON TERROR
"And so, what General Petraeus is saying, some early signs, still dangerous, but give me—give my chance a plan to work." Said during an interview with Charlie Rose, April 24, 2007.

"There are some similarities, of course—death is terrible." Comparing the wars in Vietnam and Iraq, Tipp City, Ohio, April 19, 2007.

"Suiciders are willing to kill innocent life in order to send the projection that this is an impossible mission." Washington, D.C., April 3, 2007.

"Some call this civil war; others call it emergency—I call it pure evil." Washington, D.C., March 28, 2007.

"And one thing we want during this war on terror is for people to feel like their life's moving on, that they're able to make a living and send their kids to college and put more money on the table." Said on the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, Jan. 16, 2007.

"I think that the vice president is a person reflecting a half-glass-full mentality."On National Public Radio, Jan. 29, 2007.

"The best way to defeat the totalitarian of hate is with an ideology of hope—an ideology of hate—excuse me—with an ideology of hope." At Fort Benning, Ga., Jan. 11, 2007.

INFORMATION
"Information is moving—you know, nightly news is one way, of course, but it's also moving through the blogosphere and through the Internets." Washington, D.C., May 2, 2007.

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION
"If you've got a chicken factory, a chicken-plucking factory, or whatever you call them, you know what I'm talking about." Describing the sorts of jobs illegal immigrant workers perform, Tipp City, Ohio, April 19, 2007.

HIS WORLD VIEW
"My attitude about the world changed, and I know the attitude about the world from a lot of folks here in America's attitude changed." Discussing the Sept. 11 attacks, Fairfax, Va., April 10, 2007.

HOMELAND SECURITY
"That's why we are inconveniencing air traffickers, to make sure nobody is carrying weapons on airplanes."Describing the continuing need for heightened airline security, Washington, D.C., April 3, 2007.

BUSH'S NEW RULES OF GRAMMAR
"And my concern, David, is several." Said to David Gregory, Press Conference, Washington, D.C., April 3, 2007.

IRAN
"They're innocent, they were doing nothing, and they were summarily plucked out of water." Said about British sailors detained by Iran while their warship was on patrol in the Persian Gulf, Camp David, March 31, 2007.

WETLAND RESTORATION
"I'm a strong proponent of the restoration of the wetlands, for a lot of reasons. There's a practical reason, though, when it comes to hurricanes: The stronger the wetlands, the more likely the damage of the hurricane." Said about post-Katrina wetland improvements, New Orleans, March 1, 2007.

WORLD TRADE
"Trade is an important subject here at Caterpillar, and the reason why is because a lot of the product you make here, you sell to somebody else, sell overseas to another country. That's trade. And yet it's—it's a topic of hot debate." Said to workers at Caterpillar Inc., manufacturers of earth-moving equipment, East Peoria, Ill., Jan. 30, 2007.

Editor's Note: For earlier versions of the Bushspeak collection, see the following:

* "The Weird World of Bushspeak, Updated Again"
* "The Prequel: Early Examples of Weird Bushspeak"

Labels: George W. Bush, Quotations

ENCORE SELECTION

Editor's Note: Exactly one year ago on May 12, 2006, Postscripts was launched with a combination of high hopes and trepidation. The most pressing question at that time was the miasmic Iraq War, begun, we were told, to retaliate for the 9/11 attack. To mark the first anniversary of the inception of Postscripts, we are republishing this very first posting, originally titled "Then, as Now: The Grim Parallelism of Two Wars." The text has been revised only by the addition of one year to each pertinent date statistic. We regret to record that during the intervening 365 days, more than 900 Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians have died, senselessly sacrificed on the altar of vainglory. Like an immature adolescent, our stubborn and willful president has dug in his heels, determined to expend still more blood and treasure to leave this unnecessary war as his legacy to his successor. Sadly, his name is already stained beyond redemption. Here now is the text of that first piece, as meaningful today as it was one year ago:

We are now in the fifth year of our misadventure in Iraq. A major campaign in our so-called "global war on terror," it has had a singular lack of success. Instead of pursuing and capturing Osama bin Laden, the criminal who had everything to do with the terror that befell this nation on Sept. 11, 2001, we attacked Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with that foul deed.

We are again bogged down in a never-ending war for which we have neither a plan for victory nor a plan for extricating ourselves. Torn between support for our brave troops and a growing conviction the game is not worth the candle, public opinion in favor of the war in Iraq has dwindled. Military leaders, sensing an American military presence there lasting at least until 2010, now privately refer to it as "the long war," a name that brings back memories of our bitter involvement in Vietnam.

Then, as now, a supine Congress was seduced into authorizing a war through presidential deception. Forty-three years ago it was a trumped-up attack on two U.S. destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin. Four years ago it was Iraq's nonexistent weapons of mass destruction plus a trumped-up conspiracy between fundamentalist Osama bin Laden and a secular Saddam Hussein that did the trick.

Then, as now, the administration defended its policies in spite of increasing evidence that nothing was going according to plan, that strategy was being improvised as we went along. Then, as now, we were told there was "light at the end of the tunnel." We must "stay the course." We cannot "cut and run." We would be dishonoring those who had died if we did not stay and take additional casualties.

Then, as now, thousands of fighting men and women were sacrificed because leaders who had never served in a shooting war or had even made an effort to serve in the military, were proclaiming that victory was just over the horizon. To suggest exploring any other course of action was unpatriotic, if not treasonable,

Then, as now, advisors were only too ready to pronounce our mission as accomplished. Walt Rostow, a professor from MIT serving as head of the National Security Council, repeatedly predicted the imminent collapse of the Vietcong insurgency. Two years ago, Vice President Cheney speaking of the violence in Iraq, told the American people, "I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency."

In Vietnam, American divisions trained and equipped to throw back Warsaw Pact armies pouring westward through the Fulda Gap in central Germany found themselves facing wily guerrilla fighters in an impenetrable tropical jungle. In Iraq, the small, highly mobile attack force we fielded to defeat Saddam's tenth-rate army in an arid desert found itself undermanned and unable to cope with a fierce insurgency armed with apparently limitless improvised weapons.

Then, as now, it was impossible for military leaders to speak frankly about the ill-defined policy our unprepared forces were valiantly trying to carry out. In 1966, retired Gen. David M. Shoup, former Marine Corps Commandant, who was awarded a Congressional Medal of Honor for valor in World War II, called the Vietnam war a mistake and was criticized for questioning the leadership and military decisions of commander in chief Lyndon B. Johnson, and defense secretary Robert S. McNamara, while our troops were fighting and dying there.

Testifying before Congress, he said that the government's contention that Vietnam was vital to American interests was "poppycock"; in his view, the whole of Southeast Asia "was not worth a single American life." General Shoup expressed the growing feeling of many Americans when he said, "I believe that if we keep our dirty, bloody, dollar-soaked fingers out of the business of these nations so full of depressed, exploited people, they will arrive at a solution of their own." He added, "If unfortunately their revolution must be of the violent type, because the 'haves' refuse to share with the 'have-nots' by any peaceful method, at least what they get will be their own, and not the American style, which they don't want and above all don't want crammed down their throat by Americans."

Gen. Matthew B. Ridgway, hero of Korea, braved the same fate in a 1971 article in the authoritative journal Foreign Affairs. He wrote, "It should not have taken great vision to perceive that no truly vital United States interest was present and that the commitment to a major effort was a monumental blunder." Recently, a handful of retired military officers of flag rank spoke out against the conduct of the war in Iraq and the lack of clear-cut goals. They were met with a barrage of criticism for not having spoken up when wearing a uniform and quickly silenced.

Then, as now, we proclaimed that our aim was solely to bring the almost magical curative powers of democracy to a part of the world that had never known it and to restore a nation of longtime antagonistic elements. In Vietnam, our announced aim was to win the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese people, only to discover this could not be accomplished if we were at the same time killing innocent civilians, destroying their villages and despoiling the countryside.

In Iraq, our vaunted reconstruction program to repair and reconstruct what we have damaged has stalled because of poor planning and widespread corruption. We have discovered that an occupying power cannot prevail over a sullen population if entire neighborhoods or even whole cities must be destroyed to root out insurgents who see us not as saviors but as invaders and occupiers.

It took 58,000 American deaths and 150,000 wounded in Vietnam before we concluded that our leaders did not have a clue about their goals nor the courage to extricate themselves from the morass into which they had plunged us. Although undefeated in battle after battle, in the end, we did indeed ignominiously cut and run under the pressure of public opinion.

Future historians will see many parallels between Lyndon B. Johnson and George W. Bush: An immoderate yet insecure ego, a limitless capacity to wield the power of their office without inhibition and a stubborn aversion to altering a course of action once it was decided upon. Lacking their predecessors' ambivalence, which sprang from their keen sense of history, both also lacked their predecessors' capacity for reflective thinking, especially about the consequences of their decisions.

Three decades ago Robert McNamara, a genius at statistical analysis and architect of the Vietnam debacle, was forced to admit defeat and give up the post of defense secretary. Paul Wolfowitz, university professor and author of our failed Iraq policy, similarly gave up his post as deputy secretary of defense when the promised happy throngs of welcoming Iraqis never materialized, replaced by shadowy, vengeful insurgents. Interestingly, as if to reinforce the parallelism of Vietnam and Iraq, both McNamara and Wolfowitz were rewarded with the same new post: the presidency of the World Bank.

Our folly in Vietnam had many sources. Chief among them was the illusion of American omnipotence--a conviction that America could impose its will anywhere in the world. Senator J. William Fulbright properly called it "the arrogance of power," a term eerily echoed today by our actions in the Middle East.

What we failed to understand then was that the problems and conflicts affecting other nations could not be solved simply by the application of American force. Nor could a solution be achieved with American know-how or America's good intentions and by imposing our unique brand of democracy, the latter painfully shaped from the Anglo-Saxon tradition over more than two centuries. Ironically, these very same delusions are now responsible for our entanglement with the tar baby that is Iraq.

Government exists for the benefit of its citizens. We should not be spending blood and treasure in a vain attempt to instill democracy elsewhere if, at the same time, we diminish it here at home. Human casualties are bearable only when they serve a purpose. They become a bitter price to pay when it turns out they were sacrificed for nothing.

Labels: George W. Bush, Iraq War, Lyndon B. Johnson, Op Ed, Vietnam War

HISTORY

When little-known U.S. Air Force Col. John Boyd died in 1997, he was regarded as one of this nation's most respected military strategists. Marine Corps Gen. Charles C. Krulak called him the "architect of victory" in the 1991 Gulf War. Explaining his interest in combat theory, Col. Boyd recalled, "When I was a young officer, I was taught that if you have air superiority, land superiority and sea superiority, you win. Well, in Vietnam we had all three but we lost. So I realized there was something more to it." What follows is an in-depth analysis of Colonel Boyd's "something more."

Four years after our invasion of Iraq, the United States finds itself trapped in an unwinnable war. The military of the most powerful nation on the face of the earth has been fought to a standstill by a shadowy army of irregular guerrilla fighters who strike suddenly and melt into the shadows of the night. We are fighting a new style of low-intensity conflict, also called fourth generation warfare, that our military wasn't designed to fight. Insurgents, terrorists and revolutionaries have been quicker at learning how to fight such conflicts than traditional militaries. Polls show this situation is the most pressing question facing the American people.

Cold War Antecedents
The roots of our problems in Iraq can be traced back to the Cold War. During the four decades of our tense standoff with the Soviet Union, U.S. war planners expected a global conflict largely centering on the clash of massive armies on the plains of Central Europe. To wage such a war, large numbers of ground forces, naval forces and airpower were required. The U.S. and its NATO allies planned for sustained ground combat against the massed divisions of the Soviet Union and its client states of the Warsaw Pact. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, the need for huge combat forces suddenly evaporated.

Still wedded to the equipment and tactics of the Cold War, and with little interest in learning from Mao-Tse-Tung's communist revolution in China, Algeria, the Sandinista struggle in Nicaragua, our own bitter experience in Vietnam or the Russian disaster in Afghanistan, Pentagon thinkers envisioned a changed world in which we would control the time, place and extent of each U.S. intervention. Deployments would involve one country at a time. Combat was expected to be short. Any operations were always to be elective on our part. Emphasis was shifted from manpower to sophisticated technology. In Pentagonspeak, technology became a "force multiplier" that could make up for reduced numbers of troops.

Given the projected on-again, off-again nature of our responses around the globe, a smaller and more easily transportable ground force was preferable to the Cold War's ponderous divisions. Downsizing its large standing army, the Pentagon shifted to a smaller mobile force, with Reserve and National Guard components to be pressed into service for short tours of duty. In the Pentagon's force transformation, crucial military specialties now in high demand in Iraq and Afghanistan--career-slowing assignments in civil affairs, intelligence and military police, for example--were assigned almost entirely to units of the reserves. Stockpiles of supplies and equipment were positioned near potential flashpoints around the globe. As it turned out, the new force structure proved ideal for handling crises in Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990s.

A Changed Picture
The 21st century brought new geopolitical realities, but Pentagon thinking and our military structure changed not at all. Instead of being narrowly engaged in one country at a time, U.S. forces found themselves fighting simultaneously in Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead of ending quickly, both wars evolved into open-ended, unconventional engagements with stubborn and elusive guerrilla forces. After the horror of September 11, U.S. intervention ceased to be an option. Faced with a challenge it could not ignore, the U.S. attacked the Taliban in Afghanistan for harboring Osama bin Laden and the perpetrators of 9/11. Preparations also were begun for a preemptive war on Iraq.

Traditional warfare between nations has three distinct phases: (1) deployment of a country's forces, (2) destruction of the enemy's forces and (3) occupation of the enemy's territory. Defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld regarded the third phase as less important than the first two. The now-legendary clash between Rumsfeld and Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki was over this precise issue, encapsulated in the phrase, "boots on the ground." After a flower-tossing victory parade in Iraq, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz planned a quick pullout of troops. Unfortunately, the chicken hawk neocon encouragers of an attack on Iraq did not foresee the inevitable descent into low-intensity guerrilla conflict.

Prolonged counterinsurgency and sectarian civil war have negated pacification and reconstruction programs in Iraq, and threaten the American military's very control of the ground. By avoiding direct clashes with superior forces, guerrillas are less susceptible to defeat by heavier weapons or advanced technology. To combat guerrilla activity, the current U.S. battle plan calls for large numbers of widely dispersed ground forces exposed to hit-and-run attacks and improvised explosive devices hidden along major routes used by the occupiers. Victory, in the accepted sense of the term, is impossible to measure or even to achieve. Suddenly awakening to reality, the President has developed a belated interest in reading about another low-intensity war, the Algerian revolution that expelled the French 50 years ago.

The Four Generations of Warfare
Military thinkers identify four generations of warfare--three in the past and a frightening new generation bearing down on us today. Dating from the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 to the time of the American Civil War, first generation warfare's tactics meant fighting in lines and columns to the ruffle of drums and with banners flying. In second generation warfare, exemplified by the First World War, firepower--specifically artillery--was king. Taught to the U.S. by the French General Staff, linear attrition warfare largely remains the American way of war to this day. The German Army's first use of nonlinear tactics in World War Two made it the first war of maneuver and a prime example of third generation warfare.

Large-scale conventional warfare as waged by today's major powers has been radically transformed. It may be in its death throes. The world has entered a period when nation-states are losing their monopoly on making war and must face belligerents who share neither their philosophies nor their values. Future wars will largely be fourth generation wars waged by groups of stateless terrorists, guerrillas and bandits motivated by fanatical, ideologically based loyalties, and using simple weapons like machetes and AK-47s. Our experience in Iraq already shows that skirmishes, suicide bombings and indiscriminate massacres will replace conventional set-piece battles. As small-scale wars proliferate, conventional armed forces will shrink. The burden of protecting societies will shift from the military to the police and the security industry. In 2005, Scotland Yard quickly identified the homegrown Islamist bombers who attacked London's transportation system, thanks to the highly sophisticated security cameras set up to blanket the city after repeated bombings by the Irish Republican Army.

The Fourth Generation Challenge
Fourth generation warfare--also called guerrilla warfare and asymmetrical warfare--presents a worldwide challenge. Aside from Iraq and Afghanistan, national military forces are fighting irregular opponents in Israel, Turkey, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, Chechnya, Somalia, Peru and Colombia. Although national militaries have superiority over their opponents in weapons, equipment, techniques and training, more often than not the superior force has wound up losing. The Israelis experienced this last summer when they invaded southern Lebanon to keep rockets from falling on northern Israel. Despite armored vehicles and superior firepower, Israel's conventional force was severely mauled by Hizbollah irregulars and was forced to pull back. The same scenario has been playing out with coalition forces in Iraq since the premature announcement of "Mission Accomplished."

Irregular forces can be difficult to target with air power and artillery. They avoid confrontations with stronger and more heavily equipped opponents by using concealment and dispersal, often hiding within the civilian population. They can fight an almost endless war of attrition using simple weapons, explosive devices, sabotage, ambushes and assassinations. In his classic war memoir, The Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence summed up counterinsurgency this way: "To make war upon rebellion is messy and slow, like eating soup with a knife."

Light Infantry the Answer
Light infantry--so-called "foot soldiers"--and what the Army calls "special forces" represent the best way to counter irregular opponents fighting unconventionally. Unless badly outnumbered, well-trained light infantry can usually defeat any force of irregulars it is likely to face. Light infantry must be able to live off the land commando-style for prolonged periods, using stalking tactics against the enemy. If light infantry does not load itself down too heavily with arms and equipment, it can attain the same mobility as the irregulars, enhanced when necessary by helicopters and Humvees. And when it uses force, light infantry can be far more selective in choosing targets than other branches, thus better at avoiding collateral damage to civilians.

Unfortunately, our infantry in Iraq is far from light, and totes more equipment than it needs. American infantry soldiers and Marines carry more than a hundred pounds of body armor, weapons, ammunition, radios and other field equipment, and depend heavily on motor vehicles. These, in turn, tie them to roads and open terrain, exposing them to explosive devices and ambushes, and diminishing their ability to operate in crowded urban areas, such as narrow streets and back alleys. Their crew-served large-caliber weapons are heavy, each requiring several times its own weight in ammunition. Although modest firepower levels are enough to defeat insurgents, we still arm our infantry in Iraq as though they were engaged in conventional combat against heavily armed opponents. Infantry weapons should be simple and ammunition must be light and portable. Excessive firepower not only reduces mobility, it is more likely to cause collateral damage and alienate the local population.

A Gross Imbalance
Late in 2003, it became clear that the U.S. force that had defeated Iraq's army was much too small to pacify the country in the face of resistance from insurgent tribal and religious groups. The mix of technology and manpower was also dangerously disproportionate. As the war dragged on, the Bush administration's solution was to dip more heavily into Reserve and National Guard components. Despite all efforts, the U.S. military remained ill adapted to the task it faced in Iraq--a long, drawn-out, inconclusive war. Moreover, the proportion of active duty versus Reserve forces was out of balance for the war being fought. Curiously, defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld did nothing to correct the imbalance.

Made up of older, more-experienced troops, this country's Reserve and National Guard tend to have a larger proportion of higher ranks, more heads of families who have wives, children and responsibilities. Many are buying homes and have mortgages they cannot pay for on military pay. Some are proprietors of small businesses that will fail without their owners there to operate them. Ignoring these realities, the Pentagon has damaged lives and families by calling up Reserve and National Guard units repeatedly for service in Iraq and Afghanistan. Although steps are under way to increase the size of both the regular Army and Marine Corps, the Army has already acknowledged that it can add only 7,000 recruits annually.

Too Little, Too Late
Military specialists agree that there are four stages to success in counterinsurgency warfare: (1) isolate the insurgents from external support; (2) isolate the insurgents from internal support; (3) immobilize them and separate them from the population and (4) neutralize their leadership. Because of our failure in 2003 to provide enough troops after the defeat of the Iraqi army, we still have yet to accomplish the first stage--sealing off the borders of Iraq. This should not come as a surprise; the borders of our own country are as porous as a sieve.

Like the rest of the country, the growing unrest among soldiers and their families over the conduct of the Iraq War stems from the failure of the Bush administration to accept the reality that the conflict is burgeoning. Despite rejection of his policy in the November election, the President recently announced a new version of his "stay the course" policy, this time masquerading as a "surge" of 21,500 troops. But "surge" is a misnomer; the surge is really a series of "squirts"--unit arrivals are to be spaced over several months. This new strategy calls for American troops to patrol, set up checkpoints and go door-to-door in Baghdad with Iraqi troops to root out troublemakers. The same tactic was tried last autumn and proved to be a dismal failure after four of six promised Iraqi battalions failed to show up. An American soldier could be stationed at every street corner in Baghdad, and it wouldn't make a dime's worth of difference in the outcome.

The President also named Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus as the new ground commander in Iraq and bumped him up to four-star rank. For the last 14 months, with Marine Lt. Gen. James N. Mattis, Petraeus has been co-writing a revision of the Army's counterinsurgency field manual, the first in 20 years. The new manual recommends a minimum ratio of 20 troops per 1,000 population, the same formula set by a RAND Corporation study years ago. With six million people, Baghdad would need some 120,000 troops to control insurgency. The undermanned U.S. force has numbered about 70,000 combat troops in Iraq, with another 60,000 troops in support and headquarters units. An extra 20,000 troops or so will still leave the force patrolling Baghdad far short of the recommended minimum. Combine this shortfall with the plan's dependence on previously unreliable Iraqi troops, and you have a recipe for disaster. Recognizing the dangerous threat to the 2008 election of the President's headstrong refusal to accept that Iraq may be beyond salvation and has become another Vietnam, Republicans in Congress are becoming jittery. The recent addition of three more months to the Army's one-year tour of duty in Iraq has only inreased their level of uneasiness.

But the problem remains deeper than new ploys to artificially add more troops to an exclusively volunteer force. The U.S. can no longer sustain its dream of an armed force able to fight two major wars at the same time. Americans, too busy following President George W. Bush's advice to "go shopping," have shown that they do not share his imperial dreams. Reflecting the current negative attitudes of the population, the mood in Congress makes a return to the draft improbable.

Birth rates have been dropping in the U.S. since their peak of 16.7 per thousand in 1990. The increasing life span of Americans combined with continuing reductions in pregnancies among women in their teens, 20s and early 30s will yield a smaller and smaller cohort of 18-year-olds each year. Yet it is this age group that represents the likeliest candidates for recruitment. A possible solution would be increased recruiting efforts among the millions of illegal and largely Hispanic immigrants already within U.S. borders, with the promise of a reward after service in the form of automatic citizenship.

Another possibility would be for the U.S. to hire and equip mercenary armies from nations with a surplus of unemployed youths. The historical basis for such a force can be found in our own history. Some 30,000 Germans fought against Americans during the Revolution, taking part in every major campaign from Florida to New England. To fight its wars in India during the 19th century, the British formed the Indian Army, consisting of a volunteer force of Indian troops led by British officers. In fact, much of the fighting in Iraq during World War I and the postwar pacification of the 1920s was done by Britain's Indian Army.

One of Osama bin Laden's goals is to destroy autocratic regimes now ruling Muslim countries. Iraq, with its secular government and hated anticlerical dictator, was a prime target. Bin Laden's stated objective is to re-establish the Islamic caliphate that flourished 1400 years ago. Under its rule, Baghdad became the preeminent center of trade, learning and culture. By toppling Saddam, we facilitated this strategy and caused al-Quaida to grow. Secure in their mountain fastness somewhere inside Pakistan's Tribal Areas along the border with Afghanistan, bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, the criminal perpetrators responsible for 9/11, are giving thanks to Allah for the Bush administration's unintended boost to their ambitions.

Labels: Asymmetrucal Warfare, Fourth Generation Warfare, Gen. David H. Petraeus, George W. Bush, Guerrilla Warfare, Iraq War, T.E. Lawrence

OP-ED

The heading of this editorial is taken from the allegorical song composed by Pete Seeger during the Vietnam War--a needless conflict that caused the public to recoil from the carnage in which 58,000 American troops lost their lives. It is an appropriate choice because another stubborn, incurious, single-minded President insists on pursuing a similarly foolish and futile war to an inconclusive end.

Today marks another grim anniversary as this country begins the fifth year of this latest unpopular war. On March 19, 2003, the U.S. launched a preemptive attack on Iraq. A badly planned invasion of dubious legality, it was based on intelligence that had been "fixed" to suit the desired objectives of neocon operatives who controlled the President's thinking. The true reason, of course, was to guarantee continued U.S. access to Iraq's oil reserves, the second largest on the planet. A secondary consideration was to remove Saddam as a potential threat to our ally, Israel. Saddam's possession of weapons of mass destruction was the "big lie" offered to and swallowed by the American public. The same tall tale was elaborately presented at the U.N. by a naive Colin Powell with a tissue of supporting lies woven by Bush administration war mongers. When no evidence of weapons of mass destruction was found, Bush & Company hastily cobbled together another face-saving lie--we were "bringing democracy to the Iraqi people."

Surprisingly, the number of U.S. troops assigned to the invasion force was remarkably small in an attempt to attain victory on the cheap by defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Notably lacking were linguists, military police and civil affairs specialists. Planners who questioned how occupation duties would be managed--interception of across-border infiltrators from neighboring countries, suppression of looting and the inevitable insurgency--were quickly silenced by the Pentagon. The war itself was conducted in a most peculiar fashion.

It is not generally known, but American units in battle had orders to move to and seize preselected targets. They could only fire upon regular Iraqi military units if they were fired upon first. As a result, most Iraqi units held their fire and emerged from the war intact--without having fired a shot and without having been engaged by U.S. troops. Saddam's military simply melted away and returned to their homes with their weapons to join the growing insurgencies of Sunnis and Shiites. Our easy victory became the lead-up to a nightmare disaster scenario that engulfs our inadequate occupying force to this day.

Our poorly planned occupation of Iraq quickly morphed into a singularly unsuccessful pacification effort, with high troop losses in killed and wounded. In 2003, during the 41 days of active combat in Iraq preceding "Mission Accomplished," American forces lost 140 killed (at the average rate of 3.7/day); during the 31 days of December just past, 112 soldiers and marines were killed. Thus, losses during the month of December 2006 (3.6/day) were about as high as they were during the most intensive fighting to defeat Iraqi forces 45 months earlier. Such losses belie administration claims that "We are winning."

Skeptics will inevitably ask, "Winning what?" In any campaign to pacify an unruly populace, so long as one exploding roadside bomb takes the life of a single American soldier, we have won nothing. The only realistic solution may be for us to encourage Iraq to form a Swiss-type tripartite self-governing confederation melding Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis under a slimmed-down central government that would collect taxes, distribute oil and gas revenues and defend the country's borders.

For the record, since the war began, 3,218 American troops have died, and there is still no end in sight. Since the elaborately staged "Mission Accomplished" ceremony, 3,079 troops have died. The official count of wounded now stands at 24,042, but because military authorities lack an accurate system to track troops wounded in Iraq, the number may be considerably higher. And the wounded come home to a mismanaged military and veterans hospital system so poorly run it is a national disgrace. In the meantime, other crucial issues at home such as illegal immigration, hurricane cleanup, factory closings, unemploy- ment, health care, inflation, a burgeoning deficit and a decaying infrastructure have languished unaddressed by the Bush administration.

We were first saddled with the problems of the twin regions then called the Near East and the Middle East in 1947, when the British, exhausted by the enormous price it had paid in men and money to defeat the Axis nations, turned over to the United States the task of defending the two areas. President Truman asked Congress for funds to aid Greece and Turkey to combat Communist infiltration and terrorism. Unlike the British who had managed their vast empire for centuries from their tiny homeland, the U.S. lacked linguists and regional experts familiar with the areas to be protected. Six decades later, we are only slightly better equipped with specialists able to cope with this nation's responsibilities in this part of the world. Among the problems we inherited were those stemming from the arbitrary boundaries drawn after World War I to create artificial countries. Iraq is a prime example. The wonder is that Saddam Hussein managed to rule this seething cauldron of religious and tribal enmity for as long as he did.

Readers surely have become tired of being reminded of Santayana's wisdom about learning from the lessons of history, but consider the following excerpt, written about what Napoleon called "the Spanish ulcer"--the wars in the Spanish peninsula between 1809 and 1814 that led to his abdication: "Napoleon's campaign included a rapid conventional victory over Spanish armies but ignored the immediate requirement to provide a stable and secure environment for the people and the countryside. The French should have expected ferocious resistance. The Spanish people were accustomed to hardship, suspicious of foreigners, and constantly involved in skirmishes with security forces. The French failed to analyze the history, culture, and motivations of the Spanish people, or to seriously consider their potential to support or hinder the achievement of French political objectives. Napoleon's cultural miscalculation resulted in a protracted struggle. The Spanish resistance drained the Empire's resources and was the beginning of the end of Napoleon's reign."

What is remarkable about these words is their source: They are taken from the draft of a field manual, FM 3-24, jointly written by the Army and the Marine Corps, reading copies of which were passed around in military circles for comment. Such interservice cooperation between the Army and Marines is a giant step forward. Titled Counterinsurgency, this field manual finally embodies lessons learned forty years ago in Vietnam--and then forgotten. Substitute "Iraqi" for "Spanish" and "Americans" for "the French," and you have described our Iraq experience. Unfortunately, today's American military leaders have yet to discover the wisdom of their new field manual.

The Iraq misadventure marks the third time that the United States has gotten itself involved in a land war on the continent of Asia against the advice of military leaders. The first was in 1950 when North Korean troops poured into South Korea. Gen. Omar Bradley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff called it "the wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time, and with the wrong enemy." By 1952, the last year of his presidency, Harry Truman recognized that victory was no longer possible. U.S. forces were not losing, but neither were they winning. As in Iraq, they were caught up in a vast, bloody and expensive holding operation. Two-thirds of the American public disapproved of the Korean War in which 34,000 Americans died. Paradoxically, the Korean War has never officially ended; both sides still maintain an armed truce and no peace treaty has ever been signed.

We fought another "wrong war" in Vietnam, where the U.S. armed forces contributed to the eventual stalemate by fighting the war they wanted to fight instead of the war they had been thrust into. Something like the deadlocked outcome of these two wars may be the best we can hope for in Iraq now, giving the U.S. an opportunity to withdraw and turn its attention to solving our own problems. The alternatives in remaining can only be an expanding civil war and an attendant bloodbath, political fragmentation, a torrent of refugees, and surging global terrorist attacks.

We have now had four dreary years of promises of imminent victory, changed tactics in the conduct of the war and exuberant sloganeering. Mismanagement has been rife. The Pentagon revealed recently that of more than a half million weapons turned over by the U.S. to agencies of the Iraqi government, only 12,128 had their serial numbers properly recorded. Some of these missing rocket propelled grenade launchers, assault rifles, sniper rifles and machine guns are now being used to shoot down helicopters and to kill American troops.

Coming on the heels of a succession of rigged no-bid contracts and evidence of graft and corruption, this gross error is disquieting. It makes appropriate John Kerry's searing question to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1972: "How do you ask someone to be the last man to die for a mistake?" Thirty-five years later, the question that must be asked of our government can be paraphrased to: "How dare you present a reverently folded flag to a family at a military funeral without telling them that their son or daughter died defending a lie?"

Yes, little has changed. We are still "waist deep in the Big Muddy, and the big fool says to push on."

Labels: "Waist Deep in the Big Muddy", George W. Bush, Iraq Body Count, Iraq War, Korean War, Vietnam War

QUOTABLE QUOTES

President George W. Bush will be remembered for many traits of character and speaking style. Among the latter will be the soaring orations written by speechwriters and haltingly read piecemeal by him on state occasions. In consort with these are the language-torturing disjointed speech patterns that have earned him the title of President Malaprop. His earnest desire to be liked and to be seen as a great communicator with an innate ability to understand people’s problems is in stark contrast to his shallow penetration into any subject, his stubborn obstinacy and his inflexible unwillingness to concede error.

To cover these failings, he has fixed on certain expressions intended to convince listeners that he is not the incurious and unfeeling dolt many perceive him to be. One of these expressions, “I fully understand,” has become so ingrained in his speech patterns he can be counted on to use it in every public utterance, sometimes as many as three or four times in succession on a single occasion. To underscore for Postscripts readers how casual overuse of this expresion by President George W. Bush has made it into a meaningless stock phrase that can only leave listeners unconvinced of the President's sincerity, we append a small sampling of his careless employment of this now virtually meaningless expression over the past six years.

“And I am most pleased with the support we're receiving here, and I look forward to continuing to describe our efforts to our close friends and allies. And they will see in me a determination to succeed. And I fully understand that some over time may grow weary and may tire. But they'll realize the United States of America under my leadership will not. We must be successful in the war against terror." Press conference with President Kim Dae-Jung of South Korea, Seoul, South Korea, October 19, 2001.

“Well, I fully understand that some countries will participate with military forces, and others won't feel comfortable doing that. Some countries will be very good about sharing intelligence; other countries may not be so good. Some countries will be much more efficient about cutting off money; other countries may be a little lax about cutting off money. But the point is, is that the coalition is broad and deep and strong and committed.” Remarks made at the Portman Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Shanghai, People’s Republic of China, October 20, 2001.

"I fully understand the consequences of what we're doing. We're changing the world. And the world will be better off and America will be more secure as a result of the actions we're taking.” Press conference, Washington, D.C., April 13, 2004.

“The other thing I want to do is to make sure that everybody can feel the great power of love. Again, I fully understand government's role is limited in love." Said at an “Ask President Bush” event, Niles, Michigan, May 3, 2004.

"I believe the decision to go to war was the right decision, particularly after September the 11th. And in this great country people are entitled to express their concerns, I fully understand that." Aboard Air Force One flying from Crawford, Texas, to a campaign rally at Las Cruces, New Mexico, August 26, 2004.

“I laid out a doctrine, David, that said if you harbor terrorists, you're equally as guilty as the terrorists, and that doctrine was ignored by the Taliban, and we removed the Taliban. And I fully understand some people didn't agree with that decision. But I believe that when the American President speaks, he'd better mean what he says in order to keep the world peaceful. And I believe we have a solemn duty, whether or not people agree with it or not, to protect the American people. And the Taliban and their harboring of al Qaeda represented a direct threat to the American people.” Said to NBC correspondent David Gregory, Washington, D.C., November 4, 2004.

“There is a certain attitude in the world, by some, that says that it's a waste of time to try to promote free societies in parts of the world. I've heard that criticism. Remember, I went to London to talk about our vision of spreading freedom throughout the greater Middle East. And I fully understand that that might rankle some, and be viewed by some as folly. I just strongly disagree with those who do not see the wisdom of trying to promote free societies around the world.” Said to NBC correspondent David Gregory at news conference, Washington, D.C., November 4, 2004.

“In the Cabinet, there will be some changes. I don't know who they will be. It's inevitable there will be changes. It happens in every administration. To a person, I am proud of the work they have done. And I fully understand we're about to head into the period of intense speculation as to who's going to stay and who's not going to stay, and I assured them that--today I warned them of the speculative period. I said, it's a great Washington sport to be talking about who's going to leave and who their replacements may be, and handicapping, you know, my way of thinking.” Press conference, Washington, D.C., November 4, 2004.

“Certain issues come quicker than others in the course of a legislative session, and that depends upon whether or not those issues have been debated. I think of, for example, the legal issue--the legal reform issues, they have been--medical liability reform had been debated and got thwarted a couple of times in one body in particular on Capitol Hill. And so the groundwork has been laid for some legislation that I've been talking about. On an issue like tax reform it's going to--tax simplification, it's going to take a lot of legwork to get something ready for a legislative package. I fully understand that. And Social Security reform will require some additional legwork, although the Moynihan Commission has laid the groundwork for what I think is a very good place to start the debate.” Press conference, Washington, D.C. November 4, 2004.

“And I'm looking over the--I fully understand some people are concerned about whether or not this is affordable. And at the appropriate time, we'll address that aspect of reform.” Discussing Social Security reform at thee first news conference of his second term, Washington, D.C., January 26, 2005.

"I fully understand that as long as I'm the president I will face criticism. It's like part of the job.” Press conference, Washington, D.C., March 16, 2005.

"Listen, one of the interesting things about September the 11th that I want you to understand as we have this discussion is that I fully understand that for some, September the 11th was an important moment and a terrible moment--and we appreciate the condolences of the people of the Netherlands--but for us it was a change of attitude. I mean, it changed a lot about how I looked at the world, and a lot of Americans, it changed how they looked at the world. I mean, it was more than just an attack; it was a whole mind-set." Youth Roundtable, Maastricht, The Netherlands, May 8, 2005.

"As a matter of fact, I fully understand that right here in the state of Wisconsin, a lot of people are counting on the Social Security check." Speaking about Social Security for younger workers, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, May 19, 2005.

“What we're talking about today is new programs and plans with prescription drugs becoming available for our seniors. This is as much an education exercise as anything else, because I fully understand, and our government fully understands, many seniors don't want to change. They're not interested in change. And, therefore, what I'm telling you is, is that at least listen to what's available. You don't have to change if you don't want to, but at least be open-minded enough to listen." Meeting with senior citizens at Pueblo El Mirage RV and Golf Resort and Country Club, El Mirage, Arizona, August 29, 2005.

"Look, I fully understand there is--I guess, my reputation is, he sticks to his guns and--it's a very legitimate question, do you ever kind of understand that maybe that you've got to be somewhat flexible?" Press conference, Central Piedmont Community College, Charlotte, North Carolina, April 6, 2006.

"I fully understand the consequences of making such a decision. I was at church yesterday in Twentynine Palms. In the pew that I was sitting in was a mother and stepfather grieving for a guy who lost his life. And I knew that I would have to deal with this as best as I possibly can." Press conference, Irvine, California, April 24, 2006.

“I fully understand English is the key to unlocking opportunity in America. Part of the greatness of America is that we've been able to help assimilate people into our society, people from all kinds of backgrounds who have come here to seek a better life and become American, because we have the capacity to assimilate.” Press conference at Border Patrol headquarters, Yuma, Arizona, May 18, 2006.

"I fully understand the need for there to be simplicity in the documentation. It needs to be easy for somebody who is known and a person that is--makes a living on the other side of the border. There's--a lot of kids go to college in, like, El Paso, Texas, and they're living in Mexico, so they've got to go back and forth on a regular basis. So I'm familiar with this issue a lot, and I really do emphasize the need for us to be mindful of what a onerous program could mean to good relations, as well as facilitation of trade." Press conference with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, July 6, 2006.

“And then the third area of conflict, the one that gets a lot of attention, as it should, is the sectarian violence taking place in Baghdad. And I fully understand that we've got to help the Iraqis deal with that. So my thinking is--and a lot of our strategy sessions revolve around how best to deal with this problem, and how best to help the Iraqis deal with it. And I've got some more work to do, and I'll come forth at the appropriate time and explain the way forward to the country.” Oval Office interview with Washington Post staff writers, Washington, D.C., December 30, 2006.

“And failure in Iraq, defeat of America, in quotes, will then embolden these extremists. They'll be able to recruit more. They'll be able to find more suiciders. They'll have resources at their availability, like energy if they were able to topple modern governments. In other words, these people have a plan. They have a vision of the world. And they intend to use murder to enact their vision. And I fully understand that. You know, some of my buddies in Texas say, “You know, let them fight it out. What business is it of ours? You got rid of Saddam. Just let them slug it out.” And that's a temptation that I know a lot of people feel. But if we do not succeed in Iraq, we will leave behind a Middle East which will endanger America in the future.” Interview with Scott Pelley of CBS 60 Minutes, Camp David, Maryland, January 14, 2007.

“Well--listen, I fully understand the president has got to convince the American people it's worth it and that we can succeed, and no doubt--and I've spent a lot of time during my presidency talking to the American people and educating the American people about the stakes and what we're trying to get done. And I fully understand, Jim, by the way, that the American people are going to say, okay, show us whether this works. When it's all said and done, what really matters is not my speech or my interview with you, but what happens on the ground. And that's my primary concern in coming up with something different, was that it was working in Baghdad, so therefore we've got to do something different. One option was to leave, one option was to step up--but let me talk about Baker-Hamilton." Newsmaker interview with Jim Lehrer, Washington, D.C., January 16, 2007.

“No, and no question about that. And that's why I'm having this interview with you. I'm trying to do my very best to explain to people why success is vital. In other words, people have got to understand that if we decide and we grow weary of--and there's a lot of war weariness in this country, and I fully understand that--and we say, okay, well, let's just leave; we can leave in stages, but let's just leave, or let's just pull back and hope that the Iraqis are able to settle their business, the consequences of that decision will be disastrous for the future of this country. And therefore, we got to keep working on ways to succeed, as far as I'm concerned." Newsmaker interview with Jim Lehrer, Washington, D.C., January 16, 2007.

“I fully understand it's going to be up to the Iraqis to solve their problems. I was hoping to be in a different position. In other words, I had hoped I'd be able to interview with you and say, well, you know, we're not needed as much anymore, but I fully recognize that unless the violence in Baghdad, the capital city of Iraq, the sectarian violence and the criminality is dealt with, then the political reconciliation necessary to unite the country isn't going to happen. And so I made a tough decision, and that is to reinforce our troops there and put a new commander there in the hopes of breaking the sectarian violence--or helping the Iraqis break it.” Newsmaker interview with Jim Lehrer, Washington, D.C., January 16, 2007.

"I told the American people I fully understand there are differences of opinion. But one of the things I have discovered is, in Washington, D.C., most people understand the consequences of failure." Press conference at House Republican Conference in Cambridge, Maryland, January 26, 2007.

“I fully understand it's going to be up to the Iraqis to solve their problems. I was hoping to be in a different position. In other words, I had hoped I'd be able to interview with you and say, well, you know, we're not needed as much anymore, but I fully recognize that unless the violence in Baghdad, the capital city of Iraq, the sectarian violence and the criminality is dealt with, then the political reconciliation necessary to unite the country isn't going to happen. And so I made a tough decision, and that is to reinforce our troops there and put a new commander there in the hopes of breaking the sectarian violence--or helping the Iraqis break it." National Public Radio interview with Juan Williams, Washington, D.C., January 29, 2007.

"I fully understand that if you read your newspaper articles--which I do sometimes--and listen carefully, you'll hear voices in both parties saying they don't like No Child Left Behind: It's too much testing, or, we don't want to be held to account, or whatever they say. The bill is working. It makes a lot of sense." Press conference, Washington, D.C., February 14, 2007.

“And it's a--at any rate, that's why I made the decision I made. Presidents have to weigh different options all the time. Look, I fully understand there are some who are--don't agree with every decision I make. I hope the American people understand I make those decisions because I believe it's going to yield the peace that we all want." Press conference, Washington, D.C., February 14, 2007.

“I committed to stay involved in the rebuilding of--gosh, a United States Senator, excuse me, Senator--and the Congressman, I beg your pardon. I committed to the people of this part of the world and the Gulf Coast that the federal government would fund recovery and stay committed to the recovery. And one of the reasons I have come down is to hear from you. I fully understand that there are frustrations and I want to know the frustrations. And to the extent we can help, we'll help. I told the people that I would work with the Congress to write a $110 billion check--the people of Louisiana and Mississippi, and that check has been written. And now it's incumbent upon us to get the money into people's hands." Said March 1, 2007, at lunch at Lil Dizzy’s Café, New Orleans, Louisiana, after touring portions of the still-devastated Gulf Coast.

Apropos our linguistically awkward President's most recent use of "I fully understand," his favorite empty phrase: George W. Bush likes to call himself "The Decider"--but wonders never cease. Eighteen months after the onslaught of Hurricane Katrina and the ensuing period of unkept promises to restore the Gulf Coast region to economic viability, the wonder is that he would dare to show his face in a region still dotted with FEMA trailer colonies and proceed to lay the blame for both the untoward delays and the reconstruction debacle everywhere but upon himself.

Labels: "I Fully Understand", George W. Bush, Quotable Quotes

QUOTABLE QUOTES

George W. Bush's losing battle with the English language antedated his election to the presidency. The following samples, arranged in chronological order, predate his inauguration on January 21, 2001. These include some of the choicest examples of his ability to mangle English almost beyond recognition. Most date from the 2000 campaign leading up to his bitterly contested election, thanks to the Supreme Court:

"Natural gas is hemispheric. I like to call it hemispheric in nature because it is a product that we can find in our neighborhoods." Austin, Texas, Dec. 20, 2000.

"I also have picked a secretary for Housing and Human Development. Mel Martinez from the state of Florida." Austin, Texas, Dec. 20, 2000.

"Let me put it to you this way, I am not a revengeful person." quoted in an interview with Time magazine that appeared in the Dec. 25, 2000, issue.

"I am mindful of the difference between the executive branch and the legislative branch. I assured all four of these leaders that I know the difference, and that difference is they pass the laws and I execute them." Washington, D.C., Dec. 18, 2000.

"The great thing about America is everybody should vote." Austin, Texas, Dec. 8, 2000.

"Dick Cheney and I do not want this nation to be in a recession. We want anybody who can find work to be able to find work." 60 Minutes II, Dec. 5, 2000.

"I knew it might put him in an awkward position that we had a discussion before finality has finally happened in this presidential race." Describing a phone call to Sen. John Breaux, Crawford, Texas, Dec. 2, 2000.

"As far as the legal hassling and wrangling and posturing in Florida, I would suggest you talk to our team in Florida led by Jim Baker." Crawford, Texas, Nov. 30, 2000.

"The legislature's job is to write law. It's the executive branch's job to interpret law." Austin, Texas, Nov. 22, 2000.

"They misunderestimated me." Bentonville, Ark., Nov. 6, 2000.

"They want the federal government controlling Social Security like it's some kind of federal program." St. Charles, Mo., Nov. 2, 2000.

"Think about that. Two hundred and eighty-five new or expanded programs, $2 trillion more in new spending, and not one new bureaucrat to file out the forms or answer the phones?" Minneapolis, Minn., Nov. 1, 2000.

"They said, 'You know, this issue doesn't seem to resignate with the people.' And I said, 'You know something? Whether it resignates or not doesn't matter to me, because I stand for doing what's the right thing, and what the right thing is hearing the voices of people who work.'" Portland, Ore., Oct. 31, 2000.

"Anyway, after we go out and work our hearts out, after you go out and help us turn out the vote, after we've convinced the good Americans to vote, and while they're at it, pull that old George W. lever, if I'm the one, when I put my hand on the Bible, when I put my hand on the Bible, that day when they swear us in, when I put my hand on the Bible, I will swear to not--to uphold the laws of the land." Toledo, Ohio, Oct. 27, 2000.

"It's your money. You paid for it." LaCrosse, Wis., Oct. 18, 2000.

"That's a chapter, the last chapter of the 20th, 20th, the 21st century that most of us would rather forget. The last chapter of the 20th century. This is the first chapter of the 21st century. " On the Lewinsky scandal, Arlington Heights, Ill., Oct. 24, 2000.

"It's important for us to explain to our nation that life is important. It's not only life of babies, but it's life of children living in, you know, the dark dungeons of the Internet." Arlington Heights, Ill., Oct. 24, 2000.

"I don't want nations feeling like that they can bully ourselves and our allies. I want to have a ballistic defense system so that we can make the world more peaceful, and at the same time I want to reduce our own nuclear capacities to the level commiserate with keeping the peace." Des Moines, Iowa, Oct. 23, 2000.

"Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream." La Crosse, Wis., Oct. 18, 2000.

"If I'm the president, we're going to have emergency-room care, we're [not] going to have gag orders." / "Drug therapies are replacing a lot of medicines as we used to know it." / "It's one thing about insurance, that's a Washington term."/" I think we ought to raise the age at which juveniles can have a gun."/ "Mr. Vice President, in all due respect, it is--I'm not sure 80 percent of the people [do not] get the death tax. I know this: 100 percent will [not] get it if I'm the president." / "Quotas are bad for America. It's not the way America is all about." / "If affirmative action means what I just described, what I'm for, then I'm for it." St. Louis, Mo., October 18, 2000.

"I mean, there needs to be a wholesale effort against racial profiling, which is illiterate children." Second presidential debate, Oct. 11, 2000 .

"Our priorities is our faith." / "It's going to require numerous IRA agents." On Gore's tax plan, Greensboro, N.C., Oct. 10, 2000.

"I think if you know what you believe, it makes it a lot easier to answer questions. I can't answer your question." In response to a question about whether he wished he could take back any of his answers in the first debate. Reynoldsburg, Ohio, Oct. 4, 2000.

"I would have my secretary of treasury be in touch with the financial centers, not only here but at home." Boston, Oct. 3, 2000.

"I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." Saginaw, Mich., Sept. 29, 2000.

"I will have a foreign-handed foreign policy." Redwood, Calif., Sept. 27, 2000.

"One of the common denominators I have found is that expectations rise above that which is expected." Los Angeles, Sept. 27, 2000.

"It is clear our nation is reliant upon big foreign oil. More and more of our imports come from overseas." Beaverton, Ore., Sept. 25, 2000.

"Well, that's going to be up to the pundits and the people to make up their mind. I'll tell you what is a president for him, for example, talking about my record in the state of Texas. I mean, he's willing to say anything in order to convince people that I haven't had a good record in Texas." MSNBC, Sept. 20, 2000.

"I am a person who recognizes the fallacy of humans." Oprah, Sept. 19, 2000.

"A tax cut is really one of the anecdotes to coming out of an economic illness." The Edge With Paula Zahn, Sept. 18, 2000.

"The woman who knew that I had dyslexia--I never interviewed her." Orange, Calif., Sept. 15, 2000.

"The best way to relieve families from time is to let them keep some of their own money." / "They have miscalculated me as a leader." Westminster, Calif., Sept. 13, 2000.

"I don't think we need to be subliminable about the differences between our views on prescription drugs." Orlando, Fla., Sept. 12, 2000.

"This is what I'm good at. I like meeting people, my fellow citizens, I like interfacing with them." Outside Pittsburgh, Sept. 8, 2000.

"That's Washington. That's the place where you find people getting ready to jump out of the foxholes before the first shot is fired." Westland, Mich., Sept. 8, 2000.

"Listen, Al Gore is a very tough opponent. He is the incumbent. He represents the incumbency. And a challenger is somebody who generally comes from the pack and wins, if you're going to win. And that's where I'm coming from." Detroit, Sept. 7, 2000.

"We'll let our friends be the peacekeepers and the great country called America will be the pacemakers." Houston, Texas, Sept. 6, 2000.

"We don't believe in planners and deciders making the decisions on behalf of Americans." Scranton, Pa., Sept. 6, 2000.

"I regret that a private comment I made to the vice presidential candidate made it through the public airways." Allentown, Pa., Sept. 5, 2000.

"The point is, this is a way to help inoculate me about what has come and is coming."Said about his anti-Gore ad, in an interview with The New York Times, Sept. 2, 2000.

"As governor of Texas, I have set high standards for our public schools, and I have met those standards" / "Well, I think if you say you're going to do something and don't do it, that's [un]trustworthiness." CNN online chat, Aug. 30, 2000.

"I don't know whether I'm going to win or not. I think I am. I do know I'm ready for the job. And, if not, that's just the way it goes." / " This campaign not only hears the voices of the entrepreneurs and the farmers and the entrepreneurs, we hear the voices of those struggling to get ahead." / "We cannot let terrorists and rogue nations hold this nation hostile or hold our allies hostile.'' Des Moines, Iowa, Aug. 21, 2000.

"I have a different vision of leadership. A leadership is someone who brings people together." Bartlett, Tenn., Aug. 18, 2000.

"I think he needs to stand up and say if he thought the president were wrong on policy and issues, he ought to say where." Interview with the Associated Press, Aug. 11, 2000.

"I want you to know that farmers are not going to be secondary thoughts to a Bush administration. They will be in the forethought of our thinking."Salinas, Calif., Aug. 10, 2000.

"You might want to comment on that, Honorable." Said to New Jersey's secretary of state, the Hon. DeForest Soaries Jr., as quoted by Dana Milbank in the Washington Post, July 15, 2000.

"This case has had full analyzation and has been looked at a lot. I understand the emotionality of death penalty cases." Seattle Post-Intelligencer, June 23, 2000.

"States should have the right to enact reasonable laws and restrictions particularly to end the inhumane practice of ending a life that otherwise could live." Cleveland, June 29, 2000.

"Unfairly but truthfully, our party has been tagged as being against things. Anti-immigrant, for example. And we're not a party of anti-immigrants. Quite the opposite. We're a party that welcomes people." Cleveland, July 1, 2000.

"The fundamental question is, 'Will I be a successful president when it comes to foreign policy?' I will be, but until I'm the president, it's going to be hard for me to verify that I think I'll be more effective." Wayne, Mich., as quoted by Katharine Q. Seelye in The New York Times, June 28, 2000

"The only things that I can tell you is that every case I have reviewed I have been comfortable with the innocence or guilt of the person thatI've looked at. I do not believe we've put a guilty...I mean innocent person to death in the state of Texas." All Things Considered, NPR, June 16, 2000.

"There's not going to be enough people in the system to take advantage of people like me." On the coming Social Security crisis, Wilton, Conn.; June 9, 2000.

"I'm gonna talk about the ideal world, Chris. I've read--I understand reality. If you're asking me as the president, would I understand reality, I do." On abortion, Hardball, MSNBC; May 31, 2000.

"I think anybody who doesn't think I'm smart enough to handle the job is underestimating [me]." U.S. News & World Report, April 3, 2000.

Bush: "First of all, Cinco de Mayo is not the independence day. That's dieciséis de Septiembre, and...."
Matthews: "What's that in English?"
Bush: "Fifteenth of September." (Dieciséis de Septiembre = Sept.16). "Actually, I--this may sound a little West Texan to you, but I like it. When I'm talking about--when I'm talking about myself, and when he's talking about myself, all of us are talking about me." Hardball, MSNBC, May 31, 2000.

"This is a world that is much more uncertain than the past. In the past we were certain, we were certain it was us versus the Russians in the past. We were certain, and therefore we had huge nuclear arsenals aimed at each other to keep the peace. That's what we were certain of .... You see, even though it's an uncertain world, we're certain of some things. We're certain that even though the 'evil empire' may have passed, evil still remains. We're certain there are people that can't stand what America stands for.... We're certain there are madmen in this world, and there's terror, and there's missiles and I'm certain of this, too: I'm certain to maintain the peace, we better have a military of high morale, and I'm certain that under this administration, morale in the military is dangerously low." Albuquerque, N.M., quoted in the Washington Post, May 31, 2000.

"He has certainly earned a reputation as a fantastic mayor, because the results speak for themselves. I mean, New York's a safer place for him to be." Said about Rudy Giuliani, The Edge With Paula Zahn, May 18, 2000.

"The fact that he relies on facts--says things that are not factual--are going to undermine his campaign." The New York Times, March 4, 2000.

"I think we agree, the past is over." On his meeting with Sen. John McCain, in the Dallas Morning News, May 10, 2000.

"It's clearly a budget. It's got a lot of numbers in it." Reuters, May 5, 2000.

Gov. Bush: Because the picture on the newspaper. It just seems so un-American to me, the picture of the guy storming the house with a scared little boy there. I talked to my little brother, Jeb-I haven't told this to many people. But he's the governor of--I shouldn't call him my little brother--my brother, Jeb, the great governor of Texas.
Jim Lehrer: Florida.
Gov. Bush: Florida. The state of the Florida. The NewsHour With Jim
Lehrer, April 27, 2000.

"I hope we get to the bottom of the answer. It's what I'm interested to know." On what happened in negotiations between the Justice Department and Elián González's Miami relatives, as quoted by the Associated Press, April 26, 2000.

"Laura and I really don't realize how bright our children is sometimes until we get an objective analysis." CNBC, April 15, 2000.

"You subscribe politics to it. I subscribe freedom to it." Responding to a question about whether he and Al Gore were making the Elián González case a political issue. In Palm Beach, Fla., as quoted by the Associated Press, April 6, 2000.

"I was raised in the West. The west of Texas. It's pretty close to California. In more ways than Washington, D.C., is close to California." In Los Angeles as quoted by the Los Angeles Times, April 8, 2000.

"Reading is the basics for all learning." Announcing his "Reading First" initiative in Reston, Va., March 28, 2000.

"We want our teachers to be trained so they can meet the obligations, their obligations as teachers. We want them to know how to teach the science of reading. In order to make sure there's not this kind of federal--federal cufflink." At Fritsche Middle School, Milwaukee, March 30, 2000.

"I've got a reason for running. I talk about a larger goal, which is to call upon the best of America. It's part of the renewal. It's reformand renewal. Part of the renewal is a set of high standards and to remind people that the greatness of America really does depend on neighbors helping neighbors and children finding mentors. I worry. I'm very worried about, you know, the kid who just wonders whether America is meant for him. I really worry about that. And uh, so, I'm running for a reason. I'm answering this question here and the answer is, you cannot lead America to a positive tomorrow with revenge on one's mind. Revenge is so incredibly negative. And so to answer your question, I'm going to win because people sense my heart, know my sense of optimism and know where I want to lead the country. And I tease people by saying, 'A leader, you can't say, follow me the world is going to be worse.' I'm an optimistic person. I'm an inherently content person. I've got a great sense of where I want to lead and I'm comfortable with why I'm running. And, you know, the call on that speech was, beware. This is going to be a tough campaign." Interview with the Washington Post, March 23, 2000.

"People make suggestions on what to say all the time. I'll give you an example; I don't read what's handed to me. People say, 'Here, here's your speech, or here's an idea for a speech.' They're changed. Trust me." Interview with The New York Times, March 15, 2000.

"It's evolutionary, going from governor to president, and this is a significant step, to be able to vote for yourself on the ballot, and I'll be able to do so next fall, I hope." Interview with the Associated Press, March 8, 2000.

"It is not Reaganesque to support a tax plan that is Clinton in nature.'' Los Angeles, Feb. 23, 2000.

"I don't have to accept their tenants. I was trying to convince those college students to accept my tenants. And I reject any labeling me because I happened to go to the university." Today, Feb. 23, 2000.

"I understand small business growth. I was one." New York Daily News, Feb. 19, 2000.

"The senator has got to understand if he's going to have--he can't have it both ways. He can't take the high horse and then claim the low road." Said to reporters in Florence, S.C., Feb. 17, 2000.

"Really proud of it. A great campaign. And I'm really pleased with the organization and the thousands of South Carolinians that worked on my behalf. And I'm very gracious and humbled." Said to Cokie Roberts, This Week, Feb. 20, 2000.

"I don't want to win? If that were the case why the heck am I on the bus 16 hours a day, shaking thousands of hands, giving hundreds of speeches, getting pillared in the press and cartoons and still staying on message to win?" / "I thought how proud I am to be standing up beside my dad. Never did it occur to me that he would become the gist for cartoonists." Newsweek, Feb. 28, 2000.

"If you're sick and tired of the politics of cynicism and polls and principles, come and join this campaign." Hilton Head, S.C., Feb. 16, 2000.

"How do you know if you don't measure if you have a system that simply suckles kids through?" Explaining the need for educational accountability in Beaufort, S.C., Feb. 16, 2000.

"We ought to make the pie higher." South Carolina Republican Debate, Feb. 15, 2000.

"I do not agree with this notion that somehow if I go to try to attract votes and to lead people toward a better tomorrow somehow I get subscribed to some--some doctrine gets subscribed to me." / "I've changed my style somewhat, as you know. I'm less--I pontificate less, although it may be hard to tell it from this show. And I'm more interacting with people." Meet the Press, Feb. 13, 2000.

"I think we need not only to eliminate the tollbooth to the middle class, I think we should knock down the tollbooth." Nashua, N.H., quoted by Gail Collins in The New York Times, Feb. 1, 2000.

"The most important job is not to be governor, or first lady in my case." Pella, Iowa, quoted in the San Antonio Express-News, Jan. 30, 2000.

"Will the highways on the Internet become more few?" Concord, N.H., Jan. 29, 2000.

"This is Preservation Month. I appreciate preservation. It's what you do when you run for president. You gotta preserve." Speaking during "Perseverance Month" at Fairgrounds Elementary School in Nashua, N.H., and quoted in the Los Angeles Times, Jan. 28, 2000.

"I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family." Greater Nashua, N.H., Chamber of Commerce, Jan. 27, 2000.

"What I am against is quotas. I am against hard quotas, quotas they basically delineate based upon whatever. However they delineate, quotas, I think vulcanize society. So I don't know how that fits into what everybody else is saying, their relative positions, but that's my position.'' Quoted by Molly Ivins, the San Francisco Chronicle, Jan. 21, 2000.

"When I was coming up, it was a dangerous world, and you knew exactly who they were," he said. "It was us vs. them, and it was clear who them was. Today, we are not so sure who the they are, but we know they're there." Iowa Western Community College, Council Bluffs, Iowa, Jan 21, 2000.

"The administration I'll bring is a group of men and women who are focused on what's best for America, honest men and women, decent men and women, women who will see service to our country as a great privilege and who will not stain the house." Des Moines Register debate, Iowa, Jan. 15, 2000.

"This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mential losses." / "We must all hear the universal call to like your neighbor just like you like to be liked yourself." At a South Carolina oyster roast, as quoted in the Financial Times, Jan. 14, 2000.

"Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?" / "Gov. Bush will not stand for the subsidation of failure." Florence, S.C., Jan. 11, 2000.

"There needs to be debates, like we're going through. There needs to be town-hall meetings. There needs to be travel. This is a huge country." Larry King Live, Dec. 16, 1999.

"I think it's important for those of us in a position of responsibility to be firm in sharing our experiences, to understand that the babies out of wedlock is a very difficult chore for mom and baby alike.... I believe we ought to say there is a different alternative than the culture that is proposed by people like Miss Wolf in society.... And, you know, hopefully, condoms will work, but it hasn't worked." Meet the Press, Nov. 21, 1999.

"It is incredibly presumptive for somebody who has not yet earned his party's nomination to start speculating about vice presidents." Keene, N.H., Oct. 22, 1999, quoted in The New Republic, Nov. 15, 1999.

"The important question is, How many hands have I shaked?" Answering a question about why he hasn't spent more time in New Hampshire, in The New York Times, Oct. 23, 1999.

"I don't remember debates. I don't think we spent a lot of time debating it. Maybe we did, but I don't remember." On discussions of the Vietnam War when he was an undergraduate at Yale, in the Washington Post, July 27, 1999.

"The only thing I know about Slovakia is what I learned first-hand from your foreign minister, who came to Texas." To a Slovak journalist as quoted by Knight Ridder News Service, June 22, 1999. Unfortunately, the meeting Mr. Bush referred to was with Janez Drnovsek, the prime minister of Slovenia.

"If the East Timorians decide to revolt, I'm sure I'll have a statement." Quoted by Maureen Dowd in The New York Times, June 16, 1999.

"Keep good relations with the Grecians." Quoted in The Economist, June 12, 1999.

"Kosovians can move back in." CNN Inside Politics, April 9, 1999.

"It was just inebriating what Midland was all about then." In a 1994 interview, quoted in First Son, by Bill Minutaglio.

Labels: George W. Bush, Quotable Quotes