There's a serious debate in this country as to how best to end the recession. The average recession will last five to 11 months; the average recovery will last six years. Recessions will end on their own if they're left alone. What can make the recession worse is the wrong kind of government intervention.
I believe the wrong kind is precisely what President Barack Obama has proposed. I don't believe his is a "stimulus plan" at all -- I don't think it stimulates anything but the Democratic Party. This "porkulus" bill is designed to repair the Democratic Party's power losses from the 1990s forward, and to cement the party's majority power for decades.
Keynesian economists believe government spending on "shovel-ready" infrastructure projects -- schools, roads, bridges -- is the best way to stimulate our staggering economy. Supply-side economists make an equally persuasive case that tax cuts are the surest and quickest way to create permanent jobs and cause an economy to rebound. That happened under JFK, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. We know that when tax rates are cut in a recession, it brings an economy back.
Recent polling indicates that the American people are in favor of both approaches.
Notwithstanding the media blitz in support of the Obama stimulus plan, most Americans, according to a new Rasmussen poll, are skeptical. Rasmussen finds that 59% fear that Congress and the president will increase government spending too much. Only 17% worry they will cut taxes too much. Since the American people are not certain that the Obama stimulus plan is the way to go, it seems to me there's an opportunity for genuine compromise. At the same time, we can garner evidence on how to deal with future recessions, so every occurrence will no longer become a matter of partisan debate.
Congress is currently haggling over how to spend $900 billion generated by American taxpayers in the private sector. (It's important to remember that it's the people's money, not Washington's.) In a Jan. 23 meeting between President Obama and Republican leaders, Rep. Eric Cantor (R., Va.) proposed a moderate tax cut plan. President Obama responded, "I won. I'm going to trump you on that."
Yes, elections have consequences. But where's the bipartisanship, Mr. Obama? This does not have to be a divisive issue. My proposal is a genuine compromise.
Fifty-three percent of American voters voted for Barack Obama; 46% voted for John McCain, and 1% voted for wackos. Give that 1% to President Obama. Let's say the vote was 54% to 46%. As a way to bring the country together and at the same time determine the most effective way to deal with recessions, under the Obama-Limbaugh Stimulus Plan of 2009: 54% of the $900 billion -- $486 billion -- will be spent on infrastructure and pork as defined by Mr. Obama and the Democrats; 46% -- $414 billion -- will be directed toward tax cuts, as determined by me.
Then we compare. We see which stimulus actually works. This is bipartisanship! It would satisfy the American people's wishes, as polls currently note; and it would also serve as a measurable test as to which approach best stimulates job growth.
I say, cut the U.S. corporate tax rate -- at 35%, among the highest of all industrialized nations -- in half. Suspend the capital gains tax for a year to incentivize new investment, after which it would be reimposed at 10%. Then get out of the way! Once Wall Street starts ticking up 500 points a day, the rest of the private sector will follow. There's no reason to tell the American people their future is bleak. There's no reason, as the administration is doing, to depress their hopes. There's no reason to insist that recovery can't happen quickly, because it can.
In this new era of responsibility, let's use both Keynesians and supply-siders to responsibly determine which theory best stimulates our economy -- and if elements of both work, so much the better. The American people are made up of Republicans, Democrats, independents and moderates, but our economy doesn't know the difference. This is about jobs now.
The economic crisis is an opportunity to unify people, if we set aside the politics. The leader of the Democrats and the leader of the Republicans (me, according to Mr. Obama) can get it done. This will have the overwhelming support of the American people. Let's stop the acrimony. Let's start solving our problems, together. Why wait one more day?
Mr. Limbaugh is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host.
Most politicians would rather do anything than make a difficult choice, and it seems President Obama hasn't abandoned this Senatorial habit. To wit, yesterday's executive order on interrogation: It imposes broad limits on how aggressively U.S. intelligence officers can question terrorists, but it also keeps open the prospect of legal loopholes that would allow them to press harder in tough cases.
AP
While that kind of double standard may resolve a domestic political problem, it's no way to fight a war. The human-rights lobby and many Democrats are still experiencing hypochondria about the Bush Administration's supposed torture program, and their cheering about this "clean break" means they may be appeased. But the larger risk is that Mr. Obama's restrictions end up disabling an essential tool in the U.S. antiterror arsenal.
Effective immediately, the interrogation of anyone "in the custody or under the effective control of an officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government" will be conducted within the limits of the Army Field Manual. That includes special-ops and the Central Intelligence Agency, which will now be required to give prisoners gentler treatment than common criminals. The Field Manual's confines don't even allow the average good cop/bad cop routines common in most police precincts.
The Army Field Manual is already the operating guide for military interrogations. The crux of the "torture" debate has been that the Bush Administration permitted more coercive techniques in rare cases -- fewer than 100 detainees, according to CIA Director Michael Hayden. Yesterday Mr. Obama revoked the 2007 Presidential carve-out that protected this CIA flexibility.
The techniques that had been permissible until yesterday remain classified but were widely believed to include such things as stress positions, exposure to cold and sleep deprivation. Senior officials have said they stopped waterboarding in 2003 -- which in any case was only used against three senior al Qaeda operatives and succeeded in breaking these men to divulge information that foiled terror plots.
The unfine print of Mr. Obama's order is that he's allowed room for what might be called a Jack Bauer exception. It creates a committee to study whether the Field Manual techniques are too limiting "when employed by departments or agencies outside the military." The Attorney General, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Director of National Intelligence-designate Dennis Blair will report back and offer "additional or different guidance for other departments or agencies."
In other words, Mr. Obama's Inaugural line that "we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals" was itself misrepresenting the choices his predecessor was forced to make. At least President Bush was candid about the practical realities of preventing mass casualties in the U.S.
The "special task force" may well grant the CIA more legal freedom to squeeze information out of terrorists when it could keep the country safe. An anecdote former Clinton counterterror czar Richard Clarke recounts in his memoir "Against All Enemies" is instructive. In 1993, White House Counsel Lloyd Cutler was horrified by Mr. Clarke's proposal for "extraordinary rendition," where our spooks turn over prisoners to foreign countries like Egypt so they can do the interrogating.
While Mr. Clinton was still chewing his fingernails and seemed to side with Mr. Cutler, Al Gore arrived late to the meeting. "Clinton recapped the arguments on both sides," Mr. Clarke writes. "Gore laughed and said, 'That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass.'"
The wider danger Mr. Obama is inviting by claiming to draw a line while drawing no line at all is the message it sends to Langley. CIA interrogators are already buying legal insurance in the expectation that a Senator like Carl Levin or some prosecutor-on-the-make rings them up for war crimes. The executive order is bound to produce a more risk-averse CIA culture and over time less intelligence-gathering. No one may be willing to be Jack Bauer when Mr. Obama really needs him. This will have consequences for U.S. safety, and for the Obama Administration if there is another 9/11.
"What is required of us now," President Barack Obama said in his inaugural address this week, "is a new era of responsibility -- a recognition on the part of every American that we have duties to ourselves, our nation and the world." It is a message that nonprofit organizations would like our nation to take to heart, as 2009 fund-raising begins.
Unfortunately, we nonprofit leaders, like our for-profit counterparts, are laying awake nights. The end of 2008 was disappointing for philanthropy, and some believe that 2009 will be difficult as well. Indiana University's Center on Philanthropy publishes the Philanthropic Giving Index (PGI), which tracks the predictions of nonprofit leaders about charitable giving. Like the more-famous Consumer Confidence Index, it shows a level of gloom not seen in years, falling from 83 to 65 (on a 0-100 scale) in just six months.
The PGI is useful, but it is a blunt tool for predicting charitable giving by individuals or to specific charities. It does not tell us that all nonprofits will experience equal pain. Nor does it tell us that all givers will lower their giving by the same amount. In fact, there is good evidence that some Americans will maintain their giving levels far more than others in spite of the recession. One beleaguered group in particular promises to hold up their charitable end in spite of the sputtering economy: political conservatives.
Over the past several years, studies have consistently shown that people on the political right outperform those on the left when it comes to charity. This pattern appears to have held -- increased, even -- in 2008.
In May of last year, the Gallup polling organization asked 1,200 American adults about their giving patterns. People who called themselves "conservative" or "very conservative" made up 42% of the population surveyed, but gave 56% of the total charitable donations. In contrast, "liberal" or "very liberal" respondents were 29% of those polled but gave just 7% of donations.
These disparities were not due to differences in income. People who said they were "very conservative" gave 4.5% of their income to charity, on average; "conservatives" gave 3.6%; "moderates" gave 3%; "liberals" gave 1.5%; and "very liberal" folks gave 1.2%.
A common explanation for this pattern is that conservatives are more religious than liberals, and are simply giving to their churches. My own research in the past showed that religion was a major reason conservatives donated so much, and that secular conservatives gave even less than secular liberals.
It appears this is no longer the case, however: The 2008 data tell us that secular conservatives are now outperforming their secular liberal counterparts. Compare two people who attend religious services less than once per year (or never) and who are also identical in terms of income, education, sex, age and family status -- but one is on the political right while the other is on the left. The secular liberal will give, on average, $1,100 less to charity per year than the secular conservative. The conservative charity edge cannot be explained away by gifts to churches.
Perhaps you suspect that the vast political contributions given to the Obama campaign -- $742 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, versus $367 million for the McCain campaign -- were crowding out charitable giving by the left. But political donations, impressive as they were this year by historical standards, were still miniscule compared to the approximately $300 billion Americans gave charitably in 2008. Adding political and charitable gifts together would not change the overall giving patterns.
But here's where the charity gap really starts to make a difference for the recession of 2009: Conservatives don't just give more; they also decrease their giving less than liberals do in response to lousy economic conditions.
Economists measure the "income elasticity of giving" to predict how much people change their giving in response to a particular percentage change in their income. It turns out the response in 2008 was dramatically different for left and right. For instance, a 10% decrease in family income for a conservative was associated with a 10% decrease in giving. The same income decrease for a liberal family led to a 16% giving drop. In other words, if this relationship continues to hold, the recession will almost certainly exacerbate the giving differences between left and right.
All this is good news for the health and survival of explicitly conservative organizations, of course. But folks on the political right give to all types of nonprofits -- from soup kitchens to symphony orchestras -- not just conservative groups.
Ironically, few environments are less tolerant of conservatives and their ideas than the nonprofit world. The Chronicle of Philanthropy reported in October of 2008 that employees of major charities favored Democrats over Republicans in their private political contributions by a margin of 82% to 18%. Among the employees of major foundations, the difference was an astounding 98% to 2%.
Reasonable people can disagree on politics, but the numbers on giving speak for themselves. Nonprofit executives, disproportionately politically progressive, do well to remember that many of the folks they will count on in hard times are not necessarily those who share their political views. Understanding this might make for better fund raising in a scary year -- and help us all to give credit where it is due.
Mr. Brooks is president of the American Enterprise Institute, and the author of "Who Really Cares" and "Gross National Happiness" (Basic Books).
NATIONAL SECURITY MEDAL AWARDED TO FORMER NCTC DIRECTOR
President George W. Bush awarded the National Security Medal to retired Vice Adm. John “Scott” Redd at a White House Ceremony Jan. 16, 2009. Redd was recognized by the President for “his more than 40 years of exceptional service to the Nation strengthening its intelligence capabilities and improving national security.” The National Security Medal is America’s highest intelligence award reserved for those with distinguished achievements or outstanding contributions in the field.
Redd became the first Senate confirmed director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) in August 2005 and served in that position until November 2007. NCTC leads the U.S. Government’s counterterrorism efforts by analyzing and sharing threat information and integrating all elements of national power to defeat terrorist threats at home and abroad.
In awarding the medal, the President called Redd “an innovator, a strategic thinker, an inspirational leader and a dedicated servant to the Nation, respected for his vision, courage and integrity.” During his remarks the President also thanked Redd’s wife Donna for her service over many years. The Redd’s daughter Anne Redd Chamberlin and sons Scott Redd Jr., and Adam Redd attended the White House ceremony.
Redd served 36 years in the Navy, commanded eight organizations and served in several senior policy positions in the Pentagon. His last active duty assignment was as Director of Strategic Plans and Policy on the Joint Staff. In 1995, he founded the first new US Navy Fleet in half a century, serving as the first Commander Fifth Fleet since the World War II era. Redd retired from active military service in 1998.
Following his military service he was the CEO of a high tech firm. He served briefly as the Deputy Administrator and Chief Operating Officer of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad, Iraq before becoming the Executive Director of the President’s Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction in 2004.
An avid amateur radio operator, Redd was inducted into the CQ Amateur Radio Hall of Fame in May 2008. He has won numerous amateur radio operator awards including seven world championships.
A native of Sidney, Iowa, Redd graduated second in his class from the United States Naval Academy in 1966. He currently resides in the suburbs of Washington, D.C.
NCTC Mission: Lead our nation’s effort to combat terrorism at home and abroad by analyzing the threat, sharing that information with our partners, and integrating all instruments of national power to ensure unity of effort.
Is it a coincidence that the single was posted on the band’s site right after their appearance at the inauguration pre-game show?
You know who was really good at the pre-game show? JOHN MELLENCAMP!
Yes, I’m a fan John. Run that through your twisted little paranoid brain. To see you there with just an acoustic, albeit supported by a guitar player and a band in the pit featuring your one time drummer Kenny Aronoff, made me feel all warm and fuzzy. That a guy from the heartland with no connections singing what it’s like to be a real American can go all the way. Not only with a supermodel, but the American public. Still, no matter what stunts you pull, the mainstream no longer cares about you. If you want to grow your career, do it from the inside out, motivating the fans you do have, not inconsiderable in number, rather than putting out press releases trumpeting your political statements. Press releases are to be ignored.
And James Taylor… Liked that you played that crazy electric guitar. But John Legend is blander than you are. And don’t we all hate that girl from Sugarland for some reason we just can’t put our finger on? Great song choice, but the performance hit me more intellectually than emotionally, and that’s not the way you do it in rock and roll.
Bruce?
Utterly laughable. Sure, "The Rising" may be lyrically appropriate, but sometimes you’ve got to seize the moment. Which called for an acoustic version of "Born To Run", with the walls eventually opening to reveal the full E Street Band. As for "This Land Is Your Land"… Where was Arlo Guthrie?
Loved Stevie Wonder. He can still play that clavinet.
As for U2…
Another great song choice! They were doing it the way you’re supposed to, just the four of them, without backing tapes, Edge filling up the sound. It’s just that outside, it’s hard to feel the music, even the edgiest band usually sounds flat, and it’s even worse if you’re appearing in daylight. Still, gave me goosebumps. But I didn’t love Bono being all things to all people. Supporting both the Israelis and the Palestinians. It’s more complicated than that. Like how do we categorize Hamas, are they a terrorist group? Bono knows the answer, but he needs everyone to love him.
As for the second number… I was thinking for a minute it was going to be "I Will Follow". Alas, it was one of the substandard new numbers.
And speaking of substandard…
Famously, Ian Anderson and Chrysalis subjected Jethro Tull’s 1987 album "Crest Of A Knave" to focus groups. Listeners decided what songs ultimately appeared on the record, which turned out to be a huge success. (And won the heavy metal Grammy, beating out Metallica.)
Am I a believer in research? Not really, not in rock and roll. It’ll tell you where you’ve been, but not where you’re going. But if your goal is to have a hit and be famous…
"Beautiful Day" and "Vertigo" may have been cheap shots, playing to the last row, but at least they worked on that level. You got ‘em on one listen. Maybe didn’t love ‘em, but didn’t mind hearing them again. Whereas "Get On Your Boots"…
You’ve got to go back to "The Fly". The initial single off "Achtung Baby". Truly left field. But featuring crunchy, explosive guitar sounds. And possessing an anthemic feel. This was a track made for the darkness of a club. With sweetness in the middle for sex in the bathroom. It got better with every listen. And you wanted to hear it again. If for no reason than it sounded nothing quite like anything else you’d ever heard. They could have led with "Mysterious Ways", even "One", but U2 did not play it safe. But they led with a killer. God, catch Adam Clayton’s bass. And Bono’s vocal. That was one thing that was truly impressive yesterday, Bono Vox’s voice. In an era where no one can truly sing anymore, he can.
But "Get On Your Boots" sounds too garagey, without the soul that is evidenced in "The Fly". And the chorus would make George Martin laugh. There’s a bridge, but it’s not as catchy as the one in "I Want To Hold Your Hand".
But maybe this is just the cred track. The one for the fans. But how many people have actually heard this? That’s the problem with spending months in the studio, you lose your perspective. You hear tracks so many times you don’t realize that someone who’s not invested might be thrown off with one listen.
Maybe it’s the audio quality. Maybe if it were richer, on a big system…
But if more people were allowed to hear the track before release they’d bump up against the dreaded piracy issue. But maybe U2 could have taken a risk, a la Radiohead. Let the AUDIENCE pick the single! Truly go Web 2.0, getting people involved. They’ve already got their own iPod, never mind iTunes commercials. Isn’t it time to test the limits further?
You’ve got Perez Hilton trumpeting the success of Kelly Clarkson’s new cut, saying it’s already gone to #12 on iTunes, and calling "Put On Your Boots" CRAPTASTIC! Sure, who gives a shit about what Mario Lavendeira says? Oops, more music consumers than are paying attention to the "New York Times", "Rolling Stone" and so many of the usual suspects. Furthermore, Perez’s readers are ACTIVE! They forward his posts to others, they create buzz. And it’s hard to get the stink off something he condemns.
Which only matters if you need to be king of the world Perez inhabits.
Well, historically, in the twenty first century, U2 has. So, this is not good.
Its call sign has always been Air Force One. But on Tuesday, it was Special Air Mission 28000, as former President George W. Bush and his wife Laura returned home to Texas on a plane full of family, friends, former staff and memories of eight years in the White House.
AP
The former president and his wife thanked each passenger, showing the thoughtfulness and grace so characteristic of this wonderful American family.
A video tribute produced warm laughter and inevitable tears. There was no bitterness, but rather a sense of gratitude -- gratitude for the opportunity to serve, for able and loyal colleagues, and above all for our country and its people.
Yet, as Mr. Bush left Washington, in a last angry frenzy his critics again distorted his record, maligned his character and repeated untruths about his years in the Oval Office. Nothing they wrote or said changes the essential facts.
To start with, Mr. Bush was right about Iraq. The world is safer without Saddam Hussein in power. And the former president was right to change strategy and surge more U.S. troops.
A legion of critics (including President Barack Obama) claimed it couldn't work. They were wrong. Iraq is now on the mend, the war is on the path to victory, al Qaeda has been dealt a humiliating defeat, and a democracy in the heart of the Arab world is emerging. The success of Mr. Bush's surge made it possible for President Obama to warn terrorists on Tuesday "you cannot outlast us."
Mr. Bush was right to establish a doctrine that holds those who harbor, train and support terrorists as responsible as the terrorists themselves. He was right to take the war on terror abroad instead of waiting until dangers fully materialize here at home. He was right to strengthen the military and intelligence and to create the new tools to monitor the communications of terrorists, freeze their assets, foil their plots, and kill and capture their operators.
These tough decisions -- which became unpopular in certain quarters only when memories of 9/11 began to fade -- kept America safe for seven years and made it possible for Mr. Obama to tell the terrorists on Tuesday "we will defeat you."
Mr. Bush was right to be a unilateralist when it came to combating AIDS in Africa. While world leaders dithered, his President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief initiative brought lifesaving antiretroviral drugs to millions of Africans.
At home, Mr. Bush cut income taxes for every American who pays taxes. He also cut taxes on capital, investment and savings. The result was 52 months of growth and the strongest economy of any developed country.
Mr. Bush was right to match tax cuts with spending restraint. This is a source of dispute, especially among conservatives, but the record is there to see. Bill Clinton's last budget increased domestic nonsecurity discretionary spending by 16%. Mr. Bush cut that to 6.2% growth in his first budget, 5.5% in his second, 4.3% in his third, 2.2% in his fourth, and then below inflation, on average, since. That isn't the sum total of the fiscal record, of course -- but it's a key part of it.
He was right to have modernized Medicare with prescription drug benefits provided through competition, not delivered by government. The program is costing 40% less than projected because market forces dominate and people -- not government -- are making the decisions.
Mr. Bush was right to pass No Child Left Behind (NCLB), requiring states to set up tough accountability systems that measure every child's progress at school. As a result, reading and math scores have risen more in the last five years since NCLB than in the prior 28 years.
He was right to stand for a culture of life. And he was right to appoint conservative judges who strictly interpret the Constitution.
And Mr. Bush, a man of core decency and integrity, was right not to reply in kind when Democratic leaders called him a liar and a loser. The price of trying to change the tone in Washington was to be often pummeled by lesser men.
Few presidents had as many challenges arise during their eight years, had as many tough calls to make in such a partisan-charged environment, or had to act in the face of such hostile media and elite opinion.
On board Special Air Mission 28000, I remembered the picture I carried in my pocket on my first Air Force One flight eight years ago. It was an old black-and-white snapshot with scalloped edges. It showed Lyndon Johnson in the Cabinet Room, head in hand, weeping over a Vietnam casualty report. George Christian, LBJ's press secretary, gave it to me as a reminder that the job could break anyone, no matter how big and tough.
But despite facing challenges and crises few others have, the job did not break George W. Bush. Though older and grayer, his brows more furrowed, he is the same man he was, a person of integrity who did what he believed was right. And he exits knowing he summoned all of his energy and talents to defend America and advance its ideals at home and abroad. He didn't get everything right -- no president does -- but he got the most important things right. And that is enough.
Mr. Rove is the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.
Chapter 1 of 5 Former CIA director James Woolsey discusses the failure of the intelligence community in the run-up to the Iraq war. PERMALINK
Chapter 2 of 5 James Woolsey discusses Barack Obama’s selection of Leon Panetta to head the CIA, as well as the historical relationship between the president and the CIA director. PERMALINK Intelligence & Security with James Woolsey: Chapter 3 of 5 James Woolsey describes the current conflict, or World War IV, as a global battle against “theocratic totalitarian genocidal maniacs.” PERMALINK
A disinterested appraisal of Bush administration foreign policy will take years. For millions on the Left, events in Iraq, Guantánamo, and New Orleans rendered the 43rd president an ill-omened phantasma—omnipotent, ubiquitous, and responsible for all mischief big and small. “Bush Did It” soon became a sort of ritual throat-clearing that critics evoked at each new Florida hurricane, Israeli-Palestinian mini-war, or serial “revelation” from a Paul O’Neill, Richard Clarke, or Scott McClellan.
The fact remains, though, that most of the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives shared Bush’s desire to remove Saddam Hussein after 9/11. They patted the president on the back when he finally did so (after 16 months of acrimonious debate between the fall of the Taliban and the invasion of Iraq), abandoned him when the postbellum insurgency arose, opposed the surge when he nearly alone supported it, and gave him no credit for Iraq’s eventual success. Now, in a sort of theater-of-the-absurd fashion, they claim Iraq worked largely because they once declared it lost and thereby prompted the necessary changes. The congressional opposition’s record on Iraq is largely one of opportunism, his of principle—and that too will become part of the historical record.
Yet, strangest of all, well before even assuming office, the ever-flexible President-elect Obama has done much to prompt reassessment of Bush’s tenure. He apparently has chosen to drop most of his primary-election rhetoric and instead intends to continue nearly all of the sitting president’s anti-terrorism and foreign-policy initiatives—albeit cloaked in far-more-winning mantras of hope and change, energized by youthful charisma, and predicated on subtle appeals to multiracial fides.
The only discontinuity seems to be with the stance of the mainstream media. Without apology, journalists have already gone from the narrative of Bush, the destroyer of civil liberties, to Obama the continuer of “problematic” and “complex” measures. So just as Bush once eagerly licked his chops and salivated over Gulag Guantánamo, so Obama now with wrinkled brow and bitten lip is himself tortured that he has to sorta, kinda keep it open for a while longer.
Abroad, Bush has had three major successes.
We were not attacked after 9/11, despite serial warnings that such a comparable terrorist assault was inevitable. Bush created a new methodology of anti-terrorism. In magnitude and comprehensiveness (though unfortunately not in explication), it was analogous to Truman’s similarly controversial promotion of anti-Soviet containment that proved successful for the subsequent near half-century.
For all the rhetoric about Bush’s manufactured war on terror, today it is much more difficult—as the dozens of failed plots during the last seven years attest—to pull off a terrorist act inside the United States. War abroad and new anti-terrorism vigilance at home have decimated those who would wage such attacks.
Even Obama recognizes the success of these measures. We can see this well enough with the president-elect’s shifting positions on FISA, renditions, the Patriot Act, Guantánamo, and withdrawal from Iraq (once envisioned by Obama to be completed by March 2008). Bob Gates II won’t be that different from Bob Gates I at Defense; Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State will be far closer to Condoleezza Rice than to Howard Dean or Al Gore. Gen. James L. Jones could easily have served as national security adviser in the Bush administration. Hamas and other Palestinian groups will probably not get better actual treatment from Obama than they got from Bush—just some soothing rhetoric about dialogue and engagement rather than dead-or-alive, smoke-’em-out lingo. Add all the foreign-policy alignments up, and either Bush was right then, or Obama is wrong now.
The tired neocon slur has been that a secretive group of pro-Likud Jewish advisers of dual loyalties—Feith, Libby, Perle, Wolfowitz, Wurmser, etc.—convinced the clueless Bush to remove a largely harmless and irrelevant Saddam and, soon after, to consider further regime change for a host of other dictators (all to help Israel and steal the region’s oil resources, of course). The truth was far different. Bush undertook just two operations to remove the two worst regimes in the region and, in a departure from Cold War–era policies, to encourage constitutional governments, not oligarchies, in their places.
The Taliban was a nightmarish Murder Inc. masquerading as a fundamentalist theocracy that rented its soil to al-Qaeda and other global terrorism networks. Saddam Hussein had been at war, in various manifestations, with the United States since 1991, using his oil to fund terrorists, build an arsenal, and attack his neighbors. Accordingly, the Clinton administration, when it was not bombing Iraq or taking over its air space, had passed legislation calling for regime change. Congress passed decrees citing 23 reasons why the United States president should be authorized to remove Saddam by force.
After a brilliant three-week victory, subsequent mistakes—to my mind the worst was the obsessive focus on WMD at the expense of the other Congressional articles authorizing the war, the reprieve given the Fallujah terrorists in April 2004, and the stand down accorded a trapped Muqtada al-Sadr—turned a temporary occupation into a counter-insurgency. That said, despite the great cost in blood and treasure, Bush’s persistence, and the heroism and competence of the American soldier, finally ensured both the permanent end of a murderous tyranny and the survival of a constitutional government. The idea in 2001 that Sunni Iraqi Arabs in 2007–08 would have been fighting with Americans to destroy al-Qaeda terrorists would have seemed fantasy. By 2007, the popularity of both bin Laden and the tactic of suicide bombing had plummeted throughout the Arab Middle East.
The evacuation from Lebanon by the Syrian army, the surrender of Dr. A. Q. Khan’s Pakistani nuclear franchise, and the shutdown of Libya’s bomb-making program were results of the humiliation and fall of the Hussein dictatorship, and fears of a new no-nonsense American policy.
Aerial incursions into Pakistan have decimated al-Qaeda leaders—and Obama, who will largely continue existing policies in Afghanistan, won’t stop them. In fact, Bush’s support for democratization in the Middle East will allow Obama a far-wider range of choices than would have been the case if Bush had followed most conservative realists and simply extended blanket support for existing oligarchies. After Bush, there is no longer a simple calculus that liberals encourage democracy abroad, while conservatives don’t.
Bush, it was alleged, foolishly empowered Iran. But that too is a premature conjecture. Iran is at present nearly bankrupt from the crash of oil prices. Despite being an oil-exporter, it is dependent on foreigners for much of its own gasoline supply. Its terrorist clients—Hezbollah and Hamas—have bad habits of provoking Israel, suffering tremendous damage, declaring premature victory by virtue that they survived the IDF, and then needing even more billions from Iran to replace terrible losses in men and materiel.
Because Iranian agents once nearly destroyed Iraqi democracy, the example of a constitutional Iraq may prove in the long run destabilizing to theocratic Iran. And with the demise of Saddam’s lunatic regime, which once attacked both Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, the Sunni Arab nations can far more readily rally to isolate Iran. The truth is that, in the post-Saddam climate, a new reality is emerging in the Middle East, with Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran isolated from, and hated and feared by, their Muslim brethren.
The media narrative is that President-elect Obama inherits a world turned upside down by George W. Bush. If so, where exactly will come the radical corrective changes, other than soaring (and let us hope effective) rhetoric about global hope and change? Will there be a new American relationship with China and India—both of which seem to appreciate the free-trade policies of the Bush administration?
Europe clearly favors Obama, but its two anti-Bush governments of Chirac and Schroeder are long gone, having given way to staunchly pro-American replacements. Apart from offering some soothing “We are the World” rhetoric of deference to the U.N. and multilateral dialogue, it is hard to determine exactly what the Europeans want Obama to do differently than Bush did. I doubt they look forward to true shoulder-to-shoulder, share-the-risk solidarity in Afghanistan. They talk grandly about Kyoto but have hardly reduced their own carbon footprints. If in times of crisis Obama invites them to multiparty talks with the Iranians or Russians, they will probably prefer old-style American leadership to “we are right behind you” assurances.
For all the talk about Guantánamo, European suspension of habeas corpus, summary deportations, and preventative detentions outstrip anything in Bush’s America. So far, despite a larger economy, the European Union has not matched Bush’s $15 billon commitment for HIV, and other infectious disease, relief in Africa.
There can be legitimate criticism of Bush’s first-term spending spree and rising deficits, and his unwillingness to veto Congressional pork. He naively thought hard-core Congressional ideologues and partisans were analogous to the conservative Democrats with whom he had worked in Texas, and often appeased them so they wouldn’t cut off support for the war.
Often, Bush’s unnecessarily bellicose rhetoric was not commensurate with his tentative action. Too many of his closest associates were less than competent—the abject embarrassment of Scott McClellan is perhaps the best example of the apparent cronyism that hurt Bush terribly. There were too few in his circle willing or able to articulate in steady fashion exactly what our war against radical Islam was about—and how we could win it.
All that said, these are the debates that take place in times of relative peace and security—they would be impossible had we suffered a series of 9/11s. And it is largely to the honest and steady Bush’s everlasting credit that we did not. The next president already appears to appreciate that as well as anyone.
— NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.
When I showed up for my interview with Vice President Dick Cheney on January 6, he was standing behind his desk in the West Wing of the White House sipping, as he often does, from a can of Sprite Zero.
I told him that I hoped we could spend a little time working through his feelings about leaving the White House after eight years. I wanted to see the softer side of Dick Cheney.
"All warm and fuzzy?" he asked, laughing. "In the last two weeks of my time in active service?"
"Yeah, you could start getting all emotional," I suggested.
He paused.
"It ain't gonna happen."
If Cheney was reluctant to open up about his feelings, his talk on policies and politics was, as ever, revealing. He thinks Barack Obama is naïve about national security. He worries that the Bush administration's aggressive intervention in the free market will do long-term damage to conservative efforts to limit government. And though he tried mightily to avoid saying so, Cheney believes that the administration's North Korea policy has failed.
In 2005, a longtime Cheney friend and adviser told me the vice president believes that world leaders are best judged by what they've done, not what they say. The adviser explained that Cheney has few illusions about the possibilities of great change and offered an example: Kim Jong Il.
Cheney had warned in 1994 that North Korea posed the greatest potential threat to the United States and that the "Agreed Framework" struck by the Clinton administration was dangerously foolish in rewarding North Korea for its bad behavior. Ten years later, when Cheney met with top Chinese officials in Beijing, North Korea was his top priority. "Our concern is that time is not necessarily on our side, that North Korea may continue to use this technology to further develop their capabilities," Cheney told Jiang Zemin, according to two officials in the room. "One of the greatest threats we face is the proliferation of those technologies."
Cheney was right. Time was not on our side. And in the four years of diplomatic failure since those meetings, we have seen evidence of the dangers of proliferation. Yet in the 50-page brochure the White House just published--Highlights of Accomplishments and Results: The Administration of President George W. Bush, 2001-2009--we learn: "Through the Six-Party talks, the United States worked to secure a commitment from North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons and its nuclear weapons program." That claim is literally true. The United States did work to secure such a commitment. But it failed. And in the process the Bush administration prostrated itself before a dictator whose rogue regime was not long ago considered evil.
I asked Cheney about it.
THE WEEKLY STANDARD: The administration is distributing a 50-page glossy blue brochure that you may have seen--
CHENEY: I know there's one around out there.
TWS:--listing accomplishments. And on page 40--I found this interesting--the accomplishment was: "Secured a commitment from North Korea to end its nuclear program."
Cheney did not need to hear the question. He dropped his chin to his chest, smiled broadly, and began shaking his head. "Is this an accomplishment that you celebrate?" I asked him.
Still looking at the floor, the vice president paused for several seconds before answering. He looked up and flashed a puckish grin.
CHENEY: I haven't read the report.
TWS: I assure you I'm quoting it accurately.
CHENEY: (laughing): I'm sure you are. I don't have any doubt about that. Well, I think I'm going to take a pass.
TWS: Let me ask it in a different way. Some of our common friends in recent days and weeks have called administration policy on North Korea "preemptive capitulation." Is that too strong a criticism?
CHENEY: Steve, you've put me in a difficult position here.
TWS: That's my job, that's my job.
CHENEY: That is your job. And I think--well, let me make a--without responding to that, let me make a statement on North Korea.
He stopped smiling.
CHENEY: I think the president has worked this one very hard, and properly so. But the Six-Party Talks constituted progress in the sense that we provided a mechanism by which you could get China actively involved, which is crucial because China has got more leverage over North Korea than anybody else. And--but we clearly have not achieved our objective with North Korea, primarily because the North Koreans have refused to keep the commitments they have made in connection with the negotiations that we've had--that they did not give us a full and complete disclosure of their nuclear program as they promised they would.
TWS: Did you expect that they would?
CHENEY: They tested a weapon, obviously, in '06. They have--they've failed to live up to the obligations that they agreed to in those earlier negotiations.
TWS: And yet we continue to provide concessions.
CHENEY: And they also built a reactor to produce plutonium and cerium. There's a major example of proliferation to a terrorist-sponsoring state. So, you know, we've worked very hard on North Korea, but we haven't solved the problem.
TWS: After all of those things--I think this is what I was getting at with my question--after all of those things--
CHENEY: I'm trying to avoid your question.
Cheney laughs.
TWS: Well, I'll try one more time.
CHENEY: All right.
TWS: After all of those things, we went to them and offered to take them off of the state sponsor of terror list, after they were caught red-handed building a reactor in Syria, which is, as we both know, a state sponsor of terror. Was it appropriate to go to them and say, hey, we'll take you off of this list, given the whole range of their activities that you just outlined?
CHENEY: Well--Lea Anne [Foster, the vice-presidential spokesman] is over there saying, what's he going to say? (Laughter.)
TWS: I'm just thinking of the history books here.
CHENEY: Yes. It's not a decision that I was enthusiastic about. I don't make those decisions. I've been involved, obviously, in that ongoing debate, but I think the North Koreans have not lived up to their obligations.
Cheney used similar language in discussing the Bush administration's efforts to prop up the U.S. automobile industry--"it's a decision the president made, and I work for the president"--and he is pessimistic about its future without dramatic change.
I do believe that the industry needs to undergo radical restructuring. And I don't think they're going to. I don't think they've got much prospect of being viable long-term until they do that, until they come to grips with the basic fundamental problems that are now built into their business, like for example, labor agreements and all those kinds of concerns.
Cheney said that the timing of the industry's trouble--coming in the midst of a major financial crisis and a global recession--left the administration with few options.
CHENEY: I think the package that the president came up with, which I supported, is about as good as you could do under the circumstances. And if you were in the beginning of an administration, or if you were operating on this issue at a time when we didn't have a major recession underway or a financial crisis in the markets, it might have been something else.
TWS: You'd just let them fail?
CHENEY: I'll leave it where it's at. I thought I stated it rather artfully.
The vice president is concerned that the Bush administration may have paved the way for a dramatic expansion of the federal government. "I worry a little bit that what we had to do in the financial area has provided cover for folks who want to vastly expand the size of the government. I think it's a problem," he says. "They've always wanted to do this, and now they think they've got a shot at it because they've got the House and the Senate and the White House, and a rationale." He adds: "They can say, 'well, you guys started it, but look what you did for the banks.' I think that's a poor analogy, but it might be a successful political argument."
Cheney is more optimistic about the long-term prospects for those Bush administration national security policies that have kept the country safe for more than seven years. He believes that the incoming president might quickly come to appreciate the value of the Terrorist Surveillance Program and the special interrogation program for high-value detainees--the two Cheney cites as most important.
CHENEY: I hope that what will happen is they sit down every day now and avail themselves of the same intelligence information the president and I have been looking at for eight years; that they will come to understand the enormous importance of continuing to collect that intelligence; and that they will resist the temptation to automatically take their campaign rhetoric and make that policy. Now, will they do that? I don't know.
CHENEY: Absolutely--or, well, I can't say it was malicious; it was the stuff that a lot of Democrats and a lot of people in the press have hammered us with for years. And I think on the left wing of the Democratic party, there are some people who believe that we really tortured and--then in the course of the Democratic primary process, he rode that issue pretty hard.
He's now going to be President of the United States, and two weeks from today we swear him in. And it would be a tragedy if he let his policies be founded on nothing more than the rhetoric of his campaign. It's got to be based on knowledge and experience.
To that end, Cheney says he's heartened by Barack Obama's decision to retain Robert Gates. The vice president, who also said that Obama had assembled a "pretty good team" on national security, believes Gates will push the new president to continue the controversial programs.
I'm hopeful, for example, that his decision to keep a guy like Bob Gates means he's at least open-minded enough on these issues, to sit down and find out the facts, find out what we've really done, find out what we've learned from it, before he automatically closes down those operations, because there's--you know, as I say, if you believe, as I do, that those programs have been instrumental in keeping us safe, then the conclusion would be if you cancel those programs, you may well enhance the danger to the nation.
I asked Cheney for his thoughts on Obama's election. He recalled the racial tension in the country when he first arrived in Washington in 1968 and noted, with a bit of wonder, perhaps even emotion, in his voice:
Forty years later we're swearing in the first African-American president in our history. There are going to be millions of people down there on the Mall to celebrate. That's great and that's--talk about change.
But he went on,
I didn't support Barack Obama; I wouldn't vote for him. He and I have got pretty radically different views of the world. I'm a conservative Republican and nobody ever accused him of that.
Stephen F. Hayes, a senior writer at THE WEEKLY STANDARD, is the author of Cheney: The Untold Story of America's Most Powerful and Controversial Vice President (HarperCollins).
A NEW lead single from U2, and the same old brouhaha.
The band have done much to talk up their forthcoming 12th studio album, 'No Line on the Horizon', and if you believe Bono and the Edge, they have rewritten the rulebook, torn up the template and turned the world on the axis.
The reality is a bit more mundane. The first taster from the album, 'Get on Your Boots', is unquestionably U2 -- but it's hardly the radically different U2 its members and associates have been promising us.
As usual, with a new U2 track, the first thing you notice is The Edge's guitar. It has always been the primary colour in the U2 spectrum, and that's certainly the case here.
It's meaty, aggressive and as heavy as any guitar part he has written.
It also boasts the sort of riffs to appeal to air-guitar aficionados everywhere.
The song benefits from a thunderous rhythm. It's quite conceivable that Adam Clayton and Larry Mullen swotted up on Led Zeppelin during the recording of the album.
Whatever their preparation, the pair are in fine form with Clayton's bass providing a strong undercurrent and Mullen's drumming giving the song a primal energy.
So far, so good. The lyrics don't stand up to the same sort of scrutiny, however.
In fact, Bono has rarely been on cheesier ground than the following verse which opens the song: "The future needs a big kiss/Winds blow with a twist/ Ever seen a moon like this/Can you see it too?"
Nonsensical
Other lines are similarly vague -- and nonsensical: "Night is falling everywhere/Rockets hit the fun fair/Satan loves the bomb scare/But he won't scare you." Quite what the refrain -- "Sexy boots -- get your boots on" -- has to do with images of rockets and the devil is anyone's guess.
Perhaps the band fused two songs together -- as has been their wont in the past. Or maybe, they used the cut-and-paste technique that their long-term producer Brian Eno devised -- with a little help from David Bowie -- in the 1970s.
Either way, lovers of the beautifully penned lyric will have to look elsewhere. Bono's debut column for the 'New York Times' displayed a much better facility with words. But then, the three-and-a-half minute song brings different demands.
This being Bono, he sings his words with conviction.
His urgent delivery suits the song's frantic tempo and in the final third he spits out his words in a staccato rap.
The final part of the song will remind many of their 'Achtung Baby/Zooropa' days -- and it works quite well.
Compared to strong opening tracks from previous albums, 'Get On Your Boots' falls some way short.
It isn't in the same league as previous lead singles such as 'Vertigo' from 'How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb', 'Discotheque' from 'Pop', or 'New Year's Day' from 'War'.
Still, if the euphoric online response to the song is anything to go by, the "four boys from the northside of Dublin", as Bono put it during Sunday's concert for Barack Obama, should have nothing to fear.
The single will be released as a digital download on February 15. The album is available in Ireland from Friday, February 27.
'No Line on the Horizon' is their first studio album since November 2004's 'How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb', and Universal Records' executives will be hoping it can match that album's nine million sales.
U2's new single, "Get on Your Boots," scored massive audience numbers throughout Europe and the United Kingdom on its debut day of radio airplay yesterday (Jan. 19), according to Nielsen Music Control.
Arriving on the second day of the airplay-monitoring week, the new single shot straight to No. 1 on Ireland's airplay chart and No. 4 in the U.K., with total audiences of two million and 12.5 million respectively.
The song also fared well in Germany (78 million), Italy (11 million) and Austria (10 million), despite arriving near the end of the European monitoring week. Belgium and Holland showed a promising start with respective audiences of 3.5 and 2.6 million.
In the United States, "Boots" received 529 total spins, according to Nielsen BDS. KYSR-Los Angeles played it 24 times, while KENZ-Salt Lake City was second with 18.
"Get on Your Boots" was unveiled simultaneously around the world at 8:15 a.m. GMT yesterday. Originally U2 had announced the song would not be available digitally until Feb. 15, but it went live yesterday via Apple's iTunes Music Store in the United States.
After Barack Obama's inauugration, former President Bush returned to Texas. He spoke to supporters after arriving in Midland, Texas. Here is a portion of his remarks.
Midland, Texas
GEORGE W. BUSH, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I want to thank the governor and the attorney general for joining us today and all the state officials. I thank Representative Tom Craddick for joining us and Nadine. I thank the mighty congressman from this district, Michael Conaway, for flying down from Washington.
I thank my friend, the Gatlin Boys, West Texas raised. Rodney Atkins. I appreciate Rodney coming, and Lee Greenwood. It's awfully kind of these entertainers to come and keep you busy while we were winging our way home.
Today was a great day for America, and a good man took the oath of office and we all offer our prayers for his success.
(APPLAUSE)
Today's also a great day for the Bush family. We are back in the state of Texas, and we are here to stay.
(APPLAUSE)
You know, I tell people the days have been long, but the years are short. It just seemed like yesterday that you honored us with a sendoff from this plaza to Washington, D.C. What has changed is the weather.
That day, I said that Laura and I were on a great journey, and now we're back. And what a trip it has been. We saw some of the most trying days in America's history, and some of the very best of our citizens.
This guy who went to Sam Houston Elementary School spent the night in Buckingham Palace.
(APPLAUSE) This (inaudible) product got to go all over the world with this Lee High School graduate.
(APPLAUSE)
We came face to face with kings, presidents, popes, and a son-in- law.
(APPLAUSE)
The presidency was a joyous experience, but as great as it was, nothing compares with Texas' sunset. And so tonight, I have the privilege of saying six words that I have been waiting to say for a while, "It is good to be home."
(APPLAUSE)
Being in Midland brings back a lot of memories. Over on Ohio Street there was picked out more than a half century ago a little house that was bought by George and Barbara Bush. It is incredible to think that that little house on Ohio Street was the home to two presidents of the United States and a governor of the state of Florida.
(APPLAUSE)
They told me the house is becoming a boyhood museum, a George W. Bush boyhood home. I've never quite figured why they didn't call it the George H. W. Bush home that George W. got to live in.
But mother, who just left us, along with dad--they're heading west--they were in Washington today for the inauguration and flew down on the airplane with us, she said when she heard about the museum, "You better go clean your room."
(APPLAUSE)
I will always be grateful for the unconditional love of my parents. There is no doubt that that unconditional love gave me the, I guess you would say "courage," to run for president of the United States. And to my mother and my father, I can't tell you how much I love you.
(APPLAUSE)
And Midland is also the site of the most important meeting of my life, far more meaningful than any meeting in the oval office. That happened in O'Neill's backyard at a barbecue, where I met a hometown girl named Laura Welch. I fell in love with her that day. I convinced her to marry me a couple of months later, and I have felt blessed ever since.
(APPLAUSE)
She filled the White House with warmth and my life with joy, and history will show that she was a fabulous first lady.
(APPLAUSE)
I had a lot of other sources of strength during my eight years. I am blessed with a great family. Little Barbara is traveling with us today, and little Jenna, they brought such joy and happiness to the White House, and I love them dearly as well.
(APPLAUSE)
My brothers and sisters--all three of my brothers were born here in Midland, Texas, by the way, and they were great pals during this experience.
I was blessed with a fantastic administration. I want to thank my friend Dick Cheney, who was a great vice president.
(APPLAUSE)
And those who served in my cabinet, some of whom honored me by flying down on the airplane today--Margaret Spelling, Secretary of Education, Alberto Gonzalez, Attorney General.
(APPLAUSE)
I want to thank a fabulous staff of people. I was truly blessed to have people work with me, people who came to Washington, D.C. not to serve George Bush, not to serve a political party, but they came because they wanted to serve the United States of America, and they did a fabulous job, and I will be forever grateful.
(APPLAUSE)
I am grateful to the prayers of the American people. I have been sustained and strengthened and comforted by an almighty god during eight years as your president.
(APPLAUSE)
And I was just saying to my buddies and my friends. A tell people all the time the great things about my Texas friends, that they were friends before politics, they were friends during politics, they will be my friends after politics, and most of them didn't care what happened during politics!
(APPLAUSE)
It brought us a lot of comfort to know we had support from people in a place we call home. It really did.
As a reminder of my feelings toward my friends, people I grew up with, I had four paintings in the oval office of the great state of Texas. They were there from day one. And the message was clear -- Laura and I may have left Texas, but Texas never left us. And we thank you from the bottom of our hearts.
(APPLAUSE)
The values that Laura and I learned here in west Texas have guided us throughout our time and have guided us during our time in Washington. This is the place where people treat each other with decency and respect, where neighbors look out for neighbors, and where character counts an awful lot.
West Texas is a place of tremendous optimism, and you got to know that even during some of the most difficult days of my presidency, I was always optimistic about our future. I had great faith in the American people, and faith in some fundamental truths.
Every day, I followed a set of clear principles, principles that I learned from my family and principles I learned from growing up out here in west Texas and throughout this state.
Individuals must be responsible for the actions they take in life. Our nation thrives when government and trusts people with decision about their own decisions and their own lives.
The strong have an obligation to defend the weak. Freedom is a universal gift of an almighty god, and America should use its influence to be a force for good in the world.
Through it all, I stayed true to those convictions.
And we took on big issues. I always felt it was important to tackle the tough issues today and not try to pass them on to future presidents and future generations.
(APPLAUSE)
It never took an opinion poll to tell me what to think.
(APPLAUSE)
And I'm coming home with my head held high and a sense of accomplishment.
(APPLAUSE)
We lifted standards and achievements in public schools and the achievement gap between white student and minority students is closing for the good of the United States of America. Seniors now have a prescription drug benefit in Medicare.
We cut taxes for everybody who pays taxes in the United States of America.
(APPLAUSE)
We empowered armies of compassion to help citizens all across our country. We saved millions from HIV-AIDS and malaria. We appointed good judges like am Sam Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts.
(APPLAUSE)
And after our nation was attacked on September 11, 2001, a day that changed me forever, we took the fight to the terrorists around the world. We removed threatening regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq, and liberated 50 million people from the clutches of terrorism.
(APPLAUSE)
We worked to extend freedom and human liberty as the alternatives to tyranny and terror. No matter whether or not you agree with my decisions or not, one thing you have to agree with is that we have not been attacked in the last seven years.
(APPLAUSE)
This is a tribute to all who toil day and night to keep us safe, especially the men and women who wear our nation's uniform.
(APPLAUSE)
I can't tell you how great it has been to stand before our troops an meet their families, or to go to Walter Reed and have a soldier look you in the face and say "Mr. President, I would do it all over again. Let me get healed so I can go back and defend the United States of America."
(APPLAUSE)
There is nothing I will miss more than being the commander in chief of such an unbelievable group of men and women.
(APPLAUSE)
There were some good days, and there were some tough days. But every day it was an honor to be your president. I gave it my all. Listen- -sometimes what I did wasn't popular. But that's OK. I always did what I thought was right.
(APPLAUSE)
In my last commencement speech as the president, I went to Texas A&M University.
(APPLAUSE)
I said popularity is as fleeting as the Texas wind. Character and conscience are as sturdy as our oaks. History will be the judge of my decisions, but when I walked out of the Oval Office this morning, I left with the same values that I took to Washington eight years ago.
(APPLAUSE)
And when I get home tonight and look in the mirror, I am not going to regret what I see--except maybe some gray hair.
And now that we're back home, we have a few things to figure out, like what exactly we're going to do.
Fortunately, we got a place to live. I delegated that decision to Laura. She bought a fine place in Dallas, I think. I haven't seen it yet.
You might call that the first faith-based initiative of the post- presidency.
(LAUGHTER)
But to help me come up with ideas, I have been learning about what my predecessors have done after leaving office. Theodore Roosevelt took a safari to Africa and explored the Amazon. Dwight Eisenhower learned to place his own phone calls. And president number 41 decided he was going to jump out of an airplane -- twice.
My dad is America's only skydiving former president, and that's a title he's going to keep.
(LAUGHTER)
Tomorrow I'm planning on having a relaxing morning in Crawford.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You deserve it!
BUSH: I'm going to get up, and I'm going to make Laura coffee, skim the newspaper, call some friends, read a book, feed the dogs, go fishing, and take a walk.
By that time, I figure it will be eight in the morning. That's what happens when you're a Type A personality.
(LAUGHTER)
I told Laura I was excited about her cooking again -- kind of. She told me she was excited about me mowing the lawn and taking out the trash. It's my new domestic agenda.
(LAUGHTER)
We're going to spend some time catching up with our family. I want you to hear something interesting. I'm the first former president to be able to share the post-presidency with both my parents.
(APPLAUSE)
And I'm going to take advantage of every minute of it.
(APPLAUSE)
I've got some bigger ideas. I plan on keeping busy, and so does Laura. We may be retired, but we're not tired out.
I'm going to write a book. I want people to be able to understand what it was like in the Oval Office when I had to make some of the tough decisions that I was called upon to make.
History tends to take a little time for people to remember what happened and to have an objective accounting of what took place, and I would like to be a part of making that real history of this administration come to life.
(APPLAUSE)
I might even give a few speeches.
They are going to put a presidential center at Laura's alma mater, Southern Methodist University in Dallas. It is going to be a policy institute, a place to promote the ideals of freedom and personal responsibility.
You know, there hadn't been one of these places built in the heartland of America, and I'm glad to be putting mine right here in Texas.
(APPLAUSE)
I want you to know that I will forever be optimistic about our country. You see, I was privileged, privileged to see the character and the courage of the American people. You'd be amazed to see what I have seen.
You know, I will never forget going to a little town in Kansas that got destroyed by a tornado. And these people said "nothing's going to keep us down." I went back a year later to give a high school graduation speech, and these folks picked themselves up and rebuilt their community.
I told a story the other night when I gave my farewell address in the East Room of the White House about a guy I met named Bill Christoff (ph). I will share it right quick if you didn't hear the story.
One of the things I did was spend time meeting with the families of the fallen. I want you to know that the comforter in chief was always the person who got comforted in those meetings. The strength of the families of our troops is just unbelievable. They love of their children were great.
![[Review & Outlook]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_uQBrqkUXgTmdnnB5ZjnNzWqGZJZ4Rmb6JGAZ2OsGeFy0KayKFa-itbGwypAE9jmmSdLchEWOPp_Cc5DOhvaRTZzbwgkpl0y2s9nFKhBWG1k-WVPZn3F3q5IYnoW4evOgolxYwP22B5A2PGE04IaXa_=s0-d)
AP![[Commentary]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vYFV-spHfiIQdxjfarNJspfQmn7PtKDZFPDiHmuXkkeRyGR17io6Re8uKn0LE0iKW7TWjkMdkH0QXc1bN64lStvIQYh7rrhikRoiGlULIHlXGfhtvzBEau0NG8mIjeZDxhiRMsYLvQ7zySCyohRA=s0-d)
AP
