Where Are The Groups That Were So Outraged by Bush’s State Dept Appointments by Gregory Hilton

Where is this coalition of 10 groups that was so concerned about unqualified people at the State Department? They were outraged over the Ellen Sauerbrey nomination in October of 2005. She had the rank of Ambassador and served at the UN addressing the issues she would later confront at the State Department. She was in the legislature for 16 years, was Minority Leader and twice ran for Governor. They said she was completely unqualified.
According to the Associated Press, “A coalition of 10 women’s health and rights groups has urged Bush to withdraw the Sauerbrey nomination calling it “yet another in a long string of crony nominations of unqualified individuals for critical positions”. The groups’ statement followed editorials denouncing Sauerbrey’s appointment by two of the country’s most important newspapers, the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times, which called her unqualified and too ideological, as well as criticism by prominent emergency relief groups.
“‘This is a job that deals with one of the great moral issues of our time,’ Joel R. Charney, vice president for policy at Refugees International, told the Los Angeles Times earlier this month. ‘This is not a position where you drop in a political hack.’
Sauerbrey has served in State Department positions since Bush took office in 2001, most recently as U.S. representative to the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) of the U.N.’s Commission on the Status of Women.
“‘Amb. Sauerbrey falls short on every count,’ said June Zeitlin, executive director of the Women’s Environment and Development Organisation, one of the groups which urged her withdrawal. ‘She has no experience managing refugee or humanitarian crises and no experience administering the type of large-scale programmes that fall under the direction of PRM.’”
Do these groups know about the Obama appointments to our major embassies? Are they aware that our new U.S. Ambassador to Japan does not speak the language and never visited that nation prior to his appointment? He did “bundle” over $500,000 for the Obama campaign. Of course they will not protest the new nomination because they never cared about the State Department.
They were only motivated by political considerations.
By the way, because of their opposition Bush was forced to make a recess appointment. Ambassador Ellen Sauerbrey served as Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees, and Migration for over two years, and led the global fight against trafficking. The Bush Administration contributed over $375 million to counter-trafficking projects worldwide, and Sauerbrey’s work was highly praised by the Refugee Council USA and Refugees International. She was an outstanding appointment.

How George W. Bush Saved Millions of Africans by Gregory Hilton

In April researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine released an in-depth report on former President George W. Bush’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. The report credits the former President with saving over 1 million African lives, but it has received almost no press attention. Bush spoke about AIDS on June 17th during his first post-presidential speech, but you did not know that because the media ignored his remarks.
“If a Democratic Party president had done this, he would be feted as both a national hero and international hero on his way to a ceremony with the Nobel Committee.” Bob Geldof asked Bush “Why doesn’t America know about this?” Bush answered: “I tried to tell them. But the press wasn’t interested.”
The Bush Administration did contribute to the deficit. The former President quadrupled foreign aid, he spent $15 billion on AIDS treatment and prevention, and $10 billion on his Millennium Challenge Account. This was not a handout but a partnership restricted to responsible nations. Amid poverty and disease this money has been an investment for growth. In many countries the aid is being replaced by trade pacts, business deals and home-grown income.
According to Paul Kengor the author of God and George W. Bush (HarperCollins, 2004), “Bush understood the financial cost — and said so explicitly. Nonetheless, he judged that only America could carry out this ‘act of compassion’ at that critical juncture. He also judged, apparently, that only he, as a Western leader, had the will to do this. Millions of lives have been spared or bettered due to President Bush’s intervention.”

Did Our Economy Go Backwards Under Bush by Gregory Hilton

Many liberals believe our economy went backwards during the Bush Administration. Perhaps there will be a great expansion in the Obama years but we will have to wait for future data. Bush inherited a faltering economy but it took off after he cut taxes and capital gains. The global recession of the last quarter was significant and we will see if Obama can match Bush’s GDP growth.
The Bush years began and ended with recessions, but they were a time of low inflation. I hope Obama will also have that experience. Average GDP growth of 2.1% during the Bush years was not gangbusters, but it was accomplished while fighting two wars and significant federal spending. Bush tried everything to achieve a social security,medicare, health.care and immigration compromise, and he did not ignore the tough challenges.
Because of the recession, Bush did leave office with a deficit but it has now been quadrupled by Obama. A major issue now is jobs. The stimulus was designed to stop unemployment before it reached 8% but it is now at 9.7%.

Even Cindy Sheehan Does Not Understand the Anti-War Lobby by Gregory Hilton

In a recent interview liberal activist Cindy Sheehan made the following observations:
“I think people are starting to wake up to the fact that even if they supported Obama, he doesn’t represent much change. There are people still out here who oppose the war and Obama’s policies, but it seems like the big organizations with the big lists aren’t here. I’ve been protesting but it’s not covered. The one time I did get a lot of coverage was at Bush’s house in June.”
Not only is the President escalating the war in Afghanistan she said, but he’s not withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq as quickly as he originally promised. “That’s why I am opposed to him,” she said. “The anti-war left was used by the Democratic Party. I like to call it the ‘anti-Republican War’ movement. Sites such as the DailyKos are completely hypocritical, I have known for a long time that the Democrats are equally responsible as the Republicans. That’s why I left the party in May 2007 and that’s why I ran for Congress against Nancy Pelosi in 2008.”
Cindy Sheehan has always been wrong about foreign policy but it is amazing that the anti-war movement vanished when Obama was elected. I am glad they are gone, but it sure seems their target was George Bush, not the Taliban, al-Qaeda, Islamic fundamentalists or terrorism.
While the anti-war movement has now gone away they did have an enormous impact on the battle for the Democratic nomination. Organizations such as Moveon.org worked actively in support of Obama, and the big difference was that Hillary and Biden had originally voted for the Iraq war.
Obama said he was consistently against the war, and Mrs. Clinton publicly said these activists were responsible for her defeat. Her campaign was never able to overcome the individuals who packed the caucus states and were motivated by various anti-war organizations.
While I agree with Mrs. Sheehan’s observation about the recent activities of the anti-war lobby, she is still a charter member of the looney left. Sheehan says Bush “murdered” her son, and she has publicly said that an excellent U.S. President would be Hugo Chavez. He wasn’t born in this country, he doesn’t speak English, he’s a Communist and he’s a dictator. But other than that, why not? Sheehan also said said her fantasy was to go back in time to kill President Bush as an infant, to prevent the war in Iraq from ever happening. What is amazing is that the mainstream media gave her so much prominent coverage for such a long time.

NYC Terror Plot Demonstrates Value of the Patriot Act by Gregory Hilton

The arrest of four men in New York earlier this week for planning to bomb synagogues and shoot down military aircraft underscores the progress the U.S. intelligence community has made. The videotapes show the four men were enthusiastic participants in this plot. It does appear that the head Imam of the Masjid Al-Ikhlas mosque and others need to explain their actions. They were aware of offers of $25,000 payments to commit terrorism and they did nothing.
“It’s hard to imagine a more chilling plot. These were people who were eager to bring death to Jews, and they are extremely violent men,” said Assistant U.S. Attorney Eric Snyder. FBI Special Agent Robert Fuller said, “The information provided by the informant during the course of this and other investigations has proven to be accurate and reliable and has been corroborated by other evidence.” NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg said “I think we should walk away from this feeling better and safer about New York than ever before.”
Many stories such as this have appeared since 9/11. Potential terrorists are now in custody because the USA Patriot Act has been successful. Because of this legislation for the first time the FBI and the CIA can work together. Various federal law enforcement agencies are now collecting and sharing information, and they have gained access to information and communications of terrorists that was not possible in the past.
Before the Patriot Act the FBI and the CIA were prohibited from communicating. The legislation enabled the monitoring of conversations among multiple terror suspects more quickly and efficiently. It was necessary because terrorists often discontinue their phones lines or change cell phones frequently.
It gave law enforcement agencies permission to listen in on any phone being used by a terror suspect. Prior to the Patriot Act’s passage in October 2001, law enforcement could wiretap only a landline — and authorities needed to acquire separate court approvals for every phone line they tapped. The Patriot Act recognizes modern technology, and blackberries and disposable cell phones are no longer safe for them. Voicemail can be accessed through a search warrant rather than a court order.
In March FBI director Robert Mueller said the Patriot Act was “exceptionally helpful.”
As recognized in the Declaration of Independence, the first responsibility of government is to preserve the lives and liberty of the people. Within the boundaries of the Constitution, the Patriot Act has been an enormous success in stopping the people who want to kill Americans on U.S. soil.
Instead of providing a single example of the Patriot Act being misused, opponents make frightening, unsubstantiated claims that the Patriot Act is a virtual roll back of the First Amendment.

Responding to the ACLU Attacks on the Patriot Act by Gregory Hilton

The ACLU has lead the opposition to the Patriot Act since 2001.

The USA Patriot Act was enacted in 2001 and reauthorized in 2007. Despite the lobbying efforts of organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union, the Obama Administration is not seeking the repeal of the Patriot Act nor are they requesting any major modifications. However, this could change at any time.
The ACLU’s Capitol Hill champions are Senators Russell Feingold (D-WI) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI). Speaking of his opposition to the Patriot Act, Senator Whitehouse says, “The privacy of American citizens is a core value in our society, I think this is our next really big civil liberties issue.”
Many of the tools the Patriot Act provides to law enforcement to fight terrorism have been used for decades to fight organized crime and drug dealers. These provisions have been reviewed and approved by the courts on numerous occasions. As then Senator Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE) explained during the floor debate about the Act, “the FBI could get a wiretap to investigate the mafia, but they could not get one to investigate terrorists. To put it bluntly, that was crazy! What’s good for the mob should be good for terrorists.”
The USA Patriot Act removed the major legal barriers that prevented the national security community from talking and coordinating their work to protect the American people. Now police officers, FBI agents, federal prosecutors and intelligence officials can uncover terrorist plots before they are completed. As former Senator John Edwards (D-NC) said about the Patriot Act, “we simply cannot prevail in the battle against terrorism if the right hand of our government has no idea what the left hand is doing.”
The USA Patriot Act was passed nearly unanimously by the Senate 98-1, and in the House of Representatives it was enacted by a huge 357-66 margin. On March 2, 2006, Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 with strong bipartisan support. The vote in the Senate was 89 to 10, and it passed the House by a 251 to 174 vote margin.
At its heart, the Patriot Act streamlines communications between varying agencies that can work together to investigate terrorist activities. It also provides for easier and less cumbersome means of investigation and surveillance. Furthermore, the Act also provides increased funding for victims of terrorist attacks and their families, as well as for the rebuilding of business and infrastructure that are damaged by terrorism.
The ACLU claims the Act permits the FBI to conduct secret searches and to “secretly record telephone conversations for the purpose of investigating crime even though the FBI does not have probable cause of crime. It authorizes unconstitutional activity – searches and wiretaps in non-emergency circumstances – for criminal activity with no showing of probable cause of crime.” The truth is that a surveillance or search can be ordered only if the court finds that there is probable cause to believe that the target is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.
The ACLU also claims wiretaps “pose a greater challenge to privacy because they are authorized secretly without a showing of probable cause of crime. This represents a broad expansion of power without building in a necessary privacy protection.” For years, law enforcement has been able to use “roving wiretaps” – in which a wiretap authorization attaches to a particular suspect, rather than a particular communications device – to investigate ordinary crimes, including drug offenses and racketeering. The authority to use roving wiretaps in drug cases has existed since 1986. The Patriot Act authorized the same techniques in national-security investigations. A number of federal courts have ruled that roving wiretaps are perfectly consistent with the Fourth Amendment.
Another outrageous claim by the ACLU is that Patriot Act “Expands terrorism laws to include ‘domestic terrorism’ which could subject political organizations to surveillance, wiretapping, harassment, and criminal action for political advocacy.” The ACLU also says the Patriot Act includes “provision that might allow the actions of peaceful groups that dissent from government policy, such as Greenpeace, to be treated as ‘domestic terrorism.’”
The truth is that the definition of “domestic terrorism” is extremely narrow. Individuals and groups would be eligible for surveillance under this definition only if they engage in criminal wrongdoing that could result in death. Law enforcement would have to show that the conduct appears to have been committed with a specified terrorist related intent.

The ACLU and Myths About the USA Patriot Act by Gregory Hilton

This full page ACLU newspaper ad aginst the Patriot Act appeared in The New York Times.

The USA Patriot Act was enacted in the month after 9/11, and the title of the legislation is an abbreviation for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism. Senator Barack Obama voted for renewal of the Patriot Act in 2005 but he made critical remarks about the legislation during the 2008 campaign. Many liberal activists cited Obama’s background as a Constitutional law professor. They had been expecting the new President to seek repeal of this legislation, but so far his Justice Department is complying with the Patriot Act. This has been a big disappointment for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and Obama is also opposing them by continuing the Bush Administrations Military Commissions and the indefinite imprisonment of various terrorists.
The ACLU has been spreading myths about the Patriot Act since 2001. They claim that primarily because of the Patriot Act, “The Bush years were a nightmare for the shredding of the Constitution and our legal protections.” According to the ACLU “Many people are unaware that their library habits could become the target of government surveillance. In a free society, such monitoring is odious and unnecessary. . . The secrecy that surrounds section 215 leads us to a society where the ‘thought police’ can target us for what we choose to read or what Websites we visit.”
The reality is that the Patriot Act specifically protects Americans’ First Amendment rights, and terrorism investigators have no interest in the library habits of ordinary Americans. Historically, terrorists and spies have used libraries to plan and carry out activities that threaten our national security. If terrorists or spies use libraries, we should not allow them to become safe havens for their terrorist or clandestine activities. The Patriot Act ensures that business records – whether from a library or any other business – can be obtained in national security investigations with the permission of a federal judge.
Examining business records often provides the key that investigators are looking for to solve a wide range of crimes. Investigators might seek select records from hardware stores or chemical plants, for example, to find out who bought materials to make a bomb, or bank records to see who’s sending money to terrorists. Law enforcement authorities have always been able to obtain business records in criminal cases through grand jury subpoenas, and continue to do so in national security cases where appropriate. In a recent domestic terrorism case, for example, a grand jury served a subpoena on a bookseller to obtain records showing that a suspect had purchased a book giving instructions on how to build a particularly unusual detonator that had been used in several bombings. This was important evidence identifying the suspect as the bomber.
Under the Patriot Act, the government can ask a federal court (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court) to order production of records through grand jury subpoenas. This federal court, however, can issue these orders only after the government demonstrates the records are sought for an authorized investigation to obtain foreign intelligence information. Congress reviews the government’s use of business records under the Act. Every six months, the Attorney General must “fully inform” Congress on how it has been implemented.
The ACLU also claims the Patriot Act “allows law enforcement agencies to delay giving notice when they conduct a search. . . . This provision marks a sea change in the way search warrants are executed in the United States.” What the ACLU does not say is that delayed notification search warrants are a long-existing, crime-fighting tool upheld by courts nationwide for decades in organized crime, drug cases and child pornography. The Patriot Act simply codified the authority law enforcement had already had for decades. This tool is a vital for detecting and incapacitating terrorists before they are able to strike.
In some cases if criminals are tipped off too early to an investigation, they might flee, destroy evidence, intimidate or kill witnesses, cut off contact with associates, or take other action to evade arrest. Therefore, federal courts in narrow circumstances long have allowed law enforcement to delay for a limited time when the subject is told that a judicially-approved search warrant has been executed. This tool can be used only with a court order, in extremely narrow circumstances when immediate notification may result in death or physical harm to an individual, flight from prosecution, evidence tampering, witness intimidation, or serious jeopardy to an investigation. The reasonable delay gives law enforcement time to identify the criminal’s associates, eliminate immediate threats to our communities, and coordinate the arrests of multiple individuals without tipping them off beforehand. In all cases, law enforcement must give notice that property has been searched or seized.
The Supreme Court has held the Fourth Amendment does not require law enforcement to give immediate notice of the execution of a search warrant. The Supreme Court emphasized “that covert entries are constitutional in some circumstances, at least if they are made pursuant to a warrant.” In fact, the Court stated that an argument to the contrary was “frivolous.” Dalia v. U.S., 441 U.S. 238 (1979)

The Bush Deficit, the Clinton Surplus and TARP by Gregory Hilton

The 10 year budget outlook

For eight years many liberals complained about the Bush deficit and praised the Clinton surplus. They had an excellent point, but overlooked many key factors. Bush created a Medicare drug entitle­ment which will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. He increased federal education spending 58% faster than inflation. He was also the first President to spend 3% of GDP on federal anti-poverty programs For some reason the left wing is no longer talking about the deficit.
The above graph does include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. While Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplementals (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is of course included in the numbers above.
The Bush deficit declined significantly until early September of 2008 when the global economic crisis began. Bush responded with TARP (the toxic asset recovery program). This was done because $550 billion was pulled out of our financial and investment systems in ONE hour on September 18, 2008. Some lawmakers were opposed to all stimulus spending, but they are few in number. Both sides supported stimulus spending but not one House Republican voted for the final package, which is remarkable.
The moderates did not support it because it was too big, too porky, and hardly stimulative at all. It also wiped out many of Bill Clinton’s excellent welfare reform laws. We did see deficit reduction and economic growth in the late 1990’s. Bill Clinton and a Republican Congress worked together. They agreed to restore a lower tax rate on capital gains and virtually eliminate capital gains taxes on owner-occupied housing. The galloping economy then reduced the deficit by a record level.
Another major factor was the “peace dividend” after the Cold War. Clinton however did not erase the debt. The national debt went up every single year. The Clinton surplus is also debatable. He took a vast amount of money out of Social Security in order to cover his budgets and give the appearance of reducing debt.
The Stimulus bill includes tax cuts but they are not the type that spur the economy. The economic model of the stimulus bill assumes every $1 of government spending increases the economy by $1.60. By that logic, debt-ridden, big-government countries like Italy, France and Germany should be wealthier than America.

Bush, Obama and a Media Double Standard by Gregory Hilton

Austria’s official language is German. There are some minority languages (Turkish, Serbian, etc) but there is no language called Austrian. President Obama did not know that. At his press conference in Strasbourg he said “I don’t know what the term is in Austrian for wheeling and dealing.” This was a minor error, but the media would have had a field day if the mistake had been made by George W. Bush.
President Obama is intelligent and articulate. His communications skills are outstanding, and everyone makes minor errors. My criticism is not directed at Obama but at the media double standard.
George W. Bush was discussing the NATO alliance 15 months before he entered the Oval Office. On October 23, 1999 he should have used the word “Greeks.” He instead said “We need to keep good relations with the Grecians.” We heard about it for the next 9 years. It was a staple on the Jon Stewart Daily Show and The Colbert Report. I doubt they will ever mention the Austrian language.
Bush is a graduate of Yale where he had a higher GPA than John Kerry. Bush also has an MBA from Harvard, and he is the only President to receive that distinction.
The comedians and cartoonists really miss Bush. A number of newspapers reprinted a story with the headline “Lovenstein Institute Reports George W. Bush has Lowest IQ of all Presidents.” The story appeared despite the fact that there is no Lovenstein Institute, and we do not have IQ data on all the Presidents.

Presidential Leadership: The Military Command Decisions of Abraham Lincoln and George W. Bush by Gregory Hilton (Part Two, George W. Bush)

President Bush in 2003 at Saddam Hussein's former palace in Baghdad. At left is Gen. Ricardo Sanchez and at right is Amb. Paul Bremer, the U.S. Administrator for Iraq.

Presidential Leadership: The Military Command Decisions of Abraham Lincoln and George W. Bush by Gregory Hilton, Armed Forces Radio Network, Part Two, George W. Bush. (This commentary was originally recorded in two 90 second segments. The complete transcript is below).

Welcome back. Earlier today I reviewed some of President Abraham Lincoln’s key command decisions. Similar to Lincoln’s experience, during the first four years of the Iraq war President George W. Bush also deferred to his generals. He went along with all of their recommendations but the situation in Iraq continued to deteriorate.
The promises the military made to Bush never materialized, and domestic opposition to the conflict was becoming widespread. Bush repeatedly said his Iraq commander, General George W. Casey, Jr., “will make the decisions as to how many troops we have there,” but by the Fall of 2006 the President had lost confidence in both Casey and his boss, General John Abizaid.
American casualties were continuing to climb in Iraq. The 2006 elections resulted in a tremendous win for the Democrats and they captured control of both the House and Senate. The major issue in the 2006 campaign was the Iraq war and the pressure on President Bush to pull back was tremendous. Republicans lost 36 seats in the House, and if Bush had campaigned on increasing the number of troops in Iraq the GOP losses would probably have reached 55 seats.
Bush’s approval rating was at rock bottom but he dramatically opposed popular opinion by deciding to increase the number of troops and to implement a new population centric counter insurgency strategy. This is now known as the surge. It included 5 brigades (20,000 troops) and was announced by President Bush on January 7, 2007. The next day the President went to Georgia to meet with the soldiers who would soon be leaving for Iraq.
Behind the scenes the surge was opposed by Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, former Secretary of State Colin Powell and the top commanders in Iraq. On the CBS program “Face the Nation,” Powell said “the surge can not be sustained” because the Army was at the breaking point. Powell claimed a surge had already been tried in Baghdad and had failed.
The opponents also included practically all of our senior military commanders in the Pentagon. In mid-November of 2006, President Bush told General Peter Pace he wanted a new strategy and a significant surge of forces in Iraq. Pace, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, immediately assembled his colleagues to discuss the President’s plan.
The opposition to the Bush proposal included General Peter Schoomaker, the Army Chief of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chief of Naval Operations, and General George W. Casey, Jr., the Commander of Coalition Ground Forces in Iraq. Schoomaker said a surge would not transform the situation and “our forces are already stretched to the breaking point.” The Army chief said the idea “worried the hell out of him.” Casey felt a civil war was beginning in Iraq and American troops should not be in the middle. Admiral Mullen thought the troops would provoke violence rather than quell it.
General Pace informed the President of the JCS’ adamant opposition, and to quell the anger Bush agreed to a direct meeting at the Pentagon where he could hear the JCS viewpoint. It did not sway him. If a surge was to occur the JCS said it should be limited to two brigades, but Bush insisted on five.
The report of the Iraq Study Group (better known as Baker-Hamilton) was released on December 6, 2006 and called for an immediate “phased withdrawal” of U.S. forces. This would have been a complete reversal of Bush’s plan.
Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) agreed with the recommendations and said withdrawals should begin in the Spring of 2007. The new Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid (D-NV), introduced legislation calling for a complete U.S. withdrawal by March of 2008, and said Iraq was “the worst foreign policy mistake in the history of this country.” Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) called the surge “Folly,” and his colleagues Joe Biden (D-DE) and Hillary Clinton (D-NY) were in agreement with him.
All of the withdrawal recommendations were rejected by the President who was continuing to move in the opposite direction. The surge also required major personnel changes.
The first to go was Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld who resigned under pressure in early December. It was also not possible to have an Iraq Commander opposed to the new policy, and this meant General Casey had to be removed. He was kicked upstairs and succeeded Schoomaker as Army Chief of Staff. Bush then reached well down into the Army ranks to promote the pro-surge General David Petraeus as Casey’s successor in Iraq.
The surge opponents also included Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez, Casey’s predecessor as Iraq commander from June 2003 to June 2004. Sanchez called the surge a “desperate” move and said “The best we can do with this flawed approach is to stave off defeat.” He went on to say the United States was “living a nightmare with no end in sight.”
In November of 2005, Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), the current Chairman of the Defense Appropriations Committee, introduced a resolution calling for the redeployment of troops from Iraq as soon as practicable. Murtha had the behind the scenes support of General John Abizaid, the Commander of the United States Central Command, from 2003 until March of 2007. In December of 2006, Abizaid told Bush directly that “our forces need to get out of Iraq.” He said a surge would only increase Iraqi dependence on Americans.
David Brooks of “The New York Times” made the best observation of the President’s war leadership:“Bush is an outrageously self-confident man. Well, without that self-confidence he never would have overruled his generals. In fact, when it comes to Iraq, Bush was at his worst when he was humbly deferring to the generals and at his best when he was arrogantly overruling them.”
This is the Armed Forces Radio Network and I am Gregory Hilton in Washington, D.C.