Time Magazine Names Bush as Person of the Year

For sharpening the debate until the choices bled, for reframing reality to match his design, for gambling his fortunes—and ours—on his faith in the power of leadership, George W. Bush is TIME’s 2004 Person of the Year

You need a Time subscription to read the full story, but you can catch the excerpts here.

Kerik Picked for DHS Post

resident Bush will nominate former New York City police commissioner Bernard Kerik as the next secretary for homeland security, FOX News confirmed Thursday.

Bush is expected to name Kerik in an announcement Friday.

If confirmed by the Senate, Kerik, who was chosen to train the Iraqi police force after Saddam Hussein’s departure, will be responsible for running a collection of 22 disparate federal agencies with more than 180,000 employees.

Read more…

Tom Ridge Resigns - Updated

Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge is resigning, FOX News confirmed Tuesday. He is expected to announce his decision at a 2:45 p.m. EST press conference.

In an e-mail circulated to senior Homeland Security officials, Ridge praised the department as “an extraordinary organization that each day contributes to keeping America safe and free.” He also said he was privileged to work with the department’s 180,000 employees “who go to work every day dedicated to making our company better and more secure.”

Government officials, speaking on grounds of anonymity because a formal announcement was pending, confirmed his resignation.

Ridge was responsible for the implementation of the Homeland Security Advisory System.

The Bush administration - since its Nov. 2 presidential election victory - has already accepted the resignations of Attorney General John Ashcroft, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Commerce Secretary Don Evans, Education Secretary Rod Paige, Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman and Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham.

Update:

Among those mentioned as possible candidates for Ridge’s replacement are Bernard Kerik, interim Minister of the Interior for Iraq and former New York City police commissioner, former Federal Emergency Management Agency Director Joe Allbaugh and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Mike Leavitt and White House homeland security adviser Fran Townsend. Others are also believed to be interested in the job, including Asa Hutchinson, undersecretary for border and transportation security in the Homeland Security Department.

Carlos M. Gutierrez Nominated For Commerce

The New York Times reports that President Bush nominated Carlos M. Gutierrez to be Secretary of Commerce:

President Bush on Monday nominated Carlos M. Gutierrez, among the most prominent Hispanic business executives in the United States, to be his commerce secretary, as the president continued with what Republicans said would be a broad overhaul of his cabinet.

Mr. Gutierrez, 51, has been chief executive of the Kellogg Company, the cereal maker, for more than five years, and has built a reputation as an innovative and forceful business leader with broad international experience. But he has little background in public policy, leaving him largely unknown in political circles and untested by the demands of a high-profile job in Washington.

“He understands the world of business, from the first rung on the ladder to the very top,” Mr. Bush said, with Mr. Gutierrez at his side in the Roosevelt Room at the White House. “He knows exactly what it takes to help American businesses grow and to create jobs.”

From California Yankee.

Bush I Avoids Jet Crash

A private jet that was en route to Houston to pick up former President Bush clipped a light pole and crashed Monday as it approached Hobby Airport in thick fog, killing all three people aboard.

The Gulfstream G-1159A jet, coming into Houston, went down about 6:15 a.m. in an undeveloped area 1½ miles south of the airport, officials said. The former president had been scheduled to travel to Ecuador for a conference.

“I was deeply saddened to learn of the plane crash this morning,” Bush said through spokesman Tom Frechette. “I’d flown with this group before and know them well. I join in sending heartfelt condolences to each and every member of their families.”

Read more..

Specter Wins Judiciary Panel Chairmanship

Conservative Republican senators on Thursday unanimously supported moderate Republican Sen. Arlen Specter as the next chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, ending a grueling campaign Specter waged both publicly and privately to guarantee his seat.

The effort followed a weeks-long controversy that erupted when Specter made comments concerning judicial nominees that seemed to suggest President Bush would have a hard time getting his choices confirmed.

“Arlen Specter will be our next chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. We are pleased to support Arlen in this matter,” said outgoing chairman, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.

Read more..

Bush Chooses Spellings as Education Secretary

President Bush has tapped another Texan to be his education secretary.

Bush on Tuesday chose Margaret Spellings, his domestic policy adviser, to succeed Rod Paige as head of the Education Department, administration officials said.

Spellings, a graduate of Houston’s Sharpstown High School and the University of Houston, was a major force behind the No Child Left Behind Act, the president’s first big domestic legislative victory.

Spellings, 46, has worked for the president since 1994, when he was running for governor of Texas. She served as his senior adviser for six years and was responsible for developing and implementing his education policy. That policy later became much of the groundwork for the No Child Left Behind legislation.

Spellings took her first political job in 1980, when she worked on the failed presidential campaign of former Texas Gov. John Connally.

Read more…

It's Official: Rice Tapped for Secretary of State - Updated

Condoleezza Rice will be nominated to lead U.S. diplomatic efforts during President Bush’s second term, replacing Colin Powell as secretary of state, FOX News has confirmed.

An official announcement from Bush himself was expected at 12:30 p.m. EST Tuesday.

Powell announced his resignation on Monday, saying he had never intended to stay more than one term but would stay on until a replacement was named.

Updates after the press conference

Update:

President Bush this afternoon officially nominated Condoleezza Rice, his national security adviser and a longtime confidante, to replace Colin Powell as secretary of state.

“During the last four years, I’ve relied on her counsel, benefited from her experience and relied on her sound and steady judgment,” Bush said in announcing the nomination Tuesday at the White House.

Sources: Condi to Replace Powell

White House officials said Monday they expect President Bush to name Condoleezza Rice to replace Colin Powell as secretary of state, sources told FOX News on Monday night.

If nominated and confirmed, Rice would be the second woman and the second African American to be the nation’s top foreign policy representative.

Changes to Bush’s cabinet:

RESIGNED OR EXPECTED TO RESIGN

Secretary of Agriculture
Ann M. Veneman

Secretary of Commerce
Don Evans

Department of Justice
John Ashcroft

Secretary of Education
Rod Paige

Secretary of State
Colin Powell

Secretary of Energy
Spencer Abraham

Secretary of Health & Human Services
Tommy Thompson

Source: Fox News

Sources: Powell Resigns - Three Other Cabinet Members to Resign [Updated -4-]

Breaking on Fox:

Secretary of State Colin Powell announced his resignation to his staff during their Monday morning meeting, a State Department source told FOX News.

President Bush is expected to make the official announcement. The source suggested that Powell is likely to stay in place until a replacement is confirmed.

More details as we get them.

Update:

Powell reportedly handed in his resignation Friday. But the president has not yet accepted his resignation.
CNN reported that there is a lot of speculation that Condoleezza Rice will be offered Powell’s position.

More:

The White House was preparing an announcement to confirm Powell’s resignation. According to one official, Powell expects that his departure date will be sometime in January. It was not immediately clear whether he will leave before Bush’s second inauguration on Jan 20.

Most of the speculation on a successor has centered on U.N. Ambassador John Danforth, a Republican and former U.S. senator from Missouri.

Update:

Various other news services reported that Agriculture Secretary Anne Veneman, Education Secretary Spencer Abraham and Education Secretary Rod Paige had also told President Bush of their intentions to leave the administration.

Update:

This makes it look pretty definite that all those mentioned will be resigning.

More here…

Republicrescendo

After four years as education secretary, bringing President Bush’s signature law on education to classrooms across the nation, Rod Paige plans to leave the cabinet in the near future, administration officials said Friday.
..following the resignations of Attorney General John Ashcroft and Commerce Secretary Donald L. Evans earlier this week.

Is this a build up to the resignation of the only respectable figure on the cabinet, Colin Powell? It seems he has been awfully busy for a man about to leave, with a rencent trip to Asia and regular interviews ( most recently ) with Arab journalist, Powell’s agenda is now lined up with
plans to meet with the new Palestinian leaders soon.

Recently with the power of a phone call to Mexico’s left Presidential runner

Powell’s tacit seal of approval will help López Obrador undermine his critics’ assertions that he is an irresponsible leftist populist.

Powell is Bush’s man of the world, in my view it would be fitting that he eventually leave. He is too good of a man who has earned too much respect to be associated with such a crowd, but on the other hand I feel a lot more comfortable with Powell keeping an eye on Bush, its a real quagmire.

Attorney General Nominee - Updated

At this hour, MSNBC is reporting that White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales will be the Bush administration’s nominee to replace John Ashcroft as Attorney General.

Update:

Fox story:

White House counsel Alberto Gonzales has been chosen by President Bush to be the next attorney general, U.S. officials confirmed to FOX News on Wednesday. An announcement from the White House could come later Wednesday.

Gonzales, who would be the first Hispanic attorney general if confirmed by the Senate, would replace John Ashcroft (search).

“I would not rule out an announcement today,” said White House spokesman Scott McClellan.

(Texan Editor’s Note: Gonzales’ hometown. It’s pronounced “Umble” and not “Humble.” The H is not just silent, but it is out drinking with its buddies.)

Ashcroft, Evans Resign [Updated]

Just breaking of FOX and MSNBC, details as they come in.

Update:

Attorney General John Ashcroft and Commerce Secretary Don Evans resigned Tuesday, the first members of President Bush’s Cabinet to leave as he headed from re-election into his second term.

The resignations were announced by White House press secretary Scott McClellan, who said Bush had accepted the decisions of both secretaries.

“The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved,” Ashcroft wrote in a five-page, handwritten letter to Bush.

More..

“Yet I believe that the Department of Justice would be well served by new leadership and fresh inspiration,” said Ashcroft, whose health problems earlier this year resulted in removal of his gall bladder.

“I believe that my energies and talents should be directed toward other challenging horizons,” he said.

Both Ashcroft and Evans have served in Bush’s Cabinet from the start of the administration. Evans, a close friend of Bush’s from Texas, wrote, “While the promise of your second term shines bright, I have concluded with deep regret that it is time for me to return home.”

McClellan said Bush had accepted the decisions of both secretaries.

Transcript of President's Press Conference

Following is a transcript of President Bush’s news conference yesterday, as recorded by The New York Times:

Opening Statement

Yesterday I pledged to reach out to the whole nation. And today I’m proving that I’m willing to reach out to everybody by including the White House press corps.

This week the voters of America set the direction of our nation for the next four years. I’m honored by the support of my fellow citizens. And I’m ready for the job.

We are fighting a continuing war on terror and every American has a stake in the outcome of this war. Republicans, Democrats and independents all love our country and together we’ll protect the American people. We will preserve - we’ll persevere until the enemy is defeated. We’ll stay strong and resolute. We have a duty - a solemn duty - to protect the American people, and we will.

Every civilized country also has a stake in the outcome of this war. Whatever our past disagreements, we share a common enemy. We have common duties to protect our peoples, to confront disease and hunger and poverty in troubled regions of the world.

I’ll continue to reach out to our friends and allies, our partners in the E.U. and NATO, to promote development and progress, to defeat the terrorists and to encourage freedom and democracy as alternatives to tyranny and terror.

I also look forward to working with the present Congress and the new Congress that will arrive in January. I congratulate the men and women who’ve just been elected to the House and the Senate. I will join with old friends and new friends to make progress for all Americans.

Congress will return later this month to finish this current session. I urge members to pass the appropriations bill that remain, showing spending discipline while focusing on our nation’s priorities.

Our government also needs the very best intelligence, especially in the time of war. So I urge the Congress to pass an effective intelligence reform bill that I can sign into law.

The new Congress that begins its work next year will have serious responsibilities and historic opportunities. To accelerate the momentum of this economy and to keep creating jobs we must take practical measures to help our job creators, the entrepreneurs and the small-business owners.

We must confront the frivolous lawsuits that are driving up the costs of health care and hurting doctors and patients.

We must continue the work of education reform to bring high standards and accountability, not just to our elementary and secondary schools but to our high schools as well.

We must reform our complicated and outdated tax code. We need to get rid of the needless paperwork that makes our economy - that is a drag on our economy - to make our - to make sure our economy is the most competitive in the world.

We must show our leadership by strengthening Social Security for our children and our grandchildren. This is more than a problem to be solved. It is an opportunity to help millions of our fellow citizens find security and independence that comes from owning something - from ownership.

In the election of 2004, large issues were set before our country. They were discussed every day on the campaign. The campaign over, Americans are expecting a bipartisan effort and results. I’ll reach out to everyone who shares our goals. And I’m eager to start the work ahead.

I’m looking forward to serving this country for four more years.

I want to thank you all for your hard work in the campaign. I told you that the other day and you probably thought I was just seeking votes.

But now that you voted, I really meant it. I appreciate the hard work of the press corps. We all put in long hours and you were away from your families for a long period of time. But the country’s better off when we have a vigorous and free press covering our elections. And thanks for your work.

With that overpandering, I’ll answer a few questions.

Questions and Answers

Q. Mr. President, thank you. As you look at your second term, how much is the war in Iraq going to cost? Do you intend to send more troops or bring troops home? And in the Middle East more broadly, do you agree with Tony Blair that revitalizing the Middle East peace process is the single most pressing political issue facing the world?

Mr. Bush Now that I’ve got the will of the people at my back, I’m going to start enforcing the one-question rule. That was three questions.

Start with Tony Blair’s comments. I agree with him that the Middle East peace is a very important part of a peaceful world. I have been working on Middle Eastern peace ever since I’ve been the president. I laid down some - a very hopeful strategy on - in June of 2002. And my hope is that we’ll make good progress. I think it’s very important for our friends, the Israelis, to have a peaceful Palestinian state living on their border. And it’s very important for the Palestinian people to have a peaceful, hopeful future. That’s why I articulated a two-state vision in that Rose Garden speech. I meant it when I said it and I mean it now.

What was the other part of your question?

Q. Iraq.

A. Oh, Iraq. Yeah. Listen, we will work with the Allawi government to achieve our objective, which is elections and on the path to stability. And we’ll continue to train the troops. Our commanders will have that which they need to complete their missions. And in terms of the cost, I - we will work with O.M.B. and the Defense Department to bring forth to Congress a realistic assessment of what the cost will be.

Q. Thank you, Mr. President. How will you go about bringing people together? Will you seek a consensus candidate for the Supreme Court if there’s an opening? Will you bring some Democrats into your cabinet?

A. Again, you violated the one-question rule right off the bat. Obviously you didn’t listen to the will of the people.

But first of all, there’s no vacancy for the Supreme Court. And I will deal with a vacancy when there is one.

And what I - I told the people on the campaign trail that I’ll pick somebody that knows the difference between personal opinion and the strict interpretation of the law. You might have heard that several times. I meant what I said.

And if people are interested in knowing the kind of judges I’ll pick, look at the record. I’ve sent up a lot of judges, well qualified people who know the law, who represent a judicial temperament that I agree with and who are qualified to hold the bench.

The second part of your two-part question?

Q. … Democrat to your cabinet by any chance?

A. I haven’t made any decisions on the cabinet yet.

Q. How else will you bring people together?

A. We’ll put out an agenda that everybody understands and work with people to achieve the agenda.

Democrats want a free and peaceful world. And we’ll - by the way, right after Sept. 11, we worked very closely together to secure our country. There is a common ground to be had when it comes to a foreign policy that says the most important objective is to protect the American people and spread freedom and democracy.

There’s common ground when it comes to making sure the intelligence services are able to provide good, actionable intelligence to protect our people. And this - it’s not a Republican issue; it’s a Republican and Democrat issue. And so I’ll - plenty of places for us to work together.

Q. Thank you, Mr. President. On foreign policy more broadly, do you believe that America has an image problem in the world right now because of your efforts in response to the 9/11 attacks? And as you talked down the stretch about building alliances, talk about what you’ll do to build on those alliances and to deal with these image problems, particularly in the Islamic world.

A. I appreciate that. Listen, I’ve made some very hard decisions - decisions to protect ourselves, decisions to spread peace and freedom. And I understand that in certain capitals and certain countries those decisions were not popular. You know, you said - you asked me to put that in the context of the response on Sept. 11. The first response, of course, was chasing down the terror networks, which we will continue to do. And we - we’ve got great response around the world in order to do that. There’s over 90 nations involved with sharing information, finding terrorists, and bringing them to justice. That is a broad coalition and we’ll continue to strengthen it.

I laid out a doctrine that said if you harbor a terrorist, you’re equally as guilty as the terrorist and that doctrine was ignored by the Taliban and we removed the Taliban. And I fully understand some people didn’t agree with that decision. But I believe that when the American president speaks, he’d better mean what he says in order to keep the world peaceful. And I believe we have a solemn duty, whether or not people agree with it or not, to protect the American people. And their - the Taliban and their harboring of al Qaeda represented a direct threat to the American people.

And of course and the Iraq issue is one that people disagreed with. And I don’t need to rehash my case. But I - I did so - I made the decision I made in order to protect our country, first and foremost.

I will continue to do that, as the president. But as I do so, I will reach out to others and explain why I make the decisions I make.

There is a certain attitude in the world by some that says, you know, it’s a waste of time to try to promote free societies in parts of the world. I’ve heard that criticism. I remember I went to London to talk about our vision of spreading freedom throughout the greater Middle East.

And I fully understand that that might rankle some and be viewed by some as folly. I just strongly disagree with those who do not see the wisdom of trying to promote free societies around the world.

If we are interested in protecting our country for the long term, the best way to do so is to promote freedom and democracy. And I simply do not agree with those who either say overtly or believe that certain societies cannot be free. It’s just not a part of my thinking.

And that’s why, during the course of the campaign, I was - I believe I was able to connect, at least with those who were there, in explaining my policy when I talked about the free elections in Afghanistan.

There were - there was doubt about whether or not those elections would go forward. I’m not suggesting any of you here expressed skepticism, but there was. There was deep skepticism. And because there is a attitude among some that certain people may never be free, and at least don’t long to be free, or incapable of running an election. And I disagree with that.

And the Afghan people, by going to the polls in the millions, proved - proved that this administration’s faith in freedom to change people’s habits is - is worthy.

And that’ll be a central part of my foreign policy. And I’ve got work to do to explain to people about why that is a central part of our foreign policy. I mean I’ve been doing that for four years.

But if you do not believe people can be free, and can self-govern, then all of a sudden, the two-state solution in the Middle East becomes a moot point, invalid. If you’re willing to condemn a group of people to a system of government that hasn’t worked, then you’ll never be able to achieve the peace.

You cannot lead this world and our country to a better tomorrow unless you see a better - unless you have a vision of a better tomorrow. And I’ve got one based upon a great faith that people do want to be free and live in democracy.

Q. Now that the political volatility is off the issue because the election is over, I’d like to ask you about troop levels in Iraq in the next couple of months leading up to elections. The Pentagon already has a plan to extend tours of duty for some 6,500 U.S. troops. How many more will be needed to provide security in Iraq for elections, seeing as how the Iraqi troops that you’re trying to train up are pretty slow coming on line?

A. Yeah. Well, first of all, the - we are making good progress in training the Iraqi troops. There’ll be 125,000 of them trained by election time.

Secondly, I have yet to - I have not sat down with our secretary of defense talking about troop levels. I read some reports during the course of the campaign where some were speculating, in the press corps, about the number of troops needed to protect elections. I - that has not been brought to my attention yet. And so I would caution you that what you have either read about or reported was pure speculation thus far.

These elections are important and we will respond, John, to the requests of our commanders on the ground. And I have yet to hear from our commanders on the ground that they need more troops.

Q. Mr. President, your victory at the polls came about in part because of strong support from people of faith, in particular Christian evangelicals and pentacostals and others. And Senator Kerry drew some of his strongest support from those who do not attend religious services. What do you make of this religious divide, it seems, becoming a political divide in this country? And what do you say to those who are concerned about the role of a faith they do not share in public life and in your policies?

A. Yeah. My answer to people is I will be your president regardless of your faith. And I don’t expect you to agree with me, necessarily, on religion. As a matter of fact, no president should ever try to impose religion on our society. The great - the great tradition of America is one where people can worship the - the way they want to worship. And if they choose not to worship, they’re just as patriotic as your neighbor. That is an essential part of why we are a great nation. And I am glad people of faith voted in this election. I’m glad - I appreciate all people who voted. And I don’t think you ought to read anything into the politics, the moment, about whether or not this nation will become a divided nation over religion. I think the great thing that unites us is the fact you can worship freely if you choose and if you - you don’t have to worship. And if you’re a Jew or a Christian or a Muslim, you’re equally American. That is - that is such a wonderful aspect of our society. And it is strong today and it’ll be strong tomorrow.

Q. Mr. President, you talked once again this morning about private accounts and Social Security. During the campaign you were accused of planning to privatize the entire system. It has been something you’ve discussed for some time. You’ve lost some of the key Democratic proponents such as Pat Moynihan and Bob Kerrey in the Congress. How will you proceed now with one of the key problems which is the transition cost, which some say is as much as two trillion dollars? How will you proceed on that and how soon?

A. Well, first I made Social Security an issue for those of you who had to suffer through my speeches on a daily basis, for those of you who actually listened to my speeches on a daily basis, you might remember every speech I talked about the duty of an American president to lead. And we must lead on Social Security because the system is not going to be whole for our children or our grandchildren.

And so to answer your second question is, we’ll start on Social Security now. We’ll start bringing together those in Congress who agree with my assessment that we need to work together. We’ve got a good blueprint, a good go-by. You mentioned Senator Moynihan, I had asked him prior to his passing to chair a committee of notable Americans to come up with some ideas on Social Security. And they did so. And it’s a good place for members of Congress to start.

The president must have the will to take on the issue, not only in the campaign but now that I’m elected. And this, reforming Social Security, will be a priority of my administration. Obviously, if it were easy it would have already been done. And this is going to be hard work to bring people together and to make, to convince the Congress to move forward. And there are going to be costs. But the cost of doing nothing is insignificant - is much greater than the cost of reforming the system today. That was the case I made on the campaign trail. And I was earnest about getting something done. And as a matter of fact I talked to members of my staff today as we’re beginning to plan the strategy to move agendas forward about how to do this and do it effectively.

Q. Mr. President, you were disappointed, even angry 12 years ago when the voters denied your father a second term. I’m interested in your thoughts and the conversation with him yesterday as you were walking to the Oval Office. And also whether you feel more free to do any one thing in a second term that perhaps you were politically constrained from doing in the first.

A. At 3:30 in the morning on I guess it was the day after the election, he was sitting upstairs. And I finally said go to bed. He was awaiting the outcome and was hopeful that we would go over and be able to talk to our supporters. It just didn’t happen that way. So I asked him the next morning when he got up, said come by the Oval Office and visit. And he came by. We had a good talk. He was headed down to Houston. And it was, you know, there was some uncertainty about that morning as to when the election would actually end. And it wasn’t clear at that point in time. So I never got to see him face to face to watch his, I guess, pride in his tired eyes as his son got a second term. I did talk to him and he was relieved. I told him to get a nap. He was - I was worried about him staying up too late. But, so I haven’t had a chance to really visit and embrace.

And you’re right, ‘92 was a disappointment. But he taught me a really good lesson, that life moves on. And it’s very important for those of us in the political arena win or lose to recognize that life is bigger than just politics. And this was one of the really good lessons he taught me.

Q. Do you feel more free?

A. In terms of feeling free, well, I don’t think you’ll let me be too free. There’s accountability and there are constraints on the presidency as there should be in any system. I feel it is necessary to move an agenda that I told the American people I would move. Something refreshing about coming off an election. Even more refreshing since we all got some sleep last night.

But there’s, you go out and you make your case. And you tell the people this is what I intend to do. And after hundreds of speeches and three debates and interviews and the whole process where you keep basically saying the same thing over and over again that when you win there is a feeling that the people have spoken and embraced your point of view. And that’s what I intend to tell the Congress. That I made it clear what I intend to do as the president. Now let’s work - and the people made it clear what they wanted. Now let’s work together. It’s one of the wonderful - it’s like earning capital.

You asked do I feel free. Let me put it to you this way. I earned capital in the campaign, political capital. And now I intend to spend it. It is my style. That’s what happened after the 2000 election, I earned some capital. I’ve earned capital in this election. And I’m going to spend it for what I told the people I’d spend it on, which is, you’ve heard the agenda: Social Security and tax reform, moving this economy forward, education, fighting and winning the war on terror. We have an obligation in this country to continue to work with nations to help alleve poverty and disease. We will continue to press forward on the H.I.V. AIDS initiative, the Millennium Challenge Account. We will continue to do our duty to help feed the hungry. And I’m looking forward to it. I really am.

It’s been a fantastic experience campaigning the country. It’s, you’ve seen it from one perspective. I’ve seen it from another. I saw you standing there at the last final rally in Texas to my right over there. I was observing you observe. And you saw the energy. And there was just uplifting about people showing up at 11 o’clock at night expressing their support and their prayers and their friendship. It’s a marvelous experience to campaign across the country.

Q. Do you plan to reshape your cabinet for the second term? Or will any changes come at the instigation of individuals? And as part of the same question, may I ask you what you’ve learned about cabinet government, what works, what doesn’t work. And do you mind also addressing the same question about the White House staff?

A. The post-election euphoria did not last very long here at the press corps. Let me talk about the people that have worked with me. I had a cabinet meeting today. And I thanked them for their service to the country and reminded them that we’ve got a job to do. And I expected them to do the job. I have made no decisions on my Cabinet and or White House staff. I am mindful that working in the White House is really, is exhausting work. The um, the people who you try to get to leak to you spend hours away from their families. And it is, there is, the word burnout is oftentimes used in Washington. And it’s used for a reason. Because people do burn out. And so obviously, in terms of those who are, who want to stay on and who I want to stay on I’ve got to make sure that it’s right for their families. And that they’re comfortable. Because when they come to work here in the White House I expect them to work as hard as they possibly can on behalf of the American people.

And the Cabinet, there will be some changes. I don’t know who they will be. It’s inevitable there will be changes. It happens in every administration. To a person I am proud of the work they have done. And I fully understand we’re about to head into the period of intense speculation as to who is going to stay and who is not going to stay. And I assured them, today I warned them of the speculative period. It’s great Washington sport to be talking about who’s going to leave and who the replacements may be and handicapping my way of thinking.

I’ll just give you, but let me just help you out with the speculation right now. I haven’t thought about it. I’m going to start thinking about it. I’m going to Camp David this afternoon with Laura. And I’ll begin the process of thinking about the Cabinet and the White House staff. And we’ll let you know at the appropriate time when decisions have been made.

Q. What works, what doesn’t?

A. Yeah, well, first I’ve learned that I’ve put together a really good cabinet. I’m very proud of the people that have served this government. And they, to a man or woman work their hearts out for the American people. And I’ve learned that you’ve got to continue to surround yourself with good people. This is a job that requires crisp decision making. And therefore, in order for me to make decisions I’ve got to have people who bring their point of view into the Oval Office and are willing to say it. I always jest to people, the Oval Office is the kind of place where people stand outside, they’re getting ready to come in and tell me what for and they walk in and get overwhelmed by the atmosphere. And they say “man, you’re looking pretty.” And therefore, you need people to walk in on those days when you’re not looking so good and saying you’re not looking so good, Mr. President. And I’ve got, those are the kind of people that served our country.

We’ve had vigorous debates, which you all during the last four years took great delight in reporting. Differences of opinion. But that’s what you want if you’re the commander in chief and a decision maker. You want people to walk in and say I don’t agree with this or I do agree with that. And here’s what my recommendation is. But the president also has to learn to decide. There’s ample time for the debate to take place. And then decide. And make up your mind. And lead. That’s what the job’s all about. And so I have learned how important it is to be, to have a really fine group of people that think through issues and that are not intimidated by the process. And who walk in and tell me what’s on their mind.

Q. Sir, does it bother you that there’s a perception out there that your administration has been one that favors big business and the wealthy individuals? And what can you do to overcome that, sir?

A. 70 percent of the new jobs in America are created by small businesses. I understand that. And I have promoted during the course of the last four years one of the most aggressive pro-entrepreneur, small business policies. Tax relief. You might remember, I don’t know if you know this or not but 90 percent of the businesses are sole proprietorships or Subchapter S corporations.

Tax relief helped them. This is an administration that fully understands that the job creators are the entrepreneurs. And so in a new term we’ll make sure that tax relief continues to be robust for our small businesses. We’ll push legal reform and regulatory reform. Because I understand the engine of growth is through the small business sector.

Q. Sir, given your commitment to reaching out across party lines and to all Americans, I wonder if you could expand on your definition bipartisanship and whether it means simply picking off a few Democrats on a case-by-case basis to pass the bills you want to pass or whether you would commit to working regularly with the Democratic leadership on solutions that can win broad support across party lines?

A. Do you remember the No Child Left Behind Act? I think that’s the model I’d look at if I were you. It is a - I laid out an agenda for reforming our public schools. I worked with both Republicans and Democrats to get that bill passed. In a new term, we’ll continue to make sure we do not weaken the accountability standards that are making a huge difference in people’s lives, in these kids’ lives. But that’s the model I’d look at if I were you.

And there’s a certain practicality to life here in Washington. And that is when you get a bill moving, it is important to get the votes. And if politics starts to get in the way of getting good legislation through, well, that’s just part of life here.

But I’m also focused on results. I think of the Medicare bill. You might remember that old stale debate. We finally got a bill moving. I was hoping it would get strong bipartisan support. Unfortunately it was an election year. And but we got the votes necessary to get the bill passed.

And so we will - I will - my goal is to work on the ideal and to reach out and to continue to work and find common ground on issues.

On the other hand, I’ve been wisened to the ways of Washington. I watched what can happen during certain parts of the cycle where politics gets in the way of good policy. And at that point in time, I’ll continue to - you know, I’ll try to get this done. And try to get our bills passed in a way. Because results really do matter, as far as I’m concerned.

I really didn’t come here to hold the office, just to say, Gosh, it was fun to serve. I came here to get some things done. And we are doing it.

Q. I know you haven’t had a chance to learn this, but it appears that Yasir Arafat has passed away.

A. Really?

Q. And I was just wondering if I could get your initial reaction and also your thoughts on perhaps working with a new generation of Palestinian leadership.

A. I appreciate that. My first reaction is: God bless his soul. And my second reaction is that we will continue to work for a free Palestinian state that’s at peace with Israel.

Q. Mr. President, as you look at your second-term domestic priorities, I wonder of you could talk a little bit about how you see the sequence of action on issues beyond Social Security, tax reform, education, and if you could expand a little bit for us on the principles that you want to underpin your tax reform proposal? Do you want it to be revenue-neutral? What kinds of things do you want to accomplish through that process?

A. I appreciate that. I was anticipating this question that, you know, what is the first thing you’re going to do when it comes to legislation. It just doesn’t work that way, particularly when you’ve laid out a comprehensive agenda. And part of that comprehensive agenda is tax simplification.

The - first of all, a principle would be revenue-neutral. If I’m going to - you know, if there was a need to raise taxes, I’d say, let’s have a tax bill that raises taxes as opposed to let’s simplify the tax code and sneak a tax increase on the people. It’s just not my style. I don’t believe we need to raise taxes. I’ve said that to the American people. And so the simplification would be the goal.

Now, secondly, that - obviously that it rewards risk and doesn’t have unnecessary penalties in it.

But the main thing is that it would be viewed as fair, that it would be a fair system, that it wouldn’t be complicated, that there’s a, you know, kind of - that loopholes wouldn’t be there for special interests, that the code itself be viewed and deemed as a very fair way to - to encourage people to invest and save and achieve certain fiscal objectives in our country as well.

You know, one of the interesting debates will be, of course, in the course of simplification: will there be incentives in the code? Charitable giving, of course, and mortgage deductions are very important. As governor of Texas, when I - at some time I think I was asked about simplification, I always noted how important it was for certain incentives to be built in the tax code. And that’ll be an interesting part of the debate.

Certain issues come quicker than others in the course of a legislative session. And that depends upon whether or not those issues have been debated. I think, for example, of the legal issue - the legal reform issues. They have been - medical liability reform had been debated and got thwarted a couple of times in one body in particular on Capitol Hill.

And so the groundwork has been laid for some legislation that I’ve been talking about. On an issue like tax reform, it’s going to - tax simplification - it’s going to take a lot of legwork to get something ready for a legislative package. I fully understand that.

The Social Security form will require some additional legwork, although the Moynihan Commission has laid the groundwork for it, I think is a very good place to start the debate.

The education issue is one that could move pretty quickly because there’s been a lot of discussion about education. You know, it’s an issue that the members are used to debating and discussing.

And so I think, you know, all issues are important. And the timing of issues as they reach it through committee and floor really depend upon whether or not some work has already been done on those issues.

A couple more questions.

Q. Mr. President, American forces are gearing up for what appears to be a major offensive in Falluja over the next several days. I’m wondering if you could tell us what the objective is, what the stakes are there, for the United States, for the Iraqi people, and the Iraqi elections coming up in January.

A. In order for Iraq to be a free country, those who are trying to stop the elections and stop a free society from emerging must be defeated. And so Prime Minister Allawi and his government, which fully understands that, are working with our generals on the ground to do just that.

Now, we will work closely with the government. It’s their government; it’s their country. We’re there at their invitation. And but I think there’s a recognition that these - some of these people have to - must be defeated. And so that’s what they’re thinking about. That’s what you’re - that’s why you’re hearing discussions about potential action in Falluja.

Q. Thank you, Sir. Many within your own party are unhappy over the deficit and they say keeping down discretional spending alone won’t help you reach your goal of halving the deficit in five years. What else do you plan to do to cut costs?

A. Well, I, you know, I would suggest they look at our budget that we’ve submitted to Congress, which does in fact get the deficit cut in half in five years. And it is a specific, line by line budget that we are required to submit and have done so.

The key to making sure that the deficit is reduced is for there to be on the one hand, spending discipline - and I’ve - as you noticed in my opening remarks, I talked about these appropriations bills that are beginning to move. And I thought I was pretty clear about the need for those bills to be - to be fiscally responsible. And I meant it. And I look forward to talking to the leadership about making sure that the - the budget agreements we had are still the budget agreements - that just because we had an election, that they shouldn’t feel comfortable changing our agreement. And I think they understand that.

Secondly, the other way to make sure that the deficit is - decreases - is to grow the economy. As the economy grows, there’ll be more revenues coming into the treasury. That’s what you have seen recently. If you notice that there’s been some - there’s been some write-downs of the budget deficit whereas the deficit is less than we thought because the revenues is exceeding projections. And the reason why the revenues - the revenues are exceeding projections. Sometimes I mangle the English language. I get - anyway - yeah, very inside.

The revenues are exceeding projections. And as a result, the projected deficit is less. But my point there is is that so - with good economic policy that encourages economic growth, the revenue streams begin to increase. And as the revenue streams increase, coupled with fiscal discipline, you’ll see the deficit shrinking. And we are focused on that. I do believe there ought to be budgetary reform in Washington, on the Hill - Capitol Hill. I think it’s very important.

I would like to see the president have a line item veto again when it passed constitutional muster. I think it would help the executive branch work with the legislative branch to make sure that - that we’re able to maintain budget discipline.

I’ve talked to a lot of members of Congress who are wondering whether or not we’ll have the will to confront entitlements, to make sure that there is entitlement reform that helps us maintain fiscal discipline.

The answer is yes. That’s why I took on the Social Security issue. I believe that we have a duty to do so. I want to make sure that the Medicare reforms that we put in place remain robust to help us make sure Medicare is available for generations to come.

And so there is a - I’ve got quite an active agenda to help work with Congress to bring not only fiscal discipline but to make sure that our pro-growth policies are still in place.

Q. I‘m interested in getting back to Steven - Stevenson’s question about unity. Clearly, you believe you have reached out and will continue to reach out. Do you believe that Democrats have made a sincere and sufficient effort to meet you somewhere halfway? And do you think now there’s more reason for them to do that in light of the election results?

A. I think the Democrats agree that we have an obligation to serve our country. I believe there will be goodwill, now that this election is over, to work together. I found that to be the case when I first arrived here in Washington. And working with the Democrats and fellow Republicans, we got a lot done. And it is with that spirit that I go into this coming session. And I will meet with both Republican and Democrat leaders and I am - they’ll see I’m genuine about working toward some of these important issues.

It’s going to be - it’s not easy, you know. These - I readily concede I’ve laid out some very difficult issues for people to deal with.

Reforming the Social Security system for generations to come is a difficult issue. Otherwise it would have already been done. But it is necessary to confront it. And I would hope to be able to work with Democrats to get this done. I’m not sure we can get it done without Democrat participation. Because it is a big issue. And I will explain to them, you know, I will show them Senator Moynihan’s thinking as a way to begin the process. And I will remind everybody who’s here that we have a duty to leave behind a better America and when we see a problem, to deal with it. And I think Democrats agree with that.

And so I’m optimistic. You’ve covered me when I was a governor of Texas. I told you that I was going to do that as the governor. There was probably some skepticism in your beady eyes there. But you might remember we were able to accomplish a lot by - and Washington is different from Austin, no question about it. Washington - one of the disappointments of the - of being here in Washington is how bitter this town can become and how divisive.

I’m not blaming one party or the other. It’s just the reality of Washington, D.C. Sometimes exacerbated by - by you because it’s great sport; it’s entertaining for some. It also makes it difficult to govern at times. And I - but nevertheless, my commitment is there. I fully - now I’m more seasoned to Washington. I have cut my political eye teeth, at least the ones I’ve recently grown here in Washington. And so I’m aware of what can happen in this town. But nevertheless, having said that, I am fully prepared to work with both Republican and Democrat leadership to advance an agenda that I think makes a big difference for the country.

Listen, thank you all. I look forward to working with you. I’ve got a question for you: How many of you are going to be here for a second term? Please raise your hand.

Gosh, we’re going to have a lot of fun then.

Thank you all.

Students Arrested Protesting President Bush's Re-election

About 250 Bard College students protested the presidential election results on Friday claiming George Bush was not the legitimate winner.

The protesters marched from campus to the center of the Hudson Valley village of Red Hook and blocked traffic at by staging a 45-minute sit-in:

“George Bush is not our president, and we reject him as our president,” protester Gabe Rey-Goodlatt said. “He’s a non-elected president who stole the election again in 2004.”

Twelve students were charged with disorderly conduct after becoming confrontational with officers.

From California Yankee.

Bush Outlines Agenda For Second Term

A minority president no more, President Bush sketched a second-term agenda Thursday that includes fighting the worldwide war on terror and seeking tax overhaul and fundamental changes in Social Security at home.

“I’ve earned capital in this election and I’m going to spend it for what I’ve told the people I’d spend it on,” he said.

Bush also pledged to pursue the foreign policy that was a flashpoint in the presidential campaign and has sparked criticism by some American allies in Europe.

“There is a certain attitude in the world by some that says that it’s a waste of time to try to promote free societies in parts of the world,” he said, a reference to Iraq in particular. “I’ve heard that criticism,” he said.

“Remember, I went to London to talk about our vision of spreading freedom throughout the greater Middle East and I fully understand that that might rankle some and be viewed by some as folly.”

Told by a reporter that Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat had died, Bush said he intended to “continue to work for a free Palestinian state that’s at peace with Israel.” Later reports said that Arafat, in a coma in Paris, was still alive.

Read more…

Election 2004 Endgame

Well it looks like it’s over overall pending the Democrats don’t throw a lawsuit our way challenging the 20 electoral votes of Ohio.

Right now New Mexico and Iowa is closing with 98% & 97% counted which will give Bush a total of 12 EC Points to take it to 261 EC Points (If Democrats challenging Ohio). Then there’s Nevada with 80% counted at this moment with 5 EC points and it’s leaning Bush. Which raises it to Bush’s 266 to Kerry’s 225.

Wiscousin, Michigan, & possibly Hawaii are going Kerry which will bring Kerry’s total to 252 Total.

Right now, Bush is the winner of the 2004 Presidential Election if Kerry respects the voters of Ohio.

My conclusion of the 2004 Presidential Election:
Bush 286 - Kerry 252

Bush Invites Pool reporters into White House

ABC News reports President Bush has invited the Press Pool in for a quick interview. According to ABC, this is highly unusual and may have never happened before during an election night.

UPDATE:
ABC Ran the tape, but it did not have any sound. Pres. Bush had his family around him, including his daughters, wife and Pres. Bush Sr. and the former First Lady.
Not sure what the point was….

Why You Should Vote For Me Today : Bush

From USA Today :

I am running for president with a clear and positive plan to build a safer world and a more hopeful America. My record demonstrates the consistent and principled leadership our nation needs in these challenging times. I ran for president four years ago with an ambitious agenda for America’s future, and I have kept my commitments. With bipartisan support, we passed the No Child Left Behind Act — the most sweeping education reform in generations. Now states are setting higher standards for schools, parents have more options for their children’s education, and student achievement is rising.

I also promised to lower taxes, and the tax relief we passed has delivered financial relief to more than 111 million Americans. A family of four with a $40,000 income has seen taxes reduced by more than $1,900. Families and small businesses are using that money to move our economy forward. In the past 13 months, we have created more than 1.9 million new jobs.

We added a prescription drug benefit to Medicare. Millions of seniors are saving thanks to Medicare drug discount cards. And in 2006, every senior in Medicare will be eligible for a voluntary prescription drug benefit that could save them as much as 75% off the cost of prescription medication.

Our nation has also faced challenges we did not expect. We endured the worst terrorist assault in our history, and the vicious attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, affected every American. As I stood in the ruins of the World Trade Center’s twin towers, I vowed that I would do whatever it takes to defend America.

To keep our communities safe, I strengthened our homeland defenses and created the Department of Homeland Security. First-responders have received billions more dollars for training and equipment. The Patriot Act is helping intelligence and law enforcement agencies work together to track down terror cells and prevent terrorist attacks.

We are staying on the offense against the enemy. Our armed forces acted swiftly and courageously, deposing the Taliban in Afghanistan. We liberated millions of oppressed men, women and children. In October, the Afghan people — including more than 3 million women — voted in free and democratic elections for the first time in their history. And to date, three-quarters of al-Qaeda’s known leaders have been captured or killed.

In Saddam Hussein, we saw a unique threat. We pursued diplomatic solutions through the United Nations, but when repeated attempts at diplomacy failed, we acted to end the threat Saddam posed. Some 30 nations, including Great Britain, Australia, Poland and Italy, joined us. We were right to take action, and America is safer today with Saddam Hussein in prison.

As we pursue terrorists across the globe, we are also promoting freedom, hope and democracy in the broader Middle East. By supporting reform and democracy, we gain allies in the war on terror and help defeat the despair and hopelessness that feed terror.

This will make America safer.

We have made tremendous progress in only four years, but there is still more we can do in the years to come. My opponent and I have fundamentally different views about how to lead America.

I believe the government should help people improve their lives, not try to run their lives. I support efforts to keep taxes low, so families and small businesses keep more of their own money to spend and save as they see fit. My opponent would raise taxes on millions of American families and small-business owners.

I support litigation reform to lower the cost of health care and protect small businesses. My opponent has fought efforts to reduce frivolous litigation.

My health care plan would promote accessible health care that leaves decisions in the hands of patients and doctors — not the federal government. My opponent would enact the largest expansion of government-run health care in history. It would cost taxpayers at least $1.2 trillion and move 8 million people from private insurance to government-run care.

My opponent has no plan to strengthen Social Security. As long as I am president, older Americans can count on Social Security, and I want to give our children and grandchildren the option of saving in a personal account and building a nest egg the government can never take away.

Our biggest difference is found in our approach to the war on terror. I will always make America’s security my top priority. Sen. Kerry would be satisfied if terrorism were just a “nuisance.” And he would insist on passing a “global test” that would give foreign leaders more influence over America’s security. That’s not the right leadership for these dangerous times.

The problem with Sen. Kerry’s record on national security goes deeper than election-year flip-flopping. On the largest national security issues of our time — from the Cold War to the Gulf War to the war on terror — the senator has been consistently and dangerously wrong.

Americans face an important decision today — a decision that will determine the security and prosperity of the American people. For nearly four years, I have acted to promote opportunity and protect the safety of my fellow citizens. I ask for your vote to build on the good work we have begun.

Moronski predicts...

Today in political punditry from Sean Moronski, he treats us to his final predictions.

The only number to care about is 270 — as in electoral votes.

Last week, I gave an assessment of where I believe the Electoral College stands… not a whole lot has changed… with the likelihood that Maine will give all 4 of its votes (Bear bait amendments notwithstanding) to the Ds and that Coloradoans aren’t stupid enough to vote away their electoral clout by dividing their electoral votes by the popular vote percentage, I believe the College stands as follows:

Bush: 222 votes (26 states covering the South and middle America)

Kerry: 207 votes (15 states covering the Northeast, some of the Great Lakes region and the West Coast)

That leaves 109 votes up for grabs, which I predict will go as follows:

“Western 5-Card” - Nevada and New Mexico each have 5 electoral votes.  Bush has been trending well in Nevada and I expect him to hold serve there.  Kerry will probably win New Mexico barring a sudden Nader move.  Give them each 5.  Bush 227, Kerry 212

 “Iron Triangle” - The Upper Midwestern states of Wisconsin (10), Minnesota (10) and Iowa (7).  Gore won all of these in 2000.  There will be no Democrat sweep this time around.  Bush will win at least one — Wisconsin.  I’ll give Kerry the other 2.  All will be close. Bush 237, Kerry 229

 “The BIG 3” - Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio

 Pennsylvania is the one Gore won in 2000 and Kerry will do it again.  Two reasons: the Philly suburbs have become fertile vote territory for Dems and there are probably enough votes that can be hustled (manufactured?) out of Philly to overcome the rest of the state.  Kerry 250, Bush 237

 Florida — the mother of all contests — won’t be razor thin this time.  For all the ranting and raving about 2000, it is estimated that Bush lost at least 5,000 votes in the Panhandle (located in the Central time zone) as the networks called the state for Gore while polls were still open.  Since 2000, Republicans have performed quite well in the state.  Hispanics, particularly Cubans, are motivated to elect Mel Martinez to the U.S. Senate.  Jews don’t have the same motivation to make John Edwards the VP as opposed to Joe Lieberman in 2000.  Close, BUT… Bush takes it… Bush 264, Kerry 250

Ohio… the center of the electoral universe.  No GOP has EVER been elected President without winning here.  The last Dem to win the Presidency without Ohio was JFK in 1960.  It will all come down to turnout — who is motivated more???  Kerry is not Clinton… he’s not even Gore… he doesn’t connect… W is not his father… whatever faults he may have, he will connect with enough Ohioans to win… Bush 284, Kerry 250… but wait…

UPSET SPECIAL… 4 votes are outstanding… in 2000, West Virginia was the Democrat state that came out of nowhere to go for Bush and provide the margin of victory… this time Aloha has a whole different political meaning… the latest polls out of Hawaii have Bush tied or slightly ahead… this time 4 years ago, Gore was up 19 in the same polls and won by 17… sometimes you have to make a call for the unexpected… lei the 4 votes for W…

final Bush 288, Kerry 250

for those of you who care I figure the national popular vote percentage margin will be 2.5%… Nader won’t break 2%

remember - vote early and often… for you Ds, election day is November 4… the Rs get to vote on November 2

Cheney "Cooks Kerry's Goose" in Hawaii

Dick Cheney, the first major party candidate to stump in Hawaii, addressed a crowd of about 9,000 in Honolulu:

“If you want my opinion, John Kerry’s goose is cooked,” Cheney told hundreds of cheering supporters in this Republican stronghold, where voters at military bases backed George Bush 2-to-1 in the 2000 election.

Hawaii, normally a strong Democratic state, suddenly finds itself in the spotlight as a battleground state this year.

Bush Regains I point Lead In Zogby Tracking Poll

Reuters reports that President Bush edged into a one-point lead in the Reuters/Zogby International Tracking Poll released on Monday:

Bush 48%
Kerry 47%

Bush and Kerry were deadlocked at 48 percent on Sunday.

From California Yankee.

"Tora Bora: What Really Happened?"

CNN’s terrorism analyst Peter Bergen:

The question of whether the United Sates missed an opportunity to capture or kill Osama bin Laden during the battle of Tora Bora in eastern Afghanistan in December 2001 has become a contentious issue in the razor-close campaign. During the October 8th presidential debate, Sen. John Kerry said of capturing bin Laden, “The right time was Tora Bora, when we had him cornered in the mountains.” Writing in the New York Times last week, General Tommy Franks, a Bush supporter, and the overall commander of the Tora Bora operation, said that this charge: “doesn’t square with reality”. Franks also stated, “We don’t know to this day whether Mr. bin Laden was at Tora Bora,” and that the US did not “outsource” the battle to Afghan warlords of questionable competence and loyalty, as Sen. Kerry has repeatedly charged. At a town hall meeting in Ohio on the day that General Franks’ Times story appeared, vice president Cheney said Kerry’s criticisms of the Tora Bora campaign were “absolute garbage.” In Colorado on Monday, President Bush said; “My opponent is throwing out the wild claim that he knows where bin Laden was in the fall of 2001 and that our military had a chance to get him in Tora Bora.”

So: Was al Qeada’s leader at Tora Bora? According to a widely-reported background briefing by Pentagon officials in mid-December 2001 there was “reasonable certainty” that bin Laden was indeed at Tora Bora, a judgment based on intercepted radio transmissions. In his autobiography, American Soldier, General Franks himself recounts a scene in Waco, Texas in December 2001 where he briefed President Bush saying, “Unconfirmed reports that Osama has been seen in the White Mountains, Sir. The Tora Bora area” Moreover, Luftullah Mashal, a senior official in Afghanistan’s Interior Ministry, told me that based on conversations he had with a Saudi al Qaeda financier and bin Laden’s chef, both of whom were at the battle, bin Laden was at Tora Bora. In June, 2003 I met with several US counterterrorism officials who told me, “We are confident that he [bin Laden] was at Tora Bora and disappeared with a small group…”

New Democrat 527 Video

Another not-serious look at the US Elections. At least, I think it’s not-serious. You can never tell, when OBL is on tape channelling Michael Moore, parotting parts of the Democrat Platform, and pleading to “live and let live”.

A Minneapolis-based 527 group GeorgeTheMenace, has just produced a new video which they hope will counter the SwiftVet ones. The one showing hundreds of Veterans and ex-POWs of all party affilliations, all united against John F Kerry.

The video, which if taken at face value is extremely damaging to George Bush, is available in 2 formats:
QuickTime [800k]
RealPlayer[1.4 M]

Bush supporters will no doubt claim that the video has been “doctored” by Democrats, however the GeorgeTheMenace group hopes to put in on TV “straight”, according to their (satirical) website.

No doubt some people will believe it, but they probably wouldn’t be voting for Bush even before seeing it. Others will see it as an act of Democrat desperation, but they probably wouldn’t be voting for Kerry anyway.

Hat Tip : Captain’s Quarters

"Reporter saw insurgents loot Qaqaa arms depot"

From IHT:

A French journalist who visited the Qaqaa munitions depot south of Baghdad in November last year said she witnessed Islamic insurgents looting vast supplies of explosives more than six months after the demise of Saddam Hussein’s regime.

The account of Sara Daniel, which will be published Wednesday in the French weekly Le Nouvel Observateur, lends further weight to allegations that American occupying forces in Iraq failed to protect hundreds of tons of munitions from extremists plotting attacks against their own troops…

[She didn’t see any IAEA seals…] But her report is one of terrorists having easy access to a vast weapons inventory.

“I was utterly stupefied to see that a place like that was pretty much unguarded and that insurgents could help themselves for months on end,” Daniel said on Friday. “We were there for a long time and no one disturbed the group while they were loading their truck.”

A man who identified himself as Abu Abdallah and led the group Daniel was with, told her that his men and numerous other insurgent groups had rushed to Qaqaa after U.S.-led troops captured Baghdad on April 9 last year. The groups stole truck-loads of material from what used to be the biggest explosive factory in the Middle East in the expectation that coalition forces would move quickly to seal it off, Daniel was told.

Abu Abdullah and his men showed her the arsenal of rocket launchers, grenades and explosives hidden near their small farm houses, she said.

But much to the insurgents’ surprise, Qaqaa was not sealed off by U.S. soldiers, leading many groups to stop hoarding and instead going for regular refills of explosive materials, according to Abu Abdullah… […surface-to-air missile possibly from al Qaqaa fired at a DHL cargo-plane…]

See also ABC News: Video Suggests Explosives Disappeared After U.S. Took Control, “[KSTP] video may be linked to missing explosives in Iraq” and Al Qaqaa roundup.

From 10/06/04’s Outside Baghdad, lawlessness haunts a small Iraqi town:

The insurgents probably are using weapons and ammunition looted from the nearby Qa-Qaa complex, a 3-mile by 3-mile weapons-storage facility about 25 miles southwest of Baghdad, said Maj. Brian Neil, operations officer for the 2nd Battalion, 2nd Marine Regiment, which initially patrolled the area. The facility was bombed during last year’s invasion and then left unguarded, Neil said. “There’s definitely no shortage of weapons around here,” he said.

Breaking For President Bush

Reuters reports that President Bush’s lead over Kerry has widened to 6 percent among likely voters in Newsweek’s poll.

From California Yankee.

"In final hours, Bush mailings display images of burning World Trade Center"

Pictures of the mailing are here:

President George W. Bush has engaged in mailings [in Pennsylvania] which contain myriad graphic images of the burning World Trade Center on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001…

…there are nine images of the front pages of Sept. 12, 2001 newspapers… all of which display the smoking towers of the World Trade Center before they collapsed, killing some 2,600 people. One includes the approach of the plane.

While the Bush-Cheney campaign has routinely used 9/11 as a keystone of their campaign, these are the first print advertisements this site is aware of which actually display multiple images of the burning twin towers. The ad states that it was paid for by the Republican National Committee, with the approval of Bush-Cheney ‘04…

Muslims cite betrayal by Bush

HOUSTON CHRONICLE: Muslims cite betrayal by Bush

Syed Ahmed voted for George W. Bush in 2000. But he won’t this year.

Ahmed, an engineering consultant and one-time delegate to the state Republican convention, said he believes the president has taken the country in the wrong direction.

Like many Muslims around the country who overwhelmingly supported Bush in the last presidential election, Ahmed now appears to be backing Dem-ocratic candidate John Kerry, according to several polls.

Muslim-Americans, who often identify themselves as fiscal and social conservatives, would appear to be a natural constituency for Bush. But when it comes to civil liberties, especially since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, their support is changing.

Muslims are disenchanted with the Bush administration for its support of the Patriot Act, which has left them feeling betrayed, several Muslims leaders said.

“The Patriot Act has many nonpatriotic provisions in it,” Ahmed said.

Political Human Sacrifice takes a shocking turn

As previously discussed, talk jocks John & Ken (KFI AM 640 - Los Angeles) are conducting a “Political Human Sacrifice” of two Californian congressmen. They’re encouraging their listeners to vote those congressmen out of office because of their support for massive illegal immigration. The congressmen are Joe Baca (Democrat) and David Dreier (Republican).

In a shocking development, John & Ken have received a federal complaint filed by the Dreier Campaign (Dreier site here) and the National Republican Congressional Committee. The complaint is relating to the McCain-Feingold law; although a copy of the complaint is not yet publicly available, apparently one of the charges involves John & Ken encouraging the crowd at a Political Human Sacrifice rally to shout “Fire Dreier!”

The L.A. Times reportedly interviewed John & Ken today, and, as they’ve appeared on several national news shows in the past, I would imagine this will receive national attention.

John & Ken are encouraging all their listeners and anyone else to contact the National Republican Congressional Committee; their contact information is here.

Dreier’s opponent is Cynthia Matthews. The district includes most of the San Gabriel Valley foothill communities. A map is here.

UPDATE: KFI producer and blogger Justin Levine comments here.

Quinnipiac Polls: Bush Leads In Pennsylvania And Florida

Bloomberg reports that Quinnipiac University polls find President Bush now leads Kerry in both Florida and Pennsylvania.

Florida Likely Voters
Bush 49%
Kerry 46%
The poll was conducted October 22-26 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.2 percent.

Pennsylvania Likely Voters
Bush 49%
Kerry 47%
The poll was conducted October 22-26 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.3 percent.

From California Yankee.