At the same time, I felt that technology should respect moral boundaries. I worried that sanctioning the destruction of human embryos for research would be a step down the slippery slope from science fiction to medical reality. I envisioned researchers cloning fetuses to grow spare body parts in a laboratory. I could foresee the temptation of designer babies tar enabled parents to engineer their very own blond-haired basketball player. Not far beyond that lies the nightmare of full-scale human cloning. I knew these possibilities would sound fanciful to some people. But once science started heading down that path, it would be very hard to turn back.
By providing some federal funding, I had whetted their appetite for more. In the spring of 2002, I addressed a major complaint by allowing privately funded embryonic stem cell research to be conducted at facilities that received federal dollars.
By 2004, Kerry frequently criticized what he called a "ban" on embryonic stem cell research. I pointed out that there was no such ban. To the contrary, I was the first president in history to fund embryonic stem cell research. Plus, there were no restrictions on fundin from the private sector.
Nonetheless, Kerry's campaign used stem cell research as the foundation for a broader attack, labeling my positions "anti-science." The charge is false. I had supported science by funding alternative stem cell research.
I worked closely with Congress to meet my spending targets--or, as I called it, the overall size of the pie. I didn't always agree with how Congress divvied up the pieces.
It is fair to debate those policy choices, but here are the facts : The combination of tight budgets and the rising tax revenues resulting from economic growth helped drive down the deficit from 3.5% of the GDP in 2004 to 2.6% in 2005, to 1.9% in 2006, to 1.2% in 2007.
The NY Fed lent AIG $85 billion in return for 79% of AIG's shares.
I wished there were some way to hold individual firms to account while sparing the rest of the country. But every economist I trusted told me that was impossible. The well-being of Main Street was directly linked to the fate of Wall Street.
If credit markets remained frozen, the heaviest burdens would fall on American families: steep drops in the value of retirement accounts, massive job losses, and further falling home values. " I understand the frustration of responsible Americans who pay their mortgages on time, and are reluctant to pay the cost of excesses on Wall Street," I said. "But not passing a bill now would cost these Americans much more later."
At the same time, we must be careful not to overcorrect. Overregulation slows investment, stifles innovation, and discourages entrepreneurships. The government should unwind its involvement in the banking, auto, and insurance sectors. And the financial crisis should not become an excuse to raise taxes, which would only undermine the economic growth required to regai our strength.
Above all, our country must maintain our faith in free markets, free enterprise, and free trade. Democratic capitalism, while imperfect and in need of rational oversight, is by far the most successful economic model ever devised.
The House had passed a bill offering $25 billion in loans to the auto companies in exchange for making their fleets more fuel-efficient. But the Senate wouldn't budge. The only option left was to loan money from TARP. I wanted to use the loans as an opportunity to insist that the automakers develop viable business plans. Under the loans' stringent terms, the companies would have until April 2009 to become self-sustaining by restructuring their operations & renegotiating labor contracts. If they could not meet all those conditions, the loans would be immediately called, forcing bankruptcy.
"Of course I can," came my indignant response. Then I thought back over the previous week. I went on racking my memory for a single day over the past few weeks; then the past month; then longer. I could not remember one. Drinking had become a habit.
I have a habitual personality. I smoked cigarettes for about nine years. I quit smoking by dipping snuff. I quit that by chewing long-leaf tobacco.
In 1986, after my 40th birthday dinner, I awoke with a mean hangover. I told Laura I would never have another drink. She looked at me like I was still running on alcohol fumes. Then she said, "That's good, George."
I knew what she was thinking. I had talked about quitting before, and nothing had come of it. What she didn't know was that this time I had changed on the inside--and that would enable me to change my behavior forever.
A local policeman thought it was odd that I was going about 10 mph and had 2 wheels on the shoulder. When I failed the straight-line walk, he took me to the station. I was guilty and told the authorities so.
I was also embarrassed. I had made a serious mistake. I was fortunate I hadn't done any harm to my passengers, other drivers, or myself I paid a $150 fine and did not drive in Maine for the proscribed period. The case was closed. Or so I thought.
That fall, I started thinking seriously about settling down. The DUI was part of it, but the feeling had been building for months. My rootles ways were getting a little old. So was I. The big 3-0 had come in the summer. I had pledged that I would spend my first ten years after college experiencing a lot and not getting tied down. That was a promise I had kept. But the decade was almost up.
Politically, it would not have been a problem to reveal the DUI that day. The next election was two years away, and I had quit drinking. I decided not to raise the DUI for one reason: my girls. Barbara and Jenna would start driving soon. I worried that disclosing my DUI would undermine the stern lectures I had been giving them about drinking and driving. I didn't want them to say, "Daddy did it and he turned out okay, so we can, too."
Under No Child Left Behind, states would test students in reading and math. Schools would post scores publicly, broken down by ethnicity, income level, and other subcategories. The data would allow parents and concerned citizens to evaluate schools, teachers, and curricula. Schools that scored below standards would receive extra help at first. But if schools repeatedly failed to make adequate progress, there would be consequences. Parents would have the option to transfer their child to a better-performing public or charter school. The principle was straightforward: You cannot solve a problem until you diagnose it. Accountability would serve as a catalyst for reform.
At the time, I worried about overextending our military by undertaking peacekeeping missions as we had in Bosnia and Somalia. But after 9/11, I changed my mind. Afghanistan was the ultimate nation building mission. We had liberated the country from a primitive dictatorship, and we had a moral obligation to leave behind something better. We also had a strategic interest in helping the Afghan people build a free society.
I listened but made no commitment. I considered the UN to be cumbersome, bureaucratic, and inefficient. I was concerned that a fund composed of contributions from different countries with different interests would not spend taxpayer money in a focused or effective way.
Nevertheless, Colin Powell and HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson recommended that I support the Global Fund with an initial pledge of $200 million. They felt it would send a signal for America to be the first contributor. Their persistence overcame my skepticism. I announced our commitment in May 2001."This morning, we have made a good beginning," I said in my speech. I didn't add that I had plans to do more.
The freedom agenda, as I called the fourth prong, was both idealistic and realistic. It was idealistic in that freedom is a universal gift from Almighty God. It was realistic because freedom is the most practical way to protect our country in the long run. As I said in my Second Inaugural Address, "America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one."
In Jan. 2006, the truth was that Palestinians were tired of Fatah's corruption. Hamas won 74 of 132 seats. Some interpreted the results as a setback for peace. I wasn't so sure. Hamas had run on a platform of clean government and efficient publi service, not war with Israel.
Hamas also benefited from Fatah's poorly run campaign. The election made clear that Fatah had to modernize its party. It also forced a decision within Hamas. Would it fulfill its promise to govern as a legitimate party, or would it revert to violence?
In June 2007, the military wing of Hamas intervened, responding to the advance of freedom with violence. We supported an Israeli naval blockade of Gaza.
In Nov. 2004, a similar wave of protests broke out after a fraudulent presidential election in Ukraine. At one point during the campaign, opposition candidate Viktor Yushchenko suffered a mysterious poisoning that disfigured his face. Yet he refused to drop out of the race. His supporters turned out every day clad in orange scarves and ribbons until the Ukrainian Supreme Court ordered a rerun of the tainted election. Yushchenko won and was sworn in on Jan. 23, 2005, completing the Orange Revolution.
At the 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest, both Georgia and Ukraine applied for Membership Action Plans, MAPs, the final step before consideration for full membership. I was a strong supporter of their applications. But approval required unanimity. We agreed on a compromise, announcing that they were destined for future membership in NATO.
My experiences in business school, China, and the oil business wer converging into a set of convictions: The free market provided the fairest way to allocate resources. Lower taxes rewarded hard work and encouraged risk taking. Eliminating barriers to trade created new export markets for American producers & more choice for our consumers. Government should respect its constitutional limits.
When I looked at Pres. Carter & the Democratic Congress, I saw the opposite. They had plans to raise taxes & substitute federal spending for private-sector job creation. I worried about America drifting left, toward a version of welfare-state Europe, where central government planning crowded out free enterprise. I wanted to do something about it. I was having my first experience with the political bug, and it was biting hard.
To further boost African economies, we worked with G-8 partners to cancel more than $34 billion in debt from poor African countries. The initiative built on the substantial debt relief President Clinton had secured. A report by Bono's DATA organization concluded that debt relief has allowed African nations to send 42 million more children to school.
One vital economic initiative was the African Growth and Opportunity Act, which eliminated tariffs on most African exports to the US. Pres. Clinton signed AGOS; I worked with Congress to expand it.
I saw its impact firsthand when I met entrepreneurs in Ghana who exported their products to the US. A dressmaker named Esther told me, "I'm helping other women, and I'm helping my family too."
One night early in the session, I got a phone call from Bullock. "Why are you blocking tort reform? " Bullock fired off a couple of f-bombs and hung up.
The main difference of opinion was on the size of the cap on punitive damages I wanted a $500,000 cap; Bullock wanted $1,000,000. If we could get agreement on this legislation, the other five tort bills that were part of the reform package would move quickly. An adviser suggested a compromise: How about a bill with a $750,000 threshold? No question that would improve the system.
We called Bullock. This call was shorter. "Governor Bush," Bullock started in his formal way, "You're going to be one helluva governor. Good night."
Our government would be more productive--and our politics more civilized--if congressional districts were drawn by panels of nonpartisan elders instead of partisan state legislatures. This would make for more competitive general elections and a less polarized Congress. Making the change would require politicians to give up some of their power, never an easy task. But for future presidents looking to tackle a big problem, this would be a worthy one to take on.
America had been given a lot, and I resolved that we would answer the call. Earlier that year I had proposed, and Congress had passed, a $15 billion initiative to fight HIV/AIDS in Africa. The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, PEPFAR, constituted the largest international healt initiative to combat a specific disease. I hoped it would serve as a medical version of the Marshall Plan. "This is my country's pledge to the people of Africa and the people of Uganda," I said at the TASO clinic. "You are not alone in this fight. America has decided to act."
In five years, the number of Africans receiving AIDS medicine had risen from 50,000 to nearly three million--more than two million of them supported by PEPFAR.
Every one of those deaths was unnecessary. Malaria is treatable & preventable. The US had eradicated malaria in the 1950s, and there was a well-established strategy: a combination of insecticide sprays, bed nets, & medicin for infected patients. The remedies were not particularly expensive. Bed nets cost $10 each, including delivery.
In 2005, I announced a five-year, $1.2 billion program that would find malaria-eradication efforts in 15 countries. The President's Malaria Initiative would empower Africans to design strategies to meet their needs. We would work toward a measurable goal: cutting malaria mortality rates by 50% over the next five years. In its first two years, the initiative reached 11 million Africans.
I also felt blindsided. Don had told me the military was investigating reports of abuse at the prison, but I had no idea how graphic or grotesque the photos would be. When Don got word of the stories, he [offered to resign] as secretary of defense.
Don was serious about leaving. It was a testament to his character, his loyalty to the office, and his understanding of the damage Abu Ghraib was causing. I seriously considered accepting his advice. But a big factor held me back: There was no obvious replacement for Don, and I couldn't afford to create a vacuum at the top of Defense.
Tenet answered with two words: al Qaeda. Before 9/11, most Americans had never heard of al Qaeda. I had received my first briefing on the terrorist network as a presidential candidate.
The CIA had been worried about al Qaeda before 9/11, but their intelligence pointed to an attack overseas. During the summer, I had asked the CIA to reexamine al Qaeda's capabilities to attack inside the US. In August, the Agency delivered a Presidential Daily Briefing that reiterated bin Laden's long-standing intent to strike America, but could not confirm any concrete plans. "We have not been able to corroborate some of the sensational threat reporting, such as that bin Laden wanted to hijack a US aircraft" the PDB read.
One provision created a little discomfort at home. The PATRIOT Act allowed the government to seek warrants to examine the business records of suspected terrorists, such as credit card receipts, apartment leases, and library records. As a former librarian, Laura didn't like the idea of federal agents snooping around libraries. I didn't, either. But the intelligence community had serious concerns about terrorists using library computers to communicate. Library records had played a role in several high-profile cases, such as the Zodiac gunman murders in California. The last thing I wanted was to allow the freedom and access to information provided by American libraries to be utilized against us by al Qaeda.
I asked the White House counsel's office and the Justice Department to study whether I could authorize the NSA to monitor al Qaeda communications into and out of the country without FISA warrants.
Both told me I could. They concluded that conducting surveillance against our enemies in war fell within the authorities granted by the congressional war resolution and the constitutional authority of the commander in chief.
Before I approved the Terrorist Surveillance Program, I wanted to ensure there were safeguards to prevent abuses. I had no desire to turn the NSA into an Orwellian Big Brother. The Terrorist Surveillance Program had been carefully designed to protect the civil liberties of innocent people.
At Guantanamo, detainees were given clean & safe shelter, three meals a day, a personal copy of the Koran, the opportunity to pray five times daily, and the same medical care their guards received.
Over the years, we invited members of Congress, journalists, and international observers to visit Guantanamo and see the conditions for themselves. Many came away surprised by what they found. A Belgian official inspected Guantanamo five times and called it a "model prison" that offered detainees better treatment than Belgian prisons. "I have never witnessed acts of violence of things which shocked me in Guantanamo," he said. "One should not confuse this center with Abu Ghraib."
There were two techniques that I felt went too far, even if they were legal. I directed the CIA not to use them. Another technique was waterboarding, a process of simulated drowning. No doubt the procedure was tough, but medical experts assured the CIA that it did no lasting harm.
I knew that an interrogation program this sensitive and controversial would one day become public, [with] criticism that America had compromised our moral values. I would have preferred that we get the information another way. But the choice between security and values was real. Had I not authorized waterboarding on senior al Qaeda leaders, I would have had to accept a greater risk that the country would be attacked. In the wake of 9/11, that was a risk I was unwilling to take.
I also informed him that America would unilaterally cut our arsenal of strategic nuclear warheads by 2/3. Putin agreed to match our reductions. We signed the Moscow Treaty, which pledged our nations to shrink our number of deployed warheads from 6,600 weapons to 2,200 by 2012. The treaty amounted to one of the largest nuclear weapons cuts in history, and it happened without the endless negotiations that usually come with arms-control agreements.
Laura and I discovered that we had grown up nea each other and both attended San Jacinto Junior High. We had even lived in the same apartment complex in Houston.
I've never been afraid to make a decision, and in late September I made a big one. I said, "Let's get married." She said yes right away. Ours had been a whirlwind romance, but we were ready to commit.
We picked the first Saturday available, Nov. 5, 1977. We had a small wedding with family and close friends in Midland. We had no ushers, no bridesmaids, and no groomsmen. It was just me, Laura, and her dad to walk her down the aisle.
I believe there is a reason Laura and I never met all those years before. God brought her into my life at just the right time, when I was ready to settle down and was open to having a partner at my side.
I read the Bible occasionally and saw it as a kind of self-improvement course. But for the most part, religion was more of a tradition than a spiritual experience.
In the summer of 1985, I was captivated by meeting Billy Graham. There's nothing wrong with using the Bible as a guide to self-improvement, he said. But self-improvement is not really the point of the Bible. The center of Christianity is not the self. It is Christ.
Billy had planted a seed. His thoughtful explanation had made the soil less firm and the brambles less thick. I could not have quit drinking without faith. I also don't think my faith would be as strong if I hadn't quit drinking.
I worried most about our 17-year-old daughters, Barbara & Jenna. I had learne that being the child of a politician is tougher than being a politician yourself. I understood the pain and frustration that comes with hearing your dad called nasty names. I knew how it felt to worry every time you turned on the TV. And I knew what it was like to live with the thought that any innocent slip could embarrass the president of the US. I had gone through all of this in my 40s. My girls would be in college when I took office. I could only imagine how much more difficult it would be for them
Rev. Mark Craig, in his sermon, spoke about when God called Moses to action. Moses' first response was disbelief: "Who am I, that I should go to Pharaoh?" He had every excuse in the book. He hadn't led a perfect life; he wasn't sure if people would follow him; he couldn't even speak that clearly. That sounded a little familiar.
Mark described God's reassurance that Moses would have the power to perform the task he had been called to do. Then Mark summoned the congregation to action. Like Moses, he concluded, "We have the opportunity, each and every one of us, to do the right thing, and for the right reason."
Then Mother caught my eye and mouthed, "He is talking to you." After the service, the pressure evaporated. I felt a sense of calm
For as long as I can remember, Social Security has been the third rail of American politics. Grab ahold of it, and you're toast. In 2005, I did more than touch the third rail. I hugged it. I did so for one reason: It is unfair to make a generation of young people pay into a system that is going broke.
For someone looking to take on big issues, it didn't get much bigger than reforming Social Security. I decided there was no better time to launch the effort than when I was fresh off reelection.
Democratic leaders alleged I wanted to "privatize" Social Security. That was obviously poll-tested language designed to scare people. It wasn't true. My plan saved Social Security, modernized Social Security, and gave Americans the opportunity to own a piece of their Social Security. It did not privatize Social Security.
When I took over, the Rangers had finished with a losing record seven of the previous nine years. The club had posted a winning record four of our first five seasons.
I realized the best way to increase the long-term value of the franchise was to upgrade our stadium. The Rangers were a major league team playing in a minor league ballpark. We designed a public-private financing system to fund the construction of a new stadium. I had no objection to a temporary sales tax increase to pay for the park, so long as local citizens had a chance to vote on it. They passed it by a margin of nearly two to one.
I wasn't so sure. "Sometimes economists are wrong," I said in a speech outlining my economic policy in December 1999. "I can remember recoveries that were supposed to end, but didn't, and recessions that weren't supposed to happen, but did. I hope for continued growth--but it is not guaranteed. A president must work for the best case, and prepare for the worst."
The centerpiece of my plan was an across-the-board tax cut. I believed government was taking too much of the people's money.
In July 2003, former ambassador Joseph Wilson wrote a New York Times column alleging that the administration had ignored his skeptical findings when he traveled to Africa to investigate the Iraq-Niger connection. There were serious questions about the accuracy and thoroughness of Wilson's report, but his charge became a prime talking point for critics of the war.
I also knew I was leaving behind unfinished business. I wanted badly to bring bin Laden to justice. The fact that we did not ranks among my great regrets. It certainly wasn't for lack of effort. For seven years, we kept the pressure on. While we never found the al Qaeda leader, we did force him to change the way he traveled, communicated, and operated. That helped us deny him his greatest wish after 9/11: to see America attacked again.
In 2010, the war in Afghanistan continues. I strongly believe the mission is worth the cost.
I hadn't noticed the large banner my staff had placed on the bridge of the ship, positioned for TV. It read, "Mission Accomplished." It was intended as a tribute to the folks aboard the Lincoln, which had just completed the longest deployment for an aircraft carrier. Instead, it looked like I was doing the victory dance I had warned against. "Mission Accomplished" becam a shorthand criticism for all that subsequently went wrong in Iraq. My speech made clear that our work was far from done. But all the explaining in the world could not reverse the perception. Our stagecraft had gone awry. It was a big mistake.
The first is that we did not respond more quickly or aggressively when the security situation started to deteriorate after Saddam's regime fell. In the ten months following the invasion, we cut troop levels from 192,000 to 109,000. Many of the remaining troops focused on training the Iraqi army and police, not protecting the Iraqi people.
While there was logic behind these assumptions, the Iraqi people's desire for security trumped their aversion to occupation. Cutting troop levels too quickly was the most important failure of execution in the war. The other error was the intelligence failure on Iraq's WMD.
Almost a decade later, it is hard to describe how widespread an assumption it was that Saddam had WMD. Supporters of the war believed it; opponents of the war believed it; even members of Saddam's own regime believed it. We all knew that intelligence is never 100% certain; that's the nature of the business. But I believed that the intelligence on Iraq's WMD was solid. If Saddam didn't have WMD, why wouldn't he just prove it to the inspectors? Every psychological profile I had read told me Saddam was a survivor. If he cared so much about staying in power, why would he gamble his regime by pretending to have WMD?
Part of the explanation came after Saddam's capture, when he was debriefed by the FBI. He told agents that he was more worried about looking weak to Iran than being removed by the coalition. He never thought the US would follow through on our promise to disarm him by force.
He said, "bring some troops home from Iraq." He was not alone. As violence in Iraq escalated, members of both parties had called for a pullout.
I said, "I believe our presence in Iraq is necessary to protect American, and I will not withdraw troops unless military conditions warrant." I made clear I would set troop levels to achieve victory in Iraq, not victory at the polls.
What I did not tell him was that I was seriously considering the opposite of his recommendations. Rather than pull troops out, I was on the verge of making the toughest and most unpopular decision of my presidency: deploying more troops into Iraq with a new strategy, a new commander, and a mission to protect the Iraqi people and help enable the rise of a democracy in the heart of the Middle East.
For the first time, I worried we might not succeed. If Iraq split along sectarian lines, our mission would be doomed. We could be looking at a repeat of Vietnam--a humiliating loss for the country, a shattering blow to the military, and a dramatic setback for our interests. If anything, the consequences of defeat in Iraq would be even worse than in Vietnam. We would leave al Qaeda with a safe haven in a country with vast oil reserves. We would embolden a hostile Iran in its pursuit of nuclear weapons.
On May 1, Congress sent me war-funding bill mandating a troop withdrawal deadline later in the year. Setting an arbitrary pullout date would allow our enemies to wait us out and would undermine our ability to win over the local leaders who were critical to our success. I vetoed the bill. Democrats didn't have the votes to override the veto. On May 25, I signed a bill fully funding our troops with no timetable for withdrawal.
Th scene went into slow motion. The wingtip was helicoptoring toward me. I ducked. The guy had a pretty live arm. A split second later, he threw another one. This one was not flying as fast. I flicked my head slightly and it drifted over me. I wish I had caught the damn thing.
Chaos erupted. People screamed, and security agents scrambled. I had the same thought I'd had in the Florida classroom on 9/11. I knew my reaction would be broadcast around the world. The bigger the frenzy, the better for the attacker.
I held up my hands and urged everyone to settle down. "If you want the facts, it's a size-ten shoe that he threw," I said. I hoped that by trivializing the moment, I could keep the shoe thrower from accomplishing his goal of ruining the event
I said on June 24, 2022, "There is simply no way to achieve that peace until all parties fight terror. I call on the Palestinian people to elect new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror."
While I considered Arafat a failed leader, many in the foreign policy world accepted the view that Arafat represented the best hope for peace. By rejecting Arafat, the heralded Nobel Peace Prize winner, I had upended their worldview.
Persuading the Europeans, Russians, and Chinese to agree on the sanction was a diplomatic achievement. Every member faced the temptation to take commercial advantage. I frequently reminded our partners about the dangers of a nuclear-armed Iran. In 2007 a reporter asked me about Iran. "I've told people that if you're intereste in avoiding WWIII," I said, "It seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."
My reference to World War III produced near hysteria. Protestors showed up outside my speeches with signs that read, "Keep Us Out of Iran." Journalists authorized breathless, gossip-laden stories portraying America on the brink of war. They all missed the point. I wasn't looking to start a war. I was trying to hold our coalition together to avoid one.
He was talking about houses of worship. And he was right. Faith-based programs had the potential to change lives in ways secular ones never could. "Government can hand out money," I said, "but it cannot put hope in a person's heart or a sense of purpose in a person's life."
Source: Decision Points, by Pres. George W. Bush, p.277-279 Nov 9, 2010
[My other daughter] Jenna also discovered a passion for working with AIDS patients. She volunteered for UNICEF in several Latin American countries. She wrote a bestseller called "Ana's Story" about a girl who was born with HIV.
Laura and I are very proud of our daughters. They have become professional women serving a cause greater than themselves. They are part of a larger movement of Americans who devote their time and money to helping less fortunate. These good souls are part of what I call the armies of compassion. Many come from faith-based organizations and seek no compensation. They receive payment in another form.
|
The above quotations are from Decision Points, by George W. Bush . Click here for other excerpts from Decision Points, by George W. Bush . Click here for other excerpts by George W. Bush. Click here for a profile of George W. Bush.
Please consider a donation to OnTheIssues.org!
| Click for details -- or send donations to: 1770 Mass Ave. #630, Cambridge MA 02140 E-mail: submit@OnTheIssues.org (We rely on your support!) |