Bush: Obama 'better stay focused' on Clinton: The Swamp

Posted February 28, 2008 11:20 AM

by Mark Silva

President Bush, reluctant to engage in the presidential campaign underway, nevertheless today gingerly stepped in to some of the most contentious debates between the Democrats running to succeed him and their contest with the likely Republican.

Bush, at a White House press conference, was asked about Sen. Barack Obama’s remark in an Ohio debate with Sen. Hillary Clinton this week that if al Qaeda established a base in Iraq after the U.S. withdraws troops, he would send troops back in. The GOP's Sen. John McCain slammed Obama for suggesting al Qaeda already did not have a base in Iraq -- with Obama replying that al Qaeda was not there until the U.S.-led invasion.

"That's an interesting comment,'' Bush said in his first response to the question, avoiding mentioning Obama by name. "'If al Qaeda is securing a al Qaeda base -- yes, well, that's exactly what they've been trying to do for the past four years.... That's one of the challenges we face, is denying al Qaeda a safe haven anywhere.''

Pressed again on the question later in his 45-minute press conference, Bush had some advice for the Democratic senator from Illinois: "I believe Sen. Obama better stay focused on his campaign with Senator Clinton, neither of whom has secured their party's nominee yet -- nomination yet.

"And my party's nomination hasn't been decided yet either,'' Bush said. "And so there will be ample time to discuss whoever their candidate -- the positions of whoever their candidate is,'' said Bush, who closed the news conference with a brief reply to a called-out question about whether he still believes that Clinton will be the Democratic nominee – as his advisers had predicted for a long time: “I’m not talking about politics.’’

Yet, the president talked plenty of politics, asked here if he is concerned that a faltering economy might doom the campaign of the party’s likely nominee, McCain, the way it had undermined his own father’s bid for reelection in 1992.

“I’m concerned about the economy, because I’m concerned about Americans,’’ Bush replied. “There is no question the economy has slowed down. I don’t think we’re headed to a recession, but there is no question we’re in a slowdown,’’ he said, noting that about $150 billion worth of tax rebates will go “out the door’’ to taxpayers this spring. “The checks will go out in the second week of May….The purpose is to encourage consumers… to give them money, their own by the way.’’

(Photo of Bush at press conference today by J. Scott Applewhite / AP)

Bush, a free-trade proponent, was reminded that the Democrats campaigning for president are both speaking of suspending the North American Free Trade Agreement if it cannot be renegotiated in more favorable terms for the United States. He was asked if he thought he would be able to carry Ohio again in the current political environment.

“Landslide,’’ Bush joked. “There is something like $380 billion worth of goods that we ship to our NAFTA partners on a daily basis… The idea of just unilaterally withdrawing from a trade treaty…. To score political points… is not good policy.’’

And the president was asked what is wrong with “embracing’’ foreign leaders – in the manner that Obama, unnamed this time, has suggested that the U.S. should negotiate with leaders with whom the U.S. has refused to engage.

“What is lost by embracing a tyrant who puts people in prison for embracing their political beliefs?’’ Bush replied. “It will send the wrong message.

“I’m not suggesting there is never a time to talk, but I am suggesting that now is not the time to talk with Raul Castro,’’ Bush said of the new Cuban president.

“Let me use another word… embrace is like a big hug,’’ Bush said, asked about his use of the term, embrace. “Thank you for reminding me… Sitting down at the table, having your picture taken with a figure like Raul Castro, for example, lends the status of our office, to him…. He gains a lot from it he says, look at me, I am now recognized by the president of the United States.’’

Bush was asked to explain what his own initial assessment of Russian President Vladimir Putin – Bush saying that he had looked into his eyes and seen his soul – tells the next president about relations with Russia. And he was asked about Putin’s successor – reminded that the Democratic candidates don’t seem to know much Dmitry Medvedev.

“I don’t know much about Medvedev either,’’ Bush said, but “I can say that it’s in our interests’’ to work with Russia, on nuclear proliferation for instance.

“I am going to leave it so that whoever my successor is will be able to have a relationship with Russia,’’ Bush said. “Obviously we didn’t agree on Kosovo, and there will be other areas where we will disagree.’’

“Here’s what I learned. I learned that it’s important to establish a personal relationship with leaders…. Certain leaders,’’ he said. “I’m not going to have a personal relationship with Kim Jung Il,’’ the leader of North Korea. But with Russia, yes.

“We’ve had some head butts, diplomatic head butts,’’ Bush said, looking at reporters in the room and saying: “You might remember the trip to Slovakia.’’

Yes, indeed, in that February 2005 trip to Slovakia, Bush and Putin met behind closed doors in Bratislava Castle – where Bush delivered his objections to the way the Russian government is addressing democracy and press freedom – only for Putin to emerge at a tense press conference with an admonition for Bush about lecturing Russia.

The Electoral College, for instance – Putin tersely told Bush in public that day: You would consider that a democratic institution. That was the institution that first seated Bush in the White House without a majority of the popular American vote.

Comments

George Bush is a moron, who led us into this war wihtout proper planning or execution.

Bush, Mccain and Hilary has resulted to thousands of lives lost of both Americans and the innocent Iraqs who just want to live and lets live. Shame on you Bush/Mccain/Hilary.

l wonder how long it will take you to find and capture Bin laden?

Obama '08

Posted by: Julie | February 28, 2008 11:33 AM

Nice piece. and you are the first one to post it.

Posted by: Nolawi | February 28, 2008 11:52 AM

The personal Presidency of George W. Bush has the air of a Monarchy - but this time he does not get to select the next leader.....
http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/02/28/the-personal-presidency-of-george-w-bush/

Posted by: Ohg Rea Tone | February 28, 2008 11:53 AM

How embarrassing for our country to have a president who is so ignorant, whose policies have been so wrong, and who has lied so much, that nothing he says is worth reading about or listening to. The man is a disgrace and the damage he has done to our country will take many years to heal.

Posted by: Paul | February 28, 2008 12:24 PM

"BUSH SPEAKS"

NEXT, "ELAINE" NEXT QUESTION!

SAME CHANNEL, SAME BATTLEFIELD, SAME "STAY THE COURSE" MESSAGE TO AMERICA.

GIVE ME IMMUNITY, FROM PROSECUTION AND LIABILITY.
GIVE AT&T, BELLSOUTH, BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC.; AT&T; NATIONAL TELEPHONE COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION (NTSA); SPRINT CORPORATION; TELECOMMUNICATIONS RESELLERS ASSOCIATION (TRA); MCI WORLDCOM, (MCI) FORMELY KNOWN AS MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION; (GTE); NETLINK COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 9NEXTLINK); AIRTOUCH COMMUNICATIONS, INC.(AIRTOUCH); CINCINNATI BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY (CBT); TIME WARNER COMMUNICATIONS HOLDINGS INC. (:TWCOMM"); THE ASSOCIATION FOR LOCAL TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES ("ALTS"); NATIONAL CABLE TELEVISION ASSOCIATION, INC.; WORLDCOM INC.; BELL ATLANTIC-DELAWARE,INC., BELL ATLANTIC-MARYLAND,INC.,BELL ATLANTIC-NEW JERSEY, INC., BELL ATLANTIC-PENNSYLVANIA, INC.,BELL ATLANTIC-VIRGINIA, INC.,BELL ATLANTIC-WASHINGTON, D.C.,INC.,BELL ATLANTIC-WEST VIRGINIA, INC., "BELL ATLANTIC";UNITED STATES TEEPHONE ASSOCIATION ("USTA"), and "THE FORMER CHAIRMAN JOHN CHAIRMAN MCCAIN"

SO MICROSOFT, QWEST, YOU ARE JUST OUT THERE! NO IMMUNITY OR LIABILITY PROTECTION FOR YOU.

NEXT QUESTION, "ELAINE" NEXT QUESTION!

Posted by: Roger Morris | February 28, 2008 12:43 PM

"BUSH SPEAKS"

NEXT, "ELAINE" NEXT QUESTION!

SAME CHANNEL, SAME BATTLEFIELD, SAME "STAY THE COURSE" MESSAGE TO AMERICA.

SO MICROSOFT, QWEST, YOU ARE JUST OUT THERE! NO IMMUNITY OR LIABILITY PROTECTION FOR YOU.

NEXT QUESTION, "ELAINE" NEXT QUESTION!

Posted by: Roger Morris | February 28, 2008 12:44 PM

"Obama to Republican Prez Draftdodger in Chief"

Shut your piehole!!!

Posted by: John E | February 28, 2008 1:19 PM

Julie,
and based on false pretenses(remember WMD)

Obama '08

Posted by: ralphie | February 28, 2008 1:20 PM

Bush better stay focused on keeping his a%s outta jail.

Posted by: Bush/Cheney/Impeach/Imprison | February 28, 2008 1:28 PM

[quote]
“I’m concerned about the economy, because I’m concerned about Americans,’’ Bush replied.
[/quote]

Correction, Mr. Bush, you're only concerned about RICH Americans. As far as the rest of us are concerned, you couldn't give a flip about us.

Posted by: BC | February 28, 2008 1:30 PM

The last thing anyone should be doing is listening to Bush or Cheney give advice. Hey Cheney you wanna know what it looks like when someone is in their "last throes"? Hillary Clinton is fading away and her supporters are dwindling and her money is drying up. That is the complete opposite of what has happened with al-Qaeda since you invaded Iraq.

Posted by: john | February 28, 2008 2:25 PM

I am stunned by the cynicism of many of the comments to this piece. It is as if many commenters believe that GWB (or pick your own guy) thinks of nothing but how they can screw everyone but their own favorites. Our government and its leaders simply do not work that way.

Posted by: jon | February 28, 2008 2:29 PM

Bush says Obama should focus on Hillary because if Obama wins the nomination then McCain will win the White House but if Hillary wins the nomination then Hillary will beat McCain whether she takes the as VP Obama with no accomplishments or the New Mexico Governor or almost anyone. That's why Bush wants Obama to focus on beating Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: jodi | February 28, 2008 3:08 PM

YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT:-)

If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience can fix an economy on the verge of collapse better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) led the greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience fighting for universal health care can get it for you better than Hillary Clinton. Who anticipated this current health care crisis back in 1993, and fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds to get universal health care for all the American people.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience can manage, and get us out of two wars better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) went to war only when he was convinced that he absolutely had to. Then completed the mission in record time against a nuclear power. AND DID NOT LOSE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER. NOT ONE!

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience saving the environment is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) left office with the greatest amount of environmental cleanup, and protections in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education affordable for every American. And created higher job demand and starting salary's than they had ever been before or since.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience will be better than Hillary Clinton who spent 8 years at the right hand of President Bill Clinton. Who is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that you can change the way Washington works with pretty speeches from Obama, rather than with the experience, and political expertise of two master politicians ON YOUR SIDE like Hillary and Bill Clinton..

Best regards

jacksmith...

Posted by: jacksmith | February 28, 2008 3:15 PM

See ya in Texas, Slick..

OBAMA 08!!!

Posted by: John E | February 28, 2008 3:44 PM

ROGER WHEN WILL YOU LEARN JUST HOW ANNOYING IT IS TO SEE BUT NOT READ YOUR ALL CAPS COMMENTS.

People do not respond well to all caps.

1. Why shouldn't I type my e-mails in all caps?
a) All caps insinuates you are yelling or screaming.
b) It makes you look lazy and/or uneducated.
c) It is a strain on your eyes, makes reading e-mail more difficult.
d) All of the above.

http://www.netmanners.com/netiquette_quiz.html

Below are the online basics you need to minimally become familiar with in order to be taken seriously in your online communications.

Do not type in all caps. Typing in all caps is considered yelling or screaming online. Those who type in all caps are perceived as lazy and not being considerate of those who will have to read their email. Various studies on the topic reflect that it is more difficult and takes longer to read text that is typed in all caps. And for those who question "What studies?" here is one example for your reading pleasure:

http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/~muter/pmuter1.htm
Searching for words is faster with uppercase characters, but reading of continuous text is slower (Vartabedian, 1971), perhaps because interline masking is greater with uppercase (Nes, 1986). In addition, lowercase enhances reading efficiency because word shape is helpful in word recognition (Rudnicky & Kolers, 1984).

One is free, at their convenience, to review the entire document above which goes into detail about how eyes react to what they have to read based on how the content is presented.

Stating certain professions are required to type in all caps (that's the first time I've heard that one) does not jive either. Would you send any off-line communications in all caps - the answer is probably no.
NOTE: It should go without saying, however, since I was chastised for not saying so, this rule certainly doesn't apply to the vision impaired or to those who are disabled or handicapped and cannot use the shift key. However, since typing in all caps is considered yelling online, it would behoove those who do so because of these reasons to take the time to include a brief note why they are typing in caps so that their emails and intent are not misinterpreted.

http://www.netmanners.com/courtesy1.html

Posted by: Logic Prisoner | February 28, 2008 4:26 PM

Obama 08? yay Al queda will have a base in the United states before it has a base in iraq if he's pres.

change? ha ha you can't change the way our government works.

Tell me how many of you obama supporters are Positively voting for Hillary if she gets the nomination. VERY FEW. The party is split. its gonna be a sad day in american history when we go four more years with a republican. more war, more debt all because our party is split.

the truth sucks

Posted by: Daniel | February 28, 2008 4:44 PM

Obama vs. McCain might be a tough choice.

Anyone but another Clinton.

Posted by: Pete | February 28, 2008 4:55 PM

Barack has made it clear that he did not agree with Bush's war, but he most certainly has another war in mind. Those of you that think he will never send troops anywhere are sadly mistaken. He has said as much several times. So Bush felt Iraq was the appropriate target, while Barack thinks Pakistan is the target. They both are focused on the same group. Bottomline is there will be continued war like it or not.

Posted by: Verycold | February 28, 2008 5:05 PM

Bush please be quite. You've certainly done enough. Maybe you need some more expert advise from your moron friend William Kristol.

Take a night course at your local community college before you speak again on the subject. Thank you.

Posted by: joe ferrate | February 28, 2008 5:09 PM

Bush please shut up. You've certainly done enough. Maybe you need some more expert advise from your moron friend William Kristol.

Take a night course at your local community college before you speak again on the subject. Thank you.

Posted by: joe ferrate | February 28, 2008 5:09 PM

Mc Cain is gonna win anyway because if obama wins nomination then all the hillary supporters are gonna vote for mccain. if hilary gets the nomination then all of obama supporters are gonna vote for mccain.
Tell me how many of you obama supporters are Positively voting for Hillary if she gets the nomination. VERY FEW. The party is split. its gonna be a sad day in american history when we go four more years with a republican. more war, more debt all because our party is split.
the truth sucks

Posted by: Daniel | February 28, 2008 4:44 PM

Chief,

You're about as delusional as your Republican Chimp and Chief is.

You're aren't going to find any Dems voting for McCain's 100 years of war in Iraq.

Posted by: John E | February 28, 2008 5:15 PM

Obama was correct on this.

It really is sad to see Bush still trying to sell his delusional version of history.

When was there ever a truly authoritarian government that allowed terrorist groups to reside in their territory?

The Soviet Union had no tolerance for that kind of thing. And the same for China. And the same for Iran under the Shah. And the same for Iraq before Bush's criminal efforts.

Now Iraq, as every intelligence service knows, has become a training ground for terrorists, What else would happen in the chaos Bush created?

Posted by: John Chuckman, Toronto, Canada | February 28, 2008 5:56 PM

i am actually surprisingly impressed by george dubya , at least the quotes in this story..could it be? is it possible? will history remember him as a misunderstood leader?

Posted by: Klaus Von Zoom | February 28, 2008 6:05 PM

I am a Hillary supporter and hope she is elected president. But…… finally.........Obama’s grand speeches/promises are being challenged by McCain/Republicans.

The media and voters also need to do more research on Obama’s background and record in the Illinois senate and the US senate, now that he is the front-runner. DIG DEEP, ASK HARD QUESTIONS.

If for some bizarre reason Obama becomes the Democratic nominee, more Republican challenges/attacks will follow. Will be a test just how strong Obama and his rhetoric are.

Hillary is my first choice, McCain my second choice for president.

Posted by: mbs | February 28, 2008 6:18 PM

"Net Manners Speak"

Thank you for your case studies towards "Net Neutrality." I also sometimes forget how loud I can be at times over coffee, tea, lunch, dinner, and possibly in my sleep the last 7 years when discussing "aloud" America as it stands hour by hour.

I'll give it a try, SO WHERE DO I SEND THE $50.00 FOR THE "I talk you listen session.?

GOOD SHOT, GOOD SHOT! Thanks for the websites!

Posted by: roger morris | February 28, 2008 7:28 PM

Hillary is my first choice, McCain my second choice for president.

Posted by: mbs | February 28, 2008 6:18 PM

no, you're a republican, I've seen your other posts.

nice try, wanker

Posted by: Jim Shortz | February 28, 2008 7:37 PM

Hillary has been "fighting" for universal health care for 35 years. Thats too long.
Obama will make it happen.
Its foolish to think that she has any intention of helping Americans obtain health care with out attaching a putative clause to it.

Posted by: Anna | February 28, 2008 8:22 PM

Bush and Bernanke are both in denial on the economy. They will remain there until they have saved the wealth of the wealthy. Do you think that middle america matters? No way. Like Cindy McCain says "she is proud of her country" but is probably more proud of the pile of gold that she and her family's sorry asses sit upon. Like I say it is all about saving the wealthy's wealth. Bottom line folks.

Posted by: whiteagle38 | February 28, 2008 10:34 PM

Views from the Unitary Executive on 02/28/08

"The government said to those who have alleged to have helped us that it is in our national interests and it's legal. It's in our national interest because we want to know who's calling who from overseas into America. We need to know in order to protect the people.

When he refers to the Government he must think that the House - who opposes amnesty to the telecommunicators and the Judicial Branch - who would decide on legality - are not part of the Government.

"It was legal. And now all of a sudden plaintiffs attorneys, class-action plaintiffs attorneys, you know -- I don't want to try to get inside their head; I suspect they see, you know, a financial gravy train -- are trying to sue these companies. It's unfair. It is patently unfair.

Is it legal if the administration says its legal? There are plaintiffs being represented here. Let the courts decide if it was legal - that is their job. One thing is for sure, this administration is very knowledgeable about financial gravy trains.

Can you be more transparent???

Posted by: Gene | February 29, 2008 12:32 AM

Obama voted to FUND the war.
Obama wasn't in the US Senate in 2002 when they had to vote on military action in Iraq. John Edwards, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton all voted the same based on the faulty intelligence they were given at the time. Asked in 2004 how he would have voted, Obama said 'I don't know'. His stance against the Iraq war is a myth.

Posted by: Ed | February 29, 2008 3:08 AM

The business section of our local paper has a summary column. Here are today's headlines:
1. Bernanke and Bush insist no recession is on the horizon.
2. Treasury secretary says most mortgages being paid on time.
3. Economic growth nearly stops in final quarter of last year.
4. Gasoline prices near record as crude prices rocket upward.
5. Dollar's plummet against euro reaches new low of $1.5229.
6. Lender Freddie Mac sees loss widen in 2007's fourth quarter.

Too bad the decider doesn't read the papers. He might not come off as such a boob.

Posted by: Kenneth Janowski | February 29, 2008 11:15 AM

You forget the Battle of Mogadishu in which President Clinton was in office and oh the loss of American soldiers. Just what did American do turn tail and run. After that the Clinton administration became increasingly reluctant to use military intervention in Third World conflicts and also refused to mobilize U.S. ground troops in fighting the Bosnian Serb Army in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1995 and the Yugoslav Army in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (specifically, the province of Kosovo) in 1999, out of the concern of sacrificing American soldiers in combat, as well as repeating the mistakes of Mogadishu in 1993. And just what nuclear power do you refer to?

Known US casualties
Delta Force
MSG Gary Gordon
SFC Randy Shughart
SSG Daniel Busch
SFC Earl Fillmore
SFC Matt Rierson
MSG Tim "Griz" Martin

75th Ranger Regiment
CPL Jamie Smith
SPC James Cavaco
SGT Casey Joyce
PFC Richard "Alphabet" Kowalewski
SGT Dominick Pilla
SGT Lorenzo Ruiz

160th SOAR (Nightstalkers)
SSG William Cleveland
SSG Thomas Field
CWO Raymond Frank
CWO Clifton "Elvis" Wolcott
CWO Donovan "Bull" Briley

10th Mountain Division
SGT Cornell Houston
PFC James Martin

Posted by: coroner | March 1, 2008 12:52 AM