W on Facebook: Leadership, China and Wikileaks

For anyone who missed the Facebook live interview with George W. Bush, here is the video. Bush was in rare form in the interview and shared a few of his thoughts with Facebook creator and CEO Mark Zuckerberg. Bush made frequent jokes about being there to sell his book,  reminding Zuckerberg and another questioner to get back to selling the book. At one point when discussing Condi Rice Bush quips, "If you're listening Condi, why aren't you in the audience? Have you bought the book?"

 Bush referred to Facebook's success throughout. At one point he compliments Zuckerberg for giving back to the country through his education initiatives. He often drew comparisons between he and Zuckerberg when discussing criticism and leadership. At one point Bush is asked how do you stay the course, he responds, "By not whining. By setting an example..." He then goes into a rather long and interesting discussion on managing and leadership. If you can't watch the whole interview the 10 minutes after the 20 minute mark are interesting.

Bush shares his thoughts on working with Bono and relates a story of Jacques Chiraq lecturing Bush on unilateralism. Bush let Chiraq have it which evidently impressed Bono. From there the discussion moves to China. Bush relates an anecdote where he asks Hu Jintau what keeps him up at night, Jintau answers "creating 25 million new jobs a year. Bush thought this was very reflective of China and the Chinese people. Again this is a really interesting segment that comes after the 40 minute mark.

Lastly Bush discusses Wikileaks, quite reluctantly. He was very emphatic when he ultimately declares these leaks dangerous and says that the leakers must be prosecuted. He related this to a similar episode he shares in the book. He goes on to say that there may be difficulty establishing trust when working with foreign leaders as a result of the leaks. The balance of the interview is fairly light hearted but in my estimation this was Bush at his absolute best. This is worth a watch if you have the time:

facebookguests on livestream.com. Broadcast Live Free

Tweet

"It was one of the most irresponsible acts I witnessed in my eight years in Washington"

George W. Bush, in his new book Decision Points,weighs in on Harry Reid's declaration, "this war is lost:"

He was right.  Less than one week after General Petraeus arrived in Iraq, the new Democratic majority in the House of Representatives had passed a nonbinding resolution that declared, "Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq."

After a day of heavy violence in April, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada declared, "This war is lost, the surge is not accomplishing anything."  The majority leader of the U.S. Senate had just used his platform to tell 145,000 American troops and their families that they were fighting for a lost cause.  He had written off the surge as a failure before all of the additional troops had even arrived.  It was one of the most irresponsible acts I witnessed in my eight years in Washington.

Good thing Nevada re-elected Harry Reid and saved the country from that Sharron Angle brand of crazy.

Interestingly enough, some on the left have been whining  (more than usual), Bush's book might have saved them some extra sessions of grief counseling had it been released prior to the election.  Poor Obama was unfairly blamed by the Tea Party crowd for the decision to rescue Wall Street with TARP.  It's so ... so ..UNFAIR.

As usual, there are a couple of problems with the lefty logic at work here.  First, Barack Obama, a junior US Senator at the time,  voted for TARP breaking from a long-standing tradition of voting present.

Second, Bush admits TARP was unpopular but he also said he believed it saved the economy.  Oh snap, I thought Obama saved the economy.  Of course Obama could try to convince the public that it was really the stimulus that saved the economy.  GOOD LUCK WITH THAT.

Third, the Tea Party was very well aware of Bush's role in TARP so please leave the Tea Party out of this.

Finally, who really needs Bush's book when the Dems have the mysterious Gore curse working against Republicans in really close elections:

For GOPs, Close = Lose? Am I crazy to think that close elections—the ones that are separated by a mere hundreds of votes, that go into overtime and threatened recounts well past Election Eve—almost always are won by the Democrat these days?

Now, would that be "Harry Reid crazy," "Sharron Angle crazy," or a whole new brand of crazy altogether?
Tweet

"Miss Me Yet" Mystery

Via Memeorandum
 Instapundit had this posted earlier and now video has been posted at Breitbart TV.  This mysterious billboard looks an awful lot like Troglopundit's Bush automotivator.  NPR  reports the billboard is indeed real but the push is on to find out who paid for the billboard and whether or not the message is ironic?

At first glance, it would seem to be from some person or group who isn't thrilled by President Barack Obama's performance so far -- unless it's a more ironic message from those who didn't think too much of Bush and want to remind voters about him.

Anyone out there know anything about where it came from? Tell us and we'll pass the word to Bob. As he says, we could do a little crowdsourcing.

If it is Troglopundit's , the original intent was certainly not ironic and I sincerely doubt whoever paid for it to be posted on a billboard intended the message to be ironic either.   There appears to be a groundswell of support for more billboards too.  From the comments at the NPR post:

Please find out so we can start contribution to help pay for more...all over the country. 

How about t-shirts?

'Miss Me Yet?' Billboard With Photo of George Bush is Real
by burghnews

Barack the Blameaholic

Ed Morrissey posted a great Ramirez cartoon earlier today that hits on a major theme of this week, Obama's perpetual blame strategy. Obama has spent much of his first year in office calling attention to his inheritance.  It is becoming increasingly tiresome for the President of Hope and Change to call attention to failures of the past instead of keeping his nose to the grindstone and delivering a brighter future.  While he or Gibbs may occasionally acknowledge blame shouldn't be a strategy, the President continually reverts to this point.  Perhaps there should be a 12 step program for perpetual blamers, Obama would certainly qualify.

No one can deny there were failures in the Bush administration.  Obama banks on this near universal acceptance hoping no one calls him on his repeated distortions of those failures however.  Yesterday, Keith Hennessey, who served as senior economic advisor to President Bush commented on the blame game:

I think it’s OK for a President to talk about the challenges he and the Nation face. It helps to set reasonable expectations. I think a President should propose solutions to those challenges and describe a brighter future that he hopes to deliver. I think it’s tacky and tiresome for a President to keep bashing his predecessor, especially more than a year after taking office. I acknowledge that my perspective on this point is biased by my professional past.

I also think this refrain weakens President Obama. He is portraying himself as a victim of forces that are beyond his control. A President should want people to focus on him and what he’s going to do, not on a comparison of him with someone else (anyone else). President Obama should want people talking about the Obama Agenda rather than about what happened ten years ago. Ten years ago.

 I have been an avid reader of Hennessey's blog since I first became aware of it, back in the spring.  I would point out that Hennessey is often far more likely to see something positive or give Obama the benefit of the doubt than most.   With this in mind, I think his latest post Ten Years Ago? Seriously? is particularly effective.   Hennessey addresses the numerous ways Obama distorts the record of the Bush administration presumably because he believes it somehow benefits him when in fact it does not.  Obama knows the liberal media is unlikely to correct him on misinterpretations of the Bush record.  The average voter, then, is left to assume Obama is correct in his characterizations.  Here is one example:

Argument:  The Bush policies caused a $200 B annual surplus and “projected surpluses stretching out toward the horizon” to turn into deficits.

Response 1:  This argument always relies on one specific forecast which later turned out to be inaccurate.  In January 2001 CBO projected a 2002 surplus of $313 B.  One year later they projected a 2002 deficit of $21 B.  Of the $334 B decline, CBO said 73% was from “economic and technical changes” beyond President Bush’s control.  The other 27% was the result of legislation.  The impact of policy over time was larger than in 2002 (about 60% over ten years), but it is still incorrect to attribute it all to policy, rather than to a combination of policy and incorrect forecasting.

Be sure to read the rest, it is very informative.  It also is loaded with ammunition against the most common arguments proposed by the left.  They are easily swatted down when you are armed with facts.

Rasmussen: 45% Now Blame Obama for Economy, Oh My!

Though 49% still place the blame for our economic situation on Bush, 45% now put the blame squarely on Obama's actions since taking office. This is a big change for those following Rasmussen's tracking of this measure:

Just a month ago, 55% pointed the finger at Bush, while only 37% said the policies Obama has put in place since taking office were at fault. These findings had remained largely unchanged since May.

Sixty-two percent (62%) now trust their own judgment more than the president’s when it comes to the economic issues facing the nation, up three points from a month ago and up 13 points from early February. Twenty-seven percent (27%) trust Obama’s economic judgment more, and 11% are not sure.

 The longer Obama has the reins, the more he will own it.

Bush on Conservatism, Palin, Biden and Clinton

Byron York has a piece in The Washington Examiner giving details on the forthcoming book by Bush speechwriter Matt Latimer. The book relates Bush criticisms of evidently numerous other politicians Republican and Democrat alike. York details an interaction recounted in the book "Speechless: Tales of a White House Survivor,"between Lattimer and Bush as they were preparing for a speech for CPAC.  

"What is this movement you keep talking about in the speech?" the president asked Latimer.
Latimer explained that he meant the conservative movement -- the movement that gave rise to groups like CPAC.
Bush seemed perplexed. Latimer elaborated a bit more. Then Bush leaned forward, with a point to make.
"Let me tell you something," the president said. "I whupped Gary Bauer's ass in 2000. So take out all this movement stuff. There is no movement."