Vote:
Font too small, too large, or just right?
In comments..
Sunday, July 07, 2002
I hope Krugman is back on Sundays permanently.
That's exactly what happened at Harken. A group of insiders, using money borrowed from Harken itself, paid an exorbitant price for a Harken subsidiary, Aloha Petroleum. That created a $10 million phantom profit, which hid three-quarters of the company's losses in 1989. White House aides have played down the significance of this maneuver, saying $10 million isn't much, compared with recent scandals. Indeed, it's a small fraction of the apparent profits Halliburton created through a sudden change in accounting procedures during Dick Cheney's tenure as chief executive. But for Harken's stock price — and hence for Mr. Bush's personal wealth — this accounting trickery made all the difference.
Oh, and Harken's fake profits were several dozen times as large as the Whitewater land deal — though only about one-seventh the cost of the Whitewater investigation.
That's exactly what happened at Harken. A group of insiders, using money borrowed from Harken itself, paid an exorbitant price for a Harken subsidiary, Aloha Petroleum. That created a $10 million phantom profit, which hid three-quarters of the company's losses in 1989. White House aides have played down the significance of this maneuver, saying $10 million isn't much, compared with recent scandals. Indeed, it's a small fraction of the apparent profits Halliburton created through a sudden change in accounting procedures during Dick Cheney's tenure as chief executive. But for Harken's stock price — and hence for Mr. Bush's personal wealth — this accounting trickery made all the difference.
Oh, and Harken's fake profits were several dozen times as large as the Whitewater land deal — though only about one-seventh the cost of the Whitewater investigation.
Saturday, July 06, 2002
Oh crap, Instapundit is back for another 18 rounds of "everything I don't like can be traced back to Leftists."
ESCHATON QUIZ!
Who said this:
"Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality.... The leftist is antagonistic to the to the concept of competition because, deep inside, he feels like a loser."
Was it:
a) Ann Coulter
b) Rush Limbaugh
c) Instapundit
d) Ted Kaczynski
e) Bill Bennett
f) Andrew Sullivan
No fair Googling for the answer!
ESCHATON QUIZ!
Who said this:
"Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality.... The leftist is antagonistic to the to the concept of competition because, deep inside, he feels like a loser."
Was it:
a) Ann Coulter
b) Rush Limbaugh
c) Instapundit
d) Ted Kaczynski
e) Bill Bennett
f) Andrew Sullivan
No fair Googling for the answer!
Presidential Oath of Office, as mandated by the Constitution:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Missouri Republican Kit Bond on the Presidential Oath of Office:
"Our Founding Fathers must be spinning in their graves. This is the worst kind of political correctness run amok. What's next? Will the courts now strip 'so help me God' from the pledge taken from new presidents?"
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Missouri Republican Kit Bond on the Presidential Oath of Office:
"Our Founding Fathers must be spinning in their graves. This is the worst kind of political correctness run amok. What's next? Will the courts now strip 'so help me God' from the pledge taken from new presidents?"
Reader F.H. writes in with this:
Bush has made his desire to invade Iraq well known. What he has not made well known is how the heck he intends to go about such a task.
On July 5, a Reuters report gives some insight into the current thinking in the Pentagon. It mentions a three pronged attack on Iraq from the north, south, and west. A glance at a map would indicate the Pentagon is counting on launching attacks from Turkey, Syria or Jordan, and Kuwait.
The most politically interesting scenario is that the Pentagon has formulated a plan that has certain prerequisites that the administration is unable to fulfill at this time. I think it unlikely that the President’s advisors who have pushed for an invasion of Iraq have actually done the math, so to speak, and figured out what the operation would entail. As long as the generals support the 250,000 troops option, it is likely that sufficient in theatre bases will be scarce or inadequate. If bases could be found, deployment could take a couple of months, during which time every Middle Eastern potentate who opposes the invasion and has the number of a Hamas splinter group in his rolodex could ratchet up the turmoil between Israel and Palestine.
It seems to me that the key issue for the administration is to get the generals to back off the 250,000 number. So far, the administration has one victory over the Pentagon, and that is canceling the Army’s pet project, the Crusader artillery system. General Tommy Franks would command the invasion of Iraq. General Tommy Franks was an artillery officer for most of his career. Devoted, loyal, capable, and talented men may disagree over strategy and policy. I am sure that Gen. Franks is all of those things. He may feel that the administration was wrong to cancel the Crusader. He may feel that the administration would be wrong to invade with less than 250,000 troops. How successful can the administration be in persuading a man who was awarded the Purple Heart three times to pursue a strategy that he believes in risky in terms of American lives?
In my opinion, this is the issue upon which rests the fate of Iraq. It pits the armchair warriors against the warriors who have actually shed blood for their country in a bureaucratic backroom struggle in which both agree on the goal, and only differ on the means. Among the three most likely outcomes is that there will be no invasion of Iraq at all, and no regime change.
Bush has made his desire to invade Iraq well known. What he has not made well known is how the heck he intends to go about such a task.
On July 5, a Reuters report gives some insight into the current thinking in the Pentagon. It mentions a three pronged attack on Iraq from the north, south, and west. A glance at a map would indicate the Pentagon is counting on launching attacks from Turkey, Syria or Jordan, and Kuwait.
The most politically interesting scenario is that the Pentagon has formulated a plan that has certain prerequisites that the administration is unable to fulfill at this time. I think it unlikely that the President’s advisors who have pushed for an invasion of Iraq have actually done the math, so to speak, and figured out what the operation would entail. As long as the generals support the 250,000 troops option, it is likely that sufficient in theatre bases will be scarce or inadequate. If bases could be found, deployment could take a couple of months, during which time every Middle Eastern potentate who opposes the invasion and has the number of a Hamas splinter group in his rolodex could ratchet up the turmoil between Israel and Palestine.
It seems to me that the key issue for the administration is to get the generals to back off the 250,000 number. So far, the administration has one victory over the Pentagon, and that is canceling the Army’s pet project, the Crusader artillery system. General Tommy Franks would command the invasion of Iraq. General Tommy Franks was an artillery officer for most of his career. Devoted, loyal, capable, and talented men may disagree over strategy and policy. I am sure that Gen. Franks is all of those things. He may feel that the administration was wrong to cancel the Crusader. He may feel that the administration would be wrong to invade with less than 250,000 troops. How successful can the administration be in persuading a man who was awarded the Purple Heart three times to pursue a strategy that he believes in risky in terms of American lives?
In my opinion, this is the issue upon which rests the fate of Iraq. It pits the armchair warriors against the warriors who have actually shed blood for their country in a bureaucratic backroom struggle in which both agree on the goal, and only differ on the means. Among the three most likely outcomes is that there will be no invasion of Iraq at all, and no regime change.
Ann Salisbury directs me to a quote I really do love.
Justice William Bedsworth: "I live, after all, in the epicenter of American Libertarianism. I'm in the process of formulating a theory that for every law enacted in California, there is an Orange County Register reader who is violating it -- purely as a matter of principle."
Of course, the truth is that it is usually theft and fraud masquerading as libertarian principle.
Yet another reason it's time for me to be on my way..
Justice William Bedsworth: "I live, after all, in the epicenter of American Libertarianism. I'm in the process of formulating a theory that for every law enacted in California, there is an Orange County Register reader who is violating it -- purely as a matter of principle."
Of course, the truth is that it is usually theft and fraud masquerading as libertarian principle.
Yet another reason it's time for me to be on my way..
American Patriots boycott New York City because of them evil homersexuals.
New York heaves big sigh of relief and throws a fabulous party.
(via Nathan Newman)
New York heaves big sigh of relief and throws a fabulous party.
(via Nathan Newman)
Quick question which I'll follow up on more later when I'm feeling less lazy:
While I understand people's objections to such things as the ICC, I find that many of the arguments against this type of agreement equally apply to certain provisions in trade agreements like NAFTA. So, why no outrage there?
While I understand people's objections to such things as the ICC, I find that many of the arguments against this type of agreement equally apply to certain provisions in trade agreements like NAFTA. So, why no outrage there?
Friday, July 05, 2002
Atrios to J.C. Watts:
"WELL DUHHHHH."
WATTS, A FORMER Oklahoma football star who never runs from a fight, is blunt about the shortcomings of the GOP. The “party of Lincoln,” he says, has adopted a “robot-like allegiance to conservative views” that blinds it to the historic suffering of African Americans, and causes it to be “often absent on issues of civil rights, equal opportunity and poverty.”
"WELL DUHHHHH."
WATTS, A FORMER Oklahoma football star who never runs from a fight, is blunt about the shortcomings of the GOP. The “party of Lincoln,” he says, has adopted a “robot-like allegiance to conservative views” that blinds it to the historic suffering of African Americans, and causes it to be “often absent on issues of civil rights, equal opportunity and poverty.”
Does anyone want to explain this one to me?
Taliban Executive Order
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the
laws of the United States of America, including the International
Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), the National
Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) (NEA), section 5 of the
United Nations Participation Act of 1945, as amended (22 U.S.C. 287c),
and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,
I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find
that the situation that gave rise to the declaration of a national
emergency in Executive Order 13129 of July 4, 1999, with respect to
the Taliban, in allowing territory under its control in Afghanistan to be
used as a safe haven and base of operations for Usama bin Ladin and
the Al-Qaida organization, has been significantly altered given the
success of the military campaign in Afghanistan, and hereby revoke
that order and terminate the national emergency declared in that order
with respect to the Taliban. At the same time, and in order to take
additional steps with respect to the grave acts of terrorism and threats
of terrorism committed by foreign terrorists, the continuing and
immediate threat of further attacks on United States nationals or the
United States, and the national emergency described and declared in
Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, I hereby order:
Section 1. The Annex to Executive Order 13224 of September 23,
2001, is amended by adding thereto the following persons in
appropriate alphabetical order:
Mohammed Omar (aka, Amir al-Mumineen [Commander of the
Faithful])
The Taliban.
Sec. 2. For the purposes of this order and Executive Order 13224 of
September 23, 2001, the term "the Taliban" is also known as the
"Taleban," "Islamic Movement of Taliban," "the Taliban Islamic
Movement," "Talibano Islami Tahrik," and "Tahrike Islami'a Taliban".
The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the
Treasury, is hereby authorized to modify the definition of the term "the
Taliban," as appropriate.
Sec. 3. Nothing contained in this order shall create any right or benefit,
substantive or procedural, enforceable by any party against the United
States, its agencies or instrumentalities, its officers or employees, or
any other person.
Sec. 4. Pursuant to section 202 of the NEA (50 U.S.C. 1622),
termination of the national emergency with respect to the Taliban shall
not affect any action taken or proceeding pending not finally concluded
or determined as of the date of this order, or any action or proceeding
based on any act committed prior to the date of this order, or any
rights or duties that matured or penalties that were incurred prior to
the date of this order.
GEORGE W. BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE,
July 2, 2002.
Taliban Executive Order
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the
laws of the United States of America, including the International
Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), the National
Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) (NEA), section 5 of the
United Nations Participation Act of 1945, as amended (22 U.S.C. 287c),
and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,
I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find
that the situation that gave rise to the declaration of a national
emergency in Executive Order 13129 of July 4, 1999, with respect to
the Taliban, in allowing territory under its control in Afghanistan to be
used as a safe haven and base of operations for Usama bin Ladin and
the Al-Qaida organization, has been significantly altered given the
success of the military campaign in Afghanistan, and hereby revoke
that order and terminate the national emergency declared in that order
with respect to the Taliban. At the same time, and in order to take
additional steps with respect to the grave acts of terrorism and threats
of terrorism committed by foreign terrorists, the continuing and
immediate threat of further attacks on United States nationals or the
United States, and the national emergency described and declared in
Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, I hereby order:
Section 1. The Annex to Executive Order 13224 of September 23,
2001, is amended by adding thereto the following persons in
appropriate alphabetical order:
Mohammed Omar (aka, Amir al-Mumineen [Commander of the
Faithful])
The Taliban.
Sec. 2. For the purposes of this order and Executive Order 13224 of
September 23, 2001, the term "the Taliban" is also known as the
"Taleban," "Islamic Movement of Taliban," "the Taliban Islamic
Movement," "Talibano Islami Tahrik," and "Tahrike Islami'a Taliban".
The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the
Treasury, is hereby authorized to modify the definition of the term "the
Taliban," as appropriate.
Sec. 3. Nothing contained in this order shall create any right or benefit,
substantive or procedural, enforceable by any party against the United
States, its agencies or instrumentalities, its officers or employees, or
any other person.
Sec. 4. Pursuant to section 202 of the NEA (50 U.S.C. 1622),
termination of the national emergency with respect to the Taliban shall
not affect any action taken or proceeding pending not finally concluded
or determined as of the date of this order, or any action or proceeding
based on any act committed prior to the date of this order, or any
rights or duties that matured or penalties that were incurred prior to
the date of this order.
GEORGE W. BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE,
July 2, 2002.
Public Nuisance gives that dishonest pile of dung, Andy Sullivan, a good 'Fisking.'
I can't believe any of you take this guy seriously anymore. What an embarassment.
Let's compare TAP's honest, forthright, and dilligent response to this silly numbers game with Crazy Andy's tantrum against Romenesko and Scalzi (and Alterman, although Alterman probably fired the first shot on this one) when they questioned his numbers (here and here).
ROMENESKO VERSUS BLOGS: Medianews' Romenesko does what he can to trash andrewsullivan.com again - by linking to a blog! John Scalzi's piece all but accuses this site and others of fibbing about our numbers. (Scalzi, it should be remembered is Ted Rall's good friend.) Scalzi uses Norah Vincent's equation of "hits" with "visits" to suggest that my daily visit numbers are perhaps one fifth of what I've reported. Here's what my not fantastically sophisticated server tells me: last week, this site got 220,000 visits from 76,000 unique visitors. Our best day was Wednesday when we got 40,000 visits from 23,000 unique visitors. On a monthly basis, we're now over 800,000 visits from over 200,000 unique visitors. Are we bigger than the New York Times? Of course not. But that's not the right comparison. Better to compare a news service like Drudge with a news service like the Times. Scalzi says the Times gets 2.2 million visitors a week. According to his site, Drudge gets 4 million visits a day. Let's be very conservative and say that amounts to 1 million unique visitors a day. I'd say Drudge beats the New York Times website hands down. Of course, he provides only a tiny fraction of their original reporting. But if you're looking for news stories, his web-page clearly out-performs the Times, and on the web, a page is a page is a page. It seems to me the right comparison for opinion bloggers like Instapundit or yours truly would be either visits to individual columnists online or visits to opinion magazines. I'm pretty sure National Review Online beats us all. But I'd be interested to know if the online versions of the Nation or The New Republic beat individual bloggers by a large amount. And remember that our pages are staffed by one, rather than around a dozen or so. When you look at it that way, bloggers' contribution to the debate - in a matter of months, really - is pretty astounding. But the broader point is: this is not a zero-sum game. The old media won't disappear, nor should they. The Times, for all its flaws, is an absolutely indispensable institution, and I hope to God it stays that way. What bloggers do is break up smug monopolies, disperse editorial power and give unheard voices a chance to get a megaphone. It seems to me only the truly insecure or untalented have anything to worry about. (Which may account for Eric Alterman's panic.)
[emphasis mine]
Scalzi had this to say:
[Sullivan Says:] "John Scalzi's piece all but accuses this site and others of fibbing about our numbers. (Scalzi, it should be remembered is Ted Rall's good friend.)"
This is an interesting rhetorical maneuver. Ted Rall, as you'll no doubt recall, is the cartoonist whose "Terror Widows" cartoon caused a national uproar, and indeed, I am one of the few people who did not immediately call for Ted to be shot for treason for drawing it (if you missed the fracas, the details are here). For those of conservative bent, Ted is the sort of deranged, fire-breathing liberal who is easy to hate because he's wrong about everything and almost certainly eats babies with a knife and fork and tasty dipping sauce. So by allying me with Ted, what Sullivan is saying is:
"This jerk is accusing me of lying, but he's probably off eating babies with Ted Rall, so you don't really need to believe anything he would ever have to say about anything, ever."
From a technique point of view I think this is a nice attempt by Sullivan to deflect credibility, but I think it signals that Sullivan recognized he's arguing from a position of weakness. If he had more confidence in what his numbers actually meant, he wouldn't have had to try to slam the messenger by bringing up his friends; either that or he can't help bringing up Ted's name to frighten the children at every opportunity.
(Also, to be clear, I don't suspect Sullivan was lying about his numbers, although it seems evident that prior to the columns he wasn't entirely sure what his numbers represented, or didn't represent, as the case may be. This is not especially his fault -- ultimately, it's an abstruse concept, and hopefully the end result of the last couple of days is a clearer understanding for everyone what the stats are, and what they actually report.)
Anyway, I know Andy loves to stir up controversy. But, stuff like this confirms the notion that Howell Raines canned his ass not because of his oh-so-dangerous-contrarian-conservative-views, but because he's a sloppy journalist and an immature unprofessional little baby.
Eric Alterman also notes that Andy's been lying about what he says on his website here (scroll down) and a bit about the numbers here.
I can't believe any of you take this guy seriously anymore. What an embarassment.
Let's compare TAP's honest, forthright, and dilligent response to this silly numbers game with Crazy Andy's tantrum against Romenesko and Scalzi (and Alterman, although Alterman probably fired the first shot on this one) when they questioned his numbers (here and here).
ROMENESKO VERSUS BLOGS: Medianews' Romenesko does what he can to trash andrewsullivan.com again - by linking to a blog! John Scalzi's piece all but accuses this site and others of fibbing about our numbers. (Scalzi, it should be remembered is Ted Rall's good friend.) Scalzi uses Norah Vincent's equation of "hits" with "visits" to suggest that my daily visit numbers are perhaps one fifth of what I've reported. Here's what my not fantastically sophisticated server tells me: last week, this site got 220,000 visits from 76,000 unique visitors. Our best day was Wednesday when we got 40,000 visits from 23,000 unique visitors. On a monthly basis, we're now over 800,000 visits from over 200,000 unique visitors. Are we bigger than the New York Times? Of course not. But that's not the right comparison. Better to compare a news service like Drudge with a news service like the Times. Scalzi says the Times gets 2.2 million visitors a week. According to his site, Drudge gets 4 million visits a day. Let's be very conservative and say that amounts to 1 million unique visitors a day. I'd say Drudge beats the New York Times website hands down. Of course, he provides only a tiny fraction of their original reporting. But if you're looking for news stories, his web-page clearly out-performs the Times, and on the web, a page is a page is a page. It seems to me the right comparison for opinion bloggers like Instapundit or yours truly would be either visits to individual columnists online or visits to opinion magazines. I'm pretty sure National Review Online beats us all. But I'd be interested to know if the online versions of the Nation or The New Republic beat individual bloggers by a large amount. And remember that our pages are staffed by one, rather than around a dozen or so. When you look at it that way, bloggers' contribution to the debate - in a matter of months, really - is pretty astounding. But the broader point is: this is not a zero-sum game. The old media won't disappear, nor should they. The Times, for all its flaws, is an absolutely indispensable institution, and I hope to God it stays that way. What bloggers do is break up smug monopolies, disperse editorial power and give unheard voices a chance to get a megaphone. It seems to me only the truly insecure or untalented have anything to worry about. (Which may account for Eric Alterman's panic.)
[emphasis mine]
Scalzi had this to say:
[Sullivan Says:] "John Scalzi's piece all but accuses this site and others of fibbing about our numbers. (Scalzi, it should be remembered is Ted Rall's good friend.)"
This is an interesting rhetorical maneuver. Ted Rall, as you'll no doubt recall, is the cartoonist whose "Terror Widows" cartoon caused a national uproar, and indeed, I am one of the few people who did not immediately call for Ted to be shot for treason for drawing it (if you missed the fracas, the details are here). For those of conservative bent, Ted is the sort of deranged, fire-breathing liberal who is easy to hate because he's wrong about everything and almost certainly eats babies with a knife and fork and tasty dipping sauce. So by allying me with Ted, what Sullivan is saying is:
From a technique point of view I think this is a nice attempt by Sullivan to deflect credibility, but I think it signals that Sullivan recognized he's arguing from a position of weakness. If he had more confidence in what his numbers actually meant, he wouldn't have had to try to slam the messenger by bringing up his friends; either that or he can't help bringing up Ted's name to frighten the children at every opportunity.
(Also, to be clear, I don't suspect Sullivan was lying about his numbers, although it seems evident that prior to the columns he wasn't entirely sure what his numbers represented, or didn't represent, as the case may be. This is not especially his fault -- ultimately, it's an abstruse concept, and hopefully the end result of the last couple of days is a clearer understanding for everyone what the stats are, and what they actually report.)
Anyway, I know Andy loves to stir up controversy. But, stuff like this confirms the notion that Howell Raines canned his ass not because of his oh-so-dangerous-contrarian-conservative-views, but because he's a sloppy journalist and an immature unprofessional little baby.
Eric Alterman also notes that Andy's been lying about what he says on his website here (scroll down) and a bit about the numbers here.
And this is how we celebrate the 4th of July? Lovely. Really. Fucking. Lovely.
The most striking characteristic of the ceremony, an expanded version of tiny Ripley's annual Fourth of July celebrations that began in the mid-19th century, was the steady profession of faith. The event began before Bush's arrival with a fiery invocation by the Rev. Jack Miller of West Ripley Baptist Church.
"We have ridiculed the absolute truth of your word in the name of multiculturalism," Miller prayed. "We have been forced to honor sexual deviance in the name of freedom of expression. We have exploited the system of education in the name of the lottery. We have toyed with the idea of helping human life in the name of medical research. We have killed our unborn children in the name of choice."
After Bush entered, the crowd recited the Pledge of Allegiance, shouting out the words "under God" in defiance of the unpopular ruling by an appellate court panel last week that such words in the pledge are unconstitutional.
Bush alluded to the decision, which was suspended pending a full court ruling. "No authority of government can ever prevent an American from pledging allegiance to this one nation under God," the president said beneath the clock tower of the 86-year-old Jackson County courthouse, prompting a sustained standing ovation from the crowd.
Bush, who removed his tie, unbuttoned his collar and rolled up his sleeves before giving his 20-minute speech beneath a perfect sky, also drew cheers when he spoke of the freedoms "granted to each one of us by Almighty God," and he expressed confidence that the founders "would join us all in giving thanks for all that we have."
"Today, as much as ever before, America bears the hope of the world, yet from the day of our founding, America's own great hope has never been in ourselves alone," Bush said. "The founders humbly sought the wisdom and the blessing of Divine Providence. May we always live by that same trust, and may God continue to watch over the United States of America."
The most striking characteristic of the ceremony, an expanded version of tiny Ripley's annual Fourth of July celebrations that began in the mid-19th century, was the steady profession of faith. The event began before Bush's arrival with a fiery invocation by the Rev. Jack Miller of West Ripley Baptist Church.
"We have ridiculed the absolute truth of your word in the name of multiculturalism," Miller prayed. "We have been forced to honor sexual deviance in the name of freedom of expression. We have exploited the system of education in the name of the lottery. We have toyed with the idea of helping human life in the name of medical research. We have killed our unborn children in the name of choice."
After Bush entered, the crowd recited the Pledge of Allegiance, shouting out the words "under God" in defiance of the unpopular ruling by an appellate court panel last week that such words in the pledge are unconstitutional.
Bush alluded to the decision, which was suspended pending a full court ruling. "No authority of government can ever prevent an American from pledging allegiance to this one nation under God," the president said beneath the clock tower of the 86-year-old Jackson County courthouse, prompting a sustained standing ovation from the crowd.
Bush, who removed his tie, unbuttoned his collar and rolled up his sleeves before giving his 20-minute speech beneath a perfect sky, also drew cheers when he spoke of the freedoms "granted to each one of us by Almighty God," and he expressed confidence that the founders "would join us all in giving thanks for all that we have."
"Today, as much as ever before, America bears the hope of the world, yet from the day of our founding, America's own great hope has never been in ourselves alone," Bush said. "The founders humbly sought the wisdom and the blessing of Divine Providence. May we always live by that same trust, and may God continue to watch over the United States of America."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)