The Israel Shell Game And Other Plays From The W, Rove And Co. Political Parlor Trick Play Book

I like Victoria almost as much as Helen, but stick with me on this one. As you review the rhetorical spew from Tony the Snow-job, think to yourself the following: Who was the last person the press secretary was strongly suggesting had the "full confidence of the president," and what happened to that person?

Victoria.

Q Senator Chuck Hagel yesterday said that the President should appoint a statesman of global stature, experience and ability to serve as his personal envoy to the region, who would report directly to the President. What is the President's reaction to that? It seems to implicate that perhaps he doesn't have very much confidence in Secretary Rice.

MR. SNOW: The President does. (Laughter.) Mike.

Now, the next question is very interesting in terms of Tony's first thought the slips past his lips. Read it and think to yourself the following: What does the sentence "We understand the political process" mean exactly? Could this spell the end of Condi's term as a W appointee?

Q Are you concerned that a senior Republican senator does not have confidence in Secretary Rice?

MR. SNOW: We understand the political process. The President right now -- I'm not going to get into characterizing it, but the President has full confidence. And it would be interesting to ask Senator Hagel what he -- because he was not specific about it. You didn't give me a specific characterization. You're trying to draw a conclusion from his comments. I'm not sure he's ready to draw that conclusion, but if he is, okay.

Q He gave a few names, however. He gave --

MR. SNOW: Well, no, I appreciate that. But, again, Secretary Rice is -- let me make a point, because it's worth making the point that, again, the United States has achieved significant diplomatic -- has had significant diplomatic achievements on the North Korean front, on the Iranian front, and soon with the Middle East. That is a demonstration of effective diplomacy, in difficult times, when people would sometimes rather just kick the can down the road.

We've been addressing it and we've gotten allies to go along -- and in some cases allies who, in the past, have not spoken out on these issues. That, to me, is exactly the definition of effective diplomacy, and that's one of the reasons why the President has so much confidence.

Now I don't know about you, but the amount of cash we American taxpayers have been dolling out to support Israel seems to buy us a bit more credibility with the Israelis than suggesting that those who disagree with the W, Rove and Co mean we simply want our government to "kick the can down the road."

WTF? Is this guy for real? Yup. It's all a part of the W, Rove and Co. political parlor trick play book that they execute with the American people such that they shell-game with us and suggest that if anyone else play politics; we are the bad lumps in your morning oatmeal.

But I digress. In this last question, which is a very good one I might point out, ask yourself the following: Does the reporter get a satisfactory answer?

Q I was going to ask one other question about Senator Hagel, because he made a point that a lot of other foreign policy experts have been making in recent days, which is that the United States has not been deeply enough engaged in trying to solve the Arab-Israeli problem, and they see that as sort of coming back to haunt the administration. And I'm just curious about what your reaction to that is.

MR. SNOW: I understand that. I would count that as observing from the sidelines, rather than reporting from the front lines.

Ah, looks like a definitive "nope" on the last point.

Lost In The Rhetoric: When A Cease-Fire Is Not A Cease-Fire, But Still Considered A Cease-Fire

Well, if you followed the title of this post, you should know we are talking about more rhetorical shenanigans from the W, Rove and Co.

Just the other day, they (including our favorite Doctor, Rice) were talking about successfully encouraging a "cease-fire" in the whole Lebanon situation. Tuesday, Tony the Snow-job blows some confusion up our skirts as to what a "cease-fire" really is.

Have a look and see if you gather how easy it is for the W, Rove and Co. to spin the rhetoric to ensure their rose-colored glasses stay firmly in place:

Helen.

Q My question is, how does the President feel about the breaking of the temporary truce in Lebanon?

MR. SNOW: Well, I was reading this out the other day. I think the way this thing was characterized in some press reports was different than the way it had been presented to the White House, which was that the Israelis said that they would suspend bombing except for sites that had activities aimed at Israel or Israelis. And this is the way I read it out the other day on the plane.

So you know, I will direct all questions about Israel's tactics and how it matches up with rhetoric to them. But the way it was presented to us was not just a blanket cease-fire. The one thing that was blanket was 24 hours of free passage for humanitarian aid, and also for people to get out of the area.

But, just what are the W, Rove and Co for (sure for them and not us, but hey, that's their problem not ours):

Q The President is still against a cease-fire?

MR. SNOW: No, the President is for a cease-fire, but he's for a sustainable cease-fire and a lasting peace.

Q An immediate cease-fire?

MR. SNOW: An immediate cease-fire is something that at this point doesn't seem to be in the cards. Neither side is headed that way. But what the President is working on and what our allies are working on are providing those conditions for a sustainable cease-fire, which means being able to move into southern Lebanon -- the Lebanese armed forces. They're going to need some support, certainly at the outset, by a multinational force. There are contribution talks that are beginning to take shape on those.

And so the President is very supportive of diplomatic efforts that involve the United States, France and other members of the United Nations Security Council to put together conditions that achieve all of the things that everybody says they want. Everybody wants a cease-fire, a cessation of hostilities; also a recognition that Hezbollah has been responsible for this; and in keeping with U.N. Security Council Resolution 1559, it cannot operate as an independent militia within Lebanese borders.

There is also the recognition that there is going to be need for humanitarian aid, and the United States was first to that. And we continue to support humanitarian efforts. There will be a need for reconstruction efforts in time. In other words, there is a comprehensive approach to trying to deal with the situation in Lebanon so that the people of Lebanon do not once again have their hopes lifted by false promises. In this case, we are trying to look for a practical way to make good on promises that have been made in the past, in the form of U.N. Security Council 1559.

Then, Helen whips out the cast iron skillet of hers and smacks Tony with the snowball crusher:

Q May I just add?

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Q Doesn't that mean many more people are going to die?

MR. SNOW: I hope not. I think everybody hopes not.

I love Helen Thomas: telling it like it is by questioning the lions in the lions' den. So, we see that while the rhetoric spins out of control from the bully pulpit, more innocents (to which the W himself has professed to care about) will end up deceased. Hmmm...sounds just about as good and effective (and sustainable, I might add) as the W, Rove and Co Iraq solution.

Tripe That Should Come With A Wipe

Nothing smacks more like tripe than W unscripted. Have a look at this rather benign situation that W turns in to stomach churning banter that may require the use of handiwipes after reading to clean up your vomit:

1:40 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: I'm just amazed at the health care here at Bethesda. The Admiral runs an amazing operation. And it's really important for our citizens to know that if one of our men and women get hurt on the battlefield, they're going to get incredibly good health care.

And, Admiral, I can't thank you and your staff enough for serving this country with great dignity and class.

ADMIRAL ROBINSON: Thank you very much.

THE PRESIDENT: Appreciate -- appreciate being here. God Bless. Thank you.

I'm doing fine; my health is fine. I probably ate too many birthday cakes.

END 1:41 P.M. EDT

Excuse me, is it just me or did W just try to turn 1 minute statment about an ordinary trip to the doctor into some political game playing? Sure looks like it.

Reach below your screen and wave your hand below the monitor. A handiwipe will be dispensed to clean up your vomit immediately.

Cease-Fire? What Cease-Fire?

I can see Dr. Rice's efforts in the Middle East are just about as effective as the W, Rove and Co's Iraq strategy. Perhaps the Isrealies are done listening to the US of A.

There is no cease-fire, and there will not be any cease-fire in the coming days.

We don't need no stinkin' cease-fire....I love the logic: "We'll put down our weapons when you put down yours." That makes us all potentially dead, now doesn't it?

When all is ruin, it doesn't matter if you are the last man standing, holding your bravado in one hand and your big guns in another. Sooner than later, all you have left for gratification is one hand or the other and you will have to put one down to commence. But really, in the end, all you are surrounded by is a mess you created and no one left to help you clean it up.

Global Warming Wrapped In A FEMA Blanket - A Nice Hors D'oeuvre For Climate Concern Nay Sayers

There is no correlation to bad responses by FEMA and global warming, now is there? Certainly, one could type the sentence and hope it is so. But with one briefing, a FEMA director can dismiss global warming as an issue to ease the conscience of the W, Rove and Co, can't he?

Q And also can you explain the scientist -- who said he had studied the relationship between hurricane patterns, and he was looking to see if there was a link to global warming. Was he suggesting that there was no consensus that there's a link?

DIRECTOR PAULISON: Right, he was -- that's what he was saying. That's what I heard anyway, is that there was not a consensus that global warming has anything to do with the size of the hurricanes because we didn't know back years ago -- we may not have been able to predict the number of -- or even seen them. If a hurricane came up and went up through the Atlantic, we may not even have known there was a hurricane --

Q -- he was saying that that's doubling over the past decade is maybe due to just better reporting?

DIRECTOR PAULISON: It could -- that's what he was suggesting, yes. That was my understanding of it.

Anything else, folks? Good question, by the way. Anything else? All right, thank you very much. I appreciate it, and try to stay cool.

Well, isn't that convenient...Of course, you can't appease a conscience if one doesn't exist in the first place...but, don't you enjoy some good innuendo in briefings from the presidential podium staffed with a wonderfully armed propaganda catapult?

BTW, don't you just love the borrowed witticism (last line of the briefing) from the presidential comedic playbook?

"Mourning The Loss Of Innocent Life"

Toss this quote to the long list of horse pucky that the W, Rove and Co expects the rest of the world to buy:

America mourns the loss of innocent life. It's a tragic occasion when innocent people are killed, and so our sympathies go out to those who lost their lives today, and lost their lives throughout this crisis.

Is this man for real, or does he really think that lie bundled with a giant load of hypocrisy gets food to the hungry in America?

Why Is There War?

This AM, my four year old got a hold of the front page of the local paper before me. Usually, that is not so troubling. But these days, you never know what is going to be the cover picture. This AM, there was a picture of a rescue worker holding a dead child amidst some bombed out rubble in Lebanon. My son asks, "What's that?" I explain. He says, "Daddy, why is there war?" I reply, it's when people can't find a way to live together peacefully. Unsatisfied, he asks the same question several times. How would you explain this to a four year old?

The Ease With Which One Finds Hypocricy Is Astounding

I have oft pointed to the hypocritical statments and actions perpetrated by the "right,"and in particular their favorite players in the W, Rove and Co. But, again, we find at least three examples where the president commits such rhetorical suicide in almost as many short paragraph. Have a look and let's see if you come up with the same ones as me:

PRESIDENT BUSH: -- a lot of time talking about security, and I can understand why. Because there's -- there are people who are willing to destroy innocent life to achieve a political objective. And the Prime Minister is deeply concerned about the lives of his fellow citizens. And I appreciate that concern. I would be very worried if a Prime Minister came to talk about his country and did not mention, first and foremost, protecting people's lives. That's, after all, the most important responsibility of government.

And he believes, and I believe, that the -- there needs to be more forces inside Baghdad who are willing to hold people to account. In other words, if you find somebody who's kidnapping and murdering, the murderer ought to be held to account. It ought to be clear in society that that kind of behavior is not tolerated.

And that's the attitude of the Prime Minister. My attitude is, we shouldn't try to gauge whether or not someone is justified, or not; we ought to be saying that if you murder, you're responsible for your actions. And I think the Iraqi people appreciate that type of attitude.

And so we -- so we're not only talking about adjusting a Baghdad plan at the Prime Minister's request, to make it more effective, we're also talking about how to make the Iraqi army more effective. But the truth of the matter is, the Iraqi army is becoming a highly professional force that will help bring confidence to the people inside Iraq that the government has got the capacity to protect them.

I'll post my examples in a bit as a comment to this post, but I am curious to see what you come up with first...have at it.

When Commandars On The Ground Cause Confusion In Our Capital The American People Pay

When "commanders on the ground" cause confusion for the W, Rove and Co, we, the Amreican people, pay. Based on what the President was saying today, it looks like we will get more, not less troops in Iraq. Go figure. What happened to "they stand up so we stand down?"

Note the following paragraph that led me to the title for this post. I sure hope that W unscripted is not as confused as his speechifying leads us to conclude:

PRESIDENT BUSH: One of the things that's important is for -- and one of the reasons why you trust the commanders on the ground is because there needs to be flexibility. And I explained to the Prime Minister that I'll be making my decisions based upon the recommendations of General Casey. And, obviously, the violence in Baghdad is still terrible, and, therefore, there needs to be more troops. In other words, the commanders said, what more can we do; how best to address the conditions on the ground. And they have recommended, as a result of working with the Prime Minister, based upon his recommendation, that we increase the number of U.S. troops in Baghdad, alongside of Iraqi troops. And we're going to do that.

The second request that the Prime Minister made was that he needs more equipment for his troops. And General Dempsey, along with General Casey have reviewed his requests and his ideas. And I told the Prime Minister if this is what these generals recommend, it's what I support.

Conditions change inside a country, Tom. And the question is, are we going to be facile enough to change with -- will we be nimble enough; will we be able to deal with the circumstances on the ground? And the answer is, yes, we will.

I know I am not the only one who would wish that conditions would change in some countries....not the least of which, ours. What was it that Einstein said long ago? Some thing like, "we can't expect to solve the problems we created with the same thinking used to cause them?" Looks like we have some substantial work in front of us come November elections. Time to vote the bastards out and get some new thinking in place to solve the probems created the W, Rove and Co. The time for impeachment is long since nigh.

Freedom

Came across a wonderful quote in a lovely book that resonates for me, and left me wondering about what we have spent for "freedom" in this whole conflagration called the "War on Terror." Points to the blogger who can tell us who said this to whom and in what story:

An hour of freedom is worth a barrel of slops

Given the amount of outlay (tax dollars in hock to the Chinese, dead GIs, innocent civilians KIA, etc...) have we gotten a fair return with regards to our freedom?

Now Enlisting Christians In The War On Terror

Here's an intersting idea for defeating those zany muslim fundamentalists that a friend of mine suggested at a gathering I was at the other day. How about we sign up some fundamental christians to strap on some bomb vestiments and send them over to known terrorist locations to blow up some folks. It'd be like taking a page out of the "terrorist play book" and handing it back to them in spades. Any takers out there in the good christian world?

Attention America: Can You See Through The Emperor's Clothes Yet?

In case you haven't noticed, the push to keep Congress in the hands of the "Right" (although it seems to me that more and more the GOP is wrong) is ramping up complete with a new batch of "Swift Boat" types to keep the Presidential (and thusly, reichwing) Propaganda Catapult greased and well supplied:

With voters threatening a mutiny over Republican military misadventures, what looks to be a 2006 version of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has formed. The putatively grassroots organization called Vets for Freedom has been offering up decorated, interview-ready soldiers to, as its Website puts it, “promote the unbiased, nonpartisan truth of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, to educate the public and mobilize public support for the Global War on Terror.” Their offensive started in April, when former Bush press secretary Taylor Gross, who worked under Scott McClellan until last year, tempted newspaper editors at the New York Post, the Daily News, the Richmond Times Dispatch, and the Buffalo News with inexpensive war coverage—“unbiased perspectives” that “would not be at any significant cost.” Gross had no takers.

Then, over Memorial Day, Owen West, a Goldman Sachs commodities trader, Marine reservist, and adventure-book author (Sharkman Six and Four Days to Veracruz), published an op-ed in the Times in which he lashed out against war opponents, including the “sliver of malcontents” in the battle-zone ranks. (West served four months in Iraq in 2003.) “We are clashing with an enemy who has been at war with us in one form or another for two decades,” West wrote. “Our military response may take decades more.” He then evoked Lincoln: “ ‘With malice toward none, with charity for all . . . let us strive on to finish the work we are in.’ ” West was identified as a “founder” of the Vets.

John Stauber, executive director of the Center for Media and Democracy, thought the Vets’ Website looked suspiciously un-grassroots. Then he saw the privacy notice: “We may from time to time share the information our visitors provide with other Republican candidates and other like-minded organizations.” After Stauber blogged about it last month, the Vets removed that notice. The group’s Website is hosted by Campaign Solutions, a high-profile political consultancy that does Republican-campaign Web work. Clients have included Bush-Cheney ’04 and the Swift Boat Vets. “Vets for Freedom are the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” of the ’06 cycle, says Stauber.

Speaking from his office in Manhattan, West says he’s no Swift-y and that linking his group to the GOP distorts its message and is unfair. “Guilt only by association,” he says. “How could we be a front group for the GOP when we are supporting Democratic candidates? It doesn’t make any sense. We’re not Republican. We’re not Democrat. We’re pro-mission.”

LOL: "We're Pro-Mission!" The rhetoric is no disquise for a person's actions, now is it? Can you see through the W's new clothes yet? And if not, why the bleep not? The W, Rove and Co have been flashing the American people the full monty and the moon for years.

"A Victory of Conscience"

In order to have a "victory of conscience," you first must have one. What is most disturbing about the first veto every signed by W is that he claims to have signed it based on moral grounds, not on scientific fact. Again, we witness the wheels of hypocrisy actively spinning in the whitehouse.

Leadership of faith over fact gets you nothing but a slap in the face by the president. By vetoing the bill, W says he would rather have embryos flushed down the drain. Is that pro-life or pro-death?

Bush said the veto was not a setback for science but rather a victory of conscience, as taxpayers should not pay for research that destroys human embryos — even in the service of obtaining stem cells to develop potential cures for disease.

"This bill would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others," Bush told a crowd of supporters, including children born of the type of fertility clinic embryos that would have been used for research under the bill. "It crosses a moral boundary that our society needs to respect, so I vetoed it."

W essentially flips off the American people again by telling them their opinions and desires don't matter - remember, that a bill has to secure a majority of votes in Congress before it gets to the president's desk.

My bet is that we can come up with a fair number of moral boundaries that the W, Rove and Co have crossed that we wish they hadn't. But we don't have the ability to veto this president and his administration. Believe me, if I could, I would.

How To Tell When The President Is Full Of It (of the SH-variety)

Have a look at what the Pesident and his speech writers thought the African-Americans want to hear:

We'll work together, and as we do so, you must understand I understand that racism still lingers in America. (Applause.) It's a lot easier to change a law than to change a human heart. And I understand that many African Americans distrust my political party.

AUDIENCE: Yes! (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: I consider it a tragedy that the party of Abraham Lincoln let go of its historic ties with the African American community. For too long my party wrote off the African American vote, and many African Americans wrote off the Republican Party. (Applause.)

That history has prevented us from working together when we agree on great goals. That's not good for our country. That's what I've come to share with you. We've put the interests of the country above political party. I want to change the relationship. (Applause.) The America we seek should be bigger than politics. And today I'm going to talk about some areas where I believe we can work together to reduce the obstacles for opportunity for all our citizens. And that starts, by the way with education. (Applause.)

First of all, history does not prevent people from communicating with each other. The people involved make that choice. Second, education is not only for the "children." Moreover, education has to be applied in both directions. Third, the relaionship that today's GOP has with the Party of Abraham Lincoln is only chronological. They are ideologically different in both a fundamental and wholesale way.

To use a ploy deployed by the W, Rove and Co. I reject the connections W makes today. I reject them roundly and whole heartedly.

Toss 'Em Down The Toilet Or Save Some Lives With Research: Being "Pro-life" Means What?

Hot debate on the floor of Congress, if you dare slap on CSPAN for any duration is the whole controversy surrounding stem cell research. Correct me if I am wrong, but the reason why I would rather read the text of these speeches is that I can skim versus being bored silly watching the proverbial paint dry.

Furthermore, waching congressional (and any, for that matter) politicos in action exacerbates the feeling for me, that I am so getting screwed by paying these people to do what they do with my hard earned tax dollars.  But that is a whole other post.

Windspike's Questions du jour are thus:

• First, should we toss the unused stem cell sources down the toilet or use them in future research that could possibly save lives or make some bad lives better?
  
• 
  
• Secondly, which of the above options proves that you are pro-life?


• Explain/discuss

WW3 About To Ramp Up Out Of Lebanon and Meanwhile...

So, is anyone predicting that WWIII is about to escalate out of the Israel/Lebanon situation? And if we continue to back Israel, how many steps removed are we from duking it out with China?

Meanwhile, let's see if this week's billion or so taxpayer dollars were spent well in Iraq?

Not much new out of Iraq -- I asked specifically, and not much new out of there today to report.

Killing Innocent People And The Slim Difference Of Presidential Thinking

Those of you who have not heard what the president has said about the Israel/Lebanon conflict (which may well lead us to WWIII) may be interested in reading the president's thoughts on the matter. Notice the slim differentiation made between killing people in the name of what (peace or stopping peace)? Which is worse - our killing innocent Iraqis - which has brought very little peace to Iraq? Or the actions of Isreal and Hezbollah that result in innocent civilian deaths?

PRESIDENT BUSH: -- to help calm the situation, we've got diplomats in the region. Secretary of State Rice, who is here, is on the phone talking to herf counterparts. I'll be making calls.

I gave you my initial impression earlier, and that is that it's a sad situation where -- when there is a very good chance for there to be a two-state solution enacted -- that is two states living side-by-side in peace -- it's really sad where people are willing to take innocent life in order to stop that progress. As a matter of fact, it's pathetic.

Plugging The Leaks

Looks like the Plame/Wilson family have hired themselves a very fancy set of lawyers and are setting about to plug the Whitehouse leaks themselves. Eventually, let's hope this doesn't end up costing us more taxpayer dollars, but I'm afraid it's more down the toilet to the cespool built by the W, Rove and Co:

The civil lawsuit by Plame and her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, said the couple suffered violations of their constitutional and legal rights.

The CIA leak case flared after Wilson accused the administration of outing his wife to punish him for questioning use of intelligence about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction in the run-up to the war launched by Washington in 2003.

An investigation led to the indictment of a top Cheney aide, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, last year on charges of obstruction of justice and perjury. He is the only person charged so far in the case.

The civil lawsuit cited "a conspiracy among current and former high-level officials in the White House" to "discredit, punish and seek revenge against" Wilson for publicly disputing statements made by Bush justifying the war in Iraq.

While no specific dollar amount is requested, the lawsuit sought unspecified compensatory and punitive damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

The suit also named Libby, who was Cheney's former chief of staff, and 10 unnamed senior government officials and aides.

Of course, the W, Rove and Co is going to try and spin this as another "frivolous lawsuit," which it is anytying but Let's hope the Wilson/Plame team find "activist" judges of their brand rather than the kind that favor sitting dignitaries.

Hunting, Putin, The Free Press & Common Values: The Twisted Logic Of George W. Bush

I've said this before, but I love W unscripted in front of the press. It shows us how he thinks and what he really is thinking. Have a gander as he exposes his twisted logic. The real question is, should we trust this man to have discussions with other world leaders in an unscripted fashion?

Q Madam Chancellor, Mr. President. Terry Hunt with the AP. Looking ahead to St. Petersburg, I'd like to ask you, do you think that Russia is honoring human rights and democratic freedoms and has a responsible approach to energy security?

And, Mr. President, were you surprised by President Putin replying to Vice President Cheney's criticism, saying that it was an "unsuccessful hunting shot?"

PRESIDENT BUSH: Did I think it was a clever response? It was pretty clever. Actually, quite humorous -- not to dis my friend, the Vice President. I don't know, do you want to start with this? I'd be glad to -- (laughter.) No, I think our job is to continually remind Russia that if he wants to do -- have good relations, that she ought to share common values with us. We share common values -- free press is a common value we share. And I've expressed my opinion to President Putin. You might remember my visit with him in Slovakia where I was quite pointed in my concerns about whether or not there is a free and vibrant press in Russia. We share concerns about the ability for people to go to the town square and express their opinions, and whether or not dissent is tolerated, whether or not there's active political opposition.

And so I will continue to carry that message. My own view of dealing with President Putin, though, is that nobody really likes to be lectured a lot, and if you want to be an effective person, what you don't go is scold the person publicly all the time; that you remind him where we may have a difference of opinion, but you do so in a respectful way, so you can then sit down and have a constructive dialogue.

And that's exactly how I'm going to continue my relations with President Putin. I'll be firm about my belief in certain democratic institutions; I'll be firm in my belief about the need for there to be an active civil society and NGOs should be allowed to function in Russia without intimidation. But I'm also going to be respectful of the leader of an important country. And I may not tell you exactly what I talked to him about in private. And I would hope that he wouldn't tell you what he talks to me about in private.

But, yes, we've got issues. Listen, we've got common problems that we need to work together to solve -- North Korea and Iran are two. And we've also got -- I hope he continues to understand that it's in his country's interest to implement the values that Germany and Russia -- Germany and the United States share.

Using Parents as Political Pawns

Looks like the W, Rove and Co is not above using a proclamation about "Parent's Day" to leverage a political agenda and support for their Iraq conflagration:

On this special day, we express our deep gratitude to parents for their dedication to a bright and hopeful future for their children. We also pray for parents in the military who stand up for America, and we resolve that their sacrifice will always be honored by a grateful Nation.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States and consistent with Public Law 103-362, as amended, do hereby proclaim Sunday, July 23, 2006, as Parents' Day. I call upon citizens, private organizations, and governmental bodies at all levels to engage in activities and educational efforts that recognize, support, and honor parents, and I encourage American sons and daughters to convey their love, respect, and appreciation to their parents.

How about we bring our nation's parents home from the front, and the sons and daughters serving for that matter, home to help celebrate the day instead?