Just 18 Months Left For Bush

President Enters Homestretch Of His 8 Years In Oval Office With Much Left To Do

(CBS)  By CBS News White House Correspondent Mark Knoller

---

A check of the calendar shows time swiftly running out for President Bush. Eighteen months from today, a new president takes the oath of office.

"We see this milestone as just another day," says Joel Kaplan, the White House Deputy Chief of Staff.

But he says it's "a reminder that we’ve got a lot of work to do for the country in that time."

In a CBS News interview in his West Wing office, Kaplan said Mr. Bush still has "a very ambitious agenda" he wants to pursue.

The war in Iraq is the overriding priority, but "that doesn’t stop us from focusing at the same time on all of these other very important priorities like energy and health care," says Kaplan.

The president still hopes to enact legislation to reduce U.S. consumption of gasoline by 20 percent over 10 years and to make the cost of health insurance tax deductible up to a maximum of $15,000 a year.

But this second term hasn't been kind to Mr. Bush. Despite the claims he made after his re-election that he has political capital to spend, his efforts to pass Social Security and immigration reform bills ended in failure.

Nor do his prospects for the remainder of his term in office look any more promising.

He has all but given up on reforming the U.S. tax code — which during his campaign for a second term, he called a "complicated mess."

An advisory panel he named early in 2005 submitted recommendations later that year, but since then, they've only gathered dust.

"While there is still a compelling need for overall reform of the code," says Kaplan, "I think the most important thing we can accomplish over the next 18 months in that area will be to keep the Democrats from raising taxes."

The final year and a half of the Bush presidency also presents the prospect of more investigations by and subpoenas from the Democratic Congress. But the administration hopes it won't be hog-tied by them.

Says Kaplan: "It does require the Congress and the Democratic leadership to make a choice of whether they are interested in legislation or whether they're just interested in excessive oversight and fishing expeditions that are designed not to actually accomplish anything for the American people but rather to provide political and communications advantage in some way."

Kaplan has the right to hope, but it looks like the Bush White House is headed into a major showdown with Congress over the president's claims of executive privilege. The issue could end up in the Supreme Court

Further, the 2008 presidential campaign is well under way, and the president's approval ratings are in the cellar.

"I don’t think it will affect in any way what the president tries to pursue on behalf of the American people," says Kaplan. "We’re gonna keep coming to work every day, working on those issues and working with Congress."

But should we be listening in these final 18 months for the quacks of a lame duck? Kaplan says don't waste your time.

"Maybe we'll talk on January 19, 2009, and I'll think he's a lame duck, but not before then."

[tucano2]

CBS would provide a real public service by supplying a "count-down clock" showing how many more days we must (unless Congress removes them) endure the dog and pony show known as George and ***.

[khristmaskat]

One of the posters mentioned that the 2000 election was stolen. It was, and it breaks my heart to think about how things might have been different had there been President Gore in the White House. In my heart of hearts, I do not think we could get any worse than "W." I am counting the days until this horrible president is gone.

[sjc_1]

Watch for this fascist loony toon to try something to even more criminal than he already has. There is so much evidence of criminal wrong doing with this group, a real prosecutor would not know where to start. But that is one of the major conflict of interest flaws in our system, Gonzo is AG and there you have it...the fix is in.

[stwryrch]

Iraqi Oil Law?

How much money do you get for the natural resources in the U.S.?

Unless you own or invest in a private industry that deals in natural resources, the answer is ZERO. (Besides benefits from taxes)

That is called a free market in a democratic society. The government does not control utilities.

The Iraqi Oil Law is not Bush trying to get more money off of oil, it's trying to form the foundations of a free market.

If you think the Iraqi's should control all their oil, then when do we as Americans get to control ours?

Hopefully never. I know nothing of drilling and refining oil and prefer the free market solution of experts competing for the business.


BTW, perhaps Reagan and Carter both contributed to the release of the hostages for the reasons you are all saying.

[jw218389]

Bye Bye Dumbya... 18 months isn't soon enough, but at least he's already a lame duck!

History's going to put you in with all the other "greats" - You know like Taft and Harding...

God Save America from Bush....

[down-ndirty]

down-ndirty, you are very liberal aren't you? So liberal that you would never admit that any good ideas or politicians could come from the conservative or Republican camps.

What GWB may accomplish in the next 18 months because of his arrogance and narrow world view scares me. Posted by rangerhawk1 at 05:10 PM : Jul 22, 2007
_____________________________

Well, I'm so "very liberal" that if Ron Paul happens to get the Rep nomination then Nov 08 will be the very first time I vote Rep.

I'm so "very liberal" that I didn't vote for Clinton the first time around and consider some of his policies to be very "conservative." In fact, he's been referred to as the "best Republican president we've had since Lincoln."

My problem with Dems is that none of them have any balls. And when they do, they just screw it up. My problem with the Reps is that everything they do is for the wealthy.

We so badly need a president "of the people" that if we are lucky enough to ever get one, he/she will undoubtedly inherit a disaster and be as ineffective as Carter was. Even the "great communicator" struggled with inflation, interest rates, and unemployment well into his first term. Was that Carter's fault, too? Go back to the '70s and look at Nixon's oil policy and the resulting formation of OPEC for the answer.

I agree with you 100% on what GWB may try to do

[rangerhawk]

down-ndirty, you are very liberal aren't you? So liberal that you would never admit that any good ideas or politicians could come from the conservative or Republican camps. You are determined to believe and argue that everything bad in the mideast was caused by conservatives/Republicans. Every one of your posts gives a lot of leeway to Carter/democratic politicians/liberals, but you speak of Republicans in only disparaging terms in these posts to me.

Carter stunk as President because he was naive and inept. George Bush Jr. is a horrible president because he is narrow minded, an idiot, inept, naive and just plain stupid. I give Carter that he was at least honorable. GWB only knows and cares about the rich.

What GWB may accomplish in the next 18 months because of his arrogance and narrow world view scares me.

[starleo146]

Guess what I heard? I don't know if it old news or not I just heard it, I mention it for verification.The FCC has been taking free vacations and they are paid for by the broadcasters they are suppose to oversee. No wonder our news is down in the tubes.

[starleo146]

Jackb41 at 10:37a.m.--- I do not want to be rude and you are entitled to your opinion ,but please sir/mam one of the symptoms of alzheimers is memory loss.I am in total shock over your post.He absolutely stole that election in 2000 but I will let you have your fantasy.

[down-ndirty]

I offered the opinion that the Iranians being unsure of what Reagan might do prompted them to release the hostages at the changing of the presidency. I certainly give that opinion more weight than the Iranians released the hostages because of anything Carter did. Posted by rangerhawk1 at 02:18 PM : Jul 22, 2007
________________________

There is far more to it than you allude to. The reason the hostages were taken was because the deposed dictator Shah was given sanctuary in the U.S. After the Shah died in July 1980, and the Iraq invasion of Iran in September, the Iranians were no longer interested in the hostages. So why didn't they release them then?

There's evidence, albeit insufficient for a final verdict, that the Reagan "Kitchen Cabinet" conspired with the Iranians to delay the release of the hostages.

If you consider that hogwash then why weren't the hostages released after the election? After all, you've presented no evidence to support your "opinion" that the Iranians were unsure of what Reagan would do; nor could I find any in my research.

If Carter's Algiers Accords weren't instrumental they why were the hostages flown to Algiers before being taken to Germany where Carter, sent by Reagan, met them? Who signed the Algiers Accords for the U.S.?

Gaddis Smith, professor emeritus of history at Yale, said it best: "Carter inherited an impossible situation--and he and his advisors made the worst of it."

[randalds]

Randy;
whether you choose to believe or not, you have no more right to comdemn a persons beliefs than they do your beliefs, or the lack thereof. I would appreciate if you would lay off the Christian bashing.
Posted by Klingon69 at 09:18 AM : Jul 22, 2007

I don't bash christians, I only bash them back. I don't believe in turning the other cheek.

[rangerhawk]

down-ndirty? What is my source for not agreeing with your opinion that Carter redeemed himself? Is that what you are asking?

I already stated in an earlier post that Carter played a part in the hostage release. Of course he did as he was president up until the minute that Reagan was sworn in. I never said that Reagan was the sole reason that the hostages were released. I offered the opinion that the Iranians being unsure of what Reagan might do prompted them to release the hostages at the changing of the presidency. I certainly give that opinion more weight than the Iranians released the hostages because of anything Carter did. The Iranians never did anything to help Carter. Carter never accomplished the hostage release. The Iranians released the hostages when they decided they wanted to, or do you really believe that Khomeini decided to be generous to Jimmy Carter during the last week of his presidency. That is just very naive.

Khomeini toyed with Carter throughout the final days of his presidency. Khomeini did not release the hostages when he did out of the goodness of his heart and his affection for Jimmy Carter. Come on man, you cannot be that naive! The hostages were release solely at the whim of Ayatollah Khomeini.

[down-ndirty]

"down-ndirty" you need to brush up on your history. CARTER did not get the Iranian hostages released. The hostages were released under Reagan, not Carter. Posted by rangerhawk1 at 10:29 PM : Jul 20, 2007
________________________________

Your OPINION is that Carter was a complete failure. Yes, he was a failure. He inherited a mess from the Nixon/Ford admins, including the energy crisis, which was a result of Nixon's oil policy. The root cause of the hostage crisis was Operation Ajax in the Eisenhower admin.

My OPINION is that he redeemed himself by finally getting the hostages released. Can't debate opinions.

However, you refuted my statement that Carter get the hostages released. I posted my references.

What is YOUR source?

Considering that the hostages were released within five minutes of Reagan's term, What is your source for your statement? "After Reagan was elected the Iranians used Carter because they were afraid of what Reagan might do."

People who believe that Reagan got the hostages released are believing an urban legend.

[jackb41]

What a shame. This country has only 18 months left for our president to accomplish so much. He was unfortunate to be elected when a vendatta was eclared against him bt the Socialist Democrat party.
I am 77 years old and he is he most honest president to come along in my time. Too bad honesty has to take a back seat to the 1000 dollars suits an the pleasure tripsthat were disguised as essential business by his detractors.God bless you George, and thank you for your service to our country.

[rangerhawk]

Dude, you are the one making the claim that Carter redeemed himself during the Iranian Hostage Crisis!

"So what are you references/sources?"
Posted by down-ndirty at 12:39 PM : Jul 21, 2007

I think you are the one that needs to provide the reference/sources to support this position. Other than that sharp tack, Jimmy Carter, himself. Your claim that JC redeemed himself is strictly an opinion. Your opinion! Only! I've never heard anyone else, including historians or political scientists make that claim.

Carter was a COMPLETE failure as president! No Redemption is forthcoming!

But, believe what you want if it makes you sleep better at night.

[randalds]

Exactly! We finally have a president willing to take on the terrorists. However, it appears Americans would rather put-up with periodic terrorist incidents than go to war against terrorists. What nmany fail to realize is that terrorists are operating around the globe and will do so until stopped.
Posted by rhs648 at 11:06 PM : Jul 21, 2007

Who? Who? Did we elect someone other then the chimp in the last few days and I missed it? I mean I know you're not talking about him because he stop going after the terrorists and took us into a completely unrelated war for oil, money and power in Iraq (a country that had no terrorists in it before we invaded. Not a single one. None. Zero. Zippo. Nada)), which is why bin Laden is still free, has regrouped and has recruited thousands of more terrorists using Georgie as his best recruiting tool.

[rhs648]

Runnin Ronny Reagan was a disaster,not only did he deal with Iranian terrorists and Central American drug dealers to screw Carter and help get himself elected--but then he ran out of Lebanon after terrorists killed 270 of our soldiers,leaving Osama and others to believe that America was weak....thats where this whole mess started!

Posted by urlnts

Exactly! We finally have a president willing to take on the terrorists. However, it appears Americans would rather put-up with periodic terrorist incidents than go to war against terrorists. What nmany fail to realize is that terrorists are operating around the globe and will do so until stopped.

I find it interesting that ANYONE in the country can still believe that the Dems are 'digging' and wasting time in investigations...What will it take to prove to you guys that we are steps away from Germany 1939? Look at : Social Security, Education, Bankrupcy bills, energy policy, supreme court decisions, oh yeah, fired prosecutors, Valarie Plame, Executive Privilege, People making 1.88 BILLION and paying 1/2 of the taxes that you and I pay on ordinary wages, lets see: Education loan scandals,...oh yeah, Tax money to schools, money to creation museums where dinosaurs roam with humans, textbooks that 're-interpret" what the Founding Fathers believed in, no public funding of elections, black box elections, caging lists to prevent anyone from 'voting while black' and oh, yeah, let Rupert Murdoch buy some more media so 65% of the country can ALWAYS believe that Saddam was in cahoots with Osama and that Iraq HAD nuclear weapons ...gee I could go on, but I'm gonna be sick..........
WHat the heck happened to this country?
READ: Armed Madhouse for more on the caging lists designed to prevent over 3 million legit voters from voting.
OH GOSH I FORGOT TO MENTION THE BANG UP JOB ON KATRINA!!!!!
and who was president during 9/11? Who was mayor?

[mh4cbs1]

Here's the main reason we are in Iraq. It's called the Iraq Oil Law, that Bush is trying to ram down the throats of the Iraqi Parliament....

" WASHINGTON, DC -- Green Party leaders declared their support for the tens of thousands of Iraqis, including labor unions, who are protesting the Iraqi oil law 'benchmark' that the Bush Administration and supporters are seeking to impose as a condition for reconstruction aid.

On July 16, Iraqis took to the streets of Basra in a demonstration organized by the Iraqi Federation of Oil Unions against the proposed law, which would place 2/3 of Iraqi oil under foreign control, granting 30-year contracts to US and UK energy corporations for 'development' of Iraq's oil resources."

GREAT! After LYING our way into an INVASION, bombing civilians, throwing people at random into Abu Ghraib, searching homes, destroying cities, killing civilians at checkpoints cuz they didn't stop in time... NOW we want to steal their Oil.
As if the Iraqi insurgents didn't already have enough reasons to hate the US foreign Occupation!

Ignorantwill,

When calling someone AN idiot, you may want to make sure you at least understand basic English. It's not "a" idiot, it's "AN" idiot.