Two Senators Want Safer Chemical Plants

U. S. Senators Susan Collins, a Republican from Maine, and Joe Lieberman, D-Conn, have introduced legislation that would attempt to reduce the danger from terrorist attacks on chemical plants.

Federal and state regulations have long attempted to reduce dangers to the public from releases of chemicals from chemical manufacturing plants and from chemical storage and transportation facilities. However, these regulations are based on the danger of accidental risks. There is the assumption that, while chemical company managers and employees may make mistakes and take chances, no one wants to cause a deadly chemical release or explosion. However, protection from terrorist attacks must be based on the concept that some people want to cause a chemical incident that kills many people.

It has been estimated that a single chlorine tank could release enough vapor to kill several times the number of people killed by the 9/11 attacks. Yet, with all of the new security at airports, little has been done to protect the public from chemical plant attacks.

The Collins/Lieberman bill will require plants to assess vulnerability and to develop security and response plans. The bill will also require the Department of Homeland Security to develop standards for chemical plant security, with the ability to shut down plants that fail to develop acceptable plans.

Proponents of additional chemical plant security feared that the legislation would pre-empt state law that is stricter than the federal law. For example, laws in New Jersey that are stricter than the federal law could not be enforced. However, language to pre-empt state laws has been removed from the proposed law.

On the web:
New York Times Op-Ed

Washington Post

American Chemistry Council press release

Terrorist Suspect Jose Padilla Indicted

The Bush administration today avoided a showdown before the U. S. Supreme court when Jose Padilla was indicted (with four others) for conspiracy to commit terrorist activities in foreign countries.

Padilla, an American citizen born in Brooklyn has been held in military a prison for over three years. Most of that time he was denied any contact with his attorney. Padilla’s case, long delayed by jurisdictional and other disputes, has been appealed to the Supreme Court. Padilla's lawyers had asked justices for a review of his detention without charge last month. The Bush administration was facing a deadline of next Monday to file its reply.

"They're avoiding what the Supreme Court would say about American citizens. That's an issue the administration did not want to face," according to Duke University law professor Scott Sillman. "There's no way that the Supreme Court would have ducked this issue." Some court observers feel that the Supreme Court would most likely would have held that Padilla’s detention was illegal. (see law professor Stephen Vladeck’s discussion of the Supreme Court case here.)

According to then Attorney General Ashcroft, Padilla was arrested and detained because he was planning to build a "dirty bomb", a conventional explosive device that would spread radio active material. However, his indictment (read it here) does not accuse him of planning a dirty bomb but of planning to carry out terrorist activities outside the United States.

The government is, we assume, planning to try Padilla. The trial will determine his guilt. However, what about the question that was going to be brought to the court about holding citizens without charge and without access to legal counsel. The current case appears to be moot.

Perhaps the next move will be for Padillas attorneys to ask for a dismissal of the indictment based on Padillas Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial.

See Washington Post article.

"In one of the most intellectually incoherent major speeches ever delivered by a minor president..."

Richard Cohen started Op-Ed column in the Washington Post Thursday "In one of the most intellectually incoherent major speeches ever delivered by a minor president, George W. Bush blamed 'some Democrats and antiwar critics' last week for changing their minds about the war in Iraq."

To Bush’s comment that "It is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began" Cohen replied that "it is even more deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how history was rewritten in the first place."

Cohen then points out the incorrect statements Bush made when he was selling his war to congress and expresses a lack of confidence in the Bush administration.

It is my opinion that Bush is doing everything possible to unite the country against his war.

The Supreme Court: Now What?

Now that Harriett Miers has withdrawn, the question is "Who will President Bush pick now". Many moderates and liberals have worried that if her nomination failed due to opposition from the right, Bush would nominate someone more acceptable to the extreme right. He could nominate someone who has a proven right wing track record. That was my opinion. At the time I heard about Miers' withdrawal, I was writing a comment to post here supporting Miers' confirmation because of that very possibility.

Another possibility is that Bush will decide that the far right base is not loyal to him, and ignore their wishes and appoint a more moderate person who has a solid resume for a Supreme Court nominee. The Republican senators would not have the excuse of "lack of experience" as a base for their opposition. A moderate would also draw at least some support from the Democratic senators.

We will just have to wait and see.

Chertoff on Iraq

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff made a comment at a congressional hearing today that may be correct, but not in the way he meant. He made a comment about the time that it takes to plan actions (referring to the time they took to act on Huricane Katrina. Chertoff commented that the military took a "couple of years" to prepare for the war in Iraq.

We are told that the Iraq war was in response for the attack by a bunch of Middle Eastern (but non-Iraq) terrorists on 9/11. However, the air strikes on Baghdad started on March 20, 2003, less than a couple of years after 9/11.

Many have suspected that George Bush planned to attack Iraq before 9/11, but just needed an excuse. Did Chertoff let a secret slip our, or did he simply not remember the exact timeline? I think the latter is probably true. However, it is notable that the head of the government agency that seriously failed to keep the homeland secure (Chertoff was "Brownies" boss) may have made a correct statement only by accident.

Chertoff appeared before the House Select Committee on Hurricane Katrina today, and told them that the nations disaster relief system was overwhelmed by Katrina.

Still More Harriet Miers

So now we know, from the questionnaire she filled out in 1989, that Harriet Miers would support a constitutional amendment to ban abortions. That isn’t a surprise, considering what is known about her beliefs.

The question for Ms. Miers is how her personal beliefs affect her judgment on constitutional issues. As a conservative, she should believe in judicial restraint and in not allowing her personal beliefs interfere with her interpretations of the constitution and law.

Miers supported this principle in her written statement to the Senate: "'Judicial activism' can occur when a judge ignores the principles of precedent and stare decisis. Humility and self-restraint require the judiciary to adhere to its limited role and recognize that where applicable precedent exists, courts are not free to ignore it. Mere disagreement with a result is insufficient to justify ignoring applicable precedent, but reconsideration under appropriate circumstances is also necessary."

Referring to her service on the Dallas City Council in which she voted to urge the adoption of a flag discretion amendment, Miers wrote "There was a vast difference between our vote as a policy matter to prevent the desecration of the American flag, and the job of the courts (including the Supreme Court) to rule whether such an ordinance was constitutional."

We will have to wait and see whether Ms. Miers follows the true conservative viewpoint that judges only interpret the constitution and statutes, or, like such activists as Scalia and Thomas, she is willing to interject her personal beliefs into the judicial process.

Is Nobel Peace Prize for IAEA a Slap in the Face for Bush

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and its director-general, Mohammed ElBaradei were awarded the 2005 Nobel Prize for Peace. Some think that the choice was a slap in the face for George Bush.

ElBaradei is an Egyptian lawyer who was educated, in part, in the United States. Under ElBaradei the IAEA refused to support White House claims, before the Iraq war was begun, that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program.

Among those are Peace Action, a nuclear disarmament group. According to the group, he awarding of the prize to ElBaradei "helps to shine a spotlight on the urgent need to deal seriously with the increasing danger of nuclear weapons, their spread and potential use."

"The Nobel Committee obviously understands something the Bush Administration does not, namely that international cooperation, rather than unilateral, pre-emptive war (or threats of such action) is the best way to halt the spread of WMD and enhance global security," said Kevin Martin, executive director of Peace Action.

According to Peace Action, "Awarding the prize to the IAEA and ElBaradei is also a none- too-subtle rebuke to the Bush Administration, which has sought ElBaradei's ouster. The Bush Administration tried to bully ElBaradei and the IAEA into supporting its erroneous claim that Iraq was attempting to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program in the lead up to the US invasion of Iraq in 2002 and early 2003. The Bush Administration has also accused the agency of being too soft on Iran regarding its nuclear development."

"While ElBaradei called them as he saw them -- supported by the facts on the ground -- regarding WMD in Iraq during the run up to the U.S. invasion, the Bush administration fixed facts to support their foregone conclusions and unilateralist ambitions. The bravery of ElBaradei in maintaining impartiality and professionalism in his mission to stem nuclear proliferation stands in stark contrast to the Bush administration's bending of intelligence to support their invasion plans," concluded Martin.

Bush: "Now they've set their sights on Iraq"

President Bush and the supporters of his war in Iraq have always wanted to give the impression that radical Muslims were involved with Iraq at the time of 9/11/01, and therefore Iraq was a suitable target post 9/11.

He seems to have changed his tune with today’s speech on the war on terror. "Over the past few decades, radicals have specifically targeted Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, and Jordan for potential takeover. They achieved their goal, for a time, in Afghanistan. Now they've set their sights on Iraq."

This time he seems to have it right. As long as Saddam was in charge, al-Qaeda was not in Iraq to any great extent. But now that there is a civil war in Iraq, the radicals see their chance to move in. So yes, Mr. President, because of your war the radicals have now set their sights on Iraq.

Reaction Mixed to Miers Court Nomination

Today President Bush nominated Harriet E. Miers, the White House counsel, to replace retiring U. S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Miers, 60, has never served as a judge on any level and lacks a record of opinions that might reveal how she would serve on the U. S. Supreme Court. About the only thing known about her is that she is a hard worker and a Bush confidante.

Before her nomination was announced this morning, liberals had been warning that the nomination of a conservative in the mold of Justice Scalia or Justice Thomas would bring about strong opposition in the Senate, provoking a very contentious committee and floor fight and possibly a filibuster.

Conservative groups, on the other hand, have worried about the opposite. They point out that they were responsible for the election of President Bush and that there support was based, in large part, on the belief that he would nominate conservative justices who would likely vote to overrule Roe v. Wade, the decision that kept abortion legal in all states.

To the nomination of a lawyer with no judicial experience, reaction is mixed.
Both Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada find advantages in the fact that Miers has not been a judge.

According to Hatch, “Harriett Miers will bring diversity and depth to the Court,” “She has broad professional experience that will provide a fresh perspective from outside the insular walls of the judiciary.”

Reid seemed to agree: "The Supreme Court would benefit from the addition of a justice who has real experience as a practicing lawyer. The current justices have all been chosen from the lower federal courts. A nominee with relevant non-judicial experience would bring a different and useful perspective to the court."
Added Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.: "[W]hen I choose judges In New York, I look for practical experience. And so the fact that she hasn't been a judge before, to me is actually a positive, not a negative."

However, the downside of the lack of judicial experience is the lack of a record on which to judge her judicial temperament and ideology.

"We know even less about Harriet Miers than we did about John Roberts and because this is the critical swing seat on the Court, Americans will need to know a lot more about Miers' judicial philosophy and legal background before any vote for confirmation." - Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.

Many Supreme Court justices had no prior experience: According to the White House, 10 of the 34 Justices appointed since 1933 came from within the president's administration, not from the judicial branch.
Among the other justices for whom the high court bench was their first judgeship were: Lewis Powell, Arthur Goldberg, Earl Warren, Tom Clark, Hugo Black, William Douglas, Felix Frankfurter and Louis Brandeis.

Conservative reaction is mixed:

Some conservatives are worried that Ms. Miers has not shown that she will support their views when on the bench.

Concerned Women for America released a statement saying it was taking a "wait and see" approach.
"We give Harriet Miers the benefit of the doubt because thus far, President Bush has selected nominees to the federal courts who are committed to the written Constitution," said Jan LaRue of CWA. "Whether we can support her will depend on what we learn from her record and the hearing process."

Family Research Council. President Tony Perkins: "President Bush has long made it clear that his choices for the U.S. Supreme Court would be in the mold of current justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. We have no reason to believe he has abandoned that standard. However, our lack of knowledge about Harriet Miers and the absence of a record on the bench give us insufficient information from which to assess whether or not she is indeed in that mold.

Public Advocate president, Eugene Delgaudio was clear in his opposition: "The president's nomination of Miers is a betrayal of the conservative, pro-family voters whose support put Bush in the White House in both the 2000 and 2004 elections and who were promised Supreme Court appointments in the mold of Thomas and Scalia. Instead we were given 'stealth nominees,' who have never ruled on controversial issues, more in the mold of the disastrous choice of David Souter by this president's father.

"When there are so many proven judges in the mix, it is unacceptable this president has appointed a political crony with no conservative credentials. This attempt at 'Bush Packing' the Supreme Court must not be allowed to pass the Senate, and we will forcefully oppose this nomination."

Operation Rescue also opposes Miers. "We must reject the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court of the United States," said the group’s president, Troy Newman.
"President Bush promised that he would appoint strong constitutional constructionist to the Supreme Court in the mold of Thomas and Scalia, but Miers is no Thomas or Scalia. We must be given a nominee that will restore the protections of personhood to the pre-born. If your head was about to be crushed, would you want to trust you life to someone who will not state their position on your murder?"
Other conservative groups favor Miers.

Fr. Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life and president of the National Pro-life Religious Council, thanked President Bush this morning for nominating a replacement for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in a timely manner, and called upon the Senate to do its work in an expeditious way as well.
"Our prayers are with Harriet Miers this morning as she begins this important process. We trust the President's judgment and his determination to fulfill his promises about the kind of Justices he wants to see on the Court.
"It is the judgment of certain liberal Senators, however, that gives us more concern. The demand that some make for preserving the current ideological balance on the Court, or for more "mainstream" nominees, is ridiculous. Do we have a more "mainstream" Constitution in some generations but not in others? Or do they think it is up to the Justices to re-write the Constitution? In short, there is no Constitutional requirement that Justice O'Connor's replacement should be a clone of Justice O'Connor.

"The place for arguments about ideology and mainstream positions is in political races. For the purposes of confirming nominees to the Court, the focus should be on qualifications to be a Justice, not on personal views on controversial issues." (We don’t know how Fr. Pavone would feel about nominees whose personal views supported the right to abortion.)

According to Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, a conservative law group:
"Once again, President Bush showed exceptional judgment in naming Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court to replace Justice O'Connor," said Sekulow in a statement. "At a time when the high court is facing some of the most critical issues of the day – including a number of cases dealing directly with abortion and life issues – the person who replaces Justice O'Connor is critical.

"Harriet Miers is an excellent choice with an extraordinary record of service in the legal community and is certain to approach her work on the high court with a firm commitment to follow the Constitution and the rule of law. I have been privileged to work with her in her capacity as White House counsel. She is bright, thoughtful, and a consummate professional, and I enthusiastically endorse her nomination."

Sekulow said his organization is ready to mount a campaign in support of Miers, similar to their support of John Roberts during his confirmation process as Chief Justice.

"We know the intentions of the liberal left – to do anything possible to derail this nominee," said Sekulow. "We are prepared to meet those challenges head on and ensure that this battle ends with the confirmation of Harriet Miers as an associate justice of the Supreme Court."

Sekulow may claim to know the intentions of liberals. However, their reaction is also mixed.

"I see no negatives at this stage in Harriet Miers. ... What her values are and where she will stand on this court remains to be seen." _ Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.,

"America can't afford a replay of the unrevealing confirmation process that preceded Chief Justice Roberts' confirmation. ... Without a meaningful exchange during the confirmation hearings, there is no way to know how Ms. Miers views the Constitution, whether she's a strict constructionist in the mold of Justices Scalia and Thomas, or whether she will protect fundamental rights." _ Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.

"With no past judicial experience for the senators to consider, the burden will be on Miers to be forthright with the Senate and the American people. She must outline her judicial philosophy and provide direct answers to questions about how and whether she will uphold fundamental rights, liberties and legal protections on which Americans rely. ... There must be no rush to judgment." _ Ralph G. Neas, president of People for the American Way.

At this point we know very little about Miers. Her nomination and confirmation debate will probably be more important than those for John Roberts, who replaced Chief Justice William Rehquinst. Rehquinst was clearly one of the most conservative members of the court; it is unlikely that his replacement by Roberts could move the court any more to the right. However, Miers is replacing the more moderate, and often swing vote, of Sandra Day O’Conner. If Miers turns out to be a Scalia-Thomas type conservative, her confirmation would swing the court to the right.

DeLay Indicted

The House Republican leader, Texas Representative Tom DeLay, was indicted today on Texas felony conspiracy charge for his alleged involvement in campaign finance irregularities.
A copy of the indictment, including a copy of a check allegedly involved in the crime, can be found on the Smoking Gun web site.

DeLay temporarily stepped down from his leadership position which will be filled by Roy Blunt from Missouri.

The Washington Post has an editorial and analysis of the effect of the DeLay indictment.

CBS News: Michael Brown Hired as FEMA Consultant

According to the CBS news web site, correspondent Gloria Borger reported this evening that Michael Brown, the former FEMA director, has been rehired by the agency as a consultant to evaluate it's response following Hurricane Katrina.

This has not, as of the time of this post, been reported independently elsewhere. We hope it is not true. Certainly not even the current administration would hire a disgraced FEMA director to evaluate his own performance. But strange things happen.

If CBS retracts the story, we will report it. If the story is confirmed, it will be reported here. Stay tuned.

Note: The story has been confirmed by multiple news services. - 9/27/05

Judge Roberts Should Be Confirmed, with Democratic Support

John Roberts appears to be very conservative, far to the right of the opinion of the majority of Americans and to the right of the majority of the already conservative court. He is not the person itismyopinion would select for Chief Justice of the United States, if we were given the choice.

However, we were not given the choice. The choice belongs to George Bush, who will appoint someone acceptable to his far right base. If the Senate does not confirm Roberts, Bush will simply appoint another conservative, and probably someone less desirable than Judge Roberts.

There are several important points to consider about Judge Roberts:

He will be replacing the late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist. Because Rehnquist was one of the three most conservative justices, his replacement by Roberts will not move the court to the right. Roberts may even be more moderate than Rehnquist.

Roberts is very qualified. He has experience, from being a clerk to Justice Rehnquist, and writing many briefs and arguing many cases before the Supreme Court, and serving as a judge on the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.

Roberts has told the Senate of his respect for precedent (stare decisis) and his belief that there is a constitutional right to privacy. This indicates that he might not vote to overturn Roe v. Wade and destroy constitutional protection to the right to abortion. We don’t know how he will vote, but we do know that Chief Justice Rehnquist would favor overturning Roe. Most likely any other nominee by President Bush would favor destroying the right to abortion.

Unlike Justices Scalia and Thomas, Roberts is not an “originalist” who believes that the constitution should be interpreted just as the framers would interpret it.

Another reason for Democrats to vote to confirm Roberts is political. There is no question that Roberts will be confirmed; the Republicans are in the majority in the Senate, and it does not appear that 40 Democratic Senators will join a filibuster. However, confirmation is not the only issue. Both the President and the nominee would much prefer a strong vote for confirmation than a close vote. If the Democrats vote against confirmation, why should Bush nominate someone of Roberts’ quality when he could just as well nominate a less qualified but more right wing justice who will receive the same close Senate vote but will excite the president’s far right wing base.

see Washington Post editorial

George Bush Addresses the Nation

So the president is going to spend billions rebuilding New Orleans. He didn’t say where the money is coming from. We still have a massive deficit, and are spending billions in Iraq. Does Bush just plan to borrow more money? He didn’t say anything about taxes. Will he continue to push for additional tax cuts or will he admit that we have to cancel some of the cuts to help pay for the rebuilding.

He made a pitch for home ownership, wanting more families to own rather than rent their houses. But to own your home you have to have a good job. However, Bush has suspended application of the Davis-Bacon Act, a federal law that would require government contractors to pay prevailing pay. The suspension will allow contractors to take advantage of the high unemployment and pay low wages, even for work on no-bid contracts. The contractors can save on wages and not pass the savings to the government.

Do we need federal fast emergency response?

Is FEMA a quick responder in case of major emergencies? Or is mission one of training, long range planning, and funding recovery efforts (leaving the initial response to state and local officials)?

Following the Katrina disaster, the resignation of FEMA director Mike Brown, and the accusations of ineptitude and perhaps dishonesty on the part of the Brown, Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff, there will surely be investigations of the bungling of the disaster.

In addition to fixing blame, there should be a discussion, and a decision on another more important issue: should there be a federal capability for fast response to a natural or manmade disaster.

Since 9/11, the consensus has been that there should be such capability. Ironically, the response to 9/11 may have played a role in the weakening of FEMA.

At one time, FEMA was not a fast responding agency. They would arrange, after the fact, to provide for temporary housing and relief funding for victims. After hurricane Andrew hit Florida, FEMA was criticized for its slow response. FEMA was placed under James L. Witt, who was given cabinet status in the Clinton administration. The new goals for FEMA included the ability to respond when needed.

Things changed under George W. Bush. Bush appointed his campaign manager Joe M. Allbaugh as director of FEMA. Allbaugh complained to a congressional committee that FEMA was an “oversized entitlement program” and planned to shift responsibility and funding onto state and local governments.

After 9/11 and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, FEMA lost its cabinet status and became a part of DHS.

Certainly many emergencies can be handled by local and state authorities. However a major disaster, affecting multiple states, can overwhelm local authorities.

Should there be a federal quick response to major emergencies, particularly ones that affect small states with more limited capability?

Cleanup Cash Goes to Familiar Faces

The Washington Post has a story about how tens of billions of dollars will be paid for Katrina related contracts. Many of these contracts are no-bid contracts given to contractors who have worked for the various federal agencies in the past.

This is certainly faster than requiring the usual bid process. However, we must be careful to see that the contract are awarded on the basis of proven success than on campaign contributions.

Bush Vacation to Set Record

According to a story in the Washington Post Wednesday by Jim VanderHei and Peter Baker, President Bush’s Crawford Texas vacation, started Tuesday, will be the longest stretch away from Washington by any president in the past 36 years. This vacation will last about five weeks.

Adding to the cost of transporting the First Family on Air Force One, Bush plans to make day trips to seven states during the vacation. Also, it is expected that cabinet officers and other officials will be traveling to Texas to meet with Bush or with White House staffers traveling with Bush.

According to the White House, this will allow Bush to reconnect with everyday America. Press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters that it was a time for the President to “meet with folks out in the heartland and hear what’s on their minds.”

We will have to wait and see how many “folks out in the heartland” will be able to let Bush know what’s on their minds. However, Bush has missed many chances to hear what’s on peoples minds when he traveled to promote social security changes and spoke only to a screened audience and only allowed invited guests to speak

Fourth Anniversary of “Bin Laden Determined To Strike” Presidential Brief

On August 6th, 2001, President Bush, while on vacation in Crawford, Texas, received the “Presidential Daily Brief” (PDB) that warned that Bin Laden was determined to strike the U. S., and brought up the possibility that hijacked planes would be used. Apparently the warnings were not taken seriously until slightly over a month later, September 11, 2001.

Just as four years ago Bush is again on vacation in Crawford Texas. We can only hope he is more serious about his briefings this year.

See Kicking Ass, the official Democratic Party blog for more.

Rep. Pete King (R-NY) "people like Tim Russert ...and all the media, they're the ones to be shot"

Saying that members of the media should be shot for their criticism of Karl Rove is not becoming of a member of congress. However, Rep. Pete King, a Republican from the 3rd district of New York spoke on MSNBC's Scarborough Country on July 12 about the Karl Rove controversy. After defending Rove and criticizing Joe Wilson, King said:

"And Joe Wilson has no right to complain. And I think people like Tim Russert and the others, who gave this guy such a free ride and all the media, they're the ones to be shot, not Karl Rove. Listen, maybe Karl Rove was not perfect. We live in an imperfect world. And I give him credit for having the guts. " (emphasis added)

View the video on www.crooksandliars.com. Read the transcript on MSNBC. Thanks also to via Eschaton for coverage.

Did Paul Harvey Cross the Line?

Paul Harvey, known for his biased and often incorrect "news" and commentary, made comments on June 23 that some feel support the idea of using nuclear weapons in the middle east and maybe even supported our killing (by spreading small pox) the Indians as well as slavery. Harvey seems to lament that we are now "made of sugar candy" because, although we quickly ended the war with Japan with nuclear weapons now "we sent men with rifles into Afghanistan and Iraq and kept our best weapons in their silos".

Read the transcript at www.chicagotribune.com
and send comments to Disney (distributer of his radio programming) at http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2569.

This is President Bush's Birthday. Send him a card.

Today is President Bush's 59th birthday. You may send him a birthday card online at the GOP web site, but that is tied to a donation. You may also send him a free birthday card at the The Democratic Party.

You may wish to let him know how much you look forward to his retirement.