| 来源类型 | Article |
| 规范类型 | 评论 |
| A Conversation with President Bush | |
| Christopher DeMuth; George W. Bush | |
| 发表日期 | 2008-12-18 |
| 出版年 | 2008 |
| 语种 | 英语 |
| 摘要 | CHRISTOPHER DEMUTH: President Bush, welcome to the American Enterprise Institute and thank you for coming over this morning. Colleagues and guests, President Bush is embarked on a series of talks and appearances, reflecting on his momentous years in the White House as his second term draws to a close. We are honored that he would include AEI on his dance card. It will be many years before it is possible to take the full measure of the Presidency of George W. Bush. His contemporaries will not have the last word on the matter, but already we can see the outlines, and of course it is his own views that are of primary interest at this time. Our focus this morning will be on domestic policy and the institution of the Presidency. President Bush has achieved major reforms, especially in taxation and civil justice, which have made America freer and more prosperous. He has been a firm advocate of free trade at a time when this once-popular cause was coming under fire. His judicial appointments have been superlative. His most important disappointment, social security reform, was an example of bold leadership that his successors will wish had succeeded. We will begin with remarks from the President. Then we will have a conversation based on questions submitted by my AEI colleagues and our guests. Mr. President, what’s on your mind this morning? THE PRESIDENT: First, thanking you for being the leader that you’ve been, and thanking AEI for generating good thought. People in the public arena need to have support for philosophy–and that’s what you provide, so I appreciate all your hard work. I thought I’d share some thoughts about the presidency–you could call it “reflections by a guy who’s headed out of town.” (Laughter.) And then I’d be glad to answer questions–and foreign policy, if you want to. First, I have found that–and by the way, every President is going to conduct their own way of doing business there in the White House. Mine is just mine. I have found that in order to have good decision-making and a White House that functions well, that the President needs to articulate a set of principles from which he will not defer. In other words, a set of principles that are inviolate–such as the universality of freedom. That’s the heart of my foreign policy. A cornerstone of my foreign policy is my firm belief that freedom is universal. And freedom applies to Methodists and Muslims, men and women. I’ve just come from an Afghan Women’s Council that Laura was hosting. I believe that Afghan women have a right to be free, just like women in America have a right to be free. I believe in the collective wisdom of the American people. In other words, I believe we ought to trust individuals to be making decisions for their families. And it’s always a tension between government–who can spend the money better, government or the individual? And that’s been the basis of my tax-cut policy. The tax cuts, of course, have been, you know, obscured–the benefits of the tax cuts have been obscured by the recent economic crisis, no question about it. But when they finally take a look back at whether or not tax cuts were effective or not, it’s hard to argue against 52 uninterrupted months of job growth as a result of tax policy. And so my hope is, is that after this crisis passes–and it will–that people continue to write about and articulate a public policy of low taxes. My health care policy also was all aimed at empowering individuals to make decisions for themselves and an attempt to establish a marketplace for individual policy by changing the tax code or health savings accounts. I’ve been a firm believer in markets. That may sound contradictory to some of the policies that I have been making recently, which I’d be glad to discuss with you–(laughter.) But I strongly believe in the principle that markets really do represent a free society. I mean, after all, people produce goods and services based upon the demand of the individual. I can remember going to China when my dad was the envoy there and everybody had the same clothes on–it was like, there was no demand–and then having gone back at the Olympics and saw a society in which the marketplace is beginning to function. It’s just a vastly different society. And I happen to believe it’s a society that – society is based upon the marketplace will be not only more free, but more hopeful. I have found that a President should take on tough problems. The temptation in politics sometimes is just kick them down the road, like, it’s too hard to do, so let’s just let somebody else do it. One such problem was immigration reform. And in this case I chose to put the spotlight directly on the issue by giving an Oval Office address. Obviously, we weren’t successful about getting comprehensive immigration reform. Nevertheless, I feel good about having tried. Part of the presidency is the willingness to say, no matter how tough the issue may look, if it requires solution, go after it. And we did. And I do believe there will be a blueprint for a way forward. We must change the system. It’s not working. Obviously, there needs to be more border enforcement–and we’re doing that–but people need to be treated with dignity, and there needs to be a way forward for people who are lawful citizens. And there needs to be a temporary worker program, for example, so that our employers who are relying upon people who are doing jobs Americans weren’t doing aren’t criminalized. Anyway, the job of the President is to tackle these problems. And finally, the job of the President is looking over the horizon. And that’s–sometimes that gets you in conflict with the legislative branch. The legislative branch tends to have a shorter-term horizon than the executive branch. And so Chris mentioned Social Security, it’s an example of a President looking beyond the moment, and recognizing that this system is going to be bust unless we change it. And I worked to lay out solutions. Rather than just call attention to the issue, I actually used my State of the Union address a couple of times to talk about how we can look at changing the benefit structure, based upon wealth, as a way forward. And I also talked about something that was quite controversial, and that’s personal savings accounts. And of course anytime you go from a defined benefit plan to a defined contribution plan, and you’re the person who gets to define the benefits, you’re not likely to want to give up that ability. Nevertheless, there, too, is an issue where it didn’t succeed, but nevertheless, I used the presidency, the executive branch, the concept of the presidency, to lay out a way forward. And so I appreciate you giving me a chance to come by and just share thoughts. One final thought on the presidency is the presidency, the institution of the presidency, is more important than the individual. And that really makes our country great–Presidents will come and go with their strengths and weaknesses, but the ship of state sails on because of the institution being greater than the person. And so the job of the President is to not only make decisions–you campaign for office and you lay out what you’re going to do–but a lot of times decisions come that you didn’t expect. You got to be hoping for the best and planning for the worst in your presidency. But it’s also to bring stability to the institution itself. And so there are some reflections for you. I’d be glad to answer some of the questions. MR. DeMUTH: I have a batch here for you. And I’d like to start with a few questions about the institution of the presidency, and with a genuinely hard, difficult question involving the President as constitutional officer. When you were a candidate in 2000 you said that you thought that you would veto legislation that you thought was unconstitutional. In office you’ve done what all of your predecessors, recent predecessors have done, which is to sign legislation and leave the constitutional questions to the courts. It was pretty clear, at least to me, that you had real constitutional reservations about McCain-Feingold. But you signed it, your Justice Department argued for it, rather than against it, in the Supreme Court and won. And I’m wondering if, looking back, what you think of the old practice, which is for the President to stick to his own view on the Constitution, rather than leaving the Supreme Court as the sole decider. THE PRESIDENT: Well, there’s been a big debate about war powers inherent in the Constitution. And I made some decisions during this war based upon what I thought was my constitutional power. And so there’s an example of–as opposed to a piece of legislation, there’s an example of me not–you know, initially having the courts define what the power is. And that’s–this has been a long-time debate, constitutional debate, is what are the war powers of a President? And as you know, I have been aggressive at pursuing the enemy within the bounds of the Constitution. And some of the decisions I have made are being adjudicated in the court. And so I’ll dodge the one on legislation, but I won’t when it comes to taking a constitutional view of the office of the presidency. MR. DeMUTH: On legislation and dealings with the Congress, tell me, which is harder for a Republican President–a Democratic Congress or a Republican Congress? (Laughter.) THE PRESIDENT: Sometimes they’re both equally difficult. (Laughter.) A Republican Congress was easier in some ways because we were able to work with the leadership on the timing of votes, for example, or judicial nominees. In some ways it was more difficult because when you work with the Congress, there was a ability at times to forgo Republican principles, and it put the President in a awkward position. For example, budgeting. Without the line-item veto, the President is in an awkward position when it comes to budgeting. So we sit down the leadership and say, here’s the top line. We agreed to the top line. That’s what the budgets did in the top line–with the top line. And yet, the slices of the pie were, in the recent past, really earmarks. And so without the line-item veto, it made it very difficult for me to bring budgets discipline. They could have–people said, well, just veto the whole budget. And my answer to that is, we, in good faith, negotiated the size of the pie. And so some Republican principles were violated when it came to earmarks, for example. It’s easier to veto bills when you’re going against the–when the Democrats are in power, because, after all, it’s Republicans who crafted the bills coming in. And so both are difficult, and both are necessary, and both have been interesting. (Laughter.) MR. DeMUTH: Presidents have to make compromises to get legislation that they really want. You made several compromises in winning your first big legislative victory, the No Child Left Behind program. Were there compromises that you made in obtaining that legislation, in legislation or execution, that you regret as you look back on it? THE PRESIDENT: I’m pleased with the progress in No Child Left Behind. The philosophy of No Child Left Behind was that in return for money, you must measure. That, of course, created some issues. Some Republicans and conservatives said, what business is it of the federal government to insist upon accountability? After all, there shouldn’t be much of a role for the federal government. And people on the other side said, we don’t want to be measured. I believe it is a Republican and conservative principle that we ought to ask for results. And if you’re going to spend money, then it makes sense to say, are we achieving results? Secondly, as you know, I campaigned on compassionate conservatism. It’s conservative to ask for accountability; it is compassionate to insist that inner-city children be able to read at the 4th grade level. And yet, oftentimes the system was so process-oriented that the school districts would say, how old are you, and if you’re 10, you’re supposed to be here; and 11, here; 12, here–without wondering whether or not the child can read or write and add and subtract. So the basic principle inherent in No Child Left Behind, the philosophy of it remained very much intact in the bill–and it’s working. The Medicare bill–a quite controversial bill–was one where Republicans wrote the bill and there was some compromising inherent in the bill. Nevertheless, the two broad principles remained intact: one, if you’re going to make a promise, reform the program so it’s effective. So, like, for example, we paid thousands of dollars for surgery but not a dime for the prescription drugs that could prevent the surgery from being needed in the first place. And we put market-oriented principles in the bill. You probably remember the debate where the–you know, there was a big debate about how much would this cost. And the CBO came up with a number and I think it’s now 40 percent less than what was anticipated because of market principles. Nevertheless, the bill wasn’t as strong on market principles as I would have liked to have seen it. And so, yes, you’re obviously making compromises all the time with Congress. The key is to compromise without compromising principle. You can compromise points, but don’t sell out the principle that is inherent in the bill. MR. DeMUTH: You’ll be surprised that I have several questions about the auto bailout. (Laughter.) Let me put it in the context of this discussion. Isn’t the Detroit bailout an example of interest groups thinking they can get a better deal from the executive branch than from the Congress? THE PRESIDENT: That’s an interesting way of putting it. First, let me take a step back–I haven’t made up my mind yet, So you’re assuming something is going to happen. (Laughter.) This is a difficult time for a free market person. Under ordinary circumstances, failed entities–failing entities should be allowed to fail. I have concluded these are not ordinary circumstances, for a lot of reasons. Our financial system is interwoven domestically, internationally. And we got to the point where if a major institution were to fail, there is great likelihood that there would be a ripple effect throughout the world, and the average person would be really hurt. And what makes this issue difficult to explain is–to the average guy is, why should I be using my money because of excesses on Wall Street? And I understand that frustration. I completely understand why people are nervous about it. I was in the Roosevelt Room and Chairman Bernanke and Secretary Paulson, after a month of every weekend where they’re calling, saying, we got to do this for AIG, or this for Fannie and Freddie, came in and said, the financial markets are completely frozen and if we don’t do something about it, it is conceivable we will see a depression greater than the Great Depression. So I analyzed that and decided I didn’t want to be the President during a depression greater than the Great Depression, or the beginning of a depression greater than the Great Depression. So we moved, and moved hard. The autos obviously are very fragile and I’ve laid out a couple of principles. One, I am worried about a disorderly bankruptcy and what it would do to the psychology and the markets. They’re beginning to thaw, but there’s still a lot of uncertainty. I’m also worried about putting good money after bad–that means whether or not these autos will become viable in the future. And frankly, there’s one other consideration, and that is, I feel an obligation to my successor. I’ve thought about what it would be like for me to become President during this period. I have an–I believe that good policy is not to dump him a major catastrophe in his first day of office. So those are some of the considerations that we’re weighing. What was the question on autos? (Laughter.) MR. DeMUTH: The President-elect said– THE PRESIDENT: Oh, you said Congress and the executive branch. MR. DeMUTH: Yes, yes. THE PRESIDENT: Well, just remember a majority of Congress voted for a plan that we thought was a good plan. It didn’t get the requisite votes in the Senate in order to move it on, but there was a majority vote if you add up the House and the Senate. So the Congress, in one way, expressed its will for a way forward with some–with a plan, or a strategy for viability. MR. DeMUTH: But there must be some question in your mind whether the two political branches are better at bankruptcy restructuring than a bankruptcy court. I mean, we do have a law. THE PRESIDENT: Absolutely. MR. DeMUTH: Do you think when everybody stops– THE PRESIDENT: I think under normal circumstances, no question the bankruptcy court is the best way to sort through credit and debt and restructuring, no question. These aren’t normal circumstances, that’s the problem. This is a hard issue for political people, because people never know how bad it could have been. And so the decisions you make are easy for people to say, why did he do that? Why is he wasting our money on this? Or, why is he doing that? Because without a catastrophe, the reasoning doesn’t, it just doesn’t really make it down to the grassroots. People look at, “My money being used because Wall Street got excessive.” And I make the case that I didn’t want to do this. It’s the last thing I wanted to do. Nevertheless, I felt compelled to do it, because it would make life worse for you. We lost 533,000 jobs last month. What would another million jobs lost do to the economy? What would that do to the psychology in markets? What would that do–how would that affect the working people? And so as you can tell, we’re all in, in this administration. And if need be, we’ll be in for more. MR. DeMUTH: It may be bad form to recall campaign rhetoric during a transition, but I remember President-Elect Obama during the campaign blaming the crisis on Bush deregulation. Do you have any opinion on that assessment of the causes? THE PRESIDENT: I’m looking forward to the true history of this financial crisis being written. No question part of the crisis came about because of excesses in lending in the housing market. My administration early on expressed concern about implicit government guarantees and the mortgage industry in Fannie and Freddie, and that we were concerned about excesses in lending and concerned about Freddie and Fannie having too much capacity to lend because of this implicit guarantee. And so we called for a regulator. But this will all be sorted out when they finally analyze what went right or what went wrong. When you’re the President, you can think about what went right and what went wrong, you can analyze it–but when you’re getting phone calls from the Secretary of the Treasury saying, we got to do something on AIG, otherwise there could be an international collapse, that’s where your mind is. And that’s where my mind–it turns out this isn’t one of the presidencies where you ride off into the sunset, you know kind of–(laughter)–waving goodbye. MR. DeMUTH: Do you have–on Fannie and Freddie, do you have any advice for our new President, such as that they be abolished? (Laughter.) THE PRESIDENT: No, my advice for all elected officials after this crisis passes is to remember that markets and free enterprise is what made the country great, and that these measures were temporary measures. They’re not an excuse for the government to be running automobile companies, if that’s the decision I make, or for the government to be always involved in mortgages; that there is a proper role for government, which is oversight; and that the role of government really is to create an environment in which risk-takers feel comfortable taking risk, and where capital moves as freely as possible. That’s why I am a big believer in free trade, for example. Trade opens markets; trade gives–and fair trade, I might add–and trade gives people an opportunity to risk and have their products sold in environments other than the domestic environment. The danger is, of course, that people who believe the government can manage the economy better than the private sector will use this decision as an excuse to keep government involved. And that’s why AEI is going to be important long after my presidency, to be talking about the merits of markets and the merits of free enterprise. I hosted this international conference, and what was interesting out of the international conference was that people said we should defend the marketplace and defend trade. One of the great fears I have is–a couple of things–one, that the United States could become isolationist. We have done so in the past and it’s kind of a–could be a fatigue about helping liberate people, or helping people advance, or helping people on HIV/AIDS on the continent of Africa–you know, “we’re tired of doing this; can’t other people do it?” That could lead to isolationism. I’m very worried about that. The world needs America’s involvement. We’re a compassionate, decent, strong nation. And I’m worried about protectionism. Protectionism tends to be the twin of isolationism. And I’m worried about protectionism because if you study the economic past, protectionism is what caused the Great Depression to be a greater depression–Smoot-Hawley tariff. If you’re interested in development and helping poor nations become less poor, then you ought to be an advocate for trade. It’s one thing to give out grants, but the amount of wealth generated by trade overwhelms the amount of money that the world gives out in grants. And so–anyway. Keep going. MR. DeMUTH: Keep going. I have a question or two about inside the executive branch. THE PRESIDENT: Okay. MR. DeMUTH: Presidents also have to contend with the fourth branch of government–that is the bureaucracy, the permanent government. THE PRESIDENT: Oh, I thought you were going to say the press. (Laughter.) Symbiotic relationship with the press, I want you to know. MR. DeMUTH: That’s right, it’s the bureaucracy and the press. The bureaucracy can outmaneuver the White House. And domestic and foreign policy agencies have, you may have noticed, opposed your policies and undermined them on occasion. And I wonder if you have any advice for future Presidents about how to contend with that very difficult problem. THE PRESIDENT: Make sure information gets into the Oval Office on a timely basis so that when you find bureaucracies delaying policy, then you do something about it. It’s not inevitable that–the best bureaucratic move, if people disagree with policy, is just to delay and hope the President isn’t paying attention. And so therefore the structure of the office is going to be important and I’ve tried to keep a relatively flat organizational chart so that key players can come into the office on a regular basis. I did so for two reasons–I like to hear different points of view and I want people to feel comfortable coming and saying, here’s what I think or here’s this delay taking place. Do you understand that you said this and then nothing has happened, Mr. President? And the other thing is, is that a lot of the job is to build a sense of teamwork, a sense of team. Listen, these people in the White House work incredibly long hours. And if they don’t see the President, it creates anxieties. And so people walk in and they tell me what’s on their mind, they go home and say, you know, I told him–you know, I saw the President. (Laughter.) They didn’t say whether I listened or not. (Laughter.) And so one way to deal with the bureaucracy is to be well informed. And the best way to be well informed is to make sure you have an organization that enables information to get in the Oval Office in a timely fashion. And therefore, you’re going to need to have a Chief of Staff–at least this is the way I thought it should be done; I’m not telling anybody else how to do it; you scholars can figure out whether it’s right or wrong, how it’s worked relative to other Presidents. But my Chiefs of Staff, Andy Card and Josh Bolten, are–have been–are unusual people because they have not said, everybody must go to me before you go see the President. In other words, they’re not junior prime ministers. They are facilitators who understand that this system suits me best, and therefore aren’t jealous about the time that I allocate to somebody who they haven’t necessarily blessed in the White House, in the Oval Office. And so it’s worked pretty good. MR. DeMUTH: That’s fascinating. Let me pursue one point that you made. Ronald Reagan was once asked if it was true that his Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense were arguing openly in front of him. And he said, “All the time.” Have you encouraged people to argue to move the hard questions in the Oval Office? THE PRESIDENT: Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. Creating tension is good for decision making, so long as it doesn’t become destructive. And I see Leon there, we’ve had some serious debates inside the White House on stem cell. And they were open. And they were–all opinions were welcomed. And there was a variety of opinions. Sometimes issues are easy to resolve, where the national security advisor and the domestic policy advisor could come in and say, we discussed the issue internally Mr. President, and we all agree. But in matters of war, for example, there’s difference of opinions. The surge, for example. There was a lot of different opinions on the surge. And that’s the way it should be. People say, well, do you ever hear any other voices other than, like, a few people? Of course I do. And I have enjoyed listening to the debates among people I work with. And I also like the idea of people being able to walk into the Oval Office and said, have you thought of this? Or, the debate is headed this way, I’d like you to consider this. And sometimes that can be disruptive obviously, but the President has got to have a–be grounded enough and have enough judgment to know how to manage the advisors. MR. DeMUTH: You mentioned stem cell research. THE PRESIDENT: Yes. MR. DeMUTH: Some people forget that before 9/11, that was one of the big issues of your first months in office. THE PRESIDENT: It was. MR. DeMUTH: It was the subject of your first national address on television. THE PRESIDENT: It was. MR. DeMUTH: And I wonder if looking back, you think–what you think you’re most important legacy is in the area of bioethics? And what you think your most important accomplishments were? If there was more that could have been done? THE PRESIDENT: Well, I told the American people I believe in a culture of life. I believe a healthy society is one that protects the most vulnerable among us. And clearly, the most vulnerable among us are those who aren’t born yet. Obviously, abortion is a very controversial subject, and it’s one that creates a lot of emotions. I try to diffuse the emotions by saying, look, good people disagree on the issue, I understand that. But throughout my presidency, I have tried to help advance the culture of life. And one of the really classic tensions between the culture of life is that with science. And it’s–Leon Kass instructed me throughout this process that tensions existed for a long time, and will continue to exist. And the fundamental question with stem cells is, do you destroy life to save life? And it’s a difficult issue for a lot of people. I came down on the side that there are other opportunities available to save lives other than the destruction of life. And secondly, I was concerned about using taxpayers’ money that would end up destroying life. There’s a lot of people in our country that don’t want their money spent for that purpose. I developed a policy which I thought sounded rational. And that is there have been some stem cells lines already developed, embryonic stem cell lines developed prior to this decision, therefore we should go forward with research on them–but from that point forward, no destruction of life with federal money. Since then, adult skin cells have been used to develop the equivalent of embryonic stem cells. And so science has advanced, and at the same time, we were able to stake a claim for the culture of life. It was a very emotional issue. And that’s what happens when you confront controversial topics. And I believe the President should have a core set of beliefs and stand on those beliefs. MR. DeMUTH: Thank you. The U.S. is one of the–it’s the only advanced society that doesn’t have comprehensive price controls on pharmaceutical drugs. We have the highest-priced drugs, and we have the highest rate of innovation in life-saving new drugs. We’re moving, clearly, toward increased price controls at the administrative level and in Congress. Pharmaceutical companies are cutting back on their R&D investments. Do you think this trend is inevitable? Do you think that your Medicare Part D reforms will make that problem worse, or by introducing market mechanisms, help be the solution? THE PRESIDENT: The whole medical debate is headed toward whether or not the government ought to be setting the price of medicine. I believe that we ought to resist that and cause markets to flourish. And we don’t have a real functioning market in health care right now. I’m going to get to the drugs in a minute but–generically, to use a drug term–(laughter)–that the problem is, is that you’ve got many people’s policies being paid by somebody else and there’s–so therefore there’s no market. People don’t say, well, how much is this costing or what’s the quality of health care with this person or this hospital? So the consumer–there’s no consumerism. There’s no demand for better price. And so part of the policies I described early were to, like, do health savings accounts or changing the tax codes, all aiming at putting the patient in the midst of the market, getting that person to demand better quality at better price. In terms of drugs, I am concerned about government pricing drugs to the point where drug manufacturers don’t have enough capital to keep reinvesting in new discoveries. One of the great things about our medicine is we’re the best in the world. And all policy ought to be aimed at keeping us the best in the world. There are policies in place that allow manufacturers to amortize the cost of their R&D and then generics become available. And it seems like to me that we can do a better job of making people aware of generic drugs. And part of Medicare Part D does just that. It shows seniors what options are available, and they get to choose a variety of plans. I’m aware of the debates on Medicare–people said, well, kind of inherent in the debate was this sense that, well, maybe seniors don’t know how to choose things. You know, they’re used to the government plan and, therefore, isn’t it too much of an imposition to provide people with all different options? And when we were selling the Medicare reform, I can remember going to senior centers and there would be seniors looking at 10 different plans to choose from. And people were competing for their business. And these plans would go out and find generics, to make them available. And so I–the marketplace is a much better allocator of resources than the government trying to allocate resources. And secondly, the American people need to know, if somebody needs financial help, if somebody is poor and destitute, they’ll get help in our system. And there’s a lot of help for people who are destitute. MR. DeMUTH: A related question is the ownership society, a major theme of yours. Will it survive the financial crisis? Will we recover our bearings? Are the initiatives you put forward in the name of greater ownership going to–are they going to come back after– THE PRESIDENT: Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. I mean, you know, the danger, of course, is that government stays so involved that markets don’t really develop. Just some thoughts on this: I am–the markets sometimes create excesses. We’re living through the consequences of the excess. I quipped in Texas that Wall Street got drunk and we got a hangover. And that’s what happened. There wasn’t much transparency. There was so much liquidity that people felt like they needed to invent product to get in front of the money train. And the danger, of course, will be that we–instead of having rational regulation that’s balanced, we’ll over-regulate. And if we do, then it’s going to make it harder for the ownership society because it’s going to make it harder for free enterprise to flourish. But the idea of owning small bu |
| 主题 | Society and Culture ; Free Enterprise |
| 标签 | Christopher DeMuth ; Congressional testimony ; George W. Bush ; speech ; US Constitution |
| URL | https://www.aei.org/articles/a-conversation-with-president-bush/ |
| 来源智库 | American Enterprise Institute (United States) |
| 资源类型 | 智库出版物 |
| 条目标识符 | http://119.78.100.153/handle/2XGU8XDN/246688 |
| 推荐引用方式 GB/T 7714 | Christopher DeMuth,George W. Bush. A Conversation with President Bush. 2008. |
| 条目包含的文件 | 条目无相关文件。 | |||||
除非特别说明，本系统中所有内容都受版权保护，并保留所有权利。
