posted on February 27, 2003 10:47:21 PM new
Not much, but I would think that a person of your self-proclaimed perfection would spell correctly, at the least.
posted on February 28, 2003 04:53:38 AM new
Reamond,
Enjoy your posts. I don't always agree but they are always informative.
If your wife and kids are posting too, You can be damn proud of them. At least none of you quote everything from left wing news articles, take things out of context and say it's logical.
I was going to say my library may be larger but someone said we couldn't count comic books. I take that to mean Motorcycle and Hot Rod mags too. So you probably win.
I don't know if your a White House official or not but I too have investigated a couple of the posters here. I know, that makes me a Bush N*zi.
Anyway I've found that one of the posters is none other then this man.
posted on February 28, 2003 06:52:46 AM newSo, Democrats take charge of a Republican Senate...lol
"Incredibly, the president is now blaming others for the budget he himself insisted on," said Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.).
"Democrats said they were introducing a bill to provide $5 billion more for emergency response preparedness -- the same package that Republicans, at White House insistence, refused to add to the omnibus spending bill enacted earlier this year. "No more blaming others, no more delay," Daschle said."
posted on March 1, 2003 07:30:41 AM new
And here's much of the problem. Beginning production on Star Wars weaponry before thorough preliminary testing. Just need to suspend the defense law to do that. Surely, if the public wants security they won't care how much is wasted.
Little spoiled rich boys playing with other people's money. But hey, if you own enough of the right stocks, you can play around all you want and get even richer. What a deal!
Under the Radar
President Bush's passion for a missile defense system is now a well-established, heavily budgeted priority despite the fact that the technology remains far from developed or proven. Claims thus far of missile test success have been marginal in highly controlled experiments. That would seem to argue for more testing before the new weapons are fielded at great cost. Not so at the Pentagon, which is pressing to suspend the defense law requiring thorough testing before the nation can commit to major new weaponry.
Mr. Bush plans to begin the installation of missile defense bases in California and Alaska next year. He would legalize this by means of a mere paragraph in an appendix to the $9.1 billion requested for the system in the coming year.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld blithely told Congress it was not a good idea to "have everything perfect, every `i' dotted, every `t' crossed" before fielding the system, however doubt-ridden it is. He indicated that experimentation once the missiles are in place would serve, particularly considering the threat of North Korea or some other nuclear rogue nation attacking this country.
The Korean threat is serious, especially now that Pyongyang seems intent on expanding its nuclear arsenal and assembling missiles capable of spanning the Pacific. But it makes no sense to build an antimissile system before the technology has been perfected. The latest finding of the Pentagon's own office of test evaluation is that the antimissile system has "yet to demonstrate significant operational capability." The shortcomings include such basics as the need for better radar to deal with decoy missiles and stronger rocketry to achieve the bullet-hitting-bullet precision of planners.
Alarmed critics like Senator Carl Levin view the abrogation of the testing law as a potentially devastating and costly precedent. It might lead not only to the expenditure of billions of dollars on bases that ultimately prove worthless but could also open the door to hasty action on other military projects.
posted on March 2, 2003 09:19:06 PM new
I suppose that this could also relate to the "Is he crazy?" question in another thread but since it's concern is also the economy, today's Washington Post editorial, pretty much answers, "Yes."
Yesterday, their editorial, though indirect, criticized and cautioned about his Middle East agenda. That was the first editorial that I've seen in the WP that has criticized him on Iraq or the Middle East, though the WP, being a reputable paper, has included a somewhat balanced commentary from columnists.
War Games
Monday, March 3, 2003; Page A18
AS A U.S. WAR with Iraq draws closer, the Bush administration's discussion of its economic plan is becoming increasingly unhinged from reality.
posted on March 3, 2003 06:10:13 AM new The situation is this: The administration, already facing a record budget deficit of $304 billion this fiscal year, wants Congress to enact a 10-year, $637 billion tax cut plan that by the administration's own estimates will dig the deficit even deeper. As Congress considers that course, the administration is refusing to put any price tag on the coming war with Iraq; any number would be wrong, it says, so why try?
And then Ari Fleischer's gobbledegook...
"There is, unquestionably, a responsibility on the executive branch to provide to the legislative branch an estimate about what the war would cost, what the humanitarian operation would cost. And that is a responsibility the administration takes seriously. Because we take it seriously, I'm not in a position to speculate about what the number may be."
Support for this war is decreasing every day. When an editorial such as this one is published in the Washington Post, it's a good indicator that the Bush strategy is being seriously questioned and support is eroding. Generally there is unity behind the president during war, but not this time.
posted on March 3, 2003 12:06:03 PM new
The only other time in his presidency that Congress began to ask Bush to account for his spending and to account for the missing national surplus, the 9-11 attack happened and then no one dared (for some odd reason) to ask him to be accountable. Why is asking the President to be accountable a Patriotic Offense?
