Awol Bush

[strandinthewind]

W is releasing is payroll stubs, etc. Here is an article on this.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/10/elec04.prez.bush.military/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Hoping to quell election-year questions from Democrats about President Bush's Air National Guard service in the 1970s, the White House said it will release payroll records Tuesday that will show he fulfilled his obligations.
_________________________________________________

This is good for W, but why can't the NG find the records at the time?

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
W is releasing is payroll stubs, etc. Here is an article on this.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/10/elec04.prez.bush.military/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Hoping to quell election-year questions from Democrats about President Bush's Air National Guard service in the 1970s, the White House said it will release payroll records Tuesday that will show he fulfilled his obligations.
_________________________________________________

This is good for W, but why can't the NG find the records at the time?

Quite the turnaround from yesterday when the White House said they didn't exist. Where's his WD form is what I want to know? Every person gets one with their discharge and it lists *everything* that they ever did while servicing.

His answers about his being AWOL on MTP were ridiculous. he flip-flopped constantly.

[strandinthewind]

According to this article, the records center in Colorado found his payroll records after the MTP interview. Interestingly, I tend to believe them because if they had been available I think someone would have found them by now. I mean this was an issue in the 2000 election. Also, I think this psrt of this issue is dead as the NG would never have given him an honorable discharge if he had not ever shown up for duty. But, we shall see as this unfolds, which it is apprently currently doing in W's favor is these payroll stub say what he says they say.

Having said that, it still does not obviate my disgust at his making an arrangement with the NG for getting released eight months early so he could go to business school. As Max Cleland said last night, "don't you think everybody in combat and being killed or wounded in Nam would have like to make an arrangement with the govt. to come home eight months early?" :mad:

Also, I did not get a flip flop on his AWOL anwers. He said, the records have been sought since 1994 and cannot be found. But, he was there and would not have been honorably discharged if he had not :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,110956,00.html

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Also, I did not get a flip flop on his AWOL anwers. He said, the records have been sought since 1994 and cannot be found. But, he was there and would not have been honorably discharged if he had not :shrug:

He said "all the records" were in Colorado, then he turned around and said there might be no proof or records, but he did show up. :rolleyes:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
He said "all the records" were in Colorado, then he turned around and said there might be no proof or records, but he did show up. :rolleyes:

I think what he was talking about was that the central location of the records is in Colorado and any records would be there. He then said that all of the records that could be found had been found. Then today, that records location found more records that appear to support W's story that he was there. So, as of now, this part of this issue appears to be dead on the water. I mean if these records and the other available records support W's story, what is the chance the missing ones do not support his story? If the D's were smart, they would concentrate on W's eight month early discharge if at all on this issue IMO.

[DeeGeMe]

The report on the Washington Post website said that the proof they were supplied with had the name torn off the top and the social security number blacked out. By the White House Press Secretary's own admission, there are gaps in his service record. Why the gaps were there-the White House spokesperson wouldn't say. And why is it so strange that he could get an honorable discharge? Wasn't his dad head of the CIA during this time period? At the very least, he was the grandson of a former Senator, and the son of a very powerful & influential Republican during a Republican administration. Don't tell me that those kind of connections don't allow you to pull a few strings and skip a few days, weeks, and months of Air National Guard training.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by DeeGeMe
The report on the Washington Post website said that the proof they were supplied with had the name torn off the top and the social security number blacked out. By the White House Press Secretary's own admission, there are gaps in his service record. Why the gaps were there-the White House spokesperson wouldn't say. And why is it so strange that he could get an honorable discharge? Wasn't his dad head of the CIA during this time period? At the very least, he was the grandson of a former Senator, and the son of a very powerful & influential Republican during a Republican administration. Don't tell me that those kind of connections don't allow you to pull a few strings and skip a few days, weeks, and months of Air National Guard training.

So he pulled strings. If that is the case only fiercely loyal people pulled the strings? I mean certainly someone somewhere would take the money I am sure is out there to spill the beans (think National Enquirer). So, no, I do not think it is possible for a high profile senator's son to completely ignore his entire tour of duty during a controversial time and then get an honorable discharge, esp. when the pay stubs and other evidence in these articles clearly indicate W did not. So, I conclude that although the issue is not beaten to death yet, it is looking more and more like this dog won't hunt :cool: Moreover, if W proves he was there, we should be happy he completed his tour of duty shouldn't we? Or is that too big and bitter a pill to swallow? :laugh:

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Moreover, if W proves he was there, we should be happy he completed his tour of duty shouldn't we? Or is that too big and bitter a pill to swallow? :laugh:

He hasn't proved it yet; he's only succeeded to shoot himself in the foot.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
He hasn't proved it yet; he's only succeeded to shoot himself in the foot.

By providing more evidence that he was actually there :shrug:

[DeeGeMe]

[i]: Moreover, if W proves he was there, we should be happy he completed his tour of duty shouldn't we? Or is that too big and bitter a pill to swallow? :laugh: [/B]

You're joking about the National Enquirer right? You do know it's owned by a right-wing leaning publishing group? Have you never put together why there are so many negative Clinton stories in the tabloids? Trust me, they aren't going to be the one's to find the smoking gun on this story--but from the behavior of the press corps today during the White House Press Briefing, I'd say that there's blood in the water and the sharks are circling. I think they're motivated enough now to start asking the hard questions and demanding concrete evidence-something this administration has no record of every providing and isn't used to being asked to produce from our press. About damn time!

[strandinthewind]

Yes - I was joking about the NE. But, certainly even they would publish this breaking story. I mean they are in business to make money :laugh:

But still, certainly people who hate Bush (Larry Flynt, the moveon.org guy, and every newsperson looking to make a name, would kill to have this information and people often do sell information. Interstingly, people often refuse to sell it and go to jail concealing it a la that McDougal lady in the Clinton Whitewater scandal.

In any event, yes, the WH is srambling, so far successfully. But, if there is a smoking gun out there to be had, it will be found. The press has too much at interestest to just let it slip by.

Note: I am not defending W and saying he was a model person in the NG, I am just saying the evidence is stacking up on his side at the moment and without concrete evidence to refute this, W will win this argument/issue.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
By providing more evidence that he was actually there :shrug:

Based on the stuff he's provided so far, nothing backs up his cliam that he was there. The payroll papers that were released had no mention of George Walker Bush. ;)

[strandinthewind]

On the contrary go to http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/021004_bushmil.pdf and look at the pdf of the actual records. They say Lt. George Bush :shrug:

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
On the contrary go to http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/021004_bushmil.pdf and look at the pdf of the actual records. They say Lt. George Bush :shrug:

Touche!

I read an article that said, like DeeGe said, they were all blacked out.

Still, he's going to have to do more to prove he was there; a pay stub ain't swaying this mind. I want records, WD forms, and an answer as to why he didn't get his mandated physical (probably due to his abuse of alcohol and cocaine).

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
Touche!

I read an article that said, like DeeGe said, they were all blacked out.

Still, he's going to have to do more to prove he was there; a pay stub ain't swaying this mind. I want records, WD forms, and an answer as to why he didn't get his mandated physical (probably due to his abuse of alcohol and cocaine).

I agree more should be provided and even if he was not AWOL in AL, which all available evidence now indicates he was not, I want to know how he got out like 8 months early to go to school. Again, I am sure the people in Nam would have liked to have left eight months early to go to school. I do not know whether the NG had some sort fo program that allowed this early departure. Apparently, they must have or I think that would be the big issue being hit.

Finally, I do not think W was an alcoholic or drug addict in 1972 and 1973. He indicated he problems with coke later than that if memory servesd me correctly, which it may not in this case :cool:

[strandinthewind]

Oops!! :laugh:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/10/18/cocaine/

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
W is releasing is payroll stubs, etc. Here is an article on this.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/10/elec04.prez.bush.military/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Hoping to quell election-year questions from Democrats about President Bush's Air National Guard service in the 1970s, the White House said it will release payroll records Tuesday that will show he fulfilled his obligations.
_________________________________________________

This is good for W, but why can't the NG find the records at the time?

The records are from Texas, not Alabama, which is the time in question. He seems to have virtually vanished form the face of the earth for that time.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
The records are from Texas, not Alabama, which is the time in question. He seems to have virtually vanished form the face of the earth for that time.

I am unclear regarding the time period at issue. W was in AL in 1972 and 1973 correct? If so, I think the records in that pdf file indicate he was paid for working during that time period. I could be wrong, however.

[strandinthewind]

From
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,110956,00.html

"The documents indicate that Bush received credit for nine days of active duty between May 1972 and May 1973, the period that has been cited by Democrats as evidence that Bush shirked his military responsibilities."

Then:

A memo written by retired Lt. Col. Albert Lloyd Jr., at the request of the White House, said a review of Bush's records showed that he had "satisfactory years" for the period of 1972-73 and 1973-74, "which proves that he completed his military obligation in a satisfactory manner."

Lloyd was personnel director for the Texas Air National Guard (search) from 1969 to 1995 and also had reviewed Bush's military records at the request of his campaign four years ago.

Asked why the White House had not publicly brought forward any comrades who had served during the period with Bush, McClellan said, "Obviously we would have made people available," then pointed to Lloyd's statement.
________________________________

I agree something fishey appears to have transpired, but without evidence to refute this evidence I think few will give the fishiness any merit.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
By providing more evidence that he was actually there :shrug:

Actually today's little misinformation conference only provided his pay records from Texas not Alabama. McLellan had no answer for the time question for Alabama.
Here is some interesting info on the torn document.

Check this out:

http://www.calpundit.com/archives/003220.html

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind

Finally, I do not think W was an alcoholic or drug addict in 1972 and 1973. He indicated he problems with coke later than that if memory servesd me correctly, which it may not in this case :cool:

Then that statement he made about doing no drugs since '74 is a lie.

[gldstwmn]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by strandinthewind
[B
"The documents indicate that Bush received credit for nine days of active duty between May 1972 and May 1973, the period that has been cited by Democrats as evidence that Bush shirked his military responsibilities."

QUOTE]

Nine days? One weekend of Guard service = 4 days. They pretty much confirmed today that he was AWOL. I haven't watched the news yet but obviously it's not being spun that way.

[dissention]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Nine days? One weekend of Guard service = 4 days. They pretty much confirmed today that he was AWOL. I haven't watched the news yet but obviously it's not being spun that way.

I know, I found that number rather amusing. Nine days in an entire period of a year? It ain't passing the smell test.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Oops!! :laugh:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/10/18/cocaine/

Thanks much for that article; it raises a lot of red flags.

First, it confirms that Bush was arrested not once, but twice for drunk driving; once in '72 and once in '78.

Second, it all but confirms that Bush used cocaine (and y'all said I was a lunatic! Eat your words!).

Third, the Bush admin knew it would come up eventually, as evidenced in the exchange with McClellan.

Weird, to say the least.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
From
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,110956,00.html


Asked why the White House had not publicly brought forward any comrades who had served during the period with Bush, McClellan said, "Obviously we would have made people available," then pointed to Lloyd's statement.
________________________________


If anybody had come forward to say that they served with Bush in 'Bama, then that's all we'd be hearing about. Kerry's guys are out with him everywhere. You don't think * would do the same thing if he could?

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by dissention
Thanks much for that article; it raises a lot of red flags.

First, it confirms that Bush was arrested not once, but twice for drunk driving; once in '72 and once in '78.



Of course he was. That's why he got a new drivers license. There are no driving records for * in the state of Texas prior to his presidential run. They were deleted.
He had the look of a man that spent way too many years partying on MTP. He looked like hell. I'm highly suspicious of his sobriety now.

[dissention]

The Shrub camp is opening the can of worms by starting this. They're in for a trip through hell.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by dissention
The Shrub camp is opening the can of worms by starting this. They're in for a trip through hell.

I agree. They're desperate. It's a good sign.

[strandinthewind]

Once again, I say something smells very very fishy, esp. since W's govt. records (driving, military service, etc.) keep disappearing. Hopefully, his military records (all of them) will come to light. Until then, I reserve judgement on the AWOL issue. Having said that, even if he was not AWOL, how did he convince the military to let him out eight months early? I still say that unless the NG has a system for this, therein is the big issue.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Having said that, even if he was not AWOL, how did he convince the military to let him out eight months early? I still say that unless the NG has a system for this, therein is the big issue.

If your father is a congressman, director of the CIA and Chairman of the RNC, then I'm thinking some strings can be pulled.:laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
If your father is a congressman, director of the CIA and Chairman of the RNC, then I'm thinking some strings can be pulled.:laugh:

I agree - but surely there would be some direct evidence of the string pulling :shrug: There always is.

[Rob67]

This whole thread has given me a good chuckle...:laugh:

Thanks guys!

Rob:cool:

[DeeGeMe]

But the same records also show that Bush may not have met the minimum-service requirement expected of most Guard members, according to National Guard officials. And after releasing the records, the White House press secretary, Scott McClellan, could not explain why, if Bush appeared for duty on the days listed in the documents, Bush's superiors wrote on May 2, 1973, that he had not been seen at his Houston air base for the previous 12 months. Boston Globe-Feb. 11th, 2004

You can read the entire article here:

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/bush/articles/2004/02/11/white_house_releases_bushs_guard_records/[/url]

The plot does continue to thicken. . . .

[strandinthewind]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4230576/

Here is a great article from MSNBC. It contains a timeline of W's service in the NG.

[strandinthewind]

Interestingly, that Boston article contains quotes that indicate although the people thought W could have and should have done more time, they substantiate W's claim that he had enough time to fulfill what was required :shrug:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by Rob67
This whole thread has given me a good chuckle...:laugh:

Thanks guys!

Rob:cool:

It should. Your guy's a joke.:)

[dissention]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
It should. Your guy's a joke.:)

:laugh: And a ****ty one at that.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Interestingly, that Boston article contains quotes that indicate although the people thought W could have and should have done more time, they substantiate W's claim that he had enough time to fulfill what was required :shrug:


http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.dobbs.tonight/

Do you believe President Bush has adequately answered questions about his service in the National Guard ?

Yes 6% 578 votes

No 94% 8836 votes

[dissention]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.dobbs.tonight/

Do you believe President Bush has adequately answered questions about his service in the National Guard ?

Yes 6% 578 votes

No 94% 8836 votes

Putting on my best Strandie hat:

"I cry foul. It was mostly liberal Democrats who voted in that poll. While I contend that he has many questions to answer about his service, I will not say he was AWOL. I'm too much of an optimistic believer. He used crack cocaine and drove drunk, but that's moot point. I'll be right back, I have to go register Republican."

:laugh: Just joking, doll. :laugh: :wavey:

[gldstwmn]

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_money_021104,00.html

U.S. Military May Run Out Of Money
United Press International
February 11, 2004


WASHINGTON - The military will have no money to pay for the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for three months beginning Oct. 1 because the White House is declining to ask Congress for funding until December or January, well after the presidential election.

Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker told the Senate Armed Services Committee the $38 billion he has for 2004 war operations will last only until the end of September, as he spends $3.7 billion a month in Iraq and about $900 million a month in Afghanistan. The Army has about 114,000 soldiers in Iraq and roughly 10,000 in Afghanistan.



Way to support the military Georgie.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
Putting on my best Strandie hat:

"I cry foul. It was mostly liberal Democrats who voted in that poll. While I contend that he has many questions to answer about his service, I will not say he was AWOL. I'm too much of an optimistic believer. He used crack cocaine and drove drunk, but that's moot point. I'll be right back, I have to go register Republican."

:laugh: Just joking, doll. :laugh: :wavey: :laugh: :laugh: You know I wear only fashinable hats :laugh:

Seriously, I am not saying W has answered adequately. I am just saying that this new evidence (the payroll stubs) does support that W was paid for performing this duty in the NG. Granted, the NG could have paid him erroneously - in other words, they could have thought he showed up but in reality he did not. But, that is a stretch in that it happened nultiple times and the NG agrees in other records that W fulfilled the required time. Again, the documents we have belie the proposition that W was AWOL. The only real evidence we have that W was AWOL in AL is that no one remembers him being there (at least in AL) and that report that indicated W was not there, which is suspect because apparently the times are different. Also, even some of the people that say they never saw him admit they were not there all of the time, etc.

So, I conclude that although the whole thing is fishy, the facts indicate this is far from a cut and dry case of "he's a deserter" :shrug:

[dissention]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_money_021104,00.html

U.S. Military May Run Out Of Money
United Press International
February 11, 2004


WASHINGTON - The military will have no money to pay for the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for three months beginning Oct. 1 because the White House is declining to ask Congress for funding until December or January, well after the presidential election.

Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker told the Senate Armed Services Committee the $38 billion he has for 2004 war operations will last only until the end of September, as he spends $3.7 billion a month in Iraq and about $900 million a month in Afghanistan. The Army has about 114,000 soldiers in Iraq and roughly 10,000 in Afghanistan.



Way to support the military Georgie.

We need to get him the f*ck out of the White House. Now.

[DeeGeMe]

Originally posted by dissention
We need to get him the f*ck out of the White House. Now.

From your mouth to God's ears. . . .

[dissention]

Originally posted by DeeGeMe
From your mouth to God's ears. . . .

Haven't you heard?

I. Am. God.

:laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
Haven't you heard?

I. Am. God.

:laugh:

Oh Lord - I am in some trouble :cool: :laugh:

[jwd]

This whole thread has given me a good chuckle...

Thanks guys!

Rob


Rob, it's all they have(if that). The economy is looking better and better every day. The stock market is soaring, interest rates remain at an all time low, more and more jobs are being created every month. It's becoming more and more obvious that getting rid of Saddam was a good thing(with or without WMD). He really was a threat to the U.S. and the rest of the world. Kay said he was even MORE of a threat than we originally thought. Every time I read threads like this it's like reading the adult version of Chicken Little....the sky is falling, the sky is falling. You liberals need to be a little more optimistic, you wouldn't feel so bad all the time. :D


Joe :wavey:

[Johnny Stew]

I'm actually very optimistic!
Optimistic that things will turn around for the better once we get Bush out of office! ;)

I guess the improving economy and new job openings are in other areas, because it's certainly not happening around here.
My aunt works for a geriatric center, and they literally just laid off half of the people in her department alone, and there's talk of additional lay offs within her department.

And it's not just there, but everywhere around here (and, I can only assume, other areas in other states too). And if people don't have employment, then they're not going to be buying cars, or houses, or anything else that will help the economy.

So, things aren't that rosy.

[strandinthewind]

All signs indeed point to a rapidly recovering economy from a monetary point of view. The problem is pretty much always the creation of jobs is slower than the actual monetary recovery (corporate profit, manufacturing output, etc. = higher stock prices (which are based on future earnings)). All valid and credible economic theories indicate the jobs will come if recovery is sustained which all indicators suggest it will be barring another terrorist attack or something like that. But, people seemingly expect the job ratio/growth overnight to be where it was when Clinton left office as the recession began. It took eight or so years to get to that point with jobs and that point started from a better starting point, etc., than the current recovery.

My problem is that everyone agrees that jobs are the ticket to a successful economic turn around. Yet, W's official economic policy (the one that he signed) says (and I am not joking here) that the outsourcing of jobs (and we are talking about hundreds of thousands of them) to other countries that have cheaper labor is a GOOD thing for the American economy. While I get that cheaper labor is great for the corporate bottom line and, therefore, the people that make millions running the companies, I do not get how the President of the United States can say on the one hand that he wants every person in Amercia employed and then out of the other side of his mouth and in a IMO brazon attempt to line the pockets of the corporate fat cats that cheap non-American labor is a good thing in any scenario. I get that American labor can be twice as much as foreign labor. But come on, that American labor is the backbone of this nation by anyone's definition of that phrase. Moreover, a lot of these foreign countries have what we in the U.S. would consider inhumane working conditions (sweatshops) that would be illegal in the U.S.

Thus, IMO W again had such a great chance to hit one out of the ball park with the economic recovery, but once again he takes the low road IMO. I think this will greatly hurt him because there are millions of "blue collar" and other honest hard working Americans in fear losing their jobs to overseas competition and W supports that and is not fighting for them :shrug: :mad:

[jwd]

Here's a link to what Greenspan thinks about jobs. I thought it was interesting.


http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/26/news/economy/greenspan_jobs/






Joe

[strandinthewind]

An Absence in Alabama

As Bush's military service re-emerges as an issue, here is what we know—and don't know

By MARK THOMPSON and JAMES CARNEY

Posted Sunday, February 8, 2004

When George W. Bush was running for President four years ago, stories raising questions about his Vietnam-era service in the Texas Air National Guard never got much traction. In the Republican primaries, John McCain forbid his staff to exploit the fact that while their guy was being beaten senseless in the Hanoi Hilton, Bush was safe at home, protecting Houston from foreign attack. Al Gore steered clear too. It was not until a week before Election Day in November 2000 that Gore surrogates accused Bush of having gone AWOL—absent without leave—for an entire year while in the Guard. But few journalists, and fewer voters, paid much attention.

Now, thanks to the convergence of a prolonged war in Iraq, a presumptive Democratic nominee with a chestful of Vietnam combat medals and the eagerness of anti-Bush critics to sling accusations at the President, Bush's National Guard record is under scrutiny. It began with Michael Moore, the flamethrowing documentary filmmaker, labeling Bush a "deserter." Then Terry McAuliffe, the Democratic Party chairman, leveled the less serious AWOL charge.

Citing Bush's honorable discharge, military legal experts dismiss the two accusations as rhetoric. "No military lawyer would say what's being alleged here is either desertion or AWOL," says Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice. But Bush's Guard record is nevertheless emerging as a Rorschach test in the 2004 campaign. Supporters cite the record as evidence of the Commander in Chief's military background and skill: he did well on an officer-qualification test, won praise from fellow pilots for his flying prowess and received an honorable discharge. Opponents see it as a laundry list of how a well-connected Texas scion pulled strings to avoid going to Vietnam, then failed to complete the scant service he signed up for—and now sends tens of thousands of U.S. troops to a war that has lost some of its rationale.

From the start, Bush's military record shows evidence of favoritism, beginning with the way he won a coveted spot in the Texas Air National Guard in May 1968—a time when nearly 300 Americans a week were coming home in body bags. "I'm saying to myself, 'What do I want to do?'" Bush told a Texas interviewer in 1989. "I think I don't want to be an infantry guy as a private in Vietnam. What I do decide to want to do is learn to fly."

After graduating from Yale, Bush leaped to the top of a 500-man Texas Guard wait list, despite scoring poorly on a pilot aptitude test. At the time, Bush's father was a G.O.P. Congressman from Houston, and Ben Barnes—who was speaker of the Texas House in 1968—testified in 1999 that he had put in a good word for Bush with Guard officials at the request of a Bush family friend. Bush got into the Texas Guard's "champagne unit" (along with the sons of other Texas politicians, like John Connally and Lloyd Bentsen) and was trained to fly the F-102 Delta Dagger. After spending more than a year in training, Bush was obligated to report for duty one weekend a month at Houston's Ellington Air Force Base, protecting the Gulf Coast of the U.S. from aerial attack. "No one used political influence to get him into the Guard," Walter B. (Buck) Staudt, Bush's commanding officer in the Texas Guard, insisted last week. "He passed all the tests, did all the stuff that's required. I thought he was a success."

The Texas Guard immortalized Bush's first solo flight in an F-102, issuing a press release at the time celebrating the patriotism of the freshly minted jet jockey. "George Walker Bush is one member of the younger generation who doesn't get his kicks from pot, hashish or speed," it began. Bush got all the high he needed, it continued, flying the F-102. "I've always wanted to be a fighter pilot, and I wouldn't want to fly anything else," the 23-year-old Bush said.

But the thrill soon wore off. Bush spent two years flying part time with the Texas National Guard and then in May 1972, he headed to Alabama to work for six months on the unsuccessful Senate campaign of family friend Winton Blount, who had resigned as chairman of the U.S. Postal Service to seek the seat. Bush applied to perform "equivalent" service with the Alabama National Guard during the campaign. But Bush, a self-admitted carouser in his younger days, apparently played some hooky: no official record of his Alabama service has ever surfaced. Because the Alabama Guard did not fly F-102s, Bush accepted "non-flying status" in Montgomery, according to Texas Guard records. And because he was not flying, he elected not to get his annual flight physical, which forced the Guard to bar him from flying.

Bush was told to report to William Turnipseed, an officer in the Montgomery unit. "Had he reported in, I would have had some recall, and I do not," Turnipseed told the Boston Globe four years ago. "If we had had a first lieutenant from Texas, I would have remembered." But by last week Turnipseed's memory had grown cloudy. "I did say in 2000 that I didn't remember seeing him," Turnipseed, now 75, told TIME. "But after I said that, I backed up and realized I didn't even remember if I was on the base in 1972 or not." Turnipseed said he was so busy checking out new airplanes outside Alabama and training, "I couldn't even follow football." He also noted that he voted for Bush in 2000 and plans to vote for the President again this year.

Bush returned to Houston after Blount lost his Senate race in November 1972. But there is no official record that Bush performed Guard drills during the next six months. In May 1973, Bush's superiors in Houston wrote that they could not give Bush his annual evaluation because he had "not been observed at this unit during the period of this report"—from May 1, 1972, to April 30, 1973. Also in May 1973, the Texas Guard issued two "special orders" directing Bush to report for duty. Over the next three months, Bush returned to his original Texas Guard unit and crammed in 36 days of active duty, apparently fulfilling the Guard's demands. In October 1973 he received an honorable discharge—nearly eight months early—so he could attend Harvard Business School.

Senator John Kerry, the Democratic front runner, received an early discharge from military service too—because he had earned three Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star and a Silver Star during 11 months in Vietnam. That's a comparison his campaign hopes voters will be making this fall. But Kerry and the other Democrats may cause a backlash if they go too far in criticizing Bush's military record. Kerry's statement last week on Bush's service seems to equate National Guard service with avoiding the draft. "I would defend the President's choice with respect to going into the Guard," Kerry told Fox News. "I've never made any judgments about any choice somebody made about avoiding the draft, about going to Canada, going to jail, being a conscientious objector, going into the National Guard." Says Bush campaign spokeswoman Nicole Devenish: "John Kerry's statement was a huge insult to the 400,000 people who serve in the National Guard." Indeed, 48 of those killed in Iraq have been members of the National Guard.

Kerry aides told TIME last week that they were worried their candidate had already come close to crossing the line. "There were a lot of people cringing around here when John let himself get engaged in this thing," said one. "It could backfire, no matter what the truth is." Yet Kerry's war record seems to be working for him. In the latest TIME/CNN poll, 60% of voters say John Kerry did his duty for the country during the Vietnam War, while only 39% make that same assertion for President Bush.

—With reporting by Douglas Waller with Kerry

____________________________________________

Again, although W probably was not the best soldier in the world and he used his connections to get in, all of the facts we have just do not support the cry that W was a deserter or that he was AWOL in any significant manner. Maybe more evidence will surface.

[DeeGeMe]

I live in South Carolina. Last week, Blue Cross/Blue Shield announced they were cutting almost 1,500 jobs in our state, almost 800 in the city where I live--representing something like 3% of all jobs in our small city. Where are those folks going to find new jobs? What happens to their families?

Every other week in this area and in North Carolina, it seems you hear about manufacturing or textile plants closing with those jobs going overseas--and those jobs aren't ever coming back.

I've seen friends, family, and neighbors lose their jobs, have their hours cut back, etc. My next-door neighbor graduated with an engineering degree last year, with honors. He still hasn't been able to find a job. When I graduated from college in 1987, industries were lining up outside the doors ready and waiting to hand out high-paying jobs to engineering grads.

We have a deficit that has spiraled out of control. When Bush entered office, he inherited a budget surplus. The truth is that you can't fight a war (or two or three or whatever number we're up to now) and cut taxes. It does not work. You also can't cut the taxes of the wealthiest citizens in this country and expect them to "trickle" down the wealth to the rest of us. It's not happening.

I've actually doubled my income in the past four years--but I'm that very rare exception. But am I spending my money or spending that tax cut? HELL NO--because I realize that the bottom could fall out at any moment and I'm holding onto every bit of money that I can.

My guess is that plenty of other people in this country are doing exactly the same thing. Employers aren't hiring because they don't have faith in the economy--and they can always get their current employees to take on extra duties instead of hiring new employees to do a job. So as a result, the middle class continues to get squeezed--we work longer hours, for less money.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by jwd
Here's a link to what Greenspan thinks about jobs. I thought it was interesting.


http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/26/news/economy/greenspan_jobs/

Great article. I just would not want to be one of the people whose job got outsourced. I mean Greenspan is talking about statistics and percentages when real people are out of work. To them, I think the suggestion that they will have to be trained for something new and probably have to move across the country to get the new job, which will not be availbale until about two years from now is little solace. But, I get that that is the reality of it because we are a global economy and U.S. companies like GM cannot sell $25,000 (avg. price) cars in a foreign country where the average income is $8,000 per year, etc.

[dissention]

Originally posted by jwd
Rob, it's all they have(if that). The economy is looking better and better every day. The stock market is soaring, interest rates remain at an all time low, more and more jobs are being created every month. It's becoming more and more obvious that getting rid of Saddam was a good thing(with or without WMD). He really was a threat to the U.S. and the rest of the world. Kay said he was even MORE of a threat than we originally thought. Every time I read threads like this it's like reading the adult version of Chicken Little....the sky is falling, the sky is falling. You liberals need to be a little more optimistic, you wouldn't feel so bad all the time. :D


Joe :wavey:

:rolleyes:

Improving economy? Tell that to tens of millions of working class individuals who aren't seeing any improvement in their lives. And wasn't it Greenspan who said just yesterday that although the economy is improving, the deficit is f*cked up that it threatens to flush the economy down the ****hole?

[dissention]

Originally posted by DeeGeMe
I live in South Carolina. Last week, Blue Cross/Blue Shield announced they were cutting almost 1,500 jobs in our state, almost 800 in the city where I live--representing something like 3% of all jobs in our small city. Where are those folks going to find new jobs? What happens to their families?

Every other week in this area and in North Carolina, it seems you hear about manufacturing or textile plants closing with those jobs going overseas--and those jobs aren't ever coming back.

I've seen friends, family, and neighbors lose their jobs, have their hours cut back, etc. My next-door neighbor graduated with an engineering degree last year, with honors. He still hasn't been able to find a job. When I graduated from college in 1987, industries were lining up outside the doors ready and waiting to hand out high-paying jobs to engineering grads.

We have a deficit that has spiraled out of control. When Bush entered office, he inherited a budget surplus. The truth is that you can't fight a war (or two or three or whatever number we're up to now) and cut taxes. It does not work. You also can't cut the taxes of the wealthiest citizens in this country and expect them to "trickle" down the wealth to the rest of us. It's not happening.

I've actually doubled my income in the past four years--but I'm that very rare exception. But am I spending my money or spending that tax cut? HELL NO--because I realize that the bottom could fall out at any moment and I'm holding onto every bit of money that I can.

My guess is that plenty of other people in this country are doing exactly the same thing. Employers aren't hiring because they don't have faith in the economy--and they can always get their current employees to take on extra duties instead of hiring new employees to do a job. So as a result, the middle class continues to get squeezed--we work longer hours, for less money.

:nod: :wavey:

AMEN!!!

In MA, we are suffering an economic crisis. We don't even have the funds to plow roads during snowstorms. In my city, we have the most percentage of lost jobs in the past year (over 8%!), but nothing is being done about it. Our state government just passed an increase in their pay, but what about all of the ohter people out there? No one cares. The Big Dig in Boston has turned out to be the biggest turd of a development in the history of the state and they can't even fund it. In order to get more money for this project, they have raised everything imaginable. Property taxes, highway tolls, licensing increases, you name it, they raised it. In the past six months, two local factory closed down in my city. And place like McDonalds and Wendy's aren't even hiring. What does that tell you? It tells me that we being screwed up the arse.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
:rolleyes:

Improving economy? Tell that to tens of millions of working class individuals who aren't seeing any improvement in their lives. And wasn't it Greenspan who said just yesterday that although the economy is improving, the deficit is f*cked up that it threatens to flush the economy down the ****hole?

Now Now - be fair :laugh: The economy cannot recover overnight and all signs indicate it is recovering. Given the events of 9-11 and the corporate scandals that immediately took away trillions of dollars in wealth and hundreds of thousands of jobs, I say haveing the DOW at 10,700 up from around 8,000 two years ago is a good sign, even if the DOW is not the be all and end all of economic indicators. The jobs will follow if history shows us anything. My greatest fear is there will be another terrorist attack which will send us to economic hell again.

As for the deficit, I am unsure what to think. I think some deficit is good. But, this one is the largest. But, then again, we are at war. Then, every economist has a different opinion. It makes my head spin :laugh:

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
As for the deficit, I am unsure what to think. I think some deficit is good. But, this one is the largest. But, then again, we are at war. Then, every economist has a different opinion. It makes my head spin :laugh:

Not this deficit.

And if Bush wants to ensure that we won't be in economic hell if another terrorist attack occurrs, he shouldn't have cut taxes a second time and he shouldn't be advocating for permanent cuts. He's a f*cking moron to cut taxes in a time of war.

Here are some facts:

-He said his first tax cut would create 800,000 jobs. It didn't.

-He said his second tax cut would create 1 million jobs. it didn't.

-He said last year that we would gain 1.3 million jobs. We lost 53,000.

-We've lost 3 million jobs and our deficit is at a staggering $521 billion.

-His latest economic report says shipping jobs overseas is a good idea. Is he still snorting coke or did all his years of abuse finally make his brain burst?

The silver spoon he sucks on (or snorts from) is clouding his judgement and making him out of touch with the rest of our country.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
Not this deficit.

And if Bush wants to ensure that we won't be in economic hell if another terrorist attack occurrs, he shouldn't have cut taxes a second time and he shouldn't be advocating for permanent cuts. He's a f*cking moron to cut taxes in a time of war.

Here are some facts:

-He said his first tax cut would create 800,000 jobs. It didn't.

-He said his second tax cut would create 1 million jobs. it didn't.

-He said last year that we would gain 1.3 million jobs. We lost 53,000.

-We've lost 3 million jobs and our deficit is at a staggering $521 billion.

-His latest economic report says shipping jobs overseas is a good idea. Is he still snorting coke or did all his years of abuse finally make his brain burst?

The silver spoon he sucks on (or snorts from) is clouding his judgement and making him out of touch with the rest of our country.

What about the 500,000 or so new jobs gained in the last two quarters? Moreover, people are spending again because they have more money partly due to the tax cuts. I do not see how people do not get that. I mean if people are losing their jobs right and left and spending is up, where is the money coming from? I say some, but certainly not all, is coming from the rebates and tax cuts :shrug:

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
What about the 500,000 or so new jobs gained in the last two quarters? Moreover, people are spending again because they have more money partly due to the tax cuts. I do not see how people do not get that. I mean if people are losing their jobs right and left and spending is up, where is the money coming from? I say some, but certainly not all, is coming from the rebates and tax cuts :shrug:

Oh, I see, you actually believe in voodoo economics. ;)

That tells me a lot, doll.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
Oh, I see, you actually believe in voodoo economics. ;)

That tells me a lot, doll.

Again, money must come from somewhere. it does not just appear. Interestingly, Kennedy cut taxes and the D's went hooray :shrug: Finally, what else could the govt. do to help the economy recover? Raise taxes? If you raise taxes, people have less to spend. When people spend less, the govt. gets less income :shrug: So, again, cutting taxes was the correct thing to do and no one has provided an economically feasible alternative - if you have one - spill it :cool: Would it be better if, like Kerry suggests, the tax cuts went only to people making around less than $100,000 a year? Would that be more palateable because the arbitrarily determined "rich" get nothing?

Again, you are talking to someone who believes in a flat income tax. :cool:

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by jwd
Here's a link to what Greenspan thinks about jobs. I thought it was interesting.


You know, I am tempted to tell you to put that link and all the nonsense about job creation in a very dark place where your head already is. But I won't, because that would be rude.

Fact: I live in what is considered probably the fourth or fifth most affluent region of the country (I ain't rich though).

Fact: At about 2:30p.m. on Sunday Feb. 1 a black middle-aged black and his two young sons were rummaging through the dumpster behind the local Walgreens picking up damaged packages of Oreos and other assorted food items.

Hunch: This man is either unemployed or makes very little money.

Fact: Not even two miles away are some of the region's most expensive homes, and a little beyond that is some of the most expensive waterfront real estate in the nation.

Hunch: This man and his two young boys don't live in one of those expensive homes.

Hunch: The folks who live in said homes probably have no idea, or don't care, about this man's plight, and everyone else living in poverty. They probably even blame the country's ills on the poor people who are "keeping our taxes high" with by drawing from welfare and so forth.

Conclusion: If this kind of thing is happening in the shadows of so much affluence, I have to believe it probably is a lot worse in other parts of the country.

The point: The job indicators you cite are just plain wrong. They don't even count the people who have given up on finding new jobs. For all I know, the man mentioned above is one of them. But most importantly, as long as a father of two children has to rummage through a dumpster to feed his family, we are doing something terribly wrong as a society.

Suggestion: Save your job-creation smugness and face reality. We've got problems.

[dissention]

A few little tidbits of info:

-3 Months in Iraq = $14 billion

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=542&ncid=693&e=6&u=/ap/20040212/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq_war_cost

-According to retired Army Col. Dan Smith, a 26-year veteran:

"Pay records don't mean anything except that you're in or you're out. It doesn't necessarily reflect what duty you've actually performed because pay records simply record your unit of assignment and then all of your pay and benefits per pay period."

-A look at the continuing employment problems:

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0210-11.htm

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
You know, I am tempted to tell you to put that link and all the nonsense about job creation in a very dark place where your head already is. But I won't, because that would be rude.


Let me apologize in advance. That was rude and uncalled for. I am ashamed of myself.

[strandinthewind]

I agree with you Carne (oops I edit here to say about you other post - not about being rude :laugh: ), but my question is what do we do about it? How do we create more jobs? I can think of no other way than to get Amercians spending money again, which they are doing now and the economy is recovering. With that spending comes increased manufacturing, etc., which leads not only to new hiring, it also leads to more taxes for the govt. coffers.

I do not see any other way to achieve this goal than to cut taxes. I guess the govt. could have put the money back in the economy a la the Great Depression (TVA, etc.) but that would also have lead to deficits :shrug:

Note: No matter how much money, jobs, etc., are created, I think that sadly same inequity will exist between the have's and the have nots. It certainly was there in the booming 90's. I think in the end there is no solution to that problem because humans sadly are not built to care. Take Russia as an example. There, in the beginning, people were all about everyone is working for the state and is equal, etc. Yet, in the end, people figured out that kind of existense was not feasible and there were still have's and have nots - some lived better than others even though pretty much everyone was working for the state, etc. People want nice things and for the most part do not care who does not have them as long as they do. I hate that :confused: That is why I think anyone who makes a lot of money has a duty to try and help others. This charity is the only way I can think of to begin closing that gap and even then, it is a drop in the bucket, etc.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Again, money must come from somewhere. it does not just appear. Interestingly, Kennedy cut taxes and the D's went hooray :shrug: Finally, what else could the govt. do to help the economy recover? Raise taxes? If you raise taxes, people have less to spend. When people spend less, the govt. gets less income :shrug: So, again, cutting taxes was the correct thing to do and no one has provided an economically feasible alternative - if you have one - spill it :cool: Would it be better if, like Kerry suggests, the tax cuts went only to people making around less than $100,000 a year? Would that be more palateable because the arbitrarily determined "rich" get nothing?

Again, you are talking to someone who believes in a flat income tax. :cool:

Sorry, I'm sober, therefore I'm quite skeptical about tax cuts. ;)

When making the argument for tax cuts, the right usually points to Ronald Reagan. Reagan claimed that the budget could be balanced in two or three years by lowering the tax rates on the wealthy. However, what they fail to mention is that Reagan raised taxes twice. And what was the effect of this? The economy shrank by over 2% and the budget went haywire! Then Clinton took office, raised taxes on the wealthy, lowered them on the middle class, and wowie kazowie, our budget and economy were back in fullswing in not too long of a period. Inflation fell, 18 million jobs were created, and economic growth went from 2% from the Reagan/Shrub years to 4% a year! Clinton gave Bush a $158 billion surplus, and Bush turned it into a $127 billion deficit in one year. Now we're facing a $600 billion deficit.

Something is wrong here and it might have something to do with the tax cuts.

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I agree with you Carne, but my question is what do we do about it? How do we create more jobs? I can think of no other way than to get Amercians spending money again, which they are doing now and the economy is recovering. With that spending comes increased manufacturing, etc., which leads not only to new hiring, it also leads to more taxes for the govt. coffers.

I'm no expert,* but I would think we could start by repealing most if not all of NAFTA and toughening up on Chinese imports a bit.






*This is a rare concession from me.

[dissention]

And also (I forgot to add more bull**** to my last post!):

66% of the last tax cut went to the most wealthy in our country, the top 10%.

When Shrub stole the presidency, Clinton forecasted that the ten year surplus was to be 5.6 trillion. But the latest ten year predictions say that only the surplus would be at a $1.6 deficit. That's a loss of over $6 trillion in only a couple of years!!! They love to blame Clinton, but the facts just do not support it. They say our country was in a recession in Clinton's last quarter, but it wasn't. The economy had grown for seven out of eight quarters under Clinton's watch, and that is not an environment that would even begin to start a recession. it takes longer than just one quarter to f*ck it up that badly.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
With that spending comes increased manufacturing, etc., which leads not only to new hiring, it also leads to more taxes for the govt. coffers.


Not when those manufacturing jobs are being shipped overseas.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
And also (I forgot to add more bull**** to my last post!):

66% of the last tax cut went to the most wealthy in our country, the top 10%.

When Shrub stole the presidency, Clinton forecasted that the ten year surplus was to be 5.6 trillion. But the latest ten year predictions say that only the surplus would be at a $1.6 deficit. That's a loss of over $6 trillion in only a couple of years!!! They love to blame Clinton, but the facts just do not support it. They say our country was in a recession in Clinton's last quarter, but it wasn't. The economy had grown for seven out of eight quarters under Clinton's watch, and that is not an environment that would even begin to start a recession. it takes longer than just one quarter to f*ck it up that badly.

Okay - this warrants a "OH COME ON" :laugh:

Do you honestly think we were not in a recession or at least starting one when Clinton left office. PUUHHLLEEZZEEEE If so, I have bridge for sale in Brooklyn :cool: :laugh:

I agree with you that W has not done the best job. But, my point is I know of no other job that could have been done. Your assertions about Clinton and his tax raises on the wealthy are perhaps true on the surface, but a closer examination yields a far more tangled web. A lot of the Clinton stuff was based on the stock market, the value of which which we found out toward the end of his term was based on nothing in that almost all of those way overpriced internet and other companies that shined in their stellar initial offerings were worth nothing. They did not have the sales to support their hyper expansion - which included hiring record amounts of people at high wages. Then, the corporate scandals, which occured under Clinton's watch, literally wiped out trillions of dollars and cost the nation hundreds of thousands of jobs. So, yes, the economy during the Clinton years was great, but it was built on nothing - it was a house of cards :shrug:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by dissention
:rolleyes:

Improving economy? Tell that to tens of millions of working class individuals who aren't seeing any improvement in their lives. And wasn't it Greenspan who said just yesterday that although the economy is improving, the deficit is f*cked up that it threatens to flush the economy down the ****hole?

Yes. It had quite the impact on the markets as well.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
Not when those manufacturing jobs are being shipped overseas.

True - but according to Greenspan - who knows far more than we do - these lower paying jobs will be replaced with higher paying ones over time. Again, I think that is horrible for people now.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Yes. It had quite the impact on the markets as well.

Yes, it did then, but the DOW is at 10,700 as of today and the other major markets are up as well :shrug:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
What about the 500,000 or so new jobs gained in the last two quarters?

Link? There were nowhere near 500000 jobs created in the last two quarters. Where on Earth did you hear that? Fox News? :)

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Again, money must come from somewhere. it does not just appear.

Sure it does. They should be printing more any day now.:)

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Link? There were nowhere near 500000 jobs created in the last two quarters. Where on Earth did you hear that? Fox News? :)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/economy/ :cool:

Please provide a link refuting this :cool:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Sure it does. They should be printing more any day now.:)

OMG - to have access to the Ben Franklin press for 10 minutes :laugh:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
You know, I am tempted to tell you to put that link and all the nonsense about job creation in a very dark place where your head already is.

Here's a look at a slew of economic data released today:

http://www.lioninc.com/L/lion_market_commentary1

Treasuries are up slightly as the economic news released this morning was weaker than expected -- a plus for the market since it diminishes the case for a Fed interest rate hike. Stocks are slightly lower in early trading.

The Labor Department reported that the seasonally adjusted level of initial claims for state unemployment benefits rose by 6,000 last week to 363,000, its highest level in two months. The four-week moving average, which smoothes out some of the short-term volatility, rose by 5,000 to 350,500. The increases of the last two weeks has renewed speculation that progress in the employment situation has hit a snag. The increase in claims is a corroboration of the weaker than predicted job growth revealed in last Friday's employment report for January.

Not all of the claims news was bad. Continuing claims for the week of January 31 (continuing claims must be at least a week old) fell by 23,000 to 3.083 million, the lowest level since July of 2001.

But the bond market found additional support this morning when the Commerce Department reported that retail and food service sales fell by 0.3% in January, a weaker figure than the flat (0.0%) reading or slight gain that forecasters were predicting. However, excluding the large but volatile category of autos and parts, sales were up by a stronger than expected 0.9% for the month. Analysts had predicted an increase of about 0.4% or 0.5%. Sales for autos and parts fell by 3.9% last month.

Data revisions resulted in a 0.2% increase in December instead of the originally reported increase of 0.5%, but ex-auto sales rose by 0.2% instead of the originally reported 0.1%.

Today's report showed that the rise in oil prices translated into a 1.7% increase in sales at gas stations. But other categories also showed gains. Among them, sales at clothing stores rose 2.9%, food and beverage stores saw a 1.8% increase while food service and drinking places saw a 1.1% rise. But furniture and home furnishing stores saw a 0.9% drop in sales, as did building material / garden equipment & supplies dealers.

The other economic release this morning was bullish, but the information is somewhat dated and it has not had a significant impact on the markets. The Commerce Department said that business inventories rose by 0.3% in December following a 0.4% increase in November (originally reported as 0.3%). Sales remained firm, rising by 0.9% for the month and 7.0% on a year-to-year basis. The inventory-to-sales ratio, a measure of inventory leanness, dropped to a record low 1.34 in December. This means that at December's sales pace, the remaining inventory would be entirely depleted in 1.34 months. The figures suggest that the rising demand will require quick replacement as there is little excess to fall back on.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
I'm no expert,* but I would think we could start by repealing most if not all of NAFTA and toughening up on Chinese imports a bit.


:nod: :nod: :nod:

That slave, er I mean immigration plan that * is talking about needs to go right out the window as well.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Yes, it did then, but the DOW is at 10,700 as of today and the other major markets are up as well :shrug:

Look again.

http://money.cnn.com/markets/data/index.html

All down, across the board.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/economy/ :cool:

Please provide a link refuting this :cool:

Don't worry I will.:)

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
:nod: :nod: :nod:

That slave, er I mean immigration plan that * is talking about needs to go right out the window as well.

I agree with Carne as well. Also, the current immigration plan is an example of importing the slave labor to the jobs as opposed to exporting the jobs to the slave labor :laugh: ALl I can say about the immigration plan is W once again could have made this great, but he instead put forth this atrocity :cool:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Don't worry I will.:) I have no doubt :eek: :wavey: :nod:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I have no doubt :eek: :wavey: :nod:

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :wavey:

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
True - but according to Greenspan - who knows far more than we do - these lower paying jobs will be replaced with higher paying ones over time. Again, I think that is horrible for people now.

But unfortunately, most economists think it's bull****. The White House has even reprimanded their own economists for saying that Greenspan's assertion was horse****.

[dissention]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Link? There were nowhere near 500000 jobs created in the last two quarters. Where on Earth did you hear that? Fox News? :)

:laugh:

Last I heard, there were only around 200,000 jobs created, not half of a million.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I agree with Carne as well. Also, the current immigration plan is an example of importing the slave labor to the jobs as opposed to exporting the jobs to the slave labor :laugh: ALl I can say about the immigration plan is W once again could have made this great, but he instead put forth this atrocity :cool:

:rolleyes:

Coulda, woulda, shoulda. I think that's the motto of the Shrub administration.

Who honestly gives a **** about what they could have done? Personally, i'm more concerned with the garbage they have done.

[dissention]

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

They just released Shrub's dental records from January 6, 1973.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

They just released Shrub's dental records from January 6, 1973.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Did they show gnawing of the teeth damage from the coke :cool:

[dissention]

The Smoking Microfiche!

http://democrats.com/display.cfm?id=329

;) :wavey:

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Did they show gnawing of the teeth damage from the coke :cool:

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Now that you say that, they're probably someone elses records. :laugh:

[dissention]

The Bush Economy in all its glory:

http://www.bushwatch.net/economy.htm

[DeeGeMe]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Now Now - be fair :laugh: The economy cannot recover overnight and all signs indicate it is recovering. Given the events of 9-11 and the corporate scandals that immediately took away trillions of dollars in wealth and hundreds of thousands of jobs, I say haveing the DOW at 10,700 up from around 8,000 two years ago is a good sign, even if the DOW is not the be all and end all of economic indicators.

Yeah, about those corporate scandals--why is it that Martha Stewart is on trial but the folks at Enron aren't? What's up with that? The big buy at Enron has yet to face any jail time or anything--he's still rolling in dough. Could it be because he was a main contributor to the Bush Campaign and an old family friend? Meanwhile, Martha Stewart was a big contributor to the Democrats. Double-standard here? She didn't bilk anyone--just mainly screwed herself over--but Enron ripped off everyone left and right and most of those folks are still walking around free-with tons of money.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by DeeGeMe
Yeah, about those corporate scandals--why is it that Martha Stewart is on trial but the folks at Enron aren't? What's up with that? The big buy at Enron has yet to face any jail time or anything--he's still rolling in dough. Could it be because he was a main contributor to the Bush Campaign and an old family friend? Meanwhile, Martha Stewart was a big contributor to the Democrats. Double-standard here? She didn't bilk anyone--just mainly screwed herself over--but Enron ripped off everyone left and right and most of those folks are still walking around free-with tons of money.

A crime is a crime. If MS commited a crime, and the evidence suggests she did when she altered her journal entries (even though she allegedly changed them back) and she then lied to the investigators about what happened that day. So, if she goes to jail, she has no one to blame but herself.

As for Enron, I hate to be the one to tell you this, but Enron had just about every politician (R or D) in their pockets and most of the Enron execs have lost almost all of their belongings (couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch :rolleyes: ) Interestingly, the ball is starting to roll on the Enron prosecution. I truly believe it has taken this long for them and for MCI because both were major donators to all politicians. Again, why didn't the Clinton DOJ catch this? i suggest they did not look too hard.

[dissention]

Bush records were cleansed, says Guard official

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=710&ncid=703&e=5&u=/usatoday/20040212/pl_usatoday/exofficerbushfilesdetailscausedconcern

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
A crime is a crime. If MS commited a crime, and the evidence suggests she did when she altered her journal entries (even though she allegedly changed them back) and she then lied to the investigators about what happened that day. So, if she goes to jail, she has no one to blame but herself.

:eek: The charges are absolutely ridiculous!

They aren't charging her with insider trading because they don't have enough evidence, yet they're trying to get her for lying to officials. It stinks. They're trying to say that by her lying, she specifically tried to lie to her shareholders in order to save stocks in her company from being sold. It's ludicrous beyond belief.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
:eek: The charges are absolutely ridiculous!

They aren't charging her with insider trading because they don't have enough evidence, yet they're trying to get her for lying to officials. It stinks. They're trying to say that by her lying, she specifically tried to lie to her shareholders in order to save stocks in her company from being sold. It's ludicrous beyond belief.

The charges against MS are vaild - they are not trumped up. She admits (I think) and her sec. admits to changing her records to avoid prosecution (granted she allegedly changed them back) and then she lied to prosecutors when asked about contacts with PB - she claimed she had no knowledge when she knew she had tried to falsify her records. That is obstruction of justice - pure and simple. I mean if she is not prosecuted for it, then anyone can just lie to the govt. to avoid prosecution and there will be no remedy.

Here is the actual indictment (I think some charges have been dismissed). Also, clearly a la the Enron folks, MS sold her stock based on insider information. I bet alot of people at Enron, Imclone, and MS' company had had this same information and were allowed the same opportunity she had. They were not.

Note: I agree MS is small potatoes and somewhat of a waste of apparently limited legal resources, but a crime is a crime in my book and she clearly knew what she was doing :shrug:



Also, Here are some Enron sites detailing their coruption:

http://www.progress.org/enron.htm

http://www.opensecrets.org/alerts/v6/enron_totals.asp

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
The charges against MS are vaild - they are not trumped up. She admits (I think) and her sec. admits to changing her records to avoid prosecution (granted she allegedly changed them back) and then she lied to prosecutors when asked about contacts with PB - she claimed she had no knowledge when she knew she had tried to falsify her records. That is obstruction of justice - pure and simple. I mean if she is not prosecuted for it, then anyone can just lie to the govt. to avoid prosecution and there will be no remedy.

If the prosecution can prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, then they should convict. However, so far they haven't. Fanueil was their star witness and the defense slaughtered him, at least enough to put doubt into his testimony.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
If the prosecution can prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, then they should convict. However, so far they haven't. Fanueil was their star witness and the defense slaughtered him, at least enough to put doubt into his testimony.

Yea, his testimony was not perhaps all the prosecution wanted. Interestingly, I wonder if MS will suffer from the hatred many have for her? At least she did not say "only little people pay taxes" :eek:

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Yea, his testimony was not perhaps all the prosecution wanted. Interestingly, I wonder if MS will suffer from the hatred many have for her? At least she did not say "only little people pay taxes" :eek:

I don't think so. They took forever choosing a jury, so I think they'll be fair. I think she'll walk away free from this entire load of crap. I don't even like Martha Stewart, but I think this whole thing smells.

[gldstwmn]

http://www.memphisflyer.com/content.asp?ID=2834&onthefly=1

BUSH A NO-SHOW AT ALABAMA BASE, SAYS MEMPHIAN
FedEx Pilot Bob Mintz, backed up by a Carolina colleague, recalls no Dubya at Dannelly AFB in 1972.
JACKSON BAKER | 2/13/2004

[strandinthewind]

OMG - I just heard on ABC news that the dentist that signed W's recently exposed dental records has no recollection of W or treating W. He did, however, recognize his own signature. I see a pattern of the missin' Bush :laugh:

[dissention]

:eek:

A Lieutenant Colonel was just on Hardball and he dropped some bombs.

He said that in '97, Karen Hughes and Shrub's Chief of Staff Allbaugh requested the files of Shrub's service. He then said that he overheard an exchange between the Allbaugh and a Guard official to get rid of everything that might "embarrass" Shrub. When they left the room, the Lieutenant went in and saw the files in the trash. He picked them up and flipped through them, saying that they were papers that said whether or not Bush showed up for duty and PHOTOCOPIES of pay stubs...

This is the smoking gun.

[gldstwmn]

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/US/bush_public_approval_poll_040212.html

A New Low
Bush Job Approval Dogged By WMD Questions, Economy and John Kerry

[dissention]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/US/bush_public_approval_poll_040212.html

A New Low
Bush Job Approval Dogged By WMD Questions, Economy and John Kerry

And...how many days until Osama is trotted out onstage?

Just curious. ;)

[jwd]

And the beat goes on, and on, and on..........:rolleyes:

Oh and by the way Carne, apology accepted. :)



Joe

[strandinthewind]

Lord - now for the last few days Sean Hannity is berating Kerry for the pic where he is one of like 1,000 people with Hanoi Jane Fonda and Sean H. is berating Kerry for testfying in front of, I think, the Senate about the autrocities he say in Nam (genocide, random infanticide, rapes, etc.) Hannity apparently thinks none of that happened despite the 1,000's of people who saw it and apparently that Kerry is a traitor for suggesting American soldiers ever did that - what an a$$hole :mad:

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by jwd
And the beat goes on, and on, and on..........:rolleyes:

Oh and by the way Carne, apology accepted. :)



Joe

Cool, the important thing to remember is that even if I get passionate about politics (and I do!) I would still raise a glass or two with my conservative friends. Alcohol, the political equalizer.

Now, I don't know if I could say the same about those darn Stevieheads... ;) :laugh:

[DeeGeMe]

I was watching Countdown last night and Keith Olbermann joked that to be fair, the photo with Fonda was taken just a couple of years after she made Barberella and quite a few men were probably desperately trying to get anywhere near her at the time! I had heard way too much about that photograph and when I actually saw it, I couldn't stop laughing-it's what--three or four rows back? Please.

And for the record, Martha Stewart annoys me, but it just seems like she's small potatoes when there are so many huge corporate criminals out there.

And to catch up on an earlier topic about when OBL would be trotted out--instead they've decided to trot out Kerry's Intern. Now the talk will be all about that and not about Bush's alleged AWOL. Politics as usual.

[jwd]

CarneVaca:

Cool, the important thing to remember is that even if I get passionate about politics (and I do!) I would still raise a glass or two with my conservative friends. Alcohol, the political equalizer.

Now, I don't know if I could say the same about those darn Stevieheads...

:D Alcohol equalizes a lot of things. :laugh: I get your point. We can disagree and still be "friendly". Although I wouldn't consider myself a "Steviehead", I am a big fan of hers and her music. I guess it would take more than a couple eh? I suggest Marty get a bar in here so we don't go over The Ledge. :)


Joe

[DeeGeMe]

Well, this could explain a lot of things-I'm a Steviehead. Or as we like to call ourselves--Chiffon Heads.

[strandinthewind]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/13/elec04.prez.bush.texas.records/index.html

Once again, all evidence is pinting to W being in Alabama and performing for the NG. There are discrepancies that smell fishy, but no hard evidence. So, I say this, at least for now, is a dead issue and the D's are mistaken in going at it until they have more evidence.

[gldstwmn]

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040223-590683,00.html

How Well Did He Serve?
Bush said he reported for duty in Alabama, but even with the new documents, the evidence is thin. TIME looks at four key questions

"Archibald, now a trial attorney in North Carolina, remembers that a group of older Alabama socialites, who were volunteering their time, gave Bush a nickname because they thought he "looked good on the outside but was full of hot air." They called him the Texas Soufflé."


LMAO!
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Wait 'til Molly Ivins gets a hold of that one.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040223-590683,00.html

How Well Did He Serve?
Bush said he reported for duty in Alabama, but even with the new documents, the evidence is thin. TIME looks at four key questions

"Archibald, now a trial attorney in North Carolina, remembers that a group of older Alabama socialites, who were volunteering their time, gave Bush a nickname because they thought he "looked good on the outside but was full of hot air." They called him the Texas Soufflé."


LMAO!
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Wait 'til Molly Ivins gets a hold of that one.

A Ha - you are providing evidence that W was in Alabama and people remember him :cool:

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
A Ha - you are providing evidence that W was in Alabama and people remember him :cool:

Doll, the new records that were released Friday don't account for anything from May of '72 to May of '73.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
Doll, the new records that were released Friday don't account for anything from May of '72 to May of '73.

I do not know what those 500 pages contain, but I am sure we will all know soon enough and I do know Rove would NEVER release anything damaging :laugh:

I was commenting on the fact that the women in the article gldtwmn cited are evidence that W was in AL and doing his duty at the time (if that is what the women were volunteering for, etc. ) :shrug:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
A Ha - you are providing evidence that W was in Alabama and people remember him :cool:

Click the link for the full article on the Texas Souffle. LMAO! He had his teeth cleaned in Alabama we do know that much.:laugh:

The Texas Souffle is a desert-er.;) :laugh:

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I do not know what those 500 pages contain, but I am sure we will all know soon enough and I do know Rove would NEVER release anything damaging :laugh:

The Rove is losing it. The press has already reported on those documents and said, with certainty, that it had no mention of the time period May of '72 to May of '73. It was all over CNN on Saturday. Faux News probably didn't have the cajones to report it.

[Rob67]

Originally posted by dissention
The Bush Economy in all its glory:

http://www.bushwatch.net/economy.htm

Now there’s a truly unbiased website if I ever saw one!:rolleyes: :)

Rob:cool:

[Rob67]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
I'm actually very optimistic!
Optimistic that things will turn around for the better once we get Bush out of office! ;)

I guess the improving economy and new job openings are in other areas, because it's certainly not happening around here.
My aunt works for a geriatric center, and they literally just laid off half of the people in her department alone, and there's talk of additional lay offs within her department.

And it's not just there, but everywhere around here (and, I can only assume, other areas in other states too). And if people don't have employment, then they're not going to be buying cars, or houses, or anything else that will help the economy.

So, things aren't that rosy.

That's Western PA...economy here has been down since the late 80's. There has been a move to "High-Tech" in the area, but aside from that...you need to move away from Pittsburgh to find good work unless your lucky.

Rob:cool:

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by Rob67
That's Western PA...economy here has been down since the late 80's.That's only partially true. We're a "depressed area," but our local economy definitely improved during the Clinton Years.

Just speaking from personal experience, we had literally five houses on our block alone, that went up for sale during the Reagan administration, and pretty much stayed unoccupied thru Bush Sr.'s term in office.
Each of them were sold while Clinton was in office... and they didn't sell to just anyone, they sold to young families with children. Exactly the same kind of people who vacated those houses in the '80s... leaving behind mostly retirees and senior citizens.

The willingness of young familes to move to your area is always a good sign, and our prospects definitely picked up during Clinton's 8 years, and a lot of good things started to happen to our town again.

But in the time since Bush Jr.'s been in office, my dad was laid-off (thankfully, he's back to work), my uncle has had to find a new job, several other friends and relatives have either been laid-off and/or had to find new jobs, and my co-workers and I are all dealing with our hours being cutback.

So, it may be a little black and white, but this is the way I see it...
12 years of Republicans in the White House equalled lay-offs, a lousy local economy, and the necessity for families to uproot and move to other areas.
While 8 years of a Democrat in the White House lead to our local economy improving, jobs being created, and young families returning to the area.

And now, of course, with 4 years of another Republican, we're seeing the same patterns as we did in the '80s and early '90s.
Originally posted by Rob67
There has been a move to "High-Tech" in the area, but aside from that...you need to move away from Pittsburgh to find good work unless your lucky.And that's the trouble... one shouldn't have to uproot their family in order to find a decent paying job.
In our little town, we're a very tight-knit community, and the majority of the families who live here, have been here for four and five generations. It's painful when the younger generations have to move elsewhere in order to make a living... as they had to during the Reagan and Bush Sr. years.
Having to do so, prevents their children from having a close relationship with their grandparents, cousins, et al., and denies them from being raised in a true family environment.

For all the talk of "Family Values," you'd think that our Republican politicians would make small-towns more of a priority.
But I'm not going to hold my breath that they ever will.

Mind you, as with every argument, I'm not saying that Democrats are perfect... just that I'd much rather take my chances voting for a Democratic candidate.
I have much more faith that having a Democratic politician in office will be to the benefit of my family and friends, than I do in regards to Republican politicians.

[Rob67]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
That's only partially true. We're a "depressed area," but our local economy definitely improved during the Clinton Years.

Just speaking from personal experience, we had literally five houses on our block alone, that went up for sale during the Reagan administration, and pretty much stayed unoccupied thru Bush Sr.'s term in office.
Each of them were sold while Clinton was in office... and they didn't sell to just anyone, they sold to young families with children. Exactly the same kind of people who vacated those houses in the '80s... leaving behind mostly retirees and senior citizens.

The willingness of young familes to move to your area is always a good sign, and our prospects definitely picked up during Clinton's 8 years, and a lot of good things started to happen to our town again.

But in the time since Bush Jr.'s been in office, my dad was laid-off (thankfully, he's back to work), my uncle has had to find a new job, several other friends and relatives have either been laid-off and/or had to find new jobs, and my co-workers and I are all dealing with our hours being cutback.

So, it may be a little black and white, but this is the way I see it...
12 years of Republicans in the White House equalled lay-offs, a lousy local economy, and the necessity for families to uproot and move to other areas.
While 8 years of a Democrat in the White House lead to our local economy improving, jobs being created, and young families returning to the area.

And now, of course, with 4 years of another Republican, we're seeing the same patterns as we did in the '80s and early '90s.
And that's the trouble... one shouldn't have to uproot their family in order to find a decent paying job.
In our little town, we're a very tight-knit community, and the majority of the families who live here, have been here for four and five generations. It's painful when the younger generations have to move elsewhere in order to make a living... as they had to during the Reagan and Bush Sr. years.
Having to do so, prevents their children from having a close relationship with their grandparents, cousins, et al., and denies them from being raised in a true family environment.


Yeah, but no one said life was fair. Times change, places change. You have to make do sometimes...

I can understand where you are getting your impression but I think it is oversimplifying things to look at the economy that way. For one thing, you have to take 9\11 into effect when talking about economics over the last couple of years. The economy has always been on a rollercoaster pattern of going up and then back down and a downward turn did come while Clinton was still in office. Many point to this time period in mid to late ’00 as the beginning of a recession. 9\11 definitely helped it along, and did more to the job market (especially around here) then anything (I lost my job as did my Mother. I had to switch industries while my parents moved to Kentucky for lack of decent positions in my mother’s field).

You could also argue that Bush was handed the economy in the shape it was in. And our local economy doesn’t have so much to do with the Federal Government as it does the bumbling and mishandling of our local taxes. I have never seen a city so poorly run. Tax & spend, tax & spend….it always has and always will drive economies into recession. The policies of presidents and politicians have ripple effects that last after they are out of office. I think most presidents inherit economies that are the results of policies enacted years before.

Rob:cool:

[Keith]

Bush versus Kerry.

I have no desire to vote for either one - they both come from big money (Washington is awash in money - it's the driving force and it's not gonna change). Just like Bush, Kerry will make sure his big contributers are taken care of.. which is why I thought Dean was refreshing. His so called yelling speech was nothing more than media manipulation (ABC did a small snippet about how it really played out). Dean wasn't always scripted, and even though it showed his flaws, it made him real. Like maybe he could change things. But Dean didn't stand a chance. Too much big money against him. At least with Bush or Kerry, the corporations, unions, big donors, etc. will have an investment in their future no matter who won.

I also think the Vietnam stories - was he awol, was he a traitor, was he this, was he that.. the dems accuse the repubs with the same thing the repubs accuse the dems of..

Both men were young during the Vietnam war - one of our nation's darkest periods.. can you really judge men their age by things they did when they were so young? Maybe mistakes were made, and favors were handed out.. it's history, and it has nothing to do with what is relevant today, imo. America has more serious problems that she needs to deal with.

:-)

[gldstwmn]

Howard Dean comes from just as much wealth as Kerry and Bush. His mother was maid of honor at one of the Walker family weddings.:) He has raised a great deal of money and I've yet to see where the bulk of it has come from. His recent attacks on the frontrunner serve no purpose and make me very suspicious of him.
It's of no use to blame the media for Howard Dean's downfall. Dean was the frontrunner before anyone voted and once they did vote, it was clear that Dr. Dean was not the first choice of many people.
His political novice in Washington would have put Dean at a great disadvantage. He had only been Governor for eight years. Vermont is a very small state. His experience in government there would have not prepared him for the presidency, IMO.
Senator Kerry's military service and President Bush's do not even begin to compare IMO. Are you old enough to remember Vietnam? The questions about President Bush translate into his present day character. His constant refusal to be accountable for his behavior had early roots. He has not served us well and I doubt that it will get any better if he is given a second term.

[Rob67]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Senator Kerry's military service and President Bush's do not even begin to compare IMO. Are you old enough to remember Vietnam? The questions about President Bush translate into his present day character. His constant refusal to be accountable for his behavior had early roots.

"Character"....sounds a lot like the argument about Clinton from the right during Monicagate. The left didn't think that it mattered that much then...

And, I am sure most people with political ties, both Dem and Rep., tried to pull strings to get out of the war.

I don't think Kerry fighting in Vietnam qualify's him for anything. I think his past voting record is more of a relevant issue. Same for Bush. I hate all this digging into how a candidate acted when they were 20.

I am scared to have Kerry as the head of our military. Didn't he vote against the first Gulf War?

Rob:cool:

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by Keith
Bush versus Kerry.

I have no desire to vote for either one - they both come from big money (Washington is awash in money - it's the driving force and it's not gonna change). Just like Bush, Kerry will make sure his big contributers are taken care of.. which is why I thought Dean was refreshing. His so called yelling speech was nothing more than media manipulation (ABC did a small snippet about how it really played out). Dean wasn't always scripted, and even though it showed his flaws, it made him real. Like maybe he could change things. But Dean didn't stand a chance. Too much big money against him. At least with Bush or Kerry, the corporations, unions, big donors, etc. will have an investment in their future no matter who won. :-)


My thoughts exactly. People claim they want change, then they go and vote for Kerry, who still hasn't been able to articulate in a way that makes sense why he voted for the war but is against it. People say they want change, then vote for someone like Kerry, who is indebted to big-money interests, then they get indignant about the influence of corporations and special interests in government.

I also get the sense that some folks subconsciously are thinking that putting Kerry in there will bring back the Clinton years, economically speaking. Trouble is, there is no Internet on the horizon or anything that will in a truly organic way (albeit somewhat misguided, in the case of the Internet) provide a sustainable economic boom. This is partly because Clinton and Gore were giving away everything they could think of to the corporate interests with things like NAFTA and favorite-nation status for China. Bush came in and took this pattern to the extreme.

At best, if Kerry gets in, we will be somewhat better off from a social stantpoint. Economically, however, it is unlikely he can undo anything about this monster, unless he gets serious about repealing NAFTA and starts penalizing companies for sending our jobs to India and China. And believe me, I want Indians and the Chinese to have good lives, but I think there's probably a better way to accomplish this without hurting American workers and exploiting other countries.

If Kerry gets in, it's back to ho-hum status quo bull****. Enough middle class folk might have enough money in their wallets to buy DVDs and go to St. Thomas once a year. But the poor people are going to continue to get screwed. We'll just ignore them, as we did in the Clinton years.

Nothing will change.

If the Weed stays in office, by golly, things may just get so bad that we'll have no choice but to make a REAL change in 2008. By then, Dean will look like the political messiah.

[dissention]

Originally posted by Rob67
I am scared to have Kerry as the head of our military. Didn't he vote against the first Gulf War?

Rob:cool:

But you're just fine with Bush being the head of our military? That, my friend, is the scary thing.

And, yeah, he did vote against the first Gulf War. Not that it mattered because, in all honesty, the Gulf War was a joke (albeit not as big as this Iraq war).

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
But you're just fine with Bush being the head of our military? That, my friend, is the scary thing.

And, yeah, he did vote against the first Gulf War. Not that it mattered because, in all honesty, the Gulf War was a joke (albeit not as big as this Iraq war).

No - the first Gulf War stopped the agression of a terrorist state against a U.S. ally. Perhaps we should have just let all of our allies go straight to hell and let Iraq take them over because that is where it was headed.

Also (albeit unrelated):

Kerry-Fonda Photo is a Fake

Newsday reports, "As a 20-year-old photographer documenting the country's struggle over the Vietnam War, Ken Light snapped the picture of John Kerry at a peace rally in Mineola. It captured the future senator alone at a podium, squinting into the sun. Light did not photograph Jane Fonda on that warm June Sunday in 1971. The actress, who is reviled by many Vietnam veterans for her vocal stance against the war, did not even attend. But when opponents of the Democratic presidential hopeful began e-mailing Light's picture to one another four days ago, it depicted Fonda standing by Kerry's side. The photo had been doctored... That is apparently where someone found it, and attempted to capitalize on the attention garnered by an authentic photo of Kerry and Fonda at a Vietnam-era rally - seated some distance apart." http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-uspix153671416feb15,0,3419479.story?coll=ny-nationalnews-headlines



__John McCain Says Man Who Posted Phony Kerry-Fonda Photo is a Fraud

The best the Bush camp can come up with against Kerry so far is a phony allegation of an affair and a fraudulent photo of Kerry with Jane Fonda. Worse, the "attack dogs" are getting sleazier by the day. Even John McCain is outraged by the Kerry-Fonda attack. "Sampley was convicted of misdemeanor assault and sentenced to 180 days' probation for attacking a legislative aide to McCain, reports the Star-Telegram. "Sampley has been criticizing Kerry for much the same reason he made McCain a target for years: Neither man, Sampley contends, has done enough to investigate his assertion that U.S. servicemen were left behind in Vietnam after the war. In defending Kerry, McCain said of Sampley: 'I consider him a fraud who preys on the hopes of family members of missing servicemen for his own profit... He does not speak for or represent the views of all but a few veterans.'" http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/nation/7954700.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
No - the first Gulf War stopped the agression of a terrorist state against a U.S. ally. Perhaps we should have just let all of our allies go straight to hell and let Iraq take them over because that is where it was headed.

Oh nonsense (with all due respect, of course). What exactly makes Kuwait such an important ally? Oil. But, wait, isn't Kuwait one of those pesky dictatorships that we supposedly don't want anymore? And wait, wasn't Iraq able to attack its neighbors back then because we gave Saddam the weapons? And, wait a little more! Didn't Saddam tell our, ahem, intelligence guys that he was planning to take Kuwait to see if we were against it and when we didn't tell him not to do it he just assumed that it would be OK? Hey, I'm not done yet! Wasn't Kuwait really a part of Iraq to begin with?

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
No - the first Gulf War stopped the agression of a terrorist state against a U.S. ally. Perhaps we should have just let all of our allies go straight to hell and let Iraq take them over because that is where it was headed.


No, the Gulf War protected oil and led to the genocide of the Kurds. That's what it did. And I'm sure you probably believe that that the Iraqi army invaded Kuwait hospitals and murdered babies from their incubators, right? ;)

[dissention]

http://www.sundaytimes.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,7034,8722518%255E401,00.html

Wow. What goes around comes around. :laugh: I'll bet Rove's knicker elastics are in a twist over this one.

[strandinthewind]

An ally is an ally :shrug: Once we committed to them, it would not have been right to back out.

Note: This is not to say I think the Gulf War, like the current war which is really just a continuation of the first Gulf War, could not have been avoided; it/they should have been avoided mostly for the reasons asserted by Carne. As an aside - America and other countries suck when they play this apparent game of let's build you up to do out bidding - but do not step out of line or else.

But, the fact remains we considered Kuwait an ally and SH knew it. After all, he was publicly warned not to invade. Interestingly, even Kuwait was an ally solely because of oil, which they probably are/were, that is not a bad thing. Although I hate our unwillingness to move on to alt. fuel sources, the bottom line is America, and the world for that matter, will crumble unless we have oil and the Middle East has plenty of it and we are allied with countries that supply us with it. Moreover, America is allies with many countries based on trade agreements, etc. Why is oil different?

Finally, what would have happened if the world (not just America) had done nothing when SH invaded Kuwait? It would have been chaos. Perhaps Saudi Arabia would have invaded Iraq (an interesting proposition) but that would have driven oil proces through the roof and mostly crumbled the world's economies.

Food for Thought.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Although I hate our unwillingness to move on to alt. fuel sources, the bottom line is America, and the world for that matter, will crumble unless we have oil and the Middle East has plenty of it

Doll, you just described the reasons for both wars. Kudos to you...finally! :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
http://www.sundaytimes.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,7034,8722518%255E401,00.html

Wow. What goes around comes around. :laugh: I'll bet Rove's knicker elastics are in a twist over this one.

:eek: :eek: While the source is "dubious" and I'll believe it when i see the medical recors, etc., yes, Rove is probably apoplectic :laugh:

Oh the mud will be a slingin' for the next nine months. :laugh:

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
:eek: :eek: While the source is "dubious" and I'll believe it when i see the medical recors, etc., yes, Rove is probably apoplectic :laugh:

Oh the mud will be a slingin' for the next nine months. :laugh:

I wouldn't call Flynt dubious at all. To be honest, I think he's a very credible person. He actually made these allegations before the 2000 election, but his source refused to go public. But they are now. :D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Flynt

"During the impeachment proceedings against President Clinton in 1998, he offered a million dollars for evidence about sexual affairs of Republican lawmakers. He published a magazine about the results; his investigations eventually lead to the resignation of incoming House speaker Bob Livingston. He also accused Bob Barr of having committed perjury when testifying about his wife's abortion."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Clinton_in_crisis/Story/0,2763,209179,00.html

"Mr Flynt accused him of hypocrisy. At a
Beverly Hills press conference, the
publisher of Hustler magazine produced
an affidavit signed by Gail Barr, the
congressman's ex-wife.

She claimed he had condoned and paid
$300 for an abortion in 1983. She also
claimed that he drove her to the clinic and
looked after their two children while the
operation was performed.

Mr Flynt contrasted this with Mr Barr's
statement at the couple's divorce
proceedings three years later, when he
said under oath that he had opposed the
abortion. In her statement, Ms Barr also
accused Mr Barr of having an affair with
Jerilyn Dobbin while he was still married
to Ms Barr. Mr Barr married Ms Dobbin a
month after the divorce. At the divorce
hearings, he refused to answer questions
about his alleged adultery."

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
Doll, you just described the reasons for both wars. Kudos to you...finally! :laugh:

I agree - I have never said oil was not a reason :laugh: I have said that the WMD issue and, more importantly, SH's unwillingness to comply with the world's order to prove he disarmed was the big issue. Althogh the humanitarian issue and the thought of SH passing on WMD were big issues as well, the bottom line is the world cannot afford to have the supply of oil at risk - both R and D's wisely realize this. The solution IMO is to get off of fossil fuels, but I know that will never happen until the last drop of oil is harvested, which is sad.

[strandinthewind]

Did you just say that Larry Flynt's paying people to tell him secrets was credible :laugh: Seriously, I agree Flynt's stuff may pan out, but so far all he has done is make the allegation a la Drudge. Let's see the proof :cool:

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I have said that the WMD issue and, more importantly, SH's unwillingness to comply with the world's order to prove he disarmed was the big issue.

That's GOP hogwash if I've ever heard it.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Did you just say that Larry Flynt's paying people to tell him secrets was credible :laugh: Seriously, I agree Flynt's stuff may pan out, but so far all he has done is make the allegation a la Drudge. Let's see the proof :cool:

It will be forthcoming, just wait and see. In the past, almost every single one of his allegations towards politicians have panned out as truth. He may be a vile person, but Matt Drudge he ain't. And with regard to these accusations, they aren't coming from the Kerry camp, whereas the intern lies came directly from ChimpCo.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
That's GOP hogwash if I've ever heard it.

:laugh:

You honestly do not think SH had any culpability in this :shrug: He could have avoided the whole thing if he had just proved the stuff was gone. He had 11 years to do it, but did not.

Also, D's and R's alike agreed SH had to go for this very reason. it was official U.S. policy set by Clinton :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
It will be forthcoming, just wait and see. In the past, almost every single one of his allegations towards politicians have panned out as truth. He may be a vile person, but Matt Drudge he ain't. And with regard to these accusations, they aren't coming from the Kerry camp, whereas the intern lies came directly from ChimpCo.

I have not seen any direct evidence linking the Kerry affair (no pun intended) to W and or the RNC. I could be wrong, however.

Also, I like Larry Flyntt - I like anyone who speaks their mind and whose actions back up what they say, etc. Also, he has provided lots of nudity - which is a great thing IMO :cool:

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
:laugh:

You honestly do not think SH had any culpability in this :shrug: He could have avoided the whole thing if he had just proved the stuff was gone. He had 11 years to do it, but did not.

Also, D's and R's alike agreed SH had to go for this very reason. it was official U.S. policy set by Clinton :shrug:

More hogwash.

The intelligence community and our government knew that he had no weapons. This information was given to ChimpCo and they decided to disregard it and use old intelligence that said Saddam had these weapons. They knew the intelligence that said Saddam had nuclear capabilities that he could use in 45 minutes was bull****, but they sold it to us anyways. Moreover, they knew ahead of time that a terrorist attack would take place in 2001 and they did nothing about it. Well, they did stop flying public airlines, actually. Iraq was under such extreme scrutiny that Saddam couldn't remedy a boil on his ass without us knowing which ass cream he purchased. So, no, I do not think Saddam had much culpability in all of this. Some? Yes, of course. But this whole debacle is on ChimpCo's head, and rightfully so.

That's what I believe in my heart.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by dissention
http://www.sundaytimes.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,7034,8722518%255E401,00.html

Wow. What goes around comes around. :laugh: I'll bet Rove's knicker elastics are in a twist over this one.

When they said everything was on the table, they weren't kidding around.
Check your email soon.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I have not seen any direct evidence linking the Kerry affair (no pun intended) to W and or the RNC. I could be wrong, however.

Also, I like Larry Flyntt - I like anyone who speaks their mind and whose actions back up what they say, etc. Also, he has provided lots of nudity - which is a great thing IMO :cool:

Matt Drudge isn't enough evidence himself? :confused: :laugh:

And now we're back to boobs. :laugh: I have to admit, though, I am a closet Flynt admirer. :nod: :wavey:

[dissention]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
When they said everything was on the table, they weren't kidding around.
Check your email soon.

Will do!

What did you think of that abortion article? Fact or fiction?

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
More hogwash.

The intelligence community and our government knew that he had no weapons. This information was given to ChimpCo and they decided to disregard it and use old intelligence that said Saddam had these weapons. They knew the intelligence that said Saddam had nuclear capabilities that he could use in 45 minutes was bull****, but they sold it to us anyways. Moreover, they knew ahead of time that a terrorist attack would take place in 2001 and they did nothing about it. Well, they did stop flying public airlines, actually. Iraq was under such extreme scrutiny that Saddam couldn't remedy a boil on his ass without us knowing which ass cream he purchased. So, no, I do not think Saddam had much culpability in all of this. Some? Yes, of course. But this whole debacle is on ChimpCo's head, and rightfully so.

That's what I believe in my heart.

I agree, the decision to go to war rests solely on W and I think he will pay for it in Nov. But, I think, at the least, America has to redefine how it gets intelligence. I mean all of those pics. CP showed the U.N. - why didn't SH explain those. Why didn't SH explain the intercepted phone conversations. He could have prevented this - but, sadly, he did not. This, however and as I have stated, does not excuse W for exxagerating the threat and for flat out lying about the nuclear stuff. He ought to be impeached for that :mad:

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I agree, the decision to go to war rests solely on W and I think he will pay for it in Nov. But, I think, at the least, America has to redefine how it gets intelligence. I mean all of those pics. CP showed the U.N. - why didn't SH explain those. Why didn't SH explain the intercepted phone conversations. He could have prevented this - but, sadly, he did not. This, however and as I have stated, does not excuse W for exxagerating the threat and for flat out lying about the nuclear stuff. He ought to be impeached for that :mad:

Saddam couldn't have done a thing to stop this war. ChimpCo was determined to get back at him and they did. Anything that he would've said would have been called lies and bull**** by ChimpCo. And I don't think there is anything wrong with our intelligence community. I think what's wrong is how heads of government choose to use the intelligence.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
Matt Drudge isn't enough evidence himself? :confused: :laugh:

And now we're back to boobs. :laugh: I have to admit, though, I am a closet Flynt admirer. :nod: :wavey:

BOOBS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, anything coming from Drudge is suspect on its face!!!! But, he has been right before - although it kills me to say that! :laugh: Similarly, bought testimony is usually highly suspect on its face - but I think LF may have the goods to back it up - as you say he usually does.

I wonder, however, how this will effect W's stance in the R party. Abortion is a highly politically correct issue. Many people who are totally against abortion agree with the right to choose (they are sep issues). Also, many who disagree with both principles/issues know they would get one or have gotten one, assisted in getting one, etc., and have now changed or whatever. So, while W will certainly take a hit for another "youthful indiscretion" that he villfies people for doing the same thing now :rolleyes: - I wonder if it will be enough to sink him?

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
Saddam couldn't have done a thing to stop this war. ChimpCo was determined to get back at him and they did. Anything that he would've said would have been called lies and bull**** by ChimpCo. And I don't think there is anything wrong with our intelligence community. I think what's wrong is how heads of government choose to use the intelligence.

Well, SH certainly did not help his own credibility by lying and being an obstructionist for 11 years :laugh: Also, he could have stepped down - that would have stopped this war. Interestingly, I think that proper use of political pressure on other states like Saudia Arabia, Syria, etc., could have acheived this goal - but I realize those are fighting words to politicians and, perhaps more realistically, no politician acheived that goal in 11 years.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I wonder, however, how this will effect W's stance in the R party. Abortion is a highly politically correct issue. Many people who are totally against abortion agree with the right to choose (they are sep issues). Also, many who disagree with both principles/issues know they would get one or have gotten one, assisted in getting one, etc., and have now changed or whatever. So, while W will certainly take a hit for another "youthful indiscretion" that he villfies people for doing the same thing now :rolleyes: - I wonder if it will be enough to sink him?

I know exactly how it will effect his standing: it won't! :laugh:

He'll excuse it by saying 'It was a youthful indiscretion of infidelity and abortion, but then I found the Almighty and he helped me see the errors of my way.'

Spoken like a true alcoholic and cocaine addict.

:rolleyes:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
I know exactly how it will effect his standing: it won't! :laugh:

He'll excuse it by saying 'It was a youthful indiscretion of infidelity and abortion, but then I found the Almighty and he helped me see the errors of my way.'

Spoken like a true alcoholic and cocaine addict.

:rolleyes:

It worked twice for Jerry Falwell - an ardent Bush lover :cool:

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
It worked twice for Jerry Falwell - an ardent Bush lover :cool:

Never say that dirty word Falwell. Use a * instead. :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
Never say that dirty word Falwell. Use a * instead. :laugh:

Oops - I meant Jimmy "I HAVE SIIIYYYYNNNAAANNNEDDD IIIII HHHHAAAAAVVVVEEEEE SSSSSIIIIIYYYYYAAAANNNNNNDDDED" Swaggart - I am getting my a$$hole I want to control your life so you give me $$$$ fundamentalist Christians confused :laugh:

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Oops - I meant Jimmy "I HAVE SIIIYYYYNNNAAANNNEDDD IIIII HHHHAAAAAVVVVEEEEE SSSSSIIIIIYYYYYAAAANNNNNNDDDED" Swaggart - I am getting my a$$hole I want to control your life so you give me $$$$ fundamentalist Christians confused :laugh:

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

And hey, Elvis can vouch for him...

http://www.bloggerheads.com/images/bush_awol_elvis.jpg

[Rob67]

Originally posted by dissention
But you're just fine with Bush being the head of our military? That, my friend, is the scary thing.

So far, so good.;)

Rob:cool:

[dissention]

Originally posted by Rob67
So far, so good.;)

Rob:cool:

Isn't it time for your medication? :laugh:

[dissention]

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=310788&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

The last two paragraphs are *very* disturbing. Seriously.

I wonder if the "God" he speaks of is Rove or Cheney. :laugh:

[dissention]

Anyone see little Scotty on CSPAN today at the weekly White House press briefing? He's a card, man.

A reporter asked him about Bush's cocaine arrest and his community service and he refused to even acknowledge the question. :laugh: That question gets asked every week by the same reporter. ;)

Little Scotty is so out of his element at these briefings; the press eats him alive. :D

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by Rob67
So far, so good.;)Tell that to the parents of all the young soldiers who've lost their lives while fighting a war started under false pretenses.
Meanwhile, Bush hasn't done anything to convincingly prove that he ever truly served this country.

What a stand-up guy our President is. :distress:

To quote an old gospel song.... "you can't be a beacon if your light don't shine."

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
Tell that to the parents of all the young soldiers who've lost their lives while fighting a war started under false pretenses.
Meanwhile, Bush hasn't done anything to convincingly prove that he ever truly served this country.

What a stand-up guy our President is. :distress:

To quote an old gospel song.... "you can't be a beacon if your light don't shine."

While W did lie about the nuclear stuff and that is bad, your same argument could be made with Clinton and Bush I. After all, they killed, albeit to a lesser degree, in the name of essentially the same information/intelligence :shrug: In the end, the U.S. has intelligence that SH, a known terrorist, refused to dispute for 11 years. Blame him - that is where the blame belongs IMO. I do not see why people do not get that :shrug:

Moreover, W was in the air guard portion of the NG. Three or more air guard units went to Nam and some of those people died. So, W being in the air guard was not a total out for him. Also, the press and/or annyone else has yet to prove W was not in AL or Tx or wherever. Again, W has the upper hand here because ALL available evidence shows he was a good pilot, a good NG member, he did his duty, and he was honorably discharged. So, until someone comes up with a paper trail, W wins this issue and the D's would be wise to let it die no matter how fishy it smells IMO.

My $0.02

[Rob67]

Originally posted by dissention
Isn't it time for your medication? :laugh:

I stopped smoking it in college...er...nevermind....:D

Rob:cool:

[Rob67]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
Tell that to the parents of all the young soldiers who've lost their lives while fighting a war started under false pretenses.
Meanwhile, Bush hasn't done anything to convincingly prove that he ever truly served this country.

What a stand-up guy our President is. :distress:

To quote an old gospel song.... "you can't be a beacon if your light don't shine."

I respect your opinion but disagree. On the National Security\Foreign Policy front, I support his actions.:wavey:

Rob:cool:

[dissention]

Originally posted by Rob67
I respect your opinion but disagree. On the National Security\Foreign Policy front, I support his actions.:wavey:

Rob:cool:

Then tell me why, after his administration was informed that a big terrorist attack would happen in 2001, he did nothing to prevent it in any way. Tell me why he completely disregarded what the Clinton administration told him about al Qaeda being a huge threat. It seems that ChimpCo is always a day late and a dollar short of everything and can't take responsibility for its f*ck-ups (of which there are many).

[Rob67]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Moreover, W was in the air guard portion of the NG. Three or more air guard units went to Nam and some of those people died. So, W being in the air guard was not a total out for him. Also, the press and/or annyone else has yet to prove W was not in AL or Tx or wherever. Again, W has the upper hand here because ALL available evidence shows he was a good pilot, a good NG member, he did his duty, and he was honorably discharged. So, until someone comes up with a paper trail, W wins this issue and the D's would be wise to let it die no matter how fishy it smells IMO.

My $0.02

I agree...there is too much digging going on about this...it seems as theough the press and the Dems are desperate for anything to sling at him come election time. Here is an op ed piece from the Pittsburgh Post Gazette written by a liberal columnist, Gene Collier. He examines this issue and why it is irrelevant to the modern political debates. Whether you dislike Bush or Kerry should be more dependant on their policies and actions as politicians not based on events (unless they involve felonies like fleeing the scene of a crime...ahem, Kennedy!) that happened when they were young.

Anyway, I disagree with a lot of his political views but I agree on this:


Sniping over Vietnam service meaningless

Wednesday, February 18, 2004

George W. Bush's National Guard record might have more holes in it than his grammar, but the skittish decisions made by the nervous, conflicted and often clueless young people of 35 years ago do not strike me as a campaign issue worth sustaining.

"It was not an issue to me," John Kerry has said 500 times since the day he came back from Vietnam, "if somebody chose to go to Canada or to go to jail or to be a conscientious objector or to serve in the National Guard or elsewhere."

Though that worn quote is cast by some as a classic backhanded compliment, it is more accurately a rhetorical surrender to the emotional complexities of the Vietnam era.

This election is not about the Vietnam War; it is about Bush War II: Baghdad Boogaloo, and about the ongoing Bush War against the middle class, the underprivileged, the surplus, the next generation, the generation after that, the environment, veterans, gays, the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, Roe vs. Wade, gun control, et al.

Liberals can yelp all they want about Bush's service record, that as a classic example of what Creedence Clearwater Revival was wailing about at the time, a "Fortunate Son," Bush went to the head of the line for National Guard service, which in that era was tantamount to a Get Out of Vietnam Free Card. They can bitch about Dubya's amazing impact on his Alabama unit, in which virtually no one can remember him showing up, probably because he didn't show up very much at all.

And in those allegations, liberals can be fairly certain that they are correct.

Conservatives, on this annoyingly mirrored issue, can scream all they want about John Kerry's anti-war sentiment. Despite his drop-dead glorious service record, they can choose to show him protesting the war once he escaped the Southeast Asian jungles, sitting with Hanoi Jane Fonda, flinging his distinguished service records in disgust, railing against the government, et al.

And in those allegations, conservatives can be fairly certain they are correct.

But what does any of that do for us?

I mean, so what?

This election is not about the political agonies and colossal mistakes of the past 35 years, but rather the political urgencies and potentially devastating mistakes and opportunities of the new century.

I believe George Bush when he says he has no second thoughts about invading Iraq, because to have second thoughts, you gotta have first thoughts, a dubious notion in itself. Dubya's not in this for the thinking part. He's in it for the swagger.

There was good news over the weekend, sort of, when Dubya gassed up Air Force One for a ride down to Daytona for the big NASCAR event (at taxpayer expense, sure) and submitted to an interview for NBC in which he somehow was asked about the New York Yankees acquiring Alex Rodriguez. "I was just as surprised as the Yankee fans and the Boston Red Sox fans when I opened up my paper today," he said.

The good news is not that Yankees and Red Sox fans can infer from that that the president is generally alerted to major baseball trades; the good news is that Bush admitted to reading the paper. He's said publicly in the past that he doesn't (although Laura Bush contradicted him in a recent interview). At least now we can assume he reads the sports, so maybe on his way to the box scores this spring he'll notice there's a world of trouble out there, much of it of his administration's making.

He doesn't have to worry about seeing pictures of caskets. Those are prohibited by the far more successful First Amendment war.

Should it manage to sustain itself, the National Guard issue can linger until November without generating the kind of comment Rodger Garrett gave The New York Times over the weekend. Garrett was the sergeant who supervised the command post at the flight operations center Bush was supposed to report to in Alabama. If Garrett ever saw Bush, he said, Bush never made an impression.

That I can believe.

I don't care if the reason George Bush sent nearly 600 American kids to their deaths in Iraq is tied up in the reality that he's never known the horror of war himself. But if he did it for reasons he must repeatedly recast, which more than suggests there was no good reason at all, then that's a campaign issue that shouldn't go away.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gene Collier can be reached at [email protected]

[dissention]

Originally posted by Rob67
I agree...there is too much digging going on about this...it seems as theough the press and the Dems are desperate for anything to sling at him come election time. Here is an op ed piece from the Pittsburgh Post Gazette written by a liberal columnist, Gene Collier. He examines this issue and why it is irrelevant to the modern political debates. Whether you dislike Bush or Kerry should be more dependant on their policies and actions as politicians not based on events (unless they involve felonies like fleeing the scene of a crime...ahem, Kennedy!) that happened when they were young.


While I agree that his NG record doesn't directly relate to his presidency at the moment, it does give further credence to his continued pattern of lying outright.

He lied about the war, he lied about his NG duty, he lied about his drunk driving conviction, he lied about his cocaine use, the list just goes on forever. He is a man without a shred of moral integrity, a man who hides behind the Bible and 9/11 when the going gets tough. For cripes sake, he thinks God speaks to him directly and he disapproves of interracial relationships! He's a f*cking insult to this country and the White House.

[dissention]

Originally posted by Rob67
Whether you dislike Bush or Kerry should be more dependant on their policies and actions as politicians not based on events (unless they involve felonies like fleeing the scene of a crime...ahem, Kennedy!) that happened when they were young.


Yeah, and being arrested for cocaine and drunk driving when you are in your thirties is okay. :rolleyes:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by dissention
Will do!

What did you think of that abortion article? Fact or fiction?

It's not the first source I've seen. It wouldn't suprise me. did you hear what Laura said about gay marriage today?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&e=4&u=/ap/20040218/ap_on_go_pr_wh/laura_bush_interview

Mrs. Bush: Gay Marriage Shocking for Some

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Well, SH certainly did not help his own credibility by lying and being an obstructionist for 11 years :laugh: Also, he could have stepped down - that would have stopped this war. Interestingly, I think that proper use of political pressure on other states like Saudia Arabia, Syria, etc., could have acheived this goal - but I realize those are fighting words to politicians and, perhaps more realistically, no politician acheived that goal in 11 years.

At this point, who knows if Saddam did or didn't try to make amends. Do you think the neocons would tell us?

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by dissention
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=310788&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

The last two paragraphs are *very* disturbing. Seriously.

I wonder if the "God" he speaks of is Rove or Cheney. :laugh:

That's some of the more frightening rhetoric we've seen from him for a while. 11 months and counting.:)

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
While W did lie about the nuclear stuff and that is bad, your same argument could be made with Clinton and Bush I. IMO.



Stop right there. Neither of the other two presidents engaged us in an illegal war. Those two were both actually elected as well.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind

Moreover, W was in the air guard portion of the NG. Three or more air guard units went to Nam and some of those people died. So, W being in the air guard was not a total out for him.


Yes it was. He flew obsolete plains. He was trained on only one plane the F102, which was for air to air combat. Vietnam = no air force. The was never a chance that he would be called up to active duty.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by dissention
While I agree that his NG record doesn't directly relate to his presidency at the moment, it does give further credence to his continued pattern of lying outright.

He lied about the war, he lied about his NG duty, he lied about his drunk driving conviction, he lied about his cocaine use, the list just goes on forever. He is a man without a shred of moral integrity, a man who hides behind the Bible and 9/11 when the going gets tough. For cripes sake, he thinks God speaks to him directly and he disapproves of interracial relationships! He's a f*cking insult to this country and the White House.

The pinnacle of all the lies and bull**** was him sitting there at Booker Elementary on the morning of September 11, not doing jack **** to protect and defend this country which was part of the oath he took when he sworn in. He's failed us miserably.

http://www.takebackthemedia.com/true911.html

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
While I agree that his NG record doesn't directly relate to his presidency at the moment, it does give further credence to his continued pattern of lying outright.

He lied about . . . his NG duty . . .

Prove that he lied about his NG record. I submit you cannot - no one can because the evidence supports that he was there. If more comes to light, then so be it - I am not married to the idea that he served all of the time and think he is a schmo for pulling strings to get in even though I would have done the same thing. :cool:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
At this point, who knows if Saddam did or didn't try to make amends. Do you think the neocons would tell us?

Certainly he had the attention of the world. The US does not control the world press :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Stop right there. Neither of the other two presidents engaged us in an illegal war. Those two were both actually elected as well.

:rolleyes: Please - W was elected. Again, all of the sources indicated the count in FL would have gone to W. ALso, everyone knows the popular vote is meanlingless. If W had won the popular vote, but lost the electoral college vote would any liberal still make this argument :shrug: :laugh:

Also, Bush I (I think) and Clinton participated in the no fly zones. There is a issue about whether those were legal as they were no officially sanctioned by the U.N. Sounds like illegal to me if that same def. is applied to W. :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Yes it was. He flew obsolete plains. He was trained on only one plane the F102, which was for air to air combat. Vietnam = no air force. The was never a chance that he would be called up to active duty.

And how is that his fault? That was the NG's choice :shrug:

Also, that issue of what he did during those 30 minutes on 9-11 immediately after the attacks is just such a red herring. Again, none of us know what was happening - we can berate the SS's actions all we want, but none of know what was happening. The Pres. was in a secure place. For all we know there could have been a direct threat in moving him. So its cool to be suspect, but asserting suspicion as fact is specious because we do not know all of the facts and probably never will. Just my $0.02

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
And how is that his fault? That was the NG's choice :shrug:



Please don't tell me that you are that much of an enabler.:)

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
While W did lie about the nuclear stuff and that is bad, your same argument could be made with Clinton and Bush I. After all, they killed, albeit to a lesser degree, in the name of essentially the same information/intelligence Correct me if I'm wrong, but Clinton never sent troops off to war in Iraq.
We had troops stationed in various areas in the Gulf, but that was all just part of the presence we've been maintaining there for over a decade now.

But either way, I'm not arguing Clinton's character here, or the job he did as president... I'm talking about George W. Bush, and our present-day situation.
And the only thing his supporters can ever seem to point to in his defense, is that he's "tough on terrorism."
Well, bully for him.
If any other person had been in office at the time of 9/11, I have a strong suspicion that they too would be "tough on terrorism" at this point in their presidency.

And if he had truly been effective on striking down terrorism, then he and his camp would have listened to the pre-9/11 intelligence they had been given, and they would have heeded the countless warning signs, and we wouldn't have had to lose nearly 3,000 innocent lives.

Strip away the "tough on terrorism" propaganda, and there is little-to-nothing to show me why this man deserves to be our president.

This is a man who believes he has the moral integrity to run our country, thru his "talks with God"... and feels that it's his place to decide what is good and bad for the American people.
While there has not been a single thing he's done, in the past or currently, that makes me feel confident that he has any business whatsoever telling us how to conduct our lives.

So I refer back to my earlier quote....
"You can't be a beacon if your light don't shine."

[strandinthewind]

Johnny - you are wrong.

I agree with you in that like Bill Maher said - anyone could have pointed to Afganistan on the map and "destroy this," which essentially is what W did. As an aside, there are still people who do not believe the U.S. should have done that - I submit these people do not know what they are talking about.

I also am not arguing Clinton or Bush I's integrity, etc. I am merely pointing out that they both used essentially the same intelligence to kill people in Iraq, whether it was an all out war like W got us into or by enforcing the questionably legal "no fly zones" in place in the Bush I and Clinton eras. To me, there is not distinction, except in the number of deaths and the method of killing. Again, why was it right for Bush I and Clinton to kill without UN approval in the name of that intelligence but when W does it based on the same intelligence everyone is up in arms crying foul :shrug: I hate double standards, which I think is what is happening to a degree here although I admit W had it out for Iraq from the beginning and used this intelligence along with 9-11 to get his way.

Also, W's supporters, one of which I am not, correctly point out that the tax cuts are helping the economy (I know I know we are not back at the 1999 level yet). If you do not believe me, consult any reputable economist starting with Greenspan. Now, if we could just control W's spending . . . :cool:

Finally, do you really think that if W and Clinton (the intelligence was there then too) had actually known about the 9/11 attacks, they would not have tried to stop them. I cannot believe that and I am a rank conspiracy theorist :laugh: I think the CIA knew something was going to go down, but I do not think they actual knowledge of the specific event. Also, W's administration dropped the ball of Al-Q, which the outgoing Clinton administration warned them was the clear threat. So, therein lies fault. But, to say W knew that planes were going to be used on 9/11 in the exact manner and time they were and then did nothing to stop that just defies belief IMO.

P.S. I did not vote for W in the first place and agree W should not be the President any longer perhaps mainly because his supporters are using him to shove fundamentalist Christian postulates down the throats of Americans, which I hate. I think that is far more dangerous to America than forcing a war to clean up an 11 year mess/loose end/cannon.

:cool:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Please don't tell me that you are that much of an enabler.:)

OMG - I love your new pic!!!!!!

No - I am not. I am just saying how do we know the NG did not assign him that plane? I do not know that for a fact. Do you?

[strandinthewind]

The Bush administration has announced the largest increase in federal funding for the arts in 20 years.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,111799,00.html

Also - this is a pretty funny interview by cranky O'Reilly :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,111802,00.html

Oh W - wise up and realize the planet is warming up not to you, but to itself because of fossil fuel emissions :rolleyes:

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Prove that he lied about his NG record. I submit you cannot - no one can because the evidence supports that he was there. If more comes to light, then so be it - I am not married to the idea that he served all of the time and think he is a schmo for pulling strings to get in even though I would have done the same thing. :cool:

All of the documents that were recently released had no mention of May '72-May '73. So, prove that he was there. I submit you cannot. People have publicly said that they saw documents trashed and heard conversations to get rid of any "embarrassing" files, people have said they didn't see him, his own dentist says he doesn't remember him; the evidence is on our side, doll.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Certainly he had the attention of the world. The US does not control the world press :shrug:

Nope, they control the US press. The use of embeds, for example.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
And how is that his fault? That was the NG's choice :shrug:

Also, that issue of what he did during those 30 minutes on 9-11 immediately after the attacks is just such a red herring. Again, none of us know what was happening - we can berate the SS's actions all we want, but none of know what was happening. The Pres. was in a secure place. For all we know there could have been a direct threat in moving him. So its cool to be suspect, but asserting suspicion as fact is specious because we do not know all of the facts and probably never will. Just my $0.02

Boy, you are so naive. :laugh:

Do you honestly think that his daddy didn't influence this kind of stuff? Good christ.

And, I'm sorry, but reading for another half hour to kids after the WTC center has just been hit by two planes is disgusting. Some people are just so optimistic that they refuse to even consider the possibility that their president is a bastard.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
All of the documents that were recently released had no mention of May '72-May '73. So, prove that he was there. I submit you cannot. People have publicly said that they saw documents trashed and heard conversations to get rid of any "embarrassing" files, people have said they didn't see him, his own dentist says he doesn't remember him; the evidence is on our side, doll.

Again, the NG paid him for being there. Moreover, people remember him being in AL (Texas souflee :laugh: ) and he got his teeth fixed and the NG paid for it. These three things prove he was in AL and did his work. While that commander says he cannot remember ever seeing W there, he also admits he was not there all of the time. So, his testimony cannot be dispositive of this issue. IMO - Somebody needs to find evidence in writing that he was not ever on the base, etc. That is the only way these allegations can stick IMO.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
Nope, they control the US press. The use of embeds, for example.

The U.S. is releasing OBL's videos? :shrug:

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I also am not arguing Clinton or Bush I's integrity, etc. I am merely pointing out that they both used essentially the same intelligence to kill people in Iraq, whether it was an all out war like W got us into or by enforcing the questionably legal "no fly zones" in place in the Bush I and Clinton eras. To me, there is not distinction, except in the number of deaths and the method of killing. Again, why was it right for Bush I and Clinton to kill without UN approval in the name of that intelligence but when W does it based on the same intelligence everyone is up in arms crying foul :shrug: I hate double standards, which I think is what is happening to a degree here although I admit W had it out for Iraq from the beginning and used this intelligence along with 9-11 to get his way.

Also, W's supporters, one of which I am not, correctly point out that the tax cuts are helping the economy (I know I know we are not back at the 1999 level yet). If you do not believe me, consult any reputable economist starting with Greenspan. Now, if we could just control W's spending . . . :cool:


:rolleyes:

ChimpCo was thirsty for Saddam the minute they got into office. Don't you think that they did some digging in the intelligence community to get some dirt on him? Don't you think that they found out that he had nothing but that they chose to use the old intelligence that said he did have WMDs? To say they used the same intelligence as Clinton is ludicrous. The only way they used it was as a scapegoat and a tool to lie to the American people. They knew it was bad but deliberately used it.

As for the tax cuts? There is absolutely no proof that trickle-down economics works and every economist worth their salt will tell you that. But, ChimpCo will say they inherited a bad economy and that's absolute bull****.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Again, the NG paid him for being there. Moreover, people remember him being in AL (Texas souflee :laugh: ) and he got his teeth fixed and the NG paid for it. These three things prove he was in AL and did his work. While that commander says he cannot remember ever seeing W there, he also admits he was not there all of the time. So, his testimony cannot be dispositive of this issue. IMO - Somebody needs to find evidence in writing that he was not ever on the base, etc. That is the only way these allegations can stick IMO.

Again, you automatically get paid, regardless if you show up; it's sort of like direct-deposit; many officials have said so.

[dissention]

If he wants to prove he was there, ne needs to release his FULL discharge papers with the WD form. Every Guardsman gets it when they are discharged.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
:rolleyes:

ChimpCo was thirsty for Saddam the minute they got into office. Don't you think that they did some digging in the intelligence community to get some dirt on him? Don't you think that they found out that he had nothing but that they chose to use the old intelligence that said he did have WMDs? To say they used the same intelligence as Clinton is ludicrous. The only way they used it was as a scapegoat and a tool to lie to the American people. They knew it was bad but deliberately used it.

As for the tax cuts? There is absolutely no proof that trickle-down economics works and every economist worth their salt will tell you that. But, ChimpCo will say they inherited a bad economy and that's absolute bull****.

Again, cite one credible economist that syas tax cuts have not helped our economy :shrug:

Also, I agree W had it in for SH from the beginning as was consistent with U.S. policy of regime change. But, no proof that W or anyone had later intelligence that exonerated SH. I mean Clinton, Kerry, Gehardt and many many other R and D's said the evidence is there and SH will not refute it as he is required to do. So you really think all of these diametrically opposed people who will sell anyone out to get political gain were al in on this from the beginning. I cannot see that happening.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
If he wants to prove he was there, ne needs to release his FULL discharge papers with the WD form. Every Guardsman gets it when they are discharged.

But why does the NG not have this even if W does not.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
But why does the NG not have this even if W does not.

Because I think it was one of the papers that were trashed. Those WD forms are like attendance records and they show your entire schedule; if he didn't show up, it would have been reflected on that document and, for some reason, no one is giving it up.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Again, cite one credible economist that syas tax cuts have not helped our economy :shrug:

Also, I agree W had it in for SH from the beginning as was consistent with U.S. policy of regime change. But, no proof that W or anyone had later intelligence that exonerated SH. I mean Clinton, Kerry, Gehardt and many many other R and D's said the evidence is there and SH will not refute it as he is required to do. So you really think all of these diametrically opposed people who will sell anyone out to get political gain were al in on this from the beginning. I cannot see that happening.

You can't see anything negative happening, doll.

And please cite some economists who *aren't* affiliated with ChimpCo that says the tax cuts have helped.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
You can't see anything negative happening, doll.

And please cite some economists who *aren't* affiliated with ChimpCo that says the tax cuts have helped.

On the contrary, I do see many bad things, just not as bad as you do :scoll:

For example, Bush is spending us into our grave and he flat out lied about Iraq's nuclear capability and that he "knew" where all of the WMD were, etc., in an effort to incite us into a war no one really wanted to start. He ought to be impeached for that.

Geenspan is one economist - he is not in W's pocket. He is apolitical IMO. He also publicly reprimands Bush at every chance he gets about the out of hand spending in relation to the tax cuts, which has resulted in the enormous deficit. Here is a good article from CNN

http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/14/news/economy/election_taxes/

On a non-related topic - go here for a good read

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=16462

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
OMG - I love your new pic!!!!!!

No - I am not. I am just saying how do we know the NG did not assign him that plane? I do not know that for a fact. Do you?

Those were the only planes available at TANG where Daddy put him ahead of 500 other people trying to get into the Guard. That's part of why they called it the Champagne Division.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by dissention
:rolleyes:

ChimpCo was thirsty for Saddam the minute they got into office. Don't you think that they did some digging in the intelligence community to get some dirt on him? Don't you think that they found out that he had nothing but that they chose to use the old intelligence that said he did have WMDs? To say they used the same intelligence as Clinton is ludicrous. The only way they used it was as a scapegoat and a tool to lie to the American people. They knew it was bad but deliberately used it.



Yup. See PNAC.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Again, cite one credible economist that syas tax cuts have not helped our economy :shrug:



The former Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O'Neill says it in his book, The Price Of Loyalty.:)

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
But why does the NG not have this even if W does not.

* needs to sign a privacy release in order for them to be made pulbic. He hasn't done it.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
Again, you automatically get paid, regardless if you show up; it's sort of like direct-deposit; many officials have said so.

That is not what I read. You had to have signed off of time sheets, etc. I agree the issue is where are those. But, in the end, the NG must have seen them at some point because the paystubs are for certain time periods. So, the conclusion must be they were there at the time. Otherwise, how would they know to pay W for certain periods?

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Those were the only planes available at TANG where Daddy put him ahead of 500 other people trying to get into the Guard. That's part of why they called it the Champagne Division.

I agree he should be lambasted for, like Clinton and many others, pulling political or familial strings to avoid Nam. But, my point is his service with that plane was legit at the time. No evidence contradicts that. And - his unit could have been called at any time. I doubt it would have been because of whom was in that unit. But, that is a suspicion on my part.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
The former Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O'Neill says it in his book, The Price Of Loyalty.:)

He is not an economist is he? Interestingly, when Kennedy cut taxes in the 60's the liberals were all for it. And it worked then as it is now. Interestingly, if the tax cuts are not working, why is the economy recovering?

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
* needs to sign a privacy release in order for them to be made pulbic. He hasn't done it.

I find that hard to believe. If he had actually refused to do this, the press would eat him alive. Where did you read that? You may be right, I just cannot believe that he could get away with that considering this issue is being examined so closely and W said on Meet the Press that he would sign a release and apparantly did as some documents (payroll stubs) were produced.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Geenspan is one economist - he is not in W's pocket. He is apolitical IMO. He also publicly reprimands Bush at every chance he gets about the out of hand spending in relation to the tax cuts, which has resulted in the enormous deficit. Here is a good article from CNN


Greenspan said recently that the deficit is so large, even if the economy continues to grow, it's a house of cards and could fall at any moment.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
Greenspan said recently that the deficit is so large, even if the economy continues to grow, it's a house of cards and could fall at any moment.

Yes, but he is for the tax cuts as an effective revenue generating tool and has said they are working :shrug: It is W's no tax and spend he is concerned about.

[strandinthewind]

I know it is early and polls now are somewhat meaningless, etc. - but still:

Kerry, Edwards both top Bush in poll
Bush campaign chairman cites 'huge focus' on Dems
Wednesday, February 18, 2004 Posted: 8:34 PM EST (0134 GMT)



A new poll shows President Bush trailing Democrats in two hypothetical match-ups.

(CNN) -- Democratic presidential hopefuls John Edwards and John Kerry both hold leads of 10 percentage points or more in hypothetical match-ups against President Bush, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Wednesday.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/18/elec04.prez.poll/index.html

[Johnny Stew]

A new poll shows President Bush trailing Democrats in two hypothetical match-ups.There may be hope for this country yet.

[Merf]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
(CNN) -- Democratic presidential hopefuls John Edwards and John Kerry both hold leads of 10 percentage points or more in hypothetical match-ups against President Bush, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Wednesday.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/18/elec04.prez.poll/index.html

That's the best news I've heard all day.

But I'm caucusing for Edwards. (NC has to have caucuses as opposed to a primary because of a disagreement between congress and state governments about how the district lines should be drawn). The more I hear about Kerry, the more I'm confused about him.

[strandinthewind]

Friday, February 20, 2004
By Liza Porteus


NEW YORK — Ralph Nader, the consumer advocate who ran for president in 2000 as a Green Party candidate, will enter the 2004 race for the White House as an independent candidate, advisers told Fox News on Friday.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,112049,00.html

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I find that hard to believe. If he had actually refused to do this, the press would eat him alive. Where did you read that? You may be right, I just cannot believe that he could get away with that considering this issue is being examined so closely and W said on Meet the Press that he would sign a release and apparantly did as some documents (payroll stubs) were produced.

I'll have to look for the link for that. The jist is that he would have to sign a release in order for the docs to be made public. He's just releasing docs that he has obtained through his own request.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Friday, February 20, 2004
By Liza Porteus


NEW YORK — Ralph Nader, the consumer advocate who ran for president in 2000 as a Green Party candidate, will enter the 2004 race for the White House as an independent candidate, advisers told Fox News on Friday.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,112049,00.html
He'll be lucky to get 1% of the vote this time. he doesn't have the Greens and a lot of people are pissed off at him.

[dissention]

Originally posted by Merf
But I'm caucusing for Edwards.

Yeah, but I'm not exactly rooting for another on-the-job training kind of guy. Shrub was enough. I like Edwards a lot (he seems like a *really* wonderful person), but he's out of his league; he has no experience. He didn't even know what the Defense of Marriage Act was. :laugh:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
He is not an economist is he? Interestingly, when Kennedy cut taxes in the 60's the liberals were all for it. And it worked then as it is now. Interestingly, if the tax cuts are not working, why is the economy recovering?

It's not.

[dissention]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
It's not.

Exactly!

On MSNBC last night, some GOP schmuck was on and started talking about how laborers are getting the best benefits in history right now and how they are being grossly overpaid. The he said that the standard of living has gone up 4% and almost every worker in this country has gotten a raise because of it. What lies! No one I know has gotten a cost of living increase in years!

[gldstwmn]

http://www.reuters.com/financeNewsArticle.jhtml?storyID=4408207&type=bondsNews

Gaffes by Bush economic team worry conservatives

WASHINGTON, Feb 21 (Reuters) - More than a year after President George W. Bush revamped his economic team, none of the current players has emerged as a leading spokesman on the economy and conservatives are fretting over a series of election-year gaffes.

The lack of a clear economic voice was underscored last week when officials were forced to back off a jobs forecast unveiled in the Feb. 9 Economic Report of the President.

The forecast called for average job growth of more than 300,000 jobs a month this year -- a figure that exceeds most private forecasts and prompted a slew of Democratic criticism.

Treasury Secretary John Snow, touring the hard-hit Pacific Northwest, was the first to pull away from the figures. White House spokesman Scott McClellan followed suit.

That forced Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Gregory Mankiw, lead author of the report, to row back, even though he had defended the numbers in a Capitol Hill hearing.

Mankiw was already in hot water for remarks that seemed to show approval of the outsourcing of jobs to cheaper labor markets overseas -- a sensitive issue at a time when the factory sector is hemorrhaging jobs.

The controversies had many conservatives cringing over what they saw as public-relations missteps with the economic report, a collaboration of officials from across the economic team.

"The question is, are they wrong or are they just not communicating it effectively? I would suggest it's just more a case of not communicating it effectively," said a Republican congressional aide, who asked not to be identified. "It's easy to throw stones," but the aide wondered why officials did not sit down ahead to vet "the sensitive aspects" of the report.

Democrats, seeing the report as a potential gold mine of ammunition, have also pounced on an academic discussion of whether fast-food jobs should be considered manufacturing jobs rather than service jobs as they are now labeled.

The flap comes as Bush's poll numbers are already slumping amid concerns about the economy and the adminstration's justifications for invading Iraq.

Many Republicans thought a major shake-up of the economic team was unlikely in an election year because it might make matters worse for Bush.
In December 2002, Bush fired Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and National Economic Council head Lawrence Lindsey.

CEA chief Glenn Hubbard left the administration last year and was replaced by Mankiw, a relatively unknown figure until the recent furor.

Stephen Moore, head of conservative Club for Growth, gave Snow high marks and said he would like to see him emerge as more of an economic spokesman.

However, he harkened back to the 1990s and commended former Clinton adviser Gene Sperling for his deftness in both politics and economics and said the Bush administration could use someone with those skills.

Moore was sympathetic to Mankiw's plight.

He and other Republicans felt White House officials made the fuss over the forecast worse by backing away from it. Sticking to their guns, they said, would have conveyed an upbeat view that might have helped Bush.

"I think the White House is really hanging Mankiw out to dry on this," Moore said.

Several Federal Reserve officials have also come to the defense of Mankiw on outsourcing.

"These days it has become politically incorrect to say certain things -- even if everyone recognizes them to be correct," said Dallas Fed President Robert McTeer. "Outsourcing has become the third rail of economics."

Political analyst Larry Sabato said Mankiw's comment was typical of the split between professional economists and those skilled in politics. "Economists tend to be blunt-speaking and they say exactly what they think even if it's impolitic, and this was horribly impolitic," he said.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
It's not.
Every credible idicator used to measure the health of the economy indicates the economy is recovering. I agree, the U.S. is not at the 1999 levels, but the U.S. lost over a third of its net worth with the collapse of the comp. industry and the failures and total bankruptcies due to corp. fraud. I mean MCI and Enron alone cost this country well a loss of well over a trillion dollars alone not to mention the meltdown of the spec. money in silicone valley and elsewhere. In sum, it will be very hard to get to pre-1999-2000 figures just playing by the rules of smart investing because that economy was not made up on those rules, although the DOW is at 10,700, which is stellar for an economy that is not recovering :cool:

[dissention]

:eek:

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/nation

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
:eek:

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/nation

Which one :laugh:

This one:

White House admits altering health study
WASHINGTON — The Bush administration says it improperly altered a report documenting large racial and ethnic disparities in health care but that it soon will publish the full, unexpurgated document.
( The New York Times, 02/22/2004 02:01 AM CST)

[dissention]

http://framehosting.dowjonesnews.com/sample/samplestory.asp?StoryID=2004022122160000&Take=1

"The CIA admitted it didn't provide the U.N. with information about 21 of 105 sites in Iraq singled out by U.S. intelligence before the war as highly suspected of housing illegal weapons, The New York Times reported in its Saturday edition.

The acknowledgement, in a Jan. 20 letter to Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., contradicts statements before the war by both CIA Director George Tenet and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, the Times said.

Tenet and Rice said the U.S. had briefed U.N. inspectors on all of the sites identified as "high value and moderate value" in the weapons hunt, the Times reported.

The statments came amid Congressional debate about giving U.N. inspectors more time to complete their search before the invasion, and helped bolster the White House case that it was fully cooperating with the inspectors and providing them with the best possible information."

[strandinthewind]

I am unsure what they are saying. Are they saying the White House deliberately without info from the UN inspectors? If so, IMPEACH then. But, if those spots had been relevant, why didn't we find stuff there. I am confused (as usal :cool: )

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Which one :laugh:

This one:

White House admits altering health study
WASHINGTON — The Bush administration says it improperly altered a report documenting large racial and ethnic disparities in health care but that it soon will publish the full, unexpurgated document.
( The New York Times, 02/22/2004 02:01 AM CST)

Yup. ;) :D

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I am unsure what they are saying. Are they saying the White House deliberately without info from the UN inspectors? If so, IMPEACH then. But, if those spots had been relevant, why didn't we find stuff there. I am confused (as usal :cool: )

Forget all that, I want to know why Rice still has her job. ;) :rolleyes:

But, they should impeach. They should impeach and then strap him onto a missile and shoot it into the ocean.

[dissention]

http://www.abqtrib.com/shns/story.cfm?pk=SCIENTISTS-02-18-04&cat=AS

"Bush administration officials ignored expert assessments from three national laboratories in concluding Iraq was seeking to acquire aluminum tubes to make nuclear weapons, a group of scientists charged Wednesday.

The administration also has dropped highly qualified, independent scientists from scientific advisory committees on issues such as child lead poisoning, environmental health and drug abuse, replacing them with figures tied to regulated industries, the Union of Concerned Scientists said Wednesday.

Sixty scientists signed the statement, including 20 Nobel laureates, accusing the administration of suppressing, distorting and undermining the integrity of scientific analyses in policymaking. The group, organized by the scientific watchdog group, laid out its allegations in a 37-page report.

Dr. John Marburger III, director of the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy, called the report "disappointing" and likened it to "a conspiracy theory report."

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
Forget all that, I want to know why Rice still has her job. ;) :rolleyes:

But, they should impeach. They should impeach and then strap him onto a missile and shoot it into the ocean.

Well, she is an African American woman and it is the Federal Govt. :shrug: :cool:

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Well, she is an African American woman and it is the Federal Govt. :shrug: :cool:

:laugh:

I see, he's appealing to the black vote. And we all know how Condie Rice is representing. ;) Or, as she's know in some circles, C. Ricey.

[dissention]

Three Texas surgeons were having lunch together and discussing surgeries they had performed. One of them said, "I'm the best surgeon in Texas. A concert pianist lost 7 fingers in an accident, I reattached them and 8 months later he performed a private concert for the Queen of England."

One of the others said. "That's nothing. A young man lost both arms and legs in a terrible accident, I reattached them and 2 years later he won 2 gold medals in field events in the Olympics."

The third surgeon said, "You guys are amateurs. Several years ago a guy who was high on cocaine and alcohol rode a horse head-on into a train traveling 80 miles an hour. All I had left to work with was the horse's ass and a cowboy hat. He's now president of the United States."

:D

[Rob67]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
It's not.

Well it is, at least in the Technology sector, which could be blamed for causing a majority of the recession experienced over the last few years, along with 9/11.

My industry, computer hardware, is growing and all the trade publications are pointing to record growth this year. We are already feeling it in terms of orders and new clients. And our clients are reporting a better market on their end, as well.

Things are looking good. Now we have to keep the software development outsourcing in check!!

I see nothing but positive outlooks on the economy in credible publications...

Rob:cool:

[estranged4life]

Originally posted by gldstwmn

"The forecast called for average job growth of more than 300,000 jobs a month this year -- a figure that exceeds most private forecasts and prompted a slew of Democratic criticism. "


I wonder if the 300,000 jobs per month are all available at Wal-Mart???

Speaking of the company I LOVE...That's LOVE to HATE:

"Wal-Mart a big giver to 2004 U.S. election"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4363393/

[gldstwmn]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/25/elec04.bush.doonesbury.reut/index.html

'Doonesbury' offers $10,000 for proof Bush served
Wednesday, February 25, 2004 Posted: 5:59 PM EST (2259 GMT)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- The frequently irreverent "Doonesbury" comic strip is offering $10,000 to anyone who can show that President Bush served in the Alabama Air National Guard.

"That's right -- we're offering $10,000 cash to anyone who can prove George W. Bush fulfilled his Guard duty in Alabama," Wednesday's strip said. "So if you served with Mr. Bush -- even if only in the officers' club -- we want to hear from you right now!"

Readers are referred to the Web site doonesbury.com, where a Witness Registration Form asks for online testimony. The site says the prize money is being underwritten by Doonesbury creator Garry Trudeau. "Thanks to Bush's massive tax cuts for people who don't need them, GBT is flush."

The hitch is the winner will not actually receive the reward. Instead the Web site says the cash will be donated in the winner's name to the United Service Organization (USO), which entertains American troops.

The strip first offered the reward on Monday and already there are hundreds of responses, according to David Stanford, duty officer at the online Doonesbury Town Hall.

"We're only in day three and have already received witness forms from over 600 contestants, with more streaming in every hour," Stanford said in an e-mail response to questions.

"We'll be carefully processing all of them, but what's immediately striking is that so many who've plunged into the depths of their 1972 memories have surfaced with accounts that involve automobiles, alcohol, aliens, secret ops and Elvis," Stanford said.

The White House had no comment on the contest, but Christine Iverson of the Republican National Committee said laughingly, "It sounds like a stunt worthy of a comic strip."

Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe has accused Bush of being absent without leave from his Guard service from May 1972 to May 1973.

[estranged4life]

of John Lennon gldstwmn.

Brian j.