"D. Strang" wrote in message
news:XW67c.2445$Gg.2318@okepread03...
Bush on JFKerry:

"The other day, here in Florida, he claimed some important endorsements,
He won't tell us the name of the foreign admirers. That's OK. Either way,
I'm not too worried, because

I'm going to keep my campaign right here in America."

Mr Bush had better start soon; he has quite a plateful of overseas issues
to explain away, and possibly as many tough internal issues as well.

Overseas: IRAQ and WMD, continued existence of Al Quaida, Korea, alienation
of European friends and Allies, migration of thousands of formerly US jobs
offshore. Climbing US KIA and WIA totals.

At home: Purposefully Deceptive Governing.

He's got a lot of backing and filling to do over his last November's
somewhat tainted Medicare prescription drug plan, at the time called a
"centerpiece" of his re-election campaign. At a time when the deficit was
already soaring, Mr Bush claimed that its cost would be, oh, some $400
billion over a period of ten years, although government analysts had--some
five months earlier--predicted that the actual cost would be closer to $550
billion. Alas, correction proved necessary, and one Republican congressman
accused his own party's leadership of attempted bribery on the floor of the
House (reportedly now under FBI investigation) as a part of the vigorous
arm-twisting which took place.

The actuaries who generated the "true" figure say that Bush admin appointees
violated ethical standards by ordering the actuaries to conceal their
findings from both Congress (congressmen who specifically inquired about the
cost estimates were told that none existed) as well as the public at large,
on pain of losing their jobs.

Two months after the critical vote, Mr Bush claimed that he was "shocked" to
discover that the actual cost had increased to $534 billion; one wonders
whether the bill would have passed had the true numbers been known.

Furthermore, Almost a month before convincing Congress to vote to commit the
US to warfare with Iraq in 2002, the Bush administration has admitted, it
learned the N Korea had resumed its nuclear program, a fact which did not
bode well for the US' strategic situation. That is, the possibility of
armed conflict in Korea had risen sharply; one wonders how the Congress
might have voted had it known of this renewed threat in timely fashion.
Would it have been willing to authorize commitment of US troops there?
Congress and the public were kept ignorant of this important fact until
after the Iraq vote was history.

Additionally, During the run-up to the Iraq war vote, Mr Bush's
adminstration told Congress it had no idea of the costs to be sustained in
carrying out this war. A member of the White House's National Economic
Counsel, however, admitted that the war was expected to cost some $100
billion to $200 billion, (considerably higher than unoffcial Pentagon
estimates) it led to his dismissal.

How much will occupying Iraq cost the US in 2005? So far, that figure is not
to be found in the budget submitted to Congress, which is no more than a
ruse to keep the projected deficit for 2005 artificially low. Budget is to
take effect in October of this year, yet Mr Bush won't release his request
for additional funds to coveroccupation costs until January, well after the
election.

At home: "It's the ECONOMY, Stupid".

One of my acquaintances lost his job during the last year when a
nationally-positioned ISP exported his position (as well as those of quite a
few others) to India as a cost-cutting measure. Unemployment and
job-creation here are still troublesome, ironically because Americans are
simply too darned hard-working and productive to allow for new hiring (oh,
and we cost too much, besides) during these times. And simultaneously, Mr
Bush's policies, oddly, encourage the hiring of large numbers of
less-well-paid workers offshore, whose productivity does not match that of
our own, while offering, as a remedy for the lost jobs, as much as $25
million for job-retraining for the dismissed US workers (a teardrop in a
bucket).

On March 22, a decision of some sort is expected over the F-22. Indications
are that the current review by the Office of Management and Budget is
slightly canted, as a negative decision has been predicted. Alas. If the US
intends to continue with its much-reduced military manpower levels, and
still give military substance to its declared internatinal positions, it
will need every possible force-multiplier it can lay its hands on, and not
only in terms of aircraft. Maybe it might even be wise to dust off that
incredible artillery system with its massive, sustained firepower, get it
ito production and get it online?


..