"Lawrence Dillard" wrote in message
...

"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.

April.

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.

Saddam believed he had WMD, al Qaeda's existance is at risk now, Korea is in
negotiation with China and Japan, our European friends have bribery problems
to deal with, there are more payroll jobs today than when Clinton left
office

And last but not least, Billy's military body count ran higher.

At home: Purposefully Deceptive Governing.

I doubt GW could have been more straightforward, but I do not doubt your
angst.

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.

No, only the CBO numbers are legal. The rest of what you write is just so
much wishfull bull****.

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.

That kind of Democrat lieing only makes you look foolish, Dillard.

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.

The Democrat's plan would have been $1 trillion, so we are bucks ahead and
grandma can get her drugs and not have to eat cat food.

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.

Only the ignorant were ignorant of what North Korea were doing. (ie Carter)

snip of more of the same