🚀 go-pugleaf

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 07:35:42 +0000, Bob Adkins wrote:

> Most Conservatives consider it detestable for the President to lie to
> the American people
> Most Conservatives consider it a crime to lie to the Grand Jury Most

Then why do most conservatives dismiss going awol while insisting that
going to oxford is draft dodging?

> Conservatives consider adultery a sin, and highly  unbecoming behavior
> for a sitting President
> Most Conservatives consider it immoral to take advantage of a young
> employee Most Conservatives consider it degrading to the office of
> President to get a blow job in the White House.

Then why do most conservatives consider it ok to cut hazard pay while at
war while insisting that eight years of relative peace was the worst thing
for the military?

bobby

Bob Adkins wrote:
> 
snip

> Most Conservatives consider it degrading to the office of President to get a
> blow job in the White House.
> 
snip

Lol!  Then where, exactly, would Conservatives prefer that the President
receive a blow job?  The White House is the President's home.

-- 
Ron Hammon
Remove the "y" from ".nyet", when present, to reach me.

Bob Adkins wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 03:05:10 GMT, RWS@satz.us (Bob) wrote:
> 
> 
>>Oh, I stretch memory way back, so far back, all the way back to -- our
>>last president. Almost lost in the mists of time though it is, I not
>>only remember eight years of relentless attacks from Clinton-haters, I
> 
> 
> That points to fundamental differences in Liberals and Conservatives.
> 
> Most Conservatives consider it detestable for the President to lie to the
> American people

Except when it's about when, why and where we go to 
war; THEN, conservatives consider it perfectly 
acceptable for a R'publican president to lie to the 
Anerican people.  Conservatives also make exceptions 
when a R'publican president lies about 
arms-for-hostages trades with hostile regimes.

> Most Conservatives consider it a crime to lie to the Grand Jury

Only if it's a Dimmycrat.  When it's a going-senile 
R'publican like Reagan, who lied through his teeth to 
the American people about Iran-Contra, and there's a 
consensus that we didn't want three consecutive failed 
presidencies in a 15 year period, then we don't even 
call him before the grand jury.

> Most Conservatives consider adultery a sin, and highly  unbecoming behavior
> for a sitting President

That IS a key difference, and helps to heighten the 
contrast between conservatives and thinking people. 
Most thinking people don't mix religion (sin) and state.

> Most Conservatives consider it immoral to take advantage of a young employee
> Most Conservatives consider it degrading to the office of President to get a
> blow job in the White House.
> 
> While denouncing President Clinton's conduct was fair and based in reality,

No, the vehemence and sheer rabid hatred was NOT fair 
and based in reality.

> (Even most Democrats agreed), President Bush has done nothing on this
> detestable level. The charges of not being straightforward with the American
> people were trumped up by 10 desperate Democrat hopefuls and their cronies.

No, they're not trumped up at all, Boob.  Bush has not 
leveled with the public, and it has nothing to do with 
"Democrat hopefuls".

> 
> Most of the other noise coming from the Leftists is only a weak attempt at
> PAYBACK for the impeachment of President Clinton.

No, it isn't.  This is just how the Big Boob, Limbaugh, 
and his servile lapdogs - YOU - NEED to spin it.  It 
simply isn't so.

Bob Adkins wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 09:40:06 -0500, Ron Hammon <rhammon@charter.nyet> wrote:
> 
> >Lol!  Then where, exactly, would Conservatives prefer that the President
> >receive a blow job?  The White House is the President's home.
> 
> In his bedroom, of course.
> 
> Bob

His bedroom is IN the White House, moron.  Perhaps, you aren't even
aware of the difference between the White House and the Capitol
Building.

-- 
Ron Hammon
Remove the "y" from ".nyet", when present, to reach me.

Bob Adkins wrote:

> On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 09:22:26 -0500, "Bobby New York"
> <bobbynewyork@photohousenet.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>>Then why do most conservatives dismiss going awol while insisting that
>>going to oxford is draft dodging?
> 
> 
> That's another subject.

No, Whiff-off Boob, it's part of the same subject.  One 
of the reasons conservatives loathed and continue to 
loath Clinton has to do with his lawful, if unseemly, 
avoidance of military service.  But conservatives are 
MASSIVELY hypocritical about this, because they don't 
say a word, not a stinking word, about the current 
president's DESERTION FROM DUTY, which is a far worse 
offense than mere avoidance of military service.

> 
> 
>>>Conservatives consider adultery a sin, and highly  unbecoming behavior
>>>for a sitting President
>>>Most Conservatives consider it immoral to take advantage of a young
>>>employee Most Conservatives consider it degrading to the office of
>>>President to get a blow job in the White House.
>>
>>Then why do most conservatives consider it ok to cut hazard pay while at
>>war while insisting that eight years of relative peace was the worst thing
>>for the military?
> 
> 
> I have no idea what you're talking about.

That's because you are willfully stupid.

What he's talking about is that under Clinton, the U.S. 
enjoyed 8 years of relative peace, while under Bush 
we've already had two major military actions; war, for 
simple-minded goofs like you.

Bob Adkins wrote:
> 
>
snip

> >Then why do most conservatives consider it ok to cut hazard pay while at
> >war while insisting that eight years of relative peace was the worst thing
> >for the military?
> 
> I have no idea what you're talking about.
> 

Then get some information from somewhere OTHER than Rush and O'Reily.

-- 
Ron Hammon
Remove the "y" from ".nyet", when present, to reach me.

Lou Scannon wrote:

> On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 07:35:42 -0500, Bob Adkins <bobad@charter.net>
> wrote:
> 
> 
>>On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 03:05:10 GMT, RWS@satz.us (Bob) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Oh, I stretch memory way back, so far back, all the way back to -- our
>>>last president. Almost lost in the mists of time though it is, I not
>>>only remember eight years of relentless attacks from Clinton-haters, I
>>
>>That points to fundamental differences in Liberals and Conservatives.
>>
>>Most Conservatives consider it detestable for the President to lie to the
>>American people
> 
> 
> Unless he is lying about the reasons for America to go to war.
> 
> "I saw the first plane hit before I went into the classroom"--GW Bush
> "I have been to WAR" --GW Bush
> "I was never arrested" --GW Bush
> "My number one priority is Osama Bin Laden- dead or alive"--GW Bush
> " We will not become the police of the world"--GW Bush
> and who could forget this one:
> "Ken Lay-First met him in 1994. "
> 
> 
> 
>>Most Conservatives consider it a crime to lie to the Grand Jury
> 
> 
> Unless it's Ronald Reagan doing the lying, than it's OK

I forgot that although he didn't *appear* before the 
grand jury, Reagan *did* submit sworn statements in an 
interrogatory to the Iran-Contra grand jury.  He lied 
in them.  http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/chap_27.htm

There IS evidence Reagan lied under oath to a grand 
jury, in person, long before he was president: 
http://www.moldea.com/ReaganGJ.html

> 
> 
>>Most Conservatives consider adultery a sin, and highly  unbecoming behavior
>>for a sitting President
> 
> 
> But adultery is OK for Newt Gingritch, Neil bush, Henry Hyde, Dan
> Burton, Bob Livingston, Bob Dole, Arnold Schwarzenegger...
> 
> 
>>Most Conservatives consider it immoral to take advantage of a young employee
> 
> 
> But it's OK to screw your employees out of over time pay.
> It's OK to screw shareholders and employees out of their life savings.
> It's OK to ship American jobs to 3rd world countries where the workers
> are paid slave wages.
> 
> 
>>Most Conservatives consider it degrading to the office of President to get a
>>blow job in the White House.
> 
> 
> Is that why Clintons approval ratings were higher during the
> "impeachment" than Bush's are now?
> 
> 
>>While denouncing President Clinton's conduct was fair and based in reality,
> 
> 
> It was a partisan witch hunt, put forth by hypocrites.
> 
> 
>>(Even most Democrats agreed), President Bush has done nothing on this
>>detestable level. The charges of not being straightforward with the American
>>people were trumped up by 10 desperate Democrat hopefuls and their cronies.
> 
> 
> The charges are factual and can be proved. I realize that facts scare
> you Bob, sorry. Deal with it.
> 
> 
>>Most of the other noise coming from the Leftists is only a weak attempt at
>>PAYBACK for the impeachment of President Clinton.
> 
> 
>>I'm sorry, but the Left has NOTHING. They keep trying to make SOMETHING from
>>NOTHING. It looks so weak and disingenuous that it will backfire in their
>>faces.
> 
> 
> Have you checked the poll numbers on your child prince Bob? Can you
> say "tanking"
> 
> Mega-dittos Bob
> 
>>Bob
> 
> 
> ==================================================================
>   "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of 
>    servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go
>    home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms.
>    Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity
>    forget that ye were our contrymen."              (Samual Adams) 
> ==================================================================

Ron Hammon wrote:

> Bob Adkins wrote:
> 
>>
> snip
> 
> 
>>>Then why do most conservatives consider it ok to cut hazard pay while at
>>>war while insisting that eight years of relative peace was the worst thing
>>>for the military?
>>
>>I have no idea what you're talking about.
>>
> 
> 
> Then get some information from somewhere OTHER than Rush and O'Reily.

Aw, c'mon!  You're actually demanding that Boob open 
his mind a little bit.

We got no weapons of mass destruction. That sounds like a good thing
to me. Guess you think we should have waited until he got them built
and lit one off?
--
Gene Seibel
Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html


> We got no Osama, we got no Saddam, we got no weapons of mass
> destruction, the road map to peace in the Middle East is blown to
> hell, we're stuck in this country for $87 billion just for one year,
> and no one knows how long we'll be there. And still poor Krauthammer
> is hard-put to conceive how anyone could conclude that George W. Bush
> is a poor excuse for a president.

Gene Seibel wrote:
> We got no weapons of mass destruction.

The Bush administration swore (wink-wink, nudge-nudge) 
that Iraq had them, and that we would find them upon 
invading the country.

> That sounds like a good thing to me.

It is a good thing, indeed, unless you're a big-wig in 
the U.S. intelligence community.  It proves that the UN 
inspections were sufficient.

> Guess you think we should have waited until he got them built
> and lit one off?

The Bush administration said that Hussein ALREADY had 
them built; that he had stockpiles of them.

The administration:

a)  cynically lied
b)  didn't know what the hell they were talking about
c)  both

What's your guess?

> After all this time and all those millions of dollars wasted, no one
> has ever proved that the Clintons did a single thing wrong. Bill
> Clinton lied about a pathetic, squalid affair that was none of anyone
> else's business anyway, and for that they impeached the man and
> dragged this country through more than year of the most tawdry,
> ridiculous, unnecessary pain.

Clinton lied under oath, something most people go to jail for

> "The puzzle is where this depth of feeling comes from," mused the
> ineffable Krauthammer. "Whence the anger? It begins of course with the
> 'stolen' election of 2000 and the perception of Bush's illegitimacy."
> I'd say so myself, yes, it would. I was in Florida during that
> chilling post-election fight and am fully persuaded to this good day
> that Al Gore actually won Florida, not to mention getting 550,000 more
> votes than Bush overall.
>
> The night Gore conceded the race in one of the most graceful and
> honorable speeches I have ever heard, I was in a ballroom full of
> Republican Party flacks who booed and jeered through every word of it.
> One thing I acknowledge about the right is that they're much better
> haters than liberals are. Your basic liberal is pretty much a
> strikeout on the hatred front. Maybe further out on the left you can
> hit some good righteous anger, but liberals, and I am one, are
> generally real wusses.
>
> To tell the truth, I'm kind of proud of us for holding the grudge this
> long. Normally, we'd remind ourselves that we have to be good sports,
> it's for the good of the country, we must unite behind the only
> president we've got, as Lyndon used to remind us. If there are still
> some of us out here sulking, "Yeah, but they stole that election,"
> well good. I don't think we should forget that.
>
> But, onward. So George Dubya becomes president having run as a
> "compassionate conservative," and what do we get? Hell's own
> conservative and zilch for compassion. His entire first eight months
> was tax cuts for the rich, tax cuts for the rich, tax cuts for the
> rich. Then came 9-11, and we all rallied. Country under attack, most
> horrible thing, what can we do? Ready to give blood, get out of our
> cars and ride bicycles, whatever. Shop, said the president. And more
> tax cuts for the rich.
>
> By now, we're starting to notice Bush's bait-and-switch con. Make a
> deal with Ted Kennedy to improve education, and then fail to put any
> money into it. Promise $15 billion in new money to combat AIDS in
> Africa (wow), but it turns out to be a cheap con -- no new money. Bush
> comes to praise a job-training effort, then cuts the money. Bush says
> AmeriCorps is great, then cuts the money. Gee, what could we possibly
> have against this guy?
>
> Then suddenly, in the greatest bait and switch of all time, Osama bin
> Laden doesn't matter at all, and we have to go after Saddam Hussein,
> who had nothing to do with 9-11. But he does have horrible weapons of
> mass destruction. So we take out Saddam Hussein, and there are no
> weapons of mass destruction. Furthermore, the Iraqis are not overjoyed
> to see us. By now, quite a few people who aren't even liberal are
> starting to say, "Wha' the hey?"
>
> We got no Osama, we got no Saddam, we got no weapons of mass
> destruction, the road map to peace in the Middle East is blown to
> hell, we're stuck in this country for $87 billion just for one year,
> and no one knows how long we'll be there. And still poor Krauthammer
> is hard-put to conceive how anyone could conclude that George W. Bush
> is a poor excuse for a president.
>
> It is not necessary to hate George W. Bush to think he's a bad
> president. Grown-ups can do that, you know -- decide someone's
> policies are a miserable failure without lying awake at night consumed
> with hatred. Poor Bush is in way over his head, and the country is in
> bad shape because of his stupid economic policies. If that make me a
> Bush-hater, then sign me up.
>
> ================================================
>
>

Murray Cooper wrote

> The administration:
>
> a)  cynically lied
> b)  didn't know what the hell they were talking about
> c)  both
>
> What's your guess?
----------------------------
    Both, and it smells an awful lot like the Johnson administration's
blundering into Nam. Those "Whiz Kids," "The Best & the Brightest," charged
right into that tarbaby, with one hand tied behind their back. As for
now-documented lies, just surf the net. The whopper, of course, was "Gulf of
Tonkin Incident," which LBJ used as a pretext to ratchet up the draft.

    "History may not repeat, but it rhymes." - Mark Twain

BA

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 18:15:00 +0000, David wrote:

> 
>> After all this time and all those millions of dollars wasted, no one has
>> ever proved that the Clintons did a single thing wrong. Bill Clinton
>> lied about a pathetic, squalid affair that was none of anyone else's
>> business anyway, and for that they impeached the man and dragged this
>> country through more than year of the most tawdry, ridiculous,
>> unnecessary pain.
> 
> Clinton lied under oath, something most people go to jail for

1) Most people don't go to jail.  This demonstrates a lack of knowledge of
the legal system.

2) Tell me what you think clinton lied about under oath.  I bet you're
wrong.

Bob Adkins wrote:

> I'm sorry, but the Left has NOTHING. They keep trying to make SOMETHING from
> NOTHING. It looks so weak and disingenuous that it will backfire in their
> faces.
> 
> Bob

Are you kidding?
Bush lied to everyone about Iraq.

When Clinton lied, the result was new
sleazy "Saturday night live" skits,  a book
deal, and a weird Monica fasination. Being a
wife myself, I hate Clinton, and think he
needs to be dragged off a cliff by his balls.

When Bush lied, people died. American Soldiers, and Iraqi
civilians, including children.  I was ALL FOR the defeat of the
Taliban, and those crazy towel heads, after September 11th.
And that attack went well.  The taliban is gone.  However. so is
Bin Laden, and no one knows where.

Does Bush put all his forces out to catch this man?
NO!
He makes a mad dash into an illegal war waged on
falsified information, that kills a bunch of people.
For oil.

And all you people who live in coal minning country,
keep a look out for the black nasty waters, and blackened
ground. Bush has ammended a law, that prevented the
coal companies from dumping their waste in the river/creeks.
This is what I hate about Bush. He is always on the side of
big buisness.   If Bush could make $10.00 selling roasted
hillbillie shish kabob, your ass would be on a stick.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/index.html


D

-- 
Things are going to get worse before they get even worse

                   http://lifeonmars.iscool.net/

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 07:35:42 -0500, Bob Adkins <bobad@charter.net>
wrote:

>On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 03:05:10 GMT, RWS@satz.us (Bob) wrote:
>
>>Oh, I stretch memory way back, so far back, all the way back to -- our
>>last president. Almost lost in the mists of time though it is, I not
>>only remember eight years of relentless attacks from Clinton-haters, I
>
>That points to fundamental differences in Liberals and Conservatives.
>
>Most Conservatives consider it detestable for the President to lie to the
>American people
>Most Conservatives consider it a crime to lie to the Grand Jury
>Most Conservatives consider adultery a sin, and highly  unbecoming behavior
>for a sitting President
>Most Conservatives consider it immoral to take advantage of a young employee
>Most Conservatives consider it degrading to the office of President to get a
>blow job in the White House.
>
>While denouncing President Clinton's conduct was fair and based in reality,
>(Even most Democrats agreed), President Bush has done nothing on this
>detestable level. The charges of not being straightforward with the American
>people were trumped up by 10 desperate Democrat hopefuls and their cronies.
>
>Most of the other noise coming from the Leftists is only a weak attempt at
>PAYBACK for the impeachment of President Clinton.
>
>I'm sorry, but the Left has NOTHING. They keep trying to make SOMETHING from
>NOTHING. It looks so weak and disingenuous that it will backfire in their
>faces.
>
>Bob

Hey Bob, 
Do you get dizzy when you spin this hard?

Bush has done nothing detestable?
Good one .

Hope you fall down after you throw up.

Bush Lied to Congress about the reasons for going to Iraq.

It's on the record.

 Bush said saddam had something to do with 9/11 ,
He said iit in  a presidential letter to Congress. seeking to justify
the war before the invasion.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html

he  now says that's not true.
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/09/17/saddam030917
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dallas/politics/national/stories/091703dnintbushsaddam.7e2ff.html


Bush is covering up  for whoever Did.attack us 
That's detestable.

 Lying to promote killing is more detestable than having sex, peroid.
I don't care if you wear a rubber nose and do it with a lepper  in
front of the Pope.
Sex is not comparable to calculated  mass murder based on lies.

Killing and justifying it with lies is Detestable.

Sex is sex, 
Sex always sounds a bit  bad to those who are not having any.

Eeewwwww  !!!!  Cooties !!

Can't do it any more so you're jealous right?
It's much better to have a president that screws Interns than to have
this one who is screwing the world at large.

Have your eyes stopped swimming around yet, Bob?

BA wrote:
> Murray Cooper wrote
> 
> 
>>The administration:
>>
>>a)  cynically lied
>>b)  didn't know what the hell they were talking about
>>c)  both
>>
>>What's your guess?
> 
> ----------------------------
>     Both, and it smells an awful lot like the Johnson administration's
> blundering into Nam. Those "Whiz Kids," "The Best & the Brightest,"

Those were St. John's boys, not LBJ's.

> charged right into that tarbaby, with one hand tied behind their back. As for
> now-documented lies, just surf the net. The whopper, of course, was "Gulf of
> Tonkin Incident," which LBJ used as a pretext to ratchet up the draft.
> 
>     "History may not repeat, but it rhymes." - Mark Twain
> 
> BA
> 
> 

Pounder wrote:

> On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 07:35:42 -0500, Bob Adkins <bobad@charter.net>
> wrote:
> 
> 
>>On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 03:05:10 GMT, RWS@satz.us (Bob) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Oh, I stretch memory way back, so far back, all the way back to -- our
>>>last president. Almost lost in the mists of time though it is, I not
>>>only remember eight years of relentless attacks from Clinton-haters, I
>>
>>That points to fundamental differences in Liberals and Conservatives.
>>
>>Most Conservatives consider it detestable for the President to lie to the
>>American people
>>Most Conservatives consider it a crime to lie to the Grand Jury
>>Most Conservatives consider adultery a sin, and highly  unbecoming behavior
>>for a sitting President
>>Most Conservatives consider it immoral to take advantage of a young employee
>>Most Conservatives consider it degrading to the office of President to get a
>>blow job in the White House.
>>
>>While denouncing President Clinton's conduct was fair and based in reality,
>>(Even most Democrats agreed), President Bush has done nothing on this
>>detestable level. The charges of not being straightforward with the American
>>people were trumped up by 10 desperate Democrat hopefuls and their cronies.
>>
>>Most of the other noise coming from the Leftists is only a weak attempt at
>>PAYBACK for the impeachment of President Clinton.
>>
>>I'm sorry, but the Left has NOTHING. They keep trying to make SOMETHING from
>>NOTHING. It looks so weak and disingenuous that it will backfire in their
>>faces.
>>
>>Bob
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the biggest load of shit I have ever read.
> Do you work for the Republican party?

He certainly *does* come across as a watered down 
Limbaugh-style R'publican shill, don't he?

> Pull your head out of your ass and learn to think for yourself.

He can't.  That's why he's such a stellar ditto-head. 
Boob Adkins hasn't had an original thought in his adult 
life.  Most conservatives of his type don't have 
original thoughts.

3 million American jobs lost since Bush became president.

41 million working Americans have no health insurance.

Millions of American senior citizens have to choose between food and
prescription drugs.

And Bush is blowing your tax money on Iraq, 

such as

 $5.7 BILLION to upgrade Iraq's electricity system
 $875 million to restore Iraq's marshlands
 $856 million to upgrade Iraqi airports

 $35 million "for the protection of Afghan President"

 $164 million to develop a training curriculum for the Iraqi army   
 $54 million for a computer study for the Iraqi postal service

 $100 million to build seven Iraqi planned communities with clinics
and mosques
 $900 million to IMPORT petroleum products into Iraq
 $20 million for a 4-week business course, at $10,000 per pupil

and 

 $878 million on health care for IRAQIS

See details below...

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

Washington Post
September 23, 2003

For Bush's Iraq Request, Tough Comparisons Loom 

By Jonathan Weisman and Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writers


With lights recently blacked out in the mid-Atlantic and wetlands
conservation being squeezed, President Bush wants to spend nearly $5.7
billion on Iraq's electricity system and as much as $100 million next
year to restore that nation's drained marshlands.

Such comparisons are dogging the administration as it formally
launches its defense of an $87 billion emergency war spending request,
which Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) yesterday labeled "fiscal shock
and awe." And they are creating a growing sense of unease among
Republicans, who say the president's war spending will no doubt be
used against them in next year's elections.

"I have no doubt that some people will be angry," said Rep. James C.
Greenwood (R-Pa.), "and I have no doubt some people will try to take
full political advantage."

L. Paul Bremer, administrator of the Iraqi coalition provisional
authority, appeared before the Senate Appropriations Committee
yesterday in the first of seven hearings scheduled on the president's
request, comparing the emergency spending bill to the Marshall Plan
that followed World War II. The $20.3 billion for Iraqi
reconstruction, he said, "bespeak grandeur of vision equal to the one
which created the free world."

"Creating a sovereign, democratic, constitutional and prosperous Iraq
deals a blow to terrorists," he said. "It gives the lie to those who
describe us as the enemies of Islam, enemies of the Arabs or enemies
of the poor. That is why the president's $87 billion request has to be
seen as an important element in the global war on terrorism."

But lawmakers from both parties seem anxious. Sen. Sam Brownback
(R-Kan.) told Bremer he is getting "pointed questions" from his
constituents, who are demanding to know why a country with the world's
second-largest oil reserves is not paying for its own reconstruction.

A study to be released today by the House Budget Committee's
Democratic staff concluded that the cost of the Iraq war and
occupation could easily reach $417 billion over the next decade, more
than the president is seeking for a 10-year prescription drug benefit
for Medicare. Even a benign postwar scenario would cost taxpayers $308
billion, the Democrats concluded.

"We need at a minimum to recognize the real costs of our operations in
Iraq," said John M. Spratt Jr. (S.C.), the Budget Committee's ranking
Democrat.

The debate has touched the presidential contest, as well. Democratic
candidate Howard Dean recently noted that his health care plan would
cost about $87 billion, "which happens to be almost exactly the amount
the president . . . asked to wage war in Iraq for another year." Given
a choice, he said, Americans would choose "health insurance that
nobody can take away."

Recent events, natural and political, have conspired to underscore
opponents' political charges that Bush is spending more on Iraqis than
on his own citizens. The president is seeking $5.7 billion to rebuild
and expand Iraq's electricity generation, transmission and
distribution systems, just as millions of Americans are regaining
power lost to Hurricane Isabel and Congress is grappling with the
causes of August's blackout in the Northeast. 

"Where are we going to find the money to repair our own blackout-prone
electricity grid if tax dollars are to be spent overseas at such a
profligate pace?" asked Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.).

Bush wants $856 million to upgrade three Iraqi airports, a seaport,
rail lines and communications systems. Another $470 million would go
toward repairing roads, bridges and houses in Iraq and rehabilitating
Iraqi government buildings. The administration also wants $105 million
for Afghanistan, to rebuild a highway between Kandahar and Herat and
start laying more than 600 miles of smaller roads.

Yet on the home front, the administration and Congress are at
loggerheads over a massive new bill to finance transportation
projects. The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
envisions spending $375 billion over the next six years, while the
White House wants $241 billion.

"Most Americans want us to leave Afghanistan and Iraq with a success
on our hands rather than with our tail between our legs, but I think
it would help a great deal in doing that for the administration to
take another look at what we're doing here in the United States," said
Thomas E. Petri (R-Wis.), chairman of the committee's highways,
transit and pipelines subcommittee. 

And as Republicans battle among themselves over the cost of seniors'
prescription drugs, the White House hopes to spend $878 million on
health care in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Look at the needs we have here at home with our own roads, sewers and
water projects," said Sen. George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio). "It's hard to
tell people there isn't money for sewers and water and then send that
kind of money to Iraq."

The fine print of the president's request details how deeply the
United States is delving into the workings of Iraqi and Afghan
society. One section would provide $35 million in part "for the
protection of Afghan President [Hamid] Karzai." Another $37 million
would help the Afghan government pay its civil servants.

Democrats and Republicans in Washington may be bickering over domestic
education funding, but they are likely to approve $40 million to
construct 275 schools and train 10,000 additional teachers in
Afghanistan. Another $45 million would build 100 Afghan markets and
create a land registry.

In Iraq, $875 million is earmarked, in part, to restore drained
marshlands, while at home, the administration has proposed holding
wetland conservation programs in the Interior Department and Army
Corps of Engineers to 2002 levels, just over $100 million.

Independent experts say the spending measure's price tag should not be
a surprise. On a per capita basis, it corresponds roughly to the
amount the international community spent on Bosnia in the 1990s.

This time, however, the United States is paying almost the entire
bill; in Bosnia, it paid for 22 percent of the reconstruction costs.
James F. Dobbins, director of Rand's International Security and
Defense Policy Center, said lawmakers could have anticipated this
commitment when they chose to oust Saddam Hussein without enlisting
more allies abroad.

"The Congress . . . by an overwhelming majority voted in favor of this
conflict," Dobbins said. "Iraq's 10 times bigger than Bosnia. All
Congress had to do is multiply Bosnia by 10. It's not rocket science."

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

Washington Post
September 26, 2003

In GOP, Concern Over Iraq Price Tag 
Some Doubt Need For $20.3 Billion For Rebuilding 

By Jonathan Weisman and Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writers


A new curriculum for training an Iraqi army for $164 million. Five
hundred experts, at $200,000 each, to investigate crimes against
humanity. A witness protection program for $200,000 per Iraqi
participant. A computer study for the Iraqi postal service: $54
million.

Such numbers, buried in President Bush's $20.3 billion request for
Iraq's reconstruction, have made some congressional Republicans
nervous, even furious. Although the GOP leadership has tried to unite
publicly around its president, cracks are beginning to show.

"President Bush should live up to his recent pledges to restrain
spending, by . . . taking a strong stance that the new Iraq can and
should pay for its own reconstruction," wrote Rep. Tom Feeney (Fla.),
a freshman Republican, and Stephen Moore, a conservative economist, in
an editorial for the National Review. 

The discontent is relatively contained so far, said Jim Dyer,
Republican staff director of the House Appropriations Committee, but
that is because few lawmakers have read the proposal's fine print. As
more details seep out, he said, anger is sure to rise.

Those details include $100 million to build seven planned communities
with a total of 3,258 houses, plus roads, an elementary school, two
high schools, a clinic, a place of worship and a market for each; $10
million to finance 100 prison-building experts for six months, at
$100,000 an expert; 40 garbage trucks at $50,000 each; $900 million to
import petroleum products such as kerosene and diesel to a country
with the world's second-largest oil reserves; and $20 million for a
four-week business course, at $10,000 per pupil.

"If those are what the costs are, I'm glad Congress is asking
questions," said Brian Reidl, a budget analyst at the conservative
Heritage Foundation. "If the White House wants to be portrayed as
spending tax dollars in Iraq as cost-effectively as they spend [money]
anywhere else, they're going to have to explain this."

Already, the administration's request for $400 million to build two
4,000-bed prisons at $50,000 a bed has raised enough questions in
Congress to force Provisional Authority Administrator L. Paul Bremer
to explain that cement must be imported to make concerete.

"We're not talking sanity here," Dyer said. "The world's
second-largest oil country is importing oil, and a country full of
concrete is importing concrete."

Republicans have grown nervous enough about Iraq that Vice President
Cheney and White House budget director Joshua B. Bolten traveled to
Capitol Hill on Wednesday to meet privately with the agitated ranks
and go over the $87 billion emergency war spending request.

"What [lawmakers] really wanted them to do was carefully review it so
they can justify to constituents why they voted for it," said a GOP
aide who was at the meeting. "You've got to be able to go back home
and explain why we need to do all this."

In several closed meetings this week, Republicans questioned why the
administration is piling more spending atop an ever-expanding federal
deficit. Rep. Zach Wamp (R-Tenn.), a member of the House
Appropriations Committee, plans to offer an amendment making the
package a loan, which the White House adamantly opposes.

"The people of eastern Tennessee want to know why the $20.3 billion
couldn't be repaid by the Iraqi people from the oil revenues," Wamp
said.

Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) insisted that the administration press
nations such as France, Russia and Germany to forgive some of Iraq's
$200 billion foreign debt, which Bremer conceded is now the United
States's responsibility. "It's tough to make a case to give $20
billion outright," Flake said. "There are a lot of us who are still
troubled."

Flake and other conservatives also want the administration to offset
the reconstruction package with cuts in other areas. 

Meanwhile at a House hearing yesterday, Democrats pressed Deputy
Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz about whether the administration
plans to withdraw troops right before the 2004 presidential election.
He said no decisions were being made on political grounds.

"These are national security decisions; they have to be made on that
basis," he said. Wolfowitz said that doesn't mean that "we're not
trying to, in fact, get more Iraqis on the front lines, get them dying
for their country so fewer Americans have to."

It's the reconstruction spending, however, that is drawing some
conservatives' ire. Moore, who heads the political action committee
Club for Growth, called some of the aid request "frivolous" and much
of it "preposterous." Pete Sepp, a spokesman for the conservative
National Taxpayers Union, said Americans are being misled.

"Many members of the general public are being led to believe this
money is just to turn the lights back on in Iraq," Sepp said. "Once
word gets out about the nature of some of these projects, it will pose
a real dilemma for a number of policymakers who believe U.S. foreign
aid is already suffering from administrative problems as well as
overambitious goals. These are the kinds of things that radio talk
show hosts love to chew up and give to their listeners."

GOP pollster Robert Teeter hinted that congressional Republicans are
right to be nervous -- not so much about the military campaign in
Iraq, or even the rising U.S. casualties, but about the White House's
spending request. Support for the war remains relatively high, he
said, and if elected Republicans can frame the full $87 billion
package as the amount it takes to support the troops, they will be
fine.

But as soon as the discussion turns to the nuts and bolts of Iraq's
reconstruction, the public's longstanding antipathy to foreign aid
quickly surfaces, Teeter said.

Then, he said, the overwhelming sentiment is, "We need to take care of
our own." It is up to Republicans to keep the conversation centered on
the troops, while Democrats will try to focus on the reconstruction's
spending details.

Some Democrats want to split the $87 billion bill into a $67 billion
military spending measure for quick passage and a separate
reconstruction measure. Republican leaders adamantly oppose this,
saying the entire proposal is essential and cannot be picked apart. 

"The package is a wartime supplemental [spending bill], directly tied
to the security and the ultimate withdrawal of United States forces
from the region," said White House budget office spokesman Trent
Duffy. "It has to be viewed in that context."

Duffy dismissed as "preposterous" Democrats' assertions that the
administration is willing to spend more on Iraqis than its own
citizens. The federal government spends $5.9 billion on prisons each
year, compared with the $510 million the administration wants for
corrections in Iraq next year, he said. Domestic air and ground
transportation consumes $64 billion, dwarfing the $753 million the
White House wants for Iraq. 

For conservatives pushing for less spending in the United States, such
comparisons hold little value. It is not the dollar totals but the
targets. "A $54 million study for their post office?" asked Dan
Mitchell of the Heritage Foundation.

Some Republican aides say the numbers may be more defensible than they
sound because the budget is not quite real. They suggest the
administration has inflated costs, in part to avoid having to come
back next year for a new emergency spending bill, and in part so they
can skim some of the money for classified military efforts.

And many congressional Republicans quietly say they will never
challenge the president's request in public. To do so, they say, would
risk an intraparty rift that could endanger Bush's reelection efforts
as well as their own.

Democrats, meanwhile, question how long the GOP can remain unified.
"Republicans are losing confidence the president can commit these
resources in a reasonable way," Senate Minority Leader Thomas A.
Daschle (D-S.D.) said.

Senate GOP leaders are rushing to bring the $87 billion request to a
vote by the end of next week, prompting Democratic complaints that the
measure is not being fully considered. Daschle questioned the need for
haste, noting that Bremer told Democrats this week that the money will
not be needed until January.

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

 Something important was said:

>Fear and loathing in America 
>Molly Ivins
>
>09.23.03 - AUSTIN, Texas -- Among the more amusing cluckings from the
>right lately is their appalled discovery that quite a few Americans
>actually think George W. Bush is a terrible president. 


I'll just cut to brass tacks.  Now we're gonna fight... OH YES, very
expensive.  Takes money to fight with bullets.  Clinton fought with
words and bluffster.  So did Saddam.  Backing it up is way costly.

Bush backed it up.  Nice.

It's always easier with bullets and bombs.  ALWAYS.

I put a gun to anyone's forehead, they'll do what I want.

Or I kill them and get what I want anyway.

Iraq is dead.  Afghanistan is dead.  I don't think I can remember a
leader who decided to cap off the leaders of two countries.  Now
whaddaya do?

You put the opposing regime in power, bless them, tell them good luck
and attend to your own people.  Pray for the best.  After a firm warning
thaaat w'eeel beeee baaaack.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

NC

Murray Cooper wrote

> >     Both, and it smells an awful lot like the Johnson administration's
> > blundering into Nam. Those "Whiz Kids," "The Best & the Brightest,"
>
> Those were St. John's boys, not LBJ's.
=======================
    A president may choose his own cabinet. The first Johnston proved that,
barely.

BA

Murray Cooper wrote

> >     Both, and it smells an awful lot like the Johnson administration's
> > blundering into Nam. Those "Whiz Kids," "The Best & the Brightest,"
>
> Those were St. John's boys, not LBJ's.
=======================
    A president may choose his own cabinet. The first Johnston proved that,
barely.

BA

USA TODAY  9/26/2003 

2 years in a row, more in poverty 
By Peronet Despeignes, USA TODAY


More than a million Americans sank into poverty last year, an annual
Census report is expected to show today. It would be the first time in
nearly a decade that the number of poor rose two years in a row.

Experts at the University of Michigan, the conservative-leaning
Heritage Foundation and the liberal-leaning Center on Budget and
Policy Priorities said they expected official figures to show the U.S.
poverty rate growing from 11.7% in 2001 to around 12.3% in 2002. Their
predictions generally are accurate within a few decimal points.

The figures were previewed three weeks ago by a Census survey testing
a new methodology. Today's figures are considered more authoritative
and comprehensive. They're the ones used by the government in
calculating unemployment and setting policies.

Although the economy is showing signs of improvement, poverty rates
lag behind economic shifts. Today's report will give Democrats
ammunition to attack President Bush's stewardship of the economy.

The official definition of poverty varies by family size and age and
can change annually with the cost of living. In 2001, a family of two
parents under 65 and two children younger than 18 were considered poor
with a household income below $12,207. That year, 32.9 million people
were defined as poor.

David Wyss, chief economist at Standard & Poor's, said, "Clearly, with
a hiring slump going on, you'd expect poverty to get worse."

The economy was stagnant in 2002 amid layoffs and spending cuts by
employers and state governments. More people were unemployed for
longer periods, and more saw their jobless benefits run out.

But Robert Rector, who studies poverty at the Heritage Foundation,
says the 2002 poverty rate reported today is still likely to be close
to a 40-year low. The recession, job losses and slumping income of the
past few years have not completely erased the gains of the 1990s boom,
he said.

And fresher indicators suggest the economy is staging a comeback:
Retail sales are rising, corporate profits are rebounding, investing
is picking up, and the stock market has rallied.

But a hiring rebound remains little more than a forecast - and a shaky
prospect that has proven elusive for nearly three years. Even if
economic growth continues to accelerate, it might be too uncertain and
subpar to encourage a quick hiring revival, or to stop the rise in
unemployment and poverty.

For the first time in 15 years, the poverty report is being released
on a Friday. That has prompted charges by Democrats that the White
House hopes to see the bad news buried in little-seen Friday night and
Saturday news coverage.

Census officials strongly deny the accusation.

"The news conference was moved from Sept. 23 to Sept. 26 because the
professional staff asked for extra time to process this round of
data," Census spokesman Lawrence Neal said. "The Sunday public affairs
shows will make a meal of the data and spit them back into the news
cycle on Monday. ... The notion that we should, could or would
suppress these numbers doesn't pass the laugh test."
 
-------------------
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-09-26-poverty-usat_x.htm

KReece wrote in message
> USA TODAY  9/26/2003
-----------------------
    Y'know, if more people post more national-news stories in full here,
we'll be overwhelmed with them. How about restraining our enthusiasm to
headline, lead paragraph, and link.
    Okay. If it weren't for Copy-Paste, some people couldn't write. But
word-processing and the internet have plowed Affirmative Action into
journalism. Now if we can just make people want to read all of it, we will
have Evolved.

BA

BA wrote:

> KReece wrote in message
> 
>>USA TODAY  9/26/2003
> 
> -----------------------
>     Y'know, if more people post more national-news stories in full here,
> we'll be overwhelmed with them. How about restraining our enthusiasm to
> headline, lead paragraph, and link.
>     Okay. If it weren't for Copy-Paste, some people couldn't write. But
> word-processing and the internet have plowed Affirmative Action into
> journalism. Now if we can just make people want to read all of it, we will
> have Evolved.
> 
> BA
> 
> 
Making people want to read some of it would be a huge step forward. 
But if you could get more to read -- regardless of whether they read 
a left-leaning rag or a right-leaning rag -- there would be a chance 
that some of them might even learn to think.

Bob Adkins wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 14:22:25 -0400, Elmo <DoNoSpam@NoSpam.org> wrote:
> 
> 
>>It might be, but I'd look at the larger number of lost jobs first.
> 
> 
> Again, I bet the influx if emigrants have something  to do with that.
> Unemployed should not be counted. Total jobs should be counted. Most
> illegals work off the books, and their jobs do not show.
> 
> Bob

Um, Bob?  Did you just change the subject from poverty to unemployment?

If you didn't then:
Poverty is defined based on income.  Right now it's something like 18K 
for a family of 4.  If you don't count the unemployed (who as a rule 
have _really_ low incomes) then the poverty values get really skewed.

And in case you did then:
Unemployment counts people getting unemployment benefits.  You don't get 
umemployment if you are fired for cause, but you do if you are laid off. 
  When you get laid off, your job is gone.  If you qualify for 
unemployment, you are by definition below the poverty line.

But the problem is not simply the number of jobs, but the quality of 
jobs.  If you were working in a manufacturing job getting say $12 an 
hour then you and your wife and 2 kids are above the poverty line.  Most 
of the jobs that are available are not manufacturing jobs and pay rather 
less, say $8 an hour.  Now you're below the poverty line.

Of course this is a contrived example.  Most families can't make it on 
one income anymore.

BA wrote:
> 
> Murray Cooper wrote
> 
> > >     Ahistorical? Of course it began under St John. Or under General
> > > Eisenhower, depending on how far back you want to go.
> >
> > Nope.  Combat involvement began under St. John.
> > > ----------------------------------------
>      ER recently recommended a book that traces the setup further back.
> > > ----------------------------------------
> > >     Oh. I misspelt "Johnson." Apparently you didn't look it up, or
> remember.
> > > ----------------------------------------
> > I did remember.  You didn't just misspell it, doofus.
> > You added a whole extra letter.  YOU didn't know the
> > correct name.
> > > ----------------------------------------
>     Thank God I don't have to any more. And what's this name-calling on your
> part? I thought I was on your side. Have you not yet been surrounded and
> outnumbered?

That book was "Patriots: The Vietnam War From All Sides," and is mostly
an oral history told by participants at every level of that sad sick and
sorry debacle, from Alexander Haig to American grunts to NLF grunts and
one-time government officials from both Vietnams.  

Until a friend was so insistent that I read it that he sent me a copy, I
was certain I'd read every word I wanted or needed to about that
particular war.  I cannot recommend it highly enough.  
So far as history repeating itself, watch the next election.  And I
won't cross-post again, but _everybody_ oughta know about this book.

Nixon, elected as a "peace candidate" with no real legacy, put in place
policies that kept the killing going until 1975, mostly because he
couldn't figure out a way to extract American troops without looking, in
his own mind, like a wuss.  

It could happen again.  

I'm wondering how the man-power numbers are gonna work out if the
country is stupid enough to truly elect Shrub.  (And it might be: it
did, after all, re-elect Ray-gun.)  It's hard to see how the current
level of adventurism can be maintained without a draft. . .

--
There's a place on this earth
My people call Home
There's hills and hollers everywhere
And lots of room to roam.
We're noted for our hard times
And God's great creation
We are the people
Of the Hillbilly Nation
   --- Charlie Gearhart, "Goose Creek Symphony"
-- 
"Bearskin to Holly Fork: Stories From Appalachia"
 is now available from Amazon, Barnes and Noble, 
or your favorite local bookstore.  

Fiction, poetry, essays
New MP3: "Second Cousin"
http://www.bobsloansampler.com/

Most recent Lexington "Herald-Leader" column: Political Dead Duck as
Scapegoat
http://www.bobsloansampler.com/col06.htm