You may have noticed that we are not doing too well in this war because our soldiers are getting killed by bullets and bombs and rockets.
This has nothing to do with the Democrats, and everything to do with a poor plan and an deeply ingrained inability to admit mistakes.
I think Rumsfield would rather every US soldier die than admit his plan sucked.
Jerry Johnson
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/01/04 04:49PM >>>
Sorry, I forgot my quote.
"We have an entire political party which is engaged in
an effort to make sure we lose this war so that they
win the White House, and I am not mincing words. They
are doing everything they can to see that our effort
to win this is defeated, because it's Bush leading
it." -Rush
--- Sam Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- Maureen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > At 11:51 AM 7/1/04, Monique wrote:
> > >Ok so it took a few month for them to plan 911
> > >I sure it was in progress way before Bush took
> > office.
> >
> > Bush was in office for 9 months before 9/11. He
> > spent 42% of that time on
> > vacation, and a lot of rest of that time dealing
> > with the fallout from his
> > good buddy Ken Lay's Enron debacle, and buying
> votes
> > with his tax cut.
> All nonsence.
> Bush was off 13%. Moore counted the time he spent at
> Camp David as vacation time. It was not.
> Enron was Clintons mess. Bush declined to help Enon
> remember?
> I enjoyed my tax refund thanks.
>
> >He
> > spent no time the terrorist threat, in spite of
> > being warned by the
> > outgoing president that it was the number one
> issue.
> > Regardless of when
> > it was planned, it happened on Bush's watch. He
> > doesn't get to take credit
> > for the good stuff, and blame the bad stuff on
> > Clinton.
> Clinton let Osama go. Remember? He denied it but we
> know he's a cronic lier so why do you listen to him.
> He just said under oath he didn't let Bin Laden get
> away. Yet he was caught on video in LI telling
> people
> he let him go because he didn't have enough to
> charge
> him on. I blame Clinton and I think today Cheney did
> also. :)
>
> >
> Speaking of the lsot surplus:
>
>
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1272/is_2648_127/ai_54680884
>
> The Clinton illusions begin with the alleged
> surpluses
> for this fiscal year and the next. In reality, they
> do
> not exist. They all come from the Social Security
> fund. This is important because the Treasury cannot
> use the Social Security surplus to pay down the
> national debt. Those funds, invested in U.S. bonds
> and
> held in trust, must be redeemed eventually to meet
> future Social Security obligations.
>
> If the current Social Security surplus is subtracted
> from Clinton's budget, the Federal government
> actually
> will be running a $42,000,000,000 deficit in Fiscal
> Year 1999 and a $12,000,000,000 deficit in FY 2000.
> The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) does not
> project a significant government surplus (minus the
> Social Security funds) until FY 2002, and these OMB
> projections, as the nation has learned from painful
> experience, can be widely off the mark. The
> Congressional Budget Office, which generally makes
> more cautious predictions, has warned that OMB's
> projected non-Social Security surplus of
> $188,000,000,000 for FY 2009 could be as much as
> $300,000,000,000 in error.
>
> -sm
>
> >
> >
>
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
