F-102 pilot kicks sailors ass

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."

D. Strang a écrit :

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."




By sending troops abroad...is that a purely national matter?

"Nemo l'ancien" wrote in message
...

By sending troops abroad...is that a purely national matter?


No, it isn't. Freedom-loving people all over the world benefit when America
sends troops abroad.

Yeap, ask Irakis now...

"Nemo l'ancien" wrote in message
...

Yeap, ask Irakis now...


Iraqis have been asked. They agree.

"Nemo l'ancien" wrote

Yeap, ask Irakis now...

or the real French who survived the German penal system.

Ask my buried uncle in Forbach what he thought about the
Americans and Freedom. He'll vote for armed support every
time, rather than the collaborators (like your family).

He'll vote for armed support every time, rather than the collaborators (like
your family).
And we will burn every last drop of your oil and give you reruns of The
Simpsons to ponder and be roll models for your Iraqi children.
It isn't about your country or freedom, its about your oil.

"Rojo2G" wrote

It isn't about your country or freedom, its about your oil.

Whenever the mind snaps shut, there's always the mundane.

The West is awash in oil. Currently it is too cheap, and this
has resulted in waste. Every time you look at your town and
see lights everywhere burning in daylight, you can thank
yourself for the waste.

We need Iraqi oil, like we need another Las Vegas.

In article ,
Nemo l'ancien wrote:

Yeap, ask Irakis now...

It's been done several times in the past couple of weeks.

Example from a recent poll commissioned by ABC News and
the BBC by Oxford Research International:

"Overall, how would you say things are going in your life these days -
very good, quite good, quite bad, or very bad?"

71% - Very or quite good.
29% - Quite or very bad.

You didn't happen to miss out on any oil monies, by any chance?

"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?


..