Would You Like Some Freedom Fries with Your Crow ?
Name withheld by request
Would you like some freedom fries with your crow, Mr. President?
Six months after spitting in the face of the world, the Bush
administration is crawling on its belly before the U.N. If the world
doesn't rush to help it, the White House has only itself to blame.
Sept. 4, 2003 | Let me make sure I've got this right. After being
insulted, belittled and called irrelevant by the swaggering machos
in the Bush administration, the United Nations is now supposed to
step forward to supply cannon fodder for America's disastrous Iraq
occupation --while the U.S. continues to run the show?
In other words, the rest of the world is to send its troops to get
killed so that a U.S. president it fears and despises can take the
credit for an invasion it bitterly opposed.
The rest of the world may be crazy, but it ain't stupid.
The Bush administration's humiliating announcement that it wants
the U.N. to bail it out officially confers the title of "debacle"
upon the grand Cheney-Rove-Wolfowitz adventure. Not even the
world-class chutzpah of this administration can conceal the fact
that by turning to the despised world body, it is eating a heaping
plate of crow. This spectacle may give Bush-bashers from London to
Jakarta a happy jolt of schadenfreude, but it does nothing to help
Americans who are stuck with the ugly fallout of the Bush team's
ill-conceived, absurdly overoptimistic attempt to redraw the Middle
East.
The bitter truth is that everything the administration told us about
Iraq has turned out to be false.
The biggest falsehood, of course, concerns the reason we went to
war in the first place. President Bush's recent hints that we invaded
Iraq to get rid of the evil tyrant Saddam are patently false: The
administration's entire prewar argument, until it began to grasp
desperately for other explanations on the eve of the invasion, was
that Iraq represented an imminent threat to our security. That was,
of course, a lie. Iraq never had any connection to al-Qaida (not
even the ever-serviceable Tony Blair tried to claim that) and if
it had weapons of mass destruction -- which in any case there is
no reason to believe it would have used against the U.S. -- none
have been found. (In this light, Bush's somewhat peculiar attack
on "revisionist historians"
appears to have been a Freudian slip.)
However, the Bush administration has succeeded in making its fears
come true: Iraq now does harbor enemies who represent an imminent
threat to the lives of the 140,000 American servicemen who are
hunkered down there. By removing Saddam's dictatorial regime, the
U.S. turned a nation that borders Saudi Arabia, Iran, Jordan and
Syria into a lawless, anarchic swamp, open to every jihadi and
America-hater who wants to blow up the Yankee infidels who invaded
a sovereign Arab state. A G.I. dies almost every day, and 10 more
are wounded, and there is no end in sight, and the reasons why are
beginning to seem even murkier than the reasons we were in Vietnam.
The Bush administration is probably hoping that the American people
won't notice that the invasion created the very problem it was
supposed to solve. After all, half of all Americans believe that
Iraq was behind 9/11 -- the result of months of the administration's
repetitive, hypnotic demonizing of Saddam and total silence about
the embarrassingly uncaught Osama bin Laden. Why not go for an even
bigger lie and claim that the Iraq nightmare shows that the invasion
was needed because now we see just how evil those terrorist ragheads
really are?
Perpetual war for perpetual reelection: According to this master
strategy, even a losing "war on terror" is a winning hand for Bush,
because it makes the world a scarier place and when people are
scared they vote for the tough guys. Even if the tough guys don't
know what they're doing.
The administration, which in its supreme arrogance regarded postwar
planning as beneath it (that's for sissy nation-builders), never
acknowledged or even considered that the war and occupation could
be messy, long and ruinously expensive -- and it silenced those who
tried to warn that it was living in a fool's paradise. When
straight-shooting Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Army chief of staff,
warned that "several hundred thousand soldiers" would be needed to
pacify Iraq, the insufferably smug Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld
squashed the now-departed officer like a bug: "Any idea that it's
several hundred thousand over any sustained period is simply not
the case."
Sober contingency analysis could not be allowed to derail the
administration's carefully timed new product rollout. The misgivings
and warnings of professionals could not be allowed to spoil the
grand visions of inspired amateurs embarked on a grand crusade.
Bush said the U.N. must sanction his war on Iraq or "become
irrelevant."
It did not. Yet today he is crawling on his belly to the supposedly
irrelevant U.N., begging it to bail him out of the quagmire he
created.
The administration said that America was so omnipotent that it could
afford to spit in the face of the rest of the world. Indeed, for
the ideologues who run the Bush show, flouting our solo might almost
seemed to be a sign of God's special favor. Now, having burned our
bridges to all of our allies except Britain, the America |ber alles
crowd is reduced to sputtering in rage as the rest of the world --
surprise! -- declines to rush forward with open checkbooks.
Had the U.S. worked with the U.N. to deal with Iraq, as Bush's
considerably more world-wise father did in 1991, we would not be
facing this problem. The community of nations would have regarded
Iraq as its shared responsibility and stepped forward. But by
alienating the world -- and squandering the unparalleled goodwill
created by 9/11 -- the Bush administration created a powerful
disincentive to even those nations that understand the vital necessity
of rebuilding Iraq. The unpleasant truth is that for much of the
world, helping this shattered nation, even if understood to be a
worthy and necessary goal, now equals lending aid and comfort to
an American regime that is perceived as blustering, simplistic,
addicted to violence, self-righteous, and dangerously out of control.
In a nobler world, France and Turkey and Germany and Russia would
forget all those nasty things that Bush officials (and their
mouthpieces in the Murdoch media empire) said about them and send
tens of thousands of troops to bail us out. But the real world does
not work that way. The "axis of weasels" is now enjoying every
minute of it while the Bush regime squirms.
By insisting that any U.N. forces be placed under U.S. control, the
Bush administration is trying to save what little face it has left,
but also making it that much harder to enlist the help of other
nations.
Moreover, no one at the United Nations is likely to have forgotten
that the bombing that blew up the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad could
never have been carried out except in the power vacuum that followed
the ouster of Saddam. Had the Bush administration not poured contempt
upon the U.N., that fact might not have led to acrimony and
finger-pointing --after all, it is unreasonable to blame the U.S.
for that vile deed.
But the Bush team is reaping what it has sowed.
To be sure, some kind of deal may yet be worked out. But if the
terms of that deal are more niggardly than the Bush administration
would like, if much of the world stands on the sidelines and watches
the bully twist in Iraq's deadly breeze, it will have only itself
to blame.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2003/09/04/un/index.html
About the writer Gary Kamiya is Salon's executive editor
_____________________________________________________________
"The true axis of evil is the brilliance of our marketing and the
stupidity of our people. A bad product well-apologized-for will beat
a good product without money or marketing."
Bill Maher
Mike Smith
demand... no one wants to admit to knowing this imbecile) wrote:
>
>Six months after spitting in the face of the world, the Bush
>administration is crawling on its belly before the U.N. If the world
>doesn't rush to help it, the White House has only itself to blame.
>
BWAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA
This is one of the funniest and dumbest things this imbecile has
posted........
Too Funny.....
Mike Smith
Werner J. Severin
It's only funny and dumb if you haven't paid any attention to the news
coming out of Washington, the U.N. and Europe the past 48 hours.
Our Secretary of State has been sent to the UN to plead for other
countries to provide troops and money for Iraq. Several members of the UN
Security Council who initially opposed the war may well use their veto
power to prevent UN involvement unless we give the UN far more control.
Phillipe
<wseverin-050...@dialup-67.74.150.117.dial1.houston1.level3.ne
t>,
The Bush folks just asked Congress for $65 Billion additonal for Iraq.
How does 4 billion a month that they say it's cost us equate to 65
billion a year?
Is the extra 17 Billion for Halliburton?
Mike Smith
If you had the slightest bit of analytical abilities, you'd see how
absolutely pathetic and whiny the article is.
That makes it hilarious.
Mike Smith
Bill Walker
"Mike Smith" <m...@wt.net> wrote in message
news:ep1ilv0gonfp0028q...@4ax.com...
Not nearly as funny as ol' Colin was when he kissed ass to get the UN ,
especially Germany and France, trying to get someone to bail Bush and
Rumsfeld out of this fuck up in Iraq..
n/a
us old "liberals" have been trying to get you to see all along?
Bush IS, WAS, and ALWAYS WILL BE a disaster looking for a place to happen.
"Name withheld by request" <anon...@nyx10.nyx.net> wrote in message
news:10627199...@irys.nyx.net...
MonteP
news:pfilm-CE5D97....@news06.east.earthlink.net:
> In article
> <wseverin-050...@dialup-67.74.150.117.dial1.houston1.level3.n
> e t>,
The way I read it, that 65-80Billion is in ADDITION to the military
costs, which at present are ~3Billion Iraq and 1 Billion Afghanistan at
present according to the last figures I seen in Newsweek or some such.
So the total cost of this fiasco is going to run this country at a
minimum, 100+ Billion a year fro who knows how long.
Now add that to the 500+ Billion deficit for the rest of of the budget
and you are getting perilously close to matching another 'GREAT' Texan
President, namely Lyndon Johnson.
Hey republicans how does it feel to be blindly supporting a guy that out
spends the worst Democrat in our history? Forget naming FDR because when
you factor out inflation on a year to year basis Johnson wins the race
for 67 and 68.
Resurrect Ike, Barry and Everett and get some REAL Republicans back in
charge!
--
"The Rule of Man may be seductive, but the Rule of Law does not carry
social diseases!
To restore the Rule of Law is simple, send pretzels to the Whitehouse!"
...MonteP
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
says...
>
> If you had the slightest bit of analytical abilities, you'd see how
> absolutely pathetic and whiny the article is.
Please detail the logical progression you used to reach that conclusion.
Hint: you won't.
Chris Bellomy
: Hey republicans how does it feel to be blindly supporting a guy that out
: spends the worst Democrat in our history?
They supported Reagan. They'll support this guy.
cb
William R. Cowan
Not likely. The president never said before, during or after the war
that the U.N. would be excluded. The President never said that others
would be forbidden from helping in the rebuilding of Iraq. We currently
have an international coalition that is helping. Polish troops are now
patroling parts of Iraq. It is not like we wanted to go to war without
the UN but the UN showed that it did not have the courage to stand up to
Saddam. France was too worry about losing its contracts with Iraq to be
concerned. Germany was in the same boat. Powell today said why it was
nesseccary to go after Saddam. France and Germany are showing why the
UN is becoming useless.
We do not need France or Germany to help out "Rumsfeld" out of any mess
up as you refer to it as. Far from it. Iraq is going about as well as
to be expected. The war was in short order. We have a governing
council setup. Elections are being proposed for in a 18 months (it was
over five years before Germany had its first election after WWII). The
electrical service is almost back to where it was pre-war and will be
there in about two weeks. Over 50% of thoses wanted by the U.S. have
been secured. Most schools have reopend. Thomas Freiman points out
that things are better in Iraq than are reported. Resturants are
opening and doing business. Casualties from the War were low (lower
than the liberals were predicting). Casualties are unfortunate but are
a fact. In peace keeping duties in Lebanon we lost 243 men in a single
day. The terrorist activites against our troops are nothing new in
peace keeping duties (it occured in Germany after WWII).
Look at the big picture and get accurate information and you will see
that things are going okay for the U.S. and that France and Germany are
not critical to the success.
MRC
Mike Smith
It's self-evident (that's what makes the article comical), and you
have proven that you have absolutely no ability to figure it out
yourself, making you the perfect DNC "useful idiot".
Mike Smith
Mike Smith
<NoEmailBec...@NOSPAM.com> wrote:
>Isn't it amazing that some people are just now coming around to what some of
>us old "liberals" have been trying to get you to see all along?
>
>Bush IS, WAS, and ALWAYS WILL BE a disaster looking for a place to happen.
Yea.... sure....... And Gary Kamiya, Salon's executive editor, is the
epitome of intelligence..........
What a dumbass.
Mike Smith
<snipped the useless parts>
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
> >> If you had the slightest bit of analytical abilities, you'd see how
> >> absolutely pathetic and whiny the article is.
> >
> >Please detail the logical progression you used to reach that conclusion.
> >
> >Hint: you won't.
>
> It's self-evident (that's what makes the article comical),
I told you you wouldn't.
Mark K
"Chris Bellomy" <pu...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message
news:0Tkefbv...@redshark.goodshow.net...
But this is holy spending in the holy crusading cause of fighting evil and
defending the Holy Land. (See below.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
James Rosen, April 6, 2003, The Sacramento Bee:
"In 1996, as Likud Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu prepared to take
office, eight Jewish neoconservative leaders sent him a six-page memo
outlining an aggressive vision of government. At the top of their list
was overthrowing Saddam and replacing him with a monarch under the
control of Jordan.
The neoconservatives sketched out a kind of domino theory in which the
governments of Syria and other Arab countries might later fall or be
replaced in the wake of Saddam's ouster. They urged Netanyahu to spurn
the Oslo peace accords and to stop making concessions to the
Palestinians.
Lead writer of the memo was Perle. Other signatories were Feith, now
undersecretary of defense, and Wurmser, a senior adviser to John Bolton,
undersecretary of state.
Fred Donner, a professor of Near Eastern history at the University of
Chicago, said he was struck by the similarities between the ideas in the
memo and ideas now at the forefront of Bush's foreign policy." []
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Phillipe
Chris Bellomy <pu...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
Reagan ran on a "We must have a balanced Budget" platform;
but it was Clinton that balanced the budget.
Phillipe
"Mark K" <se...@server.net> wrote:
>
> "Chris Bellomy" <pu...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message
> news:0Tkefbv...@redshark.goodshow.net...
> > In dfw.politics MonteP <pretzel...@crawford.tx.com> wrote:
>
> > : Hey republicans how does it feel to be blindly supporting a guy that out
> > : spends the worst Democrat in our history?
>
> > They supported Reagan. They'll support this guy.
>
>
> But this is holy spending in the holy crusading cause of fighting evil and
> defending the Holy Land. (See below.)
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> James Rosen, April 6, 2003, The Sacramento Bee:
>
> "In 1996, as Likud Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu prepared to take
> office, eight Jewish neoconservative leaders sent him a six-page memo
> outlining an aggressive vision of government. At the top of their list
> was overthrowing Saddam and replacing him with a monarch under the
> control of Jordan.
And the url to an Image of this fictional memo is where?
Mark K
"Phillipe" <pf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:pfilm-4670E0....@news06.east.earthlink.net...
> > James Rosen, April 6, 2003, The Sacramento Bee:
> > "In 1996, as Likud Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu prepared to take
> > office, eight Jewish neoconservative leaders sent him a six-page memo
> > outlining an aggressive vision of government. At the top of their list
> > was overthrowing Saddam and replacing him with a monarch under the
> > control of Jordan.
> And the url to an Image of this fictional memo is where?
If you doubt it, don't believe it, or do your own search and research and
bring your results to these newsgroups, or whatever else.
IMO, US Jewish neo-conservatives, whose presence pervade and permeate the US
government, do not hold the interests of the US of A as their primary focus.
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
> IMO, US Jewish neo-conservatives, whose presence pervade and permeate the US
> government, do not hold the interests of the US of A as their primary focus.
Well, in *my* opinion, pigs can fly.
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
pf...@yahoo.com says...
> > They supported Reagan. They'll support this guy.
>
> Reagan ran on a "We must have a balanced Budget" platform;
> but it was Clinton that balanced the budget.
Shhh! You're not supposed to point that out!
Mark K
"Jeffrey E. Salzberg" <jeffsa...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.19c39e294...@news.verizon.net...
> > IMO, US Jewish neo-conservatives, whose presence pervade and permeate
the US
> > government, do not hold the interests of the US of A as their primary
focus.
> Well, in *my* opinion, pigs can fly.
1). Richard Perle----One of Bush's foreign policy advisors, he is the
chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board. A very likely Israeli
government agent, Perle was expelled from Senator Henry Jackson's office in
the 1970's after the National Security Agency (NSA) caught him passing
Highly-Classified (National Security) documents to the Israeli Embassy. He
later worked for the Israeli weapons firm, Soltam. Perle is one of the
leading pro-Israeli fanatics leading this Iraq war mongering within the
administration and now in the media.
2). Paul Wolfowitz----Deputy Defense Secretary, and member of Perle's
Defense Policy Board, in the Pentagon. Wolfowitz is a close associate of
Perle, and reportedly has close ties to the Israeli military. His sister
lives in Israel. Wolfowitz is the number two leader within the
administration behind this Iraq war mongering.
3). Douglas Feith----Under Secretary of Defense and Policy Advisor at the
Pentagon. He is a close associate of Perle and served as his Special
Counsel. Like Perle and the others, Feith is a pro-Israel extremist, who has
advocated anti-Arab policies in the past. He is closely associated with the
extremist group, the Zionist Organization of America, which even attacks
Jews that don't agree with its extremist views. Feith frequently speaks at
ZOA conferences. Feith runs a small law firm, Feith and Zell, which only has
one International office, in Israel. The majority of their legal work is
representing Israeli interests. His firm's own website stated, prior to his
appointment, that Feith "represents Israeli Armaments Manufacturer." Feith
basically represents the Israeli War Machine. Feith, like Perle and
Wolfowitz, are campaigning hard for this Israeli proxy war against Iraq.
4). Edward Luttwak----Member of the National Security Study Group of the
Department of Defence at the Pentagon. Luttwak is reportedly an Israeli
citizen and has taught in Israel. He frequently writes for Israeli and
pro-Israeli newspapers and journals. Luttwak is an Israeli extremist whose
main theme in many of his articles is the necessity of the U.S. waging war
against Iraq.
5). Henry Kissinger-----One of many Pentagon Advisors, Kissinger sits on the
Pentagon's Defense Policy Board under Perle. For detailed information about
Kissinger's evil past, read Seymour Hersch's book (Price of Power: Kissinger
in the Nixon White House). Kissinger had a part in the Watergate crimes,
Southeast Asia mass murders, Chile dictatorship, and more recently served as
Serbian Dictator Slobodan Milosevic's Advisor. He consistently advocates
going to war against Iraq. Kissinger is the Ariel Sharon of the U.S.
6). Dov Zakheim----Under Secretary of Defense, Comptroller, and Chief
Financial Officer (CFO) for the Department of Defense. He is an ordained
rabbi and reportedly holds Israeli citizenship. Zakheim attended attended
Jew's College in London and became an ordained Orthodox Jewish Rabbi in
1973. He was adjunct professor at New York's Jewish Yeshiva University.
Zakheim is close to the Israeli lobby.
7). Kenneth Adelman-----One of many Pentagon Advisors, Adelman also sits on
the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board under Perle, and is another extremist
pro-Israel advisor, who supports going to war against Iraq. Adelman
frequently is a guest on Fox News, and often expresses extremist and often
ridiculus anti-Arab and anti-Muslim views. Through his hatred or stupidity,
he actually called Arabs "anti-Semitic" on Fox News (11/28/2001), when he
could have looked it up in the dictionary to find out that Arabs by
definition are Semites.
8). I. Lewis Libby -----Vice President Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff. The
chief pro-Israel Jewish advisor to Cheney, it helps explains why Cheney is
so gun-ho to invade Iraq. Libby is longtime associate of Wolfowitz. Libby
was also a lawyer for convicted felon and Israeli spy Mark Rich, whom
Clinton pardoned, in his last days as president.
9). Robert Satloff----U.S. National Security Council Advisor, Satloff was
the executive director of the Israeli lobby's "think tank," Washington
Institute for Near East Policy. Many of the Israeli lobby's "experts" come
from this front group, like Martin Indyk.
10). Elliott Abrams-----National Security Council Advisor. He previously
worked at Washington-based "Think Tank" Ethics and Public Policy Center.
During the Reagan Adminstration, Abrams was the Assistant Secretary of
State, handling, for the most part, Latin American affairs. He played an
important role in the Iran-Contra Scandal, which involved illegally selling
U.S. weapons to Iran to fight Iraq, and illegally funding the contra rebels
fighting to overthrow Nicaragua's Sandinista government. He also actively
deceived three congressional committees about his involvement and thereby
faced felony charges based on his testimony. Abrams pled guilty in 1991 to
two misdemeanors and was sentenced to a year's probation and 100 hours of
community service. A year later, former President Bush (Senior) granted
Abrams a full pardon. He was one of the more hawkish pro-Israel Jews in the
Reagan Administration's State Department.
11). Marc Grossman-----Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs. He
was Director General of the Foreign Service and Director of Human Resources
at the Department of State. Grossman is one of many of the pro-Israel Jewish
officials from the Clinton Administration that Bush has promoted to higher
posts.
12). Richard Haass-----Director of Policy Planning at the State Department
and Ambassador at large. He is also Director of National Security Programs
and Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). He was one of
the more hawkish pro-Israel Jews in the first Bush (Sr) Administration who
sat on the National Security Council, and who consistently advocates going
to war against Iraq. Haass is also a member of the Defense Department's
National Security Study Group, at the Pentagon.
13). Robert Zoellick-----U.S. Trade Representative, a cabinet-level
position. He is also one of the more hawkish pro-Israel Jews in the Bush
(Jr) Administration who advocated invading Iraq and occupying a portion of
the country in order to set up setting up a Vichy-style puppet government.
He consistently advocates going to war against Iraq.
14). Ari Fleischer----Official White House Spokesman for the Bush (Jr)
Administration. Prominent in the Jewish community, some reports state that
he holds Israeli citizenship. Fleischer is closely connected to the
extremist Jewish group called the Chabad Lubavitch Hasidics, who follow the
Qabala, and hold very extremist and insulting views of non-Jews. Fleischer
was the co-president of Chabad's Capitol Jewish Forum. He received the Young
Leadership Award from the American Friends of Lubavitch in October, 2001.
15). James Schlesinger-----One of many Pentagon Advisors, Schlesinger also
sits on the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board under Perle and is another
extremist pro-Israel advisor, who supports going to war against Iraq.
Schlesinger is also a commissioner of the Defense Department's National
Security Study Group, at the Pentagon.
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
> > > IMO, US Jewish neo-conservatives, whose presence pervade and permeate
> the US
> > > government, do not hold the interests of the US of A as their primary
> focus.
>
>
> > Well, in *my* opinion, pigs can fly.
>
>
> 1). Richard Perle----One of Bush's foreign policy advisors, he is the
> chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board. A very likely Israeli
> government agent, Perle was expelled from Senator Henry Jackson's office in
> the 1970's after the National Security Agency (NSA) caught him passing
> Highly-Classified (National Security) documents to the Israeli Embassy. He
> later worked for the Israeli weapons firm, Soltam. Perle is one of the
> leading pro-Israeli fanatics leading this Iraq war mongering within the
> administration and now in the media.
>
> 2). Paul Wolfowitz
Wow. Fifteen Jews out of the hundreds of government employees
constitues a presence that pervades and permeates....who knew?
Who knew? Well, no *sane* person, anyway.
Mark K
> > > > IMO, US Jewish neo-conservatives, whose presence
> > > .> pervade and permeate the US government, do not hold
> > > > the interests of the US of A as their primary focus.
> > > Well, in *my* opinion, pigs can fly.
> > 1). Richard Perle----One of Bush's foreign policy advisors, he is the
> > chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board. A very likely Israeli
> > government agent, Perle was expelled from Senator Henry Jackson's office
in
> > the 1970's after the National Security Agency (NSA) caught him passing
> > Highly-Classified (National Security) documents to the Israeli Embassy.
He
> > later worked for the Israeli weapons firm, Soltam. Perle is one of the
> > leading pro-Israeli fanatics leading this Iraq war mongering within the
> > administration and now in the media.
> > 2). Paul Wolfowitz
> Wow. Fifteen Jews out of the hundreds of government employees
> constitues a presence that pervades and permeates....who knew?
> Who knew? Well, no *sane* person, anyway.
(Thanks for the Yiddish blessing. :-)
Jews comprise 2% of the population and hold 30% of top White House
positions. Under the Democrats it was 60%.
16). David Frum-----White House speechwriter behind the "Axis of Evil"
label.
He lumps together all the lies and accusations against Iraq for Bush to
justify
the war.
17). Joshua Bolten----White House Deputy Chief of Staff, Bolten was
previously a banker, former legislative aide, and prominent in the Jewish
community.
18). John Bolton----Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and
International Security. Bolton is also a Senior Advisor to President Bush.
Prior to this position, Bolton was Senior Vice President of the above
mentioned
pro-Israel thinktank, AEI. He recently (October 2002) accused Syria of
having a
nuclear program, so that they can attack Syria after Iraq. He must have
forgotten that Israel has 400 nuclear warheads, some of which are
thermonuclear
weapons (according to a recent U.S. Air Force report).
19). David Wurmser----Special Assistant to John Bolton (above), the
under-secretary for arms control and international security. Wurmser also
worked at the AEI with Perle and Bolton. His wife, Meyrav Wurmser, along
with
Colonel Yigal Carmon, formerly of Israeli military intelligence, co-founded
the
Middle East Media Research Institute (Memri),a Washington-based Israeli
outfit
which distributes articles translated from Arabic newspapers portraying
Arabs
in a bad light.
20). Eliot Cohen-----Member of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board under
Perle and is another extremist pro-Israel advisor. Like Adelman, he often
expresses extremist and often ridiculus anti-Arab and anti-Muslim views.
More
recently, he wrote an opinion article in the Wall Street Journal openly
admitting his rascist hatred of Islam claiming that Islam should be the
enemy,
not terrorism.
21). Mel Sembler-----President of the Export-Import Bank of the United
States. A Prominent Jewish Republican and Former National Finance Chairman
of
the Republican National Committee. The Export-Import Bank facilitates trade
relationships between U.S. businesses and foreign countries, specifically
those
with financial problems.
22). Michael Chertoff ----Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal
Division, at the Justice Department.
23). Steve Goldsmith----Senior Advisor to the President, and Bush's Jewish
domestic policy advisor. He also serves as liaison in the White House Office
of
Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (White House OFBCI) within the
Executive
Office of the President. He was the former mayor of Indianapolis. He is also
friends with Israeli Jerusalem Mayor Ehud Olmert and often visits Israel to
coach mayors on privatization initiatives.
24). Adam Goldman-----White House's Special Liaison to the Jewish
Community.
25). Joseph Gildenhorn-----Bush Campaign's Special Liaison to the Jewish
Community. He was the DC finance chairman for the Bush campaign, as well as
campaign coordinator, and former ambassador to Switzerland.
26). Christopher Gersten-----Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary,
Administration for Children and Families at HHS. Gersten was the former
Executive Director of the Republican Jewish Coalition, Husband of Labor
Secretary, Linda Chavez, and reportedly very pro-Israel. Their children are
being raised Jewish.
27). Mark Weinberger-----Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Tax
Policy.
28). Samuel Bodman-----Deputy Secretary of Commerce. He was the Chairman
and
CEO of Cabot Corporation in Boston, Massachusetts.
29). Bonnie Cohen-----Under Secretary of State for Management.
30). Ruth Davis-----Director of Foreign Service Institute, who reports to
the
Office of Under Secretary for Management. This Office is responsible for
training all Department of State staff (including ambassadors).
31). Lincoln Bloomfield-----Assistant Secretary of State for Political
Military Affairs.
32). Jay Lefkowitz-----General Counsel of the Office of Budget and
Management.
33). Ken Melman-----White House Political Director.
34). Brad Blakeman------White House Director of Scheduling.
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
> > Wow. Fifteen Jews out of the hundreds of government employees
> > constitues a presence that pervades and permeates....who knew?
>
> > Who knew? Well, no *sane* person, anyway.
>
> (Thanks for the Yiddish blessing. :-)
>
>
> Jews comprise 2% of the population and hold 30% of top White House
> positions. Under the Democrats it was 60%.
And what percentage are they of people with advanced educational
degrees?
I suspect you'll find that, based on that criterion, they're
proportionately represented.
I also suspect that you won't care; the object of the exercise for you
is clearly the hatred itself.
...Which brings us back to that "no *sane* person" thing....
Mark K
> > > Wow. Fifteen Jews out of the hundreds of government employees
> > > constitues a presence that pervades and permeates....who knew?
> > Jews comprise 2% of the population and hold 30% of top White House
> > positions. Under the Democrats it was 60%.
> And what percentage are they of people with advanced educational
> degrees?
> I suspect you'll find that, based on that criterion, they're
> proportionately represented.
So you agree that, that it's not just fifteen Jews.
So you agree that Jews are over-represented on a
population basis but assert that they may not
be over-represented on an educational basis.
Using the lower figure of 30%, they are
over-represented in the White House
on a population basis by a factor of
(30/2)/(70/98) = 21.
But being 21 times more educated than
the rest of US citizens, that evens things out.
Yes?
RedPill
hard way every time. tisk tisk. get that tit, george. the only thing his
thinking about now is how will it affect his election next year.
--redpill, take it.
"Mike Smith" <m...@wt.net> wrote in message
news:kafjlv42md33mferu...@4ax.com...
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
> So you agree that Jews are over-represented on a
> population basis but assert that they may not
> be over-represented on an educational basis.
It's well-known that, as a group, Jews are better-educated than most.
It's a cultural thing; Jews are taught from childhood to revere
learning. There's nothing to keep any other group from doing the same,
and many do; Palestinians, for example, have the highest number of Ph.Ds
per capita of any ethnic group.
...So the fact that you're ignorant is *your* doing.
torresD
torresD
"Phillipe" <pf...@yahoo.com
> James Rosen, April 6, 2003, The Sacramento Bee:
>
> > "In 1996, as Likud Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu prepared to take
> > office, eight Jewish neoconservative leaders sent him a six-page memo
> > outlining an aggressive vision of government. At the top of their list
> > was overthrowing Saddam and replacing him with a monarch under the
> > control of Jordan.
>
> And the url to an Image of this fictional memo is where?
Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle are the Architects of the Iraqi invasion.
Whose interest do you think, they had in mind, when the urged Bush
to invade Iraq, ours or Ariel Sharons?
AIPAC's Bribe List.
http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
@hotmail.com says...
> Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle are the Architects of the Iraqi invasion.
> Whose interest do you think, they had in mind, when the urged Bush
> to invade Iraq, ours or Ariel Sharons?
Ours, of course. There's no reason for any sane person to think
otherwise.
Chris Bellomy
: In article <0Tkefbv...@redshark.goodshow.net>,
: Chris Bellomy <pu...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
:
: > In dfw.politics MonteP <pretzel...@crawford.tx.com> wrote:
: >
: > : Hey republicans how does it feel to be blindly supporting a guy that out
: > : spends the worst Democrat in our history?
: >
: > They supported Reagan. They'll support this guy.
:
: Reagan ran on a "We must have a balanced Budget" platform;
And who then racked up record budget deficits by cutting taxes
and raising defense spending.
: but it was Clinton that balanced the budget.
What a commie that guy was.
cb
Mark K
> > Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle are the Architects of the Iraqi
invasion.
> > Whose interest do you think, they had in mind, when the urged Bush
> > to invade Iraq, ours or Ariel Sharons?
> Ours, of course. There's no reason for any sane person to think
> otherwise.
Jeffrey, some may (quite understandably) find cause for doubt, no? (See
below.)
"Let us recognize that we Jews are
a distinct nationality of which every
Jew, whatever his country, his station,
or shade of belief, is necessarily a
member. Organize, organize, until
every Jew must stand up and be counted -
counted with us, or prove himself wittingly
or unwittingly, of the few who
are against their own people."
--Louis D. Brandeis, US Supreme
Court Justice, 1916-1939.
Chris Bellomy
: In article <DWr6b.3732$La4....@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com>, torresD30
Jeffrey, I may be speaking out of turn here, but I think that
a more accurate response would be that they had both interests
in mind, that our interests are intertwined with Israel's.
Note that I am pretty damn far from AGREEING with those idiots,
but I do not believe they were motivated by any sort of Zionist
leanings. (Cheneyist/Halliburtonist leanings, OTOH, I believe
*were* a nontrivial factor in guiding their strategy.)
cb
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
We're back to that "no sane person" thing again...as in, "no sane person
would think that Brandeis was in any way implying that American Jews
have loyalty to any country except America."
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
> : Ours, of course. There's no reason for any sane person to think
> : otherwise.
>
> Jeffrey, I may be speaking out of turn here, but I think that
> a more accurate response would be that they had both interests
> in mind, that our interests are intertwined with Israel's.
Absolutely, but if they had believed that invading Iraq was *not* in our
interest, they'd not have been proponents of it.
>
> Note that I am pretty damn far from AGREEING with those idiots,
As am I.
> but I do not believe they were motivated by any sort of Zionist
> leanings. (Cheneyist/Halliburtonist leanings, OTOH, I believe
> *were* a nontrivial factor in guiding their strategy.)
>
Well, they sincerely believe, I'm sure, that "what's good for General
Motors (or, in this case, Halliburton) is good for the country."
Chris Bellomy
: Well, they sincerely believe, I'm sure, that "what's good for General
: Motors (or, in this case, Halliburton) is good for the country."
I disagree even with that.
IMO, it's more like, "this will be good for the country, and
if it makes some serious change for my buddies, so much the
better."
Actually, even *that* is milder than what I believe. I'll
try again.
"This is an easy way to make Halliburton some serious change,
and it also can be justified using certain arguments about
our national defense."
Yeah, that's pretty much teh way I think they played it.
cb
MonteP
I have to agree. In fact if you read some of Wolfowitz & company's
reports and musings over the years you will find EXACTLY that argument
that Israels continued existence is in the interests of the US. This
point of view dates back to when NAssar was trying to build the United
Arab republic and playing serious footsy with the USSR. It seemed
prudent to have a base from which to operate in the region albeit even a
tiny one. ;) Then as Israel grew and the arab aggression i.e. open war
67 & the one 4-5 years later plus the attacks on the Munich Olypians ...
well even popular sentiment went to Israel. Then OPEC came along and
once again pointedly drew attention that the arabs were no friends of
ours either and should never be considered as such (the neoCONS seem to
confuse there history in order to mix their various and sundry agendas).
There is however a very,serious in my opinion problem which if not
resolved soon may well lead to a complete loss of backing for Israel, at
least a dangerous reduction of overt and tacit support. That problem is
the extremist orthodox Jews who are in no way one bit saner than their
counterparts on the Muslim side of the woodsen nickel. Israeli moderates
have simply got to oust these people and roll back those settlements.
I seriously doubt whether at this stage any of that is possible any
longer. Israel has missed the boat for peaceful annexation of the West
Bank(osensibly for defense purposes) that should have been done way back
in the seventies or early eighties. there whould have been howls of
anguish, but no more bloodshed than they received anyway. But again I
point out that particular path washed out in the flood of stupidity on
all sides the past 20 years.
Another salient point in all this mess that is not talked about, but is
becoming clear as Austrian crystal is the the many conflicting elements
making policy in Washington right now, each has his own agenda and
reasons and so you wind up with them invading Iraq, some for the oil,
some for a new base from which to operate in the mid-East to replace the
Saudi and Emirates and to prevent the necessity of ever having to use
Israel fro a staging zone. From that quarter there is some definite
anti-semitist reasoning going on. At the same time you have the
Wolfowitz et al group who felt the invasion was necessary in order to
havve a base from which to PROTECT Israel. Then add in the smaller, but
still influential christian zealots in the Whitehouse, Rove being the
main lobbiest for that bunch of nutcases who actually do believe gaaawd
has spoken to them and they are annointed to finish the crusades once and
for all or bring on Armageddon to prove to everybody they were right all
along the devil lives, and he's a dirty filthy arab, or mexican or maybe
a red indian, doesn't matter he's in the middle east and by damned thats
gaaaawwwdss cuntry!
In other words a goddam mess!
--
"The Rule of Man may be seductive, but the Rule of Law does not carry
social diseases!
To restore the Rule of Law is simple, send pretzels to the Whitehouse!"
...MonteP
Herb
You will constantly see Democrats offering amendments to spend MORE money!
"MonteP" <pretzel...@crawford.tx.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93EDE96E48E5...@216.168.3.44...
> Phillipe <pf...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:pfilm-CE5D97....@news06.east.earthlink.net:
>
> > In article
> > <wseverin-050...@dialup-67.74.150.117.dial1.houston1.level3.n
> > e t>,
> > wsev...@mindspring.com (Werner J. Severin) wrote:
> >
> >> In article <junflv4laleacv0pl...@4ax.com>, Spammers
> >> will be hunted down and deleted <m...@wt.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On 4 Sep 2003 17:59:29 -0600, anon...@nyx10.nyx.net (Name withheld
> >> > by demand... no one wants to admit to knowing this imbecile) wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > >Six months after spitting in the face of the world, the Bush
> >> > >administration is crawling on its belly before the U.N. If the
> >> > >world doesn't rush to help it, the White House has only itself to
> >> > >blame.
> >> > >
> >> > BWAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA
> >> > This is one of the funniest and dumbest things this imbecile has
> >> > posted........
> >> >
> >> > Too Funny.....
> >> >
> >> > Mike Smith
> >>
> >> It's only funny and dumb if you haven't paid any attention to the
> >> news coming out of Washington, the U.N. and Europe the past 48 hours.
> >>
> >>
> >> Our Secretary of State has been sent to the UN to plead for other
> >> countries to provide troops and money for Iraq. Several members of
> >> the UN Security Council who initially opposed the war may well use
> >> their veto power to prevent UN involvement unless we give the UN far
> >> more control.
> >
> > The Bush folks just asked Congress for $65 Billion additonal for
> > Iraq. How does 4 billion a month that they say it's cost us equate to
> > 65 billion a year?
> > Is the extra 17 Billion for Halliburton?
> >
>
> The way I read it, that 65-80Billion is in ADDITION to the military
> costs, which at present are ~3Billion Iraq and 1 Billion Afghanistan at
> present according to the last figures I seen in Newsweek or some such.
> So the total cost of this fiasco is going to run this country at a
> minimum, 100+ Billion a year fro who knows how long.
>
> Now add that to the 500+ Billion deficit for the rest of of the budget
> and you are getting perilously close to matching another 'GREAT' Texan
> President, namely Lyndon Johnson.
>
> Hey republicans how does it feel to be blindly supporting a guy that out
> spends the worst Democrat in our history? Forget naming FDR because when
> you factor out inflation on a year to year basis Johnson wins the race
> for 67 and 68.
>
> Resurrect Ike, Barry and Everett and get some REAL Republicans back in
> charge!
Not Me
wrote:
>Our G.I.'s laid down their lives for Halliburton's Loot.
>
>
If it wasn't Halliburton getting the money it would be Bechtel,
Washington Group, or Fluor. That's the only contractors capable of
handling something like Iraq.
MonteP
news:V8w6b.32$Z%1...@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com:
> Wonder if these Democrats ever watch congress at work on C-Span?
>
> You will constantly see Democrats offering amendments to spend MORE
> money!
>
>
>
Well since you are a top poster I will assume a minimal literacy and
explain the basics to you. In Congress the House controls the money, and
the House is held by a majority of Republicans. Majority party holds ALL
committee chairs hence nothing gets to the floor that the majority party
hasn't stamped okay. Democrats can offer up amendments til hell freezes
over and they won't pass. The Senate has an advisory role and it must
pass any appropriation bills the House sends to it after they sit around
and argue a bot for show.
The point is, and most 7th and 8th graders will expl;ain this to you if
you ask, is that Congressional spending today is 100% on the shoulders of
the republican majority in Congress. Being for the most part lock step
sychophants to the party leadership and the special interests they
represent this Congress and administration has turned into a fiscal
disaster for the nation. Rant, rave, make rude noises from various
orifices all you want, you cannot escape the reality.
THESE DEFICITS AND SPENDING EXCESSES ARE A REPUBLICAN PROBLEM!
JETman
Chris Bellomy wrote:
>
> In dfw.politics Phillipe <pf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> : In article <0Tkefbv...@redshark.goodshow.net>,
> : Chris Bellomy <pu...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
> :
> : > In dfw.politics MonteP <pretzel...@crawford.tx.com> wrote:
> : >
> : > : Hey republicans how does it feel to be blindly supporting a guy that out
> : > : spends the worst Democrat in our history?
> : >
> : > They supported Reagan. They'll support this guy.
> :
> : Reagan ran on a "We must have a balanced Budget" platform;
>
> And who then racked up record budget deficits by cutting taxes
> and raising defense spending.
>
C'mon now... You know damned well that the part of the Reagan budget
that made cuts were not accepted by the Democrat control Congress.
> : but it was Clinton that balanced the budget.
>
> What a commie that guy was.
>
> cb
The main reason that the budget found itself balanced during the Clinton
years were:
1. Contract with America Republican controll of Congress in 1994.
2. Artifical DotCom boom
3. Y2K frenzy.
The rest is history...
--
Regards,
JT (Residing in Austin, Texas)
Just Tooling Down The Internet Superhighway With my G4.......
MonteP
news:jp7llvkf97i2hu2l6...@4ax.com:
Which begs the question as to what the goddam hell are we doing with half
our military support now being handled by a handful of crooked
corporations? I keep asking how any American can stand by while our
troops eat those goddam MRE's for nearly a year because the food services
are a Halliburton contract and they can't seem or don't want to get their
asses into Iraq and earn some of those hundreds of millions that they
receive of OUR tax dollars.
And don't come back with any 'It's Clintons fault' bullshit...it started in
the Reagan administration! I don't care who the fuck is stealing soldiers
food, I just want to see it stopped and the bastards shot...every last
fucking corporate bigshot all the way down to VP aides, SHOOT the bastards!
Then by gawd we'll see just how long it takes for the thieving bastards to
regroup and do it again.
Chris Bellomy
: Chris Bellomy wrote:
: > In dfw.politics Phillipe <pf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
: > : In article <0Tkefbv...@redshark.goodshow.net>,
: > : Chris Bellomy <pu...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
: > :
: > : > In dfw.politics MonteP <pretzel...@crawford.tx.com> wrote:
: > : >
: > : > : Hey republicans how does it feel to be blindly supporting a guy that out
: > : > : spends the worst Democrat in our history?
: > : >
: > : > They supported Reagan. They'll support this guy.
: > :
: > : Reagan ran on a "We must have a balanced Budget" platform;
: >
: > And who then racked up record budget deficits by cutting taxes
: > and raising defense spending.
:
: C'mon now... You know damned well that the part of the Reagan budget
: that made cuts were not accepted by the Democrat control Congress.
What Democrat-controlled Congress? The Republicans controlled
the Senate for Reagan's first six years, and effectively controlled
the House for the first two. Remember that Reagan got every
initiative he wanted through that 1981-82 Congress with a coalition
of Republicans and Boll Weevil Democrats.
: > : but it was Clinton that balanced the budget.
: >
: > What a commie that guy was.
:
: The main reason that the budget found itself balanced during the Clinton
: years were:
:
: 1. Contract with America Republican controll of Congress in 1994.
That doesn't jive with the facts. Previous to this year's monster
$500+ billion deficit, the largest ever came in 1992 -- GHW Bush's
last year in office. Clinton and the Dem Congress immediately
started trimming the deficit once Clinton took office.
: 2. Artifical DotCom boom
: 3. Y2K frenzy.
Now that's just Republican hand-waving.
cb
JETman
Chris Bellomy wrote:
>
> In dfw.politics JETman <jeta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> : Chris Bellomy wrote:
> : > In dfw.politics Phillipe <pf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> : > : In article <0Tkefbv...@redshark.goodshow.net>,
> : > : Chris Bellomy <pu...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
> : > :
> : > : > In dfw.politics MonteP <pretzel...@crawford.tx.com> wrote:
> : > : >
> : > : > : Hey republicans how does it feel to be blindly supporting a guy that out
> : > : > : spends the worst Democrat in our history?
> : > : >
> : > : > They supported Reagan. They'll support this guy.
> : > :
> : > : Reagan ran on a "We must have a balanced Budget" platform;
> : >
> : > And who then racked up record budget deficits by cutting taxes
> : > and raising defense spending.
> :
> : C'mon now... You know damned well that the part of the Reagan budget
> : that made cuts were not accepted by the Democrat control Congress.
>
> What Democrat-controlled Congress? The Republicans controlled
> the Senate for Reagan's first six years, and effectively controlled
> the House for the first two. Remember that Reagan got every
> initiative he wanted through that 1981-82 Congress with a coalition
> of Republicans and Boll Weevil Democrats.
>
True, but he did not get the cuts that he wanted.
> : > : but it was Clinton that balanced the budget.
> : >
> : > What a commie that guy was.
> :
> : The main reason that the budget found itself balanced during the Clinton
> : years were:
> :
> : 1. Contract with America Republican controll of Congress in 1994.
>
> That doesn't jive with the facts. Previous to this year's monster
> $500+ billion deficit, the largest ever came in 1992 -- GHW Bush's
> last year in office. Clinton and the Dem Congress immediately
> started trimming the deficit once Clinton took office.
>
> : 2. Artifical DotCom boom
> : 3. Y2K frenzy.
>
> Now that's just Republican hand-waving.
>
> cb
So, the dotcom thang was just an imaginary event as was the Y2K prep???
JETman
MonteP wrote:
>
> Not Me <no...@springmail.com> wrote in
> news:jp7llvkf97i2hu2l6...@4ax.com:
>
> > On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 20:58:44 GMT, "torresD" <torr...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>Our G.I.'s laid down their lives for Halliburton's Loot.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > If it wasn't Halliburton getting the money it would be Bechtel,
> > Washington Group, or Fluor. That's the only contractors capable of
> > handling something like Iraq.
> >
>
> Which begs the question as to what the goddam hell are we doing with half
> our military support now being handled by a handful of crooked
> corporations? I keep asking how any American can stand by while our
> troops eat those goddam MRE's for nearly a year because the food services
> are a Halliburton contract and they can't seem or don't want to get their
> asses into Iraq and earn some of those hundreds of millions that they
> receive of OUR tax dollars.
>
> And don't come back with any 'It's Clintons fault' bullshit...it started in
> the Reagan administration! I don't care who the fuck is stealing soldiers
> food, I just want to see it stopped and the bastards shot...every last
> fucking corporate bigshot all the way down to VP aides, SHOOT the bastards!
> Then by gawd we'll see just how long it takes for the thieving bastards to
> regroup and do it again.
>
>
Are you suggesting that the military return to the days of field
kitchens and KP???
Chris Bellomy
: > : Chris Bellomy wrote:
: > : > In dfw.politics Phillipe <pf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
: > : > : In article <0Tkefbv...@redshark.goodshow.net>,
: > : > : Chris Bellomy <pu...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
: > : > :
: > : > : > In dfw.politics MonteP <pretzel...@crawford.tx.com> wrote:
: > : > : >
: > : > : > : Hey republicans how does it feel to be blindly supporting a guy that out
: > : > : > : spends the worst Democrat in our history?
: > : > : >
: > : > : > They supported Reagan. They'll support this guy.
: > : > :
: > : > : Reagan ran on a "We must have a balanced Budget" platform;
: > : >
: > : > And who then racked up record budget deficits by cutting taxes
: > : > and raising defense spending.
: > :
: > : C'mon now... You know damned well that the part of the Reagan budget
: > : that made cuts were not accepted by the Democrat control Congress.
: >
: > What Democrat-controlled Congress? The Republicans controlled
: > the Senate for Reagan's first six years, and effectively controlled
: > the House for the first two. Remember that Reagan got every
: > initiative he wanted through that 1981-82 Congress with a coalition
: > of Republicans and Boll Weevil Democrats.
:
: True, but he did not get the cuts that he wanted.
He got every cut he wanted. He didn't get every cut he asked
for, but those are two different things. Reagan owned that
first Congress of his term.
: > : > : but it was Clinton that balanced the budget.
: > : >
: > : > What a commie that guy was.
: > :
: > : The main reason that the budget found itself balanced during the Clinton
: > : years were:
: > :
: > : 1. Contract with America Republican controll of Congress in 1994.
: >
: > That doesn't jive with the facts. Previous to this year's monster
: > $500+ billion deficit, the largest ever came in 1992 -- GHW Bush's
: > last year in office. Clinton and the Dem Congress immediately
: > started trimming the deficit once Clinton took office.
: >
: > : 2. Artifical DotCom boom
: > : 3. Y2K frenzy.
: >
: > Now that's just Republican hand-waving.
:
: So, the dotcom thang was just an imaginary event as was the Y2K prep???
As reasons for deficit reduction, they're about as important
as the Dallas Super Bowl victories.
cb
torresD
"Herb" <hrre...@swbell.net>
> Wonder if these Democrats ever
>watch congress at work on C-Span?
> You will constantly see Democrats
>offering amendments to spend MORE money!
We want our congressmen/women to get
improve Social Security benefits, Universal
Health Insurance, protection from injuries on the job,
veteran's allowances, safe food and drugs,
clean air and water, safe streets and improved
education, as well as affordable College Tutition
for EVERYONE.
Sorry that doesn't fit in with your ENRON, Kenny Boy Types.
They want to live lives of luxury at the expense of
the majority of the working people of this country.
In order to get clean air and water, companies won't be
able to pollute to their hearts content and rake in the profits.
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
pretzel...@crawford.tx.com says...
> And don't come back with any 'It's Clintons fault' bullshit...it started in
> the Reagan administration!
Au Contraire. Every Bad Thing that's ever happened, including the
attack on Pearl Harbor and the sinking of the Titanic, was Clinton's
fault. Just ask any Usenet Republican.
Mark K
> > "Let us recognize that we Jews are
> > a distinct nationality of which every
> > Jew, whatever his country, his station,
> > or shade of belief, is necessarily a
> > member. Organize, organize, until
> > every Jew must stand up and be counted -
> > counted with us, or prove himself wittingly
> > or unwittingly, of the few who
> > are against their own people."
> > --Louis D. Brandeis, US Supreme
> > Court Justice, 1916-1939.
> We're back to that "no sane person" thing again...as in, "no sane person
> would think that Brandeis was in any way implying that American Jews
> have loyalty to any country except America."
Is not the loyalty of a US Jew primarily to the tribe and the State of
Israel, and secondarily to the US and humanity?
Mark K
> > So you agree that Jews are over-represented on a
> > population basis but assert that they may not
> > be over-represented on an educational basis.
> It's well-known that, as a group, Jews are better-educated than most.
> It's a cultural thing; Jews are taught from childhood to revere
> learning.
And a bit of tribal networking doesn't do any harm either. :-)
"ACCORDING TO THE HALAKHAH, Jews must not (if they can help it) allow a
Gentile to be appointed to any position of authority, however small, over
Jews. (The two stock examples are commander over ten soldiers in the Jewish
army' and 'superintendent of an irrigation ditch'.) Significantly, this
particular rule applies also to converts to Judaism and to their descendants
(through the female line) for ten generations or 'so long as the descent is
known'. ...
There is also a series of rules forbidding any expression of praise for
Gentiles or for their deeds, except where such praise implies an even
greater praise of Jews and things Jewish. This rule is still observed by
Orthodox Jews. For example. the writer Agnon, when interviewed on the
Israeli radio upon his return from Stockholm, where he received the Nobel
Prize for literature, praised the Swedish Academy, but hastened to add: 'I
am not forgetting that it is forbidden to praise Gentiles, but here there is
a special reason for my praise' - that is, that they awarded the prize to a
Jew."
CHAPTER 5 The Laws Against Non-Jews From: "Jewish History, Jewish
Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years" by Professor Israel Shahak
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
> > We're back to that "no sane person" thing again...as in, "no sane person
> > would think that Brandeis was in any way implying that American Jews
> > have loyalty to any country except America."
>
> Is not the loyalty of a US Jew primarily to the tribe and the State of
> Israel, and secondarily to the US and humanity?
Only in the paranoid fantasies of haters such as yourself.
In truth, based on Talmudic law, the order is exactly the reverse of
what you cited.
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
> "ACCORDING TO THE HALAKHAH, Jews must not (if they can help it) allow a
> Gentile to be appointed to any position of authority, however small, over
> Jews.
Oh, boy! I love this game! Quoting ancient laws that are no longer
valid and pretending they make your point! Can we do it about
Christianity, too?!
MonteP
news:3F5AB143...@worldnet.att.net:
As disgusting as it may sound to us old veterans of the infamous KP duty,
YES! For this reason. The military before ALL its training and equiping
and brainwashing relies first and formost on one fundamental principle,
'You DO NOT have to worry about your backside."
If you have your meals being prepared by such as Halliburton, then you
rely upon the Ken LAys of the world for your feed. They hire according
to cost NOT according to loyalty. With private contract cooking you are
just as apt to find a bin Laden brat in your kitchen as you are some down
and out alcoholic willing to work for peanuts and cooking sherry. That's
a FACT!
Back in the 'old days', on certain bases and in certain areas even the
cooks had to have security clearances. Today the clearance process is
almost nil, they are granted interim(read forever) security or one is
issued without minimal checking. Private corporations are run by bean
counters and avowed thieves. Pardon me if I as a soldier would rather
put my trust into a retarded East Texas enlistee than into the hands of
someone who would work for the peanuts offered by a multi-national
corporation.
JETman
Sounds good but it ain't ever gonna happen. Hell, even in VN, the
majority of kitchen duties were performed by locals though under direct
military supervision. I do agree however that the contracting thang has
gone too far. Civilian contractors have also suffered casualties and
that is supposed to be the line in the sand that should never be crossed.
--
Regards,
JT (Who has been a contract employee overseas on more than one occasion)
John R. Strohm
news:0Tkguff...@redshark.goodshow.net...
Actually, this is quite correct.
The "deficit trimming" did not start until after the 1994 midterm elections,
when the Republicans crushed the Democrats and took control of the House of
Representatives.
Clinton's original proposed budget numbers never got the deficiit below $240
million, and it was project to start increasing again in about 1997. This
was from an article in the "Wall Street Journal", that I clipped and saved
for many years, written by someone who took a hard look at Clinton's budget
proposals.
Clinton took credit for the balancing of the budget, but IN FACT it happened
IN SPITE OF HIS BEST EFFORTS TO THE CONTRARY. Gingrich et al made it
abundantly clear to Clinton that things were going to change.
Chris Bellomy
: "Chris Bellomy" <pu...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message
Then you have to explain why Clinton's first two budgets had lower
deficits than Bush's last one.
Good luck.
cb
torresD
Of course we can do Chrisitianity.
Plenty of massacres, intolerance, ignorance in Christanity.
However, Jews use ancient laws, to justify their occupation of
Palestine, their genocide of the Palestinians.
Bill Walker
"John R. Strohm" <str...@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:bjflcu$v...@library1.airnews.net...
And that is a crock.. Keep running against Clinton.. You can't defend Bush,
no matter how hard you try.. One disaster after the other, attributable to
his failed policies.. The man doesn't have a clue what to do about all our
problems, other than to make them worse and create new ones....
>
>
>
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
@hotmail.com says...
> However, Jews use ancient laws, to justify their occupation of
> Palestine, their genocide of the Palestinians.
...Except, of course, that such genocide is taking place only in the
tortured fantasies of haters like you.
torresD
"Jeffrey E. Salzberg" <jeffsa...@verizon.net
> However, Jews use ancient laws, to justify their occupation of
> Palestine, their genocide of the Palestinians.
> ...Except, of course, that such genocide is taking place only in the
> tortured fantasies of haters like you.
Oh really, is that why Israel keeps firing missiles from
Apache Helicopter Gunships into busy, crowded streets
in the USA backed Israeli Military Occupied Palestinian
Terroritories?
Is that why Deir Yassen?
Deir Yassen History of a Massacre.
http://www.deiryassin.org/mas.html
torresD
"torresD" <torr...@hotmail.com...
> "Jeffrey E. Salzberg" <jeffsa...@verizon.net
> However, Jews use ancient laws, to justify their occupation of
> Palestine, their genocide of the Palestinians.
> ...Except, of course, that such genocide is taking place only in the
> tortured fantasies of haters like you.
David Ben-Gurion, well known Jew hater, said the following:
http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Famous-Zionist-Quotes/Story638.html
Ben-Gurion also empathized with the
Palestinian Arabs during the first Intifada,
he stated in a letter to Moshe Sharett in 1937:
"Were I an Arab, and Arab with
nationalist political consciousness . . .
I would rise up against an immigration
liable in the future to hand the country
and all of its [Palestinian] Arab inhabitants
over to Jewish rule.
What [Palestinian] Arab cannot do his math
and understand what [Jewish] immigration at
the rate of 60,000 a year means a Jewish state
in all of Palestine." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 171-172)
In 1936, Ben-Gurion stated against the backdrop of the first Intifada:
torresD
Neal Atkins
wrote:
> > However, Jews use ancient laws, to justify their occupation of
> > Palestine, their genocide of the Palestinians.
>
>> ...Except, of course, that such genocide is taking place only in the
>> tortured fantasies of haters like you.
>
>Oh really, is that why Israel keeps firing missiles from
>Apache Helicopter Gunships into busy, crowded streets
>in the USA backed Israeli Military Occupied Palestinian
>Terroritories?
Why yaaass, delores. Since the cowardly terrorist leaders hide among
the people, using them as "human shields", a few of the people get
injured or killed. But that is the fault of the cowardly terrorist
leaders.
Ever since Darwin Award contender what's her name died in an
industrial accident, it seems that foreign "human shields" have been
hard to come by. So the cowardly terrorist leaders have to get by
with using the other arabs in that role.
torresD
"Neal Atkins" <nat...@austin.rr.com
> Why yaaass, delores. Since the cowardly terrorist leaders hide among
> the people, using them as "human shields", a few of the people get
> injured or killed. But that is the fault of the cowardly terrorist
> leaders.
Moshe Dayan understood the Palestinians.
http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Famous-Zionist-Quotes/Story649.html
Moshe Dayan stated his opinion regarding
his anti-infiltration policy in the early 1950s:
"Using the moral yardstick mentioned
by [Moshe Sharett], I must ask:
Are [we justified] in opening fire on the
[Palestinian] Arabs who cross [the border]
to reap the crops they planted in our territory;
they, their women, and their children?
Will this stand up to moral scrutiny . . .?
We shoot at those from among the
200,000 hungry [Palestinian] Arabs
who cross the line [to graze their flocks]----
will this stand up to moral review?
Arabs cross to collect the grain that they
left in the abandoned [term often used by
Israelis to describe the ethnically cleansed]
villages and we set mines for them and
they go back without an arm or a leg. . . .
[It may be that this] cannot pass review,
but I know no other method of guarding
the borders.
then tomorrow the State of
Israel will have no borders."
torresD
"Mark K" <se...@server.net
> Is not the loyalty of a US Jew primarily to the tribe and the State of
> Israel, and secondarily to the US and humanity?
AIPAC buys a lot of US of A loyalty.
They know its for sale.
AIPAC's Bribe List.
Senators, Congressmen, Congresswomen,
how much $ and by state.
http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm
Larry Kessler
This Talmudic principle, by which most Jews live, is stated simply
that "The law of the land is the Law."
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
@hotmail.com says...
>
> "Jeffrey E. Salzberg" <jeffsa...@verizon.net
> > However, Jews use ancient laws, to justify their occupation of
> > Palestine, their genocide of the Palestinians.
>
> > ...Except, of course, that such genocide is taking place only in the
> > tortured fantasies of haters like you.
>
> Oh really, is that why Israel keeps firing missiles from
> Apache Helicopter Gunships into busy, crowded streets
...And why Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny play bridge every Thursday
night.
The question you *should* be s\asking, of course, is, "Why do the
terrorist leaders cynically hide amidst civilian populations?"
What Israel does is use precision-guided munitions in order to minimize
civilain deaths. The people they're firing at are the terroreist
leaders who plan and order attacks on Israeli civilians. Funny that
we've never heard your outrage at that; I guess you just forgot, huh?
So on the one hand, we have the Israelis, who try to minimize civilian
casualties, even though the terrorists hide themselves in densely
populated civilian areas, knowing that the only way the Israelis could
make sure they harmed no civilians at all would be to allow themselves
to be murdered without retaliating. It's obvious that *you* think thei
would be a good idea, but no sane person does.
On the other hand, we have the terrorists, who deliberately maximize
civilians deaths.
I think the Israelis show admirable restraint.
Bill Walker
"Neal Atkins" <nat...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3f5b9a28...@news-server.austin.rr.com...
So says the "keyboard hero" of the newsgroups.. Your calling anyone a coward
is probably the ultimate in laughability.. Isn't it about time for you to
start calling ISP's again, Neal ? Damn, boy... you have the "spineless"
category wrapped tightly... LOL.. Same ol' crap... Same ol' Neal..
Neal Atkins
<bill.w...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> Ever since Darwin Award contender what's her name died in an
>> industrial accident, it seems that foreign "human shields" have been
>> hard to come by. So the cowardly terrorist leaders have to get by
>> with using the other arabs in that role.
>
>So says the "keyboard hero" of the newsgroups.. Your calling anyone a coward
>is probably the ultimate in laughability.. Isn't it about time for you to
>start calling ISP's again, Neal ? Damn, boy... you have the "spineless"
>category wrapped tightly... LOL.. Same ol' crap... Same ol' Neal..
So says the anonymouse poster. Right "bill"? You need a new ISP
again? Not surprising you are a terrorist supporter. You fit right
in with people that bomb schools, buses and malls.
Why don't you ride your imaginary motorcycle over to Israel? The
arabs need a few more "human shields". Then, at least, there would be
some sort of purpose to your life.
JETman
That's easy... The end of the 1991-92 downturn increased tax revenues.
Now that wasn't hard at all...
Oh, and toss in Clinton's all time high tax increase!
--
Regards,
JT (Residing in Austin, Texas)
Just Tooling Down The Internet Superhighway With my G4.......
Chris Bellomy
: That's easy... The end of the 1991-92 downturn increased tax revenues.
And government spending did not increase with the recovery.
: Now that wasn't hard at all...
Except that you got only part of the answer.
: Oh, and toss in Clinton's all time high tax increase!
...on the people who could best afford it, who derived the
most benefit from the American system.
IOW, the same people whose tax bills were just cut by Dubya.
cb
Not Me
<pu...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>: Oh, and toss in Clinton's all time high tax increase!
>
>...on the people who could best afford it, who derived the
>most benefit from the American system.
My taxes went up under Clinton and I damn sure didn't think I could
afford it. I can't think of a good reason why anyone should pay a
marginal rate over 28 percent to the Federal Government. In 1997 and
1998 we lived in California. My wife was making about $43,000 per
year, which put us over $100,000 together. For every dollar she made
we paid over 30 percent in Federal taxes, 7.65 percent in
FICA/Medicare, and 9 percent state taxes. That's nearly 50 percent off
the top in taxes on each additional dollar. Don't tell me about
"affording" tax increases.
>
>IOW, the same people whose tax bills were just cut by Dubya.
IOW the folks actually paying taxes.
>
>cb
Not Me
<pretzel...@crawford.tx.com> wrote:
>Not Me <no...@springmail.com> wrote in
>news:jp7llvkf97i2hu2l6...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 20:58:44 GMT, "torresD" <torr...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Our G.I.'s laid down their lives for Halliburton's Loot.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> If it wasn't Halliburton getting the money it would be Bechtel,
>> Washington Group, or Fluor. That's the only contractors capable of
>> handling something like Iraq.
>>
>
>Which begs the question as to what the goddam hell are we doing with half
>our military support now being handled by a handful of crooked
>corporations? I keep asking how any American can stand by while our
>troops eat those goddam MRE's for nearly a year because the food services
>are a Halliburton contract and they can't seem or don't want to get their
>asses into Iraq and earn some of those hundreds of millions that they
>receive of OUR tax dollars.
Nice rant. I doubt there is any basis in reality. KBR (the division of
Halliburton doing the work) does exactly what the military tells them.
William R. Cowan
torresD wrote:
> "Herb" <hrre...@swbell.net>
>
>>Wonder if these Democrats ever
>>watch congress at work on C-Span?
>
>
>>You will constantly see Democrats
>>offering amendments to spend MORE money!
>
>
> We want our congressmen/women to get
> improve Social Security benefits, Universal
> Health Insurance, protection from injuries on the job,
> veteran's allowances, safe food and drugs,
> clean air and water, safe streets and improved
> education, as well as affordable College Tutition
> for EVERYONE.
>
> Sorry that doesn't fit in with your ENRON, Kenny Boy Types.
It is not about being "Enron, Kenny Boy Types" It is about the govt
taking more and more from the people and playing Santa Claus by
promising programs and benifits for everything knowing full well that
they can not tax enough money to do it.
>
> They want to live lives of luxury at the expense of
> the majority of the working people of this country.
We all live in luxury. Even the poorest people in Ameria live in
luxury. They are richer than the poor of Mexico or Asia an Africa. The
Poor here are rich in comparisions.
>
> In order to get clean air and water, companies won't be
> able to pollute to their hearts content and rake in the profits.
No one has suggested that companies be allowed to pollute to their
hearts content. Environemental regs have been on the book since the
early 1900's. Yet we now have regulations that do more than just
protect the environment, it hurts business which in turns hurts people.
Talk to the Democrats about allowing jobs to go over seas and allowing
unfettered access to our markets for the past 30 years. You talk about
giving away stuff, where does the money/capital come from? It comes
from people and business. When you create a hostile business
environment, you hurt business who employ people!!
You can not fund everything. You have to make choices as to what to
fund. It is not easy. It just gets harder when you create more
programs that get declared entitlements. The Federal gov was not
established to create program after program as an entitlement.
MRC
torresD
"William R. Cowan" <wrco...@hal-pc.org
> torresD wrote:
>You will constantly see Democrats
>offering amendments to spend MORE money!
> We want our congressmen/women to get
> improve Social Security benefits, Universal
> Health Insurance, protection from injuries on the job,
> veteran's allowances, safe food and drugs,
> clean air and water, safe streets and improved
> education, as well as affordable College Tutition
> for EVERYONE.
> > Sorry that doesn't fit in with your ENRON, Kenny Boy Types.
>
> It is not about being "Enron, Kenny Boy Types" It is about the govt
> taking more and more from the people and playing Santa Claus by
> promising programs and benifits for everything knowing full well that
> they can not tax enough money to do it.
Insuring that ordinary Americans receive a living wage
for their labor is not playing Santa Claus, that is doing
the right thing, the decent thing.
It is about granting Corporate America their wish list,
in exchange for Corporate America getting to do
whatever they desire with their employees.
> They want to live lives of luxury at the expense of
> the majority of the working people of this country.
>
> We all live in luxury. Even the poorest people in Ameria live in
> luxury. They are richer than the poor of Mexico or Asia an Africa. The
> Poor here are rich in comparisions.
That isn't true.
There are scores of people without homes,
sleeping on sidewalks, lucky ones have a piece
of cardboard.
There are a growing number of Americans without enough to eat.
Manufacturing Jobs left for Mexico, leaving many people without jobs.
White Collar Jobs are going the same way, but to India.
> In order to get clean air and water, companies won't be
> able to pollute to their hearts content and rake in the profits.
> No one has suggested that companies be allowed to pollute to their
> hearts content.
Bush has done more than suggest that Corporations
be allowed to place profits above pollutions,
he's made sure that they can do just that.
"They're trying to dismantle some of the
original clean air and water legislation that
(President) Nixon put through,"
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/nation/6702077.htm
Posted on Fri, Sep. 05, 2003
Bush fulfills corporate America's wish list
By SETH BORENSTEIN
Knight Ridder Newspapers
WASHINGTON -
The Bush administration eased a series of
important environmental regulations in a quiet
flurry of late-summer activity, delivering almost
every rule change on corporate America's wish list.
In the past few weeks,
the administration diluted federal rules
governing air pollution from old coal-fired
power plants;
emissions that cause global warming;
ballast water on ships contaminated
with foreign species of plants and animals;
sales of land tainted with PCBs;
drilling for oil and gas on federal land;
and scientific studies that underpin
federal regulations.
In every case the business community
got what it wanted, and environmentalists
got mad.
Administration supporters say the rule changes
are in part attempts to eliminate unnecessary
government edicts that curtail energy production,
discourage investment, hinder the economy or cost jobs.
Moreover, they say,
not all rule changes have favored industry,
although they acknowledge that most have.
Frank Maisano,
an energy lobbyist at the Bracewell & Patterson
law firm in Washington, pointed to new rules
restricting diesel engines, issued last April.
Those strong rules,
praised by environmentalists,
were enacted over the objections
of the diesel-engine industry, Maisano said.
Nevertheless, Bill Kovacs,
the vice president for environmental issues
of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce,
said the business community won
more environmental battles during
the final week of August than it had during
the entire eight years of the Clinton administration.
"We certainly had a number of victories this week;
I don't think anyone can deny that,"
Kovacs said on the Friday before Labor Day.
He and two big-industry lobbyists said
the Bush administration had delivered
nearly every environmental regulatory
change business put on its to-do list in
January 2001.
Their industries got every change
they wanted, the lobbyists said.
"This administration is dismantling anything
that's impairing industry or the private sector's
ability to develop, use land or produce energy,"
said Carl Reidel, professor emeritus of
environmental policy and law at the
University of Vermont.
Experts say the timing of the changes wasn't accidental.
"They need to get this stuff out of the
way before they get into an election year;
they need to get enough below the radar,"
said political science professor Stephen Meyer,
the director of the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology Project on Environmental Politics
and Policy.
"The Bush administration always likes
to announce unpopular environmental
policies in the dead of political and press night.
And you can't find a week when people are
less likely to pay attention than the end of August,"
said Phil Clapp,
the president of the National Environmental Trust.
Lisa Harrison,
the Environmental Protection Agency's chief spokeswoman,
denied that the timing was politically motivated.
"It is interesting sport for
people to offer their conjecture,
but it's nothing more than that," she said.
"A lot always comes out of the agency.
I never had a week that was not like last week."
John Byrne,
the director of the Center for Energy and
Environmental Policy at the University of Delaware,
said the record spoke for itself:
"If you just looked at what were rule-making
efforts by the administration, you'd see this
is a crowded four-month period, particularly
in difficult decisions."
Harrison agreed that the administration
has put most of its regulatory agenda in place.
"That's certainly a testament . . .
to the president keeping his commitment," she said.
Environmentalists don't see it that way.
While all the changes involved rewrites
of arcane regulatory language,
they constituted major U-turns in policy.
"They're trying to dismantle some of the
original clean air and water legislation that
(President) Nixon put through,"
charged environmental economist Lester Brown,
the president of the Earth Policy Institute.
"They're going full bore."
The decisions included:
Two controversial changes in a rule governing
expansion of old coal-fired power plants,
dramatically easing the rules requiring
companies to install new pollution controls
when they make big upgrades.
Two legal opinions ruling that carbon dioxide,
which most scientists say is the chief cause of
global warming, isn't a pollutant that the EPA
can cite to regulate emissions from cars and
power plants.
The rulings reverse a Clinton administration
legal opinion that carbon dioxide is a pollutant.
An EPA legal opinion declaring that it
won't regulate ships' ballast water under
the Clean Water Act,
turning the issue over to the Coast Guard.
The ballast water contains billions of tiny fish,
plants and other foreign invasive species that
scientists say are major threats to native
species in American waters.
An edict changing a 25-year-old rule to
allow the sale of land tainted with toxic PCBs.
An order to Bureau of Land Management
field offices in the West telling them to speed
up the process permitting drilling for oil and
gas on federal lands.
A new Office of Management and Budget
policy governing scientific studies used to
justify costly federal regulations.
The policy orders more stringent peer review;
environmentalists fear it will slow the enactment
of environmental regulations.
"There's a lot of dramatic change going on.
And a good bit of which would be thought of
by many as not very environmentally sound,"
said Dan Esty,
who was the EPA's deputy chief of staff in the
first Bush administration and now heads Yale
University's Center for Environmental Law and Policy.
The rule changes that affect air pollution from power plants
"are really breath-taking in terms
of the scope of regulatory change,"
said Chuck Davis,
a Colorado State University political scientist
who specializes in environmental policy.
"And there's not a whole lot environmentalists
can do about it, except challenge it in courts."
Unable to get bills that would weaken
environmental laws through Congress,
the administration made all these changes
as administrative rulings.
"They leave the laws in place,
but undermine the regulations below them,
undermine the rules and undermine the agencies,"
said MIT's Meyer.
"The details get lost because the
average person doesn't have the
details or the time to follow it."
Kovacs of the Chamber of Commerce said
Bush was simply borrowing a tactic that the
Clinton administration routinely used.
"They figured out what the
Clinton administration figured out,"
Kovacs said.
"If you control the agencies, you use them.
I wish they had done it sooner."
Chris Bellomy
: On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 01:12:08 GMT, Chris Bellomy
: <pu...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
:
: >
: >
: >: Oh, and toss in Clinton's all time high tax increase!
: >
: >...on the people who could best afford it, who derived the
: >most benefit from the American system.
:
: My taxes went up under Clinton and I damn sure didn't think I could
: afford it.
Well, you were wealthier than about 99% of everybody in the world.
So cry me a river.
cb
Mark K
"Larry Kessler" <l_k_e_s_s_l_e_r@w_t.n_e_t> wrote in message
news:0e7nlv417cru21mv2...@4ax.com...
> >> > We're back to that "no sane person" thing again...as in, "no sane
person
> >> > would think that Brandeis was in any way implying that American Jews
> >> > have loyalty to any country except America."
> >> Is not the loyalty of a US Jew primarily to the tribe and the State of
> >> Israel, and secondarily to the US and humanity?
> >Only in the paranoid fantasies of haters such as yourself.
> >In truth, based on Talmudic law, the order is exactly the reverse of
> >what you cited.
> This Talmudic principle, by which most Jews live, is stated simply
> that "The law of the land is the Law."
And yes, the Israelis are living by that Talmudic principle in the occupied
territories. (See below.)
"Theft and robbery.
Stealing (without violence) is absolutely forbidden - as the Shulhan 'Arukh
so nicely puts it: 'even from a Gentile'.
Robbery (with violence) is strictly forbidden if the victim is Jewish.
However, robbery of a Gentile by a Jew is not forbidden outright but only
under certain circumstances such as 'when the Gentiles are not under our
rule', but is permitted 'when they are under our rule'.
Rabbinical authorities differ among themselves as to the precise details of
the circumstances under which a Jew may rob a Gentile, but the whole debate
is concerned only with the relative power of Jews and Gentiles rather than
with universal considerations of justice and humanity.
This may explain why so very few rabbis have protested against the robbery
of Palestinian property in Israel: it was backed by overwhelming Jewish
power."
CHAPTER 5 The Laws Against Non-Jews From: "Jewish History, Jewish
Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years" by Professor Israel
Shahak
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
> > This Talmudic principle, by which most Jews live, is stated simply
> > that "The law of the land is the Law."
>
>
> And yes, the Israelis are living by that Talmudic principle in the occupied
> territories.
Yes, they are, although not in the way you meant, of course (we're back
to that "no sane person" thing again).
I can think of no other country that would react with Israel's patience
and forbearance to the murder of its children; after a terrorist attack
in which we lost a much lower percentage of our population than Israel
loses to terrorists annually, we invaded and overran two countries.
It's ironic that Israel goes to great lengths to avoid civilian
Palestinians casualties, yet you condemn then, yet remain silent at the
terrorists' deliberate targeting of Israeli civilians.
By the way, the 22d victim of last month's bus bombing died yesterday;
which leaves 99 people who were injured -- 40 of whom were children. It
would now be appropriate for you to voice your outrage at this terrorist
atrocity.
What? No, I thought not.
Mark K
> In article <7D07b.288065$cF.88537@rwcrnsc53>, se...@server.net says...
>
> > > This Talmudic principle, by which most Jews live, is stated simply
> > > that "The law of the land is the Law."
> >
> >
> > And yes, the Israelis are living by that Talmudic principle in the
occupied
> > territories.
>
> Yes, they are, although not in the way you meant, of course (we're back
> to that "no sane person" thing again).
> I can think of no other country that would react with Israel's patience
> and forbearance to the murder of its children; after a terrorist attack
> in which we lost a much lower percentage of our population than Israel
> loses to terrorists annually, we invaded and overran two countries.
> It's ironic that Israel goes to great lengths to avoid civilian
> Palestinians casualties, yet you condemn then, yet remain silent at the
> terrorists' deliberate targeting of Israeli civilians.
Sure, we believe in Jewish egalitarianism and humameness.
On Purim, Feb. 25, 1994, Israeli army officer Baruch Goldstein, an orthodox
Jew from Brooklyn, massacred 40 Palestinian civilians, including children,
while they knelt in prayer in a mosque. Goldstein was a disciple of the late
Brooklyn Rabbi Meir Kahane, who told CBS News that his teaching that Arabs
are "dogs" is derived "from the Talmud." (CBS 60 Minutes, "Kahane").
University of Jerusalem Prof. Ehud Sprinzak described Kahane and Goldstein's
philosophy: "They believe it's God's will that they commit violence against
goyim, a Hebrew term for non-Jews." (NY Daily News, Feb. 26, 1994, p. 5).
Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburg declared, "We have to recognize that Jewish blood and
the blood of a goy are not the same thing." (NY Times, June 6, 1989, p.5).
Rabbi Yaacov Perrin said, "One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish
fingernail." (NY Daily News, Feb. 28, 1994, p.6)."
Phillipe
> > > This Talmudic principle, by which most Jews live, is stated simply
> > > that "The law of the land is the Law."
> >
> >
> > And yes, the Israelis are living by that Talmudic principle in the occupied
> > territories.
It is only a very small minority of Israelis that strictly follow
Talmudic Law.
And before you start saying how bad the Talmud is, it might be useful
to learn just a little about it:
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
>
> "Jeffrey E. Salzberg" <jeffsa...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.19c663ed9...@news.verizon.net...
> > In article <7D07b.288065$cF.88537@rwcrnsc53>, se...@server.net says...
> >
> > > > This Talmudic principle, by which most Jews live, is stated simply
> > > > that "The law of the land is the Law."
> > >
> > >
> > > And yes, the Israelis are living by that Talmudic principle in the
> occupied
> > > territories.
> >
> > Yes, they are, although not in the way you meant, of course (we're back
> > to that "no sane person" thing again).
>
> > I can think of no other country that would react with Israel's patience
> > and forbearance to the murder of its children; after a terrorist attack
> > in which we lost a much lower percentage of our population than Israel
> > loses to terrorists annually, we invaded and overran two countries.
>
> > It's ironic that Israel goes to great lengths to avoid civilian
> > Palestinians casualties, yet you condemn then, yet remain silent at the
> > terrorists' deliberate targeting of Israeli civilians.
>
>
> Sure, we believe in Jewish egalitarianism and humameness.
>
>
>
> On Purim, Feb. 25, 1994, Israeli army officer Baruch Goldstein, an orthodox
> Jew from Brooklyn, massacred 40 Palestinian civilians,
Oooh! My favorite game again! One Israeli (interesting how you label
him with his religious affiliation and not his nationality; one might
*almost* think you're an antisemite with an agenda) does something
despicable (for which, by the way, he was tried and sentenced by Israeli
courts; we're still waiting for the Palestinian Authority to punish the
terrorists who murder Israeli children. We're also still waiting for
your expressions of outrage at those murders. I guess you forgot), so
that means that all Jews are guilty.
Using your...er...the word "logic" seems hardly appropriate....
All young white men are terrorists (Tim MacVeigh, Terry Nichols)
All black men are Secretary of State (Colin Powell)
All Christian women kill their children (Andrea Yeager)
The fact is, as all sane people know (but you obviously do not), that
stereotypes such as those are not valid; those were the acts of
individuals.
Phillipe
"Mark K" <se...@server.net> wrote:
>
> On Purim, Feb. 25, 1994, Israeli army officer Baruch Goldstein, an orthodox
> Jew from Brooklyn, massacred 40 Palestinian civilians, including children,
> while they knelt in prayer in a mosque.
But this was the act of a single crazed individual. As opposed to the
Hamas "religious leaders" who preach how glorious it is to have your
child become a suicide bomber.
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
pf...@yahoo.com says...
Well, to be fair (Mark is never fair, but we're better than he is,
right?), the Hamas leaders are also "single crazed individuals (although
they seem to have more of them than we do); not all Palestinians are
terrorists.
This is why I usually refer specifically to "terrorists" rather than
grouping all the members of a specific nationality together; I'll leave
the ethnic hatred to wackos like Mark.
TC
"Phillipe" <pf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:pfilm-164F90....@news06.east.earthlink.net...
In article <0Tkefbv...@redshark.goodshow.net>,
Chris Bellomy <pu...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
> In dfw.politics MonteP <pretzel...@crawford.tx.com> wrote:
>
> : Hey republicans how does it feel to be blindly supporting a guy that out
> : spends the worst Democrat in our history?
>
> They supported Reagan. They'll support this guy.
Reagan ran on a "We must have a balanced Budget" platform;
Not Me
<pu...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
>In dfw.politics Not Me <no...@springmail.com> wrote:
>: On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 01:12:08 GMT, Chris Bellomy
>: <pu...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
>:
>: >
>: >
>: >: Oh, and toss in Clinton's all time high tax increase!
>: >
>: >...on the people who could best afford it, who derived the
>: >most benefit from the American system.
>:
>: My taxes went up under Clinton and I damn sure didn't think I could
>: afford it.
>
>Well, you were wealthier than about 99% of everybody in the world.
>So cry me a river.
>
>cb
I was lucky enough to be born in the US. Where does that make it right
for government to take 50% of every additional dollar my wife and I
make. Especially when a large portion of the money goes to programs
that are ineffective and serve no useful purpose other than getting
legislators reelected. Why should my income be redistributed? I earned
it, I should get to keep it. If you want to give large pieces of your
income away, go right ahead. It's your money. But please, don't take
my money to spend on your pet cause.
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
no...@springmail.com says...
> It's your money. But please, don't take
> my money to spend on your pet cause.
OK, as long as you don't take my money to pave streets in front of your
house (I'll never drive there) or provided fire and police protection
for your neighborhood (if I'll never be there, I won't need the
protection).
Don't need to pay for air controllers in states I'll never fly to or
interstate highways to cities I'll never visit, either.
Chris Bellomy
: <pu...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
:
: >In dfw.politics Not Me <no...@springmail.com> wrote:
: >: On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 01:12:08 GMT, Chris Bellomy
: >: <pu...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
: >:
: >: >
: >: >
: >: >: Oh, and toss in Clinton's all time high tax increase!
: >: >
: >: >...on the people who could best afford it, who derived the
: >: >most benefit from the American system.
: >:
: >: My taxes went up under Clinton and I damn sure didn't think I could
: >: afford it.
: >
: >Well, you were wealthier than about 99% of everybody in the world.
: >So cry me a river.
: I was lucky enough to be born in the US. Where does that make it right
: for government to take 50% of every additional dollar my wife and I
: make. Especially when a large portion of the money goes to programs
: that are ineffective and serve no useful purpose other than getting
: legislators reelected.
Do you drive on public roads? Deal with people educated in
public schools? Want a strong national defense? Want enough
prisons for all the criminals, or, better yet, fewer criminals?
All that costs money.
You may not agree with every dollar spent on Head Start or
Food Stamps, but I don't agree with every dollar spent on
cruise missiles or space-based defense shields. But it's
worth it to me to pay more in taxes than I'd like in order
to live in this country. I'm not going to bitch.
cb
Phillipe
Chris Bellomy <pu...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
> In dfw.politics Not Me <no...@springmail.com> wrote:
> : On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 05:10:29 GMT, Chris Bellomy
> : <pu...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
> :
> : >In dfw.politics Not Me <no...@springmail.com> wrote:
> : >: On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 01:12:08 GMT, Chris Bellomy
> : >: <pu...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
> : >:
> : >: >
> : >: >
> : >: >: Oh, and toss in Clinton's all time high tax increase!
First of all it wasn't, second of all every Republican voted against it,
and last of all, it balanced the budget and gave us the longest peace
time period of economic growth, as opposed to the Bush Corporate Welfare
program that is still hemorraging jobs.
mh
wrote:
OK. How's this -- don't take any of MY money to pay for Bushyboy's $87
Billion Iraq Adventure.
Is that more to your liking, shithead?
William R. Cowan
torresD wrote:
> "William R. Cowan" <wrco...@hal-pc.org
>
>>torresD wrote:
>
>
>>You will constantly see Democrats
>>offering amendments to spend MORE money!
>
>
>
> > We want our congressmen/women to get
> > improve Social Security benefits, Universal
> > Health Insurance, protection from injuries on the job,
> > veteran's allowances, safe food and drugs,
> > clean air and water, safe streets and improved
> > education, as well as affordable College Tutition
> > for EVERYONE.
>
>
>>>Sorry that doesn't fit in with your ENRON, Kenny Boy Types.
>>
>>It is not about being "Enron, Kenny Boy Types" It is about the govt
>>taking more and more from the people and playing Santa Claus by
>>promising programs and benifits for everything knowing full well that
>>they can not tax enough money to do it.
>
>
> Insuring that ordinary Americans receive a living wage
> for their labor is not playing Santa Claus, that is doing
> the right thing, the decent thing.
When you suggest programs like Social Security benefits, Universal
Health Insurance, protection from injuries on the job, veteran's
allowances, safe food and drugs, clean air and water, safe streets and
improved education, as well as affordable College Tutition you are
playing Santa Claus.
Many of these programs are laudable but there is not enough money to pay
for it all. Sure we would like everyone to receive a living wage but
when you place all these regulations and taxes and requirements on
business you create a situations where they have to raise prices, cut
wages and benefits or lay off people in order to control costs. No one
has proposed allowing business to have carte blanche to do as they please.
Government is a non-living enitity and therefore can not do the right
thing or decent thing. No govt program and do it either. The solution
is for YOU to go out and feed the homeless. Start a business and employ
people with wages you think is livable. It is up to YOU to get involved
by using your purchasing power to urge companies in a direction you
think they should go. Looking to Govt. for the answer will not provide
the benevolent benifactor but will ultimately end up giving you a minder
to control your life.
> It is about granting Corporate America their wish list,
> in exchange for Corporate America getting to do
> whatever they desire with their employees.
>
>
> > They want to live lives of luxury at the expense of
> > the majority of the working people of this country.
>
>>We all live in luxury. Even the poorest people in Ameria live in
>>luxury. They are richer than the poor of Mexico or Asia an Africa. The
>>Poor here are rich in comparisions.
>
>
> That isn't true.
> There are scores of people without homes,
> sleeping on sidewalks, lucky ones have a piece
> of cardboard.
> There are a growing number of Americans without enough to eat.
> Manufacturing Jobs left for Mexico, leaving many people without jobs.
> White Collar Jobs are going the same way, but to India.
>
There are always exceptions to most rules but the reality is that most
of the poor are not living on the sidewalks or going hungry. If you
want to assist those people it does not require the massive Govt.
programs that are advocated. The Maufacturing Jobs that left to go to
Mexico you can blame on Clinton who pushed NAFTA.
> > In order to get clean air and water, companies won't be
> > able to pollute to their hearts content and rake in the profits.
>
>
>
>>No one has suggested that companies be allowed to pollute to their
>>hearts content.
>
> Bush has done more than suggest that Corporations
> be allowed to place profits above pollutions,
> he's made sure that they can do just that.
>
The article does not even come close to suggesting that Corporations be
allowed to pollute unfettered. There are rules and regulations that are
not backed up by good science or a threat to our nations (power plants
being shut down) economy. Some rules have conflicts as to who truly has
jurisdiction. President Bush has not submitted legislation to repeal
the major environmental legislation such as Solid Waste Disposal act,
RCRA, CERCLA, SARA, Toxic Substance Control Act, Clean air act
(CAA),Clean water act (CWA,) Safe drinking water act (SDWA,) Consumer
product safety act (CPSA), Federal hazardous substances act (FHSA),
Flammable fabric act (FFA), Poison prevention packaging act (PPPA),
Ports and waterways safety act (PWSA and Pipeline safety act (PSA) to
name a few.
MRC
Kelly Younger
> Just Tooling Down The Internet Superhighway With my G4.......
OK, OK. How much longer 'til it's the G5? Steve needs the money.
--
Kelly Younger
JETman
Well, I didn't get a G4 until January of 01 and that was a move up from
a Power Tower 604/166 so I would say a couple of years but I will hafta
modify my sig as shown below...
<g>
--
Regards,
JT (Residing in Austin, Texas)
Just Tooling Down The Internet Superhighway With my ancient G4.......
JETman
I believe that you said that you were in the Valley at the time and
$100K there was like $45K anywhere else considering the increased
bracket. No bargain in my book...
JETman
Sorry, but veterans fall into an entirely different group and the fact
is that DOD should be responsible for veterans benefits, not having them
passed (the buck) onto a stand alone agency.
JT
--
Kelly Younger
G4's were out in '01? Seems like we didn't get one at work until
sometime later than that, but I could be wrong. We have two G4's at work
now. One is the stud-muffin dual HD that will boot to OS9 or OSX. The
next time we boot to OSX will be the first.
Let me know when Apple comes out with a right-click mouse...I'll start
paying attention.
Look on the bright side though...it could be a G3 ;-)
--
Kelly Younger
JETman
The G4 came out in late 1999 or very early 2000.
You don't need a right hand mouse button, (a common complicator of that
carposi's tunnel syndrome), just use the Control key in conjunction with
the mouse...
G3's were not a real big advancement as they were based on the 601/603
whereas the G4 was an evolution of the 604. For instance, both, (604 &
G4) could come in dual (or more) processors. Daystar had a machine with
four 604 processors if memory serves me correct.
--
Regards,
JT (Residing in Austin, Texas)
Just Tooling Down The Internet Superhighway With my G4.......
William R. Cowan
group and as opposed to what group they were listed in?
Now to your second comment about being a DoD responsibility, why should
it not be a seperate agency? Just curious. Perhaps it is better that
they have an agency that is dedicated to them instead of being lumped
into a huge agency.
Let me know your thoughts on this.
MRC
P.S. is not top posting frowned upon? I did it for consistancy since
you did it. Personally I could careless how it is done.
Jim Riley
wrote:
>All that costs money.
Why not just impose a flat tax then?
--
Jim Riley
Chris Bellomy
: On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 19:57:51 GMT, Chris Bellomy <ch...@goodshow.net>
: wrote:
:
: >All that costs money.
:
: Why not just impose a flat tax then?
Dick Armey submitted a flat tax plan a few years back that
I quite liked, actually.
cb
colonel
Mexican War, the Civil War, the Spanish American War and the Persian
Gulf War combined; approaches cost of World War I
............................................................
washingtonpost.com
Democrats Say Iraq Spending With Tax Cuts Is Unaffordable
By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, September 9, 2003; Page A13
President Bush's request for $87 billion in additional spending for
Iraq and Afghanistan stirred concern yesterday from Democrats and
defense policy analysts that he has launched an unaffordable spending
spree even as he pursues more tax cuts that will increase the federal
deficit.
"We can't do it all," said Lee Hamilton, director of the Woodrow
Wilson International Center for Scholars and a former Democratic
member of the House. "From the president's speech, I haven't seen the
hard recognition of the economic costs of this decision. I don't think
he gave us a picture of how he intends to pay for his foreign policy."
Yesterday, senior Bush administration officials painted a dire picture
of occupied Iraq. One official spoke of 1950-vintage boilers in
Baghdad's main refinery held together by duct tape, and textile mills
running British spinning machines built in 1963.
Yet as the projected federal budget deficit for 2004 exceeds $500
billion, officials have not changed their assessments of the United
States' fiscal health or the White House's economic plans. Just days
before he disclosed his Iraq spending request Sunday, the president
demanded that Congress pass hundreds of billions of dollars in
additional tax cuts.
The new request "is manageable within our current deficit situation if
we continue to hold the line on discretionary [spending] accounts, and
we continue to pursue pro-growth economic policies," one senior
official said.
Those parallel policy tracks dominated much of the political
conversation yesterday, as official Washington came to grips with
Bush's surprisingly large request to fund operations in Iraq,
continued fighting in Afghanistan and elsewhere, and postwar
reconstruction in both countries.
Bush administration officials said yesterday they see no contradiction
between pursuing a massive but temporary increase in defense spending
and pushing for tax cuts that they believe will revive the moribund
job market.
But Democrats are already planning to exploit what they see as a
policy "disconnect" to damage the president politically and secure
funds for their domestic priorities, even as they concede they will
ultimately fund Bush's request.
"The purpose . . . is to hold the president accountable for a failed
policy, not to cut off funding," said an aide to Sen. Edward M.
Kennedy (D-Mass.), who will try to bar any of the money from being
spent until the administration issues a detailed report on its
long-term plans for Iraq.
Bush's $87 billion figure is the largest emergency spending request
since the opening months of World War II, according to Pat Towell, a
defense fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.
The emergency spending act that followed the attacks of Sept. 11,
2001, and the launching of the war in Afghanistan totaled $20 billion.
To put it in perspective, Bush hopes to spend more in Iraq and
Afghanistan than all 50 states say they need -- $78 billion -- to
finance the budget shortfalls they anticipate for 2004.
The request is higher than the $74 billion the Defense Department
plans to spend on all new weapons purchases next year, and higher than
the $29.5 billion the Education Department hopes to spend on
elementary and secondary education plus the $41.3 billion the
administration plans to spend to defend the homeland.
With $166 billion spent or requested, Bush's war spending in 2003 and
2004 already exceeds the inflation-adjusted costs of the Revolutionary
War, the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Civil War, the Spanish
American War and the Persian Gulf War combined, according to a study
by Yale University economist William D. Nordhaus. The Iraq war
approaches the $191 billion inflation-adjusted cost of World War I.
Many lawmakers say Bush's 2004 request is only the starting point.
Rep. David R. Obey (Wis.), the ranking Democrat on the House
Appropriations Committee, predicted the administration will seek still
more money once this installment is secured. For their part, Democrats
will try to tack on billions more to finance what they see as
insufficient funding for homeland security, local police and fire
departments and other "first responders."
"In the president's speech last night, there was a glaring omission,"
said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.). "While he fully funded the war
in Iraq and Afghanistan, he failed to talk about anything that would
beef up homeland security at home, such as making our airlines, ports,
nuclear power systems and the like more secure."
In the name of fiscal discipline, Republicans have rebuffed such
efforts in the past. But the size of Bush's latest request may
ironically make it more difficult to control the ultimate size of the
spending, if other items are tacked on, conceded a Republican Senate
aide.
"The primary Democratic argument will be, 'If you're spending that
much to defend Baghdad, how about defending Baltimore while you're at
it?' " the aide said. "What are we supposed to say back?"
The big political question yesterday was not the prospects of the
president's war request but the future of his tax cuts. Last week,
Bush reiterated his demand that Congress make his expiring tax cuts
permanent over the next decade, a request that would cost the Treasury
$1.1 trillion through 2013, according to the Congressional Budget
Office.
"We're into a guns-and-butter scenario here, and I think it's
appropriate the president has recognized the policy he's led us into
has had far greater consequences than he wanted to present at the
outset," said retired Gen. Wesley Clark, who is flirting with a
presidential bid next year. "The administration is now going to have
to produce a budget that has some realism in it."
That assessment came not just from Democrats but from defense analysts
as well. Andrew F. Krepinevich, executive director of the Center for
Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, said the federal budget deficit
will invariably begin to pinch parts of the defense budget.
"Back in Vietnam, Lyndon Johnson wanted guns and butter; he thought he
could have his Great Society and prosecute the war in Vietnam,"
Krepinevich. "For Bush it's not so much guns and butter as guns and
tax cuts. But at some point you bump up to a harsh reality, and tough
choices will have to be made."
But no one was predicting that Bush would back down on his request for
more tax cuts, much less roll back the ones already enacted. Quipped
one Republican Senate aide: "You can have your tax cuts and keep the
lights on in Baghdad as well."
---------------
Staff writers Helen Dewar and Juliet Eilperin contributed to this
report.