Next!
"'We are now approaching a long presidential election campaign, in the course of which issues on which I have strong views will be widely discussed and debated,' Perle wrote. 'I would not wish those views to be attributed to you or the President at any time, and especially not during a presidential campaign.'"
After this administration initiated the most unilateralist foreign policy in the last 100 years of U.S. history, belittled NATO, undermined the UN, played peek-a-boo with Kim Jong Il, and got stuck in the long, hard slog, after three years of living a neocon's wet dream that's now turned into a screaming nightmare, doesn't he think it's a little late for that?
And note to Bush and Rove: Hell hath no fury like a triple amputee scorned.
"With Republicans, including Mr. Chambliss, calling Mr. Kerry soft on defense -- the same accusation they used to defeat Mr. Cleland -- the presidential race is increasingly turning into a reprise of the 2002 Georgia campaign.
"On Wednesday, Mr. Cleland began appearing in television advertisements for Mr. Kerry in his native Georgia. He also held a conference call to criticize Ed Gillespie, the Republican National Committee chairman, saying that for Mr. Gillespie, who did not serve in the military, to criticize Mr. Kerry, who was wounded three times in Vietnam, 'is like a mackerel in the moonlight -- it both shines and stinks at the same time.' Earlier, he used the same line against Senator Chambliss."
Vietnam Vets are now calling the Kerry campaign the parade they never got. And it's reverberating strongly with Gulf War vets and it will surely be a strong pull for soldiers returning to Iraq, sent into a war by two guys who never served (and are cynical about it), hung out to dry by them in a conflict this administration doesn't understand how to fight, and now faced with physical and emotional wounds at the same time this administration is doing all they can to cut Veterans' benefits.
And scenes like this are going to be difficult to counter, flight suit or not:
"It is grueling work. If the campaign schedules a 6 a.m. television appearance, Mr. Cleland must wake up at 4; it takes him an hour and a half just to get dressed. Sometimes, campaign workers give him a hand-held microphone, forgetting he has only one hand. Sometimes, the stage has no ramp; in Iowa, when Mr. Kerry wanted Mr. Cleland by his side, a group of firefighters hoisted him onto the platform in his chair."
Did I mention that the Firefighters union endorsed Kerry long ago. Veterans and firefighters know a little about security, homeland or otherwise.
Next!
Center for American Progress on yesterday's remarkable performance by Ayn Rand...er...Greenspan:
GREENSPAN FLASHBACK – WE NEED TAX CUTS TO REDUCE REVENUE: Yesterday, Greenspan argued that the tax cuts should be extended because allowing them to rise to their previous levels would "pose significant risks to...the revenue base." But when he argued in favor of Bush's first tax cut in January 2001, he made the opposite argument – that lowering tax rates was necessary to reduce revenue. Greenspan was worried that the government would quickly pay off the entire deficit and be awash in so much money it wouldn't have anywhere productive to spend it. The WP reported on 1/27/01 that Greenspan "justified his support of tax cuts by focusing on a problem that may not even emerge until the end of a possible second Bush term – the government being forced to buy private assets because it had paid off all the national debt and still had buckets of cash left over." Given the dramatic turnaround in the nation's fiscal health – a $9.3 trillion turnaround in just three years – Greenspan's prediction was horribly wrong.
GREENSPAN FLASHBACK – WE CAN AFFORD TAX CUTS AND SOCIAL SECURITY: When he was aggressively pushing the President's massive tax cut in 2001, Greenspan was directly questioned about its effect on Social Security. On 03/02/01, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) asked Greenspan, "Do I want tax cuts?...this is my problem: there's such a considerable measure of uncertainty in the projections over the course of the baby boomers' retirement that how are we going to prepare for this?" Greenspan responded that there was no reason for concern because "despite the fact that there is a very dramatic rise" in the retiring population from the Baby Boom, "the effect of [the] acceleration in productivity" will mean that revenues will be "more than adequate to meet that big surge through a goodly part of the decade subsequent to 2010."
GREENSPAN FLASHBACK – NOT EVERYONE WAS FOOLED: While Greenspan claims that his recommendations are in response to recent budget deficits, cutting Social Security was on his agenda long before deficits emerged. The WSJ has complied a litany of such comments dating back to November 1997. In 2001, when Greenspan became a champion of the President's tax cuts for the wealthy, Rep. Robert T. Matsui (D-CA) predicted Greenspan's desired outcome. On 1/27/01, Matsui told the WP: "What [Greenspan's] done is created a situation where we'll have benefit cuts in Social Security. That's inevitable if you have a $2 trillion tax cut. And maybe that was his ultimate goal."
And I can't resist. When asked if God helped "write the script" for "The Passion of The Christ," "The Mel" replied, "God ordains everything. God made my bed."
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Next!
After this administration initiated the most unilateralist foreign policy in the last 100 years of U.S. history, belittled NATO, undermined the UN, played peek-a-boo with Kim Jong Il, and got stuck in the long, hard slog, after three years of living a neocon's wet dream that's now turned into a screaming nightmare, doesn't he think it's a little late for that?
And note to Bush and Rove: Hell hath no fury like a triple amputee scorned.
"With Republicans, including Mr. Chambliss, calling Mr. Kerry soft on defense -- the same accusation they used to defeat Mr. Cleland -- the presidential race is increasingly turning into a reprise of the 2002 Georgia campaign.
"On Wednesday, Mr. Cleland began appearing in television advertisements for Mr. Kerry in his native Georgia. He also held a conference call to criticize Ed Gillespie, the Republican National Committee chairman, saying that for Mr. Gillespie, who did not serve in the military, to criticize Mr. Kerry, who was wounded three times in Vietnam, 'is like a mackerel in the moonlight -- it both shines and stinks at the same time.' Earlier, he used the same line against Senator Chambliss."
Vietnam Vets are now calling the Kerry campaign the parade they never got. And it's reverberating strongly with Gulf War vets and it will surely be a strong pull for soldiers returning to Iraq, sent into a war by two guys who never served (and are cynical about it), hung out to dry by them in a conflict this administration doesn't understand how to fight, and now faced with physical and emotional wounds at the same time this administration is doing all they can to cut Veterans' benefits.
And scenes like this are going to be difficult to counter, flight suit or not:
"It is grueling work. If the campaign schedules a 6 a.m. television appearance, Mr. Cleland must wake up at 4; it takes him an hour and a half just to get dressed. Sometimes, campaign workers give him a hand-held microphone, forgetting he has only one hand. Sometimes, the stage has no ramp; in Iowa, when Mr. Kerry wanted Mr. Cleland by his side, a group of firefighters hoisted him onto the platform in his chair."
Did I mention that the Firefighters union endorsed Kerry long ago. Veterans and firefighters know a little about security, homeland or otherwise.
Next!
Center for American Progress on yesterday's remarkable performance by Ayn Rand...er...Greenspan:
GREENSPAN FLASHBACK – WE NEED TAX CUTS TO REDUCE REVENUE: Yesterday, Greenspan argued that the tax cuts should be extended because allowing them to rise to their previous levels would "pose significant risks to...the revenue base." But when he argued in favor of Bush's first tax cut in January 2001, he made the opposite argument – that lowering tax rates was necessary to reduce revenue. Greenspan was worried that the government would quickly pay off the entire deficit and be awash in so much money it wouldn't have anywhere productive to spend it. The WP reported on 1/27/01 that Greenspan "justified his support of tax cuts by focusing on a problem that may not even emerge until the end of a possible second Bush term – the government being forced to buy private assets because it had paid off all the national debt and still had buckets of cash left over." Given the dramatic turnaround in the nation's fiscal health – a $9.3 trillion turnaround in just three years – Greenspan's prediction was horribly wrong.
GREENSPAN FLASHBACK – WE CAN AFFORD TAX CUTS AND SOCIAL SECURITY: When he was aggressively pushing the President's massive tax cut in 2001, Greenspan was directly questioned about its effect on Social Security. On 03/02/01, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) asked Greenspan, "Do I want tax cuts?...this is my problem: there's such a considerable measure of uncertainty in the projections over the course of the baby boomers' retirement that how are we going to prepare for this?" Greenspan responded that there was no reason for concern because "despite the fact that there is a very dramatic rise" in the retiring population from the Baby Boom, "the effect of [the] acceleration in productivity" will mean that revenues will be "more than adequate to meet that big surge through a goodly part of the decade subsequent to 2010."
GREENSPAN FLASHBACK – NOT EVERYONE WAS FOOLED: While Greenspan claims that his recommendations are in response to recent budget deficits, cutting Social Security was on his agenda long before deficits emerged. The WSJ has complied a litany of such comments dating back to November 1997. In 2001, when Greenspan became a champion of the President's tax cuts for the wealthy, Rep. Robert T. Matsui (D-CA) predicted Greenspan's desired outcome. On 1/27/01, Matsui told the WP: "What [Greenspan's] done is created a situation where we'll have benefit cuts in Social Security. That's inevitable if you have a $2 trillion tax cut. And maybe that was his ultimate goal."
And I can't resist. When asked if God helped "write the script" for "The Passion of The Christ," "The Mel" replied, "God ordains everything. God made my bed."
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Next!
posted by John at 8:04 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home