Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

Tartarin, BTW, Reagan inherited the eoconmic miracles that Carter had cleaned up from the Viet Nam war. That's how long it took to pay for Viet Nam. Reagan then blew the great economy that Carter gave him in less than 2 years (sounds familar) and guess what - the Extreme Right Wing Conservatives like to blame that dribble down mess created by Reagan as Carter's doing. Life goes on, put the spin continues!~

BTW, I always give credit to Nixon and Ford for helping to start the fix that Carter completed for those financial woes! Now, I done it again.

dys, I don't think any guessing is going to be meaningful. The general of the army said it's going to take about 200,000 army personnel to occupy Iraq, and he's talking about five years. That cost in addition to our military in all the other countries are going to put us in bankruptcy for the next generation - never mind the next administration. I hope workers younger than 50 years old are not expecting any social security benefits. ;0 c.i.

I think that Bush resisted on going along with the world court because he knew he would be doing criminal actions and has been trying to prevent himself being prosecuted! Sneaky, I think not!

And since we're sharing, I have to guess that you are one of those people that forms flawed opinions based on little or no information, and likes to introduce himself in a new setting by insulting people he knows absolutely nothing about.

How many people want to bet MagginKat is joining us from Abuzz? ("Gee," MagginKat is thinking, "how ever did he guess that?")

(How many people hope MagginKat knows that this is not Abuzz?)

No need to take a poll, tres - you and maggin can work it out just fine.

Dys -- I don't think they are contrary figures. The ones I heard yesterday were more along the lines of one of those fund-raising thermometers -- the tally until now. They weren't going out beyond the budget-as-of-now, I don't think. And of course, even as the money is being paid out, we won't know about it. There is never a "bottom line." Long after the war is over, a few semi-correct numbers will trickle in... as always. I do know that everyone is scared of the impact on the US economy. I note that late last night, as Bush was giving his take-over-the-Muslim-world speech at the AEI, Glen Hubbard resigned.

Bill -- Listen: you were good yesterday, even excellent. But if you're going to pull funny stuff like "I don't see things in black-and-white," I'm not sure we can put up with it.

White House Concedes That Counterterror Budget Is Meager

By PHILIP SHENON

[]ASHINGTON, Feb. 26 ; Responding to criticism from Democrats and to the mounting concern of state and local governments, the White House is now saying that the long delayed government spending plan for the year does not provide enough money to protect against terrorist attacks on American soil.
After initially praising the giant spending package that was shaped by Congressional Republicans, the White House has reversed itself in recent days, conceding in a series of public statements that a closer reading of the 3,000-page spending bill shows that domestic counterterrorism programs were shortchanged. President Bush signed the bill into law earlier this month.
Why doesn't that suprise me. "Millions for tribute none for defense" 'http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/27/politics/27HOME.html?th

I think I read someplace that we still have not kept our promises to Afghanistan; to rebuild their infrastructure, and the Bush budget didn't have any money for it. c.i.

Magginkat, there is still some, unfortunately, abuzzers even here still using Abuzz tactics! I just ignore them!

Being assertive and encouraging debate rather than aggressive and baiting for an argument are two distinctly different approaches. One is indicative of enjoying oneself at a nice social gathering, the other is too many drinks in a barroom. Even those who have sworn off drinking may still be living their life in that milieu of that later, or at least that is their illusion.

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

Support for Bush's re-election falls below 50 percent

President still enjoys advantage over Democrats

From Keating Holland
CNN Washington Bureau
Thursday, February 27, 2003 Posted: 5:35 PM EST (2235 GMT)

Worries about the economy appear to be hurting President Bush's poll numbers.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The percentage of registered voters who say they would support President Bush in 2004 fell below 50 percent for the first time, according to a new CNN/USA TODAY/Gallup poll, which finds more Americans concerned about the economy.
Two-thirds of those who responded to the poll, released Thursday, describe current economic conditions as poor, a 10-point increase since December. Optimism about the future of the economy also dropped 10 points during that time.
Asked their choice for president, 47 percent of the registered voters polled said they would support Bush in 2004 -- compared with 51 percent in December. About 39 percent said they would support the Democratic candidate, compared with 37 percent in December.

It would appear that the American public as rip van winkle did is waking up from their slumber. The good guys are winning. Let's hope there will still something left to win by 04. It only goes to prove you can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time. But you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/02/27/bush.poll/index.html

au, I would venture to say that the poll numbers for GWBush will be further down south in one year. Why? Because our economy is also going south, and it's gonna be impossible to improve it with this outrageous cost of this war, too little too late on the 'stimulus package,' and our unemployment is gonna be way up there in the double digits in many places across the US. c.i.

The Financial picture of the US will be declare secret material and not released to the public except as pro forma summed up information from the WH. So this will not be a political topic to bandy about - war time requirements!

(The following is the text of John Brady Kiesling's letter of resignation to Secretary of State Colin Powell. Mr. Kiesling is a career diplomat who has served in United States embassies from Tel Aviv to Casablanca to Yerevan.)

Dear Mr. Secretary:

I am writing you to submit my resignation from the Foreign Service of the United States and from my position as Political Counselor in U.S. Embassy Athens, effective March 7. I do so with a heavy heart. The baggage of my upbringing included a felt obligation to give something back to my country. Service as a U.S. diplomat was a dream job. I was paid to understand foreign languages and cultures, to seek out diplomats, politicians, scholars and journalists, and to persuade them that U.S. interests and theirs fundamentally coincided. My faith in my country and its values was the most powerful weapon in my diplomatic arsenal.

It is inevitable that during twenty years with the State Department I would become more sophisticated and cynical about the narrow and selfish bureaucratic motives that sometimes shaped our policies. Human nature is what it is, and I was rewarded and promoted for understanding human nature. But until this Administration it had been possible to believe that by upholding the policies of my president I was also upholding the interests of the American people and the world. I believe it no longer.

The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with American values but also with American interests. Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America's most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson. We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective web of international relationships the world has ever known. Our current course will bring instability and danger, not security.

New York Times

The final two paragraphs hit the dummy right on the head:

It is therefore to be inferred Kiesling is the only principled person in The US Diplomatic Corps? I don't doubt he's an honorable man, and committed to his convictions. As such, he merits my admiration regardless his stand. I need not agree with someone to admire their conduct in the matter on which we disagree. I note that Mr. Kiesling resigned, not that he then chose to fall upon his own sword. These things used to be done with so much more flare and drama.

I doubt his position is widely shared, and I doubt The US Diplomatic Corps is peopled by less honorable individuals who are any less deeply committed to their own convictions. Keisling's resignation is interesting, even noble. Pragmatically, however, it is an isolated, abberational occurance, and of no practical consequence.



timber

"So Glenn Hubbard has resigned as chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers--to spend more time with his family, of course. (Pay no attention to the knife handles protruding from his back.) Gregory Mankiw, his successor, is a very good economist, but never mind: When the political apparatchiks who make all decisions in this administration want Mr. Mankiw's opinion, they'll tell Mr. Mankiw what it is.

--Paul Krugman, NYT

strawman, easily agrued against, not even hinted at anywhere-

The first person I want on that sword is not this guy!