This dolt is at shockingly low approval numbers and one of the leading bastions of liberal ideas, the Washington Post, writes articles that hides disapproval of W. Why? A recent, September 14, 2007, Washington Post article "Bush Tells Nation He Will Begin to Roll Back 'Surge' -- Gen. Petraeus Says U.S. Is Projecting 'Sustainable Security' in Iraq by 2009" at
click here
should have been referenced in the current Washington Post article as it states "President Bush tried to turn a corner in the fractious debate over Iraq last night by ordering the first limited troop withdrawals since voters elected an antiwar Congress last year. But the move did little to appease Democratic leaders, who dismissed it as a token gesture masking an open-ended commitment of U.S. troops. Bush said progress on the ground means he can pull out by next summer the additional combat forces he sent in January -- roughly 21,700 troops -- and he opened the door to further troop reductions if conditions improve...
While Bush stressed the positive, his staff finished work on a report it will send to Congress today concluding that Iraq is making "satisfactory" progress on nine of 18 political and security benchmarks, just one more than in July, administration sources said. But the president said such progress is enough to justify the beginning of a modest pullout, starting with 5,700 troops by Christmas. "Now, because of the measure of success we are seeing in Iraq, we can begin seeing troops come home," he said from the Oval Office. "The way forward I have described tonight makes it possible, for the first time in years, for people who have been on opposite sides of this difficult debate to come together." He coined a new slogan to describe his latest strategy, "Return on Success," meaning further progress will enable further withdrawal. "The more successful we are, the more American troops can return home," he said. "And in all we do, I will ensure that our commanders on the ground have the troops and flexibility they need to defeat the enemy."
I thought that out of one corner of his mouth he said 'Strategic Victory' Is Near'. I guess that is the side that he uses for overly optimistic propaganda and the US MSM has seen it enough that it takes it for what it is-lies! They get everyone on team big bro 43 to spin it ever so differently! These vile reptiles trot out a piece a skirt to humanize themselves.
The article "The Press Secretary, Up Close and Personal on 'The Daily Show'" shows how first the article brings in a non-related Democrat problem before lashing out at W as "So it's the question every press secretary must dread. Your boss has just been accused of transporting hookers across state lines. What do you tell the jackals of the media now baying at your door? Dana Perino has the answer: "It's a matter under litigation and I couldn't comment on it." Fortunately for Perino, that question has never come up in her day job as White House press secretary.
But it came up the other night on "The Daily Show," when host Jon Stewart asked how she would have handled the Eliot Spitzer scandal. "I have had to deal with a lot of things, a lot of crisis communication, but never that," Perino said with relief. Still, a segment with Stewart can't be that much easier for an adviser to President Bush. But Perino was a good sport as he grilled her about Bush's relationship with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the Iraq war, Helen Thomas, the CIA leak case and so on. At one point, he pressed her on whether she had ever been put in a position where she was not telling the truth. She smiled and said no.... As they started to wrap up, Stewart noted that Bush often says he is going to "sprint to the finish," then asked, "Can you get him to run faster?" "You're going to miss him," Perino retorted. "What in the world will you talk about when he's gone?"
The article hides another big bro 43 lack of conscience as "Afghanistan: A Fine Romance --More evidence that Bush's idea of fun and yours may be a tad different. Addressing the National Religious Broadcasters' convention in Nashville last week, he said that "being the president has been a joyous experience," a description that has raised eyebrows in the past, too. Then, in a videoconference a couple of days later, he told military and civilian folks working in Afghanistan that their work sounded "romantic." "I must say, I'm a little envious," Bush said, according to a report by Reuters reporter Tabassum Zakaria, who was allowed to watch the videoconference. "If I were slightly younger and not employed here, I think it would be a fantastic experience to be on the front lines of helping this young democracy succeed." He went on: "It must be exciting for you . . . in some ways romantic, in some ways, you know, confronting danger. You're really making history, and thanks."
That quickly drew a rebuke from VoteVets.org, a group of veterans that has been critical of Bush's policies. "I seriously doubt any of us infantrymen in Operation Anaconda found it exciting or romantic when the Taliban and al-Qaeda were firing mortar rounds at us and our fellow soldiers," the group said, quoting one of its Army veterans, Will King, in a statement. To be fair, Bush was not talking with combat soldiers about fighting; he was talking with folks working with Provincial Reconstruction Teams, which help Afghans rebuild schools, expand health care and fight corruption. But we're still trying to figure out the "joyous" part."
The part about big bro 43 thinking dying in Afghanistan as being romantic should have led the article as it is evidence he is a psychopath! The article "McCain Mixes Up Iraqi Groups -- Senator Misstates Which Extremists Are Aided by Iran" at
click here
shows that McCain is just not up to the task of being big bro 43's 3rd term.
He conflated Iran with al-Qaeda on the radio a few days earlier so you'd think that his handlers would point out to him that he couldn't act like a feeble old fool while touring Iraq, but W's mini-me, McCain, who has been pounding the war drums about GWOT, particularly the surge, can't even get the sect straight in this sectarian warfare. That might be part of the reason he anticipates the US will be in Iraq for 100 years. The article states "Sen. John McCain, in the midst of a trip to the Middle East that he hoped would help burnish his foreign policy expertise, incorrectly asserted Tuesday that Iran is training and supplying al-Qaeda in Iraq, confusing the Sunni insurgent group with the Shiite extremists who U.S. officials believe are supported by their religious brethren in the neighboring country.
The mistake, which he quickly corrected after a brief whisper from a colleague, was an unwelcome stumble as McCain (Ariz.), the all-but-certain Republican nominee for the White House, spends seven days in the Middle East and Europe. His campaign asserts that McCain's decades of foreign policy experience make him the candidate best equipped to lead the country in a time of international peril, and he has staked his bid in particular on his deep knowledge of the military and political situation in Iraq, frequently mocking his Democratic rivals for what he describes as a naive desire to pull troops out quickly. He is spending two days in Israel after 48 hours in Iraq, where he met with top Iraqi officials and U.S. military officers to assess progress there. Standing with two of his Senate colleagues at the Citadel, a set of ancient ruins in downtown Amman, McCain told reporters that he is concerned about Iran's influence in Iraq and cited a recently discovered cache of weapons that he said could be particularly lethal in being used to target Americans in the country. "We continue to be concerned about Iranian [operatives] taking al-Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back," he said in comments after meeting with Jordan's King Abdullah II on Tuesday afternoon.
Pressed to elaborate, McCain said it is "common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran; that's well known. And it's unfortunate." A few moments later, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.), standing just behind McCain, stepped forward and whispered in his ear. McCain then said, "I'm sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not al-Qaeda." The United States has long asserted that elements of Iran's security forces have been training and supplying weapons to Iraq's Shiite militias. Iran is an overwhelmingly Shiite country whose government has applauded the emergence of a Shiite-led government in Iraq but has denied supporting Shiite militias inside Iraq." Buried in the retractions statements "Democrats pointed out that McCain made the same assertion in a radio interview with talk show host Hugh Hewitt on Monday night, saying that "there are al-Qaeda operatives that are taken back into Iran, given training as leaders, and they're moving back into Iraq."
In a statement, Democratic Party spokeswoman Karen Finney seized on the mistakes. "After eight years of the Bush Administration's incompetence in Iraq, McCain's comments don't give the American people a reason to believe that he can be trusted to offer a clear way forward," she said. "Not only is Senator McCain wrong on Iraq once again, but he showed he either doesn't understand the challenges facing Iraq and the region or is willing to ignore the facts on the ground."
So, in Iraq W's legacy is atrocious and his GOP presidential nominee intends to add to the horrific experiences, perhaps for another 100 years. Domestically, if you say that W would steal the pennies off a dead man's eyes would you be exaggerating? Not if the dead man was in the bottom 99%. If he was W would take it in a heartbeat and hand it to a top 1%ers son so that the lad could learn to be as heartless as all of those in our oligarchy are.
The article "Inflation Hits the Poor Hardest" states "Inflation is walloping Americans with low and moderate incomes as the prices of staples have soared far faster than those of luxuries. The goods and services Americans consumed in February were 4 percent more expensive than they were a year earlier. But there is a big divide in how much prices are climbing between the basic items people need to live and get to work, and those on which they can easily cut back when times are tight. An analysis of government data by The Washington Post found that prices have risen 9.2 percent since 2006 for the groceries, gasoline, health care and other basics that a middle-income American family has little choice but to consume.
That would cost such a family, which made $45,000 on average in 2006, an extra $972 per year, assuming it did not buy less of such items because of higher prices. For a broad range of goods on which it is easier to scrimp -- such as restaurant meals, alcoholic beverages, new cars, furniture, and clothing -- prices have risen 2.4 percent. Wages for typical workers, meanwhile, have been rising slowly. In that same time span, average earnings for a non-managerial worker rose about 5 percent. This contradiction -- high inflation for staples, low inflation for luxuries and in wages -- helps explain why American workers felt squeezed even before the recent economic distress began.... The rise in the basic cost of living means that inflation disproportionately affects those with modest incomes. For example, in 2006, the top 20 percent of households by income spent about twice as much on staples as households in the lower-middle bracket. But the top-earning families had almost six times as much income."
41 accused Reagan's economic policies--which 43 emulates, of being "voodoo economics". Trickle-down was always "expletive deleted" lies but 43 believes in "laissez-faire", or at least says he does, as he always says that the top 1%ers will buy enough yachts that the all of the boats will rise--but, it doesn't work! The article "Gov't Gives Plan to Help Fannie, Freddie" states "The government on Wednesday relaxed capital requirements at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as part of a plan to inject an additional $200 billion of financing for home loans. The initiative, which will require Fannie and Freddie to raise substantial funds, is part of a broader government strategy to ease a credit crisis that has made it difficult for consumers and businesses to borrow, and spread fear throughout global financial markets.
click here
should have been referenced in the current Washington Post article as it states "President Bush tried to turn a corner in the fractious debate over Iraq last night by ordering the first limited troop withdrawals since voters elected an antiwar Congress last year. But the move did little to appease Democratic leaders, who dismissed it as a token gesture masking an open-ended commitment of U.S. troops. Bush said progress on the ground means he can pull out by next summer the additional combat forces he sent in January -- roughly 21,700 troops -- and he opened the door to further troop reductions if conditions improve...
While Bush stressed the positive, his staff finished work on a report it will send to Congress today concluding that Iraq is making "satisfactory" progress on nine of 18 political and security benchmarks, just one more than in July, administration sources said. But the president said such progress is enough to justify the beginning of a modest pullout, starting with 5,700 troops by Christmas. "Now, because of the measure of success we are seeing in Iraq, we can begin seeing troops come home," he said from the Oval Office. "The way forward I have described tonight makes it possible, for the first time in years, for people who have been on opposite sides of this difficult debate to come together." He coined a new slogan to describe his latest strategy, "Return on Success," meaning further progress will enable further withdrawal. "The more successful we are, the more American troops can return home," he said. "And in all we do, I will ensure that our commanders on the ground have the troops and flexibility they need to defeat the enemy."
I thought that out of one corner of his mouth he said 'Strategic Victory' Is Near'. I guess that is the side that he uses for overly optimistic propaganda and the US MSM has seen it enough that it takes it for what it is-lies! They get everyone on team big bro 43 to spin it ever so differently! These vile reptiles trot out a piece a skirt to humanize themselves.
The article "The Press Secretary, Up Close and Personal on 'The Daily Show'" shows how first the article brings in a non-related Democrat problem before lashing out at W as "So it's the question every press secretary must dread. Your boss has just been accused of transporting hookers across state lines. What do you tell the jackals of the media now baying at your door? Dana Perino has the answer: "It's a matter under litigation and I couldn't comment on it." Fortunately for Perino, that question has never come up in her day job as White House press secretary.
The article hides another big bro 43 lack of conscience as "Afghanistan: A Fine Romance --More evidence that Bush's idea of fun and yours may be a tad different. Addressing the National Religious Broadcasters' convention in Nashville last week, he said that "being the president has been a joyous experience," a description that has raised eyebrows in the past, too. Then, in a videoconference a couple of days later, he told military and civilian folks working in Afghanistan that their work sounded "romantic." "I must say, I'm a little envious," Bush said, according to a report by Reuters reporter Tabassum Zakaria, who was allowed to watch the videoconference. "If I were slightly younger and not employed here, I think it would be a fantastic experience to be on the front lines of helping this young democracy succeed." He went on: "It must be exciting for you . . . in some ways romantic, in some ways, you know, confronting danger. You're really making history, and thanks."
That quickly drew a rebuke from VoteVets.org, a group of veterans that has been critical of Bush's policies. "I seriously doubt any of us infantrymen in Operation Anaconda found it exciting or romantic when the Taliban and al-Qaeda were firing mortar rounds at us and our fellow soldiers," the group said, quoting one of its Army veterans, Will King, in a statement. To be fair, Bush was not talking with combat soldiers about fighting; he was talking with folks working with Provincial Reconstruction Teams, which help Afghans rebuild schools, expand health care and fight corruption. But we're still trying to figure out the "joyous" part."
The part about big bro 43 thinking dying in Afghanistan as being romantic should have led the article as it is evidence he is a psychopath! The article "McCain Mixes Up Iraqi Groups -- Senator Misstates Which Extremists Are Aided by Iran" at
click here
shows that McCain is just not up to the task of being big bro 43's 3rd term.
He conflated Iran with al-Qaeda on the radio a few days earlier so you'd think that his handlers would point out to him that he couldn't act like a feeble old fool while touring Iraq, but W's mini-me, McCain, who has been pounding the war drums about GWOT, particularly the surge, can't even get the sect straight in this sectarian warfare. That might be part of the reason he anticipates the US will be in Iraq for 100 years. The article states "Sen. John McCain, in the midst of a trip to the Middle East that he hoped would help burnish his foreign policy expertise, incorrectly asserted Tuesday that Iran is training and supplying al-Qaeda in Iraq, confusing the Sunni insurgent group with the Shiite extremists who U.S. officials believe are supported by their religious brethren in the neighboring country.
The mistake, which he quickly corrected after a brief whisper from a colleague, was an unwelcome stumble as McCain (Ariz.), the all-but-certain Republican nominee for the White House, spends seven days in the Middle East and Europe. His campaign asserts that McCain's decades of foreign policy experience make him the candidate best equipped to lead the country in a time of international peril, and he has staked his bid in particular on his deep knowledge of the military and political situation in Iraq, frequently mocking his Democratic rivals for what he describes as a naive desire to pull troops out quickly. He is spending two days in Israel after 48 hours in Iraq, where he met with top Iraqi officials and U.S. military officers to assess progress there. Standing with two of his Senate colleagues at the Citadel, a set of ancient ruins in downtown Amman, McCain told reporters that he is concerned about Iran's influence in Iraq and cited a recently discovered cache of weapons that he said could be particularly lethal in being used to target Americans in the country. "We continue to be concerned about Iranian [operatives] taking al-Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back," he said in comments after meeting with Jordan's King Abdullah II on Tuesday afternoon.
Pressed to elaborate, McCain said it is "common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran; that's well known. And it's unfortunate." A few moments later, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.), standing just behind McCain, stepped forward and whispered in his ear. McCain then said, "I'm sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not al-Qaeda." The United States has long asserted that elements of Iran's security forces have been training and supplying weapons to Iraq's Shiite militias. Iran is an overwhelmingly Shiite country whose government has applauded the emergence of a Shiite-led government in Iraq but has denied supporting Shiite militias inside Iraq." Buried in the retractions statements "Democrats pointed out that McCain made the same assertion in a radio interview with talk show host Hugh Hewitt on Monday night, saying that "there are al-Qaeda operatives that are taken back into Iran, given training as leaders, and they're moving back into Iraq."
In a statement, Democratic Party spokeswoman Karen Finney seized on the mistakes. "After eight years of the Bush Administration's incompetence in Iraq, McCain's comments don't give the American people a reason to believe that he can be trusted to offer a clear way forward," she said. "Not only is Senator McCain wrong on Iraq once again, but he showed he either doesn't understand the challenges facing Iraq and the region or is willing to ignore the facts on the ground."
So, in Iraq W's legacy is atrocious and his GOP presidential nominee intends to add to the horrific experiences, perhaps for another 100 years. Domestically, if you say that W would steal the pennies off a dead man's eyes would you be exaggerating? Not if the dead man was in the bottom 99%. If he was W would take it in a heartbeat and hand it to a top 1%ers son so that the lad could learn to be as heartless as all of those in our oligarchy are.
The article "Inflation Hits the Poor Hardest" states "Inflation is walloping Americans with low and moderate incomes as the prices of staples have soared far faster than those of luxuries. The goods and services Americans consumed in February were 4 percent more expensive than they were a year earlier. But there is a big divide in how much prices are climbing between the basic items people need to live and get to work, and those on which they can easily cut back when times are tight. An analysis of government data by The Washington Post found that prices have risen 9.2 percent since 2006 for the groceries, gasoline, health care and other basics that a middle-income American family has little choice but to consume.
That would cost such a family, which made $45,000 on average in 2006, an extra $972 per year, assuming it did not buy less of such items because of higher prices. For a broad range of goods on which it is easier to scrimp -- such as restaurant meals, alcoholic beverages, new cars, furniture, and clothing -- prices have risen 2.4 percent. Wages for typical workers, meanwhile, have been rising slowly. In that same time span, average earnings for a non-managerial worker rose about 5 percent. This contradiction -- high inflation for staples, low inflation for luxuries and in wages -- helps explain why American workers felt squeezed even before the recent economic distress began.... The rise in the basic cost of living means that inflation disproportionately affects those with modest incomes. For example, in 2006, the top 20 percent of households by income spent about twice as much on staples as households in the lower-middle bracket. But the top-earning families had almost six times as much income."
41 accused Reagan's economic policies--which 43 emulates, of being "voodoo economics". Trickle-down was always "expletive deleted" lies but 43 believes in "laissez-faire", or at least says he does, as he always says that the top 1%ers will buy enough yachts that the all of the boats will rise--but, it doesn't work! The article "Gov't Gives Plan to Help Fannie, Freddie" states "The government on Wednesday relaxed capital requirements at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as part of a plan to inject an additional $200 billion of financing for home loans. The initiative, which will require Fannie and Freddie to raise substantial funds, is part of a broader government strategy to ease a credit crisis that has made it difficult for consumers and businesses to borrow, and spread fear throughout global financial markets.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
