OMED:  This garbage comes out of your state bureaucracy.  Once more, I have broken the message down into italicized segments and responded to each.

BUSH DISHONESTY TAKES CENTER STAGE 

The headline begins the lies.  G.W. Bush is straight talk, and his actions back up his words.  He is, unlike liberals, occasionally wrong about something, and again unlike liberals is the first to admit it when he recognizes the error.  I have seen him do this in interviews.  Not once did you see the liberal's beloved Clinton admit to doing anything wrong.  Nor did you see that quality in his administration.  Tonight, March 16, 2004, on the NBC Evening News pictures of Osama Bin Laden taken by a Predator robot plane were shown on television.  They were taken during the Clinton administration.  They had the target and did nothing about it.  Three of Clinton's top adminstrators including his Secretary of State, were told about the footage and asked why.  None would appear on camera and all said they made no mistakes.

President Bush attacked his opponents today, saying, "If you're going to make an accusation, you ought to back it up with facts." (1) But on everything from the economy to national security, this high standard stands in sharp contrast to the president's own behavior. 

President Bush is correct, as anybody but partisan morons like the author of this diatribe understands.  This isn't rocket science.  If you make a statement, offer an avenue of verification.  Where the economy is concerned, he said the tax cuts were needed to revive it from the Clinton (all time record tax increase) that finally took a miracle created by Reagan and buoyed by the Republican takeover of congress and the totally serendipitous compuer revolution -- and shoved it right down into the gutter.  We have at present wonderful growth in GNP, a fine stock maket picture and 5.6% unemployment.  Do you know what 5.6% unemployment means?

It means 94.4% of Americans have a job.  Imagine that.  In the winter when agriculture is dormant and tourism above 43 degrees north latitude is limited to a few ski lodges.  How many landscape workers do you notice in Minnesota this time of year?  How about swimming pool construction in Maine?  Do those of you in Buffalo have trouble counting all the new construction going on during your blizzards?  

What totally lunatic, drooling, dunderheaded kind of a human do you need to be to think that 94.4% employment at this time of year is a bad economy?  I have to believe that the Oregon bureaucrat who wrote this piece of garbage is a public school teacher.  For every good one there must be ten morons.  Last night I watched a fellow on television ask a teenager which war General Lee fought in.  The kid said World War One.

It is in the schools these days that we find the most incompetent, totally fuzz-brained, intellectually-challenged government workers.  It takes a blind faith in New Math to say something as stupid as 94.4% employment represents a terrible jobs picture -- a disastrously bad economy.  It has long been the suggestion of this magazine that one should try to make something good out of something bad.  In this case, since stupid teachers are obviously the product of incompetent teachers colleges, what we need to do is to turn them all into animal shelters, dismiss all the people they "trained" from our public school system and dramatically improve our student achievement levels by only hiring people who have never even driven by a teacher's college. 

As to the president's poor performance on "national security" in the italicized paragraph above, if Clinton had taken out Osama bin Laden, 911 may never have happened.  NBC in the report tonight didn't mention that besides the Predator photo-op,  Clinton turned down at least one, possibily as many as four opportunities to have the man handed over alive.  The government of the Sudan made at least one of those offers.  As you have watched night clubs and trains blown up around the world since 911, how many such events have taken place in America?  Can you say "zero?"  And, that is what this moron calls a low standard on national security?.

Yes, this author has to be a teacher.  Not even some idiot in the human services agency area would call 100% success a failure. 

On Iraq, President Bush said before the war that Iraq "recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" (2) despite the CIA previously warning the White House not to make this factually inaccurate statement (3). He also said there was "no doubt the Iraqi regime continues to possess the most lethal weapons ever devised"  (4) despite receiving repeated warnings that there was little hard evidence Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction after 1991 (5). He even said that "we found the weapons of mass destruction" when none had been found 

What Bush actually said, and you can see it for yourself in a tape of the State of the Union speech before the invasion of Iraq, is that after 12 United Nations declarations that Iraq was hiding weapons of mass destruction, he didn't want to wait until we faced immiment danger before taking action.

That uranium business, as it stands now, was a mistake, not a lie.  England's Prime Minister, if memory serves, made the initial mistake, and passed it on.  The Bush administration has openly admitted the mistake.  Calling a mistake a lie proves my point about American education.  Liberals use the wrong words all the time -- sometime on purpose and sometimes because they're too stupid to know what they're saying.

As to points 3-5, the question has yet to be settled.  As to proof that Hussein had the nastiest weapons of mass destruction ever created, contact the relatives of the Kurds who were slaughtered by aerial gas attacks.  Make sure you do so carefully.  They will not take well your suggestion that Saddam never had WMD's.  100 pounds of the right stuff let loose in the right place will kill more people than all the bombs of WWII.  The Kurds of Northern Iraq lost a significant portion of the population to that stuff.  Like millions in America, I saw the video of the bodies.  Entire towns were wiped out, men, women, children, farm animals, pets and native fauna.  Not even a bird or a lizard left alive.  Yessir.  Saddam Hussein represented no WMD threat.

You say he dropped how many missles on Israel during the first Gulf War?  You say if he had taken a few of those cannisters he later used to slaughter the Kurds, and stuffed them in the nose of those war rockets, he could have gassed more Jews than died at Auschwitz?

The author of this note lacks an iota of compassion or simple human decency. But, that's the way liberals are.  They talk a good game, but never show up at the field.  If you need to be protected against the actions of murderous despots, and can't vote in the next election, they will let you perish without a second thought.  It is the deepest shame of American liberalism.  The progressive weeps for everyone, but will lift a finger to help only himself.

(6).  On economic policy, President Bush said that, with his tax plan, "by far the vast majority of the help goes to the people at the bottom end of the economic ladder." (7) In fact, according to Congress' bipartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, households making less than $40,000 - roughly the bottom half of the economic ladder - would receive only 10 percent of Bush's income tax cut. 

This is how they keep getting some of you.  When you cut taxes by a given percentage across the board, you get two results.  First, people who don't pay any taxes don't get an income increase. Second, those who have incomes of a hundred grand a year get back twice as many dollars as those who make fifty grand a year.  As much as New Math wants to change them, percentages are percentages.  Ten percent of one number is different than ten percent of a different number.  That so many Americans don't understand this is another reason we need a wholesale housecleaning in our schools.

Not that I don't understand the underlying premise to the claim.  Rich people get back more dollars than people who aren't rich.  That is bad.  Rich people are evil.  (You get all your best jobs from poor people.)  Profit is evil.  Karl Marx wouldn't like it that we allow profits.  All profits should go to the government, to finance more government workers whose job is to redistribute the twenty cents left over from each dollar after they ladle eighty cents into their own pocket.

All that complaint about the rich getting more back means, is that those of you who buy it are cretins. By comparing dollar reduction, this twit is using a divisive propaganda technique known as "class warfare."  It taps into your hatred for people who make more money than you.  Since you haven't the guts to buy a gun and just rob them, you hire bureacrats to do your stealing for you.  "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."  That's what Karl Marx said.  And, like America's liberals, he made sure that in the Soviet Union, only the bureaucrats had the guns, the courts and the Gulag.

On the budget, President Bush said, "This nation has got a deficit because we have been through a war." (8) He said this two months after his own budget acknowledged that his economic policies and tax cuts for the wealthy - not the war - were what created the largest deficits in American history. 

So, this moron should hire tens of thousands of people, arm them, supply them with war machines and send them off to fight a war.  He could put the whole thing on his credit cards.  When the numbers came in, he would have an epiphany. 

Bush didn't give "tax cuts for the wealthy."  He asked congress for, and got, tax cuts for people who pay taxes -- rich folks and middle-class folks, alike. 

Finally, the projected deficits are not the largest in American history.  That is a lie.  The author is a liar.  I would love to say it to his stupid face, because it is a fascist kind of lie -- a whopper with a sliver of truth that misleads the reader into believing pure hogwash.

Here's the truth.  The dollar amount is a big number, but is about as useful a piece of information as noticing that your dashboard vinyl is cracked just after an eighteen wheeler drives over your Yugo sedan.  The dollar amount of bills you have is a useless number unless you compare it to your income.  Bush's budget debt is in the 4-5% of GNP (national income) range, depending on whose figures you like.

Would you like to tell me how good you would feel if your 1994 personal deficit represented 4% of your income?  If after paying all the bills this year that your income allowed, you had a remaining debt balance of 4%, would you commit suicide? 

I think you would throw a party. 

The secret to national financial success is to reduce taxes, which is like an injection of vitamins into the economy, and freeze discretionary spending.  The Bush economy is presently growing at about 5%. That number, for those of us who attended public schools, is 1% larger than, or the same as, the Bush deficit, depending again on which estimates you prefer.  And the new Bush budget, while not freezing discretionary spending levels, cuts the growth rate down to the 2% range.  

Unless you give the veto to an old-line, Sixties radical liberal like Kerry, in about three years that deficit will be gone.  Reduce your discretionary spending to 2% growth a year and increase your income by 5% a year and see what happens to you.

Good times, lads and lassies.  Good times.

© 2004 Oregon Magazine