Chicago Sun-Times
The scoop from Washington

Cheney in Chicago: Taunts Kerry. Is the election over yet?

| 12 Comments

Who needs to be told the election is over?


From Vice President Cheney, Friday in Chicago:

`` You might recall that Senator Kerry was for the war before he was against it. Somebody should do him a favor and tell him the election's over so he can stop flip-flopping. ''


Subj: REMARKS BY THE VICE PRESIDENT AT A LUNCHEON FOR CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE DAVE MCSWEENEY
Date: 6/23/06

THE WHITE HOUSE


Office of the Vice President

________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release June 23, 2006

REMARKS BY THE VICE PRESIDENT

AT A LUNCHEON FOR CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE DAVE MCSWEENEY

Hilton Chicago

Chicago, Illinois

12:23 P.M. CDT

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Thank you. (Applause.) Thank you. Well,
thank you, David. I appreciate your kind words and that warm welcome.
It's great to be back in Chicago, a city I love to visit. I explained
earlier to some friends our daughter and her husband lived here for
three years while she went to school at the University of Chicago. And
our oldest granddaughter was born here. So we used to get here a lot
and always -- always enjoy coming back to a great city.

I've looked forward to the trip, and to joining all of you and the
next Congressman for the eighth district, Dave McSweeney. (Applause.)
And I bring good wishes to all of you from the President of the United
States, George W. Bush. (Applause.)

I'm delighted to join you in giving strong support to Dave in his
campaign for Congress. He has deep roots in this part of the country.
He's a person who clearly speaks with conviction. He's an active
citizen, a common-sense conservative. And he knows the issues, he
understands the needs of the eighth district, and he's perfectly in tune
with the values of the people who live here. This is the kind of man
who belongs in the United States Congress, and there's no doubt in my
mind that Dave is on the road to victory on the 7th of November.
(Applause.)

It's important that we elect public servants like Dave because
these are times of incredible consequence for our nation. In the last
five-and-a-half years we've seen an unprecedented series challenges.
We've experienced war, national emergency, economic recession, corporate
scandals, historic natural disasters. And yet we've faced up to those
changes -- challenges. We've shown our strength as a people. And
America is a stronger and a better nation.

When the President and I came to office, we inherited an economy
that was heading into recession. But we took bold action to turn it
around -- and because we acted, the nation's economy today is healthy
and vigorous -- and in 2005 it grew faster than any other major
industrialized nation in the world.

Since August 2003, America has created over 5.3 million new jobs.
The national unemployment rate is 4.6 percent -- lower than the average
rate of the 1970s, the 1980s, or the 1990s. Productivity is strong.
Household net worth is at an all-time high.

The current expansion is also translating into higher than
projected federal revenues, as we knew would happen. There is no
mystery to this. Over the last several generations, there have been
three major tax cuts in the country -- in the 1960s under President
Kennedy, in the 1980s under President Reagan, and now under President
Bush. All three resulted in sustained growth, in new jobs, and new
wealth across the country. The evidence is in -- the best tax policy
for America is found in the wisdom of John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan,
and George W. Bush.

Yet even as revenue grows, we have a responsibility to be good
stewards of the taxpayer's dollar. Wise stewardship means taking a
second look at the way business has often been done in the Nation's
Capital. We commend the House of Representatives for passing a
constitutional line-item veto, a critical tool to help protect American
taxpayers. And as the congressional leadership has stated, we need
reform in the way projects are earmarked for funding. And we look
forward to working with members on the Hill on earmark reform.
Government has a duty to spend taxpayer dollars wisely or not spend them
at all. Your next congressman understands this very well. He'll be a
strong voice for spending discipline, and we need more people like Dave
McSweeney in Washington, D.C. (Applause.)

We have a full agenda for 2006 and beyond, and President Bush
understands that every decision he makes will affect the lives of
millions of Americans far into the future. He's going to lead the
effort on comprehensive immigration reform, to make the system rational
and get control of the borders. And he will continue appointing solid
judges like John Roberts and Sam Alito to the federal bench.
(Applause.)

Above all else, President Bush never loses sight of his most
fundamental duty -- to defend this nation and to protect our people.

There is still hard work ahead in the global war on terror, because
we are dealing with enemies who have declared an intention to bring
great harm to any nation that opposes their aims. And their prime
targets are the United States and the American people.

In the face of such enemies, we have to consider a few basic
questions: First, whether to confront them on our terms, or on their
terms. Second: whether to face them on their territory, or on our
territory. And third: whether to wage this war on offense or defense.
America and the civilized world have made our decision: Wherever
terrorists operate, we will find them where they dwell, stop them in
their planning, bring them to justice, and stay in the fight until the
fight is won. (Applause.)

We remain on the offensive in Iraq, with a clear plan for victory. We
can expect further acts of violence and destruction by the enemies of
freedom. But progress has been steady -- and there should be no
discounting the hopeful signs in that part of the world. In less than
two years' time the Iraqi people have gained sovereignty, voted for a
transitional government, drafted a progressive, democratic constitution,
then approved the document in a national referendum, and elected a new
national government under the provisions of that constitution. The most
recent election had a voter turnout of more than 70 percent, as Iraqis
defied the killers and the car-bombers and went to the polls in huge
numbers.

And Iraq now has a unity government that is committed to a future of
freedom and progress for all Iraqis. They have made a strong stand for
their own liberty; the U.S. is proud to be at their side.

Our coalition is also helping to build an Iraqi security force that is
well trained and well equipped. As that force grows in strength and the
political process continues to advance, we'll be able to decrease troop
levels without losing our capacity to defeat the terrorists.

There's a vigorous debate now taking place right now about the way
forward in Iraq. It's always good to have such a discussion, because it
directly involves the security of the nation -- the very issue that all
of us care about. Democrats and Republicans, obviously, are heavily
engaged in the debate, as it should be. We've reached the point where a
number of well known Democrats, including their most recent presidential
nominee, talk about setting a firm deadline for withdrawal. You might
recall that Senator Kerry was for the war before he was against it.
(Laughter and applause.) Somebody should do him a favor and tell him
the election's over so he can stop flip-flopping. (Applause.)

Seriously, Senator Kerry's prescription -- giving up and setting a hard
deadline -- is a terrible idea, and the Senate was correct in knocking
it down yesterday. It got 13 votes. (Applause.)

First, such a move would signal to the Iraqi people that America does
not keep its word. Second, it completely disregards the opinions of
commanders in charge of the war effort. Americans and our allies need
to know that decisions about troop levels will be driven by the
conditions on the ground and the judgment of our military commanders --
not by artificial timelines set by politicians in Washington, D.C.
(Applause.)

Another prominent Democrat, a friend of mine, Congressman Jack Murtha,
was on TV Sunday with his own plan for a withdrawal. He said that we
can deal with the Iraqi situation by redeploying forces to Okinawa.
(Laughter.) The Pacific Ocean is a long way from the Persian Gulf,
obviously. But the most troubling aspect of his proposal is this: He
cited two previous instances of American military withdrawal, and
suggested they would be good models for us to follow now. The first was
America's exit from Beirut in 1983, and the second is the withdrawal
from Somalia in 1993.

I've known Jack Murtha for a long time. I worked closely with him when
I was Secretary of Defense and he chaired the defense appropriations
subcommittee. I respect him, but he's dead wrong on this issue. His
proposal is contrary to the national interest. And he draws exactly the
wrong lessons from the examples of Beirut and Somalia. If you look back
at the years before 9/11, you see case after case where terrorists hit
America -- and America failed to hit back hard enough. In Beirut
terrorists killed 241 of our servicemen. In Somalia we had the killing
of 19 Americans. In both cases, the United States responded to the
attacks by withdrawing our forces. But by doing so, we simply invited
more danger, because the terrorists concluded that if they killed enough
Americans, they could change American policy. And they did. So they
continued to wage attacks against America and American interests. We
had the bombing at the World Trade Center in New York in 1993, the
murders at the Saudi National Guard training facility in Riyadh in 1995;
the killings at Khobar Towers in 1996; the simultaneous bombings of
American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998; the bombing on the USS
Cole in 2000; and, ultimately, the events of 9/11, when we lost 3,000
Americans here at home.

If we follow Congressman Murtha's advice and withdraw from Iraq the same
way we withdrew from Beirut in 1983 and Somalia in 1993, we will simply
validate the al Qaeda strategy and guarantee more terrorist attacks in
the future.

In the decade prior to 9/11, this country spent more than two trillion
dollars on national security. Yet we lost nearly 3,000 Americans at the
hands of 19 men armed with box cutters and airline tickets. In the case
of al Qaeda we are not dealing with large armies we can track, or
uniforms we can see, or men with territory of their own to defend.
Their preferred tactic, which they boldly proclaim, is to slip into this
country, to blend in among the innocent, and to kill without mercy and
without restraint. They have intelligence and counterintelligence
operations of their own. They take their orders from overseas. They
are using the most sophisticated communications technology they can get
their hands on.

The enemy also has a set of clear objectives. The terrorists want to
end all American and Western influence in the Middle East. Their goal
in that region is to seize control of a country, so they have a base
from which to launch attacks and wage war against governments that do
not meet their demands. The terrorists believe that by controlling one
country, they will be able to target and overthrow other governments in
the region, and ultimately to establish an authoritarian empire that
encompasses a region from Spain, across North Africa, through the Middle
East and South Asia, all the way to Indonesia.

They have made clear, as well, their ultimate ambition: to arm
themselves with chemical, biological and even nuclear weapons; to
destroy Israel; to intimidate all Western countries; and to cause mass
death here in the United States.

In pursuit of those objectives, they have carried out a number of
attacks since 9/11 -- in Casablanca, Jakarta, Mombassa, Bali, Riyadh,
Baghdad, Istanbul, Madrid, London, Sharm al-Sheikh, and elsewhere. Here
in the U.S., we have not had another 9/11. (Applause.)

Obviously, no one can guarantee that we won't be hit again. But
the relative safety of these years was not an accident. We've been
protected by sensible policy decisions by the President, by decisive
action at home and abroad, by the round-the-clock efforts on the part of
people in the armed forces, law enforcement, intelligence, and homeland
security. (Applause.)

Unless somebody thinks the threat has gone away and does not exist,
they ought to look at their morning newspaper. We've had two weeks ago,
of course, in Toronto, a 17-man cell arrested by the Canadians plotting
attacks against civilian targets. And of course, this morning the
Attorney General held a press conference which I was watching as I came
in on the plane to Chicago to announce the arrest of seven individuals
in a cell in Miami, plotting among other things an attack on the Sears
Tower here in Chicago. It is a very real threat. There are still
people out there who are trying to do everything they can to kill
Americans. We have to defend ourselves against that threat.

The President has made a number of decisions since 9/11 that are
designed to do exactly that. One of those is the terrorist surveillance
program some of you have heard recently referred to as the domestic
surveillance program by the press corps. It is not domestic
surveillance. This is a program that's targeted upon communications one
end of which is outside the United States, and one end of which, we
believe, is affiliated with al Qaeda. It is a good program.

There's another program that has been in the papers this morning
that deals with finances, that is referred to -- or I will refer to it
as a the terrorist finance tracking program, that allows us to track the
movements of funds internationally that are al Qaeda-related and al
Qaeda-affiliated.

Now, the President has been criticized. We've been criticized, the
administration on the terrorist surveillance program -- may also be
criticized on the financial program by our opponents. Russ Feingold,
the senator from Wisconsin, has called for the censure of the President
over the terrorist surveillance program. The fact of the matter is that
these are good, solid sound programs. They are conducted in accordance
with the laws of the land. They are -- they're carried in a manner that
is fully consistent with the constitutional authority of the President
of the United States. They are absolutely essential in terms of
protecting us against attacks. And I am personally persuaded that they
are absolutely -- have been absolutely essential in the fact that we
have not been hit again since 9/11.

The thing that I find most disturbing about these stories -- even
though these programs have been briefed to the Congress, and they are
conducted in a way to guarantee and safeguard the civil liberties of the
American people, what I find most disturbing about these stories is the
fact that some of the news media take it upon themselves to disclose
vital national security programs, thereby making it more difficult for
us to prevent future attacks against the American people. That offends
me. (Applause.)

This nation is pursuing a clear and a necessary course of action against
the terrorists. We are absolutely determined to prevent attacks before
they occur, and so we're working with other countries to break up terror
cells, to track down terrorist operatives, and to put heavy pressure on
their ability to organize and plan attacks. The work is difficult.
It's often perilous, and there is much yet to do. But we have made
tremendous progress against this enemy that dwells in the shadows.

Second, we are determined to deny safe haven to the terrorists. Since
the day our country was attacked, we have pursued the Bush Doctrine: Any
person or government that supports, protects, or harbors terrorists is
complicit in the murder of the innocent, and will be held to account.
(Applause.)

Third, we are working to halt the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction, and to keep those weapons out of the hands of killers.

Fourth, we are determined to deny the terrorists control of any nation,
which they could use as a home base and staging ground for terrorist
attacks against the United States or others. That's why we continue to
fight Taliban remnants and al Qaeda forces in Afghanistan. That is why
we are working with President Musharraf to oppose and isolate the
terrorist element in Pakistan. And that is why we are fighting the
remnants of Saddam Hussein's regime and the al Qaeda-affiliated
terrorists in Iraq.

Because our coalition has stood by our commitments to the Afghan and
Iraqi peoples, some 50 million men, women, and children who lived under
dictators now live in freedom. Afghanistan is a rising democracy, with
the first fully elected government in its 5,000-year history. Iraq has
the most progressive constitution and the strongest democratic mandate
in the entire Arab world. The people now on duty in that part of the
world, our men and women in uniform, have done an absolutely outstanding
job for all of us. (Applause.)

So, ladies and gentlemen, it is critically important that we keep these
issues of national security at the top of the agenda in this election
year. The President and I welcome the discussion, because every voter
in America needs to know where the President and I stand and where Dave
McSweeney stands, as well as how the leaders of the Democratic Party
view the war on terror. (Applause.)

Their leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, boasted publicly of his efforts
to kill the Patriot Act. The Chairman of the Democratic Party, Howard
Dean, said the capture of Saddam Hussein would not make America safer.
And those prominent Democrats who now advocate a sudden withdrawal from
Iraq are counseling the very kind of retreat that has been tried in the
past and would only heighten the danger to the United States. For the
sake of our security, this nation must reject any strategy of
resignation and defeatism in the face of terrorist enemies. (Applause.)


We have to face the simple truth. The enemies that struck America are
weakened and fractured, but they are still lethal and still desperately
trying to find ways to kill Americans. They hate us, they hate our
country, and they hate the liberties for which we stand. They have
contempt for our values. They doubt our strength and our resolve. We
have a duty to act against them as effectively as we possibly can.
Either we are serious about fighting this war or we are not. As long as
George W. Bush is leading this nation, we are serious, and we will not
let down our guard. (Applause.)

Ladies and gentlemen, in these five-and-a-half years we've been through
a great deal as a nation. Yet with each test, the American people have
displayed the true character of our country. We have built ourselves an
economy and a standard of living that are the envy of the world. We
have faced dangers with resolve. And we have been defended by some of
the bravest men and women this nation has ever produced. And when
future generations look back on our time, they will know that we met our
moment with courage and clear thinking. And they will know that America
became a better nation -- stronger, more prosperous, and more secure --
under the leadership of our President, George W. Bush. (Applause.)

We'll continue making progress for the American people -- and it's vital
we have strong partners like Dave McSweeney in the Congress of the
United States to help us. (Applause.) The President and I have
tremendous confidence in Dave. Send him to Washington and you'll have a
congressman who speaks for your interests and your values each and every
day. I'm proud to join you in supporting Dave's campaign. He'll do a
fantastic job, and the President and I look forward to working with him
beginning in January.

Thank you very much. (Applause.)

END 12:45 P.M. CDT


12 Comments

Yes it's over, was over in november 2004. That what happens when continually campaign, you liberals lost all power in 1994 (the only good thing Clinton did).In 92-94 People got a good look at what happens when liberals run everything, gut military , let Osama Bin Laden go from Sundan, raise taxes and lets not forget socialized health care. You liberals are the 60's rejects that would surrender to the French.

Ms. Sweet,

Mr. Cheney is afraid that if he stops mocking Sen. Kerry over the Iraq invasion, people will remember that while Kerry was in combat in Vietnam, Cheney was hiding under the bed.

Ricky,

No need to worry about Mr. Cheney surrendering, as shown above, he would never permit himself to get that close to the enemy.

And with regard to Osama bin Laden, how is Mr. Bush's "Dead or Alive" pursuit of OBL going now that our military is bogged down in Iraq? I would say that, having failed for nearly five years to capture or kill the man behind 9-11, it is going poorly.

And where is this socialized medicine that you're talking about. With the price of health care skyrocketing under George Bush and the US automotive industry being crushed under the cost of insurance, most Americans are in favor of a single payer health care plan.

So the Mayor of Austin wants to throw stones, look at your neighborhood! You have more murders and crime in Austin than in Bagdad (or close to it)! You banned guns too you truth rejecting liberal. What was once a proud vibrant neighborhood is now a model of how the great society and liberalism failed. But keep voting democratic because things have gotten so much better in the last 45 years in Austin, which backs my last point ,liberals dont realize history repeats itself.

Hillary failed to get socialized medicine and Thank God,! Her attempt gave us a GOP congress, thats Clintons legacy ,Impeached, GOP congress for 1st time in 50 years, and didnt take Bin Laden when Sudan gave him up. Also why should I pay for your health care? Or your neighbor's? Is it my fault you religiously fallow a failed idelology? Why did Austin High School close?

Ricky ...Clinton gut the military? First off, we wouldn't need to spend BILLIONS more on military spending while everything else here falls to crap if we werent sending our military all over the freaking globe! And isnt this the same "gutted" military that (in YOUR opinion) is fighting a successful war on terror on two fronts? How many sides of your mouth are you going to talk out of?

During his presidential campaign, Bush charged that the Clinton administration had overburdened the U.S. military with too many deployments overseas, and he promised to pare those military obligations. Yet in the name of fighting terrorism, Bush is expanding the U.S. military presence overseas faster than Clinton ever dreamed of doing. U.S. forces are not only deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the Bush administration has sent advisers and support to the Philippines, Indonesia, Kuwait, Djibouti, Qatar, Yemen, Georgia, and Uzbekistan. The extra $70 billion a year that the administration has pumped into the Pentagon has bought more smart bombs and bigger paychecks, but it has not brought about a significantly larger force. Despite our expanded global war on terrorism, only about 27,000 troops have been added to our 1.4 million active-duty force. FACT: Until the events of Sept. 11, 2001, (which happened under Dubya's busy-vacationing watch) the Bush administration had not suggested any major increase in defense spending. Under Clinton, since The Cold War was over, the USSR was no more, and the US had no other major enemies in the world, both the democrats and republicans in congress were under great pressure from Americans to cut the massive military spending because they were unneeded and our taxes could be put to better use.

Though you probably insist on believing otherwise, the Clinton administration actually spent more money on defense than the previous administration of President George H.W. Bush. Reducing the defense budget began under President Reagan's second term, and then gathered steam under the first President Bush's administration (which included GHW Bush's secretary of defense, Dick Cheney). And it was the REPUBLICAN PARTY that controlled both houses of congress for almost all of President Clinton's administration. So the CUTS in the military are because REPUBLICANS CUT THEM, not because of Clinton, or any democrats.

NONE of these weapons systems or troop numbers could be reduced unless the REPUBLICAN PARTY CUT THEM: 709,000 REGULAR (ACTIVE DUTY) PERSONNEL (cut by republican-controlled congress); 293,000 RESERVE TROOPS (cut by republican-controlled congress); EIGHT STANDING ARMY DIVISIONS (cut by republican-controlled congress); 20 AIR FORCE AND NAVY AIR WINGS WITH 2,000 COMBAT AIRCRAFT (cut by republican-controlled congress); 232 STRATEGIC BOMBERS (cut by republican-controlled congress); 19 STRATEGIC BALLISTIC MISSILE SUBMARINES WITH 3,114 NUCLEAR WARHEADS AND 232 MISSILES (cut by republican-controlled congress); 500 ICBMs WITH 1,950 WARHEADS (cut by republican-controlled congress); FOUR AIRCRAFT CARRIERS AND 121 SURFACE COMBAT SHIPS AND SUBMARINES (cut by republican-controlled congress); and this doesnt include all the support bases, shipyards, and logistical assets needed to sustain such a naval force that were ... cut by republican-controlled congress!

Now, let’s look at the other charges (besides the "socialized health care" that was already addressed under another post.) ... let's put the "he let Osama Bin Laden go from Sundan" charge to rest for the last time, right here, right now. It's yet another republican lie. Sudan offered Oama to SAUDI ARABIA (not us) ... and they reused him! Clinton, at the time, had nothing to charge Osama with, so he had no "legal" reason to go after him. On to the issue of his raising of taxes ... You dont like rasing taxes? Which every smart economist has said to do during a time of war to help fund it? You'd rather have the current record deficits and spiraling national debt with China floating our economy? And regarding the French, we owe them our very independence. Without them, we'd still be sitting around, drinking "toddies", smoking "fags", and speaking in silly little accents.

Lose the ignorance, or laziness, and do some research! Continualy correcting ALL your posts with FACTS is getting tiresome.

no.....Rick, your wrong...let's put the "he let Osama Bin Laden go from Sundan" charge to rest for the last time, right here, right now. It's yet another republican lie. Sudan offered Oama to SAUDI ARABIA (not us) ... and they reused him....Clinton admitted he could have had Bin Laden ,but didn't know how to prosecute him. Clinton looked at the War on Terror as a criminal act. 9/11 Bush was in a school reading to grade school kids not on vacation. That was when France was a country look at it now. if it wasn't for Columbus we never would have found America! You liberals trump up stats and lie, your facts are incorrect Mr. Rick. Clinton's legacy of failure and if it wasn't for Newt Gingrich and the GOP he was destined to be Jimmy Carter II.

Actually Bin Laden was responsible for the USS Cole bombing, and Clinton himself admitted he didn't want Bin Laden when Sudan offered him to Clinton. Also Clinton gave us gays in the military. They started cutting the military under Bush sr. when the Dem's controlled the house and senate. Rick's wrong again. So if Rick isn't lazy , dishonest or un-intelligent he should not become a revisionist historian! Rick was educated at Austin High Scholl,LOL.

You Clinton and Bush lovers better start thinking out of the box. It is the various congrsses that have let the American people down. You can't get rid of these people. They instinctively react for political reasons and for political reasons alone. You will replace political hack R (Rep.) with political hack D (Dem.) and think that you have solved the sweeping problems in this country. Both parties have made inumerable mistakes. The problem is, neither will admit them. Some of the facts presented by Rick are true. Some are exagerated in defense of ex-Pres. Clinton. Not by him, but by the news agencies or blogs that hype for the Dems. The same can be said of the defense of Bush 43 and VP Cheney. Reality is quite a concept. Maybe someday, you will all recognize it. Both Clinton and Bush made mistakes. The question should be: Do we allow the media and the politicians to continue to frame the debate so that we continue bickering along party lines and miss the reality of what is really happening. Folks, you lost control of your government a long time ago. It was hijacked by the Dems. and the Reps..

Paul ... "but [Clinton] didn’t know how to prosecute him" ... well, why do you think that was? Here, let me answer that for you ...

After the embassies where bombed, the Clinton Administration demanded that the Taliban turn over Osama bin Laden. When they refused, the Clinton Administration warned that one more Al Qaeda attack would mean that the U.S. would take out the Taliban government. That next attack was the Cole bombing that took place 3 months before Clinton left office.

After the bombing, Sandy Berger asked Richard Clarke to come up with what was later called the Delenda plan. This was ready to go in December and Berger informed Condtradicta Rice. Clinton was ready to declare war as soon as it was confirmed that it was Al Qaeda. But DEFINITE CONFIRMATION that Al Qaeda was responsible for the Cole bombing didn’t come until after Bush took office. See, Clinton didn't want to invade a country and attack based on an assumption that wasn’t proven (unlike those invisible WMD's, yellowcake from Niger, mobile wmd labs that were really WATER TRUCKS, etc, that led to us currently being bogged down in Iraq as Taliban strength grows in Afghanistan, Iran “the leading state sponsor of terror in the world��? continues moving ahead with uranium enrichment, and Korea readies missles that can reach our shores). And remember, you guys didn’t want a "War for Monica" anyway, remember? And as for Bush reading from a children's book instead of being on vacation during the 911 attacks, I NEVER said he WAS on vacation during the attacks. He was vacationing, working on his golf swing, BEFORE the attacks (much like he was the day after Katrina put roughly 80% of a major American city under water). He just decided to continue reading from a book when God knows how many OTHER hijacked planes were still in the air! So much for my facts being incorrect.

Innamorato … they started cutting defense spending under Bush Sr.? Try again! From Ronald Reagan’s Radio Address to the Nation on the Fiscal Year 1988 Budget (his own words here) “For the last 2 years defense spending, after inflation, has dropped, even while our adversaries spent more.��? And as a percentage of GDP, defense spending declines from a high of around 7% after 1987 under Reagan as does defense spending as a percentage of discretionary spending from a high of 63.6 in that same year. Looks like the facts clearly indicate (once again), I’m neither lazy, dishonest, un-intelligent, or a revisionist historian. I CAN however spell “High School��? (maybe you should try enrolling in the fall?) Hey .. at least you got LOL right!

Is Clinton or Bush responsible for all of the poor spelling and lazy grammar on this thread?

The only thing your correct about is my grammar due to the fact I have little time to proof read due to work. I picked up bad habits going to Austin High back in the day. Rick , You can't believe this stuff, next your going to tell me that Jimmy Carter was better than Abraham Lincoln. You do know Jimmy Carter started the Mujahaddin in Afghanistan, and Sandy "Burgler" is not worth trusting his word, Again, Clinton himself stated, " I could have had Bin Laden from the Sudan but they (Justice Department)didn't know how to prosecute him", I am amazed they give you so much computer time at the institution your in. Your wrong again.

Clinton is resposible, just ask Rick he will come up with some conspiracy involving Reagan. He needs some professional help with his dragged out conspiracy theories. He quotes Sandy "Bergler" Berger! LOL, He is a revisionist historian. Clinton did nothing he never got 50.0% of the vote ,never! He got lucky Perot ran in 92' or he never would have won (we got lucky to get GOP congress in 94 because of Hilary), he cut nd ran everywere in the world, he gave china our missle tech and NorthKorea nuclear tech, he got lucky when Dole ran in 96' and he still only got 49% of the vote. My dream ticket in 2008 is Hillary/Obama the do nothing senator and the wacko 60's radical with socialized healthcare.

Leave a comment

Get the Sweet widget

More widgets

Video

Lynn Sweet

Lynn Sweet is a columnist and the Washington Bureau Chief for the Chicago Sun-Times.

Stay in touch

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Lynn Sweet published on June 23, 2006 4:15 PM.

Sweet Column: Hastert on the Hastert Highway. was the previous entry in this blog.

Sears plot: Chicago lawmakers call for Chertoff to meet to discuss ``unmet security needs.'' is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.