Sarin in Iraq - DPChallenge Forums

05/20/2004 06:02:43 PM · #26

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

Here is another one, a real whopper, as displayed in his book, " The Lies of George W. Bush" by David Corn, which the Wall Street Journal calls " carefully documented":

"I first got to know Ken [Lay in 1994]."
- George W. Bush

As the Enron scandal reached the White House in early 2002, Bush uttered this remark, claiming he had nothing to do with Lay until after winning the 1994 Texas gubernatorial election. It was an apparent and clumsy effort to diminish his relationship with the now-disgraced Enron chief. But in1994, Lay and Enron had been leading contributors to Bushâ��s campaign. And Layâ��long a patron of Bushâ��s fatherâ��had worked with Bush in political settings prior to 1994. In a pre-scandal interview, Lay noted he had been "very close to George W." for years before1994. (In the mid-1980s, Bushâ��s oil venture was in a partnership with Enron.) Bush also claimed that his administration had been of absolutely no help to Enron. That might have been true during the scam-based companyâ��s final days. But in the months preceding that, the Bush administration had assisted Enron in a variety of ways. This included appointing individuals recommended by Lay as top energy regulators and opposing wholesale price caps on electricity during the California energy crisis, a move that came after Lay (whose electricity-selling company was using manipulative tactics to gouge California) urged the White House to block price caps.

I think that most people can discern the difference between the words MET and KNOW. That is, to say that you KNOW someone conveys more of a personal relationship than saying that you have MET them ( even if on more than one occasion ). I, myself, have many co-workers that I have met, and worked with, but I don't KNOW them personally. One of the keywords here is the introductory phrase "GOT TO KNOW" which implies the establishment of that kind of PERSONAL knowledge. I believe that GW was saying that although he may have MET Ken Lay on one or more occasions, and even worked on common projects in proximity to him, he didn't really develop a personal relationship with him until during his 1994 campaign for governor of Texas. You, as always, are entitled to believe otherwise.

Ron

05/20/2004 06:02:47 PM · #27

Horsefeathers.

Veterans making $30,000-35,000 are not "wealthy".

If anyone is criticizing Congress, it is because they are relying on them to outfund the administrations paltry budgets. Not to mention the fact that the Congress is republican run - lock, stock, and barrel, and is a virtual rubber stamp for the president, only veering off message when the outrage is too great.

Here is more on the Bush administrations holy commitment to veterans:

THE INDEPENDENT BUDGET
A Budget for Veterans by Veterans
www.independentbudget.org

Contact: Richard Flanagan, AMVETS
(301) 459-9600
David Autry, Disabled American Veterans
(202) 314-5219
Bob Ensinger, Paralyzed Veterans of America (202) 416-7681
William Smith, Veterans of Foreign Wars (202) 543-2239

Veterans Urge Adequate Budget for VA Medical Care

July 18, 2003, WASHINGTON, DCâ��Organizations representing millions of Americaâ��s veterans say the men and women who sacrificed for our country have been betrayed by inadequate funding levels for their health care contained in a fiscal year 2004 appropriations bill funding the Department of Veterans Affairs and other federal agencies.

The VA-HUD Independent Agencies appropriations bill, which calls for a $1.4 billion increase over last year and ***approximately the Presidentâ��s request***, is wholly inadequate to provide health care to sick and disabled veterans and represents a flagrant disregard of promises made to veterans by this Congress, according to the authors of The Independent Budget (//www.independentbudget.org/).

Despite assurances from House of Representative leaders earlier this year that funding for veterans health care would meet demands placed on the system, House appropriators abandoned that pledge and approved Bush Administration funding levels nearly $2 billion below the budget resolution recommendation approved by the House three months ago. The plan also approved the Bush Administration request to increase co-payments for prescription drugs and outpatient visits and charge certain veterans a $250 annual enrollment tax to get their health care at VA.â�� Members of the House Leadership specifically and personally assured national staff of the four veterans organizations that the enrollment fee and co-payment increases would not be assumed in the fiscal year 2004 budget resolution.

â��So much for promises. We believe providing veterans with timely access to the full range of health benefits earned through their military service is a national obligation,â�� the authors of The Independent Budget said. â��The funding levels and cost-shifting schemes are specifically designed to ration care at VA hospitals, increase waiting times for services and rely on higher fees and co-payments from certain sick and disabled veterans to subsidize the health care for others.â��

The Independent Budget developed by AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America and Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States recommended a $27.2 billion appropriation for VA health care, a $3.3 billion increase over the current level.

The Conference Agreement on the fiscal year 2004 budget resolution provides $29.96 billion in discretionary budget authority, an increase of $3.4 billion, or 12.9 percent â�� nearly all of which is expected to be for VA medical programs. â��Providing a wholly inadequate $1.4 billion increase calls into question all of the press releases and news conferences touting this Congressâ�� commitment to the men and women who have served this nation,â�� said The Independent Budget authors.

AMVETSâ��a leader since 1944 in preserving the freedoms secured by Americaâ��s Armed Forcesâ��provides, not only support for veterans and the active military in procuring receipt of their earned entitlements, but also community services that enhance the quality of life for this nationâ��s citizens.

The million-member Disabled American Veterans, a nonprofit organization founded in 1920 and chartered by the U.S. Congress in 1932, is dedicated to one, single purpose: building better lives for our nationâ��s disabled veterans and their families.

The Paralyzed Veterans of America, a veterans service organization chartered by Congress, has for more than 50 years served the needs of its members, all of whom have catastrophic paralysis caused by spinal cord injury or disease.

The VFW is a 1.9 million-member veterans service organization, now in its 102nd year, with a nationwide network of some 9,500 Posts and service officers working to build better communities and assist all veterans and their dependents with problems involving VA entitlements and pensions.

05/20/2004 06:10:34 PM · #28

from The Hill:

Keeping promises to nationâ��s veterans
By Rep. Chet Edwards (D-Texas)

*large snip here*

..."When the president said that â��help is on the wayâ�� during his 2000 campaign, both military personnel and veterans alike responded at the ballot box. However, his budgets created concern with veterans advocates who believed they fell far short of need. They wanted their share of the promised â��help.â�� When the House Budget Committee passed the FY 2004 budget resolution, the resentment boiled over. The resolution included $28 billion in Veterans Affairs (VA) cuts over 10 years while safeguarding other priorities â�� like tax cuts.

Edward Heath, commander of the Disabled American Veterans, asked the Speaker: â��Has Congress no shame? Is there no honor left in the hallowed halls of our government that you choose to dishonor the sacrifices of our nationâ��s heroes and rob our programs â�� healthcare and disability compensation â�� to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy?â��

Most of the Budget Committeeâ��s cuts were reversed, and $1.8 billion was added to the FY 2004 VA budget. The House leadership assured veterans groups that the funds were secure. However, when the Appropriations Committee considered the VA budget that summer, the $1.8 billion evaporated. Ray Sisk, commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, summed it up, saying, â��The House leadership has deceived us.â��

Eventually, the veteransâ�� outcry overwhelmed those who sought to cut their funding and most of that $1.8 billion was restored in the recent omnibus appropriations bill, but veterans were insulted that they had to beg for it.

With this yearâ��s funding request suggesting a 1.8 percent increase in VA healthcare (versus the 14 percent the VA says is needed to maintain current healthcare services), the chorus of veteransâ�� voices and service organizations begins once again.

In this time of war, itâ��s past time that we learned that words are just not enough. We need to start honoring our veterans with our deeds as well.

Edwards is one of only six House members to serve on both the Budget and Appropriations committees.

05/20/2004 06:16:03 PM · #29

Here is a essay specifically on the issue you raised, made at that time, also from The Hill, from someone who seems to be in a good position to know what is going on:

Vetsâ�� health low on Bushâ��s priority list
By Rep. Lane Evans (D-Ill.)

Evans is ranking member on the House Veteransâ�� Affairs Committee.

A recent advertisement paid for by 10 of the nationâ��s veterans service organizations puts it succinctly: â��No member of Congress has to wait six months or more for a doctorâ��s appointment. Why should 130,000 veterans have to wait that long?â�� Good question.

It is no secret to the nationâ��s 25 million veterans and their families that the VA health care system is critically underfunded. It should not be news to anyone who follows veteransâ�� issues that VA health care is threatened by an administration determined to discourage veterans from even approaching the health care system that was established to serve them. Witness the annual ritual of new fees and increased co-payments, new curtailments on eligibility and diminished service availability for veterans seeking long-term care.

This administration is not rising to meet our duty to veterans and is hiding behind budget tricks to obscure the reality of VAâ��s underfunding and underperformance.

While quick to point out that it requested for fiscal year 2004 a â��recordâ�� increase for veteransâ�� health care, the administration is less anxious to draw attention to the fact that the annual percentage increase it requested for veteransâ�� health care is 5.4 percent â�� hardly a windfall considering that the consumer price index for medical care was 13 percent during fiscal year 2002. VA officials have testified that it would take a 13 to 14 percent hike in the VAâ��s health care budget just to maintain the status quo. Meanwhile, the growth in veteran patients continues to climb â�� from 2.9 million in fiscal year 1996 to more than 5 million projected in 2003, a 71 percent increase.

In its last three budgets, the administration has â��addedâ�� dollars to VA health care by claiming it will find management efficiencies â�� for the fiscal year 2004 budget its estimate was almost $1 billion. One of the unproven tactics it relies upon for savings is outsourcing a number of integral health care services. In its fiscal year 2004 budget, the administration forecast a $3 billion savings over five years through the presidentâ��s accelerated outsourcing program. When pressed for details, the Office of Management and Budget described this estimate as a â��best case scenario.â�� Yet in July, President Bush wrote to House Speaker Dennis Hastert asking to transfer up to $75 million from the strapped VA health care budget for competitive sourcing studies. In addition, the administration has indicated that most of VAâ��s health care workforce is subject to contracting without any rigorous test of cost-effectiveness.

These attempts to privatize threaten to diminish and even dismantle one of the nationâ��s most precious health care resources.

The administration has sought to more than double the copayments on prescription drugs for some veterans and create access fees for some veterans to even get in the hospital door. More than 100,000 veterans are now forced to wait more than 6 months for a medical care visit and thousands more fail to meet VAâ��s standard of 30 days for timely access to care. In addition, the administration proposed to eliminate long-term care services for most veterans resulting in the closure of about 5,000 nursing home beds.

Earlier this year, the VA found itself in the â��morally irresponsibleâ�� position â�� those are Secretary of Veterans Affairs Anthony J. Principiâ��s words â�� of not being able to provide care to veterans who sought to enroll in VA care. Because of inadequate resources, VA was forced to stop enrolling so-called â��higher incomeâ�� Priority 8 veterans. Some might believe that this is a gaggle of rich veterans with plenty of options for their health care.

In fact, Priority 8 includes decorated combat veterans, many of whom have incomes that hardly could be considered â��highâ�� (some with household incomes as low as $25,000 a year).

In July, the House approved a VA health care appropriation at the level requested by the president â�� $1.8 billion less than Congress had resolved to spend in its budget resolution. This is a sad commentary, but the House has one last chance to keep the promise Congress made to veterans earlier in the year to fix an OMB budget that puts tax cuts for the wealthy over health care for our sick and disabled warriors. The Senate must approve and the House must agree to a $1.8 billion addition to VA appropriations in the upcoming House-Senate conference.

More is at stake here than a funding battle. At stake are the relationship and the historic promise of a government to its servicemen and women, both current and former. This vividly illustrates why we need a stable and reliable funding stream for veteransâ�� health care. It is time to make VA health care funding mandatory, rather than subject to the whims of indifferent administrations and the broken promises of elected officials.

It is time to base the annual VA healthcare budget on the number of veterans enrolled in the system â�� all veterans â�� with medical inflation factored in. The fix really is that simple, and it is embodied in H.R. 2318, the Assured Funding for Veterans Health Care Act of 2003, which now has 122 co-sponsors.

Annual funding for Medicare, for the Department of Defense TRICARE for Life program, and for the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan is mandatory.

Veterans deserve no less. We must keep our word to veterans.

MadMordegon

05/20/2004 06:23:26 PM · #30

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Um...OK.

quote, from Colin Powell, February 24, 2001:

"He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."

Refreshing to look back and see someone from the Bush administration actually telling the truth for once. :D

Your statement implies that most of those in the Bush administration do NOT tell the truth. Can you cite a specific instance when someone in the Bush administration lied? ( Remember, a lie is a statement that is/was known to be false when it is/was made ).

Ron

Ron, these are for you:

Rumsfeld

This link is the Bush administration liers database

05/20/2004 06:29:39 PM · #31

From MY sources:

First as to the FY 2004 Budget"

"Veterans Administration Gets Record Budget for 2004
From Robert Longley,
Your Guide to U.S. Gov Info / Resources.

Health care alone up $2.9 billion from 2003
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) will receive a record budget of $64 billion for the current fiscal year, up $4.2 billion from the previous spending level.
"I'm grateful for President Bush's leadership in ensuring that VA can honor our nation's commitment to its veterans," said Secretary of Veterans Affairs Anthony J. Principi. "I'm also appreciative of the support that Congress has shown when it comes to taking care of veterans."

The budget for fiscal year 2004, which began Oct. 1, 2003, comes as VA is putting the finishing touches on the administration's proposed budget for fiscal year 2005, which will be formally unveiled Feb. 2.

Among the major items in fiscal year 2004 budget are $28.4 billion (including $1.7 billion in collections) for health care, up $2.9 billion from the previous year, and $32.8 billion in benefits programs.

Other VA budgetary categories include:

$143.4 million for the National Cemetery Administration, an $11 million hike over last year, plus nearly $32 million in grants for state cemeteries; (Also See: VA Set to Add 6 New National Veterans Cemeteries)

Full funding to expedite the handling of veterans' claims for disability compensation and pensions -- a total of $1 billion for all programs;

Nearly $176 million for health care and other programs to assist homeless veterans, an increase of over $22 million from fiscal year 2003;

$101 million to support state extended-care facilities, $3 million more than last year; and

$522 million for construction, plus the authority to transfer another $400 million to health care construction.
"This budget will ensure VA is able to meet the needs of the latest generation of combat vets who are now returning home from Iraq and Afghanistan, while continuing to care for those from earlier conflicts," Principi said."

Then for FY2005 ( coming up ):

"Veterans: The Presidentâ��s FY 2005 budget for VA medical care is over 40% larger than when he took office â�� enabling a million more patients to receive treatment. He has also implemented changes to ensure that veterans receive timely and quality medical care, shortened the time needed to process a veteranâ��s disability claims, and put VA on track to eliminate the waiting lists for veterans in need of medical care this year. "

and

"In Bushâ��s first three years funding for the Veterans Administration increased 27%. And if Bush's 2005 budget is approved, funding for his full four-year term will amount to an increase of 37.6%.

In the eight years of the Clinton administration the increase was 31.7%

Those figures include mandatory spending for such things as payments to veterans for service-connected disabilities, over which Congress and presidents have little control. But Bush has increased the discretionary portion of veterans funding even more than the mandatory portion has increased. Discretionary funding under Bush is up 30.2%.

By any measure, veterans funding is going up faster under Bush than under Clinton."

Ron

P.S. As far as I'm concerned, you still haven't shown that his statement to the veterans was a lie.

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

05/20/2004 09:05:01 PM · #32

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Ron, These are for you

Rumsfeld

Wow. You are in need of some memory enhancement training. You challenged me with the same exact link back in March in the "Discover Freedom" rant thread and I responded to it in that thread. Now here you are bringing it up again. Oh, well. To save you and otheres the trouble of looking it up in the other thread - I'll cut & past my response from that thread here:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by MadMordegon:
im sorry, did i post the wrong link or did you not watch it?

Donald Rumsfeld starts the clip saying:

"you and a few other critics are the only people ive heard use the fraise immediate threat. i didnt, the president didnt. its become kinda folk lore that thats whats happend"

then in the clip he is quoted twice saying he thought they were an immediate threat. watch the clip..

First, yes, I have watched it - several times, in fact. But, you are wrong, of course. The first quote is
Originally posted by Rumsfeld:
Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent, that Saddam is at least five to seven years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain.

So to condense that, what Rumsfeld said is that he would not be so certain that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent. Being "not so certain" is quite different from saying flat out that the danger WAS imminient.
The second quote is
Originally posted by Rumsfeld:
No terror state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

Again, he did not say that Iraq WAS an immediate threat, just that Iraq was a "more" immediate threat than any other terror state. Obviously you are reading into both quotes a lot more than what was said.
Originally posted by Madmordegan:

and here is dubya sayin it just to be sure..

Statement by President George W. Bush
"Today the world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq. A dictator who has used weapons of mass destruction on his own people must not be allowed to produce or possess those weapons. We will not permit Saddam Hussein to blackmail and/or terrorize nations which love freedom."

Source: President Bush Speaks to Atlantic Youth Council, CNN (11/20/2002).

granted he did not say immediate, but i believe thats the point he was trying to get accross..

I believe that if he had meant immediate, he would have said immediate. You may, and obviously do, believe otherwise.

Originally posted by Madmordegan:
Ron, i just have to ask. are you playing the devils advocate on all of this cause you like a good argument? or are you an undying republican or something of that nature. or do you accually believe all these people coming forth from top ranking positions are lying because they dont like Dubya?

No, I am not an "undying" Republican. Yes, I do believe that MOST of them are lying because they don't like Dubya. I also believe that that's why some others commenting in this forum throw out accusations and innuendo without fact or substantiation of any kind ( other than links to even more accusations and innuendo ).

Originally posted by Madmordegan:
and let me be clear on something else. Kerry is a lying politition just like the rest of them. and the only reason i will vote for him in Nov is because im part of the ABB camp. if for no other reason (and there are shitloads), because im a "tree hugging hippie" and i would like to be able to raise my children (if i ever have any) in a clean world that still has beauty left in it. the environment is very important to me. tho i dont understand how its not important to everyone.. w/out a healthy earth, there are no healthy humans..

but do you think Bush is the 1st honest politition in history?

No, but I consider him to be more honest than most.

Originally posted by Madmordegan:
especially considering his shady backround?

See, now there you go again...innuendo - referring to Bush's "shady background" with no substantiation, just innuendo, innuendo, innuendo. Could you TRY to keep that kind of comment to yourself?

Ron

MadMordegon

05/20/2004 09:10:56 PM · #33

silly me.

anyone else think that is called "getting caught in a lie" ?

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

05/20/2004 10:02:39 PM · #34

I don't think Bush lies...How can he when he doesn't know what's going on? If he ever claimed ignorance, that would NOT be a lie...
He can't lie as Cheney and Rumsfeld wouldn't let him lie...
Why else did Cheney accompany Bush into the 9/11 hearings during their private testimony for which they did not even allow any record of what they said?
Bush does not read any newspapers. How can a man who graduated Yale NOT read? AND, be president of the US?
It's mind boggling.

Russell2566

05/20/2004 11:07:51 PM · #35

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

Horsefeathers.

Veterans making $30,000-35,000 are not "wealthy".

Democrates whish to disagree with you. Hell they think 50,000 a year a rich, so 35 a year must be at least well off... I think we should raise their taxes more while were at it...

Caution, don't try to hard to find the truth, you might find your wrong :)

Russell2566

05/20/2004 11:09:13 PM · #36

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

I hope we don't have a president that relys on the Washington post for information or news. It's pathetic enough that you read it and think it's gospel!

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

05/20/2004 11:25:53 PM · #37

I don't read the Washington Post...where did you ever get that idea?

Originally posted by Russell2566:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I don't think Bush lies...How can he when he doesn't know what's going on? If he ever claimed ignorance, that would NOT be a lie...
He can't lie as Cheney and Rumsfeld wouldn't let him lie...
Why else did Cheney accompany Bush into the 9/11 hearings during their private testimony for which they did not even allow any record of what they said?
Bush does not read any newspapers. How can a man who graduated Yale NOT read? AND, be president of the US?
It's mind boggling.

I hope we don't have a president that relys on the Washington post for information or news. It's pathetic enough that you read it and think it's gospel!

MadMordegon

05/20/2004 11:55:17 PM · #38

hey Ron, i think you forgot to debunk this website. but good job hosing my other one. tho i still think that is called "getting caught in a lie". i mean shit, did you see his reaction?
"uh huh. uh hu. ahh.. my view of the situation was that.. ahh.. he he had, we we belive the best inteligence..."

comon...

Message edited by author 2004-05-21 00:00:49.

joshua

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

05/21/2004 12:06:37 AM · #39

it depends on what your definition of the word "is" is

Damitriel

Sony DSC-F717

05/21/2004 04:25:08 AM · #40

More proof of Sarin in Iraq.

Azrifel

Fujifilm X100VI

05/21/2004 04:51:41 AM · #41

Originally posted by Damitriel:

More proof of Sarin in Iraq.

ROFL :)

Russell2566

05/21/2004 06:48:36 AM · #42

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

I don't read the Washington Post...where did you ever get that idea?

Well I really ment to be more general with the newspaper name, but failed to continue...

What I was really getting at was that you just bashed the president for not reading newspapers... I would simply be a person that would bash the president for wasting his time reading the dribble they call newspapers (Any of em).

Al Gore is the kind of person that would read all the papers every day, and what he derived from those papers is what would help him make his "big decisions" of the day. We should be afraid of anyone who calls that leadership...

05/21/2004 08:44:33 AM · #43

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

I think that thatwebsite does a pretty good job of debunking itself. It is one of the most rambling, innuendo laden sites I've seen. It makes all kinds of claims about the number of misleading statements or lies and even offers counts by categories. But does it anywhere provide an actual list of the "lies" with substantiation? Uh, well, NO! The entire site is just another Bush-bashing propoganda piece.
If you can find anything discrete in there and isolate it for me, I'll be glad to consider it.

Ron

05/21/2004 09:05:41 AM · #44

Gosh a jim dandy! It looks like George W taking photo ops to boast about programs he actually tries to cut is not relegated to those involving wounded veterans.

Here is an article outlining more scrupiously honest behavior from the administration that never lies :D

White House Is Trumpeting Programs It Tried to Cut
By ROBERT PEAR

Published: May 19, 2004

ASHINGTON, May 18 â�� Like many of its predecessors, the Bush White House has used the machinery of government to promote the re-election of the president by awarding federal grants to strategically important states. But in a twist this election season, many administration officials are taking credit for spreading largess through programs that President Bush tried to eliminate or to cut sharply.

For example, Justice Department officials recently announced that they were awarding $47 million to scores of local law enforcement agencies for the hiring of police officers. Mr. Bush had just proposed cutting the budget for the program, known as Community Oriented Policing Services, by 87 percent, to $97 million next year, from $756 million.

The administration has been particularly energetic in publicizing health programs, even ones that had been scheduled for cuts or elimination.

Tommy G. Thompson, the secretary of health and human services, announced recently that the administration was awarding $11.7 million in grants to help 30 states plan and provide coverage for people without health insurance. Mr. Bush had proposed ending the program in each of the last three years.

The administration also announced recently that it was providing $11.6 million to the states so they could buy defibrillators to save the lives of heart attack victims. But Mr. Bush had proposed cutting the budget for such devices by 82 percent, to $2 million from $10.9 million.

Whether they involve programs Mr. Bush supported or not, the grant announcements illustrate how the administration blends politics and policy, blurring the distinction between official business and campaign-related activities.

In recent weeks, administration officials have fanned out around the country. Within a 48-hour period this month, Treasury Secretary John W. Snow was in Wisconsin and Illinois, doling out federal aid to poor neighborhoods. Anthony J. Principi, the secretary of veterans affairs, was in Las Vegas to announce plans for a new veterans hospital. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham was in South Carolina to announce a new national research laboratory. And a top transportation official was in Portland, Me., awarding a $13 million grant to the city's airport.

In some cases, overtly political appearances are piggybacked onto such trips. Earlier this month, Mr. Principi was in Florida announcing plans for another veterans hospital, in Orlando, with a side trip to Tampa to kick off a national coalition of veterans supporting the re-election of Mr. Bush.

A few days earlier, while traveling to Marco Island, Fla., on official business, Commerce Secretary Donald L. Evans stopped in Daytona Beach to attend a large prayer meeting, where he praised Mr. Bush as "a leader you can trust 100 percent of the time."

The combination of official business and politics is neither illegal nor unusual in an election year, though Bush administration officials were reluctant to provide details. In fact, the Bush administration is using techniques refined by President Bill Clinton. The difference is that in the Clinton years the White House was often trying to add and expand domestic programs, not cut them.

The government has byzantine rules for documenting mixed official and political travel. The goal is to ensure that the campaign or some other political group pays for parts of a trip that are purely political.

But as the General Accounting Office, an investigative arm of Congress, has said, "it is often impossible to neatly categorize travel as either purely business or purely political."

Ron Bonjean, a spokesman for Mr. Evans, said the Republican National Committee paid for the commerce secretary's stop in Daytona Beach on May 6. A local newspaper, The News-Journal, said the prayer meeting there "evolved into a rousing Republican political rally."

The contrast between politics and policy is particularly striking when the administration takes credit for spending money appropriated by Congress against the president's wishes.

In April, Secretary Thompson announced that the administration was awarding $3.1 million in grants to improve health care in rural areas of Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, New Mexico and New York. He did not mention that the administration was trying to cut the same rural health program by 72 percent, to $11.1 million next year, from $39.6 million.

Mr. Thompson likewise recently boasted that the administration was awarding $16 million to 11 universities to train blacks and Hispanic Americans as doctors, dentists and pharmacists. But at the same time, the administration was urging Congress to abolish the program, on the ground that "private and corporate entities" could pay for training.

Alberto R. Gonzales, the White House counsel, has sent a memorandum to Cabinet officers saying they must carefully allocate travel costs between the government and the campaign.

"There is considerable room for discretion in determining whether an event giving rise to an expense is political or official," Mr. Gonzales wrote. Ultimately, he said, the decision depends on the facts of each case.

Interior Department lawyers said that Secretary Gale A. Norton had made eight entirely political trips and 17 trips combining official business with political activity, for which the government was reimbursed. The political sponsor typically pays a share of the costs, based on the amount of time spent on political activity, said Timothy S. Elliott, a lawyer at the department.

Last month, on a trip to Alaska, Ms. Norton attended two fund-raisers, in Juneau and Anchorage. "It's always beneficial to have members of the cabinet at these events," said Randy Ruedrich, chairman of the Republican Party of Alaska.

A trip to Minneapolis by Education Secretary Rod Paige shows a similar mix. John M. Gibbons, a spokesman for the secretary, said Mr. Paige went to a Republican fund-raiser there on Feb. 17, then visited schools the next day.

On March 13, Mr. Paige made a political trip to Orlando for a Republican dinner. He was back in Florida for a Bush-Cheney fund-raiser in Fort Lauderdale on March 26 and for the annual conference of the National School Boards Association, in Orlando, on March 28-29.

Likewise, Anthony T. Jewell, a spokesman for Mr. Thompson, said the health secretary attended a Republican fund-raiser on April 22 while visiting Detroit to promote organ donation.

The precedents for such activity run deep. Phillip M. Caplan, who was a special assistant to President Clinton, said the Clinton White House had a weekly conference call with chiefs of staff at Cabinet departments.

"We would tell officials, for example, that the president will be in Ohio on the 27th of this month, so you should scour the agency, and if you have something coming up in Ohio, let us know," Mr. Caplan recalled. "The announcement of grants was timed to coincide with the president's visit. The goal was to maximize the credit and visibility for the president."

Scott M. Stanzel, a spokesman for the Bush campaign, said: "The law sets forth clear guidelines as to how costs should be allocated. We adhere to the guidelines. We pay travel and other costs for government officials participating in political events."

05/21/2004 09:29:34 AM · #45

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by MadMordegon:
hey Ron, i think you forgot to debunk this website. but good job hosing my other one. tho i still think that is called "getting caught in a lie". i mean shit, did you see his reaction?
"uh huh. uh hu. ahh.. my view of the situation was that.. ahh.. he he had, we we belive the best inteligence..."

comon...

I think that thatwebsite does a pretty good job of debunking itself. It is one of the most rambling, innuendo laden sites I've seen. It makes all kinds of claims about the number of misleading statements or lies and even offers counts by categories. But does it anywhere provide an actual list of the "lies" with substantiation? Uh, well, NO! The entire site is just another Bush-bashing propoganda piece.
If you can find anything discrete in there and isolate it for me, I'll be glad to consider it.

Ron

Ron... you just hoisted your own petard.

The site you just glibly described as "full of innuendo" and "a propaganda piece" is:

The U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Governmental Reform Minority Staff - Special Investigatory Unit Report On the Bush Administration Public statements on the War in Iraq

My God, man, and you try to convince people here that you are NOT a right-winger, that you are objective?

Did you think that no one here would bother to click on the link and actually check out the site?

This is a large (36 page), meticulously documented ( 136 references) official report on the statements of deception of the Bush administration, carefully constructed NOT to include statements which were unintentionally false at the time.

Now, maybe I got it wrong and you weren't referring to this site. Perhaps you missed the pages main purpose - the report?

But if you were then I think it is time you either fessed up about your true political leanings, or you had more intellectual honesty about the contents of others posts.

05/21/2004 09:30:45 AM · #46

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

So, you have proven beyond doubt that you know how to cut & paste. Well done.
Perhaps now you can go one step further and point out just one of the "LIES" you claim are there.

Ron

05/21/2004 10:24:26 AM · #47

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by MadMordegon:
hey Ron, i think you forgot to debunk this website. but good job hosing my other one. tho i still think that is called "getting caught in a lie". i mean shit, did you see his reaction?
"uh huh. uh hu. ahh.. my view of the situation was that.. ahh.. he he had, we we belive the best inteligence..."

comon...

I think that thatwebsite does a pretty good job of debunking itself. It is one of the most rambling, innuendo laden sites I've seen. It makes all kinds of claims about the number of misleading statements or lies and even offers counts by categories. But does it anywhere provide an actual list of the "lies" with substantiation? Uh, well, NO! The entire site is just another Bush-bashing propoganda piece.
If you can find anything discrete in there and isolate it for me, I'll be glad to consider it.

Ron

Ron... you just hoisted your own petard.

The site you just glibly described as "full of innuendo" and "a propaganda piece" is:

The U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Governmental Reform Minority Staff - Special Investigatory Unit Report On the Bush Administration Public statements on the War in Iraq

My God, man, and you try to convince people here that you are NOT a right-winger, that you are objective?

Did you think that no one here would bother to click on the link and actually check out the site?

This is a large (36 page), meticulously documented ( 136 references) official report on the statements of deception of the Bush administration, carefully constructed NOT to include statements which were unintentionally false at the time.

Now, maybe I got it wrong and you weren't referring to this site. Perhaps you missed the pages main purpose - the report?

But if you were then I think it is time you either fessed up about your true political leanings, or you had more intellectual honesty about the contents of others posts.

Perhaps you didn't notice that the report was prepared by the "Minority Staff" ( that would be the Democratic minority staff, who can hardly be called non-partisan ). Just because it is prepared under the auspices of the House of Representatives doesn't mean that it should be accepted blindly as the "truth". Especially when the statements are unsubstantiated.

Ron

05/21/2004 11:16:45 AM · #48

Each statement is documented, and why it is a deception is documented.

Wake up and smell the coffee, Ron. You are defending the concept that the Moon is made of green cheese.

You are defending a pack of scoundrels, and not in a manner behooving an intellectual.