<The Reagan Administration, including Bush the First and Rumsfeld provided Iraq with battle plans wich included using gas.

Here's the original NYT story. Powell and Armitage say it's bullshit, which is probably the "expletive" referred to. So at this point it's two guys on the record against and a couple of anonymous sources for. Sounds a lot like the "gas attack" in Viet Nam that was trumpeted so loudly before it was revealed as something pulled out of someone's ass. The New York Times has abandoned all pretence at not being the buttmonkey of the Democratic Party, and this kind of stuff is going to be spewing out big time before November. We'll see.

The economy is headed into the tank while Bush preaches deficit reduction, and at the same time defends tax cuts, signs and gives huge subsidies to large corporate farms, promotes missile defense which won’t do a damned thing about cruise missiles, and so on.

You might want to read the original press release on the economic indicators. Don't let the media do your thinking for you.

...Although the incorporated data revisions deepened the depth of the decline in the coincident index in the most recent recession, the decline of this index remains mild by historical standards. The decline from the peak of the coincident index in December 2000 to its trough in November 2001 is only 1.7 percent compared to an average decline of 3.3 percent from peak to trough in the previous six recessions. Modest gains in the coincident index in the last five months reflect the slow pace of the economic recovery. To date, the pre-recession peak of the coincident index has not yet been reached. Although the leading index declined in three of the last six months, its six-month diffusion index, which measures the proportion of the components that are rising, remains above 50 percent. This month's decline in the leading index was primarily caused by weak equity markets and lower consumer expectations.



LEADING INDICATORS. Six of the ten indicators that make up the leading index decreased in July. The negative contributors to the leading index - from the largest negative contributor to the smallest - were stock prices, average weekly manufacturing hours, index of consumer expectations, interest rate spread, vendor performance, and building permits. The four positive contributors to the index - beginning with the largest positive contributor - were real money supply, manufacturers' new orders for nondefense capital goods, average weekly initial claims for unemployment insurance (inverted), and manufacturers' new orders for consumer goods and materials.



Doesn't sound nearly so bad, does it? It might be interesting to see how this index would read if the major negative contributor--stock prices--was factored out.

Other indicators, like Coincident Indicators and Lagging Indicators actually increased in July. Didn't see much news on that in the article you referenced.

Any economic news from the mainstream media should be double checked. They have an agenda.

I support tax cuts and missile defense. I most definitely did not support increased farm subsidies which, as you say, tend to end up in corporate pockets more than those of family farmers--true corporate welfare. Bush needs to be consistent about his "government reduction."

When you get a cruise missile that has the range of an ICBM, let me know.

When the US isn’t attacking weddings, our allies in Afghanistan commit war crimes, with or without our help, and, even though GWB promised no “nation building”, and American general says the US will stay in Afghanistan for years.

Nation building will be needed, whatever Bush says. The U.S. occupied Japan after WWII until almost 1952. I note that for the most part, Japan has done well since. It will take time to free Afghanistan for its own people, maybe years. Simply taking over and permanently conquering a country can be done in days.

Miles of space was devoted to Clinton’s friends staying at the White House, and, guess what , but no one thinks that’s anywhere near the moral lapse it was for Bill.

Read the article again. Note that the writer, while valiantly trying to create the impression that Bush is "renting" the Lincoln Bedroom like Clinton was, never actually says this, and doesn't even know if any of the guests stayed in the Lincoln Bedroom at all, or if so, which ones--donors or just friends? It is indeed long tradition for Presidents of all parties to allow people to stay overnight at the White House, including sometimes in the Lincoln Bedroom, and it is not unusual for this to include large donors. Rush Limbaugh often brags about his night there during the first Bush Administration, but apparently he didn't have to cough up any cash for it.

Clinton had many guests at the White House, including many who were simply friends and not donors. There is nothing really wrong with this. Where Clinton rubbed people the wrong way was the blatantly obvious cash-for-overnight arrangements that he set up for the Lincoln Bedroom. By itself, it wouldn't have been so bad. As part of a larger behavior pattern, it was just one more brick in the wall.