<>President Bush's communications director, Dan Bartlett, questioned earlier this week about the Hersh article, said he had read excerpts. "I think it's riddled with inaccuracies. And I don't believe that some of the conclusions he's drawing are based on fact," the White House spokesman said.
so this is the line from the white house today, after the clear message from the Pentagon yesterday. hehehee.. "i think it is riddled" "i don't believe" "some conclusions".. in other words, after Di Risi makes bold statements that claimed Hersh was totally wrong, the White House suggest that maybe there were parts to hersh's efforts that weren't wrong. and then goes further by suggesting that whatever claims that hersh is still wrong are based on some things that he said, that would lead the white house to believe that maybe they were inaccurate... one giant huge step backwards folks...
and now for that proverbial larch..
George W. Bush has waited until the eve of his second inaugural to let us know that he doesn't hate pointy-headed intellectuals after all. Instead, he now confesses, he's one of them. On the subject of Social Security reform, "It's exciting to be part of stimulating a debate of such significance," President Bush told the Wall Street Journal this past week. "It really is the philosophical argument of the age."
Wehner explained. "Our goal is to provide a path to greater opportunity, more freedom, and more control for individuals over their own lives. That is what the personal account debate is fundamentally about." In other words, it's a philosophical debate about the role of government, not a mathematical debate about how to make Social Security's outflows match its inflows.National Review, in its response to Kinsley's (in their words) "ingenious argument against reform," suggested that personal accounts would "increase incentives to work" and "induce people to save more." NR also argued that private Social Security accounts would "probably restrain federal spending" by preventing the government from "masking its deficits by borrowing from Social Security." Perhaps most important, the magazine argued that private accounts would create more Republicans, by increasing "both the public's financial sophistication and its receptivity to proposals to increase the returns to capital."
whoa dude, the bush puppet is using a big word... a word that he previously only related to jesus. so we have to decode this right now. social security is a philosophical argument and the greatest philosopher is jesus. so bush is asking: what would jesus do????? for real... mmmm let me explore how this works.. jesus wants us to give up our notion of christian charity in exchange for driving our incentive to exploit our capitalistic greed. if i create a special private account into which i put all of my social security entrusted funds, that amount would inspire me to what? well first realize that i was incredibly poor, that this amount was incapable of providing any sort of financial security, that spending it now rather than trying to save it would be much more useful and that is exactly how the wall street capitalist financiers of this effort understand what would happen... the public's financial sophistication comes when they wake up and realize they have been robbed, and they would more receptive to rolling over and becoming slaves... seems like empire is on their hearts and minds for sure...
Louis XIVth would almost be feeling inadequate if he were to experience the Bush inaugueral indulgent waste... when so much of the empire is suffering while the emperor and his masters and minions enjoy the benefits of extravagant selfish oppulence.. cool eh???
You have discovered arachnoanarchy
otter clan omarian otter oasis
