Security warning essential?

[Mara]

Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said Tuesday that the government decided “it was essential” to raise the terrorism alert even though U.S. officials acknowledged that the detailed surveillance photos and documents that prompted the warnings dated from as far back as 2000 and 2001.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5591204/

Was the security warning really necessary if the information it was based on was 3 years old?

[MasterChief]

Of course it wasn't, but that's never stopped them in the past...

[Gaim Mastr]

I don't think that any evidence of a terrorist attack should be ignored, regardless of how old it is. But Tom's plug during the alert speech crediting Bush's anti-terrorist agenda as the reason why we are able to even have alerts is totally politically motivated, and outright shameful.

Republicans would have the world believe that only Bush should be credited for any and all anti-terrorist actions taken by the US. But in reality Bush couldn't do anything without the consent of Congress, which is made up of many Democrats as well.

It's taken FOUR YEARS for Bush to get a 9/11 commission together to assess what happened and how to improve our security. And when the commission does make its findings and recommendations public, Bush says that he needs to make a whole new panel to evaluate and make recommendations on the recommendations.
:wtf2:

To say that Bush is the only one to move America's anti-terror security actions forward quickly, efficiently and with purpose is to be easily brainwashed by the Republican party.

I won't make up my mind about whom to vote for until I'm standing in the booth on November 2nd. But as it stands I'm leaning toward ousting Bush.

[Lou Cypher]

If they were basing the raising of the threat level from that old info alone maybe you could question there motives, but theres more to it.
First, Al Quada is known to plan there attacks years ahead, they did it with the attack on the U.S.S. Cole, the Embasys in East Africa and the WTC. And then the months before the attack they update there information on there target.
And it looks like it was just that, along with the old info that they discovered that prompted this new alert.

(CNN) -- Intelligence found in Pakistan suggests that suspected al Qaeda operatives in that country contacted an individual or individuals in the United States in the past few months, according to two senior U.S. government sources.

The officials would not characterize the nature of the communication.

But the sources said other information from Pakistan has prompted investigations in the United States to uncover whether there are any individuals or terrorist cells plotting an attack on U.S. soil.

Article (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/08/04/terror.threat/index.html)

Also:

WASHINGTON — Al Qaeda's active plans to carry out an attack in the United States led to Sunday's decision to declare financial institutions in Washington, New York and Newark, N.J., on Orange Alert, government officials told FOX News on Wednesday.

"There was at least one plot in motion," an official said.

Officials said there was enough activity in Al Qaeda (search) circles to indicate that some kind of plans were being set in motion, although they cannot pin any sort of definition on those plans.

The Al Qaeda plot is directed toward the financial sector, sources said. It was this information, combined with other intelligence — including the surveillance details of particular buildings — that led Sunday to the threat level change.

U.S. officials said this particular piece of the puzzle came from a captured Al Qaeda operative abroad.

Also, a U.S. intelligence official told FOX News that an Al Qaeda operative discussed with British officials the possibility of attacks 60 days before the November election, and that focus also was on financial institutions. The intelligence source said officials are still trying to determine the credibility of the operative and the claims.

Sixty days before the Nov. 2 election is Sept. 2, the day President Bush is expected to address the Republican National Convention at Madison Square Garden in New York.

Article (http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,128060,00.html)

Also Gaim, it's been less than Three years since the attack on the WTC, I'm sure you just made a mistake on the timeline :):
As far as the Bush admin. taking credit for anti-terror measures, if it was a Democrat in the White House you would most likely hear the same thing.
And why in Gods name would you vote for flip-flopping John Kerry?

Lou :globe:

[Nyghtfall]

And why in Gods name would you vote for flip-flopping John Kerry?

If changing one's mind about issues, as new facts are presented to discount the credibility of the information behind those issues, is considered "flip-flopping", I'll vote for Kerry any day.

[Lou Cypher]

Quote:
Originally Posted by lou Cifer
And why in Gods name would you vote for flip-flopping John Kerry?


If changing one's mind about issues, as new facts are presented to discount the credibility of the information behind those issues, is considered "flip-flopping", I'll vote for Kerry any day. If that was true, it wouldn't be a Flip-Flop.
But......., lets take the the Gulf War, this is Kerry at his finest!, here he takes both sides of the issue.


VIETNAM ALLUSION TK: Monday I dwelled a bit on one of John Kerry's many yet-to-be-exploited-but-blindingly-obvious vulnerabilities: his vote on the 1991 Gulf war. I noted in that post that the vote could be potentially devastating to Kerry, not so much because it portrays him as soft on national security, but because it makes him look like he takes whichever side of whatever issue happens to be most politically advantageous. (Or, as Mickey Kaus would have it, whichever side he thinks is most politically advantageous, however wrong he turns out to be.)
Turns out I was giving Kerry too much credit. Rather than take a side--albeit the one he thought was most expedient--Kerry actually stood on both sides of the first Gulf war, much like he did this time around. Consider this "Notebook" item from TNR's March 25, 1991 issue, which ran under the headline "Same Senator, Same Constituent":
"Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition ... to the early use of military force by the US against Iraq. I share your concerns. On January 11, I voted in favor of a resolution that would have insisted that economic sanctions be given more time to work and against a resolution giving the president the immediate authority to go to war."

--letter from Senator John Kerry to Wallace Carter of Newton Centre, Massachusetts, dated January 22 [1991]

"Thank you very much for contacting me to express your support for the actions of President Bush in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. From the outset of the invasion, I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush's response to the crisis and the policy goals he has established with our military deployment in the Persian Gulf."

--Senator Kerry to Wallace Carter, January 31 [1991]
Will someone PLEASE put this guy out of his misery? Please?
NOTE: Special thanks to TNR reporter-researcher Josh Benson for dredging up this item.

Article (http://www.tnr.com/etc.mhtml?pid=1261)

So tell me, how is this not a Flip-Flop?

Lou :globe:

[RangerRick]

To say that Bush is the only one to move America's anti-terror security actions forward quickly, efficiently and with purpose is to be easily brainwashed by the Republican party.

And the Democrats are better? Since when? Gimme a break. :rolleyes:

[Lou Cypher]

Here's another view of John Kerry's service in Vietnam, and it doesn't jive with his portrail.

"Unfit for Command" (http://humaneventsonline.com.edgesuite.net/unfit_video_wmv.html)

Lou :globe:

[Gaim Mastr]

Rick, I never stated that the Dems are better. Only that Bush doesn't deserve all of the credit the Reps are trying to horde for him. So no, I won't be giving you a break today. :p:

Lou, taking words out of context is typical political BS. Have you become a card carrying member of the Rep party ??

Kerry's a flip-flopper !!
Kerry's a flip flopper !!
Kerry is a man able to view new information and change his mind !!!
Run for the hills !!!!! :scared2:
Before the Iraq invasion, Kerry voted for giving more money and authority to the military and Bush. Then later "flipped" and voted against it. Fact is though, the bill had changed. But that little nugget of info never escapes the lips of Reps, does it ??

Anyone who is steadfastly set against reviewing new/additional information and changing their minds or course of action is an idiot without the ability to learn.
So refusing to flip positions, depending on new information, is NOT a virtue. :no:
If I started supporting Bush and the Reps, would that make me a flip-flopper ??
If I decide that Bush really isn't an idiot, would that make me a flip-flopper ??
If I decide that Bush is better at running our military and international security, and that the guy who actually did serve in the military was a limp-wristed hippy incapable of doing a better job in Iraq and Afghanistan, would THAT make me a flip-flopper ??
If I decide that I'd rather start cooking my eggs sunny-side up, would that make me a flip-flopper ??

The whole flip-flopping thing is nothing short of a BS smoke screen meant to distract US voters from the truth. Sadly, it seems to have worked. Though primarily only as an excuse for people who'd made up their minds about who they were going to vote for long before any other candidate had a chance to state their stance on issues.

Say what you will about Kerry's Vietnam service. In the end, at least he did serve over there. Bush NEVER served. He's the only one I've heard of who took month-long vacations from his base on US soil, and trained in an obsolete airplane all but guaranteeing that he'd never be transferred out of the US. But I will give Bush credit. While he was in the National Guard, the NVC never did get a firm foothold in Texas. :lol:

Sorry Lou, but quotes taken out of context, and childish calls of "flip-flopping" aren't going to convince me of anything. I'm more cynical than that. I don't believe every little piece of crap I read or hear. I dig deeper.

But I get the feeling that you're scared Lou. You attack Kerry relentlessly, yet absolutely refuse to find and post any flaws about Bush or the Republican party. And that tells me you're scared. You're scared, because if you did post those flaws you might have to face the fact that not everything the Rep propaganda machine spews is true, and not everything Bush did was smart or justified. You're scared to death you might be tempted to vote for someone other than a Republican this fall. Because doing so would mean you'd fallen for the same lies and smoke screens that others were able to see past. So rather than face that "awful" possibility, you just kick back and continue shooting at the Dems while refusing to take a similarly cynical look at the Reps and Bush.


Come on over to my side Lou. :D:
Come on over to where people view the Reps and Dems with equal cynicism. Where smoke screens and innuendos bounce off us like intelligent discussions aimed at Bush. Where half-truths and media images without substance zoom right past us like original ideas aimed at Kerry. We're waiting for ya. Come to the Oort cloud where we try to look at the whole picture and don't get bogged down with inane minutia.
:alien:

[Nyghtfall]

Before the Iraq invasion, Kerry voted for giving more money and authority to the military and Bush. Then later "flipped" and voted against it. Fact is though, the bill had changed.

And it changed because of Bush's refusal to sign any version of the bill that didn't suit his own agenda. Yet another important point that never gets mentioned.

[DanTheManPR]

How did this turn into a Kerry vs Bush post?

[Nyghtfall]

How did this turn into a Kerry vs Bush post?

Lou asked Gaim why he would vote for Kerry over Bush.

[Circlebreaker]

All this talk about Bush vs. Kerry and Kerry's flip-flopping reminded me of this strip, which pretty much sums up my feelings on the case:

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/bo/2004/bo040725.gif

That doesn't mean I like Kerry, I just like him more than Bush.

[RangerRick]

Rick, I never stated that the Dems are better. Only that Bush doesn't deserve all of the credit the Reps are trying to horde for him. So no, I won't be giving you a break today.

True, but by the words you imply that they are.

Remember the old phrase "How do you know a politician is lying?" -"his lips are moving"
also applies to Kerry. You just aren't sure about them though.

I don't believe every little piece of crap I read or hear.

Then why believe the dem retoric? Their half truths are just as bad

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaim Mastr
Before the Iraq invasion, Kerry voted for giving more money and authority to the military and Bush. Then later "flipped" and voted against it. Fact is though, the bill had changed.


And it changed because of Bush's refusal to sign any version of the bill that didn't suit his own agenda. Yet another important point that never gets mentioned.


Is there concrete proof of this, a personal opinion, or something written by somone with there own agenda?

Facts are facts, and then there are unbiased facts. :face2:


I'm undecided who I'll vote for. Kerry needs to give more detail on what his tax plan is, and where the money will come from to pay for some of his plans for the country.
He says he wants health care for everyone in the country like he has. I would like to have that too, along with his retirement benefits. It's a lot better than I have now.
People tend to forget that it was Clinton, a democrat, who pushed for the free trade agreement and the loss of jobs that went with it.

A democratic economic plan usually winds up costing the american taxpayer more.

[Lou Cypher]

Lou, taking words out of context is typical political BS. Have you become a card carrying member of the Rep party ?? So what words have I taken out of context, and I'm a conservitive before I'm a Republican. Here's two more sites that have the same info:
Article (http://www.brothersjudd.com/blog/archives/010631.html)

Article (http://www.moderateindependent.com/v2i3kerry.htm)

Did you even read what I posted?, in a span of 9 day's he goes from opposing the Gulf war to supporting the Gulf war and then in the end he voted against it, no flip-flop there :rolleyes:, but maybe it wasn't a flip-flop at all. Maybe he was just telling Wallace Carter what he thought he wanted to hear and thus taking both sides of the issue, why take a stand for what you believe when you can have it both way's.



Before the Iraq invasion, Kerry voted for giving more money and authority to the military and Bush. Then later "flipped" and voted against it. Fact is though, the bill had changed. But that little nugget of info never escapes the lips of Reps, does it ??RangerRick's question is valid on this quote.



Anyone who is steadfastly set against reviewing new/additional information and changing their minds or course of action is an idiot without the ability to learn.Agree, if that person bases it on reviewing new/additional information.



The whole flip-flopping thing is nothing short of a BS smoke screen meant to distract US voters from the truth. Sadly, it seems to have worked. Though primarily only as an excuse for people who'd made up their minds about who they were going to vote for long before any other candidate had a chance to state their stance on issues.So tell me Gaim, what is the truth?, why is Kerry more qualified than Bush. Is it because Kerry served 4 months in country during the Vietnam War, why is he more qualified than Bush?.
It's always "I hate Bush", it's all you ever here, no one ever says why Kerry should be President.
Kerry is basing his whole campaign on his 4 months of service, you never hear about his 240 months in Congress, why is that?, during his acceptance speech he talked longer about the American flag than he did about his time in Congress.
You say that I can't see the truth because of some "Smoke Screen", I could say the same thing about you but it would be "Koolaid" instead.



Say what you will about Kerry's Vietnam service. In the end, at least he did serve over there. Bush NEVER served. He's the only one I've heard of who took month-long vacations from his base on US soil, and trained in an obsolete airplane all but guaranteeing that he'd never be transferred out of the US. But I will give Bush credit. While he was in the National Guard, the NVC never did get a firm foothold in Texas.Don't put words in my mouth Gaim, I never said a word, good or bad about Kerry's Vietnam service. As for the rest of this quote, your beating a dead horse. As for the
"obsolete airplane", it was one of the most diffecult Jets to fly ever to be deployed by the U.S.A.F..



Sorry Lou, but quotes taken out of context, and childish calls of "flip-flopping" aren't going to convince me of anything. I'm more cynical than that. I don't believe every little piece of crap I read or hear. I dig deeper.Again, what "quote" or "quotes' were taken out of context?
So you want me to "dig deeper", don't have to.
Remember this Line, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it"

But weeks earlier in an interview he said:
Asked if he would vote against the $87 billion if his amendment did not pass, Kerry said, "I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That's irresponsible."

Article (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/Politics/tapper_kerry_040319-1.html)




But I get the feeling that you're scared Lou. You attack Kerry relentlessly, yet absolutely refuse to find and post any flaws about Bush or the Republican party. And that tells me you're scared. You're scared, because if you did post those flaws you might have to face the fact that not everything the Rep propaganda machine spews is true, and not everything Bush did was smart or justified. You're scared to death you might be tempted to vote for someone other than a Republican this fall. Because doing so would mean you'd fallen for the same lies and smoke screens that others were able to see past. So rather than face that "awful" possibility, you just kick back and continue shooting at the Dems while refusing to take a similarly cynical look at the Reps and Bush.Nope still not scared, as for not posting anything flaws about Bush, I'm not going to do your work for you :lol:, As for bush's policies, no I'm not happy with some of the things he's done ie; immigration. Why do i keep shooting at the Dems?, because it's easy :):



Come on over to my side Lou :D: Naw, I'm happy over here on the right, when you sit on the fence you end up getting splinters up you arse :lol:

Lou :globe:

[Nyghtfall]

Is there concrete proof of this, a personal opinion, or something written by somone with there own agenda? Facts are facts, and then there are unbiased facts. :face2:

Your unbiased facts, sir:

White House Groans Over Loan (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/30/politics/main580877.shtml)

Did Kerry Vote "No" on Body Armor for Troops? (http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=155)

[RangerRick]

If this provision is not removed, the president's senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill," wrote White House budget director Joshua Bolten.


Again, where does it say 'Bush' said he'd veto it in any part of either article? Or whether any changes were not acceptable?

Again, facts are facts.

Both parties are great at taking words out of context. One is no better than the other. That's what really disgusts me. And so many people are so gullible when they hear something, mostly because it's what they want to hear.

[Nyghtfall]

Ok, that is beyond splitting hairs. You know as well as I do that the President's senior advisors would never threaten anything they didn't think the President wouldn't follow through on. Their opinions carry enough weight with the him that, when they threatened to recommend the bill be vetoed, Congress sincerely believed Bush would do it, and then he'd have plausable deniability for ever having directly threatened to veto it.

[RangerRick]

Ok, that is beyond splitting hairs. You know as well as I do that the President's senior advisors would never threaten anything they didn't think the President wouldn't follow through on. Their opinions carry enough weight with the him that, when they threatened to recommend the bill be vetoed, Congress sincerely believed Bush would do it, and then he'd have plausable deniability for ever having directly threatened to veto it.


Agian, people will believe what they want to believe whether ir's true or not.

I've learned the hard way that to assume something is not the best thing one can do.

[Gaim Mastr]

And I've learned the easy way that politics is all about getting your agendas across while maintaining the highest degree of plausible deniability.

Nyghtfall is right.

[RangerRick]

And I've learned the easy way that politics is all about getting your agendas across while maintaining the highest degree of plausible deniability.

Nyghtfall is right. :sleep:


So you say.

[Gaim Mastr]

:sleep:

So I say.

[Lou Cypher]

Before the Iraq invasion, Kerry voted for giving more money and authority to the military and Bush. Then later "flipped" and voted against it. Fact is though, the bill had changed. But that little nugget of info never escapes the lips of Reps, does it ?No, your mixing two different votes Gaim, First he voted in favor of the war and then he voted against the money for the troops. The bill had changed because Kerry changed it, the Bill Bush finnaly signed is the one he originally put forth.

And of course he threatened to Veto it, the Democrats were trying to tack on amendments that he didn't want, and shouldn't have been there. Kerry wanted to recind tax cuts(Which he knew the President wouldn't go for) and make money to reconstruct Iraq a loan, thus giving the impression to some in the ME that we were going to war for Oil.

Lou :globe:

[weed_wizard]

Do the rest of the world a favour and not put Bush back in charge.Anyone has to be
better than him,from an outsiders point of view.

[Gaim Mastr]

Without reading every word of the proposed bill, I did support the changes on face value.

We should have recinded the tax cuts. The cuts were for the rich anyways. Maybe then we could have afforded more troops. Maybe then Bush would not have instituted this backdoor draft policy (stop-loss). Instead we're keeping troops in action LONG past the time that they were supposed to come home with very few new troops trickling in.

That's why Kerry still proposes to eliminate those tax cuts and use the money to increase our military personell by 40,000 troops, thus eliminating Bush's backdoor military draft.

And I also agree that we should charge the country of Iraq to pay back the billions that the US tax payers have been shoveling out for the last 12+ years while trying to deal with Saddam's regime. This whole "you don't owe us a thing" plan by Bush upsets me every time that I hear that our National debt has reached record highs and the inflation climbs ever higher due to the higher oil prices (and everything that effects).

Now, I can understand that charging Iraq for the cost of this last invasion would leave a bad taste in a lot of mouths around the world. Especially since no WMDs were found, and that was Bush's primary reason for going into Iraq.

"Hey, our military is going to invade your country and topple your government because you've got WMD and are threatening us and your neighbors."

later...

"Oh, so you didn't have any WMD after all. Oops, our bad. Well, we're still going to have to charge you the cost of invading your country and then rebuilding it. So sorry."

Now, I don't like how that sounds to the Iraqis or the rest of the world. But I do think that it's important for everyone in all countries to keep in mind the tremendous costs that the US and British tax payers have footed over the past 12+ years in trying to deal with Saddam.

First, we had to go in and remove his butt from Kuwait. Then we had to maintain those no-fly zones for years on end while our planes were being targeted nearly every day. Then we had to drop some bombs a second time because Saddam got overly nasty again. Then more years of no-fly zone problems and maintenance. And finally this last invasion to remove that parasite from power.

So when it comes to charging Iraq a few several billion dollars to help us tax payers recover some of the many tens of billions we've had to spend because their evil dictator, I have only one thing to say....

Sign on the dotted line.... :deal:

Of course, I wouldn't expect a brutal payback policy either. Rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure and modernizing many aspects, especially its schools and hospitals should be of paramount importance. I wouldn't oppose a slow payback over the next 30 years without interest.

If the Iraqi people would do more, A LOT more, to stop the foreign terrorists from constantly blowing up their police stations and oil pipelines, then the Iraqi people would be able to recover and improve their living situations a whole lot faster. It'd also help to drastically speed the process of getting the US troops out of their country.


Bottom line being that in regards to eliminating the upper class tax cuts (trickle down economics never works), and charging Iraq to repay some of the expenses that the US and British tax payers have had to cough up over the past 12+ years, I would support Kerry's position over Bush's. So I don't blame any Democrat for wanting to change Bush's funding bill.

Do you disagree ??

Do you think that Iraq should never have to pay back a single cent ??

Do you feel that the tax cuts for the rich are a good idea ??

If ending Bush's backdoor draft and bringing tired vets home on time, while replacing them with fresh troops meant that I'd have to pay a couple more points on my federal taxes, then I'd do it in a heartbeat.

[Lou Cypher]

We should have recinded the tax cuts. The cuts were for the rich anyways. Maybe then we could have afforded more troops. Maybe then Bush wouldn't have instituted this backdoor draft policy (stop-loss). Instead of keeping troops in action LONG past the time that they were supposed to come home with very few new troops tickling in. We should have recinded the tax cuts. The cuts were for the rich anyways :wtf:, I don't believe you said that Gaim. Everyone who paid Federal Income tax got a tax cut, just because someone is rich means that they shouldn't get the same treatment.
Anyways, what do you consider Rich?, someone who makes $100,000 $200,000 or even $300,000?. But why shouldn't they get a tax cut, they pay the majority of the Taxes in this country anyway.
"The top 25% of taxpayers pay 84% of personal income taxes and the top 5% pay for 56.4%. This gradual and sustained shift of the tax burden to a small minority of taxpayers is patent Socialist policy".
As for the Stop-Loss policy, it's unfortunate but we are at War. Maybe if we didn't have the huge cuts in Military personel back in the 90's this probibly could have been avoided.

That's why Kerry still proposes to eliminate those tax cuts and use the money to increase our military personell by 40,000 troops, thus eliminating Bush's backdoor military draft.I really dought(sp) that "eliminate those tax cuts" will be enough to fund 40,000 more troops after "eliminate those tax cuts" pays for all of his other "proposals" including Health care just like Congress injoys for every American.


And I also agree that we should charge the country of Iraq to pay back the billions that the US tax payers have been shoveling out for the last 12+ years while trying to deal with Saddam's regime. This whole "you don't owe us a thing" plan by Bush pisses me off every time that I hear that our National debt has reached record highs and the inflation climbs every higher due to the higher oil prices (and everything that effects).I agree with you that yes, Iraq should pay back whats owed us and GB for our help in freeing them from Saddam. As for "inflation climbs every higher", last time I looked inflation is very low, if it was on the rise Greenspan would be raising intrest rates to try to slow it. And speaking of intrest rates, there still the lowest they have been in 40 years.

Lou :globe:

[Bruenor]

if it was on the rise Greenspan would be raising intrest rates to try to slow it. And speaking of intrest rates, there still the lowest they have been in 40 years.

Lou :globe:

You do know that Greenspan just increased the US rate by .25% on August 10, 2004 right?

The US central bank is trying to curtail inflationary pressures without obstructing economic growth.

The rise comes despite the release last Friday of weaker-than-expected US unemployment data, which raised doubts about the strength of the economy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3553228.stm

US Inflation Rates for 2004

Jan 1.93%
Feb 1.69%
Mar 1.74%
Apr 2.29%
May 3.05%
Jun 3.27%

6 Month Average for 2004

2.32%

Average for

2003 2.27%
2002 1.59%

Averages indicate that inflation is indeed rising steadily over the last 2 1/2 years anyway.

Sorry Lou, but the first interest rate hike in four years by Greenspan and the obvious large spike in the inflation rate, combined with much weaker than expected employment figures last month definitely indicates that the US economy is under "strength" and "inflationary" pressure.

[Lou Cypher]

Yes I knew that Greenspan raised the intrest rate .25%, but it wasn't due to high fual costs that Gaim attributed too, if any it was small. It was raised because our economy is showing a strong gain and heating up, thus contributing to higher inflation rates.
Also, jobs are allways a lagging inticater of how well the economy is doing, according to the latest labor stats, there were 32,000 non-farm jobs created, but in the same period there were 632,000 jobs created according to the "Houshold survey data", which meens that that people are starting there own businesses.
But to say that infation is on the rise just because of higher oil prices is over simplifying the reason.

As for inflation rates:
Average for the last Admin.
1997: 2.35
1998: 1.51
1999: 2.21
2000: 3.38
Average: 2.36

Bush Admin.
2001: 2.86
2002: 1.58
2003: 2.27
2004: 2.32
Average: 2.25

Inflation is on the rise but well under what it was 4 years ago.

Lou :globe:

[Glass_Hope]

its just a way to cover there asses, if nothing happens then, everybody forgets about it....if something happens they can say hey hey!!! I KNEW THAT!!! and maybe then they mite take there fingers outa there asses for all of about 2 days