kakki wrote:
It doesn't matter - truth has a way of
eventually surfacing.
And on that I will agree too.
kakki wrote:
"As for the rest of the attacks on Bush and so on, it seems his opponents are
just constantly throwing up many wild and inflated accusations that many
people either know right off, or later find out, are not true. But how does
one, in his defense, provide proof of something that doesn't exist - what is
the saying - proving a negative?"
And my response: for my comments on Bush's proposed tax cuts and the Bush directive to the Senate yesterday to cut $5 billion from homeland security and the the 51 Republican votes to cut that $5 billion, the truth is not really so ephemeral; yesterday's congressional record will bear that one out. Luckily for truth, there was a debate on the Senate floor and a vote on Senator Byrd's amendment to restore the $5 billion. Senator Stevens of Alaska had some interesting comments to look up.
As far as my comments on Frist's and Bush's role in the campaign against Max Cleland, one would merely need to go back to last November's election and see who was the head of the GOP Senate campaign committee (which would be Frist) and look at the campaign.
What Bush does only seems like wild and inflated accusations to those who are not following him very closely, as well as the details of this administration, but are just going along with the carefully crafted media image. IMHO.
Vince
