New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

deagleninja · 2004-05-10 19:01:49

Here's the latest on SEI developments:

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=200 … 5812-6719r

PurduesUSAFguy · 2004-05-10 21:41:59

A.) Please, please, please, do not refer to PlanBush, or Project Constelation or the MoonMarsInitive as SEI! We all know about where SEI led.

B.) This administration is deeply commited to both military and civil space. I've said it before and I'll say it again at the top of my lounges, if you support the space program and the national lab system Bush is the man to vote for.

flashgordon · 2004-05-10 22:37:38

with all the international competition in space heating up, it doesn't matter who the president is as far as space policy is concerned; please don't vote for George Bush Jr; can't you tell his personality?

Euler · 2004-05-10 23:41:24

A) PlanBush Jr= PlanBush Sr revisited.

B)This administration is also deeply committed to running up the largest budget deficits in history, which should be a larger issue in the election than space.

idiom · 2004-05-11 03:23:40

Part of the large deficeit is being spent on space.

Axing NASA would help balance the budget. Or raising taxes...

Borrowing to go to Mars on a government scale is a Bush only possibility.

deagleninja · 2004-05-11 06:33:45

Not to get started on politics again, but I won't be voting for Bush no matter what. Had we not racked up record deficits the past three years after Clinton surpluses, PlanBush wouldn't be facing a hostile Congress right now. And I'm sorry, but two speeches doesn't constitute strong civil space support.

Bill White · 2004-05-11 07:54:05

A.) Please, please, please, do not refer to PlanBush, or Project Constelation or the MoonMarsInitive as SEI! We all know about where SEI led.
B.) This administration is deeply commited to both military and civil space. I've said it before and I'll say it again at the top of my lounges, if you support the space program and the national lab system Bush is the man to vote for.

November 2004 is pretty much irrelevant, IMHO. Remember, the vast majority of NASA's budget (between 2004 & 2008) will be spent on the same old, same old. . . - - > STS & ISS.

A sustained plan lasting 20+ years requires a shared bi-partisan vision. Whether 2008 or 2012 are more important elections than 2004 (for the space vision) is unclear to me yet BOTH of those elections are far more important than November 2004.

Now, if Bush called for immediate grounding of the orbiter and to give ISS to the RSA & ESA (free of charge) - - well okay, I could support that enthusiastically.

PurduesUSAFguy · 2004-05-11 09:27:31

A) PlanBush Jr= PlanBush Sr revisited.
B)This administration is also deeply committed to running up the largest budget deficits in history, which should be a larger issue in the election than space.

Well I hate to say it since it does matter, but from an economic stand point, deficits don't really matter. If you look at the deficit as a percentage of GDP it's both extraordinarly small and, again as percentage of GDP is considerable smaller then the cold war era defecit.

Historically in times of crisis, either militarily or economically it makes sense to go into deficits. Tax cuts to bussinesses and individuals spur investment and growth that eventually suppercends the lost income to the government. Examples would be the Kennedy tax cuts in the 60s or the Reagen cuts in the 80s which brought about the economic upturn in the 90s. The economy is actually in great shape today with all the major indicators pointing up, it's really a media creation reinforced by the high gas prices that is prepetuating the myth that things are going ary. In fact the fed reserve is considering hiking rates to slow growth because the job growth figures were higher then what was expected.

The problem with people who support raising taxes to balance the budgets is two fold.

A.) Tax increases dampen the economy and slow the rate of growth because individuals and businesses have less capital to keep so there is less incentive and there is less capital to invest in further enterprises.

B.) Democratic ideology, which truth be told is a thinlly veilded derevation of socialism, opperates under the assumption that their is a finite ammount of wealth in the world. This is as fundamentally wrong as anything can be. I'm not going to get on a rant, but in short, 'hands off' economics and a flat tax would be the two greatest changes to US policy I could think of....on the same token a great way to boost the economy is the increasing spending on the National labs, the Space Program, and Military R and D. The technology spin offs and comercial applications can be worth billions and help further maintain our technological advantage.

Ian Flint · 2004-05-11 09:34:07

I'd have to agree with deagleninja. This is SEI...or rather, SEI Jr.

Now if there were terrorists in space, or oil, or maybe just brown people to bomb, then Bush would surely make SEI Jr. work.

I say we get the Mars Society, Planetary Society, and any other space Societies out there to come up with a better plan and lobby it to Kerry. This way we could feel good voting for Kerry, and Kerry could embarass Bush and his weak space plan.

Ian Flint · 2004-05-11 09:53:27

If we're talking about balancing the budget this is what I would do (no offense Purdue, but I'm a peace luv'n hippy at heart):

1. First and foremost -- We have to stop attacking countries on our president's every whim. I think we could have avoided war with both Afghanistan and Iraq.

2. We need to reduce military spending. If we were a bit more selective with our wars (like, for defense only, Danielsan), we could cut military spending in half and still dominate the world militarily.

3. Use that $150-200 billion saved from the military to first find all our ex-soldiers new jobs, then invest it in education, science, technology, alternative energy, healthcare, and of course -- space.

I agree with Purdue that we shouldn't just put this saved money into paying off interest. We should use it to invest in our people.

ANTIcarrot. · 2004-05-11 10:25:02

Unfortunately if America dumps the ISS they are going to annoy a lot of people; possible to the point where they'd go to Mars alone. And that would *really* annoy even more people. Yes it's a white elephant, but it's one that a lot of non-Americans have put a lot of money into. And they're going to want some kind of return.

Global politics is involved as well; not just local party bickering.

And don't throw the STS away with the shuttle. And uprated version could match the saturn V in terms of life capacity. America junked that once. I think they're regret it equally if they did it a second time.

ANTIcarrot.

deagleninja · 2004-05-11 10:36:28

Yikes! Reagan's cold war spending was respocible for the economic upturn in the 90's? Wow, that one is way out there. I could have sworn that the upturn started when Clinton tightened our belts to pay down the deficits created by Bush Sr. and Reagan. Economists saw responcible fiscal spending and therefore had hope for a brighter tommorrow. I agree that perception is very important in our economy. I think it more likely that the recession of Bush Sr.'s administration was the result of Reagan overspending.

As for there being a finite amout of money out there, it's true. The government only brings in so much from taxes. What they get is divided amongst all the government programs. A budget increase for NASA is on the chopping block because of irresponcible spending.

Ian, you are right. We should be much more selective with what wars we fight. The more wars we wage, the more enemys we make, its a rather simple concept that most don't understand. I don't think we need to lay off our soilders though. We could cut military spending in half by eliminating rather foolish and wasteful programs like missle defence.

I disagree that it makes sense to go into deficits ever. Regardless of how important or unimportant they are, it's not good buisness or responcible. I suggest that the military create a 'war fund' that it can dip into in times of need. Since we no longer get a 'peace-dividend' because we are always at war with someone now, I say that our military should be more responcible and quit wasting so much. They can then take this money and put it in the 'war fund'.

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-11 10:44:24

I say we get the Mars Society, Planetary Society, and any other space Societies out there to come up with a better plan and lobby it to Kerry. This way we could feel good voting for Kerry, and Kerry could embarass Bush and his weak space plan.

So you don't feel good about voting for Kerry? Who'd have thought?

Now let's get a couple things straight. SEI crashed and burned not because it was Bush 41's poor plan, but because Congress killed it with hostility and bloated numbers.

Now what Party controlled Congress back then...

Dubya's plan likewise will depend largely on the whims of Congress.

Now we have to consider something. Alot of lefties like to think of themselves as "progressive" and forward looking, the obvious supporters of vigourous space exploration. But it just ain't true.

The Right likes the space program, it pumps billions into defense contractors (who support them). They get many of the economic benefits of military programs but without all that baggage.

The Left doesn't like defense contractors (evil corporations getting rich at the people's expense that they are ) and tries to shut them down (through military cuts) at every opportunity. Social programs take on a greater importance than space exploration.

So what's going to get us to Mars faster? A defense contractor-friendly Administration specifically trying to do it, or one that would rather tax those contractors into extinction?

Bill White · 2004-05-11 10:50:30

Unfortunately if America dumps the ISS they are going to annoy a lot of people; possible to the point where they'd go to Mars alone. And that would *really* annoy even more people. Yes it's a white elephant, but it's one that a lot of non-Americans have put a lot of money into. And they're going to want some kind of return.
Global politics is involved as well; not just local party bickering.
And don't throw the STS away with the shuttle. And uprated version could match the saturn V in terms of life capacity. America junked that once. I think they're regret it equally if they did it a second time.
ANTIcarrot.

anti, you missed my extended shuttle derived rants back in February and March. ;-)

I am too weary to repeat them now.

Bottom line?

Ground orbiter today (well, space harden it, strip the tiles off and send it on an up only mission to help assemble ISS)

Finish ISS with Proton launches at $50 million each

Deploy cargo only shuttle derived ASAP

Deploy EELV carried CEV ASAP

Go to the Moon and Mars sooner rather than later.

= = =

Cobra, my fear is that PlanBush actually intends to scrap the STS infrastructure as a mechanism to give Boeing a monopoly with their overpriced Delta based launch systems being the only road into space.

Besides, my other point still stands. 2004 - 2008 is pretty much a do nothing time even under PlanBush.

deagleninja · 2004-05-11 10:56:10

Answer: One that would tax those contrators into extinction.

Even if 'lefties' don't support our space program and would rather spend the money on social programs here on terra firma, the evil, money obsessed defence contractors need to get the hell out of the way.

I'd rather we not see a single manned US launch for the next twenty years it may take the private sector to catch up, then spend another 30+ years circling the Earth.

Greed is good, but domination stagnates.

deagleninja · 2004-05-11 10:57:55

Well said Bill.

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-11 11:19:03

Cobra, my fear is that PlanBush actually intends to scrap the STS infrastructure as a mechanism to give Boeing a monopoly with their overpriced Delta based launch systems being the only road into space.

That's a legitimate concern. The problem I'm having with the Bush Administration in general is its tendency to do the right thing... wrong.

We all know the potential of the shuttle hardware, unfortunately certain figures in the Administration have other concerns. But then, what are the alterntives? We have do it inefficiently and don't do it at all. Bush won't get it done in four years, but Kerry could very well kill it in that time.

I'd rather we not see a single manned US launch for the next twenty years it may take the private sector to catch up, then spend another 30+ years circling the Earth.

Ah, the "scorched earth" approach. Kill the mission and destroy our present means because we don't like the people and institutions involved. Great plan. :hm:

The "private sector" will in time develop LEO capability, but it isn't going to go further on its own. No private venture is going to go to Mars unless a few board members get steady doses of the happy gas. Those "evil corporations" spurred on by government are needed for the first step. Build a colony on Mars and you'll have a line of people building new ways to get there. Wait for them to go first and never will a boot step on the red soil.

Bill White · 2004-05-11 11:23:59

Build a colony on Mars and you'll have a line of people building new ways to get there. Wait for them to go first and never will a boot step on the red soil.

I agree.

= = =

By the way, it appears to me that the genuis of Elon Musk and the SpaceX Falcon is a cool new turbopump for their Merlin engine.

Isn't that nothing but the product of some hairy knuckled engineering?

The cynic in me suspects the major aerospace companies could have made the same engine a decade ago, yet wouldn't that have eaten into their cost plus contracts?

I saw one report that Musk is hoping to get the contract to replace our ICBM inventory as the current missiles reach the end of their useful life. THAT will make Boeing and Lockheed pay attention. :;):

GCNRevenger · 2004-05-11 11:28:04

Ah yes the "sky is falling, economy collapsing - its the evil contractors fault!"

A little economics... the whole "amount of wealth is fixed" is a popular concept employed by the left to scare everyone into thinking that which they want them to think. The idea was originally thought up by one Thomas Malthus I believe, an economist of the last age from England if memory serves. He postuated that the amount of wealth possible to produce is a relativly fixed quantity, so naturally the left use this idea to support the controlled allotment to ensure - as the new catchphrase is now - "economic justice".

There is just one little tiny catch... Malthus is wrong. Economically, we can produce more wealth through the circular flow of capital through the efficency of the capitalist system combined with the ingenuity of man, and the sky apears to be the limit: there does not seem to be an upper limit to this effect. This alone pokes many a hole into many "social justice" arguments, but another one is this... "wealth control" inherintly leads to a reduction in the freedom, and as the failure of communism has so clearly illustrated, a reduction in the wealth of man.

The current "economic crisis" is a faux tragedy cooked up by the left. Its true, it is one of the most powerful weapons the left employes to try and turn people away from the resurgence of the right. Unemployment "5.6 under Clinton, happy days, sunshine & rainbows" and "5.6 under Bush, the sky is falling, might as well slit your wrists"... the actual quantity of Federal debt is wholey irrelivent, just like the 10,000 make on the NYSE, only precentages matter and right now the percentage of Federal debt to the wealth of the country is not too bad.

/Endrant - Back to space travel...

PlanBush isn't SEI. PlanBush isn't SEI. It doesn't rely on Shuttle, it doesn't aim to do the impossible in short time frames, and it doesn't propose to use substantially more money than we're spending on Nasa now (which is very small, BTW). Does it have room for improvement? Sure, but of all the space travel polices since JFK, which one has the best chance of getting people beyond LEO? Bush-II would not have proposed it if he didn't think it would be acceptable to congress, so that it is at least a start. Nothing at all is set in stone yet, other than Nasa won't be getting a $50Bn budget and they should start thinking crew capsules right now instead of a "Shuttle-II" with no destination. MarsDirect is an exceedingly (perhaps excessively) ambitious plan with optimistic assumptions all over the place and doesn't do much more than get our boots red... if Bush got on stage with Dr. Z and endorsed MarsDirect letter for letter June 1st, i'd think they were both crazy.

And ah yes, the vaunted "private space (insert thing here)"... Defense contractors are private entities, and do operate for profit, how "private" do they need to be? Yes our government pays them, but until somebody can come up with a PROFITABLE use for flights of substantial mass to Moon/Mars, private business will inherintly not have the capital needed to go. Thats the way it is... gov't isn't bound by the allmighty need for profit, so it will get us there first, and make it cheaper for private firms to follow. Gov't contractors are also the only companies on Earth with the capacity and skill to do this... Elon Musk's tiny, wimpy 5,000lb rocket hasn't flown even once yet, and nobody nobody is thinking orbital flight with the payloads needed.

Edit: More like Elon Musk pay attention... I think that he needs to convince people (lots of people) that he isn't a crazy dreamer first before he starts going on about a private Gemini, Biggalos' space hotel, or replacing USAF ICBMs (which are all solid fueled, for rapid launching). He even needs to convince me... fly that little dinky two-engine rocket a few times and i'll think about taking him seriously... And why is Delta-IV/Atlas-V such a bad thing for a Moon trip? Since we aren't going to the Moon in a really huge big way, then the cost of using Delta or Atlas isn't so bad. Two, maybe three flights per payload/crew/lander for around $700M-800M, the same cost as a Shuttle flight.

Euler · 2004-05-11 12:27:11

The budget deficit is around $500 billion/year right now, which is a significant amount. Budget deficits cause higher interest rates and inflation. High interest rates make borrowing money more expensive, which discourages investment. Every time that a family wants to buy a house or a car, every time a business wants to expand, it will cost more. It is not the end of the world, but it is enough that deficits should be avoided whenever possible.

Unemployment "5.6 under Clinton, happy days, sunshine & rainbows" and "5.6 under Bush, the sky is falling, might as well slit your wrists

I don't know the national numbers, but in Oregon we had unemployment around 4% under Clinton, and its been averaging about 8% under Bush.

PlanBush isn't SEI. PlanBush isn't SEI.

It is SEI derived. It goes to the moon as "preparation" for Mars. PlanBush documents mention the 90-day report, but fail to mention Mars Direct or Mars Semi-direct. They also fail to make any mention of mars resource utilization.

Bush-II would not have proposed it if he didn't think it would be acceptable to congress, so that it is at least a start.

Bush-I would not have proposed SEI if he didn't think it was acceptable to congress. He was wrong, and it is quite possible that Bush-II is also wrong.

GCNRevenger · 2004-05-11 12:40:29

$500Bn signifigant? Why? In comparison to what? A number with no frame of reference is meaningless... no we should not run up a debt that is exceedingly large, but the government's capacity to go into debt is vital in times of need and for cusioning economic fluctuations.

Perhaps PlanBush doesn't mention MarsDirect because MD might actually be a bad idea? It seems to me that this is a distinct possibility... optimistic cost/procurement strategy, optimistic mass estimates, little possibility for expansion/upgrade, bound to large & expensive rockets, and unreuseable. Yes it would probably work and not cost too much and be fast to build, but to do after MarsDirect, the entire MD system would be pretty useless.

PurduesUSAFguy · 2004-05-11 14:07:26

Yikes! Reagan's cold war spending was respocible for the economic upturn in the 90's? Wow, that one is way out there. I could have sworn that the upturn started when Clinton tightened our belts to pay down the deficits created by Bush Sr. and Reagan. Economists saw responcible fiscal spending and therefore had hope for a brighter tommorrow. I agree that perception is very important in our economy. I think it more likely that the recession of Bush Sr.'s administration was the result of Reagan overspending.
As for there being a finite amout of money out there, it's true. The government only brings in so much from taxes. What they get is divided amongst all the government programs. A budget increase for NASA is on the chopping block because of irresponcible spending.
Ian, you are right. We should be much more selective with what wars we fight. The more wars we wage, the more enemys we make, its a rather simple concept that most don't understand. I don't think we need to lay off our soilders though. We could cut military spending in half by eliminating rather foolish and wasteful programs like missle defence.
I disagree that it makes sense to go into deficits ever. Regardless of how important or unimportant they are, it's not good buisness or responcible. I suggest that the military create a 'war fund' that it can dip into in times of need. Since we no longer get a 'peace-dividend' because we are always at war with someone now, I say that our military should be more responcible and quit wasting so much. They can then take this money and put it in the 'war fund'.

DeagleNinja-
OT: Is your name a CS reference? I don't know about you but can't wait for HL2 to come out...allegedly shipping with CS2 as well.

In any event the point by point:

A.) It wasn't Reagan's military spending that spurred the economy, although the spin off technologies associated with SDI certainly helped, rather his top rate and corporate tax cuts spurred development. Every economics I've ever talked to says whatever the fedres and the IRS does has a 5-10 year lag time to take effect. Also let's not forget that the government has very little effect on the economy in either direction. As far as Clinton 'balancing the budget'....well for starters if you pull out the history book Clinton never pushed for a balanced budget, in fact quite the contrary, his social programs added considerable pork to the budget it was the Republican congress that got that passed in a horse trade for his tax increase.

B.) My comment on finite wealth was not really in reference to the government budget, but rather ideology that drives taxation. The assumption that goes along with a stepped tax structure, that there is only so much wealth in the world, and that it should be redistributed. This is fundamentally flawed as new wealth is created everyday, new technologies, new discoveries; new natural recourses all create wealth. This is why the argument that the bleeding hear globalist make about the US using 94% of the worlds resources is illogical.

c.) Making the military more efficient is a great idea, but it's going on right now. I can speak on this matter with some authority as it is an organization I am currently in (using the Air Force as an example, can't comment in too much detail about the other services) but generally speaking it's a completely different animal then it was in the 80s. Point and case is the ATF program to replace the F-15. Definition of requirements was in the early 80, RFP was in the mid 80s, and delivery of prototypes was in the early 90s, the winning fighter was chosen in 1991, we are now finally accepting production fighters but IOC of the first squadron isn't until 2005. There are several UCAV fighter programs in the pipe now that have gone from DOR to flying prototype in 3 years for a fraction of the budget of the F-22s procurement and are breaking more ground and offering similar capabilities. We are in the process of updating and increasingly antiquated military that was designed and built in the 70s and 80s for the most part....without the Reagan build up in the 80s we would be completely devoid of a creditable fighting force. (Clinton did nothing to help this, slowing the F-22 program and cutting B-2 production and giving the Chinese critical classified technology)

I'm not going to get into the 'more selective wars' thing because we are going to fundamentally disagree on that, but there are people out there that want to destroy our way of life, they don't want to negotiate, they don't want land, they don't want anything rational. They are fundamentally animals and we have to exterminate them, the best defense is a good offense.

GCNRevenger · 2004-05-11 14:23:39

Yeah, if we get into the war debate, Josh will come down here and threaten to close the thread for being off topic... suffice it to say that it is naieve to "believe in peace" at the moment or for the forseeable future, and it is completly suicidal to not have a credible, feared military... or the will to use it.

I would like to think that the F-22 program was big and expensive because the aircraft itself is more complex (pilot, gun, bigger bomb bay, countermeasures, etc) than the little UAVs and it pioneered alot of new technologies for the UAVs, like 2nd-generation stealth design.

Anyway, i'm writing this post to mention that money going into defense and into the space program doesn't really evaporate and disapear, with alot of that money going back into the economy as large contractors are paid and they pay out this money to employees and subcontractors and their taxes.

Bill White · 2004-05-11 14:29:27

Edit: More like Elon Musk pay attention... I think that he needs to convince people (lots of people) that he isn't a crazy dreamer first before he starts going on about a private Gemini, Biggalos' space hotel, or replacing USAF ICBMs (which are all solid fueled, for rapid launching). He even needs to convince me... fly that little dinky two-engine rocket a few times and i'll think about taking him seriously... And why is Delta-IV/Atlas-V such a bad thing for a Moon trip? Since we aren't going to the Moon in a really huge big way, then the cost of using Delta or Atlas isn't so bad. Two, maybe three flights per payload/crew/lander for around $700M-800M, the same cost as a Shuttle flight.

True. Lets fly some Falcons, then talk.

The story seems to be that the Merlin turbopump really is an advancement that can be bundled in a five motor Falcon V and perhaps scaled up to a larger engine.

But when you are right, you are right - - the proof will come only after it flies.

= = =

We had better not race the Russians if they get some significant European money because Zenit is cheap and it works.

Ian Flint · 2004-05-11 14:32:14

Purdue,

That 'get them before they get me' attitude scares me! I thought we, the human race, were becoming more and more civilized, but it seems there are still a few of us that are lagging behind. I believe firmly that violence begets violence, so this war on terror will never end if it is waged with guns. I wonder if any military has ever studied the art of Aikido.

Oh yeah, Reagan's and Bush's trickle-down economics -- tax breaks to the rich -- may help the economy, but trickle-up economics would work much faster. This is because giving a tax break to the poor will inject money directly into the demand side of the economy. Poor people spend their money immediately while rich people invest and save it cautiously. But of course, American culture thinks that poor people somehow deserve to be poor, so let's expect more tax breaks for the rich!
Anyway, I'm getting on quite a rant here aren't I? Don't you hate how war gets in the way of peaceful space exploration?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-05-10 19:01:49

Re: New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

#2 2004-05-10 21:41:59

Re: New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

#3 2004-05-10 22:37:38

Re: New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

#4 2004-05-10 23:41:24

Re: New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

#5 2004-05-11 03:23:40

Re: New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

#6 2004-05-11 06:33:45

Re: New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

#7 2004-05-11 07:54:05

Re: New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

#8 2004-05-11 09:27:31

Re: New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

#9 2004-05-11 09:34:07

Re: New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

#10 2004-05-11 09:53:27

Re: New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

#11 2004-05-11 10:25:02

Re: New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

#12 2004-05-11 10:36:28

Re: New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

#13 2004-05-11 10:44:24

Re: New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

#14 2004-05-11 10:50:30

Re: New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

#15 2004-05-11 10:56:10

Re: New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

#16 2004-05-11 10:57:55

Re: New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

#17 2004-05-11 11:19:03

Re: New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

#18 2004-05-11 11:23:59

Re: New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

#19 2004-05-11 11:28:04

Re: New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

#20 2004-05-11 12:27:11

Re: New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

#21 2004-05-11 12:40:29

Re: New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

#22 2004-05-11 14:07:26

Re: New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

#23 2004-05-11 14:23:39

Re: New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

#24 2004-05-11 14:29:27

Re: New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

#25 2004-05-11 14:32:14

Re: New Bush Plan Set To Coincide With June Speech - Link included....talk amongst yourselves

Board footer