On Jan 16, 10:25*am, "~^ beancounter ~^"
wrote:
the bush team dosn't lie and knows about accounting.......

On Jan 16, 10:57*am, sgr wrote:



On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 12:39:27 -0500, jeff
wrote:

so...um...why is clinton's 100%, but the shrub's is 99%?? *g

They misunderestimated expensivesures.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Another explanation could be that the Clinton foundation has been
around longer and Clnton has had longer to raise funds to cover his
nut, (No pun intended) and he has been very successful as a fund
raiser. Bush has had only a year and has had a a slow start on the
lecture circuit. 1% isn't bad. And him pairing with Clinton is a good
thing both for Bush and for some healing to occur. I think Bush was
used by the radicals and the Neocons far more than he used them, and
Cheney, I believe history will show, was very disloyal and conniving.

Dave