Very little is as it appears to be on the surface.  Of course it's very popular these days to assume that the only reason George W. Bush does anything, or doesn't do something, is because he is either evil or stupid (some would say both, but don't realize the inherent contradiction).  Maybe there are problems with the program.  Maybe, for example, most of the money goes to administrators. 

Thank God the democrats took over congress, because now I doubt Bush will get his wish of eliminating the program.  The Bush administration won't help anyone who doesn't have an oil well or an oil tank in their backyard.  Bush doesn't even give proper healthcare for our troops in Iraq who he sent over there for oil.

I'm just raising one of a number of prospective hypotheses, Mattloch.  But of course, it's easier if you already hate Bush and anybody associated with his administration to assume nothing but evil intent, or severely compromised intellectual functioning.

You do a great job of  reinforcing stereotypes about Republicans, Shsrebel10.  I'm getting sick of the self-righteous notion that Democrats are all knights in shining armor and all Republicans are evil, rich, haters of the poor, war-mongers, and haters of freedom. 

"blognroll, can you actually name anything that Bush has done that was smart or helpful?"

Yes, actually I can.  He did a pretty good job of the jokes he presented at the dinner he spoke at the other night.  He's been a staunch defender of the unborn, and he did a great job of comforting the nation immediately following 9/11.  Sorry folks, but I've got to run. It's been invigorating debate.

BLT, the only thing Bush has done to the unborn is contribute an increasing abortion rate.  He has signed budgets that give millions of dollars to the pro-choice group Planned Parenthood, and his abstinance only programs are degrading the use of birth control, which would prevent more abortions. 

As far as 9/11, I'll give you that to an extent.  He did a relatively good job following 9/11, but hasn't done really anything in the longrun.  Bin Laden was never captured, and our borders (especially the Canadian border) are not secured.

BLT, here's your proof that PP has recieved funds from the Bush Administration http://www.covenantnews.com...

As far as capturing Saddam, he did so while costing 60,000 Iraqi and over 3,000 American lives after using faulty evidence for his claim of WMD's in Iraq.  Yes, Saddam was a bad guy, but he should have caught Bin Laden instead, who was the real threat to the U.S., not Saddam.

Thanks for the link, I must look into this further, but it certainly appears that the funds were made possible by something he signed.  Sometimes information is presented in such a way to appear to suggest one thing, when quite another thing is warranted, when all of the facts have been gathered. 

As far as capturing Saddam, he did so while costing 60,000 Iraqi and over 3,000 American lives after using faulty evidence for his claim of WMD's in Iraq.  Yes, Saddam was a bad guy, but he should have caught Bin Laden instead, who was the real threat to the U.S., not Saddam.

The loss is overwhelming.  "I'll give you that, to a certain extent."  Certainly at this point in our history, going into Iraq looks like a terrible mistake.  I'm hoping that in the long run, we can turn things around over there.  Bin Laden doesn't wield the influence he once wielded, but, if for symbolic effect alone, catching him would have been nice.  It wasn't for a lack of trying. 

This is such an upsetting story. I wonder what Bushes Jesus would do? And Adam, yes, you are right, but I have to go on. I don't think he gives a flying "eff" about the poor. Look at how he handled Katrina.