The myth of the Clinton surplus - been disproved -sm
Posted By: By the US Treasury on 2008-09-24
In Reply to: Nah, just a big bump in the road. sm - nm
A lot of democrats keep pushing this bogus claim that there was a surplus when in fact there never was. This has been discussed on this board, so by this message I'm assuming you never saw the message or went the the US Treasury website to check it out. Below is a link to it and explains what really happened.
The US National Debt proves there was never a surplus, and the article explains why people claim otherwise for political reasons. - good read. Even my most conservatives friends bought into this surplus craze, and said they were glad their eyes were opened.
I'll credit another poster for origianlly posting this (it's been so long I forget who now).
http://www.letxa.com/articles/16
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
The myth of the Clinton surplus...I'm a libertarian but I am sick of hearing this..SM
http://www.letxa.com/articles/16
Clinton had a surplus because he had a...sm
Republican Congress. Left to his own devices, he would have put us belly up, have no fear.
Bush, has a Democratic Congress at the end of his term, who have really jacked up the national debt, all on their own (war not included, thank you very much).
So much for that myth...sm
I can only speak for my interpretation, but I'm for gay equality, i.e. in housing, employment, etc.
I don't love the gay way of life, but to each his own.
Did anybody every tell you that urban myth
su
The Myth of Foreign Fighters
Report by US think tank says only '4 to 10' percent of insurgents are foreigners.
By Tom Regan | csmonitor.com
The US and Iraqi governments have vastly overstated the number of foreign fighters in Iraq, and most of them don't come from Saudi Arabia, according to a new report from the Washington-based Center for Strategic International Studies (CSIS). According to a piece in The Guardian, this means the US and Iraq feed the myth that foreign fighters are the backbone of the insurgency. While the foreign fighters may stoke the incurgency flames, they only comprise only about 4 to 10 percent of the estimated 30,000 insurgents.
The CSIS study also disputes media reports that Saudis comprise the largest group of foreign fighters. CSIS says Algerians are the largest group (20 percent), followed by Syrians (18 percent), Yemenis (17 percent), Sudanese (15 percent), Egyptians (13 percent), Saudis (12 percent) and those from other states (5 percent). CSIS gathered the information for its study from intelligence services in the Gulf region.
The CSIS report says: The vast majority of Saudi militants who have entered Iraq were not terrorist sympathisers before the war; and were radicalized almost exclusively by the coalition invasion.
The average age of the Saudis was 17-25 and they were generally middle-class with jobs, though they usually had connections with the most prominent conservative tribes. Most of the Saudi militants were motivated by revulsion at the idea of an Arab land being occupied by a non-Arab country. These feelings are intensified by the images of the occupation they see on television and the internet ... the catalyst most often cited [in interrogations] is Abu Ghraib, though images from Guantánamo Bay also feed into the pathology.
The report also gives credit to the Saudi government for spending nearly $1.2 billion over the past two years, and deploying 35,000 troops, in an effort to secure its border with Iraq. The major problem remains the border with Syria, which lacks the resources of the Saudis to create a similar barrier on its border.
The Associated Press reports that CSIS believes most of the insurgents are not Saddam Hussein loyalists but members of Sunni Arab Iraqi tribes. They do not want to see Mr. Hussein return to power, but they are wary of a Shiite-led government.
TheLos Angeles Times reports that a greater concern is that 'skills' foreign fighters are learning in Iraq are being exported to their home countries. This is a particular concern for Europe, since early this year US intelligence reported that Abu Musab Zarqawi, whose network is believed to extend far beyond Iraq, had dispatched teams of battle-hardened operatives to European capitals.
Iraq has become a superheated, real-world academy for lessons about weapons, urban combat and terrorist trade craft, said Thomas Sanderson of [CSIS].
Extremists in Iraq are exposed to international networks from around the world, said Sanderson, who has been briefed by German security agencies. They are returning with bomb-making skills, perhaps stolen explosives, vastly increased knowledge. If they are succeeding in a hostile environment, avoiding ... US Special Forces, then to go back to Europe, my God, it's kid's play.
Meanwhile, The Boston Globe reports that President Bush, in a speech Thursday that was clearly designed to dampen the potential impact of the antiwar rally this weekend in Washington, said his top military commanders in Iraq have told him that they are making progress against the insurgents and in establishing a politically viable state.
Newly trained Iraqi forces are taking the lead in many security operations, the president said, including a recent offensive in the insurgent stronghold of Tal Afar along the Syrian border – a key transit point for foreign fighters and supplies.
Iraqi forces are showing the vital difference they can make, Bush said. 'They are now in control of more parts of Iraq than at any time in the past two years. Significant areas of Baghdad and Mosul, once violent and volatile, are now more stable because Iraqi forces are helping to keep the peace.
The president's speech, however, was overshadowed by comments made Thursday by Saudi Arabia's foreign minister. Prince Saud al-Faisal said the US ignored warnings the Saudi government gave it about occupying Iraq. Prince al-Faisal also said he fears US policies in Iraq will lead to the country breaking up into Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite parts. He also said that Saudi Arabia is not ready to send an ambassador to Baghdad, because he would become a target for the insurgents. I doubt he would last a day, al-Faisal said.
Finally, The Guardian reports that ambitions for Iraq are being drastically scaled down in private by British and US officials. The main goal has now become avoiding the image of failure. The paper quotes sources in the British Foreign department as saying that hopes to turn Iraq into a model of democracy for the Middle East had been put aside. We will settle for leaving behind an Iraqi democracy that is creaking along, the source said.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0923/dailyUpdate.html
Yes. That the media liberal is a myth.sm
We have a state media and they speak for the corporations who pay them who are ______ (fill in the blank).
The so-called faces of the liberal media:
The Beltway Boys: Your daily dose of liberalism out of Washington, DC.
Sean Hannity: A progressive Christian who likes to speak his mind.
Chris Matthews: A Clinton apologist.
Robert Novak: Champion of the poor and spokesman for social justice.
Tony Snow: Cutting through the GOP spin.
Paul Zahn: On the edge of progressive journalism.
John Stossel: Holding corporations accountable for greed and exploitation and pollution.
Bill O'Reilly: Notorious left-wing muckracker.
Brit Hume: Always fair and balanced.
Rush Limbaugh: The Master of Extreme Left Talk Radio.
Pat Buchanan: Pro choice, gay rights activist, part-time CNN pundit.
MSNBCs Alan Keyes: They do not come anymore liberal than Alan Keyes.
Larry King: Progressive intellectual feared by conservatives for tough follow-up questions.
Tim Russert: Never one to let Republicans get away with softball questions.
Coulter/Malkin: Not worth commenting on, they belong in a cage together.
Exposed urban myth. nm
.
Already proven but the myth continues. nm
.
You and Myth make sense
I had forgotten to look at it that way, but on reflecting on it, that does make sense. Heck, I even voted for Jimmy Carter when I was a young wild-child. I, too, have grown a bit more conservative, but I'm somewhere in the middle. It also does make sense about the celebs. Much like back during the red scare when McCarthy had anyone with suspected communist sympathies blacklisted, the pendulum has swung to where anyone with a conservative viewpoint would probably have a hard time finding work.
Thanks for 'splaining, Lucy!
Claim: US Created al-Zarqawi Myth
Claim: US Created al-Zarqawi Myth
By Jennifer Schultz
UPI
Thursday 10 November 2005
The myth of al-Zarqawi, Napoleoni believes, helped usher in al-Qaida's transformation from a small elitist vanguard to a mass movement.
 |
 |
The myth of al-Zarqawi, Napoleoni believes, helped usher in al-Qaida's transformation from a small elitist vanguard to a mass movement.
(Photo: spacewar.com) |
|
|
The United States created the myth around Iraq insurgency leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and reality followed, terrorism expert Loretta Napoleoni said.
Al-Zarqawi was born Ahmad Fadil al-Khalayleh in October 1966 in the crime and poverty-ridden Jordanian city of Zarqa. But his myth was born Feb. 5, 2003, when then-Secretary of State Colin Powell presented to the United Nations the case for war with Iraq.
Napoleoni, the author of Insurgent Iraq, told reporters last week that Powell's argument falsely exploited Zarqawi to prove a link between then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida. She said that through fabrications of Zarqawi's status, influence and connections the myth became the reality - a self-fulfilling prophecy.
He became what we wanted him to be. We put him there, not the jihadists, Napoleoni said.
Iraq's most notorious insurgent, Napoleoni argues, accomplished what bin Laden could not: spread the message of jihad into Iraq.
In an article of Napoleoni's in the current November/December issue of Foreign Policy, she said, In a sense, it is the very things that make Zarqawi seem most ordinary - his humble upbringing, misspent youth and early failures - that make him most frightening. Because, although he may have some gifts as a leader of men, it is also likely that there are many more 'al-Zarqawis' capable of filling his place.
The myth of al-Zarqawi, Napoleoni believes, helped usher in al-Qaida's transformation from a small elitist vanguard to a mass movement.
Al-Zarqawi became the icon of a new generation of anti-imperialist jihadists, she said.
The grand claim that al-Zarqawi provided the vital link between Saddam and al-Qaida lost its significance after it became known that al-Zarqawi and bin Laden did not forge a partnership until after the war's start. The two are believed to have met sometime in 2000, but al-Zarqawi - similar to a group of dissenting al-Qaida members -rebuffed bin Laden's anti-American brand of jihad.
He did not have a global vision like Osama, said Napoleoni, who interviewed primary and secondary sources close to al-Zarqawi and his network.
A former member of al-Zarqawi's camp in Herat told her, I never heard him praise anyone apart from the Prophet [Muhammad]; this was Abu Musab's character. He never followed anyone.
Al-Zarqawi's scope before the Iraq war, she continued, did not extend past corrupt Arab regimes, particularly Jordan's. Between 2000 and early 2002, he operated the training camp in Herat with Taliban funds; the fighters bound for Jordan. After the fall of the Taliban, he fled to Iraqi Kurdistan and set up shop.
In 2001, Kurdish officials enlightened the United States about the uninvited Jordanian, said Napoleoni. Jordanian officials, who had still unsolved terrorist attacks, were eager to implicate al-Zarqawi, she claimed. The little-known militant instantly had fingerprints on most major terrorist attacks after Sept. 11, 2001. He was depicted in Powell's speech as a key player in the al-Qaida network.
By perpetuating a terrifying myth of al-Zarqawi, the author said, The United States, Kurds, and Jordanians all won ... but jihad gained momentum, after in-group dissension and U.S. coalition operations had left the core of al-Qaida crippled.
In her article, Napoleoni says, [Zarqawi] had finally managed to grasp bin Laden's definition of the faraway enemy, the United States. Adding that, Its presence in Iraq as an occupying power made it clear to him that the United States was as important a target as any of the Arab regimes he had grown to hate.
... The myth constructed around him is at the root of his transformation into a political leader. With bin Laden trapped somewhere in Afghanistan and Pakistan, al-Zarqawi fast became the new symbolic leader in the fight against America and a manager for whoever was looking to be part of that struggle, she wrote.
The author points to letters between al-Zarqawi and bin Laden that have surfaced over the past two years, indicating the evolution in their relationship, most notably a shift in al-Zarqawi which led to his seeking additional legitimacy among Sunnis that bin Laden could help bestow.
In late December 2004 - shortly after the fall of Fallujah - the pan-Arab network Al-Jazeera aired a video of what was bin Laden's first public embrace of Zarqawi and his fight in Iraq.
... We in al-Qaida welcome your union with us ... and so that it be known, the brother mujahid Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is the emir of the al Qaida organization [in Iraq], bin Laden declared.
Napoleoni believes that al-Zarqawi, however, is still largely driven by the romantic vision of a restored Caliphate, and that his motives still are less political than some other factions participating in the Iraq resistance.
She questions whether he has actually devised a plan for what he will do, if and when, he wins.
and came in with a huge surplus!
I repeat....there was no surplus...
that was just clever use of word. It was a "projected" surplus, and it was contingent upon a cap on federal spending for 15 years, and no added federal programs. There was no real "surplus" sitting around.
Mea culpa on the borrowing. I have already said Bush spent like a drunken sailor. Spending needs to be curbed. Neither candidate is willing to say what I think needs to be done...no more new programs and stop the ones that are not working. When we get back in the "black" again, then we can look at increasing programs. Throwing more money at stuff is obviously not the answer.
The budget surplus from BC was a ...
PROJECTED surplus that would happen over 10 years IF no added spending, IF no added programs. Even if the war in Iraq had not happened, Congress could not go 10 years without adding spending and added programs. You act as if there was 559 billion dollars laying around. There wasn't.
I realize that you have bought into the whole socialist class warfare thing. Like O's hero Alinsky said...it doesn't matter if it is the truth or not...it just matters if you can make them believe it.
And they darned sure have made sure you believe it.
Not that old surplus crud again....lol
do the research...there was no "surplus." It was a surplus that COULD be IF spending was not increased over like 10 years. Like Congress could go 10 years without increasing spending. Clinton did NOT leave a surplus.
Surplus-Are we forgetting 9-11
Are you all forgetting that 9 months after being elected we were attacked on our own soil, with thousands of people losing their lives and NY City a disaster? What do you think that did to the surplus and the need to protect our country. How short your memory is until the next time it happens and they you will be begging for a stronger president than we have now.
There was no surplus. That was debunked years ago.
And the Democrats are largely responsible for the shape we are in. John McCain tried to pass legislation in 2005 to regulate Fannie/Freddie. However, Chris Dodd (head of banking and commerce committee, and largest recipient of Fannie/Freddie contributions) and the Democrats blocked it. Fannie/Freddie started this freefall in the economy. Obama is #2 on the contributions list. John McCain is wayyyyy on down the list. Then the democrats (the ones sitting now) pushed by Chris Dodd and Barney Frank in turn pushed fannie/freddie to give all those subprime loans to minorities and lower income folks, to people with either no credit or bad credit, knowing full well most of them didn't have a hope in heck of paying it back...it is THOSE mortgages we are going in hock to pick up.
Franklin Raines, James Johnson, Jamie Gorelick, Timothy Howard...all Democrats, two of them Obama advisors...ALL walked away from Fannie with golden parachute of MILLIONS after cooking the books.
And WE are picking up the tab.
NOBAMA, NODEMOCRAT, NO WAY, NO HOW!!
The surplus also followed him out eh? We know because it's now in the bank accounts of the rich.
A lot of people made a lot of money during the Clinton years - that's real money, honey, and they're still rich, accounting for our current revenues. Without the Clinton boom years your president's buds (and your president himself, let us remind you) wouldn't have gotten their 100,000 tax break checks. Sure, the boom couldn't hold, but the point is that the favorable conditions created by a sounder Democratic fiscal policy allowed that boom to come about.
Now all we have is empty coffers, slashed public spending, and China owns us. Big improvement huh? Oops, but people like Frist are still getting over big time on their big time stock trades - all's clear in the upper 1% But since you likely aren't in it, it's hard to see what you find so appealing about being a credit slave one paycheck away from poverty. Is that working out good for you?
Democratic = surplus - Republican = debt
Based on Congressional accounting rules, at the end of his presidency Clinton reported a surplus of $559 billion.
After 8 years of Bush...As of September 2008, the total U.S. federal debt was approximately $9.7 trillion.
Like all those years of prosperity, budget surplus
scorched earth administration?
Bush inherited a 559 billion surplus nuff said? NM
x
Bush inherited a 559 billion surplus nuff said? NM
x
Oil/oil revenue surplus in Iraq…to reconstruct or not to reconstruct? sm
That is the question. The Bush boo/boo just keeps getting bigger and bigger. http://www.slate.com/id/2081831/
Oil/oil revenue surplus in Iraq…to reconstruct or not to reconstruct? sm
This is the correct link. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/06/world/middleeast/06surplus.html?ref=worldspecial
clinton
You mean wonderful super intelligent President Bill Clinton and his lovely super intelligent lawyer wife, Hiliary? So much better than the dufus warmonger and Stepford wife in the WH right now..Jerks, both of them, backward thinking monsters, Bush and Stepford.
clinton
I think Clinton should have been impeached. He is to be a role model? Please, what kind of a role model is that cheating on his wife.
No on Clinton as VP
No way can Obama offer VP to Queen Hillary. He should remember what happened to JFK (with Johnson being involved). What a better way for the Queen to annoint herself to the presidency by getting rid of him. Don't put it past her either - just remember Ron Brown, Vince Foster, Eric Fox, Sandy Hume, Danny Casolaro, Ronald Rogers, John Wilson, Gandy Baugh, Mary Mahoney, Suzanne Coleman, Judy Gibbs, Gary Johnson, Kathy Ferguson, Bell Shelton, Sally Perdue (didn't mysteriously die but was told if she didn't keep her mouth shut they would break her legs), Jon Walker, Johnny Franklin, Ed Willey, Barbara Alice Wise, Jerry Parks, C. Victor Raiser, L.J. Davis, Herschel Friday, Ron Brown, and the list goes on and on an on....
So no, I would not put it past either of them that something would happen and she would swear herself in as the anointed queen. Lets just hope Obama has more sense - which I believe he does.
Clinton
Where do I start? I love Bill Clinton. Hs is very intelligent, he can talk about anything and knows what he is talking about. He did what the first person posted. He was impeached but he could not be removed from office because he was impeached for was not govenment and it has to pertain to the government to be removed from office. He was not born with a silver spoon in his mouth and he earned everything he got. He has worked very hard. Funny, but I get the same sick feeling in my stomach whenever I see George Bush's face on TV and the man cannot even speak so how he can do anything else. The trillion dollar debt, people with no jobs, and the list goes on and on. Put us in a war we had no business being in. He has never done anything on his own that turned out good. Whatever he did was with the help of his father or someone else doing it for him. He will not return to Crawford, they are going to build a house, but I forgot the location, and he will not be traveling around the world working to get meds for AIDS patients, starving children, etc. Maybe he can help bring back other countries to like us again like they used to until Bush told just about everyone of them he did not need their help and made them angry with us. I could go on and on but I am tired and going to bed.
This has been going on even when Clinton
was in office. This has been going on for years. Shoot, I lived in Arizona for 25 years and illegals were everywhere. Finally, Arizona will NOT hire anyone that is illegal. The companies have to hire people who show BC and if the employees do not, they are not hired. So most illegals moved to other states. Also the companies are audited and have to show proof that each employee is legal or the company will be fined. Arizona has border patrol that runs along Mexico and Arizona and that should have been up years ago. Even tried putting up border control when Clinton was in office, but everyone ignored her plea until a few years ago. Also work for a company that outsources to India. This has been going on for years and years. When the O takes over, he will probably sell our country out and will be worse. He says he will help the the middle class yet cause electricity rates to skyrocket and so on. I do not trust O with ANYTHING. He is a smooth talker, the ones I do not trust. If McCain wins, at least I know he will try to make our country safe from nukes of Iran.
Again I will say it. Clinton and his
cronies cooked the books. There was no surplus. It came out after an audit after Bush got in office.
I really do wonder how Clinton will
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,480126,00.html
U.S. Obtains New Evidence of Iranian Nuclear Intrigue
Friday, January 16, 2009
Iran Presidency Office
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad inspects the Natanz nuclear plant in central Iran.
WASHINGTON — U.S. security and law-enforcement officials say they have fresh evidence of recent efforts by Iran to evade sanctions and acquire metals from China used in high-tech weaponry, including long-range nuclear missiles, the Wall Street Journal reported Friday.
Iran's efforts are detailed in a series of recent emails and letters between Iranian companies and foreign suppliers seen by The Wall Street Journal. Business records show one Iranian company, ABAN Commercial & Industrial Ltd., has contracted through an intermediary for more than 30,000 kilograms (about 66,000 pounds) of tungsten copper — which can be used in missile guidance systems — from Advanced Technology & Materials Co. Ltd. of Beijing. One March 2008 email between the firms mentions shipping 215 ingots, with more planned.
The United Arab Emirates has informed the U.S. that in September it intercepted a Chinese shipment headed to Iran of specialized aluminum sheets that can be used to make ballistic missiles. A month earlier, UAE officials also intercepted an Iran-bound shipment of titanium sheets that can be used in long-range missiles, according to a recent letter to the U.S. Commerce Department from the UAE's Washington ambassador.
Evidence of Iran's efforts to acquire sensitive materials also is emerging from investigations by state and federal prosecutors in New York into whether a number of major Western banks illegally handled funds for Iran and deliberately hid Iranian transactions routed through the U.S. One focus of the inquiries is the role of Italy, including the Rome branch of Iran's Bank Sepah and Italy's Banca Intesa Sanpaolo Spa. Banca Intesa said it is cooperating in the inquiries.
Iran Produces Enough Uranium to Build Nuclear Weapon
The developments could present President-elect Barack Obama with an early test in responding to what many Washington security officials now say is a rapidly growing threat to the region, including U.S. allies Israel and Saudi Arabia.
All of the high-performance metals Iran has been acquiring also have industrial uses such as commercial aviation and manufacturing, making it difficult for intelligence agencies to be absolutely certain how the materials are being used.
"We can't say we know it would, or would not, be used for military purposes," said proliferation expert Gary Milholland of the nonprofit Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, noting that broad economic sanctions on Tehran led by the U.S. mean Iran has to go to unusual lengths to find high-grade materials for industrial use as well as weapons.
Still, he added, "There doesn't seem to be any real doubt or debate whether Iran is going for the bomb or whether Iran is using front companies to import things. Everyone agrees on that around the world."
Officials at the International Atomic Energy Agency said they believe Iran could have enough fissile material for an atomic weapon sometime this year, though it would need to be further processed into weapons-grade uranium. That assessment was echoed Thursday by Central Intelligence Agency Director Michael V. Hayden. U.S. and European governments have grown increasingly alarmed in recent months at the speed they believe Iran is developing ballistic-missile and nuclear capabilities. Last year the United Nations Security Council, which includes China, formally imposed sanctions on Iran's military and most of its banks for nuclear proliferation activities.
A spokesman for Iran at its U.N. mission in New York declined to comment. China "has been strictly implementing" U.N. proliferation sanctions on Iran, said a spokesman for the Chinese foreign ministry in Beijing. The export of restricted items such as high-grade metals, which include specialized aluminum and titanium, is prohibited, he added.
Wow, Clinton
Probably had Monica hiding under the desk. LOL. Sorry, could not resist.
No, Clinton just used
the Oval Office (that I pay for) and ''company time'' to get Lewinskyed on a regular basis. He may even have gotten a Lewinsky on Fathers Day, who knows?
I believe it is called Fathers Day for a reason. Obama went golfing on the sacred day, and I don't think Michelle and the kids were with him. On Fathers Day, it's Daddy that gets the gifts, otherwise it would be called Family Day or Wife and Children's Day or something else.
Some men give their wives a day at a spa for Mothers Day...should she be required to spend all day with Hubby and kids instead? Technically, I think the honoree gets to spend their time the way s/he chooses on that day.
Sanford having his trist in Argentina was quite bad enough, do you really have to pile on with Fathers Day as well?
Well, how did you feel about Clinton
get a B.J. just outside the Oval Office and then lying under oath about it? Oh, but that was his personal life though...
Yes, Clinton lied, and I
thought it was terrible when he did.
But Clinton's lies didn't result in a war. Clinton created a surplus. Bush squandered it all and created a huge deficit with his war. I'm amazed that you can't see the huge difference between the two lies. Bush's lies are placing every single American in danger of a terror attack because he refuses to do anything about the borders. This is here. This is now. Why don't you care about TODAY and the futures of your children and their children? We're living in the most dangerous era that America has known, yet you're more concerned about the sexual practices of a former President? I truly don't understand your way of thinking.
Clinton's Lies
Clinton made his worst mistake by not taking Osama bin Laden when he was offered to him on a silver platter by the Sudan. In case you have forgotten, he was major planner and money man of 9-11. Had Bill not been afraid of the political fallout...he might have been able to stop 9-11. And when it all comes out about Able Danger...he is finished and so, hopefully, is his wife, as far as politics are concerned. And the surplus you drone on about was a PROJECTED surplus, if spending was frozen for the next 10 years. Like THAT was going to happen. Sheesh.
Clinton/Bush
Again, GT brought the whole subject up about presidential integrity. I just wanted to see GT's feeling about what Clinton did, but of course, GT justified Clinton's lies which was what I fully expected. Again, Bush hasn't been proven to lie. Like I have said several times before on this board I will be the first to cry uncle if Bush is proven to have lied by investigation and that doesn't include accusations and conjecture by liberal politicians, grieving mothers, or leftist bloggers.
Clinton/Bush
Again, GT brought the whole subject up about presidential integrity. I just wanted to see GT's feeling about what Clinton did, but of course, GT justified Clinton's lies which was what I fully expected. Again, Bush hasn't been proven to lie. Like I have said several times before on this board I will be the first to cry uncle if Bush is proven to have lied by investigation and that doesn't include accusations and conjecture by liberal politicians, grieving mothers, or leftist bloggers.
Well, are they back up since the Clinton adm.
You used the word now, so I assume they are still at these levels and maybe even lower.
The point was that while everybody is again noticing poverty and thinking that Bush had done a dismal job in fighting poverty. The numbers just don't back that up. While there are some people living in poverty because of life circumstances beyond their control MOST are there because of bad life choices. You can throw all the money you want at it, but until morality is advocated and pushed for in this country then you will always have poverty. Jesus even said you will always have the poor among you. Now, is that a reason not to try and do something about poverty? No, but just throwing more and more money their way through higher taxation of the work force will not fix it either. It will only make more people classified as poor.
WHATever and thank you, Bill Clinton
with a thriving economy, an honest attempt at protecting our environment, and peace.
can we forget about clinton?
When you need a punching bag, bring up Clinton..If in doubt, bring up Clinton, if a republican is being investigated, bring up Clinton. Who cares about Clinton. He is not in office, however, Delay, Frist and Rove are all working in the govt.
She has a point about Clinton. SM
We had a porn star for president! Big deal. Who cares.
When Clinton did this did you have a problem with it
When he tracked financial records of terrorists during his admin.: See below.
******
From the August 28, 1998, edition of the Washington Post in an article entiteld “Bin Laden’s Finances Are a Moving Target; Penetrating Empire Could Take Years” by John Mintz:
Last week, President Clinton announced the addition of bin Laden’s name to a list of terrorists whose funds are targeted for seizure by the U.S. Treasury. Clinton aides said one of their goals is to locate bin Laden’s bank accounts and make him so radioactive in the eyes of global bankers that they won’t handle his funds. Some U.S. officials also suggested they could drain his accounts using highly classified means of information warfare involving electronic networks.
“We want to take financial action against him,” a senior administration official said. “The objective is to take down the infrastructure.”
Bin Laden’s money is the key to his power, U.S. officials say. He needs his fortune to pay his thousands of Muslim followers, bribe officials and plan terrorist strikes.
“If you go after his money, you’ll hurt him,” said Larry Johnson, a former CIA official and now a security consultant. “You need cash to make his system run.”
The United States has never launched such a financial attack on terrorists. In 1995 Clinton banned U.S. financial institutions from dealing with several dozen suspected terrorist individuals and groups, and Americans from donating funds to them.
But until last week the U.S. Treasury, which continually updates this list of “sanctioned” terrorists, never placed bin Laden on the list, despite the fact that the U.S. government had identified him since 1995 as the world’s leading terrorist paymaster. A senior administration official said the government’s understanding of his role “was evolving.”
So we’ve been going after bin Laden’s financing and the al-Qaeda money network for eight years now. But that doesn’t really blow the whole case open about the Bush administration’s “secret program.” This does:
The CIA and agents with Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network also will try to lay tripwires to find out when bin Laden moves funds by plugging into the computerized systems of bank transaction monitoring services — operated by the Federal Reserve and private organizations called SWIFT and CHIPS — that record the billions of dollars coursing through the global banking system daily.
Call me crazy, but that looks pretty gosh darn similar to what the New York Times and Los Angeles Times are freaking out about and calling a Bush administration “secret program.”
This isn’t news. This is just an attempt by these two newspapers and the associated reporters to “expose” the Bush administration’s attempts to keep this country safe from terrorism and root out those who would do us harm. The ACLU, the Democratic Party, and the “netroots” will proceed to go bananas about a program that’s been tracking bin Laden and al-Qaeda financial transactions for eight years–and was established under none other than Bill Clinton.
This is what Clinton was impeached for:
This is what he was impeached for:
The House voted 228 to 206 to approve proposed Article I of Impeachment (Perjury before a Federal Grand Jury), and voted 221 to 212 to approve proposed Article III of Impeachment (Obstruction of Justice).
And he was guilty of both. His impeachment had nothing to do with cigar dates with MOnica Lewinsky, though it should have...it had to do with lying under oath before a grand jury, and obstructing justice. Against the law in ALL 51 states. Also, he broke his presidential oath of office to uphold and defend the laws of the United States all to pieces. But that is okay, because he is Bill Clinton? How is it you liberals check any moral values you might have at the door whenever it suits you?
Clinton and Somalia...
The article was clear, and in military circles the truth is known. When Blackhawk Down happened, Clinton, instead of doing the right thing and stamping on Al Qaeda when he had the chance, chose to run. Al Qaeda was emboldened by that, and were left alone to grow, plan, etc. They felt they scored a great victory in Mogadishu, and in fact, because Clinton ran, they did. You say the country would not have supported a war in the middle east before 9-11. Perhaps not. The people might not have supported a war in Somalia either, as there are some people, like yourself, who believe war is never the answer. As I have said ad nauseam, until the enemy shares your belief (which will never happen), we must defend ourselves or be overtaken or having our cities turn into East Baghdad. They cannot defeat us in a real war, and they know this. I personally do not feel we should accept having 3000 people murdered. Had we smashed them in Somalia, we probably would not have had the issues we now have in Iraq, because the *insurgency* is fueled by Al Qaeda and we all know that. The rank and file Iraqi people would have had no idea how to put forth a guerilla war. Point being...Clinton's administration, or he himself, bear a great burden of responsibility for what we now face. AL Qaeda did the same thing in Somalia they are doing in Iraq now...arming and training. And we had the chance to stop it, and our President chose not to. Sudan offered bin Laden to Clinton later, and again he chose not to take it. You choose to take Bush to task for Iraq. I continue to take Clinton to task because I think he is more wholly reponsible. Not because he is a leftist or a Democrat, but because he made a decision based on keeping his political popularity than on doing what was right at the time for the security of this country. Anything else Clinton did, while reprehensible, pales in comparison to that as far as I am concerned. However, that is past, there is nothing I can do to change it. I do, however, resent the fact that the left totally dismisses all that and instead pounces on Bush for at least trying to do the right thing for this country, regardless of the political consequences. But, that takes moral courage, and something Bill Clinton never had and never will have
What I see regarding staying in Iraq is trying to finish what Clinton should have finished in Somalia. And not to abandon those rank and file Iraqis who desperately do want freedom. The insurgents do not speak for the majority of the Iraqi people. The majority of the Iraqi people are almost like children...they have no clue how to fight or defend themselves because they were so oppressed for so many years. It is those people who will be hurt horribly if we go now. But you seem willing to abandon them to it. That is what I do not understand. For someone who professes compassion, I don't know how you justify that. It could be that we are never able to do what we want to do and at some point need to withdraw. I am willing to give Petraeus a chance. I prefer to look at it like he does...stop looking through the rear view mirror and look out over the hood...and let's win this thing. He still believes it can be done. I have a great deal of respect for him, and I think he deserves the chance, and the Iraqi people deserve the chance, to see if he can.
I know it, if it comes up between clinton and McCain I just
i don't know which one would truly be worse.
Clinton vs Bush
Clinton gave us 8 years of peace and prosperity DESPITE the opposition of the neocons throughout his administration. Bush failed over and over again DESPITE having party control of both houses. The leadership ability simply speaks for itself. Looking forward to Hill and Bill in charge again. The neocon fanatics have destroyed themselves by their own hand. So be it.
Clinton v Obama
Anyone know anything about Jimmy Carter? Most people (even Republicans) agree that he was/is an exceptionally good man, maybe the most moral man in recent years. From what I have read, though, he was not a 'beltway insider" and therefore not able to get anything done.
Having said that, I thing Obama is a good man and I think Hillary is bascially a good woman. However I am afraid Obama will be another Jimmy Carter, a truly good man who is unable to be very effective.
Just my thoughts!
thank you senator clinton!
for backing Obama:
http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vbXkuYmFyYWNrb2JhbWEuY29tL3RoYW5rc19teXNwYWNl
FYI Hillary Clinton
She is from Chicago. She started her life as a Republican, like her father. Believe it or not, she was a volunteer in Barry Goldwater's campaign. Bet he is rolling in his grave.
It does not matter what they call themselves, they are different flavors of the same bad ice cream. Democrat or Republican, they are controlled by the men behind the curtains and the wealthy establishment whose agenda they are promoting. If they cannot get you to pick their (CFR) candidates through their media, they use Diebold to hack the vote electronically.
Why is he kissing the Clinton's you know what
I don't get it. Why is Obama kissing Bill and Hillary's you know what. Now I hear something about she wants Obama to pay off her debt. I don't get it. Maybe I'm not hearing the full story, but something about this doesn't sound right. I think I heard him saying he needs Bill and Hillary - like heck he does! Why is he in a "love-fest" with them. It's just a little to close for comfort for me. If he pays off her campaign debt he's one notch down on the party pole for me.
And where in the world did these Clinton clowns come from. They crawled out of a hole from Arkansaw parading around as if they are royalty. They are acting like they are like the Kennedy's and I keep hearing about the Clinton Dynasty from the media. Dynasty? Dynasty? There is no dynasty. These are just 2 people. Two low class citizens who have mesmerized and conned (sp? con-artist) the American people. They are 2 skum bags that I wish would just go away. Why Barack is acting this way towards them I have no idea. She tried to steal the election from him and he should just ignore her and go about his business. If he pays off her campaign debts I will be thinking twice about voting for him.
So does Clinton & McCain
That's always been Hillary's plan...to socialize American and create a system similar to the EU with Canada, America, & Mexico. She wants one country and wants to be the ruler. Always been her game plan. I have not heard that about Obama though. Can you state facts and sources so that I can go look it up?
He is a destroyer? I kind of laughed when I read that. Isn't that a little dramatic. :-)
Would be interested to read what you have found out about him changing America.
|
