OT- Did the Prez lie about WMD?

SO, OUR PRESIDENT LIED ABOUT WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION This might come in handy.....
Re-evaluating Weapons of Mass Destruction
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov.10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of an elicit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-if necessary-to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical rfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 ------------------------------------
So how come the Democrats say there never was any WMD and Bush went to war for oil?
Gunner
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
That Clinton is scum and a liar is no news.
The Bush is scum and a liar is a much more relevant news. Trying to parade old lies from Bill Clinton in order to placate Bush is a distraction tactic and is dishonest.
By now, it is clear that Bush had no evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and was lying throughout the whole affair.
In fact, the true reason why he attacked Iraq and not, say, a much more threatening North Korea was because Iraq was defenseless (and more economically interesting).
i

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
ignoramous opines: >In fact, the true reason why he attacked Iraq and not, say, a much

easy to see why you picked your handle :o) Greg Sefton
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bray Haven wrote:

LOL Was thinking much the same thing.
Ignats wrote:
By now, it is clear that Bush had no evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and was lying throughout the whole affair.
So, did Clinton have or not have evidence? Since he may or not have lied and that has past, is that now excusable?
michael
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Or for that matter, what about Bush Sr? Or Reagan? Carter, Ford, Nixon, etc.
You might as well ask about them too. They were presidents once, too. Just like Clinton was.
He's gone folks. No sense in blaming any more adminstration stuff on him. Gotta find some other scapegoat.
Maybe, an ex CIA agent. That's it, we'll out a CIA agent because her spouse pissed us off. Oh. Done that already. Next idea...
Jim
================================================= please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jim says>He's gone folks. No sense in blaming any more

You missed the point, Jim. The dumbocrats are insinuating that the whole idea that Iraq had WMD's was cooked up by Dubya to press his personal agenda. Which, of course, is nonsense. Election coming up though. What do you expect? Greg Sefton
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Oh. I guess I missed that. Everyone knows the *real* reason he cooked up the war was to try to distract everyone from the fact that they're all out of work. New plan, take all the folks without jobs, make them soldiers, and send them overseas.
Look Poppy, no more unemployemnt!
Jim
================================================= please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Are you out of work, Jim? He's still trying to clean up the Clinton recession. Hopefully we'll give him another 4 years to get it done. Quit whining and go get a jpb. Plenty of em out there if you want to work :o). Greg Sefton
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ah, is that what you call it when everyone has a job, and there's no federal deficit.
I have to update my dictionary.
Jim
================================================= please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Denial is not a river in Egypt. The Recession started in the last 18 months of the Clinton administration. And as far as Surplus..IE no deficit..that was a very nice job of smoke and mirrors. However the facts quite spoke differently.
Gunner
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass." --Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Denial? Lets talk denial. How is that man going to run for re-election, when all of his voters have a) used up all their unemployment benefits, and b) have been out of work for about three years?
Gunner, the man only has *so* much money to spend on buying elections. This may be beyond even him.
Jim
================================================= please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Same way the other side will get their money. Special interests of course.

Then it seems that the media will be giving discount rates to both the Dems and the Republicans. Right?
Gunner
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass." --Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You're so cute when you do economics, Gunner. <g> Most economists say that the trouble showed up in the second quarter of 2000, although the first actual decline in GDP occurred in 2001.
If you want to go back in time to find someone to pin the recession on, go back to Reagan and the steady decline in controls on business finance that he initiated.
This last recession was just an ordinary business-cycle reversal. What's strange about it is the gaseous cloud that blew the bubble up so big. What's strange about the recovery is that business is waiting to see if there are going to be enough jobs to support a recovery with consumer buying. In other words, they don't believe in supply-side economics any more than the rest of us do.
Ed Huntress
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
says...

And in the end, GWB will be beholden to the job situation as well. Voters without jobs tend to be very, very testy. That's the second quickest way to loose an election.
And GWB has already failed on the first quickest way, which is to allow gas prices to go over two dollars at the pump. Voters really, really hate that, employed or unemployed.
Jim
================================================= please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 01:10:14 GMT, "Ed Huntress"

Your so cute when you only look at Democrat spew when trying to make a case....
President Bushs main economic policy ? the large tax cut of last year ? was not responsible for any of the current damage [to the economy]. Indeed, given the twin shocks of 9/11 and the post-Enron stock market decline, the short-term stimulus created by the tax cuts has turned out to be fortuitously well timed. (Editorial, Negative Al Gore, The Washington Post, October 5, 2002)
ECONOMIC DATA CONFIRMS SLOWDOWN BEGAN UNDER CLINTON
Economic Statistics Confirm U.S. Economy Was Shrinking While Clinton Was In Office. America went into recession long before the terrorist attacks of September 11th. The new figures suggest that the economy grew more slowly in 2000 than was previously thought: GDP rose by 3.8% (compared with last years estimate of 4.1% and an initial figure of 5%). (Unwelcome Numbers, The Economist, 8/3/02)
Market Indicators Confirm Recession Started On Clintons Watch. According to the Council of Economic Advisors, it was widely recognized that the economy was weak coming into 2001.
The NASDAQ peaked on March 10, 2000;
The S&P 500 peaked on March 24, 2000;
The Dow Jones peaked on January 14, 2000;
Manufacturing employment started falling in August 2000;
Industrial production started falling in July 2000; and
Manufacturing trade and sales started falling in April 2000.
(Council Of Economic Advisors, Talking Points, 9/20/02)
Congress Joint Economic Committee Says Signs Of Economic Slowdown Were Apparent In Mid 2000. By mid-year 2000 signs of an economic slowdown began to proliferate; it became apparent that an economic slowdown was underway. A number of key economic and financial indicators provided evidence of such slower growth and suggested that future growth could weaken. A brief summary of important elements of this evidence, for example, would include the following:
Real GDP slowed from a robust 5.6 percent annualized growth rate in the second quarter of 2000 to 2.2 percent and 1.0 percent in the third and fourth quarters, respectively, before rebounding modestly to 1.2% in the first quarter of 2001. ********************************************* A slightly different take:
http://www.industryweek.com/Columns/asp/columns.asp?ColumnID 6 Drops in tax receipts, corporate profits wipe out gains.
By Michael K. Evans Four questions about the return of the deficit: Whose fault is it? How much larger will it get? When will the U.S return to surplus? Does it matter? After posting a surplus of $236 billion in Fiscal Year (FY) 2000, the Federal budget deficit will rise to an estimated $165 billion in FY 2002, $265 billion in FY 2003 and $325 billion in FY 2004. That's a $561 billion swing in four years -- and if there had not been a recession and stock market collapse, the surplus would have risen another $200 billion over that period. So what accounts for the $761 billion shortfall? Regardless of what some Democratic politicians say, the Bush tax cuts account for only $150 billion of that gap. During the later years of the Clinton Administration, total Federal government spending rose about 4% per year, but so far under the Bush Administration it has increased 10% per year. About half of that represents automatic increases caused by the recession, and about half represents increased discretionary purchases, including a larger defense budget. I estimate that each of those factors accounts for about an extra $150 billion in spending, for a total of $300 billion. The shortfall in tax receipts due to the recession is estimated at slightly over $300 billion. The net result is that if there had been no Bush tax cut and no increase in discretionary expenditures, the surplus still would have disappeared because of the recession. The Bush programs then added about $300 billion more to the deficit. There is no secret about how the Clinton Administration turned the Federal budget position around from a $290 billion deficit in FY 1992 to a $236 billion surplus in FY 2000. Tax receipts rose an average of 8% per year, and expenditures rose an average of 3.2% per year. Excluding the cutbacks in defense, expenditures rose 4% per year. When Bush took over, most estimates -- including mine -- assumed that receipts would rise about 6.5% per year, and expenditures would rise about 5.5% per year, in which case the surplus would have increased about $50 billion per year indefinitely. Obviously no one is blaming the Bush Administration for the recession, which started more or less on the day he took office. Nonetheless, the collapse of the stock market and corporate profits have meant the reduction in tax receipts has been far greater than had previously been associated with a modest downturn. No one will ever be able to prove the case one way or another, but I think the recession would have been more severe without the tax cut in late 2001, although admittedly the deficit would have been somewhat smaller. Anyway, we are now facing a $325 billion deficit two years from now, with little chance of it turning around. I assume that sooner or later the economy will start to move ahead fast enough that the unemployment rate will decline, the one-time expenditures following the terrorist attacks will be phased down, and the Federal budget will get back on track, with revenues rising 6.5% per year and expenditures rising 5.5% per year. But with a deficit of $325 billion, the arithmetic works in the "wrong" direction, in the sense that expenditures in absolute terms will still be rising faster than receipts, even though they are rising more slowly in relative terms. Hence the deficit continues to widen with those percentage growth figures unless major cutbacks are made in current programs -- or tax rates are raised. What difference does it make? The higher deficit will have its major impact on the economy in two areas. First, it will crowd out private sector investment. Second, it will inhibit the stock market recovery, which means stock prices will probably rise less than their long-term average of 8% per year. The main result of the bigger deficit will be that paychecks will grow even less rapidly in nominal terms and will decline in real terms. Michael K. Evans is chief economist for American Economics Group, Washington, D.C., and president of the Evans Group, an economics consulting firm in Boca Raton, Fla.
Key components of GDP such as real consumption expenditures slowed after mid-year as real income growth moderated, stock market values fell, employment gains lessened, and consumer confidence stalled and then deteriorated. Movements in retail sales generally corroborated these developments.
Gross private investment also contributed significantly to this general slowdown with most key investment categories registering actual declines by the fourth quarter and advances of non-defense capital goods (ex-aircraft and parts) orders falling sharply after mid-year (on a year-over-year basis).
The index of leading indicators trended down after January 2000.
Employment advances slowed dramatically after mid-year. Gains in total non-farm payrolls, for example, averaged about 256,000 per month for the 2 1/2 years prior to mid-year 2000 and 44,000 per month after mid-year 2000. The average workweek also decreased after mid-year.
The manufacturing sector also has weakened significantly since mid-year 2000. Industrial production, capacity utilization, the Natural Association of Purchasing Managers index, as well as manufacturing employment and workweek have all registered significant declines since mid-year 2000.
Financial equity markets began to deteriorate about mid-year 2000 as well.
In short, there can be little doubt that a significant economic slowdown or retrenchment began about mid-year 2000 in the last quarters of the Clinton Administration. (Assessment Of The Current Economic Environment, United States Congress Joint Economic Committee, 7/01)
Clintons Chairman Of Council Of Economic Advisors, Joseph Stiglitz, Said Recession Started During Clintons Tenure. It would be nice for us veterans of the Clinton Administration if we could simply blame mismanagement by President George W. Bushs economic team for this seemingly sudden turnaround in the economy, which coincided so closely with its taking charge. But the economy was slipping into recession even before Bush took office, and the corporate scandals that are rocking America began much earlier. (Joseph Stiglitz, The Roaring Nineties, The Atlantic Monthly, 10/02)
Stiglitz Discredited Democrats Claim That Bush Administration Is Responsible For Recession. Stiglitz noted that during the Clinton Administration the groundwork for some of the problems we are now experiencing was being laid. Accounting standards slipped; deregulation was taken further than it should have been; and corporate greed was pandered to . (Joseph Stiglitz, The Roaring Nineties, The Atlantic Monthly, 10/02)
Clinton Administration Grossly Overestimated Strength Of The Economy. Hidden in the morass of statistics, there is proof that the Clinton administration grossly overestimated the strength of the economy leading up to the 2000 election. Did the federal government join Enron and WorldCom in cooking the books? Most startling, the Commerce Department in 2000 showed the economy on an upswing through most of the election year, while in fact it was declining. (Robert Novak, Op-Ed, Sunny Clinton Forecast Leaves Cloud Over Bush, Chicago Sun-Times, 8/8/02)
Drop In Investments In First Half Of 2000 Contributed To Recession. A plunge in investment that began in the last half of 2000, along with the declines in equity markets, was an important force in the recession. (Council Of Economic Advisers, Strengthening Americas Economy: The Presidents Jobs And Growth Proposals, 1/7/03) *******************************************
http://www.worldfreeinternet.net/news/nws174.htm
11 July, 1999
SMOKE & MIRRORS
The Budget Surplus That Does Not Exist
By Janet Hook and Peter G. Gosselin TIMES STAFF WRITERS
WASHINGTON, DC-Politicians in Washington, acting as if Uncle Sam had just won the Powerball jackpot, are rapt in dreams of splurging on big tax cuts, extra Medicare benefits, shiny new airports and additional stretches of highway. But the bounteous federal budget surplus upon which their dreams rest could evaporate before lawmakers get their hands on it. Recent budget analyses that forecast the ever-mounting pot of gold rest on assumptions about politics and the economy that may prove as reliable as the profits from a Ponzi scheme. (Are you surprised that the Liar-in-Chief may be fibbing to make himself and his administration look good? WFI Editor)
One example: Budget analysts base their recent accounting of the surplus - a mind-boggling $5.9 trillion over the next 15 years, by one measure - on the dubious bet that Congress will stay within strict ceilings for spending on current federal programs. But if Congress instead allows spending to grow enough merely to keep pace with inflation, as it often has in the past, much of the surplus will disappear.
And another: White House analysts have taken the unusual step of making their surplus estimates over 15 years, rather than the more conventional five or ten. The longer time period magnifies the effects of good economic news - but it also compounds the effects of even tiny errors in forecasting. Indeed, the White House admits that if it has overestimated just one variable - productivity growth, or the increase in what one worker can produce in one hour - by a mere half a percentage point over the 15-year period, that would wipe out the surplus altogether.
"If current projections turn out to be even slightly optimistic, the castles that political leaders are building in the sky will all come tumbling down," said an analysis by the Concord Coalition, a nonpartisan budget watchdog group based in Washington. What worries many independent budget experts is that, by the time Washington discovers any forecasting mistakes, it will already have spent the money. "The problem is not in doing projections, even ones for 15 years," said C. Eugene Steurle, a former senior Treasury official now at the Urban Institute, a nonpartisan policy research group in Washington. "The problem is spending the revenues the projections suggest might become available. It takes all the slack out of the system."
The one undeniable truth about recent budget predictions is that they have been way wide of the mark. A recent review of congressional analysts' five-year deficit projections found errors averaging $250 billion a year over the last 10 years. But Washington's traditional caution in the face of uncertain projections seems to be melting in the sun of two recent reports that show surpluses mounting faster than anyone had imagined. First the White House found that the surplus would total $5.9 trillion over 15 years, half in the Social Security program and half in all the government's other operations. That was a tidy $1 trillion more than the administration had predicted as recently as February. Then the Congressional Budget Office issued a 10-year forecast that reflected a similar trend.
Those estimates set off a raucous debate about what to do with the windfall. Clinton wants a new drug benefit for Medicare. Republicans want a big tax cut. The House has passed bills vastly increasing highway and airport spending. And everyone wants to bail out Social Security. Largely overlooked in the frenzy is the fact that the surplus projections assume that Congress will make significant cuts in "discretionary" spending for programs whose budgets are set year by year in appropriation bills. Spending for these programs - from weapon procurement to education grants, they make up one-third of the budget - has been limited by a series of caps set in the 1997 budget-balancing agreement between Clinton and Congress.
The ceilings, which did not hurt much in the first couple of years, are now growing painful. From $574 billion this year, discretionary spending is supposed to fall to $569 billion in 2002. And Republicans already have committed to spending increases for defense, education and transportation. That would mean deep offsetting cuts elsewhere. A bitter internal war is raging among Republicans, who control Congress, over whether to raise the spending caps. Conservatives insist they won't budge. "When hell freezes over," said House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas). Moderates, by contrast, recoil at the political risks. House Appropriations Committee members say the necessary cuts are so deep as to be impossible.
Clinton and the Democrats are ready to pounce. The White House estimates, for example, that one spending bill would have to slash many labor, health and education programs as much as 18%. (It's ironic that the Democrats and the Republicans are willing to "play politics" with the most important issues effecting American nationals, without any sense of moral compunction, after all, the slashes in programs will be the result of an agreement the President entered into with Congress. The self-serving agendas of each party is little more than a source of national shame. WFI Editor) "I do not believe there is a consensus in this Congress or in this country to make the kind of draconian reductions that would be required," said Rep. David R. Obey of Wisconsin, the senior Democrat on the Appropriations Committee.
The government's giant health care programs have generated much the same kind of concerns as the smaller discretionary spending programs. In their forecasts of giant surpluses, for example, both White House and congressional analysts assumed the government would stick with a 1997 law to restrict Medicare coverage of home health care, nursing home care and health maintenance organizations. Congress is now under tremendous pressure from both the health care industry and the elderly to ease those restrictions. Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) is usually a budget hawk, a determined opponent of federal spending. But at a recent public hearing in Wichita, he promised to roll back some of the 1997 law's provisions when he was told that they had proved devastating to rural health care agencies.
Official Washington may find all manner of reasons to roll back some of the tough spending decisions of recent years. But it has voiced almost no objections to the White House decision to measure the surplus over 15 years. That's largely because administration budgeteers have used conservative economic assumptions in making their surplus estimates, in sharp contrast to predecessors who depended on projections of unrealistically robust economic growth to justify proposals to boost spending or cut taxes. But according to a broad spectrum of critics, the credibility the White House added to its estimates with conservative assumptions was effectively subtracted by the decision to extend the estimates 15 years into the future.
"Believe me, we were stretching it when we did five-year projections," said Leon E. Panetta, who was once Clinton's chief of staff, his budget director and chairman of the House Budget Committee. "Any time you get out beyond a few years, you're in never-never land." And from the Republican side, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Pete V. Domenici of New Mexico, said: "I don't think [Clinton] should have done 15-year numbers. It created a distorted picture. It made the numbers look way too big." (Surprise, surprise! Bill Clinton did something that created a distorted picture! WFI Editor)
SOURCE: Excerpted from the 11 July, 1999, issue of the Los Angeles Times, Orange County Edition, from an article entitled, "Heaping Surplus Built on Mountain of Assumptions." Reprinted in the public service of the national interest of the American people. (WFI EDITOR: Anyone with half a wit would realize that the only way an institution as mammoth as the Federal Government could go from deficits to surpluses, was by employing dubious accounting methods. Along with the statistics that support the PR hype that we are in the middle of a "boom" because some people have made profits from the stock market bubble, it is conventional wisdom that the "wise" men running the country have inflation under control too. The reality that there is no boom, that there is no surplus, is as lost as the truth about Bill Clinton's honesty. His most recent travesty, the Cross Country Poverty Tour, is another example of his superficial means of addressing significant social issues. The president is a photo-op waiting to happen.) ******************************************8
Now Ed..what was that again?
<G>
Gunner
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass." --Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Except for the voters.
It's one of those navy things. If it happens on your watch, you're screwed.
Jim
================================================= please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Correction... change that reference to "voters" and change that to: Except for the Media and the Lefty Politicians whom are trying to make brownie points for the upcoming elections.
Gunner
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass." --Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Gunner wrote:

There you go again with that "whom" thingy. Abrasha http://www.abrasha.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I don't give a shit about the media. They can go piss up a rope for all I care. But GWB will be in tough, tough shape if he as to try for re-election with so many folks unemployed in the US right now.
Take away all the WMD crap, Take away all the Iraq war costs, Take away all the soldier's families, Take away all the Haliburton stuff, Take away all the Patriot Act nonsense, Take away the gas price increases,
That's all a tiny drop in the bucket if most of his voters who who otherwise be siding with him, are out of work. That 'center' part of the US you always talk about.
Jim
================================================= please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

that
Gunner, you wouldn't know economic "spew" if you slipped and fell in it. What's funny here is that you have all of these quotes from sources I'm reasonably sure you don't read (The Economist is not on many peoples' reading lists, for example, and the Washington Post is the "rag" you've cited before as hopelessly liberal -- and now you're quoting from one of its editorials, of all things? Get real.)
I'm not going to glorify the bottom-dredgings you've yanked off of some neocon blog by answering each one, but your first one is a doozy, so we'll just tackle that one and let it stand for the rest:

I have a subscription to The Economist, so I just looked that article up. It's a story about how the economy declined in 2001, not in 2000. The quote you yanked from somewhere in cybersapce says that GDP rose by 3.8%. For God's sake, Gunner, that's around 0.3% higher than conservative economists thought was *healthy* just four or five years ago. 3.8% is an excellent rate of growth for an advanced economy, by any standards. All that the comment concerned was a revision in the Commerce Dept.'s earlier estimates.
In no way, shape or form did the article say, or even suggest, that the economy was "shrinking" when Clinton was in office. In fact, the graph that accompanies the article shows that GDP was growing at about 4.5% (the revised figure, which is what the article really is about) when Clinton left office. You could confirm this for yourself in about ten minutes by going to the DoC site and checking the figures.
If you want, I'll send you the HTML version of the article so you can see the whole thing, and the graph. If nothing else, it might give you pause next time you pull quotes from the blogs. They're mostly full of crap, and you'd do yourself a favor to lay off of them, anyway.
Ed Huntress
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.