No, really?
We have already talked about the wall that was put up between the CIA and the FBI by all of Clinton's lawyers.
This is another issue where things are done that no one cares about at the time, then we have to pay for the bed decisions later. And since Americans can't remember any farther back than two days ago, no one gets blamed.
Just think what would have happened if it was reversed. If a Republican could have had OBL three separate times, then that same guy caused 9-11, not to mention the complete destruction of our intelligence agency.
That is something about Bush you should admire. When someone actually makes decisions and tries to fix things, everything is not going to go perfect. Bush had to come in and fix eight years of no intelligence from the CIA and FBI, and deal with a world that had been emboldened by Clinton doing nothing of significance from many other terror attacks. (USS Cole and 93 WTC bombing to name a few). But since Bush is not trying to pass off things to another generation, he gets crapped on by the media.
Thursday, April 20, 2006
Pulitzer Winner: Bill Clinton Decimated the CIA
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
18 comments:
Um, from the Washington post April 19, 2006:
"Despite more than four years of legislation, executive orders and presidential directives, the Bush administration has yet to comprehensively improve sharing of counterterrorism information among dozens of federal agencies -- and between them and thousands of nonfederal partners, government investigators have concluded.
"Repeated deadlines set by both President Bush and Congress have not been met [emphasis added], according to a 34-page report issued late Monday by the Government Accountability Office. While acknowledging the "complexity of the task," the report notes that responsibility for the effort has shifted since late 2001 from the White House to the Office of Management and Budget to the Department of Homeland Security, and now resides with the director of national intelligence. "None has yet completed the task," the report noted."
And isn't it fascinating that NewsMin now uses James Risen as a source of Clinton-hating material after having vilified him for exposing the existance of the NSA's electronic surveillance program.
Game said, "But since Bush is not trying to pass off things to another generation"
Bush said that it would be up to the next president to decide when the troops are leaving Iraq.
Furthermore, because of his tax cuts and huge deficits, he is passing a huge s**tload of debt to future generations.
what is wrong with debt?
You need it to run liberal programs...
AND, Bush going into Iraq IS taking care of the problem NOW...and since you must have had a liberal history teacher, you don't understand that problems and wars can not be fixed in 4 or even 8 years...and any time you or any other liberal says otherwise, you show how little you know about history and the real world...
When Clinton was in office, the government was running at a surplus even with all the "liberal programs"
As we all know, there was no problem in Iraq except that the US didn't control it. Now the US is there, and it STILL doesn't control it. It just dumps money into it while the Iraqis sqabble among themselves and kill each other.
I have friends there, they say people are a bit crabby, but they appreciate us, and want us there....a bit more than I can say for you..
and you don't understand that while clinton was taxing us too much (surplus), it was slowing down the economy? Yes Jim it is a clear and undebatable fact that the economy started slowing down in Clintons last year.
It did not start picking up until after the Bush tax cuts.
Read here about ...
The economy under President Clinton was exceptional, historic and record-breaking.
Sustained income growth, broadly shared: After seeing family incomes stagnate from 1979-1993 (growing only 0.7 percent over the entire period) family incomes rose 17 percent – or more than $7,000 per family – from 1993-2000.
23 million new jobs created – the most of any administration: The Clinton administration created more jobs than any administration in American history; 22.6 million, 92 percent of which were in the private sector.
Revived growth in manufacturing jobs: After losing 1.9 million manufacturing jobs under Presidents Reagan and Bush I, President Clinton oversaw manufacturing job growth of 303,000 from 1993-2000.
Near doubling of productivity growth: The fiscal discipline of the Clinton administration helped usher in a virtuous cycle of lower interest rates, stronger investment, and a shift in productivity growth that has been sustained in recent years. Between 1973 and 1995, productivity growth averaged 1.4 percent a year. Between 1995 and 2000, productivity growth accelerated to 2.5 percent a year, or nearly double the rate of the earlier period.
Unemployment to its lowest level in 30 years – below 5 percent for 43 straight months: The unemployment rate fell by 42 percent over the course of the Clinton presidency and remained below 5 percent from July 1997 to the end of Clinton's second term in January 2001. The 4 percent unemployment rate in 2000 – the lowest in over 30 years – stands in contrast to an average unemployment rate of 7.1 percent under Presidents Reagan and Bush I.
Record deficits turned to record surpluses: Under President Clinton, we went from a record nominal deficit of $290 billion in 1992 to the largest surplus in history – $236 billion in 2000. This dramatic fiscal turnaround was by no means a continuation of the status quo – In 1992, the Congressional Budget Office was projecting a $455 billion deficit in 2000.
Some kind of bad economic record, huh?
you didn't read what I wrote...I said the ecomy started slowing the last year...
and how much of your numbers are Enron numbers Jim?
90's growth was fine, but much of it dot.com and accounting illusions...
But I was not talking about...simply taxes...taxes get to high, economy goes down...that is what happened at we got to the year 2000
Game, I have to thank you because I learn SO MUCH researching to refute your bogus assertions.
Here's what I learned this morning:
According to the National Bureau of Economic Research the US economy reached its peak in March of 2001 after a 10 year expansion. The Clinton tax plan was in 1993. So when exactly did taxes get so high that the economy started to "go down"?
Clinton actually lowered taxes for families earning $140,000 and under a year. He increased the Earned Income Credit, increased standard deductions, increased exemptions, and increased the threshold for exemption limitations.
If you read what I wrote, there is little in what I cited that would have to do with dot coms and Enron. Family income rose 17%. 23 million new jobs. That's not dot coms and Enron. Doubling productivity growth, lower interest rates, stronger investment, lowest unemployment, surpluses. That has little if anything to do with dot coms or Enron (with the possible exception of stronger investment).
Bush has lowered taxes and the number of new jobs has not even kept up with the growth of the population.
No Jim, you are wrong. Many of the jobs of the 90's were from Enron type companies and technology...when that bubble burst, we got back into reality. I would like to see if there is a stat showing how many jobs created by accounting lies and dot.com expansion.
Are you going to deny that the current economy is not running great? It clearly is, and it clearly started after the tax cuts
The economy is great if you are the CEO of ExxonMobile.
Real income for the middle and lower class has been flat for the last 5 years while increasing 17% under Clinton.
The stock market is nearly flat from five years ago. It only broke 11,000 in the last month or so.
The national debt is over $8 trillion and the Congress and president still had to add another trillion dollars to the debt ceiling.
You can't create 23 million jobs out of the dot com industry. Enron was an energy trading company. That would not create 23 million jobs.
Economically, are you better off than you were 5 years ago?
hell ya I am
And when I say Enron I am talking about accounting lies, not necessarily Enron itself.
The stock market was inflated, and then 9-11 happened...
What happened was you had an economy ready to take a fall no matter what happened...it grew to fast, and atleast some of it was smoke and mirrors....9-11 speeded up the fall...
Again, I understand fixing that takes time, Bush has fixed it, economy is great, every indicator of the economy is up, unemployment is lower than the ave. unemployment rate of the 70's, 80's, or 90's. The only thing wrong is liberals and media who are mad it is good and don't report on it.
Just had the opportunity to read the Fox News Opinion Dynamics poll.
Question 17: 72% rated economic conditions today as "fair" or "poor". Only 28% rated it "excellent" or "good".
Question 19: 56% said that the economy is getting worse for their family. 21% said it was getting better.
you are supporting my claim that the liberal media is keeping the people in the dark...most people look at the news and take it at its word...if the media wasn't so slanted, people would know how great the economy is
Yes, it's all the media's fault. You media-haters will say anything to blame the media for what's wrong in the world.
It's the media's fault that we're stuck in bad situation in Iraq.
It's the media's fault that we're paying over $3 for a gallon of gas.
It's the media's fault that we're $8 trillion in debt.
It's the media's fault that real wages for middle and lower income families has been flat for the past five years.
It's the media's fault that our ports, chemical facilities, refineries, and power plants are no more secure now than they were pre 911.
It's the media's fault. The Bush administration has done nothing wrong, nothing to be criticized for, nothing to earn a 33% favorable rating.
I'm going to stop watching and reading the media. Then I can be like George W. Bush.
YES, the media is atleast partially to blame for Iraq...everyone thinks it sucks,but I talked to ANOTHER guy who came back this week and he said the media should be ashamed of itself...give up on this one...the media has an adjenda, and they are going to make the war look bad, even though it isn't..
$3 a gallon, liberals, environmentalist, and media fault...liberals and env. make everyone think nuclear energy and drilling is evil and bad, so we have made ourselves impotent in the energy industry...we don't have any refineries, no new nuclear plants, no drilling...
EVERYONE is to blame for the debt...right included
I am very critical of Bush whenever he diserves it, you have selective memory...
Bush would not have such a low approval rating if the media didn't slant war coverage, economy news, ect....
Jim has given me a headache
Sorry, Mary. Is it due to lack of exercise?
Probably lol
Post a Comment