Clintons final National Security report did not contain a single mention of Al Qaeda out of all 45,000 words. Bin Laden was only mentioned four times.
Wouldn't you think that a "Top Priority" would be mentioned at least once out of 45,000 words??
It's nice to see that the author of the preceding post has taken his own advice against Clinton.
Might've been nice if he'd recognized what most of us on the right recognized before he was even elected.
'Fact is, three years after he left office, Clinton is rightly held in contempt. In 2012, three years after GWB leaves office, he'll rightly be held in high regard as a man with the moral clarity to resist the Islamists when the appeasing left could only wring its hands.
Clinton presided over the most prosperous 8 year span in U.S. History. IMHO, he EARNED the right to an occassional consensual Blow Job.
George W. Bush will go down in the dumpster of history with Harding, Hoover, and Hayes as the worst batch of presidents in U.S. history. Getting us into a Vietnam-like situation in Iraq is just the beginning of Bush's disaster of a Presidency. Dumbya's non-accomplishments on the Economy are the rest of Bush's great legacy of incompetence.
Please, name one single solitary thing Bush has actually achieved to the degree that we are better off than we were under Clinton. There is NOTHING in this country that is better now than it was 4 years ago.
Other than uniting the Shiites and the Sunnis in Iraq in their hatred of us, that is.
Afgahnistan is free from the rule of the oppressive Taliban and forming a new government under a new constitution.
Afgahn women no longer have to hide themselves in Burqas.
Iraqis are free from the oppression of a brutal dictator.
Iraqis no longer have to worry about thier sons being taken away and dumped into mass graves, or their daughters taken to rape rooms to be tortured.
Libya has seen the writing on the wall and agreed to abandon thier WMD programs.
A short, little madman tucked away in his nightmarish hellhole of a country is shaking in his boots.
The mullahs of Iran are nervous about a populace who are starting to challenge thier oppressors, emboldened by the fact that the most powerful military force in the world is camped next door.
The Syrians are nervous and having second thoughts about supporting terrorists.
RLTW
France, Germany, Saddam and the U.N. are no longer taking billions of dollars from the corrupt U.N. Oil for Food program.
RLTW
And frankly, they would be if Bush hadn't abandoned THAT mission prematurely to go take up after Iraq. The Taliban is still around, and is once again controlling parts of Afghanistan.
The Iranian Mullahs are nervous because their own people are an ever more friendly population toward western culture, NOT because of our actions in Iraq. If anything, our Iraq policy has strengthened the hand of the religious fundamentalists in Iran and enabled them to hold power longer than they otherwise might have.
The Syrians may not be openly supporting the terrorists, but their government is now MORE strongly supported by their people in continuing to support terrorists behind the scenes. This is certainly still in a state of flux, and we certainly cannot claim any completed accomplishments here yet.
I will grant you a small accomplishment in Libya, in getting Qaddafi to drop his nuclear program. But I would chalk this up to his getting old and losing some vigor and gaining some perspective, as much as to anything the Bush Adminsitration actually did proactively relating to Libya. Oh, and BTW, Qaddafi is well over 6 feet tall.
And as for Iraq, well the Iraqi people do not seem to support our being there, rather than the lives they had before.
And if he ever gives them up, you can be sure that it will be because the Chinese, who were formerly his supporters, will have taken away the sustinence that his nation depends upon. Not because of anything BUSH had done.
This guy's gone completely 'round the bend.
Now, he's responding to himself.
It was pretty subtle James86, so I didn't expect YOU to figure it out.
At least after I proded, then RLTW actually did respond with a substantive reply.
GW's staying afloat by 1% Fed funds rate and the housing bubble.
Federal income taxes are lower for every American who pays them.
Parents don't have to explain "oral sex" to their 'tweens because there are reports on presidential behavior which include such references.
Terrorists know they will face real risk for attacking the United States.
Missile defense is now proceeding because we no longer honor a treaty made with a dead nation-state.
The federal government is no longer paying of the President's union buddies with special favors.
We have a President who's searching for energy solutions at home (ANWR), rather than hoping to successfully appease Middle Eastern Islamo-Fascists.
And that's just on the spur of the moment.
I earned less yet paid more in federal taxes this year.
I also paid a great deal more in local taxes due to the Bush admin cutting support to our local gov't coffers.
So if Bush cuts our taxes and at the same time cuts funding to local gov't, therefore making the locals raise our taxes, it is considered good for me how? After all you said :
" Federal income taxes are lower for every American who pays them."
Which, according to my previous 2 tax years comparison proves I paid more in 2003 taxes than in 2002. And just to let you know, it was a differnce in income of more than $60,000.
If you paid more in federal income taxes on less income, then you seriously need a new accountant. Income tax rates were lowered, and more family-friendly deductions and credits were added. If you paid more in federal taxes, then you are the exception, not the rule.
As for local taxes, I would suggest that you take that up with your local officials. The Feds shouldn't be funding local governments, anyway.
It took you 2 days to come up with this lame duck response?
Your opinions are just that. There was a story on national news just last night about the real effect taxe cuts have had on the people. It also outlined the way corporations have used the loopholes to pay NO taxes by sending work overseas. And who was it that said there was no incentive to send the jobs offshore? As far as the local gov't goes, I have taken issue with them, but when the Fed promises x amount of dollars to help with projects and organizations it set up post 9/11, and then uses the money to bailout large corporations that were showing NO loss whatsoever, it has EVERYTHING to do with the Fed!
You should do a little research prior to posting your opinions and at least try to mix some facts in with them. Do not ask me for sources as I think if you do a little research on your own you may possibly stumble across some interesting facts you so conveniently ignore. Research doesn't include listening to Rush or Hannity, Boortz or Al Franken either. While they are all quite amusing, they are all misguided fools.
-- Modified on 4/13/2004 9:19:40 AM
The base rates are lower, it is true. However the AMT triggers are very much more aggressive than they used to be.
And maybe it would be a good idea for parents to talk to their kids about things like Oral Sex. Nowadays, they simply need to explain things like "why our unemployment benefits have expired and daddy still hasn't gotten another job", and "why you children will need to pay MORE taxes because the Government is spending your future away into a huge deficit, so Bush can put a puppet state in Iraq, and give his rich cronies tax breaks now". Personally, I think explaining Blow Jobs is quite a bit more reasonable, and less stressful on the kids.
Nice to see one admission.
Bush isn't responsible for the AMT; in fact, he supports reform of it (as do I). And he isn't responsible for its triggers; they were enacted long ago, and are now triggered more often because of rising incomes.
And perhaps you think it's a good thing for parents to talk about oral sex to 6-12-year-olds. However, if you talk to mine about it, I'll have you thrown in jail.
As to job loss, your job isn't the federal government's responsibility. Aside from the fact that the unemployment is now below the average of the Clinton Administration's.
And the Federal Government is spending your future because it's improperly involved in things like unemployment insurance, Social[ist] [In]Security, welfare, education, public housing, the weather service, etc. It's because we're spending too much, not that we're taxed too little.
It is when they create incentives for corporations to send the jobs offshore!
It is NEITHER what you say it is, NOR what I say it is. And, of course, as I am not the parent of your children, it is of course NOT my role to talk to your kids about Oral sex. It's YOUR job. I am only glad that they see the context in which to ASK you about it, rather than allowing you to go on in denial that they are thinking about these things.
After all, they control the congress, and the executive branch. What better time to do it. Or is the fact that they don't, simply evidence that they are a bunch of craven politicians who are too concerned about getting re-elected to do the right thing?
BTW, I personally agree with you about our government spending too much. But the Republicans are in charge of everything now, there is no legitimate excuse not to fix it.
And, BTW, the reason we have a social safety net is to preserve order. If unemployed folks were actually starving to death, do you think there's a chance they might be forced to revert to crime? Or should they simply go off to die, and leave the affluent in their nice warm houses? Prey tell, what would YOU suggest for someone who is poor, desperate, and hungry? I am waiting your solutions, since obviously, you are so certain that the ones we have now are wrong.
Before you take cheap shots at some of my OTHER replies, try answering THIS question, in earnest, as it is FAR more important than all the others. What would YOU suggest society do about this. It's NOT an easy question, James. Let's hear your facile answer.
At best, GW Bush will have approximately 47% believing he was a good president.
And right now, Clinton still has aproximately 63% believing he was a good president.
he might crash into it on one of his late night binges.
So yes, I agree, Clinton was nearly as bad as Bush in this regard. And yes, Bush should be replaced by someone who DOES recognize the significance of Bin Laden and Al Qaida.
Oh, and you're actually wrong. There WAS exactly one mention of Al Qaida in the Clinton report, along with 4 mentions of Bin Laden.