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.

In article , Gunner says...

So how come the Democrats say there never was any WMD and Bush went to
war for oil?

1) No easter bunny.

2) No santa claus.

3) Politicians lie, both parties.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Startin' to look like ol' Sadam had better reason for Gulf War 1.

ignoramous opines: 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).


easy to see why you picked your handle )
Greg Sefton

"Gunner" I notice that the only state todate to be caught out having WMD
that were supposed to be destroyed was the US when some 300 tons of banned
NBC munitions were found at a site in Washington ????

"Ignoramus19432" wrote in message
...
That Clinton is scum and a liar is no news.

The Bush is scum and a liar is a much more relevant news.

You forgot the lying traitorous scumbag Tony Blair.

Oil, nah. We are referring to the present conflict in Iraq as the
"Halliburton War."

Regards,

Marv

jim rozen wrote:
In article , Gunner says...


So how come the Democrats say there never was any WMD and Bush went to
war for oil?


1) No easter bunny.

2) No santa claus.

3) Politicians lie, both parties.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Gunner wrote:

-----------------------------------

So how come the Democrats say there never was any WMD and Bush went to
war for oil?

Gunner



Forget the war, I want to know the truth about the pretzel story.

ff

"The Rifleman" wrote in message
...

"Ignoramus19432" wrote in message
...
That Clinton is scum and a liar is no news.

The Bush is scum and a liar is a much more relevant news.

You forgot the lying traitorous scumbag Tony Blair.


And the nearly irelavnt pisant scum Little Johnny Howard

Bray Haven wrote:

ignoramous opines: 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).


easy to see why you picked your handle )
Greg Sefton

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

In article , michael says...

So, did Clinton have or not have evidence?

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 ****ed us off.
Oh. Done that already. Next idea...

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 16:33:22 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

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

snip

So tell us, Gunner, when did you suddenly come to believe Bill
Clinton?

I recall back in June of 2000, you wrote:

I suppose now would be a good place to insert a few non-sequiters from Herr
Clinton and Algor and Co.?

"I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky"

"The greatest threat to the planet and mankind, is the internal combustion
engine" )Earth in the Balance -Al Gore

"..it depends on what the meaning of Is, Is"

"we will have the most ethical administration in history" (insert Chinagate,
Vince Foster, Monica, Travel Gate, White Water, etc etc etc)

" I did not know that this was a fundraiser at the Buddhist Temple"

"for only $100,000, you too can sleep in the Lincoln Bedroom, even if your an
international drug dealer"

Google recalled it, too... :-)

Al Moore

Ignoramus19432 wrote:

By now, it is clear that Bush had no evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass
destruction and was lying throughout the whole affair.

It is, idiot?

Got any proof?

ral

I don't think that Clinton lied about Iraq and WMD's but I do think he used
Iraq and Bin Laden to provide cover for his all too human horndog
tendencies.

It has been the position of the USA and the UN that Iraq had WMD's since the
'80's.
"Saddam is/was an evil man, a really bad guy" an Iranian chap confided to me
, "but what right does the US have to take him out?"
An other guy said later, "Okay so maybe getting rid of Saddam was the moral
thing to do but what gives us the right?"
Guys, I am just a dumb ass machinist, help me with this: evil is bad, moral
is good; where am I confused?

I have not heard any one defend Saddam, who will stand to do so?
Kent

ff wrote in message ...
Gunner wrote:

-----------------------------------

So how come the Democrats say there never was any WMD and Bush went to
war for oil?

Gunner



Forget the war, I want to know the truth about the pretzel story.
ff

I can't wait for the US election. How many more months of this stuff?
;-)

Maybe the Parliamentary election-type timetable has something to offer-
about the duration of the gubernatorial recall campaign in California.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

Jim saysHe's gone folks. No sense in blaming any more
adminstration stuff on him. Gotta find some other
scapegoat.

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

Kent Frazier wrote:
I don't think that Clinton lied about Iraq and WMD's but I do think
he used Iraq and Bin Laden to provide cover for his all too human
horndog tendencies.

It has been the position of the USA and the UN that Iraq had WMD's
since the '80's.
"Saddam is/was an evil man, a really bad guy" an Iranian chap
confided to me , "but what right does the US have to take him out?"
An other guy said later, "Okay so maybe getting rid of Saddam was the
moral thing to do but what gives us the right?"
Guys, I am just a dumb ass machinist, help me with this: evil is bad,
moral is good; where am I confused?

I have not heard any one defend Saddam, who will stand to do so?
Kent

We don't need to be on some crusade to liberate the Iraqis or any other
people suffering under an evil leader. Whether he is an evildoer or not is
completely irrelevant, we do not have the resources to rid the world of
evil. The question is whether he posed a threat to the US and our allies,
and whether we are now safer as a result of the invasion and ongoing
occupation. If we keep on following neocon foreign policy, soon we'll be as
safe as the Israelis.

In article , Bray Haven says...

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.

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
==================================================

In article , Alan Moore says...

So tell us, Gunner, when did you suddenly come to believe Bill
Clinton?

...........

Google recalled it, too... :-)

I guess Gunner's just gone and got religion!

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article .net, Richard
Lewis says...

Got any proof?

Dern tootin.

And I'd bet a *bundle* that you don't have
any proof there isn't a blue china teapot
in orbit around venus.

So there has to be.

Natch.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"Richard Lewis" wrote in message
link.net...
Ignoramus19432 wrote:

By now, it is clear that Bush had no evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass
destruction and was lying throughout the whole affair.

It is, idiot?

Got any proof?

ral


So where are the WMD, put up or shut up, its that simple, they have had six
months and countless lives to bring forth the evidence they were so adamant
about, Bush and Blair lied and decieved, and lots of good brit and yank
soldiers have died in an unjust and illegal war.

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 02:37:33 GMT, Alan Moore
wrote:

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 16:33:22 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

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

snip

So tell us, Gunner, when did you suddenly come to believe Bill
Clinton?


Is there some reason you snipped the other several dozen quotes from
other prominent Democrats? Or are you simply trying a bait and
switch?

Gunner


I recall back in June of 2000, you wrote:

I suppose now would be a good place to insert a few non-sequiters from Herr
Clinton and Algor and Co.?

"I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky"

"The greatest threat to the planet and mankind, is the internal combustion
engine" )Earth in the Balance -Al Gore

"..it depends on what the meaning of Is, Is"

"we will have the most ethical administration in history" (insert Chinagate,
Vince Foster, Monica, Travel Gate, White Water, etc etc etc)

" I did not know that this was a fundraiser at the Buddhist Temple"

"for only $100,000, you too can sleep in the Lincoln Bedroom, even if your an
international drug dealer"

Google recalled it, too... :-)

Al Moore

And your point is? What about all the other Dems?

Gunner

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle
behind each blade of grass." --Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 19:35:00 +0100, "The Rifleman"
wrote:


"Gunner" I notice that the only state todate to be caught out having WMD
that were supposed to be destroyed was the US when some 300 tons of banned
NBC munitions were found at a site in Washington ????

So far. Though Russia is still known to have surviving stockpiles
tucked away here and there.

Now you have failed to point out that the 300 tons were found by US
military inventory takers. And you might notice..that they were in a
nice neat well known, and regularly inspected muntions dump. So having
suddenly found 300 tons of NBC muntions "lost" for what..10 or more
years..in a nice neat munitions dump, what leads you to believe that
Saddams NBC can be found in 6 months after having been hidden?

Thanks for playing.


Gunner

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle
behind each blade of grass." --Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto

Gunner wrote:

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


How is it you can dig up quotes from Clinton yet have YET to
state where WMD have been or are to be found?

Could it be that there ARE NO WMD???? That Bush's War was
nothing but a SHAM???


Bush Ethics: Lie, Cheat, Steal & Commit War crimes...

Ike the Anti-Sheep

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

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 ).
Greg Sefton

In article , Bray Haven says...

A He's still trying to clean up the Clinton recession.

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
==================================================

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 18:52:32 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 02:37:33 GMT, Alan Moore
wrote:

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 16:33:22 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

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

snip

So tell us, Gunner, when did you suddenly come to believe Bill
Clinton?


Is there some reason you snipped the other several dozen quotes from
other prominent Democrats? Or are you simply trying a bait and
switch?

No, that was about as much of your article as I was patient enough to
read. Basically, Iraq, in February-March 2003, was about as well
prepared to produce weapons of mass destruction as the high school
down the street from me. They had the same sorts of facilities, and,
if more expertise, less actual resources.

I don't care what politician said what, or which branch of our only
major party they're involved with. The inspectors themselves, US and
foreign, the intelligence services of a hundred nations, including the
US were all in agreement: Iraq was no threat to anyone outside of
Iraq.

Al Moore

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 20:11:55 GMT, Ike wrote:



Gunner wrote:

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


How is it you can dig up quotes from Clinton yet have YET to
state where WMD have been or are to be found?

Could it be that there ARE NO WMD???? That Bush's War was
nothing but a SHAM???


Bush Ethics: Lie, Cheat, Steal & Commit War crimes...

Ike the Anti-Sheep

Ike...some..and only a few of those quotes are from Clinton. Nancy
Pelosi is Clinton in drag? They are from Prominent Democrats, all of
them. Why do you keep denying them? Is there some reason you have this
huge blank spot in your perception? Some from of DNC programming? Are
you a Manchurian Candidate?

Have you read the David Kay 3 month interim report yet that was
released recently? I suggest you do so.

Gunner

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle
behind each blade of grass." --Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto

Ignoramus6463 wrote:

In article .net, Richard Lewis wrote:
Ignoramus19432 wrote:

By now, it is clear that Bush had no evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass
destruction and was lying throughout the whole affair.

It is, idiot?

Got any proof?

Proof of what? That he had no evidence? That's simple, he has not
produced any evidence that he had at the time when he launched the
war.

Proof that it "is clear that Bush had no evidence" as you stated,
idiot.

That he was lying? Just refer to his earlier speeches about dangers of
Iraqi WMD...

The same ones the UN said, klinton said, congress said, iraq said etc
etc etc?

Hint: stating something you believe to be true isn't lying, idiot.

ral

i

"The Rifleman" wrote:

So where are the WMD, put up or shut up, its that simple, they have had six
months and countless lives

So? Someone as brilliant as you, trashboy, you of course know that
with the entire UN inspecting team (four times the amount of folks
searching today) and with Iraq's claimed support and openess, the UN
inspectors were still finding **** after EIGHT STRAIGHT YEARS of
searching?

Given the amount of folks doing the searching today, spout your
bull**** in about 32 years and it might be more pertinent.

ral



to bring forth the evidence they were so adamant
about, Bush and Blair lied and decieved, and lots of good brit and yank
soldiers have died in an unjust and illegal war.

On 11 Oct 2003 15:22:45 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Bray Haven says...

A He's still trying to clean up the Clinton recession.

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

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

In article .net, Richard
Lewis says...

Proof that it "is clear that Bush had no evidence" as you stated,
idiot.

Ah there it is again. The challenge has been issued,
to prove that something, conclusively,... does not exist.

I would suggest that rather than waste time on WMDs we
should go right to gunners favorites, Elvis, UFOs,
and LGMFM.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Gunner says...

Have you read the David Kay 3 month interim report yet that was
released recently? I suggest you do so.

Geez, tell him to read the Dick Cheney speech, where Cheney
says that everyone who doesn't agree with Bush is a no
good rat fink commie. And he's gonna kick their butt
after school at the bicycle racks....

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Gunner says...

Denial is not a river in Egypt.

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
==================================================

Richard Lewis wrote:

Ignoramus19432 wrote:


By now, it is clear that Bush had no evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass
destruction and was lying throughout the whole affair.


It is, idiot?

Got any proof?

ral


Could the proof be that there has NEVER been ONE oz. of a
WMD found?

Let me put it this way. What if Gore was President right now...
Would you support the WMD myth or would you be whinnying about a
Wag the Dog war run as a Wag the Dog Conspiracy to cover up the
failed Algore Economy?

I say every GOP Sheep here would be bitching about Gore
assassinating our troops in Iraq & you ****head KNOW YOU
WOULD.


Ike

(Bray Haven) wrote in message ...

Quit whining and go
get a jpb. Plenty of em out there if you want to work ).
Greg Sefton

Hopefully, we'll kick his ass back to tayksucks before this term is
over, to think he could ever run for dog catcher and win is now just
wishful thinking. There may be jobs out there, but none that will
support even a single person, not to mention a family. seems to be a
common trait when republiscams sit in the white house. I've said it
before, at least it's going to be the republiscams children and grand
children that will have to pay it back, I don't have any.

"Gunner" wrote in message
...

A He's still trying to clean up the Clinton recession.

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

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'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

In article , Ed Huntress
says...

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.

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
==================================================

On 11 Oct 2003 17:34:41 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

Denial is not a river in Egypt.

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?


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

Gunner, the man only has *so* much money to spend
on buying elections. This may be beyond even him.

Jim

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

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 01:10:14 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


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.

Your so cute when you only look at Democrat spew when trying to make a
case....

President Bush’s 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 year’s estimate of 4.1% and an
initial figure of 5%).” (“Unwelcome Numbers,” The Economist, 8/3/02)

Market Indicators Confirm Recession Started On Clinton’s Watch.
According to the Council of Economic Advisors, “it was widely
recognized that the economy was weak coming into 2001.”

ü The NASDAQ peaked on March 10, 2000;

ü The S&P 500 peaked on March 24, 2000;

ü The Dow Jones peaked on January 14, 2000;

ü Manufacturing employment started falling in August 2000;

ü Industrial production started falling in July 2000; and

ü 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:

ü 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/...p?ColumnID=896
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.

ü 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.

ü 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).

ü The index of leading indicators trended down after January 2000.

ü 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.

ü 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.

ü 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)

Clinton’s Chairman Of Council Of Economic Advisors, Joseph Stiglitz,
Said Recession Started During Clinton’s Tenure. “It would be nice for
us veterans of the Clinton Administration if we could simply blame
mismanagement by President George W. Bush’s 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 America’s
Economy: The President’s 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