So you are actually saying that Bush getting duped by Iran to take out their biggest security concern is GOOD? You also seem to be taking the position that administration officials leaking the name of CIA operatives for revenge is also a good thing. You need some professional help.
We have had other presidents who opened their fiies FAR more than Clinton did. The difference was that politicians and press were able to separate the personal from the professional. Up until the right decided to make Clinton their Antichrist. Seriously, I was a Republican supporter up until the whole Lewinsky thing. I was as pi$$ed as anybody that Clinton looked at me in the eye (through the camera) and lied to me. I was just FAR more pi$$ed that the GOP took it to the lengths that they did.
Just as a point of information, the National Enquirer will get a story wrong here and there, but 99% of the time their stuff is true. They make up quotes, but the jist of ths stories are true. The Globe is different, Weekly World News, of course. But for the most part, the Enquirer is accurate.
Epilogue: more FATAL FLAWS being committed by the Fed itself. How embarrassing for them. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/08/business/08CND-FED.html?hp Greenspan Says Inflation May Force Fed to Raise Rates Sharply By KENNETH N. GILPIN Published: June 8, 2004 The Federal Reserve Board chairman, Alan Greenspan, said today that the central bank stood ready to tighten monetary policy more rapidly than the financial markets now expect, should inflationary pressures intensify. Referring to the Fed's policy-making Open Market Committee, Mr. Greenspan said, "The committee is of the view, as you know, that monetary policy accommodation can be removed at a pace that is likely to be measured." "That conclusion is based on our current judgment of how economic and financial forces will evolve in the months and quarters ahead," he said in remarks delivered by satellite to an overseas conference on money policy. "Should that judgment prove misplaced, however, the F.O.M.C. is prepared to do what is required to fulfill our obligations to achieve the maintenance of price stability so as to ensure maximum sustainable economic growth." Some analysts said that given the difficult task of forecasting future movements in prices, Mr. Greenspan was merely speaking as a responsible policy maker willing to alter course if conditions warranted. But others noted that his remarks seemed somewhat at variance with sentiments recently expressed by other Fed officials. In the last few days, Fed officials around the country have asserted that neither the new rise in employment nor the recent jumps in consumer prices mean that the economy is in danger of overheating. In a speech on Friday, for example, Donald L. Kohn, a Fed governor with close ties to Mr. Greenspan, contended that most of the recent rise in prices stemmed from one-time factors. Even though Mr. Greenspan's comments about what might happen in the future were hypothetical, analysts said the warning he issued today stood in contrast to what some of his colleagues had been saying. "Other members of the Fed sound so sanguine about inflation that it is responsible for Mr. Greenspan to suggest that in his view the risks around inflation may be more significant than the views of his colleagues," said Alan Sinai, chief executive of Decision Economics, an economic consulting firm. Ethan Harris, chief United States economist at Lehman Brothers, said that Mr. Greenspan "is hinting he is seeing something a little more permanent" in inflation trends than some of his colleagues at the Federal Reserve. Bond traders reacted to Mr. Greenspan's comments with modest selling of fixed-income securities, pushing up interest rates by around 5 basis points, or hundredths of a percentage point. Stocks were largely unchanged at midday on Wall Street. In his remarks, which were delivered by satellite to the International Monetary Conference in London, Mr. Greenspan made it plain that inflation, while higher than it was a year ago, was still running at an acceptable level and would probably remain in check. But Mr. Greenspan, who is to face a Senate confirmation hearing on June 15 for a fifth term as chairman of the Federal Reserve, sounded a cautionary note about the future. "To date, cost pressures have been relatively subdued," he said. "Nonetheless, the persistence of the rise in energy prices is a worrisome element in the cost picture." Fed policy makers are to hold a two-day meeting in Washington at the end of the month to consider changes in their monetary policy stance. In addition, they will prepare economic forecasts that Mr. Greenspan will present to Congress in July. For weeks, market participants and analysts have been expecting that the Fed will raise the overnight federal funds rate, the rate the Fed most closely controls, by one-quarter of a percentage point at the June meeting. Mr. Greenspan's comments today merely reinforced that sense, analysts said. In addition to his cementing that opinion, analysts said, Mr. Greenspan may have been sending a signal to his Fed colleagues that his view of future inflation is somewhat different than theirs, starting a debate within the Fed over what sort of inflation forecast it will come up with. "How many times has the Fed been right on its initial take on inflation?" Mr. Sinai said. "The answer is, rarely. But should we fault them for that? No." Mr. Harris, the Lehman Brothers economist, said that the consumer price index, excluding food and energy prices, was running at a 1.8 percent annual rate, within the 1.5 percent to 2 percent range the Fed would like to see. While contained, that rate of increase is nevertheless a good bit higher than it was in December 2003, when the so-called "core" consumer price index was rising at a 1.1 percent annual rate. "If you are going to be a credible inflation fighter, you have to move to Plan B if inflation does not stay within the range the Fed wants to see," Mr. Harris said. He and other economists have said that they expect the move that the Fed will take later this month will be the first in a series of modest tightenings. In the futures markets, traders have priced in an increase of 2 percentage points in the fed funds rate over the next 12 months. However, if over the next few months inflation data show that the upward pressure on prices has intensified, Mr. Harris said the Fed would probably get more aggressive and institute a series of half-point increases in the funds rate. Imposing that sort of a policy would say, Mr. Harris said, "We want to hurt the economy a little bit."
Good heavens, I had forgotten that Onion article. At the time, I remember thinking it was funny, but now it looks pretty brilliant, sad to say.
...but, but I'm better off now than I was during Clinton's ghastly years. How can this be so? I've got more money...less debt (believe it or not) more children... more wifes... more cars... more houses... more guns... more bullets... I want MORE!!! Maybe I should be a democrat...
More BS shoveled by the right wing media. Incase somebody with an open mind still believes this crap, I'll explain once again, the true story. The US was contacted by a Pakistani investment banker by the name of Mansoor Ijaz. He claimed he was a middleman for a deal from the Sudanese govt to hand over Osama Bin Laden to the US. The national security advisor at the time, Sandy Berger, met with him in person. Berger determined that Ijaz was an unreliable freelancer with a large stake in Sudanese oil. Sudan was under sanctions for, guess what, being a sponsor of terrorism. The deal Ijaz urged the US for was to lift the sanctions on Sudan, ie helping a known terrorist sponsoring state. That's hardly a "served up on a plate" deal. It's US policy, POLICY, to not conduct diplomacy with SELF APPOINTED private individuals (cough cough, Chalabi). Of course, the next logical step for the US was to contact the Sudanese govt themselves. Sudan said no such deal was on the table. They even negotiated but still, no offer came from Sudan. So what should they have done Faos, drop the sanctions and hope for the best? Ijaz is still around though: Mansoor Ijaz is a FOX News Channel foreign affairs and terrorism analyst. He joined FOX in December 2001 and contributes to FNC’s prime time and weekend news analysis programs on matters related to terrorism, foreign policy and national security.
You were in your 20's during the Clinton years. This is far fetched, but is it possible the reason you have more money is that you've progressed and gained more experience, therefore getting paid more than when you first started out?
To expand on this a bit, Ijaz's contacts with Khartoum were with President Bashir, however president Bashir was essentially a figurehead. The real power rested with Hasan Al-Turabi (see the other thread) and his NIF faction, who was bin Laden's comrade. More about Ijaz and his shady past here: http://www.pakistan-facts.com/staticpages/index.php/20021121114844805
This is similar to something I posted along with Joe Conason's debunking of this myth in the Iraq weapons site destroyed thread. It's all been posted before but many seemed to have missed it. Maybe someone should copy all of our posts and start a thread titled 'CLINTON WAS| NEVER OFFERED BIN LADEN BY the SUDANESE' Then it won't get lost in the back pages of threads and not read. I normally don't really mind if folks don't read what I post, but I just hate seeing the same debunked myths popping up time after time.
It doesn't matter much by now, this thing has hit the Rush/Hannity/FreeRepublic echo chamber. It's going to be cited as gospel by the chorus for years and years, and already has been. The funny thing about it is that the phraseology is always the same, it's not "Clinton refused to negotiate with the Sudanese about bin Laden", it's alwasy "Clinton was offered bin Laden on a silver platter"/ "Sudan offered up bin Ladenn on a silver platter" etc. "Silver platter" is never absent from this assessment. It's apparently a key part of the story. EDIT: while not screaming for the Pistons, I just did a little googling. Apparently "silver platter" is the order of the day among the echo chamber. Here's rush: http://www.rushlimbaughonline.com/refutingrush/2003dec11.htm Newsmax: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003/12/16/134014.shtml Freerepublic: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/745752/posts Hannity: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,96318,00.html NRO: http://www.nationalreview.com/contributors/kurtzprint120301.html Neal Boortz http://boortz.com/nuze/200310/10212003.html Krauthammer http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25466-2004Mar25.html American spectator: http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6436 Judicial watch http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/newsletter/2003/0803h.shtml Drudge http://www.drudge.com/weblog/004070.html etc etc etc Well, I'll give them credit, when they get their marching orders, they follow them, down to last metaphor.
If it doesn't matter why did you bring it up? The myths only get slammed when people keep trying to present them as truth.
