For The Record & More #'s to Silence Republicans
Just for the record, under Richard Clarke's leadership as Czar of Counterterrorism:
· CLINTON developed the nation's first anti-terrorism policy, and appointed first national coordinator of anti-terrorist efforts.
· Bill Clinton stopped cold the Al Qaeda millennium hijacking and bombing plots.
· Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to kill the Pope.
· Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously.
· Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up UN Headquarters.
· Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up FBI Headquarters.
· Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up the Israeli Embassy in Washington.
· Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up Boston airport.
· Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up Lincoln and Holland Tunnels in NY.
· Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up the George Washington Bridge.
· Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up the US Embassy in Albania.
· Bill Clinton tried to kill Osama bin Laden and disrupt Al Qaeda through preemptive strikes (efforts denounced by the G.O.P.).
· Bill Clinton brought perpetrators of first World Trade Center bombing and CIA killings to justice.
From Mama Miller, the best lib on radio. And the best show on radio... the funniest, and the most entertaining.... oh and I find her very attractive. What's not to like?
More #'s to silence Republicans; check out these super cool graphs on factualbasis.com
--For some odd reason it seems over the last 3 presidency's of the U.S., there is a common trend. Data based on figures attained up until 2003.
- Bush the First's deficit turned into a surplus under Clinton and immediately back into a deficit once Bush II took office
- Goverment spending increased during Bush I, declined during the Clinton years and rose again once Bush II took office.
- Median family income declined under Bush I, rose during Clinton and fell again once Bush II took office.
- The tax burden on Americans rose under Bush I, declined under Clinton and guess what?... it kept falling under Bush II (just kidding, it rose sharply)
- Unemployment rose under Bush I, fell under Clinton, rose again under Dubya.
- Poverty rate and number of people in poverty rose under Bush I, went down under President Clinton and went back up under Bush II.
- Murders in the U.S. declined sharply under Clinton after rising under Bush I and are now on the rise again.
- Total violent crime rose under Bush I, declined under Clinton and are still declining.
- Legal abortions were on an upward trend until Clintons watch and are now on the up and up once again.
- The Dow Jones Industrial Average was on a steady incline until Bush II... and then, well see for yourself here.
posted by Matt @ 1:07 AM
13 comments
13 Comments:
You can't put this stuff out there and say that its solely due to who is in the Whitehouse. You're mistaking correlation with casuality.
You could just as easily find a CEO of a major corporation who was in charge during those years and point to him -- Look, he took office and the DJIA crashed!
err causality, not casuality
Very true, democratic congress until 1994; but this all seems too convenient. Clinton pushed for many reforms and new initiatives during his presidency that were extremely successful, and the data shown in those graphs proves that he had a hand in it. I took a quantitative analysis so I know all about correlation and causality. You and me could argue forever as to what may have caused these changes. You say there is no correlation, therefore implying that both Bush's simply had the unfortunate of having been presidents during these trying times (when almost all economic, cultural and societal indicators showed that the political policies at the time were unsuccessful). You see that data and immediately think that there must be a different explanation than the one I put forth. You excuse it by trying to make the argument that somehow the executive doesn't have as much power as the legislature in influencing policy. I'm no constitutional scholar but I've always been told that our fore fathers intended three branches of government with equal power.
CEO's also have a huge impact on the success of a company... and yes there are examples of one person turning around a company. Just look at the influence that Robert McNamara had in reforming the Ford Motor Company in the 50's and 60's.
*quantitative analysis class
Yes, CEOs have huge hands in turning around companies, but not the entire economy. You can talk about ripples in a pond and whatnot, but in the end it was only an analogy.
Those who do study the constitution know that it was never intended for three "separate but equal" branches of government. In fact, the word equal is never used in the constitution with reference to interaction between the branches. Indeed, the supreme court of the constitution is veritably nothing -- to quote James Madison "the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution . . . [it] may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments." (Federalist Paper #78).
In light of that, which reveals the "equality" argument relatively null and void, we can then examine the effect each branch of government on the country.
For one, congress clearly holds the most power, at least constitutionally. They have oversight over the executive branch, they can basically ignore the judicial branch, they have the power of cash (they approve or deny the budget), they make laws (with or without the President's approval -- congress can pass a law without the president signing it at all and can even overrule a veto). They approve constitutional amendments, have the power to make war, can review presidential appointments, make treaties, etc. Clearly, the legistlative branch is king of the constitutional government.
Meanwhile, there's reality. In the reality of modern times the supreme court has precidential power (because no one has challenged the largely illegal concept of judicial review) and the president goes to war without congressional approval all the time. Presidents even issue psuedo-laws in the form of executive orders.
So, whats the point of all of this? I'd say that in modern day America the president really can't sway the government all that much. Especially given that for the most part there has not been a uniform control of government on the federal level for quite some time (until GW Bush and the Republican congress hooked up recently). I'd say that a red congress had more to do with the success of the Clinton years than much else. Even moreso, I'd say that the legacy of the previous president has much to do with the economic activity during the term of the next president. So if good things happen in the first term of a presidency, you can credit it to the previous president. Likewise, I'd say that the second term is usually under sway of the previous one.
With this in mind, your "too convenient" circumstances are nothing more than just that. Coincidence can be quite tricky, especially when there's a certain type of data you're desperately trying to look for -- see global warming.
Say what you want about Presidential powers but don't forget: Bill Clinton vetoed 38 bills while he was in office and only 2 were overridden (6 years of which there was a republican controlled congress, that did not hold a two-thirds majority). How many times has Bush exercised his veto? ONCE.
My use of the word "equal" was ill chosen; but if you really want to spark a debate about the meaning of the vague articles in the constitution I'm more than willing to go there. Checks and balances is a better word to use. Creating three branches of government that are "equal" is impossible and Madison, Hamilton, Jay and all those federalists knew that at the time. But they did stress the need for checks and balances. Just as my statement about the branches having equal powers is an exaggeration, your statement about legislative branch being the "king" of the constitutional government is an exaggeration. Given the vagueness of the powers given to each branch in the constitution, this subject could be argued either way.
For The Record & More #'s to Silence Republicans
· Bill Clinton stopped cold the Al Qaeda millennium hijacking and bombing plots.
· Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to kill the Pope.
· Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously.
_________________
How to silence us with what? Lies?
Clinton had NOTHING to do with stopping the above. Nor did US Intelligence! The millenium plot was stopped by a customs agent just doing her job! The plot to blow up 12 airplanes (Operation Bojinka) was discovered , and accidentally at that (the terrorists accidentally set fire to their apartment in Manila), by the Phillipine police!
I could go on and on with the many other discrepancies in your list, but I havent got the time.
Be careful about what you cut and paste next time!
Ah yes, your jerkiness... you of all people should know about copying and pasting. Lay off the ego juice, I think your head is getting far too big for your body.
That...wasn't me that posted. I don't post anonymously.
My mistake I apologize.
I love debates, but I don't enjoy the jabs and low blows. I just got caught up in the pre-election tension that occurs between people with differing political opinions every two years... it's sick and I wish I had the will power to resist participating in it.
Post a Comment
<< Home