REMEMBERING SEPT. 11: BILL CLINTON'S ULTIMATE LEGACY




 
--
Boots
 
September 10th, 2005  
phoenix80
 
 

Topic: REMEMBERING SEPT. 11: BILL CLINTON'S ULTIMATE LEGACY


REMEMBERING SEPT. 11: BILL CLINTON'S ULTIMATE LEGACY

MichNews.com ^ | Sep 10, 2005 | By Doug Schmitz

As the fourth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks approaches, the Left is still tirelessly re-scripting this ultimate legacy of the Clinton-Gore Administration: The gross negligence and complete dereliction of duty of Bill Clinton in preventing the worst terrorist attack ever perpetrated on American soil. For this reason, Clinton?s role on Sept. 11, and why he must be held accountable for his blood-guiltiness, can never be overemphasized.

In fact, Lt. Col. Robert ?Buzz? Patterson, USAF (Ret.), author of ?Dereliction of Duty: The Eyewitness Account of How Bill Clinton Compromised America?s National Security,? recalled his three different attempts to pull Clinton away from watching the Presidents? Cup long enough to give the go-ahead to bomb Iraq on Sept. 13, 1996.

With lives hanging in the balance, Clinton, all three times, replied that he would deal with it later.

?What haunted me more than anything else was that [President Clinton] refused to make a decision. Human lives were at stake ? the lives of American service members and the lives of our allies who opposed Saddam at our behest and were now under attack. At a time when America?s honor and grander principles were being challenged and the world was watching our every move? the president was watching golf,? wrote Patterson.

??I approached the president and said, ?Sir, our aircraft are ready, bombs loaded, and waiting for your command?His reply destroyed my faith in him as commander-in-chief and convinced me that the greatest security risk to the United States was none other than?the president himself.?

Undoubtedly, our nation has paid a heavy price for Clinton?s backing down in response to murderous despots during his own criminal reign. In other words, during his calamitous tenure as president of the greatest country in the world, Clinton had shown that national security was never his top priority.

In fact, more terrorist attacks occurred on Clinton?s watch, both inside and outside of U.S. borders, than during any other presidential administration in U.S. history:

The 1993 World Trade Center bombing that killed 6 and injured 1,000 The 1993 Mogadishu firefight that killed 18 U.S. soldiers The 1995 Oklahoma City terrorist attack on the federal building by American extremists that killed 168, wounding several hundred others The 1995 Saudi Arabia car bomb that killed 5 U.S. military personnel The 1996 Khobal Towers bombing that killed 19 U.S. soldiers, wounding 515 The 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa that killed 231 citizens, 12 Americans and injured 5,000 The 2000 USS Cole attack in Yemen that killed 17 U.S. sailors, wounding 39 With each terrorist attack, Clinton went before the American people and promised that ?those responsible would be hunted down and punished.? However, we now know that nothing came of Clinton?s empty promises but spineless, politically driven, Wag-the-Dog diversions.

In all ? including Clinton?s culpability in opening the door to Sept. 11, 2001 when he turned down at least three offers to have Osama bin Laden arrested as well as several other deliberate national security bungles ? global terrorists have murdered over 3,000 of our own citizens (which includes the Sept. 11 atrocities) during the Clinton-Gore years.

In reality, during the Sept. 11 attacks, Clinton gave 19 barbaric hijackers over two years to plan these atrocities, when they illegally slipped into the U.S. under Clinton and Gore?s much-relaxed airport security and immigration policies. Because when it came to fighting terrorism and keeping his vows to protect us, Clinton was too busy playing golf, chasing skirts and prepping for photo ops to be bothered with protecting our nation.

Ultimately, Clinton, who probably thought he, too, could get 72 virgins by appeasing bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, had failed miserably in his phony wars against terrorism.

From allowing the slaughter of nearly one million people in Rwanda and over 2,000 in Kosovo to ignoring the growing terrorist threat, the fact remains that Sept. 11, 2001 will always be what collectively defines the legacy of Bill Clinton, whose treacherous policies allowed Hussein and bin Laden to rise to power.

While the leftists in the media continue to show endless joy in tallying the daily deaths of our troops in Iraq under the Bush Administration, they have willfully whitewashed the many intelligence and security breaches that Clinton had wrought on our nation.

In fact, for the past 10 years, while Clinton?s blatant treason has been thoroughly documented and accurately catalogued by some of the most respected national security experts and former Clinton officials, the leftist media to this day still refuse to hold Clinton personally responsible for the murders of our own countrymen four years ago.

What?s more, while the Bush administration has taken a strong stance against global terrorism and has systematically thwarted over 100 known Al-Qaeda-plotted attacks from reaching American soil, Bill Clinton still enjoys the free ride the leftist media have given him for eight years of national defense negligence.

Although Clinton even partially admitted his guilt, saying, ?It was the worst mistake of my presidency? in letting bin Laden go, the leftist media still look the other way.

To further illustrate Clinton?s culpability for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, United Press International (UPI) reported on Sept. 17, 2001 that Clinton hushed up a 1994 Federal Report warning of hijack attacks.

In an exclusive story written just six days after the Sept. 11 attacks, the 1994 federal report (called ?Terror 2000?) warned of possible terrorist strikes, including how hijackers could use airliners to hit landmarks such as the Pentagon or White House.

UPI reporter Pam Hess reported that the Clinton administration never released ?Terror 2000? to the public, ?purportedly because of concerns in the State Department it would cause panic.?

In fact, Hess wrote that the report not only ?outlined the changing face of terrorism but also seemed to predict the scope and timing of the attacks carried out against the World Trade Center and Pentagon?:

?Targets such as the World Trade Center not only provide the requisite casualties but because of their symbolic nature provide more bang for the buck,? Hess wrote. ?In order to maximize their odds for success, terrorist groups will likely consider mounting multiple, simultaneous operations with aim of overtaxing a government?s ability to respond, as well as to demonstrate their professionalism and reach,? states ?Terror 2000,? compiled in 1994 after the (1993) World Trade Center bombing from research and interviews from 41 intelligence, government and private industry experts, including foreign governments such as Israel and Russia.?

In a related matter involving Clinton?s complete willingness to appease terrorists rather than confront them, according to WorldNetDaily.com reporter Paul Sperry, Clinton exported NSA-ducking phone, high-tech encryption devices to Syria, which has been a hotbed for international terrorist networks.

Sperry reported that the 19 Islamic terrorists who plotted to strike at America?s nerve centers in New York and Washington ?spent months, if not years, researching, planning and coordinating the surprise attacks, U.S. security officials say,? all on Clinton?s watch.

Peter M. Leitner, a senior strategic trade adviser at the Defense Department, who reviews commercial license applications for exports of some of the most sophisticated military-related technology, told Sperry the day after the terrorist attacks:

?The technology that would allow these terrorists to mask their communications was given away, hand over fist, by the Clinton administration,? Leitner said.

Still another example of Clinton?s compromise with our nation?s security infrastructure occurred in October 1997 when the Clinton administration falsely certified the People?s Republic of China as a nuclear nonproliferator, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary:

?Clinton officials went so far, sources say,? wrote Insight magazine?s Scott Wheeler on Aug. 25, 2003 ?as threatening to fire a senior defense analyst unless he changed his analysis, which was based on the overwhelming preponderance of all available intelligence sources that Beijing was proliferating nuclear technology and materials to rogue nations.?

In fact, these revelations concerning the Clinton ?false certification? came on the heels of the incessant Democrat attacks on President Bush for allegedly manipulating intelligence to support the war in Iraq, despite Clinton using the same intel in 1998.

But, Wheeler wrote, a senior Department of Defense analyst, speaking on condition of anonymity, said:

?Since the Clinton administration ignored intelligence warnings and issued the ?false certification? of China as a nonproliferating nation, ?there has been undeniable evidence of transfers of nuclear technology from the People?s Republic of China to North Korea and Iran.? Both North Korea and Iran are considered by the Bush administration to be rogue nations already in possession of nuclear weapons or on the brink of having them."

According to a 1999 Newsweek report, CIA sources said ?terrorists received money and passports from Iran and that Iranian agents were casing American facilities in 1995.?

In addition, Newsweek also reported that despite the evidence, lawmakers were concerned that Iran will go unpunished:

?My big fear,? said Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, ?is we won?t pursue it because of some rapprochement with Iran.?

Obviously, Clinton knew about the NSA intercept and never said a word.

?Here it was the Saudis and [President] Clinton who protected Iran from the fury of American citizens,? Newsweek reported.

Indeed, Clinton left the door wide open to global terrorism because he was too cowardly and self-absorbed to care about protecting this country.

Despite criticism from arrogant, anti-American Democrats who have proven to be extremely soft on national defense, Bush is to be commended. But undeniably, at the same time Bush restored our U.S. military strength, Bush also inherited Clinton?s messes.

God forbid we should ever have another Bill Clinton in 2008 ? a spineless appeaser like John Kerry who would easily cower to global terrorists, at the expense of the safety and security of Americans.

As the Left and their media allies continue to bash Bush for a supposed ?quagmire? in Iraq, the blame for the rise in global terrorism against the U.S. must be laid at Bill Clinton?s feet. In fact, the Clinton administration not only funded terrorist sponsors but also allowed terrorist sleeper cells to grow (i.e., the 19 hijackers).

What?s more, none of these U.S. traitors have offered a viable solution to national defense. Rather than tell the American people what they would purportedly do to fight terrorism, they continue their bellicose attacks on Bush. In fact, Bush has done more to keep our borders safe from terrorist attacks than the bogus, Wag-the-Dog wars that clearly exposed Clinton?s military weaknesses.

In the long run, the anti-war, draft-dodging Clinton ? who hated the military so much that he undermined morale, slashed the defense budget, and put women and homosexuals on the frontline ? refused to deal directly with terrorists on an international level. Instead, the numerous terrorist attacks that occurred on Clinton?s watch were relegated to the local authorities.

What?s more, these Democrats who are incongruously amplifying anti-American sentiment are actually acting like Bill Clinton when it comes to ignoring terrorism.

For example, former Democrat presidential candidate Howard ?Nikita? Dean ?McGovern,? who relentlessly criticizes Bush, remains completely ignorant on matters of national defense. Dean had never presented a plan on what he proposed to do to strengthen national security. Dean hadn?t shown the slightest willingness to fight terrorism ? a qualification and requirement for becoming the commander-in-chief.

Yet, the leftist media leeches that ceremoniously feed on their fellow Democrats? lies are as equally ignorant when spewing their left-wing extrapolations.

Case in point: Leftist writers Eric Alterman, Joe Conason, Al Franken, Molly Ivins, David Corn, Jim Hightower, Maureen Dowd and Paul Krugman joining the ranks of the leftist media liars club who try to rewrite the Clinton legacy. But the truth about Clinton?s treason against our nation has already surfaced.

Those who truly love this country and are willing to fight for it ? the true Americans ? will never forget the 9/11 victims, unlike the Blame-America-First leftists, who continue to make excuses for Clinton, as well as the terrorists.

As Bush said before Operation Iraqi Freedom: ?You?re either with us or you?re with the terrorists.? There is no middle ground when it comes to guaranteeing and supporting the security and sanctity of our nation. At a time when we should be united on defeating terrorism, the leftist media, Democrats and Far Left have tried to egregiously divide us.

Moreover, while criticism of Clinton?s Iraq bombings has been purposely absent, Bush has proven to be a leader in the war against terrorism. Unlike Clinton, Bush has kept his promise to keep America safe by not backing down to murderous despots.

That?s the difference between Bush and Clinton: Bush will not back down nor relent to our enemies like Clinton and his worthless propagators in the leftist media have done.

As the Left continues to manipulate the truth about Sept. 11 as a deliberate attempt to make Americans forget Clinton?s culpability, this Sunday should be a reminder to those who are guilty of unleashing global despotism ? the Clinton administration.

To this day, the Left collectively refuses to criticize Clinton?s bogus, Wag-the-Dog bombings that went on without question from the leftist media hacks, as well as Democrats. For example, fellow traitor Wesley Clark, who proved to be a willing pawn in Clinton?s political PR games in order to further his own military career.

One of the many blaring examples of how the leftist media shielded Clinton from criticism in his spurious wars came during his own address to the nation on Dec. 16, 1998, where CNN?s lack of fault-finding with Clinton?s Iraq plan was very evident:

?Without delay, diplomacy or warning? (CNN subheading)

?The president said Iraq?s refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.

?Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons,? Clinton said.

Operation Desert Fox, a strong, sustained series of attacks, will be carried out over several days by U.S. and British forces, Clinton said.

?Earlier today I ordered America?s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces,? Clinton said.

?Their mission is to attack Iraq?s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors,? said Clinton.

Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors.

The Iraqi leader was given a final warning six weeks ago, Clinton said, when Baghdad promised to cooperate with U.N. inspectors at the last minute just as U.S. warplanes were headed its way?

Now, compare that to CNN?s transparent hostility towards Bush?s just dealings with Iraq in the following headlines (especially concerning the uranium controversy):

CNN?s July 9, 2003 headline: ?Storm over U.S. Iraq admission? The first three paragraphs read:

A political firestorm is erupting in the U.S. over President Bush?s assertion that Iraq sought to buy nuclear material from Africa.

The White House has admitted that assertion ? made by Bush during the annual State of the Union address last January ? was based on faulty information.

The chairman of the opposition Democratic Party is accusing the Bush administration of a cover up and senior Senate democrats are calling for a full investigation.

CNN not only refers to Clinton, in a photo caption, as ?President Clinton,? the caption under Bush?s picture claimed that Bush ?made the allegation about Iraq?? (Also, no Democrat ever called for a full investigation of Clinton going to war on false intelligence.)

CNN?s July 10, 2003 headline: ?Bush defends decision on Iraqi war? Subheading: Democrats want discredited uranium claim probed

CNN?s July 12, 2003 headline: ?Bush stands by CIA after Iraq mistake? Subheading: Tenet admits error in agency?s approval of president?s speech

In the above CNN stories, not only did they smear Bush, they also highlighted Saddam?s calls for revenge and the acid attacks leveled by imbecilic Democrats. To Clinton propagandists like CNN, Clinton?s wars were justified; Bush?s wars are not.

Despite Bush using the exact same arguments Clinton used to bomb Iraq in 1998, Bush has been attacked relentlessly just because Bush, a conservative Republican president, was willing to finish the job that Clinton should have seen through to the end. Only Clinton didn?t want the political fallout that the Left is trying to heap on Bush.

As a result, the disgraced, impeached, disbarred, accused rapist-felon has never endured the fury from his fellow leftist pals in the media and down the political aisle. Instead, Clinton opted to let someone else take the fall ? namely George W. Bush.

That said, Clinton?s political and personal ambitions eventually trumped any and all concerns for our nation?s safety and security, which ultimately came at a terrible price. Unlike Clinton, Bush has the resolve to annihilate our enemies and keep them at bay.

Unlike Clinton, Bush has taken seriously the same presidential oath Clinton swore by in Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution:

I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Clearly, Clinton broke this sacred oath to ?preserve, protect and defend? when he allowed our enemies total access to our borders, infrastructure and monetary system.

Bush, on the other hand, has kept that promise, despite the acerbic attacks from anti-American war protesters and the equally treasonous ?Democratic? Party, who brazenly hates this country and the Judeo-Christian values that have established it.

In the end, Clinton proved to be a paper tiger that practiced tough talk with no action. Instead of being proactive like Bush, Clinton was reactive and it eventually cost innocent lives. When he did launch his phony wars, Clinton, pseudo-general Wesley Clark and other administration officials ran with their tails between their legs; all without one peep of criticism from leftist media enablers like Dan Rather, CNN and the New York Times.

In fact, media leftists like CNN loved Clinton?s appeasement of our enemies. CNN should know: Their top news executive, Eason Jordan, admitted in an April 2003 op-ed in the Times to covering up 12 years of Iraqi atrocities in order to maintain a Baghdad bureau, while their own correspondents were being subjected to torture (which also went unreported). This should have sent up red flags as to what Clinton also knew about the cover-up, since he?s a close friend of Ted Turner.

Now, Clinton, who was brought up in 2003 on war crimes by the International Criminal Court ? along with Wesley Clark (who actually had tanks pointed directly at our own unsuspecting U.S. troops), Madelyn Albright and 19 others, must answer for compromising our national security that could have prevented in the Sept. 11 atrocities.

With the willing assistance of the leftist media, Clinton and his willing derelicts have the innocent blood of over 3,000 of our citizens on their hands, as well as the innocent blood that continually cries out from the other six terrorist attacks that Clinton ignored.

It?s time they be held accountable for the real reason we had to win a just war ? and why we had to fight the enemies Clinton refused to confront and conquer.

In fact, shortly after the devastation of Sept. 11, 2001, in his typical defiant attempt to try to re-script his ?legacy,? Clinton blamed America for the Sept. 11 attacks. Clinton claimed that Sept. 11 happened because America mistreated Native Americans and slaves ?when we looked the other way,? and ?are still paying a price.?

No, the price we are still paying is eight years of Clinton holding this nation hostage because he chose to look the other way by not stopping terrorism, which could have prevented the Sept. 11 atrocities from ever happening.

Even now as Bill Clinton basks in the glow of yet another legacy-burnishing photo-op via the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, his leftist media sycophants still have not told the whole truth about his role in the deadliest terrorist attack in American history.

Yet, the anti-American forces in the elite media have pointed the finger at President Bush, who has become Clinton?s fall guy. The 9/11 Commission alone was created to blame the Bush administration for the Sept. 11 attacks, while whitewashing the truth concerning why Bill Clinton blatantly refused to take any action whatsoever against the growing terrorist threats of al-Qaeda, Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

Even as the revelations have come out about former Clinton official Sandy Berger purposely stealing classified documents from the National Archives, the leftist media have decided to ignore his crimes, too, in protecting his former boss from being implicated in the biggest presidential failure in U.S. history: Clinton?s dereliction of duty in protecting our nation from foreign and domestic enemies.

Moreover, one other former Clinton official who has made a complete mockery of our national security is Jamie Gorelick, who we now know deliberately set up ?the Wall? that prevented intelligence information from being shared between the CIA and the FBI that eventually surfaced the names of at least three of the 9/11 hijackers. Despite her arrogant refusal to recuse herself from sitting on the 9/11 Commission, about the only reason she?s even there is to help cover up her own negligence in preventing the Sept. 11 atrocities.

But in their Aug. 28, 2005 screed, New York Times editors assigned blame to Bush, while ignoring Clinton?s ?evasion of responsibility? that they have laid solely on Bush.

?After four and a half years, we have come to expect the Bush administration to refuse to hold anyone of stature accountable for errors, misdeeds or even potential violations of the law,? the Times editors huffed in their usual Bush-bashing editorial.

?The bungling of the war in Iraq and the abuse of prisoners at military camps both come to mind. But the inspector general's report on the failures of the Central Intelligence Agency before the 9/11 attacks elevates evasion of responsibility to a new level.?

The hypocrites at the Times have refused to fault Clinton on anything, while blaming Bush for everything, including the East Coast blackout, Mad Cow Disease, the Tsunami, Iraq, global warming and more recently, Hurricane Katrina ? as if Bush had complete control of the weather.

Yet, Clinton had more problems with FEMA than Bush. Clinton also was never blamed for the 1993 floods that ravaged the Midwest, or the 1992 devastation of Hurricane Andrew, as well as Hurricane Floyd. Yet, Clinton remains unscathed by the leftist media.

(These are the same pro-Clinton media hacks that still refuse to hold New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin and Louisiana Democrat Gov. Kathleen Blanco accountable for not preparing the city from decades of predicted disaster before Hurricane Katrina struck. In fact, Bush-hating media leftists have even ignored new information that Blanco blocked the Red Cross from bringing aid before the storm hit and that Nagin refused to use over 100 buses that could have brought tens of thousands to safety because he wanted 500 Greyhounds instead. Yet, in the leftist media, Nagin and Blanco have gone unscathed, while FEMA Director Mike Brown has continually been vilified and crucified, along with every other Bush official. While CNN and ?60 Minutes? freely aired Nagin?s open blasphemy against the Lord, many of the leftist media?s endless anti-GOP stories put more emphasis on Vice President Dick Cheney?s F-word ? he said in a private conversation last year ? as a way to excuse Nagin?s blasphemous, juvenile tirade.)

But along with the treason of Gorelick, the biggest revelation to come out was the creation of Able Danger, which the Clinton administration actually put into place for the sole purpose of strategizing against al-Qaeda.

In fact, many crucial documents connecting the dots of Saddam Hussein-Osama bin Laden-al-Qaeda to 9/11 are missing, according to Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer on C-SPAN?s ?Sunday Morning Journal? on Aug. 21, 2005. Shaffer has since been mercilessly savaged in the pro-Clinton media (like anyone else who dares to criticize the Clintons).

Yet, Clinton, Gorelick, Berger and Richard Pearle still flatly deny any such coordination in Able Danger under Clinton?s watch, which is why Gorelick isn?t talking.

These are also the same ones being protected by a corrupt leftist media culture bent on destroying President Bush, even while they ignore the biggest story of the century: Able Danger and how Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Jamie Gorelick, George Tenet and Sandy Berger and countless other cabinet members already knew about al-Qaeda and the looming terrorist attack ? and yet did nothing to stop it.

As a result, Clinton had the opportunity to stave off the bloodshed of Sept. 11 but deliberately chose not to, which will always and forever be his ultimate legacy.

Doug Schmitz, a conservative columnist and media analyst, holds a master?s degree in journalism and regularly writes for Michnews.com and Etherzone.com; he?s also been a guest columnist for Accuracy in Media.

http://www.michnews.com/artman/publi...cle_9423.shtml
September 11th, 2005  
Rabs
 
 
I dont like Clinton but i think blameing him for sept 11th is pushing it.
September 11th, 2005  
WARmachine88
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabs
I dont like Clinton but i think blameing him for sept 11th is pushing it.
Clinton created the one of the best economic growth in U.S history, especially after how the old Bush messed up U.S economy.

but no one is perfect, his neglect on middle -east intelligence work is serious.
--
Boots
September 11th, 2005  
Rabs
 
 
Quote:
Clinton created the one of the best economic growth in U.S history,

No, the internet did that and the recession was on its way even if he would of stayed in office for another 4 years.
September 11th, 2005  
tomtom22
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabs
Quote:
Clinton created the one of the best economic growth in U.S history,

No, the internet did that and the recession was on its way even if he would of stayed in office for another 4 years.
The internet? You gotta be kidding me , right?

September 11th, 2005  
USAFAUX2004
 
 
Clinton cannot be blamed for this, Bush had almost 2 years as president when september 11 happened, why didn't he do anything? because it wasn't their fault, its the intelligence personnel thats said Al-Qaeda was not much...
September 11th, 2005  
WARmachine88
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabs
Quote:
Clinton created the one of the best economic growth in U.S history,

No, the internet did that and the recession was on its way even if he would of stayed in office for another 4 years.
hahhahaha...

who makes the budget balanced? who heavily invests in public projects?
internet cannot simpily make an economy grow 8 years in straight yet keeps a low unemployment rate.
September 11th, 2005  
phoenix80
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by WARmachine88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabs
I dont like Clinton but i think blameing him for sept 11th is pushing it.
Clinton created the one of the best economic growth in U.S history, especially after how the old Bush messed up U.S economy.

but no one is perfect, his neglect on middle -east intelligence work is serious.
I cant understand why every one is grateful of Clintonites for Ecomonic growth of the US in mid 90s.

The people shouldnt forget that whatever he suggested was APPROVED by a republican senate.

That Clinton guy left a crappy economy for Pres. Bush any how.
September 11th, 2005  
WARmachine88
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by phoenix_aim54
Quote:
Originally Posted by WARmachine88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabs
I dont like Clinton but i think blameing him for sept 11th is pushing it.
Clinton created the one of the best economic growth in U.S history, especially after how the old Bush messed up U.S economy.

but no one is perfect, his neglect on middle -east intelligence work is serious.
I cant understand why every one is grateful of Clintonites for Ecomonic growth of the US in mid 90s.

The people shouldnt forget that whatever he suggested was APPROVED by a republican senate.

That Clinton guy left a crappy economy for Pres. Bush any how.
Clinton left a balanced budget, and Bush turns it to a huge deficit. Clinton's unemployment rate is one of the lowest in history, how about Bush's?

Clinton's economic policies are damn good, no doubt about that. It is no luck that there was a 8 striaght years of economic growth yet a balanced budget and very low uneployement rate. (in fact, it was not possible that many economists believe that high growth rate and low employment rate co-exist, as the growing of productivity should cause more people to get laid off, but Clinton did what others think are impossible.)
September 11th, 2005  
Duty Honor Country
 
 
WARmachine88,

I am very good in economics. I was very close to making it my major in college. May I direct you some information on the US economic slow down in 2000

"The U.S. economy slowed sharply from the fall of 2000 after strong growth over a long period."
Bank of Japan:Semiannual Report on Currency and Monetary Control 2000

"The global economic slowdown in the second half of 2000 has been led by a significant slowdown in the United States...Although GDP in the United States is estimated to have increased by 5.0 percent in 2000, which is historically high, there was a significant slowdown in the latter part of the year. A one percent annualized U.S. GDP growth rate was reported for the fourth quarter of 2000. Part of the slowdown was attributed to tight monetary policy, rising energy prices and a significant weakening in the technology sector, which has led to a sharp fall in equity prices."
Trilateral Statistical Report 2000

"The economy's slowing from, let's say 5 percent -- which is what it was doing-- to 2 percent, is just the same as going into a recession when you had only 2 percent growth-- that is, the pain is going to be there."
PBS 11 JAN 2001

Do I need to post more sources to prove to you that the last Year of Clinton's office saw an economic slow down that Bush took over in 2001? Please notice 2 of my sources come from outside the USA.