The build up to our next war has begun:
73 RepliesJump to last post
I couldn't agree more. What's really disturbing, however, is that the new lot with Murtha acting like a crime boss handing out earmark favors is even worse.… but OTOH when it comes to Congress…I feel the Republicans have really let us down when it comes to spending. The way they’ve handed out earmarks like all the others just sickens me.
[quote=Ashland]What are your thoughts? Why again are Democrats considered to be the spenders?
You source is rather pointless as it mentions the party of the president, and doesn’t mention who owns the congress. Clinton gets boatloads of credit for the deficit, but his improvement on the subject only comes when he loses the Congress to the GOP. Do you think we would have had the “shut down” of the government had Clinton had a Democratic Congress and there had been no pressure to bring down spending?
What more real proof do you need than that for every government spending issue the Democrat’s call to arms is that the GOP program in question “doesn’t go far enough”?[/quote]
Mike - you did notice that under EVERY Republican President, the National Debt has exploded upwards???
[quote=mikebutler222] [quote=Ashland]What are your thoughts? Why again are Democrats considered to be the spenders?
You source is rather pointless as it mentions the party of the president, and doesn’t mention who owns the congress. Clinton gets boatloads of credit for the deficit, but his improvement on the subject only comes when he loses the Congress to the GOP. Do you think we would have had the “shut down” of the government had Clinton had a Democratic Congress and there had been no pressure to bring down spending?
What more real proof do you need than that for every government spending issue the Democrat’s call to arms is that the GOP program in question “doesn’t go far enough”?[/quote]
Mike - you did notice that under EVERY Republican President, the National Debt has exploded upwards???[/quote]
It can’t have escaped your notice that the same is true of Democrat administrations.
Do you honestly believe that EITHER party gives a rip about fiscal responsibility with your money within it’s respective ranks? The fact is that politicians of any persausion care for nothing save buying more and more votes, and using our money to do the buying. To think anything else is pure Pollyana.
Ashland,
I wish you liberals were right once in a while. It’s LONG past time for us to bomb Iran back into the stone age (it wouldn’t really be that far for them). The same goes for Syria, North Korea and , frankly, Saudi Arabia.
After that, I look forward to your predictions of the next and next and next wars. I bet I’ll be all for them, too.
[quote=YHWY] Ashland, I wish you liberals were right once in a while. It’s LONG past time for us to bomb Iran back into the stone age (it wouldn’t really be that far for them). The same goes for Syria, North Korea and , frankly, Saudi Arabia. After that, I look forward to your predictions of the next and next and next wars. I bet I’ll be all for them, too.
[/quote]
Wow, as a good conservative, how are you planning on paying for these little wars? Or are you just hoping for a wee bit of Rapture?
My apologies on the mis-cast...I'll re-file you somewhere in the muddled middle... [quote=BondGuy]I disagree with your take on Hillary and Bill. I believe Bill was a fine president. I could give a hoot about his womanizing.[/quote] This is non-relevant ancient history at this point, but after telling you that I agree that on balance, Bill was a pretty effective leader, I think his womanizing in office constituted an egregarious lapse of judgement. This lapse resulted in embarrassment to the office and a huge distraction in the last part of his presidency, which couldn't help but interfere with his ability to govern to the best of his ability. He surely could not have been thinking of the consequences of discovery... On a brighter note, I put a new Mustang seat on my cruiser and logged some very comfortable miles this weekend.While to this group I may seem left leaning or even very left leaning I’m actually more or less in the center. Most here assume I’m a libreral democrat, I’m not. I’m registered as an independent. I’ve voted on both sides of the ballot in national and local elections. Yet, when compared to the far right leanings of many here I am relatively speaking left leaning.
My apologies on the mis-cast...I'll re-file you somewhere in the muddled middle... [quote=BondGuy]I disagree with your take on Hillary and Bill. I believe Bill was a fine president. I could give a hoot about his womanizing.[/quote] This is non-relevant ancient history at this point, but after telling you that I agree that on balance, Bill was a pretty effective leader, I think his womanizing in office constituted an egregarious lapse of judgement. This lapse resulted in embarrassment to the office and a huge distraction in the last part of his presidency, which couldn't help but interfere with his ability to govern to the best of his ability. He surely could not have been thinking of the consequences of discovery... On a brighter note, I put a new Mustang seat on my cruiser and logged some very comfortable miles this weekend.[/quote] Just to be sure we have our priorities straight, congrats on getting the new seat. Hope you're getting some good miles in during our extended summer. I mananaged to get Zippy, the Mini down to Front Royal Va for a few days. Using Front Royal as a staging point i did several loops through uot the Shenandoah Valley, Monongahela Natl Forest and Seneca Rock. Of course i did a short stint on the Skyline Drive. It was just a bit too slow to spend any serious time there. Still, if you are looking for a great place to take the wife on the bike, the Skyline Drive and Blue Ridge Parkway would be tough to beat. I agree that Clinton's judgement was compromised by his actions. Yet, that goes for all married individuals who make that same mistake. And his ability to lead was compromised as well. However, that's not his entirely his fault. The republican led witch hunt to overthrow his presidency, better known as White Water, saw to it that he paid a price. Star had spent a lot of time and money and had come up epty. They had ot get him on something. Looking back at history at leaders who have done no more than Clinton shows that politicizing one's sex life is not the in our best interests. FDR, and Churchill both did as much as Clinton and more. Yet, no public outrage. No impeachment in FDR's case. And Kennedy's exploits are well documented, still, no Impeachment. And in these cases, lucky for the world that politicians at that time had their priorities straight. Clinton's sexapades did impede his presidency. However, his impeachment was nothing more than a political payback.[quote=BondGuy]While to this group I may seem left leaning or even very left leaning I’m actually more or less in the center. Most here assume I’m a libreral democrat, I’m not. I’m registered as an independent. I’ve voted on both sides of the ballot in national and local elections. Yet, when compared to the far right leanings of many here I am relatively speaking left leaning.
[quote=mikebutler222][quote=BondGuy]
Joe, there are questions regarding who knew what when. As usual, who to believe follows a political dividing line. [/quote] That only happens if you ignore the comments about how Saddam had WMDs made by Democrats going back to 1998 when Clinton said saddam had them and would use them unless he was stopped.[/quote] Ancient history.[quote=Ashland] [quote=mikebutler222] [quote=Ashland]What are your thoughts? Why again are Democrats considered to be the spenders? [/quote]
You source is rather pointless as it mentions the party of the president, and doesn't mention who owns the congress. Clinton gets boatloads of credit for the deficit, but his improvement on the subject only comes when he loses the Congress to the GOP. Do you think we would have had the "shut down" of the government had Clinton had a Democratic Congress and there had been no pressure to bring down spending?
What more real proof do you need than that for every government spending issue the Democrat's call to arms is that the GOP program in question "doesn't go far enough"?[/quote]
Mike - you did notice that under EVERY Republican President, the National Debt has exploded upwards???[/quote]
I noticed who wrote your website source and I noticed that they attempt to paint the president as the sole arbiter of spending, as if there's no Congress and the party of the Congress didn't matter. They also ignore exigent issues, like war and the spending associated. They ignore the fact, for example, taxing and spending were going nuclear until <?: prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Clinton lost his like-minded Democratic controlled Congress and had to contend with a GOP Congress bent of reeling in his excesses. All they do instead is point at spending from 1994 on and say “Wasn’t he great?”.<?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
Rather than trying to create one dimensional “proof” about parties and spending, how about explain why, on issue after issue, the Democratic impulse is to spend more, tax more and grow government more? It’s not very instructive to point to spending of a GOP Congress, bad as it was, and claim “ah-ha!!!” when the fact is on most every issue from a Medicare prescription drug plan to the current SCHIP fight, the Democrats want to spend more and impose more government centered solutions.
[quote=BondGuy][quote=mikebutler222][quote=BondGuy]
Joe, there are questions regarding who knew what when. As usual, who to believe follows a political dividing line. [/quote] That only happens if you ignore the comments about how Saddam had WMDs made by Democrats going back to 1998 when Clinton said saddam had them and would use them unless he was stopped.[/quote] Ancient history. [/quote] Huh? You create this fantasy that hangs on Bush making up the WMDs threat, and to support it you have to ignore everything said by every Democrat who saw the same intelligence information from 1998 (when Clinton made regime change in Iraq official US policy) until 2003, and when forced to look at those comments (all made before public opinion, and thus Democrat positions) your only response is "ancient history"? Really? Look, I can take the "they were wrong" line of reasoning, but the "they made it up stuff" is just beyond the pale.[quote=YHWY] Ashland, I wish you liberals were right once in a while. It’s LONG past time for us to bomb Iran back into the stone age (it wouldn’t really be that far for them). The same goes for Syria, North Korea and , frankly, Saudi Arabia. After that, I look forward to your predictions of the next and next and next wars. I bet I’ll be all for them, too.
[/quote]
Wow, as a good conservative, how are you planning on paying for these little wars? Or are you just hoping for a wee bit of Rapture?
People in this business should know at least a little something about economics and at a minimum should be conversant with the recent numbers. The fact is tax rates were reduced, the economy was spurred from the deep recession it was headed for in 2000, thus tax revenues are at record highs, and the debt as a percentage of GDP is low. Deficits continue to come in below expectations, tax revenues continue to accelerate. It really is all about growing the size of the pie, not just government’s slice of it.<?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
The Democrat prescription to the economy is tax more, spend more (extend benefits designed for the working poor to solidly middle class people) and even though tax receipts decline, and thus deficits widen, at least we can say we’re taxing those evil rich bastards (who Democrats will never credit with creating jobs). The GOP spends like drunken sailors of “buy vote projects”, Democrats, left to their own devices, would spend enough to sober up those drunken sailors and make their faces glow red with embarrassment. Think Murtha and his earmark factory.
Hearing a Democrat wail about the deficit is like listening to a hooker complain about moral decline.
[quote=joedabrkr] [quote=granuja]
As National Security Advisor she either ignored or missed warnings issued by the CIA and our own terrorism experts regarding the yet to be executed 9/11 attacks. Oh for Crimenies sake.. the Bush administration hadn't been in the White House long enough to rearrange the furniture and replace all the missing Ws on the keyboards and you plan to blame Condi for something that was Decades in the making?? Get real.[/quote]Exactly. The problem that caused 9/11 was way beyond the abilities of GW and Condi to fix in the short time they were in office. The real challenge/problem was the inter-agency rivaly between the CIA and the FBI. The CIA had crucial information about members of the 9/11 conspiracy who were in the U.S., but were afraid to turn that info over to the FBI because if the FBI started a domestic criminal investigation it could imperil CIA intelligence sources.
Well I guess we know in hindsight that they made a bad decision.....and frankly I'm not even sure if the intent was good.....
[/quote] There was nothing to fix. The intell was there and either missed or ignored by Rice. Both Tenant and Clarke confirm that the intell was given to Rice. Rice denies this and to protect her from her own gaff the Bush slime machine was put into high gear to discredit both men. And it worked, many here who refuse to think for themselves will attack me for even mentioning either man. But look beyond the slime machine. Clarke worked worked for the state dept for 30 years. He came to Washington during the Reagan years and was known for working well with both Republicans and Dems. He had become our top counter terrorism expert. He was one smart and well respected guy. Bush experts saw that he was good and recco'd that he be hired to the same job for for the Bush admin. Bush hired him. Yet, as Bush's top counter terrorism expert he couldn't get a meeting with Bush. It took seven months for him to get a meeting even though he'd been banging the drum that someone needed to listen. Yet, he got one meeting in the 8 months preceeding 9/11. Clarke had Tenant's attention. Still, even Tenant couldn't get past the puffery that the NSA's office had become. Rice, at the time, was more interested in protocol and control of information flow than the content of the information. She then filtered what got through to Bush. Compare this to the WEEKLY meetings Clarke had with Clinton and who do you think was better informed? Clinton got first hand unfiltered information. Unfortunately for us the guy who needed to get his info first hand and unfiltered didn't. Would it have made a difference? Interestingly, protocol was dropped post 9/11. Clarke was the man. Sadly at this point his encyclopedia of knowledge could only provide a post game recap of who and why. When you don't listen to your own experts, what do you call that? When you don't listen to your own experts and then hell rains down, what do you call that? I call it not doing your job. As for rearranging the furniture in the White House, said in jest, yet, that's exactly what was going on. These people, at the time, were more caught up in the trappings of power than running the country.
To be more clear about Clarke:
Under Clinton he held a specially created NSC position in which he reported directly to the president. In this position, in addition to producing daily briefing papers, he attended the weekly princpals meetings. These were meetings held directly with the president, FBI , CIA Sec of Def., NSC chief, and the NSA. When hired by the Bush admin, Rice demoted him. Understand he was our top counter terrorism guy. Under Rice he produced daily breifing papers but was cut out all principals meetings. Rice later defended this move by saying Clarke wasn't needed at those meetings because Tenet was at the meetings. This is a bit of slight of hand on Rice's part, giving the appearance that Bush was getting his info first hand, rather than from an "Underling." Yet, as our go to terrorism expert, it was Clarke who had the first hand info. He supplied it to Tenet for the daily meetings. Clarke took the demotion to mean that the Bush admin was less focused on terrorism than had been Clinton. In July/aug of 01 as reports of an impending attack were raised at a meeting Bush asked Rice why we couldn't attack Al Qaida instead of "Just swatting at flies." Rice told Bush something was in the works and that the principals would meet in two days and and that she would then get back to him. Then Rice did nothing. Contrast that to the 2000 terrorist threat against LAX, which was no more certain. Clinton called an emergency NSC meeting. The principals then met every day to discuss only the threat. They were asked in person every morning, and again in a phone call every evening by Clinton what they had done that day to subvert the threat. This forced the FBI and the CIA to shake the branches of their organizations to get information. Regarding 9/11, the FBI had the info that the terrorist were in the country. Yet, no one was shaking the branches looking for info. No one was doing anything. The promised principals meeting never took place. Again, the tragedy being that we never took advantage of our one best chance to stop 9/11.[quote=mikebutler222]
<P =Msonormal style=“MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt”>Hearing a Democrat wail about the deficit is like listening to a hooker complain about moral decline.<o:p></o:p>
http://www.factcheck.org/article148.html
These are numbers through 2004. Looks to me like the Clinton years had the debt heading in the right direction - that includes when there was both a Democratic President & Democratic Congress. 2003 & 2004 during the Bush years were higher as a % of GDP than ANY of the Clinton years including when we were in Somalia. You hear me complaining about spending. My question is WHY AREN’T YOU?
Here’s an interesting story about how supply side economics doesn’t work. Note the conservative publication.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1001/p15s01-wmgn.html
Mike - why don’t you order the article mentioned in this story & let us know what you find out.
[quote=BondGuy]
There was nothing to fix. The intell was there and either missed or ignored by Rice. Both Tenant and Clarke confirm that the intell was given to Rice. [/quote]This is nonsense. Clarke was a disgruntled NSC advisor who had a hissy-fit when his daily face time with the throne ended, when Bush decided to met directly daily with the heads of Intelligence agencies (something <?: prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Clinton didn’t do) and not him. The “warnings” you claim were ignored were of a level of generality (no who, what, where when, and how) as to be useless. For all the self aggrandizing Clarke does, Michael Scheuer, head of the CIA’s bin Laden task force, and a major league Bush critic, says Clarke was an abject failure. <?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
Matthew Continetti writes: "Scheuer believes that Clarke’s risk aversion and politicking negatively impacted the hunt for Bin Laden prior to September 11, 2001. Scheuer stated that his unit, codename 'Alec,' had provided information that could have led to the capture and or killing of Osama bin Laden on ten different occasions, only to have his recommendations for action turned down by senior intelligence officials, including Clarke."
Clarke claims that Condi had never “heard” of bin Laden until he mentioned him to her, a claim that was undermined when a tape of Condi on a pre-2000 election surfaced where she discussed at length the terrorist threat the nation faced, bin Laden in particular.
BTW, Clarke was such a “success” that Sandy Berger, attempting to keep critical reviews of Clarke’s work (like the claim that sharp intel and not blind luck thwarted the “millennium bomber” at the Canadian border) away from the 9/11 Commission, stole and destroyed classified documents.
More on Clarke; http://www.instapundit.com/archives/014732.php
[quote=<?: prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Ashland]
http://www.factcheck.org/article148.html
These are numbers through 2004. Looks to me like the Clinton years had the debt heading in the right direction - that includes when there was both a Democratic President & Democratic Congress. [/quote] <?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
I have no idea where you're getting that, the table has no dates identified. Perhaps you've already forgotten WHY the GOP won the Congress in 1994, it was because of run away tax and spending. You don’t recall Clinton saying he thought he’d raised taxes too much? You don’t recall the gov’t shutdown over GOP attempts at spending cuts? That’s why this sort of framing of the argument with no context as to who ran the Congress at the time or what else was going on (recession, expansion in the economy) in the world is such a joke.
[quote=Ashland]
Here's an interesting story about how supply side economics doesn't work. Note the conservative publication.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1001/p15s01-wmgn.html [/quote]
Now that's interesting, you figure CSM is a "conservative publication"? I suppose you also think the columnist is "conservative" too?
So the economics “don’t work” even though tax cuts have demonstrably spurred economic growth, diminishing the effects of a recession, resulting in record tax revenues and historically low deficits as a percentage of GNP? Really? Next you’ll prove to me the sky isn’t blue.
Rather than tap dancing about spending in the past, how about trying to make a coherent argument that Democrats aren’t attempting at every turn to expand government programs, making them less market oriented in the process? How about explaining how Murtha hasn’t turned the nasty business of earmarks into an art form?
How about starting with Democratic versus GOP solutions to Medicare coverage for prescription drugs and SCHIP?
[quote=mikebutler222][quote=BondGuy][quote=mikebutler222][quote=BondGuy]
Joe, there are questions regarding who knew what when. As usual, who to believe follows a political dividing line. [/quote] That only happens if you ignore the comments about how Saddam had WMDs made by Democrats going back to 1998 when Clinton said saddam had them and would use them unless he was stopped.[/quote] Ancient history. [/quote] Huh? You create this fantasy that hangs on Bush making up the WMDs threat, and to support it you have to ignore everything said by every Democrat who saw the same intelligence information from 1998 (when Clinton made regime change in Iraq official US policy) until 2003, and when forced to look at those comments (all made before public opinion, and thus Democrat positions) your only response is "ancient history"? Really? Look, I can take the "they were wrong" line of reasoning, but the "they made it up stuff" is just beyond the pale. [/quote] What fantasy? Why beyond the pale? Bush, by his own admission was extremely weak on foreign policy and world affairs. Wisely, he surrounded himself with foreign affairs experts. Unwisely, most of this group were also member of the Vulcans. A group who made no secret, long before 9/11 and 2003, of their wish to invade Iraq. So, it was no surprise that deposing Saddam became one of the Bush admin's first term goals. That the Bush war cabinet was focused soley on Iraq post 9/11, even after it became clear that iraq did not attack us is troubling to those who search for truth. Were there wmds or were we had by the Vulcans? I don't have that answer, however, there is at least a plausible possibility that we were had. Bolstered by the fact that the pre-invasion "there making it up" crowd turned out to be right. It is not beyond the pale for those of us in the center to at least consider evidence of contreivance. Lastly, i'm not ignoring anything. Just putting it in its proper context. What anyone said, did, thought, or believed in 1998 was not relavent to 2003.[quote=mikebutler222]
<P =Msonormal style=“MARGIN: 0in 1.5pt 0.75pt”>[quote=<?: prefix = st1 ns = “urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags” /><st1:City w:st=“on”><st1:place w:st=“on”>Ashland</st1:place></st1:City>] http://www.factcheck.org/article148.html These are numbers through 2004. Looks to me like the <st1:City w:st=“on”><st1:place w:st=“on”>Clinton</st1:place></st1:City> years had the debt heading in the right direction - that includes when there was both a Democratic President & Democratic Congress. [/quote] <?: prefix = o ns = “urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office” /><o:p></o:p>
<P =Msonormal style=“MARGIN: 0.75pt 1.5pt”> <o:p></o:p>
<P =Msonormal style=“MARGIN: 0.75pt 1.5pt”>I have no idea where you’re getting that, the table has no dates identified. Perhaps you’ve already forgotten WHY the GOP won the Congress in 1994, it was because of run away tax and spending. You don’t recall <st1:City w:st=“on”><st1:place w:st=“on”>Clinton</st1:place></st1:City> saying he thought he’d raised taxes too much? You don’t recall the gov’t shutdown over GOP attempts at spending cuts? That’s why this sort of framing of the argument with no context as to who ran the Congress at the time or what else was going on (recession, expansion in the economy) in the world is such a joke.<o:p></o:p>
<P =Msonormal style=“MARGIN: 0.75pt 1.5pt”> <o:p></o:p>
<P =Msonormal style=“MARGIN: 0.75pt 1.5pt”>[quote=<st1:City w:st=“on”><st1:place w:st=“on”>Ashland</st1:place></st1:City>] Here’s an interesting story about how supply side economics doesn’t work. Note the conservative publication. http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1001/p15s01-wmgn.html [/quote]<o:p></o:p>
<P =Msonormal style=“MARGIN: 0.75pt 1.5pt”> <o:p></o:p>
<P =Msonormal style=“MARGIN: 0.75pt 1.5pt 0pt”>Now that’s interesting, you figure CSM is a “conservative publication”? I suppose you also think the columnist is “conservative” too?<o:p></o:p>
<P =Msonormal style=“MARGIN: 0.75pt 1.5pt 0pt”><o:p> </o:p>
<P =Msonormal style=“MARGIN: 0.75pt 1.5pt 0pt”>So the economics “don’t work” even though tax cuts have demonstrably spurred economic growth, diminishing the effects of a recession, resulting in record tax revenues and historically low deficits as a percentage of GNP? Really? Next you’ll prove to me the sky isn’t blue.<o:p></o:p>
<P =Msonormal style=“MARGIN: 0.75pt 1.5pt 0pt”><o:p> </o:p>
<P =Msonormal style=“MARGIN: 0.75pt 1.5pt 0pt”>Rather than tap dancing about spending in the past, how about trying to make a coherent argument that Democrats aren’t attempting at every turn to expand government programs, making them less market oriented in the process? How about explaining how Murtha hasn’t turned the nasty business of earmarks into an art form?<o:p></o:p>
<P =Msonormal style=“MARGIN: 0.75pt 1.5pt 0pt”><o:p> </o:p>
<P =Msonormal style=“MARGIN: 0.75pt 1.5pt 0pt”>How about starting with Democratic versus GOP solutions to Medicare coverage for prescription drugs and SCHIP? <o:p></o:p> [/quote]
OK… I’m going to stop feeding the blind troll.
[quote=mikebutler222][quote=BondGuy]
There was nothing to fix. The intell was there and either missed or ignored by Rice. Both Tenant and Clarke confirm that the intell was given to Rice. [/quote]This is nonsense. Clarke was a disgruntled NSC advisor who had a hissy-fit when his daily face time with the throne ended, when Bush decided to met directly daily with the heads of Intelligence agencies (something <?: prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Clinton didn’t do) and not him. The “warnings” you claim were ignored were of a level of generality (no who, what, where when, and how) as to be useless. For all the self aggrandizing Clarke does, Michael Scheuer, head of the CIA’s bin Laden task force, and a major league Bush critic, says Clarke was an abject failure. <?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
Matthew Continetti writes: "Scheuer believes that Clarke’s risk aversion and politicking negatively impacted the hunt for Bin Laden prior to September 11, 2001. Scheuer stated that his unit, codename 'Alec,' had provided information that could have led to the capture and or killing of Osama bin Laden on ten different occasions, only to have his recommendations for action turned down by senior intelligence officials, including Clarke."
Clarke claims that Condi had never “heard” of bin Laden until he mentioned him to her, a claim that was undermined when a tape of Condi on a pre-2000 election surfaced where she discussed at length the terrorist threat the nation faced, bin Laden in particular.
BTW, Clarke was such a “success” that Sandy Berger, attempting to keep critical reviews of Clarke’s work (like the claim that sharp intel and not blind luck thwarted the “millennium bomber” at the Canadian border) away from the 9/11 Commission, stole and destroyed classified documents.
More on Clarke; http://www.instapundit.com/archives/014732.php
[/quote] Mike, you help make my case. You conveniently buy into the Bush slime machine's view painting Clarke as a disgruntled low level DC operative who couldn't handle a demotion. You left out Dick Cheney's assertion that Clarke was out of the loop. To the non-partisan, not only was Clarke not out of the loop, he was the loop. That the Bush admin was so half-assed in trying to discredit Clarke was a glaring tell that they were afraid of him. They couldn't get their stories straight. The fact is, like it or not, that the Bush admin put Clarke on point to lead the response to 9/11. He was the man, the decision maker after 9/11. Are we to beleive that when we experience the deadliest attack on American soil in our history Bush put a disgruntled "Hissy-fit" demoted NSC guy in charge of the response to 9/11? Yeah that makes sense. Mike are you even capable of independent thought? Bush and company didn't atttempt to discredit Clarke until he blew the whistle. Why is that? What amazes me is that in a corporate whistle blowing case the defendant's attempts to discredit those blowing the whistle is met with skepticism. Yet, when a highly placed insider blows the whistle on the prez, you buy the slime job hook,line and sinker. Amazing! Figure it out mike or are you just another sheep?Title of this article: Political Cycles and the Stock Market
http://www.personal.anderson.ucla.edu/rossen.valkanov/politics53_complete.pdf
Conclusions start on Page 23.
Conclusion 1 - The excess return… over one month Treasury bill is, on average, 9 percent higher under Democrat than Republican administrations…
2 - The presidential cycle variables capture information about expected returns that is orthogonal(mutually independent or irrelevant) to business cycle variables…
3 - There is no evidence that pre- or post-election excess returns are higher than average… The difference in excess returns builds up homogeneously throughout the presidential term – it is not due to any particular period during the presidency…
4 - Volatility is somewhat higher in Republican presidencies…
5 - The difference in returns decreases monotonically with the market capitalization of firms. The difference varies from 7 percent for the largest firms to about 22 percent for the smallest firms(smaller company stocks do better under Democratic presidential terms. Oh yeah - so do larger companies!)
6 - The impact of presidential cycle variables varies across industries…
7 - Congressional mandates DO NOT have a statistically significant effect on excess stock returns(it doesn’t matter who’s holds Congress!)…
Sounds to me like the Democrats are better for the stock market. Higher returns for large companies & much higher returns for small companies. Less volatility during a Democratic presidency. Hmm - blows your argument right out of the water, doesn’t it Mike? Before you respond and look blind & dumb - read the conclusions & the tables yourself.