The Statistics Suggest MISUSE OF POWER
Strategic Investment Newsletter (strategicinvestment.com)
January 20, 1999 James Davidson
The odds that three military strikes should have occured by coincidence on three days when there just happened to be a pivotal event in Clinton's brush with infamy are extremely remote, almost 8 MILLION to 1.
The pivotal events:
1. Clinton testimony in the Jones case is made public.
2. Monica testifies.
3. House votes on impeachment.
These pivotal events are not related in any inherent way to the use of military force. In one year we have 3 pivotal events in an unfolding scandal and three uses of US military force at the orders of the President. Iraq, Sudan-Afghanistan and Iraq.
THE STATISTICS SUGGEST MISUSE OF POWER
Odds of one use of force occuring on a pivotal event day: 1:40.
Odds of three uses of force occuring on pivotal event days: 1:7,993,986
A coincidence? Not likely.
PROOF: Odds of one military attack happening on one of the pivotal days--entirely by chance would be 3 in 365 or 3/365 and if the first were not a match, the second bombing run would have the same chance of 3 in 365 or 3/365. The three chances added together: 3/365 + 3/365 + 3/365 = 9/365. This reduces to 1/40.56 or odds of 1:40.
Odds of three military strikes happening on the three pivotal days-- The first military strike has to occur on one of the three pivotal days which is a chance of 3 in 165 or 1/1/21. The second military strike then has to occur on one of the two remaining pivotal days which is a chance of 2 in 364 or 1/182. It is 364 because the first pivotal day is now out of the picture (n-1). Since the two events depend on each other happening to occur together, they multiply. 1/121 X 1/182 = 22,022. For the third military strike to also occur on the remaining pivotal day, the odds are 1/363 X 22,022 = 1/7,993,986 or odds of 1:7,999,986.
The correlation between military actions and moments of embarrassment for Clinton is too perfect. Too perfect to be a coincidence. Whenever he has wanted a photo-op to appear presidential, and overshadow some pivotal event, he has stuck a stick into a hornet's nest abroad. His policy of using military force to change the focus of news coverage in the United States has created lasting antagonisms with Islamic groups prone to terrorism. How can you or anyone be confident that this could not lead to serious consequences? At a minimum, I expect more terrorist attacks on the United States, which may become provocations for more curtailment of freedom in the United States if Clinton remains in the White House.
(SNIP)....This is only a portion of the article. Im not sure how much of it I can post here and I dont know if it is available online.
In another part of the article, he lists key dates with the event and military action as follows:
6/30/98 :Judge Susan Webber Wright makes public Clintons perjurous deposition in the Paula Jones Case. Military action: A US F-16 fighter jet fires on an Iraqi radar site.
8/20/98: Monica Lewinsky testifies before the federal grand jury, following Clinton's testimony and unsuccessful speech in which he pretends to apologize for an "improper relationship" while attacking the prosecutors. Military Action: Clinton orders a hasty cruise missile attack on "terrorist facilities" in Sudan and Afghanistan.
11/13-14/98: Clinton agrees to settle the lawsuit with Ms Jones, promising to pay her $850,000. Military Action: Amid intense media coverage, Clinton orders an air attack against Iraq, then aborts the attack after the planes are in the air.
12/16/98: It becomes clear that the House of Representatives is poised to impeach Clinton, with debate scheduled to begin the next day. Military Action: Clinton orders a massive bombardment of Iraq. The Washington Times reports that "senior Pentagon officers expressed great skepticism...about the raids. This source said thta the White House eagerness to launch air strikes grew with intensity as a parade of centrist Republicans announced they would vote to impeach the president."
12/19/98: Clinton is impeached. Military Action: The bombing of Iraq is declared a success, and the operation is terminated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To: ALL
The same issue has an article by Jack Wheeler called <b."The Most Dangerous Man in the World" referring, of course, to Clinton.
He says "...few sights are more aesthetically repulsive than a confident, assertive, self-assured evil -- depravity on the moral offense -- and a cringing, apologetic, self-doubting vitrue--decency on the moral defensive. But we are way beyond aesthetics when Slick spends close to $3 billion, radically depletes weapons stores, militarily attacks a defenseless country that has lost its capacity to be much danger to anyone on a set-up phony pretext, accomplishes next to nothing in the attack, and does so on the eve of the most important religious holidy for over a billion people -- for the sole purpose of avoiding his own impeachment.
It should now be luminously clear to anyone with a three-digit IQ that the most dangerous person in the world now is not Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden or some other media-appointed bad guy -- it is WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON. This is a man who is totally devoid of any honor, shame, integrity, honesty or trustworthiness, who will tell ANY LIE, sacrifice ANY FRIEND, blackmail and smear any opposition, engage in any deceit, drag his country through any disgrace, jeopardize national security to ANY degree, commit ANY crime, up to and including TREASON, to keep his office.
...All of us, all Americans and everyone else on the planet, should be terrified that such a sociopath has more power militarily and economically to affect their lives than any other human being on earth. "
This last part sent shivers down my spine.
From: Im4Starr (emailname) *
freerepublic.com |
