SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: TigerPaw who wrote (357010)2/10/2003 3:37:18 PM
From: Skywatcher  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
Economists Blast Bush Tax-Cut Proposal
Monday February 10, 2:46 pm ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Economists led by 10 Nobel laureates on Monday attacked
President Bush's $695 million tax-cut proposal, arguing that the cuts fail to address the
problems facing the U.S. economy and will add to long-term budget deficits.

Their signed statement, to run this
week as a full-page advertisement in
the New York Times, comes as
Congress prepares to examine the
details of the Bush proposal.

Economic growth that is not
sufficient to generate jobs,
corporate scandals, business
overcapacity and uncertainty
continue to weigh on the U.S.
economy, the statement said.

"The tax plan proposed by President
Bush is not the answer to these
problems. Regardless of how one
views the specifics of the Bush plan,
there is wide agreement that its
purpose is a permanent change in the tax structure and not the creation of jobs and
growth in the near term. The permanent dividend tax cut, in particular, is not credible as
a short-term stimulus, said the statement, signed by more than 400 economists.

The Nobel laureates include Joseph Stiglitz, who served on the White House council of
economic advisers under President Bill Clinton.

The economists' statement, is sponsored by the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal
Washington think tank.

The four-paragraph statement, made public at news conference on Monday, said the
economy is expanding but not fast enough to create jobs.

The administration plan calls for an end to taxes paid by individuals on corporate
dividends and acceleration of planned income tax cuts.

Administration officials, including Treasury Secretary John Snow, are planning a series
of meeting this week across the country intended to generate public support.

The proposal, which has come under fire from congressional Democrats, will reduce
federal revenues by nearly $700 billion over the next decade.

Democrats argue the tax cut will benefit mostly the wealthy while adding to budget
deficits. Republican backers argue the tax cuts will lift economic growth and bring in
more revenues.

Moderate Republicans who hold key votes in the narrowly divided Senate are, however,
cool to the proposed dividend tax cut, the centerpiece of Bush's plan.

Lawmakers this week will begin to take a closer look at the plan. The Senate Finance
Committee has scheduled two days of hearings this week.

Separately, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan is expected to his offer
assessment of Bush's proposal in testimony on Tuesday to the Senate Banking
Committee and on Wednesday to the House Finance Committee.
CC



To: TigerPaw who wrote (357010)2/10/2003 3:37:18 PM
From: Skywatcher  Respond to of 769670
 
Economists Blast Bush Tax-Cut Proposal
Monday February 10, 2:46 pm ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Economists led by 10 Nobel laureates on Monday attacked
President Bush's $695 million tax-cut proposal, arguing that the cuts fail to address the
problems facing the U.S. economy and will add to long-term budget deficits.

Their signed statement, to run this
week as a full-page advertisement in
the New York Times, comes as
Congress prepares to examine the
details of the Bush proposal.

Economic growth that is not
sufficient to generate jobs,
corporate scandals, business
overcapacity and uncertainty
continue to weigh on the U.S.
economy, the statement said.

"The tax plan proposed by President
Bush is not the answer to these
problems. Regardless of how one
views the specifics of the Bush plan,
there is wide agreement that its
purpose is a permanent change in the tax structure and not the creation of jobs and
growth in the near term. The permanent dividend tax cut, in particular, is not credible as
a short-term stimulus, said the statement, signed by more than 400 economists.

The Nobel laureates include Joseph Stiglitz, who served on the White House council of
economic advisers under President Bill Clinton.

The economists' statement, is sponsored by the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal
Washington think tank.

The four-paragraph statement, made public at news conference on Monday, said the
economy is expanding but not fast enough to create jobs.

The administration plan calls for an end to taxes paid by individuals on corporate
dividends and acceleration of planned income tax cuts.

Administration officials, including Treasury Secretary John Snow, are planning a series
of meeting this week across the country intended to generate public support.

The proposal, which has come under fire from congressional Democrats, will reduce
federal revenues by nearly $700 billion over the next decade.

Democrats argue the tax cut will benefit mostly the wealthy while adding to budget
deficits. Republican backers argue the tax cuts will lift economic growth and bring in
more revenues.

Moderate Republicans who hold key votes in the narrowly divided Senate are, however,
cool to the proposed dividend tax cut, the centerpiece of Bush's plan.

Lawmakers this week will begin to take a closer look at the plan. The Senate Finance
Committee has scheduled two days of hearings this week.

Separately, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan is expected to his offer
assessment of Bush's proposal in testimony on Tuesday to the Senate Banking
Committee and on Wednesday to the House Finance Committee.
CC



To: TigerPaw who wrote (357010)2/10/2003 3:44:51 PM
From: JakeStraw  Respond to of 769670
 
And how many days since Clinton let him go?! BTW your quote is wrong!



To: TigerPaw who wrote (357010)2/10/2003 3:46:48 PM
From: JakeStraw  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
Clinton aides regret letting bin Laden off
Terrorism policy never got going
By BRIAN MCGRORY
Boston Globe
WASHINGTON -- The dual bombings ranked as one of the most insidious acts of terrorism ever committed against the United States: two U.S. embassies in Africa decimated, more than 300 dead, and a shadowy prime suspect, Osama bin Laden, bragging that the battle had just begun.

So it wasn't surprising that President Clinton's words, back in August 1998, tumbled forth with uncommon fury. "No matter how long it takes," he vowed, "or where it takes us, we will pursue terrorists until the cases are solved and justice is done."

Now, one infamous day and more than 6,000 deaths later, some in the capital are pointedly, though quietly, critical of Clinton's failure to elevate his actions toward his lofty rhetoric. Some wonder whether he was distracted by the legal and political quagmire of the Monica Lewinsky case. And even former Clinton aides now regret that the battle with bin Laden and his al Qaeda organization was never fully joined.

"Clearly, not enough was done," said Jamie Gorelick, a former deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration. "We should have caught this. Why this happened, I don't know. Responsibilities were given out. Resources were given. Authorities existed. We should have prevented this."

Said Nancy Soderberg, a former senior aide in Clinton's National Security Council, "In hindsight, it wasn't enough, and anyone involved in policy would have to admit that."

Clinton's solution, just three weeks after the twin embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, was to fire some 75 cruise missiles at terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and a suspected nerve gas factory in Sudan.

Sudanese officials and the factory's owner have denied that the installation had anything to do with bin Laden or chemical weapons, and the company has sued the United States. Bin Laden escaped unharmed, only to have an agent tell an Arab newspaper, "The battle has not yet started."

To be sure, Clinton presided over the passage of two anti-terrorism bills, funneled more money to the FBI and CIA, raised the threat with foreign leaders on a world stage.

Yet Clinton's terrorism policy was one of fits and starts, of good intentions that faded into inattention, allies and adversaries now say.

At one point, in May 1998, prior to the embassy attacks, Clinton planned a special operations nighttime strike on bin Laden using elite military teams, said Sen. John F. Kerry, D-Mass., who spent six years on the Intelligence Committee. A former Clinton administration official confirmed the attempt, and said the troops were deployed to a base in Europe. But the president never gave the go-ahead.

"There were arguments at the Pentagon about risks," said Kerry. "I know they didn't think it was wise."

At home, Clinton doubled the size of the FBI's counterterrorism budget, but the bureau was so slow to hire new agents to combat terrorism that much of the money was never used, according to Gorelick. An FBI spokesman said Wednesday that specific staffing and budget figures were classified.

One senior government official said this week that some of the highest-level members of the Clinton administration asked Vice President Al Gore to take over the issue, possibly heading a high-visibility panel to push it to the front of the national agenda. It never happened.

Clinton's fight had an added strain. White House officials acknowledged at the time that he authorized the attack on Sudan and Afghanistan on the same August weekend in 1998 that he confessed his affair with Lewinsky to his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton. He met with national security and military advisers to plan the attacks between sessions with lawyers to prepare for his grand jury testimony.



To: TigerPaw who wrote (357010)2/10/2003 3:50:18 PM
From: JakeStraw  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
Aide: Clinton Unleashed bin Laden

Bill Clinton ignored repeated opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist allies and is responsible for the spread of terrorism, one of the ex-president’s own top aides charges.
Mansoor Ijaz, who negotiated with Sudan on behalf of Clinton from 1996 to 1998, paints a portrait of a White House plagued by incompetence, focused on appearances rather than action, and heedless of profound threats to national security.

Ijaz also claims Clinton passed on an opportunity to have Osama bin Laden arrested.

Sudanese President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, hoping to have terrorism sanctions lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of bin Laden and "detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt's Islamic Jihad, Iran's Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas,” Ijaz writes in today’s edition of the liberal Los Angeles Times.

These networks included the two hijackers who piloted jetliners into the World Trade Center.

But Clinton and National Security Adviser Samuel "Sandy” Berger failed to act.

”I know because I negotiated more than one of the opportunities,” Ijaz writes.

”The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening."

Thank Clinton for 'Hydra-like Monster'

”As an American Muslim and a political supporter of Clinton, I feel now, as I argued with Clinton and Berger then, that their counter-terrorism policies fueled the rise of bin Laden from an ordinary man to a Hydra-like monster,” says Ijaz, chairman of a New York investment company and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Ijaz’s revelations are but the latest to implicate the Clinton administration in the spread of terrorism. Former CIA and State Department official Larry Johnson today also noted the failure of Clinton to do more than talk.

Among the many others who have pointed out Clinton’s negligence: former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, former Clinton adviser Dick Morris, the late author Barbara Olson, Russian President Vladimir Putin, Iraqi expert Laurie Mylroie, the CIA and some of the victims of Sept. 11.

And the list grows: members of Congress, pundit Charles R. Smith, former Department of Energy official Notra Trulock, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, government counterterrorism experts, the law firm Judicial Watch, New Jersey gubernatorial candidate Bret Schundler, the liberal Boston Globe – and even Clinton himself.

The Buck Stops Nowhere

Ijaz's account in the Times reads like a spy novel. Sudan’s Bashir, fearing the rise of bin Laden, sent intelligence officials to the U.S. in February 1996. They offered to arrest bin Laden and extradite him to Saudi Arabia or to keep close watch over him. The Saudis "didn't want their home-grown terrorist back where he might plot to overthrow them.”

”In May 1996, the Sudanese capitulated to U.S. pressure and asked bin Laden to leave, despite their feeling that he could be monitored better in Sudan than elsewhere.”

That’s when bin Laden went to Afghanistan, along with "Ayman Zawahiri, considered by the U.S. to be the chief planner of the Sept. 11 attacks; Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, who traveled frequently to Germany to obtain electronic equipment for al-Qaeda; Wadih El-Hage, Bin Laden's personal secretary and roving emissary, now serving a life sentence in the U.S. for his role in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya; and Fazul Abdullah Mohammed and Saif Adel, also accused of carrying out the embassy attacks.”

If these names sound familiar, just check the FBI's list of most-wanted terrorists.

The Clinton administration repeatedly rejected crucial information that Sudan had gathered on these terrorists, Ijaz says.

In July 2000, just three months before the deadly attack on the destroyer USS Cole in Yemen, Ijaz "brought the White House another plausible offer to deal with bin Laden, by then known to be involved in the embassy bombings. A senior counter-terrorism official from one of the United States' closest Arab allies - an ally whose name I am not free to divulge - approached me with the proposal after telling me he was fed up with the antics and arrogance of U.S. counter-terrorism officials.”

This offer would have brought bin Laden to that Arab country and eventually to the U.S. All the proposal required of Clinton was that he make a state visit to request extradition.

"But senior Clinton officials sabotaged the offer, letting it get caught up in internal politics within the ruling family - Clintonian diplomacy at its best.”

'Purposeful Obfuscation'

Appearing on Fox News Channel’s "The O’Reilly Factor” on Wednesday night, Ijaz said, "Everything we needed to know about the terrorist networks” was in Sudan.

Newsman Bill O’Reilly asked how Clinton and Berger reacted to the deals Ijaz brokered to bring bin Laden and company to justice. "Zero. They didn’t respond at all.”

The Clintonoids won’t get away with denials, he said. "I’ve got the documentation,” including a memorandum to Berger.

"This was purposeful obfuscation,” he asserted.

O’Reilly wondered why the White House didn’t want information about the terrorists. Ijaz said that was for the American people to judge, but when pressed he suggested that Clinton might intentionally have allowed the apparently weak bin Laden to rise so he could later make a show of crushing him.

Concludes Ijaz in the Times: "Clinton's failure to grasp the opportunity to unravel increasingly organized extremists, coupled with Berger's assessments of their potential to directly threaten the U.S., represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history.”



To: TigerPaw who wrote (357010)2/10/2003 3:56:17 PM
From: JakeStraw  Respond to of 769670
 
"If a president of the
United States ever lied
to the American people,
he should resign."
- Bill Clinton, 1974



To: TigerPaw who wrote (357010)2/10/2003 4:18:54 PM
From: KLP  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
Ever occur to you, TP, that OBL sits on SOME piece of land, somewhere. And most probably, we DO know where he, and his entourage, is. As many on the Left have mentioned MANY times, "Iraqi citizens aren't the problem...Saddam is.~~ Those same radical Muslim apologists "don't want OBL bombed around citizens of the country where he is, etc"

So as soon as OBL gets out of a country/land we can't bomb, at least as yet....

We will all have to wait to capture or kill OBL....including you, TigerPaw. You will have to wait. But never fear, it WILL happen.