I need to go through each of these...
BILL CLINTON'S KNOWN LIES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 1991: Question: "Have you ever used Marijuana or any illegal drugs?" Answer: "I've never broken any drug law." - Arkansas Gazette, July 24th, 1991, p. 8B
Asked this 3 times, on 3 separate occasions, by 3 different interviewers, your Great White Hope repeated this claim. Until faced with irrefutable proof, that is.
Then he said:
March 29th, 1992: "I've never broken a state law. But when I was in England I experimented with marijuana a time or two..."
Later, in that same interview, "No one has ever asked me that question point-blank."
- The New York Times, March 30th, 1992, p.A15.
Let's ask DoubleYuh about his drug habbits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Jan. 19, 1992 Bill Clinton said, "I want to make it very clear that this middle-class tax cut, in my view, is central to any attempt we're going to make to have a short-term economic strategy."
But on Jan. 14, 1993 at a press conference, Bill Clinton said, "From New Hampshire forward, for reasons that absolutely mystified me, the press thought the most important issue in the race was the middle-class tax cut. "I never did meet any voter who thought that."
I'm not sure where the lie is here...short-term economic strategy does not necessarily equal "most important issue in the race"...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sept. 8,1992, Bill Clinton said, "The only people who will pay more income taxes are the wealthiest 2 percent, those living in households making over $200,000 a year."
In response to a Bush-Quayle ad that people with incomes of as little as $36,000 would pay more taxes under the Clinton plan, Bill Clinton said on Oct. 1, 1992, "It's a disgrace to the American people that the president (Bush) of the United States would make a claim that is so baseless, that is so without foundation, so shameless in its attempt to get votes under false pretenses."
Yet the NY TIMES in the analysis of Clinton's budget wrote, "There are tax increases for every family making more than $20,000 a year!"
"While Clinton continued to defend his middle-class tax cut publicly, he privately expressed the view to his advisers that it was intellectually dishonest." (The Agenda, by Bob Woodward, p. 31)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Business Week, July 6, 1992, Bill Clinton was quoted as saying, "When I began the campaign, the projected deficit was $250 billion. Now its up to $400 billion."
However in Time Magazine. 2 weeks later, Bill Clinton was quoted as saying, "When I started in New Hampshire working with those numbers, we felt the deficit was going to be around $250 billion a year, not $400 billion." Which is it, Bill?
But then he said on Feb. 10, 1993, "The deficit of this country is about $50 billion a year bigger than I was told it was going to be before the election." --our President said this after "discovering" that the deficit was $290 billion, $110 Billion LESS than he had claimed in July! Which story are we to believe from our president??
Mis-spoken quotes...SO? How are these lies? You'll have to do more to prove these as out and out lies. Doesn't doubleyuh misspeak?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
President Clinton said on March 23, 1993 at a press conference: "My economic package will cut $500 billion from the deficit in five years." Yet the projected deficit in 1998 with Clinton's budget is $234 billion, the projected deficit in 2001 with Clinton budget is $401 billion.(These figures come from Bill Clinton's budget document, "A Vision of Change for America."-Feb. 1993.
If these figures are correct, then Clinton was wrong...he didn't lie. Don't you people know the difference?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Wall Street Journal Opinion-Editorial Page 2/21/95
NUMBERS GAME
It's the season to cut government, or at least to claim to, so we perked up when we heard President Clinton declare in his State of the Union address that he had cut (quote) more than 100,000 positions from the federal bureaucracy in the last two years alone (unquote).
As they say in detective work, interesting - if true. So we decided to pull out the new federal budget to check. What we discovered is that Mr. Clinton isn't lying, but he isn't telling the whole truth either. His speeches need an asterisk.
From 1993 to Fiscal Year 1996, the Clinton Administration will in fact have cut the federal government by 157,000 full-time positions. But there's a catch: 131,000 of those positions are civilian Defense jobs. Those cuts reflect the inevitable post-cold War decline in military spending, not some brave retrenchment in the overall size of government.
There's another catch: Of the 26,000 positions to be cut from the non-Defense side of Leviathan, 9,500 come from the Resolution Trust Corp. and Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Those two banking agencies grew like Topsy to manage the savings and loan debacle, but are now cutting back as the bailout ends. The RTC is even supposed to go out of business this year. The bottom line is that over the course of the Clinton presidency, the non-Defense, non-S&L part of the government will cut a measly 16,500 full-time positions out of some 1.2 million. In essence the domestic government is conducting business as usual.
Mr. Clinton also says he's making the federal establishment (quote) the smallest it has been since John Kennedy was President (unquote). But again, excluding Defense, total executive branch employment will be 1,181,000 in 1996. Back in 1963, when JFK was President, total non-Defense employment was a mere 861,000. Maybe that should be the 1996 goal for Republican budget- cutters; they could say they got the idea from the President.
Are you referring to the guy who absolutely, positively guaranteed that if he was elected governor of Arkansas in 1990 he would serve 4 years? The one who said that a 4% income tax rate on the wealthiest 2% of the population would raise 165 billion dollars, reduce the deficit, and allow a middle class tax cut? The one who claimed that the republicans had killed the Lani Guinier nomination? The one who claimed that he had decided to make himself available to the draft after 4 acquaintances were killed in Viet Nam (rather than after his birthday had been drawn #311 in the draft lottery)? The one who claimed that "affirmative action "benefits white men?
Are you referring to that Clinton?
No, he said that the new gasoline tax (4 cent per gallon) would go to a deficit reduction trust fund. No such fund has been established to date... it is going to the general fund to fund their increased social programs... check it out... call the government accounting office and ask... they are stealing your money...
And I give you my word to do it without the blame game of the last twelve years of Reagan and Bush.
Good, OOPS, that lasted almost a whole day!
"What we discovered is that Mr. Clinton isn't lying"...duh.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NY Times reported that people earning under $100,000 paid an additional $3 billion in '94.
But wait, Clinton and the media claimed that only the top 2% were going to pay more taxes. Was that another lie from the Clinton administration?
Again...not a lie, but if the numbers are correct, then Clinton didn't live up to a commitment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to liberal Democrats, anyone who makes a dollar more than you is the "rich". On the issue of "taxes on the rich", consider the following:
Most of the "rich" are smart business men & women... they own and run their own businesses. In addition, Clinton passed a 1% increase in corporate income taxes...
If you owned your own business, or if you were the CFO of a corporation, and your cost of doing business went up, what would you do ? You'd pass this cost on...
Should they feel the heat, so to speak, they pass the new costs on to the principle consumers of the goods and services they offer...The middle-class and poor....So who really is paying Clinton's new taxes ?
As the saying goes. "When the "rich" get a sniffle, the middle-class catches pneumonia."
The real problem with this attack on the rich is the underlying assumption that this is a static class of people. Not so.
A great many people start off "poor" and as they move up in the business world become successful and eventually become what the Democrats would currently characterize as "rich." Indeed most of the wealth in this country is in the hands of senior citizens. Many of these people at one time had no money at all.
So, the attack on the rich is not an attack on some evil group. Its mostly an attack on people who after much sacrifice and hard work have finally reached their peak earning years and are trying to enjoy and pass on the fruits of their labor.
This isn't really true...but to stay on topic, I'll ask...what does this have to do with Clinton's supposed lies?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There were many other Clinton proposals that didn't fly (thank you) which would have further parted people from their capital....Here's a couple of winners he proposed in 1992....
1992? That's funny...wasn't Clinton inaugurated in 1993?
Imputed rent...You would pay tax on "rent" that you would have collected FROM YOURSELF...Tax real, only...NO RENTAL INCOME !!!!!
Lower the inheritance threshold...From about $650,000 to around $200,000. What has been an exclusive tax of the rich, Clinton wanted to give as a gift to the middle-class...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsweek reports that Clinton and the Democrats will no longer pursue the rich vs. middle class America class warfare strategy. They realize that it won't help them politically and, according to Newsweek, "President Clinton...doesn't really believe in it."
Newsweek noted that they are abandoning it, so apparently, they do not agree, nor do their sources. Clinton has been bashing the rich since his campaign, claiming disingenuously that they are not paying their "fair share" of taxes, i.e. falsely implying that they are paying less than they did in '80. Hillary went after the "greedy" pharmaceutical companies, after selling their stock short. They have made many self-serving moralistic statements about the "greed" of the '80's. Clinton and the Democrats condemn Republican. tax cut plans because they claim it will "help the rich."
If this is not class warfare, what is?
Clinton has pursued this strategy for about 3 years, and now he claims...I see no Clinton quote here...where does Clinton claim anything???...he **doesn't really believe in it?** Hey, I'll buy that!
Newsweek reported it as "news." How strangely non-judgmental that they would not question the sincerity of Clinton's claim when his actions speak otherwise.
Clinton's economic policies ???
1) A massive tax increase
2) "Hope" that interest rates would remain low
Huh?
3) A few R & D credits for Al Gore's pet high tech industries
Was there anything else ?
In reference to the Social Security trust fund --
"But its important that we not panic; there is no immediate danger to retirement. Our accumulated surpluses would be sufficient to pay the liabilities to 2029 at current payroll tax rates."
From an interview; published in the May '95 issue of Money magazine.
Hasn't anyone told him that the Social Security trust fund has no money -- Congress borrowed it all and left IOUs with no plans yet on how to redeem those IOU's?
Given that Clinton seems so concerned about the hateful rhetoric in: politics these days, I wonder if he intends to limits such violent: statements as "taking food from the mouths of children", "war on the poor", "throwing the elderly out on the streets", and "contract _on_ America, Evil, Extreme, Mean Spirited and on and on and on.
We've given more power to states and localities and to private citizens. Our proposals would further accelerate those trends. Bill Clinton, White House press conference, 3/3/95
Fact: Clinton lobbied to defeat the Balance Budget Amendment in the Senate, so states and localities are prevented from getting the chance to even debate the amendment. His Administration opposes giving block grants to the states. He is opposing all Block Grants as well.
We support adding 100,000 new police officers. Bill Clinton, same news conference.
Fact: There are no "100,000 police officers". Never has been, never will be. Even liberal columnist DeWayne Wickam concluded in USA Today: "Many of the 100,00 cops promised in the crime bill will never materialize". On the day AFTER Clinton signed the bill into law, The New York Times reported that "some law enforcement analyst said the Administration has in effect misled local officials by vastly overstating the number of police officers who can be hired under the program".
It's called lying where I come from, how about where you came from?
I see no lies here...this person is blinded by Clinton hatred...it's really quite sad
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everyone knows that I have tougher ethic rules than any other President. Bill Clinton, news conference 3/3/95 defending the ethical standards of his administration.
Fact: In addition to his own Whitewater troubles and many high-level resignations, several members of his cabinet are currently facing probes in their conduct, including four "Special Prosecutors..
The budget which came from the President said,, I've given up; that as long I am President of the United States there will never be a balanced budget. That is an astonishing statement. Paul Tsongas, at a Capitol Hill press conference, 2/7/95.
Clinton said, "Who do these people think they are?" referring to people who stockpile guns, "No other government in the world would allow their citizens to do that."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How about this!
Sara Brady was quoted in several papers and magazines at an Hand Gun Incorporated rally a couple of weeks before the Senate vote saying..." Our main agenda is to have ALL guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort facts or even lie.
"Our task of creating a Socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed." -- Sarah Brady (President of Handgun Control, Inc. and wife of James Brady, whom the Brady Bill was named for and was recently "honored" by Clinton)
Democratic Rep. David Obey said "I think most of us learned some time ago that if you don't like the president's position on a particular issue, you simply need to wait a few weeks."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foreign Policy?
Well, let's see, start with Somalia. It's not the first, but its one of the best known. In the winter of 1992 George Bush ordered US troops to guard food shipments in and around the ports. The deployment ended in March, a resounding success. A couple of months later Clinton got suckered into sending the Marines back in as 'nation builders'. In the course of which he deliberately violated Executive Orders of the Presidency not to engage in deliberate or willful assassination of foreign political or military leaders; you DO remember the AC130 gunships firing wildly into civilian occupied apartment buildings, in an effort to murder a Somali warlord and his followers, don't you? I didn't think so. Long term memory is not a strong suite of the Clintonestae.
Want a small disaster? At the opening of the Holocaust Memorial, 1993. A luncheon was served afterwards for the distinguished Jewish guests and foreign dignitaries. The main entree' was Honey baked Ham.
Bosnia. Bosnia is always good for a laugh. On the campaign trail, Candidate Clinton said that he was qualified as Commander In Chief of the Arkansas National Guard to make military decisions. As an example, he bragged that if he were elected, he would bomb the Serbs. In May of 1993, he sent Warren Christopher to convince the Europeans to allow him to do just that. Christopher went with the 'strongest message possible' to urge England, France, and Germany that he was fully committed to this course. Even as the Secretary of State was waiting to meet with them in Geneva, Your Great White Hope appeared on the tube and said that 'bombing the Serbs probably wouldn't be necessary'. Warren Christopher is not noted for emotional displays: Some have suggested that he has had the centers in his brain responsible for emotion surgically removed. After Christopher heard what Fearless Leader did, he ALMOST cracked a frown. The Europeans went ballistic. This year Clinton pushed the bombing schtick again to make himself look tougher than the average weenie and we all know what happened: The Serbs have basically gone on to conquer Bosnia. In that sad country you now have Serbian held territory and UN funded and run Serbian concentration camps disguised as 'safe havens'. The only reason these haven't been overrun is the Serbs haven't got the vaguest idea what to do with the refugees huddled in them.
"OH!" you shriek hysterically, "PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATIONS HAVE HAD FAILURES, TOO! IT'S NOT FAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIRRRRR THAT BILL
CLINTON IS BEING JUDGED SO HARSHLY!!!!" Previous administrations had more successes than failures. George Bush built an international coalition to defeat Iraq in the Gulf War - even got the Arabs to talk to the Israelis afterwards. Ronald Reagan stopped the advance of Marxism in this hemisphere and cracked the will of the Soviets hard-liners to continue the Cold War. Carter, whatever else he may have failed at, can always look back at the Camp David Accords. Ford wasn't President long enough to do more than handle domestic problems, but Nixon reopened the dialogue with China. And so on back through American history. Yes, they had failures, but never were so many failures in so short a time the result of INCREDIBLE INCOMPETENCE by an Administration.
Dan Rather responding to congratulations to him and Connie Chung during and interview shortly after they teamed up together, "If we could be one-hundredth as gret as you and Hillary Rodham Clinton have been together in the White House," the supposedly objective newsman said, "we'd take it right now and walk away winners."
"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans"
- President Clinton (USA TODAY, 11 March 1993, page 2A)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vice President Al Gore's interview on ABC's "This Week with David Brinkley," Sunday, August 25, 1996
Vice President Al Gore made a number of assertions during this interview which we feel require additional clarification.
Medicare
"Beyond that, the Republican Party, specifically Speaker Gingrich, said that he wanted to make changes that would cause Medicare to wither on the vine." --Al Gore, ABC's "This Week with David Brinkley," 8/25/96
Wrong! Al Gore quoted Speaker Gingrich out of context. What the Speaker actually said was:
"Okay, what do you think the Health Care Financing Administration is? It's a centralized command bureaucracy. It's everything we're telling Boris Yeltzin to get rid of. Now we don't get rid of it in round one because we don't think that's politically smart. We don't think that's the right way to go through a transition. But we believe its going to wither on the vine because we think people are voluntarily going to leave it -- voluntarily." --Speaker Newt Gingrich, remarks to Blue Cross/Blue Shield conference, 10/24/95
In their 1992 campaign, Clinton and Gore endorsed scrapping the Health Care Financing Administration:
"We will scrap the Health Care Financing Administration and replace it with a health standards board -- made up of consumers, providers, business, labor and government -- that will establish annual health budget targets and outline a core benefits package." --Bill Clinton and Al Gore, Putting People First, 1992
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
100,000 Cops
"The president has formed an alliance with the law enforcement officers around this country and experts in fighting crime, passed legislation, over the opposition of Senator Dole and Speaker Gingrich, that is now putting 100,000 extra community police officers on the streets." --Al Gore, ABC's "This Week with David Brinkley," 8/25/96
Wrong again!
"What I am advised is that there are 17,000 officers that can be identified as being on the streets." --Attorney General Janet Reno, media availability, 5/16/96
Worse, not all of these cops are fighting crime:
"At least $7.2 million in COPS grants has been used to hire 86 officers for state parks, marinas and other areas seemingly far removed from violent crime." --Investor's Business Daily, 7/16/96
Reducing government
"We have downsized the federal government during the last four years by 250,000 people." --Al Gore, ABC's "This Week with David Brinkley," 8/25/96
What Gore didn't say was that Clinton accomplished this by gutting Defense:
"President Clinton's plan three years ago to 'reinvent' government and cut the federal work force by nearly 252,000 jobs never mentioned that the military would absorb 75 percent of the cuts." --The Washington Times, 8/23/96
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The national debt
"The debt, which was just ballooning out of control under the previous two administrations, has now been cut by 60 percent." --Al Gore, ABC's "This Week with David Brinkley," 8/25/96
Wrong! According to statistics released in February, 1996 by Clinton's own Office of Management and Budget, the gross federal debt for fiscal year 1992 was $4.002 trillion. By fiscal year 1995 it had "ballooned" to $4.921 trillion -- an increase of 23 percent.
Since when is Al Gore, Bill Clinton?
Bill Clinton during a visit in Italy, to his hosts: "Just think, we are walking on the very ground where Romulus and Remus walked".
-- Bill Clinton (They are fictional characters)
Clinton is speaking...oh never mind. DUH!!
"There is a feeling among reporters that the truth and Clinton don't often go together. Reporters have a feeling he is a man without conviction." -- Ken Auletta, a media columnist for the New Yorker
chew a while.
I tried to make it through the whole thing...I couldn't...sorry.
But judging from what I did go through...most of this stuff is bs garbage. There are no real "lies" here...
You people have Bill on one lie:
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman"
That's it...get off it already. The man was a great president. He just had a horrid sexual appetite...
<small>[ August 19, 2002, 04:09 PM: Message edited by: p5mmr9 ]</small>
|
/
So, how many of you out there threw a fit when Clinton allow
![[Image: bush_draft.jpg]](http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/bush_draft.jpg)