Fox News' disclosure that Anthony Weiner and his wife, Huma, have sought advice from the Clintons on how to survive a scandal is hardly surprising. Not only are the Clintons experts, but Huma has been a trusted aide of Hillary Clinton for years and is very close to the Clintons. In fact, Bill actually officiated at their wedding. (The Weiners might want to double check to make sure they are legally married.)
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/08/weiner-family-turns-to-clintons-in-wake-confession/
(Fox News)
"Blame it all on the vast right-wing conspiracy."
Anyway, in addition to Fox's exclusive, Fousesquawk also has an exclusive. Here is what Bill advised Anthony to do in order to sway the public and keep his job:
"Here's what you do, kid. You look down and bite your lower lip. Look like you're really remorseful. It works every time."
"You mean like this?"
"You got it! Now get back to work for the American people."
It is nice to hear that Weiner is getting advice from Bill Clinton on his transgressions. One wonders if the advice on indiscretion, is the information that Reverend Jesse Jackson gave Clinton, when he was very creative with the use of Cubana cigars. That is, before Jesse was found to have his own paramour.
ReplyDeleteSquid
If you wanna catch rats, you gotta go down in the sewer. (Old police proverb)
ReplyDeleteWell, Clinton DID generate budget surpluses and start paying down the national debt... I'd say that was a worthwhile exchange for not removing him from office over indiscretions with an intern. Hey, Grover Cleveland was ELECTED president with the Republicans chanting rhymes about an out of wedlock child - and it was true, and he copped to it.
ReplyDelete(Gary, when you find your way out of the sewer, find out what date it is before you start telling us yesterday's news).
Hate to bust another firmly held conviction of yours Siarlys, but Clinton did NOT generate budget surpluses and start paying down the national debt or leave any surplus to Bush.
ReplyDeleteHere are the treasury dept figures:
Fiscal
Year Year Ending National Debt Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion
In NO year did the national debt go down. The deficit was almost eliminated in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of "only" $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero--let alone a positive surplus number. And Clinton's last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration.
Sorry about busting that bubble too. If you want to quibble about this or obfuscate or change the subject, you'll have to supply some independent facts. These figures come from the Treasury Dept.
.
Miggie, if you had stayed awake in English class at whatever college you sometimes infer you got some degree from, you would know that the word "too" is a synonym for "also," requiring an antecedent for comparison.
ReplyDeleteSince you have never produced facts to pop anyone's bubble, and when you try you either prove yourself a despicable liar, or prove your opponent's point and undermine your own, the MOST you could claim here is that for the FIRST TIME, you have presented some numbers I actually have to stop and think about.
In the past eleven years, nobody, of any political loyalty, has ever argued that we did have a few years of surpluses, they just try to weasel their way to insinuate that Clinton shouldn't get the credit for them. So I did have to start looking around for where this well-known and commonly accepted (if often forgotten) information came from.
The first reference I found was
http://articles.cnn.com/2000-09-27/politics/clinton.surplus_1_budget-surplus-national-debt-fiscal-discipline?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS
That's not "Treasury Department figures," and I know you write off CNN faster than I write off Breitbart, but it seems if this news report was entirely without foundation, someone would have said so by now.
This seems to off a more "objective" answer, and refers (with link) directly to federal budget figures:
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html
Looking at the linked CBO data, I get the following size of national debt for successive years:
1997 3,772.3
1998 3,721.1
1999 3,632.4
2000 3,409.8
2001 3,319.6
2002 3,540.4
Now these are different numbers than you or I previously exchanged on this subject, when you proved my point for me, and the figures you've presented here are different than either one, or what you yourself last argued.
So perhaps we need the context you NEVER provide, or maybe you just made up what you posted here, because the last time around you stumbled over your own data. You would have a hard time offering a credible source that both provides figures, and analysis, and can attribute where the numbers come from.
Checkmate.