The Times Reaps What It Sowed 2

Q ERTY8 Congressman Billybob Sez: News Unfit to Print ^BUMP

CNNs of Commission, Rapist Demagogues and 9/11

The REAL "Living History" -- clintoplasmodial slime

Personal Agitprop-and-Money-Laundering Machine, Cozy-clintonoid-Interviews-of-the-Colmes-Kind-Scheme
Bury REAL "Living History"

corrected link:
CNNs of Commission, Rapist Demagogues and 9/11

Good Lord. What is this convoluted crap?

Are we allowed to hit the "Report Abuse" button to report HTML abuse?

This sort of labyrinthine presentation not only makes for an uninviting read, it signals to onlookers that the presenter probably does not have a good grip on logic and reasoning.

Clarity in communication is important.

Logic and ratiocination--not to mention plain old empirical evidence--inform me that your "utter confidence" is clearly misplaced.

Your charge of HTML abuse is unfounded--precipitated by an swf inadequacy, I suspect. This condition could gravely limit your comprehension. You should check your plug-in status ASAP.

bump ;)

(After this scandal, does the demand for black heart surgeons go up or down?)

The Old Gray Liar, Ann Coulter
FrontPageMagazine.com | May 15, 2003

I had asked myself this very question when the story broke. My answer was, "Neither. It stays the same."

For those of us whose decisions are already consistent with the understanding that affirmative action, by definition, lowers standards for blacks, there is no change.

For those like Pinch and Co., this scandal demonstrates with both clarity and irony that a liberal's a$$ will trump pc poses, noxious nostrums and Southern/Jewish guilt every Times. (Alternatively, I argue: "What heart?")

corrections, additions:

(After this scandal, does the demand for black heart surgeons go up or down?)

The Old Gray Liar, Ann Coulter
FrontPageMagazine.com | May 15, 2003

I had asked myself this very question when the story broke. My answer was, "Neither. It stays the same."

For those of us who acknowledge that our decisions are already consistent with the understanding that affirmative action, by definition, lowers standards for blacks, there is no change.

For those like Pinch and Co., this scandal demonstrates with both disturbing irony and absolute clarity that a liberal's a$$ will trump pc poses, noxious nostrums and Southern/Jewish guilt every 'Times.' (Alternatively, I argue: "What heart?")

Mia T, The Times Reaps What It Sowed 2

Good morning Mia
bttt

Sorry, it's not a lack of plug-ins that's causing the problem. It's the lack of design skill on your part. You clearly have no eye for logic and efficiency in presentation.

This is the way kids design their personal home pages when they first get their hands on some HTML coding. It's not the way it should be done by anybody who actually cares about communicating.

But perhaps you don't care about communicating -- after all, you actually type words like "ratiocination." If that's the case, then sure... Continue amusing yourself with these convoluted posts.

You really must try to think out of the box.

As to "plug-in deficiency," think figuratively. I was referring to more than your apparent lack of the Flash player 6.

Design is a more subjective matter... aesthetically, each to his own taste, of course...

But as for the design-communication synergy of my posts... many in this venue and beyond do not have your comprehension problem.

As for efficiency in communicating, you really miss the point here. The web redefines communication. The bottom line isn't efficiency per se but effectiveness, i.e., the number of pairs of eyeballs that actually see and read and linger and ponder....

That is not to say my work isn't efficient. For sheer efficiency, it's hard to beat

Q ERTY4

or

American Gothics Hyperlinked

or

A '68 Mustang is not exculpatory

I can tell you that the traffic generated by some of my Flash movies on the clintons, e.g., COMING APART, have consistently maxed out the AOL server on which they reside. That's communication effectiveness, in my view.

Finally, as to your estimate of my "eye for logic," I can only point out that math degrees/advanced math studies and illogic are generally considered to be mutually exclusive constructs.

I cancelled my subscription when The Times endorsed the rapist for re-election.

Mr. Raines, who referred to the Blair episode as a "terrible mistake," said that in addition to correcting the record so badly corrupted by Mr. Blair, he planned to assign a task force of newsroom employees to identify lessons for the newspaper. He repeatedly quoted a lesson he said he learned long ago from A. M. Rosenthal, a former executive editor.

"When you're wrong in this profession, there is only one thing to do," he said. "And that is get right as fast as you can."

Times Reporter Who Resigned Leaves Long Trail of Deception

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX TUE MAY 13, 2003 19:48:58 ET XXXXX

EMERGENCY MEETING CALLED AT OLD GRAY LADY; NY TIMES NEWSROOM IN CRISIS

[DRUDGE OBTAINED THIS INTERNAL E-MAIL TO NY TIMES STAFF]

Howell, Gerald and Arthur request that you join your newsroom colleagues at an open forum at 2:30 p.m. Wednesday, May 14, to discuss the Jayson Blair matter and anything else you might have on your mind. The meeting will be held at the Loew's Astor Theater, the moviehouse just behind The Times on 44th Street at Broadway, across from Carmine's. Doors open at 2:15 p.m.

Please be sure to bring your Times i.d. card. No one will be admitted to the theater without their Times i.d.

You will be able to ask questions from the floor, or write them on cards that will be distributed at the door. In addition, we have set up an email address -- forum@nytimes.com -- where you can send questions, either in advance of the session or afterward.

On Wednesday morning, we will send out a separate email advising correspondents and bureaus outside New York how they may dial into the forum and listen to the session. Unfortunately, because of the short time available to set up the forum, people listening from a remote location will not be able to ask live questions. You may, however, avail yourself of the email address above. If you get questions to us before 2 p.m. EDT tomorrow [May 14], we will put them into the hopper. Otherwise, they will be answered later.

Send your questions to the New York Times staff
Drudge | May 14, 2003 | Drudge

My question for Pinch (him, he's dreaming) Sulzberger:

Mr. Sulzberger... Shortly after 9/11, you admitted to Brian Lamb (C-SPAN, Washington Journal, 11.30.01) that The Times' endorsement of clinton was based on clinton "policies, not achievements."
When you made that admission, were you following Abe Rosenthal's sage advice, ("When you're wrong in this profession, there is only one thing to do. And that is get right as fast as you can."), mindful of both the clintons' utter failure to protect us from terrorism, and The Times' prior "failure to connect the dots during the Holocaust,"... or were you merely covering your own corrupt, nepotistically-enabled, feckless rear?

We all know about the Times' agenda-driven reportage, the most notorious of which its shameful failure re the Holocaust. A lot of good the Times' ex post facto admission did for the six million dead.

Shortly after 9/11, Times publisher, 'Pinch' Sulzberger similarly offered another ex post facto admission of another shameful Times failure.

He sheepishly ( ;)) told Brian Lamb (C-SPAN, Washington Journal, 11.30.01) that the Times' endorsement of clinton was based on clinton "policies, not achievements."

WHY DID BILL CLINTON IGNORE TERRORISM?
Was it simply the constraints of his liberal mindset, or was it something even more threatening to our national security?

There's not a dime's worth of difference between the New York Times, with its sins of omission and sins of commission, and the evil that it routinely, reflexively covers up or coddles.

CINDY SHEEHAN: ECHO OF THE LEFT
the democrats are gonna get us killed (kerry, clinton + sandy berger's pants) series₅

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)
by Mia T, 8.28.05

COMPLETE ARTICLE:
CINDY SHEEHAN: ECHO OF THE LEFT
the democrats are gonna get us killed (kerry, clinton + sandy berger's pants) series₅

THE LEFT'S RECKLESS TET-OFFENSIVE-GAMBIT REPLAY:
the left's jihad against America is killing our troops, aiding + abetting the terrorists and imperiling all Americans₂

WHY THE LEFT IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA

by Mia T, 8.24.05, 6.01.04
Four-star General Vo Nguyen Giap led Vietnam's armies from their inception, in the 1940s, up to the moment of their triumphant entrance into Saigon in 1975.

Possessing one of the finest military minds of this century, his strategy for vanquishing superior opponents was not to simply outmaneuver them in the field but to undermine their resolve by inflicting demoralizing political defeats with his bold tactics.

This was evidenced as early as 1944, when Giap sent his minuscule force against French outpost in Indochina. The moment he chose to attack was Christmas Eve. More devastatingly, in 1944 at a place called Dien Bien Phu, Giap lured the overconfident French into a turning point battle and won a stunning victory with brilliant deployments. Always he showed a great talent for approaching his enemy's strengths as if they were exploitable weaknesses.

Nearly a quarter of a century later, in 1968 the General launched a major surprize offensive against American and South Vietnamese forces on the eve of the lunar New Year celebrations. Province capitals throughout the country were seized, garrisons simultaneously attacked and, perhaps most shockingly, in Saigon the U.S. Embassy was invaded. The cost in North Vietnamese casualties was tremendous but the gambit produced a pivotal media disaster for the White House and the presidency of Lyndon Johnson. Giap's strategy toppled the American commander in chief. It turned the tide of the war and sealed the General's fame as the dominant military genius of the 20th Century's second half.
John Colvin, Giap Volcano Under Snow

Our boys... went to Somalia and prepared themselves carefully for a long war.... [O]ur boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled....

I was in Sudan when this happened. I was very happy to learn of that great defeat that America suffered, so was every Muslim....

I say to [the American people] that they have put themselves at the mercy of a disloyal government, and this is most evident in Clinton's administration....

We believe that the worst thieves in the world today and the worst terrorists are the Americans. Nothing could stop you except perhaps retaliation in kind. We do not have to differentiate between military or civilian. As far as we are concerned, they are all targets, and this is what the fatwah says....
Osama bin Laden, May 1998

"The Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him [bin Laden].
At the time, '96, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America."
bill clinton

"The Bush Administration is so entralled by the idea of preemption and American military might. This is the consequence of the policy that regards legitimacy as largely a product of force and victory as primarily a triump of arms...

We truly should go to war as the last resort."
John Kerry

I think [the Bush] administration has the right strategic vision and has taken many of the steps needed to get that long-term strategy rolling. Where I give them the failing grade is in explaining that vision to the American public and the world. Key example: this White House enshrines preemptive war in the latest National Security Strategy and that scares the hell out of a lot of Americans, not to mention our allies. Why? This administration fails to distinguish sufficiently under what conditions that strategy makes reasonable sense. My point is this: when you are explicit about the world being divided into globalization's Core and Gap, you can distinguish between the different security rule sets at work in each. Nothing has changed about strategic deterrence or the concept of mutual-assured destruction (or MAD) within the Core, so fears about preemptive wars triggering World War III are misplaced. When this administration talks about preemption, they're talking strictly about the Gap - not the Core. The strategic stability that defines the Core is not altered one whit by this new strategy, because preemption is all about striking first against actors or states you believe - quite reasonably - are undeterrable in the normal sense.

Thomas P.M. Barnett
The Pentagon's New Map
NB: Dr. Barnett is a lifelong DEMOCRAT

eneral Vo Nguyen Giap's Tet-Offensive gambit is the terrorist's favorite how-to. It is the definitive primer on asymmetric warfare, the use of unconventional tactics to counter the overwhelming conventional military superiority of an adversary.
Not surprisingly, the terrorist's favorite how-to is also the American Left's.
As is the terrorist's favorite target....
The Left's Tet-Offensive gambit today is nothing more than a reprise of its cheap Vietnam parlor trick of decades past: demoralize, undermine, ultimately turn public support against the war, systematically and seditiously seize America's defeat from the jaws of victory.
The Tet-Offensive gambit is the Left's last hope of overcoming both a president who has the courage to confront terrorism and their own lethally dangerous record of unwavering deficiency and failure to do so.
A CONSPIRACY OF USEFUL IDIOTS
The Left's Tet-Offensive gambit is a conspiracy of what Lenin called "useful idiots." It is today a Leftist band of blind apologists for the islamofascist-terrorist enemies of America. But I suspect even Lenin would be surprised by the pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic-ness of it all.
These useful idiots, a self-anointed "intelligentsia"--now there's an oxymoron for you-- are the familiar motley collection of constituencies from the media, academe, Hollywood and, of course, the trusty left wing of our own federal government.
As you must have noticed by now, "incompetent" is their buzzword; it is uttered with dripping contempt and is separated by no more than one word from "George Bush," which is spit, not spoken.
The Kennedy-Pelosi-Gore-clinton (either--"one for the price of two," I say)-Sulzberger-Soros-Moore construct is its grotesque manifestation. Some would call it a clever contrivance, engineered to render, by contrast, its virtually mute member, hillary clinton, marginally sane, and if not attractive, certainly acceptably plain.
Missus clinton--both clintons, actually--are virtually mute for reasons that extend beyond her (presumptive) candidacy. Abusers of power in their own right, they lack the moral authority to demagogue Iraqi-prisoner "abuse" or the Nick Berg decapitation by al Qaeda.
Regarding the latter, because "liberal " is itself sufficient cause to produce this muting effect, we have the bizarre result of the Left oozing, as Zell MIller put it, "more indignation over a photo of a prisoner with underwear on his head than over the video of a young American with no head at all."

ASIDE: A SANDY-BERGER silly-gism:

Saddam shredded people to torture and terrorize.
Therefore, if we torture and terrorize Berger, we will find out what he shredded.

Would this fly with the Gitmo-obsessed crowd, I wonder....

But with all the posturing and pointing and against-isms, the Left eventually has to say something, so after intermittent periods of virtual muteness, it resorts to the old standby, some nonsense or other about process, always making certain to stay clear of substance, faux or real.
The grotesque Kennedy-Pelosi-Gore-clinton (either--"one for the price of two," I say)-Sulzberger-Soros-Moore construct, having successfully transmogrified nominal "George Bush" into vile invective, is now busy pumping out anti-Bush venom via its Viacom/Simon & Schuster/60-minutes vertical operation, a coordinated if overblown Hollywood script hatched solely for the purpose of undermining and defeating America so that the Left can finally win... or so it thinks.
POSTMODERN POSE, STAGE LEFT
Bill clinton was the first postmodern president. When he encountered problems, he simply defined them away.
Thus:

"is" was not "is,"
"sex" was not "sex"
"rape" was not "rape "
"genocide" was not "genocide,"
the terrorist-declared war on America was not war,
the terrorists' acts of war against America (beginning with the bombing of the same building by the same people in 1993) were not acts of war. (They were "crimes,")

Al Qaeda, in its incipient stage and stoppable in '93, was allowed--no, was empowered--to grow and metastasize under bill clinton's postmodern cover.
Terrorism grew and metastasized under bill clinton because bill clinton had a capacity to construct and compartmentalize alternative "truths," alternative selves, alternative moralities; bill clinton is the political manifestation of an "intelligentsia" and its "enlightened" worldview that reject all absolutes.
The net result of clinton's convenient postmodern pose was his opportunistic, Kerry-esque flip-flopping (positively spun as "triangulation" by clinton's political guru, Dick Morris )... or, alternatively, his complete and utter paralysis. The paralysis--and indeed, the postmodern pose itself, was partly a result of his well-documented cognitive inability to analyze, synthesize and prioritize; clinton cowardice and clinton corruption and clinton self-aggrandizement were also essential first causes.
THE LEFT'S POSTMODERN INCAPACITY
If this postmodern poppycock sounds familiar, that's because it is. The American Left today exhibits -- and is crippled by -- the very same political and cognitive postmodern incapacity and dysfunction.
Listen to the Left. Listen to Kerry and Gore and Pelosi and Kennedy and clinton and Soros and Moore and their complicit friends in the media. (How DARE The New York Times bury on page 16 the photos of the seven terrorists believed to be in the U.S., plotting an even more horrific 9/11? How DARE they?) You will hear the same alternative "truths," the same alternative selves, the same alternative moralities.

They still refuse to accept the War on Terror as war, not crime.
They still refuse to accept the War on Terror as a global, irreducible war, not a collection of discrete civil conflicts.
They still refuse to understand that the war in Iraq is not an "optional" war apart from the War on Terror, but is, in fact, the War on Terror's lynchpin.
They refuse to understand (or refuse to admit) that "support for the troops" cannot be independent of support for the war effort and support for the commander in chief.

They refuse to accept the fact that their jihad against America is killing our troops, aiding and abetting the terrorists and imperiling all Americans.
THE LEFT'S 24-HOUR-NEWS CYCLE ATTENTION SPAN
The Left's calculations are clintonian; that is to say, they are tactical, opportunistic, egocentric, small in both scope and depth. They are limited by a 24-hour-news-cycle attention span and a 2-year election cycle. The net result is vulgar play-by-play "commentary" when it should be objective, long-range analysis.
The clintons and their Leftist goons -- (reflexive abusers of power need goons.) -- fail to understand that:

a terrorist war requires only one consenting player
the War on Terror is global and irreducible, the Left's postmodern posture notwithstanding.
defining bin Laden's acts of war as "crimes'' is a dangerous, anachronistic, postmodern conceit (It doesn't depend on what the meaning of the word "war" is) and amounts to surrender
preemptive action, and even more so, preventative action, serve a necessary, critically protective, as well as offensive function in any war on terror.

The sorry endpoint of the massive, 8-year clinton blunder was, of course, 9/11 and the exponential growth of al Qaeda.
Missus clinton and the Left will, by definition, reprise the failed, lethally dangerous clinton policy of denial and surrender.
I, therefore, urge anyone planning ever to vote for hillary clinton or someone like her to rethink, to reconsider. Your children's lives, if not civilization, itself, just may depend on it.

I'm a single issue voter, as I guess must have become apparent.
I'm not a Republican. I'm not a conservative. I'm not a very great admirer of the president in many ways, but I think that my condition is... that this is an administration that wakes up every morning wondering how to make life hard for the forces of Jihad and how to make as hard as possible an unapologetic defense of civilization against this kind of barbarism... and though the Bush administration has been rife with disappointment on this and incompetent, I nonetheless feel that they have some sense of that spirit.

I don't get that... I don't get that feeling from anyone who even sought the Democratic nomination.

I would [therefore] have to vote for the reelection of President Bush.
Christopher Hitchens
Washington Journal, 6.01.04
C-SPAN

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

ne•o-ne•o•lib•er•al•ism n.
neocommunist political movement, a tipsy-topsy, infantile perversion of the Marxist-Leninist model, global in scope, beginning in the post-cold-war, unipolar 1990s, led by the '60s neoliberal baby-boomer "intelligentsia," that seeks power without responsibility, i.e., that seeks to dilute American power by concentrating power in said '60s neoliberals while yielding America's sovereignty to the United Nations, i.e., while surrendering to the terrorists, as it continues the traditional '60s neoliberal feint, namely: (1) concern for social justice, (2) distain for bureaucracy, and (3) the championing of entrepreneurship for the great unwashed.

Mia T, 2.24.04
COPYRIGHT MIA T 2004

The Left's Fatally Flawed "Animal Farm" Mentality
(Why America Must NEVER AGAIN Elect a Democrat President)

WHY THE LEFT IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA

by Mia T, 6.04.04

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

The Bush Doctine is built on two pillars, one -- that the United States must maintain its absolute military superiority in every part of the world, and second -- that the United States has the right for preemptive action.
Now, both these propositions, taken on their own, are quite valid propositions, but if you put them together, they establish two kinds of sovereignty in the world, the sovereignty of the United States, which is inviolate, not subject to any international constraints, and the rest of the world, which is subject to the Bush Doctrine.
To me, it is reminiscent to [sic] George Orwell's "Animal Farm," that "All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
George Soros

eorge Soros could not have more clearly enunciated the lethal danger that he and John Kerry and the clintons and the rest of his leftist cabal pose for America.
Yesterday, at the "progressive," i.e., ultra-extremist left-wing liberal, "Take Back America" confab, Mr. Soros confirmed the obvious: 9/11 was dispositive for the Dems; that is, 9/11 accelerated what eight years of the clintons had set into motion, namely, the demise of a Democratic party that is increasingly irrelevant, unflinchingly corrupt, unwaveringly self-serving, chronically moribund and above all, lethally, seditiously dangerous.
"All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
Apparently missing the irony, George Soros chastised America with these words even as he was trying his $25,000,000, 527-end-run damnedest to render himself "more equal than others" in order to foist his radical, paranoic, deadly dementia on an entire nation.
"Animal Farm" is George Orwell's satirical allegory of the Russian Revolution; but it could just as easily be the story of the Democratic Party of today, with the
Kennedy-Pelosi-Gore-clinton (either--"one for the price of two," I say) -Sulzberger-Soros-Moore construct
its porcine manifestation.
SOROS TSURIS
George Soros' little speech reveals everything we need to know about the Left, to wit:

its naivete about the War on Terror,
its preference for demagoguery over rational argument, and ideology and reacquisition of power over national security,
its mindset, which is inextricably bound to its failed, tortuous, reckless schemes, relics of a different time, a different war and a different enemy.

Soros is correct when he states that each of the two pillars of the Bush Doctine--the United States maintenance of absolute military superiority and the United States right of preemptive action--are "valid propositions" [in a post-9/11 world].
But when he proceeds from there to argue that the validity of each of these two [essential] pillars is somehow nullified by the resultant unequalled power that these two pillars, when taken together, vest in the United States, rational thought and national-security primacy give way to dogmatic Leftist neo-neoliberal ideology.

What is, in fact, "inviolate" here is the neo-neoliberal doctrine of U.S. sovereignty, which states simply that there must be none, that we must yield our sovereignty to the United Nations. Because this Leftist tenet is inviolate, and because it is the antithesis of the concept of U.S. sovereignty enunciated by the Bush Doctrine and the concept of U.S. sovereignty required by the War on Terror, rabid Leftists like Soros conclude that we must trash the latter two inconvenient concepts--even if critical to the survival of our country.
It is precisely here where Soros and the Left fail utterly to understand the War on Terror. They cannot see beyond their own ideology and lust for power. They have become a danger to this country no less lethal than the terrorists they aid and abet.

I think this administration has the right strategic vision and has taken many of the steps needed to get that long-term strategy rolling.
Where I give them the failing grade is in explaining that vision to the American public and the world. Key example: this White House enshrines preemptive war in the latest National Security Strategy and that scares the hell out of a lot of Americans, not to mention our allies. Why? This administration fails to distinguish sufficiently under what conditions that strategy makes reasonable sense.
My point is this: when you are explicit about the world being divided into globalization's Core and Gap, you can distinguish between the different security rule sets at work in each.
Nothing has changed about strategic deterrence or the concept of mutual-assured destruction (or MAD) within the Core, so fears about preemptive wars triggering World War III are misplaced.
When this administration talks about preemption, they're talking strictly about the Gap - not the Core. The strategic stability that defines the Core is not altered one whit by this new strategy, because preemption is all about striking first against actors or states you believe - quite reasonably - are undeterrable in the normal sense.
Thomas P.M. Barnett
The Pentagon's New Map
NB: Dr. Barnett is a lifelong DEMOCRAT

I'm a single-issue voter, as I guess must have become apparent.
I'm not a Republican. I'm not a conservative. I'm not a very great admirer of the president in many ways, but I think that my condition is... that this is an administration that wakes up every morning wondering how to make life hard for the forces of Jihad and how to make as hard as possible an unapologetic defense of civilization against this kind of barbarism... and though the Bush administration has been rife with disappointment on this and incompetent, I nonetheless feel that they have some sense of that spirit.

I don't get that... I don't get that feeling from anyone who even sought the Democratic nomination.

I would [therefore] have to vote for the reelection of President Bush.
Christopher Hitchens
Washington Journal, 6.01.04
C-SPAN

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2004
America's Real Two-Front War merica's real two-front war: fundamentalist Islam on the right and a fundamentally seditious clintonoid neo-neoliberalism on the left, both anarchic, both messianically, lethally intolerant, both amorally perverse, both killing Americans, both placing America at grave risk, both quite insane. If we are to prevail, the rules of engagement--on both fronts--must change. Marquis of Queensberry niceties, multicultural hypersensitivity, unipolar-power guilt, hegemony aversion (which is self-sabotage in the extreme--we must capture what we conquer--oil is the terrorist's lifeblood)... and, most important, the mutual-protection racket in Washington--pre-9/11 anachronisms all--are luxuries we can no longer afford. Notwithstanding, the underlying premise of our hyperfastidious polity, (that we must remain in the system to save the system) is fallacious at best and tantamount to Lady Liberty lifting herself up by her own bootstraps. To borrow from the Bard, let's start metaphorically, or better yet, economically and politically, by killing all the seditious solicitors, which include the clintons and their left-wing agitprop-and-money-laundering machine: the Viacom-Simon & Schuster-60-Minutes vertical operation, the horizontal (as in "soporific") Cronkite-ite news readers, the (hardly upright) Ben-Veniste goons and Gorelick sleepers, and, of course, the clueless, cacophonic, disproportionately loud, left-coast Barbra-Streisand contingent. America must not pull her punches. To prevail, America must defeat--thoroughly destroy--her enemies. On both fronts.

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic
WHY THE LEFT IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA

by Mia T, 5.15.04

As long as you've got a rich man on your arm, you don't need a big bag.
--Elizabeth Rickard

The $100 billion Iraqi Oil for Food program was by far the largest relief operation in the history of the United Nations. By extension, it's rapidly becoming the U.N.'s largest-ever scandal....
Those included rewarding friends and allies world-wide with oil allocations on very favorable terms, as well as extracting large kickbacks from oil traders and suppliers of humanitarian goods....
There can be little doubt that U.N. mismanagement contributed greatly to the negative perception of the anti-Saddam containment policy. There is also little doubt that the reward and kickback scheme--as well the possibility of exposure--was a factor as some countries weighed whether to back U.S.-led regime change in Iraq. There is even reason to suspect that some of the Saddam friends and allies who benefited may have been members of the U.N. Secretariat.
Oil for Scandal
The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page
Thursday, March 18, 2004 12:01 a.m.

eave it to the French to make pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic all the rage.

They and their moneygrubbing, Oil-for-Food defrauding cohorts abroad, and their power-hungry would-be terrorist sympathizers here, are all sporting "THE LOOK."

(How many of those oh so trendy Kerry-clinton-Kennedy hate-America, blame-America-first sound bites will Al-Jazeera broadcast today?)

The trusty triad's half-truths, exaggerations and outright lies, confounded by fog of war, vagaries of peace and uncharted territory of asymmetric netherworlds, remind us that things are not always what they first seem. The UN Oil-for-Food scandal, for example, has shown us it was not "going to war with Iraq" that was "all about oil," but rather, "not going to war with Iraq." The Left, we now see, had that one, (as they have most things), exactly backward.

The dernier cri of seditious and corrupt Leftists everywhere, pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic renders the Left, irrespective of policy, no less dangerous to Western civilization than the terrorists they aid and abet.

WHY DID BILL CLINTON IGNORE TERRORISM?
Was it simply the constraints of his liberal mindset, or was it something even more threatening to our national security?

by Mia T, 8.18.05

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)
thanx to jla and Wolverine for the audio

THE LEFT'S RECKLESS TET-OFFENSIVE-GAMBIT REPLAY:
the left's jihad against America is killing our troops, aiding + abetting the terrorists and imperiling all Americans₂

WHY DID BILL CLINTON IGNORE TERRORISM?
Was it simply the constraints of his liberal mindset, or was it something even more threatening to our national security?

Why hillary clinton should never be allowed anywhere near the Oval Office... or any position of power--THE SERIES
REASON 1: MISSUS CLINTON HIRED JAMIE GORELICK

sandy berger haberdashery feint
(the specs, not the pants or the socks)

BIN LADEN FINGERS CLINTON FOR TERROR SUCCESS (SEE FOOTAGE)
THE THREAT OF TERRORISM IS AS CLOSE AS A CLINTON IS TO THE OVAL OFFICE

CINDY SHEEHAN: ECHO OF THE LEFT
the democrats are gonna get us killed (kerry, clinton + sandy berger's pants) series₅

"SONNY" CALLAHAN + BILL CLINTON'S CINDY SHEEHANS

BILL CLINTON'S CINDY SHEEHANS (courtesy Sean Hannity)

THE ROOTS OF CINDY SHEEHAN
(COURTESY JAMES TARANTO VIA RUSH LIMBAUGH)

"I support the poor but not the war on poverty."

THE DEMOCRATS ARE GONNA GET US KILLED (kerry, clinton + sandy berger's pants) SERlES

THE DEMOCRATS ARE GONNA GET US KILLED (kerry, clinton + sandy berger's pants) SERlES₄
THE DEMOCRATS ARE GONNA GET US KILLED (kerry, clinton + sandy berger's pants) SERlES₃
THE DEMOCRATS ARE GONNA GET US KILLED (kerry, clinton + sandy berger's pants) SERlES₂
THE DEMOCRATS ARE GONNA GET US KILLED (kerry, clinton + sandy berger's pants) SERlES₁
dox in sox (on lummox in box on fox)?

The Left's Fatally Flawed "Animal Farm" Mentality
(Why America Must NEVER AGAIN Elect a Democrat President)