America's Real Two-Front War
by Mia T, 4.17.04
|
Posted on 04/17/2004 5:03:40 PM PDT by Mia T
|
|
bill clinton "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.
So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have; but they thought it was a hot potato. They didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan."
bill clinton
bill clinton
Note: clinton's use of the not entirely collective "we" when assigning blame for his utter failure, (as opposed to the unequivocal clinton "I" when arrogating the success of others), is consistent with his "buck stops there/everywhere but not here" policy.
bill clinton's GENOCIDE & TERRORISM Utter Failures Same Self-Serving, Craven, Postmodern Pose
"G-word"shame presages "W-word" horror  (viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)
|
|
|||
|
|
|
 link to movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE |
|
Kerry seldom speaks out on the campaign trail about the importance of fighting terrorism, and polls shows it's an issue on which Bush appears to have an advantage.
"We are determined to make this campaign about real issues facing Americans, like making health care affordable, improving education and getting our economy back on track," Kerry campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill said....
BRIAN BLOMQUIST "I voted for a process by which war would be the last resort."
John Kerry
Even if we allow for his characteristic flatulence and opportunism, John Kerry's demagogically tortured parsing of President George W. Bush's war-as-the-last-resort pledge and the fact that Kerry's list of the "real issues facing Americans" does not include the one issue, namely terrorism, that renders all other issues moot -- (health care, education and money have very limited utility to the dead)-- reveal a fundamental--and fatal--misunderstanding of America's situation.
When terrorists declare war on you…and then proceed to kill you… you are, perforce, at war. At that point, you really have only one decision to make: Do you fight the terrorists… or do you surrender?
Contrary to clinton/leftist-media spin, this war waged against America by the terrorists did not begin on September 11, 2001. The terrorists--bin Laden--had declared war on America repeatedly, had killed Americans repeatedly, throughout the clinton years.
Remarkably, the same terrorists hit the same WTC building in 1993, and clinton, 15 minutes away from the devastation, didn't even bother to visit the site, preferring instead to add his old bromides on the economy to the pollution along the Jersey Turnpike. (Ironically, the legacy clinton would desperately, futilely seek throughout his life was right under his nose on that day in 1993; but he was too self-absorbed--too stupid, some would say--to see it.)
And as for the September 11 attacks, they were planned in May 1998, on the clintons' watch, in the Khalden Camp in southeastern Afghanistan.
The terrorists declared war on America on the clintons watch and the clintons surrendered.
Democrats, from the clintons to Kerry, reflexively choose "surrender."
President Bush chooses '"fight."
Andrew Cuomo didn't call the Democrats "clueless" for no reason.
(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)
johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com
KERRY JOINS AIR WAR
NYPOST.COM
Kerry hits out at Bush over Iraq
Adam Blenford and agencies
Monday January 26, 2004
ohn Kerry says the war on terror is less about military might than about law enforcement.
This should not surprise us. Kerry's dangerously flawed thinking on terrorism is perfectly consistent with his dangerously soporific bombast: Both are anachronistic, early 20th-century artifacts.
|
"Free Republic is one of those groups obsessed with the Clinton era."
Word's out: Protest at Hillary's tonight
|
|
Lopez: What exactly was U.S. reaction to the attack on the USS Cole?
Miniter: In October 2000, al Qaeda bombed the USS Cole in Aden, Yemen. Seventeen sailors were killed in the blast. The USS Cole was almost sunk. In any ordinary administration, this would have been considered an act of war. After all, America entered the Spanish-American war and World War I when our ships were attacked.
At a meeting with Secretary of Defense William Cohen, Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Attorney General Janet Reno, and other staffers, Clarke was the only one in favor of retaliation against bin Laden. Reno thought retaliation might violate international law and was therefore against it. Tenet wanted to more definitive proof that bin Laden was behind the attack, although he personally thought he was. Albright was concerned about the reaction of world opinion to a retaliation against Muslims, and the impact it would have in the final days of the Clinton Middle East peace process. Cohen, according to Clarke, did not consider the Cole attack "sufficient provocation" for a military retaliation. Michael Sheehan was particularly surprised that the Pentagon did not want to act. He told Clarke: "What's it going to take to get them to hit al Qaeda in Afghanistan? Does al Qaeda have to attack the Pentagon?"
Instead of destroying bin Laden's terrorist infrastructure and capabilities, President Clinton phoned twice phoned the president of Yemen demanding better cooperation between the FBI and the Yemeni security services.
If Clarke's plan had been implemented, al Qaeda's infrastructure would have been demolished and bin Laden might well have been killed. Sept. 11, 2001 might have been just another sunny day.
Clinton's Loss? |
|
|
 (viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE) |
|
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.
Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize
|
|
A Fish Rots from the Head
Investor's Business Daily
Ijaz, an admitted Clinton supporter who helped negotiate these opportunities to nab bin Laden, said, "The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening."
Ijaz says that three months before bin Laden's men blew up the USS Cole in Yemen, he "brought the White House another plausible offer to deal with bin Laden, by then known to be involved in the embassy bombings (in Tanzania and Kenya)... But senior Clinton officials sabotaged the offer."
Clinton's apparent boredom with vital information extended beyond Sudanese intelligence officers to his own intelligence officers. His first CIA director, James Woolsey, couldn't get a meeting with Clinton in the two years he served. Woolsey left the Clinton administration disgusted with its slovenly approach to national security. ...
To hear Clinton now say "We must do more to reduce the pool of potential terrorists" is thus beyond farce. He had numerous opportunities to reduce that pool, and he blew it.
The pool, in fact, grew larger on Clinton's watch, as he spent his final days giving pardons to drug dealers, Puerto Rican terrorists and Marc Rich, a fugitive who topped America's most-wanted list.
In this light, Clinton's order to the CIA that it not use "unsavory characters" to collect information pushes irony to its outer limits. |
|
The Easy Part  (viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE) |
|
INTERVIEW Osama bin Laden
(may 1998)
Describe the situation when your men took down the American forces in Somalia.
The American people, by and large, do not know the name bin Laden, but they soon likely will. Do you have a message for the American people?
|
|
Lopez: In sum, how many times did Bill Clinton lose bin Laden?
Miniter: Here's a rundown. The Clinton administration:
1. Did not follow-up on the attempted bombing of Aden marines in Yemen.
 hillary talks:ON TERROR (viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE) |
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
The Democratic Party's Problem Transcends Its Anti-War Contingent2
|
|
||||||
|
by Mia T, 4.6.03
Mia T, June 9, 1999
Helloooo? That the Democrats have to be spoon-fed what should be axiomatic post-9/11 is, in and of itself, incontrovertible proof that From's advice is insufficient to solve their problem.
From's failure to fully lay out the nature of the Democrats' problem is not surprising: he is the guy who helped seal his party's fate. It was his Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) that institutionalized the proximate cause of the problem, clintonism, and legitimized its two eponymic provincial operators on the national stage. The "Third Way" and "triangulation" don't come from the same Latin root for no reason.
That "convince" is From's operative word underscores the Democrats' dilemma. Nine-eleven was transformative. It is no longer sufficient merely to convince. One must demonstrate, demonstrate convincingly, if you will… which means both in real time and historically.
When it comes to national security, Americans will no longer take any chances. Turning the turn of phrase back on itself, the era of the Placebo President is over. (Incidentally, the oft-quote out-of-context sentence fragment alluded to here transformed meaningless clinton triangulation into a meaningful if deceptive soundbite.)
Although From is loath to admit it -- the terror in his eyes belies his facile solution -- the Democratic party's problem transcends its anti-war contingent.
With a philosophy that relinquishes our national sovereignty -- and relinquishes it reflexively… and to the UN no less -- the Democratic party is, by definition, the party of national insecurity.
With policy ruled by pathologic self-interest -- witness the "Lieberman Paradigm," Kerry's "regime change" bon mot (gone bad), Edwards' and the clintons' brazen echoes thereof (or, alternatively, Pelosi's less strident wartime non-putdown putdown)… and, of course, the clincher -- eight years of the clintons' infantilism, grotesquerie and utter failure -- the Democratic party is, historically and in real time, the party of national insecurity.
The Democrats used to be able to wallpaper their national insecurity with dollars and demogoguery. But that was before 9/11.
addendum 12.13.03:
Note in particular Madeleine Albright's shocking reason given at the time of the USS Cole attack why the clinton administration should not respond militarily. It tell us everything we need to know about the clintons. It tell us why clinton redux is an absolutely suicidal notion.
Notwithstanding their cowardice, corruption, perfidy, and to borrow a phrase from Andrew Cuomo, their essential cluelessness, the clintons, according to Albright, made their decision not to go after the terrorists primarily for reasons of their own legacy and power. The clintons reasoned that inaction would MAXIMIZE THEIR CHANCES TO RECEIVE THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE. No matter that that inaction would also maximize the terrorists' power, maximize America's danger.
For more than a half decade, the Clinton administration was shoveling atomic secrets out the door as fast as it could, literally by the ton. Millions of previously classified ideas and documents relating to nuclear arms were released to all comers, including China's bomb makers.
William J. Broad
But it is Broad's failure to fully connect the dots -- clinton's wholesale release of atomic secrets, decades of Chinese money sluicing into clinton's campaigns, clinton's pushing of the test ban treaty, clinton's concomitant sale of supercomputers, and clinton's noxious legacy -- that blows his argument to smithereens and reduces his piece to just another clinton apologia by The New York Times.
But even a Times apologia cannot save clinton from the gallows. Clinton can be both an absolute (albeit postmodern) moron and a traitor. The strict liability Gump-ism, "Treason is as treason does" applies.
The idea that an individual can be convicted of the crime of treason only if there is treasonous intent or *mens rea* runs contrary to the concept of strict liability crimes. That doctrine (Park v United States, (1974) 421 US 658,668) established the principle of 'strict liability' or 'liability without fault' in certain criminal cases, usually involving crimes which endanger the public welfare.
Calling his position on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty "an historic milestone," (if he must say so himself) clinton believed that if he could get China to sign it, he would go down in history as the savior of mankind. This was 11 August 1995.
(There would be an analogous treasonous miscalculation in the Mideast: clinton failed to shut down Muslim terrorism, then in its incipient stage and stoppable, because he reasoned that doing so would have wrecked his chances for the Nobel Peace Prize. Indeed, according to Richard Miniter, Madeleine Albright offered precisely the Nobel-Muslim factor as a primary reason for not treating the bombing of the USS Cole as an act of war.)
It is precisely the clintons' bin-Laden-emboldening inaction to the attack on the USS Cole and the clintons' bin-Laden-emboldening token, ineffectual, August 1998 missile strikes of aspirin factories and empty tents that eliminate "bin-Laden-emboldenment avoidance" as the rationale for the latter decision and support "wag the dog," instead.
Taken together, feckless clinton inaction and feckless clinton action serve only to reinforce the almost universally held notion: the clinton calculus was, is, and always will be, solely self-serving.
In the case of the non-response to the attack on the Cole, an unambiguous act of war, the clinton rationale, according to no less than Madeleine Albright, was a clinton Nobel Peace Prize by Arab appeasement. i.e., a clinton Nobel Peace Prize by bin-Laden-emboldenment.
And in the case of the curiously-timed, ineffectual (and, therefore, bin-Laden-emboldening) token missile strikes, the clinton rationale was Lewinsky-recantation distraction -- clearly not bin-Laden-emboldenment avoidance.
(This is not to say there wasn't a Nobel factor here, too. Obsolete intelligence, bolstered by the redundancy of a clinton tipoff, ensured that both bin Laden and the Mideast Muslim ego would escape unscathed.)
Mia T, "WAG THE DOG" revisited
WASHINGTON -- Two Norwegian public-relations executives and one member of the Norwegian Parliament say they were contacted by the White House to help campaign for President Clinton to receive this year's Nobel Peace Prize for his work in trying to negotiate peace in the Middle East.
Clinton Lobbies for Nobel Prize: What a Punk
AIDES PUSH CLINTON FOR THE NOBEL
Mia T, Buddy Death Report Raises More Questions Than It Answers
|
Lib Author Regrets Voting (TWICE!) for clinton
"Sickened" by clinton's Failure to Protect America from Terrorism
MUST-READ BOOK FOR DEMOCRATS:
How clintons' Failures Unleashed Global Terror
(Who in his right mind would ever want the clintons back in the Oval Office?)
The Man Who Warned America
(Why a Rapist is Not a Fit President)
UDAY: "The end is near… this time I think the… Americans are serious, Bush is not like Clinton."
Yep, it's pretty bad when a terrorist "gets it", but a couple of million Americans still don't.
My parents were disgusted with the Kennedys. They moved out here from MA in the 50's, but their outrage at their claims of Catholicism never went away. Ted is a scumbag. So is Kerry, and so is every other politician who publicly claims to be of a particular religion, then violates the principles of said religion.
As always Mia, great job :-)
Oh, fat teddy ain't gonna like THIS one bit. But I do ! hahaha !
hic ! ... hic ! ... hic !
I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a drink today !
Source of pic
Senator Teddy, wearing his controversial neck brace, leaves St. Vincent's
Church with his wife, Joan, after the funeral Mass for Mary Jo Kopechne.
|
|
 |
 |
|
What warning? That's what head-scratching Bush-administration officials were wondering after Bill Clinton said a week or so ago that he had warned incoming President George W. Bush about the threat from Osama bin Laden. According to Clinton's account, he tried to convince Bush to abandon his other national-security priorities to focus on al Qaeda during an "exit interview" with the newly elected president. "In his campaign, Bush had said he thought the biggest security issue was Iraq and national missile defense," Clinton remarked. "I told him that in my opinion, the biggest security problem was Osama bin Laden." Clinton maintained that his inability to budge Bush was "one of the two or three of the biggest disappointments that I had." This is almost certainly a lie. A Bush official familiar with the meeting and its content says it focused on other foreign and domestic matters. According to the official, if al Qaeda came up at all, it was in passing as President Clinton lobbied Bush on other matters, most importantly North Korea. Clinton thought it was crucial that Bush maintain his administration's soft-touch approach to North Korea even though -- as we would learn soon enough -- Pyongyang had already made a mockery of Clinton's 1994 Agreed Framework by starting a secret nuclear program. Clinton also made pleas for his pet domestic programs. The Clinton misstatement of his posture in that "exit interview" is part of the attempted revisionism by the Clinton team of its terrorism record (which I dissect in my new book Legacy). This effort reached its previous height in a Time magazine cover story in August 2002 that reported that there was a Clinton "plan" to fight al Qaeda that was passed along to the Bush team. This too proved false. A former Clinton official told NR's Byron York after the Time report: "It was certainly not a formal war plan. We wouldn't have characterized it as a formal war plan." In testimony before Congress, former Clinton national-security adviser Sandy Berger said the same thing: "There was no war plan that we turned over to the Bush administration during the transition. And the reports of that are just incorrect." In any case, Clinton's "plan" now is to find every opportunity to try to divert attention from his failures in the war on terror. Consider yourself warned . . . Rich Lowry |
|
|
|
WHEN TO BOMB  (viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)
|
|
It is precisely the clintons' bin-Laden-emboldening inaction to the attack on the USS Cole and the clintons' bin-Laden-emboldening token, ineffectual, August 1998 missile strikes of aspirin factories and empty tents that eliminate "bin-Laden-emboldenment avoidance" as the rationale for the latter decision and support "wag the dog," instead. Taken together, feckless clinton inaction and feckless clinton action serve only to reinforce the almost universally held notion: the clinton calculus was, is, and always will be, solely self-serving. (I will have more to say on this as it relates to the Gorelick memo.) In the case of the non-response to the attack on the Cole, an unam biguous act of war, the clinton rationale, according to no less than Madeleine Albright, was a clinton Nobel Peace Prize by Arab appeasement. i.e., a clinton Nobel Peace Prize by bin-Laden-emboldenment. And in the case of the curiously-timed, ineffectual (and, therefore, bin-Laden-emboldening) token missile strikes, the clinton rationale was Lewinsky-recantation distraction -- clearly not bin-Laden-emboldenment avoidance. (This is not to say there wasn't a Nobel factor here, too. Obsolete intelligence, bolstered by the redundancy of a clinton tipoff, ensured that both bin Laden and the Mideast Muslim ego would escape unscathed.) |
|
KERR-EDY: "Iraq is George Bush's Vietnam" KERR-EDY: "Iraq is not an imminent threat" Kerry's problem isn't "haggard," the Botox counterexample notwithstanding. "Haggard" is electable. (See LBJ.) "Cadaveric" is not, at least not outside of Hawaii. Kerry's dissonant new "do," like the mortician's careful coif, only enhanced the funereal gloom. (One has to wonder if Shrum was brought brought in (dispatched?) to praise Kerry... or to bury him....) Enter Ted Kennedy. (Stage left.)
(KERR-EDY CONSTRUCT: a lethally anachronistic, post-Vietnam, pre-9/11 liberal conceit)
by Mia T, 4.21.04
(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)
johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com
(KERR-EDY CONSTRUCT: a lethally anachronistic, post-Vietnam, pre-9/11 liberal conceit)
by Mia T, 4.21.04
(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)
johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com
err-edy, a lethally anachronistic, post-Vietnam, pre-9/11 liberal conceit, is as much about providing Kerry with a detectable heatbeat as it is about providing cover for his Vietnam-seditious mouth. (Calling Iraq "Vietnam" a priori makes Iraq Vietnam in the seditious '71 Kerry sense.)
|
Thanks for the amazing. . .
bump
bump
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
ritical to the understanding of 
isten carefully to clinton's "admission." Watch 
initer's reasoning here is a bit weak. 
ADDENDUM 12.13.03: