sanitizing evil (Kerry Cabal Censors Nick Berg Decapitation)

ping

Kerry knows all about war crimes....

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

Thought you'd love this quote!

bump

KERRY'S WAR CRIMES

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)

johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com

ping

Bump.

bump

Bump

It is a great quote, isn't it? ;)

Thanks as always Mia!

bump

John Kerry stinks to High Heaven. God help us all if he somehow worms his way into the president's office.

The beheading of Nick Berg - AN AMERICAN JEW - should be front page news all across the world.

It's so obvious that the media is trying to destroy President Bush and elect John Kerry. Any fool can see it; I can see it.

Thanks media, for making something that is barely more than Frat inintations greater than a brutal death.

IT'S WELL PAST TIME TO TAKE OFF THE GLOVES

May 16, 2004 -- THE ISSUE:The beheading of Nick Berg by terrorists and America's response.

Your comments on the savage murder of Nick Berg were exactly right ("Nick Berg's Murder," Editorial, May 12).

The American people need to embrace this War on Terror just as fervently as they embraced the war against Hitler and Tojo. We need to annihilate this scourge from the face of the earth.

God help this country if John Kerry is elected president. He wants to go back to the failed Clinton policy of treating terror as a criminal offense and not a war.

We would simply be at the mercy of these killers.
Jack Griffith
Surf City, N.J.

*****

It's about time America stood up and got mad.

Have we forgotten 9/11? Have we forgotten the brutal way in which our family members and friends died that day?

If we're guilty of anything, it's being too soft on these terrorists.

They have made it clear that they will strike us again and again.
Darlene Shaffer
Manhattan

*****

To hell with political sensitivities, and to hell with negotiating. It's well past time to take off the gloves.

It's time to unleash the "shock and awe" we supposedly showed at the onset of this war.

It's time to show these thugs that we're done playing around, and that it's over.
Warren Meyer
Oceanside

*****

While I share the outrage all Americans feel over the beheading of Nick Berg, it is a mistake to argue, as The Post has, that his death justifies all-out war in Iraq.

The Bush administration committed a serious blunder in committing the United States to the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

As powerful as we are, our power is not infinite.

It is impossible to annihilate every savage thug in the world, and it is irresponsible for The Post to call for expending more resources and manpower in Iraq to avenge the death of a single American.

We successfully disarmed and dethroned Saddam Hussein. Let us declare victory and bring the troops home.
Thomas Kearney
Plainview

*****

The video depicting the brutal and depraved slaughter of American Nick Berg should teach Americans an important lesson.

There is a huge difference between the humiliation of Iraqi prisoners and the slow torturous death of American civilians held by the likes of al-Zarqawi and his henchmen.

Seeing this stomach-turning scene should steel our resolve to win the War on Terror before these fundamentalist fanatics one day wield a nuclear bomb.
Mike McCann
Huntington

*****

Ryan Sager wants Americans to be brutalized by images of a man's beheading, and he pretends that this would show Americans "the justness of their cause" ("Show It All," Opinion, May 13).

I'll make a deal with him: Let's show the beheading, but only if we also show equally graphic footage of Iraqis being killed by American bombs, from planes too high to shoot down.

But we don't have footage of those crimes, do we? The only images we've seen of this war were from a distance, just as the only images we saw of the last war were of video-game violence, with Americans on tape whooping with delight as buildings were ripped apart.

Our butchers really are not one whit better than their butchers.
Craig Schoonmaker
Newark, N.J.

COMMENT:

I wonder... did Craig Schoonmaker write a letter to the editor when the arguably gratuitous and certainly cowardly clinton-ordered bombings from 15000 ft., killed oodles of civilians?

THE CLINTONS--AMERICA'S BIGGEST BLUNDER
Hear Bush 41 Warn Us--October 19, 1992*

CNN's favorite general, Wesley Clark, has also been heard to opine that our troops are getting bogged down in Iraq. His competence to judge American generals is questionable since his command was limited to working for NATO. We prefer to hear from American generals. Clark's contribution to international relations consisted of mistakenly bombing the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. In his zeal to prevent troop casualties, he ordered pilots to fly at such high altitudes that the pilots complained that they were being forced to incur unnecessary civilian casualties.

Ann Coulter
The enemy within
World Net Daily
March 26, 2003

hear

*Thanx to Cloud William for text and audio

LEHRER: President Bush, your closing statement, sir.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Three weeks from now--two weeks from tomorrow, America goes to the polls and you're going to have to decide who you want to lead this country ...

On foreign affairs, some think it's irrelevant. I believe it's not. We're living in an interconnected world...And if a crisis comes up, ask who has the judgment and the experience and, yes, the character to make the right decision?

And, lastly, the other night on character Governor Clinton said it's not the character of the president but the character of the presidency. I couldn't disagree more. Horace Greeley said the only thing that endures is character. And I think it was Justice Black who talked about great nations, like great men, must keep their word.

And so the question is, who will safeguard this nation, who will safeguard our people and our children? I need your support, I ask for your support. And may God bless the United States of America.

(Applause)


play tape

Thou art arm'd that hath thy crook'd schemers straight. Cudgel thy brains no more, the clinton plots are great.: Mia T, On Neutered and Neutering
by Mia T and Edward Zehr (EZ)

*****

It really amazes me how the mainstream media is handling the humiliation of Iraqi prisoners while Nick Berg's execution is censored.

It seems to me that many in the media don't want attention taken off the American military, because they think the prison-abuse scandal helps Kerry.
Mel Wolpin
Howard Beach

*****

I wholeheartedly agree with Sager with regard to having America see the decapitation of Nick Berg.

It seems that instead of reacting with the appropriate amount of anger at the barbaric execution of an innocent man, most Americans just don't want to believe something like this could actually occur.

For the same reason, I feel that the attacks on 9/11 should be played and replayed over and over - to remind Americans of that horrific day.

Maybe the sight of the beheading of an innocent man, along with the images of innocent people jumping to their deaths to escape an inferno, will give us the fortitude to really take this fight to the next level and completely eradicate the terrorists from the planet.
Louie Rey
East Meadow

Home

NEW YORK POST is a registered trademark of NYP Holdings, Inc. NYPOST.COM, NYPOSTONLINE.COM, and NEWYORKPOST.COM
are trademarks of NYP Holdings, Inc.
Copyright 2003 NYP Holdings, Inc. All rights reserved.

^

"RightWing!!"
(To be sung to Cream's "White Room")

We're the RightWing...with Black's judges...Fear Our Justice!!
Black threads beckon...we're bold patriots...fightin' Lib'rals!!
Boston Strangler...RATS' pretender...parrots Left's LIES!!
Far Right's wise...join our FReepin'...we're protectors!!

Left's fate's been misplaced...Hanoi John never shines!!
RATS are disgraced...'cuz Left's slander debunks itself!!

We say, "Tyrants shall be toppled by this Nation!!"
RATboy Willie's crime is Treason...Indict Clinton!!
Chi-Com Tyrants...bought Bill Clinton's...re-election!!
Please, John Ashcroft...convict Slick's crimes...Right is Winning!!

Dem Lib'rals are fools...Left's where Pain's dished out...
LIES fer fools...they're beholden to Guv'ment shills!!

DemRAT Party...is seditious...such a vile crowd!!
Devolution...healin' old wounds...Left is rotten!!
Guv'ment LIARS...$Trillions wasted...on the Big Lie!!
Truth's aggressive...good-bye Lib'rals...Right shall triumph!!

I'll FReep into space...sing my hopeful sounds...
Fight 'gainst RAT-power...DemonRAT dupes, FReep them to Hell!

Mudboy Slim

I wonder... did Craig Schoonmaker write a letter to the editor when the arguably gratuitous and certainly cowardly clinton-ordered bombings from 15000 ft., killed oodles of civilians?

Mr. Schoonmaker also suffers from the all-too-common liberal affliction of selective indignancy.
Civilians are not targeted by our soldiers, as Mr. Berg's neck was by his Al-Quida killers.

bump! Thank you.

Thanks for the ping Mia
bttt

CORRECTION:
Had uploaded the wrong Flashmovie file.
Click image below to view correct Flashmovie. (Contains the Nick Berg audio/video.)

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com

pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic
WHY JOHN KERRY 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 seek to aid and abet.

bump

Bumpin' to the top...I still refuse to watch the Nick Berg beheading video...I don't wanna get as angry as I know I'd become!!

Keep up the great work, ma'am...MUD

the flash movie has several fleeting stills throughout and the horrific audio at the end.

Thanks fer the warning...MUD

you're welcome. :)

"We're the Far Right!!"
(To be sung to Eric Clapton's version of J. J. Cale's "After Midnight")

We're the Far Right...we're gonna scale Big Guv'ment down!!
We're the Hard Right...we're gonna whup Dem Libs in a rout!!
We're gonna help Bush git some traction...
Right's gonna demand satisfaction....
Left's gonna find out what Right is all about.
We're the Far Right...we're gonna FReep DemRATS from Power!!

We're the Far Right...we'll fulfill Founding Father's dreams...
Truth yields our Might...righteous gonna make Dem sosh'lists scream!!
We're gonna FReep talk and television...
Left shall heap on their vile derison...
Left's gonna find out what Truth is all about!!
RATS, we don't bite...still gonna FReep yer slime from Power!!

(Guitar-jammin' interlude)

Yeah, yeah...We're the Far Right...we're gonna FReep Dem RATS from Power!!

We're the Far Right...we'll fulfill Founding Father's dreams...
Traitors we'll fight...RightWing's gonna make Dem Leftists scream!!
We're gonna FReep Rush and Hanni-vision...
Left shall fear our deadly precision...
Left's gonna find out what Truth is all about!!
America's Right...still gonna FReep RATS' SCUM from Power!!

We're the Far Right...we're gonna FReep Dem fools from Power!!
Ain't 'fraid to fight...Right's gonna WHUP Dem Lefties down!!
Left, say "GoodBye"...November's when yer goin' down!!
We're the Far Right...we're gonna scale Big Guv'ment down!!

Mudboy Slim (5/19/04)

bump

[T]oday's endless ovation for World War II vets doesn't change the fact that this nation has behaved boorishly, with colossal disrespect. If we cared about that war, the men who won it and the ideas it suggests, we would teach our children (at least) four topics:

• The major battles of the war....

• The bestiality of the Japanese. The Japanese army saw captive soldiers as cowards, lower than lice. If we forget this we dishonor the thousands who were tortured and murdered, and put ourselves in danger of believing the soul-corroding lie that all cultures are equally bad or good. Some Americans nowadays seem to think America's behavior during the war was worse than Japan's--we did intern many loyal Americans of Japanese descent. That was unforgivable--and unspeakably trivial compared to Japan's unique achievement, mass murder one atrocity at a time.

In "The Other Nuremberg," Arnold Brackman cites (for instance) "the case of Lucas Doctolero, crucified, nails driven through hands, feet and skull"; "the case of a blind woman who was dragged from her home November 17, 1943, stripped naked, and hanged"; "five Filipinos thrown into a latrine and buried alive." In the Japanese-occupied Philippines alone, at least 131,028 civilians and Allied prisoners of war were murdered. The Japanese committed crimes against Allied POWs and Asians that would be hard still, today, for a respectable newspaper even to describe. Mr. Brackman's 1987 book must be read by everyone who cares about World War II and its veterans, or the human race.

• The attitude of American intellectuals. Before Pearl Harbor but long after the character of Hitlerism was clear--after the Nuremberg laws, the Kristallnacht pogrom, the establishment of Dachau and the Gestapo--American intellectuals tended to be dead set? against the U.S. joining Britain's war on Hitler.

Today's students learn (sometimes) about right-wing isolationists like Charles Lindbergh and the America Firsters. They are less likely to read documents like this, which appeared in Partisan Review (the U.S. intelligentsia's No. 1 favorite mag) in fall 1939, signed by John Dewey, William Carlos Williams, Meyer Schapiro and many more of the era's leading lights. "The last war showed only too clearly that we can have no faith in imperialist crusades to bring freedom to any people. Our entry into the war, under the slogan of 'Stop Hitler!' would actually result in the immediate introduction of totalitarianism over here. . . . The American masses can best help [the German people] by fighting at home to keep their own liberties." The intelligentsia acted on its convictions. "By one means or another," Diana Trilling later wrote of this period, "most of the intellectuals of our acquaintance evaded the draft."

Why rake up these Profiles in Disgrace? Because in the Iraq War era they have a painfully familiar ring.

DAVID GELERNTER
Too Much, Too Late
Baby boomers heap insincere praise on the "greatest generation."
The Wall Street Journal
Friday, June 4, 2004 12:01 a.m.

The time has come to address the real root cause of suicide bombing: incitement by certain religious and political leaders.
In Love With Death
(Dershowitz Explicitly Nails Islamofascism As "A Culture of Death")
The Guardian (UK)| 6/4/04 | Alan Dershowitz

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 seek to aid and abet.
pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic
WHY JOHN KERRY IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA
Mia T, 5.15.04

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com

pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic
WHY JOHN KERRY 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 seek to aid and abet.

also:
sanitizing evil
Kerry Cabal Censors Nick Berg Decapitation

bump

BUSH/CHENEY bump

REPORTING FOR THE ENEMY
By DEBORAH ORIN

June 16, 2004 -- THE video only lasts four minutes or so --grue some scenes of torture from the days when Saddam Hussein's thugs ruled Abu Ghraib prison. I couldn't bear to watch, so I walked out until it was over.

Some who stayed wished they hadn't. They told of savage scenes of decapitation, fingers chopped off one by one, tongues hacked out with a razor blade --all while victims shriek in pain and the thugs chant Saddam's praises.

Saddam's henchmen took the videos as newsreels to document their deeds in honor of their leader.

But these awful images didn't show up on American TV news.

In fact, just four or five reporters showed up for the screening at the American Enterprise Institute think tank, which says it got the video via the Pentagon. Fewer wrote about it.

No surprise, since no newscast would air the videos of Nick Berg and Wall Street Journal reporter Danny Pearl getting decapitated, or of U.S. contractors in Fallujah getting torn limb from limb by al Qaeda operatives.

But every TV network has endlessly shown photos of the humiliation of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. troops at Abu Ghraib. Why?

"Because most [journalists] want Bush to lose," says AEI scholar Michael Ledeen, who helped host the screening of the Saddam video.

It's not just journalists. The Pentagon has lots of Saddam atrocity footage --but is loathe to release it, possibly for fear it would be taken as a crude attempt to blunt criticism of Abu Ghraib.

So the world sees photos of U.S. interrogators using dogs to scare prisoners at Abu Ghraib. But not the footage of Saddam's prisoners getting fed --alive --to Doberman pinschers on Saddam's watch. (That video's been described by former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik.)

Former Pentagon official Richard Perle raps "faint hearts in the administration," saying they've bought into the idea that it's "politically incorrect" to show the horrors of Saddam's regime.

But he also faults the media --after all, AEI's briefings on Iraq have been standing-room-only, but the room was half empty for the screening of the Saddam torture video.

But part of the issue is simply that Saddam's tortures, like al Qaedas tactics, are so awful that they're unbearable to watch.

If I couldn't watch them myself, I'm hardly arguing that others should have to. Yet it raises a very complex problem in the War on Terror. It's worse than creating moral equivalence between Saddam's tortures and prisoner abuse by U.S. troops. It's that we do far more to highlight our own wrongdoings precisely because they are less appalling.

In this era, a photo is everything. We highlight U.S. prisoner abuse because the photos aren't too offensive to show. We downplay Saddam's abuse precisely because it's far worse --so we can't use the photos. And that sets the stage for remarks like Sen. Ted Kennedy's claim that Saddam's torture chambers have reopened under "U.S. management."

Terrorism is sometimes called asymmetric warfare --America had to adjust to new tactics to deal with small bands of terrorists who were able to turn our airplanes into weapons against us. Now it turns out that we also face asymmetric propaganda --where the terrorists gain a p.r. advantage precisely because what they do is so horrific that our media aren't able to deal with it.

The U.S. military hasn't figured out a strategic way to deal with this problem.

But neither has the press.

Media analysts like Washington Post ombudsman Michael Getler admit it sounds "sanctimonious" to justify publishing prison abuse photos --but not al Qaeda beheading videos --in the name of showing "the reality of war." But that is just what he did.

AEI spokeswoman Veronique Rodman, puzzled by the minimal interest in the Saddam torture video, is sure that if it was a video of equally horrific torture committed by U.S. troops, the press would find ways to show or report it.

Reporters have to face up to the fact that right now, if we highlight the wrongs that Americans commit but not --out of squeamishness --the far worse horrors committed by others, we become propaganda tools for the other side.

This isn't to argue in any way against reporting the Abu Ghraib scandal. But reporters have to face up to the problems -- and find ways to achieve a more balanced account.

Saddam's torture videos may be too awful to show, but it's hard to explain the low media interest in the story of seven Iraqi men who had their right hands chopped off by Saddam's thugs --and then got new prosthetic arms and new hope in America.

They're eloquent, they're available, they're grateful for the U.S. liberation of Iraq. No one can better talk about Saddam's tortures --and no one is more eager to do so. Yet, as of yesterday, the New York Times had written 177 stories on Abu Ghraib --with over 40 on the front page. The self-proclaimed "paper of record" hadn't written a single story about those seven Iraqi men.

Deborah Orin is The Post's Washington Bureau Chief

Home

NEW YORK POST is a registered trademark of NYP Holdings, Inc. NYPOST.COM, NYPOSTONLINE.COM, and NEWYORKPOST.COM
are trademarks of NYP Holdings, Inc.
Copyright 2003 NYP Holdings, Inc. All rights reserved.

Thank you. We need refresher moments like these to remind ourselves why we can't stand the clintoons.

you're welcome.

I'm sure the clintons, themselves, will continue to remind us. ;)

Great news for the future. Many of the inner city HIGH SCHOOL students in my high school watched the footage secretly.......and didn't like what they saw. Many watched it more than once, complete with sound. Every last one of them got the message loud and clear: the Islamic fundamentalists want to kill us all.

I do wish Berg could have sung a few chords of the national anthem, or acted like the Italian fellow just a little--Italy will always be well loved by me for that--horrific as that would have been; however, but for the grace of God, there go I. And, if the Islamic extremists win, they will have me go there, too, as beheading is authorized by Shari'a law for all unbelievers. If they do come with their swords, Christians may as well take to the ramparts and prepare to follow in the footsteps of El Cid. We will have to fight them with everything we have. And so we shall.

God speed, Mr Berg. You are in our prayers, Mr. Johnson.

Amen.

A Vote for Kerry is a Vote for the Terrorists

by Mia T, 6.08.04

For the better part of 18 months, John Kerry has bitterly denounced the Bush administration's conduct of international relations, above all in Iraq. Over and over he has pronounced his unsparing indictment: "George Bush has pursued the most arrogant, inept, reckless, and ideological foreign policy in the modern history of this country."

That is remarkably hostile language for a presidential challenger. No major party candidate for the White House in modern times has so thoroughly abandoned the principle that politics stops at the water's edge.

On the other hand, voters clearly benefit when candidates articulate their differences, and make plain what is at stake on Election Day. After 18 months of honing his anti-Bush message, Kerry should be able to outline his alternative foreign policy with crystal clarity. He should have no trouble laying out a comprehensive vision for Iraq and the Middle East and explaining why it is superior to Bush's.

So why doesn't he do so?

...No matter how the question is put, Kerry's answers on Iraq always boil down to a single recipe: Shrink the US role in Iraq and defer to the United Nations instead. That's it. That is the sum and substance of his thinking about Iraq. He doesn't relate it to the war on terrorism, to the future of liberty in the Middle East, to America's national interests. He repeatedly declares Bush a failure for not kowtowing to the UN and vows that in a Kerry administration, the UN will be given the commanding role it deserves.

Kerry has been talking this way for months. In his speech on Iraq at the Brookings Institution last fall, for example, he mentioned the UN no fewer than 25 times. ("We need a new Security Council resolution to give the United Nations real authority in the rebuilding of Iraq. . . . This shift of authority from the United States to the United Nations is indispensable.") By contrast, he mentioned terrorism just seven times. He mentioned freedom, democracy, and the Middle East not at all....

When Bush speaks about Iraq, by contrast, it is clear that he has thought the subject through and related it to his larger goals in the world...

"The defeat of violence and terror in Iraq is vital to the defeat of violence and terror elsewhere, and vital, therefore, to the safety of the American people. Now is the time, and Iraq is the place, in which the enemies of the civilized world are testing the will of the civilized world. We must not waver. . . .

The cause of liberty and the defeat of terror vs. the cause of a more powerful UN: In this first presidential election of the post-9/11 world, that is what the choice comes down to.

Kerry's U.N. fetish
Jeff Jacoby
April 23, 2004
townhall.com

T he Left's Fatally Flawed "Animal Farm" Mentality
(Why America Must NEVER AGAIN Elect a Democrat President)

WHY JOHN KERRY IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA

by Mia T, 6.04.04
(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com

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.

GEORGE TSURIS

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
: by Mia T, 4.17.04

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)

johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com

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.

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 Democratic Party's Problem Transcends Its Anti-War Contingent2

by Mia T, 4.6.03

If Act I was a thinly veiled allegory about naked clintonism, then Act II is a parable about the plan for world domination by the Establishment, aged hippies in pinstripes all, with their infantile, solipsistic world view amazingly untouched by time.
Mia T, June 9, 1999
THE ALIENS

l From is sounding the alarm. "Unless we convince Americans that Democrats are strong on national security," he warns his party, "Democrats will continue to lose elections."

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:
Pathologic self-interest: Richard Miniter's C-SPAN interview, contained in hillary talks:ON TERROR, (below), is absolutely devastating for the clintons. Miniter presents the clintons' monumental failure to protect America in sickening detail.

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
Spying Isn't the Only Way to Learn About Nukes,
The New York Times, May 30, 1999

Broad would have us believe we are watching "Being There" and not "The Manchurian Candidate." His argument is superficially appealing as most reasonable people would conclude that it requires the simplemindedness of a Chauncy Gardener (in "Being There") to reason that instructing China and a motley assortment of terrorist nations on how to beef up their atom bombs and how not to omit the "key steps" when building hydrogen bombs would somehow blunt and not stimulate their appetites for bigger and better bombs and a higher position in the power food chain.

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.)

Mia T, 2.11.04
BUSH, THE CLINTONS + WMD PROLIFERATION:
The REAL "Imminent Threat"

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
White House Lobbied For Clinton Nobel Peace Prize Updated
Friday, October 13, 2000
By Rita Cosby


There's been speculation in the last few months that Clinton was pursuing a Mideast peace accord in an effort to win the prize and secure his legacy as president.
AIDES PUSH CLINTON FOR THE NOBEL


At the time, clinton observed: "I made more progress in the Middle East than I did between Socks and Buddy." Retrospectively, it is clear that clinton's characterization was not correct.
Mia T, Buddy Death Report Raises More Questions Than It Answers

May 11, 3:18 PM EDT

Video Shows Beheading of American in Iraq

By LOUIS MEIXLER
Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- A video posted Tuesday on an al-Qaida-linked Web site showed the beheading an American civilian in Iraq in what was said to be revenge for abuse of Iraqi prisoners.

The video showed five men wearing headscarves and black ski masks, standing over a bound man in an orange jumpsuit - similar to a prisoner's uniform. The man identified himself as Nick Berg, a U.S. civilian whose body was found Saturday near a highway overpass in Baghdad.

"My name is Nick Berg, my father's name is Michael, my mother's name is Suzanne," the man said on the video. "I have a brother and sister, David and Sarah. I live in ... Philadelphia."

After reading a statement, the men were seen pulling the man to his side and putting a large knife to his neck. A scream sounded as the men cut his head off, shouting "Allahu akbar!" - "God is great!" They then held the head up to the camera.

The slaying recalled the kidnapping and videotaped beheading of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl in 2002 in Pakistan. Four Islamic militants have been convicted of kidnapping Pearl, but seven other suspects - including those who allegedly slit his throat - remain at large.

NOTE: GRAPHIC CONTENT Video posted of beheading of American in Iraq

"Free Republic is one of those groups obsessed with the Clinton era."

Word's out: Protest at Hillary's tonight
U.S. News & World Report (Washington Whispers) |
March 11, 2003 | Paul Bedard

I'll bet that Mr. Bedard is a member of "one of those groups" so "obsessed" with voting in -- and having access to -- the clintons that they--ooops-- failed to notice the obvious danger of the lovely couple.
hillary talks: ON TERROR
(reinstalling the clintons in White House has 1 advantage over suicide)

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)
Thanx for 9/11, Paul...

Mia T
"ONE OF THOSE GROUPS OBSESSED WITH THE CLINTONS"

"Loose Cannon" Kerry's AWOL/PURPLE-HEART FRAUD

A Vote for Kerry is a Vote for the Terrorists

sanitizing evil
Kerry Cabal Censors Nick Berg Decapitation

pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic

The Cycle of Violence:
NOW WITH HYPERLINKED INSTRUCTION MANUAL

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

DON'T BELIEVE YOUR LYING EARS (The Perjurer Returns)
(Clinton: Claims I Turned Down Bin Laden are 'Bull')

UNFIT: taking the measure of a would-be commander-in-chief
#4 - Kerry champions tolerance for terrorists

UNFIT: taking the measure of a would-be commander-in-chief
#3-sang-froid and the "nuclear" button

UNFIT: taking the measure of a would-be commander-in-chief
#2-understanding the job description

UNFIT: taking the measure of a would-be commander-in-chief
#1-making the tough choices in a post-9/11 world

nepotism + tokenism = a nancy pelosi
(or a hillary clinton)

Kerry's Belated Condemnation Focuses on Process
Kerry Lacks Moral Authority to Condemn Content

"CRY BUSH" + Iraqi-Prisoner "Abuse"
What are the Dems up to?

The Mary Jo White Memo:
Documentation of clintons' and Gorelick's willful, seditious malfeasance

What is the REAL Reason for Gorelick's Wall?

Q ERTY6 ^utter ^failure_BUMP

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."

more

the left's jihad against America
is killing our troops,
aiding + abetting the terrorists
and imperiling all Americans

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com

^