NEW! KERRY UNFIT SERIES: #1-making the tough choices in a post-9/11 world

And here:

Subject: This is powerful...watch it to the very end Click on the sight below http://members.cox.net/classicweb/Heroes/heroes.htm

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com

.

Los Angeles local KABC-TV Channel 7 News is now reporting that JOHN KERRY will NOT accept his Democrat Party's Presidential Nomination in June but will instead wait till BUSH accepts his Nomination in August before doing so.

This so that KERRY can start the final 2004 Presidential Campaign from the same level playing field as BUSH in Federal Campaign Funds.

CLINTONIAN-KERRY-HO CHI MINH type TRICKS-TRICKS-TRICKS..!!!

The Enemy is now Within...
and always has been...
only now it's in Time of War...
with our OWN Freedom at stake.

.

The presumptive nominee actually will not accept the nomination before he accepts the nomination _bump

vehicular SUVicide
NEW virtual john kerry can bore + snowboard at the same time series

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)
thanx to jla for the audio

johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com
missus clinton's REAL virtual office update
http://hillarytalks.blogspot.com
http://virtualclintonlibrary.blogspot.com
http://demmemogate.blogspot.com
http://www.hillarytalks.us
http://www.hillarytalks.org
fiendsofhillary.blogspot.com
fiendsofhillary.us
fiendsofhillary.org
fraudsofhillary.com

...More Terrorist Attacks against US here at home after we leave.

Would Tom Ridge, Vietnam veteran and patriot, continue on at Homeland Security if Kerry were elected? Or would Democrats dismantle the last three years of work done on behalf of all Americans in that dedicated organization?

Most Homeland Security personnel are probably very pro-Bush. How long would their jobs last under a vengeful Kerry term? Hasn't Kerry made it plain that Bush and his policies are some of the worst he could imagine? That means he will aim to undo much more than we can even imagine.

What else would get worse? Islamists want to kill us no matter what we do. Kerry would weaken the offense and dismantle the defense. He's admitted as much.

So would any other Democrat except Zell Miller. America can't afford another Democrat in the Presidency.

"The instant that second plane hit, I said to the person with whom I was speaking, 'Bin Laden did this.' I knew immediately. I know what this network can do."

bill clinton

COMMENT: The above inculpatory remark by the impeached erstwhile ersatz prez is his legacy's death knell and is illustrative of the synergy of profound psychological dysfunction and rube arrogance rooted in stupidity

clinton: "I did not bring him [Osama bin Laden] here... though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America."
bill clinton
(HEAR HIM NOW)
CLINTON TURNED DOWN SUDAN'S OFFERS OF BIN LADEN
HEAR CLINTON'S SECRETLY TAPED "ADMISSION" NOW

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

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

The Democratic Party's Problem Transcends Its Anti-War Contingent2

hyperlinked images of shame
copyright Mia T 2003
.

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

bill clinton's GENOCIDE & TERRORISM Utter Failures Same Self-Serving, Craven, Postmodern Pose_BUMP

bill clinton's Convenient Postmodern Pose
"G-word"shame presages "W-word" horror

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)

clinton: "I did not bring him [Osama bin Laden] here... though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America."

bill clinton
(HEAR HIM NOW)
CLINTON TURNED DOWN SUDAN'S OFFERS OF BIN LADEN
HEAR CLINTON'S SECRETLY TAPED "ADMISSION" NOW

clinton: "We did not act quickly enough after the killing began. We should not have allowed the refugee camps to become safe haven for the killers. We did not immediately call these crimes by their rightful name: genocide."

bill clinton
(HEAR HIM NOW)
Learn From Rwanda
The Washington Post
Tuesday, April 6, 2004; Page A21

Note: clinton's use of the collective "we" when assigning blame for his utter failure, (as opposed to the clinton "I" when arrogating the success of others), is consistent with his "buck stops there/everywhere but not here" policy.

link to movie
requires Flash Player 6, available HERE

"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"

The Mary Jo White Memo:
Documentation of clintons' and Gorelick's willful, seditious malfeasance
A rapist is not a fit president:
Post-9/11 Reconsideration of The Placebo President_bump

Not to worry. hyperion777 is currently:
Nobody by that name.

The presumptive nominee actually will not accept the nomination before he accepts the nomination

Very good, T

.

We all have to understand that ...JOHN KERRY has always been on the side of our Terrorist Enemies, ever since his Anti-U.S. days during the Vietnam War, and nothing has changed since.

KERRY =
OSAMA =
SADDAM =
HO CHI MINH

against US

.

Thanks, dude, for the ping!

bump

second in the series:

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com

UNFIT:
taking the measure of a would-be commander-in-chief
WHY JOHN KERRY IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA

#2-understanding the job description

by Mia T, 5.17.04

"When bill clinton left office, not one young American in uniform was dying in a war anywhere in this world."
--John Kerry

uspend disbelief for a minute. Pretend Kerry's dumb attempt at demagoguery is a serious pronouncement of policy.
What is Kerry's message? Is the premise true? Is the argument valid? And most important, what does this tell us about Kerry's fitness to serve?
THE MESSAGE
Kerry's message is implied, (a faintly outlined triptych of fallacy and falsehood, we shall soon see). It reduces to the following:

There exists an inverse relationship between the success of a commander-in-chief and the number of soldier deaths occurring under his watch.
By this measure, bill clinton was a successful commander-in-chief and George Bush is a failure.
Because John Kerry would operate under the bill clinton model, John Kerry would be a success by definition.

ANALYZING KERRY'S ANALYSIS
Simply put, Kerry's analysis suffers from--to borrow from Nancy Pelosi--a "shallowness," "an incompetence in terms of knowledge, judgment" and, yes, critical thinking.
Kerry's premise is false, and notwithstanding this, his thesis is easily disproved empirically.
FALSE PREMISE

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution

According to the U.S. Constitution, preserving, protecting and defending America is what the presidency is all about.
From this it follows that the measure of the success of a commander-in-chief is not inversely related to number of soldier deaths that result from a commander-in-chief protecting America but rather, the number of deaths -- both soldier and non-soldier -- that are caused by a commander-in-chief failing to protect America.
It is important to note that not all such deaths necessarily occur under that failed president's watch.
For example, not all deaths caused by clinton's repeated failure to act to protect America from the terrorists occurred under clinton's watch, witness the 2,899 deaths on September 11, 2001, and the ever-expanding number in the seemingly endless aftermath.
Achieving a low soldier mortality rate with a policy of artful battlefield-and-responsibility-avoidance is hardly the measure of commander-in-chief success.
Kerry's premise is, therefore, false, and exposes both Kerry's fundamental misunderstanding of the job of commander-in-chief and the lethal danger to a post-9/11 America that a Commander-in-Chief Kerry would pose.
THESIS EASILY DISPROVED EMPIRICALLY
Notwithstanding this, Kerry's thesis, itself, is belied by history. The obvious counterexamples: the presidencies of two of our most successful commanders-in-chief, Abe Lincoln, 562,130 deaths and FDR, 408,306.
Even if we apply the too-cute-by-half clintonesque Kerry semantic technicality, and limit the death count to those deaths coincident with the commander-in-chief's exit, the FDR counterexample still stands.

ASIDE: These transparent word games of Kerry and clinton derive from the same (if geographically disparate) provincial arrogance rooted in stupidity.

KERRY'S LETHAL DANGER TO A POST-9/11 AMERICA

Kerry's pronouncement, therefore, is more than simple... or even stupid... demagoguery. Kerry's pronouncement exposes Kerry's lack of historical perspective, Kerry's poor judgment, Kerry's critical-thinking deficiency, Kerry's fundamental misunderstanding of the job of commander-in-chief. It is a stark warning of the lethal danger to a post-9/11 America that a Commander-in-Chief Kerry would pose.

"At the time, '96, he [bin Laden] 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 instant that second plane hit, I said to the person with whom I was speaking, 'Bin Laden did this.' I knew immediately. I know what this network can do."
bill clinton

"The War on Terror is less... is occasionally military but it's primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation."
John Kerry

"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

Both Kerry and clinton fail to understand that:

a terrorist war requires only one consenting player
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 this massive, 8-year clinton blunder was, of course, 9/11 and the exponential growth of al Qaeda. John Kerry and the Left will, by definition, reprise the clinton policy.
I, therefore, urge anyone planning to vote for John Kerry to rethink, to reconsider. Your children's lives, if not civilization, itself, just may depend on it.

copyright Mia T 2004

bump

UNFIT #2 - understanding the job description _BUMP

John Kerry: Unfit to Lead bump

bump