Posted on 08/19/2005 2:28:12 AM PDT by Mia T
WHY DID BILL CLINTON IGNORE TERRORISM?
by Mia T, 8.18.05
|
e would have it backwards and miss the point entirely if we were to attribute The Gorelick Wall and the attendant metastasis of al Qaeda during the clintons' watch, (which, incidentally, was then in its incipient stage and stoppable), to the '60s liberal mindset.
Rampant '60s liberalism was not the underlying rationale for The Gorelick Wall.
Rather, The Gorelick Wall was the underlying rationale for--The Gorelick Wall was (insofar as '60s liberalism was the Wall's apparent impetus) a cynical cover for --the willful, methodical malpractice and malfeasance that was the product of the virulent clinton strain of rampant '60s liberalism.
While it is true that The Gorelick Wall was the convenient device of a cowardly self-serving president, The Wall's aiding and abetting of al Qaeda was largely incidental, (the pervasiveness of the clintons' Nobel-Peace-Prize calculus notwithstanding).
The Wall was engineered primarily to protect a corrupt self-serving president. The metastasis of al Qaeda and 9/11 were simply the cost of doing business, clinton-style.
Further confirmation that the Wall was cover for clinton corruption:
Conversely, that it never occurred to anyone on the commission that Gorelick's flagrant conflict of interest renders her presence on the commission beyond farce calls into question the commission's judgment if not its integrity. Washington's mutual protection racket writ large, I suspect....
The Gorelick Wall is consistent with, and an international extension of, two essential acts committed in tandem, Filegate, the simultaneous empowering of the clintons and disemboweling of clinton adversaries, and the clinton Putsch, the firing and replacement of every U.S. attorney extant.
Allegations of international clinton crimes swirling around the White House in 1995 and beyond support the thesis that the Wall was cover for international clinton crimes.
Once the clintons' own U.S. attorneys were in place, once the opposition was disemboweled by the knowledge that their raw FBI files had been in the possession of the clintons, once domestic law enforcement was effectively blinded to foreign data by Gorelick's Wall, the clintons were free to methodically and seditiously and with impunity auction off America's security, sovereignty and economy to the highest foreign bidder.
|
||
|
the danger of the unrelenting smallness of bill + hillary clinton by Mia T, 7.31.05 (viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE) MAD hillary series #4 WHY MISSUS CLINTON IS DANGEROUS FOR THE CHILDREN FOR AMERICA FOR THE WORLD
|
Ahh... How the swill of the "legacy media" lives on, and on. Why is it that you still believe that those who invaded the US Embassy in Teheran in 1979 (which was an armed invasion of sovereign US territory and an internationally recognized casis belli, literally a cause to go to war) were students? Since when, could AK series assault rifles, and RPG series rocket propelled grenade launchers, be considered school supplies?
the infowarrior
thx.
The 'something even more threatening to our national security' than the liberal mindset is clinton pathologic self-interest.
I write above: 'If clinton liberalism, smallness, cowardice, corruption, perfidy--and, to borrow a phrase from Andrew Cuomo, clinton cluelessness--played a part, it was, in the end, the Nobel Peace Prize that produced the puerile pertinacity that enabled the clintons to shrug off the global danger.'
"I think we fool ourselves when we believe that people don't find the rabid hatred of Clinton by the far right a turn-off. They do and it makes the not-quite-so-far right look equally hateful and rabid. "
Reads as a pretty sound analysis from this side of the pond! Those who sit in the 'centre' be it centre left, centre right, or dead centre are the swing voters whose minds need to be won. This line of attack is a turn off. People like the political agenda focussed on the 'here and now', not harping back to the 'there and then'. Going back to the 'there and then' looks like you want to distract from the 'here and now' and Bush has no reason to do that. He can focus on his message of the 'here and now' and win with reason. This kind of article is interesting from a historical debate perspective, but is destructive when presented as part of the current political agenda. In my opinion. Which as people will no doubt point out don't count for much as I have no vote over there!
Actually, Ross Perot got Clinton elected the first time. The second time it was the OKC bombing that got him elected.
FDR at least took us to war to save the Republic. I doubt Carter or Clinton would do as much. However, domestically he was a disaster.....and probably started the slippery slope.
thanks for you excellent -- beyond excellent -- work.
Yeah and the Supreme Court got Bush elected. He won the freaking election. Plurality, tragedy, whatever. He won. You sound like the Rats in 2000.
thanx. :)
No need to write a dissertation - they were students, and yes, they had lots of help. One of those students is President (?) of Iran today.
The analogy is not much different from today... Cindy Sheehan is a mom who lost her son in this war....BUT who is pumping her up??? We all know it's the big money Soros and Michael Moore types. Well, she's still Cindy Sheehan, a mom.
But then, that's how life is on the LEFT. It's all distorted by props.
At first I read that as Clinton having a reason that is more threatening to national security than terrorism. It's not immediately clearly what the phrase "more threatening to" is referring to. If you read it as more threatening than terrorism then it doesn't make much sense, because nothing is more threatening than nuclear terrorism except a full-scale nuclear war. Anyway, it's a GREAT post but you may want to rewrite that part of the headline at your convenience some time.
I'll second the THANKS, Mia.
You do fabulous work. You're one of the most creative, thought provoking posters on FR. You're much appreciated.
Hey, you have the BEST cartoons. :-)
Geez, you're picky. Too much coffee, maybe??? Get off those meds.
Bill Clinton wanted the Nobel Peace Prize.... That's all.
Why?
1. He is a spoiled member of the "Gimme-Gimme" baby bommer generation.
2. He has no morals.
3. He has no intestinal fortitude.
4. He is a narcisstic bastard.
5. He is part of the party that produced such stalwarts like McGovern, Ferraro, KARTER, Hanoi John sKerry, Chappaquiddick Teddy, and Hitlery.
6. He plainly JUST DON'T CARE because HE HAS HIS!
Mia...even more intriguing, in juxtaposition to all this, is Bubba's pre-ocupation, beginning with Waco, with fringe elements domestically. Almost as though he was fueling something.....
And..... he's chicken... he has NO testicles. Democrats have NO testicles.
*
You should feel gratified over all the wonderful accomplishments of the stellar 911 Commission, which stubbornly 'focused on tomorrow'. The Bush Admin, knowing the Able Danger story within weeks of 911, allowed Gorelick and BenVeniste to sit on the panel and spike any info that might be traced back to the previous Admin. What nice guys the Bush people are!!
Meanwhile, very little of substance has been done, and Hitlery is actually still a contender for 2008, when she should be discredited and driven from any serious consideration.
But I guess that those of us who know the full depth of their negligence aren't politically savvy enough to know when to shut up.
So here's what we have: 3000 lives that were lost so that the Clintons could sell our nuclear secrets to China without legal ramifications. Wide open borders to this day. More hassle and inconvenience in the name of airport security, with a PC attitude toward profiling. A Patriot Act which, in the hands of a control freak AG, could seriously abridge the freedom of citizens, when we should have suspended habeas corpus according to Article 1 Sec 9. Several blown opportunities, because of lawyers, to kill or apprehend BinLaden, going back to 1999(?) when he left Sudan, and no reform of the lawyers' treasonous influence. I COULD GO ON.
Lives are at stake. It could be you or me in the next mass murder. But no, we have politics to worry about.
Sorry for the flame, but some realities are more important than others.
IMO, Waco was Hitlary's baby..... Janet Reno. Hitlary was over the State & Justice Dept. They are disastrous today mostly because of Hitlary stuffing them with her clones, as civil servants. She's the real EVIL in the family. Just visualize Hitlary as President.
Is it scary?
** he he
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.