Looking for clinton 'Can we kill 'em tomorrow?' audio-and what ARE those bill, hillary photos?

Mark Steyn, The New York Sun, WCBS NEWSRADIO 880 | 4.19.06 | Mia T

[Mia T]

Looking for the bill clinton 'Can we kill 'em tomorrow?' audio or video
(AND WHAT ARE THOSE NEWS SERVICE PHOTOS OF BILL + HILLARY ABOUT, ANYWAY?)

It ¹⁰ was uttered on April 12, 2006.
The impeached ex-president was accepting an award named after his mentor, the late Sen. William Fulbright of Arkansas.

BTW, this AP photo of him rivals the Reuters fire-and-brimstone photo of her....

Well, almost. ;)

Is the news-service sector trying to tell us something?

IS REUTERS SENDING A MESSAGE ABOUT A COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF HILLARY?

Carpe Mañana: The clinton Terrorism Policy
('Can we kill 'em tomorrow?')

FOOL ME ONCE, SHAME ON YOU! FOOL ME TWICE, SHAME ON ME!

 

by Mia T, 04.18.06

 

 

"In this interdependent world, we should still have a preference for peace over war,'' [clinton] said.

He also reflected on his own decisions when, as commander in chief, he was urged to launch a military strike.⁶

"I always thought of Senator Fulbright and the terrible quagmire in Vietnam and how many times we sent more soldiers and found ourselves in a hole and kept digging because we didn't want to look like we were weak,'' he said.

"So anytime somebody said in my presidency, 'If you don't do this people will think you're weak,' I always asked the same question for eight years: 'Can we kill 'em tomorrow?'"

"If we can kill 'em tomorrow, then we're not weak,¹ and we might be wise enough to try to find an alternative way,'' he said.

bill clinton

Bill Clinton, the Sultan of Swing, gave an interesting speech last week, apropos foreign policy: "Anytime somebody said in my presidency, 'If you don't do this people will think you're weak,' I always asked the same question for eight years: 'Can we kill 'em tomorrow?' If we can kill 'em tomorrow, then we're not weak, and we might be wise enough to try to find an alternative way."

The trouble was tomorrow never came - from the first World Trade Center attack to Khobar Towers to the African embassy bombings to the USS Cole. Manana is not a policy. The Iranians are merely the latest to understand that.

Reason Enough To Act
BY MARK STEYN
The New York Sun
April 17, 2006

or the clintons to succeed, Bush must fail, which means America must lose THE WAR.

Make no mistake: The undermining of Bush and America is the number one clinton imperative.²

DEFINING DEVIANCY DOWN

The clintons typically prop themselves up by revising others down.³ Direct, upward revision of their own legacy is virtually impossible to pull off,⁴ given their wide-reaching unsavory renown.^F

But the clintons' inflated sense of self causes them from time to time to dispense with rational thought and attempt to do just this; and so we get the clinton mañanas.

PURPOSEFUL FAILURE

First clinton claimed he got impeached on purpose. To save the Constitution, he said. Now he claims he failed to confront terrorism on purpose. Because we can kill 'em tomorrow, he says.

NOTE: The clintons did fail to confront terrorism on purpose, but not for the reason stated.⁵ (Indeed, contrary to clinton's absurd argument, the clintons' feckless inaction (and feckless action, for that matter,) were precisely the sign of weakness that emboldened bin Laden and al Qaeda.¹ Bin Laden told us so himself.

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.

2. Shut the CIA out of the 1993 WTC bombing investigation, hamstringing their effort to capture bin Laden.

3. Had Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a key bin Laden lieutenant, slip through their fingers in Qatar.

4. Did not militarily react to the al Qaeda bombing in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

5. Did not accept the Sudanese offer to turn bin Laden.

6. Did not follow-up on another offer from Sudan through a private back channel.

7. Objected to Northern Alliance efforts to assassinate bin Laden in Afghanistan.

8. Decided against using special forces to take down bin Laden in Afghanistan.

9. Did not take an opportunity to take into custody two al Qaeda operatives involved in the East African embassy bombings. In another little scoop, I am able to show that Sudan arrested these two terrorists and offered them to the FBI. The Clinton administration declined to pick them up and they were later allowed to return to Pakistan.

10. Ordered an ineffectual, token missile strike against a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory.

11. Clumsily tipped off Pakistani officials sympathetic to bin Laden before a planned missile strike against bin Laden on August 20, 1998. Bin Laden left the camp with only minutes to spare.

12-14. Three times, Clinton hesitated or deferred in ordering missile strikes against bin Laden in 1999 and 2000.

15. When they finally launched and armed the Predator spy drone plane, which captured amazing live video images of bin Laden, the Clinton administration no longer had military assets in place to strike the archterrorist.

16. Did not order a retaliatory strike on bin Laden for the murderous attack on the USS Cole.

READ MORE

 

[Mia T]

ping

[Mia T]

ping

[Mia T]

ping

[dangus]

Oh, boy, am I gonna get flamed for this:

>> Can we [wait to] kill them tomorrow? <<

I think it is a correct question to ask. Military engagement SHOULD always be a last resort. I think anyone who would not put off an attack until all other options had run out is not fit to be a commander-in-chief. The problem is apparently the answer was "yes," when it should have been, "maybe not."

There are plenty of good answers to that question:

"No, sir. We have a window of opportunity that may close."

"No, sir. We believe that they may launch a terrorist strike before then."

"No, sir. Delay may gravely jeopardize the efficacy of our mission, and therefore unnecessarily place our fighting men at greater risk."

[dangus]

... "Well, yes sir, but in the meanwhile, can we use Paris to test our weaponry?" :^D

[Hegemony Cricket]

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.

[E.G.C.]

Mia T. bump

[beyond the sea]

IS REUTERS SENDING A MESSAGE ABOUT A COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF HILLARY?

It's very difficult to believe that that "lovely' picture of Hillary is not photoshopped. It's very hard to believe that picture ever made it to the media. It's also very difficult to believe that whoever got it in the media is still alive.

;-)

[Mia T]

Can we [wait to] kill them tomorrow?--clinton

 

I think it is a correct question to ask. Military engagement SHOULD always be a last resort.
I think anyone who would not put off an attack until all other options had run out is not fit to be a commander-in-chief.
The problem is apparently the answer was "yes," when it should have been, "maybe not."--dangus

 

My comments to usmcobra from the original thread apply:
(NOTE-The original post contains the complete list of footnotes.)

Great comments!

When Bill Clinton said "Can we kill them tomorrow" what did he reallly mean.

Some would say he was recognizing our ability to destroy any enemy....--usmcobra

If he was referring to our ability to destroy any enemy--axiomatic under any circumstances--then his little 'test' is, obviously, tautological and empty.

NOTE: Another possibility exists, that he was referring to whether we have the luxury of time to wait to take out our enemy; but that possibility is negated by the circumstances, i.e.,

• We now know the State Department warned clinton in July 1996 that bin Laden's move to Afghanistan would give him an even more dangerous haven, that bin Laden sought to expand radical Islam "well beyond the Middle East," that bin Laden in Afghanistan "could prove more dangerous to US interests... almost worldwide." (NOTE: clinton was offered bin Laden on a silver platter in 1996)
  
• Bin Laden had repeatedly declared war on America, committed acts of war against America.

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… or do you surrender?

In spite of himself, clinton was a wartime president. The problem is, he surrendered.

Preemptively.

You might say the clinton approach to The War on Terror was the perverse obverse of The Bush Doctrine.

The sorry endpoint of this massive, 8-year clinton blunder (' I always asked the same question for eight years: 'Can we kill 'em tomorrow?') was, of course, 9/11 and the exponential growth of al Qaeda.

What an abject failure. What a repulsive, self-serving danger to America. How could the Left is even toy with the idea of a clinton sequel?⁷

I would say He was recognizing that he didn't have the courage to do so without overwhelming public support to give him enough spine to order our troops into battle, and that he decided that a future president would have to do the job later for the nation when the nation called for action.

Or in short it wasn't Monica that was hiding under the desk in the Oval Office while terrorists attacked us, it was Bill .--usmcobra

A brilliant turn of phrase. ;)

The cowardice of bill clinton as a factor is a given. But there was an equally significant force driving clinton's feckless inaction (and feckless action)--THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE. (Only this past week, clinton once again confirmed its importance. We are talking about a very sick, dysfunctional couple here.)

Madeleine Albright captured the essence of this dysfunctional presidency best when she explained why clinton couldn't go after bin Laden.

According to Richard Miniter, the Albright revelation occurred at the cabinet meeting that would decide the disposition of the USS Cole bombing by al Qaeda [that is to say, that would decide to do what it had always done when a "bimbo" was not spilling the beans on the clintons: Nothing]. Only Clarke wanted to retaliate militarily for this unambiguous act of war.

Albright explained that a [sham] Mideast accord would yield [if not peace for the principals, surely] a Nobel Peace Prize for clinton. Kill or capture bin Laden and clinton could kiss the 'accord' and the Peace Prize good-bye.

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 terrorism's global danger.

(For more info, see discussion of clinton's curious explanation of the missile strike at Kandahur⁶ that took out a phalanxlike formation of... empty tents... and allowed bin Laden (and the Mideast Muslim ego) to escape unscathed.)





7

The Left's Fatally Flawed "Animal Farm" Mentality
(Why America Must NEVER AGAIN Elect a Democrat President)
by Mia T, 6.04.04

The Bush Doctine is built on two pillars, one -- that the United States must maintain its absolute military superiority in every part of the world, and second -- that the United States has the right for preemptive action.

Now, both these propositions, taken on their own, are quite valid propositions, but if you put them together, they establish two kinds of sovereignty in the world, the sovereignty of the United States, which is inviolate, not subject to any international constraints, and the rest of the world, which is subject to the Bush Doctrine.

To me, it is reminiscent to [sic] George Orwell's "Animal Farm," that "All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

George Soros

eorge Soros could not have more clearly enunciated the lethal danger that he and John Kerry and the clintons and the rest of his leftist cabal pose for America.

Yesterday, at the "progressive," i.e., ultra-extremist left-wing liberal, "Take Back America" confab, Mr. Soros confirmed the obvious: 9/11 was dispositive for the Dems; that is, 9/11 accelerated what eight years of the clintons had set into motion, namely, the demise of a Democratic party that is increasingly irrelevant, unflinchingly corrupt, unwaveringly self-serving, chronically moribund and above all, lethally, seditiously dangerous.

"All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

Apparently missing the irony, George Soros chastised America with these words even as he was trying his $25,000,000, 527-end-run damnedest to render himself "more equal than others" in order to foist his radical, paranoic, deadly dementia on an entire nation.

"Animal Farm" is George Orwell's satirical allegory of the Russian Revolution; but it could just as easily be the story of the Democratic Party of today, with the

Kennedy-Pelosi-Gore-clinton (either--"one for the price of two," I say) -Sulzberger-Soros-Moore construct

its porcine manifestation.

SOROS TSURIS

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

 

[Mia T]

fyi

[Mia T]

;)

Look carefully at his photo. See the similarities? They say spouses look more alike over time. Wouldn't have thought it applied to this infrequently coupled pair, tho. ;)

[Mia T]

thanx :)

[beyond the sea]

LOL........ he looks like David Suskind there.

;-)

[Mia T]

CORRECTION:

Should be: Can we [wait to] kill them tomorrow?--dangus

[Mike Bates]

They say spouses look more alike over time.

Michael M. Bates: My Side of the Swamp

[Mia T]

David Suskind possessed, perhaps.... ;)

[malia]

Hiya

Opened this post and that picture of clinton, well there is no other way to say it -- clinton looks like Ted Kennedy about 20 years ago.

to read after a meeting bump------

[Mia T]

;)

clinton's character (as it were) is even more similar.

[Mia T]

I'm not sure which one should be more insulted. ;)

[Mia T]

fyi

[beyond the sea]

Yoi! ....... What a handsome transvestite ...... I'd vote for that/those con artists any time.

[bmwcyle]

bttt

[dangus]

I actually would not separate "we will be able to kill them" from "we can wait to kill them." Notice my first two "no" responses were directly related to the ability to kill. The third possiblity is a situation where the prior question becomes moot. I did not describe a situation where the answer would be, "well, we will be able to kill them tomorrow, but we should kill today."

[true_blue_texican]

ping

[Mia T]

thx again :)

[Mia T]

thanx :)

[NavySon]

"They say spouses look more alike over time."

Are you sure that pictures edited? She looks better in that one than in her real photos.

[Mia T]

Still looking for the audio and video.

[Sic Luceat Lux]

NOTE: The clintons did fail to confront terrorism on purpose, but not for the reason stated.5 (Indeed, contrary to clinton's absurd argument, the clintons' feckless inaction (and feckless action, for that matter,) were precisely the sign of weakness that emboldened bin Laden and al Qaeda.1 .....Bin Laden told us so himself.

***
bttt

[Mia T]

thx :)

[Sic Luceat Lux]

yvw/ bttt

[Mia T]

thx :)

[Edit35]

Military engagement SHOULD always be a last resort.

Thank God you are not advising US policy.

Military strikes AGAINST the US have already begun, some say 20 years ago, but certainly in 1993 and beyond.

Why in the world would we say "can we wait till tomorrow" to take out somebody who has already killed untold Americans.

[stockstrader]

Why has NO ONE in the news media (even relatively fair reporters like Brit Hume, Oliver North, Tony Snow, etc.) done a major story/documentary on why Clinton did not accept Sudan's offer to deliver Bin Laden?

It gets only 'passing mention'. The public deserves a MAJOR STORY on exactly what happened--the players--Slick, Gore, FBI, CIA, State Dept (Madeleine Albright), NSC (Sandy Berger), Sudanese officials etc.

Why has there been no major story?

[Sic Luceat Lux]

bttt

[Mia T]

I suspect a critical-thinking deficit, which is surprising in the case of Brit Hume.

WHY THE CLINTONS FAILED "TO CAPTURE OR KILL THE TALLEST MAN IN AFGHANISTAN"
(DID THEY REALLY WANT TO TAKE HIM OUT ANYWAY?) (hear hillary, bill)

[Mia T]

fyi

[Mia T]

still looking for the audio or video. If anyone has found it, kindly FReepmail or post link. Thanx. :)

[stockstrader]

I asked the same question in another thread. It's incomprehensible to me that no one has picked up the ball on this one.

What better way to highlight the 'total incompetence' in the Clinton administration while citing the true LEGACY of the Clinton years--that being the national security mess that Clinton left President Bush to clean up?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1602934/posts

[stockstrader]

Clinton thread

[Mia T]

It's hard to believe Hume's failure to report this story is willful.

This one act by the clintons encapsulates why they must never again be allowed anywhere near the Oval Office.

And there is an audio of clinton's admission. And a video. And an audio of a denial by clinton that he said what he said.

And groundbreaking reporting by Richard Miniter as to clinton's motivation, the source being none other than Madeleine Albright.

In other words, there exist the makings of a compelling, critically important story.

[stockstrader]

I can't believe that Brit Hume would be 'muzzled' on an important documentary of major international interest like this!

Again, it's just amazing that no one has decided to research the issue, present it in a THOROUGH manner, and highlight the REAL Clinton legacy!

[Mia T]

clinton is a self-serving, abject coward.

Now that things are tough, the coward risks nothing to whip out his old standby: He now claims he failed to go after the terrorists on purpose. (He also got impeached 'on purpose. To save the Constitution.' Remember?)

Carpe Mañana: The clinton Terrorism Policy
('Can we kill 'em tomorrow?')

FOOL ME ONCE, SHAME ON YOU! FOOL ME TWICE, SHAME ON ME!

[stockstrader]

Thought you might be interested in Mia's work on this topic.

[stockstrader]

In particular her post #38 in this thread.

[Sic Luceat Lux]

Mia, in you post #1 we all see the following:

"The impeached ex-president was accepting an award named after his mentor, the late Sen. William Fulbright of Arkansas."

And along the same line, I ask this:

Mia, don't we all agree that this filthbag of a President -in a solemn ceremony -receive
a Medal of Merit for his selling our nuclear secrets to the Communist Chinese
and all the following co-conspirators of Bill and Hillary's be in attendance:

Ng Lap Seng, Yah Lin "Charlie" Trie; Manlin Foung, Wang Mei Trie, John Huang, Jane Huang, Johnny Chung, Col. Lui, Jing Wei Li, Irene Wu, Liu Tai-ying, Bin Liu, Irene Wu, Nora Lum, Shi JinYu, Shi-Zeng Chen, Xiao Yang, Liu Chao-Ying, Wang Jun, Wah Lim, General Ding Henggao, General Chi HaoTian, General Fu Quanyou, Chief of the General Staff of the PLA, Lt. Gen. Huai Guomo, General Kui Fulin, "Col. Xu", Gen. Liu Huaquing, William Peh, PRC Defense Minister Chi Haotian, China Resources chairman Shen Jueren, Lt. General Xiong Guangkai, Wang Liheng, vice-president of China Aerospace Corp, Gen. Ji Shengde, Bao Peide, 5th Vice Minister of the PRC, Zou Jia Hua, Vice Minister National Technology Planning, Lt. General Xu Qiliang, Chief of Staff of the PLA Air Force, Lt. General Wu Quanxu, Deputy Chief of the General Staff of the PLA, Zhu Roug-ji, Vice Premier of National Finance, Liu Ju-Yuan, Minister of China Aerospace Corporation (made both satellite orbiter version of Long March and the nuclear tippled missile version for the PLA), Keshi Zhan, Yue Chu, Xiping Wang, Nan Nan Xu, Chun-Fat Leung, Chang-Lin Tien, Liao Minglong, Tian Yi, Chen Qingchang, Pan Yongming, Shao Xingsheng, Jiangsu Yongli, Tongsun Park, David Chang and Sister Ping. Bernard Schwartz/Loral, Marvin Rosen, Keshi Zhan, Ken Hsui, Ms Melinda Yee, Hoyt Zia, Ira Sockowitz, Leon A. Panetta, Lanny Davis, Harold Ickes, William Meddoff, Alexis Herman, Jamie Gorelick, Hazel O'Leary, Mark Middleton, Nancy Hernreich, Craig Livingstone, Lynn Cutler, Neal Ainley, Maria Hsia, Robert Meyerhoff, Roger Tamraz, Joseph Landon, David Wang, Indonesian Arief Wiriadinata and his wife Soraya and convicted Miami drug trafficker Jose Cabrera; and also her ongoing association with China Poly Group Corporation / "Polytechnologies Incorporated," along with Hillary's ongoing ties with Ted Sioeng, Mochtar and James Riady and the Lippo Bank-Lippo Group & Lippo Pacific in Indonesia.

[Sic Luceat Lux]

* ...in your post/ bttt!