'The Path to 9/11' Annotated: CLIPS, SYNOPSIS, THE CLINTON-9/11 NEXUS, THE CLINTON JACKBOOT

ABC via redstate.org ^ | 9.10.06 | Mia T, redstate.org

[Mia T]

'The Path to 9/11' Annotated:
CLIPS, SYNOPSIS, THE CLINTON-9/11 NEXUS, THE CLINTON JACKBOOT

annotated by Mia T, 9.10.06
(clips, synopses from Redstate.org)

he islamofascist terrorists declared war on America and committed acts of war against America when BILL CLINTON was president of America.

But bill clinton IGNORED the declarations and acts of war because he is a coward and because crushing the muslim terrorists didn't comport with his personal goals.

This self-absorbed postmodern blight on America thought he could perform his usual deconstructionist sleight of hand, fool the people and define away the threat ("It all depends on what the meaning of the word 'war' is."), not understanding this simple calculus: a terrorist war requires only one consenting player.

We would have to be out-of-our-minds suicidal to put the clintons back in the Oval Office. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

WHY DID BILL CLINTON IGNORE TERRORISM?
Was it simply the constraints of his liberal mindset,
or was it something even more threatening to our national security?

by Mia T, 8.18.05


thanx to jla and Wolverine for the audio

NOTE:

It is clear the clintons did not want to kill bin Laden.
What should be becoming increasingly clear is that the clintons did not even want to capture bin Laden.
READ MORE here:

'The Path to 9/11':
CLINTON FAILURE TO ORDER 'PURE KILL' CUT CHANCES OF GETTING BIN LADEN IN HALF

 
(Will be posting additional information about this soon....)

 

 

I M P E A C H M E N T
h e a r --c l i n t o n --l o s e --i t


by Mia T, 11.11.05

This legacy confab is in and of itself proof certain of clinton's deeply flawed character, and a demonstration in real time of the way in which the clinton years were about a legacy that was incidentally a presidency.

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.

READ MORE

CLIP ONE

Against a barren central Asian landscape, an American special action
team moves in for a "snatch" operation on Osama bin Laden. But back
in Washington, DC, Clinton's National Security Advisor cannot bring
himself to make the final call.

CLIP TWO

The Americans and their local allies are stunned to find themselves
countermanded by the Clinton Administration at the moment of
decision. Frustrated and alone in a hostile land, they contemplate a
needless failure as their Afghan allies reproach them. Back in
Washington, DC, Bill Clinton becomes less preoccupied with American
security, and more preoccupied with his impending impeachment. Out
in east Africa, al Qaeda plots its next move.

CLIP THREE

In Nairobi, Kenya, horrific slaughter ensues as al Qaeda attacks the
American embassy. Clinton's DCI receives a teary remonstrance from
the only sane person in the entire American intelligence hierarchy in
those days.

CLIP FOUR

A team of Americans and Kenyans tracks a reluctant jihadi through a
Nairobi slum. A chase ensues, and the fugitive is caught. "American
devil!" he yells in Arabic, but one assumes real devils wouldn't take
prisoners. A threatening crowd of slum-dwellers gathers, toting
machetes, but the Americans escape. Back in DC, bureaucrats and the
NSA discuss how the Lewinsky investigation is hampering the
President's efforts. Madeleine Albright argues against taking on the
Taliban on purely legalistic grounds. William Cohen opines that
going to war is an "overreaction." The clown carnival plans its
infamously ineffectual cruise-missile strikes on Afghanistan and the
Sudan. The Sudanese are predictably irate.

CLIP FIVE

The Sudanese express their anger at America by trashing their own
neighborhoods. Ayman al-Zawahiri calls ABC News for a friendly
chat. Massoud's Northern Alliance suffers a Taliban offensive in
response to the American strikes. Massoud himself is piqued: why did
the Americans ever trust the perfidious Pakistanis whose forewarning
saved bin Laden? Thank God we've learned that lesson. George Tenet,
Sandy Berger and Madeleine Albright exchange harsh words.

CLIP SIX

Khalid Sheikh Muhammed: champion offroader! And hideous villain, too
-- the man has it all. We see an al Qaeda training camp in
operation. It's like the Boy Scouts, but with automatic weapons,
none of the Christian overtones, and twice the recreational sodomy.
KSM reveals he has a secret plan in mind. He calls it "The Planes
Operation." It involves....planes. As dusk falls, the jihadis
machine-gun a projection screen upon which Clinton's visage is
speaking, thereby eliminating the sole source of entertainment in
Waziristan, and disrespecting their own MVP. KSM and al-Zawahiri
exchange tender words. Much desert scenery and ululating ensues.

ABC's "Path to 9/11": The Video Democrats DON'T WANT YOU TO SEE

 Part 1 of 6 http://www.traditionalvalues.org/clinton_abc.html
http://media.revver.com/broadcast/58750/video.mov/17926




Part 2 of 6 http://www.traditionalvalues.org/clinton_abc2.html
http://media.revver.com/broadcast/58751/video.mov/17926




Part 3 of 6 http://www.traditionalvalues.org/clinton_abc3.html
http://media.revver.com/broadcast/58753/video.mov/17926




Part 4 of 6 http://www.traditionalvalues.org/clinton_abc4.html
http://media.revver.com/broadcast/58756/video.mov/17926




Part 5 of 6 http://www.traditionalvalues.org/clinton_abc5.html
http://media.revver.com/broadcast/58763/video.mov/17926




Part 6 of 6 http://www.traditionalvalues.org/clinton_abc6.html
http://media.revver.com/broadcast/58767/video.mov/17926

---

 

 

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




THE (oops!) INADVERTENT ADMISSIONS OF BILL + HILLARY CLINTON ^{part one}




UNITED 93:THE CLINTON-9/11 NEXUS
"We have to do it now. We know what happens if we just sit here and do nothing...."




CLINTON: 'Can we kill 'em tomorrow?'
(+ Albright-Fulbright-Nobel TERRORISM revelations)




'MAKE IT A RULE' -- PLACE YOUR ORDER FOR OSAMA WITH CLINTON and CO.
(HEAR HILLARY + BILL MAKE THEIR PITCH)
by Mia t, 2.13.06





ALBRIGHT INDICTS CLINTON FOR TERRORISM FAILURE
(and doesn't even know it)
by Mia T, 4.28.06


ALBRIGHT¹: 'Bin Laden and his Network Declared War² on the United States and Struck First and We Have Suffered Deeply'

 


WHY DID BILL CLINTON IGNORE TERRORISM?
Was it simply the constraints of his liberal mindset, or was it something even more threatening to our national security?


IT TAKES A CLINTON TO RAZE A COUNTRY


BIN LADEN FINGERS CLINTON FOR TERROR SUCCESS (SEE FOOTAGE)
THE THREAT OF TERRORISM IS AS CLOSE AS A CLINTON IS TO THE OVAL OFFICE


UNITED 93:THE CLINTON-9/11 NEXUS
"We have to do it now. We know what happens if we just sit here and do nothing...."


ALBRIGHT INDICTS CLINTON FOR TERRORISM FAILURE (and doesn't even know it)



MISSING CLINTON AUDIO! 'Can we kill 'em tomorrow?'
(+Albright-Fulbright-Nobel TERRORISM revelations)


'The Path to 9/11':
CLINTON FAILURE TO ORDER 'PURE KILL' CUT CHANCES OF GETTING BIN LADEN IN HALF


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


'MAKE IT A RULE' -- PLACE YOUR ORDER FOR OSAMA WITH CLINTON and CO.
(HEAR HILLARY + BILL MAKE THEIR PITCH)


THE (oops!) INADVERTENT (TERRORISM) ADMISSIONS OF BILL + HILLARY CLINTON (HEAR HILLARY IN SF)


HILLARY GOES NUCLEAR
PROLIFERATION IN THE AGE OF CLINTON


THE FAILED, DYSFUNCTIONAL CLINTON PRESIDENCY
(DECONSTRUCTING CLINTON'S HOFSTRA SPEECH) -- part1: clinton's "Brinkley" Lie


AFTERWORD: ON CLINTON SMALLNESS
(BRINKLEY MISSES THE POINT)


CARVILLE AGITPROP + THE CLINTON JACKBOOT
'THE POWER OF HILLARY': THE TITLE


SUSAN ESTRICH ON "DREDGING UP" THE RAPE OF JUANITA BROADDRICK + "ALL THAT OLD CLINTON STUFF"


THE INCONVENIENT TRUTH ABOUT HILLARY CLINTON
(FOOL ME ONCE, SHAME ON YOU. FOOL ME TWICE, SHAME ON ME.)


ON PEGGY NOONAN ON HILLARY CLINTON SENDING MEN TO WAR
(IT RUNS IN THE FAMILY)


QUID PRO COAL2:
CLINTON CORRUPTION + THE SEQUESTRATION OF GASEOUS FOSSILS
(HILLARY DOES COAL AT THE NATIONAL PRESS CLUB)


PRESIDENTIAL FAILURE, 9/11 + KATRINA


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


CHENEY: CALL THEM REPREHENSIBLE
THE DEMOCRATS ARE GONNA GET US KILLED (kerry, clinton + sandy berger's pants) SERlES₅


sandy berger haberdashery feint
(the specs, not the pants or the socks)


CLINTON TREASON + THE GORELICK WALL


Reverse Gorelick


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


CLINTON RAPES, REVISIONISM, USEFUL IDIOTS AND ENTROPY (an update)


pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic
WHY THE LEFT IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA


The Left's Fatally Flawed "Animal Farm" Mentality
(Why America Must NEVER AGAIN Elect a Democrat President)


WAR AND TREASON AND THE NEW YORK TIMES
(Please see post 65)


IN A 'PINCH': RETHINKING THE FIRST AMENDMENT
(Which came first, the 'journalist' or the traitor?)


PINCH SULZBERGER, PEARL HARBOR + TREASON
WHY WE MUST PROSECUTE THE NEW YORK TIMES


'MISBEGOTTEN' TIMES
(NARROWNESS, MR. SULZBERGER, NOT WIDTH)


WHY BIN LADEN WANTS HOME DELIVERY OF THE NEW YORK TIMES

MORE

'Can we kill 'em tomorrow?' THE ADDRESS	THE (oops!) TRUTH
"In this interdependent world, we should still have a preference for peace over war.... But sometimes we would have these debates where people would say, if I didn't take some military action this very day, people would look down their nose at America and think we were weak.  And I always thought of Senator Fulbright.... 6 So anytime somebody said in my presence, 'Hey, 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?'  I don't think we can bring 'em back tomorrow, but can we kill 'em tomorrow?  If we can kill them tomorrow, then we're not weak.... 1 I learned that as a 20-year-old kid watching Bill Fulbright.  Listening." bill clinton Fulbright Prize address April 12, 2006	"Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in '91 and he went to the Sudan. We'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him [bin Laden]. At the time, '96, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America. So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have; but they thought it was a hot potato. They didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan." bill clinton Sunday, Aug. 11, 2002 Clinton Reveals on Secret Audio: I Nixed Bin Laden Extradition Offer "I remember exactly what happened. Bruce Lindsey said to me on the phone, 'My God, a second plane has hit the tower.' And I said, 'Bin Laden did this.' that's the first thing I said. He said, 'How can you be sure?' I said 'Because only bin Laden and the Iranians could set up the network to do this and they [the Iranians] wouldn't do it because they have a country in targets. Bin Laden did it.' I thought that my virtual obsession 2 with him was well placed and I was full of regret that I didn't get him." bill clinton Sunday, Sept 3, 2002 Larry King Live "You know... the job which we should have done 1... which should have been our primary focus, to find [you know] bin Laden and eliminate al Qaeda." hillary clinton Saturday, Jan. 28, 2006 Chitchat with Jane Pauley San Francisco, CA
... I thank you for this award, even though, in general, I think former presidents and presidents should never get awards.  I was delighted when Jimmy Carter won the Nobel Peace Prize because I thought he earned it, and I thought it was great because he got it as much for what he did after office as when he was in office.  In general, I think that the fact that we got to be president is quite honor enough. bill clinton Fulbright Prize address April 12, 2006	"Bill Clinton is still campaigning for the Nobel Peace Prize. But for now, he'll just have to settle for "the political play of the week." Bill Schneider CNN reporting on the Fulbright Prize April 14, 2006       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

 

I M P E A C H M E N T
h e a r --c l i n t o n --l o s e --i t


by Mia T, 11.11.05

This legacy confab is in and of itself proof certain of clinton's deeply flawed character, and a demonstration in real time of the way in which the clinton years were about a legacy that was incidentally a presidency.

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.

READ MORE

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2006

[Gail Wynand]

Thanks for your support.

I enjoyed your essay. You make the key point...America has done a poor job of understanding, not to mention even identifying precisely, the nature of this enemy.

At their core this enemy is driven by the same perverse pathological disturbance that allowed an intelligent, modern society to plunge headlong into the business of mass extermination of innocents, world war, and eventual national self destruction (Third Reich). The Islamic Jihadists may be cluesless as to the formal political platform of 1930's Germany's National Socialists, and their inbred hatred of jews may even be coincidental to the Nazi's rather than directly adopted from Nazi propaganda, however, the fundamental motivations, and mechanisms of psychopathic hatred that fosters beheadings of relief workers, and incineration of innocent children and families, is exactly and precisely the same as that which stoked the gas chambers of a society led to madness by the deeply disturbed self hating Austrian loser turned Furher. (more to come on this subject in future posts).

Islamic societies are on the whole largely unproductive except for one thing, institutionalized blinding hatred of non-muslims, especially jews. From the slums of Gaza to coffee houses in Saudi Arabia, to jungle camps in Indonesia, there is a society that thrives on ruthless hatred and it comprises many 100's of millions of persons. It is the same sick hatred that bound together the perverse group of good fornothings that ran the Nazi party and left undealt with it will be throwing bombs in a bank, shopping mall or train near you. Its only a matter of time.

[Czar]

Very pleased to see your post as well as your recognition of Mia T and Gail Wynand as the talented loyal American conservatives they so obviously are.

Your own comments, as is always the case, have further illuminated the terrorist issue for the benefit of all who frequent FR.

Prayers went up last night for all those who lost their lives and loved ones as a result of the outrage committed on 9/11 by the Muslim terrorist scum. Recalling that sad time, my demeanor today was mostly angry. Very angry.

It is good today to feel again that same rage I felt on 9/11. In the coming months, it will always be there, just under the surface, ready to be called up as circumstances warrant. In other words, this is not a good time for any more pious lectures about "the religion of peace" (TROP).

I'm not in the mood for it.

[Minuteman23]

You have the uncanny ability to get to the core of an issue and to make the reader connect dots that they might not otherwise connect. This is one of your best, Joanie. Thank you.

I will be ordering the DVD of "Flight 93."

[Mia T]

Thank you. Your insight and eloquence are matched by your humility.

A comment regarding the impetus for The Gorelick Wall....

It is reported that airline company employees were uncomfortable with middle easterners, paying cash for one way tickets and carrying no baggage on the morning of 9/11. In a normal world, in a Norman Rockwell or Samuel Clemons America that would have been enough to prevent the full catastrophe. Even Barney Fife would have held the suspicious characters for questioning long enough to defeat the plot. But by 2001 America was already living in a world created by the likes of Jamie Gorelick and Hillary Clinton, quintissential 1960's leftists that the reformed David Horowitz for one has been warning us about for years.

Through their persistent strategy of a "thousand cuts" including by institutionalized "political correctness" backed by lawsuit awards for "discrimination" and other subjective horrors, the 60's leftists had paralized the American spirit more successfully than the most lethal snake toxin. From the Pilot School owner who called the FBI, from the investigators who tried to warn the FBI and Justice Departments, down to the last minute of the last day, as helpless airline employees sensing something was wrong (not to mention the actor who reported strange passenger behavior days before during their dry run)were compelled to stand by and do nothing because of a thousand culturally imbeded Gorelick walls these same leftists, in a confused and delusional faith, combined with disdain for humanity, not unlike that of the terrorists themselves, had finally constructed a free passageway for wide scale pathological antisocial acts to go unrestrained resulting in a scale of massive disaster most Americans could never before then have envisioned being possible.

--Gail Wynand

As I argued previously, (Reverse Gorelick, 4.15.04), we 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.

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

Further confirmation that the Wall was cover for clinton corruption:

• Gorelick's failure to disclose the fact that she authored the memo that was the efficient cause of 911
  
• Gorelick's surreal presence on the 911 commission investigating Gorelick's Justice Department, a maneuver that effectively removes from the universe of witnesses a central witness, Gorelick, even as it uniquely positions a central player, Gorelick, to directly shape the commission's conclusions. (Is there any question which two people are responsible for Gorelick's insertion on the commission?)

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.

Filegate and the clinton Putsch,
committed in tandem,
the product of a careful criminal calculus,
at once empowered clinton
and disemboweled his opponents.
clinton was now free to betray with abandon
not only our trust,
but the Constitution as well.

The Common Man
Mia T
February, 1998

Allegations of international clinton crimes swirling around the White House in 1995 and beyond support The-Wall-as- cover thesis.

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.

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)

[Mia T]

Thank you for your kindness... and for sharing your wonderful essay.

Several brief comments:

1. The 9/11 ceremonies: Annual memorial tributes ad infinitum seem to me inappropriate in the case of the random victims of 9/11. And in the case of 9/11's true heroes, annual tributes are counterproductive. An almost ritualistic veneration of the terrorists' accomplishments--broadcast to the world, no less--serves most of all to fuel the terrorists.
   
   
2. As for the power-hungry public servant (now there's an oxymoron for you) and the programmed, largely mindless, impatient, superficial and self-absorbed electorate, we must get rid of the former, (the professional pol is anathema to democracy), and since we cannot get rid of the latter, we must try to change the culture.
   
   
3. United 93 was clipped, clinical, nonjudgmental but for its central thesis:
   

'UNITED 93' vs. 'MUNICH'
Paul Greengrass--thank the stars--is no Steven Spielberg

by Mia T, 5.09.06

 

hereas both 'United 93' and 'Munich' derive their initial tension not from uncertainty but from what we already know, one movie remains scrupulously true to the facts--art in the service of history--while the other quickly devolves into a verisimilitudinous contrivance in the service of a director's political agenda.

Paradoxically--poetic justice in its purest form, some would say--the honest movie is the one that ultimately delivers the powerful political message.

Spoken by its heros--our heros--as they prepare to rush the cockpit shortly before the plane meant for the White House plunges into a Pennsylvania field instead, the simple but powerful words are these:

• "No one is going to help us. We've got to do it ourselves."
  
• "We have to do it now. We know what happens if we just sit here and do nothing...."
  

UNITED 93:THE CLINTON-9/11 NEXUS
"We have to do it now. We know what happens if we just sit here and do nothing...."



CLINTON: 'Can we kill 'em tomorrow?'
(+ Albright-Fulbright-Nobel TERRORISM revelations)

by Mia T, 4.24.06

CLOSE ENCOUNTER OF THE WORST KIND
... to borrow a phrase, perversely, from a Spielberg flick about benign intelligence.

January 9, 2006
Reviewer: miat22 (Mia T)

Munich, with its false premises, phony pieties and outright lies -- Spielberg fantasy wrapped in sober documentary -- is a verisimilitudinous contrivance that is pernicious, especially now, especially here, especially if we understand Spielberg's real motivation.

Truth matters not at all to Spielberg, and courage matters even less. To advance his fallacious argument, he has Golda Meir speak words she never said, never would have said and, obviously, cannot now disavow. Posthumous misappropriation is a preferred tactic of the abject coward.

Munich is less about Meir avenging the Munich massacre than it is about Bush waging the War on Terror. The historical Munich allusion of appeasement, self-loathing and psychologizing that is practiced so fastidiously by the American Left today is key to understanding Spielberg.

The core of his anti-war argument: By fighting back, we become our enemy. Ironically, with Munich, the same can now be said of Spielberg.

Is Spielberg humanizing the terrorist really any different from Riefenstahl humanizing Hitler? If anything, Spielberg is more contemptible. Whereas Riefenstahl symbolizes the naïve actress and director who is induced to deal with devils, Spielberg is self-actuated and aware.

Hollywood is DreamWorks, fantastical and unthinking and solipsistic by definition.

To mitigate its danger, people capable of critical thinking must take on Hollywood... and must do so in Hollywood venues.

The printed word, sad to say, no longer carries the day.



My New York Times Review of Munich
Was this review helpful to you?
VOTE HERE

 

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2006

[Gail Wynand]

I see and understand your point.

I certainly agree that the staffing of the justice department was carefully controlled by HRC so that she could monitor and co-opt its operations at will.

I confess agnosticism as to the Clinton's thoughts and subjecive motives. e.g. I dont know if Hillary had Foster shot or merely had his body moved.

What concerns me is the inertia of the Baby Boom Left and their supporters. Unbenknownst to most Americans, they are a hairbreath away, under their doctrine of "human rights" of establishing international law, as binding precedent in the US and of subjecting US citizens to International jurisdiction. (It has to do with a doctrine they have been pushing based upon treaty interpretations if I remember correctly - US courts have accepted the doctrine, lefties are pushing to expand the scope of what it means).

Thus, in so many ways, Gorelick is consistent with everything else the Left, as illuminated by Horowitz has done since they graduated. Ever so marginal indirect chipping away at common sense and established norms, to establish and institutionalize their elitism of the patholgically envious.

It may well be that the wall was specifically intended to cover for criminal corruption by HRC and WC. Certainly the packing of the 911 Comm was an HRC job, interesting down to and critically including the General Counsel, who had authority to flag any conflict of interest.

My concern at the moment is defeating the Left, of stopping and reversing the incredible damage they have done in the name of their nitpicking socialist abstractions, and in particular preventing usurpation of US sovereignty which is far closer than anyone realizes outside these circles of satanic depravity.

I fear the only inquiry that may ever probe sufficiently into Clintons real corruptions are historic inquiries. I see no hope of a governmental process. Like debtors who have borrowed so much the banks dont dare foreclose, the scale of Clinton corruption is so great that it defies investigation.

Again, the Left continues to threaten our future, Gorelicks conduct was entirely consistent with the Lefts means and goals and she and HRC are dead center part of the movement, hence for me their baby boom left idenity is their defining characteristic. The point that Gorelick used the power of her position to expand without authority unnecessary and unauthorized restrictions on law enforcement that also provided cover for her sponsors corruption, to me localizez the seriousness of her acts to a relic of a past administration, when it is part actually of the ongoing threat posed by Leftist claptrap turned into law and which in many cases is causing new and current threats to US survival. Therefore:

HRC + Gorelick = WMD w/ multiple bad effects.

[Mia T]

Thank you :)

FYI

[Gail Wynand]

"Clown carnival"

"twice the recreational sodomy"

exquisite.

[Mia T]

Thank you :)

Re joanie-f 's thought-provoking essay, some random ruminations....

[Mia T]

We are on the same page, of course. ;)

As for the clintons' thoughts and motives, if we can know them, we can defeat this most pernicious of our enemies more efficiently and more thoroughly.

I believe one can infer the clintons' thoughts and motives from the evidence. Look at any clinton decision and tease away the false premises, phony pieties and outright lies. What remains is not an ideological motive but a self-serving one.

Not having to cling rigidly to fundamentalist doctrine--the flexibility to 'triangulate,' if you will-- may be the primary difference between the clintonistas and the islamofascist terrorists and precisely why the clintonistas pose the greater threat to America and western civilization.

In order to sufficiently probe clintoncorruption, we must first get rid of the professional politician. What we are witnessing with the second coming of the clintons is the DC mutual protection racket writ large.

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in the sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

--'The Second Coming,' W.B. Yeats, 1921

 

[bmwcyle]

bttt

[Mia T]

Thank you, bmwcyle. :)

[Gail Wynand]

Indeed, the law presumes that people intend the normal and probable consequences of their actions.

[Mia T]

Indeed, the law presumes that people intend the normal and probable consequences of their actions.--Gail Wynand

What about THIS? Do you agree?

HILLARY GOES NUCLEAR
PROLIFERATION IN THE AGE OF CLINTON

by Mia T, 5.30.06

 

 

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

Nuclear is now very much in the news as a potential power source because of its lack of contribution to global warming. If you look at nuclear energy, which currently provides 20 percent of our energy with virtually no emission of greenhouse gases, we do have to take a serious look, but there remain very serious questions about nuclear power... in a world with suicidal terrorists.

So I have real concerns, specifically about a plant in my state near where I live, Indian Point....

So we need to resolve... questions of... proliferation... before we go forward with nuclear power.

hillary clinton
Remarks at The National Press Club
May 23, 2006

illful nuclear proliferation, the product of clinton naiveté, corruption and obsession with legacy,¹ was the predominant clinton policy for eight long years.²

Missus clinton's sudden concern about proliferation, therefore, is a decade too late and a dollar too cheap. ³

The clintons turned the dilemma of the nuclear age--how to exploit nuclear energy's peaceful and productive potential while preventing the spread of nuclear weapons-- on its head: They exploited nuclear proliferation for their own gain even as they prevented the realization of nuclear energy's peaceful and productive potential.

Moreover, by ignoring terrorism for those eight years,⁴ the clintons caused the nuclear dilemma to become even more acute, complex and deadly with the concomitant rapid rise in non-state actors' involvement in the proliferation of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

Contrary to the clintons' quaint theories,⁵ rogue states routinely violated their Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons nonproliferation obligations, setting up a perfect symbiosis for non-state actors--particularly terrorists--seeking to acquire and use nuclear or other WMD. The non-state actor is the rogue state's perfect WMD delivery-system: there is no return address.

"I remember exactly what happened. Bruce Lindsey said to me on the phone, 'My God, a second plane has hit the tower.' And I said, 'Bin Laden did this.' that's the first thing I said. He said, 'How can you be sure?' I said 'Because only bin Laden and the Iranians could set up the network to do this and they [the Iranians] wouldn't do it because they have a country in targets. Bin Laden did it.'

I thought that my virtual obsession ² with him was well placed and I was full of regret that I didn't get him."

bill clinton
Sunday, Sept 3, 2002
Larry King Live
THE (oops!) INADVERTENT ADMISSIONS OF BILL + HILLARY CLINTON

The clintons, almost singlehandedly, therefore, made proliferation of WMD today's preeminent threat to international peace and security.

Some call the clintons quislings, Manchurian Candidates, bought off in Little Rock by Riady and company⁶ decades ago (and much too cheaply, according to their Chinese benefactors⁷), trading our national security for their political power. This argument is persuasive but incomplete; the clintons, certifiable megalomaniacs, are driven ultimately by their solipsistic, messianic world view and that by which ultimately quashes all else -- their toxic legacy.

William J. Broad suggests (Spying Isn't the Only Way to Learn About Nukes, The New York Times, May 30, 1999)⁸ that the clintons had another reason to empower China and disembowel America. Broad argues that they sought to disseminate our atomic secrets proactively in order to implement their postmodern, quite inane epistemological theory, namely, that, contrary to currently held dogma, knowledge is not power after all -- that, indeed, quite the contrary is the case. (One has only to look to Iran, North Korea or Pakistan to see the absurdity of the clintons' premise.)

Broad writes in part:

Since 1993, officials say, the Energy Department's "openness initiative" has released at least 178 categories of atom secrets. By contrast, the 1980s saw two such actions...

Its overview of the disclosures, "Restricted Data Declassification Decisions," dated January 1999 and more than 140 pages long, lists such things as how atom bombs can be boosted in power, key steps in making hydrogen bombs, the minimum amount (8.8 pounds) of plutonium or uranium fuel needed for an atom bomb and the maximum time it takes an exploding atomic bomb to ignite an H-bomb's hydrogen fuel (100 millionths of a second).

No grade-B physicist from any university could figure this stuff. It took decades of experience gained at a cost of more than $400 billion.

The release of the secrets started as a high-stakes bet that openness would lessen, not increase, the world's vulnerability to nuclear arms and war. John Holum, who heads arms control at the State Department, told Congress last year that the test ban "essentially eliminates" the possibility of a renewed international race to develop new kinds of nuclear arms...

"The United States must stand as leader," O'Leary told a packed news conference in December 1993 upon starting the process. "We are declassifying the largest amount of information in the history of the department."

Critics, however, say the former secrets are extremely valuable to foreign powers intent on making nuclear headway. Gaffney, the former Reagan official, disparaged the giveaway as "dangling goodies in front of people to get them to sign up into our arms-control agenda."

Thomas B. Cochran,:..."In terms of the phenomenology of nuclear weapons...the cat is out of the bag."

...[F]ormer Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the "extensive declassification" of secrets had inadvertently [?!] aided the global spread of deadly weapons.

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 -- the clintons' wholesale release of atomic secrets, decades of Chinese money sluicing into clinton campaigns, the clintons pushing the test ban treaty, the clintons' concomitant sale of supercomputers, and the clintons' 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 the clintons from the gallows. The clintons can be both absolute (albeit postmodern) morons and traitors. 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 their position on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty "an historic milestone," (if they must say so themselves,) the clintons believed that if they could get China to sign it, they would go down in history as the saviors of mankind. This was 11 August 1995.

NOTE: There would be an analogous treasonous miscalculation in the Mideast: the clintons failed to shut down Muslim terrorism, then in its incipient stage and stoppable, because they reasoned that doing so would have wrecked their 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.⁹

According to James Risen and Jeff Gerth of The New York Times, "the legacy codes and the warhead data that goes with them" -- apparently stolen from the Los Alamos weapons lab by scientist, Wen Ho Lee aided and abetted by bill clinton, hillary clinton, the late Ron Brown, Sandy Berger, Hazel O'Leary, Janet Reno, Eric Holder and others in the clinton administration (not to mention congressional clinton accomplices Glenn, Daschle, Bumpers, Harkin, Boxer, Feinstein, Lantos, Levin. Lautenberg, Torricelli et al.) -- "could (especially when combined with the supercomputers that clinton sold to China to help them finish the job) be particularly valuable for a country, like China, that has signed onto the nuclear test ban treaty and relies solely on computer simulations to upgrade and maintain its nuclear arsenal. The legacy codes are now used to maintain the American nuclear arsenal through computer simulation.

Most of Lee's transfers occurred in 1994 and 1995, just before China signed the test ban treaty in 1996, according to American officials."

Few who have observed the clintons would argue against the proposition that these legacy-obsessed megalomaniacs would trade our legacy codes for their rehabilitated legacy in a Monica minute and to hell with "the children."

 

 

 

READ MORE

[hummingbird]

True enough. You and Mia T are just so good at expressing what most of us are thinking!

[Darnright]

Bump!

[Gail Wynand]

Clinton is no Chauncey Gardener. On the other hand I have always believed Park v. US was wrongly decided. A civil penatly against a corporation that cant control the amount of rodent dropings in their consumer product is a sufficient penalty to police the market. Criminal liability of corporate officers without proof of criminal mens rea is/was a departure from hundreds of years of consistently maintained distinction that protects individuals as much or more than jury trials and the fifth amendment.

I am still trying to understand how Wen Ho Lee got off with a wrist slap. My suspicion is that it was part of a cover up, but one doesnt have time to investigate each of these mysteries to a certainty when so much has been done to obscure the truth.

At this point my only hope is that history will eventually find the truth of the Clinton corruption. Not to say that we don't knjow enough to know they were/are corrupt. The liberal mind, after all, is a delusional state of consciousness, they start out with the equivalent of a drunk driving defense to criminal vehicular manslaughter, (works in some states). One thing that is distintive about the Clintons is their assiduousness in burying evidence that might determine their actual culpability. Where can one find the equivalent to a former national security advisor stealing original classified documents from national archives, especially by grotesquely stuffing his pants with them, and then getting a pass from the courts for it? A white house team sent to block and interfere in police investigation of Fosters murder? and, well the list is truly endless. At this stage, the extraordinary efforts to conceal evidence, more than anything else creates a presumption of conciousness of guilt.

[Mia T]

Clinton is no Chauncey Gardener. On the other hand I have always believed Park v. US was wrongly decided. A civil penatly against a corporation that cant control the amount of rodent dropings in their consumer product is a sufficient penalty to police the market. Criminal liability of corporate officers without proof of criminal mens rea is/was a departure from hundreds of years of consistently maintained distinction that protects individuals as much or more than jury trials and the fifth amendment. --Gail Wynand

In the case of the clintons, the clintons could and did control the outcome; this seems to render your objection to the reasoning in Park v. US moot. So assuming clinton control, do you still have a problem with charging the clintons with treason irrespective of intent?

 

At this point my only hope is that history will eventually find the truth of the Clinton corruption. Not to say that we don't knjow enough to know they were/are corrupt. The liberal mind, after all, is a delusional state of consciousness, they start out with the equivalent of a drunk driving defense to criminal vehicular manslaughter, (works in some states). One thing that is distintive about the Clintons is their assiduousness in burying evidence that might determine their actual culpability. Where can one find the equivalent to a former national security advisor stealing original classified documents from national archives, especially by grotesquely stuffing his pants with them, and then getting a pass from the courts for it? A white house team sent to block and interfere in police investigation of Fosters murder? and, well the list is truly endless. At this stage, the extraordinary efforts to conceal evidence, more than anything else creates a presumption of conciousness of guilt.--Gail Wynand

Consciousness of guilt, indeed.

sandy berger haberdashery feint
(the specs, not the pants or the socks)
by Mia T, 8.23.05

[Mia T]

thanx, hummingbird :)