Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

VIRTUAL KILL: The Chris Wallace-bill clinton Interview Deconstructed
FoxNews, CBS | 9.29.06 | Mia T

Posted on 09/29/2006 6:35:08 PM PDT by Mia T

VIRTUAL KILL
THE CHRIS WALLACE-BILL CLINTON INTERVIEW DECONSTRUCTED

HEAR:

  • the only idea clinton was promoting during the interview

  • the devastating case made against bill clinton by:

    1. Michael Scheuer, former 'hunting bin Laden' CIA Division Chief, and

    2. Richard Miniter, author of Losing Bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror

DECONSTRUCTED INTERVIEW (play now)


by Mia T, 9.27.06

 



"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


"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


The president seems to be able, the former president seems to be able to deny facts with impunity. Bin Laden is alive today because Mr. Clinton, Mr. Sandy Berger, and Mr. Richard Clarke refused to kill him. That's the bottom line. And every time he says what he said to Chris Wallace on Fox, he defames the CIA especially, and the men and women who risk their lives to give his administration repeated chances to kill bin Laden."

... [T]he fact of the matter is that the Bush Administration had one chance that they botched, and the Clinton Administration had eight to ten chances that they refused to try. At least at Tora Bora our forces were on the ground. We didn't push the point. But it's just, it's an incredible kind of situation for the American people over the weekend to hear their former president mislead them."

Michael Scheuer
CBS Terror Expert, Iraq War Critic
former CIA head for hunting Bin Laden
Monday CBS Early Show


virtual kill of bin Laden seems apt. One should never expect more of bill clinton. And there is a certain symmetry, a perfect parry for clinton's 'virtual obsession.'

Hypocrisy abounds in this Age of clinton, a Postmodern Oz rife with constitutional deconstruction and semantic subversion, a virtual surreality polymarked by presidential alleles peccantly misplaced or, in the case of Jefferson, posthumously misappropriated.

The Other Nixon
Mia T


Now that everyone is beginning to understand the willfulness of clinton failure to fight terrorism, the willfulness of clinton failure to kill bin Laden, 10 things seem even bleaker for the quondam shoo-in and for her husband's legacy, to which said prospects are inextricably bound.

As long as the voters believe the clintons willfully failed to kill bin Laden, there can be no scenario in which they recapture the White House.

Hence, bill clinton's 'virtual kill' on Fox Sunday morning.

"Kill him" must have polled really, really well....

 

It isn't that they can't see the solution. It is that they can't see the problem.

G. K. Chesterton

 

... While America appears not to be ready for a female president under any circumstances, the post-9/11 realities pose special problems for a female presidential candidate. Add to these the problems unique to missus clinton. The reviews make the mistake of focusing on the problems of the generic female presidential candidate running during ordinary times.

These are not ordinary times. America is waging the global War on Terror; the uncharted territory of asymmetric netherworlds is the battlefield; the enemy is brutal, subhuman; the threat of global conflagration is real.

Defeating the enemy isn't sufficient. For America to prevail, she must also defeat a retrograde, misogynous mindset. To successfully prosecute the War on Terror, it is essential that the collective patriarchal islamic culture perceives America as politically and militarily strong. Condi Rice excepted, this requirement presents an insurmountable hurdle for any female presidential candidate, and especially missus clinton, historically antimilitary--(an image, incidentally, that is only enhanced today by her clumsy, termagant parody of Thatcher), forever the pitiful victim, and, according to Dick Morris, "the biggest dove in the clinton administration."

It is ironic that had the clintons not failed utterly to fight terrorism... not failed to take bin Laden from Sudan... not failed repeatedly to decapitate a nascent, still stoppable al Qaeda... the generic female president as a construct would still be viable... missus clinton's obstacles would be limited largely to standard-issue clintonisms: corruption, abuse, malpractice, malfeasance, megalomania, rape and treason... and, in spite of Juanita Broaddrick, or perhaps because of her, Rod Lurie would be reduced to perversely hawking the "First Gentleman" instead of the "Commander-in-Chief."

Mia T, 10.02.05
HILLARY'S COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF PROBLEM
(see descriptor morphs)


'BIN LADEN ALIVE TODAY BECAUSE CLINTON, BERGER + CLARKE REFUSED TO KILL HIM' :HEAR Osama-Division CIA Chief
CLINTON 'MISLED AMERICAN PEOPLE' IN CHRIS WALLACE INTERVIEW

by Mia T, 9.26.06



CBS Terror Expert, Iraq War Critic and former CIA head for hunting Bin Laden on Monday CBS Early Show....

 

Harry Smith: "Elizabeth Palmer live in Pakistan this morning, thank you. I'm going to go back now to Michael Scheuer once again. Let's talk about what President Clinton had to say on Fox yesterday. He basically laid blame at the feet of the CIA and the FBI for not being able to certify or verify that Osama bin Laden was responsible for a number of different attacks. Does that ring true to you?"

Michael Scheuer: "No, sir, I don't think so. The president seems to be able, the former president seems to be able to deny facts with impunity. Bin Laden is alive today because Mr. Clinton, Mr. Sandy Berger, and Mr. Richard Clarke refused to kill him. That's the bottom line. And every time he says what he said to Chris Wallace on Fox, he defames the CIA especially, and the men and women who risk their lives to give his administration repeated chances to kill bin Laden."

Harry Smith: "All right, is the Bush administration any less responsible for not finishing the job in Tora Bora?"

Michael Scheuer: "Oh, I think there's plenty of blame to go around, sir, but the fact of the matter is that the Bush Administration had one chance that they botched, and the Clinton Administration had eight to ten chances that they refused to try. At least at Tora Bora our forces were on the ground. We didn't push the point. But it's just, it's an incredible kind of situation for the American people over the weekend to hear their former president mislead them."



HEAR 'THE PATH TO 9/11' SCREENWRITER:
CLINTON WILLFULLY FAILED TO NAIL BIN LADEN
AS MANY AS A DOZEN TIMES: CIA




"I have heard from other CIA people that there was as many as a dozen incidents, missions, etc. where the will was not there to green-light the operation. And everybody was in place, whether it was a missile attack, a bomb run, an ambush of bin Laden by tribals on the ground, or that they had pinpointed him at Tarnak Farm or his hunting lodge.

There were numerous opportunities. We only focused on one. We used it as sort of an amalgamation of the numerous different opportunities because you can't show a dozen attempts in a movie; and I don't think a lot of people would have been happy if we did that either...."

CYRUS NOWRASTEH
'THE PATH TO 9/11' WRITER, PRODUCER
THE SEAN HANNITY SHOW, SEPT. 8, 2006


'The Path to 9/11'
CLINTON FAILURE TO ORDER 'PURE KILL' CUT CHANCES OF GETTING BIN LADEN IN HALF
8
(WHICH TIPPING HIM OFF QUICKLY REDUCED TO ZERO) 9

'WHY THE CLINTONS FAILED "TO CAPTURE OR KILL THE TALLEST MAN IN AFGHANISTAN"

(DID THEY REALLY WANT TO TAKE HIM OUT ANYWAY?)
Part Two:

 

by Mia t, 9.8.06

 

 

9/11 Commission: Clinton Refused to Let CIA Kill Bin Laden

Announcing some of its preliminary findings on Wednesday, the 9/11 Commission has confirmed that President Clinton ordered the CIA to take Osama bin Laden alive or not at all - a directive that made the task of neutralizing the terrorist kingpin infinitely more difficult.

In a statement read at the beginning of Wednesday's session, 9/11 staffer Michael Hurley revealed:

"CIA senior managers, operators and lawyers uniformly said that they read the relevant authorities signed by President Clinton as instructing them to try to capture bin Laden.

"They believed that the only acceptable context for killing bin Laden was a credible capture operation. 'We always talked about how much easier it would have been to try to kill him,'" a former chief of the bin Laden station told the Commission.

"Working level CIA officers were frustrated by what they saw as the policy restraints of having to instruct their assets to mount a capture operation," the Commission statement said.

Commission staffer Hurley detailed one attempt to recruit indigenous Afghan forces in a bin Laden capture operation, explaining, "When Northern Alliance leader Massoud was briefed on the carefully worded instructions for him, the briefer recalled that Massoud laughed and said, 'You Americans are crazy. You guys never change.'"

... Last week NBC News quoted former CIA official Gary Schroen as saying that White House orders to spare bin Laden's life cut the chances of getting him in half, from 50 to 25 percent.

Schroen's revelation - now confirmed by the 9/11 Commission - was ignored by the mainstream press beyond its initial coverage by NBC.

NewsMax.com
Wednesday, Mar. 24, 2004 10:26 AM EST


WHY THE CLINTONS FAILED "TO CAPTURE OR KILL THE TALLEST MAN IN AFGHANISTAN"
(DID THEY REALLY WANT TO TAKE HIM OUT ANYWAY?)
(Part One)
by Mia t, 2.15.06


 



"You cannot explain to me why we have not captured or killed the tallest man in Afghanistan."

hear hillary clinton

 

"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."

hear hillary clinton
Saturday, Jan. 28, 2006
Chitchat with Jane Pauley
San Francisco, CA

"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.3

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."

hear bill clinton
Sunday, Aug. 11, 2002
Clinton Reveals on Secret Audio:
I Nixed Bin Laden Extradition Offer


 



hen the damning tape surfaced, focus was naturally on bill clinton's (oops!) admission.

No one paid much attention to what may turn out to be even more incriminating: clinton's curious explanation of the missile strike at Kandahur that took out a phalanxlike formation of... empty tents... and allowed bin Laden (and the Mideast Muslim ego) to escape unscathed.

Ever notice how a crook volunteers way too much information when he's trying to explain away his crimes? This is especially true when the crook thinks you're an idiot and he's a genius.

"When I bombed his training camp and tried to kill him and his high command in 1998 after the African -Embassy bombings, some people criticized me for doing it. We just barely missed him by a couple of hours. I think whoever told us he was going to be there told somebody who told him that our missiles might be there. I think we were ratted out.7"

bill clinton
Sunday, Aug. 11, 2002
Clinton Reveals on Secret Audio:
I Nixed Bin Laden Extradition Offer

I agree. We were ratted out. bill clinton could not afford to capture or kill bin Laden. This information courtesy of none other than Madeleine Albright.

clinton's reaction--or should I say non-reaction-- to the USS Cole bombing in 2000--an unambiguous act of war--validates Albright's assertion.

clinton's refusal to take bin Laden in 1996--validates Albright's assertion.

That clinton summarily ignored and urged all of us to ignore the first attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor, the 1993 WTC bombing--ignore the first major Islamofascist terrorist attack on the continental United States!!--validates Albright's assertion.

The fact that "our national mourner," bill "I feel your pain" clinton, never even visited the site--he was only 15 minutes away mere days after the 1993 WTC bombing--validates Albright's assertion like nothing else.







7. The ABC miniseries, 'The Path to 9/11,' reports that Albright, herself, did the ratting, which makes sense: Madeleine Albright was obviously the clintons' Nobel Peace Prize point man and facilitator.




'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'


 

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


"PAPER TIGER"

 

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.

It is 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.

In the case of the non-response to the attack on the Cole, an unambiguous act of war, the clinton rationale 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.)

"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


 

 

INTERVIEW Osama bin Laden
(may 1998)

In the first part of this interview which occurred in May 1998, a little over two months before the U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, Osama bin Laden answers questions posed to him by some of his followers at his mountaintop camp in southern Afghanistan. In the latter part of the interview, ABC reporter John Miller is asking the questions.

 

 

Describe the situation when your men took down the American forces in Somalia.

After our victory in Afghanistan and the defeat of the oppressors who had killed millions of Muslims, the legend about the invincibility of the superpowers vanished. Our boys no longer viewed America as a superpower. So, when they left Afghanistan, they went to Somalia and prepared themselves carefully for a long war. They had thought that the Americans were like the Russians, so they trained and prepared. They were stunned when they discovered how low was the morale of the American soldier. America had entered with 30,000 soldiers in addition to thousands of soldiers from different countries in the world. As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled, and America had to stop all its bragging and all that noise it was making in the press after the Gulf War in which it destroyed the infrastructure and the milk and dairy industry that was vital for the infants and the children and the civilians and blew up dams which were necessary for the crops people grew to feed their families. Proud of this destruction, America assumed the titles of world leader and master of the new world order. After a few blows, it forgot all about those titles and rushed out of Somalia in shame and disgrace, dragging the bodies of its soldiers. America stopped calling itself world leader and master of the new world order, and its politicians realized that those titles were too big for them and that they were unworthy of them. I was in Sudan when this happened. I was very happy to learn of that great defeat that America suffered, so was every Muslim....

 

 

The American people, by and large, do not know the name bin Laden, but they soon likely will. Do you have a message for the American people?

I say to them that they have put themselves at the mercy of a disloyal government, and this is most evident in Clinton's administration....
BIN LADEN FINGERS CLINTON FOR TERROR SUCCESS (SEE FOOTAGE)
THE THREAT OF TERRORISM IS AS CLOSE AS A CLINTON IS TO THE OVAL OFFICE

 

 

 

 

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.


 



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)



 


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?



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



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


HEAR 'THE PATH TO 9/11' SCREENWRITER:
CLINTON WILLFULLY FAILED TO NAIL BIN LADEN AS MANY AS A DOZEN TIMES: CIA



HILLARY'S FECKLESS 'DEFENSE' OF BILL WILL DAMAGE BOTH CLINTONS
THE CHRIS WALLACE INTERVIEW BLOWBACK



'BIN LADEN ALIVE TODAY BECAUSE CLINTON, BERGER + CLARKE REFUSED TO KILL HIM'
CLINTON 'MISLED AMERICAN PEOPLE' IN CHRIS WALLACE INTERVIEW
:HEAR Osama-Division CIA Chief


THE DRAMATIC INCREASE IN HILLARY CLINTON'S DISCLOSED ASSETS: An Alternative Theory


WHEN CATTLE FUTURES ARE THE FUTURE:
HILLARY CLINTON'S COW TRADES AS PROGNOSTIC



SOMALIA + RWANDA UNDERSCORE WHY WE MUST DEFEAT THE CLINTONS NOW (ATTENTION NEW YORKERS)


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...."


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


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


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


'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)


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




TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Politics/Elections; US: Arkansas; US: New York; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: ahhhmyeyesmyeyes; billclinton; binladen; chriswallace; corruption; elections; huntingbinladen; jihad; legacy; legacyterrorism; michaelscheuer; osama; pathto911; richardminiter; terrorism; theterrorismstupid; waronterror; wot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-128 next last
To: mo
agree.

We must purge DC of the professional politician and return to the idea of the citizen-politician.

If we do this, we will break the power-and-corruption cycle. Post-9/11, we no longer have the luxury of time or circumstance to abide that nonsense.

We must field citizen-politicians of the highest caliber. As envisioned by the founders, the citizen-politicians would ''lend'' their expertise to government and then return to private life. The culture of access, influence and self-interest--and with it, the tyranny--would literally disappear overnight.

With their obvious excellence and assisted by the new technology, citizen-politicians would easily bypass the stacked system to capture the imagination -- and votes -- of the masses.

51 posted on 09/30/2006 5:04:24 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Gail Wynand

Sadly, it is.
bump


52 posted on 09/30/2006 5:07:04 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: mo; All

If we do this, we would also get rid of the mediocrity on DC (... "and if you can't teach, you become a politician.").


53 posted on 09/30/2006 7:01:09 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: MrsEmmaPeel

BTW, Diana Rigg stole the show.... ;)


54 posted on 09/30/2006 7:05:10 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
in DC
55 posted on 09/30/2006 7:09:36 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: UWSrepublican

ping


56 posted on 09/30/2006 7:16:52 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

BTTT --AND.....Thanks Again for ALL your hard work.


57 posted on 09/30/2006 7:20:54 AM PDT by litehaus (A memory tooooo long)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

Thanks!


58 posted on 09/30/2006 7:32:33 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (History is soon Forgotten,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: litehaus

thank you :)


59 posted on 09/30/2006 7:46:18 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

you're welcome :)


60 posted on 09/30/2006 7:47:23 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: AZLiberty

ping


61 posted on 09/30/2006 9:03:51 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

re: "citizen politician"

In addition to identifying a threat/problem (domestic enemies), you offer a solution.

Excelsior!


62 posted on 09/30/2006 9:05:02 AM PDT by PGalt (Run Mia Run!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

Also the syntax seems strangely strained.

Most presidents, even this one in a less controversial setting, seemingly would have said something along the lines of

"We attempted to get/eliminate/neutralize or even 'kill' Bin Laden on a number of occasions."

or,

"I authorized the CIA/military etc, to Kill Bin Laden"

"I made the decision that we should do everything we could to eliminate him"

while, the highly personal,

"I tried to kill him." seems unnatural, re-hearsed, and not reflective of how government even works.

The repeated phrase, 'I tried to kill him' along with the other demeanor features displayed, seem typical of the feigned passionate sincerity that psychopaths typically use to substitute for honest feeling which is an emotional state they are incapable of producing/experiencing.

Also, "I tried to kill him" is almost instinctively a statement/sentence structure any normal person would avoid since, expressed in that form, it tramples on basic moral taboos. Here, it is as if Clinton is trying to convey the impression the attempt was undertaken bare handed.

Indeed he responds like a man whose masculinity has been put at issue, not like a former president who has been asked if his administration "did enough" in response to what turned out to be a growing and very serious problem.

I recall Clinton on one occasion defending his administration on a financial/economic issue... he kept repeated "I never worked so hard in my life as we have on this issue". Of course that too was nonesense, but it shows consistency in the aspect of personalizing effort made in defense of criticsm.

Among other things it suggests that to Bill Clinton, the experience of being President was an entirely singular one. i.e. all about Bill.

I dont think they could have focus grouped this one. In the abstract the phrase is so different than when delivered in person by Clinton in his rehearsed but actually unhinged state. Whatever was polled would be unreliable.

This is pure Huey LOng instinctual self defense. I tried to kill that man, only my enemies could possibly be behind the lies that I didnt do enough.

Here, you have shown that he all but and quite possibly did, actively try to prevent Bin Laden from being killed, as it interferred with his quest for world popularity. This is consistent with the Miniter, Morris, Patterson, Mylroie observations of what was going on, and indeed even some of Clarke's. I think you are onto something important.

A final note. The 9/11 comm report -- the extent to which the report, to the extent it actually addresses relevant facts on the roots of 9/11, uses the most distorted, deceptive and exonerating language is profoundly disturbing. Much like Clinton, one senses in comparing their descriptions of events, that they had as a primary goal, obfuscation of any meaningful evidence with which they were confronted. Facts have been laundered into conclusions. Opinions substituted for summaries. Its as phoney as the typical Environmental Impact Report of a corrupt developer (usually the County government).

Again, I think you are onto something quite important.


63 posted on 09/30/2006 9:06:23 AM PDT by Gail Wynand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

Mia, you are brilliant.

Please keep this up!


64 posted on 09/30/2006 9:17:27 AM PDT by bannie (HILLARY: Not all perversions are sexual.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gail Wynand
Just a quick point for now. Will continue later.

It is self-evident that clinton failed. So clinton admits "I tried to kill him and I failed" because that is, by far, the best case scenario.

He does this to cover up the truly unpardonable failures:

  1. that he willfully failed to nail bin Laden for self-serving reasons.

  2. that he lacked the courage to nail bin Laden

  3. that he lacked the analytic ability to truly understand that war with terrorists "doesn't depend on what the meaning of the word 'war' is," that asymmetric warfare requires only one consenting player.

65 posted on 09/30/2006 9:23:50 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

"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."

This is the lie that bugs me most!
Bin Laden was indicted in the '93 attack on the WTC and Clinton could have used that indictment to bring him to the U.S. for prosecution.


66 posted on 09/30/2006 9:38:22 AM PDT by G Larry (Only strict constructionists on the Supreme Court!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T; Dog; Marine_Uncle; Coop; Cap Huff
that asymmetric warfare requires only one consenting player.

That is a statement that I have not seen expressed quite that way....I think we ought to use it more often....

***********************

Googling around :

Back to the Future with Asymmetric Warfare

*****************************

67 posted on 09/30/2006 9:58:03 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (History is soon Forgotten,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
that asymmetric warfare requires only one consenting player.--me

That is a statement that I have not seen expressed quite that way....I think we ought to use it more often.--Ernest_at_the_Beach


My inspiration for that phrase was clinton's deconstructionist logic generally...
and, of course, "It all depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" in particular.
bill clinton thought he could define away asymmetric warfare.
(Under all that puff is a small man with a small mind.)

Used the phrase here.

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






hy 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?

To understand why clinton failed so utterly to protect America from bin Laden, we begin by examining what clinton, himself, has said on the matter:

"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

We note first that this is classic clinton snake oil, exploiting liberal credulousness and the gestalt concepts of structural economy and closure (the tendency to perceive incomplete forms as complete), sleight of hand that enabled clinton to tell the story of his utter failure to fight terrorism, his failure to take bin Laden from Sudan, his repeated failures to decapitate a nascent, still stoppable al Qaeda, without explicitly admitting it.

"The Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again; [so] they released him [to America]."

Note that the linkage between the above two sentences and the indirect object of the second sentence are each implied, giving clinton plausible deniability.

"[H]e 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."

This position is surprising because:

  1. clinton has never been one to let the rule of law get in his way.
  2. 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."
  3. Bin Laden had repeatedly declared war on America, committed acts of war against America.

Clearly, the impeached ex-president treated terrorism not as war but as a law enforcement problem, which, by definition is defensive, after-the-fact and fatally-too-late.

He appears not to understand that 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 the terrorists… or do you surrender?

Critical to the understanding of the clintons' (and the left's) inability to protect America from terrorism is the analysis of clinton's final phrase, "though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America."

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

This phrase is clinton's explicit rejection of both bin Laden's repeated declarations/acts of war and the (Bush) doctrine of preemption to fight terror.

This phrase underscores clinton's failure to understand that:

  • a terrorist war requires only one consenting player
  • the War on Terror is global and irreducible, the Left's postmodern posture notwithstanding.
  • 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.

"So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have; but they thought it was a hot potato."

Finally, this last paragraph documents the clinton propensity for passing the tough problems (and the buck) to others (while arrogating their solutions as his own). It would have been a simple matter for him to take bin Laden. Why did he turn the offer down?

The answer to this question is the answer to the overarching question.


Why did clinton ignore terrorism?

Richard Miniter's account of clinton's utter failure to combat terrorism provides a clue. (C-SPAN interview and LOSING BIN LADEN: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror)

The answer was inadvertently if somewhat obliquely provided by Madeleine Albright 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.

According to Albright, 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.

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

 


Pathologic self-interest (Nobel Gas)

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.

The clintons made their decision not to go after the terrorists 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 the inaction would also maximize the terrorists' power, maximize America's danger

ASIDE: There was an analogous treasonous miscalculation in the clintons' mass proliferation of weapons-of-mass-destruction technology.

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.

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


HIROSHIMA'S NUCLEAR LESSON
bill clinton is no Harry Truman



HILLARY GOES NUCLEAR
PROLIFERATION IN THE AGE OF CLINTON

 

 

"PAPER TIGER"

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.

It is 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.

In the case of the non-response to the attack on the Cole, an unambiguous act of war, the clinton rationale 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.)

"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 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


READ MORE



COPYRIGHT MIA T 2005

68 posted on 09/30/2006 11:00:37 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: bannie

;)

thanks, bannie.


69 posted on 09/30/2006 11:14:52 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: PGalt

:)


70 posted on 09/30/2006 11:16:22 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: UWSrepublican

ping


71 posted on 09/30/2006 11:39:09 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Gail Wynand

Your points about the syntax are very interesting. Will try to weigh in later today.

One comment: I think that is the only way clinton talks, i.e., he uses the pronoun "I" when he wants to arrogate the achievements of others as his own, and "they" when he wants to blame others for his failures. In the gray areas, he uses "we."


72 posted on 09/30/2006 12:40:30 PM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Gail Wynand

That is why, on the surface, it is a bit surprising that he stated flatly, "I failed."

But as I pointed out above, (1) that he failed is self-evident so he is offering nothing new and (2) the admission, "I tried to kill bin Laden and I failed" is the most innocuous explanation of the failure. He and his wife will never survive the real reasons for that failure.

This admission is against type and should rouse the suspicion of every investigative reporter that there is something bigger here. But it won't.


73 posted on 09/30/2006 12:56:30 PM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: joanie-f

ping


74 posted on 09/30/2006 12:57:55 PM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: UWSrepublican

fyi


75 posted on 09/30/2006 1:14:26 PM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Mia T; HAL9000

".the only idea clinton was promoting during the interview"

The clinton's do nothing without a purpose - going on Fox, well, a big donation was given to hillary and that was my first conculusion. Payback time! And promoting Richard Clark's book. Very strange!!!

I can't beleive bc would go on Fox without first knowing the questions. And if I stick with that thought ... well ... then his finger pointing and purple face is just a distraction from what he does not want America to start to wonder about.

clinton is supposed to be hot under the collar for the 9/11 mini series - what is he really upset about the series. What distraction is he trying to make.

What caught my attention, was :

1. "Afghan opposition commander Ahmad Shah Masood was wounded Sunday in northern Afghanistan when a bomb concealed in a video camera went off while he was being interviewed by a group of journalists, a source at the Afghan embassy in Dushanbe told AFP". ...... Masood, (also Massood, Masuua, Mahmood) was again brought to the attention of the American people. Masood was actually attacked by terrorist on 9/9/01 and may have died 9/10
just day before World Trade Center 9/11

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/519398/posts

Afghanistan - Opposition's military chief Ahmed Shah Massood injured in bomb explosion
Associated Press | September 9, 2001 | KATHY GANNON

Posted on 09/09/2001 12:34:59 PM PDT by HAL9000

and, a big AND....

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/

the man who knew

This is the ---- John O'Neill Story

#2. John O'Neill ... I had to google O'Neill during the mini - I knew of John O'Neill of Swift Boat, but this John O'Neill was FBI and it turns out VERY vocal and VERY concerned about terrorism around the world -- He made noises!!!!! and rubbed people the wrong way yet a very likable man. And very very intelligent and he could not get the ear of the then President bill clinton. Then there is the July 2000 stolen briefcase (this is still under clinton adm). An intresting story in itself and his
leaving the FBI and going to work at the Trade Center.

John O'Neill was in the second tower and killed when the second plane crashed into the WTC. .

Back to clinton -- why is he really so upset!! he knows the DBM will never report on what he did or did not do, won't touch him with a ten foot pole. Yet the DBM will play and replay the BUSH KNEW!, BUSH DID IT,! BUSH PLANNED THE WTC BOMPINGS!

So why is clinton really so upset ... it has started to make me wonder ....








76 posted on 09/30/2006 2:01:15 PM PDT by malia (President Bush - a man of honor!! clinton as President a man of horror)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: backhoe

ping


77 posted on 09/30/2006 2:40:19 PM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

Well done.


78 posted on 09/30/2006 3:36:02 PM PDT by Beowulf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Giuliani said he believed Clinton, like his successor, did everything he could with the information he was provided.

"Every American president I've known would have given his life to prevent an attack like that. That includes President Clinton, President Bush," the former mayor said outside a firehouse here. "They did the best they could with the information they had at the time." --September 27, 2006

Giuliani's remarks absolve Clinton from what your posts quite obviously indict him for. Is Giuliani right or is he wrong? And do you still think Giuliani the best candidate for POTUS?

79 posted on 09/30/2006 3:44:05 PM PDT by jla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

Good work, Mia T- I'll pass it along to the usual suspects in 'netland.


80 posted on 09/30/2006 4:39:02 PM PDT by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
What can one expect from a man that cheats at golf, has lied on so many occasions on so many subjects, and is known to have sexual relations with a young women while on supposed duty as POTUS.
Rush had him pegged many years back. He is nothing more then a self seeking pathological lier.
Hopefully all the wrong he has done thus far shall now start to bite at his pants. He served with such dishonor.
81 posted on 09/30/2006 7:13:39 PM PDT by Marine_Uncle (Honor must be earned)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Marine_Uncle
What can one expect from a man that cheats at golf

Indeed. And now he and the wife are scheming for yet another mulligan.

82 posted on 09/30/2006 8:03:50 PM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Hildabeast is going to have a uphill grade to surmount as the bad news continues to leak out on her cheating mate. Let us hope main stream America realizes any demorat will be a foolish way to go at this juncture in time. Let us hope they realize social issues are always with us, but now we need a strong POTUS to replace this one in the GWOT, continue improving our military for the next ten years plus, and no nonesense legislation on illegal immigration issues.
The poor amoungest us we shall always have. Lets hope our good hearts for the betterment of the downtrodden masses is not so overwhelming as to undo all the required things GWB has had to put in effect with hopes of improvement to keep us from having our cities nuked by mad men.
Time to hit the rack. Ten hours at working with customers ripping out my neck and ankles has me a bit weary. Time to hit the rack. Working at a Home Depot in a rather shabby part of Philly, amoungs the masses of socialist receipients if you get my drift can wear one down. After all. They have their rights. Do have a great upcoming day.
83 posted on 09/30/2006 8:15:38 PM PDT by Marine_Uncle (Honor must be earned)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Gail Wynand

Good post!


84 posted on 09/30/2006 8:31:08 PM PDT by investigateworld (Abortion stops a beating heart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: jla
Giuliani said he believed Clinton, like his successor, did everything he could with the information he was provided.

"Every American president I've known would have given his life to prevent an attack like that. That includes President Clinton, President Bush," the former mayor said outside a firehouse here. "They did the best they could with the information they had at the time." --September 27, 2006

Giuliani's remarks absolve Clinton from what your posts quite obviously indict him for. Is Giuliani right or is he wrong? And do you still think Giuliani the best candidate for POTUS?--jla

Giuliani's comment is, of course, absurd on its face. A man (and I use that term loosely) who wouldn't give up his office for his country certainly wouldn't give up his life for his country.

I was disappointed when I heard Giuliani say that. Politics makes fools of otherwise smart men. (Giuliani was pandering to the Ds, which is almost understandable: He needs D votes to make up for the Rs like you who won't vote for him. ;) )

I suspect you were similarly disappointed in Allen of late (irrespective of whether or not you believe all that stuff about the racial and ethnic slurs).

(ASIDE: It is interesting how racial and ethnic slurs made by the clintons never seem to hurt them. To the contrary, especially with blacks and my brethern, the Jews, where the clinton vote count often varies directly with the quantity, intensity and/or frequency of the clinton slurs.)

As for the best candidate, if I could have my way I would purge DC of all professional pols and replace them with superb citizen-politicians.

But right now we have to work with what we have. I still think Giuliani is the one who can best prosecute the WOT and the one who can win a national election, (Obviously, neither of these two criteria alone is sufficient. The GOP candidate must be able to do both.)

85 posted on 09/30/2006 9:17:54 PM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

Thanks for the ping.


86 posted on 09/30/2006 9:20:14 PM PDT by GOPJ (Women who vote for democrats should be fitted for a burqa - freeper OrioleFan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOPJ

thanx :)


87 posted on 09/30/2006 9:21:22 PM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: backhoe

thx backhoe :)


88 posted on 09/30/2006 9:21:50 PM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

Giulliani's exoneration of Clinton is another example of the delusions of elitism. Is is so transparently of the same ilk as the no Iraq - Terrorism link, including that Atta could not have met with Iraq intellegence in Prague, although multiple points of evidence show he did, and Saddam wasnt seeking yellow cake in Niger, although multiple evidence points show he did. The pompous 9/11 commission and their distorted, superficial whitewash report are a further example.

Average Americans can sense the truth. Iraq in their minds is obviously tied to terrorism. They were directly tied to the 1993 WTC attack and that attack and the 9/11 attack are not unrelated.

Our "leaders" of the American right need to wake up and begin dealing with the fact that in America today, sedition is running amok. The Democrats, the media, and the pointed headed intellectuals, would rather see us attacked again by terrorists than see George Bush or the Republican party hold political power for another two years.

The seditionists should not be coddled any longer. Its not a matter of free speech when you advocate political change that encourages further kamakazi style tactics against American forces or against Iraqi civilians. The old adage used to silence Republicans when they were in the minority for years, that politics is supposed to stop at the waters edge, needs to be shoved down the throats of some democrat critics of US war policy.

George Tenent should not have been given praise when he was finally fired. He should have been told, second only to Al Queda he was personally responsible for 9/11. A competent Director would have fought the Gorelick wall and confronted Clinton for his avoidance of terror issues.

Its clear that the minute any republican takes a tough line against the democrats, the media will apply their double standard and attack republican "devisiveness". Nonetheless, someone needs to start calling them traitors and backstabbers and blaiming them for US war dead, as they are indeed responsible for encouraging our enemies to think if they kill enough Americans our will might be broken, and Howard Dean will deliver them to Victory.

Churchill knew, even at the most hopeless, desperate and most gloomy moments, what a nation needs is not equivocation, but conviction that Victory is certain, and that there is no room for doubters, second guessers or fellow travelers.

I can appreciate that a President needs to be judicious in the fights that he picks and the timing that he choses to pick them. Mr. Giulliani's unfortunate remarks, show something less than the resolve necessary to bring about the kind of renewal of focus that America needs at all levels to obtain the Victory, which Kissinger purportedly has correctly explained, is the ONLY exit strategy worth pursuing.


89 posted on 10/01/2006 1:47:20 AM PDT by Gail Wynand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Gail Wynand
Giulliani's exoneration of Clinton is another example of the delusions of elitism. Is is so transparently of the same ilk as the no Iraq - Terrorism link, including that Atta could not have met with Iraq intellegence in Prague, although multiple points of evidence show he did, and Saddam wasnt seeking yellow cake in Niger, although multiple evidence points show he did. The pompous 9/11 commission and their distorted, superficial whitewash report are a further example.

Average Americans can sense the truth. Iraq in their minds is obviously tied to terrorism. They were directly tied to the 1993 WTC attack and that attack and the 9/11 attack are not unrelated.

Our "leaders" of the American right need to wake up and begin dealing with the fact that in America today, sedition is running amok. The Democrats, the media, and the pointed headed intellectuals, would rather see us attacked again by terrorists than see George Bush or the Republican party hold political power for another two years.

The seditionists should not be coddled any longer. Its not a matter of free speech when you advocate political change that encourages further kamakazi style tactics against American forces or against Iraqi civilians. The old adage used to silence Republicans when they were in the minority for years, that politics is supposed to stop at the waters edge, needs to be shoved down the throats of some democrat critics of US war policy.

George Tenent should not have been given praise when he was finally fired. He should have been told, second only to Al Queda he was personally responsible for 9/11. A competent Director would have fought the Gorelick wall and confronted Clinton for his avoidance of terror issues.

Its clear that the minute any republican takes a tough line against the democrats, the media will apply their double standard and attack republican "devisiveness". Nonetheless, someone needs to start calling them traitors and backstabbers and blaiming them for US war dead, as they are indeed responsible for encouraging our enemies to think if they kill enough Americans our will might be broken, and Howard Dean will deliver them to Victory.

Churchill knew, even at the most hopeless, desperate and most gloomy moments, what a nation needs is not equivocation, but conviction that Victory is certain, and that there is no room for doubters, second guessers or fellow travelers.

I can appreciate that a President needs to be judicious in the fights that he picks and the timing that he choses to pick them. Mr. Giulliani's unfortunate remarks, show something less than the resolve necessary to bring about the kind of renewal of focus that America needs at all levels to obtain the Victory, which Kissinger purportedly has correctly explained, is the ONLY exit strategy worth pursuing.

--Gail Wynand



And a presidential candidate--especially one who needs votes from the opposition in order to win-- needs to be calculating as well as judicious in the fights that he picks and the timing that he chooses to pick them.

While I was disappointed in Giuliani's remark, as I recall it wasn't entirely gratuitous. I suspect he figured that alienating half the voters... not to mention 89% of the press corps... on the eve of a presidential run... isn't the best way to go.

(I hasten to add--not as a hedge but as a point of fact--that were I a presidential candidate... even one in Giuliani's position... I would nail the left... and I would begin with the clintons.)


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

by Mia T, 4.6.03

 

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

Mia T, THE ALIENS, June 9, 1999
Alien Abductions, Flying Saucers + Other Weird Phenomena, c.1992-2000

 



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.

ASIDE: Wartime Bush-bashing sedition of the pre-Howard Dean, pre-Cindy Sheehan variety, with its sotto-voce old-school indirection, refinement and politesse, sounds almost quaint these days.

The Democrats used to be able to wallpaper their national insecurity with dollars and demogoguery. But that was before 9/11.

 

America's Real Two-Front War

 

by Mia T, 4.17.04





merica's
real two-front war: fundamentalist Islam on the right and a fundamentally seditious clintonoid neo-neoliberalism on the left, both anarchic, both messianically, lethally intolerant, both amorally perverse, both killing Americans, both placing America at grave risk, both undeterred by MAD, both quite insane.

If we are to prevail, the rules of engagement--on both fronts--must change.

Marquis of Queensberry niceties, multicultural hypersensitivity, unipolar-power guilt, hegemony aversion (which is self-sabotage in the extreme--we must capture what we conquer--oil is the terrorist's lifeblood)... and, most important, the mutual-protection racket in Washington--pre-9/11 anachronisms all--are luxuries we can no longer afford.

Notwithstanding, the underlying premise of our hyperfastidious polity, (that we must remain in the system to save the system) is fallacious at best and tantamount to Lady Liberty lifting herself up by her own bootstraps.

To borrow from the Bard (or whomever), let's start metaphorically, or better yet, economically and politically, by killing all the seditious solicitors, which include the clintons and their left-wing agitprop-and-money-laundering machine: the Viacom-Simon & Schuster-60-Minutes vertical operation, the horizontal (as in "soporific") Cronkite-ite news readers, the (hardly upright) Ben-Veniste goons and Gorelick sleepers, and, of course, the clueless, cacophonic, disproportionately loud, left-coast Barbra-Streisand contingent.

America must not pull her punches. (Or Pinches!)

To prevail, America must defeat--thoroughly destroy--her enemies. On both fronts.


ne•o-ne•o•lib•er•al•ism n.


neocommunist political movement, a tipsy-topsy, infantile perversion of the Marxist-Leninist model, global in scope, beginning in the post-cold-war, unipolar 1990s, led by the '60s neoliberal baby-boomer "intelligentsia," that seeks power without responsibility, i.e., that seeks to dilute American power by concentrating power in said '60s neoliberals while yielding America's sovereignty to the United Nations, i.e., while surrendering to the terrorists, as it continues the traditional '60s neoliberal feint, namely: (1) concern for social justice, (2) disdain for bureaucracy, and (3) the championing of entrepreneurship for the great unwashed.

Mia T, 2.24.04


 

 

 

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2006

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

by Mia T, 6.27.06






"What is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."

James Madison




hen the founders granted 'The Press' special dispensation, they never considered the possibility that traitors in our midst would game the system. But that is precisely what is happening today. (Hate America? Support jihad? Become a 'journalist!')

This was bound to happen.

The premise behind the First Amendment as it applies to the press--that a vigilant watchdog is necessary, sufficient--indeed, possible--to protect against man's basest instincts--is tautologically flawed: The fox guarding the White House, if you will.

Walter Lippmann, the 20th-century American columnist, wrote, "A free press is not a privilege, but an organic necessity in a great society." True in theory. True even in Lippmann's quaint mid-20th-century America, perhaps. But patently false in this postmodern era of the bubbas and the Pinches.

When a free and great society is hijacked by a seditious bunch of dysfunctional, power-hungry malcontents and elitists, it will remain neither free nor great for long. When hijacked by them in the midst of asymmetric warfare, it will soon not remain at all.

If President George W. Bush is serious about winning the War on Terror, he will aggressively pursue the enemy in our midst.

Targeting and defeating the enemy in our midst is, by far, the more difficult task and will measure Bush's resolve and courage (and his independence from the MPRDC (mutual protection racket in DC)) more than any pretty speech, more even than 'staying the course.'

No government ought to be without censors; and where the press is free no one ever will.

Thomas Jefferson
Letter, September 9, 1792, to George Washington




It is hard to believe that a man is telling the truth when you know that you would lie if you were in his place.

H. L. Mencken



READ MORE





'MISBEGOTTEN' TIMES
(NARROWNESS, MR. SULZBERGER, NOT WIDTH)
PINCH'S NON-APOLOGY APOLOGY
by Mia T, July 18, 2006

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2006


WHY BIN LADEN WANTS HOME DELIVERY OF THE NEW YORK TIMES
by Mia T, 7.11.06









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


'MISBEGOTTEN' TIMES
(NARROWNESS, MR. SULZBERGER, NOT WIDTH)
PINCH'S NON-APOLOGY APOLOGY


The Devil & the Gray Lady


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


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?



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)


ON THE FICTIONALIZED MEMOIR (HEAR HILLARY IN SF)~PART TWO~
THE
(oops!) INADVERTENT ADMISSIONS OF HILLARY AND JANE IN SAN FRANCISCO



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


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


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)


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


HILLARY GOES NUCLEAR
PROLIFERATION IN THE AGE OF CLINTON



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



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


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


AFTERWORD: ON CLINTON SMALLNESS
(BRINKLEY MISSES THE POINT)

WHY HILLARY IN THE OVAL OFFICE IS A NATIONAL-SECURITY NO-NOPART ONE


VIRTUAL KILL
THE CHRIS WALLACE-BILL CLINTON INTERVIEW DECONSTRUCTED


'BIN LADEN ALIVE TODAY BECAUSE CLINTON, BERGER + CLARKE REFUSED TO KILL HIM'
CLINTON 'MISLED AMERICAN PEOPLE' IN CHRIS WALLACE INTERVIEW
:HEAR Osama-Division CIA Chief


THE DRAMATIC INCREASE IN HILLARY CLINTON'S DISCLOSED ASSETS: An Alternative Theory


WHEN CATTLE FUTURES ARE THE FUTURE:
HILLARY CLINTON'S COW TRADES AS PROGNOSTIC



SOMALIA + RWANDA UNDERSCORE WHY WE MUST DEFEAT THE CLINTONS NOW (ATTENTION NEW YORKERS)


THE DECLINE OF HILLARY CLINTON: THE DYNAMICS
(SHE HAS ONLY ONE WAY TO GO. AND IT ISN'T UP.)


THE POLITICS OF DUMPING HILLARY (see post 53)


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



CARVILLE'S 'Clinton is electable! Clear the way!' BATTLE CRY SPELLS TROUBLE FOR HILLARY


I'LL SEE ANN COULTER'S 'BILL CLINTON RAPE CHARGE' AND RAISE HER 'ONE HILLARY CLINTON'


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)



Nina Burleigh: Do the Right Thing, Hillary



COPYRIGHT MIA T 2006


90 posted on 10/01/2006 6:03:33 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: jla

fyi


91 posted on 10/01/2006 6:06:49 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: UWSrepublican

fyi


92 posted on 10/01/2006 6:27:16 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

"It never hurts in Washington to be fashionably wrong, but what is lethal is to be right ahead of your time."

The 9/11 attacks represent the greatest US intelligence failure since Pearl Harbor. That is not a controversial statement, but the nature of that intelligence failure certainly is, as it involves the question of who bears responsibility.

...

The central aspect of that intelligence failure is easily explained. Before the February 26, 1993, bombing of the World Trade Center--one month into Clinton's first term in office--the prevailing assumption was that major terrorist attacks against the US were state-sponsored. Thus, terrorism was considered a national security issue and the key question after any attack was which terrorist state was responsible.

But starting with the attack on the World Trade Center, the Clinton administration claimed that a new kind of terrorism had come into being that did not involve states. It turned terrorism into a law enforcement issue, with the focus on arresting and convicting individual perpetrators. For Clinton, who, particularly in his first years in office, did not want to deal with any serious national security problem except by way of a "peace process," this was very convenient.

...

Incredibly, the terrorist defendants had the results of the FBI investigation into their case, but the U.S. government agencies responsible for defending the country against terrorism did not. This was corrected to some extent, although not entirely, by the post 9/11 counter-terrorism legislation.

...

I briefed Clinton personally on Iraq. It was July 1992. Tony Lake and Sandy Berger were there. They advised me that they wanted only "a little daylight" between them and Bush, because this was the campaign, and the campaign was not about foreign policy. So, I briefed accordingly. Clinton saw through the artifice. He asked, "If the problem is that bad, why are your policy recommendations so limited?" Lake and Berger replied, almost in unison, "Mr. President" (even then that is how they addressed him), explaining this was just the campaign and once he became president, he could take care of the problem.

So I was shocked, when Indyk, still formally my boss, called me one evening shortly before the inauguration. Clinton had just given an interview to Thomas Friedman in which he essentially said that he was prepared to reconcile with Saddam. Indyk wanted me to be prepared for reporters' questions the next day.In fact, Indyk sounded as stunned as I was. I thanked him for letting me know, but I also told him that Clinton had to take that back. He had to deny he had said it, otherwise he would set off shock waves throughout the region that would take a long time to repair, if they could ever be repaired at all.And the next day, Clinton denied what he had told Friedman. That was the interview in which Clinton said he believed in death-bed conversions, and if Saddam were sitting on the couch next to him, he'd tell him to pay more attention to the welfare of his own people than to his weapons. Of course, Clinton had said it, as Friedman then claimed, but it was better to do what could be done to disavow the statement, rather than let it stand.When I look back, that illustrates a significant part of a much bigger problem that developed. Clinton made decisions about the Middle East on who knows what grounds, but above the head of his Middle East advisor. And when that advisor, Indyk, learned about them, he lacked what it took to say that the decision was wrong and dangerous. In fact, I got so furious at Indyk during that time, I warned him about the consequences for his career, if more Americans died, because of the way they had handled the Trade Center bombing. But I was completely wrong. Three thousand Americans can die in the most lethal foreign assault in this country's history, because of mistakes that you were party to, and it won't harm your career one bit.

....

The role of ego in human affairs and the self-serving nature of human beings is not to be underestimated, particularly as they climb the greasy pole of ambition. It doesn't matter whether the issue at hand is fairly trivial--a football game, for example--or deadly serious, involving the national security interests of this country and the lives of large numbers of its citizens.And I'll give you an example: in the 1990s, the overwhelming majority of Iraq experts accommodated Clinton's desire not to hear that he had a very serious problem with Saddam, and that, basically, Saddam had to go. In late 1998, I pushed a colleague on the question of where responsibility would lie, if Saddam succeeded in doing something absolutely terrible because he had been left in power. What if he carried out a biological attack? What if he developed a nuclear bomb and used it?This quite well-respected fellow didn't dispute the danger, but replied, "The times are very cynical and everyone must do what he must do for his career."

- Dr. Laurie Mylroie (excerpts)

http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/1058

Dr. Mylroie received her Ph.D. in Political Science from Harvard University and her B.A. from Cornell. She was an Assistant Professor in Harvard's Political Science Department, before becoming an Associate Professor in the Strategy Department at the U.S. Naval War College. Subsequently, she was a member of the staff of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. She also served as advisor on Iraq to the 1992 Clinton presidential campaign and has worked as a consultant on terrorism to the Departments of Defense and Energy; ABC News, the BBC, and Newsweek; as well as several law offices. She is presently an adjunct fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and publisher of Iraq News.



Comment: Mylroie confirms through personal direct knowledge a) Berger was a political stooge; b) the Clinton administration as a matter of policy devalued the terrorism issue, and isolated and disarmed those charge with monitoring and investigating terror threats; c) bureacratic interia (incompetence) was/is a major factor in sabotaging America's response to terror; and d) Clinton and Rabin and their top advisors were pre-occupied with their delusional quest for negotiated mid east peace and rejected any inconvenient truths that conflicted with their fantasies. Also, the Left, the Media and the Bureacracy continue to refuse to take this monumental failure of intelligence and state sponsored terrorism seriously. For them to do so they would have to confront their own guilt and admit that Bush had a more realistic view than they of the world situation.







93 posted on 10/01/2006 9:13:16 AM PDT by Gail Wynand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Gail Wynand

"It never hurts in Washington to be fashionably wrong, but what is lethal is to be right ahead of your time."

Great statement, the truth of which depends on the reflexivity of the verb.

Important stuff here from Mylroie. Will comment later.


94 posted on 10/01/2006 1:58:44 PM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

Indidently, the quite is properly sourced to Herb Meyer, Bill Casey's (initial CIA Director, Reagan Administration)Executive Assistant.


95 posted on 10/01/2006 4:03:17 PM PDT by Gail Wynand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
...if I could have my way I would purge DC of all professional pols and replace them with superb citizen-politicians.

Anyone in your lifetime, or not in your lifetime, who meets this criterion?

96 posted on 10/01/2006 5:45:50 PM PDT by jla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: jla

There are quite a number of people I know personally who do. None of them are well-known, but I think that's the idea: Get successful people of character, intellect and wisdom from the real world to lend their talents to the country for a term or two.

Our current system appears to attract the most corrupt, mediocre, self-serving and psychopathic among us. We wouldn't have done any better populating govt with these losers had we tried.


97 posted on 10/01/2006 6:57:59 PM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Thanx. :) Oddly, I've never thought of myself as an archivist, but I suppose, on some level, I am.

You are exploring uncharted territory in a New Media. You are taking it to the next level. You are a pioneer. There is nobody doing what you are doing. You focus on two people. You chronicle and analyze their words. Your microscope allows us to examine the workings of the criminal mind. The anti-truth, anti-freedom, anti-life criminal mind devalues all of our lives.

Thank you Mia T.

98 posted on 10/01/2006 8:34:56 PM PDT by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Sorry, I didn't do a very good job at phrasing that question.

Has there been a person(s) in a nationally elected office, in your lifetime or not, who has met that criterion?

99 posted on 10/02/2006 7:45:21 AM PDT by jla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Mia T; SJackson; Sabramerican
From post #85 -

(ASIDE: It is interesting how racial and ethnic slurs made by the clintons never seem to hurt them. To the contrary, especially with blacks and my brethern, the Jews, where the clinton vote count often varies directly with the quantity, intensity and/or frequency of the clinton slurs.)

Be careful with that "brethern" talk, Mia T. You'll be accused of being an anti-Semite.

100 posted on 10/02/2006 7:49:09 AM PDT by jla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-128 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson