The Times Reaps What It Sowed 2

The New York Times ^ | 5.11.03 | Mia T

[Mia T]

The Times Reaps What It Sowed 2

by Mia T, May 11, 2003

 

"It's a huge black eye," said Arthur Sulzberger Jr., chairman of The New York Times Company and publisher of the newspaper, whose family has owned a controlling interest in The Times for 107 years. "It's an abrogation of the trust between the newspaper and its readers."

…

The Deception
Reporting Process Riddled With Lies…

There was no inkling, Mr. Raines said, that the newspaper was dealing with "a pathological pattern of misrepresentation, fabricating and deceiving."

…

But Mr. Sulzberger emphasized that as The New York Times continues to examine how its employees and readers were betrayed, there will be no newsroom search for scapegoats. "The person who did this is Jayson Blair," he said. "Let's not begin to demonize our executives -- either the desk editors or the executive editor or, dare I say, the publisher."

Times Reporter Who Resigned Leaves Long Trail of Deception

CNNs of Commission, Rapist Demagogues and 9/11

the movie

11-30-01

New York Times Chairman/Publisher Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. admits to Brian Lamb:

• "Times dropped ball during Holocaust by failing to connect the dots"

• Times was able to endorse clinton by separating clinton's "policies" from "the man" [i.e., by failing to connect the dots!]

 

 

 

by Mia T, November 30, 2001

alpractice and/or malfeasance by "compartmentalization" redux...

It appears that The New York Times doesn't learn from its mistakes. Will it take The Times another 50 years to understand/admit that by having endorsed for reelection a "documentably dysfunctional" president with "delusions" -- its own words -- it must bear sizeable blame for the 9-11 horror and its aftermath ?

(Note, by the way, the irony of Sulzberger's carefully worded rationalization of the clinton endorsements, pointing to clinton "policies," not achievements, (perhaps understanding, at last, that clinton "achievements" -- when legal -- were more illusory than real--perhaps understanding, at last, that The Times' Faustian bargain was not such a good deal after all).).

If we assume that the clintons were the proximate cause of 9-11 --- a proposition not difficult to demonstrate --- it then follows that The New York Times must indeed bear sizeable blame for the 9-11 horror and its aftermath.

The New York Times clinton Endorsements: Then and Now

by Mia T, October 22, 2000

The New York Times' endorsement today of hillary rodham clinton is nothing more or less than a reprise of its shameless endorsement of her husband four years ago. Like the 4-year-old disgrace, this endorsement reveals more about The Times than it does about the candidate.

The Times' endorsements of the clintons are not merely intellectually dishonest--they are laughably, shamelessly so. An obscene disregard for the truth, a blithe jettisoning of logic, a haughty contempt for the electorate, a reckless neglect of Constitution and country, they are willful fourth-estate malfeasance.

Inadvertently, ineptly, ironically, these endorsements become the metaphor for the corrupt, duplicitious, dangerous subjects they attempt to ennoble. The New York Times must bear sizeable blame for the national aberration that is clintonism and for all the devastation that has flowed and will continue to flow therefrom. (NB: This was written more than two years before 9/11.)

I have included both endorsements below. One has only to re-read the 1996 apologia today, in 2000, after eight long years of clinton depravity and destruction, to confirm how spurious its arguments were, how ludicrously revisionist its premises were, how wrong its conclusions were, how damaging its deceits were.

The Lieberman Paradigm

I have dubbed the Times' convoluted, corrupt, pernicious reasoning, (unfortunately now an all-too-familiar Democratic scheme), "The Lieberman Paradigm," in honor of the Connecticut senator and his sharply bifurcated, logically absurd, unrepentantly Faustian, post-Monica ménage-à-troika transaction shamelessly consummated on the floor of the Senate that swapped his soul for clinton's a$$.

Reduced to its essence, the argument is this:

clinton is an unfit president;
therefore, clinton must remain president.

(You will recall that Lieberman's argument that sorry day was rightly headed toward clinton's certain ouster when it suddenly made a swift, hairpin 180, as if clinton hacks took over the wheel. . .)

Nomenclature notwithstanding, (nomenklatura, too), it was not the Lieberman speech but rather the 1996 Times endorsement that institutionalized this Orwellian, left-wing ploy to protect and extend a thoroughly corrupt and repugnant--and as is increasingly obvious-- dangerous -- Democratic regime.

"A Tiger Doesn't Change its Spots"

Reprising its 1996 model, The Times cures this clinton's ineptitude and failure with a delusional revisionism and cures her corruption and dysfunction with a character lobe brain transplant.

But revisionism and brain surgery didn't work in 1996, and revisionism and brain surgery won't work today.

 

 

 

...prior attempts at presidential brain surgery

have proven less than brilliant.

You will recall that, as recently as 1996,

The New York Times insisted that

Bill Clinton undergo the surgical procedure;

its endorsement of Clinton was predicated

on Clinton undergoing a partial brain transplant:

specifically of the Character Lobe.

 

Clinton assured us immediately (if tacitly)

that this would be done post haste (or was it post chaste?),

that whatever crimes he never did, he would never do again.

 

If brain surgery was ever performed on Clinton,

it has produced no discernible improvement.

 

 

Perhaps our approach to the problem

of deficient presidential brains

is itself wrong-headed;

that the problem is really

a problem of deficient electorate brains.

 

Voters would be wise to heed

the old roadside ad:

 

Don't lose Your head

To gain a minute

You need your head

Your brains are in it.

--Mia T, Pushme-Pullyou

 

October 22, 2000

The New York Times

 

 

Hillary Clinton for the Senate

 

When Hillary Rodham Clinton arrived in their state 16 months ago, New Yorkers deserved to be deeply skeptical. She had not lived, worked or voted in New York State. She had never been elected to any public office, yet she radiated an aura of ambition and entitlement that suggested she viewed a run for the United States Senate as a kind of celebrity stroll. She seemed more at home at East Side soirÈes and within the first lady's question-free cocoon than in unscripted conversations with voters or the political press. She encountered civic doubt and open hostility from predictable sources, as well as a surprising resistance from feminists offended by her passive response to the marital humiliations inflicted by her husband.

But in the intervening months, Mrs. Clinton has shown herself to be an intelligent and dignified candidate who has acquired a surprising depth of knowledge about the social-services needs of New York City and the economic pain of the upstate region. Her political growth has been aided by her combat with two worthy Republican opponents, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and his successor as the G.O.P. candidate, Representative Rick Lazio. With full respect for their abilities, we endorse Mrs. Clinton as the one candidate who will best fill the vast gap that will be left in the Senate and within the Democratic Party by the retirement of Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

As a neophyte, Mrs. Clinton began her campaign with a number of clumsy statements about sports teams and girlhood vacation visits to the state and with a much-ridiculed listening tour among handpicked audiences. But as her confidence mounted, she outdid her opponents in visiting the state's 62 counties. Through the collection of firsthand stories, she learned about economic deprivation, energy costs, taxes, health crises and troubled schools. She came out of those grueling months knowing more about the state than most candidates who qualify by birth as what Mr. Lazio calls "real New Yorkers."

Handshaking her way through town squares and state fairs, she also shed her earlier political shell as a cosseted, sloganeering ideologue. The first lady from Arkansas evolved into an Empire State candidate whose grasp of local issues complements a deep, if untested, understanding of national and international matters from her days in the White House. She also communicates an unfeigned empathy for the struggles of poor families, schoolchildren and professionals in the health care, education and social-service fields.

The hesitancy among some voters, however, has been understandable, and we share some of those concerns. Her health care task force failed to deliver the promised reform. The investigative literature of Whitewater and related scandals is replete with evidence that Mrs. Clinton has a lamentable tendency to treat political opponents as enemies. She has clearly been less than truthful in her comments to investigators and too eager to follow President Clinton's method of peddling access for campaign donations. Her fondness for stonewalling in response to legitimate questions about financial or legislative matters contributed to the bad ethical reputation of the Clinton administration. If she should choose to carry these patterns and tendencies into the Senate, her career there could be as bumpy and frustrating -- and ultimately, as investigated -- as her White House years.

We believe, however, that Mrs. Clinton is capable of growing beyond the ethical legacies of her Arkansas and White House years. She has shown a desire to carve out a political identity and create a legislative legacy separate from her husband's. Certainly, no one can doubt that she combines his policy commitments with a far greater level of self- control and a steadier work ethic.

In a move that should serve as an example to other campaigns around the country, Mrs. Clinton bucked the advice of old-line Democrats and agreed to a ban on soft money for this campaign. It was a bold and important step since the ban hurt her own campaign more than that of Mr. Lazio. Although she has come late to the cause of campaign reform, we believe that she would be a firm vote in support of the McCain-Feingold soft-money ban and that she would work tirelessly toward the long-term goal of full public financing of election campaigns.

Although we are endorsing Mrs. Clinton, we want to commend Mr. Lazio for his effort. He has refused to complain about getting a late start. Despite his moments of macho exuberance and his excessive persistence in trying to exploit the carpetbagger issue, he has so far resisted making this a low-road campaign. He has described himself as a Republican moderate who would fight to increase the power of his party's small, but important, centrist bloc in the Senate. On housing, banking laws and the environment, he has taken positions far friendlier to working people and the Northeastern region than those espoused by his party's Senate majority leader, Trent Lott.

Even so, most Republican members of the Senate will be pulled to the right and pressed to support programs that are generally tailored to the needs of the South and West, rather than to those of Northeastern urban areas. Mr. Lazio argues that if the G.O.P. holds control of the Senate in the Nov. 7 election, it would serve the state to have him in the majority caucus. We understand the logic of that position and might find it persuasive in some races. But we have concluded that Mrs. Clinton is an unusually promising talent and it would be better for New York to fight for its causes with two powerful, progressive voices: hers and that of the state's senior Democrat, Senator Charles Schumer.

On foreign policy, Mr. Lazio and Mrs. Clinton have presented themselves as firm friends of Israel, and in our view, Mr. Lazio has not enhanced his foreign-policy credentials by trying to take advantage of Mrs. Clinton's comments on Palestinian statehood and the awkwardness of her encounter with Suha Arafat. Mrs. Clinton has, in fact, acquired a useful education in international affairs through her travels and activities as first lady. The speech that she made to the Council on Foreign Relations last week set forth a broader, more sophisticated vision of America's place in the world than anything Mr. Lazio has offered so far. He has simply stated misgivings about the Clinton administration's record of foreign engagements, while Mrs. Clinton has sketched a program that looks at environmental, health and human rights issues, as well as security concerns.

Contemplating Mrs. Clinton's campaign convinces us that she fits into two important New York traditions. Like Robert F. Kennedy, she taps into the state's ability to embrace new residents and fresh ideas. She is also capable of following the pattern, established by the likes of Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Moynihan and Jacob Javits, that finds New York senators playing a role on the national and world stages even as they defend local interests.

The building of such potent Senate careers requires a grasp of foreign and domestic policy, coupled with negotiating ability and, usually, a burning commitment to one's home state and to a few key concerns. We think Mrs. Clinton better represents the full package of skills than does Mr. Lazio. Her economic plan for upstate offers hope for an area that has not reaped its share of today's financial harvest. Her understanding of how to balance energy issues with crucial environmental protection seems sharper. Mrs. Clinton can guard against Supreme Court nominees who would compromise the constitutional right to abortion, while Mr. Lazio would be hobbled by party ideology and discipline.

Finally, on the key issues of health care and education, Mrs. Clinton has the knowledge and the instincts to make a lasting impact on the Senate, on national policy and on the everyday lives of New Yorkers. We are placing our bet on her to rise above the mistakes and difficulties of her first eight years in Washington and to establish herself on Capitol Hill as a major voice for enlightened social policy and vibrant internationalism.

 

October 27, 1996, Sunday Editorial Desk

The New York Times

 

Bill Clinton for President

 

Today we endorse the re-election of President Bill Clinton. Readers of this page will know that we share many of the public's concerns about Mr. Clinton's resoluteness and sensitivity to ethical standards in government. But our endorsement is delivered in the unequivocal confidence that he is the best candidate in the field and in the belief that because he has grown in the job he can build on the successes of his first term while correcting its defects. Toward that end, our endorsement comes with a set of recommendations for how Mr. Clinton can, before Election Day, address voters' concerns about his personality and character.

First, however, we want to outline the case for Mr. Clinton's re-election based on policy, performance and growth in office. Our view of Mr. Clinton mirrors that of millions of swing voters who are choosing him over Bob Dole and Ross Perot. He is clearly the candidate of hope and progress in this race. No one can doubt his commitment to using government to spur the economy, protect the environment, defend the cities, promote racial justice and combine compassion with fiscal prudence.

The choice of Mr. Clinton is easier because of Mr. Dole's halting campaign. Neither his 15 percent tax cut nor his wild charge that newspapers have pulled their punches on Whitewater stands the test of logic or represents Mr. Dole at his best. He is a good man whose service on behalf of the nation, in the Army and the Senate, will be well remembered. Indeed, many voters are dismayed that Mr. Dole has strayed from his moderate record and look to Mr. Clinton as a protection from Republican excess.

 

A Revived Party and Presidency

But a vote for Mr. Clinton is more than a defensive measure. He is clearly the most skilled navigator of today's contrary political seas. Even his most notable defeat, on health care, arose from his correct judgment that Americans want universal, affordable coverage. Mr. Clinton understands that the electorate makes contradictory demands. Voters are sullen and suspicious about government, yet anxious that it serve them. Americans have grown conservative, yet they want their interests and values protected. Mr. Clinton's Presidency has tacked this way and that, in part because it had to. He always calculates how far he can go and at what cost. We have disagreed with some of his calculations, but over the past two years he has not only revived his Presidency, he has also refashioned the Democratic Party's approach to government.

 

Some argue wrongly that Mr. Clinton has had no sense of direction. In several areas, though, he has picked his destinations and risked his political interests to get there. The pattern of the last two years provides a template for success in a second term.

 

The Economy

The campaign has produced no more fallacious statement than Mr. Dole's assertion that the nation has the worst economy in 100 years. The real situation is that Mr. Clinton's drive toward a balanced budget has helped keep interest rates low and promote an economic expansion now in its fifth year.

Mr. Clinton stood up to the spendthrifts in his own party at the start of his term. He curbed the Federal deficits that had piled up over years of Republican Presidents proclaiming devotion to fiscal conservatism. Yet he wisely opposed a balanced-budget amendment that would tie a President's hands in a military or fiscal emergency.

Mr. Clinton raised taxes primarily on those most able to pay while pushing through one of the most important initiatives of his Presidency, the earned-income tax credit, which channeled billions of dollars into the poorest segment of the work force and lifted more than three million people out of poverty.

 

International Trade

Today both parties are driven by differences over trade, which accounts for a third of the economy. The temptation to demagogue about job flight is ever present. Yet Mr. Clinton has performed with a tough sense of purpose, helping to educate the public that foreign competition cannot be wished away.

Although accused of unwillingness to take on his own party's interest groups, Mr. Clinton bucked the Democratic leadership to secure the free-trade agreement with Canada and Mexico. He then went on to support the global trade agreement that created the World Trade Organization. At the same time, he has been more aggressive in pressing Japan and China to open their markets.

 

Foreign Policy

In 1993, Mr. Clinton lacked experience in foreign affairs, and he stumbled early by confusing consultation with leadership when it came to Bosnia. Now he is regarded internationally as a leader with a sophisticated grasp of a superpower's obligation to help the world manage its conflicts and economic contests.

The hallmark of this new sophistication is Mr. Clinton's timing of those moments when American prestige and resources can be decisive. His decision to throw political and financial support behind the election of President Boris Yeltsin in Russia, then mired at below 10 percent in the polls, was a successful, high-risk intervention.

In applying American prestige to the Middle East process of reconciliation, Mr. Clinton was building on a bipartisan tradition. But without his intense efforts, the process would have foundered. In Bosnia, Mr. Clinton ignored persistent bad advice about how to use force, invented a peace process from the most unpromising situation and finally stabilized a war that posed a security threat to Europe and endangered NATO.

 

Health Care

In the field of health care, the Clinton Administration failed through a toxic combination of hubris and secrecy. But Mr. Clinton was headed in the right direction. Americans need and want a health care system that covers everyone and keeps costs down through competition. If Mr. Clinton is elected, the journey toward this valuable goal will continue. If Mr. Dole is elected, that journey will end, and the assault on Medicaid and Medicare will continue.

Instead of quality care for all, the country will move toward making Medicare a second-class program for the elderly poor and toward a health-insurance system favoring the affluent and the healthy.

 

Political Values

The last few years have seen an ugliness of tone in American politics toward the poor, minorities and immigrants. Mr. Clinton has been the most important voice for conciliation, but even he has bowed to expediency. We opposed his signing of the welfare bill, but he has promised to ease its unfair attacks on the poor and legal immigrants. His lack of backbone on this issue was at least balanced by a courageous stand in favor of affirmative action.

In sharp contrast to the two previous Administrations, Mr. Clinton has used common sense on guns. By supporting local police, he erased the Republicans' unearned copyright on the crime issue. He has defended choice on abortion, and his re-election will help produce a Supreme Court that protects this and other freedoms.

Another value asserted by Mr. Clinton is reverence for the earth. Electing the Democratic ticket will return to office Vice President Al Gore, the most knowledgeable and consistent defender of the environment in Washington. He converted Mr. Clinton from a relaxed to a muscular guardian of clean air and water. In a second term, they can generate a new wave of sensible environmental laws.

 

Ethics

Obviously, we could not ask our readers to vote for Mr. Clinton without addressing his most significant leadership problem. Many Americans do not trust him or believe him to be a person of character. We do not dodge that issue, nor should Mr. Clinton. Indeed, he must view it as a prime opportunity of his second term. A fraction of the electorate, of course, will never forgive his reputation for philandering. But he can reclaim the trust of the great majority by demonstrating a zeal for financial integrity and for protecting the machinery of justice from politics. Toward that end, we urge Mr. Clinton to close the campaign with a series of dramatic gestures.

First, he should accept the Republican dare and pledge not to pardon anyone convicted in prosecutions arising from Whitewater, the White House travel office firings, the mishandling of F.B.I. files, or the raising of funds for the 1996 campaign. He should promise that he, the First Lady and every member of the executive branch will cooperate with all investigations, whether they are from the Justice Department, special prosecutors or Congressional committees.

Next, Mr. Clinton should deal with his party's Indonesian fund-raising scandal by acknowledging that both parties' financial practices are wrong even if not illegal. He can then credibly pledge to recapture one of the main themes of his 1992 campaign. We saluted then and we still believe in the stirring call in his inaugural address ''to reform our politics so that power and privilege no longer shout down the voice of the people.''

The Democratic Congressional leadership talked him into shelving campaign finance legislation because their members wanted to keep lapping up contributions from political-action committees. Now is the moment for Mr. Clinton to renew his promise by sponsoring campaign laws that end foreign donations and ''soft money'' dodges and that give all credible candidates a level playing field when it comes to mail and advertising.

Such dramatic pledges would do more than defuse the criticisms of Mr. Perot and Mr. Dole in the closing days of this election. They would also enlist public opinion on Mr. Clinton's side as a protection against Republican excesses in the Congressional investigations that are coming whether Mr. Clinton opts for openness or sticks to the hunker-down strategy that has done his Administration such damage.

More important, Mr. Clinton would be demonstrating that he regards winning on Nov. 5 as a necessary prelude to the important work that lies ahead. Mr. Clinton's original vision of a country where no one waits for health care, social justice and economic opportunity to trickle down is still valid. His education in the leadership burden that rests on the world's strongest nation and its President has proceeded more rapidly and successfully than anyone could have dared hope. The Presidency he once dreamed is still within his reach if he brings the requisite integrity to the next four years. By adding self discipline to vision, he can build on the achievements he has already made and make a fair bid to leave Washington in 2001 as one of the notable Presidents of the 20th century.

 

12-22-00

The Times Reaps What It Sowed

 

December 22, 2000

The New York Times

 

 

Mrs. Clinton's Book Deal

 

rs. Clinton's Book Deal

We are sorry to see Hillary Rodham Clinton start her Senate career by selling a memoir of her years as first lady to Simon & Schuster for a near- record advance of about $8 million. The deal may conceivably conform to the lax Senate rules on book sales, though even that is uncertain. But it would unquestionably violate the tougher, and better, House rules, and it is an affront to common sense. No lawmaker should accept a large, unearned sum from a publisher whose parent company, Viacom, is vitally interested in government policy on issues likely to come before Congress ó for example, copyright or broadcasting legislation.

Mrs. Clinton's staggering advance falls just below the $8.5 million received by Pope John Paul II in 1994. We wish as a matter of judgment that she had not sought an advance but had voluntarily limited her payments to royalties on actual book sales, as the House now requires of its members. That way there would be no worry that she had been given special treatment in an effort to curry political favor.

The Senate will judge Mrs. Clinton's deal in the context of outmoded rules that, regrettably, still permit members to accept advance payments for their books provided they fall within "usual and customary" industry patterns. Mrs. Clinton held an open auction for her book, so the $8 million advance emerged from a process that presumably represented the industry's consensus about what the book would be worth. But Mrs. Clinton has a duty to reveal the entire contents of her contract so that the public and members of the Senate Ethics Committee can judge for themselves whether its terms fulfill her pledge to comply with existing Senate rules, inadequate though they are.

As it is, Mrs. Clinton will enter the Senate as a business associate of a major company that has dealings before many regulatory agencies and interests in Congress. It would have been far better if she had avoided this entanglement. As she above all others should know, not every deal that is legally permissible is smart for a politician who wants and needs to inspire public trust.

Only a few years ago Newt Gingrich, at that time the House speaker, accepted an ethically dubious $4.5 million book deal with a publishing house owned by Rupert Murdoch, an aggressively political publisher seeking help with his problems with federal regulators. This was the issue that ultimately forced Mr. Gingrich to abandon his advance, and led the House to ban all advance payments for members' books.

That is the right approach, and it would be nice if Republican critics of Mrs. Clinton's deal now devoted real energy to persuading the Senate to adopt the House rules for the future. Both bodies need maximum protection against entangling alliances between lawmakers and government favor- seekers now that nearly all major publishing houses are owned by large corporations with a lot of business before Congress.

for more info on "book" deal, goto:

HALF A HOUSE, HALF A BRAIN: HALF A HOUSE, HALF A BRAIN:
Why we were compelled to hit on Simon & Schuster,our personal agitprop & money-laundering machine)

The no-show manuscript
hillary clinton Infrastructure Answers Simon & Schuster: A TRANSLATION

02-18-01

bill clinton lies in Times Op-Ed Pardongate apologia
Times allows clinton to replace lies in later edition with deceptive statement

The Late Edition of the Sunday New York Times contains the following text of Clinton's reason number (7) for the Marc Rich pardon:

"(7) the case for the pardons was reviewed and advocated not only by my former White House counsel Jack Quinn but also by three distinguished Republican attorneys: Leonard Garment, a former Nixon White House official; William Bradford Reynolds, a former high-ranking official in the Reagan Justice Department; and Lewis Libby, now Vice President Cheney's chief of staff; ..."

However, the reason (7) contained in the Sunday Times Early Edition, which went on sale Saturday night in New York, said:

"(7) The applications were reviewed and advocated not only by my former White House counsel Jack Quinn, but also by three distinguished Republican attorneys: Leonard Garment, a former Nixon White House official, William Bradford Reynolds, a former high-ranking official in the Reagan Justice Department; and Lewis Libby, now Vice President Cheney's chief of staff; ..."

The op ed Clinton statement in the Early Edition was objected to by among others, the Bush White House. However, instead of withdrawing the false statement, the New York Times clearly allowed Bill Clinton to replace it with a highly deceptive statement that seems to mean the same thing. (Before I noticed the text alteration, I had read only the Late Edition and I thought Clinton was simply saying the three Republicans had supported the pardon. I did not realize that it all depends on what the meaning of "for" is, as in the phrase "the case for the pardons was reviewed and advocated....

Rumors about Bill Clinton's diminished clout may be greatly exaggerated. After all, once Clinton was caught, Clinton was able to force the New York Times, in its later editions, to replace his own lie not with the truth but with a classically balanced Clinton statement: it seems to mean something false, but it can later be spun as having a hidden meaning that falls just short of outright falsehood. IMHO, the Clinton mob remains in perfect health.".....

Alex Mulkern

I think that history will view this much differently. They will say I made a bad personal mistake, I paid a serious price for it, but that I was right to stand and fight for my country and my constitution and its principles...

-----the First Psychopath, himself

 

 

 

 

...[bill clinton], a man who will be regarded in the history books as one of our greatest presidents.

-----Al Gore at clinton's post-impeachment rally

 

 

I suspect that, to spite us all,

Arthur Schlesinger will live to 120

just so he can write

the definitive clinton hagiography.

--------Mia T, Musings: Senatorial Courtesy Perverted

   

History Lesson

by Mia T

 

Someone--was it Maupassant?--

once called history "that excitable and lying old lady."

The same can be said of historians.

 

Surely it can be said of Doris Kearns Goodwin,

the archetypical pharisaical historian,

not-so-latently clintonoid,

Lieberman-Paradigmatic

(i.e., clinton is an unfit president;

therefore clinton must remain president),

intellectually dishonest,

(habitually doing what the Arthur Schlesingers of this world do:

making history into the proof of their theories).

 

The Forbids 400's argument is shamelessly spurious.

They get all unhinged over the impeachment of clinton,

claiming that it will

"leave the presidency permanently disfigured and diminished,

at the mercy as never before of the caprices of any Congress."

 

Yet they dismiss the real and present--and future!!--danger

to the presidency and the country

of not impeaching and removing

this admittedly unfit, (Goodwin)

"documentably dysfunctional," (The New York Times)

presidency-diminishing, (Goodwin)

power-abusing,

psychopathic thug.

 

Doris Kearns Goodwin and those 400 other

hog-and-bow-tied-save-clinton,

retrograde-obsessing historiographers

are a supercilious, power-hungry,

egomaniacal lot in their own right.

 

For them, clinton validates

what Ogden Nash merely hypothesized:

Any buffoon can make history,

but only a great man can write it.

 

 

 

[Mia T]

Q ERTY8 Congressman Billybob Sez: News Unfit to Print ^BUMP

 

CNNs of Commission, Rapist Demagogues and 9/11

the movie

 

The REAL "Living History" -- clintoplasmodial slime

Personal Agitprop-and-Money-Laundering Machine, Cozy-clintonoid-Interviews-of-the-Colmes-Kind-Scheme
Bury REAL "Living History"

[Mia T]

corrected link:
CNNs of Commission, Rapist Demagogues and 9/11

[wizzler]

Good Lord. What is this convoluted crap?

Are we allowed to hit the "Report Abuse" button to report HTML abuse?

This sort of labyrinthine presentation not only makes for an uninviting read, it signals to onlookers that the presenter probably does not have a good grip on logic and reasoning.

Clarity in communication is important.

[Mia T]

Logic and ratiocination--not to mention plain old empirical evidence--inform me that your "utter confidence" is clearly misplaced.

Your charge of HTML abuse is unfounded--precipitated by an swf inadequacy, I suspect. This condition could gravely limit your comprehension. You should check your plug-in status ASAP.

[Mia T]

bump ;)

[Mia T]

 

(After this scandal, does the demand for black heart surgeons go up or down?)

The Old Gray Liar, Ann Coulter
FrontPageMagazine.com | May 15, 2003

I had asked myself this very question when the story broke. My answer was, "Neither. It stays the same."

For those of us whose decisions are already consistent with the understanding that affirmative action, by definition, lowers standards for blacks, there is no change.

For those like Pinch and Co., this scandal demonstrates with both clarity and irony that a liberal's a$$ will trump pc poses, noxious nostrums and Southern/Jewish guilt every Times. (Alternatively, I argue: "What heart?")

[Mia T]

corrections, additions:

 

(After this scandal, does the demand for black heart surgeons go up or down?)

The Old Gray Liar, Ann Coulter
FrontPageMagazine.com | May 15, 2003

I had asked myself this very question when the story broke. My answer was, "Neither. It stays the same."

For those of us who acknowledge that our decisions are already consistent with the understanding that affirmative action, by definition, lowers standards for blacks, there is no change.

For those like Pinch and Co., this scandal demonstrates with both disturbing irony and absolute clarity that a liberal's a$$ will trump pc poses, noxious nostrums and Southern/Jewish guilt every 'Times.' (Alternatively, I argue: "What heart?")

Mia T, The Times Reaps What It Sowed 2

[firewalk]

Good morning Mia
bttt

[wizzler]

Sorry, it's not a lack of plug-ins that's causing the problem. It's the lack of design skill on your part. You clearly have no eye for logic and efficiency in presentation.

This is the way kids design their personal home pages when they first get their hands on some HTML coding. It's not the way it should be done by anybody who actually cares about communicating.

But perhaps you don't care about communicating -- after all, you actually type words like "ratiocination." If that's the case, then sure... Continue amusing yourself with these convoluted posts.

[Mia T]

You really must try to think out of the box.

As to "plug-in deficiency," think figuratively. I was referring to more than your apparent lack of the Flash player 6.

Design is a more subjective matter... aesthetically, each to his own taste, of course...

But as for the design-communication synergy of my posts... many in this venue and beyond do not have your comprehension problem.

As for efficiency in communicating, you really miss the point here. The web redefines communication. The bottom line isn't efficiency per se but effectiveness, i.e., the number of pairs of eyeballs that actually see and read and linger and ponder....

That is not to say my work isn't efficient. For sheer efficiency, it's hard to beat

Q ERTY4

or

or

or

or

or

American Gothics Hyperlinked

or

A '68 Mustang is not exculpatory

 

I can tell you that the traffic generated by some of my Flash movies on the clintons, e.g., COMING APART, have consistently maxed out the AOL server on which they reside. That's communication effectiveness, in my view.

Finally, as to your estimate of my "eye for logic," I can only point out that math degrees/advanced math studies and illogic are generally considered to be mutually exclusive constructs.

[Mia T]

I cancelled my subscription when The Times endorsed the rapist for re-election.

[Mia T]

Mr. Raines, who referred to the Blair episode as a "terrible mistake," said that in addition to correcting the record so badly corrupted by Mr. Blair, he planned to assign a task force of newsroom employees to identify lessons for the newspaper. He repeatedly quoted a lesson he said he learned long ago from A. M. Rosenthal, a former executive editor.

"When you're wrong in this profession, there is only one thing to do," he said. "And that is get right as fast as you can."

Times Reporter Who Resigned Leaves Long Trail of Deception

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX TUE MAY 13, 2003 19:48:58 ET XXXXX

EMERGENCY MEETING CALLED AT OLD GRAY LADY; NY TIMES NEWSROOM IN CRISIS

[DRUDGE OBTAINED THIS INTERNAL E-MAIL TO NY TIMES STAFF]

Howell, Gerald and Arthur request that you join your newsroom colleagues at an open forum at 2:30 p.m. Wednesday, May 14, to discuss the Jayson Blair matter and anything else you might have on your mind. The meeting will be held at the Loew's Astor Theater, the moviehouse just behind The Times on 44th Street at Broadway, across from Carmine's. Doors open at 2:15 p.m.

Please be sure to bring your Times i.d. card. No one will be admitted to the theater without their Times i.d.

You will be able to ask questions from the floor, or write them on cards that will be distributed at the door. In addition, we have set up an email address -- forum@nytimes.com -- where you can send questions, either in advance of the session or afterward.

On Wednesday morning, we will send out a separate email advising correspondents and bureaus outside New York how they may dial into the forum and listen to the session. Unfortunately, because of the short time available to set up the forum, people listening from a remote location will not be able to ask live questions. You may, however, avail yourself of the email address above. If you get questions to us before 2 p.m. EDT tomorrow [May 14], we will put them into the hopper. Otherwise, they will be answered later.

Send your questions to the New York Times staff
Drudge | May 14, 2003 | Drudge

My question for Pinch (him, he's dreaming) Sulzberger:

Mr. Sulzberger... Shortly after 9/11, you admitted to Brian Lamb (C-SPAN, Washington Journal, 11.30.01) that The Times' endorsement of clinton was based on clinton "policies, not achievements."

When you made that admission, were you following Abe Rosenthal's sage advice, ("When you're wrong in this profession, there is only one thing to do. And that is get right as fast as you can."), mindful of both the clintons' utter failure to protect us from terrorism, and The Times' prior "failure to connect the dots during the Holocaust,"... or were you merely covering your own corrupt, nepotistically-enabled, feckless rear?

[Mia T]

We all know about the Times' agenda-driven reportage, the most notorious of which its shameful failure re the Holocaust. A lot of good the Times' ex post facto admission did for the six million dead.

Shortly after 9/11, Times publisher, 'Pinch' Sulzberger similarly offered another ex post facto admission of another shameful Times failure.

He sheepishly ( ;)) told Brian Lamb (C-SPAN, Washington Journal, 11.30.01) that the Times' endorsement of clinton was based on clinton "policies, not achievements."

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?

There's not a dime's worth of difference between the New York Times, with its sins of omission and sins of commission, and the evil that it routinely, reflexively covers up or coddles.

CINDY SHEEHAN: ECHO OF THE LEFT
the democrats are gonna get us killed (kerry, clinton + sandy berger's pants) series₅
(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)
by Mia T, 8.28.05
 

COMPLETE ARTICLE:
CINDY SHEEHAN: ECHO OF THE LEFT
the democrats are gonna get us killed (kerry, clinton + sandy berger's pants) series₅

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 Americans₂

WHY THE LEFT IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA

 

by Mia T, 8.24.05, 6.01.04
 

 

 

Four-star General Vo Nguyen Giap led Vietnam's armies from their inception, in the 1940s, up to the moment of their triumphant entrance into Saigon in 1975.

Possessing one of the finest military minds of this century, his strategy for vanquishing superior opponents was not to simply outmaneuver them in the field but to undermine their resolve by inflicting demoralizing political defeats with his bold tactics.

This was evidenced as early as 1944, when Giap sent his minuscule force against French outpost in Indochina. The moment he chose to attack was Christmas Eve. More devastatingly, in 1944 at a place called Dien Bien Phu, Giap lured the overconfident French into a turning point battle and won a stunning victory with brilliant deployments. Always he showed a great talent for approaching his enemy's strengths as if they were exploitable weaknesses.

Nearly a quarter of a century later, in 1968 the General launched a major surprize offensive against American and South Vietnamese forces on the eve of the lunar New Year celebrations. Province capitals throughout the country were seized, garrisons simultaneously attacked and, perhaps most shockingly, in Saigon the U.S. Embassy was invaded. The cost in North Vietnamese casualties was tremendous but the gambit produced a pivotal media disaster for the White House and the presidency of Lyndon Johnson. Giap's strategy toppled the American commander in chief. It turned the tide of the war and sealed the General's fame as the dominant military genius of the 20th Century's second half.

John Colvin, Giap Volcano Under Snow

Our boys... went to Somalia and prepared themselves carefully for a long war.... [O]ur 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....

I was in Sudan when this happened. I was very happy to learn of that great defeat that America suffered, so was every Muslim....

I say to [the American people] that they have put themselves at the mercy of a disloyal government, and this is most evident in Clinton's administration....

We believe that the worst thieves in the world today and the worst terrorists are the Americans. Nothing could stop you except perhaps retaliation in kind. We do not have to differentiate between military or civilian. As far as we are concerned, they are all targets, and this is what the fatwah says....

Osama bin Laden, May 1998

"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."

bill clinton

"The Bush Administration is so entralled by the idea of preemption and American military might. This is the consequence of the policy that regards legitimacy as largely a product of force and victory as primarily a triump of arms...

We truly should go to war as the last resort."

John Kerry

I think [the Bush] administration has the right strategic vision and has taken many of the steps needed to get that long-term strategy rolling. Where I give them the failing grade is in explaining that vision to the American public and the world. Key example: this White House enshrines preemptive war in the latest National Security Strategy and that scares the hell out of a lot of Americans, not to mention our allies. Why? This administration fails to distinguish sufficiently under what conditions that strategy makes reasonable sense. My point is this: when you are explicit about the world being divided into globalization's Core and Gap, you can distinguish between the different security rule sets at work in each. Nothing has changed about strategic deterrence or the concept of mutual-assured destruction (or MAD) within the Core, so fears about preemptive wars triggering World War III are misplaced. When this administration talks about preemption, they're talking strictly about the Gap - not the Core. The strategic stability that defines the Core is not altered one whit by this new strategy, because preemption is all about striking first against actors or states you believe - quite reasonably - are undeterrable in the normal sense.

Thomas P.M. Barnett
The Pentagon's New Map
NB: Dr. Barnett is a lifelong DEMOCRAT

 

eneral Vo Nguyen Giap's Tet-Offensive gambit is the terrorist's favorite how-to. It is the definitive primer on asymmetric warfare, the use of unconventional tactics to counter the overwhelming conventional military superiority of an adversary.

Not surprisingly, the terrorist's favorite how-to is also the American Left's.

As is the terrorist's favorite target....

The Left's Tet-Offensive gambit today is nothing more than a reprise of its cheap Vietnam parlor trick of decades past: demoralize, undermine, ultimately turn public support against the war, systematically and seditiously seize America's defeat from the jaws of victory.

The Tet-Offensive gambit is the Left's last hope of overcoming both a president who has the courage to confront terrorism and their own lethally dangerous record of unwavering deficiency and failure to do so.

A CONSPIRACY OF USEFUL IDIOTS

The Left's Tet-Offensive gambit is a conspiracy of what Lenin called "useful idiots." It is today a Leftist band of blind apologists for the islamofascist-terrorist enemies of America. But I suspect even Lenin would be surprised by the pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic-ness of it all.

These useful idiots, a self-anointed "intelligentsia"--now there's an oxymoron for you-- are the familiar motley collection of constituencies from the media, academe, Hollywood and, of course, the trusty left wing of our own federal government.

As you must have noticed by now, "incompetent" is their buzzword; it is uttered with dripping contempt and is separated by no more than one word from "George Bush," which is spit, not spoken.

The Kennedy-Pelosi-Gore-clinton (either--"one for the price of two," I say)-Sulzberger-Soros-Moore construct is its grotesque manifestation. Some would call it a clever contrivance, engineered to render, by contrast, its virtually mute member, hillary clinton, marginally sane, and if not attractive, certainly acceptably plain.

Missus clinton--both clintons, actually--are virtually mute for reasons that extend beyond her (presumptive) candidacy. Abusers of power in their own right, they lack the moral authority to demagogue Iraqi-prisoner "abuse" or the Nick Berg decapitation by al Qaeda.

Regarding the latter, because "liberal " is itself sufficient cause to produce this muting effect, we have the bizarre result of the Left oozing, as Zell MIller put it, "more indignation over a photo of a prisoner with underwear on his head than over the video of a young American with no head at all."

ASIDE: A SANDY-BERGER silly-gism:

Saddam shredded people to torture and terrorize.
Therefore, if we torture and terrorize Berger, we will find out what he shredded.

Would this fly with the Gitmo-obsessed crowd, I wonder....

But with all the posturing and pointing and against-isms, the Left eventually has to say something, so after intermittent periods of virtual muteness, it resorts to the old standby, some nonsense or other about process, always making certain to stay clear of substance, faux or real.

The grotesque Kennedy-Pelosi-Gore-clinton (either--"one for the price of two," I say)-Sulzberger-Soros-Moore construct, having successfully transmogrified nominal "George Bush" into vile invective, is now busy pumping out anti-Bush venom via its Viacom/Simon & Schuster/60-minutes vertical operation, a coordinated if overblown Hollywood script hatched solely for the purpose of undermining and defeating America so that the Left can finally win... or so it thinks.

POSTMODERN POSE, STAGE LEFT

Bill clinton was the first postmodern president. When he encountered problems, he simply defined them away.

Thus:

• "is" was not "is,"
• "sex" was not "sex"
• "rape" was not "rape"
• "genocide" was not "genocide,"
• the terrorist-declared war on America was not war,
• the terrorists' acts of war against America (beginning with the bombing of the same building by the same people in 1993) were not acts of war. (They were "crimes,")

Al Qaeda, in its incipient stage and stoppable in '93, was allowed--no, was empowered--to grow and metastasize under bill clinton's postmodern cover.

Terrorism grew and metastasized under bill clinton because bill clinton had a capacity to construct and compartmentalize alternative "truths," alternative selves, alternative moralities; bill clinton is the political manifestation of an "intelligentsia" and its "enlightened" worldview that reject all absolutes.

The net result of clinton's convenient postmodern pose was his opportunistic, Kerry-esque flip-flopping (positively spun as "triangulation" by clinton's political guru, Dick Morris )... or, alternatively, his complete and utter paralysis. The paralysis--and indeed, the postmodern pose itself, was partly a result of his well-documented cognitive inability to analyze, synthesize and prioritize; clinton cowardice and clinton corruption and clinton self-aggrandizement were also essential first causes.

THE LEFT'S POSTMODERN INCAPACITY

If this postmodern poppycock sounds familiar, that's because it is. The American Left today exhibits -- and is crippled by -- the very same political and cognitive postmodern incapacity and dysfunction.

Listen to the Left. Listen to Kerry and Gore and Pelosi and Kennedy and clinton and Soros and Moore and their complicit friends in the media. (How DARE The New York Times bury on page 16 the photos of the seven terrorists believed to be in the U.S., plotting an even more horrific 9/11? How DARE they?) You will hear the same alternative "truths," the same alternative selves, the same alternative moralities.

• They still refuse to accept the War on Terror as war, not crime.
• They still refuse to accept the War on Terror as a global, irreducible war, not a collection of discrete civil conflicts.
• They still refuse to understand that the war in Iraq is not an "optional" war apart from the War on Terror, but is, in fact, the War on Terror's lynchpin.
• They refuse to understand (or refuse to admit) that "support for the troops" cannot be independent of support for the war effort and support for the commander in chief.

They refuse to accept the fact that their jihad against America is killing our troops, aiding and abetting the terrorists and imperiling all Americans.

THE LEFT'S 24-HOUR-NEWS CYCLE ATTENTION SPAN

The Left's calculations are clintonian; that is to say, they are tactical, opportunistic, egocentric, small in both scope and depth. They are limited by a 24-hour-news-cycle attention span and a 2-year election cycle. The net result is vulgar play-by-play "commentary" when it should be objective, long-range analysis.

The clintons and their Leftist goons -- (reflexive abusers of power need goons.) -- fail 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 the massive, 8-year clinton blunder was, of course, 9/11 and the exponential growth of al Qaeda.

Missus clinton and the Left will, by definition, reprise the failed, lethally dangerous clinton policy of denial and surrender.

I, therefore, urge anyone planning ever to vote for hillary clinton or someone like her to rethink, to reconsider. Your children's lives, if not civilization, itself, just may depend on it.

I'm a single issue voter, as I guess must have become apparent.

I'm not a Republican. I'm not a conservative. I'm not a very great admirer of the president in many ways, but I think that my condition is... that this is an administration that wakes up every morning wondering how to make life hard for the forces of Jihad and how to make as hard as possible an unapologetic defense of civilization against this kind of barbarism... and though the Bush administration has been rife with disappointment on this and incompetent, I nonetheless feel that they have some sense of that spirit.

I don't get that... I don't get that feeling from anyone who even sought the Democratic nomination.

I would [therefore] have to vote for the reelection of President Bush.

Christopher Hitchens
Washington Journal, 6.01.04
C-SPAN

 

 

 

 

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)


(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)


(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)


 
(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

ne•o-ne•o•lib•er•al•ism n.

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

Mia T, 2.24.04
COPYRIGHT MIA T 2004

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

WHY THE LEFT IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA

by Mia T, 6.04.04

 
(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

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

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

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

George Soros

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

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

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

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

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

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

its porcine manifestation.

SOROS TSURIS

George Soros' little speech reveals everything we need to know about the Left, to wit:

• its naivete about the War on Terror,
• its preference for demagoguery over rational argument, and ideology and reacquisition of power over national security,
• its mindset, which is inextricably bound to its failed, tortuous, reckless schemes, relics of a different time, a different war and a different enemy.

Soros is correct when he states that each of the two pillars of the Bush Doctine--the United States maintenance of absolute military superiority and the United States right of preemptive action--are "valid propositions" [in a post-9/11 world].

But when he proceeds from there to argue that the validity of each of these two [essential] pillars is somehow nullified by the resultant unequalled power that these two pillars, when taken together, vest in the United States, rational thought and national-security primacy give way to dogmatic Leftist neo-neoliberal ideology.

 

What is, in fact, "inviolate" here is the neo-neoliberal doctrine of U.S. sovereignty, which states simply that there must be none, that we must yield our sovereignty to the United Nations. Because this Leftist tenet is inviolate, and because it is the antithesis of the concept of U.S. sovereignty enunciated by the Bush Doctrine and the concept of U.S. sovereignty required by the War on Terror, rabid Leftists like Soros conclude that we must trash the latter two inconvenient concepts--even if critical to the survival of our country.

It is precisely here where Soros and the Left fail utterly to understand the War on Terror. They cannot see beyond their own ideology and lust for power. They have become a danger to this country no less lethal than the terrorists they aid and abet.

 

I think this administration has the right strategic vision and has taken many of the steps needed to get that long-term strategy rolling.

Where I give them the failing grade is in explaining that vision to the American public and the world. Key example: this White House enshrines preemptive war in the latest National Security Strategy and that scares the hell out of a lot of Americans, not to mention our allies. Why? This administration fails to distinguish sufficiently under what conditions that strategy makes reasonable sense.

My point is this: when you are explicit about the world being divided into globalization's Core and Gap, you can distinguish between the different security rule sets at work in each.

Nothing has changed about strategic deterrence or the concept of mutual-assured destruction (or MAD) within the Core, so fears about preemptive wars triggering World War III are misplaced.

When this administration talks about preemption, they're talking strictly about the Gap - not the Core. The strategic stability that defines the Core is not altered one whit by this new strategy, because preemption is all about striking first against actors or states you believe - quite reasonably - are undeterrable in the normal sense.

Thomas P.M. Barnett
The Pentagon's New Map
NB: Dr. Barnett is a lifelong DEMOCRAT

I'm a single-issue voter, as I guess must have become apparent.

I'm not a Republican. I'm not a conservative. I'm not a very great admirer of the president in many ways, but I think that my condition is... that this is an administration that wakes up every morning wondering how to make life hard for the forces of Jihad and how to make as hard as possible an unapologetic defense of civilization against this kind of barbarism... and though the Bush administration has been rife with disappointment on this and incompetent, I nonetheless feel that they have some sense of that spirit.

I don't get that... I don't get that feeling from anyone who even sought the Democratic nomination.

I would [therefore] have to vote for the reelection of President Bush.

Christopher Hitchens
Washington Journal, 6.01.04
C-SPAN

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2004

 

America's Real Two-Front War


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 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, 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.

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

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2005

 

 

 

 
(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

 

 

 

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

 

by Mia T, 5.15.04

 

As long as you've got a rich man on your arm, you don't need a big bag.

--Elizabeth Rickard

 

 

The $100 billion Iraqi Oil for Food program was by far the largest relief operation in the history of the United Nations. By extension, it's rapidly becoming the U.N.'s largest-ever scandal....

Those included rewarding friends and allies world-wide with oil allocations on very favorable terms, as well as extracting large kickbacks from oil traders and suppliers of humanitarian goods....

There can be little doubt that U.N. mismanagement contributed greatly to the negative perception of the anti-Saddam containment policy. There is also little doubt that the reward and kickback scheme--as well the possibility of exposure--was a factor as some countries weighed whether to back U.S.-led regime change in Iraq. There is even reason to suspect that some of the Saddam friends and allies who benefited may have been members of the U.N. Secretariat.

Oil for Scandal
The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page
Thursday, March 18, 2004 12:01 a.m.

 

eave it to the French to make pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic all the rage.

They and their moneygrubbing, Oil-for-Food defrauding cohorts abroad, and their power-hungry would-be terrorist sympathizers here, are all sporting "THE LOOK."

(How many of those oh so trendy Kerry-clinton-Kennedy hate-America, blame-America-first sound bites will Al-Jazeera broadcast today?)

The trusty triad's half-truths, exaggerations and outright lies, confounded by fog of war, vagaries of peace and uncharted territory of asymmetric netherworlds, remind us that things are not always what they first seem. The UN Oil-for-Food scandal, for example, has shown us it was not "going to war with Iraq" that was "all about oil," but rather, "not going to war with Iraq." The Left, we now see, had that one, (as they have most things), exactly backward.

The dernier cri of seditious and corrupt Leftists everywhere, pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic renders the Left, irrespective of policy, no less dangerous to Western civilization than the terrorists they aid and abet.

 

copyright Mia T 2004

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

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)
thanx to jla and Wolverine for the audio

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2005

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 Americans₂


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 hillary clinton should never be allowed anywhere near the Oval Office... or any position of power--THE SERIES
REASON 1: MISSUS CLINTON HIRED JAMIE GORELICK


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


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


CINDY SHEEHAN: ECHO OF THE LEFT
the democrats are gonna get us killed (kerry, clinton + sandy berger's pants) series₅


"SONNY" CALLAHAN + BILL CLINTON'S CINDY SHEEHANS


BILL CLINTON'S CINDY SHEEHANS (courtesy Sean Hannity)


THE ROOTS OF CINDY SHEEHAN
(COURTESY JAMES TARANTO VIA RUSH LIMBAUGH)


"I support the poor but not the war on poverty."


THE DEMOCRATS ARE GONNA GET US KILLED (kerry, clinton + sandy berger's pants) SERlES

• THE DEMOCRATS ARE GONNA GET US KILLED (kerry, clinton + sandy berger's pants) SERlES₄
  
  
• THE DEMOCRATS ARE GONNA GET US KILLED (kerry, clinton + sandy berger's pants) SERlES₃
  
  
• THE DEMOCRATS ARE GONNA GET US KILLED (kerry, clinton + sandy berger's pants) SERlES₂
  
  
• THE DEMOCRATS ARE GONNA GET US KILLED (kerry, clinton + sandy berger's pants) SERlES₁
  
  
• dox in sox (on lummox in box on fox)?

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

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2005