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

Skip to comments.

Kerry's Vietnam Quagmire / WHY JOHN KERRY IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA (NEW virtual kerry talks series)
3.16.04 | Mia T

Posted on 03/16/2004 5:27:50 PM PST by Mia T

WHY JOHN KERRY IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA
(a NEW virtual john kerry talks series)

Kerry's Vietnam Quagmire

 

Mia T, 3.16.04

  


(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)

http://johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com
 

The Bush administration is so enthralled by the idea of preemption and American military might….This is the consequence of a policy that regards legitimacy as largely a product of force and victory as primarily a triumph of arms.

But as we discovered in Vietnam, success on the battlefield, or even in a series of battles, can often be the beginning and not the end of a conflict.

John Kerry
COUNCIL FOR FOREIGN RELATIONS

December 3, 2003

 

 

Only the dead have seen the end of war.

Plato

ietnam is John Kerry's quagmire.

Stuck in a 20th-century mindset, John Kerry has it exactly backwards. Vietnam is the wrong paradigm for the war on terror.

As we discover examining the presidencies of George W. Bush and bill clinton respectively, military success short-circuits terrorism and deters the terrorist whereas military failure propagates terrorism and emboldens the terrorist.

Vietnam is John Kerry's quagmire. Before this war is over, Vietnam may become his waterloo, too.



hillary talks: ON TERROR
(reinstalling clintons in White House-1 advantage over suicide)

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)

 

hillary talks: ON MILITARY TACTICS
The Easy Part

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, 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



hillary talks: On Military Tactics
WHEN TO BOMB


(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)

missus clinton's REAL virtual office update
http://hillarytalks.blogspot.com
http://virtualclintonlibrary.blogspot.com
http://demmemogate.blogspot.com
http://www.hillarytalks.us
http://www.hillarytalks.org
fiendsofhillary.blogspot.com
fiendsofhillary.us
fiendsofhillary.org
fraudsofhillary.com



TOPICS: Anthrax Scare; Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; Israel; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Arkansas; US: Illinois; US: Massachusetts; US: New York; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 60minutes; 911; 911attacks; 911commission; 911investigation; abunidal; abuseofpower; abuseofwomen; agitpropmachine; alqaeda; alqaedairaq; alqaida; alqaidairaq; antisemitism; arkansas; arnold; arnoldschwarzenegger; autoimpeach; autoindict; bayh; betseywright; biggestloser; bigot; bigots; bill911; billclinton; billydale; bimboeruptions; blameamericafirst; bobdole; bookdeal; bot; broaddrick; caelectoralvotes; california; cbs; cbsnews; cbsviacom; charlieyahlintrie; china; chinagate; chinaresources; chinesetakeout; clinton; clinton911; clintonarrogance; clintonbigot; clintonbigots; clintoncontempt; clintoncorruption; clintoncreep; clintondemagoguery; clintondysfunction; clintonfailure; clintonfelons; clintonineptitude; clintonintimidation; clintonism; clintonjunkets; clintonlegacy; clintonliars; clintonobstruction; clintonpredation; clintonpsychopathy; clintonracism; clintonrage; clintonrape; clintonrapes; clintonrevisionism; clintons; clintons911; clintonsedition; clintonsrrapists; clintonstupidity; clintontreason; clintonviolence; collui; confess; congenitalliar; corapist; costind; coverup; coverupqueen; denial; ethnicslurs; evanbayh; eyeswideshut; failedcrook; falseaffidavits; faustianbargain; fkingjewbastard; footinmouth; gandhi; gandhijoke; gasstation; google; googleloser; googling; gulpingforair; halfabrain; halfahouse; harrywu; heilhitlery; heiress; helltopay; herheinous; hildebeast; hillary; hillary911; hillaryblog; hillarybot; hillaryclinton; hillaryconfesses; hillaryknew; hillaryliar; hillaryrape; hillaryraped2; hillaryrapedtoo; hillarysedition; hillaryspeaks; hillaryssedition; hillarystinear; hillarystreason; hillarytalks; hillarytalksorg; hillarytalksus; hillarytreason; hillaryveep; hillarywho; hoosegow4hillary; indict; inoculation; intimidation; iowa; iraq; jamesriady; jewbastard; johnhuang; johnkerry; johnkerryveep; johnnychung; juanita; juanitabroaddrick; kathleenwilley; kerry; kerryveep; launderingmachine; lauriemylroie; letatcestmoi; lippo; lippobank; mediabias; memogate; memogate1; ministering; ministeringgirls; mistakenconceptzia; moctarriady; mohamedatta; moneylaundering; moseleybraun; nationalsecurity; nglapseng; noeyecontact; notratrulock; nword; obstructionofjustice; paulfray; payoff; pla; predator; predators; quidproquo; rape; rapist; rapistclintons; rapists; recall; reddragonrising; revisionism; riady; safire; schwarzenegger; secretpolice; sedition; seebs; seebsnews; selfimpeach; selfindict; sheknewsheraped2; simonschuster; slushfund; standbyyourman; tammywynette; tessellationsplanet; thanksgiving; thepredator; theterrorismstupid; thomaskean; tinear; travelgate; treason; turkey; turkeys; utterfailure; veepcreep; viacom; viacommie; victimizer; virtualhillary; wearethepresident; whitewater; wot; youknow; zeitgeist; zipper; zipperhoist; zipperhoist2; zipperhoisted

1 posted on 03/16/2004 5:28:00 PM PST by Mia T
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: WorkingClassFilth; jla; Gail Wynand; Brian Allen; Lonesome in Massachussets; thesummerwind; ...
ping
2 posted on 03/16/2004 5:29:34 PM PST by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Thanks,Mia, you're a treasure!
3 posted on 03/16/2004 5:39:50 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: All
 
Kerry's Fatal(clinton)Error
WHY JOHN KERRY IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA:
(a NEW virtual john kerry talks series)


(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)

johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com

MORE 

 

4 posted on 03/16/2004 5:49:59 PM PST by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
I also just listened to one of your Hillary Talks. Amazing stuff. You really know how to effectively juxtaposition items. You make 1+1 = 5.
5 posted on 03/16/2004 5:54:44 PM PST by jigsaw (Your Choice America: Stand Tall With Bush or Bend Over With Kerry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
How is this for the correct match?

Senator Gomer Kerry

Which one is real, which one is Memorex?

6 posted on 03/16/2004 6:01:12 PM PST by chadsworth (AND THE DEMOCRATS have found their leader -Senator Gomer Kerry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
3.20.04 ALERT!
CLINTON-WAS-AN-UTTER-FAILURE Containment Team Scheme team
is reactivated and in high gear...

Thou art arm'd that hath thy crook'd schemers straight.
Cudgel thy brains no more, the clinton plots are great.

 Mia T, On Neutered and Neutering,
by Mia T and Edward Zehr (EZ)

 "The instant that second plane hit, I said to the person with whom I was speaking, 'Bin Laden did this.' I knew immediately. I know what this network can do."

bill clinton

 



COMMENT: The above inculpatory remark by the impeached erstwhile ersatz prez is illustrative of
the synergy of profound psychological dysfunction and rube arrogance rooted in stupidity. That
remark is his legacy's death knell.


hillary talks: ON TERROR

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)

Clinton's failure to grasp the opportunity to unravel increasingly organized extremists, coupled with Berger's assessments of their potential to directly threaten the U.S., represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history.

Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize
MANSOOR IJAZ
December 5, 2001

A Fish Rots from the Head

Investor's Business Daily

 

Ijaz, an admitted Clinton supporter who helped negotiate these opportunities to nab bin Laden, said, "The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening."

Ijaz says that three months before bin Laden's men blew up the USS Cole in Yemen, he "brought the White House another plausible offer to deal with bin Laden, by then known to be involved in the embassy bombings (in Tanzania and Kenya)... But senior Clinton officials sabotaged the offer."

Clinton's apparent boredom with vital information extended beyond Sudanese intelligence officers to his own intelligence officers. His first CIA director, James Woolsey, couldn't get a meeting with Clinton in the two years he served. Woolsey left the Clinton administration disgusted with its slovenly approach to national security. ...

To hear Clinton now say "We must do more to reduce the pool of potential terrorists" is thus beyond farce. He had numerous opportunities to reduce that pool, and he blew it.

The pool, in fact, grew larger on Clinton's watch, as he spent his final days giving pardons to drug dealers, Puerto Rican terrorists and Marc Rich, a fugitive who topped America's most-wanted list.

NEW AUDIO!
Hear the Bill Bennett epilogue

In this light, Clinton's order to the CIA that it not use "unsavory characters" to collect information pushes irony to its outer limits.


hillary talks: ON MILITARY TACTICS
The Easy Part

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)

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....

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.





hillary talks:ON TERROR

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, 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


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

hyperlinked images of shame
copyright Mia T 2003
.

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, June 9, 1999
THE ALIENS

 

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.

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



addendum 12.13.03:
Pathologic self-interest: Richard Miniter's C-SPAN interview, contained in hillary talks:ON TERROR, (below), is absolutely devastating for the clintons. Miniter presents the clintons' monumental failure to protect America in sickening detail.

Note in particular Madeleine Albright's shocking reason given at the time of the USS Cole attack why the clinton administration should not respond militarily. It tell us everything we need to know about the clintons. It tell us why clinton redux is an absolutely suicidal notion.

Notwithstanding their cowardice, corruption, perfidy, and to borrow a phrase from Andrew Cuomo, their essential cluelessness, the clintons, according to Albright, made their decision not to go after the terrorists primarily 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 that inaction would also maximize the terrorists' power, maximize America's danger.

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.

(There would be an analogous treasonous miscalculation in the Mideast: clinton failed to shut down Muslim terrorism, then in its incipient stage and stoppable, because he reasoned that doing so would have wrecked his chances for the Nobel Peace Prize. Indeed, according to Richard Miniter, Madeleine Albright offered precisely the Nobel-Muslim factor as a primary reason for not treating the bombing of the USS Cole as an act of war.)

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

 

 

It is precisely 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.

Taken together, 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.

In the case of the non-response to the attack on the Cole, an unambiguous act of war, the clinton rationale, according to no less than Madeleine Albright, 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.)

Mia T, "WAG THE DOG" revisited

 

 
 

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

 


(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)

flash movie


THE CLINTONS--AMERICA'S BIGGEST BLUNDER
Hear Bush 41 Warn Us--October 19, 1992*

hear

*Thanx to Cloud William for text and audio

 

LEHRER: President Bush, your closing statement, sir.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Three weeks from now--two weeks from tomorrow, America goes to the polls and you're going to have to decide who you want to lead this country ...

On foreign affairs, some think it's irrelevant. I believe it's not. We're living in an interconnected world...And if a crisis comes up, ask who has the judgment and the experience and, yes, the character to make the right decision?

And, lastly, the other night on character Governor Clinton said it's not the character of the president but the character of the presidency. I couldn't disagree more. Horace Greeley said the only thing that endures is character. And I think it was Justice Black who talked about great nations, like great men, must keep their word.

And so the question is, who will safeguard this nation, who will safeguard our people and our children? I need your support, I ask for your support. And may God bless the United States of America.

(Applause)

 
play tape

 

 

THE INTERMINABLE clintons 

It's time to throw out the trash...
A Senate en passant capture is THE MOVE...

Q ERTY6 utter failureBUMP

Lib Author Regrets Voting (TWICE!) for clinton
"Sickened" by clinton's Failure to Protect America from Terrorism

MUST-READ BOOK FOR DEMOCRATS:
How clintons' Failures Unleashed Global Terror

(Who in his right mind would ever want the clintons back in the Oval Office?)

The Man Who Warned America
(Why a Rapist is Not a Fit President)

UDAY: "The end is near… this time I think the… Americans are serious, Bush is not like Clinton."


7 posted on 03/20/2004 5:19:14 PM PST by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
WHY JOHN KERRY IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA:
(a NEW virtual john kerry talks series)

johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com

missus clinton's REAL virtual office update
http://hillarytalks.blogspot.com
http://virtualclintonlibrary.blogspot.com
http://demmemogate.blogspot.com
http://www.hillarytalks.us
http://www.hillarytalks.org
fiendsofhillary.blogspot.com
fiendsofhillary.us
fiendsofhillary.org
fraudsofhillary.com

by Mia T

Kerry: "Call me irresponsible."
(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)
Kerry's Fatal(clinton)Error
(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)
Kerry's flip-flop opportunism
(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)
NEW! hillary talks: DEEP VEEP
(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)
Kerry's imaginary(?) foreign (cheer)leaders
(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)
Kerry's Vietnam Quagmire
(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)


Kerry's(?) Veep Short List

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)

copyright Mia T 2004

 



8 posted on 03/22/2004 1:22:00 PM PST by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #9 Removed by Moderator

bump
10 posted on 03/30/2004 7:14:16 AM PST by jla (http://hillarytalks.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: All

Why does Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) talk incessantly about Vietnam?

Obviously, it has given him a great political advantage in past campaigns, and he hopes it will do the same in his race for the White House.

But there might be another reason. Perhaps more than any other presidential candidate in recent memory, Kerry seems to be living in another time, playing a movie of Vietnam over and over in his mind.

In fact, he is often playing an actual movie of Vietnam over and over on his television.

Consider this scene from a remarkable profile of Kerry published in the Boston Globe in October 1996, when Kerry was in a tough re-election battle.

Kerry told reporter Charles Sennott the oft-repeated story of the February 1969 firefight in which Kerry attacked the Viet Cong who ambushed his Swift boat....

But the story wasn't about the firefight itself. It was also Kerry's reaction to it.

The future senator was so "focused on his future ambitions," Sennott reported, that he bought a Super-8 movie camera, returned to the scene, and re-enacted the skirmish on film.

It was that film, transferred to videotape, that Kerry played for Sennott....


Some people become stuck in the time period in which they had their most intense experiences.

Others, perhaps with more mental or emotional flexibility, move on. Kerry seems to be the former.

At 60 years old, Kerry seems to be obsessed with the past in ways that the 57-year-old George W. Bush isn't.

And Kerry seems far older than, say, the 71-year-old Donald Rumsfeld -- a man who is always moving ahead, not inclined to lecture about the way things were 30 or 40 years ago.

Kerry's penchant for looking back would not a good trait in a president who will have to deal with a distinctly 21st century, post-Sept. 11 world.

America faces threats that were unheard of in Kerry's formative years. While those threats build, Kerry is turning on Hendrix, toking on an imaginary joint and telling you about Vietnam.

John Kerry: Stuck in a Vietnam-era time warp
BYRON YORK
THE HILL
February 26, 2004

 
 
  
WHY JOHN KERRY IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA
(a NEW virtual john kerry talks series)

Kerry's Vietnam Quagmire

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)
http://johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com

11 posted on 04/03/2004 5:20:17 PM PST by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jla; All
THE KERREDY (Kerry + Kennedy) CONSTRUCT:
a lethally anachronistic, post-Vietnam, pre-9/11 liberal conceit

A NEW VIRTUAL KERREDY TALKS MOVIE SERIES
 
by Mia T, 4.22.04

KERREDY: "Iraq is George Bush's Vietnam"
(KERREDY CONSTRUCT: a lethally anachronistic, post-Vietnam, pre-9/11 liberal conceit)


by Mia T, 4.21.04
 

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)


johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com




 

KERREDY: "Iraq is not an imminent threat"
(KERREDY CONSTRUCT: a lethally anachronistic, post-Vietnam, pre-9/11 liberal conceit)

 


by Mia T, 4.21.04

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)

johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com

erredy, a lethally anachronistic, post-Vietnam, pre-9/11 liberal conceit, is as much about providing Kerry with a detectable heatbeat as it is about providing cover for his Vietnam-seditious mouth. (Calling Iraq "Vietnam" a priori makes Iraq Vietnam in the seditious '71 Kerry sense.)

Kerry's problem isn't "haggard," the Botox counterexample notwithstanding. "Haggard" is electable. (See LBJ.)

"Cadaveric" is not, at least not outside of Hawaii.

Kerry's dissonant new "do," like the mortician's careful coif, only enhanced the funereal gloom. (One has to wonder if Shrum was brought in (dispatched?) to praise Kerry... or to bury him....)

Enter Ted Kennedy. (stage left)



Chappaquiddick is Ted Kennedy's Vietnam
America's Real Two-Front War
(NEW Virtual Ted Kennedy Talks Movie!)
 

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 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, 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.


MORE

12 posted on 04/22/2004 4:50:30 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

bump
13 posted on 04/22/2004 5:02:03 AM PDT by jla (http://hillarytalks.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

bttt
14 posted on 04/23/2004 8:25:13 AM PDT by jla (http://hillarytalks.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: All
KERRY'S WAR CRIMES

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)

johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com

 

15 posted on 04/28/2004 8:41:44 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jla
 

 

Bored Certified
NEW virtual john kerry can bore + snowboard at the same time series


(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)

johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com


16 posted on 05/03/2004 8:00:35 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: jla
Kerry's Belated Condemnation Focuses on Process
Kerry Lacks Moral Authority to Condemn Content

NEW virtual john kerry can bore + snowboard at the same time series


by Mia T, 5.07.04


 "CRY BUSH" + Iraqi-Prisoner "Abuse"
What are the Dems up to?

by Mia T, 5.06.04

 


(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com

ohn Kerry, self-professed war criminal, needed the Iraqi prisoner "abuse" scandal about as much as bill clinton, documented rapist, needed the Saddam rape rooms or the marauding Milosevic rapist-guerrillas.

For this reason, Kerry did not respond for a full week to this latest leftist-fulminated Bush-bashing brouhaha, and when Kerry did finally respond, the focus of his condemnation was process, not content, his pulled punches notwithstanding.

Makes sense. War criminals, by definition, lack the requisite moral authority to address such war-related -- ah -- issues.

By contrast, the response from Kerry's leftist colleagues has been so disproportionate -- and so predictable -- that it approaches farce of farce, even if we discount demonstrated Democrat willingness to trade American blood and national security for reacquired power.

The Democrats, apparently not adherents of Aesop, have "cried Bush" far too many times to be to be anything but preposterous. (Thank you, Howard Dean.)

Are the reflexively self-serving, America-hating, power-hungry Dems simply clueless actors? Or are they part of a larger orchestrated effort to muddy up Kerry's Vietnam-atrocities swamp?


17 posted on 05/07/2004 6:13:37 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
BUMP
18 posted on 05/07/2004 5:47:11 PM PDT by jla (http://hillarytalks.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: jla
^
19 posted on 05/07/2004 6:49:07 PM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
BUMP
20 posted on 05/08/2004 3:45:05 AM PDT by jla (http://hillarytalks.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: jla
bump
21 posted on 05/10/2004 4:16:34 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
bump
22 posted on 05/10/2004 9:29:40 AM PDT by jla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: jla; All

A Vote for Kerry is a Vote for the Terrorists

by Mia T, 6.08.04

 UNFIT SERIES: taking the measure of a would-be commander-in-chief
#4 - Kerry champions tolerance for terrorists

ELECTION BOTTOM LINE: TERRORIST SYMPATHIZER or TERRORIST ANNIHILATOR <-- (click to see Bush-Kerry contrast)

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com

For the better part of 18 months, John Kerry has bitterly denounced the Bush administration's conduct of international relations, above all in Iraq.  Over and over he has pronounced his unsparing indictment: "George Bush has pursued the most arrogant, inept, reckless, and ideological foreign policy in the modern history of this country."
 
That is remarkably hostile language for a presidential challenger.  No major party candidate for the White House in modern times has so thoroughly abandoned the principle that politics stops at the water's edge.
 
On the other hand, voters clearly benefit when candidates articulate their differences, and make plain what is at stake on Election Day.  After 18 months of honing his anti-Bush message, Kerry should be able to outline his alternative foreign policy with crystal clarity.  He should have no trouble laying out a comprehensive vision for Iraq and the Middle East and explaining why it is superior to Bush's.
 
So why doesn't he do so?
 
...No matter how the question is put, Kerry's answers on Iraq always boil down to a single recipe: Shrink the US role in Iraq and defer to the United Nations instead.  That's it.  That is the sum and substance of his thinking about Iraq.  He doesn't relate it to the war on terrorism, to the future of liberty in the Middle East, to America's national interests.  He repeatedly declares Bush a failure for not kowtowing to the UN and vows that in a Kerry administration, the UN will be given the commanding role it deserves.
 
Kerry has been talking this way for months.  In his speech on Iraq at the Brookings Institution last fall, for example, he mentioned the UN no fewer than 25 times.  ("We need a new Security Council resolution to give the United Nations real authority in the rebuilding of Iraq. . . . This shift of authority from the United States to the United Nations is indispensable.") By contrast, he mentioned terrorism just seven times.  He mentioned freedom, democracy, and the Middle East not at all....

 
When Bush speaks about Iraq, by contrast, it is clear that he has thought the subject through and related it to his larger goals in the world... 

"The defeat of violence and terror in Iraq is vital to the defeat of violence and terror elsewhere, and vital, therefore, to the safety of the American people.  Now is the time, and Iraq is the place, in which the enemies of the civilized world are testing the will of the civilized world.  We must not waver. . . .
  

The cause of liberty and the defeat of terror vs. the cause of a more powerful UN: In this first presidential election of the post-9/11 world, that is what the choice comes down to.

Kerry's U.N. fetish
Jeff Jacoby

April 23, 2004
townhall.com

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


WHY JOHN KERRY IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA

by Mia T, 6.04.04

 

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com

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.

GEORGE TSURIS

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Christopher Hitchens
Washington Journal, 6.01.04
C-SPAN


COPYRIGHT MIA T 2004

 



America's Real Two-Front War
 
 

by Mia T, 4.17.04

 

pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic
WHY JOHN KERRY IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA
 
(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com


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.


MORE
COPYRIGHT MIA T 2004

 

 

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 Democratic Party's Problem Transcends Its Anti-War Contingent2

hyperlinked images of shame
copyright Mia T 2003
.

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, June 9, 1999
THE ALIENS

 

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.

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



addendum 12.13.03:
Pathologic self-interest: Richard Miniter's C-SPAN interview, contained in hillary talks:ON TERROR, (below), is absolutely devastating for the clintons. Miniter presents the clintons' monumental failure to protect America in sickening detail.

Note in particular Madeleine Albright's shocking reason given at the time of the USS Cole attack why the clinton administration should not respond militarily. It tell us everything we need to know about the clintons. It tell us why clinton redux is an absolutely suicidal notion.

Notwithstanding their cowardice, corruption, perfidy, and to borrow a phrase from Andrew Cuomo, their essential cluelessness, the clintons, according to Albright, made their decision not to go after the terrorists primarily 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 that inaction would also maximize the terrorists' power, maximize America's danger.

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.


play tape

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.

(There would be an analogous treasonous miscalculation in the Mideast: clinton failed to shut down Muslim terrorism, then in its incipient stage and stoppable, because he reasoned that doing so would have wrecked his chances for the Nobel Peace Prize. Indeed, according to Richard Miniter, Madeleine Albright offered precisely the Nobel-Muslim factor as a primary reason for not treating the bombing of the USS Cole as an act of war.)

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

 

 

It is precisely 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.

Taken together, 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.

In the case of the non-response to the attack on the Cole, an unambiguous act of war, the clinton rationale, according to no less than Madeleine Albright, 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.)

Mia T, "WAG THE DOG" revisited

 

 
 

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

 

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2004


 

May 11, 3:18 PM EDT

Video Shows Beheading of American in Iraq


BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- A video posted Tuesday on an al-Qaida-linked Web site showed the beheading an American civilian in Iraq in what was said to be revenge for abuse of Iraqi prisoners.

The video showed five men wearing headscarves and black ski masks, standing over a bound man in an orange jumpsuit - similar to a prisoner's uniform. The man identified himself as Nick Berg, a U.S. civilian whose body was found Saturday near a highway overpass in Baghdad.

"My name is Nick Berg, my father's name is Michael, my mother's name is Suzanne," the man said on the video. "I have a brother and sister, David and Sarah. I live in ... Philadelphia."

After reading a statement, the men were seen pulling the man to his side and putting a large knife to his neck. A scream sounded as the men cut his head off, shouting "Allahu akbar!" - "God is great!" They then held the head up to the camera.

The slaying recalled the kidnapping and videotaped beheading of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl in 2002 in Pakistan. Four Islamic militants have been convicted of kidnapping Pearl, but seven other suspects - including those who allegedly slit his throat - remain at large.

NOTE: GRAPHIC CONTENT Video posted of beheading of American in Iraq

 

Copyright 2004 Associated Press. All rights reserved.

"Free Republic is one of those groups obsessed with the Clinton era."

Word's out: Protest at Hillary's tonight
U.S. News & World Report (Washington Whispers) |
March 11, 2003 | Paul Bedard

 

 

 

I'll bet that Mr. Bedard is a member of "one of those groups" so "obsessed" with voting in -- and having access to -- the clintons that they--ooops-- failed to notice the obvious danger of the lovely couple.

hillary talks: ON TERROR
(reinstalling the clintons in White House has 1 advantage over suicide)

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)
 
Thanx for 9/11, Paul...

Mia T
"ONE OF THOSE GROUPS OBSESSED WITH THE CLINTONS"


Kerry, NOT Bush, paralyzed by 9/11 attacks
Hear Kerry admit he could not think

THE DEMOCRATS ARE GONNA GET US KILLED (kerry, clinton + sandy berger's pants) SERlES 3
UNFIT #10: 9/10 mindset


THE DEMOCRATS ARE GONNA GET US KILLED (kerry, clinton + sandy berger's pants) SERlES 2
KERRY-DEMOCRAT CONTEMPT FOR NATIONAL SECURITY[annotated]


THE DEMOCRATS-ARE-GONNA-GET-US-KILLED (kerry, clinton + sandy berger's pants) SERlES1

dox in sox on lummox in box on fox

THE REAL "REAL DEAL"
(what Kerry's commanders and crewmates REALLY think of him--with transcripts)

Did John Kerry pick a running mate or hire a lawyer when he selected John Edwards?

THE MAN FROM HOPE: been there, done that

"Hope is on the way!" (the scoop)

THE TERRORISTS' USEFUL IDIOTS
all the usual suspects


A Vote for Kerry is a Vote for the Terrorists

ELECTION BOTTOM LINE:
TERRORIST SYMPATHIZER or TERRORIST ANNIHILATOR

JOHN KERRY IS UNFIT SERIES:
taking the measure of a would-be commander-in-chief


UNFIT #9-JOHN KERRY: DEADLY OPPORTUNIST
SELF-CONFESSED WAR CRIMlNAL MORPHS INTO SELF-PROMOTER WAR HERO


UNFIT #6: The Deadly Kerry-Hollywood Axis
HOW CAN YOU PUT YOUR CHILDREN'S LIVES IN ITS HANDS?


UNFIT: taking the measure of a would-be commander-in-chief
#1-making the tough choices in a post-9/11 world
UNFIT: taking the measure of a would-be commander-in-chief
#2-understanding the job description

UNFIT: taking the measure of a would-be commander-in-chief
#3-sang-froid and the "nuclear" button

UNFIT: taking the measure of a would-be commander-in-chief
#4 - Kerry champions tolerance for terrorists


sanitizing evil
Kerry Cabal Censors Nick Berg Decapitation


"Loose Cannon" Kerry's AWOL/PURPLE-HEART FRAUD

pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic

USEFUL IDIOTS

MOORE IS LESS--THE MOVIE

The Cycle of Violence:
NOW WITH HYPERLINKED INSTRUCTION MANUAL


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


bill clinton, boy "genius," unwittingly bares all on BBC

deconstructing clinton… "just because I could"

vetting missus clinton...

The Parallel Universe of Jamie Gorelick

nepotism + tokenism = a nancy pelosi
(or a hillary clinton)

Kerry's Belated Condemnation Focuses on Process
Kerry Lacks Moral Authority to Condemn Content

"CRY BUSH" + Iraqi-Prisoner "Abuse"
What are the Dems up to?


DON'T BELIEVE YOUR LYING EARS (The Perjurer Returns)
(Clinton: Claims I Turned Down Bin Laden are 'Bull')

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


What is the REAL Reason for Gorelick's Wall?

giant sucking sound
KERRY MAKES DUKAKIS LOOK CONSERVATIVE, SMART + JUDICIOUS


Q ERTY6 utter failureBUMP
Lib Author Regrets Voting (TWICE!) for clinton
"Sickened" by clinton's Failure to Protect America from Terrorism

MUST-READ BOOK FOR DEMOCRATS:
How clintons' Failures Unleashed Global Terror

(Who in his right mind would ever want the clintons back in the Oval Office?)

The Man Who Warned America
(Why a Rapist is Not a Fit President)

UDAY: "The end is near… this time I think the… Americans are serious, Bush is not like Clinton."

 

 

MORE

23 posted on 08/11/2004 2:24:17 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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