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

Skip to comments.

America's Real Two-Front War (Chappaquiddick is Ted Kennedy's Vietnam)
4.11.04 | Mia T

Posted on 04/13/2004 10:22:01 AM PDT by Mia T

America's Real Two-Front War
Chappaquiddick is Ted Kennedy's Vietnam


by Mia T, 4.11.04

 


merica's real two-front war: fundamentalist Islam on the right and a fundamentally seditious clintonoid neo-neo•liberalism on the left, both anarchic, both messianic, 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 lifting Lady Liberty 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' left-wing agitprop-and-money-laundering machine: the Viacom-Simon & Schuster-60-Minutes Chimera, the Cronkite-ite news readers, ben-Veniste goons and 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.


 

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

bill clinton
(HEAR HIM NOW)
CLINTON TURNED DOWN SUDAN'S OFFERS OF BIN LADEN
HEAR CLINTON'S SECRETLY TAPED "ADMISSION" NOW

"The Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him [bin Laden].

At the time, '96, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.

So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have; but they thought it was a hot potato. They didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan."

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

clinton: "We did not act quickly enough after the killing began. We should not have allowed the refugee camps to become safe haven for the killers. We did not immediately call these crimes by their rightful name: genocide."

bill clinton
(HEAR HIM NOW)
Learn From Rwanda
The Washington Post
Tuesday, April 6, 2004; Page A21

Note: clinton's use of the not entirely collective "we" when assigning blame for his utter failure, (as opposed to the unequivocal clinton "I" when arrogating the success of others), is consistent with his "buck stops there/everywhere but not here" policy.

bill clinton's GENOCIDE & TERRORISM Utter Failures Same Self-Serving, Craven, Postmodern Pose

bill clinton's Convenient Postmodern Pose
"G-word"shame presages "W-word" horror

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)

 

bill clinton admits: I DID NOT PROTECT AMERICA FROM TERRORISTS
(WHY THE CLINTONS, KERRY AND THE LEFT ARE DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA)

 

by Mia T, 3.31.04


"The Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him [bin Laden].

At the time, '96, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.

So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have; but they thought it was a hot potato. They didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan."

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

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

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

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

This phrase underscores clinton's failure to understand that:

  • a terrorist war requires only one consenting player

  • 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

  • preemption serves a necessary, critically protective, as well as offensive function in any war on terror.

The sorry endpoint of this massive, 8-year clinton blunder was, of course, 9/11 and the exponential growth of al Qaeda.

ASIDE: It is beyond farce, therefore, for Richard Clarke to exalt clinton, (whose response to terrorism--in those rare ("bimbo") instances when he did, in fact, respond--was feckless, at best), even as he attempts to take down Bush, a great president whose demonstrated vision, courage and tenacity in the face of seditious undermining by the power-hungry clintons and their leftist goons is nothing short of heroic.

 

Mia T, 3.28.04
CLINTON TURNED DOWN SUDAN'S OFFERS OF BIN LADEN
HEAR CLINTON'S SECRETLY TAPED "ADMISSION" NOW

 


link to movie
requires Flash Player 6, available
HERE

CLINTON TURNED DOWN SUDAN'S OFFERS OF BIN LADEN
HEAR CLINTON'S SECRETLY TAPED "ADMISSION" NOW

by Mia T, 3.28.04

 

"The Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him [bin Laden].

At the time, '96, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.

So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have; but they thought it was a hot potato. They didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan."

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


"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


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.

A Fish Rots from the Head
Investor's Business Daily


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

 

 

 

isten carefully to clinton's "admission." Watch the flash movie. Diagram the sentences.

It's the classic clinton snake-oil sales pitch that exploits liberal credulousness and the gestalt concepts of structural economy and closure (the tendency to perceive incomplete forms as complete). This allows clinton to tell the story of his utter failure to fight terrorism, his failure to take bin Laden from Sudan, his repeated failures, in fact, to decapitate an incipient and still stoppable al Qaeda, without explicitly admitting it.

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

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

"[H]e had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America."

This position is surprising on two counts:

  1. clinton has never been one to allow the rule of law get in his way.

  2. Although bin Laden had repeatedly declared war on America during clinton's tenure, clinton treats terrorism not as a war but as a law enforcement problem, which, by definition is defensive, after-the-fact and fatally-too-late.

The impeached ex-president fails to understand that when terrorists declare war on you…and then proceed to kill you… you are, perforce, at war. At that point, you really have only one decision to make: Do you fight the terrorists… or do you surrender?

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

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

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

This phrase underscores clinton's failure to understand that:

  • a terrorist war requires only one consenting player

  • 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

  • preemption serves a necessary, critically protective, as well as offensive function in any war on terror.

The sorry endpoint of this massive, 8-year clinton blunder was, of course, 9/11 and the exponential growth of al Qaeda.

ASIDE: It is beyond farce, therefore, for Richard Clarke to exalt clinton, (whose response to terrorism--in those rare ("bimbo") instances when he did, in fact, respond--was feckless, at best), even as he attempts to take down Bush, a great president whose demonstrated vision, courage and tenacity in the face of seditious undermining by the power-hungry clintons and their leftist goons is nothing short of heroic.

 

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

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

The answer was inadvertently if somewhat obliquely provided by Madeleine Albright at the cabinet meeting that would decide the disposition of the USS Cole bombing by al Qaeda [that is to say, that would decide to do what it had always done when a "bimbo" was not spilling the beans on the clintons--nothing--only Clarke wanted to retaliate militarily for this unambiguous act of war].

According to Albright, a [sham] Mideast accord would yield [, if not peace for the principals, surely] a Nobel Peace Prize for clinton [an unprincipled fraud whose only significance is the devastation that he (and his zipper-hoisted spinoff) have wreaked on America].


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

Kerry's Fatal(clinton)Error

 

Mia T, 3.16.04

  


(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)

johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com
 

Kerry seldom speaks out on the campaign trail about the importance of fighting terrorism, and polls shows it's an issue on which Bush appears to have an advantage.

"We are determined to make this campaign about real issues facing Americans, like making health care affordable, improving education and getting our economy back on track," Kerry campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill said....

BRIAN BLOMQUIST
KERRY JOINS AIR WAR

NYPOST.COM

"I voted for a process by which war would be the last resort."

John Kerry

Kerry hits out at Bush over Iraq
Adam Blenford and agencies
Monday January 26, 2004

ohn Kerry says the war on terror is less about military might than about law enforcement.

This should not surprise us. Kerry's dangerously flawed thinking on terrorism is perfectly consistent with his dangerously soporific bombast: Both are anachronistic, early 20th-century artifacts.

Osama bin Laden has made it perfectly clear: The clintons' military fecklessness and cowardice emboldened the terrorists.

Even if we allow for his characteristic flatulence and opportunism, John Kerry's demagogically tortured parsing of President George W. Bush's war-as-the-last-resort pledge and the fact that Kerry's list of the "real issues facing Americans" does not include the one issue, namely terrorism, that renders all other issues moot -- (health care, education and money have very limited utility to the dead)-- reveal a fundamental--and fatal--misunderstanding of America's situation.

When terrorists declare war on you…and then proceed to kill you… you are, perforce, at war. At that point, you really have only one decision to make: Do you fight the terrorists… or do you surrender?

Contrary to clinton/leftist-media spin, this war waged against America by the terrorists did not begin on September 11, 2001. The terrorists--bin Laden--had declared war on America repeatedly, had killed Americans repeatedly, throughout the clinton years.

Remarkably, the same terrorists hit the same WTC building in 1993, and clinton, 15 minutes away from the devastation, didn't even bother to visit the site, preferring instead to add his old bromides on the economy to the pollution along the Jersey Turnpike. (Ironically, the legacy clinton would desperately, futilely seek throughout his life was right under his nose on that day in 1993; but he was too self-absorbed--too stupid, some would say--to see it.)

And as for the September 11 attacks, they were planned in May 1998, on the clintons' watch, in the Khalden Camp in southeastern Afghanistan.

The terrorists declared war on America on the clintons watch and the clintons surrendered.

Democrats, from the clintons to Kerry, reflexively choose "surrender."

President Bush chooses '"fight."

Andrew Cuomo didn't call the Democrats "clueless" for no reason.


"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"




CLARKE WITNESSED FIRST-HAND THE CLINTONS' UTTER FAILURE TO FIGHT TERRORISMbump

"If Clarke's plan had been implemented,

[i.e., if clinton had responded to the bombing of the USS Cole,
a clear act of war, militarily instead of telephonically!]

al Qaeda's infrastructure would have been demolished and bin Laden might well have been killed.
Sept. 11, 2001 might have been just another sunny day"

[The real question that requires answering is this:

Why did this legacy-obsessed president
miss
numerous golden opportunities,
beginning with the WTC bombing in '93,
to defeat terrorism,
(in its incipient stage and stoppable in '93)
which would have secured his legacy for all time?

Was it simple stupidity and lack of vision?

Or was it also that familiar demagogic refrain:
cowardice, infantilism, megalomania...
and the
Nobel Peace Prize?]

 


Lopez: What exactly was U.S. reaction to the attack on the USS Cole?

Miniter: In October 2000, al Qaeda bombed the USS Cole in Aden, Yemen. Seventeen sailors were killed in the blast. The USS Cole was almost sunk. In any ordinary administration, this would have been considered an act of war. After all, America entered the Spanish-American war and World War I when our ships were attacked.

Counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke had ordered his staff to review existing intelligence in relation to the bombing of the USS Cole. After that review, he and Michael Sheehan, the State Department's counterterrorism coordinator, were convinced it was the work of Osama bin Laden. The Pentagon had on-the-shelf, regularly updated and detailed strike plans for bin Laden's training camps and strongholds in Afghanistan.

At a meeting with Secretary of Defense William Cohen, Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Attorney General Janet Reno, and other staffers, Clarke was the only one in favor of retaliation against bin Laden. Reno thought retaliation might violate international law and was therefore against it. Tenet wanted to more definitive proof that bin Laden was behind the attack, although he personally thought he was. Albright was concerned about the reaction of world opinion to a retaliation against Muslims, and the impact it would have in the final days of the Clinton Middle East peace process. Cohen, according to Clarke, did not consider the Cole attack "sufficient provocation" for a military retaliation. Michael Sheehan was particularly surprised that the Pentagon did not want to act. He told Clarke: "What's it going to take to get them to hit al Qaeda in Afghanistan? Does al Qaeda have to attack the Pentagon?"

Instead of destroying bin Laden's terrorist infrastructure and capabilities, President Clinton phoned twice phoned the president of Yemen demanding better cooperation between the FBI and the Yemeni security services.

If Clarke's plan had been implemented, al Qaeda's infrastructure would have been demolished and bin Laden might well have been killed. Sept. 11, 2001 might have been just another sunny day.

Clinton's Loss?
How the previous administration fumbled on bin Laden.
A Q&A by Kathryn Jean Lopez
NRO
September 11, 2003, 11:45 a.m.




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

 



 

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

 


TOPICS: 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; abuseofpower; agitpropmachine; alqaeda; alqaedairaq; alqaida; alqaidairaq; arkansas; bill911; billclinton; blameamericafirst; bookdeal; bot; callmeirresponsible; cbs; cbsnews; cbsviacom; clarke; clinton; clinton911; clintonarrogance; clintonbigot; clintonbigots; clintoncontempt; clintoncorruption; clintoncowardice; 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; confess; congenitalliar; corapist; counterterrorismczar; coverup; coverupqueen; denial; error; flipflop; genocide; hillary; hillary911; hillaryblog; hillarybot; hillaryclinton; hillaryconfesses; hillaryknew; hillaryliar; hillaryrape; hillaryraped2; hillaryrapedtoo; hillarysedition; hillaryspeaks; hillaryssedition; hillarystinear; hillarystreason; hillarytalks; hillarytalksorg; hillarytalksus; hillarytreason; hillaryveep; hillarywho; hoosegow4hillary; imaginaryleaders; indict; iraq; johnkerry; johnkerryveep; kerry; kerryveep; launderingmachine; lauriemylroie; letatcestmoi; losingbinladen; mediabias; moneylaundering; nationalsecurity; payoff; postmodernploy; postmodernprez; predator; predators; quidproquo; rape; rapist; rapistclintons; rapists; recall; reddragonrising; revisionism; richardclarke; rwanda; sedition; selfaggrandizement; sheknewsheraped2; simonschuster; slushfund; standbyyourman; sudanoffer; terrorism; terrorismczar; theterrorismstupid; tinear; treason; utterfailure; viacom; viacommie; victimizer; virtualhillary; wearethepresident; wot; youknow; zeitgeist; zipper; zipperhoist; zipperhoist2; zipperhoisted

1 posted on 04/13/2004 10:22:08 AM PDT by Mia T
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: WorkingClassFilth; jla; Gail Wynand; Brian Allen; Lonesome in Massachussets; IVote2; Slyfox; ...
America's Real Two-Front War
Chappaquiddick is Ted Kennedy's Vietnam
ping

2 posted on 04/13/2004 10:28:14 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Ted Kennedy is indeed John Kerry's Chapaquiddick.
3 posted on 04/13/2004 10:28:56 AM PDT by ErnBatavia (Because Democrats are liars, they assume Republicans are too...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
You stole my line! ;^]
4 posted on 04/13/2004 10:29:30 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Drug prohibition laws help fund terrorism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mia T; ALOHA RONNIE; bmwcyle
From "We Were Soldiers!!"
Lt. Col. Hal Moore...

"Look around you...
In the 7th Cavalry, we've got a Captain from Ukraine...another's from Puerto Rico. We've got Japanese, Chinese, Blacks, Hispanics....Cherokee Indians!!...Jews, Gentiles...ALL AMERICANS!!

Now, here in the States, some men--in this unit--may experience discrimination becuz of Race...or Creed...fer you and me now, ALL THAT IS GONE!!!

We're moving into the Valley of the Shadow of Death!!...where you will watch the back of the man next to yers...as he will watch yers...and you won't care what color he is or by what name he calls, "GOD"!!

They say we're leaving home...
We're going to what home was always supposed to be!! We are going into battle with a tough, determined ENEMY!! I can't promise you that I will bring you all home alive...BUT THIS, I WILL SWEAR...

Before you and whoever you call "God", when we go into battle, I will be the FIRST to step on the field...and I will be the LAST to leave the field!! And I will Leave No Man Behind!!...Dead or Alive...We Will All Come Home Together!!

So Help Me"...MUD
5 posted on 04/13/2004 10:30:42 AM PDT by Mudboy Slim (RE-IMPEACH Osama bil Clinton!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: All
CORRECTION:

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.

6 posted on 04/13/2004 10:32:54 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
BTTT
7 posted on 04/13/2004 10:32:59 AM PDT by kattracks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ErnBatavia
Indeed. It's the sequel. ;)
8 posted on 04/13/2004 10:35:52 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
In the war of words, this post is a mini-gun:


9 posted on 04/13/2004 10:56:45 AM PDT by jjm2111
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
bttt
10 posted on 04/13/2004 11:39:07 AM PDT by bmwcyle (<a href="http://www.johnkerry.com/" target="_blank">miserable failure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Giving Aid & Comfort.
11 posted on 04/13/2004 11:48:34 AM PDT by PsyOp (Fear, not kindness, restrains the wicked Metus improbos compescit, non clementia. Syrus, Maxims.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PsyOp
aid and comfort bump

 

A Scoundrel's Pythagorean Imperative

Mia T, 12.14.03


z = distance between flag lapel pin and chin

d = distance between midpoint of chin and jowl

y = distance between the midpoint of chin and top button

x = distance between top button and flag lapel pin


 




 by Mia T, December 7, 2003

 

issus clinton failed to notice: 'living history' begets a certain symmetry. How fitting it is that the clintons were forced to reveal their inept and treasonous hand on this day, exactly 62 years post Pearl Harbor.

One has to surmise from hillary clinton's post-Turkey, Sunday-Circuit, pink-suited panic that clinton in-house polling has the missus out-polling Jane Fonda for the Tokyo-Rose prize.

(Incidentally, someone ought to clue in clinton's dresser: exculpation-by-pink-suit can work only once; notwithstanding, a treasonous middle-aged matron in a pink suit reads: "dowdy treasonous middle-aged matron in pink suit"... or to the sharper subset, "fatuous dowdy treasonous middle-aged matron in pink suit attempts ingénue exculpation ploy." What could they be thinking? Surely, clinton "infrastructure" knows that such a scheme requires freshness of face, not mouth....)

It is common knowledge that missus clinton limits the frequency, intensity and content of her cozy clintonoid interviews of the Colmes kind. Tim Russert's (Meet the Press, NBC) stomach-turning HILLARY 2004! boosterism and nonexistent follow-ups ("And why do you suppose there aren't enough troops to fight a war, missus CLINTON?") made it clear that she had the latter two -- intensity and content -- covered today. It was frequency that did her in.

Tokyo Rose also aided and abetted our enemies by using psychological warfare designed to lower the morale of our troops; and she was convicted of treason. One could easily argue that clinton's betrayal, because it is ultimately self-serving, is an even greater iniquity. And then, of course, there are the clintons' other self-serving treasonous acts....

 

Russert, therefore, was not only on the wrong page. He was in the wrong book.

The question isn't,
"Who in his right mind would ever want the clintons back in the Oval Office?"

The question is,--
"Who in his right mind would want the seditious,
America-undermining clintons unconfined?"

 hillary talks: ON MILITARY TACTICS
The Easy Part

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)


hillary's Iraq Turkeys

1996 -- Another Self-Serving clinton Thanksgiving Jaunt

MORE 



hillary talks:ON TERROR

(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


12 posted on 04/13/2004 12:26:17 PM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: M. Thatcher; Mudboy Slim; sultan88
fyi
13 posted on 04/13/2004 1:18:58 PM PDT by jla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Chappaquiddick

The Vietnam war ended long ago, the Chappaquiddick incident is still going on.

14 posted on 04/13/2004 1:19:47 PM PDT by alrea (Democrats, journalists, and the U.N. will end war, racism and obesity while creating jobs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Slammin. I know that something important and insidious is up with the Clinton's when I see you on the board. Just as when Richard Clarke-Clinton appeared and now when the Kennedy appeasser, bootlegging and misogynous genetic phenotype threatens our country.


15 posted on 04/13/2004 1:32:45 PM PDT by Helms (FreeRepublic Is A Repository for the best Aphorisms to be found in Cyberspace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jla
bump
16 posted on 04/13/2004 4:43:28 PM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Excellent.....as usual.
17 posted on 04/13/2004 10:02:44 PM PDT by Doctor Raoul (How can they call it a "Peace March" when they unconditionally support those who kill our soldiers?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Good Morning, Mia! Looking forward to the "Swimmer's" Vietnam....Keep up the MOST excellent work!
18 posted on 04/14/2004 6:14:02 AM PDT by KalDot (The "left" are in very desperate days.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KalDot; Doctor Raoul
thx. (note the tweaked image, above, of the swimmer.)
19 posted on 04/14/2004 6:57:56 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: jla
Tweaks- image and text:

 

 
 
America's Real Two-Front War
(Chappaquiddick is Ted Kennedy's Vietnam)


by Mia T, 4.11.04

 

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 Chimera, the Cronkite-ite news readers, Ben-Veniste goons and 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.



20 posted on 04/14/2004 7:12:22 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: KalDot; jla; All

KERR-EDY: "Iraq is George Bush's Vietnam"
(KERR-EDY 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

 

KERR-EDY: "Iraq is not an imminent threat"
(KERR-EDY 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

err-edy, 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, 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.



21 posted on 04/21/2004 6:19:56 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
22 posted on 04/21/2004 6:24:15 PM PDT by jla (http://hillarytalks.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: jla
America's Real Two-Front War
 
 

by Mia T, 4.17.04

 

 

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, 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

 

 

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

 



 

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.

sanitizing evil
Kerry Cabal Censors Nick Berg Decapitation


pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic

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


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

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
#2-understanding the job description

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

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?


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


What is the REAL Reason for Gorelick's Wall?


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 06/06/2004 5:40:58 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: jla; All

A Vote for Kerry is a Vote for the Terrorists

by Mia T, 6.08.04

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

 

 

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, 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.

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"


A Vote for Kerry is a Vote for the Terrorists

sanitizing evil
Kerry Cabal Censors Nick Berg Decapitation


The Parallel Universe of Jamie Gorelick

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

pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic

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


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

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


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
#2-understanding the job description

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

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?


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


What is the REAL Reason for Gorelick's Wall?


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

 

24 posted on 06/21/2004 2:08:05 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | 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