HAROLD ICKES: on winning the presidency by terrorizing white women

ping

"Hey ... where are de white women at?"

Considering that Ickes (the name is appropos) worked for the greatest terrorizer of white women (and his "enabler") to ever walk the planet, I find this hypocritical, disgusting and disingenuous.

And they wonder why no one takes them seriously anymore?

click the image of ickes to hear his entire spiel.

Per Lilliputian Clintonista Robert Reich:

Morality Redefined for the Left is, quess what ?:

"Social Justice"

ALL
Double, trouble TOIL for HUBBELL;
Fire burn and cauldron bubble.
THIRD WITCH (a stealth Conservative)
Scale of BONIOR, tooth of WOLF,
HILLARY'S memory, maw and gulf
A ravin'd salt-sea shark,
Ears of the MARTINS digg'd i' the dark,
Gall of BILL, and McCURRY'S slips
"Noes" of LANNY, and HUBBELL'S lips,
Finger of ICKES ditch-deliver'd by a drab,
Make the gruel thick and slab:
Add thereto a Chinese squadron,
For the ingredients of our cauldron.
ALL
Double, trouble TOIL for HUBBELL;
Fire burn and cauldron bubble.
SECOND WITCH:
Cool it with cash and blood,
Then the charm is firm and good.
Enter Lady MacClinton

Mia T, MacClinton
Act IV, Scene I

KERRY'S "GLOBAL TEST" FOR PREEMPTION:
WHY SECURITY MOMS WILL VOTE FOR BUSH_bumo

YOO-HOO! SECURITY MOMS:
THE TERRORISTS ARE TARGETING YOUR KIDS!_bumo

A Vote for Kerry is a Vote for the Terrorists

by Mia T, 6.08.04

Kerry champions tolerance for terrorists

(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

T he 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

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

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

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

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

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

America must not pull her punches.

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

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2004

pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic
POURQUOI JOHN KERRY EST DANGEREUX POUR L'AMÉRIQUE

by Mia T, 5.15.04

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com

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

The $100 billion Iraqi Oil for Food program was by far the largest relief operation in the history of the United Nations. By extension, it's rapidly becoming the U.N.'s largest-ever scandal....
Those included rewarding friends and allies world-wide with oil allocations on very favorable terms, as well as extracting large kickbacks from oil traders and suppliers of humanitarian goods....
There can be little doubt that U.N. mismanagement contributed greatly to the negative perception of the anti-Saddam containment policy. There is also little doubt that the reward and kickback scheme--as well the possibility of exposure--was a factor as some countries weighed whether to back U.S.-led regime change in Iraq. There is even reason to suspect that some of the Saddam friends and allies who benefited may have been members of the U.N. Secretariat.
Oil for Scandal
The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page
Thursday, March 18, 2004 12:01 a.m.

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.katzdeli.com/

bump ;)

BAGEL_{by Mia T}

A Katz's delicatessen bump.
(The best in New York City.)
(Send your boy in the Army a salami)
(It's a Jewish thang, ya wouldn't understand!)

--dennisw

Me, I prefer a New York bagel, some nova and a (fat-free) schmeer. . .

The bagel's attenuation, BTW,
has nothing whatever to do with triangulation,
Safire notwithstanding.
(The clintons analogize not to the bagel's substance but to its hole.)

The modern bagel is not trying to be a doughnut.
The doughnut-ization of the bagel is illusory.
The tough torus softened because of technology,
not demographics, or even demagogues. . .
It all boils down to boiling...
and, according to some bagel purists, New York water!

Real bagels are first boiled in a kettle,
then rinsed and cooled in a fresh water trough.
Only then are they baked.

The boiling process
reduces the starch and increases the gluten
to produce the real bagel's
characteristic leaden heft, golden brown thin crust and chewy center.

So-called bagel stores in recent years have skipped this very important step.
They steam the bagels in a rack oven
producing the ubiquitous,
(and quite-by-accident doughnut-esque),
ersatz bagel.

Why this happened:
Real-bagel makers are dying off and taking their trade secrets with them.
Real-bagel making is more time- and labor-intensive.
Boiling reduces shelf-life...
Would that we had parboiled the co-presidents, too...

GEFILTE FISHY

by Mia T

The clintons:
Meshuga, tref, tsuris.
Shopworn shtick, schmaltz, tsimmes.
Ganef, schlemiel, schlimazel.
A crooked putz with a big schnozzle.

Nudnik, nebbish, tummler.
Two chachkas on Geraldo's mantle, two schnorrers.
Kibitzer, kvetch with chutzpah.
Yenta, spieler, two stuffed kishkas.

http://www.roadfood.com/Reviews/Writeup.aspx?ReviewID=243&RefID=243

If you wait for their flash nonsense to finish you'll come to a page with 36 photos of celebrities eating at Katz's. Sam Waterson, Al Gore and more. Press the tab that says>>>
"A guy walks into Katz's....."

Also some photos of Katz's salamis sent to our Iraq military under other tabs

Heh. A blast from the past.

I don't get a katz deli flashmovie... just a black screen with a glitter border... Is something loading???

I don't get a katz deli flashmovie... just a black screen with a glitter border... Is something loading???........

I left it alone and in 5-10 minutes it was to where you can navigate. I have no use for flash stuff on websites

You have a "flash player" on your computer that has worked on other websites?

Kerry won 45%, Bush won 55% of white women.

Gotta love those white women........... Hi, Tiger Woods!

Bump

yes. and all my work, including the ickes movie, above, is done in flash. ;)

do you know if it's using the most recent flashplayer, i.e., #7?

"I did not bring him [Osama bin Laden] here...
though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America."
Q ERTY6^utter ^failure_BUMPIt's amusing how ickes, the clintons, and the entire left are publicly denying the reality of the security mom
and the utter (and deliberate) failure of the clintons to have stemmed terrorism during the 8 years
they had the supreme duty to do so.

That the left now regards as its savior these two despicable utter failures
says everything we need to know about this defunct, defective, decayed political organization.


subject:
OUR CHILDREN AND THE KERRY PERIL:
in Kerry's own words

YOO-HOO! SECURITY MOMS:
THE TERRORISTS ARE TARGETING YOUR KIDS! (ABC report)

GEORGE BUSH WILL ACT PREEMPTIVELY TO PROTECT YOUR CHILDREN
AS HIS 34-YEAR RECORD PROVES . . . JOHN KERRY WILL NOT

discussion, analysis

"It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today on November 2^nd , we make the right choice because if we make the wrong choice, the danger is that we'll get hit again, that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States and then we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mindset , if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts and that we're not really at war."

Dick Cheney

"We were not at war in the 1990s."

John Kerry
(missing the point entirely that the War on Terror began in earnest with the bombing of the WTC in 1993 and bin Laden's subsequent repeated (and unanswered) declarations and acts of war against America).

"I think there's been an exaggeration; [President Bush] has exaggerated the threat of terrorism. There needs to be a refocusing. They are really misleading all of America... in a profound way."

John Kerry
Democratic presidential debate, January 29, 2004, Greenville, S.C.

"The War on Terror is less... is occasionally military but it's primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation.

John Kerry

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

John Kerry
COUNCIL FOR FOREIGN RELATIONS , 3 December 2003

"A threat that is real and imminent. That is the only justificatiion for going to war."

John Kerry
acceptance speech, July 29, 2004

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in [their] sanity and restraint... is not a strategy, and it is not an option."

George Bush
State of the Union Address, The U.S. Capitol, January 28, 2003

"I listened to what Senator Kerry had to say in Boston [Kerry acceptance speech], and, with all due respect to the Senator, he views the world as if we had never been attacked on September 11th. The job of the Commander-in-Chief, as he sees it, is to use America's military strength to respond to attacks. But September 11th showed us, as surely as anything can, that we must act against gathering dangers - not wait for to be attacked. That awful day left some 3,000 of our fellow citizens dead, and everything we have learned since tells us the terrorists would do worse if they could, and that they will even use chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons against us if they can. In the world we live in now, responding to attacks is not enough. We must do everything in our power to prevent attacks -- and that includes using military force."

Dick Cheney

PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE ONE:

LEHRER: New question. Two minutes, Senator Kerry.
What is your position on the whole concept of preemptive war?

KERRY: The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control.... But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons....

LEHRER: Ninety seconds.

BUSH: Let me -- I'm not exactly sure what you mean, "passes the global test," you take preemptive action if you pass a global test.
My attitude is you take preemptive action in order to protect the American people, that you act in order to make this country secure.

Good Morning America
September 29, 2004

JOHN KERRY:
"We should not have gone to war, knowing the information we know today....

DIANE SAWYER:
"So, it was not worth it."

JOHN KERRY:
"You should not -- eh -- it depends on the outcome, ultimately, and that depends on the leadership. And we need better leadership to get the job done successfully. I would not have gone to war knowing there was no imminent threat, weapons of mass destruction, there was no connection with al Qaeda and to Saddam Hussein. The president -- eh -- misled the American people. Plain and simple. Bottom line."

DIANE SAWYER:
"So, if it turns out okay, it was worth it? -- "

JOHN KERRY (interrupts) :
"No."

DIANE SAWYER:
"...but now it wasn -- ?"

JOHN KERRY (interrupts again) :
"It was a mistake to do what he did but we have to succeed now that we've done it.

Good Morning America
September 29, 2004
for discussion, goto:
Diane Sawyer Nails Kerry Peril (PREEMPTION + KERRY'S EX POST FACTO REASONING)

Larry King Live
July 8, 2004

"Well, I haven't been briefed [about the new al Qaeda plans of a large-scale attack on the United States] yet, Larry. They have offered to brief me; I just haven't had time."

John Kerry
Larry King Live, July 8, 2004
(NB: Radio City, July 8, 2004, Nantucket, July 17, 2004)

Posted on Sat, Oct. 30, 2004

Bush will protect and defend

Carol A. Taber is president of FamilySecurityMatters.com, a Web site devoted to informing women on issues of national security

In the 2000 election, 7.7 million more women than men voted. Having fought for the right to vote - and in that struggle, many courageous suffragettes were beaten, jailed and tortured - women have become conscientious citizens.

Indeed, after 9/11, when many Americans admitted to knowing not much about this new enemy, Islamic terrorism, women clamored for information. Soon, we developed a new sophistication about the world.

We learned that no country has permanent allies, but all countries have permanent interests; that the United Nations is corrupt, cruel and shiftless; and that former allies could betray us by valuing profit above all else. More important, we learned that we and our children are not safe. In the decades leading up to 9/11, American families, blissfully ignorant of the world around us, became target No. 1 of savages beyond description.

Our reaction? Women's focus groups and polls show we want to save the Patriot Act; win the war against terror; allow guns in the cockpits of airliners; strengthen immigration and deportation laws; build missile shield-defense systems; and stay on the offense against terrorists. In protecting our children, we are proactive and we do not vacillate. We don't want summits; we want showdowns.

This is why President Bush has obliterated the gender gap, the first Republican candidate to do so in decades. He is the right man at the right time for the right job.

We applaud the President for taking a root-causes and comprehensive strategy to transform the Middle East, where tyrants and their terrorist offspring breed. Demolishing two totalitarian regimes that provided aid and sanctuary to terrorists, as documented in the 9/11 commission's report, we freed more than 50 million people. For the first time in history, Afghanistan held democratic elections; Iraq follows in January. In a scenario that echoes that of early 20th-century America, Afghan women wept as they voted.

Through aggressive American diplomacy, Libya capitulated and abandoned its weapons of mass destruction while Pakistan now brings thousands of terrorists to justice. Sixty-four nations, whose flags proudly fly at U.S. CentCom Headquarters, are now allied with America in this war. Even France - a country that was resolved to veto United Nations resolutions against Saddam Hussein while negotiating with him for million-dollar trade contracts - and Germany are now part of President Bush's Proliferation Security Initiative.

Women are behind President Bush in enforcing a forward strategy against terrorists, hunting them down where they live and where our brilliant military is much better trained at shooting back than we or our children are. Of al-Qaeda operatives, 75 percent are killed or captured. All 26 NATO countries are in Afghanistan and/or Iraq. Even the United Nations is helping elections in Afghanistan and Iraq. The military sees our striking progress firsthand; that's why it supports President Bush (73 percent) over Sen. Kerry (18 percent), according to the Army Times. Are we and our children safer? Of course we are, and that's why polls show President Bush leading Sen. Kerry among women, too.

It is the President's most solemn duty to protect American families, and so no president has more earned the right to be reelected than President Bush. Who cares what Jacques Chirac thinks?

Sen. Kerry has not earned the right for us to risk putting our families' fates in his hands. Amazingly, he has voted against every weapons system we now use and against intelligence spending by $6 billion, after the first World Trade Center bombing. Two years later, he tried again, and not one senator supported his irresponsible bill. His tiresome vacillation about the war is, moreover, frightening. Can anyone say even now what his war policy is?

We're about to choose the man who will lead us through the most dangerous time in human history with terrorists able to acquire nuclear weapons and America's families their primary target. John Kerry has stated that, as president, he would sell nuclear fuel to Iran, the world's premier sponsor of global terror. John Kerry is a risk our country cannot afford.

Choosing our wartime leader is the most crucial vote any of us will cast, especially as women are 52 percent of voters. The outcome of this war will determine the future of civilization. That's not bombast. That's fact.

Our foremothers would be proud to see us vote to safeguard our democracy. This is, after all, why they suffered so long ago.

The Web address of FamilySecurityMatters.com is http://familysecuritymatters.com .

KERRY'S "GLOBAL TEST" FOR PREEMPTION
WHY SECURITY MOMS WILL VOTE FOR BUSH

WHY JOHN KERRY IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA

by Mia T, 10.01.04
BUSH: I WILL ACT PREEMPTIVELY TO PROTECT AMERICA
(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)
thanx to Wolverine and jla for locating the audio

KERRY: I WILL REQUIRE 'A GLOBAL TEST' TO ACT
(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

LEHRER: New question. Two minutes, Senator Kerry.
What is your position on the whole concept of preemptive war?
KERRY: The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control....
But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons....
LEHRER: Ninety seconds.
BUSH: Let me -- I'm not exactly sure what you mean, "passes the global test," you take preemptive action if you pass a global test.
My attitude is you take preemptive action in order to protect the American people, that you act in order to make this country secure.

The U.S. Education Department advised school leaders nationwide to watch for people spying on their buildings or school buses to help detect any possibility of terrorism.
PhotoDisc

School Warning
School Plans, Security Information Gathered by Suspected Iraq Insurgent Focus Concern on Schools in Six States

By Brian Ross
ABCNEWS.com

Oct. 7, 2004--Schools in six states in particular are being watched closely based on information uncovered by the U.S. military in Baghdad this summer, law enforcement and education officials told ABC News.

A man described as an Iraqi insurgent involved in anti-coalition activities had downloaded school floor plans and safety and security information about elementary and high schools in the six states, according to officials.

School officials in Fort Myers, Fla.; Salem, Ore.; Gray, Ga.; Birch Run, Mich.; two towns in New Jersey; and two towns in California have been told to increase security in light of the discovery.

Officials in the New Jersey towns, Franklinville and Rumson, were notified by counterterrorism officials last month that their schools had been possibly singled out.

"Once we were notified, we immediately put a plan into effect," said Dwight Pfenning, deputy commissioner of education for the state of New Jersey.

And William Matthews, superintendent of schools in Jones County, Ga., sent a letter to parents, faculty and staff last week notifying them that security was being increased during the election season.

"In an effort to be proactive and ensure the safety of all, we are reviewing our school safety plans," Matthews wrote in the letter. "You may notice an increase in law enforcement visibility as well as other measures designed to provide a safe and pleasant environment."

Matthews said in the letter that the information was not considered a threat.

On Wednesday, the federal government warned schools nationwide to look out for suspicious activity that might signal terrorist activity, and told school officials to be on the lookout for anyone spying on their buildings or buses, expressing interest in obtaining site plans, and other types of suspicious activity.

It followed an analysis by the FBI and the Homeland Security Department of the school siege in Beslan, Russia, last month, in which nearly 340 people, many of them children, were killed.

Law enforcement officials said they had no easy explanation why an insurgent in Baghdad would be gathering such specific information about American schools, some of them in small towns.

And though the information was recovered in July, it was not given urgency until the attack in Beslan.

Ultimately, officials say they are hoping to increase security in schools and heighten awareness without causing parents nationwide to panic.

ABC News' Richard Esposito contributed to this report.

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

HEAR THE FIRST VEEP DEBATE NOW! (the whole ball of wax)

CHENEY WARNS AMERICA: THIS ELECTION IS ABOUT OUR SURVIVAL
KERRY-EDWARDS TRIES TO SHUT DOWN DEBATE

WHY JOHN KERRY IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA

by Mia T, 9.09.04
CHENEY WARNS AMERICA: THIS ELECTION IS ABOUT OUR SURVIVAL
(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)
thanx to Wolverine and jla for locating the audio

KERRY-EDWARDS TRIES TO SHUT DOWN 'SURVIVAL' DEBATE
(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

"It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today on November 2^nd, we make the right choice because if we make the wrong choice, the danger is that we'll get hit again, that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States and then we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mindset, if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts and that we're not really at war."
Dick Cheney

"We were not at war in the 1990s."
John Kerry

"I think there's been an exaggeration; [President Bush] has exaggerated the threat of terrorism. There needs to be a refocusing. They are really misleading all of America... in a profound way."

"The War on Terror is less... is occasionally military but it's primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation."

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

"A threat that is real and imminent. That is the only justificatiion for going to war."

John Kerry

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?
If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late.
Trusting in [their] sanity and restraint... is not a strategy, and it is not an option."
George Bush
State of the Union Address
The U.S. Capitol
January 28, 2003

"Dick Cheney's fear tactics crossed the line. What it says to the American people: 'If you go to the polls in November and elect anyone else but us and another terrorist attack occurs, it's your fault.' This is un-American. Except the truth is and proves once again that they'll do anything and say anything to keep their jobs. Protecting the American people from terrorist attacks and from vicious terrorists is not a Republican issue and is not a Democratic issue. It's an American issue and George Bush and Dick Cheney should know that.
John Edwards

et's get real, people. Universal health care schemes or abortion-friendly justices have little utility if we're blown to bits.
There is a reason lifelong liberal Democrats like the former Mayor of New York, Ed Koch, and the Hollywood actor, Ron Silver, who agree with George Bush on absolutely nothing domestically, are not only voting this November for a Republican presidential candidate for the first time in their lives--they are, in fact, campaigning vigorously for his reelection.
Ed Koch and Ron Silver are supporting George Bush because they know what all rational, informed voters know--only one issue matters in this, the first post-9/11 presidential election: Who would better prosecute the War on Terror, George Bush or John Kerry?
The choice could not be more clear.

THE LETHAL DIFFERENCE: THE BUSH DOCTRINE v. THE NEO-NEOLIBERAL, ANIMAL FARM MENTALITY

President Bush and Dick Cheney, as enunciated in The Bush Doctrine, advocate preemption and overwhelming military might.
Kerry and Edwards, The Men From Hope, (been there, done that), advocate "a more sensitive war". . . a defensive-only war. . . the hope that tomorrow will be a better day.

THE WHOLE BALL OF WAX
This difference is the whole ball of wax, people.
No less than Western Civilization hangs in the balance.
When terrorists declare war on you and commit acts of war against you, you are perforce at war.
At that point, you have only one decision to make:
Do you fight?
Or do you surrender?
Bush chose fight.
clinton and Kerry -- repeatedly and invariably -- chose surrender.
KERRY-EDWARDS TRIES TO SHUT DOWN THE DEBATE
In an effort to shut down debate on this issue -- clearly a losing one for Kerry-Edwards -- John Edwards labeled Cheney's warning "un-American."
I have news for the two Johns. Nothing is more American than acting to preserve, protect and defend America. And nothing is more un-American than thwarting that effort.

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2004

Indeed, ickes, the clintons, and the entire left, by making this ludicrous argument, are denying the reality of the horrific danger of terrorism.

Never mind the presidency. These idiots are demonstrating in real time why they must never again occupy any position of power in America.

HAROLD ICKES:
on winning the presidency by terrorizing white women_bump
It's amusing how ickes, the clintons, and the entire left are publicly denying the reality of the security mom
and the utter (and deliberate) failure of the clintons to have stemmed terrorism during the 8 years
they had the supreme duty to do so.

That the left now regards as its savior these two despicable utter failures
says everything we need to know about this defunct, defective, decayed political organization.

Indeed, ickes, the clintons, and the entire left, by making this ludicrous argument, are denying the reality of the horrific danger of terrorism.

Never mind the presidency.
These idiots are demonstrating in real time why they must never again occupy any position of power in America.

bump

ping

POST-ELECTION MORALITY PLAY:
THE LEFT CONTINUES TO DEMONSTRATE ITS UNFITNESS IN REAL TIME