Posted on 01/25/2003 2:21:31 PM PST by Mia T
January 25, 2003 -- Hillary Rodham Clinton yesterday delivered herself of a blistering attack on the Bush administration's national-security policy:
"Time has passed and our vigilance has faded," claimed New York's junior senator. "We have relied on a myth of homeland security - a myth written in rhetoric, inadequate resources and a new bureaucracy, instead of relying on good, old-fashioned American ingenuity, might and muscle."
Hmmm. What to make of that?
Well, not to visit the sins of the husband on the wife - okay, maybe a little bit - but let the record show that the first attack on the World Trade Center took place in 1993, two months into the Clinton co-presidency.
And, as Rep. Peter King (R-Long Island) noted yesterday, "[After the first attack], nobody from the Clinton administration, including the president himself, ever even came to New York to visit the site, and they did nothing from 1993 until they left office to protect New York."
The contrast with the current administration couldn't be more stark.
For the record also shows that the previous administration did little to respond to subsequent attacks on U.S. interests: the Khobar Towers marine barracks in Saudi Arabia in 1995, the two U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998, USS Cole in Yemen in 2000.
Again, contrast that with the current administration's response - both in Afghanistan and across the world in the broader war on terror.
Certainly looks like "old-fashioned American ingenuity, might and muscle" to us. But what about the "new bureaucracy" that Mrs. Clinton so scathingly condemns?
Well, first, it was the Democrats who got out in front and demanded the creation of a Department of Homeland Security - and then blocked it for months afterwards in a happily failed attempt to lard up that bureaucracy with union-protecting language.
Sen. Clinton has, as the saying goes, a right to her opinion. What she doesn't have is a right to her own set of facts.
And the fact is, the previous administration - in which she held a significant behind-the-scenes role, and from which her current position devolves - failed to respond forcefully enough when American interests were attacked, both at home and abroad.
The Democratic Party, as a whole, has scant standing to criticize the efforts of the current administration regarding national security.
Mrs. Clinton, individually, has none.
|
|||||
|
hillary clinton, King Day 'A Call to Arms'
and how YOU dealt with it is part of YOUR character.
LEFT-WING TALK RADIO 2: "It's the terrorism, stupid."
NOTE: Program in two parts.
Hear clinton stupidity, smallness, banality, fecklessness, ineptitude, prevarication, corruption, perfidy and utter failure directly from the rapist, himself. clinton provides the perfect foil for Bush, who makes a cameo appearance or two.
Pay special attention to Dan Rather's little story about terrorism hitting the U.S. "bigtime" during the clintons' tenure.
In particular, connect the following dots: the '93 WTC bombing. a certain bin Laden protégé and clinton's admission that he passed up bin Laden. Note clinton's spurious argument for this monumental failure.
To this day, clinton seems not to understand that bin Laden is -- and was in 1996 -- an enemy of the state, not a simple criminal.
clinton still seems not to get it -- the same terrorist (the terrorist he couldn't bring himself to capture) hit the same building in '93.
Notwithstanding this, to hear clinton tell it, his disastrous decision not to take bin Laden when offered on a silver platter by Sudan, (arguably the worst decision ever made by a president), derived from his scrupulous avoidance of abusing power and trashing laws...
Yeah, right.
|
|
It is obvious to anyone who bothers to remove his political blinders. It is so patently obvious that even those whose political blinders are a permanently fixed fashion statement -- that is to say, even Hollywood -- can see it. (Just ask Whoopie Goldberg...or Rosie O'Donnell...) Bush's poll numbers are a reflection of this self-evident truth.
What is manifestly obvious and confirmed on a daily basis is the plain fact that Democrats are, by definition, constitutionally unfit to navigate the ship of state through these troubled, terrorist waters. Democrats were unfit pre-9/11, but few could see it then. It was 9/11 and its aftermath that made this truth crystal clear even to the most simpleminded among us.
The unwashed masses, the uninformed, the disinformed can see it now. All America can see it now. Self-preservation is kicking in, trumping petty politics at every turn.
And this is why Democrat demagoguery and stupidity and sedition are achieving new lows...
We are witnessing the last gasp of a political relic. The Democrat party is not merely obsolete. As 9/11 and clinton-clinton-Daschle action and inaction have demonstrated, the Democrat party is very dangerous.
We must now make sure that this fact, too, is obvious to all... |
|||
|
"let the record show that the first attack on the World Trade Center took place in 1993, two months into the Clinton co-presidency."
|
Maybe his policies are hurting the Chicom's? What Hipocracies will spew from this witches mouth!
Scary thought is that enough people in NY believe her and put her into the US Senate.
"...And, lastly, the other night on character Governor Clinton said it's not the character of the president but the character of the presidency. I couldn't disagree more. Horace Greeley said the only thing that endures is character. And I think it was Justice Black who talked about great nations, like great men, must keep their word.
And so the question is, who will safeguard this nation, who will safeguard our people and our children? I need your support, I ask for your support. And may God bless the United States of America."
|
The Real Danger of a Fake President: Post-9/11 Reconsideration of The Placebo President
What did he know. . . and when did he know it ?
BUSH: "I will not wait on events, while dangers gather."
rodham-clinton reality-check
WRITTEN IN STONE: AN ARCHITECT DEFINES THE CLINTONS
The REAL clinton Virtual Office Update
BUMP! |
Damn them all for all time.
Great quote. Prescient of Bush -- very sad for the world. Would be a great addition to the tape archives. There was a third chance to get rid of the co-rapists. In '98... Perhaps there was still time to go after bin Laden...The failure to remove the clintons in '98 is directly traceable to the logic of pathologic self-interest. Recall in particular:
The Lieberman Paradigm debuted during Joe's misconstrued and erroneously lauded Monicagate speech. The Shays Syndrome was borne of the impeachment trial fully formed, like a humunculus, a breech presentation. Shays, you may recall, examined the evidence in the Ford Building, concluded that clinton did, in fact, rape Broaddrick and was going to vote to impeach, but changed his mind after a tete a tete with the rapist. Any cognitive dissonance Shays may have experienced rendering that verdict was no doubt assuaged by the political plum clinton had given Mrs. (Betsi) Shays...
|
by Mia T Hypocrisy abounds in this Age of clinton, a Postmodern Oz rife with constitutional deconstruction and semantic subversion, a virtual surreality polymarked by presidential alleles peccantly misplaced or, in the case of Jefferson, posthumously misappropriated. Shameless pharisees in stark relief crowd the Capitol frieze: Baucus, Biden, Bingaman, Breaux, Bryan, Byrd, Cohen, Conrad, Daschle, Dodd, Gore, Graham, Harkin, Hollings, Inouye, Kennedy, Kerrey, Kerry, Kohl, Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, Lieberman, Mikulski, Moynihan, Reid, Robb, Rockefeller, Sarbanes, Schumer. These are the 28 sitting Democratic senators, the current Vice President and Secretary of Defense -- clinton defenders all -- who, in 1989, voted to oust U.S. District Judge Walter Nixon for making "false or misleading statements to a grand jury." In 1989 each and every one of these men insisted that perjury was an impeachable offense. (What a difference a decade and a decadent Democrat make.) Senator Herb Kohl (November 7, 1989): * * * * * "The hypocrite's crime is that he bears false witness against himself," observed the philosopher Hannah Arendt. "What makes it so plausible to assume that hypocrisy is the vice of vices is that integrity can indeed exist under the cover of all other vices except this one. Only crime and the criminal, it is true, confront us with the perplexity of radical evil; but only the hypocrite is really rotten to the core." If hypocrisy is the vice of vices, then perjury is the crime of crimes, for perjury provides the necessary cover for all other crimes. David Lowenthal, professor emeritus of political science at Boston College makes the novel and compelling argument that perjury is "bribery consummate, using false words instead of money or other things of value to pervert the course of justice" and, thus, perjury is a constitutionally enumerated high crime. The Democrats' defense of clinton's perjury -- and their own hypocrisy -- is three-pronged. ONE: clinton's perjuries were "just about sex" and therefore "do not rise to the level of an impeachable offense." This argument is spurious. The courts make no distinction between perjuries. Perjury is perjury. Perjury attacks the very essence of democracy. Perjury is bribery consummate. Moreover, (the clinton spinners notwithstanding), clinton's perjury was not "just about sex." clinton's perjury was about clinton denying a citizen justice by lying in a civil rights-sexual harassment case about his sexual history with subordinates. TWO: Presidents and judges are held to different standards under the Constitution. clinton's defenders ignore Federalist No. 57, and Hillary Rodham's constitutional treatise on impeachable acts -- written in 1974 when she wanted to impeach a president; both mention "bad conduct" as grounds for impeachment. "Impeachment," wrote Rodham, "did not have to be for criminal offenses -- but only for a 'course of conduct' that suggested an abuse of power or a disregard for the office of the President of the United States...A person's 'course of conduct' while not particularly criminal could be of such a nature that it destroys trust, discourages allegiance, and demands action by the Congress...The office of the President is such that it calls for a higher level of conduct than the average citizen in the United States." Hamilton (or Madison) discussed the importance of wisdom and virtue in Federalist 57. "The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust." (Contrast this with clinton, who recklessly, reflexively and feloniously subordinates the common good to his personal appetites.) Because the Framers did not anticipate the demagogic efficiency of the electronic bully pulpit, they ruled out the possibility of an MTV mis-leader (and impeachment-thwarter!) like clinton. In Federalist No. 64, John Jay said: "There is reason to presume" the president would fall only to those "who have become the most distinguished by their abilities and virtue." He imagined that the electorate would not "be deceived by those brilliant appearances of genius and patriotism which, like transient meteors, sometimes mislead as well as dazzle." (If the clinton debacle teaches us anything, it is this: If we are to retain our democracy in this age of the electronic demagogue, we must recalibrate the constitutional balance of power.) THREE: The president can be prosecuted for his alleged felonies after he leaves office. (Nota bene ROBERT RAY.) This clinton-created censure contrivance -- borne out of what I have come to call the "Lieberman Paradigm" (clinton is an unfit president; therefore clinton must remain president) -- is nothing less than a postmodern deconstruction in which the Oval Office would serve for two years as a holding cell for the perjurer-obstructor. Such indecorous, dual-purpose architectonics not only threatens the delicate constitutional framework -- it disturbs the cultural aesthetic. The senators must, therefore, roundly reject this elliptic scheme. In this postmodern Age of clinton, we may, from time to time, selectively stomach corruption. But we must never abide ugliness. Never.
|
Thanks Mia T. Fabulous stuff here!
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.