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

Skip to comments.

winning recipe for Bush: add a dollop of New York street fighter...
6.15.04 | Mia T

Posted on 06/15/2004 5:32:12 AM PDT by Mia T

winning recipe for Bush: add a dollop of New York street fighter...

 

 

by Mia T, 6.15.04

 

 

he Bush camp could use a dollop of New York street fighter... that is to say, Giuliani, with McCain -- geography notwithstanding -- the backup....

Bush must drop Cheney. (Notice how the Left, these days, is uncharacteristically mute on the matter of Cheney. That should tell you something about The Cheney Effect.)

Bush is asking the wrong questions about Cheney... and about winning....

The overriding issue is not about matters personal. Bush's personal ambition (or lack thereof)... or personally loyalty... must not cloud the calculus.

The overriding issue is this: Will President George W. Bush remain loyal to the Constitution?

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution

Preserving, protecting and defending America is the president's only charge.

We are facing annihilation now because, frankly, Dubya's dad, similarly indisposed to the notions of the street fight and a larger collective loyalty, allowed the election of clinton, profoundly, dysfunctionally, self-servingly dangerous in much the same way Kerry is profoundly, dysfunctionally, self-servingly dangerous.

Worse still, George H.W. Bush allowed the election of someone he KNEW TO A CERTAINTY was profoundly, dysfunctionally, self-servingly dangerous.

George W. Bush must put aside the personal... and all conservatives must put aside the provincial. Winning this apocalyptic war is all that matters now.


Achieving a low soldier mortality rate with a policy of artful battlefield-and-responsibility-avoidance is hardly the measure of commander-in-chief success.

UNFIT: taking the measure of a would-be commander-in-chief
WHY JOHN KERRY IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA
#2-understanding the job description
Mia T, 5.17.04



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

CNN's favorite general, Wesley Clark, has also been heard to opine that our troops are getting bogged down in Iraq. His competence to judge American generals is questionable since his command was limited to working for NATO. We prefer to hear from American generals. Clark's contribution to international relations consisted of mistakenly bombing the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. In his zeal to prevent troop casualties, he ordered pilots to fly at such high altitudes that the pilots complained that they were being forced to incur unnecessary civilian casualties.

Ann Coulter
The enemy within
World Net Daily
March 26, 2003

 


hear
*Thanx to Cloud William for text and audio

 

LEHRER: President Bush, your closing statement, sir.

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

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

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

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

(Applause)

 

play tape


 

 

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


(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)
by Mia T, 4.6.04

 

 


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 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."

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

Well, it's interesting to hear that when they shut the newspaper that belongs to a legitimate voice in Iraq, and let me change the term "legitimate." When they shut a newspaper that belongs to a voice, because he [al Sadr] has clearly taken on a far more radical tone in recent days, and aligned himself with both Hamas and Hezbollah, which is a sort of terrorist alignment.

John Kerry

"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.

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2004


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; Israel; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Arkansas; US: Illinois; US: Massachusetts; US: New York; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 60minutes; 911; 911attacks; 911commission; 911investigation; abuseofpower; agitpropmachine; alqaeda; alqaedairaq; alqaida; alqaidairaq; alsadr; anachronism; animalfarm; arkansas; bill911; billclinton; blameamericafirst; bookdeal; bot; callmeirresponsible; cbs; cbsnews; cbsviacom; chappaquiddick; 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; commissionedportrait; confess; congenitalliar; corapist; counterterrorismczar; coverup; coverupqueen; dangerous; denial; error; flipflop; genocide; georgesoros; georgetsuris; giuliani4veep; gorelick; gorelickswall; gorelickwall; 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; jamiegorelick; johnkerry; johnkerryveep; kennedy; kerredy; kerredyconstruct; kerry; kerryconfesses; kerryisnobodyschoice; kerryveep; kerrywarcrimes; launderingmachine; lauriemylroie; letatcestmoi; losingbinladen; maryjowhite; maryjowhitememo; mccain; mediabias; moneylaundering; nationalsecurity; payoff; portrait; postmodernploy; postmodernprez; predator; predators; quidproquo; rape; rapist; rapistclintons; rapists; recall; reddragonrising; revisionism; richardclarke; rwanda; sedition; selfaggrandizement; sheknewsheraped2; simonschuster; slushfund; snowboard; snowboarding; snowbored; sorosstandbyyourman; sudanoffer; tedkennedy; terrorism; terrorismczar; terroristannihilator; terroristsympathizer; thefinger; theterrorismstupid; tinear; tolerance4terrorism; treason; utterfailure; viacom; viacommie; victimizer; vietnam; vietnamwall; virtualhillary; wearethepresident; wot; youknow; zeitgeist; zipper; zipperhoist; zipperhoist2; zipperhoisted
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-65 next last
To: Lonesome in Massachussets
"Another Rudi-Hillary match up would be fun to contemplate."

When was the first?! We need RudyG to whup the HildaBeast's arse in the 2006 Senatorial tilt...if he wins that, he'll improve his Presidential aspirations immensely.

FReegards...MUD

41 posted on 06/15/2004 10:26:32 AM PDT by Mudboy Slim (Revive the Reagan Revolution...NOW!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Mia T; Russ
"If it could be shown that Russ' numbers are predictive to a certainty, would you favor the switch?"

That's a trick question, as yer asking me to say it's alright to sacrifice four years to get a "clean, unannointed candidate" in 2008. I honestly do not believe that winning and having Cheney on the ticket are mutually-exclusive. Come November, I realisticly expect Bush/Cheney to bring in AT LEAST 75% of the Electoral Votes...to say we've only got a 1 in 4 chance of winning with Cheney on the ticket is ludicrous to me.

FReegards...MUD

42 posted on 06/15/2004 10:32:21 AM PDT by Mudboy Slim (Revive the Reagan Revolution...NOW!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: sauropod
Bush isn't going to drop Cheney. Besides, Rudy is real squishy on social issues.

Squishy is just a nice way of saying "dead wrong."
43 posted on 06/15/2004 10:45:48 AM PDT by Antoninus (Federal Marriage Amendment, NOW!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

After all this time,we finally have reached a complete parting of the ways,Mia.Cheney can NOT be cut loose from the ticket! And Rudy as V.P.,though I like a lot of what he did for N.Y.C.,would make a Kerry win a certitude.He's just the wrong man for V.P. and I highly doubt that he'd even take it.He wants to be Governor of N.Y. or president.


44 posted on 06/15/2004 12:25:49 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
I knew I was being controversial. ;)

I like Cheney very much, but I maintain that his presence on the ticket is a net loss... The reasons why Cheney on the ticket weakens the Republican position, both in 04 and 08, are obvious.

One possible compromise: The Bush 2000 veep headhunter removing himself if he determines that he is a drag on the ticket would have a certain symmetry.

45 posted on 06/15/2004 1:32:05 PM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
I'm really not certain why you have taken this position,but I really DO believe you're 100% incorrect.Cheney is NOT a drag on the '04 ticket,though of course,that does leave a huge hole for '08,since Cheney will not be running for president then.

While Rudy made a name as THE COUNTRY'S MAYOR, for his bravery and calm and steady hand on 9/11 and beyond,he has far too much baggage otherwise.His "broken windows" policies were fantastic,but his sidewalk gates and NO CROSS streets,STINK! And then there are his moderate stances,which either flummox or infuriate some Conservatives all over the nation.He wants to be governor and N.Y. stated needs him in that position.Maybe he will be able to reign in Albany;GOD knows that place needs someone to do it.:-)

46 posted on 06/15/2004 6:14:19 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Mia T; Mudboy Slim
All academic because the ticket is, and will be, BUSH/CHENEY.
I don't understand, Mia, your motivation for suggesting something that will not occur. Wouldn't it be more advantageous for our side to dwell and improve on who we will be putting up against the Dems next November?

And I certainly wouldn't put Rudy G. on the ticket. He is unqualified to lead the Party of Reagan.

47 posted on 06/15/2004 7:13:34 PM PDT by jla (http://www.ronaldreaganmemorial.com/memorial_fund.asp)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: nopardons; Mudboy Slim; Russ; jla; All
The left has successfully demagogued, marginalized and Halliburtonized Cheney. But I hasten to add that the Bush camp, by keeping Cheney effectively muzzled and hogtied for four years, has done its best to assist the Left in its effort.

One of the failures of Bush--and it may prove to be his fatal failure--is his failure to communicate. The Bush Doctrine is correct, courageous, even brilliant, but Bush never sold it to America. The Bush economic strategy is successful, but Bush doesn't adequately inform America of its success. Bush's rhetorical inadequacy leaves an informational vacuum in the electorate that the Left solicitously fills with its lies.

Cheney could have been the voice of the administration. He speaks lucidly and convincingly, but is rarely allowed to speak. Why is that? The fear, I suppose, is that if Cheney took on that role, it would confirm the Left's claim, which is that he is the one actually running the place.

And so we have one man who cannot communicate his brilliant, courageous policy, and another, who dares not communicate it. This is not a good team. It is a recipe for electoral disaster.

And by the way, the Bush ad, "pessimism never created a job" exemplifies this rhetorical lameness. The message is much too oblique, too soft. What they mean to say, I think, is that Kerry is talking down the economy (and the war) and imperiling us all.

It's time to stop pulling the punches and start telling it like it is. Giuliani would do that.

48 posted on 06/15/2004 7:17:57 PM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Put someone like Rudy G. on the ticket and the Dems will be making Inaugural Ball reservations.
The G.O.P. will not win a Presidential election without the support of the Christian Right.
49 posted on 06/15/2004 7:37:07 PM PDT by jla (http://www.ronaldreaganmemorial.com/memorial_fund.asp)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
V.P.s are almost NEVER seen,let alone heard from.

Yes, President Bush and his team haven't done and really don't do a good job of " selling". WHERE IS LEE ATWATER WHEN ONE REALLY NEEDS HIM?

The left demonize ALL GOPers,so their tarring Cheney with Halliburton is really no biggie.Why? Because they do it so heavy handedly, that the majority of the great unwashed haven't a clue as to what they're talking about.And as far as Cheney's being the "real" power behind the throne,that too only resonates with the kooks;both on the left and the right.

Sooooooooooo,what would Rudy bring to the ticket? A voice for the administration? No,he'd be labeled as the "new puppet master" and worse.Many people would see the change as something sinister,not to mention the fact that a lot of FREEPERS hate Rudy,because he isn't a Conservative and some here are such regionalists,that a Northerner,any Northerner,is viewed as the anti-Christ.

Cheney will do superlatively well in the debates;so will the president and most people won't even begin to pay attention,until after Labor Day.

Giulliani should replace Tennet.

50 posted on 06/15/2004 7:38:08 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Mudboy Slim
Bush-Cheney 2004

Jeb Bush-?? 2008


51 posted on 06/15/2004 7:38:10 PM PDT by MeekOneGOP (Call me the Will Rogers voter: I never met a Democrat I didn't like - to vote OUT OF POWER !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: MeekOneGOP

Jeb is tops, but many FReepers
just say oh, no, not another Bush.


52 posted on 06/15/2004 7:50:15 PM PDT by txrangerette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Mia T; Mudboy Slim

Thanks the ping, Mia. Interesting post, hehe!

Rush discussed this in the little bit I caught today -- a caller also wanted Bush meet the naysayers head on, not ignore or avoid challenges and misstatements by the left. We've certainly been burned by "nice" Republican candidates. That's why we loved Ronald Reagan, the great communicator, who was not afraid to call evil and wrong when he saw it.

Observation: when the Bush/Cheney train came through liberal NE Ohio a few years back, the crowd was as excited to see, hoot, and holler for Cheney as it was for Bush; this was confirmed in conversations.


53 posted on 06/15/2004 8:57:54 PM PDT by cyn (prayers always for Terri Schiavo and her family.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: cyn; Badray; prisoner6
clarifation of the obvious: the crowd was composed of conservatives who were so appreciative of that breath of fresh air coming through! Lemme tell you, we were in pain . . . ouch, local talk radio was insufferable!

Thank God for Quinn and Rose out of Pittsburgh.

WARROOM.COM BUMP!!!

54 posted on 06/15/2004 9:08:10 PM PDT by cyn (prayers always for Terri Schiavo and her family.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
"Quinn and Rose are now syndicated! Quinn and Rose have moved to a secure location, somewhere in the heartland of America -- just down the hall from Dick Cheney. But, don't despair. You can now hear them on the following stations. . ."

Check this out, ask for it to air in your area. It's a lifeline to sanity and common sense for those in liberal strongholds.

55 posted on 06/15/2004 9:21:15 PM PDT by cyn (prayers always for Terri Schiavo and her family.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: cyn

That is great news about Quinn.
I had never heard of Quinn or the warroom.com until I was surprised by this:

HEAR Free Republic clintoncorruption Essay Read on Pittsburgh Radio Show + Screeching-hillary Segue
QUINN IN THE MORNING ("Reverse Gorelick" ESSAY DISCUSSED)
(
MP3, REAL, WINDOWS MEDIA, WINAMP)

 

 

So what does this--Reverse Gorelick-- have to do with Kerry, anyway?

John Kerry has made it clear that he is picking up the clinton torch. Unlike Gore,

Does ANYBODY support John Kerry?
 
(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com
  • Kerry is running as clinton's natural heir.
  • Kerry huddles with clinton every ten days (source: hog-and-bow-tied Leftie reporters renting their Kerry inauguration tuxs last night on Charlie Rose),
  • Kerry advisers are the white, gray-haired clinton guys,
  • Kerry invokes clinton policy, clinton 'achievement;'
  • Kerry is no less ruthless and opportunistic than clinton, no less clueless in a provincial sort of way (Beacon Hill v. Hot Springs notwithstanding), no less inclined toward willful, methodical malpractice and malfeasance, no less dangerous....
    The Gorelick Wall was the underlying rationale for--The Gorelick Wall was (insofar as '60s liberalism was the Wall's apparent impetus) a cynical cover for --the willful, methodical malpractice and malfeasance that was the product of the virulent clinton strain of rampant '60s liberalism.

 

CLINTON TREASON + THE GORELICK WALL

by Mia T, 5.5.04

This story merits its own book, but what deserves immediate comment is the willingness of the Clintons to risk everything to keep the cash pipeline open. Schwartz kept it open and full. Before he was through, Schwartz and Loral would donate roughly $2 million to the Clinton cause. Whether Schwartz gave additional money or favors off the books is a question that deserves asking.

A second question that deserves asking is just how much damage Schwartz, Berger and the Clintons did to America's national security.

A third question worth asking is whether Ron Brown's very real threats to expose these machinations led to his death.

Some dare call it treason:
Jack Cashill reveals how Clinton sold America's security to China
WorldNetDaily.com| Wednesday, May 5, 2004 | Jack Cashill

Reverse Gorelick

by Mia T, 4.15.04
QUINN IN THE MORNING (("Reverse Gorelick" ESSAY DISCUSSED)
(
MP3, REAL, WINDOWS MEDIA, WINAMP)

e would have it backwards and miss the point entirely if we were to attribute The Gorelick Wall and the attendant metastasis of al Qaeda during the clintons' watch, (which, incidentally, was then in its incipient stage and stoppable), to the '60s liberal mindset.

Rampant '60s liberalism was not the underlying rationale for The Gorelick Wall.

Rather, The Gorelick Wall was the underlying rationale for--The Gorelick Wall was (insofar as '60s liberalism was the Wall's apparent impetus) a cynical cover for --the willful, methodical malpractice and malfeasance that was the product of the virulent clinton strain of rampant '60s liberalism.

While it is true that The Gorelick Wall was the convenient device of a cowardly self-serving president, The Wall's aiding and abetting of al Qaeda was largely incidental, (the pervasiveness of the clintons' Nobel-Peace-Prize calculus notwithstanding).

The Wall was engineered primarily to protect a corrupt self-serving president. The metastasis of al Qaeda and 9/11 were simply the cost of doing business, clinton-style.

Further confirmation of the Wall-as-cover-for-clinton-corruption thesis:

  • Gorelick's failure to disclose the fact that she authored the memo that was the efficient cause of 911
  • Gorelick's surreal presence on the 911 commission investigating Gorelick's Justice Department, a maneuver that effectively removes from the universe of witnesses a central witness, Gorelick, even as it uniquely positions a central player, Gorelick, to directly shape the commission's conclusions. (Is there any question which two people are responsible for Gorelick's insertion on the commission?)

Conversely, that it never occurred to anyone on the commission that Gorelick's flagrant conflict of interest renders her presence on the commission beyond farce calls into question the commission's judgment if not its integrity. Washington's mutual protection racket writ large, I suspect.

The Gorelick Wall is consistent with, and an international extension of, two essential acts committed in tandem, Filegate, the simultaneous empowering of the clintons and disemboweling of clinton adversaries, and the clinton Putsch, the firing and replacement of every U.S. attorney extant.

Filegate and the clinton Putsch,
committed in tandem,
the product of a careful criminal calculus,
at once empowered clinton
and disemboweled his opponents.
clinton was now free to betray with abandon
not only our trust,
but the Constitution as well.

The Common Man
Mia T
February, 1998


Allegations of international clinton crimes swirling around the White House in 1995 and beyond support The-Wall-as-cover-for-international-clinton-crimes thesis.

Once the clintons' own U.S. attorneys were in place, once the opposition was disemboweled by the knowledge that their raw FBI files had been in the possession of the clintons, once domestic law enforcement was effectively blinded to foreign data by Gorelick's Wall, the clintons were free to methodically and seditiously and with impunity auction off America's security, sovereignty and economy to the highest foreign bidder.


(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)

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

Newly released Justice Department memos show that September 11 panel commissioner Jamie S. Gorelick was more intimately involved than previously thought with hampering communications between U.S. intelligence and law-enforcement agencies fighting terrorism.

As the No. 2 person in the Clinton Justice Department, Ms. Gorelick rejected advice from the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, who warned against placing more limits on communications between law-enforcement officials and prosecutors pursuing counterterrorism cases, according to several internal documents written in summer 1995.

"It is hard to be totally comfortable with instructions to the FBI prohibiting contact with the United States Attorney's Offices when such prohibitions are not legally required," U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White wrote Ms. Gorelick six years before the 2001 terrorist attacks in New York and at the Pentagon.

"Our experience has been that the FBI labels of an investigation as intelligence or law enforcement can be quite arbitrary, depending upon the personnel involved and that the most effective way to combat terrorism is with as few labels and walls as possible so that wherever permissible, the right and left hands are communicating," she wrote.

The documents -- released yesterday by the Justice Department at the request of two Senate Republicans -- drew renewed calls for Ms. Gorelick to testify publicly before the September 11 commission about the so-called "wall" between law enforcement and intelligence agencies that many have blamed for allowing the 2001 terrorist attacks to occur.

Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican, said yesterday that Ms. Gorelick's policies regarding the wall contributed to "blinding America to this terrible threat."

Also, he said, the newly released memos raised apparent conflicts with statements Ms. Gorelick has made recently defending herself and her role in the Clinton Justice Department.

"These documents show what we've said all along: Commissioner Gorelick has special knowledge of the facts and circumstances leading up to the erection and buttressing of 'that wall' that, before the enactment of the Patriot Act, was the primary obstacle to the sharing of communications between law enforcement and intelligence agencies," Mr. Cornyn said.

In a June 19, 1995, memo, Ms. White recommended a series of changes to a Gorelick policy that went beyond legal requirements in separating law- enforcement and intelligence agencies.

Memos show Gorelick involvement in 'wall'
Charles Hurt and Stephen Dinan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published April 29, 2004

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

by Mia T, 4.30.04
 

ary Jo White's memo is documentation of the clintons' and Gorelick's willful, seditious malfeasance.

White's 1995 memo effectively put the clinton-Gorelick cabal on contemporaneous notice that Gorelick's Wall was placing America at grave risk from terrorism.

The memo explicitly warned that the protective wall the clintons and Gorelick were busy erecting (doubtless to blind domestic law enforcement to the clintons' illegal foreign schemes) would (also) blind domestic law enforcement to terrorist plots foreign and domestic.

From this it follows that Gorelick's Wall was not the clintons' and Gorelick's simple (albeit monumental) blunder.

Rather, Gorelick's Wall was no less than the clintons' and Gorelick's malfeasance--willful, self-serving and seditious--with the metastasis of al Qaeda and 9/11 the sorry endpoint.

NOTE: Bin Laden declared war on America throughout the clintons' watch. Had the clintons understood that this was war, not crime, that a terrorist war requires only one consenting player, Gorelick's Wall would be just another clintoncorruption footnote.

"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."

MORE

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

It is critical to understand that this same terrorism-is-crime-not-war flawed, dangerous thinking animates John Kerry, and the left, generally.

A post-9/11 America must never again put these dangerous pre-9/11 dinosaurs in any positions of leadership. To do so would be to place at grave risk no less than our very existence.


(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)

johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com

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


(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)

johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com

copyright Mia T 2004
56 posted on 06/16/2004 3:56:15 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette
..... many FReepers just say oh, no, not another Bush DemocRAT.

57 posted on 06/16/2004 4:17:44 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP (Call me the Will Rogers voter: I never met a Democrat I didn't like - to vote OUT OF POWER !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: jla

Bush and Cheney must take the offensive, and take it soon. They must start COMMUNICATING.

If they cannot, or will not, do so, they had better get someone who will.

As for the Christian Right, I refuse to believe they don't see the bigger picture. This election transcends any one group. For heaven's sake, it's about our survival.


58 posted on 06/16/2004 4:33:39 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Russ
It just represents my opinion (hopefully, wrong) that a Bush/Gulliani ticket would be stronger than Bush/Cheney. As a Republican I want the strongest ticket up against the Deomocrats. This is one election that who the vice-presidential candidate is will make a difference.

FReepers engage reality BUMP!

59 posted on 06/16/2004 5:14:48 AM PDT by Jim Noble (Now you go feed those hogs before they worry themselves into anemia!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: jla; nopardons; cyn; Russ; Mudboy Slim; All

Bush's speeches are almost always eloquent, beautiful and forceful. And I don't minimize this. They reflect a president with a certain seriousness, taste and intelligence. (clinton's speeches, by contrast, were real snoozers, cloyingly self-reflective, rambling and banal.)

OTOH, because the informal, extemporaneous venue is not Bush's strong suit, Bush loses at least half of his bully pulpit before he even starts.

But my comments about the Bush failure to communicate goes beyond Bush, himself.

As far as I can tell, Bush has no 'rapid response team.' Rather than instantly refuting the Left's demagoguery, the Bush camp allows The Big Lie to take root, (a speedy process in this shallow sound-bite culture), to acquire a certain measure of credibility.

I sense that the Bushies naively believe because the truth is on their side, a robust, rapid response is unnecessary. One would have expected their current PR and electoral problems to have disabused them of this silly notion by now.


60 posted on 06/16/2004 11:08:24 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-65 next last

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