Kerry's Vietnam Quagmire / WHY JOHN KERRY IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA (NEW virtual kerry talks series)

ping

Thanks,Mia, you're a treasure!

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

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)

johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com

MORE

I also just listened to one of your Hillary Talks. Amazing stuff. You really know how to effectively juxtaposition items. You make 1+1 = 5.

How is this for the correct match?

Senator Gomer Kerry

Which one is real, which one is Memorex?

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

Thou art arm'd that hath thy crook'd schemers straight. Cudgel thy brains no more, the clinton plots are great.: Mia T, On Neutered and Neutering,
by Mia T and Edward Zehr (EZ)

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

bill clinton

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

hillary talks: ON TERROR

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)

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

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

A Fish Rots from the Head

Investor's Business Daily

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

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

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

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

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


NEW AUDIO!
Hear the Bill Bennett epilogue

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

hillary talks: ON MILITARY TACTICS
The Easy Part

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)

INTERVIEW Osama bin Laden

(may 1998)

In the first part of this interview which occurred in May 1998, a little over two months before the U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, Osama bin Laden answers questions posed to him by some of his followers at his mountaintop camp in southern Afghanistan. In the latter part of the interview, ABC reporter John Miller is asking the questions.

Describe the situation when your men took down the American forces in Somalia.

After our victory in Afghanistan and the defeat of the oppressors who had killed millions of Muslims, the legend about the invincibility of the superpowers vanished. Our boys no longer viewed America as a superpower. So, when they left Afghanistan, they went to Somalia and prepared themselves carefully for a long war. They had thought that the Americans were like the Russians, so they trained and prepared. They were stunned when they discovered how low was the morale of the American soldier. America had entered with 30,000 soldiers in addition to thousands of soldiers from different countries in the world. As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled, and America had to stop all its bragging and all that noise it was making in the press after the Gulf War in which it destroyed the infrastructure and the milk and dairy industry that was vital for the infants and the children and the civilians and blew up dams which were necessary for the crops people grew to feed their families. Proud of this destruction, America assumed the titles of world leader and master of the new world order. After a few blows, it forgot all about those titles and rushed out of Somalia in shame and disgrace, dragging the bodies of its soldiers. America stopped calling itself world leader and master of the new world order, and its politicians realized that those titles were too big for them and that they were unworthy of them. I was in Sudan when this happened. I was very happy to learn of that great defeat that America suffered, so was every Muslim....

The American people, by and large, do not know the name bin Laden, but they soon likely will. Do you have a message for the American people?

I say to them that they have put themselves at the mercy of a disloyal government, and this is most evident in Clinton's administration....

Lopez: In sum, how many times did Bill Clinton lose bin Laden?

Miniter: Here's a rundown. The Clinton administration:

1. Did not follow-up on the attempted bombing of Aden marines in Yemen.
2. Shut the CIA out of the 1993 WTC bombing investigation, hamstringing their effort to capture bin Laden.
3. Had Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a key bin Laden lieutenant, slip through their fingers in Qatar.
4. Did not militarily react to the al Qaeda bombing in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
5. Did not accept the Sudanese offer to turn bin Laden.
6. Did not follow-up on another offer from Sudan through a private back channel.
7. Objected to Northern Alliance efforts to assassinate bin Laden in Afghanistan.
8. Decided against using special forces to take down bin Laden in Afghanistan.
9. Did not take an opportunity to take into custody two al Qaeda operatives involved in the East African embassy bombings. In another little scoop, I am able to show that Sudan arrested these two terrorists and offered them to the FBI. The Clinton administration declined to pick them up and they were later allowed to return to Pakistan.
10. Ordered an ineffectual, token missile strike against a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory.
11. Clumsily tipped off Pakistani officials sympathetic to bin Laden before a planned missile strike against bin Laden on August 20, 1998. Bin Laden left the camp with only minutes to spare.
12-14. Three times, Clinton hesitated or deferred in ordering missile strikes against bin Laden in 1999 and 2000.
15. When they finally launched and armed the Predator spy drone plane, which captured amazing live video images of bin Laden, the Clinton administration no longer had military assets in place to strike the archterrorist.
16. Did not order a retaliatory strike on bin Laden for the murderous attack on the USS Cole.

hillary talks:ON TERROR

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)

ne•o-ne•o•lib•er•al•ism n.
neocommunist political movement, a tipsy-topsy, infantile perversion of the Marxist-Leninist model, global in scope, beginning in the post-cold-war, unipolar 1990s, led by the '60s neoliberal baby-boomer "intelligentsia," that seeks power without responsibility, i.e., that seeks to dilute American power by concentrating power in said '60s neoliberals while yielding America's sovereignty to the United Nations, i.e., while surrendering to the terrorists, as it continues the traditional '60s neoliberal feint, namely: (1) concern for social justice, (2) distain for bureaucracy, and (3) the championing of entrepreneurship for the great unwashed.

Mia T, 2.24.04

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

hyperlinked images of shame
copyright Mia T 2003
.

by Mia T, 4.6.03

If Act I was a thinly veiled allegory about naked clintonism, then Act II is a parable about the plan for world domination by the Establishment, aged hippies in pinstripes all, with their infantile, solipsistic world view amazingly untouched by time.
Mia T, June 9, 1999
THE ALIENS

l From is sounding the alarm. "Unless we convince Americans that Democrats are strong on national security," he warns his party, "Democrats will continue to lose elections."

Helloooo? That the Democrats have to be spoon-fed what should be axiomatic post-9/11 is, in and of itself, incontrovertible proof that From's advice is insufficient to solve their problem.

From's failure to fully lay out the nature of the Democrats' problem is not surprising: he is the guy who helped seal his party's fate. It was his Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) that institutionalized the proximate cause of the problem, clintonism, and legitimized its two eponymic provincial operators on the national stage. The "Third Way" and "triangulation" don't come from the same Latin root for no reason.

That "convince" is From's operative word underscores the Democrats' dilemma. Nine-eleven was transformative. It is no longer sufficient merely to convince. One must demonstrate, demonstrate convincingly, if you will… which means both in real time and historically.

When it comes to national security, Americans will no longer take any chances. Turning the turn of phrase back on itself, the era of the Placebo President is over. (Incidentally, the oft-quote out-of-context sentence fragment alluded to here transformed meaningless clinton triangulation into a meaningful if deceptive soundbite.)

Although From is loath to admit it -- the terror in his eyes belies his facile solution -- the Democratic party's problem transcends its anti-war contingent.

With a philosophy that relinquishes our national sovereignty -- and relinquishes it reflexively… and to the UN no less -- the Democratic party is, by definition, the party of national insecurity.

With policy ruled by pathologic self-interest -- witness the "Lieberman Paradigm," Kerry's "regime change" bon mot (gone bad), Edwards' and the clintons' brazen echoes thereof (or, alternatively, Pelosi's less strident wartime non-putdown putdown)… and, of course, the clincher -- eight years of the clintons' infantilism, grotesquerie and utter failure -- the Democratic party is, historically and in real time, the party of national insecurity.

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

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

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

Notwithstanding their cowardice, corruption, perfidy, and to borrow a phrase from Andrew Cuomo, their essential cluelessness, the clintons, according to Albright, made their decision not to go after the terrorists primarily for reasons of their own legacy and power. The clintons reasoned that inaction would MAXIMIZE THEIR CHANCES TO RECEIVE THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE. No matter that that inaction would also maximize the terrorists' power, maximize America's danger.

For more than a half decade, the Clinton administration was shoveling atomic secrets out the door as fast as it could, literally by the ton. Millions of previously classified ideas and documents relating to nuclear arms were released to all comers, including China's bomb makers.

William J. Broad
Spying Isn't the Only Way to Learn About Nukes,
The New York Times, May 30, 1999

Broad would have us believe we are watching "Being There" and not "The Manchurian Candidate." His argument is superficially appealing as most reasonable people would conclude that it requires the simplemindedness of a Chauncy Gardener (in "Being There") to reason that instructing China and a motley assortment of terrorist nations on how to beef up their atom bombs and how not to omit the "key steps" when building hydrogen bombs would somehow blunt and not stimulate their appetites for bigger and better bombs and a higher position in the power food chain.

But it is Broad's failure to fully connect the dots -- clinton's wholesale release of atomic secrets, decades of Chinese money sluicing into clinton's campaigns, clinton's pushing of the test ban treaty, clinton's concomitant sale of supercomputers, and clinton's noxious legacy -- that blows his argument to smithereens and reduces his piece to just another clinton apologia by The New York Times.

But even a Times apologia cannot save clinton from the gallows. Clinton can be both an absolute (albeit postmodern) moron and a traitor. The strict liability Gump-ism, "Treason is as treason does" applies.

The idea that an individual can be convicted of the crime of treason only if there is treasonous intent or *mens rea* runs contrary to the concept of strict liability crimes. That doctrine (Park v United States, (1974) 421 US 658,668) established the principle of 'strict liability' or 'liability without fault' in certain criminal cases, usually involving crimes which endanger the public welfare.

Calling his position on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty "an historic milestone," (if he must say so himself) clinton believed that if he could get China to sign it, he would go down in history as the savior of mankind. This was 11 August 1995.

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

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

It is precisely the clintons' bin-Laden-emboldening inaction to the attack on the USS Cole and the clintons' bin-Laden-emboldening token, ineffectual, August 1998 missile strikes of aspirin factories and empty tents that eliminate "bin-Laden-emboldenment avoidance" as the rationale for the latter decision and support "wag the dog," instead.

Taken together, feckless clinton inaction and feckless clinton action serve only to reinforce the almost universally held notion: the clinton calculus was, is, and always will be, solely self-serving.

In the case of the non-response to the attack on the Cole, an unambiguous act of war, the clinton rationale, according to no less than Madeleine Albright, was a clinton Nobel Peace Prize by Arab appeasement. i.e., a clinton Nobel Peace Prize by bin-Laden-emboldenment.

And in the case of the curiously-timed, ineffectual (and, therefore, bin-Laden-emboldening) token missile strikes, the clinton rationale was Lewinsky-recantation distraction -- clearly not bin-Laden-emboldenment avoidance.

(This is not to say there wasn't a Nobel factor here, too. Obsolete intelligence, bolstered by the redundancy of a clinton tipoff, ensured that both bin Laden and the Mideast Muslim ego would escape unscathed.)

Mia T, "WAG THE DOG" revisited

WASHINGTON -- Two Norwegian public-relations executives and one member of the Norwegian Parliament say they were contacted by the White House to help campaign for President Clinton to receive this year's Nobel Peace Prize for his work in trying to negotiate peace in the Middle East.
Clinton Lobbies for Nobel Prize: What a Punk
White House Lobbied For Clinton Nobel Peace Prize Updated
Friday, October 13, 2000
By Rita Cosby


There's been speculation in the last few months that Clinton was pursuing a Mideast peace accord in an effort to win the prize and secure his legacy as president.
AIDES PUSH CLINTON FOR THE NOBEL


At the time, clinton observed: "I made more progress in the Middle East than I did between Socks and Buddy." Retrospectively, it is clear that clinton's characterization was not correct.
Mia T, Buddy Death Report Raises More Questions Than It Answers

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)

flash movie

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

hear

*Thanx to Cloud William for text and audio

LEHRER: President Bush, your closing statement, sir.

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

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

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

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

(Applause)



play tape

THE INTERMINABLE clintons

It's time to throw out the trash...

A Senate en passant capture is THE MOVE...

Q ERTY6 ^utter ^failure_BUMP

Lib Author Regrets Voting (TWICE!) for clinton
"Sickened" by clinton's Failure to Protect America from Terrorism
MUST-READ BOOK FOR DEMOCRATS:
How clintons' Failures Unleashed Global Terror
(Who in his right mind would ever want the clintons back in the Oval Office?)
The Man Who Warned America
(Why a Rapist is Not a Fit President)
UDAY: "The end is near… this time I think the… Americans are serious, Bush is not like Clinton."

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

johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com

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

by Mia T

Kerry: "Call me irresponsible."
(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)
Kerry's Fatal(clinton)Error
(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)
Kerry's flip-flop opportunism

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)
NEW! hillary talks: DEEP VEEP
(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)

Kerry's imaginary(?) foreign (cheer)leaders

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)
Kerry's Vietnam Quagmire

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)

Kerry's(?) Veep Short List

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)

copyright Mia T 2004

bump

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

America faces threats that were unheard of in Kerry's formative years. While those threats build, Kerry is turning on Hendrix, toking on an imaginary joint and telling you about Vietnam.
John Kerry: Stuck in a Vietnam-era time warp
BYRON YORK
THE HILL
February 26, 2004

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

Kerry's Vietnam Quagmire

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

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

A NEW VIRTUAL KERREDY TALKS MOVIE SERIES
: by Mia T, 4.22.04
KERREDY: "Iraq is George Bush's Vietnam"
(KERREDY CONSTRUCT: a lethally anachronistic, post-Vietnam, pre-9/11 liberal conceit)

by Mia T, 4.21.04

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)

johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com

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

by Mia T, 4.21.04

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)

johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com

erredy, a lethally anachronistic, post-Vietnam, pre-9/11 liberal conceit, is as much about providing Kerry with a detectable heatbeat as it is about providing cover for his Vietnam-seditious mouth. (Calling Iraq "Vietnam" a priori makes Iraq Vietnam in the seditious '71 Kerry sense.)
Kerry's problem isn't "haggard," the Botox counterexample notwithstanding. "Haggard" is electable. (See LBJ.)
"Cadaveric" is not, at least not outside of Hawaii.
Kerry's dissonant new "do," like the mortician's careful coif, only enhanced the funereal gloom. (One has to wonder if Shrum was brought in (dispatched?) to praise Kerry... or to bury him....)
Enter Ted Kennedy. (stage left)
Chappaquiddick is Ted Kennedy's Vietnam America's Real Two-Front War: (NEW Virtual Ted Kennedy Talks Movie!)
: by Mia T, 4.17.04

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

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

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

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

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

America must not pull her punches.

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

MORE

bump

bttt

KERRY'S WAR CRIMES

(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

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

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

by Mia T, 5.07.04

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

by Mia T, 5.06.04

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com

ohn Kerry, self-professed war criminal, needed the Iraqi prisoner "abuse" scandal about as much as bill clinton, documented rapist, needed the Saddam rape rooms or the marauding Milosevic rapist-guerrillas.
For this reason, Kerry did not respond for a full week to this latest leftist-fulminated Bush-bashing brouhaha, and when Kerry did finally respond, the focus of his condemnation was process, not content, his pulled punches notwithstanding.
Makes sense. War criminals, by definition, lack the requisite moral authority to address such war-related -- ah -- issues.
By contrast, the response from Kerry's leftist colleagues has been so disproportionate -- and so predictable -- that it approaches farce of farce, even if we discount demonstrated Democrat willingness to trade American blood and national security for reacquired power.
The Democrats, apparently not adherents of Aesop, have "cried Bush" far too many times to be to be anything but preposterous. (Thank you, Howard Dean.)
Are the reflexively self-serving, America-hating, power-hungry Dems simply clueless actors? Or are they part of a larger orchestrated effort to muddy up Kerry's Vietnam-atrocities swamp?

BUMP

^

BUMP