Posted on 03/31/2004 1:49:45 PM PST by Mia T
|
||
|
link to movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE |
|
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 "I voted for a process by which war would be the last resort."
John Kerry
ohn Kerry says the war on terror is less about military might than about law enforcement.
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."
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
President Bush chooses '"fight."
BUSH: "I will not wait on events, while dangers gather."
Sending Americans into battle is the most profound decision a President can make. The technologies of war have changed; the risks and suffering of war have not. For the brave Americans who bear the risk, no victory is free from sorrow. This nation fights reluctantly, because we know the cost and we dread the days of mourning that always come.
(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)
johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com
KERRY JOINS AIR WAR
NYPOST.COM
Kerry hits out at Bush over Iraq
Adam Blenford and agencies
Monday January 26, 2004
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.
(reinstalling clintons in White House-1 advantage over suicide)
(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)
The Easy Part
(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)
hillary talks: On Military Tactics
WHEN TO BOMB
(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)
missus clinton's REAL virtual office update
http://hillarytalks.blogspot.com
http://virtualclintonlibrary.blogspot.com
http://demmemogate.blogspot.com
http://www.hillarytalks.us
http://www.hillarytalks.org
fiendsofhillary.blogspot.com
fiendsofhillary.us
fiendsofhillary.org
fraudsofhillary.com
Andrew Cuomo didn't call the Democrats "clueless" for no reason.
President's Remarks
view
The Democratic Party's Problem Transcends Its Anti-War Contingent2
hyperlinked images of shame |
||||||
by Mia T, 4.6.03
Mia T, June 9, 1999
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:
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
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.)
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
AIDES PUSH CLINTON FOR THE NOBEL
Mia T, Buddy Death Report Raises More Questions Than It Answers
|
Besides assisting FR and in a small way, what do you have to measure up? Whatever sense of pride, nay superiority you might have derives from the hard work of those like MiaT.
MiaTs contributions as are mine and others to her threads are as much part of the FR legacy and traditions as your swiping. We have outlasted many a cocky monitor.
Yours is one of the most foolish I have ever wittnessed on FR. FOOLISH . Just trying to treat you like everyone else.
.... The reasons you give for moving this thread are superficial, at best.Gee, Mia. If you'd ever read (or not ignored) some of the posts from other Freepers you'd pinged to your threads, telling you the same thing, you might not be so shocked. Not saying your stuff isn't great, it is. Just hard to find 'the meat' in your posts quite often. I tried to tell you that a long time ago, but you never replied. Just fyi ...
Thanks for replying.I couldn't care less how many keywords there are on a thread post. I can't imagine/don't know why that might be a problem with FR management, except there are a lot. But, when I go to the top of this thread I have to hit my 'Page Down' button 47 times before I get to the bottom of your thread post/top of your comment #1. I'm not sure how many threads I go to that are that long. Hardly any, I think. Just food for thought. Thanks. ;^)
Just time consuming slogging through it all, Mia. Frankly, I don't have/want to take time to go through it all you see ? ...
I loath the clinton's and find your threads interesting and informative. Please work out a solution sensably(sp)with the mod, so you may continue.We would miss you very much if the heat of this disagreement gets to HOT!
Mia includes the inordinate number of keywords for a definite reason. And it sure is funny that she has been allowed to include the keywords for so long, yet now you folks think it's inappropriate
Let's cut to the chase....Jim Robinson, do you, or do you not, approve of Mia T & her posts?
You're welcomed. Just tryin' to help. ;^)
Shame that some of you can't see that.
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.