bill clinton erred by giving bill clinton priority over Saddam and bin Laden

AP ^ | 5.11.04 | Mia T

[Mia T]

 

Bill Clinton says Bush erred by giving Saddam priority over bin Laden
WRONG!
bill clinton erred by giving bill clinton priority over Saddam and bin Laden

by Mia T, 5.11.04

 

NEW YORK (AP) President Bush wasted international sympathy for the United States after the 2001 terrorist attacks by shifting from the search for Osama bin Laden to the ousting of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, former President Clinton said Tuesday.

The move alienated many U.S. allies and created a false impression among Americans that Saddam had a key role in the al-Qaida-engineered terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Clinton said.

''I think the world was really pulling for us after 9-11,'' he said, but the Bush administration ''divided the world ... to pursue our vision not because of any imminent threat but because that's what they wanted to do.''

...Clinton, whose administration defined Saddam's removal as a key U.S. policy objective but did not act on it, told the audience of 4,000 that Bush had antagonized allies by ignoring or rejecting the nuclear test ban treaty and agreements on global warming, the international court and other issues.

 

Bill Clinton says Bush erred by giving Saddam priority over bin Laden
Richard Pyle, Associated Press, 5/11/2004 20:16

 

 

hillary talks:ON TERROR

(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

 

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

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)

johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com

Mia T, 4.22.04
THE KERREDY (Kerry + Kennedy) CONSTRUCT:
a lethally anachronistic, post-Vietnam, pre-9/11 liberal conceit
A NEW VIRTUAL KERREDY TALKS MOVIE SERIES

"I know bill clinton. bill clinton is a friend of mine,
and you, bill clinton, are no bill clinton."

by Mia T, 5.11.04

"Why does the single most talented political figure of our time fritter away his seriousness by his self-indulgence?" said one former, unidentified member of Clinton's cabinet, among the assorted spineless souls who wax self-righteous about his failings but clearly seek to remain on Clinton's reunion list.

Then there's Clinton's own disingenuous side, including outright denial about his checkered presidency, such as shameful revisionism about his administration's role in not preventing the Rwandan genocide in 1994. It leaves one wondering how he'll summon both the discipline and intellectual candor to produce (with his deadline fast approaching) an enlightening memoir for which he's fetching about $12 million --unless his publisher can lock him into a room devoid of phone and Rolodex.

Bill Clinton's genius wasting away in self-indulgence-ville
James Warren
Chicago Tribune
May 10, 2004

hat qualities or accomplishments, exactly, make bill clinton in the eyes of the left a "political genius," I wondered as I gazed at the twisted steel that had once buttressed soaring twin towers.

It is a given among those of us still sentient after eight years of the clintons that the clinton presidency was an utter failure, and yet, even post-9/11, the left refuses to let go of this silly conceit.

Instead of going with the straightforward, simple explanation, namely, that its premise is false, that bill clinton is not a genius, that he is not even merely competent, the left continues to explain away bill clinton's failures, calling them aberrations, or, from those somewhat less generously inclined, a result of his aberrant personality.

This sine qua non of leftist political thought has become the left's most effective agent in its own demise. The process is ongoing, in real time, witness John Kerry.

 

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)


johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com

 

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

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

 

 

bill clinton's GENOCIDE & TERRORISM Utter Failures Same Self-Serving, Craven, Postmodern Pose
"G-word"shame presages "W-word" horror

by Mia T, 4.9.04

 

 

Bill Clinton felt their pain. Retrospectively. In 1998, on his Grand Apology Tour of Africa, a whirlwind tour of whirlwind apologies for slavery, the Cold War, you name it, he touched down in Kigali and apologized for the Rwandan genocide. "When you look at those children who greeted us," he said, biting his lip, as is his wont, "how could anyone say they did not want those children to have a chance to have their own children?"

Alas, the President had precisely identified the problem. In April 1994, when the Hutu genocidaires looked at the children who greeted them in the Tutsi villages, that's exactly what they thought: they didn't want those Tutsi children to have a chance to have their own children. So the question is: when a bunch of killers refuse to subscribe to multiculti mumbo-jumbo, what do you do? 

"All over the world there were people like me sitting in offices," continued Bill in his apology aria, "who did not fully appreciate the depth and the speed with which you were being engulfed by this unimaginable terror."

Au contraire, he appreciated it all too fully. That's why, during the bloodbath,

Clinton Administration officials were specifically instructed not to use the word "genocide" lest it provoke public pressure to do something.

Documents made public last week confirm that US officials knew within the first few days that a "final solution" to eliminate all Tutsis was underway.

SteynOnAmerica
CLINTON, CLARKE AND RWANDA: TEN YEARS ON

[D]efining 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.

Mia T, 3.28.04
CLINTON TURNED DOWN SUDAN'S OFFERS OF BIN LADEN
HEAR CLINTON'S SECRETLY TAPED "ADMISSION" NOW
clinton: "I did not bring him [Osama bin Laden] here... though
we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America."

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

 

This month marks 10 years since the advent of the Rwandan genocide, a cruel, violent and well-organized rampage that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children and the total disruption of Rwandan society. Over the past decade, scholars and advocates have rightly reflected on the reasons that the international community and nations in Africa must share the responsibility for this tragedy. As I said during my trip to Rwanda in 1998, "We did not act quickly enough after the killing began. We should not have allowed the refugee camps to become safe haven for the killers. We did not immediately call these crimes by their rightful name: genocide."

bill clinton
Learn From Rwanda
The Washington Post
Tuesday, April 6, 2004; Page A21

Note: clinton's use of "we" is consistent with his "buck stops there/everywhere but not here" policy.

[D]efining 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.

Mia T, 3.28.04
CLINTON TURNED DOWN SUDAN'S OFFERS OF BIN LADEN
HEAR CLINTON'S SECRETLY TAPED "ADMISSION" NOW
clinton: "I did not bring him [Osama bin Laden] here... though
we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America."

n the course of a hundred days in 1994 the Hutu government of Rwanda and its extremist allies very nearly succeeded in exterminating the country's Tutsi minority. Using firearms, machetes, and a variety of garden implements, Hutu militiamen, soldiers, and ordinary citizens murdered some 800,000 Tutsi and politically moderate Hutu. It was the fastest, most efficient killing spree of the twentieth century.

A few years later, in a series in The New Yorker, Philip Gourevitch recounted in horrific detail the story of the genocide and the world's failure to stop it. President Bill Clinton, a famously avid reader, expressed shock. He sent copies of Gourevitch's articles to his second-term national-security adviser, Sandy Berger. The articles bore confused, angry, searching queries in the margins. "Is what he's saying true?" Clinton wrote with a thick black felt-tip pen beside heavily underlined paragraphs. "How did this happen?" he asked, adding, "I want to get to the bottom of this." The President's urgency and outrage were oddly timed. As the terror in Rwanda had unfolded, Clinton had shown virtually no interest in stopping the genocide, and his Administration had stood by as the death toll rose into the hundreds of thousands.....

In March of 1998, on a visit to Rwanda, President Clinton issued what would later be known as the "Clinton apology," which was actually a carefully hedged acknowledgment. He spoke to the crowd assembled on the tarmac at Kigali Airport: "We come here today partly in recognition of the fact that we in the United States and the world community did not do as much as we could have and should have done to try to limit what occurred" in Rwanda.

This implied that the United States had done a good deal but not quite enough. In reality the United States did much more than fail to send troops. It led a successful effort to remove most of the UN peacekeepers who were already in Rwanda. It aggressively worked to block the subsequent authorization of UN reinforcements. It refused to use its technology to jam radio broadcasts that were a crucial instrument in the coordination and perpetuation of the genocide. And even as, on average, 8,000 Rwandans were being butchered each day, U.S. officials shunned the term "genocide," for fear of being obliged to act. The United States in fact did virtually nothing "to try to limit what occurred." Indeed, staying out of Rwanda was an explicit U.S. policy objective.

With the grace of one grown practiced at public remorse, the President gripped the lectern with both hands and looked across the dais at the Rwandan officials and survivors who surrounded him. Making eye contact and shaking his head, he explained, "It may seem strange to you here, especially the many of you who lost members of your family, but all over the world there were people like me sitting in offices, day after day after day, who did not fully appreciate [pause] the depth [pause] and the speed [pause] with which you were being engulfed by this unimaginable terror."

Clinton chose his words with characteristic care. It was true that although top U.S. officials could not help knowing the basic facts—thousands of Rwandans were dying every day—that were being reported in the morning papers, many did not "fully appreciate" the meaning. In the first three weeks of the genocide the most influential American policymakers portrayed (and, they insist, perceived) the deaths not as atrocities or the components and symptoms of genocide but as wartime "casualties"—the deaths of combatants or those caught between them in a civil war.

Yet this formulation avoids the critical issue of whether Clinton and his close advisers might reasonably have been expected to "fully appreciate" the true dimensions and nature of the massacres. During the first three days of the killings U.S. diplomats in Rwanda reported back to Washington that well-armed extremists were intent on eliminating the Tutsi. And the American press spoke of the door-to-door hunting of unarmed civilians. By the end of the second week informed nongovernmental groups had already begun to call on the Administration to use the term "genocide," causing diplomats and lawyers at the State Department to begin debating the word's applicability soon thereafter. In order not to appreciate that genocide or something close to it was under way, U.S. officials had to ignore public reports and internal intelligence and debate.

...whatever their convictions about "never again," many of them did sit around, and they most certainly did allow genocide to happen. In examining how and why the United States failed Rwanda, we see that without strong leadership the system will incline toward risk-averse policy choices.

Samantha Power
Bystanders to Genocide
Why the United States Let the Rwandan Tragedy Happen
The author's exclusive interviews with scores of the participants in the decision-making, together with her analysis of newly declassified documents, yield a chilling narrative of self-serving caution and flaccid will and countless missed opportunities to mitigate a colossal crime
The Atlantic Online

"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

ritical 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.

 

Mia T, 3.28.04
CLINTON TURNED DOWN SUDAN'S OFFERS OF BIN LADEN
HEAR CLINTON'S SECRETLY TAPED "ADMISSION" NOW
clinton: "I did not bring him [Osama bin Laden] here... though
we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America."

 

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 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

 "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 his legacy's death knell and is illustrative of the synergy of profound psychological dysfunction and rube arrogance rooted in stupidity

 

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

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

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

 

[Mia T]

thx for the heads up ping

[Mia T]

ping

[Paleo Conservative]

And what Monica could do for Willie.

[Delta 21]

Who would have thought it would come to this!

Clinton and his followers are a pox on the moral fiber of the United States.

Now he throws more fuel on the fire that he himself kindeled.

God Bless our Great Nation, President Bush, and our righteous warriors in battle against the evil of this world. Give us all the strength, wisdom and the courage to do what needs to be done.

[MamaLucci]

But of course you are right, Mia T. BJ did indeed give priority to BJ. ;)

[Leisler]

bump!

[Cindy]

BJ Clinton is for BJ Clinton.
Sorry situation for America.
We're still feeling the effects
of the Clinton "Presidency"
today.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

Misplaced priorities, a question for Democrats
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1132173/posts

[Mia T]

bump

May 11, 3:18 PM EDT

Video Shows Beheading of American in Iraq

By LOUIS MEIXLER
Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- A video posted Tuesday on an al-Qaida-linked Web site showed the beheading an American civilian in Iraq in what was said to be revenge for abuse of Iraqi prisoners.

The video showed five men wearing headscarves and black ski masks, standing over a bound man in an orange jumpsuit - similar to a prisoner's uniform. The man identified himself as Nick Berg, a U.S. civilian whose body was found Saturday near a highway overpass in Baghdad.

"My name is Nick Berg, my father's name is Michael, my mother's name is Suzanne," the man said on the video. "I have a brother and sister, David and Sarah. I live in ... Philadelphia."

After reading a statement, the men were seen pulling the man to his side and putting a large knife to his neck. A scream sounded as the men cut his head off, shouting "Allahu akbar!" - "God is great!" They then held the head up to the camera.

The slaying recalled the kidnapping and videotaped beheading of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl in 2002 in Pakistan. Four Islamic militants have been convicted of kidnapping Pearl, but seven other suspects - including those who allegedly slit his throat - remain at large.

NOTE: GRAPHIC CONTENT Video posted of beheading of American in Iraq

 

Copyright 2004 Associated Press. All rights reserved.

America's Real Two-Front War

 

 

by Mia T, 4.17.04

 

 

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)


johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com

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

[Mia T]

bump

[Mia T]

It is my view that the left's anti-Bush rage--(much of it clinton-fomented)--is in fact displaced anti-clinton rage....

On some level surely the left understands that this grotesque couple destroyed its party, destroyed its careers, destoyed its self-respect.

[Cindy]

OPINION: The left can't handle the truth.

[MeekOneGOP]

Thanks for the post and ping. With bill clintoon, it's all about bill clintoon, all the time.

My rant yesterday, regarding apologies.

< Meek Soapbox >

I saw Robert Byrd's face on FOX News a short while ago. I had the volume turned down low, so couldn't hear what he had to say during this *yet another DemocRAT* Congressional Investigation of the Bush Administration (The Iraqi Prisoner Abuse cra*). I don't have to hear it to know he probably was saying something hateful, as always when the camera is on him.

I wish that I lived in Byrd's voting district (I actually don't wish that - *shudder*) only so I could vote AGAINST him and send him correspondence he would (SHOULD) have to answer. I would ask him, "When are you going to apologize, Senator Byrd?" Apologize to the country for your *service* in the KKK ..... apologize to the country for your use of the word ni**er, as recently as just a few years ago, etc. Since you and your lapdog media are REAL BIG on apologies here lately, the next time you get "face time" on national TV, please apologize for this, eh, Senator Byrd !?!

In fact, I may just send him my note anyway. If EVERY TIME he spewed his HATE on national TV his fax machine and email servers would BURN UP from the reaction, maybe, just maybe, he would shut up. But I doubt it.

My sentiment is similar regarding fat ted kennedy and others, as well.

< /Meek Soapbox >

[jla]

bump

[YaYa123]

Most unexpected joke I've heard on television in a long, long time came from Don Imus this morning, to NBC's White House reporter, David Gregory.

Imus said to Gregory, you should ask Barney Frank if he thinks the prison photos are torture.

Gregory said something lame like, "you're not being helpful", but everyone in the Imus studio laughed, and I gotta admit, so did I.

[Mia T]

bump

[jla]

Can't really explain it, but I love your screen name.
And the profession you list at your home pg. is a most admirable & respected one. *S*

[MamaLucci]

Thanks.....it's what my kids used to call my
mother-in-law when they were younger.
And I agree with you, I have a very important and satisfying job. :)

[Mudboy Slim]

"Power: Bring It!!"
(To be sung to Neil Young's "Powderfinger")

Look out, Lib'rals, we're the RightWing...bound to keep on winnin'!!
With ol' JimRob FReepin' fer the flag...an interestin' tale.
I think yer nominee, John...Kerry's a guaranteed loser who's destined to fail!!
It's time fer Slick Willie to pay...Clinton'll git his JusticeDay!!
Days are numbered...Clinton LIED, yes he's SCUM!!
Lib'rals, we'll denigrate!!

Willie's gone, the HildaBeast's waitin' fer her chance, now!!
Big John's been sinkin'...Lib'rals want that Howie-dude!!
So the powers that be sent me here to do the FReepin'...
And I'm not quite forty-two...I'm done ponderin' what to do...
We'll Liberate Iraq...and Destroy Dem Lib'ral FOOLS!!

Limbaugh's fightin' fer our land...FReedom's endurin'!!
Rush told me, "Slick is SCUM, son, LeftWing is good fer nothin'!!"
But when that gunshot hit Ron Brown, we saw it comin'...
Lib'rals LIE until they die...Clinton's crimes the Medyuh hides!!
Then we FReeped Black...and the Truth made the headlines!!

Liberty's not 'bout Power, it's much bigger!!
Slick Willie shall be caught...Bill pulled the trigger!!
Tyranny endures when good men dither...
We must CONVICT Slick's scum...Ashcroft's left much undone!!
RE-IMPEACH RAT's Number One, send Slick to prison!!

Mudboy Slim (5/12/04)