Posted on 12/07/2005 8:56:38 AM PST by Mia T
AN OPEN LETTER TO TIM ROBBINS, DAVID GEFFEN, CHRIS MATTHEWS, MAUREEN DOWD + JEANINE PIRRO
December 7, 2005
Hillary Clinton's revisionist tome notwithstanding, 'living history' begets a certain symmetry. It is in that light that I make this not-so-modest proposal on this day, exactly 64 years after the attack on Pearl Harbor.
The context of our concern today--regardless of political affiliation--is Iraq and The War on Terror, but the larger fear is that our democracy may not survive. We have the requisite machines, power and know-how to defeat the enemy in Iraq and elsewhere, but do we have the will?
In particular, do we have the will to identify and defeat the enemy in our midst?
Answerable to no one, heir apparent in her own mind, self-serving in the extreme, Hillary Clinton incarnates this insidious new threat to our survival.
What we decide to do about Missus Clinton will tell us much about what awaits us in these perilous new times.
Each of you, (for different reasons, surely), has expressed concern about Missus Clinton's putative candidacy in 2008, and, by doing so, has expressed concern inferentially about Clinton-machine control of the nominating process.
My proposal: Stop Missus Clinton in '06. Stop her in '06 and you will have stopped her in '08. A Senate en passant capture is THE MOVE....
To David Geffen and Tim Robbins: Why not field a challenger to Hillary Clinton in '06, someone who does possess the necessary positions, ethics and electability? And why not in the general election? A Perot plurality ploy would be poetic justice, if nothing else... and if carefully selected, that candidate wouldn't merely unseat Missus Clinton but could actually win.
To Jeanine Pirro: If, as Chris Matthews so trenchantly put it, "Pee Wee Herman would give her a race," why aren't you... a bright, talented, articulate, accomplished, charismatic, media-savvy independent woman who spent her 30-year career championing exactly the women Missus Clinton abused for 30 years... why aren't you in fact creaming Missus Clinton?
Stop running YOUR NEXT RACE, stop worrying about being slimed by the Clinton machine. Stop pulling your punches and start going after this corrupt, compromised, dangerous creature for real.
What we decide to do about Missus Clinton will tell us much about what awaits us in these perilous new times.
Sincerely,
Mia T
COPYRIGHT MIA T 2005
Dear Concerned Americans,
Just as it was exactly 64 years ago today, this is a watershed moment for America. It is my hope that all concerned Americans will do what they can to defeat the enemy.
December 7, 1941+64
bump :)
like it bump
bump
bump
Jeannine Pirro = Bernadette Castro with a law degree.
You're not suggesting that Jeanine's a sleeper, are you? ;) Seriously, the analogy breaks down as to opponent, anyway. clinton is no Moynihan. To the contrary. Yesterday, Daniel Patrick Moynihan died. Today, the clintons are arrogating his soul. Hardly surprising. In 1999, the clintons were not at all shy about seizing his still-warm senate seat. |
Daniel Patrick Moynihan
In the Senate, only Moynihan has called for Clinton's impeachment. For now, White House and party strategists appear unworried by the criticism they have heard from various Democratic senators and members of Congress. Rather than view the criticism as part of a mounting wave of disillusionment within the party, these strategists are weighing the authors of the criticism one by one: Moynihan and Kerrey, they say, have never liked Clinton, so their remarks are personal. "Everyone will be punished"
"We have so many things coming on in the world that we have to be ready for and be able to deal with. This [the President's dilemma] is a distraction which is doubly dangerous because of the world's situation." [Moynihan then ticked off the dangers, which included the building of nukes by North Korea and biological weapons by Iraq.] Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D.-N.Y.)
COLOR COMMENTARY, Sept. 17, 1998: D-New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (NY) recently spoke about the international effects of the President's problems on ABC's This Week with Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts (Sept. 6, 1998). "We have so many things coming on in the world that we have to be ready for and be able to deal with. This [the President's dilemma] is a distraction which is doubly dangerous because of the world's situation." Later in the broadcast, Moynihan and syndicated political columnist George Will enumerated some of these particular global trouble spots, mentioning Russia's current crisis, the use of ballistic missiles in North Korea, the economic situation in Japan, the potential for military conflict and the building of biological weapons in Iraq, and the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. A few weeks ago, we were reminded of the continual danger lurking in Iraq when U.N. Weapons inspector Scott Ritter resigned claiming that the Clinton administration had interfered with at least six inspections since 1997 in an attempt to avoid conflict with Saddam Hussein. It is difficult for a weakened President to deal decisively with a foreign military threat. Hussein has repeatedly proved to the world that he has no respect for democratic processes and will cooperate only in the face of force. He has continually tried to take advantage of weakness. The United States' current state of weakness has made the world more susceptible to Iraq's potentially destructive actions. Just a few weeks ago, the world received a violent reminder of the ever-present threat of terrorism as U.S. embassies in Afghanistan and Kenya were bombed. Immediately following his testimony before the Independent Counsel, the President ordered counter-attacks against bases of the organization responsible for the embassy bombings. The timing and justifiability of the attacks was immediately questioned by some members of Congress, the news media, and many Americans. People thought it was possible that Clinton ordered the bombings to divert media attention from the Lewinsky affair.
the terrorists who committed these bombings and terrorists contemplating future acts were sitting at home watching the United States unsuccessfully trying to project an image of unity and competence. The United States only opens itself, and the world, up to more acts of terrorism when it seems not to know how to deal effectively with terrorist situations even when it knows who the perpetrators are.
|
^
bump
bump
bump for future reading
thx :)
Can someone tell me why then, did Moynihan endorse Hillary Clinton for his Senate seat? Why would he say (paraphrased) . . "Oh, I think she'd make a TERRIFIC Senator!"
I clearly remember him making that remark, and I wondered at his apparent disassociation of her from the indivisible partnership that she and Bill Clinton had and have. After the total debacle of "their" administration, how could he have wished to do anything less than retire both of those to the ash heap of history? Oh, I do agree he seemed firm on Clinton's debauchery, which was so complete that both Clintons, as I said, sensibly should have been put out to pasture. Hillary reeked from all the scandals. Surely Moynihan knew that he was handing them just the big stepping stone of "career advancement" they needed in NY.
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.