Carpe Mañana ('Can we kill 'em tomorrow?'): The (bill + hillary) clinton Terrorism Policy

The New York Sun, WCBS NEWSRADIO 880 | 4.19.06 | Mia T

[Mia T]

Carpe Mañana: The clinton Terrorism Policy
('Can we kill 'em tomorrow?')

FOOL ME ONCE, SHAME ON YOU! FOOL ME TWICE, SHAME ON ME!

 

by Mia T, 04.18.06

 

 

"In this interdependent world, we should still have a preference for peace over war,'' [clinton] said.

He also reflected on his own decisions when, as commander in chief, he was urged to launch a military strike.⁶

"I always thought of Senator Fulbright and the terrible quagmire in Vietnam and how many times we sent more soldiers and found ourselves in a hole and kept digging because we didn't want to look like we were weak,'' he said.

"So anytime somebody said in my presidency, 'If you don't do this people will think you're weak,' I always asked the same question for eight years: 'Can we kill 'em tomorrow?'"

"If we can kill 'em tomorrow, then we're not weak,¹ and we might be wise enough to try to find an alternative way,'' he said.

bill clinton

Bill Clinton, the Sultan of Swing, gave an interesting speech last week, apropos foreign policy: "Anytime somebody said in my presidency, 'If you don't do this people will think you're weak,' I always asked the same question for eight years: 'Can we kill 'em tomorrow?' If we can kill 'em tomorrow, then we're not weak, and we might be wise enough to try to find an alternative way."

The trouble was tomorrow never came - from the first World Trade Center attack to Khobar Towers to the African embassy bombings to the USS Cole. Manana is not a policy. The Iranians are merely the latest to understand that.

Reason Enough To Act
BY MARK STEYN
The New York Sun
April 17, 2006

or the clintons to succeed, Bush must fail, which means America must lose THE WAR.

Make no mistake: The undermining of Bush and America is the number one clinton imperative.²

DEFINING DEVIANCY DOWN

The clintons typically prop themselves up by revising others down.³ Direct, upward revision of their own legacy is virtually impossible to pull off,⁴ given their wide-reaching unsavory renown.⁵

But the clintons' inflated sense of self causes them from time to time to dispense with rational thought and attempt to do just this; and so we get the clinton mañanas.

PURPOSEFUL FAILURE

First clinton claimed he got impeached on purpose. To save the Constitution, he said. Now he claims he failed to confront terrorism on purpose. Because we can kill 'em tomorrow, he says.

NOTE: The clintons did fail to confront terrorism on purpose, but not for the reason stated. (Indeed, contrary to clinton's absurd argument, the clintons' feckless inaction (and feckless action, for that matter,) were precisely the sign of weakness that emboldened bin Laden and al Qaeda.¹ Bin Laden told us so himself.

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.

MORE

 

---

1

BIN LADEN FINGERS CLINTON FOR TERROR SUCCESS (SEE FOOTAGE)
THE THREAT OF TERRORISM IS AS CLOSE AS A CLINTON IS TO THE OVAL OFFICE

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....

 

WHY DID BILL CLINTON IGNORE TERRORISM?
Was it simply the constraints of his liberal mindset, or was it something even more threatening to our national security?

by Mia T, 8.18.05

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)
thanx to jla and Wolverine for the audio

hy did bill clinton ignore terrorism? Was it simply the constraints of his liberal mindset, or was it something even more threatening to our national security?

To understand why clinton failed so utterly to protect America from bin Laden, we begin by examining what clinton, himself, has said on the matter:

"Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in '91 and he went to the Sudan.

We'd been hearing that 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

We note first that this is classic clinton snake oil, exploiting liberal credulousness and the gestalt concepts of structural economy and closure (the tendency to perceive incomplete forms as complete), sleight of hand that enabled clinton to tell the story of his utter failure to fight terrorism, his failure to take bin Laden from Sudan, his repeated failures to decapitate a nascent, 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 because:

1. clinton has never been one to let the rule of law get in his way.
   

2. We now know the State Department warned clinton in July 1996 that bin Laden's move to Afghanistan would give him an even more dangerous haven, that bin Laden sought to expand radical Islam "well beyond the Middle East," that bin Laden in Afghanistan "could prove more dangerous to US interests... almost worldwide."
   

3. Bin Laden had repeatedly declared war on America, committed acts of war against America.

Clearly, the impeached ex-president treated terrorism not as war but as a law enforcement problem, which, by definition is defensive, after-the-fact and fatally-too-late.

He appears not 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 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
  

• the War on Terror is global and irreducible, the Left's postmodern posture notwithstanding.
  

• 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
  

• preemptive action, and even more so, preventative action, serve 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, even as he attempts to take down Bush, who, unlike clinton, does have the vision, courage and tenacity to fight terrorism, even in the face of seditious undermining by Clarke, the power-hungry clintons and the rest of the leftist lackey accomplices.

 

 

"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 documents the clinton propensity for passing 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 to this question is the answer to the overarching question.

Why did clinton ignore terrorism?

Richard Miniter's account of clinton's utter failure to combat terrorism provides a clue. (C-SPAN interview and LOSING BIN LADEN: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror)

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. Kill or capture bin Laden and clinton could kiss the accord and the Peace Prize good-bye.

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

 

Pathologic self-interest (Nobel Gas)

If clinton liberalism, smallness, cowardice, corruption, perfidy--and, to borrow a phrase from Andrew Cuomo, clinton cluelessness--played a part, it was, in the end, the Nobel Peace Prize that produced the puerile pertinacity that enabled the clintons to shrug off terrorism's global danger.

The clintons made their decision not to go after the terrorists 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 the inaction would also maximize the terrorists' power, maximize America's danger

ASIDE: There was an analogous treasonous miscalculation in the clintons' mass proliferation of weapons-of-mass-destruction technology.

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.

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

HIROSHIMA'S NUCLEAR LESSON
bill clinton is no Harry Truman

 

 

"PAPER TIGER"

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.

It is 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.

In the case of the non-response to the attack on the Cole, an unambiguous act of war, the clinton rationale 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.)

"I remember exactly what happened. Bruce Lindsey said to me on the phone, 'My God, a second plane has hit the tower.' And I said, 'Bin Laden did this.' that's the first thing I said. He said, 'How can you be sure?' I said 'Because only bin Laden and the Iranians could set up the network to do this and they [the Iranians] wouldn't do it because they have a country in targets. Bin Laden did it.'

I thought that my virtual obsession with him was well placed and I was full of regret that I didn't get him."

bill clinton
Sunday, Sept 3, 2002
Larry King Live

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2005

3

Biography lends to death a new terror.

Oscar Wilde 

 

 

Hypocrisy abounds in this Age of Clinton, a Postmodern Oz rife with constitutional deconstruction and semantic subversion, a virtual surreality polymarked by presidential alleles peccantly misplaced or, in the case of Jefferson posthumously misappropriated...

Mia T, THE OTHER NIXON

 

 

 

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.

One has merely to recall the Jefferson double-helix hoax to understand that posthumous misappropriation is, for the obvious reason, the clintons' preferred method of legacy inflation….

Standard-Issue clintonism

If misappropriation of Jefferson's alleles hinged on a broken line of descent, misappropriation of Moynihan's endorsement depends on a broken line of dissent. Like Sally Hemmings' progeny, Moynihan's later acquiescence is of dubious lineage

Mia T, Moynihan Myths

 

4
THE FAILED, DYSFUNCTIONAL CLINTON PRESIDENCY

(DECONSTRUCTING CLINTON'S HOFSTRA SPEECH)
part1: clinton's "Brinkley" Lie

by Mia T, 12.26.05



(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

 

ne would think that after bill clinton's shameless--pathetic, really--Hofstra apologia, Doris Kearns Goodwin and those 400 other hog-and-bow-tied-save-clinton retrograde-obsessing historiographers would finally get it. But then, we are talking leftist lobe here....

The speech, full of poses, poll-tested phrases and prevarication, was just another example of the clintons' utter contempt. For the people, for the presidents, for the presidency, for the country, for the Constitution... and, ultimately I suspect, for themselves.

This endeavor is the first in a series of essays with video that will attempt to deconstruct this very revealing speech.

The clintons' fundamental error: They are too arrogant and dim-witted to understand that the demagogic process in this fiberoptic age isn't about counting spun heads; it's about not discounting circumambient brains. (Did bill clinton really think Douglas Brinkley would let the "clinton greatness but for impeachment" lie stand? Is clinton delusional? Or just plain dumb?)

 

 

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2005

5

 

I M P E A C H M E N T
h e a r --c l i n t o n --l o s e --i t


by Mia T, 11.11.05

This legacy confab is in and of itself proof certain of clinton's deeply flawed character, and a demonstration in real time of the way in which the clinton years were about a legacy that was incidentally a presidency.

Madeleine Albright captured the essence of this dysfunctional presidency best when she explained why clinton couldn't go after bin Laden.

According to Richard Miniter, the Albright revelation occurred 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.

Albright explained that a [sham] Mideast accord would yield [if not peace for the principals, surely] a Nobel Peace Prize for clinton. Kill or capture bin Laden and clinton could kiss the 'accord' and the Peace Prize good-bye.

If clinton liberalism, smallness, cowardice, corruption, perfidy--and, to borrow a phrase from Andrew Cuomo, clinton cluelessness--played a part, it was, in the end, the Nobel Peace Prize that produced the puerile pertinacity that enabled the clintons to shrug off terrorism's global danger.

READ MORE

C-SPAN asked noted presidential historians to rank the American presidents¹ along the following ten dimensions: public persuasion, crisis leadership, economic management, moral authority, international relations, administrative skills, relations with congress, vision/setting an agenda, pursued equal justice for all, and performance within context of times.

bill clinton emerged as middling in most dimensions; he was surpassed in others by a settled mediocrity (Carter) and a putative failure (Nixon). In moral authority, bill clinton was rated dead last.² He did fairly well in public persuasion, not a surprising finding given the volume of snake oil he managed to peddle during his putative presidency.

"It's NOT the economy, stupid!"

Clinton's best scores were on the economic management and pursued equal justice for all dimensions. However, both of these results are meaningful only insofar as they redound to the moral authority dimension: they are wholly based on clinton fraudulence, cooked books and black poses, respectively; and clinton's shameless Rosa Parks eulogy last week assured us that the insidious brand of clinton racism is alive and well during these tiptoe years of what the clintons hope will be their interregnum.

Note that although Brinkley doesn't place much importance on the economic management dimension--he argues that the economy variable is not durable over time--he fails to recognize that the evaluation of the clinton economy by the historians is erroneous to begin with.

Note also that C-SPAN historians found no evidence of clinton "greatness" irrespective of his moral-authority deficit, contrary to Douglas Brinkley's claim made at the clinton revisionist confab³.

(NOTE: My later research has revealed that Brinkley's qualified mention of clinton "greatness" was not a claim but rather a polite guest's white lie about an abject loser. Instead of taking the AP report at face value, one must carefully parse Brinkley's actual words and especially note the subjunctive construction.)

MIDDLING

Twenty presidents rank higher than bill clinton and 20 rank lower. But this placement assumes equal weight for each of the dimensions. And therein lies the flaw.

If 9/11 taught us anything, it is that presidential character and moral authority count, and count most.⁴ If the variables are properly weighted, bill clinton will always come out dead last.

That is, unless Americans are dumb enough to make the same mistake twice.

Mia T, 11.10.05
Historian massages clinton numbers, ego + legacy at revisionist confab
C-SPAN historians find no clinton "greatness" irrespective of moral-authority deficit

 

 

IT TAKES A CLINTON TO RAZE A COUNTRY
by Mia T, 11.14.05

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)
 

2

A CALL TO IMPEACH CLINTON IN ABSENTIA


by Mia T, 11.17.05

 

 

id you see it? More to the point, did the American press?

bill clinton made page one of Al Jazeera today. A schizophrenic mix of schadenfreude and agitprop, it was the story of an impeached ex-president of America trashing America--to standing Os--in the Arab state of Dubai--in the middle of a war zone--only several hundred miles from the American troops--American troops protecting his--and his missus'--sorry, self-serving, pusillanimous, seditious....

And, to rub it in, the traitor pocketed no less than $200,000 from the enemy for his troubles.

Having failed to snare the Nobel Peace Prize by ignoring terrorism, clinton has apparently decided to intensify his America-bashing on foreign soil, the method employed by Jimmy Carter to great (if somewhat belated) effect.

(The Nobel committee, sufficiently mollified only after 24 years of the peanut president's America-bashing, awarded Carter his 1978 Peace Prize finally in 2002.)

Meanwhile, back in the Senate, the missus, the other half of the clinton construct, maintains her hawkish pose (although not without bird problems of another sort).

Yet another example of the clinton conflation ploy, (see SCHEMA PINOCCHIO: how the clintons are handling the hillary dud factor), this variant allows "clinton, the construct" to hold two mutually exclusive positions simultaneously, thereby enabling the missus to avoid in '08 the trap that repeatedly ensnared the ever 'nuanced' Kerry in '04.

Do you now understand how stupid the clintons think you are?

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2004

 AFTERWORD:

ON CLINTON SMALLNESS--BRINKLEY MISSES THE POINT

THE FAILED, DYSFUNCTIONAL CLINTON PRESIDENCY
(DECONSTRUCTING CLINTON'S HOFSTRA SPEECH)
part1: clinton's "Brinkley" Lie

 

by Mia T, 12.27.05

 

One of the American historians I most admire, Douglas Brinkley out there, sitting here, was quoted in the paper today as saying that I would be viewed as a great president except for the fact of the impeachment, which is just there.

bill clinton
Hofstra apologia
November 11, 2005

clinton's ranking will likely get worse over time. Economic issues fade in importance. Moral issues presist and grow. (paraphrase)

Douglas Brinkley
February 2000
(discussing C-SPAN PRESIDENTS POLL)
Washington Journal

Note that although Brinkley doesn't place much importance on the economic management dimension--he argues that the economy variable is not durable over time--he fails to recognize that the evaluation of the clinton economy by the historians is erroneous to begin with.

Note also that C-SPAN historians found no evidence of clinton "greatness" irrespective of his moral-authority deficit, contrary to Douglas Brinkley's claim made at the clinton revisionist confab³.

(NOTE: My later research has revealed that Brinkley's qualified mention of clinton "greatness" was not a claim but rather a polite guest's white lie about an abject loser. Instead of taking the AP report at face value, one must carefully parse Brinkley's actual words and especially note the subjunctive construction.)

Mia T, 11.10.05
Historian massages clinton numbers, ego + legacy at revisionist confab
C-SPAN historians find no clinton "greatness" irrespective of moral-authority deficit

The term "great" is probably an overused term. There are only a few presidents who make that top tier: Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Franklin Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Thomas Jefferson, and a few others who might be there.

I don't think bill clinton ever reached that category.

One, it's hard if you're not a wartime president...

Douglas Brinkley
Nov. 12, 2005
History News Network
Refuting clinton's Hofstra-apologia "Brinkley" lie

Note to Douglas Brinkley:
clinton WAS a wartime president. The problem is, he surrendered.

Preemptively.

You might say the clinton approach to The War on Terror was the perverse obverse of The Bush Doctrine.

... or have some huge event.

Douglas Brinkley
Nov. 12, 2005
History News Network
Refuting clinton's Hofstra-apologia "Brinkley" lie

Note to Douglas Brinkley:
clinton had one almost immediately, which he summarily ignored, the first attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor, the 1993 WTC bombing.

Do you recall that he urged us to ignore the bombing, too? Ignore the first major Islamofascist terrorist attack on the continental United States?!

Did you know clinton never visited the site? (And he was only 15 minutes away mere days after the bombing. He chose, instead, to give some forgettable speech on --what else? -- the economy.)

 

Second, clinton is not known for something like Lyndon Johnson was -- The Civil Rights Act -- or even Theodore Roosevelt and conservation, or one big thing.

I think his successes were in welfare reform, economic discipline,trade pacts.

Douglas Brinkley
Nov. 12, 2005
History News Network
Refuting clinton's Hofstra-apologia "Brinkley" lie

Note to Douglas Brinkley:
Arguable. He was dragged kicking and screaming by the Republicans.

Those are achievements, but they're hard to get people queuing up a hundred years from now excited to see the "NAFTA Pen Under Glass."

Douglas Brinkley
Nov. 12, 2005
History News Network
Refuting clinton's Hofstra-apologia "Brinkley" lie

Note to Douglas Brinkley:
Great turn of phrase.

The clintons continue to imperil virtually every sector of society, indeed, continue to imperil America and the world, with their exponentially increasing facility in manipulating electoral/policy matter and energy at ever smaller scales. Their "school uniforms" of the '90s became "nanotech uniforms" today; both are proxies for "fight terrorism," which the clintons have neither the stomach nor the know-how to do.

NANO-PRESIDENT
the danger of the unrelenting smallness of bill + hillary clinton
by Mia T, 7.31.05

LEHRER: President Bush, your closing statement, sir.

PRESIDENT BUSH (audio): 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)

 

ouglas Brinkley totally misses the point of clinton smallness.

The clinton presidency was small not because of absence of opportunity, but rather because of absence of courage, vision, selflessness, real intelligence and a moral core.

The endless parade of clinton small was required to fill the void created by an absence of the big stuff -- big stuff like "fighting terrorism."

HORNS

by Mia T, 12.19.05

 

a tin-horn politician with the manner of a rural corn doctor and the mien of a ham actor

H.L. Mencken

 

Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat.

Theodore Roosevelt

The cowardly, self-serving, seditious clintons may have found temporary refuge in 'the gray twilight,' but, as 9/11 demonstrated, America was not similarly sheltered....

 

deconstructing clinton… "just because I could"


(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)
FOOL ME ONCE, SHAME ON YOU! FOOL ME TWICE, SHAME ON ME!

 

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2005

Good evening. Three days ago, in large numbers, Iraqis went to the polls to choose their own leaders -- a landmark day in the history of liberty. In the coming weeks, the ballots will be counted, a new government formed, and a people who suffered in tyranny for so long will become full members of the free world.

This election will not mean the end of violence. But it is the beginning of something new: constitutional democracy at the heart of the Middle East. And this vote -- 6,000 miles away, in a vital region of the world -- means that America has an ally of growing strength in the fight against terror.

President George W. Bush
President's Address to the Nation
The Oval Office
In Focus: Renewal in Iraq
December 18, 2005
9:01 P.M. EST

CHRIS MATTHEWS: 'BUSH BELONGS ON MOUNT RUSHMORE'
IF HE WINS 'GREATEST GAMBLE SINCE ROOSEVELT BACKED BRITAIN BEFORE WWII'

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)
COMPLETE ARTICLE

VIDEO CLIP

6

WHY THE CLINTONS FAILED "TO CAPTURE OR KILL THE TALLEST MAN IN AFGHANISTAN"
(DID THEY REALLY WANT TO TAKE HIM OUT ANYWAY?)
by Mia t, 2.15.06

<

"You cannot explain to me why we have not captured or killed the tallest man in Afghanistan."

hear hillary clinton

"You know... the job which we should have done ¹... which should have been our primary focus, to find [you know] bin Laden and eliminate al Qaeda."

hear hillary clinton
Saturday, Jan. 28, 2006
Chitchat with Jane Pauley
San Francisco, CA

"Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in '91 and he went to the Sudan.

We'd been hearing that 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.³

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."

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

 

hen the damning tape surfaced, focus was naturally on bill clinton's (oops!) admission.

No one paid much attention to what may turn out to be even more incriminating: clinton's curious explanation of the missile strike at Kandahur that took out a phalanxlike formation of... empty tents... and allowed bin Laden (and the Mideast Muslim ego) to escape unscathed.

Ever notice how a crook volunteers way too much information when he's trying to explain away his crimes? This is especially true when the crook thinks you're an idiot and he's a genius.

"When I bombed his training camp and tried to kill him and his high command in 1998 after the African -Embassy bombings, some people criticized me for doing it. We just barely missed him by a couple of hours. I think whoever told us he was going to be there told somebody who told him that our missiles might be there. I think we were ratted out."

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

I agree. We were ratted out. bill clinton could not afford to capture or kill bin Laden. This information courtesy of none other than Madeleine Albright.

clinton's reaction--or should I say non-reaction-- to the USS Cole bombing in 2000--an unambiguous act of war--validates Albright's assertion.

clinton's refusal to take bin Laden in 1996--validates Albright's assertion.

That clinton summarily ignored and urged all of us to ignore the first attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor, the 1993 WTC bombing--ignore the first major Islamofascist terrorist attack on the continental United States!!--validates Albright's assertion.

The fact that "our national mourner," bill "I feel your pain" clinton, never even visited the site--he was only 15 minutes away mere days after the 1993 WTC bombing--validates Albright's assertion like nothing else.

---

'MAKE IT A RULE' -- PLACE YOUR ORDER FOR OSAMA WITH CLINTON and CO.
(HEAR HILLARY + BILL MAKE THEIR PITCH)
by Mia t, 2.13.06

  READ MORE

December 7, 1941+64

AN OPEN LETTER TO TIM ROBBINS, DAVID GEFFEN, CHRIS MATTHEWS, MAUREEN DOWD + JEANINE PIRRO

RE: a not-so-modest proposal concerning hillary clinton

Dear Concerned Americans,

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.

COMPLETE LETTER

December 7, 1941+64
Mia T
AN OPEN LETTER TO TIM ROBBINS, DAVID GEFFEN, CHRIS MATTHEWS, MAUREEN DOWD + JEANINE PIRRO
RE: a not-so-modest proposal concerning hillary clinton


COPYRIGHT MIA T 2005

HILLARY CLINTON VOTES FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS BEFORE SHE VOTES AGAINST THEM
HEAR HER NOW


"HAIR" THEY GO AGAIN: CYNTHIA McKINNEY PLAYS THE RACE CARD


BILLY + CYNTHIA McKINNEY vs. BILL + HILLARY CLINTON
a distinction without a difference


HILLARY DOES JESUS
"FURTHER EVIDENCE WHY SHE IS ONE OF THE MOST DESPICABLE POLITICIANS OUT THERE RIGHT NOW"


HILLARY VOTE FRAUD
missus clinton uses Jesus


SEX, LIES AND SOCK PUPPETS:
HOW THE CLINTONS ARE HANDLING THE HILLARY DUD FACTOR ₄


THREE WOMEN AND A FUNERAL:
HOW THE CLINTONS ARE HANDLING THE HILLARY DUD FACTOR ₃


WHY THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT MUST MOBILIZE AGAINST HILLARY:
CLINTON CONFLATES EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS AND ISLAMO-FASCIST TERRORISTS


THROUGH A GLASS DARKLY:
HOW DECADES OF CLINTON DOUBLE-DEALING COMPROMISED OUR NATIONAL SECURITY


DUBAI-ITIES:
HILLARY 'KNOWNOTHING VICTIM' CLINTON STRIKES AGAIN


DICK MORRIS:
CLINTON IS A PAID AGENT OF THE CROWN PRINCE OF DUBAI


REVERSE MORPH FOR HILLARY


THE VOUCHER RANT OF MISS HILLARY:
WHY THE WHIFF OF RACISM EXCEEDS THE WORDS


HILLARY CLINTON, DANGEROUS DEMAGOGUE
WHAT IS HER VOUCHER RANT REALLY ABOUT ANYWAY?


WHY HILLARY IN THE OVAL OFFICE IS A NATIONAL-SECURITY NO-NO^{PART ONE}


KARL ROVE'S MAGNIFICENT OBSESSION: MOI
HEAR HILLARY, CHRIS MATTHEWS ET AL.


"I DON'T RECALL"
(THE CLINTONS COMMIT PERJURY WITH IMPUNITY)


BILL MAHER WARNS DEMOCRATS:
HILLARY WILL TAKE YOU OVER A CLIFF IN '08


PARTY OF LINCOLN AND THE WAR ON TERROR


'REFUSAL TO LEVEL WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE'
... IS HILLARY 'KNOWNOTHING VICTIM' CLINTON'S MIDDLE NAME


WHY THE CLINTONS FAILED "TO CAPTURE OR KILL THE TALLEST MAN IN AFGHANISTAN"
(DID THEY REALLY WANT TO TAKE HIM OUT ANYWAY?)


'MAKE IT A RULE' -- PLACE YOUR ORDER FOR OSAMA WITH CLINTON and CO.
(HEAR HILLARY + BILL MAKE THEIR PITCH)


ON THE FICTIONALIZED MEMOIR (HEAR HILLARY IN SF)^{~PART TWO~}
THE (oops!) INADVERTENT ADMISSIONS OF HILLARY AND JANE IN SAN FRANCISCO


THE (oops!) INADVERTENT (TERRORISM) ADMISSIONS OF BILL + HILLARY CLINTON (HEAR HILLARY IN SF) ^{~PART ONE~}


ON PEGGY NOONAN ON 4 PRESIDENTS AND A FUNERAL


'HIATUS' FOR HILLARY?


HILLARY'S EXPOSED LEFT FLANK 'SCARES THE HORSES' (VIDEO)
(MISSUS CLINTON SUPPORTS ALITO FILIBUSTER)


CLINTON 'CULTURE OF CORRUPTION'


~SEE VIDEO~
IRAQI GENERAL: SADDAM MOVED WMD TO SYRIA BEFORE INVASION
(ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE, CINDY SHEEHAN)


THE 'BORED,' BEFUDDLED POLITICS OF JOHN KERRY RETURNS
CALLS FOR ALITO FILIBUSTER FROM 'SKI SLOPES'


IS REUTERS SENDING A MESSAGE ABOUT A COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF HILLARY?


ON REJIGGING GALLUP'S LOSING NUMBERS FOR HILLARY
THE ALTERNATE UNIVERSE OF ANNE KORNBLUT


SEE VIDEO: "HILLARY IS 'DOOMED'" (more 'plantation' fallout)


GONE WITH THE WIND
(miss hillary's 'plantation' blunder)


REDACTION LOOPHOLE: ACCESS TO THE BARRETT REPORT


HILLARY CLINTON KNEW ABOUT THE RAPE: HEAR JUANITA BROADDRICK


ROCKEFELLER SEDITION: WHO IS CALLING THE SHOTS?


THE ABSURDITY OF A COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF HILLARY


HILLARY'S ARMOR: A decades-old story...


My New York Times Review of Munich
CLOSE ENCOUNTER OF THE WORST KIND
(please FReep)


AFTERWORD
MUNICH: A CLOSE ENCOUNTER OF THE WORST KIND
(please see post 38)


THE 'MUNICH' ALLUSION:
THE DANGER OF SPIELBERG AND THE AMERICAN LEFT
(Please see post 60)


Alien Abductions, Flying Saucers + Other Weird Phenomena, c.1992-2000


WAR AND TREASON AND THE NEW YORK TIMES
(Please see post 65)


ON WARRANTLESS SEARCHES AND WIRETAPS:
THE ABYSMAL CONSTITUTIONAL RECORD OF BILL + HILLARY CLINTON


CHRIS MATTHEWS: 'BUSH BELONGS ON MOUNT RUSHMORE'
IF HE WINS 'GREATEST GAMBLE SINCE ROOSEVELT BACKED BRITAIN BEFORE WWII'


THE FAILED, DYSFUNCTIONAL CLINTON PRESIDENCY
(DECONSTRUCTING CLINTON'S HOFSTRA SPEECH) -- part1: clinton's "Brinkley" Lie


AFTERWORD: ON CLINTON SMALLNESS
(BRINKLEY MISSES THE POINT)


WHY DID BILL CLINTON IGNORE TERRORISM?
Was it simply the constraints of his liberal mindset, or was it something even more threatening to our national security?


IT TAKES A CLINTON TO RAZE A COUNTRY


BIN LADEN FINGERS CLINTON FOR TERROR SUCCESS (SEE FOOTAGE)
THE THREAT OF TERRORISM IS AS CLOSE AS A CLINTON IS TO THE OVAL OFFICE


PRESIDENTIAL FAILURE, 9/11 + KATRINA


I M P E A C H M E N T
h e a r --c l i n t o n --l o s e --i t


CROOKS PARDONING CROOKS PARDONING CROOKS:
Justice Undone in the clinton White House


WHY HILLARY MUST NOT WIN. WHY HILLARY CANNOT WIN.

(ICKES + ESTRICH PROVIDE ROADMAP--oops!--FOR HILLARY DEFEAT)

AN OPEN LETTER TO TIM ROBBINS, DAVID GEFFEN, CHRIS MATTHEWS, MAUREEN DOWD + JEANINE PIRRO
RE: a not-so-modest proposal concerning hillary clinton
December 7, 1941+64


IMPERIOUS HILLARY
(THE REPORTS OF HER DEATH ARE GREATLY UNDERSTATED)


IS DICK MORRIS AN IDIOT? OR IS HE STILL ON THE CLINTON PAYROLL?


clintonCORRUPTION: the more things change. . . .


Yitzhak Shamir Validated: THE CLINTONS ARE "A GREAT DANGER TO JEWS"


for the birds
(THE INCOMPETENCE OF HILLARY CLINTON)


CHENEY: CALL THEM REPREHENSIBLE
THE DEMOCRATS ARE GONNA GET US KILLED (kerry, clinton + sandy berger's pants) SERlES₅


A CALL TO IMPEACH CLINTON IN ABSENTIA


NEWT: CLINTON COMMITTED ONE OF WORST CRIMES, ENDANGERED COUNTRY, IF HIT ABDULLAH UP FOR CASH


Listen to this and ask yourself if America Ever Had the Remotest Chance Under a clinton to Avoid 9/11
(To paraphrase Einstein: "The unleashed power of terrorism has changed everything save our modes of thinking, and we thus drift toward unparalleled catastrophes.")


Is the 9/11 commission calling bill clinton's statement '"unreliable," or did it choose willful ignorance this time, too?


sandy berger haberdashery feint
(the specs, not the pants or the socks)


THE LEFT'S RECKLESS TET-OFFENSIVE-GAMBIT REPLAY:
the left's jihad against America is killing our troops, aiding + abetting the terrorists and imperiling all Americans


NANO-PRESIDENT, MEGA-DISASTER
history will not be kind to bill + hillary clinton


NANO-PRESIDENT
the danger of the unrelenting smallness of bill + hillary clinton


HIROSHIMA'S NUCLEAR LESSON
bill clinton is no Harry Truman


CLINTON RAPES, REVISIONISM, USEFUL IDIOTS AND ENTROPY (an update)


JENNINGS DOES A DIMBLEBY: clinton legacy-RAGE redux


1st Feminist Prez Impeached
(clinton, pushed by the "smartest woman in the world," managed to impeach himself)


THE FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT?
clinton legacy of lynching update


TALL-TALE TWEAK:
In honor of Rosa Parks, 'burning church' becomes 'bus' for 'first black president'
(clip included)

For the children?
the clintons ARE pornography downloads


"I support the poor but not the war on poverty."


pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic
WHY THE LEFT IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA


The Left's Fatally Flawed "Animal Farm" Mentality
(Why America Must NEVER AGAIN Elect a Democrat President)


Why hillary clinton should never be allowed anywhere near the Oval Office... or any position of power
REASON 1: SHE HIRED JAMIE GORELICK


HILLARY'S TRIPLE PLAY
the clinton putsch + filegate + the gorelick wall


HILLARY'S MIDDLE-FINGER MINDSET (MAD COVER 2)
Do you really want THAT finger on the button?


"What, me worry?"


ALFRED E."What, me worry?" CLINTON + CRAZY HIL MAD COVER STORY
THE THREAT OF TERRORISM IS AS CLOSE AS A CLINTON IS TO THE OVAL OFFICE


How did the flower children fall for the clintons, 2 such self-evident thugs and opportunists?
(FOOL ME ONCE, SHAME ON YOU! FOOL ME TWICE, SHAME ON ME!)


Alfred E. Neuman + the threat of terrorism, according to hillary


HILLARY IS NIXON-PLUS ^{part 1}
BEWARE THE SYNERGY
Nixonian paranoia and fascistic mindset combine with
clintonian megalomania, ineptitude and, most important, easy betrayal of America
to make hillary clinton deadly dangerous for us all.


HILLARY IS NIXON-PLUS ^{part 2}
BEWARE THE SYNERGY
Nixonian paranoia and fascistic mindset combine with
clintonian megalomania, ineptitude and, most important, easy betrayal of America
to make hillary clinton deadly dangerous for us all.


KLEIN BOOK CAUSES HILLARY TO (oops!) CONFIRM "THE TRUTH ABOUT HILLARY"
CLINTON'S REACTION EXPOSES FASCISTIC MINDSET, TEXTBOOK CASE OF PARANOIA + MEGALOMANIA, AND A CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT IN BROADDRICK RAPE


DEMOCRATIC FASCISM [beware hillary clinton]


THE OLYMPIC HILDABEAST FLOPS
hillary stupidly invokes clinton utter failure: 9/11


Who in heaven's name is writing missus clinton's speeches?
A "handling the hillary dud factor" AFTERWORD


SCHEMA PINOCCHIO
how the clintons are handling the hillary dud factor


REINVENTING HILLARY... AGAIN
(clinton machine dumps Geena Davis for Margaret Thatcher)
how the clintons are handling the hillary dud factor₂


AN OPEN LETTER TO TIM ROBBINS, DAVID GEFFEN, CHRIS MATTHEWS, MAUREEN DOWD + JEANINE PIRRO
RE: a not-so-modest proposal concerning hillary clinton


hillary's burqa


HILLARY'S COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF PROBLEM
(see descriptor morphs)


HILLARY IN AVIARY


ROE, MEDICAL SCIENCE, THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT, ROSS PEROT + HILLARY CLINTON


the significance of missus clinton's gratuitous gerundial g-droppings


HILLARY CLINTONSTAHL
clinton agitprop machine censors truth about hillary


CLINTONS' DOCUMENTED ABUSE OF WOMEN


hillary clinton is a "CONGENITAL LIAR"
("I am not a crook")


retrograde feminist fraud positions herself as victim (again) in order to win White House
[FOOL ME ONCE, SHAME ON YOU! FOOL ME TWICE, SHAME ON ME!]


NOTE THE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN CLINTON REACTION TIME AND CONTENT TO THE TWO RAPE CHARGES


CATCHING THE CONSCIENCE OF THE KINGFISH
differential reaction to the two rape charges snares the clintons


the clinton-clinton-Broaddrick kind of rape, according to Susan Estrich


HEAR CHRIS MATTHEWS + MAUREEN DOWD DEVOUR HILLARY


THE DANGER OF RUNNING VICARIOUSLY
Bill O'Reilly chews up and spits out the hillary clinton candidacy
(clip included)


ESTRICH IMPEACHED BY HER OWN WORDS,
EXPOSES STOCK HILLARY PLOY: EXPLOIT WOMEN
my amazon.com review


STRANGE BEDFELLOWS: ED KLEIN AND SUSAN ESTRICH AGREE ABOUT HILLARY


HEAR SUSAN ESTRICH: hillary plays 'the victim' for votes


ESTRICH BOOK EXPOSES STOCK HILLARY PLOY: EXPLOIT WOMEN


OPEN LETTER TO SEAN HANNITY ON ESTRICH INTERVIEW, THE CLINTONS' RAPE OF BROADDRICK
(with additions, corrections, addendum)


HILLARY FLUNKED D.C. BAR EXAM
"the smartest woman in the world" sought less competitive venue


HILLARY!?? WHAT IS THIS MORIBUND LOSER DOING IN THE POLITICAL ARENA, ANYWAY? (bill's bud explains)

 
COPYRIGHT MIA T 2006

[E.G.C.]

Mia T. Bump.

[yoe]

Clinton Reveals on Secret Audio: “I Nixed Bin Laden Extradition Offer”

Wow! What a guy, sounds just like the other Democrat, Harry Reid – “We killed the Patriot Act!”…… Socialists and stupid to the core.

Keeping America safe is not in the Democratic play book…………………..

[bmwcyle]

Hillary and Bill are the Anti-Christ's preshow.

[johnny7]

“Can we kill'em tomorrow?”

The phrase makes no sense in terms of foreign policy. Try applying it in contemporary history and it's comes off as brazen arrogance... a snide quip... the cheeky insolence of an adolescent.

However... it would make a great subtitle for 'Downside Legacy'.

[PGalt]

Anti-truth, anti-freedom, anti-life, anti-father, anti-husband, anti-man speaks.

Bill & Hillary Clinton have much more in common with terrorism than we do.

[RoadTest]

Bill and Hilary Clinton: Jesuit products for the destruction of Protestant America.

[usmcobra]

When Bill Clinton said "Can we kill them tomorrow" what did he reallly mean.

Some would say he was recognizing our ability to destroy any enemy....

I would say He was recognizing that he didn't have the courage to do so without overwhelming public support to give him enough spine to order our troops into battle, and that he decided that a future president would have to do the job later for the nation when the nation called for action.

Or in short it wasn't Monica that was hiding under the desk in the Oval Office while terrorists attacked us, it was Bill .

[memorandum1]

"You WILL obey!!!"

[Mia T]

Great comments!

When Bill Clinton said "Can we kill them tomorrow" what did he reallly mean.

Some would say he was recognizing our ability to destroy any enemy....--usmcobra

If he was referring to our ability to destroy any enemy--axiomatic under any circumstances--then his little 'test' is, obviously, tautological and empty.

NOTE: Another possibility exists, that he was referring to whether we have the luxury of time to wait to take out our enemy; but that possibility is negated by the circumstances, i.e.,

• We now know the State Department warned clinton in July 1996 that bin Laden's move to Afghanistan would give him an even more dangerous haven, that bin Laden sought to expand radical Islam "well beyond the Middle East," that bin Laden in Afghanistan "could prove more dangerous to US interests... almost worldwide." (NOTE: clinton was offered bin Laden on a silver platter in 1996)
  
• Bin Laden had repeatedly declared war on America, committed acts of war against America.

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… or do you surrender?

In spite of himself, clinton was a wartime president. The problem is, he surrendered.

Preemptively.

You might say the clinton approach to The War on Terror was the perverse obverse of The Bush Doctrine.

The sorry endpoint of this massive, 8-year clinton blunder (' I always asked the same question for eight years: 'Can we kill 'em tomorrow?') was, of course, 9/11 and the exponential growth of al Qaeda.

What an abject failure. What a repulsive, self-serving danger to America. How could the Left is even toy with the idea of a clinton sequel?⁷

I would say He was recognizing that he didn't have the courage to do so without overwhelming public support to give him enough spine to order our troops into battle, and that he decided that a future president would have to do the job later for the nation when the nation called for action.

Or in short it wasn't Monica that was hiding under the desk in the Oval Office while terrorists attacked us, it was Bill .--usmcobra

A brilliant turn of phrase. ;)

The cowardice of bill clinton as a factor is a given. But there was an equally significant force driving clinton's feckless inaction (and feckless action)--THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE. (Only this past week, clinton once again confirmed its importance. We are talking about a very sick, dysfunctional couple here.)

Madeleine Albright captured the essence of this dysfunctional presidency best when she explained why clinton couldn't go after bin Laden.

According to Richard Miniter, the Albright revelation occurred 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.

Albright explained that a [sham] Mideast accord would yield [if not peace for the principals, surely] a Nobel Peace Prize for clinton. Kill or capture bin Laden and clinton could kiss the 'accord' and the Peace Prize good-bye.

If clinton liberalism, smallness, cowardice, corruption, perfidy--and, to borrow a phrase from Andrew Cuomo, clinton cluelessness--played a part, it was, in the end, the Nobel Peace Prize that produced the puerile pertinacity that enabled the clintons to shrug off terrorism's global danger.

(For more info, see discussion of clinton's curious explanation of the missile strike at Kandahur⁶ that took out a phalanxlike formation of... empty tents... and allowed bin Laden (and the Mideast Muslim ego) to escape unscathed.)

7

The Left's Fatally Flawed "Animal Farm" Mentality
(Why America Must NEVER AGAIN Elect a Democrat President)
by Mia T, 6.04.04

The Bush Doctine is built on two pillars, one -- that the United States must maintain its absolute military superiority in every part of the world, and second -- that the United States has the right for preemptive action.

Now, both these propositions, taken on their own, are quite valid propositions, but if you put them together, they establish two kinds of sovereignty in the world, the sovereignty of the United States, which is inviolate, not subject to any international constraints, and the rest of the world, which is subject to the Bush Doctrine.

To me, it is reminiscent to [sic] George Orwell's "Animal Farm," that "All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

George Soros

eorge Soros could not have more clearly enunciated the lethal danger that he and John Kerry and the clintons and the rest of his leftist cabal pose for America.

Yesterday, at the "progressive," i.e., ultra-extremist left-wing liberal, "Take Back America" confab, Mr. Soros confirmed the obvious: 9/11 was dispositive for the Dems; that is, 9/11 accelerated what eight years of the clintons had set into motion, namely, the demise of a Democratic party that is increasingly irrelevant, unflinchingly corrupt, unwaveringly self-serving, chronically moribund and above all, lethally, seditiously dangerous.

"All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

Apparently missing the irony, George Soros chastised America with these words even as he was trying his $25,000,000, 527-end-run damnedest to render himself "more equal than others" in order to foist his radical, paranoic, deadly dementia on an entire nation.

"Animal Farm" is George Orwell's satirical allegory of the Russian Revolution; but it could just as easily be the story of the Democratic Party of today, with the

Kennedy-Pelosi-Gore-clinton (either--"one for the price of two," I say) -Sulzberger-Soros-Moore construct

its porcine manifestation.

SOROS TSURIS

Soros' little speech reveals everything we need to know about the Left, to wit:

• its naivete about the War on Terror,
• its preference for demagoguery over rational argument, and ideology and reacquisition of power over national security,
• its mindset, which is inextricably bound to its failed, tortuous, reckless schemes, relics of a different time, a different war and a different enemy.

Soros is correct when he states that each of the two pillars of the Bush Doctine--the United States maintenance of absolute military superiority and the United States right of preemptive action--are "valid propositions" [in a post-9/11 world].

But when he proceeds from there to argue that the validity of each of these two [essential] pillars is somehow nullified by the resultant unequalled power that these two pillars, when taken together, vest in the United States, rational thought and national-security primacy give way to dogmatic Leftist neo-neoliberal ideology.

 

What is, in fact, "inviolate" here is the neo-neoliberal doctrine of U.S. sovereignty, which states simply that there must be none, that we must yield our sovereignty to the United Nations. Because this Leftist tenet is inviolate, and because it is the antithesis of the concept of U.S. sovereignty enunciated by the Bush Doctrine and the concept of U.S. sovereignty required by the War on Terror, rabid Leftists like Soros conclude that we must trash the latter two inconvenient concepts--even if critical to the survival of our country.

It is precisely here where Soros and the Left fail utterly to understand the War on Terror. They cannot see beyond their own ideology and lust for power. They have become a danger to this country no less lethal than the terrorists they aid and abet.

 

I think this administration has the right strategic vision and has taken many of the steps needed to get that long-term strategy rolling.

Where I give them the failing grade is in explaining that vision to the American public and the world. Key example: this White House enshrines preemptive war in the latest National Security Strategy and that scares the hell out of a lot of Americans, not to mention our allies. Why? This administration fails to distinguish sufficiently under what conditions that strategy makes reasonable sense.

My point is this: when you are explicit about the world being divided into globalization's Core and Gap, you can distinguish between the different security rule sets at work in each.

Nothing has changed about strategic deterrence or the concept of mutual-assured destruction (or MAD) within the Core, so fears about preemptive wars triggering World War III are misplaced.

When this administration talks about preemption, they're talking strictly about the Gap - not the Core. The strategic stability that defines the Core is not altered one whit by this new strategy, because preemption is all about striking first against actors or states you believe - quite reasonably - are undeterrable in the normal sense.

Thomas P.M. Barnett
The Pentagon's New Map
NB: Dr. Barnett is a lifelong DEMOCRAT

I'm a single-issue voter, as I guess must have become apparent.

I'm not a Republican. I'm not a conservative. I'm not a very great admirer of the president in many ways, but I think that my condition is... that this is an administration that wakes up every morning wondering how to make life hard for the forces of Jihad and how to make as hard as possible an unapologetic defense of civilization against this kind of barbarism... and though the Bush administration has been rife with disappointment on this and incompetent, I nonetheless feel that they have some sense of that spirit.

I don't get that... I don't get that feeling from anyone who even sought the Democratic nomination.

I would [therefore] have to vote for the reelection of President Bush.

Christopher Hitchens
Washington Journal, 6.01.04
C-SPAN

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2004

 

[Mia T]

thx :)

[Mia T]

excellent!

The 'cheeky-clinton' counterpoint is especially 'bottom'-line . ;)

I am reminded of this Joan Didion comment:

"No one who ever passed through an American public high school could have watched William Jefferson Clinton running for office in 1992 and failed to recognize the familiar predatory sexuality of the provincial adolescent."

In 14 years he has not matured. If anything, he's regressed.

At best, he's arrested (would that he were), forever fixed in the phallic.

Not a good stage from which to lead a nation--especially a nation at war.

 

 

[Mia T]

Clinton Reveals on Secret Audio: "I Nixed Bin Laden Extradition Offer"

Wow! What a guy, sounds just like the other Democrat, Harry Reid-- "We killed the Patriot Act!"…… Socialists and stupid to the core.

Keeping America safe is not in the Democratic play book…………………..--yoe

Indeed. Love the analogy.

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

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, THE ALIENS, June 9, 1999
Alien Abductions, Flying Saucers + Other Weird Phenomena, c.1992-2000

 

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.

ASIDE: Wartime Bush-bashing sedition of the pre-Howard Dean, pre-Cindy Sheehan variety, with its sotto-voce old-school indirection, refinement and politesse, sounds almost quaint these days.

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

 

America's Real Two-Front War

 

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 and politically, 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.

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

 

 

 

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2006

 

 

[Mia T]

thanx :)

[Mia T]

thanx. :)

[Mia T]

The blunderbuss-ery of bill and hillary clinton would destroy us all.

[Mia T]

Precursor. A foreshadowing....
bump.

[Mia T]

IS REUTERS SENDING A MESSAGE ABOUT A COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF HILLARY?

[Mia T]

thanx :)

[Mia T]

bump ;)

[Mia T]

Looking for the bill clinton 'Can we kill 'em tomorrow?' audio or video
(AND WHAT ARE THOSE NEWS SERVICE PHOTOS OF BILL + HILLARY ABOUT, ANYWAY?)