What's black and white and read all over and is more self-destructive than pre-9/11 thinking?

Jim Robinson, John Podhoretz, Richard Miniter, Madeleine Albright, hillary clinton, bill clinton | 5.14.06 | Mia T

[Mia T]

What's black and white and read all over and is more self-destructive than pre-9/11 thinking?

 

by Mia T, 5.14.06

 

re-clinton thinking, that's what....

Putting doctrinal purity ahead of making sure a defective and dangerous clinton never again controls this country is pre-clinton thinking.

We no longer have the luxury of time or circumstance to massage our sensibilities, to indulge our indignations. We will not survive another clinton. (We may yet not survive the first one.)

 

 

ALBRIGHT¹: 'Bin Laden and his Network Declared War² on the United States and Struck First and We Have Suffered Deeply'
by Mia T, 4.28.06

 

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

'Can we kill 'em tomorrow?' THE ADDRESS	THE (oops!) TRUTH
"In this interdependent world, we should still have a preference for peace over war.... But sometimes we would have these debates where people would say, if I didn't take some military action this very day, people would look down their nose at America and think we were weak.  And I always thought of Senator Fulbright.... 6 So anytime somebody said in my presence, 'Hey, 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?'  I don't think we can bring 'em back tomorrow, but can we kill 'em tomorrow?  If we can kill them tomorrow, then we're not weak.... 1 I learned that as a 20-year-old kid watching Bill Fulbright.  Listening." bill clinton Fulbright Prize address April 12, 2006	"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 "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 2 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 "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." hillary clinton Saturday, Jan. 28, 2006 Chitchat with Jane Pauley San Francisco, CA
... I thank you for this award, even though, in general, I think former presidents and presidents should never get awards.  I was delighted when Jimmy Carter won the Nobel Peace Prize because I thought he earned it, and I thought it was great because he got it as much for what he did after office as when he was in office.  In general, I think that the fact that we got to be president is quite honor enough. bill clinton Fulbright Prize address April 12, 2006	"Bill Clinton is still campaigning for the Nobel Peace Prize. But for now, he'll just have to settle for "the political play of the week." Bill Schneider CNN reporting on the Fulbright Prize April 14, 2006       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

 MISSING CLINTON AUDIO! 'Can we kill 'em tomorrow?'
(+Albright-Fulbright-Nobel TERRORISM revelations)

HEAR CLINTON! 'Can we kill 'em tomorrow?'
by Mia T, 4.24.06

LISTEN CAREFULLY TO THE AUDIO: Fulbrighters' gasps of horror follow clinton's "I always asked the same question for eight years, 'Can we kill 'em tomorrow?'  I don't think we can bring 'em back tomorrow, but can we kill 'em tomorrow?  If we can kill them tomorrow, then we're not weak...."

I suspect the horror was provoked not by the (proven) fecklessness and recklessness and rigidity and danger of the purported clinton 'terrorism policy' or even by the absurdity of the argument; I suspect the gasps of horror were in response, rather, to the Kill-Bill kind of violence (albeit "virtual") contained in bill clinton's words.

God save us from people who do the morally right thing. It's always the rest of us who get broken in half.

--Paddy Chayefsky

 

And God save us from the morally unencumbered clintons, who get us broken in half nonetheless. --Mia T

[T]hey're using the same divide and conquer techniques. They infiltrate our political parties and organizations. They plant disinformation bombs and sow the seeds of political discontent. They are masters in the use of propaganda and rabble rousing.

Recognize the enemy for what he is and do not allow them to use divisive issues to destroy our conservative movement. We are winning. We must not be sidetracked by an issue that will be solved in due time as we elect more conservative members to our government and continue replacing liberal activist judges with constitutionalists.

The goal is the same as it's always been. We must hold the line and advance our cause. Never willingly give ground to the liberal/socialists! Never retreat! Never surrender!

The Beast must be destroyed!--

The game has not changed, we face the same enemy, same challenges. The Beast never dies!
May 10, 2006 | Jim Robinson

Lopez: If you had to bet money today…do Republicans stop her?

Podhoretz: Yes—with this caveat. If the party fails to focus on the threat from Hillary and tears itself apart from within in pursuit of doctrinal purity, then those in pursuit of purity over practical politics will hand the country to Hillary in 2008.

Lopez: In the short term: If Republicans lose big in 2006, how will it reflect on 2008? Will it be a good kick-start to the GOP or just put Dems that much ahead?

Podhoretz: Here's a very good rule of thumb in politics: Losing begets losing.

Lopez: How can blogs stop Hillary? Could the left-wing blogosphere wind up a thorn in her side?

Podhoretz: Blogs can and should keep the pressure on Hillary to speak, speak, speak. She prefers to remain silent for the most part, because that way she can limit any damage her words might cause. I offer some very practical tips for bloggers in the book....

Lopez: What’s your most important piece of advice on stopping Hillary?

Podhoretz: Conservatives must avoid the siren song of schism, or all is lost.

Kathryn Jean Lopez interviews John Podhoretz
National Review Online
May 09, 2006, 6:13 a.m.

STOPPING HILLARY
[JOHN PODHORETZ'S CRITICALLY IMPORTANT MESSAGE (and it's not his 'HILLARY IS A BITCH' THEORY OF ELECTABILITY)]
Mia T, 5.12.06

UNITED 93:THE CLINTON-9/11 NEXUS
"We have to do it now. We know what happens if we just sit here and do nothing...."


ALBRIGHT INDICTS CLINTON FOR TERRORISM FAILURE
(and doesn't even know it)


MISSING CLINTON AUDIO! 'Can we kill 'em tomorrow?'
(+Albright-Fulbright-Nobel TERRORISM revelations)


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?


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


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


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


AFTERWORD: A Note to the Religious Right


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)


HILLARY REMEMBERS


HILLARY DOES NOT RECALL, DOES NOT REMEMBER, HAS NO MEMORY, HAS NO RECOLLECTION, BUT DOES NOT BELIEVE SHE SAID IT BECAUSE SHE WOULD HAVE REMEMBERED IF SHE DID.


STOPPING HILLARY
[JOHN PODHORETZ'S CRITICALLY IMPORTANT MESSAGE (and it's not his 'HILLARY IS A BITCH' THEORY OF ELECTABILITY)]


THE ABSURDITY OF THE 'HILLARY IS A BITCH' THEORY OF ELECTABILITY
AND OTHER PODHORETZ NONSENSE
NOTE: Podhoretz is absolutely right about one thing--
even hillary clinton can win if the Right FRACTURES over its pet issues.
We must not, in this Age of Terror, allow another Perot or Perot-surrogate issue
elect a defective and dangerous clinton by a plurality.


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


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)


America's Real Two-Front War


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


ne•o-ne•o•lib•er•al•ism n.


DEBUNKING CINDY SHEEHAN
(HEAR ABE LINCOLN/JOHNNY CASH + PBS' NEIL CONAN)


CINDY SHEEHAN: ECHO OF THE LEFT (hear them all here)


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


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


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


AFTERWORD: A Note to the Religious Right


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?


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


THE FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT?
clinton legacy of lynching update


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

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2006

[IronJack]

Enjoy nothing then .

Enjoy becoming a Democrat, then.

Your idealogical purity test seems to have blinded you to Reagen's political maxims.

Reagan was a man, not a god.

No thanks. I'll take Chaucer's advice and "flee from the crowd to dwell with truthfulness."

[IronJack]

We cannot accept a RINO as our nominee.

Sadly, only SOME of us can't.

It goes against our grain to vote against our values.

That's because you haven't embraced the spirit of Compromise. You know, the same sort of compromise that served Neville Chamberlain and Vidkun Quisling so well.

We will fight to the death for our values but we will not commit suicide.

Well said.

We will all die. How we die is more important than if or when we do.

And as important is how we LIVE. As a political variable? Or as a stern, uncompromising bastion of principle, who never, ever, under ANY circumstances justifies the abandonment of the ideal for the immediate.

I will not make deals with my ideological enemies, no matter their stripe.

[gatorbait]

"flee from the crowd to dwell with truthfulness."

Okay,"iron"Jacko, here's some truth your can continue running from, nothing is perfect, not even your idealogical purity. You sound like a spoiled brat , as many here are sounding. Glad you enjoyed Chaucer, I'd say he's probably not enjoy you. Have fun with your sack mates at Stormfront.

[Badray]

I am confusing nothing, but perhaps you are.

You say that we need to rid ourselves of professional pols and I agree. But then you tell us to wait another 4 years to do it and in the meantime that we should reelect the currect, self serving SOBs.

I am not even convinced that she who will not be named will get the nomination, let alone win. Therefore, the pros pose a more immediate threat.

The candidates that I support already know that they serve based on their good behavior and that someday, even with said good behavior they will need to go home.

Even people on this board encourage the professional pol. They go beyond respecting them to darn near worshipping them. The message needs to be repeated often that they are our employees, not our masters.

Again, we agree on a lot of things, just not the conclusions that you came to.

[philman_36]

In general, I think that the fact that we got to be president is quite honor enough.

Another reference to the two-fer. You've probably mentioned it elsewhere. You're voluminous.

[Badray]

Agreed.

And I notice in post #43 that you are winning the argument because the poster has resorted to name calling to try to debase you and the argument.

I remember a better day here when the argument was heated, but based on facts and documentation and principle not vitriolic personal attacks.*

I do think that it was only one day, to be honest. LOL

[Mia T]

I am not aware of citizen-politicians in any significant numbers currently on the ballot. We must therefore choose between bad and worse.

The smarter move, IMO, is to vote for the person who more closely mirrors one's positions and work to field people of ability and courage from the real world with real-life experience. This type of change cannot happen overnight.

[Mia T]

I think he was referring there to Carter, not the wife. He's trying to become a Carteresque ex-prez in order to snare the Nobel Peace Prize.

Next thing we know, he'll be picking up a hammer and nails (even as she picks up a hammer and sickle.) ;)

[Sic Luceat Lux]

Good post RKV. Bttt

[Badray]

You can choose between bad and worse. I've seen that plan used for 40 years and look where we ended up.

No thanks. I will vote only for people with demonstrated integrity and principle. My vote is valuable and I will not spend it on worthless pols of any stripe and no matter the cry of necessity or claim of emergency. Those are the cries of the self serving and power hungry in their desperation to hold power.

[Conservative Goddess]

Well said, Gentlemen. You are echoing the words of James Madison, who in "Memorial and Remonstrance" said:

"...Because it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entagled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle...."

Sadly, we continue to compromise with the Democrats, thereby validating their principles and entangling them in precedents, even though we hold majorities in the House, the Senate, and we hold the White House. We couldn't even advance modest reforms of Social Security, the Tax code is still an abomination, GWB had to nominate Supreme Court Justices whose records were devoid of any pro-life activity, ANWR is still closed to drilling, and our Southern border is a sieve. How sad.

Every compromise with the left advances their agenda, while ours slowly slips from view. Those of us who advocate holding the Republicans accountable don't want to elect Democrats, we simply want to stop the leftward slide. We've called, written, faxed, e-mailed...and the slide continues. Those of us who've watched this process for more than a decade have finally decided to say "enough is enough." We've decided to pull up hard and fast on the reins in a last ditch effort to stop this slide. We can't seem to get their attention any other way.

We don't owe the Republicans our votes. They must earn them by showing demonstrable progress on domestic issues instead of attempting to placate us with platitudes.

[philman_36]

I think he was referring there to Carter, not the wife.
Ah, my bad. I haven't read it.

[Badray]

If there is compromising to be done, it should be in our direction, not the Dems. Compromising in the wrong direction when your party is in charge isn't compromise, it's retreat.

And as long as the Republican rank and file listen to the siren call of the Party that the other party must be defeated at all costs, they will have no incentive to change their course.

[Szent_Adam_Kiraly]

Are we still Clinton hating?

[Keith]

RR was human...and it would be easy to point at the retreat after the Beirut bombing simply because OBL loves to cite that event. What we MUST remember is that RR hit Ghadafi after the Berlin bombing, and captured the Achille Lauro hijackers in mid-air. THAT was Reagan's contribution to the WOT...it was 8 years of Clinton's appeasement of WTC#1, Saddam, Khobar, and the African Embassy bombings that emboldened the Islamofascists.

And if you truly believe that we will be safer having the Treasoncrats back in control rather than even the most RINO of Republican in power...re-read MiaT's posts...and re-watch any documentary on 9/11 (excepting Michael Goebbel's card-stacking trash). I own them all...and re-watch them whenever the Pubbies let me down...and I start to think I will "never vote Republican again."

[Mia T]

While I agree--we don't owe the Republicans our votes--we sure as hell don't owe our votes to the clintons.

But that precisely what you'd be doing--placing a de facto vote for hillary clinton--if you vote for a Perot, or if you sit out the election because of a Perot-surrogate issue.

You are conflating two issues, and in the process, deluding yourselves.

The first issue is policy. As long as DC is run by the professional pol, we will have policy that serves... surprise... the professional pol. It doesn't matter if that pol is a conservative or a liberal, a Democrat or a Republican or a Bull Moose.

You are deluding yourself if you think otherwise. (Think 'Barrett Report redactions loophole.' It is proof certain that not one honest, courageous politician exists in either the Senate or the House.)

The professional pol is a self-selected subgroup of Homo sapiens marked by mediocrity, corruptibility and dysfunction. The answer to the current mediocrity, entrenched power and lack of courage is not to help elect even more defective professional pols (or even less defective ones, for that matter). It is to begin fielding outstanding citizen-politicians. Just like the Founders envisioned.

The second issue is the '08 election. That is what I am addressing here. (The '06 election will set the stage and is, therefore, almost as crucial.) It is self-evident that a Democrat--and especially a clinton--would be fatal for America. Now is not the time for us to indulge our indignations.

Is it really asking too much to wait until we dispense with the clintons for good? Imagine how good you would feel, how many possibilities would suddenly open up, if we could deliver the coup de grace before '08 and remove them from the political stage... for good....

[Mia T]

figured. ;)

What clinton really meant:
"In general, I think that the fact that we got to be president is quite honor enough... (and what's taking you so long to give me my Nobel, anyway.)"

[Conservative Goddess]

Fear is a powerful master and the only tool available to those who have no demonstrable record on which to stand. The fact that the Republicans must resort to fearmongering simply underscores their lack of accomplishment. I refuse to respond to the "The Evil Dem would be so much worse". Without demonstrable progress on domestic issues, Republicans will not get my vote.

Withholding my vote or casting it for a third party is significantly different than casting it for a Dim. It is not, as you allege, "a defacto vote for Hillary." It is merely one less that she must counter. If the Republicans want my vote, they simply must earn it. That point is non-negotiable.

[IronJack]

Glad you enjoyed Chaucer, I'd say he's probably not enjoy you.

Oh, you two are acquainted? Or does your presumption extend to speaking on HIS behalf as well?

Have fun with your sack mates at Stormfront.

Have fun with your ... right hand.

[IronJack]

The first issue is policy.

Incorrect. The first issue is principle. First. Last. And always. All else is candy-coated compromise, ideological prostitution.