"How do you get a ceasefire with terrorists?" COROLLARY

FoxNews via Free Republic ^ | 7.22.06 | Mia T

[Mia T]

"How do you get a ceasefire with terrorists?" COROLLARY

by Mia T, 7.22.06

How do you get a ceasefire with terrorists?--John Bolton

Corollary: 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?--Mia T

 

 

"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

This statement is clinton's explicit rejection of both bin Laden's repeated declarations/acts of war and the (Bush) doctrine of preemption to fight terror.

It 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.

 

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)
by Mia T, 4.28.06


ALBRIGHT¹: 'Bin Laden and his Network Declared War² on the United States and Struck First and We Have Suffered Deeply'

 

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

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

by Mia T, 4.24.06

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2006

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

How do you get a ceasefire with terrorists?--John Bolton

You kill them.

They then cease their fire and you can cease yours.

[PGalt]

Thanks Mia T!

John Bolton for President. Mia T for Vice President. (or vice versa)

Mama Mia what a ticket!

[Mia T]

excellent point

[Mia T]

thanx. I hope you are, too. :)

 

Carter and clinton not only ignored terrorism when it was in its incipient stage and easily stoppable; these two self-aggrandizing wonders carefully fostered and fed terrorism.

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....

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....

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

 

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 (though 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?

A CALL TO IMPEACH CLINTON IN ABSENTIA
Mia T, 11.17.05

 

"... 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

HEAR CLINTON! 'Can we kill 'em tomorrow?'
('MY 9/11 LOSER DEAL IS FULBRIGHT'S FAULT...
AND I DON'T NEED NO STINKIN' NOBEL.*)
*If a loser like Carter can get one, where's mine already?'
by Mia T, 4.24.06

[Mia T]

;)

thanx

[Mia T]

thx :)

[E.G.C.]

Mia T. Bump.

[malia]

just one little example of the ....... and the result of being a....

"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 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

Powerful people like Larry King could, with just one sentence, expose and stop bill and hillary clinton from doing any more damage to the United States.

[malia]

"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."

[MarkL]

Q: How do you get a cease fire with terrorists?

A: Easy! Just kill every last one of them. Once all the terrorists are dead, they tend to stop shooting at you.

Mark

[ALOHA RONNIE]

.

The Man Who Predicted 9/11 knew:


9/11 Lifesaver RICK RESCORLA

http://www.RickRescorla.com

http://www.ArmchairGeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24361

.

[Cindy]

THANK YOU Aloha Ronnie.

[Gail Wynand]

There are the sins of the Clinton administration, important but essentially historic in the sense the criminal acts, if not the consequences are largely complete (for now).

There is, in distinction, the sinful ideology of those who supported and support the Clintons, which substantially overlaps the nearly 50% of America's voting population, that would restore those ideologies to power.

As one leftist commentator suggested in a radio interview this AM, the notions underlying Spielberg's motion picture, "Munich", as apparently expressly revealed in interviews accompanying the DVD edition of such film, are in essence that problems such as terrorism and mid-east violence can better be addressed by "encouraging EMPATHY".

This idea, that EMPATHY rather than military force, is the more effective path to protect the values of American, or other democratic, freedom and security from those who not only hold different values but who would also kill and destroy innocents who they deem in opposition to their ideas, is both a core issue idealogicially and policitally as well as an ongoing operative force in the lefts rampant sedition.

Why focus on a mere "idea"?

Well, by way of historic analogy, for example, most of the worst destructions of the twentieth century are closely associated with then leftists infatuation and obsessive commitment to the untested, unproven, and clearly wrong, ideas of Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels. Out of these merely wrong ideas emerged the psychopathic mass murdering leadership of Stalin and Mao as well as the National Socialist death camps of Nazi Germany and even Pol Pot. Only after 100 years and easily as least 100 million directly dead through violence, starvation, and forced labor, has the left begun to acknowledge that perhaps the problem was inherent in Marx's work itself.

The modern left, the largely pampered, excessively self centered, self important US baby boom elite, who are still rationalizing their refusal to accept vietnam military service, adhere, without evidence, to their absolute conviction, that all terrorism needs is EMPATHY.

The only possible psychological motivation for such a belief, if it is actually held, is cowardice. Distilled to its essentials is is the belief that if one makes friends with the bully, the schoolyard will become safe again.

The truly scary part of this is that people who "think" this way are on the verge or running our foreign policy, have in the past run our foreign policy, currently control the MSN, and are currently influencing our foreign policy.

Knowing how, being present to how, and even being in synch with the feelings of those in Germany who initiated and carried out genocidal policies against jews, roma, homosexuals, the deformed, and others, or the feelings or views of the militarist leaders and their forces who carried out the Bataan Death March or the rape of Nan-king, as with terrorists today, only served if anything as cementing the conviction of these enemies that America was weak and would prove an easy target.

The left is currently apoplectic that the Bush administration is not rushing in to stop the Israeli action in Lebanon. They are convinced that Bush's actions in Iraq, have "created" terrorism there.

The world's real, biggest enemy at the moment is not the islamist fundamentalists who beheaded Daniel Pearl for the sin of being jewish and american, nor there 100 million estimated muslim sympathizers, the real threat is the ignorant, cowardly, faith of the Modern Left's, in America and Europe, that their infantile fantasies, e.g. EMPATHY with those they are or should be afraid of, will protect them from the inevitable struggle for survival.

When it comes to civilisation, it is either us or the bullies who will survive. There is no middle ground, especially in an era in which WMD are becoming universally available. The Left needs to grow up quickly or be pushed aside. Their pretentious respectibility is a dead weight on those who are clear headed and who would act rationally to save us. Not unlike those who march for "peace" in Israel or who live their but refuse military service, even noncombatant service.The Left is the Real and more dangerous enemy. Under the American system of freedom, we have more resources, better resources, and an abundance of advantages not available to our enemies. With these, onviction and commitment will ultimately destroy any enemy we face. The time has come to unmask the perfidy and shallowness of the leftist liliputians and their agents and agencies, (eg. the UN, the EU, the MSN, the democrat political party) unleash America's power, in unity with similarly clear minded actors (e.g. IsreaL) .

[ALOHA RONNIE]

.

S.E. Asia's Left =

Communist North Vietnam Dictator HO CHI MINH who was out to communize all of S. E. Asia during the Vietnam War


America's Left that supported HO CHI MINH during the Vietnam War =


WILLIAM CLINTON
HILLARY RODHAM
TED KENNEDY
RAMSEY CLARK
JESSE JACKSON
JOHN LENNON
JOHN KERRY
TOM HAYDEN
JANE FONDA
..etc.



The 20th Century =

The 21st Century, perhaps..?

.

[Gail Wynand]

Good points.

From 1965 and the Ia Drang through 1969 in the A Shau, the American military, constrained by policital interferrence (McNamara's "gradual escalation"; no hot pursuit policies) nonetheless delivered at great cost, absolute military victory in Viet Nam.

Their tactical victory was manifest in a treaty that ended the war and recognized S. Vietnam's fledgling but real democratically elected government.

Excerising their post watergate stranglehold on political power, however, the baby boom left, the self same left that today is handwringing over Israel's self defensive actions against our mutual enemies, [including Sen Kennedy, who in 1969seizing only upon the distorted, biased and incomptent newspaper reporting of the MSN, made dramatic speeches during that war, as now, declaring the sacrifice by the military to be entirely "senseless" (when in fact the victory at A Shau, disrupted for more than a year a planned invaison by N. Viet nam) leading the public to become discouraged] emasculated U.S. policy by compelling the grounding of U.S. B-52's or other military support of the S. Vietnamese. With that assurance of U.S. inaction, delivered by the baby boom left, w/in 2 years the N. Invaded en mass (perfect targets for B-52's) and overwhelmed S. Vietnamese forces, leading to the grotesque and haunting pictures of the American embassy evacution and eventually to Cambodian genocide...

The American military that delivered victory in Viet nam but was sold out by the liberals, nonetheless, contributed in no small way to our eventual victory over Soviet communism under Reagan, as they spurred improvements in our defensive capabilities and demonstrated combat effectiveness and commitment, that terrified our enemies. Indeed our Gulf War I victories were led by Viet Nam veterans who applied lessons they learned there, technology developed there and who again demonstrated an aroused America was no nation to mess with.

As the famous quote from Hamburger Hill (the A Shau movie) makes clear, the real enemy of America were home grown leftists, and as you point out some of them are still with us:

"Newsman: [trying to interview GIs returning to base after a hard day of fighting] Hey, word down at division is you guys can't take this hill. What do you have to say about that? In fact Senator Kennedy insists you guys haven't got a chance at all.

Sgt. Frantz: [glares at Newsman for a few seconds] You really like this sh*t, don't you? It's your job, a story, wait here like a f*cking vulture for someone to die so you can take a picture.

Newsman: [becoming angry] It's my job...

Sgt. Frantz: I got more respect for those little bast*rds up on the hill. They take a side, you just take pictures. You probably don't even do your own f*cking"

[ALOHA RONNIE]

.

MEMORIES of VIETNAM

http://www.ArmchairGeneral.com/articles.php?p=2785&page=1&cat=59

.

[ALOHA RONNIE]

.


NEVER FORGET


Senator TED KENNEDY's fooling our U.S. Congress into cutting off all funding for the South Vietnamese Military to fight for its own Freedom with...

and then all our Humanitarian/Medical Aid as well...

...brought for us to sadly see in the end:


Pictures of a vietnamese Re-Education Camp

http://www.Freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1308949/posts


Especially sad since a young Senator toured all over South Vietnam in 1965 to see for himself what the Vietnam War was really all about:

http://www.lzxray.com/guyer_set1.htm (See 5th Picture down)


He just knew better then.
He for sure just knows better now.


NEVER FORGET


.

[Mia T]

As one leftist commentator suggested in a radio interview this AM, the notions underlying Spielberg's motion picture, "Munich", as apparently expressly revealed in interviews accompanying the DVD edition of such film, are in essence that problems such as terrorism and mideast violence can better be addressed by "encouraging EMPATHY".

This idea, that EMPATHY rather than military force, is the more effective path to protect the values of American, or other democratic, freedom and security from those who not only hold different values but who would also kill and destroy innocents who they deem in opposition to their ideas, is both a core issue ideologically and politically as well as an ongoing operative force in the left's rampant sedition.--Gail Wynand

'UNITED 93' vs. 'MUNICH'
Paul Greengrass--thank the stars--is no Steven Spielberg

by Mia T, 5.09.06

 

hereas both 'United 93' and 'Munich' derive their initial tension not from uncertainty but from what we already know, one movie remains scrupulously true to the facts--art in the service of history--while the other quickly devolves into a verisimilitudinous contrivance in the service of a director's political agenda.

Paradoxically--poetic justice in its purest form, some would say--the honest movie is the one that ultimately delivers the powerful political message.

Spoken by its heroes--our heroes--as they prepare to rush the cockpit shortly before the plane meant for the White House plunges into a Pennsylvania field instead, the simple but powerful words are these:

• "No one is going to help us. We've got to do it ourselves."
  
• "We have to do it now. We know what happens if we just sit here and do nothing...."
  

CLOSE ENCOUNTER OF THE WORST KIND
... to borrow a phrase, perversely, from a Spielberg flick about benign intelligence.

January 9, 2006
Reviewer: miat22 (Mia T)

Munich, with its false premises, phony pieties and outright lies -- Spielberg fantasy wrapped in sober documentary -- is a verisimilitudinous contrivance that is pernicious, especially now, especially here, especially if we understand Spielberg's real motivation.

Truth matters not at all to Spielberg, and courage matters even less. To advance his fallacious argument, he has Golda Meir speak words she never said, never would have said and, obviously, cannot now disavow. Posthumous misappropriation is a preferred tactic of the abject coward.

Munich is less about Meir avenging the Munich massacre than it is about Bush waging the War on Terror. The historical Munich allusion of appeasement, self-loathing and psychologizing that is practiced so fastidiously by the American Left today is key to understanding Spielberg.

The core of his anti-war argument: By fighting back, we become our enemy. Ironically, with Munich, the same can now be said of Spielberg.

Is Spielberg humanizing the terrorist really any different from Riefenstahl humanizing Hitler? If anything, Spielberg is more contemptible. Whereas Riefenstahl symbolizes the naïve actress and director who is induced to deal with devils, Spielberg is self-actuated and aware.

Hollywood is DreamWorks, fantastical and unthinking and solipsistic by definition.

To mitigate its danger, people capable of critical thinking must take on Hollywood... and must do so in Hollywood venues.

The printed word, sad to say, no longer carries the day.



My New York Times Review of Munich
Was this review helpful to you?
VOTE HERE

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...."




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

by Mia T, 4.24.06



READ MORE
FOOTNOTES

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2006

[ALOHA RONNIE]

.

JOHN PTAK =

-Longtime Beverly Hills Creative Artists Agency Agent to the Stars that brought all the financing together for the stunner "United 93" & "World Trade Center" Motion Pictures.

-Class of 1960 Rancho Alamitos High School Graduate

http://www.orgs.cc/RAHS60/

---

ALOHA RONNIE Guyer =

-Class of 1960 Rancho Alamitos High School Graduate

-Co-Veteran of 9/11 Lifesaver RICK RESCORLA's Battle of IA DRANG-1965

http://www.RickRescorla.com

http://www.ArmchairGeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24361

.

[Mia T]

The modern left, the largely pampered, excessively self centered, self important US baby boom elite, who are still rationalizing their refusal to accept vietnam military service, adhere, without evidence, to their absolute conviction, that all terrorism needs is EMPATHY.

The only possible psychological motivation for such a belief, if it is actually held, is cowardice. Distilled to its essentials is is the belief that if one makes friends with the bully, the schoolyard will become safe again.

The truly scary part of this is that people who "think" this way are on the verge or running our foreign policy, have in the past run our foreign policy, currently control the MSN, and are currently influencing our foreign policy.

Knowing how, being present to how, and even being in synch with the feelings of those in Germany who initiated and carried out genocidal policies against jews, roma, homosexuals, the deformed, and others, or the feelings or views of the militarist leaders and their forces who carried out the Bataan Death March or the rape of Nan-king, as with terrorists today, only served if anything as cementing the conviction of these enemies that America was weak and would prove an easy target.

The left is currently apoplectic that the Bush administration is not rushing in to stop the Israeli action in Lebanon. They are convinced that Bush's actions in Iraq, have "created" terrorism there.

The world's real, biggest enemy at the moment is not the islamist fundamentalists who beheaded Daniel Pearl for the sin of being jewish and american, nor there 100 million estimated muslim sympathizers, the real threat is the ignorant, cowardly, faith of the Modern Left's, in America and Europe, that their infantile fantasies, e.g. EMPATHY with those they are or should be afraid of, will protect them from the inevitable struggle for survival.

When it comes to civilisation, it is either us or the bullies who will survive. There is no middle ground, especially in an era in which WMD are becoming universally available. The Left needs to grow up quickly or be pushed aside. Their pretentious respectibility is a dead weight on those who are clear headed and who would act rationally to save us. Not unlike those who march for "peace" in Israel or who live their but refuse military service, even noncombatant service.The Left is the Real and more dangerous enemy. Under the American system of freedom, we have more resources, better resources, and an abundance of advantages not available to our enemies. With these, onviction and commitment will ultimately destroy any enemy we face. The time has come to unmask the perfidy and shallowness of the leftist liliputians and their agents and agencies, (eg. the UN, the EU, the MSN, the democrat political party) unleash America's power, in unity with similarly clear minded actors

--Gail Wynand
(Power is only proportionate when it is sufficient to overcome the aggressor.)

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 undeterred by MAD, 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 (or whomever), 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. (Or Pinches!)

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) disdain for bureaucracy, and (3) the championing of entrepreneurship for the great unwashed.

Mia T, 2.24.04

 

 

 

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2006

IN A 'PINCH': RETHINKING THE FIRST AMENDMENT
(Which came first, the 'journalist' or the traitor?)

by Mia T, 6.27.06

"What is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."

James Madison

hen the founders granted 'The Press' special dispensation, they never considered the possibility that traitors in our midst would game the system. But that is precisely what is happening today. (Hate America? Support jihad? Become a 'journalist!')

This was bound to happen.

The premise behind the First Amendment as it applies to the press--that a vigilant watchdog is necessary, sufficient--indeed, possible--to protect against man's basest instincts--is tautologically flawed: The fox guarding the White House, if you will.

Walter Lippmann, the 20th-century American columnist, wrote, "A free press is not a privilege, but an organic necessity in a great society." True in theory. True even in Lippmann's quaint mid-20th-century America, perhaps. But patently false in this postmodern era of the bubbas and the Pinches.

When a free and great society is hijacked by a seditious bunch of dysfunctional, power-hungry malcontents and elitists, it will remain neither free nor great for long. When hijacked by them in the midst of asymmetric warfare, it will soon not remain at all.

If President George W. Bush is serious about winning the War on Terror, he will aggressively pursue the enemy in our midst.

Targeting and defeating the enemy in our midst is, by far, the more difficult task and will measure Bush's resolve and courage (and his independence from the MPRDC (mutual protection racket in DC)) more than any pretty speech, more even than 'staying the course.'

No government ought to be without censors; and where the press is free no one ever will.

Thomas Jefferson
Letter, September 9, 1792, to George Washington

It is hard to believe that a man is telling the truth when you know that you would lie if you were in his place.

H. L. Mencken

READ MORE

'MISBEGOTTEN' TIMES
(NARROWNESS, MR. SULZBERGER, NOT WIDTH)
PINCH'S NON-APOLOGY APOLOGY
by Mia T, July 18, 2006

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2006

WHY BIN LADEN WANTS HOME DELIVERY OF THE NEW YORK TIMES
by Mia T, 7.11.06

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


'MISBEGOTTEN' TIMES
(NARROWNESS, MR. SULZBERGER, NOT WIDTH)
PINCH'S NON-APOLOGY APOLOGY


The Devil & the Gray Lady


IN A 'PINCH': RETHINKING THE FIRST AMENDMENT
(Which came first, the 'journalist' or the traitor?)


PINCH SULZBERGER, PEARL HARBOR + TREASON
WHY WE MUST PROSECUTE THE NEW YORK TIMES


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?


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~}


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


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


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


HILLARY GOES NUCLEAR
PROLIFERATION IN THE AGE OF CLINTON


QUID PRO COAL2:
CLINTON CORRUPTION + THE SEQUESTRATION OF GASEOUS FOSSILS
(HILLARY DOES COAL AT THE NATIONAL PRESS CLUB)


SUSAN ESTRICH ON "DREDGING UP" THE RAPE OF JUANITA BROADDRICK + "ALL THAT OLD CLINTON STUFF"


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

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2006