ALERT! Security Moms: THE LEFT IS GONNA GET US KILLED (HEAR GEORGE SOROS, BILL CLINTON)

FoxNews, George Soros, bill clinton, hillary clinton | 10.09.06 | Mia T

[Mia T]

ALERT! SECURITY MOMS
THE LEFT IS GONNA GET US KILLED PART 6 ¹¹
(HEAR GEORGE SOROS, BILL CLINTON)

• SOROS CALLS WAR ON TERROR A 'FIGURE OF SPEECH,' A 'METAPHOR'

• WANTS TO REVERT TO CLINTON FAILED + FATALLY-TOO-LATE TERROR-AS-CRIME PARADIGM

 

by Mia T, 10.09.06

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 ('tsü-ris)

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 2006

 

'KILL BILL'
THE CLINTON-FOLEY NEXUS: A THEORY

by Mia T, 10.05.06

 

he timing of the Foley revelations is a bit odd. If the intended beneficiary of the political dirty trick was the Democrats, surely the perpetrators would have sprung it closer to Election Day. A month is an eternity in politics (irrespective of the fact that it is the pundit class' favorite hedge).

TEMPUS ACTUM

If not the Democrats then who? Who benefits from the odd timing? And who has the means, the motive, the opportunity--and the m.o.-- ^{1, 2} to pull off this dirty trick?

WHO BENEFITS?

The clintons had been hemorrhaging ever since the first week in September when the husband, by attempting to quash the ABC movie, "The Path to 9/11," managed to accomplish in mere days what his opponents failed for years to effectuate, namely, to focus the electorate simultaneously on the clinton jackboot ^{3, 4} and on the clinton failure to confront terrorism. ⁵

If the story had legs, continued clinton stupidity and arrogance made them sprint. And as if dispatching the tired clinton scold, the tired clinton spinners and the tired clinton playbook weren't enough to keep story on page one of The New York Times (above the fold), clinton brought his tired clinton shtick to FoxNews Sunday.

'KILL BILL'

What the country finally learned--fittingly on the fifth anniversary of 9/11--was that clinton didn't simply fail to kill bin Laden.

Clinton refused to kill or even capture bin Laden.

Clinton refused to kill or even capture bin Laden even as he pretended to go after bin Laden.

Clinton refused to kill or even capture bin Laden even as he pretended to go after bin Laden because killing or even capturing bin Laden would have denied clinton the Nobel Peace Prize and he couldn't let us know he valued the prize more than keeping this country safe. ^{6, 7}

VIRTUAL SURREALITY

A virtual kill of bin Laden seems apt. One should never expect more of bill clinton. And there is a certain symmetry, a perfect parry for clinton's 'virtual obsession.' ⁹

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.

The Other Nixon
Mia T

With everyone beginning to understand the dynamics of the clinton failure to fight terrorism, ⁸ prospects appeared even bleaker for the quondam shoo-in and for her husband's legacy, to which said prospects are inextricably bound.

As long as the voters believe the clintons willfully failed to kill or even capture bin Laden--and worse, that they did so for reasons of self-aggrandizement--there can be no scenario in which they recapture the White House.

Hence, bill clinton's 'virtual kill' on Fox Sunday morning.

Although "kill him" must have polled really, really well, the interview didn't help the clintons; the story remained on page one... and the hemorrhaging continued...

That is, until the Foley scandal hit the fan....

VIRTUAL KILL
THE CHRIS WALLACE-BILL CLINTON INTERVIEW DECONSTRUCTED

by Mia T, 9.27.06

"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

"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

The president seems to be able, the former president seems to be able to deny facts with impunity. Bin Laden is alive today because Mr. Clinton, Mr. Sandy Berger, and Mr. Richard Clarke refused to kill him. That's the bottom line. And every time he says what he said to Chris Wallace on Fox, he defames the CIA especially, and the men and women who risk their lives to give his administration repeated chances to kill bin Laden."

... [T]he fact of the matter is that the Bush Administration had one chance that they botched, and the Clinton Administration had eight to ten chances that they refused to try. At least at Tora Bora our forces were on the ground. We didn't push the point. But it's just, it's an incredible kind of situation for the American people over the weekend to hear their former president mislead them."

Michael Scheuer
CBS Terror Expert, Iraq War Critic
former CIA head for hunting Bin Laden
Monday CBS Early Show

 

It isn't that they can't see the solution. It is that they can't see the problem.

G. K. Chesterton

 

... While America appears not to be ready for a female president under any circumstances, the post-9/11 realities pose special problems for a female presidential candidate. Add to these the problems unique to missus clinton. The reviews make the mistake of focusing on the problems of the generic female presidential candidate running during ordinary times.

These are not ordinary times. America is waging the global War on Terror; the uncharted territory of asymmetric netherworlds is the battlefield; the enemy is brutal, subhuman; the threat of global conflagration is real.

Defeating the enemy isn't sufficient. For America to prevail, she must also defeat a retrograde, misogynous mindset. To successfully prosecute the War on Terror, it is essential that the collective patriarchal islamic culture perceives America as politically and militarily strong. Condi Rice excepted, this requirement presents an insurmountable hurdle for any female presidential candidate, and especially missus clinton, historically antimilitary--(an image, incidentally, that is only enhanced today by her clumsy, termagant parody of Thatcher), forever the pitiful victim, and, according to Dick Morris, "the biggest dove in the clinton administration."

It is ironic that had the clintons not failed utterly to fight terrorism... not failed to take bin Laden from Sudan... not failed repeatedly to decapitate a nascent, still stoppable al Qaeda... the generic female president as a construct would still be viable... missus clinton's obstacles would be limited largely to standard-issue clintonisms: corruption, abuse, malpractice, malfeasance, megalomania, rape and treason... and, in spite of Juanita Broaddrick, or perhaps because of her, Rod Lurie would be reduced to perversely hawking the "First Gentleman" instead of the "Commander-in-Chief."

Mia T, 10.02.05
HILLARY'S COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF PROBLEM
(see descriptor morphs)

READ MORE
footnotes

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2006

11.

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

WHY THE LEFT IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA

 

by Mia T, 8.24.05
 

 

 

 

 

eneral Vo Nguyen Giap's Tet-Offensive gambit ¹ is the terrorist's favorite how-to. It is the definitive primer on asymmetric warfare, the use of unconventional tactics to counter the overwhelming conventional military superiority of an adversary.

Not surprisingly, the terrorist's favorite how-to is also the American Left's.

As is the terrorist's favorite target....

The Left's Tet-Offensive gambit today is nothing more than a reprise of its cheap Vietnam parlor trick of decades past: demoralize, undermine, ultimately turn public support against the war, systematically and seditiously seize America's defeat from the jaws of victory.

The Tet-Offensive gambit is the Left's last hope of overcoming a president with the courage to confront terrorism and its own lethally dangerous--if perfect--record of failure to do so.

A CONSPIRACY OF USEFUL IDIOTS

The Left's Tet-Offensive gambit is a conspiracy of what Lenin called "useful idiots," blind apologists for the islamofascist-terrorist enemies of America. (Yesterday's useful idiot is, apparently, today's radical chic. ² Can a punked-up hijab spread in Vogue be far behind?)

These useful idiots, a self-anointed "intelligentsia"--(now there's an oxymoron for you)-- are the familiar motley collection of constituencies from the media, academe, Hollywood and, of course, the trusty left wing of our own federal government.

As you must have noticed by now, "incompetent" is their buzzword; it is uttered with dripping contempt and is separated by no more than one word from "George Bush," which is spit, not spoken.

The Kennedy-Pelosi-Gore-clinton (either--"one for the price of two," I say)-Sulzberger-Soros-Moore construct is its grotesque manifestation. Some would call it a clever contrivance, engineered to render, by contrast, its virtually mute member, hillary clinton, marginally sane, and if not attractive, certainly acceptably plain.

Missus clinton--both clintons, actually--are virtually mute for reasons that extend beyond her (presumptive) candidacy. Abusers of power in their own right, they lack the moral authority to demagogue Iraqi-prisoner "abuse," say, or even the Nick Berg decapitation by al Qaeda.

Regarding the latter, because "liberal " is itself sufficient cause to produce this muting effect, we have the bizarre result of the Left oozing, as Zell MIller put it, "more indignation over a photo of a prisoner with underwear on his head than over the video of a young American with no head at all."

Saddam shredded people to torture and terrorize.
Therefore, if we torture and terrorize Berger, we will find out what he shredded.

A SANDY-BERGER silly-gism, Mia T
(Would this fly with the Gitmo-obsessed crowd, I wonder....)

But with all the posturing and pointing and against-isms, The Left eventually has to say something, so after intermittent periods of virtual muteness, it resorts to the old standby, some nonsense or other about process, always making certain to stay clear of substance, faux or real.

The grotesque Kennedy-Pelosi-Gore-clinton (either--"one for the price of two," I say)-Sulzberger-Soros-Moore construct, having successfully transmogrified nominal "George Bush" into vile invective, is now busy pumping out anti-Bush venom via its Viacom/Simon & Schuster/60-minutes vertical operation, a coordinated if overblown Hollywood script hatched solely for the purpose of undermining and defeating America so that the Left can finally win.... Or so it thinks.

POSTMODERN POSE, STAGE LEFT

Bill clinton was the first (and, I suspect, will be the last) postmodern president.

When bill clinton encountered problems, he simply defined them away.

Thus, we were told:

• "is" is not "is," ³

• "sex" is not "sex"...

• "rape" is not "rape" ⁴

• "genocide" is not "genocide," ⁵

• the terrorist-declared war on America ⁶ is not war ('war' is but a "metaphor," a "figure of speech") ⁷

• the terrorists' acts of war against America ⁸(beginning with the bombing of the same building by the same people in 1993 ⁹) are not acts of war. (They are "crimes," ¹⁰)

Al Qaeda, in its incipient stage and stoppable in '93, was allowed--no, was empowered--to grow and metastasize under bill clinton's postmodern cover.

Terrorism grew and metastasized under bill clinton because bill clinton had a capacity to construct and compartmentalize alternative "truths," alternative selves, alternative moralities; bill clinton was the political manifestation of an "intelligentsia" and its "enlightened" worldview that reject all absolutes.

The net result of this postmodern pose: Eight years of opportunistic flip-flopping (positively spun as "triangulation" by clinton political guru, Dick Morris), which alternated with bouts of complete paralysis on the big issues (often with feigned motion). The paralysis--and indeed, the postmodern pose itself, was partly a result of his well-documented cognitive inability to analyze, synthesize and prioritize; clinton cowardice, clinton corruption and clinton self-aggrandizement were also essential first causes.

THE LEFT'S POSTMODERN INCAPACITY

If this postmodern poppycock sounds familiar, that's because it is. The American Left today exhibits -- and is crippled by -- the very same political and cognitive postmodern incapacity and dysfunction.

Listen to the Left. Listen to Kerry and Gore and Pelosi and Kennedy and clinton and Soros and Moore and their complicit friends in the media. (How DARE The New York Times bury on page 16 the photos of the seven terrorists believed to be in the U.S., plotting an even more horrific 9/11? How DARE they?) You will hear the same alternative "truths," the same alternative selves, the same alternative moralities.

• They still refuse to accept the War on Terror as war, not crime.

• They still refuse to accept the War on Terror as a global, irreducible war, not a collection of discrete civil conflicts.

• They still refuse to understand that the war in Iraq is not an "optional" war apart from the War on Terror, but is, in fact, the War on Terror's lynchpin.

• They refuse to understand (or refuse to admit) that "support for the troops" cannot be independent of support for the war effort and support for the commander in chief.

They refuse to accept the fact that their jihad against America is killing our troops, aiding and abetting the terrorists and imperiling all Americans.

THE LEFT'S 24-HOUR-NEWS CYCLE ATTENTION SPAN

The Left's calculations are clintonian; that is to say, they are tactical, opportunistic, egocentric, small in both scope and depth. They are limited by a 24-hour-news-cycle attention span and a 2-year election cycle. The net result is self-serving, demagogic, play-by-play "commentary," when it should be objective, long-range analysis.

The clintons and their Leftist goons -- (reflexive abusers of power need goons.) -- fail 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.
  
  COROLLARY: The War on Terror is being waged in the 4th dimension even as the Left remains stuck in 3-dimensional Euclidean space. The Left fails to understand terrorism and asymmetric warfare, especially as they relate to the time-space continuum. The Left confuses the battles with the war and the loci of the battles with the battles, themselves. And thus the Left looks at a critically necessary, strategically chosen battle and sees as an "optional war." More on this in future posts.
  
  

• 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 the massive, 8-year clinton blunder was, of course, 9/11 and the exponential growth of al Qaeda.

Missus clinton and the Left will, by definition, reprise the failed, lethally dangerous clinton policy of denial and surrender.

I, therefore, urge anyone planning to vote for hillary clinton--or any Democrat--to rethink, to reconsider. Your children's lives, if not civilization, itself, just may depend on it.

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

---

 

1.

 

Four-star General Vo Nguyen Giap led Vietnam's armies from their inception, in the 1940s, up to the moment of their triumphant entrance into Saigon in 1975.

Possessing one of the finest military minds of this century, his strategy for vanquishing superior opponents was not to simply outmaneuver them in the field but to undermine their resolve by inflicting demoralizing political defeats with his bold tactics.

This was evidenced as early as 1944, when Giap sent his minuscule force against French outpost in Indochina. The moment he chose to attack was Christmas Eve. More devastatingly, in 1944 at a place called Dien Bien Phu, Giap lured the overconfident French into a turning point battle and won a stunning victory with brilliant deployments. Always he showed a great talent for approaching his enemy's strengths as if they were exploitable weaknesses.

Nearly a quarter of a century later, in 1968 the General launched a major surprize offensive against American and South Vietnamese forces on the eve of the lunar New Year celebrations. Province capitals throughout the country were seized, garrisons simultaneously attacked and, perhaps most shockingly, in Saigon the U.S. Embassy was invaded. The cost in North Vietnamese casualties was tremendous but the gambit produced a pivotal media disaster for the White House and the presidency of Lyndon Johnson. Giap's strategy toppled the American commander in chief. It turned the tide of the war and sealed the General's fame as the dominant military genius of the 20th Century's second half.

John Colvin, Giap Volcano Under Snow

Our boys... went to Somalia and prepared themselves carefully for a long war.... [O]ur 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....

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 [the American people] that they have put themselves at the mercy of a disloyal government, and this is most evident in Clinton's administration....

We believe that the worst thieves in the world today and the worst terrorists are the Americans. Nothing could stop you except perhaps retaliation in kind. We do not have to differentiate between military or civilian. As far as we are concerned, they are all targets, and this is what the fatwah says....

Osama bin Laden, May 1998

"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."

bill clinton

"The Bush Administration is so entralled by the idea of preemption and American military might. This is the consequence of the policy that regards legitimacy as largely a product of force and victory as primarily a triump of arms...

We truly should go to war as the last resort."

John Kerry

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

 

 

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2005, 2006

 

 

 

2.

 

 

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

 

by Mia T, 5.15.04

 

As long as you've got a rich man on your arm, you don't need a big bag.

Elizabeth Rickard

 

 

The $100 billion Iraqi Oil for Food program was by far the largest relief operation in the history of the United Nations. By extension, it's rapidly becoming the U.N.'s largest-ever scandal....

Those included rewarding friends and allies world-wide with oil allocations on very favorable terms, as well as extracting large kickbacks from oil traders and suppliers of humanitarian goods....

There can be little doubt that U.N. mismanagement contributed greatly to the negative perception of the anti-Saddam containment policy. There is also little doubt that the reward and kickback scheme--as well the possibility of exposure--was a factor as some countries weighed whether to back U.S.-led regime change in Iraq. There is even reason to suspect that some of the Saddam friends and allies who benefited may have been members of the U.N. Secretariat.

Oil for Scandal
The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page
Thursday, March 18, 2004 12:01 a.m.

 

eave it to the French to make pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic all the rage.

They and their moneygrubbing, Oil-for-Food defrauding cohorts abroad, and their power-hungry would-be terrorist sympathizers here, are all sporting "THE LOOK."

(How many of those oh so trendy Kerry-clinton-Kennedy hate-America, blame-America-first sound bites will Al-Jazeera broadcast today?)

The trusty triad's half-truths, exaggerations and outright lies, confounded by fog of war, vagaries of peace and uncharted territory of asymmetric netherworlds, remind us that things are not always what they first seem. The UN Oil-for-Food scandal, for example, has shown us it was not "going to war with Iraq" that was "all about oil," but rather, "not going to war with Iraq." The Left, we now see, had that one, (as they have most things), exactly backward.

The dernier cri of seditious and corrupt Leftists everywhere, pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic renders the Left, irrespective of policy, no less dangerous to Western civilization than the terrorists they aid and abet.

 

copyright Mia T 2004, 2006

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)


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}


'KILL BILL'
THE CLINTON-FOLEY NEXUS: A THEORY


VIRTUAL KILL
THE CHRIS WALLACE-BILL CLINTON INTERVIEW DECONSTRUCTED


'BIN LADEN ALIVE TODAY BECAUSE CLINTON, BERGER + CLARKE REFUSED TO KILL HIM'
CLINTON 'MISLED AMERICAN PEOPLE' IN CHRIS WALLACE INTERVIEW
:HEAR Osama-Division CIA Chief


'The Path to 9/11' Annotated:
CLIPS, SYNOPSIS, THE CLINTON-9/11 NEXUS, THE CLINTON JACKBOOT


'The Path to 9/11': CLINTON FAILURE TO ORDER 'PURE KILL' CUT CHANCES OF GETTING BIN LADEN IN HALF


HEAR 'THE PATH TO 9/11' SCREENWRITER:
CLINTON WILLFULLY FAILED TO NAIL BIN LADEN AS MANY AS A DOZEN TIMES: CIA


THE DRAMATIC INCREASE IN HILLARY CLINTON'S DISCLOSED ASSETS: An Alternative Theory


WHEN CATTLE FUTURES ARE THE FUTURE:
HILLARY CLINTON'S COW TRADES AS PROGNOSTIC


SOMALIA + RWANDA UNDERSCORE WHY WE MUST DEFEAT THE CLINTONS NOW (ATTENTION NEW YORKERS)


THE DECLINE OF HILLARY CLINTON: THE DYNAMICS
(SHE HAS ONLY ONE WAY TO GO. AND IT ISN'T UP.)


THE POLITICS OF DUMPING HILLARY (see post 53)


CARVILLE AGITPROP + THE CLINTON JACKBOOT
'THE POWER OF HILLARY': THE TITLE


CARVILLE'S 'Clinton is electable! Clear the way!' BATTLE CRY SPELLS TROUBLE FOR HILLARY


I'LL SEE ANN COULTER'S 'BILL CLINTON RAPE CHARGE' AND RAISE HER 'ONE HILLARY CLINTON'


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


THE INCONVENIENT TRUTH ABOUT HILLARY CLINTON
(FOOL ME ONCE, SHAME ON YOU. FOOL ME TWICE, SHAME ON ME.)


ON PEGGY NOONAN ON HILLARY CLINTON SENDING MEN TO WAR
(IT RUNS IN THE FAMILY)


Nina Burleigh: Do the Right Thing, Hillary

 


COPYRIGHT MIA T 2006

[GOPJ]

You will hear the same alternative "truths," the same alternative selves, the same alternative moralities.


They still refuse to accept the War on Terror as war, not crime.

They still refuse to accept the War on Terror as a global, irreducible war, not a collection of discrete civil conflicts.

They still refuse to understand that the war in Iraq is not an "optional" war apart from the War on Terror, but is, in fact, the War on Terror's lynchpin.

They refuse to understand (or refuse to admit) that "support for the troops" cannot be independent of support for the war effort and support for the commander in chief.

They refuse to accept the fact that their jihad against America is killing our troops, aiding and abetting the terrorists and imperiling all Americans.


_________________________
Good points!!!

[Mia T]

thanx :)

[Mia T]

ping

[Mia T]

ping

[Mia T]

ping

[Mia T]

ping

[Mia T]

ping

[Mia T]

ping

[bmwcyle]

bttt

[Mia T]

ping

[Mia T]

thx :)

[Mia T]

ping

[Mia T]

ping

[Mia T]

ping

[MichiganConservative]

Maybe it's just me, but is it really wise to try to appeal to what makes women feel safe as a basis of your campaign? Isn't this sort of patronizing? Isn't this type of campaigning basically saying that women, to a large extent, only vote based on emotion?

[EdReform]

"The only way America will ever be defeated by death-worshipping theocrats who've crawled out from under a Dark Ages rock is with the help of the mullahs' fifth column - academia, the media, the judiciary, public education, Hollywood and the Democratic Party.

Of the two suicide cults America confronts, liberalism is by far the more lethal."

-- Don Feder, In The War On Terror, Liberals Are More Dangerous Than Muslims -- A 9/11 meditation, September 19, 2006

[E.G.C.]

Mia T. Bump

[YdontUleaveLibs]

This is the most likely sight you will see November 8th. This pic never ever gets old.

[DaiHuy]

"though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America."

If I wanted to commit a crime, got the materials and plans to do it, and the police found out about it, I would be arrested and charged with conspiracy to do whatever.

How many people are in jail for "conspiracy" to commit a crime?

I guess Mr Klintoon being the fabulous attorney he is must have missed the classes on conspiracy.