Posted on 11/03/2006 8:05:28 PM PST by Mia T
Every time you write - I say ok this is the best!
So, will say it again!!! perfect timing!!!!
Beautiful Mind. I cannot thank you enough Mia T.
BTTT
History will record the definitive lesson of the 2006 election. The left has abandoned pretense and revealed its utter disregard for truth. Truth is neither a value, nor an obstacle to the left. The left has become entirely a Stalinist-Leninist operation. They have no moderates, they are all extremists. In part it is because most of their followers are ignorant, and of low intelligence. In part it is a consequence of Clintonism, the emporer has no clothes syndrom...if we acknowledge who they really are, we lose power, therefore, the left must support Clinton at all costs. The left now pays for that indulgence of the 1990's. They are forced to double their bet to protect their positions. They are burning their intellectual furniture to try and maintain power, and it may work for them. This time.
The left's disgusting excesses of the 2006 campaign now include endangering and insulting US armed forces in a time of war. Worse, they dont hesitate to sabotage the mission and objectives of American foreign policy, even when those policies have been approved by congressional vote. Finally when their perfidy is revealed, as here, thank you Mia, they could care less. They are as good marxists proud of their carnage. That truth is a casualty is a badge of honor. As many are beginning to observe, they share an important value with Terrorists, both the terrorists and the left value destruction of established order.
The leftist media in the US is no different that that gaggle of arm waiving muslim women who emerged to provide a human shield to cornered terrorist gunman, and abet their escape. Our media, a leftist institution to its core, provides cover and distraction for leftist candidates, crooks like Reid, marists like Pelosi and Hillary, traitors like Kennedy, imbiciles like Kerry and Durban, and attack dogs like Dean and the Clinton machine. These communists are worse than gangsters. The mob has at least some values in common with civilized society, the left and their cousins the terrorists, will stop at nothing to acheive their sick ends. It was no accident that Mao begot the cultural revolution and nearly starved China to death. It was no quirk of fate that Hilter turned on his own brownshirts and exterminated them when they became inconvienient. It is no random happenstance, that the left in this election is attacking homosexuality as pedophilia, that they "support the troops" by declaring their considerable accomplishments a total failure, or that they contradict there own most core beliefs, in order to make last minute headlines insinuating imaginary republican incompetence.
The left deliberately mischaracterizes kamakazism and gangsterism in Iraq as "civil war" in order to exaggerate the problems that remain after US forces in fact created a functioning and nearly self sustaining democracy there. The real civil war, fast approaching is not in Iraq. It is here in the US. When the chasm between political polarities is as great as it is becoming with the left disavowing any commitment to truth, to honesty, or to honor, a chain reaction leading to inevitable open and unlimited conflict is little more than a matter of time away. If the left experiences a victory in the 2006 election, they may be quite unwise to celebrate their accomplishment. The price they pay for their powerseeking is the disdain and digust of thinking, loyal Americans who know the dangers the left is encouraging.
Is this sentence referring to 1990, before the Persian Gulf War? Or 2002, months before the invasion of Iraq? Because "Iraq is a year away from building a nuclear bomb" was supposed to be a myth, a lie that Bush used to trick us into war.
That's the obvious question. I don't believe the NYT didn't ask it, which would seem to indicate the answer. Still, I'd like to hear from the Bush administration what these docs say about the state of the bomb in 2002.
From William J. Broad's 1999 piece (Spying Isn't the Only Way to Learn About Nukes, The New York Times, May 30, 1999): "The United States must stand as leader," O'Leary told a packed news conference in December 1993 upon starting the process. "We are declassifying the largest amount of information in the history of the department." Critics, however, say the former secrets are extremely valuable to foreign powers intent on making nuclear headway. Gaffney, the former Reagan official, disparaged the giveaway as "dangling goodies in front of people to get them to sign up into our arms-control agenda." Thomas B. Cochran,:..."In terms of the phenomenology of nuclear weapons...the cat is out of the bag." ...[F]ormer Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the "extensive declassification" of secrets had inadvertently [?!] aided the global spread of deadly weapons. To summarize, the reasons for the clintons' proactive nuclear proliferation: 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.
The release of the secrets started as a high-stakes bet that openness would lessen, not increase, the world's vulnerability to nuclear arms and war. John Holum, who heads arms control at the State Department, told Congress last year that the test ban "essentially eliminates" the possibility of a renewed international race to develop new kinds of nuclear arms...
The clintons sought to disseminate our atomic secrets proactively in order to implement their postmodern, quite inane epistemological theory, namely, that, contrary to currently held dogma, knowledge is not power after all -- that, indeed, quite the contrary is the case, that instructing China and a motley assortment of terrorist nations on how to beef up their atom bombs and how not to omit the "key steps" when building hydrogen bombs would somehow blunt and not stimulate their appetites for bigger and better bombs and a higher position in the power food chain.
(One has only to look to Iran, North Korea or Pakistan to see the absurdity of the clintons' premise.)
h e a r --c l i n t o n --l o s e --i t
by Mia T, 11.11.05
bump
thx :)
thanx, malia :)
Brilliant.
I've long believed we're on an inexorable path to civil war.
And we will have the advantage: We hold the moral high ground. We have the numbers. And we know how to fight a war.
fyi
bump
Pinch, as in 'pinch me if the New York Times ever defends America over its enemies'.
Perfect Storm scenario: GOP holds both houses, the stock market rallies, and NYT stock plummets even further.
One can hope.
And I hope you keep turning out the good stuff, Mia T.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.