Skip to comments.
Bush: "I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt."
newsmax.com, The New York Times, etc
| Mia T
Posted on 09/17/2001 1:11:48 AM PDT by Mia T
- Churchill vs. Chamberlain Redux
- "I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt."
Washington and the liberal media may be getting the message: George Bush is for real and he's no Mr. Nice Guy when it comes to war.
Even Newsweek's Howard Fineman, a liberal Bush-basher, has had to do a double take this week.
Writing in his column of an Oval office meeting with four U.S. Senators -- including Hillary Rodham -- Fineman described Bush "relaxed and in control."
Fineman, drawing a comparison with Winston Churchill's defiance during World War II, quoted the president as telling the Senators: "When I take action," he said, "I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It's going to be decisive."
No doubt, Hillary must have shuddered when she heard that, a clear hit on her husband's eight years of appeasement with terrorists and their backers.
Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff
[ASIDE: Have you noticed that as of the morning of 9-11-01, hillary clinton's "best memory" informs her--and she is quick to inform us -- that she was not "co-president" after all?]
- Ex-CIA director blasts China policy
Woolsey likens strategy to failed 'appeasement' before WWII
- "It's a legitimate end-use," says a Clinton administration official, who asked not to be identified. "Weather forecasting in the United States uses very intensive computing."
'Precedent Shattering': Administration OKs Supercomputer Sale to China
ABCNEWS.com, Published: 12/02/99, Author: David Ruppe
- NEW YORK--A NewsMax.com/Zogby International poll finds that two-thirds of Americans want Congress to consider a second round of impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton for possibly swapping United States military secrets to China in exchange for campaign cash.
- Americans overwhelmingly indicated they are seriously concerned that President Clinton may have authorized the sale and transfer of nuclear and ballistic missile technology to China. The national survey of 1,005 registered voters was conducted by NewsMax.com/Zogby last week...
Poll: Two-thirds of Americans Want New Impeachment Review
December 21, 1999
- The Manchurian Candidate?
- Or Being There?
- by Mia T
- The Republicans' latest talking point is that the breach of national security enabled by clinton-gore must be simple incompetence, that the concept that anyone in government would commit treason is too outrageous even to contemplate.
- If the Republicans believe what they are saying, then they are morons.
- If they don't believe what they are saying, then they are traitors.
- Outrageousness is an essential element of clinton-gore corruption. The clinton (and gore) crimes -- perjury, obstruction of justice, abuse of power, rape, murder -- and now treason -- are so outrageous that they allow clinton hacks to reasonably brand all clinton accusers clinton-hating neo-Nazi crazies.
- Yet privately few clintonites would deny that bill clinton facilitated China espionage. Their only question: "Why?"
- Some call clinton a quisling, a Manchurian Candidate, bought off in Little Rock by Riady and company decades ago (and much too cheaply, according to his Chinese benefactors), trading our national security for his political power. This argument is persuasive but incomplete; clinton, a certifiable megalomaniac, is driven ultimately by his solipsistic, messianic world view and by that which ultimately quashes all else -- his toxic legacy.
- William J. Broad suggests (Spying Isn't the Only Way to Learn About Nukes, The New York Times, May 30, 1999) that clinton had another reason to empower China and disembowel America. Broad argues that clinton sought to disseminate our atomic secrets proactively in order to implement his counterintuitive, 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.
- Broad writes in part:
- Since 1993, officials say, the Energy Department's "openness initiative"
- has released at least 178 categories of atom secrets. By contrast, the
- 1980s saw two such actions. The unveilings have included no details of
- specific weapons, like the W-88, a compact design Chinese spies are
- suspected of having stolen from the weapons lab at Los Alamos, N.M. But
- they include a slew of general secrets.
- Its overview of the disclosures, "Restricted Data Declassification
- Decisions," dated January 1999 and more than 140 pages long, lists such
- things as how atom bombs can be boosted in power, key steps in making
- hydrogen bombs, the minimum amount (8.8 pounds) of plutonium or uranium
- fuel needed for an atom bomb and the maximum time it takes an exploding
- atomic bomb to ignite an H-bomb's hydrogen fuel (100 millionths of a
- No grade-B physicist from any university could figure this stuff. It
- took decades of experience gained at a cost of more than $400 billion.
- 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.
- And the devaluing of nuclear secrets, highlighted by the rush of atomic
- declassifications, was seen as a prerequisite to the ban's achievement.
- The symbolism alone was potent, officials say. Openness let them
- advertise a dramatic new state of affairs where hidden actions were to
- be kept to a minimum, replacing decades of secrecy and paranoia.
- "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
- 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, a senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense
- Council in Washington, a private group that has criticized the openness,
- said the declassifications had swept away so many secrets that the
- combination had laid bare the central mysteries.
- "In terms of the phenomenology of nuclear weapons," Cochran said, "the
- cat is out of the bag."
- Even before the China scandal broke, experts outside the administration
- faulted the openness as promoting the bomb's spread. Last year, a
- bipartisan commission of nine military specialists led by former Defense
- Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the "extensive declassification" of
- secrets had inadvertently aided the global spread of deadly weapons.
- ["inadvertently" ???!!!!]
- The ultimate brake on nuclear advances was to be the Comprehensive Test
- Ban Treaty, which clinton began to push for as soon as he took office in
- 1993, hailing it as the hardest-fought, longest-sought prize in the
- history of arms control.
- Broad would have us believe we are watching "Being There" and not "The Manchurian Candidate." His argument is superficially appealing as most reasonable people would conclude that it requires the simplemindedness of a Chauncy Gardener (in "Being There") to reason that instructing China and a motley assortment of terrorist nations on how to beef up their atom bombs and how not to omit the "key steps" when building hydrogen bombs would somehow blunt and not stimulate their appetites for bigger and better bombs and a higher position in the power food chain...(or, alternatively, to fail to understand that the underlying premise of MAD (mutually assured destruction) is the absense of madness.)
- But it is Broad's failure to fully connect the dots -- clinton 's wholesale release of atomic secrets, decades of Chinese money sluicing into clinton 's campaigns, clinton 's pushing of the test ban treaty, clinton 's concomitant sale of supercomputers, and clinton 's noxious legacy -- that blows his argument to smithereens and reduces his piece to just another desensitizing clinton apologia by The New York Times.
- But even if clinton is a thoroughgoing (albeit postmodern) fool, China-gate is still treason. The strict liability Gump-ism, "Treason is as treason does"applies.
- (The idea that an individual can be convicted of the crime of treason only if there is treasonous intent or mens rea runs contrary to the concept of strict liability crimes. That doctrine (Park v United States, (1974) 421 US 658,668) established the principle of 'strict liability' or 'liability without fault' in certain criminal cases, usually involving crimes which endanger the public welfare.)
- Calling his position on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty "an historic milestone" (if he must say so himself), clinton believed that if he could get China to sign it, he would go down in history as the savior of mankind. This was 11 August 1995.
- According to James Risen and Jeff Gerth of The New York Times, "the legacy codes and the warhead data that goes with them" [-- apparently stolen from the Los Alamos weapons lab by scientist, Wen Ho Lee aided and abetted by bill clinton , hillary clinton , the late Ron Brown, Sandy Berger, Hazel O'Leary, Janet Reno, Eric Holder and others in the clinton administration (not to mention congressional clinton accomplices Glenn, Daschle, Bumpers, Harkin, Boxer, Feinstein, Lantos, Levin. Lautenberg, Torricelli et al.) --] "could be particularly valuable for a country, like China, that has signed onto the nuclear test ban treaty and relies solely on computer simulations to upgrade and maintain its nuclear arsenal [especially when combined with the supercomputers that clinton sold to China to help them finish the job]. The legacy codes are now used to maintain the American nuclear arsenal through computer simulation.
- Most of Lee's transfers occurred in 1994 and 1995, just before China signed the test ban treaty in 1996, according to American officials."
- Few who have observed clinton would argue against the proposition that this legacy-obsessed megalomaniac would trade our legacy codes for a rehabilitated legacy in a Monica minute and to hell with "the children."
TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Editorial; News/Current Events
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-31 next last
posted on 09/17/2001 1:11:48 AM PDT
by Mia T
To: Mia T
"When I take action," he said, "I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It's going to be decisive."
I love it. The quote of the month!
Nice post, thanks for your efforts.
To: Mia T
Excellent quote! PING!! G.W. started slow on this one...but is picking up speed!!!!
Donate to the American Red Cross Disaster Relief Fund for New York/Washington D.C.(The Pentagon-Virginia): Here
posted on 09/17/2001 1:44:56 AM PDT
Let's name the camel Osama.
posted on 09/17/2001 1:51:18 AM PDT
I think that's military code. "Butt of a Camel" = Osama.
You see, this is all code.
President refers to "smoking them out" And butts of Camels.
'See, if we call the camel Osama, that'll make up for all the secrets we sold, spies we abandoned, etc...it's a great sound-bite right? right???' (echoing endlessly as Clinton enters into Hades)
posted on 09/17/2001 2:00:21 AM PDT
Well I guess if plan to "Laden" any animal it would be a camel. So Osama bin Ladan is a variant spelling which translates: "the butt of a camel which has been loaded."
To: Mia T
My misspelling, it actually is spelled "Laden" not Ladan.
To: Mia T
Let's hit the right people though. A lot of innocents are suffering over there.
"An Afghan boy walks near the Pakistan-Afghan border area at Torkham, northwest of Islamabad scavenging for food and items of value..."
To: Mia T
You have such a way with posts, I look forward to them. Great job :)
A free world, for these kids, for everyone. The alternative is much more ghastly. We can't sit around and wait for a city to be nuked; I don't have a graphic, but if we get nuked their won't be anyone left to cry over the kid.
posted on 09/17/2001 2:50:30 AM PDT
Yes, there are a lot of innocents over there, as were the 5,000 plus dead under that pile of rubble that used to be called the WTC
That little boy one day may grow up to be the next member of Bin Laden little army of murderers.
I am not saying war justifies taking innocent life, just that little boy if given a chamce by getting rid the likes of Bin laden might grow up under freedom and liberty.
posted on 09/17/2001 3:08:57 AM PDT
To: Mia T
Excellent, as usual.
posted on 09/17/2001 4:59:11 AM PDT
(God Bless America)
The Taliban and Ben Laden are not Afghanistan. They're not even the government of Afghanistan. The Taliban are a cult of ignorant psychotics who took over Afghanistan in 1997. Bin Laden is a political criminal with a plan. When you think Taliban, think Nazis. When you think Bin Laden, think Hitler. And when you think "the people of Afghanistan" think "the Jews in the concentration camps." It's not only that the Afghan people had nothing to do with this atrocity. They were the first victims of the perpetrators. They would exult if someone would come in there, take out the Taliban and clear out the rats nest of international thugs holed up in their country. Liberate Afgganistan of the Taliban and Ben Laden and we'd have a strong Moslem nation as a grateful ally in South Asia.
To: Mia T
"I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It's going to be decisive."
Any truth to the rumor that Hillary grabbed her behind and grimaced when he said that?
posted on 09/17/2001 5:54:29 AM PDT
To: Mia T, et al
Can someone recommned to me and provide a link(s) to a definitive accounting of BJ's actions that have 1) depleted our military even though the Congress was controlled by the GOP and 2) all of the aid, enablement and comfort he provided terrorists? Fodder for bashing lib idiots who unbelievably won't support Bush simply bec of partisan politics.
posted on 09/17/2001 6:12:46 AM PDT
(John Edwards really likes camels.)
The result of bad parenting. You cannot kick a big dog without expecting to get bit.
posted on 09/17/2001 6:22:40 AM PDT
To: Mia T
".....hit a camel in the butt."
Wait a minute! I thought he was talking about Hillary! Please confirm!
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-31 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson