Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Political Left Beginning to Finger clinton for Terrorists' Success
Charlie Rose, The Sunday Times (U.K.), Middle East Intelligence Bulletin, WSJ,KPFKLA,O'Reilly Factor | Andrew Sullivan et al.

Posted on 10/01/2001 12:24:07 PM PDT by Mia T

Political Left Beginning to Finger clinton for Terrorists' Success

clinton through Rose-colored glasses...

On his 9-28-01 show, Charlie Rose asks an ABC News analyst: "Do you believe clinton is to blame for 9-11 terrorist attacks?"
Noting an obvious reluctance of his guest to answer the question as posed--and apparently forgetting just where the buck stops--Rose adds: "I don't mean to imply that it's clinton's fault...but what about the FBI and CIA?"
With clinton now reduced to a causal cousin once removed, the ABC analyst no longer hesitates to observe that the terrorists succeeded on 9-11 because of a "massive failure" by the executive branch...
Andrew Sullivan: The damage Clinton did

...The September 11 massacre resulted from a fantastic failure on the part of the United States government to protect its citizens from an act of war. This failure is now staring us in the face and, if the errors are to be rectified, it is essential to acknowledge what went wrong.

Two questions come to mind: how was it that the Osama Bin Laden network, known for more than a decade, was still at large and dangerous enough this autumn to inflict such a deadly blow? Who was responsible in the government for such a failure of intelligence, foreign policy and national security? These questions have not been asked directly, for good reasons.

There is a need to avoid recriminations at a time of national crisis. But at the same time, the American lack of preparedness that Tuesday is already slowing the capacity to bring Bin Laden to justice by constricting military and diplomatic options. And with a president just a few months in office, criticism need not extend to the young administration that largely inherited this tattered security apparatus.

Whatever failures of intelligence, security or diplomacy exist, they have roots far deeper than the first nine months of this year. When national disasters of unpreparedness have occurred in other countries...ministers responsible have resigned. Taking responsibility for mistakes in the past is part of the effort not to repeat them. So why have heads not rolled?

The most plausible answer is that nobody has been fired because this attack was so novel and impossible to predict that nothing in America's security apparatus could have prevented it. The only problem with this argument is that it is patently untrue. Throughout the Clinton years, this kind of attack was not only predictable but predicted. Not only had Bin Laden already attacked American embassies and warships, he had done so repeatedly and been completely frank about his war. He had even attempted to destroy the World Trade Center in 1993. Same guy, same building. ...

The decision to get down and dirty with the terrorists, to take their threat seriously and counter them aggressively, was simply never taken. Many bear the blame for this: Warren Christopher, the clueless, stately former secretary of state; Anthony Lake, the tortured intellectual at the National Security Council; General Colin Powell, whose decision to use Delta Force units in Somalia so badly backfired; but, above all, former president Bill Clinton, whose inattention to military and security matters now seems part of the reason why America was so vulnerable to slaughter.

Klein cites this devastating quote from a senior Clinton official: "Clinton spent less concentrated attention on national defence than any other president in recent memory. He could learn an issue very quickly, but he wasn't very interested in getting his hands dirty with detail work. His style was procrastination, seeing where everyone was, before taking action. This was truer in his first term than in the second, but even when he began to pay attention he was constrained by public opinion and his own unwillingness to take risks."It is hard to come up with a more damning description of negligence than that.


Clinton even got a second chance. In 1998, after Bin Laden struck again at US embassies in Africa, the president was put on notice that the threat was deadly. He responded with a couple of missile strikes against Afghanistan and Sudan, some of which missed their targets and none of which seriously impacted on Osama Bin Laden...

If the security manager of a nuclear power plant presides over a massive external attack on it, then it's only right that he should be held responsible, in part, for what happened. More than 6,000 families are now living with the deadly consequences of the negligence of the government of the United States. There is no greater duty for such a government than the maintenance of national security, and the protection of its own citizens.

When a senior Clinton official can say of his own leader that he "spent less concentrated attention on national defence than any other president in recent memory", and when this administration is followed by the most grievous breach of domestic security in American history, it is not unreasonable to demand some accounting...

We thought for a long time that the Clinton years would be seen, in retrospect, as a mixed blessing. He was sleazy and unprincipled, we surmised, but he was also competent, he led an economic recovery, and he conducted a foreign policy of multilateral distinction.

But the further we get away from the Clinton years, the more damning they seem. The narcissistic, feckless, escapist culture of an America absent without leave in the world was fomented from the top. The boom at the end of the decade turned out to include a dangerous bubble that the administration did little to prevent.

The "peace-making" in the Middle East and Ireland merely intensified the conflicts. The sex and money scandals were not just debilitating in themselves - they meant that even the minimal attention that the Clinton presidency paid to strategic military and intelligence work was skimped on.

We were warned. But we were coasting. And the main person primarily entrusted with correcting that delusion, with ensuring America's national security - the president - was part of the problem.

Through the dust clouds of September 11, and during the difficult task ahead, one person hovers over the wreckage - and that is Bill Clinton. His legacy gets darker with each passing day.


On O'Reilly Factor: Bill Maher fingers clinton

by Mia T

New York, Sept. 21 -- In an O'Reilly Factor interview immediately following President Bush's address to Congress tonight, Bill Maher, loyal clinton lackey, correctly fingered bill clinton as the proximate cause of the 9-11 terrorist attack on New York and Washington. Maher specifically implicated clinton's feckless, cowardly bombing of the terrorists from three miles high, implying that clinton bombed from that distance because he was fearful that casualties would cost him popularity in the polls.

In a fog of delusion and illogic, however, Maher then incorrectly proceeded to place the ultimate blame for the attacks on the American people, arguing that because clinton was "a poll-driven president" he was only following the people's wishes.

Maher does not seem to understand that he has it exactly backwards, that it is a leader's responsibility to shape opinion, that clinton's failure to lead was a symptom of clinton's overriding egomania, cowardice, fecklessness and depravity, that clinton's failure to lead was precisely the first efficient cause of the terrorists' success.

Clinton's Failure to Confront Iraq
Allan J. Favish
Iraqi Complicity in the World Trade Center Bombing and
Beyond by Laurie Mylroie, which was published in June of this year and discusses the 1993 bombing of the WTC.
She explains how Bill Clinton intentionally failed to confront Iraq over its complicity in the bombing and other attacks.
She supported Clinton in 1992 having been an advisor on Iraq policy to the 1992 Clinton presidential campaign, as you can see at
Her September 13, 2001 article in the Wall Street Journal on the recent attack is at
In a live interview on Los Angeles radio station KPFK, broadcast around noon today, PST, she stated that Clinton lied about more than sex; he lied about national security.
I wish somebody would ask her about whether she thinks the Clinton administration covered up Iraqi involvement in the murder of those aboard TWA 800 and ordered the military not to pursue the attackers.

From Woodward's book, The Choice - p 65:

...Clinton held a secret strategy session in the White House with Hillary, Gore, Panetta, Ickes and several cabinet secretaries. clinton asked everybody to keep the discussion private. He said he wanted to recapture winning themes of his 1992 victory, with emphasis on the middle class and traditional party groups such as labor. But it was a mushy meeting, and because some details soon leaked to the media no more such large sessions were held.
As Clinton continured his search, he lamented that he could not see a big, clear task before him. Part of him yearned for an obvious call to action or even a crisis. He was looking for that extraordinary challenge which he could define and then rally people to the cause. He wanted to find that galvanizing moment.
"I would have preferred being president during World War II" he said one night in January 1995. "I'm a person out of my time."
Washington -- Lucky though he was, Bill Clinton never had his shot at greatness...he never got the opportunity George W. Bush was given this Tuesday: the historic chance to lead.

Chris Matthews: Bush's war

Chris Matthews: Clinton never had shot at greatness/never got opportunity Bush was given Tuesday


Bush: "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 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?]

clinton hunt-and-peck  




Chris Matthews: Clinton never had shot at greatness/never got opportunity Bush was given Tuesday
Clinton's Failure to Confront Iraq
Bush: "I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt."

"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, Published: 12/02/99, Author: David Ruppe


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; Front Page News; News/Current Events
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-54 next last

1 posted on 10/01/2001 12:24:07 PM PDT by Mia T
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Mia T
It's fine with me to examine Clinton's complicity in wrecking our national security. Let's not fool ourselves about the complicity of Republicans,though, particularly when they controlled both houses of Congress. The last time I checked, Congress still had oversight responsibilities.
2 posted on 10/01/2001 12:34:26 PM PDT by independentmind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
So, Billy Klinton was NOT your favorite President?(/humor)

Good job, Mia

3 posted on 10/01/2001 12:37:24 PM PDT by Mark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Mia, your posts are so welcome at this time. Thank you
4 posted on 10/01/2001 12:38:49 PM PDT by OldFriend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
You really have THAT guys number don't you?

Looking backward, you were not alone, especially here at FR. We really believed that the damage done would turn out to be monumental. Remember ***** THIS ***** piece? It postulated all or nothing with Clinton. In retrospect, it really DID hit the nail on the head.

Now it looks like we're in for years of deep deadly water while we struggle to correct the influence of the Clintons, and the excesses of the spiteful crypto-Marxist left that not only did so much to support and appologize for WJC, but to undermine the very foundation that not only all of us stand on, but also saw off the the VERY tree limb the America-Hating liberal appologists hung their own hats. Looks like a few are waking up to the fact.

5 posted on 10/01/2001 12:41:00 PM PDT by Coyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #6 Removed by Moderator

To: Mia T
Cool graphics! Love the Magritte!!!! How about doing up a Delvaux in one of these. Fish! parsy.
7 posted on 10/01/2001 12:47:07 PM PDT by parsifal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Nice. Thanks Mia.
8 posted on 10/01/2001 12:50:01 PM PDT by Octar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mccain2004
the president had sex and lied about it to keep it secret.

Let's not forget all of the details. He flat out lied to the American public and he,an officer of the court, lied under oath.

Whether Monicagate should have been handled differently is open to debate; but it certainly doesn't have an exonerating effect on President Clinton.

9 posted on 10/01/2001 12:52:04 PM PDT by independentmind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

For truth !

10 posted on 10/01/2001 12:59:23 PM PDT by DreamWeaver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Nice post. It speaks volumes that the liberal establishment types even ask the question if it's Billy Jeff's fault. And Billy thought he would be remembered just for avoiding impeachment. He got his wish - a legacy!
11 posted on 10/01/2001 1:06:58 PM PDT by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T parsifal Lurker Noumenon Clinton's a Liar Askel5 colorado tanker
Some excerpts from a piece written just after Clinton was acquited by the Senate, and first published here at FR....

....But what's worse is that only a remnant recognizes that when we wake up from this long drunk on the collectivist gin of social democracy, we're going to find ourselves in bed with a very bad hangover. We're going to find ourselves with one monumental headache, and hopelessly married to one of the most blood-thirsty, ruthless demons ever to rise from Satan's pit....


So I just can't help myself on this one. And my comments go directly to every jerk from Hollywood to Manhattan, from London to Brussels, who insists on shoving the Fascist demon of totalitarian collectivism onto our sons and daughters. To every puffed up power broker who has insisted that he is superior to everyone else, and thereby fit to royally rule his own puppet state. To those that insist that the only good monopoly is a state monopoly, especially if it is controlled by them.


And of course everybody, but everybody who's stood up against this executive has been subject to the stealth political weapon of the age: the lawsuit. From Matt Drudge at to Jim Robinson at


Meanwhile, Slick's gone skating. And we're all going with him, whether we like it or not. We're all going skating on some of the most dangerously thin political ice since the Civil War. And to all you on the left, from Hollywood to Manhattan, now that you've formally unleashed the hounds of the totalitarian collective, I hope you're satisfied with the current darkness. To you who have insisted on freely fornicating with this syphilitic harlot, this queen of the lie, you who are absolutely convinced that your hypocrisy will protect you, that no accident will ever happen to you.

Well, what can we say? Except...sleep well!

That was from ***** ANOTHER ***** one written by someone apparently cursed with a clear nightmare vision of at least the end result on the Clinton years. He only got part of it right though. Because what we ended up with was not just a serial dictatorship of the totalitarian impulse, but serial terror as well. Still, the midnight vision this guy had was so vivid, and in retrospect, so prophetic, few could remain sane. And as I understand it, the author went completely mad shortly after this piece and hasn't been heard from since. Let's just hope that the rest of his vision never transpires.

12 posted on 10/01/2001 1:11:56 PM PDT by Coyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coyote
I loved the piece (then and now).

But it bothers me that the left ALSO appears willing to conceded Clinton's solely responsible. I don't think so. It was Republicans who failed to remove him and Republicans who actually were responsible for some of his greatest successes: PNTR for China, passage of the Anti-Terrorism and Transportation omnibus packages and the Schumer Amendment, funding for the NIH's ESCR and Title X abortion monies, to name a few.

(Don't even get me started on the way Bush and Dole sent a message during impeachment advising against actual removal of the Mad Bomber of Sudan or Danforth wiped his bloody Waco blade clean under cover of "election crisis" on November 8th).

Particularly where "Security" and terror are concerned, The Message They're Sending is Essentially the Same Thing.

13 posted on 10/01/2001 1:26:07 PM PDT by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Askel5
It was Republicans who failed to remove him....

You're right. But the Republicans haven't been such since at least the early 1950's, and more realistically, since the early 1920's. The poison has crossed party lines, as you well know. Still, the Republican side has probably a slight percentage on the Democrats in favor of Constitutional liberty. It's residual, and only slight.

And as far as his removal, remember that the Clinton's were absolute masters of the craft of blackmail. They hired Lensner's PR firm to steal 1000 FBI files, which they had for a year and "never looked at". At least they promised they never peeked. I'm sure that there were Republican files in that 1000 that belonged to certain members that voted for his acquital. It's impossible to say how much the black mail influenced the vote, Vs the dilution of the Republican ideals over the years. Probably both.

14 posted on 10/01/2001 1:39:01 PM PDT by Coyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: mccain2004
The President had sex and lied about it to keep it secret

HOW can you keep chanting the same old mantra? If that's all he's done maybe he'd get cut a break, but that's only the beginning! He is a Liar (underoath) he intimidated witnesses, he has a long list of suicidal friends (who are not longer with us), he accepted money from China for our secrets, he played footsie with Arafat, taking money from the local Muslim hoodlums, raped, plundered and prevaricated his way through an 8 yr. term in office, rented out the Lincoln Bedroom like it was Hotel 6, Raised soft money from the Oval office, stole WH treasures, snorted coke (couldn't figure out how to inhale a roach), corrupted everybody he came in contact with. You are a real idiot."None so blind as those who do not want to see".

Now I see that Atty Goebels,ops, I mean Mr. Kendall is going to defend him in front of SCOTUS. I can't wait. Maybe this time we'll get everybody in Court to tell their facts, Monica, Linda, Wiley, Broderick, et.,al., and maybe some of the evidence emassed against him for the Senate will find it's way to SCOTUS. Like Italy's dictator, upside down from a balcony, side by side would work for me.

15 posted on 10/01/2001 1:40:23 PM PDT by wingnuts'nbolts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Coyote
Interesting piece. For the umpteenth time, we see again it wasn't "just about sex." It's not possible to "compartmentalize" and be a President who lies under oath and abuses power only when it comes to sex, but be morally courageous as to other issues. In fact the opposite is true - a willingness to do the wrong things about small issues betrays a willingness to do the wrong thing when more is at stake. And I agree Republicans, particlarly Senate Republicans, are not blameless here. Who can blame the terrorists for thinking we wouldn't hold them accountable if we wouldn't even hold our own President accountable, particularly when America did little after Mogadishu, El Khobar, WTCI, the Embassy bombings and the Cole?
16 posted on 10/01/2001 1:45:10 PM PDT by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

Comment #17 Removed by Moderator

Comment #18 Removed by Moderator

To: Coyote
You are right on the Republicans in power are cowards. Except for a few brave souls in the house. Trent Lott is a blown dry (or is blowed dry) gold plated phoney.
19 posted on 10/01/2001 1:59:54 PM PDT by cdw19390
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Coyote
Still, the Republican side has probably a slight percentage on the Democrats in favor of Constitutional liberty. It's residual, and only slight.

Oh, I don't know, Coyote.

At the risk of being a one-trick pony, I can't help but hearken to the Right to Life and I do this for two reasons:

  1. The Right to Life is the FUNDAMENTAL right from which all other rights issue and is therefore the ultimate either/or in divining a person's true stand on human justice and liberty;

  2. Abortion has been used LIKE NO OTHER ISSUE to explain away -- time and time and time again -- the compromises, losses, defeats and "no win situations" of our so-called "pro-life" politicians whose rallying cry on this issue consistently ends up: "I'm personally opposed, BUT .."

The facts are incontravertible.

We are supposed to believe that the Democrats (whose constituents are so lame and so stupid as to DEMAND the right to off their own) have run circles around us using the compelling logic that "it's better to be dead than unwanted."

The ugly truth, however, is that it is the GOP who not only recognizes but mandates that "Abortion is VITAL to the solution" of population control at home and abroad. This is very clearly set forth in Kissinger's NSSM-200 (signed by him for Nixon and signed by Scowcroft -- as NSDM-314 -- for Ford).

As a Bloodhound and "no holds barred" defender of human life, I find the conclusions to be drawn therefrom horrifying and irrefutable.

It was George H. Bush who most clearly exposed (in debate and in discussion) Title X and the "War on Poverty" for the War on the Poor it truly was.

It is the GOP who confected, waged and perpetuated our War on Drugs and -- having outfitted the likes of Clinton with the federal police force necessary to mow down Davidians -- not only looked the other way but wiped his hands clean.

It is the GOP again at the helm now that we are poised to launch a third war on the American people, their civil liberties and personal freedoms under the guise of the "War on Terrorism" our AG of "Justice" Ashcroft wishes to model on the oh-so-successful Drug War.

Drug War Redux - The attorney general's misguided model for the War Against Terrorism

Ashcroft, Seeking Broad Powers, Says Congress Must Act Quickly

Truly, it was the Blood Trail and the human life digging that finally brought the Escher drawing into focus for me. GOP's top dog. The Dems -- including Howdy Doody Clinton -- are just a clown car used to distract the crowds from whatever the ringmaster's readying centerstage.

20 posted on 10/01/2001 2:03:35 PM PDT by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-54 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson