Posted on 01/03/2002 12:17:10 AM PST by JohnHuang2
I used to think that any fool would know the difference between an FBI investigation and a real U.S. military action, but that's before the Clinton administration. Eight years of Bill and Hillary Clinton forever changed my views about the political world.
I used to think liberals were interesting, and in a way entertaining. Today I have concluded that if they're in power, they're dangerous to the national security. But even more dangerous are the ignorant citizens who vote for liberal policies. Why? Because they are "used" by dishonest politicians seeking to move a flawed and failed agenda forward.
There were many lessons along the way that should have changed my "Pollyanna" views about the general level of intelligence of our average citizens. For example, my FBI cases usually ended up in courtroom battles, and the make-up of the average jury pool should have alerted me that there are a lot of "picnics" out there shy a couple of sandwiches.
I mean, folks on most juries – the ones who are not excused because they have "lives" – know more about soap operas and MTV than how to deal with terrorists. But, on the other hand, the U.S. government is paid big tax bucks to handle "threats foreign and domestic," so who can blame jurists who haven't a clue about major issues of the day?
Actually, that's not entirely fair to the people who are called to serve on juries. Defense attorneys are notorious for seeking the dumbest jurists they can find in the jury pool. That a few intelligent, normal people survive the cut to go on to be jury forepersons is miraculous, considering how badly the deck is stacked against the prosecutors in our criminal "injustice" system.
OK, let's assume the 40 percent of us who vote – but are clueless – are willing to learn and could benefit from some rudimentary education about the differences between liberals and conservatives. After more than 30 years in government service, much of it around politicians, this is what I have learned – and maybe you can pass this on to a Liberal friend or relative:
Liberals love symbolism and good intentions, but they don't care much about solving problems, as long as some effort is made. Because liberals don't require real solutions, they have learned how to "create" a crisis where none exists because they know they will never be expected to solve any. Liberals also brag endlessly about their efforts to solve problems, and they're always "working so hard on the people's behalf," and especially "for the children."
The crisis du jour demonizes their political enemies, propels their political agenda, and keeps them in power … which is their real agenda.
On the other hand, conservatives are problem solvers and if there's a real problem, they'll eventually solve it. But, conservatives are too slow to claim credit, especially when they enjoy large victories. That's because conservatives don't like to brag.
Conservatives hate meetings and "process" and they are not good at attending endless conferences where nothing is decided, but where everyone gets a chance to pontificate. Liberals, in contrast, live for such useless and time-consuming meetings.
I never met a real conservative who didn't have "ants in the pants." Conservatives are impatient to solve real problems. Why? So that they can get on to the next problem, of course.
Liberals, however, have their "hands in your pants"… to get your money. They've also had their slimy hands in the pants of too many young interns, if Ted Kennedy, Clinton and Condit are typical of liberals.
Let me use Bill Clinton and terrorism as a real-time example to underscore important differences between liberals and conservatives. Recent articles in two of our most liberal newspapers attempt to catalog Clinton's efforts to fight terrorism by describing endless, meaningless conferences where terrorist activities and possible solutions were talked – or I should say lawyered – to death. But as we now know, nothing much was actually done.
The Washington Post went so far as to call this liberal exercise, "Clinton's war on terrorism." They totally ignore the fact that before George W. Bush coined the phrase, nobody had even heard about a "War on Terrorism." Any half-brain knows Bill Clinton only had an "Investigation on Terrorism" – and there is a big difference.
Recall that every time Osama bin Laden attacked our nation, Bill Clinton called Janet Reno and had her send some FBI agents out to investigate. Even when the attack was launched on foreign soil against our State Department, or our U.S. Navy, Clinton had Reno send the FBI.
Here's an analogy: Let's say that there is a tree in the forest that needs to be cut down. Your choice of tools will either be a weed-whacker or a chain saw. Of course, the weed-whacker symbolizes the FBI, whereas the chain saw represents the U.S. Department of Defense.
Now, if you attack the offending tree with that weed-whacker, it will take many years to cut it down – and maybe while you're trying, the tree will fall on you. But, if you're "slick" enough, the tree will fall on the poor chump who comes after you.
Of course, the weed-whacker is the safer choice, because chain saws are dangerous – they can backlash. A liberal will choose the safer tool every time – because they can appear to be doing something – and if they're lucky, the tree will not fall on them. Even if it does, they can always blame somebody or something else, such as the owner of the forest, or the manufacturer of the weed-whacker.
Conservatives know that if you pick up that chain saw and get right to work on that tree, within a very short time you'll hear, "Timber!" The truth that liberals don't want you to know is when Osama bin Laden sent his terrorists to attack the USS Cole – and killed 17 U.S. sailors – Clinton once again ran to his tool shed and grabbed his weed-whacker.
A real U.S. president would've oiled up his biggest chain saw, and he would not have spent a lot of time talking about what had to be done next.
And that's exactly what happened. That real president's name is George W. Bush. Any questions?
Related offers:
An insider's look at Clinton's White House
Get Gary Aldrich's groundbreaking exposé autographed and personalized – now available in WorldNetDaily's online store!Aldrich's political thriller is here!
Get 'Speak No Evil,' a novel of Washington scandal and intrigue – also available in WorldNetDaily's online store!
That does sum it up nicely.
In Somalia, clinton had more than one perfect opportunity to bag Aidid. He was the one who singled the guy out- you would think Clinton really wanted to get him. But instead, Clinton had the military hunt the guy down, and every time they found him Clinton got cold feet. Or, they would locate him, and no sooner had they relayed info to Washington, they would see the press pull up and surround Aidid. Did the administration warn Aidid so he could call in the press, or did the administration notify the press to give an excuse (not in front of the cameras, boys) for not taking Aidid out? I suppose this is what Aldrich means by the safer tool. Clinton was safer politically if he sucked in that lip and demanded Aidid's head, but never actually had to take it; if he nailed Aidid there was a possibility of a backlash over the assasination issue. He looked tough by demanding Aidid's head, and by sending in forces to do it, even if he was pretending... but couldn't risk a real failed attempt if it cost lives. To ensure his lack of success wouldn't backfire, he laid the blame for the failure to get Aidid on the military, even though on at least two occasions they could have taken him easily. It was a big circle-jerk to make him look like a leader when he wasn't.
He kept it up for a long time until finally the Somalis got a chance to kill Americans. Only then did Clinton make a decision- to cut and run.
America's Fifth Column ... watch PBS documentary JIHAD! In America
Download 8 Mb zip file here (60 minute video)
Both metaphorically and actually. Heheheh.
hehe -- morning, Miss Marple =^)
I actually think that the ability to operate a chain saw should be a requirement for running for the Presidency.
That's what I enjoyed so much about this piece. It's witty, thoughtful, analytical, but -- above all -- the piece is absolutely, undeniably true.
I actually think that the ability to operate a chain saw should be a requirement for running for the Presidency.
Concur! hehe ;^)
Sorry, John, but this isn't even the best piece I've read this morning. Aldrich can't write, IMO. Also, he's a fed, which gives him an impossibly narrow point of view. Note his on again, off again attack on jurors which is a segue into an attack strictly on defense attorneys for voir dire. Anyone who views the judicial system outside the POV of a cop can clearly see the damage done to the system by voir dire, and it's evenly divided between allowing the guilty to go free and convicting the innocent.
It's impossible to refute his observations of Clinton's pretense at responding to terrorist attacks on us, but that's already been done to death by other writers.
I think that Gary has one little note on his flute and he's blown it over and over until it has become insufferably boring. No offense intended to you. Thanks for all the posts this morning. Good job as usual.
No offense taken, friend. Sharing our unique perspectives on the news is what this forum is all about, after all. Imagine how boring unanimous agreement on every issue would be.
Thanks for all the posts this morning.
You're more than welcome.
If you've ever been called for jury duty, you will find this so true. The process is not just limited to defense attorneys, though. An undercover narc I know said that, for drug cases, the DA tries to stack the jury with poorly-educated, elderly, black females. Because they see the effects of drugs, they seem to be the hardest on pushers.
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.