- Eight years big on colorful symbolic rhetoric, small on hard tough action.
- 160 posted on 5/19/02 7:49 AM Pacific by harpo11
|
rodham-clintonutter failure reality-check BUMP! |
Posted on 05/17/2002 6:47:46 AM PDT by Mia T
Now Clinton knew this would anger not only the Taliban, but their terrorist pals across the world. The UN understood the danger...they pulled their own people out the same day, Dec. 20th, the new threat was issued. The electoral college voted for President Bush on Dec. 18th. On Dec. 19th, Clinton went to the UN to push for tougher sanctions, on Dec. 20th the UN reluctantly issued the threat...to go into effect Jan. 20th, 2001, inaugeration day for President Bush.
Why would Clinton leave so many landmines for the new President, knowing that our national security was at stake?
Janthrax Borneo is Bojinka!
Question ... Well, you're implying that there's no way that any President of the United States - not just this one, but that any President of the United States, is capable of making an error in judgment, or that his administration - or her administration, is incapable of making an error and not funneling information up.
Let's hope he does!
No one can reprise these articles as well as you can Mia. We need to remember these facts and educate those who haven't read them before.
What would we do without you?
|
Perhaps Mrs. Clinton should have read this prior to refresh her memory before swaggering with foaming mouth and unsheathed claws onto the press microphones:
by James Phillips Backgrounder Update #240 February 22, 1995 (Updating "The Changing Face of Middle Eastern Terrorism," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1005, October 6, 1994) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- " The February 7 arrest of Ramzi Yousef, suspected mastermind of the February 1993 World Trade Center bombing, has underscored the global reach of terrorist networks and the need for stepped-up international cooperation in combating terrorism. Yousef, who fled the United States only hours after the most devastating terrorist attack ever perpetrated on American soil, had been extremely active prior to his arrest. The mysterious 27-year-old was implicated in a terrorist bombing of an airliner in the Philippines in December, a plot to assassinate Pope John Paul II in January, and an aborted attempt to bomb an American airliner in Thailand earlier this month. Yousef's ability to escape arrest and cross international borders undetected repeatedly for two years indicates that he had extensive help in many different countries. His considerable financial resources, large supply of false documents, and access to safe houses, explosives, local assistance, and information about his planned targets in far-flung regions of the world suggest that he enjoyed the backing of a well-organized network, and possibly a state sponsor. Significantly, the U.S. government now is reexamining the possibility that a terrorist state was behind the World Trade Center bombing. President Bill Clinton has hailed Yousef's arrest as an important victory in the war against terrorism. But the President deserves little credit. In fact, Yousef's arrest occurred in spite of the efforts of the Clinton Administration. For example, Yousef's arrest in Pakistan was made possible by an informant motivated by a $2 million reward offered by the U.S. government for information leading to Yousef's capture. Yet the Administration initially refused to offer a reward in the case of the World Trade Center bombing, arguing that it was an act of domestic terrorism and therefore not eligible for the International Terrorist Information Reward program. The Administration eventually relented under considerable congressional pressure and offered the reward in July 1993, almost five months after the bombing. Yousef's apprehension and rapid extradition from Pakistan can be attributed to close coordination among the State Department, Justice Department, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Central Intelligence Agency. This coordination and the close cooperation between the U.S. and Pakistan were mainly a function of the State Department's Office of Counterterrorism. However, the Clinton Administration had planned to downgrade this office and fold it into a new Bureau for Narcotics, Terrorism, and Crime. In addition, the Coordinator for Counterterrorism was to be reduced in rank from the current equivalent status of an Assistant Secretary of State to the level of a Deputy Assistant Secretary. Congress temporarily blocked this reorganization scheme in April 1994 by passing an amendment to the State Department authorization bill sponsored by Representative Benjamin Gilman (R-NY). Trying to reassert leadership on terrorism issues, the Administration introduced legislation on February 10 to bolster U.S. deterrence of terrorism and to punish those who aid and abet terrorists. The Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995 will outlaw fundraising in the United States in support of terrorist activities overseas, expedite the deportation of alien terrorists, and make international terrorism committed in the U.S. a federal crime. This legislation is a long-overdue step in the right direction. But it focuses primarily on domestic and legal aspects of the war against terrorism. Ramzi Yousef's arrest is an important reminder that international efforts are a key ingredient in fighting terrorism. The critical challenge facing U.S. counterterrorism policy is putting relentless pressure on the states that sponsor terrorism -- Cuba, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Sudan, and particularly Iran, the chief supporter of international terrorism in the world today. This is an opportune time to ratchet up the pressure because Iran and other state sponsors of terrorism are economically weak and diplomatically isolated. But the Administration has not followed through on its tough rhetoric on terrorism. It has not given up on plans to downgrade the State Department's Office of Counterterrorism, for example, and continues to woo Syria despite Syria's continued support of more than a dozen terrorist groups. Congress has an opportunity to strengthen U.S. counterterrorism policy above and beyond the legislative proposals the Administration is pushing. To do so, Congress should: Press the Administration to make counterterrorism a higher priority in American foreign policy. Congress should force the Administration to drop its short-sighted plan to downgrade the State Department's Office of Counterterrorism, which spearheads international efforts in combating terrorism. The Gilman amendment, which bars the Administration from downgrading the office, expires on April 30, 1995. Representative Gilman has introduced H.R. 22, a bill to preserve the office on a permanent basis and elevate the Coordinator of Counterterrorism to the status of an Ambassador at Large, as was the case in the Reagan Administration. Senator Alfonse D'Amato (R-NY) introduced a similar bill in the Senate. Congress also should press the Administration to raise the issue of terrorism in every appropriate bilateral and multilateral diplomatic contact, including the annual G-7 summits. A series of congressional hearings on new trends in international terrorism would help to highlight the threat of terrorism and the urgency of fighting it. Another vital topic for congressional hearings is investigating strategies for blocking the efforts of terrorist states such as Iran, Iraq, and Libya to obtain weapons of mass destruction. A nuclear- armed Iran or Iraq could pose the ultimate terrorist threat. Reform immigration laws to improve internal security. Congress should pass legislation that enables the U.S. government to deny visas to foreigners because of their membership in terrorist groups. Right now, would-be terrorists are denied entry only if the government can prove that they already have committed terrorist acts or that they intend to commit such acts. These rules are too lax and should be strengthened. Moreover, tougher penalties should be imposed on the production or use of fraudulent passports and visas, including giving the government the power to seize the assets of criminals convicted of creating or using false documents for terrorism or drug smuggling. Nine of the original 35 indictable counts in the 1993 New York bombing plots involved visa or passport offenses. Punish states that support terrorism on as many fronts as possible. The U.S. must work with its allies to raise the diplomatic, economic, political, and military costs of supporting terrorism so high that they outweigh the strategic benefits. Although the Administration has singled out Iran as the world's most dangerous state sponsor of terrorism, it has not succeeded in persuading its allies, particularly Japan and Germany, to levy economic sanctions against Tehran. In part, this is because American oil companies have become Iran's biggest customers, buying about $4.2 billion dollars of Iranian oil annually to supply their overseas markets. Although imports of Iranian oil into the U.S. are prohibited, the Clinton Administration has declined to ban U.S. companies from purchasing Iranian oil for their overseas markets. This business-as-usual approach undermines American diplomatic efforts to isolate Iran and to raise the cost of its continued support of terrorism. Congress should consider passing legislation banning American oil companies from purchasing Iranian oil and should call upon U.S. allies to do the same as long as Iran supports Hezbollah, Hamas, and other terrorist organizations. Ensure that impending budget cuts do not undermine the war against terrorism. Congressional appropriations committees must take care to avoid weakening the organizations crucial to America's defenses against terrorism -- particularly the counterterrorism efforts of the intelligence community, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the State Department's Office of Counterterrorism, and the Defense Department's Special Operations Command. The Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Asset Control, which is responsible for implementing the U.S. government's freeze on the financial assets of terrorist groups, also should receive a high priority in budget deliberations. It also is important to reverse the decline in the budget of the Counterterrorism Research and Development program, which helps develop new means of detecting explosives, among other things. Cutting such programs not only would jeopardize the nation's security, but would be penny-wise and pound-foolish. The World Trade Center bombing, which resulted in six deaths and over 1,000 casualties, triggered over $600 million in economic losses. Assist the governments of Lebanon and Afghanistan to restore order and expel international terrorists. Civil wars exacerbated by foreign interventions have enabled terrorist groups to operate with impunity from bases in both of these countries. Ramzi Yousef and several other terrorists involved in the World Trade Center bombing had extensive contacts with radical Afghan Islamic groups. Congress should hold hearings to determine ways in which the U.S. can assist the weak central governments in both countries to dismantle and expel terrorist groups. The war against terrorism requires concerted international efforts which only the U.S. can lead. But the Clinton Administration does not appear willing or able to exercise the leadership necessary to mobilize the international community decisively against terrorism. This makes it all the more important that Congress take steps to combat international terrorism, which looms as one of the greatest challenges to U.S. security in the 1990s.
James Phillips is Senior Policy Analyst at The Heritage Foundation © 1995 Persimmon IT, Inc. Eight years big on colorful symbolic rhetoric, small on hard tough action. |
|
rodham-clintonutter failure reality-check BUMP! |
Daily Daschle is on the prowl for a political strategy while Mrs. Clinton is furiously trying to scrub away the stain of her beloved husbands wasted presidency from the history of time. Both unsuccessful to date. Their minds black holes filled with hate.
|
Lopez: What exactly was U.S. reaction to the attack on the USS Cole? Miniter: In October 2000, al Qaeda bombed the USS Cole in Aden, Yemen. Seventeen sailors were killed in the blast. The USS Cole was almost sunk. In any ordinary administration, this would have been considered an act of war. After all, America entered the Spanish-American war and World War I when our ships were attacked. At a meeting with Secretary of Defense William Cohen, Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Attorney General Janet Reno, and other staffers, Clarke was the only one in favor of retaliation against bin Laden. Reno thought retaliation might violate international law and was therefore against it. Tenet wanted to more definitive proof that bin Laden was behind the attack, although he personally thought he was. Albright was concerned about the reaction of world opinion to a retaliation against Muslims, and the impact it would have in the final days of the Clinton Middle East peace process. Cohen, according to Clarke, did not consider the Cole attack "sufficient provocation" for a military retaliation. Michael Sheehan was particularly surprised that the Pentagon did not want to act. He told Clarke: "What's it going to take to get them to hit al Qaeda in Afghanistan? Does al Qaeda have to attack the Pentagon?" Instead of destroying bin Laden's terrorist infrastructure and capabilities, President Clinton phoned twice phoned the president of Yemen demanding better cooperation between the FBI and the Yemeni security services. If Clarke's plan had been implemented, al Qaeda's infrastructure would have been demolished and bin Laden might well have been killed. Sept. 11, 2001 might have been just another sunny day. Clinton's Loss? |
|
a disgruntled ex-employee's abrupt 180, suffice it to say Simon & Schuster published it, 60 Minutes and CBS promoted it and the parent company, Viacom, and its friends on the political left, from the clintons to Kerry, have in the past, and will in the future, "profit" from it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
--anonymous |
 link to movie - Frank Lloyd Wright |
Thus, Vanity Fair's glamorous Marilyn-Monroe spread of Monica's digitally reduced spread was answered by Vogue's lushly Elizabethan, gauzy-focus, hindquarter-cropped-pleated-and-flounced, Queen-hillary-for-President cover. And now we have hillary clinton doing a Martha Stewart, who herself, is purported to have been "done" by the aforementioned errant rogue (notwithstanding the plain fact that Martha is more well-known for her tarts than for being one). Seems hillary clinton is now writing a book titled "An Invitation to the White House" in which she will follow the format of the Martha Stewart classic, "Entertaining", claim multifarious Martha-Stewart talents and wrap her indecorous and corrupt, backwoods, backroom style of White House "entertaining" in Martha-Stewart elegance and purity. (NB: Written years before Martha ImPloded.) "The clinton White House has been noted for the...innovation of its events," said Carolyn Reidy, president of Simon & Schuster's (aptly named) Trade Division, the book's publisher. hillary clinton's spokeswoman, Marsha Berry, added that the book will focus on how the clintons have "advanced the availability" of the White House by increasing the number and diversity of people; that it will "highlight the access that the clintons have given to more people, more types of entertainment..." It should be emphasized that it was without even a trace of irony or the slightest smirk that both women related the above. On closer inspection, hillary clinton's bizarre behavior is more than simple Ivana Trump-eting. It is vulgar, compulsive, shameless, smarmy, contemptuous, demagogic, megalomaniacal, in-your-face naked clintonism. It is one thing for the frumpy, chipmunk-cheek, huge-hindquarter fishwife to insinuate her image -- albeit Elizabethan-shrouded and low-res-clouded -- onto the cover of Vogue; but it is quite another for the corrupt harpy to trumpet White House access even as new charges emerge of the clintons' rapes and other predations, of the clintons' corrupt quid-pro-quo arrangements with a menacing and motley assortment of drug dealers, gun runners and nuclear weapons makers. For hillary clinton to vaunt White House access just as the clintons' China treason is becoming increasingly, patently manifest to all requires a certain level of contempt for the people and for the country that is uniquely clinton. Thank heaven for small favors... Or as the real Martha Stewart would say, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 COMMENT: The above inculpatory remark by the impeached erstwhile ersatz prez is illustrative of
|
 (viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE) |
|
Clinton's failure to grasp the opportunity to unravel increasingly organized extremists, coupled with Berger's assessments of their potential to directly threaten the U.S., represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history. Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize
|
|
A Fish Rots from the Head Investor's Business Daily
Ijaz, an admitted Clinton supporter who helped negotiate these opportunities to nab bin Laden, said, "The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening." Ijaz says that three months before bin Laden's men blew up the USS Cole in Yemen, he "brought the White House another plausible offer to deal with bin Laden, by then known to be involved in the embassy bombings (in Tanzania and Kenya)... But senior Clinton officials sabotaged the offer." Clinton's apparent boredom with vital information extended beyond Sudanese intelligence officers to his own intelligence officers. His first CIA director, James Woolsey, couldn't get a meeting with Clinton in the two years he served. Woolsey left the Clinton administration disgusted with its slovenly approach to national security. ... To hear Clinton now say "We must do more to reduce the pool of potential terrorists" is thus beyond farce. He had numerous opportunities to reduce that pool, and he blew it. The pool, in fact, grew larger on Clinton's watch, as he spent his final days giving pardons to drug dealers, Puerto Rican terrorists and Marc Rich, a fugitive who topped America's most-wanted list.
In this light, Clinton's order to the CIA that it not use "unsavory characters" to collect information pushes irony to its outer limits. |
|
The Easy Part  (viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE) |
|
INTERVIEW Osama bin Laden (may 1998)
Describe the situation when your men took down the American forces in Somalia.
The American people, by and large, do not know the name bin Laden, but they soon likely will. Do you have a message for the American people?
|
|
Lopez: In sum, how many times did Bill Clinton lose bin Laden? Miniter: Here's a rundown. The Clinton administration: 1. Did not follow-up on the attempted bombing of Aden marines in Yemen.  hillary talks:ON TERROR (viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE) |
|
|
The Democratic Party's Problem Transcends Its Anti-War Contingent2
|
|
||||||
|
by Mia T, 4.6.03 Mia T, June 9, 1999 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. The Democrats used to be able to wallpaper their national insecurity with dollars and demogoguery. But that was before 9/11.
Note in particular Madeleine Albright's shocking reason given at the time of the USS Cole attack why the clinton administration should not respond militarily. It tell us everything we need to know about the clintons. It tell us why clinton redux is an absolutely suicidal notion. Notwithstanding their cowardice, corruption, perfidy, and to borrow a phrase from Andrew Cuomo, their essential cluelessness, the clintons, according to Albright, made their decision not to go after the terrorists primarily for reasons of their own legacy and power. The clintons reasoned that inaction would MAXIMIZE THEIR CHANCES TO RECEIVE THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE. No matter that that inaction would also maximize the terrorists' power, maximize America's danger. For more than a half decade, the Clinton administration was shoveling atomic secrets out the door as fast as it could, literally by the ton. Millions of previously classified ideas and documents relating to nuclear arms were released to all comers, including China's bomb makers. William J. Broad
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 clinton apologia by The New York Times. But even a Times apologia cannot save clinton from the gallows. Clinton can be both an absolute (albeit postmodern) moron and a traitor. 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. (There would be an analogous treasonous miscalculation in the Mideast: clinton failed to shut down Muslim terrorism, then in its incipient stage and stoppable, because he reasoned that doing so would have wrecked his chances for the Nobel Peace Prize. Indeed, according to Richard Miniter, Madeleine Albright offered precisely the Nobel-Muslim factor as a primary reason for not treating the bombing of the USS Cole as an act of war.) It is precisely the clintons' bin-Laden-emboldening inaction to the attack on the USS Cole and the clintons' bin-Laden-emboldening token, ineffectual, August 1998 missile strikes of aspirin factories and empty tents that eliminate "bin-Laden-emboldenment avoidance" as the rationale for the latter decision and support "wag the dog," instead. Taken together, feckless clinton inaction and feckless clinton action serve only to reinforce the almost universally held notion: the clinton calculus was, is, and always will be, solely self-serving. In the case of the non-response to the attack on the Cole, an unambiguous act of war, the clinton rationale, according to no less than Madeleine Albright, was a clinton Nobel Peace Prize by Arab appeasement. i.e., a clinton Nobel Peace Prize by bin-Laden-emboldenment. And in the case of the curiously-timed, ineffectual (and, therefore, bin-Laden-emboldening) token missile strikes, the clinton rationale was Lewinsky-recantation distraction -- clearly not bin-Laden-emboldenment avoidance. (This is not to say there wasn't a Nobel factor here, too. Obsolete intelligence, bolstered by the redundancy of a clinton tipoff, ensured that both bin Laden and the Mideast Muslim ego would escape unscathed.) Mia T, "WAG THE DOG" revisited WASHINGTON -- Two Norwegian public-relations executives and one member of the Norwegian Parliament say they were contacted by the White House to help campaign for President Clinton to receive this year's Nobel Peace Prize for his work in trying to negotiate peace in the Middle East. Clinton Lobbies for Nobel Prize: What a Punk AIDES PUSH CLINTON FOR THE NOBEL Mia T, Buddy Death Report Raises More Questions Than It Answers
|
(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)
THE CLINTONS--AMERICA'S BIGGEST BLUNDER
Hear Bush 41 Warn Us--October 19, 1992*
 *Thanx to Cloud William for text and audio
|
Lib Author Regrets Voting (TWICE!) for clinton
"Sickened" by clinton's Failure to Protect America from TerrorismMUST-READ BOOK FOR DEMOCRATS:
How clintons' Failures Unleashed Global Terror
(Who in his right mind would ever want the clintons back in the Oval Office?)The Man Who Warned America
(Why a Rapist is Not a Fit President)UDAY: "The end is near… this time I think the… Americans are serious, Bush is not like Clinton."
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.
illary clinton's equal and inapposite reactions seem to be, at first blush, instances of the immutable First Law of The Betrayed and Humiliated Wife: Outdo the errant hubby's doxy...at all cost. 
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 
