TERRELL v. LANDRIEU--DEBATE 4--The question that goes to the heart of the matter

C-SPAN | 12-03-02 | Mia T

[Mia T]

TERRELL v. LANDRIEU--DEBATE 4

The question that goes to the heart of the matter: (Would you support Bush's decision to go into Iraq if the UN doesn't find weapons of mass destruction?)

 

 

by Mia T, 12.03.02

 

Landrieu's lame answer, an absurdity born out of arrogance and stupidity, reveals why Landrieu and the Democrats are KAPUT. FINIS. HISTOIRE.

It was hard not to notice that the reporter who posed the question couldn't believe Landrieu's illogic--stupidity, really... Landrieu doesn't seem to understand that clintonian sleight of hand has become very old for 'the people of Louisiana.' Landrieu doesn't seem to understand that even her own constituency gets it now...

What Landrieu said was this:

No, she wouldn't support a Bush decision to go into Iraq if no weapons of mass destruction are found, but added, as if to assure us,that as a very important person who sits on very important committees that are privy to very important classified info, she is certain that Iraq does have weapons of mass destruction.

Landrieu fails to understand that her own statement expressing certainty about the existence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction renders her answer patently absurd...and renders her own very important self in the eyes of 'the people of Louisiana' quite dangerous.

Landrieu fails to understand that even her most dimwitted, disinformed, demagogued-for-decades-by-democrats constituent understands on a gut level--and even without her own statement of certainty--that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and that, therefore, Landrieu--and the rest of the Democrats--and, frankly, anyone who pushed for the internally inconsistent construct lunacy called UN inspections--are patently unfit to lead, especially in a post-9/11 world.

Q ERTY9

BUSH: "I will not wait on events, while dangers gather."

 

Q ERTY6

utter failure

Q ERTY8

 _{rodham-clinton} ^{reality-check}

Democrat Debacle of '02

BUMP!

Q ERTY8 _PING!

[Mia T]

 

 

Thou art arm'd that hath thy crook'd schemers straight.

Cudgel thy brains no more, the clinton plots are great.

 

Mia T, On Neutered and Neutering,

by Mia T and Edward Zehr (EZ)

 

 

IT IS OBVIOUS

 

By Mia T, 3-3-02

 

It is obvious to anyone who bothers to remove his political blinders. It is so patently obvious that even those whose political blinders are a permanently fixed fashion statement -- that is to say, even Hollywood -- can see it. (Just ask Whoopie Goldberg...or Rosie O'Donnell...) Bush's poll numbers are a reflection of this self-evident truth.

What is manifestly obvious and confirmed on a daily basis is the plain fact that Democrats are, by definition, constitutionally unfit to navigate the ship of state through these troubled, terrorist waters. Democrats were unfit pre-9/11, but few could see it then. It was 9/11 and its aftermath that made this truth crystal clear even to the most simpleminded among us.

The unwashed masses, the uninformed, the disinformed can see it now. All America can see it now. Self-preservation is kicking in, trumping petty politics at every turn.

And this is why Democrat demagoguery and stupidity and sedition are achieving new lows...

 We are witnessing the last gasp of a political relic. The Democrat party is not merely obsolete. As 9/11 and clinton-clinton-Daschle action and inaction have demonstrated, the Democrat party is very dangerous.

 We must now make sure that this fact, too, is obvious to all...

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

 

Bill Clinton may not be the worst president America has had, but surely he is the worst person to be president.*

---GEORGE WILL, Sleaze, the sequel

 

Had George Will written Sleaze, the sequel (the "sequel" is, of course, hillary) after 9-11-01, I suspect that he would have had to forgo the above conceit, as the doubt expressed in the setup phrase was, from that day forward, no longer operational.

Indeed, assessing the clinton presidency an abject failure is not inconsistent with commentary coming from the left, most recently the LA Times: "Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize."

When the clintons left office, I predicted that the country would eventually learn--sadly, the hard way--that this depraved, self-absorbed and inept pair had placed America (and the world) in mortal danger. But I was thinking years, not months.

It is very significant that hillary clinton didn't deny clinton culpability for the terrorism. (Meet the Press, 12-09-01), notwithstanding tired tactics (if you can't pass the buck, spread the blame) and chronic "KnowNothing Victim Clinton" self-exclusion.

If leftist pandering keeps the disenfranchized down in perpetuity, clinton pandering,("it's the economy, stupid"), kept the middle and upper classes wilfully ignorant for eight years.

And ironically, both results (leftist social policy and the clinton economy) are equally illusory, fraudulent. It is becoming increasingly clear that clinton covertly cooked the books even as he assiduously avoided essential actions that would have negatively impacted the economy--the ultimate source of his continued power--actions like, say, going after the terrorists.

It is critically important that hillary clinton fail in her grasp for power; read Peggy Noonan's little book, 'The Case Against Hillary Clinton' and Barbara Olson's two books; it is critical that the West de-clintonize, but that will be automatic once it is understood that the clintons risked civilization itself in order to gain and retain power.

It shouldn't take books, however, to see that a leader is a dangerous, self-absorbed sicko. People should be able to figure that out for themselves. The electorate must be taught to think, to reason. It must be able to spot spin, especially in this age of the electronic demagogue.

I am not hopeful. As Bertrand Russell noted, "Most people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so. "

Mia T, hillary clinton blames hubby for terrorism

(SHE knew nuttin')

Meet the Press, 12-09-01

 

 

 

 

 

*George Will continues: There is reason to believe that he is a rapist ("You better get some ice on that," Juanita Broaddrick says he told her concerning her bit lip), and that he bombed a country to distract attention from legal difficulties arising from his glandular life, and that. ... Furthermore, the bargain that he and his wife call a marriage refutes the axiom that opposites attract. Rather, she, as much as he, perhaps even more so, incarnates Clintonism

 

Q ERTY3 co-rapist  bump!

[A Vast RightWing Conspirator]

You're right. Landi is stupid. Of course we shouldn't go into Iraq if it has no 'WMDs', end of statement. Why waste our boys (and girls) lives and health and kill a bunch of worthless A-rabs if they don't have the goods? I assume no one expects that our GI's would take over the country and turn Iraq into 'Stockholm on the Tigris'.

If Israel don't like their neighbor, let THEM go to war.

[Mia T]

Actually, what she said was even more stupid. She said she is CERTAIN Iraq has WMD, but that, if the UN doesn't find them, we shouldn't go in.

This is PRECISELY why the democrats are unfit to lead. They are inept. They are dangerous.

[Victor]

I assume that you are trying to be humorous...?

What Mia is saying is that Landrieu sits on intelligence committees where she has seen solid evidence of WMDs.

Yet, when asked the question if she would support Bush going in even if no WMDs are found, she says "no". Yet, she know there are weapons. This is absurd. For her it's all about images and appearances, and trying to make her party significant in the face of Bush and the American people.

And she would place our civilization in grave danger to do this. This woman should hang for treason. In another day and time she would have hung from a gallows.

[Mia T]

...as would have the twofer proximate cause of all this mess.

[A Vast RightWing Conspirator]

I agree. If she knows for a fact that Iraq got nukes or other WMDs she should DEMAND that the inspectors FIND them - and she must insist that our gov't tell the inspectors where to go to find them.

After all, the nukes are not that easy to hide. Even 10-15 years ago we knew EXACTLY how many missiles and warheads the Russkies had at any given time and, of course where they were made. Iraq is about 50 times smaller than the old Evil Empire so... it shouldn't be hard to tell whether he's got them, how many, how big, how ready, etc.

My personal view - she doesn't know but tried to sound 'tough' while being 'reasonable' at the same time. Many politicians do this and their hardest balancing act is when they are in a 'public' debate, where their audience is made up of people with different views. This explains why many statements the candidates make during 'public' debates tend to be so absurd.

[geedee]

I always remember Jeane Kirkpatrick's words when a Democrat speaks . . . Democrats can't get elected unless things get worse, and things won't get worse unless they get elected.

[A2J]

What Mia is saying is that Landrieu sits on intelligence committees where she has seen solid evidence of WMDs.

Landrieu is on "intelligence committees?"

Such an appointment shows that Democrats have no business running things.

[Mia T]

"Reasonable" and "absurd" are mutually exclusive constructs. Apply this to the inspections as well as to Landrieu's loony answer.

Notwithstanding this, Iraq is playing a shell game. It's easy to hide the stuff, especially the tiny, weaponized microbes, the chemical weapons and the component parts of all the weapons...especially after the 4-year hiatus so generously granted by the impeached ex-prez utter failure.

[eureka!]

Nicely done as per usual Mia. And yes, Landrieu is an idiot, and a dishonest one to boot. Thankfully, she will soon be an ex-Senator. One less Rat, one less defender of the indefensible...

[A Vast RightWing Conspirator]

I wrote that she 'tried' to be both reasonable and tough.

I heard more than one GOP candidate debating (on C-Span) who would claim to be 'for families' while, at the same time, insisting that they were as supportive or even more supportive of the homosexual agenda then their opponent was. Quite absurd but it seems to work when fishing for votes.

[Fred Mertz]

Landrieu actually gave such a stupid answer? She deserves to lose the election in a few days.

[aristeides]

Nancy Pelosi has been the ranking DemocRAT on the House Intelligence Committee. I suspect that, now she has taken over leadership, she will drop that committee assignment, but she has been that.

[Mitchell]

Landrieu actually gave such a stupid answer? She deserves to lose the election in a few days.

I suspect that Landrieu would not be alone among the Democrats in taking such a position.

[Mia T]

You have a point. But I think that because this issue goes to our most basic instinct-- survival--standard issue democrat demagoguery won't work.

[Mia T]

I agree...but the problem is that a significant percentage of the voters didn't hear it, having been disinterred after she gave that stupid answer

[lainde]

BTTT...Is that WTC/Saxaphone monster poster available for purchase anywhere?