Sen. Clinton a Threat to U.S. Security

The possibility of war in Iraq has brought the loonies and the losers out in force. The protesters and the pundits see little or no threat to U.S. national security from Iraq.

While the critics and armchair generals labor on whether to fight or not to fight, Saddam Hussein continues his unbridled efforts to obtain nuclear weapons. It is here that the real reason for quick action emerges.

In 1981, Israeli intelligence confirmed that Saddam was constructing a nuclear reactor at Osiraq for his atomic weapons program. Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin determined that the only solution was quick military action.

At 5:35 p.m. local time on June 7, 1981, the first F-15 and F-16 fighter jets appeared over the Iraqi reactor. In 1 minute and 20 seconds, the Israeli Air Force destroyed the Osiraq reactor, ending Saddam's nuclear weapons program for the next 20 years.

Despite the claims by ill-informed critics that North Korea poses a greater threat, the fact remains that North Korea does not have Israel as a target. The armistice along the Korean DMZ has remained static for nearly 50 years and nuclear weapons will not change the status quo.

The same cannot be said of Israel and her neighbors. Iraq attacked Israel during the 1991 Gulf War with SCUD missiles in a vain attempt to split the U.S.-led coalition. It is very clear that Saddam would launch a nuclear strike against Israel if he had such weapons.

The fact remains that Israel cannot afford to take even a single hit from an atomic bomb. Israel will strike Iraq hard if its intelligence services determine that Saddam Hussein is close to fielding a nuclear weapon. Such a pre-emptive strike would split the U.S. alliance, force a cut-off of all oil exports to the West and bring a general war to the Middle East.

An Israeli pre-emptive strike would leave Europe, Japan and America with a major depression driven by the oil shut-off. A war with Israel would force many Arab states that hate Saddam to come to his aid. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, Syria, Jordan and various others would have no choice but to join into general combat with Israel.

Now envision a scenario where the U.S. strikes Iraq, overthrows Saddam and ends his nuclear weapons program. The U.S. coalition would remain intact, the oil will continue to flow to the Western economies, and Israel remains safe. In fact, President Bush will likely receive some quiet "thank you" notes from Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, Syria and Jordan.

Democrats, sniffing for any issue that might benefit them, are out in force trying to critique the Bush foreign policy. True to form, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., accused President Bush of pursuing a war in Iraq while ignoring a more imminent threat from North Korea. Kennedy stated that he believes this is the "wrong war at the wrong time."

The comments floated by Sen. Kennedy certainly do not rise to the surface but sink under their own weight. The senator's remarks actually drown out the recent history of Middle Eastern conflicts as if a speeding car veered off the bridge of foreign policy and plunged into the troubled waters of the region.

However, Kennedy's comments do echo the continuing howl of anti-U.S. propaganda coming from the leadership of the Democrat Party. Ironically, the loudest and most prominent howler is also a bigger threat to U.S. national security than North Korea and Iraq combined.

It is here that I turn my attention to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y. Her Democrat colleagues recently put Clinton on the Senate Armed Services Committee. It is in this new position that the ex-first lady poses a clear and present danger to U.S. national security.

"You are more likely to be listened to if you are well prepared and grounded in the subject of which you're speaking. As I learn more about the operations of our various military services, what I have to say may be better grounded," stated Clinton.

Despite her recent comments of being ignored on national security issues, Mrs. Clinton has already joined in on the chorus of bad mouthing the security policy of President Bush. In November 2001, Mrs. Clinton blamed the terror attacks against America on the Bush tax cut program.

"If we hadn't passed the big tax cut last spring, that I believe undermined our fiscal responsibility and our ability to deal with this new threat of terrorism, we wouldn't be in the fix we're in today. But the fact is, we are," stated Mrs. Clinton during a CNN interview.

Many of her supporters credit Mrs. Clinton with a steel-trap mind and a sharp memory for detail. However, Mrs. Clinton stated 250 times that she could neither remember nor recall events when asked about various scandals while under oath.

These days, the New York senator cannot seem to recall old friends such as Moctar Riady, James Riady, John Huang, Webster Hubbell, Charlie Trie and Johnny Chung. However, during the Clinton years, Hillary had a very close working relationship with each of the above individuals despite the various criminal convictions.

Mrs. Clinton has ignored Webster Hubbell, who served time for defrauding clients while he worked at the Rose Law Firm with Hillary. Hubbell, who became deputy attorney general under Janet Reno, with a bit of White House help, had to resign after being charged in the Whitewater scandal.

In fact, many of the documents that led to Hubbell's conviction involved projects that Hillary also worked on. Hubbell went on to take nearly a million dollars in consulting fees from Moctar Riady, head of the Indonesia-based Lippo Bank, just prior to his conviction.

John Huang, a former banker for the Riady-owned Lippo Group, took a classified position at the Commerce Department immediately after Hubbell received over $600,000 from Riady. This interesting coincidence took place directly after James Riady and Hubbell met with Bill and Hillary in the White House.

Documents obtained from Huang's Commerce Department office shows that the former banker was deeply involved in arms exports such as Patriot missiles sales to South Korea, missile frigate sales to the United Arab Emirates and artillery sales to Kuwait.

John Huang later cited his Fifth Amendment rights not to incriminate himself over 2,000 times when he was asked if he was an agent for the Chinese military.

Merely stating that Mrs. Clinton is a security risk is simply not enough. It is often said that a picture is worth a thousand words. However, Mrs. Clinton knows that a picture is actually worth $50,000.

For example, in February 1995 Johnny Chung asked DNC Chairman Don Fowler to help him get a photo op of Bill Clinton with a few friends from China. Fowler declined to help Chung because the list of friends included Zheng Hongye, a top executive of the Chinese navy-owned shipping company COSCO.

In response, Chung handed a $50,000 check to Maggie Williams, Hillary Clinton's chief of staff. On March 11, 1995, Chung and Zheng attended Clinton's weekly radio address, which was later followed by a photo session.

In addition, Mrs. Clinton has a few of her own pictures to live down, including one with convicted Chinagate figure Moctar Riady, and a photo of her with convicted cocaine smuggler Jorge Cabrera in front of the White House Christmas tree.

Then there is the 1995 photo of Ng Lapseng and the Clintons taken in front of a DNC symbol. The photo of Ng Lapseng is very telling in that Mrs. Clinton was certainly aware that Ng owns the Macao-based Fortuna Hotel.

It is nice that children under 12 can stay free at the Fortuna. However, according to the Fortuna brochure, for a fee hostesses from various countries can also entertain businessmen.

Ng has another interesting connection to recent events of national security concern. According to the 123 national security violations filed against Hughes Satellite Corporation, a Fortuna company was involved in some questionable events.

The Sino-Canada Telecommunications and Investment Management Company was incorporated in Macao, "having its principal place of business at the Hotel Fortuna."

According to the State Department charges, the Sino-Canada Telecommunications Company also had contracted with Hughes for a large part of the APMT satellite then destined for China in 1995. In fact, Sino-Canada paid Hughes $5 million up front that was not reported to the State Department.

"Sino-Canada's managing director, Suen Yan Kwong, was the founder of Chung Kiu Telecommunication, which had invested in cellular telecommunications for use under special network by China's People's Liberation Army (PLA) in military districts along the coastal provinces," noted the December 2002 State Department charge letter.

It is amazing that a company based inside a Macao hotel owned by Ng Lapseng would contract with a U.S.-based satellite company when its owner was then also in business supplying communications to the Chinese army. Even more amazing is Hillary Clinton's silence on Ng Lapseng and the money that somehow slipped out of his pockets into DNC coffers at the same time.

U.N. inspector Hans Blix may be combing Iraq for weapons of mass destruction, but he may be in the wrong country. If Hans could comb through the boxes of materials lost by Hillary Clinton, he might find a treasure trove of weapons, money, drugs and espionage.

The Democrats could not have made a worse choice for America. Mrs. Clinton history's of hanging out with Chinese intelligence operatives and her negative view of all U.S. military forces makes her an obvious security threat. Now she is inside the very committee that oversees black budgets, secret military operations, advanced weapons policy and war.

>
> ****************************************************************
> FOR THE BEST ENCRYPTION SOFTWARE VISIT www.softwar.net
> OFFICIAL SOFTWAR COMMUNICATION
> SOFTWAR EMAIL NEWSLETTER COPYRIGHT (C) 2002 SOFTWAR INC.
> 01/22/03 TO UNSUBSCRIBE REPLY WITH UNSUBSCRIBE AS SUBJECT
> ****************************************************************
>

CONGRESS ACTION.info - The February 16, 2003 Edition by Kim Weissman (COMMENTARY SNIPPET: "HILLARY CLINTON: Will an overwhelming victory in the war against Iraq give Hillary entrée into the White House in 2004? Think about it. The fundamental avenue of attack that Bill Clinton used to unseat George Bush, senior (setting aside Clinton’s and Gore’s claim – believed by nobody except Hollywood zillionaires – that we were in the worst economy since the Great Depression) was their claim that Bush devoted too much attention to foreign affairs. The Gulf War buttressed their argument. Before that war, the left and the media warned against taking on the world’s fourth largest army, seasoned by a decade of desert warfare against Iran, and predicted thousands of body bags and a Vietnam quagmire. According to the hysterical left and the media, we would get our butts kicked. What happened? Saddam’s vaunted minions folded like a cheap suit, thousands of Iraqi troops surrendered without firing a shot, some even surrendering to unarmed news helicopters. The American victory was so overwhelming that it was like nothing ever seen before in the history of warfare. Well, the logic went, the Soviet Union was gone (no thanks to the left, of course), and with the demonstration in the desert of the superiority of the American military to anything that might threaten us in the future, there simply was no international threat to worry about. Thanks to the superb military rebuilt by Ronald Reagan (again no thanks to the left), we were perceived to be invulnerable. We could ignore foreign policy. We should devote ourselves exclusively to domestic concerns. So what, Clinton and Gore asked, was George Bush doing spending any energy worrying about irrelevant foreign affairs? Obviously out of touch with reality. And so George Bush, senior, became a one-term president, America “took a holiday from history” (in Charles Krauthammer’s phrase), and our enemies learned from our impotence in the face of their repeated attacks and girded for the next war.

Fast forward a decade, and think about what the outcome of a successful war against Iraq could be. It will remove weapons of mass destruction from a dictatorial warmonger. It will demoralize international terrorists who will lose one of their prime financiers and suppliers. It will help to stabilize, and perhaps even encourage the spread of democracy and freedom, in the Middle East. It may even induce Yassir Arafat to throw in the towel and make peace with Israel – and really enforce it against the radicals in his own camp. Before long, huge amounts of Iraqi oil, then controlled by moderates in power in Iraq, would flood the world market and the price of oil will plummet. That will hurt the U.S. oil industry but it will greatly stimulate our, and the world’s, economy, and the drop in gasoline and heating oil prices will be a huge tax cut for the American people. Victory will allegedly prove that the massive cuts in military funding during the Clinton years were justified, all the conservatives who feared for our dwindling military readiness will have been proven wrong, and it will prove, once and for all, that we really have nothing to fear from overseas. Hillary will be able to convince people that we can now ignore foreign policy and go back to sleep again, as we did for the decade that her husband was president. Thank you, Mr. Bush, for making the world a much safer place; now we don’t need you any more and we can elect democrats to go about the really important business of imposing socialism on America.")
http://www.congressaction.info/2003/ca02162003.html

Interesting hypothetical..but fallacious, in my view.

9/11 changed the nature of the threat, and the calculus... FOREVER...

Short of mass, indiscriminate annihilations in states where the anti-American terrorist...AND anti-American propaganda are spawned and sustained, (i.e.,the home of the hedonistic Hollywood flick and incontinent ex-ersatz prez/rapist, too), the anti-American Muslim fundamentalist terrorist will always exist and the American people will never again feel secure...from which it follows that the party of the clintons will never again be trusted by the American people...

A clinton will never again be elected...(without massive voter fraud, in any case).

This is not, however, an argument against redundancy. We must continue to expose and fight clinton corruption, ineptitude, dysfunction and utter failure as long as the clintons continue to foist their malignant selves on our country and our people. America cannot even begin to be safe until they are gone.

If the Powell evidence made anything plain, it's this: The idea of "monitoring" a dictator is ludicrous. Saddam is quite happy to participate for another decade or two in an eternal ongoing U.N. field study of dictatorship

MARK STEYN, JUST LIKE MONICA.

The Powell evidence was, in fact, superfluous. For anyone capable of critical thinking, the absurdity of the task was self-evident.

What the Powell evidence did make plain, however, was this:

the Democrats systematically and reflexively put their perpetual grasp for power over America's national security
the Democrats are unfit to lead, especially in a post-9/11 world
the clintons were utter failures and are America's biggest blunder.

: 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 (NOTE: Written 8 months before the Democrat Debacle of '02)

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

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.