Posted on 09/04/2003 11:02:26 AM PDT by Mia T
Lib Author Regrets Voting (TWICE!) for clinton
"Sickened" by clinton's Failure to Protect America from Terrorism
EW YORK, Sept.4- Gerald Posner revealed yesterday on "The O'Reilly Factor," (FoxNews), that he voted for clinton TWICE but would not have done so, knowing what he knows today.
He said that when he was researching his new book, he was nauseated -- literally -- by clinton's utter failure to protect America from the growing global threat of terrorism.
Posner added that he was further sickened by the attempt of the clintons and their minions to rewrite the clinton legacy of utter failure. (It was the terrorism, stupid.)
|
As an American Muslim and a political supporter of Clinton, I feel now, as I argued with Clinton and Berger then, that their counter-terrorism policies fueled the rise of Bin Laden from an ordinary man to a Hydra-like monster.
... 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
|
Apparently. Might have been a special plan, might have been normal contingency planning. And the 6+2 confrontation with the Taliban in the summer of 2001 is intriguing. 9/11 a preemptive strike? Just a feint to ease elimination of the Northern Alliance and move into Central Asia?
Big chapters in this story haven't been fleshed out and certainly I might be impressed about pre-9/11 anti-Osama strategy in the future once the info ever comes out...if ever. The press is almost useless, I don't think they'll ever consider the assaination of Shah Massoud in the big picture of things.
See post 19. Posner changed his tune in September of 2001.
...as opposed to O'Reilly interviewing Posner; o'reilly was bending over backwards--or,more precisely, leftward, to give clinton every benefit of the doubt. (clinton had spun o'reilly in the flesh about the terrorism, you see.)
IMO, o'reilly is playing the long shot as he name-drops, angling for a clinton interview.
I believe that there is a subset of dems -- the rational thinkers -- who will never again vote for a democrat.
hyperlinked images of shame |
|
by Mia T, 4.6.03 Mia T, THE ALIENS Al From is sounding the alarm. "Unless we convince Americans that Democrats are strong on national security," he warns his party, "Democrats will continue to lose elections." 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. |
The REAL "Living History" -- clintoplasmodial slime
Q ERTY8
Democratic Party's Problem Transcends Its Anti-War Contingent
missus clinton's REAL virtual office updateBUMP!
You've been a member since 1998 and you are just figuring this out?
I think her posts are great.
Should I submit this for quote of the day?
Under the ADA, that would be a hate crime against the mathematically impaired. Proceed with care...
Huh? Since when is Gerald Posner a Muslim name????
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.