The Real Danger of a Presidential Faker:
Post-9/11 Reconsideration of The Placebo Presidency

by Mia T, 1.06.02

In May, 1996, American diplomats were informed in a Sudanese government fax that Bin Laden was about to be expelled &emdash; giving Washington another chance to seize him. The decision not to do so went to the very top of the White House, according to former administration sources.

They say that the clear focus of American policy was to discourage the state sponsorship of terrorism. So persuading Khartoum to expel Bin Laden was in itself counted as a clear victory. The administration was "delighted".
Bin Laden took off from Khartoum on May 18 in a chartered C-130 plane with 150 of his followers, including his wives. He was bound for Jalalabad in eastern Afghanistan. On the way the plane refuelled in the Gulf state of Qatar, which has friendly relations with Washington, but he was allowed to proceed unhindered.
Barely a month later, on June 25, a 5,000lb truck bomb ripped apart the front of Khobar Towers, a US military housing complex in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. The explosion killed 19 American servicemen. Bin Laden was immediately suspected...

US missed three chances to seize Bin Laden

Just look around this chamber. We have members from virtually every racial, ethnic, and religious background. And America is stronger for it. But as we have seen, these differences all too often spark hatred and division, even here at home. . . This is not the American way. We must draw the line. Without delay, we must pass the Hate Crimes Prevention Act and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. And we should reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act.

bill clinton, State of Union Speech, January 27, 2000

"I'm sorry, but the president is one of the crudest men I have ever encountered in government service," says one female agent. "He has no respect for women."
Among the comments clinton made in presence of Secret Service agents:

. Frequent speculation on the oral sex skills of women

the president saw or met in receiving lines;

. References to the size of a woman's breasts, legs or figure;
. Sexual jokes.

After the Monica Lewinsky story broke, however, clinton toned down his rhetoric and behavior in front of his Secret Service agents, but those who guarded the president say enough of them saw and heard things which could be damaging to clinton.

"It depends on who Ken Starr calls," says one ex-agent. "The people who are on the job today are not necessarily the ones who know the most."

Turnover In clinton's Secret Service Detail 'Highest That Anyone Can Remember'

In the months that follow, reporters drop the issue. Feminists say little or nothing. Rape crisis center workers acknowledge that Broaddrick's case, including her reluctance to come forward, is typical of victims of sexual assault. But they decline to speak against clinton. Some cite the federal funding they receive as a result of the Violence Against Women Act, which was signed into law by clinton.

Why does the press continue to ignore the Juanita Broaddrick story?

The Placebo President:
How a Rapist can be a Policy Feminist

placebo effect n.

A beneficial effect in a patient following a particular treatment
that arises from the patient's expectations concerning
the treatment rather than from the treatment itself.

Every woman adores a Fascist,

The boot in the face, the brute

Brute heart of a brute like you.

----Sylvia Plath

The placebo effect immediately came to mind
as I listened to Shelby Steele,
a research fellow at the Hoover Institution,
debunk the following pernicious spin intended to save clinton.
To wit:
A proven felon and utter reprobate can remain president;
clinton can be a failed human being but a good president.

The error in these statements arises, says Steele,
from the belief that
virtuousness is separate from personal responsibility
so that one's virtuousness as an individual is determined by
one's political positions on issues rather than on
whether or not in one's personal life there is a
consistency and a responsibility.

Steele's contention is that this compartmentalization,
rather than being the amazing advantage
the clintons would have us believe,
in fact, spills toxicity into, corrupts, the culture.

If mere identification with good policies is what makes one virtuous
then those policies become, what Steele calls, iconographic,
that is to say they just represent virtuousness.
They don't necessarily do virtuous things.

If clinton's semantic parsing strips meaning from our words,
clinton's iconographic policies strip meaning from our society,
systematically deconstructing our society as a democracy. . .

I would take Shelby Steele's thesis one step further.
I maintain that iconographic policy functions like a placebo,
producing a real, physiological and social effects.

The placebo effect is, after all, the brain's triumph over reality.
Expectation alone can produce powerful physiological results.
The placebo effect was, at one time, an evolutionary advantage:
act now, think later

bill clinton is the paradigmatic Placebo President.
Placebo is Latin for "I shall please."
And please he does
doling out sham treatments, iconographs, with abandon.
To please, to placate, to numb, to deflect.
Ultimately to showcase his imagined virtue.
Or to confute his genuine vice.

clinton will dispense sugar pills (or bombs)
at the drop of a high-heeled shoe...
or at the hint of high treason...

clinton's charlatanry mimics that of primitive medicine.
Through the 1940s, doctors had little effective medicine to offer
so they deliberately attempted to induce the placebo response.

The efficaciousness of today's medicines
does not diminish the power of the placebo.
A recent review of placebo-controlled studies
found that placebos and genuine treatments
are often equally effective.
If you expect to get better, you will.

Which brings me back to the original question:
Can clinton be a failed human being but a good president?

Clearly he cannot.
These two propositions are mutually exclusive.
clinton's fundamental failure is a complete lack of integrity.
He has violated his covenant with the American people.

Because clinton has destroyed his moral authority as a leader,
he can no longer function even as a quack;
the placebo effect is gone.
And so the Placebo President must now go, too.

US missed three chances to seize Bin Laden

The Sunday Times (U.K.)

01/06/2002

Posted on 1/5/02 4:11 PM Pacific by Pokey78

PRESIDENT Bill Clinton turned down at least three offers involving foreign governments to help to seize Osama Bin Laden after he was identified as a terrorist who was threatening America, according to sources in Washington and the Middle East.

Clinton himself, according to one Washington source, has described the refusal to accept the first of the offers as "the biggest mistake" of his presidency.

The main reasons were legal: there was no evidence that could be brought against Bin Laden in an American court. But former senior intelligence sources accuse the administration of a lack of commitment to the fight against terrorism.

When Sudanese officials claimed late last year that Washington had spurned Bin Laden's secret extradition from Khartoum in 1996, former White House officials said they had no recollection of the offer. Senior sources in the former administration now confirm that it was true.

An Insight investigation has revealed that far from being an isolated incident this was the first in a series of missed opportunities right up to Clinton's last year in office. One of these involved a Gulf state; another would have relied on the assistance of Saudi Arabia.

In early 1996 America was putting strong pressure on Sudan's Islamic government to expel Bin Laden, who had been living there since 1991. Sources now reveal that Khartoum sent a former intelligence officer with Central Intelligence Agency connections to Washington with an offer to hand over Bin Laden &emdash; just as it had put another terrorist, Carlos the Jackal, into French hands in 1994.

At the time the State Department was describing Bin Laden as "the greatest single financier of terrorist projects in the world" and was accusing Sudan of harbouring terrorists. The extradition offer was turned down, however. A former senior White House source said: "There simply was not the evidence to prosecute Osama Bin Laden. He could not be indicted, so it would serve no purpose for him to have been brought into US custody."

A former figure in American counterterrorist intelligence claims, however, that there was "clear and convincing" proof of Bin Laden's conspiracy against America.

In May, 1996, American diplomats were informed in a Sudanese government fax that Bin Laden was about to be expelled &emdash; giving Washington another chance to seize him. The decision not to do so went to the very top of the White House, according to former administration sources.

They say that the clear focus of American policy was to discourage the state sponsorship of terrorism. So persuading Khartoum to expel Bin Laden was in itself counted as a clear victory. The administration was "delighted".

Bin Laden took off from Khartoum on May 18 in a chartered C-130 plane with 150 of his followers, including his wives. He was bound for Jalalabad in eastern Afghanistan. On the way the plane refuelled in the Gulf state of Qatar, which has friendly relations with Washington, but he was allowed to proceed unhindered.

Barely a month later, on June 25, a 5,000lb truck bomb ripped apart the front of Khobar Towers, a US military housing complex in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. The explosion killed 19 American servicemen. Bin Laden was immediately suspected.

Clinton is reported to have admitted how things went wrong in Sudan at a private dinner at a Manhattan restaurant shortly after September 11 last year. According to a witness, Clinton told a dinner companion that the decision to let Bin Laden go was probably "the biggest mistake of my presidency".

Clinton could not be reached for comment yesterday, but a
former senior White House official acknowledged that the Sudan episode had been a "screw-up".

A second offer to get Bin Laden came unofficially from Mansoor Ijaz, a Pakistani-American millionaire who was a donor to Clinton's election campaign in 1996. On July 6, 2000, he visited John Podesta, then the president's chief of staff, to say that intelligence officers from a Gulf state were offering to help to extract Bin Laden.

Details of the meeting are confirmed in an exchange of e-mails between the White House and Ijaz, which have been seen by The Sunday Times. According to Ijaz, the offer involved setting up an Islamic relief fund to aid Afghanistan in return for the Taliban handing over Bin Laden to the Gulf state. America could then extract Bin Laden from there.

The Sunday Times has established that after a fierce internal row about the sincerity of the offer, the White House responded by sending Richard Clarke, Clinton's most senior counterterrorism adviser, to meet the rulers of the United Arab Emirates. They denied there was any such offer. Ijaz, however, maintained that the White House had thereby destroyed the deal, which was to have been arranged only through unofficial channels. Ijaz said that weeks later on a return trip to the Gulf he was taken on a late-night ride into the desert by his contact who told him that Clarke's front-door approach had upset a delicate internal balance and blown the deal. "Your government has missed a major opportunity," he recalls being told.

Senior former government sources said that Ijaz's offer had been treated in good faith but, with the denial of the UAE government, there was nothing to suggest it had credibility.

A third more mysterious offer to help came from the intelligence services of Saudi Arabia, then led by Prince Turki al-Faisal, according to Washington sources. Details of the offer are still unclear although, by one account, Turki offered to help to place a tracking device in the luggage of Bin Laden's mother, who was seeking to make a trip to Afghanistan to see her son. The CIA did not take up the offer.

Richard Shelby, the leading Republican on the Senate intelligence committee, said he was aware of a Saudi offer to help although, under rules protecting classified information, he was unable to discuss the details of any offer. Commenting generally, he said: "I don't believe that the fight against terrorism was the number one goal of the Clinton administration. I believe there were some lost opportunities."

Q ERTY4 + Q ERTY6 = rodham clinton REALITY CHECK!


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 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!
also:
it won't s-p-i-n
CLINTON-WAS-AN-UTTER-FAILURE Containment Team Scheme Fails Again
Ollie North Laughs Ann Lewis Off Stage
Helen Thomas Syndrome: THE SYMPTOMS
Will Riefenstahl-esque "editing to perfection" resurrect the clintons?
WHOSE DOG WAS WAGGED?
Frankenstein, The Sequel:
'Black Hawk Down' Was Set to Blame Clinton for 9/11
hillary's head revisited:
hillary clinton's brain (such as it is) II
Buddy Death Report Raises More Questions Than It Answers
Fraudulent Democrat Scheme Fails as Bush Soars: BUSH: NATIONAL SECURITY 1^st PRIORITY. . ."I will not wait on events, while dangers gather."; THE CLINTON LEGACY PLACED IN STARK RELIEF
hillary clinton, Congenital Bottom Feeder, Cowers Below Network Radar,
Continues to Subsist on Cozy Clintonoid Interviews of Colmes Kind

"The Daschle Scheme"
THE HILLARY, YOU KNOW, CLINTON TRANSCRIPT:: Analyzed and Annotated
Can the President Think?
THE MYTH OF HILLARY'S BRILLIANCE
Mindless rhinestone-studded-and-tented kleptocracy
OFF THE RECORD: AN OLD DOG NEEDS NEW TRICKS
The man is an artist: He's not just 'Slick Willie' anymore
Hey, what a party!
New Year's at the White House
Senator Dim Bulb by Gary Aldrich © 2001 WorldNetDaily.com
Annotated by Mia T

I must repeat what I said on a prior thread concerning DIRT ex-POTUS' latest anti-US statement:

Translation: Rest of world, fear not.

The Democrats will do everything they can, for as long as it takes, to make sure the US does not enjoy its edge for long.

Don't compromise with the US. Don't take Bush seriously. Be patient. The future will be yours.

TRAITOR

BTTT!

what a guy to give a lecture on self-restraint ...... put some ice on that asprin factory

.

Like the chains on Marley's Ghost

That "clinton legacy" has been forged link by link by sordid link....

Madison Society - Slick Willy
... THE CLINTON TIME LINE. The Etherzone provides, in one location, all the events
of the Clinton Ongoing Corruption from 1977 through 2000. Read more. ...

CLINTON'S ROGUES GALLERY:
... And that gets to my second chart, Mr. Speaker, which is the time line.....Up until
1993, Mr. Speaker, under Democrats and Republican Presidents alike, there ...

The Cost of Life (Clinton/Gore Sellout of Security for Campaign Contributions) **FR EXCLUSIVE** #2

-DOWNSIDE LEGACY AT TWO DEGREES OF PRESIDENT CLINTON --

"Has that clinton "legacy" made you feel safer yet?"
Lest Americans ever forget why the clintons, and all their enablers need to be hectored, hounded, and harried into silence, until "clintonese is only spoken in Hell," look here:

The Holiday *Best* of Bill Clinton & his Friends!

Hodgepodge O' Hillary

-clintonism in one easy lesson--

-"until clintonese is spoken only in Hell!"--

Hillary! and Arafat's wife-

clintonscandals:

To find all articles tagged or indexed using clintonscandals, click below:
	click here >>>	clintonscandals	<<< click here
(To view all FR Bump Lists, click here)

Hillary:

To find all articles tagged or indexed using Hillary, click below:
	click here >>>	Hillary	<<< click here
(To view all FR Bump Lists, click here)

Clinton Alumni:

Clinton Alumni: for Clinton Alumni.

Other Bump Lists at: Free Republic Bump List Register

can't stand the jerk bump

"can't stand the jerk bump"

or his "sequel" (GAG) wife!

BUMP!

Q ERTY1 bump!

Dead or alive,,,,,,,,,, the bastard will always be connected with one fraud or another! He is the radical leftists best hope for destruction of real America!

...The Enemy is now Within...

...and always has been ever since they made the 1960's Turbulent =

...BILL CLINTON / HILLARY RODHAM...

Welcome to FR. I for one appreciate the good work of this long-time Freeper. Consider it art.

"Note that the idiot is actually imbuing the terrorism with a positive outcome. The sicko is actually positively reinforcing -- that is to say, encouraging!! -- the 9/11 terrorists and their terrorist acts."

The same holds true for the antiwar pacifists - hence Orwell's stark WW2-era description: "Pacifists are objectively pro-fascist." Once a method (terrorism) has been employed to advance a cause, that method becomes inseparable from the formulation of a reponse. To separate it, as Clinton and others have done through various conciliatory "root causes" outbursts, is typical liberal ineptitude - and tempts basic cause-and-effect. It's Chamberlain redux. Thankfully, Clinton is only able to make speeches.

Of course, Clinton is only making these statments because that's all he can say. Casting himself as a hawk would not distinguish him from the current Administration as his ego demands. Nor would it ingratiate him to legions of adoring, bouncy co-eds at the various universities he fouls. His legacy only gains on the off chance his nebulous, Clintonian dissent can eventually be reinvented as prescience by sympathetic historians. It's the last roll of the dice the poor sod has left.

Magnificent art work as usual, Mia.

However, I don't think that after one year of the Bush presidency, Clinton is entirely to blame for the events of 9-11. Our government appears to have had ample warning from several major foreign intelligence services that the U.S. was going to be attacked and that it would involve hijacking of airliners. That NOTHING was done to forestall the attack after those warnings lies squarely on the doorstep of the present administration and our intelligence services.

Not everything stupid, immoral or evil happening today is a left-over from the Clinton administration.

_{Chamberlain Redux} bump!

Clinton's Failure to Confront Iraq
Allan J. Favish

Iraqi Complicity in the World Trade Center Bombing and
Beyond by Laurie Mylroie, which was published in June of this year and discusses the 1993 bombing of the WTC.

She explains how Bill Clinton intentionally failed to confront Iraq over its complicity in the bombing and other attacks.

She supported Clinton in 1992 having been an advisor on Iraq policy to the 1992 Clinton presidential campaign, as you can see at: http://admissions.geneseo.edu/cgi-bin/nrap?Roemer98.html

Her September 13, 2001 article in the Wall Street Journal on the recent attack is at: http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=95001120

In a live interview on Los Angeles radio station KPFK, broadcast around noon today, PST, she stated that Clinton lied about more than sex; he lied about national security.

I wish somebody would ask her about whether she thinks the Clinton administration covered up Iraqi involvement in the murder of those aboard TWA 800 and ordered the military not to pursue the attackers.

Bush: "I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt."

Washington and the liberal media may be getting the message: George Bush is for real and he's no Mr. Nice Guy when it comes to war.

Even Newsweek's Howard Fineman, a liberal Bush-basher, has had to do a double take this week.

Writing in his column of an Oval office meeting with four U.S. Senators -- including Hillary Rodham -- Fineman described Bush "relaxed and in control."

Fineman, drawing a comparison with Winston Churchill's defiance during World War II, quoted the president as telling the Senators: "When I take action," he said, "I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It's going to be decisive."

No doubt, Hillary must have shuddered when she heard that, a clear hit on her husband's eight years of appeasement with terrorists and their backers.

Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff

[ASIDE: Have you noticed that as of the morning of 9-11-01, hillary clinton's "best memory" informs her--and she is quick to inform us -- that she was not "co-president" after all?]

"It's a legitimate end-use," says a Clinton administration official, who asked not to be identified. "Weather forecasting in the United States uses very intensive computing."
'Precedent Shattering': Administration OKs Supercomputer Sale to China
ABCNEWS.com, Published: 12/02/99, Author: David Ruppe

The Manchurian Candidate?
Or Being There? by Mia T
The Republicans' latest talking point is that the breach of national security enabled by clinton-gore must be simple incompetence, that the concept that anyone in government would commit treason is too outrageous even to contemplate.

If the Republicans believe what they are saying, then they are morons.
If they don't believe what they are saying, then they are traitors.

Outrageousness is an essential element of clinton-gore corruption. The clinton (and gore) crimes -- perjury, obstruction of justice, abuse of power, rape, murder -- and now treason -- are so outrageous that they allow clinton hacks to reasonably brand all clinton accusers clinton-hating neo-Nazi crazies.

Yet privately few clintonites would deny that bill clinton facilitated China espionage. Their only question: "Why?"

Some call clinton a quisling, a Manchurian Candidate, bought off in Little Rock by Riady and company decades ago (and much too cheaply, according to his Chinese benefactors), trading our national security for his political power. This argument is persuasive but incomplete; clinton, a certifiable megalomaniac, is driven ultimately by his solipsistic, messianic world view and by that which ultimately quashes all else -- his toxic legacy.

William J. Broad suggests (Spying Isn't the Only Way to Learn About Nukes, The New York Times, May 30, 1999) that clinton had another reason to empower China and disembowel America. Broad argues that clinton sought to disseminate our atomic secrets proactively in order to implement his counterintuitive, postmodern, quite inane epistemological theory, namely, that, contrary to currently held dogma, knowledge is not power after all -- that, indeed, quite the contrary is the case.

Broad writes in part:
Since 1993, officials say, the Energy Department's "openness initiative" has released at least 178 categories of atom secrets. By contrast, the 1980s saw two such actions. The unveilings have included no details of specific weapons, like the W-88, a compact design Chinese spies are suspected of having stolen from the weapons lab at Los Alamos, N.M. But they include a slew of general secrets. Its overview of the disclosures, "Restricted Data Declassification Decisions," dated January 1999 and more than 140 pages long, lists such things as how atom bombs can be boosted in power, key steps in making hydrogen bombs, the minimum amount (8.8 pounds) of plutonium or uranium fuel needed for an atom bomb and the maximum time it takes an exploding atomic bomb to ignite an H-bomb's hydrogen fuel (100 millionths of a second). No grade-B physicist from any university could figure this stuff. It took decades of experience gained at a cost of more than $400 billion. The release of the secrets started as a high-stakes bet that openness would lessen, not increase, the world's vulnerability to nuclear arms and war. John Holum, who heads arms control at the State Department, told Congress last year that the test ban "essentially eliminates" the possibility of a renewed international race to develop new kinds of nuclear arms. And the devaluing of nuclear secrets, highlighted by the rush of atomic declassifications, was seen as a prerequisite to the ban's achievement. The symbolism alone was potent, officials say. Openness let them advertise a dramatic new state of affairs where hidden actions were to be kept to a minimum, replacing decades of secrecy and paranoia. "The United States must stand as leader," O'Leary told a packed news conference in December 1993 upon starting the process. "We are declassifying the largest amount of information in the history of the department." Critics, however, say the former secrets are extremely valuable to foreign powers intent on making nuclear headway. Gaffney, the former Reagan official, disparaged the giveaway as "dangling goodies in front of people to get them to sign up into our arms-control agenda." Thomas B. Cochran, a senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council in Washington, a private group that has criticized the openness, said the declassifications had swept away so many secrets that the combination had laid bare the central mysteries. "In terms of the phenomenology of nuclear weapons," Cochran said, "the cat is out of the bag." Even before the China scandal broke, experts outside the administration faulted the openness as promoting the bomb's spread. Last year, a bipartisan commission of nine military specialists led by former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the "extensive declassification" of secrets had inadvertently aided the global spread of deadly weapons. ["inadvertently" ???!!!!] The ultimate brake on nuclear advances was to be the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which clinton began to push for as soon as he took office in 1993, hailing it as the hardest-fought, longest-sought prize in the history of arms control.

Broad would have us believe we are watching "Being There" and not "The Manchurian Candidate." His argument is superficially appealing as most reasonable people would conclude that it requires the simplemindedness of a Chauncy Gardener (in "Being There") to reason that instructing China and a motley assortment of terrorist nations on how to beef up their atom bombs and how not to omit the "key steps" when building hydrogen bombs would somehow blunt and not stimulate their appetites for bigger and better bombs and a higher position in the power food chain...(or, alternatively, to fail to understand that the underlying premise of MAD (mutually assured destruction) is the absense of madness.)

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 desensitizing clinton apologia by The New York Times.

But even if clinton is a thoroughgoing (albeit postmodern) fool, China-gate is still treason. 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.

According to James Risen and Jeff Gerth of The New York Times, "the legacy codes and the warhead data that goes with them" [-- apparently stolen from the Los Alamos weapons lab by scientist, Wen Ho Lee aided and abetted by bill clinton , hillary clinton , the late Ron Brown, Sandy Berger, Hazel O'Leary, Janet Reno, Eric Holder and others in the clinton administration (not to mention congressional clinton accomplices Glenn, Daschle, Bumpers, Harkin, Boxer, Feinstein, Lantos, Levin. Lautenberg, Torricelli et al.) --] "could be particularly valuable for a country, like China, that has signed onto the nuclear test ban treaty and relies solely on computer simulations to upgrade and maintain its nuclear arsenal [especially when combined with the supercomputers that clinton sold to China to help them finish the job]. The legacy codes are now used to maintain the American nuclear arsenal through computer simulation.

Most of Lee's transfers occurred in 1994 and 1995, just before China signed the test ban treaty in 1996, according to American officials."

Few who have observed clinton would argue against the proposition that this legacy-obsessed megalomaniac would trade our legacy codes for a rehabilitated legacy in a Monica minute and to hell with "the children."

The same terrorist attacked the same building in 1993. clinton depravity, ineptitude, cowardice and failure laid the predicate for 9/11.
Bush: "I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt."

The evil axis is clinton and the liberal media!

bttt