Posted on 11/08/2003 6:22:54 PM PST by Mia T
 MEMOgate: democrat party treason http://demmemogate.blogspot.com/
Secret Democrat manifesto detailing the undermining of President Bush in wartime |
|
View Current Signatures - Sign the Petition
To: Senate Ethics Committee
The Full investigation into "Memo Gate" Petition to Senate Ethics Committee was created by http://demmemogate.homestead.com/index.html and written by Abie Mandel. This petition is hosted here at www.PetitionOnline.com as a public service. There is no endorsement of this petition, express or implied, by Artifice, Inc. or our sponsors. For technical support please use our simple Petition Help form.
PetitionOnline - DesignCommunity - 3D Designers - Gallery - Architecture Forum - 3D Developers - Games - Search http://www.PetitionOnline.com/demmemo1/petition.html © 1999-2003 Artifice, Inc. - All Rights Reserved. |
||||||
MEMOgate: democrat party treason
http://demmemogate.blogspot.com/
Secret Democrat manifesto detailing the undermining of President Bush in wartime
by the seditious misuse of classified intelligence data from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
|
If what has happened here is not treason, it is its first cousin. The ones responsible - be they staff or elected or both - should be dealt with quickly and severely sending a lesson to all that this kind of action will not be tolerated, ignored or excused.
Sen. Zell Miller, D-Ga. |
|
|
Wednesday, November 05, 2003
Following is the text of a memo written by a Democrat on the staff of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that suggests how to make the greatest gain off of intelligence data leading to the war against Iraq. The memo was obtained by Fox News.
Transcript of a memo written by a Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee staff suggesting how to make the greatest gain off of intelligence data leading to the war against Iraq.
We have carefully reviewed our options under the rules and believe we have identified the best approach. Our plan is as follows:
1) Pull the majority along as far as we can on issues that may lead to major new disclosures regarding improper or questionable conduct by administration officials. We are having some success in that regard. For example, in addition to the president's State of the Union speech, the chairman has agreed to look at the activities of the Office of the Secretary of Defense as well as Secretary Bolton's office at the State Department. The fact that the chairman supports our investigations into these offices and co-signs our requests for information is helpful and potentially crucial. We don't know what we will find but our prospects for getting the access we seek is far greater when we have the backing of the majority. (Note: we can verbally mention some of the intriguing leads we are pursuing.)
2) Assiduously prepare Democratic "additional views" to attach to any interim or final reports the committee may release. Committee rules provide this opportunity and we intend to take full advantage of it. In that regard, we have already compiled all the public statements on Iraq made by senior administration officials. We will identify the most exaggerated claims and contrast them with the intelligence estimates that have since been declassified. Our additional views will also, among other things, castigate the majority for seeking to limit the scope of the inquiry. The Democrats will then be in a strong position to reopen the question of establishing an independent commission (i.e. the Corzine amendment).
3) Prepare to launch an independent investigation when it becomes clear we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully collaborate with the majority. We can pull the trigger on an independent investigation at any time-- but we can only do so once. The best time to do so will probably be next year either:
A) After we have already released our additional views on an interim report -- thereby providing as many as three opportunities to make our case to the public: 1) additional views on the interim report; 2) announcement of our independent investigation; and 3) additional views on the final investigation; or
In the meantime, even without a specifically authorized independent investigation, we continue to act independently when we encounter foot-dragging on the part of the majority. For example, the FBI Niger investigation was done solely at the request of the vice chairman; we have independently submitted written questions to DoD; and we are preparing further independent requests for information.
Summary
Intelligence issues are clearly secondary to the public's concern regarding the insurgency in Iraq. Yet, we have an important role to play in the revealing the misleading -- if not flagrantly dishonest methods and motives -- of the senior administration officials who made the case for a unilateral, preemptive war. The approach outline above seems to offer the best prospect for exposing the administration's dubious motives and methods. |
|
|
|
YOO-HOO Ds! (espec. Howard & Susan)
|
||
|
No. Memogate bears the indelible mark of clinton.
 (viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE) missus clinton's REAL virtual office update http://hillarytalks.blogspot.com http://virtualclintonlibrary.blogspot.com http://demmemogate.blogspot.com http://www.hillarytalks.us http://www.hillarytalks.org fiendsofhillary.blogspot.com fiendsofhillary.us fiendsofhillary.org fraudsofhillary.com
MEMOGATE MEANS, MOTIVE, OPPORTUNITY...
The scheme is more manifesto than memo; it is ludicrous to think that it could have been concocted by anyone other than the clintons. The clintons control the Democratic Party, have impressive presidential-coup field experience (on both ends, spanning three decades), and are beginning to understand that, for reasons ranging from Rudy to rape, they don't have forever to make their move. Hence, the scheme... and the memo.
TREASON OR ITS FIRST COUSIN
If the Ds really want their party back, they should make their move now. Someone out there can finger the clintons. He should do it. Now.
He mustn't delude himself into imagining that the Invertebrate Party will nail her. That will never happen. (Which, by the way, will cost the GOP votes. We will never again tolerate a party that puts its own power above national security... and that is precisely what the GOP will be doing if it allows a clinton (once again) to remain in office. (Didn't you guys learn ANYTHING from 911???))
P.S. Note the increase in defensive, diversionary dem mudslinging since the memo surfaced, especially by hillary's Boy in Harlem. Rangel's been on the tube 24/7 calling for Rummy's resignation. That should tell you something about hillary clinton's vulnerability... |
||
|
||
|
|
Tag-Line Musings:
Permit me to highlight my Free Republic tag line; the acronym really is the message.
Posted on 10/29/2003 6:35 AM EST by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
The clintons have, for the last decade--most recently, behind (they would say "between" (as in "interregnal")) the scene(s)--set into motion the democrats' seemingly psychopathic--but certainly suicidal and seditious--undermining of America...
As the nine dwarfs labor mightily to render their unfitness unequivocal, bill clinton and the little missus (almost too casually for my taste) assume an ersatz elder stateman pose sufficiently colorable to fool some--perhaps enough-- of the people, in order to revise his legacy... and to reprise hers.
Thoroughly clintonized, (which Andrew Cuomo would tell you also means "clueless,") the democrats are completely inverting (perverting) the sea captain's refrain.
"Down with the ship" does not mean "the ship goes down with me."
Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.) by Mia T, 10.29.03
The Democratic Party's Problem Transcends Its Anti-War Contingent
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. |
11/08/2003
If they seek to destroy the principle of respect for life do they not also seek to destroy life? If they seek to remove all visible sign of religious expression do they not also seek to destroy religion? If they seek to destroy the power of the man who directs our military to defend us, because he directs our military to defend us, do they not also seek to help our enemies destroy us? That's treason. by TigersEye
It was excerpted from this post: The 'issue' I first speak to is the Terri Schiavo story ... but it goes further ...
This issue is about the right to life and self determination. Freedom to exercise religion has even become a part of it. If you take those three things together you have pretty much covered liberty and the pursuit of happiness too.All are absolutely fundamental ground level issues of what it is to be a human being. All were principles expressly cited as the core reasons to reject Britain's rule over us and become sovereign unto ourselves. Those were the underlying principles that guided every step in writing our Constitution and constitute its very purpose.
If our government wishes to depart from those principles, if the Constitution is to be read as supporting something other than those principles, if half our country is intent on abandoning and defiling those principles then let them state it clearly. Let them declare what is evident in their posture, that they oppose in every way the principles this nation was founded upon.
If they choose not to do that openly, like honorable men, then let us put it to them clearly that their actions are treason, shall be called treason and will be dealt with as treason.
If our elected representatives (those who claim loyalty to this principled nation) have not the stomach to call treason 'treason' and do what duty demands then we must releive them of office and replace them with those who will.
The issue then today is not 'this right' and 'that right' or 'balance of powers'. It isn't 'rightwing' or 'leftwing' philosophy or 'Republican view' or 'Democrat view'. It's 'American' or 'subversive'. 'Loyalist' or 'enemy'. It is quite simply 'patriot' or 'traitor'.
The right to life is as fundamental as it gets and traitors have undermined our law to deny it. The right to speak and worship freely is as human as it gets and traitors are working to destroy that freedom.
George Felos seeks recognition of 'the right to die'. He's a traitor. The ACLU seeks to end religious freedom. They are traitors. The whole Democrat leadership, save a few, seek to undermine our President in a war that they voted to fund. They are traitors!
No quarter nor refuge, public or private, should be given to traitors of our own country. No deference made to the words they speak. No excuses made on their behalf. No tolerance, save our own compassion for the sanctity and dignity of human life, for their presence among us.
If they seek to destroy the principle of respect for life do they not also seek to destroy life? If they seek to remove all visible sign of religious expression do they not also seek to destroy religion? If they seek to destroy the power of the man who directs our military to defend us, because he directs our military to defend us, do they not also seek to help our enemies destroy us?
That's treason.
And here it is again in the article folks. TREASON!
72 posted on 11/08/2003 7:49 PM CST by jmstein7
That's what the creator of the petition has to say about that on the original thread.
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.
EMOGATE INDIRECTION: Rockefeller and Daschle are decoys, more cutout than cutthroat, less sockdolager than sock-puppet. Rockefeller's too genteel; Daschle's too "concerned." Neither, frankly, has the requisite utter disregard for life. And perhaps most important, (insofar as decoy suitability is concerned), each is sufficiently insipid to ensure insufficient opposition ire.
(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available 
