bill clinton's Convenient Postmodern Pose: "G-word"shame presages "W-word" horror

The Atlantic Online ^ | 4.8.04 | Mia T

[Mia T]

bill clinton's Convenient Postmodern Pose:
"G-word"shame presages "W-word" horror

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)

by Mia T, 4.6.04

 

This month marks 10 years since the advent of the Rwandan genocide, a cruel, violent and well-organized rampage that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children and the total disruption of Rwandan society. Over the past decade, scholars and advocates have rightly reflected on the reasons that the international community and nations in Africa must share the responsibility for this tragedy. As I said during my trip to Rwanda in 1998, "We did not act quickly enough after the killing began. We should not have allowed the refugee camps to become safe haven for the killers. We did not immediately call these crimes by their rightful name: genocide."

bill clinton
Learn From Rwanda
The Washington Post
Tuesday, April 6, 2004; Page A21

Note: clinton's use of "we" is consistent with his "buck stops there/everywhere but not here" policy.

n the course of a hundred days in 1994 the Hutu government of Rwanda and its extremist allies very nearly succeeded in exterminating the country's Tutsi minority. Using firearms, machetes, and a variety of garden implements, Hutu militiamen, soldiers, and ordinary citizens murdered some 800,000 Tutsi and politically moderate Hutu. It was the fastest, most efficient killing spree of the twentieth century.

A few years later, in a series in The New Yorker, Philip Gourevitch recounted in horrific detail the story of the genocide and the world's failure to stop it. President Bill Clinton, a famously avid reader, expressed shock. He sent copies of Gourevitch's articles to his second-term national-security adviser, Sandy Berger. The articles bore confused, angry, searching queries in the margins. "Is what he's saying true?" Clinton wrote with a thick black felt-tip pen beside heavily underlined paragraphs. "How did this happen?" he asked, adding, "I want to get to the bottom of this." The President's urgency and outrage were oddly timed. As the terror in Rwanda had unfolded, Clinton had shown virtually no interest in stopping the genocide, and his Administration had stood by as the death toll rose into the hundreds of thousands.....

In March of 1998, on a visit to Rwanda, President Clinton issued what would later be known as the "Clinton apology," which was actually a carefully hedged acknowledgment. He spoke to the crowd assembled on the tarmac at Kigali Airport: "We come here today partly in recognition of the fact that we in the United States and the world community did not do as much as we could have and should have done to try to limit what occurred" in Rwanda.

This implied that the United States had done a good deal but not quite enough. In reality the United States did much more than fail to send troops. It led a successful effort to remove most of the UN peacekeepers who were already in Rwanda. It aggressively worked to block the subsequent authorization of UN reinforcements. It refused to use its technology to jam radio broadcasts that were a crucial instrument in the coordination and perpetuation of the genocide. And even as, on average, 8,000 Rwandans were being butchered each day, U.S. officials shunned the term "genocide," for fear of being obliged to act. The United States in fact did virtually nothing "to try to limit what occurred." Indeed, staying out of Rwanda was an explicit U.S. policy objective.

With the grace of one grown practiced at public remorse, the President gripped the lectern with both hands and looked across the dais at the Rwandan officials and survivors who surrounded him. Making eye contact and shaking his head, he explained, "It may seem strange to you here, especially the many of you who lost members of your family, but all over the world there were people like me sitting in offices, day after day after day, who did not fully appreciate [pause] the depth [pause] and the speed [pause] with which you were being engulfed by this unimaginable terror."

Clinton chose his words with characteristic care. It was true that although top U.S. officials could not help knowing the basic facts—thousands of Rwandans were dying every day—that were being reported in the morning papers, many did not "fully appreciate" the meaning. In the first three weeks of the genocide the most influential American policymakers portrayed (and, they insist, perceived) the deaths not as atrocities or the components and symptoms of genocide but as wartime "casualties"—the deaths of combatants or those caught between them in a civil war.

Yet this formulation avoids the critical issue of whether Clinton and his close advisers might reasonably have been expected to "fully appreciate" the true dimensions and nature of the massacres. During the first three days of the killings U.S. diplomats in Rwanda reported back to Washington that well-armed extremists were intent on eliminating the Tutsi. And the American press spoke of the door-to-door hunting of unarmed civilians. By the end of the second week informed nongovernmental groups had already begun to call on the Administration to use the term "genocide," causing diplomats and lawyers at the State Department to begin debating the word's applicability soon thereafter. In order not to appreciate that genocide or something close to it was under way, U.S. officials had to ignore public reports and internal intelligence and debate.

...whatever their convictions about "never again," many of them did sit around, and they most certainly did allow genocide to happen. In examining how and why the United States failed Rwanda, we see that without strong leadership the system will incline toward risk-averse policy choices.

Samantha Power
Bystanders to Genocide
Why the United States Let the Rwandan Tragedy Happen
The author's exclusive interviews with scores of the participants in the decision-making, together with her analysis of newly declassified documents, yield a chilling narrative of self-serving caution and flaccid will and countless missed opportunities to mitigate a colossal crime
The Atlantic Online

"The Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him [bin Laden].

At the time, '96, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.

So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have; but they thought it was a hot potato. They didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan."

bill clinton
Sunday, Aug. 11, 2002
Clinton Reveals on Secret Audio:
I Nixed Bin Laden Extradition Offer

ritical to the understanding of the clintons' (and Kerry's and the left's) inability to protect America from terrorism is the analysis of clinton's final phrase, "though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America."

"I did not bring him [Osama bin Laden] here... though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America."

This phrase is clinton's explicit rejection of both bin Laden's repeated declarations/acts of war and the (Bush) doctrine of preemption to fight terror.

This phrase underscores clinton's failure to understand that:

• a terrorist war requires only one consenting player

 

• defining bin Laden's acts of war as "crimes'' is a dangerous, anachronistic, postmodern conceit (It doesn't depend on what the meaning of the word "war" is) and amounts to surrender

• preemption serves a necessary, critically protective, as well as offensive function in any war on terror.

The sorry endpoint of this massive, 8-year clinton blunder was, of course, 9/11 and the exponential growth of al Qaeda.

ASIDE: It is beyond farce, therefore, for Richard Clarke to exalt clinton, (whose response to terrorism--in those rare ("bimbo") instances when he did, in fact, respond--was feckless, at best), even as he attempts to take down Bush, a great president whose demonstrated vision, courage and tenacity in the face of seditious undermining by the power-hungry clintons and their leftist goons is nothing short of heroic.

 

Mia T, 3.28.04
CLINTON TURNED DOWN SUDAN'S OFFERS OF BIN LADEN
HEAR CLINTON'S SECRETLY TAPED "ADMISSION" NOW
clinton: "I did not bring him [Osama bin Laden] here... though
we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America."

 

link to movie
requires Flash Player 6, available HERE

CLINTON TURNED DOWN SUDAN'S OFFERS OF BIN LADEN
HEAR CLINTON'S SECRETLY TAPED "ADMISSION" NOW

by Mia T, 3.28.04

 

"The Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him [bin Laden].

At the time, '96, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.

So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have; but they thought it was a hot potato. They didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan."

bill clinton
Sunday, Aug. 11, 2002
Clinton Reveals on Secret Audio:
I Nixed Bin Laden Extradition Offer

"The instant that second plane hit, I said to the person with whom I was speaking, 'Bin Laden did this.' I knew immediately. I know what this network can do."

bill clinton

To hear Clinton now say "We must do more to reduce the pool of potential terrorists" is thus beyond farce. He had numerous opportunities to reduce that pool, and he blew it.

A Fish Rots from the Head
Investor's Business Daily

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
MANSOOR IJAZ
December 5, 2001

 

 

 

isten carefully to clinton's "admission." Watch the flash movie. Diagram the sentences.

It's the classic clinton snake-oil sales pitch that exploits liberal credulousness and the gestalt concepts of structural economy and closure (the tendency to perceive incomplete forms as complete). This allows clinton to tell the story of his utter failure to fight terrorism, his failure to take bin Laden from Sudan, his repeated failures, in fact, to decapitate an incipient and still stoppable al Qaeda, without explicitly admitting it.

"The Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again; [so] they released him [to America]."

Note that the linkage between the above two sentences and the indirect object of the second sentence are each implied, giving clinton plausible deniability.

"[H]e had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America."

This position is surprising on two counts:

1. clinton has never been one to allow the rule of law get in his way.
   

2. Although bin Laden had repeatedly declared war on America during clinton's tenure, clinton treats terrorism not as a war but as a law enforcement problem, which, by definition is defensive, after-the-fact and fatally-too-late.

The impeached ex-president fails to understand that when terrorists declare war on you…and then proceed to kill you… you are, perforce, at war. At that point, you really have only one decision to make: Do you fight the terrorists… or do you surrender?

Critical to the understanding of the clintons' (and Kerry's and the left's) inability to protect America from terrorism is the analysis of clinton's final phrase, "though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America."

"I did not bring him [Osama bin Laden] here... though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America."

This phrase is clinton's explicit rejection of both bin Laden's repeated declarations/acts of war and the (Bush) doctrine of preemption to fight terror.

This phrase underscores clinton's failure to understand that:

• a terrorist war requires only one consenting player

• defining bin Laden's acts of war as "crimes'' is a dangerous, anachronistic, postmodern conceit (It doesn't depend on what the meaning of the word "war" is) and amounts to surrender

• preemption serves a necessary, critically protective, as well as offensive function in any war on terror.

The sorry endpoint of this massive, 8-year clinton blunder was, of course, 9/11 and the exponential growth of al Qaeda.

ASIDE: It is beyond farce, therefore, for Richard Clarke to exalt clinton, (whose response to terrorism--in those rare ("bimbo") instances when he did, in fact, respond--was feckless, at best), even as he attempts to take down Bush, a great president whose demonstrated vision, courage and tenacity in the face of seditious undermining by the power-hungry clintons and their leftist goons is nothing short of heroic.

 

"So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have; but they thought it was a hot potato."

Finally, this last paragraph underscores clinton's penchant for passing off the tough problems (and the buck) to others (while arrogating their solutions as his own). It would have been a simple matter for him to take bin Laden. Why did he turn the offer down?

The answer was inadvertently if somewhat obliquely provided by Madeleine Albright at the cabinet meeting that would decide the disposition of the USS Cole bombing by al Qaeda [that is to say, that would decide to do what it had always done when a "bimbo" was not spilling the beans on the clintons--nothing--only Clarke wanted to retaliate militarily for this unambiguous act of war].

According to Albright, a [sham] Mideast accord would yield [, if not peace for the principals, surely] a Nobel Peace Prize for clinton [an unprincipled fraud whose only significance is the devastation that he (and his zipper-hoisted spinoff) have wreaked on America].

WHY JOHN KERRY IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA
(a NEW virtual john kerry talks series)

Kerry's Fatal(clinton)Error

 

Mia T, 3.16.04

  

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)

johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com
 

Kerry seldom speaks out on the campaign trail about the importance of fighting terrorism, and polls shows it's an issue on which Bush appears to have an advantage.

"We are determined to make this campaign about real issues facing Americans, like making health care affordable, improving education and getting our economy back on track," Kerry campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill said....

BRIAN BLOMQUIST
KERRY JOINS AIR WAR
NYPOST.COM

"I voted for a process by which war would be the last resort."

John Kerry

Kerry hits out at Bush over Iraq
Adam Blenford and agencies
Monday January 26, 2004

ohn Kerry says the war on terror is less about military might than about law enforcement.

This should not surprise us. Kerry's dangerously flawed thinking on terrorism is perfectly consistent with his dangerously soporific bombast: Both are anachronistic, early 20th-century artifacts.

Osama bin Laden has made it perfectly clear: The clintons' military fecklessness and cowardice emboldened the terrorists.

Even if we allow for his characteristic flatulence and opportunism, John Kerry's demagogically tortured parsing of President George W. Bush's war-as-the-last-resort pledge and the fact that Kerry's list of the "real issues facing Americans" does not include the one issue, namely terrorism, that renders all other issues moot -- (health care, education and money have very limited utility to the dead)-- reveal a fundamental--and fatal--misunderstanding of America's situation.

When terrorists declare war on you…and then proceed to kill you… you are, perforce, at war. At that point, you really have only one decision to make: Do you fight the terrorists… or do you surrender?

Contrary to clinton/leftist-media spin, this war waged against America by the terrorists did not begin on September 11, 2001. The terrorists--bin Laden--had declared war on America repeatedly, had killed Americans repeatedly, throughout the clinton years.

Remarkably, the same terrorists hit the same WTC building in 1993, and clinton, 15 minutes away from the devastation, didn't even bother to visit the site, preferring instead to add his old bromides on the economy to the pollution along the Jersey Turnpike. (Ironically, the legacy clinton would desperately, futilely seek throughout his life was right under his nose on that day in 1993; but he was too self-absorbed--too stupid, some would say--to see it.)

And as for the September 11 attacks, they were planned in May 1998, on the clintons' watch, in the Khalden Camp in southeastern Afghanistan.

The terrorists declared war on America on the clintons watch and the clintons surrendered.

Democrats, from the clintons to Kerry, reflexively choose "surrender."

President Bush chooses '"fight."

Andrew Cuomo didn't call the Democrats "clueless" for no reason.

[Mia T]

ping

[Support Free Republic]

---

	Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[Mia T]

BUMP!

[mseltzer]

http://www.steynonline.com/index2.cfm?edit_id=21


This Mark Steyn column adds a bit to the Rwanda story Mia.

[Mia T]

Thx!

Bill Clinton felt their pain. Retrospectively. In 1998, on his Grand Apology Tour of Africa, a whirlwind tour of whirlwind apologies for slavery, the Cold War, you name it, he touched down in Kigali and apologized for the Rwandan genocide. "When you look at those children who greeted us," he said, biting his lip, as is his wont, "how could anyone say they did not want those children to have a chance to have their own children?"

Alas, the President had precisely identified the problem. In April 1994, when the Hutu genocidaires looked at the children who greeted them in the Tutsi villages, that's exactly what they thought: they didn't want those Tutsi children to have a chance to have their own children. So the question is: when a bunch of killers refuse to subscribe to multiculti mumbo-jumbo, what do you do? 

"All over the world there were people like me sitting in offices," continued Bill in his apology aria, "who did not fully appreciate the depth and the speed with which you were being engulfed by this unimaginable terror."

Au contraire, he appreciated it all too fully. That's why, during the bloodbath,

Clinton Administration officials were specifically instructed not to use the word "genocide" lest it provoke public pressure to do something.

Documents made public last week confirm that US officials knew within the first few days that a "final solution" to eliminate all Tutsis was underway.

SteynOnAmerica
CLINTON, CLARKE AND RWANDA: TEN YEARS ON

[jla]

BTTT

[Mia T]

Let us not pull any punches. What is actually happening is this:

Matthews, the rest of the clintons' left-wing agitprop-and-money-laundering machine,
which includes Simon & Schuster, the Cronkite-ite news readers,
clintonoid politicos, goons
and, of course, the clueless, left-coast Barbra-Streisand contingent,
are--with their rapacious lies,

• ENBOLDENING THE TERRORISTS
• CAUSING AMERICAN DEATHS
• AND IN FACT ENDANGERING US ALL.
  

[jla]

No doubt about that, T.

[Mia T]

bump

We must take the offensive with this plain truth.

[Mudboy Slim]

"...during the bloodbath, Clinton Administration officials were specifically instructed not to use the word "genocide" lest it provoke public pressure to do something. Documents made public last week confirm that US officials knew within the first few days that a "final solution" to eliminate all Tutsis was underway."

What a sick, depraved, ego-maniacal subhuman sociopath Bill Clinton was and is...MUD

[firewalk]

Good morning Mia
Thanks for the ping
& bttt

[Mia T]

CHECK OUT THE TWEAKED MOVIE
bill clinton's GENOCIDE & TERRORISM Utter Failures Same Self-Serving, Craven, Postmodern Pose
"G-word"shame presages "W-word" horror_BUMP

bill clinton's Convenient Postmodern Pose:
"G-word"shame presages "W-word" horror

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)

[Mia T]

link corection:

CHECK OUT THE TWEAKED MOVIE
bill clinton's GENOCIDE & TERRORISM Utter Failures Same Self-Serving, Craven, Postmodern Pose
"G-word"shame presages "W-word" horror_BUMP

bill clinton's Convenient Postmodern Pose:
"G-word"shame presages "W-word" horror

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)

[Mudboy Slim]

Source: National Review Online
Published: 10 March 2000 Author: Michael Ledeen

"I spent more than twenty years studying fascism, and all that time I kept asking myself how the democratic countries of the West could have been so blind, and how they could have been so totally unprepared for Hitler's war. After all, he had written Mein Kampf, which pretty much laid it all out. Once in power, he set about arming the country, making menacing sounds to his neighbors, crushing the Jews and separating them out of the population, and preparing to march. It was all so clear. He made no effort to trick us. We simply refused to believe what was right in front of our noses. In the fullness of time, the other Europeans were cannon fodder for Hitler's armies, and the United States did virtually nothing until we were bombed into war by the Japanese.

Then I look at China today, and I ask myself the same questions. China's leaders have made no bones about their hatred for us. They have loudly and publicly announced their intention to develop armies capable of destroying us. They have threatened to bomb Los Angeles if we do anything to annoy them, especially in the defense of democratic Taiwan. They have been busily crushing religious groups in China who dare recognize any authority other than the regime itself, and are separating them out of the population. There is no effort to trick us, none of the legendary inscrutability of the East. It is all so clear.

In the past few days, both the CIA and the FBI have warned about the increasing Chinese espionage in the United States, aimed primarily at obtaining our advanced military technology. One wonders why they bother, since we've been quite willing to sell them most anything they need. Clinton and Gore have deliberately and systematically armed China, and when a tiny handful of congressmen tried to get the details, Clinton and Gore quashed investigations and withheld evidence from investigators.

Meanwhile, the Chinese prepare for war, and warn us of its consequences. The headlines for the past several weeks have reported an endless barrage of threats from Beijing: There will be war with Taiwan if it dares to act as an independent country, and war with us if we dare to defend them, as we have sometimes promised to do. It may be all bluff and bluster, but, I keep thinking, that's what lots of people said about Hitler.

The Taiwanese elections are now ten days away, and the Chinese show all the signs of preparing to attack. They have moved an enormous quantity of military materiel down south, just across the straits from Taiwan. They have hordes and swarms of soldiers, bundles of missiles, plenty of aircraft. The intelligence community reports these facts to our leaders, but our leaders are silent. Great journalists like Bill Gertz report these facts to the public, but there is no outcry. We are strong enough to deter China, but we show no sign of wanting to warn them off. On the contrary: we welcome their military leaders, escort them around our bases, sell them our best weapons, and even train their soldiers. Not even the most feckless French leaders would have dreamed of training the Wehrmacht, or of selling advanced technology for the Panzer corps.

Whether now or a few years from now, it is increasingly likely that we will have to fight China, and we have done everything possible to ensure that they will win. In the 1930s, Western businessmen did deals with the Nazis, but there was no leading Western government that armed the Third Reich as a matter of official policy. But we are arming China. Clinton and Gore are Lenin's dream come true: capitalists selling communists the rope with which to hang us.

Some legacy."

"Bill Clinton has sold out this Country's security in a devil's pact to remain in power. At this point, he couldn't stand up to the Chi-Coms even if he were so inclined, because they would leak such compellingly concrete evidence of his treasonous, anti-American activities that even the Clinton Sycophants in the Vast, Left-Wing Media Whore'd would have to sit up and take notice!! Algore is similarly compromised and cannot be trusted to act in the best interests of the United States in matters relating to China. For all you folks who think there is no difference between the DemonRATS and Republicans, please watch this issue carefully over the next eight months...we cannot afford another four-to-eight years of Clinton/Gore policies as they relate to China. And for you BushBackers out there, please make every effort to impress upon Dubyuh the absolute necessity of making ChinaGate an integral issue in the upcoming presidential campaign.

FReegards...MUD

1 Posted on 03/11/2000 22:42:20 PST by Mudboy Slim (Treason.is@Capital.Crime)

[Helms]

The Plausible Lie of Postmodernism and Democrat Party Political Psychopathy:

The "Plausible Lie" & Postmodern Politics 1,2,3,4:

1: Impeached Legacy Obsessed Clinton as an unreliable "eyewitness to reality and to truth". Infects American politics with use of use of "plausible lie" and turns truth on its head. Semantic aphasia like symptoms.

2: Postmodern DNC and Party adopts the plausible lie to regain power.

3: Postmodern Media and Avatars- Richard Clarke spews postmodern subjectivity and uses the "plausible lie"

4: Postmodern cultural politics- Hollywood A&E derisively undermines traditional social values for profit and cultural evolution "power"

________________________________________________________ " New cultural politics practiced by the 'New Radical Left' are a product of post-modernity and post-structural literary theory".

"Post-structuralism uses language to subvert otherwise traditionally accepted truth claims; claims that traditionally have stabilized American social order".

"On the other hand, postmodernism is a culture that creates myths in order to subvert conventional perceptions of reality".

"New-Left cultural politics mostly have been an intellectual phenomena limited to the academy. It has been adopted in a psuedo-pretentious manner by Hollywood (Arts and Entertainment).

________________________________________________________

The Plausible Lie -The basic assumption that the truth lies between the testimony of the two sides always shifts the advantage to the lying side and away from the side telling the truth.

[Mia T]

For all you folks who think there is no difference between the DemonRATS and Republicans, please watch this issue carefully over the next eight months...we cannot afford another four-to-eight years of Clinton/Gore policies as they relate to China. And for you BushBackers out there, please make every effort to impress upon Dubyuh the absolute necessity of making ChinaGate an integral issue in the upcoming presidential campaign.

Mudboy Slim

EXPENSIVE CHINA: the clinton legacy

by Mia T, 10.17.03

 

ALL
Double, trouble TOIL for HUBBELL;
Fire burn and cauldron bubble.

THIRD WITCH (a stealth Conservative)
Scale of BONIOR, tooth of WOLF,
HILLARY'S memory, maw and gulf
A ravin'd salt-sea shark,
Ears of the MARTINS digg'd i' the dark,
Gall of BILL, and McCURRY'S slips
"Noes" of LANNY, and HUBBELL'S lips,
Finger of ICKES ditch-deliver'd by a drab,
Make the gruel thick and slab:
Add thereto a Chinese squadron,
For the ingredients of our cauldron.

ALL
Double, trouble TOIL for HUBBELL;
Fire burn and cauldron bubble.

SECOND WITCH:
Cool it with cash and blood,
Then the charm is firm and good. 

Enter Lady MacClinton

 

Mia T, MacClinton
Act IV, Scene I

It is no secret that Hillary's past takes us through a pile of hard, cold cash from the Chinese army, Chinese army agents roaming the White House and photos with a wide variety of scoundrels.

For example, the one prominent name missing from Hillary's recent "tell-all" book is Riady. Mrs. Clinton failed to mention the Riady family at all. One would get the impression that the Riadys were not present in the Clinton White House. Hillary Clinton certainly overlooked listing the table settings and menus for White House dinners with the Riadys.

The Riadys knew the Clintons from their Arkansas years, when Moctar bought out a local bank. Moctar and his son James were close to Bill and Hillary through 1992 and into the White House. Moctar even owned the firm selected by Hillary Clinton to replace the White House travel office.

Riady and Hillary

Moctar and James Riady played a key role in bringing the Clintons to power in Washington. The Indonesian billionaire and his Lippo banking company managed to contribute large sums of money to the Clintons' campaigns even though it was against the law. Moctar's gardener contributed $450,000 directly to Bill Clinton in a single check. James Riady, Moctar's son, eventually pleaded guilty to campaign violations.

The connections between the Riadys and the Clintons have a much more sinister theme than simple foreign money inside U.S. elections. Testimony before the U.S. Senate revealed Moctar Riady's involvement in Chinese espionage. The Lippo Group is in fact a joint venture of China Resources, a trading and holding company "wholly owned" by the Chinese communist government and used as a front for Chinese espionage operations.

Mrs. Clinton not only knew the Riadys but took their money as well. To prove my point I need only to cite photographic evidence. Her picture with Moctar Riady is certainly damning evidence of a relationship that spanned several bank accounts and two decades. It is often said that a picture tells a thousand words. However, Hillary's pictures not only tell stories left out of her book but they also netted $10,000 each for the DNC in illegal donations.

Hillary's Most-Wanted

Mrs. Clinton has left us with a wide selection of photo evidence. Mrs. Clinton has had her photo taken with drug dealer Jorge Cabrera. Jorge donated a load of drug money to the DNC in order to get close to the first lady. Jorge is currently serving federal time for smuggling 3,000 pounds of cocaine into the United States.

Ironically, Jorge and Hillary were photographed in front of the White House Christmas tree.

Mrs. Clinton also has a virtual personal photo gallery of modern crime. It is almost as if she wanted to collect snapshots of herself and major crime figures.

For example, the co-presidents were photographed together with Macao criminal boss Ng Lapseng. Ng makes most of his money through the female-empowering career of prostitution.

Ng owns the Fortuna Hotel in Macao. You can stay overnight at the Fortuna for a reasonable price. In addition, you can also purchase the services of a Fortuna hostess for an additional nightly or hourly fee.

Ng frequently visited the Clintons with his close friend Charlie "Yah-Lin" Trie. It was through Charlie Trie that Ng also donated thousands of dollars to the Clintons.

Ng's Fortuna Hotel showed up again later in official State Department charges against the satellite division of Hughes. The Fortuna turned out to be a front for a Chinese army company that leased a Hughes satellite.

Hillary Clinton's close relationship with the Chinese army is all too well documented. The first lady was clearly involved with Chinese agent Johnny Chung and the penetration of Col. Lui of Chinese army unit COSTIND, the Chinese Commission of Science, Technology and Industry for National Defense.

According to the GAO, COSTIND "oversees development of China's weapon systems and is responsible for identifying and acquiring telecommunications technology applicable for military use."

Johnny Chung also had several photo sessions with both Clintons. Many of the photos appear in Mr. Chung's beer advertisements. Chung passed Chinese army money to the DNC through Mrs. Clinton. In return, a very young and attractive female PLA colonel and COSTIND computer information warfare specialist was allowed inside the White House to meet Bill Clinton.

Hillary's Albatross
Charles R. Smith
Friday, Sept. 5, 2003

I believe that this espionage case -- the Chinese -- is the worst in the history of this country. They got just about everything that we have and you'll see it in the out years in their development of their weapons.

HEAR Sen. Richard Shelby

China space shot has military implications

China launches first manned space flight
Reuters ^ | 10-14-03

Wed 15 October, 2003 02:07 BST

BEIJING (Reuters) - China has launched its first manned space flight from the Gobi desert, Xinhua news agency says, in its bid to become the third country to put a man in orbit after the former Soviet Union and the United States.

The Shenzhou V, or "Divine Ship V", was expected to orbit the Earth 14 times before returning after about 21 hours.

Xinhua said the craft carried astronaut Yang Liwei, 38. The launch on Wednesday, 42 years after the Soviet Union put the first man into space, marked a milestone for China's secretive space programme, which analysts say has its sights set on a manned mission to the moon.

 

 

 hillary talks: ON CHINA

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)

missus clinton's REAL virtual office update
http://hillarytalks.blogspot.com
http://virtualclintonlibrary.blogspot.com
http://www.hillarytalks.us
http://www.hillarytalks.org
 

[Mudboy Slim]

"The Riadys knew the Clintons from their Arkansas years, when Moctar bought out a local bank. Moctar and his son James were close to Bill and Hillary through 1992 and into the White House. Moctar even owned the firm selected by Hillary Clinton to replace the White House travel office.

Moctar and James Riady played a key role in bringing the Clintons to power in Washington. The Indonesian billionaire and his Lippo banking company managed to contribute large sums of money to the Clintons' campaigns even though it was against the law. Moctar's gardener contributed $450,000 directly to Bill Clinton in a single check. James Riady, Moctar's son, eventually pleaded guilty to campaign violations. The connections between the Riadys and the Clintons have a much more sinister theme than simple foreign money inside U.S. elections. Testimony before the U.S. Senate revealed Moctar Riady's involvement in Chinese espionage. The Lippo Group is in fact a joint venture of China Resources, a trading and holding company "wholly owned" by the Chinese communist government and used as a front for Chinese espionage operations. Mrs. Clinton not only knew the Riadys but took their money as well. To prove my point I need only to cite photographic evidence. Her picture with Moctar Riady is certainly damning evidence of a relationship that spanned several bank accounts and two decades. It is often said that a picture tells a thousand words. However, Hillary's pictures not only tell stories left out of her book but they also netted $10,000 each for the DNC in illegal donations."

And for some reason, Ashcroft's Department of Justice chose to look the other way and let the Clintons go unpunished fer their Chi-Com Treason...now we've got a bipartisan coverup!!

Just damn...MUD

[jla]

Prescient words at post #15 from Mr. Ledeen.

Ashcroft's Department of Justice chose to look the other way and let the Clintons go unpunished fer their Chi-Com Treason

A little harsh, wouldn't you say, Mud? I'd have to believe that not only is John Ashcroft a solid Conservative, but he's a patriotic American as well.
I don't think we need to be throwin' our side's reputation around like some high school tramp's.
I'd think it not the easiest task in the world to indict a former POTUS for treason.

[Mia T]

I'd think it not the easiest task in the world to indict a former POTUS for treason.

America is fighting a two-front war, fundamentalist Islam on the right and an aberrant clintonoid liberalism on the left, both amoral, both anarchic and both quite insane.

The rules of engagement must change if we are to prevail.