Adding a few more of my own dots in the depressing connect-the-dots exercise …In November 2004, Iran gave China the rights to exploit the giant Yadavaran field. Importantly, China plans to bring this oil into China, not across the Indian Ocean and through the Malacca Straits, but by pipeline across central Asia, free from the surveillance of the US fleet. China's attitude to Iran is foretold; it has refused to condemn Sudan over the killings in Darfur since Sudan allowed it to build a 500-mile pipeline to the coast. Ahmadinejad can therefore be 100 per cent certain that China will veto any attempt to win UN approval for military intervention in Iran … Will Hutton in U.K.'s Obsever China supplies arms to Iran. Some of its firms are suspected of supplying missile technology and dual-use chemical weapons-related production equipment … Many suspect that Iran has continued to get Chinese help directly or indirectly through Pakistan or North Korea … Tehran has evidently acquired the technology to turn the yellow cake into uranium hexafluoride gas both by using lasers and centrifuges. This can be used to make nuclear weapon … earlywarning.com The successful effort by China to obtain U.S. microchip technology included espionage, sabotage and perhaps bribery. The red intelligence windfall freed the Chinese army to more accurately target American cities with atomic weapons using advanced U.S technology … The legacy that President Clinton left for the 21st century is a modern Chinese army equipped for global nuclear war … Charles R. Smith, President and CEO of SOFTWAR, and leading expert on cyber technology and its implications for war and terrorism In all likelihood we will be glowing in the dark before we discover the true extent of the Clinton decade of betrayal … Rick Fisher, Asian Security Fellow at the Center for Security Policy Yet the same man who single-handedly oversaw the most treasonous act in the history of this republic, placing personal political power over maintaining the integrity of our national sovereignty and security, became incensed (understatement of the century) when Chris Wallace suggested that he dropped the ball in his 'efforts' to corner Osama bin Laden. 
(Help me out here. Where have I witnessed that wagging finger before?) The accusation that Clinton fumbled the ball when he had the opportunity to capture bin Laden absolutely pales in comparison to the knowledge that he provided our greatest ideological enemy with dozens of advanced technological devices and systems (including, but by no means limited to, radiation hardened chip sets which are critical for atomic warfare and are required by advanced nuclear tipped missiles), which China apparently intends to share with other hostile coutries, and which are surely destined to represent the means to destroy the nation he was elected to protect and defend.
~ joanie
If we are to prevail, the rules of engagement--on both fronts--must change.
Marquis of Queensberry niceties, multicultural hypersensitivity, unipolar-power guilt, hegemony aversion (which is self-sabotage in the extreme--we must capture what we conquer--oil is the terrorist's lifeblood)... and, most important, the mutual-protection racket in DC--pre-9/11 anachronisms all--are luxuries we can no longer afford. Mia T, 4.17.04
America's Real Two-Front War
|
America's Real Two-Front War by Mia T, 4.17.04
merica's real two-front war: fundamentalist Islam on the right and a fundamentally seditious clintonoid neo-neoliberalism on the left, both anarchic, both messianically, lethally intolerant, both amorally perverse, both killing Americans, both placing America at grave risk, both undeterred by MAD, both quite insane.
If we are to prevail, the rules of engagement--on both fronts--must change.
Marquis of Queensberry niceties, multicultural hypersensitivity, unipolar-power guilt, hegemony aversion (which is self-sabotage in the extreme--we must capture what we conquer--oil is the terrorist's lifeblood)... and, most important, the mutual-protection racket in DC--pre-9/11 anachronisms all--are luxuries we can no longer afford. Notwithstanding, the underlying premise of our hyperfastidious polity, (that we must remain in the system to save the system) is fallacious at best and tantamount to Lady Liberty lifting herself up by her own bootstraps. To borrow from the Bard (or whomever), let's start metaphorically, or better yet, economically and politically, by killing all the seditious solicitors, which include the clintons and their left-wing agitprop-and-money-laundering machine: the Viacom-Simon & Schuster-60-Minutes vertical operation, the horizontal (as in "soporific") Cronkite-ite news readers, the (hardly upright) Ben-Veniste goons and Gorelick sleepers, and, of course, the clueless, cacophonic, disproportionately loud, left-coast Barbra-Streisand contingent. America must not pull her punches. (Or Pinches!) To prevail, America must defeat--thoroughly destroy--her enemies. On both fronts. |
|
ne•o-ne•o•lib•er•al•ism n.
neocommunist political movement, a tipsy-topsy, infantile perversion of the Marxist-Leninist model, global in scope, beginning in the post-cold-war, unipolar 1990s, led by the '60s neoliberal baby-boomer "intelligentsia," that seeks power without responsibility, i.e., that seeks to dilute American power by concentrating power in said '60s neoliberals while yielding America's sovereignty to the United Nations, i.e., while surrendering to the terrorists, as it continues the traditional '60s neoliberal feint, namely: (1) concern for social justice, (2) disdain for bureaucracy, and (3) the championing of entrepreneurship for the great unwashed.
-
Mia T, 2.24.04
|
|
The Democratic Party's Problem Transcends Its Anti-War Contingent2
- by Mia T, 4.6.03
- If Act I was a thinly veiled allegory about naked clintonism, then Act II is a parable about the plan for world domination by the Establishment, aged hippies in pinstripes all, with their infantile, solipsistic world view amazingly untouched by time.
-
Mia T, THE ALIENS, June 9, 1999
Alien Abductions, Flying Saucers + Other Weird Phenomena, c.1992-2000
l 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.
- ASIDE: Wartime Bush-bashing sedition of the pre-Howard Dean, pre-Cindy Sheehan variety, with its sotto-voce old-school indirection, refinement and politesse, sounds almost quaint these days.
The Democrats used to be able to wallpaper their national insecurity with dollars and demogoguery. But that was before 9/11.
-
|
COPYRIGHT MIA T 2006 |
TURN OF PHRASE
By purging DC of the professional politician and returning to the idea of the citizen-politician, we would break the power-and-corruption cycle. Post-9/11, we no longer have the luxury of time or circumstance to abide that nonsense.--me
