Replies

Mia, the only problem I have with reading your posts is that I invariably lose sleep the night of the reading. So readers of your research/commentary have a choice to make: (1) wade through the facts, illustrations and analysis and (if the reader absorbs, acknowledges and comprehends what is there) risk a major bout with insomnia, or (2) convince themselves that the wading is not worth the effort … and then go out, grab a quarter pounder and take in a mindless movie. Hmmm .... which to do? ...

Fortunately for us on the forum, most FReepers would opt for the former. Unfortunately for the future of our republic, most of the populace would opt for the latter (Just compare the readership of Charles Krauthammer’s columns with the viewership of ‘Deal or No Deal’ and you’ll begin to get my drift).

From your reference to ‘Red Dragon Rising: Communist China’s Military Threat to America’:

It would take a year and a half for the House of Representatives, the people’s body, to begin stripping away the Clinton administration’s camouflage disguising the truth about Communist China. In May of 1999 a select Congressional committee, in a unanimous bipartisan vote, identified President Clinton’s betrayal of his most sacred trust – safeguarding the national security of America. This is President Clinton’s legacy ...

After a five-month struggle with the Clinton White House over the report’s declassification and release, Cox and Dicks revealed the conclusion of their committee’s six-month investigation: The PRC has stolen America’s most advanced nuclear weapons secrets, and Chinese espionage ‘almost certainly continues today’ ...

The thesis of this work is simple: The democratic countries are about to be unpleasantly surprised by the emergence of a hostile, expansionist, nondemocratic superpower armed with the most modern weapons … and it will be our fault ...

In short, through a misguided foreign policy that has sacrificed national security for money and personal political power, the Clinton-Gore administration has materially assisted Bejing’s military ambitions.

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
Allegiance and Duty Betrayed

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?)~ joanie

We've witnessed the feigned anger before, too..: I M P E A C H M E N T
h e a r --c l i n t o n --l o s e --i t
by Mia T, 11.11.05

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, Allegiance and Duty Betrayed

Re clinton's reaction to Wallace, point well taken.

More generally, both clinton failures--terrorism (clinton didn't drop the ball. He refused to catch it.) and proliferation of WMD technology were willful acts of betrayal... and they are connected.

HILLARY GOES NUCLEAR
PROLIFERATION IN THE AGE OF CLINTON
by Mia T, 5.30.06

For more than a half decade, the Clinton administration was shoveling atomic secrets out the door as fast as it could, literally by the ton. Millions of previously classified ideas and documents relating to nuclear arms were released to all comers, including China's bomb makers.
William J. Broad
Spying Isn't the Only Way to Learn About Nukes
The New York Times
May 30, 1999

Nuclear is now very much in the news as a potential power source because of its lack of contribution to global warming. If you look at nuclear energy, which currently provides 20 percent of our energy with virtually no emission of greenhouse gases, we do have to take a serious look, but there remain very serious questions about nuclear power... in a world with suicidal terrorists.
So I have real concerns, specifically about a plant in my state near where I live, Indian Point....
So we need to resolve... questions of... proliferation... before we go forward with nuclear power.
hillary clinton
Remarks at The National Press Club
May 23, 2006

illful nuclear proliferation, the product of clinton naiveté, corruption and obsession with legacy,¹ was the predominant clinton policy for eight long years.²
Missus clinton's sudden concern about proliferation, therefore, is a decade too late and a dollar too cheap. ³
The clintons turned the dilemma of the nuclear age--how to exploit nuclear energy's peaceful and productive potential while preventing the spread of nuclear weapons-- on its head: They exploited nuclear proliferation for their own gain even as they prevented the realization of nuclear energy's peaceful and productive potential.
Moreover, by ignoring terrorism for those eight years,⁴ the clintons caused the nuclear dilemma to become even more acute, complex and deadly with the concomitant rapid rise in non-state actors' involvement in the proliferation of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
Contrary to the clintons' quaint theories,⁵rogue states routinely violated their Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons nonproliferation obligations, setting up a perfect symbiosis for non-state actors--particularly terrorists--seeking to acquire and use nuclear or other WMD. The non-state actor is the rogue state's perfect WMD delivery-system: there is no return address.

"I remember exactly what happened. Bruce Lindsey said to me on the phone, 'My God, a second plane has hit the tower.' And I said, 'Bin Laden did this.' that's the first thing I said. He said, 'How can you be sure?' I said 'Because only bin Laden and the Iranians could set up the network to do this and they [the Iranians] wouldn't do it because they have a country in targets. Bin Laden did it.'
I thought that my virtual obsession ² with him was well placed and I was full of regret that I didn't get him."

bill clinton
Sunday, Sept 3, 2002
Larry King Live
THE (oops!) INADVERTENT ADMISSIONS OF BILL + HILLARY CLINTON

The clintons, almost singlehandedly, therefore, made proliferation of WMD today's preeminent threat to international peace and security.
Some call the clintons quislings, Manchurian Candidates, bought off in Little Rock by Riady and company ⁶ decades ago (and much too cheaply, according to their Chinese benefactors⁷), trading our national security for their political power. This argument is persuasive but incomplete; the clintons, certifiable megalomaniacs, are driven ultimately by their solipsistic, messianic world view and that by which ultimately quashes all else -- their toxic legacy.
William J. Broad suggests (Spying Isn't the Only Way to Learn About Nukes, The New York Times, May 30, 1999)⁸ that the clintons had another reason to empower China and disembowel America. Broad argues that they sought to disseminate our atomic secrets proactively in order to implement their 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. (One has only to look to Iran, North Korea or Pakistan to see the absurdity of the clintons' premise.)
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...
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...
"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,:..."In terms of the phenomenology of nuclear weapons...the cat is out of the bag."
...[F]ormer Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the "extensive declassification" of secrets had inadvertently [?!] aided the global spread of deadly weapons.

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.
But it is Broad's failure to fully connect the dots -- the clintons' wholesale release of atomic secrets, decades of Chinese money sluicing into clinton campaigns, the clintons pushing the test ban treaty, the clintons' concomitant sale of supercomputers, and the clintons' noxious legacy -- that blows his argument to smithereens and reduces his piece to just another clinton apologia by The New York Times.
But even a Times apologia cannot save the clintons from the gallows. The clintons can be both absolute (albeit postmodern) morons and traitors. 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 their position on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty "an historic milestone," (if they must say so themselves,) the clintons believed that if they could get China to sign it, they would go down in history as the saviors of mankind. This was 11 August 1995.
NOTE: There would be an analogous treasonous miscalculation in the Mideast: the clintons failed to shut down Muslim terrorism, then in its incipient stage and stoppable, because they reasoned that doing so would have wrecked their chances for the Nobel Peace Prize. Indeed, according to Richard Miniter, Madeleine Albright offered precisely the Nobel-Muslim factor as a primary reason for not treating the bombing of the USS Cole as an act of war.⁹

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 (especially when combined with the supercomputers that clinton sold to China to help them finish the job) 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. 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 the clintons would argue against the proposition that these legacy-obsessed megalomaniacs would trade our legacy codes for their rehabilitated legacy in a Monica minute and to hell with "the children."

READ MORE
footnotes

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

IN A 'PINCH': RETHINKING THE FIRST AMENDMENT
(Which came first, the 'journalist' or the traitor?)

by Mia T, 6.27.06

"What is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."

James Madison

hen the founders granted 'The Press' special dispensation, they never considered the possibility that traitors in our midst would game the system. But that is precisely what is happening today. (Hate America? Support jihad? Become a 'journalist!')

This was bound to happen.

The premise behind the First Amendment as it applies to the press--that a vigilant watchdog is necessary, sufficient--indeed, possible--to protect against man's basest instincts--is tautologically flawed: The fox guarding the White House, if you will.

Walter Lippmann, the 20th-century American columnist, wrote, "A free press is not a privilege, but an organic necessity in a great society." True in theory. True even in Lippmann's quaint mid-20th-century America, perhaps. But patently false in this postmodern era of the bubbas and the Pinches.

When a free and great society is hijacked by a seditious bunch of dysfunctional, power-hungry malcontents and elitists, it will remain neither free nor great for long. When hijacked by them in the midst of asymmetric warfare, it will soon not remain at all.

If President George W. Bush is serious about winning the War on Terror, he will aggressively pursue the enemy in our midst.

Targeting and defeating the enemy in our midst is, by far, the more difficult task and will measure Bush's resolve and courage (and his independence from the MPRDC (mutual protection racket in DC)) more than any pretty speech, more even than 'staying the course.'

No government ought to be without censors; and where the press is free no one ever will.

Thomas Jefferson
Letter, September 9, 1792, to George Washington

It is hard to believe that a man is telling the truth when you know that you would lie if you were in his place.

H. L. Mencken

READ MORE
'MISBEGOTTEN' TIMES
(NARROWNESS, MR. SULZBERGER, NOT WIDTH)
PINCH'S NON-APOLOGY APOLOGY
by Mia T, July 18, 2006: COPYRIGHT MIA T 2006

WHY BIN LADEN WANTS HOME DELIVERY OF THE NEW YORK TIMES by Mia T, 7.11.06