not corruption and scandal per se.
Someday the world may have to deal with the consequences of this:
The Idiot's Guide to Chinagate
It has the potential to make 9/11 and the last six years look like a fender bender and a fist fight.
Posted on 09/26/2006 10:26:08 AM PDT by Mia T
ping
Consumer confidence rebounds in September ~ DemonicRats deeply saddened...
The Demos could get hammered in November...
out to pasture
Someday the world may have to deal with the consequences of this:
The Idiot's Guide to Chinagate
It has the potential to make 9/11 and the last six years look like a fender bender and a fist fight.
Good one ( as usual ) MiaT- will pass it on.
I see it the other way around. The clintons didn't want to kill or capture bin Laden (think Nobel Peace Prize, cowardice and polls) ...
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, 11.11.05This legacy confab is in and of itself proof certain of clinton's deeply flawed character, and a demonstration in real time of the way in which the clinton years were about a legacy that was incidentally a presidency.
Madeleine Albright captured the essence of this dysfunctional presidency best when she explained why clinton couldn't go after bin Laden.
According to Richard Miniter, the Albright revelation occurred 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.
Albright explained that a [sham] Mideast accord would yield [if not peace for the principals, surely] a Nobel Peace Prize for clinton. Kill or capture bin Laden and clinton could kiss the 'accord' and the Peace Prize good-bye.
If clinton liberalism, smallness, cowardice, corruption, perfidy--and, to borrow a phrase from Andrew Cuomo, clinton cluelessness--played a part, it was, in the end, the Nobel Peace Prize that produced the puerile pertinacity that enabled the clintons to shrug off terrorism's global danger.
READ MORE
so they ignored terrorism. And when they couldn't ignore it, they minimized it, mischaracterizing it as a series of discrete crimes rather than the war it was.
This ploy underscores the clintons' failure to understand that a terrorist war requires only one consenting player and that 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.
bill clinton could not afford to capture or kill bin Laden. This information courtesy of none other than Madeleine Albright.
clinton's reaction--or should I say non-reaction-- to the USS Cole bombing in 2000--an unambiguous act of war--validates Albright's assertion.
clinton's refusal to take bin Laden in 1996--validates Albright's assertion.
That clinton summarily ignored and urged all of us to ignore the first attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor, the 1993 WTC bombing--ignore the first major Islamofascist terrorist attack on the continental United States!!--validates Albright's assertion.
The fact that "our national mourner," bill "I feel your pain" clinton, never even visited the site--he was only 15 minutes away mere days after the 1993 WTC bombing--validates Albright's assertion like nothing else.
WHY THE CLINTONS FAILED "TO CAPTURE OR KILL THE TALLEST MAN IN AFGHANISTAN"
(DID THEY REALLY WANT TO TAKE HIM OUT ANYWAY?)
(Part One)
by Mia t, 2.15.06
thx :)
Thank you.
:)
"I tried real hard to get Osama Bin Laden and had anybody offered him to me I would have taken him faster than a school girl in Arkansas"
THE ABOVE MASS MURDER OF THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT AMERICANS WAS THE INHERITANCE OF 8 YEARS UNDER THE CLINTOONS.
thank you :)
|
The Interview: But he did plan to spin 9/11 (to us dummies) in response to "the little Pathway to 9/11." (NOTE: The misnomer by clinton was deliberate and meant to convey that he not only didn't watch the ABC movie, he paid it no notice.) What the interview demonstrated: clinton is profoundly dysfunctional; he is a pathological liar, a thug, corrupt, consumed with roiling rage (of the rapist kind), paranoid, self-absorbed, developmentally arrested, inept, delusional, dangerous. (The wife is at least as bad.) BTW, clinton's scapegoating of the 'neocons' is consistent with both clintons' latent antisemitism. |
he shares many personality traits with another well known anti semite, quite possible including alternating feigned rage with inimate praise and appreciation. Prime minister Chamberlin came away from one meeting reporting that he was convinced he (Chamberlin) was the only statesman who could deal with the volitile Chancelor, whose extraordinary range of perversions are underappreciated, even today.
|
The Rage:When the rage begins to erupt, there is something phony about it. What I think is happening is that it starts out somewhat calculated. But then the control is lost. The rapist just beneath the surface breaks through. If you examine some of the frames of the video, you will see the unmistakable uncontrolled rage of a rapist. |
Pathological rage plus incredible callousness masked by feigned passionate sincerity which is the moral imbeciles substitute for honesty, which they can not feign, because it is a foreign experience to them.
All loyalty for as long as it last is based upon utility, when others lose utility, they become disposable.
Not to mention they (Clintons) are simply tasteless.
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.
