Posted on 01/27/2003 1:34:54 PM PST by Stand Watch Listen
Sometimes when people lack morality, intelligence or some other trait to keep them from saying or doing something monumentally stupid or harmful, it is the simple sense of shame that prevents them from doing so. Unfortunately, however, some people lack even that.
To wit, Hillary Clinton recently had the unmitigated gall to accuse the White House of '- ignoring Clinton administration warnings about Osama bin Laden.' In comments on a New York radio talk show, she went on to say that '- the outgoing administration told the incoming one that they would spend more time on terrorism and bin Laden than anything else,' but then claimed, 'their priorities were different.' Say what?!!
The first thing I want to ask is what were Bill and Hillary's 'priorities' when terrorists murdered over 200 U.S. Marines in Lebanon? Or when terrorists murdered 19 Airmen in Saudi Arabia? Or when terrorists blew a hole in the hull of the USS Cole in a Yemen port, killing American sailors, or when they murdered hundreds at two U.S. embassies in Africa? For all that, the Clintons' only response was to fling a couple of missiles into the desert at a supposed terrorist training camp, and yet Hillary dares to accuse Bush of 'shortchanging national security'?!
Yeah I guess you could say the Bush administration's priorities are 'different' from those of the Clinton administration and thank G-d they are!
Following the Democrat Party line, Mrs. Clinton linked what she called our weaker national security to Bush's tax cuts, saying that as a result of those cuts America doesn't have the money to pay for anti-terrorist needs. Funny, but she was 'in office' for eight years, and the current weakened state of our military is a direct result of her husband's (her?) policies. But she blames the degraded capacity to ensure our national security on tax cuts? Well, there weren't any tax cuts during the Clinton reign why the degraded state of the U.S. military, then? (And don't wait for any of the U.S. media to ask her that, or any other, uncomfortable or inconvenient question.)
'What good is it going to do if you take the tax off a dividend if we don't know what's on 98 percent of the (shipping) containers that are coming into our ports?', Mrs. Clinton asked. What did she and her husband do in their eight years in office to address that situation?
'Why don't we use some of the money to harden doors in our airplanes?', was another of her comments. But why should the federal government do anything about the doors or any other part of privately owned airplanes? Isn't that the responsibility of the owners of the airlines? Will air passengers not choose to fly only on the airlines that have taken what they see as sensible and effective measures to protect their passengers, without costing taxpayers one red cent? And isn't that incentive enough for the airlines to arm their pilots, strengthen their doors, pre-flight security checks, etc and without another massive, incompetent and tax-devouring government department?
Hers is the mentality that sees cutting taxes as taking away money that rightfully belongs to politicians. It is the outlook of a career politician, whose power and influence is proportional to the amount of taxes over which they have authority. It's not the money, of course, that is so dear to Hillary and her colleagues in the Senate, House and state governments, but the power that derives from the control over how that money is spent. The more money available, the more power to be wielded that's the simple fact of American political life. 'Liberal' Democrats are offended by tax cuts because it takes away some of the power they're used to, the power they see as inherently theirs by dint of their superior political philosophies.
You know, like their 'commitment' to black Americans, evidenced by the Democrats' continuing efforts to keep blacks dependent upon government money and programs. Their faux concern for blacks is revealed in the current presidential nominee farce. In 2000, one of the most knowledgeable, intelligent and morally attuned men in America, Alan Keyes, ran for the GOP presidential nomination, against what was a laughable group of contenders (yes, including the current president). So glaring were the differences in ability, clarity of thought, wisdom and integrity between Keyes and the rest of the pack that the GOP's failure to nominate him for president reveals that their focus is on political power, rather than able and principled leadership.
The Democrats, however, have gone the GOP one better - Al Sharpton. The so-called 'party of the black man' trots out as representative of black Americans a caricature, a buffoon, a race-baiting street hustler! Why not put a bone in his nose and dress him in a loin cloth! Sharpton's laughable side is unfortunately tempered by a vicious tendency, one that has contributed to murder. This is what Democrats call faithfully representing black Americans? Yet they received over 95% of the 2000 black presidential vote. No wonder Democrats are so intent on keeping public education in its scandalous state- if blacks ever wised up, the Democrats would be out of work.
Webster defines shame as 'the painful feeling of having lost the respect of others due to improper behavior, incompetence, etc.' Hillary, after eight years of ignoring terrorism and its repeated murderous impact on Americans, can criticize Bush because she totally lacks a sense of shame for her own essentially treasonous behavior, which continues in the Senate.
She and her despicable husband did nothing to retaliate for the murders of Americans serving in our military, thus leaving those serving today at greater risk. They also did nothing about other terrorist attacks, including the first bombing of the World Trade Center. If ever there was a direct link between lack of action and future tragedy, it is the failure of the Clintons to act against terrorists and the subsequent 9/11 attacks, and the continuing terrorist threat today. The Clintons' emasculation of our intelligence agencies and military provided a great advantage to terrorists, yet now she deigns to criticize a president who is actually doing something to protect Americans?
My son and my best friend both scoff at the idea that Hillary could ever be elected president. As much as I'd love to agree that the American people would never, ever elect this shameless, diabolical, self-absorbed creature, I remember that her equally shameless husband was elected to that office - twice. Who she is and what she is about was on full display for eight years, but instead of receiving justice, she was rewarded (by the people of New York with a seat in the Senate), and last week a national survey revealed that Democrats now favor Hillary Clinton as their presidential nominee in 2004.
As awful as it is to contemplate, what could be more appropriate for a people who have rejected their moral foundations than a leader who is herself devoid of all morals, even a sense of shame?
Hillary's all they've got...and way to many will fall for her. That's why it is critical that we ALWAYS, and LOUDLY, and CLEARLY expose the left.
She IS the Democratic party line.
Related data from RNCTHE MYTH BEHIND HILLARY CLINTON’S HOMELAND INSECURITY
Source: Republican National Committee; Published: 27 January 2003; Author: RNC Research Group
After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and injured 1,000; President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and injured 200 U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
After the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and injured 5,000; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39 U.S.! sailors; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
Maybe if Clinton had kept his promise, an estimated 3,000 people in New York and Washington, D.C. that are now dead would be alive today.
AN INTERESTING QUESTION:
This question was raised on a Philly radio call-in show. Without casting stones, it is a legitimate question. There are two men, both extremely wealthy. One develops relatively cheap software and gives billions of dollars to charity. The other sponsors terrorism.
That being the case, why is it that the Clinton Administration spent more money chasing down Bill Gates over the past eight years than Osama bin Laden?
THINK ABOUT IT!
It is a strange turn of events. Hillary gets $8 million for her forthcoming memoir. Bill gets about $12 Million for his memoir yet to be written. This from two people who have spent the past 8 years being unable to recall anything about past events while under oath!
Sincerely,
Cdr. Hamilton McWhorter USN (ret)
Pray for GW and the Troops
However, just let George W. even mention the name Jesus in a favorable light and watch out.
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.