CYA: CLINTON & DEMOCRATS REVISE HISTORY
The big news this weekend was “60 Minutes” interview with Richard Clark, a Clinton advisor on terrorism who worked briefly in the Bush Whitehouse. In the interview and in a new book just published, Clark contends; that George Bush was obbessed with Iraq and ignored al-Qaida, that Condeleeza Rice had never heard of al-Qaida and did not take them as a series threat, that Bush appointees in defense and intelligence didn’t take the al-Qaida threat seriously and ignored his and the Clinton administrations efforts to communicate a plan to address the al-Qaida situation, and the list continues.
Summary? Bush bad! It’s all his fault. To hear Richard Clark tell it, the Clinton administration had an fabulous plan for go after al-Qaida, (they just didn’t) and if George Bush would have just listened to him to begin with, there never would have been a 9-11.
Folks, you are witnessing some major league C.Y.A. taking place. For years Clark, as a member of the Clinton administration, had an opportunity to go after al-Qaida in aggressive and effective ways. They failed. They were given several opportunities, by foreign governments, to apprehend Osama bin Laden. They declined. Now, with the real truth being investigated by the 9-11 commission, and evidence mounting that Bush’s pre-emptive approach is actually working, the revisionist have to get the spin machine up to maximum rpm to explain away their utter, abject failure in the war against terror.
But wait, the hypocracy continues.
As reported in the Drudge Report (www.drudgereport.com) 60 Minutes, which is owned by Viacom, failed to notify viewers that Viacom has a financial interest in seeing Clark’s book do well. Can you say liberal attack machine.
Here are some curious points to ponder.
Why did Clark wait until now, on the eve of his book being published and with the 2004 presidential campaign in full swing, to attack the Bush administration,s strategy in the war on terror?
If the Bush approach was so misguided and Clark possesed a workable plant on how to handle al-Qaida, why not speak out when he left the White House? Why not speak out in the aftermath of 9-11? Why not speak out when Colin Powell was lobbying the U.N. for a resolution on Iraq? Does anyone doubt that an intelligence insider like Clark could have gotten a lot of press? The current media hubub is proof, is it not?
Clark and other liberals who are trying to defeat George Bush in this election are walking on dangerous ground. They are accusing the President of the United States of America of lying, murder and mismangement of the war on terror while at the same time offering no real alternative to what Bush is doing and has done up thus far, to fight terroism. What are they saying? Will they institute a policy of negotiating with terrorist? Will they use American tax dollars to buy off terrorists? If they have a different plan, why aren’t they working with the Bush administration to implement it now? It’s that important!
There are only two possible answers, either they can’t offer anything different, or what they have to offer would be so unacceptable to the you, the American public, that they dare not speak it.
Which One is John Kerry?
Some political analysts and gaff-watchers think it’s just a matter of time before John Kerry makes a mistake. One of these men pictured below could be the next president of the United States. Can you tell which image face is John Kerry and which is Gomer Pyle?
|
|
WWKD-What Would Kerry Do?
You will no doubt remember the “What Would Jesus Do?” campaign that began a few years back. Bumper stickers and T-shirts bearing the WWJD logo were displayed by Christians in hopes of invoking the question among the masses. Environmental activist adapted the logo to mean “What Would Jesus Drive?” in their campaign to demonize SUV’s.
I think it’s high time we posed the question to John Kerry and his supporters in regards to the issues of the day.
US: “Senator Kerry, what would you do on taxes?”
JK:”We’ve got to raise taxes on the rich…you know, people like my wife. Did I say raise taxes? I meant to say repeal the tax breaks George Bush gave to his rich friends. ”
US: “You mean people like your wife?”
JK: “Yes…I mean no. Stop confusing me! Next question.”
US: “What would you do in Iraq?”
JK: “As my record clearly shows, I did not support going to war in Iraq.”
US: “Actually, you did. You voted for it.”
JK: “No, I voted to support our troops.”
US: Actually, you voted against funding for equipment and troop support.”
JK: “Yes, but before I voted against it, I was for it because now that we are there we have to finish the job that I was against from the beginning, because Sadam Hussein had to be removed, even by force, although I was opposed to force but voted for it. Next question.”
US: “Okaaay. What would you do about jobs?”
JK: “We have got to create tax incentives for businesses so they’ll hire more people.”
US: “How do you plan to do that?”
JK: “By raising taxes on rich people and giving it to people who are out of work. Did I say raise taxes?”
So my question is this…What Would Kerry Do?
MARRIAGE-A-RONI: THE SAN FRANCISO TREAT
( A scene at City Hall in San Francisco )
CLERK: “Next.”
T&J: Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license.”
CLERK: “Names?”
T&J: “Tim and Jim Jones.”
CLERK: “Jones? Are you related? I see a resemblance.”
T&J: “Yes, we’re brothers.”
CLERK: “Brothers? You can’t get married.”
T&J “Why not? Aren’t you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?”
CLERK: “Yes, thousands. But we haven’t had any siblings. That’s incest!”
T&J: “Incest?” No, we are not gay.”
CLERK: “Not gay? Then why do you want to get married?”
T&J: “For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other. Besides, we don’t have any other prospects.”
CLERK: “But we’re issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who’ve been denied equal protection under the law. If you are not gay, you can get married to a woman.”
TIM: “Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I have. But just because I’m straight doesn’t mean I want to marry a woman. I want to marry Jim.”
JIM: “And I want to marry Tim, Are you going to discriminate against us just because we are not gay?”
CLERK: “All right, all right. I’ll give you your license. Next.”
J&J&R&J: “Hi. We are here to get married.”
CLERK:”Names?”
J&J&R&J:”John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson.”
CLERK:”Who wants to marry whom?”
ALL: “We all want to marry each other.”
CLERK: “But there are four of you!”
JOHN: “That’s right. You see, we’re all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert, Jane loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves June and me. All of us getting married together is the only way that we can express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship.”
CLERK: “But we’ve only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples.”
JANE: “So you’re discriminating against bisexuals!”
CLERK: “No, it’s just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that it’s just for couples.”
JOHN: “Since when are you standing on tradition?”
CLERK: “Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere.”
ROBERT: “Who says? There’s no logical reason to limit marriage to couples. The more the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Give us a marriage license!”
CLERK: “All right, all right. Next.”
DAVID: “Hello, I’d like a marriage license.”
CLERK: “In what names?”
DAVID: “David Deets.”
CLERK:”And the other man?”
DAVID: “That’s all. I want to marry myself.”
CLERK: “Marry yourself? What do you mean?”
DAVID: “Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to marry the two together. Maybe I can file a joint income-tax return.”
CLERK: “That does it! I quit!! You people are making a mockery of marriage!!”
AL-QAEDA OPENS FIRST EMBASSY IN MADRID
The Iconoclast satiryically reports that “Spain’s newly-elected socialist prime minister today declared the start of a ‘new era of protection from terror’ as he cut the ribbon at the grand opening of the al-Qaeda embassy in downtown Madrid. ” Read the full story here.
ERR AMERICA- THE NEW LINE UP REVEALED
Air America Radio, the liberal talkradio network, is set to launch at the end of March. Take a look at their proposed line-up of program hosts.
WAKE THE DEAD: 6-9am Hosts: HUBERT HUMPHREY & PAUL WELLSTONE
Get ready to laugh as this wacky duo entertains from the great beyond. Through the magic of digital editing, statements made by these two deceased liberal icons are distorted, spun and remixed to create the appearance that they approve of today’s liberal agenda.
UNFETTERED 9-Noon Hosts: Democrats from the Senate Judiciary Committee
This midmorning program lets you eaves drop on planning meetings between liberal special interest groups and Democratic senators as they coordinate another vicious attack on a qualified Bush nominee. Why listen to Advise and Consent, when you can hear Slander and Distortion.
The O’ Franken Factor: Noon – 3pm Host: Al Franken
Tune in as this Saturday Night Live veteran goes head to head against the most popular radio program in the history of talkradio, Rush Limbaugh. Get a front row seat to the ass kicking of the century. Hear Al whine and bitch about Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, Christians, Republicans and George Bush. (Wait a minute, this just in. The O’Franken Factor has just been cancelled due to the fact that we just revealed their entire programming content in the sentence above.)
The Randy Rhodes Show: 3-7pm No Host, All Music
It’s four hours of uninterrupted wailing guitar riffs and screaming chord progressions played by former Ozzy Osbourne guitar player, Randy Rhodes.(Programming Note: The wailing and screaming will remind you of the hysterical shrieks of liberal interest groups. It is also very similar to sitting in the audience for a reading of the Vagina Monologues.)
So What Else Can We Makeup? 7-8pm Host: Jayson Blair
This former New York Times writer brings his special brand of journalism to radio. You’ll be amazed as Jayson makes up facts, live on the spot, to support issues like global warming, tax cuts that favor the wealthy and more. Jayson will lie directly to the public as callers from across America phone in to discuss the top issues of the day. (If you’d like to be a caller on the Jayson Blair show, please send us an email so we can send you an advanced script of your call. That way you can rehearse it and we can make it sound real)
The Minority Report: 8-11pm Host: Janeane Garofalo
As narrow special interest control of the Democratic party grows, so does the need to stay up on every little nuance of every issue. No one can keep you up to speed better than Janeane Garofalo. As the founder of the group “Female Actresses and Talkshow Hosts Against Starched Shirts, or FATASS, Garofalo knows what it means to be a victim or more accurately, someone with an agenda claiming to be a victim. Don’t miss Janeane’s first show as the group, Lesbians Who Hate Bush, discuss the use of oxymorons in political discourse.
AIR AMERICA-IS IT LIBERAL RADIO OR A CAMPAIGN FINANCE LOOPHOLE?
It’s going to fail. They know it’s going to fail and they don’t care. The it is Air America, the new liberal talkradio network launching March 31st. “They” are the financiers and organizers of the venture. Why don’t they care about the “answer to Rush Limbaugh” being crushed by the marketplace? Because they’re not doing it for business, they’re doing it to skirt campaign finance laws, that they fought to pass. Let’s look at a couple of facts that back up my thesis.
Fact #1. There has never been, in the history of modern radio, a successful talkshow or network with a liberal viewpoint. It just hasn’t’ happened. Mario Cuomo is one of the more famous examples, but there are others. I have over 20 years experience in radio, including programming on a national network level. I remember in 80’s when ABC Talkradio offered Michael Jackon(not that one), Susan Forward, Joy Brown, Dr. Dean Edell and others, all unapologetically liberal. Nobody liked it! You would think liberalism’s lack of appeal in the radio marketplace would make most investors consider the bond market instead of radio. To be sure, Air America is putting forth an appealing package of big names and slick marketing, but it’s like the old saying where I live, “You can sprinkle powdered sugar on dog doo, but it’s still gonna taste like dog doo.
Fact #2. Broadcast radio is changing with technology and deregulation. Radio, or rather the way people use radio, is going the way of cable. With the emergence of satellite radio, more and more radio users will opt of a “pay-to-listen” system. This could take traditional local broadcast radio in several directions but there is one certainty, there is no certain future for broadcast radio. On the deregulation side, who knows when a station my be sold to a new ownership group. Sales of stations are instigated through normal market pressures and may, in the future, become necessary because of the roll back of deregulation. So why, as investors, are Air America’s backers sinking millions into a network that owns no real property or broadcast license and could loose market share overnight when a new owner decides to cancel their contract?
Because they’re not investing in a business. They are making a political donation to the party and political causes they support without having to submit to the limits of campaign finance reform. The hypocracy is so thick you can chew it! Air America’s backers are launching a political attack machine, just in time for the big show, that will allow them to spread any propaganda they want, all day, everyday. You see, broadcast entities and news organizations do not have the same restrictions as PAC’s, political parties and candidates. The are virtually unrestricted when it comes to what they can say by way of endorsements, editorial commentary and programming, especially a network. FCC regulations that govern equal access and control advertising rates for candidates only apply to actual broadcast license holders. A network is beholden only to the free market. This was demonstrated with the Janet Jackson boob incident. It wasn’t CBS or MTV that was threatened with indecency fines. It was CBS affiliated stations that aired the content.
With Air America, John Kerry, the Democratic party and every liberal cause that can muster a press release will have a voice for the political season. And don’t doubt for a minute that, come December, Air America will be history. This was a plan put in play long ago. When you first heard Al Franken, Al Gore and every other liberal start whinning about Rush Limbaugh and the right wing media, that was the first step in launching Air America. It was never for the purpose of launching a business venture, they know it won’t work, but as a political tool, it’s a 24/7 campaign spokesperson with no muzzle.
(PARAGRAPH FOR LIBERALS ONLY)
LIBERAL:”But what about Limbaugh and all those other guys? They’re just
mouthpieces for George Bush and the Republican party….aaaacckk!”
ME: “No you moron. Rush and the other conservative talkshow hosts out
there are only on the air because people listen to them and they
make money. Here’s a spoon so you don’t swallow your tounge.”
Look for daily quotes in all the mainstream press that begin with something like this, “Howard Dean, appearing on Air America’s morning show, said two plus two equals five. You see that’s how they do it in the media. Once it gets said or reported somewhere, you can always say, “It was reported on Air America today that Bush is Satan.” Plausible deniability. “We didn’t say it, they did. We just told you what they said.”
But of course, www.laughatliberals.com is here to help wade through the BS…and make you laugh about it.
What is the deal with the Anti-war Advocates?
By Jan A. Larson
A recent TownHall.com article by Ross MacKenzie
(http://www.townhall.com/columnists/rossmackenzie/rm200302
13.shtml) listed a series of arguments that are continually offered
up by those opposed to the use of military force to effect the
removal of Saddam Hussein. I will address each of those
arguments in turn:
- The inspectors can’t find any weapons.
The UN inspectors are not UN investigators. The inspectors are
in Iraq to ostensibly verify that Iraq has complied with previous
UN resolutions that mandate that Iraq not develop nor possess
various classes of weapons of mass destruction. The Iraqi
regime has maintained that they are in compliance and must
demonstrate that compliance to the inspectors. It is not the job
of the inspectors to scour the entire nation to try to uncover
evidence that such weapons exist; it is Iraq’s obligation to
demonstrate compliance. Given that Iraq has had four years to
make their weapons programs “inspection proof,” it is certainly
not surprising that the UN inspectors have not found a proverbial
smoking gun.
- The U.S. can’t be the world’s policeman.
Eliminating an ongoing and potentially lethal threat against the
United States does not constitute becoming the world’s
policeman. The United States was attacked by an organization,
Al-Qaeda, with ties to and the support of the Iraqi regime.
- The U.S. must get UN approval.
Politically, UN approval would be preferable, but practically it is
not a necessity. A UN resolution that specifically authorizes the
use of force in Iraq would likely mean fence-sitting nations
could then justify to their people why they are supporting the
United States’ effort in Iraq. As a practical matter, the war
against terrorism that was declared on September 11, 2001 does
not require any approval. The United States will determine our
own destiny and will not be hamstrung by an ineffectual United
Nations.
- There’s no terror connection.
Secretary of State Colin Powell outlined links between the Iraqi
regime and Al-Qaeda. Saddam Hussein has not hidden the fact
that he pays the families of Palestinian homicide bombers.
There is a record of a number of the September 11 terrorists
having been in Baghdad. While none of Saddam Hussein’s sons
were on the flights that struck New York and Washington, there
is sufficient evidence that Hussein supports terrorism.
- What about the Arab “moderates”?
Arab moderates within Iraq will be freed from an oppressive
regime and will be able to go about their lives without living in
constant fear of oppression.
- What about the Europeans?
The Europeans, particularly the French and Germans, seemingly
have their own agendas, primarily driven by internal politics and
economics. Their support is not needed, but likely will
eventually come when it is clear it is in their interest to be on the
side of the United States rather than on the side of Saddam
Hussein.
- Bush better make the case or lose the support of the
American people.
The case has been made to the satisfaction of the majority of
Americans.
- Let diplomacy work.
Diplomacy has had over a decade to work. It hasn’t worked and
it won’t work. Saddam Hussein has practiced deception, denial
and delay. He expelled the UN inspectors in 1998 and has
obstructed the inspectors in 2002-03.
- Give peace a chance.
How many more times are we going to have to repeat September
11, 2001 before we decide that peace had its chance? Peace will
come when Hussein is no longer fueling international terrorism
and oppressing the Iraqi people. The events of September 11,
2001 provided ample evidence that we cannot take the chance
that such an attack will not happen again.
- Powell better make the case.
Secretary Powell’s presentation to the UN Security Council did
just that for all but those most strident opponents.
- Do we want to see American soldiers coming home in body
bags?
No. We also do not want to see an American landmark collapse
on fire and thousands of citizens die. We don’t want to live in
fear every time we get onto a plane, ride a subway or gather in a
public place. We don’t want to turn on the television or radio
and see that we are alert status five. Freedom has a price. We
must be prepared to pay that price. The men and women in our
armed forces are prepared to pay that price.
- Make love not war.
This certainly demonstrates a level of reasoned thought by
anyone offering it as an excuse to leave Saddam Hussein in
power.
- It’s all about oil.
This is the most ludicrous of the antiwar arguments. If it were
about oil, the United States’ and coalition forces could have
marched into Baghdad in 1991 and seized control of Iraq at that
time or any time since. In fact, if it were about oil, the sanctions
on Iraq could have been lifted at any time and Iraqi oil would
have been flooded onto the world market.
- Saddam poses no threat to us.
It is true that Saddam Hussein’s military cannot attack the
United States in an amphibious assault, cannot roll into
Washington with a column of tanks or strafe New York with an
armada of warplanes. However, the threat scenario facing the
United States today is much different than faced in conventional
wars of the past. Saddam Hussein’s regime can arm terrorists
with weapons that will fit in a hand, suitcase or truck that can
kill thousands of people with no warning. The threat is real.
It is still possible for war to be averted, but that possibility is
entirely within the control of Saddam Hussein. The illogical,
emotional ranting of a bunch of non-thinking, sign wielding anti-
war protestors will not avert war in Iraq.
I would welcome an honest, logical and thoughtful argument as
to why the United States should not go to war with Iraq. So far,
I have not heard one.
—–
Jan A. Larson publishes a weekly commentary, “What is the
Deal?” at the Pie of Knowledge
(http://www.pieofknowledge.com). Guest columnists are
welcome to submit topical, thought provoking articles from the
left or the right.
OUR FAVORITE SITES
Stay on top of what you need to know by visiting the sites listed below. They are some of our favorites.
Drudge Report
Matt Drudge’s conservative news source: DRUDGE REPORT
INCREDIBLE PHOTOS OF SADAM’S CAPTURE
Check out these incredible photos of Sadam being captured by American forces. It makes you feel like you were there!
What’s this? An evil tyrant’s hiding place?
Continue reading…
Election Day Politics on the Web
By Robin Nobles
Have you ever gone to polls to vote, only to look at the ballot and not recognize the names of many of the candidates?
We need to be better informed than that! We need to take the time to learn about the different candidates who are running in each office, so we can make informed decisions.
Politics1.com is an excellent, very comprehensive Web site devoted to American politics. It covers the 2004 race for the presidency, but it also overs state elections, ideologies, political parties, and the issues.
For example, if you want to learn more about liberals and what they generally believe, click on that link, where you’ll find an assortment of links to liberal news sources and publications. Or, click on Political Parties to learn more about the two major parties as well as the various third parties.
Click on The 50 States, which is where you can choose your state and learn more about the candidates for the upcoming election.
Before you vote on November 4, try to learn a little more about the candidates who are running, because they’re the ones who will be shaping our government in the months and years to come. http://www.politics1.com/index.htm
Robin Nobles with Search Engine Workshops teaches SEO strategies the “stress free” way through hands-on, search engine marketing workshops (http://www.searchengineworkshops.com) in locations across the globe and online search engine marketing courses (http://www.onlinewebtraining.com). Visit the World Resource Center, a new networking community for search engine marketers. (http://www.sew-wrc.com)
