Madeline All-Fraud
What a night of supreme disgrace at Powell Hall.
As a season ticket holder to the St. Louis Speakers series I was appalled at the virtually uncontested bullcrap former Secretary of State Madeline Albright was allowed to lay on the crowd as she shilled for Hillary and tried to gloss over her deadly tenure.
Once a woman of occasionally reasonable ideas and dignity, she has now become a bitter partisan who fraudulently misrepresents the current U.S. policy so as to cover for her own failings.
This woman who sat back and did nothing while we allowed jihadists to kill our citizens on the USS Cole and in the Khobar Towers has a lot of nerve calling for the same old "treat 'em like criminals" approach that ultimately gave terrorists the time and confidence to plan 9/11. Terrorism is not a police matter. That policy killed Americans.
But what does she care after ignoring jihadists and clinking glasses with Kim Jong Il as America's once famous foreign policy socialite?
Terrorism is a global threat that needs global and geopolitical responses. With her bloody hands she has the nerve to say we need to rewind the clock to her old days and chase after a few Mooj while ignoring the causes of terrorism in the first place. How many Americans is she willing to sacrifice for the sake of making the world like us?
Furthermore, Albright went on to repeat her statement that "Bush is the worst President in history", this during a time of war and a war SHE EGGED ON?
No one has done what Saddam Hussein has done, or is thinking of doing. He is producing weapons of mass destruction, and he is qualitatively and quantitatively different from other dictators."
--Madeline Albright. Feb 18, 1998
All this while not being brave enough to assess Condi Rice (I took a vow not to criticize a sitting Secretary of State) nor to comment on Barack Obama (I took a vow not to..blah blah blah).
What a shame watching this hag torpedo her credibility.
Troubling too was her constant quipping that she is a supporter of Hillary and setting herself up for a cabinet position in Hillary's White House. She brushed off the possibility of being named to a second term as Secretary of State but did mention--in passing, of course--that "only one other person, Daniel Webster, ever served twice", meaning she clearly has thought about it. It's no accident that she was standing behind Hillary during the grand concession speech in Iowa.
No wonder Democrats are gravitating to Barack Obama. Who wants the ghosts of Billary past lurking around and fiddling while Americans die.
The Hillary prospect is one long and insufferable remake of The Big Chill.
A Big Chill indeed.
Jamie, hope this isn't too harsh for posting on BMA, but the first thought that came to mind was...."stupid f** b**." Oh well. History is such a great judge of things, I think we are seeing more and more just how fucking bad the period of 1993-2000 really was in terms of our foreign policy. What a joke. We can not afford to have that same mentality BACK in charge of things. By not being tough on the jihadists in the first place brought us to the point we are today. I mean, look at that cast of shit-heads. Bill, Albright, Berger...what a joke. We want them in charge....again? There are a lot of stupid people in this country and I really hate to say that, but the truth hurts sometimes. These stupid people buy Hill's bullshit hook-line-and-sinker. She's just there to reel them in.
I'm done.
Reply to this
What Clinton did against terrism while he was in office:
-- sent legislation to Congress to TIGHTEN AIRPORT SECURITY. (Remember, this is before 911) The legislation was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the airlines.
-- sent legislation to Congress to allow for BETTER TRACKING OF TERRORIST FUNDING. It was defeated by Republicans in the Senate because of opposition from banking interests.
-- sent legislation to Congress to add tagents to explosives, to allow for BETTER TRACKING OF EXPLOSIVES USED BY TERRORISTS. It was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the NRA.
When Republicans couldn't prevent executive action, President Clinton:
-- Developed the nation's first anti-terrorism policy, and appointed first national coordinator.
-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously.
-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up UN Headquarters.
-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up FBI Headquarters.
-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the Israeli Embassy in Washington.
--Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up Boston airport.
-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up Lincoln and Holland Tunnels in NY.
-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the George Washington Bridge.
-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the US Embassy in Albania.
-- Tried to kill Osama bin Laden and disrupt Al Qaeda through preemptive strikes (efforts denounced by the G.O.P.).
-- Brought perpetrators of first World Trade Center bombing and CIA killings to justice.
-- Did not blame Bush I administration for first World Trade Center bombing even though it occurred 38 days after they had left office. Instead, worked hard, even obsessively -- and successfully -- to stop future terrorist attacks.
-- Named the Hart-Rudman commission to report on nature of terrorist threats and major steps to
be taken to combat terrorism.
-- Tripled the budget of the FBI for counterterrorism and doubled overall funding for
counterterrorism.
-- Detected and destroyed cells of Al Qaeda in over 20 countries
-- Created a national stockpile of drugs and vaccines including 40 million doses of smallpox
vaccine.
-- Robert Oakley, Reagan Counterterrorism Czar says of Clinton's efforts "Overall, I give them
very high marks" and "The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama"
-- Paul Bremer, Bush's Administrator of Iraq disagrees slightly with Robert Oakley saying he
believed the Clinton Administration had "correctly focused on bin Laden. "
-- Barton Gellman of the Washington Post put it best, "By any measure available, Clinton left
office having given greater priority to terrorism than any president before him" and was
the "first administration to undertake a systematic anti-terrorist effort."
Here, in stark contrast, is part of the Bush-Cheney anti-terrorism record before
Reply to this
Second Part:
Here, in stark contrast, is part of the Bush-Cheney anti-terrorism record before
September 11, 2001:
-- Backed off Clinton administration's anti-terrorism efforts.
-- Shelved the Hart-Rudman report.
-- Appointed new anti-terrorism task force under Dick Cheney. Group did not even meet before 9/11.
-- Called for cuts in anti-terrorism efforts by the Department of Defense.
-- Gave no priority to anti-terrorism efforts by Justice Department.
-- Ignored warnings from Sandy Berger, Louis Freeh, George Tennant, Paul Bremer, and
Richard Clarke about the urgency of terrorist threats.
-- Halted Predator drone tracking of Osama bin Laden.
-- Did nothing in wake of August 6 C.I.A. report to president saying Al Qaeda attack by hijack
of an airliner almost certain.
-- Bush - knowing about the terrorists' plans to attack in America, warned that terrorists were
in flight schools in the US - took a four week vacation.
-- By failing to order any coordination of intelligence data, missed opportunity to stop the
9/11 plot as Clinton-Gore had stopped the millennium plots.
-- Blamed President Clinton for 9/11.
http://www.mikehersh.com/Clinton_vs_Terror_Republicans_vs_Clinton.shtml
As for the statement "This woman who sat back and did nothing while we allowed jihadists to kill our citizens on the USS Cole and in the Khobar Towers"
I don't know what Madeline Albright could have done. I mean yes she was Secretary of State But is it her responsibility to bring these terrorists to justice? I think not. But a bigger question is what has Clinton and Bush done to bring these people to justice. In the Khobar bombing there are indictments but the perpetrators have not been arrested. As for the Cole bombing, on December 12,2000 the CIA made a preliminary judgment" that "al Qaeda appeared to have supported the attack. But six days AFTER Bush took office the FBI believed they had clear evidence tying the bombers to Al Qaeda. So I ask you, what did Bush do about these two incidents. I already know the answer. He did nothing.
Reply to this
Opinions are what America is all about. Opinions laced with profanity, (especially misspelled ones), I can't help but disregard.
Reply to this
amazing how Clinton could "stop cold" blah blah blah but when he failed we are supposed to wonder what he could do
by the way add these to your list
waco "stopped cold" 80 some AMERICANS
ruby ridge "stopped cold...."
well you get my drift
this group is certainly qualified to be in power
Reply to this
You'll get over it, trust me. By the way, my profanity was not misspelled, my content was edited after I posted. Trust me, I can curse with the best of them.
Reply to this
That is one ungly broad.
Reply to this
I mean't to say: that is one ugly, Jabba the Hutt lookin' broad.
Reply to this
John2
In the link you posted something struck me as odd....
"By original author unknown - search ongoing Apr 16, 2004"
For me the credibility on this drops out the bottom.
"sent legislation to Congress to add tagents to explosives, to allow for BETTER TRACKING OF EXPLOSIVES USED BY TERRORISTS. It was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the NRA."
Really?? Could it be that that was tacked on to the back of an anti-gun legislation?
This seems vaguely familiar to what you morons have been doing for the past 6 years. Seems to me the you are using the same trading freedom for security arguments now.
Reply to this
--"So please, try again for me. Why should I fear Madeline Albright and Hillary Clinton? Because you're concerned we'll return to the peace and prosperity of the 90's??"--
Question: Give me the date that Bin Laden declared "Jihad"-war against the United States.
Hint: It wasn't 9/11/2001.
Reply to this
That would be 1996 -
http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/profiles/osama_bin_laden_declares_jihad.htm
Reply to this
WE can all look back and say we should have done this, why didn't we do that, blah blah blah. Politicians are just that, politicians. They will put items that they know the public would love to see passed onto a bill that stands a snow balls chance in hell of passing because of whatever. Then they can say that look the dems/repubs didn't pass this law because of......
Ya'll get the point. this will not stop until we the people who elect these world class turds make them do their jobs! If they are not doing what is asked of them, vote there buts to the curb! Whatever our problems are (depending what side of the aisle you are sitting on) only the voters can fix!
Look to the bright side though. There's only a little over a month till Cardinals baseball!! WOOHOO!!
Reply to this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat%C4%81w%C4%81_of_Osama_bin_Laden The fatawa of osama
Reply to this
Dan,
Maybe you should enroll in internet search 101. Only took a few minutes using Google
http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/
So Dan, who's the moron now...
j
Reply to this
BullMooseAmerica,
Ya know I am glad to see new names and ideas pop up on BMA. There is a core group of us who have been posting here since day one.. Through all the garbage that Washington has dished out....
I love the disagreement and intelligent talk and often times heated discussion, I truly do. But one thing I have noticed is that everytime these Clinton's are mentioned on Jamie's site, or he is critical of them ?? All of a sudden new names pop up, scathing comments are made, the same old arguments are drudged up from the bottom of the cess pool...
We have folks on here that flat out hate President Bush and can't stand to look at him...We have folks that think the same of the Clinton's. All of America (even those that are not politically involved) have voiced their opinions somewhere on "Why we are in Iraq"..."Clinton could have stopped it".."Bush wants Oil".... "Haliburton" blah blah blah MF'n BLAH!
If either can't see by now that the problem of Jihad and extremists goes much further back than Clinton/Bush or that no ONE President is to blame? Then you are full of SH*T and your credibility here is nothing...
These Muslim killers have been playing the United States like a deck of cards for decades.. Quite frankly? They still are! With all of the division they have systematilcally grown in our country...We continue to show them we still are so blind with our own culture and comfort... we turn the other cheek and bend over.
They look at our candidates and leaders as baffoons..."Agent of Change" money money money...blah blah blah... If it weren't for our powerful military that has evolved since WWI and our world wide entwined economy? Well we would be a freakin' disaster to a point I choose not to think about.
It's not Clinton's fault and it's not Bush's fault what we are dealing with here BMA...It's America's fault..years and years of political succeses and mistakes as a people.. as Americans....Name one President that has not made a huge mistake in his term...(Harding doesn't count, he didn't serve long enough
The problem is Washington folks both and all parties. They speak, lie, patronize, and posture the way they do, because we have let Washington politics evolve that way.. We are drowning in partisanship, old school thinking, complacency...only WE can change it...
I will say one thing for both sides of this argument today...
There was prosperity in Clinton's 90's...There was prosperity in Bush's term as well... Clinton didn't see 9/11 coming...Bush did not either. 9/11 happened in the infancy of Bush's term...Hasn't happened since. Say what you will as why...but the fact is there..Thank you President Bush for that..He deserves that....Make your reasons and take your polls as why we have not had another attack....Make study and research and take your polls on "why the surge is working" the facts are there, Clinton's economy? Same thing.. Two Presidents. Two Missions. Wake Up!
Thx LTL
Reply to this
Thanks for that LtL. I think what this country needs is to have Political Leadership that is ACCOUNTABLE for it's actions. If a candidate gets in office on a certain stated agenda, and then flips the first week sitting in the chair, we as the American's they are supposed to be representing, need to take that person to task on it. If the candidate can't/won't/doesn't want to represent the folks that put him/her into office, then he/she should be REMOVED from said office and replaced with someone who DOES have honor and respect for the constituents. For too long, the Presidential/Governorial/Senatorial/Congressional elections have been a choice between the lesser of two evils instead of The Best Person For The Job. That will only change when WE THE PEOPLE hold our elected officials accountable for their actions.
I'm sick as Hell about what we let our elected leadership get away with. It's time for us to turn it around. If they don't represent US, put someone in their place who will.
Reply to this
Did I just see some one here say honor and politician in the same post???? Septic tank= politics....Bovine detritus = politicians.
Reply to this
Amen, LTL. It irks me that, instead of learning from mistakes made in the past, it's easier to blame one President over another. I don't blame ANY of our Presidents for Islamic terrorism but, instead, choose to blame the extremists themselves. Believe me, Bush is not my favorite President by any stretch of the imagination but I don't blame him for the rise of Islamic extremism because he's not to blame. Just as I don't blame Clinton. I don't think anyone could have imagined something like 9/11 before it happened but I do expect our leaders to learn from it and do everything in their power to stop it from happening again. Extremists have been trying to kill American's long before GWB ever took office. Decades before, in fact. But, the odds are not in our favor and another attack will happen again. It's only a matter of time. And, I'm sure the masses will be lined up to assign blame all over again.
Reply to this
Hmmm lets see.....
I believe that would still be you.
Did you even read this article?
Perhaps in all your Google savyness you overlooked the main idea of my post. (What else is new?)
The article in point only proves what I said. You Liberals are guilty now of the very crimes you accused Conservatives of then.
Oh the irony!
Also no where is the NRA blamed for spoiling Clinton's fun in that article.
Most likely it was blocked for the same reasons your beloved party's defense budget proposals kept getting struck down.
You seem to have aced Google 101 in school. Perhaps you can take the time to find that for me as well?
Reply to this
LTL
While I appreciate your thoughts, and most of the time I am right there with you. I cannot just sit by idly while the left disparages all we hold dear, America and my brothers in arms in particular. As far credibility goes no where did I question anyone in the room. I questioned his source.
How can you come down hard on me for responding as I did, when the "core" as you put it, have been doing the same since this site came up? I have been reading this from the beginning, but have never felt strong enough (read brave enough) to post a reply. You are right I should not feed the trolls but sometimes .... You get the idea.
Moving on....
You are 100% correct that Islam is problem. Sure there are peaceful Muslims per say, but I liken them to the people who watch a horrid crime happen on their door step and when it is over they look the other way. There has been an Islamic war against the west for over 1000 years. They have been fighting against America since just after our founding not just a few decades.
Several of you have stated that only we can change it. I tend to disagree. As Glover said so well, "Once you have reached that level you have already sold out."
I have always said that if a Democrat where to be strong on the issues that matter, Small Government, Taxes, Defense, and Security most importantly, I would vote for them in a heart beat. I don't like to play party lines. Is it my fault that the Right is the only side that is capable of providing on these?
Please note that I come from the hardline left leaning extended family.
My parents left the Democrats when Clinton was running.
As for my other post. After thinking about it most I should not have responded so harshly. I was just entering high school in 96' when all of this went down. I believe my point still stands however.
Reply to this
Dan,
I was not coming down on you in particular. As for my comment on "the core group" here at BMA? I should have explained further.... I like as many posters on BMA as possible, I like having liberal thinking and comments to debate back and forth. It's no fun "sittin' around" agreeing with fellow conservatives all day to me... But the libs that come out of nowhere before you can say Clinton.. and yet they offer no solutions but their party sure can talk "change" can't they??? They make personal attacks toward Jamie rather than his message...It always gets personal with them... I find it sad that many liberals can never admit the faults of their own and get ultra-defensive when one is critical of their party...but yet most conservatives I find are often critical of their own party and willing to admit mistakes etc..
I am guilty at times of being harsh as well Dan. BullMoose is for all that are tired of Washington and the same old same.. But some come here for less than noble reasons..
It's just that when 9/11 and Islam is brought up, something snaps with me when we start pointing fingers at individuals. I think the Clinton's are the epitome of politicians and phoniness, but for anyone to think that Clinton or Bush, knew of 9/11 and did nothing is preposterous and dangerous.
The phony carnival that is our current run for Presidency, doesn't make things any easier. Can the republicans just get back to basics and quit trying to be everything to everyone?? Do they honestly think they are going to woo enough left leaning voters to make a difference??? They had better concentrate on keeping the republican centrists and get to the roots of the party's beliefs... Because right now they will be hard pressed to beat Hillary or Barrack..
That said, to add to frustrations...
There is so much ridiculousness that clouds what is important...Example- I read yesterday where some environmentalists are going to sue the military for their over use of sonar because it harms whales and dolphins??(WTF!) I mean here our military is in the fight of our lives and now we gotta be concerned with some whales bumping into each other??? It's just all the stupid stuff that infuriates me...
With our country at war, our country's addiction to oil, our Presidents year after year kissing the sheiks asses in Saudia Arabia (smiling enemy).. Oil pools in our country that we can't drill for because of environmentalists worried about the caribou and amazingly finding endangered species where the oil is??
Leftists fighting us the whole way and undermining our troops and making borderline treasonist comments that truly hurt...
I could go on for days.
I am sorry for ranting again. But I am just in a very frustrated state of mind right now. But as I think about that. That is why Jamie created BMA for all of us wanting to vent and that are tired of the way our government operates. JUST TIRED
Thanks Dan..you should post more often
Thx LTL
Reply to this
Dan,
I am not going to get in a he said she said discussion with you. So I am going to go over each of your statements/questions one at a time and try to explain.
“Perhaps in all your Google savyness you overlooked the main idea of my post.”
So I looked at your previous post.
“In the link you posted something struck me as odd....
"By original author unknown - search ongoing Apr 16, 2004"
For me the credibility on this drops out the bottom.”
You are exactly correct. No one should trust anything anybody posts on the net, TV, or radio. Each of us needs to get the facts ourselves.
Next: "sent legislation to Congress to add tangents to explosives, to allow for BETTER TRACKING OF EXPLOSIVES USED BY TERRORISTS. It was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the NRA."
Really?? Could it be that that was tacked on to the back of an anti-gun legislation?”
Have you any evidence that this was true? Or are you fishing? I have personally investigated many of the statements (not all) this unknown author stated and found a lot of truth. Have you?
“You seem to have aced Google 101 in school. Perhaps you can take the time to find that for me as well?”
I could give you a URL which would state the reason the NRA was apposed to the tracking of explosives. But this is something you have to do. But I will give you a search hint. The President wanted inclusion of tangents in explosive materials, so that bombs can be traced more easily to the bomb makers, the NRA wanted and Congress exempted black and smokeless powder -- two of the most commonly used substances in improvised explosive devices.
Dan, you are a lot younger than me. I am not saying I am wiser than you. All I am asking is that you investigate the facts. The truth will enlighten you!
j
Reply to this
LTL,
WOW, thanks for the welcome. Not sure how long I’ll hang around.
I agree with you about having discussions between conservatives and liberals. Just the facts and not heated.
I realize many of you will disagree with me but I thought Jamie’s show was the best when he and Charles Jaco were going at it daily. I personally like hear other view points so I can make a more informed discussion.
I also agree with you about 9/11 and not being Bush or Clinton’s fault. I cannot find any facts to justify either being the blame.
I long for the day when we all will realize that is an us vs them. Right now it’s us vs. Bin Laden. I wish we were hunting him down. But if and when we capture him, the us vs. them will be us(us voters) vs. them(the politicians).
Another thing I long for is a better method of electing our president. But that’s for a different discussion.
j
Reply to this
John2,
We all have huge concern for our country. I mean we all want the same things, we just don't agree on the same methods of getting there..
On Bin Laden. Here is a perfect example of politicians and them blowing hot air on subjects that hit home with Americans...
I have heard John McCain say SEVERAL times, that if he is elected President he will hunt down and get Bin Laden and he says "I know how to get him!".... Oh REALLY McCain???? As much pull and respect that McCain has in Washington and is held in high regard for his service?? And he hasn't shared this plan with the current administration??? WOW! That is a mighty big statement on a subject that to me should not be made into a political tool...
These politicians play games with things that are important to us....
Another example- I watched the "Tyra Banks Show" about 1:00am last night because they had Obama on....Obama, after being asked what he can do to help low income families? He said "I will make sure that there is health care coverage for all Americans no matter what their financial status, I will also raise the minimum wage EVERY YEAR rather than every ten years. I want to make it a LIVEABLE wage"
So we are going to have folks working at fast food joints as career drive-thru attendants???? This is all hot air and political BS! These low income folks are going to vote on Obama BS. Obama is hurting these folks more than he is helping them, because what he says is never going to happen by giving handouts rather than initiative and he knows it.
These pols just throw any flippant bone out there to the American people for their own gain. Did you ever notice that they are hardly ever asked "Well okay Sir/Ma'am, and just how are you going to make this happen"?
Should I tell my kids that I am going to take them to Disney World this year, even though I know I can't afford it right now??? Hell no I'm not!
Thx LTL
Reply to this
LTL,
Point well taken, lesson learned.
John I will cede the point. Score one for you. LOL.
However, I do land on the NRA's side on the issue about the black and smokeless powders. Tracking the ingredients of ammo leads to tracking of ammo.IF you are tracking who buys ammo you have an instant list of gun owners. Something the left has wanted for years. But, that is a side issue so I will not hijack the topic. Moving on to the next thread...
Reply to this
Jamie,
I don’t listen to your show much. Never more than the first hour due to work. For this interview I decided earlier to listen to it.
First of all you showed a lot of class by giving her the respect she deserves. With your earlier rhetoric I was wondering.
The banter back and forth was great. That’s what it is all about. But I don’t think another half hour would make a difference. I haven’t met any but I can guess Secretary of States are well versed in debate. Probably better than you and I....maybe???
All the best
John
Reply to this
Long time lurker, first time poster. Couldn't sit on my hands anymore.
First, let me just say, Madeline Albright looks like she needs to itch her balls. Blech!
Second, did I just see someone mention Charles F'n Jaco?! If someone finds a larger sack of used douche-juice than that guy, let me know. Holy crap on a pogo stick, I've never wanted to light someone on fire more than him.
But I mean that in a good way.
Second
Reply to this
M.B.,
At least Clinton didn’t hire her for her looks.
As for the Jaco comment, I don’t remember much about him and Jamie except that he was very knowledgeable about world events and that he commended Jamie for his right to live even for prisoner stance.
What do you recall?
John2
Reply to this