USA Mega

Lottery Places

The time is now 3:16 pm

You last visited
July 22, 2026, 1:53 pm

All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Home › Blogs › konane's Blog

konane's Blog

Page 554 of 593

"North American Union threat gets attention of congressmen

"North American Union threat gets attention of congressmen
Resolution aimed at blocking merger, funding of 'NAFTA superhighways'

Source WorldNetDaily.com

" WASHINGTON – While several members of Congress have denied any knowledge of efforts to build "NAFTA superhighways" or move America closer to a union with Mexico and Canada, four members of the House have stepped up to sponsor a resolution opposing both initiatives.

Rep. Virgil Goode Jr., R-Va., has introduced a resolution – H.R. 487 – designed to express "the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System or enter into a North American Union (NAU) with Mexico and Canada."

"Now that Congress is preparing to take up the issues of the North American Union and NAFTA superhighways, we are moving out of the realm where critics can attempt to disparage the discussion as 'Internet conspiracy theory,'" explained Jerome Corsi, author and WND columnist who has written extensively on the Security and Prosperity Partnership – the semisecret plan many suspect is behind the efforts to create a European Union-style North American confederation and link Mexico and Canada with more transcontinental highways and rail lines. "This bill represents a good first step."

Corsi explained to WND that the Bush administration is trying to create the North American Union incrementally, under the radar scope of public attention.

"Even today," said Corsi, SPP.gov has a 'Myths vs. Facts' section that denies the administration is changing laws or working to create a new regional government. Unfortunately, the many references on SPP.gov to Cabinet-level working groups creating new trilateral memoranda of understanding and other trilateral agreements makes these denials sound hollow."

The resolution introduced by Goode had three co-sponsors: Reps. Thomas Tancredo, R-Colo., Ron Paul, R-Texas, and Walter Jones, R-N.C.

The "whereas" clauses of the resolution lay out the case against the North American Union and NAFTA Superhighways as follows:

 

  • Whereas, according to the Department of Commerce, United States trade deficits with Mexico and Canada have significantly widened since the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA);

     

  • Whereas the economic and physical security of the United States is impaired by the potential loss of control of its borders attendant to the full operation of NAFTA;

     

  • Whereas a NAFTA Superhighway System from the west coast of Mexico through the United States and into Canada has been suggested as part of a North American Union;

     

  • Whereas it would be particularly difficult for Americans to collect insurance from Mexican companies which employ Mexican drivers involved in accidents in the United States, which would increase the insurance rates for American drivers;

     

  • Whereas future unrestricted foreign trucking into the United States can pose a safety hazard due to inadequate maintenance and inspection, and can act collaterally as a conduit for the entry into the United States of illegal drugs, illegal human smuggling, and terrorist activities;

     

  • Whereas a NAFTA Superhighway System would be funded by foreign consortiums and controlled by foreign management, which threatens the sovereignty of the United States.

The resolution calls for the House of Representatives to agree on three issues of determination:

 

  1. The United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System;

     

  2. The United States should not enter into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada; and

     

  3. The President should indicate strong opposition to these or any other proposals that threaten the sovereignty of the United States.

"As important as this resolution is," Corsi said, "we need still more congressional attention. Where is congressional oversight of SPP? We need congressional hearings, not just congressional resolutions."

H.Con.Res.487 has been referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and to the Committee on Internal Relations for consideration prior to any debate that may be scheduled on the floor of the House of Representatives."

 

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52230
Entry #593

80-19 Affirmative Fence Vote

This is exemplary of what grass roots activism can accomplish.
 
  From:  Roy Beck, President, NumbersUSA
Date:  Friday 29SEP06     10:15 p.m. EDT
 
Master Headline Here
 
SENATORS GET OFF THE POLITICAL FENCE

THEY VOTE 80-19 TO BUILD
700 MILES OF DOUBLE-WALL FENCE
ON U.S.-MEXICAN BORDER

The Senate just finished passing the U.S. House of Representative's fence bill.

It will now go to President Bush who has promised to sign it.

This is a stand-alone bill. It was not bundled with any compromises, any increases in immigration, any new guestworker visas or any amnesty.

It deals only with making our southern border more secure and to further impede the flow of illegal workers and dependents.

Your incredible phoning today -- and all month -- and your relentless faxing and other pressure throughout the year left most Senators with little choice.

This fence was barely talked about two years ago and mostly thought to be a crackpot, off-the-wall (er, poor choice of words) idea -- and it still is by most of the newspaper editorial writers of this country. Our hat is off to www.WeNeedAFence.com, the Minutemen and a number of other smaller groups who really championed this rather obscure cause in the early stages.

So, how could this pass so overwhelmingly?

Ever since the House passed this fence bill 283-138 earlier this month, major Republican and Democratic leaders in the Senate have said they would refuse to allow this bill to come to a vote. They said passing an enforcement-only bill would take away a bargaining chip they need to pass a bill with guestworkers and an amnesty. They used all kinds of maneuvers to keep from having to vote directly on this bill.

But a lot of the Senators -- such as Sen. Martinez (R-FL) -- who so vociferously spoke against this bill ended up voting for it tonight.

Why? Because they knew that regular voting citizens like you would hold them accountable.

This lop-sided vote is absolutely a sign of the tremendous power that this growing citizen movement is accumulating -- and of your steadfast commitment.

You can read more about the fence and this bill (H.R. 6061) at:
http://www.numbersusa.com/hottopic/congress.html

JUST ANOTHER INCREMENTAL STEP -- BUT A VERY IMPORTANT ONE
This bill basically is the only step forward that Congress has taken this year in the fight against out-of-control mass immigration.

It is sad that this is all we got when we consider the great promise of the ATTRITION THROUGH ENFORCEMENT bill (H.R. 4437) passed last December by the House.

But the Senate refused to deal with it unless it could add an amnesty and incredible increases in legal immigration.

In addition, we have to remember that the bill tonight was not an appropriations bill. The money to fund the fence must come in another bill. Money for a few hundred miles appears to be in the pipeline, but the Senate so far has not shown signs of being willing to provide all the money to build all 700 miles.

Nonetheless, there will be plenty of money to get started. As this fence begins to be erected at and near the populated settlements along the Mexican border -- and as it clearly slows the illegal traffic -- we can hope that steps of success will breed more interest and more money for more fence in Congress next year.

FULL SUCCESS OF FENCE DEPENDS ON US WINNING OTHER TOOLS
Just about exactly a year ago, leaders of many national groups fighting immigration insanity -- and some key staffers from Congress -- met in a private room for dinner on Capitol Hill.

We struggled to come up with the most important three tools needed to substantially reduce the illegal alien population in the U.S.

We came up with three (not necessarily ranked by importance):

1. Build a fence on the Mexican border.

2. Mandate every employer to run every new hire (and eventually all existing employees) through a national computerized verification system to keep most illegal aliens out of a job.

3. Mandate that the federal government cooperate with any local law enforcement agency that calls to report having apprehended an illegal alien.

Our groups pledged to work jointly and cooperatively with each other and with our allies in Congress to reach these three goals.

We were amazed when, two months later, the U.S. House passed a bill with all three.

We are sorry that only one of the three top tools got through this Congress. BUT WE GOT ONE!

The effectiveness of the fence will be severely limited until we pass the other two tools. We look forward to working with you to do that in the year ahead.

In addition, NumbersUSA is pledged to three other top goals to reduce the illegal alien population:

1. Eliminate the chain migration categories that allow immigrants to choose the next immigrants by bringing in their adult relatives (other than spouse). Because this starts a chain that connects hundreds of cousins and in-laws and aunts and uncles and nephews and nieces for each new immigrant, it builds up gigantic expectations for whole communities in (usually poor) foreign countries. Although most of them must wait for years before their "number gets called," large numbers of them decide they already are entitled to live in the U.S. and just go ahead and enter the country illegally.

2. Eliminate the visa lottery that randomly picks 50,000 foreign nationals to come to the U.S. to become citizens each year. Because millions of people apply for the lottery, large numbers of them begin to believe that they may win some day and decide to just come on to the U.S. illegally and wait to win the lottery while here.

3. Eliminate anchor baby citizenship, a policy that gives automatic U.S. citizenship to any baby born of an illegal alien on U.S. soil. Most industrialized countries in the world that once awarded anchor baby citizenship have stopped because it is a huge magnet to encourage women to enter a country illegally. And the illegal aliens use their anchor babies as a tool to avoid deportation.

So, those three goals, plus the left-over two from last year, head up the very ambitious list of what we must continue to advocate in the months ahead.

This weekend, however, let's celebrate a significant victory.

GOOD FENCES MAKE GOOD NEIGHBORS

THANKS A LOT, NEIGHBORS,

-- ROY

This fence was barely talked about two years ago and mostly thought to be a crackpot, off-the-wall (er, poor choice of words) idea -- and it still is by most of the newspaper editorial writers of this country. Our hat is off to www.WeNeedAFence.com, the Minutemen and a number of other smaller groups who really championed this rather obscure cause in the early stages. So, how could this pass so overwhelmingly? Ever since the House passed this fence bill 283-138 earlier this month, major Republican and Democratic leaders in the Senate have said they would refuse to allow this bill to come to a vote. They said passing an enforcement-only bill would take away a bargaining chip they need to pass a bill with guestworkers and an amnesty. They used all kinds of maneuvers to keep from having to vote directly on this bill. But a lot of the Senators -- such as Sen. Martinez (R-FL) -- who so vociferously spoke against this bill ended up voting for it tonight. Why? Because they knew that regular voting citizens like you would hold them accountable. This lop-sided vote is absolutely a sign of the tremendous power that this growing citizen movement is accumulating -- and of your steadfast commitment. You can read more about the fence and this bill (H.R. 6061) at:
Entry #592

Fence vote

I used the email option this morning, short and simple FENCE - YES , AMNESTY - NO.
"TIDE MAY BE TURNING OUR WAY

We just got word from a knowledgeable insider that Senate Majority Leader Frist (R-TN) has figured out a way to bring a "clean" fence bill to the floor of the Senate for a final vote.

1. IF YOU HAVEN'T CALLED YOUR 2 SENATORS, PLEASE PICK UP THE PHONE NOW AND URGE THEIR "YES" VOTE.

2. IF YOU ALREADY HAVE CALLED YOUR SENATORS, CONSIDER CALLING THE SENATORS FROM SMALL-POPULATION STATES IN YOUR PART OF THE COUNTRY (we have fewer members there, so those Senators probably need a lot more calls).

Just call the Senate Switchboard and ask for the Senator by name. Many of you have written that you can't afford to make these calls and are asking for faxes. It is too late for the fax attack. Only phone calls at this late moment will do the job on this vote. (But I certainly understand and accept that some of you can't afford the phone calls.)

U.S. Senate Switchboard
202-224-3121

If the Switchboard number is busy, you may want to call the direct line of the Senator. You can find that direct number at:

http://www.numbersusa.com/congressinfo/
Entry #591

"Survivor of Jihad Issues Challenge to Muslim-Americans

There need to be more voices like this all joined together against terrorists.  So long as terrorists are allowed to bully the rest of the world they'll keep at it ...  just like the school bully until they met their comeuppance. 
"Survivor of Jihad Issues Challenge to Muslim-Americans
By Kevin Mooney
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
September 29, 2006

(CNSNews.com) - A survivor of Islamic Jihad in the 1970s is challenging Muslim Americans who reject radical teachings to "raise their voices" and to hold demonstrations in public venues across the country denouncing violent behavior.

Brigitte Gabriel is a journalist and news producer who said she had first-hand experience with militant Muslims as a teenager living in Lebanon. The Jihad launched against Christians in Lebanon in 1975 and its relevance to contemporary politics was the focus of Gabriel's talk at the Heritage Foundation on Wednesday.

She took the opportunity to call on moderate Muslims in the U.S. to take better advantage of the constitutional freedoms that are not available to like-minded moderates in the Middle East.

"This is the only country in the world where they (moderate Muslims) can march in the streets, where they can demonstrate and speak out without being intimidated by radicals. I can understand why they cannot do it in places like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Libya, Syria and Lebanon," Gabriel said. "But there is no excuse why Muslims in the U.S. cannot take to the streets and rally and send a message to the radicals in the Middle East."

That message from American-Muslims, Garbriel continued, should include an unambiguous proclamation of patriotism. "Where are their voices?" Gabriel asked audience members. "They should say we are Americans first, if you kill one of us, you kill all of us."

Gabriel said she could identify only one American-Muslim who has tried to organize the demonstrations she believes are necessary. Gabriel said Kamal Nawash, president of the Free Muslims Coalition, was opposed by other Muslim organizations when he sought support for organizing anti-terrorism rallies in Washington D.C., last year.

Those Muslims who reject extremism, but choose to remain silent are repeating some of the worst mistakes in history, Gabriel told listeners. She also said Americans must "wake up" and come to terms with the "barbaric" nature of the enemy they face before "Islamo-fascism" can be defeated.

She accused the news media of doing the American public a disservice when it failed to show footage of the beheading of Daniel Pearl and Nick Berg, victims of Muslim terrorists.

While she acknowledged that the majority of Muslim Americans are peaceful, Gabriel said she feels that they do not express themselves with as much energy and vigor as their more radical counterparts. She is particularly concerned about the pro-Hizballah demonstrations held in Dearborn, Mich.

"They were free to demonstrate in our country in support of Hizballah and against the United States of America," she said. "Yet, we haven't seen this same passion come out of moderates to defend America."

Gabriel also pointed to the controversy involving Roman Catholic Pope Benedict as more evidence of the spread of Islamic extremism. As Cybercast News Service previously reported, the pope sparked intense reaction among some Muslims when he delivered a speech in Germany and referred to a 14th century discussion on Islam and Christianity between a "learned Persian" and the Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus.

The pope quoted the emperor as saying to the Persian, "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

Radwan Masmoudi, president of the Washington, D.C., based Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy (CSID) told Cybercast News Service that only a "tiny minority" of the world's 1.4 billion Muslims was responsible for the violent reaction to the pope's speech.

The vast majority of Muslims are peaceful and are open to constructive dialogue with the Christian world, Masmoudi said. Unfortunately, extremists on both sides are complicating interfaith efforts, in his view.

"There are Christian extremists in this country who want to see a religious war against Islam, not just the terrorists," Masmoudi said. "No one will win such a war. We will all be losers."

Masmoudi also called Pope Benedict's comments "insensitive and untimely." He said the pope should apologize and acknowledge that it was a mistake to quote material that reaches back to the "mentality of the Crusades."

But, at the same time, Masmoudi said that the "misinterpretation" of certain parts of the Koran can be used by extremists. A process known as "ijithad" was once used to furnish Muslims with interpretations that were tailored to fit the times they were living in.

"Unfortunately it (ijithad) stopped three centuries ago," Masmoudi said. "That's why the interpretations we have today are not suitable for the 21st century."

For her part, Gabriel is concerned about the educational material that is being presented to young Muslims in mosques throughout America. She claimed that books from Saudi Arabia teach Muslims "living in infidel land" that they have a religious duty to impose an Islamic government on every country in the world.

Furthermore, Gabriel said the same material teaches American-Muslims that it is their "sacred obligation" to "invade the western heartlands and struggle to overcome until all the world shouts by the name of the prophet Mohammed and the teachings of Islam spread throughout the world."

Gabriel also said that America must become more attuned to the dangers associated with terrorist cells. She claimed that Hamas has cells in over 40 American cities, including Boston, Philadelphia, New York City, Washington D.C., Raleigh, N.C., Charlotte, N.C., Boca Raton, Fla., Fort Lauderdale, Fla., Seattle Wash., and San Francisco, Calif.

"We need to take political correctness and throw it in the garbage, and start educating our people," she said. "We have a problem not only with Hamas but with radical Islam being spread through the mosques in the U.S. - financed by our so-called allies like Saudi Arabia."
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200609/CUL20060929a.html
Entry #590

"al-Qaeda is in "dire need" of .....

Powerline just posted this.  Looks as if we may be getting the job done in spite if everything.

"Ex-terrorists of the best kind

 

AP reports that al Qaeda's leader in Iraq, Hamza al-Muhajir (aka Abu Ayyub al-Masri) has produced an audiotape in which he says that 4,000 foreign insurgents have been killed in Iraq. According to the AP, the Arabic word al-Masri used indicated he was speaking about foreigners who joined the insurgency in Iraq, not coalition troops."......

......"Finally, al-Masri urged explosive experts and nuclear scientists to assist al-Qaeda. Noting that al-Qaeda is in "dire need" of these services, he suggested that U.S. bases would make a fine subject for their "experimentation." Clearly, al-Qaeda needs some sort of "big bang" to create more pressure to induce an exit by the U.S.. Left-wing Dems aren't getting it done.".......
Entry #589

""Recruiting terrorists: Cut-and-run would work best

 

"Recruiting terrorists: Cut-and-run would work best

Editorial

Source UnionLeader.com

"America’s intelligence agencies have determined that the war in Iraq has helped recruit more terrorists. Well, duh. It’s called fighting back.

Democrats leapt upon this news as proof that the Iraq war has made us less safe. But that is not what the bulk of the available evidence, including the declassified portions of the National Intelligence Estimate, shows.

The NIE concludes that the No. 1 factor radicalizing Muslims continues to be "entrenched grievances, such as corruption, injustice, and fear of Western domination. . ." Those first two are exactly the grievances President Bush is trying to remedy, in part by replacing Iraq’s despotic regime with a democratic one.

Remember, the terrorists hit us before we toppled Saddam Hussein: In 1983, 1998, 2000 and 2001. Osama bin Laden declared war on the United States in 1998, not 2002.

A report released late last month by Britain’s Royal Institute for International Affairs also found that America’s presence in Iraq had helped recruit terrorists. But it concluded that the Iraq war has sharply reduced the appeal of violence as a political tool in the Muslim world and slashed the popularity of terror organizations among most Muslims: a net gain for the West. It has received little if any media attention in the United States.

The NIE suggests that the best way to combat radical Islam is to divide and conquer: separate the radicals from the majority of Muslims, and fight them. The British report suggests this is what the war in Iraq is doing.

Pulling out now because the terrorists have decided to fight back instead of roll over would give terrorists the best recruitment poster they could imagine. If we want to reduce their ranks, now is the time to hit them even harder and let them know that we will never give up the fight."

http://www.theunionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Recruiting+terrorists%3a+Cut-and-run+would+work+best&articleId=d366f161-339f-45ff-b460-7f4550f4461f

Entry #588

"What Clinton Didn't Do ... and when he didn't do it

"What Clinton Didn't Do . . .
. . . .and when he didn't do it.

BY RICHARD MINITER
Wednesday, September 27, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

Source WSJ.com

(excerpt)

Bill Clinton's outburst on Fox News was something of a public service, launching a debate about the antiterror policies of his administration. This is important because every George W. Bush policy that arouses the ire of Democrats--the Patriot Act, extraordinary rendition, detention without trial, pre-emptive war--is a departure from his predecessor. Where policies overlap--air attacks on infrastructure, secret presidential orders to kill terrorists, intelligence sharing with allies, freezing bank accounts, using police to arrest terror suspects--there is little friction. The question, then, is whether America should return to Mr. Clinton's policies or soldier on with Mr. Bush's.

It is vital that this debate be honest, but so far this has not been the case. Both Mr. Clinton's outrage at Chris Wallace's questioning and the ABC docudrama "The Path to 9/11" are attempts to polarize the nation's memory. While this divisiveness may be good for Mr. Clinton's reputation, it is ultimately unhealthy for the country. What we need, instead, is a cold-eyed look at what works against terrorists and what does not. The policies of the Clinton and Bush administrations ought to be put to the same iron test.

 

 

With that in mind, let us examine Mr. Clinton's war on terror. Some 38 days after he was sworn in, al Qaeda attacked the World Trade Center. He did not visit the twin towers that year, even though four days after the attack he was just across the Hudson River in New Jersey, talking about job training. He made no attempt to rally the public against terrorism. His only public speech on the bombing was a few paragraphs inserted into a radio address mostly devoted an economic stimulus package. Those stray paragraphs were limited to reassuring the public and thanking the rescuers, the kinds of things governors say after hurricanes. He did not even vow to bring the bombers to justice. Instead, he turned the first terrorist attack on American soil over to the FBI.
In his Fox interview, Mr. Clinton said "no one knew that al Qaeda existed" in October 1993, during the tragic events in Somalia. But his national security adviser, Tony Lake, told me that he first learned of bin Laden "sometime in 1993," when he was thought of as a terror financier. U.S. Army Capt. James Francis Yacone, a black hawk squadron commander in Somalia, later testified that radio intercepts of enemy mortar crews firing at Americans were in Arabic, not Somali, suggesting the work of bin Laden's agents (who spoke Arabic), not warlord Farah Aideed's men (who did not). CIA and DIA reports also placed al Qaeda operatives in Somalia at the time."...........

(timelines)

........."There is much more to Mr. Clinton's record--how Predator drones, which spotted bin Laden three times in 1999 and 2000, were grounded by bureaucratic infighting; how a petty dispute with an Arizona senator stopped the CIA from hiring more Arabic translators. While it is easy to look back in hindsight and blame Bill Clinton, the full scale and nature of the terrorist threat was not widely appreciated until 9/11. Still: Bill Clinton did not fully grasp that he was at war. Nor did he intuit that war requires overcoming bureaucratic objections and a democracy's natural reluctance to use force. That is a hard lesson. But it is better to learn it from studying the Clinton years than reliving them."

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009001

Entry #587

"Rice Boils Over At Bubba

"RICE BOILS OVER AT BUBBA


"RIPS 'FLATLY FALSE' CLAIM ON BUSH'S BID
TO GET BIN LADEN
By IAN BISHOP Post Correspondent
Source New York Post
(excerpt)
"September 25, 2006 -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice yesterday accused Bill Clinton of making "flatly false" claims that the Bush administration didn't lift a finger to stop terrorism before the 9/11 attacks.
Rice hammered Clinton, who leveled his charges in a contentious weekend interview with Chris Wallace of Fox News Channel, for his claims that the Bush administration "did not try" to kill Osama bin Laden in the eight months they controlled the White House before the Sept. 11 attacks.

"The notion somehow for eight months the Bush administration sat there and didn't do that is just flatly false - and I think the 9/11 commission understood that," Rice said during a wide-ranging meeting with Post editors and reporters.

"What we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years," Rice added.

The secretary of state also sharply disputed Clinton's claim that he "left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy" for the incoming Bush team during the presidential transition in 2001.

"We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda," Rice responded during the hourlong session.

Her strong rebuttal was the Bush administration's first response to Clinton's headline-grabbing interview on Fox on Sunday in which he launched into an over-the-top defense of his handling of terrorism - wagging his finger in the air, leaning forward in his chair and getting red-faced, and even attacking Wallace for improper questioning.".......

....."In her pointed rebuttal of Clinton's inflammatory claims about the war on terror, Rice maintained the Bush White House did the best it could to defend against an attack - and expanded on the tools and intelligence it inherited.
"I would just suggest that you go back and read the 9/11 commission report on the efforts of the Bush administration in the eight months - things like working to get an armed Predator [drone] that actually turned out to be extraordinarily important," Rice added.

She also said Clinton's claims that Richard Clarke - the White House anti-terror guru hyped by Clinton as the country's "best guy" - had been demoted by Bush were bogus.

"Richard Clarke was the counterterrorism czar when 9/11 happened. And he left when he did not become deputy director of homeland security, some several months later," she said."......

........."Rice cited the final 9/11 commission report to substantiate her claims, while Clinton relied on Clarke's book as the basis for many of his rehashing the events leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks."....

........"Transitioning to the global war on terror, an animated Rice questioned, "When are we going to stop blaming ourselves for the rise of terrorism?" .....

Asked about recently leaked internal U.S. intelligence estimates that claimed the Iraq war was fueling terrorist recruiting, Rice said: "Now that we're fighting back, of course they are fighting back, too." .......

........"These are people who want to fight against us, and they're going to find a reason. And yes, they will recruit, but it doesn't mean you stop pursuing strategies that are ultimately going to stop them," Rice said.

She insisted U.S. forces must finish the job in Iraq and the wider Middle East to wipe out the "root cause" of violent extremism - not just the terror thugs who carry out the attacks.

"It's a longer-term strategy, and it may even have some short-term down side, but if you don't look at the longer term, you're just leaving the problem to somebody else," she said. ".......

....."In Latin America, home to outrageous Venezuelan bomb thrower Hugo Chavez, Rice said the U.S. approach is to "spend as little time possible in talking about Chavez and more time talking about our positive agenda in Latin America," including several trade agreements."


http://www.nypost.com/seven/09252006/news/nationalnews/rice_boils_over_at_bubba_nationalnews_.htm

Entry #586

How one reporter gave Clinton heartburn over Chinagate

Rather long but well detailed article which shows Clinton goes ballistic when confronted with facts about something he's made every effort to conceal.

Clinton echoes the same mantra as terrorists, blaming everyone, everything other than himself for being caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

Archived timeline of China-gate here http://alamo-girl.com/treason.htm

My picnic with Bill
How one reporter gave Clinton heartburn over Chinagate

Posted: September 24, 2000
1:00 a.m. Eastern

Editor's note: In the fall of 1999, President Bill Clinton endured something to which he was not accustomed -- a member of the news media challenging him with tough questions about issues of concern to the American people. WorldNetDaily Washington bureau chief Paul Sperry, then a reporter with Investor's Business Daily, went toe-to-toe with the president during a picnic on the White House south lawn. The widely publicized confrontation caused Clinton so much consternation that Sperry was subsequently banished from the White House.

 

The following was originally published as the cover story for WorldNet Magazine in February 2000.

By Paul Sperry
Source WorldNetDaily.com

WASHINGTON -- There's probably no finer place to throw a party than the South Lawn of the White House, and no better time to do it than on a mild and breezy day in early fall. And there's probably no guest more grateful for such a free fete than the Washington press corps.

My colleagues will climb over each other to get to a table full of rubbery hoagies, soggy chips and stale Budweiser. Doesn't matter what it is, really, so long as it's free.

But this. This was hog's heaven for the cheap scribes who filed onto the White House grounds that Friday night in September for a Cajun party in their honor. What a spread. On red-checkered picnic tables spanning the length of the plush green lawn, beckoned trays of jambalaya, boudin and boiled shrimp.

And the bars, under colorful tents, were stocked full of liquor. No kegs here. Black-tie-clad help poured your favorite libation from bottles. Forget Budweiser; they had Guinness Stout and other imported brews. Fine reds and whites, too, and highballs. All free.

Zydeco tunes skipped across the crowd of giddy guests. As the sunny day faded to dusk, the soft lights of the White House portico glowed behind us. Intoxicating. What a night.

But, for me, there was still something wrong with this party -- namely, the host.

President Clinton, the function's main attraction, was due to make a cameo appearance at any moment. Despite having to wade through 40-plus scandals over the previous seven years, my cohorts in the press were all atwitter at the prospect of pumping Clinton's arm and snapping shots of him with their spouses and kids.

Just 48 hours earlier, four FBI agents had testified before the Senate that Justice Department lawyers had stopped them from pursuing leads back to Clinton in the ongoing campaign-finance investigation.

Not only that, agents swore that lawyers for months had blocked their request to ask a judge for a warrant to search the Little Rock, Ark., office of Clinton fund-raiser Yah Lin "Charlie" Trie. Agents sifting through his trash found that key records subpoenaed by the Senate had been shredded.

Among the torn-up documents: checks from Asian donors to Clinton's legal defense fund, Democratic National Committee donor lists, travel records for Chinese money men and statements from Chinese bank accounts. There was also a FedEx slip showing the White House had sent two pounds of documents to Trie just two months before a 1997 Senate probe of Chinagate kicked off.

What's more, one agent said 27 pages of notes detailing her struggles with Justice over the Trie case were ripped out of spiral notebooks after she turned them over to her superiors.

The explosive testimony was ignored by most of the media. But I couldn't shake it from my mind, no matter the occasion. Was Clinton's attorney general covering for him in one of the gravest probes in U.S. history, one with national security implications? Did Clinton have any knowledge of it?

Sometime after 6 p.m., the president emerged from the Oval Office. Dressed in a suit, he strolled down the walkway, only to disappear through a doorway. His aide Sidney Blumenthal strolled on and joined the crowd. At his side was Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass. (I ran into Markey later in the evening inside the White House. He was giving his wife and father a tour. Markey's now all over the TV talk shows flacking for Vice President Al Gore's campaign.)

The suspense built as the guests closed in around a loose rope line that stretched from the edges of the Oval Office area to the stage where the band played. Then, at last, Clinton came out of the White House wearing what can only be described as a get-up -- tight black pullover shirt, tight black pants with a big silver-buckle black belt and black cowboy boots.

Strutting past me, he looked like a bad imitation of Johnny Cash. Or was it an over-the-hill Elvis? Tom Jones? Whatever, the silver-haired devil made a beeline for the stage, climbed up on it and drawled on about how great it was for all of us to be there with him on such a wonderful night listening to such great music. At that, a guest tried to hand a tenor saxophone up to him. Several painted-up women pushed their way to the stage. By the way, Clinton remarked, "Hillary wanted to be here with y'all, but she's up in New York tonight." Wink-wink.

Little did he know that in just a few minutes, a rude guest would give him a Maalox moment to remember and probably spoil any entertainment plans he had for the evening.

As Clinton worked the rope line on his way back toward the White House, it was hard not to be taken up in the electricity of the moment. Everyone was having such a good time. And a buoyant Clinton was working the crowd, yucking it up like no one can. At one point, he was even wearing baubles around his neck. Husbands were offering up their wives and children for grip-and-grin shots. Photojournalists were camped out like paparazzi. Why not? A notorious celebrity was in their midst. Even one of my reporters was snapping shots with his instamatic -- for his wife.

I stood there slack-jawed, watching one powerful journalist after another clamor like so many fawning teen rock-idol fans to grasp the hand of the most corrupt president in U.S. history.

So many scandals, so many unanswered questions -- so many unasked questions. National security at stake. That little boy there, that little girl over there ... your sons, your daughters. Don't you care what this president has or hasn't done with our military secrets?

Maybe I just cared too much. Relax. Yes, have a good time; it is a party after all. Don't be so serious. Loosen up.

But just as I was about to give in to the perverse euphoria, suspending disbelief about the harmlessness of old Slick like everyone else around me, I recalled a Proverb I'd read that morning -- "Do not envy wicked men, do not desire their company" -- and I closed my eyes for strength.

It was my turn to meet the celebrity president. As he approached me, I politely, if coolly, asked him when he would hold his next formal press conference. It had been several months since his last and he's had fewer than any recent president. I admit I was trying to agitate the proper forum for questions about the FBI agents' charges. But, to me, this was still a rather innocuous question, even within the supposedly neutral zone of a party. A relevant question, too, given the gathering. Other hard-nosed reporters surely were wondering when they'd get another crack at Clinton.

Or so I thought. My simple question was rewarded with boos and hisses from the adoring Clinton groupies around me. So much for the adversarial press.

But that was nothing compared with Clinton's reaction to my inquiry about his next press confab. In an instant, his 100-watt charm shut off, replaced by a taunting belligerence. "Why?" he barked.

"Because the American people have a lot of unanswered questions," I replied, struggling to hold my bladder. At that point, he moved back down the rope, pulling up square in front of me, and demanded, "Like what?"

"Well, like illegal money from China and the campaign-finance scandal ..."

What happened over the next 10 minutes was nothing short of a "scene." The party-goers collapsed in around us. I watched the blood rush to Clinton's gargantuan face as he launched into a tirade against ex-Republican National Committee Chairman Haley Barbour, the FBI, Bob Dole and Republicans in general. All the while, he tried to belittle me by making faces (to get a rise out of his fans) and intimidate me by getting in my face.

And now I can see how he can do that to people. Clinton's not just intellectually intimidating, he's physically imposing. He's tall (6-2) and big-boned.

Luckily, I'm the same height and was able to stand toe-to-toe and eye-to-eye with him. I'll never forget the maniacal look in his bloodshot eyes. There was a moment, fleeting, where I sensed he wanted to try to take a swipe at me. I was getting full frontal Clinton. His volcanic temper, hidden so well from the public by his handlers, erupted less than 12 inches from my eyes.

Clinton always is game for a debate. That I asked him hard questions at a party wasn't what ticked him off. It's what I asked him about. He clearly doesn't want to talk about the mother of all scandals -- Chinagate.

He also may have been thrown by my grasp of the facts. I'd been tracking the Beijing-tied Lippo Group's influence in the Clinton White House since 1996 and have been suspicious of the probity of Attorney General Janet Reno's special task force since she let John Keeney Sr. set it up -- a month after the election -- to look into Lippo's influence.

Keeney's son is none other than a defense attorney for John Huang, the former Lippo executive and convicted Clinton-Gore fund-raiser. Junior, who's also a long-time Democratic National Committee lawyer, cut Huang a deal with daddy's old task force that got him no jail time and immunity from prosecution for espionage.

Clinton also was unprepared for my tenacity. Other reporters may back down after he singes their eyebrows with a verbal fusillade. Dummy me, I hung in there for more abuse, challenging his answers, following up with more questions. Which only made him madder.

Take, for instance, the exchange we had after I asked him what he thought of the FBI agents' charges two days earlier that they'd been blocked from following trails back to the White House in the Chinagate probe. (When I first mentioned the agents, he acted dumb: "What FBI agents?")

"The Eff-Bee-Ahh," Clinton said, his tone dripping with contempt and suspicion. "What do you think of the FBI?"

I don't have an opinion, sir. My question is to you.

"Yeah, the FBI wants you to write about that rather than write about Waco," a reference to lingering questions about the agency's role in the 1993 fire that killed Branch Davidian separatists in Waco, Texas.

It was an extraordinary remark. The president was questioning the motives and veracity of his own agency.

I piped up that these were career FBI agents. One had been with the agency 25 years. And they made these charges under oath.

"Are you suggesting they're not telling the truth, Mr. President?" I asked.

Clinton's face turned a darker hue of red, almost the purplish color of raw hamburger meat that's been left out on the counter. Changing the subject, he attacked Republicans for their own fund-raising woes.

After Clinton had had enough of me, he tried to move on. But, I pressed, reminding him that he still hadn't answered my original question: When will you have another formal news conference?

"You just had one," he snapped.

With that, I turned around and knifed my way through the crowd that had gathered. Two women -- one from AP, then another from CNN -- rushed up to me. Both asked what got Clinton so angry.

"Why'd he turn so red?" asked one. Good question, I said, then replayed the exchange for them. Both asked for my card, though neither of their news agencies filed a story.

Before grabbing a plate of Cajun food and a much-needed cold one, I scribbled down what Clinton had told me on some White House napkins and left the grounds soon after. As I made my way to the Metro station, I realized my knees were a bit wobbly.

Still dazed by the time I got home, I trudged in the front door and only half-jokingly told my wife to prepare for an IRS audit. As I did radio shows around the country over the next few weeks, I found I wasn't the only one with that thought. Except callers weren't fooling.

Some warned me to get my tax forms in order and "not to take any plane trips." They were concerned I'd pay a heavy price for "standing up to the scary occupant of the White House," as one put it.

Another radio caller reckoned "there is a lot of info from FBI files being used to leverage reporters." (That's actually not so far-fetched. White House correspondents have to submit to background checks.)

One wise guy actually posted a phony Washington Post obituary on the Internet.

"Paul Sperry, the Washington bureau chief of Investor's Business Daily, was found in the swimming pool of his Richmond, Va., home early this morning," the prankster wrote. "He had apparently shot himself in the head in his living room before throwing himself fully clothed into the pool. A .45-caliber bullet was found in his skull and he was holding the suicide weapon, a 9 mm automatic with the serial numbers filed off.

"His notes and home computer were found burning in a trash can," he added. "Police were alerted to the body by an anonymous tip. No foul play is suspected."

I'm of the mind that the president and first lady, both of whom have strangely gone out of their way to remind the public that they've "even been accused of murder," like that people think that. It breeds fear, and fear makes those who might otherwise confront the Clintons with the facts think twice about doing so.

Still, after taking calls into the wee morning hours, such thoughts didn't exactly help me sleep over the next several days as the story grew legs.

Saturday night, Sept. 25: As I was typing up my story, James Grimaldi, a reporter for the Seattle Times, called me at home. He had been covering the Microsoft trial in Washington but he was working on another story -- mine -- and had a few questions for me.

Turns out Grimaldi was standing right next to me during the exchange with Clinton. He heard the whole thing and we compared notes. He said he was filing a story for the Times' Sunday edition. At first, I was frosted seeing that Grimaldi would beat my story. My paper at the time, Investor's Business Daily, only publishes Monday through Friday and Monday's paper is put to bed on Friday. So my story wouldn't run till Tuesday.

Even so, I was thankful that another major paper would corroborate the interview.

"The blood was rushing in and out of his face," Grimaldi observed over the phone. "He actually blew up. His initial blow-up was unexpected and unanticipated."

He counted at least 10 exchanges, "back and forth." Not one question I asked, he said, was "rude" or "disrespectful," although the entire impromptu interview could be construed as such. He also said Clinton "was baiting you" into asking more questions.

At one point, Grimaldi said the official White House photographer standing behind Clinton shouted: "This is so inappropriate! This is so inappropriate!" I never heard him. Clinton's own shouting must have drowned him out.

Tuesday night, Sept. 28: The Drudge Report posted a story at the top of its website: "Fight Club: Furious Clinton Orders Reporter Banned After Grilling!"

Wednesday, Sept. 29, at 3:12 p.m. EDT: In the White House briefing room, a Washington Times reporter asked Clinton spokesman Joe Lockhart about Clinton's FBI remark. But Lockhart brushed him off. Then the reporter asked about the Drudge Report.

Before answering, Lockhart lectured reporters on the "virtues or lack thereof" of using citizen cyberjournalist Matt Drudge as a news source. He nonetheless confirmed Drudge's report.

"I was asked for comment from the reporter about the incident and I made the comment that the only regret I have is inviting him to the party -- and I wouldn't make that mistake again," he explained. "So to the extent that we judge coverage of this building by the parties, he's banned."

Lockhart left the impression that he personally told me I was banned. And that's the way the press reported it.

In fact, Lockhart never called me. He had his girl give me the news. And even she passed it along sheepishly.

On Monday, Sept. 27, I had called Lockhart's deputy Jake Siewart to see if the president wanted to clarify any of the remarks he made to me. Siewart replied, bluntly, that Clinton "doesn't regret making" them.

Not 10 minutes after I hung up, a woman called from the White House identifying herself as Lockhart's assistant. She had a message for me.

What is it? I asked.

"I didn't say it. It's not coming from me," she assured me, speaking under her breath. "It's specifically from Joe Lockhart."

All right, what?

"The only regret we have is inviting you to the party," she said, quoting her boss, "and we won't make that mistake again."

Is he serious? I asked.

"Uh-huh."

How juvenile, I thought, but how predictable for this White House.

I left that part out of my story at the request of my editor, who asked me to divorce myself from the story as much as I could.

But the next day, Drudge called from Hollywood and asked about the story which, by then, was bouncing around the Internet. I mentioned being kicked off the invite list. He wasted no time in posting the news later that night on his website.

Where Drudge got the "Class A s--thead" slur, I don't know. No one from Lockhart's office uttered it to me. (Could it be that Drudge has a mole in the White House?) If Lockhart indeed used the childish epithet, he clearly was accusing me of being a relative.

Wednesday, Sept. 29: Washington Post reporter Beth Berselli called my editor Wes Mann in Los Angeles for comment on the Drudge Report. Her first question: "So what disciplinary action do you plan to take against your reporter?"

The presumption of guilt came through loud and clear in the next day's "Reliable Source" column she helped pen. Reporting with the certainty of an eyewitness, Berselli said I "ambushed" Clinton.

Only, she wasn't there. She relied on the account of Lockhart, who told her I was "badgering" the president. Only, Lockhart wasn't there either. Berselli never talked to me.

I never planned to buttonhole the president, but I'm glad I did. His heated reaction to simple questions was revealing. And I pried away some remarkable quotes, particularly about the FBI.

Though admittedly a far cry from the backbiting seen during Watergate, there hasn't been this much tension between a president and his chief law enforcement agency since President Nixon.

It was news. Big news. Yet the Washington press corps, by and large, passed on the meat of the story and focused instead on the theater of a reporter mixing it up with the president at a picnic.

"National Papers Miss Flare-Up Highlighting Clinton-FBI Rift," said a report in Media Critic, an online newsletter of the nonpartisan Center for Media & Public Affairs in Washington.

"Beltway Blinders: Smaller Papers' Scoops Get Little Notice," said White House correspondent Josh Gerstein in his ABCNEWS.com column. Gerstein was the only reporter who picked up my line of questioning with Clinton. On Oct. 1, as Clinton was dashing off to California, he pressed Clinton to open up more about his problems with the FBI, though without much luck.

Sure, the New York Times and the Washington Post eventually used my revealing quotes, while holding their noses and calling me "rude" and "impertinent" for extracting them at a social event -- as if I were the first to do that. According to former press secretaries, both Sam Donaldson and Helen Thomas worked over President Reagan and President Bush at press parties and state dinners.

A social aide for Reagan told me the two veteran correspondents were hectoring the president to such a degree during one dinner that she and other aides had to literally put their bodies between them and the president to spare the guests from more obnoxious shouting at closer range.

Funny how the press corps suddenly stands on ceremony when a Democrat is in the White House.

The old bar flies at the National Press Club roundly booed me when they saw me talking about the dust-up on one of the Fox News shows. And they weren't just booing my TV performance.

Though I clearly exposed a nerve on Chinagate, the White House press corps has failed to tap into it. At Clinton's Feb. 16 press conference, no reporter plied him with questions on the still-mushrooming conspiracy and now-fully active cover-up -- even though 10 days earlier the Los Angeles Times had reported that a foreign donor with ties to the People's Liberation Army laundered money through convicted Clinton fund-raiser Trie (who, it turns out, drove around Beijing in a PLA-issue car).

Citing FBI interviews, the story also revealed Trie sought "fund-raising help" from the Chinese consulate in Houston right after Clinton told him he was running for president early last decade.

Did Clinton in fact meet with Trie back then? What did they talk about? Did he have any idea that his Arkansas friend was so tight with the communists in Beijing? No one bothered to ask.

If I get banned for asking tough questions about a deadly serious scandal (unlike the Lewinsky affair), what does that say about all those among the White House press corps who haven't been banned? Are they tossing up softballs?

"I've been all around this country, and you are the first person to ask me about (Chinagate)," Clinton claimed. "Not one person has brought that up."

Maybe no one among the media elite. But average Americans have. Surely, Clinton's heard or seen the placard-waving citizens who for months have been protesting his blind appeasement of China at the north entrance to the White House. Many of them are tied to FreeRepublic.com,  (http://alamo-girl.com/treason.htm  )  ( http://alamo-girl.com/ ) which has built a compelling chronology of the Chinagate scandal.

Investor's Business Daily got more than 1,100 e-mails and letters and hundreds of phone calls from readers. All but one were supportive (the lone dissenting voice wished I'd asked about the homeless). And most demanded more answers about Chinagate. Here is a sample:

"When President Clinton said Mr. Sperry was the first person to ask about the Chinese campaign finance scandal, he showed just how badly the American people are being under-served by the media," said T. Downs of Neptune Beach, Fla. "We Americans really would like to know what went on in the Chinese funny-money scandal."

Wrote Wendy Jacques of Farmington Hills, Mich.: "I read what happened to you when the president did not wish to answer your factually-based question regarding the apparent cover-up by the Justice Department of the president's acceptance of illegal campaign donations and apparent compromise of our country's national security in exchange for those donations. I admire you for asking an important question."

"Keep going after this China thing," said Jerry Hatch of Idaho Falls, Idaho.

Christopher Sivley of Decatur, Ala., said: "If the president took illegal money from the Chinese in exchange for U.S. technology, then he is guilty of treason. It's about time the press started ... asking real questions."

"Thank you for your courage in asking the president to explain to the people of the United States why he sold our secrets and weapons technology to the Chinese for campaign money," wrote Esther Nobrega, Nashua, N.H.

Patrick Giagnocavo e-mailed: "Please know that I, too, would like to see many more answers from the White House concerning the very serious, very detailed charges of what can only be called treason."

"I send my appreciation to Mr. Sperry for asking President Clinton about China and campaign finance," wrote Connie Ward of Pensacola, Fla. "I am disgusted by the president's response."

"Despite what Mr. Clinton says, the American people do want to know," said Michael McTaggart.

R. North responded: "About time somebody rattled his cage about a very important matter."

"Please thank Mr. Sperry for his courage in confronting the president with questions about the Chinese contributions to the DNC," Bill Bynum e-mailed. "The president hasn't heard those questions asked in his travels around the U.S. because he is shielded. But I guarantee there are people like me who want answers to them."

Michael Audette insisted: "I, for one, am very interested in his connections with the People's Republic of China."

"It's about time the news media stopped giving Clinton a pass," wrote R.H. Langill of Plainfield, N.H. "The selling of policy for Chinese money in 1996 and probably earlier should be completely aired."

"Paul Sperry is to be congratulated for his efforts. He is asking what many Americans want to know," said J.A. Brady of Mashpee, Mass. "I hope that other reporters will also ask President Clinton for more details about his involvement. Clinton has never been held accountable for his part in those fund-raising activities due to the stonewalling of Attorney General Janet Reno. Please continue to press for answers."

Bo Mosley of Honolulu wrote: "The China fund-raising scandal has burned me to the core, and I am pleased to see that some inside the Beltway are just as concerned as I am."

"Someone has to have the guts to ask some of these questions," said Steve Tronnes of Edgerton, Wis. "If there wasn't anything to any of these allegations, then the president would not have gone ballistic."

Excellent point, but one apparently lost on my normally hard-boiled colleagues. They seem more interested in currying favor with this White House and maintaining their good standing in the Washington tail class than ferreting out the truth for the American people and holding the president accountable for sending our national security to China in a handbasket.

The press corps should be ashamed that a single reporter was able to fire off as many, if not more, specific and tough questions at the president about Chinagate in 10 minutes than they've managed to do in the three years since this scandal broke. Did I pay a price in becoming the persona non grata of the Clinton White House? Yes, but I wear it as a badge of honor. I did my job. Now it's your turn.


Paul Sperry is a Washington, D.C.-based journalist, WND contributor and author of "Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives have Penetrated Washington."

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=20765

 

"New photos of Clinton
blowing a gasket
Pics record notorious dust-up between then-prez and WND's Sperry

Posted: September 24, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern


Source WorldNetDaily.com

"Just in time for the fourth anniversary of WND Washington bureau chief Paul Sperry's celebrated confrontation with then-President Bill Clinton on the White House south lawn, WND has obtained new photos of the verbal brawl revealing a visibly upset chief executive getting in the face of the one reporter who dared to ask the tough questions.

Sperry, who at the time was Washington bureau chief for Investor's Business Daily, five months after the incident accepted an offer for the same position at WorldNetDaily. In one of his first WND stories, he documented his fiery impromptu debate with Clinton in a widely read account titled "My picnic with Bill."


Clinton uses index finger in direction of Paul Sperry, right, to make a point. Janet Fallon is at left.

It was Sept. 24, 1999, when Sperry attended a White House south lawn party for Washington reporters. The event would turn out to be his last White House visit, since the Clinton administration banned him from the grounds after he dared confront the president on his own turf.

Sperry set the stage in "My picnic with Bill":

 

This was hog's heaven for the cheap scribes who filed onto the White House grounds that Friday night in September for a Cajun party in their honor. What a spread. On red-checkered picnic tables spanning the length of the plush green lawn, beckoned trays of jambalaya, boudin and boiled shrimp.

And the bars, under colorful tents, were stocked full of liquor. No kegs here. Black-tie-clad help poured your favorite libation from bottles. Forget Budweiser; they had Guinness Stout and other imported brews. Fine reds and whites, too, and highballs. All free.

Zydeco tunes skipped across the crowd of giddy guests. As the sunny day faded to dusk, the soft lights of the White House portico glowed behind us. Intoxicating. What a night.

But, for me, there was still something wrong with this party – namely, the host.


Clinton asks for and takes Sperry's business card.

Around 6 p.m., Clinton emerged from the White House to greet his guests. The president was dressed in an all black casual outfit, as Sperry described, "like a bad imitation of Johnny Cash."

As Clinton began working the crowd of reporters, Sperry asked the president a simple question – one that set off a 10-minute confrontation the reporter recalls as "nothing short of a 'scene.'" The question: When would he hold his next formal press conference?

Clinton barked back, "Why?" and the bout began:

 

"Because the American people have a lot of unanswered questions," I replied, struggling to hold my bladder. At that point, he moved back down the rope, pulling up square in front of me, and demanded, "Like what?"

"Well, like illegal money from China and the campaign-finance scandal ..."

The party-goers collapsed in around us. I watched the blood rush to Clinton's gargantuan face as he launched into a tirade against ex-Republican National Committee Chairman Haley Barbour, the FBI, Bob Dole and Republicans in general. All the while, he tried to belittle me by making faces (to get a rise out of his fans) and intimidate me by getting in my face.

And now I can see how he can do that to people. Clinton's not just intellectually intimidating, he's physically imposing. He's tall (6-2) and big-boned.

Luckily, I'm the same height and was able to stand toe-to-toe and eye-to-eye with him. I'll never forget the maniacal look in his bloodshot eyes. There was a moment, fleeting, where I sensed he wanted to try to take a swipe at me. I was getting full frontal Clinton. His volcanic temper, hidden so well from the public by his handlers, erupted less than 12 inches from my eyes.


One of the event's attendees was Janet Fallon, a public-relations specialist who, ironically enough, had worked for Pat Buchanan's 1992 presidential campaign. Fallon stood just to the right of Clinton – a front-row seat for the dust-up. "..........

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34747

Entry #585

More on Clinton's purple faced rage

I've seen Powerline dissect inaccuracies printed by the New York Times and other media outlets.  One thing you can say for them is they don't give up until all the facts come out.

Looks like Bill Clinton is getting the same attention.  Remember these guys are attorneys so have built in antennae for BS snow jobs, concealing truth.  First mistake was attempt at censorship which sent up a red flag.  Second mistake was "purple faced rage" in the interview with Chris Wallace. 

That purple faced rage will be seen as a reaction to someone calling him on something he's concealing as shown in the next article after this one I'm posting with verifiable time-lines of events, people, etc.

"Play it as it lies

 

The most striking feature of Bill Clinton's bloviations on FOX News Sunday with Chris Wallace yesterday was the incredibly low ratio of facts to whoppers. If Chris Wallace could prompt that red-faced response with such an innocuous question, I wonder if a few minutes with Richard Miniter (author of Losing bin Laden, interviewed by NRO here), might not send him to intensive care. I would love to hear Miniter ask Clinton a few questions about Clinton's treatment of the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center -- an attack that Clinton shrugged off in a few paragraphs of his subsequent Saturday morning radio talk, never to return to the subject. (Miniter quotes the relevant paragraphs of the radio address at pages 28-30 of his book.)

Our friends at RealClearPolitics have posted a tough column by Ronald Cass begins to address Clinton's rewriting of the record."....................

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/015366.php

Entry #584

Clinton's temper tantrums in 1990

Had to chase this down but knew I'd read it.  It's correctly quoted and linked for reference.

"Setting the Record Straight
An open letter to Hillary Clinton.

By Dick Morris

Dear Hillary,

In your new book, Living History, you correctly note that when you asked me to help you and Bill avert defeat in the congressional election of 1994 I was reluctant to do so. But then you assert, incorrectly, that my reluctance stemmed from difficulties in working with your staff. You even misquote me as telling you: "I don't like the way I was treated, Hillary. People were so mean to me."

As you know, I never said anything of the sort. I had, in fact, no experience in dealing with either your staff or the President's at that point, and had not yet met Leon Panetta or George Stephanopoulos. My prior dealing with Harold Ickes had been twenty five years earlier.

The real reason I was reluctant was that Bill Clinton had tried to beat me up in May of 1990 as he, you, Gloria Cabe, and I were together in the Arkansas governor's mansion. At the time, Bill was worried that he was falling behind his democratic primary opponent and verbally assaulted me for not giving his campaign the time he felt it deserved. Offended by his harsh tone, I turned and stalked out of the room.

Bill ran after me, tackled me, threw me to the floor of the kitchen in the mansion and ed his fist back to punch me. You grabbed his arm and, yelling at him to stop and get control of himself, pulled him off me. Then you walked me around the grounds of the mansion in the minutes after, with your arm around me, saying, "He only does that to people he loves."

I continued to work for Bill since I felt a responsibility to do so until Election Day in 1990. But our relationship was never close and never the same. After the 1990 campaign we parted ways as a direct result of the altercation.

When the story threatened to surface during the 1992 campaign, you told me to "say it never happened."

That, and not the invented conversation in your memoir, was the reason that I was reluctant to work for Bill again.

Yours,
Dick Morris

- Dick Morris, an adviser to Bill Clinton for 20 years, is author, most recently, of Off with Their Heads : Traitors, Crooks & Obstructionists in American Politics, Media & Business.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-morris061203.asp

Entry #583

"Bill Clinton's Excuses

 

"Bill Clinton’s Excuses
No matter what he says, the record shows he failed to act against terrorism.

By Byron York

National Review Online

....."But Clarke’s book does not, in fact, support Clinton’s claim. Judging by Clarke’s sympathetic account — as well as by the sympathetic accounts of other former Clinton aides like Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon — it’s not quite accurate to say that Clinton tried to kill bin Laden. Rather, he tried to convince — as opposed to, say, order — U.S. military and intelligence agencies to kill bin Laden. And when, on a number of occasions, those agencies refused to act, Clinton, the commander-in-chief, gave up."......

......"But the bottom line is that Bill Clinton, the commander-in-chief, could not find the will to order the military into action against al Qaeda, and Bill Clinton, the head of the executive branch, could not find the will to order the CIA and FBI to act. No matter what the former president says on Fox, or anywhere else, that is his legacy in the war on terror."

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDM4N2E1MzU5ZjQ0YTA3YmJiYzEyYjQ2ZDBiNWJlYjE=

Entry #582

"Child slavery suit charges 30,000 held in camel-racing camps

Like I've said before slavery is STILL thrives in the Middle East.  Saw this on another site a few days ago and found the follow up this morning. 


"Child slavery suit charges 30,000 held in camel-racing camps

SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Monday, September 18, 2006


WASHINGTON - U.S. relations with the United Arab Emirates could face another challenge amid a suit that charged the Gulf state's vice president with enslaving tens of thousands of children.
UAE Vice President Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum has been accused of enslaving about 30,000 children, some of them as young as two, since 1975.

The suit filed in U.S. district court in Miami charged that Al Maktoum, crown prince of Dubai, and his brother, Hamdan, ordered the stealing of the children to raise them as camel jockeys, Middle East Newsline reported.

"Boys as young as two years old have been stolen from their families, trafficked across international borders, and kept in brutal camel-racing camps throughout the United Arab Emirates, forced to train camels and perform as jockeys," the suit said.

The 56-page suit, filed on Sept. 13, could test the U.S. commitment to end human trafficking. The UAE, a leading defense client of the United States, has been cited as a major violator of human trafficking.
The Al Maktoums have property in Florida, including a horse ranch. The Dubai crown prince has not responded to the suit.

The six plaintiffs in the case have not been identified, but were said to be parents of children stolen by the UAE leaders. The suit said agents for Al Maktoum took young boys from such countries as Bangladesh and Sudan and transferred them to Dubai where they were forced to train camels and perform as jockeys.

The suit does not ask for specific compensation for the victims. Instead, the plaintiffs called for a jury to determine the damages.

"We hope to punish the perpetrators of these vile crimes and compensate the victims for their pain and suffering," Ron Motley, an attorney with the South Carolina-based law firm Motley Rice LLC, said. "

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/06/front2453996.452777778.html

"Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al Maktoum and Sheikh Hamdan bin Rashid al Maktoum
"A lawsuit has been filed and is seeking class action status against several rulers of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) for allegedly enslaving tens of thousands of boys over the past three decades. The boys were allegedly forced to work as jockeys in the popular sport of camel racing. The lawsuit alleges Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al Maktoum, the crown prince of Dubai, and Sheikh Hamdan bin Rashid al Maktoum, the deputy ruler, were the most active perpetrators. The lawsuit claimed the boys were taken largely from Bangladesh and Pakistan, were held at desert camps in the UAE and other Persian Gulf nations, and forced to work. It also claimed some boys were sexually abused, given limited food and sleep and injected with hormones to prevent their growth.


Register your Camel Racing Complaint
If you or a loved one has suffered damages in this case, you may qualify for damages or remedies that may be awarded in a possible class action or lawsuit. Please click the link below to submit your complaint to a lawyer for a free evaluation, or call 1-866-886-5529 toll free."
http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/case/camel_racing_slave.html?ref=newsletter_bca_camel_racing_slave

Entry #581

"Tinpot Tyrants and Madmen

Via Powerling The Anchoress blog's assessment of Chavez.  He and Ahmadinejad have taken their clue and followed suit by repeating what Dem leaders their watering holes and MSM have encouraged for 6 years.

Since it just bit them on the behind but good, perhaps they can muster some shame for having wallowed in street trash coarseness. 

"More on Chavez, the Dems and the Press

Blog of the Week The Anchoress has excellent thoughts on the provenance of Hugo Chavez's over-the-top attack on President Bush at the United Nations. A sample:  (highlight below)
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/015347.php

"Chavez clearly listened to Dems and Air America

........."

But maybe some on the left finally understand that while they’ve been having fun and laughing while calling President Bush every manner of ugly name and insult, dangerous people have been watching. And they have made a calculation: We can disrespect Bush and America will laugh with us. Bush is weak. America is once again the appeasing “weak horse” it was throughout the 1990’s and even before…when we could attack anything and be accountable to no one.

I’m sure Hugo, once he left the guffawing chamber of hyenas at the UN, was shocked to discover that most Americans were not laughing, that even some Democrats were not.

And I’m sure some Democrats were shocked to see just how ugly their words sounded, when coming out of the mouth of someone else, someone with “no right,” to spew hate for political expediency.

There are some on the left who are suggesting that Hugo Chavez’s remarks are simply an indicator that the world “disrespects” President Bush…well…I wonder who gave them the idea that they could? Was it John Kerry calling him a “***king liar,” and not having to answer for that rudeness to anyone while the press shrugged it off? Good heavens, Bush calls terrorism “evil” and he was mocked and criticized for using that word, but the press never had a problem with “***king liar, ***king crooks and thieves” or with adolescent musings about the president’s name and female genitalia. It was alllllll soooooo funnnnneeeeeee, newsreaders could hardly deliver the spite without grinning, themselves.

Let me tell you, I didn’t see “disrespect” at the UN while President Bush was speaking…while he was speaking he was accorded that dubious body’s full and complete attention, and like it or not, nothing he said was disregarded, because the world knows he means what he says. They may not like him, but they respect him. And if they don’t respect him, they fear him just enough to pretend. Which frankly I prefer to a president they all “love” but don’t respect or fear, one who plays games.

But if Bush is being disrespected, then the Democrats need to look to themselves and their actions and understand how complicit they have been in encouraging it. Dems like Charlie Rangel, who called President Bush “Bull Connor,” knowing full well how wrong, inaccurate, unfair and inflammatory that was, or like the idiots who called Bush “a genocidal racist” after Hurricane Katrina, or like the party (and the press) who spent years telling America about Saddam’s Weapons of Mass Destruction only to later pretend they never said such things, and to pretend further that somehow Bush’s believing the same things they believed…made him a liar.

The Democrats alleged something that disingenuous - that what they believed was true was suddenly not only false but one man’s lie - and the press let them do it.

The press repeated it, ad nauseam, and the press and the Dems promoted films with that message, and books, until that damnable, transparent and nonsensical lie was repeated enough…because everyone knows that if you tell a big lie enough, it becomes “the truth.”

If tinpot tyrants and madmen now come to the United Nations and believe they can say anything they wish about The American President, it is because - as some of us have been warning, for some time - while all manner or irresponsible nonsense and hate has been directed at this president…the world has been watching.

And now, these tyrants and madmen sound eerily like the Democrats and the press and the left. One ideology, the world over, had completely lost its bearings, its self-control and its manners concerning one man who has never - not once -repaid them back in kind. Not in speeches. Not to the press. Not to “friendly audiences.” He came to town talking about “changing the tone,” and that’s what happened, in a perverse way. One side’s tone went rabid, the other side went nearly-silent, but this one man…kept his tone."...............

http://theanchoressonline.com/2006/09/21/chavez-clearly-listened-to-dems-and-air-america/
Entry #580

"Chavez Wants to Reboot UN

Found a pic of Chavez in his new car.       

"Venezuela was the fourth-largest crude oil supplier to the U.S. last June, ." .... ... and we owe a debt of gratitude to the "greens" for hamstringing domestic drilling, refinery expansion thereby subjecting us to the whims of this tiny little despot seated above.

Just maybe the UN will move to Venezeula and a more meaningful, effective world organization can be formed.

 

"Chavez Wants to Reboot UN
By Patrick Goodenough
CNSNews.com International Editor
September 21, 2006

(CNSNews.com) - Hugo Chavez has spelled out his plan for creating the type of United Nations he could work with - including moving the U.N. headquarters from New York City to a country of "the South," like Venezuela.

The left-wing populist's suggestion that the U.N. leave U.S. shores may be the one point in his controversial speech to the General Assembly that American conservatives support.

In a 15-minute address laden with personal attacks against President Bush, whom he called the devil, Chavez outlined why he thought the U.N. was "worthless."

That the U.N. had "collapsed," he said, was evident from Washington's use of its "immoral veto" to block Security Council efforts to stop Israel's war in Lebanon over the summer.

Complaining that the General Assembly had been "turned into a merely deliberative organ," Chavez laid out his four-step formula for re-establishing the U.N.

The Security Council had to be expanded, with new permanent seats going to developing and less-developed countries. There must be "immediate suppression" of the veto power currently wielded by the big five -- the U.S., Britain, France, Russia and China.

Decisions at the U.N. to resolve the world's conflicts must be "transparent," he said.

And finally, the role and powers of the secretary-general must be strengthened.

In contrast to his criticism of the U.N., Chavez remarked positively on the Non-Aligned Movement, a grouping of 118 nations -- more than 60 percent of the General Assembly -- which held a summit last week in Havana, and is chaired by Cuba for the next three years.

The resolutions adopted by the NAM, he said, followed "open debate in a transparent matter."

He urged his audience to "lend your goodwill to lend momentum to the Non-Aligned Movement for the birth of a new era -- to prevent hegemony and prevent further advances of imperialism."

"A new, strong movement has been born, a movement of the South. We are men and women of the South."

'Voice of the world's people'

Chavez also attacked the U.S. for opposing Venezuela's bid for a rotating Security Council seat. A seat earmarked for Latin America becomes vacant at year's end, and Venezuela has been lobbying hard to fill it.

Washington, however, is supporting Guatemala as an alternative candidate. The General Assembly will vote on the matter in a secret ballot on October 16, and the winner will need the backing of two-thirds of members, or 128 countries.

China and Russia have declared their support for Venezuela's candidacy, and Chavez said in his U.N. speech that he also received the endorsement of major Latin American countries, the entire (22-member) Arab League, and "almost all of Africa."

"Venezuela, with a seat on the Security Council, will be expressing not only Venezuela's thoughts, but it will also be the voice of all the peoples of the world, and we will defend dignity and truth."

A key concern for the U.S. and its allies is that Venezuela -- even as a non-permanent member -- will play an additional spoiler role in the already divided council at a time it faces challenges posed by the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea. Chavez has allied himself closely with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and is also sympathetic to Pyongyang.

Responding to Wednesday's speech, State Department spokesman Tom Casey said: "The U.N. is an important world stage and an important forum, and leaders come there representing their people and their country. And I'll leave it to the Venezuelan people to determine whether President Chavez represented them and presented them in a way they would have liked to have seen.'

Rep. Connie Mack (R-Florida) said Chavez had shown the world his true colors.

"Quite simply, Chavez's anti-freedom tirade at the United Nations only bolstered the fact that he is little more than a champion of despair and despotism and a sworn enemy of hope and opportunity," Mack said in a statement.

"Chavez's growing alliance with proven enemies of freedom including Iran, Syria, Cuba and North Korea, coupled by his rapid militarization, pursuit of nuclear technologies and relentless broadside attacks on freedom in Venezuela, pose a real threat to the stability of the Western Hemisphere and indeed the world."

Venezuela is the world's fifth largest oil producer. According to the Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration, Venezuela was the fourth-largest crude oil supplier to the U.S. last June, after Canada, Mexico and Saudi Arabia."
 http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=/ForeignBureaus/archive/200609/INT20060921a.html
Entry #579
Page 554 of 593
Guest