The Clinton scheme is designed to use a cabal of those he appointed to high office — and who have never lost power — to bring about not only President Bush's defeat but to aid our foreign enemies.
OPPORTUNIST BILL
The former president used the opportunity of a capacity crowd at the 92nd Street Y, a Jewish community center in New York City, to attack the administration's economic and military policies. Ever the opportunist, Clinton could not contain himself. He used the occasion, again, to add to his campaign to become U.N. secretary-general.
Speaking of the dangers stemming from a war with Iraq, he said, "We need to be creating a world that we would like to live in when we're not the biggest power on the block."
And, let's not forget — ever — that Bill said "when," not "if," America loses its power.
In much the same way as that other rejected Democrat ex-president, Jimmy Carter, Clinton has his conniving group of former associates, both in and out of government, cooperating in a clearly focused effort to diminish the power of the United States.
Looking back on those Carter and Clinton presidential years, the question has to be asked whether a variety of presidential decisions were astonishingly incompetent or outright treasonous. If we look at troop strength, military budgets and aircraft and ship dispositions during those years — and add to that list Bill Clinton's nuclear and missile contributions to the Chinese — we find ourselves witnessing acts of treason exceeding the Rosenberg's gift of the atom bomb to the Russians.
Whether the result of corruption, stupidity, hatred of America, or a sick belief that they are an incarnation of Benedict Arnold, treason is treason. And whether it's a president, a high official or an obsequious clerk, unless and until the treason is exposed, each of us is at an increased risk.
SOUTH OF THE BORDER
Take a look at some recent facts about our own backyard — the Caribbean and Latin America.
Margarita Island, sometimes known as the "Pearl of the Caribbean," is under the control of Hugo Chavez's anti-U.S. government of Venezuela. Now, we learn that Margarita is home to a cadre of some two dozen Iraqi troops and a number of Libyan military specialists. Their presence was arranged when Chavez visited Tripoli and Baghdad in 2000 and, at Fidel Castro's suggestion, explained his needs to these other two dictators. Simply put, these troops, together with a Cuban group, are there ostensibly to provide additional security for the several hundred Palestinian and Lebanese oil technicians working with Chavez's own thugs, the Bolivarian Circles, on strike breaking for the crippled Venezuelan state oil company.
This may be true, but what about the security of our borders?
And, just add to your worries note the fact that Guyana is close to Margarita Island, which is a base to several hundred Iraqi oil engineers, awaiting entry to Venezuela as strike breakers for Hugo Chavez.
Late last month, our House International Relations Committee decided to find out what was really going on. They asked the CIA to give them a briefing on "political and economic trends" in the region. And they wanted the CIA's National Intelligence Officer (NIO) for Latin America, Fulton T. Armstrong, to give the briefing.
Armstrong declined, saying he would not speak at an open, unclassified hearing, and abruptly went on "personal travel" status. A quick way to show his contempt for Congress. We must remember that Fulton is no professional spook: For 10 years he worked for Iowa's liberal Republican congressman, Jim Leach — one of the few Republicans to show up at gatherings of the Institute for Policy Studies.
Today, Fulton is known as a guy who refuses to believe that Castro is a military or security threat and claims that he (Fulton) is the target of right-wing ideologues.
Subsequent to being a flack for Leach, Armstrong was appointed to Bill Clinton's National Security Council; and after killing time (but nothing else) at the CIA's Crime and Narcotics Center, he became the boss for Latin America. In this position, Armstrong is protected and trusted by CIA Director George Tenet — yet another Clinton domestic minion. A weak NIO is neither a disaster nor that unusual. But in this case, the man on the National Security
Council, who could exercise some control, is a former ambassador to Venezuela under — you've got it right — Bill Clinton.
PITTSBURGH CONNECTION
Now the special assistant to the president and senior director for Western Hemispheric Affairs is Pittsburgh's very own John F. Maisto.
Maisto, yet another Clintonista, had served as ambassador in Nicaragua and Venezuela. He
consistently played down any threat to democracy posed by Chavez. He tells people blandly, "that is just what we expect in Latin America," when anything goes wrong. John Maisto certainly did not insist on the Congress getting any information on cadres from the Cuban, Libyan or Iraq military in Venezuelan camps.
And we have to remember that adjacent to Venezuela is Colombia, a country in the middle of a civil war against Marxist insurgents. There, our attractive Ambassador Anne Patterson is another Clintonista. Anne, who was born and married in Fort Smith, Ark., got a special award from Bill Clinton in 1993, and represented America in El Salvador before going to Colombia. Certainly her relationships with Bill were helped by the fact that she attended Wellesley College in the same era as Hillary Rodham Clinton.
A great deal becomes even more plain when we realize that the under secretary for political affairs at State is Marc Grossman. He is now is a trusted aide to Secretary of State Colin Powell and to the president. That he was equally loyal to the White House during the Clinton years is not surprising; nor does it raise eyebrows to recall that Marc was a deputy special adviser to President Carter.
What is a surprise to any thinking person is learning that Grossman's degree comes from the London School of Economics and Political Science — at that time still very much England's activist pink university.
Writing about these people could change some slogans in our lives. Perhaps in 2003 the cry on a Saturday afternoon should no longer be "Who's on first?" but rather "Who's for treason?"
