NYT's Sulzberger exposes NYT Culpability

C-SPAN, Washington Journal | 11-30-01 | Mia T

[Mia T]

11-30-01

New York Times Chairman/Publisher Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. admits to Brian Lamb:

• "Times dropped ball during Holocaust by failing to connect the dots"
• Times was able to endorse clinton by separating clinton's "policies" from "the man" [i.e., by failing to connect the dots!]

 

 

by Mia T, November 30, 2001

Malpractice and/or malfeasance by "compartmentalization" redux...

It appears that The New York Times doesn't learn from its mistakes. Will it take The Times another 50 years to understand/admit that by having endorsed for reelection a "documentably dysfunctional" president with "delusions" -- its own words -- it must bear sizeable blame for the 9-11 horror and its aftermath ?

(Note, by the way, the irony of Sulzberger's carefully worded rationalization of the clinton endorsements, pointing to clinton "policies," not achievements, (perhaps understanding, at last, that clinton "achievements" -- when legal -- were more illusory than real--perhaps understanding, at last, that The Times' Faustian bargain was not such a good deal after all).).

If we assume that the clintons were the proximate cause of 9-11 --- a proposition not difficult to demonstrate --- it then follows that The New York Times must bear sizeable blame for the 9-11 horror and its aftermath.

The New York Times clinton Endorsements: Then and Now

by Mia T, October 22, 2000

The New York Times' endorsement today of hillary rodham clinton is nothing more or less than a reprise of its shameless endorsement of her husband four years ago. Like the 4-year-old disgrace, this endorsement reveals more about The Times than it does about the candidate.

The Times' endorsements of the clintons are not merely intellectually dishonest--they are laughably, shamelessly so. An obscene disregard for the truth, a blithe jettisoning of logic, a haughty contempt for the electorate, a reckless neglect of Constitution and country, they are willful fourth-estate malfeasance.

Inadvertently, ineptly, ironically, these endorsements become the metaphor for the corrupt, duplicitious, dangerous subjects they attempt to ennoble. The New York Times must bear sizeable blame for the national aberration that is clintonism and for all the devastation that has flowed and will continue to flow therefrom.

I have included both endorsements below. One has only to re-read the 1996 apologia today, in 2000, after eight long years of clinton depravity and destruction, to confirm how spurious its arguments were, how ludicrously revisionist its premises were, how wrong its conclusions were, how damaging its deceits were.

The Lieberman Paradigm

I have dubbed the Times' convoluted, corrupt, pernicious reasoning, (unfortunately now an all-too-familiar Democratic scheme), "The Lieberman Paradigm," in honor of the Connecticut senator and his sharply bifurcated, logically absurd, unrepentantly Faustian, post-Monica ménage-à-troika transaction shamelessly consummated on the floor of the Senate that swapped his soul for clinton's a$$.

Reduced to its essence, the argument is this:

clinton is an unfit president;

therefore, clinton must remain president.

(You will recall that Lieberman's argument that sorry day was rightly headed toward clinton's certain ouster when it suddenly made a swift, hairpin 180, as if clinton hacks took over the wheel. . .)

Nomenclature notwithstanding, (nomenklatura, too), it was not the Lieberman speech but rather the 1996 Times endorsement that institutionalized this Orwellian, left-wing ploy to protect and extend a thoroughly corrupt and repugnant--and as is increasingly obvious-- dangerous -- Democratic regime.

"A Tiger Doesn't Change its Spots"

Reprising its 1996 model, The Times cures this clinton's ineptitude and failure with a delusional revisionism and cures her corruption and dysfunction with a character lobe brain transplant.

But revisionism and brain surgery didn't work in 1996, and revisionism and brain surgery won't work today.

 

...prior attempts at presidential brain surgery

have proven less than brilliant.

You will recall that, as recently as 1996,

The New York Times insisted that

Bill Clinton undergo the surgical procedure;

its endorsement of Clinton was predicated

on Clinton undergoing a partial brain transplant:

specifically of the Character Lobe.

 

Clinton assured us immediately (if tacitly)

that this would be done post haste (or was it post chaste?),

that whatever crimes he never did, he would never do again.

 

If brain surgery was ever performed on Clinton,

it has produced no discernible improvement.

 

 

Perhaps our approach to the problem

of deficient presidential brains

is itself wrong-headed;

that the problem is really

a problem of deficient electorate brains.

 

Voters would be wise to heed

the old roadside ad:

 

Don't lose Your head

To gain a minute

You need your head

Your brains are in it.

--Mia T, Pushme-Pullyou

 

October 22, 2000

The New York Times

 

Hillary Clinton for the Senate

 

When Hillary Rodham Clinton arrived in their state 16 months ago, New Yorkers deserved to be deeply skeptical. She had not lived, worked or voted in New York State. She had never been elected to any public office, yet she radiated an aura of ambition and entitlement that suggested she viewed a run for the United States Senate as a kind of celebrity stroll. She seemed more at home at East Side soirÈes and within the first lady's question-free cocoon than in unscripted conversations with voters or the political press. She encountered civic doubt and open hostility from predictable sources, as well as a surprising resistance from feminists offended by her passive response to the marital humiliations inflicted by her husband.

But in the intervening months, Mrs. Clinton has shown herself to be an intelligent and dignified candidate who has acquired a surprising depth of knowledge about the social-services needs of New York City and the economic pain of the upstate region. Her political growth has been aided by her combat with two worthy Republican opponents, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and his successor as the G.O.P. candidate, Representative Rick Lazio. With full respect for their abilities, we endorse Mrs. Clinton as the one candidate who will best fill the vast gap that will be left in the Senate and within the Democratic Party by the retirement of Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

As a neophyte, Mrs. Clinton began her campaign with a number of clumsy statements about sports teams and girlhood vacation visits to the state and with a much-ridiculed listening tour among handpicked audiences. But as her confidence mounted, she outdid her opponents in visiting the state's 62 counties. Through the collection of firsthand stories, she learned about economic deprivation, energy costs, taxes, health crises and troubled schools. She came out of those grueling months knowing more about the state than most candidates who qualify by birth as what Mr. Lazio calls "real New Yorkers."

Handshaking her way through town squares and state fairs, she also shed her earlier political shell as a cosseted, sloganeering ideologue. The first lady from Arkansas evolved into an Empire State candidate whose grasp of local issues complements a deep, if untested, understanding of national and international matters from her days in the White House. She also communicates an unfeigned empathy for the struggles of poor families, schoolchildren and professionals in the health care, education and social-service fields.

The hesitancy among some voters, however, has been understandable, and we share some of those concerns. Her health care task force failed to deliver the promised reform. The investigative literature of Whitewater and related scandals is replete with evidence that Mrs. Clinton has a lamentable tendency to treat political opponents as enemies. She has clearly been less than truthful in her comments to investigators and too eager to follow President Clinton's method of peddling access for campaign donations. Her fondness for stonewalling in response to legitimate questions about financial or legislative matters contributed to the bad ethical reputation of the Clinton administration. If she should choose to carry these patterns and tendencies into the Senate, her career there could be as bumpy and frustrating -- and ultimately, as investigated -- as her White House years.

We believe, however, that Mrs. Clinton is capable of growing beyond the ethical legacies of her Arkansas and White House years. She has shown a desire to carve out a political identity and create a legislative legacy separate from her husband's. Certainly, no one can doubt that she combines his policy commitments with a far greater level of self- control and a steadier work ethic.

In a move that should serve as an example to other campaigns around the country, Mrs. Clinton bucked the advice of old-line Democrats and agreed to a ban on soft money for this campaign. It was a bold and important step since the ban hurt her own campaign more than that of Mr. Lazio. Although she has come late to the cause of campaign reform, we believe that she would be a firm vote in support of the McCain-Feingold soft-money ban and that she would work tirelessly toward the long-term goal of full public financing of election campaigns.

Although we are endorsing Mrs. Clinton, we want to commend Mr. Lazio for his effort. He has refused to complain about getting a late start. Despite his moments of macho exuberance and his excessive persistence in trying to exploit the carpetbagger issue, he has so far resisted making this a low-road campaign. He has described himself as a Republican moderate who would fight to increase the power of his party's small, but important, centrist bloc in the Senate. On housing, banking laws and the environment, he has taken positions far friendlier to working people and the Northeastern region than those espoused by his party's Senate majority leader, Trent Lott.

Even so, most Republican members of the Senate will be pulled to the right and pressed to support programs that are generally tailored to the needs of the South and West, rather than to those of Northeastern urban areas. Mr. Lazio argues that if the G.O.P. holds control of the Senate in the Nov. 7 election, it would serve the state to have him in the majority caucus. We understand the logic of that position and might find it persuasive in some races. But we have concluded that Mrs. Clinton is an unusually promising talent and it would be better for New York to fight for its causes with two powerful, progressive voices: hers and that of the state's senior Democrat, Senator Charles Schumer.

On foreign policy, Mr. Lazio and Mrs. Clinton have presented themselves as firm friends of Israel, and in our view, Mr. Lazio has not enhanced his foreign-policy credentials by trying to take advantage of Mrs. Clinton's comments on Palestinian statehood and the awkwardness of her encounter with Suha Arafat. Mrs. Clinton has, in fact, acquired a useful education in international affairs through her travels and activities as first lady. The speech that she made to the Council on Foreign Relations last week set forth a broader, more sophisticated vision of America's place in the world than anything Mr. Lazio has offered so far. He has simply stated misgivings about the Clinton administration's record of foreign engagements, while Mrs. Clinton has sketched a program that looks at environmental, health and human rights issues, as well as security concerns.

Contemplating Mrs. Clinton's campaign convinces us that she fits into two important New York traditions. Like Robert F. Kennedy, she taps into the state's ability to embrace new residents and fresh ideas. She is also capable of following the pattern, established by the likes of Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Moynihan and Jacob Javits, that finds New York senators playing a role on the national and world stages even as they defend local interests.

The building of such potent Senate careers requires a grasp of foreign and domestic policy, coupled with negotiating ability and, usually, a burning commitment to one's home state and to a few key concerns. We think Mrs. Clinton better represents the full package of skills than does Mr. Lazio. Her economic plan for upstate offers hope for an area that has not reaped its share of today's financial harvest. Her understanding of how to balance energy issues with crucial environmental protection seems sharper. Mrs. Clinton can guard against Supreme Court nominees who would compromise the constitutional right to abortion, while Mr. Lazio would be hobbled by party ideology and discipline.

Finally, on the key issues of health care and education, Mrs. Clinton has the knowledge and the instincts to make a lasting impact on the Senate, on national policy and on the everyday lives of New Yorkers. We are placing our bet on her to rise above the mistakes and difficulties of her first eight years in Washington and to establish herself on Capitol Hill as a major voice for enlightened social policy and vibrant internationalism.

October 27, 1996, Sunday Editorial Desk

The New York Times

 

Bill Clinton for President

 

 

Today we endorse the re-election of President Bill Clinton. Readers of this

page will know that we share many of the public's concerns about Mr. Clinton's

resoluteness and sensitivity to ethical standards in government. But our

endorsement is delivered in the unequivocal confidence that he is the best

candidate in the field and in the belief that because he has grown in the job

he can build on the successes of his first term while correcting its defects.

Toward that end, our endorsement comes with a set of recommendations for how

Mr. Clinton can, before Election Day, address voters' concerns about his

personality and character.

 

First, however, we want to outline the case for Mr. Clinton's re-election

based on policy, performance and growth in office. Our view of Mr. Clinton

mirrors that of millions of swing voters who are choosing him over Bob Dole and

Ross Perot. He is clearly the candidate of hope and progress in this race. No

one can doubt his commitment to using government to spur the economy, protect

the environment, defend the cities, promote racial justice and combine

compassion with fiscal prudence.

 

 

The choice of Mr. Clinton is easier because of Mr. Dole's halting campaign.

Neither his 15 percent tax cut nor his wild charge that newspapers have pulled

their punches on Whitewater stands the test of logic or represents Mr. Dole at

his best. He is a good man whose service on behalf of the nation, in the Army

and the Senate, will be well remembered. Indeed, many voters are dismayed that

Mr. Dole has strayed from his moderate record and look to Mr. Clinton as a

protection from Republican excess.

 

 

A Revived Party and Presidency

 

But a vote for Mr. Clinton is more than a defensive measure. He is clearly

the most skilled navigator of today's contrary political seas. Even his most

notable defeat, on health care, arose from his correct judgment that Americans

want universal, affordable coverage. Mr. Clinton understands that the

electorate makes contradictory demands. Voters are sullen and suspicious about

government, yet anxious that it serve them. Americans have grown conservative,

yet they want their interests and values protected. Mr. Clinton's Presidency

has tacked this way and that, in part because it had to. He always calculates

how far he can go and at what cost. We have disagreed with some of his

calculations, but over the past two years he has not only revived his

Presidency, he has also refashioned the Democratic Party's approach to

government.

 

Some argue wrongly that Mr. Clinton has had no sense of direction. In several

areas, though, he has picked his destinations and risked his political

interests to get there. The pattern of the last two years provides a template

for success in a second term.

 

The Economy

 

The campaign has produced no more fallacious statement than Mr. Dole's

assertion that the nation has the worst economy in 100 years. The real

situation is that Mr. Clinton's drive toward a balanced budget has helped keep

interest rates low and promote an economic expansion now in its fifth year.

Mr. Clinton stood up to the spendthrifts in his own party at the start of his

term. He curbed the Federal deficits that had piled up over years of

Republican Presidents proclaiming devotion to fiscal conservatism. Yet he

wisely opposed a balanced-budget amendment that would tie a President's hands

in a military or fiscal emergency.

 

Mr. Clinton raised taxes primarily on those most able to pay while pushing

through one of the most important initiatives of his Presidency, the

earned-income tax credit, which channeled billions of dollars into the poorest

segment of the work force and lifted more than three million people out of

poverty.

 

International Trade

 

Today both parties are driven by differences over trade, which accounts for a

third of the economy.

The temptation to demagogue about job flight is ever present. Yet Mr. Clinton

has performed with a tough sense of purpose, helping to educate the public that

foreign competition cannot be wished away.

Although accused of unwillingness to take on his own party's interest groups,

Mr. Clinton bucked the Democratic leadership to secure the free-trade

agreement with Canada and Mexico. He then went on to support the global trade

agreement that created the World Trade Organization. At the same time, he has

been more aggressive in pressing Japan and China to open their markets.

 

Foreign Policy

 

In 1993, Mr. Clinton lacked experience in foreign affairs, and he stumbled

early by confusing consultation with leadership when it came to Bosnia. Now he

is regarded internationally as a leader with a sophisticated grasp of a

superpower's obligation to help the world manage its conflicts and economic

contests.

 

The hallmark of this new sophistication is Mr. Clinton's timing of those

moments when American prestige and resources can be decisive. His decision to

throw political and financial support behind the election of President Boris

Yeltsin in Russia, then mired at below 10 percent in the polls, was a

successful, high-risk intervention.

 

In applying American prestige to the Middle East process of reconciliation,

Mr. Clinton was building on a bipartisan tradition. But without his intense

efforts, the process would have foundered. In Bosnia, Mr. Clinton ignored

persistent bad advice about how to use force, invented a peace process from the

most unpromising situation and finally stabilized a war that posed a security

threat to Europe and endangered NATO.

 

Health Care

 

 

In the field of health care, the Clinton Administration failed through a toxic

combination of hubris and secrecy. But Mr. Clinton was headed in the right

direction. Americans need and want a health care system that covers everyone

and keeps costs down through competition. If Mr. Clinton is elected, the

journey toward this valuable goal will continue. If Mr. Dole is elected, that

journey will end, and the assault on Medicaid and Medicare will continue.

Instead of quality care for all, the country will move toward making Medicare a

second-class program for the elderly poor and toward a health-insurance system

favoring the affluent and the healthy.

 

Political Values

 

The last few years have seen an ugliness of tone in American politics toward

the poor, minorities and immigrants. Mr. Clinton has been the most important

voice for conciliation, but even he has bowed to expediency. We opposed his

signing of the welfare bill, but he has promised to ease its unfair attacks on

the poor and legal immigrants. His lack of backbone on this issue was at least

balanced by a courageous stand in favor of affirmative action.

 

In sharp contrast to the two previous Administrations, Mr. Clinton has used

common sense on guns.

By supporting local police, he erased the Republicans' unearned copyright on

the crime issue. He has defended choice on abortion, and his re-election will

help produce a Supreme Court that protects this and other freedoms.

 

Another value asserted by Mr. Clinton is reverence for the earth. Electing

the Democratic ticket will return to office Vice President Al Gore, the most

knowledgeable and consistent defender of the environment in Washington. He

converted Mr. Clinton from a relaxed to a muscular guardian of clean air and

water. In a second term, they can generate a new wave of sensible

environmental laws.

 

Ethics

 

Obviously, we could not ask our readers to vote for Mr. Clinton without

addressing his most significant leadership problem. Many Americans do not

trust him or believe him to be a person of character. We do not dodge that

issue, nor should Mr. Clinton. Indeed, he must view it as a prime opportunity

of his second term. A fraction of the electorate, of course, will never

forgive his reputation for philandering. But he can reclaim the trust of the

great majority by demonstrating a zeal for financial integrity and for

protecting the machinery of justice from politics. Toward that end, we urge

Mr. Clinton to close the campaign with a series of dramatic gestures.

 

First, he should accept the Republican dare and pledge not to pardon anyone

convicted in prosecutions arising from Whitewater, the White House travel

office firings, the mishandling of F.B.I. files, or the raising of funds for

the 1996 campaign. He should promise that he, the First Lady and every member

of the executive branch will cooperate with all investigations, whether they

are from the Justice Department, special prosecutors or Congressional

committees.

 

Next, Mr. Clinton should deal with his party's Indonesian fund-raising scandal

by acknowledging that both parties' financial practices are wrong even if not

illegal. He can then credibly pledge to recapture one of the main themes of

his 1992 campaign. We saluted then and we still believe in the stirring call

in his inaugural address ''to reform our politics so that power and privilege

no longer shout down the voice of the people.''

 

The Democratic Congressional leadership talked him into shelving campaign

finance legislation because their members wanted to keep lapping up

contributions from political-action committees.

Now is the moment for Mr. Clinton to renew his promise by sponsoring campaign

laws that end foreign donations and ''soft money'' dodges and that give all

credible candidates a level playing field when it comes to mail and

advertising.

 

Such dramatic pledges would do more than defuse the criticisms of Mr. Perot

and Mr. Dole in the closing days of this election. They would also enlist

public opinion on Mr. Clinton's side as a protection against Republican

excesses in the Congressional investigations that are coming whether Mr.

Clinton opts for openness or sticks to the hunker-down strategy that has done

his Administration such damage.

 

More important, Mr. Clinton would be demonstrating that he regards winning on

Nov. 5 as a necessary prelude to the important work that lies ahead. Mr.

Clinton's original vision of a country where no one waits for health care,

social justice and economic opportunity to trickle down is still valid. His

education in the leadership burden that rests on the world's strongest nation

and its President has proceeded more rapidly and successfully than anyone could

have dared hope. The Presidency he once dreamed is still within his reach if

he brings the requisite integrity to the next four years. By adding self

discipline to vision, he can build on the achievements he has already made and

make a fair bid to leave Washington in 2001 as one of the notable Presidents of

the 20th century.

 

12-22-00

The Times Reaps What It Sowed

 

December 22, 2000

The New York Times

 

Mrs. Clinton's Book Deal

 

rs. Clinton's Book Deal

We are sorry to see Hillary Rodham Clinton start her Senate career by selling a memoir of her years as first lady to Simon & Schuster for a near- record advance of about $8 million. The deal may conceivably conform to the lax Senate rules on book sales, though even that is uncertain. But it would unquestionably violate the tougher, and better, House rules, and it is an affront to common sense. No lawmaker should accept a large, unearned sum from a publisher whose parent company, Viacom, is vitally interested in government policy on issues likely to come before Congress ó for example, copyright or broadcasting legislation.

Mrs. Clinton's staggering advance falls just below the $8.5 million received by Pope John Paul II in 1994. We wish as a matter of judgment that she had not sought an advance but had voluntarily limited her payments to royalties on actual book sales, as the House now requires of its members. That way there would be no worry that she had been given special treatment in an effort to curry political favor.

The Senate will judge Mrs. Clinton's deal in the context of outmoded rules that, regrettably, still permit members to accept advance payments for their books provided they fall within "usual and customary" industry patterns. Mrs. Clinton held an open auction for her book, so the $8 million advance emerged from a process that presumably represented the industry's consensus about what the book would be worth. But Mrs. Clinton has a duty to reveal the entire contents of her contract so that the public and members of the Senate Ethics Committee can judge for themselves whether its terms fulfill her pledge to comply with existing Senate rules, inadequate though they are.

As it is, Mrs. Clinton will enter the Senate as a business associate of a major company that has dealings before many regulatory agencies and interests in Congress. It would have been far better if she had avoided this entanglement. As she above all others should know, not every deal that is legally permissible is smart for a politician who wants and needs to inspire public trust.

Only a few years ago Newt Gingrich, at that time the House speaker, accepted an ethically dubious $4.5 million book deal with a publishing house owned by Rupert Murdoch, an aggressively political publisher seeking help with his problems with federal regulators. This was the issue that ultimately forced Mr. Gingrich to abandon his advance, and led the House to ban all advance payments for members' books.

That is the right approach, and it would be nice if Republican critics of Mrs. Clinton's deal now devoted real energy to persuading the Senate to adopt the House rules for the future. Both bodies need maximum protection against entangling alliances between lawmakers and government favor- seekers now that nearly all major publishing houses are owned by large corporations with a lot of business before Congress.

02-18-01

bill clinton lies in Times Op-Ed Pardongate apologia

Times allows clinton to replace lies in later edition

with deceptive statement that seems to mean the

same thing

The Times Reaps What It Sows

The Late Edition of the Sunday New York Times contains the following

text of Clinton's reason number (7) for the Marc Rich pardon:

 

"(7) the case for the pardons was reviewed and advocated not only by my

former White House counsel Jack Quinn but also by three distinguished

Republican attorneys: Leonard Garment, a former Nixon White House

official; William Bradford Reynolds, a former high-ranking official in

the Reagan Justice Department; and Lewis Libby, now Vice President

Cheney's chief of staff; ..."

 

However, the reason (7) contained in the Sunday Times Early Edition,

which went on sale Saturday night in New York, said:

 

"(7) The applications were reviewed and advocated not only by my former

White House counsel Jack Quinn, but also by three distinguished

Republican attorneys: Leonard Garment, a former Nixon White House

official, William Bradford Reynolds, a former high-ranking official in

the Reagan Justice Department; and Lewis Libby, now Vice President

Cheney's chief of staff; ..."

 

The op ed Clinton statement in the Early Edition was objected to by,

among others, the Bush White House. However, instead of withdrawing the

false statement, the New York Times clearly allowed Bill Clinton to

replace it with a highly deceptive statement that seems to mean the same

thing. (Before I noticed the text alteration, I had read only the Late

Edition and I thought Clinton was simply saying the three Republicans

had supported the pardon. I did not realize that it all depends on what

the meaning of "for" is, as in the phrase "the case for the pardons was

reviewed and advocated....

 

Rumors about Bill Clinton's diminished clout may be greatly

exaggerated. After all, once Clinton was caught, Clinton was able to

force the New York Times, in its later editions, to replace his own lie

not with the truth but with a classically balanced Clinton statement: it

seems to mean something false, but it can later be spun as having a

hidden meaning that falls just short of outright falsehood. IMHO, the

Clinton mob remains in perfect health.".....

Alex Mulkern

I think that history will view this much differently. They will say I made a bad personal mistake, I paid a serious price for it, but that I was right to stand and fight for my country and my constitution and its principles...

-----the First Psychopath, himself

 

 

 

 

...[bill clinton], a man who will be regarded in the history books as one of our greatest presidents.

-----Al Gore at clinton's post-impeachment rally

 

I suspect that, to spite us all,

Arthur Schlesinger will live to 120

just so he can write

the definitive clinton hagiography.

--------Mia T, Musings: Senatorial Courtesy Perverted

   

History Lesson

by Mia T

 

Someone--was it Maupassant?--

once called history "that excitable and lying old lady."

The same can be said of historians.

 

Surely it can be said of Doris Kearns Goodwin,

the archetypical pharisaical historian,

not-so-latently clintonoid,

Lieberman-Paradigmatic

(i.e., clinton is an unfit president;

therefore clinton must remain president),

intellectually dishonest,

(habitually doing what the Arthur Schlesingers of this world do:

making history into the proof of their theories).

 

The Forbids 400's argument is shamelessly spurious.

They get all unhinged over the impeachment of clinton,

claiming that it will

"leave the presidency permanently disfigured and diminished,

at the mercy as never before of the caprices of any Congress."

 

Yet they dismiss the real and present--and future!!--danger

to the presidency and the country

of not impeaching and removing

this admittedly unfit, (Goodwin)

"documentably dysfunctional," (The New York Times)

presidency-diminishing, (Goodwin)

power-abusing,

psychopathic thug.

 

Doris Kearns Goodwin and those 400 other

hog-and-bow-tied-save-clinton,

retrograde-obsessing historiographers

are a supercilious, power-hungry,

egomaniacal lot in their own right.

 

For them, clinton validates

what Ogden Nash merely hypothesized:

Any buffoon can make history,

but only a great man can write it.

 

 

 

[NativeNewYorker]

Sulzberger is apologizing for the Times' missing the Nazi genocide?

How about their Pulitzer for covering up Joe Stalin's crimes?

Or their blind eye toward black-on-black and black-on-white violence?

Or their tedious equivocation on the Crown Heights pogrom?

[FryingPan101]

Mia...UdaBest! Thanks.

[aculeus]

Excellent! Here's more on "Pinch" the Sulzberger's shame:

Quote:
the Times's new publisher, Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger Jr ... was a sixties anti-war activist who famously declared that in a confrontation between an American and a North Vietnamese soldier he'd want to see the American get shot."
Unquote.
Stanley Kurtz (NRO on line, June 5, 2001)

[SoDak]

Great work, Mia.

[Mia T]

Q ERTY1 bump!

clintonism and the theology of contempt

by Mia T

 

 

Let us hope that the rabbi's question was merely rhetorical. . . Let us hope that Rabbi Potasnik, and by extension, New York Jews, are not as credulous and obsequious and passive as they appear. . .

 

The simple answer to the rabbi's question is that the corrupt, self-serving, anti-Semitic, power-hungry harpy cannot be trusted.

 

Weren't we to never forget?

 

The Holocaust must remain, for Jew and Gentile alike, a constant reminder that mass credulity and obsequiousness and passivity are necessary for the demagogue to prevail.

 

To remember that six million Jews died in the Holocaust is to understand that centuries of anti-Semitic attitudes made this horror possible. We must ask ourselves what role our society played through the centuries that in any way contributed to the atmosphere that made such a genocide even thinkable.

 

Which brings me to the clintons and clintonism. . .

 

Senator Patrick Moynihan proffered one of the more incisive operant definitions of clintonism -- "defining deviancy down."

 

Defining deviancy down, indeed.

clintonism has made personal and public perversions, personal and public predations, not merely thinkable, not merely acceptable, but de rigueur. (Watch us spin)

 

clintonism is the theology of contempt. Not merely toward "F___ing Jew-bastards," not merely toward "dumb niggers" or "extra-chromosome right-wingers" but toward any of us whose ideas are different from those of the clintons, gore, and their acolytes.

 

So the real question to be answered is this:

"What fair-minded, clear-thinking person would want to continue

with its theology of contempt?

What fair-minded, clear-thinking person would vote for HILLARY! clinton or al gore?"

 

[Mia T]

Arthur "Pinch"???

Is it analogous to Bill "Bite"????

 

11-07-01

bill clinton prefers biting lips to beating with sticks

At the end of his speech, Mr. Clinton -- who was impeached for lying under oath about a sexual relationship with a 21-year-old White House intern -- said the entire issue revolves around "the nature of truth."

"This battle fundamentally is about what you think about the nature of truth," he said, noting that God has imposed on us the inability to ever know "the whole truth."

He also championed women's rights in Afghanistan, saying the reason "you see all those sanctimonious guys beating those women with sticks" is because the country's rulers demand strict adherence to the rules.

Clinton calls terror a U.S. debt to past

 

 

Just look around this chamber. We have members from virtually every racial, ethnic, and religious background. And America is stronger for it. But as we have seen, these differences all too often spark hatred and division, even here at home. . . This is not the American way. We must draw the line. Without delay, we must pass the Hate Crimes Prevention Act and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. And we should reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act.

bill clinton, State of Union Speech, January 27, 2000

"I'm sorry, but the president is one of the crudest men I have ever encountered in government service," says one female agent. "He has no respect for women."

Among the comments clinton made in presence of Secret Service agents:

. Frequent speculation on the oral sex skills of women

the president saw or met in receiving lines;

. References to the size of a woman's breasts, legs or figure;

. Sexual jokes.

After the Monica Lewinsky story broke, however, clinton toned down his rhetoric and behavior in front of his Secret Service agents, but those who guarded the president say enough of them saw and heard things which could be damaging to clinton.

"It depends on who Ken Starr calls," says one ex-agent. "The people who are on the job today are not necessarily the ones who know the most."

Turnover In clinton's Secret Service Detail 'Highest That Anyone Can Remember'

In the months that follow, reporters drop the issue. Feminists say little or nothing. Rape crisis center workers acknowledge that Broaddrick's case, including her reluctance to come forward, is typical of victims of sexual assault. But they decline to speak against clinton. Some cite the federal funding they receive as a result of the Violence Against Women Act, which was signed into law by clinton.

Why does the press continue to ignore the Juanita Broaddrick story?

 

 

The Placebo President:

How a Rapist can be a Policy Feminist

 

placebo effect n.

A beneficial effect in a patient following a particular treatment

that arises from the patient's expectations concerning

the treatment rather than from the treatment itself.

 

Every woman adores a Fascist,

The boot in the face, the brute

Brute heart of a brute like you.

----Sylvia Plath

 

The placebo effect immediately came to mind

as I listened to Shelby Steele,

a research fellow at the Hoover Institution,

debunk the following pernicious spin intended to save clinton.

To wit:

A proven felon and utter reprobate can remain president;

clinton can be a failed human being but a good president.

 

The error in these statements arises, says Steele,

from the belief that

virtuousness is separate from personal responsibility

so that one's virtuousness as an individual is determined by

one's political positions on issues rather than on

whether or not in one's personal life there is a

consistency and a responsibility.

 

Steele's contention is that this compartmentalization,

rather than being the amazing advantage

the clintons would have us believe,

in fact, spills toxicity into, corrupts, the culture.

 

If mere identification with good policies is what makes one virtuous

then those policies become, what Steele calls, iconographic,

that is to say they just represent virtuousness.

They don't necessarily do virtuous things.

 

If clinton's semantic parsing strips meaning from our words,

clinton's iconographic policies strip meaning from our society,

systematically deconstructing our society as a democracy. . .

 

I would take Shelby Steele's thesis one step further.

I maintain that iconographic policy functions like a placebo,

producing a real, physiological and social effects.

 

The placebo effect is, after all, the brain's triumph over reality.

Expectation alone can produce powerful physiological results.

The placebo effect was, at one time, an evolutionary advantage:

act now, think later

 

bill clinton is the paradigmatic Placebo President.

Placebo is Latin for "I shall please."

And please he does

doling out sham treatments, iconographs, with abandon.

To please, to placate, to numb, to deflect.

Ultimately to showcase his imagined virtue.

Or to confute his genuine vice.

 

clinton will dispense sugar pills (or bombs)

at the drop of a high-heeled shoe...

or at the hint of high treason...

 

clinton's charlatanry mimics that of primitive medicine.

Through the 1940s, doctors had little effective medicine to offer

so they deliberately attempted to induce the placebo response.

 

The efficaciousness of today's medicines

does not diminish the power of the placebo.

A recent review of placebo-controlled studies

found that placebos and genuine treatments

are often equally effective.

If you expect to get better, you will.

 

Which brings me back to the original question:

Can clinton be a failed human being but a good president?

 

Clearly he cannot.

These two propositions are mutually exclusive.

clinton's fundamental failure is a complete lack of integrity.

He has violated his covenant with the American people.

 

Because clinton has destroyed his moral authority as a leader,

he can no longer function even as a quack;

the placebo effect is gone.

And so the Placebo President must now go, too.

 

 

To understand the refractory nature and depth of clinton psychopathy, it is especially instructive to parse the following:

He also championed women's rights in Afghanistan, saying the reason "you see all those sanctimonious guys beating those women [plural of "that woman"] with sticks" is because the country's rulers demand strict adherence to the rules.

By creating a causal connection between abuse of women and 'requiring strict adherence to the rules' while, at the same time, promoting himself as some sort of champion of women's rights, clinton, with an equal dose of dementia and legerdemain, justifies his own wanton disregard of "the rules" as he transmutes his rapes of women and country into a bizarrely patriarchal, anti-democratic, anarchic brand of feminism.

[OldFriend]

Saw the Managing Editor of the New York Slimes on C-SPIN this morning and now I understand everything!

[Mia T]

Q ERTY6 ping

THE OTHER NIXON

by Mia T

 

 

Hypocrisy abounds in this Age of clinton, a Postmodern Oz rife with constitutional deconstruction and semantic subversion, a virtual surreality polymarked by presidential alleles peccantly misplaced or, in the case of Jefferson, posthumously misappropriated.

 

Shameless pharisees in stark relief crowd the Capitol frieze:

 

Baucus, Biden, Bingaman, Breaux, Bryan, Byrd, Cohen, Conrad, Daschle, Dodd, Gore, Graham, Harkin, Hollings, Inouye, Kennedy, Kerrey, Kerry, Kohl, Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, Lieberman, Mikulski, Moynihan, Reid, Robb, Rockefeller, Sarbanes, Schumer.

 

These are the 28 sitting Democratic senators, the current Vice President and Secretary of Defense -- clinton defenders all -- who, in 1989, voted to oust U.S. District Judge Walter Nixon for making "false or misleading statements to a grand jury."

 

In 1989 each and every one of these men insisted that perjury was an impeachable offense.

(What a difference a decade and a decadent Democrat make.)

 

Senator Herb Kohl (November 7, 1989):

"But Judge Nixon took an oath to tell the truth and the whole truth. As a grand jury witness, it was not for him to decide what would be material. That was for the grand jury to decide. Of all people, Federal Judge Walter Nixon certainly knew this.

 

"So I am going to vote 'guilty' on articles one and two. Judge Nixon lied to the grand jury. He misled the grand jury. These acts are indisputably criminal and warrant impeachment."

 

 

Senator Tom Daschle (November 3, 1989):

"This morning we impeached a judge from Mississippi for failing to tell the truth. Those decisions are always very difficult and certainly, in this case, it came after a great deal of concern and thoughtful analysis of the facts."

 

 

Congressman Charles Schumer (May 10, 1989):  

"Perjury, of course, is a very difficult, difficult thing to decide; but as we looked and examined all of the records and in fact found many things that were not in the record it became very clear to us that this impeachment was meritorious."

 

 

Senator Carl Levin (November 3, 1989):

"The record amply supports the finding in the criminal trial that Judge Nixon's statements to the grand jury were false and misleading and constituted perjury. Those are the statements cited in articles I and II, and it is on those articles that I vote to convict Judge Nixon and remove him from office."

 

* * * * *

 

"The hypocrite's crime is that he bears false witness against himself," observed the philosopher Hannah Arendt. "What makes it so plausible to assume that hypocrisy is the vice of vices is that integrity can indeed exist under the cover of all other vices except this one. Only crime and the criminal, it is true, confront us with the perplexity of radical evil; but only the hypocrite is really rotten to the core."

 

If hypocrisy is the vice of vices, then perjury is the crime of crimes, for

perjury provides the necessary cover for all other crimes.

 

David Lowenthal, professor emeritus of political science at Boston College makes the novel and compelling argument that perjury is "bribery consummate, using false words instead of money or other things of value to pervert the course of justice" and, thus, perjury is a constitutionally enumerated high crime.

 

The Democrats' defense of clinton's perjury -- and their own hypocrisy -- is

three-pronged.

 

ONE:

clinton's perjuries were "just about sex" and therefore "do not rise to the level of an impeachable offense."

 

This argument is spurious. The courts make no distinction between perjuries. Perjury is perjury. Perjury attacks the very essence of democracy. Perjury is bribery consummate.

 

Moreover, (the clinton spinners notwithstanding), clinton's perjury was not "just about sex." clinton's perjury was about clinton denying a citizen justice by lying in a civil rights-sexual harassment case about his sexual history with subordinates.

 

TWO:

Presidents and judges are held to different standards under the Constitution.

 

Because the Constitution stipulates that federal judges, who are appointed for life, "shall hold their offices during good behavior,'' and because there is no similar language concerning the popularly elected, term-limited president, it must have been perfectly agreeable to the Framers, so the (implicit) argument goes, to have a perjurious, justice-obstructing reprobate as president.

 

clinton's defenders ignore Federalist No. 57, and Hillary Rodham's constitutional treatise on impeachable acts -- written in 1974 when she wanted to impeach a president; both mention "bad conduct" as grounds for impeachment.

 

"Impeachment," wrote Rodham, "did not have to be for criminal offenses -- but only for a 'course of conduct' that suggested an abuse of power or a disregard for the office of the President of the United States...A person's 'course of conduct' while not particularly criminal could be of such a nature that it destroys trust, discourages allegiance, and demands action by the Congress...The office of the President is such that it calls for a higher level of conduct than the average citizen in the United States."

 

Hamilton (or Madison) discussed the importance of wisdom and virtue in Federalist 57. "The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust."

 

(Contrast this with clinton, who recklessly, reflexively and feloniously subordinates the common good to his personal appetites.)

 

Because the Framers did not anticipate the demagogic efficiency of the electronic bully pulpit, they ruled out the possibility of an MTV mis-leader (and impeachment-thwarter!) like clinton. In Federalist No. 64, John Jay said: "There is reason to presume" the president would fall only to those "who have become the most distinguished by their abilities and virtue." He

imagined that the electorate would not "be deceived by those brilliant appearances of genius and patriotism which, like transient meteors, sometimes mislead as well as dazzle."

 

(If the clinton debacle teaches us anything, it is this: If we are to retain our democracy in this age of the electronic demagogue, we must recalibrate the constitutional balance of power.)

 

THREE:

The president can be prosecuted for his alleged felonies after he leaves office.

(Nota bene ROBERT RAY.)

 

This clinton-created censure contrivance -- borne out of what I have come to call the "Lieberman Paradigm" (clinton is an unfit president; therefore clinton must remain president) -- is nothing less than a postmodern deconstruction in which the Oval Office would serve for two years as a holding cell for the perjurer-obstructor.

 

Such indecorous, dual-purpose architectonics not only threatens the delicate

constitutional framework -- it disturbs the cultural aesthetic. The senators must, therefore, roundly reject this elliptic scheme.

In this postmodern Age of clinton, we may, from time to time, selectively stomach corruption. But we must never abide ugliness. Never.

[Mia T]

 

Q ERTY4 bump!

Film Noir in the White House

by Mia T

"Read my future." - "You haven't got any."

--Exchange in Touch of Evil between Orson Welles and Marlene Dietrich (as a gypsy fortune teller)

 

 

 

 

Leni Riefenstahl, the film genius who outmaneuvered propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels to chronicle Hitler's 1934 Nuremberg rallies in perhaps the most notorious documentary ever filmed, Triumph of the Will, symbolizes the naïve actress and director who is induced to deal with devils -- Nazi-pantalooned then. . . nasty, pantless (or pantsuited) now . . .

 

After the war, Riefenstahl excused her effort as pure documentary -- watch for Streisand, Spielberg, Geffen et al. to do the same one day -- yet she compiled one section, Hitler's motorcade to Munich, from several different events and shot the closeups of Nazi leaders at the podium in a staged studio sequence.

 

As Riefenstahl told it, editing-to-perfection was crucial. She insisted that the finished quality of Triumph of Will came from her editing, not from any imposition of "posed shots" or choreography on her part. With her innovative editing techniques, Riefenstahl deliberately and selectively aestheticized Hitler and the Congress' proceedings. By editing out a shot of Hitler wiping his nose and including instead "more interesting expressions,"by eliminating the human, Riefenstahl, in the case of Hitler, eliminated the inhuman.

 

The only difference today, in this era of ubiquitous cameras, continuous news and the shameless auteur-tyrant, is that the useful-idiot Washington Press Corps, spun by and on the Hollywood-Arkansas Axis, edits out the clintons' inhumanity (and ineptitude) in real time. . .

 

 

 

[concerned about politics]

BUMP

[Captainpaintball]

WAAAAAY too much information for one sitting BUMP and BOOKMARK!!!

[Mia T]

Kierkegaard must have had the clintonoid -- uh --brain in mind when he wrote,

"People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid."

 

Humpty Dummies bump...

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, some things are "back to normal," as they say. The Democrats are back to their old tricks, blaming good things for bad things.

 

Like last Sunday. Senator Hillary Clinton went on the only TV network where she feels safe, the one named for her philandering husband (The Clinton News Network), and

made one of the most outrageous statements I've ever heard from a Democrat -- and I've heard some doozies. Her Heinous actually said, "If we (Congress) hadn't passed the

big tax cut last spring, that I believe undermined our fiscal responsibility and our ability to deal with this new threat of terrorism, we wouldn't be in the fix we're in today."

Back To the Old Tricks: The game begins anew

...while [chelsea] watched the towers collapse she ..."thanked God [her] mother was a senator representing New York."

 

Humpty Daddy

 

hillary's head revisited:

hillary clinton's brain (such as it is) II

 by Mia T

The smartest woman in the world would relish "the raucous give and take of American democracy, " as Charles Kuralt once put it.

hillary clinton, by contrast, subsists on cozy clintonoid interviews of the Colmes (or CNN) kind...

In her new book, Political Fictions, Joan Didion indicts the fakery of access journalism practiced by vacant politicos like the clintons, whom she sees as "purveyors of fables of their own making, or worse, fables conceived by political strategists with designs on votes, not news."

(More Didion clintoclasm: "No one who ever passed through an American public high school could have watched William Jefferson Clinton running for office in 1992 and failed to recognize the familiar predatory sexuality of the provincial adolescent.")

Miss Hillary. . . strikes me as one of those innumerable people whose prose is so dull that they are reduced to using equally prosaic cusswords.

Paul Greenberg, The man is an artist: He's not just 'Slick Willie' anymore

John Podhoretz recently asked, "Whence comes hillary clinton's reputation for brilliance?" For the answer, he intuitively, rather brilliantly in fact, looked to her anatomy and noted,"This isn't the first time she's shot herself in the foot."

 

...The above anatomical analysis supports the Podhoretz thesis. Notwithstanding The Pod's erroneous conclusions concerning HILLARY! clinton's heart and nerve, he basically has it right. Anatomy is destiny.

 

Ian Hunter recently observed that our leaders are shrinking. "From a Churchill (or, for that matter, a Margaret Thatcher) to a Tony Blair; from Eisenhower to Clinton; from Diefenbaker to Joe Clark; from Trudeau to Chretien -- we seem destined to be governed by pygmies."

 

...The clintons' fundamental error: They are too arrogant and dim-witted to understand that the demagogic process in this fiberoptic age isn't about counting spun heads; it's about not discounting circumambient brains...

Mia T

Mindless rhinestone-studded-and-tented kleptocracy

 

 

"Hillary's people are very bright," said a well-connected Democrat yesterday. "But they think everybody else is stupid."

Stupid is as stupid does, says Off the Record. . .

OFF THE RECORD: AN OLD DOG NEEDS NEW TRICKS

 

Q ERTY4

hillary's typo

"Hillary thinks that Tipper is an unintellectual nice lady who doesn't have a brain in her head"...

DEBORAH ORIN

BIG CHILL FOR TIPPER & HILL

 

Talk about the pot calling the kettle empty...

To paraphrase Abe Lincoln: She can compress the most words into the smallest idea of any person I know. [NOTE: Lincoln didn't know HIM.] ...

And Adlai Stevenson: In America, anybody can be co-president. That's one of the risks you take.

Senator Dim Bulb by Gary Aldrich © 2001 WorldNetDaily.com

Annotated by Mia T

more...

 

 

Rumor has it William Jefferson Clinton himself is to recite Honest Abe's lines in this New Year's Eve pageant. Whoever writes these scripts has a natural talent for irony. For some irrepressible reason, one cannot help but think of that costume party in "The Manchurian Candidate,'' complete with Red Queen and Abe Lincoln in stovepipe hat and fake beard.

Hillary Clinton says it's a great opportunity to unite the nation. (The way she's united New York?) But the Clintons are never so polarizing as when they are intent on uniting us. How can that be? Maybe it's their perfectly fabricated authenticity. The Nineties have had much the same effect, stirring the same vague dissatisfactions -- and sparking sudden outbursts of temper. What was it that poor, embarrassed David Brinkley, thinking his mike was off, said after the president's victory speech in '96: "We all look forward with great pleasure to four years of wonderful, inspiring speeches, full of wit, poetry, music, love and affection, plus more goddam nonsense.''

Still not finished, Mr. Brinkley added that this president "has not a creative bone in his body. Therefore, he's a bore, and will always be a bore.'' Oh, dear. The commentator's unintentionally public thoughts were all the more embarrassing for being so widely shared by any Americans still sentient four years into the Age of Clinton. But it's one thing to notice such things, quite another to say them out loud. Why belabor the obvious?

Hey, what a party! New Year's at the White House

 

Mindless rhinestone-studded-and-tented kleptocracy

by Mia T

John Podhoretz recently asked, "Whence comes hillary clinton's reputation for brilliance?" For the answer, he intuitively, rather brilliantly in fact, looked to her anatomy and noted,"This isn't the first time she's shot herself in the foot."

The above anatomical analysis supports the Podhoretz thesis. Notwithstanding The Pod's erroneous conclusions concerning hillary clinton's heart and nerve, he basically has it right. Anatomy is destiny...

Ian Hunter recently observed that our leaders are shrinking. "From a Churchill (or, for that matter, a Margaret Thatcher) to a Tony Blair; from Eisenhower to Clinton; from Diefenbaker to Joe Clark; from Trudeau to Chretien -- we seem destined to be governed by pygmies."

The pols understand their anatomical limitations well; they attempt to mitigate them with veneer. And so we suffer mindless alpha-beta-beelzebubba grotesquerie. . .

 

and rhinestone-studded-and-tented kleptocracy.

With all the media genuflecting before the press-conference podium of bill clinton, it bears remarking yet again that the clinton intellect (an oxymoron even more jarring than AlGoreRhythm and meant to encompass the cognitive ability of both clintons) is remarkable only for its utter ordinariness, its lack of creative spark, its lack of analytic precision, its lack of depth.

The clintons' fundamental error: They are too arrogant and dim-witted to understand that the demagogic process in this fiberoptic age isn't about counting spun heads; it's about not discounting circumambient brains.

Politicos and reporters are not rocket scientists . . .

Professions tend to be self-selected, intellectually homogeneous subgroups of Homo sapiens. Great intellects (especially these days) do not generally gravitate towards careers in the media or politics. Mediocre, power-obsessed types with poor self-images do.

Thus, clinton mediocrity goes undetected primarily because of media mediocrity. ("Mediocrity" and "media" don't come from the same Latin root (medius) for no reason.) Insofar as the clintons are concerned, the media confuse form with substance, smoothness with coherence, data-spewing with ratiocination, pre-programmed recitation with real-time analysis, an idiosyncratic degeneracy with creativity.

Jimmy Breslin agrees. In Hillary Is the 'Me-First' Lady, Breslin laments:

"At the end of all these years and years that are being celebrated this week, the national press of America consists of people with dried minds and weak backbones and the pack of them can't utter a new phrase for the language or show the least bit of anger at a business or profession or trade or whatever this business is that is dying of mediocrity."

 

Listen carefully to the clintons. You will hear a shallow parody of the class president. Not only do they say nothing; they say nothing with superfluous ineloquence. Their speeches are sophomoric, shopworn, shallow, specious. Platitudinous pandering piled atop p.c. cliché

In seven years, they have, collectively, uttered not one memorable word save, "It was a vast right-wing conspiracy," "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky,"and, "It all depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."

Even the clintons' attempts at alliteration fall flat. Compare Agnew's (Safire's) "nattering nabobs of negativism" with clinton's "preachers of pessimism," an impotent, one-dimensional, plagiaristic echo (its apt self-descriptiveness notwithstanding).

Before they destroy their backs along with their reputations, media gentry genuflecting at the altar of the clinton brain should consider Edith Efron's, Can the President Think?

A wasted brain is a terrible thing.

 

 

 

[Fred Mertz]

Bump! Quite a wealth of info about your favorite lady here Mia T.

[Elle Bee]

Smarter Times

.

Founded June 19, 2000 ounded in June 2000, Smartertimes.com is dedicated to the proposition that New York's dominant daily has grown complacent, slow and inaccurate. Even an ordinary semi-intelligent guy in Brooklyn who reads the newspaper carefully early each morning can regularly notice errors of fact and of logic. Smartertimes.com is dedicated to assembling a community of readers to support a new newspaper that would offer an alternative to the dominant daily. Smartertimes.com — "Smarter than the Times, and almost as arrogant, but with only a tiny fraction of the circulation." Edited by Ira Stoll at Brooklyn, N.Y. To reach the editor, e-mail editor@smartertimes.com. HOME To ask a question about the website or report a problem, e-mail webmaster@smartertimes.com.

Join the smartertimes.com mailing list! Receive smartertimes.com FREE each morning by e-mail. Enter your e-mail address here:

.

[freednumb]

BTTT!

[freednumb]

BTTT!

[Mia T]

04.09.03 UPDATE:

GORE ON CLINTON RAPES-THE VIDEO

YOO-HOO Mrs. clinton: THE CLINTON RAPES ARE "UNBECOMING"  

HILLARY "YOU KNOW" CLINTON 

SEN. KNOWNOTHING VICTIM CLINTON 

CLINTON LEGACY OF LYNCHING 

evidence of consciousness of guilt at Ron Brown's funeral

clinton Complex-Question Fallacy Scheme 

HILLARY CLINTON LACKS COGNITIVE CAPACITY TO LEAD 

THE CLINTON LIE-BRARY 

It won't s-p-i-n 

AMERICAN MUSEUM--ER--MUSLIM COUNCIL 

"There isn't a shred of evidence."

 

Privacy Policy 

 

 

 

NEW AUDIO!

Hear the Bill Bennett epilogue

 

Dear new sucker--er--New Yorker, This virtual office was established because you are absolutely forbidden to set your peasant foot in my real one. This is how I got here, and this is how I did it.. This helped, too. And this. And this. You had better take a moment to genuflect before the newly erected clinton altar. Additionally, I am pleased to present my new clinton crime family video greeting and video farewell. You would be wise to study them carefully. And don't bother E-mailing me. I couldn't care less what the little people think.

A missive from the smartest woman in the world. Study it.

Sincerely,

Latest clinton News

the logic of pathologic self-interest

The no-show manuscript
hillary clinton Infrastructure Answers Simon & Schuster: THE TRANSLATION

_DECAPITATION

Moynihan Myths

Another mistaken 'conceptzia'
WHY AMERICA (& THE WORLD) CANNOT SURVIVE ANOTHER CLINTON
(INDEED, IT IS NOT CLEAR THAT WE ARE GOING TO SURVIVE THE FIRST ONE,)

clinton POLICY:
MAKE CERTAIN America was not "the biggest power on the block."

Either they are obsolete… or civilization is

The 30 Seconds that Seemed Like 60 Minutes:

Utter-Failure clintons Concoct Left-Wing-Radio Scheme FIG LEAF(Liberals have always had problems figuring out causation)

"ONE OF THOSE GROUPS OBSESSED WITH THE CLINTONS"

10-Yr Anniversary of WTC Bombing Marks clintons' Utter Failure

hillary clinton A SECURITY RISK: Removal Calls Begin

The wife's self-serving war oscillations are really nothing more than a reprise of the self-serving oscillating ersatz presidency of the husband (Why we cannot afford another clinton. . .)

HILLARY CLINTON KNEW PRECISELY WHO SAMI AL-ARIAN WAS

hillary clinton Covertly Hedges Her Bets on the War While Overtly Betting Everything on the Virtual Certainty--Another Terrorist Attack

THE INTERMINABLE clintons 
It's time to take out the trash...
A Senate en passant capture is THE MOVE... 

THERE SHE GOES -- AGAIN

The Curious Candidacy of Carol Moseley-Braun

running clintons...

On clinton's missus' war oscillations...

How to get rid of the clintons in 3 easy steps

THE UNSTATED MESSAGE OF THE POWELL EVIDENCE

THE CLINTONS--AMERICA'S BIGGEST BLUNDER: Hear Bush 41 Warn Us--October 19, 1992

CLINTON RAPE OF BROADDRICK:
PRUDHOMME CONFRONTS GORE -- THE VIDEO

hitchens on the clintons annotated

69% of Voters Nationwide Don't Want hillary clinton to Run for President, EVER

A '68 Mustang is not exculpatory

clinton LIEbrary ^FLYover & other clinton FLIES

BUSH: "I will not wait on events, while dangers gather."

Q ERTY6 utter failure

What did he know. . . and when did he know it ?

SpyLies and Audiotape

PARDONGATE, THE MOVIE--BILL BENNETT EPILOGUE

LEFT-WING TALK RADIO UNVEILED!  

HALF A HOUSE, HALF A BRAIN: Why we were compelled to hit on Simon & Schuster,our personal agitprop & money-laundering machine)

WRITTEN IN STONE: AN ARCHITECT DEFINES THE CLINTONS

DESIGNATED DEMOCRAT ATTACK DOG MAKES ITS DEBUT

Hardball's Softball hillary clinton 'Interview'

Q ERTY8 clinton/Democrat Debacle of '02

Buddy Death Report Raises More Questions Than It Answers

hillary clinton and FUNERALS

_{But they are space aliens}

THE OTHER NIXON

A CLOCKWORK ORANGE

The Real Danger of a Fake President: Post-9/11 Reconsideration of The Placebo President

copyright Mia T 2003

 

[Mia T]

CNNs of Commission
Either they are obsolete… or civilization is Q ERTY8 ^BUMP!

hyperlinked images of shame
copyright Mia T 2003.

[Mia T]

CNNs of Omission, CNNs of Commission _{Q ERTY8} ^BUMP!

the movie

THE CLINTONS--AMERICA'S BIGGEST BLUNDER
Hear Bush 41 Warn Us--October 19, 1992*

CNN's favorite general, Wesley Clark, has also been heard to opine that our troops are getting bogged down in Iraq. His competence to judge American generals is questionable since his command was limited to working for NATO. We prefer to hear from American generals. Clark's contribution to international relations consisted of mistakenly bombing the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. In his zeal to prevent troop casualties, he ordered pilots to fly at such high altitudes that the pilots complained that they were being forced to incur unnecessary civilian casualties.

The enemy within

 

hear

*Thanx to Cloud William for text and audio

 

LEHRER: President Bush, your closing statement, sir.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Three weeks from now--two weeks from tomorrow, America goes to the polls and you're going to have to decide who you want to lead this country ...

On foreign affairs, some think it's irrelevant. I believe it's not. We're living in an interconnected world...And if a crisis comes up, ask who has the judgment and the experience and, yes, the character to make the right decision?

And, lastly, the other night on character Governor Clinton said it's not the character of the president but the character of the presidency. I couldn't disagree more. Horace Greeley said the only thing that endures is character. And I think it was Justice Black who talked about great nations, like great men, must keep their word.

And so the question is, who will safeguard this nation, who will safeguard our people and our children? I need your support, I ask for your support. And may God bless the United States of America.

(Applause)

 

 

play tape

Free Republic is one of those groups obsessed with the Clinton era.

 

Word's out: Protest at Hillary's tonight
U.S. News & World Report (Washington Whispers) |
March 11, 2003 | Paul Bedard

 

 

 

I'll bet that Mr. Bedard is a member of "one of those groups" so "obsessed" with voting in… and having access to… the clintons that they--ooops-- failed to notice the obvious danger of the lovely couple.

 

Thanx for 9/11, Paul...

 

"ONE OF THOSE GROUPS OBSESSED WITH THE CLINTONS"

the logic of pathologic self-interest

by Mia T

 

There was a third chance to get rid of the clintons. In '98, when there was still time to stop bin Laden...

The failure to remove the clintons in '98 was a monumental error and is directly traceable to the logic of pathologic self-interest.

Recall in particular:

• THE LIEBERMAN PARADIGM: (clinton is an unfit president; therefore clinton must remain president)

 

• THE SHAYS SYNDROME: (clinton is a rapist; therefore clinton is a fit president)

 

THE LIEBERMAN PARADIGM

Senator Joseph Lieberman's bifurcated Monicagate speech in 1998 on the floor of the Senate was almost universally misperceived as an act of honesty and courage.

In reality, it was neither.

Reduced to its essence, Lieberman's argument was this:

clinton is an unfit president;
therefore, clinton must remain president.

I have called this argument "The Lieberman Paradigm."

Lieberman's argument that sorry day was rightly headed toward clinton's certain ouster when it suddenly made a swift, hairpin 180, as if clinton hacks took over the wheel. . .which they probably did.

What was Joe promised? A place on the 2000 ticket?

To be fair, it was not the Lieberman speech but rather a New York Times apologia that institutionalized this shameless scheme to protect a thoroughly corrupt and repugnant--and--as everyone except The New York Times now acknowledges-- dangerous -- Democrat regime.

The Lieberman Paradigm made its debut in The Times' utterly loony 1996 endorsement of clinton. The Times actually argued -- NOTE: this is NOT satire on my part (nor is it satire, as far as I can discern, on the part of The Times) -- that although bill clinton was a "corrupt," "dysfunctional personality [with} delusions" -- The Times' own words -- we need not -- we must not -- remove bill clinton; we need only remove.the character lobe of bill clinton's brain.

 

THE SHAYS SYNDROME

Not an aberration, the Shays Syndrome was quickly adopted by the entire Senate as its impeachment show trial deus ex machina of choice.

Shays, you may recall, examined the evidence in the Ford Building, concluded that clinton did, indeed, rape Broaddrick -- "VICIOUSLY!" AND "TWICE!" he declared at the time-- and was planning to vote to impeach; he changed his mind, however, after a tete a tete with the rapist.

Any cognitive dissonance Shays may have experienced rendering that verdict was no doubt assuaged by the political plum clinton had given Mrs. (Betsi) Shays...

Each of the 50 senators, on the other hand, cured the cognitive dissonance problem pre-emptively by making certain not to examine the damning Ford Building evidence in the first place.