PUFFY-faced polemicist Christopher "Hellbound" Hitchens claims Bill Clinton is a "lousy crook." [So is the missus.] ... He rips into jokes about President Bush's intellect as "another liberal snig that annoys me a lot these days," adding, "The fact has to be faced: the intellectual candlepower of this administration is a great deal brighter than the Clinton administration . . . [and] the level of professionalism is very much higher." HALF A HOUSE, HALF A BRAIN: Why the clintons hit on Simon & Schuster
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE [YOU KNOW] 'UPDATED'
GREENFIELD: Tonight, a conversation with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on the nation and the world after September 11, on GREENFIELD AT LARGE. THE COMPLETE ANNOTATED INTERVIEW (NB: a very long, you know, download because of the, you know, clinton criminal, you know, redundancy.)
|
by Mia T, 6.11.03
The endless plume of leeward (leftward, miasmic, co-rapist) clinton puff seems to defy not only the laws of logic and decency, but the first law of thermodynamics -- conservation of energy that is, if one fails to considers entropy. The second law of thermodynamics states that the quality of energy in a closed system is degraded irreversibly. Physical, chemical, and electrical energy transform into thermal energy --heat. Reversing the process, e.g., heat into physical energy, cannot fully occur within the system without an inevitable loss of energy in the form of irretrievable heat. Energy is not destroyed; it is merely unavailable for producing work. (The irreversible increase of this nondisposable energy in the universe is measured by the abstract dimension called entropy.) clinton corruption is all about the irreversible degradation of the energy in our closed system. A leftist band of heat-producing useful idiots are currently assisting in the clintons' $8-million--make that $20 million--revisionist assault. And if ever there was a heat-producing USEFUL IDIOT, it is Harvard's Elizabeth Sherman, who contends, apparently, that the clintons' rape of Broaddrick is somehow mitigated over time.. Contrast Sherman with clinton Administration Veteran/ Berkeley Professor, J. Bradford DeLong, who observed missus clinton up close:
There is a lot of talk these days, most notably by voluble nervous-Nellie Democratic operatives like Susan Estrich, about the clintons sucking up the oxygen, but no one is paying attention to the irreversible transformation of light into heat by the clintons. Once we understand that the latter process is irreversible, we will begin to do what we must.
|
issus clinton failed to notice: 'living history' begets a certain symmetry. How fitting it is that the clintons were forced to reveal their inept and treasonous hand on this day, exactly 62 years after the attack on Pearl Harbor. One has to surmise from hillary clinton's Sunday-Circuit, pink-suited panic that clinton in-house polling has the missus out-polling Jane Fonda for the Tokyo-Rose prize. (Incidentally, someone ought to clue in her dresser: exculpation-by-pink-suit can work only once; notwithstanding, a treasonous middle-aged matron in a pink suit reads: "dowdy treasonous middle-aged matron in pink suit." Nothing more... nothing less....) It is common knowledge that missus clinton limits the frequency, intensity and content of her cozy clintonoid interviews of the Colmes kind. Tim Russert's (Meet the Press, NBC) stomach-turning HILLARY 2004! boosterism and nonexistent follow-ups ("And why do you suppose there aren't enough troops to fight a war, missus CLINTON?") made it clear that she had the latter two -- intensity and content -- covered today. It was frequency that did her in. Tokyo Rose also aided and abetted our enemies by using psychological warfare designed to lower the morale of our troops; and she was convicted of treason. One could easily argue that clinton's betrayal, because it is ultimately self-serving, is an even greater iniquity. And then, of course, there are the clintons' other treasonous acts....
Russert, therefore, was not only on the wrong page. He was in the wrong book.
|