|
|
Two years too late, but better late than never. |
And don't let up...
|
This legacy confab is in and of itself proof certain of clinton's deeply flawed character, and a demonstration in real time of the way in which the clinton years were about a legacy that was incidentally a presidency. Madeleine Albright captured the essence of this dysfunctional presidency best when she explained why clinton couldn't go after bin Laden. According to Richard Miniter, the Albright revelation occurred at the cabinet meeting that would decide the disposition of the USS Cole bombing by al Qaeda [that is to say, that would decide to do what it had always done when a "bimbo" was not spilling the beans on the clintons: Nothing]. Only Clarke wanted to retaliate militarily for this unambiguous act of war. Albright explained that a [sham] Mideast accord would yield [if not peace for the principals, surely] a Nobel Peace Prize for clinton. Kill or capture bin Laden and clinton could kiss the accord and the Peace Prize good-bye. If clinton liberalism, smallness, cowardice, corruption, perfidy--and, to borrow a phrase from Andrew Cuomo, clinton cluelessness--played a part, it was, in the end, the Nobel Peace Prize that produced the puerile pertinacity that enabled the clintons to shrug off terrorism's global danger. |
Sorry, folks.
I know 'rope a dope' is a W.H. strategy often employed, to great effect. But not everything can be chalked up to mythology of a 'rope a dope'. Just as Miers was not some grand strategy as some people tried to spin afterwards, allowing his base to begin to fall out from under him is not part of any wise 'rope a dope' scenario. The President isn't stupid. Neither is Rove, neither are his advisors. Only a fool would think it's a good thing to allow pressure to build to a point where your base is withholding support or in open revolt, and they aren't fools.
I will agree to a point they wanted to wait to use the Dems' words against them. But I don't think the timing now was part of the strategy. That was forced by the demands of the base that understood the President needed to fight back, not only for himself but for us & troops and the WOT itself to be success. Luckily for the administration this base, overall, isn't looney tunes like the Dems' base. We're correct on Miers, and we're correct on more communication and strong repudiation of the lies of the Left.
Sounds like a must see commercial and I'm eagerly anticipating it. Looking forard to another speech, hopefully soon? And more to come. I much prefer offense over defense any day.
|
|
Two years too late, but better late than never. |
And don't let up...
Can't you just hear their come back" I question the timing"
"The president is doing this because he is in trouble" "The president is the only one responsible for the 2000 deaths"
Add your own democrat liberal extreme left comments. Then we can send them to Uncle Howie
Well, heck, this is definitely, "IT'S ABOUT TIME" for a BUMP!!!
I don't think using clips from a Clinton speech is "targeting" him. More like using him.
'Bout time he was good for something.
Time to lay in a supply of popcorn.
I might give them some money after all!
Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters
Weapons hot...FOX TWO!!!
IT TAKES A CLINTON TO RAZE A COUNTRY
NEW MOVIE! for the birds
(THE INCOMPETENCE OF HILLARY CLINTON)
HILLARY'S INCOMPETENCE
|
This legacy confab is in and of itself proof certain of clinton's deeply flawed character, and a demonstration in real time of the way in which the clinton years were about a legacy that was incidentally a presidency. Madeleine Albright captured the essence of this dysfunctional presidency best when she explained why clinton couldn't go after bin Laden. According to Richard Miniter, the Albright revelation occurred at the cabinet meeting that would decide the disposition of the USS Cole bombing by al Qaeda [that is to say, that would decide to do what it had always done when a "bimbo" was not spilling the beans on the clintons: Nothing]. Only Clarke wanted to retaliate militarily for this unambiguous act of war. Albright explained that a [sham] Mideast accord would yield [if not peace for the principals, surely] a Nobel Peace Prize for clinton. Kill or capture bin Laden and clinton could kiss the accord and the Peace Prize good-bye. If clinton liberalism, smallness, cowardice, corruption, perfidy--and, to borrow a phrase from Andrew Cuomo, clinton cluelessness--played a part, it was, in the end, the Nobel Peace Prize that produced the puerile pertinacity that enabled the clintons to shrug off terrorism's global danger. |
I just took the Freeper poll on President's Bush's Commander-in-Chief performance. While I don't support everything he's done as president, he's A-Plus on his Commander-in-Chief's role. The dems should be ashamed of themselves, reinventing history and trying every and anything to attack this president. Nancy Pelosi saying there is a "culture of corruption" in the White House is an unfounded assertion and damages this country just by her saying it. Not to mention Ted Kennedy comparing our troops to the Abu Garub torturers "under new management", Senator Turbin comparing our troops to Nazis, going on talk shows for two days reinforcing this statement before providing the world's worst apology. I'm sure I'm missing a few other dem actions such as Senator Kerry outing a CIA agent and Harry Ried saying he was tricked into voting for the Iraq resolution. Just disgusting democratic behavior.
Depends on the meaning of "use". Of course he "used" it. He "used" it to get UN support. He "used" it to get financial support. But I never meant that he would "use" it on us.
Bill Clinton, December 2006