IS DICK MORRIS AN IDIOT? OR IS HE STILL ON THE CLINTON PAYROLL?

The Hill, NY Daily News | 12.12.05 | Mia T

[Mia T]

IS DICK MORRIS AN IDIOT?
OR IS HE STILL ON THE CLINTON PAYROLL?

by Mia T, 12.12.05

Pirro, he said, also fell into the trap of making a central issue of her campaign that Clinton harbors presidential ambitions and won't finish a second term, a claim that, even if true, doesn't seem to matter much to most New Yorkers.

Jeanine to disa-Pirro from race vs. Hil ( Pirro Dropping Out of Race Against Hillary )
NY Daily News | 12/12/05 | JOE MAHONEY

 

Former President Bill Clinton's thesis, articulated on "Meet the Press," is that "large" figures in their parties who are elected to lesser offices should not be asked to commit to serving out their full terms so that when duty calls they are free to answer.

It's advice he failed to heed for himself when he was governor of Arkansas. Then he just resorted to his frequent M.O. and lied, telling the voters that he was going to serve out his full term when he had no real intention of doing so -- if he could help it.

But Arkansas is not New York, and the relatively unknown Bill Clinton of 1990 is not the Hillary Clinton of 2005. Hillary must come squarely face to face with an unpleasant fact: If she won't commit to serving a full term in the Senate, she may not win reelection to the seat.

Dick Morris
New York voters won't fall for Hillary's dodge
THE HILL
Dec. 12, 2005

To Jeanine Pirro: If, as Chris Matthews so trenchantly put it, "Pee Wee Herman would give her a race," why aren't you... a bright, talented, articulate, accomplished, charismatic, media-savvy independent woman who spent her 30-year career championing exactly the women Missus Clinton abused for 30 years... why aren't you in fact creaming Missus Clinton?

Stop running YOUR NEXT RACE, stop worrying about being slimed by the Clinton machine. Stop pulling your punches and start going after this corrupt, compromised, dangerous creature for real.

Mia T
December 7, 1941+64
AN OPEN LETTER TO TIM ROBBINS, DAVID GEFFEN, CHRIS MATTHEWS, MAUREEN DOWD + JEANINE PIRRO
RE: a not-so-modest proposal concerning hillary clinton

issus clinton's '08 presidential ambitions as THE issue that would slay the dragon in the New York senate race was an obvious loser. So why did Dick Morris pitch it to Pirro--along with the admonition to stay positive--at their not-so-secret pre-announcement lunch in Westchester last summer?

Perhaps for the same reason he's pushing 'Condi For President'....

Morris knows full well that the only swing vote is the white woman and that without it, hillary clinton cannot win. Reelection to the Senate or the presidency.

Surely he understands that hillary's putative plans to run for president in '08 would not turn off this crucial swing vote in '06.

To the contrary.

Gender feminism of the Susan Estrich kind would, if anything, solidify missus clinton's support from white women.

Surely he understands that for Pirro to win, she has merely to snare this swing vote.

Surely he knows further that Pirro has a head start, i.e., the white woman has already turned red in the face of terror.

Surely he understands that to win, and win decisively, Pirro has merely to inform white women--inform all women-- of her 30-year career championing exactly the women missus clinton abused for 30 years. (And she could throw in, for good measure, the clintons' abject failure to confront terrorism and hillary clinton's vaccine shortage in the face of the bird-flu pandemic and other incompetence.)

So why did Dick Morris instead serve up a sure recipe for defeat?

IT TAKES A CLINTON TO RAZE A COUNTRY
by Mia T, 11.14.05

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2005

---

Dear Concerned Americans,

Hillary Clinton's revisionist tome notwithstanding, 'living history' begets a certain symmetry. It is in that light that I make this not-so-modest proposal on this day, exactly 64 years after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

The context of our concern today--regardless of political affiliation--is Iraq and The War on Terror, but the larger fear is that our democracy may not survive. We have the requisite machines, power and know-how to defeat the enemy in Iraq and elsewhere, but do we have the will?

In particular, do we have the will to identify and defeat the enemy in our midst?

Answerable to no one, heir apparent in her own mind, self-serving in the extreme, Hillary Clinton incarnates this insidious new threat to our survival.

What we decide to do about Missus Clinton will tell us much about what awaits us in these perilous new times.

Each of you, (for different reasons, surely), has expressed concern about Missus Clinton's putative candidacy in 2008, and, by doing so, has expressed concern inferentially about Clinton-machine control of the nominating process.

My proposal: Stop Missus Clinton in '06. Stop her in '06 and you will have stopped her in '08. A Senate en passant capture is THE MOVE....

To David Geffen and Tim Robbins: Why not field a challenger to Hillary Clinton in '06, someone who does possess the necessary positions, ethics and electability? And why not in the general election? A Perot plurality ploy would be poetic justice, if nothing else... and if carefully selected, that candidate wouldn't merely unseat Missus Clinton but could actually win.

To Jeanine Pirro: If, as Chris Matthews so trenchantly put it, "Pee Wee Herman would give her a race," why aren't you... a bright, talented, articulate, accomplished, charismatic, media-savvy independent woman who spent her 30-year career championing exactly the women Missus Clinton abused for 30 years... why aren't you in fact creaming Missus Clinton?

Stop running YOUR NEXT RACE, stop worrying about being slimed by the Clinton machine. Stop pulling your punches and start going after this corrupt, compromised, dangerous creature for real.



Just as it was exactly 64 years ago today, this is a watershed moment for America. It is my hope that all concerned Americans will do what they can to defeat the enemy.

What we decide to do about Missus Clinton will tell us much about what awaits us in these perilous new times.

Sincerely,

Mia T
December 7, 1941+64

When it comes to electing our first female president, we can do better than Hillary Clinton.

We need to do better than Hillary Clinton, or the symbolism of a woman as president will be marred by electing a woman who has done almost as much to inflict mistreatment on real-life women as her misogynist husband.

Candice Jackson
Their Lives: The Women Targeted by the Clinton Machine

 

'04 ELECTION PROVIDES CLUE

To better understand why this move is fatal for missus clinton, we must go back to November 8, 2004, which is exactly six days after the re-election of George W. Bush.

The venue is Washington Journal (C-SPAN).

Enter Harold Ickes, looking weirder, more Ichabod-Crane-on-crank, than usual. Looking weirder still when one remembers that Harold Ickes is a strictly behind-the-scenes sort of guy.

Only something very important could have coaxed Harold Ickes onto center stage....²¹

Forgoing the standard niceties, Ickes launches into his planned tirade. He accuses Bush of terrorizing white women to get their vote.²² (The way he carried on, you would think he was accusing the president of rape or something.)²³

"If you look at white women, and I think that was the key to this election, Kerry won 45% based on the exit polls--but they're generally in agreement--Kerry won 45%, Bush won 55% of white women.

By contrast, Bush won only 45% of white women in 2000, so he upped is percentages by 10 points.

In 1996, bill clinton won 48% of white women compared to Bob Dole's 43%.

That is a huge, huge difference. I don't think you can lay all that at the doorstep of moral values.

I think that this president unabashedly and abjectly took the issue of terror and used it to terrorize... white women."

HEAR HAROLD ICKES
Washington Journal
Nov. 8, 2004
C-SPAN

Now fast forward to October 11, 2005. Susan Estrich, alignments adjusted upward--ALL alignments--is on Hannity and Colmes. She is there to huckster The Case for Hillary Clinton, ²⁴ both the book and candidate.

Estrich's spiel turns her recent dire warning to the Democrats ("The clintons are sucking up all the air. Get them off the stage!" )²⁵ on its literal head.²⁶ (Air? Who needs air when you have a clinton?)

ICKES + ESTRICH PROVIDE ROADMAP FOR HILLARY DEFEAT (oops!)

Susan Estrich attempts to tie the fate of all women to the fate of the hillary clinton candidacy in a cynical attempt to get the women's vote.

She argues that hillary clinton is the best chance, probably the only chance, for a woman president in our lifetime.

The false and demeaning argument and offensive gender bias aside, someone ought to clue in Susan Estrich. Gender feminism requires as its token a functional female.

So why is Susan Estrich making such a transparently spurious and insulting argument? She isn't that dumb.

For the same reason Harold Ickes is fulminating on C-SPAN.

The election of 2004 confirmed missus clinton's worst fears:
9/11 and the clintons' willful, utter failure for eight years to confront terrorism) were transformative. They caused a political realignment--for all practical purposes permanent--that is not good news for clinton, or for the Democrats, generally.

The white woman, the only real swing voter, the demographic the Democrats MUST get in order to win the White House, has turned red.


Next installment...
THE ROADMAP FOR DEFEATING HILLARY

In the immediate aftermath of the 2004 presidential election, a journalistic consensus emerged to explain George W. Bush's victory. Despite the sluggish economy and deteriorating situation in Iraq, voters supported Bush primarily because of his values. One prominently featured exit poll question showed "moral values" to be the most important issue for voters, ahead of terrorism, Iraq, and the economy. Backlash against the Massachusetts court ruling allowing gay marriage and attraction of Bush's appeals to Christian faith helped bring out socially conservative voters and cement Bush's second term. This explains why Bush won Ohio, for example, where an anti-gay marriage proposal was on the ballot. However compelling this story might be, it is wrong.

Instead, Bush won because married and white women increased their support for the Republican ticket....

In this article I briefly account for the factors behind Bush's rise in the state-by-state popular vote between 2000 and 2004. This is not the same as identifying who elected Bush. That sort of analysis would put responsibility on white men since they voted 61-38 for Bush and comprise almost half of the active electorate. Instead, I focus on what changed between 2000 and 2004. In this view, it is white women who are responsible because they showed more aggregate change.

Identifying a cause for this shift looks for an explanation also in things that changed in the past four years. For example, John Kerry was not exactly Al Gore, so differences between Bush's two opponents could be a factor. But I suggest that such differences are dwarfed by a much larger intervention: the attacks of September 11. Turnout was up in 2004 because the perceived heightening of the stakes after 9-11 and because of intense competition between the candidates in a small number of battleground states. Higher turnout also appears to have helped Bush slightly. But it was the shift of married white women from the Democratic camp to the Republican camp that gave him the edge in 2004.

Post Election 2004: An Alternative Account of the 2004 Presidential Election
BarryC.Burden
Harvard University
The Forum, Volume2, Issue 42004 Article2
burden@fas.harvard.edu

COMPLETE ARTICLE

IMPERIOUS HILLARY
(THE REPORTS OF HER DEATH ARE GREATLY UNDERSTATED)
Mia T, 12.05.05

WHY HILLARY MUST NOT WIN. WHY HILLARY CANNOT WIN.
Mia T, 12.10.05

It isn't that they can't see the solution. It is that they can't see the problem.

G. K. Chesterton

Reviews of "Commander-in-Chief" mislead; they suggest that this new ABC offering, this electuary of suds and psychologizing, is optional for missus clinton, that Rod Lurie's latest clinton agitprop is nothing more than the icing on missus clinton's inaugural cake.

The reviews miss the point of the show, (i.e., the show is not optional but necessary (though hardly sufficient) if clinton is to prevail), because the reviews fail to identify missus clinton's problem in the first place. And circular reasoning compounds the error.

THE PROBLEM

While America appears not to be ready for a female president under any circumstances, the post-9/11 realities pose special problems for a female presidential candidate. Add to these the problems unique to missus clinton. The reviews make the mistake of focusing on the problems of the generic female presidential candidate running during ordinary times.

These are not ordinary times. America is waging the global War on Terror; the uncharted territory of asymmetric netherworlds is the battlefield; the enemy is brutal, subhuman; the threat of global conflagration is real.

Defeating the enemy on the battlefield isn't sufficient. For America to prevail, she must also defeat a retrograde, misogynous, troglodyte mindset. To successfully prosecute the War on Terror, it is essential that the collective patriarchal islamic culture perceives America as politically and militarily strong. Condi Rice excepted, this requirement presents an insurmountable hurdle for any female presidential candidate, and especially missus clinton, historically antimilitary, forever the pitiful victim, and, according to Dick Morris, "the biggest dove in the clinton administration."

It is ironic that had the clintons not failed utterly to fight terrorism... not failed to take bin Laden from Sudan... not failed repeatedly to decapitate a nascent, still stoppable al Qaeda... the generic female president as a construct would still be viable... missus clinton's obstacles would be limited largely to standard-issue clintonisms: corruption, abuse, malpractice, malfeasance, megalomania, rape and treason... and, in spite of Juanita Broaddrick, or perhaps because of her, Rod Lurie would be reduced to perversely hawking the "First Gentleman" instead of the "Commander-in-Chief."

Mia T, 10.02.05
HILLARY'S COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF PROBLEM
COMPLETE ARTICLE
see descriptor morphs

 

I M P E A C H M E N T
h e a r --c l i n t o n --l o s e --i t


by Mia T, 11.11.05

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.

COMPLETE ARTICLE

 

WHY HILLARY MUST NOT WIN. WHY HILLARY CANNOT WIN.


AN OPEN LETTER TO TIM ROBBINS, DAVID GEFFEN, CHRIS MATTHEWS, MAUREEN DOWD + JEANINE PIRRO
RE: a not-so-modest proposal concerning hillary clinton
December 7, 1941+64


IMPERIOUS HILLARY
(THE REPORTS OF HER DEATH ARE GREATLY UNDERSTATED)


REINVENTING HILLARY... AGAIN
(clinton machine dumps Geena Davis for Margaret Thatcher)
how the clintons are handling the hillary dud factor₂


SCHEMA PINOCCHIO
how the clintons are handling the hillary dud factor


for the birds
(THE INCOMPETENCE OF HILLARY CLINTON)


HEAR CHRIS MATTHEWS + MAUREEN DOWD DEVOUR HILLARY


THE DANGER OF RUNNING VICARIOUSLY
Bill O'Reilly chews up and spits out the hillary clinton candidacy
(clip included)


clintonCORRUPTION: the more things change. . . .


Yitzhak Shamir Validated: THE CLINTONS ARE "A GREAT DANGER TO JEWS"


THE FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT?
clinton legacy of lynching update


KLEIN BOOK CAUSES HILLARY TO (oops!) CONFIRM "THE TRUTH ABOUT HILLARY"
CLINTON'S REACTION EXPOSES FASCISTIC MINDSET, TEXTBOOK CASE OF PARANOIA + MEGALOMANIA, AND A CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT IN BROADDRICK RAPE


HILLARY'S COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF PROBLEM
(see descriptor morphs)


STRANGE BEDFELLOWS: ED KLEIN AND SUSAN ESTRICH AGREE ABOUT HILLARY


HEAR SUSAN ESTRICH: hillary plays 'the victim' for votes


retrograde feminist fraud positions herself as victim (again) in order to win White House
[FOOL ME ONCE, SHAME ON YOU! FOOL ME TWICE, SHAME ON ME!]


HILLARY FLUNKED D.C. BAR EXAM
"the smartest woman in the world" sought less competitive venue


HILLARY!?? WHAT IS THIS MORIBUND LOSER DOING IN THE POLITICAL ARENA, ANYWAY? (bill's bud explains)


the clinton-clinton-Broaddrick kind of rape, according to Susan Estrich


CLINTONS' DOCUMENTED ABUSE OF WOMEN


hillary clinton is a "CONGENITAL LIAR"
("I am not a crook")


NOTE THE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN CLINTON REACTION TIME AND CONTENT TO THE TWO RAPE CHARGES


WHY DID BILL CLINTON IGNORE TERRORISM?
Was it simply the constraints of his liberal mindset, or was it something even more threatening to our national security?


IT TAKES A CLINTON TO RAZE A COUNTRY


BIN LADEN FINGERS CLINTON FOR TERROR SUCCESS (SEE FOOTAGE)
THE THREAT OF TERRORISM IS AS CLOSE AS A CLINTON IS TO THE OVAL OFFICE


PRESIDENTIAL FAILURE, 9/11 + KATRINA


I M P E A C H M E N T
h e a r --c l i n t o n --l o s e --i t


CROOKS PARDONING CROOKS PARDONING CROOKS:
Justice Undone in the clinton White House


sandy berger haberdashery feint
(the specs, not the pants or the socks)


CHENEY: CALL THEM REPREHENSIBLE
THE DEMOCRATS ARE GONNA GET US KILLED (kerry, clinton + sandy berger's pants) SERlES₅


A CALL TO IMPEACH CLINTON IN ABSENTIA


THE LEFT'S RECKLESS TET-OFFENSIVE-GAMBIT REPLAY:
the left's jihad against America is killing our troops, aiding + abetting the terrorists and imperiling all Americans


pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic
WHY THE LEFT IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA


The Left's Fatally Flawed "Animal Farm" Mentality
(Why America Must NEVER AGAIN Elect a Democrat President)


NANO-PRESIDENT, MEGA-DISASTER
history will not be kind to bill + hillary clinton


NANO-PRESIDENT
the danger of the unrelenting smallness of bill + hillary clinton


HIROSHIMA'S NUCLEAR LESSON
bill clinton is no Harry Truman


CLINTON RAPES, REVISIONISM, USEFUL IDIOTS AND ENTROPY (an update)


JENNINGS DOES A DIMBLEBY: clinton legacy-RAGE redux


1st Feminist Prez Impeached
(clinton, pushed by the "smartest woman in the world," managed to impeach himself)


For the children?
the clintons ARE pornography downloads


Why hillary clinton should never be allowed anywhere near the Oval Office... or any position of power
REASON 1: SHE HIRED JAMIE GORELICK


HILLARY'S TRIPLE PLAY
the clinton putsch + filegate + the gorelick wall


HILLARY'S MIDDLE-FINGER MINDSET (MAD COVER 2)
Do you really want THAT finger on the button?


"What, me worry?"


ALFRED E."What, me worry?" CLINTON + CRAZY HIL MAD COVER STORY
THE THREAT OF TERRORISM IS AS CLOSE AS A CLINTON IS TO THE OVAL OFFICE


How did the flower children fall for the clintons, 2 such self-evident thugs and opportunists?
(FOOL ME ONCE, SHAME ON YOU! FOOL ME TWICE, SHAME ON ME!)


Alfred E. Neuman + the threat of terrorism, according to hillary


HILLARY IS NIXON-PLUS ^{part 1}
BEWARE THE SYNERGY
Nixonian paranoia and fascistic mindset combine with
clintonian megalomania, ineptitude and, most important, easy betrayal of America
to make hillary clinton deadly dangerous for us all.


HILLARY IS NIXON-PLUS ^{part 2}
BEWARE THE SYNERGY
Nixonian paranoia and fascistic mindset combine with
clintonian megalomania, ineptitude and, most important, easy betrayal of America
to make hillary clinton deadly dangerous for us all.

 

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2005

[purpleland]

"Clinton harbors presidential ambitions..."

Hillary Clinton does not just "harbors", she is possessed by presidential ambition. Hillary's megalomaniacal sense of her entitlement combined with her singular powerlust is so palpable it forms a toxic aura about her. Her coarse voice carrying her duplicitious speech emits noxious fumes and conjures threatening images - makes me shiver and shutter. HOWEVER, after addressing Red China's University students, the students voted then first lady Hillary Clinton having the best speech style for propaganda. The students praised Hillary's short and incisive sentences. (Hummm...style over substance.) I anticipate Hillary Clinton's great fall from supra hubris once she loses re-election to the U.S. senate. If Hillary wins, her momentum accelerates toward the presidency.

[ALOHA RONNIE]

.

NEVER FORGET


DICK MORRIS confirmed on Talk Radio 3 years ago that BILL CLINTON personally refused offers from the Sudan in 1995 & 1996 to give us OSAMA bin LADEN on a silver platter =


911 Lifesaving Hero RICK RESCORLA, R.I.P.

http://www.RickRescorla.com

http://www.strategyzoneonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24361


The only reason DICK MORRIS couldn't confirm the 3rd CLINTON refusal in 2000 was because he was no longer working in CLINTON White House. This per DICK MORRIS himself in his Judicial Watch Report Talk Radio appearance.



Signed:.."ALOHA RONNIE" Guyer
(A Freeper calling into this Radio Show who got DICK MORRIS to admit all this on the air for the first time)


NEVER FORGET

.

[railsplitter]

Check out Mia T's profile for further ENIGHTENMENT ;)

Not For Dial Up Connections !

[Mia T]

frappe jusqu' au dessus!

[Mia T]

thx. will be editing/updating profile page shortly.

[purpleland]

"if she can't carry New York, how can she win the presidency?"

Does anyone in New York or in America feel threatened at the very thought of having the Clintons - the diabolical duo - back in the White House and posturing at America's helm? Hillary as "commander in chief" would sell us out to our enemies and hand over America's sovereignty to the United Nations. I don't advocate military coups, but if president, Hillary would deserve a military coup, as would Unfit John Kerry.

While our military faces the enemy in the Near East, America's domestic enemies stab the military in the back.

Merry Christmas and Happy Holiday Season,
and God Bless America's Military.

[GunnyHartman]

One day a fourth-grade teacher asked the children what their fathers did
for a living. All the typical answers came up-fireman, mechanic, businessman,
salesman, doctor, lawyer, and so forth.

But little Justin was being uncharacteristically quiet, so when the
teacher prodded him about his father, he replied, "My father's an exotic dancer
in a gay cabaret and takes off all his clothes in front of other men and they
put money in his underwear. Sometimes, if the offer is really good, he will go home with some guy and make love with him for money."

The teacher, obviously shaken by this statement, hurriedly set the other
children to work on some exercises and then took little Justin aside to
ask him, "Is that really true about your father?" "No," the boy said, "He works for
the Democratic National Committee and is helping to secure the nomination
of Hilary Clinton, but I was too embarrassed to say that in front of the
other kids."

[HarleyLady27]

I could not agree with you more!!!

Sad day in our Country when a slime clinton takes another office, ANY office....

[railsplitter]

ping ))) ((( pong

classic bump

Did the cursory basic Internet search/research on Pirro...

Looks bad. Yes, off topic just a bit today.

Pirro does carry baggage... so she has many battle fronts to deal with.

1- her competitors,
2- the conservative wing of her party,
3- a kool aid consuming press,
4- the beast,
5- the beast's machinations,
6- husband's trials and tribulations,
7- her own foibles with regards to her husband's trials and tribulations,
8- a so so desire to run, or more aptly put, win.

Number 8 will doom her, more than all of the other reasons combined. The totality of numbers 1-7, require/demand a super human effort on her part, or any other candidate for that matter.

The democrats and swing voters gave the beast a pass, and she had baggage magnitudes worse than Pirro. The republicans won't give Pirro a pass, or better said, the republican wing of the republican party won't.

Looks like the writing is on the wall and Pirro is tossing in the towel today; per recent MSM headlines, or is it just postulating by the MSM (wishful thinking) ?

[railsplitter]

I was going to add an item to my list of obstacles Pirro must climb;

the bully pulpit of a sitting US Senator,

but that would fall back under the category of the beast's machinations.

[railsplitter]

page 2 bump

[beyond the sea]

IS DICK MORRIS AN IDIOT? ---

****

Yes. Ever since the toe sucking has seemed to end in his, poll-taking, bloated life, he's losing it.

[pawdoggie]

One could tell that Morris was still on the Clinton payroll when he ginned up the "Condi is the only person who can derail the Hillary Express" movement.

[Mia T]

While our military faces the enemy in the Near East,
America's domestic enemies stab the military in the back.

Merry Christmas and Happy Holiday Season,
and God Bless America's Military.--purpleland

A CALL TO IMPEACH CLINTON IN ABSENTIA



by Mia T, 11.17.05

 

 

 

 

id you see it? More to the point, did the American press?

bill clinton made page one of Al Jazeera today. A schizophrenic mix of schadenfreude and agitprop, it was the story of an impeached ex-president of America trashing America--to standing Os--in the Arab state of Dubai--in the middle of a war zone--only several hundred miles from the American troops--American troops protecting his--and his missus'--sorry, seditious, pusillanimous, collective _ _ _.

And, to rub it in, the traitor pocketed no less than $200,000 from the enemy for his troubles.

Having failed to snare the Nobel Peace Prize by ignoring terrorism, clinton has apparently decided to intensify his America-bashing on foreign soil, the method employed by Jimmy Carter to great (if somewhat belated) effect.

(The Nobel committee, sufficiently mollified only after 24 years of the peanut president's America-bashing, awarded Carter his 1978 Peace Prize finally in 2002.)

Meanwhile, back in the Senate, the missus, the other half of the clinton construct, maintains her hawkish pose (although not without bird problems of another sort).

Yet another example of the clinton conflation ploy, (see SCHEMA PINOCCHIO: how the clintons are handling the hillary dud factor), this variant allows "clinton, the construct" to hold two mutually exclusive positions simultaneously, thereby enabling the missus to avoid in '08 the trap that repeatedly ensnared the ever 'nuanced' Kerry in '04.

Do you now understand how stupid the clintons think you are?

 

I M P E A C H M E N T
h e a r --c l i n t o n --l o s e --i t


by Mia T, 11.11.05

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.

COMPLETE ARTICLE

C-SPAN asked noted presidential historians to rank the American presidents¹ along the following ten dimensions: public persuasion, crisis leadership, economic management, moral authority, international relations, administrative skills, relations with congress, vision/setting an agenda, pursued equal justice for all, and performance within context of times.

bill clinton emerged as middling in most dimensions; he was surpassed in others by a settled mediocrity (Carter) and a putative failure (Nixon). In moral authority, bill clinton was rated dead last.² He did fairly well in public persuasion, not a surprising finding given the volume of snake oil he managed to peddle during his putative presidency.

"It's NOT the economy, stupid!"

Clinton's best scores were on the economic management and pursued equal justice for all dimensions. However, both of these results are meaningful only insofar as they redound to the moral authority dimension: they are wholly based on clinton fraudulence, cooked books and black poses, respectively; and clinton's shameless Rosa Parks eulogy last week assured us that the insidious brand of clinton racism is alive and well during these tiptoe years of what the clintons hope will be their interregnum.

Note that although Brinkley doesn't place much importance on the economic management dimension--he argues that the economy variable is not durable over time--he fails to recognize that the evaluation of the clinton economy by the historians is erroneous to begin with.

Note also that C-SPAN historians found no evidence of clinton "greatness" irrespective of his moral-authority deficit, contrary to Douglas Brinkley's claim made at the clinton revisionist confab³.

(NOTE: Later research has revealed that Brinkley's qualified mention of clinton "greatness" was not a claim but rather a polite guest's white lie about an abject loser. Instead of taking the AP report at face value, one must carefully parse Brinkley's actual words and especially note the subjunctive construction.)

MIDDLING

Twenty presidents rank higher than bill clinton and 20 rank lower. But this placement assumes equal weight for each of the dimensions. And therein lies the flaw.

If 9/11 taught us anything, it is that presidential character and moral authority count, and count most.⁴ If the variables are properly weighted, bill clinton will always come out dead last.

That is, unless Americans are dumb enough to make the same mistake twice.

Mia T, 11.10.05
Historian massages clinton numbers, ego + legacy at revisionist confab
C-SPAN historians find no clinton "greatness" irrespective of moral-authority deficit

 

 

IT TAKES A CLINTON TO RAZE A COUNTRY
by Mia T, 11.14.05

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)
 

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2004

CHENEY: CALL THEM REPREHENSIBLE
THE DEMOCRATS ARE GONNA GET US KILLED (kerry, clinton + sandy berger's pants) SERlES₅


THE LEFT'S RECKLESS TET-OFFENSIVE-GAMBIT REPLAY:
the left's jihad against America is killing our troops, aiding + abetting the terrorists and imperiling all Americans


pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic
WHY THE LEFT IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA


The Left's Fatally Flawed "Animal Farm" Mentality
(Why America Must NEVER AGAIN Elect a Democrat President)


sandy berger haberdashery feint
(the specs, not the pants or the socks)


A CALL TO IMPEACH CLINTON IN ABSENTIA

[RichInOC]

I don't know. Sometimes he makes perfect sense, and sometimes, it's like he's huffing the Odor-Eaters again.

[Brian Allen]

<< frappe jusqu' au dessus! >>

Mais oui, Ma Belle!

Certainement!

Jusqu au dessus!

[Mia T]

;)

The sensible anti-clinton stuff is needed to shore up his questionable bona fides. But note that that stuff is never dispositive.

OTOH, his 'failed' strategies always redound (positively) to the clintons.

[Mia T]

Merci :)

[Mia T]

;)

The sensible anti-clinton stuff is needed to shore up his questionable bona fides. But note that that stuff is never dispositive.

OTOH, his nonsensical strategies are always dispositive and redound (positively) to the clintons.

[StarCMC]

IS DICK MORRIS AN IDIOT? OR IS HE STILL ON THE CLINTON PAYROLL?

Isn't that the same thing??