Posted on 12/18/2005 9:00:39 AM PST by Mia T
|
|
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'--seditious and cowardly 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?
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.
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: My 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
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
COPYRIGHT MIA T 2004
December 7, 1941+64
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.
COMPLETE LETTER
by Mia T, 11.17.05
id you see it? More to the point, did the American press?
h e a r --c l i n t o n --l o s e --i t
by Mia T, 11.11.05
COMPLETE ARTICLE
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.
Historian massages clinton numbers, ego + legacy at revisionist confab
C-SPAN historians find no clinton "greatness" irrespective of moral-authority deficit
by Mia T, 11.14.05
(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)
AN OPEN LETTER TO TIM ROBBINS, DAVID GEFFEN, CHRIS MATTHEWS, MAUREEN DOWD + JEANINE PIRRORE: a not-so-modest proposal concerning hillary clinton
Dear Concerned Americans,
December 7, 1941+64
Mia T
AN OPEN LETTER TO TIM ROBBINS, DAVID GEFFEN, CHRIS MATTHEWS, MAUREEN DOWD + JEANINE PIRRO
RE: a not-so-modest proposal concerning hillary clinton
COPYRIGHT MIA T 2005
It was bombastic or ludicrous or pompous but it wasn't sarcastic. Matthews believes nothing has worked in Iraq to-date and nothing will work in the future. Iraq to Matthews is Vietnam squared.
Matthews was setting the bar for Bush greatness as high as his limited intellect was capable of doing. Coming only days after the Iraq election just makes it all the more obvious that Matthews is totally disconnected from reality when discussing Iraq.
I look forward to a little Matthews back pedaling on his Mt. Rushmore statement but his show is so unwatchable I will probably miss it when it happens
I actually disagree. If one wants to be cynical about it, Matthews is hedging his bets.
I personally think Matthews is conflicted: His Liberalism v. his Red-State sensibilities
bump
bump
Nice thought by a guy who belongs in a mental institution!
Some would argue he is already there, i.e., leftist institutions are a crazy house.
This would be the simplist explanation for their self-destructive behavior.
Hedging involves making a deliberately noncommital or unexplicit statement as a counterbalance to previous statements. Where is the balance in saying if Bush pulls it off he deserves to be on Mt. Rushmore? I don't see it and if Matthews has a time of the day when he isn't trying to be Matthews I don't beleive he will let his Mt. Rushmore statement stand.
Both his positions, taken together constitute the hedge.
I suppose the hypothetical nature of statement 2 satisfies your take somewhat.
bump)))
(for further read/comments to follow)
What can explain both Crissy's and Lindsay's "rush to the center?" Are they both being blackmailed over their relationship?
bump)))
Heading out the door. Will read and comment later.
No problem on the hinkey in the link, you were quite expedient with the repairs, a bug now and then is to be expected...
Here?
Or Here?
hillary dumps Geena for Maggie,1 and when that doesn't fly,2 she dumps Maggie for bill. Without missing a beat. It's the old Dick Morris Hail Mary pass, (when in trouble, triangulate3), the once trusty play that for eight years kept two clumsy kleptocrats4 in the Oval Office and out of the slammer (even as it placed America and Americans in ever-increasing peril.)5 That missus clinton has managed, thereby, to stake out Iraqi territory occupied apparently by no one6 seems to have escaped her notice. Nonetheless, this constituency of zero is the least of her troubles. IMPERIOUS HILLARY
|
December 7, 1941+64 RE: a not-so-modest proposal concerning hillary clinton
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. COMPLETE LETTER |
Mia T, this was an absolutely brilliant hedge. Matthews could learn a lot from you.:)
touché ;)
"I personally think Matthews is conflicted: His Liberalism v. his Red-State sensibilities"
That's my take on Matthews. He's like a lot of libs...he has no real principles so he shifts in the wind and can't decide what he things about a few issues like Iraq. He initially seemed conflicted over Klintoon's oval office behavior with interns, but when Matthews started seeing all the Democraps defending Klintoon, he bought into their talking points. He's buys into the left's moral equivalence arguments freely.
But, 98% of the time, he spouts the total liberal line replete with all the Democrap talking points.
... which reminds me... I don't seem to recall the outrage over missus clinton's abuse of the raw FBI files of her opposition... or her abuse of the IRS.
|
bump
bump
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.