BILL MAHER WARNS DEMOCRATS: HILLARY WILL TAKE YOU OVER A CLIFF IN '08 (video clip)

Hardball | 2.17.06 | Mia T

[Mia T]

BILL MAHER WARNS DEMOCRATS:
HILLARY WILL TAKE YOU OVER A CLIFF IN '08

First of all, she will never win the presidency. The people who are worrying about that should stop worrying. She will never be elected president of this country. The democrats should buddy up to that concept before they walk over the cliff with her in 2008.

Bill Maher
Hardball with Chris Matthews
February 14, 2006

'HIATUS' FOR HILLARY?

by Mia T, 02.02.06

The clintons, as is their wont, are now taking this proxy scheme to even more outrageous extremes.

The latest: an actual hillary clinton proxy presidency, populated on both sides of the camera by assorted rodham and clinton ex-staffers, sycophants and should-be felons, witness the latest hire.

'Commander-in-Chief,' a show that sets out to crown a 'queen,' instead exposes the kitschy simplemindedness of Hollywood fantasy and the special sway and shortsightedness of the pathologic ego.

Mia T, 10.27.05
THE DANGER OF RUNNING VICARIOUSLY
Bill O'Reilly chews up and spits out the hillary clinton candidacy
(clip included)

unning vicariously, as we have argued, has its risks.

What was supposed to be Hollywood propaganda to make a hillary presidency marginally palatable has instead become a parable about missus clinton's own dystopian future.

ABC announced the other day that it is pulling "Commander-in-Chief" off the air "until spring." Missus clinton's proxy presidency, you see, has been in a ratings free fall ever since "American Idol" took it on.

In a perverse life-mirrors-art moment, support for the real-life missus clinton's presidency has plummeted, too. This even sans Rudy, her real-life "American Idol" opponent.

'Ars artia gratis.' Please!

Samuel Goldwyn must be turning over in his grave....

 

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

G. K. Chesterton

 

... 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 isn't sufficient. For America to prevail, she must also defeat a retrograde, misogynous 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--(an image, incidentally, that is only enhanced today by her clumsy, termagant parody of Thatcher), 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
(see descriptor morphs)

January 9, 2006
Reviewer: miat22 (Mia T)


CLOSE ENCOUNTER OF THE WORST KIND

... to borrow a phrase, perversely, from a Spielberg flick about benign intelligence.

Munich -- Spielberg fantasy wrapped in sober documentary -- with its false premises, phony pieties and outright lies, is a verisimilitudinous contrivance that is pernicious, especially now, especially here, especially if we understand Spielberg's real motivation.

Truth matters not at all to Spielberg, and courage matters even less. To advance his fallacious argument, he has Golda Meir speak words she never said, never would have said and, obviously, cannot now disavow. Posthumous misappropriation is a preferred tactic of the abject coward.

Munich is less about Meir avenging the Munich massacre than it is about Bush waging the War on Terror. The historical (Munich) allusion is key to understanding Spielberg.

The core of his anti-war argument: By fighting back, we become our enemy. Ironically, with Munich, the same can now be said of Spielberg.

Is Spielberg humanizing the terrorist really any different from Riefenstahl humanizing Hitler? If anything, Spielberg is more contemptible. Whereas Riefenstahl symbolizes the naïve actress and director who is induced to deal with devils, Spielberg is self-actuated and aware.

Hollywood is DreamWorks, fantastical and unthinking and solipsistic by definition.

To mitigate its danger, people capable of critical thinking must take on Hollywood... and must do so in Hollywood venues.

The printed word, sad to say, no longer carries the day.



Was this review helpful to you?
VOTE HERE

My New York Times Review of Munich

 

ON REJIGGING GALLUP'S LOSING NUMBERS FOR HILLARY
THE ALTERNATE UNIVERSE OF ANNE KORNBLUT

by Chris Matthews, Anne Kornblut + Dana Milbank

(with annotations by Mia T), 01.26.06

EXCERPT:

This is HARDBALL on MSNBC.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[NOTE: My comments in blue.]

MATTHEWS:  We're back with Anne Kornblut of "The New York Times" and Dana Milbank of "The Washington Post."  Let's talk about Gotham's candidates for president.

First, Rudolph Giuliani, the pro-choice, pro-gay rights, former mayor spent today, or the day in Orlando speaking to a conference of Evangelicals. 

Dana, he's up to it, isn't he?  This is below the radar.  This is Rudy campaigning for president in the south. 

MILBANK:  This is about as convincing as Jerry Falwell at the gay pride parade. 

MATTHEWS:  You don't buy this? 

MILBANK:  Well, he can try to do it.  But, look, he faces an awful uphill battle in winning over the typical Republican voter in a primary.  Now, if the election was fought on national security, he is fine.  But he's never going to convince them that he is one of them, that he is a religious conservative. 

KORNBLUT:  Right and not only that, but he's going to be in a death struggle with John McCain for the exact same constituency. 

MATTHEWS:  Let me tell you something.  I'll say it here a thousand time.  Watch Rudolph Giuliani.  Watch him.  Security is the issue in this country.  Whoever is the next president is going to be seen as more on the ball than even this president on security and terrorism.  This country is not going sort on terrorism.  We are going to get smarter on it is my hunch.

And Rudy is the guy to do it.  And he can be an SOB in many ways.  But this country may really want an SOB, a really tough cop as the next president.  So watch Rudy, I'm saying it.

Now here is Hillary Clinton, that other New Yorker in the subway series.  A new Gallup poll just came out.  "USA TODAY" Gallup poll, it shows that 16 percent say that they'll definitely vote for Hillary right now, 32 percent say they might vote for her. 

But here's the dagger in the back.  Fifty-one percent say they would definitely not vote for Hillary Clinton already the campaign hasn't begun. 

KORNBLUT:  I mean, this is exactly what Democrats are worried about is that already people have made up their minds.  I would argue, I guess, that it is awfully early.  We all know how early it is to be talking about this. 

MATTHEWS:  Definitely. 

KORNBLUT:  Definitely?  What does definitely mean?  [Definitely means DEFINITELY.] You know, you would have to see how is the question exactly phrased, all that stuff.  It is early. [Actually Anne, it is late. In fact, it is too late. The country knows exactly who this woman is, Anne.]

MATTHEWS:  But there's lot of tooth behind that.  If somebody tells a pollster, I've already made up my mind definitely. 

KORNBLUT:  And, look, I know more Democrats who believe this though than Republicans.  A lot of Republicans say that this is a deceptive number, that once she gets out there with all of her money running against who, Giuliani or McCain, the numbers may not be that weak.  [She has 100% name recognition, Anne. You can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear. Even when the sow isn't hillary.]

MATTHEWS:  How much of that is don't throw me in that briar patch, Dana?  We're so afraid of Hillary.  Please don't run her against us.  She'll kill us. 

MILBANK:  Anne is right that these polls are completely useless because you don't know what the alternative is.  But the fact is that she...  [Earth to Dana: 51% would vote for their mother-in-law before they would vote for HER.]

MATTHEWS:  OK.  McCain against Hillary.  Who wins? 

 

MILBANK:  Well, that's fine.  If you can tell me that's how it is going to turn out.  But we don't know. 

MATTHEWS:  Well, let me ask you about these definite numbers in a poll.  Do you believe the definite?  Do you believe somebody right in 2006 knows how they are going to vote in 2008?

MILBANK:  I think they definitely think that's what they are going to do right now, but they have no idea what they are going to be doing in a couple years.  And Hillary is going to have the opposite problem of Rudy.  And that is she's absolutely fine with her base if she decides to run.  But she is seemingly incapable of crossing over. 

MATTHEWS:  The poll was taken over the week right through Sunday, the Gallup poll.  And the Gallup poll is, of course, the most prestigious poll there is right now and has been for years. 

Dana, do you think she's paying the price for her plantation remark last week? 

MILBANK:  Probably not.  Because, once again, plays very well the base.  The people who were objecting to it were never going to support her in the first case.  And I really think the only thing that this is right now is do people recognize her name.  [What is it you don't understand, here? We recognize her name, yes. And we abhor the person attached to that name. Get it?]

KORNBLUT:  And I would add to that.  It's 51 percent say definitely not.  Remember the margin that's we've been talking about in the last few presidential races, 51 percent is terrible, but all she would have to do is bump it by a few numbers, a few percentage points and be OK.  [I can see why Pinch hired you, Anne. Your Alice-in-Wonderland illogic is quintessential New York Times. With 100% name recognition and roughly 10% corruption recognition (thanks in no small measure to your rag), missus clinton has only one way to go. And it isn't up.]

... Anyway, thank you Anne Kornblut of "The New York Times," Dana Milbank of "The Washington Post." 

Join us again tomorrow night at 5:00 and 7:00 Eastern for more HARDBALL.  Right now it is time for "THE ABRAM'S REPORT" with Dan.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

Copy: Content and programming copyright 2006 MSNBC.  ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 

HARDBALL WITH CHRIS MATTHEWS
January 25, 2006

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

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.

COMPLETE LETTER

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

'HIATUS' FOR HILLARY?


IS REUTERS SENDING A MESSAGE ABOUT A COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF HILLARY?


HILLARY'S EXPOSED LEFT FLANK 'SCARES THE HORSES' (VIDEO)
(MISSUS CLINTON SUPPORTS ALITO FILIBUSTER)


ON REJIGGING GALLUP'S LOSING NUMBERS FOR HILLARY
THE ALTERNATE UNIVERSE OF ANNE KORNBLUT


CLINTON 'CULTURE OF CORRUPTION'


SEE VIDEO: "HILLARY IS 'DOOMED'" (more 'plantation' fallout)


GONE WITH THE WIND
(miss hillary's 'plantation' blunder)


WHY HILLARY MUST NOT WIN. WHY HILLARY CANNOT WIN.


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


WAR AND TREASON AND THE NEW YORK TIMES
(Please see post 65)


REDACTION LOOPHOLE: ACCESS TO THE BARRETT REPORT


HILLARY CLINTON KNEW ABOUT THE RAPE: HEAR JUANITA BROADDRICK


ROCKEFELLER SEDITION: WHO IS CALLING THE SHOTS?


THE ABSURDITY OF A COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF HILLARY


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


clintonCORRUPTION: the more things change. . . .


Alien Abductions, Flying Saucers + Other Weird Phenomena, c.1992-2000


THE 'BOARD,' BEFUDDLED POLITICS OF JOHN KERRY RETURNS
CALLS FOR ALITO FILIBUSTER FROM 'SKI SLOPES'


IT TAKES A CLINTON TO RAZE A COUNTRY

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2006

[jla]

Don't fret none, the primaries will prove to be the downfall of any attempted run by the likes of a Rudy Giuliani.
He will garner nothing more than a gaping yawn in Dixie and the West.

[Berlin_Freeper]

[HHFi]

I love to watch "House", but you couldn't get me into that hospital as long as I was conscious.

That's why every episode starts with someone going into convulsions and falling over unconscious: it's the only way to get them in. Then that great spooky theme song kicks in with the quick flash image of House staring down at them through the microscope, and I know it's time for another hour of biting, hilarious, incredibly non-PC dialogue. That and "24" are the only things left on broadcast TV that I actually look forward to anymore. I tried watching "C.I.C." twice ("House" was on hiatus), but it struck me as less politically partisan than just braindead idiotic.

[The Foolkiller]

I agree with your thoughts in this post entirely. If Kerry & Allah Gore could almost win it.....The one thing only a FEW on FR are thinking about...is...(Jaws Theme here) The Serial Molester. There are STILL many idiots & fools in this country that think he was a 'moderate' dem, when his leftist PC administration screwed this country up for years to come. They practiced the politics of emotion, hysteria, & division-just like Hitler did. Think about it-when did this country become so divided? Under the Klintons. It's continued to this day. And the entire democRATic party sold its soul, and became clintonized. That's why I left it. Yes, In my youth, I was a democrat. But that was the democratic party of old. When the moonbats began taking it over in the 70's, I began voting for more independents, and a few republicans. I'm going to admit something to you here-I was fooled, and voted for the Clintons-the first time. Six months later, I knew I'd made the worst election mistake of my life. A weird assortment of mutant -like freak-show candidates became their cabinet-Midgets, dwarves, lesbians,etc. Then they started a war on smokers, gun owners, you name it. I chafed at the bit for a year until I walked into the voting booth in '94,and did something I'd never done before-I voted straight republican, other than 3 independents. I felt, as did many, they had to be stopped, at all costs. I have voted for exactly ONE Crat since '94(locally-he's more conservative than most here-old-school dem).

It took the crats and the media six months to come out of shock-and during that time, many good things were accomplished. But then, they got their act together-drove Gingrich out after turning him into a lightening rod, started the 'catch-phrase' bit- How many times did you hear the mantra "Jack-Booted Thugs". for example? Or "Mean-Spirited"? They must have a meeting every day and decide what the words of the day are-and this line is then repeated ad infinitum by everyone in the party. It's a form of subtle brainwashing. And-this is the Clinton's true legacy-and specialty. Lest anyone forget...neither has ever been convicted of any crime, although they've commited many throughout the years. They're made of Teflon. There are MANY out there (some conservatives, too) who would pull the lever for the name Clinton again in a heartbeat-thinking to themselves all the while, "Well, we KNOW who'll REALLY be President." (wink-wink) And that's the real danger. The Slickster. The end run around the Constitution. It's what they've always planned ("With us, you get two for the price of one.")On their own-they're just so-so. Put them together....And, make no mistake-he will be EVERYWHERE with her on the campaign trail. Daily. You'll see them so much, you'll think they're already back in the White House again. Add the media boost to: war fatigue, doubts about the economy, dissatisfaction with RHINOS, the feeling we're adrift without a paddle (something I've felt since Bush got shot down on his S.S. reform), open border policy, etc; and...the women who'll vote for her because she's a woman , plus they'd get down on their knees for him...I don't believe Maher. I wish I could, but I don't. I'm still scared, the same as Mia is. And.....Bush's conservative credentials are, with me & many others, shaky at best-what if we get a RHINO as the Repub candidate? If that happens...it's over. Just one man's opinion. Ask yourself this question, though....why have they stayed married...even though they don't even live together? Hmmm?? I'm telling you all-they're coming back again, just like Jason, Dracula, Freddy Krueger, & Pinhead, and it will take a hell of a lot of effort to stop the sequel.

[The Foolkiller]

Why is Rudy "excellent"?

---

Both Rudy "Judas" Guliani & moonbat McPain are loved by the media, as the media wisely knows they are both social liberals/RHINOS. The media drools at the prospect of one of them getting the nomination-and will do everthing in their power to help assure it. They would then , in a heartbeat, throw their support to the Clintons. ONLY in the media do you see 'great support' for either of those two.

[E.G.C.]

Miat T. Bump.

[Mia T]

I don't believe '08 will turn on ideology.
What will elect the next president is competence--and preferably proven talent --at fighting and winning the War on Terror.

The election of '04 told the story.

The following is an excerpt from:
WHY HILLARY MUST NOT WIN. WHY HILLARY CANNOT WIN.

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

Mia T, 12.10.05

 

'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

READ MORE:

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

WHY HILLARY MUST NOT WIN. WHY HILLARY CANNOT WIN.

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

Mia T, 12.10.05

 

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

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

 

 

[jamaksin]

Another "most excellent" posting to keep the pressure on and even intensify it! Many thanks!

"I can't recall" Clinton and "little Blue Dress" Clinton need the constant and clear shine of daylight forever and then some!

While the biased "MSM" has lost much of its power, they still need to be pro-actively ridiculed and minimized at every step ... crying "double standards" is not good enough - it does nothing - now in 2006, next in 2008, and even beyond!

[Mia T]

post #15 fyi

[Mia T]

thx :)

[Mia T]

fyi

[leadhead]

I'm willing to let Hillery be the Harold Stassen of the 21st Century.

[Mia T]

thx :)

[leadhead]

And do you not think Mike Pence or George Allen equal to that task?

I was going to give the standard reply that I didn't want a Congresscritter in the White House like Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford and wanted a leader/manager like a Governor; maybe Jeb. Then my old brain remembered Jimmy and candidates like Stevenson, Romney, Ducockup,etc.

So there is no occupational formula.

[wally-balls]

Senator Hillary Clinton hasn't seen anything yet until the weblogs start doing their digging and uncover all the skeletons in her closet over her very sordid past. It could get very ugly very fast, to say the least

---

No time like the present

[leadhead]

Why take away from the gains made in the USSC by putting a liberal in office?

What gains? It's still 5.1/2-3.1/2 against the Constitution.

[Mia T]

I'm willing to let Hillery be the Harold Stassen of the 21st Century.

... at the risk of letting her be the bill clinton of the 21 century?

THE (oops!) INADVERTENT ADMISSIONS OF BILL + HILLARY CLINTON ^{part one}

by Mia T, 02.08.06

"You know... the job which we should have done ¹... which should have been our primary focus, to find [you know] bin Laden and eliminate al Qaeda."

hillary clinton
Saturday, Jan. 28, 2006
Chitchat with Jane Pauley
San Francisco, CA

"Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in '91 and he went to the Sudan.

We'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him [bin Laden].

At the time, '96, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.

So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have; but they thought it was a hot potato. They didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan."

bill clinton
Sunday, Aug. 11, 2002
Clinton Reveals on Secret Audio:
I Nixed Bin Laden Extradition Offer

"I remember exactly what happened. Bruce Lindsey said to me on the phone, 'My God, a second plane has hit the tower.' And I said, 'Bin Laden did this.' that's the first thing I said. He said, 'How can you be sure?' I said 'Because only bin Laden and the Iranians could set up the network to do this and they [the Iranians] wouldn't do it because they have a country in targets. Bin Laden did it.'

I thought that my virtual obsession ² with him was well placed and I was full of regret that I didn't get him."

bill clinton
Sunday, Sept 3, 2002
Larry King Live

 

[leadhead]

I'm willing to let Hillery be the Harold Stassen of the 21st Century. ... at the risk of letting her be the bill clinton of the 21 century?

Stassen ran six times for the nomination and never made it. He ran for PA Senator and didn't make it. Boy Gov of Mid-west is all he did.

[Carl LaFong]

Well,we should trust ol' tomato nose's political acumen.After all, he is a comedian and a celebrity(!?)

[The Foolkiller]

Yeah, well, all that stuff is well and good-but I hope to hell you're right & I'm wrong. I know a lot can happen between now & then-and will-but-none of us know what those things will be. And they won't necessarily work for us. I still say it hinges (the way things are now, which,again, can & will probably change) on who is on the Republican ticket.