|
DICK MORRIS: CLINTON IS A PAID AGENT OF THE CROWN PRINCE OF DUBAI
 |
|
Posted on 03/03/2006 7:07:54 PM PST by Mia T
DICK MORRIS: CLINTON IS A PAID AGENT OF THE CROWN PRINCE OF DUBAI
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.
And, to rub it in, the traitor pocketed no less than $200,000 from the enemy for his troubles.
(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
by Mia T, 11.17.05
id you see it? More to the point, did the American press? 
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.
h e a r --c l i n t o n --l o s e --i t
by Mia T, 11.11.05
READ MORE
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)
COPYRIGHT MIA T 2006
Indeed.
thx :)
bookmark
The Republican punchbowl is littered with these turds... who 'float' when they see the camera.
|
You sure the fella on the left isn't Franco Harris?
Puffery emited by the clintons' perpetual promotion machine--the barely perceptible discontinuous miasmic belches--defies not only the laws of logic and decency but also 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.... There is a lot of talk these days, most notably by voluble nervous 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. Mia T, 6.23.05
ping
fyi
weekend ping ;)
However, concerning militancy, when the Hindus decided to reassert themselves (starting, I believe, in the 600s) and take back India, it wasn't all that peaceful
Interesting that both the Hindus and the Buddhists make claims to being ultimately very peaceful ~ which they really aren't.
In fact, I consider both "brands" to be very similar to the Democratic party ~ lots of claims to helping out the victim class, but lord forbid you challenge their prerogatives. The Dems still act like they run Congress (for example).
Henry VIII didn't pick on writers so much ~ his wives kept him busy.
|
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."
|
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 |
;)
I agree with you. We, a country in wartime, are in a very bad place. Bush, however, is not without blame.
It should have been obvious to him that the port deal (among other things) would be a lose-lose politically for the GOP. Common sense and the survival instinct will trump arcane explanations anytime.
You don't spend political capital (political capital that you don't even have) on such a loser. And certainly not post-9/11, not in an election year, not when the specter of 'clinton-the sequel' is looming large.
You want to 'reward' the UAE? You give them a deal that has no national security consequences-real or apparent. You don't relinquish your only strong suit to the democrats.
What could he have been thinking? Was he thinking at all?
I think Franco Harris could get a good paying job as a body double for Clinton's friend Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid al Maktoum. Which one is the real Sheik?
ping :)
To All - Bookmark this page, a virtual library of Slick and wife and e-mail the video of Dick Morris to everyone in your address book Liberals and Republicans alike! http://www.deletehillary.com/clinton-dubai.swf
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.
... 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.