|
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
|
In a week or two you'll see this was as important as Cheney shooting a major campaign contributor!
You aren't suggesting that a clinton plans to take the crown prince crane hunting, are you? ;)
|
..
That's a thought.
;)
fyi
|
The clintons are playing a cute game here--Mia T And I would add politically AND FINANCIALLY. (Don't believe for a minute that missus clinton didn't know about the deals with the crown prince. Remember which of the two has always been focused on THE MONEY.)
|
|
|
Reprinted from NewsMax.com Friday, Nov. 18, 2005 10:56 a.m. EST Dick Morris Slams Clinton's Dubai Comments
Former top White House advisor Dick Morris blasted ex-President Bill Clinton on Thursday, saying it was infuriating to hear him deride the Iraq war to an Arab audience earlier in the week as a "big mistake." "I'm particularly furious at my former boss," he told the Fox News Channel's "O'Reilly Factor." "Not for criticizing Bush, but for going to Dubai, a couple of hundred miles from where our troops are . . . darn near the middle war zone, saying that they're dying for a huge mistake." When Bill O'Reilly suggested that perhaps Clinton had merely gotten carried away, Morris disagreed, explaining that it was a calculated political move. "It's designed for Bill to keep Hillary's place on the left," the top consultant said. "They've been playing a good cop-bad cop routine." "When Hillary voted for the war," Morris recalled, "Bill began criticizing going to war without the United Nations. And throughout this entire process, Hillary has voted with the right and Bill has spoken with the left." "It's designed [that way]," he said. Mrs. Clinton still has to worry that the war may be a success, Morris explained, so she bites her tongue now in order to be able to say later that she was always behind the war effort. Her husband, however, operates under no such constraint. A month before his Dubai comments, for instance, Clinton told the Ladies Home Journal that the Iraq war was doomed to failure. Morris noted that the political winds may force Mrs. Clinton to move towards her husband's opposition to the war. "I think that Hillary's about to fold her hand and begin to move to the left because the whole Democratic party's moving and she can't afford to be the odd one out," he predicted. |
Did you see the clinton-is-a-paid-agent-of-Dubai video?
There may be some useful material here.
Does a clinton plan to take the crown prince crane hunting? ping
bump
bump
thanx :)
thx again:)
thanx :)
research ping
Have had numerous requests for the transcript of this video. If anyone has it, kindly post. Thanx.
thanx :)
and bump for justice
I don't know of any war waged in the name of Buddhism.
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
Which has nothing in particular to do with Buddhism which was the subject. Red Herring for dinner? But let's consider why the Hindus, Buddhists or any of the other various peoples of India would be (or could be) peaceful in taking India back from the Muslims who swept through with swords and torches destroying and subjugating everyone and everything in their path? Are you subtly suggesting that we have taken the wrong path today in dealing with militant Islam? It would be rather difficult to characterize our strategy as peaceful.
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).
You provide an example of Dem hypocrisy (which no one on this board needs) but you fail to give one example to back up your comparison to Buddhists and Hindus. But let's leave the Hindus out. I know nothing of them or their history, they hold only a superficial relationship to Buddhism and they weren't part of the discussion.
You have provided a far greater example of your own close likeness to modern-day lefties with your red herrings and unsubstantiated claims. Considering your egotistical chastisement of other FReepers for a lack of historical knowledge (also unsubstantiated) you sound like a typical Dem making big pronouncements while lacking any substance. And like a lefty you apparently think no one can see this.
I'm not so sure about that. This is run-of-the-mill business even as it concerns a ME country. International politics has some importance even when weighed against the all-important future of the great GOP (aka The Socialist Lite Party).
...not when the specter of 'clinton-the sequel' is looming large.
That's a specter that holds no fear for me. She doesn't have a ghost of a chance.
You want to 'reward' the UAE? You give them a deal that has no national security consequences-real or apparent.
I don't see it as a reward to the UAE. It's just capitalism in action. To knock this deal down for its superficial appearances is, in my view, giving them the back of our hand. The UAE may not be a paragon of virtue among nations (who is? France? Germany?) but they cooperate on a level that far outstrips any other ME Arab country. (and far better than many EU nations)
If there's one thing I can praise Pres. Bush for over anything else it's the fact that he doesn't pander to perceptions. He confronts reality and acts on it in more ways than any other President I can think of and most other politicians period. I realize that some consider political perceptions to be a reality too but I consider that rather ephemeral and superficial in comparison to the realities of terrorism.
You don't relinquish your only strong suit to the democrats.
As I see it the Pubbies who have jumped out and opposed this without study or thought are the ones who handed this to the Dems. I also see a very big opportunity to use Dem opposition to this deal to bring them down another notch in the public eye slipping through Republican fingers. This one would have been easy because the facts don't support opposition to the deal and the basic premises of opposition hold no water with even a cursory analysis. It's not the kind of issue that can be kept confused for a long period of time like the Plame thing. At least it wasn't.
It comes down to priorities. A solid war footing or re-election prospects. I maintain that the Pubbies who opposed this for political gain have swallowed a false premise that this elevates election gains. Holding firm through the frequent squalls of political posturing and maintaining an unwavering course in the WOT would have served political ambitions better. Letting your enemy flank you out of fear that they might take the high ground, while you yet hold the high ground, is foolish to put it mildly.
Uhhhh, no. Buddhist/Afghani history lesson #2. Buddhism came to the Afhgan-Pakistani region from India via trade routes prior to Muslim presence in the area. Prior to the existence of Islam actually. Well prior to Mongolian presence.
Muhammad was born in Mecca in Saudi Arabia in 570. (AD)
By 720 AD the people of Afghanistan were converting to Islam ...
1220: Genghis Khan passes through with Mongol hordes, wrecks centralized rule, picks up tribes to help destroy Persian and Arab empires. (from the same website) - "400 CE: White Huns invade from north, destroy Buddhist culture."
Looks like Buddhism in Afghanistan predates the existence of Islam by about 300 years and the invasion by Mongols by nearly a thousand years. Some people know history, some people study history and some people just make it up.
The Mongolian Empire: The Yuan
The single most striking aspect of the Yuan is not only the survival of Chinese culture under a vastly foreign rule, but its singular vitality and growth. ...
(snip)
At the same time, the Mongols chose not to impose their own pastoral lifestyle, social structure, or religion on the Chinese.The traditional philosophies and religions of China continued unabated under Mongol rule. Buddhism in particular found a welcome home among the Mongols who had in part adopted it.
(snip)
Curiously, the Mongols, though Buddhist, did not really support or patronize Buddhism, which was largely left to its own devices. They favored Tibetan Buddhism but really did not financially support the monasteries.
(snip)
Nonetheless, the Mongol rulers were very preoccupied with religions. Kublai Khan in particular invited all sorts of faiths to debate at his court. He allowed Nestorian Christians and Roman Catholics to set up missions, as well as Tibetan lamas, Muslims, and Hindus. The Yuan period, in fact, is one of vital cultural transmission between China and the rest of the world.
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.
