HEY CLINTON! SIZE DOESN'T MATTER.

4.27.06 | Mia T

[Mia T]

HEY CLINTON!
(RELATIVE) SIZE DOESN'T MATTER.

by Mia T, 4.27.06

 

"I thought of the grand size of this. Then I realized that if you go to the White House and look at all the portraits of the presidents, there are some that are so big they have to be hung in a special space down in the ground floor and if you really look at the size of the presidents' portraits, there are [sic] an inverse relationship to their importance to the country and American history. So I'm at least apprehensive about that."

bill clinton
National Portrait Gallery, Washington DC
at the unveiling of his portrait
April 24, 2006

 

he court painter, like the commissioned architect, is the master of the inside joke. It is his only realistic hedge against the sycophancy that comes with patronage.

The artist-for-hire encodes the inside joke in his work. The joke's efficacy is directly related to its decodability. If it is too obvious, or if it is too obscure, it doesn't work.

Whereas the latter error is often harmless, the former is almost always fatal: If the joke is too obvious, the work of art, itself, becomes the punch line. The clinton library, which shimmies in the hot Arkansas sun like a trailer park or a bridge to nowhere depending on where you stand, suffers from this kind of failure.¹

Nelson Shanks' portrait of bill clinton, which was unveiled at the National Portrait Gallery on Monday, is similarly flawed. Its jokes are so obvious, in fact, that when clinton ceremoniously pulled off its cover at the unveiling, what was exposed was not a portrait at all but a full-blown punch line.

What we saw:

1. THE POSE:
   
   Is he a matador? Clinton served up enough bull in his lifetime... and he certainly never grabbed the bull by the horns.
   
   Or is he effeminate? Certainly his policies and his hand-wringing emotionalizing were.
   
   And why is he leaning back? Is he cowering in fear? Bin Laden thought so and was inspired by it. He told us so, himself.²
   
   And why is he holding himself? It's the self-serving operator, the overweening egoism, obviously.
   
   
   

2. THE PERSONA:
   Pompous, non-presidential, flat and dull.
   
   I am reminded here of David Brinkley's trenchant wit. In November 1996, when he thought his mike was off, Brinkley said:
   

   "We all look forward with great pleasure to four years of wonderful, inspiring speeches, full of wit, poetry, music, love and affection, plus more goddam nonsense. Clinton has not a creative bone in his body. Therefore, he's a bore, and will always be a bore."

    

3. THE WEDDING RING:
   
   More precisely, the lack of it. The joke here is manifestly obvious. What is more intriguing are the comments that ensued.
   
   • From bill clinton's "office" (whoever that might be): They blame "artistic license."
     
     ( I think what the artist had in mind here was clinton's license.)
     

   • From missus clinton: "I don't know. You'll have to ask my husband."
     
     Really?
     
     

4. THE MEDIA:
   
   Two old-media references dominate. The first is the newspaper, probably The New York Times, without which clinton would never have been re-elected. And the other is the looming presence of clinton's bizarre new alter ego, Ted Koppel.
   
   

5. THE SIZE:
   
   Whereas clinton is wrong about an inverse relationship existing between presidential greatness³ and portrait size--the Lansdowne portrait of George Washington by Gilbert Stuart is the obvious counterexample--this huge tableau of nothingness (tableau mort?) is a big joke that takes the precise measure of the man and his presidency.
   
   (Notice how clinton's obsession with his legacy infected even this simple event.)^{2, 3}

Two other presidential portraits, Washington's and Lincoln's--and missus clinton's exploitation of the latter--provide interesting counterpoint.

'REFUSAL TO LEVEL WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE'
... IS HILLARY 'KNOWNOTHING VICTIM' CLINTON'S MIDDLE NAME

by Mia T, February 16, 2006

 

 

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)
audio montage, Lincoln-pose scoop: rushlimbaugh.com

READ MORE

---

1.

WRITTEN IN STONE: AN ARCHITECT DEFINES THE CLINTONS
virtualclintonlibrary.blogspot.com
 

 

by Mia T, 12-30-02

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
f mutability of meaning was necessary for the survival of the clintons--their survival hinged ultimately on the deconstruction of words and laws--it is more than a little ironic, and a manifestation of the special sway and shortsightedness of the pathologic ego, that clinton's monument to himself will necessarily define the clintons with the permanence of great inviolate places of iconic architecture.

Whereas a huckster removes meaning from institutions--the wife picked up where the husband left off--an architect encodes meaning in buildings. James S. Polshek, the architect with the dubious distinction of having been commissioned to build the William J. Clinton Presidential Center in Little Rock, Arkansas, believes that a successful architectural solution must necessarily be rooted in relevance.

Just as Polshek's buildings have physical layers, so too do they have layers of meaning. His Rose Center for Earth and Space, for example, is informed formally and programmatically by the historic architecture of a designated landmark even as it redefines itself, (often too self-consciously, in my view), in Star-Trekian terms. Reduced to its essence, the building is the nascent universe before the Big Bang, the promise of the undifferentiated cell in its mother's womb.

The "bridge to the 21^st century" was, perhaps, clinton's most delusional conceit, so it is not surprising that it would become clinton's self-referential metaphor of choice. His library was to be that bridge, if he had anything to say about it...

 

The architect is often the master of the inside joke, witness Robert Venturi's postmodern chairs. Venturi exploited--unabashedly and with abandon--the vocabulary of Las Vegas, its stage-set-as-reality and its roadside culture--bright, clashing, ugly and fake. The architect's inside joke is his hedge against the sycophancy that comes with patronage.

The flip side of the encoded meaning of the architect is the terrorist's decoding of it. To bin Laden, the World Trade Center was Jewish capitalism encoded in urban space. If Polshek's vision of clinton's library is a bridge, the inside joke is that, at best, it is a bridge to nowhere.

More likely, it is a bridge to the 7^th century...or a doublewide to house clinton double-speak. Take your choice.

copyright Mia T 2002, 2005

2.

 

MISSING CLINTON AUDIO! 'Can we kill 'em tomorrow?'
(+Albright-Fulbright-Nobel TERRORISM revelations)



HEAR CLINTON! 'Can we kill 'em tomorrow?'
('MY 9/11 LOSER DEAL IS FULBRIGHT'S FAULT... AND I DON'T NEED NO STINKIN' NOBEL.*)
*If a loser like Carter can get one, where's mine already?'

by Mia T, 4.24.06

LISTEN CAREFULLY TO THE AUDIO: Fulbrighters' gasps of horror follow clinton's "I always asked the same question for eight years, 'Can we kill 'em tomorrow?'  I don't think we can bring 'em back tomorrow, but can we kill 'em tomorrow?  If we can kill them tomorrow, then we're not weak...."

I suspect the horror was provoked not by the (proven) fecklessness and recklessness and rigidity and danger of the purported clinton 'terrorism policy' or even by the absurdity of the argument; I suspect the gasps of horror were in response, rather, to the Kill-Bill kind of violence (albeit "virtual") contained in bill clinton's words.

God save us from people who do the morally right thing. It's always the rest of us who get broken in half.

--Paddy Chayefsky

 

And God save us from the morally unencumbered clintons, who get us broken in half nonetheless. --Mia T

'Can we kill 'em tomorrow?' THE ADDRESS	THE (oops!) TRUTH
"In this interdependent world, we should still have a preference for peace over war.... But sometimes we would have these debates where people would say, if I didn't take some military action this very day, people would look down their nose at America and think we were weak.  And I always thought of Senator Fulbright.... 6 So anytime somebody said in my presence, 'Hey, if you don't do this, people will think you're weak,' I always asked the same question for eight years, 'Can we kill 'em tomorrow?'  I don't think we can bring 'em back tomorrow, but can we kill 'em tomorrow?  If we can kill them tomorrow, then we're not weak.... 1 I learned that as a 20-year-old kid watching Bill Fulbright.  Listening." bill clinton Fulbright Prize address April 12, 2006	"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 "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
... I thank you for this award, even though, in general, I think former presidents and presidents should never get awards.  I was delighted when Jimmy Carter won the Nobel Peace Prize because I thought he earned it, and I thought it was great because he got it as much for what he did after office as when he was in office.  In general, I think that the fact that we got to be president is quite honor enough. bill clinton Fulbright Prize address April 12, 2006	"Bill Clinton is still campaigning for the Nobel Peace Prize. But for now, he'll just have to settle for "the political play of the week." Bill Schneider CNN reporting on the Fulbright Prize April 14, 2006       WASHINGTON -- Two Norwegian public-relations executives and one member of the Norwegian Parliament say they were contacted by the White House to help campaign for President Clinton to receive this year's Nobel Peace Prize for his work in trying to negotiate peace in the Middle East. Clinton Lobbies for Nobel Prize: What a Punk White House Lobbied For Clinton Nobel Peace Prize Updated Friday, October 13, 2000 By Rita Cosby       There's been speculation in the last few months that Clinton was pursuing a Mideast peace accord in an effort to win the prize and secure his legacy as president. AIDES PUSH CLINTON FOR THE NOBEL       At the time, clinton observed: "I made more progress in the Middle East than I did between Socks and Buddy." Retrospectively, it is clear that clinton's characterization was not correct. Mia T Buddy Death Report Raises More Questions Than It Answers

 

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.

READ MORE

 

hat the loser is up to here:

1. Sheltered by a messy war, rising gas prices and a tanking president, haunted by his own failed, dysfunctional presidency and longing for the ultimate mulligan, the peacenik-posing, draft-dodging proximate cause of 9/11 intensifies the Left's Tet-Offensive gambit replay...
   
   

2. as he claims he ignored terrorism on purpose, which he actually did; but not for PEACE, as he claims. Rather, it was the NOBEL PEACE PRIZE--his obsession, his ultimate validation (in his own mind, anyway)--that in the end produced the puerile pertinacity that enabled him (and his wife) to shrug off terrorism's global danger.
   
   

3. Posthumous misappropriation is a preferred tactic of the abject coward. It is no surprise, therefore, that bill clinton blames his failure to confront terrorism on his eponymous mentor, the-dead-and-defenseless-as-a-doornail Arkansas senator, J. William Fulbright. Clinton's simplistic (and cynical--note the caveat) leap from Cold War to asymmetric netherworlds and his shameless choice of venue are the product of unbridled egoism and contempt.
   
   

Biography lends to death a new terror.--Oscar Wilde

  

Hypocrisy abounds in this Age of Clinton, a Postmodern Oz rife with constitutional deconstruction and semantic subversion, a virtual surreality polymarked by presidential alleles peccantly misplaced or, in the case of Jefferson posthumously misappropriated...

Mia T, THE OTHER NIXON

   

Yesterday, Daniel Patrick Moynihan died. Today, the clintons are arrogating his soul. Hardly surprising. In 1999, the clintons were not at all shy about seizing his still-warm senate seat.

One has merely to recall the Jefferson double-helix hoax to understand that posthumous misappropriation is, for the obvious reason, the clintons' preferred method of legacy inflation….

Standard-Issue clintonism

If misappropriation of Jefferson's alleles hinged on a broken line of descent, misappropriation of Moynihan's endorsement depends on a broken line of dissent. Like Sally Hemmings' progeny, Moynihan's later acquiescence is of dubious lineage

Mia T, Moynihan Myths

READ MORE

Carpe Mañana: The clinton Terrorism Policy
('Can we kill 'em tomorrow?')

FOOL ME ONCE, SHAME ON YOU! FOOL ME TWICE, SHAME ON ME!

 

by Mia T, 04.18.06

 

 

 

"But sometimes we would have these debates where people would say, if I didn't take some military action this very day, people would look down their nose at America and think we were weak.  And I always thought of Senator Fulbright.... 

So anytime somebody said in my presence, "Hey, if you don't do this, people will think you're weak," I always asked the same question for eight years, Can we kill 'em tomorrow? 

I don't think we can bring 'em back tomorrow, but can we kill 'em tomorrow?  If we can kill them tomorrow, then we're not weak....

I learned that as a 20-year-old kid watching Bill Fulbright.  Listening."

bill clinton
Fulbright Prize address
April 12, 2006

Bill Clinton, the Sultan of Swing, gave an interesting speech last week, apropos foreign policy: "Anytime somebody said in my presidency, 'If you don't do this people will think you're weak,' I always asked the same question for eight years: 'Can we kill 'em tomorrow?' If we can kill 'em tomorrow, then we're not weak, and we might be wise enough to try to find an alternative way."

The trouble was tomorrow never came - from the first World Trade Center attack to Khobar Towers to the African embassy bombings to the USS Cole. Manana is not a policy. The Iranians are merely the latest to understand that.

Reason Enough To Act
BY MARK STEYN
The New York Sun
April 17, 2006

 

or the clintons to succeed, Bush must fail, which means America must lose THE WAR.

Make no mistake: The undermining of Bush and America is the number one clinton imperative.²

DEFINING DEVIANCY DOWN

The clintons typically prop themselves up by revising others down.³ Direct, upward revision of their own legacy is virtually impossible to pull off,⁴ given their wide-reaching unsavory renown.⁵

But the clintons' inflated sense of self causes them from time to time to dispense with rational thought and attempt to do just this; and so we get the clinton mañanas.

PURPOSEFUL FAILURE

First clinton claimed he got impeached on purpose. To save the Constitution, he said. Now he claims he failed to confront terrorism on purpose. Because we can kill 'em tomorrow, he says.

NOTE: The clintons did fail to confront terrorism on purpose, but not for the reason stated.⁵ (Moreover, contrary to clinton's absurd argument, the clintons' feckless inaction (and feckless action, for that matter,) were precisely the sign of weakness that emboldened bin Laden and al Qaeda.¹ Bin Laden told us so himself.

 

Lopez: In sum, how many times did Bill Clinton lose bin Laden?

 

Miniter: Here's a rundown. The Clinton administration:

1. Did not follow-up on the attempted bombing of Aden marines in Yemen.

2. Shut the CIA out of the 1993 WTC bombing investigation, hamstringing their effort to capture bin Laden.

3. Had Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a key bin Laden lieutenant, slip through their fingers in Qatar.

4. Did not militarily react to the al Qaeda bombing in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

5. Did not accept the Sudanese offer to turn bin Laden.

6. Did not follow-up on another offer from Sudan through a private back channel.

7. Objected to Northern Alliance efforts to assassinate bin Laden in Afghanistan.

8. Decided against using special forces to take down bin Laden in Afghanistan.

9. Did not take an opportunity to take into custody two al Qaeda operatives involved in the East African embassy bombings. In another little scoop, I am able to show that Sudan arrested these two terrorists and offered them to the FBI. The Clinton administration declined to pick them up and they were later allowed to return to Pakistan.

10. Ordered an ineffectual, token missile strike against a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory.

11. Clumsily tipped off Pakistani officials sympathetic to bin Laden before a planned missile strike against bin Laden on August 20, 1998. Bin Laden left the camp with only minutes to spare.

12-14. Three times, Clinton hesitated or deferred in ordering missile strikes against bin Laden in 1999 and 2000.

15. When they finally launched and armed the Predator spy drone plane, which captured amazing live video images of bin Laden, the Clinton administration no longer had military assets in place to strike the archterrorist.

16. Did not order a retaliatory strike on bin Laden for the murderous attack on the USS Cole.

READ MORE
FOOTNOTES

3.

THE FAILED, DYSFUNCTIONAL CLINTON PRESIDENCY
(DECONSTRUCTING CLINTON'S HOFSTRA SPEECH)
part1: The "Brinkley" Lie

by Mia T, 12.26.05



(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

 

ne would think that after bill clinton's shameless--pathetic, really--Hofstra apologia, Doris Kearns Goodwin and those 400 other hog-and-bow-tied-save-clinton retrograde-obsessing historiographers would finally get it. But then, we are talking leftist lobe here....

The speech, full of poses, poll-tested phrases and prevarication, was just another example of the clintons' utter contempt. For the people, for the presidents, for the presidency, for the country, for the Constitution... and, ultimately I suspect, for themselves.

This endeavor is the first in a series of essays with video that will attempt to deconstruct this very revealing speech.

The clintons' fundamental error: They are too arrogant and dim-witted to understand that the demagogic process in this fiberoptic age isn't about counting spun heads; it's about not discounting circumambient brains. (Did bill clinton really think Douglas Brinkley would let the "clinton greatness but for impeachment" lie stand? Is clinton delusional? Or just plain dumb?)

 

 

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2005

 

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.

"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

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)
 

 AFTERWORD:

ON CLINTON SMALLNESS--BRINKLEY MISSES THE POINT

THE FAILED, DYSFUNCTIONAL CLINTON PRESIDENCY
(DECONSTRUCTING CLINTON'S HOFSTRA SPEECH)
part1: The "Brinkley" Lie

 

by Mia T, 12.27.05

 

One of the American historians I most admire, Douglas Brinkley out there, sitting here, was quoted in the paper today as saying that I would be viewed as a great president except for the fact of the impeachment, which is just there.

bill clinton
Hofstra apologia
November 11, 2005

----------------------------------------------------------------------

clinton's ranking will likely get worse over time. Economic issues fade in importance. Moral issues presist and grow. (paraphrase)

Douglas Brinkley
February 2000
(discussing C-SPAN PRESIDENTS POLL)
Washington Journal

----------------------------------------------------------------------

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.)

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------

The term "great" is probably an overused term. There are only a few presidents who make that top tier: Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Franklin Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Thomas Jefferson, and a few others who might be there.

I don't think bill clinton ever reached that category.

One, it's hard if you're not a wartime president

Douglas Brinkley
Nov. 12, 2005
History News Network
Refuting clinton's Hofstra-apologia "Brinkley" lie

Note to Douglas Brinkley:
clinton WAS a wartime president. The problem is, he surrendered.

Preemptively.

You might say the clinton approach to The War on Terror was the perverse obverse of The Bush Doctrine.

or have some huge event.

Douglas Brinkley
ibid.

Note to Douglas Brinkley:
clinton had one almost immediately, which he summarily ignored, the first attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor, the 1993 WTC bombing.

Do you recall that he urged us to ignore the bombing, too? Ignore the first major Islamofascist terrorist attack on the continental United States?!

Did you know clinton never visited the site? (And he was only 15 minutes away mere days after the bombing. He chose, instead, to give some forgettable speech on --what else? -- the economy.)

 

Second, clinton is not known for something like Lyndon Johnson was -- The Civil Rights Act -- or even Theodore Roosevelt and conservation, or one big thing.

I think his successes were in welfare reform, economic discipline,trade pacts.

Douglas Brinkley
ibid.

Note to Douglas Brinkley:
Arguable. He was dragged kicking and screaming by the Republicans.

Those are achievements, but they're hard to get people queuing up a hundred years from now excited to see the "NAFTA Pen Under Glass."

Douglas Brinkley
ibid.

Note to Douglas Brinkley:
Great turn of phrase.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

The clintons continue to imperil virtually every sector of society, indeed, continue to imperil America and the world, with their exponentially increasing facility in manipulating electoral/policy matter and energy at ever smaller scales. Their "school uniforms" of the '90s became "nanotech uniforms" today; both are proxies for "fight terrorism," which the clintons have neither the stomach nor the know-how to do.

NANO-PRESIDENT
the danger of the unrelenting smallness of bill + hillary clinton
by Mia T, 7.31.05

----------------------------------------------------------------------

LEHRER: President Bush, your closing statement, sir.

PRESIDENT BUSH (audio): Three weeks from now--two weeks from tomorrow, America goes to the polls and you're going to have to decide who you want to lead this country ...

On foreign affairs, some think it's irrelevant. I believe it's not. We're living in an interconnected world...And if a crisis comes up, ask who has the judgment and the experience and, yes, the character to make the right decision?

And, lastly, the other night on character Governor Clinton said it's not the character of the president but the character of the presidency. I couldn't disagree more. Horace Greeley said the only thing that endures is character. And I think it was Justice Black who talked about great nations, like great men, must keep their word.

And so the question is, who will safeguard this nation, who will safeguard our people and our children? I need your support, I ask for your support. And may God bless the United States of America.

(Applause)

 

ouglas Brinkley totally misses the point of clinton smallness.

The clinton presidency was small not because of absence of opportunity, but rather because of absence of courage, vision, selflessness, real intelligence and a moral core.

The endless parade of clinton small was required to fill the void created by an absence of the big stuff -- big stuff like "fighting terrorism."

[freema]

Size doesn't matter, it only matter how you're hung, Bill.

[Mia T]

CORRECTION: Make that "emboldened."

"Bin Laden thought so and was emboldened by it. He told us so, himself.²"

[Mia T]

I don't know what to say except thanx for your support, beyond the sea. :)

[Mia T]

thank you :)

[Mia T]

;)
two double entendres in one sentence bump

[Mia T]

;)

[Mia T]

great imagery, BTW.

[YaYa123]

I LOVE the portrait!! It's soooooooooooooooo Clinton.

Check it out, Nelson Shanks
http://www.nelsonshanks.com/index.htm

has painted many of the world's movers and shakers, so no wonder Clinton wanted to be in that number.Clinton just didn't know Shanks would paint exactly what he saw, a no class, rakish con man, still on the take, still on the make. (I think he's holding his jacket open for easy access to his pants zipper!)

I bet Shanks was recommended by Beth Dozoretz. She's in the Shanks gallery too, in what looks like an..after the White House party stupor..
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/time/1999/06/07/democrats.html

[Mia T]

excellent take!

I had noticed the Beth Dozoretz portrait at Shanks' website. That should have provided a clue for clinton. ;)

[JustPiper]

One of our local radio hosts said he objected to tongue piercing and was called on it by a liberal because he compared it Clinton's 'zipper'

[Gail Wynand]

Something of the emperor’s new clothes seems to surround every circumstance of this man’s life.

Appropriately, he was (self) anointed as the standard bearer of a generation of leftists whose highest value was that the ends justifies their means.

No one of substance was going to run against G.W. Bush in his second term election because a) only a year before the election he had a 70% approval rating; and b) as things developed Bush would have been unbeatable in a fair fight by anyone even after his poll numbers dropped, and it was only the interference of Ross Perot, that allowed a plurality of the misled and uninformed to eject Bush from a second term after a lackluster campaign on his part.

Into this void, characteristically audaciously, and effectively unchallenged, strode, Clinton the ambitious unprincipled narcissist with his psuedo-conscience and theorist, Hillary, plotting strategy, Dr Strangelovelike... Thus, by default, he, Bill, became at a critical time the leader of the baby boom left which gravitated to excused and rejoiced in his "pragmatism". In the first instance of discovery of this ill considered selection, howver, the CBS propaganda machine, had to help the Clintons escape and evade Jennifer Flowers harbinger melody of truth that character is future. Subsequent events proved Jennifer, not CBS, had the better insight.

At each progressively disgusting revelation since,. Paula, Monica, Kathleen, and Anita, amoung (many) others, the left squirmed uncomforatably yet quickly reacted with an unwavering calculus that if their standard bearer falls, their plurality hedgmony, facilitated on leftist media/university agenda controlling predominance, will fall with him. An ultimate sense of self-survival then, is the driving force behind the increasingly tragi-comic “legacy management” of Clinton’s role in American history.

From the corruptly stacked deck of the 9/11 Commission, with the quilty judging the innocent, to the left's visceral antipathy to allowing Bush Jr. to be ‘successful” at anything, one senses the left is desperate for Clinton to have a heart attack or otherwise fade away before his next round of outspoken revelations triggers the inevitable and unstoppable flood of ridicule and antipathy that Clinton, and they, deserve.

Desperation amoung the left is at an apex because they know they have two and a half years in which to keep the lid on the reality of Bill Clinton’s character and executive failures, while trying to leverage/manage/manipulate the ascension of H.R Clinton to the white house in, what this generation of the left obviously believes, may be its last best hope to recover and weild the levers of power in fullfilment of their collective adolescent fantasies of superiority and absolute power. (Not to mention that HRC herself, is uniquely unqualified for political leadership in a free country).

Ultimately, the truth about Bill Clinton is that he doesn’t matter. Whether America recovers from his failures and omissions as a President, are a matter of the choices subsequently made by the nations citizens and elected representatives. Clearly the world would have been far better off if Bush Sr. had served out a second term, but in the end, Clinton’s legacy consists entirely of mistakes, omissions and transgressions so numerous and so distasteful, no one is really interested in trying to build a complete catalogue. He continues to have an army of defenders and apologists only because the baby boom left knows that his fraud is their fraud, that his corruption is their corruption and that his infinite emptiness is linked, not merely by association, but by a profound inner nature and common cause, with their own original and continuing sin, that of being confirmed worshipers in the church of envy, to which all collectivists devotedly ascribe due to their well taken sense of inferiority, inadequacy and perversion. They chose their leader far more for this essential moral and psychic self identification than they could have realized.

America's left, particularly its leftist media, like their leader Clinton, has grown more and more transparent in its unprincipled quest for power at any cost and focus on damaging its opponents irrespective of consequences. One senses the day is coming, as it did in the Soviet Union Cold War, when this political wall of tyranny will fall as well.

[AZLiberty]

Wow! When's your book coming out?

[Mia T]

Very insightful, as usual. Thanx. :)

I think very few on the left support a clinton sequel. Much of the smart money and virtually all the party loyalists can see the writing on the wall: hillary clinton is a dud. I would be surprised if multiple coups were not in the works.

SEX, LIES AND SOCK PUPPETS:
HOW THE CLINTONS ARE HANDLING THE HILLARY DUD FACTOR ₄


THREE WOMEN AND A FUNERAL:
HOW THE CLINTONS ARE HANDLING THE HILLARY DUD FACTOR ₃


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

[Mia T]

bump!

[Mia T]

You are so right.This portrait, in the end, mirrors clinton precisely.
It succeeds precisely because and how it fails.

[hellinahandcart]

When I looked at the portrait originally, I thought, "All he needs is a cape and a bolero jacket."

if you really look at the size of the presidents' portraits, there are [sic] an inverse relationship to their importance to the country and American history.

Then I'm guessing that Clinton's portrait must be huge.

[Mia T]

Then I'm guessing that Clinton's portrait must be huge.

It is. I think it's about 8.5 ft, which is almost--but not quite--sufficient to contain his inflated view of himself. ;)

[Mia T]

When I looked at the portrait originally, I thought, "All he needs is a cape and a bolero jacket."

It was very perceptive of you. Olé. ;)

[Wolverine]

bump