|
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
I think a female president's husband would be referred to as "First Gentleman"
In Bill's case I think First Douche Bag would fit batter.
The clintons' little game is sui generis. This thing goes way beyond standard DC conflict of interest, both in the payoff and in the global implications.
My God, even crooked Russian Mafiya men are more honest than this.
Probably both. Slavery is still covertly, sometimes not so covertly, in Arab and other Muslim lands. Especially white slavery, but then Billy Jeff isn't picky as to color anyway. He doesn't seem to very picky with regards to other atributes either. AFAIK, his only requirement is female, at least I think that's a requirement for him. Yah Never know though.
agree 100%. With Wife as senator he just saddled her for an ethics investigation.
They'll change their tune - but it won't matter. The MSM won't notice...
agree 100%. With Wife as senator he just saddled her for an ethics investigation.
What can we here on FR do to see that happen ?
If one is careful to distinguish a statement of fact from a statement of opinion, he's pretty accurate, with his facts. His opinions OTOH, are usually a POS.
Any Chappaqua chatter on this?
That's showing me! Just scoop up your marbles and go home! Sorry if I ruined your day by disagreeing with you.
bttt
thx :)
contact Drudge, and keep the story on FR. Do google searches on Clinton publically commenting on dubai. Search to see if Hillary has quotes supporting it. connect the dots.
bttt
thxx :)
I'm really surprised more Freepers are not aware of the place of militant, conquering Buddhism in the course of human history.
I do know something about Buddhist history as concerns Tibet. Tibet conquered much of China (that's how Mongolia came by their Buddhism) a lot of India and was moving west through Afghanistan which was scaring the bejeebers out of the Arabs further west. It was achieved by Songsten Gampo's rapidity, ruthlessness and efficiency. An efficiency achieved by immediately patriating the conquered and making them paid soldiers and workers. All the conquered were citizens. But he had no interest in spreading Buddhism.
As far as forcing Buddhism on the conquered that's not possible. Buddhism doesn't work if forced on someone. Period. First of all non- proselytizing is one of the first and most strongly impressed teachings. If a would-be student can't accept that it isn't possible to take the first step on the path. Nothing will happen for them. It simply cannot be taught by force and without the teaching there is no practice and since there's nothing to believe in it is all about practice.
Songsten Gampo was Buddhist but that was very early and Buddhism was a very small influence then. It was to be in his grandson's time that the well know "dawning of the dharma" occurred. Songsten did not impose the dharma even on Tibetans as the native shamanic religion of Bon was still prevalent and hostile to Buddhism.
I also know that the tantric Buddhism introduced to Mongolia from Tibet must have occurred in his grandson's time.
I would never tell you that there have never been militant Buddhist sects, most monasteries served as forts or castles in their region, but their militarism was self defensive in nature. The conflicts came more from the secular interests of local warlords and very seldom as an imposition of religious doctrine. From a Buddhist perspective there's just no point in it.
The reason your first comment struck me as funny was that you said something about Buddhism kicking around the state and then you come back and speak of theocracies. Since, in a theocracy, the religion is the state it made a humorous mental picture of someone trying to kick themselves. I figured you'd say Tibet and I already had a picture of the Dalai Lama doing that. What a hoot!
That may keep you out of trouble.
P.S., they don't go in your mouth.
Welcome! :-)
:)
Pretty.
Trying for a segue here: Have the clintons lost their marbles? (Did they ever have them to lose?)
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.