BREAKING! (video)-CLINTON IS A PAID AGENT OF THE CROWN PRINCE OF DUBAI: Dick Morris

O'Reilly Factor | 3.03.06 | Mia T

[Wolverine]

BUMP!

Bookmarked this page. E-mail the video of Dick Morris to everyone. http://www.deletehillary.com/clinton-dubai.swf

BUMP!

Bookmarked this page. E-mail the video of Dick Morris to everyone. http://www.deletehillary.com/clinton-dubai.swf

[muawiyah]

The point about Hinduism is very simple. At one time Greater India was predominantly Buddhist. Then, Hinduism made a resurgence. Shortly after they'd taken over almost all the temples (and temple taxes), and re-established the dominance of Hindu gurus everywhere, the Moslems came in.

There were areas in Greater India where the people fought the Moslems. There were other areas where they didn't. And then there were rather inaccessible areas that'd not converted to Hinduism from Buddhism, and the Moslems didn't succeed in conquering them.

It really isn't surprising Buddhist history is not well known in this country.

[muawiyah]

Christianity, where it had penetrated Afghanistan, was also wiped out by Buddhist conquerers from Mongolia.

Sure, there were already Buddhists there from the good old days ~ they were "everywhere" after all.

But the old timers, and adherents from other religions, had to adopt the forms and portions of the sacred Buddhist scriptures the Mongols preferred.

Yes, there are different kinds of Buddhism.

Your neighborhood Afghan store undoubtedly carries a model mosque for the home. It has 4 minarets. Pop their tops and you can put candles in there ~ meets all kinds of requirements for many religions (although not, apparently Islam). The roof has a heavy plate metal dish. Holy water, incense, and so forth, may be placed in the dish for use during prayers. And, if this is a high quality mosque, you hit that dish with a little clapper and it'll give you a very nice tone reminescent of that found in a Buddhist temple.

And finally, if you check the door post, there's a mezuzah on it.

This mosque makes it possible for the residents of any home in the land to demonstrate his faithful adherence to any religion the new king's armed men wish.

[TigersEye]

The point about Hinduism is very simple. At one time Greater India was predominantly Buddhist. Then, Hinduism made a resurgence.

Pure fiction. Buddhists never came anywhere close to outnumbering Hindus in India.

It really isn't surprising Buddhist history is not well known in this country.

Not when people like you blow pure bull smoke about it. It is a fact that Buddhism does not convert or prosyletize. I also doubt that Hindus ever convert anyone. Ever hear of the caste system?

[TigersEye]

Christianity, where it had penetrated Afghanistan, was also wiped out by Buddhist conquerers from Mongolia.

Buddhist conquerers? LOL Apparently that totally inaccurate characterisation is possible by completely ignoring the contradictory history provided to you in my links.

[Mia T]

Common sense and the survival instinct will trump arcane explanations every time.--me

I'm not so sure about that--you

 

Empirical results--the (thus far) intractable 83%--supports my hypothesis.

---

...not when the specter of 'clinton-the sequel' is looming large.--me

That's a specter that holds no fear for me. She doesn't have a ghost of a chance.--you

In a rationally based, relatively uncorrupted election devoid of factors that split the right ,(e.g., a 'Perot' candidate, a divisive issue, a GOP candidate insufficiently conservative for the purist), I agree. (In fact, I've written about it.) But that is asking a lot of an election with a clinton on the ballot; it could very well be a crapshoot.

---

You don't relinquish your only strong suit to the democrats.--me



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..... It comes down to priorities. A solid war footing or re-election prospects--you

 

Perhaps you are missing the central premise of my argument, (which is unstated): Winning the War on Terror trumps all else.

Perceptions translate into votes. If the voter perceives the left as stronger on national security, we will lose elections. If we lose elections, the prosecution of this war will be in the hands of the very people who are its proximate cause.

BTW, I'm not arguing for 'pandering.' I'm questioning the quality of the analysis that produced this mess. In my view, the damage has already been done. Pandering cannot undo the damage.

When uncharted territory of asymmetric netherworlds is the battlefield, when the enemy is brutal, subhuman and not detered by MAD, the threat of global conflagration is real.

I've always secretly concluded--feared-- that because of this, mass genocide will necessarily be the endgame; it will be either preemptive to limit the death of innocents, or defensive when we are staring annihilation in the face.

The strategic importance of Dubai in fact and as a forward-thinking muslim prototype is precisely why Bush should never have allowed this issue to develop in the first place. I say this for three reasons:

1. The public cannot be moved on this one. The reaction is at gut level. Instinctive. When the survival mechanism kicks in, no amount of reasoned argument will work. Common sense and the survival instinct will trump arcane explanations every time. It is a lose-lose for the GOP.
   
2. Bush is spending political capital he doesn't even have on a sure loser even as he bets the farm. His only remaining strong suit is now in play. You don't want to do this anytime, and certainly not post-9/11, not in an election year, not when the specter of 'clinton-the sequel' is looming large.
   
3. Because American reaction was predictable to a certainty, the situation should have been avoided even if minds could be changed because once America reacts this way in front of the world, Dubai loses face irrespective of the final outcome.

I repeat: What could Bush have been thinking? Was he thinking at all?

[TigersEye]

You hold well reasoned positions. I do see your premise. I think this Republican opposition to the DPW deal is for cheap political points and is leading to the end of the Bush presidency and the WOT. And quite likely the demise of R prospects in Nov. I don't see them as helping themselves. IMO Duncan Hunter, Frist et al have just shot all of that down. Even if DPW doesn't get the deal now.

The President doesn't really need p. capital now that he's through electioneering. He can push anything he wants, in any direction he wants as hard as he wants to. I'm trying real hard to think why he would feel beholden to the GOP at this point. They've once again shown their lack of spine and vision.

[muawiyah]

Your friends over in Wikipedia try to evade the obvious by saying "the cause of the decline of Buddhism in India is in dispute".

Your best bet in this is to accept the Indian point of view completely, and that is that there was not, in ancient times, any such thing as Buddhism ~ just another branch of Hinduism.

Which, of course, begs the question of what was going on in the 5th and 6th century that required such militant action on the part of the Hindus.

[Mia T]

If he's determined to win the WOT, and I believe he is, then he must support the GOP. To do any less would be to hand over power to the Ds and victory to the terrorists.

As for the lack of spine and vision in DC, the professional pol is the problem. We've got to replace him with the citizen-politician.

[Mia T]

DUBAI-ITIES:
HILLARY 'KNOWNOTHING VICTIM' CLINTON STRIKES AGAIN

[TigersEye]

I agree completely with your second statement but I guess I'm at odds with the first.

In my way of thinking the party should support the President in a time of war. Of course the President should not be at odds with his party but on this very issue it is the Pres. who took the lead, he's right, it's a small-potatoes issue, he's fighting an obviously hostile press, he's fighting a hostile, deceitful and hateful opposition party and he is putting up with a lot of recalcitrant self-interested party hacks in his own party.

Could Pres. Bush have done more than he did? Who in hindsight can't think of things they would have done? Should he have been more serious about the WOT? If he hasn't been serious then I guess I don't know what serious is. I am having trouble thinking of one other pol who has shown a steadfast commitment to the WOT by standing up, often, and defending our efforts, forces and the necessity of it. Oh yeah. Joe Lieberman.

Bottom line? Like it or not this war is all but over in spirit. No President has ever had enough capital to prosecute a war with no support. I don't see much of that left. Maybe the Senate should have an investigation on that!?

[TigersEye]

Your friends over in Wikipedia try to evade the obvious by saying "the cause of the decline of Buddhism in India is in dispute".

Wow! You really go out of your way to avoid facts, accuracy and substance. Not one of my five links was from Wikipedia.

The decline of Buddhism is not in dispute here. The Muslim conquest of India nearly wiped it out completely. I'm sure that Buddhists and Hindus alike found what opportunities they could to rectify that. Who could blame them? No sane religion is a suicide pact.

[Mia T]

I agree completely with your second statement but I guess I'm at odds with the first.

In my way of thinking the party should support the President in a time of war. Of course the President should not be at odds with his party but on this very issue it is the Pres. who took the lead, he's right, it's a small-potatoes issue, he's fighting an obviously hostile press, he's fighting a hostile, deceitful and hateful opposition party and he is putting up with a lot of recalcitrant self-interested party hacks in his own party.

Could Pres. Bush have done more than he did? Who in hindsight can't think of things they would have done? Should he have been more serious about the WOT? If he hasn't been serious then I guess I don't know what serious is. I am having trouble thinking of one other pol who has shown a steadfast commitment to the WOT by standing up, often, and defending our efforts, forces and the necessity of it. Oh yeah. Joe Lieberman.

Bottom line? Like it or not this war is all but over in spirit. No President has ever had enough capital to prosecute a war with no support. I don't see much of that left. Maybe the Senate should have an investigation on that!?--TigersEye

My criticism of the ports deal has nothing to do with hindsight. Just the opposite. My point is that the dangers for the country, the dangers for the GOP, the dangers for Bush, were self-evident.

And that goes to my second point. Supporting the GOP does not necessary mean yielding leadership. Bush must realize that to win this war, the Ds--and certainly the clintons--must not regain power. (Thus, he does need 'political capital now," he must not "be through with electioneering." He must have the courage to identify and defeat the enemy in our midst. (Bush has little support today primarily because he failed to do this.)

The ports deal uproar is really not about trade. Survival is the undeniable subtext, which means instinct and common sense rule.

Common sense tells us that there are so many layers, so many variables, no one can possibly define--much less control--all possible risks.

Common sense tells us that dubious (no pun intended) characters and countries involved in vital infrastructure increase risk by definition.

(If one listened closely to Rush Limbaugh yesterday, one would have heard him say that the ports deal doesn't increase risk appreciably. He did not say the ports deal is without increased risk.)

That the usual corrupt, self-serving clintonoid suspects (clinton, clinton, Albright, Bill Cohen, Vernon Jordan) are in on the action--that they are circling the deal like vultures--should give us pause....

DUBAI-ITIES:
HILLARY 'KNOWNOTHING VICTIM' CLINTON STRIKES AGAIN

[Mia T]

I'm surprised I agree with... Hillary!--Captainpaintball

Don't
take
hillary's
opposition
to the
ports
deal
on
face
value.

We all
know
who the
bagman is
in
this
--uh--
relationship.

Sen. Hillary... has emerged as a leading voice in opposition to the deal, saying, "Our port security is too important to place in the hands of foreign governments."... This is more than a security problem, she says - it's "a larger problem" of ceding "some of our fiscal sovereignty."

... Hubby Bill, on the other hand, supports Dubai. Big time.

He not only supports it, he's even been advising the company on the sly on how to get around the opposition of senators like - well, Hillary.

Better still, he reportedly tried to get Dubai Ports World to hire his former mouthpiece, Joe Lockhart, as its new spokesman in Washington.

... Actually, Bill's been a big fan of Dubai for some time now.

It goes back to when that government - which actually owns Dubai Ports World - kicked in very big bucks indeed to his presidential library.

Since 2002, it's been paying him for speeches there - at $300,000 a pop.

Talk about having your cake and eating it, too: Despite his support for the company, the former prez says his wife and other critics have a legitimate beef.

This neat little arrangement keeps the Clintons covered on all sides of the issue. And it helps tuck a little boodle in the family piggy bank, too.

But then, that's the way the Clintons operate. One hand washes the other, and all that matters is advancing the Clinton self-interest.

Fiscally.

And politically.

The legendary Tammany Hall figure George Washington Plunkitt used to put it like this: "I seen my opportunities, and I took 'em."

Bill 'n Hill, too.

EXCERPT
'CLINTON VS. CLINTON' INC.
Editorial
March 4, 2006
New York Post

[Mia T]

fyi