Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Wife's self-serving war oscillations reprise of husband's self-serving oscillating ersatz presidency
The New York Times ^ | 3.7.03 | Mia T

Posted on 03/07/2003 4:29:20 AM PST by Mia T

 

The wife's self-serving war oscillations are really nothing more than a reprise of the self-serving oscillating ersatz presidency of the husband (Why we cannot afford another clinton. . .)

THE award for the most indefinite position has to go to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. When her press secretary, Philippe Reines, was asked her position, he sent a transcript of Mrs. Clinton's remarks last Friday on CNN and a news account of her comments on Monday during a visit to Watervliet, N.Y. (It seems that the senator, still a bit first ladylike, is reluctant to pick up the phone.)

She said on CNN that the president "made the right decision to go back to the United Nations" and suggested that the country "take a deep breath, deal with Iraq if we have to, understand exactly what we've gotten ourselves into, because in the briefings I've received, there's a lot of unknowables."

In Watervliet, the senator said, "This is a very delicate balancing act." And, "I fully support the policy of disarming Saddam Hussein." She also urged the administration "to try to enlist more support."

A skeptic might conclude that Mrs. Clinton wants to appeal to her antiwar constituents in New York now, and to a broader base later -- if she runs for president. Or maybe she remains conflicted.

March 6, 2003, NYT, Hawks, Doves and a Flock on the Line, JOYCE PURNICK

hillary clinton Covertly Hedges Her Bets on the War While Overtly Betting Everything on the Virtual Certainty--Another Terrorist Attack
Does she support the war or doesn't she?
(And why won't the 4th Estate finally VET this dangerous, repugnant fraud, anyway?)

 

by Mia T, 2.28.03

 

After voting in favor of the war with Iraq right before the November elections, Sen. Hillary Clinton never had another kind word to say for the war. Just a few weeks ago, Sen. Clinton gave an interview on Irish TV in which she said she opposed precipitous action against Iraq. She said Bush should give the U.N. weapons inspectors more time.

Hillary did not object to precipitous action against Iraq when her husband bombed it on the day of his scheduled impeachment. President Clinton attacked Saddam Hussein without first asking approval from the United Nations, the U.S. Congress or even France. But now we have a president who wants to attack Iraq for purposes of national security rather than his own personal interests, and Hillary thinks he's being rash. President Bush has gotten a war resolution from Congress, yet another U.N. Security Council resolution, and we've been talking about this war for 14 months. But he's being precipitous...

Now here we are, more than four years later, Saddam still hasn't complied with U.N. resolutions, and America has been attacked by Islamic crazies &endash; and these same Democrats think Bush is acting impulsively. Democrats are always hawks in the off-season. They're all for war, provided it has nothing to do with America's security.

No one in the United States saw Hillary's interview on Irish TV, so she is now secretly on the record against the war, which will come in handy if the war goes badly. But if the war goes well, she is also officially on the record as being for the war, allowing the New York Times to call her a "moderate."

Aren't we entitled to ask: Does she support the war or doesn't she?...

Hillary hasn't shied away from talking about the war on terrorism. She has repeatedly bashed Bush for not doing enough to protect the country from another terrorist attack...

Hillary's idea for "Homeland Security" is a federal program to fund local police and fire departments. I've noticed that feminists have become big fans of firemen since 9-11. Anti-war activist Susan Sarandon was in a play directed by her anti-war partner, Tim Robbins, titled "The Guys," about New York City firemen after the terrorist attack. Renowned feminist harpy Anna Quindlen has been on television gushing that "firefighters" are "aces." And Hillary's anti-terrorist initiative is federally funded firemen.

I suppose we've made real progress when feminists are defending firemen rather than suing them. Until Sept. 11, feminists hated no group of people more than firemen and policemen. Remember that? These were reviled white men shutting out women and minorities through their quote-unquote standards, which liberals said were a wily subterfuge to keep 5-foot-2-inch former gymnasts out of fire departments.

It is blatant phoniness for these women to pretend they like firemen. Rich feminists have as much in common culturally with firemen as I do with sumo wrestlers. They hate the way firemen talk, they hate their beer, they hate their moral and cultural sensibilities &endash; including sexist views about sending girls into burning buildings. Sarandon is such a blue-collar-type, she made a movie about two women, "Thelma & Louise," who go around terrorizing males. That's their fantasy.

Fawning over firemen is how feminists make-believe they're patriotic. They hate the military but see firemen as gentle warriors who don't kill anybody. While leering over the prospect of a military catastrophe in Iraq, Hillary pals around with cops and firemen. When the war starts, Sarandon will have to make love to a fireman publicly to maintain her faux patriotism. The name of this play ought to be "The Guise."

Firemen beware! | Thursday, February 27, 2003 | Ann Coulter

 

Just as it is not surprising that hillary clinton would covertly hedge her bets on the war, it is not surprising that she would bash Bush on homeland security openly, loudly and often.

Both logic and empirical evidence inform us that perfect homeland security is unattainable, especially post-9/11 in a country undermined by left-wing theater and a clintonized democratic party. The Bush Administration and terrorism experts tell us that another terrorist attack is a virtual certainty.

Thus, we have hillary clinton bashing Bush on homeland security openly, loudly and often. Vulnerability will always smoke out the opportunistic, cowardly thug.

THE INTERMINABLE clintons
It's time to take out the trash...
A Senate en passant capture is THE MOVE...

NEW AUDIO! Hear the Bill Bennett (PARDONGATE) epilogue .

 

 

hillary clinton A SECURITY RISK: Removal Calls Begin

 

THE UNSTATED MESSAGE OF THE POWELL EVIDENCE

 

Another mistaken 'conceptzia'
WHY AMERICA (& THE WORLD) CANNOT SURVIVE ANOTHER CLINTON
(INDEED, IT IS NOT CLEAR THAT WE ARE GOING TO SURVIVE THE FIRST ONE,)

 

Utter-Failure clintons Concoct Left-Wing-Radio Scheme FIG LEAF
Flower Children Fall for the 2 Self-Evident Thugs & Opportunists Yet Again
(Liberals have always had problems figuring out causation)

 

 

THE CLINTONS--AMERICA'S BIGGEST BLUNDER: Hear Bush 41 Warn Us--October 19, 1992

 

How to get rid of the clintons in 3 easy steps

 

the logic of pathologic self-interest

Mrs. clinton's REAL virtual office -- 02.28.03 update



TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections; US: Arkansas; US: New York; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: abuseofpower; billclinton; clinton911; clintonarrogance; clintondemagoguery; clintonfailure; clintonmegalomania; clintonrapes; clintonselfserving; clintonspin; hillaryclinton; homelandsecurity; iraq; lauriemylroie; saddam; waronterror
 

Another mistaken 'conceptzia'
[WHY WE CANNOT AFFORD ANOTHER CLINTON]

 

by Laurie Mylroie
Jerusalem Post
December 4, 2002

The Clinton administration "spun" America's terrorist problem when it re-emerged in February 1993, with the bombing of the World Trade Center, one month into Bill Clinton's first term in office. New York FBI believed that was a "false flag" operation run by Iraq, working with and hiding behind Islamic militants.

But Clinton did not want to hear it (he thought he took care of the problem slyly if the FBI was correct when he hit Iraqi intelligence headquarters several months later). So his administration claimed a new terrorism had emerged, consisting of "loose networks" of Islamic militants, unsupported by states.

 

Al-Qaida has struck again, or so it seems. "A virtual enemy," as a Clinton administration official describes it, al-Qaida is everywhere and anywhere. It is no less a threat than it was a year ago, according to CIA director George Tenet although the Taliban are defeated; al-Qaida's leadership is dead or on the run; and more than 3,000 others have been detained. "You see it in Bali. You see it in Kuwait," Tenet affirmed. And now, presumably, we saw it in Mombasa.

US government officials recently stated that missiles shot at an Israeli passenger plane were linked to a failed al-Qaida attack on an American fighter jet in Saudi Arabia. But does this idea that al-Qaida is acting alone really make sense? Not at all.

The Clinton administration "spun" America's terrorist problem when it re-emerged in February 1993, with the bombing of the World Trade Center, one month into Bill Clinton's first term in office. New York FBI believed that was a "false flag" operation run by Iraq, working with and hiding behind Islamic militants.

But Clinton did not want to hear it (he thought he took care of the problem slyly if the FBI was correct when he hit Iraqi intelligence headquarters several months later). So his administration claimed a new terrorism had emerged, consisting of "loose networks" of Islamic militants, unsupported by states.

Israel might have recognized this for the dangerous misconception it was, were it not for the unrealistic expectations that set in regarding the "peace process" when Yitzhak Rabin was prime minister. Already then, a new "conceptzia" had begun to blur Western vision.

"Conceptzia" was the term coined by the Agranat Commission to describe the intelligence failure that led to the surprise of the Yom Kippur War. As a friend at Tel Aviv University explained, "It is much more than a mistake." It is a fundamentally flawed understanding of events that prevents one from seeing what is before his eyes.

The new conceptzia is easy to explain. By the mid-1990s, the notion had taken hold that the US had decisively defeated Iraq in 1991 (in fact, many, including prime minister Yitzhak Shamir, were appalled when the US ended the war with Saddam in power).

Then following Iraq's defeat, so the conceptzia goes, a new threat emerged the spread of Islamic militants after the 1992 collapse of the communist regime in Afghanistan. Thus, the two threats, Iraq and the spread of Islamic militancy, are separated in time and space.

BUT THE Gulf War never really ended. The two phenomena the ongoing war with Iraq and the spread of Islamic militancy existed at the same time, the 1990s, and in the same space, the Sunni Muslim Middle East. Did they merge?

That is an important question, which almost no one asks. But it would seem they did. Consider Egypt, a key member of the anti-Iraq coalition. Without Egyptian backing, the Arab League would never have voted to support Iraq's ouster from Kuwait, as it did in August 1990.

Egypt seemed to have beaten back its post-Afghanistan Islamic challenge by 1997. On November 17, however, more foreign tourists were killed in one day in an attack at Luxor than were killed during Egypt's entire post-Afghan Islamic insurgency.

The attack occurred as the first crisis over UNSCOM ended. More crises would follow, as Saddam deliberately moved to end weapons inspections. When the next crisis began in early 1998, Egypt, through the Arab League, took a strong position that it not be resolved by force. No major terrorist attack has occurred in Egypt since.

What happened at Luxor? If Iraqi intelligence joins with an indigenous militant group, isn't the ensuing attack likely to be far more lethal than what that group might do on its own? Of course. Recently, I discussed this with the distinguished historian Bernard Lewis, who concurred. The subtle hints that Iraq was involved in Luxor were missed by those who jumped to the conclusion the militants had struck again, but not by the Egyptians.

A major debate rages in Washington as to whether Iraq supports al-Qaida. As Washington Post columnist Jim Hoagland wrote, "The links become clear with a little digging. You miss them only if you have a strong need not to know." The attacks on tourists in Bali and Mombasa come as momentum builds for war with Iraq. As one US official, part of the new Bush team, noted, their main purpose is "to divert us from the war on Iraq.... Terrorism is an instrument of state, not a wildcat NGO."
The conceptzia needs urgent reexamination. If Israel accepts and endorses an erroneous explanation for this terrorism, that will only increase the risk more will follow.

Author and Expert on Saddam Hussein to Deliver 1998-99 Roemer Memorial Lecture on World Affairs

 

For Immediate Release -- September 23, 1998

GENESEO, N.Y. -- Dr. Laurie Mylroie, Senior Associate of the Foreign Policy Research Institute, will deliver SUNY Geneseo's 1998-99 Roemer Memorial Lecture on World Affairs on Thursday, Oct. 8 in the college's Alice Austin Theater. The lecture, titled "Saddam Hussein's Unfinished War," will begin at 12:45 p.m.

Dr. Mylroi holds a bachelor's degree from Cornell University and MA and Ph.D. degrees in political science from Harvard University. In addition to her affiliation with the Foreign Policy Research Institute, Dr. Mylroi publishes Iraq News and has authored several books, monographs and articles on Saddam Hussein, Iraq and the Middle East. She is co-author of "Saddam Hussein and the Crisis in the Gulf" (Random House, 1990), a number one best-selling book in the U.S. which has been translated into 13 languages. Her articles have appeared in The Atlantic Monthly, Commentary, The National Interest, The New Republic and Newsweek, as well as The New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post.

Mylroi has held faculty positions at Harvard University and the United States Naval War College.

Among her many experiences, Mylroi has been a Senior Fulbright Research Fellow at Tel Aviv University, a Fellow of American Professors for Peace in the Middle East, advisor on Iraq policy to the 1992 Clinton presidential campaign and a consultant to ABC News.

The Roemer Lecture Series was endowed by the late Dr. Spencer J. Roemer in honor of his brother, Kenneth, to bring issues of world affairs to Geneseo's undergraduates.

The lecture and reception to follow are free and open to the public.

 


THE CLINTONS' UTTER FAILURE: 

"Study of Revenge" by Laurie Mylroie 

"Study of Revenge" is, first of all, the story of the Trade Center bombing. Mylroie contends that the mastermind behind the bombing was an Iraqi intelligence agent, Ramzi Yousef, who escaped and left behind the Muslim fundamentalists who participated in the plot and were meant to be caught.

She argues that the Clinton administration's mishandling of the event led to the emergence of a fraudulent and dangerous theory about Middle East terrorism--that it is no longer primarily state-sponsored but is carried out by individuals or "loose networks." The misunderstanding is particularly dangerous in light of the prospects for biological terrorism.

 

 

Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense
"...argues powerfully that the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing was actually an agent of Iraqi intelligence."

James M. Fox, Former Director, New York FBI Office
Mylroie's book, Study of Revenge, is one of the most comprehensive and best-researched reviews of the bombing investigation.

Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, 1981-1985
"Laurie Mylroie understands that what we do not yet know about terrorism, crime, and war may be more important..." --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.
 

"Study of Revenge," the sequel to the New York Times best-seller "Saddam Hussein and the Crisis in the Gulf," co-authored by Laurie Mylroie and Judith Miller, exposes the threat Saddam Hussein still poses to Americans. 

The Gulf War never ended for Saddam Hussein. He had already recovered sufficiently by 1993 to undertake a campaign of terror, of which only the first two acts were planned in advance: the January shootings outside CIA headquarters in Virginia and the February bombing of one tower of the World Trade Center in New York, in an attempt to topple it against its twin. 

"Study of Revenge" is, first of all, the story of the Trade Center bombing. Mylroie contends that the mastermind behind the bombing was an Iraqi intelligence agent, Ramzi Yousef, who escaped and left behind the Muslim fundamentalists who participated in the plot and were meant to be caught. She argues that the Clinton administration's mishandling of the event led to the emergence of a fraudulent and dangerous theory about Middle East terrorism--that it is no longer primarily state-sponsored but is carried out by individuals or "loose networks." The misunderstanding is particularly dangerous in light of the prospects for biological terrorism. 

In addition to her account of events around the bombing, Mylroie describes how Saddam Hussein has steadily regained strength and eroded the system of postwar constraints that were supposed to hold him in check. She suggests that because of the proscribed unconventional-weapons capabilities Saddam retained in violation of the Gulf War cease-fire--and without the check of U.N. weapons inspectors--he is far more dangerous than is generally recognized. 

Mylroie bases her case on a meticulous analysis of the government's evidence in the terrorism trials that followed the Trade Center bombing. Her book is written as a detective story, and the reader is invited to conduct the investigation into state sponsorship of the terrorism that the U.S. government failed to conduct.

Book Info
Engages the reader in a gripping examination of the evidence regarding Ramzi Yousef and his terrorism. Softcover. --This text refers to the Paperback edition.

 

 

THE CLINTONS' UTTER FAILURE REALIZED:

 

"The War Against America: Saddam Hussein and the World Trade Center Attacks: A Study of Revenge"--by Laurie Mylroie, R. James Woolsey

The destruction of the twin towers of the World Trade Center and the attack on the Pentagon -- all within one hour on September 11, 2001 -- demonstrated America's shocking vulnerability to terrorism.

Yet terror had already emerged on America's shores eight years earlier, when the mysterious terrorist mastermind, Ramzi Yousef (arrested after a botched attempt to down a dozen U.S. airlines) bombed the World Trade Center in an attempt to fell the buildings...

Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense
"...argues powerfully that the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing was actually an agent of Iraqi intelligence." --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.

Richard N. Perle, Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy, 1981-1987
"Move over, Tom Clancy; Laurie Mylroie has written the year's thriller. Based on a thorough examination of the evidence... --This text refers to the
Hardcover edition.

Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, 1981-1985
"Laurie Mylroie understands that what we do not yet know about terrorism, crime, and war may be more important..." --This text refers to the
Hardcover edition.

The destruction of the twin towers of the World Trade Center and the attack on the Pentagon -- all within one hour on September 11, 2001 -- demonstrated America's shocking vulnerability to terrorism.

Yet terror had already emerged on America's shores eight years earlier, when the mysterious terrorist mastermind, Ramzi Yousef (arrested after a botched attempt to down a dozen U.S. airlines) bombed the World Trade Center in an attempt to fell the buildings. His attacks were viewed as the harbinger of a new terrorism, carried out by an elusive enemy driven by religious fanaticism to unprecedented hatred of the United States.

But is that perception accurate? A real-life detective story, The War Against America engages the reader in a gripping examination of the evidence regarding Yousef and his terrorism. It reveals the split between New York and Washington that emerged during the investigation and tells a terrifying tale of America left exposed and vulnerable following the mishandling of what was once the most ambitious terrorist attack ever attempted on U.S. soil.

 


1 posted on 03/07/2003 4:29:21 AM PST by Mia T
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

 
 

THE award for the most indefinite position has to go to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. When her press secretary, Philippe Reines, was asked her position, he sent a transcript of Mrs. Clinton's remarks last Friday on CNN and a news account of her comments on Monday during a visit to Watervliet, N.Y. (It seems that the senator, still a bit first ladylike, is reluctant to pick up the phone.)

March 6, 2003, NYT, Hawks, Doves and a Flock on the Line, JOYCE PURNICK

hillary's head revisited:
hillary clinton's brain (such as it is) II

 by Mia T

The smartest woman in the world would relish "the raucous give and take of American democracy, " as Charles Kuralt once put it.

hillary clinton, by contrast, subsists on cozy clintonoid interviews of the Colmes kind...

In her new book, Political Fictions, Joan Didion indicts the fakery of access journalism practiced by vacant politicos like the clintons, whom she sees as "purveyors of fables of their own making, or worse, fables conceived by political strategists with designs on votes, not news."

(More Didion: "No one who ever passed through an American public high school could have watched William Jefferson Clinton running for office in 1992 and failed to recognize the familiar predatory sexuality of the provincial adolescent.")

THE HILLARY, YOU KNOW, CLINTON TRANSCRIPT:
Analyzed and Annotated
 

by Mia T

January 22, 2002

 

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE [YOU KNOW] 'UPDATED'

 

 

ABSTRACT

Background:

Using internal polling, the clinton 'infrastructure' determined that its cozy-clintonoid-interviews-of-the-Colmes/King-kind-scheme is no longer working. The scheme, which successfully shepherded and shielded the vacuous, inept, corrupt clintons for nine years, is now, post-9/11, yielding diminishing returns--and worse--increasing ridicule.

Hence, we had the clinton 'infrastructure' interviewer recalculation last week that specified more interviewer gravitas...and less lapdog...but not more doggedness...that is to say...that specified Jeff Greenfield.

A miscalculation, as it turned out. Greenfield made up in contempt what he lacked in inexorability. Although he conducted the entire interview circumambulating on eggshells, Greenfield did eventually ask the hard-boiled questions...

ASIDE: The tough questioning was followed by Greenfield's sudden, post-interview departure from CNN, a development which will only further reinforce cozy-clintonoid-interviews-of-the-Colmes/King-kind 4th-estate malfeasance.
 

Analysis:

Greenfield's circuitous path to clinton depravity and failure necessitates a nonlinear analysis of the data; we will use a (nonlinear) least squares curve fitter. Proportional hazards political survival regression analysis will generate a political survival curve for hillary clinton, which will show her viability (so to speak) over time.

Political survival time is defined as the length of the interval between the initial political trial balloon and political moribundity. Political moribundity is defined as two consecutive political failures--(one in the case of 9/11), or three not-necessarily-consecutive boo-filled public appearances, or one instance of a serious proposal generating laughter.

ASIDE: Since by any of these standards, hillary clinton is already flatlined, the more interesting question for this analysis would be: "What the hell is this moribund loser doing in the political arena, anyway?"

Survival is influenced by one or more factors, called "predictors" or "covariates", which may be categorical (such as the quality of 'infrastructure') or continuous (such as intellect or eloquence or character).

Results:

  • clinton rigor mortis rendered any discussion of clinton moribundity moot.
  • Nonetheless, one of the more significant continuous predictors of political moribundity is clinton's tic-like insertion of "you know," a marker for ineloquence, vulgarity, ignorance, rube-meets-valley-girl demographics, low self-esteem, anxiety and insincerity.
  • clinton uttered "you know" 52 times. Greenfield eventually caught the bug and uttered six "you knows," himself--a cautionary tale for wannabe clintonoid lapdogs.
  • Frequency of clinton "you knows" varied directly with intensity of Greenfield contempt and inversely with magnitude of Greenfield softballs.
  • clinton response is consistent with Rubin complicity in a clinton coup. See "The Daschle Scheme".

 

GREENFIELD: Tonight, a conversation with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on the nation and the world after September 11, on GREENFIELD AT LARGE.

THE COMPLETE ANNOTATED INTERVIEW (NB: a very long, you know, download because of the, you know, clinton criminal, you know, redundancy.)

"I have no infrastructure to deal with this."

bill clinton

 

 

One of the unintended consequences of America's rejection of mandated political correctness is that legends crumble.
 
The classic case is that of Bill Clinton. The conventional wisdom has been (even from his critics) that notwithstanding policy and philosophy disagreements Bill Clinton was/is a smart, charming, even brilliant man.
 
The reality that is becoming increasingly clear to those willing to see is that "The President Clinton Package" and his team of advisers, managers, and spin doctors, were smart, charming and at times brilliant. However, left to his own devices and without the support, advice, counsel and coercive powers of office, Bill is (for the second time in two months) emphatically demonstrating he ain't all that smart.
 

Bill's big yap:
Geoff Metcalf slams Clinton's foot-in-mouth sophistry

 
 

PUFFY-faced polemicist Christopher "Hellbound" Hitchens claims Bill Clinton is a "lousy crook."

... He rips into jokes about President Bush's intellect as "another liberal snig that annoys me a lot these days," adding, "The fact has to be faced: the intellectual candlepower of this administration is a great deal brighter than the Clinton administration . . . [and] the level of professionalism is very much higher."

hitchens on the clintons

YOO-HOO Mrs. clinton
A '68 Mustang is not exculpatory

 

by Mia T, 1-29-03

 

 

 HALF A HOUSE, HALF A BRAIN: Why the clintons hit on Simon & Schuster

 
 
Mindless rhinestone-studded-and-tented kleptocracy
 
by Mia T
 
John Podhoretz recently asked, "Whence comes hillary clinton's reputation for brilliance?" For the answer, he intuitively, rather brilliantly in fact, looked to her anatomy and noted,"This isn't the first time she's shot herself in the foot."
 
 
The above anatomical analysis supports the Podhoretz thesis. Notwithstanding The Pod's erroneous conclusions concerning hillary clinton's heart and nerve, he basically has it right. Anatomy is destiny...
 
Ian Hunter recently observed that our leaders are shrinking. "From a Churchill (or, for that matter, a Margaret Thatcher) to a Tony Blair; from Eisenhower to Clinton; from Diefenbaker to Joe Clark; from Trudeau to Chretien -- we seem destined to be governed by pygmies."
 
The pols understand their anatomical limitations well; they attempt to mitigate them with veneer. And so we suffer mindless alpha-beta-beelzebubba grotesquerie. . .
 
 
and rhinestone-studded-and-tented kleptocracy.
 
 
With all the media genuflecting before the press-conference podium of bill clinton, it bears remarking yet again that the clinton intellect (an oxymoron even more jarring than AlGoreRhythm and meant to encompass the cognitive ability of both clintons) is remarkable only for its utter ordinariness, its lack of creative spark, its lack of analytic precision, its lack of depth.
 
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.
 
Politicos and reporters are not rocket scientists . . .
Professions tend to be self-selected, intellectually homogeneous subgroups of Homo sapiens. Great intellects (especially these days) do not generally gravitate towards careers in the media or politics. Mediocre, power-obsessed types with poor self-images do.
 
Thus, clinton mediocrity goes undetected primarily because of media mediocrity. ("Mediocrity" and "media" don't come from the same Latin root (medius) for no reason.) Insofar as the clintons are concerned, the media confuse form with substance, smoothness with coherence, data-spewing with ratiocination, pre-programmed recitation with real-time analysis, an idiosyncratic degeneracy with creativity.
Jimmy Breslin agrees. In Hillary Is the 'Me-First' Lady, Breslin laments:
"At the end of all these years and years that are being celebrated this week, the national press of America consists of people with dried minds and weak backbones and the pack of them can't utter a new phrase for the language or show the least bit of anger at a business or profession or trade or whatever this business is that is dying of mediocrity."
 
Listen carefully to the clintons. You will hear a shallow parody of the class president. Not only do they say nothing; they say nothing with superfluous ineloquence. Their speeches are sophomoric, shopworn, shallow, specious. Platitudinous pandering piled atop p.c. cliché
In seven years, they have, collectively, uttered not one memorable word save, "It was a vast right-wing conspiracy," "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky,"and, "It all depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."
 
Even the clintons' attempts at alliteration fall flat. Compare Agnew's (Safire's) "nattering nabobs of negativism" with clinton's "preachers of pessimism," an impotent, one-dimensional, plagiaristic echo (its apt self-descriptiveness notwithstanding).
 
Before they destroy their backs along with their reputations, media gentry genuflecting at the altar of the clinton brain should consider Edith Efron's, Can the President Think?
A wasted brain is a terrible thing.
 
ALSO:
HILLARY CLINTON LACKS COGNITIVE CAPACITY TO LEAD
TRIES TO GET QUESTIONS IN ADVANCE. . . AGAIN
 

When will the 4th Estate finally VET this dangerous, repugnant fraud?


2 posted on 03/07/2003 4:54:24 AM PST by Mia T (SCUM (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gail Wynand; looscannon; Lonesome in Massachussets; Freedom'sWorthIt; IVote2; Slyfox; Registered; ..
 

The only way they can win is to convince people that we're space aliens.

--bill clinton

 

June 9, 1999

 

Peggy Noonan's excellent piece in yesterday's Wall Street Journal is really the story of the death of democracy. At its core it is the description of the human double helix gone terribly awry, of a denatured protein grotesquely twisted, of two mutant, tangled strands of DNA, the basest imaginable of base pairs linked permanently, as firmly as guanine to cytosine, bill inexorably to hillary and conversely, doing what they do best, and doing it relentlessly.

Killing.
Killing insidiously.
Killing as they pose and pander and feel our pain.

My only complaint is with Peggy Noonan's title.

The Mad Boomer, doesn't begin to capture candidate clinton considered separately or even taken as the self-anointed "twofer," permanently conjoined at that cavity conspicuously empty except for ego, that place where brain and soul and guts and heart normally reside.

This is not to say that she -- that they -- are not both quite mad and of that self-indulgent, arrogantly, ignorantly solipsistic age sandwiched flatly between yesterday's innocence and tomorrow's insouciance. Rather, it is that their madness and their boomerism don't even begin to explain their noxious influence: The cloying, internally inconsistent clinton calculus. The unspoken clinton threats. They permeate the atmosphere like a coiling miasma, choking off all freedom.

Even in New York.
Especially in New York.
When she wrote "The New Colossus," Emma Lazarus hardly had in mind this pair of mutant, deadly, twisted aliens.

So forget Arkansas-Illinois carpetbaggery and standard issue muckraking. The clintons are aliens of quite another sort. They are extrinsic, not of this world. They are inhuman. They are dehumanizing.

You may recall that the first act of this story of two degenerates maintained by iterating idiots, farce of farce ad infinitum, was generated quite by accident by iterated AlGoreRhythm, who, it should be noted, is now himself the object of iterated calculation by said degenerates who want iteration 2004 all for themselves.

And thus the odd bit of bloody Gore in Act II: The ugly sight of a corrupt, bottom-heavy hillary self-impaled on the horns of a Treason-Dilemma- masquerading-as-a-Third-Term-Dilemma-masquerading-as-a-Senate-stampede, for example, or bill's recent unsolicited, underwhelming Times interview on the Gore candidacy.

Act I was called "The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover." Ostensibly the tale of the wife of a bloodthirsty crime boss who finds romance with a bland bookseller between courses at her husband's restaurant, it was in fact the Thyestean and moveable -- yet unmoving -- feast of hillary clinton at her husband's sham restitution. (Note the reciprocity. The sham restitution in Act II is all hillary's.)

Food, color coding, sex, murder, torture and cannibalism were the exotic (if mostly horizontal) fare in this beautifully filmed but brutally uncompromising modern memoir which passed as ancient fable about nouveau riche rapacity.

Not for the faint at heart, Purple Hearts or queazy stomachs, this depiction of the gross debasement of America was heavily peppered with irony and dark humor throughout.

Although she baked no cookies, didn't do illicit land or cattle deals and stood by no man, hillary clinton starred in the triple role of the Cook, the Thief and his Wife. Her lover was played at once vaporously and in workmanlike fashion by the ghost of Eleanor Roosevelt, with Janet Reno, between her stints rendering intermittent injustice for the Husband, as the reliable stand-in. Sidney Blumenthal was the stand-in for the Cook and Craig Livingstone the stand-in for the Thief. The last-minute addition of Christopher Hitchens as the snitch was a stroke of absolute genius notwithstanding its cerebral accident, its predictable-if-perfect pitch and its facile alliteration.

Although Act I had no rating, the new clinton soccer-mom directive will require a photo ID for any viewer without independent proof of illegal alien DNC <-> DNA sequencing.

In Act II, rabid anti-clinton voters, roughly 33% of the U.S. populace according to as-yet-unpodded pollsters, become increasingly aware that they are disappearing in droves and being replaced by alien pod replicas which have their physical attributes but lack all anti-clinton affect.

If Act I was a thinly veiled allegory about naked clintonism, then Act II is a parable about the plan for world domination by the Establishment, aged hippies in pinstripes all, with their infantile, solipsistic world view amazingly untouched by time.

THE ALIENS

 


3 posted on 03/07/2003 4:59:52 AM PST by Mia T (SCUM (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Howdy ma'am...MUD
4 posted on 03/07/2003 5:04:22 AM PST by Mudboy Slim (The A.N.S.W.E.R., my FRiends..."KorruptKlintonKlan DemonRATS LOATHE FRee-Market Capitalism!!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
bttt
5 posted on 03/07/2003 5:18:20 AM PST by bmwcyle (Semper Gumby - Always Flexable)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
A Big, "Thank G-d For MiaT", BUMP!

Bless you -- Brian

6 posted on 03/07/2003 5:36:20 AM PST by Brian Allen (This above all -- to thine own self be true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
I love it, great work as always.
7 posted on 03/07/2003 5:49:10 AM PST by Jim Ralls
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BARBRA
 

If the Powell evidence made anything plain, it's this: The idea of "monitoring" a dictator is ludicrous. Saddam is quite happy to participate for another decade or two in an eternal ongoing U.N. field study of dictatorship

MARK STEYN, JUST LIKE MONICA.

The Powell evidence was, in fact, superfluous. For anyone capable of critical thinking, the absurdity of the task was self-evident.

What the Powell evidence did make plain, however, was this:

  • the Democrats systematically and reflexively put their perpetual grasp for power over America's national security
  • the Democrats are unfit to lead, especially in a post-9/11 world
  • the clintons were utter failures and are America's biggest blunder.

 

 

Thou art arm'd that hath thy crook'd schemers straight.
Cudgel thy brains no more, the clinton plots are great.
 

Mia T, On Neutered and Neutering,
by Mia T and Edward Zehr (EZ)

 

 

IT IS OBVIOUS (NOTE: Written 8 months before the Democrat Debacle of '02)

 

By Mia T, 3-3-02

 

It is obvious to anyone who bothers to remove his political blinders. It is so patently obvious that even those whose political blinders are a permanently fixed fashion statement -- that is to say, even Hollywood -- can see it. (Just ask Whoopie Goldberg...or Rosie O'Donnell...) Bush's poll numbers are a reflection of this self-evident truth.

What is manifestly obvious and confirmed on a daily basis is the plain fact that Democrats are, by definition, constitutionally unfit to navigate the ship of state through these troubled, terrorist waters. Democrats were unfit before 9/11, but few could see it then. It was 9/11 and its aftermath that made this truth crystal clear even to the most simpleminded among us.

The unwashed masses, the uninformed, the disinformed can see it now. All America can see it now. Self-preservation is kicking in, trumping petty politics at every turn.

And this is why Democrat demagoguery and stupidity and sedition are achieving new lows...

 We are witnessing the last gasp of a political relic. The Democrat party is not merely obsolete. As 9/11 and clinton-clinton-Daschle action and inaction have demonstrated, the Democrat party is very dangerous.

 We must now make sure that this fact, too, is obvious to all...

 
hillary clinton blames better half for terrorism
("I knew, you know, nuttin'")
Meet the Press, 12-09-01
 
 
Mia T, 12.09.01
 
Clinton's failure to grasp the opportunity to unravel increasingly organized extremists, coupled with Berger's assessments of their potential to directly threaten the U.S., represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history

L.A Times, Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize

 
Bill Clinton may not be the worst president America has had, but surely he is the worst person to be president.*

GEORGE WILL, Sleaze, the sequel

 

Had George Will written Sleaze, the sequel (the "sequel" is, of course, hillary) after 9-11-01, I suspect that he would have had to forgo the above conceit, as the doubt expressed in the setup phrase was, from that day forward, no longer operational.

Indeed, assessing the clinton presidency an abject failure is not inconsistent with commentary coming from the left, most recently the LA Times: "Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize."

When the clintons left office, I predicted that the country would eventually learn--sadly, the hard way--that this depraved, self-absorbed and inept pair had placed America (and the world) in mortal danger. But I was thinking years, not months.

It is very significant that hillary clinton didn't deny clinton culpability for the terrorism. (Meet the Press, 12-09-01), notwithstanding tired tactics (if you can't pass the buck, spread the blame) and chronic "KnowNothing Victim Clinton" self-exclusion.

If leftist pandering keeps the disenfranchized down in perpetuity, clinton pandering,("it's the economy, stupid"), kept the middle and upper classes wilfully ignorant for eight years.

And ironically, both results (leftist social policy and the clinton economy) are equally illusory, fraudulent. It is becoming increasingly clear that clinton covertly cooked the books even as he assiduously avoided essential actions that would have negatively impacted the economy--the ultimate source of his continued power--actions like, say, going after the terrorists.

It is critically important that hillary clinton fail in her grasp for power; read Peggy Noonan's little book, 'The Case Against Hillary Clinton' and Barbara Olson's two books; it is critical that the West de-clintonize, but that will be automatic once it is understood that the clintons risked civilization itself in order to gain and retain power.

It shouldn't take books, however, to see that a leader is a dangerous, self-absorbed sicko. People should be able to figure that out for themselves. The electorate must be taught to think, to reason. It must be able to spot spin, especially in this age of the electronic demagogue.

I am not hopeful. As Bertrand Russell noted, "Most people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so. "

 

 

*George Will continues: There is reason to believe that he is a rapist ("You better get some ice on that," Juanita Broaddrick says he told her concerning her bit lip), and that he bombed a country to distract attention from legal difficulties arising from his glandular life, and that. ... Furthermore, the bargain that he and his wife call a marriage refutes the axiom that opposites attract. Rather, she, as much as he perhaps even more so, incarnates Clintonism

 


8 posted on 03/07/2003 6:06:19 AM PST by Mia T (SCUM (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BARBRA
 

Q ERTY6
ping

A Fish Rots from the Head

Investor's Business Daily

 
 
Ijaz, an admitted Clinton supporter who helped negotiate these opportunities to nab bin Laden, said, "The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening."
 
Ijaz says that three months before bin Laden's men blew up the USS Cole in Yemen, he "brought the White House another plausible offer to deal with bin Laden, by then known to be involved in the embassy bombings (in Tanzania and Kenya)... But senior Clinton officials sabotaged the offer."
 
Clinton's apparent boredom with vital information extended beyond Sudanese intelligence officers to his own intelligence officers. His first CIA director, James Woolsey, couldn't get a meeting with Clinton in the two years he served. Woolsey left the Clinton administration disgusted with its slovenly approach to national security. ...
 
To hear Clinton now say "We must do more to reduce the pool of potential terrorists" is thus beyond farce. He had numerous opportunities to reduce that pool, and he blew it.
 
The pool, in fact, grew larger on Clinton's watch, as he spent his final days giving pardons to drug dealers, Puerto Rican terrorists and Marc Rich, a fugitive who topped America's most-wanted list.
 
NEW AUDIO!
Hear the Bill Bennett epilogue
 

In this light, Clinton's order to the CIA that it not use "unsavory characters" to collect information pushes irony to its outer limits.

THE CLINTONS--AMERICA'S BIGGEST BLUNDER
Hear Bush 41 Warn Us--October 19, 1992*

hear

*Thanx to Cloud William for text and audio

 

LEHRER: President Bush, your closing statement, sir.

PRESIDENT BUSH: 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)

 
play tape

LEFT-WING TALK RADIO 2: "It's the terrorism, stupid."

 

by Mia T, 1-21-03
 

 

 
PART 1
PART 2

Hear clinton stupidity, smallness, banality, fecklessness, ineptitude, prevarication, corruption, perfidy and utter failure directly from the rapist, himself. clinton provides the perfect foil for Bush, who makes a cameo appearance or two.

Pay special attention to Dan Rather's little story about terrorism hitting the U.S. "bigtime" during the clintons' tenure.

In particular, connect the following dots: the '93 WTC bombing. a certain bin Laden protégé and clinton's admission that he passed up bin Laden. Note clinton's spurious argument for this monumental failure.

To this day, clinton seems not to understand that bin Laden is -- and was in 1996 -- an enemy of the state, not a simple criminal.

clinton still seems not to get it -- the same terrorist --the terrorist he refused to take--hit the same building in '93.

Notwithstanding this, to hear clinton tell it, his disastrous decision not to take bin Laden when offered on a silver platter by Sudan, (arguably the worst decision ever made by a president), derived from his scrupulous avoidance of abusing power and trashing laws...

Yeah, right.

 

HEAR:

 

  • the attacks on America

     

  • Dan Rather ruminating on the terrorism that came to America "bigtime" during clinton years

     

  • Dan Rather relating OBL protégé, Ramzi Yousef threat to clinton FBI that the terrorists WILL complete the job

     

  • the clinton non-response to terror

     

  • FDR response (says national security a president's raison d'être)

     

  • Bush response, "I can hear YOU...," "I [as opposed to clinton] will not wait on events, while dangers gather," etc.

     

  • Mike Moran "Osama bin Laden, you can kiss my royal Irish ass" battle cry

     

  • "go home hillary!" chant, etc.

 

hear

 

9 posted on 03/07/2003 6:08:19 AM PST by Mia T (SCUM (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
You've been busy this morning (-;

Bttt
10 posted on 03/07/2003 6:53:17 AM PST by firewalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
BTTT
11 posted on 03/07/2003 10:21:11 AM PST by hattend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
I wonder if the person who invented the windsock had the Clintons in mind. Surely there has never been a pair that changes direction more often than the Mr. and Mrs.
12 posted on 03/07/2003 6:45:23 PM PST by Faith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson