Replies

THE CLINTON PATTERN: FECKLESSNESS, FRAUD, DECONSTRUCTION

In May, 1996, American diplomats were informed in a Sudanese government fax that Bin Laden was about to be expelled -- giving Washington another chance to seize him. The decision not to do so went to the very top of the White House, according to former administration sources.

They say that the clear focus of American policy was to discourage the state sponsorship of terrorism. So persuading Khartoum to expel Bin Laden was in itself counted as a clear victory. The administration was "delighted".
Bin Laden took off from Khartoum on May 18 in a chartered C-130 plane with 150 of his followers, including his wives. He was bound for Jalalabad in eastern Afghanistan. On the way the plane refuelled in the Gulf state of Qatar, which has friendly relations with Washington, but he was allowed to proceed unhindered.
Barely a month later, on June 25, a 5,000lb truck bomb ripped apart the front of Khobar Towers, a US military housing complex in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. The explosion killed 19 American servicemen. Bin Laden was immediately suspected...

US missed three chances to seize Bin Laden

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.
Laurie Mylroie , Another mistaken 'conceptzia'

The Real Danger of a Presidential Fake:
Post-9/11 Reconsideration of The Placebo President

by Mia T, 1.06.02

In May, 1996, American diplomats were informed in a Sudanese government fax that Bin Laden was about to be expelled -- giving Washington another chance to seize him. The decision not to do so went to the very top of the White House, according to former administration sources.

They say that the clear focus of American policy was to discourage the state sponsorship of terrorism. So persuading Khartoum to expel Bin Laden was in itself counted as a clear victory. The administration was "delighted".
Bin Laden took off from Khartoum on May 18 in a chartered C-130 plane with 150 of his followers, including his wives. He was bound for Jalalabad in eastern Afghanistan. On the way the plane refuelled in the Gulf state of Qatar, which has friendly relations with Washington, but he was allowed to proceed unhindered.
Barely a month later, on June 25, a 5,000lb truck bomb ripped apart the front of Khobar Towers, a US military housing complex in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. The explosion killed 19 American servicemen. Bin Laden was immediately suspected...

US missed three chances to seize Bin Laden

Just look around this chamber. We have members from virtually every racial, ethnic, and religious background. And America is stronger for it. But as we have seen, these differences all too often spark hatred and division, even here at home. . . This is not the American way. We must draw the line. Without delay, we must pass the Hate Crimes Prevention Act and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. And we should reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act.

bill clinton, State of Union Speech, January 27, 2000

"I'm sorry, but the president is one of the crudest men I have ever encountered in government service," says one female agent. "He has no respect for women."
Among the comments clinton made in presence of Secret Service agents:

. Frequent speculation on the oral sex skills of women the president saw or met in receiving lines;
. References to the size of a woman's breasts, legs or figure;
. Sexual jokes.

After the Monica Lewinsky story broke, however, clinton toned down his rhetoric and behavior in front of his Secret Service agents, but those who guarded the president say enough of them saw and heard things which could be damaging to clinton.
"It depends on who Ken Starr calls," says one ex-agent. "The people who are on the job today are not necessarily the ones who know the most."
Turnover In clinton's Secret Service Detail 'Highest That Anyone Can Remember'

In the months that follow, reporters drop the issue. Feminists say little or nothing. Rape crisis center workers acknowledge that Broaddrick's case, including her reluctance to come forward, is typical of victims of sexual assault. But they decline to speak against clinton. Some cite the federal funding they receive as a result of the Violence Against Women Act, which was signed into law by clinton.

Why does the press continue to ignore the Juanita Broaddrick story?

The Placebo President:
How a Rapist can be a Policy Feminist

placebo effect n.

A beneficial effect in a patient following a particular treatment
that arises from the patient's expectations concerning
the treatment rather than from the treatment itself.

Every woman adores a Fascist,

The boot in the face, the brute

Brute heart of a brute like you.

----Sylvia Plath

The placebo effect immediately came to mind
as I listened to Shelby Steele,
a research fellow at the Hoover Institution,
debunk the following pernicious spin intended to save clinton.
To wit:
A proven felon and utter reprobate can remain president;
clinton can be a failed human being but a good president.

The error in these statements arises, says Steele,
from the belief that
virtuousness is separate from personal responsibility
so that one's virtuousness as an individual is determined by
one's political positions on issues rather than on
whether or not in one's personal life there is a
consistency and a responsibility.

Steele's contention is that this compartmentalization,
rather than being the amazing advantage
the clintons would have us believe,
in fact, spills toxicity into, corrupts, the culture.

If mere identification with good policies is what makes one virtuous
then those policies become, what Steele calls, iconographic,
that is to say they just represent virtuousness.
They don't necessarily do virtuous things.

If clinton's semantic parsing strips meaning from our words,
clinton's iconographic policies strip meaning from our society,
systematically deconstructing our society as a democracy. . .

I would take Shelby Steele's thesis one step further.
I maintain that iconographic policy functions like a placebo,
producing a real, physiological and social effects.

The placebo effect is, after all, the brain's triumph over reality.
Expectation alone can produce powerful physiological results.
The placebo effect was, at one time, an evolutionary advantage:
act now, think later

bill clinton is the paradigmatic Placebo President.
Placebo is Latin for "I shall please."
And please he does
doling out sham treatments, iconographs, with abandon.
To please, to placate, to numb, to deflect.
Ultimately to showcase his imagined virtue.
Or to confute his genuine vice.

clinton will dispense sugar pills (or bombs)
at the drop of a high-heeled shoe...
or at the hint of high treason...

clinton's charlatanry mimics that of primitive medicine.
Through the 1940s, doctors had little effective medicine to offer
so they deliberately attempted to induce the placebo response.

The efficaciousness of today's medicines
does not diminish the power of the placebo.
A recent review of placebo-controlled studies
found that placebos and genuine treatments
are often equally effective.
If you expect to get better, you will.

Which brings me back to the original question:
Can clinton be a failed human being but a good president?

Clearly he cannot.
These two propositions are mutually exclusive.
clinton's fundamental failure is a complete lack of integrity.
He has violated his covenant with the American people.

Because clinton has destroyed his moral authority as a leader,
he can no longer function even as a quack;
the placebo effect is gone.
And so the Placebo President must now go, too.

Bill Clinton is getting $12 million for his memoirs; Hillary is getting $8 million dollars for hers, for a total of $20 million. Not bad for a couple that for eight years swore under oath they couldn't remember anything.

--anonymous

YOO-HOO Mrs. clinton

A '68 Mustang is not exculpatory

by Mia T, 1-29-03

link to movie

Bump and bookmark.

I tend to think Iraq and other states sponsor terrorists. I am also suspicious of the nations and organizations (including the Papacy and the UN) opposing the United States' invasion of Iraq.

It is very clear to me who the Enemy is. What else is the United Nations but a kingdom of the air???

Hobbes spoke of this very clearly:

Part III. Of a Christian Commonwealth.
Chap. xxxviii. Of Eternal Life, Hell, Salvation, and Redemption.
[12] And first, for the tormentors, we have their nature and properties exactly and properly delivered by the names of the Enemy (or Satan), the Accuser (or Diabolus), the Destroyer (or Abaddon). Which significant names (Satan, Devil, Abaddon) set not forth to us any individual person, as proper names do, but only an office or quality, and are therefore appellatives, which ought not to have been left untranslated (as they are in the Latin and modern Bibles), because thereby they seem to be the proper names of demons, and men are the more easily seduced to believe the doctrine of devils, which at that time was the religion of the Gentiles, and contrary to that of Moses, and of Christ.
[13] And because by the Enemy, the Accuser, and Destroyer, is meant the enemy of them that shall be in the kingdom of God, therefore if the kingdom of God after the resurrection be upon the earth (as in the former Chapter I have shewn by Scripture it seems to be), the Enemy and his kingdom must be on earth also. For so also was it in the time before the Jews had deposed God. For God's kingdom was in Israel, and the nations round about were the kingdoms of the Enemy...
Part IV. Of the Kingdom of Darkness
Chap. xlvii. Of the Benefit that proceedeth from such Darkness
[1] Besides these sovereign powers, divine and human, of which I have hitherto discoursed, there is mention in Scripture of another power, namely, that of "the rulers of the darkness of this world," [Ephesians, 6. 12] "the kingdom of Satan," [Matthew, 12. 26] and "the principality of Beelzebub over demons," [Ibid., 9. 34] that is to say, over phantasms that appear in the air: for which cause Satan is also called "the prince of the power of the air";[Ephesians, 2. 2] and, because he ruleth in the darkness of this world, "the prince of this world":[John, 16. 11] and in consequence hereunto, they who are under his dominion, in opposition to the faithful, who are the "children of the light," are called the "children of darkness." For seeing Beelzebub is prince of phantasms, inhabitants of his dominion of air and darkness, the children of darkness, and these demons, phantasms, or spirits of illusion, signify allegorically the same thing. This considered, the kingdom of darkness, as it is set forth in these and other places of the Scripture, is nothing else but a confederacy of deceivers that, to obtain dominion over men in this present world, endeavour, by dark and erroneous doctrines, to extinguish in them the light, both of nature and of the gospel; and so to disprepare them for the kingdom of God to come.
[21] ...For from the time that the Bishop of Rome had gotten to be acknowledged for bishop universal, by pretence of succsession to St. Peter, their whole hierarchy (or kingdom of darkness) may be compared not unfitly to the kingdom of fairies (that is, to the old wives' fables in England, concerning ghosts and spirits and the feats they play in the night). And if a man consider the original of this ecclesiastical dominion, he will easily perceive that the Papacy is no other than the ghost of the deceased Roman empire sitting crowned upon the grave thereof. For so did the Papacy start out of the ruins of that heathen power.
[22] The language also which they use (both in the churches and in their public acts) being Latin, which is not commonly used by any nation now in the world, what is it but the ghost of the old Roman language?
[23] The fairies, in what nation soever they converse, have but one universal king, which some poets of ours call King Oberon; but the Scripture calls Beelzebub, prince of demons. The ecclesiastics likewise, in whose dominions soever they be found, acknowledge but one universal king, the Pope.
[24] The ecclesiastics are spiritual men and ghostly fathers. The fairies and ghosts inhabit darkness, solitudes, and graves. The ecclesiastics walk in obscurity of doctrine...

Bump. Thanks for a most thought provoking read.