Skip to comments.AFTERWORD: ON CLINTON SMALLNESS--BRINKLEY MISSES THE POINT (CLINTON'S HOFSTRA APOLOGIA)
Posted on 12/27/2005 9:58:50 AM PST by Mia T
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."
Good evening. Three days ago, in large numbers, Iraqis went to the polls to choose their own leaders -- a landmark day in the history of liberty. In the coming weeks, the ballots will be counted, a new government formed, and a people who suffered in tyranny for so long will become full members of the free world. This election will not mean the end of violence. But it is the beginning of something new: constitutional democracy at the heart of the Middle East. And this vote -- 6,000 miles away, in a vital region of the world -- means that America has an ally of growing strength in the fight against terror.
IF HE WINS 'GREATEST GAMBLE SINCE ROOSEVELT BACKED BRITAIN BEFORE WWII'
(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)
Good evening. Three days ago, in large numbers, Iraqis went to the polls to choose their own leaders -- a landmark day in the history of liberty. In the coming weeks, the ballots will be counted, a new government formed, and a people who suffered in tyranny for so long will become full members of the free world.
This election will not mean the end of violence. But it is the beginning of something new: constitutional democracy at the heart of the Middle East. And this vote -- 6,000 miles away, in a vital region of the world -- means that America has an ally of growing strength in the fight against terror.
Hillary Clinton's revisionist tome notwithstanding, 'living history' begets a certain symmetry. It is in that light that I make this not-so-modest proposal on this day, exactly 64 years after the attack on Pearl Harbor. The context of our concern today--regardless of political affiliation--is Iraq and The War on Terror, but the larger fear is that our democracy may not survive. We have the requisite machines, power and know-how to defeat the enemy in Iraq and elsewhere, but do we have the will? In particular, do we have the will to identify and defeat the enemy in our midst? Answerable to no one, heir apparent in her own mind, self-serving in the extreme, Hillary Clinton incarnates this insidious new threat to our survival. What we decide to do about Missus Clinton will tell us much about what awaits us in these perilous new times. COMPLETE LETTER
Dear Concerned Americans,
December 7, 1941+64
AN OPEN LETTER TO TIM ROBBINS, DAVID GEFFEN, CHRIS MATTHEWS, MAUREEN DOWD + JEANINE PIRRO
RE: a not-so-modest proposal concerning hillary clinton
COPYRIGHT MIA T 2005
Hillary Clinton's revisionist tome notwithstanding, 'living history' begets a certain symmetry. It is in that light that I make this not-so-modest proposal on this day, exactly 64 years after the attack on Pearl Harbor.
The context of our concern today--regardless of political affiliation--is Iraq and The War on Terror, but the larger fear is that our democracy may not survive.
We have the requisite machines, power and know-how to defeat the enemy in Iraq and elsewhere, but do we have the will?
In particular, do we have the will to identify and defeat the enemy in our midst?
Answerable to no one, heir apparent in her own mind, self-serving in the extreme, Hillary Clinton incarnates this insidious new threat to our survival.
What we decide to do about Missus Clinton will tell us much about what awaits us in these perilous new times.
(DECONSTRUCTING CLINTON'S HOFSTRA SPEECH)
part1: The "Brinkley" Lie
by Mia T, 12.26.05
(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available 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?)
by Mia T, 11.14.05
(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)
Thanks for all your great efforts, Mia.
Small and Left leaning in a Peyronie's sort of way...or so they say.
Mia T. Bump.
encyclopedia of American Presidents:
George H.W. Bush (40 pages)
Racked by scandals of his own making as well as others, President Clinton's administration left no enduring legacy.
George W. Bush (90 pages)
Clinton will be flanked by two war-time Presidents who are father and son. He won't be remembered.
doug brinkley is both a whore and a pimp for slick willy. He definitely wants to be the monica lewinsky male replacement. There is nothing remotely objective about this wordsmith. A fairly good vocabulary does not make an "objective historian".
If the fbi checks, there would be plenty of bj's dna on brinkley's clothes. I puke on that phoney pos brinkley.
Let's not forget Midnight Basketball!
Just bumping up
Monica Lewinsky spoke????
Francois de LaPeyronie (1678-1747) notwithstanding, the origin of the eponym is vague and the disease remains an enigma. To this day, the treatment can be difficult. It is not surprising that so many treatments have been tried and so much dogma written.
Indeed, in 1903, William Johnson Walsham, the famous surgeon from St Bartholomew's Hospital in London, and author of the standard surgical text book of the day, wrote; "... if treatment of the plaque with iodides is unsuccessful ... or if the induration progresses ... then the whole penis must be promptly amputated." Would that Dr. Walsham had treated The First Rapist.
As we shall see, in a bizarre twist of knee--not fate--bill clinton seems to have suffered penile surgery, nonetheless.
NOTE: I would normally favor the former option--a real knee injury, as it would require one less doctor to be in on the felony obstruction (i.e., the urologist and not the orthopedic surgeon); but in this case we are dealing with a quintessential coward (one who is as cowardly about physical harm to himself as he is cavalier about physical harm to others--witness the rapes and the bombings), so I will have to go with the latter option, a feigned bum knee... Unless... unless the penile surgery was done "in-house" on an "outpatient" basis, i.e., unless the penile surgery in fact preceded "the accident," and the urologist was instructed to give The First Rapist's knee the requisite whack while the coward was under anesthesia.
Either scenario is consistent with The First Rapist's convenient "accident" at the estate of pro golfer, Greg Norman where, you may recall, Mulligan Man injured his "knee," required emergent surgery on said "knee" FORE!thwith...and used crutches and then a cane for an extended period post-op.
I disagree. As the consequences of the clinton years play out, as more information comes out, the clintons, I believe, will be increasingly reviled.
Clinton recognized the War on Terror (First World Trade Center bombing, USS Cole, two US Embassies bombings, and so forth) but refused the fight. He "kicked the can down the road" to some other President to avoid the risk and also to avoid a momentary or permanent popularity drop as measured by polls. President Clinton had his opportunity for Greatness but was frivolous, indecisive, and deceitful.
Your work is outstanding. Thanks Mia T.
Does anyone realize the huge insult to the Puerto Rican community that klinton got away with when he released those terrorists to buy their vote for hitlary. He basically said, "all these spics are a bunch of criminals, so if I release these criminals they will like hitlary." But no one not even Rush picked up on that. And he feels the same way about blacks.
"[T]he States can best govern our home concerns and the general government our foreign ones. I wish, herefore...never to see all offices transferred to Washington, where, further withdrawn from the eyes of the people, they may more secretly be bought and sold at market." -- Thomas Jefferson (letter to Judge William Johnson, 12 June 1823)
Happy New Year to you Mia T!
Thank you and Happy New Year to you. :)
Shameless pharisees in stark relief crowd the Capitol frieze:
Baucus, Biden, Bingaman, Breaux, Bryan, Byrd, Cohen, Conrad, Daschle, Dodd, Gore, Graham, Harkin, Hollings, Inouye, Kennedy, Kerrey, Kerry, Kohl, Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, Lieberman, Mikulski, Moynihan, Reid, Robb, Rockefeller, Sarbanes, Schumer.
These are the 28 sitting Democratic senators, the current Vice President and Secretary of Defense -- clinton defenders all -- who, in 1989, voted to oust U.S. District Judge Walter Nixon for making "false or misleading statements to a grand jury."
In 1989 each and every one of these men insisted that perjury was an impeachable offense. (What a difference a decade and a decadent Democrat make.)
Senator Herb Kohl (November 7, 1989):
"The hypocrite's crime is that he bears false witness against himself," observed the philosopher Hannah Arendt. "What makes it so plausible to assume that hypocrisy is the vice of vices is that integrity can indeed exist under the cover of all other vices except this one. Only crime and the criminal, it is true, confront us with the perplexity of radical evil; but only the hypocrite is really rotten to the core."
If hypocrisy is the vice of vices, then perjury is the crime of crimes, for perjury provides the necessary cover for all other crimes.
David Lowenthal, professor emeritus of political science at Boston College makes the novel and compelling argument that perjury is "bribery consummate, using false words instead of money or other things of value to pervert the course of justice" and, thus, perjury is a constitutionally enumerated high crime.
The Democrats' defense of clinton's perjury -- and their own hypocrisy -- is three-pronged.
clinton's perjuries were "just about sex" and therefore "do not rise to the level of an impeachable offense."
This argument is spurious. The courts make no distinction between perjuries. Perjury is perjury. Perjury attacks the very essence of democracy. Perjury is bribery consummate.
Moreover, (the clinton spinners notwithstanding), clinton's perjury was not "just about sex." clinton's perjury was about clinton denying a citizen justice by lying in a civil rights-sexual harassment case about his sexual history with subordinates.
Presidents and judges are held to different standards under the Constitution.
clinton's defenders ignore Federalist No. 57, and Hillary Rodham's constitutional treatise on impeachable acts -- written in 1974 when she wanted to impeach a president; both mention "bad conduct" as grounds for impeachment.
"Impeachment," wrote Rodham, "did not have to be for criminal offenses -- but only for a 'course of conduct' that suggested an abuse of power or a disregard for the office of the President of the United States...A person's 'course of conduct' while not particularly criminal could be of such a nature that it destroys trust, discourages allegiance, and demands action by the Congress...The office of the President is such that it calls for a higher level of conduct than the average citizen in the United States."
Hamilton (or Madison) discussed the importance of wisdom and virtue in Federalist 57. "The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust."
(Contrast this with clinton, who recklessly, reflexively and feloniously subordinates the common good to his personal appetites.)
Because the Framers did not anticipate the demagogic efficiency of the electronic bully pulpit, they ruled out the possibility of an MTV mis-leader (and impeachment-thwarter!) like clinton. In Federalist No. 64, John Jay said: "There is reason to presume" the president would fall only to those "who have become the most distinguished by their abilities and virtue." He imagined that the electorate would not "be deceived by those brilliant appearances of genius and patriotism which, like transient meteors, sometimes mislead as well as dazzle."
(If the clinton debacle teaches us anything, it is this: If we are to retain our democracy in this age of the electronic demagogue, we must recalibrate the constitutional balance of power.)
The president can be prosecuted for his alleged felonies after he leaves office. (Nota bene ROBERT RAY.)
Such indecorous, dual-purpose architectonics not only threatens the delicate constitutional framework -- it disturbs the cultural aesthetic. The senators must, therefore, roundly reject this elliptic scheme.
COPYRIGHT MIA T 2005
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
Ya know, knowing the first part of this quote was advice from Albright ( Ms. Allwrong!) was geared to making Herr Klinton look like the great peacemaker (at any price, of course, including the demise of our national security which opened the door for 9-11)...well...it just goes to show ya that CHARACTER IS EVERYTHING! This pastey rapist demonstrated clearly his lack of character from the git to as president via the assignment of his cabinet and staff.
Klinton could NOT AFFORD to assign a cabinet that was on top of their game, he could NOT AFFORD to have intellects of great experience and wisdom advising him because they would have been confrontational and served to monitor and truly advise him...something an arrogant, ego driven fella like billy has no tolerance for, ever.
He and his 'me first-er wife in name only', brought in the cohens, the allbrights, etc who were total yesmen, easily manipulated (say, easy to trot out before the cameras to state how impossible it would be for klinton to pork a volunteer girl in our oval office). Folks just like the klintons, willing to do whatever it takes to get the win.
Without good character....one cannot afford to associate with those who are acquainted with good character.
klinton chose the easiest personal route every single time...risk taking was not in his sight...popularity polls and orgasmic delights left no room for genuine leadership.
Any man who frets about his legacy, openly, has major psychological problems.
No major travesty would have caused this girlish metro-sexual to meet greatness; his tremendous lack of character, caused by a deep and abiding self-centeredness which caused him to make every decision upon how each would impact his 'likeableness' or grant him personal gain can be seen not only in his speech patterns but in his actions....
Every rapist is a power abuser.
And every rapist holds others in total and complete contempt.
"One, it's hard if you're not a wartime president"
Note to Douglas Brinkley (NTDB):
clinton WAS a wartime president. The problem is, he surrendered.
You might say the clinton approach to The War on Terror was the perverse obverse of The Bush Doctrine.
"or have some huge event".
NTDB: 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.)
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.
Lopez: What exactly was U.S. reaction to the attack on the USS Cole?
Miniter: In October 2000, al Qaeda bombed the USS Cole in Aden, Yemen. Seventeen sailors were killed in the blast. The USS Cole was almost sunk. In any ordinary administration, this would have been considered an act of war. After all, America entered the Spanish-American war and World War I when our ships were attacked.
At a meeting with Secretary of Defense William Cohen, Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Attorney General Janet Reno, and other staffers, Clarke was the only one in favor of retaliation against bin Laden. Reno thought retaliation might violate international law and was therefore against it. Tenet wanted to more definitive proof that bin Laden was behind the attack, although he personally thought he was. Albright was concerned about the reaction of world opinion to a retaliation against Muslims, and the impact it would have in the final days of the Clinton Middle East peace process. Cohen, according to Clarke, did not consider the Cole attack "sufficient provocation" for a military retaliation. Michael Sheehan was particularly surprised that the Pentagon did not want to act. He told Clarke: "What's it going to take to get them to hit al Qaeda in Afghanistan? Does al Qaeda have to attack the Pentagon?"
Instead of destroying bin Laden's terrorist infrastructure and capabilities, President Clinton phoned twice phoned the president of Yemen demanding better cooperation between the FBI and the Yemeni security services.
If Clarke's plan had been implemented, al Qaeda's infrastructure would have been demolished and bin Laden might well have been killed. Sept. 11, 2001 might have been just another sunny day.
Talk about dishonesty! It is time for a name change at the NYT. No newspaper should be able to openly abuse the facts as this major rag has done since forever.
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.