|
DICK MORRIS: CLINTON IS A PAID AGENT OF THE CROWN PRINCE OF DUBAI
 |
|
Posted on 03/03/2006 7:07:54 PM PST by Mia T
DICK MORRIS: CLINTON IS A PAID AGENT OF THE CROWN PRINCE OF DUBAI
bill clinton made page one of Al Jazeera today. A schizophrenic mix of schadenfreude and agitprop, it was the story of an impeached ex-president of America trashing America--to standing Os--in the Arab state of Dubai--in the middle of a war zone--only several hundred miles from the American troops.
And, to rub it in, the traitor pocketed no less than $200,000 from the enemy for his troubles.
(The Nobel committee, sufficiently mollified only after 24 years of the peanut president's America-bashing, awarded Carter his 1978 Peace Prize finally in 2002.)
Meanwhile, back in the Senate, the missus, the other half of the clinton construct, maintains her hawkish pose (although not without bird problems of another sort).
Yet another example of the clinton conflation ploy, (see SCHEMA PINOCCHIO: how the clintons are handling the hillary dud factor), this variant allows "clinton, the construct" to hold two mutually exclusive positions simultaneously, thereby enabling the missus to avoid in '08 the trap that repeatedly ensnared the ever 'nuanced' Kerry in '04.
Do you now understand how stupid the clintons think you are?
This legacy confab is in and of itself proof certain of clinton's deeply flawed character, and a demonstration in real time of the way in which the clinton years were about a legacy that was incidentally a presidency.
Madeleine Albright captured the essence of this dysfunctional presidency best when she explained why clinton couldn't go after bin Laden.
According to Richard Miniter, the Albright revelation occurred at the cabinet meeting that would decide the disposition of the USS Cole bombing by al Qaeda [that is to say, that would decide to do what it had always done when a "bimbo" was not spilling the beans on the clintons: Nothing]. Only Clarke wanted to retaliate militarily for this unambiguous act of war.
Albright explained that a [sham] Mideast accord would yield [if not peace for the principals, surely] a Nobel Peace Prize for clinton. Kill or capture bin Laden and clinton could kiss the 'accord' and the Peace Prize good-bye.
If clinton liberalism, smallness, cowardice, corruption, perfidy--and, to borrow a phrase from Andrew Cuomo, clinton cluelessness--played a part, it was, in the end, the Nobel Peace Prize that produced the puerile pertinacity that enabled the clintons to shrug off terrorism's global danger.
C-SPAN asked noted presidential historians to rank the American presidents1 along the following ten dimensions: public persuasion, crisis leadership, economic management, moral authority, international relations, administrative skills, relations with congress, vision/setting an agenda, pursued equal justice for all, and performance within context of times.
bill clinton emerged as middling in most dimensions; he was surpassed in others by a settled mediocrity (Carter) and a putative failure (Nixon). In moral authority, bill clinton was rated dead last.2 He did fairly well in public persuasion, not a surprising finding given the volume of snake oil he managed to peddle during his putative presidency.
"It's NOT the economy, stupid!"
Clinton's best scores were on the economic management and pursued equal justice for all dimensions. However, both of these results are meaningful only insofar as they redound to the moral authority dimension: they are wholly based on clinton fraudulence, cooked books and black poses, respectively; and clinton's shameless Rosa Parks eulogy last week assured us that the insidious brand of clinton racism is alive and well during these tiptoe years of what the clintons hope will be their interregnum.
Note that although Brinkley doesn't place much importance on the economic management dimension--he argues that the economy variable is not durable over time--he fails to recognize that the evaluation of the clinton economy by the historians is erroneous to begin with.
Note also that C-SPAN historians found no evidence of clinton "greatness" irrespective of his moral-authority deficit, contrary to Douglas Brinkley's claim made at the clinton revisionist confab3.
(NOTE: My later research has revealed that Brinkley's qualified mention of clinton "greatness" was not a claim but rather a polite guest's white lie about an abject loser. Instead of taking the AP report at face value, one must carefully parse Brinkley's actual words and especially note the subjunctive construction.)
MIDDLING
If 9/11 taught us anything, it is that presidential character and moral authority count, and count most.4 If the variables are properly weighted, bill clinton will always come out dead last.
That is, unless Americans are dumb enough to make the same mistake twice.
Mia T, 11.10.05
COPYRIGHT MIA T 2004
by Mia T, 11.17.05
id you see it? More to the point, did the American press? 
Having failed to snare the Nobel Peace Prize by ignoring terrorism, clinton has apparently decided to intensify his America-bashing on foreign soil, the method employed by Jimmy Carter to great (if somewhat belated) effect.
h e a r --c l i n t o n --l o s e --i t
by Mia T, 11.11.05
READ MORE
Twenty presidents rank higher than bill clinton and 20 rank lower. But this placement assumes equal weight for each of the dimensions. And therein lies the flaw.
Historian massages clinton numbers, ego + legacy at revisionist confab
C-SPAN historians find no clinton "greatness" irrespective of moral-authority deficit
by Mia T, 11.14.05
(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)
COPYRIGHT MIA T 2006
BTW, all you need for a Moslem to get the idea that church and state really need to be separate is to set up a Moslem country with two or three major brands of Islam held to by substantial numbers of people.
None of those guys will want the others to rule except through a modern civil and criminal code.
Iraq! :)
>Now first husband is not the same as being VP<
LOL. I think a female president's husband would be referred to as "First Gentleman", and BuBill is NO gentleman. But then, as the president's wife, HuHill was no lady either! (What am I laughing about? Please, Lord...)
Turkey as well. Plus, they have real Commies!
He's got that same exact look as when he was 'oogling' that Haitian dancer (If I could find the pic, I'd pop it up here)
BANG BUMP!
Hey! No shooting at Mia!
:)
Or perhaps I am what I am because Genghis Khan stubbed his toe on a rock and decided he couldn't ride his horse for a couple of days. Meanwhile, a butterfly in far off southwest Australia stirred the breeze which caused a ripple in the jet stream and a terrible winter descended on the Caucasus and the Khan was frozen in his campaign. My timing might be wrong but it was probably this same storm that prevented the Celts aligned with Alexander the Great from conducting a counteroffensive and flanking outer Mongolia...but driving the nascent, remaining Mongols to the Korean peninsula...In other words...your conjecture is pure speculation. At least in my opinion. We can all write our own history if we wish, as long as we have a government and a culture willing to print it...with respects.
;)
;) too
Whoa. Bit obsessed, ain't we?
I qualified my statement by saying Christian morals and you tried to use the word morals as if there were only one kind of morals. Laws are based on morals and Christians want those morals that the laws are based on to be Christian morals. The majority of Christians do not believe in separation of church and state, although they do believe that the state should not sponsor one certain church.
THEY want to be president again !
Since you are now telling me what I said and telling me you already qualified your comments, I will let you carry on with posting to yourself.
I agree no doubt. But just know that our side can be doing the same thing. just a heads up.
|
Yes, but in those cases, there is no penalty for not belonging to the state church, and no governmental benefit for doing so. Technically speaking *we* don't have separation of church and state, but we do have a ban on a state religion and a ban on prohibition of any other religious worship. Some states, as oppposed to the federal government did have state official religions, which is why the first amendment says "Congress shall make no law". Guess which amendment is the one most often applied against the states, while the others, which are not limited to "Congress" by the words of the Bill of Rights, are spottily applied at best. Particularly the second amendment, which is not applied against the states at all, AFAIK.
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.
![try this one](http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/clogle.gif"){kind=link}