|
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
Amazing that so many covet this "peace" prize as if it were a piece of heaven itself. .....especially since it's been completely disgraced (after Carter, Annan, and Arafat took it home). In fact, getting nominated is about as insulting/embarrassing as it gets.
Nah! Clinton is looking forward to being the First Paramour.
Interesting take. At best, it's an approach-avoidance conflict, I suspect. ;)
Your analysis of that photo vis-a-vis my comment is scary.
Hillary Clinton Rips Ports Deal
Capitalizing on polls showing widespread opposition to the takeover of six U.S. port operations by Dubai Ports World, Senator Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) is expanding her complaint about foreign companies operating in the U.S.
"Allowing businesses headquartered in foreign companies to operate in America is wrong," said Clinton. "It should only be permitted if accompanied by donations that support our electoral processes."
It was Senator Clinton's husband who approved a Chinese company's (Hutchison-Whampoa) purchase of the Panama Canal's two ports. Then-President Bill Clinton brushed aside security concerns. "I knew they were okay when they contributed to my 1996 re-election campaign," said Clinton. "Enemies don't give you money."
Senator Clinton said she has an open mind on the issue and would be willing to withdraw her opposition to the port deal if the United Arab Emirates would demonstrate their support of democracy by contributing to her reelection campaign.
In related news, the William F. Clinton Foundation has posted an Internet job listing for 25 unpaid interns. The text of the ad reads: "Young women with an interest in public service should consider the Clinton Foundation Intern Program. The program offers a unique opportunity to establish an intimate working relationship with an experienced leader and gain first-hand experience handling important issues. Activities will include analyzing public policy issues and dealing with selected members of congress."
Applicants are instructed to send their resumes, photographs and a 250-word essay describing the position they would like to assume in government service.
read more...
http://www.azconservative.org/Semmens1.htm
Indeed.
He doesn't want his wife to eclipse him (or even come close).
Bill would like the mention of Hillary in history to be a small footnote by his name.
Thank you Mia T for tracking this vermin... now if we could only get Drudge to link to your posts.
"I DON'T RECALL"
I do agree that they probably hate each other, on some level, but have too much dirt on one another to ever consider divorcing - in that sense they each have a gun to each other's head.
On the other hand, consider LBJ and JFK. No doubt they hated each other as much or more than the contempoary clintons. Yet there is at least a strong suggestion, if not outright evidence that LBJ blackmailed JFK to make him the VP candidate when JFK was all set to pick Symington, I think it was.
Now first husband is not the *same* as being VP, but in some sense it's roughly comparable - your as close to the throne as you can get without being actually on it - I would think that that would be a pretty strong inducement.
What do you think, Mia?
I saw ole Dick Morris on O'Reilly tonight...O'Reilly even sounded taken aback by Morris' "revelations" about Clinton...
However, I can't stand Morris...(he also said in the same interview that Bush is LAZY)...and I don't know how much stock we can place in what he says...
Exactly when did Morris proclaim Clinton an agent of the UAE?
Isn't the rerun coming up at 11pm eastern?
I think that would be more accurate if you said Christians support the separation between ONE church and state. They certainly don't support the total separation of Christian morals and values from the state.
How would Mohammed vote?
Hillary for President in '08.
bttt
Yes....I am going to watch it again...Morris always makes me so mad...that I only half listen..but, I want to hear again what he says about Clinton and Dubai.
Thanks for reminding me!
No, there is one more. Ark of Hope.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1578025/posts
Earth Charter and the Ark of Hope - New World Order
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.