Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

CNNs of Commission
The New York Times, CNN | 3.14.03 | Mia T

Posted on 04/14/2003 6:57:55 PM PDT by Mia T


Free Republic is one of those groups obsessed with the Clinton era.

Word's out: Protest at Hillary's tonight
U.S. News & World Report (Washington Whispers) |
March 11, 2003 | Paul Bedard


I'll bet that Mr. Bedard is a member of "one of those groups" so "obsessed" with voting in… and having access to… the clintons that they--ooops-- failed to notice the obvious danger of the lovely couple.

Thanx for 9/11, Paul...



Hear Bush 41 Warn Us--October 19, 1992*


*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.




play tape

the logic of pathologic self-interest

by Mia T


There was a third chance to get rid of the clintons. In '98, when there was still time to stop bin Laden...

The failure to remove the clintons in '98 was a monumental error and is directly traceable to the logic of pathologic self-interest.

Recall in particular:

  • THE LIEBERMAN PARADIGM: (clinton is an unfit president; therefore clinton must remain president)


  • THE SHAYS SYNDROME: (clinton is a rapist; therefore clinton is a fit president)



Senator Joseph Lieberman's bifurcated Monicagate speech in 1998 on the floor of the Senate was almost universally misperceived as an act of honesty and courage.

In reality, it was neither.

Reduced to its essence, Lieberman's argument was this:

clinton is an unfit president;

therefore, clinton must remain president.

I have called this argument "The Lieberman Paradigm."

Lieberman's argument that sorry day was rightly headed toward clinton's certain ouster when it suddenly made a swift, hairpin 180, as if clinton hacks took over the wheel. . .which they probably did.

What was Joe promised? A place on the 2000 ticket?

To be fair, it was not the Lieberman speech but rather a New York Times apologia that institutionalized this shameless scheme to protect a thoroughly corrupt and repugnant--and--as everyone except The New York Times now acknowledges-- dangerous -- Democrat regime.

The Lieberman Paradigm made its debut in The Times' utterly loony 1996 endorsement of clinton. The Times actually argued--NOTE: this is NOT satire--that although bill clinton was a "corrupt," "dysfunctional personality [with} delusions" -- The Times' own words -- we need not--we must not--remove bill clinton; we need only remove.the character lobe of bill clinton's brain.*



Not an aberration, the Shays Syndrome was quickly adopted by the entire Senate as its impeachment show trial deus ex machina of choice.

Shays, you may recall, examined the evidence in the Ford Building, concluded that clinton did, indeed, rape Broaddrick -- "VICIOUSLY!" AND "TWICE!" he declared at the time-- and was planning to vote to impeach; he changed his mind, however, after a tete a tete with the rapist.

Any cognitive dissonance Shays may have experienced rendering that verdict was no doubt assuaged by the political plum clinton had given Mrs. (Betsi) Shays...

Each of the 50 senators, on the other hand, cured the cognitive dissonance problem pre-emptively by making certain not to examine the damning Ford Building evidence in the first place.

Well, with the help of the 100 corrupt and cowardly cullions, clinton walked. The senators' justification for their acquittal votes requires the suspension of rational thought (and, in the curious case of Arlen Specter, national jurisdiction).

--Mia T, Musings: Senatorial Courtesy Perverted


by Mia T

Hypocrisy abounds in this Age of clinton, a Postmodern Oz rife with constitutional deconstruction and semantic subversion, a virtual surreality polymarked by presidential alleles peccantly misplaced or, in the case of Jefferson, posthumously misappropriated.

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):

"But Judge Nixon took an oath to tell the truth and the whole truth. As a grand jury witness, it was not for him to decide what would be material. That was for the grand jury to decide. Of all people, Federal Judge Walter Nixon certainly knew this.

"So I am going to vote 'guilty' on articles one and two. Judge Nixon lied to the grand jury. He misled the grand jury. These acts are indisputably criminal and warrant impeachment."


Senator Tom Daschle (November 3, 1989):

"This morning we impeached a judge from Mississippi for failing to tell the truth. Those decisions are always very difficult and certainly, in this case, it came after a great deal of concern and thoughtful analysis of the facts."  


Congressman Charles Schumer (May 10, 1989):  

"Perjury, of course, is a very difficult, difficult thing to decide; but as we looked and examined all of the records and in fact found many things that were not in the record it became very clear to us that this impeachment was meritorious."


Senator Carl Levin (November 3, 1989):

"The record amply supports the finding in the criminal trial that Judge Nixon's statements to the grand jury were false and misleading and constituted perjury. Those are the statements cited in articles I and II, and it is on those articles that I vote to convict Judge Nixon and remove him from office."


* * * * *

"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.

Because the Constitution stipulates that federal judges, who are appointed for life, "shall hold their offices during good behavior,'' and because there is no similar language concerning the popularly elected, term-limited president, it must have been perfectly agreeable to the Framers, so the (implicit) argument goes, to have a perjurious, justice-obstructing reprobate as president.

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.)

This clinton-created censure contrivance -- borne out of what I have come to call the "Lieberman Paradigm" (clinton is an unfit president; therefore clinton must remain president) -- is nothing less than a postmodern deconstruction in which the Oval Office would serve for two years as a holding cell for the perjurer-obstructor.

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.

In this postmodern Age of clinton, we may, from time to time, selectively stomach corruption. But we must never abide ugliness. Never.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections; US: Arkansas; US: Illinois; US: New York; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: accessjournalism; billclinton; broaddrick; clinton911; clintoncorruption; clintondanger; clintonfailure; clintonlegacy; clintonrapes; clintons911; clintonsrapes; cnn; cnncorruption; danrather; democraticrelics; dobsolescence; helenthomas; hillaryclinton; juanita; mediamalfeasance; peterarnett; rapecoverup; utterfailures; wot


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, The New York Times,
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.")

Analyzed and Annotated


by Mia T
January 22, 2002







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.



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).


  • 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.



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

1 posted on 04/14/2003 6:57:55 PM PDT by Mia T
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

by Mia T, 1-21-03

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.




  • 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.



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)

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.

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.

hillary clinton blames better half for terrorism
(SHE 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

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


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
Another mistaken 'conceptzia'
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 update

2 posted on 04/14/2003 6:59:45 PM PDT by Mia T (SCUM (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All


Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
or you can use
PayPal at

Become A Monthly Donor
It is in the breaking news sidebar!

3 posted on 04/14/2003 6:59:59 PM PDT by Support Free Republic (Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Support Free Republic

The no-show manuscript
hillary clinton Infrastructure Answers Simon & Schuster: A TRANSLATION

by Mia T, 4.8.03
One Clinton intimate explains: "In all fairness, she has been preoccupied with serving New York during these challenging times... [But] the writing is wonderful, touching, and will lift Hillary to a new level of respect."




Fairness? You little people just don't get it. This is no simple second-story thief. This is HILLARY!

Haven't you noticed? She's been preoccupied with serving herself during these challenging times, what with juggling






all while hedging her bets on the war/homeland-security thing, (the primary reason for the delay, BTW… It is unwritten HILLARY! policy not to put her stupidity in writing; obviously, we're awaiting the outcome of the war thing in order to demonstrate her "prescience." )

[Nonetheless] the writing is wonderfully revisionist in its scope even as it reprises her victim status; it is intended to lift HILLARY! from toilet to bidet. (VIVE LA FRANCE!)

Buddy web sites quickly exploded in cyberspace. (Socks web sites, too, Socks would add.) Mrs. clinton, a long-time adherent of synergistic exploitation, "authored" an instant book about three groups favored for exploitation by the clintons: dogs, cats and children. "Dear Socks, Dear Buddy: Kids' Letters to the First Pets" was published by the clintons' personal agitprop-and-money-laundering machine, Simon & Schuster. (For details, see Is hillary clinton's $8M "book advance" a Peter-Principle artifact?)

MIA T, Buddy Death Report Raises More Questions Than It Answers


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.


YOO-HOO Mrs. clinton
A '68 Mustang is not exculpatory
by Mia T, 1-29-03

link to movie

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

by Mia T

Hillary Clinton's equal and inapposite reactions seem to be, at first blush, instances of the immutable First Law of The Betrayed and Humiliated Wife: Outdo the errant hubby's all cost.

Thus, Vanity Fair's glamorous Marilyn-Monroe spread of Monica's digitally reduced spread was answered by Vogue's lushly Elizabethan, gauzy-focus, hindquarter-cropped-pleated-and-flounced, Queen-Hillary-for-President cover.

And now we have Hillary Clinton doing a Martha Stewart, who herself, is purported to have been "done" by the aforementioned errant rogue (notwithstanding the plain fact that Martha is more well-known for her tarts than for being one).

Seems Hillary Clinton is now writing a book titled "An Invitation to the White House" in which she will follow the format of the Martha Stewart classic, "Entertaining", claim multifarious Martha-Stewart talents and wrap her indecorous and corrupt, backwoods, backroom style of White House "entertaining" in Martha-Stewart elegance and purity. (NB: Written years before Martha ImPloded.)

"The Clinton White House has been noted for the...innovation of its events," said Carolyn Reidy, president of Simon & Schuster's Trade Division, the book's publisher.

Hillary Clinton's spokeswoman, Marsha Berry, added that the book will focus on how the Clintons have "advanced the availability" of the White House by increasing the number and diversity of people; that it will "highlight the access that the Clintons have given to more people, more types of entertainment..."

It should be emphasized that it was without even a trace of irony or the slightest smirk that both women related the above.

On closer inspection, Hillary Clinton's bizarre behavior is more than simple Ivana Trump-eting. It is vulgar, compulsive, shameless, smarmy, contemptuous, demagogic, megalomaniacal, in-your-face naked clintonism.

It is one thing for the frumpy, chipmunk-cheek, huge-hindquarter fishwife to insinuate her image -- albeit Elizabethan-shrouded and low-res-clouded -- onto the cover of Vogue; but it is quite another for the corrupt harpy to trumpet White House access even as new charges emerge of the clintons' rapes and other predations, of the clintons' corrupt quid-pro-quo arrangements with a menacing and motley assortment of drug dealers, gun runners and nuclear weapons makers.

For Hillary Clinton to vaunt White House access just as the clintons' China treason is becoming increasingly, patently manifest to all requires a certain level of contempt for the people and for the country that is uniquely clinton.

Thank heaven for small favors...

Or as the real Martha Stewart would say,
"That is a good thing."




The 30 Seconds that Seemed Like 60 Minutes



4 posted on 04/14/2003 7:02:28 PM PDT by Mia T (SCUM (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Gail Wynand; looscannon; Lonesome in Massachussets; Freedom'sWorthIt; IVote2; Slyfox; Registered; ..
CNNs of Commission
Either they are obsolete… or civilization is Q ERTY8 BUMP!

url-linked images of shame
copyright Mia T 2003.

5 posted on 04/14/2003 7:10:43 PM PDT by Mia T (SCUM (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Remember that scandal where it came out that CNN was having military psyops personnel do grunt work? I presume that was the Clinton administration's contribution to CNN's bottom line. We know what CNN's quid pro quo was.
6 posted on 04/14/2003 7:18:04 PM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
MiaT, Your best work yet!

7 posted on 04/14/2003 7:26:02 PM PDT by Wolverine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wolverine
An extension -- albeit nominal -- of the Peter Principle, Finch, the obvious antidote to Arnett,
put it best.

(I take it you have a fast connection) ;)

8 posted on 04/14/2003 8:07:12 PM PDT by Mia T (SCUM (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
9 posted on 04/14/2003 8:08:02 PM PDT by Mia T (SCUM (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
As I have for many years been writing here and elsewhere -- including in a book in which I recounted the first-hand experiences garnered during effectively more than 650 circumnavigations of the world and which include an accumulated two and a half years or so spent during 67 trips into, around and out of Saddam's Iraq [On one of which trips, on June 7 1981, I watched from a few kilometers away as the IAF destroyed the French-built Osirak reactor -- but sadly only one Frenchman] -- Eason's Baghdad revelations are but the tip of the iceberg.

[I once offered FR's "Trixie" -- ostensibly a literary agent -- a look at my book but she turned my offer down. Was "snowed under around here"]

That Eason and his every co-mass-rapist-torturer-murderer aught be tried and sentenced to long prison terms goes without saying. And how delightful will it be if, in an appropriate application of the Law of Unintended Consequences, he and they are all tried and convicted in the "international courts" set up and operated by CNN's fellow-psychopathologically-projecting, co-conspirator, client-state, gangster-politician henchmen?

Meanwhile, whether in Delhi or Dhakka, Geneva or Gaberones, Singapore or Sefadu, Kuala Lumpur or Khartoum, Moscow or Male, Peking, P'Yongyang or Phnom Penh, Zurich and/or Zanzibar [And, for eight awful years, in the KKKLi'toons' "administration!"] CNN and its every-bit-as-abjectly-corrupt international-media-gang members [Reuters, AP, BBC et al] are all but the craven servants of the petty and less-than-petty dictatorships for which they shill.

And, because they mis-report and misrepresent in both directions, lying TO US about their obscene client states and all the while subversively and seditiously lying ABOUT US [Witness their revealing first response to Benedict Arnett's standard-issue, throw-away, Iraqi TV interview] for and in and to their obscene client states -- are America's enemies.

Just as does and is [And this also from long hard-earned first-hand experience!] "our" state department's foreign service, come to that.

And as did the KKKli'toons "justice."

Best ones -- Brian
10 posted on 04/14/2003 9:59:50 PM PDT by Brian Allen (I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny ....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
11 posted on 04/15/2003 4:21:18 AM PDT by firewalk (thanks for the ping)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
12 posted on 04/15/2003 6:12:10 AM PDT by bmwcyle (Semper Gumby - Always flexible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Brian Allen; BeforeISleep; All
When there are multiple hyperlinked graphics on a thread, the urls sometimes get transposed...a problem with the FR site, perhaps? Not sure if this is only a Mac-related problem...

Posting the direct hyperlink to the movie (under the graphic) cures this issue... i.e., if the link on the graphics is 'confused,' just click on the 'movie' link.

CNNs of Commission Q ERTY8 BUMP!

the movie

13 posted on 04/15/2003 6:18:53 AM PDT by Mia T (SCUM (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
When there are multiple hyperlinked graphics on a thread, the urls sometimes get transposed...a problem with the FR site, perhaps? Not sure if this is only a Mac-related problem...

Posting the direct hyperlink to the movie (under the graphic) cures this issue... i.e., if the link on the graphics is 'confused,' just click on the 'movie' link.

Something to keep in mind, thanks
14 posted on 04/15/2003 7:54:11 AM PDT by firewalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: nutmeg; Brian Allen; Mudboy Slim; All
The Washington Times

Corruption at CNN

Peter Collins
Published April 15, 2003

Mr. Eason Jordan's admission that CNN had to suppress the news from Baghdad in order to report it brought back memories for me.

     In January 1993, I was in Baghdad as a reporter for CNN on a probationary, three-month contract. Previously, I had been a war reporter for CBS News in Vietnam and East Asia and in Central America for ABC News. I had also made three trips to Baghdad for ABC News before the Gulf War.

     Now, Bill Clinton was about to be inaugurated and there was speculation that Saddam Hussein might "test" the new American president. Would the new administration be willing to enforce the "no-fly" zones set up in northern and southern Iraq after the Gulf War?

     CNN had made its reputation during the war with its exclusive reports from Baghdad. Shortly after my arrival, I was surprised to see CNN President Tom Johnson and Eason Jordan, then chief of international news gathering, stride into the al-Rasheed Hotel in Baghdad. They were there to help CNN bid for an exclusive interview with Saddam Hussein, timed to coincide with the coming inauguration of President Clinton.

     I took part in meetings between the CNN executives and various officials purported to be close to Saddam. We met with his personal translator; with a foreign affairs adviser; with Information Minister Latif Jassim; and with Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz.

     In each of these meetings, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Jordan made their pitch: Saddam Hussein would have an hour's time on CNN's worldwide network; there would be no interruptions, no commercials. I was astonished. From both the tone and the content of these conversations, it seemed to me that CNN was virtually groveling for the interview.

     The day after one such meeting, I was on the roof of the Ministry of Information, preparing for my first "live shot" on CNN. A producer came up and handed me a sheet of paper with handwritten notes. "Tom Johnson wants you to read this on camera," he said. I glanced at the paper. It was an item-by-item summary of points made by Information Minister Latif Jassim in an interview that morning with Mr. Johnson and Mr. Jordan.

     The list was so long that there was no time during the live shot to provide context. I read the information minister's points verbatim. Moments later, I was downstairs in the newsroom on the first floor of the Information Ministry. Mr. Johnson approached, having seen my performance on a TV monitor. "You were a bit flat there, Peter," he said. Again, I was astonished. The president of CNN was telling me I seemed less-than-enthusiastic reading Saddam Hussein's propaganda.

     The next day, I was CNN's reporter on a trip organized by the Ministry of Information to the northern city of Mosul. "Minders" from the ministry accompanied two busloads of news people to an open, plowed field outside Mosul. The purpose was to show us that American warplanes were bombing "innocent Iraqi farmers." Bits of American ordinance were scattered on the field. One large piece was marked "CBU." I recognized it as the canister for a Cluster Bomb Unit, a weapon effective against troops in the open, or against "thin-skinned" armor. I was puzzled. Why would U.S. aircraft launch CBUs against what appeared to be an open field? Was it really to kill "innocent Iraqi farmers?" The minders showed us no victims, no witnesses. I looked around. About 2000 yards distant on a ridgeline, two radar dishes were just visible against the sky. The ground was freshly plowed. Now, I understood. The radars were probably linked to Soviet-made SA-6 surface-to-air missiles mounted on tracks, armored vehicles, parked in the field at some distance from the dishes to keep them safe. After the bombing, the Iraqis had removed the missile launchers and had plowed the field to cover the tracks.

     On the way back to Baghdad, I explained to other reporters what I thought had happened, and wrote a report that was broadcast on CNN that night.

     The next day, Brent Sadler, CNN's chief reporter at the time in Baghdad (he is now in northern Iraq), came up to me in a hallway of the al Rasheed Hotel. He had been pushing for the interview with Saddam and had urged Mr. Johnson and Mr. Jordan to come to Baghdad to help seal the deal. "Petah," he said to me in his English accent, "you know we're trying to get an interview with Saddam. That piece last night was not helpful."

     So, we were supposed to shade the news to get an interview with Saddam?

     As it happens, CNN never did get that interview. A few months later, I had passed my probationary period and was contemplating my future with CNN. I thought long and hard; could I be comfortable with a news organization that played those kinds of games? I decided, no, I could not, and resigned.

     In my brief acquaintance with Mr. Jordan at CNN, I formed the impression of a decent man, someone with a conscience. On the day Mr. Jordan published his piece in the New York Times, a panel on Fox News was discussing his astonishing admissions. Brit Hume wondered, "Why would he ever write such a thing?" Another panelist suggested, "Perhaps his conscience is bothering him." Mr. Eason, it should be.

      Peter Collins has more than 30 years of experience in broadcast news, including outlets such as the Voice of America, BBC, CBS, ABC and CNN.

Copyright © 2003 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.

CNNs of Commission Q ERTY8 BUMP!

the movie

15 posted on 04/16/2003 1:19:14 AM PDT by Mia T (SCUM (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
16 posted on 04/16/2003 1:58:54 AM PDT by Brian Allen (I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny ....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
You just keep gittin' better and better, Ms. T...MUD
17 posted on 04/16/2003 5:51:05 AM PDT by Mudboy Slim (Let America PROPOSE a NEW League of Nations...The League of FReeNations!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
I can only hope that the tide is turning. CNN made common cuase with their elite and worldwide journalistic peers long ago. THIS IS PRECISELY WHY THE 2000 ELECTION WAS PIVOTAL, otherwise heaven help us.

What Sort of Hat Are You? .<[ 75% potassium or sodium nitrate ][15% charcoal powder ][10% sulphur]...

"antidemocratic sentiment was not merely an ephermeral trend, but a defining feature of 20th-century French political culture"

18 posted on 04/17/2003 9:21:39 AM PDT by Helms (U.N./E.U. VS. U.S.A. ...The French and Germans Are Anti-Western)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | 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
Topics · Post Article

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