hillary clinton: 'DANGEROUS'

PREFACE:

The Gore Nobel is delicious payback to the clintons for 2000. For his entire presidency, bill clinton shamelessly lobbied for the Nobel, seditiously traded our national security for the Nobel. bill clinton hungers for it still. His every move is calculated to curry favor with the Nobel Committee.

Rarely does one taste such delicious irony, such sweet revenge.

Now if Gore could only parlay the Prize into a total clinton rout, he would, in fact, save the planet and earn the Prize, albeit retroactively.


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.

Vote smart: deletehillary.com

We will not survive another clinton. (We may yet not survive the first.)


"The power of the harasser, the abuser, the rapist depends above all on the silence of women." (Ursula K. LeGuin)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QViJwZwXTl0

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• hillary
• clinton
• bill
• terrorism
• utter
• failure
• dangerous

[miat1111]

Mockerbird:

This video + the argument are fact-based, much of it from the clintons' own mouths.

Clinton's "effort to get bin Laden" wasn't "SELECTIVE." It was illusory, nonexistent.

Listen to Michael Scheuer, CIA bin Laden division chief under clinton (VIRTUAL KILL-YouTube):

"Bin Laden is alive today because Mr. Clinton, Mr. Sandy Berger, + Mr. Richard Clarke refused to kill him. That's the bottom line."

Do the research. Uninformed, misinformed, disinformed people like you imperil us all.

[miat1111]

Bin Laden declared war on Amer+committed acts of war against Amer thruout the clintons' tenure+the clintons did nothing.

Bin Laden began planning 9/11 in 1998, ironically, the yr we cld have done something abt these 2 defectives.

The clintons failed to understand-or were too self-serving + cowardly to acknowledge-that a terrorist war requires only 1 consenting player.

When a terrorist declares war on you, you are perforce at war: Either you fight, or you surrender. The clintons surrendered.

[miat1111]

VOTE SMART: A WARNING TO ALL WOMEN ABOUT HILLARY CLINTON (YouTube, 351,418 views)

"The power of the harasser, the abuser, the rapist depends above all on the silence of women." (Ursula K. LeGuin)

[miat1111]

"I was shocked to see Senator Clintons's reaction when Bush was applauded for saying, 'We will not sit back and be hit again!'"--MLalah

And what did she do? Exactly that! Sit back (on her hands) in indifference.

Exactly what the clintons had always done. Exactly what the clintons will always do.

[starlucky6003]

Important video. Thank you.

Hillary Clinton can always be counted on to do what is best FOR HILLARY CLINTON... just as Bill Clinton can always be counted on to do what is best FOR BILL CLINTON.

We are plain CRAZY if we put them back in power.

[PGAJAMIE411]

America, WAKE UP! If you thought the Patriot Act was bad, well here is the next wave of attack on you - HR 1955... Fun Fun Fun for the New World Order! America is under attack! Americas are now labled as terrorists!

[mockerbird]

What, exactly, is to be rewarded? Is it hard work, cleaverness, luck, aggressiveness, or what? Shouldn't there be a system in place or a concept to guide the process, or is that the idea, lack of restraint? What tactics are appropriate, cleaver coniving, monopolies, bribery, what else?

I was the first person to come up with the idea and a system for having flat TV screens. This was approximately in 1964. I tried to do the patent work myself, but was unable to get the patent. Not fair.

[mockerbird]

Someone admitted that they didn't buy anything with their tax refund, which proves my original point. Tax rebates for well to do persons doesn't stimulate the economy, at least in any way that would benefit regular folks.

Rewarding the rich just because they are rich is a ridiculous idea. And being rich is no indication of virtue or accomplishment.

Why reward someone for playing games? How greatly does that improve society? Maybe they should pay for the honor. How about drug dealers?

[TheNemiShow]

mocker:I didn't say it wasn't a good thing 2 reward them, but it won't jumpstart the economy. Let's not forget that the wealthy give billions of dollars a year 2 charities in this country. Talk a/b an American story-what a/b Bill Gates? he was just an average guy who started a company in his basement. He went on 2 become rich & gives 100's of millions 2 charity, but by your standards we should punish him & drive his business down so he can take his jobs overseas, right?

[mockerbird]

Rewarding workers and families would be a good thing, rewarding people who have more than they can possibly use personally and are unwilling to invest in the economy or even pay taxes, is not. The economy is the people, all the people, not just the top controllers and owners. People buy cars and houses, electronics, food, etc. Workers and manufacturers don't just manufacture for a few rich people, unless they are making big yhahts or luxury items. This is my idea of a good economy, everybody

[TheNemiShow]

Mocker cont..poor & middle class don't spend as much money- the economy doesn't benefit by giving them tax breaks. The check that Bush wants 2 send 2 people in June-I'm not buying anything w/ it. I'll pay an extra house payment. If he mailed checks 2 the wealthy-they'd buy stuff b/c they don't need the money- My point. Rich people keep the economy strong-not poor & m.c. so if U want 2 keep jobs we have here & keep t/ rich spending money & NOT TAKING JOBS OVERSEAS; cut them a deal on taxes!

[TheNemiShow]

Mocker:it wasn't a "few 100 $'s" it was more than that. What makes U think jobs will suddenly stay here or bank fees will go down or benefits will go up just b/c Hill. is in office?

If U were rich, U wouldn't care a/b tax breaks 4 the wealthy. The great thing a/b America is that any1 can become rich w/ hard work & a good idea. Y punish them? Y not reward them?

[mockerbird]

How do you define rich? One good point of reference would be $87,000 or more.

Do think a few hundred dollars tax return can compensate for big inflation, sending jobs overseas, reduced benefits, high banking charges and the likes?

Even if you did get a tax rebate, remember that the rich got millions, which should have gone to such things as infrastucture, for example

[mockerbird]

The economy was good because of Clinton, at least, in part. Otherwise, people had jobs and taxation was fair, and programs were working. The rich people were making a contribution, tax loop holes and special deals for big business were under control, etc. Everybody was getting a better deal, jobs weren't being exported as much, Money was spent on education and other good things, and banking was better regulated.

And we didn't have a debilitating war.

[mockerbird]

Personally, I have always hated to be in debt, and have always tried to avoid it and pay it off as soon as possible. However, after buy a reasonably priced used car and investing in a good computer and some special software for a business venture (and artistic realization,) I found myself in a bind, not because I overspent, but because of banking practices. The system is set up for maximum profit for the banks, hook or crook.

[TheNemiShow]

I'm not rich & I got a refund check in the mail in Bush's 1st yr in office AND I get a marriage tax credit & my child tax credit went up too. I have gotten bigger tax credits since Bush took office for 7 yrs now. But it expires in 2011 & the Democrats will definitely do away w/ it all. U said the tax cuts were 4 the rich & that's simply not true.