Archive for July, 2007
July 19th, 2007
Nuclear terrorism,two of the most haunting, chilling words for Americans to contemplate post-9/11.
But not ignore, according to the the 9/11 Commission that investigated the intelligence failures that facilitated Al-Qaeda’s ability to attack the homeland on September 11, 2001. They concluded that the possibility of nuclear terrorism being perpetrated by Al-Qaeda was the number one national security danger to the United States. It would then stand to reason that if Hillary Clinton is the most qualified human being in America to be the next commander-in-chief, she would have something to say about our most dangerous security menace. But reason apparently is nothing more than an inconvenience for Hillary Rodham Clinton.
This Hillaryland maven of strategic thought has offered nothing on the public record that indicates she regards the danger of Al-Qaeda acquiring nuclear weapons to be the gravest danger to the American people. She undoubtedly invested much of her time rehearsing for her Sopranos spoof for YouTube video, and spent sleepless hours strategising on her campaign song contest. But where is the expended effort that demonstrates that preventing Al-Qaeda getting its hands on a nuke is the number one priority for Senator Clinton?
Several of her fellow Democrats are on record in a responsible manner regarding the the threat of nuclear terrorism. They include Bill Clinton’s former Defense and Assistant Defense Secretaries, William Cohen and Graham Allison, who have both warned that nuclear terrorism by Al-Qaeda is a grave and imminent danger. Former Democratic senator Sam Nunn has devoted much of his time to doing everything possible to keep fissile materials out of the hands of terrorists. However, current senator Hillary Clinton remains largely silent on this existential menace to America. Instead of speaking hypocritically about the Libby pardon, or showing she is “way cool” with her ridiculous Sopranos video, why doesn’t she focus on what respected members of her own political party have warned is a danger that may kill millions of American citizens, unless preventing nuclear terrorism becomes the number one national priority for the sitting American president? In reality, there is no answer, because Hillary Clinton is only the most qualified American to assume the duties of commander-in-chief in the scripts of paid political consultants and campaign marketing specialists. Unfortunely, PR spin will not deter Osama bin Laden a wink, if he gets his hands on highly enriched uranium and plutonium.
For more information on nuclear terrorism, read my book, “King of Bombs,” info at http://www.kingofbombs.com; also visit
http://www.nuclear-terrorism.com
July 18th, 2007
Hillary Clinton and her sidekick William Jefferson Clinton may be auditioning for more than the Sopranos finale remake. In the last Democratic forum, references were made about the candidates competing with Paris Hilton for public and media attention. In fact, the Paris Hilton celebrity dynamic is what the Hillary campaign machine looks to as its role model. Here is the reason why.
If the American voters had to render a thoughtful decision in November 2008, Hillary Clinton’s presidential aspirations would be severely degraded. However, if the presidential election is reduced to a mere popularity contest, then Hillary as celebrity may be unstoppable.
No one will accuse Paris Hilton of being one of the great thinkers of history, or a scientific genius, let alone a figure of human accomplishment and nobility,worthy of being a heroic role model. But celebrity images are about the illusion of being “famous,” and as such, the Paris Hilton phenomenon is exactly the campaign dynamic that Hillaryland is seeking.
Just as the legal problems of Paris Hilton became the center of gravity for the American media, Hillary and Bill mimicking gangsters (just for fun ) on YouTube becomes an act of cosmic significance. Al Qaeda may be plotting mass murder, the Iraq war disaster is being compounded daily, however the leading news in this campaign will be a song contest or video spoof conducted by aspiring commander-in-chief Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Hllary Clinton as the Paris Hilton of the 2008 presidential election is the recipe for Hillaryland’s planned romp to the White House. At least the first Clinton presidency based its case on an issue (the economy), no matter how contrived their sincereity was. However, Hillaryland is increasingly basing its campaign on pure fun and games, hoping you the voter will be so mesmerized by the Hillary celebrity syndrome, you won’t think before casting your ballot.
Not a hopeful outlook for the United States of America.
July 16th, 2007
Hillary Clinton information. Relevant information on aspiring president-in-waiting Hillary Rodham Clinton. One of the scarcest commodities on planet Earth.
That may seem a surprising conclusion, but delve into what passes for “information” on the Hillaryland superstar, and there is a clear scarcity of what is really relevant to making an informed decision on the suitability of Hillary for the presidency. Most of the motherload of Hillary Clinton “communication” is artfully-crafted propaganda, being propelled out of the cannon barrels of the Clinton political machine’s PR central HQ. It is contrived, designed to create a mythological image of “St. Hillary.” To be fair to her, Hillary is playing the same political game as most of her rivals.
There are critical treatises on Hillary, but many of them are shaped in such an eccentric manner, they are easily dismissed by the Clintons as mere “vast right-wing conspiracy” material. In truth, I think a key part of Hillary’s strategy is to encourage a certain level of demagogic criticism of her, so she can then paint with a broad brush-stroke a dismissive of all her critics as “extremists.” Finally, there are some new books written by journalists, well researched, that raise questions, but in such a pedantic manner, only a relatively small proportion of the electorate can digest the relevant nuances.
There remains one category of Hillary Clinton information that is relevant to a thoughtful voter. It is compiled in my book, “Hillary Clinton Nude: Naked Ambition, Hillary Clinton And America’s Demise.” It offers relevant, targeted information about Hillary Clinton, based on her public record, that raises serious questions regarding her qualifications for presidential leadership, though in a thoroughly non-partisan manner. If you want information on Hillary Rodham Clinton you can use in deliberating on your voting decison in 2008, read “Hillary Clinton Nude.”
July 14th, 2007
Al-Qaeda competes effectively with wikipedia as a free Internet encyclopedia, at least on the single subject of terrorism. This Jihadist movement has made effective use of the Web, for propaganda, recruitment and even operational control of its far-flung cadres. Thus, while President Bush pretends that the Iraq War catastrophe is actually a strategically brilliant move against Al-Qaeda, many of his own senior officials in the intelligence community and with the Department of Homeland Security are contradicing him. We now hear from the head of DHS that he has a “gut feeling” that Al-Qaeda is up to something nasty this summer. But at this time of growing concern about a futue Al-Qaeda attack on America, where in God’s name is Hillary Rodham Clinton, supposedly the most qualified person in America to lead the nation-at least according to her press releases?
Oh, Hillary Clinton is around, all right. She recently made a video presenting herself and husband Bill Clinton in a duplication of the Sopranos finale. There was her contest for an official campaign song. And now, she is conducting a search for someone out there to create a great pro-Hillary video for YouTube. But amid all this, where are the policy statements and insightful analyses regarding this looming threat, from this supposedly immensely-qualified stateswoman? Maybe Hillary Clinton honestly thinks that the way to combat the terrorism and threats of Al-Qaeda is to mimic them as an Internet encyclopedia. But not on the threat of terrorism. Instead, let’s have Hillaryland frolicking on the worldwide Web, showing that tough, experienced Hillary Clinton can ignore Osama bin Laden, and pursure more trivial Internet pursuits. I can just see bin Laden and the other Al-Qaeda leaders in a secure area of northwest Pakistan, watching these Hillaryland production videos and contests on the Internet. Do you think this will deter Al-Qaeda from striking again at America? Only if they don’t stop laughing at us.
July 12th, 2007
Hillary Clinton, candidate for president in 2008, has been getting an easy ride in the literary world. There is, of course, her own ghost-written “memoirs,” presumptuously called “Living History.” A couple of new books have come out, written by journalists, which offer oblique critiques of Hillary that have been easily deflected by her supporters. There remain several books that do offer sharp criticism of Hillary Rodham Clinton, but are written in such a way that Hillaryland can marginalize them as part of the “vast right-wing conspiracy.” Amid the national disenchantment with George W. Bush, any effort to cast aspersions on Hillary that is seen to emerge from strictly a right-wing vantage point is doomed to ineffectiveness.
But then there is my book “Hillary Clinton Nude: Naked Ambition, Hillary Clinton And America’s Demise.”
Here is why “Hillary Clinton Nude” is dangerous to Hillaryland. It does not merely critique Hillary; it condemns her qualifications, temperament and values as totally unsuitable for the presidency, especially in the wake of George W. Bush. It presents a strong case, but one which is non-partisan. The Clinton political machine will fail in any effort to portray it as part of a right-wing “conspiracy.” That is important, for only if conservative, liberal and centrist Americans who put the national interest above narrow ideology unite, can Hillary Clinton be defeated in 2008. The Clintons know that, so they hope you will NOT read “Hillary Clinton Nude.”
My book is also dangerous because it touches on a vital issue that the media has largely ignored; is America surrendering its constitutional foundations as a republic for a virtual monarchy? As I point out in “Hillary Clinton Nude,” if Hillary is elected to two terms, that would mean that the Clinton and Bush families will have dominated the White House for nearly thirty years. In a country of three hundred million souls, we can do better than that.
If you don’t think concerns about dynastic family rule in America by the inept and egotistical is merely an example of right-wing paranoia, perhaps not reading “Hillary Clinton Nude” is what is truly dangerous.
July 11th, 2007
From the moment Hillary Rodham Clinton launched her “presidential exploratory committee,” her vote supporting the Iraq war has followed her like the shadow of a White House intern. The Left of the Democratic Party has attacked her, not only for her original pro-war vote, but also Hillary’s hubris in refusing to show contrition for her vote. However, Hillary Clinton has managed an impressive political performance. While maintaining the rectitude of her own vote, by making trivial statements (”if I knew then what I know now…”), she has largely succeeded in deflecting the Democratic Left. Now Hillary has unveiled a “plan” whereby she will end the Iraq war. What sort of plan is it?
In reality, Hillary’s so-called plan is a plan to end Iraq as a negative campaign issue for her. She can now position herself as the anti-war candidate,and will no doubt campaign in the future on the basis of her great plan. But the plan is only great if you have not read it.
In fact, Hillary Clinton apparently had a group of consultants and spin-doctors jury-rig what, in essense, is a campaign marketing document, and not a thoughtful strategic plan. It is superficial, and perhaps ignores the most important challenge in ending the Iraq tragedy for America. This disaster unfolded because of a critical failure in American political leadership. Hillary Clinton was part of that leadership failure. A serious plan dealing with Iraq would go further than troop redeployments and meaningless phrases about international conferences and responsibility. It would analyze what went wrong with American decision making, and how such a catastrophe can be prevented in the future. However, a serious plan addressing that aspect of the Iraq calamity would have to recommend that politicians who failed America by voting to empower Bush to unleash an irrational war, including Hillary Clinton, must be excluded from senior posiitons of national leadership, including the presidency.
July 9th, 2007
Hillary Clinton knows she must fabricate an image divorced from reality to win the presidential race. Thus, her official campaign website’s homepage boasts that Hillary is the change agent in the 2008 campaign because, “Strength plus experience equals change.”
What a bizzare talent for nonsensical word formulation there is in this odd world called Hillaryland. Think logically. How is a second Clinton administration (another “twofer,” to paraphrase Bill Clinton’s description of the co-presidency that characterized his administration) a manifestation of change? It can’t be. Voting for Hillary Clinton is repeating the 1990’s, end of story. However, to neutralize the value proposition of Barack Obama’s campaign, the Hillary people claim their candidate is the change candidate. For “proof,” they pick out “qualities” they claim that Hillary Clinton, but not Obama, possess, even if these attributes have nothing to do with change. But for the sake of argument, let’s assume that strength and experience do amount to change. So where is Hillary strong and experienced?
No one will deny that those accolades describe her political aggression and ambition. However, in the realm of statecraft, Senator Clinton is neither strong nor experienced. Her record shows no meaningful experience in the arena of foreign policy, geopolitcal strategy or economic policy. Don’t be fooled by Hillary’s propaganda; going on an overseas congressional junket is not an expression of deep-seated knowledge of foreign affairs.
Then there is the question of strength. In 2002 Hillary Clinton voted to authorize George W. Bush to launch an unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation, leading to the present Iraq catastrophe. How does that equate with strength? Only the most fanatical Hillary partisan would make that absurd claim. In fact, Hillary Rodham Clinton demonstrated the opposite of courage and strength by casting her vote in favor of war, solely for her own politically expedient reasons.
Hillary Clinton is neither positive change, nor strength, nor relevant leadership experience. She is merely continuity with the worst excesses of the previous Clinton administration. It was that appalling administration that enabled a certain George W. Bush to claim he would represent a profound change from Clinton due to his “strength” and “experience.” Is history repeating itself?
July 7th, 2007
In my book, “Hillary Clinton Nude,” I provide many examples that demonstrate how Hillary Clinton lacks the credentials and proven skills for the most critical areas of presidential responsibility. One only has to look at the current disasters of the incumbent president to comprehend how important it is in 2008 to get beyond image and look at the actual intellectual capacity of the presidential candidate.
This is where Barack Obama may be of greatest utility for the Hillaryland campaign. Mr. Obama may write nice books about hope, however, he lacks any demonstrable substance for presidential leadership. With only two years in the Senate, and no distinguishing accomplishments to point at during those two years, his presidential candidacy should be a joke. But instead, he is second only to Hillary Clinton as a serious contender for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination. He is number one in fundraising, meaning that more experienced contenders to Hillary’s planned coronation are being starved of resources due to the Obama fundraising machine. Besides crippling Hillary’s more substantive opponents, Obama is also making Hillary look “experienced,”at least in comparison with him. There is an old saying, “In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.” In this case it is Queen Hillary, who is actually strengthening her campaign through the media focus on Obama.
Proof of this can be gleamed from a recent poll published in Newsweek. A sampling was polled on their perceptions of the relative experience levels of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The result is that Hillary wiped Barack’s clock, scoring more than a 20% lead on leadership experience in this poll. Barack Obama is really doing a great job of making Hillary Clinton look like a seasoned, experienced stateswoman.
Of course, she isn’t really. Hillary only appears that way when standing next to neophyte Obama. If you don’t think experience is important, just look at George W. Bush. His only experience in government prior to the presidency was 8 years as Texas governor, being a failure in almost all his previous jobs. Now, being governor of Texas might sound impressive-if you are from out of state. However, as a former resident of Texas, I can tell you what any Texan can explain; in that state, the governor is a mere figurehead, with virtually no political power. In fact, in Texas, it is really the Lt. Governor who runs the state. So it should be no surprise that America’s involvement in Iraq has been an unmitigated disaster with George W. Bush as the “decider.”
Now, if you think Hillary Clinton is more seasoned than George W. Bush, may I point out that she voted in favor of granting authority to President Bush to go to war. I hardly think that is the kind of experience that leads to leadership excellence. But compared to Barack Obama, it may be very easy for her to fool the American people, as they have unfortunately been fooled before, by Bush and his predecessor, a certain William Jefferson Clinton.
July 6th, 2007
Hillary Clinton and her 2008 presidential campaign is increasingly taking on an Orwellian theme. “It’s time for a change,” proclaims Hillary Clinton. Now, how is it that a second Clinton administration, following a second Bush administration, represents real change? “Shut up!” respond the Hillary fanatics, who contemptuously would add that those thinking along such lines are merely “Screwing things up with logic.”
To support Hillary, one must suspend all logic and cognitive thinking. Here is another example; Senator Clinton claims she is the one presidential candidate who will end the war in Iraq. But wait, didn’t she vote for the war? Yes, but her supporters claim that if she “knew then what she knows now, she never would have voted for the war.” Really?
Those readers of my blog who have a copy of my book, “Hillary Clinton Nude,” turn to page 63, in the chapter entitled “Between Iraq And A Hard Place.” There, you have Hillary Clinton, one year after the Iraq war commenced, telling CNN’s Larry King, “No, I don’t regret giving the president authority” to launch the Iraq War. One year after the war the whole world knew the enterprise was based on lies about WMD. But maybe Hillary Clinton was the solitary exception, and really didn’t know what everyone else already was aware of. This is not merely sarcasm on my part. It was recently revealed, by Hillary Rodham Clinton herself, that she never read the top-secret National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq prior to her war vote. Had she done so, she would have noted that the NIE cast doubt on the Bush administration’s rationale for war.
Hillary Clinton clearly works hard on her political strategizing, image-shaping YouTube videos and PR spin, not to mention her campaign song contest. But when it comes to critical areas of war and peace, and America’s national security, the record betrays her acute defecit. It is only by suspending one’s intellect that one can take on face value the wild claims about the alleged competency of Hillary Clinton to rescue America from its current political and geo-strategic mess.
July 5th, 2007
Ebay-New & used electronics, cars, apparel and slightly used Hillary Stuff. That’s right, Hillary Clinton has a presence on ebay. First off, there is the used merchandise. I counted today 296 Hillary items, versus only 163 for Barack Obama. It appears that while Obama is leading Senator Clinton in dollars raised, Hillary is opening up a wide ebay gap to the detriment of Barack. But that’s not all. There’s more.
On the ebay homepage today, there was a huge advertisement, offering up for bid the following:”Meet the Clintons:Win a VIP meet and greet with Bill and Hillary.” The ad was on behalf of a charity for children, inviting patrons to place a “presidential bid” on ebay. However, the money can go to the charity, from Hillary’s perspective. Given the traffic ebay attracts to its website, the rewards for Hillary are much more tangible than mere money. This is another example of the Clintons, both Hillary and Bill, building brand identity with the voting consumers. What is especially instructive about the ebay presence of the Clintons is that it provides insights into how the Clinton political machine is managing the delicate balance of having Bill Clinton campaign for Hillary, while not upstaging her. What seems to be happening is that the Clinton political machine is fabricating a hyphenated brand. In other words, more and more, Hillary’s handlers want us to think of her as not just Hillary, but “the Clintons.” This may work well in the primaries, where Bill Clinton’s superstar status with Democrats more than neutralizes Barack Obama’s “freshness.” This twin branding, if deemed successful in the primaries, may be further honed after the Democratic Party nomination, when Hillary sets out to “deck” her Republican opponent.
The Clintons are unethical and devious. But never underestimate their skill and sophistication in manipulating the American electorate. The ebay auction for “meeting the Clintons” is just another manifestation of the formidable Clinton political machine.
Next Posts
Previous Posts
