- Now, I ask everyone one question. Look at the headline
and news story from TIME Magazine. Here we are having Bush 41 a Republican
pass political judgment on A DEMOCRAT, HILLARY CLINTON. I know that Bush
41 confirms what I told you between the lines, and Hillary is unpredictable,
and will not follow orders explicitly, making her a Rabin and Sharon. But
to openly and globally speak about a Democrat as he does when he represents
the (don't make me laugh) opposition, simply heralds that he speaks for
the occupation powers and government in the USA. In this sense, this headline
is tragic.
-
- Bush 41 Backs Away From Clinton
-
- George H.W. Bush on FOX News Sunday's "American
Leaders" series with Chris Wallace.
-
- "Well, look, if she's the nominee, I obviously will
be for her opponent. I thought a few weeks ago that she was almost
a 'gimme', as we say in golf, for the nomination. I'm not sure I feel that
way now. Well, there seems to be more kind of internal - in her own party
there seems to be more willingness to take her on and to argue about stuff.
But she's a formidable opponent and she's done very well, in my view. Now
would I be for her? No."
-
- Newt Gingrich: Hillary's Nomination Chances Just Dropped
From 80 to 50 Percent
-
- Newt Gingrich called in to Sean Hannity's radio program to discuss
Hillary Clinton's debate performance. Highlights:
-
- "Her performance in that debate was so bad, on issues
that matter so much, she may not be able to recover from it This issue
of Spitzer trying to give out d l to people at a time when your driver's
licenseallows you to vote for her to trap herself into saying that
creates a big wound
-
- Ehrlich: Now let me make an interpretation and share
with you a secret no one else would ever relay: Bill gave Bush the OK to
pull the rug from Hillary because from where he sits he is saving her life
to wit otherwise it was inevitable that they would have to do to her what
was done to Rabin and Sharon because Hillary is Hillary and does not take
ultimately take orders well. So I nearly entitled this email BILL SAVES
HILLARY'S LIFE.
-
-
- WSJ Journal Editorial Slams Hillary
- By Joe Strupp
- 11-1-7
-
- NEW YORK -- The Wall Street Journal editorial page, never
a huge fan of the Clintons, took what may be its harshest shot yet at Hillary
Clinton today, with an editorial that called here everything from a double-talker
to a truth-evader.
-
- "In the 1990s, 'Clintonesque' became a by-word for
political double-speak. ...," the editorial began. Later it noted,
"But with another Clinton running as if she's all but a sure thing
for the White House, Clintonesque is once again becoming a politically
relevant adjective. ... The junior Senator from New York seems increasingly
to have adopted her husband's political methods ... The result is that
it's impossible to know what she believes about anything. ..."
-
- Much of the editorial focused on the recent MSNBC Democratic
presidential debate, moderated by Brian Williams and Tim Russert of NBC
News.
-
- "The question of experience came up repeatedly,
and Mrs. Clinton wasn't shy about citing her time as first lady as a main
qualification to be President. She was less forthcoming about the records
of her time in the White House, however," the Journal opined. "Mr.
Russert asked: 'In order to give the American people an opportunity to
make a judgment about your experience, would you allow the National Archives
to release the documents about your communications with the President,
the advice you gave, because, as you well know, President Clinton has asked
the National Archives not to do anything until 2012?'
-
- "Mrs. Clinton's initial response was to blame the
Archives," the editorial continued. "But Mr. Russert asked whether
she would lift her husband's 'ban' on releasing their correspondence. 'That's
not my decision to make,' was her reply. Apparently we are supposed to
believe that the former President would refuse his wife's request to release
those records if she asked."
-
- Other excerpts:
-
- "Senator Clinton was especially clumsy in trying
to evade any clear position on New York Governor Eliot Spitzer's proposal
to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. When asked why, in her
words, it 'makes a lot of sense' to give licenses to illegals, her first
answer sounded like an endorsement
-
- "But after Senator Chris Dodd disagreed, calling
a license a 'privilege' not a right, she broke in a moment later to clarify:
'I just want to add, I did not say that it should be done, but I certainly
recognize why Governor Spitzer is trying to do it.' This prompted Mr. Dodd
to interject that her second answer didn't sound like her first. ..."
-
- "Mrs. Clinton wants to roll to her party's nomination
on a tide of 'inevitability' while disguising her real agenda as much as
possible. ... [H]illary's challenge is that we've all seen this movie before.
And performances like Tuesday's might be enough to convince voters to opt
for a candidate who is his own man."
-
- ** Ehrlich: Even PRO CLINTON Bloomberg News cackled over
Hillary's death performance:
-
- When Clinton again dodged specifics on Social Security,
she was confronted with a private conversation she'd had with an Iowa voter,
overheard by an Associated Press reporter, in which she said she might
require the wealthy to pay more in payroll taxes.
-
- Clinton snapped back that ``everybody knows'' that's
one possibility, and ``I don't advocate it.''
-
- Good or Bad Idea?
-
- Clinton was caught again when she was asked whether it
was a good idea for New York Governor Eliot Spitzer to offer driver's licenses
to illegal immigrants. In the course of two minutes, she gave two different
answers while trying to give none at all. Her reply was as dense as the
heat in the room, saying Spitzer was trying to address a problem left to
fester by President George W. Bush's failure to overhaul immigration.
-
- When Senator Chris Dodd, who had his best night ever,
jumped in, saying licenses are ``a privilege'' that ``ought not to be extended,''
she retorted that she'd never said ``it should be.''
-
- Then NBC's Tim Russert came back with a hard fact check:
an interview in a New Hampshire newspaper in which she'd said otherwise.
-
- Rather than address immigration, about which there is
no answer to please everybody, Clinton called a foul. ``You know, Tim,''
she scolded, ``this is where everybody plays `gotcha'.''
-
- No More Cackling
-
- A few weeks ago, Clinton was able to laugh at questions
she didn't like, cackling as if interviewers like Bob Schieffer and Chris
Wallace had lost their minds by trying to pin her down
-
- ***
-
- Lasting Image
-
- Too bad the debates are almost over now that some sand
has been thrown in the gears of the genetically engineered candidate. Everyone
is focusing on Clinton voting to label Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps
a terrorist organization, which proves she didn't learn her lesson over
giving Bush a blank check on Iraq. Still, the more lasting image may be
Clinton dissembling over who's keeping the Clinton administration's papers
secret. She says it's the National Archives ``moving as rapidly as the
Archives moves.''
-
- Russert said it was because of a letter from her husband
asking them not to release the documents until 2012.
-
- This may put an end to Clinton bringing back those gauzy
days of yesteryear, when a non-cookie baking first lady semi- presided
over curing the deficit and reforming welfare.
-
- No, what keeping her papers secret brings back is those
impossible-to-find billing records, her inability to remember just how
she made a killing in cattle futures, and her advice to stonewall on everything
from the travel office to the composition of her health-care task force
to Paula Jones.
-
- What came across Tuesday is that Clinton is too clever
by half. We've always known she was smart and often wondered if the person
whose emotions run the gamut from A to B, to paraphrase Dorothy Parker,
had a heart.
-
- We know she has a thin skin. Hours after the debate,
her campaign released a video called ``The Politics of Pile-on.''
-
- =====
-
- How not to speak to NK
- U.N. sanctions stay until N Korea disarms: Hill
- 11-1-7
-
- SEOUL (Reuters) - The United
Nations sanctions imposed on North Korea for its nuclear test last year
will be lifted only after Pyongyang scraps its nuclear arms program, U.S.
envoy Christopher Hill said on Friday.
-
- A team of experts led by a U.S. State Department official
will arrive in the North's Yongbyon nuclear complex on Friday or Saturday
to start disabling the communist state's nuclear facilities under a multinational
disarmament deal, Hill said.
-
-
- "The sanctions are there until the DPRK (North Korea)
gets out of the nuclear business," Hill told reporters after meeting
with South Korea's chief nuclear envoy. "
-
- That is when they ought to be revisited," he said,
referring to the U.N. sanctions.
-
- ** Ehrlich: Revisited? If Kim does not scream then we
know for sure it all has been theater.
-
- The U.N. Security Council last year imposed a ban on
international trade that aids the North's weapons programs after Pyongyang
defied international warnings and conducted its first nuclear test in October
of last year.
-
- U.S. officials say the North likely has about 50 kg (110
lb) of arms-grade plutonium. Proliferation experts said conservatively
this could be enough for six to eight bombs depending on the quality of
the North's fisisle material and weapons design.
-
- North and South Korea remain technically at war with
hundreds of thousands of troops confronting each other along their heavily
militarized frontier because the 1950-53 Korea War ended in an armed truce
instead of a peace agreement. The United States, one of the combatants
in that war, has more than 30,000 troops on the peninsula.
-
- The North has since agreed to implement a deal with South
Korea, the United States, Japan, Russia and China to disable its nuclear
facilities and eventually dismantle them in return for massive aid and
better diplomatic ties with Washington and Tokyo.
-
- The United States, with its veto power on the Security
Council, has a say on lifting its sanctions.
-
- ===
|
