Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Par For the Course, Clinton

    Par For the Course, Clinton

    Whenever something incriminating about the Clinton family arises, I look to Dick Morris for analysis. His latest TownHall article with Eileen McGann does not disappoint.

    The Wikileaks information indicates that Hillary — and her predecessor, Condolleeza Rice — instructed American diplomats to gather information about “office and organizational titles; names, position titles and other information on business cards; numbers of telephones, cell phones, pagers, and faxes,” as well as “Internet and intranet ‘handles’; Internet e-mail addresses, website identification-URLs; credit card account numbers; frequent-flier account numbers; work schedules, and other relevant biographical information.”

    The New York Times explains that this information could be used to develop intelligence about the activities and whereabouts of foreign diplomatic personnel.

    Seems like old times. In the 1992 presidential campaign, the Clintons retained private detectives to learn negative information about the women who were accusing Bill of improper conduct so as to provide blackmail material to cow them into silence. During his White House tenure, FBI files on prominent Republicans somehow ended up on the desk of an operative who was hired pursuant to Hillary’s recommendation after a career as a bar bouncer.”

    The Wikileaks fiasco has had a slew of black clouds, but maybe this exposure of Hillary is a sort of silver lining…

    Any thoughts on her conduct?

    Also, on my “home website,” my friend Andrew Glidden has contributed what I believe to be a great assessment of the Obama administration “post-Shellacking.”


    Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube

    Bookmark and Share


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    Has Clinton done anything above and beyond, and excessively invasive compared to what Rice has done? If they both acted wrongly is Rice getting a free pass?

    The information I found about Clinton most illustrative of her is not here nor in the link. It was her obsession about the mental health of President Kirchner of Argentina that I found interesting. What did Kirchner do to deserve such invasive scrutiny?

    You gotta luv the HRC bootlickers on this – well she didn't really do it, everybody else did it, but he's a sleazbag (good cut & paste). The epithaph of the Clintons – Lie, Lie, Lie, Deny, Deny, Deny.


    Kirchner was beginning to rattle her saber over the Falkland Islands again, and there was some question as to "why" and what was the real objective of this bellicosity? One theory was that Kirchner was trying to distract the Argentine populace over runaway inflation and a myriad of other domestic issues. Another was that she was getting desperate and was serious about grabbing the islands (thereby triggering another war). Perhaps the ad-hoc "mental health assessment" was aimed at determining the likelihood of the latter scenario.

    I'm no HIllary lover — I dislike her, personally and politically — but these leaked cables show her doing nothing unusual or extraordinary for a person in her current position. It's all part of the job. Perhaps Cordell Hull was an exception, and if so, many paid for it with their lives.

    Morris is taking a cheap and hypocritical shot at Hillary. He used to work for her.

    As SecDef points out, the leaks themselves are of very modest import.

    My guess is the leaks represent a factional fight within the Democratic Party and between potential Democratic presidential candidates in 2012.

    More to the point, the leaks represent the faction of the Democratic Party — and the EU — that hates the USA and wants to moot nation states per se by shredding their processes: the faction controlling the White House and liberal arts faculties.

    Of note is that the leaker is unnamed, fate unknown, and their agent, who loves limelight, is still vertical, though on the qui vive.

    This says one or more of three things: (1) US security agencies are not tasked with espionage control, or, (2) US security agencies are not capable of espionage control, or, (3) the "leaks" are by the faction inside the executive branch aiming to shred the nation's processes and make the executive branch sole and supreme.

    If (3) has truth, the op was modestly able but does not show a competence level of, say, the Stuxnet attack against Iran. It reminds one of juvenile self-importance, essentially immature antics.

    The only "big deal" in the mess I see is that Ass-angel, as Althouse calls him, is vertical.

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend