This will be a site to record my thoughts and musings as they occur. A 'vanity' blog or website. Postings will be sporadic as the nature of this site is not a conversation with others, but a monolog to help me in troubled times.
To Those who find good ideas, they are free for theft so long as attribution is given. They are to be *built upon* not used to demean and tear down. Ideas I present I do not declare to be *good* or *perfect* merely *better* or *different*.
Welcome one and all to Tranantionalist University, where the very best is done to have each of our student-citizens become the best they can be for world happiness! I am glad you could all make it today for this first day of Orientation to Transnationalist U! Today we will start the basic sorting out process so as to better adjust your schedules for the upcoming academic year. Your Residence Advisors are here to make sure that each of you properly adjusts to the campus and the world as a whole, and as part of that each one of you will get a personalized treatment program designed specifically to you. Isn't that grand?
Any questions before we begin? No? Wonderful! Our orientation program is based on the highly successful University of Delaware program, and I am sure that it will work out wonderfully here. Now let us take a look at the outline for the orientation program and for that would everyone turn to page one of their booklet? This outlook is taken from John Fonte's review of Transnational Progressivism, and we will be utilizing it to help each of you out to understand your place in the New World Order. First up:
The ascribed group over the individual citizen. The key political unit is not the individual citizen, who forms voluntary associations and works with fellow citizens regardless of race, sex, or national origin, but the ascriptive group (racial, ethnic, or gender) into which one is born.
Such wonderful insight! Each of you is predestined based on what you are, not what you want to become and for that we look to such identifiers as race, ethnicity and sexual orientation. So, to start with each of you has a race and the RA's will start putting chits in front of each of you. Each chit is to help describe how much help you need in adjusting to your racial conditions. Now I see that many of you are from the White Privileged Class and you will be needing the most help. Each of you has had an easy life based on your race and here at TU we make sure that every person becomes exactly equal to every other and then understand that their priveleges are garnered on the backs of others.
Remember Fonte's words on this:
A dichotomy of groups: Oppressor vs. victim groups, with immigrant groups designated as victims. Transnational ideologists have incorporated the essentially Hegelian Marxist "privileged vs. marginalized" dichotomy.
So all of you that have come from oppressor groups, even unknowingly, must unlearn your values of privilege.
Ah, I see some querulous looks from many of you! If you are Asian you also get a number of chits because you come from an ethnic background of privilege that puts forward that you must work hard to succeed. We can't have that, here at TU, and so you get almost as many chits as the Whites do. Hispanic individuals also get a number of chits, although far fewer, for supportive family structures, which really does give you more societal flexibility and that comes at the expense of those without that. We hope that by the end of this year you will know that race is just an oppressor group identifier.
With those chits handed out would everyone from NAFTA areas, Europe, Russia, Israel, Japan, Australia, Ireland, Iceland, Scandinavia and India please raise your hands? Good! You are getting chits for coming from more privileged communities that have ability to advance, and so you will need equal treatment sessions so as to have you work hard and reversing those privileged mind sets.
Next are those from S.E. Asia, MesoAmerica, South America and the Middle East. Wonderful, you get chits coming from cultural backgrounds generally more affluent or able than the underprivileged areas of the world.
Ok, will those who consider themselves to be sexually 'straight' please raise their hands? Don't be shy, now! Ah, yes I can see that some of you are getting quite a pile of chits in front of you, but don't worry we are able to handle any sort of treatment program. Will all Bisexuals raise their hands, and please, you are amongst *friends*. Lovely! Remember that any dating goes strictly by the reference system that you will each get at the end of the orientation and must be strictly adhered to. Luckily the color-coded numerical value system will help you find those you can date at a glance! Of course your first year will only have you paired up with those unsuitable to you so as to have 'encounter sessions' so that you may learn of their sorrows with a suitable practitioner present to carefully explain things to you.
As you know we have limited seating available for most courses and we must ensure that all courses have proportionate attendance. This chit system will help work out exactly which courses you will have to attend to ensure harmony across TU and that all professions have an exactly equal and identical mix of individuals in them. We do follow Fonte's prescription exactly on this count as society must have equal representation in the exact same proportion of all backgrounds as they are in society as, currently, there is a poor mix and under representation of some groups in our society, especially in government:
Group proportionalism as the goal of "fairness." Transnational progressivism assumes that "victim" groups should be represented in all professions roughly proportionate to their percentage of the population. If not, there is a problem of "underrepresentation."
Luckily we have taken all of your proposed majors and adjusted them to fit the current representation in society, so that everyone gets equal representation no matter what their skills are!
To help everyone out we have some basic orientation course requirements, which you will find in the packet in front of you. TU takes pride in presenting the Paul Krugman economics of disaster course as well as the Maureen Dowd literature course for first year students! In most other universities these are graduate level requirements, but here at TU only the the loftiest of ideals is held and we are sure that new students can easily take in the work of these masters of their art. Also on the first year is the Noam Chomsky political science for the uneducated course, which really should be taught in high school, but remains a part of no curriculum to date. We will have various reporters from AP, Reuters, New York Times, Washington Post and other luminary publications to teach basic math with imaginary number theory. We find that this should give any student a good concept of how to properly create ideas and present them no matter what the subject matter.
Some of you may wonder at the courses, but they are done to break the domination of specialists in those areas. Why should those with great study in math be the ones to dictate what math is? Reporters use math every day and have proven just as inventive as any mathematics scholar of the past in their use of number theory. This idea of dominance by actually having studied a subject is one we are looking to end at TU, so that anyone can talk on any subject and be an *expert*.
Also in the packet is your social awareness goal outline. Each of you has gotten a randomly printed societal ill that you will be expected to learn and become a socially conscious advocate for. The choices come from a mix of gender/race/species so that a chance is given even to those that are not humanoid to be given a fair shake by society. An example of this would be: Gay Black Whales. If you had that, then it would be your assignment to learn about that sub-group, its problems and then write advocacy letters to Congress and State Legislators every month to advocate societal adjustment to help that underprivileged group. We do this to follow the wisdom as seen by Fonte:
The values of all dominant institutions to be changed to reflect the perspectives of the victim groups. Transnational progressives insist that it is not enough to have proportional representation of minorities in major institutions if these institutions continue to reflect the worldview of the "dominant" culture. Instead, the distinct worldviews of ethnic, gender, and linguistic minorities must be represented within these institutions.
Our current ideas of what society is and the multi-species participation in society is not well understood and each of you will help in breaking out mental bonds in developing the broadest possible view of a fair society.
Also in the packet is the school calendar and you will see various days and weeks marked out with special significance. When a day, week or month appears that has a celebration of a different culture, you will need to dress and act in full accordance with that culture. Each one has a small pamphlet that is waiting for you in your quarters, so that you may adjust your attire, attitude and attend various ceremonies that go with each culture. A special tribute to African Women's Awareness day will be having 10% of the female population go through the circumcision process so as to learn the primitive joys of that procedure. The next day is the New Guinean rights of passage for men which will feature ritual scarification across the groin and back, so that you can carry a grand remembrance of that culture with you the rest of your life!
This is done in accordance with Fonte's outlook for Transnational Progressivism:
The "demographic imperative." The demographic imperative tells us that major demographic changes are occurring in the U. S. as millions of new immigrants from non-Western cultures enter American life. The traditional paradigm based on the assimilation of immigrants into an existing American civic culture is obsolete and must be changed to a framework that promotes "diversity," defined as group proportionalism.
Also note that there will be religious ceremonies for each of those periods that have mandatory attendance or there will be ritualized punishment aligned to that cultural outlook so as to understand the glorious diversity of societal views on punishment.
Of special note is Democracy Awareness Month, for special courses in fair democracy by group alignment. This special series of courses will feature numerous speakers from across the diverse cultures of America, like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Randy Cunningham, and special speakers from MECHa. Our democratic ideals need to be better aligned with group negotiation and no group need be left out of our diverse culture in America when it comes to power sharing.
The redefinition of democracy and "democratic ideals." Transnational progressives have been altering the definition of "democracy" from that of a system of majority rule among equal citizens to one of power sharing among ethnic groups composed of both citizens and non-citizens. James Banks, one of American education's leading textbook writers, noted in 1994 that "to create an authentic democratic Unum with moral authority and perceived legitimacy, the pluribus (diverse peoples) must negotiate and share power." Hence, American democracy is not authentic; real democracy will come when the different "peoples" that live within America "share power" as groups.
Really this is our guiding light at TU and we are so proud of our pioneers at Delaware for pointing the right way for this! Part of this outreach program during Democracy Awareness Month will be a letter writing campaign to all members of Congress in this, so as to further strengthen our solidarity with all groups throughout the world. This will help us to remove the concept of a dominant culture in America and experience the grandness of groups living just as they want side-by-side with other groups and not have to worry about such things as immigration procedures. By our actions we hope to help deconstruct the dominant culture basis and put all cultures on an equal footing for proportionate representation by their culture type so that TRUE democracy will be seen first in America and then everywhere:
Deconstruction of national narratives and national symbols of democratic nation-states in the West. In October 2000, a UK government report denounced the concept of "Britishness" and declared that British history needed to be "revised, rethought, or jettisoned." In the U.S., the proposed "National History Standards," recommended altering the traditional historical narrative. Instead of emphasizing the story of European settlers, American civilization would be redefined as a multicultural "convergence" of three civilizations—Amerindian, West African, and European. In Israel, a "post-Zionist" intelligentsia has proposed that Israel consider itself multicultural and deconstruct its identity as a Jewish state. Even Israeli foreign minister Shimon Peres sounded the post-Zionist trumpet in his 1993 book , in which he deemphasized "sovereignty" and called for regional "elected central bodies," a type of Middle Eastern EU.
To help us to identify what this is like, you will have notice that the entire campus is situated so that even graduate students live on-campus, so as to give you a better peer group identification basis. We like to think of this in the term that Hillary Clinton thought about it, and make our little spot on earth part of the Global Village by making a small Village right here where all live where they are assigned to better experience that global diversity.
As part of this new Village we have thought that it best to eliminate cultural designators so that each student can approach each other on a fair and non-dominant culture basis. With our deep research on the subject, we have given you each a badge and identification card for the Village that has a non-discriminatory number on it. When you are in the Village or even off campus, you will address everyone by their number, not their name, so that we can help in removing all individual distinctions of class, ethnic heritage and background in out appreciation of the global culture that we are all to be a part of. As you can see my badge is that of Number 2, and I fully believe that with effort the entire planet can become just like our Village here, as seen by Fonte:
Promotion of the concept of postnational citizenship. In an important academic paper, Rutgers Law Professor Linda Bosniak asks hopefully "Can advocates of postnational citizenship ultimately succeed in decoupling the concept of citizenship from the nation-state in prevailing political thought?"
Our ability to be one humanity with slight differences in a power sharing arrangement will help to let everyone know where they stand in the world for all of their lives, so that they will have meaning and direction at all times! With this lovely Global Village will come the need for Global Government, which we practice here at TU with our Village Administration. Those with assigned jobs will be running it and those that are students are to live in the glorious life provided by the Village Administration.
Now, before each of you takes your chits to get your work schedules and class schedules, and then see your assigned rooms, are there any questions?
*The speaker looks around.*
Yes? You in the back, do you have a question?
'Yes, Ma'am, I do.'
Oh, my! What is the question?
'Who is Number One? Who runs this place?'
Ah, you are Number.... Six?
'I am not a number, I am a Free Man.'
And so the fight of the Individual to BE Individual continues to this day.
We have heard a lot over the past few years about how first Afghanistan was going to be a 'quagmire' for military forces from the US and its Coalition there. Unfortunately the US, out of need due to inability to get large forces to Afghanistan, put in tiny forces with large throw-weight via airpower. For the first time since Alexander the Great used a small forces concept to move through the region, a foreign power has replicated that success. The nasty Afghan winter didn't show up, and when it finally *did*, a few years later, it was Canadian forces that went on the winter offensive... possibly for the first time *ever* in Afghanistan. Mind you that was counter-insurgency (COIN) work, not battlefield fighting. Still, the effects this year have been startling and built upon that success.
Then comes Iraq, the mother of all quagmires, apparently. The US had not fielded a similar size force for a few decades, and it did not have the deep manpower reserves of the previous forces in Vietnam, Korea, WWII and WWI. The force size was equivalent to that used in the Philippine-American war and with similar, almost eerily prescient, results: the main opposition collapsed quickly and the US was put into a COIN role for which it was unprepared. In the 1901-10 era of that previous COIN, the armed forces sustained more casualties from tropical diseases than from combat, and yet won through. That effort took a few years to get oriented, understand the societal milieu and then address it. There are *still* those in Mindanao that have hard feelings about not getting a separate Republic once the US left. Nearly a century of hard feelings and grudge, though softened over time, held because of the outlook that folks should work together in a Nation and not be Balkanized. So much for thanks on the multi-culti side of things: damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Americans, not bothering to learn any history of their Nation in wartime, have forgotten that experience, thus we have the same sort of editors, writers, thinkers and such decrying the venture in Iraq as they did the Philippines. Pretty much the same verbiage about 'American Empire' and 'lost cause' overseas. The 'Yellow Journalists' didn't put much of that out, but the 'respectible' elite newspapers and journals did, which also brings out an eerie tone of the modern era, save that there is no Nationalist media in the US anymore. So when the complaining and moaning about a 'quagmire in Iraq' started, one could only look to the modern re-orientation of combat forces to COIN and see the same parallel a century previous to this. The US Army, in particular, takes time to get its bearings when put down in a strange land to fight. It is the main battle force of the US and was once designed to take out the Soviet Union. The US Marine Corps., used to having to go anywhere and do anything on a moment's notice, held their history and training together on COIN, although it, too, needed a bit of updating for the modern era.
By not having a conscript military, the US invests its time and energy on those volunteering to take up military work as a profession. That is not understood *as* a profession by the other professional classes in America, and those classes tend to devolve military work as 'shooting and killing' only. That does happen, yes, and military conflict requires that the wilingness to counter an enemy with brutal means must be done for survival of one's own forces and to reach the goals of the Nation in such a conflict. Denigration of all other professional classes, but particularly in academia, has lowered the ability of the US population to understand military work and how it works. Without knowing the 'why' it is done the way it is, and 'how' things are achieved not *just* by killing, nearly an entire generation of Americans are left with very little concept of the utility and necessity of military power.
While the various critics and naysayers and pontificators put forward that Iraq was a 'quagmire' they refused to review or address the underlying structural changes going on in the armed forces due to the small forces victory in Afghanistan (a direct attribute of mountain warfare views) and within the US Army for Iraq. One thing that left many people scratching their heads is *why* Gen. Petraeus was taken out of the active combat theater and put at a 'desk job'. The man was *successful*, and that is his reward? So a bit of background before getting to the three groups stuck in an Iraqi quagmire is necessary.
Gen. Petraeus was sent to the US Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC). There he not only re-wrote the COIN concept and re-designed it, but he was in the #1 spot to give it the widest application possible. TRADOC drafts and creates all training and doctrine for the US Army and, as such, when Gen. Petraeus had a new COIN doctrine, it was immediately taken up and *applied* to training. Some of the other things going on at the time were also picked up and inculcated, such as the logistics force using high speed comms back to stateside training facilities to tell what sort of attacks they were seeing and good ways to counter them. That tactical knowledge was picked up at the training centers, examined, then put into real-time situations so that new methods and appraoches for combat protection could be designed. That was impossible before the late 1990's and came into its own during the early years of Iraq. Training shifted heavily from generic Military Operations in Urban Terrain (MOUT) to Iraq and Afghanistan specific training on how to deal with locals, language, religion and the differences in the MOUT situations and traditional combat in both areas.
The lesson is clear: the US Army kicks extremely successful individuals up to have the highest influence possible so as to spread success. It is not in his advanced degrees that Gen. Petraeus got put into TRADOC, it was for his ability to apply his knowledge and craft a successful strategic and tactical view for COIN that did that. His reward was to be the man to implement that across the entire theater of operations in Iraq. That is a merit-based reward system, not a nepotism or educational level based one. The US Army uses that, because success has a quantifiable meaning in successful operations and lives *saved* by not having to fight unnecessarily when other means will allow one to win. For all the modern aspects of this, the time scale is nearly the same in Iraq as it was in the Philippines with almost the same force size, the only difference being that in Iraq the native population is huge compared to the Philippines circa 1901.
Thus the three organizations that can't adapt to Iraq are now stuck in their own quagmires:
1) Mainstream Media (MSM) - We have learned over the last 6 years that anyone who has outprocessed before Afghanistan has no idea how the modern military works. Afghanistan is mountain warfare and highland warfare, even going into 'out of oxygen' warfare at very high altitudes. The long, hard lessons learned over centuries by Persians, British, Germans and Russians is that you do not take large forces through mountain terrain without securing the terrain via small force action *first*. Not only Afghanistan, but the rugged terrain of the Balkans and the Alps (alpine warfare), all lead to this one conclusion: large armies get stuck in unsecured mountain terrain and require the use of very small, very well adapted units to dislodge fighters. In Iraq the entire utilization of TRADOC and shifting the learning basis of the armed forces remains, to this day, unspoken and unresearched by the MSM.
By not giving the US population any idea of how COIN works and *why* it can fail and *how* it can fail, every single critic that has faulted the work of the armed forces, but particularly the US Army, has slandered them. For the first time in recorded history the Media is trying to fight the last war and the Army has adapted faster than the Media. Successful COIN work does not mean an *end* to the insurgency over-night: insurgencies will often drag on for a decade or two after it has lost any foothold in society. In this ignorance the US Academic professional class has shown their ineptitude and inability to actually move away from ideology and understand the use and utilization of force and the outcomes of same. Not only does academia not prepare students for 'real world jobs' it does not prepare them for the actual world itself. Together the aged retirees, hidebound media and ivory tower academics have joined forces to sink into a losing fight. They are now stuck in a quagmire of their own stupidity, and those unable to part with them when they spout nonsense are likewise stuck in that.
The difference between ignorance and stupidity, is that the first is cureable.
2) Al Qaeda - Yes, the nasty terrorists have found that they do not know how to counter small force mountain warfare forces nor how to counter large scale forces on flat terrain as part of an insurgency. By starting with outdated tactics and then trying to out-adapt their foes, the al Qaeda based insurgency has come face to face with a military force that not only adapts faster than the now defunct Red Army, but faster than most politicians, not to speak of terrorists. Terrorists waging illegitimate warfare lack the necessary infrastructure to maintain high levels of training and combat effectiveness over time. They can devise successful tactics, like how to create newer IEDs, but the application and utilization of those for a higher concern is scattered at best. Without donning uniforms, forming an organizational infrastructure, and inculcating the utilization of tactics to higher strategic goals, al Qaeda has learned 'the old fashioned way': did you survive trying something new? Did it work? Can we get you out of here to teach anyone else?
Bin Laden, himself, in his latest audiotape, now puts it out for all to hear, as seen at Strategypage (H/t - Instapundit):
October 27, 2007: On October 22nd, Osama bin Laden admitted that al Qaeda had lost its war in Iraq. In an audiotape speech titled "Message to the people of Iraq," bin Laden complains of disunity and poor use of resources. He admits that al Qaeda made mistakes, and that all Sunni Arabs must unite to defeat the foreigners and Shia Moslems. What bin Laden is most upset about is the large number of Sunni Arab terrorists who have switched sides in Iraq. This has actually been going on for a while. Tribal leaders and warlords in the west (Anbar province) have been turning on terrorist groups, especially al Qaeda, for several years. While bin Laden appeals for unity, he shows only a superficial appreciation of what is actually going on in Iraq.
Remember, just a couple of years ago Iraq was going to be where the infidel Americans were routed and the new Caliphate would begin. His knowledge of Iraq appears to be about the level of the MSM. He needs better INTEL and isn't getting it, just like the MSM.
Al Qaeda actually *does* have a force doctrine manual called The Management of Savagery, which puts forward a relatively straightforward concept of winning a terrorist started conflict on a global scale. The first is to find weak Nations and target ethnic or religious sub-populations, utilizing cash to gain acceptance and start destabilizing the Nation. Step two is to utilize violence to cause internal disorder and disarray, and do that so as to drive supporters to you. Third is to bring civil war to the Nation involved and to spread the instability to other groups in the Nation, utilizing backing now intra-Nation to do so. While doing that, spread instability across borders so as to make the problem more regional or more dispersed, depending on where target populations are located. Once an area is out of control of a government, institute Sharia law and schools and exploit the region to spread influence, back at step one.
Wash, rinse, repeat. In Iraq the al Qaeda organization had the Ansar affiliate that it sent Zarqawi to. Especially in Diyala province, but elsewhere, al Qaeda had existing ties and strengthened them after the US invasion of Iraq, this was Step One. At that point, to get funds to go after an extremely able opponent, ties with the ex-Ba'athist regime were made and al Qaeda settled down to brewing a civil war, this was Step Two. A funny thing happened on their way to Step Three: they ended up not being able to adjust their 'rough and ready' outlook to the highly tribal centered views of Iraq. Unlike in other parts of the Middle East or Africa, the Iraqis take their tribes damned seriously and killing tribal elders and force-marrying their daughters is a big 'no-no'. Zarqawi's tactics did not get directed just at the government, but at anyone that disagreed with him, which included his own power base in Iraq. By AUG-SEP 2006 the tribes started turning on al Qaeda and the 'managing of the savages' soon became the savages managing *them*, usually in lethal ways.
For the sophistication of their terrorist operations, al Qaeda has proven to be less adaptable *with* Arabs to the differences in Arab populations than the US Army has been with outsiders. That should have been a trump card for al Qaeda: ethnically known and religiously affiliated views should trump outsiders each and every time it is done. By being hidebound on societal tactics, al Qaeda started losing its tactical edge in the insurgency, to the point where their Ba'athist backers are starting to go after them, too. It appears that after shooting at *everyone* for so long, al Qaeda has the new experience of having *everyone* shoot at them.
3) Iran - Being a neighbor, Iran is stuck with Iraq but not the way that Syria, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia or Kuwait are. Iran is looking not only to extend its hegemony to include Iraq, but also is growing desperate for sustainment of its petroleum cash flow. By 60% of the Iraqi population being Shia and having ties to the Shia community, many MSM pundits and academia put forth that it is 'natural' that Iran will gain the upper hand. Unfortunately they are not dealing with the actual hatred of the Iranian regime by a large number of Shia in Iraq. One of the largest communities to send *volunteers* for Saddam during the Iran/Iraq War was the Shia community, and they volunteered in droves. That, alone, has to say something about the strength of feelings there. Worse for Iran is that they are Persians and some 80% of Iraq is Arab, and they are not treating their Arab community(nor indeed any ethnic minority) well in Iran which their cousins over the border hear about directly. Iran also does not have the strong tribal affiliation set-up as seen in Iraq, which is also playing against their main pawn, Moqtada al-Sadr.
In trying to counter each of these things Iran is stumbling, and badly, in setting up a Hezbollah affiliate in Iraq. The strong differences between the elder Iraqi cleric, Ali al-Sistani, and Iran creates a strong religious outlook in opposition to Iran. Moqtada al-Sadr is proving not to be his father's son and only has a great ability for self-survival and a limited one for organizational capability. His clashes with the Badr Brigades (also supported by Iran) have proven to be a continuing source of heartache for both, and causing growing resentment in the general Shia population towards both. In trying to stir up dissension in the Shia community so as to exploit that, Iran is facing a community that is uniting against the Iranian pawns.
This is not in the standard playbook of Iran, which puts forward a multi-decade view for radical support. Really you want one, centralized and focused oranization to destabilize a country, like Hezbollah in Lebanon, not two that are quarreling with each other. So the only remedy is to send in your OWN forces under cover and... well, they are having problems now that native Persians are getting picked up in Iraq, which is causing further grief in the population with Iran, Badr organization and al-Sadr's JaM. Apparently a force to do the *right thing* and attack Americans is hitting other folks a bit more than planned, clashing with other front organizations and having problems gaining any new recruits to the cause. After that, shifting attacks against the government has proven to be a nasty surprise for Iran as the New Iraqi Army is now the lead element in Basra and a few other points along the border, and instead of al-Sadr destabilizing things by pulling out of the Shia dominated government, that government is now performing hard and fast outreach to the Sunni Arabs and Kurds. By supporting local 'concerned citizens' or 'police auxiliaries' or 'neighborhood watches', the Shia government is demonstrating that it understands and legitimizes the need for self-protection under National auspices. Yes, Iraqi Nationalism that is *not* Ba'athist Nationalism is the outcome of Iran's opportunistic support for insurgents. And the New Iraqi Army has picked up widespread Sunni Arab support after being seen, not as oppressors as many in the MSM and punditry predicted, but as helping to quell instability and stand up local government.
To make the New Iraqi Army less effective, Iran wanted to ensure that the Badr organization was pulled into it, lock, stock and barrel. Some parts were, indeed, pulled in... but the INTEL work of the US to find those with close attachment to Iran and helping the Iraqis to form their own martial justice system, has proven to be something that was unexpected by Iran. Arabs policing themselves in an Army! Even the Turks have problems with that! While it is no 'magic wand' to weed out the bad actors, it ensures that ALL bad actors have equal expectations of justice. Trying to counter corruption before it starts in the New Iraqi Army is the leading challenge of the Coalition. Getting it to stick is challenge two. Iran was, clearly, not expecting this, and thought that just like Lebanon, getting a few capable and competent turn-coats into the New Iraqi Army to destabilize and discredit it would be *easy*. The New Iraqi Army is only *majority* Shia Arab and includes all ethnicities, religions and outlooks in Iraq, and while there is common corruption rampant in the Middle East, the soldiers in the IA recognize that treating their own soldiers with respect and dignity, supplying them properly and building up esprit de corps is a long-term winner.
Clearly, Iran expected to operate a catspaw insider force and discredit the IA, Iraqi Police and Iraqi Government. Instead they are creating resentment of the interference, causing tribal strife to the point where the southern tribes are now starting to do as was done in Anbar, and, even worse, is that the IA is proving to be as effective as the Peshmerga, which have repulsed a few military operations from Iran into Iraq already. Trying to stir up ethnic differences and religious problems, exploit them and then gain power is similar to what al Qaeda does, although Iran has lots more money. Then there is the 'backflow' of money and help going to Baluchs, Arabs, Kurds and Azeris in Iran, which was absolutely not expected.
Each of these three have losing outlooks with regards to Iraq. And while the American people can't do much else about al Qaeda and Iran, because our government refuses to recognize them for the problems they are, we can and *should* start to hold the MSM, pundit class and academia heavily responsible for being so ill-adapted to the modern world that they can no longer describe it accurately.
Or at all, and just make up stories to fit their outlooks.
With the MSM Americans can vote by changing the channel or finding more reliable individuals for their information. As for academia, that is up to parents to decide on their actual support for school systems and higher education and its utility when Leftist ideology is stuck in a quagmire of its own making. As individuals and a society, we can and should hold academia and the media up to scrutiny and then vote to remove their support from government. Local seems to work best, and it is past time to get the Federal side out of local affairs so that the media and education can reflect society, not attempt to remake it.
As some of you may know I am a user of Exubera, the inhaled insulin product. I have written about this previously in:
Stem cells..."A cure is just around the corner" - and pointing out that good and useful treatement for a condition would be worth a lot without looking for a quixotic cure and no better treatment.
Today I have some other news from Pfizer, which I was just made aware of, and I will give you the posting on their website for Exubera so that you may read it.
Yes, inhaled powdered insulin is: safe, effective and shows ill effects in very very few people. Pfizer couldn't figure out how to market an insulin product that did not require needles! Ah, the joys of marketing!
Now, how did they tell this to the company that helped develop this product with them? The following is from Nektar Therapeutics, that self-same company, and do take a gander so you can realize the absolute class that Pfizer has, and I will strip out some of the marketing and legal material about how this press release is not to be used for investment and what other great stuff we are working on:
Nektar Therapeutics Issues Statement on Exubera October 18, 2007
SAN CARLOS, Calif., Oct 18, 2007 /PRNewswire-FirstCall via COMTEX News Network/ -- Nektar Therapeutics (Nasdaq: NKTR) issued a statement today in response to Pfizer's announcement this morning to exit Exubera, the inhaled insulin product to treat diabetes.
"We first learned this morning of Pfizer's decision to walk away from Exubera from their press release," said Howard W. Robin, President and Chief Executive Officer of Nektar Therapeutics. "Nektar has been very disappointed in Pfizer's performance in marketing Exubera. Pfizer has publicly acknowledged its organizational difficulties and resulting poor performance in launching Exubera. This has culminated in their announcement today. We are evaluating all of our options with respect to Pfizer's Exubera announcement to protect the interests of Nektar. We continue to believe Exubera is an important advancement for diabetic patients."
Nektar's business has multiple sources of revenue, important partnerships for products on the market and in development, and a diverse pipeline of innovative new proprietary therapies.
The company continues to develop NKTR-102 (PEG-irinotecan) for the treatment of solid tumors, NKTR-118 (PEG-naloxol) to treat opioid bowel dysfunction, and a number of other innovative PEGylation-based product candidates. In addition, progress is being made in the co-development of NKTR-061 (inhaled amikacin) to treat Gram-negative pneumonias with Bayer Schering Pharma AG. Nektar also has a number of other inhaled anti-infective programs in development.
There, just enough to let you know what they are doing without too much marketing material, just enough to show you that they know what they are doing.
Now, I will tell you how they marketed this stuff, in case you missed the ads. It was marketed to generally older, Type II diabetics, those depending on glucophages and oral means, with some injected insulin here and there to help them out. Type I diabetics (aka Juvenile Diabetes although that is only a major population not a true description) were left out in the cold. Those are the folks who need to manage their insulin use and compensate for meals.
Type II diabetics will have a widely varying use of human insulin (fast acting, real insulin, not basal metabolism insulin with slow absorption) that varies from NONE (those that utilize exercise) to a few units per meal. In general Type II is managed with glucophages, basal metabolism insulin or small amounts of fast acting insulin depending on individual, of course.
Type I diabetics, generally, will have a vanishingly small population that can get by on just basal insulin alone, and require faster acting insulin at each meal and *between* meals. That amount of need means that the average use is higher, per meal and much higher per day than Type II diabetics.
So, did Pfizer market the stuff to the high use or low use population?
Yes the LOW USE POPULATION! Those that don't need it as much! Isn't that lovely?
Then they did something even more asinine: they set the amount used by WEIGHT. Now, far be it from me to point out that different people have different metabolisms at the same weight. Ok, I will point that out. So that starts off on a bad footing right *there*.
Now if you are a Type I diabetic and actually get this stuff prescribed for you, the idea is to eliminate as many injections per day of the fast acting insulin (lispro/humalog) with Exubera. Weight makes ZERO play in this. There are exactly two variables that determine the dosing and (Pfizer if you are reading this pay attention) they are:
1) Blood Glucose level pre-meal: if you have a goal of a BG of 120 mg/dl and you are adjusting at, say, per every 25 mg/dl above that with 1U lispro, you want to use Exubera to replace that. I found that 1mg blister of Exubera does this just fine. Other goals and adjustment amounts will vary by individual, but this works for me.
2) Net carbohydrates per meal: here the adjustment is by net carbs (total carbs - fiber carbs = net carbs) and the divisor for that. So if you take 1U humalog per every 10 net carbs, then a basic two slice of bread sandwich is usually 30 net carbs or 3U humalog. And, yes, the 3mg blister of Exubera works just fine for this.
This is absolutely critical for Type I diabetics and you know what this does to doctors trying to PRESCRIBE Exubera? How about insurance companies where the company is telling them that people should only use this stuff by WEIGHT at set amounts?
Are we starting to get the picture here?
Yes, this is an absolute nightmare. Pfizer made this worse by only providing two box types as 'sets': one box with 90 blisters of 1mg and one box with 90 blisters of 3mg, and a set with two of the 1mg and and one of 3mg. No matter how you juggle this stuff, even by their OWN WEIGHT CHARTS you would always be running low on either the 3mg or 1mg and have excess of the other left and the INSURANCE companies didn't like that. I fell sorry for the folks with leftover 3mg blisters as there isn't much you can do with those... I was able to finally learn how to compensate 1mg for 3mg blisters (and, contrary to Pfizer it is not 'overdosing' at 3:1 and, in fact, I found 4 x 1mg = 1 x 3mg).
So they had very few people getting the stuff? And they wonder *why*?
So here is the rundown of the failures of Pfizer:
1) Not marketing to the right niche - In theory there are a lot more Type II diabetics than Type I's, so this should work out, but, in fact, for steady and high use you want to get as much of the smaller population on the bandwagon FIRST. Steady and increasing production as folks see it used and are convinced of its safety, especially by those using it the most and you will have a larger win with the larger population over time.
2) Not targeting the product use - Not only did Pfizer get the dosage information incorrect, but did not consider the actual use of humalog insulin by diabetics and the fact that Exubera, being honest-to-god crystallized human insulin, REPLACES IT COMPLETELY. No more injections for anything but basal insulin!
3) Not figuring out there would be deviation from their incorrectly set guidelines - Insurance companies are brittle things and you can't get BUYERS if you are restrictive in your GUIDANCE for use. Because GUIDANCE becomes the ONLY think insurance companies will use. By keeping rigid guidance Pfizer killed off the ability of patients to get ENOUGH of this stuff through their insurance companies. Thus, fewer than expected sales.
4) What is the one category of diabetic that is an absolute, hands-down sale? Pediatric use. The marketing to that? ZERO. Children do not like injections, in case Pfizer missed the clue bus there. If you give children a neat way to take medication that is painless they will USE IT. Parents will be HAPPY and only worry about the basal injection. Yes it would have meant a 6 month trial, most likely. After 6 years of trials? Why this stuff was not in every endocrinologist's office that has patients between 5-18 is beyond me. The word is: hotcakes.
5) Missing the actual way humalog is used - I have another clue for Pfizer: bolus (the BG balancing injection) is only ONE part of the use of humalog insulin. You might have considered the carb compensation community and issued different guidelines.
6) Packaging - This should have been the hands-down easiest thing to address. Break up the freaking 'sets' and let pharmacies sell the Exubera by the blister pack box. That way doctors could prescribe this stuff more exactly for their patients instead of having to argue with freaking insurance companies all the time. Put the bi-monthly aerator as something that gets dropped in FOR FREE, two per month and charge an extra few bucks on the separate boxes. Doctors then know patients get those without charge, pharmacies see that patients get those as a 'drop-in' with nice smiley face from Pfizer, and Pfizer makes sure that they have long-term happy patients that will buy the stuff to replace all their humalog.
Basically Pfizer screwed up and badly on their marketing department, packaging and market niche concepts. The proper term is a CF, and those in the military or civilian DoD should know it quite well. By doing a couple of things wrong, everything fails simultaneously.
Now I will scramble around to get the last of the production to the end of the year and do my best to continue using this until Eli Lilly comes out with their inhaled insulin.
Dear Nektar - I am sorry you got partnered with such a group if idiots like the folks at Pfizer. If you can rescue this product, may I suggest seeing if you can get the production equipment shifted to a generic manufacturer or cross-license this to another company that can get its hands on the production line at Pfizer and actually have a CLUE as to how this stuff should be marketed?
It is the greatest product I have run across since becoming a Type I diabetic in 1983.
Dear Prizer - Please fire your marketing department and get some folks in that know what they are doing, at least in the diabetes area. You have some really nice products. The folks in charge of it seem to be out to ruin that portion of the company. You could do worse than actually LISTENING to your service reps seeing doctors as I know that my doctor has been giving you an earful monthly, if not more often. Some people who LISTEN and TAKE NOTES would help.
Peter Paul, convicted felon on various business deals in his past, a man who broke his parole and was jailed for that, served his time. I make no bones about it, he is, perhaps, not the nicest man on planet earth, but then, he isn't ordering folks to fly aircraft into buildings, either. He is what we would call a crook and now ex-con.
His crimes include trying to swindle the Cuban government on coffee deals, got caught up in a counter-narcotics monitoring program and wasn't able to sink the ship carrying the coffee... and yet was still able to get the cash from Cuba. Can't really say if the US DEA planted cocaine on him or not, but while on parole skipped out, got caught and served his sentence for 3 years out of 8. He also tried his hand, after getting out, on working a commemerative plate deal for the bicentennial of the US Constitution, on the basic buy low, get things engraved on the cheap and sell high. That deal just went under, the company bankrupt. After that he somehow hooked up with Stan Lee of Marvel Comics fame and the rest, as they say, was wheeling and dealing.
Stan Lee, no slouch on the business end of things, knew which way is up and was looking to get Stan Lee Media off to a rip-roaring start. Starting with little in the way of funding, the need to get a prominent person to figurehead the organization was seen as a high priority. That is where the Clintons come in, with Bill still in office and Hillary running for Senate. That deal was a straight up sort of thing often seen in the media: ingratiate yourself to get said endorsements and a titular job with modest ongoing payments and everyone wins. So would begin the start of the Hillary Clinton for Senate campaign cover-up which would start with a Hollywood Gala tribute to the Clintons for Bill's retirement from President. Luckily it was caught on videotape and Peter Paul is suing for what happened afterwards, and Mr. Paul is making a production out of it, new media style. It is worth a gander to say the least.
It is well worth the time it takes to watch it, but if not I will be handing out a few points as we go along. But keep this in mind: to get to the backer that was attracted to SLM, Tendo Oto from Japan, Hillary Clinton would, in the space of a couple of days, go from saying how wonderful Peter Paul, et. al. are and such great backers to.... 'Peter Paul? Who is Peter Paul?' Of course Peter Paul also had the stock price of SLM artificially inflated to get Oto interested, but that, as they say, is another story.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's former finance director has been indicted on charges of filing fictitious reports that misstated contributions for a Hollywood fund-raiser for the senator.
The indictment charges David Rosen with four counts of filing false reports with the Federal Election Commission. The charges focus on an Aug. 12, 2000, dinner and concert supported by more than $1.1 million in "in-kind contributions" – goods and services provided for free or below cost. The event was estimated to cost more than $1.2 million.
Rosen is the second figure involved in organizing the soiree for Clinton to become entangled in legal problems as a result.
Aaron Tonken is currently in prison for his role in organizing the event – a tribute to then-President Bill Clinton and starring Cher, Patti LaBelle, Sugar Ray, Toni Braxton, Melissa Etheridge, Michael Bolton, Paul Anka and Diana Ross.
[..]
In addition to his Clinton effort, Rosen has raised money for several other high-profile Democratic candidates, including former presidential hopeful Wesley Clark. Most recently, he was named to the fund-raising team of Donnie Fowler, a candidate for the Democratic National Committee chairmanship.
Tonken, 34 at the time of the 2000 fund-raiser, basked in his role in organizing the fund-raiser, never imaging he'd be facing down government investigators within a couple of years.
Writes Tonken in describing the departure of the Clintons the night of the gala: "Just before they got into the limo, I handed the president gifts from me, Stan Lee and Peter Paul: for him, a custom humidor and a handmade gold watch worth tens of thousands; for Hillary, a necklace that cost eight grand. The first lady disliked it and later sent it back.
"Before my car arrived, I had my last fond glimpses of this gathering of the rich and famous. I watched them drive off into the night. I may have been the ultimate outsider growing up, but not any more. Now I was in, and they were my people.
"But not for long. In less than three years I'd be busted. Instead of chronicling my stunning successes, Variety's Army Archerd would be writing about my criminal misdeeds; I'd be talking not to presidents and movie stars, but to the FBI and other federal agencies, handing over more than two dozen boxes of letters, e-mails, receipts and invoices, cooperating as the government pursued a multifaceted investigation into the corruption that lay hidden behind all the glitter."
Tonken pleaded guilty last year to one count of mail fraud and one count of wire fraud in hopes of ultimately getting a lesser prison sentence. Instead, he was sentenced to 63 months in prison and ordered to pay $3.79 million to donors and event underwriters whom he bilked.
He clearly implicated Rosen.
"David Rosen, Hillary Clinton's director of finance, worked out of our offices and knew about every dime that was being spent," he writes. "More than that, he participated in the spending."
In his account of his dealings with Hillary, Tonken mentions how grateful she had been to him for all his help with her campaign. But how much did she know about the financial skullduggery?
"One thing about Hillary, she was very attentive to the little details," he writes. "I believe she is genuinely considerate in that way. The very next day [after the Hollywood fund-raiser], she sent me a thank-you note, partially handwritten, in which she said: 'Your ongoing support of my Senate candidacy is especially important to me, and I am grateful for your continued friendship.'
"Take a good, long look at the first half of that last sentence. I did, and it made me wonder: Did she really know what was going on? I think David Rosen knew; I think [longtime aide] Kelly Craighead knew; I think [fund-raiser] Jim Levin knew. But Hillary? It was very possible that they hid it from her. In a way, that was their job. Protect the candidate.
"That was all about to change."
Not only did Peter Paul get thank you notes from each of the Clintons and autographed photos,
but Mr. Tonken also got that lovely letter for all of his hard work on the gala which, really, Hillary just can't remember working on... luckily Mr. Paul got the teleconference with himself, Stan Lee, Hillary Clinton and other staff members recorded for posterity. Hillary Clinton not only knew what was going on with the Gala, but she got weekly updates from her staff and forwarded suggestions to the organizers.
But she would be 'friends' with Mr. Tonken and a very close 'friend' of Peter Paul. And do remember Peter Paul is no 'babe in the woods' when dealing with rough characters... although Mr. Tonken was, the poor, naive soul. Stan Lee, of course, knows how to deal with rough folks in New York and how to protect himself. Still, you do have to wonder 'What Would Spiderman Do?'
"You know, I'm going to start thanking the woman who cleans the restroom in the building I work in. I'm going to start thinking of her as a human being" -Hillary Clinton (From the book "The Case Against Hillary Clinton" by Peggy Noonan, p. 55)
Profile of the Sociopath Manipulative and Conning
They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.
This will be my first and most important mission as President -- one I believe I have the strength and experience to complete. Today, I want to lay out my three point plan for how I would achieve this -- how, as President, I would bring our troops home, work to bring stability to the region, and replace a military force with a new diplomatic initiative to engage countries around the world in securing Iraq's future and America's national security interests.
Yes, those American troops can only cause problems... mind you it was her 'co-president' husband who was elected that said this:
BRUSSELS, Dec. 23, 1997 – During a preholiday visit to Bosnia Dec. 22 President Clinton told American troops thanks to their efforts, the Balkan nation is no longer "the powder keg at the heart of Europe."
"We gave you a mission and you delivered," Clinton told members of the Army's 1st Armored Division and 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment. "What you are doing for your country is a good and noble thing," he said. "You are doing it well, and we are grateful."
"They made an agreement at Dayton that we are doing our dead level best to help them enforce," Clinton said. The United States is determined not only to do its part, but also expects the Bosnians to theirs, he said.
The president told American troops at Eagle Base the young Muslims, Serbs and Croats he met in Sarajevo all want peace. "It was like a chorus," Clinton said, "They said, 'Stay just a little longer. We don't understand why we're supposed to hate each other. We don't want that kind of future. Please stay.'"
Clinton's visit came four days after he announced U.S. forces will participate in a follow-on peacekeeping mission in Bosnia. "In spite of all you have done," he said in Tuzla, "I think it is imperative that we not stop until the peace here has a life of its own, until it can endure without us. We have worked too hard to let this go."
Mind you she did vote for the first, but on the early bit in Bosnia? Well, what could she have done for that? I mean only 'co-president' unelected, after all:
On March 21, 1999, Hillary expressed her views by phone to the President: “I urged him to bomb.” The Clintons argued the issue over the next few days. [The President expressed] what-ifs: What if bombing promoted more executions? What if it took apart the NATO alliance? Hillary responded, “You cannot let this go on at the end of a century that has seen the major holocaust of our time. What do we have NATO for if not to defend our way of life?” The next day the President declared that force was necessary.
From Hillary's Choiceby Gail Sheehy. Apparently, in that 'peace keeping' concept, Hillary had a lot of say in that, too. But it *was* her choice. Both times. It is almost as if Bill Clinton was being a bit dominated or something.
From a WaPo article right after the Lewinsky Affair hit the fan by Kevin Merida, 20 SEP 1998, italics in the original:
The instinct is to try to read her facial expressions, to pore over her public persona for clues about her emotional being. What did it mean when she patted the president gently on the back when a reporter asked whether he had considered resigning? Was her embrace of him at a Democratic National Committee fund-raiser warm or cool? When she whispers to him or brushes her hand across his pant leg, are those gestures of forgiveness or carefully scripted acts meant to convey an impression?
At last week's state dinner for Czech Republic President Vaclav Havel, it was Mrs. Clinton who was the brightest social light in the room, partying as if it were November 1992 and they had just won the White House. She danced three times with her mate, fast and slow, starring for the world as the happily married woman. She was much more animated, in command and energetic than her husband as the night wore on. Typically, it's the president who gabs away while the first lady tugs on his arm to end the evening.
Of course, it was the first big social event since the Starr report dropped, and amateur behavioral scientists were sure to search for cracks in the first couple's chemistry. So perhaps Hillary Clinton decided early on she would not show a crack. Or perhaps she wanted and needed to have some fun.
Yes she does seem to thrive on the problems of her husband, almost energized by it.
From Vanity Fair magazine, excerpt of For Love of Politics - Bill and Hillary Clinton by Sally Bedell Smith, article NOV 2007:
Yet Hillary always had an undercurrent of competition with Al Gore that burst into the open from time to time. One day, when Gore and his team presented their plans for improving government efficiency, Bill asked so many questions that the meeting ran a half-hour too long. As a result, Bill was late for a session in the White House Residence with Hillary and her health-care advisers. Feeling snubbed, Hillary lectured her husband on the importance of health care. Bill "retreated a bit," recalled a participant. "It took five minutes to get through that situation.… She was not pleased."
Yes, Bill Clinton did have some power issues in their 'co-presidency'. Mind you Hillary was given a job to do by the President, and in that role she is not his wife, but carrying out the duties assigned to her. Yet she felt personally snubbed, when it was the business of the President to ensure that he understood issues and programs that he might be backing.
"Many of you are well enough off that [President Bush's] tax cuts may have helped you. We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to have to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." (Hillary grandstanding at a fund raising speech in San Francisco; SFGate.com 6/28/2004.)
Profile of the Sociopath Grandiose Sense of Self
Feels entitled to certain things as "their right."
From Newsday22 FEB 2006, Sen. Clinton on school vouchers:
"First family that comes and says 'I want to send my daughter to St. Peter's Roman Catholic School' and you say 'Great, wonderful school, here's your voucher,'" Clinton said. "Next parent that comes and says, 'I want to send my child to the school of the Church of the White Supremacist ...' The parent says, 'The way that I read Genesis, Cain was marked, therefore I believe in white supremacy. ... You gave it to a Catholic parent, you gave it to a Jewish parent, under the Constitution, you can't discriminate against me.'"
As an adoring, if somewhat puzzled, audience of Bronx activists looked on, Clinton added, "So what if the next parent comes and says, 'I want to send my child to the School of the Jihad? ... I won't stand for it."
Fine, fine talk from a woman that was able to send her own daughter to a private school. And she does know that no school would open that would openly preach treason against the United States. Of course parents can't decide where to send their children to school or even homeschool. Hillary won't stand for that.
After telling an audience that young people today "think work is a four-letter word," Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said she apologized to her daughter.
"I said, 'I'm sorry, I didn't mean to convey the impression that you don't work hard,'" Clinton said Sunday in a commencement address at Long Island University. "I just want to set the bar high, because we are in a competition for the future."
Clinton spoke to more than 2,000 graduates days after she criticized young people at a gathering of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Washington. In those remarks, she said young people have a sense of entitlement after growing up in a "culture that has a premium on instant gratification."
Amazing how it comes out that everyone else gets the 'high bar' and then realizes she has just insulted her own daughter because her daughter TOLD HER SO. Of course that is her right to criticize everyone with a broad brush, now, isn't. Let us hope Chelsea never becomes part of a 'Vast Right Wing Conspiracy'.
From Vanity Fair magazine, excerpt of For Love of Politics - Bill and Hillary Clinton by Sally Bedell Smith, article NOV 2007:
The turning point in Hillary's political life came on November 6, 1998, when New York senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan said he would not run for a fifth term. New York congressman Charles Rangel, who had already been pushing Hillary to enter the race, called that evening and said, "I sure hope you'll consider running, because I think you could win." Bill later wrote that he thought it "sounded like a pretty good idea," although Hillary said she told Rangel that she was "honored" but "not interested" and that she considered the idea "absurd." Yet the same day, Mandy Grunwald, a key adviser to Hillary, called the Moynihans to assess their reaction to a Senate bid by Hillary. They both thought it was a bad idea, because she didn't know the state and hadn't shown any interest in its issues or needs.
The Moynihan seat had in fact been on the Clintons' radar for months. Shortly after the midterm election, Hillary and her longtime adviser Harold Ickes signaled that interest by inviting a group of friends to have dinner and talk about her prospects. "It was a very pragmatic political discussion," recalled Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala. "I told her not to run, that she was an outsider, had never lived in New York. We talked about the Bobby Kennedy thing, and her response was that she was looking at the polls. She said that, based on Kennedy's experience [winning a Senate seat as a newcomer to the state in 1964, after he had served as attorney general for John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson], New Yorkers were welcoming." By Bill's account, Hillary made up her mind only days after Moynihan announced his retirement. Once she had spent time "looking around and talking to people," she said, "Okay, I want to do it. So here we go."
[..]
Before Hillary officially established her exploratory committee, she began directly competing with the vice president for money, sometimes even at his own fund-raising events. When Tipper's friend Melinda Blinken and a group of women planned a Gore fund-raiser in Los Angeles, Hillary insisted on being invited—over the objections of the event's organizers. Hillary then shocked the vice president's supporters by soliciting donations for herself in front of Tipper.
At a White House reception in late July for the winners of the Women's World Cup soccer championship, Hillary singled out "my dear friend Tipper Gore" as "a great athlete in her time." But by then Hillary had privately frozen out Tipper, who had given her steadfast support during the Lewinsky ordeal. Hillary never made clear her reasons for the snub, which became apparent once she started running for the Senate. Tipper was reported to be stunned, believing she had been cast aside because she was no longer useful.
Well, Tipper Gore wasn't useful to Hillary any more - her husband was competing for *money* and air time from Bill. Hillary's objectives were far more important than friendship, apparently.
From Dick Morris and Eileen McGann article at Townhall.com No one dare criticize Hillary Clinton, 21 FEB 2007:
Not even supporters of Hillary’s opponents are allowed to disparage her. If they do, the wrath of Hillary surfaces and it is not a pretty sight.
The latest sinner is Hollywood superstar David Geffen. Geffen used to be an avid supporter of the Clintons – he raised over $18 million for them in the past. But no more. Now the Dreamworld founder is backing Obama – and he’s not afraid to say so.
That’s why Hillary wants him banished to political Siberia.
Geffen gave an interview to New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd. Here’s a few tidbits from him that apparently rankled Hillary:
“...I don’t think that another incredibly polarizing figure, no matter how smart she is and no matter how ambitious she is — and God knows, is there anybody more ambitious than Hillary Clinton? — can bring the country together.”
“Obama is inspirational, and he’s not from the Bush royal family or the Clinton royal family. “
“It’s not a very big thing to say, ‘I made a mistake’ on the war, and typical of Hillary Clinton that she can’t,”
Geffen also call Bill Clinton “a reckless guy” who “gave his enemies a lot of ammunition to hurt him and to distract the country.”
Hillary was outraged at what she called these ‘vicious’ and ‘personal’ attacks against her and her husband by Geffen.
Vicious? Those comments were vicious?
Yes, to Hillary, they were. So, the Clinton camp wasted no time in trotting out Howard Wolfson to once again defend the honor of the heiress apparent and call for Geffen’s head. This time even an apology wouldn’t be enough: Hillary demanded that Obama dump Geffen and return the $1.3 million that he raised for Obama because of Geffen’s negative comments about the frontrunner and her husband.
That would make things a lot easier for Hillary, wouldn’t it? In the world according to Hillary, there’s no place in politics for anyone who doesn’t love her and Bill.
Remember, people who supported her in the past and dare to offer *any* criticism are the targets. Hillary is more important than what *you* believe.
"If you want to remain on this detail, get your f**king ass over here and grab those bags!" (From the book "The First Partner" p. 259 - Hillary to a Secret Service Agent who was reluctant to carry her luggage because he wanted to keep his hands free in case of an incident.)
"Put this on the ground! I left my sunglasses in the limo. I need those sunglasses. We need to go back!" (From the book "Dereliction of Duty" p. 71-72 - Hillary to Marine One helicopter pilot to turn back while en route to Air Force One.)
Profile of the Sociopath Pathological Lying
Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests.
Now here is a common problem that many Upon the Hill have, but Senators seem to get it worse than most. Sen. Clinton, however, has got this one pretty bad, as witness this bit given to us by USA Today on 11 APR 2007:
FORT DRUM, N.Y. — One by one, their eyes on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, more than 40 soldiers recited a somber roll call: name, rank, company and where in Iraq or Afghanistan they had been wounded.
Later, after hearing their tales of chaos, confusion and shabby treatment by the military health care system, Clinton vowed to send her own staff here to help.
"These young men go off to war. They are motivated. They have volunteered. … And then we turn around and don't take care of them," Clinton told USA TODAY late Tuesday. "It's outrageous. I don't know how people sleep at night. I don't get it."
Clinton, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has spent the week highlighting the medical needs of soldiers and veterans leading up to a hearing today on their problems by her committee and the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee. Her appearances underscored her dual role these days as a Democratic senator from New York and a presidential candidate seeking to be the nation's first female commander in chief.
[..]
She chatted with disabled veterans at their bedsides. She heard wounded soldiers here talk about problems in getting treatment and information, negotiating a chaotic bureaucracy, coping with denials of disability and life insurance claims, and making sure their records — and even they themselves — do not get lost in the system.
Clinton marveled at some tales and shuddered at others. "This has got to get fixed," she said at a tightly controlled meeting where military authorities didn't allow soldiers to be identified or quoted.
Later, she ripped into the Bush administration for talking up the troops but skimping on people, money and equipment. "To me, all this talk about 'We're going to go to war and we're going to demonstrate freedom and we're going to promote democracy and we're going to support our troops' — where's the reality?" she demanded. "The reality is what we do to take care of these people who are serving us and doing the mission that they are ordered to do."
Apparently Sen. Clinton has never bothered to read her job description. You do *know* that members of Congress have a job description, right? Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution:
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Amazing how much power we give to Congress to do all of those things. A great job, if you can get it...which Sen. Clinton *did*. Mind you almost all Congresscritters are mendacious on this point, but that doesn't keep them from trying to shift blame from where it belongs to someone else.
And the best part of that article was yet to come. Remember she does know who does what in the government:
Hospital aides raced to get pictures taken with her. A meeting with 12 soldiers at Fort Drum turned into a meeting with nearly four times that many — and they lined the hall afterward to shake her hand. "Defending our country is the paramount job" of a commander in chief, Clinton said in the interview. "I think I'm equipped for that job, but I think that I also have to make the case because a woman has never been president."
In reality she could start getting things done right where she is... and NOT send her staff as personal lackeys to do what she feels bad about. Of course she knows that it is not the President that makes all the bureaucracy. It is Congress... and she is on the Armed Services Committee and the prime CAUSE of the bureaucracy. But to acknowledge that would be truthful and admitting her own failure in the process. Best to blame someone who has no power over it.
Then there is how she ran her 2000 Senate campaign, beyond the Gala event, again from VF book excerpt:
Hillary's rather joyless politicking was belied by her girlish campaign slogan, "hillary!" Besides creating the illusion of liveliness in an otherwise colorless campaign, the punchy catchword severed the candidate from the Clinton name and became the latest version of an evolving political brand that began with "Hillary Rodham" during Bill's first term as governor, shifted to "Hillary Clinton" to placate an Arkansas electorate irked by her feminism, and then to "Hillary Rodham Clinton" as First Lady.
Bill was remarkably philosophical and compliant about his diminished place in her political identity. "Trashing me is fine if it helps Hillary," Bill told aide Sidney Blumenthal, who observed, "He just wanted her to win."
Amazing how she tried to have folks forget the 'co-presidency' so quickly, and she did succeed to a large extent. This is 'triangulation' and she is willing to step away from anything in her past that might be a stumbling block to her future. Just who is Hillary Clinton to herself? Whatever she says it is, and she devoutly believes that as it changes again and again.
But she still can't catch a break with suburban women. It isn't only her hunger for the job; she just doesn't come across as genuine. It is hard for people to tell what's true when you can't talk about the things most important to you and have to put a smiley face on one of the toughest political marriages in history. When she says she felt like a newlywed unpacking boxes in Chappaqua, it rings hollow. Does she really relish the prospect of rattling around in the huge empty house on her own? When she says, "It takes a village," doesn't she really mean "It takes mandatory universal health care, if only you people had listened"? When she shook so many hands in the Puerto Rican Day parade that veins were bulging in her wrist, all the while earnestly asking "How are you?," it sounded tinny, like a hotel operator inquiring "How can I direct your call?" Gail Sheehy reported that after that somber walk across the White House lawn, the one after the President was forced to admit he'd had sex with "that woman," the Clintons actually laughed and joked on the plane all the way to Martha's Vineyard.
Many Democrats in the hall have given up trying to figure out what's real and what's Memorex. Several weeks ago, Hillary told Elizabeth Bumiller of the New York Times that she had, after all, been quite active behind the scenes of the Administration. I tend to believe that's true, but the truth is closed off to Hillary after six years of denying that she ever set foot in the West Wing, preferring to concern herself with preserving historic sites, fussing over state dinners and writing a book on entertaining. You can have only so many guises.
Apparently 'authentic Hillary Clinton' is a contradiction in terms.
"It's been said, and I think it's accurate, that my husband was obsessed by terrorism in general and al-Qaida in particular." (Hillary telling a post-9/11 world what a 'great' commander in chief her husband was; Dateline, NBC 4/16/2004.)
Profile of the Sociopath Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.
Dear, me! Are we back to Peter Paul and Aaron Tonken *again*? Ok, if that's the case lets hit on the amoral side of Peter Paul & Co. so you can get a feel that there is ruthless and then there is *ruthless*:
Rosen said he met Tonken and Paul in June 2000, when Paul agreed to underwrite a lunch in L.A. for Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign. Days later, Tonken flew to Chicago to attend another fundraiser, and again brought Newton-John to sing. Afterward Tonken met with two of the president and first lady's close associates: Kelly Craighead, a White House employee who was the first lady's trip director, and James Levin, a Chicago businessman who socialized with the president. Levin later told FBI investigators and federal prosecutors that Craighead had asked him to help get a feel for whether Tonken was on the level.
Over drinks, Tonken said he wanted to produce a big Hollywood salute to the president on the eve of the upcoming Democratic National Convention. According to Tonken, Levin urged him to consider making the event a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign. Levin did not respond to requests for an interview for this article.
Tonken returned to Los Angeles and tried to convince Paul that they could produce the gala for $500,000. Paul predicted it would cost more, but in the end, he agreed to help fund it -- if he got what he wanted out of it.
Levin flew to California to meet Paul, he later told federal investigators, then on to Washington to discuss the proposed fundraiser with the president.
"After discussing it with Levin, President Clinton agreed to be involved in the event," an FBI report on the agents' interview with Levin said.
Rosen worried that there wasn't enough time left to plan and execute a big Hollywood bash involving many celebrities, he said. Even a modest "parlor party" in a donor's home can take more than a month to plan and execute, and the convention was about five weeks away. But Rosen's instructions came down from on high, he said: Do the Hollywood event with Paul and Tonken.
Nobody warned Rosen that his new partners had such colorful pasts, he said. To avoid embarrassing liaisons, Rosen said, Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign staff submitted a donor's name to a three-member vetting committee of high-ranking campaign officials. The campaign also forwarded the name to the Washington law firm of Ryan, Phillips, Utrecht & MacKinnon to be further researched, he said. Donors preparing to host an event -- and emblazon their name on the invitations -- received the closest scrutiny, Rosen said.
Tonken and Paul were vetted and passed, Rosen said. The instructions he received regarding Paul, he said, were: "No remarkable information found. Proceed."
"The vetting process failed," Rosen said in an interview. "I was put in harm's way."
David Kendall, the Clintons' lawyer, said in an interview that the campaign's law firm simply ran Paul's name through LexisNexis, the electronic database of news articles and public records, and found no mention of his convictions.
Paul is scornful. Even if vetters for the campaign erred, the Secret Service, charged with protecting the president, wouldn't have, he said. "How ridiculous would that be?" Paul asked. "They had my Social Security number in February of 2000." Kendall counters that the Secret Service didn't work for or report to the Senate campaign.
The vetting process had at least one built-in flaw. Levin, the presidential pal asked to watch out for the Clintons' interests, later entered an agreement with prosecutors to plead guilty to defrauding the Chicago Public Schools in a bribery, minority-contracting fraud and bid-rigging scheme, court records show. At the time he was assessing Tonken's character, Levin was cheating schoolchildren by overbilling the public school hundreds of thousands of dollars for snow removal. President Clinton so relied on Levin's judgment, Levin later testified, that he asked the businessman to fly to Los Angeles and be his eyes and ears as gala plans unfolded.
Paul alleged in his civil suit against the Clintons, which is still pending, that Levin came to L.A. to broker a deal in which Clinton would serve on Stan Lee Media's board after he left office in exchange for $16.5 million in cash and company stockLevin acknowledged in his FBI interview that Paul discussed wanting the president to work for Stan Lee Media. But Levin said he never brokered a deal between Paul and the president.
Paul, who delights in pointing out that he couldn't have cared less if Hillary Clinton was elected to the Senate, insists he wouldn't have spent one penny on the gala unless there was something in it for him. "I could have bought a boat," Paul said in an interview. "I could have bought a plane. Instead, I tried to buy the services of an ex-president as legally as possible."
That from a 04 OCT 2006 WaPo story House of Cards, YMMV. Yes, absolutely amoral to put a staff member like Rosen, who also had a 'colorful' past, to work in the line of fire knowing that any stray bullets or court cases would hit HIM first. It was a scam, of course, by all involved and all-around, and yet a young player like Rosen was dazzled by it, going from a bit of hustling amongst the Hollywood stars to hustling for the Clintons:
"This is one of the finest hotels in Beverly Hills," Rosen recalled Tonken telling him as they sat on plush cushions in the lobby. "I want you to stay here . . . I want to do this for you. You are going to be working so hard on this event. Please let me do this for you."
Rosen was getting the full Tonken treatment. "He's an incredibly convincing guy," Rosen recalled. "He's kind of a pig. He's a guy who might have bare feet in the Beverly Hills Hotel and order a sundae in the lobby. He is slovenly. He is rude. But there is something endearing about this guy that's hard to put your finger on. He was so good at knowing what you were thinking. If somebody was lonely or needed something, he knew. He was incredible the way he would worm his way into people's lives in a very deep, personal way."
Prosecutors would later argue unsuccessfully that Rosen's use of the luxury hotel and car should have been reported to federal election officials as a contribution to Hillary Clinton's campaign. Rosen contended that he viewed them as personal gifts. "I thought he was my friend," Rosen said. "It was a con."
It was no con, Tonken said in an interview; it was politics as usual. "It's called buying access," Tonken said. "I was able to get Mrs. Clinton on the phone when I wanted. Mrs. Clinton was wonderful to me, engaging and warm. It all seemed sincere at the time. I'm sure she did it because everyone was whispering in her ear: 'Money! See him!'"
The Hollywood gala was shaping up as $1,000-a-ticket concert followed by a $25,000 per-couple dinner with the Clintons. Stan Lee Media was the official underwriter, although Paul would later claim in his lawsuit that he paid personally.
Under federal election law at that time, individuals were prohibited from donating more than $2,000 to a specific candidate. That was commonly known as "hard money" and could go directly toward paying campaign expenses, such as buying TV time to tout the candidate explicitly. Campaigns also benefited indirectly from "soft money." That was money donors gave to more general entities that promoted parties, platforms or get-out-the-vote drives; it was exempt from the $2,000 limit.
The Hollywood gala was being sponsored by New York Senate 2000 Committee, a joint fundraising venture authorized by the Clinton for U.S. Senate Committee, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the New York State Democratic Committee. Gala ticket sales would benefit all three, with the "hard money" going to the Clinton campaign. Any goods or services donated to produce the gala -- from erecting a stage to hiring an orchestra -- were required to be reported to the Federal Election Commission as a political contribution. Theoretically, running up expenses could result in less hard money being available to the Clinton campaign after all the divvying was done. But given the complex accounting that results from federal election law, it was almost impossible to know that in advance.
Anyone hoping to hold down gala expenses, just to be prudent, had to reckon with Tonken, the big spender, who was in charge of lining up celebrity guests and performers. To entice some stars to participate, Tonken, as usual, threw money at them: cash, trips, gifts, perks. "The money spout was fully open," Tonken wrote in his memoir.
As the gala neared, Tonken was spending so much money so fast that even he lost track of it, he said. Cher would come only if Tonken sent a sizable private jet, a Gulfstream III or IV, to ferry her, Tonken said. So he did, at a cost of at least $30,000.
Yes, it is this sort of thing that *also* gets to become 'contributions' under the FEC. Open the money spout to get more money... lots more money, and all for the benefit of Hillary Clinton, Stan Lee Media and the fun and frivolity of all involved. All of it contributions. Soon that would catch up with Peter Paul, Hillary Clinton and all the rest. Two days:
The next day, Grove published a new item: Federal Election Commission records showed Paul had personally donated $2,000, the maximum allowed, to the first lady's Senate campaign. A campaign spokesman quickly announced that, in light of revelations about Paul's criminal history, the campaign was sending Paul his $2,000 back.
Nobody mentioned returning the mega-bucks that the company Paul co-founded had supposedly just spent underwriting the gala.
Despite the embarrassing publicity, Paul did get nice thank-you notes from the president and the first lady. "Thank you so very much for hosting Saturday night's tribute to the President and for everything you did to make it the great occasion that it was," Hillary Clinton wrote. "We will remember it always."
Paul would make sure she didn't forget.
Over the next several weeks, Paul later claimed, he spoke to both Tonken and then-DNC Chairman Ed Rendell about getting a presidential pardon for his past felony convictions. Paul made the allegation in his original suit against the Clintons, but omitted it from an amended version. When Rendell telephoned to ask for a $200,000 contribution for the National Constitutional Center in Philadelphia, Paul asked about the status of his pardon request, Paul said. According to Paul's original lawsuit, Rendell said he was working on it. Rendell, now governor of Pennsylvania, declined to comment for this article.
Paul had been invited to the White House to attend the last state dinner of Clinton's presidency, the black-tie India State Dinner. Given the publicity about his criminal history, Levin suggested it would be better if Paul didn't attend, Paul said. By contrast, Tonken was not only invited to the India State Dinner, he said, but the Clintons were effusive in their thanks, leaving him personal phone messages, sending him letters and gifts. "I have presidential cufflinks," Tonken said.
Amazing how fast the influence suddenly wanes when the FEC gets involved. Yes, this is the same Rendell now caught up in the Hsuperb happenings this go-around. Mr. Rosen would be acquitted of charges against him, but Levin has been found guilty of defrauding the Chicago Public Schools... and the jury in the Rosen trial basically said: 'everyone is lying'.
Plus putting a young wheeler/dealer type like Rosen into the line of fire knowing that Levin, Paul and Tonken would make swiss cheese look solid is something that he was not prepared for. Of course Peter Paul wasn't prepared for it either, and only your friends get a really good chance at stabbing you in the back.
Just what we have come to expect from those around the Clintons.
Mind you she had already stabbed Tipper Gore in the back, and belittled Bill by going to become HILLARY! Too bad Paul, Rosen, et. al. had learned that, but this wasn't the entertainment business or standard con job. This was politics.
"I have to admit that a good deal of what my husband and I have learned [about Islam] has come from our daughter." (TruthInMedia.org 8/8/1999 - Hillary at a White House function, proudly tells some Muslim groups she is gaining a greater appreciation of Islam because Chelsea was then taking a class on the "religion of peace")
Profile of the Sociopath Shallow Emotions
When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises.
"My strong feelings about divorce and its effects on children have caused me to bite my tongue more then a few times during my own marriage and to think about what I could do to be a better wife and partner. " It Takes A Village by Hillary Clinton, Simon & Schuster, 1996.
The Democratic National Convention, 27 AUG 1996, Hillary Clinton at the podium:
But we are all responsible for ensuring that children are raised in a nation that doesn't just talk about family values, but acts in ways that values families. Just think - as Christopher Reeve so eloquently reminded us last night, we are all part of one family - the American family. And each one of us has value. Each child who comes into this world should feel special - every boy and every girl.
....
But today, too many new mothers are asked to get up and get out after 24 hours, and that is just not enough time for many new mothers and babies. That's why the president is right to support a bill that would prohibit the practice of forcing mothers and babies to leave the hospital in less than 48 hours.
That's also why more hospitals ought to install 24-hour hotlines to answer questions once new mothers and fathers get home. That's why home nurses can make such a difference to parents who may not have grandparents or aunts and uncles around to help. We have to do whatever it takes to help parents meet their responsibilities at home and at work. The very first piece of legislation that my husband signed into law had been vetoed twice - the Family and Medical Leave Law.
It is interesting that there has been no hue and cry to get more FMLA, but Hillary wants to give more of it if she is elected President. And more Hillarycare for everyone, so that no one goes without government oversight. She is so kind and gentle, just wants to make all the decisions for you, so you don't have to bother yourself with them. Strange as it may seem, I always thought that it was parents that raised children, as villages are damned poor ways of doing that where everyone looks after everything, making it so that very few actually look after anything. That FMLA actually removes some flexibility and 'niceness' from those places that actually used to just let folks have a day off or three to tend to 'family matters' without having to fill out paperwork. No, lets add IN paperwork and remove flexibility from workplaces. Everyone will be so much better with mandated concepts.
Actually, I doubt that anyone is *forcing* mothers and babies to leave after 24 hours from hospitals. They may make the economic decision that they do not want to pay full price if their health plan doesn't cover more than 24 hours, but whose fault is that? Not government's. Not the Nation's. No, that belongs to the parents involved: they are adults, after all. If they wanted a health plan to cover more, they should have chosen one... but that involves that dreaded 'choice' concept.
That same concept that allows hospitals to have 'hotlines' or NOT. But don't worry, Hillary will make *that* decision in her kindly way. Don't mind the extra burden to hospitals and that increased chance of getting sued if the wrong answer is given on a hotline. It won't cost you *much*, just increased overall cost of the entire healthcare system to absorb the cost of a little used 'resource' that NO ONE is asking for.
I'm sure that Hillary, in the kindness of her heart, does mean each and every one of the things she holds forth as important. It will get her elected! Of *course* it is important!
From Advocate.com article The Object of Our Affectionby Sean Kennedy, 09 OCT 2007, looking at Hillary Clinton's support of the LGBT community and Gay Marriage in particular:
But when I suggest that her “personal position” is actually not her position at all, she quickly interrupts me, sitting up in her chair with a start. “I don’t think that would be fair,” she says. “Because, you know, I would tell you that. This is an issue -- I’m much older than you are -- and this is an issue that I’ve had very few years of my life to think about when you really look at it, when you compare it to a whole life span. I am where I am right now, and it is a position that I come to authentically. But it is also one that has enormous room and support both in my heart and in my work to try to move the agenda of equality and civil unions forward.”
It’s anyone’s guess how Clinton really feels -- maybe she is legitimately wrestling with same-sex marriage, who knows? -- but her supporters are more than willing to play her game. Later that night at the Abbey, after Clinton has come and gone, delivering her stump speech to a thunderous ovation, I talk to two clean-cut professional guys in their 30s. Police officers are still patrolling the closed-off street outside, and as the sign-holding demonstrators -- antiabortion activists, “Impeach Bush” types, Hillary fans -- start to pack up, the men cite the usual reason for supporting her: her experience. But they also tell me they’re disappointed by her position on marriage equality.
She plays games with her actual feelings, projects what she thinks her audience wants to feel but says something quite different. It is not just those in the 'straight' community who have some uneasiness over Sen. Clinton's ability to mask her own emotions and feel that there is something deeply missing from her as a person.
Of course those in the LGBT community are not alone feeling how sincere Hillary is... just ask Peter Paul or Aaron Rosen. Such lovely letters and signed pictures, and presentations, especially to Mr. Paul, about how such a wonderful friend he is. Right up to the FEC investigation. Just ask Al Gore, as seen from the VF book excerpt:
In any number of ways, the Gore campaign found itself in a contest with Hillary's campaign. One of the most dramatic examples occurred in September as the Federal Trade Commission prepared to release a report on violence in the media. The agency's million-dollar study showed that entertainment companies were marketing violent movies, video games, and music to children under 18. Under ordinary circumstances, a vice president running for the presidency would have first call on publicizing the report. But Hillary insisted she should handle the rollout because she had already called for a universal ratings system. "It was a key point of her Senate campaign," said Bruce Reed. "The president had singled her out for that in the 2000 State of the Union, so the finding of the F.T.C. was directly relevant to her campaign. The vice president's campaign had concluded that cultural issues were hurting him, and they were dying to announce the report as well."
After "several painful days of negotiations," administration officials "thought we had a resolution that served everyone," said Reed. The F.T.C. would release the report on Monday, September 11, followed by a comment from Gore, and then a separate one from the Clintons at a campaign event in New York. This strategy did not sit well with Gore and Lieberman, who decided to break the news on their own by inviting a reporter from The New York Times to the vice president's residence on Sunday for an interview to be published Monday. "Every day was like that," Reed said. "It was a typical example of how people who had known and trusted each other a long time would do things they otherwise wouldn't have done."
They really should have known and trusted each other, but by having any level of competition against Hillary, Al Gore would know what it was like to be her non-trusted, non-friend.
A right-wing network was after his presidency...including perverting the Constitution." (To Barbara Walters about the Republicans who impeached her husband; 20/20, ABC 6/8/2003.)
"What are you doing inviting these people into my home? These people are our enemies! They are trying to destroy us!" (From the book "The Survivor" by John Harris, p. 99 - Hillary screaming to an aide, when she found out that some Republicans had been invited to the Clinton White House)
Profile of the Sociopath Incapacity for Love
Ah, how easy it is to fall in love...
I remember visiting a maternity hospital in Brazil, where they had integrated family planning and reproductive health into their maternal and health services.
I saw mothers standing in the crowded hallways, cradling their newborns, waiting for well-baby appointments. Young women waiting for their prenatal appointments. Infants getting immunized. I saw parents getting the information they needed to make wise choices about planning their families. And I also saw wards of women who were there because they had not received quality health care. Many had, however, received self-induced or back-alley abortions.
I spoke to a number of mothers who told me that for the first time they could adequately care for the children they had. I learned about how rates of maternal mortality and abortion decreased because women received health care they needed in a timely fashion. And I fell in love with the Minister of Health for the state I was visiting when he said what everyone knows, and that is he intended to bring to poor women the same access to family planning services that well-to-do women take for granted.
That from First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, Remarks at NARAL Anniversary Luncheon, Washington, D.C., January 22, 1999. Such a far away love... so easy to keep at a distance. Mind you it was falling in love to make a political point, so one does wonder how deeply it was felt.
Of course one also has such feelings for teachers:
Thank you. Thank you very, very much. You know I have been privileged and honored to speak at many events throughout our country and even around the world. I have been introduced by many distinguished men and women from one end of the world to the other. I don't know that I have ever been introduced by anyone for whom I have greater admiration and love than Johanna, and I don't know that anyone has ever been as effective in delivering an introduction that makes us all stop and think. There is a little bit of caution I would advise if someone who has known you for 33 years, who's as smart as Johanna is, introduces you. Take notes, because you are going to learn something that will be beneficial as you move forward to navigate your way. I want to thank Johanna because I am really here because of her. I have heard about the wonderful work that is done here at the Massachusetts College of Arts for many years -- ever since she began teaching here part time and then when she assumed full-time responsibilities. She wrote me back in July of 1997 to tell me about the 125 years that would be celebrated tonight, and asked if I would please be part of that celebration. Of course I was honored to say yes.
From First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, Massachusetts College of Art, Boston, Massachusetts, December 5, 1998. Remember, no higher than the love for Bill or Chelsea.
One of the interesting things researching this article is the absolute lack of Hillary's demonstration of love for, really, anyone. Getting those two, apparently surficial, quotes above is part of a lack of Hillary Clinton's online record of actually loving Bill and Chelsea. Not her *recent* record, but heading back into her previous campaigns and time as First Lady. As a relatively introspective individual myself I don't parade such around, either... but then I am not in politics, where such things as a few demonstrations of such is necessary.
Sally Bedell Smith has a few paragraphs on this from that book excerpt on the Clintons and they are telling:
The prospect of teaming up in another race had a salutary effect on the Clintons' relationship by shifting their conversation to safe ground, away from the personal issues they had been grappling with in couples therapy. "Bill and I were talking again about matters other than the future of our relationship," Hillary later wrote. "We both began to relax. He was anxious to be helpful, and I welcomed his expertise." Susan Thomases observed, "She always had enormous respect and affection for him in the political context. He was always the strategist for himself and for her."
[..]
Between April and November 2000, Bill raised more than $5 million for Hillary at 34 events designated for her Senate race, half of which she actually attended. Variously calling himself "surrogate in chief," "cheerleader in chief," and "spouse in chief," he unabashedly solicited contributions, even when Hillary wasn't the headliner. At a dinner for Democratic congressional candidates in Brentwood, California, he said, "A lot of you have given to Hillary. If you haven't, I hope you will."
The Clintons had made a great effort during the 1996 campaign and afterward to minimize Hillary's co-presidential role, but now Bill was spinning a different story of her "breathtaking range" of activities in domestic and foreign policy, which included a "significant contribution to the Irish peace process." But he declined to touch on her back-channel operations and pervasive influence over personnel, notably her deep involvement in the political vetting of candidates for the federal bench and U.S.-attorney positions.
The president so immersed himself in Hillary's campaign that it became an extension of himself. In some ways, their relationship had come to resemble a co-dependency more than a co-presidency. Not surprisingly, Bill and Hillary remained in harmony over the issues. But he also believed that his enemies had "transferred all their anger to her now." As he told a group of supporters in Miami, "I think half of them think it's their last chance at me."
From co-presidency to co-dependency, which pretty much describes a relationship built on limited grounds of mutual acceptance. But remember, she *does* love him:
HILLARY CLINTON: You know, I'm not sitting here as some little woman standin' by man like Tammy Wynette. I'm sitting here because I love him and I respect him and I honor what he's been through and what we've been through together.
Hillary's formula for defending herself and Bill had always been to challenge their accusers to prove their charges. In sexual cases, it always boiled down to his word against her word and no proof was possible.
Did Hillary believe her husband's denials? Come on. Get real. If Winona Ryder were caught running out of Bloomingdale's clutching an Armani dress with neither a receipt nor a bag, would you assume she hadn't shoplifted?
When Bill told Hillary that all he was doing with Monica was "ministering to a troubled young girl," how on earth was the First Lady supposed to believe him? When he added that she was blackmailing him, demanding that he have sex with her, or she'd go public claiming to have had sex with him, could a reasonable, sane person possibly buy his story? No.
Yet in her new book Hillary insists she had no inkling that her husband had lied to her about Monica until the day before his grand-jury testimony.
To buy this latest episode of Hillary's Fables, you'd have to accept that she believed him even after semen was found on Monica's blue dress — and after the FBI took a sample of his DNA, two weeks before his grand-jury testimony.
You'd have to be a fool to buy all that. As I told the grand jury, Bill Clinton was truthful, if abstruse, with me in late January, 1998, when the story first came out about his affair with Monica. "Ever since I got to the White House I've had to shut myself down, sexually I mean," he said. "But I screwed up with this girl. I didn't do what they said I did, but I did do something and I may have done enough so that I can't prove my innocence."
It took me months to deduce from the public evidence that this circumlocution was intended to deny sexual intercourse but affirm oral sex. But if he told me, he probably told his wife way back then.
The fact is that Hillary and Bill have had a relationship based on a sick cycle of accusation-denial-admission-reward for decades. He is accused of an affair. He denies it. He admits it when he has no choice. Hillary forgives him and then Bill showers gifts upon her in gratitude. For putting up with Gennifer Flowers and going on 60 Minutes to "stand by her man," she got control of health-care policy. For Monica, she got a Senate seat. Some guys give necklaces, some give Senate seats.
"Come on Bill, put your dick up! You can't f**k her here!!" (From the book "Inside The White House" by Ronald Kessler, p. 243 - Hillary to Gov. Clinton when she spots him talking with an attractive female at an Arkansas political rally)
"I am a fan of the social policies that you find in Europe" Hillary in 1996 From the book "I've Always Been A Yankee Fan" by Thomas D. Kuiper, p. 76 - Hillary in 1996)
Profile of the Sociopath Need for Stimulation
Living on the edge. Verbal outbursts and physical punishments are normal. Promiscuity and gambling are common.
As if living with Bill Clinton wasn't enough!
From Hillary’s Choice by Gail Sheehy, p.345 Dec 9, 1999 at On The Issues:
On March 21, 1999, Hillary expressed her views by phone to the President: “I urged him to bomb.” The Clintons argued the issue over the next few days. [The President expressed] what-ifs: What if bombing promoted more executions? What if it took apart the NATO alliance? Hillary responded, “You cannot let this go on at the end of a century that has seen the major holocaust of our time. What do we have NATO for if not to defend our way of life?” The next day the President declared that force was necessary.
The quick, sure and explosive method of handling foreign problems, obviously.
For stimulation, however, one can't go to much beyond working with Organized Crime! Yes one of the best ways to get a 'stimulating' and rewarding life is to associate with those in the underworld. And members of foreign military organizations like the People's Liberation Army (PLA). And your standard sleazy operators. Here are a few of the more interesting individuals the Clintons have been involved with:
1) Chen Kai-kit (Source: Bertil Lintner's Crime, Business and Polics in Asia): Part of the Chinagate/Donorgate scandal and part of the Macau Triads, associated with a representative from North Korea, and front man for the People's Liberation Army (PLA) of China for the purchase of the CV Varyag. He, his wife and six others are accused of skimming money off of Guangnan Holdings, an insolvent food conglomerate and planning to defraud the Standard Chartered Bank of London via bogus loans.
2) Johnny Chung: Part of the Chinagate/Donorgate scandal, pled guilty of contributing $18,000 to the Clinton 1996 Re-Election campaign (Source: WND article 10 FEB 2004) who was under orders from the head of the PLA, Chinese General Ji. Mr. Chung also worked to place contracts with LORAL Corp. for satellite work for Liu Ju-Yuan the minister of China Aerospace Corporation and Bill Clinton signed a waiver over the objections of DoD to allow that to happen (Source: GlobalSecurity's NYT document cache). Somehow the rocket just didn't make it to orbit and the Chinese got much better missile guidance technology out of the deal. Remember that this is the era of the 'co-presidency'.
Johnny Chung
3) Yah Lin "Charlie" Trie (Source: FrontPageMag 09 MAR 2007): Friend of Bill from Arkansas, restaurateur, owner of Daihatsu International Trading, and member of the Taiwanese Four Seas Triad which works with the PLA. Contributed Triad funds and funds from Ng Lapseng to various of Bill Clinton's campaigns and his defense fund for the Paula Jones investigation. In exchange Trie got appointed to the U.S.-Pacific Trade and Investment Policy, which Bill was gracious enough to expand to allow him to sit on the Committee.
On April 4, 1996, at a White House meeting, Mrs. Clinton, when pressed to recall her involvement with Trie, according to a Senate committee report, did not recognize his name. Then, quickly, she changed her mind, recalling him as "the owner of a restaurant in Little Rock."
[..]
At a February 15, 1995 DNC dinner held in honor of fundraisers, Trie sat at the First Lady's table.
4) Ng Lapseng (Source: FrontPageMag 09 MAR 2007): Business partner of Charlie Trie via the Four Seas Triad. Ng Lapseng would contribute money to the 1996 Clinton Re-Election campaign from his Macau based brothel.
Ng Lapseng
5) Wang Jun (Source: FrontPageMag 09 MAR 2007): Head of Poly Technologies, the largest Chinese arms exporter, that had a White House 'coffee' with the Clintons arranged by Charlie Trie. The Administration had granted his company to sell 100,000 semi-automatic rifles and lots of ammo to a Detroit based company China Jiang An. Mr. Jun's visit was also arranged with (Source:GlobalSecurity) Ernest Green, managing director of the Washington, D.C. office of Lehman Brothers and a prominent DNC fundraiser. Wang is also the head of China International Trust and Investment Corporation (CITIC), a financial and industrial conglomerate controlled by the Chinese government. Congressman Curt Weldon would report on 14 JUN 1999 that Mr. Jun had made $600K in illegal contributions to the DNC and had been indicted on attempting to smuggle 2,000 Chinese made AK-47s into the US.
6) John Huang (Source: FrontPageMag 09 MAR 2007): Ex-President of the Lippo Group owned by the Riady family, friend of Al Gore (Source: FindArticles Human Events, 06 OCT 2000 cache), contributor to the DNC, introduced the head of Chinese government owned China Resources to the White House on 24 SEP 1993, and contributed $100,000 to the Clinton Inaugural committee so as to land a spot in the White House in the Commerce Dept. Huang would be briefed by the CIA and had access to sensitive sources at the CIA and White House. After leaving the White House he would become the DNC's Vice-Chairman for Finance. He was involved with Wang Jun and Poly technologies and behind the AK-47 smuggling operation, where a Red China vessel from COSCO was involved. The AK-47s were to be sold to Los Angeles street gangs. The Lippo Group co-owned the bank through which Poly Technologies was funding the smuggling operation.
Hillary's personal intervention was instrumental to Huang getting the job, argue Timperlake and Triplett; indeed, it was "common knowledge" among Commerce Department officials. Huang's boss, Jeff Garten, would testify later that Huang was "totally unqualified" for the job, and should be "walled off" in particular from China issues.
7) James Riady (Source: FrontPageMag 09 MAR 2007): Manager of Worthen Bank that had been bailed out by Mochtar Riady and Jackson Stephens, donate $475,000 to the DNC, made an illegal foreign funds contribution in 1992, ran Worthen Bank into the ground, purchased the Bank of Trade in California, federal regulators issued cease and desist orders to Riady for violating money laundering and hazardous lending statutes. Friend of Bill Clinton, Webster Hubbell. Made overbilling payments to the Rose Law Firm via Webster Hubbell. The Lippo Bank had close connections to Red China.
8) William Cravens (Source: Charles Smith, WND article 12 JAN 1999): Friend of Bill Clinton, associate of James Riady, worked at Worthen Bank, became CEO of Systematics (an AK computer company owned by Jackson Stephens). Systematics hired the Rose Law Firm to perform special legal work under William Cravens. One of those contracts involved the NSA.
It was also reported that Mrs. Clinton hired Systematics to secure computer records from the Rose Office accounting systems, including data on the now infamous Whitewater land deals and the Riady holdings in the Worthen bank.
Cravens left Systematics for ENTERGY Group, headed by Edwin Lupeburger. Entergy's Lupeburger was on a trade trip with Commerce Secretary Ron Brown to China and was able to sign a $2 billion contract with Red China to build a 1200MW powerplant at Datong with the help of financial backing via Ron Brown. With involvement of the Lippo Bank the Chinese would rename it "Lippo Entergy Datong Power Plant". Entergy had paid $80,000 to the Democratic Party so as to get the plum assignment on the plane with Ron Brown.
Additional testimony before Sen. Fred Thompson's committee shows that the Lippo Group is a joint venture of China Resources, a trading and holding company "wholly owned" by the Chinese communist government and used as a front for Chinese espionage operations.
The Commerce Dept. would make false denials that there was no connection between the Datong Power Plant and PLA (Source: Charles Smith, WNT article, 28 JAN 1999).
9) Roger Tamraz (Source: Kenneth Timmerman 01 MAY 1997 American Spectator article): Son of an Egyptian millionaire, worked at Kidder Peabody, founded First Arabian Corporation investment bank, backed by the brother of Saudi King Faisal's favorite wife Sheikh Kamal Adham (al-Turki), established ties with Prince Abdullah bin Musaid bin Abdul Rahman, ties with Sheikh Salem bin Ladin and Ghaith Pharaon who would later join BCCI. Tamraz would step in with Saudi backing to gain control of some of the US banks that BCCI had controlled. by 1995 Tamraz was donating large amounts of funds to the DNC and Democratic Party of Virginia. Tamraz was able to do so via purchase of some northern Italian gas stations and a refinery, which would be bought out by Libya, then taking the Tamoil name and incorporating in the US. He would attend four of the Clinton White House 'coffees' seeking help on various business deals with the bulk of his money being pledged by Red China. During this period he was also avoiding Interpol which had warrants out on him from Lebanon and an earlier bank deal.
10) Jorge Cabrera (Source: Don Van Natta, Jr. 04 APR 1997, NYT): Drug smuggler who was asked by Vivian Mannerud, a Democratic fundraiser, to give money to the 1996 Clinton re-election campaign. He was asked to do so from the Copacabana Hotel... in Cuba. Within two weeks he was meeting with Al Gore and Hillary Clinton and sponsoring a fundraising dinner to the tune of $20,000. This would later be found to be an 'improper donation'. Later Mr. Cabrera would be arrested for cocaine smuggling for having brough 6 tons of cocaine into the US illegally. Still, he would receive an invitation to the Clinton inauguration... presumably while in jail.
Jorge Cabrera
It is hard to imagine anyone *not* getting stimulated by this sort of company!
Gateway Pundit has a nice roundup of various verbal outbursts from Hillary Clinton which I will add a few of the more 'stimulating' ones:
"Where is the G-damn f**king flag? I want the G-damn f**king flag up every f**king morning at f**king sunrise." (From the book "Inside The White House" by Ronald Kessler, p. 244 - Hillary to the staff at the Arkansas Governor's mansion on Labor Day, 1991)
"Where's the miserable c*ck sucker?" (From the book "The Truth About Hillary" by Edward Klein, p. 5 - Hillary shouting at a Secret Service officer)
"Get f**ked! Get the f**k out of my way!!! Get out of my face!!!"(From the book "Hillary's Scheme" p. 89 - Hillary's various comments to her Secret Service detail agents.)
Profile of the Sociopath Callousness/Lack of Empathy
Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others' feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them.
Beyond snubbing Tipper Gore, fundraising for herself at Al Gore's fundraisers, setting up Aaron Rosen and Peter Paul to take the fall for FEC violations, forgetting that her daughter was in that large group called 'young people' that she characterized as lazy...
But then there is Bill. Again from the Dick Morris column at NRO:
Bill Clinton had been a serial adulterer for their entire marriage, as everybody with half a brain knows.
In 1988, he called me and said that he and Hillary were considering divorce and he had to get away from her for a while. I offered him my house in Key West, Fla.
Right before the 60 Minutes show during the 1992 campaign, he called for my advice and I suggested that he admit and apologize for the adultery with Flowers and he said "If I did that, I'd have to find a new place to live."
In 1995, reviewing his testimony in the fraud trial of Susan McDougal, he asked me how he should handle his "relationship" with her. I said: "If you had sex with her, admit it. Don't perjure yourself. We can always undo the political damage, but we can't undo the legal damage." He nodded.
For Hillary to pretend injured innocence at this point has only one motive: She needs to somehow justify her strident public defense of her husband.
She can't admit the truth: that she defended him because she didn't want him forced from office — ending both their political careers — because he'd been unfaithful to her.
Hillary, give us a break.
That does make the point about 'callous' I should think.
"We just can't trust the American people to make those types of choices.... Government has to make those choices for people" (From the book "I've Always Been A Yankee Fan" by Thomas D. Kuiper, p 20 - Hillary to Rep. Dennis Hastert in 1993 discussing her expensive, disastrous taxpayer-funded health care plan)
"You f**king idiot." (From the book "Crossfire" p. 84 - Hillary to a State Trooper who was driving her to an event.)
F**k off! It's enough that I have to see you shit-kickers every day, I'm not going to talk to you too!! Just do your G*damn job and keep your mouth shut." (From the book "American Evita" by Christopher Anderson, p. 90 - Hillary to her State Trooper bodyguards after one of them greeted her with "Good morning.")
Profile of the Sociopath Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature
Rage and abuse, alternating with small expressions of love and approval produce an addictive cycle for abuser and abused, as well as creating hopelessness in the victim. Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others.
Perhaps the Dick Morris view of Bill and Hillary could go here, too... it does fit well enough.
Hill Mocks Rudy. Hillary isn't the only one coming out with a "tell-all" memoir. Clinton hatchet-man Sidney Blumenthal has written The Clinton Wars, detailing his years advising President Clinton and the then-First Lady. The New York Daily News got an advance copy and revealed that Hillary "suggested that the personal life of one-time opponent Rudy Giuliani was better suited for the stage at Lincoln Center than the floor of the Senate." According to Blumenthal, Hillary noted that Giuliani's withdrawal from the 2000 New York Senate race, caused by the public airing of his split with his wife, his romance with Judith Nathan, and his battle with cancer, was definitely suitable for an opera aficionado like Rudy. Quipped Hill, "Now I know why he likes opera."
From an article in 23 APR 2000 comes a look at Hillary Clinton loves a good fight, by Avi A. T. Bahadoor and Aubrey Immelman, College of St. Benedict and St. John's University:
For example, the New York Daily News last December reported that sometimes "glimpses of volcanic anger bubble to the surface," noting an incident during the 1992 presidential campaign when Clinton "banged her Bible in anger on her limo seat one Sunday when Secret Service agents took a less-than-direct route to church for security reasons."
Mind you the authors of the article laud Hillary's 'dominant personality' and cite many nice texts on why her personality, but yet seem to miss the bigger picture.
William Safire would look at the Travelgate story with Mrs. Clinton and her influence on 29 FEB 1996 looking at 18 USC 1001 and its applicability to the White House Travel Office:
Travelgate, at first, was dismissed as a mere embarrassment. Hillary Clinton, as a favor to Hollywood friends, told her staff to get rid of the people who ran the White House Travel Office; to justify the spoils system, the F.B.I. and Justice Department were used to besmear and harass the innocent targets.
When some of us hollered at this abuse of power, the First Lady hastily dissociated herself from it. When Congress asked its General Accounting Office to investigate, Hillary Clinton washed her hands of it in writing:
"Mrs. Clinton does not know the origin of the decision to remove the White House Travel Office employees," she responded through her lawyer. ". . . she had no role in the decision to terminate the employees. Mrs. Clinton did not direct that any action be taken by anyone with regard to the Travel Office, other than expressing an interest in receiving information about the review."
Untrue. Years later, and only because Republicans took control of Congress, a memo from David Watkins, the aide who carried out Mrs. Clinton's wishes, was forced to the surface: Contrary to what he told the G.A.O. in 1993, Watkins's notes quoted the First Lady saying: "We need those people out -- We need our people in. We need the slots." He told the F.B.I. that he wrote the firing memo just after chief of staff Mac McLarty told him "the matter was in the forefront of Hillary Clinton's mind."
This stark refutation of the First Lady's response was corroborated by contemporaneous notes, taken by a Gore aide, of Susan Thomases telling McLarty "Hillary wants those people fired." McLarty's own Travel Office notes drive the final nail in this coffin: "May 16 -- HRC pressure."
[..]
Here's Justice's dilemma: If it goes after David Watkins on 1001, it has no excuse for failing to prosecute Hillary Clinton for the same crime. With weeks to respond and with benefit of counsel, she intentionally and materially misled a government agency with her absolute claim of "no role."
In her exquisitely lawyered answers to Congress, which the White House will soon release in the dead of night, she will pretend her unrelenting, intimidating demands were mere passive interest. Let's read Mrs. Clinton's defense for common-sense believability, as a jury would. Then let's enforce 1001 or repeal it.
Mr. Safire would then reiterate this column along with the fact that President Clinton threatened to 'punch him in the nose' if he weren't in office. Robert W. Ray was assigned to look into the Travelgate scandal and on 19 OCT 2000 Neil A Lewis from the NYT would report on it thusly:
In his final report about the firing of seven longtime employees of the White House travel office released today, Robert W. Ray, the independent counsel, asserted that Hillary Rodham Clinton had given ''factually false'' sworn testimony when she minimized her role in the incident.
The disclosure of the 243-page report added several details about Mrs. Clinton's role, but its terse conclusions were announced last June when Mr. Ray said there was insufficient evidence to seek criminal charges against Mrs. Clinton.
For the first time, Mr. Ray disclosed parts of Mrs. Clinton's 1995 deposition he now says are demonstrably false. The report also discloses some of the grand jury testimony of others who spoke to Mrs. Clinton about the travel office.
Mr. Ray said, as he had in June, that Mrs. Clinton had played a far greater role in the dismissals than she had admitted. The report cited evidence that she had repeatedly expressed concerns about the travel office to White House officials who eventually fired the employees as a result of what they had perceived to be pressure from her to do so.
But in her first detailed rebuttal to Mr. Ray, Mrs. Clinton insisted through her lawyer that she had always testified accurately and fully about her role in the deliberations that led to the dismissal of the seven travel office employees in May 1993. The workers were replaced with people the Clintons knew.
Mrs. Clinton's rebuttal was made in an appendix to the report released today and was signed by her lawyer, David E. Kendall. In essence, Mrs. Clinton said she had expressed legitimate concerns about how the office was run and had not intended for her comments to be taken as the equivalent of orders to fire the travel office employees.
But the real kicker, and something to remember about the Clintons as a team, comes up near the end of the article:
The underlying issue in the dispute between the independent counsel and Mrs. Clinton is Mr. Ray's assertion that she had a role in the firings, despite her insistence in sworn statements that she did not. Mr. Ray cited eight conversations she had with senior White House employees expressing serious concerns about retaining the travel office staff.
The report said: ''It is, in the independent counsel's judgment beyond peradventure that as a matter of historical fact, Mrs. Clinton's input into the process was a significant -- if not the significant -- factor influencing the pace of events in the travel office firings and the ultimate decision to fire the employees. Accordingly, the independent counsel concludes that Mr. Clinton's sworn testimony that she had no input into Watkins's decision or role in the travel office firings is factually inaccurate.''
In the rebuttal, Mr. Kendall argued on Mrs. Clinton's behalf that Mr. Ray has misinterpreted her statements and that the sides disagreed over the meaning of the word ''role'' when she was questioned.
The meaning of the word? Do we all remember that disputing what the word "is" meant? Apparently the meaning of the word "role" is a bit too difficult to do for Hillary.
"You sold out, you mother f**ker! You sold out!" From the book "Inside" by Joseph Califano, p. 213 - Hillary yelling at Democrat lawyer.)
"Stay the f**k back, stay the f**k away from me! Don't come within ten yards of me, or else! Just f**king do as I say, Okay!!!?" (From the book "Unlimited Access", by Clinton FBI Agent in Charge, Gary Aldrige, p. 139 - Hillary screaming at her Secret Service detail.)
Profile of the Sociopath Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency
Usually has a history of behavioral and academic difficulties, yet "gets by" by conning others. Problems in making and keeping friends; aberrant behaviors such as cruelty to people or animals, stealing, etc.
From an article looking at the letters between Hillary Rodham and John Peavoy in the NYT, 28 JUL 2007:
“Since Xmas vacation, I’ve gone through three and a half metamorphoses and am beginning to feel as though there is a smorgasbord of personalities spread before me,” Ms. Rodham wrote to Mr. Peavoy in April 1967. “So far, I’ve used alienated academic, involved pseudo-hippie, educational and social reformer and one-half of withdrawn simplicity.”
[..]
“Sunday was lethargic from the beginning as I wallowed in a morass of general and specific dislike and pity for most people but me especially,” Ms. Rodham reported in a letter postmarked Oct. 3, 1967.
[..]
“Can you be a misanthrope and still love or enjoy some individuals?” Ms. Rodham wrote in an April 1967 letter. “How about a compassionate misanthrope?”
As the article notes, you do tend to see this sort of thing from young adults.
"Why do I have to keep proving to people that I am not a liar?!" (From the book "The Survivor," by John Harris, p. 382 - Hillary in her 2000 Senate campaign)
Profile of the Sociopath Irresponsibility/Unreliability
Not concerned about wrecking others' lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed.
1. Remember the story she told about studying The Wall Street Journal to explain her 10,000 percent profit in 1979 commodity trading? We now know that was a lie told to turn aside accusations that as the Governor's wife she profited corruptly, her account being run by a lawyer for state poultry interests through a disreputable broker.
She lied for good reason: To admit otherwise would be to confess taking, and paying taxes on, what some think amounted to a $100,000 bribe.
2. The abuse of Presidential power known as Travelgate elicited another series of lies. She induced a White House lawyer to assert flatly to investigators that Mrs. Clinton did not order the firing of White House travel aides, who were then harassed by the F.B.I. and Justice Department to justify patronage replacement by Mrs. Clinton's cronies.
Now we know, from a memo long concealed from investigators, that there would be "hell to pay" if the furious First Lady's desires were scorned. The career of the lawyer who transmitted Hillary's lie to authorities is now in jeopardy. Again, she lied with good reason: to avoid being identified as a vindictive political power player who used the F.B.I. to ruin the lives of people standing in the way of juicy patronage.
3. In the aftermath of the apparent suicide of her former partner and closest confidant, White House Deputy Counsel Vincent Foster, she ordered the overturn of an agreement to allow the Justice Department to examine the files in the dead man's office. Her closest friends and aides, under oath, have been blatantly disremembering this likely obstruction of justice, and may have to pay for supporting Hillary's lie with jail terms.
Again, the lying was not irrational. Investigators believe that damning records from the Rose Law Firm, wrongfully kept in Vincent Foster's White House office, were spirited out in the dead of night and hidden from the law for two years -- in Hillary's closet, in Web Hubbell's basement before his felony conviction, in the President's secretary's personal files -- before some were forced out last week.
Why the White House concealment? For good reason: The records show Hillary Clinton was lying when she denied actively representing a criminal enterprise known as the Madison S.& L., and indicate she may have conspired with Web Hubbell's father-in-law to make a sham land deal that cost taxpayers $3 million.
Why the belated release of some of the incriminating evidence? Not because it mysteriously turned up in offices previously searched. Certainly not because Hillary Clinton and her new hang-tough White House counsel want to respond fully to lawful subpoenas.
One reason for the Friday-night dribble of evidence from the White House is the discovery by the F.B.I. of copies of some of those records elsewhere. When Clinton witnesses are asked about specific items in "lost" records -- which investigators have -- the White House "finds" its copy and releases it. By concealing the Madison billing records two days beyond the statute of limitations, Hillary evaded a civil suit by bamboozled bank regulators.
Another reason for recent revelations is the imminent turning of former aides and partners of Hillary against her; they were willing to cover her lying when it advanced their careers, but are inclined to listen to their own lawyers when faced with perjury indictments.
Therefore, ask not "Why didn't she just come clean at the beginning?" She had good reasons to lie; she is in the longtime habit of lying; and she has never been called to account for lying herself or in suborning lying in her aides and friends.
From a WaPo article right after the Lewinsky Affair hit the fan by Kevin Merida, 20 SEP 1998, italics in the original:
Part of this is her natural inclination to fight rather than fold. Her critics often seize on this aspect of her personality when issuing their harsh assessments. They see her as a cold, calculating political animal whose partisan edge is much sharper than her husband's.
Back in January, for instance, she went on national television to defend Clinton against allegations of infidelity and blamed his predicament on a "politically motivated" prosecutor allied with a "vast right-wing conspiracy." Even after the president was forced to admit he had lied about his affair with Lewinsky, Hillary Clinton was among those in the White House who encouraged him to challenge Starr's motivations in his televised apology. This strategy only deepened Clinton's woes, drawing criticism across party lines that he had not been sufficiently remorseful.
While Clinton later admitted he blundered, the first lady has not retreated.
[..]
Whatever tensions exist between the White House and the independent counsel's office, Starr's report locates Hillary Clinton squarely in the text of her husband's misadventures.
The report chronicles Lewinsky's recollections of having sexual encounters with Clinton on occasions when the first lady was in far-flung locations, such as Las Vegas or Ireland. It reports the president telling Lewinsky that he had "hundreds of affairs" before he turned 40. It quotes the president suggesting to Lewinsky that he "might be alone in three years." It even prints Clinton's alleged remark after having oral sex with Lewinsky "that he hadn't had that in a long time."
A Washington Post reconstruction of Hillary Clinton's schedule shows that the president had several of his alleged sexual experiences with Lewinsky just before or just after being with the first lady. On the evening of Jan. 21, 1996, for example, the Starr report says Lewinsky and Clinton engaged in a sexual act outside the Oval Office study. Earlier, Clinton and the first lady were given a private tour of the Johannes Vermeer exhibit at the National Gallery of Art.
Clinton's reckless disregard for the first lady's sensibilities has especially infuriated some of the president's female supporters.
[..]
There is something eerily familiar about the spot Hillary Clinton, at age 50, finds herself occupying. This keeps happening to her – ever since she drove to Fayetteville from the East Coast to help Bill Clinton campaign for an Arkansas congressional seat in 1974. She was still a girlfriend then, but her husband-to-be was already juggling multiple women, which was a source of frustration to campaign aides who were trying to prevent him from self-destructing, according to David Maraniss's biography of Clinton, "First in His Class."
She has been pelted with so many allegations of his unfaithfulness over the past quarter-century that it is difficult to fathom that anything about him would surprise her now.
"Two things keep Hillary with him," says Betsey Wright, a former Clinton troubleshooter in Arkansas who befriended the two in 1972. "One is her deep love for him. And two is the feeling that she is a better person – they are better people – because they have each other."
Hillary Clinton made a difficult calculation when she married the young politician in 1975 – that she could find happiness by intertwining her ambitions with his and sharing the rewards. Now, as the Clinton presidency continues to unravel, and by extension her own dreams, the public is rendering its own verdict.
That question of 'why does she stay with him?' does appear before. No, she is no Tammy Wynette. Nor is it something that is laudible to stand by someone like Bill, unless you get something else from it. Hillary does put forward that she is a better person with Bill than without, it is true, but the need to go through the emergency situations again and again do not point to being a 'better person', just someone who has taken to acting in emergency situations due to the failings of their spouse.
In the past, she had seemed to believe that the only public face that would work for her would be a tough and confrontational one. Charm wouldn't work. In 1993, Dick Morris, President Clinton's longtime adviser, had urged her to soften her image. "One of the most appealing things about public figures is when they lead with their vulnerabilities," Morris said. "They talk about their defects and people cut them a lot of slack." He cited Eleanor Roosevelt's shyness, or even Ronald Reagan's jokes about his poor memory. Defects and weaknesses can be assets, he argued.
"I can't think of any," Hillary had said. "I'm not good at that. What do you want me to do?"
She was unsure of her role. As the family's lawyer and investor she had screwed up Whitewater and then in 1994 she had lost what was supposed to be the crown jewel of her husband's presidency: health care reform.
"I'm just confused," she told Morris at the time. "I don't know what works or what doesn't work. I don't know why this is happening. I'm just so confused."
But Mrs. Clinton's scandal-managing role continued. By the summer of 1995, Whitewater was causing her real anguish. In Newsweek that August, Joe Klein wrote that the scandal had exposed the character of the Clintons. "They are the Tom and Daisy Buchanan of the Baby Boom Political Elite." The Buchanans were the 1920s-style careless people of F. Scott Fitzgerald's "The Great Gatsby."
"They smashed up lives and didn't notice," Klein wrote.
He laid out in harsh terms how Hillary's chief of staff, Maggie Williams, had broken down in tears while testifying the previous week at the hearings chaired by Sen. Alfonse D'Amato. Williams was saddled with large legal bills, virtually abandoned by her patrons in the White House. "How could the first lady allow her chief of staff to spend $140,000 on legal fees?" Klein asked. "Why hasn't she come forward and said, 'Stop torturing my staff. This isn't about them. I'll testify. I'll make all documents available. I'll sit here and answer your stupid, salacious questions until Inauguration Day, if need be'?"
"You show people what you're willing to fight for when you fight your friends." (From the book "The Agenda" by Bob Woodward, ch. 14)
Profile of the Sociopath Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity
Promiscuity, child sexual abuse, rape and sexual acting out of all sorts.
Part of all of this is the acting out on public stage, not, necessarily, the private one. Bill's sexual escapades, Hillary's leap to defend and the rush of sudden, sympathetic spotlight and folks asking 'how could she stay married to a man like that?' This publicity, in case it has been missed, is part of the point of the thrill seeking - to put up their problems in ways that will be found out and then act out the great drama over and over again. Bill and Hillary have their roles in this, and those that report on it help them both to utilize that.
Hillary was sobbing when she called Jane Sherburne, the White House attorney in charge of scandal management.
Had Jane read the Klein column?
Yes.
"It's killing me to let this happen," Hillary said. She wanted to testify, to make it better, to take care of it. "Every bone in my body tells me that's what I should do."
She could not stand by and let Maggie be hurt so, have others dragged in.
"How is Maggie?"
Sherburne said they both knew Maggie was both vulnerable and tough. She was willing to throw herself in front of any train and get beat up.
Hillary's voice caught and she gasped in short breaths.
Testifying, Sherburne said, would be a mixed blessing. It would be such a sensation. The pure spectacle of the first lady appearing before Congress would overshadow anything she said. Were there words she could say that would resolve the issues and answer all the questions? They would always find more questions.
"I got to do this," Hillary said, gaining strength, taking deeper, measured breaths. "I'm going to do it."
The Clintons' personal lawyer, David Kendall, was against it, they both knew – vehemently opposed in the midst of independent counsel Ken Starr's grand jury investigation of Whitewater. Public testimony by the first lady before D'Amato's committee might play into the Republicans' hands. There would be rounds of questions with all the Republican senators homing in. Potentially very ugly.
"Am I really that powerless?" Mrs. Clinton asked. The portrait of her as heartless and selfish was tearing her apart. It was awful to stand silently by as those she cared about were being hurt, she said.
Sherburne said her testimony would have multiple legal ramifications. What about Starr, his investigation and grand juries? Politically, how would D'Amato and the other Republicans handle her? Her husband's reelection bid was a little more than a year off. The basic strategy on Whitewater was to calm the waters, avoid confrontation, minimize news coverage.
Sobbing again, Hillary said her parents had always told her not to be guided by the opinions of others. "You have to live with yourself." Well, now the law and politics had cornered her. It wasn't a matter of appearances – appearing cold and indifferent to her friends and staff. If she stood by silently she would be that person they accused her of being.
"That is not who I am!" Hillary said, crying, pleading. "I take care of people."
Sherburne realized that Hillary had become the person she, at all costs, did not want to be. It was not simply a loss of identity. It was worse. She seemed to have fully realized the price that had been paid, and the identity that had been lost. She had become the person she hated.
Bob Woodward is a case in point on this, the man who goes after deathbed confessions and such, always getting the 'inside story' no matter how really 'inside' it is. But the great play of the Clintons he does put together well, if in a limited fashion. The crying, questioning, and dramatics all have been seen before Lewinsky in one form or another, and both the Clintons had been through this sort of thing before. They keep on doing that all the way up to the end of Bill's Presidency. Strange how that ends when he is no longer in the limelight, isn't it?
And part of the acting out can also be seen in the sort of things that Hillary pushes at the public in the way of her positions and 'plans'.
Profile of the Sociopath Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle
Tends to move around a lot or makes all encompassing promises for the future, poor work ethic but exploits others effectively.
Clinton recently floated the idea of issuing a $5,000 bond to each baby born in the United States to help pay for college and a first home, but it immediately inspired Republican ridicule and she quickly said she would not implement the proposal.
She defended that decision yesterday, saying she is focusing on proposals with more political support and she is not formally proposing anything she can't fund without increasing the deficit: "I have a million ideas. The country can't afford them all."
Yes, Hillary has always had *lots* of ideas. Just no plan to unite them. Even the big bucket of Federal Government would have to be expanded quite some bit to start to float her ideas.
There you go, taking those evil, nasty profits from oil companies and "put them into a strategic energy fund". Sort of like Social Security, save that we will all pay more for gasoline, kerosene, jet fuel, lubricating grease, diesel fuel, methane derived from oil, hydrogen derived from oil... and probably just as well thought out and *run* as Social Security is. That only takes, what is it these days? Just how *much* do you pay in FISA? And do you really expect to live long enough to get the money paid in, with interest if you had put it into any investment vehicle in the private sector, out? Don't worry, those profits just aren't *right*.
San Francisco Chronicle web archive article presented 28 JUN 2004 with thanks to the Wayback Machine:
Headlining an appearance with other Democratic women senators on behalf of Sen. Barbara Boxer, who is up for re-election this year, Hillary Clinton told several hundred supporters -- some of whom had ponied up as much as $10,000 to attend -- to expect to lose some of the tax cuts passed by President Bush if Democrats win the White House and control of Congress.
"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
Yes, that money you make, don't worry, you won't be needing it... this is for your own good! Government knows better than you on how to spend your money. One of the unknown things in America is that you can actually *donate* money to the Treasury! Strange, but true! If rich folks felt they weren't doing their share, they can just send more cash. You won't hear that from Hillary, or any other candidate come to think of it.
MANCHESTER, N.H. -- Presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton outlined a broad economic vision Tuesday, saying it's time to replace an "on your own" society with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity.
The Democratic senator said what the Bush administration touts as an ownership society really is an "on your own" society that has widened the gap between rich and poor.
"I prefer a 'we're all in it together' society," she said. "I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none."
That means pairing growth with fairness, she said, to ensure that the middle-class succeeds in the global economy, not just corporate CEOs.
"There is no greater force for economic growth than free markets. But markets work best with rules that promote our values, protect our workers and give all people a chance to succeed," she said. "Fairness doesn't just happen. It requires the right government policies."
Clinton spoke at the Manchester School of Technology, which trains high school students for careers in the construction, automotive, graphic arts and other industries. The school highlighted one of the nine goals she outlined: increasing support for alternative schools and community colleges.
"We have sent a message to our young people that if you don't go to college ... that you're thought less of in America. We have to stop this," she said.
Government will make things 'fairer'? And as to the 'global community' the middle class in America is by far the most successful group, by numbers, of any other people on this planet. And letting government decide about markets outside of breaking up monopolies is about the most insane idea around, right out of President Woodrow Wilson's era where he wanted to have government decide on how much of each market each industry should have. There is no 'crisis' there nor need to make things 'fairer'. Unless you are looking to make everyone equally poor, of course. Worked for the Soviet Union!
Then there is health care, the Hillary Clinton 'cause' since her co-presidency started with Bill. Her latest version of HillaryCare but this bit of worrying forgets the one, all-important, major concept that was presented earlier: this is something CONGRESS DOES. If Sen. Clinton wants *this* she can very well do that from her seat in the US Senate.
This is yet another heart-tugging go-around for Hillary Clinton, putting forth that the President has any power beyond 'the bully pulpit' for getting legislation passed. She would not have such power, as she found in 1993 when her first version of HillaryCare went forward into a brick wall called Congress. But then that would be doing her job...not acting out a part to make it seem as if the President can do more than the office allows. Not that this would set up another cycle of reports, inquiries, Congressional Hearings, 'outreach' programs and television commercials just like last time. Does America really need to repeat that *again* and be the subject of Hillary Clinton's browbeating in her passive-aggressive style?
But the worst part of Hillary Clinton's acting out is in child care and raising children. Her little book It Takes a Village offers all sorts of wonderful things that society could do to help parents raise children. Such a lovely and pastoral ideal, just like the small, poor, hard scrabble African villages it comes from, where there is no indoor plumbing, little lighting, and subsistence agriculture. There, of course, older folks that can't get around much do get to do a lot of child rearing and watching out for as the parents are busy trying to keep everyone alive. If implemented in today's society, that would mean getting the retired off the golf courses, putting them in nice little suits, giving them teaching classes and then sending them out to nanny at everyone, everywhere, gratis. Luckily, that doesn't scale well, so it can't be done, besides all those retired voters don't want to do that. Then comes Hillary Clinton's view of what the impact of childhood *is*, for that I will turn to a FindArticles cache from Reason, APR 1996 by Gwen J. Broude:
On Clinton's reading of developmental psychology, the first three or so years of life are "not just important; they are more crucial to shaping children than any other time." Further, young children are influenced for good or bad by virtually anything that happens in their presence. "From the way that we touch them and our tone of voice when we bathe or change them," she writes, "they sense whether we enjoy their company, whether we are paying attention or just going through the motions, whether we are listening."
Stress in parents "may create feelings of helplessness that lead to later developmental problems." Children need "gentle, intimate, consistent contact" from caretakers, and structured, ritualized, but also "unhurried" time. The early years are crucial to later development in part because it is then that the brain is most receptive to input, or "food," from the environment. "Brain research teaches us that feeling safe and protected is essential to healthy neurological development," Clinton claims. After that, "brain cells and synapses begin to wither away, so that the child learns more slowly."
"Children who are subjected to constant comparisons," writes Clinton, "may lose heart in their pursuit of a developmental task or abandon it altogether." Youngsters learn what they see and hear. Children also come equipped with certain predispositions. They ask all kinds of questions about God; for instance, what does God look like, why does God let people do bad things, and does God care whether we squash a bug. From this we can conclude that "the potential for spirituality seems to be there from the beginning." A baby will cry in the presence of another crying infant. From this we can infer that newborns have "empathy" for the suffering of others from the start. Mostly, however, who a child becomes is a product of what "the village" offers. The child that emerges from Clinton's reading of the developmental literature is vulnerable, even fragile, especially sensitive to early impressions. And impressions matter because this is a child who is mainly a product of its environment.
Is this the profile of childhood that emerges from developmental experts? It Takes a Village accurately points to the kinds of child-rearing environments recommended by developmentalists as most likely to produce a thriving child and a competent, self-sufficient, confident, productive adult. It is better to have two parents, one of each sex. It is better to set limits but also high expectations, to emphasize rationality, and to take the child's opinions into account. Consistency is better than inconsistency. And so on. But although the profile of better and worse child-rearing strategies portrayed in It Takes a Village remains loyal enough to what developmentalists tell us, the profile of the child does not.
When I was in college in the 1960s, I learned the Margaret Mead version of human development. On this view, human nature is infinitely malleable, and culture determines how any child will turn out. This sounds a lot like Clinton's account of children, and so it is unsurprising that Mead and her contemporaries make scattered appearances throughout the book. By the time I began to teach developmental psychology in the 1970s, however, a new model of development was emerging, and this is the model that characterizes developmental psychology today. On this view, children are resilient, able to withstand even large variations in their treatment while still remaining on track. Developmental outcomes are understood to be significantly influenced by the inborn traits of children themselves. The idea that a person's developmental fate is sealed by three or four years of age has given way to the notion of ongoing plasticity. Brains continue to adapt to environmental input throughout life, and so, therefore, do the psychological processes that brains underwrite.
Yes, the view of Hillary and children 'imprinted' with their earliest experiences sounds not like Margaret Mead but L. Ron Hubbard and his idea of 'engrams'. Here is a bit from Wikipedia that looks about right from my scratching knowledge of the Scientologists:
Dianetics defines an engram as "a mental image picture which is a recording of a time of physical pain and unconsciousness. It must by definition have impact or injury as part of its content."[2] Engrams are said to contain all of the perception and experience of any memory but are not easily available to an individual because they are overlaid with some kind of pain. A goal of Dianetics is to assist a person in confronting such memories and thus to bring the memory into full consciousness.
Actually the 'pain' portion of it is something that Hubbard stressed about childhood development if I remember correctly from reading Isaac Asimov's various autobiographical works. Basically, this is a cult idea to try and utilize the 'bad memories' that will forever twist lives from the moment of birth onwards to gain control of parents and those with little ability to understand their own lives. Wrap it all up in engrams and blame it on someone else!
Which is what Hillary Clinton is trying to do with her Village concept, and to expand intervention in child rearing so the government gets a full and influential say in how parents raise children. Child development specialists would help each and every parent, keep tabs on them and indoctrinate their children on the way the 'world really works' and to report on anything bad going on at home. That is because so many families are in 'crisis' that children just need to report on that and then be taken away from their parents while 'crisis management specialists' move in to counsel the 'family'.
And that is acting out against children and families at its highest form.
"We are at a stage in history in which remolding society is one of the great challenges facing all of us in the West." (From the book "I've Always Been A Yankee Fan" by Thomas D. Kuiper, p 119 - During her 1993 commencement address at the University of Texas)
"The only way to make a difference is to acquire power" (From the book "I've Always Been A Yankee Fan" by Thomas D. Kuiper, p 68 - Hillary to a friend before starting law school.)
Profile of the Sociopath Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility
Changes their image as needed to avoid prosecution. Changes life story readily.
This list doesn't seem to end, does it? But here we get back to much put up in the 'Need for Stimulation' part, yet again. And Hillary, like most politicians, has changed her image and life story. The question is in her believing that the re-packagings are actually reflective of who she was or not. We saw that a bit before with the changing of her name to reflect where she was. First from Hillary Rodham to Hillary Clinton for AK voters, then to Hillary Rodham Clinton for First Lady and then to Hillary! on the Senate stump.
Clinton shapes tough and tender image in '08 race Senator's new style: nurturing warrior By Mark Leibovich, The New York Times on 3/7/07 BERLIN, N.H. - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton signs autographs meticulously, drawing out each line and curve of "H-i-l-l-a-r-y," "R-o-d-h-a-m" and "C-l-i-n-t-o-n." She leaves no stray lines or wayward marks.
Precise, neatly written name and 'nurturing warrior'. An attempt to whitewash her past, clean it out, spell out her own name separately from previous times and hope to hell we forget everything she has done since joining up with Bill. A bit more from Mr. Leibovich:
"I'm Hillary Clinton, and I'm running for president," she says at campaign appearances. Lamenting that her public image has been distorted by caricature, she often says, "I may be the most famous person you don't really know." In the cliche of contemporary politics, Clinton is "reintroducing herself to the American people."
She is, in this latest unveiling, the Nurturing Warrior. She displays a cozy acquaintance ("Let's chat") and leaderly confidence ("I'm in it to win it").
She is a tea-sipping girlfriend who vows to "deck" anyone who attacks her; a giggly mom who invokes old Girl Scout songs and refuses to apologize for voting for the Iraq war resolution in 2002. Her aim, of course, is to show that she is tough enough to lead Americans in wartime but tender enough to understand their burdens.
Unfortunately I don't think it is possible to actually caricature Hillary Clinton beyond what she has done in her life. In trying to 're-introduce herself' she has, unfortunately for her, brought her personality and outlook along with her. Thus, in this nice, neat, clean, combative style, we also see the sleaze of the 'new' benefactors that seem a lot like the old ones. Here are a few of the current list of contributors, some convicted of FEC fraud and others still embroiled in their contribution schemes:
1) Norman Hsu: This man really needs little in the way of introduction, but his connections go all the way back to the Wo Hop To Triad in San Francisco. We know that from ABC7 News story on 07 SEP 2007 and Hsu's connections to Raymond Kwok Chow (aka "Shrimp Boy") who was working with Peter Chong to form up a National Triad syndicate called Tien Ha Wui (The Whole Earth Association)(Source: USDOJ NDIC JAN 2001 Archive. From SFGate on 08 APR 2006 we also get the connections, such as they are, between "Shrimp Boy" and local Tong leader Allan Leung's murder. So Mr. Hsu was running in rough company while running his 'garment business' of which no one can find any actual businesses he ran. All the companies, to date, have turned out to be 'paper companies' buying, selling and producing nothing. That does bring up where Mr. Hsu actually gets his money from and where he has been hiding out for most of the last 15 years after his conviction on fraud charges in CA in 1992. Norman Hsu was on the New School Board of Trustees and the Board of Governors for the Eugene Lang College in New School, which has ex-Sen. Bob Kerrey as its head. Mr. Hsu has been hobnobbing and throwing money at select Democratic candidates for a couple of years and his apparent lack of any source of income, beyond defrauding some investors, is perplexing.
2) Abdul Rehman Jinnah: After contributing $30,000 to Hillary's campaign (Source: NY Post article 04 MAR 2007) he took it on the lam for Pakistan. He is also cited as contributing $50,000 to Sen. Barbara Boxer and giving money to a number of other campaigns. He was also part of the Millenium Council starte by Bill Clinton in 2000, so the connections here start to overlap in time with the previous Clinton era scandals.
3) Sant Singh Chatwal: A famous Hotelier and Trustee of the William J. Clinton Foundation. Sant Chatwal's son, Vikram, is more the playboy type and the lavish wedding for him was written widely about in India. A Rediff India Abroad article of 15 JUN 2007 points to an opposition paper by Sen. Barack Obama on the activities of the Chatwal family:
The three page 'opposition research paper', titled Hillary Clinton (D-Punjab)'s Personal Financial and Political Ties, which has begun circulating in the blogosphere, criticises the Clintons' links to India in an effort and attacks her record on outsourcing, and on protecting American jobs.
The D-Punjab reference apparently refers to a joke Senator Clinton made last year, at a fund-raiser hosted by New York-based hotelier and top Democratic fund-raiser Sant Singh Chatwal. 'I can certainly run for the Senate seat in Punjab and win easily,' she had said on that occasion.
The document references the Clintons' recently released financial disclosure forms, to underline former President Bill Clinton's acceptance of $300,000 for paid speeches from Cisco Systems, a company that, the document notes, has 'shifted hundreds of jobs from America to India.'
It further says Hillary Clinton accepted almost $60,000 in contributions from employees of Cisco Systems, 'which laid off American workers to hire Indian techies.'
Beyond the money from Indian workers, Chatwal also has some securities and banking fraud investigations against him. While his successful hotel chains are lucrative, they are not *that* lucrative to the point of repaying the millions of dollars siphoned out of banks.
4) Hassan Nemazee: A Forbes article from 1999 points out the financial connections he used to become the US Ambassador to Argentina. Nemazee was involved in the financial swindles of Ivan Boesky, and involved in equity management of the CALPERS fund for California State Employee Retirement. He was also invited to the 01 NOV 1995 White House 'coffee' along with Sumner Redstone of Viacom, David A. Jones of Humana, Donald Fowler DNC National Chairman, Sen. Chris Dodd, and Jon S. Corzine, Senor Partner and Chairman of Goldman Sachs & Co. He was also involved in other equities problems, but was able to keep out of jail and get himself naturalized as a Citizen in 1996. In just three years he would be considered by Bill Clinton for the Ambassador's slot in Argentina. What was not brought out during this time was Mr. Nemazee's lobbying to get trade sanctions removed from Iran. That and his support for Iran makes the appointment to the Argentine Embassy a bit of a slap in the face to the Argentinians, considering the involvment of Iran, Monzer al-Kassar and Imad Mugniyah in the 1992 Israeli Embassy and 1994 AMIA Jewish Cultural Center Hezbollah bombings.
But it is nice to know that Hillary has remade herself, once more, to extend an open hand of help beyond the People's Liberation Army of Red China to whoever the backers of Hsu are, and corrupt Hoteliers and investment brokers, the latter of which is fronting for Iran.
So here is the rest of the Sociopath list of characteristics that have helped me to see Hillary Rodham Clinton in a whole, new light. After which a few closing thoughts.
Other Related Qualities:
Contemptuous of those who seek to understand them
Does not perceive that anything is wrong with them
Authoritarian
Secretive
Paranoid
Only rarely in difficulty with the law, but seeks out situations where their tyrannical behavior will be tolerated, condoned, or admired
Conventional appearance
Goal of enslavement of their victim(s)
Exercises despotic control over every aspect of the victim's life
Has an emotional need to justify their crimes and therefore needs their victim's affirmation (respect, gratitude and love)
Ultimate goal is the creation of a willing victim
Incapable of real human attachment to another
Unable to feel remorse or guilt
Extreme narcissism and grandiose
May state readily that their goal is to rule the world
(The above traits are based on the psychopathy checklists of H. Cleckley and R. Hare.)
Needless to say, I am not in the psychological nor psychiatric areas of study. Looking at individuals in this way is not what I usually do, nor am I skilled at it: our society has tended to want to psychoanalyze everything with pop-phrases that become worn out, over-used and overblown. One of the easiest throw-aways is to just say that someone is 'manic-depressive' or 'paranoid' or 'schizophrenic', and with that label dismiss them. No one aspect of anyone's life can guide this sort of thing, and using such in a quick and easy fashion tells very little about the individual one labels and much about yourself. I do such things so rarely because that devalues my respect for the rest of humanity and for myself. Also, I want to make sure that there is some actual foundation for such, beyond a petty dispute over some bit of ideology or outlook.
With politicians the problem becomes very difficult as many traits are needed to actually enter politics. It was easy, just a decade ago, to 're-start' your political career on a new path, and only have minor questions about your past outlooks arise. Today, however, that is impossible: the internet does not forget and the information becomes more readily available and more easily over time. You cannot leave your past behind in politics and when you begin to vary greatly from election to election question arise and deep ones. That quick and easy era where one speech and outlook could be given to a local union meeting and one with exact opposite outlook given to a business group is gone. With so much in the public arena such deceit will last shorter and shorter in politics. As a People we now cut almost no slack for 'changing positions', 'waffling' and 'flip-flopping' without hard and deep reasons given by the candidate that shows the candidate has some ability *to* reason and some foundation that they stand upon that allows wide variation between views.
When I started to relate the Peter Paul video to my lady, and gave her the outlines of how Hillary Clinton had turned viciously on a supporter that had donated over a million dollars and how, in the world of politics, you just *don't* do that, especially if they are a 'friend', she said, knowing Hillary Clinton's history: this describes a sociopath. Peter Paul was not an individual to Hillary Clinton, but a money donation object that had become troublesome. Bill Clinton got Interpol on his case via other means to have Mr. Paul put in the worst jail in Brazil since he had fled there to try and fight his court cases. Only by having a wife that cared for him was he found and rescued from that hell. I do not particularly like Peter Paul, although I do admire his spirit of adventure even when it turns to such things as swindling the Cuban Government. But, even when he showed his ability to go on the lam during probation, he did serve out his time and debt to society. He lived in a wheeler-dealer world and was looking for the 'big time' beyond Hollywood. He thought he was getting a 'straight up' player with Bill and Hillary Clinton: buying name and influence that would take little out of Bill's time and yield much for the company he had joined.
Instead he got Hillary Clinton, willing to sacrifice anyone to not be seen as part of that deal and to erase her fingerprints from it. This isn't the first time for that, as this article shows: it is a pattern of activity going back before the Presidency and extending to the present. In the great drama plays of the Clintons, Peter Paul became a bit actor to be shoved aside one his money making potential was gone and he became an election negative. The Clintons have done that to bigger fish and gotten away unscathed, by and large, even trading missile and guidance technology to Red China: they stonewalled Sen. Fred Thompson and convinced him to quit lest some other Republicans get very hard questions about their finances put out. And that worked. It is also beyond 'hardball politics', it is putting the security of the very Nation at risk for cash and power.
In putting this article together I was shocked at how much I had read previously and forgotten. I am, in truth, not an avid fan of politics, but voracious reading when I was well meant that newspapers, magazines, television programs of various sorts were pulled in. Much of this I had heard about if not read or seen directly, yet the level of misdirection and emotional manipulation by the Clinton Machine has been such that the full import of what went on has never come to my conscious attention. Bill and Hillary Clinton have successfully compartmentalized each and every problem, to try and isolate them from each other and distract from the larger pattern of work they have done together. This has been a conscious and direct means on their part: this is a plan of how to address problems, not just making an excuse or 'viable alternative' up here or there. Those that follow them and take in these excuses piecemeal have been part of this, and they repeat the individual excuses unquestioningly. And the great majority of Americans without being attuned to something being done over nearly two decades are not taught the attention span to examine such events.
We are told to forget this or that 'minor' scandal. It is nothing! Only 'partisans' would harp on it!
Just forget them all so that a new message can be re-crafted and the politician re-born.
That era is over.
The internet as a whole never forgets, the data stores and information increases at a very high rate of speed. Older, analog data is digitized and becomes available and the common public events gain greater scope and depth over time. One can, indeed, forget the details of a scandal, but if you forget that there *was* a scandal, then re-discovery becomes a shock: you have been manipulated and deeply so. Even worse when it is a consistent pattern stretching over decades.
As I am fond of pointing out: these things need not be a 'conspiracy', methods of operation are well and good enough to create such things. But it is utilizing those methods and expecting them to continue working as the information foundation for civilization changes that is now coming home to roost. For the Clintons the way their personalities intertwine lead to that method coming forward, and consciously as they laugh together the day after a scandal breaks, and then step on the public stage to go through all the emotional turmoil and wear the audience out so that the actual basis for the scandal is forgotten. By draining the emotions of the public, the actual impact of the events is diminished.
That pattern, interior to the Clintons, and how they treat those around them and the Nation as a whole fits a pattern described described for sociopaths. Instead of the targets being directly sexual, although sex does play a role in the patterning if not the overall pattern, the goal is something far nastier: to so abuse the Nation that power is slowly given up as our emotions are worn down as every scandal becomes meaningless due the melodrama around it. Each and every thing done to wear down the public's attention and resistance comes with attempts to give more and deeper power to government to rule, not govern. That goal may not be conscious, but it is the direction of all of this. And we can see the discards of the Clintons, those that are no longer useful in their role as objects for them, to see what is in store for the Nation.
I leave that analysis for those that wander through. I have looked and read and experienced and put it together as best I can. It took a long, long time to compile, and I did try to get views not only of critics but directly of those involved, which is often hard with Hillary being so tight lipped. It is far too easy to discount each piece with flip and easy lines, but if you do that over and over and over then that, in itself is a pattern working on you to stop caring, stop thinking and forget. I refuse to do that, and hard answers on most of this material has never been put out and the events, themselves unexplained.
As The Prisoner has said: "I will not pushed, filed, indexed, stamped, briefed, de-briefed or numbered. My life is my own."
Accept the pushing and soon you are not even an object, you are a number.
I will no longer be pushed by the Clintons or anyone in politics anymore.
Trying to save what thoughts I have in case my time for having them comes to an end. I keep many ways of looking at the world and from many perspectives, but they are each a part of a larger whole and reflect my thoughts and feelings.
Diabetic, cataleptic, naracoleptic, hyperlipidemia, cerebral atrophy, allergies and *still* glad to be alive. Founding and sole member of The Jacksonian Party. mail: ajacksonian at gmail dot com
I am: Hal Clement (Harry C. Stubbs) A quiet and underrated master of "hard science" fiction who, among other things, foresaw integrated circuits back in the 1940s.
Alignment: Neutral Good A neutral good character does the best that a good person can do. He is devoted to helping others. He works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them. Neutral good is the best alignment you can be because it means doing what is good without bias for or against order. However, neutral good can be a dangerous alignment because because it advances mediocrity by limiting the actions of the truly capable.
Race: Humans are the most adaptable of the common races. Short generations and a penchant for migration and conquest have made them physically diverse as well. Humans are often unorthodox in their dress, sporting unusual hairstyles, fanciful clothes, tattoos, and the like.
Class: Wizards are arcane spellcasters who depend on intensive study to create their magic. To wizards, magic is not a talent but a difficult, rewarding art. When they are prepared for battle, wizards can use their spells to devastating effect. When caught by surprise, they are vulnerable. The wizard's strength is her spells, everything else is secondary. She learns new spells as she experiments and grows in experience, and she can also learn them from other wizards. In addition, over time a wizard learns to manipulate her spells so they go farther, work better, or are improved in some other way. A wizard can call a familiar- a small, magical, animal companion that serves her. With a high Intelligence, wizards are capable of casting very high levels of spells.
Supporting Friends and Allies
