(D)ude: Man! Madeleine
Albright supports Hillary Rodham Clinton, but with a totally reprehensible
choice of words. Clearly, 2016 is jammed politically with women behaving
corruptly in the best interest of themselves and their amassing worth, women
like Madeleine Albright, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Amal Clooney.
(M)an: Dude! It
was reprehensible when Madeleine Albright reported to a Clinton rally in
Concord, New Hampshire Saturday, February 6, 2016, and persecuted the females
in attendance. “Just remember, there’s a special place in hell for women who don’t
help each other,” she bullied the audience.
D: Man! The
Nation’s got a great article dating Friday, February 5, 2016, regarding Hillary
Rodham Clinton’s cunningness. It is entitled, Henry Kissinger, Hillary Rodham Clinton’s Tutor in War and Peace: Last
night, Clinton once again praised a man with a lot of blood on his hands.
Have you read it? Greg Grandin writes about Clinton’s closing argument, during
the debate Thursday night, as betraying not just progressives, but Democrats as
well, by emphasizing how Henry Kissinger approved of the way she ran the State
Department and for which she was “very flattered.”
M: Dude! The
debate last Thursday night in New Hampshire proved once again just how much of
a Republican operative Hillary Rodham Clinton actually is! She’s not a moderate
either! Forget progressivism, the presidential candidate would better serve the
United States electorate by declaring herself a Republican. This presidential
election would become so much more comprehensible if the race for the White
House were between Hillary Rodham Clinton red and Bernie Sanders blue.
D: Man! Then why
is Hillary Rodham Clinton running for the presidency as a Democrat?
M: Dude! Hillary
Rodham Clinton is running for the presidency as a Democrat to reinstate her
husband’s policies while wiping out all the hard work, including coalitions,
made by the Obama Administration, particularly Secretary John Kerry. Why John
Kerry? Because Hillary Rodham Clinton and her colleagues had hoped for a Mitt
Romney win of the White House in 2012, hence, her abandonment of her foreign
service post at the conclusion of President Obama’s first term.
D: Man! Okay?
M: Dude! Don’t
you get it?
D: Man! Get
what?
M: Dude! Why do
you think the Arab Spring concluded as it did? How do you think the Arab Spring
collapsed? Hillary Rodham Clinton betrayed US! She aligned with the Republican
Tea Partiers as a Teabag Democrat herself from the very beginning of her term
as Secretary of State. Why do you think we’ve got the opposition on the
Republican side of the political spectrum wanting and waiting for Hillary
Rodham Clinton to win the primaries and become the Democratic nominee, not
Bernie Sanders?
D: Man! Hillary
Rodham Clinton’s corrupt? Hillary Rodham Clinton is corrupt!
M: Dude! Yes!
The Clintons and the Bushes have arranged this election to conclude by Hillary
Rodham Clinton losing to Jeb Bush. They’re all in it together! They believe
they have the whole elections process figured out, that they can just study up
on their 2010 and 2014 strategy to cheat the Tea Party Republicans into office,
as they did in 2010, and then have the Democrats lose the House of
Representatives too as a result of one of the lowest voter turnouts in history,
in 2014.
D: Man! Hillary
Rodham Clinton’s easy to wipe out for whoever is the Republican contender in
the general election against her! The Republicans will go after her the way you
did just now, and then bring allegations against Bill Clinton for either having
been a skirt-chaser or being one even today. Hillary Rodham Clinton never
addresses that elephant in the room, does she? Then again, she and Bill are two
of the elephants in the room, alongside all the Republican contenders for the
presidency this year.
M: Dude! What’s
her Achilles heel?
D: Man! Hillary
Rodham Clinton conveniently dismisses the issue of her campaign or she
releasing the transcripts of all the paid speeches she made to Wall Street.
Aside from Bill Clinton’s extracurricular activities, I believe this Achilles
heel of hers will cost Hillary Rodham Clinton the presidency, hence making
Bernie Sanders by far the stronger candidate. If Hillary Rodham Clinton wins
the nomination, the Republicans will only have to surface her transcripts from
the all too recent past. I’m pretty sure Hillary Rodham Clinton’s made a 47%
comment somewhere in her private speeches, her scriptwriters appear to be the
same as Mitt Romney’s in the way she speaks of herself and what she’s going to
do, going so far as to say with such insincerity and objection that she doesn’t
make promises she cannot keep. I think Robert Gates too utilizes the same
scriptwriters as Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton, because HRC and Bob Gates
have used coarse words like “cherry picking” in the same style to respond to
criticisms. Remember Romney’s videotaped coarseness regarding the 47%,
“There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the
president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who
are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe
the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are
entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That's an
entitlement. The government should give it to them. And they will vote for this
president no matter what. And I mean the president starts off with 48, 49... he
starts off with a huge number. These are
people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income
tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. So he'll be out there talking
about tax cuts for the rich. ... My job is not to worry about those people.
I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for
their lives. What I have to do is convince the 5–10% in the center that are
independents, that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other
depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not.”
M: Dude! “I’m interested in making what we have work better. I want to
streamline programs that are duplicative and redundant. I want to have a
top-to-bottom review about what works and what doesn’t work, and be absolutely
clear we’re getting rid of what doesn’t work.” That’s exactly
what HRC said when responding to Rachel Maddow’s question Thursday night about
whether or not she would cut any government agencies as president.
D: Man! “I will not send American combat troops to Iraq or Syria. That is
off the table. That would be a terrible mistake. We will continue to use
Special Forces, and we have to because of the kinds of threats we face. You
know, the network of terrorist organizations -- not just ISIS, but others who
are part of this unfortunate network that stretches from North Africa to South
Asia -- pose serious threats to friends, allies, and partners, as well as to
ourselves. And we've got to keep our country safe, and we have to work with the
rest of the world to try to defeat ISIS, to end that terrorist threat. So I
will be a very careful, deliberate decision maker when facing hard choices,
because I know what's at stake. And I know you can understand why there can't
be from me anyway a blanket statement. But I want to assure you I will be
transparent, I will be open, and I will explain to the American people if any
occasion arises where we do have to take military action to protect ourselves
or our close friends and partners.” That’s how HRC
concluded an answer to a question by a potential voter, Michael Feel’s inquiry Wednesday
night into her interventionist foreign policy past.
M: Dude! Hillary
Rodham Clinton’s an iffy commander in chief and president. She distinguishes a
lot between the constituents coming to vote and the people who will be working
with her in the government and the White House, telling Anderson Cooper at that
same Town Hall Wednesday night, “But I -- well, you know, I don't really know, Anderson. I think
-- here's what I want young people to know. They don't have to be for me, I'm
going to be for them. It doesn't really matter. If they are not supporting me,
I will be their president, I will do everything I can to give them the
opportunities they deserve.”
D: Man! Would
HRC have made a pact with Wall Street through not releasing the transcripts of
her private speeches?
M: Dude! Most
likely, yes. Hey! What was it about Amal Clooney, George Clooney’s wife, that
you wanted to address?
D: Man! She’s stating
the case for her client Mohamed Nasheed, who she labels a political prisoner in
Maldives, the tropical nation comprising a chain of hundreds of islands in the Indian
Ocean. Nasheed was president of the Maldives from 2008 to 2012, before being
ousted himself by the exact same political forces he had ran against for the
presidency in a coup d’état.
M: Dude! The
coup d’état by police and military loyalists of Nasheed’s predecessor Maumoon
Abdul Gayoom, was considered controversial amongst not just Nasheed’s
supporters, but by many. British Prime Minister David Cameron considered
Nasheed’s departure a legitimate resignation, while Member of Parliament David
Amess sided with Nasheed’s supporters to say Nasheed’s resignation was forced.
What’s going on?
D: Man! If you
look into the history of Nasheed’s successor, Mohammed Waheed Hassan, you find
a lot of answers. Mohammed Waheed Hassan also ran against Gayoom’s ideology
after returning home from the United States, where he had garnered two master’s
degrees and a PhD from Stanford University. Unfortunately, this is a tale of
hurt egos on the right and the left. Hassan lost the parliamentary election in
1989 to Gayoom’s brother-in-law and retreated back onto the international
relations scene with positions at the UN, specifically UNICEF, before returning
to Maldives and trying another hand at politics. This time Hassan had his
ambitions set on becoming the leader of the Maldivian Democratic Party, the
position he lost to Nasheed.
M: Dude! What’s
the scene like in Maldives right now? Isn’t Amal Clooney spreading bias
favoring Nasheed at a pivotal point in Maldivian history? Isn’t Amal Clooney’s concerns
for Nasheed just another way of constructing concerns over old wounds that
haven’t healed?
D: Man! Why
would she want to construct concerns over old wounds that haven’t healed? Is
she wanting to scratch off the scab and create an abscess? Does Amal Clooney
not know that she’s endangering civilian populations across Maldives with her
broadcasting her concern for a politician like Nasheed?
M: Dude! Look
at Mohammed Waheed Hassan’s successor, Abdulla Yameen, half-brother of Gayoom
and leader of the Progressive Party of Maldives! Amal Clooney cannot reinstate
Nasheed as President of the Republic of Maldives! Nasheed lost the 2013
presidential elections to the Progressive Party of Maldives! Abdulla Yameen
being such a close relation of Gayoom doesn’t immediately deem him as deserving
a coup d’état too! Amal Clooney said the following regarding Maldives to Chuck
Todd on Meet the Press, January 17, 2016,
“I
mean Maldives is not usually the top of anyone's political agenda. And it may
be on the short list of holiday destinations. I think there are two reasons.
First of all, U.S. values are at stake. You know, we just had the president's
State of the Union address. And he said American leadership in the 21st century
means rallying the world around causes that are right.
And he gave an example, the
U.S. supporting Ukraine's fight for democracy. And that's what we're asking for
too in this case. Maldivians have the right to democracy, and their democracy
is under threat at the moment. There's another reason that is also not very
well known. Just last month, the European parliament issued a report saying
that at the moment, the Maldives has the highest per capita rate of recruitment
to ISIS in the world. And this is really shocking. So the figures that have been
released by the State Department say 200 fighters have gone from the Maldives
to Iraq or Syria.
The president has made
speeches saying that there's only room for Islam in the Maldives and Sharia
punishment should be imposed. You've had fighters who've gone to ISIS come back
to the country and not be prosecuted. Also last year, you had a rally on the
streets of Malé where people were waving ISIS flags and the police did not
crack down on those and no arrests took place. So you certainly have a regime that
could be doing a lot more to minimize the terrorist threat.
So his attack was that I
didn't let facts get in the way when I was saying that Nasheed had been
subjected to an unfair trial and that there were political prisoners in the
country. What has happened since then is that he himself was arrested, follow,
you know, because the president is now increasingly paranoid I think and is
going after members of his own party, having dealt with the opposition in its
entirety.
He announced it from the jail
cell and penned a very different op-ed to the one that attacked me and said,
"What are these lawyers talking about?" That he now says, and I
believe this is a direct quote, "I join the swelling ranks of political
prisoners in the Maldives, including President Nasheed." And he also adds,
you know, "Any casual observer of the judicial system in the Maldives
knows that it's impossible to get a fair trial here.
I think that it's easy to
dismiss criticism on that basis, like the, you know, I think the kind of attacks
that I got from that vice president just smacks of desperation and is easy to
dispose of. So it's not something that's worrying. I think on the other hand,
if in representing this client and trying to just secure his release and the
release of other political prisoners, if people are made aware of the situation
in the Maldives, I think that's a good thing.
Because there are thousands
of tourists going every year. And I think if people know what's going on, they
might find that they don't want to support that regime either, you know? If
you're a woman lying on the beach in the Maldives, you might want to know that
a kilometer away, another woman is being flogged. And you might want to find
your own way to protest that.”
D: Man! Those
are awful sound bites meant to confuse the audience, like us! First, what about
the fate of the civilians of the Republic of Maldives? The political quagmire
that Amal Clooney is attempting to educate US about the Republic of Maldives
with, is insincere like presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton. She may
have been a Goldwater Girl in her adolescence, but Hillary Rodham Clinton
remains Henry Kissinger’s disciple today.
M: Dude! Are you
saying that Amal Clooney and Hillary Rodham Clinton are collaborative?
D: Man! If Hillary
Rodham Clinton is aligned in any way with Kissinger on foreign policy, then she
is with registered genocidal alligator hides like India’s Narendra Modi and his
political swamp that goes by the acronym BJP. Hillary Rodham Clinton set the
stage, during her four years as Secretary of State, for BJP and Narendra Modi’s
ascension onto India’s political front in 2014 from the sidelines, where Modi
was Chief Minister of Gujarat during at the time of the gruesome 2002 Gujarat
riots. The analysis by Martha Craven Nussbaum on the the matter of whether
these riots were intentional is succinct and brilliant, "There is by now a broad consensus that the Gujarat
violence was a form of ethnic cleansing, that in many ways it was premeditated,
and that it was carried out with the complicity of the state government and
officers of the law.”
M: Dude! I get
it! Hillary Rodham Clinton is an underhanded Republican operative! And Amal
Clooney does not want to reinstate Nasheed, but to ameliorate the negative
effects on Nasheed’s ego and status in Maldives! But I do wonder if she’s got a
plan to create a hell on earth for the Maldivians, the civilian citizenry
there, or will they suffer as did the civilian citizenry caught in the
Indo-Pakistani War of 1971? Jon Pennington [find him on quora dot com] answers
this quandary when presenting by far the best answer online to the question, “Why
did Nixon dislike India?”
D: Man! Why did
Richard Nixon dislike India?
M: Dude!
According to Jon Pennington’s self-identifying catch phrase, “U.S.
history is more than the watered-down version you got in high school.” Anyways, Pennington gives the following
succinctly brilliant response to why Nixon disliked India,
“Nixon had
several reasons for disliking India. First of all, Nixon was a racially and
religiously prejudiced man who once said of both Pakistan and India:
"Unwashed heathen. They're picking at each other over there." On the
other hand, racism alone is not sufficient to explain his distaste for India,
because Nixon clearly favored Pakistan over India in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. In addition, Nixon took a
Machiavellian approach toward foreign policy that led him to favor engaging in
diplomatic negotiation with autocrats like Pakistan's Yahya Khan
over the more small-"d" democratic Indira Gandhi.
(Nixon also liked Yahya Khan more personally, whereas he referred to Indira
Gandhi as a "bitch.")
Another factor
that influenced Nixon's decision to favor Pakistan over India in the 1971 war
was that Nixon's administration was then making preparations for Nixon's 1972 visit to China. Yahya was a vital go-between for the
United States in providing a diplomatic back channel for Nixon's trip to China,
and the Nixon Administration did not want to anger a country that was still
sore over the 1962 Sino-Indian War by favoring India over Pakistan. Finally,
Nixon associated India with the hippie counterculture. The Nixon White House
tapes reveal that Nixon disparaged George Harrison's involvement in The Concert for Bangladesh as an example of "fruitball
causes" and speculated that Harrison was being duped by India about where
the money was going. As a socially conservative "law and order" guy,
it's not implausible that Nixon would have preferred a strongman like Yahya
over a country he associated with heathens and dirty filthy hippies.”
D: Man! You do
not learn and get degreed on civil rights and world cultures in order to
destroy civil rights and world cultures! Hillary Rodham Clinton and Madeleine
Albright did both in their capacities at the State Department, the former
having graduated with a law degree while the latter attained a PhD on the
Prague Spring and the role of journalists in Alexander Dubcek’s short lived liberal
reforms in Czechoslovakia. Of course, Alexander Dubcek’s Prague Spring of 1968
was seen as a threat to the Warsaw Pact of 1955.
M: Dude!
Kissinger has been with the Clintons since the very beginning of Bill Clinton’s
presidency! Kissinger was a key player in getting NAFTA negotiated in the
Herbert Walker Bush 41 Administration and then implemented during Clinton 42’s
Admin.
D: Man! The New
Hampshire Primary tomorrow better not involve coin tosses favoring HRC every
time like at the Iowa Caucus because Hillary Rodham Clinton’s blood red and
Bernie Sanders’s loyal blue! Hillary Rodham Clinton’s so concerned about
“artful smear” when in fact she crafted the whole mess at the Iowa Caucus to
discourage voter turnout in the New Hampshire Primary tomorrow.
No comments:
Post a Comment