1/4/2011

MANAGING HILLARY - BAGWOMAN

Filed under: — @jphoganorg @ 11:53 am

No this is not as simple in "green" to be about shopping bags, though "Hillary" as a "carpetbagger" definitely on the table to be registered.

Yes these are the days to remember Demi Moore in A FEW GOOD MEN, and maybe as the "brains" and necessary "femine perspective" for the character played by Tom Cruise to be victorious and patriotic.

Yes these are the days where Demi Moore in lycra cycling shorts as Oscar attire as well a women of her times and topical in her arts.

See, it seems Bill and Hillary are counting on us as Americans "not able to handle their truth."

Who is the Demi Moore of our fashion and politics in 2011 A.D.?   Who has replaced Tom Cruise?

In my last blogged column I was mentioning remembering former President Bill Clinton admitting in a worked to "come to Jesus" confessional dream sequencing specifically with an "I was behind it."

I do not know what to make of such and if a National Security imperative may excuse even if such could have been maybe stopped by him in months after his presidency of an inciting to such.

I do not know but have well considered that planes were "remote controlled" and likely were flown by dedicated radicals committed in "Holy War" resolve.  

I do not know how or why - just a that a former President was atleast likely admitting to more than gross negligence by he in his admininstrating.  I did fax the NSC that day or morning after maybe having slept on such an unexpected outcome of my organizing to probe to detect corruption at our highest levels as an amatuer knowing he had enough networking to have at least one attempt at such.  See I was open to all as guilty or some and then to such thinking I had to move to considering it may have been Bush or Cheney and their CIA.

"Bill’s" admittal was unexpected but not blocked as possible.  And how?

Not a "government conspiracy" with too many people and ears and eyes upon?   And inciting?

Selfish politics?   A gift to new Senator Hillary Clinton to help her suddenly become a sympathetic global figure in a near complete and extreme make-over sufficient to help them both out of the dungeon of low seniority in a Senate so of "SENIORITY"?

Was it just negligence and a haunting of guilt but then still guilt that should have us electing anyone but a Clinton so knowing of such a failing?

Demi Moore in lycra cycling shorts as Oscar garb >>> GOOD GREEN ?  <<<<

Hillary Clinton power hungry politician in pants suit >>>> BAD GREEN ? <<<<

So to still understanding the "come to Jesus" confession that I faxed a reporting to the NSC then of - not an assumption of guilt but an attempt to empathize and sympathize to a better understanding of "Bill" confession?

They would have been miserable!  It would have been truly unbearable for them both!

The Clintons wouldn’t have been able to stand being "low couple" on Senate totem pole?  

Something had to give?  How do we get a "crisis" without directing to a "crisis"?  How might we just thoroughly and regularly incite some of our known "enemies" or "radicalized to Anti-Americanisms"?

Could there even have been a National Security Imperative to give them a sense of justification?  That is while also being able to justify their known effecting to a new and better "wall of separation" at the FBI between enforcement and intelligence such as maybe necessary for their "inciting" to have sufficient chance at success needed for their desired "crisis" political come back?

We know she was a carpetbagger and a new junior most Senator used to so much more - but did they have any legal authority to ease a confessed seeming guilt?

We know First Lady Hillary did CRUSADE and on turf of radicals an to a calling of Americans to support and agree and accept her very inciteful to incendiary proclamations to another countries and regions peoples of different traditions.

But was she actually a bag-woman to a "leader" of radicals with cash to cover stipends to families of suicide bombers?  They wouldn’t have gone that far even though she had the means and plenty of opportune moments abroad in little known places.

Really when I organized then to such a dream sequencing soft probing I was of accepting I was to find out the Clintons were right in helping efforts to blame Bush/Cheney. 

And, now we have the Obama administration that can be said to have been to nothing but blame game politics to an very vast cover-up effort such that any "blaming" kept from Clintons’ and their years completely to the rediculous.

Until "it was all the fault of the Bush’s eight years…"  reasonable consideration had to be left to both admins maybe responsible and "legally" with National Security and Executive Powers.  

It cannot have been "all the fault of the Bush years"!   So why such an vast and extreme attempt to "cover-up"?  

The Clintons are one in a life time and "irresplaceable" politic we need to raise and maintain above all others?

Yes, the Clintons can be guilty and the Al Qaeda holy warriors as well and separately.

Yes, Al Qaeda may have been "called" to such an attack with a sense of Justice and the Clintons may have knowingly incited them with their specific politics and ‘decisions’ and while selling "Hillary’s Crusades" to Americans such that they could as they did after 9/11 blame the American people and not themselves.

They did blame the "American people" after 9/11 and with their off handed "we did what the people wanted us to do"  (like)  even though it was "Hillary’s Crusades" much her life story and ambition.

It was former Clinton NSC Philip Bobbitt who wrote in TERROR AND CONSENT that we should be weary of our White House and Washington politics getting too "Hollywood" in direct working with "Hollywood" for such seems to beget terrorism.

And, still it was on 9/11/01 that such "terror" was meant as a response not of a direction and though better for Clintons to have happened with the most expected next president then Al Gore.   They all could have become war heroes with fixed and convenient "exit date" and gotten world to ignore Saddam Hussein as other than a "necessary" politician for his "circumstances" quite like their rational for themselves.

Still 9/11 didn’t help with Saddam Hussein or arguments for a long over due prosecution that best would have happened in a Neuremberg precedence within Clintons’ "two-fer" first term.   Of course Bush admin should have been talking about Saddam Hussein and Iraq as early as their first day a new administration, but still really it seems 9/11 was about the worst way to proceed with their concerns for regional stability and a fair and overdue prosecution of Saddam Hussein.