1/31/2011

“LAST CHANCE FOR PEACE!"???

Filed under: — @jphoganorg @ 7:25 am

Once upon a time on a day near the eve for President Clinton’s CLINTON GLOBAL INITIATIVE (mandatory) meeting for world leaders.

"Where’s the beef?"?

"Where’s your beef?"?

Dark forces, "dark" on both sides, both sides…

The faux "grit" of Clintons being covered again - shouldn’t talk of conflicts have ensued?

Too clunky in footsteps of Diplomacy to be a ballerina - Hillary conflicted and out of line.

It is her "Chicago way"?   She only thinks herself an "UNTOUCHABLE"?   While more of the "tradition" of movie mayor of such a writing on a business card for a hired killer like to a "get out of jail" pass with near "please extend the utmost curtesies to the holder of this card"?  At least she of such for having been raised to hit first and specifically "to hit the boys first."

The eve of last CLINTON GLOBAL INITIATIVE meeting is quite telling for its conflicts.

Then there is the forked tongued Clinton (Bill) of one breath saying his meeting and organizing was "not political" and not "partisan" and with the other breaths with him throwing "political" and "partisan" hits.

But what of "Hillary" is it now best to consider her, yes, of substantial "reading" yet maybe of poor comprehension or of having read too much of the wrong works?

She is our Secretary of State - not a private industry lawyer of "the client goes to jail - not the lawyer" and of expectation that each day is a new client and case so yesterday is just a former case not to be used to judge the personal character of the lawyer.   She is our Secretary of State and yet wants to be treated as a lawyer limited by the law with her "yesterday" and its contradictions not admissable for tomorrows judging and coverage of her. 

She wants to wake each day to a consideration "as best lawyer available for that day" and not a person with a consistant story more necessary for a "builder" or "poet."

Remember the eve of recent CLINTON GLOBAL INITIATIVE?   Remember Secretary of State Clinton’s declaration and such to LAST CHANCE FOR PEACE?  Remember it for a timing seeming of a clear conflict of interest for being so spouted to build interest and energy for the CGI (mandatory) meeting?

So Egypt?  So such "LAST CHANCE FOR PEACE!" was specific to last chance for Hosni Mubarak and for him to lock up thirty more years he could then pass on to his son?  Surely she wasn’t speaking so to condemn all other Egyptians and was just speaking of a window of opportunity as closing for herself and Bill and Mubarak and Son? 

Sure it may still be more telling and concerning that phonetically the Clintons first moves as holders of office of President were to an appointment of a WARRIN’ CHRIST O FOR as their main voice and man for Iraq and Egypt as well as Israel and Middle East.  Was it worse that they then were inciting, again phonetically, with their forcing MADAMS ALL BRIGHT?

Surely she must just have meant the LAST CHANCE FOR PEACE as for the selfish ambitions of herself and Bill to grab more Global "lime-light" for themselves.

So "conflicted" and yet hardly reported or covered how improper it was for "Hillary" to be intentionally pitching CGI with dramatic teasing to help "Bill" re-establish new relevance?

This "Queen" and her "King" have speech more fork tongued and corrupted - their poor diction, more intentional - stutterers they are not.

 Is it that they have read alot and alot that was "popular" and really for our times of having read too much of the wrong works?

Sure she wants to wake another day to more immunity as of a lawyer waking to a new case and new client and only to a working with existing law — Surely she hopes not to be judged for conflicts and contradictions over her past as of her real character and shortcomings - just please tomorrow an "immunity" as a lawyer not a prosecution one of the hands of a "player."

Yes, she is impeachable without an impeachment of the real one holding our office of President.

Her "LAST CHANCE FOR PEACE!" does now seem an unchecked condemnation of all Egyptians — ‘Oh but that was just an earlier case.’?

If as the "new" NBC was to "Obama late to this talk of democracy stuff" then the Clintons and their oppositions to foundations to such by Bush/Cheney may yet be to an arrival.

Again:  To an Amendment XXVIII as a new writ to ordain that no "lawyer" if elected to hold our office of President is to enter into such office and its oath taking without first voluntarily surrendering their ‘law licence’ and JD pf to a daily practice as high-lighted above - and so too for our members of any Cabinet - and only partly for otherwise they remain an "officer" of our Superior branch in Justice?

"Dark forces, "dark" on both sides, both sides of … — a tipping of the "hat" to Gandi and his story of beginnings as a dark skinned English barrister once on a train in South Africa, and while "current" on issues of Egypt today, some.

It still seems to have been so improper and unfitting for our Secretary of State Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton to have hyped her husbands annual (mandatory) meeting of their CLINTON GLOBAL INITIATIVE on the backs of all Egyptians and Israeli and others specific to "local" around such.

But then she wakes hoping each day to have a lawyer’s "immunity"? 

We are not to judge her "personally"?   We are not to judge her as a "person" just as a "lawyer"?

She has read so much it really isn’t her - it is just the limits of the laws she has to be ready to be on both sides of equally?

Where’s your beef?  The "Queen" and her fork-tongue speech?

Again:  Once upon a time - on the eve of the annual mandatory meeting of the CLINTONS’ GLOBAL INITIATIVE…

They want to be "royals"?   Egyptians want out from under her too?

THE UNTOUCHABLES?   An "untouchable" more of the Chicago Mayor passing out "GET OUT OF JAIL FREE" card to dramatized "hired gun" as also of THE UNTOUCHABLES movie?

We are only to judge her as a "lawyer" and yet that would have her also still an "officer" of our Superior branch in Justice and to another "conflict"? 

Surrender your law licence!  Or we will move to a disbarring for you too?  

 

Comments »

No comments yet.

Leave a comment

Publication may require admin approval; please come back later to view your comment.

(required)

(required)