03
Jan
08

Hillary Clinton’s Fake Pair of Stones

hill-war.jpg

On his January 2nd blog entry, Michael Moore set his sights on poor Hillary (why are the “boys” always picking on me?) Clinton. Not that she has many endearing fans on the far-left with her hawkish (Bush-lite) foreign policy stance, but she needs cats like Moore to pump up the tires on her universal health care wagon.

Moore castigated Clinton for her shrewd and politically calculated vote to authorize the 2003 Iraq War (and the Hill-approved war spending progeny that initial vote spawned). From his blog Moore writes:

I am sad to say, nothing has disappointed me more than the disastrous, premeditated vote by Senator Hillary Clinton to send us to war in Iraq. I’m not only talking about her first vote that gave Mr. Bush his “authorization” to invade — I’m talking about every single OTHER vote she then cast for the next four years, backing and funding Bush’s illegal war, and doing so with verve. She never met a request from the White House for war authorization that she didn’t like.

Ouch, Preach on Mikey. Unfortunately, this dart of inescapable truth flies over the heads of the lobotomized Hill-bots who are desperately seeking a vagina (at any cost) in the White House. These single issue voters (female reproductive organ host proponents) ostensibly loathe the imperialist Neo-Con World democratization efforts of the last 5 years, yet they are willing to cast their lot with the leading anointed CFR torch-bearer who will further this destructive agenda. Moore writes on:

Hillary knows the sexist country we still live in and that one of the reasons the public, in the past, would never consider a woman as president is because she would also be commander in chief. The majority of Americans were concerned that a woman would not be as likely to go to war as a man (horror of horrors!). So, in order to placate that mindset, perhaps she believed she had to be as “tough” as a man, she had to be willing to push The Button if necessary, and give the generals whatever they wanted.

In a nutshell, Moore is arguing that Hillary made a calculated decision to use her Senate vote to:

(1) authorize the senseless bloodshed of thousands of American troops and innocent Iraqis,

(2) bankrupt the nation by borrowing $500,000,000,000 (add 275 million per day) to finance the war, and

(3) perpetuate an ongoing illegal war by authorizing war spending requests from Bush.

All of this in a desperate attempt to vitiate a gender stereotype (women are weak on national security) for the sole purpose of winning the 2008 Presidential election. Sounds kinda shitty to me, but what do I know? As far as Moore’s take on the matter – preach on Truth-Soldier, I wholeheartedly concur.

War is only a cowardly escape from the problems of peace. ~Thomas Mann


5 Responses to “Hillary Clinton’s Fake Pair of Stones”


  1. January 3, 2008 at 12:27 pm

    I don’t know who I am voting for yet. I hate feeling, year after year, that I am having to choose the lesser of crap – if you know what I mean.

    Anyway, I remember what it was like (for at least a common person) pre-Iraq war. It was like if you didn’t support it, you were anti-American. Not that it is an excuse for Hillary, but I remember feeling like I was going to get reported to the House Un-American Activities Committee for wondering why I was getting the bait-and-switch on Afghanistan.

    Johnnypeeper’s response:

    That “feeling” was engineered by a false-flag attack on 9-11 (Stage I) to ensure a critical-mass of public opinion would not rise up to successfully oppose the Iraq invasion (Stage II). The media violated their objectivity and journalistic integrity by dutifully advancing the CFR/Bush/Neo-Con/Clinton playbook propaganda. If those in the media had reported the truth, their precious government broadcast licenses would be in jeopardy, and their corporate overlords would suffer financially.

  2. January 4, 2008 at 1:38 am

    Johnnypeepers-
    I finally had a chance to get over here and read your blog. I found it and you very interesting and provocative. Please keep writing. And I don’t mean to be preachy but stick with the herb and avoid the toxins. There is a difference. But from reading what you’ve written, you understand that. Regarding the topic at hand, I agree with persistent illusion and would go so far as to say that there was no other way for a female freshman senator with presidential ambitions to have played the politics at the time. The angry left needs to re-examine itself (and I consider myself part of that group) and the way it operates. Seven years ago, the far left wing of our party said there was no difference between Al Gore and George Bush and enough of them worked them up into a self-induced snit and voted for Nader to give us Bush. I said then that Al Gore was the most progressive human being that ever seriously had a chance of occupying the Presidency of the US and it was the most progressive people in the US who sabotaged his chances. I think events have played out far enough where I can say now that I was right when I said then that indeed there were significant differences between Gore and Bush. Superliberals sneered at me then.
    I just don’t know about 9/11. I’ve seen some compelling arguments that raise very serious questions in my mind about what happened that day. But when it actually comes to considering that the entire thing was an engineered conspiracy, I just want to tilt my head and ask ‘really?’ in an unbelieving voice. These people simply aren’t competent enough to have pulled that off.
    I really like the site.
    -WD

    Johnnypeeper’s response:

    Thanks WD, those were very kind words. Although, this statement troubled me:

    “I agree… that there was no other way for a female freshman senator with presidential ambitions to have played the politics at the time.”

    By logical conclusion, you must agree that it is morally sound to vote on a resolution that will bring about the deaths of thousands, place a mortgage on future American’s earnings, and conspire to violate the customary laws of war in the name of political expediency? If that is the prevailing political gamesmenship mindset, gimme Mr. Smith, we need him bad.

    I agree with you that Nader was the spoiler for Gore’s 2000 election opportunity. But of course, hindsight is 20-20, and Gore was not the universally championed anti-corporate Eco-warrior that he is now. Can we really blame the wide-eyed idealistic chaps and lasses who rejected what Al (the establishment) stood for? I mean after all, he was the son of a long-term U.S. Senator and raised in a D.C. hotel.

    As to your second point, I didn’t “know about” 9-11 until recently. Through the insistence of several mates, and my own methodical study of the historical record, I have come to the conclusion that the event was either (1) nefariously advanced with material support by our government, (2) complicitly ignored by our intelligence networks for ulterior motives, or (3) was an example of a bureaucracy being criminally negligent and asleep at the switch. I gravitate among the three, but as of late have gently landed on #2. I recommend you read “The Looming Tower” by Lawrence Wright. That book tied up a lot of loose ends for me. Also, check out the high-fivers and Carl Cameron’s (from Fox News) now impossible to find investigative 5-part post-9/11 series on the Israeli Telecom Firm controlling our internet/data/fiberoptic infrastructure and the high-fivers, if you can find it. you probably won’t because the ADL had it expunged from the record.

  3. January 7, 2008 at 10:13 am

    (I am Swiss and have never been to the US) I read on a blog here that in fact there is no way out and the US have to stay in Iraq, not really to get the oil, but to prevent others from getting it, since Iraq is weak. The reasoning was that whoever gets the Iraq oil will be able to hold out longer than anybody else (I don’t remember in what regard, but probably in all of them) and would rule the world.

  4. 4 IraqWarrior
    March 12, 2008 at 2:45 am

    What oil? Can you say $5. a gallon. WMD’s, well that came out too, Iraq wanted Iran to think it had WMD’s so IRAN wouldnt invade. We asked (USA) to visit but Iraq didnt want to show Iran all the cards (no WMD’s) so Iraq kept pushing that they did. sucks they didnt huh????

    Johnnypeepers= Fraud

  5. March 12, 2008 at 5:49 pm

    Iraqwarrior-
    Can you say record oil company profits? Can you answer the question of where all the money generated by Iraq’s oil is going? Can you specify where all of the treasure we have poured into that country is going?

    Also, your rewrite of history is hilariously fraudulent. The Bush Administration had no patience for the inspections process. If they had given Hans Blix and company a few more months the invasion wouldn’t have happened. The reason they weren’t finding anything by March of 2003 wasn’t because of their incompetence (as many bloggers with clever variations of names like yours shouted at me at the time was the case. Also, while I’m on the subject of your name, may I ask you if you are actually a warrior in Iraq, or are you just a chickenhawk in front of a computer who gets off on pretending?) but because there was nothing to find. If Bush could have waited even a few months this would have been abundantly clear. Of course, there were also those who pointed out at the time that there were good reasons (such as not wanting to show Iran their true military capabilities) for Saddam to not fully cooperate with inspections that had nothing to do with the US or terrorism. Naturally, these arguments were also derided when they weren’t simply ignored.
    Johnnypeepers tries to look for the truth. He looks around him and sees that the facts don’t add up to the official story. I don’t agree with or endorse his theories or even share his point of view, but I certainly can respect it. I have a hard time saying that for you folks-you’ve had the better part of a decade to run the show and you’ve done a truly terrible job of it. Your ideology has had more than a fair chance to be worked out in practice and it is an abject failure. I expect you all to spend the rest of your lives trying to convince posterity that the brilliant leadership of George W Bush was some kind of golden age for America, but that will be as futile an endeavor as the war you started.
    -WD


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Johnny Peepers

----> is a socio-pathetic degenerate with a penchant for cheap booze, ruphy-laden broads, and dim sum soup.

a

Blog Stats

  • 1,066,910 hits

Archives


%d bloggers like this: