An old ending to an old joke goes, " Madam, now that we have established what you are, let's negotiate the price." Here we have an old madam in the true Clintonista fashion, out of office and out of class. Novak gives her a whack on her ample behind or as they say at Foggy Bottom , derrière.MADELEINE SOLICITS Prince of Darkness
Recipients of mail from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) were surprised this past week to receive a fund-raising appeal signed by former Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright.
Secretaries of state, by tradition, stay away from partisan politics while in office. Former holders of the position generally follow the same practice. Nobody can remember fund-raising solicitations from Colin Powell, Warren Christopher or Henry Kissinger.
Albright's letter requested "a contribution of $50, $75 or more" for the DCCC to guarantee a Democratic House majority. "The single most effective step you can take to shape the outcome of November's elections is to support the DCCC," she said, as "the only organization whose sole mission is to win a Democratic House majority."
Well, Mr Kissinger was out raising money, from the Sauds, for himself.
ReplyDeleteHe has represented their interests quite well.
Mr Powell? Why would he raise monies for Republicans, he is not one. He is a Federal careerrist, first and foremost.
Mr Christopher, who even remembers him?
So Ms Albright is a partisan Democrat, what of it. She is a citizen and political, bless her little heart.
Is Ms Albright one of them thar uncovered meat thangs that the Imam was jaw'n 'bout....someone please tell me she ain't never gonna be uncovered meat. Lawd it would rU-in my last good vein and I would hate to think that all them others went in vain. Please the leg press story still gives me the shakes
ReplyDeleteYour points are on DR, but the distinction is in the delivery. Artfulness should be the coin in trade of "The Minister of The United States". Albright is one of those people that highlights her own mediocrity and does it in a teeth knashing way. Although the Secretary of State serves at the pleasure of the President, the office is confirmed by the Senate. The person may be political but the Office is about the United States. A better person would understand that. She is not and does not.
ReplyDeleteHabu, the leg story does press the upper limits of the capabilities of the blue vitamin.
ReplyDeletegrocery market run yep ...the feminizaton of America continues, but then she does have that double black belt thing too.
ReplyDeleteMs Albright no longer is a SecState, but a normal citizen.SecState is not, thankfully, a life time appointment.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile...
From the JPost
Teheran delightedly announced the establishment of a second network of uranium-enrichment centrifuges, days after Ahmadinejad had hailed the tenfold expansion of his nuclear program over the past year, shrugged off the UN Security Council as "illegitimate," and asserted that Israel had "lost the reason for its existence" and would "disappear."
If the Bush administration is unwilling or incapable of acting to stop him, then the choice will rest with Israel - by no means the only goal of Ahmadinejad's ambitions, but certainly his initial potential target.
Incidentally, as James Woolsey, a former director of the CIA, pointed out to me last week, there is nothing to stop a nuclear North Korea simply flying in a bomb at Teheran's behest. The necessary materiel is neither bulky nor especially difficult to transport, he noted, and there's nobody checking the cargoes flying back and forth between the two countries.
Deuce,
ReplyDeleteThe desecration of art is inexcusable. ;-))D
Albright and Helen Thomas
How will that work for the Dems, I wonder.
Yeah, the Repubs have lookers; the Dems have hookers.
The writers at Investors Business Daily they also see the US war situation as mirroring that in the 1970's.
ReplyDeleteThey believe we are are about to repeat either the 1864 or 1974 election.
Once again, as in 1864 and 1974, we face a pivotal election. Yes, we need a change of plan. Mr. President, turn Sherman lose.
The election where military action made a difference, 1864, those initial victories by General Sherman, those that swayed the Electorate and destroyed the Insurgents base, came in August, not 9 days from the Election.
The Sherman Option has been tossed aside, as regards the 2006 Election.
Incidentally, as James Woolsey, a former director of the CIA, pointed out to me last week, there is nothing to stop a nuclear North Korea simply flying in a bomb at Teheran's behest. The necessary materiel is neither bulky nor especially difficult to transport, he noted, and there's nobody checking the cargoes flying back and forth between the two countries.
ReplyDeleteMr Cheney was without doubt, when he told US, a 1% chance equaled a 100% threat. It was enough to go to War, in fact the mere 1% threat demanded action.
What's up now?
New Doctrine at the White House?
The Iran NorK Axis nuclear threat is well above 1% probability.
More like 100%
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteSome sites aim to please; we cite prevarication with desecration.
ReplyDeleteThe Iranians have already "armed up" more than a 1% chance of that.
ReplyDeleteThe warheads could have been delivered prior to the NorK test.
Coupled with Mr Rumsfeld's statements that in the 21st century Wars will neither be Won or Lost. That Deterence is the key to future conflicts, that the US Military can deter terror, if given enough time. General Pace being in complete agreeement.
Look towards the canary, Haifa is held hostage to destruction, at a minimum. Hezzbollah missiles, capable of carrying a W54 sized warhead, reached the Plains of Armageddon, last go round.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteAs it has been pointed out here a few times, I thought I'd take a look at Westhawk's latest:
ReplyDelete"Mr. Peters believes that the U.S. military should do the killing of al-Sadr and the Mahdis, along with the Sunni insurgents. We believe that task is best done by the Iraqis themselves.
"Mr. Peters would assert that it would be important for the U.S. military to inflict the pain and suffering on its enemies in order to visibly intimidate future potential adversaries. This is a good argument, but regrettably it is now impractical. Such a campaign could not survive the scrutiny of the global media.
"But the U.S. could achieve everything that Mr. Peters seeks by using the hands of the Iraqis themselves. And this is why al-Sadr and his Mahdis must stay alive, at least for awhile. The Mahdi Army, in the uniform of Iraq’s police and other security forces, would be the shock troops against Sunni-Arab insurgents and the neighborhoods that shelter them (ironically, it is the U.S. military and its rules of engagement that are currently preventing this ethnic cleansing from occurring).
"After Iraq’s Sunni-Arabs, who killed so many Americans, are themselves thus eviscerated, Iraq’s Shi’ite factions will then battle among themselves for control of central and southern Iraq. Al-Sadr and the Mahdis are well-financed from Tehran and appear more active and visible. But they have substantial opponents inside the Shi’ite community, including the al-Hakim family with its SCIRI party and Badr organization. Although currently less visible that the Mahdis, SCIRI and Badr are probably larger, more organized, and more disciplined that al-Sadr and the Mahdis."
It has long been asserted on the Left that the US is the handmaiden of ethnic cleansing in Iraq - that by design rather than inability, ineptitutde, or indifference, the US has allowed sectarian violence to flourish. Now it is offered - and not only by Westhawk - as an actual policy prescription.
As moral considerations seem out of favor among the desperate, I'll only bother with the practical: When this was done in Kosovo - when ethnic Albanians were allowed, under NATO auspices, to take care of their Serbian problem - we got sod-all for it, save radical Islamic resurgence in the Balkans and enough drug-related organized crime among the Albanians to make the Afghans look like bush-leaguers.
It never fails that when we fancy ourselves hard-nosed pragmatists, we end up worse off than as the clueless idealists we were to begin with.
You know , trish, that the Omni-pwer cannot act in any way but:
ReplyDeleteby design rather than inability, ineptitutde, or indifference,
The US Military with it's pinpoint accurate bombs, bullets and lasers cannot err, except by design.
Our boys are that "good".
The only part of the Federal Government excempt from incompetence, right?
Or the Generals would have been replaced, like Mike Brown at FEMA. His dismal record of successful performance mirrored that of the Generals.
"The only part of the Federal Government excempt from incompetence, right?"
ReplyDeleteRight.
I also suggest, Rat, that you get yourself a new army.
ReplyDeleteugly woman
ReplyDelete