bill clintoons painting and the blue dress

[ralph]

--- http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... cid=TSHDHP ---

[millergrovesue]

“I think the painting really feels like Bill Clinton,” he said then, according to The Washington Post. “It has — I would not call it swagger. . . . What? An informality? A looseness, a relaxed nature.”

I'd call it arrogance.

[planosteve]

Monica was MOSSAD.

[GFB]

Monica was MOSSAD.

That's the conspiracy your brain conjures?

Not Saddam Hussein?

Not Iran?

Not Russia or North Korea?

[planosteve]

Monica was MOSSAD.

That's the conspiracy your brain conjures?

Not Saddam Hussein?

Not Iran?

Not Russia or North Korea?

http://www.rense.com/general36/lew.htm

[GFB]

You'll believe the ramblings of any lunatic.

In fact, the loonier the better.

[planosteve]

You'll believe the ramblings of any lunatic.

In fact, the loonier the better.

DId you notice the information is from a book on the Mossad? Probably, the best selling book that exists on the Israeli secret intelligence agency. It's been through 6 printings. The lastest update is due out 15 March.

[BigTex]

I have no love for Bill Clinton, and I think the painting was not very good. But I also think it was sorry of the artist to do it intentionally and then speak about it. Maybe the check bounced.

[John in Plano]

Monica was MOSSAD.

That's the conspiracy your brain conjures?

Not Saddam Hussein?

Not Iran?

Not Russia or North Korea?

http://www.rense.com/general36/lew.htm

58 of 71 people found the following review helpful
Poorly Written, Factually Incorrect, Time Waster
By A Customer on January 2, 2000
Format: Hardcover
Of the all the books I have read on the Israeli intelligence services this one is by far the worst. Where to begin, lets start with the writing, its bad. The author has a tendency to start making a point and then meandering off for two pages before returning to his original point, its hard to believe this guy writes for a living. Lets turn to content, how do you write a CREDIBLE non-fiction book without footnotes? None of the events described in this book are sourced, except for the author's vague assurances that they were based on his extensive interviews. Give me a break! Any first year college student would get an F if he/she submitted a paper sourced like this book is. The book's cause is not helped by the fact that known fabricators such as Arie Ben-Menashe are quoted at length. The fables Ben-Menashe spins are presented as fact in this book, for sure that spells trouble. The most egregious error in this book, though, comes about when the author describes the 1972 take-over of the Israeli embassy in Bangkok. The reader is treated to an account where Israeli leaders agonize over their options thinking back to the Raid on Entebbe as one possible solution that is ultimately disregarded. Of course the raid on Entebbe took place in 1976 FOUR YEARS IN THE FUTURE. The Israelis are good, but time travel, please. What this means is the events the author described were made-up, FICTIONAlIZED, as is much of the rest of this book. In short this book is JUNK, there is no way for the serious reader to discern what is factual from what is fiction. Much better books on the topic have been written, Every Spy a Prince by Raaviv and Melmen and Israel's Secret Wars by Black to name two. If you must read Gideon's Spies go to the library, dont waste your money on this dog!

http://www.amazon.com/Gideons-Spies-Sec ... 0312252846

[planosteve]

The Mossad writes book reviews too.

[millergrovesue]

I have no love for Bill Clinton, and I think the painting was not very good. But I also think it was sorry of the artist to do it intentionally and then speak about it. Maybe the check bounced.

The artist is clearly into romance in some and and extreme photorealism in others of his paintings. Looks like he's a "painter of light" wanna be. I agree that the painting isn't very good but that's pretty much the style of painting the government typically picks. And yes, it was tacky of him to paint the shadow and tasteless of him to speak up about it years later. Perhaps his paintings aren't selling well and he wanted free publicity..................which he has certainly gotten. Plenty of new visitors to his website and plenty of outside links to his site = rankings increase.

[millergrovesue]

I have no love for Bill Clinton, and I think the painting was not very good. But I also think it was sorry of the artist to do it intentionally and then speak about it. Maybe the check bounced.

The artist is clearly into romance in some and and extreme photorealism in others of his paintings. Looks like he's a "painter of light" wanna be. I agree that the painting isn't very good but that's pretty much the style of painting the government typically picks. And yes, it was tacky of him to paint the shadow and tasteless of him to speak up about it years later. Perhaps his paintings aren't selling well and he wanted free publicity..................which he has certainly gotten. Plenty of new visitors to his website and plenty of outside links to his site = rankings increase.

Oops, got my painters confused. This comment "The artist is clearly into romance in some and and extreme photorealism in others of his paintings. Looks like he's a "painter of light" wanna be." should have belonged to the other painter topic -" painting by some artist , Obama foreign policy". I haven't look at any other of the Clinton artist's paintings.

[ralph]

I don't know anything about painting but if its an official painting then I like the message of scumminess that the painting shows !!