September 18, 2005
John At Power Line Loses It!
Loses his ability to suffer lying weasels gladly, that is.
The recent fusillade of fabrications from former President Bill Clinton seems to have broken John Hinderaker's camel-shaped back; today, John lashed out at the smug, smarmy, decadent nihilist who used to suck up all the oxygen in Washington and is still trying... though John spots a bit of an ulterior motive in Clinton's stream of consciencelessness accusations against President Bush.
Bill Clinton flings his dirt like a monkey with a handful of monkey byproduct, and for the same reason: to mark his territory and ward off enemies -- Republicans who might stand in the way of Billary's return to la Casa Blanca. This is, of course, the open secret we're supposed to forget: that Hillary has designs on the presidency, and that her husband would of course go along for the ride... and possibly even take the wheel when she wasn't looking.
So now, Three-Term Bill suddenly decides that "there was no evidence that there were weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq after all (but read Power Line for a Clinton Cwote from 2003 on that subject), that the military has become too small for the job under George W. Bush (wait -- didn't we use to have sixteen divisions in 1992?), and that we've been "unsuccessful" in Iraq because the proposed Iraqi constitution is not "universally supported" (yes, we've lost the crucial Zarqawi - al Duri vote).
There's much more, all finger-licking good. This is one of John's most passionate posts... and not coincidentally, one of his best. My guess is that he didn't pause to ruminate and contemplate but wrote in a white-hot fury at the criminal thug and casual despoiler of American security who we used to have to salute.
Read, read now and come away simultaneously incensed, relieved, and a little bit anxious... as you contemplate past -- and present -- and future.
Hatched by Dafydd on this day, September 18, 2005, at the time of 10:24 PM
TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/36
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference John At Power Line Loses It!:
Tracked on September 19, 2005 5:49 AM
» John At Power Line Loses It, part Deux! from Big Lizards
In my previous post, John At Power Line Loses It!, I called your attention to John Hinderaker's excellent (if scorching) chastisement of Bill Clinton for attacking the current president... during which Clinton lied (there's a shock!) not only about the... [Read More]
Tracked on September 20, 2005 1:02 AM
The following hissed in response by: goddessoftheclassroom
I DESPISED Bill Clinton when he was president, but I was respectful of the office he held. I didn't abuse him to those I knew supported him. I wanted him to accomplish good things for our country.
Why can't Democrats return the courtesy? I think it's because they know, in their hearts, that President Bush, regardless of his flaws, is a good man. They keep yelping, "Bush lied" (when common sense defines the difference between intentional falsehood and a mistake) in order to bring him to the level of President Clinton, who indeed lied. They howl all the more when they get anything at all to criticize because, I believe, they know deep down that President Bush is a better man than Bill Clinton. President Clinton's interview only proves how contemptible he is.
The following hissed in response by: betsybounds
Well I just hope Barbara Bush takes her darlin' to the woodshed and pops him a good one dead in the chops over his new best friend.
The following hissed in response by: matoko kusanagi
ha ha ha!
And just today we hear that Kim Jong Il will cave on his nuke hardline, the line that was reinforced by eight years of clintonite pandering and appeasement. It took Bush five years to convince Kim we meant what we said after slick willie.
I hear Porter Goss is being pressured to declassify the closed doors portion of the 911 commission report. I can guarantee that will make Clinton look very, very bad, lol. If i could define Clinton's presidency in two words it would be, peace dividend. Where do you suppose that came from, boyz and grrlz? shhh...the black budget (covert ops and intel).
If i can quote from my favorite, the immortal and peerless Dr. Seuss,
"I meant what i said
and i said what i meant
an elephants faithful
should be the republican motto.
The above hissed in response by: matoko kusanagi at September 19, 2005 7:21 AM
The following hissed in response by: HelenW
Ddd, your title is clever and perfectly accurate. The gentlemen of Powerline picked a good name too. Their writing has become deeper, more deadly, and more powerful over time. Just like the rest of the Conservative Sphere. A year ago, Rush was mocking bloggers for posting content that nobody reads but themselves. Now he routinely quotes them.
We have to write even better. Presently, all legitimate political debate orbits around Conservative and Libertarian thinkers. Despite Peggy Noonan's hand wringing, I like it. We have to move out ancient prejudices and Euro-style elitism, and into the 21st century. So put your back into it.
The above hissed in response by: HelenW at September 19, 2005 1:10 PM
The following hissed in response by: RBMN
A thought experiment (which President Clinton knows perfectly well, but pretends he doesn't):
For simplicity, assume that everyone, rich and poor, pays the same income tax rate.
At a zero percent income tax rate, obviously the government starves to death. Nothing comes in.
But at 100 percent income tax rate, the government ALSO starves to death. Nothing comes in. If you can’t keep anything, you’re going to lay on the beach all day. Slavery just doesn't work well without the chains.
So, SOMEWHERE between the zero percent tax rate, and the 100 percent (slavery) tax rate, there is some IDEAL rate that brings in the MOST tax revenue. Builds the BIGGEST pile of money for Uncle Sam. Is that an 80% rate? Is it 20%? Well, it's much closer to 20%, because it's a very dynamic process, so the IDEAL tax rate--the one that brings in the MOST cash for Uncle Sam--is on the LOWER end of the scale, closer to 20%, certainly not 80%. So when income tax rates go down to 30%, or down to 25%, the actual tax revenues to "The Government" go UP, not down. When dealing with human beings, it's never a zero sum game. Never!!!
The following hissed in response by: fmfnavydoc
Congrats Ddd on the new blog....
On SLick Willie and SHillery - did anyone think that Bill was really making things happen during the Clinton years, or was it really Hill? I'm convinved that their marriage is a sham, and look how she went about getting the NY Senate seat. I think that Hillary was the one that was pulling the strings, and she wants to get back to the White House on her own accord. Just thinking about her as President makes me sick - she'd be just as bad as Al Bore...
Post a comment
Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)
© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved