Archive for July, 2007

Ten Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature

Friday, July 6th, 2007

Found this interesting list via blogger friend Duffy.

Hillary’s Fine Line

Wednesday, July 4th, 2007

What a fine line Hillary is walking. Her job as a presidential candidate, as she sees it, is to join the chorus line of Democrats condemning President Bush for the commutation of Scooter Libby’s 30-month sentence. Clearly, she has a problem…about 140 problems, actually.

In the final hours of her husband’s presidency, he issued 140 pardons. Not commutations, but pardons. Many of them highly controversial. But of course by noon that day, the Clinton Collective was righteously intoning down to anyone with a harsh word against Bubba, that the very invokation of his name betrayed their “desperation.” He was “no longer President,” after all. And so that controversy died as it was born.

It’s not exactly convenient for Clinton fans, be they more partial to Bill or to Hill, to have that brushfire flare up again. It may be the biggest and hottest Clinton inferno of them all, and very, very little of it’s fuel has been previously spent. One is tempted to ponder whether this was the whole strategy behind issuing Libby’s commutation. Could President Bush be that cynical? Well…he is a politician after all. And if that was his plan, it seems to be working.

How does the Universal Healthcare maven handle this one. Wait until you see.

“I believe that presidential pardon authority is available to any president, and almost all presidents have exercised it,” Clinton said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press. “This (the Libby decision) was clearly an effort to protect the White House. … There isn’t any doubt now, what we know is that Libby was carrying out the implicit or explicit wishes of the vice president, or maybe the president as well, in the further effort to stifle dissent.”

Okay. We got buzz words, but where’s she going with this. Well, she goes on to say…

Her husband’s pardons, issued in the closing hours of his presidency, were simply routine exercise in the use of the pardon power, and none were aimed at protecting the Clinton presidency or legacy, she said.

“This particular action by the president is one more piece of evidence in their ongoing disregard for the rule of law that they think they don’t have to answer to,” she said. [emphasis mine]

Okay I think I got it. The Libby commutation is worse than Bill Clinton’s 140 midnight pardons because…those pardons were a “routine exercise,” whereas the Libby deal was “aimed at protecting” the Bush presidency. Or legacy.

It’s clear to me that when you protect a legacy by getting someone out of jail, you’re afraid of what they’re going to confess to while they’re in jail. That seems to be a sturdy interpretation of what she’s saying…I can’t think of any other. And yet, how little sense that makes. Let’s say President Bush has been up to some shenanigans and skullduggery, about which only Scooter Libby knows. He goes to jail. He’ll talk? Maybe, maybe not. Susan McDougal didn’t talk. Or…he doesn’t go to jail. With his sentence commuted, will he talk? Maybe, maybe not.

So there’s a lack of correlation between Scooter Libby going to jail, and Scooter Libby talking about the shenanigans. Hillary may want me to think there’s a cause-and-effect relationship, but I can’t see one. What does she think happens in jail? Jack Bauer comes in and starts interrogating Libby?

No, Hillary’s comments can make sense in one way, and in one way only: President Bush commuted Libby’s sentence, to send Libby a message. Sleep easy, you’ve still got someone in here looking out for you. Or…here’s your payback for keeping your mouth shut. But can that be what she really means? She’s supposed to be providing some ammunition, some meaningful difference between the Libby deal and the 140 Clinton pardons.

And if that’s what she meant, there’s no difference at all. Oh sure, you could believe the midnight-pardon scandal was all entirely innocent because you want to believe that. But if that’s the case, Hillary needs to substantiate exactly nothing. Just more empty words, from a high-profile candidate to her most loyal admirers. Pretending to prove something or to logically assert something or to make meaningful distinctions…but really just spewing a bunch of gutteral sounds.

Kaziah Hancock

Tuesday, July 3rd, 2007

Via Rick at Brutally Honest, we learn about this wonderful lady.

Check out her web site here.

Not Going

Tuesday, July 3rd, 2007