Terry McAuliffe: Arafat rubbed my leg under the table at dinner
posted at 2:18 pm on January 6, 2007 by Allahpundit
And you thought conservatives were speaking figuratively when they said Democrats were in bed with Palestinian terrorists.
This doesn’t prove Arafat was gay, although it won’t exactly quiet the rumors about him, either. Why even mention it, then? Why is it relevant?
Why? Because, my friends, of the hypocrisy. And the west’s tacit endorsement of it by welcoming that savage into polite diplomatic society in the first place.
Exit question: How many hundred links would this story have if it was Karl Rove’s leg that had been rubbed instead of McAuliffe’s?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
I’d be more impressed if the leg rub finished with a happy ending.
lorien1973 on January 6, 2007 at 2:23 PM
I’d say something humorous (something the story just screams for), but I’m afraid Bryan would get upset with me again.
.
GT on January 6, 2007 at 2:24 PM
No doubt about it. The man is gay. Maybe McAuliffe is coming out of the closet if he is telling the story now.
Ouabam on January 6, 2007 at 2:25 PM
from the link:
I’d until now never heard this angle before. Support the occupation to protect the gay community in Palestine. Do you think this approach will appeal to the liberal left?
THeDRiFTeR on January 6, 2007 at 2:27 PM
At least Arafat only rubbed his leg.
Jacques Chirac(ptooey) has probably humped it. And since he liked it, we certainly won’t be hearing about it.
seejanemom on January 6, 2007 at 2:39 PM
I’m more fascinated with the Kerry/McAuliffe relationship…from the same link:
This article has great morsels from T. McAuliffe’s book.
The quote from Mr. Bush to Mr. Clinton is hilarious:
And from Mr. McCain, with a pox on both candidates, the not-so-great, ours, and the lesser of the two, theirs:
Entelechy on January 6, 2007 at 2:40 PM
Drifter, you need to answer the question. It’s hard to figure out what and for what reason appeals, or not, to the left. The question is twisted.
However, it’s still a fact that the gays have it better now in the Palestinian territories…not to say that alone should support the occupation…
Another truth is that gays and liberals would have a horrible time under terrorists and they (liberals) still don’t show much stomach, zeal and ideas in fighting them…
My entire thinking life I’ve been befuddled by why liberals are so in ‘love’ with socialism/communism, two of the most illiberal philosophies and anti-freedom movements; also so tolerant of tyrants of all kinds…but we could go on for days and not solve it…I am totally for liberalism, but not the political kind.
Entelechy on January 6, 2007 at 2:55 PM
I think it’s because they only know what they’re against, and they’re drawn to the opposite. I don’t think they really understand what they’re advocating. They just know their parents hate it.
Pablo on January 6, 2007 at 3:15 PM
Pablo, how are you? Hope you’re having a good new year! You might be right – it might be blind utopian idealism. If I had Mr. Buffet’s money I’d pay for them to live in it for a while…by force, then let them out afer 2 years, without knowing they’d ever get to leave…
On topic, Arafat might have been bisexual, mild among other things…
Entelechy on January 6, 2007 at 3:39 PM
Lawsie, if he rubbed McAwful’s leg, what did he do to Clenis–sorry!–Clinton?
Jen the Neocon on January 6, 2007 at 4:28 PM
Me too!
Since the day it became clear Arafat was at the very least homosexual, I’ve wondered if he ever consummated his marriage to Suha (not that that means much) -
Your proposal remains just about the most effective challenge to some of the trolls on this board. I haven’t seen it effectively challenged yet, and I’m just waiting for the day…
RD on January 6, 2007 at 4:56 PM
Now don’t forget to factor in cultural differences here. Whereas in Western cultures a man rubbing another man’s leg under the table during dinner might be considered gay, in Palestinian circles it might simply mean that he, um…sorry, I got nothin’.
ReubenJCogburn on January 6, 2007 at 5:48 PM
Just returning the favor, no doubt. Now we know why he was such a favorite of the Clintons. Arafag that is.
Yessir Arafag was his nickname.
roninacreage on January 6, 2007 at 5:53 PM
Is McAuliffe keeping his stained blue Gap suit as a keepsake?
doingwhatican on January 6, 2007 at 6:23 PM
Hawt.
Slublog on January 6, 2007 at 8:02 PM
Ohhhh – So now I understand why Billiary and Hill had Arafat to the White House for so many sleep overs! I guess if Billiary can stomach Hill then Yassar doesn’t look so bad – Probably a GREAT 3 way – YUUUUUCCCKKKK
iam7545 on January 6, 2007 at 8:08 PM
Entel: “…tolerant of tyrants…”
BRAVO! You’re readin’ my mind! But they can never seem to answer that question. hhhmmmm vedddddddy eeeentadestingk.
Tony737 on January 6, 2007 at 8:58 PM
We don’t even need to ask that question… remember what happened when Bush held hands with the Saudi prince? That was looping on and off for a number of days on the cable nets and front and center on all news sites, etc. etc.
RightWinged on January 6, 2007 at 9:22 PM
Which summit did this occur? Was this the Brokeback Summit? We know it was some kind of summit, and now we know from the “punk” that it had man on man physicality. We’ve always known, whenever a democrat president is involved with peace-talks between the PLO and Israel, that it is a brokeback moment since the dems expect Israel to bend over and grab the ankles……..
Yasser Lewinski or Monica Arafat??????????????
ritethinker on January 6, 2007 at 9:28 PM
I waited. It took 19 posts before a Brokeback reference.
Entelechy, you have an unfair advantage over those to whom your question is aimed. You already know what would result from your “experiment”, and they can only hope. But then, that’s all socialism was ever built on, wishful thinking.
I’m no Rand-o-phile, but We the Living and Atlas Shrugged should be required reading for every high school senior in the country, just for the basic understanding of the roots and results of applied socialism.
Freelancer on January 6, 2007 at 11:30 PM
I wonder if Arafat rubbed B. Frank’s leg and which one…. :yuck:
Tim Burton on January 7, 2007 at 12:07 AM
Gives new meaning to the phrase, “Arafat and his insiders”.
Black Adam on January 7, 2007 at 4:17 PM
Freelancer, I like your comments, even when they don’t address mine :)
Just to acknowledge – I consider mine to be a fair advantage. When one lived in communism and the wonder it is claimed to be, no troll can come close with their idealist utopia. Note that they don’t even try – it would be no challenge to counter them with a million+ facts to the contrary.
I own every Rand book written by/about her. All s/b required reading. I’m so happy they are voluntarily read by so many, even post-mortem. She’s smiling…I miss her – she could write the best book about our current times.
What would she say about McAuliffe, Clinton, Kerry and Arafat?
Entelechy on January 7, 2007 at 4:40 PM
Hey, what happens at Camp David STAYS at Camp David!
Mojave Mark on January 7, 2007 at 6:17 PM
Entelechy, thank you, and likewise.
How true, it would just seem to have been in unfair advantage from the troll’s point of view.
McAuliffe and Kerry she wouldn’t have to comment on, simply apply a character name from one of her books. Kerry = Jim Taggart, McAuliffe = Wesley Mouch.
Billy Jeff is a more dangerous sort, say Pavel Seyerov, except that any appearance that he sees some of the farce of socialism is just another of his acts, unlike Pavel facing the truth near the end. She would concentrate on Clinton’s attempts to subjugate individuals to “unifying” organizations.
Arafat can’t be pinned down with any of her characters, since he was neither a hero of individualism nor a socialist. But she’d comment on his two-faced lies, telling the listening public that he was for peace, while continually pushing to destroy Israel. She’d shine a light of truth on his talks with the likes of Carter and Clinton, which never once resulted in the PLO reducing it’s violence or hatred, but seemed always to result in Israel making another concession in a hope for peace. Most of all, she’d have very harsh words for anyone who would consider dealing at the same table with a terrorist as though he was more than a thug.
Freelancer on January 8, 2007 at 3:20 AM