Chutzpah has a name, and it’s Clinton
posted at 10:25 am on July 4, 2007 by Bryan
I usually try to come up with some witty set-up for a story like this, but in this case the best I can do is a lame LOL:
Former President Bill Clinton criticized President Bush on Tuesday for commuting the prison sentence of I. Lewis Libby Jr. and tried to draw a distinction from his own controversial pardons.
Yes, that’s right. The perjurer who sold pardons for fun and profit is criticizing Bush for commuting Libby’s sentence. My friends, that kind of chutzpah ought to be bottled up and sold on the market, so pure and potent is it.
In Iowa to promote the presidential candidacy of his wife, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Mr. Clinton was asked by a radio host, David Yepsen, “You had some controversial pardons during your presidency; what’s your reaction to what President Bush did?”
“Yeah, but I think the facts were different,” Mr. Clinton said. “I think there are guidelines for what happens when somebody is convicted. You’ve got to understand, this is consistent with their philosophy; they believe that they should be able to do what they want to do, and that the law is a minor obstacle.”
Replace the “theys” with an “I” and you have the truth. We’re looking at a true sociopath here, a man who never let a pesky little thing like the law get in the way of a good time, a man who turned the Oval Office into the next best thing to a brothel, a man whose serial indiscretions earned the official desigination of “bimbo eruptions,” lecture Bush on the single commutation of a sentence that was the result of a highly dubious investigation into a crime that never occurred. And this man might wind up back in the White House.
“It’s wrong to out that C.I.A. agent and wrong to try to cover it up,” Mr. Clinton added. “And no one was ever fired from the White House for doing it.”
Well, that’s because Richard Armitage did it, and he didn’t work in the White House at the time. But it’s a useful lie, so Bill Clinton is the surest man on earth to wield it.
Mr. Clinton pardoned 140 people in the final hours of his presidency, including Marc Rich, the fugitive broker who had been charged with evading tens of millions of dollars in taxes, and who was the former husband of a top donor to Democrats and Mrs. Clinton’s first Senate campaign.
Rather than tread lightly on the Libby commutation, the Clintons have chosen to confront it; Clinton advisers said there was no real alternative, because the news media would bring up the Rich pardon anyway.
They’ve chosen to confront it they way they choose to confront everything–by lying, dissembling, and then going on the offensive.
Just let the record show that Mr. Clinton is a perjurer who had his license to practice before the Supreme Court taken away. Let the record show that he sold pardons to his rich friends. Let the record show that he’s still a brazen liar. And let the record show that it was his pal Sandy Berger who stole sensitive documents from the National Archives, hid them under a trailer, then took them home and destroyed them to cover up something that the Clintonistas didn’t want going public, and remember that Berger’s actions made the 9-11 Commission’s work incomplete, and we’ll never know what he covered up. And let the country remember the missing Rose law firm billing records that mysteriously turned up in the Clintons’ White House residence, and all the rest of that sordid mess that the Clintons drag around with them like a trailer park full of skeletons wherever they go.









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
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Wait.. where’s our clip of Rosie with her outrage at Bill making moral judgements?
darury on July 5, 2007 at 9:50 AM
Oh Bryan, you disgusting partisan hack! Those issues are nothing when compared to the awesomely awesome awesomeness of the American Idolish feeling that the Clinton’s have some kindly injected into the boringness of politics with the selection of theme songs and the use of cleaver ads based on popular TV shows.
/sarc off
csdeven on July 5, 2007 at 9:51 AM
This may disturb you. Clinton may win the presidency.
Here’s why:
1. A large number of women will vote for Hill because she has a vagina. Any woman is better than a man, many of these females will propose. Even some moderate or right of center women will vote for Hill. Even women who openly speaks against Hill will get into that booth, pull the curtain, and vote for Hill. Deep down they want a woman president, no matter what.
In Louisiana, even conservative women I know voted for Governor K. Blanco, who was clearly a lightweight in a tough job. Many admitted that voting for Blanco was a major mistake in judgement following Blanco’s obvious mismanagement of resources before and after Katrina. Blanco is not running for re-election; the polls show that her female base is wise to her folly or many have moved out of the state.
2. A large number of voters–men and women–believe that Bill will have a strong hand in the running of the executive branch either as a vice-president, that Hill will be a titular president, (er, I should not use a word like titular in the same sentence with Bill), or in a crisis Hill can always go to Bill. For many, this makes Hill a reasonable choice.
This seems illogical too since Bill spent more time chasing skirts for his eight years, while Hill told him what to do. But, that is just my opinion.
I am pulling for Fred! as the GOP standard bearer and next president, but Hill-Bill will be tough to beat.
saved on July 5, 2007 at 10:04 AM
You know, when I heard those two yakking it up about this I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry. I really can’t believe these two clowns and unfortunatley I think we’ll be seeing them for 8 years in the White House starting on the 20th of January, 2009.
Catie96706 on July 5, 2007 at 10:41 AM
2 things: 1) Obama should use this to make mincemeat out of the Clintons. 2)My “Who killed Vince Foster” t-shirts will be on sale soon. And I don’t want to hear conservatives tell me I’m not being fair – because it’s time the gloves came off as far as the Clintons are concerned. These people are brazen in their quest for power and people who get in their way get destroyed, (literally sometimes.) Someone has to step up and remind the public of how corrupt and truly dangerous the Clintons are. I’m embarrassed to say that I voted for that “man”.
foxforce91 on July 5, 2007 at 11:00 AM
O/T Speaking of chutzpah, wasn’t someone supposed to announce their “candidacy” yesterday?
csdeven on July 5, 2007 at 11:35 AM
Sociopath indeed.
We had the MOB move into the White House in 1993. They were well connected and well hidden. Right in front of our eyes.
The Clintons are the neo-mob , the hit-men of the 90′s. They make the 60′s-70′s Vegas crowd look like kindergartener’s. Power, money, legal impunity, in the highest office in the world. Many died, many lost all, many were hurt, yet the Clintons go on with impunity. WTF is going on? Satan himself couldn’t have drawn a better plan.
We can NOT allow for another minute of the Clinton MOB in the WH. Not a minute!
shooter on July 5, 2007 at 12:10 PM
1. A large number of women will vote for Hill because she has a vagina. Any woman is better than a man, many of these females will propose. Even some moderate or right of center women will vote for Hill. Even women who openly speaks against Hill will get into that booth, pull the curtain, and vote for Hill. Deep down they want a woman president, no matter what.
This brings to mind Carol Mosely Braun, or, “Carol Mostly Fraud,” as we took to calling her back in Illinois. Many people voted for her merely so we could say we had elected, “the first black woman Senator.” Her utter incompetence was quite clear during the campaign, but nevertheless, we endured six painful years of her in the Senate.
However, I tend to believe that many more women dislike Hillary than admire her…
JannyMae on July 5, 2007 at 12:57 PM
I was with you until you said President Bush is one of the most honest we have ever had. That went out the window with shamnesty. There were many blatant lies throughout that whole ordeal many of which they have not yet given up on, l’est we think that work is done.
Zetterson on July 5, 2007 at 1:07 PM
President Bush is honest and in some ways too nice. He was just very mistaken about the proper treatment of illigal immigration. Let’s not confuse how different the Clintons are from President Bush.
Phil Byler on July 5, 2007 at 1:37 PM
Bryan, the WH reads your threads :)
Entelechy on July 5, 2007 at 2:06 PM
VTWaldrup on July 5, 2007 at 2:54 PM
I only meant the one with the chutzpah, not the whole state,:-)
VTWaldrup on July 5, 2007 at 2:56 PM
Regarding Clinton:
(Chief Justice Webber Wright’s Contempt of Court Citation against Bill Clinton.)
ricer1 on July 5, 2007 at 3:08 PM
ricer1 on July 5, 2007 at 3:10 PM
And yet, to all the idiot moonbats, Clinton is still a saint, and Bush lied, people died.
And let’s not forget, the favorite line “Nobody died when Clinton lied”.
No amount of hard evidence that Clinton said the same things about Saddam will convince them otherwise.
None of the mountains of evidence that Clinton is a conniving charlatan will convince them otherwise.
The only explanation: They’re from another planet.
Hawkins1701 on July 5, 2007 at 3:28 PM
Bryan
Please be more accurate.
Bill’s license to practice law in Arkansas was suspended by the Supreme Court of Arkansas for 5 years effective January 19, 2001.
http://courts.state.ar.us/attylist/new/bynum.cgi?num=++73019
He hasn’t asked to be reinstated.
You should research and find out if he was ever a member of the Supreme Court of the United States. Those records are not on line.
slp on July 5, 2007 at 3:32 PM
The Clinton’s have committed more crimes while in Public Office than Al Capone ever dreamed of perpetrating in his life while the don of the Chicago Mafia.
Yet, the DNC and MSM have no shame. To allow Bill Clinton to make these comments about the commutation without any serious questions from the MSM regarding Bill Clinton’s pardoning antics, is astounding.
Even before this crime family from the banana republic of Arkansas decided to use the proceeds from their drug dealing at Mena, AK to run for President, I could not believe the American Public could not see them for what they are, criminals.
They left trail of dead bodies around every investigation into their activities right up to the day Bill Clinton pardoned all of his drug dealer friends with Presidential Pardons.
…and we are supposed to consider electing Hillary to continue another corrupt reign of crime in the White House ignoring what happened to this country while the two of them sold out America to every two bit thug with a checkbook?
Do we have collective Amnesia?
ScottyDog on July 5, 2007 at 3:41 PM
Please let’s let the record keep showing these things over and over again up until the election. Theses are facts that need to be hounded into the ground. Thank you for this post.
Webutante on July 5, 2007 at 5:53 PM
bush had this set up for the 08 presidential confrontation between the liberals and conservatives.
apujac on July 5, 2007 at 9:43 PM
The first time I ever saw Clinton – back in ’91 – I didn’t have a clue who the heck the guy was, but I remember thinking the guy spoke with a forked tongue. He looked like a serpent to me.
It scares me to death that there are Americans dumb enough to think either Clinton cares about Americans. They care about getting “the power” and nothing else.
Connie on July 5, 2007 at 10:20 PM
I don’t believe President Bush was lying during shamnesty, just misguided about what is the best way to address the illegal immigration issue. I wish he had learned a long time ago that any time Harry Reid or Teddy Kennedy want to “help” him, he should do the exact opposite of what they suggest. Remember how Reid tried to “help” by suggesting that President Bush nominate Harriet Miers? Reid never believed Miers would be confirmed, he just wanted to damage Bush as much as possible (inquiries into executive branch documents) and delay the confirmation process as long as possible (Dems would have been ecstatic if it could have been delayed long enough to have the confirmation vote during the current Democrat-controlled Senate). Do you think Alito could have been confirmed in the current Senate?
Does anyone else believe in their heart of hearts that the Dems stole one or more of the 2006 Senate races? What about Steele vs. Webb?
What kind of judges can Bush get confirmed with the current Senate versus the Republican-controlled Senate we would have had if that race (or any of the other close races that took extended time to call) had been called the other way? Remember the 2000 recount, where every time a recount was done, the Dems mysteriously came up with more votes? Did anyone ever track done what happened to the stolen Diebold smart cards in the 2006 elections? Dems had themselves so convinced that Bush “stole” the 2000 and 2004 elections that I believe they felt justified in stealing some 2006 elections. If I’m right, God help us in the 2008 elections. I still can’t understand why a person doesn’t have to prove U.S. citizenship in order to vote!
ITookTheRedPill on July 6, 2007 at 8:43 AM
Chutzpah is his name, cigars are his game.
MB4 on July 6, 2007 at 6:06 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2