From: msmith01@flash.net
Subject: SNET: [Fwd: Born Again Clinton-haters]
Date: 16 Feb 2001 09:04:49 -0500
To: Mark 

->  SNETNEWS  Mailing List

This is so right on !!!!!!!
Mark




Linda Muller wrote:

> Dear Brigade,
>
> "Gee, it’s too bad these guys have only now discovered what
> kind of man Bill Clinton is, rather than when it mattered..."
>
> Another great column from Ann Coulter - pass it on!
> FTC-Linda
>
> ---------
>
> February 14, 2001 - Human Events
>
> Liberals Shocked: Felon Took Ottoman
> By Ann Coulter
>
> I always thought it would be thrilling to be a liberal. As a
> cranky conservative, the world just reinforces my prejudices on
> a daily basis. But for liberals everything is always an exciting
> surprise. They seem to live in a state of constant shock.
>
> I used to keep a file of New York Times headlines expressing
> breathless astonishment at the achingly obvious. There would
> be big bold proclamations along the lines of: "Experts Shocked
> Paroled Child-Murderer Kills Again"; "Crime Rates Decline As
> Prison Populations Surge"; "Surprising Level of Mental Illness
> Among Homeless"; and "Study Finds Rent Control Reduces
> Available Housing."
>
> Most recently, liberals have made this shocking new discovery:
> Bill Clinton is a crook!
>
> Far be it from me to be callous to the disturbed, but it wasn’t
> that long ago that liberals were ardently defending this guy on
> charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. They had no
> problem with the President’s killing foreigners to distract from
> his personal problems. They were willing to overlook credible
> charges of rape against a sitting President. They didn’t mind
> that the President chatted with congressmen about going to
> war while Monica earned her presidential kneepads.
>
> ‘Count the spoons’
>
> But the Clintons take an ottoman when they vacate the White
> House and the entire left-wing establishment is apoplectic. As
> the saying goes, you find out who your real friends are when
> you lose the ability to save Roe v. Wade.
>
> I suppose it’s nice that the entire country is finally on the same
> page about Bill Clinton, but frankly we "right-wing Republicans"
> are a little bored with the Born Again Clinton-haters.
>
> The New York Times–the same New York Times that had
> sneered about those silly little Republicans thinking perjury,
> obstruction of justice, and numerous other felonies engaged in
> by the President of the United States were impeachable
> offenses–has finally developed the capacity for outrage.
>
> How is it, the Times recently demanded to know, that "a
> departing President and his wife come to put sofas and
> flatware ahead of the acute sense of propriety that ought to go
> with high office"?
>
> The Washington Post launched two editorials denouncing
> Clinton’s most recent offenses. The first, titled "Count the
> Spoons," said that the Clintons’ gift registry "demonstrates
> again the Clintons’ defining characteristic: They have no
> capacity for embarrassment." The diatribe continued: "Words
> like ‘shabby and tawdry’ . . . don’t begin to do it justice."
>
> How about this for a word that might do Bill Clinton justice:
> "impeached" (and no thanks to you and your petulant editorials
> opposing impeachment, Washington Post!).
>
> In a follow-up editorial titled, "And Count the Couches," the
> Post called the Clintons’ sticky fingers with the White House
> furniture "ultimately the Clintons’ worst offense." Just curious,
> but where does that thing with the cigar rank?
>
> Two years ago, the Economist called Clinton’s impeachment
> "a partisan witch-hunt." Recently, the Economist ran an item
> titled "Beyond Shame," helpfully informing its readers that, with
> Clinton, "the sleaze keeps coming in." (Yeah, see, that’s what
> the partisan witch-hunters had figured out a long time ago.)
>
> The Economist’s ground-breaking news was that a guy who
> perjured himself repeatedly in front of a federal judge and grand
> jury, bought off witnesses, bombed innocent foreigners to delay
> his impeachment, and sodomized an intern hours after a Bible-
> toting, photo-op stroll from church on Easter also did this: "On
> February 5 the Washington Post revealed that the ‘personal’
> gifts that the Clintons carted off with them included $28,000
> worth of furnishings that were given not to the Clintons but to
> the National Park Service."
>
> At this very moment, you could knock me over with a feather.
>
> Former Clinton Kool-Aid drinker Margaret Carlson dedicated
> her entire Time magazine column to the Clintons’ "tacky" bridal
> gift registry. It "just smells bad," Carlson was finally compelled
> to pronounce. Oral sex from the fat chick doing the stapling
> was evidently a more ambiguous case.
>
> Carlson noted that the Clintons’ friends "insisted Hillary simply
> wouldn’t do" such a thing, but now–now!–"we have proof they
> would"! Wondering why the Clintons would "troll for freebies
> they can surely afford," Carlson sadly concluded, "[O]nly Freud
> could sort it out."
>
> Not to brag, but that’s what the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy
> has been trying to tell you, Timelady. But do we get thanks,
> maybe even a little apology, or at least a polite nod in our
> direction for having grasped the obvious years before Carlson?
> Oh no.
>
> Indeed, Carlson takes a shot at the "vast right-wing
> conspiracy" incoherently claiming that since only conservatives
> complained about the felonies, but now liberals are upset about
> the ottoman, the Clintons had better take note. "The Clintons
> have long dismissed the criticism of those in the vast right-wing
> conspiracy whom they don’t respect," Carlson says. "But how
> do you dismiss the views of those you do respect–who insist
> you would never sink so low, until they are silenced by proof of
> your grasping?"
>
> I’m not sure, but I think Carlson’s idea here is to appeal to the
> consciences of felons by demanding that they respect the
> opinions of idiots.
>
> Another loony-left columnist, Mary McGrory, spent the ’70s
> demanding President Nixon’s impeachment, spent the ’80s
> demanding President Reagan’s impeachment, and then when
> the ’90s finally produced an official presidential impeachment,
> McGrory was grumpy about it. "The Republicans are beyond
> reason," she screeched, and Clinton’s impeachment "will
> disgrace them as much as Bill Clinton has disgraced himself."
>
> But that was before the Clintons had sunk so low as to take
> the ottoman.
>
> Recently, McGrory wrote of the Clintons’ classy departure: "If
> the Bushes had called in an exorcist it would not have been
> excessive." Stop me if you’ve heard this before, but the idea
> behind impeachment is . . .
>
> And all this liberal hysteria was just about the furniture. The
> heretofore unshockable left was truly shocked–shocked–about
> Clinton’s selling a presidential pardon to Fugitive Financier
> Marc Rich.
>
> Rep. Major Owens (D.-N.Y.), a member of the Clinton-loving
> Black Caucus, once said of the impeachment of a known felon
> and probable rapist: "Our posterity will spit upon us for allowing
> this madness to reach this level. This is a political crucifixion."
> But this past week, referring to the Rich pardon, Owens said of
> his constituents, "They think, ‘I may have done one-millionth of
> what they did, but I’m sitting in jail.’ " (His constituents must
> have been thrilled with that description.)
>
> I wonder what happens to his "constituents" when they tamper
> with just one witness? Or when they get caught telling just a
> few lies under oath? How many employees are they able to
> grope and flash before losing their jobs?
>
> Democratic Sen. Pat Leahy of Vermont, who had criticized the
> Clinton impeachment as the result of "extreme partisanship
> and prosecutorial zealotry," sputtered that the Rich pardon:
> "was inexcusable . . . outrageous." It was also made possible
> by the decision of senators such as Leahy not to remove
> Clinton from office when they had the chance.
>
> After voting to acquit Clinton of the impeachment charges,
> Sen. Paul Wellstone (D.-Minn.), said anyone with "a sense of
> fairness and proportionality" knows that "the House
> overreached" when it voted to impeach. But the Rich pardon,
> Wellstone said, raised "all the questions about values and
> ethics in relation to the Clinton Administration."
>
> What were the questions again? Clinton lied to the country,
> lied to his staff, lied to his wife, lied to his party, lied in private,
> lied in public and lied under oath. The Senate Democrats voted
> to keep him in office anyway. Now they profess shock that the
> man can’t be trusted.
>
> Barney Frank called Clinton’s impeachment an "extraordinary
> triumph of ideology." These days he can be found wailing about
> "a real betrayal by Bill Clinton of all who had been strongly
> supportive of him." If the Republicans put ideology over facts,
> how come it’s the Democrats who are screaming about being
> shocked and betrayed?
>
> Sen. Joseph Biden (D.-Del.) said that Clinton may have been
> "brain-dead" when he granted the Rich pardon. Yeah, what
> kind of idiot would have failed to anticipate that the same
> Democrats who warmly embraced perjury, obstruction of
> justice, and sexual perversion would get all bent out of shape
> about a pardon?
>
> Liberal GOP Sen. Arlen (Not-Impeachable-Under-Scottish-Law)
> Specter (Pa.) responded indignantly to the pardon, saying,
> "President Clinton technically could still be impeached."
> Maybe under Scottish law, but not under the U.S. Constitution.
> In his passion for truth, Specter once again stopped short of
> reading that document.
>
> Rep. Christopher (Rape-Isn’t-Impeachable) Shays (R.-Conn.)
> has announced that Clinton’s pardon of Rich is "sleazy." A
> rapist sleazy? Who would’ve thunk it?
>
> Gee, it’s too bad these guys have only now discovered what
> kind of man Bill Clinton is, rather than when it mattered. (When
> you’re sending half your bank account to the IRS this April
> remember it’s because the government thinks geniuses like
> this can spend your money better than you can.)
>
> During the impeachment proceedings, Washington Post
> columnist David Broder described the evidence against Clinton
> as forming "a very shaky case for an obstruction of justice
> count." The evidence on that count included: testimony from
> Clinton’s secretary that Clinton coached her to lie in her
> testimony; Monica Lewinsky’s testimony that the Big Creep
> told her how to hide from Paula Jones’s lawyers the gifts he
> had given Monica; Vernon Jordan’s testimony that, at Clinton’s
> behest, he had frantically called corporate magnates to line up
> a job for a former intern and crucial witness in a case against
> the President.
>
> That, according to Broder, was a shaky case.
>
> It turns out that of all the scandals, felonies, lies and general
> slime to come out of the Clinton White House, "nothing came
> close to matching Clinton’s exercise of the pardon authority."
> The Rich pardon finally demonstrated Clinton’s "sheer
> arrogance of power."
>
> These people are really insane.
>
> Most beautifully, the New York Times–again, the same New
> York Times that haughtily instructed the Senate on its "duty to
> restrain the zealous House prosecutors" from removing Clinton
> from office–is now demanding that both the House and Senate
> investigate the Rich pardon. "A thorough investigation and a
> reconstruction of the events leading to the pardon are required.
> . . . [I]t may be appropriate for the Justice Department and the
> Federal Bureau of Investigation to examine whether any laws
> were violated."
>
> Well, well. Kind of a Johnny-Come-Lately on the need for an
> investigation, aren’t we? In a breaking development, Ken Starr
> already performed an investigation. And, surprisingly enough, it
> turned out laws were broken by the President. Lots of ’em, too.
> But for all his diligence and hard work, the New York Times got
> snippy with Ken Starr.
>
> So why exactly do we need another investigation now? If the
> idea is to find out whether Clinton sold presidential pardons, I
> think I can save the country, and the Times, the trouble of an
> investigation.
>
> The answer is: Yes, Virginia, Clinton did sell presidential
> pardons. In case you missed the Clinton presidency, he also
> sold the Lincoln bedroom, plots in Arlington Cemetery,
> government jobs, access to the President, a Naval Facility at
> Long Beach, and anything else the Park Service couldn’t
> physically nail down.
>
> Without embarrassment, the Times reminded its readers that
> "this page has had scant praise" for Rep. Dan Burton (Ind.),
> the Republican holding the pardon hearings, and then
> proceeded to laud him for the current investigation. Yeah, I
> remember that. "This page" was really annoyed with Burton for
> trying to point out that Clinton was a crook. Now the Times is
> hopping mad at having just discovered that Clinton is a crook.
> Who’s been hiding that from the Times?
>
> Either the entire liberal establishment has been guzzling truth
> serum or they don’t need Clinton to promote their agenda
> anymore.
>
> http://www.humaneventsonline.com/
> articles/02-19-01/coulter.html
>
> © Human Events, 2001
>
> --------  end  --------
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> T H E   I N T E R N E T   B R I G A D E
> Linda Muller - WebMaster
> Post Office Box 650266, Potomac Falls, Virginia 20165
> Email: linda@buchanan.org
> Web: http://www.buchanan.org
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




-> To unsubscribe send email to snetnews-unsubscribe@topica.com

____________________________________________________________
T O P I C A  -- Learn More. Surf Less. 
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You Choose.
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01