Replies

I think that history will view this much differently. They will say I made a bad personal mistake, I paid a serious price for it, but that I was right to stand and fight for my country and my constitution and its principles...

-----the First Psychopath, himself

...[bill clinton], a man who will be regarded in the history books as one of our greatest presidents.

-----Al Gore at clinton's post-impeachment rally

I suspect that, to spite us all, Arthur Schlesinger will live to 120 just so he can write the definitive clinton hagiography.

--------Mia T, Musings: Senatorial Courtesy Perverted

History Lesson

by Mia T

Someone--was it Maupassant?--

once called history "that excitable and lying old lady."

The same can be said of historians.

Surely it can be said of Doris Kearns Goodwin,

the archetypical pharisaical historian,

not-so-latently clintonoid,

Lieberman-Paradigmatic

(i.e., clinton is an unfit president;

therefore clinton must remain president),

intellectually dishonest,

(habitually doing what the Arthur Schlesingers of this world do:

making history into the proof of their theories).

The Forbids 400's argument is shamelessly spurious.

They get all unhinged over the impeachment of clinton,

claiming that it will

"leave the presidency permanently disfigured and diminished,

at the mercy as never before of the caprices of any Congress."

Yet they dismiss the real and present--and future!!--danger

to the presidency and the country

of not impeaching and removing

this admittedly unfit, (Goodwin)

"documentably dysfunctional," (The New York Times)

presidency-diminishing, (Goodwin)

power-abusing,

psychopathic thug.

Doris Kearns Goodwin and those 400 other

hog-and-bow-tied-save-clinton,

retrograde-obsessing historiographers

are a supercilious, power-hungry,

egomaniacal lot in their own right.

For them, clinton validates

what Ogden Nash merely hypothesized:

Any buffoon can make history,

but only a great man can write it.

QWER•TY (kwûr'tee) adj.
Of, relating to, or designating the traditional configuration of typewriter or computer keyboard keys. [From the first six letters at the upper left.]

Q ERTY Series: The Inspiration

No Joke

Those who trashed the White House were vicious vandals, not merry pranksters.

BY TUNKU VARADARAJAN
Monday, January 29, 2001 12:01 a.m. EST
The Wall Street Journal

What is a "prank"? And when does a prank take on a darker hue and
merit, instead, a less indulgent label--such as "delinquency," or
"vandalism"?

These questions, whose answers are rooted in common sense, culture and
civilization, were raised last week by revelations first detailed on the
Internet by Matt Drudge, for whose insolent, frontiersman's approach to
newsgathering we continue to be grateful. He's not always right, and
he's not always elegant, but he bawls his tales from the rafters when
others, more timorous and more conventional, would only mince their
words, or whisper.

Although the mainstream press echoed the story only reluctantly, and
sought to draw its sting by downgrading it to the status of rumor, the
contents of the Drudge report seemed to be unquestionably consonant with
the tone, the oh-so-jarring tone, struck, in their departure from the
White House, by the Clinton cohorts--from the strutting
self-congratulation of the ex-president at Andrews Air Force Base (like
a weed, he'd taken root, and like a weed he called to be ripped from the
soil beneath him), to the stripping bare of the former Air Force One by
the ex-presidential locusts.

According to reports, outgoing Clinton-Gore staffers at the White House
performed a range of "pranks," including the prizing out from many White
House computer keyboards of the W (Dubya) key, the gluing shut of
drawers on office desks, the infecting of computers with viruses, the
recording of offensive reception messages on the answering machines, the
slashing (yes, slashing) of telephone lines, the loading of pornographic
images on printers and computers, offensive graffiti on corridors and
bathroom walls, the turning upside down of desks, and, as a valedictory
signature, the leaving of a trail of trash across the West Wing.

Mr. Drudge, the only one to quantify the damage publicly, has put the
monetary estimate--in terms of its cost to the taxpayer--at $200,000.
There is some speculation that this is a conservative estimate...

In the context of the White House, any harm or damage must be construed
to include the infliction of a burden on the taxpayer--not to mention
the interference, however temporary, with the business of government.

...the slashing of phone lines? The gluing shut of desk drawers? The
gouging out from keyboards of the W key? The infection of computers
with viruses? The redirection of official phone lines, on which the
public and government rely? These, I fear, violate the prankster's
rulebook. They caused damage; lines, desks, computers and keyboards
needed repair and replacement. My money, and yours, was used for this
repair.

Most shabby of all, however, was the perpetrators' intent. A true
prank--a prank properly defined--is carried out in a jocular spirit.
Pranks are escapades, monkeyshines. They're not acts of venom or spite,
of resentment or ill-will. If the actor is malefic, he is not a
prankster but a vandal. He is, in truth, a delinquent.

That's what I learned in grade school, and I commend that interpretation
to you.

Mr. Varadarajan is deputy editorial features editor of The Wall Street Journal. His column appears Mondays.

I would argue with Mr. Varadarajan's contention that mens rea must be considered and that the absence of malicious intent reduces the act to mere prank. Such an argument runs contrary to the concept of strict liability crimes. That doctrine (Park v United States, (1974) 421 US 658,668) established the principle of 'strict liability' or 'liability without fault' in certain criminal cases, usually involving crimes which endanger the public welfare.

"I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools.
Let's start with typewriters."

- Frank Lloyd Wright

Someone recently tested the monkeys-on-typewriters bit trying for the plays of Will Shakespeare, but all they got were the plays of bill clinton.

clinton hunt-and-peck
Q ERTY1
Q ERTY2
Q ERTY3
Q ERTY4
Q ERTY5
Q ERTY6
Q ERTY7
Q ERTY8
Q ERTY9

Excellent.

Did you see this? I like the comparison list the best...

Dubya's love defined clinton hate

Dubya's courage defined clinton cowardice

Dubya's character defined clinton corruption

Fantastic and enjoyable as always. Thanks!

googling "The Incredible Shrinking Legacy" found me nothing, so I hereby bequeath it to Bill Clinton. But I did find this oh so clever hitpiece on President Bush:

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn0618.html

June 18, 2002
Bring Out the Booster Chair for Jr.
THE INcredible Shrinking President
by Alexander Cockburn

(Pardon me while I LMAO at the incredibly shrunk Cockburn)

Mia, girl, let it out. It can't be healthy holding it in like this.

Per usual, your post is spot on and fun. Isn't it amazing that the pundits and other not so bright keep trying to figure out why the democrats lost in this last mid-term election? Something you wrote in another post that says:
Taken in one piece, the habitual, even casual abuse of power on display begins to resemble conditions one normally associates with a state of totalitarianism, where such concepts as truth and justice are only paid lip service.
America remembers the shoulder to shoulder display of key democrats on the front lawn of the White House just after the Senate failed to convict the man (and the woman) most responsible for abuse of Presidential power in our history. That picture was a picture of men and women who failed to remember for whom they work and who elected them in the first place. For whom do the bells toll? It tolls for those who deceived the public, lied to the public and abused their titles and power. That they chose to do this for a rapist, a perjurer, a philandering spouse, un-American socialist who never told the truth about anything and spent the country blind on an eight year binge, is a picture of men and women who cannot be trusted to lead in any fashion what so ever.

Those are the so-called Democratic leaders, among them Gephardt, Daschel and Al Gore. The DSA, which is the majority of the DNC, are about to step in and on it again with their socialist agenda. America doesn’t want them and all their failed policies that helped no one and burdened the nation with socialist projects of more cradle to the grave fix-its; the only thing the DNC has helped is the DNC, creating wealth only for themselves. Under the socialistic stance of the democrats, feudalism lived again and they still don’t get it...America is a Republic and Socialism never worked for anyone except the elites like Hillary R. Clinton and her ilk. Terrorism has many faces.........