Posted on 10/06/2005 8:34:32 PM PDT by Mia T
I thought Newt handled that exchange rather poorly. He should have said something like: look Al, we are discussing actions taken by Bill Clinton while he was Prez and may have placed us in jeopardy. If you don't want to discuss this fine but I am not going to sit here and play political wack-a-mole with you where you just bring up anybodys name and an unproven allegation.
Colmes Rove diversion was just that a diversion so he did not have to defend the indefensible.
Exactly. bump.
Right on! As a fellow freeper said on another thread clinton is "..like Charlie Brown and the football".
It seems we have come so close so many times and while the pos did get impeached and his wrist slapped he is free to spew his lies, and as hitlery was co-president (their words not ours) she is just as guilty.
The question is only when will be football be yanked out of the way Charlie Brown?
ping
I agree. Newt was too deferential to the idiot Holmes. The only defense Democraps have about Clinton and all their criminals is to try and change the subject. Try to pull the Republicans down to their level. And the MSM let's them get away with it.
Keeping bumping the book. This info needs to get to the public.
Keep bumping the book up to the top 10 at Amazon here Louis Freeh's New Book .
Keep bumping the book up to the top 10 at Amazon here Louis Freeh's New Book .
Keep bumping the book up to the top 10 at Amazon here Louis Freeh's New Book .
I don't hate them. I'd just like to see them both strung up like Benito Mussolini.
And did the Crown Prince offer to send some missionaries to our country to help us see the light when AlGore lost the election in 2000?????
John Harris of Washington Post was on Fox and made a comment that well that contribution didn't come until 2002. He said basically that Clinton was not all to blame.
The book begins with a puzzle: How did the flower children fall for such a self-evident thug and opportunist? And it offers a possible hypothetical answer, which is that ''the Night Creature'' -- Nixon -- and his heirs and assigns could not ever possibly be allowed to be right about anything. When Eszterhas writes about Nixon, and his admirers like Lucianne Goldberg, he hits an overdrive button and summons the bat cave of purest evil. He hasn't read as much recent history as he thinks he has, or he would know that his forebears were mesmerized in precisely the same way to believe that Alger Hiss was framed. Thus does Nixon inherit an undeserved and posthumous victory. If by chance we ever elect a bent and unscrupulous Republican president, he or she will have a whole new thesaurus of excuses, public and ''private,'' with which to fend off impeachment. These ''bipartisan'' excuses will have been partly furnished by the ''nonjudgmental'' love generation. If Eszterhas had had the guts to face this fact, he could have written a book more like ''F.I.S.T.'' instead of ''Sliver.'' Christopher Hitchens
by Mia T et al., 7.11.05
Basic Instinct
Hitchens on "American Rhapsody"
The New York Times, July 30, 2000
HITCHENS ON THE CLINTONS
bump
bump
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.