Thursday, January 25, 2007

Cheney Snaps at Wolf

Dick Cheney's interview with Wolf Blitzer made it onto the front page of the Washington Post this morning. I suppose the newsworthy part was where he bragged about the "enormous successes" we have had in Iraq. Well, the newsy part really was how cranky he was.

For us, the interesting part was seeing how he handled Blitzer's questions about Cheney's pregnant lesbian daughter.

From the transcript:
BLITZER: You know, we’re out of time, but a couple of issues I want to raise with you: your daughter, Mary. She's pregnant. All of us are happy she’s going to have a baby. You’re going to have another grandchild. Some of the -- some critics are suggesting -- for example, a statement from someone representing Focus on the Family, "Mary Cheney's pregnancy raises the question of what's best for children. Just because it's possible to conceive a child outside of the relationship of a married mother and father doesn't mean that it's best for the child." Do you want to respond to that?

CHENEY: No.

BLITZER: She's, obviously, a good daughter --

CHENEY: I'm delighted I'm about to have a sixth grandchild, Wolf. And obviously I think the world of both my daughters and all of my grandchildren. And I think, frankly, you're out of line with that question.

BLITZER: I think all of us appreciate --

CHENEY: I think you're out of line.

BLITZER: We like your daughters. Believe me, I'm very sympathetic to Liz and to Mary. I like them both. That was a question that’s come up, and it’s a responsible, fair question.

CHENEY: I just fundamentally disagree with you.

BLITZER: I want to congratulate you on having another grandchild.

Wow, this is uncomfortable.

I don't know how these guys keep all this straight. Without Focus on the Family and the other Family Blah Blah groups supporting them, Satan Cheney would not have the VP job. But he doesn't even want to talk about what they said.

This is called cognitive dissonance: an ordinary person would be forced to make a choice, and a statement, in this situation. Everyone seems to agree that Cheney loves his lesbian daughter and supports her desire to have a child within her monogamous relationship. So what would happen if this guy said out loud what he must believe? Just think of the good that could come of that, the opportunity that's been handed him.

Here's the problem: cowardice. He won't say what he knows to be true, because it might cost his party votes. He'll support his daughter privately, but he thinks people are "out of line" if they talk about it in public. In the meantime, his political machine is making life as miserable as possible for gay people.

44 Comments:

Anonymous David S. Fishback said...

What would have been so terrible if the Vice President had simply said, "Lynne and I are confident that Mary and Heather will make terrific parents," and left it at that? It is eerily similar to the line in Annie Hall, where the Woody Allen character, seeing an exceptionally attractive young woman, says, "I'd sell my mother to the Arabs for her."

What else would the Vice President do to hold on to what remains of the Administration's "base"?

He needs to come to a PFLAG meeting.

January 25, 2007 1:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I do not think that the Vice President is happy about having a gay child not a lot of parents are. he loves her like only a parent can love there child and would like to keep his private life private. He is not the kind of person who will exsploite his children for political gain fishback.

January 25, 2007 4:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is possible to love someone and not agree with their behavior.

So the reporter put him in a position of either critizing his daughter on national television, which he wasn't going to do, or tell the reporter it was none of his business.

He choose the latter, which was correct.

January 25, 2007 7:06 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

From every indication, Dick "Dick" Cheney loves his daughter and fully approves of her decision. But he doesn't have the cojones to say so in public, out of cowardly fear of making Daddy Dobson unhappy.

JimK

January 25, 2007 7:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

fully approves of her decision?
and what decision is that? To be gay?
he did say he was happy about another grandchild so what decision are you talking about?

January 25, 2007 9:46 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Her decision to become pregnant and have a family.

JimK

January 25, 2007 9:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I do feel sorry for the child but I do not hold it against the vice President to love his child even when she makes a mistake.

January 25, 2007 10:21 PM  
Anonymous David S. Fishback said...

He is doing the opposite of using his daughter for political gain.

Given his personal history of acceptance of gay people (his spokesman at the Pentagon when he was Secretary of Defense was Pete Williams, now of NBC News, who is gay and was publically outed while working for Cheney), his clear closeness with his daughter, and his quiet demurrer on the "marriage amendment," I think it is pretty clear that he does not have a personal problem with Mary and her decisions.

So what he has done is to fail to stand up for his daughter for political reasons. In one respect, he is worse than Alan Keyes, who simply may not know any better.

January 25, 2007 10:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i was speaking of you.

January 25, 2007 10:50 PM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

BLITZER: We like your daughters. Believe me, I'm very sympathetic to Liz and to Mary. I like them both. That was a question that’s come up, and it’s a responsible, fair question.

LOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!

Yeah, next thing Wolf Blitzer will say is that some of "his best friends are gay or lesbian"...

The Vice President took him off at the knee and did not apologize for doing so...good for him.

Responsible? Fair? Or was he just baiting the Vice President and received in return a little more than he bargained for?

David writes,

What else would the Vice President do to hold on to what remains of the Administration's "base"?

Well, if I had my way he would announce that the President had become "incapacitated" and that he is now in charge. Then he would announce that the US was pulling out of Afghanistan and Iraq, and declaring war on Syria and Iran.

Ok, ok, ok...that was a joke!

He needs to come to a PFLAG meeting.

LOL...no, he does not. He and his wife have worked it all out on their own I suspect and are confident in the decision they have made in dealing with this from within their family.

Oh, and since we are talking about the Cheney daughters, I thought I would pass this along, especially since Wolf Blitzer did not deem it worthy of comment by the Vice President (though apparently idle talk about his other daughter is "news worthy").

Retreat Isn't an Option

By Liz Cheney
Tuesday, January 23, 2007; Page A17

Sen. Hillary Clinton declared this weekend, " I'm in to win." Anyone who has watched her remarkable trajectory can have no doubt that she'll do whatever it takes to win the presidency. I wish she felt the same way about the war.

(and this from the op-ed pages of the Washington Post)

BLITZER: Will it be John McCain?
CHENEY: I'm not going to speculate.
BLITZER: He's been very critical of you, John McCain.
CHENEY: Well, John's a good man. He and I have known each other a long time and we
agree on many things and disagree on others.
BLITZER: He said, the other day -- he said, "The president listens too much to the vice
president. Of course, the president bears the ultimate responsibility, but he's been very badly
served by both the vice president and, most of all, the secretary of Defense." That was John
McCain.
CHENEY: So?
BLITZER: No reaction?
CHENEY: I just disagree with him.
BLITZER: He said, about the former Defense secretary, "Rumsfeld will go down in history,
along with NcNamara, as one of the worst secretaries of Defense --"
CHENEY: I just fundamentally disagree. You heard my speech, when Don retired. I think
he's done a superb job.
BLITZER: You know, we’re out of time, but a couple of issues I want to raise with you: your
daughter, Mary. She's pregnant. All of us are happy she’s going to have a baby. You’re going to
have another grandchild. Some of the -- some critics are suggesting -- for example, a statement
from someone representing Focus on the Family, "Mary Cheney's pregnancy raises the question
of what's best for children. Just because it's possible to conceive a child outside of the
relationship of a married mother and father doesn't mean that it's best for the child." Do you want
to respond to that?
CHENEY: No.
BLITZER: She's, obviously, a good daughter --
CHENEY: I'm delighted I'm about to have a sixth grandchild, Wolf.
And obviously I think the world of both my daughters and all of my grandchildren. And I think,
frankly, you're out of line with that question.
BLITZER: I think all of us appreciate --
CHENEY: I think you're out of line.
BLITZER: We like your daughters. Believe me, I'm very sympathetic to Liz and to Mary. I
like them both. That was a question that’s come up, and it’s a responsible, fair question.
CHENEY: I just fundamentally disagree with you.
BLITZER: I want to congratulate you on having another grandchild.
Let's wind up with the soft stuff (ph)-- Nancy Pelosi. What was it like sitting with her last
night as opposed to Dennis Hastert?
CHENEY: I prefer Dennis Hastert, obviously. I like having a fellow Republican in the
Speaker's chair. Nancy's now the speaker of the House. We had a very pleasant evening.
BLITZER: But it’s different to have a Democrat--
CHENEY: Sure, it's different. They have -- yeah, but it's the way it's been during most of my
career in Congress. I didn't find it all that surprising or startling.
BLITZER: How do you feel?
CHENEY: Good.
BLITZER: Mr. Vice President, thank you
****

"You know, we’re out of time, but a couple of issues I want to raise with you"...LOL!!! Goodness, I did not know Blitzer has a funny bone in him. Here was an opportunity for a reporter to get a comment on an op-ed piece by the "other" Cheney daughter, but no he had to cover other issues.

I suspect that since Cheney is never again going to run for public office (a decision that has absolutely nothing to do with his present polling numbers; of this I knew the moment he reluctantly agreed to be candidate George W. Bush's VP running mate) so I suspect that he could care less what anyone thinks of him for either having a lesbian daughter (on the one hand), or remaining circumspect on the controversy surrounding Mary Cheney becoming a mother. I am certain he has many thoughts on this issue, but his public loyalty is to serving his boss, The President, and he is mature enough to understand that any comment he would make would stand in the way of him faithfully serving the President. Hence, he remains tight lipped...

Besides, if the media can observe a wall of privacy for Chelsea Clinton, why not for Mary Cheney? Talk about hypocrisy...

January 26, 2007 4:41 AM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

...and this from the controversy over Al Gore's "documentary" with enlightened and educated people showing their true colors.

"Members of the school board say they have been bombarded by thousands of e-mails and phone calls, many of them hurtful and obscene, accusing them of scientific ignorance, pandering to religion and imposing prior restraint on free speech."

found here,

Gore Film Sparks Parents' Anger
Showing 'Inconvenient Truth' Would Require Counterpoint

By Blaine Harden
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 25, 2007; Page A12

**********************************

BTW, I would support showing "An Inconvenient Truth" so long as it was part of a science curriculum that would ask tough questions about such a "truth". Frankly I would be shocked if we humans were not having an effect on the climate...

January 26, 2007 5:16 AM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Orin:

A) Dick Cheney chose Dick Cheney for VP. How soon they forget.

B) Mary Cheney has made her life an open book. Mary Cheney has been overtly political. Chelsea Clinton never did and never was.

January 26, 2007 8:34 AM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

The issue is not, nor has it ever been, Gore's film. Had Martin Scorcese made it the issue would be the same. Is it science, or not? If it is, then it can be shown as part of a science class.

Now this is an issue on which we can agree. Not everyone (and I am including Theresa) agrees with human-caused global warming. I would invite her as an engineer to speak to a course on the issue. I would have no problem mentioning that there is still some disagreement. Of course, the percentage of Montgomery County residents who support Theresa's position on global warming is probably equivalent to the number who support her positions on human sexuality.
But what is really hilarious is when the Anons parade their utter ignorance here of climatology, which is a highly complex field. Similar to their understanding of human sexuality and sexual development.

January 26, 2007 8:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

From the GOP Platform (http://www.gop.com/media/2004/platform.pdf):

"One hundred and fifty years after our founding, we Republicans proudly carry forward our time-honored banner of freedom. And we endorse the bold and visionary leadership of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

...We strongly support President Bush’s call for a Constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage, and we believe that neither federal nor state judges for bureaucrats should force states to recognize other living arrangements as equivalent to marriage. We believe, and the social science confirms, that the well-being of children is best accomplished in the environment of the home, nurtured by their mother and father anchored by the bonds of marriage..."


From the Daily Show 1-25-07

Video clip:

"BLITZER: You know, we’re out of time, but a couple of issues I want to raise with you: your daughter, Mary. She's pregnant. All of us are happy she’s going to have a baby. You’re going to have another grandchild. Some of the -- some critics are suggesting -- for example, a statement from someone representing Focus on the Family, "Mary Cheney's pregnancy raises the question of what's best for children. Just because it's possible to conceive a child outside of the relationship of a married mother and father doesn't mean that it's best for the child." Do you want to respond to that?

CHENEY: No.

BLITZER: She's, obviously, a good daughter --

CHENEY: I'm delighted I'm about to have a sixth grandchild, Wolf. And obviously I think the world of both my daughters and all of my grandchildren. And I think, frankly, you're out of line with that question."


Jon Stewart impersonating Dick Cheney:

"How, how dare you? How dare you apply my party's cruel and inhumane family policies to my family? How dare you? Don't you know I'm exempt? Wah! Wah! Bah! I'm exempt! Don't you know I'm exempt? No draft, no gay thing in my family! Bah! At long last sir, have you no sense of Bah?"

Jon Stewart as himself: "Hey, uh, Mr. Vice President. Aren't any other gay people somebody's kid?"

Good questions, Jon.

Cheney, as the second highest elected GOP official should be willing to speak publicly to the nation about how he can support the GOP platform above and his daughter's intention to raise a child without a father in the home. Mary Cheney left her LGBT outreach job at Coors to work with her dad on the 2000 Bush/Cheney campaign, joined the advisory board of the Republican Unity Coalition in 2002, and became the director for vice presidential operations for the 2004 Bush/Cheney campaign in 2003. She has worked publicly for the GOP for many years so Blitzer's question was far from "out of line." It was directly on target and Cheney chose to avoid it.

Cheney should tell us why it is OK for his daughter to raise a child with a same-sex partner but it's not OK for other gay daughters to do the same.

PTA

January 26, 2007 11:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cheney should tell us why it is OK for his daughter to raise a child with a same-sex partner but it's not OK for other gay daughters to do the same.

PTA

PTA you are a fool Cheney did not say it was OK he said he was happy to have another grandchild. I am positive he would rather his child was not gay just like your parents wish you were strait.

January 26, 2007 12:16 PM  
Anonymous TTFrist said...

Oh brother.

Cheney refused to answer Blitzer's question so the public does not know how he feels about Mary's intention to raise a child without a father in the home. What Cheney did say was, "I think the world of both my daughters," yet you seem to think Cheney thinks less of one daughter than the other based on your own imagination and no evidence at all.

"Psycho" and "psychic" do not mean the same thing.

January 26, 2007 2:09 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Orin said "LOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!

Yeah, next thing Wolf Blitzer will say is that some of "his best friends are gay or lesbian"...".

Much like you, eh, Orin?

January 26, 2007 4:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

TTFist what the vice president said is public record one can only speculate what he thinks though if he is like most parents with gay children than he would rather them be straight. as would your parents it does not mean they don't love you. and if your parents like there other children better than you it has a lot more to do with your personality than just your decision to be gay.

January 26, 2007 4:57 PM  
Blogger andrear said...

You know if Wolf Blitzer said some of his best friends are gay- it might be true -not the usual like "love the sinner, hate the sin" or like Cheney. Some of my favorite relatives are gay- and guess what, Orin, that's true- can you deal with people who can admit and love their gay and lesbian relatives and friends? Cheney is a hypocrite-he can support and be supported by those who demonize gay people but his own family is sacrosanct. The man is just creep.

January 26, 2007 9:02 PM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

Dana writes,

A) Dick Cheney chose Dick Cheney for VP. How soon they forget.

...and you know that exactly how???

My take, FWIW, is that Cheney was little short of conscripted. Yes, he had a choice, and he could have said no. But I suspect that his sense of duty kicked in and he knew that he had been called to serve.

B) Mary Cheney has made her life an open book. Mary Cheney has been overtly political. Chelsea Clinton never did and never was.

The personal is political? Ok, but remember that such sentiments have a way of returning to those who express them.

Randi, in a manner like one scribbling on a bathroom stall, writes,

Yeah, next thing Wolf Blitzer will say is that some of "his best friends are gay or lesbian"...".

Much like you, eh, Orin?

Yeah, sure Randi...whatever you say.

And finally Andrea writes,

You know if Wolf Blitzer said some of his best friends are gay- it might be true -not the usual like "love the sinner, hate the sin" or like Cheney. Some of my favorite relatives are gay- and guess what, Orin, that's true- can you deal with people who can admit and love their gay and lesbian relatives and friends?

Huh??? Yes, of course I can deal with that...really now, the question is can Wolf Blitzer and those that seem to think well of such a line of questioning, accept the fact that some people do not feel any need to engage a baited question with emotional exhibitionism (though I do understand the appeal that has for many, and that that was where Bill Clinton drew some of his appeal)?

Cheney is a hypocrite-he can support and be supported by those who demonize gay people but his own family is sacrosanct.

Oh, so Cheney has made a speech at the Family Research Council or Focus on the Family? I have never read a single word of Cheney's that remotely suggests that he supports any sort of public agenda to "demonize gay people". I strongly suspect that as a Wyoming native he could care less for much of the culture war rhetoric going both directions (residents of Wyoming have a strong ethic of "leave me alone and I leave you alone" a conservative bend to be sure, but of a distinct libertarian nature), but he is not at liberty to discuss this at present. At present Cheney understands what his job is: it is supporting the President's agenda, not his own. Frankly I would not be surprised if he speaks his mind freely after he leaves office, and in the process expresses disdain for the social agenda of the the right-wing of the Republican Party base. Can't any of you grant Cheney even a small measure of slack? I know I did when Vice President Al Gore stood firm in his support of his boss and simply stated the obvious, 'sometimes our friends disappoint us...that doesn't mean we stop standing by them'.

The man is just creep.

"Creep"? Or creepy? I am astounded at the blinding hatred...I really hope Hillary Clinton will set aside her political ambitions and for the good of the country support a candidate in the Democratic Party that will not unleash another round of venomous right-wing political machinations.

Turn about as fair play? As the realization that 8 years of Republican attacks on Clinton likely created the demon hatreds of the Angry Left for George W. Bush, I hope there is a candidate for public office that can call forth everyone's better nature...certainly for the good of this country.

January 27, 2007 6:57 AM  
Anonymous TTFrist said...

I agree that one can only speculate about what Cheney thinks when he refuses to say what he thinks, however, you said "I am positive he would rather his child was not gay" which doesn't indicate you were speculating.

Cheney is the #2 man at the GOP. How he reconciles the GOP platform statements that
1. "the well-being of children is best accomplished in the environment of the home, nurtured by their mother and father anchored by the bonds of marriage" and
2. "We strongly support President Bush's call for a Constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage"
with his publicly stated "delight" that he's having a 6th grandchild who will be raised by two lesbians is something he should explain to the American people.

January 27, 2007 7:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Orin asked "The personal is political?"

Have you read the Starr report?

January 27, 2007 9:02 AM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Orin,

A) You seem to have forgotten that Cheney was head of Bush's committee to search for a VP. Rather odd result, wouldn't you say? Not that your analysis may not be correct, but still odd, and indicative of Bush's complete lack of imagination -- look at how, after six years, he still can't break out beyond his small circle of friends and acquaintances for any of his staff.

B) I have no idea what you mean in this case by the "the personal is political." Mary Cheney is a political operative who wrote a book. Chelsea did no more than show up in family photos. Mary Cheney is fair game, and Chelsea (and the Bush twins) are not.

C) You seem to be, at least on occasion, a man of principle. Where has honor gone in government? Where are the Cyrus Vances? How could Colin Powell let himself be used? How could the Cheneys stand by while their family is routinely demonized? The country doesn't need them,they know it and you know it. If you can't stand up for your family on such a critical matter, then where are your "family values"? Cheney might not be president, but he's as close as anyone has ever come in his position, and if he really loved his daughter, he would have put a stop to this nonsense long, long ago. He doesn't lack the power -- he outed a CIA agent, remember? That he hasn't stood by his family, with actions if not words, says much more than his silence with Wolf Blitzer.

And keep in mind, that Clinton's foibles were purely personal, and Bush's purely political. Even those who hate Bush don't hate him personally, while those who hated Clinton personally acted against him politically. Bush is the worst president we've had in 150 years or more, which makes him worthy of that hate. What in the world did Clinton do that most men in red states don't do themselves, at least on occasion?

January 27, 2007 9:23 AM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

Dana writes,

And keep in mind, that Clinton's foibles were purely personal

That is incorrect; surely you know that he is a convicted perjuror? Though with Cheney's former Chief of Staff up on the same charges, it is a little comforting that this is a "foible" that is bi-partisan in nature.

And Anonymopus writes,

Orin asked "The personal is political?"

Have you read the Starr report?


Uh, did you read what I wrote? Yes, the Starr Report would be an example of "the personal is political". Duh...

January 27, 2007 9:30 AM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Orin, its pretty ironic and hypocritcal that you should laugh at the thought of Wolf saying "his best friends are gay or lesbian" when you yourself claim to have gay friends and "hope for the best for them" while you oppose their equality. The sky hasn't fallen in any jusisdiction that allows gays to marry and yet you continue to spout this absurd BS that somehow married couples relationships will be harmed by the mere knowlege that a gay couple down the street is getting married. That's despicable.

January 27, 2007 3:31 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Orin, Clinton was set up. End of story. If the same thing happened to you, I would stand by you as well.

Cheney and his CoS leaked the name of a CIA agent. Clinton lied about sex. 80% of Americans recognize the difference, though apparently you're not one of those 80%.

January 27, 2007 6:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

January 28, 2007 2:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

January 28, 2007 6:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Beyer
Go to a shrinkl. Please. You need it desperately. Even Richard Cohen couldn't make you more crazy than you are now.

January 28, 2007 6:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Richard Mellon Scaife
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Richard Mellon Scaife (born July 3, 1932, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania), a U.S. billionaire and owner–publisher of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. He owns 7.2% of NewsMax Media. With $1.2 billion, Scaife, a principal heir to the Mellon banking, oil, and aluminum fortune, is No. 283 on the 2005 Forbes 400.

Scaife is particularly well known for his generous support of conservative public policy organizations over the past two decades. His generous support of the Heritage Foundation has been an important factor in Heritage's development of one of the most influential public policy research institutes in the United States. He also has supported other conservative organizations that have supported various conservative policy themes.

Scaife also helped fund the Arkansas Project which led to the impeachment of then-President Bill Clinton...

Opposition to Bill Clinton

Scaife, however, was closely involved in his empire's coverage against then-President Bill Clinton. Scaife was the major backer of The American Spectator, whose Arkansas Project set out to find facts about Clinton and in which Paula Jones' accusations of sexual harassment against Clinton were first widely publicized.

In a 1999 series of articles on Scaife and foundations that support conservative causes, the Washington Post named a close Scaife associate, Richard Larry, and not Scaife himself as the man who drove the Arkansas Project.

Regardless of his role, the project not only accused Clinton of financial and sexual indiscretions (some later verified, others not), but also gave root to hyperbolic conspiracist notions that the Clintons collaborated with the CIA to run a drug smuggling operation out of the town of Mena, Arkansas and that Clinton had arranged for the murder of White House aide Vince Foster as part of a coverup of the Whitewater scandal. The possibility that money from the project had been given to former Clinton associate David Hale, a witness in the Whitewater investigation, led to the appointment of Michael J. Shaheen as a special investigator. Shaheen subpoenaed Scaife, who testified before a federal grand jury in the matter.

So involved was Scaife in efforts against Clinton that many Democrats believed Hillary Clinton's statement condemning a "vast right-wing conspiracy" against her husband was a direct reference to Scaife himself. President Clinton later admitted to sexual indiscretions, but the other allegations that came out of the Arkansas Project were never proven.

Coincidental to the Lewinsky scandal and Clinton's impeachment, Scaife endowed a new school of public policy at Pepperdine University. Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr was named the first dean of this school, although Pepperdine denies any connection. Starr accepted the post in 1996, but in the ensuing controversy, Starr gave up the appointment in 1998 before ever having started at Pepperdine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Mellon_Scaife

January 28, 2007 10:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dan Rather

January 28, 2007 10:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Dan Rather"

Nope. Guess again you "hyperbolic conspiracist" you.

January 29, 2007 6:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"vast right-wing conspiracy" President Clinton later admitted to sexual indiscretions, and admitted to lieing to a federal judge witness tampering and obstruction of justice. for wich he was impeached.

January 29, 2007 9:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

and acquitted

January 29, 2007 11:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

acquitted ??
From being impeached?

January 29, 2007 1:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Senate Acquits President Clinton

By Peter Baker and Helen Dewar
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, February 13, 1999; Page A1

The United States Senate acquitted William Jefferson Clinton yesterday on charges that he committed perjury and obstruction of justice to hide sexual indiscretions with a onetime White House intern, permitting the 42nd president to complete the remaining 708 days of his term...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/impeach021399.htm

January 29, 2007 1:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

House of Representatives, impeached a president for the first time since Andrew Johnson in 1868

Clinton*
impeached :)

January 29, 2007 2:40 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Wow, Anon. Two comments of a political history nature and you think I need a shrink. Pretty good. Or was that a slip by you expressing your past history in the Soviet secret police?

If I had your name I'd nominate you for a Darwin Award this year.

January 29, 2007 6:24 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

You couldn't just submit the name "Illiterate-Anon?"

JimK

January 29, 2007 6:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

January 29, 2007 8:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Soviet secret police?

have you ever been treatred for byer Schizophrenia

January 29, 2007 8:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

January 29, 2007 8:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

January 29, 2007 8:06 PM  
Anonymous Phentermine said...

Nice design of blog.

August 13, 2007 3:38 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home