Your home for scattered bits about language, my kid, feminism, things that happen to me and things that cross my mind
Yay! I'm so glad to see that you have this up here. I just so happened to take a break from reading to go downstairs for something to eat so I turned on the tv. I was just in time to see the interview of Clinton by Russert and damn, can we re-elect Clinton please?I plan on blogging this very thing using the transcripts from the interview. Here's another taste:MR. RUSSERT: Do you think the war in Iraq has hurt the U.S. image in the world? MR. CLINTON: I do. I think it's been a net negative, partly because we went in there before the United Nations finished the job of the inspections, which undermined the credibility of the original argument for needing the authority to use force. I think that was a big mistake. And on the other hand, Saddam is gone and 58 percent of those people voted.Clinton may not have been able to keep "it" in his pants (or rather, other mouths/hands out of his pants), but damned if he doesn't have a much better way to handle society as we have made it today.
It's all very clear to me...Clinton had to get his blowjobs in the oval office because he was actually WORKING!
Thanks for the link to the transcript, Nut. I'm reading it in another window right now. Wow, that Thad Allen really makes Michael Brown seem dim-witted and ineffectual in comparison. On the other hand, even Dubya makes Brownie seem dim-witted and ineffectual by comparison. And in turn, Bill Clinton makes them all seem like garden snails, doesn't he?Kathie, that's an apt observation!
Hee hee, garden snails.I'm still kind of mad at Clinton, though. Not for his sexual indiscretions -- who cares -- but because I think he should have been able to make more changes during his eight years. He didn't have a Democratic Congress, I know, but still.
Post a Comment