02.21.07 6:00 AM CST
• Politics
• Jamie Malanowski
Over the weekend, this odd nugget appeared in an article in The New York Times: a conservative journalist named Chris Ruddy said that he and his boss, the arch right-wing kazillionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, no longer have the same low opinion about Bill Clinton that they once did. "Clinton," said Ruddy, "wasn't such a bad president. In fact, he was a pretty good president in a lot of ways, and Dick [Scaife] feels that way today."In case these names mean little to you, these were the fellows who did more to smear Bill Clinton than Ken Starr, Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay, or any of the other zealots who couldn’t bring themselves to agree that voters had actually picked Bill Clinton to be president. Not content to merely question Clinton’s policies—or his business dealings—or sexual ethics—moneybags Scaife and his attack dog Ruddy accused Clinton of being complicit in "foul play" in the suicide of Vince Foster, and of having some role in the murder of two teenagers in Arkansas.
Now they think Clinton was a pretty good president. Well, here’s something else for them to think on: if Clinton wasn’t having to spend so much time, energy and political capital fending off Scaife and Ruddy’s attacks, would he have had more time, energy and political to devote to eliminating Osama bin Laden and Al-Queda back when they were only blowing up embassies in 1998?
RSS 2.0
Comments on this entry:
"or any of the other zealots who couldn't bring themselves to agree that voters had actually picked Bill Clinton to be president."
You mean like people picked Bush...twice? I don't like the guy but come on, this is just asinine.
"if Clinton wasn't having to spend so much time, energy and political capital fending off Scaife and Ruddy's attacks, would he have had more time, energy and political to devote to eliminating Osama bin Laden and Al-Queda back when they were only blowing up embassies in 1998?"
And how much time has Bush had to spend fending off smears and moonbats and well...you?
This post is pure hypocrisy. Yes, Clinton was smeared often while in office. If you are going to pretend that Democrats have acted honorably since Bush was elected the first time, you're simply lying.
Yes, I went a bit over the top, I admit. By the way, when you say ``since Bush was elected the first time'', you do mean 2004, don't you?
LOL BUSH STOLE THE ELECTION LOL
Who's spent more money, Scaife or Soros?
It's fun to watch the Republicans posture on terrorism, when they all refused to support Clinton's attacks on al-Qa'eda in 1998, because his response to terrorism distracted from their impeachment freak-show. If fundamentalist Christians had destroyed the World Trade Center, the Republicans would have lectured New Yorkers on how liberalism had made them vulnerable to holy wrath.