Pitiful President Clinton and The Pathetic Boston Globe

For those that need a reminder, my blog is primarily driven off the Boston Globe. It's my schtick, if you will. They write something stupid (every single, bloody, day!) and I respond (every few days).

These were the letters I submitted on Saturday and Monday, respectively. As with all my letters, these need no introduction.

Editor,

The Editorial Pages of your September 23, 2006 issue hit a new low for intellectual dishonesty.

First, the Boston Globe chose to print 5 letters on the subject of interrogating terrorists. All five were critical of the President and supportive of the terrorists. That's balance? Further, you allowed one pro-terrorist letter writer to cleverly insinuate the "apologists for Bush" want to "suspend the rule of law" when interrogating terrorists. The suspension of the rule of law or the "they'll do it to us so we can do it to them" argument is absolutely not the argument of the President, but maybe if you had the decency to allow even one letter from those of us that want to be protected from terrorists your readers may actually learn something in the Letters section. You allowed another pro-terrorist letter writer to introduce a new phrase in the extreme Left lexicon - "pro-torture lobby". Pro-torture lobby? That's laughable. Is that the new bumper-sticker phrase that liberal extremists think is the pathway to taking over the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives? I'm not in the habit of helping the pro-terrorist lobby, but I'm pretty sure they may want to lose the "pro-torture lobby" rhetoric.

Second, Mr. Derrick Z. Jackson began his latest hate-Bush column with, "The same White House that trashed generals . . . for saying it would take hundreds of thousands of more troops and billions more dollars to secure Iraq . . . . (Playing shell game on responsibility with Iraq, September 23, A15)." It is simply not true that the President or anyone that speaks for him ever trashed a general for disagreeing with him. Every single quote from the White House was the same, "the generals and admirals are entitled to their opinion, I disagree with them." No LexisNexis or Google search will produce anything more harsh than this. If Mr. Jackson cares to take issue with those trashing generals, maybe he can start with Sen. Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, who attacked General Michael Hayden during his Senate confirmation hearings for CIA Director with these beauties, "With all due respect, General, I can't tell now if you've simply said one thing and done another, or whether you have just parsed your words like a lawyer to intentionally mislead the public (Boston Globe)." And, "I now have a difficult time with your credibility (Wall Street Journal)." But why let the facts get in the way of another hatchet job on the President? (End of letter.)

Editor,

As a Republican, I usually delight in the failings of national Democrats (as you can imagine, I delight much), but the bizarre performance by former President Clinton in his interview with Mr. Chris Wallace has me, instead, feeling very sorry for the former President.

For the first time that anyone can recall, a national reporter didn't ask softball questions of a national Democrat. Let's not kid ourselves, though, the questions weren't piercing either, they just were not softballs. The hostile and childish behavior of the former President was clearly indicative of how disturb he must be. He still has that finger-pointing gesture down pat ("Now listen very carefully, I did not have sexual relations with that woman.").

Yes, we can still delight in the embarrassing behavior of national Democrats like Sen. John F. Kerry or Rep. Nancy Pelosi, but I ask everyone to join me in praying for the mental health of former President Clinton, a truly pitiful man. (End of letter.)