That’s why Ron Rosenbaum likes Hillary. Mark Steyn, meanwhile, says yes, but that she’s mean to the wrong people:

My problem begins when Rosenbaum expands the proposition to argue that, in a field of Democrat wimps, Hill

That’s why Ron Rosenbaum likes Hillary. Mark Steyn, meanwhile, says yes, but that she’s mean to the wrong people:

My problem begins when Rosenbaum expands the proposition to argue that, in a field of Democrat wimps, Hill

I know you’ll be as shocked as I was to learn that Hillary Clinton is running for president. But I don’t think that the Slick Grope Vets For Truth will be deployed before she actually gets the nomination.

I know you’ll be as shocked as I was to learn that Hillary Clinton is running for president. But I don’t think that the Slick Grope Vets For Truth will be deployed before she actually gets the nomination.

I know you’ll be as shocked as I was to learn that Hillary Clinton is running for president. But I don’t think that the Slick Grope Vets For Truth will be deployed before she actually gets the nomination.

Heh:

Let

Mark Steyn makes a good point:

And yet the media came within a whisker of pulling him across the finish line. If it

Arnold Kling writes about the big issues on which Republicans have turned their backs on their traditional supporters, and lost the libertarians.

John Kerry is (foolishly) considering another run.

It’s sad, in a way, when one is so imprisoned by unrealistic ambitions held since childhood. I’d feel some sympathy for him if he were a…well…sympathetic character.

Whither Trousergate?

Berger, while reviewing documents, would take frequent bathroom breaks. On one occasion, personnel noticed an unknown white object beneath his pant leg. A witness said Berger “bent down, fiddling with something white, which could have been papers, around his ankle.” No Archives official did or said anything.

As a report by the Archives’ inspector general noted, “He headed toward a construction area… looked up and down the street, up into the windows of the Archives and the DoJ (Department of Justice), and did not see anyone.” He then slid the papers under the trailer. But he took more breaks than four documents or normal biology required.

The Berger team has maintained that: OK, it looks bad, but all documents had been submitted to the 9/11 Commission, and in any event copies of the documents still existed. OK, then, why cut them up and destroy them? Maybe because Berger wasn’t as interested in the reports themselves but in comments certain recipients may have made on the copies he destroyed.

The 9/11 Commission was naturally curious about how the Clinton administration handled prior terror threats and what it knew, and when, about potential threats. So, it asked Berger to testify. Clinton, we know now, signed a letter authorizing Berger’s access to classified documents in the Archives as preparation for his testimony.

A report by the National Archives and Records Administration says Clinton signed an April 12, 2002, letter designating Berger, and another individual whose name was redacted, as “agents on his behalf to review relevant NSC documents regarding Osama bin Laden/al-Qaida, Sudan and presidential correspondence from or to (Sudanese President) Omar Bashir, contained in the Clinton presidential records.”

According to the NARA report, a subsequent letter from a National Security Council official dated May 14, 2002, said Berger was repeatedly briefed that “he was not allowed to remove any documentation from NARA.” But he did. Now we know that we don’t know how many documents he may actually have taken and what was in or on them.

Another jaw dropper from other reports was that when the National Archive staff realized there was a problem, the first person they called was Bruce Lindsey, long-time Clinton consigliere.

Does anyone seriously think that Bill and Hillary Clinton didn’t know what Sandy Berger was up to, and what was in those documents he destroyed?