Well, as the air continues to rush out of the bubble, with Enron, Global Crossing, Worldcom, and Arthur Andersen collapsing on themselves like the WTC, just which decade was it that was the real “Decade of Greed”?

Was it the one presided over by Reagan, as Bill and Hillary told us in 1992?

Or was it the one presided over by Bill Clinton?

Just wondering.

Pop up some corn, and settle back in the comfy chair. It’s going to be a fun campaign for governor in California.

“I’m going to knock Gray Davis’ and (Davis adviser) Garry South’s teeth out with their own record,” Rollins said. “This is going to be a donnybrook.”

The strategy, he said, will be to skewer Davis on his own record and “make the story of (the governor’s) failure so severe that people will walk in, in those closing days, and say, ‘yes’ to Bill Simon.”

It was inevitable, and it didn’t take long. The EUnuchs are unhappy because they weren’t consulted about Bush’s speech. And the fact that he’s not sucking up to their buddy, Arafat.

Some of the quotes are delicious.

…the European official said Bush’s broad signal to the Palestinians that Arafat needed to be replaced as a prerequisite to the establishment of a Palestinian state, “is rather alien to European thinking.”

Yes, that’s why there’s still no peace to the Middle East. We’ve been going along with European “thinking,” for far too long.

And here’s a shocker:

European heads of state reserved as much criticism for Israel as for the Palestinians.

And the usual idiotarian party line:

German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer welcomed Bush’s “clear commitment” to peace in the Middle East, but added, “The Palestinian people alone will decide who is their legitimate leader.”

That’s right, Herr Fischer. And the Palestinian people alone will choose their fate, and live with the consequences of their actions. It’s all up to them, now.

Europe has rendered itself utterly irrelevant.

[Update at 5 PM PDT]

Comment “Matt” astutely points out this bit of hypocrisy, in response to the comment that “…Bush’s broad signal to the Palestinians that Arafat needed to be replaced as a prerequisite to the establishment of a Palestinian state, “is rather alien to European thinking.”

If we don’t like your leaders then you can’t have what you want? Yeah, the EU never said that to anyone…

*coughHaidercough*

*coughLePencough*

Well, to be fair, maybe they were just talking about replacing Arafat as being alien to their thinking. I’m sure they didn’t intend to have a double standard…

The Torch is in trouble. He’s an incumbent, and he’s got less than fifty percent support.

If this article is true, it’s a devastating argument against gun control. People have to start carrying–how else can we expect to defend ourselves against a foe whose only goal is to kill as many people as possible? Amazing, considering the source.

Of course, such acts will have the effect opposite of that desired, and will simply accelerate the war overseas.

If this article is true, it’s a devastating argument against gun control. People have to start carrying–how else can we expect to defend ourselves against a foe whose only goal is to kill as many people as possible? Amazing, considering the source.

Of course, such acts will have the effect opposite of that desired, and will simply accelerate the war overseas.

If this article is true, it’s a devastating argument against gun control. People have to start carrying–how else can we expect to defend ourselves against a foe whose only goal is to kill as many people as possible? Amazing, considering the source.

Of course, such acts will have the effect opposite of that desired, and will simply accelerate the war overseas.

Today is the 126th anniversary of battle of the Little Big Horn. It was probably the most one-sided defeat in the history of the U.S. Army, and it was well deserved, at least for the leader, if not for his troops.

Reader DocZen asks:

I think the Jewish and the Chrisitians/Conservatives finding themselves on the same side of the political spectrum is a refreshing change that will no doubt cause plate shift in American politics…

What say you?

This has been discussed in the blogosphere for the past few months. It could mean big trouble for the Dems, as noted in today’s WaPo. It’s also driving a bigger wedge between the Jews and the blacks, particularly with loons like Cynthia McKinney so visible.

Tony won’t give it up.

The word “immaterial” appears nowhere in any of the documents he cites. The best he can do is to quote Judge Wright as saying that it “might…be inadmissable.” From this, he somehow reverses the meaning to be that it “might be relevant.” But that’s good enough for me. Something that might be relevant can hardly be said to be definitely immaterial.

And the fact remains that Clinton couldn’t know before his testimony whether or not it was material. Witnesses are not allowed to decide for themselves whether or not their lies are material–their oath is to “tell the truth, the whole truth, so help them God.”

Even if it was ruled immaterial after the fact (it was not), that doesn’t in any way mitigate the potential penalties for the behavior–it was certainly attempted perjury, if not actual, and flies in the face of his duty as both a citizen and the chief executive officer of the nation, bound by oath to follow and enforce the Constitution and see that laws are faithfully executed.

As to why Clinton hasn’t been indicted, only Mr. Ray can answer that question. My interpretation of it is that 1) after the Susan McDougal experience, he figured that there would be no way to get a conviction–there will always be at least one juror who refuses to consider the evidence when it comes to the poor charismatic ex-President, and hangs the jury, and 2) there are rumors that a deal was cut with the Democrats in Congress at the beginning of the Bush Administration–no Clinton (either of them) prosecutions in exchange for allowing nominations to go through. I wouldn’t be shocked (though I remain saddened at the ongoing corruption of the Democratic Party, if such rumors be true).

However, there is this interesting little bit of news along that line.

The FBI raid may also be a sign that the reported no-prosecution deal for the Clintons, demanded by Democrat leaders as the price for President Bush getting some of his legislative agenda implemented, is beginning to unravel – since Democrats seem to have kept little if any of their part of the bargain.