Michelle Malkin has pulled together a history of slandering of American troops, by both real and fake troops. It’s not very pretty. And as with Memogate, the pathetic excuse from the defenders of the people who do this is “fake, but accurate.”

That’s what Bill Clinton says he wants:

“With regard to media consolidation, the rules were relaxed too much,” Clinton said during his Million Dollar Hamptons fundraising marathon this last weekend.

“Anti-trust law should apply. I think we shouldn’t have abandoned the fairness law; if a media outlet were pushing a particular political point of view…then you had a right to demand the opposite point of view. The airwaves belong to the public, not to anybody, particularly not to Fox News.

Only one problem, Bill. Fox News doesn’t use the airwaves. It’s a cable/satellite channel. And the “scarcity” argument for regulating content never made that much sense, even with over-the-air radio and television. It was alway theoretical, and never really mattered in practice, particularly with the advent of UHF. After all, any metro, and most rural areas have multiple television and radio stations. How many major newspapers do they have? Guess it must be a newsprint scarcity.

Also, I guess he didn’t get the memo that the latest Dem talking point is that they don’t want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine–they just want more “responsibility” on the part of broadcasters. And of course, the notion of “balance” is absurd, and only makes sense to those simplistically stuck in a one-dimensional political world view, with only “left” and “right.” Most issues have more than two sides to them, on different axes.

That’s what Bill Clinton says he wants:

“With regard to media consolidation, the rules were relaxed too much,” Clinton said during his Million Dollar Hamptons fundraising marathon this last weekend.

“Anti-trust law should apply. I think we shouldn’t have abandoned the fairness law; if a media outlet were pushing a particular political point of view…then you had a right to demand the opposite point of view. The airwaves belong to the public, not to anybody, particularly not to Fox News.

Only one problem, Bill. Fox News doesn’t use the airwaves. It’s a cable/satellite channel. And the “scarcity” argument for regulating content never made that much sense, even with over-the-air radio and television. It was alway theoretical, and never really mattered in practice, particularly with the advent of UHF. After all, any metro, and most rural areas have multiple television and radio stations. How many major newspapers do they have? Guess it must be a newsprint scarcity.

Also, I guess he didn’t get the memo that the latest Dem talking point is that they don’t want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine–they just want more “responsibility” on the part of broadcasters. And of course, the notion of “balance” is absurd, and only makes sense to those simplistically stuck in a one-dimensional political world view, with only “left” and “right.” Most issues have more than two sides to them, on different axes.

That’s what Bill Clinton says he wants:

“With regard to media consolidation, the rules were relaxed too much,” Clinton said during his Million Dollar Hamptons fundraising marathon this last weekend.

“Anti-trust law should apply. I think we shouldn’t have abandoned the fairness law; if a media outlet were pushing a particular political point of view…then you had a right to demand the opposite point of view. The airwaves belong to the public, not to anybody, particularly not to Fox News.

Only one problem, Bill. Fox News doesn’t use the airwaves. It’s a cable/satellite channel. And the “scarcity” argument for regulating content never made that much sense, even with over-the-air radio and television. It was alway theoretical, and never really mattered in practice, particularly with the advent of UHF. After all, any metro, and most rural areas have multiple television and radio stations. How many major newspapers do they have? Guess it must be a newsprint scarcity.

Also, I guess he didn’t get the memo that the latest Dem talking point is that they don’t want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine–they just want more “responsibility” on the part of broadcasters. And of course, the notion of “balance” is absurd, and only makes sense to those simplistically stuck in a one-dimensional political world view, with only “left” and “right.” Most issues have more than two sides to them, on different axes.

Not something I say very often, but I agree with Rich Lowry. It’s about time someone stood up to these demagogues. All interests are “special” to someone.

John Edwards is a phony. And it sounds like he’d be another Bill Clinton (who was famous for thinking that no one’s time except has had any value) when it comes to inconsideration of others:

It was well past the candidate

In a long and ongoing discussion on (now proven) fabulist Private Beauchamp over at Winds of Change, the topic drifts to Rathergate.

However, one fake document which claimed things that were almost certainly true, was widely regarded to somehow prove they were false because that document itself was fake. Very twisted logic there.

I must have missed that. Maybe someone somewhere argued that this proved that Bush wasn’t AWOL, but I don’t recall ever seeing such an argument.

But then, I never had a strong opinion on whether or not Bush was AWOL (and still don’t). Furthermore, I never much cared, because Bush has always said that when he was young and stupid, he was young and stupid, and he (unlike John Kerry) wasn’t running on his youthful military record–he was running on his more-recent record as president.

Frankly, what was so funny to me about the thing was that the people who were pushing the “Bush is AWOL” story thought that it would damage him with his base, when in fact they were the only people who gave a rat’s patoot (and then only because of the political damage they thought it could do to their enemy, not because they have any intrinsic problems with soldiers going AWOL–many of them would probably laud that in general). It’s the same mentality that causes them to “out” gay Republicans.

What Rathergate proved to me was that some supposedly objective journalists were willing to fabricate, or overlook the fabrication of, documents to support their political agenda, just weeks before an election. It also proved to me that they were idiots. I think that there’s very sound logic behind that.

I’m not a constitutional law expert, but this seems strange to me:

Jefferson argued that the first-of-its-kind raid trampled congressional independence. The Constitution prohibits the executive branch from using its law enforcement powers to interfere with the lawmaking process. The Justice Department said that declaring the search unconstitutional would essentially prohibit the FBI from ever looking at a lawmaker’s documents.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected that claim. The court held that, while the search itself was constitutional, FBI agents crossed the line when they viewed every record in the office without giving Jefferson the chance to argue that some documents involved legislative business.

How does that work? What’s to keep the Congressman from arguing that all the records had to do with legislative business, and not allowing them to see anything? The real issue here, since they at least ruled the raid itself illegal, is whether or not the trial judge will throw out the untainted evidence.

I wonder if Justice will appeal?

So says Markos, who wants to “cleanse” his political party.

So, Barack Hussein Obama made a foreign policy speech today. Apparently, he wants to (among other things) invade Pakistan. So, he wants to make nice with North Korea and Ahmadinejad, and Hugo Chavez, and the chinless opthalmologist, all of whom are essentially at war with us, but invade a key ally in the war. Boy, I think four years of this guy would make us long for Jimmy Carter. If the intent of this was to disprove Hillary’s charge that he’s naive, I suspect that the effect will be the opposite.

Jim Geraghty has deconstructed the speech.