Thursday, March 25, 2004

So, what's the statute of limitations on Clinton-blaming?

And what would Peggy Noonan, she of the ever-so-tossable (and ever-so-empty) head, have written had he done what she now insists was so clearly what he should have done all along?

I'll tell you what, Peggy. Don't bitch about it now. Show me that you were writing columns insisting that Bill Clinton take on the terrorists back then, when you were having your "off the record" lunch. (Pretty convenient claim, that.) Show me the columns you wrote during the 90s when you said that if Bill Clinton took us to war to get rid of Saddam Hussein, why, you'd support it one hundred percent. Or, how about a column from 1996 in which you argue that a President Dole would be a lot better at fighting terrorists?

Oh, that's right. There weren't any such columns. "Bill Clinton didn't do enough to fight terrorism" isn't much of a claim if you have no basis for the idea that "A Republican would have done so much more!" This kind of crap reminds me of what I wonder about people who insist that Nostradamus predicted the 9-11-01 attacks: "How come nobody out what Nostradamus was talking about before it happened?!"

(link via TBogg, who reads a lot more of this kind of crap than can really be healthy.)

No comments: