Greg Sargent has a post up pointing out the difference between Broder's outrage at Bill Clinton and his outrage at W. Namely, how there is none.“I understand the reluctance to open a wide-ranging probe of past practices. It seems to me we are better off focusing on cleaning up the policies and practices for the future than trying to settle scores for past actions.”
versus
“He came in here and he trashed the place, and it’s not his place.”
Hell...I'd point out that the SOB said the "honorable" thing for Clinton to have done after the whole Monica thing was resign. I guess lying to start a war is a little more honorable, huh? This is the same guy who chastised people for covering Karl Rove's alleged role in the Plame leak and has criticized the hearings into the US attorney scandal. All because apparently he's eaten quail at Rove's table and looked at the pretty countryside from the quaint little cabin he has. Apparently, the Clintons should have had Broder over more.
And this guy won a Pulitzer???
No comments:
Post a Comment