Interesting how vehement she was in 1998 for airing & punishing pecadillos, and how vehemently she puports to care for "the good of the country" now by opposing torture prosecutions.
"Do you respect the president?" The real question is, "Do you think he has any respect for us?"...I think he showed with a chilling finality last week that he does not...The problem is that he thinks people will believe anything, that if he says a thing it is true. He absorbs his lies, and becomes them. The country suffers for this...In the therapeutic language he favors, an intervention would seem to be in order. That would be impeachment, for the high crime and misdemeanor of having no respect for his office, for his country, and for its people."
Peggy Noonan on Clinton/Lewinsky, WSJ, First Published 9/14/1998
"Hearings, especially, would likely tear up the country as we descended into opposing camps...It is hard to believe hearings, with grandstanding senators playing to the crowd, would not descend into an auto-da-fé, a public burning of sinners, with charges, countercharges, leaks and graphic testimony. This would be a self-immolating exercise that would both excite and inform America’s foes. And possibly inspire them..Absent that, a commission is better than a public prosecutor with an endless prosecution, and a public prosecutor is better than congressional hearings. Really, almost anything would be better than that."
Peggy Noonan on the future of Bush Torture policy, WSJ, Published April 24, 2009
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
curious volunteer
..... .....
Foolish Monkey
Joan H.
Ralph Tingey
vanessa seijo
Salon.com
Comments
I cringe every time I hear her voice on NPR and wonder why she accorded such deference giving the history of what has come out of her mouth
(And some are a lot more hypocritical than others.)
She loves the entourage in the media and at Republican events, and the book sales, more than she loves our democracy and the truth. Tied with Cheney and Rove for deserving 10,000 hrs of Community Service.
She became an excellent propagandist. These latter-day aberrations of hers merely make manifest the logical extension of her original sell-out.
It's all perfectly understandable from the perspective of moral relativism - if I agree with/support the person who did something, let it go. If I don't, then that person should be held accountable.
Sometimes I think this is nothing more than partisan-bickering, regarding people who have put into frames that anything on their side is fine and anything on the other side is foul.
In Peggy Noonan's case, though, I simply feel she does for BS what Stonehenge does for rocks. Strange she has become the voice for intelligent conservatism.
Our dear Peggy here is a perfect example of a conservative moonbat.
Heh ...
They are out of office. It is over. Clinton should not have been impreached given lying about sex does not rise to a high crime or misdemeanor as discussed by the founders in the federalist papers. It should not have happened. That the far right clamored for it does not, by definition, make it fair and reasonable to seek to pursue public officials acting in good faith once out of office.
Treasury cannot get decent people to step forward based on the populist cabal bitching about Wall Street. If you want to make it even more impossible to get people to step forward to serve, then keep fanning the flames of partisan retribution.
This is precisely the kind of shit that has got to stop.
With respect to special prosecutors and the like, eat party has now been bitten by them, so perhaps now they will die a slow death. They drag down the governing process and were a feral reaction to the excesses of watergate, but have they really benefitted the process? Now, old Peggy may be playing fast and loose with the particulars, but that would not put her in very select company among the partisan punditocracy out there.