Wednesday, March 07, 2007

Her Again?

I'm not linking to it, since you can find it for yourself if you want it (and I couldn't bring myself to read the whole thing, anyway), but this first sentence in Ann Coulter's latest column is precious:

Lewis Libby has now been found guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice for lies that had absolutely no legal consequence.


Really? 'Cuz I thought the same thing about President Clinton's impeachment, and you sure seemed to think that was important.

So, let's recap former Law Review editor Ann's view on the pressing legal crises of the last decade: Purposely deceiving federal investigators about your roll in publicly disclosing the identity of an undercover1 CIA agent? No biggie. Purposely deceiving federal investigators about getting a blow job from an intern? A threat to the moral fiber of the republic and an impeachable offense.

Dumbass.

If she really believed that lying was the worst of all possible crimes, then she'd have the guts to stick by that, regardless of the circumstances. All this proves -- like it needed to be proved -- is that it isn't about the law, it isn't about morality, it's about politics. Not politics in the noble "art of the possible sense," but just naked grabs at power and, pathetically, grabs at being close to power.

And I really hate myself for even posting this, because its exactly the sort of attention that someone like her doesn't deserve. It's the reason she called John Edwards a "faggot" (by saying that she couldn't call him one -- there's that fine legal training at work), a deep desire to have people look at her, for any damn reason at all. As she gets older and more haggard, though, no one's really looking as much as they used to.

Say something stupid and everyone spins around to look at the freak.

Update: I was poking around in my archives and found this. The link to the story doesn't work anymore, so you can't read the fucktarded defense of Linda Tripp as the moral equivalent of Deep Throat, but I did like my own line:
If you can't tell the difference between a subversion of the constitution and a blowjob, you aren't doing either one right.

I think that's still true.
____________________

1- Before anyone gets in a twist by trying to suggest that Valerie Plame was not undercover -- however broadly it might be defined -- and therefore could not have been "outed," please remember that the CIA complained to the Department of Justice that her identity had been made public. If the CIA believed that her identity was worthy of being kept secret, it was not the purview of anyone at the White House -- by way of the DC cocktail party chattering class -- to decide otherwise.