I was watching "Special Report" on Fox a few minutes ago and Bill Kristol -- while talking with whatever Potato Head substitute is filling in for Brit Hume, Morton "Faux Lib" Kondracke and Mara Liason -- flipped out, asking, "Are we seriously going to sit here arguing about whether the President lied?" That's actually a paraphrase, but it's close.
I was confused. I couldn't understand what his objection would be, considering his history of gleefully tossing completely unsupported lies at Clinton to see if they'd stick. Then, an hour later, Bill O'Reilly made it all clear to me. He was talking about why he didn't want to discuss the new book which badmouths Mr. and Mrs. John Kennedy, Jr. It served no purpose, he explained, and was just cruel. Before I could say "What about 'Inside Edition?'" O'Reilly said, yes, this was a change of heart from his old celebrity gossip days and explained that change.
At the time I didn't think much about it, because I thought the rich and powerful were fair game. But now I'm rich and powerful.
I shit you not. He said it.
Suddenly Kristol's feeling was obvious: "I used to think it was fun to call Democratic presidents liars, but now one of ours is president." The Republican attitude in a nutshell.
Never mind the fact that, if this president lied, then people died for no reason.
By the way, last night O'Reilly, while screaming hysterically about this column in the International Herald Tribune said: "I I do this for a living. You know I do it for a living. I write a newspaper column and I do this every night on television. I don't make these kind of incendiary accusations against anybody unless I have A, B, C, D, and E to back it up." He also said: " I never do this. I never accuse anybody of lying unless I have hard data to back it up." Anyone?