BloggeRhythms

It’s nice to know that key media figures not only apparently read these daily entry’s, but oftentimes follow the advice suggested as well.

 

Yesterday I opined that I considered Charles Krauthammer “as one having a very clear and exceptionally rational understanding of the workings of DC, especially regarding the faults and foibles of the incumbent and his whole administration.”

 

Then I continued, “Nonetheless, I disagree with a conclusion he stated yesterday about a Republican led hearing regarding Benghazi, as follows: “These hearings are a big political risk for Republicans. Going into the 2014 election, they stand to benefit from the major issues — Obamacare, the economy, chronic unemployment — from which Benghazi hearings can only distract. Worse, if botched like previous hearings on the matter, these hearings could backfire against the GOP, as did the 1998 Clinton impeachment proceedings.”

 

And then today, I read that “Charles Krauthammer told viewers Friday on “Special Report with Bret Baier” that he was satisfied with the seven Republicans picked by House Speaker John Boehner to serve on the House Select Committee on Benghazi. 

 

"I don't think you have to have a committee of seven experts," Krauthammer, a Fox News contributor and syndicated columnist, said. "I think it is good to choose people who will not seek the limelight. The most important thing here is that the legitimacy of the committee will not come from the composition but will come from its results.”

 

And that’s what I believe this procedure is all about. Because all that’s needed is a vehicle with which information can now be gathered unhampered from the appropriate sources, however long that may take. And then an orderly review of what transpired will speak for itself. 

 

Therefore, this process isn’t even really political, and as in Watergate, wherever it rests the truth will come out. Which, I guess, Mr. Krauthammer finally figured out.  

 

And then we come to the most recent event regarding Bill Clinton’s wife.

 

Although today’s news item centers on both Clinton’s, it’s not really about them, but has more to do with Dem voters in general.

 

According to Michael Sneed of the Chicago Sun-Times.com via Drudge, “he hears rumbles former President Bill Clinton, who lied about his affair with White House intern Monica “That Woman” Lewinsky, may opt to publicly apologize for the abuse Lewinsky claims she’s endured since the sex scandal broke more than 15 years ago.” 

 

Mr. Sneed then continues, “The rationale? To fend off critics of his wife Hillary who blame her for protecting a powerful husband who is a sexual predator. Hillary Clinton is eyeing a 2016 presidential bid.”

 

Which means, if you consider the political tactic in play here, Bill Clinton, the former president whom was impeached by the House of Representatives on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice in 1998 possibly thinks that he can sell an apology to enough constituents that his wife won’t be hampered by his abhorrent behavior.

 

Therefore, what this demonstrates is that both Clinton’s seem to have such a low estimation of typical Dem’s that they’ll risk insulting their intelligence with a concocted political ploy because elective power means more to them than their combined ethics ever did.

 

And the most pitiable factor is, average Dem voters are so gullible, malleable and misinformed, the odds are quite high that this pair of hustling Arkansas frauds will get away with it just as they’ve done all along.

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios