Democrats are all revved up about Bill Clinton's "finger wagging" response to Chris Wallace, who had the temerity on Fox News to question Mr. Global Initiative's effort to catch bin Laden.
But isn't the last time Clinton wagged his finger the time he said he didn't have sexual relations with "that woman," after he had merely engaged in oral sex in the Oval Office and then hair-split the meaning of the word 'is' under oath?
So, does the wagging finger mean that Clinton thought Wallace's question was outrageous? Or does it mean that he's lying about how hard he tried to get OBL?
.
Comments (4)
Wow.
That was really exceptionally cheap.
Substantive post, Mr. Riley. Keep up the good work.
So, is this the caliber of thoughtful, thought-provoking journalism at Newsday these days? How proud you must be.
Is there a Newsday blog which isn't abusively partisan that you can direct me to? Because I'm not clear how this
is intended to do anything but give a cheap thrill to readers who share the reporter's political views. It's not substantive, it adds nothing, and it informs nothing. It's a gratuitous cheap shot from someone who has a personal ax to grind with a newsmaker.
That someone, is, ostensibly, a reporter, and he represents you.
I would expect this kind of material from the Post. I think better of Newsday.