YOO-HOO Washington Post / Bin Laden "in our crosshairs" 3X, but couldn't get kill order from clinton

Q ERTY4 BUMP!
Regarding the terrorist $$$ sluicing into their campaign coffers, the brazen clintons don't even bother to launder.

How Hillary Clinton Has Misled New Yorkers: Timeline

NEW YORK, NY - The Lazio Campaign today revealed a timeline showing how Hillary Clinton has misled New Yorkers about her association with individuals who have expressed support for the terrorist organizations Hezbollah and Hamas.

May 24, 2000 Hillary Clinton receives $1,000 contribution from pro-Hamas, pro-Hezbollah, Abdurahman Alamoudi

June 13, 2000 Mrs. Clinton attends fundraiser in Boston, organized by the American Muslim Alliance, and accepts $50,000 in contributions and a plaque from the group

August 8, 2000 Hillary Clinton sends a thank you note to the American Muslim Alliance for the plaque

October 25, 2000 New York Daily News reports that Mrs. Clinton attended fundraiser sponsored by the American Muslim Alliance, that she received $50,000 in contributions at the fundraiser, that Abdurahman Alamoudi gave Mrs. Clinton $1,000. Clinton Spokesman Howard Wolfson says Mrs. Clinton will return the $1,000 contribution from Alamoudi. Story also notes that Alamoudi was invited to the White House by Hillary Clinton.

October 26, 2000 NY Newspapers report that Hillary Clinton says she will return the $50,000 in donations. Daily News says, "Clinton said she routinely accepts such plaques - then stores them away. ëIíve been given literally thousands of plaques,í she said."

October 28, 2000 Lazio Campaign releases page 10 of Mrs. Clintonís FEC June 30 report that shows Mrs. Clinton filed Alamoudiís employer as the "American Museum Council," not the "American Muslim Council." Appearing at an event with Rick Lazio, Governor Pataki says, "Mrs. Clinton should say why she filed this under the American Museum Council, not the American Muslim Council."

October 28, 2000 Alamoudi speaks at a rally in front of the White House and says "I wish they added I am a supporter of Hezbollah. Anybody supports Hezbollah here?"

October 29, 2000 NY Newspapers report that Clinton campaign uses the excuse that the "American Museum Council" was a "typo." Lazio Campaign notes that when Mayor Giuliani had a similar misfiling on his FEC report, Howard Wolfson said, "The Mayor, I believe, signs these forms and is responsible for whatís in them."

October 31, 2000 (a.m.) Daily News reports that Alamoudi has been employed by Clinton State Department as "a goodwill ambassador abroad, giving lectures on religious tolerance in the U.S."

October 31, 2000 (p.m.) Fox News Channel breaks story of October 28 rally and notes that Nehod Atwad, another person Mrs. Clinton has invited to the White House spoke at the rally. Fox shows videotape of Mr. Atwad stating, "I am a supporter of the Hamas movement now more than ever."

November 2, 2000 Despite heavy lobbying from the President and Mrs. Clinton, Democratic Assemblyman Dov Hikind refuses to endorse his Democratic party member. NY Times reports that Mrs. Clinton refuses to discuss non-endorsement.

November 3, 2000 Letter from Mrs. Clinton to the American Muslim Alliance on White House Stationery thanking group for the plaque surfaces. Only after being questioned by reporters, the Clinton campaign releases the letter.

November 4, 2000 All NYC dailies report on the letter. Clinton camp tells Daily News that after the story of the fundraiser first surfaced, they "checked the White House archives but failed at that time to find any letter."

"After receiving queries from news organizations that received the faxed letter, Wolfson said campaign aides returned and discovered the previously missed document," the Daily News reports.

Nov 4, 2000

Lazio Campaign News Release, Lazio.com

0/31/00 3:45 p.m.
National Review

No Easy Ride for Hillary!
Her reluctance to speak candidly is her biggest obstacle.

By Deroy Murdock, a columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service

As New Yorkers prepare to elect a new U.S. senator on November
7, Hillary Rodham Clinton remains hounded by twin suspicions about her
honesty and commitment to Israel. Her plunging support among Jewish
voters in a recent survey suggests that these nagging questions may be
causing grave damage to her Senate candidacy.

Mrs. Clinton fueled these lingering doubts in November 1999 when she
kissed Yasser Arafat's wife, Suha, immediately after Mrs. Arafat
delivered a speech accusing Israel of murdering Arab children &emdash; with
poison gas, no less. Mrs. Clinton said she did not understand the
simultaneous translation of Mrs. Arafat's Arabic remarks. In any case,
why the smooch? Given the PLO's legacy of violence, wouldn't a
handshake have sufficed?

Mrs. Clinton sparked further questions when she claimed that she asked
President Clinton to veto an anti-Israel resolution in the United
Nations Security Council on October 7. The U.S. abstained instead.
But did she really urge that veto, or simply concoct that story
afterward to limit the damage to her candidacy after the abstention drew
fire? Mrs. Clinton has been very uncomfortable discussing this
matter. When I asked her about this at an October 17 Council on Foreign
Relations meeting, she huffed: "That question does not even deserve a
response. I have said everything about that I have to say."

Now Hillary Clinton has puzzled Jewish voters and friends of Israel with
yet another stumble. The New York Daily News reported on October
25 that her Senate campaign has returned $50,000 collected at a Boston
fundraiser attended by Muslims and Americans of Arab descent. The First
Lady posed for photos holding a plaque given to her by the event's
organizers. It expressed the appreciation of the American Muslim
Alliance for her human-rights activism. Mrs. Clinton now says she
didn't know the award was from the Alliance, even though the group's
name was emblazoned on the trophy in large letters. "I get handed
thousands of plaques," Mrs. Clinton now says. Alas for the First Lady,
the American Muslim Alliance's national president, Agha Saeed, favors
the Palestinian struggle for independence from Israel and believes the
Palestinians "have the right to resist by armed force."

Mrs. Clinton has hosted events at the Executive Mansion "to which
individuals opposed to the Mideast peace process and Israel's existence
were invited," the Daily News reported. Her Senate campaign returned a
$1,000 contribution from one of those visitors, Abduraham Alamoudi of
the American Muslim Council. According to the Daily News, Alamoudi once
declared: "We are the ones who went to the White House and defended what
is called Hamas," the Palestinian terrorist group whose 1994-1996
suicide-bombing campaign killed 130 people and wounded some 600 others.
Shortly after one of its bombs exploded in Jerusalem in August 1997,
Alamoudi told Fox News about Hamas: "I think it's a freedom-fighting
organization."

Mrs. Clinton's June 30, 2000 Federal Election Commission filing cited
Alamoudi's May 25 donation of $1,000 to her war chest. Oddly enough,
his occupation is not listed as "American Muslim Council" but "American
Museum Council." The Clinton campaign calls this a typo. (To see
Alamoudi's contribution record, search under his surname here.)

A reasonable voter might give another candidate the benefit of the doubt
here. But this is the same Hillary Rodham Clinton who is associated
with the "bureaucratic snafu" that led to Filegate.

This is the same First Lady whose Rose Law Firm billing records vanished
for two years, then magically reappeared in the White House residence
just days after the Resolution Trust Corporation concluded a
Whitewater-related probe in which the records would have been relevant.
"I do not know how the billing records came to be found where they were
found," the First Lady shrugged back in January 1996.

This is the same woman who special prosecutor Robert Ray believes gave
deceptive sworn testimony in the Travelgate affair. As Ray's October 18
report concludes: Mrs. Clinton "played a role in the decision to fire
the [White House Travel Office] employees and…thus, her statement to the
contrary under oath to this office is factually false."

As Bill Clinton's presidency wanes, a Hillary Clinton Senate term could
be waxing around the corner. For now, her Republican opponent stands in
the way. In a Zogby poll published October 31 in the New York Post,
Rep. Rick Lazio led the Dutchess of Chappaqua 47.8 percent to 42.9
(margin of error: plus or minus 3.8 percent).

Mrs. Clinton's collapsing popularity among Jewish voters also spells
trouble. On October 29, Zogby found her leading among Jews by 68.8
percent to 27.3 for Lazio. (Margin of error: plus or minus 4 percent).
Two days later, in the aforementioned October 31 poll, only 46 percent
of Jews favored Mrs. Clinton while Lazio's support climbed to 45
percent.

But the biggest obstacle between Hillary Clinton and her Capitol Hill
dreams may be her reluctance to speak candidly about the scandals that
nip at her heels like Park Avenue poodles. New Yorkers soon may decide
that they deserve better in the Senate than a politician's wife who
parachuted into the Empire State with ambitions nearly as awesome as her
allergy to the truth.

The woman who undid the peace

San Francisco Examiner
10-27-2000
James Lafferty

James Lafferty is an independent journalist in Washington. E-mail: jameslafferty@usa.net.

By James Lafferty
A leading U.S. newspaper recently carried a commentary titled "The Men Who Undid The Mideast Peace," which placed the blame squarely on Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak's predecessor.
A more accurate version might well have read "The Woman Who Undid The Mideast Peace." It would have placed the blame squarely on the person who persuaded her close friend Sandy Berger and her husband, Bill Clinton, to push Barak into concessions that have triggered the Palestinians' new jihad against Israel.
Make no mistake. Hillary Rodham Clinton has been a staunch supporter of the Palestine Liberation Front since her "romantic radical" undergraduate days at Wellesley. Those radicals -- most of them the indulged sons and daughters of America's upper class -- viewed Arafat, a committed terrorist who has transformed the Palestinian territory into a thugocracy, as a "freedom fighter."
Some of those radicals, of course, grew up as they entered adulthood. Clinton, unfortunately, did not. She was the first major voice in the Clinton administration to call for a Palestinian state and, according to White House sources, she was the leading behind-the-scenes force for openly backing Barak over Netanyahu -- an unprecedented interference in the internal politics of a friendly democracy.
It was Clinton who gazed admiring as Suha Arafat committed a blood libel against the people of the Israel by accusing the Israeli government of employing toxic gas against Palestinian women and children. Far from denouncing such outrageous rhetoric, Clinton embraced Arafat's wife and kissed her cheek.
White House sources also say the first lady was the first to suggest that the president dispatch political strategists James Carville and Stan Greenburg to Israel to aid Barak's election bid.
They also acknowledge that it was she who suggested the administration pressure Barak to cede 90 percent of Israel's hard-won "buffer zones" on the West Bank and to agree to making Jerusalem a divided city.
Worse, far worse, the administration acted on her advice in persuading Barak to assent to an open-door "right-of-return" policy for the sons and daughters of Palestinians living in Israel prior to 1948. That terribly naive concession has the potential to double Israel's population within a decade -- giving the Palestinians the demographic upper hand in any election.
Would they then vote for measures to guarantee Jews equitable status or would they vote to confiscate their lands and expel them?
To ask the question is to answer it. An unlimited "right-to-return" concession would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish religious state, and Clinton surely knows that.
Is it any wonder that she was booed vigorously at a recent rally of Jewish Democrats and is studiously avoiding any uncontrolled public gatherings where her presence would evoke a similar response?
That includes, of course, the World Series, where Clinton, a longstanding Yankees' fan, cannot afford to show up at either Shea Stadium or the "House that Ruth Built."
No wonder polls currently show her holding only a slim lead among the Empire State's crucial bloc of Jewish voters -- a group of yellow-dog Democrats that normally should be in her camp by a landslide margin.
In fact, if her longtime pal Bob Shrum hadn't persuaded Al Gore to leapfrog Joe Lieberman over several front-running vice-presidential candidates, she could well be tied or trailing.
Rick Lazio, the youthful congressman from Long Island, still trails Clinton in statewide polls, but he is starting to pick up steam as he campaigns in traditionally Republican upstate New York.
It would not beggar anyone's imagination to see Lazio squeak by on Election Day. If that happens, part of his boost over the top will come from upstate Republicans returning to the fold. But equally significant aid may well be coming from Jewish New Yorkers increasingly aware of the identity of the woman who undid the peace process by pushing for such an untenable peace in the first place.

Posted on 10/29/2000 09:34:47 PST by BobS

He said Clinton's forceful criticism of Arafat during the last few weeks has not made him regret his group's decision to support her.
"The idea is to win the election," he said. "[So] she must change her tune. But that doesn't mean anything. It's just at the spur of the moment that she must say these things, and we understand that."

Hillary handed 50 grand by Israel's sworn enemies

"Boston, June 13, 2000 - The American Muslim Alliance Massachusetts chapter held a successful fund-raiser for First Lady Hillary Clinton at the Park Plaza Hotel in Boston on June 13, 2000. . .
And Hillary clearly understood that her hosts were concerned the U.S. war on terrorism might be too harsh.
In her speech, "Mrs. Clinton vowed to pursue fairness and justice in the issue of secret evidence and the Anti-Terrorism Act," the AMA Web report notes.
Then there's the $1,000 contribution the first lady accepted (then returned this week) from Abdurahman Alamoudi, the American Muslim Council official who attended the Boston event. "We are the ones who went to the White House and defended what is called Hamas," the New York Daily News says Alamoudi once boasted.
Beyond trying to cover up her fund raising with Arafat sympathizers, Mrs. Clinton may have even attempted to hide Alamoudi's American Muslim Council ties. Her campaign's FEC filing actually lists Alamoudi's employer as "The American Museum Council."

ALERT NY JEWS! HILLARY CLINTON COVERS UP $$$ & SUPPORT from PRO-ARAB TERRORIST GROUPS

Hillary Caught in Pro-Arafat Fund-Raising Cover-Up

MUSLIM DONORS CITE E-MAIL: Say Hil Camp Knew 50G Fund-Raiser Was Theirs

News/Current Events News Keywords: HILLARY CLINTON, MUSLIM DONATIONS
Source: New York Daily News
Published: October 28, 2000 Author: Larry Cohler-Esses
Posted on 10/28/2000 03:40:12 PDT by Penny

A Muslim group whose leader approves of armed Palestinian resistance to Israel disputed Hillary Rodham Clinton's assertion that she didn't know the group sponsored a Boston fund-raiser for her.
The group provided an e-mail yesterday to show there had been contact between the organization and the Clinton campaign the day before the event.
Tahir Ali, chairman of the Massachusetts chapter of the American Muslim Alliance, spoke with Clinton campaign finance director David Rosen on the eve of the June 13 Boston fund-raiser, according to the text of an e-mail Ali sent to his members that same day.
"I just talked to David Rosen, financial director," the e-mail says. "He indicated that Mrs. Clinton will be at the Park Plaza Hotel before 3:30 p.m. tomorrow. [So] try to be there before that."
Ali provided the e-mail to the Daily News after the Clinton campaign insisted that the American Muslim Alliance did not sponsor the fund-raiser, which the organization says generated $50,000 for her Senate campaign. The campaign is returning the money.
Ali has conceded that his group was not the original sponsor of the event, but said it assumed sponsorship about a week before it took place.
A spokesman for Clinton, who accepted a plaque from the group in Boston, insisted yesterday that the campaign was not aware that the American Muslim Alliance sponsored the event.
When asked about Ali's e-mail citing his conversation with Rosen, Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson said, "He [Rosen] does not remember speaking with Mr. Ali, but in any case that is irrelevant. When we found out that this organization claimed credit for hosting the event, we decided to return the money raised at it."
Clinton's contact with the anti-Israel group has jolted her campaign, which has been courting Jewish voters and in recent weeks has condemned Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat for failing to halt a wave of Mideast violence.
Ali's e-mail provided new details about the relationship the alliance was seeking to forge with the First Lady.
"We plan to ask her to include a few 'qualified' Muslims in her campaign," the e-mail informed its members. It notes also that the national chairman of the alliance, Agha Saeed, wanted to invite Clinton to be keynote speaker at the group's upcoming national convention.
Saeed has said in interviews that while he supports Palestinian efforts to gain a state through peace talks, if this fails he backs their right to use armed force in accordance with a UN resolution that he says endorses this.
The state Republican Party is trying to capitalize on the issue by hiring a phone-bank company to call voters with Jewish names.
Reading from scripts, the solicitors identify themselves as working for the GOP and accuse Clinton of taking $50,000 from a group supportive of anti-Israel terrorists.
With Joel Siegel

All information copyrighted.

The clintons' fundamental error: They are too arrogant and dim-witted to understand that the demagogic process in this fiberoptic age isn't about counting spun heads; it's about not discounting circumambient brains.
Mia T
Mindless rhinestone-studded-and-tented kleptocracy


"Hillary's people are very bright," said a well-connected Democrat yesterday. "But they think everybody else is stupid."
Stupid is as stupid does, says Off the Record. . .
OFF THE RECORD: AN OLD DOG NEEDS NEW TRICKS


Don't lose

Your head

To gain a minute

You need your head

Your brains are in it.

--an old roadside ad, Pushme-Pullyou

Great documentation of the greed of the Clintoons and the Hildebeast in particular!

One can only imagine the amount of money hidden in numbered accounts around the world given to the Clintoons as insurance from being offed, investigated and arrested!

Wow, interesting stuff (as usual), Mia! Thanks for the article and the ping.

Four, too many people in the last 35 years have devised a delusional system whereby they look upon reality and pleas to take basic responsibility as an oppressive right-wing conspiracy. They have been supported in this belief by the media instead of having it challenged.

The Clintons have surfed this psychotic cultural and generational wave into the White House.

The attempt has been made to understand Bill and Hillary Clinton, particularly Bill, in terms of classical neurosis from abusive childhoods. But much of what is seen in the Clinton generation has made that model obsolete, although many from that generation, including psychiatrists and psychologists, desperately hold on to it to relieve themselves of any personal responsibility.

The truth is, Bill and Hillary Clinton have not suffered a bit of inconvenience for nearly 40 years¾including, for Bill, the inconvenience of military service. By his freshman year in high school Bill found he could manipulate people with showy glibness and deception, and nobody would call him on it. A good memory for acting lines would carry him through easy courses in the most prestigious schools in the country without effort or necessity to learn seriously. From there, he went almost immediately to being the boy governor of a state, and on to the presidency. It was all done with a little empty talk on a level that could be found on any high school debate team.

Hillary has led a similar life of ease and is now being pushed to take a senate seat and run for the presidency in 2004 on a platform of angrily confronting a vast right-wing conspiracy¾ which essentially consists of making accusatory and sarcastic remarks at you and me through a TV screen to the delight of angry women, spoiled angry leftists, and angry minorities. It isn't a bad life for an untalented spoiled brat who, without the world of TV and alienated politics, would be lucky to hold a job as a waitress in a truck stop.

The problem with the both Clintons is that they were long ago licensed to think and act at primitive, immature, and irrational levels of functioning. Much of this was a self-conferred licensing by a generation which has continued, and which has been the root of most of the political, economic, and social problems in this country.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert L. Kocher is the author of "The American Mind in Denial." He is an engineer working in the area of solid-state physics, and has done graduate study in clinical psychology. His email address is steiner@access.mountain.net.

from The Laissez Faire City Times, Vol 3, No 7, Feb. 15, 1999

Bill Clinton, at his most basic level, is a weak, soft man, afraid to put his precious self at risk, more given to talk than to action. He was weak and soft at a time when he needed to be strong and resolute...

My brother-in-law recently told me he had once shaken Bill Clinton's hand. This was years ago - he was at the White House in the early 90s for some work-related event. (Don't worry... my brother-in-law can't stand Clinton!) Anyway, he mentioned how Clinton had such a surprisingly WEAK and SOFT handshake for a man in such a powerful position. Hmmm...

ping

BTTT and bookmarked. Is there a link to the Africa Anger thread (If there was one)? I must have missed it.

ping

So far this is "splendid", Mia T -- haven't got the time needed to read it in full -- but am again, so far, so-o-oo IMPRESSED -- and looking to have the time later today!

YOO-HOO Washington Post / Bin Laden "in our crosshairs" 3X, but couldn't get kill order from clinton

Give it up. The Washington Post has no intention of reporting ANY news damaging to DemonCraps.

You, as usual, are sooooo right.

Fortunately, as of a couple of days ago the fires have finally stopped smouldering on the Clinton Legacy. Americans will never forget that that is what "ground zero" really represents.

Thanks, Mia. Don't ever let us forget about those corrupt, stinking excuses for human beings, the clintons. I would give anything to watch the expression on their faces if they had to sit down and read every word of your posts... but then, they would deny, deny, deny everything.


QWER•TY (kwûr'té) adj.
Of, relating to, or designating the traditional configuration of typewriter or computer keyboard keys. [From the first six letters at the upper left.]

Q ERTY Series: The Inspiration

No Joke

Those who trashed the White House were vicious vandals, not merry pranksters.

BY TUNKU VARADARAJAN
Monday, January 29, 2001 12:01 a.m. EST

The Wall Street Journal

What is a "prank"? And when does a prank take on a darker hue and
merit, instead, a less indulgent label--such as "delinquency," or
"vandalism"?

These questions, whose answers are rooted in common sense, culture and
civilization, were raised last week by revelations first detailed on the
Internet by Matt Drudge, for whose insolent, frontiersman's approach to
newsgathering we continue to be grateful. He's not always right, and
he's not always elegant, but he bawls his tales from the rafters when
others, more timorous and more conventional, would only mince their
words, or whisper.

Although the mainstream press echoed the story only reluctantly, and
sought to draw its sting by downgrading it to the status of rumor, the
contents of the Drudge report seemed to be unquestionably consonant with
the tone, the oh-so-jarring tone, struck, in their departure from the
White House, by the Clinton cohorts--from the strutting
self-congratulation of the ex-president at Andrews Air Force Base (like
a weed, he'd taken root, and like a weed he called to be ripped from the
soil beneath him), to the stripping bare of the former Air Force One by
the ex-presidential locusts.

According to reports, outgoing Clinton-Gore staffers at the White House
performed a range of "pranks," including the prizing out from many White
House computer keyboards of the W (Dubya) key, the gluing shut of
drawers on office desks, the infecting of computers with viruses, the
recording of offensive reception messages on the answering machines, the
slashing (yes, slashing) of telephone lines, the loading of pornographic
images on printers and computers, offensive graffiti on corridors and
bathroom walls, the turning upside down of desks, and, as a valedictory
signature, the leaving of a trail of trash across the West Wing.

Mr. Drudge, the only one to quantify the damage publicly, has put the
monetary estimate--in terms of its cost to the taxpayer--at $200,000.
There is some speculation that this is a conservative estimate. Peggy
Noonan writes: "You just know when you read about it that it's worse
than anyone is saying--the Bush people being discreet because they don't
want to start out with complaints and finger pointing, the Clinton-Gore
people because it is in their obvious interests to play it down."

These actions have been characterized as "pranks" in the press, although
the Washington Post did, in a giveaway line, suggest that there was more
to the story than high jinks. Quoting Clinton(ian) sources, the paper
said:
"The Democratic officials said the actions were meant to be funny, or in
some cases were an outlet for frustration by soon-to-be-unemployed
staffers."

Were these actions "pranks"? Let's parse the situation, and start by
returning to my original question: What is a prank? I think most people
would agree that a prank is an impish action, intended by the prankster
to make the "prankee" feel momentarily sheepish, but not shell-shocked
or outraged. Classic pranks are intended to provoke a prankish payback,
not heated antagonism, or contempt. In other words, the prankster's
motivation lies in a sense of irreverent one-upmanship--in mischief, not
malice. The mental state, or mens rea, of the perpetrator is as central
to the definition of prank as it is to murder or assault.

To give you an example: In my days at Oxford, I was witness to a healthy
rivalry between my college, Trinity, and our insufferable neighbors,
Balliol.
Pranks were the currency in which this rivalry was traded. On one
occasion, some chaps from Balliol uprooted the rugby posts from the
Trinity grounds (some four miles away), brought them in a hired lorry to
college, and set them up on the lawns in front of the Trinity chapel.
They chuckled, and, yes, we chuckled too. In reprisal, a handful of
hearties from Trinity stole into Balliol in the pitch of night and
unleashed a sheep in the college library there, the stench of whose
droppings caused the Balliol librarian nearly to faint the next
morning. Again, we chuckled, and they chuckled back. These were
pranks, part of a sequential, good-natured rivalry. There was no malice
aforethought, only a juvenile sense of caper.

The other distinction between a prank and an act that exceeds a prank's
bounds is the causing of harm, or damage. In boarding school in India,
as a boy, I once threw a rock at a hive of wild bees that had grown,
high up, on the clock tower of the school's main building. My aim was
unerring, and the hive broke, discharging scores of furious bees in the
direction of my admiring friends. While I was able to scamper to
safety, two boys were stung so badly that they were hospitalized. My
act was not a prank, since it had caused damage. I was publicly caned,
and rightly, by the principal.

In the context of the White House, any harm or damage must be construed
to include the infliction of a burden on the taxpayer--not to mention
the interference, however temporary, with the business of government.
So the hanging up, here and there, of signs that said "Dept.
of Strategery"--a play on the president's bumbling way with words--was a
prank worthy of my confreres at Trinity or Balliol, or even of the frat
house at which our "frat boy" president earned his spurs.

But the slashing of phone lines? The gluing shut of desk drawers? The
gouging out from keyboards of the W key? The infection of computers
with viruses? The redirection of official phone lines, on which the
public and government rely? These, I fear, violate the prankster's
rulebook. They caused damage; lines, desks, computers and keyboards
needed repair and replacement. My money, and yours, was used for this
repair.

Most shabby of all, however, was the perpetrators' intent. A true
prank--a prank properly defined--is carried out in a jocular spirit.
Pranks are escapades, monkeyshines. They're not acts of venom or spite,
of resentment or ill-will. If the actor is malefic, he is not a
prankster but a vandal. He is, in truth, a delinquent.

That's what I learned in grade school, and I commend that interpretation
to you.

Mr. Varadarajan is deputy editorial features editor of The Wall Street Journal. His column appears Mondays.

I would argue with Mr. Varadarajan's contention that mens rea must be considered and that the absence of malicious intent reduces the act to mere prank. Such an argument runs contrary to the concept of strict liability crimes. That doctrine (Park v United States, (1974) 421 US 658,668) established the principle of 'strict liability' or 'liability without fault' in certain criminal cases, usually involving crimes which endanger the public welfare.

"I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools.
Let's start with typewriters."

- Frank Lloyd Wright

clinton hunt-and-peck

Q ERTY1
Q ERTY2
Q ERTY3
Q ERTY4

Q ERTY5
Q ERTY6

Someone recently tested the monkeys-on-typewriters bit trying for the plays of Will Shakespeare, but all they got were the plays of bill clinton.

Another brilliant piece. Mia, you are in a class of your own.

Thank you for not allowing Bubba and Bubbette and their sycophants to draw our attention away from their evil deeds.

Absolutely Superb Post - Absolutely Superb Links! Thanks so much Mia T. BTTT

bump

Yes that was a great post.

It's often quite tough to read through this stuff. I don't do well containing my anger at Clinton's olympic malfeasance. Perhaps a little computer insurance might be in order before I throw something through my screen.

Great job, as always, Mia. Still waiting for the book I hope you'll write someday.