See other Pious Perverts Articles
Title: Oh, Get Over It! Grandpa'll Be Fine After His Face Heals!
Source:
Townhall
URL Source: http://www.townhall.com/opinion/col ... buckley/2006/02/20/187201.html
Published: Feb 20, 2006
Author: William F. Buckley
Post Date: 2006-02-26 11:30:16 by h-a-l-f-w-i-t-t
Keywords: Grandpall, Heals!, After
Views: 236
Comments: 8
Yes, I was a Clinton-hater. Yes, I believed Juanita Broaddrick. But nobody who is honest with himself can any longer ignore the outrageous double standard imposed by Bush/Cheney apologists. And nobody can be as highhanded and foppish when applying that double standard as can the godfather of "conservatism", William F. Buckley. Killer Cheney Feb 20, 2006 by William F. Buckley This commentator rations himself to only one prediction every 15 years. Mine now is that there is going to be a devastating backlash in the months and years ahead in the matter of Cheney and the quail shoot. Some critics of the administration are arguing as if Iraq were a subsidiary concern. What has been brought forth in the plains of Texas is the venal character of the vice president of the United States. One columnist for The New York Times headlined his column, "Mr. Vice President, It's Time to Go." Resign, "for the sake of the country and" -- one inhales the purity of the writer's motives -- "for the sake of the Bush administration." Now that gentleman's concern for the well-being of the Bush administration is on the level of his concern for the quail that Mr. Cheney did or did not kill (this is the only detail of the event unexplored by the historians). Why did the critic want Cheney to resign? Because "Mr. Cheney is arrogant, defiant and sometimes blatantly vulgar." Oh? Yes -- the critic arrived with documentation in hand: "He once told Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record) to perform a crude act upon himself." You do not say! Well, that's the kind of thing one would expect from somebody who goes about crippling his friends while ostensibly aiming only at quail. It is to the credit of the newspaper of record that a few pages before the call for the resignation of Mr. Cheney, a careful reporter, Ralph Blumenthal, gave a detailed account of what had happened on Saturday at the Armstrong ranch. Who all was there? Well, Pamela Pitzer Willeford, ambassador to Switzerland and Liechtenstein, and her husband, a physician; the hostess, Katharine Armstrong, and her sister, and her husband. Also Nancy Negley, an art philanthropist; Ben Love, a West Texas rancher; and the victim, Harry Whittington, a 78-year-old lawyer, and his wife. Also several outriders, whose duty was to flush the birds. Also a dozen American pointers and Labrador retrievers. Close to 5:30 p.m., the two shooting groups had bagged about 40 quail each, and were working now on the last covey. About 100 yards away from the Jeep carrying the hostess and her sister (daughters of the fabled Anne Armstrong, whom Gerald Ford had once asked to run for vice president), "Mr. Cheney, Mr. Whittington and Ms. Willeford were walking in a line in a low spot on gently sloping ground. After Mr. Whittington bagged his birds he dropped out of sight, along with one of Ms. Armstrong's bird dogs." (Her name -- not originally disclosed to the press -- is "Gertie.") "Then, suddenly, he was in a dip about 30 yards away against the sun just as Mr. Cheney fired a blast from his Italian-made 28-gauge Perazzi shotgun." That is when Mr. Whittington "caught the spray of birdshot on the right side of his face, neck and chest." Mr. Cheney is recorded as having said, "Harry, I had no idea you were there!" The exclamation point is mine, and will offend only those who refuse to believe that Cheney was startled at finding that his friend stood in a line between him, Gertie and the setting sun. We all know what then happened. But the only thing that then happened that seemed to catch national attention was that the party drove not to the nearest newspaper, but to the hospital. An account was filed with a local newspaper, and the doleful news came from the hospital that one pellet had entered the heart of the victim. There is little doubt but that he will survive. Mr. Cheney has said that what blame there is, is Cheney's. That detail, by the way is also not fully explored -- conceivably the victim had failed to identify his position when moving forward from the firing line established by hunters moving in parallel. We can't celebrate a backlash until Mr. W. is back home and well. But here is one observer who predicts that Mr. W. will chuckle over the misadventure, unless, after years of friendship with Mr. Cheney, he only now discovers that he is arrogant, defiant, and that he uses vulgar language. I have taken the liberty of writing an answer to Mr. Buckley's defense of Deadeye Dick: Craven Clinton This commentator rations himself to only making predictions after the events predicted have already taken place. Mine now is that there is going to be a devastating backlash in the months and years ahead in the matter of Clinton and the blowjob. Some critics of the administration are arguing as if Hillary’s presidential chances were a subsidiary concern. What has been brought forth on the rug in the back hall behind the Oval Office is the venal character of the former President of the United States. Verily intoxicating myself with the purity of the critics’ motives, I read headline after headline exhorting the President to “resign for the good of the Democratic party”, and an equal number of pious headlines urging the House Republican Guard to “impeach him for the good of the country.” Now those gentlemen’s concern for the well-being of the Democratic party (and, dare I say it, for the good of the country as well) is on the level of the concern for the spermatozoa that Mr. Clinton did or did not ejaculate (this is the only detail of the event unexplored by the historians). Why did the critics want Mr. Clinton to resign or be impeached? Because Mr. Clinton is arrogant, defiant, sometimes blatantly vulgar, and because he “has no character”. Oh? Yes? The critic arrives, albeit without documentation in hand. “He once performed upon Juanita Broaddrick (news, bio) a crude and unlawful act.” You do not say! Well, that’s the kind of thing one would expect from somebody who goes about gaining sexual release from his friend while ostensibly aiming only at his wife. It is to the credit of “The Starr Report” that it gave a detailed account of what happened in the back hall off the Oval Office, including properly aligned footnotes explaining the question of the “spinach dip”. Who all was there? The President, and former intern Monica Lewinsky, with occasional reputed alternating players such as Eleanor Mondale and Kathleen Willey. No outriders were used, although in hindsight their use might now seem prudent, given the frightening (and hence sexually stimulating) possibility of discovery. Accounts of what actually happened are sketchy, but it is generally agreed upon that “suddenly, Ms. Lewinsky was in a dip worthy of a 1950’s limbo dancer, just as Mr. Clinton fired a blast from his Arkansas-made 1940’s era shotgun. That is when Ms. Lewinsky caught the spray... “ but you get the general drift. Mr. Clinton’s comment, if any, is not known. The failure to conjecture is mine, and will offend only those who refuse to believe that Mr. Clinton was not fully in possession of his reasoning faculties during the entire episode. We all know what then happened. But the only thing that then happened that seemed to catch national attention was that the pair did not immediately phone the nearest newspaper, but instead kept their own counsel about the aforesaid events. An account was later posted on an obscure (but now internationally celebrated) website, and the doleful news later came from Geraldo Rivera of Fox News that some of the “pellets” had lodged on one of the participants’ clothing, staining it. There is little doubt but that Ms. Lewinsky will survive. Mr. Clinton has said that what blame there is, is Mr. Clinton’s. That detail, by the way is also not fully explored – conceivably the victim had failed to check her desires and, heedless of warnings from at least one bosom friend, continued to move forward into the Presidential erogenous zones. Now that Ms. Lewinsky is presumably living the good life in New York, we have for the past several years celebrated the backlash, as we have watched the relentless refusal of many members of the public to ever give Mr. Clinton’s party the time of day, much less a vote, again. But here is one observer who predicts that Ms. L. will chuckle over the misadventure, unless, after the heady months of her intimate friendship with Mr. Clinton, she only now discovers that he is arrogant, defiant, somewhat vulgar, and has no character.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 6.
#6. To: h-a-l-f-w-i-t-t (#0)
Hi All, Buckley is a closet Commie and protégé of Irving Kristol (Filthy
Trotskyist). Yours in Observing a Certified Filthy Animal in Sheep's
Clothing, P.H. Irving Kristol (born 1920) is considered
the founder of American neoconservatism. He is married to conservative author
and emeritus professor Gertrude Himmelfarb, and is the father of William
Kristol. He describes himself as a "liberal mugged by reality." Irving
Kristol was born into a Jewish family in New York City, earned his B.A. in
History from the City College of New York in 1940, where he was an active
Trotskyist. He wrote in 1983 that he was “proud” to have been a member of
the Fourth International in 1940. [1]
#7. To: PatrickHenry (#6)
Why can't the majority of American's see that
what they're seeing in action IS communism?? And btw to post images here use
the < img src=>HTML tags .. And welcome to 4 glad you've jointed us..
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
-Filthy Trotskyist.. Irving Kristol
Replies to Comment # 6. Buckley is a closet Commie and protégé of Irving Kristol (Filthy
Trotskyist).
End Trace Mode for Comment # 6.