Except there wasn't anything at all "subtle" about Clinton's wriggling -- especially considering the majority of the public a) knew he'd lied and b) didn't seem to give a toss.

Well, Jackie - that's the point.

Clinton clearly and brazenly lied while waggling his finger in our face. And his defenders acted like it was the fault of a "vast right-wing conspiracy" for even bringing the subject up.

Bush *may* have overstated the strength of his intelligence data while saying what everbody else in the world already believed (all of his policial opponents included). Now, he is being savaged by these same people for believing the same thing that they did. It is pure political theatre - a spectacle of hypocrisy so flamboyant that one's breath is taken away.

See the irony?

This Josh Marshall should be taken as seriously as one would take J. Garofelo or Tim Robbins. Everything I read from him (usually prompted by an Andrew Sullivan or some other blogger) suggest that he is a wet boy with a view of himself that is at an asinine level of vain probably inplanted by some excessive praise from some equally dim professor/mentor or God knows what.

I rather think the irony was intentional. Marshall may be a bit too wedded to DNC talking points (thus the name, but of course!) and he tends to be excessively impressed by the blovation of low-wattage functionaries with axes to grind, but he isn't an idiot. He's just inside-the-Beltway.

Marshall's been caught at this act before. He made a BIG thing of the fact the the administration has a "secret" plan for a long term struggle against the backward parts of the Middle East/South Asia.

It was a "secret" only if you didn't read or hear speeches from Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz (who called the military actions the Battle of Afghanistan and the Battle of Iraq in a speech) and others. All the administration leaders said exactly that, but Marshall was in high dudgeon about the plans that the administration was "keeping secret" from Americans.

I believe that the irony was intenional. Marshall hasn't forgotten the Clinton scandals; in fact, he explicitly references them just a few sentences later:

"Washington's newfound appreciation of the 'subtleties' of truth-telling and lies is, well ... what shall we call it?, a revealing contrast to the common-sense definitions bandied about through 1998."

The point that I took away is that Clinton's lies were roundly blasted by exactly the same people who are bending over backwards to find a way to avoid calling Bush a liar. You're right, it does deserve a serious post.

If you had actually read Marshall's entire post it would have been obvious to you that he was being intentionally ironic:

"Washington's newfound appreciation of the 'subtleties' of truth-telling and lies is, well ... what shall we call it?, a revealing contrast to the common-sense definitions bandied about through 1998."

Yep, it's so " subtle, textured [and] distinction-granting" that it has no substance.

So, stating the same duly pessimistic intelligence info that the Germans, French and Russians believed, is the same as grand jury perjury, and a direct lie in a national speech about personal conduct?

I suppose campaign trail puffery is now an impeachable offense, as well...

No. I can't say i see the irony in two different things. Lying about a personal matter is one thing. Yay. I mean who gives a flyin flip if he cheated on his wife in the oval office. But taking an entire country to war? Selling our credibility like it's scrap metal all for some oil. Only good thing to come of this was the side benefit of ouster a monster like Saddam from power. If this was really a justified war then why did W. Bush have to fake the justification for it. What's that? You're against the war? Shut up, don't be so unpatriotic.

Moot issue, boys and girls.

http://www.command-post.org/archives/007581.html

Josh "The King of Cluelessness" Marshall once again proves that to understand what's going on in geopolitics, it is sufficient to read him and believe the polar opposite.

The difference between Clinton's lying and Bush's lying is that Bush's lies led to fatalities while Clinton's led to laundry.

There's a difference.

When it comes to obfuscating, sneaking and snarking Ari whips Slick, hands down.

Ahh. The Devil lost one of his prime torture chambers (Iraq), and the vaccuumous left is left to unconsciously channeling the Devil's displeasure. Don't worry, fascist 'progressives', there's always more murdering and torturing and repressing to be done in other parts of this world.

CT, there will be no calling political opponents "fascists" on this blog. I love comments, but take those ones elsewhere.