« Marching For A Caliphate | Main | Tigers Secure Playoff Berth »

More on Clinton v. Fox News

There's a lot more information coming out on the Chris Wallace/Bill Clinton interview:

Bill Kristol writing at The Weekly Standard offers three possible explanations why Bill Clinton lost his temper. Kristol ends his piece with "Bill Clinton is a smart (and calculating) politician."

Rick Moran at the Right Wing Nut House analyzes Clinton v. Fox News fallout.

As blogswarms go, the Clinton interview on Fox News Sunday rates about a 7 on the 10 point Rathergate Meter, easily the biggest blog brouhaha of the year. There may have been larger stories. But for sheer emotionalism, it's hard to beat Clinton and his dredging up the old conspiracy theories about the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy out to get him. It cheers the left and riles the right like no other issue in American politics. In many ways, the unhinged opposition to the Bush Presidency is a direct result of the twin earthquakes of Clinton's impeachment followed almost immediately by the 2000 election debacle, both events seen by the left in the context of evil conservatives attempting power plays at the expense of the Democrats.

Newsbusters reminds us of when Bill Clinton went after the late Peter Jennings in a similar fashion in a November 2004 interview.

Bill Clinton's diatribe against FNC's Chris Wallace, who dared to question the ex-President about his failed efforts to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, reminded some of the last time Clinton exhibited such vitriol. Back on November 18, 2004, in the midst of a quite positive ABC News prime-time special, "Bill Clinton: A Place in History," about the dedication of the Clinton presidential library, Bill Clinton angrily wagged his finger at Peter Jennings, accusing ABC of conspiring with Ken Starr to "repeat every little sleazy thing he leaked" during the investigation into Clinton's perjury and obstruction of justice.

Shrinkwrapped says Bill Clinton missed a great opportunity to be an elderstatesman.

Bill Clinton could have gone on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace and taken a Statesmanlike, above the fray, position. Clinton, for reasons best known to him, though in no way a surprise, chose a different tack, and clearly missed an excellent opportunity.


Imagine the reaction if he had said that he had, in fact, not done enough to stop bin Laden; that all of us in government at the time underestimated the dangers and did not feel the country was yet able to muster the necessary will to confront the growing menace. He would now be lauded as a great ex-President, using his tremendous political skills, intellectual abilities, and position to elevate our political discourse and rescue the Democratic party from the grips of BDS.

The Anchoress has a great post in which she analyzes Bill Clinton the man.

Check out Noel Sheppard's piece at The American Thinker. He very effectively destroys Clinton's "hysterical revisions."

Republicans claimed that Clinton was obsessed with bin Laden? He did too much to try to capture the infamous terrorist leader?


Do the facts support such assertions, or is this the typical Clinton modus operandi: when questioned about your own mistakes, bring up Republicans, neocons, and conservatives - the liberal equivalent of lions and tigers and bears...oh my - and how it's all some kind of a conspiracy the complexities of which only Oliver Stone fully grasps.

Historically this line of attack has worked quite well with an adoring interviewer that buys such drivel hook, line, and sinker. However, what Mr. Clinton and his ilk seem to forget regularly is a recent invention known as the Internet. It is indeed odd the former president is unaware of this, inasmuch as his vice president created it.

Regardless, this tool - with the assistance of search engines and services such as LexisNexis - allows folks to go back in the past to accurately identify the truth. Sadly, as has often been the case with the rantings of the Clintons, their grasp of the past is as hazy as their understanding of what the word "is" means. At least that is the charitable interpretation.

Allahpundit has video of Judge Napolitano fact-checking more of Clinton's statements.

Glenn Reynolds notes that Bill Clinton has again successfully turned everyone's attention to him.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference More on Clinton v. Fox News:

» Joust The Facts linked with Fisking Bill

» Doug Ross @ Journal linked with Clinton explodes, right-wing media to blame

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with Rice Challenges Clinton's Statements on Anti-Terror Record

Comments (34)

Bill Clinton could have ... (Below threshold)
Clay:

Bill Clinton could have gone on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace and taken a Statesmanlike, above the fray, position.

Instead, he just reinforced the memory of his risking the presidency by getting a blowjob in the oval office by a rather chunky intern. Tsk, tsk...

OK, my first thought here i... (Below threshold)
groucho:

OK, my first thought here is whether the snippets from the rightwing blogosphere qualify as information rather than pure opinion. We, I'm referring to those who saw the interview, should have all the facts they need.

As far as "the unhinged opposition to the Bush presidency" goes, it seems like a rather rational response to the unhinged attempt by Bush&Co to run this country in a unilateral heavy handed manner, with little or no regard for the checks and balances so brilliantly designed by the founding fathers.

Ah, the finger wagging...every public figure has their own unique way of personal expression. Think of JFK, think of Reagan, think of Shrub... his trademark gesture seems to be...a loss for words.

I love the Shrinkwrap quote. ...he would be lauded as a great ex-president.." Who are you kidding?? I don't think there is anything Clinton could do that would square him with the CHS (Clinton Hating Syndrome) crowd. You guys are such kidders. I love it!!

The last quote is just plain ridiculous, the cheap Gore/internet is the giveaway. I think by now most of the clear thinking people in this country can see what this interview was all about, especially coming on the heels of the blatantly politically motivated 'Path To 9/11'; an attempt to divert attention from the failings of this administration to prosecute the "Global War On Terror".

Go Bill! Hopefully this will wake some folks up as to how to combat the status quo.

Clinton is the guy who libs... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Clinton is the guy who libs call a "Republican", right?

Being left means never having to have a principle.
-=Mike

The most salient thing of a... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

The most salient thing of all this is how the neocons are only commenting on Clintons demeanor or finger wagging. None comment on the content of what he said.


In a nutshell Clinton admitted to failing but not to failing to try. The question NOT one neocon here or anyone else here will address is the undeniable fact that Clinton had plans for an invasion of Afghanistan after the Cole attack but verification from the CIA/FBI of the Al Quada as the perpetrators came after the election.

Find some fault there in his action or lack there of and then quickly explain why Bush took no action once all the facts were in. Why he ignored Clarke's attempts on 1/24/2000 to get the new administration to put Al Quada as priority number one and why they did not hold another meeting on the issue until 9/4/2001.

Clinton tried and failed ...Bush DID NOT EVEN TRY...and he failed and continues to fail.

The most salient t... (Below threshold)
Marc:
The most salient thing of all this is how the neocons are only commenting on Clintons demeanor or finger wagging. None comment on the content of what he said.
Looking for another smackdown muirgeo? You already received one in the other thread that demonstrably proved Clarke wasn't fired as you and Clinton assert.

And remember this Clinton quote: "OK, now let's look at all the criticisms: Black Hawk down, Somalia. There is not a living soul in the world who thought that Osama bin Laden had anything to do with Black Hawk down or was paying any attention to it or even knew Al Qaida was a growing concern in October of '93.

This is from a NYT (select) article dated March 28, 1993 and 7 months prior to clinton's timeframe:

Yemeni officials contend that Afghanistan veterans in Yemen, financed by Osama Binladen, a wealthy Saudi militant and former Afghan guerrilla now living in Khartoum, Sudan, have been behind a series of attacks, including two bombs in Aden hotels last year that killed an Australian tourist.

"not a living soul in the world" huh!

Guess you could argue the NYT has been "dead" for longer than that, but that not withstanding, you and Clinton are both disingenuous fools.

And that's being kind.

Gosh darn facts!... And Mar... (Below threshold)
Son Of The Godfather:

Gosh darn facts!... And Marc quite adeptly bitchslaps muirgeo.

Well done.

Thank you!<a href="h... (Below threshold)
Dean:

Thank you!
My homepage | Please visit

Why he ignored Clarke's... (Below threshold)
Martin A. Knight:
    Why he ignored Clarke's attempts on 1/24/2000 to get the new administration to put Al Quada as priority number one and why they did not hold another meeting on the issue until 9/4/2001.

Look at the bolded date, muirgeo.

Folks, with his own mouth (... (Below threshold)
Martin A. Knight:

Folks, with his own mouth (link to transcript) denying what muirgeo (a waste of bandwidth if I ever saw) asserts he says above, this is Richard Clarke from 2002 ...

    RICHARD CLARKE: Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.

    Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office -- issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.

    And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January [2001], to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent....

    QUESTION: Had the Clinton administration in any of its work on this issue, in any of the findings or anything else, prepared for a call for the use of ground forces, special operations forces in any way? What did the Bush administration do with that if they had?

    CLARKE: There was never a plan in the Clinton administration to use ground forces. The military was asked at a couple of points in the Clinton administration to think about it. Um, and they always came back and said it was not a good idea. There was never a plan to do that.

    ...

    ANGLE: So, just to finish up if we could then, so what you're saying is that there was no -- one, there was no plan; two, there was no delay; and that actually the first changes since October of '98 were made in the spring months just after the administration came into office?

    CLARKE: You got it. That's right.

Game. Set. Match.

Y'all Lefties have got to get a law passed that bans the retention of all information and data for more than six months after it occurs. That is the only way you guys can ever win an argument. Everybody must pretend to have amnesia.

murkydiegoYour a j... (Below threshold)
914:

murkydiego

Your a joke~

Maybe Bill simply had a dea... (Below threshold)

Maybe Bill simply had a deal to help Fox's ratings move up a bit-maybe he bought stock in the company or owes Ruppert a favor. Since Clinton is out of office, we fortunately don't have to spend worrying about his motives and can deal with more serious matters than his narcissism.

I've said it before: Nowad... (Below threshold)
Steve L.:

I've said it before: Nowadays, when Clinton opens his mouth, it's all about one thing: legacy. He would deny that he is married to Hillary and that Chelsea is his daughter if it meant protecting his legacy.

9-11 Commission testmony</p... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

9-11 Commission testmony

ROEMER: You coordinated counterterrorism policy in both the Clinton and the Bush administrations. I want to know, first of all: Was fighting Al Qaida a top priority for the Clinton administration from 1998 to the year 2001? How high a priority was it in that Clinton administration during that time period?

CLARKE: My impression was that fighting terrorism, in general, and fighting Al Qaida, in particular, were an extraordinarily high priority in the Clinton administration -- certainly no higher priority. There were priorities probably of equal importance such as the Middle East peace process, but I certainly don't know of one that was any higher in the priority of that administration.

Also:ROEMER: With ... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

Also:

ROEMER: With respect to the Bush administration, from the time they took office until September 11th, 2001, you had much to deal with: Russia, China, G-8, Middle East. How high a priority was fighting Al Qaida in the Bush administration?

CLARKE: I believe the Bush administration in the first eight months considered terrorism an important issue, but not an urgent issue.

Well, president Bush himself says as much in his interview with Bob Woodward in the book "Bush at War." He said, "I didn't feel a sense of urgency."

George Tenet and I tried very hard to create a sense of urgency by seeing to it that intelligence reports on the Al Qaida threat were frequently given to the president and other high-level officials. And there was a process under way to address Al Qaida. But although I continued to say it was an urgent problem, I don't think it was ever treated that way.

muirego: How do you reconci... (Below threshold)
Cousin Dave:

muirego: How do you reconcile that with the material that Martin Knight quoted? Could it have anything to do with the fact that the testimony of Clarke and other Democrats was pre-coordinated with Democrats on the committee (e.g., Jamie Gorelick)? As for your criticism of Bush not taking action on January 24,2000, have you forgotten that your hero Al Gore was still at that time pursuing a lawsuit that threatened to overturn the result of the election? Bush's hands were tied by DNC-sponsored legal action for the first six months or so of his presidency, leaving him less than 60 days to deal with what Clinton had failed to address for eight years.

That quote from Clarke was ... (Below threshold)
Desi:

That quote from Clarke was via a "background briefing" which he gave to reporters. Jim Angle at Fox broke it publicly.

Here's John Dean's analysis on it:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/04/09/dean.clarke/

The full 9/11 transcript, sans opinion, is also available -- particularly the questioning of Clarke by Thompson

Don't forget that Bill Clin... (Below threshold)
OregonMuse:

Don't forget that Bill Clinton has always been, and always will be, a pathological liar. He's also one of the most narcissistic men in public life. So when he blusters about "neo-cons" who accused him of being "obsessed with bin Laden" (there weren't any) and the continual citing of Richard Clarke's book to validate his points (Clarke's book actually contradicts Clinton on many points), he expects to be taken at face value, and if you dare question his rewrite of history, why then you're just part of the evil Fox News/Rupert Murdoch neo-con cabal.

But he did provide talking points to gullible moonbats like muriego, so maybe that's all he wanted to do.

My impression was that f... (Below threshold)
Clay:

My impression was that fighting terrorism, in general, and fighting Al Qaida, in particular, were an extraordinarily high priority in the Clinton administration

I guess you just proved that 'the only person who has worked against terror' is an opportunistic liar. Oh wait, but we already knew that. We also know that that is the reason Clinton wants us to read his pulp fiction.

Mongo, per Richard Clarke:<... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Mongo, per Richard Clarke:

Clarke said, the Bush team in 2001 "changed the [Clinton] strategy from one of rollback [of] al Qaeda over five years to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline."

Bush, he added, took action on several "issues that had been on the table for a couple of years," such as instituting a new policy in Pakistan that convinced Islamabad "to break away from the Taliban" and boosting "CIA resources...for covert action five-fold to go after al Qaeda."

In fact, a 1999 Clarke after-action memo - the one top Clinton aide Sandy Berger later stole from the National Archives - identified national-security weaknesses so "glaring" that only sheer "luck" prevented a cataclysmic attack back then.

Tell me, again, how convincing you think Mr. Clinton is???

Why he ignored Clarke's att... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

Why he ignored Clarke's attempts on 1/24/2000 to get the new administration to put Al Quada as priority number one and why they did not hold another meeting on the issue until 9/4/2001.
Look at the bolded date, muirgeo.

Posted by: Martin A. Knight

Hey Ding Dong...the date is wrong it should be 1/24/2001. If you read Clarkes book you'd know that.

Oh no, Bubba is caught LYI... (Below threshold)
Gianni:

Oh no, Bubba is caught LYING again!

Bill's bull?

Ex-advisers: Clinton had no plan to overthrow Taliban,
kill Osama

BY JAMES GORDON MEEK and KENNETH R. BAZINET
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU

Former advisers of Bill Clinton deny he had plan to wipe out Taliban.
WASHINGTON - Former advisers ridiculed ex-President Bill Clinton yesterday for saying he had a plan to invade Afghanistan, topple the Taliban and kill Osama Bin Laden after jihadists nearly sank the destroyer Cole.

"The only order we got from [Clinton] after the Cole was to put together a target list for air attacks," said Michael Scheuer, who led the CIA's hunt for Osama Bin Laden under Clinton.

"What I was involved in could in no way be called a full-fledged plan to attack and overthrow the Taliban," he said.

In his fiery interview on "Fox News Sunday," Clinton claimed he did more than President Bush to get Bin Laden before 9/11, disclosing that he had a secret plan to invade Afghanistan and wipe out the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

Clinton insisted he never ordered that invasion because the CIA and FBI could not "certify" that Bin Laden was involved in the Oct. 12, 2000, attack on the Cole in a Yemeni harbor.

Scheuer, who wrote the book "Imperial Hubris," said he met every 10 days with top members of Clinton's anti-terror team and plans for an invasion were never presented or discussed.

He also lashed out at Clinton for blaming subordinates for the failure to get Bin Laden, saying they had 10 chances to kill or capture the terror kingpin before 9/11.

"I was responsible for sending men and women into harm's way to get information he didn't use," Scheuer added.

Fran Townsend, a former top intelligence adviser in Clinton's Justice Department and now Bush's anti-terror czar, rolled her eyes when asked about Clinton's invasion plan.

"There were lots of things that seemed new" in Clinton's recollections on Fox, Townsend said.

Still, Team Clinton stood by its story. "A plan existed, but the ability to act on it was not corroborated by intelligence until after President Clinton left office," said Clinton spokesman Jay Carson.

P.J. Crowley, spokesman for Clinton's National Security Council and a retired Air Force officer with a security clearance, said many contingency plans existed at the Pentagon.

"It wasn't that there was a lack of plans, it's that there was a lack of actionable intelligence," Crowley said.

Scheuer and a retired senior FBI official agreed that they knew almost immediately that Al Qaeda was behind the Cole bombing. "We all said this was definitely Bin Laden," the ex-FBI official said. "But we couldn't take it to court and get an indictment."

Two sources that Clinton repeatedly cited in the Fox interview - the 9/11 commission report and Richard Clarke's book, "Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror" - never mention plans to invade Afghanistan.

Originally published on September 26, 2006

muirego: How do you reconci... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

muirego: How do you reconcile that with the material that Martin Knight quoted? Could it have anything to do with the fact that the testimony of Clarke and other Democrats was pre-coordinated with Democrats on the committee (e.g., Jamie Gorelick)?

Posted by: Cousin Dave


Could be that or it could be that the transcript Martin gave us was a selectively released classified document that is outt of context. Give us the WHOLE document.

For example when Clarke says, "...... I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration."


Does that mean there was a plan but it wasn't passed because Bush refused it? What's the context??

muirego:... (Below threshold)
Mike:

muirego:


Could be that or it could be that the transcript Martin gave us was a selectively released classified document that is outt of context. Give us the WHOLE document.

You mean like the recent NIE leaks ?

As the Clinton administrati... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

As the Clinton administration drew to a close, the NSC counterterrorism staff developed another strategy paper; the first such comprehensive effort since the Delenda plan of 1998.

The resulting paper, titled "A Strategy for Eliminating the Threat from the Jihadist Networks of Al Qaida; Status and Prospects," reviewed the threat, the records to date, incorporated the CIA's new ideas from the Blue Sky memo, and posed several near-term policy choices. The goal was to roll back Al Qaida over a period of three to five years, reducing it eventually to a rump group like others formerly feared but now largely defunct terrorist organizations in the 1980s.

muriego:"Hey Ding ... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

muriego:

"Hey Ding Dong...the date is wrong it should be 1/24/2001. If you read Clarkes book you'd know that."

WTF? You are the one that wrote 1/24/2000 in the first place, idiot. Did YOU read Clark's book?!

ROFL! muirego responds to h... (Below threshold)
Mike:

ROFL! muirego responds to his own post questioning whether the post's author (himself) has even read the book and referring the the author (himself) as a 'Ding Dong'. Priceless!

Seriously Mike, how great i... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

Seriously Mike, how great is that!! Typical liberal. Spout off a bunch of crap and when someone calls you on it, call them stupid!

Here I'll make thus easy fo... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

Here I'll make thus easy for you guys. I'll repost that with my typo corrected and I'll still be waiting for your explaination.

Find some fault there in his (Clintons) action or lack there of and then quickly explain why Bush took no action once all the facts were in. Why he (Bush) ignored Clarke's attempts on 1/24/2001 (typo corrected) to get the new administration to put Al Quada as priority number one and why they did not hold another meeting on the issue until 9/4/2001.

Clinton tried and failed ...Bush DID NOT EVEN TRY...and he failed and continues to fail.

Posted by: muirgeo

So again what did Clinton fail to do and why didn't Bush do what Clinton failed to do?

I look forward to your comical excuses sure to follow.

being a liberal means never... (Below threshold)
D-HOggs:

being a liberal means never having to say your sorry, huh muriego.

being a liberal means never... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

being a liberal means never having to say your sorry, huh muriego.

Posted by: D-HOggs

OK alright d-Hoggs you win. I'm sorry about my typo that resulted in 2001 being 2000 which made you think Clarke was talking about Clinton when he WAS in fact talking about the Bush administration and how they seemed uninterested and did NOTHING about the Al Quada threat he told them should be job # 1.

Now its your turn to say your sorry for voting for a dope azz who did nothing pre 9-11 , azzed up completely post 9-11 and has simultaneously made us more at risk from terrorist and pushed our economy to the brink of collapse.

I apoligized for my typo now you apoligize for screwing over the country and my kids future....you can do it....

See how intellectually dish... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

See how intellectually dishonest you are muriego. You fuck up your own ridiculous argument, Martin points it out to you, and then you accuse everyone else of missing your point.

Furthermore, the fact that you think the economy is on the brink of collapse when it is in FACT running strong is proof enough that you can never be taken seriously. Sorry to say but with a raving dishonest moonbat like you as a father, your kids future is screwed already.

Further, you can't even rea... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

Further, you can't even realize that no one was looking for an apology for your typo, but an apology to Martin for calling him names because of YOUR screw up is most definitely in order. Of course you have already applied your moonbat spin to that episode, big surprise.

Now its your turn ... (Below threshold)
Marc:
Now its your turn to say your sorry for voting for a dope azz who did nothing pre 9-11 , azzed up completely post 9-11 and has simultaneously made us more at risk from terrorist and pushed our economy to the brink of collapse.

Posted by: muirgeo at September 26, 2006 04:44 PM

Read it and weep muirgeo.

And BTW you can drop the tired old "more at risk" talking point? I mean really! Can anything by more instructive as to how feckless and idiotic the anti-war, anti-Bush types are than that?

Did the Germans ramp up more mechanical and "people power" when finally confronted?

How about the Japanese? Did they cower and hide in addition to reduceing their strength when confronted by the US? Not hardly!

The Koreans?

How about the Iraq/Iran war? did either side decide to lower the size of their military force in the during it?

That entire talking point is a Red Herring of the first order.

Marc wrote: "This is from a... (Below threshold)
Sal:

Marc wrote: "This is from a NYT (select) article dated March 28, 1993 and 7 months prior to clinton's timeframe:

Yemeni officials contend that Afghanistan veterans in Yemen, financed by Osama Binladen, a wealthy Saudi militant and former Afghan guerrilla now living in Khartoum, Sudan, have been behind a series of attacks, including two bombs in Aden hotels last year that killed an Australian tourist.

"not a living soul in the world" huh!

Guess you could argue the NYT has been "dead" for longer than that, but that not withstanding, you and Clinton are both disingenuous fools.

And that's being kind."
------------------------------
And where in that NYT article does it show that Al-Qaeda was a growing threat to the United States? Bin Laden was "behind a series of attacks". And my ass has been behind a series of flatulence. Does that mean I'm a threat to unleash nerve gas? No? Is that a stretch? So is your argument about the NYT.

Disingenuous fools? You're a condescending ass.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy