<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.5" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Watch out for the wives</title>
	<link>http://www.polimom.com/2007/03/14/watch-out-for-the-wives/</link>
	<description>I used to be in the middle, but they keep moving the line!</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2008 20:37:56 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.5</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: Stevan</title>
		<link>http://www.polimom.com/2007/03/14/watch-out-for-the-wives/#comment-60454</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Mar 2007 19:15:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.polimom.com/2007/03/14/watch-out-for-the-wives/#comment-60454</guid>
					<description>For me, it's not so much the timing, or that Bill Did It Too, but the how and why of the firings that seem questionable. The How is related to the obscure provision in the Patriot Act that allows USAs to be appointed without Senate approval, and The Why seems to have changed from "poor performance" to "it's routine, standard procedure". Emerging information is starting to suggest that there were very specific political reasons for the firings that had nothing to do with cleaning house for a new presidency or performance shortcomings.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For me, it&#8217;s not so much the timing, or that Bill Did It Too, but the how and why of the firings that seem questionable. The How is related to the obscure provision in the Patriot Act that allows USAs to be appointed without Senate approval, and The Why seems to have changed from &#8220;poor performance&#8221; to &#8220;it&#8217;s routine, standard procedure&#8221;. Emerging information is starting to suggest that there were very specific political reasons for the firings that had nothing to do with cleaning house for a new presidency or performance shortcomings.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: etee's Blog</title>
		<link>http://www.polimom.com/2007/03/14/watch-out-for-the-wives/#comment-60332</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Mar 2007 13:45:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.polimom.com/2007/03/14/watch-out-for-the-wives/#comment-60332</guid>
					<description>&lt;strong&gt;WMDs discovered on local blog;  Pentagon prepares to attack...&lt;/strong&gt;

This morning, intelligence sources made a startling discovery:  the virus that causes Presidential Derangement Syndrome (PDS) has mutated, and is infecting mass numbers of people with a new strain called Widely Manifested Derangement syndrome (WMDs).
...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>WMDs discovered on local blog;  Pentagon prepares to attack&#8230;</strong></p>
<p>This morning, intelligence sources made a startling discovery:  the virus that causes Presidential Derangement Syndrome (PDS) has mutated, and is infecting mass numbers of people with a new strain called Widely Manifested Derangement syndrome (WMDs).<br />
&#8230;
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Ed T.</title>
		<link>http://www.polimom.com/2007/03/14/watch-out-for-the-wives/#comment-60330</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Mar 2007 12:54:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.polimom.com/2007/03/14/watch-out-for-the-wives/#comment-60330</guid>
					<description>Wow -- Polimom, you ought to gather up all these comments, and write a book.  You should at least be as famous, as, well somebody.

BTW, I think I have found a new strain of PDS.  The symptoms are that "Everybody Knows" something, therefore I am naming it
&lt;strong&gt;W&lt;/strong&gt;idely &lt;strong&gt;M&lt;/strong&gt;anifested &lt;strong&gt;D&lt;/strong&gt;erangement &lt;strong&gt;s&lt;/strong&gt;yndrome

Since I am &lt;em&gt;positive&lt;/em&gt; that this is a world-wide epidemic, those searching for &lt;strong&gt;WMDs&lt;/strong&gt; in Iraq should have no problem finding it.

Of course, since you'll also find &lt;strong&gt;WMDs&lt;/strong&gt; in the USofA, maybe Murtha is right, and we need to redeploy the troops back home to deal with it.

~EdT.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wow &#8212; Polimom, you ought to gather up all these comments, and write a book.  You should at least be as famous, as, well somebody.</p>
<p>BTW, I think I have found a new strain of PDS.  The symptoms are that &#8220;Everybody Knows&#8221; something, therefore I am naming it<br />
<strong>W</strong>idely <strong>M</strong>anifested <strong>D</strong>erangement <strong>s</strong>yndrome</p>
<p>Since I am <em>positive</em> that this is a world-wide epidemic, those searching for <strong>WMDs</strong> in Iraq should have no problem finding it.</p>
<p>Of course, since you&#8217;ll also find <strong>WMDs</strong> in the USofA, maybe Murtha is right, and we need to redeploy the troops back home to deal with it.</p>
<p>~EdT.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: roux</title>
		<link>http://www.polimom.com/2007/03/14/watch-out-for-the-wives/#comment-60328</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Mar 2007 12:17:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.polimom.com/2007/03/14/watch-out-for-the-wives/#comment-60328</guid>
					<description>Of course Bush could have really done what Clinton did..... like fire them and then get the FBI to investigate and discredit them..... 

travelgate anyone....

Oh and whose fingerprints were on that one?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Of course Bush could have really done what Clinton did&#8230;.. like fire them and then get the FBI to investigate and discredit them&#8230;.. </p>
<p>travelgate anyone&#8230;.</p>
<p>Oh and whose fingerprints were on that one?
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Polimom</title>
		<link>http://www.polimom.com/2007/03/14/watch-out-for-the-wives/#comment-60276</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2007 21:49:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.polimom.com/2007/03/14/watch-out-for-the-wives/#comment-60276</guid>
					<description>slate --

Jon Swift is my most reliable source for serious conservative opinion, and it is to him that I turn when I don't feel like reading or researching (but want to come off the sidelines anyway).  

His latest post was, in fact, part of my research for this one.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>slate &#8211;</p>
<p>Jon Swift is my most reliable source for serious conservative opinion, and it is to him that I turn when I don&#8217;t feel like reading or researching (but want to come off the sidelines anyway).  </p>
<p>His latest post was, in fact, part of my research for this one.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: slate</title>
		<link>http://www.polimom.com/2007/03/14/watch-out-for-the-wives/#comment-60275</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2007 21:27:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.polimom.com/2007/03/14/watch-out-for-the-wives/#comment-60275</guid>
					<description>Speaking of "wives", have you read Jon Swift's Martha Mitchell piece! It made my day!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Speaking of &#8220;wives&#8221;, have you read Jon Swift&#8217;s Martha Mitchell piece! It made my day!
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: The Master</title>
		<link>http://www.polimom.com/2007/03/14/watch-out-for-the-wives/#comment-60272</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2007 21:15:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.polimom.com/2007/03/14/watch-out-for-the-wives/#comment-60272</guid>
					<description>Polimom,

As you can see from the last couple of comments, there are plenty of folks who just can't deal with satire . . . . . and plenty of folks who are &lt;em&gt;still&lt;/em&gt; hyperprotective of Bill and Hillary.  

Best to ignore such humorless trolls.

FYI, Wikipedia has a nice write-up on&lt;a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webster_Hubbell" rel="nofollow"&gt; Web Hubble&lt;/a&gt; including his conviction in Federal Court in 1994 for mail fraud and tax evasion in connection with the billing records of the Rose Law Firm (he pled guilty).

Gov. Bill appointed him Chief Justice of the Arkansas Supreme court in 1983, and later Prez Bill appointed him Associate Attorney General.  He was Hillary's partner at the Rose Law Firm for many years.  

If there are those who for whatever reason, wish to believe that Hillary didn't even express an opinion on whether Web Hubble would be a good guy--&lt;em&gt;their guy&lt;/em&gt;--at the DOJ, well, let them wallow in their credulity.  Best not to even try to introduce the real world to them, even in jest.  

They can't deal with it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Polimom,</p>
<p>As you can see from the last couple of comments, there are plenty of folks who just can&#8217;t deal with satire . . . . . and plenty of folks who are <em>still</em> hyperprotective of Bill and Hillary.  </p>
<p>Best to ignore such humorless trolls.</p>
<p>FYI, Wikipedia has a nice write-up on<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webster_Hubbell" rel="nofollow"> Web Hubble</a> including his conviction in Federal Court in 1994 for mail fraud and tax evasion in connection with the billing records of the Rose Law Firm (he pled guilty).</p>
<p>Gov. Bill appointed him Chief Justice of the Arkansas Supreme court in 1983, and later Prez Bill appointed him Associate Attorney General.  He was Hillary&#8217;s partner at the Rose Law Firm for many years.  </p>
<p>If there are those who for whatever reason, wish to believe that Hillary didn&#8217;t even express an opinion on whether Web Hubble would be a good guy&#8211;<em>their guy</em>&#8211;at the DOJ, well, let them wallow in their credulity.  Best not to even try to introduce the real world to them, even in jest.  </p>
<p>They can&#8217;t deal with it.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Polimom</title>
		<link>http://www.polimom.com/2007/03/14/watch-out-for-the-wives/#comment-60270</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2007 21:03:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.polimom.com/2007/03/14/watch-out-for-the-wives/#comment-60270</guid>
					<description>tbogg --

Thank you so much for your enlightened comment and suggestion. And had I actually been making (or even defending) such an assertion, I'm sure I'd have found it very useful.

Alas...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>tbogg &#8211;</p>
<p>Thank you so much for your enlightened comment and suggestion. And had I actually been making (or even defending) such an assertion, I&#8217;m sure I&#8217;d have found it very useful.</p>
<p>Alas&#8230;
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: jpe</title>
		<link>http://www.polimom.com/2007/03/14/watch-out-for-the-wives/#comment-60268</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2007 20:52:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.polimom.com/2007/03/14/watch-out-for-the-wives/#comment-60268</guid>
					<description>The argument isn't very difficult; there's a good chance the attorneys were fired for either prosecuting the wrong party during the election season or failing to prosecute Democrats during that season.  

So, what TBogg said.  You might be better off on the sidelines until you know the plays.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The argument isn&#8217;t very difficult; there&#8217;s a good chance the attorneys were fired for either prosecuting the wrong party during the election season or failing to prosecute Democrats during that season.  </p>
<p>So, what TBogg said.  You might be better off on the sidelines until you know the plays.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: tbogg</title>
		<link>http://www.polimom.com/2007/03/14/watch-out-for-the-wives/#comment-60264</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2007 20:22:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.polimom.com/2007/03/14/watch-out-for-the-wives/#comment-60264</guid>
					<description>Outside of  the  Wall Street Journal editorial page's factless assertion, what evidence do you have that iHubbell was specifically selected by Hillary Clinton?

Maybe you should have stayed on the sidelines until you're actually interested in doing some work</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Outside of  the  Wall Street Journal editorial page&#8217;s factless assertion, what evidence do you have that iHubbell was specifically selected by Hillary Clinton?</p>
<p>Maybe you should have stayed on the sidelines until you&#8217;re actually interested in doing some work
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
