From Fox’s Special Report with Bret Baier Wednesday, January 26, 2012
On Nancy Pelosi’s threat to expose secrets about the ethics investigation of Newt Gingrich in the 1990s:
Given Nancy Pelosi’s history on the issue of her protest or approval of the ["enhanced"] interrogations by the CIA at the time [they were being conducted] — in which her veracity was not something you would admire — I’m not sure I believe a word of this. I think it’s a bluff on her part. In fact, I think if there is anything, it would be so much in the weeds it would probably have zero effect anyway.
On Rep. Henry Waxman’s allegation in hearings yesterday that the Koch brothers might benefit from the Keystone XL Pipeline:
We can’t let the moment pass without commenting on the Waxman objection. So this will be a new criterion for evaluating a public policy: Something that would create thousands of shovel-ready jobs, that would reduce our dependence on unfriendly sources of oil, that would cement our alliance with Canada, that would… secure [a] source of oil long range, and deny a strategic asset to China — is something we ought to reject because it might help the Koch brothers. That’s like saying if Gadhafi’s son owned a biotech company that discovered a cure for cancer, we would ban its importation lest it helped the Gadhafis. If you can think of a more stupid, intellectually desperate argument on anything, I’d like to hear it. I would address that to Congressman Waxman with the highest, and all due, respect.
"In the weeds."
Journalists honor their profession when they dig up the facts, connect the dots, and tell the story in a way that makes sense.
"I think if there is anything, it would be so much in the weeds it would probably have zero effect anyway." Well, not if your Fox guys do what they're supposed to do.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"In the weeds" is more about Nancy Pelosi being an unreliable goofball of a witness who perceives the world in a way (the DC/San Francisco ultra-politically correct activist lens) that alienates most people to the point that they are hostile or dismissive of her message.
In short, he is saying that when bizarre people try to produce a devastating accusation, they most often merely deliver something bizarre, that almost no one can take seriously or find credible or relevant.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat secret? That he was completely exonerated and completely cleared by the IRS? Why can't NRO publish the truth about this? Just call up your old buddy Byron York and he can tell you all about it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWith all due respect, Mr. Krauthammer is being much too kind to Congressman Waxman.
The respect due to a hypocritical, unprincipled, upatriotic partisan hack like Waxman is absolutely none.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJust call it stupid, Charles. No need to express respect for Henry Waxman at this point.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI hear tell that Warren Buffet stands to make a lot of money from the cancelling of the Keystone Pipeline.
Just another case of Obama doing something to hurt the country, and help his friends.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThought for a new bumper sticker:
KOCH BROTHERS FOR PRESIDENT
That should make some heads explode on the highway.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseKudos!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Waxman Doctrine: Anything that aids someone who aids or supports Republicans is not to be legally permitted, and they are to be shunned.
And to think some say that Democrats may lean a tad towards the fascist...
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse