Foggy-Memory Defense

This is hilarious -- annoying as well, but hilarious nonetheless.

I don't think liberals realize how incredibly hypocritical they can be and how they set themselves up to be outed for their hypocrisy.

Today on his website, Michael Moore is highlighting an article by Washington Post staff writer Jim VandeHei.

Moore has this graphic on his homepage.



Obviously, Moore is drooling.

Yes, that's his typical state, but in this case he's salivating over the thought of Karl Rove being indicted.

And what does he choose to spotlight?

The "foggy-memory defense."

VandeHei needs to wipe the dribble off of his chin, too.
VandeHei writes:

Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald is wrapping up his investigation into White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove's role in the CIA leak case by weighing this central question:

Did Rove, who was deeply involved in defending President Bush's use of prewar intelligence about Iraq, lie about a key conversation with a reporter that was aimed at rebutting a tough White House critic?

Fitzgerald, according to sources close to the case, is reviewing testimony from Rove's five appearances before the grand jury. Bush's top political strategist has argued that he never intentionally misled the grand jury about his role in leaking information about undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame to Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper in July 2003. Rove testified that he simply forgot about the conversation when he failed to disclose it to Fitzgerald in his earlier testimony.

Fitzgerald is weighing Rove's foggy-memory defense against evidence he has acquired over nearly 2 1/2 years that shows Rove was very involved in White House efforts to beat back allegations that Bush twisted U.S. intelligence to justify the Iraq war, according to sources involved in the case.

The article is just another Karl Rove indictment fantasy piece. So what else is new?

What I find noteworthy is Moore and VandeHei having the nerve to cast stones at a Republican in terms of the "foggy-memory defense."

Wasn't it just a few days ago that Patrick Kennedy claimed, "I simply do not remember getting out of bed, being pulled over by the police, or being cited for three driving infractions"?

If my memory serves me -- Yes! It was last Friday that he told that story!

"Courageous" Patrick Kennedy is supposed to be given a free pass on endangering the public because he's an addict. Ambien made him do it! And, he just doesn't remember. Very foggy.

In his case, libs aren't mocking the "foggy-memory defense." They are conveniently swallowing it -- hook, line, and sinker.

If my memory serves me -- I believe Hillary Clinton was foggy, too. Recently, she had memory issues UNDER OATH while making a statement in the David Rosen case.

"I do not remember..."

"I have no recollection whatsoever..."

"I also have no recollection whatsoever..."

"I do not believe that I made any such statements because I believe I would remember such a discussion if it occurred."

Foggy.

If my memory serves me -- Bill Clinton had issues remembering things as well.

Read the full text of Bill Clinton's January 17, 1998, deposition in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit.

"I don't remember..."

"I have no idea..."

"I don't recall..."

"I'm not sure..."

"I just don't know..."

In short, give me a break on this "foggy-memory defense" stuff.

The liberals' double standard is a joke.