Sunday, December 16, 2007

A real 9/11 conspiracy theory that deserves investigation

 
AJ Strata offers a far more likely 9/11 conspiracy theory than anything floated by the Loose Change whackjobs. Given the news that the Saudi government donated around $10 million to Bill Clinton's Bada Bing Presidential Library, AJ wonders what favors were expected for that tidy sum.

...let's play a little game of wild conspiracy theory - as the wingnuts do on the left. Let's say the Saudis did intend to buy off Clinton. Let's say they wanted to appease the Wahabbists in their country who had grown strong after the gulf war. Let's assume a wave of radical Islam was washing over the kingdom and the royal family decided the only way to survive was to ally with Bin Laden's forces.

Ok, everything up until that last part about partnering with Bin Laden is actually true! Sorry, I was supposed to be wildly speculating not repeating known facts. Old habits hard to break.

Let's assume Bill Clinton and the Democrats also realized the damage from his Impeachment were going to give the GOP control of all three elected centers of power in DC (Congress, Senate, White House). Let's say they were sufficiently concerned with being locked out of power for years to come they were willing to leave the GOP President all sorts of messes to clean up. Some of it would be simple vandalism of the White House. But other options might include bungling of the hand over of the levers of government.

OK, Ok,… I am doing it again! All that happened. Let me see if I can get it right this time.

So a desperate Democrat Leadership, out to cripple the incoming Bush administration, allies with Saudi leaders who had promised to release the pressure on Bin Laden and give him some more room to operate. The Saudis donate huge amounts of money to the Clinton library, Clinton starts fumbling the effort to track down Bin Laden. The Saudis promise Bin Laden his minions more access to America and they get special permission from Clinton's administration to set up a visa program that blinds US intelligence to who is getting access. Clinton only makes one request, don't do anything why he is President, then his team fails to alert the incoming Bush team of the threat from Bin Laden and his group.

OK, that seems much better - no facts, simple speculation. Let's see what else we can do here?

Everyone assumed Bush would be overwhelmed by the attack and the country will turn to Gore or the Dems in 2004 when he did fumble. It did not happen. And then the whole thing almost fell apart. For those who knew, it was not surprising that National Security Advisor Sandy Berger had to go in and destroy some evidence that was accidentally left behind (all the rest had been destroyed years ago - as evidenced by deletion of all the Able Danger data) during the nation's investigation of the events leading up to 9-11. It was a close call, the entire Clinton-Saudi deal had almost been exposed.

Democrats knew they would have to support Bush initially, but there was always the back up plan in case he did not falter. That plan included the leaking of fake stories about fake forged intelligence to the media, claiming Bush lied to America to support his strategic decisions. It also included the exposure of our national security tools like the NSA and SWIFT program so that Bin Laden's minions could plan how to get around them and succeeding in a second attack. Because a second successful attack would allow the Dems to paint Bush as incompetent, no matter how many attacks he diverted.

Mmmm, I seem to be drifting back into fact based reality again. Let me see if I can make a huge leap here and get this conspiracy theory really moving.

When no more attacks happened the Democrats had only one more option left - they needed to make sure America lost the war in Iraq. If that happened then they could still stick with their plan to show Bush as incompetent and convince the nation new leadership would be required. Now the deal they made with the Saudis to remove the pressure in Bin Laden had faded into the dark past. There was no hope anyone would know of their collusion to take power by allowing the US to be attacked on their opponent's watch.

So they did what they could to lose Iraq, calling for reduction of troops, pushing useless and impossible milestones on the Iraqi government. And they saw their plans finally start to pay off. Iraq became a violent disaster in the making and they were able to take over Congress. All they needed to do was seal the fate of the GOP was make sure al-Qaeda could win. They even sent their top leader to Syria to meet with President Assad to discuss how to play the game once Bush was out of office and the Islamists and Democrats would stage cease-fire as part of their power sharing agreement.

Then something truly bad happened - Iraqis rose up and joined the American forces to defeat al-Qaeda. Bush was succeeding and heading to victory. And there had not been an attack on the country despite their attempts to disable our defenses. The Democrats had less than a year to make something happen so they could blame Bush and the GOP. Then the Clinton machine came up with their most devious and risky plan yet…..

Boy, coming up with wild conspiracy theories is pretty interesting, but I think I prefer to stick with reality.

It's some fascinating speculation to be sure, but I won't hold my breath waiting for the Sixty Minutes investigation.

Hat tip: Larwyn

Nixon Redux

 
Once in a long while, Democratic Underground is useful for something other than counterintelligence.

Frank Rich: Mrs. Clinton’s shrill campaign continues to cast her as Nixon to Mr. Obama's Kennedy.

Image: Delusional Duck

What a difference a year makes

 
No one said campaigning was easy, but as a full-time job -- starting an entire year before the primaries -- it looks absolutely brutal.

Don Surber and Jammie Wearing Fool have more.

Quote o' the Day: The Google Cloud

 
What is Google's cloud? It's a network made of hundreds of thousands, or by some estimates 1 million, cheap servers, each not much more powerful than the PCs we have in our homes. It stores staggering amounts of data, including numerous copies of the World Wide Web. This makes search faster, helping ferret out answers to billions of queries in a fraction of a second. Unlike many traditional supercomputers, Google's system never ages. When its individual pieces die, usually after about three years, engineers pluck them out and replace them with new, faster boxes. This means the cloud regenerates as it grows, almost like a living thing.

A move towards clouds signals a fundamental shift in how we handle information. At the most basic level, it's the computing equivalent of the evolution in electricity a century ago when farms and businesses shut down their own generators and bought power instead from efficient industrial utilities.

                                    -- Stephen Baker, writing in Business Week ("Google and the Wisdom of Clouds")

Match the quote to the political figure

 
American foreign policy needs to change its tone and attitude, open up, and reach out. The Bush administration’s arrogant bunker mentality has been counterproductive... ...the United States’ main fight today does not pit [it] against the world but pits the world against the terrorist.. [the U.S. must] attack the underlying conditions that breed them: the lack of basic sanitation, health care, education, jobs, a free press, fair courts — which all translates [sic] into a lack of opportunity and hope...

It was hoped that the new world would enable all nations, in light of universally accepted humane norms and mutual respect, to advance together, eradicate poverty and injustice, and set aside bitter memories of the past that were nothing but war, bloodshed, violence and tension... Those hopes were dashed by the [Bush administration]... who adopted a new and aggressive approach. [The] assertion of unchallenged global leadership — and the inability of the international community and the United Nations to challenge [the views] — frustrated hopes for a stable and peaceful world. Instead, once again we witness the re-emergence of a system that produced nothing but tension and insecurity.

Answers: the quote in green was lifted from Newsweek's op-ed written by none other than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The quote in blue is a statement from Mike "I'm incredibly naive" Hucklebee.

Saturday, December 15, 2007

SAUDIS DONATED $10 MILLION TO CLINTON LIBRARY

 
The Washington Post is reporting that more than 10% of the funds raised for the Clinton Presidential Library came from foreign sources. And the royal family of Saudi Arabia provided about $10 million of that sum.

The presidential campaign of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) has for months faced questions about the source of the money for her husband's presidential library. During a September debate, moderator Tim Russert asked the senator whether her husband would release a donor list. Clinton said she was sure her husband would "be happy to consider that," though the former president later declined to provide a list of donors.

As I reported last month, the official donor list of the Clinton Library has never been publicly released. ABC stated:

Former president Bill Clinton said Thursday that he will not reveal the names of donors to the Clinton Presidential Library unless he is required to by law... the issue of contributions to the Clinton library has gotten fresh attention [with the scandal concerning] disgraced Clinton fund-raiser Norman Hsu... Clinton aides have declined to say whether Hsu has given any money to the foundation that funds the Clinton Presidential Library, or whether such funds have been returned...

What do the Saudis expect for their $10 million if, say, Hillary Clinton happened to be elected President of the United States?

Gateway Pundit exposes the Real Faux News

 
Leftie pundits enjoy calling Fox News "Faux News." Their case is so compelling that FAIR's Fox News Watch has posted exactly two (2) stories in the last year.

Back in the little land we like to call reality, Gateway Pundit has the must-read digest of real faux news.

In roughly six and a half weeks the mainstream media reported 6 bogus stories from Iraq and Afghanistan... There certainly could be more... They all reflected poorly on the US and US military.

Isn't it past time that the media be held accountable for their horrible record?

If business results are any measure, most folks are holding the MSM accountable -- by completely ignoring them.

On Hillary

 
"It's not that she's a woman. It's that she's that woman."       --Me. Just now.

Image idea: Don Surber

Update: Frequent commenter jpm100 adds a critical feature that I missed.

Business Week attacks Microlending in Mexico

 
Business Week has devoted significant space to a Keith Epstein and Geri Smith article that attacks "The Ugly Side of Microlending."

Microlending has received a great deal of attention recently, most of it positive, as it has enabled poor entrepeneurs in developing countries to generate income and even build real wealth.

However, Epstein and Smith highlight the predatory nature of Latin American microlending. They focus on Banco Azteca, a fast-growing Latin American bank generating "a torrent of revenue" from microlending in Mexico. In addition, Banamex (Citigroup) and HSBC are angling in on the action.

[The poor] will pay interest rates most Americans would consider outrageous, if not usurious... With no legal limits on interest levels and little government oversight, for-profit banks in Mexico impose annual interest rates on poor borrowers that typically range from 50% to 120%. That compares with a worldwide average of 31% among nonprofit micro-lending institutions, and the 22% to 29% that Americans with bad credit histories incur on credit-card debt.

What is interesting about the article is that while hammering Mexican microlending, Epstein and Smith completely ignore the obvious analogy of payday loans in the U.S.

The scourge of Payday Loans


What is a "Payday Loan"?

Borrowers visit a payday lending store and secure a small cash loan, usually in the range of $100 to $500 with payment in full due at the borrower's next paycheck (usually a two week term). Finance charges on payday loans are typically in the range of $15 to $30 per $100 borrowed for the two-week period, which translates to rates ranging from 390 percent to 780 percent when expressed as an annual percentage rate (APR)[4]. The borrower writes a check to the lender in the full amount of the loan plus fees. On the maturity date, the borrower is expected to return to the store to repay the loan in person. If the borrower doesn't repay the loan in person, the lender may process the check traditionally or through electronic withdrawal from the borrower's checking account...

I thought usury and loan-sharking were both illegal, but that's apparently not the case.

...most states have usury laws which forbid interest rates in excess of a certain APR. Payday lenders have succeeded in getting around usury laws in some states by forming relationships with banks chartered in a different state with no usury ceiling (such as South Dakota or Delaware). This practice has been referred to as "Rate exportation", the "agency model" and the "rent-a-bank" model...

Put simply, payday loans appear far more exploitive than the practice of microlending. That Epstein and Smith ignore this simple comparison is at best puzzling, but more likely indicative of an unspoken agenda.

It's all in the parenting

 
Perhaps someone should use a phone tree to alert the Gaza PTO and School Board. Because instead of teaching, say, geometry and reading, Gaza's august school system is teaching hate, murder and genocide.

As my Mom says: it's all in the parenting.

Friday, December 14, 2007

Pundits answer the question: why is Hillary tanking?

 
A quick scan of the pundits reveals a variety of reasons.

Newsweek's Eleanor Clift blames Bill:
Hillary was doing pretty well on her own until Bill [compared] his declaration that he was against the Iraq war from the beginning. That little bit of revisionist history landed like a live grenade in the middle of Hillary's campaign, exploding a year's worth of positioning to put the Iraq war vote behind her.


Dick Morris blames Hillary:
...the more voters come to know Hillary Clinton the less they like her and the more they get to know Barack Obama the more they like him...


MSNBC's Howard Fineman thinks Hill has been too passive:
Hillary is trapped by her own do-it-yourself feminist ethos. She should have surrogates out there pounding away at Obama [Ed: Huh?] [Bill's] circle is beginning to complain, loudly, about how Hillary is running her campaign. That kind of circular firing squad chatter is the first sign of a campaign headed into oblivion.


Barack Obama claims that panic is a likely cause:
Obama said Clinton's former staffer's comment smacked of desperation.


Newsday blames the Kindergarten Kerfuffle:
...Her campaign has been hobbled by several serious missteps, including an ill-advised effort to portray Obama as a power-seeker who has coveted the White House since kindergarten....


New Hampshire voters say that Obama's newcomer status helps:
Informal interviews with voters yesterday in Concord turned up several leaning toward Obama. Those voters described Obama in much the same way the Illinois senator describes himself: as an agent of change, a new face in Washington... [he] "offers sort of a fresh start, more of a clean slate, less baggage..."


Peggy Noonan also blames staffers:
[She] doesn't actually have an A team, that her advisers have always been chosen more for proven loyalty than talent, that her supporters don't feel deep affection for her. [Her] guru-pollster, the almost universally disliked Mark Penn, has, according to Newsday, become the focus of charges that he has "mistakenly run Clinton as a de facto incumbent" and that the top officials on the campaign have never had a real understanding of Iowa...


Obama's staffers blamed the politics of personal destruction:
...Obama's campaign continued to criticize Clinton for what it said was a pattern of using "gratuitous, personal attacks as a weapon in politics..."


The WaPo's Dan Balz blames a couple of minutes in Philadelphia:
What was it about that exchange over immigration that it now threatens months and months of effective campaigning and a series of debate performances in which Clinton was judged superior to Obama and the other Democrats in the field?


* * *

Interesting opinions. Perhaps the real reason is more elemental. Maybe folks just fear someone they think would kill, lie, steal and pillage in order to win.

Quote o' the day: the Terrifying Republican Killing Machine

 
Hillary Clinton:

I have been tested. I have been vetted. There are no surprises... Whoever we nominate is going to be subjected to the full force of the Republican attack machine.

Actually, Hill, you haven't even begun to experience the full force of the GOP attack machine. Only in the unlikely event that you win the Democratic nomination... only then, will we unleash the crazed Rovian dogs of war.

Thursday, December 13, 2007

Third USF student arrested in Megahed, Mohamed case

 
Remember the case of the two South Florida students who were detained near a military base in South Carolina after pipe bombs were found in their car?


Tampa Bay's Channel 10 is reporting that a third USF student was just arrested.

...Karim Moussaoui was arrested at the Magnolia residence hall Thursday morning on a federal weapons charge in connection with the explosives case against Youssef Megahed and Ahmed Mohamed. The two USF students were arrested in South Carolina in August.

...The federal complaint says Moussaoui entered the Shoot Straight Gun and Archery Range on U.S. 301 in Hillsborough County with Megahed and Mohamed in July.

An FBI agent says Moussaoui told them he did not fire any weapons, but pictures on Megahed's computer allegedly showed Moussaoui at a firing lane with a gun...

Gullette confirmed Moussaoui is a computer engineering major from Morocco who is scheduled to graduate Saturday. [Ed: correction: was scheduled]

...Moussaoui was released from federal custody Thursday afternoon on a $50,000 signature bond... The judge ordered he remain in the country with home detention and electronic monitoring. His attorney Stephen Crawford says Moussaoui is still planning to attend his graduation ceremony Saturday. [Ed: oops.]

Also see: Tampa Bay Online.

Headline o' the Day

 
Dead lawyer allegedly shot by two wives (December 8, 2007) -- A Colorado lawyer whose second wife has been charged with shooting him dead was also shot by his first wife.
Ann Tatum has been charged with the ... > full story

For all my Marine friends

 
Our families thank you for your service. And I echo the the Sergeant's sentiments: may this holiday season find you with your family, well and happy!

If you don't understand this illustration, you've never met a Marine!






Images courtesy of the Sergeant

Wednesday, December 12, 2007

700 MHz and Tim Wu's Wireless Declaration of Independence

 
In January 2008, a valuable swath of wireless spectrum will be auctioned off by the FCC. During the summer of 2007, the reconstituted telco monopoly prepared to bid any amount to lock out potential competitors.

...it's most likely that the incumbent telcos and cable companies will win the auction, simply to insure they don't have any competition...

Tim Wu is a professor at Columbia University best known for articulating the principles of network neutrality.

In the run-up to the auction, Wu published a seminal policy statement that deftly questioned the egregious behavior of the legacy telephone companies and advocated "open access" principles for the new spectrum.

...wireless carriers in the United States aggressively [control] product design and innovation in the equipment and application markets, to the detriment of consumers. In the wired world, their policies would, in some cases, be considered simply misguided, and in other cases be considered outrageous and illegal...

By controlling entry, carriers are in a position to exercise strong control over the design of mobile equipment. They have used that power to force equipment developers to omit or cripple many consumer-friendly features. Carriers have also forced manufacturers to include technologies, like “walled garden” Internet access, that neither equipment developers nor consumers want. Finally, through under-disclosed “phone-locking,” the U.S. carriers disable the ability of phones to work on more than one network. A list of features that carriers have blocked, crippled, modified or made difficult to use, at one time or another include:

• Call timers on telephones
• Wi-Fi technology
• Bluetooth technology
• GPS Services
• Advanced SMS services
• Internet Browsers
• Easy Photo file transfer capabilities
• Easy Sound file transfer capabilities
• Email clients
• SIM Card Mobility

Reeling from the sudden scrutiny and outrage, the FCC -- and its full-time telco apologist-slash-chairman, Kevin Martin -- decided to offer token levels of "open access" to auction winners. In general terms, the modest open access rules include:

• Carriers must allow the attachment of any compatible and non-harmful network device.
• Carriers must allow any application deemed non-harmful to the network to run.

The FCC also attempted to prevent collusion between telcos, which many observers believed had occurred in prior auctions.

Even with the changes, FCC Commissioner Michael Copps complained that the concessions amounted to only minor carrots:

Even though the device and application openness principles are indeed good news, the Order does not go far enough in one important respect. We all know that America’s broadband performance leaves a lot to be desired. To me, the culprit is clear: a stultifying lack of competition in the broadband market, which in the words of the Congressional Research Service is a plain old “cable and telephone … duopoly.” [The new] spectrum is uniquely suited to provide a broadband alternative, with speeds and prices that beat current DSL and cable modem offerings. Maybe this can happen yet in this spectrum, but by declining to impose a wholesale requirement on the 22 MHz C-block, the Commission misses an important opportunity to bring a robust and badly-needed third broadband pipe into American homes.

A wholesale requirement would have been sound policy for several reasons. First, requiring licensees to offer network capacity on non-discriminatory terms would have been an enormous shot in the arm for smaller companies—including those owned by women and minorities—that aren’t interested in or capable of raising the huge sums necessary to build a full-scale network. Smaller entrepreneurs deserve an alternate path to wireless access. Wholesale would have been good news for them—and for consumers.

Second, a wholesale requirement would have leveled the playing field for companies that want to get into the network business but cannot break through the defenses erected by the massive incumbents who dominate the industry. It is not hard to see why companies with extensive networks and millions of customers are generally able to outbid new entrants, even deep-pocketed ones. After all, the incumbents are (quite rationally) willing to pay an enormous “blocking premium” just to discourage new competitors. And their existing network infrastructure gives them a huge cost advantage when it comes to building a new network. Our current spectrum rules are tilted too much toward companies with built-in, competition-killing advantages.

Moreover, due to the Commission’s short-sighted decision a few years ago to eliminate spectrum caps, we have seen a wave of consolidation among wireless incumbents that has substantially increased the hurdles facing potential new entrants. And now we live in a world where the two leading wireless companies are owned in whole or in part by the leading wireline telephone companies. It is no knock on these companies to say that they may be more than a little reluctant to employ their spectrum holdings to put price and quality pressure on their wireline broadband products. What else would we expect them to do? The solution is to encourage an additional wireless competitor that has no affiliation with a wireline provider. A wholesale requirement would have given unaffiliated companies the fighting chance they need.

Third, the record in this proceeding clearly demonstrates a strong business case for the wholesale model. Some parties initially raised doubts about whether a wholesale business model could be economically self-sustaining. I believe that the record compiled in this proceeding answers that question. Several sophisticated companies and financial institutions have concluded that wholesale is indeed a viable economic model.

In other words, the FCC could have structured the auction to have the highest return-on-investment (ROI) by requiring the winner of the auction to wholesale service to other carriers. This "unbundled" model has worked spectacularly well in Europe.

But FCC Chairman Kevin Martin's agenda is so transparent, he could have written the order on plexiglass.

So thanks to Martin and the rest of the telco apologists, America looks to remain a wireless backwater controlled lock, stock and barrel by "Ma Bell 2.0".

Recommended: Go to Save the Internet and take action.

The IED threat at home: "Left of Boom"

 
On October 19, DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff spoke at a symposium focused on deterring Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) in the United States. Amazingly, the mainstream media's crack professional journalists chose not to cover his comments.

...it’s not surprising that the challenge of dealing with IEDs is one that is a global challenge, whether it is in the war zone in Iraq or Afghanistan, or in Europe where the Germans recently rolled up a plot to use peroxide-based IEDs to cause damage in Germany, or in Britain where we’ve seen an aborted effort earlier this summer to use vehicle-borne IEDs to cause damage in London... And of course we all remember the bombing of Oklahoma City, which was in fact an IED...

And that’s why I’ve got a little display I’d like to put up here because I do think it illustrates and puts in context the whole Question of how we look at IEDs. It basically examines the spectrum – I think we’ve handed this out – going from left to right. And I hasten to add that the left and right have nothing to do with politics; it’s just the directional flow of the spectrum. But you’ll see that really the way of dealing with IEDs is a recognition that we have many different points in which we can counter an IED threat.

In some ways, it’s the expression “left of boom” that captures and articulates this concept; that before we actually have the explosion, there are a series of intervention points, when if we can prevent something from happening, we can stop that boom from taking place.

...The final thing I want to point out in terms of kind of general observations is the importance of public observation and what I would call public networking in terms of countering the IED threat. It is not an accident or, frankly, not a surprise that many of the plots that have been disrupted over the last few years have been disrupted because individual citizens noticed an anomaly and contacted the authorities.

Earlier this summer, the disruption of the plot to set off bombs in London and Glasgow began with an ambulance driver in London who saw something funny about the way a car was parked outside a nightclub and notified the police. Now that is not government detection, it is not a sensor on every corner, it is not some magic piece of technology. What it is, is the fact that ordinary citizens looking around, being alert, and not being embarrassed to speak up actually are a force multiplier for protecting us against IEDs.

I can go back to 2001, when Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, was trying to light his shoe on an airplane. And that seems a little comical sometimes, but let me tell you, had he succeeded in lighting the shoe, the bomb would have gone off and would have caused enormous damage to the plane with a very high likelihood that the plane would have actually been destroyed and crashed with a substantial loss of life. Again, it is the intervention of people and ordinary citizens that is a key element in this strategy...

Ordinary citizens looking around? Being alert? Speaking up?

Perhaps someone could alert the Clinton-appointed Judge presiding over the "Flying Imams" case..

Hat tips: Pajamas Media and Powerline.

Terrifying Photo o' the Day

 
Fausta has the latest news on Gaddafi's visit to Paris... including the Libyan leader's tent city and female bodyguards-slash-attendants.

Holy crap! Is it just me, or does Gaddafi look like the illicit love-child of Prince and Tom Jones?

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

DNC endorses Huckabee: an "Easy Kill" in General Election

 
Ace provides the latest election scoops, including the National Review's endorsement of Mitt Romney (hat tip: Larwyn):

Surprising? A bit. I really don't know how much pull NR has though. From my comments and emails, I gather NR is viewed very suspiciously by a large swath of the conservative electorate, which views them as meddlesome yuppie RINOs.

Meanwhile, also from Drudge, Democrats have been instructed to avoid all criticism of Huckabee, viewing him as an "easy kill" in the general election...

Democrat party officials are avoiding any and all criticism of Republican presidential contender Mike Huckabee, insiders reveal... The Democratic National Committee has told staffers to hold all fire, until he secures the party's nomination... The directive has come down from the highest levels within the party, according to a top source.

Within the DNC, Huckabee is known as the "glass jaw -- and they're just waiting to break it."

In the last three weeks since Huckabee's surge kicked in, the DNC hasn't released a single press release criticizing his rising candidacy... The last DNC press release critical of Huckabee appeared back on March 2nd.

...In fact, as the story broke over the weekend that Huckabee said he wanted to isolate AIDS patients back in 1992, the DNC ignored the opportunity to slam the candidate from the left.

"He'll easily be their McGovern, an easy kill," mocked one senior Democrat operative Tuesday morning from Washington.

Iowans take note.

David Letterman in 1988: Prescient on Global Warming

 
It's been 20 years of panic-mongering and we still have the same general weather patterns. Go figure.

Top 10 Good Things about the Greenhouse Effect - August 10, 1988

10. Melting polar ice caps make for better surfing.
9. Long lines at Disney World reduced by sunstroke.
8. With five years, Jerry Lewis' hair will be bone dry.
7. Can use "stuck in road tar" as acceptable excuse for missing work.
6. ABC will take a $200 million bath on Winter Olympics.
5. Intense heat should open pores in General Noriega's forehead.
4. My dog-shaving business will take off.
3. "I'm dehydrated" will replace "I'm not gonna pay a lot for this muffler" as America's favorite phrase.
2. Can cook lobster by lowering it into toilet.
1. Hot babes, less clothes. 'Nuff said.

And are you ready for more of these?

Top Ten Other Clinton Scandals - September 29, 1998

10. Kicked 12 year-old boy to get McGwire home run ball
9. He's the real reason behind Matt Damon-Minnie Driver breakup
8. Wedding ring he gave to Hillary? Cubic Zirconia
7. Sold secret puffy thigh technology to Yeltsin
6. Once tried to build a bong out of Al Gore
5. Broke into the Watergate just for the hell of it
4. When family goes to movies, makes Chelsea pretend she's under 13
3. Paid Ken Starr to write a report that would "make him look like a stud"
2. At state dinner, once accidentally hit on Hillary
1. Secretly sold Delaware to Chinese for $500