What IS he blabbering about?

Andrew Stuttaford at NRO says Bill Clinton embarrassed himself in this bit of blabbering, and I agree. Andrew writes:

Leaving aside the fact that the prohibition on depiction of Mohammed is by no means as clear-cut as Clinton pretends to think, we have to deal with the fact that Clinton believes that images that “offend’ the beliefs of one religious faith should not even be created, let alone published.

And they call Pat Robertson intolerant?

And then there’s this:

“But I would not be surprised if the person who drew those cartoons and the newspaper publisher who decided to print them did not even know that it was considered blasphemous to have any kind of personal depiction of the Prophet to Muslims.”

Oh good grief. If Clinton has read any newspapers on this subject (and if he hasn’t, could he please shut up about the whole topic) he would know that Jyllands-Posten published the cartoons specifically to test the extent to which the beliefs of one religious faith were being imposed upon others.

And do we get from Clinton any suggestion that the rioters, thugs and bullies who have defaced the name of Islam in the course of the cartoon wars should apologize? No we don’t. If anything, Clinton’s implication is that it is the West that should be apologizing, and that publication of what he calls “blasphemy” was unacceptable.

That’s telling him!

But honestly, read what he said for yourself. This is a guy we’re constantly being told is so brilliant -and he has his talents for sure – but every time I read him I’m struck by how much be blabbers on, running out the clock. And of course, by how self-referential he is.

I don’t read him closely, usually. But whenever I DO read Bill Clinton’s actual blabbering, what I come away with is that for all of his glib gifts, for all of his polish, for all of his showmanship, the guy is, at core, a stunning mediocrity. I don’t think he likes himself much at all, either.