Posted on 11/15/2003 11:23:52 PM PST by Jean S
New York Sen. Hillary Clinton told Iowa Democrats Saturday night that she recently visited Washington, D.C.'s Walter Reed Army Hospital to comfort wounded soldiers coming back from Iraq, saying their plight was the result of President Bush's arrogant foreign policy.
Addressing an enthusiastic crowd at Iowa's Jefferson Jackson dinner, the top Democrat complained, "When the rest of the world opened its hearts to us [after 9/11], he turned his back and pursued a very narrow and unfortunate policy that we are still paying a very big price for."
"And of course, it is mostly falling on the shoulders of the young men and women who serve in our military," she added.
For the first time ever, Sen. Clinton revealed: "Last Tuesday night I went out to Walter Reed hospital, which, many of you know, is the Army hospital in Washington, to walk around and say hello to the soldiers who had been evacuated out of Iraq after suffering grievous injuries, to meet their familles, [and] to answer their questions."
She painted a picture of the unnecessary suffering due to what she said were the president's misguided policies:
"As I went from room to room and bed to bed, seeing young men who had lost arms and legs, who had head injuries that, at least as for now, prevented them from knowing their names and remembering where they came from - I knew that I was seeing the best that America has to offer."
A comprehensive review of news reports over the last week, however, failed to turn up any mention of Sen. Clinton's visit to Walter Reed.
The former first lady made similar claims of meetings with 9/11 victim familles to author Stephen Brill earlier this year. But when Brill attempted to confirm the visits with the families themselves, he got a different story.
"None of it turned out to be true," he told radio host Steve Malzberg. "[Sen. Clinton's office] gave me documents and phone calls and things like that which just plain never happened."
We watched the whole thing last night (we're politics junkies) and most of it was pitiful in every aspect. BUT...and this is a big but...HRC is dangerous. She electrified the audience more than any of the dwarves. She could enter at the convention after the obligitory first vote. She could win the nomination and she would be a problem.
She is one of the most convincing liars I have ever encountered and there are millions who want to believe her.
HRC is in my opinion the most dangerous person in America.
Where will you be when your diarrhea comes back?
While diarrhea may not be the most pleasant experience, it is actually quite common - affecting adults an average of four times per year. Characterized by unusually frequent or liquid bowel movements, diarrhea is the opposite of constipation.What happens in your body to cause this uncomfortable phenomenon is really quite simple. Normally, food and liquids follow a path from the stomach into the small intestine where nutrients and water are absorbed, and then into the colon where undigested waste can be stored and later expelled. Sometimes, infection, poison, inflammation or a variety of other events can hamper the normal operation of the small intestine or colon and the rate at which nutrients and water are absorbed. The normally slow, wavelike movement of the intestinal tract can become hyperactive, moving food and fluids through the colon too quickly. This results in watery stools - better known as diarrhea. The word "diarrhea" is derived from the Greek word "diarrhoia" which means "a flowing through".
Most people regard diarrhea as an occasional inconvenience, but if you suffer from chronic diarrhea, you know that the inconvenience is anything but occasional. Diarrhea that persists for periods longer than four weeks is usually considered to be chronic. Chronic diarrhea can be quite debilitating and restricting, often forcing sufferers to plan their entire day around the availability of a bathroom, due to the unpredictability of an episode.
Both Clintons have a history of just blurting out lies that sound good on the spur of the moment and the complicit press covers for them. OTOH this COULD be a set-up.
If your sister says she actually DID show up there and walked around talking at wounded soldiers, please ask her if any of the soldiers were conscious and/or in full possession of their mental faculties.
IOW I could see Hillary spending a quick 5 minutes walking around a couple rooms full of beds and asking the unconscious or mentally impaired men (some of whom may have also lost arms or legs) if they had any questions for her to answer. Then, getting no response, "I know you wonder why you had to pay the price for the miserable failure..."
I can picture her planning all this, knowing that we'd pick up on it and then hitting back with, "I kept it quiet because it wasn't just a cheap photo-op, but I can prove I was there and it's so mean-spirited of the extreme right to accuse me..."
Former Gov. G. Davis of CA set up his regular election opposition Bill Simon by leaking some BS to a mole on Simon's team about something bad Davis had done. Simon jumped the gun and made a public statement about it and Davis was able to refute him and make him look foolish and dishonest. We need to know before we jump on this publically.
It would be just as damning IMO if we learned that she walked around a bunch of men who didn't even know she was there as she used them for pawns, but my best guess is that she didn't even go.
I doubt it.
You don't trust Newsmax, we don't need to know that you're cutting yourself off from a news source more reliable than NPR, CBS, NBC, ABC, and your apparent favorite news source: The NY Times by Durante or Blair
And we don't care. Mention it often enough and you'll just piss people off, and deservedly so.
Well, you are right about one thing, I will 'piss people off' and if you are one of them, then I don't care. You have assumed I am a liberal or a leftist because I compared Newsmax to the National Enquirer? You could not be more wrong if you thought the earth was flat or the Clinton's were honest.
Sources of my news:
Neal Boortz
WS Opinion Journal - James Taranto
Townhall.com
Drudge
Free Republic
I use all of the above to link directly to the articles written. I prefer to form my own opinion rather then let the writer of the article form it for me.
Why do I not like Newsmax? -- Virtually all of their headlines are purposefully misleading to focus only on the worst aspect of an article or incident. If you have not seen that, then you are not paying attention. I also was a regular reader of NewsMax, but in the last two years they have beome predictable in their gross slanting of storys. BTW, I subscribe to their magazine, which is far better then their website.
If I want distorted versions of articles or glossed up news, I will read the National Enquirer.
I assume that you are in fact an intelligent person, (although nothing you posted in this thread would be indicative of that). You would do well to obtain your news from some of the sources that I have mentioned. You would also do well to not make such grossly inaccurate assumptions about that which you have no facts.
Worth repeating.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.