Posted on 11/17/2001 8:05:17 AM PST by Jean S
Well, some things are “back to normal,” as they say. The Democrats are back to their old tricks, blaming good things for bad things.
Like last Sunday. Senator Hillary Clinton went on the only TV network where she feels safe, the one named for her philandering husband (The Clinton News Network), and made one of the most outrageous statements I’ve ever heard from a Democrat – and I’ve heard some doozies. Her Heinous actually said, “If we (Congress) hadn’t passed the big tax cut last spring, that I believe undermined our fiscal responsibility and our ability to deal with this new threat of terrorism, we wouldn’t be in the fix we’re in today.”
Now that is equivalent to blaming tornados in Kansas on Washington tax cuts. The two have absolutely nothing to do with each other. I understand that the CNN interviewer probably doesn’t know enough economics to question Mrs. Clinton on such an outrageous statement, but hopefully the rest of us do. Had I been doing the interview, a perfect followup question would have been, “Exactly how, Senator, did tax cuts engender the events of September 11?” Then stand back for the stammering.
But the interviewer, Jonathan Karl, simply let Mrs. Clinton proceed blithely to blame the tax cuts for the economic downturn that followed the destruction and death of September 11. Why didn’t he ask if her husband’s policy of allowing terrorist acts around the globe against American facilities and citizens to go totally unpunished had anything to do with the utter audacity displayed by the bombers of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon? The fact that President “Happy Boy” Clinton swore revenge on nine separate occasions, then did nothing more than lob 50 or 60 cruise missiles at undefined targets was not brought up once. Nor was the fact mentioned that the economy began to fall precipitously in February, 2000, while Mrs. Clinton’s bad-boy husband was still president.
No, once again, a Democrat made a truly outrageous charge and was allowed a free pass by our news media, who are either too stupid to ask or too complicitous to want to reveal Democrats for what they are. It’s one or the other. I’ll let the boys at CNN decide which they want to be.
On the other hand, it must be great to be a Democrat. You can lie like a rug – in fact seem to be encouraged to do so – and get off Scot free. Heck, if I’d been as encouraged as most of them have, I’d probably try my hand at it too.
As our fearless leader, Tom Adkins, has said many times, political campaigns in this country come down to a contest between a Democrat’s ability to lie and a Republican’s ability to tell the truth. Unfortunately, so few of our citizenry try to avail themselves of the information such that they would know a lie if it were told to them. And some, sadly, don’t seem to care. But given the eight years of the Clinton presidency, here’s a rule of thumb, sports fans: if it comes out of the mouth of a Clinton, I’d assume it’s probably a lie, told to cover a previous lie they’ve told.
Finally, to all my friends, family and acquaintances in New Jersey, I say the same thing I said to my friends in New York after last November’s election of Hillary Clinton: You’ve made your bed; now lie down quick before you throw up. You guys decided to elect Jim McGreevy, so don’t come whining to me when you have the highest taxes of any state in the union. That’s what McGreevy does for a living. Get used to it. And y’all take care now, ya hear?
It must be great to be in the mainstream media too - for the same reason.
Thanks for the post.
Jen
Jen
That damned, horrendous b!tch. We only got $300 per person. This is costing megabillions. Does she really think stealing our lousy $300 would have made a bit of difference?
Rush made a great point - President Vladimir Putin had nicer things to say about Texas than the Libdem/Chicom Party did this past presidential election...
|
|
|
Olson Book's Chilling Warning: Clinton's Terrorist Pardons Sent Signal Crime/Corruption In a bone chilling chapter of her new book "The Final Days," late heroine-author Barbara Olson warned that ex-president Bill Clinton's pardons of terrorists who had repeatedly bombed buildings in New York City "send a signal" that the U.S. isn't serious about fighting terrorism. In words that now seem like a harbinger of her own Sept. 11 death at the hands of the Middle Eastern terrorists, Olson cited example after example of how U.S. officials strenuously warned Clinton that pardoning FALN Puerto Rican separatists who had waged their own bombing jihad on America posed a threat to national security. In August 1999 Clinton pardoned 16 FALN terrorists without even being asked, in a move that was widely seen as a cynical ploy to win Hispanic votes for his wife's New York senate bid. The group had planned and executed 130 bombing attacks on New York, Chicago and Washington, D.C. from 1974 to 1983. Miraculously, the FALN managed to kill just six Americans. But hundreds more were seriously wounded. Law enforcement officials were stunned when Clinton decided to pardon the FALN bombers. "The FBI's assistant director of national security, Neil Gallagher, said that the people turned loose by Clinton 'are criminals, and they are terrorists, and they represent a threat to the United States,'" Olson wrote. In a subchapter eerily headlined "Pardons for Terrorists Send a Signal," she reported: "President Clinton had not bothered to consult with relatives of victims of FALN terrorism. In fact, the survivors of those murdered and those whose lives had otherwise been destroyed by the terrorists were not even informed that their attackers were being released." Olson continued: "Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder.... conceded that the nation owed much greater consideration to the victims. And Holder's boss, Janet Reno, explicitly acknowledged that groups aligned with the FALN still posed a threat to national security." In comments turned gut-wrenching in light of last month's attacks, former Justice Department pardon attorney Margaret Love told the late author that Clinton's terrorist pardons should have set off alarm bells. "We should have seen a big flashing red light because of the FALN cases.... That was a foreshoadowing of what happened later." Love was referring to Clinton's January 2001 pardons of drug dealers and international fugitives, not the attacks on the U.S., which no one foresaw. But it's nearly impossible now to read those words as anything but prophesy of the terrorist acts that murdered Olson and nearly 6,000 others last month. In a moment of now legendary heroism, the late author telephoned her husband, Solicitor General Ted Olson, from American Flight 175 to warn that terrorists had hijacked her plane. Mr. Olson had the terrible task of telling his wife that two planes had slammed into New York's World Trade Center minutes before. Barbara Olson's phone call was the first warning the government had that Washington, D.C. had come under similar attack. In comments sure to irk those who argued for eight years that Bill Clinton's private life was nobody else's business, the late author contends that the terrorist pardons were payback for Mrs. Clinton indulging her husband's decades of rampant philandering. "Hillary had done a lot of heavy lifting for her husband, much of it, such as the various bimbo eruptions, that required her to hold her nose. She had to cover for her husband and lie." Olson called the FALN pardons Bill Clinton's "first return on her investment." Though a lively debate has raged ever since Sept. 11 over whether the ex-president did as much as he could to stop Osama bin Laden, the one-time congressional Clinton investigator is the first to raise the FALN pardon question at any length. Perhaps now Sen. Clinton, who has made herself newly available on the TV talk show circuit since the World Trade Center attacks, will be asked whether she agrees with Olson that her husband's terrorist pardons "sent a signal."
|
|
|
|
|
|
"My client had nothing to do with the low-rent, trailer-park trash politicians who infested our country for the past eight years."
(Michael Rosen was understandably eager to distance his client, a convicted loan shark, from the clintons. Another Thomas Gambino reportedly paid $50,000 to roger clinton in an unsuccessful effort to get a pardon for his father, Rosario Gambino.),
|
|
|
"I did not have any involvement in the pardons that were granted or not granted," insisted Sen. KnowNothing, seeming to forget her presence at the New-Square/Oval-Office schmooze that secured pardons for the four Hasidic felons who set up a phony school in Brooklyn to swindle the government out of millions intended for the poor.  |
|
WASHINGTON- February 22. Sen. KnowNothing Victim Clinton held her premiere press conference today on Capitol Hill, ostensibly to answer questions about the peddling of White House pardons by her brother and her campaign treasurer. Notably absent among the press queries were any about her own involvement not only in those pardons, but in the larger universe of sold pardons--the incipient clinton scandal du jour--Pardongate. KnowNothing's brother, Hugh Rodham, secured two of the 141 clinton midnight pardons, one for a cocaine kingpin and the other for a snake-oil swindler. Rodham netted a quick $400,000 for his "work" according to various rodhams and clintons and their assorted lawyers. KnowNothing's campaign treasurer, William Cunningham III, himself a law partner of longtime KnowNothing adviser Harold Ickes, helped obtain last-minute pardons for two convicted felons. LA FAMIGLIA Displaying a willingness to throw her brother (along with her husband) to the wolves, Sen. Victim Clinton was quick to make a distinction between her big, bad brother's pardon "work" and that of her campaign treasurer, "a fine lawyer and a fine man." The "family" connection of brother Rodham to Clinton made brother Rodham's "work" bad, bad, bad, whereas the campaign treasurer Cunningham's connection to the senator and her campaign coffers made his securing of two pardons in record time a sterling example of highminded, effective public service. KnowNothing is apparently not the best of thinkers. If the "family" connection makes lobbying for cocaine-kingpin and snake-oil-swindler pardons bad, bad, bad for brother Rodham, then the "family" connection makes lobbying for the Hasidim 4 (see Keating 5) pardons bad, badder, baddest for the wife, First Lady and senator-elect. Moreover, pardons for votes is arguably worse than pardons for dough. EFFECTIVELY PLEADS 5TH BY INVOKING SPOUSAL PRIVILEGE KnowNothing specifically declined to answer when asked whether she discussed the pardons with her husband, effectively pleading the 5th. Turning aside questions about the pardon decisions her husband had made, she told reporters they should address those issues with him and his staff. She refused to say whether he should agree to appear voluntarily before congressional committees investigating the pardons. Interestingly, no one asked her whether she would agree to appear voluntarily before those same congressional committees. I DIDN'T HAVE SEX WITH THAT PARDON "I did not have any involvement in the pardons that were granted or not granted," insisted Sen. KnowNothing, seeming to forget her presence at the New-Square/Oval-Office schmooze that secured pardons for the four Hasidic felons who set up a phony school in Brooklyn to swindle the government out of millions intended for the poor. RESURRECTING RUFF KnowNothing noted that her"best memory" was that she never spoke to her brother or to Mr. Cunningham about the pardons. With variations of "I don't have a memory" and "my best memory, and avoiding the more obvious "I don't recall" and "my best recollection," KnowNothing reprised the Ruffian standard used during the clinton years to commit perjury without penalty. I GET LETTERS ...or more precisely, envelopes. During her denials of involvement in any of the pardons, KnowNothing made the curious claim: "People handed me envelopes, I passed them on [and never opened a single one. Honest.]" I AM VICTIM Reprising the role of victim that enabled her to win a senate seat in spite of record-high personal negatives and public failures, the senator peppered her answers about big, bad Hugh (understanding that the subtext was big, bad Bill) with "saddened" and "disappointed" and "heartbroken" and "shocked." UTTER CONTEMPT FOR THE PEOPLE This session today was cut short by a staffer when reporters appeared dissatisfied by Senator KnowNothing's lack of candor. In the end, this press conference full of poses, poll-tested phrases and prevarication was just another display of the clintons' utter contempt for the people. Bill Clinton committed the same error last Sunday in his shameless, lie-filled New York Times Pardongate Apologia. The clintons' fundamental error: They are too arrogant and dim-witted to understand that the demagogic process in this fiberoptic age isn't about counting spun heads; it's about not discounting circumambient brains. 
|
HER: Sen. KnowNothing Victim Clinton Effectively Pleads 5TH by Invoking Spousal Privilege
|
When did the b***h start answering questions? I thought her style was more that of making some incredibly outrageous remark and promptly slithering behind closed doors but for the occasional photo op.
|
|
The smartest woman in the world would relish "the raucous give and take of American democracy, " as Charles Kuralt once put it. hillary clinton, by contrast, subsists on cozy clintonoid interviews of the Colmes kind... In her new book, Political Fictions, Joan Didion indicts the fakery of access journalism practiced by vacant politicos like the clintons, whom she sees as "purveyors of fables of their own making, or worse, fables conceived by political strategists with designs on votes, not news."
(More Didion clintoclasm: "No one who ever passed through an American public high school could have watched William Jefferson Clinton running for office in 1992 and failed to recognize the familiar predatory sexuality of the provincial adolescent.") |
|
OFF THE RECORD: AN OLD DOG NEEDS NEW TRICKS
|
|
|
To paraphrase Abe Lincoln: She can compress the most words into the smallest idea of any person I know. [NOTE: Lincoln didn't know HIM.] ... |
|
And Adlai Stevenson: In America, anybody can be co-president. That's one of the risks you take. |
|
Senator Dim Bulb by Gary Aldrich © 2001 WorldNetDaily.com Annotated by Mia T |
You see......I am an old man and don't have that much time left.
Thanks in advance.
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.
roadside ad, 
