Why Do Democrats Lie?

Obviously, the Susan Rice interview with Lesley Stahl on CBS 60 Minutes December 22, 2013 does not represent true journalism. It does show the astounding level of insouciance that has pervaded the leftist political hemisphere and their lackeys in the liberal news media when they feel they can roll one lie out right after another; not just, mind you little white fibs, but in-your-face, blatant, over-the-top, "go to blazes I'll say what I want to" lies, where truth is merely a manufactured token to be used for the moment and disposed of in the next when it is no longer expedient, where whatever works to sway the public to support whatever liberal cause will be trotted out by the lap-dog news media and not be questioned by their audience.

So what was Susan Rice's response to the tragedy of Benghazi and to those who lost their lives there defending the American Ambassador? Did we see any compunction, any feeling of regret that something more could have been done, should have been done to save their lives? Did Rice express any empathy towards the grieving relatives, did she show any hint of compassion for their loss? Were there any tears of sorrow for these brave men who perished doing their duty to their country?

We saw none. Instead of accountability, instead of humanity, what we saw was an incredibly vulgar performance exhibiting all of the behavior of a psychopath taking the stand, picking her teeth while casually answering questions as to the whereabouts of her criminal gang when the murders occured, totally oblivious to the sobbing of the loved ones out in the audience; behavior marked by a bold defiance of the proprieties and an utter lack of shame; indeed, an incredible exercise in complete inhumanity and shamelessness; which should not surprise us, as this has been the pattern of not only Rice, but of the Clintons, Eric Holder, the Obamas and others of their ilk for years.

We saw this same lack of empathy during Hillary Clinton's temper tantrum before the Congressional committee during the Benghazi hearings. "What difference at this point does it make?" she ranted before a shocked world audience and her senate and congressional peers. It was all about her, defending herself against these mean congressmen who wanted to know why four Americans had lost their lives during her watch. What could she do about it, it wasn't her fault, now it's all over with and let's forget about the whole thing. Such was her child-like, amoral attitude during the hearings, and such has been the attitude of the media while they try to cleanse Clinton's bloody record in the aftermath.

"Let them eat cake" Rice told the surviving relatives of the Benghazi Four while she sat in smug arrogance during the Stahl interview. She knew she had nothing to fear from Leslie Stahl or 60 Minutes. She knew they would not press her for details, question her about brazenly misrepresenting the truth. She was in her element, she was surrounded by her court admirers. This was not an interview, Rice was holding a sitting, she was having an old fashioned parlor salon chat with a friend. Leslie Stahl was not interviewing Susan Rice; Susan Rice was receiving Leslie Stahl, Stahl was merely a lady in waiting, a handmaid brought in for this charade for the public consumption; truth, justice, equity, righteousness, they had nothing to do with this execrable "interview".

It was no mistake, no coincidence that this interview occurred when it did, just a week before the so-called "revelation" by two New York Times reporters that, in spite of all of the evidence, in spite of what intelligence officers said, in spite of what the Interim President of Lybia had said (see above article), of what survivors of the attack said, in spite of videos and sound recordings of the event, in spite of Egyptian intelligence reports saying that Al Quada was involved, the lie that Rice said on 60 Minutes was further regurgitated by these lackeys.

This is no accident, this did not happen by randomness; this is simply part of a concerted campaign by the left to paper over the mess of Benghazi in order to pave the way for Hillary to make the Presidential run in 2016. There were meetings, there were closed door discussions, strategy and tactics were involved in this cleverly timed roll out of these two events. The media is in collusion with the scoundrels who have been running this country for the past six years, and with the scoundrels who ran it back in the 90's. The media are their water boys, they provide cover for this inept, corrupt, criminal Obama administration, and with their former tight hold of the reigns of power over the information market place, they believe that they can get away with just about anything their corrupt, little hearts desire.

They do have one problem though. Just as the printing press led to a liberation in human thought and life, so the internet has led to a revolution in truth, albeit along with the "tares", and the stronghold that CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, PBS, NPR and others have had over shaping our world view to their plans has been broken. There are finally alternatives to the democratic oligarchy that has dominated our public square since the time of Walter Cronkite, the man who stabbed American armed forces in the back during the TET offensive in Vietnam, when we actually had a chance of winning the war, except for his lie to the American public at that time, a lie that shaped history and led to the eventual defeat of American forces and to the communist takeover of that nation, and indirectly to the communist massacre in Laos and Cambodia under Pol Pot.

Cronkite's sin was and is Hillary's sin, it is Eric Holder's sin when he sold weapons to mexican drug lords, Lois Lerner's sin when she persecuted conservative organizations through the IRS, it is Bill Clinton's sin when he sold missile technology to China in exchange for illegal campaign donations, it is the sin of the one who betrayed Christ for a paltry sum of money, for worldly gain, it is the sin of all of the Judas's down through history who have betrayed their fellow countrymen for power.

Yes, and this is Susan Rice's sin, and shame on us if we swallow her lies, and lie down in dumb acquiescence under the jack booted feet of this liberal tyranny, and this most corrupt administration in America's history. God bless, God save America.

Obviously, the Susan Rice interview with Lesley Stahl on CBS 60 Minutes December 22, 2013 does not represent true journalism.
Incorrect.

It does show the astounding level of insouciance that has pervaded the leftist political hemisphere and their lackeys in the liberal news media when they feel they can roll one lie out right after another
Obviously true. How can the first assertion be false and the second assertion be true? Simple - the conceit of journalistic objectivity is humbug. Always has been, always will be. Journalism is naturally partisan.
But then, before the Civil War era the various newspapers were much more variegated in their opinions, and much more open about the fact that any given newspaper was about the opinions of its printer. Back then, newspapers notoriously didn’t agree about much of anything. In that milieu, readers were not under any illusion that journalists were objective.
What changed that? IMHO it was the advent of the telegraph - the telegraph, and the wire services. Any wire service would tend to homogenize the newspapers which belong to it; the Associated Press happens to have been an aggressively monopolistic and successful wire service which quickly became dominant in the US. In the second half of the Nineteenth Century the concentration of propaganda power which the AP represented became an issue.
The AP responded to that challenge to its legitimacy by claiming that, since its member newspapers (which represented the source of much of its content) didn’t agree about much of anything, the AP itself was objective. It was a convenient argument, and it seemed to have some sense behind it - but the homogenizing effect of the AP promptly put paid to any validity it might initially have had. Not only did the AP inherently tend to homogenize its member newspapers, the AP created its “Stylebook” for that explicit purpose. The stylebook had a legitimate influence in sharpening the writing in newspapers, but it also has provisions which have patent political implications.
So the conceit of journalistic objectivity derives from the very mechanism - the AP - which most signally assured that journalism would speak with a single voice. Thus, uniformity is put forward as ersatz “objectivity.”
The natural disposition is always to believe. It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing. The man whom we believe is necessarily, in the things concerning which we believe him, our leader and director, and we look up to him with a certain degree of esteem and respect. But as from admiring other people we come to wish to be admired ourselves; so from being led and directed by other people we learn to wish to become ourselves leaders and directors. And as we cannot always be satisfied merely with being admired, unless we can at the same time persuade ourselves that we are in some degree really worthy of admiration; so we cannot always be satisfied merely with being believed, unless we are at the same time conscious that we are really worthy of belief. As the desire of praise and that of praise-worthiness, though very much a-kin, are yet distinct and separate desires; so the desire of being believed and that of being worthy of belief, though very much a-kin too, are equally distinct and separate desires.
The desire of being believed, the desire of persuading, of leading and directing other people, seems to be one of the strongest of all our natural desires. - Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments
Thus, we find ourselves afflicted with a monolithic journalism which never has to take responsibility for the validity of its favored nostrums, and which is determined to lead the way in irresponsibility. Worse, we find ourselves afflicted by an electorate which is loaded with people who are predisposed to believe and follow irresponsible journalism.

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.