Posts Tagged ‘Bosnia’

It’s Not Just That Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Belong In The White House; She Belongs In The BIG HOUSE. She Is A DISHONEST CORRUPT CRIMINAL.

August 18, 2015

As big of a clown show as the Republican nomination process is with Donald Chump blabbermouthing all over the place, the Democrat process is actually an even BIGGER joke.

Donald Trump is a reality television-trained clown; Hillary Clinton is a Clinton Incorporated-trained crook.

At least under a Trump the Chump we wouldn’t have the unending cancer of an “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is” presidency.

This is a politician who insists that her emails on her private server that she installed are “my personal property.”  You know, EXACTLY the same way Richard Nixon installed a voice recorder system in his office and claimed the Watergate tapes were HIS personal property.  The problem is that history proves this is an argument for a fascist thug rather than a true leader.  If you compare these two incredibly secretive, paranoid, vindictive and dishonest thugs to one another, you will see parallel after parallel.  I suppose this is the Democrat Party’s way of humbly apologizing to Nixon: because they  clearly want his reincarnation back.

One of our greatest modern-day war heroes who saved thousands of American lives and literally figured out a way to win unwinnable wars and a Marine intelligence officer who desperately tried to save American servicemen’s lives by sending an email warning that an Afghan security chief was a terrorist ended up being destroyed over their not-completely perfect treatment of classified material.  Hillary Clinton is a criminal and Barack Obama is a criminal for not treating her like a criminal the way he treated David Petraeus like a perp-walked criminal.  But this is trageically the most dishonest and partisan administration in the entire history of the world’s oldest republic.

As I understand it, that Marine officer ended up in prison for just ONE improperly handled email.  Hillary Clinton is ALREADY in worse shape – and it’s going to get a hell of a lot worse than that as they keep finding more and more emails.  If Hillary Clinton does NOT END UP IN PRISON, it is ONLY because the Democrat Party has become the institutional party of political crony fascism and corruption.

I pointed out months ago that Hillary Clinton’s secret email system was grounds for her automatic disqualification: To wit, the obvious question to ask her and to ask every Democrat who supports her is whether every single Republican or Republican political appointee ought to be able to install their own private servers, selectively purge their communications, and be completely above all law and all transparency the way Hillary Clinton has been.  If they say no, then Hillary Clinton isn’t fit to be president; if they say yes, then call them the fascist they are right to their face.  And I wrote that before it was revealed that she was treating top secret emails like soup recipes over the internet.

If the media had any credibility whatsoever, every single question that every single reporter or journalist asked her would be about what kind of paranoid fascist autocratic dictatorial walking-talking sociopathic narcissistic personality disorder which her emails prove that she clearly is.

You need to understand how much of a LIAR Hillary Clinton’s current email scandals have with crystal clarity already revealed her to be (with MANY more shoes or fascist jackboots to drop).  She has been one – the historical record proves – over the course of her entire LIFE.  I want you to see Hillary Clinton’s email scandal for what it is – the longstanding continuation of the lies of a pathological liar.  I want you to first see the dishonest and frankly evil woman who is basically saying, “Everyone needs to implicitly trust me.  Even AFTER I wiped my server clean to purge the evidence.”

So let’s start with some history of the pathological liar a.k.a. Hillary Rodham Clinton before pointing out that the following “lying, unethical, dishonest lawyer” who has “conspired to violate the Constitution” all her life.  Then we’ll move on to her current scandal where she has proven still further what a by-nature pathological corrupt fascist political Jezebel she truly is:

As a 27-year old lawyer Hillary Clinton was fired from her position during the Watergate investigation for “lying, unethical behavior.” And worse. And you already see the pathologically twisted mindset.  Let me set this up for you:  You have a LIFELONG Democrat supervising Hillary.  But this supervisor came to realize that Hillary Clinton was playing a game with an incredibly dishonest and unethical agenda.  This was supposed to be a process about JUSTICE, but Hillary Clinton was, is and always will be a pure political vicious animal.  Her agenda was to KEEP Nixon in the White House so her political patron Ted Kennedy would have a clearer shot at the White House; and at the same time to cynically abuse the process of justice to protect Kennedy from the record of history “that would have made Watergate look like a day at the beach.”  In short, Hillary Clinton from the very start of her career revealed herself to be “an unethical, dishonest lawyer” who “violated the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”  Hillary Clinton is a dishonest piece of fascist trash, and she always HAS BEEN a dishonest piece of fascist trash:

Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation … one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.

Why?

“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”

How could a 27-year-old House staff member do all that? She couldn’t do it by herself, but Zeifman said she was one of several individuals … including Marshall, special counsel John Doar and senior associate special counsel (and future Clinton White House Counsel) Bernard Nussbaum … who engaged in a seemingly implausible scheme to deny Richard Nixon the right to counsel during the investigation.

Why would they want to do that? Because, according to Zeifman, they feared putting Watergate break-in mastermind E. Howard Hunt on the stand to be cross-examined by counsel to the president. Hunt, Zeifman said, had the goods on nefarious activities in the Kennedy Administration that would have made Watergate look like a day at the beach… including Kennedy’s purported complicity in the attempted assassination of Fidel Castro.

The actions of Hillary and her cohorts went directly against the judgment of top Democrats, up to and including then-House Majority Leader Tip O’Neill, that Nixon clearly had the right to counsel. Zeifman says that Hillary, along with Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar, was determined to gain enough votes on the Judiciary Committee to change House rules and deny counsel to Nixon. And in order to pull this off, Zeifman says Hillary wrote a fraudulent legal brief, and confiscated public documents to hide her deception.

The brief involved precedent for representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding. When Hillary endeavored to write a legal brief arguing there is no right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding, Zeifman says, he told Hillary about the case of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, who faced an impeachment attempt in 1970.

“As soon as the impeachment resolutions were introduced by (then-House Minority Leader Gerald) Ford, and they were referred to the House Judiciary Committee, the first thing Douglas did was hire himself a lawyer,” Zeifman said.

The Judiciary Committee allowed Douglas to keep counsel, thus establishing the precedent. Zeifman says he told Hillary that all the documents establishing this fact were in the Judiciary Committee’s public files.

So what did Hillary do?

“Hillary then removed all the Douglas files to the offices where she was located, which at that time was secured and inaccessible to the public,”Zeifman said. Hillary then proceeded to write a legal brief arguing there was no precedent for the right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding … as if the Douglas case had never occurred.

The brief was so fraudulent and ridiculous, Zeifman believes Hillary would have been disbarred if she had submitted it to a judge.

How was this ethical fiasco “resolved”?

Zeifman says that if Hillary, Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar had succeeded, members of the House Judiciary Committee would have also been denied the right to cross-examine witnesses, and denied the opportunity to even participate in the drafting of articles of impeachment against Nixon.

Of course, Nixon’s resignation rendered the entire issue moot, ending Hillary’s career on the Judiciary Committee staff in a most undistinguished manner. Zeifman says he was urged by top committee members to keep a diary of everything that was happening. He did so, and still has the diary if anyone wants to check the veracity of his story. Certainly, he could not have known in 1974 that diary entries about a young lawyer named Hillary Rodham would be of interest to anyone 34 years later.

But they show that the pattern of lies, deceit, fabrications and unethical behavior was established long ago – long before the Bosnia lie, and indeed, even before cattle futures, Travelgate and Whitewater – for the woman who is still asking us to make her president of the United States.

So someone might read the full account and say, well, Zeifman didn’t remember every single fact completely clearly and blah blah blah.  But let’s continue to check Hillary Clinton’s honesty:

There was William Safire’s 1996 article that documented Hillary Clinton as a “congenital liar.” Which was being nice.  He concluded she was “congenital” for stuff like this:

Remember the story she told about studying The Wall Street Journal to explain her 10,000 percent profit in 1979 commodity trading? We now know that was a lie told to turn aside accusations that as the Governor’s wife she profited corruptly, her account being run by a lawyer for state poultry interests through a disreputable broker.

She lied for good reason: To admit otherwise would be to confess taking, and paying taxes on, what some think amounted to a $100,000 bribe

We could look at TravelGate and Hillary Clinton’s determination that “We need those people out and we need our people in.”  We could look at how even liberal newspapers like the Los Angeles Times acknowledge that Hillary Clinton lied under oath in that particular scandal.  We could likewise look at the long lists of other Clinton scandals that were pretty much all over everywhere in those days.  But there are literally just way too many lies to even wave a stick at.

But I mean, it has just gone on and on.

There was Hillary Clinton telling the bogus story that she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary.  When in fact she was born six years AFTER anyone heard of the man.

There was Hillary Clinton falsely claiming that ALL of her grandparents were immigrants.  When only one actually was.  In other occasions, Hillary Clinton specifically lied about the grandparents who WERE NOT immigrants.  Why lie?  Because she is a compulsive, serial liar who just can’t help herself.

There was Hillary Clinton who when running for president told the fake story that she had “dodged” sniper fire in Bosnia. When the record shows her walking placidly down the ramp of an Air Force plane and an 8-year old Bosnian girl giving her flowers.

There was Hillary Clinton who boasted that she was “instrumental” in the Northern Ireland peace process. Which would have been like awesome if she’d actually even BEEN there or had anything whatsoever to do with it. But she lied.

Don’t think that anyone can-out 9/11 victim Hillary Clinton.  On September 17th 2001, Hillary told Jane Pauley on NBC’s dateline that Chelsea had gone on “what she thought would be a great jog” and that she was going to go around the towers of the World Trade Center.   “And then the plane hit,” Hillary stated.

Senator HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: She’d gone what she thought would be a great jog. She was going down to the Battery Park, she was going to go around the towers. She went to get a cup of coffee and–and that’s when the plane hit.

PAULEY: She was close enough to hear the rumble.

Sen. CLINTON: She did hear it. She did.

PAULEY: And to see the smoke…

But wait: it turned out that none of that was true: Chelsea did NOT go for a jog around the towers – great or otherwise – she did NOT get a cup of coffee, she did NOT hear the rumble and she did not see the smoke.  In fact, Chelsea was safely watching the attack on television from her Union Square apartment.  The left can try to spin it into some subtle nuance, but this was just another episode of Hillary Clinton pulling a Brian Williams and falsely and routinely imposing herself or her family into events of history.

These were simply transparent, easily falsifiable lies.  Hillary has lied like this her entire life.  The only reason she hasn’t been completely destroyed by her dishonesty is her place (by marriage) in the Democrat Party, the protection from her political cronies and the fact that Democrats are simply dishonest people as a whole who frankly as dishonest liars don’t CARE that Hillary is a dishonest liar.  When you add the fact that the media has become every bit as partisan and as ideological and as propagandistic as any communist country, you have the very class that is supposed to EXPOSE a Hillary Clinton actively trying to PROTECT her.

You want another angle of Hillary Clinton?  Hillary Clinton is the kind of hypocrite monster who plays up some “war on women” the same way she played up the “vast, rightwing conspiracy” that somehow managed to insinuate her husband’s semen on an intern’s blue dress.  But she is the very monster who WARS on women, at least according to the pedophile rape victim who testified that “Hillary Clinton took me through hell.”  Among other things Hillary Clinton did to destroy a female child rape victim was to SMEAR her with her vicious lies.  And so the victim says on the record, “she lied like a dog to me.”  Hillary Clinton’s strategy was in fact quite literally to “war on women” as she viciously attacked the credibility of her innocent 12-year-old victim.  Hillary Clinton absolutely KNEW her client was completely guilty. She said among numerous other stunning admissions: “‘I had him take a polygraph, which he passed – which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs,’ she says with a laugh.”

I’m just going to put it bluntly here and now.  Anyone whose faith is not forever destroyed in Hillary Clinton is simply a venal, vile, wicked demoniac.  She has been a vile, morally obscene creature all her life and she is more of all of the above now than ever.

It’s not enough for me to say I wouldn’t trust Hillary Clinton with my child or even that I wouldn’t trust her with my dog.  No freaking way.  But I wouldn’t even trust Hillary Clinton with a rabid rat, because she’d torture it just for laughs and then let it go to hopefully bite people.  She’s proven that all her life.

But let’s continue.

There was the Hillary Clinton who assured us all that she and Bill were “dead broke when we left the White House.”  She’s just like YOU.  Hillary KNOWS what it’s like to be poor.  Mind you, she also knows what it’s like to cynically exploit her crony-fascist ties to spin her political connections into pure gold and make $12 million that year.

Hillary tells us she’s just like YOU.  Oh, yes, because who among us doesn’t “earn” half a million dollars for a speech that was arranged on the basis of a crony fascist corrupt deal that Hillary exploited her State Department job to arrange?  I mean, who among us hasn’t sold America out to a Swiss bank?  Who among us hasn’t sold America’s stockpile of uranium to our most deadly enemy Russia?  Who among us hasn’t had a taxpayer-funded chauffeur and hasn’t driven a car in 20 years?  Who among us isn’t currently worth something on the order of a quarter billion dollars?

But then there were all of Hillary Clinton’s godawful lies surrounding Benghazi.  The reason her private server became an issue was that one singular event.  It began when Hillary and her boss Barry Hussein decided to cover their incompetent asses with the lie that an obvious terrorist attack in which Americans heroically died striving to save the life of a United States ambassador was in fact merely a protest over what? the free-speech of an American.  It wasn’t anybody’s fault, it was just one of those things that happened.  And the fact that it happened on the anniversary of 9/11, the fact that a trained mortar crew happened to have brought their heavy mortar with them, the fact that this aforementioned trained mortar crew that happened to bring their heavy mortar had also happened to calculate the firing coordinates of key locations in advance of the mortar attack, was nothing but the result of a peaceful protest taken too far.

Well, actually it began weeks before that.  It began when Hillary Clinton first started turning a totally deaf ear to the murdered ambassador as he pleaded with her for additional security that Hillary Clinton couldn’t have bothered to give a flying damn about.  In fact rather than provide greater security Hillary Clinton’s State Department actually REDUCED securityPleas for additional security were coming from the professional staff as well.  Hillary was too busy purging her private server, I guess.

Those pleas for help that never came continued hour after agonizing hour as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ignored Americans under fire and dying trying to protect American soil.  And what did this “lying, unethical, dishonest lawyer” Hillary Clinton do?  She deceitfully manufactured a cover-up story, she blamed the attack not on terrorists and on her own pathetic and apathetic incompetence to prevent what the specialists on the ground TOLD her was coming, but on an AMERICAN and on FREE SPEECH itselfShe falsely blamed a terrorist attack on a Youtube video and continued to hold to that line along with her equally corrupt and dishonest and fascist president.  Everything including all the witnesses from BOTH sides of the terror attack confirm that the attack had NOTHING whatsoever to do with that damn video, contrary to Hillary Clinton’s fallacious lies.  Our people say it, their people say itOur intelligence that conservative organizations had to fight to get released from Obama’s and Hillary’s cover-up proves that the Administration KNEW the attack was planned IN ADVANCE rather than being the “spontaneous demonstration” over a video they dishonestly claimed.

You consider the timeline of what Hillary Clinton in her capacity as Secretary of State did and did not do prior to that terrorist attack that resulted in a U.S. Ambassador being murdered like a rat and Hillary Clinton should be in prison for that alone.  Now the same woman who said, “What difference does it make?” says she won’t “dishonor the memories of those we lost.”  And you can understand why she doesn’t want to talk about them because she as much as killed them herself with her gross if not malicious incompetence.

We know that Hillary Clinton not only lied but lied UNDER OATH about numerous facts surrounding Benghazi.  We know she manifestly LIED UNDER OATH about the United State’s involvement in procuring and transferring weapons out of Libya to Turkey.  Her lie is a matter of factual public record.

We know that Hillary Clinton, while running for president last time back in 2007 (on June 20, 2007, to be precise) “We know our Constitution is being shredded. We know about the secret wiretaps. We know about the secret military tribunals, the secret White House email accounts. It is a stunning record of secrecy and corruption, of cronyism run-amok. It is everything our founders were afraid of, everything our Constitution was designed to prevent.”

This from the woman who the very first moment she got power, she had a super-secret personal email system installed in her home to bypass all security and all accountability and all transparency so she could purge any communications that proved her to be the lifelong criminal that she is.  And how can anyone not see what a pathologically dishonest hypocrite of the very worst and lowest sort Hillary Clinton truly is?

And to just add to that, this is a woman who is now claiming that all the criticisms of her OWN “stunning record of secrecy and corruption, of cronyism run-amok” that is “everything our founders were afraid of, everything our Constitution was designed to prevent” is all somehow merely what?  “The same old partisan games.”  You know, the same way it was a “vast, rightwing conspiracy” for Bill Clinton to receive blow jobs in the Oval Office from an intern.

Well, obviously you know what “the same old partisan games” look like, don’t you, Hillary Clinton, you political Jezebel if there ever has been one since the wicked original?  BECAUSE YOU’VE PLAYED THOSE COCKROACH GAMES ALL YOUR MISERABLE LIFE.  And in fact you played them against the very last Republican administration that wasn’t guilty of a tiny fraction of the very same crimes you’re trying to deflect NOW.  And now people are supposed to rise to your defense because you’re hanging from your own petard.  So Hillary Clinton now shrilly yells, “I won’t get down in the mud with them. I won’t play politics with national security.”  You mean the same way YOU climbed into that same mud like the obscene political pig you are and wallowed in it the last time a Republican was in office???  Hillary Clinton is an insult to integrity and an insult to intelligence and the only question to ask of anyone who supports her is whether he or she is more wicked than stupid or more stupid than wicked.  An d that is a proven fact according to Hillary Clinton’s own current dishonest rhetoric vis-à-vis her own previous dishonest rhetoric.

Now we finally get to her current fiasco with her emails.  You know, the private server she installed under the mindbogglingly transparent lie that she did so so she wouldn’t have to carry multiple devices:

the Associated Press has obtained documents conclusive proving that “Hillary Rodham Clinton emailed her staff on an iPad as well as a BlackBerry while secretary of state, despite her explanation she exclusively used a personal email address on a homebrew server so that she could carry a single device.”

This same Hillary Clinton who said “I won’t play politics with national security”?  Yeah, she played politics with national security to such an astonishing degree that she is the VERY FIRST American public official to do all of her national security business ENTIRELY through a private email server that had no encryption whatsoever.

You see, one of Hillary Clinton’s ocean of trillions of lies is that the private server was installed for her husband Bill and had Secret Service safeguards.  That is manifestly untrue.  That server was in fact SPECIFICALLY installed for HER and had ZERO Secret Service safeguards.  It had absolutely NO encryption for the first three months whatsoever:

Venafi, a Salt Lake City computer security firm, has conducted an analysis of clintonemail.com and determined that “for the first three months of Secretary Clinton’s term, access to the server was not encrypted or authenticated with a digital certificate.” In other words: For three months, Clinton’s server lay vulnerable to snooping, hacking, and spoofing.

In other words, it was completely open to foreign intelligence services and was undoubtedly penetrated.  Bob Gourley, former chief technology officer at the Defense Intelligence Agency, states that “I have no doubt in my mind that this thing was penetrated by multiple foreign powers, to assume otherwise is to put blinders on.”

Hillary designed her server with privacy and the ability to purge evidence of her criminality rather than security:

A week before becoming secretary of state, Hillary Clinton set up a private e-mail system that gave her a high level of control over communications, including the ability to erase messages completely, according to security experts who have examined Internet records.

“You erase it and everything’s gone,” Matt Devost, a security expert who has had his own private e-mail for years. Commercial services like those from Google Inc. and Yahoo! Inc. retain copies even after users erase them from their in-box.

We are now finding out that Hillary Clinton’s email firm – a firm she chose out of political ideology rather than either competence, qualification or even the lawful right to in any way handle, possess or manage classified information – kept its own servers in a bathroom closet.

This is an abject disgrace and Hillary Clinton BELONGS IN A PRISON CELL doing hard time.

When Hillary finally got around to bothering to install any security whatsoever, she screwed the pooch and ended up with a “misconfigured encryption system.”  I mean, it was kind of like her criminal incompetence with Benghazi, only with her own damn server that she installed so she could delete the evidence of her crimes and make her Orwellian disappearances of the factual record permanent.  And just like Orwell’s Oceania, Hillary couldn’t have cared less what the rival global power Eurasia and Eastasia that Oceania was at constant war with knew: her cover up was only against her OWN people.

But, no, this shrew Jezebel would NEVER “play politics with national security,” would she?  No politics with a secret private server that she installed specifically for her ability to control and purge any and all communications that she didn’t want anyone but FOREIGN FREAKING GOVERNMENTS to see.

So let’s get real here: my argument is that Hillary’s installation of a private server in her own home -WHICH NO NEITHER COLIN POWELL OR CONDOLEEZA RICE EVER DID AND ANY CLAIM TO THE CONTRARY IS SIMPLY A LIE – is a demonstration of the manifestation of Hillary Clinton’s pathological fascism and narcissism.  The simple fact of the matter is that we have NEVER seen ANY top public official abuse the email system the way Hillary Clinton did.

Previous top officials used the government secure system for their business and a private email account – BUT NOT A PERSONAL SERVER MEANING THAT THEY COULD NOT WIPE AND PURGE THEIR EMAILS – for private communications.  Hillary Clinton is the FIRST and ONLY top public official to use an entirely private server to send and receive top secret classified intelligence as well as emails from her husband.  Oh, wait a minute: her husband exposed that last one as yet another Hillary Clinton lie:

Hillary said she emailed with Bill, but the thing is …
By Ashe Schow • 3/10/15 4:02 PM

Bill Clinton doesn’t use email.

At a press conference on Tuesday, Hillary Clinton said the server that housed her emails while she was secretary of state (that was reportedly housed at her home in New York) was set up for President Bill Clinton. She also said that some of the “personal” emails she deleted were between her and her husband.

But just before Hillary began the press conference at the United Nations building, the Wall Street Journal reported that Bill Clinton does not use email.

“The former president, who does regularly use Twitter, has sent a grand total of two emails during his entire life, both as president, says Matt McKenna, his spokesman,” WSJ reported. “After leaving office, Mr. Clinton established his own domain that staff use — @presidentclinton.com. But Mr. Clinton still doesn’t use email himself, Mr. McKenna said.”

One of Bill’s emails was to astronaut and former Sen. John Glenn, the other was to U.S. troops.

But Hillary said during her press conference that her email server “contains personal communications from my husband and me.”

Hey, it’s understandable that Hillary Clinton would believe there were just all kinds of personal communications from her husband when in fact there wasn’t so much as a single one.  Just like it’s understandable that she had no idea where her daughter was on 9/11 or that no her grandparents WEREN’T all immigrants or that no she actually was NOT named after Sir Edmund Hillary or that gosh it sure seemed like explosions were rocking her as she raced across the tarmac frantically clutching her daughter’s little hand when in fact the only “sniper” was an 8-year-old girl holding flowers rather than a rifle.  And that it seemed like we were dead broke because we only had millions of dollars with hundreds of millions more hanging on the vine.  All honest mistakes, I’m telling ya.  Every single one.

Why on earth would anyone EVER believe ANYTHING this liar says???  I mean, okay, we know that there were in fact ZERO emails between Hillary Clinton and her husband.  So the only reason that she purged and wiped her server is because what?  Her “yoga routines” got a little too hot and heavy???  Who tries to wipe a server WHILE IT WAS UNDER A SUBPOENA claiming her yoga schedule had to be protected?

It takes a giant set of extra-hairy brass elephant balls to wipe your server clean AFTER being subpoenaed and being so pathologically dishonest she even lied about having BEEN subpoenaed and then claim you’re a victim of a political attack.  So private server aside, let’s just stipulate for the record that we do NOT EVER want to look at what Hillary Clinton is hiding in her pantsuits.  Because it would instill an episode of Cyclic Vomiting Syndrome that the world would still be appalled over millennia from now.

Hillary Clinton’s lies just over her server and her emails are now LEGION.  She claimed (falsely) that all of her emails were being “immediately captured and preserved” to State Department archives.  That was flat-out stated by the State Department NOT to be true.  In fact the State Department didn’t even have the means to do that until AFTER Hillary Clinton left.  And it’s easy to understand WHY a pathologically dishonest and secretive Hillary Clinton would not have such a system installed during her tenure.

She claimed (falsely) that ALL of her work-related emails had been turned over.  Until a man she’d hired in spite of being specifically ORDERED not to hire by the Obama White House – because Sidney Blumenthal is a vicious, rabid rat even by Obama standards – turned over his emails which proved Hillary Clinton had lied when she claimed she’d turned over all of hers.  Again, Hillary Clinton was caught red-handed in a manifest LIE.

Mind you, this incredibly fascist and dishonest woman had refused to be bothered with following the law or White House guidelines from day one.  The White House had given “very specific guidance” that members of the Obama administration use government e-mail accounts to carry out official business.  Not that rules or laws matter to a pathologically dishonest lying crook like Hillary Clinton.

Hillary began by claiming that she most certainly had never used her private email server – you know, the one that she dishonestly said she installed so she wouldn’t have to use multiple devices and which she dishonestly and unethically purged because of her lie that it contained private communications between her and her husband – to EVER send or receive ANY classified material whatsoever:

“I did not e-mail any classified material to anyone on my e-mail. There is no classified material,” Clinton declared at her March press conference.

But holy crap, what an unholy lie that proved to be.  Keep in mind, Hillary PURGED or aborted 32,000 emails from her server without ANY third party being allowed to see them so that everyone would have to trust ENTIRELY on the word of honor of a proven LIAR and graciously allowed 30,00 of her email babies to survive the womb of her private server system.  But of those:

Among the 30,490 e-mails that Clinton handed the State Department last December, the inspector general for the intelligence community (ICIG) sampled 40 and discovered that four (or 10 percent) were classified. Of these, two (or 5 percent) “when originated” were designated “TOP SECRET//SI//TK//NOFORN.”

So out of a random sample of forty emails that were examined, it turned out that two or five percent were not only classified but classified at the very highest level of classification.

And holy MOSES, just that five percent of truly TOP SECRET emails alone amounts to FIFTEEN THOUSAND TWO-HUNDRED AND FORTY-FIVE EMAILS of top secret emails if that five percent figure were to be a representative sample.  Hillary Clinton doesn’t play political games with national security???  Seriously????

So Hillary’s bait-and-switch lie now baits-and-switches to this disingenuous version:

“Most importantly I never sent classified material on my email and I never received any that was marked classified,” Clinton said at one point in her press conference.

“The State Department has confirmed that I did not send nor receive material marked classified or send material marked classified,” she said a moment later.

“I am repeating the facts and the facts are I did not send nor did I receive material marked classified,” she then said.

But why is that?  Because Hillary somehow had all the classification markers stripped from the emails for sake of her plausible deniability.  Consider how the hardly conservative-friendly Los Angeles Times put it:

The Department of Justice said it is weighing whether to launch its own investigation after the inspector general for intelligence agencies notified the agency that classified information that went through the account appeared to have been mishandled. Administration officials and investigators declined to share details about the emails. But in a separate memo to lawmakers, the inspector general said that a review of just 40 of the 30,000 emails from the Clinton server found that four had information that should have been marked and handled as classified.

Clinton has made many assurances in recent months that she did not send or receive classified information on her personal server. Her campaign says the material in question had not been specifically marked as classified and, thus, Clinton broke no rules. The inspector general disputed that characterization in a statement late Friday, saying that the information in the emails was classified at the time, even if it wasn’t marked as such, and shouldn’t have been transmitted on a personal email system.

Even so, the revelation was an uncomfortable one for the candidate. And national security experts said the disclosure that that material that should have been marked classified made its way to Clinton’s personal email account at the very least fuels legitimate speculation about how the server was used.

“It tells us why this was such a bad idea,” said Stewart A. Baker, a former general counsel to the National Security Agency now in private practice. “It raises questions.”

Among them, Baker said, was whether staffers deliberately avoided marking sensitive emails to Clinton as classified so they could sidestep the bureaucrats who handle transmission of such material.

“She skipped the government circles and nobody was overseeing this and nobody was saying, ‘This info should not be on this system,’” Baker said. “If anything, there was an incentive for people to cross the line without making clear they were doing so.”

In other words, what Hillary Clinton did was set up a system to DELIBERATELY SIDESTEP THE CLASSIFICATION BUREAUCRACY and strip the classification markers from the emails she sent and receive so she could later walk out and claim that there was nothing marked classified.  Which is full-lawyer-mode given her proven lie that she never had any classified material to begin with.  But she’s the Jezebel shrew who set up the bypassing system in the first place.

So Hillary Clinton is no different from the murderous thug-punk who viciously wipes out her entire family and then claims she shouldn’t be prosecuted because after all, she’s an orphan, isn’t she?  And in this age of “the war on women” that Hillary Clinton viciously waged against a 12-year-old girl who was raped by pedophiles, I mean, have you no heart at all?

And, I mean, which Secretary of State HASN’T sold the office to foreign entities such as nation-state enemies like Russia or foreign corporations like UBS???  You can’t PROVE she did anything!!!  At least not without all those tens of thousands of emails she deleted or that server she wiped clean AFTER having been subpoenaed with the proven-false excuse that they contained private communications with her husband that they in actual fact did not contain.

Truly, there has never breathed a soul more dead than Hillary Rodham Clinton.

And there has never breathed an American more historically proven to be unfit for president.

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Secretary Of State Hillary Clinton And The Amazing Chutzpah Of Barack Obama

December 1, 2008

You remember the Orwell novel 1984?  There was a vivid description of a “Ministry of Truth” that served the function of rewriting history via rewriting the news in order to make the past jibe with whatever Big Brothers current program happened to be.

Well, it turns out that Barack Obama needs a Ministry of Truth of his own.

Hillary Clinton – who repeatedly described having come under sniper fire in order to bolster her flimsy foreign policy credentials until it was revealed that no such event occurred – is about to become the Obama administration’s Secretary of State.

And if Obama just had one of those darned Ministry of Truths, he wouldn’t have to deal with what he USED to say about this incredibly qualified – oops, NOT! – woman who derived her entire career from her husband’s success.

The Associated Press had this:

Obama team repackaging Clinton after campaign digs

By NANCY BENAC, Associated Press Writer Nancy Benac, Associated Press Writer – Sun Nov 30, 2:47 am ET

WASHINGTON – It wasn’t too long ago that Barack Obama and his advisers were tripping over one another to tear down Hillary Rodham Clinton’s foreign policy credentials. She was dismissed as a commander in chief wanna-be who did little more than sip tea and make small talk with foreign leaders during her days as first lady.

“What exactly is this foreign policy experience?” Obama said mockingly of the New York senator. “Was she negotiating treaties? Was she handling crises? The answer is no.”

That was in March, when Clinton was Obama’s sole remaining rival for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Now, Clinton is on track to become Obama’s secretary of state.

And, unsurprisingly, the sniping at her foreign policy credentials is a thing of the past.

Obama adviser William Daley over the weekend said Clinton would be “a tremendous addition to this administration. Tremendous.”

Senior adviser David Axelrod called Clinton a “demonstrably able, tough, brilliant person.”

Last spring, though, Clinton was targeted with a steady stream of criticism via conference call, e-mail and campaign-trail digs from the Obama camp, all aimed at shredding her self-portrait as an experienced and confident leader on the international stage. Some of those doing the sniping will be taking up key positions — most likely along with Clinton — in the new Obama administration.

Greg Craig, selected to serve as White House counsel in the Obama administration, delivered a withering attack during the primaries on Clinton’s claims that she could rightfully share in the credit for some of the foreign policy successes of her husband’s presidency.

“She did not sit in on any National Security Council meetings when she was first lady,” Craig insisted in one conference call. He went on to knock down Clinton’s claims to influence in the Northern Ireland peace process, opening borders for refugees during the war in Kosovo, and making a dangerous visit to Bosnia.

“There is no reason to believe … that she was a key player in foreign policy at any time during the Clinton administration,” Craig wrote in a campaign memo.

Susan Rice, an Obama adviser who could land a spot in the new administration, mocked the idea that Clinton could lay claim to foreign policy credentials by marriage.

“There is no crisis to be dealt with or managed when you are first lady,” Rice sniffed last March. “You don’t get that kind of experience by being married to a commander in chief.”

Clinton was only too happy to make light of Obama’s own foreign policy credentials, suggesting his biggest selling point was a 2002 speech against going to war with Iraq. “Many people gave speeches against the war then,” she said in a February debate.

Robert Gelbard, an adviser to the Obama campaign on foreign policy who worked in the Clinton administration, said in March that Clinton had more involvement in foreign policy than a lot of first ladies, but added that “her role was limited and I’ve been surprised at the claims that she had a much greater role.”

Well, never mind about all of that now.

“That was then; this is now,” said David Gergen, who has served as an adviser to both Republican and Democratic presidents. “Campaigns are ever thus.”

“Generally speaking,” Gergen said, “there is a recognition that campaigns bring a certain amount of hyperbole, and when it’s over you try to find the most talented people you can find to work with you.”

Clinton may not have been at the table when her husband made the big decisions, Gergen said, but “she’s been imbibing questions on foreign policy and decision-making since 1992.”

A spokesperson for the Obama transition team declined to comment on the shift in tone.

It also should be said that some of the wounds to Clinton’s foreign policy credentials during the primaries were self-inflicted, most famously her inflated account of the drama associated with a visit she made to Bosnia.

“I remember landing under sniper fire,” she recounted in a speech. “There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.”

Soon enough, video footage surfaced of Clinton’s unremarkable airport arrival ceremony, where she was welcomed by dignitaries and posed for photos with children.

Clinton brought up the Bosnia trip to counter Obama’s suggestion that her experiences as first lady amounted to having tea at an ambassador’s house.

“I don’t remember anyone offering me tea,” she said of the Bosnia visit.

Clinton, in an April debate, blamed her Bosnia gaffe on campaign fatigue. But she did not back away from her claim to broad foreign policy experience as first lady.

“I was not as accurate as I have been in the past,” she said. “But I know, too, that being able to rely on my experience of having gone to Bosnia, gone to more than 80 countries, having represented the United States in so many different settings, gives me a tremendous advantage going into this campaign.”

Well, maybe not in the campaign, as it turned out.

But maybe, just perhaps, as secretary of state.

I publish the full article here because – all jokes aside – the media does a plenty good job of purging truth all on its own when their articles disfavor Democrats and liberals.  They’ll keep articles damning Republicans for decades, but those casting a negative light on their ideological heroes and heroines tend to get purged rather quickly.

Barack Obama’s political genius lies in his understanding how incredibly stupid the American people are, and in recognizing how quickly such stories are either dropped or simply vanish (such as this one, which used to contain the link to a story exposing Planned Parenthood’s racism until the American media version of the Ministry of Truth kicked in).  But the problem is that long after the articles describing Obama’s hypocrisy and Hillary Clinton’s inadequacy for the critical Secretary of State position are gone, she’ll still be the most inexperienced American foreign policy representative of the most inexperienced American President in history.

What has Hillary Clinton really run – besides the disastrous socialized health care commission that she ran so poorly that it couldn’t even produce legislation during a time of Democratic control of Congress?  And she’s going to bring those executive leadership skills with her to running the State Department?

We won’t even NEED a crisis to have a disaster.  But God help us if we experience an actual crisis.

By the way, I found the following Snopes article detailing Hillary Clinton statements a fun read.

Is ‘Uncle Liberated Auschwitz’ Barack Obama’s ‘Bosnia Sniper’ Remark?

May 27, 2008

It has been described both as a distortion of history, genealogy, and geography.

On Memorial Day, Barack Obama said that his uncle participated in the liberation of Auschwitz.

“I had an uncle who was … part of the first American troops to go into Auschwitz and liberate the concentration camps,” Obama said.

“And the story in our family was is that when he came home, he just went up into the attic and he didn’t leave the house for six months,” he said.

Well, it couldn’t have been Auschwitz that his uncle liberated, because the Soviet Red Army – not the U.S. Army – reached Auschwitz first, and the U.S. Army never got to Auschwitz. That’s the historical error.

And it couldn’t have been his uncle, because research proved none of Obama’s uncles were in the Army. That’s the geneological error. The Obama campaign later said that the “uncle” was actually a great uncle on his mother’s side.

And Auschwitz is some 500 miles from Ohrdruf, which was part of the Buchenwald camp system. That’s the geographical error.

Now, The Washington Post’s “Fact Checker” blog has given Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama three Pinocchios (significant factual error and/or obvious contradiction).” Noel Sheppard actually takes Michael Dobbs to task for taking away one of the four “pinocchios” Dobbs had originally awarded, saying, “With all due respect, Mr. Dobbs, Ohrdruf had a population of 11,700 prisoners while the gas chambers of Auschwitz killed 1 million innocent people. Comparing the two is an insult to mankind.”

Certainly, we can argue that this is tantamount to the Bosnia sniper incident that Hillary Clinton alluded to. She described flying into Bosnia, and that part of the story was true. Every other thing she said about the event was false.

It would seem that Barack Obama changed the relationship of his relative to make the story more personal for him, and changed the location to Auschwitz to make the story more exciting and “historic.”

The Obama camp is simply chocking it up to a “mistaken reference.” But this is about the same Barack Obama who tore into John McCain for a verbal gaffe confusing the Sunnis and Shiites:

(CNN)Barack Obama on Wednesday took aim at potential rival John McCain over the Arizona senator’s apparent misstep at a recent press conference in Jordan, the latest sign Democrats are looking to capitalize on the moment.

“Just yesterday, we heard Sen. McCain confuse Sunni and Shiite, Iran and Al Qaeda,” Obama said during a speech on Iraq Wednesday morning. “Maybe that is why he voted to go to war with a country that had no Al Qaeda ties. Maybe that is why he completely fails to understand that the war in Iraq has done more to embolden America’s enemies than any strategic choice that we have made in decades.

The gaffe in question occurred during a news conference in Jordan Tuesday, when the presumptive Republican presidential nominee repeatedly said Iran was supplying al Qaeda. Iran is predominately a Shiite country and is not aiding the Sunni dominated Al-Qaeda.

McCain ultimately corrected himself after Sen. Joe Lieberman whispered in his ear.

“I’m sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not al Qaeda. I am sorry,” the Arizona senator said.

And this is the same Barack Obama who said,

“It is wonderful to be back in Oregon,” Obama said. “Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it.”

You can hear this rather stunning gaffe in glowing color on Youtube if you’d like. Barack Obama could become the first president of the United States who had no idea how many states he was actually president of. Yet somehow Barack Obama deserves to be let off the hook for making a mistake most kindergarteners wouldn’t make, but John McCain deserved to twist in the wind for his slip of the tongue.

So when the Obama camp came out with this response the words “great big giant hypocrite” came to mind:

Obama campaign aides were indignant that Republicans had pounced on what they called an innocent mistake over such a grave subject. Tommy Vietor, an Obama spokesman, decried “using the Holocaust and concentration camps as a political football.”

When Jesus talked about the guy with the log in his own eye making a big deal of the speck another guy had in his eye (Matthew 7:1-5), he could have been talking about Barack Obama. For Obama to go after John McCain on his foreign policy expertise is kind of like Kobe Bryant’s five year old daughter telling him how to shoot jump shots.

But – in addition to Barack Obama’s rather galling hypocrisy – the thing I’d really like to address regarding the Obama “uncle” error is the underlying text and subtext Obama was addressing.

The text was mental health care for veterans. Obama was ostensibly saying that veterans have had to deal with traumatic experiences that continue to affect them long after the war is over. I agree fully, and so does every else. But Obama self-righteously wanted to claim the moral high ground OVER JOHN MCCAIN, WHO PERSONALLY SPENT FIVE YEARS ROTTING IN A NORTH VIETNAMESE HELLHOLE WITH SEVERE UNTREATED INJURIES!!! by claiming that he’d had a relative who suffered.

The subtext was the recent problems that Obama has been having with the Jewish community over the growing perception that he’d meet with terrorists and rogue dictators without preconditions amounted to weakness and a lack of support for Jews and for the state of Israel, which tends to be concerned about such things. This might be because the leadership of the most significant country in question – Iran – has repeatedly stated its sworn intention of “wiping Israel off the map.” Stuff like that raises hackles, particularly when Iran is daily defying the International Atomic Energy Agency on its uranium enrichment. Israel is saying, “How about a little less dialoging and a lot more preconditions?”

But come on, think about it: Obama didn’t even know what relation he was to this “uncle” of his. He had no idea what camp the man had helped liberate. You just don’t get the sense that this “story” deeply affected Barack Obama, or that he hung on every word.

This is just another politicians cynically taking advantage of every part of his life that he possibly can – no matter how irrelevant it was to him up until the moment it suddenly became useful – to use for the sake of personal political gain.

Hillary Clinton needed to pad her “battle-hardened leader” resume and dreamed up a sniper attack. Obama needed to placate the Jewish community and “discovered” a relative whose unit had liberated a camp.

Barack Obama has repeatedly proven that he is not the sweeping figure of hope and change that he cynically presents himself to be. He is just as willing to lie, pander, and demagogue (there are several other sites recording such as well; both of these are worthy of review) as any other Democratic candidate whose come down the pike in recent years. Barack Obama now has a well documented history of lying about his family to score cheap political points. That’s about as cynical as you can get.

I’ve got to come back (May 31) and add a new flare-up that has occurred over the past few days over troop levels relative to the surge strategy:

On Thursday, McCain said last year’s increase in the number of troops in Iraq was working. “I can look you in the eye and tell you it’s succeeding,” he said. “We have drawn down to pre-surge levels. Basra, Mosul and now Sadr city are quiet.”

Obama’s campaign was quick to say McCain was wrong.

“This is the guy who says I need more knowledge,” said Obama, a first-term senator from Illinois who has been criticized by McCain as too inexperienced — particularly on foreign issues — to be president.

“He’s wrong. That’s not true and anyone running for commander in chief should know better,” Obama said to a cheering crowd at a campaign rally. “As the saying goes, you’re entitled to your own view, but not your own facts.

The United States has 155,000 troops in Iraq — about 20,000 more than before last year’s troop increase. The number would be cut to about 140,000 after current withdrawals are completed in July.

McCain’s campaign said it was just a question of tenses — saying “drawn down” as opposed to “drawing down.” A campaign official said Obama’s campaign was just “nit-picking”.

At the very least, this seems like yet another throwing of stones in a glass house.  Yet the man who recently said his uncle liberated Auschwitz when he doesn’t even have an uncle and the Red Army liberated Auschwitz, and who recently told an Oregon audience that he had visited 57 states, with one yet to go, appears to passionately believe that McCain’s choice in verb tenses somehow renders him unfit to be president.

Petraeus, Clinton, Obama, and All Democrats: Will The One With Credibility Please Stand Up?

April 9, 2008

As General David Petraeus returns to the US Senate to report on the war in Iraq, it is worth reminiscing on what occurred last time he appeared.

Yes, we had our front page ad “General Betray Us?” in that appeared in the New York Times with a sweetheart rate that violated the papers’ own standard of ethics.

But we also had that bastion of personal integrity – the junior Senator from New York – question the honesty and credibility of the general.

I cite a 12 Sep 2007 New York Sun story that appeared under the headline, “Clinton Spars With Petraeus on Credibility.” The first two paragraphs of that story by staff reporter Eli Lake read as follows:

“WASHINGTON — Senator Clinton squared off yesterday with her possible challenger for the White House in 2012, General David Petraeus, and came closer than any of her colleagues to calling the commander of the multinational forces in Iraq a liar.

Using blunter language than any other Democrat in the last two days, Mrs. Clinton told General Petraeus that his progress report on Iraq required “a willing suspension of disbelief.””

Well, let’s reflect on that a bit. Hindsight being what it is and all.

We now know that Senator Clinton is a documented liar on numerous fronts (her story of coming under sniper fire in Bosnia has been refuted by video of the event; her story of playing a role in the Ireland peace talks has been refuted by a Nobel Prize winning participant in addition to other participants; her story of a “vast right-wing conspiracy” was refuted by that stain on the blue dress, etc. etc.).

I saw a biography of General David Petraeus on Fox News after he was named to command the multinational forces in Iraq, and was frankly awed by the man’s history of character and integrity. His entire life is a study in character and honor. He took control over a situation that had been presented as hopeless and turned it around in a manner that can only be described as stunning. By the time he appeared before the Senate last year, he had come through for this nation in a way that merited the gratitude of every American, and in particular every parent who sent a son or daughter to Iraq under his command. And as a reward this true American hero was attacked by demagogues who will never even begin to understand the character and integrity that David Petraeus has demonstrated throughout his life.

Mind you, Senator Clinton has hardly cornered the market on vicious attacks against American heroes:

Jay Rockefeller, the Senator from West Virginia, launched an incredibly hateful statement against Senator John McCain in an interview with the Charleston Gazette. He said McCain has become insensitive to many human issues. According to the paper, Rockefeller said “McCain was a fighter pilot, who dropped laser-guided missiles from 35,000 feet. He was long gone when they hit. What happened when they get to the ground? He doesn’t know. You have to care about the lives of people. McCain never gets into those issues.”

Rockefeller later apologized for his comment, but you can’t just take back a statement like that, can you? It was inexcusable, and frankly unforgivable. Rockefeller not only attacked JohnMcCain; he attacked every American serviceman who ever fired a weapon against an enemy during time of war.

This Senator Jay Rockefeller, by the way, is the same Jay Rockefeller who has positioned himself as a major Barack Obama supporter, and who recently urged that – for the good of the country – Senator Clinton should drop out of the Democratic primary and support Barack Obama. You can thus add him to the list of associates of Barack Obama who have said and/or done terrible things against America (e.g. Obama’s pastor for twenty years’ [Jeremiah Wright] racist charge that America created the AIDS virus to kill black people; his wife Michelle Obama’s statement that “America in 2008 is a mean place” which itself followed a similar statement that she had never been proud of America in her adult life; Barack Obama’s friend (as acknowledged by Obama’s own strategist David Axelrod) and former Weatherman Terrorist Professor William Ayers – who openly acknowledged bombing attacks after 9/11 – and claimed to have no regrets over them).

[As to William Ayers, it is frankly amazing that this man – who has openly acknowledged bombing the New York Police Headquarters as well as the Capital building and other locations and said on 9/11 that his only regret is that he didn’t bomb enough – is now an honored member of the liberal education establishment and a significant member of his community in Chicago, Illinois. You begin to see more clearly the absolutely toxic political environment that Barack Obama has emerged from].

Now, that last paragraph will be immediately dismissed by those who argue that you can’thold one’s associations against someone. So it doesn’t matter that Barack Obama sat in a pew for twenty years under the teachings of a documented America-hating racist. But it certainly goes to his judgment and his integrity. Michelle Obama has clearly been influenced by her pastor’s teachings, and Barack Obama has whitewashed several of Reverend Wright’s sermons and teachings – by removing the anti-white rantings but holding on to the substance – for mass consumption. Wright railed against “white greed” in his “Audacity of Hope” message. Obama rephrases it to say, “The greatest problem in America is greed.” Obama leaves it up to you to recognize that he’s talking about “white” greed.

And also mind you, Senator Clinton has hardly cornered the market on telling self-serving lies or padding her resume.

A Snopes.com article details some of Barack’s lies and provides their refutations. While Hillary Clinton’s lie can be seen exposed in vivid, hillarious color, Barack Obama is an even bigger documented liar than she when it comes to rewriting history to fabricate his own story. Barack Obama massively fabricated his association with President Kennedy: his father did NOT come to the United States with Kennedy money. And his mother were NOT inspired to marry and have a child by the Selma march as Barack Obama claimed: the first of the marches did not occur until at least five years after Barack was born!

Furthermore, Obama has lied about numerous aspects of his past in an attempt to bolster his credentials. He claimed on numerous occasions that he was a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago: he was no such thing. He was a lecturer only. There is as gigantic a distinction between “professor” and “lecturer” as there is between “sniper fire”and “there had been reports of possible sniper fire in the area.”

Obama has also boasted of having passed legislation that in reality never even left committee. And fellow organizers have said that Sen. Obama took too much credit for his community organizing efforts.

An 8 April 2008 Time Magazine article by Mark Halperin details the above “misstatements” and many others. Basically, it chops Obama’s credibility down like a tree.

Another clear Obama lie has been his profound mischaricterization of John McCain as saying that McCain “wants the war to last for a hundred years.” Asked whether he would support U.S. troops staying in Iraq for fifty years, McCain said, ““Make it a hundred. We’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That would be fine with me, as long as American, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed.” The non-partisan Factcheck.org says Obama’s claim that McCain wants 100 years of war in Iraq is a “twisted” and “serious distortion of what McCain actually said. So much for the candidate of hope and change, and so much for claiming to run and honest campaign.

Barack Obama’s biggest lie of all may well be the central promise of his entire campaign that – as the candidate of undefined “hope” and “change” – he can bridge the gap between liberals and conservatives. In reality, Barack Obama – winner of the prestigious “Most Liberal Senator of 2007 Award” handed out by the National Journal as determine by voting record – has established himself as a radically left of center politician. He is currently having to distance himself from his own views. An Illinois voter group’s detailed questionnaire, filed under his name during his 1996 bid for a state Senate seat, presents extremely liberal stands on gun control, the death penalty and abortion – positions that appear completely at odds with the more moderate image he’s projected during his presidential campaign. Yet another lie, I believe. In running for president, Barack Obamama must literally run away from himself.

Thus the Democratic primary becomes a question of “Which liar told bigger lies?” And, “Which group cares more about which lie?”

Meanwhile, General David Petraeus’ character, honesty, and integrity stands out like the giant Gulliver must have stood out among the Lilliputians.

But let’s not be too harsh on Senator Hillary Clinton or Senator Barack Obama. They are Democrats, after all. What do you really expect? They come from the Party of Bill Clinton, who sought to become our Commander in Chief in spite of his letter directly expressing his “loathing the military” (a direct quote completely accurate in context).

The Democratic Party is the party of Senator John Kerry, who said of American soldiers:

“I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command….

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal andvery particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.”

The Democratic Party is the party of Senator Dick Durbin, who – on the floor of the U.S. Senate – compared American soldiers to Nazis, and the Guantanamo Bay Detention facility with Soviet Gulags. Durbin’s comment resonated in perfect pitch with actress Jane Fonda’s calling U.S. soldiers war criminals during her visit to North Vietnam in 1972. And I give as my source an al Jazeera article to demonstrate just how harmful to the United States – and how helpful to our vicious enemies – statements such as Durbin’s really are.

The Democratic Party is the party of Representative Jack Murtha, who went on record as the first on-the-record U.S. official regarding the events that took place with U.S. Marines in Haditha. Before any investigation – and certainly before any trial – Murtha said, “Well, I’ll tell you exactly what happened. One Marine was killed and the Marines just said we’re going to take care – we don’t know who the enemy is, the pressure was too much on them, so they went into houses and they actually killed civilians.”

In another interview Murtha said, “There was no firefight. There was no IED that killed those innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them. And they killed innocent civilians in cold blood. That is what the report is going to tell. ”

The aftermath should demonstrate just how despicable Murtha was in publicly convicting these young Marines without a trial. Charges have been repeatedly dropped. Others have been acquitted. One Marine – clearly believing the zealous prosecution line – agreed to testify against another Marine. Thus far, the Marines have been vindicated. The results of subsequent investigations have clearly exonerated the Marines. Again and again, the details provided by Marines confirmed their story; again and again, the details alleged by the Iraqi witnesses have been demonstrated to be false.

I have heard Murtha apologists claim that Murtha himself was a Marine and therefore his character should be beyond question. Well, so was Lee Harvey Oswald! Should we therefore not question his character?!?! As a further observation, I find a former Marine railroading fellow Marines to be even more contemptible than a non-Marine railroading Marines. It’s like finding out that the man who publicly and maliciously framed you was your own father; there’s just something profoundly wrong with the moral wiring of a man who does this kind of thing.

The Democratic Party is the Party of Representatives Jim McDermott of Washington and David Bonior of Michigan, who, back in 29 Sep 2002 appeared on This Week from the foreign (make that enemy) soil Baghdad and blasted U.S. foreign policy. Their clear point was that Americans should believe the documented torturer and murderer Saddam Hussein and distrust Republican President George Bush. During the course of this on-air fiasco, a clearly stunned George Will said of McCermott and Bonior’s vicious remarks, “”Why Saddam Hussein doesn’t pay commercial time for that advertisement for his policy, I do not know.”

Well, it turns out he did.

We now know that – in the opening words of a recent AP article – that “Saddam Hussein’s intelligence agency secretly financed a trip to Iraq for three U.S. lawmakers during the run-up to the U.S.-led invasion, federal prosecutors said Wednesday. An indictment unsealed in Detroit accuses Muthanna Al-Hanooti, a member of a Michigan nonprofit group, of arranging for three members of Congress to travel to Iraq in October 2002 at the behest of Saddam’s regime.” See the full article at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080326/ap_on_re_us/iraq_junket

Even if these Democratic Congressmen didn’t know they were being used by Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi Intelligence, their actions were beneath all contempt. These elected American officials allowed themselves to be used as pawns by the intelligence agency of a ruthless tyrant.

The Democratic Party is the party of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who said “This war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything” on 20 April 2007. Again, I offer as my source al Jazeera to show just how harmful such statements can be to us, and how they can and ARE being used to embolden our enemies.

Anyone who is capable of stepping back from political party partisanship for just a moment ought to have difficulty with a leader who so blithely claims defeat for his country in time of war. Winston Churchill famously said, “We will never give up! We will never surrender!” Henry Reid says, “This war is lost.” Thank God Churchill didn’t think that way, or we’d all be speaking German. As it is – if the terrorists and over a billion Muslims have their way – we might well all end up speaking Arabic.

And the Democratic Party is the party of House Majority Whip Representative James Clyburn, who acknowledged in an inverview on 30 July 2007 before General Petraeus’ first report that good news inIraq amounted to a problem for Democrats.

As General David Petraeus wraps up his visit to the snake pit of Washington, don’t forget who the Democrats are. They are the Party that is invested in American failure, the Party that roots for bad news in Iraq and Afghanistan for the sake of opportunistic political advantage.

Christopher Hitchens has a piece in Slate.com titled, “Flirting With Disaster: The vile spectacle of Democrats rooting for bad news in Iraq and Afghanistan.” It’s definitely worth reading.

I often wonder: had the Democrats continued to support the war that was authorized by a vote of 77-23 in the Senate (with 29 Democrats supporting [Senator Clinton among them] and only 21 opposed) and 296-133 in the House, and presented the world with a united front, how different could things have turned out? Would our enemies have remained emboldened in the face of steadfast American resolve? Would our allies have continued to refuse to help us had we presented a united face determined to prevail against the forces of international terrorism?

Imagine what would have happened in World War II had Republicans done everything they could have done to undermine, question, distort, and misrepresent Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt? Imagine what would have happened had Republicans en masse called for a withdrawal from the war against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan? Had they characterized American fighting men as war criminals? Had they demanded that Generals Eisenhower and MacArthur come to Senate and defend themselves against charges that they were dishonest and incompetent? Do you think it would have helped or hurt the war effort? [This amounts to an IQ test, Democrats: and you have failed horribly].

For the Democrats to turn against the President in time of war and work to undermine American efforts to attain victory out of political opportunism is both craven and cowardly.

If good news in Iraq is bad news for Democrats, then Americans should hope for nothing less than really, really bad news for Democrats this November.