Wednesday, May 11, 2016

"Clinton has proven to be an exceptionally adept liar. Little wonder she is considered untrustworthy by half of those polled on the issue."

Clinton’s quest for power at any price

by John Myers

The run for the presidency is beginning to look like a professional wrestling match.

The lies and campaign rhetoric would be laughable except for the fact that the only real contenders remaining are Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton. Both bend the truth, charitably speaking, and Clinton has proven to be an exceptionally adept liar. Little wonder she is considered untrustworthy by half of those polled on the issue.

Last week she accused Trump of being a pathological liar.

Clinton entered the national political stage 25 years ago. Her most grievous lies, in a quarter century of them, may be her utterances in the aftermath of the Benghazi terror attacks.

On Sept. 11, 2012, Islamist extremists launched an attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya. The attackers set fire to the buildings and fired on the compound for more than four hours.

Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the violence. That marked the first time in nearly 30 years that a U.S. ambassador was killed in the line of duty.

That’s when Clinton went into high gear with her spin. Several times in the ensuing days she blamed a YouTube video as an impetus for the attack. At the airport when the bodies of those killed were being returned, Clinton would later tell the victim’s families that the attack was spontaneous and motivated by extremists.

In 2013 during Congressional hearings, Republicans spearheaded the questioning of Clinton over the attack. The exchange became combative over the issue of why the Obama administration, particularly Clinton as Secretary of State and supposedly in contact with Stevens and the consulate, missed developments leading up to the attack.

What Clinton did do was praise the dead Americans. She also told the House Benghazi Committee that the deadly events already had been exhaustively scrutinized.

“What happened in Benghazi has been scrutinized by a non-partisan, hard-hitting accountability review board, seven prior congressional investigations, and multiple news organizations and of course, our law enforcement and intelligence agencies,” said Clinton.

The investigative questioning remained mostly cordial until Rep. Jim Jordan, (R-Ohio) accused Clinton of deliberately misleading the nation by connecting the murders to an Internet video which Muslims saw as denigrating the Prophet Muhammad.

It’s increasingly obvious that Clinton fought hard to conceal what was really behind the Benghazi attack — the fact that there was ongoing gun-running operation to terrorist groups in Syria fighting Bashar Assad — from the public.

Whether Clinton told outright lies during the testimony is still in question, but the evidence indicates that Clinton has worked hard to sell her version of events.

Senator Marco Rubio, (R-Fla.) who at the time was running for the GOP presidential nomination, voiced his opinion that what Clinton claimed happened in Benghazi has little truth to it.

During the January 14 GOP nomination debate Rubio said:

Hillary Clinton is disqualified from being commander-in-chief of the United States. Someone who cannot handle intelligence information appropriately cannot be commander-in-chief, and someone who lies to the families of those four victims in Benghazi cannot be president of the United States.

Most unseemly, three days after the attack, President Barack Obama, Clinton and others in the administration met with three of the four families and peddled their stack of lies over the killings of their loved ones. With straight faces they told them what was already being swallowed up by the administration’s lapdog press.

Three months ago the suffering was revisited by the families of the victims as Judicial Watch uncovered a memo indicating the State Department knew in real time that a terror attack was underway and it was not a “spontaneous demonstration.”

The Washington Post reported that Barbara Doherty, the mother of victim Glen Doherty, told them that she remembered Clinton as being sincere and crying during their meeting.

The crying I find hard to believe unless Clinton was upset that the truth about the Benghazi incident could damage her chances at the presidency, the only thing other than her family that she seems to care deeply about.

Clinton is always looking to parcel out blame on everyone else and she recently pulled out an old standby: The “vast right-wing conspiracy.” You might think that Clinton would drop the issue, but she has a long memory. She demonstrated that trait during the January 3 answer at a CNN Democratic town hall meeting when Lewinsky’s name was brought up.

Clinton began rehashing events from the 1990s and again blamed the “vast-right-wing conspiracy” for the attacks on her husband.

Combating the decades old scandal that seems to have left Bill virtually unscathed, you might think Hillary would want to let the issue go.

But when Lewinsky’s name was brought up by Anderson Cooper she was asked whether she still blames the “vast right-wing conspiracy.” Clinton replied:

“Don’t you? Yeah, it’s gotten even better-funded. You know, they brought in some new multi-billionaires to pump the money in.”

“The Blaze” then wrote:

Clinton went after big Republican donors like Charles and David Koch, whose oil money props up a number of Republican candidates.

“Look, these guys play for keeps,” she said. “They want to control our country. Senator [Bernie] Sanders and I agree on that completely. They want to rig the economy so they continue to get richer and richer. They could care less about income inequality… They want to go after any economic interests that they don’t believe they can control, they want to destroy our balance of power, they want to go after our political system and fill it with people who do their bidding.”

Clinton doesn’t check her bank account very often. According to “Money Nation” she has an estimated net worth of $30 million while Bill has a net worth of $80 million. But Clinton says she understands the poor because, as she told Diane Sawyer, when she and Bill left the White House they were “dead broke.”

If the truth is ever discovered about any of Hillary’s scandals, it won’t come from Hillary. She is simply too practiced at lying. From the Whitewater controversy, to husband and former President Bill’s dalliances, Clinton stands by her man. And she’s hoping he will be her ticket to the White House.

That is a frightful thought for the United States which is a world leader at one thing — printing money. And Clinton clearly knows how to spend it, and is promising more spending with each passing campaign stop.

But money isn’t wealth and eventually the trillions of dollars that have been computer generated by the U.S. Treasury will result in the collapse of the dollar and the wealth it once represented.

That is not crazy talk and it is certainly no lie.


No comments:

Post a Comment