Clinton Campaign Lies to Cover Her Inexperience
Jan 2, 2008 Political
Senator Joe Biden had a few words about a recent gaffe by Hillary Clinton with regard to Pakistan. Clinton made comments about Pakistan having a presidential election and Biden pointed out that Musharraf was already elected and the upcoming event is a parliamentary election. Biden probably has the most experience of all the Democrats running (even though he does not have that valuable experience of being a First lady) and he is strong on foreign affairs. I don’t care for Biden’s politics but if the argument is for experience then he has it, hands down, over any of the other Democrats and many of the Republicans.
Clinton’s campaign responded by stating that the candidate was speaking about Musharraf’s party and not him in particular. Her exact words were (two different occasions):
Clinton’s comments came in an interview with ABC Sunday, in which she said, “[Musharraf] could be the only person on the ballot. I don’t think that’s a real election.”
The New York senator also made similar comments during an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer last week, saying then, “If President Musharraf wishes to stand for election, then he should abide by the same rules that every other candidate will have to follow.” [emphasis mine] CNN
These statements make it pretty clear that Hillary was speaking about the presidential election and about Musharraf. She was not speaking about his party or using general terms. The fact that her campaign would make such blatantly false statements shows that it is either ignorant of the facts or is willing to ignore the truth in order to win.
Biden was correct on this one. Hillary Clinton, the “most experienced” candidate was very incorrect and showed her ignorance with regard to Pakistan. Her foreign experience is no where near as honed as Biden’s and she is not as accomplished as she would like people to believe.
The reality of the situation is that we once again see the Clinton crime gang saying anything and disregarding the truth. She is already viewed as someone that cannot be trusted and this will not make that impression any better.
Perhaps when they were sending her on all the dangerous missions that no one else went on she skipped Pakistan…
Hillary is Satan.
Tags: biden, Clinton, foreign policy gaffe, inexperience, lies
Danger? Send Hillary
Dec 31, 2007 Political
Hillary Clinton, fighting back at B. Hussein Obama’s quip that her eight years at the White House were a glorified tea party stated that she risked her life on some of the missions she was sent on. She stated that on one trip she was in a plane that had to corkscrew into the landing zone and that they had to sprint to avoid snipers. The report indicates that her trip was a goodwill tour with Sinbad and Cheryl Crow and also included her daughter Chelsea who was 15 at the time. This information came from her book “Living History” (or making it up anyway).
Hillary said that if the trip was a dangerous one the dictum was to send her:
The dictum around the Oval Office in the ’90s, she added, was: “If a place was too dangerous, too poor or too small, send the first lady.” Newsday
Hillary has been taking daughter Chelsea on the campaign trail but will not let her speak to reporters because the Clintons, as they always have, protect their daughter from the ugliness of politics. They do not want her to be scarred by the process and they have to look like good parents. Hillary has to look like a woman who balanced a career and motherhood. So what kind of mother takes her 15 year old daughter on such dangerous trips? What does this dictum say about Bill’s manliness?
If the trip was so dangerous and she risked her life why, if she is so wonderful, did she also risk the life of her 15 year old daughter. It seems rather disingenuous to say that Chelsea may not speak to the press because she needs to be protected and then tell everyone that she was put at risk of losing her life by the very mother who claims to protect her.
I also wonder if it ever occurred to her that they kept sending her on dangerous trips for a reason (if, in fact they did). Perhaps they wanted Satan out of the way on a more permanent basis…
And before anyone says that I am wishing death on her keep in mind that I did not send her and I did not tell her to take her kid with her. I just reported what came out of her mouth. She went on dangerous missions and she was such a great parent that she took her kid with her.
If she becomes president then the US will have been sent on a dangerous mission that will end in disaster. She is Satan (and not such a good mother).
Tags: danger, Hillary, lies, poor mother
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell a New Clinton Policy
Dec 28, 2007 Political
Bill Clinton gave us Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) as a way to allow gays to serve in the military without completely honoring his pledge to allow them to serve openly. Now DADT has taken on a new meaning with a different Clinton. Hillary is using that tactic in the last few days leading up tot he Iowa Caucus. She will not allow questions and she will not tell anyone the answers to questions that happen to get slipped in.
Hillary has taken the approach that she should keep her mouth shut except for her prepared remarks so she will not stumble and blow her chance at winning the caucus. A verbal gaffe now probably leaves no time for repair so the Hildebeast has decided to just say what is prepared and nothing more. Prior to Christmas she allowed some time for a question and answer session but now, as soon as she is finished speaking, the speakers blare with her theme music and no one can ask any questions. She even ignored a reporter who asked if she was moved by the assassination of former PM Bhutto. Chelsea Clinton ignored reporters and their questions as well. It is either genetic or they have strict marching orders. Either way, the apple does not fall far from the tree.
What Hillary is saying is that what she has to say to us is important and we are expected to listen. She is also saying that what we have to say is of little importance to her and we should just be grateful she graced us with her presence. Her position appears to be that she is the liberal elitist who knows what is best for this country and that we should take what she says as gospel and not waste her time with silly questions. I guess she believes that if a person has a question after she speaks then that person must not have paid attention because she lays it all on the line. She is, after all, the most experienced candidate because she spent eight years as the First Lady. Just a note, if that is experience then vote for Laura Bush. She has the same experience and is a better person.
Hillary has also set aside two minutes the night before the Iowa Caucus to tell people, one more time, why they must vote for her. She has bought ad time during the evening news so that she can make sure people have the message. She needs to ensure that everyone got the memo that she is owed this position and that it is their duty to vote for her.
Interestingly, she will not take questions because one might trip her up and leave her no time to recover but she is going to spend two minutes telling lies about why to vote for her and leave Iowans with little time to refute what she says.
Let me put in my request to any Iowans who might be reading this. Please do not vote for Hillary. She is Satan and we need to get rid of her and her hubby once and for all by squashing them in this election. She won’t take time to answer your questions so why should you take time to vote for her?
Others with similar posts:
Is It Just Me?, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Adam’s Blog, Right Truth, DragonLady’s World, Cao’s Blog, Chuck Adkins, Conservative Cat, Adeline and Hazel, Pursuing Holiness, Nuke’s, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, The Uncooperative Blogger, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate’s Cove, Celebrity Smack, The Pink Flamingo, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, Right Voices, and Stageleft, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Vote for Hillary and Get Lower Oil Prices
Dec 23, 2007 Political
Hillary Clinton has ramped up the pandering and outright lies of her campaign by claiming that electing her to the presidency will instantly lower the price of oil. Hillary is claiming that since she will reduce our dependence on oil, the oil producing countries will lower prices to get us to stifle that effort. She actually claimed that Jimmy Carter, perhaps America’s worst president, was on the right track in doing this and then Reagan was elected and he ignored it because oil was cheap. I know that the 60 year old Clinton has to remember the gas lines of the 70s and the terrible economic times fueled, in part, by the oil crunch. If this is her idea of being on the right track, she is more delusional than I originally thought.
So, electing Hillary will result in an instant drop in the price of oil. I wonder if she will sign a binding and irrevocable contract stating that she will immediately resign if the price of oil does not instantly drop (and it needs to be a significant drop, not a few dollars but more like the $60 or $70 she cited). The Arabs are probably keeping the oil price high to help Democrats win the White House anyway. The Democrats have a history of being in bed with the terrorists and the Commies.
I wonder what unbelievable (and unrealistic) claims Hillary will make next. Vote for me and global warming will instantly stop. Vote for me and Natalie Holloway will show up unharmed. Vote for me and the dead Beatles will rise from the dead and go on tour with those who are living. Vote for me and I will turn water into wine. Vote for me and there will instantly be world peace. Vote for me and world hunger will end.
This is the part of the campaign where candidates say just about anything to get elected. There is no way that she is correct on this but she does not care so long as she gets elected. Once she is president she can shrug it off until it is time to get reelected and then she can tell a few more whoppers and make a few more unrealistic claims.
I have a feeling she would get in office and then when the prices failed to drop she would say that the Arabs are trying to make her look like a liar (as if she needs help). Remember, Bill promised a huge tax cut for the middle class and then when he got in he said he looked at everything and tried all he could but he could not make it work. Things, he said, were worse than he thought or than anyone told him. Hillary would play much the same way.
Anyone who votes for Hillary Clinton is an idiot. Anyone who believes what she is saying should be locked in a small room with no lights and kept there away from other humans.
If Hillary is elected and prices go down does it mean she is the candidate of big oil?
Source:
NY Daily News
Others with similar posts:
Stuck On Stupid, The Pink Flamingo, Chuck Adkins, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Tags: Clinton, lies, oil prices, pandering, snake oil
Don’t Take Flight 93 to Mecca 12-12-2007
Dec 12, 2007 Flight 93
Kevin Jaques: U.S. response to 9/11 should conform to sharia law
Dr. Kevin Jaques is one of the Three Mosqueteers. Of the three academics who are helping architect Paul Murdoch to plant a terrorist memorial mosque on the Flight 93 crash site, Jaques was most central to the Park Service’s fraudulent internal investigation.
He has also left a revealing paper trail. Shortly after 9/11, Indiana University School of Law sponsored a forum on the likely legal fallout from the attacks: consequences for immigration law, civil rights, etcetera. As the university’s resident expert on Islamic (sharia) law, Jaques was invited to say something about our looming engagement with the Islamic world and their systems of law.
He chose to write a prescriptive article, urging the United States to frame its response in conformity with traditional sharia requirements:
In formulating an American response to the acts of terror, it is necessary to define them according to the provisions of Islamic law.
Whitewashing sharia
Jaques makes the basic arguments for submission that any anti-war multiculturalist might make. He offers an appeasement pitch:
If the United States wishes to approach the fight against terrorism to limit future revivalist terror groups from forming and attacking American citizens and interests, it will be necessary to craft a response that conforms to the realities of Islamic law.
And he offers a when-in-Rome pitch:
Muslim religious leaders think of the world in legal terms and will react to U.S. policies according to how these policies conflict or adhere to Islamic legal principles.
Of course we should avoid gratuitous offense, when in Rome (just as we should practice it as a pastime at home). But should we really submit to sharia law?
Nowhere does Jaques even acknowledge that world-wide submission to sharia law is the ultimate goal of the 9/11 terrorists. That is a pretty glaring omission for someone who is advocating adherence to sharia law, but Jaques does more than just elide the point. He actively misleads, going to great lengths to pretend that the terrorists reject the whole idea of sharia law:
[R]evivalist movements around the Islamic world are articulating new and exciting systems of legal interpretation that, in real terms, are similar to traditional legal norms. Only the violent fringe—approximately 1 percent to 2 percent of Muslims worldwide—would disparage any discussion of Islamic law as being reflective of the kinds of non-Islamic ideas that they claim have contaminated Islam since the very first centuries of Islamic history.
Talk about a whitewash! To paint sharia as benign, Jaques pretends that the “violent fringe” is opposed to it, and this is no offhand comment. The whole first third of Jaques’ discussion is spent setting up this punch line. Read the rest of this entry »
Loading ...
Loading... 
