As the primary continues so does the circus. Hillary thought it necessary to embellish her credentials by saying on three separate occasions that she was under sniper fire in Bosnia during her husbands presidency. When the comedian Sinbad, who accompanied the first lady, said it wasn't true she noted well, he's a comedian after all, they say things that are laughable, can't count on what he says, c'mon. Soon after CBS News dug up a video of the event and sure enough it was a festive and relaxed affair showing Hillary with her daughter greeting troops and civilians alike including an 8 year old child. Far cry from running from sniper fire. She quickly retracted, "misspoke" as she called it giving new meaning to misspeaking. Weeks go by and husband Bill thought to add to the story, on the one hand giving credence to Hillary's account citing General Wesley Clark who said it was dangerous here and there and the president of Bosnia who also said it was dangerous in some places then completely undermining his own excuses by saying she was giving a speech in the end of a long day (she was "fatigued") only to find out her misspeaking was late morning. Taking Hillary's account post the CBS archives one has to wonder why husband Bill would send his wife to a spot with a lot of sniper fire in the first place? Knowing it wasn't what she described, it assuages our worst suspicions of husband Bill's possible motives. He may be a lying cad but he's not a creep. We think it was Christopher Hitchens who said of the Clintons that they tell a big lie when a small lie would do and tell a small lie when the truth would do. Bill Clinton on the same day of his defence of Hillary had to retract even his own recollection of events because Hillary, who by now has had time to think things over and get plenty of sleep, told him he doesn't remember either. Why it is anyone would support this crowd, liberalism we can understand, barley, but is this the second best they can do?
Barak Obama doesn't fair well this week either. In a speech to a San Francisco crowd Obama thought it necessary to tell his constituency just what is in the hearts and minds of simple folk in Pennsylvania saying they "..cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." Now lets take these velcroniums one by one. Gun ownership is something people own out of fit of frustration? Hating immigrants and people "not like them" a common trait in small town America? They think protectionism is just the solution to their economic doldrums? Aside from the notion of what small town Pennsylvanians think, isn't stereotyping a big no no when attributed to people of color and those who want to redefine gender and sexuality? Why is it okay in this instance? But on his account one item sticks out in particular and that is religion. Is Obama telling us that a "clinging" to religion something other then a tradition of faith and, well, hope? Poor fools, can you believe they own guns and believe in God? Perhaps to Obama they believe in God when Jesus would do and believe in Jesus when the-government-is-drugging-African Americans-God-dam-America would do.
No comments:
Post a Comment