CAN YOU SPARE A DOLLAR OR TWO FOR AN IMPOVERISHED, OUT-OF-WORK POLITICIAN?

HILLARY CLINTON ... PARODY PHOTO ... FUND FOR POVERRTY-STRUCK POLITICIAN  .... PHOTOPOOR LITTLE RICH GIRL

Well fancy that!

Traversing across the nation, in frenzied effort to promote her new memoir, “Hard Times”, Hillary Clinton has been unleashing little white lies faster than a used car salesman, in the 1970’s, trying to unload a Ford Pinto.

And of course, the former First Lady appeared brittle and defensive when being interviewed by even the most sympathetic journalists.

MORE BRITTLE THAN PEANUT BRITTLE

For example, there was that obsequious, fawning NPR lady who sent America’s shoo-in for next president (in 2016) into an angry hissy fit – regarding Ms. Clinton’s politically-motivated change in attitudes toward gays.

And there was that kindly BBC interviewer who sent America’s former First Lady into a hysterical laughing fit, after she was softly questioned about the unintended consequences of pressing the “reset” button in America’s relations with Vladimir Putin & Russia.

The invasion of Crimea? A wake-up call to those politically-indifferent Ukranian ignoramuses! And, well, uhm, never mind … don’t you want to talk about more important topics like my new hair style & blue pant suit?

BAD MORNING AMERICA

And then there was that now much-discussed interview with Diane Sawyer on “Good Morning America”.

The former Secretary of State, & prevaricator extraordinaire, told ABC’s Sawyer that the Clintons were “dead broke and in debt” after leaving the White House in 2001.

“We came out of the White House not only dead broke but in debt. Uh, we had no money when we got there, and we struggled to, y’know, piece together the resources for mortgages for houses, for Chelsea’s education. You know, it was not easy,” Clinton whined to a sympathetic Ms. Sawyer.

But google this, folks:

Between 2008 and 2012, Bill Clinton received his annual $200K pension and Hillary received a $200K salary as Secretary of State!

Considering what she let happen to her “best friend” – Ambassador Chris Stevens – this self-pitying woman really doesn’t seem know the meaning of telling the truth … or, for that matter, experiencing some sense of shame at her constant screw-ups.

THE CHAPTER, ON BENGHAZI, IN HILLARY’S NEW BEST-SELLING BOOK, HAS MORE HOLES THAN A SLICE OF SWISS CHEESE

In fact — rather than “Hard Choices” — the title of Ms. Clinton’s new book should have been:

“LIES I’VE TOLD GULLIBLE DEMOCRATS & THE AMERICAN PEOPLE”

According to verified responses to “Hard Choices” — by several intelligence & Pentagon sources – Ms. Clinton’s “spin” on Benghazi blatantly conflicts with the now factual record regarding what happened during AND after the 2012 Benghazi terror attack.

Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kan., who sits on the House Intelligence Committee, told Fox News before the excerpts were released that he is concerned that the entire Obama administration – including Hillary Clinton — still has not fully grasped the impact of the terrorist assault.

“We know that intelligence analysts on the ground knew instantaneously that this was Al Qaeda and its affiliates who had led this attack,” he first noted …

“Indeed today, it’s still not clear this administration has acknowledged the depth and the risks associated with what it means to have an Al Qaeda affiliate actually take down an American [consulate],” he concluded.

In excerpts, from “Hard Choices”, recently published online from the book’s Benghazi chapter, the former secretary of State continues to defend the administration from what she terms a “political slugfest.”

IF IT WERE NOT FOR THAT DARN VIDEO

Specifically, she defends the flawed explanation — used by then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice five days after the attack — that an obscure anti-Islam VIDEO generated the spontaneous “protest” that had gone awry in Benghazi (a spontaneous mob protest that was accompanied by mortars & grenade-launchers firing on the sparsely-defended embassy).

“There were scores of attackers that night, almost certainly with differing motives,” Clinton insists. “It is inaccurate to state that every single one of them was influenced by this hateful video. It is equally inaccurate to state that none of them were. Both assertions deny not only the evidence but logic as well.” (And after all, what difference does it make?)

BAD INTELLIGENCE FOR AMERICA’S MOST NOTORIOUS SUNDAY-MORNING LIAR & MORON

Additionally, she writes that Susan Rice relied on “existing intelligence” (from the CIA) in making her notorious prevarications, about this nefarious video, on a number of Sunday-morning talk shows

But former CIA deputy director Mike Morelli (another Clinton flunky), testified in April that it was Rice who linked the video to the Benghazi attack – NOT the intelligence agency.

According to Moreli, “WHEN SHE (SUSAN RICE) TALKED ABOUT THE VIDEO, MY REACTION WAS, THAT’S NOT SOMETHING THAT THE ANALYSTS HAVE ATTRIBUTED THIS ATTACK TO.”

An independent review of more than 4,000 social media postings, conducted by a leading social media monitoring firm in December 2012, also found the YOUTUBE VIDEO was a NON-EVENT in BENGHAZI.

Most importantly, in his May 2013 congressional testimony before the House oversight committee, the video was also described as a non-event by Greg Hicks – deputy to Ambassador Chris Stevens (who was murdered in the attack).

HAVE I GOT A LOAD OF CLAPTRAP FOR YOU

Clinton goes on to write [in her new book]: “Every step of the way, whenever something new was learned, it was quickly shared with Congress and the American people. There is a difference between getting something wrong, and committing wrong. A big difference that some have blurred to the point of casting those who made a mistake as intentionally deceitful.”

But the written testimony of Mike Morell shows the administration continued to stick with the “hateful video” explanation long after physical evidence and other intelligence showed there was no demonstration.

Morell told the House Intelligence Committee that by Sept. 18, 2012, CONSULATE SECURITY FOOTAGE (reviewed by the Libyans) showed IT WAS A DIRECT ASSAULT:

Yet, a week later, addressing the United Nations (on Sept. 25, 2012) President Obama was still relying on the video fib:

EXCUSES, EXCUSES

“There is no speech that justifies mindless violence. There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There’s no VIDEO that justifies an attack on an embassy,” Obama asserted.

And while standing before the coffins of America’s fallen, both President Obama & Ms. Clinton vowed  — to the families of the dead heroes – to capture and bring to justice the maker of this nefarious video (somehow keeping a straight face while they continued to advance this biggest of big lies).

Yet, as part of its ongoing reporting, Fox News was first to report on Sept. 17, 2012, based on an intelligence source on the ground in Libya, that there was no protest.

Separate from her self-serving White House talking points, Clinton’s defense of Rice could also be questioned because Rice inaccurately stated on three network Sunday shows — ABC’s “This Week,” NBC’s “Meet the Press” and “Fox News Sunday” — that security was “strong” or “significant”, at the consulate, on the day of the attack.

For example, Rice told “Fox News Sunday” that former Navy SEALs, Ty Woods and Glen Doherty – who died in the attack — were there to “provide security,” incorrectly linking them to consulate security (a low-rent crew of compromised Lybian security guards).

At a subsequent press conference, Republican Senators — Lindsey Graham & Kelly Ayotte –demanded that the Obama administration detail who briefed Rice on the talking points, as well as on the consulate’s security status.

And they insisted that those individuals should be fired (as if any incompetent is ever fired in the Obama White House).

And if nobody briefed her on this misinformation, Graham concluded, Rice should resign her current foreign-policy post.

MAKING IT UP AS YOU GO ALONG

“They’re completely incompetent, or they were misleading her about the level of security because we were six weeks before an election, or she made it up on her own,” Graham noted.

On requests for additional security for Stevens, Clinton continued to stubbornly insist that she never saw those cables, and the fact that they were addressed to her, as secretary of State, was a “procedural quirk.”

Fox News was first to report that an August 2012 State Department classified cable said the U.S. Mission in Benghazi convened an “emergency meeting” less than a month before the assault; and Fox reporters additionally concluded that Al Qaeda had training camps in Benghazi, and that the consulate could NOT defend against a “coordinated attack.”

The authenticity of the classified cable — addressed to the office of then-Secretary of State Clinton — has never been challenged. In fact, it was significant enough that then Defense Secretary Leon Panetta & Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey told lawmakers, during congressional hearings, that they too WERE briefed on the cable’s warnings.

CHRONIC NON-VIGILANCE

While the Obama administration’s public statements have suggested that the attack came without warning, the Aug. 16 cable refutes those claims – as it warned that the Benghazi consulate was vulnerable to attack, and it indicates that the presence of anti-U.S. militias & Al Qaeda (in the area) was well-known to the U.S. intelligence community.

But before we adjourn this little gabfest, let’s not forget Ms. Hillary’s recent patently-stupid insistence that the released Gitmo-five prisoners (the Taliban All-Star Murderers middle-east all-star terror team)  pose NO threat to America.

Ad this classic “mispeak” to all the previous miscues we’ve chronicled and what do you have?

Even more evidence that this chronic bumbler and complainer should NOT be America’s next president in 2016!

In fact, better that this totally UNQUALIFIED prevaricator give up her narcissistic presidential quest, and retire with her husband to some tropical paradise … where Bill can chase other woman half his age, and Hillary can write more best-selling books!

Nuff said!

[Murray Soupcoff is editor and co-author of “Good Buy Canada” and author of “Canada 1984”.

He was a founding member (and senior partner) of Ian Sone & Associates Ltd -- Canada’s first independent social-research company specializing in the evaluations of federal, provincial & municipal government projects in Canada.

He is also the publisher of the FREE “Soupcoff Report” investment newsletter, whose distribution is partly subsidized by paid subscriptions from former research clients.

You can e-mail Murray Soupcoff at: murraysoupcoff@rogers.com ]

Print Friendly
Add Comment Register



Leave a Reply






Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner






IC Contributors