Hillary Clinton is announcing today. I get that. Normally, a candidate gets good coverage on the day he or she announces. Okay, so that was not the case with Rand Paul or, to a lesser extent, Ted Cruz. Paul got hammered and Cruz got lackluster coverage. Even so, I am surprised by just how supportive the mainstream media coverage is for Hillary. The truth is that it is more than supportive; the media is rewriting history.
Here's an example from Yahoo News: Meredith Shiner wrote a "news" article discussing Hillary's record which focuses principally on her time in the Senate. Here's the gist of what Yahoo News is putting out there today:
"Her work on the Senate Armed Services Committee — and especially her approach to hearings about ongoing military engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan — became the focal point of her Senate career, and she became know for asking tough, well-researched questions without trying to grandstand and bring attention to herself. "
The claim that she did not grandstand or bring attention to herself is outrageous. The idea that her questioning was "well-researched" is equally ridiculous. Do you remember when General Petreus came to testify in front of the Armed Services Committee? The surge in Iraq which the general commanded was well underway. It was showing success and the general so testified. Hillary summed up her position by telling the general that to accept his testimony would require the "suspension of disbelief". In other words, Hillary told the commanding general of American forces in Iraq that his testimony was just lies.
It is one thing to note in hindsight that the surge was a major and complete success. Obviously, what General Petreus said to the committee was correct and factual. Some would argue that Hillary just did not know the outcome. That argument, however, would be wrong. By the time of the testimony the surge had led to local Sunni tribes in Anbar Province joining the fight to rid the area of the al Qaeda and other jihadi forces. The terrorists were in retreat across Iraq, and particularly across the Sunni heartland in Anbar. This was not unknown to Hillary. She was a senator with access to all of the military intelligence. At the time, I recall seeing reports each day telling America about the increasing success of the surge, so I knew about it. If I knew, then she certainly knew.
So if she knew that the general was leading a successful effort in Iraq, then why did she call his testimony a pack of lies? The answer is simple: she was grandstanding and bringing attention to herself. Hillary was running for president, so the truth and the harm she might do to American efforts in Iraq meant nothing to her.
Put all this together and the "news" article from Yahoo News is pure spin. Okay, let's be clear: the Yahoo news article is itself a pack of lies designed to mislead people into giving Hillary credit for something she never did.
Maybe Hillary will ultimately win the election. The problem, however, is that after two terms of a president who cares nothing for the truth, we need an honest president to restore some level of trust in the office. Right now, that does not appear to be something that Mrs. Clinton could do.
Here's an example from Yahoo News: Meredith Shiner wrote a "news" article discussing Hillary's record which focuses principally on her time in the Senate. Here's the gist of what Yahoo News is putting out there today:
"Her work on the Senate Armed Services Committee — and especially her approach to hearings about ongoing military engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan — became the focal point of her Senate career, and she became know for asking tough, well-researched questions without trying to grandstand and bring attention to herself. "
The claim that she did not grandstand or bring attention to herself is outrageous. The idea that her questioning was "well-researched" is equally ridiculous. Do you remember when General Petreus came to testify in front of the Armed Services Committee? The surge in Iraq which the general commanded was well underway. It was showing success and the general so testified. Hillary summed up her position by telling the general that to accept his testimony would require the "suspension of disbelief". In other words, Hillary told the commanding general of American forces in Iraq that his testimony was just lies.
It is one thing to note in hindsight that the surge was a major and complete success. Obviously, what General Petreus said to the committee was correct and factual. Some would argue that Hillary just did not know the outcome. That argument, however, would be wrong. By the time of the testimony the surge had led to local Sunni tribes in Anbar Province joining the fight to rid the area of the al Qaeda and other jihadi forces. The terrorists were in retreat across Iraq, and particularly across the Sunni heartland in Anbar. This was not unknown to Hillary. She was a senator with access to all of the military intelligence. At the time, I recall seeing reports each day telling America about the increasing success of the surge, so I knew about it. If I knew, then she certainly knew.
So if she knew that the general was leading a successful effort in Iraq, then why did she call his testimony a pack of lies? The answer is simple: she was grandstanding and bringing attention to herself. Hillary was running for president, so the truth and the harm she might do to American efforts in Iraq meant nothing to her.
Put all this together and the "news" article from Yahoo News is pure spin. Okay, let's be clear: the Yahoo news article is itself a pack of lies designed to mislead people into giving Hillary credit for something she never did.
Maybe Hillary will ultimately win the election. The problem, however, is that after two terms of a president who cares nothing for the truth, we need an honest president to restore some level of trust in the office. Right now, that does not appear to be something that Mrs. Clinton could do.
No comments:
Post a Comment