A Smorgasboard of Liberal lunacy, dishonesty, and hypocrisy
DISHONESTY:
1) Regarding the filthy comments made by commenters at HuffPo regarding the bombing intended for VP Cheney, Kirsten Powers notes "..These are comments on the blog itself. It's not an actual blogger, it's not Arianna Huffington, it's not anybody who works for her..." Regarding the incident above, this is probably true.
However, in this post Tony Hendra wrote "I give thanks O Lord for Dick Cheney's Heart, that brave organ which has done its darn-tootin' best on four separate occasions to do what we can only dream about. O Lord, give Dick Cheney's Heart, Our Sacred Secret Weapon, the strength to try one more time! For greater love hath no heart than that it lay down its life to rid the planet of its Number One Human Tumor." So here we have a blogger on the site wishing for Dick Cheney's death. Doesn't that contradict exactly what Kirsten said???? Notice Kirsten's defense, "It's offensive, but it's not suggesting assassinating him" So wishing for the death of the leaders of your country is ok, just as long as your don't actually encourage or take any action to see it happen...got it.
LUNACY
2) Joy Behar on the View last week said “That’s right. I agree with that. I don’t want add fuel to the fire, but I don’t know what it’s going to take for people to really wake up and understand that they are liars and they are murderers. I’m sorry.”
....I don’t consider myself a fringe liberal.”
The sad fact is that Behar is right (to an extent). Believing that the POTUSA and VP are liars/murderers/evil is a view held by most liberals (i.e more than just 2-3% of the population). Any normal person would consider her a fringe liberal, but the % of the population with BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) seems to keep growing and growing by the day. The view of Bush/Cheney as liars and murderers isn't a "fringe" position among liberals; its a mainstream position.
HYPOCRISY
3) An excellent article here in the Boston Globe talking about some of the slimy pardons that Bill Clinton issued (or tried to issue) and it featured this quote: "It is a legitimate campaign issue," said Stephen Gillers, professor of legal ethics at New York University School of Law. He said that Hillary Clinton should answer questions about her brothers' and her own involvement in the pardons because "the stench of the Marc Rich pardon still stinks and it has never been adequately explained. "
Hillary Clinton's brother (Hugh) took $400K from 2 people (1 of which got pardoned and 1 of which got the sentence commuted). Her other brother Tony supposedly had a "loan" for $107K from two people that also got pardoned. A complete breakdown of the pardons can be found here. Seems there's a fight in court over Tony returning his "loan" money which Hillary claimed he never received---"The report said Hillary Clinton's "statement that Tony Rodham 'was not paid' is not accurate." It would seem that this is a legitimate campaign issue because even though Bill Clinton was the one who did the pardoning, it was the brothers of Hillary Clinton who secured these pardons. Who's to say they wouldn't do it again, if she were elected?? Just wait though. The second this comes up, Howard Wolfson is going to start crying about "the politics of personal destruction" and "slash and burn politics". Just you see..
Finally, on a different note, the article states: "President Clinton has said he pardoned Rich at the behest of Israeli officials,..." So here we have a president pardoning an oil financier with ties to Israel ("the Zionist regime") yet there has been absolutely NO outcry from the left. They have carried on for 4 years about "No Blood for Oil" and declared the Israel the "evil Zionist regime" regarding Bush's policies in the Middle East. Yet, the biggest tax cheat in history who made his millions off trading oil with IRAN and has ties to the "Zionist regime" is perfectly legitimate.
1) Regarding the filthy comments made by commenters at HuffPo regarding the bombing intended for VP Cheney, Kirsten Powers notes "..These are comments on the blog itself. It's not an actual blogger, it's not Arianna Huffington, it's not anybody who works for her..." Regarding the incident above, this is probably true.
However, in this post Tony Hendra wrote "I give thanks O Lord for Dick Cheney's Heart, that brave organ which has done its darn-tootin' best on four separate occasions to do what we can only dream about. O Lord, give Dick Cheney's Heart, Our Sacred Secret Weapon, the strength to try one more time! For greater love hath no heart than that it lay down its life to rid the planet of its Number One Human Tumor." So here we have a blogger on the site wishing for Dick Cheney's death. Doesn't that contradict exactly what Kirsten said???? Notice Kirsten's defense, "It's offensive, but it's not suggesting assassinating him" So wishing for the death of the leaders of your country is ok, just as long as your don't actually encourage or take any action to see it happen...got it.
LUNACY
2) Joy Behar on the View last week said “That’s right. I agree with that. I don’t want add fuel to the fire, but I don’t know what it’s going to take for people to really wake up and understand that they are liars and they are murderers. I’m sorry.”
....I don’t consider myself a fringe liberal.”
The sad fact is that Behar is right (to an extent). Believing that the POTUSA and VP are liars/murderers/evil is a view held by most liberals (i.e more than just 2-3% of the population). Any normal person would consider her a fringe liberal, but the % of the population with BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) seems to keep growing and growing by the day. The view of Bush/Cheney as liars and murderers isn't a "fringe" position among liberals; its a mainstream position.
HYPOCRISY
3) An excellent article here in the Boston Globe talking about some of the slimy pardons that Bill Clinton issued (or tried to issue) and it featured this quote: "It is a legitimate campaign issue," said Stephen Gillers, professor of legal ethics at New York University School of Law. He said that Hillary Clinton should answer questions about her brothers' and her own involvement in the pardons because "the stench of the Marc Rich pardon still stinks and it has never been adequately explained. "
Hillary Clinton's brother (Hugh) took $400K from 2 people (1 of which got pardoned and 1 of which got the sentence commuted). Her other brother Tony supposedly had a "loan" for $107K from two people that also got pardoned. A complete breakdown of the pardons can be found here. Seems there's a fight in court over Tony returning his "loan" money which Hillary claimed he never received---"The report said Hillary Clinton's "statement that Tony Rodham 'was not paid' is not accurate." It would seem that this is a legitimate campaign issue because even though Bill Clinton was the one who did the pardoning, it was the brothers of Hillary Clinton who secured these pardons. Who's to say they wouldn't do it again, if she were elected?? Just wait though. The second this comes up, Howard Wolfson is going to start crying about "the politics of personal destruction" and "slash and burn politics". Just you see..
Finally, on a different note, the article states: "President Clinton has said he pardoned Rich at the behest of Israeli officials,..." So here we have a president pardoning an oil financier with ties to Israel ("the Zionist regime") yet there has been absolutely NO outcry from the left. They have carried on for 4 years about "No Blood for Oil" and declared the Israel the "evil Zionist regime" regarding Bush's policies in the Middle East. Yet, the biggest tax cheat in history who made his millions off trading oil with IRAN and has ties to the "Zionist regime" is perfectly legitimate.
posted by Truth Matters at 9:30 AM
0 comments
