Idiot Liberal Blogger Dishonestly Defends Hillary Clinton and Falsely Attacks the Right

By
January 23, 2013

The link immediately below is to Stacy McCain’s blog, not the idiot liberal pushing this dishonest nonsense.

But, of course, the ripped-from-context quote is “What difference, at this point, does it make?” It’s already being seized on by National Review and Fox News and The Wall Street Journal and The Weekly Standard and Glenn Beck’s Blaze and Michelle Malkin’s Twitchy and the Free Beacon and, of course, Breitbart. There’s already a popular hashtag, #whatdifferencedoesitmake.

Will the wingers be able to turn this decontextualized soundbite into a deceptive sign of Secretary Clinton’s indifference?

This is an Andrew Breitbart/James O’Keefe tactic, but its use is not limited to O’Keefe and the carriers of the Breitbart torch — this is a mainstream GOP tactic.

via The Other McCain.

It’s not often one sees liberal BS this bad make it to the top of Memeorandum.

It’s a myth that Andrew Breitbart and James O’Keefe routinely used things out of context – and using a quote or snippet of something in political battle is hardly a ‘tactic’ that began with either of them. The original lib blog item is complete rubbish, which is why I’m surprised it tracked. Unfortunately, it appears to be mostly the Right that linked it.

As regards Clinton’s pathetic statement, in situations such as Benghazi, it does and should always matter both how and why Americans die, or died. It matters as it happens, it matters when any administration is going before the nation to explain it – and it matters now. By falsely using the film as the rationale the Obama administration was in standard liberal blame America first mode. It’s shameful.

They deserve to be held accountable for it and as a part of the administration so does Hillary. It’s the liberal blogger spewing BS in this case, not the Right.



AdSense 300×250
NewsMax Trending Now
Comments:
  1. Ragspierre says:

    Hill-larry got all teary as she recalled meeting the caskets of her (betrayed) colleagues…

    where she and Barrackah LIED about the cause of the incident. Right to the faces of the families of her (betrayed) subordinates.

    Remember…???

    Remember, too, how they used the First Amendment for toilet paper as they propagated their lies…???

    We do.

  2. Ragspierre says:

    “With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. If it was because of a protest or if it was because guys out for a walk decided to go kill some Americans.* What difference at this point does it make?”** Clinton shot back in a raised voice.

    “It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator.*** Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer my questions about this but the fact is that people were trying in real time to get the best information … but you know, to be clear, it is from my perspective, less important today looking backward as to why these militants decided to do it,**** as to find them and bring them to justice,***** and then maybe we’ll figure out what was going on in the meantime.”******

    *Note the straw-man; never a planned, concerted attack by AQ elements that we had LOADS of warning was in prospect.

    **It matters a great deal to the American people, who were subjected to a cynical cover-up, which is still ongoing.

    ***This directly contradicts *, above

    ****This directly contradicts ***, above

    *****How’s that working…???

    ******We already know that. AQ elements in N.Africa attacked our people on 9/11 because they were sitting ducks, and the AQ is at war with Western culture…the US in particular.

  3. jharp says:

    “It’s a myth that Andrew Breitbart and James O’Keefe routinely used things out of context”

    Routinely? Who cares. They still did and do it plenty.

    And Shirley Sherrod is about to collect.

    And why isn’t O’Keefe in jail?

    • Ragspierre says:

      Those are lies, and you a liar.

      But it was ever thus…

      • jharp says:

        Lies?

        How about we wait for the jury to decide who lied?

        I can’t wait.

        • Ragspierre says:

          You just admitted your lie.

          Well, one of several.

          What a moron.

          • jharp says:

            Go get yourself some help.

            Romney’s loss was good for America.

            Don’t be a poor sport.

          • jharp says:

            Gallup? The same Gallup that had Romney ahead by 7%?

            You have got to be kidding me.

            What does unskewedpolls.com have to say about it?

            Hilarious!

          • Ragspierre says:

            “The same Gallup that had Romney ahead by 7%?”

            Ummm….

            No, moron. See, the questions are entirely different. See…??? I know this is hard.

            Also, while you might question a discrete number (and you should), you can’t question the trend.

            Can you, you lying Collectivist SOS…???

          • timb says:

            You are seriously unaware that Larry and
            Breitbart’s estate are currently in
            litigation?

            And, you unaware that several investigations into O’Keefe’sa ACORN video noted the editing and out of context quotes?

            How dumb are YOU?

          • SDN says:

            And, you unaware that several investigations into O’Keefe’sa ACORN video noted the editing and out of context quotes?

            Investigations by ACORN. I’m sure they did.

            And anyone can file a lawsuit. Find a Leftard judge and it might not be tossed on sight.

    • Ragspierre says:

      Why isn’t acknowledged gun criminal/anchor Gregory being prosecuted?

      You stupid, lying SOS.

  4. Ragspierre says:

    I guess jharp’s red herring about Romney is not TOTALLY a red herring…

    considering the whole Benghazi cover-up was intended to keep Pres. Not Optimal’s ass in his golf cart…er…Air Force One.

  5. Ragspierre says:

    Like a deposition, Hill-larry’s various lies are now on record, and will be Fisked at length over time and at leisure.

    Heh! Poor old, mendacious, submissive Hill-larry (and facilitator of serial sexual abuser Ball-less Bill).

  6. MKS says:

    Still can’t see why Benghazi-gate is not far worse than Watergate. Nixon was re-elected after Watergate, but the cover-up eventually caused him to leave office. We need to be even-handed in our treatment of these events: was Watergate not all that bad, or is Benghazi-gate far worse than the MSM describes?

    • Ragspierre says:

      “…is Benghazi-gate far worse than the MSM describes?”

      Seriously?

      How long did it take before the Mushroom Media even began to treat this with ANYTHING but total collusion with the Obami?

      Or is it the case they are still very actively part of the cover-up?

      As to Watergate: how many people died? What American facilities were lost? What implications did it have to American foreign policy? Did Nixon leave people under siege and go to bed while they died? Or fly off to campaign the next day? Did he adopt a “yes, Americans are to blame for this” position with foreign enemies? Did he and his State Department attack our own Constitution to support his lie?

    • Ragspierre says:

      “You are seriously unaware that Larry and
      Breitbart’s estate are currently in
      litigation?

      How dumb are YOU?”

      Well, VASTLY less dumb than are you.

      I know the difference between “litigation” and “about to collect”.

      And a lie from the truth.

      Another moron.

  7. Ragspierre says:

    Acorn’s supporters appear to hope that the whole story will fall apart over the issue of what O’Keefe wore: if that was wrong, everything else must be wrong. The record does not support them. If O’Keefe did not dress as a pimp, he clearly presented himself as one: a fellow trying to set up a woman — sometimes along with under-age girls — in a house where they would work as prostitutes. In Washington, he said the prostitution was to finance his future in politics. A worker for Acorn Housing, an allied group, warned him to stay away from the brothel lest someone “get wind that you got a house and that your girlfriend is over there running a house of women of the night. You will not have a career.”

    FAIR said that in Brooklyn, O’Keefe and Giles seemed to be telling Acorn staffers that “they are attempting to buy a house to protect child prostitutes from an abusive pimp.”

    ***That’s right, but FAIR left out the part about their clear intention to operate a brothel, which the Acorn workers seemed to take in stride, with one warning: “Don’t get caught, ’cause it is against the law.”***

    The videos were heavily edited. The sequence of some conversations was changed. Some workers seemed concerned for Giles, one advising her to get legal help. In two cities, Acorn workers called the police. But the most damning words match the transcripts and the audio, and do not seem out of context. Harshbarger’s report to Acorn found no “pattern of illegal conduct” by its employees. But, he told me: “They said what they said. There’s no way to make this look good.”

    He also said the news media should have been far more skeptical, demanding the raw video from which the edited versions were produced. “It’s outrageous that this could have had this effect without being questioned more,” he said.

    The report by Harshbarger and Crafts was not covered by The Times. It should have been, but the Acorn/O’Keefe story became something of an orphan at the paper. At least 14 reporters, reporting to different sets of editors, have touched it since last fall. Nobody owns it. Bill Keller, the executive editor, said that, “sensing the story would not go away and would be part of a larger narrative,” the paper should have assigned one reporter to be responsible for it.

    It remains a fascinating story. To conservatives, Acorn is virtually a criminal organization that was guilty of extensive voter registration fraud in 2008. To its supporters, Acorn is a community service organization that has helped millions of disadvantaged Americans by organizing to confront powerful institutions like banks and developers.

    Harshbarger’s report focused heavily on Acorn’s “longstanding management weaknesses, including lack of training, a lack of procedures and a lack of on-site supervision” that he said provided fertile ground for O’Keefe’s sting. Lewis, who took over less than two years ago, said she has been working aggressively to reform the organization.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/opinion/21pubed.html?_r=0

    ACORN has been PROVEN to be essentially a criminal enterprise.

    Which is WHY it essentially no longer exists.

    What a pack of idiots you Collectivist trolls are…

  8. [...] – “What Difference Does It Make?” Theo Spark: Hillary Clinton #Benghazi Hearings Riehl World News: Idiot Liberal Blogger Dishonestly Defends Hillary, Falsely Attacks The Right Weasel Zippers: Rand Paul Hammers Hillary Over Benghazi During Senate Hearing NRO Corner: Benghazi [...]

  9. Ragspierre says:

    JAMES TARANTO: ‘What Difference Does It Make?’ Mrs. Clinton finds herself in a familiar, if ironic, role. “As we watched this exchange, it occurred to us that Mrs. Clinton was back in a familiar role, and an ironic one for someone who is supposed to be a feminist icon. Once again, she was helping the most powerful man in the world dodge accountability for scandalous behavior.” That’s why they keep her around.
    —InstaPundit

    As I noted yesterday…she is a facilitator for abusive men. She’ll prostitute herself to associate with power.

  10. Sanity says:

    Who said this, morons?

    “I think she has a little bit of a valid point …. It’s not so important whether or not it was a movie or what it was. I think what’s important, though, in going forward is it not happen again.”

    Hint – the speaker is someone who will never be president.

    • Ragspierre says:

      What’s important is that the American people are told the truth, instead of a transparent set of lies by Pres. Not Optimal and his myrmidons.

      What’s important is that hth SmartPower(tm) failures…which are manifold…are exposed as the disaster they are, and the feckless idiots in power are brought to bear responsibility for this pitiful episode.

      You poor, stupid, hate-twisted apologist for the failed Collective.

  11. Ragspierre says:

    http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-releases-special-report-the-benghazi-attack-of-september-11-2012-analysis-and-further-questions/

    That poses a FEW of the MANY questions that should be answered by the Obamabanana Republic.

    Take those on, moronic Collectivists.

    This is not going away.

  12. Ragspierre says:

    Several Egyptian members of the squad of militants that lay bloody siege to an Algerian gas complex last week also took part in the deadly attack on the United States Mission in Libya in September, a senior Algerian official said Tuesday.

    The Egyptians involved in both attacks were killed by Algerian forces during the four-day ordeal that ended in the deaths of at least 38 hostages and 29 kidnappers, the official said. But three of the militants were captured alive, and one of them described the Egyptians’ role in both assaults under interrogation by the Algerian security services, the official said.

    If confirmed, the link between two of the most brazen assaults in recent memory would reinforce the transborder character of the jihadist groups now striking across the Sahara. American officials have long warned that the region’s volatile mix of porous borders, turbulent states, weapons and ranks of fighters with similar ideologies creates a dangerous landscape in which extremists are trying to collaborate across vast distances.
    —————————-

    Hill-larry took responsibility for Benghazi exactly HOW…???

    Just ANOTHER lie.

    And who in State has lost their jobs…???

  13. Ragspierre says:

    Speaking of someone who will never be president (really)…

    Crazy Joe Biden goes off script!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wcxVovpJdi8

    Priceless…

    • Ragspierre says:

      Another sock-puppet liar.

      But…John F’ing Kerry. cf OilGore. See also Micky Mouse Doookicacus.

      On the other hand, there is Barrackah…

  14. Ragspierre says:

    Another assholic sock-puppet liar who can’t allow that the CONGRESS authorized invasion of Iraq (a victory, according to Obama) on 23 predicates.

    And Texas A&M does not have “cheerleaders” you stupid phuc.

    Too bad Jesus was never able to get through to Teddy “Wet Work” Kennedy, huh!

  15. Ragspierre says:

    Quite right. My error.

    Now, it is your turn to apologize for all your lying here.

    Starting with your identity.

    I’ll wait.

  16. Ragspierre says:

    But just to be clear, Clinton lied and is still lying. When asked about the claim that the attack was sparked by a protest over a video, she responded, “I did not say … that it was about the video for Libya.”

    That’s simply untrue. When she stood by the caskets of the four Americans killed in Libya, she directly blamed an “awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with.” Afterward, she reportedly told the father of Tyrone Woods, the former Navy SEAL who was killed in the attack, “We will make sure the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted.” Why tell the man that if the video had nothing to do with it?

    Moreover, Clinton was part of an administration that crafted an entire PR strategy to blame these attacks on “an awful Internet video.” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney was unequivocal: This was a “response to a video, a film we have judged to be reprehensible and disgusting.” In his address to the United Nations, President Obama mentioned the video six times but al-Qaeda once. When he appeared on the “Late Show with David Letterman,” he blamed the video directly. U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice went on five Sunday shows blaming the video. All of this happened when they already knew it was not true on the day of the attack, and even the president of Libya publicly called the protest explanation ridiculous.

    But again, the lying, while outrageous, is incidental to the real offense, which is twofold. First, why did the administration lie? Well, it wanted to conceal its utter failure to prepare for terrorist attacks on Sept. 11 — which is like being surprised by Christmas falling on Dec. 25. Also, the Obama administration, by which I mean the Obama campaign, was desperate to protect its hyped record of fighting terrorism. A “spontaneous” attack invited not by the administration’s shortcomings but by some nutty video was just the ticket.

    snip

    Which brings us to the second part: the nature of the lie. Remember, not all lies are equally harmful. In this case, the U.S. government responded to the murder of four Americans by treating our constitutional rights as part of the problem. A former teacher of constitutional law, Obama was happy to watch the country argue new limits on free expression and the necessity of giving bloodthirsty savages and terrorists a heckler’s veto on what Americans can do or say.

    Clinton was in on that lie, and that makes all the difference in the world.
    —Jonah Goldberg

    They think they can get away with all their lies.

    They can’t. This is not going away.

  17. Ragspierre says:

    “Last June, a Pew Research Center study of global attitudes toward the U.S. found that they have worsened in pretty much every country except Japan. Approval of the Obama administration’s polices have dropped by double-digit margins everywhere in the world since 2009.”

    Yep. Obama made it worse. Well, with Hill-larry’s “help”. What a dismal failure.

  18. JohnInMA says:

    Progressives get so deeply buried in subtlety, nuance, and infinite levels of dependency that they cannot see the forest for the trees. There wasn’t complicated context to Hilary’s statement. If one wanted, they could include the question asked by Ron Johnson (which many do). But her answer had few logical dependencies to any other statement. It was directed at the questioner, and hence the question.

    Even in arcane areas of science, it is satisfactory to tie a premise or theory to a part of its derivation or to its final conclusion. Somehow bizarrely, in the world of progressive rationalization, that becomes unacceptable. You must show all ‘words in their context’ we are told. Even when those additional words add no more clarity or information. Rather, they simply provide word weight, and something tangential to argue. It’s only a ploy to make the tangential the pertinent matter, or to just obfuscate.