Thursday, November 29, 2007

"Bill Clinton's 'Truthiness' Problem"

Bill Clinton has a "Truthiness" problem? GASP! Who woulda guessed? The latest problem with Bill Clinton's truthiness was set off when he declared that he was opposed to the Iraq war from the start. Problem was, as you can see in the video above, that we can see that both he and Hillary SUPPORTED that war at the beginning. Even the Daily KOs KOmmies are casting aspersions upon Bill Clinton's truthiness as you can see in this THREAD titled, "Bill Clinton's 'Truthiness' Problem." So let us now watch the KOmmies skeptically look at Bill Clinton's truthiness in Bolshevik Red while the commentary of your humble correspondent, wondering if Hillary tossed a lamp at her hubby following this latest truthiness episode, is in the [brackets]:


Bill Clinton's "Truthiness" Problem


[A RECURRING problem.]


Ah, Bill. We missed ya. At least that's what I hear from all corners. One of the primary assertions of many Hillary supporters is that if elected, it means Bill will be "back" in the White House.

I think the Clinton nostaliga runs deep because things have gotten so bad in this country over the past seven years that people yearn for that simpler time when Clinton was President. That's fair, I guess.

But then something happens wherein I'm reminded why, as much as I admire Bill's ability to inspire on the campaign trail, I wasn't his biggest fan when he was in office.


[The KOmmies are only just now questioning Bill Clinton's truthiness because they know it will hurt Hillary.]


"Former president Bill Clinton said on Tuesday that he "opposed Iraq from the beginning," apparently glossing over the more nuanced views of the war he has expressed over time..."Even though I approved of Afghanistan and opposed Iraq from the beginning, I still resent that I was not asked or given the opportunity to support those soldiers," Clinton said. He said he "should not have gotten" the tax cuts he received as a wealthy earner."


[Notice how Bill (and Hillary) Clinton just can't stop reminding us of how rich they now are?]


My immediate thought was, "That's great, Bill. You opposed Iraq from the beginning. Of course, that doesn't matter much, given that you aren't running for anything this year..." But of course, that's not the point, is it? The point is to draw in Democratic primary voters to vote for Hillary, and Bill saying HE was opposed to the Iraq War from the beginning...well, he'll be able to influence Hillary once they get back to 1600 Penn Ave in 2009, right? But of course, as it always is with the Clintons, nothing is as it seems:

But past remarks made by the former president do leave open a question about how fervently Clinton opposed the war in real time and before it grew widely unpopular. In immediate hindsight, Clinton did not sound like a fierce critic. "I supported the president when he asked for authority to stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq," Clinton said on May 18, 2003, during a commencement speech at Tougaloo College in Mississippi.


[Baghdad Bill on the record. And now to hear the other KOmmies speak up about Bill Clinton's truthiness...]


How can someone go out on the stump and actually "believe" that what he says will not be checked? Remember, this is Bill Clinton. The main reason he is in Iowa is to rub off his cred, on Hillary, about her awful AUMF vote and Kyl/Lieberman. But instead, try to make people believe that he was not for the war? Does the Clintons think, "we are dumb or somethin?"


[He thinks you're DUmbies.]


I did not have relations with that woman!


[Another Bil Clinton truthiness episode.]


He lied. Period. This diary is specifically about his lying problem, I just brought up another example of his truthiness problem.


[Before about a couple of years ago, I don't think I ever saw the word "truthiness." Now it has become very common in the leftwing blogosphere.]


Listen. If I believed the things you say about Clinton, I'd hate him too. But I don't believe those things. What I find totally bizarre is someone who believes all the things you do believe about the Clintons going out of their way to say "I don't hate them." Instead of denying it just admit. Yes. I do hate the Clintons for all the reasons I try to articulate on this Blog. At least then it would make sense. But for now. It makes no sense for you post everything you do about the Clintons and then when someone says "You hate the Clintons" to then get all in a snit about it.


[In the interest of brevity I have edited out the vast majority of the MANY pro and anti Clinton flame wars going on in this thread. However, you can check it out for yourselves. The KOmmies are all at odds with each other over the topic of the Clintons.]


you're a miserable troll that is not worth a minute of anyone's time discussing with you.


[Stoke those flames!]


There's no more excuse for Dems openly lying as there is for Goopers openly lying. WJC is clearly lying now about the position that he took then.

[A distinct lack of truthiness. Hey, I'm growing FOND of that word!]


Bill Clinton is NOT an asset for the American people. He is all about himself. With this latest statement I realize that I don't know what he believes and I don't trust what he says. And are we to be impressed that he was right but Hillary wouldn't take his advice. I am really confused as to why he is saying what he is saying. I think it makes things worse. I just want him to go away. And I am even less impressed with the other HuffPo story. I just don't want to talk about them any more.


[Please just make the Clintons go away!]


Clinton will do right by America, when its convenient for him, but if it gets too sticky for, well America just has to understand that his political convenience is always priority one.


[An Inconvenient Truth-iness.]


I just don't get that about Bill and Hillary. They threw gays, welfare moms, helathcare and others under the bus when it was too hard to fight for what was right and to cater to the corporate elites. Bill likes his golf games with Bush Sr. I see this more as about personal power than power to do something on behalf of others. I see Bill liking hanging out with the "powerful". I don't see that in Edwards. And it is just my view.


[I guess you don't see Edwards' gigantic mansion with the indoor baskeball court.]


Look, I am truly sick of Hillary supporters screaming "republican" or "Rovian" tactics or talking points when someone levels legitimate critism against her. I have no tactics in mind when I speak what I'm thinking. I speak from my heart. The fact is that the Clintons have always and continue to say what they need to say to get elected. The fact that he had an above average overall presidency makes it tempting to vote her way, I understand that.
But, for me, I am very much over the lies and bullshit.


[LOUSY ROVIAN SLEEPER AGENT!!!]


If Edwards or Dodd or Biden or anyone who obviously originally supported the war now claimed that they always opposed the war, they'd be getting rightfully mocked for it. Bill Clinton has a public record of having supported the war from the beginning until whenever he changed his mind. To pretend that he doesn't is Rovian.


[A Perfect Rovian Storm.]


Bill's inability to keep his f*cking pants zipped left us George Bush as his legacy . . . or are you in such deep denial you've forgotten that inconvenient truth. Sorry - that family had one chance and they screwed the pooch. Never again.


[Until 2008.]


The thought of 8 more years of the Clintons makes me feel depressed.

[Put some ice on that.]


Clinton is an inveterate liar-- a great politican but an inveterate liar. Just as Hillary will always have bunker mentality


[I've always thought of her as having a War Room mentality.]

9 Comments:

Anonymous Ray said...

""Even though I approved of Afghanistan and opposed Iraq from the beginning, I still resent that I was not asked or given the opportunity to support those soldiers," Clinton said. He said he "should not have gotten" the tax cuts he received as a wealthy earner.""

Bill's idea of support is paying more in taxes? My Ass! If he truly believe this, he could always refuse to take any tax deductions when he files and pay the maximum amount owed. That would wipe out any tax cuts he may have received. If any extra is left over, he could always donate it to charities that deal with the military.

Face it Bill, you don't support today's soldiers any more, or any less, than you did as President when you sent troops into combat. This is just another case of Bill trying to be the center of attention. He's a perfect example of "Spare the rod and spoil the child."

11:58 AM  
Anonymous anon 1:50 said...

I do believe that this will be the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back.

Oh, it looks like 'just another gaffe', but the lack of 'truthiness' couldn't come at a worse time.

Iowans are not second-rate intellects. They are good, decent people who shy away from slick, deceitful con artists.

Which is the nicest description I can think of for the Clintons.

She won't win Iowa, and the momentum will have died on Bill's Lies.

She'll kill him.

12:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The thought of 8 more years of the Clintons makes me feel depressed.

Uh, presidential term is 4 years. Of course the writer is probably only 16 anyway, so can't remember any presidential term of less than 8 years.

2:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

""Even though I approved of Afghanistan and opposed Iraq from the beginning, I still resent that I was not asked or given the opportunity to support those soldiers," Clinton said. He said he "should not have gotten" the tax cuts he received as a wealthy earner.""

Heh! The guy who "supported" the troops during his reign by cutting military spending by 60%?

Typical limo/learjet liberal attitude about problems like poverty or war: "here's my check -- deal with it gubmint!" "I can't be bothered with actually putting skin into being supportive."

He could also take the Turner path -- send the gubmint a check for a couple million "for the general revenue account."

2:54 PM  
Anonymous Anon 1:50 said...

Hey! Where's the trolls? Where are the foulmouthed ninnyhammers who will go to the wall to protect "her thighness"?

She is the anointed one, isn't she?

I'm bummed! I expected at least one standup DUmmie to call me a "friggin' retard", (even though it should be "friggin' differently-abled" to be PC).

Hmph!

5:10 PM  
Blogger Bilgeman said...

"The main reason he is in Iowa is to rub off his cred, on Hillary, about her awful AUMF vote and Kyl/Lieberman. But instead, try to make people believe that he was not for the war? Does the Clintons think, "we are dumb or somethin?""

If he was running, they'd trample each other to vote for him.

They don't think you're dumb, they KNOW you are.

7:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Truthiness:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness

It's from Colbert. That's why the lefties like it so much.

9:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the trolls are waiting for their talking points, having been completely taken off guard by this. Give then a day...or two...for Hillery's camp to come up with what Bill really meant...

10:09 AM  
Blogger The Gunslinger said...

To be fair, I have to say I respect the DUmmies for taking Clinton to task over his absurd statements.

Of course the intellectual clarity ends at the Clinton name...but still, it is an honest assessment of the man, and his harridan. You gotta give them that.

A little more of that sort of honesty might make it possible for us to actually speak to each other.

What a concept!

6:31 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home