Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Hillary’s mendacity

Hillary’s mendacity

The performance is all that counts

Andrew McCarthy has written a National Review article entitled “Hillary’s Breathtaking Mendacity.”

It describes the lies that were revealed and “made explicit” in Clinton’s testimony before the Benghazi committee last Thursday, and it’s well worth reading in its entirely. But it also exemplifies a response that’s occurring only on the right. McCarthy’s clear and painstaking description of how Clinton lied to the American people (but not to her daughter) is freely available to all who read National Review, but how many people would that be, compared to those who read the ubiquitous MSM spin that says she acquitted herself admirably in the hearings and no one laid a glove on her, nor was any new or interesting information revealed?

The Benghazi hearings have underlined—even though such underlining wasn’t needed—how those who control the narrative control the perception and even the conclusion. Clinton can lie through her teeth about material facts for political reasons, it can be demonstrated over and over (or it can be obvious to anyone listening or paying a particle of attention), and if the media decides to ignore that fact, how many people will look for themselves and decide for themselves? Very few, I’m afraid.

Apparently, facts are not stubborn things. Not any more. Maybe they never were.

But there’s a lot more going on here than that. One thing that’s going on is that much of the public has become cynical enough not to care about Hillary’s lies. Yes, there’s the low information voter whose views are shaped by the MSM, and by the mere headlines in the MSM at that. But there are also a lot of people like the friend I described in this post from December of 2012:

The American people do not seem to be “concerned,” [about Benghazi] either, not at all. Major Garrett can ask all the questions he wants…but few people except us blogophiles on the right are listening, and Carney and Obama have learned that simply thumbing their noses at the American people is an excellent way to get the people to shrug…

I discovered this myself a few days after the election, when I had dinner with an old friend who is an intelligent, moderate, non-leftist Democrat with some conservative tendencies. This friend just didn’t care about Benghazi or the administration’s handling of it, didn’t know the details and was cynically dismissive of the topic because “all politicians lie.”

Well, they surely do—but not this brazenly, because most politicians at least have the fear of being called to account by the media and then the American people…

As true as that was then, it is even truer now. And I’ll go it one better: the left and a growing number of liberals applaud a lie if it serves the cause of the left.

The left was always like that, of course. But I think a lot of liberals used to be more principled than that. What’s made the difference? A decades-long immersion and education in the doctrine of moral relativism:

What is truth, and can it be determined? Way way too many people answer “no,” and so they’ve given up trying or caring. And if they don’t care, why should our public officials answer inopportune and potentially embarrassing questions? No; what’s important is feelings…And most Americans will nod, if they’re paying attention at all.

I will expand on what I wrote back then and add that, this past Thursday, what seems to have been important to most pundits in the MSM (and therefore most liberals) was Hillary’s demeanor: she was measured, calm, and quick to respond. It belied the idea (as did her performance in the recent Democratic debate) that she’s too tired and old, too mentally spent, to be president. She’s still sharp, all right, when need be.

But the substance of what she actually said and did, now and back in the fall of 2012 and after, should be seen as abhorrent. Yet it doesn’t appear that enough Americans care, and because of that we may be in the lamentable situation where Hillary is in a good position to become the next president of the United States.

[Neo-neocon is a writer with degrees in law and family therapy, who blogs at neo-neocon.]

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

There may be another factor in play in the larger population; we’ve been lied to on essentially a daily basis. Often the lies are laughably artless. They’re insulting. Yet there are no consequences for those lies, and new ones follow on every day, or close enough to every day.

Much of the population has lost its sensitivity to lying, and their disgust for it.

    They don’t care what lies are told or by whom, as long as the government steals money from the productive to send to them.

    The MSM has gotten away with creating an alternate reality since the government welfare state was created.

In a culture that has been accelerating its abandonment of the True God and is increasingly turning inward, moral relativism’s anthropocentric “Truth… is what your contemporaries let you get away with.”- Richard M. Rorty

The dumbing and numbing of the American mind has been going on for decades. Even the local talking heads broadcast Democrat spin/lies on every issue, every day. I rant about it on my local blog, but few read and most love their local news celebs.

While “we the people” may still lean conservative, the left has conquered our media and schools and the government bureaucracy. They have co-opted many churches and environmental movements. They (leftists/commies) strategically planned and attacked our institutions as a subversive invading force, while middle America gradually submitted, busy in organic daily life.

Despite Hillary’s haughty performance of denialism, even Democrats don’t trust her. But whether America is too numb, dumb and distracted to stop her wicked machine is the question. The masses should respond to Cruz, but it may take a Trump to gain traction.

    Democrats have to cheat to win most times. They are dedicated to it. Why should telling the truth matter to them at all. Those that will vote Democrat will do so regardless. Lies, crimes, deviancy can’t keep a good democrat from being elected.

    Things that would torpedo a Republican in a heartbeat mean nothing to the Democrats or their supporters. Those that have a smidgin of ethics for themselves say, “The Republicans do it too.” They literally cannot say no to one of theirs.

Sammy Finkelman | October 26, 2015 at 12:27 pm

The spin of the Democrats, which they got Republicans like Trey Gowdy to agree to, was that they didn’t learn anythiung from her testimony.

That is the most telling thing of all.

An ordinary honest person would have had something to contribute.

Some reflections.

Some revelations, even if minor, about what went on.

Some ideas for change thrown out.

From Hillary, they got nothing.

Although she said she had racked her brains trying to determine how things could have turned out differently.

Sammy Finkelman | October 26, 2015 at 12:56 pm

Is Andrew McCarthy really deaf, dumb and blind? Does he not pay attention? I mean Hillary isn’t interested in emphasizing this, but still, it is out there in the open.

It’s one thing for Mitt Romney to miss this, but what happened to everybody else? I mean is everyone asleep? (Except maybe for John Dickerson of CBS News)

Everyone keeps on saying that the people in the Obama Administration knew it was a terrorist attack on September 12, 2012, or even September 11th.

What they lose sight of is this important fact – that after learning that this was a terrroist attack, the United States government then unlearned that this was planned terrorist attack.

And they didn’t invent the claim about the video. That originated with the terrorists, and there cannot be the slightest doubt about that (or at least that it didn’t come from the State Department or the White House, but the CIA) as more and more Sooper Sekrit Intelligence kept pouring in saying this was a spontaneous attack.

This Sooper Sekrit intelligence was alluded to on Face the Nation yesterday.

One guest was the Ranking Minoprity member of the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff who is also on the Benghazi committee.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/face-the-nation-transcripts-october-25-trump-christie-nunes-schiff/

[Adam] SCHIFF [D-Calif]: ….The early claims by Ansar al-Sharia responsibility … were very quickly followed with human intelligence, signals intelligence, open source reporting, that there was a protest. It wasn’t until about eight to ten days after the events where we actually got the tapes from the compound that we could see quite demonstrably on those tapes that there had been no protests. But it was the — the considered judgment, the assessment of the intelligence experts for that week until we got those tapes, that there had been a protest. And that turned out to be wrong.

Now, Hillary Clinton, and everybody else high up in the State Department, of course, did not believe any of this.

They couldn’t have because the State Department had been in contact with the mission in Benghazi and knew it was a surprise attack.

Now what does this Democrat argue?

But to criticize Secretary Clinton for relying on the best of intelligence that we had at the time seemed to be wholly inappropriate. Had she had spoken, frankly, in contradiction of what our intelligence agencies were telling her, that might be something to criticize…

!!!!

Who do you believe – the CIA or your own eyes? Obviously, according to Adam Schiff, it should be the CIA, or at least that is what you tell the public when you know not just think but know that the CIA is wrong!

And it is apparently no business of the Secretary of State to tell the presdident or anybody that the CIA is wrong.

Not only is Schiff making excuses for Hillary doing nothing (or nothing she’s willing to talk about) about this completely wrong conclusion – he treats it like nothing was wrong at the CIA!

    Sammy Finkelman in reply to Sammy Finkelman. | October 26, 2015 at 1:05 pm

    Correction: I don’t think John Dickerson realized this either. This trope about when they knew is so strong, all of this – how they unlearned (not lied) just passes over everybody’s head.

So … privately Hillary calls it a planned terrorist attack. Obama rings her up and puts words in her mouth to cover for his failed policies.

Why not then a line of questioning to point out her weakness, her carrying Obama’s water / reluctance to disown the spin? Her’s was the response of a weak follower, not a strong leader.

Sammy Finkelman | October 26, 2015 at 1:40 pm

It didn’t come from Obama.

It came from Sooper Sekrit Intelligence. Obama was one of those taken in, or at least confused.

The Ranking Minoprity member of the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff, who is also on the Benghazi committee, was a guest yesterday on Face the Nation:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/face-the-nation-transcripts-october-25-trump-christie-nunes-schiff/

Adam] SCHIFF [D-Calif]: ….The early claims by Ansar al-Sharia
responsibility … were very quickly followed with human intelligence, signals intelligence, open source reporting, that there was a protest.

It wasn’t until about eight to ten days after the events where we actually got the tapes from the compound that
we could see quite demonstrably on those tapes that there had been no protests.

But it was the — the considered judgment, the assessment of the intelligence experts for that week until we got those tapes, that there had been a protest. And that turned out to be wrong.

Now, Hillary Clinton, and everybody else high up in the State Department, of course, did not believe any of this.

They couldn’t have because the State Department had been in contact with the mission in Benghazi and knew it was a surprise attack.

Now what does this Democrat argue??

But to criticize Secretary Clinton for relying on the best of intelligence that we had at the time seemed to be wholly
inappropriate. Had she had spoken, frankly, in contradiction of what our intelligence agencies were telling her, that might be something to criticize…

!!!!

Sammy Finkelman | October 26, 2015 at 2:33 pm

Emails concerning the “talking points” were released in 2013. I noticed something, nobody seems to have picked up on, and photographed it part of the 100-page PDF file (you can’t cut it) and put it online:

I found this, nobody else noticed this in the released emails:

http://i42.tinypic.com/2u8e98x.jpg

Tommy Vietor e-mail, Friday, September 14, 2012 8:43 pm EST:

There is massive disinformation out there, in particular with Congress. They all think it was premeditated based on inaccurate assumptions or briefings. So I think this is a response not only to a tasking from the house intel committee but also NSC guidance that we need to brief members/press and correct the record.

And there was one from Benjamin J. Rhodes Friday, September 14, 2012 9:34 pm:

http://i42.tinypic.com/2wflqn8.jpg

There is a ton of wrong information getting out into the public domain from Congress and people who are not particularly informed. Insofar as we have firmed up assessments that don’t compromise Intel or the Investigation We need to have the capability to correct the record as there are sigificant policy and messaging ramifications that would flow from a hardened mis-impression.

Now, who is the one that had the disinformation, members of Congress or Tommy Vietor? Who are the people who had the mis-impression, Congress and the public, or Benjamin J. Rhodes?

Many of the people who will be voting for Hillary WANT to be lied too. She is the perfect candidate. Do you know any progressives who want the truth?

    Henry Hawkins in reply to bt1. | October 26, 2015 at 7:01 pm

    Liberal Dems have their own form of taqqiya (lying as a means justified by the ends).

      Midwest Rhino in reply to Henry Hawkins. | October 26, 2015 at 8:17 pm

      In my estimate, taqqiya at least has some higher end in (their perverted) mind… i.e. subjecting the infidel to their “supreme religion”. Hillary and the left only care about abusing/controlling all for their own greed and ego. Their form of atheism lacks the compassion yours seems to have retained, from cultural upbringing I suppose.

      I don’t see Hillary really believing in any greater power or purpose, only in being the last dog standing, in the dog eat dog world.

        Henry Hawkins in reply to Midwest Rhino. | October 26, 2015 at 9:09 pm

        Atheism doesn’t mean the atheist by default sees himself as the highest power, far from it.

        Atheism and liberal ideology are often correlated, but that’s far from causation. Most people are only exposed to activist atheism, which is 100% liberal. Folks here at LI don’t do it, but many people assume all atheists are like the activist dumbasses. That’s sort of like assuming all Christians are like the Westboro Baptist church people.

        I’m unsure of the percentage, but there are a great many conservative atheists. The ones I know are like me in that you wouldn’t know they were atheists by their demeanor, politics, behaviors, or personalities. For most of us it isn’t a ‘thing’ and rarely crosses our minds in day to day living.

        Hillary is like a lot of people in being able to set aside what principles she might have in pursuit of her ambitions. It is an odd compartmentalization some have, where they’d take good care of your kids if they were babysitting, but would rob you blind in a business deal.

        Sorry to run on, but we common sense atheists don’t get much ‘air time’, lol, so I take advantage.

I look at it as people have been dumbed down/conditioned for so long that they are unable to critically think. The unacceptable is acceptable, the unthinkable is normalised.

I understand that Hannah Arrendt came under criticism but I reflect on her philosophy, the coining of the phrase, “The banality of evil”, in that what I see is no more than the absence of critical thought.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend