Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Even Republicans who hate Trump should defend him against Hillary’s ISIS lie

Even Republicans who hate Trump should defend him against Hillary’s ISIS lie

It’s not about Trump, it’s about how the media lets Democrats off the hook.

https://twitter.com/TheFix/status/678688616931921921

Hillary Clinton flat-out lied during the Democratic Debate on Saturday night.

Throughout the debate, even when not the subject of a question, the candidates tried to out-do each other in condemning Donald Trump. It was a preview of a general election strategy.

At one dramatic point, Hillary claimed that Trump’s comments about a temporary halt to Muslim immigration were being used in ISIS videos as a recruiting tool.

It was not a claim made in isolation. It came as Clinton tried to explain her ISIS and refugee strategies in the face of an American public which strongly (though not majority) supports Trump’s position. This was Hillary’s opportunity to convince the public that people need not give in to fear.

Rather than making the case, Hillary just made stuff up:

There was a collective raising of the eyebrows even among those who don’t like Trump or Republicans. It’s one thing to bash Trump for what he says and does, it’s something else to just make stuff up on national television during a primary debate..

Immediately, the fact checks started:

https://twitter.com/GrasswireFacts/status/678395173143900160?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Even Politifact, not known to lean Republican, called it false:

https://twitter.com/PolitiFact/status/678425586373668864

And so did The NY Times:

NY Times Fact Check Hilary and Trump ISIS Debate

WaPo also found no evidence:

WaPo Hillary Trump ISIS Debate

The best Hillary defenders in the media could do is admit the claims was false, but suggest it might be true in the future:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-isis_5676e303e4b0b958f65706c7?ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000067

So far, so good. Hillary was so brazen in her claim that the mainstream fact checkers couldn’t help but include it in their fact checks.

Sure, Trump is hitting back on it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAX8DDt0QGo

But that’s likely where it will die in the media.

There will be no round-the-clock, days-long media frenzy about Hillary making something up and lying the way there was when Carly Fiorina allegedly lied about Planned Parenthood videos. In the Fiorina case, strained arguments that Fioriana lied was all it took for the media to run with it for days.

Defending Donald Trump against Hillary’s brazen lie is not a measure of support for Trump. It’s a measure of opposition to liberal media bias and attempts to put a thumb on the presidential political scale by letting Democrat lies drop.

I made this point after the Gabby Giffords shooting, when liberal media rushed to blame an electoral map used by Sarah Palin. It was a meme created out of thin air by left-wing bloggers which then worked its way into the mainstream media. Shamefully, some Republicans, so blinded by hatred of Palin, not only refused to defend her, they jumped on the media bandwagon.

I called the Palin map falsehood The Media’s Test Run To Re-Elect Barack Obama. So too, the speed with which the media will drop Hillary’s media lie is a test case of how the media will elect Hillary. It’s not just acts of media commission, but also omission.

As a thought exercise, imagine that ISIS actually was using Trump in videos for recruiting. How would that media react? Certainly not with the near complete silence that greeted ISIS’s use of Bill Clinton’s sexual exploitations in a video:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2015/11/24/isis-video-bill-clinton-a-fornicator.html

[ISIS Video: Bill Clinton a ‘Fornicator’ – via The Daily Beast]

And of course, the media — with the exception of Fox News and Talk radio — has done everything it can to minimize the impact of Hillary falsely claiming a video about Mohammed caused the Benghazi attack.

So defend Trump on Hillary’s ISIS lie and keep the issue alive even if you hate him. It’s not about Trump.

UPDATE 12-21-2015: Hmmm:

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush is making a rare defense of Donald Trump, rejecting Hillary Clinton’s claim that the businessman has become a recruiting tool for the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

“Hillary Clinton suggesting that Donald Trump is being used in an ISIS recruiting video, man, talk about chutzpah,” Bush said Monday on Bill Bennett’s radio show, as highlighted by Buzzfeed News. “There’s no evidence of that. There’s no evidence of that at all.”

The defense is unusual coming from Bush, who has been harshly critical of Trump during the Republican race, calling him the “chaos candidate” and saying he can’t “insult his way to the presidency.”

Still, even as he backed Trump in the fight against Clinton, Bush emphasized that he doesn’t support Trump’s proposal to temporarily ban most Muslims from entering the United States.

“This is how they play the game on the left,” Bush said. “They’re always blaming somebody. This case, I think, while I don’t agree with Trump’s idea, I don’t he has anything to do with being part of a recruiting video.”

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Hillary is a vile and disgusting human being who would choose a lie over the truth, even if the truth served her better.

    clafoutis in reply to Sanddog. | December 20, 2015 at 10:42 pm

    Vile and disgusting – yes.
    Human being – not so sure.

    Estragon in reply to Sanddog. | December 21, 2015 at 6:06 am

    Vile and conniving, without question – but if the truth served her better than a lie, I suspect she would go with it.

    Of course this is purely hypothetical, as the truth hasn’t yet served her interests better than lies.

      Sammy Finkelman in reply to Estragon. | December 22, 2015 at 1:49 pm

      Well, she tried this. (and it wold still be half truths)

      http://www.cbsnews.com/news/democratic-debate-transcript-clinton-sanders-omalley-in-new-hampshire/

      SANDERS: ….Yes, we could get rid of Assad tomorrow, but that would create another political vacuum that would benefit ISIS….And in my view, what we need to do is put together broad coalitions to understand that we’re not going to have a political vacuum filled by terrorists, that, in fact, we are going to move steadily — and maybe slowly — toward democratic societies, in terms of Assad, a terrible dictator. But I think in Syria the primary focus now must be on destroying ISIS and working over the years to get rid of Assad. That’s the secondary issue.

      CLINTON: That is exactly…

      MUIR: Senator, thank you.

      CLINTON: That is exactly what I just said and what I just described.

      MUIR: Yeah, but, Secretary Clinton — Secretary Clinton…

      CLINTON: And that is important, because now we have a U.N. Security Council that will enable us to do that.

      MUIR: Senator Sanders, Senator Sanders, hold on. One moment, please. I’m going to ask the secretary here, because there does appear to be some daylight here between the policies, at least in respect to when you take out Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Right now or do you wait? Do you tackle ISIS first?

      You have said, Secretary Clinton, that you come to the conclusion that we have to proceed on both fronts at once. We heard from the senator just this week that we must put aside the issue of how quickly we get rid of Assad and come together with countries, including Russia and Iran, to destroy ISIS first. Is he wrong?

      CLINTON: I think we’re missing the point here. We are doing both at the same time.

      MUIR: But that’s what he’s saying, we should put that aside for now and go after ISIS.

      CLINTON: Well, I don’t agree with that, because we will not get the support on the ground in Syria to dislodge ISIS if the fighters there who are not associated with ISIS, but whose principal goal is getting rid of Assad, don’t believe there is a political, diplomatic channel that is ongoing. We now have that. We have the U.N. Security Council adopting a resolution that lays out a transition path. It’s very important we operate on both at the same time.

      And let me just say a word about coalition-building, because I’ve heard Senator Sanders say this. I know how hard it is to build coalitions. I think it would be a grave mistake to ask for any more Iranian troops inside Syria.

      That is like asking the arsonist to come and pour more gas on the fire.

      The Iranians getting more of a presence in Syria, linking with Hezbollah, their proxy in Lebanon, would threaten Israel and would make it more difficult for us to move on a path to have a transition that at some point would deal with Assad’s future.

      What’s this about Bernie Sanders wanting more Iranian troops in Syria? And they’re exactly Iranian. They’ve got Iranian generals, but it’s Hezbollah and Shiite militias from Iraq.

      Sanders then says it is a complicated issue, and O’Malley wants to make a Cold War analogy, when the United states supposedly was with anybody who against the Communits, bit gets the analogy wrong because that would mean NOT making any kind of alliance with Assad against ISIS. In that analogy ISIS is the Commnists. Assad is Mosaddegh. (It might be he’s suggesting that Mosaddegh was not allied with the Communists.)

      Hillary then says:

      CLINTON:.. I think it’s fair to say, Assad has killed, by last count, about 250,000 Syrians. The reason we are in the mess we’re in, that ISIS has the territory it has, is because of Assad.

      I advocated arming the moderate opposition back in the day when I was still secretary of State, because I worried we would end up exactly where we are now.

      And so, when we look at these complex problems, I wish it could be either/or.I wish we could say yes, let’s go destroy ISIS and let’s let Assad continue to destroy Syria, which creates more terrorists, more extremists by the minute.

      No. We now finally are where we need to be. We have a strategy and a commitment to go after ISIS, which is a danger to us as well as the region… SANDERS (?): Secretary…

      CLINTON: And we finally have a U.N. Security Council Resolution bringing the world together to go after a political transition in Syria.

      SANDERS: Could I just say — just say this…

      CLINTON: If the United States does not lead, there is not another leader. There is a vacuum.

      SANDERS: Can I just say this…

      CLINTON: And we have to lead, if we’re going to be successful.

      (APPLAUSE)

      MUIR: Senator Sanders, please. Go ahead.

      Senator Sanders, a last word on this.

      SANDERS: Of course the United States must lead. But the United States is not the policeman of the world. The United States must not be involved in perpetual warfare in the Middle East. The United States, at the same time, cannot successfully fight Assad and ISIS.

      ISIS, now, is the major priority. Let’s get rid of Assad later. Let’s have a Democratic Syria. But the first task is to bring countries together to destroy ISIS.

      By this time, Sanders doesn’t understand what Hillary is saying.

      Hillary os verbally abusing Assad, but it’s almost the same policy Sanders advocates. Hillary is advocating looking forward to the end of Assad’s rule. It is just that she is claiming that now there is United Nations Security Council resolution that will get rid of Assad. That’s what she means by “political transition”

Notice the silence on Trump’s counter to Hill’s claim. He flat out said (in several interviews now)that she and Obama are responsible for thousands of dead due to their disastrous ME policies. Chucky made a lame attempt to challenge the claim until he realized that Trump would double and triple down, so he wisely let it slide. They know it’s true.

    clintack in reply to labrat. | December 20, 2015 at 9:03 pm

    Hundreds of thousands, he said.

    The silence of the media on that was really interesting. Usually a big number that is only sort-of true gets Trump a week of headlines. They didn’t do that this time. He’s going to have trouble using the “say-something-outrageous –> week-of-free-press” technique in the general.

Hillary seems to think that videos are the catalyst for everything from Benghazi to ISIS. Setting aside her many repugnant qualities, on this alone, she’s not competent to be commander in chief.

Trump should also point out that he didn’t abandon Iraq, Syria and Libya to Isis, that was Obama and Clinton.

No evidence for Clinton claim that ISIS is already showing Trump in recruiting videos.

Hillary: What difference, at this point, does it make?

This theme “don’t offend the Muslims or they will kill you” is ubiquitous. And nonsense. It misunderstands what’s motivating terrorists. Bullies are emboldened by weakness and vulnerability. You do not placate them.

    Exactly. It doesn’t matter whether Trump’s comments are showing up in ISIS videos or not. If Muslims join ISIS after taking offence to what our presidential candidates say about Muslims and Islam, that’s not the candidates’ fault.

Clinton, that corrupt, incompetent old crow.

This is going be fun.

It’s like people are shocked when they discover the media is the propaganda wing of the modern Democratic Party.

Hillary isn’t all that bright after all. Perhaps the stroke rumors aren’t entirely fanciful. But how could her team, the vaunted Clinton Machine, allow her to go on with something so blatantly false?

Makes no sense – she could have truthfully tied Trump to Putin with his recent statements, and hammered away. Instead she invites correction when her habitual lying and untrustworthiness are her biggest negative with voters. Hillary just isn’t a good candidate, and the team isn’t all that, either.

    clintack in reply to Estragon. | December 21, 2015 at 7:02 am

    Assumes facts not in evidence.

    What makes you think she was ever smarter than this?

    This is the woman who looked at scads of women accusing her husband of sexual harassment and even rape — at ex-troopers talking about procuring women for him — and just kept chanting “Vast Right-wing Conspiracy”.

    Her healthcare proposal couldn’t get enough support — from Democrats — to pass, and the backlash gave us Newt Gingrich and a GOP-dominated House for the rest of Bill Clinton’s presidency.

    Heck, she couldn’t even pass the D.C. Bar Exam.

    All of her success in life came from marrying a powerful man and turning a blind eye to his cheating ways. What a wonderful message of empowerment for little girls everywhere.

    Sammy Finkelman in reply to Estragon. | December 22, 2015 at 1:33 pm

    Makes no sense – she could have truthfully tied Trump to Putin with his recent statements, and hammered away. </blockquote. But she's also somewhat friendly to Putin, (although less than Sanders)

    She’s tracking what Obama does.

Trump is over the target and is drawing fire from the left. Other candidates tend to follow (lead from) behind, timidly agreeing with leftist reporters that scold Trump for being outrageous. DC has betrayed us and it is no time for cautious PC positioning.

“He does look like he’s the last hope [for America],” Schlafly said. “We don’t hear anybody saying what he’s saying. In fact, most of the people who ought to be lining up with him are attacking him. They’re probably jealous of the amount of press coverage he gets. But the reason he gets so much press coverage is the grassroots are fed up with people who are running things, and they do want a change. They do want people to stand up for America. It really resonates when he says he wants to ‘Make America Great Again.’”

Schlafly said it’s not only Republicans who feel betrayed, but Democrats, too.

“They are betrayed,” she said. “There’s no doubt about it. The working man and woman have been betrayed by both parties. They’re ready for a change … ”

For the internet right leaning scolds that trash any Trump support, perhaps they will now point their venom at Schlafly. Is she also naive, crazy, stupid, etc.? Time is coming to fish or cut bait.

http://www.wnd.com/2015/12/top-conservative-trump-is-last-hope-for-america/

Adelson also may be getting on board, or at least establishing a connection. But most establishment right still have the long knives out, saying they “won’t allow this” (voters making a choice that isn’t them). They don’t want Cruz either, but Trump is the main target. Their boy Rubio is stumbling.

he found Trump to be “very charming” and called his standing in the crowded candidate field “unheard of.”

“It was very nice,” the gambling tycoon told Reuters

Asked what characteristics he would like the Republican party’s nominee to embody, Adelson said, “They have got to be able to win.”

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/republican-donor-adelson-trump-may-aligning-israel-003125447–finance.html

    Schlafly. Is she also naive, crazy, stupid, etc.?

    Um, yes. When has she ever not been crazy and stupid? Quoting WND as a source is an almost automatic sign of nuttiness.

      Midwest Rhino in reply to Milhouse. | December 21, 2015 at 12:39 pm

      Drudge quoted them, so I assume you are calling him a nut.

      Are you saying Schlafly didn’t say that, or that it doesn’t count because WND quoted her? Isn’t that kinda nutty?

      She’s still quite coherent, a conservative stalwart, from what I read. Breitbart calls her a conservative icon, so if you think she was always “crazy and stupid”, you are defining yourself more than her, or Breitbart, or WND, or that “nut” Matt Drudge.

        Schlafly has always been a crazy woman, an embarassment to the movement, the bag lady in the corner one has to apologize for. She has never had anything useful to say on any subject. She’s not an icon of any conservative movement I’d want to be associated with, and the band of dishonest people who run Breitbart’s site nowadays don’t speak for me.

        As for Drudge, since when has anyone paid any attention to his opinions? He’s an aggregator, that’s all. He cites everything, whether credible or not. But seriously, WND?! I was calling you a nut for citing it as a source. WND is nut central, it has no credibility at all. What will you be citing next, infowars?!

        For MH, like all the other sufferers of TDS, anyone that doesn’t tramp Trump is automatically crazy.

You are asking them to “handle the truth”…and the truth is that “they can’t handle the truth”.

They are agenda-driven, not truth-driven. Yeah, Trump-haters and Dems/Libs/Progs/Fascists are about the agenda, not the truth. Well, *maybe* the Cruz, Carson and Fiorina teams are exceptions, but the rest…not so much.

So asking them to actually say something nice about their opponent is a big ask. Because they fear it will be turned against them and their agenda.

The video that H Clinton warned you about: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hkge4bVRQ08

DOH! Sorry Kitty…missed your post of the same link 😉

[…] The media tried to shrug it off, even after the claim was proven false. […]

If they can lie like this about Trump they can lie about anyone. Which is a right the left demands.

I think Trump made a rare mistake in asking for an apology. He should have just kept hammering the she is a Liar, the whole country knows she is a pathological liar, even a majority of democrats say she is an untrustworthy liar. But then again Trump has shown an uncanny ability to get these things just right. So who knows.

    Sammy Finkelman in reply to Gary Britt. | December 22, 2015 at 5:20 pm

    I think Trump made a rare mistake in asking for an apology.

    He learned from the Clintons.

    That’s what the Clintons do.

    They always want to get the word “apology” out of their political adversaries, and then run with it. It doesn’t matter how limited or qualified the apolocy might be. So that was a nice turning of the tables, except that Donald Trump has not pursued it.

Saw Trumps speech in Michigan tonight. Man he was on fire. Huge crowd cheering and wild applause. Biggest applause line “build the wall”. Other great lines on Hillary being a liar and Hillary being crooked. So crooked. It was fantastic calling her a liar and crooked in those words to wild applause. Also pointed out some of Obama’s reckless behavior and horrible deals and then said Obama 8s such a loser. Again to wild applause.

With 42 days remaining before Iowa, it looks like Trump is consolidating his base support at much higher levels. He has leads in 39 different states. His rallies are overflowing and covered pretty completely by local media. Everywhere I go, people are talking about Trump. I’m beginning to think it’s possible that Trump could run the table.

It’s over. Simple as that. All the predictions of Trumps demise have been wrong. Hellary is likely adding support to Trump every time she opens her mouth.

Sammy Finkelman | December 22, 2015 at 1:17 pm

Even Republicans who hate Trump should defend him against Hillary’s ISIS lie

Is theer anybody who isn’t doing that?

It also exemplifies a completely wrong idea of the way terrorist recruitment works.

It is like the idea that bad treatment causes crime or violence (and conversely, if there is violenvce there must have bene some bad treatment, or at least a bad life, or at a minimum, poverty, even if is not the target’s fault)

It only makes sense according to that kind of nonsense.

The people running ISIS being practical people, they are not using, or trying to use, Donald Trump in the way Hillary Clinton would have us imagine.

The most her campaign can get is that the name Donald Trump is occasionally tossed out in a long list of enemies of Islam.

Sammy Finkelman | December 22, 2015 at 1:18 pm

This is also is the sort of “blame-America-first” thing popular among some Democrats.

And in some ways resembles mirror-imaging, except that it wouldn’t motivate any of us to fight anyone.

Sammy Finkelman | December 22, 2015 at 1:20 pm

You have to understand something: This accusation probably worked all right in the focus group. (Where, after all, nobody knows what the facts are)

Sammy Finkelman | December 22, 2015 at 5:17 pm

<In the Fiorina case, strained arguments that Fiorina lied

Actually, the strained argument was that she told the truth.

She also tried to up Donald Trump when Donald Trump said in a debate that he had gotten to known Vladimir Putin very well because they’d been on the same episode of 60 Minutes!!!

60 Minutes does not do any live interviews.

Carly Fiorina apparently believed him and then tried to top him by saying she had also met Vladimir Putin, but it was a private meeting and not in a green room. It was in a green room, or something very similar. They were both scheduled to speak at a conference in Beijing in 2001.

In that debate Marco Rubio said he hadn’t met Putin but he knew who he was very well.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend