Hillary lied, that’s what she does — part 2

Staff Columnist

Hillary Clinton has a difficult relationship with the truth and her problem is of such long standing that more than one column is needed to hit her obfuscation high lights but she has her defenders. Carl Bernstein, in what proved to be a vain attempt to defend Hillary Clinton’s lack of veracity, told CNN that Ms. Clinton had a “difficult relationship with the truth.” He attributed her problem to the need for her to defend her husband Bill’s numerous peccadilloes. It is, to say the least, an odd defense.

I suspect the real reason Hillary has found it necessary to constantly fiddle with the truth is her fear of ever having appeared to make a mistake or misjudgment. This surfaced on October 27 during Hillary’s appearance on the Rachael Maddow show on MSNBC.

The issue, as usual, was lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights and Hillary was faced with explaining just how it came to be that her husband, Bill Clinton, proudly signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in September 1996.

DOMA, provided that each state could reach its own decision about the legality of same-sex unions, and define marriage as between a man and woman under federal law for the purposes of federal programs and benefits. Public support for same-sex marriage still lagged in the 30 percent range so for most members of congress support of DOMA was a no brainer and it passed congress with a veto-proof majority.

When Maddow challenged Ms. Clinton on Bill’s support for DOMA she, according to the Washington Post, responded with: “On Defense of Marriage [Act], I think what my husband believed − and there was certainly evidence to support it − is that there was enough political momentum to amend the Constitution of the United States of America, and that there had to be some way to stop that. And there wasn’t any rational argument − and because I was in on some of those discussions, on both ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ and on DOMA, where both the president, his advisers and occasionally I would − you know, chime in and talk about, ‘You can’t be serious. You can’t be serious.’ But they were. And so, in a lot of ways, DOMA was a line that was drawn that was to prevent going further. It was a defensive action.”

Ms. Clinton’s explanation is all bull pucky, of course, and even the over tolerant Bernie Sanders found it necessary to respond, calling Hillary’s interpretation of events, “an attempt to rewrite history.” He also told Maddow, “It bothered me to hear Secretary Clinton saying, ‘Well, you know, what DOMA was really about was to prevent something even worse. That just wasn’t true.”

The Washington Post fact checked Ms. Clinton’s claim and found that if lawmakers at the time had worried about a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage, the concern was not voiced.  Many remembered that the Clinton’s support of DOMA was a political calculation meant to help Bill Clinton’s reelection chances. All things considered, the Post gave Ms. Clinton’s claim they were fending off a constitutional amendment Four Pinocchio’s out of a possible four.

It seems odd now that there are bakery shops being assessed large fines for not wanting to partake in a same-sex wedding ceremony when their position is no different than that of the president of the United States and his wife just a few years before.

No one should be too surprised that Ms. Clinton is thought by many to be a liar. Jonah Goldberg found a twenty-year old quote from New York Times columnist William Safire who wrote: “Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the sad realization that our first lady − a woman of undoubted talents who was a role model for many in her generation − is a congenital liar.”

Some of the older generation will remember Hillary’s earlier problems with truth telling. Her unbelievable success in cattle futures just from reading the Wall Street Journal. The mystery of the Rose Law firm billing records magically appearing in her office. The mystery of the raw FBI files suddenly found in the Clinton White House and on and on.

The younger generations have been treated to the claim that she had used “one device” for email when later we learned that wasn’t true. She easily told us she had done nothing that other Secretaries had not done before her but we later learn that no one before her had ever established their own server.

In her interview with Rachael Maddow she continued to portray her relationship with Ambassador Chris Stevens as one of deep, abiding friendship. She had no explanation for ignoring over 600 emails from Stevens asking for more security and never speaking to him after his appointment as ambassador to Libya. The night Stevens died Hillary sent an email with the subject line “Chris Smith.” Some friend, on September 11, 2014 she couldn’t even remember her close friend’s name.

Most of us know Hillary Clinton is a cold and very ambitious politician who has proven herself willing to say or do anything necessary to achieve her elective goal. Her supporters in the Democratic Party have chosen to live with that reality. Most of us have, at one time or another, said of some politician, “he may be a son-of-a-bitch but he’s our son-of-a-bitch.” I understand and empathize with that outlook. But, if Hillary Clinton assumes the presidency be prepared for at least four years of Sturm and Drang.




Tags: ,

Longboat Key News

Leave a Reply