Dan's blooper

Dateline: Tue 14 May 2013

From Dan Carpenter's column today, defending Hillary Clinton's conduct re: Benghazi:

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2013305130067

As the resident liberal, Democrat voice for the Indianapolis Star, it's one thing for Carp to go to the mat for the former Secretary of State regarding her role in Benghazi that resulted in the deaths of four Americans and up to 100 terrorists.

The attack took place Sept. 11, and the spin has not stopped. That's politics. But thanks to testimony from Gregory Hicks, the Libyan embassy's deputy chief of mission, we now know that it was clear to Hicks and others that the attack was by terrorists, not angry protesters, as the Obama spin cycle suggested.

Be that as it may. What I found amusing and totally disingenuous about Dan's defense was this paragraph regarding the Clinton family legacy:

"What started as a highly dubious probe of a land deal (Whitewater) involving her (Hillary) and her husband metastasized into a $50 million crusade that resulted in the impeachment of a president over an alleged lie about an alleged act of fellatio."

An "alleged lie" over "an alleged act of fellatio"? Please. I won't dignify this nonsense with numerous citings of the facts....although I will put forth Wiki:

"Clinton admitted in taped grand jury testimony on August 17, 1998, that he had had an "improper physical relationship" with Lewinsky. That evening he gave a nationally televised statement admitting his relationship with Lewinsky which was "not appropriate"."

This is all old news. What is amazing, even astonishing, is that Carpenter is so bent on backing Hillary's sorry ass he stoops to denying what everyone knows what happened, happened.

This is like referring to "the alleged Watergate break-in."

But don't expect a correction. Carpenter writes opinion pieces, so he's no doubt golden. However, it's exactly this sort of bullshit column/perspective that turns people off from MSM. Talk about silly season.

Call it what it was: a blow job. And Clinton lied about it. Until he fessed up. In that, his credibility is greater than Dan Carpenter's.

Comments

hendy [Member] said:

Not in Dan's defense, but there's currently a battle going on that attempts to stanch H.Clinton's bid for president in 2016. They're heaping on her pretty hard. Considering the skeletons in closets across Washington, it's not surprising.

Is Dan's bias towards H.Clinton? Are you surprised if it is? I don't think she'd make a very good president. Her current competition, in my mind, isn't any better. But it's a long way off, and various flags will be raised to see who salutes, and who flips the bird.

It's a bit daunting to see Dan ignore the facts, but facts are ignored frequently.

2013-05-14 20:39:45

Gene Poole [unverified] said:

Such denial is born of arrogance or fear; hence the term "useful idiot."

Yet consider the words of a See-BS anchor: " We get stories wrong, over & over again."

2013-05-14 21:44:42

ruthholl [Member] said:

Check out Dan's column today; at least he's allowing that both sides of the aisle are capable of abuse of power. Altho he does rely on the esteemed Bill Quigley to make his arguments for him, and they're (typically) intellectual, erudite.
Hendy, I agree: Hill is not presidential timber. Her hour is past; Obama bested her upside and down, altho goodness knows, the lady fought the good fight.
Yes, it's ALWAYS about politics. Washington is so impure. Just to prove it, read in Politico this morning that DC has "turned on Obama." Always the pack of dogs mentality, but then, he did f--- up.

2013-05-15 06:40:35

hendy [Member] said:

There'll be another round of "I'll lead you out of the wilderness" and another round of same old poo, different day.

It's a sad time to be an American.

2013-05-16 09:06:56

hendy [Member] said:

There'll be another round of "I'll lead you out of the wilderness" and another round of same old poo, different day.

It's a sad time to be an American.

2013-05-16 09:06:58

whosear [Member] said:

The sad part is that this is very poor opinion writing. His piece is a cookie cutter variety. Maybe this was bad, but hey look how bad it was under Bush, why aren't the Repubs hollering about that? What is he saying? Everyone should holler equally loudly? If this is his point, then why isn't he hollering?

Dan does better when he sticks to micro liberalism.

2013-05-17 00:17:17

Whitebeard [unverified] said:

I've never met Dan, but he seems to be a decent sort of guy. However, his columns often unnerve me a bit because it seems he forgets he is not writing to a class of Ph.D. candidates. It sometimes comes across as a kind of self-absorbed, left-brained sermonizing - I would use a sexual analogy, but it would be in poor taste. However, I'm glad he's still writing his column and I wish him the best. But Dan, don't you remember what they taught us in J-school? "Write to the level that a high schooler can understand."

2013-05-17 16:20:10

Comments are closed.

Login

or Register

Search

Syndicate Blog