Monday, September 24, 2007

Hillary Clinton on Fox News Sunday: I yak, yak, yak, HATE, natter, natter, natter, BUSH, etc., etc., etc.

Hillary Clinton stopped by Fox News Sunday yesterday, an unusual move on her part because host Chris Wallace had sliced and diced her husband, the ex-president, gadfly and heir apparent to Hugh Hefner, in a controversial interview a while back.

However, although her interview lasted more than 15 minutes, the fact is she talked incessantly, laughed a bunch of times in a manner that reminded me of the Wicked Witch from the Wizard of Oz, but said little to nothing, and answered very few questions.

After her appearance that was terribly short on substance other than to toe the Move On party line and accuse George Bush of being the Great Satan - I think she got that from Green Bean Almondine, the President of Iran who has infiltrated New York City and is set to launch an attack on us from within later today and tomorrow - the Fox panel of commentators gave her high marks for her handling of Wallace's questions.

I have another point of view. I don't recall her answering a single tough question that Wallace sent her way, even though she cackled and yakked incessantly. What I recall her doing was filibustering through each segment with a series of claims that Bush is the source of all that is wrong in the universe.

For instance, Wallace brought up the controversial ad in the New York Times on Sept. 10, in which General David Petraeus, commander of the ongoing offensive in Iraq, was labeled a traitor. That also was the day Petraeus began his report to Congress on the status of the offensive, referred to as The Surge.

Wallace noted that Clinton had voted against a measure that would have condemned Move On for its ad, which the Times ran at an incredibly favorable ad rate, reportedly tens of thousands of dollars less than most others would pay for the same space.

He asked why Mrs. Clinton had voted against that resolution.

But instead of answering him, she immediately launched into an attack on Republicans for attacking her, and her husband, and John Kerry, and all the other choir boys and girls in the Democratic Party during political campaigns, which now run 365 days a year and have no off season.

Mrs. Clinton equated the attack on a general who is currently serving in a war zone, leading all the troops in that zone, which requires absolute confidence in his motives and abilities, with political ads during a campaign! Can you believe the pomposity, the arrogance, the disconnect with reality?

This woman is totally in denial, not to mention fantasy land.

To its credit, the Fox News Sunday panel of commentators later regained its senses and launched a blistering response, making the point that partisan political ads, which are as old as the country, have no relationship whatsoever to an ad that attempts to undermine a commanding general in the middle of a battle.

To add my two cents, there not only is no correlation between the two issues, but attempting to undermine Gen. Petraeus while he is commanding troops in battle quite easily can be considered a violation the U.S. Constitution's prohibition on treason.

Rather than passing meaningless resolutions in Congress, the issue should be bumped up to the Commander in Chief, President Bush, and he should launch an immediate Justice Department inquiry into the New York Times' part in this. He also should investigate filing treason charges against and anyone associated with producing or publicizing that ad!

This is NOT a First Amendment issue! This is tantamount to allowing an enemy with whom we are locked in battle to establish a propaganda post right inside our country, in its largest city!

Would we allow terrorists to start shooting RPGs at motorists in Times Square?

Hell NO!

Then why are we allowing them to use another weapon against our citizens and military without responding in kind? Wake up White House, the opportunity is here, Congressional approval is at 11 percent, and the time is NOW!

Back to Hillary. Not only did she filibuster when Wallace asked why she wouldn't criticize a political action committee that very well may have committed treason, she did the same thing when she was asked about how she would fund her ill-conceived national health care plan. The new version is just a poorly rewritten version of the national health care plan she tried to stuff down our throats when her husband was president, and incredibly expensive.

According to Clinton, the plan would cost in excess of $125 billion, and more than $70 billion of that amount would come from clamping down on fraud and waste in the current health care system. When Wallace pointed out that Ronald Reagan said he was going to do the same thing, and ended up with huge spending deficits, Clinton again went the filibuster route.

He asked her as point blank as a question can be asked, whether, if she couldn't raise the necessary money to fund her plan through elimination of alleged fraud and inefficiencies, would she raise taxes?

Again she cackled, again she talked on and on, but once again she did not answer the question.

By the way, she also said that another $50 billion would come from raising taxes on "The Rich," whom she described as anyone making more than a quarter million a year. Just for reference, I don't make anywhere near that and I am not included.

But I know quite a few couples who file their income taxes jointly, who both have professional degrees in fields such as law, accounting, chemistry, medicine, etc., who jointly exceed the income level for such a tax increase. I understand that they are well off compared to someone at the poverty level, but they also worked their butts off to get the education required to work in those fields and they work their butts off to maintain the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed.

I don't consider them rich. People like Hillary Clinton and her husband, the ex-president and heir apparent to Hugh Hefner, are rich. But they would NOT pay any extra taxes to fund her health care plan.

Know why? They keep their "income" low, and live off other forms of revenue that aren't taxed as income. The "rich" don't have big incomes, as Rush Limbaugh is constantly preaching, they have WEALTH, which is NOT TAXED.

Another bulls--t line from another bulls--t politician.

Oh, another thing. Although Clinton touts her health care plan as user friendly to small businesses, studies by reputable university economics departments say it will result in at least 200,000 people losing their jobs right off the bat.

And small businesses won't have an option of whether the plan best fits them and whether they should sign up. Participation in the Hillary Clinton Socialism 495 Health Initiative will be MANDATORY! And if you don't sign up you will be FINED, although she calls it being TAXED, but I can't tell the difference between the two.

Well, that was basically it. Other than the items mentioned above all I can remember from Clinton's appearance on Fox News Sunday was yada, yada, yada, HATE BUSH, yak, yak, yak, THIS ADMINISTRATION, natter, natter, natter, CHENEY, (ok she didn't really say Cheney, but you could tell she was thinking about him when she said ADMINISTRATION.

All in all, a typical interview by a person who thinks running this country involves blowing smoke past the electorate, then doing as she pleases.

Didn't the Clintons try that once already with disastrous results?


David M said...

Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 09/26/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the check back often.

Post a Comment


hypoctite sm

Granny Snatching


Signed author copies


NEW! e-Book Available on Amazon

Masters of the Art

Masters final cover
Personalize inscription


NEW! e-Book Available on Amazon and Barns & Noble

Blog Archive





Popular Posts