BloggeRhythms

Today’s subject matter concerns the left and its media counterparts, attempt to discredit Republicans in any way they can, regardless that history and facts significantly prove otherwise. Two prominent examples, among others include Fox New’s Chris Wallace and once again, Maureen Dowd of the New York Times.

 

In both cases, while the scenarios posed by Wallace and Dowd seemed intended to elicit or illustrate straightforward information on serious, and quite controversial topics, their actual intention was to embarrass Republican politicians. As for Wallace, he did it by posing biased interview questions, while Dowd reconfigured history to make her erroneous point.     

 

Wallace kept hammering Marco Rubio on Sunday, trying to get him to state that he would have gone into Iraq anyway, even knowing what we supposedly know now about the situation. Rubio, to his credit, however, wouldn't bite regardless of how hard Wallace tried to manipulate questions intended to bait him and manufacture a trapping sound-bite.

 

In that regard, Rush today used the Wallace interview as a warning to all Republican presidential candidates.

 

RUSH: But I do want to get the into these audio sound bites of Marco Rubio. He's just one of many being peppered with this question about, "Knowing what you know now, would you have gone into Iraq, would you have voted for Bush going into Iraq, should Bush have gone into Iraq, should we have gone into Iraq at all," this question that will not end, after this.”

 

But then, brilliant as usual, Rush turned the media tactic around. Suggesting that instead of answering loaded questions, Republicans should not respond directly, but ask for reply’s themselves.

 

“RUSH:  Knowing what we know now, should we have opened the consulate in Benghazi? Knowing what we know now, should we have passed Obamacare?  Knowing what we know now, should we have opened the Southern border to uninterrupted flows and levels of illegals?  Knowing what we know, that's a question or a series of 'em every damn Democrat candidate needs to get.  

 

“RUSH went on: Ladies and gentlemen, knowing what we know now, should George Stephanopoulos have been allowed to moderate a Republican presidential debate?  Knowing what we know now, should Candy Crowley, CNN, have been allowed to moderate a presidential debate?  Knowing what we know now, should Barack Obama have backed the overthrow of Mubarak in Egypt and helped to overthrow Moammar Khadafy in Libya?  Knowing what we know now, should Obama have signed Obamacare? 

 

“Knowing what we know now, would you have signed Obamacare?  Knowing what we know now, would you have done the stimulus deal, which was nothing more than a payoff to union workers to keep them employed so their dues could continue to flow into Democratic campaign coffers?  Knowing what you know now, would you have supported Obama's stimulus effort in general?  Knowing what you know now, would you have allowed the Southern border to be overflowing with illegal people from all over the world? 

 

“Knowing what you know now, would you have signed on to any of the Obama agenda?  I mean, this idea that the Republican candidates have some important question to answer, knowing what you know now, would you have gone into Iraq?  As I said in the opening hour of the program, that is not a question that's designed to learn what any of these guys think.  It is not a question designed to learn whether they're competent or qualified to be president.  Knowing what you know now, would you have supported George Bush, should George Bush have gone into Iraq.

 

“And by the way, Ramadi has fallen.  "Knowing what we know now, do you support Barack Obama's decision to totally withdraw from Iraq and leave it wide open to Al-Qaeda, ISIS, or whoever?"  These questions that I'm asking as alternatives will never be asked of any Democrat candidate. Hillary Clinton will never get one of these”

 

As far as Ms. Dowd’s condemning of the Iraq war, the truth was also recapped by Rush who reminded all that, “the truth is that every allied intelligence agency that we dealt with -- the Brits, Pakistan, you name it, every one that was on our side that we dealt with in the War on Terror all confirmed the same intelligence that the DIA had and that the CIA had and everybody else in this country, the NSA, that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.”

 

And that was reinforced by Chris Stirewalt yesterday, writing that “Of all of the questions Hillary Clinton will evade on the campaign trail this week, none are more important than those she will not answer on Iraq. Clinton holds the unique distinction in the 2016 field of having supported the unpopular Iraq policies of both George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

 

"She supported Bush’s invasion and Obama’s withdrawal, and in both cases was tracking with public opinion when she started. After Bush’s war got unpopular, Clinton recanted. And one supposes that as Obama’s policy for that woe-begotten nation and its region continues to displease voters, Clinton will be tempted to recant her support for the Obama doctrine too. The fall of Ramadi to Islamist militants will no doubt hasten Clinton’s consideration of a political exit strategy.”

 

Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton and his wife, also from Rush who replayed Bill Clinton soundbites from his archives..

 

“CLINTON 1998:  (Saddam’s) regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region, and the security of all the rest of us.  Someday, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal.  Let there be no doubt: We are prepared to act.  I know that the people we may call upon in uniform are ready.  The American people have to be ready as well.

 

“RUSH: That's 1998, in the thick of Lewinsky stuff, and he's trying to get the world prepared that we might have go take out Saddam.  And you should hear the Democrats supporting this!  Every Democrat senator is echoing this and more.  Dianne Feinstein, John Kerry, they're all beating up on Saddam like you've never heard anybody beat up on Saddam.  Here's more from Clinton.  This February 20th.  This is three days later in a video message to Saddam entitled, "We'll do what we have to do."

 

Also from Rush: “CLINTON 1998:  Nobody wants to use force.  But if Saddam refuses to keep his commitments to the international community, we must be prepared to deal directly with the threat these weapons pose to the Iraqi people, to Iraq's neighbors, and to the rest of the world.  Either Saddam acts or we will have to.”

 

Rush continued, “I've got a transcript here of Clinton's remarks on December 16th, 1998, when he was facing impeachment for perjury and stuff.  Let me just read this to you very quickly.  This is Clinton.  Remarks on Wednesday, December 16th, 1998.  "Good evening.  Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq.  They are joined today by British forces. 

 

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.  Their purpose is to protect the national interests of the United States and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.  Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threat his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas, or biological weapons." 

 

Clinton was warning everybody about how bad Hussein was, the weapons of mass.  "Nuclear," he said.  Did you just hear that?  Nuclear.  Yet they say, "Cheney lied and Bush lied!  There were no WMD!"  But somehow Clinton was telling the truth.  And again, the Democrats of that era -- in the Senate and the House -- oh, man, you should have heard them running to the microphones to say they'd be the first in line to vote to authorize Clinton to do this.  And then five short years later, there they are trying to undermine it when George W. Bush is doing it.”

 

So, it’s really no surprise that media types look for opportunities to raise themselves above the pack of wolves that populate their profession, because above all else their in a competitive business. And while a hack like Chris Wallace hosts a show that’s as much entertainment as it is news conveyance, Maureen Dowd really ought to know batter than to sink to a flashy tabloid level. That type of fact alteration is far beneath her usual performance.

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios