BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL AID TABLE
SO SHE'S JUST AN ALL AROUND FAILURE.
REACHED FOR COMMENT, SYD TOLD THESE REPORTERS, "I REGRET THAT I HAVE BUT TWO ORIFICES TO GIVE FOR MY QUEEN."
Which brings us to The Clinton Foundation.
Iraq War cheerleader Matty Y has a stupid article where he whines that Colin Powell and Hillary Clinton were treated differently. Bob Moobs Somerby rushes in to nurse Matty Y and insist it is because Hillary's a Democrat.
I'm so sick of what may be whoring and/or binary thinking.
It's either/or with this undereducated crowd who think they know something and never have known a damn thing.
Again, Bob, you're welcome. I'm glad I taught you about narrative so that you can finally stop embarrassing yourself in that regard. You are welcome.
But you're still too much of an idiot.
What's the difference between Hillary and Colin?
It's not political.
It's not even race.
Colin is a retired general.
Sandy Berger is a disgraced pundit for what he did (smuggling out documents in his underwear). David Petraeus is someone the press still rushes to prop up -- despite his handing over classified documents to his mistress.
What's the difference?
It's not gender.
It's not race.
It has nothing to do with politics.
It has everything to do with the media's worship of the military.
I don't worship, sorry.
Colin's never gotten a pass here.
But I am aware of his efforts to whitewash War Crimes in Vietnam and am aware that his ugly record goes back very far.
And that the media has refused to challenge him and instead applauded him.
Does that surprise you?
Only if you're uneducated.
In 1961, Dwight Eisenhower gave his farewell as president in a speech citing the military industrial complex and the damage it could do.
This did not lead to a continued series of journalistic exposes from major news outlets.
Instead, they turned their heads, averted their eyes and largely acted as though Eisenhower had beeen speaking of the Military-Industrial Commission of the USSR.
Equally true, Colin never ran for president -- which demands a higher level of scrutiny.
The media's failing yet again as they play talking heads about whether or not Hillary Clinton broke the law with regards to her actions as Secretary of State and The Clinton Foundation.
She broke her promise -- that's what she broke.
And, yes, it does matter.
She agreed to certain things to be Secretary of State.
Barack Obama did not say, "Now, Hillary, you can't break the law."
It was assumed that, like every American, she was already expected to obey the law.
What she promised was to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest.
Because of the importance of the position, her actions had to rise to that level.
She agreed to that.
She failed to honor it and -- looking at her actions -- it's clear she never intended to.
She's unethical.
She may have broken the law as well -- nothing so far demonstrates she did.
But she is unethical and that's demonstrated by the shady deals and dealings she engaged in.
That is also on no one but herself.
She was expected to meet a certain standard and she did not.
Begla and Carville and all the other whores can lie about the great work The Clinton Foundation does (it doesn't -- and Chelsea's salary alone as a board member would outrage most Americans -- and, yes, Bob, you're welcome on my explaining/correcting you on the fact that board members draw a salary -- what an idiot Bob Somerby is.)
That's not the issue.
Even illegality is not the issue.
She signed a document promising to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest.
She knew what was expected of her and she agreed to it and then she refused to honor it.
That's unethical.
Iraq War cheerleader Matty Y has a stupid article where he whines that Colin Powell and Hillary Clinton were treated differently. Bob Moobs Somerby rushes in to nurse Matty Y and insist it is because Hillary's a Democrat.
I'm so sick of what may be whoring and/or binary thinking.
It's either/or with this undereducated crowd who think they know something and never have known a damn thing.
Again, Bob, you're welcome. I'm glad I taught you about narrative so that you can finally stop embarrassing yourself in that regard. You are welcome.
But you're still too much of an idiot.
What's the difference between Hillary and Colin?
It's not political.
It's not even race.
Colin is a retired general.
Sandy Berger is a disgraced pundit for what he did (smuggling out documents in his underwear). David Petraeus is someone the press still rushes to prop up -- despite his handing over classified documents to his mistress.
What's the difference?
It's not gender.
It's not race.
It has nothing to do with politics.
It has everything to do with the media's worship of the military.
I don't worship, sorry.
Colin's never gotten a pass here.
But I am aware of his efforts to whitewash War Crimes in Vietnam and am aware that his ugly record goes back very far.
And that the media has refused to challenge him and instead applauded him.
Does that surprise you?
Only if you're uneducated.
In 1961, Dwight Eisenhower gave his farewell as president in a speech citing the military industrial complex and the damage it could do.
This did not lead to a continued series of journalistic exposes from major news outlets.
Instead, they turned their heads, averted their eyes and largely acted as though Eisenhower had beeen speaking of the Military-Industrial Commission of the USSR.
Equally true, Colin never ran for president -- which demands a higher level of scrutiny.
The media's failing yet again as they play talking heads about whether or not Hillary Clinton broke the law with regards to her actions as Secretary of State and The Clinton Foundation.
She broke her promise -- that's what she broke.
And, yes, it does matter.
She agreed to certain things to be Secretary of State.
Barack Obama did not say, "Now, Hillary, you can't break the law."
It was assumed that, like every American, she was already expected to obey the law.
What she promised was to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest.
Because of the importance of the position, her actions had to rise to that level.
She agreed to that.
She failed to honor it and -- looking at her actions -- it's clear she never intended to.
She's unethical.
She may have broken the law as well -- nothing so far demonstrates she did.
But she is unethical and that's demonstrated by the shady deals and dealings she engaged in.
That is also on no one but herself.
She was expected to meet a certain standard and she did not.
Begla and Carville and all the other whores can lie about the great work The Clinton Foundation does (it doesn't -- and Chelsea's salary alone as a board member would outrage most Americans -- and, yes, Bob, you're welcome on my explaining/correcting you on the fact that board members draw a salary -- what an idiot Bob Somerby is.)
That's not the issue.
Even illegality is not the issue.
She signed a document promising to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest.
She knew what was expected of her and she agreed to it and then she refused to honor it.
That's unethical.
RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
