As long ago as 2008, even fellow Democrats were testifying to the Clinton’s propensity to lie about matters small and gross:
Telling the truth, or not, has turned out to be a leitmotif of this election. ‘[Bill] Clinton’s an unusually good liar,’ his fellow Democrat (and Hillary endorser) Bob Kerrey said of the president back around the time the First Lady was visiting postwar Bosnia. Thanks to the news footage of her unremarkable, sniper-free landing on the tarmac in Tuzla, we now know that Hillary Clinton is an equally brazen but unusually bad liar. (And her gratuitous fibbing has also served to turn one of her husband’s most significant accomplishments, imposing peace on the former Yugoslavia, into a setup for a joke.)
It should be understood that the Clintons are not “good” liars in the sense that they lie easily, fluently and convincingly. They lie easily and often enough, to be sure, but Hillary particularly lies clumsily, and in ways that are exposed with ridiculous ease. They have gotten away with it because Democrats have always been willing to ignore, even defend, the lies, and the Media—Democrats with bylines—play along.
We now know the truth of two particularly vile and deadly lies, perhaps the worst ever told by Hillary Clinton, though there is always the possibility of worse. Remember the Obama Administration’s claims that there were no military forces available that could have made a difference in the Benghazi terrorist attack? Fox News reports:
As the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was unfolding, a high-ranking Pentagon official urgently messaged Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s top deputies to offer military help, according to an email obtained by Judicial Watch.
The revelation appears to contradict testimony Defense Secretary Leon Panetta gave lawmakers in 2013, when he said there was no time to get forces to the scene in Libya, where four Americans were killed, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens.
‘I just tried you on the phone but you were all in with S [apparent reference to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton],’ reads the email, from Panetta’s chief of staff Jeremy Bash. ‘After consulting with General Dempsey, General Ham and the Joint Staff, we have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi. They are spinning up as we speak.’
The email was sent out at 7:19 p.m. ET on Sept. 11, 2012, in the early stages of the eight-hour siege that also claimed the lives of Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith and two former Navy SEALs, Ty Woods and Glen Doherty, private CIA contractors who raced to the aid of embattled State Department workers.
Although the email came after the first wave of the attack at the consulate, it occurred before a mortar strike on the CIA annex killed Woods and Doherty.
‘This leaves no doubt military assets were offered and ready to go, and awaiting State Department signoff, which did not come,’ Judicial Watch, a nonprofit government watchdog said in a statement.
Parts of the email from Bash were redacted before release, including details on what military forces were available.
We will, in the not too distant future, learn even more about this:
Lawmakers investigating the events surrounding Benghazi already had acquired the e-mail, along with tens of thousands of others related to the probe, according to Matt Wolking, spokesman for the House Select Committee on Benghazi.
‘The Select Committee has obtained and reviewed tens of thousands of documents in the course of its thorough, fact-centered investigation into the Benghazi terrorist attacks, and this information will be detailed in the final report the Committee hopes to release within the next few months,’ Wolking told FoxNews.com. ‘While the Committee does not rush to release or comment on every document it uncovers, I can confirm that we obtained the unredacted version of this email last year, in addition to Jake Sullivan’s response.
And now to an even more specific, and particularly evil and surpassingly stupid lie. The NY Post reports:
George Stephanopoulos asked her Sunday if she’d told the victims it [the Benghazi attack] was about the film. Clinton gave a flat ‘no.’
She added: ‘I said very clearly there had been a terrorist group, uh, that had taken responsibility on Facebook, um . . .’
At least four family members disagree.
Tyrone Woods’ father said he hugged Clinton and shook her hand. Then ‘she said we are going to have the filmmaker arrested who was responsible for the death of my son . . . She said ‘the filmmaker who was responsible for the death of your son.’
And she did, in fact, have the filmmaker arrested and jailed on a probation violation. This particular lie is so insane because the relatives to which Clinton lied have been telling of her lie from virtually the very day she told it, a matter that has been well and repeatedly documented. They have not changed their stories, nor have they told new stories in response to her most recent lie on the topic.
Liar, liar, pantsuit on fire: Hillary Clinton still insists she didn’t tell the grieving families of the Benghazi victims that an anti-Islam video was to blame.
Yet family members say she said just that, three days after the attack, at the Sept. 14, 2012, ceremony at Andrews Air Force base.
Sean Smith’s mother said Hillary is ’absolutely lying . . . She said it was because of the video.’ Smith’s uncle backs her up.
Glen Doherty’s sister agreed: ‘When I think back now to that day and what she knew, it shows me a lot about her character that she would choose in that moment to basically perpetuate what she knew was untrue.
Doherty’s sister is referring to the revelation that while she was lying to the relatives of the dead, she was telling her daughter and others the truth: the Benghazi attack was a planned act of terrorism that had nothing to do with a video.
What she knew’ refers to Clinton’s words to daughter Chelsea the night of the assault and the next day to Egypt’s prime minister, which made it plain the secretary of state knew full well that a terror group had long planned the attack.
The lie’s even in her words at the Sept. 14 ceremony: ‘We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with.’
Just why the administration united around this lie is another editorial. The disgrace here is Clinton’s refusal to admit her role — even pushing the fib to ‘comfort’ the bereaved.
Stiff as the competition is, this has to count as her lowest-down, dirtiest lie of all.
And this is the woman the Democrats laud as uniquely qualified to be President of the United States.