Thomas Friedman Says Hillary’s Lies No Big Deal

Most Hillary Clinton supporters, including Hillary, mostly spend their time talking about Trump, not Clinton, not Sanders, not what should be done in the U.S. government. But they don’t try to articulate a defense for this practice. A couple of obvious reasons (which they would not want to articulate) come to mind: (1) Hillary is incredibly unpopular, (2) Talking about Trump fuels the pretense that the primary is over.

Thomas “suck on this” Friedman, as FAIR points out, has blurted out his reasons for not talking about Hillary. It turns out that she lies. But we should ignore those lies because they’re no big deal. Here’s Suckon in his own words:

“Hillary’s fibs or lack of candor are all about bad judgments she made on issues that will not impact the future of either my family or my country. Private email servers? Cattle futures? Goldman Sachs lectures? All really stupid, but my kids will not be harmed by those poor calls. Debate where she came out on Iraq and Libya, if you will, but those were considered judgment calls, and if you disagree don’t vote for her.”

You heard him, kids. If you disagree with any of the Bush/Cheney lies that destroyed Iraq, killed a million people, created ISIS, and wasted trillions of dollars, then don’t vote for her. To refresh any lagging memories, here is a video of Hillary parroting each of those lies as she proudly votes for the war. Oddly, although this crime has no impact on Suckon’s family or country, Hillary claims in this video that it impacts the “security” of the United States. Indeed, it did just that, fueling anti-U.S. sentiment and violence ever since.

Remember 2006, when the U.S. public elected Democrats to end that war? The Democrats escalated it instead, with Rahm Emanuel explaining that this was so they could run “against” it again in 2008. But Hillary, who pushed for escalation before Bush did, lied that escalating the war was the way to end it. In fact, it was just a way to escalate the suffering. But Obama used the same lies about the Iraq surge to later triple the U.S. presence in Afghanistan, with Hillary pushing for even more.

Remember Hillary’s push to overthrow Qadaffi in 2011? The lies about a planned massacre? The lies about Viagra-fueled mass rapes? The lie that a UN authorization to rescue unthreatened people also authorized an overthrow? The giggling lie that sodomizing and murdering Qadaffi with a knife was a delight? The lie that the CIA was not funneling weapons from Libya to terrorists in Syria? How’s Suckon’s family and country doing? Because many families have suffered and many more will, and the United States has made itself still more hated.

What about Hillary’s lies about coups in Honduras and Ukraine? Her lies about Russian aggression? Her labeling of Putin as “Hitler”? What about the lies about who shot down an airplane in Ukraine? The lies about who used chemical weapons in Syria? The lies about a mountaintop rescue of people not wanting to be rescued? The lies about Iran’s nonexistent nuclear weapons program (and accompanying threat to “obliterate” Iran)? What about Hillary’s claim that Obama should have bombed Syria (and put ISIS in control?) in 2013? What about her plan for a “no fly” or “safe”(!) zone on the theory that someday ISIS might develop the airplane? What about her consistent support for every racist lie coming out of Netanyahu’s mouth? Or how about her waiving restrictions at the State Department on selling weapons to Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Oman, and Qatar, all states wise enough to donate to the Clinton Foundation, but in each case a waiver based on the lie that said nation was not abusing human rights?

Hillary has backed the lie that presidents can legally wage war without Congress since she was First Lady, if not earlier. Does Suckon really think putting such a person into the White House will do no damage to our families or countries? Of course not. He favors the damage. He believes destroying Iraq was a good thing to do. Don’t believe me? Watch him say so.

“If you disagree don’t vote for her.”

This entry was posted in General. Bookmark the permalink.
  • colinjames71

    The only issue I have with this piece? I call him Thomas “That ain’t yogurt” Friedman. Check out Taibbi’s Rolling Stone contest if you don’t get that little joke, “which is the best Friedman article title for the name of a porn movie” or something like that. Hilarious stuff.

  • Apr 17, 2016 Abby Martin Exposes What Hillary Clinton Really Represents

    Digging deep into Hillary’s connections to Wall Street, Abby Martin reveals how the Clinton’s multi-million-dollar political machine operates.

  • October 03, 2012 Provoke an Attack on Iran? “Lets Bring it On At the End of the Day We Ought to Take ‘Em Out”

    Hillary Clinton laughs about possible war against Iran!

  • wunsacon

    >> Most Hillary Clinton supporters, including Hillary,
    >> mostly spend their time talking about Trump,
    >> not Clinton, not Sanders, not what should be
    >> done in the U.S. government. But they don’t try
    >> to articulate a defense for this practice.

    I’d been hounding a leading “progressive” blog “X” in their comment sections about their coverage, because IMHO it seems so soft on Hillary. It seems most other readers feel the same way. Curious, I tried to conduct a poll, asking readers whether “X” was “(a) fair and balanced, (b) shilling for hillary, or (c) naive”. That was removed. I asked “X” moderators for an explanation and if there’s a relationship between them and the DNC. My posts were removed and a “ban” threat was implied. An “X” moderator mentioned they use another “progressive” blog’s policies (that ban “abusive” language at the blog proprietors). If they’re using each other’s comment policy, makes me wonder if there are any other relationships.

    Earlier, I had noticed “X” has many tabs at the top and none refer to “war” or “foreign policy”. I think that’s odd, because: What is *supposed* to bother us “bleeding heart liberals” more important than industrialized murder?

    After observing the coverage and the behavior, I now *suspect* most “left”-wing and “progressive” blogs are fauxgressives, with business ties leading to the DNC.

    IMHO, there’s just no other way to explain how the “progressive” media would not be apoplectic over the proposition that the DNC would nominate one of the leading war criminals of the current administration. It’s supposed to be a “non-starter”. But, there Killary is, near or on top — entirely with their assistance.