Read the whole article, not just the first few paragraphs. Saletan uses lots of 
different sources for the things Clinton said, including videotape of her 
saying them that shows Rubio to have misrepresented her statements. 

 And if you look at the Times reports Saletan cites, they obviously didn't get 
their information from the State Department.
 

 So much of this is on the public record and easy to check, it's a wonder Rubio 
dared to misrepresent it.
 



 

 

 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mdixon.6569@...> wrote :

 And Saletan seems to be making his argument based on what the *Times*  
reported. From where did the *Times* get their info, the State Department?
 

 From: "authfriend@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Tuesday, November 3, 2015 1:44 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Krauthammer on the Clinton Foundation
 
 
   Even though he's often just as critical of liberals...I see.
 

 You could always look at Factcheck.org's timeline (Saletan links to it). You 
can verify the entries to make sure they're accurate, because they give you 
explicit citations for each one.
 

 

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mdixon.6569@...> wrote :

 LOL! Judy, I put as much trust in anything Slate.com has to say as you put in 
that guy that wrote the original blog that we've been discussing.

 

 From: "authfriend@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Tuesday, November 3, 2015 9:13 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Krauthammer on the Clinton Foundation
 
 
   Actually, Mike, Rubio told a bunch of falsehoods. Have a look at this 
article from Slate.com by William Saletan:
 

 Marco Rubio Has Decided His Best Strategy Is to Lie About Hillary Clinton and 
Benghazi 
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/11/marco_rubio_is_lying_about_hillary_clinton_lying.html
 
 
 
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/11/marco_rubio_is_lying_about_hillary_clinton_lying.html
 
 Marco Rubio Has Decided His Best Strategy Is to Lie Abou... 
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/11/marco_rubio_is_lying_about_hillary_clinton_lying.html
 Marco Rubio speaks with confidence. That’s a big reason why Republican donors 
are turning away from Jeb Bush and toward Rubio: They see the Florida...


 
 View on www.slate.com 
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/11/marco_rubio_is_lying_about_hillary_clinton_lying.html
 Preview by Yahoo 
 

  
(BTW, it's "toe the line," not "tow the line." Common mistake these days.)
 

 Yes, Slate.com is a liberal site, and Saletan, though a Republican, is a 
liberal Republican. But he's a straight-arrow, and he's got the goods on 
Rubio's untruths about Clinton, including an exhaustive timeline from 
Factcheck.org, with careful documentation, of post-Benghazi attack statements 
by the administration and everyone else involved.
 

 It's not just Rubio. Right-wing websites generally tell the same false story 
about Clinton's statements.
 

 You do only half your homework, Mike. You inform yourself about what the right 
wing has to say, but you never look at what the other side is saying, so you 
never question what you read and hear and thus never get at the truth that lies 
in between.
 

 CNBC was "declared the loser" by more objective sources because it mismanaged 
the debate, letting it get out of control, not because of any liberal bias. The 
candidates' accusations to that effect were generally mocked.
 

 And no, it isn't at all "interesting" that I've acknowledged the moderators 
asked some bad questions. I do my best to be objective rather than engage in 
whitewashing of the liberal view of things. Liberals aren't perfect by a long 
shot--but they're a heck of a lot more honest than the right wing.

 

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mdixon.6569@...> wrote :

 In that very debate, Rubio addressed that quite well. While the media had been 
talking about the ten wonderful days of Clinton, they never addressed that she 
had been caught lying about Benghazi. She had sent e-mails to Chelsea and 
Middle eastern leaders the next day,9/12,saying the terrorist attack was from 
an Al Queda like organization. While for the next couple of weeks, she towed 
the administration line that it was a protest that got out of hand caused by a 
video. And she continued that lie by telling the families that they were going 
to *get* that person that put that video out.
 So yes, the Media did cover for her.
The headlines after the debate pretty much declared CNBC the loser. So, the 
Republican candidates didn't exactly make fools of themselves for complaining 
of a liberal bias in regards   to the line of questioning. But it is 
interesting that you would admit that there were some*bad questions*.
 From: "authfriend@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Monday, November 2, 2015 9:26 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Krauthammer on the Clinton Foundation
 
 
   BTW, Mike, the mainstream media would be *thrilled* to be able to document a 
genuine Clinton scandal with actual facts. If they haven't done so this time 
around, it's because the facts just ain't there.
 

 BTW 2, the mainstream media isn't all that "librul." They're centrist. And the 
Republican presidential candidates made fools of themselves accusing CNBC of 
being too liberal--CNBC is almost as right-wing as Fox News. It's a big booster 
of Wall Street; the Tea Party began on CNBC, for pete's sake. The debate 
moderators did ask a few bad questions, but most of them were substantive. 
Those were the questions the candidates really resented and did their best to 
avoid by dumping on the moderators. As far as the candidates are concerned, 
"debates" are for them to stand there and tell everybody how great they are, 
not to be examined on the issues or challenge each other's positions. 
 

 

 

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> wrote :

 FYI, "shooting the messenger" refers to a *blameless* messenger. It isn't 
shooting the messenger to point out that he is unreliable, especially when his 
message accuses somebody of criminal acts.
 

 

 

 

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mdixon.6569@...> wrote :

  Judy, you're just shooting the messenger here. However, I would agree that 
you won't find anything like this in the mainstream media, regardless of how 
factual it is. "authfriend@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>
 


 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Monday, November 2, 2015 3:23 PM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: Krauthammer on the Clinton Foundation
 
 
   FWIW, this is from Newsmax, a very right-wing and highly unreliable "news" 
outlet. Not only that, it isn't from a Newsmax article, it's from a reader 
comment--in other words, no editorial control or fact-checking. The dude who 
wrote it has sent and posted it all over the place (do a Google search for the 
phrase "Charles Krauthammer alluded..."). The writer is illiterate ("alluded" 
is used incorrectly), but that's to be expected.
 

 

 

 


 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mdixon.6569@...> wrote :

 

 
 Wednesday, October 28, 2015 Charles Krauthammer on Hillary Clinton 
 











































 













 













 


 









Reply via email to