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
