Another Easily Disproven Lie From the Conservative Media

Heard about the story where Hillary Clinton was reported to have excused her husband's infidelities because of "abuse" he suffered at the hands of his mother and grandmother? Remember how the media screamed in delight that she would make such an unbelievably lame excuse for old Bill and that, later, he would agree that the "abuse" may have been a major factor in his cheating life? Want to bet that the entire tale is just another of the conservative media's lies and misquotes that, as is the case with all lies, has been repeated often enough that the uninformed populace now accepts it as true?

The reality is that no such statement ever passed Hillary's lips during the Time magazine interview nor at any other time. Had those air heads who pretend to report news could have determined by simply reading that interview, the actual story is far less exciting and even far less provocative. Rather, Hillary admitted that her husband's actions were a "sin of weakness" which he openly and repeatedly "lied" about. Does this sound like a woman attempting to find excuses for her husband's behavior?

In fact, the entire subject regarding Clinton's childhood and the emotional scars it left him with was brought up first by the interviewer, herself, Lucinda Franks. It was she who wrote, "I tell Hillary, I read his mother's autobiography, in which she wrote about the atmosphere of alcohol, violence and chaos that forced her son to be the man of the house while he was still a child. Hillary leans over and says softy, 'That's only the half of it. He was so young, barely four, when he was [so] scarred by abuse he can't even take it out and look at it. There was terrible conflict between his mother and grandmother'".

Now, folks, where, in any of that interview does Hillary in any way claim that it excused Bill for any of his actions? Other than an admittance that Bill had an incredibly bad childhood, how does this relate in any way whatsoever to the lurid and completely baseless claims that Hillary uses it as an out for his dishonesty or adultery? It doesn't.

But, of course, reporting the truth about Hillary wouldn't furnish such Rabid Right writers as the New York Times' Maureen Dowd (who often and arrogantly speaks of the "warped marriage" of the Clinton's as if she had any right to ridicule the private dealings between man and wife) any pleasure since it will prevent her nasty and false attacks on the Clintons. In fact, to have truthfully reported the interview would have shown Hillary to be the strength of the marriage and the reason that it has held together as long as it has.

Quite frankly, it is the same moral midgets who shout loudly about the institution of marriage being so important to their narrow world view who are the loudest detractors of the Clintons and the problems that their marriage faces. It is always moralistic little people like Dowd who covet any opportunity to proclaim the marriage a failure and the participants failures for remaining together after the many instances of public turmoil that the conservative media has forced upon them in the guise of true reporting. The very least that these jackals will settle for is either a public discourse on the subject of the Clinton marriage or the messiest of divorces which would only feed the media's diseased yearning for filth and carnage which so easily takes the place of factual reporting.

Even Cokie Roberts, a reporter who has seldom allowed the truth to interfere with her biased reporting, got into the act with a column co-written with her husband Steven Roberts in which she smears Hillary by reporting what had, by that time, been long exposed as the lie that it was. When confronted with the question as to how she could devote an entire column to a subject that she was well aware was a lie and misrepresentation, she told the Washington Post, "At this point, it doesn't much matter whether [Hillary] said it or not, because it's become part of the culture. I was at the beauty parlor yesterday, and this was all anyone was talking about."

In other words, this yahoo claims that the truth matters far less to her and her kind that the lies that they report and report until the uninformed and unthinking public accepts those lies as truth. This could never occur, of course, if the public had even the slightest interest in the reality around themselves. Obviously, and very, very sadly, the vast majority of Americans have no such interest since it would interfere with their sick fascination with TV characters and professional "wrestling". Hence, the news that the rest of us will forevermore receive will have as little truth in it as will be contained in any two consecutive seconds where Rush Limbaugh's lips are moving. (1)

Return To Front Page

Go To Next Column

Return to Index of Columns

Go To Archives of Columns

Visit Our Unique Shops At:

The Progressive Mind
Haiwee Fashions
Filipino Soul
Impeach The Moron
Rosetta Stone - Your Name In Egyptian Hieroglyphs
Signs of the Zodiac Gifts

Write me


Copyright 9/2/99