Most folks who have at one time or another seen their name on an honor roll know the puff of pride that experience engenders. That pride is nothing compared to that to be claimed by those American citizens whose names should be inscribed on a monument on the National Mall for bearing the proud distinction of having been called a liar by Bill or Hillary Clinton, or more likely both, for relating the truth about their personal interactions with this truth-challenged pair. Had I not heard that cynical old adage about knowing how a politician is lying – his lips are moving – long before I had heard of the Clintons, I would swear it had been specifically created and first used to describe that perfidious pair. Ditto the far older truism: where there’s smoke, there’s fire.
The Clinton Honor Roll has been in existence at least since 1969, when Eileen Wellstone, a student at Oxford, raised the charge of rape against Slick Willie, who of course claimed she was lying. Not long after her accusation was made, Clinton was asked to forgo his Rhodes scholarship by school authorities, his only apparent punishment. His willingness to give up such a prestigious honor due to a supposedly spurious charge, like so many other questions about the Clintons, simply doesn’t pass the smell test. Most folks believe that that moniker, Slick Willie, was appended to Bill in recognition of his political skills; after reviewing his history of sexual assaults, many would agree that it most likely alludes to his ability to avoid felony prosecution for criminal assaults that would long ago have jailed a lesser figure.
Hillary’s early entry to the honor roll must remain nameless for the reason that the victim, like so many other Honor Roll members, fears retaliation from the Clinton Mafia – that and the fact that she was a 12-year-old rape victim whom Hillary accused of lying, who now wishes to maintain her anonymous normality. In this first of many such allegations to follow, Hillary was defending the 46-year-old rapist, who she later (and privately laughingly) admitted was probably guilty even though she did get him off. At least Hillary didn’t label the 12-year-old a bimbo, as she came to do later against others who claimed to be victims of sexual assault by her spouse/defendant.
So the Clinton Honor Roll, long in development, continues right to the present, as Hillary has just this week labeled as liars several additional American citizens – members of Gold Star families, in fact. In an interview with the Conway, N.H. Daily Sun, Hillary must have been stunned when a conservative member of the editorial board confronted her with a stark question that surely escaped pre-screening by her campaign staff:
Sun Columnist Tom McLaughlin said she told an Egyptian diplomat the Benghazi attack was planned and not a protest but that she told family members of the deceased that the attack was the result of a demonstration. He said she then told George Stephanopoulos that she didn’t tell the families the attack was a demonstration about a film.
“Somebody is lying,” said McLaughlin. “Who is it?
Clinton replied, “Not me, that’s all I can tell you.”
With that terse denial, Hillary blanket-labeled as liars all those family members of the Benghazi victims who had previously told the press on repeated occasions that Hillary had consoled them with assurances that the Obama administration would punish the producer of the infamous video that had supposedly incited the Benghazi attackers.
It’s rather simple: they say she said it. She says, “Not me, that’s all I can tell you.” It can’t be both ways, so Hillary is clearly saying these folks are liars. We all now can say to those family members: welcome to the Clinton Honor Roll.
Crossposted at American Thinker