Patterico's Pontifications

10/29/2015

Marco Rubio: Hillary Clinton Exposed As A Liar; Charlie Rose: You Can’t Say That!

Filed under: General — Dana @ 7:12 pm

[guest post by Dana]

Although I have reservations about Marco Rubio, he had a couple of terrific moments last night at the debate. And he was back at it again this morning, much to the annoyance of a befuddled Charlie Rose on CBS.

Here’s what happened: last night Rubio made this comment in response to Donald Trump’s comments on H1B visas:

I know the Democrats have the ultimate SuperPac. It’s called the mainstream media who every single day…and I’ll tell you why. Last week, Hillary Clinton went before a committee. She admitted she had sent e-mails to her family saying, “Hey, this attack at Benghazi was caused by Al Qaida-like elements.” She spent over a week telling the families of those victims and the American people that it was because of a video. And yet the mainstream media is going around saying it was the greatest week in Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

It was the week she got exposed as a liar. It was the week that she got exposed as a liar…

This morning, Charlie Rose confronted Rubio about his claims, and made a concerted effort to get the audacious Rubio to take back his words. In spite of using his I Am A Professional Journalist voice to challenge Rubio, Rose clearly misjudged the young upstart who punched back twice as hard. (Notice the priceless look of sheer disbelief on Rubio’s face as Rose continually misfires.) :

Here is the “Hillary exposed as a liar” moment:

–Dana

43 Responses to “Marco Rubio: Hillary Clinton Exposed As A Liar; Charlie Rose: You Can’t Say That!”

  1. Hello.

    Dana (86e864)

  2. It was a fine exchange, and Rubio did well in it, for himself and his party.

    It does not come exactly as a surprise to be reminded, though, for those of us whose memories extend back to the 1990s and who can recall them without collapsing into a quivering mass of trembling Clintonista nostaligia, that Hillary Clinton and the truth are natural, reflexive, eternal enemies.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  3. (I refuse to watch the Jim Jordan video again, though — too painful for me, because I’m too aware of his missed opportunities, because like almost every other Congressman, he hasn’t got a clue about how to cross-examine a hostile witness.)

    Beldar (fa637a)

  4. A peccadillo: One of the things that drives me nuts — and Rubio does it again in the linked video clip from CBS’ morning news show — is listening to candidates refer to their own campaigns in the third person, as in “We had a good night last night.”

    No. This isn’t a “we,” not in this context. At the end of the day, when you’re thanking your supporters, you say to them, sincerely, “I could not have done this without you, this has been a joint effort, and we have won.”

    But when you’re trying to get someone to vote for you, you should say, “Vote for me. I will do X, Y & Z.” None of this “we” B.S. I want personal accountability, and someone who won’t shirk from it.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  5. Beldar,

    I remember her history all too well. Perhaps it’s the exhausting frustration of it all, but at this point in time, watching her have her ultimate dream of becoming the president torn from her grasp, would go a long way toward making me feel better. A beautiful comeuppance if serving time isn’t in the cards.

    I say this understanding that it would be little consolation to those whose loved ones were killed at Benghazi.

    Dana (86e864)

  6. yes, it’s a small quibble, to use the first person, suggests too egotistical, except for Democrats,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  7. Although Rubio did well to put the moron Rose in his place, he missed a golden opportunity to highlight just what an all-in, colluding, lying, M-Fing, POS Charlie Rose really is.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  8. I want to see some GOP candidate go into an interview with Charlie Rose with some props.

    Like a 120mm mortar and its supporting gear and ammo:

    http://www.armyrecognition.com/images/stories/news/2011/october/120mm_mortar_team_US_Army_in_Afghanistan_001.jpg

    Beldar (fa637a)

  9. But when you’re trying to get someone to vote for you, you should say, “Vote for me. I will do X, Y & Z.” None of this “we” B.S. I want personal accountability, and someone who won’t shirk from it.

    I think it’s more a reflexive reaction, one of not wishing to appear as self-prompting or grandstanding.

    Dana (86e864)

  10. I believe Rubio was truly shocked at Rose’s inanity.

    Dana (86e864)

  11. Even Ted Cruz does this “our campaign” business, this “we won the debate” business. I wish he’d stop; it’s at odds with his usual plain-spokenness. I have a few doubts about Ted Cruz, but the strength of his ego is not one of them.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  12. We think it’s not that big a deal.

    Patterico (86c8ed)

  13. well you have to punctuate the point, because the media is always chasing squirrels, note the attention to the Rubio/Bush standoff sans content,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  14. The royal “we” should be used only by editors or people with tapeworms. — Mark Twain

    Ok, Rubio as well as Reince Priebus thought CNBC was a good forum for the discussion of fiscal issues in depth.

    nk (9faaca)

  15. Yes, Rubio punctuated the point that Hillary is a liar and water is wet. The problem is Charlie Rose and Perry Hood don’t realize water is wet.

    John Hitchcock (10b6bf)

  16. Charlie Rose is a creepy cryptkeeper and very very hard to look at

    happyfeet (831175)

  17. very creepy democrat operative.

    mg (31009b)

  18. Well Rubes can tell the truth if he so chooses. Certainly different than a Democrat.

    But my definition of a ‘liar’ includes everyone who seamlessly transits the divide at any point.

    DNF (b8039a)

  19. 14. Love the Twain quote.

    DNF (b8039a)

  20. Rose seemed to be referring to this with his comment about Petraeus. There was some CIA memo that got revised a number of times. There was some reference in one version of the memo to “the demonstrations in Benghazi” but I infer that was put in after Clinton etc. had been telling their lie for some time. Clinton made some comment in her testimony last week about how the intelligence was unclear at the time when she was confronted with the emails. Rose seems to have absorbed the idea from some Democrat talking points that Clinton, Obama etc. were going by the CIA memo, which is not possible, based on the timeline, and we don’t know that the memo had even circulated outside the CIA until later.

    The Democrats seemingly have used that memo to provide cover for themselves and Rose totally ingested that, while seemingly unaware of the emails that were read in the hearing last week. It’s like the DNC has a wire directly into his brain. It would be interesting to know where he picked that up.

    Whoever the nominee is should familiarize themselves with that CIA memo because when they bring up Hillary’s lies some idiots in the media will start throwing that in their face, maybe even in the middle of a debate like Crowley. Not only should they be prepared to blow that excuse away but also it would be an opportunity for the nominee to portray the media as just repeating Democrat BS talking points.

    Gerald A (5dca03)

  21. most of this, I believe was ‘stovepiped’ through Sid, from Drumheller’s connections, the tape of the attack in progress, which has rarely been mentioned, the intercepts between AS, and AQIM, all this belie that flimsy excuse, of course, when Clinton showed herself to be full dhimmi, with the pr campaign that went all the way to the UN, of course, they retracted some,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  22. Well how about that. Steve Hayward prescribes what I’d suggested yesterday morning for the approach the Rs should take on future debates…

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/10/how-to-fix-the-gop-debates.php

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  23. no Colonel, they keep inviting scorpions on their back, third time is enemy action, the next one es con Univision, en parte con National Review,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  24. I know this gets tiresome, but the very fact this administration decided to rely on on the CIA to figure out what happened at Benghazi is the smoking gun that they were lying. I think I’ve come up with a way to illustrate why, though.

    We had two attacks on State Department sites that day. Cairo and Benghazi. Why did this administration need to rely on the CIA to figure out what happened at Benghazi but not Cairo?

    Other than the fact that the mob invading the Cairo compound didn’t manage to kill anyone, a matter of pure luck, what is the difference?

    There is no difference other than they had to overclassify the events at Benghazi to prevent the truth from getting out.

    One of these things is not like the other:

    1. Beirut barracks bombing.
    2. Attack on the Pentagon/WTC
    3. Boston Marathon bombing
    4. Attack on embassy Cairo
    5. Attack on consulate Benghazi

    Clue: All of a sudden, the dozens and hundreds of eyewitness accounts weren’t good enough to figure out what happened. All of a sudden, we need to rely on what Sammy Finkelman calls “Sooper Sekrit” intel.

    Why?

    Steve57 (a0050a)

  25. I’d be curious to know why my comment @ 10/30/2015 @ 12:26 pm went into moderation as I didn’t use anything approaching profanity, I didn’t quote any article at length, in fact I didn’t even link to anything. I did mention another person who comments here, but only to give him credit (or blame, depending on your POV) for coining a phrase.

    Steve57 (a0050a)

  26. Steve, I was filtered once because the filter blindly thought I used a naughty word even though I did not.

    Something on the order of using the word finish followed immediately by the word it.

    kishnevi (9cb6b5)

  27. I did use the word “luck” kishnevi. And I went back and checked and I did spell it with an L.

    Steve57 (a0050a)

  28. There are dozens of words in the filter that can catch unwitting commenters and comments. Some of them are “dirty” words but most of them are words commonly used by online promoters or spammers selling products, and your comment will be filtered if you happened to use one of those words. I don’t remember them all because it’s been a long time, but it includes words like p-o-k-e-r that someone might use in a comment.

    DRJ (15874d)

  29. Patterico could eliminate those words from the filter but they aren’t commonly used and, if he did change the filter, there would be hundreds of comments a day selling products and offering investment and travel opportunities that would drive everyone crazy.

    DRJ (15874d)

  30. Fuq Fuq Fuq Fuq… Fuq Fuq Fuq!

    Colonel Haiku (436b69)

  31. Rubio was very strong here. Just wish he had been less shocked by Rose’s stupidity and been able to just lay him out for his vacuousness.

    Mark Johnson (a64489)

  32. Thanks for showing this.I LOL’d when Rose made his first stupid comment and Rubio was like “whaaat?!”
    After that it was like a Professor talking to a headstrong but not very smart College freshman.

    rcocean (e5667a)

  33. Essentially the thrust of my now banned-in-Boston comment is that there were two violent attacks on State Department facilities in North Africa on 9/11/2012. Only one of which we had to rely on the CIA to figure out what happened. Benghazi.
    I
    The State Department could tell us what happened at Cairo.

    Why?

    I’ve been telling you why since 13 September 2012 but maybe if you think aitbout things in those terms it becomes more clear. What is different about the two events on the same day, and the CIA we are told must be the lead investigative agency in only one.

    Steve57 (79b135)

  34. The reason why I keep beating this dead horse, the horse that has been dead since 12 September 2012, is that we seemed to have developed some sort of cultural amnesia. We now think it’s reasonable to rely on CIA intel assessments to figure out what we’ve always figured out without the CIA before.

    In fact, involving the CIA means some things will never get figured out at all, given the fact they’ll squirt their octopus ink everywhere.

    So we can see why the Obama administration found this maneuver useful. But why do members of the LHMFM like Rose automatically erase their memories on command?

    You can tell he believes it. Even when what he is told to believe is 180 degrees out from what he was told to believe five minutes ago. Amazing.

    Steve57 (79b135)

  35. I dubbed it the shawwal offensive, steve, on my blog, because it involved three attacks, benghazi, Tunis and the bastion in a three day perid

    narciso (ee1f88)

  36. Do you have a link to your blog, narciso?

    Steve57 (79b135)

  37. is listening to candidates refer to their own campaigns in the third person

    What bothers me is whenever a candidate says “the American people believe in this” or “the American people favor that,” failing to make the distinction that people in this nation (and elsewhere) can be damn different (and not necessarily in a good way) in their philosophies and preferences.

    he missed a golden opportunity to highlight just what an all-in, colluding, lying, M-Fing, POS Charlie Rose really is.

    Just once I’d like to witness someone like a Marco Rubio retort, “sheesh, Charlie, I know you’re of the left, but do you have to wear your damn liberalism on your lapel?!” (I know I’ll never observe a public debate where someone will note that surveys indicate liberalism doesn’t apparently make a person more generous, more tolerant, more humane, certainly more honest and more sensible.)

    Mark (f713e4)

  38. A peccadillo: One of the things that drives me nuts — and Rubio does it again in the linked video clip from CBS’ morning news show — is listening to candidates refer to their own campaigns in the third person, as in “We had a good night last night.”

    No. This isn’t a “we,” not in this context. At the end of the day, when you’re thanking your supporters, you say to them, sincerely, “I could not have done this without you, this has been a joint effort, and we have won.”

    But when you’re trying to get someone to vote for you, you should say, “Vote for me. I will do X, Y & Z.” None of this “we” B.S. I want personal accountability, and someone who won’t shirk from it.

    Beldar, the campaign is not just the candidate; it is a team effort, and it’s appropriate for the candidate to acknowledge that. He is not saying “vote for us, we will do this”; people will be voting for him, not for the campaign, and if elected he, not the campaign, will be doing (or not doing) those things. But the effort to get people to vote for him is a that of the team, so it’s appropriate for him to say that they all had a good (or bad) night.

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  39. It does not come exactly as a surprise to be reminded, though, for those of us whose memories extend back to the 1990s and who can recall them without collapsing into a quivering mass of trembling Clintonista nostaligia, that Hillary Clinton and the truth are natural, reflexive, eternal enemies.

    Safire knew exactly what he was talking about when he called her a congenital liar.

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  40. 20.Rose seemed to be referring to this with his comment about Petraeus. There was some CIA memo that got revised a number of times. There was some reference in one version of the memo to “the demonstrations in Benghazi” but I infer that was put in after Clinton etc. had been telling their lie for some time

    Did the CIA ever blame the video tape?

    Wolking also argued that a former CIA chief said intelligence analysts never said the video was a factor.…Hillary Clinton and other State Department officials were apparently warned by overseas U.S. diplomats about blaming the 2012 Benghazi terror strikes on an “inflammatory” Internet video, according to an email released Saturday by House Republicans probing the fatal attacks.

    The email was sent three days after the fatal Sept. 11, 2012, attacks on a U.S. outpost in Benghazi, Libya, and two days before then-National Security Adviser Susan Rice went on TV to say the attacks were inspired by the anti-Islamic video.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/11/01/email-shows-clinton-state-department-cautioned-about-blaming-benghazi-attack-on/

    Walter Cronanty (f48cd5)

  41. Narcisos corner.blogspot check the second entry in September 2012.

    narciso (ee1f88)

  42. As bad as Jeb did, he won’t quit before New Hampshire. Plus, the Bushes are masters of negative campaignung so we should see that in a few weeks.

    DRJ (15874d)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3168 secs.