CBS Finally Runs the Bosnia Story; Hillary Forced To Admit She Lied Once Again
 
Yesterday, CBS finally ran the Hillary "I dodged sniper fire in Bosnia" story. Yes, this is the same network which tried to throw a presidential election with the Dan Rather "fake but accurate" report.
Although the story has been kicking around the blogosphere for the past two weeks, what does the entire incident tell us about, Hillary, her campaign and the mainstream media?
Once again, the mainstream media, in this case CBS, followed rather than broke the story. Various blogs had already pointed out the latest whopper on the part of Hillary, yet CBS just aired the damning videotape. In this sense it is clear that the media was merely reacting instead of being proactive. Although some have explained this as media prudence in light of the fact that candidates won't give interviews if they feel a network has been negative in their reporting, I believe, in the end, CBS ran the story because they were forced by the blogosphere to run the story.  
In light of the overwhelming and irrefutable evidence of Hillary's falsehood, they would have become irrelevant as a news organization and by their omission, would have clearly demonstrated their  liberal/Democratic Party bias. It is one thing to bury stories unfavorable to the Clintons when they were in the White House; such a course of action was perfectly legitimate since it only harmed Republicans. But, when Hillary's mendacity, prevarication and outright lies harm a fellow Democrat, and one who is the media's preferred candidate, well, that is verboten.
Why is the media acting as if this revelation of the latest in a long series of Clinton deceits is a surprise or a bombshell to her candidacy? How is this latest Clinton lie any different in degree from the "vast right-wing conspiracy" or the "I didn't inhale" assertion, or the fraudulent proclamation "I never had sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky"? Remember how many mainstream journalists, one by one, signed onto the central tenet of Hillary's candidacy as "inevitable" over a year ago? A little scrutiny on their part would have revealed the fundamental fraudulence of her campaign theme. What pray-tell was the substantive evidence of her "experience"? Her numerous and wildly exaggerated and unfounded campaign claims? Her frequent trips abroad? Many travel agents have visited more countries than HIllary, does that make any of them foreign policy heavyweights?
What was Hillary thinking? Did she not understand that today such bravado could always be checked and more importantly, exposed courtesy of the internet? Hillary is running a 20th century campaign in a 21st century world. There was attack dog James Carville last weekend doing to "Judas" Bill Richardson  what he did previously to "trailer park trash" Paula Jones. It's all so yesterday.
What does the bogus Bosnia story tell us about Hillary? What I have stated previously about the Clinton character bears repeating:
There was no need to adopt the fake Southern accent, just as there was no need to say I didn’t inhale, or that President Clinton’s troubles were all caused by a vast right-wing conspiracy; nor, that Hillary was named after Sir Edmund Hillary, despite the fact the mountaineer scaled Everest some six years after Hillary was born. As they watch the tactics from the old Clinton Administration play out endlessly through the vehicle of Hillary’s candidacy, many Democrats, who out of party loyalty, were forced to bear witness to the moral fiber of their party being corroded, must now, in exasperation, say never again. As David Geffen reminded us, the Clintons’ lie with ease; close observers of this political couple also remind us of another, perhaps even more painful truth: the Clintons’ lie unnecessarily. For them, deception is a virtue.”
In a sense, since lying is in the Clinton DNA, Hillary was simply doing what she has always done; old habits die hard; and, Hillary can no more change her chicanery now than Pavlov's dog can stop salivating at the ring of the bell.
Built on a foundation of quicksand, over the past three months, Hillary's silly campaign mantra of "Ready on Day One" has been slowly crumbling; her many lies and falsehoods exposed. In a YouTube age, she can no longer rely on a Clinton-friendly media. Has no one told the Hillary campaign that the influence of the mainstream media has waned considerably since the advent of Fox News and the recent influence of the internet? Unfavorable stories can no longer be suppressed or their timing controlled and managed from the War Room of the White House.
The Bosnia story has put the final nail in her coffin as the candidate of "experience'. Going forward, the major issue Hillary is going to be forced to confront is her own credibility.  
 
Beacon Street Journal
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
By John Kinsellagh