With all the lies this week, I thought maybe people were emulating her.
Take this nonsense.
Not content to lie (or just play the fool?) in a Tweet, Hadad has also written an article.
But here's reality, Brett, Ash and John have all said on the record that the Baghdad-based government has withheld military and supply aid to the Kurdistan Regional Government in northern Iraq.
The two with the State Dept tend to portray as a thing of the past -- and sometimes get called on that spin when before Congress.
But, yes, all three have testified to Congress that the Baghdad-based government has withheld military and supply aid.
And when, during a Congressional hearing, members of Congress then begin stressing the need to independently supply the Kurds (or Sunnis in Anbar), the three will insist that it's being addressed, they're speaking with the Iraqi government about it, blah blah blah.
But, hey, it's Hillary Clinton week, so just lie, lie, lie.
It's not like you've done any real work.
It's not like you've actually sat in the hearings taking notes.
Just say whatever the hell you want and pretend like it's true.
Shi'ite thugs with Twitter account will reTweet your lies.
Hadad squirts in his shorts over Haider al-Abadi's claim that he's going to shake up his Cabinet.
That does tend to excite the stupid and/or hateful.
The rest of the world has long ago seen through these statements by Haider and grasped that this is about further marginalizing non-Shi'ites in Iraq.
When Nouri al-Maliki would make noises like this, many would point out that this was an attack on the protections built into the system to safeguard minorities.
Hadad, of course, never spoke out then.
Not about that.
Not about the abuse and rape of Sunni women and girls in Iraqi prisons and jails.
He never decried the false arrests and imprisonments.
It's like the propaganda push going on domestically in the United States where a great deal of money is being spent to mislead students about Iraqi Christians.
The Islamic State, they insist, is committing genocide against Iraqi Christians.
Problem is that the purge of Iraqi Christians pre-dates the Islamic State.
And was carried out by Shi'ite militias.
No one cared.
Brett didn't appear before Congress, as he did yesterday, insisting that this might be genocide but that they needed to study it more before applying the term.
Iraqi Christians were just targeted, killed, forced to flee, etc.
In 2017, the US will have to get a little more honest about Iraq.
But far now, with Barack playing kick the can, it's clear that far too many want to just pretend that if the Islamic State is destroyed, Iraq is roses and ice cream.
The Islamic State is a terrorist organization.
Some Sunnis oppose it (and always did). Some looked the other way. Some embraced it.
The last two categories?
With the government persecuting Sunnis, there was little reason for them to get involved in a fight between the Baghdad-based government and the Islamic State.
Every member of the Islamic State could die tomorrow -- and Brett thought he looked so tough (he just looked like he needed Rogaine) yesterday insisting the US was happy to help them out on that -- but that would not resolve any of the issues.
These issues led Iraqis to protest in the streets for over a year.
These issued led to the massacre the online Shi'ite thugs never want to Tweet about.
The April 23, 2013 massacre of a sit-in in Hawija which resulted from Nouri's federal forces storming in. Alsumaria noted Kirkuk's Department of Health (Hawija is in Kirkuk) announced 50 activists have died and 110 were injured in the assault. AFP reported the death toll eventually (as some wounded died) rose to 53 dead. UNICEF noted that the dead included 8 children (twelve more were injured).
This was an attack on the Sunni people.
Not the only one.
But certainly one of the most infamous ones.
If you could magically remove ISIS from Iraq today, these issues would still be in place and in play.
Although, if like online thug Haidar Sumeri, you just embrace lies and call for violence, you're probably just going to keep lying in the best Hillary Clinton fashion.
Hillary and Bernie Sanders take the stage tonight for another debate.
Maybe someone will have the guts to ask her at what point would she have to drop out?
The FBI has made clear that they are indeed investigating her.
At what point does she drop out?
Or does she plan to just keep changing her story and stay in the race regardless of the risk she's putting the entire Democratic Party at?
Imagine it's September and Hillary's indicted.
Not only does that hurt the top of the ticket, you damn well better believe it hurts the races lower down.
Even those who try to keep their distance from her would be hurt.
So what is the threshold that has to be reached for Hillary to consider dropping out?
It would be great if that question were asked.
But, of course, no one would expect an honest answer from Hillary.
The following community sites updated:
The e-mail address for this site is firstname.lastname@example.org.