Supplemental: Chozick turns Hillary into a LIAR!


As it was done with Al Gore:
Yesterday, Hillary Clinton engaged in some funnin’ at a St. Patrick’s event.

Speaking before an Irish-American group, she quipped about getting a DNA test to prove she was slightly Irish.

Amy Chozick wrote it up in a news report in the New York Times. By the time we finished her report, we wondered what a DNA test of Chozick herself might reveal!

Is Amy Chozick human? Or is she a different type of life form? That’s the question we were asking after reading her “news report.”

Chozick’s report took us back to the good old days—to the time when her paper was working quite hard to turn Al Gore into a LIAR. Her very slippery piece of work appeared beneath this headline:

“In Accepting Irish-American Honor, Hillary Clinton Recasts Her Role in a Peace Pact”

Really? Hillary Clinton had somehow “recast her role” in something? Somehow, it didn’t sound like a very good thing to do!

Below, you see the first four paragraphs of Chozick’s report. Incredibly, this is the part where Chozick seems to twist this particular screw:
CHOZICK (3/17/15): The subjects of Ireland and tea made for an unpleasant brew in Hillary Rodham Clinton’s 2008 campaign for president. Her primary opponent, Barack Obama, once belittled her as having merely “had tea with” world leaders as first lady. Her husband defended her as “a peacemaker, not a tea maker.” Then she was accused of overstating her own contribution to the Northern Ireland peace process.

On Monday, Mrs. Clinton nodded to that back story as she was honored by an Irish-American group on the eve of St. Patrick’s Day.
She spoke up for the importance of tea—steeped and shared by women, whose embrace of peace accords, she said, was vital to their taking root.

She did not portray herself as instrumental to the Good Friday Agreement that President Clinton brokered in 1998, but said her outreach to women in Belfast on multiple visits during that period had played a critical role.

“You cannot bring peace to people just by signing an agreement,” Mrs. Clinton told an approving crowd of Irish and Irish-American power brokers in Manhattan.
“In fact, most peace agreements don’t last. There’s been some very important work done in recent years that—where women are involved, and therefore where the work of peace permeates down to the kitchen table, to the backyard, to the neighborhood, around cups of tea—there’s a much better chance the agreement will hold.”
A bit later, Chozick returned to the claim that Clinton “was accused of exaggerating her role in the Belfast talks” back in 2008. She raised this topic in her opening paragraphs, then again later on.

It’s fun to revisit seven-year-old claims against a targeted pol! Unless we imagine some such motive on Chozick’s part, can you make any sense out of this news report?


In what part of Clinton’s quoted remarks is she “recasting her role” in the Northern Ireland peace process? In what part of her quoted remarks does she describe herself playing a role at all?

On what basis does Chozick conclude that Clinton was making a “nod” to those seven-year-old remarks about tea? In what part of her quoted remarks does she “say her outreach to women in Belfast on multiple visits during that period played a critical role?”

Maybe some sort of “editing error” created this puzzling product. But we have a warning today:

We saw this type of slithery work for twenty straight months during Campaign 2000. We’ve seen this shit a million times. For reasons someone ought to explain, a rather familiar type of porridge seems to be back in the stew.

From March 1999 through November 2000, the liberal world accepted this conduct from life forms like Chozick. It sent George W. Bush to the White House. It could very much happen again.

Go ahead—read Chozick’s report! See if you can make some sense out of that puzzling piddle.

Completely ignored at the time: Unless we’re reading something wrong, Chozick is trying very hard to bring old piddle to life. Consider:

Later in her puzzling report, this is the way she describes the flap about Clinton’s deeply troubling whopper from 2008:
CHOZICK (3/17/15): In 2008, Mrs. Clinton was accused of exaggerating her role in the Belfast talks, by saying she “helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland” during her husband’s administration, to prove she was prepared to be head of state. “The road to peace was carefully documented, and she wasn’t on it,” Brian Feeney, a veteran Belfast politician and author, said at the time.
You can’t exactly say that’s false! On the other hand, the fact that the almighty Feeney says it doesn’t make it true.

Can we talk? Feeney’s comment seemed so trivial in real time that it wasn’t reported in the New York Times or in the Washington Post.

Seven years later, Chozick is cadging from the Associated Press. Nancy Benac penned this passage for the AP, way back when:
BENAC (3/8/08): Clinton traveled to Northern Ireland five times as first lady, and was a tireless advocate for the peace process. But she was not directly involved in negotiating the Good Friday peace accord.

She did encourage Irish women on both sides of the conflict to come together and get involved in a process that was dominated by men.

Former Democratic Sen. George Mitchell, who brokered the peace accord, said Clinton was "quite helpful."

"She became quite active in encouraging women in Northern Ireland to engage in the political process and in the peace process,
and ultimately the role of women was important in moving the process forward," said Mitchell, who is neutral in the presidential race. "She was one of many people who participated in encouraging women to get involved, not the only one."

John Hume, the Catholic leader who shared the 1998 Nobel Peace Prize for his work on the peace accord, credits Clinton for playing a "pivotal role" in the peace process.

But others in Northern Ireland say Clinton overstates her role.

"The road to peace was carefully documented, and she wasn't on it," says Brian Feeney, an author and former leading Belfast politician from the same party as Hume.
Seven years later, Chozick goes many kilometers out of her way to bring this tired old puddle of piddle back to life. She omits the statements by Mitchell and Hume, gives us Feeney alone.

They played this game for twenty straight months during Campaign 2000. In the end, it sent George Bush to the White House.

People are dead all over the world because they engaged in that horrible conduct. Chozick, a rather familiar fish, seems to be at it again.


  1. Amy's husband:

    Robert Ennis is an associate in O'Melveny's New York office and a member of the Health Care Practice and the White Collar Defense and Corporate Investigations Practice.

    Robert regularly represents health care organizations, life sciences companies and other businesses in connection with regulatory, enforcement, and business matters. He frequently counsels clients with respect to both internal and government investigations and inquiries.

    1. So is he a moon to Planet Amy, or are they binary planets spinning through a solar system?

  2. While Chozick and the New Times focus on whether Hillary's Irishness was a joke or not, they're ignoring the many objectively false or misleading statements she made about her e-mails in her recent press conference. The Washington Post fact checker goes into considerable detail at There are too many dubious statements for me to summarize. You need to read the entire article.

  3. Trolls must be mulling their approach to this one...

    "Chozick's female, so of course Somerby's up to his familiar woman-hating tricks."

    "Somerby again stops at nothing to malign Irish-Americans."

    "You know, Hillary Clinton really *is* awful, regardless of what the Bobfans worshipfully believe."

    1. Get your money back from that mindreading course you failed.

    2. I, for one, choose to wait until the Popemistress of the Media, St. Maureen of Manhattan (and her editorial interns), weighs in.

      Frankly I am too exhausted from all the cheering comments
      on Park Slope Middle School to get real excited about the

  4. I notice you slithered from " objectively false or misleading" to "dubious." Consequently, your opinion of HRC's credibility lacks credibility.

    1. Directed to David in Cal's 3:29 PM comment.

    2. Diogenes -- I agree that my opinion lacks credibility. I was suggesting that you read the article to see what Glenn Kessler found out.

  5. Too bad Hillary, in 2008 only said "I helped bring peace to Northern Ireland" in response to a question about why she was qualified to take the "3am Phone call" used in her attack ad.

    She could have said "As First Lady I took the initiative in creating peace in Northern Ireland."

    Then Bob Somerby could spend the next seventeen years trying to prove another preposterous statement was actually true. And when he is done, in 2032, he would almost be as old as Mary McGrory was when she wrote a column in 1999 Bob joked in 2015 should have had her from marched to reeducation camp.

    Say, didn't Somerby just fault somebody for bringing up something only seven years old? Wouldn't be because Clinton herself brought it up, would it.

    1. That should be "frog marched" not "from marched." Don't want to be accused of overlooking the amphibian contribution to Bob's literary stylings when he posthumously gigged the Guild's very old, but "very powerful" Mary McGrory. And may she be kissing the heavenly blarney on this very good St. Patty's day.

    2. Aaahh, anon 4:32 and 4:47, another day to exult in your superior smartness over TDH and his befuddled Bobfans, life is good

    3. It doesn't require a lot of effort to look smarter than Somerby and his loyal and diminishing fan club, AC/MA. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.

    4. I would have used gigging frogs in a washtub myself @ 10:38. But they are a dumb, lazy, and dislikeable breed according to the chief Muser of their hardy band.

    5. Exult away guys, though shooting fish in a barrel day after day seems to be a weird way to get your kicks.

  6. "It’s fun to revisit seven-year-old claims against a targeted pol!"

    Not nearly as much fun as revisiting and even embellishing sixteen year old claims a targeted TV talker almost got somebody killed.

    But don't get me started or I might blame those nasty Bill Bradley supporters for their underhanded complicity in all this,

    1. Would you at least admit Matthews was extremely irresponsible in using national network cable airtime to charge President Clinton, more to the point those doing his bidding, had gone as far as threateningly stalking a woman and even killing her dog. It got to the point where a deranged maniac was caught persuing one of those supposedly involved.

      I recall that era well, I haven't seen another example of someone clearly on the take as Matthews was for right wing mogul Jack Welch. Now he's obviously your boy.

    2. Bill Bradley campaign, Bill Bradley supporters -- it's all the same when you're trying to slay your strawSomerby right 4:48?

    3. "Now he's obviously your boy"

      No. But neither is the goofiest hypocrite in the vanity blogworld nor those in his fan club who cannot understand the difference between criticizing a blogger and embracing those he criticizes.

      Oh, and since you are that dumb, Bradley and his supporters, who Somerby dragged out this
      week from 15 years of slumber, are not and were not my guys either.

    4. @ 6:50 I would not connect Somerby to the word straw. Otherwise Bob might be accused of rambling about a key to find out who took the strawbradleys.

      To refresh your memory, just Saturday Somerby wailed forth with this gem:

      "In 1999 and 2000, Bradley supporters let Candidate Gore get slimed in remarkable ways. Indeed, by December 1999, the Bradley campaign was playing an active role in creating the mainstream press corps’ bogus claims against Gore. (Al Gore introduced the American people to Willie Horton!)"

  7. Bob, of course, wants to use this as an example of why we should revisit the damage done to Gore 20 years ago.

    It should also serve as an example of politicians who don't learn anything about exaggerating from those who got burned in the past.

    But what does my view matter? I was dead broke seven years ago and only use my personal tablet at work as a matter of convenience so my blog commentary does not take needed space on the boss lady's busy server.

  8. Chozick brings up a claim Clinton didn't make in order to present her as a liar and trolls here want to claim that Somerby is therefore never permitted to talk about the past?

    1. "Also, women are paid 77 cents on the dollar for doing the same work! Obama said it." Bob Somerby

      On Sunday, April 29, 2012, Maddow had appeared on Meet the Press. She had repeatedly made the standard presentation, saying that women are paid 77 cents on the dollar, as compared to men, for doing “the exact same work.”

      Maddow was challenged by Alex Castellanos, who said her claim was wrong."

      These two quotes show Bob Somerby just making up a fact.
      Novelizing statements that were never made.

      "Trolls" perhaps wonder what beef Somerby has with someone he claims what he did here. Or so they seem to say. Or maybe suggest. We just don't know.


      MADDOW (4/29/12): The Romney campaign wants to talk about women and the economy. The— Women in this country still make 77 cents on the dollar for what men make.

      CASTELLANOS (continuing directly from above): (Unintelligible interjection)

      MADDOW: Women don't make less than men?

      CASTELLANOS: Actually, if you start looking at the numbers, Rachel, there are lots of reasons for that.

      MADDOW: Wait, wait, no, don't tell me the reasons. Do women make less than men for doing the same work?

      CASTELLANOS: Actually, no, because—

      REP. RODGERS (R-WA): Not for the same work.

      MADDOW: Wow! OK. Well, we're working from different facts!

    3. We will ask you the same question, hardindr.

      Do women make less than men for doing the same work?

      We'll warn you it is a trick question.

    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    5. Yes, but not by 33 cents on the dollar.

      "Women make an average of 9 percent less than men, even when studies consider education level, job experience and years in the workforce. There are many theories as to why this gap still exists."

    6. Maddow asked a question and Castellano was wrong. Women who do the same work, according to your analysis get 91 cents on the dollar for doing the same work with equal education and experience.

      That has nothing to do with Somerby putting words in Maddow's mouth, or Obama's either for that matter. And women who work full time do earn 78 cents on the dollar (we've come a long way since 2014, baby!) compared to men on average. Which is all Maddow got out of her mouth before she was interrupted,

      You blogger Somerby is prone to telling you what people don't say. When that isn't good enough he adds things they didn't say.


  9. “Hillary’s email defense is laughable”
    So says Dan Metcalfe, a Democrat who served for more than a quarter-century as founding director of the Justice Department’s Office of Information and Privacy and, as such, was the federal government’s chief information-disclosure “guru.”

    The link clearly explains why Hillary's defense is laughable. The Times should be doubly faulted. They provided a nonsensical explanation of her alleged lies. But, they failed to present a straightforward description of what she actually did, why it was wrong, and why it was different from what Colin Powell did.

    1. Unfortunately he said it was different from what Colin Powell "appears" to have done.

      But otherwise it was a very informative article at Politico.
      Thanks for the link.

      While there I noticed an equally informative piece from Nikole
      Hannah-Jones, whose excellent article on Tuscaloosa schools sent Somerby into a spring swoon a year ago.


  10. Did cicero take St, Patrick's Day off?

  11. Hillary Clinton used the same e-mail system as all previous
    SOS. The new system, a reaction to Wikileaks, came in when She
    had been out of Office for two years.

    So, there is, and to sane people of good will anywhere, there can
    be, no scandal.

    The fact that a conservative who likes to cloak his insane, foolish
    partisanship in an effected reasonableness like David in Ca is
    going all the way with this is probably a good sign. And the fact
    that he is joined by "left" types like the Newshour's goofy Mark
    Shields is a good sign as well. Get the fake scandals going early,
    ye screw heads, but you better hope for a second Monica.

    Don't think a lot of people didn't notice this addiction of
    the serious drove us right into 9-11 last time. Hill's demeanor
    at the Press conference suggests She well knows this, and
    how these things play out. David, you better find yourself
    another Monica, it's latter than you think.

  12. OMG !!,I am out here to spreed this good news to the entire world on how I got my ex husband back. My name is Natasha Johnson,i live in Florida,USA,and I'm happily married to a lovely and caring husband ,with three kids. A very big problem occurred in my family seven months ago,between me and my husband .so terrible that he took the case to court for a divorce.he said that he never wanted to stay with me again,and that he didn't love me anymore.So he packed out of the house and made me and my children passed through severe pain. I tried all my possible means to get him back,after much begging,but all to no avail.and he confirmed it that he has made his decision,and he never wanted to see me again. So on one evening,as i was coming back from work,i met an old friend of mine who asked of my husband .So i explained every thing to him,so he told me that the only way i can get my husband back,is to visit a spell caster,because it has really worked for him too.So i never believed in spell,but i had no other choice,than to follow his advice. Then he gave me the email address of the spell caster whom he visited.{}. So the next morning,i sent a mail to the address he gave to me,and the spell caster assured me that i will get my husband back the next day.What an amazing statement!! I never believed,so he spoke with me,and told me everything that i need to do. Then the next morning, So surprisingly, my husband who didn't call me for the past seven {7}months,gave me a call to inform me that he was coming back.So Amazing!! So that was how he came back that same day,with lots of love and joy,and he apologized for his mistake,and for the pain he caused me and my children. Then from that day,our relationship was now stronger than how it were before,by the help of a spell caster. So, i will advice you out there to kindly visit the same website {},if you are in any condition like this,or you have any problem related to "bringing your ex back. So thanks to the Dr Brave for bringing back my husband ,and brought great joy to my family once again. { }, Thanks..