Hey, kids, it's time for Part 3 of Jack Cashill's Clinton Derangement Syndrome epic at WorldNetDaily (we've gone through Part 1 and Part 2 already), portraying Curt Weldon has a victim of the Clinton Conspiracy. What did Cashill get wrong this time?
He starts off by dropping another reference to Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) as a "George Soros-funded watchdog group," again failing to mention that Richard Mellon Scaife has funded Judicial Watch to a much greater extent than Soros has funded CREW.
Cashill then asserted that during his 2006 interview with Fox News Sunday's Chris Wallace, Bill Clinton's mention of Weldon was "announced out of nowhere" when he stated: "A three-star admiral who was on my National Security Council staff, who also fought terror, by the way, is running for the seat of Curt Weldon in Pennsylvania." In fact, Clinton's mention of Weldon and his opponent was not "out of nowhere"; it was in the context of describing the military backgrounds of Democratic candidates running in the election. From the Wallace-Clinton interview:
WALLACE: And the White House, the Republicans want to make the American people afraid?
CLINTON: Of course they do. Of course they do. They want us to be -- they want another homeland security deal. And they want to make it about -- not about Iraq but about some other security issue, where, if we disagree with them, we are, by definition, imperiling the security of the country.
And it's a big load of hooey. We've got nine Iraq war veterans running for the House seats. We've got President Reagan's secretary of the Navy as the Democratic candidate for the Senate in Virginia. A three-star admiral, who was on my National Security Council staff, who also fought terror, by the way, is running for the seat of Curt Weldon in Pennsylvania.
We've got a huge military presence here in this campaign. And we just can't let them have some rhetorical device that puts us in a box we don't belong in.
That's their job. Their job is to beat us. I like that about Rove. But our job is not to let them get away with it. And if they don't, then we'll do fine.
Finally, Cashill called the ABC miniseries "The Path to 9/11" "an honest, if unflattering, account of events." Wrong; as we've detailed, conservatives loved the heck out of it because it contained fabricated scenes that made the Clinton administration look bad. Cashill must have a different definition of "honest" than the rest of us.
Cashill's got one more part left. Can he keep up the level of false and misleading claims? Stay tuned...