Narratives of the Left

The Left does not have a monopoly on distortion by any means, but it seems to be willing to play that game with a brazenness that would destroy the careers of most any conservative.  The false claims that Brian Williams served up reminded me of the barrage of falsehoods presented as fact to fit the story they want to tell.   And it's not a single incident-- it's a whole litany.   As a conservative writer and thinker, I am more that happy to argue with any progressive on fact and evidence.  But when narratives are simply MADE UP,  we conservatives end up spending more time refuting simple facts instead of having a substantive debate on issues.   When you string these incidents together, you see a disturbing pattern of many on the left that recount incidents as they would HAVE WANTED THEM TO OCCUR, not as they actually did occur.  Or, worse, as Barack Obama continues to do, put forth claims with absolutely no evidence to support them, and often with the knowledge that those claims are simply false.

• Hillary Clinton is the master at this.  She asserted that she came under fire on a tarmac in Bosnia and that was simply untrue.   Similarly, she asserted that she knew what it was to be flat broke, that the former first couple was deeply in debt and almost in penury when they left the White House.  While their balance sheet may not have been in great shape, Bill was capable of garnering a hefty income from his speaking engagements and Hillary received an $8 million advance from her book.  The Clintons have never missed a meal and probably never left the top 1% that is so reviled by the Left.
• "Hands up.  Don't Shoot."  This became the bumper sticker for the supposed epidemic of deaths of black youths at the hands of overzealous, racist white cops.  The trouble is, the Ferguson incident never happened that way.  It was pretty clear from the evidence that officer Darren Wilson was assaulted by Michael Brown and Wilson was duly acquitted by a grand jury.  Still the myth lived on in the media with the St. Louis Rams and other entertainers using that to make a statement.  There has been some research that shows some patterns of persistent racism (see, e.g. Marianne Bertrand and Sendhal Mullainathan on hiring), but that's where the debate should take place--on facts and defensible research--not on incidents that simply did not happen.
• Benghazi.  Susan Rice knowingly perpetrated a falsehood in the days after the Benghazi attack, putting forth the story that the attack was a reaction to a film, "Innocence of Muslims." We know that this simply  was not true, and that it was an attack planned and executed by Al Qaeda terrorists.  It was not spontaneous Muslim rage at this film.  Rice got it completely wrong (intentionally, I believe), yet holds the position of National Security Advisor.
• "Islam is woven into the fabric of our country since its founding."   That is the latest claim by President Obama in his over the top effort to detach Islam from the orgy of burning, beheading, raping and killing that is being perpetrated by some members of Islam in the Middle East and in Europe.   I must have missed that chapter in US history.   This is patently untrue.  Whether Barack Obama likes it or not, this is, and has been, principally a Judeo-Christian nation.  What makes this country special is that other faiths are tolerated and permitted to practice without any discrimination to speak of.   Yet to say Islam is woven into the fabric of this country is a patent falsehood.

In each case, we can have a discussion about the issue at hand--whether Hillary can empathize with the poor, whether and to what extend residual racism exists, whether Al Qaeda was truly on the run, and how extensive and pervasive is radical Islam in the Islamic faith.

Those are the real issues that need to be debated.  But it's hard to have an open and honest debate when you simply make stuff up.