insomnia: Hillary campaign caught in a lie about her time in Bosnia.

Insomnia (

insomnia) wrote,
@ 2008-03-21 16:49:00

Hillary campaign caught in a lie about her time in Bosnia.
From Hillary Clinton's remarks at George Washington University, March 17, 2008.

"I certainly do remember that trip to Bosnia, and as Togo said, there was a saying around the White House that if a place was too small, too poor, or too dangerous, the president couldn't go, so send the First Lady. That’s where we went.

I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base. "

Wow. What a brave leader. You can only imagine what our soldiers would feel to have her be our next President.

Oh.. what's this?! Some video of that dangerous landing in Tuzla?

Roll the clip!

Wow. What a lying, manipulative phony. You can only imagine what our soldiers would feel to have her be our next President.

And if video wasn't enough, the Washington Post broke this story wide open today, by collecting numerous firsthand accounts of Mrs. Clinton's trip, and of the security situation in the area at the time.

Long story short -- It just never happened.

(Post a new comment)

	virginia_fell 2008-03-22 12:19 am UTC (link)
	....facepalms (Reply to this)

bord_du_rasoir
2008-03-22 12:28 am UTC (link)

I mean, she's obviously embellishing on the truth like she always does. I seriously doubt her description is accurate - that Bill sent her and Chelsea to the dangerous places he wouldn't dare go. I mean, wtf? That's just dumb & probably a joke. I mean, it's got to be a joke.

STILL, it's not like this video proves her statement false. She said that she had to be taken to a base after the sniper fire incident. It seems like the setting for this clip is a military base. I don't see an an absolute verifiable inconsistency with her story and this clip.

I'm turned off by the video-clip-as-attack-device in the wake of the Rev. Wright nonsense. I don't think it's fair, accurate, or the way we should be picking our political battles. I prefer the stuff that opposes this sort of behavior:

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	insomnia 2008-03-22 12:38 am UTC (link)
	She talked of her trip to Tuzla. That's what this was. The Washington Post broke this wide open today, bringing together all sorts of information that had never been public before. The event in question never happened. This isn't the use of video clips as "guilt by association". It's using it to clearly point out that she has repeatedly lied about this incident. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

bord_du_rasoir
2008-03-22 01:02 am UTC (link)

I read through the link and came upon the following:

UPDATE Friday 6:45 p.m.

Lissa Muscatine, who served as Hilary Clinton's chief speechwriter in 1996 and accompanied her on the Bosnia trip, feels that I have failed to provide a full picture of what took place. She gave me her "vivid recollections" of the arrival in Tuzla, which I quote below:

"I was on the plane with then First Lady Hillary Clinton for the trip from Germany into Bosnia in 1996. We were put on a C17-- a plane capable of steep ascents and descents -- precisely because we were flying into what was considered a combat zone. We were issued flak jackets for the final leg because of possible sniper fire near Tuzla. As an additional precaution, the First Lady and Chelsea were moved to the armored cockpit for the descent into Tuzla. We were told that a welcoming ceremony on the tarmac might be canceled because of sniper fire in the hills surrounding the air strip. From Tuzla, Hillary flew to two outposts in Bosnia with gunships escorting her helicopter."

I just don't feel this is a story to get excited over. To get excited over it without the context is the same sort of BS as anti-Obama people who start creaming their pants when they hear the word, madrasah, or see thirty seconds of a Rev. Wright speech, or hear that Obama uses the phrase, "typical white woman":

Obama supporters should be better than that. We should wait for the facts to come out and we should listen to the context before we start creaming our pants.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	insomnia 2008-03-22 03:41 am UTC (link)
	The update from Mrs. Muscatine was a complete cop-out, though. It failed to address any of the claims she made. Specifically, Clinton did not land "under sniper fire". There WAS a greeting ceremony at the airport. She did not run with her head down to a vehicle to get into the base. I think it's fair to ask why her memory of this contradicts the facts. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

bord_du_rasoir
2008-03-22 04:08 am UTC (link)

Well, what the Muscatine comment does for me is explain the context of Hillary Clinton's corruption of the events. Maybe at one point in Bosnia there was an event where Hillary was told to and did run with her head down to get into a vehicle. Memory is reconstructive. Hillary is 60. She's recalling events from 12 years ago with a perhaps sensationalistic, self-aggrandizing, inaccurate twist. She can certainly be called out on her wrongness, but this doesn't make me flush with OMG LIAR LIAR.

What I'm more interested in is the big questions: WHAT EXPERIENCE? WHAT ACCOMPLISHMENTS? WHAT SOLUTIONS? Her recently-released records reveal nothing significant after the 1994 healthcare failure. Now, she was instrumental in SCHIP's passing in 1997, for which she deserves credit. I mean, that is something. But, as a Congressperson, what significant legislation is she responsible for?

• Extending a period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11
• Paying for city projects in response to 9/11
• Assisting landmine victims in other countries
• Assisting family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care
• Designating part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the Wilderness Preservation System

That just isn't a record of a person continually repeating EXPERIENCE.

But, I suppose this kind of "gotcha" stuff is what drives media coverage and keeps people paying attention.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

swingland
2008-03-22 03:45 pm UTC (link)

Just vote for Clinton already and shut the fuck up. This retarded shit of arguing whether or not a candidate lied is ridiculous. It doesn't matter if you have skyscrapers worth of documents and video definitively showing A, if you support Candidate B, you're going to see C and if you're supporting Candidate D, you're going to see E. No one sees A. So bantering about it ad-nauseum just makes you look like an asshole.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

bord_du_rasoir
2008-03-22 04:33 pm UTC (link)

I support Obama BECAUSE I reject "gotcha" politics - BECAUSE a rejection of this sort of politics is a large part of his candidacy.

"This retarded shit of arguing whether or not a candidate lied is ridiculous."

The truth is ridiculous? Who cares about the truth?

Supporting Obama and treating "gotcha" politics with due fair-minded consideration is the only consistent position to take.

If I don't make this argument, if I don't attempt to see the world with a fair mind, I accept the politics that breeds division, conflict and cynicism. I buy into the next distraction. I don't support Obama politics; I support Clinton politics.

"For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism....

We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change."

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

swingland
2008-03-22 04:59 pm UTC (link)

YOU can do whatever you want. What I say is merely a suggestion. I really don't care who you support. Maybe someone reading does. Maybe you arguing against yourself will be so compelling and riveting as to grab their attention and change their view of the world.

I support Obama BECAUSE I reject "gotcha" politics - BECAUSE a rejection of this sort of politics is a large part of his candidacy.

All I have been seeing since the election campaigns have started is "gotcha" politics. I really don't know if there is another brand to be found in the US.

Ever read 48 Laws of Power? Draw alot from Macchiavelli, Sun Tzu, and Cesar Borgia. Not to waste your time, but this "I am not 'gotcha' politics' is a classic trick employed many successful politicians. It's the "I'm not a part of this (while being apart of it)" statement.

Show me one good successful politician and I'll show you one good con-artist.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

insomnia
2008-03-22 08:46 pm UTC (link)

I think part of the issue is that it's really hard to differentiate "gotcha" politics from holding politicians accountable for their word, much of the time.

I think it's very important to have politicians that are as truthful as possible, and I think that the ramifications of not having trust in politicians and what they tell you are very evident after the Bush administration.

As such, deceptions, evasions, gross exaggerations... all of them are fair game and must be aggressively targeted, because otherwise you can't count on such leaders providing you accurate information to make informed decisions. And that, ultimately, short-circuits democracy and invariably leads to gross violations of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, if not outright acts of tyranny.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

swingland
2008-03-23 02:34 am UTC (link)

the "YOU can do whatever you want" wasn't meant to be condescending. If it came off that way, I apologize. I really am happy to have people DOING something.

Politicians are held accountable all the time. Invariably, its not so much the accountability as how much people are willing to pay attention to that accountability. I have seen countless people vehemently defend Bush's Iraq invasion, to this day, despite the Pentagon's full disclosure that Iraq probably did not have WMDs and probably didn't have strong connections to Al-Qaida. The biggest problem of all isn't the politicians, its the people voting for them (or alternately not voting at all).

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	lafinjack 2008-03-22 01:59 am UTC (link)
	(Reply to this)

john_of_arabia
2008-03-22 03:37 am UTC (link)

Holy CRAP I hate that lying piece of shit. When I was in Tikrit, with almost a thousand other New York Army National Guardsmen, she stayed in the Green Zone and Sen. Corazine from NJ came up there to visit his 200 or so troops from NJ.

Way to support your constituants. What a jackass. I can't wait until she tells how she disarmed a fucking IED that was strapped to a 4 year old who had been crippled by US airstrikes.

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	insomnia 2008-03-22 03:51 am UTC (link)
	Well, unlike Hillary, Corzine was a Marine Corps reservist sargeant. But yeah... not exactly all that honorable. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	Burning Bush dexterx 2008-03-22 11:43 am UTC (link)
	It did happen in her ego driven made mind and after all perception, even when so distorted, is reality to some. It is the same scenario/disturbed mindset as WOMD and the invasion of Iraq. She, and her husband are pretty much as honest as Bush. (Reply to this)

	swingland 2008-03-22 03:46 pm UTC (link)
	You know, in the old videos, it always looks like Hillary Clinton is a sincere and honest woman. When you look into her eyes as she hugs a Serbian child, you almost feel like she is really there to offer as much humanitarian aid as possible. Look into her eyes now, on any news channel or photograph. It's like you see a completely different woman. What the fuck happened? (Reply to this)(Thread)

insomnia
2008-03-22 05:06 pm UTC (link)

The simple truth is that her record shows numerous decisions from when she was a lawyer, a boardmember for Walmart, the First Lady, and now, a senator, where she expresses public acts of compassion alongside somewhat private acts of betrayal for the people she claims to care about.

It's striking as far as the contrasts at times, because she so clearly has taken political actions that run directly contrary to her public acts of compassion. Like on NAFTA, for example, where we now know she spoke out for its passage, or in this video, where she praises Heather Mills' efforts to get rid of landmines, while personally supporting the continued use of both landmines and cluster bombs.

And of course, she supports women who are sexually manipulated, abused or victimized... unless they're abused by her husband.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

kayay
2008-03-26 09:00 pm UTC (link)

Ah politics, where you can lie and people don't hold it against you. I'll just quote something as my comment.

The most common modern sense of "misspeak" is in the US, where it has developed two meanings since the late 19th Century - to speak unclearly or to fail to tell the whole truth, says Mr Simpson. And it crossed the Atlantic in the mid 20th Century. [...]

It's no accident that politicians have grasped for this phrase, says Cormac McKeown, one of the editors of Collins English Dictionary. They often do so when they don't want to say they told a deliberate untruth. "It can mean to fluff one's lines, like an actor would, but it can also mean to speak erroneously or hastily without thinking, without giving it proper thought, so Clinton is relying on this ambiguity between the two meanings because then she can't really be proved wrong. "So if pressed she might say she was referring to the second meaning but she's hoping the first meaning carries through in people's minds." [...]

"She's redefining telling the truth because 'misspeaking' is a euphemism for not telling the truth. It's the language of bamboozling, which US politicians and the US military love and get away with." *

(Reply to this)

	bord_du_rasoir 2008-03-27 03:59 am UTC (link)
	Okay, I concede. I wanted to play fair, but the following video is just too damning. She is, indeed, a repeated liar, it seems. To give her the benefit of the doubt after all that, I think I would have to be denying the truth myself. (Reply to this)

Mini Sitemap:

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…