Clinton lies about her Bosnia trip. - Page 3

BubbaBob · 03-30-08, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmilesAndFrowns

You had to skip out on meeting the little kids and shaking hands with people on the tar mat because of sniper fire...

Just what is a tar mat? The concrete area for planes at an airport is TARMAC.

BB

SmilesAndFrowns · 03-30-08, 09:54 PM

If you got what it meant, why do you point it out. You didnt have anything else better to post about.

Anyway, yeah she was pretty much trying to pull a fast one, but she got caught in the lie.

aps · 03-31-08, 06:18 AM

Frank Rich from the New York Times asks:

Quote:

Why did she keep repeating this whopper for nearly three months, well after it had been publicly debunked by journalists and eyewitnesses?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/30/opinion/30rich.html

He provides a rather detailed answer, pointing out how she was put on notice that her story was not true, yet she continued to state it. Who is THAT foolish? Does desperation cloud one's judgment that much?

Quote:

In January, after Senator Clinton first inserted the threat of “sniper fire” into her stump speech, Elizabeth Sullivan of The Cleveland Plain Dealer wrote that the story couldn’t be true because by the time of the first lady’s visit in March 1996, “the war was over.” Meredith Vieira asked Mrs. Clinton on the “Today” show why, if she was on the front lines, she took along a U.S.O. performer like Sinbad. Earlier this month, a week before Mrs. Clinton fatefully rearmed those snipers one time too many, Sinbad himself spoke up to The Washington Post: “I think the only ‘red phone’ moment was: Do we eat here or at the next place?”

Yet Mrs. Clinton was undeterred. She dismissed Sinbad as a “comedian” and recycled her fiction once more on St. Patrick’s Day. When Michael Dobbs fact-checked it for The Post last weekend and proclaimed it worthy of “four Pinocchios,” her campaign pushed back. The Clinton camp enforcer Howard Wolfson phoned in to “Morning Joe” on MSNBC Monday and truculently quoted a sheaf of news stories that he said supported her account. [So when called to her attention her inaccurate description, her campaign defended her words?]Only later that day, a full week after her speech, did he start to retreat, suggesting it was “ possible” she “misspoke” in the “most recent instance” of her retelling of her excellent Bosnia adventure.

Since Mrs. Clinton had told a similar story in previous instances, this was misleading at best. It was also dishonest to characterize what she had done as misspeaking — or as a result of sleep deprivation, as the candidate herself would soon assert. The Bosnia anecdote was part of her prepared remarks, scripted and vetted with her staff. Not that it mattered anymore. The self-inflicted damage had been done.

Curious George · 04-02-08, 04:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aps

Frank Rich from the New York Times asks:

He provides a rather detailed answer, pointing out how she was put on notice that her story was not true, yet she continued to state it. Who is THAT foolish? Does desperation cloud one's judgment that much?

That's crazy.

That's what gets me on the "misspoke" thing. Okay, I can get that you exaggerated a story once. It happens. Three or four times and it's just a lie (unless you're confusing it with a different, but still true, story- that's not the case). That she put on notice by others that her account was not true and she continued to tell the story baffles the hell out of me.