I was disappointed to see The New York Times, among other media outlets, accept the idea that Hillary Clinton “misspoke” and/or made a “misstatement” when she grossly exaggerated — essentially, invented — the story about her perilous trip to Bosnia. The Times even likened it to John McCain’s recent Sunni/Shia mix-up. A “misstatement” implies an accidental error, and Hillary herself has even blamed her error on sleep deprivation.
But is it a misstatement when you repeat it over and over and over again over a period of months? And as the Washington Post pointed out, when the comedian Sinbad — who accompanied her on the 1996 trip — challenged Hillary’s account …
… she upped the ante and injected even more drama into the story. In a speech earlier this week, she talked about “landing under sniper fire” and running for safety with “our heads down.”
This isn’t a misstatement. This is a lie.
Posts Tagged ‘Hillary Clinton’
Hillary Clinton has been forced to retract a claim that she landed under sniper fire in Bosnia 12 years ago after a CBS video emerged contradicting her account, Hannah Strange writes.
The former First Lady was attacked by Barack Obama for exaggerating her role in foreign policy-making during her husband’s presidency, which she has frequently asserted makes her more qualified to lead than her Democratic rival.
During a speech on Iraq last week, Mrs Clinton said of the March 1996 trip: “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.”
But the video of her arrival shows Mrs Clinton and her daughter Chelsea smiling and waving as they walked at a leisurely pace across the tarmac from a cargo plane, stopping to shake hands with Bosnia’s acting president and listen while an 8-year-old girl read out a poem.
“You know, I think that, a minor blip, you know, if I said something that, you know, I say a lot of things – millions of words a day – so if I misspoke, that was just a misstatement,” she (Hillary) said.
The extreme left-wing blog Thinkprogress resurrects the failed 2004 John Kerry campaign strategy in the President is indeed behaving like Herbert Hoover. Are they as wrong now as they were then? Lets look a look at how the extreme left-wing flock responds in the comments section:
#5 christopher wiwi Says:
March 16th, 2008 at 11:25 am
High unemploment,inflation,the dollar at or near all time lows and a WAR that is taking this country into a downward spiral and he does nothing.He must drink himself to sleep every night so he can fantasize about a WAR he can never win.
Lets take a look at each of the claims.
High inflation? US Inflation Dwindles to 0%.
The dollar at 1995 levels vs. the Japanese Yen. Whoa. Dollar vs. Yen back to Clinton levels.
In Iraq, the surge is working.
Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have vowed to raise taxes on the rich to help pay for their proposed spending proposals. How do they define “the rich?”
Obama and Clinton both promise to reverse Bush’s tax cuts for wealthier taxpayers, but the Democratic budget they’ll be voting for would allow income tax rates to go up on individuals making as little as $31,850 and couples earning $63,700 or more.
h/t to The Right of Wrong, who notes:
That’s a 12% tax increase for those in the that modest bracket. The definitions of wealthy are much more gray than the Democrats realize, or if they do, are simply lying. $50,000 in some places is a great deal of money, in others, it is not. This is the folly of the direct tax and the tax code in general. That’s going to be an extremely difficult hit to swallow.
h/t also to MVass who notes:
The Democratic candidates have marched across America saying they will only tax the rich. They have said that they will only affect big business. They have said that they will make America safer. All are great things. But the facts of their actions indicate they are lying if not confused.
In the Twilight’s Last Gleaming’s words, “The Left’s worst nightmare: The Truth.”
Herein lies the hypocrisy of the left. They want women and minorities (women are a majority, by the way) to have an extra edge over white males. Any time a woman or a non-white person shows some promise, they become the darlings of the liberal media. Unfortunately, the liberals have caused society to add an asterisk to any such candidate.
Liberals have already assumed that women and minorities have no chance of succeeding without the aid of welfare and Affirmative Action. When one does rise without such assistance, such as Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas did, the liberals do everything in their power to block that success. Without women and minorities being kept dependent on entitlement programs, the democrats would be out of power.
And thus the “Civil War” mentioned earlier.
The introduction of long-time activist Ralph Nader into the mix is having an effect on the race, as he wins enough support to make a difference, the poll shows. . . In the McCain-Clinton-Nader match-up, McCain leads mainly because of a significant advantage among independents. Among those voters, he wins support from 45%, compared to 28% for Clinton and 15% for Nader. McCain wins 79% support from Republicans, while Clinton wins 75% support from Democrats. […]
In the McCain-Obama-Nader match-up, the independent candidate is having the same effect. Nader wins 15% support among political independents nationwide. Ideologically, Nader wins 18% support among progressives, and 12% among libertarians. He does less well among mainline conservatives and liberals compared to the match-up including Clinton.
From The US Daily:
How could this happen? How could the Democrats assemble two breakthrough contenders with luminous, inspiring resumes for an election in which they were prohibitive favorites, and by March be on the verge of bungling it so badly that at least five important political groups could be alienated from the Democrats for a generation? Nice job.
The first serious black contender for a major-party nomination against the first serious female contender for a major-party nomination, and no one is consigning them to oblivion because, as has been clear for more than a third of a century, the Democrats increasingly have become a party of blacks and women. What a moment.
And now, to spoil it all, the fight is so close, so emotional, so raw, that the very beauty of the thing could be destroyed as the two camps move toward the Pennsylvania primary next month and then to a death struggle in the weeks afterward. No one knows how it is going to get sorted out.
Because whatever happens, someone is going to be really, really upset, and every time that happens the party is affected, and punished, long beyond Election Day.
Make sure to read it.