Stumble This | You should also watch “The Many Faces Of Hillary Clinton (Daily Show)” |
Hillary went on a trip to Tuzla, Bosnia in 1996, and she says she faced sniper fire as her chopper was landing and while she ran to her car. Here's the true part: She DID go to Tuzla in 1996. The rest? Well, judge for yourself. More info here.
Joedirt just posted something similar as well. I suppose this one is the parody version, so maybe its still not considered a duplicate.
"reports of snipers in the hills, welcome cut short"
to
"no welcome, ran for cover"
This lie = 0.1 "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"
1 "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" = 0.00000001 Colin Powells with fake anthrax at the UN.
1 Colin Powell with fake antrax at the UN = 0.01 * "They hate us for our freedom."
any civilian without a serious memory ailment (did anybody say Alzheimer's?) would remember their first/only time they were under fire a LOT better than they'd like. this was a blatant lie to seem courageous in the public eye and I'm sorry but anybody who says otherwise is either also lying, or is misinformed, or worse, deluded.
She should have said she misspoke the second time she was asked, but give me a break, somebody get her on something substantive.
I don't have a TV, so I am wondering how the coverage of this compares to the incessant misquoting of Dr. Wright, at least this is about something the candidate said, even though it is apropos of nothing.
If the premise of your campaign is that your duties as first lady helped to make you the candidate of experience, then this kind of resume padding is important. Keep in mind that this is part of a pattern. She also exaggerated her role in Northern Ireland.
It's also important to remember that the bigger part of this screw up came in prepared remarks. So, this wasn't just said off the cuff (although she repeated her lies later while speaking extemporaneously).
I guess my take is that just because these criticisms aren't about any esoteric and wonkish details of her policies doesn't mean they aren't substantive. Rather, they go right to the center of what she's made the foundation of her campaign.
When you make experience the main talking point of your campaign and then parade before the public false examples of said experience, I'd say we have a substantive problem.
It's called dishonesty.
For more than a decade, Sen. Clinton’s informal biography repeated the story, and it was recounted in Bill Clinton’s 2004 autobiography, My Life.
The problem with the story, however, is one of timing. Sir Edmund became known to the world only in 1953, after becoming the first men to reach Everest’s summit. Sen. Clinton was born in 1947.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52477 (World Net Daily)
Senator Clinton finally issued a correction on the matter on March 17th.
GET TO THE CHOPPA!!!
Are you gonna contend that we don't have problems that can be directly attributed to the current occupant's utter and complete lack of honesty
Extremely well put
"If the premise of your campaign is that your duties as first lady helped to make you the candidate of experience, then this kind of resume padding is important.
I see that, I just don't associate having a false aggrandized memory with dishonesty.
It is entirely possible that she remembered the story she told, we just happen to have enough video of the event to disprove it. People do this all the time, all memories are actually memories of memories, with some noise creeping in every time you recall it. If she actually thought her version happened it would not make her crazy, or a lier, it would make her normal.
I think she is flailing, and grasping at straws in a desperate attempt to win the nomination despite the fact that she has basically already lost, but I don't really think this story is indicative of anything that has any real bearing on the substance of the campaign.
I might be willing to agree with you, were the subject matter not so extraordinary. Remember, we are talking about being shot at by a friggin sniper. I suspect most people would remember very clearly whether or not such an event took place at all, even if their memory failed them in the details. It strains credulity to think Clinton would be different in this regard.
"Remember, we are talking about being shot at by a friggin sniper.
This is not what I hear. She recalls being told to move out of an area due to the threat of sniper fire, no sound of bullets, no bodies falling by her side, just "it's not safe to be here, please get to your transport", that does not sound terribly memorable to me, and may have actually happened after the greetings caught on tape.
I am not asserting that she is unfailingly honest, I think there is ample evidence against such a position. I just don't see this being any sort of smoking gun.
No. That is somewhat like the account given in her book, where she is told about some sort of generalized threat of sniper fire (before she lands, I think). But a series of recent statements--remember, this "misstatement" has been repeated often in several different contexts--differ markedly. At one point while talking about this she actually insinuated that she had to shield the little girl with her body.
Again, feel free to give her the benefit of the doubt. Even I don't necessarily see this as a "smoking gun," as you put it. But the idea that it's not a substantive criticism--that it's somehow a distraction from real issues--seems bogus to me.
"remember, this "misstatement" has been repeated often in several different contexts--differ markedly. At one point while talking about this she actually insinuated that she had to shield the little girl with her body.
This vid has no such claim, and watching the others on the sift I saw nothing as extreme as you describe, I would appreciate a link, since from the videos I don't see it.
She's a liar, this is a smoking gun.
Even when she was first busted by Sinbad she tried to blow it off, it took video for her to admit that there wasn't a shred of truth to it. So, worse than just being a cowardly liar she tried to cover up her lies. Reminds me of some other people I know, they live in this big pale colored mansion.
>> :
I see that, I just don't associate having a false aggrandized memory with dishonesty.
Well now it's all clear. You don't know what dishonesty means. No wonder you like the Clintons.
not that i'm a hillary fan, it's just duh...
Well now it's all clear. You don't know what dishonesty means. No wonder you like the Clintons.
I am not so obtuse as to believe that memory, anybodies, is highly reliable. Your memory and my memory are an order of magnitude less reliable than video tape, we just don't notice since people are not following us around with cameras all the time.
There is a marked distinction between intentional distortion (dishonesty), and inaccurate memory (human grade memory). That distinction does matter. Most humans just don't want to deal with the simple fact that our brains are not very good at accurately recalling the past.
I don't like the Clintons, I just want Hill to go down for the things she did, not because Americans can't come to grips with the facts of neurobiology.