Letters to the Editor
-
2
billcap: "The purpose served is the honesty of the whole story, not just the parts that score your points."
It's not just about "scoring points," it's about Clinton presenting a partially false account of something. The parts of her story are true do not mitigate the parts of her story that are blatantly false. Why should they?
billcap: "It's the same courtesy that should be lent to Obama on Wright."
These are pretty different situations. One is a specific account of something that occurred, as contrasted with a video of Clinton present at the actual occurrence.
billcap: "Do you think he should be judged based on the few snippets of sermons or on the "whole story"?"
What's your point? We do have the whole story as presented by Clinton. And there isn't really a parallel here anyway. I know you would love to drag the Wright thing into this, but I think we should stick to the main subject, which is the question of whether Clinton lied or not.
billcap: "I lend Obama that respect/courtesy--I find that sorely lacking in yours and others' responses to Hillary."
When did you lend Obama any respect or courtesy? I must have missed it.
billcap: ""a fictional account of a trip to Bosnia" / "the whole account, and not a word of it was true" ... etc.
Where are you pulling these quotes from? Who are you quoting? You're not quoting me. I can't speak on behalf of what anybody else might have said or written -- especially not the phantoms whom you quote but don't attribute.
billcap: "Obama people say she has "repeatedly" said she was under fire."
Are you arguing with me, or arguing with phantoms? I haven't said that Clinton claimed she directly observed/heard sniper fire, but I did hear her repeatedly (in at least two YouTube videos, and in a few different news accounts) say that she ran, ducking, to a vehicle and that there was no greeting or ceremony upon arrival. Those are the facts that I'm working with when I say it looks to me like she got caught lying. If somebody else is making some other argument, then go talk to them. Don't reply to me based on what somebody else said.
billcap: " But they have no evidence. They say her "whole account" is not true, when much is."
"They, they, they...." Why don't you go argue with "they" instead of me, if you're so perturbed by what "they" are saying?
billcap: "If she lies, it's a reflection on her candidacy. But Obama can "make up for" his lie by telling the truth in a speech."
Your words, not mine. I do not think Obama lied to begin with. I do think his speech served to clarify his position -- spectacularly.
billcap: "So now that Hillary has said she misspoke you'll grant that she has more than made up for the "lie"?"
To answer your question specifically, I hardly think saying "I misspoke" makes up for "lying." When Bill Clinton wagged his finger at the camera, and in effect lied to the American public that he hadn't had sex with Monica Lewinsky, a few days later he had a public-service announcement in which he admitted, fully, that he had lied. Bill then explained that he lied because he felt it was a private matter and that Republicans were wrongly investigating him. To me, that did make up for his lie. If Bill had come out and said, "When I wagged my finger at the camera, I misspoke," then no, it wouldn't make up for it.