Letters to the Editor
-
@billcap
billcap: "well, yes, the various point being you weren't telling the whole story."
I told the part of the story where Clinton lied, but then again, there are accounts of the story all over the media now, and they all provide the full context, which still doesn't mitigate the "lying" part of the whole story.
billcap: "She got at least half the trip right--you know--the part you choose to ignore."
I didn't ignore anything. The point remains: If a person makes 5 true statements, then 2 false statements, those 5 true statements don't magically make the 2 false statements less false. Nor is there any dispute about them. The focus is on the 2 statements that are false. I have no obligation to discuss the other 5 statements because I am not contending that every part of the story was a lie, only that some parts were. The parts of the story that are true are irrelevant.
Clinton's false statements are pretty obviously exaggerations for effect (also known as "lying"). The motive? To make an element of her international experience sound more impressive by juicing up the story.