Letters to the Editor
-
Give me a break
billcap: "it doesn't. Note no quotation. Note how they don't say she made "the claim" or "same" claim but a "similar" claim."
What is your point? What's the difference if they wrote "similar" or "same"? Why do you need me to go fetch quotes from different articles when you can do a simple Google News search and find examples for yourself?
Here are more quotes since you seem to require them. This is from the story at the top of War Room. Context is given in the full story:
MARCH 17: Clinton: “There Was No Greeting Ceremony, And We Basically Were Told To Run To Our Cars. Now, That Is What Happened." [CNN, 3/17/08]
MARCH 17: Clinton, Speaking About Her Trip To Bosnia, Said "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 Vehicles To Get To Our Base." [Clinton speech (remarks as delivered), 3/17/08]
FEBRUARY 29: Clinton Said That The Welcoming Ceremony In Bosnia "Had To Be Moved Inside Because Of Sniper Fire." [NYT, 3/1/08] VIDEO
DECEMBER 29: Clinton [said] That When She Went To Bosnia, "We Landed In One Of Those Corkscrew Landings And Ran Out Because They Said There Might Be Sniper Fire."
billcap: "Perhaps, the same one cited in today's paper that I already quoted, that she remembers being told of "possible" sniper fire. Which is neither the same or similar, nor is it misspeaking."
That's great, but it's not the basis for saying she lied. Possible sniper fire, real sniper fire....either way, Clinton says they "ran" and "ducked" and there was no ceremony. You keep trying to misdirect to something else.
billcap: "So again where are the "repeated" "multiple", "many times" references to taking sniper fire?"
Clinton repeatedly made the claim that they ran out, ducked, went straight to their vehicles, and had no ceremony. She paints a picture of a dangerous, scary, action-movie type situation. The real situation, looking at the video, appears comparatively calm.
billcap: "always have. This is the difference. I criticize a candidate when they deserve it. And defend them when they don't."
I am sure you pat yourself on the back whenever you can. But you obviously have some sort of weird double-standard in this case.
billcap: "Again, disingenuous. They "deny" it by saying her "whole story" is "a lie", or as you do, that it is "largely" false, or by saying/implying that the whole idea she was told there was some danger is completely false."
You're getting hung up on the word "largely" in a self-serving manner, when I have already made it clear what I meant and was specifically referring to. You might try arguing with what I am actually saying, rather than making up phantoms to score points off of. I am also not speaking on behalf of any statements that anybody else might have made (and that you haven't established or quoted anybody else as having made).
billcap: "Nowhere do Obama recognize that the core of what she is implying--she felt the trip was possibly dangerous--has any possible truth."
We're not talking about possible implications, or feelings, we're talking about the facts of what she said.
billcap: "You "deny" it by ignoring it, deception by omission."
Uh-huh. More bullshit argument from you. Nothing is being omitted. I'm talking about the parts of Clinton's statements that are demonstrably false. The rest of the statements are not being disputed.
billcap: "Transparently so as even given those facts to respond to, none of you do. It's as if they can't exist."
I think you have succeeded in confusing yourself.