Letters to the Editor
-
xrandadu Hutman
"here is one article among many that mentions multiple instances of the "misspeaking":"
it doesn't. Note no quotation. Note how they don't say she made "the claim" or "same" claim but a "similar" claim. 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. The same is true for the Obama talking points (credit for at least citing that they are talking points). So again where are the "repeated" "multiple", "many times" references to taking sniper fire?
"Glad you will admit to "exaggerated."
always have. This is the difference. I criticize a candidate when they deserve it. And defend them when they don't.
"Nobody has denied that the other parts of the story were true. What purpose is served by "admitting" , etc., ?"
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. Nowhere do Obama recognize that the core of what she is implying--she felt the trip was possibly dangerous--has any possible truth. You "deny" it by ignoring it, deception by omission. Transparently so as even given those facts to respond to, none of you do. It's as if they can't exist. You are the only one to even acknowledge them and that is to say they don't matter. The purpose served is the honesty of the whole story, not just the parts that score your points. It's the same courtesy that should be lent to Obama on Wright. Do you think he should be judged based on the few snippets of sermons or on the "whole story"? It's the same thing. I lend Obama that respect/courtesy--I find that sorely lacking in yours and others' responses to Hillary.
"I'm not sure who has been saying that the entire story is made up out of "whole cloth. "
a) generally referring to it as the Balkans/Bosnia "lie"/"story", implying all she says about Bosnia is false when in fact most is true. And
b) several specific examples:
"told a long, detailed story that was not based on the facts"
"a fictional account of a trip to Bosnia"
"the whole account, and not a word of it was true"
"preposterous narrative of Bosnia"
"Making you exactly what you decry in Hillary, willing to say or do anything for your own ends."
Straw-man argument"
How? Obama people say she has "repeatedly" said she was under fire. But they have no evidence. They say her "whole account" is not true, when much is. They are lying, exaggerating, or incorrect. They accuse Hillary of lying. Ergo, they employ the same methods they allegedly decry. How is this a straw man?
"if she did lie it does reflect somewhat on her candidacy "
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. "More than" make up for his lie. So now that Hillary has said she misspoke you'll grant that she has more than made up for the "lie"?
"I'm trying to stay on-topic. This article is about Hillary Clinton in Bosnia. I consider your bringing it up to be a giant dodge of the Clinton issue, or a weak attempt at showing equivalence. Plus, I don't feel obligated to reply to every inane misdirection you pull out of your ass."
a) if the topic is lying, as you keep just said, then it is "on-topic".
b) why is it a weak attempt at equivalence? Because one is about an incident recalled from a dozen years ago and the other is about ongoing action?
c) pretty convenient not to feel obligated to respond to something that may crack the facade. d) "pulled out of your ass": well played. smooth, logical, insightful, substantive, yet kind of fizzy
e) since we're discussing "lying", not sure how it's inane misdirection
f) since my reference to Obama comes as 1-2 lines at the very close of 3-4 very lengthy posts, calling it a "giant dodge" is, dare I say it, a bit exaggerated
"based on pure speculation about what Obama might or might not have heard 5, 10, or 20 years ago"
unlike the pure speculation about what Hillary may or may not have been told 12 years ago? As for the substance of what Wright said, I have no complaints about it, nor do I think Obama should be held responsible for Wright's comments. If that's what you thought was the giant dodge, you misunderstand. My whole point in referring to Wright is simply that Obama lied about it and it seems a bit hypocritical to be screaming Hillary's a Liar! the same week Obama did the same (which I, by the way, didn't scream about)
"Obama has distanced himself from Wright"
In a truly politically manipulative way, just like any politician. When the disadvantage of being close to Wright outweighed the advantage. Wright himself says that discussed the forthcoming "distancing" a year ago. Making this distancing truly "Clintonian". Nothing wrong with this; it just means the whole "holier than thou" doesn't play quite as strongly
"Obama did not lie in any provable technical sense"
Well, at least we end on a line worthy of a Sinbad stand-up routine. I truly hope you were laughing as you wrote this. Just replace "Obama" with "Hillary" and honestly consider your response to this kind of line from a Hillary supporter. I rest my case on that alone.
Well, I don't think it's been tediously literal, but it is getting to the tedious level. so we'll agree to disagree as always. I'll see you in the next hot topic I'm sure (I'm leaving the most recent War room "Wright not my pastor" to you--those people are crazy ugly in there. Enter at your own risk)