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.
-
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.