Letters to the Editor
-
@ billcap
While I never drank the Obama koolaid and agree that he is a mortal politician, I do get the idea that Clinton is a little more panicked in her lust for office -- this episode being an example.
I don't see how you can say "there was supposed to be a welcoming ceremony" and say it was canceled because of sniper fire when there is video of a welcoming ceremony -- unless you are pretty desperate. I'll agree that Obama may have implied that he didn't hear Wright say anything like the widely emailed services, and that this is unlikely. But: a) he was responding to an attack, not offering it up on his own; b) it was about what someone else said, not about what he did; and c) he has not made his relationship with Wright the linchpin of his campaign (others have done that).
-
Look at the bright side, Clinton supporters
Last week you were complaining about how little press attention Clinton got when she spoke at GW. Looks like that speech is getting *lots* of attention now.
-
Reality-based liberal
"I don't see how you can say "there was supposed to be a welcoming ceremony" and say it was canceled because of sniper fire when there is video of a welcoming ceremony -- "
I think you can say it by misremembering, misspeaking, and exaggerating. Again, if you take all of this out of the context of the campaign and just imagine the situation, is it all that hard to believe that those in charge of her imparted a greater sense of concern than was actually necessitated simply due to the fact that they were in charge of the President's family? Such as putting a jacket on her and moving her up to the front (two facts that have been confirmed) and probably telling her it was out of concern, when they probably didn't do that for anyone else? I find that scenario perfectly plausible. So I think the original "exaggerated sense of danger" probably came not from her but from those in charge of her 12 years ago. Then, like happens to every single one of us, and we all know if we're honest it happens to every single one of us, when we remember and retell such stories, they tend to grow in the telling, partially consciously and partially not. She has always been careful, in every instance I've seen it reported, to say she remembered people were "worried" about sniper fire. So when I hear her say once, a single time, (and again, if someone has evidence as keeps getting stated, that she's "repeated" this "many times" I'll concede the point), that there actually was sniper fire, I put that down to error and aberration, rather than the evil that resides within her dark, dark breast.
As for Obama, "I'll agree that Obama may have implied that he didn't hear Wright say anything like the widely emailed services". "Imply" is a funny word to use in this context if you're going to accuse Clinton of lying. He clearly and calculatedly tried to have people believe he was unaware of those type of statements from Wright. A purposeful deception to direct questions. Personally, I found it slightly disappointing and mostly confirmation that Obama isn't really all that "different" as a politician. But a major problem? No, not even close. But you can't scream about Clinton and Bosnia and defend Obama. At least, not in my book.
As I said, though, I find both "issues" about as trivial as one could get. War, Economy, and a pastor/Bosnia Fly-Over. Hmmm, let me think, which to focus on . . . which to focus on . . .
-
reality-based liberal/Brunhilde/etc
And just to note what I've been saying. Here is an example of how the press reports this
"Clinton has mentioned the sniper fire at least twice earlier in the campaign, including in December in Dubuque, Iowa, before the caucuses in that state: "We landed in one of those corkscrew landings and ran out because they said there might be sniper fire,"
So the "confirmation" that she "remembers" actual sniper fire is her recollection that people said there "might be" sniper fire. Obviously the two are not at all the same. If one of my high school/college students used that kind of "support" or "logic" in a paper, I'd ask if they were kidding and give them no credit.
So again: she tells the story dozens/hundreds of times and it's always that people said there was the "possibility" of sniper fire. She says once (and if the above is the "proof" that she's repeated it I think it's clear she hasn't) there was actual sniper fire, and rather than assume it's the aberration (cuz it's, you know, one example out of dozens/hundreds), let's all assume it's the real statement and report it that way and this way we can get the fur flying.
Democracy in action
-
@billcap
billcap: "So the "confirmation" that she "remembers" actual sniper fire is her recollection that people said there "might be" sniper fire. Obviously the two are not at all the same."
You're getting distracted here. The point is that Hillary's story is largely false. Hillary said she ran out ducking, the greeting ceremony was canceled, and she jumped into a vehicle and left.
This isn't just one case of Hillary misstating what happened. It was written into her notes.
-
xrandadu Hutman
"The point is that Hillary's story is largely false"
It is "largely" so if you, as you do, disingenuously/dishonestly only list the parts of her story you think are false. You don't, for instance, mention a quick/steep descent to avoid possible fire, which has been confirmed by a journalist there. You don't mention her being asked to put on a flak jacket, which has been confirmed. You don't mention her being moved to the front of the plane, which has been confirmed. And you don't have anybody coming forward to say she wasn't told there was the possibility of sniper fire. So at best, it's "partially" false, not wholly or largely. It's akin to saying Obama has done "nothing but lie" about his relationship with Wright, which is true if I selectively cite his first day or two of responses but selectively ignore his coming clean on being aware of Wright's statements. I've said repeatedly I think she exaggerated, but your post is sadly just more evidence of how thoughtless the whole thing (which was pretty thoughtless to start with) has gotten, and is also evidence of the hypocrisy of people yelling "deception" (or much worse) as they themselves deceive (either by out and out lies--still waiting for the evidence of "repeated" and "multiple times" or by omission, as you do), and further evidence of how common sense and courtesy completely get overridden by the desire to score points.
And thus it continues . . .