Letters to the Editor
-
xrandadu Hutman
I forgot to mention there also remains some question as of today in the reporting as to whether the scheduled formal greeting was in fact canceled or not. Clearly there was some ceremony, clearly there isn't a sense of danger, but as far as has been reported, nobody has yet confirmed whether the scheduled ceremony went on as planned. Not that it matters, but if we're picking up hairs . . .
-
@billcap
billcap: "It is "largely" so if you, as you do, disingenuously/dishonestly only list the parts of her story you think are false."
You're really stretching here. Key parts of her story were false, and the total impression of the story was false.
You're being silly -- you're trying to award Clinton points because not all of her story was false.
billcap: "I've said repeatedly I think she exaggerated, but your post is sadly just more evidence of how thoughtless the whole thing has gotten..."
You know what's really thoughtless? The inability to call a lie a lie.
-- Hillary Clinton said that there was no ground ceremony. False.
-- Hillary Clinton said they ran ducking to their vehicles. False.
Then she attempted to claim she "misspoke," but if the words are right there in your prepared statement, written down on paper, it's not about misspeaking.
It is clear to me that in trying to tout her international experience, Clinton consciously chose to make her Bosnia trip sound as dangerous and impressive as possible. She took a true story, added falsehoods that sounded good, and ran with it, not thinking anybody would check.
I don't think it's as bad as Gary Hart or anything, but I also don't see any point in trying to pretend that lies aren't lies.
Nothing "disingenous" about that.
-
Mission Accomplished!
Ducking under sniper fire in Bosnia was Hillary Clinton's "Mission Accomplished" moment. One of her greatest lies, baring not only her craven desire but also her need to build herself up for the job of President. It's just like George W's swaggering - a false effort to make himself appear more manly than the dry-drunk-ex-cheerleader draft-dodger that he is. Hillary's faux-macho posturing reveals that she herself knows she lacks what it takes to be President.
-
xrandadu Hutman
"you're trying to award Clinton points because not all of her story was false."
And again, you're proving my point. What I list are simple facts. That's it. Independently confirmed realities. And in your hands, they become ways to "award Clinton points because not all of her story was false". This is exactly what I'm talking about. What I'm doing is presenting the whole story. You don't deny the reality of it, in fact, can't deny the reality of it, but you just deny that the reality should be presented. Nope. We're going to truncate the story so it best fits our agenda. It's as dishonest as cutting or splicing quotes to make something appear worse.
"you know what's really thoughtless? The inability to call a lie a lie"
You mean like when you all jump on the single instance of a change in speaking and call it a huge lie" without acknowledging anywhere that it's the first and only time she's said it that way? The way you all list the false parts of her story only but conveniently leave out all the independently confirmed parts? You mean like when Obama lied about Wright--did I miss your acknowledgment of that lie? A lie concerning events of the past year rather than events from over a decade ago? Like that?
"Hillary Clinton said that there was no ground ceremony. False"
But as I said, and as you, sadly now typically, ignore, there is some question as to whether the planned ceremony itself was canceled. So in remembering back 12 years, is it possible that if the planned ceremony was canceled that somehow she doesn't remember whatever ad hoc thing happened in the 10 minutes (or less) she got off perhaps her thousandth flight/meeting/ceremony? When you find evidence that they confirmed there was indeed a ceremony and then, then, said there wasn't, then you can call it a lie. Until then, you're left with you speculative bs. So we have two choice here
1) Hillary and the campaign researched whether or not there was a ceremony. They found there was in all of two- four hours. They then decided that nobody in this day or age would ever think of checking. They then decided that even if someone did check, if the campaign could find it in four hours, it would be completely impossible for anybody else to confirm there was such a ceremony in the months between now and the convention. So they decided to lie. Obviously it would go unchallenged. When does anything she say ever get scrutinized or fact-checked. Why, you'd have to be paranoid to think somebody might actually double-check.
or
2) Relying on her memory and maybe some conscious exaggeration, she told a story. She told the story hundreds of times. Once she said it wrong (and look at all you Obama ranters lining up by the way to prove me wrong on the number of times she said it that way. Still waiting. Been a week now. Still waiting). A few times she exaggerated more than usual. Turns out she was misremembering.
If it weren't Hillary, it'd be a no-brainer. But because it being Hillary makes too many of you actually remove your brains, it becomes something else.
" Hillary Clinton said they ran ducking to their vehicles. False."
"false" does not equal a lie. It only does here because it has to; otherwise Hillary isn't the big bad witch of the West (or Balkans). I have a friend who manages to put himself present at all our old high school exploits, mostly illegal ones. We have a good laugh about it when he leaves the room for another beer--"hey, does anybody not remember X being there then, cuz I don't". And yet we don't accuse him every time of "lying". Did she get moved to the front of the plane and told it was due to worry? Yes--confirmed. Was she told to put on a flak jacket due to worry? Yes, confirmed. Did the plane land steeply and quickly due to worry? Yes, confirmed. So what she remembers is a heightened sense of worry. Has she ever run someplace else due to security worries? I have no idea. Do you? Of course you don't. Could she be conflating events? I don't know. Do you? Of course you don't. Could she possibly simply not be remembering exactly correctly an event from a decade ago? I don't know. And neither do you. Do I think the only possible explanation is a purposeful lie? Of course not because that wouldn't be the only possible explanation for anybody else. It only is here because you all have to have it that way.
"I also don't see any point in trying to pretend that lies aren't lies."
So you're next posting will be calling Obama a liar for Wright?