Letters to the Editor
-
Uncle Fester
"Second time I have pointed you to this video which contains a speech which contains remarks that were repeated. How are we misunderstanding her words?"
Uncle Fester, it has nothing to do with misunderstanding her words. Your link isn't evidence of anything save that she said it one time. You (not the video) say it was "repeated". But where is the evidence beyond you saying it? If you have evidence that she for several months kept repeating the story that she was running under actual fire, please share it. If you have evidence she repeated it for weeks or days, please share it (I'll cut some slack to the Obama people saying she said it for months and chalk it up to them "exaggerating"). If you do have the evidence, I'll be happy to say I was wrong. Otherwise, feel free to forget the incident after at least acknowledging that the Obama people yelling about her saying repeatedly that she says she took actual sniper fire are wrong (to be charitable, exaggerating to be slightly less so, and lying to be even less so). Lots of Obama people like throwing that line around, which is pretty ironic when they're using it to make a point about truth. They could just say she lied/exaggerated/wasn't right about the running and the ceremony, but that just doesn't sound good enough. But what's a little dishonesty to make a point, right? Unless, of course, your point is that one shouldn't be dishonest to make a point. As I said, a bit ironic.
-
Once or many
Ok, It wasn't clear to me from your post what exactly you are calling into question.
Here's two links to get started where people claim Hillary has repeated her 'story' of the Tuzla landing:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/03/hillarys_balkan_adventures_par.html
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Tuzla_in_Iowa.html
There's a ton of links out there, including some I consider less than definitive (such as DailyKos).
I also heard this on the Tube, but alas, have no link for that.
-
Uncle Fester
I appreciate that at least you're trying to offer up some evidence. But here again, if you read your links, there is only a mention of a single speech where she said there was actual fire. She has without a doubt repeated the story about Tuzla. But the whole Tuzla story isn't the argument. My objections to how it is raised by Obama people is twofold
1) as mentioned, it is very often raised by saying she says she suffered actual sniper fire. But, until proven otherwise, everything I've read on this shows that every time she's told the Tuzla story (let's say at least dozens of times), she referred to a "threat" of "potential" sniper fire, or "a warning" of "potential" sniper fire. Every time but one--the same one that keeps getting offered as "evidence" of her saying it "multiple times." If someone tells the same story dozens of times the same way except once, it seems pretty obvious that the one time is an aberration and probably an error. As said, if someone has evidence she's told that story more than once or twice that way, I'll agree that it's much less likely to be a simple mistake. One would think since this story has been out there now for two weeks, with the plethora of Hillary haters, video tools, search engines, etc., it wouldn't be too hard to find that evidence. That one speech certainly popped up pretty fast. But I'm still waiting.
2) my other objection is that Obama supporters repeatedly give the impression that her "whole" Bosnia story is one big lie or deception. Which is, of course, itself deceptive. Her Bosnia "story" runs from being on the plane to landing. The only part that she has repeatedly told that is clearly and completely false (and note that false does not necessitate lying) is that she was told to "run to the cars". The part she has repeatedly told that is clearly at least partially false is that the planned ceremony was moved indoors/canceled/decreased due to security concerns. I say at least partially because while there clearly was a greeting on the tarmac with the girl, the one single reference in actual reportage on this I've seen (reportage meaning an actual news article as opposed to a blog or editorial, etc) is that it was "unclear" if that girl was the actual planned ceremony, "unclear" if the "full" ceremony indeed took place (something about a group of 7th graders, some dignitary, blah blah blah), and it's been confirmed that she was told it might be canceled (which might muddy someone's memory). The parts of her story that are clearly true and have been confirmed are that
a) she was told to wear a flak jacket due to security concerns
b) she was moved to the front of the plane for security concerns
c) she was told that the ceremony might be canceled or changed
d) the plane made a steep, sharp "military" descent for security concerns
If Obama people want to say she lied about the landing, I think that's not the automatic they say it is, though I can live with their interpretation that way. What I find objectionable is their refusal to acknowledge that some (I'd say much) of her "story" is in fact true. Or that it's at least plausible that anybody in charge of the safety of the President's family might impart a greater sense of danger than actually existed and so she specifically would have had that sense more than anybody else on the flight (because honestly, who cares about them?). But mostly I find objectionable their refusal to acknowledge (barring any evidence to the contrary) that her reference to actual sniper fire was the exception, not the rule, of her story. It is the same sort of dishonesty they allegedly decry by pointing out her falsehoods on this story.
-
@Leslie Talbot
Leslie Talbot: "had, at any point in her life, referred to herself as a law school "Professor" only to have it revealed later that her actual position was "Senior Lecturer," the howls of righteous outrage from the Obama campaign would ring out from coast to coast: "Another lie!" "Serial exaggerator!" "She taught law while dodging sniper bullets, heh heh heh!" etc."
I consider myself an Obama supporter, and I can tell you that if this were an actual scenario, I wouldn't give a crap. I would consider it not worth making a fuss over because I would think it would make Obama supporters look petty and foolish. I would be embarrassed if the Obama campaign tried to make a big deal out of Hillary Clinton using a slightly inaccurate title representation in some of her literature. Maybe you should ask actual Obama supporters what they would do, instead of assuming what you think they'd do (or what you'd LIKE to think they'd do in order to make your own side look less ridiculous).