Gotta love it

doc

Active member
Bernstein: Hillary Sniper Lie Watershed


Wednesday, March 26, 2008 12:28 PM

By: Newsmax Staff Article Font Size
Hillary Clinton’s misstatement about her 1996 visit to Bosnia is a “watershed event” that Carl Bernstein says reaffirms what he wrote in his Hillary biography — that she “has always had a difficult relationship with the truth.”
Clinton admitted that she "misspoke" last week when she said that as first lady she had landed under sniper fire during the Bosnia trip.
In a Bernstein article that appears on the blog of CNN anchor Anderson Cooper, he quotes from “A Woman in Charge,” his 2007 Clinton bio:
“She has often chosen to obfuscate, omit, and avoid. It is an understatement by now that she has been known to apprehend truths about herself and the events of her life that others do not exactly share…
“Almost always, something holds her back from telling the whole story, as if she doesn’t trust the reader, listener, friend, interviewer, constituent — or perhaps herself — to understand the true significance of events.”
Bernstein writes on Cooper’s blog: “The Bosnian episode is a watershed event, because it indelibly brings to mind so many examples of this tendency — from the White House years and, worse, from Hillary Clinton’s take-no-prisoners presidential campaign. Her record as a public person is replete with ‘misstatements’ and elisions and retracted and redacted and revoked assertions.”
Hillary’s misstatement about Bosnia conjures up “another famous instance of faulty recollection,” Bernstein writes.
In January 1995, Hillary had just published her book “It Takes a Village,” which according to Bernstein was intended to redeem Clinton after, among other things, the failure of her healthcare program, Whitewater, and the Travel Office firings she ordered but denied ordering.
On her book tour, she was asked on National Public Radio about the discovery that week of “missing” billing records related to the Whitewater affair. Clinton said she had disclosed all relevant documents related to Whitewater, including “every document we had,” to the New York Times before the newspaper ran its original Whitewater story during Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign.
“Even her closest aides — as in the case of the Bosnian episode 18 years later — could not imagine what possessed her to say such a thing,” Bernstein observes.
“It was simply not true … The White House was forced — once again — to acknowledge the first lady had been ‘mistaken’ … and Times columnist Bill Safire that month coined the memorable characterization of Hillary Clinton as a ‘congenital liar.’”
Bernstein again quotes from his book: “Almost always, Hillary has stood for good things. Yet there is a disconnect between her convictions and her words and actions. This is where Hillary disappoints. But the jury remains out. She still has time to prove her case, to effectuate those things that make her special, not fear them or camouflage them.”
Bernstein concludes: “The jury — armed with definitive evidence like the CBS tape of Hillary Clinton’s Bosnian adventure — seems on the verge of returning a negative verdict on her candidacy.”
 
I can never understand why a person with such high profile would do this or make such a claim. Surely they know that every one will be checking every bit of Newsreel looking for the incident and if it had not taken place then they would look foolish to say the least
 
Its just funny to see on the news shes so serious when shes talkin about the sniper fire she encountered and then they show her takin her sweet time waving as she actually exits the helo.

If your the 1st lady you should know better the camera is ALWAYS watchin you lol.
 
As TOG said, ALL POLITICANS LIE.

At least nobody died because of this. We are still paying 4000+ lives and $600 Billion spent compared to the lies told 5 years ago
 
As TOG said, ALL POLITICANS LIE.

At least nobody died because of this. We are still paying 4000+ lives and $600 Billion spent compared to the lies told 5 years ago

I find this a rather sad way to once again platform your political beliefs and disgust with the war. I don't mean to jump on you, I really don't.

But you're an adult, and obviously a very educated one - I always enjoy your posts (when you're NOT pulling this nonsense out of your butt, LOL). We don't argue red herring fallacies, mmarsh. You're way better than that.

Iraq may have been had lies attached to it, yes. In fact, correct me if I am wrong, Cheney all-but admitted to profiteering, yes?

But, wait, what's this I see? Hillary's name on the same exact piece of paper sending us to Iraq as George Bush's and Dick Cheney's? So not only is she a liar -- a bald-faced liar that covered the lie with more lies (misspeak, mmm hmm, yeah right) -- she's fully a hypocrite. Or just too stupid to know what she was signing. So you choose: Stupid or liar and a hypocrite? All 3, IMO.

Now that I am done taunting you for a third time (your mother still smells of elderberries)...

Yes, all politicians lie. When one is caught in a lie, changing the conversation to another politician's lie is blatant red herring to change the subject. "Oh, I know my son hit your son, but your son started a fight 5 years ago!"

Let's not do that, bro - that's way too much like mainstream media bias.

Leave the blame where it lies (heh, pun intended, bro). Hillary is a liar and a hypocrite. All proven. I am NOT a GW fan, but this country is doomed if that b!tch gets into office. Doomed. I'll be headed to Australia.

Again, not laying into to you - not meaning to, at any rate, and I'd ask you accept my admonishment as the friendly banter and correction back to reality it is meant to be. I like you. You have conviction, a trait sadly lacking in many so-called men today... and people in general. I appreciate that conviction.

But not every place is the soapbox. You and I both would do well to try and remember that a bit more, don't you think?

:cheers:

EDIT: Forgot the toasting smiley
 
Last edited:
But, wait, what's this I see? Hillary's name on the same exact piece of paper sending us to Iraq as George Bush's and Dick Cheney's? So not only is she a liar -- a bald-faced liar that covered the lie with more lies (misspeak, mmm hmm, yeah right) -- she's fully a hypocrite. Or just too stupid to know what she was signing. So you choose: Stupid or liar and a hypocrite? All 3, IMO.

So you are saying that the victims of fraud are as guilty as the perpetrators?

I hear a lot of this "but they voted for the invasion of Iraq now they have jumped ship" argument and it intrigues me as to how it stands up given the majority that jumped ship jumped once it became apparent that the data they made their decision on was dodgy at best.
 
So you are saying that the victims of fraud are as guilty as the perpetrators?

I hear a lot of this "but they voted for the invasion of Iraq now they have jumped ship" argument and it intrigues me as to how it stands up given the majority that jumped ship jumped once it became apparent that the data they made their decision on was dodgy at best.

Source? Cause she stuck with it for a full two years - her denouncement, coincidentally :roll: came just 6 months before she stated she'd run for the presidency if given the chance.

Please.
 
Source? Cause she stuck with it for a full two years - her denouncement, coincidentally :roll: came just 6 months before she stated she'd run for the presidency if given the chance.

Please.

I am talking about the argument in general not the individual, there seems to be a theory that if you vote for something once you are wrong to change your vote even if the data you used to form your opinion in the first place turns out to be wrong.
 
AZ_infantry

What I said happens to be true, all politicians lie, even the good ones. McCain has been caught in fibs and flip-flops too. I mean McCain wasn't completely forthright about his dealings with lobbyists.

The point I am trying to make is that Hillary's fib had no actual damage to the country while we continue to pay for lies we were told 5 years ago. So why are people getting all worked up about Hillary when they are absolutely silent (either by being too embarrassed or living in denial) about the fact they were conned about the Iraq war? Sounds extremely inconsistent to me.

If you want really want to slam Hillary that do so on the issues that matter, like how shes voted as a senator the past 6 years. Her support for the Iraq war and pathetic attempt to rewrite her role for it are a much better reason for voting against Hillary than this.
 
I'm going to continue bringing up Bush as long as every lie Hilary has told in her life (including stealing a cookie in 2nd grade or something like that, at the rate this is going) continues to be treaded like a criminal offense.
 
I am talking about the argument in general not the individual, there seems to be a theory that if you vote for something once you are wrong to change your vote even if the data you used to form your opinion in the first place turns out to be wrong.

It isn't the fact she changed her vote. It's the fact she outright denied ever supporting the war, when the first two years of it were sanctioned -- in part -- by her and her liberal cronies, CONVENIENTLY, once political positioning was at stake. Everyone flip-flops - even state supreme courts overturn sentences in light of new evidence; or in light of falsified evidence brought to light during the original trial.

I fully respect and support her right to change her mind. But what she's done is the equivalent of the sentence analogy above but claiming that she wasn't one of the ones that passed the original conviction.

In other words, she's claiming she has no blame, that's she's the purveyor of justice, the superhero who can get this country out of GW's mess - when, in fact, she refuses to even admit she was duped and part of the mess to begin with.

That doesn't sit with me.

There's being sorry that you did something wrong, and then there is being sorry you got CAUGHT for that wrong. Hillary is the posterchild of the latter, as she's always been, as she always will be. She is no president. She wants to be, but we don't elect presidents on race or gender. We elect them on a proven record of honesty, integrity, and the qualities that make this country the best nation on the planet. She wants elected for what's between her legs - it's been her ticket all along.
 
AZ_infantry

What I said happens to be true, all politicians lie, even the good ones. McCain has been caught in fibs and flip-flops too. I mean McCain wasn't completely forthright about his dealings with lobbyists.

The point I am trying to make is that Hillary's fib had no actual damage to the country while we continue to pay for lies we were told 5 years ago. So why are people getting all worked up about Hillary when they are absolutely silent (either by being too embarrassed or living in denial) about the fact they were conned about the Iraq war? Sounds extremely inconsistent to me.

If you want really want to slam Hillary that do so on the issues that matter, like how shes voted as a senator the past 6 years. Her support for the Iraq war and pathetic attempt to rewrite her role for it are a much better reason for voting against Hillary than this.

Hey, you'll get no argument from me, brother. McCain has been a RINO from the get-go (that's Republican In Name Only for anyone reading that doesn't recognize the acronym). I've lived in AZ all my life (37 years), and I've watched him turned both faces depending on the winning side - even indignant ones.

Let's face it, ANYONE elected this cycle is bad for this country. Everyone is busy asking, who's better than Bush? when what they SHOULD be asking is, where are we going to find a real leader for this country? 'Cause these three twits ain't it.

I respect McCain's character as a POW - as I'm sure we all do. But that doesn't make him a good politician.

The sheep in this country are led astray so easily, always looking at the wrong things. Being black, being a woman, being a POW, being atheist... NONE of these things makes a president. Period (no offense Hillary, lol). They are peripheals, platforms to sway the stupid.

You want an issue? Senator Clinton (D, New York) supports a nationwide ban on firearms. Look at NYC. She pushes a socialized health care system agenda. She fully supports capping capitalism.

Right there, sir. She's a communist. She has no business in any elected office in this country, period - and CERTAINLY not as the Commander In Chief of the world's most powerful and influential military force.
 
You make a fair point about McCains war record. I respect his service to his country and the 5 horrible years as a POW in North Korea but none of this has anything to do with being president.

As for Hillary I disagree with what you said.

1. Hillary is certainly pro-gun control (as am I) but she has never advocated a complete ban. This is something the right has imagined she said, but that she never actually said.

2. As for Healthcare, let me tell you, when I lived in NYC I was on the Oxford Plan for 7 years, and I have been on the French UHC system for the past 10 years. UHC wins hands down, its not even close. Let me tell you why, 2 months ago my Grandma had a minor stroke (she was lucky to have it while visiting her doctor by sheer coincidence). So after 2 Ambulance rides, 5 days in the Hospital, all tests, all medicine prescriptions do you have any idea what the cost was to her? ZERO. Thats no BS. UHC is such a better system, its not even close.And when politicans tell you different (with their baloney fears of BIG GOVERNMENT) its because they have been paid off, the HMO industry spends Millions in lobbying every year to insure UHC never becomes law, they actually spend more than the energy companies do, thats how scared they are. The US healthcare system is crap, run by some of the worst bunch of thugs who have used deplorable tactics to avoid paying out. (Like bribing Doctors into denying life-saving treatment that the HMO doesn't want to pay for). So on this issue I actually agree with Hillary about.

3. And for limiting Capitalism, I don't think you can say that about Hillary when she was a member of the board of directors of WAL-MART. She has had very close ties to big business, and she has always been an the side of big business. She worked for one of biggest corporate law-firms in America as a Senior partner. But I support limites on capitalism. Pure Capitalism and Pure Socialism both limit freedom. Look whats happened when government doesn't keep Big Business in check. You have global-monopolies, the suppression of both fair competition AND innovation, price-fixing, and worst of all Corruption at all levels. This current sub-prime mortgage mess is because the Government didn't bother to reign in predatory lenders. It also led the the disasters at Enron and Worldcom. So I absolutely support checks to Capitalism.
 
So the politicains are afraid of BIG GOVERNMENT. Which is run by politicians. Makes sense... :roll:

We ran the 2004 election on service records. John Kerry's supposedly tainted one (which wasn't) and George Bush's lack of one. Why should this one be any different.
Socialized healthcare is a much better system than the current one.
As mmarsh said, Clinton banning firearms is a load of bull****.


(is it just me, or is Terrorist the new Communist?)
 
Last edited:
No, it's not just you. Terrorism is even better than Communism because unlike the Soviet Union, terrorism is an implacable threat that never collapses.

Usually I'm fairly libertarian, but I like the idea of a UHC system. I'd be willing to pay your medical bills, if you agree to pay mine.
 
Actually he was captured in North Vietnam.

Regardless of this or that I think this man is more qualified than the other two candidates currently.

This is why I think so.
Right now, the country is at a time of war. There is a need for a President who understands what war is. He's fought in one and he's been against war or deployment many times in his career. He's no chickenhawk. He's going to do what's necessary without haphazardly pulling out of Iraq or Afghanistan that will probably lead to more larger problems in the near future as well as the distant future.

It also seems like he's a very internationally minded person and I think there really needs to be more of this. The other two candidates may be about the same in this arena, though I'm not so sure about Hillary Clinton.

He's experienced and he's not afraid to go against fellow party members or his own party if he believes they're not doing the right thing. So he's got guts and the skill to survive in politics even when he stands more or less alone against his own party. Many politicians have stood against their own party and ended up in lame duck alley ahead of schedule (read: Noh Moo-hyeon). Obama doesn't have the experience to show us that he can pull off the same thing and Hillary... her rise was mainly by riding along side her husband. The majority of leaders who rose this way ended up being rather ineffective leaders (Benezir Bhutto, a stack load of Filipina Presidents and South Korean presidential candidate Park Gun-hye). They showed a lot of promise but when they took their seat, their weaknesses showed in flying colors.

Also, because the current President has been pretty darn conservative, I think the solution will be to elect a centrist, NOT a leftist President. McCain is about as centrist as you can get along with Joe Liberman.

He's not perfect but out of the candidates we got, I think he's the most fit to lead.

And I agree with the UHC thing being way better.
Basically from what I've seen the only countries that have worse healthcare than the US are 3rd world countries that don't even have enough money to properly pave their roads.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top