Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The Washington Post has the scoop on Hillary Clinton telling a ridiculous lie about a trip to Bosnia and coming under sniper fire and landing under "evasive maneuvers" and so forth. The truth is quite to the contrary. Here's what she had to say about it just last week:
"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 the vehicles to get to our base."
And here's the truth:
As a reporter who visited Bosnia soon after the December 1995 Dayton Peace agreement, I can attest that the physical risks were minimal during this period, particularly at a heavily fortified U.S. Air Force base, such as Tuzla. Contrary to the claims of Hillary Clinton and former Army secretary Togo West, Bosnia was not "too dangerous" a place for President Clinton to visit in early 1996. In fact, the first Clinton to visit the Tuzla Air Force base was not Hillary, but Bill, on January 13, 1996.Had Hillary Clinton's plane come "under sniper fire" in March 1996, we would certainly have heard about it long before now. Numerous reporters, including the Washington Post's John Pomfret, covered her trip. A review of nearly 100 news accounts of her visit shows that not a single newspaper or television station reported any security threat to the First Lady. "As a former AP wire service hack, I can safely say that it would have been in my lead had anything like that happened," said Pomfret.
According to Pomfret, the Tuzla airport was "one of the safest places in Bosnia" in March 1996, and "firmly under the control" of the 1st Armored Division.
Far from running to an airport building with their heads down, Clinton and her party were greeted on the tarmac by smiling U.S. and Bosnian officials. An eight-year-old Moslem girl, Emina Bicakcic, read a poem in English. An Associated Press photograph of the greeting ceremony, above, shows a smiling Clinton bending down to receive a kiss.
"There is peace now," Emina told Clinton, according to Pomfret's report in the Washington Post the following day, "because Mr. Clinton signed it. All this peace. I love it."
Sounds so....harrowing. How ever did she survive? Here's video of the ceremony that took place on her arrival. You might note the total absence of anyone running to their cars in fear and the lack of sniper fire.
Email this entry to a friend
View the Technorati Link Cosmos for this entry
Comments
Hillary Clinton not only disgraced herself with this lie; she brought disgrace on the entire Democratic Party, and singlehandedly reinforced the far right's image of Democrats as lightrweights and peacepussies who can't handle war-and-peace issues with any integrity. And as if that wasn't enough, she also put a huge spoodge-stain on Bill Clinton's military achievement in the Balkans, which Democrats need to compare with Bush's accomplishments in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Is Hillary working for Karl Rove? Does she have a self-destructive streak? This fiasco makes Eliot Spitzer look competent.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 25, 2008 10:24 AM
Is it really that big of a deal to get the details wrong on a trip that happened 12 years ago? Does it really bring "disgrace" onto the entire Democratic Party. Is this of any real importance?
Posted by: hardindr | March 25, 2008 10:46 AM
Ordinarily, no. But the Bosnia trip, along with the Irish peace accord, were claimed as an example of her experience and readiness over Obama. Both claims have debunked. In addition, Obama technically has three more years of legislative experience over her.
Posted by: jbcrail | March 25, 2008 10:58 AM
But the Bosnia trip, along with the Irish peace accord, were claimed as an example of her experience and readiness over Obama. Both claims have debunked.
I don't believe that the HRC's involvement with the Irish peace accord has been debunked. As Factcheck.org noted, "Figures close to the [Irish] negotiations are split in their assessments [on HRC's role]." You can read more about Clinton's claims about foreign policy experience on a recent NPR report.
Personally, I think that HRC has more foreign policy experience than Obama, but I don't think it matters all that much.
Posted by: hardindr | March 25, 2008 11:09 AM
How does having once been under fire during a diplomatic mission confer experience in achieving diplomatic success, anyway?
By that standard, the Secret Service agents or military guards in the retinue could make equal claims to experience.
Hillary's camp might respond that no such claim is intended, but in that case, why is the "under fire" bit part of the anecdote?
Posted by: xebecs | March 25, 2008 11:13 AM
The other problem here is that this was not a one-time "misstatement." John Avarosis over at Americablog has documented 4 instances, including both prepared remarks and Q&A responses, in which she has exaggerated the danger when she landed. Reporters have apparently been questioning her account since December, and even quoted Sinbad, who went with her on the USA tour, saying that the toughest thing they faced was the decision on where to have dinner.
As jbcrail noted, this is one of several instances of resume-padding by Clinton.
The sad thing is, all she had to say (assuming this was not a deliberate attempt to obfuscate) was "well, sometimes we remember things wrong" and not repeat the falsehood. She chose not to do that.
Posted by: CPT_Doom | March 25, 2008 11:20 AM
Posted by: James Hanley | March 25, 2008 11:34 AM
The sad thing is, all she had to say (assuming this was not a deliberate attempt to obfuscate) was "well, sometimes we remember things wrong" and not repeat the falsehood. She chose not to do that.
I found the AMERICAblog post you mentioned. As skeptics, we should remember that memory is a very falable thing, and not like a tap recorder. People, even very smart and capable people, confabulate things all the time (i.e. come to believe that things that never happened to them did, or confuse two incidents, one of which never happened to them). I don't see how anything Clinton has said in this instance constitutes a lie (i.e she has willingly said something that she knows to be false). I am sure if we looked hard enough at Obama we could find similar things, and it won't count against him much either.
Again, this seems like a very minor incident (not getting correct what happened in a trip 12 years ago). I think the attention it is getting is very silly.
Posted by: hardindr | March 25, 2008 11:34 AM
Look, SHE WAS THERE. It was not that long ago. She obviously didn't "misremember" or misspeak. She is clearly embellishing, and this embellishment in the theater of a presidential campaign, and the relevance to her supposed claims of foreign policy experience upgrades it to a serious offense, in my book. A lie.
Posted by: klemet | March 25, 2008 11:36 AM
I think I've once seen Ed write a post criticizing Obama, and it was about him not taking a strong enough stance on gay rights. He rips on Clinton all the time, though. Is Ed unfairly biased, or does Obama really have a clean slate?
That, of course, has nothing to do with the truth value of this article. I'm just sayin'...
Posted by: Brandon | March 25, 2008 11:39 AM
Look, SHE WAS THERE. It was not that long ago. She obviously didn't "misremember" or misspeak. She is clearly embellishing, and this embellishment in the theater of a presidential campaign, and the relevance to her supposed claims of foreign policy experience upgrades it to a serious offense, in my book. A lie.
I would imagine for an active politician, with a busy schedule and events, trips, speeches, fund-raising, etc. from sun-up to sun-down (or later) day-in and day-out, that twelve years is an eternity. However, let's assume the worst. Let's assume that HRC willingly "embellished" a trip she took twelve years ago to Bosnia and made it sound more exciting that it really was. Is that a "serious offense"? In my book, that is a definite no. If you are judging politician by setting the bar that high, you will never be pleased with any of them, not matter how great or talented they are.
Just for the record, I am not a HRC supporter (or an Obama supporter). John Edwards was my guy, but the media hated him and he ran his campaign into the ground. I would be more than happy to vote for either HRC or Obama over the other guy. I just thought I found this blog post and the comments a little weird.
Posted by: hardindr | March 25, 2008 11:50 AM
Or maybe Ed follows the issues and based on that information thinks Obama is a better candidate, and agrees with his position. Maybe Ed has found fewer shortcomings in Obama than in Clinton, and has decided that Clinton's shortcomings are more grievous and deserving of criticism.
Why is it that any time anyone praises anything over anything else it seems like there's always someone out there ready to scream "bias"? Our society has this strange habit of treating the world as if nothing could actually be objectively different from another thing, and it all just boils down to mere opinion.
I bet if Ed blogged about how he preferred drinking a good beer to getting clubbed over the head with a baseball bat, someone out there would accuse him of having a pro-alcoholic bias. If someone has an objection of substance, I'm all ears. But when the only objection people can come up with is "You're biased!" I tend to think it might be because they can't challenge the substance.
Posted by: Wes | March 25, 2008 11:59 AM
We've got several thousand WWII veterans out there who I guarantee you remember the first time they were under fire! That was over 60years ago. Yet we are asked to believe that HRC simply forgot that she wasn't actually being shot at? Worse yet, people are trying to brush it off by saying she was busy at that time and simply got confused. Confused means you mix up airports, dates, events and people, not whether you were ever a duck in a shooting gallery!
Perhaps she could have confused a conversation she had with a member of her security detail about possible scenarios and their reactions to those situations. It's still a stretch though and I'm not buying it, because I have a hard time believing our secret service would have even allowed the plane to land if there was so much as a rumor of sniper activity in the area.
Posted by: acruxksa | March 25, 2008 12:24 PM
Wes, when did I say that I thought Ed was biased?
Posted by: Brandon | March 25, 2008 12:35 PM
We've got several thousand WWII veterans out there who I guarantee you remember the first time they were under fire! That was over 60 years ago. Yet we are asked to believe that HRC simply forgot that she wasn't actually being shot at? Worse yet, people are trying to brush it off by saying she was busy at that time and simply got confused. Confused means you mix up airports, dates, events and people, not whether you were ever a duck in a shooting gallery!
And how would you know if those WW II vets accounts were accurate? I would bet that a lot of them aren't, but that isn't particularly important. I didn't write that HRC "simply forgot" that she wasn't being shot at. I wrote that she might have confabulated her real experience (the one in the CBS youtube clip) with another one she read about later or had described to her by someone else. My idea or what happend is just speculation, but so is the idea that HRC is lying. Confabulation happens all the time, and happens to lots of people. I still don't understand why this matters, or is of any real interest.
Posted by: hardindr | March 25, 2008 12:47 PM
You know, I had actually gained more respect for Hillary after Iowa. Right up until she said that the Florida and Michigan primaries should be counted because they were "fair". "The results of those primaries were fair and they should be honored." HRC
So, they were told at the start their votes wouldn't count, Obama didn't campaign in one state and wasn't even on the ballot in the other. And those primaries were "fair".
And then she goes on and on about how it's all about the rights of the voters. Funny how she wasn't so up in arms about this when the decision was first made - only now that she's behind and it's her last hope.
I think she is willing to say just about anything to gain the power she almost had in her grasp.
Posted by: Deepsix | March 25, 2008 12:48 PM
Well she did meet an 8-year-old Muslim girl and we all know Muslims train their children to be terrorists. So she probably was a sniper.
Besides, look at the photo in the linked article. Hillary does indeed have her head down. Look at the kid. You can't see her hand too clearly. But it looks like she might be holding a milli to Hillary's gut. The kid probably staged the photo to create exactly this kind of bad press if Hillary told the truth. Obviously Al Qaeda foresaw Hillary's run for the Presidency and they want Republicans in the White House to keep their recruitment numbers high.
As to the video, well we all know what incredible things we can do with computers these days.
Fear Al Qaeda ultimate weapon, the 8-year-old Muslim girl sniper/graphic artist/political mastermind.
Posted by: Abby Normal | March 25, 2008 12:55 PM
Getting the month wrong--detail.
Forgetting which dignitary met you--detail.
Forgetting which airport you landed at--detail.
Forgetting whether someone was shooting at you or not--not a detail, no way, no how.
I agree with Hanley here. This would be excusable if, for example, HRC had had to run from actual sniper fire at some other airport, and got that incident confused with her Bosnia trip. Or (less plausible) if she was a combat veteran and sometimes got old wartime memories mixed up with recent ones. But if nothing of that sort had happened to her anywhere, there's no way she could "misremember" it by "mistake." And as First Lady, and as a Senator running for President, she'd have plenty of trusted people on hand to remind her of any details on which she may have doubts.
A child might mistake a dream of such in incident for a real event, but most adults have long ago learned the diference between reality and dreams. Last time I made that mistake, I was about five.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 25, 2008 12:56 PM
This would be excusable if, for example, HRC had had to run from actual sniper fire at some other airport, and got that incident confused with her Bosnia trip.
...
And as First Lady, and as a Senator running for President, she'd have plenty of trusted people on hand to remind her of any details on which she may have doubts.
Again, this is silly. HRC didn't actually have to experience sniper fire (which a reasonable person may not even know they were under since snipers fire from long distance [you may not hear the shots and you certainly won't see them]) to create a confabulated memory of experiencing sniper fire. It could have been from a TV show, a story told by a friend, a book she read, etc. To be honest, a politician's advisors have much more important things on their plates than to spend their time fact-checking their candidate's anecdotes.
Posted by: hardindr | March 25, 2008 1:15 PM
Nice post Raging Bee. I really wonder what kind of life hardindr lives where running from possible danger is such an unexceptional event that it isn't remarkable.
Posted by: j a higginbotham | March 25, 2008 1:50 PM
Here is another video link (sorry if it is the same as the one above. I can't view the one above here at work). Compare Clinton's remarks with the actual events: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b45_1206408757
Posted by: Deepsix | March 25, 2008 1:52 PM
Reading the article, I notice that Lissa Muscatine gave a LONG list of precautions taken because responsible parties had reason to believe that there MIGHT be an incident: a plane capable of steep ascent and descent, armored cockpit, flack jackets, etc. So maybe HRC had her ears bent with all the scary scenarios and possibilities, and misremembered a description of a possible event as an actual event. Yeah, I know, that doesn't hold much water either...just thought I'd toss it out...I also thought she might have intentionally exaggerated for semi-humorous purposes, but that doesn't seemm to be the case either...
To be honest, a politician's advisors have much more important things on their plates than to spend their time fact-checking their candidate's anecdotes.
No, actually, they don't, as this very incident proves. Fact-checking a candidate's memories, allegations, anecdotes, and choice of words, is -- or should be -- a full-time job for at least a large handful of advisors. One candidate can't possibly remember everything he/she needs to whenever he/she needs to, anymore than one man can do the entire job of President. HRC's apparent failure to hire such people is a reason for this totally needless embarrassment. All it would have taken is one trusted speechwriter saying "Wait, did you really get shot at back then?" to keep her campaign from being completely derailed.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 25, 2008 1:56 PM
Anyone ready for some better candidates? This goes for the Republican nominee that wants to stay in Iraq for a hundred years and calls anyone who disagrees with him un patriotic. I know some of you think Ron Paul was a Neo Conferdate. Maybe he is. But some of the ideas he was talking about as far as Liberty and the Constitution just seem to get ignored. I think to our own peril. Those who forget their history are doomed to repeat it.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 25, 2008 2:05 PM
All it would have taken is one trusted speechwriter saying "Wait, did you really get shot at back then?" to keep her campaign from being completely derailed.
This is the height of absurdity. Of course staffers are hired to help candidates find out what they need to know and get the right information, but do you think staffers (even trusted ones or even friends of the candidate) are going to question the personal memories of their bosses? Do you have any idea of how campaigns are run? Do you expect such a conversation to ever occur?
Again, my overall point is that this incident is nothing out of the ordinary. It happens to people (including presidential candidates) all the time. It is trivial and unimportant.
Posted by: hardindr | March 25, 2008 2:09 PM
...do you think staffers (even trusted ones or even friends of the candidate) are going to question the personal memories of their bosses?
Yes, especially when those personal memories can be verified and proven true or false. And if HRC really had come under sniper fire, that would have been front-page prime-time news all over the world. HRC making up a "memory" like that made her look really stoopid, at best, and she has plenty of dedicated supporters who were knowledgeable enough to check the story, and, if it didn't fly, they should have had the guts to say "You're gonna sink the whole campaign if you say that." And HRC should have had the brains to ask them to help her stay credible, and to listen to them when they did their jobs.
Anyone ready for some better candidates? ... I know some of you think Ron Paul was a Neo Conferdate. Maybe he is. But some of the ideas he was talking about as far as Liberty and the Constitution just seem to get ignored.
He's ignored for a good reason: he doesn't mean any of it himself. If he did, he would not have abandoned the Libertarian Party and sold himself out to the party most hostile to "Liberty and the Constitution."
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 25, 2008 2:27 PM
Yes, the best candidates should always put themselves in a position where they're least likely to get elected.
Posted by: Gretchen | March 25, 2008 2:35 PM
It is entirely possible that people can be mistaken about past events, and as I said earlier, admitting that and moving on would be fine, but she didn't do that. If you look at Americablog now, they have the text of the 4 times she's spoken about this. Every time she tells the story she embellishes the detail more and more. Again, this could be a series of mistakes, but that is not the point. The point is to admit the mistake rather than try to deflect.
Posted by: CPT_Doom | March 25, 2008 2:43 PM
This is a prime example of a very disturbing behavior in politicians as of late. Every person who gets involved in politics deals in a certain degree of historical revisionism (i.e. "This country was built on Christian principles," "The United States led the fight for freedom in WWII," etc...) But how any public servant can think they can get away with lies about things they've done, or voted on, or said, when they knew they were in front of a camera at the time... it boggles the mind. We've been living in the Age of Television for the last 50 years; now, we've got Youtube. So if there's a camera anywhere near you, it will be preserved for all time for all to see anytime they want. It may just be me, but I don't trust someone to make military, social, or economic decisions who doesn't realize that that's how the world works now. To me, it's worse than McCain's gaffe on Shiite extremists and Al Qaeda, because it's a lack of fundamental knowledge of your own society.
Real pity too. I was actually pulling for her over Obama before this. That support just evaporated in a hurry, though.
Posted by: David | March 25, 2008 2:50 PM
I have been reading here for about 2 years and this is my first comment. I do not know if H. Clinton came under fire in Bosnia in 1996. I do know that Bosnia to many people was a supposedly safe place by 1996. I was there from 1997-1998 and it was well not so safe. People including children were armed, land mines were literally in trees and on the side of roads, mass graves were still being uncovered, and we were still wearing flak jackets and piss pots and carrying weapons. Civil unrest was not a common occurrence, but some armed forces members were injured during these actions. A few suicides took place while I was there as well as people wounding themselves to go home.
Tuzla Main (the air base) also known as Eagle Base was very well separated from the borders of Croatia and Serbia. It was a relatively safe place to visit and land on. I was there twice for a few hours and it was a nice reprieve from most of the other bases. The other camps I lived at were Camp Dobol, Camp Bedrock, Camp McGovern, Camp Uglyvic (I do not know if the camp had a real name or not). I participated in guard duties, convoys, and construction of heavy timber bunkers. The special forces units were tasked with catching Serbian war criminals and every time they caught one acts of reprisal were possible.
As for sniper fire depending on how it is executed you may forever be ignorant that it even occurred. I apologize for the length of this post but I had to clarify that Bosnia was not a nice little vacation for anyone.
Posted by: Phoenix Tyson | March 25, 2008 4:07 PM
So pick your poison; either HRC is lying to give herself false "war experience" credentials, or else she can't help but conflate television shows with whether or not someone was shooting at her and her daughter rather than the actual smiling children and poetry-laced reality.
I watch an awful lot of television. I have never been under the delusion or false rememberance that someone was shooting at me when I was actually being read poetry. I would be willing to bet that my experience is quite typical. So is she a liar or is she nuts?
Posted by: Shygetz | March 25, 2008 4:12 PM
I'm not famililar with hardindr as a commentor here, so I don't want to be too harsh, but comments along the lines of "forgetting that you weren't getting shot at for the first and only time in your life is nothing out of the ordinary, is just plain silly.
I'm not a Hillary-hater. I probably rate her higher as a potential president than most of the people who comment here. But not only is the claim that she mis-remembered this event not the least bit convincing, as CPT_Doom points out, she seems to be sticking to the story!
hardindr asks if we know how campaigns are run. I do in fact know how they're run, and I can tell you this--if a candidate, or an elected official, does not have someone on staff who can tell them they're wrong, and they need to get their shit right, that candidate/official is headed for trouble. Having nothing but yes-men around you gets you in really big trouble--ask LBJ, Nixon, etc. If HRC does not have someone who can say, "That's wrong," then I have to reduce my rating of her as a possible president.
Posted by: James Hanley | March 25, 2008 4:19 PM
> So is she a liar or is she nuts?
Who says the two are mutually exclusive? ;)
Posted by: WScott | March 25, 2008 4:36 PM
forgetting that you weren't getting shot at for the first and only time in your life is nothing out of the ordinary, is just plain silly.
What if the shooter is thousands of yards away (like a sniper) and you don't hear/see the shots? Bosnia was a dangerous place, as one commentor noted above. Again, people who have nothing wrong with them get the memories of important events in their life wrong all the time, and their memories can change with time. That is one of the main problems with our brain.
I didn't write that there isn't someone on HRC's staff that could tell them that they are wrong, just that they don't typically challenge their candidate on their personal memories. Her staff probably believed her, they had no reason not to, until they saw the news reports with the video of what actually happened. HRC has admitted that she was wrong on the matter. That probably happened when she saw the video herself.
I still don't get why this is of any importance.
Posted by: hardindr | March 25, 2008 4:47 PM
One of the many popular themes among what could be called the 'skeptic-movement' (Skeptic Society, CSI, JREF) is how common conflated or confabulated memories can be. After all, the reliability of our memories becomes a particularly critical issue when you examine people's recollections of amazing, psychic, or supernatural experiences. Elizabeth Loftus' book Eyewitness Testimony is one popular source which deals with studies showing how easy it can be to do just what hardindr says -- "to create a confabulated memory of experiencing sniper fire... from a TV show, a story told by a friend, a book she read, etc." You don't have to be particularly stupid or immature -- though being of a "fantasy-prone personality" does help, it's not necessary.
So I basically support hardindr here -- up to a point. Especially if Hillary Clinton has, at some other time, experienced something similar to what she describes as happening in Bosnia at this time. One mark of a "false" but sincere memory is that it changes over time -- and even gets more certain than an actual memory. Sounds like check on both.
But I agree with a lot of the other commenters here, like James Hanley, that she should not, at this point, be "sticking to the story." For crying out loud, there's a video. "Well, sometimes we remember things wrong." Yes, she should say that. Otherwise, even if she wasn't lying to begin with, it becomes a lie when she won't back away. Demonstrating that you're afraid or unwilling to change course given new information is not exactly what the Democrats need to see from their candidate, right now.
Posted by: Sastra | March 25, 2008 4:54 PM
hardindr wrote:
Oh, did she? Sorry, I missed that.
Posted by: Sastra | March 25, 2008 4:57 PM
Then what justifies the conclusion that you are under sniper fire? Your conclusion is that she *thought* she and her daughter were under sniper fire for no reason, but went ahead with the poetry reading ceremony anyway to prove that she won't be intimidated? Are you planning on insulting HRC any more here today?
It is of importance because a leading candidate for the Democratic nomination is either lying for personal gain or lives in a fantasy world where she is an action hero of some sort.
Posted by: Shygetz | March 25, 2008 5:00 PM
No, she admitted that she "misspoke" when she read her prepared speeches multiple times, each of which contained the same anecdote of sniper fire, cancelled ceremonies, and running for the cover of the cars. If she admitted that she lied or misremembered sniper fire, I have not seen that--all I have seen is that she "misspoke".
Posted by: Shygetz | March 25, 2008 5:03 PM
> What if the shooter is thousands of yards away
> (like a sniper) and you don't hear/see the shots?
Except HRC has claimed that she *did* know she was under fire, because she claims she had to run for the car with her head down. I'd think I'd remember that if it happened to me, especially if MY ONLY CHILD WAS THERE WITH ME.
> I still don't get why this is of any importance.
Because most people (at least here) don't believe this was an innocent misremembering, but was a deliberate lie. Would you agree that *if* it was a deliberate lie, then that's important?
Posted by: WScott | March 25, 2008 5:04 PM
But I agree with a lot of the other commenters here, like James Hanley, that she should not, at this point, be "sticking to the story." For crying out loud, there's a video.
HRC has admitted that she was wrong (i.e. she "misspoke"). I would speculate that she realized she was wrong when she saw the video. No one has provided any real evidence that HRC "lied" about anything (i.e. willingly said something untrue).
Again, this type of thing can happen to anyone. If HRC goes down for this, getting something wrong from 12 years ago in a unimportant anecdote, then that doesn't say much for our media or its commentators.
Posted by: hardindr | March 25, 2008 5:16 PM
I also should write that I don't know for a fact that HRC isn't lying, she could be, but that isn't any more of a speculation that she is. Again, to echo a comment I made earlier:
I would feel the same if it were John McCain or Barrack Obama. This is utter trivia.
Posted by: hardindr | March 25, 2008 5:23 PM
You're right-- there are at least a hundred more important things on which they should be bringing her down.
Posted by: Gretchen | March 25, 2008 5:34 PM
Just to head off any debate over semantics, the following link gives the commone definitions of the word "misspeak":
1. to speak, utter, or pronounce incorrectly.
2. to speak inaccurately, inappropriately, or too hastily.
Posted by: hardindr | March 25, 2008 5:56 PM
Well, let's see.
Did you mean to say he was biased, or is this just a loaded question? That, of course, has nothing to do with you using weasel words. I'm just sayin'...
Posted by: Wes | March 25, 2008 10:04 PM
Neither; Ed is on Clinton's payroll, but he has doesn't want people to know it so he tries hiding it by attacking her. Plus he's fat.
I expect the guys at STACLU to pick up on this any day now.
Posted by: Skemono | March 25, 2008 10:14 PM
Ah, the whole "imitate what the other guy said," approach. Classy.
Ed has a really good track record of not letting people off the hook for mistakes, even people on his side. It's this trait that makes him a better journalist than most of the blogs on Scienceblogs. Ed rarely criticizes Obama, and Obama is definitely something worth talking about. So, either Obama has genuinely done nothing that Ed feels is worth criticizing, or he has and Ed is choosing not to criticize him. I was simply asking which one it is. That's it.
Posted by: Brandon | March 25, 2008 11:40 PM
I'm not very classy. I'll freely admit my flaws. I have no delusions of being classy at all. In fact, one thing people frequently observe about me is my complete lack of tact. It might make me boorish, but it doesn't make me wrong.
I totally agree with you here. That's why Ed's blog is the one I read and comment on most often.
That's backtracking from what you said above. And even if it weren't, it's still a false dichotomy. The options here are more than just either "Obama has no flaws" or "Ed is deliberately avoiding pointing out Obama's flaws because of bias." There are other possibilities which you're not acknowledging.
Just sayin'.
Posted by: Wes | March 26, 2008 12:16 AM
People,
letz face the fact,to lie is to mislead, and to intentionally lie is demeaning; a slap on everyone and a disgrace to everyone that tries to sweep the shame under the rug.
Posted by: raymeg | March 26, 2008 3:59 AM
To tell the story once may have been an error, to trash someone else there at the time shows arrogance and to compound the telling by repeating it reinforces the impression of falshood. Maybe Chelsea also had a misremembered incident at Tuzla as she did not put her Mom straight on what actually happened. To misspeak is to say or mispronounce something (not a whole anecdote) in error. She lied and now has to deal with the fallout. Boo hoo maybe helps again. Sorry would be better!
Posted by: Dec | March 26, 2008 5:48 AM
Again, this type of thing can happen to anyone.
"This type of thing" doesn't "happen;" it's a choice, and it's a choice not made by "anyone."
If HRC goes down for this, getting something wrong from 12 years ago in a unimportant anecdote, then that doesn't say much for our media or its commentators.
This is utter BS. Pretending you did work you didn't do, have knowledge you don't have, made sacrifices you didn't make, or bravely faced dangers you didn't face, is not "trivial" or "unimportant." It's what liars, con-artists and immature, stunted people do to inflate their own reputations at the expense of others who DID do the work, make the sacrifices, or face the danger (all of whom will be rightly offended at any attempt to steal their limelight). It's lying, it hurts innocent people, it poisons public discourse, and it's just plain wrong. With Bush Jr. dodging his military obligations and pretending he's a brave war-leader, and leaving companies in a mess and pretending to be a grown-up bidnessman; and with people using their military credentials and "I support the troops!!" to shout down differing views; we don't need more MSU from HRC or anyone else.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 26, 2008 9:32 AM
What if the shooter is thousands of yards away (like a sniper) and you don't hear/see the shots?
Like an ungodly skilled sniper. Shots at that kind of range are world class and are the subject of Associated Press articles. A Canadian team set the known world record a couple years back with a shot around 2600 yards.
Any weapon with an engagement range that long are not silenced and will be noticed. Very noticed.
Posted by: Sean | March 26, 2008 10:02 AM
I'll leave the commentators here with one final idea from thefollowing article:
Cite:
Greenberg, Daniel. 2005. Flashbulb Memories: How psychological research shows that our most powerful memories may be untrustworthy. Skeptic. 11(3). 74-80.
Posted by: hardindr | March 26, 2008 1:00 PM
hardindr: That article refers to our memories of shocking events that really happened. It says nothing at all about inventeed stories of shocking events that DID NOT HAPPEN. So it's really not relevent here.
Posted by: RAging Bee | March 26, 2008 1:35 PM
Looks like we my have been wrong. This footage shows she was under fire. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHVEDq6RVXc
You don't think it could have been doctored, do you?
Posted by: Abby Normal | March 26, 2008 10:38 PM
Clinton lied, yes, but I don't think Obama has exactly been honest either. In his speech last week he implicitly admitted he knew about his whacked out pastor even though he had been denying it before. Criticize Clinton, but at least hold Obama to the same standard. Is it legitimate to judge a person by their associations? I think so. Wright is a racist and it doesn't appear that Obama was bothered by it all those years he was a close personal friend of Wright's. Are any of you bothered by this or is this just a non-issue? Or do you just accept it because there really are few viable alternatives to voting for Obama? I am curious.
Posted by: mroberts | March 27, 2008 12:40 AM
People,
the fact is and will be here forever;those that lied in ancient times,are still mocked for what they were,despite their glorious victories.
Posted by: raymeg | March 27, 2008 5:04 AM
mroberts: your take on Obama and Wright is so simplistic I don't have time to deal with all the holes. Do you even have any idea what Obama actually said in his speech? For starters, do you call Wright a "racist" because you can quote a racist statement of his? Or because you heard the word and accepted it without question?
My own blog posts cover the issue in somewhat greater detail. If you're not willing to study the matter, don't think that saying "Obama lied too" is an excuse to pretend you don't have to make a mature judgement.
Posted by: Rqaging Bee | March 27, 2008 8:57 AM
Raging Bee, it sounds like you are willing to ignore the obvious simply because Obama is your guy. I'm sure you think the guy is utterly incapable of any wrongdoing. Obama maintained for a long time that there was nothing radical about his church, then he basically admitted in his big speech that his pastor has said some things that could be reasonably deemed racist. However you want to term how Obama has handled this, I don't think you could call it "honest" or "forthcoming". Yeah, I admit that probably sounds "simplistic" to the average Obama supporter who now has to come up with a million ways to rationalize away and deny the obvious - that Obama's pastor is a racist and Obama really hasn't been that bothered by it. If he was bothered by it, why didn't he leave the church? That's what most parishioners would do. If Pastor Wright were white and he made the same comments against blacks, he would immediately be deemed a racist. Others have been branded racists for far less. I'm sorry that you are not willing to acknowledge what is obvious.
Posted by: mroberts | March 27, 2008 3:12 PM
...then he basically admitted in his big speech that his pastor has said some things that could be reasonably deemed racist.
Please give examples, and THEN we'l see if it can "be reasonably deemed racist." A lot of people, including you, have been throwing that word around with absolutely no backup, clearly expecting the rest of us to swallow it without trying to chew it first.
If Pastor Wright were white and he made the same comments against blacks, he would immediately be deemed a racist.
Again, please give examples of unacceptable comments that Wright got away with that would get a white guy in trouble. If you look at my own blog posts, you'll see specific references to a LOT of things white preachers are getting away with, despite being far worse than anything I've heard from Wright.
Did you even read the text of Obama's speech? IF you had, you would know that Wright is a far more complex character than the "racist" you mindlesly insist he is.
Also, filling your post with accusations that I "think the guy is utterly incapable of any wrongdoing," when you can't seem to describe any specific wrongdoing, really doesn't help your case.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 27, 2008 4:12 PM
we should be models for those to follow us
why then should we hide the truth
why dont we say that to lie is wrong?
and uncalled for?
Posted by: raymeg | April 1, 2008 5:32 AM