And combat experience too
Enough has been said by others about Hillary Clinton's made-up story about landing in Tuzla, Bosnia under sniper fire in 1996. I don't need to add any new details. I would like to make one observation based on my own life experience.
During my career as a DEA agent, I was involved in three shooting incidents: In one, a fellow agent was killed when he dropped his gun, and it accidentally discharged. In another incident, a fellow agent fired a shot at a suspect who was attempting to run him over with his car. Only the third incident was a full-blown shoot-out, in which three cops were wounded and the main suspect was killed.
My purpose in drawing on these experiences is simply to point out that when one is involved in a shooting incident it stays with you for the rest of your life. Not only does the memory remain, but the details remain clear. There is no honest explanation for "remembering" shots being fired when none were. (I should hasten to add that my experiences were as a law enforement officer as opposed to those of a soldier who may have engaged in numerous firefights in a war zone such as Viet Nam, Afghanistan or Iraq.)
Many of Hillary Clinton's defenders are attempting to pass this off as an "honest mistake" or a "misstatement". She herself has attempted to describe it in those terms. It is neither. On at least three occasions, Mrs. Clinton has recounted this story, which clearly never happened. Only now, when the videotape of her arrival in Tuzla surfaced has the truth been revealed.
There is only one clear explanation for this story. It is an intentional lie, and it is a direct reflection on Hillary Clinton's veracity, credibility and character.
14 comments:
Good post. Clinton's comments were off the mark and totally embarrassing.
Yeah, it's pretty difficult to make sense of what she did on that one. Sometimes I think that conservatives are a bit too eager to jump over everything she does (like Olbermann on O'Reilly), but this one...what the heck, huh?
Lance,
I look at it this way. Your resume is your resume. Your life experience is your life experience. In real, everyday life, we look askance at those that inflate themselves. Why should we not do the same with politics? It's one thing to hide the flaws and mistakes in your life. And it's another to invent good aspects of your life.
Does this mean that I can no longer claim to have stormed the beaches at Normandy? Dammit - that was a good story.
I'm keeping the one about riding alongside Roosevelt on San Juan Hill though. That one makes me look cool.
In all seriousness, I agree completely with your last point.
Hey, I can go you even better. Did you know that I...
invented the Internet,
was the role model for the movie, Love Story,
uncovered the Love Canal scandal???
You didn't know that, did you?
Keep in mind, Gary, that I didn't vote for Gore, but you're not one of those conservatives who repeat those tired, supposed statements, are you?
Those have all been debunked. He never claimed any of those things. Yet even the "liberal media" still says them as though he did. (And no doubt, it's still said as though it were truth on Fox news as well.)
I do claim that I fought on San Juan Hill though. That's a matter of public record.
Well, I did hear him exaggerate his role in uncovering the Love Canal. Let's just say that it was worded so as to leave the impression that it was his tireless digging that revealed the existance of the toxic site.
Even more laughable is that he actually won an Oscar and the Nobel peace Prize.
Speaking of San Juan Hill, did you know that Hillary was named after Sir Edmond Hillary, the then unknown New Zealand beekeeper, who 6 years after Hillary was born, became famous when he climbed Mt Everest?
As a matter of fact, I was named after Gary Coleman, the actor (who is probably 15-20 years younger than me).
Oddly enough, I was named after myself.
Regarding Gore's claims, you can make the argument that you stated regarding the Love Canal thing. But the whole "invented the Internet" thing is tired, especially considering that he didn't even say those words in any context. I mean, even if you don't like the guy, how incredibly stupid would he have to be to make a claim like that? Surely you don't think he's THAT stupid.
And I wouldn't call his awards "laughable" though, but maybe I just see things differently. Have you actually seen the movie? I have.
Stupid? Well, I don't know-he has made some pretty stupid remarks over the years. I do think he has a couple of screws loose. In fact, I think he's a loon-but pls don't take that out of context.
So what was the context he used regarding the Internet? Was it worded in a way that some impressionable folks might think it's true?
No, I have not seen the movie, don't intend to and unlike some unlucky school kids, nobody can force me to.
His full quote was, "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system."
That's not exactly the same thing, is it? The Urban Legends Reference Page has it covered: http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
This, among other reasons, is why I don't buy the whole "liberal media" accusation. Most everybody still believes that he claimed to have invented the internet, and the mainstream media didn't seem to eager to, you know, FACT check.
You should see the movie - you know, be fair and balanced and all that. There are some points in there that I have yet to see refuted to my satisfaction (which isn't to say that's impossible, but all I hear are the same old tired rebuttals that don't hold water.)
Well, everyone can put their own interpretation on words like that. Did he just use the wrong words, or did he try to leave an impression- I don't know.
With Hillary (and Bill), it is clear. They are liars and fabricators.
I won't see the movie for the same reason I don't go to see other political propaganda movies. They have an agenda.
But TV and radio shows with agendas are okay? Hmmm...
Yes, they are. At least people can call in and debate (and most conservative talk show hosts will put disagreers at the front of the line.) True conservatives want to debate because we believe that in the free marketplace of ideas, our positions will carry the day. (Yes, indeedy)
On the Fox programs, there is debate and people representing different sides-something Keith Olbermann doesn't do by the way.
Unfortunately, you can't debate a movie.
Well, you know how I feel regarding the supposed "debate" that occurs on these shows, but I guess I can see your point.
Post a Comment