WWTBAM Bored

Right, Hillary.

Bob Juch wrote:Right, Hillary.

"I never heard Rev Wright make inflammatory statements, until I did".

I can do it too!

I like the use of the word 'if'. As if.

I'm waiting for Someone Stunningly Special to launch a diatribe about how phony, deceitful, dishonest, thuggish, etc., Hillary is...

But not holding my breath while waiting.

wintergreen48 wrote:I like the use of the word 'if'. As if.

I'm waiting for Someone Stunningly Special to launch a diatribe about how phony, deceitful, dishonest, thuggish, etc., Hillary is...

But not holding my breath while waiting.

It's very easy to tell when a politician is being deceitful.

Check and see if his/her lips are moving...

wintergreen48 wrote:I like the use of the word 'if'. As if.

I'm waiting for Someone Stunningly Special to launch a diatribe about how phony, deceitful, dishonest, thuggish, etc., Hillary is...

But not holding my breath while waiting.

Anybody still reading Charlie Reese?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reese/reese438.html

wintergreen48 wrote:I like the use of the word 'if'. As if.

I'm waiting for Someone Stunningly Special to launch a diatribe about how phony, deceitful, dishonest, thuggish, etc., Hillary is...

But not holding my breath while waiting.

It was a dumb thing for Hillary to say. Still, flying into Bosnia in 1996 is not the same as, say, flying into St. Thomas for Easter weekend 2008. There was a degree of danger and planes coming in did have to adopt evasive maneuvers (the corkscrew technique) to avoid potential sniper fire.

Still, it does demonstrate the double standard that's at stake here. Hillary gets nailed to the wall about what was at worst a silly mistake while Obama gets a pass on his dealings with bigots, racists and slimeballs like Rezko.

I will admit that you will never hear Obama embellish the danger or importance of his international experiences in 1996. Of course, the only international experience he claims is that wonderful childhood in Indonesia which made him an expert in world affairs, followed by those years in the 'hood at that prep school in Hawaii trying to fight back tears listening to the taunts of his schoolmates and that vicious racist grandmother of his.

Hillary embellished her credentials. Obama created his out of whole cloth and fantasy.

silverscreenselect wrote: Still, it does demonstrate the double standard that's at stake here. Hillary gets nailed to the wall about what was at worst a silly mistake while Obama gets a pass on his dealings with bigots, racists and slimeballs like Rezko.

This is one of my major problems with the Clintons - they make silly mistakes and should be forgiven - while others take responsibility.

They are two of the most intelligent people ever to grace the american Politcal scene. How many silly mistakes do we need to give them a pass for?

I just wish the Clintons and the Bushes would pass into American history - I'm tired of 'em all.

She said it three times since December and I'm pretty sure she also said it in her book "Living History". She didn't misspeak. She didn't have a "different memory". She lied.

*gasp!* "Nelly didn't say that, did he?!" Yes, I did, and I'll say it again. Hillary lied!

NellyLunatic1980 wrote:She said it three times since December and I'm pretty sure she also said it in her book "Living History". She didn't misspeak. She didn't have a "different memory". She lied.

*gasp!* "Nelly didn't say that, did he?!" Yes, I did, and I'll say it again. Hillary lied!

Remember what George Costanza said when coaching Jerry on how to beat a lie detecor test.

"It's not a lie if you believe it".

I seriously get the impression that many serial liars...I mean, many politicians...actually DO believe the things they say...even over stuff like this.

I honestly believe Hillary imagined she was in danger on that trip to Bosnia, and that's the memory she had of the incident.

Jeemie wrote:I seriously get the impression that many serial liars...I mean, many politicians...actually DO believe the things they say...even over stuff like this.

I honestly believe Hillary imagined she was in danger on that trip to Bosnia, and that's the memory she had of the incident.

If Bosnia was so dangerous in 1996, then why put Chelsea in that kind of danger, too?

I rest my case.

NellyLunatic1980 wrote:

Jeemie wrote:I seriously get the impression that many serial liars...I mean, many politicians...actually DO believe the things they say...even over stuff like this.

I honestly believe Hillary imagined she was in danger on that trip to Bosnia, and that's the memory she had of the incident.

If Bosnia was so dangerous in 1996, then why put Chelsea in that kind of danger, too?

I rest my case.

I'm just telling you that I think the Clintons are both exceptionally good "parsers of reality" that I can imagine they actually believe the lies they tell.

Jeemie wrote:

NellyLunatic1980 wrote:

Jeemie wrote:I seriously get the impression that many serial liars...I mean, many politicians...actually DO believe the things they say...even over stuff like this.

I honestly believe Hillary imagined she was in danger on that trip to Bosnia, and that's the memory she had of the incident.

If Bosnia was so dangerous in 1996, then why put Chelsea in that kind of danger, too?

I rest my case.

I'm just telling you that I think the Clintons are both exceptionally good "parsers of reality" that I can imagine they actually believe the lies they tell.

I think you're right. Something about "sociopathy.

Beebs52 wrote:

Jeemie wrote:

NellyLunatic1980 wrote: If Bosnia was so dangerous in 1996, then why put Chelsea in that kind of danger, too?

I rest my case.

I'm just telling you that I think the Clintons are both exceptionally good "parsers of reality" that I can imagine they actually believe the lies they tell.

I think you're right. Something about "sociopathy.

That very same word crossed my mind earlier today.

NellyLunatic1980 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:

Jeemie wrote: I'm just telling you that I think the Clintons are both exceptionally good "parsers of reality" that I can imagine they actually believe the lies they tell.

I think you're right. Something about "sociopathy.

That very same word crossed my mind earlier today.

I'll bet your sociopathy didn't have only half a set of quotation marks, though.

silverscreenselect wrote:Still, it does demonstrate the double standard that's at stake here. Hillary gets nailed to the wall about what was at worst a silly mistake while Obama gets a pass on his dealings with bigots, racists and slimeballs like Rezko.

Yes there's a double standard, but not the one you are implying. At best, the 'misspeakiing' is a silly mistake. At the worst it's an indicator of a severe personality disorder. And when you consider her past behavior, other 'mispeakings' and the history of Clinton dissembling,I don't think you can blame fair minded people for leaning toward consdering the worst.

wbtravis007 wrote:

wintergreen48 wrote:I like the use of the word 'if'. As if.

I'm waiting for Someone Stunningly Special to launch a diatribe about how phony, deceitful, dishonest, thuggish, etc., Hillary is...

But not holding my breath while waiting.

Anybody still reading Charlie Reese?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reese/reese438.html

It's nice to see I haven't been totally forgotten. I need to get SSS back on my payroll....

Here is the video from CBS News taken at the time:

http://tinyurl.com/2kyjxl

The plane coming in did adopt evasive maneuvers to avoid sniper fire. That may have been just a precaution but it's still something that's never happened on any plane I've been on and from what I've been told, it can be very disconcerting to a lot of people. Under those conditions, it's probably difficult to say with certainty whether there was any sniper fire on the way in. Anyone will tell you that the danger in landing in a war zone is the flight in and out, where it's impossible to secure the entire area and one well placed bullet can bring down a helicopter or transport plane, rather than a fairly small landing area where there will be hundreds of troops and an added Secret Service presence.

Is this as dangerous as Baghdad last summer? No. Is this more dangerous than anything Barack Obama has faced his entire life? Yes.

Now I think that most Americans, including those right wing gasbags like Rush Limbaugh should be proud the first lady of the United States overruled Secret Service objections and went to an active war zone to cheer up the troops and helped arrange entertainment for the trip as well. Certainly, they've gushed enough about Bush and McCain going to Iraq. But no, apparently since no one was literally taking shots at her when she landed, she is being labelled as a horrible person for bringing the entire subject up. And if her memory is not perfect about this event and her description of it, intended or not, exaggerated it somewhat, the fact remains that it is still a much scarier and dangerous occurrence than anything the vast majority of us will ever face. Most of us, when asked about events from that far back, have imperfect memories and we don't spend hours scouring selected photos and video clips before we answer a simple question about it.

If you want to look at what Hillary has done and where she has gone and who she has met these last sixteen years and compare it to what Obama has done, there is no comparison. His most dangerous port of call was St. Thomas where he braved the potential dangers of sunburn and hangover. Plus, his entire life story, as presented in books and speeches ad nauseum is fabricated out of whole cloth. Of course, he has met some dangerous and scary people like Tony Rezko in his time; I'll give him that.

Bess Truman and Mamie Eisenhower never visited the troops in Korea. Jackie Kennedy, Lady Bird Johnson and Pat Nixon didn't go to Vietnam. Nancy Reagan didn't go to Lebanon and Laura Bush didn't go to Iraq I. I'm not criticizing any of them for not doing this; I'm just pointing it out. Hillary's visit should be something people look on with pride and not just another opportunity, twelve years after the fact to call her out for supposedly being a pathological liar.

Again, the big question should be why is Hillary being called on the carpet for something that no one should deny was a potentially dangerous trip that she had no obligation whatsoever to take while at the same time giving Obama a complete pass for out-and-out lies (Rezko was only someone our firm did five hours of billable work for) that Obama has been putting out in public day after day this entire campaign.

War zones are potentially dangerous places, no matter where you are. Just ask Max Cleland whose wounds were caused by a loose grenade well behind the lines. Just aske the troops in Iraq who have been killed and wounded behind the lines. It's something our troops have to face and that civilians caught in a war zone have to face. It's something that journalists choose to face and I give them credit for it. It's something that some politicians like John McCain have also chose to face and I give them credit for that too. But it's something most of the rest of us, including Barack Obama, never have and never will. But in the twisted world of Clinton bashing, it's something to villify her for and not to give her the slightest bit of credit.

I feel enough shame about the whole matter for me and for her (plus a few other people).

sheesh

silverscreenselect wrote:But no, apparently since no one was literally taking shots at her when she landed, she is being labelled as a horrible person for bringing the entire subject up.

Steve, Steve, Steve... No, Hillary is not being criticized because 'no one was literally taking shots at her when she landed,' she is being criticized for REPEATEDLY claiming that they WERE doing so, and for REPEATEDLY claiming that the reception was canceled because of the shooting, and for REPEATEDLY claiming that this happened, even after it was pointed out to her that, in fact, it did not happen. The problem is not the break-in but the coverup, I mean, the problem is not the fact that it did not happen, the problem is the lying about it.

There used to be a cliche about the Clintons, which went along the lines of 'Why tell the truth when a lie will do? And why tell a small lie, when a big lie will do?' This is a case in point: you are entirely correct that there was a risk in what she did, and I think you are correct to think that she is probably to be commended for her actions in going to Bosnia at the time she did so, and for her motives in doing it when she did so; that is all well and good, as it probably did take at least some physical courage to do it. Good for her. But that was not good enough for her: no, she had to lie about it, she found it necessary to embellish it in a way that was entirely unnecessary, to make it seem to be even more than it was.

And this is part of who and what she is: she does this a LOT. Like the nonsense about her (previous) claim to have played on her soccer team in high school, which was a cute story, until someone found that her high school did not have a soccer team: Hillary had an absolutely stellar record in high school, she was apparently very highly regarded by virtually everyone who knew her, so with all that, why was it necessary for her to lie about her high school career, to add something as innocuous as participating in a particular sport to her story? The reason is pretty clear: it's what she does (but probably not what other life-long Yankees fans would do).

And why is this being held against her so powerfully? Well, you started another thread in which you lamented that the Democrats have been stained with the label that they are, as a group, un-American, if not in fact anti-American, and you lament that the Wright controversy has just fed into that perception. Hillary's latest exposed lie is the same thing, for Hillary: she lies through her teeth, on matters big and small, often FOR NO REAL REASON AT ALL; this example just feeds into that perception of who she is.

And apologists such as yourself-- who are awfully quick to condemn the slightest verbal slip in people with whom you disagree politically-- probably do not help her case. Frankly, your efforts on her behalf-- which, in this particular post, included yet another gratuitous slam against Obama-- suggest that you have finally recovered from a very bad case of Bush Derangement Syndrome, only to be infected anew with Obama Derangement Syndrome. I had wondered what you would do when Bush left office, and now I have my answer.

wintergreen48 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:But no, apparently since no one was literally taking shots at her when she landed, she is being labelled as a horrible person for bringing the entire subject up.

Steve, Steve, Steve... No, Hillary is not being criticized because 'no one was literally taking shots at her when she landed,' she is being criticized for REPEATEDLY claiming that they WERE doing so, and for REPEATEDLY claiming that the reception was canceled because of the shooting, and for REPEATEDLY claiming that this happened, even after it was pointed out to her that, in fact, it did not happen. The problem is not the break-in but the coverup, I mean, the problem is not the fact that it did not happen, the problem is the lying about it.

There used to be a cliche about the Clintons, which went along the lines of 'Why tell the truth when a lie will do? And why tell a small lie, when a big lie will do?' This is a case in point: you are entirely correct that there was a risk in what she did, and I think you are correct to think that she is probably to be commended for her actions in going to Bosnia at the time she did so, and for her motives in doing it when she did so; that is all well and good, as it probably did take at least some physical courage to do it. Good for her. But that was not good enough for her: no, she had to lie about it, she found it necessary to embellish it in a way that was entirely unnecessary, to make it seem to be even more than it was.

And this is part of who and what she is: she does this a LOT. Like the nonsense about her (previous) claim to have played on her soccer team in high school, which was a cute story, until someone found that her high school did not have a soccer team: Hillary had an absolutely stellar record in high school, she was apparently very highly regarded by virtually everyone who knew her, so with all that, why was it necessary for her to lie about her high school career, to add something as innocuous as participating in a particular sport to her story? The reason is pretty clear: it's what she does (but probably not what other life-long Yankees fans would do).

And why is this being held against her so powerfully? Well, you started another thread in which you lamented that the Democrats have been stained with the label that they are, as a group, un-American, if not in fact anti-American, and you lament that the Wright controversy has just fed into that perception. Hillary's latest exposed lie is the same thing, for Hillary: she lies through her teeth, on matters big and small, often FOR NO REAL REASON AT ALL; this example just feeds into that perception of who she is.

And apologists such as yourself-- who are awfully quick to condemn the slightest verbal slip in people with whom you disagree politically-- probably do not help her case. Frankly, your efforts on her behalf-- which, in this particular post, included yet another gratuitous slam against Obama-- suggest that you have finally recovered from a very bad case of Bush Derangement Syndrome, only to be infected anew with Obama Derangement Syndrome. I had wondered what you would do when Bush left office, and now I have my answer.

REC!REC!REC!REC!REC!REC!REC!REC!!!!

silverscreenselect wrote:
The plane coming in did adopt evasive maneuvers to avoid sniper fire. That may have been just a precaution but it's still something that's never happened on any plane I've been on and from what I've been told, it can be very disconcerting to a lot of people. Under those conditions, it's probably difficult to say with certainty whether there was any sniper fire on the way in. Anyone will tell you that the danger in landing in a war zone is the flight in and out, where it's impossible to secure the entire area and one well placed bullet can bring down a helicopter or transport plane, rather than a fairly small landing area where there will be hundreds of troops and an added Secret Service presence.

I'm sorry, sss, but according to the pilot of that plane -- who seemed to be trying very hard to leave Hillary with an "out" for her mismemories -- there were no evasive maneuvers, no bullets, not even "a bumblebee flying around." He notes that if the plane and its passengers had been in any danger whatsoever, the Secret Service would have forbidden a landing at that site.

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/68124.html

You seem to be clinging to shreds of faith in a Hillary Clinton that never was.

Hillary's trip was to a war zone. There was a degree of physical danger, certainly more than on any trip Barack Obama has ever taken or any other first lady since Pat Nixon (contrary to my earlier statement, which was based on a Washington Post story, it appears that Pat Nixon did go to Vietnam once). There were reports of snipers and the welcoming ceremony was cut short, although not cancelled due to a bomb threat. Military briefings she got emphasized the potential danger (which usually happens when the military is trying to be sure that civilians take things seriously). And Hillary was slogging through the mud meeting the troops. Despite what Sinbad said, she went to at least two other locations along the front lines without him and Sheryl Crow.

The first time Hillary talked about this was shortly before New Years in some nonscripted remarks. It's hard to say how much of her story was a conscious decision to exaggerate and how much was understandably imperfect memory of several days twelve years earlier visiting a number of front line locations under what were probably stressful circumstances.

Her later comments, on a couple of occasions, were probably a dumb idea on her part, knowing how much the press enjoys to tear her to pieces on things like this.

Two questions still remain: Why is this an issue? Shouldn't people be proud that the first lady went to a war zone to visit and cheer up the troops? If Laura Bush had done this, you can bet the Republicans would have been falling all over themselves gushing about how brave she was and how much she cared about our troops? And doesn't this give her a perspective about front line conditions that will be helpful in dealing with the military in the future, something that Barack Obama sure doesn't have in his wealth of foreign policy experience?

The reason it's an issue is because Obama needed something to deflect some of the heat from the Wright scandal so he helped the press focus on it as some sort of test of character, when the whole matter is exceedingly inconsequential.

Which brings up the second question. If this is an issue, then why isn't the press all over Obama about his multiple misstatements, exaggerations, embellishments and what have you? What is more important? Exaggerating or lying about bullets in Bosnia or lying in a national debate over your 17 year relationship with an indicted influence peddler? Or your 20 year relationship with an anti-American pastor? Or your cozy relationship with the nuclear industry while claiming to be a champion of lobbying reform?

Of course, when you get down to it, virtually Obama's entire resume and life history is a series of fabrications, embellishements, taking credit for things he had little to do with and outright lies, all tied together by his smooth talk and the media's willingness never to question him on it.

Those Democrats who back him are foolish to believe that this status will continue in the general election, if it gets that far. I'm sure that Limbaugh, Hannity and company have point-by-point refutation on virtually everything Obama has claimed and will be trotting out new "revelations" day after day as his poll numbers continue to sink. Remember who Kerry got nailed on the "flip flop"? They will have loads of fun with Obama.

The Republicans have already done the initial damage. Even if some voters haven't completely written off Obama because of Wright, a lot more of them will be looking at him with a far more critical eye and he won't be able to sweep additional bombshells against thim under the rug quite so easily.

Hillary's gaffe was dumb but it probably didn't change much in the way of votes. The Wright affair is just the first step in the Repubs' campaign to slice Obama completely to ribbons.

The Wright affair is just the first step in the Repubs' campaign to slice Obama completely to ribbons.

There will be few ribbons left by the time the sour grapes faction of the Demo party finishes with him.

"Four more years! Four more years!"

silverscreenselect wrote:
Again, the big question should be why is Hillary being called on the carpet for something that no one should deny was a potentially dangerous trip that she had no obligation whatsoever

It is a big deal for two reasons: 1) She's claiming that such experiences qualify her to become Commander in Chief "from day one" and 2) She LIED!

War zones are potentially dangerous places, no matter where you are.

Potentially? My, how vague. A war zone IS a dangerous place. That airport at that time was no more dangerous than LAX, ATL, or DFW.

But it's something most of the rest of us, including Barack Obama, never have and never will. But in the twisted world of Clinton bashing, it's something to villify her for and not to give her the slightest bit of credit.

Not so much. I've been shot at; I've been in a war zone. It's not much fun. It's scary and I was at peril of soiling myself at times. And I was an Air Force guy, not one of the dudes on a patrol.

And I can assure that the First Lady has zero/zip/nada say in going or not going into anywhere dangerous. That is the Secret Service's call. The ONLY one who can overrule them is the President. The First Lady doesn't get a vote. So if the SS was overruled, it was at the command of Bill, not that tough guy Hillary. But 'asking permission' doesn't play as well as the "I overruled them" thing, does it?

Please believe me when I'm not attacking Hitlery in order to justify Obama. An empty suit if ever I've seen one. But if he's the nominee, I might very well sit this election out. McCain doesn't do it for me either.

But if Hillary is the nominee, I will be part of the vast right (and left) wing conspiracy of "ANYBODY BUT HILLARY."

Even Nader, for gawd's sake!

silverscreenselect wrote:Here is the video from CBS News taken at the time:

http://tinyurl.com/2kyjxl

The plane coming in did adopt evasive maneuvers to avoid sniper fire. That may have been just a precaution but it's still something that's never happened on any plane I've been on and from what I've been told, it can be very disconcerting to a lot of people. Under those conditions, it's probably difficult to say with certainty whether there was any sniper fire on the way in. Anyone will tell you that the danger in landing in a war zone is the flight in and out, where it's impossible to secure the entire area and one well placed bullet can bring down a helicopter or transport plane, rather than a fairly small landing area where there will be hundreds of troops and an added Secret Service presence.

Is this as dangerous as Baghdad last summer? No. Is this more dangerous than anything Barack Obama has faced his entire life? Yes.

Now I think that most Americans, including those right wing gasbags like Rush Limbaugh should be proud the first lady of the United States overruled Secret Service objections and went to an active war zone to cheer up the troops and helped arrange entertainment for the trip as well. Certainly, they've gushed enough about Bush and McCain going to Iraq. But no, apparently since no one was literally taking shots at her when she landed, she is being labelled as a horrible person for bringing the entire subject up. And if her memory is not perfect about this event and her description of it, intended or not, exaggerated it somewhat, the fact remains that it is still a much scarier and dangerous occurrence than anything the vast majority of us will ever face. Most of us, when asked about events from that far back, have imperfect memories and we don't spend hours scouring selected photos and video clips before we answer a simple question about it.

If you want to look at what Hillary has done and where she has gone and who she has met these last sixteen years and compare it to what Obama has done, there is no comparison. His most dangerous port of call was St. Thomas where he braved the potential dangers of sunburn and hangover. Plus, his entire life story, as presented in books and speeches ad nauseum is fabricated out of whole cloth. Of course, he has met some dangerous and scary people like Tony Rezko in his time; I'll give him that.

Bess Truman and Mamie Eisenhower never visited the troops in Korea. Jackie Kennedy, Lady Bird Johnson and Pat Nixon didn't go to Vietnam. Nancy Reagan didn't go to Lebanon and Laura Bush didn't go to Iraq I. I'm not criticizing any of them for not doing this; I'm just pointing it out. Hillary's visit should be something people look on with pride and not just another opportunity, twelve years after the fact to call her out for supposedly being a pathological liar.

Again, the big question should be why is Hillary being called on the carpet for something that no one should deny was a potentially dangerous trip that she had no obligation whatsoever to take while at the same time giving Obama a complete pass for out-and-out lies (Rezko was only someone our firm did five hours of billable work for) that Obama has been putting out in public day after day this entire campaign.

War zones are potentially dangerous places, no matter where you are. Just ask Max Cleland whose wounds were caused by a loose grenade well behind the lines. Just aske the troops in Iraq who have been killed and wounded behind the lines. It's something our troops have to face and that civilians caught in a war zone have to face. It's something that journalists choose to face and I give them credit for it. It's something that some politicians like John McCain have also chose to face and I give them credit for that too. But it's something most of the rest of us, including Barack Obama, never have and never will. But in the twisted world of Clinton bashing, it's something to villify her for and not to give her the slightest bit of credit.

Wow, and you have the lotta nerve calling Limbaugh a gasbag? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.