Hillary Clinton has admitted that she “did misspeak” about landing in Bosnia under sniper fire, blaming tiredness for a dramatic description that was shown to have been significantly exaggerated.
The Democratic candidate is engaged in a frantic damage-limitation exercise amid widespread derision of her comments about a visit to Tuzla in 1996.
“I remember landing under sniper fire,” she said in Washington on Monday. “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.”
News footage of the event however showed her claims to have been wide of the mark, and reporters who accompanied her stated that there was no sniper fire. Her account was ridiculed by ABC News as “like a scene from Saving Private Ryan”.
. . .
Her Bosnia anecdote has been a regular feature of her stump speeches.
On Feb 29 she stated that the greeting ceremony “had to be moved inside because of sniper fire” while on Dec 29 she said that she had “landed in one of those corkscrew landings and ran out because they said there might be sniper fire”.
Mrs Clinton told the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review that she had made the mistake about sniper fire because she had been “sleep-deprived”. Her schedule showed she had no public engagements the day before her Washington speech and she spent the night in her Embassy Row home.
. . .
Advisers to Mr Obama seized on the issue, which feeds into a existing perception of Mrs Clinton as lacks candour. A Gallup poll last week found that just 44 per cent of Americans considered her “honest and trustworthy”, compared to 63 per cent for Mr Obama and 67 per cent for Mr McCain, the Republican nominee.
The Clinton campaign initially tried to shut down debate about the Bosnia remarks, refusing to answer a reporter’s question on a conference call saying that they would supply a transcript of the communications director’s remarks from Monday.
But Clinton advisers later changed tack, issuing a press release entitle “Just Embellished Words: Senator Obama’s Record of Exaggerations & Misstatements” listing occasions on which Mr Obama had apparently misspoken.
The last of the Clinton campaign’s 10 examples was one from last autumn when a weary Mr Obama told a crowd that 10,000 instead of 10 people had been killed by a tornado in Kansas.
but...but...but...he did it too!!!
I love this. Let the Dems eat each other alive. McCain is going to win hands down if things continue like this for even another month.
Hillary has at least twice “misspoken” about this trip. I guess she was tired both times. Maybe Obama was tired on those incidents cited in the Clinton campaign release.
McCain is going to win hands down if things continue like this for even another month.
McCain also slipped up. Apparently Clinton exaggerating about the danger of a trip she took more than a decade ago is bigger news than McCain claiming that al Qaeda was being trained by Iran. I understand he ‘misspoke’ three times and only corrected himself when Lieberman whspered in his ear. Which suggests it maybe not have been ‘misspeaking’, but ignorance.
But perhaps politicians do it all the time. It’s just that Hillary and Obama are under the microscope at the moment, and McCain isn’t. So an exaggeration seems worse than ignorance.
McCain is going to win hands down if things continue like this for even another month.
McCain also slipped up. Apparently Clinton exaggerating about the danger of a trip she took more than a decade ago is bigger news than McCain claiming that al Qaeda was being trained by Iran.
So perhaps politicians do it all the time. It’s just that Hillary and Obama are under the microscope at the moment, and McCain isn’t.
Didn’t McCain correct his overstatement in… the next sentence?
Also, this myth making aside, it’s also another one that Iran and Al Qaeda don’t cooperate at times… Obama’s pouncing on it is a play to the parts of the base that made pushing the idea that they’d never work togeather a ‘serious’ issue (in their minds)…
I missed Clinton’s statements. I was busy crossing the street, looking out for land minds, and dodging snipers all at the same time. Made it too hard to concentrate on her speech…
In addition, as The Washington Post’s Cameron W. Barr and Michael D. Shear reported, during the March 18 appearance in Jordan, McCain repeated the misstatement when he was “[p]ressed to elaborate” on it:
Speaking to reporters in Amman, the Jordanian capital, McCain said he and two Senate colleagues traveling with him continue to be concerned about Iranian operatives “taking al-Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back.”
Pressed to elaborate, McCain said it was “common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that’s well known. And it’s unfortunate.”
I missed Clinton’s statements. I was busy crossing the street, looking out for land minds, and dodging snipers all at the same time. Made it too hard to concentrate on her speech…
You forgot - “and looking for the nearest backpacking hostel”
;)
Amman is that bad? He was giving a radio interview while walking around?
In addition, as The Washington Post’s Cameron W. Barr and Michael D. Shear reported, during the March 18 appearance in Jordan, McCain repeated the misstatement when he was “[p]ressed to elaborate” on it:
Speaking to reporters in Amman, the Jordanian capital, McCain said he and two Senate colleagues traveling with him continue to be concerned about Iranian operatives “taking al-Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back.”
Pressed to elaborate, McCain said it was “common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that’s well known. And it’s unfortunate.”
Had Clinton or Obama done something like this, this would have been played on a loop, over and over - no?
Well if they try to play it over in a loop they might actually have to acknowledge that the only part he got wrong was which group of extremists Iran is taking into the country to train and assist. Since Iran assists both Sunni and Shi’te groups
It really is funny how you continue to believe that Republicans would get a free pass for things in the media though.
I missed Clinton’s statements. I was busy crossing the street, looking out for land minds, and dodging snipers all at the same time. Made it too hard to concentrate on her speech…
You forgot - “and looking for the nearest backpacking hostel”
;)
Amman is that bad? He was giving a radio interview while walking around?
In addition, as The Washington Post’s Cameron W. Barr and Michael D. Shear reported, during the March 18 appearance in Jordan, McCain repeated the misstatement when he was “[p]ressed to elaborate” on it:
Speaking to reporters in Amman, the Jordanian capital, McCain said he and two Senate colleagues traveling with him continue to be concerned about Iranian operatives “taking al-Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back.”
Pressed to elaborate, McCain said it was “common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that’s well known. And it’s unfortunate.”
Had Clinton or Obama done something like this, this would have been played on a loop, over and over - no?
Yeah, but is McCain wrong or is this a round of the ‘they’re not really Al Queda game’? It’s just a myth that Iran is not aiding and/or has not aided Sunni groups (some of which that should be considered Al Queda).
In addition, as The Washington Post’s Cameron W. Barr and Michael D. Shear reported, during the March 18 appearance in Jordan, McCain repeated the misstatement when he was “[p]ressed to elaborate” on it:
Speaking to reporters in Amman, the Jordanian capital, McCain said he and two Senate colleagues traveling with him continue to be concerned about Iranian operatives “taking al-Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back.”
Pressed to elaborate, McCain said it was “common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that’s well known. And it’s unfortunate.”
Had Clinton or Obama done something like this, this would have been played on a loop, over and over - no?
Well if they try to play it over in a loop they might actually have to acknowledge that the only part he got wrong was which group of extremists Iran is taking into the country to train and assist. Since Iran assists both Sunni and Shi’te groups
It really is funny how you continue to believe that Republicans would get a free pass for things in the media though.
No doubt Iran supports and probably trains extremists. The only part he got wrong was using the JACKPOT term of Al Qaeda.
But, ok, if we want to give the benefit of the doubt over throwing Al Qaeda around like you get points for mentioning them, then chalk it up along with all the rest. Yet another benefit of the doubt goes to the Republicans.
I’d be interested to see where you’ve given any Democrat the benefit of the doubt. Can you point to anything?
I missed Clinton’s statements. I was busy crossing the street, looking out for land minds, and dodging snipers all at the same time. Made it too hard to concentrate on her speech…
You forgot - “and looking for the nearest backpacking hostel”
;)
Amman is that bad? He was giving a radio interview while walking around?
San Fran man… it’s all out civil war. :)
/Clinton off
;)
I assume you were assuming he was giving those interviews in Baghdad (even outside the semi-safe Green Zone). Yeah?
In addition, as The Washington Post’s Cameron W. Barr and Michael D. Shear reported, during the March 18 appearance in Jordan, McCain repeated the misstatement when he was “[p]ressed to elaborate” on it:
Speaking to reporters in Amman, the Jordanian capital, McCain said he and two Senate colleagues traveling with him continue to be concerned about Iranian operatives “taking al-Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back.”
Pressed to elaborate, McCain said it was “common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that’s well known. And it’s unfortunate.”
Had Clinton or Obama done something like this, this would have been played on a loop, over and over - no?
Yeah, but is McCain wrong or is this a round of the ‘they’re not really Al Queda game’? It’s just a myth that Iran is not aiding and/or has not aided Sunni groups (some of which that should be considered Al Queda).
You don’t believe the term Al Qaeda carries some specific baggage, in that mentioning them specifically makes it quite different from just saying terrorists/extremists? Really?
Benefit of the doubt - how often can it be given on an issue before the doubt becomes too great and the benefit needs to be withdrawn.
EDIT: If McCain is going to be President, he’s going to have to deal with issues like Iran. Going on record (more than once) claiming that they are training Al Qaeda isn’t going to be particularly helpful, regardless of which way he wishes to go.
In addition, as The Washington Post’s Cameron W. Barr and Michael D. Shear reported, during the March 18 appearance in Jordan, McCain repeated the misstatement when he was “[p]ressed to elaborate” on it:
Speaking to reporters in Amman, the Jordanian capital, McCain said he and two Senate colleagues traveling with him continue to be concerned about Iranian operatives “taking al-Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back.”
Pressed to elaborate, McCain said it was “common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that’s well known. And it’s unfortunate.”
Had Clinton or Obama done something like this, this would have been played on a loop, over and over - no?
Well if they try to play it over in a loop they might actually have to acknowledge that the only part he got wrong was which group of extremists Iran is taking into the country to train and assist. Since Iran assists both Sunni and Shi’te groups
It really is funny how you continue to believe that Republicans would get a free pass for things in the media though.
No doubt Iran supports and probably trains extremists. The only part he got wrong was using the JACKPOT term of Al Qaeda.
But, ok, if we want to give the benefit of the doubt over throwing Al Qaeda around like you get points for mentioning them, then chalk it up along with all the rest. Yet another benefit of the doubt goes to the Republicans.
I’d be interested to see where you’ve given any Democrat the benefit of the doubt. Can you point to anything?
Did you even bother to read the link? Al Qaeda Affiliated groups are mentioned. Can you demonstrate where democrats deserve the benefit of the doubt? Besides why do I need to give them the benefit of the doubt. The Mainstream Media gives them all the benefits they need. Haven’t you seen the studies on Favorable vs. Unfavorable reports for Republicans and Democrats in the news?
You don’t believe the term Al Qaeda carries some specific baggage, in that mentioning them specifically makes it quite different from just saying terrorists/extremists? Really?
I didn’t say that. I’m not responding to your conversation… with yourself… either.
A: Fact, Iran works with Sunnis some of whom are Al Queda.
B: Lefty Myth, Shia and Sunnis don’t now and never have worked togeather.
The only way around A is to elevate B to an article of blind faith…
Did you even bother to read the link? Al Qaeda Affiliated groups are mentioned. Can you demonstrate where democrats deserve the benefit of the doubt? Besides why do I need to give them the benefit of the doubt. The Mainstream Media gives them all the benefits they need. Haven’t you seen the studies on Favorable vs. Unfavorable reports for Republicans and Democrats in the news?
I read the link. It suggested that documents show how “the Quds Force — the arm of Iran’s revolutionary guard that supports Shiite Hezbollah, Sunni Hamas, and Shiite death squads — is working with individuals affiliated with Al Qaeda in Iraq and Ansar al-Sunna”.
Like with the IED issue, do we have evidence that any involvement was ordered from the top echelons of government?
If not, we can make that assumption, but it’s still an assumption. And even then, who are these individuals, and what exactly is their ‘affiliation’? Did they meet with another member of Al Qaeda once back in 1973? This is the problem with making as definitive statements as the Administration did about Al Qaeda and their links. ‘Links’ or ‘affiliation’ can mean just about anything.
Issue is though, will John want/need Joe at his side during every press conference concerning foreign relations?
Like with the IED issue, do we have evidence that any involvement was ordered from the top echelons of government?
ahh, more moving the goal posts…
Now it’s well beyond trying to redefine helping Al Queda operatives as not really helping Al Queda. Now Iranian government support isn’t Iranian government support. Such double-think is triple plus good. ;)
You don’t believe the term Al Qaeda carries some specific baggage, in that mentioning them specifically makes it quite different from just saying terrorists/extremists? Really?
I didn’t say that. I’m not responding to your conversation… with yourself… either.
A: Fact, Iran works with Sunnis some of whom are Al Queda.
B: Lefty Myth, Shia and Sunnis don’t now and never have worked togeather.
I was responding to you directly, and asking you a question (which you’ve ignored), so not sure what you are on about.
Does refering to Al Qaeda carry some specific baggage, in that mentioning them specifically makes it quite different from just saying terrorists/extremists?
I don’t care about Lefty Myths. What other people might argue isn’t relevant.
This is a biafra tactic - arguing in a thread against Lefty Myths, as opposed to what is being put forward.
Quite Funny that CM immediately has decided to shift this over to “Look at what McCain’s done.” But I’m sure he just doing it to bring up debate since he actually doesn’t really believe anything he ever posts or defends. Its just a shame he can’t debate the original topic. Needs to shift it away from Hillary to McCain. Exactly like he’s tried doing with Obama. Don’t look at Obama’s 20 year relationship, let’s look at McCain’s 5 minutes on a stage.
Like with the IED issue, do we have evidence that any involvement was ordered from the top echelons of government?
ahh, more moving the goal posts…
Now it’s well beyond trying to redefine helping Al Queda operatives as not really helping Al Queda. Now Iranian government support isn’t Iranian government support. Such double-think is triple plus good. ;)
Let’s look at what has been presented to me in this thread:
The source was careful to stress that the Iranian plans do not extend to cooperation with Baathist groups fighting the government in Baghdad, and said the documents rather show how the Quds Force — the arm of Iran’s revolutionary guard that supports Shiite Hezbollah, Sunni Hamas, and Shiite death squads — is working with individuals affiliated with Al Qaeda in Iraq and Ansar al-Sunna.
So we’ve got an unnamed source has some sort of material which apparently confirms that a special unit of Iran’s Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution (who report directly to one guy) is working (in some unspecificed capacity) with people who are “affiliated” (which suggests some loose connection, as anything closer would have required a stronger word) with elements of THE JACKPOT WORD.
So, no, goalposts are irrelevant. An argument is being presented to me on the strength of that.
Nice try though.
Now, back to your games.......
Like with the IED issue, do we have evidence that any involvement was ordered from the top echelons of government?
ahh, more moving the goal posts…
Now it’s well beyond trying to redefine helping Al Queda operatives as not really helping Al Queda. Now Iranian government support isn’t Iranian government support. Such double-think is triple plus good. ;)
Let’s look at what has been presented to me in this thread:
The source was careful to stress that the Iranian plans do not extend to cooperation with Baathist groups fighting the government in Baghdad, and said the documents rather show how the Quds Force — the arm of Iran’s revolutionary guard that supports Shiite Hezbollah, Sunni Hamas, and Shiite death squads — is working with individuals affiliated with Al Qaeda in Iraq and Ansar al-Sunna.
So we’ve got an unnamed source has some sort of material which apparently confirms that a special unit of Iran’s Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution (who report directly to one guy) is working (in some unspecificed capacity) with people who are “affiliated” (which suggests some loose connection, as anything closer would have required a stronger word) with elements of THE JACKPOT WORD.
So, no, goalposts are irrelevant. An argument is being presented to me on the strength of that.
Nice try though.
Now, back to your games.......
Once again CM doesn’t want to believe US intelligence when it doesn’t fit into his views. But the US intelligence that Iran stopped their Nuclear Weapons program in 2003, well that’s the gospel truth to be quoted all the time without question.
Quite Funny that CM immediately has decided to shift this over to “Look at what McCain’s done.” But I’m sure he just doing it to bring up debate since he actually doesn’t really believe anything he ever posts or defends. Its just a shame he can’t debate the original topic. Needs to shift it away from Hillary to McCain. Exactly like he’s tried doing with Obama. Don’t look at Obama’s 20 year relationship, let’s look at McCain’s 5 minutes on a stage.
Did I defend Hillary? No. I said apparently the exaggeration was bigger news than ignorance.
As I said in the other thread, I’m not apologising for anyone, I’m exploring and sometimes attacking an argument, and mentioning where there might be a double standard being applied.
I guess I should have started a thread called ‘how about that mccain “misspeak“‘, but I don’t really care so much. I’m more interested in the double standard.
And let’s not pretend that McCain said it because he knew he was technically correct. The POINT is, he corrected himself, which suggests he didn’t really know EITHER WAY. I.e. he wasn’t even in a position to be able to argue technical fine points.
Like with the IED issue, do we have evidence that any involvement was ordered from the top echelons of government?
ahh, more moving the goal posts…
Now it’s well beyond trying to redefine helping Al Queda operatives as not really helping Al Queda. Now Iranian government support isn’t Iranian government support. Such double-think is triple plus good. ;)
Let’s look at what has been presented to me in this thread:
The source was careful to stress that the Iranian plans do not extend to cooperation with Baathist groups fighting the government in Baghdad, and said the documents rather show how the Quds Force — the arm of Iran’s revolutionary guard that supports Shiite Hezbollah, Sunni Hamas, and Shiite death squads — is working with individuals affiliated with Al Qaeda in Iraq and Ansar al-Sunna.
So we’ve got an unnamed source has some sort of material which apparently confirms that a special unit of Iran’s Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution (who report directly to one guy) is working (in some unspecificed capacity) with people who are “affiliated” (which suggests some loose connection, as anything closer would have required a stronger word) with elements of THE JACKPOT WORD.
So, no, goalposts are irrelevant. An argument is being presented to me on the strength of that.
Nice try though.
Now, back to your games.......
Once again CM doesn’t want to believe US intelligence when it doesn’t fit into his views. But the US intelligence that Iran stopped their Nuclear Weapons program in 2003, well that’s the gospel truth to be quoted all the time without question.
No, I’m pointing out that the evidence you provided here was rather weak.
I never said that the intelligence regarding Iran nuclear weapons was gospel at all. You are just lying.
