Kris, I’d like to make several points in response to your latest comment, in a somewhat random order. First, you said, You’re right, I shouldn’t have said that Bush didn’t want to provide money to help NYC, since actually it was some Republicans in Congress who objected to that.
However, neither you nor I said that. You still aren’t accurately describing what I said, Hillary Clinton said, or in this case what you yourself said. You never said in your first comment that Bush didn’t want to provide money for NYC.
In fact your were incredulous that I would believe Clinton’s assertion that Bush did not want to provide money for NYC reconstruction. As I pointed out in my following comment, this was NOT what Clinton said, nor what I said. Now you seem to be acknowledging that Clinton didn’t say that, I think, but are asserting that you incorrectly stated that Bush didn’t want to give those funds but YOU didn’t say that either. You seem to be having problems following the argument and I don’t quite know how to address that when you don’t seem to be consistent even in describing your own statements, but I’ll try again anyway.
Second, you’ve twice repeated the false meme that Clinton said “that her daughter only just avoided death on 9/11 when that was not the case”. She never said that. That was a lie made up by rightwing pundits. Here’s the story about the pundit lies from Media Matters, complete with the transcript of what Clinton actually said.
She said nothing about Chelsea “only just” avoiding death, but instead said that Chelsea was in Manhattan that morning, had planned to jog from Battery Park to the Twin Towers and back and had been in a coffee shop when the first plane hit, and that Clinton was understandably worried about her daughter because she hadn’t been able to get in touch with her until a few hours after the attack. The rest, about Chelsea just avoiding death was a purposeful misstatement of what Clinton said, uttered maliciously by right wing pundits, in order to cast aspersions on Clinton.
Yes, that was a lie, but not Clinton’s lie, and you repeat it twice here without having checked whether its truthful or not. I think that’s poor judgment on your part, and doesn’t show any of your claimed disdain for lying, but rather a disdain for Clinton, even when its built on other people’s lies. You sound perilously close to someone throwing stones from your own glass house, and in a political arena you’d likely be rhetorically mugged repeatedly for your own “lies”.
This is just another example of what I was complaining about with my first comment on this thread. Someone makes up a lie about what Clinton said or did and people swallow it whole, and then use that lie to reinforce the idea that any new accusation of Clinton lying must be believable, without need for question or fact checking, because she ” lied before” even when she didn’t.
As for ” but remembering landing in Bosnia under “sniper fire” when nothing like that happened is not normal”. Clinton did misstate what happened on that occasion. Probably an embellishment on her part of an incident that happened 12 years before. According to everything I’ve read, others’ recollections, and archival video have corroborated what she said about the incident in her 2004 book, “Living History”.
“Security conditions were constantly changing in the former Yugoslavia, and they had recently deteriorated again. Due to reports of snipers in the hills around the airstrip, we were forced to cut short an event on the tarmac with local children, though we did have time to meet them and their teachers and to learn how hard they had worked during the war to continue classes in any safe spot they could find. One eight-year-old girl gave me a copy of a poem she had written entitled ‘Peace.'”
This later embellishment, or misstatement or whatever, was blown out of all proportion in the heat of the campaign in 2008. I see it as an example of her being held to a higher standard than other male politicians. Here’s an example of that. Richard Cohen, the columnist, acknowledged that McCain had made numerous false statements and inconsistencies, but they were “understandable” while Clinton’s one exaggeration on her Bosnia visit was “disqualifying” for the Presidency. (And likewise, Obama’s stated position on NAFTA in Ohio, which was the opposite of what his economic adviser told the Canadian government was the Obama campaign’s position, was not a “disqualifying” falsehood but exaggerating sniper fire was.)
I can only see this as sexist treatment of a woman candidate. There seems to be no other reason for the number of vociferous lies spread about Clinton, all made while disingenuously decrying lying as being a particularly heinous fault of hers, not theirs. It reeks of projection to me as well as a double standard. I’m much more interested in policy positions that in whether or not someone embellished an incident from 12 years earlier in one comment made to the press. I just wish that more voters would ignore the war of the sound bites and the “gotcha” moments and focus on the issues. This kind of petty stuff only demeans the contest, but politics in the US seems to have devolved into an ongoing episode on Jerry Springer, or a badly scripted “reality” show, now complete with Donald Trump..
And here’s the report from Politifact on Clinton’s statement on North Ireland, where again you claimed she said she was “instrumental’ which is incorrect: She said she was “helpful” and several of those instrumental in the negotiations in fact agreed that she was helpful. So again, not a lie on her part.
I think they are a bit harsh at the end in judging her statement “half true” , because they interpreted “helpful” to have implied more importance than it deserved, but in any case they acknowledged that she was in fact “helpful” as she said, according to several of those more intimately involved in the negotiations of the Agreement.
The story right now is that Hillary thought that she could trust Bush, and voted for pre-emptive war, because Bush resisted Republican opposition and came through with funds to “rebuild” NYC .
The story used to be (as in the Slate article) that Hillary voted for the Iraq resolution in order to strengthen Bush’s use of diplomacy.
No, you are still not getting it. The real “story” in both instances is the same- that Bush assured everyone, including Congress and the UN for that matter, in October of 2002 that the AUMF would be used as a diplomatic tool to pressure Hussein into allowing the UN inspectors to complete their work and to enforce the UN resolutions, not to wage war. One of Clinton’s stated reasons for believing Bush’s assurance in this instance, whether faulty or not, was based on her experience of Bush having keep his word on NYC. It wasn’t the money per se,it was that he made a promise and kept it, despite some pressure to do otherwise. In both “stories” as you call them, her belief, avowed by Bush to Congress and the UN at the time, was that the AUMF would be used as a “big stick” for a diplomatic solution, not a preemptive war as you assert. You may disagree vehemently with her reasoning, but she has been consistent over time with her rationale, even though she now admits her vote was a mistake. Again, she has gotten much more flak for her vote than any other Senator or House member who cast the same vote. Kerry wasn’t considered “disqualified” in 2004 for “poor judgment” for his “Yes” vote, nor was Biden in 2008 or 2012. Nor was Obama for that matter, who chose to put all three (Biden, Clinton and and Kerry) in his Administration after their “poor judgment”.
*BTW, the wording of the AUMF resolution itself required that military force was only to be used as a last resort, after all diplomatic efforts had been exhausted, and after the Bush Administration had confirmed in writing that all diplomatic options had failed. Of course the Bush Administration ignored the AUMF requirement and declared war 5 months later. He also ignored UN requirement to put the question to another UN vote at that point and refused to let the inspectors finish their work. The Administration simply created a new legal theory that the earlier UN resolutions from the 1990’s justified their “right” to declare war on Iraq in 2003. They were bound and determined to go to war on Iraq and a different vote on the AUMF wouldn’t ave changed their actions. Its good you protested, as did I, but those protests didn’t start until January of 2003, not October of 2002.
Again, my main point in commenting on this story is that people are buying into lies in order to justify their own reasons for choosing to vote against her. Vote how you choose on policy, don’t double down on one untruth with more repetitions of old untruths you haven’t bothered to research.
And be aware that every politician at one point or another has told an embellishment or an untruth, including the saintly Bernie Sanders. It doesn’t make them “abnormal”. It makes them politicians. I’m planning on voting Green as I have done for the previous three Presidential elections, but I am under no illusion that Jill Stein, or any other future Green Party candidate, isn’t entirely capable of exaggerating, equivocating, misremembering or even downright lying at times. If I agree with the policies, then that’s how I’ll vote.