SubscribeShocker: Hillary ‘Misspoke’ About Bosnia Trip
From the always-last-to-know reporters at the New York Times:
Greeting ceremony, Tuzla military airport, Bosnia, March 25, 1996.
Clinton ‘Misspoke’ About Bosnia Trip, Campaign Says
By Katharine Q. Seelye
The Clinton campaign says Senator Hillary Clinton may have “misspoke” recently when she said she had to evade sniper fire when she was visiting Bosnia in 1996 as first lady.
She has been using the episode as an example of her foreign policy bona fides.
“I certainly do remember that trip to Bosnia,” she said last week. “There was a saying around the White House that if a place was too small, too poor, or too dangerous, the president couldn’t go, so send the First Lady.
“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.”
But her account has been challenged, first by Sinbad, the comedian, who traveled with her, and then by news organizations, most notably the Washington Post, which awarded her four “Pinnochios” which it gives for major “whoppers.” …
Asked today to square her recent descriptions with these accounts, Howard Wolfson, her spokesman, referred to several contemporaneous news accounts that described the region as hostile. He then added: “It is possible in the most recent instance in which she discussed this that she misspoke in regard to the exit from the plane, but there is no question if you look at contemporaneous accounts that she was going to a potential combat zone, that she was on the front lines.”
Asked at a later point in the call to clarify his comment, Mr. Wolfson said that news accounts at the time made clear that the area in which she was landing was “a potential combat zone and was hazardous.”
He said that in her memoir, “Living History,” she wrote about sniper fire in the hills and “clearly meant to say that” when she brought it up last week. He said she had described the event many times the same way and that “in one instance she said it slightly differently.”
A third reporter then asked about it, prompting Mr. Howard to read the relevant passage from her book, in which she wrote: “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.” He repeated that this was the one time in which she misspoke.
But this formulation was at least the second time in recent weeks that she described the sniper fire. She mentioned it on Feb. 29 in Waco, Tex., when she was rolling out her “red phone” commercial, recalling the trip to Bosnia and saying that the welcoming ceremony “had to be moved inside because of sniper fire.”
Of course by “misspoke” the Hillary camp means she got caught.
And leave it to the New York Times to try to pretend that this is just a recent claim.
The Clinton campaign says Senator Hillary Clinton may have “misspoke” recently…
But this formulation was at least the second time in recent weeks that she described the sniper fire.
The truth, however, is that Mrs. Clinton has been lying about this event — in practically the same exact words — since at least before the Iowa caucus, back in December.
From the Des Moines Register:
Clinton touts electability, readiness for ‘unexpected’
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Dubuque, Ia. - Democrat Hillary Clinton on Saturday tried to drive home her belief that she is electable - and that she is best person to deal with “the unexpected.”
“We look at all of the problems that await,” she said in the town of Clinton. “And yet even with all of that, we do not know all of the difficulties the next president will face. It’s the unpredictable. It’s the unexpected as well as what we believe will happen.”
In a rare move, Clinton took questions from reporters in Eldridge.
A reporter told her that rival Democrat Barack Obama has suggested that her foreign policy experience amounts to having tea with foreign leaders and that Democrat Christopher Dodd said her experience is akin to first lady Laura Bush’s: witnessing experience, not having it.
Clinton responded that she’s happy to talk about her experience in 80 countries, from working for peace in Northern Ireland to standing up for women’s rights in Beijing.
Later in Dubuque, Clinton told a crowd of about 600 that as first lady, she represented America in “places that oftentimes were not necessarily a place a president could go.”
“We used to say in the White House that if a place was too dangerous, too small or too poor, send the first lady,” she said.
She said she was the first high-profile American to go into Bosnia after the peace accord was signed.
“We landed in one of those corkscrew landings and ran out because they said there might be sniper fire. I don’t remember anyone offering me tea on the tarmac there.”
Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said Obama’s tea comment was not a critique of another candidate…
And it is a lie we disproved and mocked the very next day. We even cited the very passage from Hillary’s ghostwritten autobiography, Living History.
But, again, it is nice to see the New York Times and the Washington Post finally catching up.
Now that it doesn’t matter one bit, since Mr. Obama has already wrapped up the nomination for all intents and purposes.
Related Articles:
- Shocker: Hillary Lied About China Briefings
- The WP Finally Discovers Hillary's Bosnia Lies
- Hillary: I Was Instrumental To N Irish Peace
- Greg Craig Mocks Hillary's Experience Claims
- Hillary's Irish Peace Claims Get Punctured
- Hillary's 'Truth To Power' Speech In China
- Hillary Says She Risked Her Life As First Lady
- The NYT Extols Hillary's 'Soft Power' Résumé
38 Responses to “Shocker: Hillary ‘Misspoke’ About Bosnia Trip”
Leave a Reply
You must be registered and logged in to post a comment.
March 24th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Now wait just a second..I have been reading S&L for a while now but finally felt compelled to post.
I live in “outer whitelandia” and travel to work in Newark, NJ every day. This is also “a potential combat zone and was hazardous”
So can I be president?…please, can I ?, can I?, can I?.
That is just patheitic. I mean I think I remember just about everyplace that I have every been that people were shooting at me.
March 24th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
onapalehorse; I concur. As someone who has had the experience “up-close and personal”, being shot at tends to focus one’s mind marvelously. I think it was no less a personage as Winston Churchill who said, “I can think of no feeling quite as satisfying as having been shot at to no effect.” Typical Brittish understatement–and totally accurate. I’d say she mis-spoke a lie. ;-}
March 24th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
CACKLE CACKLE !
Such fun…
Hillary never really voted to AUTHORIZE FORCE in Iraq either.
And Her Husband wasn’t really Impeached by the House as President…
March 25th, 2008 at 1:47 am
What’s wrong with all of these JOURNALISTS?!?! I thought the Clintons were brilliant liars and everyone lies about Bosnia anyway! ROFLMAO
March 25th, 2008 at 7:07 am
“When I am President of Hillaryland, to save energy, everyone will ride a unicorn to work. I promise…”
March 25th, 2008 at 9:58 am
So essentially Americans have a choice between a Liar, a hater, and a turncoat. Oh, and then there’s Ralph. Can you think of a presidential election where there was such an abysmal selection of candidates to choose from?
It’s almost like selecting the least athletic kid for your dodge ball team. You know you don’t want to do it, but you have the last pick and the kid is the last one left.
March 25th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Has this been posted here yet?
CBS ‘exposes’ Hillary’s Bosnia lies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BfNqhV5hg4
I sent it to SG several hours ago. I haven’t gotten a response so I’m going to go ahead and post it here.
I came across the video through Drudge Report.
March 25th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
What she meant was, she would have ducked and run like the proverbial pin-striped primate had there actually been any sniper fire. That’s what she was trying to point out–that she’s ready to react to a crisis on the first day. You know……sort of.
March 25th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
It appears that all of the candidates, like all human beings have flaws. We just have to pick the one most suited to help us fix our badly damaged country. Bush reminds me of a bulldozer that just went through 8 years of demolishing our country! We see we can’t trust Hillary because she lies like a rug. McCain, no disrespect intended, but it looks like he is tired all the time and needs to go home and go to sleep. I am always waiting for the poor man to topple over! Obama just needs to think before he speaks. So who is my pick? Obama. Unlike Hillary, he may tell too much truth. You know, the whole grandma thing. Much more than we needed to know. Unlike McCain, he never wanted to enter such a meaningless, hopeless war.
March 25th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
(getting my popcorn ready)
March 25th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Did somebody say something? Maybe I just f*rted.
March 25th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Did somebody just order from Morons-R-Us ?
Redsilly , I wouldn’t advise spitting on our military anymore . Your the one that is meaningless and hopeless .
March 25th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
I’m sure you meant to say Clinton…. Bush hasn’t been in office for 8 years. Finger counting is tough…;o)
So you’re a “troofer”, just like Obama? Actually, I’m surprised you didn’t say Ron Paul or Kucinich.
March 25th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Obama speaks the “truth”?!? That America and white people suck?!? No thanks, if I want THAT kind of truth I’ll just move to the Afghan-Pakistan border! There EVERYBODY is a Democrat! LOL
March 25th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Redphilly welcome to some of the most open minded people that you will ever blog with.
March 25th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Redphilly - if Iraq was/is such a ‘meaningless and hopeless war’ - Explain to me why an msm and dems of America who did not vote for GWB - did not speak up, point out the claimed ‘lies’ or simply for Congress - vote against OIF (Senate 77Y, 23N, House 296Y,133N,3NV)? And why did these self same against GWB (who at that time had ‘bulldozered. . .and demolished our country for 4 years) - allow him to get relected? For those of us with functioning brain cells and who do not indulge in revisionist history - the truth was that the majority of America understood the threat and supported the decision. . .
Define meaningless - Saddam violated the cease fire agreements from Operation Desert Storm - therefore the terms of that War were still in play - and that Saddam continued to be a threat - to the region and to the World. . .
Define hopeless - just because you don’t believe that a solution (perhaps if the foreign insurgents weren’t keeping the violence alive) - does that make a solution never possible? It took America years to get up and running after the Revolution - should we not even allow Iraq that chance? .
Obama was a state Senator at the time of the Iraq invasion - how often does the opinion of a State Senator matter in National affairs - did anyone listen to him at the time? Or even care?
March 25th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Doc- nice to see that you’re still around to stir up the pot every once in awhile.
March 25th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
I just took a dump and named it, Redphilly
March 25th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
You folks are like a drug that you can’t give up no matter how hard you try. Missed you too zoomie. 1st even for you that last post was cleaver.
March 25th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
cleaver,
Do you mean Ward, Beaver’s dad?
Or did you mean “clever” as in intelligent and insightful?
March 25th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
drdobgyn says…“You folks are like a drug that you can’t give up no matter how hard you try.”
You hang around Doc. We’ll make a conservative out of you yet. It’s very hard to continue to blind yourself to the truth when It’s right in front of your face. That’s why most libs don’t even want to hear or see the truth. They just keep watching the nightly news and blindly following whatever lie that’s fashionable that day. I have great hope for you Doc. At least you’re willing to take a peek at the truth. Next thing you know……you’re listening to Rush. ;0)
March 25th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Next thing you know……you’re listening to Rush. ;0)
Next thing you know he will be calling into Rush saying,” I used to be a liberal”. ;)
March 25th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
Skin Rush , how about , the only person responsible for me is ” ME ” . All trails ,triumphs and failures start and end with me . In my life and family , that is . Make a good choice and reap the benefits , make a bad one and you learn or die . Isn’t that enough . Lying is not a good way to make a living , but then again , I’m not a politician .
Doc , blog on buddy, we’re user friendly .
March 26th, 2008 at 2:06 am
The problem with open minded people is that the brains have already fallen out! I’ve never considered it a compliment to be “open minded” Sorry………………. ;-)
March 26th, 2008 at 8:56 am
Major Kudos to S&L for being WAY ahead on this lie de jour….
What an insult to the military commanders and troops this BS is as well.
Congrats Hillary, you scored a twofer on this one that will follow you the rest of your life!
Serpentine! Serpentine!
March 26th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
So what is worse Wright or Bosnia? Poor judgement and linked to church and pastor that many have an issue with or a lier and someone linked to a past president many have issues with. Why aren’t Hillary’s comments not getting a lot of attention? Barak couldn’t have planned it better.
March 26th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Uh….they’re both LIARS!!! She lied about sniper fire and he lied about hearing sermons. They both have some kind of sensory deprivation. She can’t see and he can’t hear (with those ears?).
March 26th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Come come now Noyz which is worse? One of the things I appreciate about you folks on S&L is that you take a stand!!!!! So which is it? One thing ALL POLITICIANS LIE!!!!! So just telling a lie is no real big deal. Is it the lie itself or what? Is it that Democrates tell more lies i.e. sermons, sniper fire, stain on dress etc. but Republicans tell bigger lies i.e. WMD, Watergate, Iran-Contra.
March 26th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
drobgyn:
As far as I can tell the only person who “lied” about WMD’s before the war was Saddam Hussein. Everyone in the world thought that Hussein had WMD’s because he wanted them to believe that. The fact that this was discovered to be untrue after the war started means Bush was mistaken–that isn’t the same as being a liar. How many women did you tell that taking estrogen supplements in menopause would lower their risk for cardiac disease and overall risk of premature death before better information came out that proved that this was not true. Does that make you a liar to all those women for all those years. C’mon get serious!
March 26th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Excellent point but I didn’t stop at WMD what about the rest? I’m really trying to get a clearer picture on this issue for conservatives. You would agree that the truth is usually optional when it comes to politics or is it only true when we talk about Democrats?
March 26th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Drd - Iraq is about the area of California - covered in sand - the WMD that is at issue is not the size of a truck - more like the size of large cooler.
How about I bury a cooler in California somewhere and let you find it - in less than, heck I’ll be generous and give you the entire 5 years we’ve been in Iraq. And go here
http://www.bizzyblog.com/2005/.....wmd-lie-2/
for a nice listing of WMD that have been found. Btw, since I it appears to me that you don’t read newspapers nor read news on the Internet you might not have heard that some Iraq exiles and some of the paperwork - hard working and dual language specialists are reading through - have said that some of his ‘banned’ munititions were sent to Syria. . .And also, how much WMD (or what WMD) is enough to make it not a ‘lie’? Chemical suits stuffed into schools and hospitals, bio trailers fitted out and standing ready, jets buried in the sand, munitions that were supposed to have been destroyed and/or turned over to the UN - all have been found (and documented).
What angers me about this particular red herring is the implication that for you leftist whinners to be appeased/ok with OIF - my son, my nephew and all the other men and women who crossed that berm in 2003 should have been gassed, nuked or bio attacked - for you to stay off GWBs case? I thank God that they weren’t - it is a blessing - but you people couldn’t see a blessing much less admit it - ever. And I also know that even if they were, you’d still be foaming at the mouth over something else.
Either way take your shovel and start digging. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines have been trying to stay alive, keep Iraqi citizens alive, assist with rebuilding the crumbling infrastructure of Iraq - and don’t have a lot of time to dig every square inch of Iraq.
And if you want to go to real, provable lies - I still believe percentage wise, the Democrat politicians would win that hands down. We will start with ‘I believe my husband’ and ‘I did not hear any of those sermons.’
No all politicians don’t lie - and it is insulting and demeaning to imply such. It is just that the msm wants desperately to infer that is so, so that when the leading Dem candidate is caught in one - they can gloss it over with - all politicians lie. . .
The damage being done to America’s core of values and decency is disgusting at best, outright dangerous at worst. And I’m sorry - do you really want to play the bigger lie game? Think long and hard about that one. . .in context of the Democrats, we have all come to know and dislike. . .
March 26th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Do you really want to go there Doc?
Bay of Pigs, Iraq’s Baathist party, Vietnam, the “Great Society”, Warren Commission, INA of 1965, Chappaquiddick, Panama Canal giveaway, Billy-gate, Iran hostages, Camp David accords, Keating Five, AbScam, Travel-gate, China-gate, Campaign-gate, Pardon-gate, Whitewater, Rose Law, Trooper-gate.
Any of those ring a bell Doc?
March 26th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
This was not about WMD’s I just used it to make a point that deception in politics is more the rule than an exception. Or is it found only in the Democratic party. This country has a long history of playing loose with the truth, both Democrats and Republicans. It is not possible to get to the US Senete yet alone the presidency without doing some dirt to someone along the way. GWB has done his fair share of stuff along the way and he did it with a purpose. He only pretends to be incompetent.
March 26th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Well, what about watergate. It was a third rate burglary that Nixon didn’t know about until after the fact. We know this because of the famous white house tapes that provide us excruciating detail of what he knew and when. He should have thrown the idiots to the wolves and apologized for having such sleezy people on his re-election campaign staff. But like most people in power he thought that he could manage it away. He was guilty of being a party to the conspiracy to cover it up–obstruction of justice on about the same scale as Clinton lying to a congressional special prosecutor to cover up his sleazy adulterous affair with a White House Intern. Nixon resigned before he could be impeached for obstruction of justice, Clinton was impeached, everyone agreed that he lied, committed perjury and obstructed justice, but in a party line vote of 50 to 50 (with the democratic vice-pres/pres. of the Senate holding a tie-breaker) he was not convicted of obstruction of justice (55 to 45 for the perjury charge) with the justification that although he did lie and obstruct justice in this case, it did not rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors warranting removal from office. Anyone other than the sitting POTUS would have been convicted in a federal court and sentenced to prison–just ask Scooter Libby. He thought he would be better off trying manage it away instead of owning up to it and apologizing. He did end up getting disbarred and cited and fined $90,000 for contempt of court, of course he couldn’t care less as he was all set to make millions peddling influence and giving speeches instead of working as a lawyer. Who was convicted of obstruction of justice over Iran-Contra–all I can remember is that Oliver North responded repeatedly that he could not recall the details the congressional committee was trying to clarify–unlike Clinton’s assertion, under oath, that “I did not have sexual relations with that women, Ms. Lewinsky” nobody could prove that Oliver North was lying when he said he could not recall the details. And nobody could prove that Reagan knew anything about the deal. Reagan was never found guilty of perjury or obstruction of justice and he wasn’t impeached. That being the case we are agreed that all politicians lie–it is their stock and trade. If the other guy lies more convincingly the less convincing politician loses the election. Was it Lincoln that said: “You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time; but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.” The successful politician knows who he can lie to and when. The successful liar/politician knows that it’s easier to lie to someone if the lie is what they want to hear. We all let them get away with it because we are comfortable with the delusion that the politician will do something beneficial for us at the expense of someone else. Since all politicians lie, no politician could get elected if he didn’t play the same game. Our preferred candidate lies less (at least to us) than the other candidate. When confronted with mutually exclusive contradictory promises we persist in deluding ourselves that our guy might lie to someone else but he will keep his promises to us. Almost by definition, the lies of our friends aren’t signifigant and the lies of the opposition are outrageous. It is as it has always been.
March 26th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Just trying to have a discussion. To answer your question yes I do,but I’m sure that someone with much more political knowledge than myself who leans to the left can rattle off a number of Republican fcuk ups. Can we not agree that by its very nature deception and being liberal with the facts goes along with the job. You can’t really make this only a democratic issue can you? I consider myself a fiscally conservative left leaning independent before accused of the D word.
March 26th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Bravo Take couldn’t have pit it any better
March 27th, 2008 at 10:14 am
LEAVE HILLARY ALLLLONE! EVERYTHING SHE SAID WAS TRUE! JUST LOOK AT THE FOOTAGE!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHVEDq6RVXc
March 27th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Clever!