« Bush's Religion | Main | Or Maybe We Could Count Jellybeans » Misspoke24 Mar 2008 03:17 pm The Clinton campaign's now putting it out there that Hillary Clinton "misspoke" when describing her fake death-defying landing at Tuzla, but it certainly seems to have occurred in her prepared remarks. The fib itself isn't a big deal, but an exaggerated notion of Clinton's level of experience really is at the core of the Clinton campaign's argument. Comments (64)
I was the person who found Jim Morrison in that bathtub, dead, in Paris. Well, he wasn't dead last I saw him. He was wet. Hmmm. OK, he wasn't actually in the tub yet, but I did see him wet. No, not in person, it was kinda in a photo. But there was still something disturbing about the picture, kinda like I knew he was gonna end up dead in a bathtub. So I kinda found him, but early, before it really happened. Honest. 
LLIIIIIIIIIAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRR!! oh. pardon me.
Misspoke? Misspoke? She didn't mispronounce a word or make a grammar error, she fabricated an entire story. Ugh. Where's the outrage?
She also must have miswrote her book when she mismentioned it there, too.
"Put it out there" where exactly? Link please.
Why isn't the fib a big deal? I was always taught that if someone is willing to lie about the petty stuff for personal gain, just imagine what her or she will do when the stakes are far higher.
How clever. I can't wait to see this tactic applied when she's president: "Iraq has WMD." -Freudian slip "I oppose war with Iran." -garbled by microphone "I will work hard to pass health care reform." -you must've misheard
The fib itself isn't a big deal... I dunno, you're probably right. But it's certainly an odd lie. I knew a guy (call him Aaron) who told lies like this all the time. For instance, once he boasted about how he stood up for a pregnant classmate (he was in high school at the time) when her boyfriend started beating her in order to force a miscarriage. Aaron ended up gouging out the boyfriend's eye, but the principal didn't suspend him because he understood why Aaron had to do what he did. But the boyfriend was expelled. Point is, I think most of us know someone like this, who constantly exaggerates (or outright fabricates) stories to boost his credibility. And most of us probably think that person is mentally ill. I mean, sniper fire? Seriously?
World's worst liar. Who lies about something that wasn't witnessed by a TV cameras?
This -- along with the NAFTA revisionism -- has received so little attention (relatively) that I think it points to an interesting dynamic going on right now. I don't attribute the lack of attention from the MSM to pro-Clinton bias, but I do think it's because she is not the front-runner. So she's in a sort of limbo where her campaign is alive enough to merit some attention, but not sufficienty viable to merit real scrutiny.
"...and we've blown up a few military installations." "Military installations, Number Two?" "Well...potential military installations. All right, trees. And we interrogated a gazelle!"
Not only did she invent this absurd story, but she continued sticking by it after being called on it by Sinbad and others. "Misspoke" works when you say something like that once. Or even "misremembered" if there's some other incident where she had to run for it in a strange country. (Anyone know of any such incident? Seems if there was one, Team Hillary would have spread the word by now.) But to keep defending your fabrication after it's been pointed out to you that it's a crock of BS, that's not "misspeaking." That's "repeatedly lying."
"Put it out there" where exactly? Link please." At her press conference where she was wearing the green scarf. It's on the Youtube, man.
What hits me about this primary: all of the stuff that has been thrown at Obama and discussed endlessly in the primary has benefited him in diluting the very real attacks the Republicans will wage against him. Now clearly: the Wright Affair will be with him for the rest of his political life. But given the issues and the circling the wagon effect of the nomination and the fact that it came in the dead zone with a couple of weeks between elections it wasn't a knock out blow. This video is a huge blow to Clinton. She voted for the same war McCain did and she didn't do NEARLY as much to be critical of the way the war was waged as McCain. He publicly and constantly and early took on Rumsfield. Now he was right about tactics but wrong on strategy. HRC has converted; but she is so vulnerable to the 2004 Kerry playbook here and the flip-flopping thing is her Achilles Heel. In Iowa, she fundamentally lost BECAUSE the debate in Oct. with her looking to be on every side of the issue reinforced and existing narrative of her. One this video continues. And that narrative will be the main line of attack and clearly the most effective line of attack. And given that she's straight up LIED and is going against a war hero it'd be nice if Democrats would pause and consider what that JedReport video floating around means to the party.
And, btw...a Fib? A fib is telling someone they don't look fat in their jeans when they really do because you don't want to hurt their feelings. A fib is definitely NOT fabricating a fantastical story about when you were First Lady, you came under sniper fire when landing in war-torn Bosnia. And BTW...had this actually happened, it would have been FRONT PAGE NEWS at the time. Why can't people hold Hillary accountable? Someone help me understand.
Put it out there: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/24/clinton-camp-hillary-mis_n_93100.html
Howard Wolfson, Clinton's chief spokesperson, said on a conference call that "it is possible in the most recent instance with which she discussed this that she misspoke, with regards to the leaving of the plane." Later, he was more certain: "On one occasion, she misspoke." But Wolfson insisted that the first lady's visit was indeed perilous, as supported by "contemporaneous accounts" in the press. In recent weeks, Senator Clinton has sought to bolster her national security and foreign policy credentials by highlighting the role she played in Bosnia. "We came in under sniper fire," she recently told the press. "There was no greeting ceremony. We ran with our heads down, and were basically told to run to our cars." sweet little lies.
Guess it depends on what your definition of... mis·speak your·self vr express yourself unclearly: to speak or express yourself in a way that is inappropriate, inaccurate, or unclear
I know politians tell lies like this all the time, but I still think it's a big deal. There's something wrong with a person who can invent a story like that and expect us to believe it.
sorry about the formatting above, the quote ends with ". . . run to our cars." To the Atlantic technical staff: I can't understand why you would turn off [blockquote] after a carriage return; it totally defeats the purpose.
In fairness to Hilary, it does sound like the security jocks on her trip probably tried to impress upon her, the way security guys will, the vast array of potential, if low probability, dangers she might exposed to. There was of course a small risk of sniper fire in Tuzla, and probably that risk was slightly higher than the risk of sniper fire in, say, Philadelphia or London. Between the security guys at the time trying to impress the First Lady with what a great job they were doing for her in a dangerous spot, her desire later to impress friends and acquaintances over the years with a good story, and, most importantly, her lack of any real foreign expertise that would have allowed her to assess the risks of Tuzla in 1996 for what they really were, I can see how this story might have grown in the telling. So too me this story shows not that Hilary is a liar, but that she is a naif.
Sinbad is just a comedian. So, too, are Howard Wolfson and the TV crew in Tuzla.
this is very off topic but for those of you interested the wnyc show RadioLab had a great show last week on deception and lying. I kept thinking of the bosnia thing while I listened to it.
There were lots of Democrats outraged by Bill Clinton and lots of Democrats called for him to step down. I say that as a preface to laughing at HRC because there have been accusations from the right that Democrats had somehow been blind to Clinton's problems. Anyway, do you know the difference between Democratic snark and Republican sniping at HRC? The snark from the left is actually really funny.
Matt, I'll second DTM's question: Why isn't the fib itself a big deal? Is it because that is simply what we should expect from politicians? That this is simply something that all candidates do? And I am not being snarky here; I am legitimately curious as to why Sen. Clinton "fibbing" about this incident isn't a big deal? And as you said, not only was it a "fib," but it was a "fib" employed by Sen. Clinton herself (as opposed to a surrogate), SEVERAL times, in an attempt to bolster her foreign policy(or "toughness") credentials.
Misspoke? That's a nice euphemism for "told a big, whopping lie and hoped to get away with it." There's no convergence between Clinton's description of the incident and the video. I'd always wondered why the Clintons allowed Chelsea to go on that trip if it was so dangerous. Would they really want to put her at risk? Now, at least I know the answer to that question. There was no major risk. I hope they play that YouTube video ad infinitum on the cable news networks.
So she's in a sort of limbo where her campaign is alive enough to merit some attention, but not sufficienty viable to merit real scrutiny. So she's getting with lying because she's not the frontrunner? This doesn't seem like a sufficient explanation. Something else is going on here. Is the press avoiding holding her accountable because she's a woman? Are they afraid she'll cry? What dynamic is really at play here?
The reason no one in the media is covering this is because the media is still following the Rev. Wright hysteria. I think Rev. Wright needs to take the Hillary approach and just say "I misspoke." Think it will work?
Misspoke? That's a nice euphemism for "told a big, whopping lie and hoped to get away with it." There's no convergence between Clinton's description of the incident and the events on the video. I'd always wondered why the Clintons allowed Chelsea to go on that trip if it was so dangerous. Would they really want to put her at risk? Now, at least I know the answer to that question. There was no major risk. I hope they play that YouTube video ad infinitum on the cable news networks.
Me, 3/11/08: I spent most of the 80s shagging Angie Dickinson. [intrepid reporter does some checking, discovers I've never met Angie Dickinson] Me, 3/24/08: I've always said I existed in the 80s and I'm a big fan of Angie Dickinson. I misspoke about the shagging part. I did think about shagging her although I didn't mention it in my memoir and there is no record of my raging desire to shag her in any public record. Just know that if I did it with Angie Dickinson, it would be hot.
So too me this story shows not that Hilary is a liar, but that she is a naif. Please, spare us. Hillary is well aware of how the world works, which is why she lied in the first place. She just made the mistake of thinking she could get away with it. Oh wait, that happened too.
Matthew, I realize that you have your Democratic Party skirt and pompons on hand until November, but you wouldn't let McCain get away with this by blowing it off as a "fib" or "not a big deal". She fucking lied and she's a lying liar and you should say it.
AKBY makes a good point. The other reason this "fib" seems like a big deal to me is that this strikes me as the behavior of someone who is not only willing to lie for personal gain, but who has also been conditioned to believe that there will be no serious consequences if the lie is uncovered. And again, I can't help but wonder what else such a person would be willing to lie about. In fact, what wouldn't such a person be willing to lie about?
Get real, DTM. This was just a small fib. It doesn't matter. Not a big deal. These kind of things happen in political campaigns all the time. The lies generally stop when elected. Responsible government, and all.
Apparently, CNN is playing a video of ANOTHER pastor at Trinity on loop instead of this or any of McThuselah's "Senior moments." WTF???
vanya, Whatever her security contingent did or did not tell HRC on that trip doesn't matter when, in 2008, she's claiming that they ran heads-down to their cars and canceled the greeting ceremony. There is a decent argument to be made over the "snipers in the area" aspect of things. She never claimed outright that she was shot at. Talk of sniper activity in the area could have morphed into "we were worried about snipers in the immediate area." But HRC knows exactly what happened when the plane landed, and the chaotic scene she described simply, clearly did not happen. It was just a mind-blowingly stupid fantasy she cooked up. For many days I seriously thought she must have mistaken one incident for another or something, because she had such detail and kept saying she "clearly" recalled the event. It's completely embarrassing for her. It should be a credibility killer, too. But so far is hasn't been. Oddly. It's as though the MSM is determined to keep her around.
"her lack of any real foreign expertise that would have allowed her to assess the risks of Tuzla in 1996 for what they really were," Standing around and listening to an eight-year old read a poem after shaking hands with the local gentry should have signaled safety to anyone.
These kind of things happen in political campaigns all the time. The lies generally stop when elected. Responsible government, and all. Let me point out that had this event actually taken place, it would have been front page news at the time. In fact, it would have been a historic event. The First Lady coming under sniper fire? Hello? In my mind it falls WAY outside the scope of standard campaign tactics.
Well, Hilary loses either way. Either she's a pathological liar willing to say anything to win, or she's a provincial naif who is so credulous that if a security detail tells her to be careful she transforms that in her own mind into ducking from sniper fire. Personally I think most HRC supporters already accept the first proposition and don't care. Taking her at her word on this story and painting her as an inexperienced know-nothing is probably more damaging.
Naif, shiv, ice pick... whatever.
Remind me again how she is the only one prepared to take on John McCain in November. McCain may not understand economics or the difference between Sunni and Shia, but after being shot out of the sky in enemy territory and spending years getting tortured in a Vietnamese POW camp, he damn well knows what it means to be under enemy fire. I can just imagine the commercials comparing HRC's claims of bravery on the front lines in Tuzla to John McCain's actual bravery in refusing release from the prison camp unless everyone could come with him.
Bill Bradley: “The bigger the lie, the better the chance they think they’ve got. That’s been their whole approach." I'd say this one fits the pattern perfectly. She should've thrown in how she grabbed a sidearm from her bodyguard and fired off a couple rounds at the sniper, shooting the cigarette from his mouth and disabling his rifle by putting a bullet straight up his barrel from 200 yards. The press would've shrugged and scribbled it in their notebooks.
AHAHAHAHAHA!
I think I'm also finally starting to understand the commander-in-chief threshold. John McCain was tortured as a POW for years. Hillary almost might have been in the vicinity of sniper fire on her covert mission with Sinbad. But has Barack Obama ever worn a flak jacket? That says all you need to know about who's ready to be commander-in-chief on Day One. That's why the Clinton campaign is so hilarious. It's like they forget she's the candidate and just campaign for McCain.
At least with Reagan, we could chalk it up to senility. Clinton lying about sniper fire in Bosnia could pretty much stand in for her entire campaign.
To sum up, if someone Barack Obama knows makes controversial statements about US foreign policy on video, it's a huge and potentially fatal scandal for Obama. And if Hillary Clinton herself provably fabricates an international incident to burnish her credentials on national security, it's "standard campaign tactics" and barely notable.
I hope Obama's keeping track of this shit, taking note of it. When's the next debate? This needs to be laid at her feet and explained. She needs to be held accountable; she needs to be vetted. It's at the point where virtually every one of her half-way legitimate talking points against Obama 2 months ago applies to her moreso than him. Experience? Transparency? Vetted (aka run through the right-wing machine recently)? Wait - suddenly I understand her strategy! It's to get the right-wing all geared up for Obama, since they've been planning for her for 12 years, and then get to Denver and blackmail the nomination away from Obama, and try to catch the right-wing off-guard! Brilliant!
"She should've thrown in how she grabbed a sidearm from her bodyguard and fired off a couple rounds at the sniper, shooting the cigarette from his mouth and disabling his rifle by putting a bullet straight up his barrel from 200 yards. The press would've shrugged and scribbled it in their notebooks." Sure - they bought the idea that John Hinckley, a guy who never fired any guns, bought a frickin' .22 and managed to hit the President where his vest wasn't protecting him. Despite Judy Woodruff saying she heard gunfire from a an alleged Secret Service over watch position above her (which she later recanted when she remembered how many news people who questioned the Kennedy assassination ended up dead in their apartments.) Now if it was Angelina, I'd buy the whole story. She can do anything.
Obama is indeed taking note of it, releasing a memo the other day pummeling Monsters, Inc. on their biggest whoppers (NAFTA, this, Ireland, etc.). Of course, an angry black man makes for better copy.
Pretty sure this has been trotted out already, but... Why shouldn't "mispoke" work for her? It worked for McCain when he repeatedly and consistently stated that Iran was aiding al-Qaeda? And he's experienced, just like her, right? It's in her book for Christ's sake!
Matt, Go to any comment section on any liberal blog right now and you will see the majority of commenter's completely disagree with your idea that this is not a big deal. There's a major ruckus going on right now all over the boards. I think the disconnect between the big liberal bloggers and their readers over the importance of the Clinton camp's lies and distortions is coming to a head over this.
Well, Steve, that would require Matthew to take the kiddie gloves off when referring to a Democrat, and that's just not cool in an election year. How can he make a Case for Partisanship, otherwise?
In partial defense of Hilary!, she was called out by Sinbad. How exactly are you supposed to act when Sinbad is calling you out? If you are running for POTUS, is it really a consideration to say, oh yeah, thanks Sinbad, your recollection carries more weight than mine?
Hey, wait a second: I thought MY was always bashing HRC ...? He's always getting hit for it. Now he's glossing over HRC's pathetic lies and he's getting hit for that. I guess the guy is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't, and damned if he switches off the laptop for a couple of hours.
How ridiculous is this when Chelsea Clinton was right there with her? All anyone had to do was find out that Chelsea was on the trip, and you'd know instantly that this was just another First Lady photo op junket. That, or the Clintons are the shittiest parents in the world. To borrow a (probably fabricated) phrase from Senator Clinton, I don't think anyone in the White House would have said "If a place is too small, too poor or too dangerous, send the First Lady AND THEIR DAUGHTER." Shameless lies. And Hillary's not even that good at it. Bill never would have pulled this amateur crap.
From "Head of State" "Monday, March 24, 2008 It was a treacherous night landing. Ice had formed on both of our wings, and as I looked out the port window, I could see it cracking, flying off into the night sky with each near barrel roll of our C-50, highlighted by the flares shooting past on either side of the cabin, turning them into falling prisms of wildly careening light. As the cabin lurched back and forth and the sounds of rocket fire percussed the urgent, faltering rhythm of our right engine, I unfastened my seat belt, and, finding my center of gravity, rose from my seat, moving past aides frozen still in their seats, arms locked like girders against their arm rests in terror, and walked up the center aisle to the pilot's cabin. "How long to Kosovo"? I shouted over the screaming whine of the altimeter's alarm, marking our steep descent. The pilot turned, looked at me in shocked recognition--"How...how did you make it up here? No one has ever walked up here in these conditions before! How..." "Never mind that!" I barked, with what I hoped was not too much stern forcefulness, with sufficient steel and empathy combined into a firm imperturbability. "Check the master FMC! Is it working or has it failed?" The pilot, paused, as if in amazement at my readiness , and then himself awakening to crisis, looked to the Control Display Unit . "It's down! It's down!" he shouted. A bead of sweat began to form on his brow. I knew what I had to do. "Get out of there!" I commanded, and pulled him from the seat, where he crumbled to a fetal position on the floor behind me. Stepping over him, I took the chair behind the console. "Check the Central Maintenance Computers and activate the NAV RAD for alternate radio tuning capability!" I shouted to the co-pilot. He, too, had broken down in tears, his head buried in his hands. I looked to his ID on the console. Another newbie. Well, this was another one where I would have to go it alone. Quickly, I tore the scarf from my neck and fashioned it into a crude lasso that could be used for EFIS/EICIS control. Catching the lever with my right hand, I activated the cabin loudspeaker with my left. I knew that they had likely been gulled by the earlier soft patter of the pilot. "Brace yourself! Get ready! These aren't just words!" Then I pulled the lever back hard, sending us rocketing towards the runway. "You'll never make it!" I knew that voice, and turned. Richardson! How did he trundle up to the cabin? "Out of here, Judas! And take that quivering beard with you!" I could feel bolts straining against Pennsylvania steel as I pushed the '50 down, down, down to the ground below us. Suddenly, an explosion punctuated the sky--Hand held rocket fire at 3' o'clock! I quickly performed the evasive maneuvers that I had learned for so long, and so well. My face became angry, then sad, then gentle, then intensely serious, then was finally rocked by a powerful squealing, an unnatural burst of laughter. That did it! The rocket exploded harmlessly behind us. Now. Now it was time to take the stick and bring this shaking, careening flight, parts straining against themselves until nearly ready to burst, down to the ground. I put my arms to the twin arms of the FO-AP, set the APC, and with all of the strength remaining in me, began to push the levers down. Straining, I pushed harder. And harder. I could see the runway rising before us in the glare shield. I would have to find the remaining strength to bring it down. Finally, as if a burst of superhuman might had been somehow delegated to me, I pushed the levers into locked position. I could hear Penn in the cabin shouting "We're landing...We're going down!" as I felt the rough shock of the landing gear snapping into place. Sparks flew as we hit the runway, bullets ricocheting off of the cabin, one wheel touching pavement. I looked straight through the windshield--the militia, arms at the ready stood at the runway's end. The last obstacle. I turned the craft hard, sending it hurtling sideways across the pavement. It swept the militia away in a single screaming motion that combined with the screaming that arose from the cabin, as we continued to hurtle towards the small, makeshift terminal, where the dignitaries, negotiators, and heads of state awaited for my arrival. I did not close my eyes. I did not let go of the wheel. I watched--as we ground to a halt just before the doors of the terminal. I looked fore, at the dignitaries protecting themselves from the sniper fire that raged around them. I looked aft, at the passengers, shaken but safe. We had arrived. All was good.
Due to the discovery of a video of the above described occasion, I would like to make few small corrections. The flight was in fact actually a regularly scheduled chartered flight that was actually flown by the pilot and co-pilot--although the pilot did have a cold, and during the flight, I did at several times give serious attention to our flight conditions (notes indicate that I found it "a bit bumpy") I would also note that the dinner, Salmon with Creamed Potatoes, was undercooked, and was served with a Riesling that was unusually dry. It is also true that we were met not by a militia but by a girl's youth soccer team. However, it was necessary for me to dodge a soccer ball as team members demonstrated their often aggressive skills. No other shots were fired. In short: I misspoke." Cite:
Hewson takes the thread - and the day.
Hey, wait a second: I thought MY was always bashing HRC ...? He's always getting hit for it. Now he's glossing over HRC's pathetic lies and he's getting hit for that. I guess the guy is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't, and damned if he switches off the laptop for a couple of hours. Matthew would have no problems calling McCain a liar or calling into question his competence if something like this occurred. Even though Hillary is quite likely dead in the water, he won't call her a liar because...just in case. She lied, as she has done time and again, and should be called on it.
I am still waiting for someone in the press to use the L-word (lie or liar) in this instance. Has using this word become taboo? What the hell is going on?
The Clintons do not lie, they may happen to merely misspeak. The Clintons do not lose, there are merely mis-measured results. The Clintons do not linger, they merely refuse to leave.
The best part is that in finally explaining the whole thing, Hillary now says that she just took the little girl's "stuff" and left. Wow. She's such a warm person.
She could just say she confused this with her trip to Mozambique or something. She doesn't care about the truth, so she could just name any of the 80 countries she visited as First Lady. How stupid does she think we are? This is insulting. It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy that our Party's "inevitable" nominee thinks so little of our collective intelligence.
Re vanya's comment "In fairness to Hilary, it does sound like the security jocks on her trip probably tried to impress upon her, the way security guys will, the vast array of potential, if low probability, dangers she might exposed to." Yeah, this was a Hillary fib. The Hillary BIG LIE, on the the other hand, is when Hillary suggested to the voters that she might be able to find her ass with a six man search party if she was thrust into a national crisis as President.
Getting shot at by a sniper is something you don't forget...
Comments closed April 07, 2008. |
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email Books by Matthew Yglesias
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Weekly Archives
Categories
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Don't ignore that in Wolfson's spin, the combat zone of Bosnia became a "potential combat zone." Like, you know, Bethesda is a "potential" combat zone.
Posted by David B. | March 24, 2008 3:26 PM