What else did Hillary lie about when it comes to her 'experience'?

[M0RPH]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: M0RPH
Hillary's Bosnia statement was an exaggeration, not an outright lie. Everybody does it.

I'll restate: There's a marked difference between, "I remembered that movie ending incorrectly," and, "You mean I wasn't being shot at, didn't have to run for cover while in danger of my life, and had my only daughter along with me at the time? Oh, and then I stopped and climbed into an outpost to pose for photos with troops?"

I sort of think those are inconsistencies that would stand out in anyone's mind. I think you'd have to have a screw or two loose to turn a stroll around the countryside with children greeting you into what she stated happened.

Lissa Muscatine, who served as Hilary Clinton's chief speechwriter in 1996 and accompanied her on the Bosnia trip, feels that I have failed to provide a full picture of what took place. She gave me her "vivid recollections" of the arrival in Tuzla, which I quote below:


I was on the plane with then First Lady Hillary Clinton for the trip from Germany into Bosnia in 1996. We were put on a C17-- a plane capable of steep ascents and descents -- precisely because we were flying into what was considered a combat zone. We were issued flak jackets for the final leg because of possible sniper fire near Tuzla. As an additional precaution, the First Lady and Chelsea were moved to the armored cockpit for the descent into Tuzla. We were told that a welcoming ceremony on the tarmac might be canceled because of sniper fire in the hills surrounding the air strip. From Tuzla, Hillary flew to two outposts in Bosnia with gunships escorting her helicopter.

There were sniper threats there. I'd imagine they hurried off the plane and didn't take a leisurely stroll. I'd also imagine they hurried the meeting with the little girl so they could get them out of there as soon as possible. So really, not THAT far from the story she told. Obviously she did embellish, which is what people tend to do for effect when giving speeches.

Here is the account from Hillary's book, also not THAT different from the later statement.

Due to reports of snipers in the hills around the airstrip, we were forced to cut short an event on the tarmac...' "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...

Anyway, you go right ahead trying to crucify here for this little slip... I can guarantee you the American public doesn't care nearly as much as the Obamabots do.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: M0RPH
There were sniper threats there. I'd imagine they hurried off the plane and didn't take a leisurely stroll. I'd also imagine they hurried the meeting with the little girl so they could get them out of there as soon as possible. So really, not THAT far from the story she told. Obviously she did embellish, which is what people tend to do for effect when giving speeches.

:roll: Which rock did you just crawl out from under? There's goddam video floating around of exactly what happened. There was no hurrying, they strolled around the tarmac shaking hands. The video doesn't lie, unlike Hillary.

Anyway, you go right ahead trying to crucify here for this little slip... I can guarantee you the American public doesn't care nearly as much as the Obamabots do.

:roll:

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: sportage
I knew this type post would be coming.
The question to really ask, is, what lies has GWB and Cheney told?

Deflection, derailment, and two wrongs make a right argument? Whoohoo!

Obviously we should only strive to stoop to the lowest of the low, lower than before. Yet, after all that - what we can't stand is a poor liar. Obama makes us believe what he says and doesn?t have these kinds of failures that Clinton does.

It stinks against her record of experience ? because her experience is in being corrupt.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: M0RPH
Hillary's Bosnia statement was an exaggeration, not an outright lie. Everybody does it. When your uncle embellishes his story about the fish he almost caught, do you scream "LIAR, LIAR!" at him?

Obama has also made statements in the past that were later shown to be less than completely truthful. Particulary one he made about his involvement in some bill... I don't have a link but it was mentioned on MSNBC yesterday. It was just an embellishment, so of course nobody is going to crucify him on it.

Yes. There were quite a few mis-speakings on the part of Obama in that memo the Clinton campaign released.

One of them may stick...

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: M0RPH
There were sniper threats there. I'd imagine they hurried off the plane and didn't take a leisurely stroll. I'd also imagine they hurried the meeting with the little girl so they could get them out of there as soon as possible. So really, not THAT far from the story she told. Obviously she did embellish, which is what people tend to do for effect when giving speeches.

Here is the account from Hillary's book, also not THAT different from the later statement.

Due to reports of snipers in the hills around the airstrip, we were forced to cut short an event on the tarmac...' "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...

Anyway, you go right ahead trying to crucify here for this little slip... I can guarantee you the American public doesn't care nearly as much as the Obamabots do.

I don't care about crucifying anyone. Whether Senator Obama or Senator Clinton become president is immaterial to me - they both would put the same foreign policy in place.

I do care about accuracy. You're right, we probably all embellish in job interviews. We don't all straight out lie in them, though.

A reported sniper threat != "We ran with our heads down to get to the vehicles to get to our base." That's not an embellishment. An embellishment would have been making what was said scarier, not inventing physical actions taken.

They literally strolled off the plane. Watch the video. That != "We were basically told to run to our cars. Now that is what happened." Okay, I can buy this as an embellishment. Maybe she remembered being rushed or in her head she felt rushed but kept outer calm.

lol @ hurried the little girl. She originally said, "There was supposed to be some kind of greeting ceremony, but instead..." That's not an embellishment. She actually erased the existence of that little girl, and of everyone else in that tarmac ceremony. She was making a run for the car.

So really, it is THAT far from the story she told. And nobody in their right mind awards points for saying the truth once the person has already been exposed to not have told it originally. That just means they're not insane.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: M0RPH
There were sniper threats there. I'd imagine they hurried off the plane and didn't take a leisurely stroll. I'd also imagine they hurried the meeting with the little girl so they could get them out of there as soon as possible. So really, not THAT far from the story she told. Obviously she did embellish, which is what people tend to do for effect when giving speeches.

:roll: Which rock did you just crawl out from under? There's goddam video floating around of exactly what happened. There was no hurrying, they strolled around the tarmac shaking hands. The video doesn't lie, unlike Hillary.

Anyway, you go right ahead trying to crucify here for this little slip... I can guarantee you the American public doesn't care nearly as much as the Obamabots do.

:roll:

SPIN! SPIN! SPIN! MORPH isn't just drinking the Kool-Aid, he's drowning in it.

 

[miniMUNCH]

Originally posted by: Sinsear
Well at least she didn't listen to someone preach for 20 years then try and lie to say she was unaware of what was being said.

Yeah... like that so, so, so much worse. :roll:

One person says, "hey, i don't remember all this dude's sermons or their subject matter for the last twenty years". Mind you this was all to address a rat-fvcking, smear campaign. Obama apparently does not share any of his views so what's the biggie?!


The other person says she brought peace to Ireland, visited troops in serbia in the face of mortal peril, etc. All of which turns out to not be even close to the truth and she got called on her bald faced lies.

Look... democrats gotta realize... Obama will win against McCain... he will pull republican votes, mine included, and he'll get a lot more independent support, IMO.

Hillary? I don't think so... a lot of rep's hate her and will be more motivated to get off the couch and vote for McCain with her on ballot. And she won't pull republicans and fewer independents.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Sinsear
Well at least she didn't listen to someone preach for 20 years then try and lie to say she was unaware of what was being said.

You lying about somebody lying is entertaining.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: sportage
I knew this type post would be coming.
The question to really ask, is, what lies has GWB and Cheney told?
Their lies caused death, destruction and the shedding of American blood.

There's no question that Bush, Cheney and their entire admin lied, causing death and destruction. However, that is a separate issue from whether Hillary lied or what that means regarding her candidacy.

The fact about that is, in she's on been caught on video "embellishing" her resume far beyond what the facts support about her experience in Bosnia, and she tried to use those "embellishments" to support her claim that she has experience Obama lacks.

The fact is, it wasn't an inadvertant or "accidental" mis-statement. It was in her prepared text.

The fact is, there are further statements from actual participants at discussions in Belfast stating that Hillaray is overstating her contributions to the resulting peace settlement.

For simplicity, her umm... deviations from the truth can be called lying. Unlike Bush or Cheney, he lies haven't killed anyone, but she wasn't in a position where her lies could have that result.

The question is, can she be trusted not to lie if she were President? We're finally reaching the end of one catastrophic administration of liars. I don't want another one.

 

[piasabird]

Where are the Hillary Tax Returns???

 

[Exterous]

Originally posted by: M0RPH

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: M0RPH
Hillary's Bosnia statement was an exaggeration, not an outright lie. Everybody does it.

I'll restate: There's a marked difference between, "I remembered that movie ending incorrectly," and, "You mean I wasn't being shot at, didn't have to run for cover while in danger of my life, and had my only daughter along with me at the time? Oh, and then I stopped and climbed into an outpost to pose for photos with troops?"

I sort of think those are inconsistencies that would stand out in anyone's mind. I think you'd have to have a screw or two loose to turn a stroll around the countryside with children greeting you into what she stated happened.

Lissa Muscatine, who served as Hilary Clinton's chief speechwriter in 1996 and accompanied her on the Bosnia trip, feels that I have failed to provide a full picture of what took place. She gave me her "vivid recollections" of the arrival in Tuzla, which I quote below:


I was on the plane with then First Lady Hillary Clinton for the trip from Germany into Bosnia in 1996. We were put on a C17-- a plane capable of steep ascents and descents -- precisely because we were flying into what was considered a combat zone. We were issued flak jackets for the final leg because of possible sniper fire near Tuzla. As an additional precaution, the First Lady and Chelsea were moved to the armored cockpit for the descent into Tuzla. We were told that a welcoming ceremony on the tarmac might be canceled because of sniper fire in the hills surrounding the air strip. From Tuzla, Hillary flew to two outposts in Bosnia with gunships escorting her helicopter.

There were sniper threats there. I'd imagine they hurried off the plane and didn't take a leisurely stroll. I'd also imagine they hurried the meeting with the little girl so they could get them out of there as soon as possible. So really, not THAT far from the story she told. Obviously she did embellish, which is what people tend to do for effect when giving speeches.

Here is the account from Hillary's book, also not THAT different from the later statement.

Due to reports of snipers in the hills around the airstrip, we were forced to cut short an event on the tarmac...' "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...

Anyway, you go right ahead trying to crucify here for this little slip... I can guarantee you the American public doesn't care nearly as much as the Obamabots do.

Bwahahaha

I would recommend actually watching the video so you know what you are talking about. There were no helmets, no running - not even fast walking. They paused to get flowers and have a poem read by a little girl who also did not have a helmet or flak jacket.

And saying they landed under sniper fire is a LIE - there was no fire. You cannot exaggerate something that did not happen

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: sportage
I knew this type post would be coming.
The question to really ask, is, what lies has GWB and Cheney told?
Their lies caused death, destruction and the shedding of American blood.

There's no question that Bush, Cheney and their entire admin lied, causing death and destruction. However, that is a separate issue from whether Hillary lied or what that means regarding her candidacy.

The fact about that is, in she's on been caught on video "embellishing" her resume far beyond what the facts support about her experience in Bosnia, and she tried to use those "embellishments" to support her claim that she has experience Obama lacks.

The fact is, it wasn't an inadvertant or "accidental" mis-statement. It was in her prepared text.

The fact is, there are further statements from actual participants at discussions in Belfast stating that Hillaray is overstating her contributions to the resulting peace settlement.

For simplicity, her umm... deviations from the truth can be called lying. Unlike Bush or Cheney, he lies haven't killed anyone, but she wasn't in a position where her lies could have that result.

The question is, can she be trusted not to lie if she were President? We're finally reaching the end of one catastrophic administration of liars. I don't want another one.

The answer is no. She can't be trusted any more than Bush. The Clintons and Bushes are cut from the same cloth. Were Hillary given the position of Commander-in-Chief I have no doubt she would continue to lie to us and put our military in harms way unnecessarily.

 

[Fern]

What else did Hillary lie about when it comes to her 'experience'?

It's a fair question, and one I think will revisited with a great of scrutiny should she "win" the nomination.

I saw Jonathan Alter of Newsweek on Olbermann's show Monday night. Here's a short list of "misrepresentations" she has made about her experience according to him:

1. The Bosnia sniper thingy

2. Macedonia. She claims credit for negotiating the re-opening border. However, that had been achieved BEFORE she arrived. She had nothing to do with it in spite of her claims.

3. Irish Peace Accords. Wasn't involved in the actual negotiations etc

4. SCHIP Not involved in it's passage but claims credit for it's passage. Congress was controlled by the Repubs at that time.

5. Family & Medical Leave Act. Same as SCHIP, she claims credit for it's passage but actually had nothing to do with that.

6. Her and Obama are actually tied at both having 2 pieces of substantial legislation they can claim credit for. She, of course, claims that she has far more than him which is untrue.

We also know that she never had security clearence and, in spite of what she claims, never took part in any intel briefings etc.

Unless and until the Clinton WH records are released it'll be difficult to determine what she actualy did in that time.

Fern

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Fern
Unless and until the Clinton WH records are released it'll be difficult to determine what she actualy did in that time.

Well, we certainly know what she DIDN'T do...

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Fern

What else did Hillary lie about when it comes to her 'experience'?

It's a fair question, and one I think will revisited with a great of scrutiny should she "win" the nomination.

I saw Jonathan Alter of Newsweek on Olbermann's show Monday night. Here's a short list of "misrepresentations" she has made about her experience according to him:

1. The Bosnia sniper thingy

2. Macedonia. She claims credit for negotiating the re-opening border. However, that had been achieved BEFORE she arrived. She had nothing to do with it in spite of her claims.

3. Irish Peace Accords. Wasn't involved in the actual negotiations etc

4. SCHIP Not involved in it's passage but claims credit for it's passage. Congress was controlled by the Repubs at that time.

5. Family & Medical Leave Act. Same as SCHIP, she claims credit for it's passage but actually had nothing to do with that.

6. Her and Obama are actually tied at both having 2 pieces of substantial legislation they can claim credit for. She, of course, claims that she has far more than him which is untrue.

We also know that she never had security clearence and, in spite of what she claims, never took part in any intel briefings etc.

Unless and until the Clinton WH records are released it'll be difficult to determine what she actualy did in that time.

Fern

Not going to refute each point, but people continue to just repeat things as if they are objective fact. For ex re: SCHIP:
http://www.factcheck.org/elect..._credit_for_schip.html
"We review the record and conclude that she deserves plenty of credit, both for the passage of the SCHIP legislation and for pushing outreach efforts to translate the law into reality."

Obviously where people stand on the value of Hillary's claimed accomplishments has been heavily influenced by their preference for a candidate, if one person can point to SCHIP and say "look, she had nothing to do with it" and Sen Kennedy can point to it and say "The children's health program wouldn't be in existence today if we didn't have Hillary pushing for it from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue."

 

[PokerGuy]

Seen in a vacuum her lie ...errrr.... "misspeaking" is just that -- another politician running for office lying. What else is new? In her case though, she was trying to use it (her trip and activities) as one of the examples underpinning her claims that she is more experienced and more "ready" than her opponent. Her story of how things went there (when contrasted with the actual video) can't be seen as anything but a lie, which essentially goes right to the heart of her argument that she's more ready and experienced than the other candidate. This is very damaging to her, no matter what damage control spin doctors say.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Not going to refute each point, but people continue to just repeat things as if they are objective fact. For ex re: SCHIP:
http://www.factcheck.org/elect..._credit_for_schip.html
"We review the record and conclude that she deserves plenty of credit, both for the passage of the SCHIP legislation and for pushing outreach efforts to translate the law into reality."

Obviously where people stand on the value of Hillary's claimed accomplishments has been heavily influenced by their preference for a candidate, if one person can point to SCHIP and say "look, she had nothing to do with it" and Sen Kennedy can point to it and say "The children's health program wouldn't be in existence today if we didn't have Hillary pushing for it from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue."

When I boil down the fact check piece all I get is the she was "instumental" in getting WH support for the bill.

So Bill Clinton would've vetoed it if not for Hillary?

I'm unimpressed.

We've had various staffers say Hillary was never even in the room was SCHIP was drafted and hashed out.

I'll again mention that this was passed while the Repubs held both houses of Congress, and Bill Clinton was in the midst of "bimbo erruptions".

I think this is mostly another case of someone confusing being a "cheerleader" for that of an active and important participant.

Fern

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Not going to refute each point, but people continue to just repeat things as if they are objective fact. For ex re: SCHIP:
http://www.factcheck.org/elect..._credit_for_schip.html
"We review the record and conclude that she deserves plenty of credit, both for the passage of the SCHIP legislation and for pushing outreach efforts to translate the law into reality."

Obviously where people stand on the value of Hillary's claimed accomplishments has been heavily influenced by their preference for a candidate, if one person can point to SCHIP and say "look, she had nothing to do with it" and Sen Kennedy can point to it and say "The children's health program wouldn't be in existence today if we didn't have Hillary pushing for it from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue."

When I boil down the fact check piece all I get is the she was "instumental" in getting WH support for the bill.

So Bill Clinton would've vetoed it if not for Hillary?

I'm unimpressed.

We've had various staffers say Hillary was never even in the room was SCHIP was drafted and hashed out.

I'll again mention that this was passed while the Repubs held both houses of Congress, and Bill Clinton was in the midst of "bimbo erruptions".

I think this is mostly another case of someone confusing being a "cheerleader" for that of an active and important participant.

Cheerleader rather than active and important participant? Let's go with that analogy. A cheerleader jumps around on the sideline and maybe gets the crowd excited but has very little, if any, effect on the outcome of the game. An offensive coordinator however has a lot of imput and but doesn't step foot on the field or decide what plays get picked, that's the coach's job.

Sounds like you're taking a rather simplistic view that if someone didn't draft the legislation they didn't have any influence in it?

"Clymer wrote that Kennedy "worked with" Hillary Clinton to get White House support for a Senate measure to grant $24 billion for the new program, rather than the $16 billion approved by the House. "With strong administration support, the $24 billion stayed in," he wrote."

"He said that when President Clinton himself was showing reluctance to back the new legislation out of fear it would upset a budget deal with Republicans, "We went to Mrs. Clinton and said, 'You've got to get the president to come around on this thing,' " and she did."

Another $8B because of WH support which Hillary fought for. Seems like the only criticisms I can find is that she didn't draft the legislation so she shouldn't get any credit, meanwhile everyone but Orrin Hatch has called her anything from "significant" to "instrumental" in it's passage.

Factcheck also cites to the Washington Times article which "blames" Hillary for the program. So when it's to a critics' advantage to associate her with SCHIP then she was responsible, but when it's convenient to minimize her role she was just a cheerleader. When she was in the WH she was criticized for being too involved, now that she's running for president the criticism is that she didn't do anything and learned nothing.

The whole experience debate exercise is pretty pointless because just like Obama has won 90% of the black vote, Hillary has 90% of the experience minded voters. Poll after poll shows even Obama supporters think Hillary is more experienced, just that they don't care about experience.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: M0RPH

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: M0RPH
Hillary's Bosnia statement was an exaggeration, not an outright lie. Everybody does it.

I'll restate: There's a marked difference between, "I remembered that movie ending incorrectly," and, "You mean I wasn't being shot at, didn't have to run for cover while in danger of my life, and had my only daughter along with me at the time? Oh, and then I stopped and climbed into an outpost to pose for photos with troops?"

I sort of think those are inconsistencies that would stand out in anyone's mind. I think you'd have to have a screw or two loose to turn a stroll around the countryside with children greeting you into what she stated happened.

Lissa Muscatine, who served as Hilary Clinton's chief speechwriter in 1996 and accompanied her on the Bosnia trip, feels that I have failed to provide a full picture of what took place. She gave me her "vivid recollections" of the arrival in Tuzla, which I quote below:


I was on the plane with then First Lady Hillary Clinton for the trip from Germany into Bosnia in 1996. We were put on a C17-- a plane capable of steep ascents and descents -- precisely because we were flying into what was considered a combat zone. We were issued flak jackets for the final leg because of possible sniper fire near Tuzla. As an additional precaution, the First Lady and Chelsea were moved to the armored cockpit for the descent into Tuzla. We were told that a welcoming ceremony on the tarmac might be canceled because of sniper fire in the hills surrounding the air strip. From Tuzla, Hillary flew to two outposts in Bosnia with gunships escorting her helicopter.

There were sniper threats there. I'd imagine they hurried off the plane and didn't take a leisurely stroll. I'd also imagine they hurried the meeting with the little girl so they could get them out of there as soon as possible. So really, not THAT far from the story she told. Obviously she did embellish, which is what people tend to do for effect when giving speeches.

Here is the account from Hillary's book, also not THAT different from the later statement.

Due to reports of snipers in the hills around the airstrip, we were forced to cut short an event on the tarmac...' "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...

Anyway, you go right ahead trying to crucify here for this little slip... I can guarantee you the American public doesn't care nearly as much as the Obamabots do.

Oh just stop it. What would your mother say if she saw you here saying this?

 

[Pliablemoose]

I'm one of those swing voters that'll vote for Obama over McCain.

I wouldn't piss on Hillary if she was on fire.

 

[Jiggz]

Originally posted by: M0RPH
Hillary's Bosnia statement was an exaggeration, not an outright lie. Everybody does it. When your uncle embellishes his story about the fish he almost caught, do you scream "LIAR, LIAR!" at him?

Obama has also made statements in the past that were later shown to be less than completely truthful. Particulary one he made about his involvement in some bill... I don't have a link but it was mentioned on MSNBC yesterday. It was just an embellishment, so of course nobody is going to crucify him on it.

Actually, I will call my Uncle a liar if I see the fish and it's not really that big! Just like in Hillary's case it was shown not a single sniper or bullet or worse yet "ducking" was seen in the film! Do you see the difference? One is about words while the other is about recorded real life video? OK call it exaggeration but as far as non supporters are concerned it's a big muth'r fuvkin' LIE! And believe or not it won't be the last either!

 

[Jiggz]

Originally posted by: M0RPH

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: M0RPH
Hillary's Bosnia statement was an exaggeration, not an outright lie. Everybody does it.

I'll restate: There's a marked difference between, "I remembered that movie ending incorrectly," and, "You mean I wasn't being shot at, didn't have to run for cover while in danger of my life, and had my only daughter along with me at the time? Oh, and then I stopped and climbed into an outpost to pose for photos with troops?"

I sort of think those are inconsistencies that would stand out in anyone's mind. I think you'd have to have a screw or two loose to turn a stroll around the countryside with children greeting you into what she stated happened.

Lissa Muscatine, who served as Hilary Clinton's chief speechwriter in 1996 and accompanied her on the Bosnia trip, feels that I have failed to provide a full picture of what took place. She gave me her "vivid recollections" of the arrival in Tuzla, which I quote below:


I was on the plane with then First Lady Hillary Clinton for the trip from Germany into Bosnia in 1996. We were put on a C17-- a plane capable of steep ascents and descents -- precisely because we were flying into what was considered a combat zone. We were issued flak jackets for the final leg because of possible sniper fire near Tuzla. As an additional precaution, the First Lady and Chelsea were moved to the armored cockpit for the descent into Tuzla. We were told that a welcoming ceremony on the tarmac might be canceled because of sniper fire in the hills surrounding the air strip. From Tuzla, Hillary flew to two outposts in Bosnia with gunships escorting her helicopter.

There were sniper threats there. I'd imagine they hurried off the plane and didn't take a leisurely stroll. I'd also imagine they hurried the meeting with the little girl so they could get them out of there as soon as possible. So really, not THAT far from the story she told. Obviously she did embellish, which is what people tend to do for effect when giving speeches.

Here is the account from Hillary's book, also not THAT different from the later statement.

Due to reports of snipers in the hills around the airstrip, we were forced to cut short an event on the tarmac...' "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...

Anyway, you go right ahead trying to crucify here for this little slip... I can guarantee you the American public doesn't care nearly as much as the Obamabots do.

Your guarantee is no better than the lies your Dirty Hillary preaches on a daily basis! So please stop! Until you and your Dirty Hillary learn to accept your lies, you'll never see the truth. Redeem and you shall be blessed, maybe next election year 2012!