How Clinton bumbled Bosniagate
So yes, Clinton was recently caught in a lie she’s been repeating for months about ducking sniper fire on the tarmac in Bosnia. It’s a story she’s been telling as part of her Commander-in-Chief credentials. Here’s her explanation:
Clinton said she was “sleep-deprived” and “misspoke” when she said last week that she landed under sniper fire during a trip to Bosnia in 1996, when she was first lady.
She also explained:
“Occasionally, I am a human being like everybody else… For the first time in 12 or so years I misspoke.”
And when it was pointed out that this isn’t the first lie misstatement in a dozen years, she sent an email to reporters and pundits.
Sen. Obama consistently and falsely claims that he was a law professor . . . He is not. He is a senior lecturer (now on leave) at the school. In academia, there is a vast difference between the two titles. Details matter.
Lets break up all that is wrong here into pieces.
Misspeaking versus lying
Misspeaking is like when your car loses traction because it has tired balls–I mean bald tires. Lying is when you claim you cancelled a welcome ceremony on the tarmac because of incoming sniper fire when in fact there was a ceremony in which you, your daughter, and Sinbad listened to poetry from a little girl.
Lying to America when “Sleep Deprived”
Kos pointed out the irony nicely:
If Hillary Clinton lied about snipers in Bosnia because of sleep deprivation (doubtful, given it’s a lie she’s said at least four times), then what will she do when she gets that call at 3 a.m.?
“Occasionally, I am a human being.”
This is close to clinical delusions of grandeur. Does she really think that most of the time she is above being human? Do you know any human being who hasn’t misspoken in the last twelve years once? Or would ever claim such a thing? I sure couldn’t.
The “vast” difference between lecturers and professors
Hyperbole much? It’s true there’s a difference. Just because you lecture to law students about the law doesn’t make you a law professor. There’s a difference. It may have something to do with what the word “is” is. Is it a vast difference? I’m sorry Senator Clinton, but we in America don’t think so. We don’t even know what the difference is. It’s true, Obama probably knows the difference, but I suspect he used the phrase law professor for convenience, and frankly, it’s not very misleading. (UPDATE 3/28/08: I was wrong. His law school says there’s no difference.)
What’s the big deal?
A reminder of the timeline:
- Going into March 4, Clinton’s campaign looks like it’s about to end. In desperation, Clinton launches the “kitchen sink” attack on Obama, focusing on the argument that he’s not fit to be Commander-in-Chief because he lacks experience.
- It works. She eeks out a victory in the Texas primary, in large part due to last-minute decisions by voters persuaded by the “experience” argument. As a result of the victory, her campaign presses on, despite no clear path to the nomination.
- Obama belatedly responds as the media narrative runs with “is Obama tough enough?” The Obama camp asks what experience Clinton is referring to.
- Clinton responds with stories of landing under sniper fire in Bosnia…
- Which turn out to be lies misstatements.
And then there’s Wright
Her handling of this issue was obviously terrible. Recognizing that, the big news of the day was her attempt (at least partially successful) to shift the conversation back to Reverend Wright. This leaves us in the remarkable position of having both McCain and Huckabee reject an attack on the likely Democratic nominee that Hillary Clinton endorses.
But don’t worry, “things are being done” that are “easy” will “magically” solve this before the convention
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid knows something.
Q: Do you still think the Democratic race can be resolved before the convention?
Reid: Easy.
Q: How is that?
Reid: It will be done.
Q: It just will?
Reid: Yep.
Q: Magically?
Reid: No, it will be done. I had a conversation with Governor Dean (Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean) today. Things are being done.
Update I: Rollingstone has an excellet article that lists various “Lies, Damn Lies, and Misspeakings” of Hillary Clinton’s, including her story of getting turned away by NASA, which morphed when she was older into a story of getting turned away by the marines.
Update II: New video evidence (with some visual effects) suggests Hillary Clinton was not lying about Bosnia. This video wil make you laugh. (And thanks Brendan for finding it.)
6 Responses to “How Clinton bumbled Bosniagate”
http://www.luros.org
She really thinks she’s Xena, the warrior candidate. I wonder if she wears presidential underroos? Scratch that. No, I really don’t. Ew.
http://www.matthewfunk.net/blog
I suspect this story will continue to have legs, for a number of reasons.
First, there’s the matter of Hillary’s dismissive, contemptuous reply to the press continuing to inquire as to why she lied - dismissive and contemptuous because that is, after all, how she regards the truth. “I’m human” may work if she had done it once - though as kos notes it’s a shot to the breadbox for her experience claim - but four times?
Unless she means, “I’m human, and so crave power at whatever the cost,” that excuse doesn’t float, and the press will hopefully have a field day poking holes in it.
The second reason is currently making the rounds of the Drudge Report - and that is that other participants in the Bosnia visit are being found and thrust in front of a microphone. This can go on for some time.
The longer Hillary flails about in counter-attacks and stands by her story that it was just a mere fluster of the tongue that got her into this, the longer she’ll be beaten on. For the first time in this contest, her sneering defiance of fact and prevailing opinion is hurting, rather than sustaining, her campaign.
Cameron,
The Clintonista web sites seem to be on fire with the notion that Greg Craig has committed a disbarrable offense by joining the Obama campaign since he previously defended Bill C during the impeachment proceedings. Seems kind of silly since Bill himself has actually been disbarred. Any chance you could add some of your legalistic perspectives to this issue?
@ Ponds:
It’s an interesting question, is Greg Craig violating ethical rules by joining Obama’s campaign having previously represented Bill Clinton? I haven’t researched the issue, but personally I wouldn’t risk it. Lawyers owe a duty of loyalty to their client which includes avoiding positions of trust that might give an appearance of impropriety. I don’t have any reason to believe Greg Craig has divulged confidential information of Bill Clinton’s to Obama for use in the campaign, but his position could give that appearance, and so he probably should’ve avoided it or sought a waiver from his former client.
That said, disbarment is a heavy penalty and I doubt the bar will react that harshly absent something more.
I would contrast the situation to Bill Richardson. Bill Richardson was not an attorney for Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton. He’s a superdelegate. Sen. Clinton has been repeating the mantra that superdelegates should use their independent judgment. I think it’s entirely reasonable for him to, as Clinton suggested, exercise his judgment.
Thanks for the info. It kind of makes you wonder how the Washington uber lawyers like Bob Bennett manage to keep their allegiances straight.
http://4international.wordpress.com/2008/07/22/486/
[…] U.S. media and government engaged in a disinformation and propaganda campaign regarding Izetbegovic’s ties to Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini, and Islamic […]
Discussion