Hillary

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Everyone knows that Hilary lied through her teeth when she claimed that she was under sniper fire on an overseas trip. And rational person knows that it's a load of crap thatshe only made that claim because she was tired.

So Spence, please tell me...how is it, that this lie, doesn't undermine her credibility?

From what I've read there was a threat of sniper fire and her aircraft used standard evasion techniques as a precaution and they were even issued flack jackets. So it's not like the idea of a threat was made up, she just stretched it and mischaracterized what ultimately happened.

She also had to deal with the fallout. Did it damage her credibility? Yes, but that's not so say credibility can't be rebuilt. In the grand scheme of things this wasn't a huge event...it got play because of the election.

You seem to want to establish a trend of Clinton being a pathological liar to suit your narrative. I think the reality is there's a sufficient body of serious work to offset that assertion.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

From what I've read there was a threat of sniper fire and her aircraft used standard evasion techniques as a precaution and they were even issued flack jackets. So it's not like the idea of a threat was made up, she just stretched it and mischaracterized what ultimately happened.

She also had to deal with the fallout. Did it damage her credibility? Yes, but that's not so say credibility can't be rebuilt. In the grand scheme of things this wasn't a huge event...it got play because of the election.

You seem to want to establish a trend of Clinton being a pathological liar to suit your narrative. I think the reality is there's a sufficient body of serious work to offset that assertion.

-spence

Seriously, are you OK?

In the situation we are discussing, Hilary's claim was not that she travels under routine threat of sniper fire. If she said that, no one would deny that.

That's not what she said. Am I going too fast for you? That's not what she said, so there was no reason for you to bring it up.

Here is what she said...

"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."

According to you, she didn't lie. Rather, "she just stretched it and mischaracterized what ultimately happened."

You should work in PR for people like Hilary and Lindsay Lohan and Osama Bin Laden. As long as someone agrees with you on political issues, you are physicalluy incapable of calling them out for egregious and immoral behavior.

"You seem to want to establish a trend of Clinton being a pathological liar to suit your narrative"

Not a pathological liar...rather, pathologically immoral. I recall scandals involving FBI files, Whitewater, this bold-faced lie, travelgate. Then there is her loving husband...So I'm not "trying to establish" this pattern of moral bankruptcy - I'm just pointing out the irrefutable facts...facts for whicj you will do anything to deny or mitigate. You are the one bending over backwards to adjust the facts to fit your political narrative (that narrative being that it's wrong to kill convicted murderers, but it's OK to slaughter unborn babies), not I.

"She also had to deal with the fallout"

What fallout? Not from the likes of you. She got promoted to SecState. Maybe not the best position for someone who is so disconnected from reality that she think sse has been shot at when she hasn't. What if she is sitting across from the president of Mexico, and she falsely accuses him of trying to shoot her?

This lie, by the way, was a slap in the face to the security personnel at the arrival site (2 of whom were friends of mine) who risked their lives to secure the area surrounding her arrival site. They risk their lives to keep her safe, and she shows her gratitude by saying that they are incompetent. Classy.

I just can't figure out how you can support her so blindly, and not feel like you need to take a shower. She's repugnant.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

You seem to want to establish a trend of Clinton being a pathological liar to suit your narrative. I think the reality is there's a sufficient body of serious work to offset that assertion.

-spence

actually, there's a sufficient body of sufficient lying to support the narrative and establish a trend for either Clinton.....I believe an esteemed American once accurately referred to Hillary as a "congenital liar".....that was long before these lies....but for some this is ...resume enhancement...particularly if you get away with it

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

actually, there's a sufficient body of sufficient lying to support the narrative and establish a trend for either Clinton.....I believe an esteemed American once accurately referred to Hillary as a "congenital liar".....that was long before these lies....but for some this is ...resume enhancement...particularly if you get away with it

And yet she exited the job with a 69% approval rating (Gallup).

I'd note her husband left the presidency with a 66% approval rating (Gallup).

And all this after killing Vince Foster.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

And yet she exited the job with a 69% approval rating (Gallup).

I'd note her husband left the presidency with a 66% approval rating (Gallup).



-spence

YET 100% DISHONEST.......America is a wonderful place.....pretty sure Hill had her highest approval ratings when she was being seen or viewed as victim of Bill's transgressions.....odd world

GALLUP

The current rating is just one percentage point below her all-time high rating of 67%, from December 1998.

Clinton's popularity may be partly due to the nature of the secretary of state position, which is somewhat above the fray of partisan politics and focused on defending U.S. interests globally.