PDA

View Full Version : Picture of Hillary "dodging sniper fire": Innocent mistake or chronic liar?



Little-Acorn
03-26-2008, 05:39 PM
Here's a picture of Hillary's arrival at the air base in Bosnia on the date in question:

http://wnd.com/images/hillarybosnia.jpg

Obviously she didn't dodge much of anything there, perhaps except difficult questions.

She has since said that she "misspoke", that she had "made a mistake".

How on earth can you make a "mistake" like that? Had she dodged sniper fire in other places and just mistakenly included that Bosnia visit with the rest?

As far as I know, she has never dodged sniper fire, ever, anywhere. Military people who worked on her trip to Bosnia back then, have said that heads would have rolled everywhere if they had allowed the then-First Lady to enter any kind of danger zone at all. That base in Bosnia was safer than most kindergartens today, even in wealthy neighborhoods.

So, if Hillary had never been under any kind of fire anywhere, and had had nothing but friendly, open greetings with the usual pomp and circumstance on every foreign or domestic trip she has ever made... how could she "accidentally" relate being under sniper fire at one of them?

If someone shot at or near me (happened once), I would remember it clearly. And I'm sure that if no one had ever done that, I wouldn't have any lingering memory that could pop into my consciousness when I was tired or whatever, causing me to "misspeak".

Hillary didn't "misspeak" or "make a mistake". She flat-out lied, for purposes of looking more "experienced" and so more qualified to be President. Her only mistake, was in thinking she could get away with it. Maybe she thought the press was as fawning today, as they were when she was calling herself "co-President", and would never do something as undigified as calling her a liar when she lied to them?

The (Bill) Clinton administration was notorious for telling flat lies and filing false charges, from "Monica was a stalker" to charging Travel Office employee Billy Dale with malfeasance and forcing the man to exhaust his life savings on lawyers, only to have a jury find him innocent in 20 minutes.

Now we're in the middle of the 2008 campaign season. But it looks like nothing has changed, except the gender of the Clinton telling the lies. And possibly not that, either.

Little-Acorn
03-27-2008, 10:44 AM
The strangest thing about most of Hillary's lies, is that there isn't even any need for them. She said that Chelsea had been jogging near the WTC on Sept. 11, 2001, when the first plane hit, and ducked into a coffee shop and saved her own life. When Chelsea was asked about that shortly afterward, she looked surprised and told the reporter she had been at a friend's house four miles away. Why make up such an easily disproven story?

Same with the claim she had been named after Sir Edmund Hillary (sp?), who became famous for being the first to climb Mt. Everest. Turned out that Hillary was born in 1947, but Sir Edmund didn't climb Everest until 1953.

Hillary Clinton is such a pathological liar, that she does it even when she doesn't need to, for no apparent purpose.

Do we need someone like that in the Oval Office? And what is wrong with the Democrat party, that they think we do?