Here Comes Round Two - Clinton Told Bosnian Sniper Fire Tale on Feb 29 in Waco, TX

[jedreport]

Run time: 00:36 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzDkTUtTGXU   Posted on YouTube: March 25, 2008 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: March 25, 2008 By DU Member: jedreport Views on DU: 1942

 
It's becoming clear that Hillary Clinton has engaged in a deliberate pattern of false statements about her trip to Tuzla, Bosnia -- and now there's additional video evidence.

It comes from a February 29, 2008 campaign stop in Waco, Texas during which she told this version of her sniper fire tale:

"One of the great honors of being First Lady and of being a senator is the time that I was privileged to spend with our troops here at home, in Iraq and Afghanistan, in Bosnia, Kosovo, and places around the world. I remember particularly a trip to Bosnia where the welcoming ceremony had to be moved inside because of sniper fire."

This can't be explained away as a "minor blip" or a simple "misstatement."

What we're seeing is a deliberate pattern, and voters deserve a thorough and convincing explanation of what exactly was going through Hillary Clinton's mind.

Until she offers a thorough answer, the questions will continue to mount.

Did she know her statements were false? If she had a false memory, why didn't the people around her who knew the truth tell her? What does that say about the type of presidency she would lead?

[ingac70]

1. This shit has got to be made into a TV commericial...

And played in PA and all other states left in the primary from now until Mrs. Hillary Rodham Münchhausen drops out.

[azmesa207]

25. Sniper fire

She never claimed that the sniper fire was directed at her she simply said they move the welcoming ceremony inside because of the danger of sniper fire . Any one can be made to look bad in a 30 second sound bite but of course you obama supporters know that your very good at it .

[acmavm]

2. They're both liars. Obama didn't know the guy who gave him

the quarter of a million dollars and who's wife bought the other half of the lot that he lives on.

[ingac70]

3. He's never claimed he didn't know Rezko...

Give it up.

[acmavm]

12. You are right, he didn't deny know him, he denied knowing he

was a crook. And that he did him any favors (another lie). And lied about the amount of money he got from him. And about the land deal on his house.

THANK YOU ALL FOR MAKING ME GO LOOK THIS UP AGAIN.


<snip>

All of this — and more — centers on the Rezko-Obama relationship. Obama has tried to minimize his connections to Rezko, understandably, as Rezko sinks deeper into his federal trial. The Sun-Times and other Chicago newspapers keep finding more and more connections and showing that Rezko was more than just a contributor to an election campaign. Obama and Rezko have significant ties, and at the very least it calls into question how Obama could have remained ignorant of his friend’s corruption while at least indirectly benefiting from it.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/03/09/rezko-cash-three-times-more-what-obama-admits-sun-times/

<snip>

Obama's letters, written nearly nine years ago, for the first time show the Democratic presidential hopeful did a political favor for Rezko -- a longtime friend, campaign fund-raiser and client of the law firm where Obama worked -- who was indicted last fall on federal charges that accuse him of demanding kickbacks from companies seeking state business under Gov. Blagojevich.

The letters appear to contradict a statement last December from Obama, who told the Chicago Tribune that, in all the years he's known Rezko, "I've never done any favors for him.''

http://mediamatters.org/items/200706140007

<snip>

Political fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko made a modest pitch to Sen. Barack Obama last year.Rezko recommended a 20-year-old student from Glenview for one of the coveted summer internships in Obama's Capitol Hill office.

The student got the job and spent five weeks in Washington, answering Obama's front office phone and logging constituent mail. The student was paid an $804 stipend--about $160 a week--for a position valued mostly for the experience it provides.
<***>
As the internship drew to a close in August 2005, the intern's father was cited in court records as an unnamed, unindicted co-conspirator in an alleged state government bribery scheme linked to Rezko. A news report about the court records identified him by name.

Obama's spokesman said Obama would not comment on the internship because he is spending the holidays with his family. But spokesman Robert Gibbs said the internship in no way contradicts Obama's previous statements that he has never done any favors for Rezko, given jobs to Rezko associates or been involved with Rezko "in any government activities of any sort."

Obama should just say it's the Chicago way.
http://capitalfax.blogspot.com/2006/12/more-boneheadedness-from-obama-with.html
<SNIP>

Gibbs said no decision has been made on whether Obama will return any contributions from Aramanda, given his alleged role in the federal corruption cases against Rezko and former Teachers Retirement System board member Stuart Levine.

Aramanda is identified as "Individual D" in Rezko's indictment. And when Levine pleaded guilty in October, Aramanda again was listed as "Individual D."

Aramanda was identified by the Sun-Times as "Individual D," who allegedly received a $250,000 kickback tied to a scheme to steer lucrative state pension deals to firms and consultants that donated to Blagojevich. Aramanda is not specifically named or charged with criminal wrongdoing in the court papers. He did not return a call seeking comment Saturday.

Gibbs said John Aramanda served in Obama's Capitol Hill office from July 20 to Aug. 26, 2005.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/184952,CST-NWS-obama24.article

<SNIP>
"Their buildings were falling apart,'' said a former city official. "They just didn't pay attention to the condition of these buildings.''


Eleven of Rezko's buildings were in Obama's state Senate district.

Obama surfaces in Rekzo's federal corruption case

Source confirmed Obama is the unnamed "political candidate" referred to in document which outlines case against Rezko

One of the classic lines last night revolved around a subject that the national press has been ignoring for some time. Barack Obama couldn't even bring himself to utter the guy's name. There's a reason for that, which you'll understand soon enough, that is unless you're from Chicago; to you this will be old news. The exchange between Clinton and Obama is not unlike how the national press has been handling the subject. Only the Chicago Sun-Times has had the temerity and investigative spine to go after it. It is nothing short of a political godfather story. The tale of an eager, brilliant, ambitious man wanting to rise in politics, and the man who had the money to make it happen. It's the real true tale of Barack Obama and Antoin "Tony" Rezko and the Faustian political deal made in the quest for power, fame and political prowess, which would eventually lead to a bid for the presidency. The fact that Obama won't mention the name of the guy who made his rise to political prominence possible out loud illustrates the efforts to which Obama, with the aid of a mostly negligent press, has been able to make Rezko a forbidden word to utter, instead of an issue that we all should know a lot more about.
<SNIP>
Mr. Obama has portrayed Mr. Rezko as a one-time fund-raiser whom he had occasionally seen socially. But interviews with more than a dozen political and business associates suggest that the two men were closer than the senator has indicated.

Mr. Obama turned to Mr. Rezko for help at several important junctures. Records show that when Mr. Obama needed cash in the waning days of his losing 2000 Congressional campaign, Mr. Rezko rounded up thousands of dollars from business contacts. In 2003, Mr. Rezko helped Mr. Obama expand his fund-raising for the Senate primary by being host of a dinner at his Mediterranean-style home for 150 people, including some whose names have since come up in the influence scandal.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taylor-marsh/obamas-faustian-bargain-_b_82863.html

<snip>

AGAIN, THANK YOU. I truly forgot what a liar he is.

[lisa58]

4. when did he say he didn't know him?

[jedreport]

6. exactly. typical imaginary stuff, right? lol.

[jedreport]

5. Incongruency alert!!!

Plus Obama has admitted to knowing Tony Rezko. If you believe otherwise, I gotta figure it's cuz you're running heads down or something.

[Tarheel_Dem]

8. Yeah...good luck with that....

:rofl:

If you think the purple bandaids at the '04 Repuke convention were something...can you imagine what they can do with this? Face it, she's a laughing stock, and fodder for late night comedy now. Get used to it.

[pocoloco]

9. Now you are a liar...get away from that crazy woman, it's catching!!

[VinnieF]

11. The best way to deal with Hillarhoids like you is to ignore you.

Then you can rant and rave all you want, and those of us who don't worship your Queen don't have to deal with your adulation of her, or your constant attempts to smear the Democratic nominee for the office of the presidency of the United States.

[acmavm]

13. For your info Vinnie, I can't stand Hillary either.

[VinnieF]

15. Then my apologies.

I'm just done with anyone who even remotely supports Hillary. I erroneously assumed that you did.

[acmavm]

16. Nope. I don't know what to do this election.

[ExPatLeftist]

17. Does logic mean anything to you?

You do realize that you do not clear the name of one candidate by saying "Well, the other is just as bad!", don't you? This is a logical fallacy, a red herring used in order to avoid addressing the lies of the candidate under discussion. And I think that very few people fall for such tricks.

I see this type of comment here all the time (sorry that I replied to yours only, it has just reached the boiling point for me). It makes no sense at all, and sounds like something out of grade school to be completely honest: "I know you are but what am I?!?"

Please, please address the issue here and then start another thread about Obama's horrid lies. It does nothing for anyone's case to avoid the issue altogether and then try to turn it around.

No matter how hard you try to paint Obama as a bad guy (also, apparently), it does not make Hillary look any better. And if your thinking is to choose the "least bad" candidate then that is just a sad scale to judge candidates on. This is similar to the "logic" that so many pro-war people used about the war: "Well, we may be bombing "them", but "they" cut off people's heads in videos!" Does that make the bombing OK? Or does it simply point out that we have a flexible morality, that as long as we are "not as bad as them" then we are the "good guys" and above reproach.

So please tell me if you think that Hillary didn't lie, or why I should vote FOR HER despite the lies rather than simply attempting to point out lies by the other candidate as well.

[acmavm]

18. The other one being just as bad DOES count in an election. It

means we have two stinkers to chose from.

[acmavm]

19. Oh yeah, I'm not telling anyone who to vote for. As far as I'm

concerned we're screwed.

[lisa58]

7. all she had to add was the word "threat"

[acmavm]

14. A threat to who? Not John McCain unfortunately. That's what we

are going to be stuck with, another batshit crazy republican.

[Voice for Peace]

10. Yeah, this does bother me, after all.

I've been giving her the benefit of the doubt on this. But this clip truly strikes me as disingenuous, particularly with the tone of voice.

I am so uncomfortable with intentional dishonesty, even if it's just exaggeration. Does not bode well for a presidency.

(I'm not going to respond to any Wright or Rezko responses, so please don't bother. Those issues have been clarified to my satisfaction.)

[ORDagnabbit]

20. its a vast right wing conspiracy against her!!! she didnt say that its a double!!

[rontun]

21. Hillary's credibility is plunging to the level of her husband's

I've always tremendously respected Hillary Clinton for her aggressive and tenacious resistance to the right-wing fanatics who've employed every dishonest and disreputable tactic imaginable in attacking not only Bill and Hillary, but also the Democratic Party and its progressive history. Moreover, she has displayed an intelligence and a grasp of policy and procedure that make her a formidable advocate for progressive politics. Indeed, I've matched that respect with contributions to her U.S. Senate campaign, and fully anticipated supporting her candidacy for the presidency.

Living in New Hampshire and being the chair of my local Democratic Party organization, I had a unique opportunity to meet, talk to, and assess up close and personal each of the Democratic candidates vying for the presidential nomination. It was heartening to discover the depth of talent, experience and ability that characterized the entire slate of candidates, and deciding whom to endorse was a difficult choice.

John Edwards promised a real commitment to change, advocating policies that would most benefit the middle class and the poor, and his wife Elizabeth matches his intellect, commitment and disdain for the beltway politics that exclude from consideration the real needs of American families.

Hillary demonstrated an incredible depth of knowledge, convincing me of her competence and of her genuine commitment to waging a relentless battle to achieve real progress on issues for which solutions eluded her husband's administration.

Bill Richardson offered an unparalleled resume, exhibited a great sense of self-deprecating humor, and was by far the most approachable and likable of the candidates.

Joe Biden was passionate in his insistence that we end the folly in Iraq, and offered creative solutions to extricate the U.S. from Bush's disastrous foray into nation building.

Chris Dodd proved to be knowledgeable, an unwavering defender of civil liberties and constitutional law, and thoroughly familiar with both the players in Washington, D.C. and how to maneuver through the legislative and bureaucratic maze so necessary to achieving success with any legislative agenda.

Dennis Kuchinich, from his Department of Peace, to his advocacy of impeachment of Bush and Cheney and support for a single-payer, universal healthcare system probably came closest to satisfying the desires of progressives.

Mike Gravel, whose long career as an obstinate force in Washington and whose vigorous opposition to the War in Iraq matched his commitment to ending the War in Vietnam a generation ago, was a refreshing departure from the poll-tested remarks offered by other candidates.

I could have lived with any of the aforementioned candidates as the Democratic Party's nominee, but ultimately I settled upon Barack Obama. Never once did I feel he was pandering to me or to voters, and always I sensed a depth of character and integrity that I believe we so desperately need in the White House, particularly after eight years of GOP corruption and dishonesty. Obama's message of unity and inclusiveness resonated with what I'd been hearing across New Hampshire, and especially in my city. People are fed up with the "politics of personal destruction" and are demanding that their leaders focus on resolving problems instead of scoring political points in what seems to be a never ending game of one-upsmanship.

Having made that difficult choice, without once sipping any Kool-Aid, I was prepared to observe from afar the primary process as it moved from state to state, comfortable with my choice, yet willing to support the party's eventual nominee. Did I have a second choice? Yes, it was John Edwards, followed closely by Hillary Clinton. Richardson was next on my list, and Chris Dodd would have been equally acceptable.

My feelings have changed, however, over the past few weeks. What I've observed from the Clinton campaign is a slash and burn strategy that is harming the Democratic Party and its chances in November - not just for recapturing the White House, but also for expanding its majorities in Congress and in statehouses.

The arrogance of declaring that certain states, or certain people are insignificant is antithetical to all we embrace as Democrats. The words of her surrogates have been offensive, and yes, at times, racist. An example of the level of divisiveness it has caused can be seen here in New Hampshire, where the anger with the Clinton campaign is spilling over into the Shaheen-Sununu contest. Former Governor Jeanne Shaheen should have a lock on this race to unseat incumbent John Sununu given the Democratic shift of the Granite State. But her husband Bill Shaheen's comments regarding Obama's adolescent drug use have so inflamed Obama supporters that they're refusing to support Jeanne. Given that Obama was only narrowly defeated by Clinton, 39% to 37%, this could prove extremely troubling come November.

Moreover, Hillary's suggestion that only she and John McCain have passed the "commander-in-chief" test is inexcusable. Add to that her exaggeration of her experience, and her "misstatements" regarding SCHIP, NAFTA and her trip to Tuzla, and we have a pattern of dishonesty that borders on pathological.

Bill blew his credibility when he parsed the meaning of the word "is" while vigorously denying his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. He's since blown his credibility within the black community, forever soiling his reputation as America's first "black president".

Unfortunately, Hillary faces a crisis in confidence as her credibility plunges to the level of her husband's. That's the reality, and it is a monumental factor that must be weighed as we move toward a final conclusion in this primary season.

[FreeStateofWinston]

22. Another deceiver who wants to be our President.

Obviously Mrs. Clinton was trying to deceive potential voters into thinking that she also has served bravely along with our brave fighting men and women in the military, by facing dangerous sniper fire while executing her duties as 1st Lady. Now we find out as we sometimes say here in Alabama, that she was just shooting us a line of BULL. Frankly as the son of a Marine Sergeant who was killed while serving his country, I AM INSULTED that she would have the nerve to falsely portray herself as having been subjected to danger while attempting to put herself at the same level of risk that our brave military is all to often subjected to, just for the sake of gaining a political advantage.
ENOUGH OF THE KITCHEN SINK/SCORCHED EARTH POLITICS. DO THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND THE COUNTRY A FAVOR AND GET OUT OF THE RACE. YOU AND BILL HAVE ALREADY DONE ENOUGH DAMAGE TO PARTY UNITY. I JUST HOPE THAT YOU HAVEN'T RUINED OUR CHANCES OF GETTING A DEMOCRAT BACK IN THE WHITE HOUSE THIS TIME AROUND.
:patriot:

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

23. media picking up on Clinton "embellishments"

MSNBC picks up on Hillary's "embellishments" watch!
VIDEO — msnbc.msn.com (US Elections 2008)
743 DIGGS so far
Digg it up to keep it going!

[WDIM]

24. She is a very tired woman! Bill is a sex maniac....

but wait he's not having sex with her.

Well anyways she just needs a nap to remember what really happened.

[krkaufman]

26. I gotta wonder if this episode was testing the waters for how far she could stretch the truth.

Nobody questioned this initial puffery, and so she thought it safe to expand to "ran head-down under sniper fire." HC is truly delusional, both in her retelling of this story and in her quest for the Presidency.

She's fully jumped the snark.

[mod mom]

27. Anyone who had to run through sniper fire would definitely have a significant memory of it.

WTF is she thinking-she had to know she was totally lying and there were lots of witnesses. Did she expect to get a bye from everyone?

Haven't we had enough of the lies and bullshit from the last pResident? She should step aside and start worrying about salvaging her senate career. nothings a given.