E
EdwardATeller
Guest
Hillary is a lying sack of ****. How many instances of her despicable
behavior do we need to realize this? Oh, I get it, Democrats are
allowed to lie. I forgot.
http://www.slate.com/id/2187780/
<quote>
Slate Magazine
The Tall Tale of Tuzla
Hillary Clinton's Bosnian misadventure should disqualify her from the
presidency, but the airport landing is the least of it.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, March 31, 2008, at 11:26 AM ET
The punishment visited on Sen. Hillary Clinton for her flagrant,
hysterical, repetitive, pathological lying about her visit to Bosnia
should be much heavier than it has yet been and should be exacted for
much more than just the lying itself. There are two kinds of
deliberate and premeditated deceit, commonly known as suggestio falsi
and suppressio veri. (Neither of them is covered by the additionally
lying claim of having "misspoken.") The first involves what seems to
be most obvious in the present case: the putting forward of a bogus or
misleading account of events. But the second, and often the more
serious, means that the liar in question has also attempted to bury or
to obscure something that actually is true. Let us examine how Sen.
Clinton has managed to commit both of these offenses to veracity and
decency and how in doing so she has rivaled, if not indeed surpassed,
the disbarred and perjured hack who is her husband and tutor.
I remember disembarking at the Sarajevo airport in the summer of 1992
after an agonizing flight on a U.N. relief plane that had had to
"corkscrew" its downward approach in order to avoid Serbian flak and
ground fire. As I hunched over to scuttle the distance to the
terminal, a mortar shell fell as close to me as I ever want any mortar
shell to fall. The vicious noise it made is with me still. And so is
the shock I felt at seeing a civilized and multicultural European city
bombarded round the clock by an ethno-religious militia under the
command of fascistic barbarians. I didn't like the Clinton candidacy
even then, but I have to report that many Bosnians were enthused by
Bill Clinton's pledge, during that ghastly summer, to abandon the
hypocritical and sordid neutrality of the George H.W. Bush/James Baker
regime and to come to the defense of the victims of ethnic cleansing.
I am recalling these two things for a reason. First, and even though I
admit that I did once later misidentify a building in Sarajevo from a
set of photographs, I can tell you for an absolute certainty that it
would be quite impossible to imagine that one had undergone that
experience at the airport if one actually had not. Yet Sen. Clinton,
given repeated chances to modify her absurd claim to have operated
under fire while in the company of her then-16-year-old daughter and a
USO entertainment troupe, kept up a stone-faced and self-loving
insistence that, yes, she had exposed herself to sniper fire in the
cause of gaining moral credit and, perhaps to be banked for the
future, national-security "experience." This must mean either a) that
she lies without conscience or reflection; or b) that she is subject
to fantasies of an illusory past; or c) both of the above. Any of the
foregoing would constitute a disqualification for the presidency of
the United States.
Yet this is only to underline the YouTube version of events and the
farcical or stupid or Howard Wolfson (take your pick) aspects of the
story. But here is the historical rather than personal aspect, which
is what you should keep your eye on. Note the date of Sen. Clinton's
visit to Tuzla. She went there in March 1996. By that time, the
critical and tragic phase of the Bosnia war was effectively over, as
was the greater part of her husband's first term. What had happened in
the interim? In particular, what had happened to the 1992 promise,
four years earlier, that genocide in Bosnia would be opposed by a
Clinton administration?
In the event, President Bill Clinton had not found it convenient to
keep this promise. Let me quote from Sally Bedell Smith's admirable
book on the happy couple, For Love of Politics:
Taking the advice of Al Gore and National Security Advisor Tony
Lake, Bill agreed to a proposal to bomb Serbian military positions
while helping the Muslims acquire weapons to defend themselves--the
fulfillment of a pledge he had made during the 1992 campaign. But
instead of pushing European leaders, he directed Secretary of State
Warren Christopher merely to consult with them. When they balked at
the plan, Bill quickly retreated, creating a "perception of drift."
The key factor in Bill's policy reversal was Hillary, who was said to
have "deep misgivings" and viewed the situation as "a Vietnam that
would compromise health-care reform." The United States took no
further action in Bosnia, and the "ethnic cleansing" by the Serbs was
to continue for four more years, resulting in the deaths of more than
250,000 people.
I can personally witness to the truth of this, too. I can remember,
first, one of the Clintons' closest personal advisers--Sidney Blumenthal
--referring with acid contempt to Warren Christopher as "a blend of
Pontius Pilate with Ichabod Crane." I can remember, second, a meeting
with Clinton's then-Secretary of Defense Les Aspin at the British
Embassy. When I challenged him on the sellout of the Bosnians, he drew
me aside and told me that he had asked the White House for permission
to land his own plane at Sarajevo airport, if only as a gesture of
reassurance that the United States had not forgotten its commitments.
The response from the happy couple was unambiguous: He was to do no
such thing, lest it distract attention from the first lady's health
care "initiative."
It's hardly necessary for me to point out that the United States did
not receive national health care in return for its acquiescence in the
murder of tens of thousands of European civilians. But perhaps that is
the least of it. Were I to be asked if Sen. Clinton has ever lost any
sleep over those heaps of casualties, I have the distinct feeling that
I could guess the answer. She has no tears for anyone but herself. In
the end, and over her strenuous objections, the United States and its
allies did rescue our honor and did put an end to Slobodan Milosevic
and his state-supported terrorism. Yet instead of preserving a polite
reticence about this, or at least an appropriate reserve, Sen. Clinton
now has the obscene urge to claim the raped and slaughtered people of
Bosnia as if their misery and death were somehow to be credited to her
account! Words begin to fail one at this point. Is there no such thing
as shame? Is there no decency at last? Let the memory of the truth,
and the exposure of the lie, at least make us resolve that no Clinton
ever sees the inside of the White House again.
Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair and the author of
God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.
</quote>
behavior do we need to realize this? Oh, I get it, Democrats are
allowed to lie. I forgot.
http://www.slate.com/id/2187780/
<quote>
Slate Magazine
The Tall Tale of Tuzla
Hillary Clinton's Bosnian misadventure should disqualify her from the
presidency, but the airport landing is the least of it.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, March 31, 2008, at 11:26 AM ET
The punishment visited on Sen. Hillary Clinton for her flagrant,
hysterical, repetitive, pathological lying about her visit to Bosnia
should be much heavier than it has yet been and should be exacted for
much more than just the lying itself. There are two kinds of
deliberate and premeditated deceit, commonly known as suggestio falsi
and suppressio veri. (Neither of them is covered by the additionally
lying claim of having "misspoken.") The first involves what seems to
be most obvious in the present case: the putting forward of a bogus or
misleading account of events. But the second, and often the more
serious, means that the liar in question has also attempted to bury or
to obscure something that actually is true. Let us examine how Sen.
Clinton has managed to commit both of these offenses to veracity and
decency and how in doing so she has rivaled, if not indeed surpassed,
the disbarred and perjured hack who is her husband and tutor.
I remember disembarking at the Sarajevo airport in the summer of 1992
after an agonizing flight on a U.N. relief plane that had had to
"corkscrew" its downward approach in order to avoid Serbian flak and
ground fire. As I hunched over to scuttle the distance to the
terminal, a mortar shell fell as close to me as I ever want any mortar
shell to fall. The vicious noise it made is with me still. And so is
the shock I felt at seeing a civilized and multicultural European city
bombarded round the clock by an ethno-religious militia under the
command of fascistic barbarians. I didn't like the Clinton candidacy
even then, but I have to report that many Bosnians were enthused by
Bill Clinton's pledge, during that ghastly summer, to abandon the
hypocritical and sordid neutrality of the George H.W. Bush/James Baker
regime and to come to the defense of the victims of ethnic cleansing.
I am recalling these two things for a reason. First, and even though I
admit that I did once later misidentify a building in Sarajevo from a
set of photographs, I can tell you for an absolute certainty that it
would be quite impossible to imagine that one had undergone that
experience at the airport if one actually had not. Yet Sen. Clinton,
given repeated chances to modify her absurd claim to have operated
under fire while in the company of her then-16-year-old daughter and a
USO entertainment troupe, kept up a stone-faced and self-loving
insistence that, yes, she had exposed herself to sniper fire in the
cause of gaining moral credit and, perhaps to be banked for the
future, national-security "experience." This must mean either a) that
she lies without conscience or reflection; or b) that she is subject
to fantasies of an illusory past; or c) both of the above. Any of the
foregoing would constitute a disqualification for the presidency of
the United States.
Yet this is only to underline the YouTube version of events and the
farcical or stupid or Howard Wolfson (take your pick) aspects of the
story. But here is the historical rather than personal aspect, which
is what you should keep your eye on. Note the date of Sen. Clinton's
visit to Tuzla. She went there in March 1996. By that time, the
critical and tragic phase of the Bosnia war was effectively over, as
was the greater part of her husband's first term. What had happened in
the interim? In particular, what had happened to the 1992 promise,
four years earlier, that genocide in Bosnia would be opposed by a
Clinton administration?
In the event, President Bill Clinton had not found it convenient to
keep this promise. Let me quote from Sally Bedell Smith's admirable
book on the happy couple, For Love of Politics:
Taking the advice of Al Gore and National Security Advisor Tony
Lake, Bill agreed to a proposal to bomb Serbian military positions
while helping the Muslims acquire weapons to defend themselves--the
fulfillment of a pledge he had made during the 1992 campaign. But
instead of pushing European leaders, he directed Secretary of State
Warren Christopher merely to consult with them. When they balked at
the plan, Bill quickly retreated, creating a "perception of drift."
The key factor in Bill's policy reversal was Hillary, who was said to
have "deep misgivings" and viewed the situation as "a Vietnam that
would compromise health-care reform." The United States took no
further action in Bosnia, and the "ethnic cleansing" by the Serbs was
to continue for four more years, resulting in the deaths of more than
250,000 people.
I can personally witness to the truth of this, too. I can remember,
first, one of the Clintons' closest personal advisers--Sidney Blumenthal
--referring with acid contempt to Warren Christopher as "a blend of
Pontius Pilate with Ichabod Crane." I can remember, second, a meeting
with Clinton's then-Secretary of Defense Les Aspin at the British
Embassy. When I challenged him on the sellout of the Bosnians, he drew
me aside and told me that he had asked the White House for permission
to land his own plane at Sarajevo airport, if only as a gesture of
reassurance that the United States had not forgotten its commitments.
The response from the happy couple was unambiguous: He was to do no
such thing, lest it distract attention from the first lady's health
care "initiative."
It's hardly necessary for me to point out that the United States did
not receive national health care in return for its acquiescence in the
murder of tens of thousands of European civilians. But perhaps that is
the least of it. Were I to be asked if Sen. Clinton has ever lost any
sleep over those heaps of casualties, I have the distinct feeling that
I could guess the answer. She has no tears for anyone but herself. In
the end, and over her strenuous objections, the United States and its
allies did rescue our honor and did put an end to Slobodan Milosevic
and his state-supported terrorism. Yet instead of preserving a polite
reticence about this, or at least an appropriate reserve, Sen. Clinton
now has the obscene urge to claim the raped and slaughtered people of
Bosnia as if their misery and death were somehow to be credited to her
account! Words begin to fail one at this point. Is there no such thing
as shame? Is there no decency at last? Let the memory of the truth,
and the exposure of the lie, at least make us resolve that no Clinton
ever sees the inside of the White House again.
Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair and the author of
God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.
</quote>