Hillary caught "overstating" experiences in Bosnia

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Parrot Head

Hillary was caught exaggerating her 1996 trip to Bosnia, claiming that gunfire surrounded the landing, etc, etc. CBS brought it forward and it can be seen here:

I think it's more of a shame that, as the 1996 video shows, we sent Sinbad on a USO trip - do we care so little about our soldiers that we send Sinbad as entertainment? Couldn't we at least snag Arsenio Hall for that gig?

This really is exceptionally funny. Just goes to show how Hillary is not nearly as good as Bill at it.

She might've been able to wriggle out of it, had she just said "nearby sniper fire" and left it at that. It's the "running with our heads down" stuff that really killed her vis-a-vis this video.

I knew it was lie as soon as it left her lips--does anyone really think that the Secret Service would permit the First Lady and daughter to be brought into an area with open sniper fire, enough to force them to dodge it on their own? And that no one would remember such an instance?

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Tex

I knew it was lie as soon as it left her lips

Now she says it was a "misspeak."

No, dear Hillary. A misspeak is when you slip and say condone when you meant to use condemn, or when you refer to Iran when you're talking about Iraq.

Constructing an entire fictionalized account, prepared in advance, clearly for political purpose - that's not misspeaking. That's distortion at best and deception at worst. And to think no one would notice? Surely her advisers can do better than this?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Now she says it was a "misspeak."

No, dear Hillary. A misspeak is when you slip and say condone when you meant to use condemn, or when you refer to Iran when you're talking about Iraq.

Constructing an entire fictionalized account, prepared in advance, clearly for political purpose - that's not misspeaking. That's distortion at best and deception at worst. And to think no one would notice? Surely her advisers can do better than this?

It will get worse for her before it gets better. Ireland still hasn't been thoroughly discussed re her contribution to the process.

[myboynoah]

You all just hate white women, plain and simple. You're whitewomenophobic.

[Venkman]

Originally Posted by BYU71

What I found very appalling in the Paul Dunn thing was one of the brethern indicating that basically brother Dunn's lies had ultimately done a lot of good and he should be given some slack.

Isn't that the view of many here regarding the scriptures? It doesn't matter if it actually happened, it's still "true" because it teaches correct principles and draws us closer to God.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Venkman

Isn't that the view of many here regarding the scriptures? It doesn't matter if it actually happened, it's still "true" because it teaches correct principles and draws us closer to God.

Heh. Nice one, Venk.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Venkman

Isn't that the view of many here regarding the scriptures? It doesn't matter if it actually happened, it's still "true" because it teaches correct principles and draws us closer to God.

No I think there is a distinction there, in fairness. What I hear some here saying is that Joseph believed that he was receiving revelation and that to him it was true. Whether it literally and objectively was what he thought it was is beside the point. I think this is different than saying it was a deliberate deception albeit a noble one. Maybe someone is saying that but I don't think so.

Maybe someone who thinks this way can chime in and clarify.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

No I think there is a distinction there, in fairness. What I hear some here saying is that Joseph believed that he was receiving revelation and that to him it was true. Whether it literally and objectively was what he thought it was is beside the point. I think this is different than saying it was a deliberate deception albeit a noble one. Maybe someone is saying that but I don't think so.

Maybe someone who thinks this way can chime in and clarify.

Can't speak for Venkman, but I was thinking more of the justifications surrounding Biblical stories, such as Adam/Eve/creation, Noah/flood, Abraham/Isaac/sacrifice, or a myriad of other stories that some folks here say they disbelieve actually took place, but still find valuable lessons taught thereby.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

You all just hate white women, plain and simple. You're whitewomenophobic.

What?!? How could you say that!! I have, like, tons of Caucasian female friends. I think I know what it is: You're really just attacking me because I'm a donklephant.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by Venkman

Isn't that the view of many here regarding the scriptures? It doesn't matter if it actually happened, it's still "true" because it teaches correct principles and draws us closer to God.

The difference to me is that if it isn't true, I think it isn't because of interpretation down through time. It isn't because someone intentionally lied.

If someone proved Moses lied about his parting of the sea, I then would no longer feel that to be a faith promoting story. Any stories in the Bible someone proves to me were intentional lies, those stories will no longer be part of my foundation of faith.

I have not only discounted brother Dunn's stories, but sadly it has cause me to look upon other stories told by brethern with some skepticism. That is sadly what the legacy is for me.