Clinton 'misspoke' over Bosnia sniper claims

Your back to that eh unreg?

How many times will your taking points be shown to you to be false, in this case that Bush lied about WMDs, and you still repeat the lies?

Now your back to that being why we went to Iraq. Operation Iraqi Freedom. Your fully aware that there other objectives stated BEFORE and AT THE START of OIF. I know your aware of it because I showed it to you a week ago.

I guess I'll ask the question again that steered you into bouncing from one MoveOn talking point to the next. Here it is, will you answer this time?

Do you still believe the lie that Bush changed the objective of OIF to freeing Iraqis?

Here's the memory aid again:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DvIDuk1498

Next you'll do the quagmire thing then the 'if it's going well then we should just leave' thing then you move to another thread and start again.

There is something to be said about someone that can enthusiastically repeat what they know is a lie, adamantly defend what they know is a lie, then move on and repeat said behavior again. Leftist activist and people with a reprobate mind (not that there is a huge difference) do this. Others may not admit they were wrong but would at least stop repeating the fallacies.


Unregistered said:
In the big scheme of political lies, this is a small and insignificant one.
Click to expand...
You HAVE succeeded in veering the thread off of Hillary's flat out lying in public and even getting her daughter to say she remembered it that way too.
To equate Bush and WMDs to Hillary and Bosnia it would have to be argued that Hillary BELIEVED what she was saying was true. Hillary was just wrong and not lying. Maybe she believed there were snipers and she was under fire and that she did have to be rushed to saftey. However Hillary was personally THERE and relating PERSONAL EXPERIENCES but maybe she believes her own lies and is simply wrong. But believing your own lies is a very serious mental condition. Such things are not insignificant.
 
Bruxley, everyone knows where you stand and your tired worn out references really won't change the minds of the 65+% of the population who know the Iraq War is a sham. You can cling to your argument all you want. Most people have ... moved on.

For all I know in Hillary's weird, deluded mind, she really now believes she was under sniper fire. It is no less believable than Bush believing in lepruchans in Iraq.
 
Eloquent and intelligent as usual Unreg.

The tired and wore out line applies very well to MoveOn's talking points. I hope we can stop with repeating their fallacies now right. After all, same tired lies get the same tired truths to prove em wrong.

I guess your stats are going toward your 'truthiness' thing again right. I forgot to mention that aspect to the usual pattern of your repertoire'. Thanks for the reminder.
 
Come on... all you can do is recycle my comments and apply them to Move On? Thats pretty poor, especially since I don't belong to that organization. In fact, I bet you would be very surprised to know who I voted for in 2000 and 2004. But, like most of those who voted like I did, we now see the error of our ways, unlike you.

In summary though, you seem to think that the 65+% of voters who believe Iraq is a mess are just too stupid to realize the truth.

Thats fine. But truthiness aside it will cost the Republicans the election this year.

Have you followed the presidential polling numbers lately? Obama and Hillary have been tearing each other apart, yet both are still in even contests with McCain.
 
YEP it's the truthiness thing alright! LOL

Colbert would be proud.

Ever heard of a contigeous line of thought? This is a thread about Hillary's recent and huge gaff.. She lied in full detail about an event that was recorded.

You doing that 'look at me LOOK AT ME' thing again? Need attention more then have a point? An ON TOPIC point.
 
I will agree with you this thread has drifted.:)

Its the first correct thing you have said this evening.

While you are clinging to the "truth" this November, don't miss Obama's inauguration. Or maybe Clinton's. Who knows?

But enough of this... I'm off to bed.
 
It's been interesting.....
I guess we should determine what is true based on who we hope wins elections now.......wow.

Given that criteria, if you support Hillary, there WAS sniper fire......:confused:

Better idea and NOT a new one. Determine what is true FIRST, then determine who you want to vote for. Novel idea? No. But to let ones political perspectives allow them to accept lies, even REPEAT them regularly KNOWING they are lies because they may support their favorite candidate or political perspective is a sign of some kind of self delusion. Especially evidenced if you believe others should behave that way if they want their candidates to win an election. I would find that startling if such behavior were brought to my attention. I definitely wouldn't be advocating it as a means of advancing your political perspectives.

As for being surprised who you voted for.....probably who you felt was popular. You clearly find value in popularity. But true is true popular or not, and a lie is a lie, popular or not. Operation Iraqi Freedom is no less the right thing to do now that it is less popular then it was at the beginning. This is not American Idol.

America is war weiry. That's true. As Americans we are very accustomed to our desires being met quickly and conveniently. When they are not we quickly get disgruntled. But that doesn't justify propagating lies for political gain when American soldiers are in harms way. GENUINE leadership does not change it's mind based on popular opinion. Again, not American Idol.
 
Last edited:
And then there's THIS, of course.

Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
By Samantha L. Quigley
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006 – The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today.

"These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee.

The Chemical Weapons Convention is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It was signed in 1993 and entered into force in 1997.

The munitions found contain sarin and mustard gases, Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said. Sarin attacks the neurological system and is potentially lethal.

[more]
Click to expand...
 
Actually using your logic, if you're wrong you're actually lying.
Click to expand...

Perhaps that is true. I know I am not lying, so therefore, what I say must be true.

But if you guys are still believing that Bush was forthright and honest about the reasons for the Iraq War, there really isnt much I can say that will convince you otherwise. Most people have figured this out and put it behind them. That's why they will be voting Democrat in November. I think the poll numbers bear this out. Obama and Hillary are tearing each other part. Hillary lied about sniper fire, and Obama is standing by his preacher as he spews racial hatred, yet both of them are polling very well against McCain.
 
Hillary lied about sniper fire, and Obama is standing by his preacher as he spews racial hatred, yet both of them are polling very well against McCain.
Click to expand...

That all depends on which poll you're looking at.......or what is meant by "very well".
 
They are equal to McCain in some polls, and trailing slightly (by 5-6%) in others. McCain should be doing MUCH better than that, considering that Hillary and Obama have been cutting each others throats for the last few days.

I think this is a harbinger of political doom for McCain.
 
They are equal to McCain in some polls, and trailing slightly (by 5-6%) in others. McCain should be doing MUCH better than that, considering that Hillary and Obama have been cutting each others throats for the last few days.
Click to expand...

Let's see. 7-8 months ago, the media had Hillary crowned Queen and declared the winner. So, all of a sudden trailing "slightly by 5-6%" is a good thing?
 
It means Hillary and Obama are doing comparatively well, considering that Obama and she have been fighting, and she just got busted for lying about sniper fire. There has been no negative attention paid to McCain yet...but its coming.

People are desperate for a political change. They are going to be very forgiving of Hillary and Obama in November. McCain will be seen as Bush III.

I hope you can tell me "I told you so" in November... but I don't think you will.
 
Unregistered said:
People are desperate for a political change.
Click to expand...

And I agree. However, I cannot get away from the fact that Hillary lied. Vintage Slick Willie.

Say what you want about Bush43, but we can pretty much get any info we really need from the media and returning veterans. I've never met any vet who returned relating that he had to sign some secrecy waiver.

However the Clintons lie, and they like to be popular. I don't think Hillary has the gravitas or the military education to end the war. She just might say "Alright, everyone, to the boats," as we watch more butchery ala the Saigon exit.

My concern is that the war will not improve--but Hillary will simply lie about it. She is running on the idea that our army will be safer under her office, and there's no chance that she's going to allow negative info to get to the media.

Slick Willie ran his office on polling the people. Hillary will do the same. In the end, you-the-viewer won't know which end is up.
 
Bruxley said:
How many times will your taking points be shown to you to be false, in this case that Bush lied about WMDs, and you still repeat the lies....

There is something to be said about someone that can enthusiastically repeat what they know is a lie, adamantly defend what they know is a lie, then move on and repeat said behavior again. Leftist activist and people with a reprobate mind...do this.
Click to expand...

The leadership of the left is fully aware that they cannot win a majority opinion in the marketplace of ideas. Therefore their political strategy is based on limiting access to ideas:

A.) Control universities and the major media.
B.) Employ the principles of Propaganda to continually reinforce the message.

Because leftist leadership seeks manipulation and control (vs support), any regard for the truth is shamelessly subordinated to the message, for example:

A.) The 2000 election was "stolen".
B.) Voters who failed to follow procedure were "disenfranchised".

Distill this into a simple catch-phrase for those who prefer thinking be done for them -- "COUNT ALL THE VOTES" -- then lather, rinse, repeat.

(BTW, you've brought a 1911 to the gunfight, vastly outgunning your opponents Jennings 22 -- but he will never run out of propaganda ammo.)
 
dresden8 said:
Re: polling the people; Was that deliberate?
Click to expand...

I know my spelling is bad, and being a Wisconsin citizen my entire life I do know that one definition is to "remove the horns from cattle."

However, I simply meant to get a consensus of opinion by randomly asking questions from a group of people. Like the Zogby and Gallup Polls.

You might not know me, but if I want to insult someone I do it up front, with all doubt removed.
 
I know my spelling is bad, and being a Wisconsin citizen my entire life I do know that one definition is to "remove the horns from cattle."

However, I simply meant to get a consensus of opinion by randomly asking questions from a group of people. Like the Zogby and Gallup Polls.

You might not know me, but if I want to insult someone I do it up front, with all doubt removed
Click to expand...

Hey, no offence meant.

I refer you to the Simpsons episode where Bart was doing a ride along with the cops. They see Mayor Quimby in a motel with a bimbo.

Bart asks what Quimby is doing there.

Cop replies "You could say he's polling the electorate".

Pole-ing as in sexual congress! Slang in Ireland and at least in some parts of the States by the look of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top