I certainly do remember that trip to Bosnia, and as Togo said, there was a saying around the White House that if a place was too small, too poor, or too dangerous, the president couldn't go, so send the First Lady. That's where we went.

I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.

: to state incorrectly : give a false account of

1. Do you believe that this was simply a misstatement?

Well, since the poster that posed the questions for "debate" often relies on semantics arguments to make their "point", one would have to rely on the actual definition of "misstatement" to properly answer this question. According to Webster's the definition of the word "misstatement" is the following......



So, yeah, this was simply a "misstatement". It would appear, based on the evidence that Hillary Clinton "misstated" what happened in Bosnia.

And I was so honored to be able to travel around the world representing our country... you know, going to places that oftentimes were, uh, not necessarily a place a President to go. We used to say in the White House that if the place was too dangerous, too small or too poor... send the First Lady.

if a place was too small, too poor, or too dangerous, the president couldn't go, so send the First Lady.

I was the first... you know... high profile American to go into Bosnia after the Dayton Peace Accords were signed.

For me, and not Noah, a misstatement is more like... It will cost 1.5 million dollars to build this playground. Oh wait, I mean 5.1 million dollars.

I feel like one knows the difference between getting off a plane and getting off a plane and being shot at... so if you get off a plane and nothing happens and then you say "I got off a plane and there were gun shots going off all around me from sniper fire," that's not a misstatement - that's a lie.

(Rant)

But after 7 years of lies and deception from Bush and almost every member of his administration, republicans are using this as a political tool
(Rant)

On March 17, Sen. Clinton gave a speech that began:



Since video showing the event has surfaced, Sen. Clinton now says that she "misspoke."

1. Do you believe that she simply "misspoke"?

2. What effect, if any, will this have on her campaign?

*edited to change the word. Thanks, Aquilla. I corrected our post.
unfortunately, I can't change the topic description.

Republicans are using this? Really? Even you note that the Clinton family has some sort of truth-avoidance gene, so obviously the hated Bush isn't unique even in your eyes. A reporter for CBS news remembered reporting on this story, and showed the video. So she's a Republican plant? Karl Rove somehow made this story fly, and not Sinbad? Are you so done with Bush that nothing can happen that isn't about Bush? If so, you may want to take a deep breath and look at your signature lines in a different context.

Republicans are using this? Really? Even you note that the Clinton family has some sort of truth-avoidance gene, so obviously the hated Bush isn't unique even in your eyes. A reporter for CBS news remembered reporting on this story, and showed the video. So she's a Republican plant? Karl Rove somehow made this story fly, and not Sinbad? Are you so done with Bush that nothing can happen that isn't about Bush? If so, you may want to take a deep breath and look at your signature lines in a different context.

Collectively, many republicans - including many on this board - have no principles. But they pretend to have them to advance another political agenda. If republicans would have stood by their principles and demanded more of Bush, we wouldn't be in a position to have to make a choice between Obama and Hillary. Unfortunately, Bush makes both of these two look good by comparison.

She's a politician. She'll change the subject (back to Obama's pastor, apparently, which is a pretty smart move) and move on to something else she probably never did.

Is it possible that Hillary Clinton really thought she risked her life disembarking from a plane and running for cover "under sniper fire" at the heavily fortified U.S. Air Force base at Tuzla? Clinton has been telling the story of her visit to Bosnia in 1996 for many years, gradually adding embellishment and changing details. Perhaps she may have actually come to believe it

She may actually believe that this happened, due to conflating other stories, or just telling it many times.

On the other hand landing to a small reception in an area safe enough that in her entourage was Sinbad and her daughter.

You mean she's like Bush?

I guess Bush isn't like her because he wants to save us all from his war on a noun.

Either some politicians are better than others or our incumbency rate could not be as high as it is without cognitive dissonance.

While I agree with your broader point on cognitive dissonance, I'm at a loss as to why a topic "Clinton's sniper fire 'misstatement'" is about George W Bush? It's starting to become endemic here. Bush is not running for office.

While I agree with your broader point on cognitive dissonance, I'm at a loss as to why a topic "Clinton's sniper fire 'misstatement'" is about George W Bush? It's starting to become endemic here. Bush is not running for office.

I believe that she really, really, really, really, really wants to be president. George W. Bush did something similar when he told a whopper about "Kenny Boy" Lay being a supporter of Ann Richarfds and not of him back in 2000. Kenny boy supported him by a 3 to 1 money amount over Richards. It was simply inaccurate and an egregious stretching of the truth for him to say that Lay supported Richards over him. But once again, it isn't about one's political party or whether or not a given candidate is a liar. The simple issue here is that at this level of the game, people really, really, really, really want to win. Candidates will stretch the truth and try to stretch an inch into a mile if it will work for them. I don't believe the Bush incident led many republicans to not support Bush, so I fail to see why this would be any different for democrats.

I guess that we need to have a political sub-topic on this board to include topics not about George Bush. Or, perhaps we should subtitle the entire debate site "Americas Debate: why George Bush is a liar and how it impacts everything from Global Warming to Media Bias and Women's Issues." At the very least, can we suggest a statute of limitations on this sort of thing? Otherwise, I'd have to interject how Robert Byrd filibustered the Civil Rights Act in 1964 means that all Democrats are racist Klan sympathizers and they have "no credibility" to comment on anything to do with race relations. This sort of thing just isn't debate-friendly. The topic is the topic.

On March 17, Sen. Clinton gave a speech that began:



Since video showing the event has surfaced, Sen. Clinton now says that she "misspoke."

1. Do you believe that she simply "misspoke"?

2. What effect, if any, will this have on her campaign?

*edited to change the word. Thanks, Aquilla. I corrected our post.
unfortunately, I can't change the topic description.

This is simply Hillary lying (and getting caught) trying to look "experienced". As if this incident, even if true, could hold a candle to the experience of McCain – laughable.

I don't think she was trying to compare her level of experience to McCain's. I believe she is using this to attempt to secure a Democratic Party nomination.

TUZLA, Bosnia-Herzegovina - First lady Hillary Rodham Clinton paid tribute Monday to U.S. troops serving in Bosnia, touring remote outposts not even her husband has seen.

*snip*

Not even President Clinton, whose January visit to Bosnia was curtailed because of bad weather and security concerns, got the first-hand glimpse of the war's aftermath and the U.S. military presence here.

The White House said no first lady since Eleanor Roosevelt has made a trip into such a hostile military environment.

The first lady was clearly proud of that distinction. "I wanted to (visit) so that maybe people back home would see it, not through the eyes of a secretary of the Army or somebody in a position of the military, but like Eleanor Roosevelt, who has always done everything first," she said. "To visit our troops and to say 'Thank you.' "

*snip*

In helicopter hops between the main U.S. base in Tuzla and the outposts, the effects of the war were vividly, unforgettably clear to the Clinton party.

I don't think she was trying to compare her level of experience to McCain's. I believe she is using this to attempt to secure a Democratic Party nomination.

Sounds like there were several stops to different outposts. The way I'm reading the above link, she was the first dignitary to visit this place and it isn't inconceivable that something like she described happened at one of the outposts (rather than the main US base, which housed Sheryl Crow).

I actually found something that adds some substance to (part of) her claim here.

The [July 1969 South Vietnam] visit marked the first time that a First Lady had been in a combat zone, although another First Lady, Eleanor Roosevelt, had also visited troops on her numerous travels to England and throughout the South Pacific, Australia, and New Zealand during World War II. National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger later described how the President and his party were “whisked from the airport to the Presidential Palace in a helicopter that seemed to go straight up out of range of possible sniper fire and then plummeted between the trees of [President] Thieu’s offices. I never learned how often the pilots had rehearsed this maneuver or,” he added ruefully, “how its risk compared with that of sniper fire.” While my father met with President Thieu, Madame Thieu hosted a formal tea for Mother in the Presidential Palace. The palace was an armed fortress, with sandbags in every entrance to douse fires from shelling and bombing attacks. Mrs. Thieu told Mother she had sent her children to the country, out of danger of the war zone, and how much she missed them.

Precautions for Mrs. Nixon’s security made her contacts with the Vietnamese during the one-day visit very difficult. At the Thuduc orphanage, where 774 children were housed, the hordes of Secret Service agents, reporters, military guards, and the din of the army helicopters whirring overhead all but drowned out any words spoken inside the buildings constructed years before by the French. As Mother emerged from the hospital, she saw fighter jets above the thick shield of circling helicopters. Their shrill whine added to the overpowering noise.

Soon she was in an open-door military helicopter flying 18 miles north of Saigon to visit the 24th Evacuation Hospital at Long Binh. Occasionally she caught glimpses of scattered U.S. troops on the ground below. The agents who traveled with her were armed with machine guns and bandoliers loaded with cartridges slung across their shoulders. In the news dispatches filed from Saigon on July 30, one correspondent wrote:

“Mrs. Richard Nixon risked her safety and possibly her good relations with some diplomats, brass and bureaucrats in Vietnam today. In trips to an orphanage, to a GI field hospital, and her exchanges with high-ranking officials, she made it clear she had little time for high-level formalities and wanted to see more of the men who were hurt and the children who had suffered….At the hospital, officials tried to tell her all about what they do. She brushed them aside. ‘I don’t really want to learn about the hospital. I came to see the boys,’ Mrs. Nixon said.”

1. Do you believe that she simply "misspoke"?

2. What effect, if any, will this have on her campaign?

*edited to change the word. Thanks, Aquilla. I corrected our post.
unfortunately, I can't change the topic description.