How Do You Survive This in the General?

40 Comments

1. 

   BooMan on March 23, 2008 at 1:16 pm

   Oh, this is great.  He lied about every aspect of this.  

   As a reporter who visited Bosnia soon after the December 1995 Dayton Peace agreement, I can attest that the physical risks were minimal during this period, particularly at a heavily fortified U.S. Air Force base, such as Tuzla. Contrary to the claims of Hillary Clinton and former Army secretary Togo West, Bosnia was not “too dangerous” a place for President Clinton to visit in early 1996. In fact, the first Clinton to visit the Tuzla Air Force base was not Hillary, but Bill, on January 13, 1996.

   So, Bill showed up THREE DAYS before she did.  Despite this, she said:

   Good morning. I want to thank Secretary West for his years of service, not only as Secretary of the Army, but also to the Veteran’s Administration, to our men and women in uniform, to our country. 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.

   Even the part about sending her ‘because it was too small, too poor, and too dangerous’ for the president was a goddamn lie.

   • 

     Drew J Jones on March 23, 2008 at 1:53 pm

     Of course it was a lie.  Like Sinbad said, what kind of guy says, “Well, it’s too dangerous, so send the wife and daughter”?  For it to be true, Bill Clinton would have to be a special kind of scum.

     This is just hilarious.  I haven’t stopped laughing since I first saw it.  Well done to the folks at The Jed Report.

     • 

       RollaMO on March 23, 2008 at 4:28 pm

       Bill had a few other special engagements back at the WH at the time.

2. 

   idredit on March 23, 2008 at 1:26 pm

   yeah, and coming in May is an expose of Hillary’s ‘long standing connection to the fascist-leaning Family.’ It may win her fundamentalists’ votes but she’ll likely loose women who are pro-choice.  

   Add another whopper?

   lookie here This is just too rich.

   Hillary’s Ties to Religious Fundamentalists

   There’s a reason why Hillary Clinton has remained relatively silent during the flap over intemperate remarks by Barack Obama’s former pastor, Jeremiah Wright. When it comes to unsavory religious affiliations, she’s a lot more vulnerable than Obama.

   You can find all about it in a widely under-read article in the September 2007 issue of Mother Jones, in which Kathryn Joyce and Jeff Sharlet reported that “through all of her years in Washington, Clinton has been an active participant in conservative Bible study and prayer circles that are part of a secretive Capitol Hill group known as the “Fellowship,” aka the Family. But it won’t be a secret much longer. Jeff Sharlet’s shocking exposé, The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power will be published in May.

   Sean Hannity has called Obama’s church a “cult,” but that term applies far more aptly to Clinton’s “Family,” which is organized into “cells” — their term — and operates sex-segregated group homes for young people in northern Virginia.
   [.]

   At the heart of the Family’s American branch is a collection of powerful right-wing politicos, who include, or have included, Sam Brownback, Ed Meese, John Ashcroft, James Inhofe, and Rick Santorum. They get to use the Family’s spacious estate on the Potomac, the Cedars, which is maintained by young men in Family group homes and where meals are served by the Family’s young women’s group. And, at the Family’s frequent prayer gatherings, they get powerful jolts of spiritual refreshment, tailored to the already-powerful.

   [.]

   Clinton fell in with the Family in 1993, when she joined a Bible study group composed of wives of conservative leaders like Jack Kemp and James Baker. When she ascended to the Senate, she was promoted to what Sharlet calls the Family’s “most elite cell,” the weekly Senate Prayer Breakfast, which included, until his downfall, Virginia’s notoriously racist Sen. George Allen. This has not been a casual connection for Clinton. She has written of Doug Coe, the Family’s publicity-averse leader, that he is “a unique presence in Washington: a genuinely loving spiritual mentor and guide to anyone, regardless of party or faith, who wants to deepen his or her relationship with God.”

   ED: Does NOW know this?

   Furthermore, the Family takes credit for some of Clinton’s rightward legislative tendencies, including her support for a law guaranteeing “religious freedom” in the workplace, such as for pharmacists who refuse to fill birth control prescriptions and police officers who refuse to guard abortion clinics.

   Obama has given a beautiful speech on race and his affiliation with the Trinity Unity Church of Christ. Now it’s up to Clinton to explain — or, better yet, renounce — her longstanding connection with the fascist-leaning Family

   (emphasis added)

   • 

     Egarwaen on March 23, 2008 at 2:43 pm

     In other words, what we’ve got here isn’t just a contest for the ideological future of the Democratic party, but the spiritual future as well. Obama promises a closer connection with the United Church and other progressive, tolerant, and growing religious institutions. Clinton promises still more selling out to pander to the shrinking, desperate right-wing lunatic fringe. Wonderful strategy, that!

     • 

       idredit on March 23, 2008 at 6:51 pm

       with all due respect you misinterpret Obama on religiosity if that’s what you took away – that “he promised a closer connection to the United Church.”

       Imho, Obama promised no such thing.

       What the writer of this piece alludes to in Conservatives on race is what Christohper Caldwell, senior editor of The Weekly Standard, uncovered in Obama’s speech: – in that he brought the subterranean racial narratives into light of day, to be debated and healed. “No one has demonstrated any political affinity between the two men.”

       the link to the Caldwell essay in the FT: Obama breaks the secret code (registration required.)

       It’s a must read. Here are excerpts:

       “Towards the end of his speech about race on Tuesday, Barack Obama made an observation that was raw enough to knock any attentive American listener out of his chair.

       Mr Obama was talking about one of his campaign volunteers, a white woman in her 20s, who as a girl had proclaimed that her favourite food was mustard sandwiches, in the hope of making her single mother feel less bad about being poor. This girl had kept her faith in other people, Mr Obama said, even though “perhaps somebody told her along the way that the source of her mother’s problems were blacks who were on welfare and too lazy to work”.

       All Americans have heard such talk; no recent politician has ever been remotely brave enough to allude to it, even when quoting a hypothetical third party. It is not clear whether Mr Obama’s 37-minute address will help or hinder him on his road to the White House. But it is potentially a great service to his country. For one morning at least, Mr Obama left off trying to inspire and chose instead to explain.

       [.]

       No one has demonstrated any political affinity between the two men. Rev Wright described himself to the Christian Science Monitor last year as more a sparring partner than a mentor. Mr Obama has dropped Rev Wright from his campaign. Yet voters, with good reason, remain worried.

       [.]

       While attacking Rev Wright’s harsher sermons, Mr Obama defended him as a man, described him as “like family” and portrayed his views as the by-product of a broader social failure in the aftermath of the civil rights movement, one that afflicts both blacks and whites.

       “I can no more disown him,” Mr Obama said, “than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street.”

       This use of his own grandmother as a prop in a wider argument has led many to attack Mr Obama as simplistic and cynical. What is the equivalence between a grandmother’s fear of black crime, for which statistics give some grounds, and a preacher’s free-floating ideas that the US government is engaged in germ warfare against its own citizens?

       But this is actually where the subtlety of Mr Obama’s argument lies. It explains why he chose to strip his speech of customary euphemisms. The cornerstone of all his policies on race has been that black progress, as he said on Tuesday, “means binding our particular grievances – for better healthcare, and better schools, and better jobs – to the larger aspirations of all Americans”.

       Obviously, this means that blacks need to know what the aspirations of other Americans are.

       Under the present system of race relations, that cannot happen.[.]

       The US has not managed to eliminate racism, Mr Jackson thinks, but it has succeeded in eliminating racist talk. Remarks the slightest bit “insensitive” draw draconian punishment. White people, because they feel thoroughly oppressed by this regime, assume that it must be some kind of “gift” to minorities, especially blacks.

       This is the core of the problem Mr Obama aims to address. Bringing subterranean racial narratives into the light of day, where they can be debated openly, is a risk. Although the early news coverage of his speech has been positive, polls appear show that what Americans most want from Mr Obama is a simple demonstration that he is not like Rev Wright.

       That is not exactly what they got. But they did get something better: the offer of a more intimate relationship among the races, a less instrumental use of them by US politicians and a breaking of the monopoly on interracial dialogue that has until now been held by elite censors. Americans ought to take him up on it.

       a historic speech and its true essence is largely misunderstood.

       • 

         Egarwaen on March 23, 2008 at 8:22 pm

         You misunderstand me. I’m not using “promises” in the sense of a spoken, or even intentional promise. I’m using “promises” in the sense of “an indication of something that is likely to occur” or “something that is expected to happen”. Note that I used “United Church”, referring to the wide-spread, diverse, and largely progressive denomination, rather than “Trinity United Church”, referring specifically to Reverend Wright’s Church.

         Basically, I’m saying that Obama in the White House would probably lead to closer ties between the Democratic party and the United Church, a natural ally, and an increased prominence of both in national affairs. Not due to Obama’s beliefs, as such, but due to his influence on rhetoric and narrative.

         • 

           northcountry on March 24, 2008 at 9:22 am

           I think this is correct.  The liberal denominations have been getting much more active around issues organizing and voter registration over the last few years.  They are more vocal, more organized and more willing to build coalitions since probably the 1960s.

     • 

       Heart of the Rockies on March 24, 2008 at 8:39 am

       As a secular humanist, the church a candidate attends is of no matter to me and shouldn’t be.  Obama has taught a course on the First Amendment and he full well understands the importance of the establishment clause and the free exercise clause.  Madison and Jefferson, among others, felt very strongly about separation between the secular government and its functions and the free exercise of religious belief  (including non-belief) which was a matter of individual conscience.

       • 

         northcountry on March 24, 2008 at 9:27 am

         This is also true.  However, movements and change require coordinated efforts.  And who on the left (besides labor unions) has the institutional scale and public voice to challenge the right’s “moral authority” and all these crazy memes they have been perpetrating for the last 30 years?

         Love secular humanists, there are many in my church.  Buy you guys don’t have the organizational heft or the street cred with mainstream America to move the Overton Window.

         • 

           Egarwaen on March 24, 2008 at 11:58 am

           Honestly, at this point, the United Church is probably farther to the left than most labour unions.

         • 

           northcountry on March 24, 2008 at 2:05 pm

           Yup, on the social and identity issues, the UCC and the UUs are probably the most progressive of the traditional U.S. religious denominations.

           Some Catholic parishes are reviving the social justice emphasis – especially in larger northern cities and of course there are the liberal Jewish congregations who have always been social action oriented.

           The religious left is arising from its long slumber and I think that’s one the reasons Obama’s resonated so much this year.  He touches what’s deepest in people’s hearts by tying into that older New Testament politics of hope, justice and resurrection.

3. 

   mainsailset on March 23, 2008 at 1:30 pm

   This will be the sound of the starting gun of the sport of taking Hillary to the woodshed. No more media cover that fell for the vetting lines, they just realized she made a fool of them. Dripping faucet just became a fire hydrant.

4. 

   fabooj on March 23, 2008 at 1:44 pm

   THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!

   LOL…so does that mean they were using the 8 year old as a human shield?  

   • 

     idredit on March 23, 2008 at 1:57 pm

     The next debate should be full of smackdowns and debunking – there’s also the NAFTA whopper

     Clinton Lie Kills Her Credibility on Trade Policy

     “When it comes to the essential test of the trade debate, Clinton has been identified as a liar — a put-in-boldface-type “L-I-A-R” liar. “

   • 

     on March 23, 2008 at 6:25 pm

     I thought the eight year-old handed her a bouquet. Maybe that’s when the bullets started. Or maybe before. Maybe the tape cut out the exciting parts. Where was Sinbad? Maybe he was holding off the incoming fire. Maybe Gallagher was lobbing watermelons at them. The possibilities are endless.

     • 

       Oscar In Dallas on March 23, 2008 at 7:48 pm

       Well, Gallagher’s watermelons could be classified as IEDs… :o))

5. 

   liberaljournal on March 23, 2008 at 2:11 pm

   I like how she was grinning during most of her statement. Landing under sniper fire, running with her head down. It’s Hillarious!

   Apparently this morning Timmeh talked about the subject but didn’t show the video. If that’s all the media does, mention it and move on (or not talk about it at all), they can still accomplish their goal of portraying this horserace as a close contest with a photo finish.

   • 

     liberaljournal on March 23, 2008 at 2:43 pm

     Here’s the transcript from MSNBC:

     MR. RUSSERT:  Chuck Todd, Hillary Clinton released–had some documents released about her experience as first lady, which brought up again her foreign policy experience as she has articulated it.  Here she was last Monday, talking about a trip she made to Bosnia in 1996, suggesting they sent her rather than her husband because of the danger involved.  And here she is.

     (Videotape)

     SEN. HILLARY CLINTON (D-NY):  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.

     (End videotape)

     MR. RUSSERT:  Yesterday in a column called “Factchecker” by Michael Dobbs in The Washington Post, Dobbs wrote this:  “Clinton’s tale of landing at the Tuzla airport `under sniper fire’ and then running for cover is simply not credible.  Photographs and video of the arrival ceremony, combined with contemporaneous news reports, tell a very different story.  Four Pinocchios.” Which is the highest you can get, which means a whopper in terms of exaggeration.  Now, the Clinton campaign has responded by having a speechwriter who was with Hillary Clinton saying, in fact, it was a dangerous situation.  And General Nash, who had told Michael Dobbs there was no sniper fire, said that he was aware of some security concerns, but The Post stands by the four Pinocchios.  The credibility issue, truth telling, is this a problem for Senator Clinton?

     MR. TODD:  Well, it’s been–the thing, the nagging thing throughout this whole campaign.  When you ask that question of honest and trustworthy, she has always consistently scored lower than Obama, though I am curious what things are going to look like next week, because now, as John Meacham put it, Obama’s mortal, and now he is going to be viewed as just another politician.  And so how much does he take a hit, for instance, on that one question.  But I, for the life of me, haven’t understood why they have pushed this story.  They knew that, well, somebody went after and reinterviewed Sinbad, who was on that trip, the former comedian, and I put “comedian” in quotes, that he was on that trip and doesn’t remember it being that harried or anything like that, and yet she went out and, and retold the story.  They have an, an amazing sometimes, with the, the Clinton campaign, where they continue to push something like the, the Ireland thing, which was, her role in the Irish peace process, there appears to be that she certainly played some role or she was involved with it, but what was it?  And they, they seem to, to push it.  They didn’t need to retell this story because, if they had not, then they wouldn’t have gotten this four Pinocchio thing under The Washington Post and given the Obama’s campaign something to, to hit them with.

     Russert then shifted gears to the superdelegates.

   • 

     Bright Creature on March 23, 2008 at 3:07 pm

     Years from now we’ll be hearing how crack “First Ladies” squads took positions in the Iraq war. Grizzled, war beaten, ex pres. wives will tell stories oh how they met up with those Delta Force and Green beret wimps for the larger jobs :/

     • 

       liberaljournal on March 23, 2008 at 3:20 pm

       Shhh… You might blow Laura Bush’s cover in Basra

6. 

   Oui on March 23, 2008 at 3:06 pm

   .
   In July 1995 the Serbs (Mladic) overran Srebrenica and killed 8,000 men and boys. The women and elderly were transported by bus to Tuzla and the U.N. HQ. Security at Tuzla AFB had been established for a long time.

   U.S. contingent of the multinational Stabilization Force (SFOR) in Bosnia-Herzegovina

   TUZLA, BOSNIA, Jan. 3, 1996 – The Tuzla 10 came to town just less than a month ago. Their mission: set up a base camp for Task Force Eagle, mainly comprised of a 20,000-strong U.S. armor division, at a former Yugoslavian air base in Northern Bosnia.

   The American advance team turned a quiet, tree-lined base into a bustling, beehive of activity. Within 72 hours after the team arrived Dec. 6, the airfield was operational, according to Army Maj. Joseph Austin of the 18th Military Police Brigade in Mannheim, Germany.

   Today, nearly 2,000 U.S. soldiers, airmen and Marines are at the base preparing for the arrival of the rest of the combat force. Force protection is a top priority. Troops from the 3rd Battalion, 325th Infantry (Airborne), in Vicenza, Italy, guard the base, man gates and patrol perimeters.

   Austin said the advance team received a warm reception and cooperative support from the U.N. forces and the local Bosnian population.

   « click to enlarge
   Task Force Eagle  

   "But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."

   • 

     Oui on March 23, 2008 at 3:33 pm

     .

     Clinton-Approved Iranian Arms Transfers Help Turn Bosnia into Militant Islamic Base

     In April 1994, President Clinton gave the government of Croatia what has been described by Congressional committees as a “green light” for shipments of weapons from Iran and other Muslim countries to the Muslim-led government of Bosnia. The policy was approved at the urging of NSC chief Anthony Lake and the U.S. ambassador to Croatia Peter Galbraith. The CIA and the Departments of State and Defense were kept in the dark until after the decision was made.

     Dutch report: Croatian Pipeline

     "But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."

   • 

     on March 23, 2008 at 6:31 pm

     I’m not sure of your point, Oui. That H. Clinton went to some place where people came to from another place that was dangerous? That Tuzla itself had at one time been dangerous?

     I went to Paris in the early seventies, but by then the Nazis had withdrawn. In 1945.

     H. Clinton’s version of events upon her arrival at Tuzla doesn’t seem to agree with the facts. Or maybe it’s my lying eyes again?

7. 

   americanforliberty on March 23, 2008 at 3:07 pm

   What super-delegate could vote for Hillary now, she just threw the kitchen sink at herself.

8. 

   Cabaret Voltaire on March 23, 2008 at 3:56 pm

   of the words “sniper fire” and “greeting ceremony”.

9. 

   Susie from Philly on March 23, 2008 at 9:11 pm

   Thank God Obama the Pure would never exaggerate anything to make a better story.

   http://www.analyzethis.net/blog/2005/07/09/barack-obama-embellishes-his-resume/

   • 

     liberaljournal on March 23, 2008 at 11:48 pm

     So basically Obama should have mentioned that he didn’t have to wear a tie and wasn’t paid well. And he wasn’t the only black guy–he was the only professional one. There was another one downstairs in the mailroom. A whopper!

   • 

     fabooj on March 24, 2008 at 1:03 am

     That’s exactly the same as saying you were under sniper fire, but weren’t.  Thanks!  😉

10. 

    Susie from Philly on March 23, 2008 at 9:35 pm

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-070325obama-youth-story,1,2946091,print.story

    Oops, he did it again!

    • 

      BooMan on March 23, 2008 at 11:02 pm

      I’m really severely unimpressed Susie.

    • 

      mainsailset on March 23, 2008 at 11:03 pm

      Are you equating a story told on the campaign trail by Hillary that is meant to illustrate her strong suit – experience, which has now been debunked by several first-hand accounts to a series of stories in the Chicago Trib where Obama claims to be a black child that interacted with different races as he grew up and from time to time the kids had fonder memories of him?

      • 

        americanforliberty on March 24, 2008 at 12:09 am

        those Hillary supporters are trying to compare Hillary’s outright lie to other things lie = conflate, to being in a C-17 that does spiral dive, to snipers in the hill, and “maybe” the greeting ceremony will be canceled. And when that doesn’t work they attack Obama.

    • 

      on March 24, 2008 at 9:56 am

      Where’s the part where Obama was shooting at Hillary at Tuzla Airport, Susie?

      And while we’re at it, how do you like Clinton’s sponsoring that bill that allows pharmacists to deny birth control pills to customers because of their own religious beliefs? Pretty cool, eh? Almost as cool as that anti-flag-burning Constitutionaly amendment that Hillary was pushing, eh?

11. 

    soj on March 24, 2008 at 4:23 am

    What a whopper – and on top of all of this, here she is positively BEAMING about the U.S. launching a war of aggression against a sovereign nation.  Makes me want to puke, the whole thing.

    Pax

12. 

    Susie from Philly on March 24, 2008 at 7:10 am

    Gasp! You mean he lied about his legislative accomplishments, too? We may be looking at one of those “character gaps” I’ve heard about lately:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/23/AR2008032301706.html?hpid=topnews

    I thought everyone loved him because he was so different from plain old politicians…

    • 

      CabinGirl on March 24, 2008 at 7:31 am

      You still haven’t addressed your own candidate’s whopping credibility gap…

      And while we’re on the subject of credibility: LINK

    • 

      on March 24, 2008 at 10:17 am

      Susie, Obama is different from Clinton in that he wasn’t praying in a secret sex-segregated circle of spouses of reactionary Rethugs. You support “The Family” and its members and its goals?

      Do you support Clinton openly lying about her “leadership” ability? After all, her intentional lie arises out of her defending her own narrative about how she got all this experience traveling around the world as first lady. This was all part of the “three a.m. phone call, Me and McCain” meme that she beat on to diminish Obama. It’s fraudulent advertising injected into the campaign, it’s not pouring through memoirs to find something that may be interpreted as different from some vague attribution.

      Susie, the Clinton boosters, certainly those who represent themselves as feminists and who support her because Hillary is a woman, have to examine Hillary’s prayer life if they want to honestly address who Clinton really is. The whole “3 a.m.” schtick was a right-wing Republican attack meme. It is incumbent on you to look at Clinton’s prayer life compared with her legislative history compared with her public statements to come to some kind of rational, fact-based conclusion on who your candidate really is.

      If Hillary actually believes in secret sex-segregated prayer circles with the wives of powerful reactionaries (do you believe in sex-segregated prayer circles?), does that have something to do with her sponsorship of allowing pharmacists the right to deny patients birth control (do you believe women should be denied birth control because of the religious beliefs of a pharmacist?), is the flag-burning Constitutional amendment (how far should your right to free speech extend?) a true plumbing of her belief system? Or is all of this just a political ploy? If someone prays with the oppressors, and then legislates like the oppressors, how is she your liberator?

13. 

    refinish69 on March 24, 2008 at 7:18 am

14. 

    Andrew Longman on March 24, 2008 at 6:33 pm

    This future commander and chief thinks C17s and C130 are designed to manuever away from incoming fire. They are fucking huge cargo planes(hence the C designation) designed to carry heavy loads and land/take-off on short runways. The C130 is especially designed for short take off/landing. The C17 is mostly just a big ass freighter.

    Yes that heavy lift capability allows for rapid ascent and decent but they are big slow planes that by they’re very nature are big fat easy targets.