Good day everyone. Today I will be speaking with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton about her recent difficulties with “misspeaking” as she relayed details of a trip to Bosnia in 1996. Welcome Senator Clinton.
 

Hi Brit, it’s great…

Moral: horny guy tellin’ whopper after whopper just to get a little some-some.

The Glacier is sooooo horny for the votes – enough to tell the whoppers over and over – but this time will only get the stinky finger (hubby “at ‘da club”).

Too bad the Clintons didn’t do anything about Rwanda. It would seem that Caucasian Europeans are more valuable politically.

jgapinoy on April 1, 2008 at 9:17 AM

You’ve got it backwards. In the multicultural parallel universe in which we now live its Caucasian Europeans who get bombed by NATO on behalf of the descendants of Turk invaders who firebomb Catholic and Orthodox churches.

the most self-serving couple that has ever occupied the WH world…

Keemo on April 1, 2008 at 9:22 AM

Small, but impactful, change.

Speakup, heh.

fogw, and the American people will show the media, and the rest of the world another big finger in Nov.

Nor are they capable of anything nearly as altruistic as flying into a war zone.

Is Nothing, sacred?

However, a camera crew was sent up to document the supplies being dropped which was all Team Clinton wanted: the appearance of doing good, not the actual doing good part. Form over substance.

Muslims kill Christians kill Muslims kill Christians…

Transplant Bosnian Christian civilization’s heart into independent Muslim state/nation = attrocity

The Clinton administration deserves credit for finally forcing an end to the atrocities in the Balkans.

Really, now!

Act I. curtain. Act II. curtain. Act III…

There is no end yet to the Balkan atrocities.

The difference was then, the MSM slobbered all of [Bill Clinton] and gave him a free pass [for his lies.] In some instances they openly conspired to cover for him. The MSM loved Bill and called him the best politician ever when we all knew that was code for best liar ever.
fogw on April 1, 2008 at 11:14 AM

That’s my point. The media didn’t love Bill Clinton because he was the most liberal politician in America – he wasn’t. Hillary’s the Socialist in the family; Bill couldn’t really care less about politics; he’s just there for the power.

Like any good bimbo, the media loved Bill Clinton largely because he used them so well. The media aren’t attacking Hillary because she lied about her trip to Tuzla; they’re attacking her because they think she is NOT lying about her new “moderate” stance.

There are two, and only two, ways to lie effectively:

1) By telling mostly the the truth about things that don’t matter, and then lying only about a detail you think can’t be corroborated; and

2) By telling the truth, but telling it in such a way that people THINK it’s a lie.

Hillary Clinton has turned out to be inept at both types of lying compared to Bill. BarackObama knows better than to try; he just babbles inane platitudes and lets his entourage do all the lying for him.

I wouldn’t say Billy Jeff got away with lying. Many of us, if not most of us, knew the guy was lying whenever he opened his mouth. The difference was then, the MSM slobbered all of him and gave him a free pass

I was at the gym last night listening to the iPod when a report came over the TV tuned to CNN very dramatically warning about MEDIA BIAS. No, it wasn’t general liberal MSM bias, it was a report on how the media is biased against Hillary.

Typical for the Clinton News Network.

suggestio falsi and suppressio veri

and congenitalus lie-your-pantsuit-offus

First of all, Hitchens is more lucid than you even while drunk. Everyone has a vice, his harms none but himself. Secondly, even if he only wrote one good article per year (which is not true) it would be one more good article than you will ever write in your entire life.

Hillary in no way “surpasses” Bill Clinton in her ability to lie WELL. The bottom line is that he was much better at getting away with it.

logis on April 1, 2008 at 10:56 AM

I wouldn’t say Billy Jeff got away with lying. Many of us, if not most of us, knew the guy was lying whenever he opened his mouth. The difference was then, the MSM slobbered all of him and gave him a free pass. In some instances they openly conspired to cover for him. The MSM loved Bill and called him the best politician ever when we all knew that was code for best liar ever.

Now they love Obama and that not only makes Hillary irrelevant to them, it makes her a target. It not about who’s the better liar, it’s all about who the MSM decides to protect and who they decide to ruin.

One man’s lies are another man’s virtue, if you have the MSM in your back pocket.

I only wish he could put the bottle down for the rest of the year and continue writing with a clear head for the rest of the time.

bluestater on April 1, 2008 at 10:11 AM

Don’t hold your breath. Can you picture Hitchens at an AA meeting?

This was a great column by Hitchens. But what are the chances that any part of the MSM will ever read anything he writes?

Sen. Clinton has… rivaled, if not indeed surpassed, the disbarred and perjured hack who is her husband and tutor.

That’s not a fair comparison. Anyone capable of telling one lie (i.e., anyone over the mental age of 4) can tell an infinite number of lies.

Hillary in no way “surpasses” Bill Clinton in her ability to lie WELL. The bottom line is that he was much better at getting away with it. He knew how to lie about details that couldn’t be checked. Sure, exhaustive research found that there were no churches burned in Arkansas during Bill’s childhood – but who’s to say he didn’t remember hearing something about that? Even in the Monica case, it was an extreme longshot that she kept the physical evidence.

A better comparison is that Hillary Clinton rivals Al Gore in the ability to lie pathologically. Remember when Gore, in his nationally televised debate with George Bush, bragged about his work during a Texas natural disaster? That’s not the sort of thing that CAN’T be checked; it’s the sort of thing that usually simply ISN’T checked, because people naturally assume that someone who isn’t visibly drooling from the mouth is probably not a raving lunatic. You can get away with that for a while but after you’re caught once, you can be certain every word you say from then on will be scrutinized.

Obama is not a better liar than Bill Clinton by any stretch of the imagination. But by default, he’s not as bad at it as Hillary is. Because Obama never actually SAYS anything; he simply implies he’ll solve all the world’s problems for us.

The people around Obama will continue to turn out to be madmen (and women), but he will remain a deeply concerned blank slate. And no one will ever be able to prove otherwise.

I think she wanted less to speak about the actual experience she had than to just remind people that her husband conducted a war too, and that she had gone to a war zone. . . probably out of fear that McCain, actually in Iraq multiple times with flack jacket and helmet, looked more presidential.

Ms Clinton, in addressing her little “mis-speak”, has stated on video both claims of speaking a million words a day and/or a million words per week. So of course we should forgive her if one or two come out a little off-center.

I finally pulled out the calculator…. If she speaks a million words per day, she needs to AVERAGE 11.57 words per second, every second for the full day. If she only does a million words per week, then the average drops down to 1.65 words per second, 24/7.

Clearly Ms Clinton does not really expect us to believe that she can pump out linguistic bullets at such a rapid rate. So we SHOULD conclude that, just like her claim of a million words per day, she was merely, and obviously, adding colorful embellishment to her story of the dangers at Tuzla. She was not dissembling what really happened, she knows that we all know what really happened, she was merely adding a bit of story-telling excitement to an otherwise somewhat boring event.

Hopefully that helps everyone understand the gross, inappropriately negative over-reaction to that which we should praise as her excellent capacity for eloquent (and presidential!) hyperbole.

/sarc off/

Can you imagine, what if Obama makes a deal with Hillary to put her on the Supreme Court?

petefrt on April 1, 2008 at 10:02 AM

Boy, if you think judge Thomas was a wild event, imagine Hillary. They would roast her like a butterball turkey.

If so, what does that say about their relationship?

Maybe there is more to her claim of ‘experience’ as First (ahem!) Lady than meets the eye! Now if Bill admitted, “You see, all along she was the boss. I was just out cattin’ around, chasin’ them interns and stuff. It’s no lie; she really does wear the pants. And that Bosnia thing. She was really there much earlier, in ’93 I think. We didn’t let on, but she had to tell them we couldn’t help, what with that health-care thing and all. . . She just got the dates mixed up.”