Hiliary's chances now?
- Thread starter DOGS THAT BARK
- Start date
Former Army Secretary Togo West, who accompanied Clinton to Bosnia, said he was not surprised "that there could be confusion" when someone who has taken a number of trips tries to recall details of a particular trip 12 years earlier.
............................................................
I think getting shot at by snipes is not something you forget.
run for your life Hillary :scared
............................................................
I think getting shot at by snipes is not something you forget.
run for your life Hillary :scared
- Feb 12, 2000
- 10,652
- 39
- 48
- 50
Hey, I resemble that comment. :00hour
I'm from KY, and Wayne is actually a really good guy if you met him in person.
I know he is a quality guy. My whole family if from Paducah so I have much love for KY. I went through a hell day yesterday and drank WAY too much.
So, was there a trip she took where she had to run ducking for cover, to avoid sniper fire? Cause to me thats something you don't forget. I can see her misspeaking if she was ducking and avoiding sniper fire on another trip she confused with the Bosnia one. Otherwise she's lying and not misspeaking.
Last edited:
- Feb 12, 2000
- 10,652
- 39
- 48
- 50
I'm originally from Henderson. Not too far from your previous neck of BFE... :0corn
This is the time Scott uses to say end the love. Back to subject of Hillary who now has no chance. As I mention above Al Gore will be running as compromise. The talk has started. Half the dem's will not vote for Hillary. And there starting to talk out about that.
djv
please tell me Al Gore would not have a chance in hell to be on the ticket !
that would be hipppotomus or perposterus.:SIB
please tell me Al Gore would not have a chance in hell to be on the ticket !
that would be hipppotomus or perposterus.:SIB
March 26, 2008
Hillary Clinton: Truth or Consequences
Posted: 10:14 AM ET
Hillary Clinton has many admirable qualities, but candor and openness and transparency and a commitment to well-established fact have not been notable among them. The indisputable elements of her Bosnian adventure affirm (again) the reluctant conclusion I reached in the final chapter of A Woman In Charge, my biography of her published last June:
?Since her Arkansas years [I wrote], Hillary Rodham Clinton has always had a difficult relationship with the truth? [J]udged against the facts, she has often chosen to obfuscate, omit, and avoid. It is an understatement by now that she has been known to apprehend truths about herself and the events of her life that others do not exactly share. ? [italics added]
As I noted:
?Almost always, something holds her back from telling the whole story, as if she doesn?t trust the reader, listener, friend, interviewer, constituent?or perhaps herself?to understand the true significance of events??
The Bosnian episode is a watershed event, because it indelibly brings to mind so many examples of this tendency? from the White House years and, worse, from Hillary Clinton?s take-no-prisoners presidential campaign. Her record as a public person is replete with ?misstatements? and elisions and retracted and redacted and revoked assertions?
When the facts surrounding such characteristic episodes finally get sorted out ? usually long after they have been challenged ? the mysteries and contradictions are often dealt with by Hillary Clinton and her apparat in a blizzard of footnotes, addenda, revision, and disingenuous re-explanation: as occurred in regard to the draconian secrecy she imposed on her health-care task force (and its failed efforts in 1993-94); explanations of what could have been dutifully acknowledged, and deserved to be dismissed as a minor conflict of interest ? once and for all ? in Whitewater; or her recent Michigan-Florida migration from acceptance of the DNC?s refusal to recognize those states? convention delegations (when it looked like she had the nomination sewn up) to her re-evaluation of the matter as a grave denial of basic human rights, after she fell impossibly behind in the delegate count.
The latest episode ? the sniper fire she so vividly remembered and described in chilling detail to buttress her claims of foreign policy ?experience? ? like the peace she didn?t bring to Northern Ireland, recalls another famous instance of faulty recollection during a crucial period in her odyssey.
On January 15, 1995, she had just published her book, It Takes a Village, intended to herald a redemptive ?come back? after the ravages of health care; Whitewater; the Travel Office firings she had ordered (but denied ordering); the disastrous staffing of the White House by the First Lady, not the President ? all among the egregious errors that had led to the election of the Newt Gingrich Congress in 1994.
On her book tour, she was asked on National Public Radio about the re-emergence of dormant Whitewater questions that week, when the so-called ?missing billing records? had been found. Hillary stated with unequivocal certainty that she had consistently made public all the relevant documents related to Whitewater, including ?every document we had,? to the editors of the New York Times before the newspaper?s original Whitewater story ran during Bill Clinton?s 1992 presidential campaign.
Even her closest aides ? as in the case of the Bosnian episode18 years later ? could not imagine what possessed her to say such a thing. It was simply not true, as her lawyers and the editors of the Times (like CBS in the latest instance) recognized, leading to huge stories about her latest twisting of the facts. ?Oh my God, we didn?t,? said Susan Thomasas, Hillary?s great friend, who was left to explain to the White House lawyers exactly how Hillary?s aides had carefully cherry-picked documents accessed for the Times in the presidential campaign. The White House was forced ? once again ? to acknowledge the first lady had been ?mistaken;? her book tour was overwhelmed by the matter, and Times? columnist Bill Safire that month coined the memorable characterization of Hillary Clinton as ?a congenital liar.?
?Hillary values context; she does see the big picture. Hers, in fact, is not the mind of a conventional politician,? I wrote in A Woman In Charge. ?But when it comes to herself, she sees with something less than candor and lucidity. She sees, like so many others, what she wants to see.?
The book concludes with this paragraph:
?As Hillary has continued to speak from the protective shell of her own making, and packaged herself for the widest possible consumption, she has misrepresented not just facts but often her essential self. Great politicians have always been marked by the consistency of their core beliefs, their strength of character in advocacy, and the self-knowledge that informs bold leadership. Almost always, Hillary has stood for good things. Yet there is a disconnect between her convictions and her words and actions. This is where Hillary disappoints. But the jury remains out. She still has time to prove her case, to effectuate those things that make her special, not fear them or camouflage them. We would all be the better for it, because what lies within may have the potential to change the world, if only a little.?
The jury ? armed with definitive evidence like the CBS tape of Hillary Clinton?s Bosnian adventure ? seems on the verge of returning a negative verdict on her candidacy.
- Carl Bernstein, 360? Contributor
................................................................
This guy dont pull many punchs. :scared
He just calls her a lieing sack of potatoes.
Hillary Clinton: Truth or Consequences
Posted: 10:14 AM ET
Hillary Clinton has many admirable qualities, but candor and openness and transparency and a commitment to well-established fact have not been notable among them. The indisputable elements of her Bosnian adventure affirm (again) the reluctant conclusion I reached in the final chapter of A Woman In Charge, my biography of her published last June:
?Since her Arkansas years [I wrote], Hillary Rodham Clinton has always had a difficult relationship with the truth? [J]udged against the facts, she has often chosen to obfuscate, omit, and avoid. It is an understatement by now that she has been known to apprehend truths about herself and the events of her life that others do not exactly share. ? [italics added]
As I noted:
?Almost always, something holds her back from telling the whole story, as if she doesn?t trust the reader, listener, friend, interviewer, constituent?or perhaps herself?to understand the true significance of events??
The Bosnian episode is a watershed event, because it indelibly brings to mind so many examples of this tendency? from the White House years and, worse, from Hillary Clinton?s take-no-prisoners presidential campaign. Her record as a public person is replete with ?misstatements? and elisions and retracted and redacted and revoked assertions?
When the facts surrounding such characteristic episodes finally get sorted out ? usually long after they have been challenged ? the mysteries and contradictions are often dealt with by Hillary Clinton and her apparat in a blizzard of footnotes, addenda, revision, and disingenuous re-explanation: as occurred in regard to the draconian secrecy she imposed on her health-care task force (and its failed efforts in 1993-94); explanations of what could have been dutifully acknowledged, and deserved to be dismissed as a minor conflict of interest ? once and for all ? in Whitewater; or her recent Michigan-Florida migration from acceptance of the DNC?s refusal to recognize those states? convention delegations (when it looked like she had the nomination sewn up) to her re-evaluation of the matter as a grave denial of basic human rights, after she fell impossibly behind in the delegate count.
The latest episode ? the sniper fire she so vividly remembered and described in chilling detail to buttress her claims of foreign policy ?experience? ? like the peace she didn?t bring to Northern Ireland, recalls another famous instance of faulty recollection during a crucial period in her odyssey.
On January 15, 1995, she had just published her book, It Takes a Village, intended to herald a redemptive ?come back? after the ravages of health care; Whitewater; the Travel Office firings she had ordered (but denied ordering); the disastrous staffing of the White House by the First Lady, not the President ? all among the egregious errors that had led to the election of the Newt Gingrich Congress in 1994.
On her book tour, she was asked on National Public Radio about the re-emergence of dormant Whitewater questions that week, when the so-called ?missing billing records? had been found. Hillary stated with unequivocal certainty that she had consistently made public all the relevant documents related to Whitewater, including ?every document we had,? to the editors of the New York Times before the newspaper?s original Whitewater story ran during Bill Clinton?s 1992 presidential campaign.
Even her closest aides ? as in the case of the Bosnian episode18 years later ? could not imagine what possessed her to say such a thing. It was simply not true, as her lawyers and the editors of the Times (like CBS in the latest instance) recognized, leading to huge stories about her latest twisting of the facts. ?Oh my God, we didn?t,? said Susan Thomasas, Hillary?s great friend, who was left to explain to the White House lawyers exactly how Hillary?s aides had carefully cherry-picked documents accessed for the Times in the presidential campaign. The White House was forced ? once again ? to acknowledge the first lady had been ?mistaken;? her book tour was overwhelmed by the matter, and Times? columnist Bill Safire that month coined the memorable characterization of Hillary Clinton as ?a congenital liar.?
?Hillary values context; she does see the big picture. Hers, in fact, is not the mind of a conventional politician,? I wrote in A Woman In Charge. ?But when it comes to herself, she sees with something less than candor and lucidity. She sees, like so many others, what she wants to see.?
The book concludes with this paragraph:
?As Hillary has continued to speak from the protective shell of her own making, and packaged herself for the widest possible consumption, she has misrepresented not just facts but often her essential self. Great politicians have always been marked by the consistency of their core beliefs, their strength of character in advocacy, and the self-knowledge that informs bold leadership. Almost always, Hillary has stood for good things. Yet there is a disconnect between her convictions and her words and actions. This is where Hillary disappoints. But the jury remains out. She still has time to prove her case, to effectuate those things that make her special, not fear them or camouflage them. We would all be the better for it, because what lies within may have the potential to change the world, if only a little.?
The jury ? armed with definitive evidence like the CBS tape of Hillary Clinton?s Bosnian adventure ? seems on the verge of returning a negative verdict on her candidacy.
- Carl Bernstein, 360? Contributor
................................................................
This guy dont pull many punchs. :scared
He just calls her a lieing sack of potatoes.
Scott, Al's where there going to go. He can get the Hillary and Obama vote. And because many folks think he got screwed in 00 they will vote for him to. I just think the powers to be in Dem party are going to do this. Once Obama and Hillary destroy any chance for either of themself.
I'm not sure where the Al Gore movement is coming from, although I see DJV and others talking about it. I think that idea is very far fetched right now, and would represent the biggest disenfranchisement of the members of a political party in history. In short - I think that idea is completely off base and impractical - to use positive words.
I think the Hillary and Obama contest is a bit polarizing, and should be expected to be so. Look at the two contenders - a black man and a white woman. Both have assumed unelectable qualities because of WHAT they are, and both are quality candidates from a campaigning and intelligence/public speaking standpoint.
Please show me a link - anyone - where there is a sensible reason to think Al Gore would be named the democratic nominee? I think that is OUTLANDISHLY ludicrous, and if it happens, you can delete me from the democratic roll call in years forward. I guarantee you, most democrats would feel the same way.
There are a huge amount of Obama supporters. Rightfully so, in my mind, although I am not one of them. There are a huge amount of Hillary supporters, of which I remain one. There are a growing number of McCain supporters...some who were there from the start, and a growing number of new supporters, because they think they have to be.
But where is the link to Gore supporters, and a sensible movement that shows he would be named the nominee when this comes to fruition? I think that's ridiculous. I would not throw my support to him, I can tell you that. Not without a lot of convincing as to why he would be my only democratic choice, after an understandably difficult campaign by quality choices?
I think the Hillary and Obama contest is a bit polarizing, and should be expected to be so. Look at the two contenders - a black man and a white woman. Both have assumed unelectable qualities because of WHAT they are, and both are quality candidates from a campaigning and intelligence/public speaking standpoint.
Please show me a link - anyone - where there is a sensible reason to think Al Gore would be named the democratic nominee? I think that is OUTLANDISHLY ludicrous, and if it happens, you can delete me from the democratic roll call in years forward. I guarantee you, most democrats would feel the same way.
There are a huge amount of Obama supporters. Rightfully so, in my mind, although I am not one of them. There are a huge amount of Hillary supporters, of which I remain one. There are a growing number of McCain supporters...some who were there from the start, and a growing number of new supporters, because they think they have to be.
But where is the link to Gore supporters, and a sensible movement that shows he would be named the nominee when this comes to fruition? I think that's ridiculous. I would not throw my support to him, I can tell you that. Not without a lot of convincing as to why he would be my only democratic choice, after an understandably difficult campaign by quality choices?
Chad,
I agree, and you saved me some time typing as you've covered it well.
Not possible. Will not happen. Not even remotely possible.
Dave,
Come on.
I agree, and you saved me some time typing as you've covered it well.
Not possible. Will not happen. Not even remotely possible.
Dave,
Come on.
- Feb 12, 2000
- 10,652
- 39
- 48
- 50
Leaving all other reasons that this is not going to happen behind, answer this: Why in the world would Al Gore do this?
1. He makes more money now than he could as President
2. He has more real political pull with much less headache
3. He really doesn't have to answer to anyone because he can choose who he surrounds himself with.
He has successfully built a fortress around himself and it has actually been helped by the stealing (whether true or not does not matter) of the last election to help his cause. He would do nothing but damage what he has built since that time by running again.
IF he runs, it will only be evidence that his ego is much bigger than I ever imagined it to be.
1. He makes more money now than he could as President
2. He has more real political pull with much less headache
3. He really doesn't have to answer to anyone because he can choose who he surrounds himself with.
He has successfully built a fortress around himself and it has actually been helped by the stealing (whether true or not does not matter) of the last election to help his cause. He would do nothing but damage what he has built since that time by running again.
IF he runs, it will only be evidence that his ego is much bigger than I ever imagined it to be.
...........................................................
Back in 1998 the Clintons thought that
Rev Wright was just swell. Bill needed prayer
at that time in his life.
Guys who else but Al. If Clinton does not drop out and convention is locked he will get asked. And the other would be Bloomberg. There not going back to Edwards.
Right now Al's a rock star for the Dems has plenty of money. But that power trips missing. And that's enough to get him to do it. And he is one out of two or three that could bring all Dem's together.
And that will be needed if the covention is a locked one.
Right now Al's a rock star for the Dems has plenty of money. But that power trips missing. And that's enough to get him to do it. And he is one out of two or three that could bring all Dem's together.
And that will be needed if the covention is a locked one.
djv
lets be real here now.
There is no way that Obama and Hillary are going to go through all the money it takes for a campaign ( millions ) and then let Al Gore who
has contributed nothing step in and take the nomination.
Its not going to happen.
Gore is a dunderhead anyways or he would not have allowed George W to outfox him.
lets be real here now.
There is no way that Obama and Hillary are going to go through all the money it takes for a campaign ( millions ) and then let Al Gore who
has contributed nothing step in and take the nomination.
Its not going to happen.
Gore is a dunderhead anyways or he would not have allowed George W to outfox him.
While everyone understands that there are major obstacles standing between Al Gore and the nomination, there are various scenarios that, while long shots, could come to pass. We remain realistic about the situation, but we also feel that if there's any chance at all that we can somehow make our dream a reality, we need to try, but anything we would do would have to be ethical, reasonable, and realistic, and at this point, the options for us are few.
.............................................................
I found this about Gores possible return.
It doesnt sound like they have much to stand on.
.............................................................
I found this about Gores possible return.
It doesnt sound like they have much to stand on.
.............................................................
at least Al looks organized.
Like that computer and DirectTV set up he has
going on.
Last edited:
