snopes.com

snopes.com (http://message.snopes.com/index.php)
-   Politics (http://message.snopes.com/forumdisplay.php?f=22)
-   -   Hillary Clinton in Kosovo (http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=27856)

snopes 24 March 2008 09:52 PM

Hillary Clinton in Kosovo
 
Comment: Washingtonpost.com has reported that Hillary Clinton claimed to
have visited Kosovo in Mar 96 and was rushed from the plane while under
sniper fire. She further claimed that it was too dangerous for Bill
Clinton so she went. Responders claim this statement is false. But I
don't see any coverage from any other news media.

snopes 24 March 2008 09:54 PM

Clinton 'misspoke' on Bosnia trip
 
Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign said she "misspoke" when she said she had landed under sniper fire during a trip she took as first lady to Bosnia in March 1996. The Obama campaign suggested it was a deliberate exaggeration on Clinton's part.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/clinton_bosnia

Malruhn 24 March 2008 10:12 PM

CNN and FauxNews is covering it - and even Faux is saying that it amounts to a bunch of nothing.

Simply Madeline 24 March 2008 10:25 PM

Quote:

But I don't see any coverage from any other news media.
I went to google news and typed in 'Hilary Clinton Kosovo', and got 888 hits, so I'm guessing "other" news media have been covering this.

Chloe 24 March 2008 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snopes (Post 555181)
But I
don't see any coverage from any other news media.

Shhh. It's a secret!

hoitoider 26 March 2008 05:22 PM

It's still a non-story, isn't it?

Quote:

In addition to being the butt of late-night comedian jokes, all three network news broadcasts last night led with critical coverage of Clinton, with the CBS Evening News running footage of three instances in the last few months of Clinton claiming to have been vexed by sniper fire during the event.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politic...tin_080326.htm

Chloe 26 March 2008 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hoitoider (Post 557493)
It's still a non-story, isn't it?

Well, yes, until a real news service covers it as a story and not as coverage of other people covering the story. And I mean a real news service, not one that features stories on Paris Hilton and Britney Spears.

Sly Dog 26 March 2008 08:03 PM

It is a "non-story" why? She out and out lied about running for her life under sniper fire; same as she out and out lied when she said Chelsea had been in the World Trade Center the morning of 9/11. She was fearful of snipers having been told some were operating in the area, very probably so. She was shot at and had to run for cover, total BS. Chelsea was in New York when the towers were hit, the Clintons had no idea if she was safe or not until hours later, very probably so. Chelsea was in the towers when they were hit, total BS.

Perhaps it's a "non-story" because Hillary has told so many lies that it ceases to be topical when she tells another?

Chloe 26 March 2008 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sly Dog (Post 557747)
It is a "non-story" why? She out and out lied about running for her life under sniper fire;

Excuse me? She has corrected her statement from "under sniper fire" to "in danger of sniper fire."
Quote:

same as she out and out lied when she said Chelsea had been in the World Trade Center the morning of 9/11.
Absolute balderdash. If Clinton is a liar for saying "under fire" instead of "in danger of fire," what are you?

Quote:

She was shot at and had to run for cover, total BS.
She never said she was shot at.
Quote:

Chelsea was in New York when the towers were hit, the Clintons had no idea if she was safe or not until hours later, very probably so. Chelsea was in the towers when they were hit, total BS.
Mediamatters on this: http://mediamatters.org/items/200604240012

Quote:

Perhaps it's a "non-story" because Hillary has told so many lies that it ceases to be topical when she tells another?
I am glad you are able to draw from your similar expertise.

UEL 26 March 2008 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chloe (Post 557795)
Excuse me? She has corrected her statement from "under sniper fire" to "in danger of sniper fire."

She never said she was shot at.

Read your own words. The next day she changed her statement. Therefore, she did say she was under sniper fire. She also stated that she was also running with her head down to waiting vehicles to rush her out of there. And that the greeting on the tarmac had to be cancelled.

I've been to Tuzla where this event was alleged to occur. The only way she could have been in danger of sniper fire was if the sniper had breached the perimeter, and had gotten onto the airfield, no mean feat. Tuzla was huge, and it was purposely made big so that ground fire could not interfere with arriving and departing aircraft.

I'm of the opinion where a story may have gotten mixed up (she may have had to run due to sniper fire, but not on that visit) or she embellished a story to make it better. We have all embellished a story, but she might have done it when cameras were rolling.

RBCal 26 March 2008 09:44 PM

Bosnia a war zone when Hillary visited in 1996

Quote:

Bluntly, Clinton's trip to Tuzla was a hell of a lot riskier, not to mention more successful than George W. Bush's May 2003 "mission accomplished" landing on the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln. Ten days before the Clinton party arrived in Tuzla, I had flown there on an Air National Guard C-130 with photographer Ed Kashi.
...
Onboard the flight from Frankfurt, Germany, we were given flak jackets to don once we had entered Bosnian airspace. There was a lively debate over whether it was better to wear the proffered helmets on our heads, or place them under our seat. Given the Bosnia Serb propensity to take potshots at planes landing and taking off from the Tuzla air base, it was agreed that the latter was a more life-enhancing strategy.

Eagle Base was a "hot" landing zone. When our plane touched down, the C-130's rear cargo door opened, and we were encouraged to sprint to the base's sandbag-reinforced terminal. The plane was unloaded and reloaded in war-zone fashion - with engines running.
Bosnian War Zone

Chloe 26 March 2008 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UEL (Post 557902)
Read your own words.

I tend to do that.
Quote:

The next day she changed her statement. Therefore, she did say she was under sniper fire. She also stated that she was also running with her head down to waiting vehicles to rush her out of there. And that the greeting on the tarmac had to be cancelled.
As I said, she did not say she was "shot at."

Quote:

I'm of the opinion where a story may have gotten mixed up (she may have had to run due to sniper fire, but not on that visit) or she embellished a story to make it better. We have all embellished a story, but she might have done it when cameras were rolling.
Indeed. She wrote about the story previously and said "under threat of sniper attack" rather than "under sniper attack." It seems more plausible than she is misspeaking and/or conflating events rather than she deliberately lied about it, possibly under the impression that there was no record of what actually happened. That's just ludicrous.

lynnejanet 26 March 2008 11:45 PM

Rogers Yahoo quotes her thus:

Quote:

Clinton said last week: "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."

UEL 27 March 2008 02:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chloe (Post 557994)
As I said, she did not say she was "shot at."

It may be semantics, but when I've been on a base under sniper fire, there was someone shooting at the base. He may not have been targeting me, personally, but the bullets were coming this way.

CannonFodder 27 March 2008 04:43 AM

If you are 'under fire', you are being actively fired upon, shot at, bullets flying through the air in your vicinity, whatever.

Sometimes Mrs. Clinton reminds me of the guy who always has to one up someone else's story.

Roy012 27 March 2008 08:47 AM

Bluntly, Clinton's trip to Tuzla was a hell of a lot riskier, not to mention more successful than George W. Bush's May 2003 "mission accomplished" landing on the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln. Ten days before the Clinton party arrived in Tuzla, I had flown there on an Air National Guard C-130 with photographer Ed Kashi.
Quote:

Eagle Base was a "hot" landing zone. When our plane touched down, the C-130's rear cargo door opened, and we were encouraged to sprint to the base's sandbag-reinforced terminal. The plane was unloaded and reloaded in war-zone fashion - with engines running.
Not disagreeing with the "more successful" part, but I've landed on an aircraft carrier, and I've landed at a "hot landing zone" (by the author's definition) literally hundreds of times. Bluntly, the carrier is much scarier, and a hell of a lot riskier. The author protests a bit too much. Also, Richard Rappaport is no John F. Kennedy.

That said, the situation Hillary Clinton encountered at the base was most likely far less sanitized than what she was used to as First Lady. The Secret Service probably did stress the sniper threat (since it's their job) and probably did brief her to act accordingly. As a result, she was probably under the impression that her surroundings were quite a bit riskier than actual, because as far as she knew, they were. Not necessarily a confabulation, but perhaps a mistaken impression based on a difference in the degree of protection available to her in a warzone versus, say, everywhere else the First Lady goes. I don't think Clinton's intent was to gain street cred, but rather, to give an example of when her role as First Ladt involved more than what is typically expected.

Sly Dog 27 March 2008 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chloe (Post 557795)
Excuse me? She has corrected her statement from "under sniper fire" to "in danger of sniper fire."

Absolute balderdash. If Clinton is a liar for saying "under fire" instead of "in danger of fire," what are you?


I am glad you are able to draw from your similar expertise.

You are certainly quick to make a personal attack when you know nothing about me. You twice call me a liar, show me where I lied. I don't think you can, unless you consider repeating what has been reported by the news media. Did I personally hear Hillary say she had been under sniper fire or that Chelsea was in the WTC? No. Does that make me a liar?

Chloe 27 March 2008 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sly Dog (Post 558655)
You are certainly quick to make a personal attack when you know nothing about me. You twice call me a liar, show me where I lied. I don't think you can, unless you consider repeating what has been reported by the news media. Did I personally hear Hillary say she had been under sniper fire or that Chelsea was in the WTC? No. Does that make me a liar?

Since she didn't actually say that Chelsea was in the WTC and you insist she did, you are either mistaken or telling an untruth. Since you have comprehensively demonstrated that you don't give people the benefit of the doubt in such a situation, I am not at all sure why you think you are entitled to it.

Chloe 27 March 2008 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UEL (Post 558203)
It may be semantics, but when I've been on a base under sniper fire, there was someone shooting at the base. He may not have been targeting me, personally, but the bullets were coming this way.

Indeed, and hence the mis-speak: being "under the threat of sniper fire" (as she writes in her book) and "being under sniper fire" (as she said in her speech) are not the same thing. However, she did not say anything about being "shot at," which would have revealed more than mis-speaking. Saying that she did seems to me to be going out of one's way to misrepresent her. Kind of hypocritical, too, if you're doing it to show that she can't be trusted to tell the truth (shades of Al Gore, anyone?)

A Turtle Named Mack 27 March 2008 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chloe (Post 558692)
Indeed, and hence the mis-speak: being "under the threat of sniper fire" (as she writes in her book) and "being under sniper fire" (as she said in her speech) are not the same thing. However, she did not say anything about being "shot at," which would have revealed more than mis-speaking. Saying that she did seems to me to be going out of one's way to misrepresent her. Kind of hypocritical, too, if you're doing it to show that she can't be trusted to tell the truth (shades of Al Gore, anyone?)


But check Lynnejanet's post above - Clinton said that rather than some ceremony as soon as she landed, they all had to run for a safe place. However, I have seen the video showing her being met by a delegation, including a little girl who presented flowers to her. Perhaps that was a different visit to the area, but it was presented when I saw it as the occasion she referred to.


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:26 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.