View Single Post
  #22  
Old 27 March 2008, 04:51 PM
UEL's Avatar
UEL UEL is offline
 
Join Date: 01 August 2004
Location: Ottawa/Fredericton, Canada
Posts: 8,793
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chloe View Post
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.
Agreed.

Quote:
However, she did not say anything about being "shot at," which would have revealed more than mis-speaking.
Except the "under sniper fire" bit, followed by the running to the car with the heads down bit, added to the missing the reception bit. Just the "under sniper fire" I can accept as a mis-speak. The remainder of her statement leads me, and apparently many more, to believe it was a bit more than a mis-spoken statement.

Quote:
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?)
I'm not stating that I'm doing it to show that she can't be trusted. That strawman won't stand. I'm just pointing out, and not going out of my wat to do so, that to this listener, she embellished her tale.

You seem to be willing to defend her statement to the death. This us understandable considering how much you have voiced your support for her in the upcoming election. However, as I have no particular favourites in the US election, and have no direct stake in its outcome, I'm looking at this from a greater position of objectivity. And from where I sit, her "mis-speak" is bordering on a lie.
Reply With Quote