snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Urban Legends > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 27 March 2008, 08:12 PM
WonkoTheSane's Avatar
WonkoTheSane WonkoTheSane is offline
 
Join Date: 17 July 2003
Location: N. Attleboro, MA
Posts: 2,428
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RBCal View Post
Kosovo was still a war zone. By definition a war zone has bullets flying occasionally. If I entered a war zone I certainly would be concerned about potential sniper fire.

This is well referenced in the link I posted previously.
Fair enough, but that still isn't what she said. She said she was under fire, not that she was concerned about potential fire. This implies bullets whizzing about, doing the duck and cover, and so on, which, of course, she also claimed (the ducking part).

I'm neither claiming that she deliberately lied to boost her standing nor denying that she accidentally misspoke. But it's not honest to change what she actually said into what you think she must have meant, or to press the realities of the words spoken into a mold that makes them sound less inaccurate.

Wonko
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 27 March 2008, 08:23 PM
Mad Jay's Avatar
Mad Jay Mad Jay is offline
 
Join Date: 19 July 2003
Location: Virginia
Posts: 13,464
Default

She has already acknowledged her mistake and apologized. I think it shows courage to be able to apologize. Time to move on, people!
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 27 March 2008, 08:53 PM
Dreams of Thinking Machines's Avatar
Dreams of Thinking Machines Dreams of Thinking Machines is offline
 
Join Date: 21 September 2006
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 1,216
Default

Two more Clinton quotes to add:
Quote:
“Due to reports of snipers in the hills around the airstrip we were forced to cut short an event on the tarmac with local children, though we did have time to meet them and their teachers and to learn how hard they had worked during the war to continue classes in any safe spot they could find.’’
[From her book Living History, bolding mine.]

Quote:
"I remember particularly a trip to Bosnia, where the welcoming ceremony had to be moved inside because of sniper fire."
[From a speech on February 29. Video.]

I think she made an honest mistake. I just interpret what she said as what I bolded in the first quote, "Reports of fire."

Maybe she's guilty of some exaggeration with her "We just ran with our heads down" statement, but memories tend to bleed together after twelve years.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 27 March 2008, 09:39 PM
Silas Sparkhammer's Avatar
Silas Sparkhammer Silas Sparkhammer is offline
 
Join Date: 22 September 2000
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 26,843
Whalephant

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sly Dog View Post
. . . but being "under sniper fire" does mean being shot at. . . .
What if the sniper is deliberately aiming at the guy next to you? You aren't being shot at; he is. But you are still definitely "under fire."

Quote:
. . . One cannot be "under fire" if there is no firing taking place. . .
Within what time frame? There was firing taking place two seconds ago? Twenty? Ten minutes? Two hours? Four days?

I readily and frankly admit that I'm playing semantics games here, including the fallacy of drawing the line. "Tell me exactly how much time must elapse before one can say that 'firing has ceased?'" Obviously, that's a preposterous demand. There is no such formal definition; how could there be?

But...when Clinton was in the area...how long had it been since the last shot had been fired at that area? If there had been shots fired two seconds previously, that makes the phrase "under fire" much more credible than if the last shot had been a week ago.

(Then there's the "But Bush..." argument, where he has gotten away with far more blatant lies. But that's an entirely different fallacy...)

Silas
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 28 March 2008, 02:04 AM
E. Q. Taft's Avatar
E. Q. Taft E. Q. Taft is offline
 
Join Date: 30 July 2003
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 13,563
Default

Hillary wasn't lying!

How can you dispute photographic evidence?
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 28 March 2008, 02:16 AM
damian's Avatar
damian damian is offline
 
Join Date: 14 April 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 6,475
Default

There are so many versions of what happened and what she said happened that I don't think she remembers the truth anymore. She lied, and like so many politicians, tried to cover up the lie by playing semantic word games.

Wasn't there a guy in the last election saying something about being in a gunboat in Vietnam? Whatever happened to him?
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 28 March 2008, 03:30 AM
Steve Eisenberg Steve Eisenberg is offline
 
Join Date: 15 October 2001
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 11,841
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silas Sparkhammer View Post
"Tell me exactly how much time must elapse before one can say that 'firing has ceased?'"
How about this? Enough time so that a good mother will let her daughter wait outdoors while she makes a fuss over another child:



I'm afraid this is a common kind of lie. I can't find a link on the net, but I'm sure I remember reading in a biography that FDR told a similar lie about being in danger during a World War I VIP tour. Then there's John Kerry's unlikely (due to timing) story of having been in Cambodia during the Vietnam War. These are quite mild examples of a common phenomenon:

Quote:
Over the past 15 years, Burkett said, he has investigated perhaps 2,000 claims of military service; at least 1,500 of them were bogus in one way or another. Rep. Cooley was among the storytellers he helped expose.

False warriors are a phenomenon that happens after every war. Historian William Marvel has written that every one of the last dozen recognized living Confederate veterans was bogus. Marvel found that the last one, Walter Williams of Texas, would have been 5 in 1860 and 10 when the war ended. Williams didn't begin identifying himself as a Civil War veteran until 1932, when he applied for a Confederate pension.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 28 March 2008, 10:13 AM
Ramblin' Dave's Avatar
Ramblin' Dave Ramblin' Dave is offline
 
Join Date: 11 May 2005
Location: Singapore
Posts: 13,120
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WonkoTheSane View Post
Anyway, if Hillary does get the Democrat[ic] nod, it'll be interesting to see how this plays out in the media, and how often it will be brought out to compare her to her opponent, who actually has been under fire.

Wonko
If 2004 is any indication, it won't hurt at all and the media might even look the other way if she accused McCain of having made up the whole POW thing for political gain. But then, IOKIYAR.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 28 March 2008, 01:40 PM
RBCal RBCal is offline
 
 
Join Date: 04 April 2005
Location: Palm Springs, CA
Posts: 1,743
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramblin' Dave View Post
If 2004 is any indication, it won't hurt at all and the media might even look the other way if she accused McCain of having made up the whole POW thing for political gain. But then, IOKIYAR.
Bush/Rove whispered that McCain is mentally unstable due to the torture he experienced as a POW. Thus, it is better to remind people that he actually underwent torture and is now too crazy to be Commander in Chief.

Remember it doesn't have to be true. All you need is a 527 group to create Swift Boat ads and then he has to go around saying "I REALLY AM NOT CRAZY!"
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 28 March 2008, 01:48 PM
hoitoider's Avatar
hoitoider hoitoider is offline
 
Join Date: 22 October 2001
Location: Beaufort, SC
Posts: 5,995
Crash

Quote:
Originally Posted by RBCal View Post
Thus, it is better to remind people that he actually underwent torture and is now too crazy to be Commander in Chief.
But also remind them that he isn't too crazy to be a senator. Just look at the other two presidential candidates.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 28 March 2008, 01:53 PM
Sly Dog
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silas Sparkhammer View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sly Dog
. . . but being "under sniper fire" does mean being shot at. . . .
End Quote

What if the sniper is deliberately aiming at the guy next to you? You aren't being shot at; he is. But you are still definitely "under fire."
Silas, please! That question is answered in the very post you pulled the above from. I said "if you come under fire it means somebody is actively trying to kill you or those around you". Shame on you!
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 28 March 2008, 02:16 PM
Four Kitties's Avatar
Four Kitties Four Kitties is offline
snopes minion
 
Join Date: 29 July 2003
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 23,722
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by damian View Post
Wasn't there a guy in the last election saying something about being in a gunboat in Vietnam? Whatever happened to him?
He was telling the truth about being in a gunboat, but that was irrelevant. He's still the junior US Senator from Massachusetts.

Four Kitties
__________________
“The path to true enlightenment is the ability to formulate and express one's own thoughts, and not somebody else's.” -- Auntie Witch
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 28 March 2008, 02:35 PM
RBCal RBCal is offline
 
 
Join Date: 04 April 2005
Location: Palm Springs, CA
Posts: 1,743
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoitoider View Post
But also remind them that he isn't too crazy to be a senator. Just look at the other two presidential candidates.
I know they look sane and stable compared to a crazy old man!!!

There have been other crazy old Senators besides McCain. Strom Thurmond is one example.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 28 March 2008, 03:16 PM
Roy012 Roy012 is offline
 
Join Date: 15 November 2002
Location: Anacortes, WA
Posts: 1,474
Default

Quote:
I know they look sane and stable compared to a crazy old man!!!

There have been other crazy old Senators besides McCain. Strom Thurmond is one example.
Former Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D, GA) is running for President as the Green Party candidate, and she's definitely a few crayons short of a box.

Last edited by Roy012; 28 March 2008 at 03:22 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 28 March 2008, 08:14 PM
Silas Sparkhammer's Avatar
Silas Sparkhammer Silas Sparkhammer is offline
 
Join Date: 22 September 2000
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 26,843
Whalephant

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sly Dog View Post
Silas, please! That question is answered in the very post you pulled the above from. I said "if you come under fire it means somebody is actively trying to kill you or those around you". Shame on you!
I do not accept this as a necessary part of the definition. Being "shot at" can mean being downrange of any indiscriminate fire, but it does not have to mean that. It introduces extra terms into the definition.

John Hinkley did -- and did not! -- "shoot at" James Brady. Both statements are true, even while, logically, one must be true and the other must be false.

Thing is, language is imprecise, and lots of people say things in a loose enough way that proving they lied is very difficult.

(Obviously, being politicians, their simply speaking at all is sufficient...)

Silas
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 28 March 2008, 08:36 PM
Ryda Wong, EBfCo. Ryda Wong, EBfCo. is offline
 
Join Date: 14 December 2005
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 24,015
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreams of Thinking Machines View Post
Maybe she's guilty of some exaggeration with her "We just ran with our heads down" statement, but memories tend to bleed together after twelve years.
Dude. If I ever decided to run for politics, I'd be totally screwed on that count.

I can remember the year I graduated from high school if I try real hard, and I have to remember that to figure out the year I graduated with my MA. Which was, like, three or four years ago.

Not to mention, I've been told of doing things or being present for events that I really don't remember, even when I was totally sober for the thing/event.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 28 March 2008, 10:41 PM
pinqy pinqy is offline
 
Join Date: 20 February 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 11,647
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silas Sparkhammer View Post
What if the sniper is deliberately aiming at the guy next to you? You aren't being shot at; he is. But you are still definitely "under fire."
So, if Clinton was under fire, but not being shot at, then who do you propose the sniper was firing at? If not a specific known target, then the group is considered the target. In general usage (and please, show me instances of other usage if you've read them) "being shot at" does not mean you know for certain you are a target, but rather that you, and anyone you're with, are in range and shots are coming near. If you later find out that you were not a target and were in no real danger, you should stop saying you were shot at or that you were under fire.

Quote:
Within what time frame? There was firing taking place two seconds ago? Twenty? Ten minutes? Two hours? Four days?
Hey, you're the one saying firing doesn't have to be going on to be considered "under fire." If there were shots in the area, but you were not physically present, and show up immediately after the last shot, then you could not consider yourself under fire. Under fire means that while you were there, there were shots that could potentially have hit you.

Quote:
But...when Clinton was in the area...how long had it been since the last shot had been fired at that area? If there had been shots fired two seconds previously, that makes the phrase "under fire" much more credible than if the last shot had been a week ago.
But equally untrue. If there was no fire while she was present, then she was not under fire.

But in any case, I could easily excuse her saying "under fire" as a mere slip of the tongue....it's not what she wrote or other accounts, so I'd be perfectly prepared to dismiss it as a case of brain fart poor wording. But running to the cars? That didn't happen. (And I don't believe you've even addressed that lie). Now, if it can be shown that there was a similar situation, where she flew to an Imminent Danger Area and had to run to the cars, I'd accept that as confusing seperate events and retract calling it a lie. But I have not heard any evidence that that is the case.


pinqy
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 29 March 2008, 12:01 AM
Silas Sparkhammer's Avatar
Silas Sparkhammer Silas Sparkhammer is offline
 
Join Date: 22 September 2000
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 26,843
Whalephant

Quote:
Originally Posted by pinqy View Post
So, if Clinton was under fire, but not being shot at, then who do you propose the sniper was firing at? If not a specific known target, then the group is considered the target. In general usage (and please, show me instances of other usage if you've read them) "being shot at" does not mean you know for certain you are a target, but rather that you, and anyone you're with, are in range and shots are coming near. . . .
Okay; then: this supports my view that she would not have been lying if she had said she was being "shot at."

Silas
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 29 March 2008, 12:27 AM
pinqy pinqy is offline
 
Join Date: 20 February 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 11,647
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silas Sparkhammer View Post
Okay; then: this supports my view that she would not have been lying if she had said she was being "shot at."

Silas
No it doesn't. If there was no firing going on while she was there, which there wasn't, then she wasn't being shot at and would be lying to say she was.

And you still haven't addressed running to the cars. Why?

pinqy
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 29 March 2008, 01:00 AM
Dreams of Thinking Machines's Avatar
Dreams of Thinking Machines Dreams of Thinking Machines is offline
 
Join Date: 21 September 2006
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 1,216
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by E. Q. Taft View Post
Hillary wasn't lying!

How can you dispute photographic evidence?
You can't dispute photographic evidence. So, I'd like to know how you would explain Obama's drug trip when he appeared on Letterman? Or his involvement in Bollywood?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:18 PM.


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