Hillary Clinton has been caught seriously misrepresenting the facts at least twice in recent days.
Clinton lies about Bosnia landing (or at least very seriously mis-remembers).
First, she has been caught red handed (or flower-handed) trying to pad her resume,Â in relation to her story of her dangerous trip to Bosnia, which she used to demonstrate her international experience.Â She had said it was too dangerous for the President (so he sent his wife and daughter and the comedian Sinbad?). â€œI 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.”
The problem? There is no evidence to support her version of the story. And there is even a youtube video of the actual landing, in which a girl gives her flowers.
Hereâ€™s the youtube video of Clintonâ€™s actual landing in Bosnia:
The Washington Post said a review of over 100 news accounts failed to uncover even one report of her versions of the events.
Hillary Clinton’s White House Schedule Shows Hosting Pro NAFTA gatherings.
And RJ Escrow discusses the above as well as her second problem in a recent post about Hillary ClintonÂ on HuffingtonPost.com
Sen. Clinton’s other honesty problem this week came with revelations that, while she claims to have been an internal NAFTA critic in the administration, she actually gave several presentations in favor of NAFTA at the time it was passed. But, to be fair, this may not be a deception. People are often called upon to advocate for decisions in public that they opposed in private. The NAFTA controversy suggests other concerns, such as: If she were such a vehement critic, and the administration backed it anyway, how important was she? And, how can she claim credit for the good deeds of her husband’s administration and yet take no responsibility for its problems?
Still, Clinton’s handling of the NAFTA question certainly raises concerns. Especially troubling is her campaign’s work to spread rumors of Obama sending back-channel messages to the Canadians suggesting their anti-NAFTA rhetoric was all talk – when, according to a high-level Canadian source, her campaign had done that.
But it is the Bosnia whopper that remains the high-profile, easily documented embarrassment. Will the media run with it? It’s hard to tell. Despite the Clinton campaign’s PR-driven argument to the contrary, press coverage has tended to favor both candidates at different times. Right now Jim Vandenhei and Mike Allen at Politico are saying that the media’s pushing a false narrative in favor of Clinton in order to promote the sense of an ongoing “horse race,” arguing that her chances of taking the nomination are actually far less than has been reportedâ€¦
In the end, maybe one lie shouldn’t matter. Perhaps this doesn’t reflect on how Sen. Clinton would govern. In our political system, however, it does matter … but only if the media choose to make it matter. Had Obama been caught in a lie of this magnitude, his campaign might well be over. Had McCain been caught in a similar lie, however, the press would probably have hidden it (the same way they edited video of his recent Al Qaeda/Iran gaffe)â€¦.
So, will the media give these stories about her stretching the truth or lying about her Bosnia landingÂ and her Nafta viewsÂ their due coverage? And does that mean they are attacking her unfairly, as she sometimes has claimed?Â It will be interesting to see how this unfolds.