Sniping Hillary
I want to write a few words about gunshots and sniper fire. And then, a bit later, about Hillary Clinton.
Gunfire is an overwhelming sensation that can never be forgotten. You can’t confuse it for something else. You can’t honestly mis-speak about it. Most people in this country, fortunately, never experience it — even at a distance — and therefore cannot fully comprehend its physical and psychological impact. It’s rather enormous when its outbound fire. It’s
devastating when it’s inbound.
In 1967, I had lived 16 years and had by then witnessed — via TV and the movies– thousands of supposed gunshots before I felt the tingle of cordite in my nostrils. But absolutely nothing had prepared me for the first time I fired a rifle at a tin can — an aging WWI bolt action 7.65mm Argentine Mauser. The sheer volume of the blast was downright deafening. The kick of the rifle butt immediately bruised my shoulder. The audio and kinetic shock wave made me nauseous. I felt like I had been punched and deafened.
A few years later, while living in Chile, there were numerous occasions when the political violence I was caught up in was punctuated by small arms fire. Again, there’s no way to describe the panic that’s unleashed when shots are fired in a crowd.Mostly I remember the turbo-shift of adrenaline, the compulsion to just friggin’ run, and the fear of being trampled.
When the 1973 coup came, as I took refuge in a diplomat’s apartment, I watched as Chilean army tanks fired shell after shell at the Fine Arts campus of the University of Chile. As each round was discharged, from 4 blocks away, it felt as if a ball peen hammer was being crushed into my skull. The shock wave of each blast rattled the plate glass windows and rumbled through the walls on the second floor apartment, the full impact of each shot finally settling somewhere between my throat and my bladder.
But it wasn’t until a few months later, in late October 1973, while covering the Yom Kippur War, that I first felt what it was like to actually be the target of gunfire. And what an introduction! A few days after the cease-fire, while out in the Sinai on a media dog-and-pony show led by the Egyptian Army, our press caravan wandered into the buffer zone between the two opposing sides. And for our sins, an Israeli fighter jet first buzzed us, hung an aerial u-ee, and then swooped down to make a second pass and fired a few warnining pot shots at us. By then, we were all cowering under the Egyptian jeeps (the WORST place to be!) but as I felt the impact of the rounds striking the ground yards aways from us — maybe dozens of yards away– the trauma was overwhelming. I readily confess to panicking, crying, and then shake, rattle and rolling for at least the next few days.
In March 1982, during a different dog-and-pony show (this time being the U.S. stage managed elections in El Salvador), I was standing no more than ten feet from Chilean cameraman Carlos Ruz when at 6 a.m. we were caught in a battle between guerrillas and soldiers in the Mejicanos neighborhood of San Salvador and this time there was plenty of incoming rifle fire. We (and that includes one very scrupulous and regular reader/commenter on this blog who may or may not wish to add some more detail) hid behind the doors of our cars, but Ruz insisted on filming what he could through the open window. I was, frankly, terrified and I ordered my driver to back our car down the hill (Ruz was in the car in front of me and couldn’t move forward as that was the source of the incoming). But before we could move, in a horror frieze frame forever etched into my memory), Ruz suddenly stood up from his crouch, dropped his camera, turned toward us, and then fell down as blood mortally gushed from his neck. With gunfire still popping around us, and with soldiers at our side shouting at us and pointing their rifles at us, I felt like I was going to black out. Actually, that’s putting it mildly. All I can say is that after last year surviving two brief sojourns in the ICU, including a rather electrifying moment with a set of cardio-paddles, nothing I felt in the hospital even came close to those moments of terror I lived through in El Salvador. I did have my tape recorder running during the whole bloody episode and produced a radio report out of it (edited by yet another regular reader/commenter on this blog) for the news that night. As soon as I figure out how to move that piece from a dangerously aging cassette tape to an MP3 I will post it for old time’s sake.
I could easily detail for you the other 3 times I was shot at in El Salvador. More than 25 years later in two cases, and 21 years later in another, I can pinpoint the precise time, place and circumstances. But I think I’ve made my point and therefore will spare you the gory details. But it’s impossible for me to mistake, confuse, mix-up, or mis-speak any of those moments because — to put it bluntly– I’ve been regularly replaying them in my head since the moment they first occurred.
Now, about Hillary Clinton and Bosnia.
She flat-out lied about the sniper fire she didn’t experience. The anecdote she repeated, again and again and again, was consciously fabricated. Period. Full stop.
Frank Rich does a great job of probing both her banal and transparent motivation as well as the cluelessness of her campaign in the post-YouTube media environment.
Yes, all politicians lie to some degree or another. The dynamics of a presidential campaign are such that all candidates must stretch, trim or embellish the truth.
But Hillary’s lie is the undisputed whopper of this campaign season — at least on the Democratic side. It’s also disgusting as well as intellectually insulting. It’s also rather ghoulish, I think. To so baldly and so falsely capitalize on the nightmare that thousands of Bosnians did, in reality, survive is to reveal a truly shrunken and twisted soul.
(Hat tip to VRWC folks at Hillaryproject.com for the illustration)
March 29th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
As I said elsewhere, this was titally unnecessary and probably kills her foreign policy experiece argument. Can we now argue thst she has had the worst campaign advisors of anyone who has come as far as she has.
March 30th, 2008 at 4:40 am
I agree with Marc. If you have ever shot a gun or been around gun fire you don’t forget or confuse the moment. What I find startling is that she has recounted this “sniper” story at many campaign stops yet no one on her staff saw the implications nor corrected her. Shocking and probably a sign of the team’s arrogance that she had the nomination locked up. Her team has allowed her to make many mistakes….basic mistakes that political experts should have helped her avoid.
http://mtaricani.blogspot.com/
Mike
March 30th, 2008 at 5:33 am
‘She flat-out lied about the sniper fire she didn’t experience. The anecdote she repeated, again and again and again, was consciously fabricated. Period. Full stop.”
It is a flat-out lie, but in watching her various recountings of this tale on Youtube you get the sense that she’s gradually expanding on the facts till a full blown lie is finally born and embedded in her own brain as truth (or at least the sort of ‘truthiuness’ you can trot out in public). I think we all do this on a smaller scale with all sorts of personal ‘truths’. To see this in action on this scale in public is, however, pretty amazing.
March 30th, 2008 at 5:49 am
“Can we now argue that she has had the worst campaign advisors of anyone who has come as far as she has.”
Who someone picks to give them advice says a lot about who they are.
March 30th, 2008 at 5:52 am
I disagree that this was ‘totally unnecessary’. It don’t believe it was gratuitous. I think she (correctly) felt that her 35 years of experience claim was a little flimsy and could be gradually exposed as less than truthy. She needed a memory like this to nail down the experience meme in her own head and probably felt a compulsion to go public with it in order to back up her exaggerated claims. The whole thing has been damaging at the polls both because it reinforces the idea that she’ll play havoc with the truth and because it does raise legit questions about all the vaunted experience.
March 30th, 2008 at 6:03 am
Hill’s ‘sniper’ recollection is a little bizarre to say the least, along with out-of-place spontaneous laughter attacks in response to reporter questions a few months back. She seems to have recovered from this, thank god. Still worrisome in retrospect.
I am so impressed by Chelsea Clinton and think she is the biggest honest success story these two characters have. I am decidedly not impressed by some of the treatment she gets from the press, trying to ‘make’ the news as usually. She’s just a very nice kid trying to help her parents who ask her too.
I want to vote for her……when she grows up. I’m also deciding if I can vote for Obama before he grows up.
March 30th, 2008 at 10:27 am
Ditto on Chelsea Clinton. I’ve seen a few clips of her being asked potentially embarrassing or “gotcha” questions in the course of this go-round and she always handles herself with class and a degree of candor that’s remarkable on the “silly season” campaign trail.
March 30th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
A highly respected progam, Coast to Coast AM, yesterday had a discussion on Hillary’s Bosnia experience, and a guest caller was able to explain away all of Hillary’s claims. If a sniper was higher in altitude than her, anywhere in the world, then she was “under” sniper fire. As far as the little girl meeting her goes, he discussed how kids play violent video games becoming desensitized to the value of life, and that little girl could have killed Hillary. All in all, it was quite convincing.
March 30th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Sniper fire… Without a doubt the biggest whopper.
Marc, you’ve been in some very hairy spots. We’re glad you’ve had the survivalist instinct to duck down pat!
Sad note: Dith Pran has passed away.
http://tinyurl.com/2v98cy
March 30th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Meanwhile, in the real world:
Maliki as much as surrended to Al Sadr today while Lindsey Graham goes on FOX to say everything is just fine there and his boy McCain is being vindicated!
Jack Reed cut him down for this today just as Jim Webb (another service grad) demolished him last month.
Oh, and the finance meltdown goes on.
Meanwhile our media is looking into Revs and decade old trips to Bosnia.
We’re doomed!
March 30th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Gee Richard. Do you need a hug? A blanket? Um, last I checked, this certain junior Senator from New York was trying to become the leader of the ‘free’ part of said real world. Opps, she’s shown to be a bald faced liar. Sorta important, don’t ya think?
March 30th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Hillary finally released their tax return, which explains a lot. – Clinton 2006 Personal Income Tax Return
March 30th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Hey, Marc, I found this link to important information from the same site where you obtained the above illustration.
March 31st, 2008 at 8:42 am
[...] Guess lying about being shot at it in Bosnia wasn’t the smartest idea. (btw – wanna know what being under real gunfire is like?)Who knew Bosnia would play such a delicious role in this election? Bosnia is now the NUMBER ONE [...]
March 31st, 2008 at 9:10 am
Actually Bob since the last month has shown the math going against her I’m not sure how important it is. I’ll grant that it sheds light on her judgement – MB’s point on what her staff picks for her campaign are like says a lot about what her picks for the WH would be.
But – Iraq and the economy are big deals and they are getting shorter shrift than they should because of this nonsense. Even if some of it is candidate generated why do they feel the need to do so?
March 31st, 2008 at 10:42 am
Nora Ephron, moments ago. Priceless! “I don’t think she was always a liar, the way some kids are born liars and never get over it. I think she was once a truthful person and her lying skills were forged in the early years of her marriage, forged in the crucible of Bill’s infidelities and in her role as point person in dealing with them. This is what happens when you marry a narcissist: he spills the milk, you clean it up and your love grows. And then you end up a liar, just like him.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nora-ephron/hooked-on-hillary_b_94115.html
March 31st, 2008 at 11:04 am
why do they feel the need to do so?
because even with obama, there won’t be any fundamental changes..
March 31st, 2008 at 11:14 am
Examples of a pathological liar
â— Then there’s the story about Chelsea jogging around the World Trade Center when the Islamic terrorists attacked on 9/11. This was Hillary trying to make herself a part of this tragic story.
â— How about Monica Lewinsky? She knew what a whore-dog her husband was, yet she sat there and prattled on about a right-wing conspiracy.
â— Then we have the Sir Edmund Hillary thing. Problem is, nobody had heard of Sir Edmund Hillary when Hillary Rodham was born.
â— Remember Bill Clinton pardoning those Puerto Rican FALN terrorists as he left office? Hillary was running for the Senate in New York at the time, and the Puerto Rican community was demanding these terrorists be pardoned. Hillary – the woman so involved with everything Bill did in the White House – says she didn’t know about the pardons.
â— Hillary wanted to be an astronaut. She wrote NASA to find out how to apply, and she says they wrote back saying that they “don’t take girls.” Sally Ride was….
â— The Rose Law Firm billing records. They were found in her private quarters in the White House. This particular lie was a crime. She was never prosecuted.
â— Hillary was on a junior high school soccer team and had a confrontation with the goal tender from an opposing team. …the opposing goalie told Hillary that she didn’t like white people. …the school Hillary was attending didn’t have a soccer team.
â— Hillary says she didn’t give the order to fire the White House travel office staff. Staffers remember the exact words she used: “Fire their asses.”
March 31st, 2008 at 11:26 am
Why Hillary is for socialized medicine – her campaign doesn’t pay the insurance premiums for her staff when due. Clinton didn’t pay health insurance bills
March 31st, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Woody, if Peggy Noonan can give it up, why can’t you:
“This is the point where, with Hillary Clinton, either you get it or you don’t. There’s no dodging now. You either understand the problem with her candidacy, or you don’t. You either understand who she is, or not. And if you don’t, after 16 years of watching Clintonian dramas, you probably never will.”
Some fresh material. Please.
March 31st, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Fine, Patrick. Let’s discuss how stupid, dishonest, or government dependent are the supporters of Hillary Clinton–assuming that everyone “gets her.” If anyone understands the pure evil and dishonesty and the power hunger of that woman and her husband and, yet, still supports her, they are as entitled to our wrath as is she.
The Democrats have put forward better candidates, but half of the people in that party swooned over Hillary. Maybe that says as much about the Democratic Party as it does Hillary, especially after she steals the nomination from Obama.
March 31st, 2008 at 2:29 pm
“Pure evil and dishonesty”
How, then, did Bill manage to preside over 8 years of unprecedented peace and prosperity?
Looking back, what American can possibly we are better off now than we were then?
Sorry, Woody, but history will judge Clinton by his performance as president and by how the country fared during his term. And when we compare that to Bush I and Bush II, he comes up roses.
March 31st, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Now, I know the people who like Hillary Clinton. It’s the same ones who think that Bill Clinton, the only elected president to be impeached, was responsible for the dot com bubble, didn’t raise taxes, really didn’t leave office with the country in recession, had no responsibility for stopping the 9-11 plans, and that peace is the same as putting inevitable conflict off onto others. We paid a hidden price for Clinton, and with sorry federal and SCOTUS judges like Ginsburg, we’ll be paying a price in rulings for a long time. I guess some will be fooled into giving Hillary credit for Bill’s administration. I wondered where she got her support.
March 31st, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Not to defend Clinton, but the FALN pardons took place on August 11,1999, a full 17 months and 9 days before he left office.
March 31st, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Let’s see.
The Secty of HUD resigned today to spend more time with his lawyers, er “family” while he is under a cloud and fed investigations.
And Friday last another Bush appointee left under criminal probe.
DOD gave a $300 million arms contract to an 18 year old. The guy, now 22, is under indictment for fraud.
That’s the score for ONE WEEK of the Bush reign of terror and crime spree.
But Woody has a hard-on for the Clintons.
Give it up man – you’re magical thinking has become tiresome. When you rejoin the reality based community maybe some of us here will treat you seriously.
March 31st, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Cummings: Depends on how you define fundamental. I would say FDR and Teddy Roosevelt, in their own ways. By that definition Obama is firmly in that mold.
To you, though the only fundamentalism you like is Marxist through and through. As you well know, that’s not a position a serious person will take and still survive in US politics.
March 31st, 2008 at 7:32 pm
But Woody has a hard-on for the Clintons.
The question is which one.
March 31st, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Gee Woody. It does seem like you’ve had some sort of ‘personal’ relationship gone bad. Maybe you could do the Vince Foster thing and get some peace.
Before you do though, don’t leave us hanging like Vince done. Which one did you wrong Woody. Inquiring minds lust to know.
March 31st, 2008 at 9:56 pm
I hadn’t realized until reading this that Hillary had been using this story repeatedly. From her backpedaling (“if I misspoke, that was a misstatement”), she made it sound like one incident.
Yeah, I just don’t get this. Hillary’s aides and campaign consultants, who must have scoured every bit of public/private information on her for what could be useful (or damaging) didn’t notice this Tale Growing in the Telling? Or they did, but kept their mouths shut, because it looked like it was working? Or they had memory problems, too? Or … it was a Big Lie attempt?
It’s also disturbing how much this story resembles that of the experiences of Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) at the time. (Sarajevo rather the Tuzla). Not that I find Snowe bragging about her bravery — actually, the only quote on this junket I can find from her is about the desperate straits of people living in wartime (and it was wartime, when she went).
I’m more saddened than angry. If this isn’t the end of Hillary’s candidacy, maybe it should be? The suddenly widening lead of Obama (they were neck and neck not so long ago) suggests quite a few others feeling similarly. I could see her as VP (sort of) before, but now that’s harder. Much harder. After all, McCain only has to put Snowe
http://youtube.com/watch?v=QR8iSXnMfUY
on the ticket on his side, and everybody will be continuously reminded of What Didn’t Actually Happen at Tuzla. And besides, well … watch Snowe. I don’t know about you, but she’s not … how can I put this diplomatically so it doesn’t sound like a slam against Hillary? Oh, the hell with it. In the above video, Olympia Snowe is not IRRITATING THE LIVING SHIT OUT OF ME.
Besides, I could force myself to vote for two RINOs if I felt I had to. And if Clinton uses a (dwindling) clout in superdelegate commitment to somehow muscle her way onto the ticket, and if I think the Dems were disengenuously pandering on Iraq, maybe I’d feel forced.
March 31st, 2008 at 10:07 pm
OK, Hillary doesn’t irritate the living shit out of me ALL the time. Sometimes she’s admirably brave and poised, as in this hair-raising bit of Bosnia footage:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=uHVEDq6RVXc
Plus I liked her hair back then.
[Note: at this writing, the above video is #1 on YouTube if you search on "Hillary Clinton" -- AND on "Hillary" and even on "Clinton". Yep, I think it's all over now. Unless you think most people are searching "Hillary Rodham Clinton", in which case they might still be swayed by HRC's tear-jerkingly evident compassion for all individuals who are dealing with the challenges of being somewhere along the autism spectrum, or related to someone thus challenged.]
April 1st, 2008 at 8:37 am
Yeah, you guys have it. Monica left me for Bill. It really sucks.
FLASH: Hillary Clinton’s Bosnian misadventure should disqualify her from the presidency, but the airport landing is the least of it.
By Christopher Hitchens
April 1st, 2008 at 11:11 am
There’s nothing fundamentalist about a methodology shared by people from Stephen Jay Gould to Bernie Sanders, the latter of whom I give you as argument to your contention in/re US politics (but the point is quite moot anyhow).
April 1st, 2008 at 11:12 am
And of course FDR made profound sweeping changes. LBJ did as well, though he also comitted war crimes. Reagan made regressive sweeping changes.
April 1st, 2008 at 12:58 pm
I have to agree with Marc, although I didn’t have to leave the country unfortunately to experience what coming under gurn fire feels like, It is unmistakable to the point where any sound that mimics gunfire rattles me.
While a Pol lying is not shocking, the advice that Hillary is getting is, it’s almost as bad as Gulliani’s.
April 1st, 2008 at 5:08 pm
What Hillary is basically saying is that she should be the nominee even if she loses according to all of the criteria of the primary process (delegates, popular vote, etc.) It’s as simple as that. Got to give her credit for chutzpah if nothing else.
April 1st, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Obama is going to be left in a fog when Hillary steals the nomination right under his nose.
April 1st, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Well you know, shooting in the hills is still shooting in the hills. Until one lands between yer eyes. 4000 of those so far. How many national leaders come under this sort of fire? Kennedy did, and Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley. You get the idea. methinks this is the price fair lady must pay to quiet some. But then yanno, Barack could get it anytime going down to the 7-11 for a forty Oz. That’s real fightin’!
April 2nd, 2008 at 9:06 am
“Obama is going to be left in a fog when Hillary steals the nomination right under his nose.”
Hard to believe that the Democratic Party would allow anyone to overthrow the will of the electorate….Oh, wait a minute, they did that in 2000.:
April 2nd, 2008 at 10:04 am
I miss Eleanore kjellberg. She was so enjoyable in the comment engagements.
April 2nd, 2008 at 11:02 am
Hillary Snipe of the Day! …just for you supporters who think that she will have an administration just like Bill’s. Brother, will she ever.
Watergate-Era Judiciary Chief of Staff: Hillary Clinton Fired For Lies, Unethical Behavior
Above found at Boortz: HILLARY FIRED? SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISBARRED!
If Hillary Rodham has been completely vetted, as she claims, then why hasn’t this come out before?
April 2nd, 2008 at 8:49 pm
Woody, learn The Sniff Test already.
Is this a *new*, shocking revelation? No, the story goes back at least to 1996.
http://tinyurl.com/36hw23
That’s, like, *12* years in which to substantiate it? And in all that time, nobody has brought Hillary down on this charge?
Is it a *shocking* revelation? Only if it’s actually a revelation.
What’s the source? One man’s diary recounting his *suspicions*. (A diary on tape, apparently transcribed, then enlarded with “recollections” of conversations to write one of those blow-the-lid-off-of-Washington potboilers.)
Where are any supporting documents besides his diary? None that I know of. I wouldn’t be surprised if the segment of tape recording the supposed document-hiding Hillary supposedly colluded in turned out to be … in some state of disrepair … “oh damn, we’re missing about 18 minutes there … but it’s OK, I was able to reconstruct events from memory. You trust me, right? Hey, wanna read my column about this dream I had where I interview Eleanor Roosevelt and she says she’d rather vote for a conservative Republican than Hillary?” (Not joking about that last — go read Zeifman’s own blog.)
The Sniff Test: if Hillary et al. *did* actually hide documents, and Zeifman could have proven that at any point back in 1973, well — wouldn’t that have been obstruction of justice, a rather serious crime? If Hillary actually *had* written a brief saying that Nixon wouldn’t qualify for counsel in an impeachment hearing, Zeifman could certainly have turned up copies of it, couldn’t he? Has he? No? Not in 12 years?
The Sniff Test: the idea of hiding Senate documents as if it could somehow hide the fact of William O. Douglas establishing a precedent (his own) for hiring counsel when faced with threat of impeachment … well, it just doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. Were those documents the only publically accessible record of Douglas’ hiring decision? Really??
“Lawyer Is Retained by Douglas To Help in Impeachment Fight”,
April 29, 1970, New York Times
http://tinyurl.com/3y7wz2
The Sniff Test, Woody. Try it sometime. When something seems just too deliciously good to be true, it usually … isn’t.
Clinton Derangement Syndrome: you could also look that up while you’re at it.
April 3rd, 2008 at 1:43 am
Passes my sniff test. Obviously, a sniff test isn’t the same as a burden of proof for a criminal conviction. Her boss in what must have been the most important appointment of her career at the time fires her and refuses to give her a letter of recommendation. Telling me that doesn’t pass a sniff test? Seems like you’re the one who’s biased here.
April 3rd, 2008 at 6:57 am
I am curious about something. Lost in all of the stupidity about Sen. Obama’s pastor is his claim that he wasn’t there when Rev. Wright said what he said. Now, that happened to be a lie, as we all know. I don’t see much criticism of that statement, lost as it is, as I say, in the ridiculousness associated with Rev. Wright’s preaching.
As lies go, it matters far less to me than Sen. Clinton’s. But I do hear a Saturday Night Live sketch echoing in my head.
April 3rd, 2008 at 7:03 am
Michael Turner, MarkC has it right in his response. My sniff test tells me that you’re like Clinton apologists who try to divert the investigation away from the Clinton’s and onto those who expose them. I remember them saying things like “That happened a long time ago,” meaning a year or so earlier, so they had no obligation to defend their actions. If Clinton Derangement Syndrome is the same as trying to stop lying sociopaths from running and ruining our nation, I wear the badge proudly.
April 3rd, 2008 at 7:10 am
I missed this interview with Jerry Zeifman, who was the Chief Counsel and Chief of Staff of the House Judiciary Committee during its investigation of Richard Nixon. From the positive comments, it appears that there are more people whose sniffers are better than Michael Turner’s.
April 3rd, 2008 at 7:15 am
“Her boss in what must have been the most important appointment of her career at the time fires her ….”
Actually, she was let go at the same time as everyone else on that case, and for the same reason: Nixon’s resignation rendered impeachment moot.
As for Zeifman refusing to give her a letter of recommendation, it appears she merely followed the orders of higher ups who Zeifman felt were all biased toward Teddy Kennedy, in some weird plot to *prevent* impeachment, in the hopes that Nixon would serve out his term of office, which would supposedly have improved Teddy’s chances. (Got all that? Make sense to you?)
So let me get this straight: on the one hand, Hillary is suppposed to have hidden documents relating to Justice Douglas’ hiring counsel to defend him against impeachment, so that she could make the case the Nixon could be denied counsel (Zeifman’s theory), but Zeifman *also* sees her in the pockets of people who didn’t want impeachment proceedings against Nixon at all? Hillary’s FOR making it easier to impeach Nixon, but also *against* impeaching him? Wow. What an evil bitch, and how nice to have it both ways like that.
Zeifman has a diary he says he’ll let anyone “see”. But the diary is reportedly based only on tapes. And I don’t see any offer to let anybody *hear* what’s on those tapes. Probably a lot of paranoid ranting … but if you want to know, make a request at the George Washington University archives — just be aware that you won’t be allowed to quote anything you’re granted access to without Zeifman’s express permission.
What will you most likely find out about Hillary’s assignment at the time? That she was supposed to write a “scholarly background piece on the law of impeachment ….” and that “[H]er specific task was to find an extra-Constitutional rationale for
Sniff Test: Zeifman stinks to high heaven.
April 3rd, 2008 at 7:23 am
Oops, sorry, I didn’t get a chance to finish that last quote before hitting “Submit Comment” by mistake.
” … an extra-Constitutional rationale for impeaching Nixon over the secret bombings of Cambodia.”
[p. 24, Hell to Pay: The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton, By Barbara Olson]
Note that Olson isn’t exactly in love with Hillary — the lead Amazon review describes her as “a conservative lawyer who served as the Republican chief counsel for the congressional committee investigating the Clintons’ involvement in “Travelgate” and “Filegate.”" The book is a scathing indictment of Hillary.
However, Olson, this conservative lawyer, writing YEARS AFTER Zeifman made his charges public, and who apparently had access to all relevant documents, DID NOT make (or repeat) the very damning charges that Zeifman makes. Why not? It’s hot stuff! Most likely: whatever Zeifman had, it didn’t meet Olson’s standards of evidence.
April 3rd, 2008 at 11:04 am
Woody’s obsession with the Clintons remind me of the left’s obsession with Bush.
Woody lost big in 1992, the left lost big in 2000. It seems neither will ever get over it, for the good of their own mental health……..and ours.
April 3rd, 2008 at 11:11 am
Michael Turner, your sniff test is ineffective when you have your nose jammed up the crotch of Hillary Clinton.
Jim R, I’m simply being a patriot and don’t want our country to return to the control of white trash.
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:42 pm
I’m simply being a patriot
The last refuge of a scoundrel.
April 3rd, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Randy: Patriot – The last refuge of a scoundrel.
Only in the eyes of someone who hates our nation. That’s not a quote of any wisdom. I never considered George Washington or Patrick Henry to be scoundrels. You need a new and accurate response to patriotism, like maybe embracing it.
April 3rd, 2008 at 2:09 pm
The fix is in. DNC Chairman Howard Dean has set it in motion.
I love the last line by the Clinton spokesman. What about the process in place when Florida and Michigan were warned about not being seated?
What a joke. Just watch. Hillary will be the Democratic nominee and the next President. The “process in place” will be her double-crossing to get elected.
April 3rd, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Only in the eyes of someone who hates our nation. That’s not a quote of any wisdom.
I’ll take Dr. Samuel Johnson over your blathering any day.
Claims of what you perceive to be patriotism are all you have. Not a cogent thought. Disabuse yourself of the notion that ovine obeisance to the Bush administration is patriotism.
The nation is embodied in the constitution, not in gassy flag waving and blind obedience. Your side has been raping and abusing the document for the past eight years and longer. Patriot my ass. Your lickspittle, kneejerk reactionary toady.
April 3rd, 2008 at 7:29 pm
In your chronic inability to understand larger meanings, allow me to dumb this down for you.
Johnson wrote about false patriotism: those who give lip service to love of country while being blind to the trashing of its ideals. The sort of person who waves the flag when he can’t get anything else to rise.
I’m of the Senator Carl Schurz mind:
With any luck, this year we will be put right.
April 3rd, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Randy, to be accurate, no one is sure as to the context of Dr. Samuel Johnson’s quote about patriotism. What you wrote is hopeful wishing and pure speculation. Right? You know that I am.
And, how pathetic that you have to resort to attacking patriots and grasp at straws like Dr. Johnson to appear scholarly. Are you that insecure?
Many liberals who claim to be patriotic can only say that by perverting the definition of the word.
Why Democrats hate patriotism
April 3rd, 2008 at 9:51 pm
Samual Johnson quotes with context available:
“A man sometimes starts up a patriot, only by disseminating discontent, and propagating reports of secret influence, of dangerous counsels, of violated rights, and encroaching usurpation. This practice is no certain note of patriotism. To instigate the populace with rage beyond the provocation, is to suspend publick happiness, if not to destroy it. He is no lover of his country, that unnecessarily disturbs its peace. Few errours and few faults of government, can justify an appeal to the rabble; who ought not to judge of what they cannot understand, and whose opinions are not propagated by reason, but caught by contagion.”
Johnson: The Patriot
Hm. Woody – Perp? Victim? Both?
“It is the quality of patriotism to be jealous and watchful, to observe all secret machinations, and to see publick dangers at a distance. The true lover of his country is ready to communicate his fears, and to sound the alarm, whenever he perceives the approach of mischief. But he sounds no alarm, when there is no enemy; he never terrifies his countrymen till he is terrified himself. The patriotism, therefore, may be justly doubted of him, who professes to be disturbed by incredibilities…”
Ibid.
Woody’s seems awfully disturbed about a manifest “incredibility” — that Hillary would have attempted to hide what was public knowledge (William O. Douglas’ hiring of counsel when threatened with impeachment).
April 3rd, 2008 at 10:10 pm
Woody links to an essay that says, among other things, “Well, that’s exactly how the Democrat sees the American soldier. Insane, bigoted, and armed.”
I see. So it’s possible that a near-majority of members of our armed forces consider *themselves* “insane and bigoted”? Not yet, but probably gettin’ there:
“In the 2004 poll, the percentage of military respondents who characterized themselves as Republicans stood at 60%. By the end of 2005, that had dropped to 56%. And by the end of 2006, the percentage of military Republicans plummeted to 46%.”
[LA Times, Jan 5, 2007]
http://tinyurl.com/y3wdle
“Armed”, I’ll give you that. But “insane” and “bigoted”? Why do you sign up for this crap, Woody, this implied gross slander against hundreds of thousands in the armed services? I can’t think of any reason, except that it’s that people like YOU who are “insane and bigoted”. For which we have ample evidence: I post several arguments as to why Zeifman’s account should be accorded very little credibility at all, and despite all my postings *against* Hillary recently, YOUR response is that I have my face “stuff up Hillary’s crotch”.
Get help, dude. Professional help.
April 4th, 2008 at 2:10 am
Oh, and here’s another gem from the essay Woody links: “Modern Liberalism — the dominant ideology of today’s Democrat party — is wedded to the childish philosophy of “multiculturalism.†Multiculturalism is the fantasy that all cultures are equally good and equally right.”
This blinkered loonie is equating multiculturalism with cultural relativism. Two rather different things:
http://www.signandsight.com/features/1240.html
April 4th, 2008 at 7:16 am
Woody wraps himself in the flag when he doesn’t really have much of anything to back up his claims (which is most of the time).
Our allegiance is not to the flag, but to the US Constitution, which forms the basis for the republic. The current administration has shown open contempt for this document. The kind of patriotism I believe in entails defense of that document.
April 4th, 2008 at 8:27 am
A bit dog barks.
April 4th, 2008 at 8:35 am
You seem to have convinced yourself that Obama is the second coming. He is as deceptive as Hilary and much smoother. I am not a fan of Hilary, McCain (or the present GOP prez) but Obama shouldn’t be spared either. However, in all fairness you should investigate Obama’s lies, from his claims of racial epiphany (Selma) to his lies about his father’s background, take your pick … or will you give him the “mispoke” pass?
April 4th, 2008 at 8:44 am
So does a rabid one, apparently.
April 4th, 2008 at 8:45 am
To conservatives, the Flag is the Constitution. To liberals, the Flag is Nationalism. Can’t have that.
April 4th, 2008 at 9:13 am
Flags change. The constitution changes through amendments.
April 4th, 2008 at 9:28 am
I’ll define my own patriotism rather than accept your false claims as to what mine is.
To liberals, the Constitution doesn’t have to change through amendments as long as they elect Presidents who appoint activist judges who make the Constitution to be whatever they want rather than what the Legislative Branch intended.
April 4th, 2008 at 9:44 am
To liberals, the Constitution doesn’t have to change through amendments as long as they elect Presidents who appoint activist judges who make the Constitution to be whatever they want rather than what the Legislative Branch intended.
Blah, blah, blah. Since WWII, Democrats have appointed 10 of the 27 appointed Supreme Court Justices and none of the chief justices. Of those ten, one, Abe Fortas, served for less than four years and another, Arthur Goldberg, served for less than three. So if your complaint is that liberals have been packing th courts, the court of last resort has been largely filled by Republicans. Typical of your piss-poor grasp of the facts.
If you want your own patriotism defined by yourself, fine. Don’t accuse the rest of us being traitors if we don’t share your rather homuncular views of what constitutes patriotism.
April 4th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Randy, you quoted Carl Schurz above. Now I don’t want to set Woody offbut you should know that Schurz was a lifelong associate of Karl Marx and came here after the revolutions of ’48 failed in Germany. Karl didn’t have the money so he went to London. But they kept in touch for the rest of their lives.
April 4th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
RLC,
He was also a senator, Secretary of the Interior, Union Army General and has a park named after him here in NYC as well as having a ship named after him in WWII.
He was also ahead of his time as witness this prescient quote about patriotism:
Definitely ahead of his time.
April 4th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
All quite true. Didn’t want to go into detail.
April 4th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
Randy, on Woody’s fuzzy, fiction-backed logic: “Typical of your piss-poor grasp of the facts.”
That’s an insult to piss, Randy. You should apologize.
OK, on to the next blog entry, where Woody accuses us all of hating cowboys. Just for the record: as a good Liberal, I don’t hate *all* cowboys. Only the heterosexual ones, who are indisputably True Americans.
(I’ve *heard* there are some heterosexual cowboys, but haven’t run down any of those rumors yet. If I do turn up heterosexual cowboys, I’ll make sure to activate my Islamofascist terrorist sleeper cells in America, so that they can kidnap these cowboys, behead them, and post the videos to YouTube. This is my duty as a good Liberal.)
April 4th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Oh, and I forgot: “So if your complaint is that liberals have been packing th courts, the court of last resort has been largely filled by Republicans.”
Randy, Randy, Randy … don’t you understand? It’s not how conservative they were upon appointment, it’s how liberal they become afterwards. This is actually the best evidence we have that liberalism is an infectious brain disease, one that it can be acquired through casual but persistent contact with liberals. Of course, one can catch much more virulent and deadly strains of the virus, much more quickly, from more direct contact with the more typical carriers (homosexual cowboys and Jihadi sleeper cell members — drop me a line if you’re interested). But I hope this helps you see just how insidious the disease really is. What we really need now is a national quarantine. It’s that serious. I think we can get by with two branches of government for a while. Maybe even one, if we have to. It would be a small price to pay, really.
April 4th, 2008 at 11:50 pm
Good unity speech today by Obama on MLK’s assassination remembrance day. Hillary was angry and throwing books.
I truly believe MLK would roll over in his grave knowing how far away from integration, towards more segregation, black leaders have led their people since. We are still trying to join hands to sing Free at Last, but the Reverend Wrights wants to sing ‘Bond at Birth’ instead.
April 5th, 2008 at 12:02 am
That would be “Bound at Birth”.
April 5th, 2008 at 6:05 am
Only a liberal would consider that the likes of Republican appointed Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren should be considered conservative and that left-wing justices appointed to district and appeals courts don’t count.
April 5th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
Earl Warren wasn’t just “Republican appointed”. He was a Republican, one who had himself appointed other Republicans.
But appearances deceive! Warren was nominated by Eisenhower, a “conscious agent of the communist conspiracy”, according to well-informed source [*] — and yet another illustration of the depth and breadth of liberal contagion.
Speaking of liberal contagion, Woody — I have it from another informed source that you should be careful to check under your bed tonight, and also make sure you’re heavily armed before you check. You might find a lot Jihadi terrorists and homosexual cowboys under there.
[*] Welch, founder of John Birch Society, the only true American patriots. Uh, except for those JBS members over in a certain county in Pennsylvania, which has been infiltrated by Jihadi terrorists and homosexual cowboys. It was the fluorine in the water, we’re pretty sure.
April 6th, 2008 at 8:26 am
Asinined Press
NEWSFLASH
The AsP learned today that the United States has fallen from second to sixth place in the Index of Top Ten Countries Wearing Appropriate Police, Security, and National Security Uniforms (ITTCWAPSNSU). This is the lowest rating received by the U.S. in seven months, two weeks, two days, six hours, twelve minutes, and nine seconds.
Sources have told AsP there may be no bottom to this uniform slippage. Sen. Harry Reid, in a joint press conference with House leader Nancy Pelosi, this afternoon blamed the Bush administration for lack of attention to “this area of important pride and morale for our country”.
The Uniforms Council of Council Bluffs, Iowa, who are the keepers of the ITTCWAPSNSU Index, released it yesterday. AsP has obtained a copy:
1) Chad
Canada
2) Jamaica
3) North Korea
4) Iceland
5) United Kingdom
6) United States
7) Myanmar
9) Congo
10)Nepal
http://newsbunch.com/
April 6th, 2008 at 8:30 am
AsP
NEWSFLASH
Washington:
Senators Tom Harkin and Dick Durban held a press briefing yesterday afternoon to explain their desire to draft legislation to create federal standards and a new government agency to ensure local police and security guards are appropriately uniformed.
The new agency would have a headquarters in Council Bluffs, Iowa, and a field office in Detroit, Michigan, and would be named The Federal Uniform Uniforms And Other Uniform Stuff Agency or The Agency of Uniform Uniforms and Uniform Standards and Things Like That. The agency would have broad power to inspect civilian uniforms and their wearers.
April 6th, 2008 at 8:32 am
AsP
NEWSFLASH
Washington:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had an especially busy day yesterday beginning with a dawn press conference criticizing the Bush administration for lack of action in the uniform crisis and ending in a late night special session of Congress. The session was called to craft a bill to provide $508,727,000 to local communities from Greenwich to Berkeley to help them meet uniform uniform standards.
Congresswoman Pelosi said: “Since the United States has become one of the poorest nations in this tortured world since the current administration has taken office, it is necessary for your government to assist local police and security guard organizations to provide high-quality uniforms that uniformly help our poor communities afford good uniforms and training and education on how to wear them.”
http://newsbunch.com/
April 6th, 2008 at 9:37 am
Only a liberal would consider that the likes of Republican appointed Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren should be considered conservative and that left-wing justices appointed to district and appeals courts don’t count.
Keep beating that clueless drum. You’ve got nothing but wind on your side and zero proof.
For the current composition of Federal Courts, let’s look at the last 32 years, a reasonable period given the lifespan and and educational requirements for judges. Republicans have been appointing judges for 20 of those 32 years, Democrats for 12. FYI: Jimmy Carter was the only president in the 20th Century no to appoint a Supreme Court Justice.
Take it back 52 years and it becomes 20 for Dems and 32 for Republicans.
Woody, I’ll let you in on a secret. I have a strong family history of heart disease. If you back up something you right wth some empirical proof, the shock might give me a coronary.
April 6th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Marc,
The same way Obama’s speech on race reflected Obama’s deep understanding of that prevalent issue, the Hillary campaign’s misuse of these facts shows just how much she does not understand the changed media landscape of this presidential campaign. Nor does she understand the democratic bases anger with this type of political posturing around being tough and brave. There are no better two examples to use about the differences between these two campaigns than how each of the campaigns responded to controversy. Obama stands up and takes responsibility and ownership of the issue and uses it as an opportunity to make a point and reflection, and Hillary back tracks and hides behind her staffers. I do think democrats have a choice of what route they want to take with these candidates and understanding Obama is no Saviour, and Hillary is no devil, I think the party’s legitimacy and the legitimacy of the two party system is at stake. Are we going to push ourselves to move forward? Or are we going to continue to embrace the politics of aversion? Marc, that challenge is thrust upon your generation more than mine. What are Boomers going to do, especially the 60′s boomers?
April 6th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Bush returns from another successful diplomatic trip to Nato Alliance.
Nato unaimously agrees to defensive missile deployment, Nato agrees to increase troops in Afghanistan, two more former Soviet Block nations sound favorable to joining Nato, and Putin is caught on camera hugging Bush.
Who looks more like the Lame Duck. This guys got history on his side, I tell ya!
April 6th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
How much money did Bush use to bribe those E. European nations into taking his min-SDI and do you think they will ever be deployed? I don’t. We’re out of cash and unless our Chinese Bankers see profit in it (or usuable military technology) its a no-go.
Former Soviet Republics will NEVER BE ALLOWED in NATO as France, Germany, and other EU powers won’t want to antagonize Russia.
April 6th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
Didn’t the EU antagonize Russia by voting for deployment of a missile system in Poland, and the other one that defies pronunciation RLC?
I will agree the missile system is not likely to be deployed. But not for the reason you give. The reason will be election of a Democratic President.
Defense is not their strong suit.
Oh, and as for NATO for Georgia and the Ukraine, never is a long long time.
April 6th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
“Former Soviet Republics will NEVER BE ALLOWED in NATO as France, Germany, and other EU powers won’t want to antagonize Russia.”
Estonia? Latvia? Lithuania? All in NATO.
April 7th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
Snipers seek out high value targets and shoot only when they can kill that target.
June 29th, 2008 at 2:08 am
puerto rican politics…
Do you have a newsletter to sign up to?…