General Question

oneye1's avatar

What do you think about Hillary's lie about landing under fire?

Asked by oneye1 (745points) March 25th, 2008 from iPhone
Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

31 Answers

b's avatar

Candidates for the next presidency should be honest. Given our current political climate of corruption and lies, people need to see an honest person lead this country. There might be some missing facts, but it does appear (from what I have seen) that she blatantly lied about what happened. So to sum it up: I am not pleased with Hillary.

khelms01's avatar

Typical behaivor from the Clinton’s, they lie when they’re under oath tesifying to a Grand Jury, why not lie when they aren’t under oath.

khelms01's avatar

What about Obama lying and saying that he knew nothing about J Wright racist and biggot filled sermons after 20 yrs in his church

oneye1's avatar

I dont think ether can win now

khelms01's avatar

or his connection to Resco (Obama)

khelms01's avatar

funny how 2 months ago dem’s thought they had it in the bag, and as usual they shoot themselves in the foot

trainerboy's avatar

Her campaign said she didn’t lie…..she “misspoke”.
Easy to do.” We landed under fire: could easily be interpreted a lot of ways…like….ummm well…you know…..

vanelokz's avatar

What did she lie about?? I haven’t had the chance to catch up on the news

SquirrelEStuff's avatar

Ron Paul, Ron Paul, Ron Paul

Support him, and he’ll run third party. Stop the lying, stop the corruption, stop the real war on the middle class, the inflation tax. Abolish the fed, and we will eventually be able to get rid of income tax. He has been warning about everything happening with our economy for years. Stop letting the media decide a candidate for you. Be your own person. Do your duty as an American, not a “republican” or democrat”

iSteve's avatar

Is there any such thing as an honest politician?

Angelina's avatar

Given that the major message of her campaign is that she has crossed the commander-in-chief threshold, the fact that she is exaggerating (to put it mildly) her experiences and accomplishments is really damaging. It undercuts her claims and she reveals herself to be untrustworthy. She just ends up looking like the kind of commander-in-chief who either lies or imagines stuff with regards to matters of national security.

oneye1's avatar

Hillary just throw obama under the bus to take the spotlight off herself

dvchuck's avatar

She is just following her husbands lead

phuture84's avatar

I feel it shows she is willing to do whatever she thinks will work to get elected regardless of the disrespect it shows the people. Since when does being first lady and having no ability to look at security briefings count as having foreign relations experience anyway?

squirbel's avatar

@Khelms. Obama did not lie about Rezco, Pastor Wright, or any other thing (nafta is the only case where he used doublespeak).

Keep the BS to a minimum.

oneye1's avatar

he said he never heard mr.wright say the things in question the the very next day he said he was there

hossman's avatar

Squirbel, Mr. Obama did in fact lie. With a little research, you can find the video. Just a few weeks ago, he claimed he had never heard Pastor Wright make these comments. A few days ago, he admitted he had heard them. A lie. A knowing untruth.

As for Mr. Tony, there is no way an intelligent attorney, especially one practicing real estate law at the time, did not know not only that it was inappropriate for him to engage in such a transaction on those terms with a client, but also that there would be a quo demanded for his quid, or as we say in Chicago, a little something expected for our prior cooperation. As an attorney who has been practicing real estate law in the Chicago area, I know what the standards are, everyone around here knew who and what Tony Rezko was and is, and Rezko was under grand jury investigation at the time of their business dealings.

Even Obama is now characterizing his own conduct as “more than a mistake.” It is possible Obama’s conduct may not have been illegal. It probably was unethical, certainly was inappropriate, definitely showed a lack of judgment, and if you think Obama didn’t know one day Tony was gonna demand a little payback, then you don’t know how things work in Chicago.

squirbel's avatar

He said he knew Pastor Wright could make those incendiary remarks, and that he had heard them before; but as for the specific remarks about “god damn America and chickens coming home”, he was not present.

And regardless, he never lied about the Rezko incident. No one is challenging whether or not he did it because he admitted it at the beginning of his campaign.

I am only clearing up the lie khelms told when saying Senator Obama lied about those incidents.

I’ve done the research, thanks.

oneye1's avatar

a saw it live he said he never heardit

khelms01's avatar

HAHA Obama’s done the dirt is just starting to come out on him, and his pole numbers are already taking a nose dive, he’s got no shot

hossman's avatar

Squirbel, I must respectfully point out your comment does not accurately reflect the video of Mr. Obama’s actual statements. Mr. Obama did, in fact, state on several occasions that he “never heard” Rev. Wright make certain offensive statements, now he admits he did indeed “hear” them. You may have seen different statements than I have. I am not the only one who is pointing this out. I’ve done the research, thanks.

An excerpt from a Newsmax reporter who attended a service at which Obama was present:

“Presidential candidate Barack Obama preaches on the campaign trail that
America needs a new consensus based on faith and bipartisanship, yet he
continues to attend a controversial Chicago church whose pastor routinely refers
to “white arrogance” and “the United States of White America.”
In fact, Obama was in attendance at the church when these statements were made on July 22.

. . . Wright’s strong sentiments were echoed in the Sunday morning service attended by NewsMax.

Wright laced into America’s establishment, blaming the “white arrogance” of
America’s Caucasian majority for the woes of the world, especially the
oppression suffered by blacks. To underscore the point he refers to the country
as the “United States of White America.” Many in the congregation, including
Obama, nodded in apparent agreement as these statements were made. [Emphasis added]

The sermon also addressed the Iraq war, a frequent area of Wright’s
fulminations. “Young African-American men,” Wright thundered, were “dying
for nothing.” The “illegal war,” he shouted, was “based on Bush’s lies” and is
being “fought for oil money.”

In a sermon filled with profanity, Wright also blamed the war on “Bush
administration bulls—t.” Those are the types of statements that have led to
MSNBC’s Tucker Carlson describing Wright as “a full-blown hater.””

Yet in his recent speech, Mr. Obama said: “I wasn’t in church during the time that these statement were made. I did not hear such incendiary language myself, personally. Either in conversations with him or when I was in the pew, he always preached the social gospel. ... If I had heard them repeated, I would have quit. ... If I thought that was the repeated tenor of the church, then I wouldn’t feel comfortable there.”

So, squirbel, you are mistaken that Mr. Obama’s denial was limited to just those specific remarks, but rather includes “such incendiary language.” Would you not agree that the comments above, and the many more that exist in video provided by the Trinity church, including services at which Mr. Obama was present, constitute “such incendiary language?” Please, you don’t surely think we are that gullible, do you?

Quite honestly, I don’t care if he was present during those specific remarks. Not only was he present during substantially similar remarks, he brought his children along. His children’s ears were filled with this sort of racist hatred. How could his children not come to agree, as undoubtedly perceived Rev. Wright as a figure worth of respect, and their parents sanctioned this hateful, vile and un-Christian rhetoric, now conveniently condemned by Obama, by their very presence? The fact that Obama never left that church, and never condemned those remarks, but rather sanctioned them by his continued presence, tells me that Mr. Obama is either racist, or a quisling that will permit racism to exist unchallenged for his own political gain. And we’re to trust him? He should be confessing his shame. His shame for permitting such sin to exist unchallenged. Quite honestly, this has nothing to do with his running for President. It has more to do with him being someone who holds himself out publicly as a Christian.

Sen. Lott was sanctioned for far less. If McCain attended a church that made similar comments about African-Americans, they’d be calling for his execution. This double standard has to end. Doesn’t anybody realize McCain is becoming the sole choice for a significant number of voters, not because of his position on the issues, but because of the moral repulsiveness of his opposition?

If you spend 20 years in McDonald’s, you might not be a cheeseburger, but you don’t mind spending 20 years around cheeseburgers, and to me that is just as bad. There are hundreds of proud African-American Christian churches in the Chicago area that don’t spew this kind of hateful bile, Obama could have spent half his adult life in one of those churches. You can’t tell me he didn’t know what Rev. Wright was, or that he couldn’t have associated himself with someone else. And he dared to support the Chicago City Council when they tried to throw out of town businesses that over a century earlier had done business with slaveowners? Why don’t we apply that same standard to Mr. Obama, who lent his political, personal and financial support to an organization that permitted such racism to exist? Or are you asserting you don’t find such statements to be racist?

I never said he lied about Mr. Rezko. He is, however, carefully leaving the truth unsaid, and nobody is asking him the hard questions yet.

SquirrelEStuff's avatar

How come everyone is saying McCain is the sole choice? How come we are letting this 2 party system ruin the country? We should start talking 3rd party.

hossman's avatar

I beg your pardon, chris. I would be more than pleased to see a 3rd party send a message to the other two. I don’t think a two party system ruins the country unless we permit it to do so, and arguments can be made that multiparty systems as in other countries are better suited to a parliamentary system than to our representative democracy, but right now, I have to say there really hasn’t been a candidate I really liked since Dole, in any party, and I thought he ran one of the most ineffective campaigns in recent history.

oneye1's avatar

hossman I liked him but I think his wife would have been even better

hossman's avatar

I agree. Easier on at least my eyes, as well. He’s funnier, though.

cschack's avatar

It’s an embarrassing fib, but then again, it hasn’t killed 4000 + US troops (and untold Iraqis), so maybe everybody should chill out.

trainerboy's avatar

Yea everybody…chill out… you are all hysterical…as if we should be surprised that a Clinton would lie.
Of course if Bill had handled a few things differently, perhaps a few thousand would not have died in the World Trade Center and we would not be in Iraq now.

oneye1's avatar

trainerboy your not saying bill bent over and took in in the but when the USS cole was bombed are you

trainerboy's avatar

Bill was too busy “handling” other things!!

SquirrelEStuff's avatar


Your alive!!! Its good to hear from you again. I want to apologize if you took that personally. It was aimed at people and media in general, not you.

hossman's avatar

Nope. I didn’t think it was personal. I also owe YOU, perhaps not an apology, because I didn’t attack you, but an admission that as events panned out, you were closer to the truth than I regarding Obama and the Trinity Church. My comments defending the church were based on my reading of their website. Now that Rev. Wright’s comments are out, it is clear you were right and I was unknowingly wrong.

And @ cschack, there are several huge differences between what you are asserting as a “lie” re Iraq and Ms. Clinton’s whopper. First, as I have argued in another thread, the failure to find substantial WMD’s (they have found some artillery shells designed to carry biological and chemical payloads) does not mean the Administration lied, it means they may have been mistaken. No one can say with any certainty there were no WMD’s in Iraq at the time those statements were made, further, they were based on the best available intelligence at the time. Based on your definition of lying, I was lying when I defended the Trinity Church based on incomplete information. Based on your definition of lying, Mr. Obama is lying when he says he was unaware (not that I believe him) that Rev. Wright was making racist statements. Thus, her lie is clearly a lie, I would not say the WMD statements were lies.

Second, even assuming arguendo that the WMD statements were lies, at least they were lies about a matter of international significance. It could be argued (I would not, as I have posted elsewhere lying is always wrong) that the lies were justified by the greater good of deposing Hussein. Ms. Clinton’s lies serve only her, not national security concerns. Thus her lie was a selfish lie.

Third, even if further due diligence had been made at the time, it is not certain we could have discovered the WMD information was incorrect (and again, I do not concede that it was incorrect). Ms. Clinton, however, should have been bright enough to know there would be video readily available to prove she is a liar. Thus her lie was a stupid lie.

If Mr. Bush or Mr. McCain had told the whopper Ms. Clinton told, there would be calls for impeachment from the Democrats, media, and much of the American public. Ms. Clinton is getting off easy. Misspoke, indeed. Telling such an obvious, (if she had been fired on, it would have been all over the media, on the cover of Newsweek) selfish, and stupid lie clearly indicates Ms. Clinton is arrogant (remember Bill wagging his finger and scolding us?), thinks we are all idiots, a habitual liar, and she RELIES on the pass she will get from the media, the left, and many Americans. She is confident she can do whatever she wants and get away with it.

Ms. Clinton is a very dangerous person to be a U.S. Senator, much less a President.

Answer this question




to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther