McCain Has Absolutely ZERO Understanding Of International Relations, Or History

Wow, McCain really had his foreign policy "expertise" on full display today. Here he is commenting on the couple-day-old armed skirmish between Russian and Georgia, that has already reportedly ended in an official cease-fire being signed:

My friends, we have reached a crisis, the first probably serious crisis internationally since the end of the Cold War. This is an act of aggression.

Yes, please not that the end of the Cold War was marked by the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. Hmm...let's look at what other international crises since then just might have been a little more serious:

The Gulf War (1990-1991), you may remember this one, it actually gets really important later on, see current Iraq war, and 9/11.

The Rwandan Genocide (1990-1993), in which 800,000 to one million people were slaughtered.

The Afghan Civil War (1992-1996), in which up to 125,000 people died, and which also resulted in the Taliban coming to power (this will prove important later Johnny, take notes).

The Bosnian War (1992-1995), in which over 100,000 people died, and which our botched response to would prove to have repercussions later on.

The Kosovo War (1996-1999), in which well over ten thousand died.

The First Congo War (1996-1997), in which around 200,000 people died.

The Ethiopia-Eritrea War (1998-2000), in which 53,000-190,000 are estimated to have died.

The Second Congo War (1998-2003), probably the biggest war you never heard of, in which 3.5 to 4.4 million people were killed, in violence that still hasn't gone away.

September 11th, 2001, while not a war, neither is this conflict in South Ossetia, and I think it had a pretty major impact on international relations, in fact, I'd say it was a bit of an important, and serious, crisis.

Current War in Afghanistan (2001-Present), kind of important, considering al-Qaeda and the Taliban keep getting stronger and stronger while we waste our resources and attention in Iraq.

Darfur Genocide (2003-Present), in which 300,000 to 400,000+ have been slaughtered.

Current War in Iraq (2003-Present), also kind of important, really the biggest foreign policy blunder since Vietnam, which has of today cost the lives of 4,143 American troops, wounded tens of thousands of American troops, killed over a million Iraqis, who knows how many wounded, gave a huge boost to terrorist recruitment, and will, by the time it is over, cost an estimated 3 trillion dollars that could have been used to fix our crumbling infrastructure in the US, or our health care system, or education system, or eliminate HIV/AIDS and malaria world-wide, cure hunger in the world, etc, you get the picture.

In fact there hasn't been a minute since the end of the Cold War in which there hasn't been a war of some sort in some part of the world. Those were just the most notable conflicts. But sure McCain, if you think that this little, multi-day territorial skirmish between Russia and Georgia is really the "first serious international crisis since the end of the Cold War", I think you might want to go consult your history books, or make sure you have your pal Lieberman next to you when you are saying stupid crap so he can correct you. But of course this doesn't have anything to do with facts for you does it? It is all about scaling up your reckless, belligerent anti-Russia rhetoric, which needless to say does NOTHING to help our relations with Russia. Maybe you should leave the international relations to the pros, or at least people who are less hotheaded and more understanding of the situation than you, people like, Bush. I just threw up a little bit as I typed that, but seriously, compared to McCain, Bush is an expert at foreign policy, at least he isn't running around trying to piss off everyone with his macho rhetoric (at least not in this situation).

Bill Clinton Possibly Sets A New Record For Lies In A Single Statement

When I saw the clip of Bill Clinton blatantly lying about Hillary's Bosnia claims on news this morning I was frankly shocked by how obvious and baldfaced the lies were. Shocked. Well I set out to find the video to mythbust it, but it looks like Dan Abrams and friends beat me to it. I think Abrams gives the Clintons a little too much credit here by calling her lies and then Bill's lies "misstatements", when they clearly aren't. Anyway, give it a watch:



But let's go through this again anyway. Abrams points out a few of the lies:

1. "One time late at night" - Lie, it was many times, even after Sinbad and others challenged the truthfulness of her claims.


2. "...mistated and immediately apologized for it" - Lie and Lie, She never "misstated", she lied, repeatedly. And she most certainly did NOT immediately apologize for it, she in fact NEVER apologized for it, and she only admitted a "misstatement" after irrefutable video evidence proved she was lying. In fact, when a reporter asked her to comment on Sinbad's alternative (accurate) version of events, Hillary didn't apologize, she dismissed Sinbad as a comedian, and told the lie again!


3. And an actual misstatement, it was in 2006, not 2005 as Bill just said.


4. "I think she was the first first lady since Eleanor Roosevelt to go into a combat zone" - Wrong, it wasn't a combat zone, and she wasn't the first since Eleanor, because first lady Pat Nixon went to a combat zone (a real one) in Saigon, Vietnam, in July 1969. Why even say something if you have no idea if it is true? Or I guess a better question would be, why would you tell all of your other lies when you know they are obviously false?

Abrams actually missed a few lies, which were:

5. Contrary to Bill's excuse, NONE of her misstatements were at night*, and the most egregious example of her lying took place in the morning of March 17, 2008.
6. And then Bill goes on to repeat all of Hillary's previous lies about the events!

So why lie so much? Why tell lies that were so obvious that there was a ZERO percent chance that even our generally lazy and inept media could miss them?? I think there are two main reasons:

1. Both Hillary and Bill are pathological lairs, and can't help lying. They seem to get off on lying--lying when they don't have to, lying when they know they will most certainly be caught, yet they can't help themselves, and
2. 
   B) Bill will never miss an opportunity to blame the horribly mean media for beating up on his poor perpetually the victim wife. Hell, it has worked in the past, whine enough, SNL will make a few skits, the media will get self conscious and start refusing to comment negatively on Hillary for a while, while at the same time dutifully repeating every bullshit Clinton talking point or rumor against Obama. Maybe he was hoping for a repeat. And why wouldn't he? That is about all they have left, pure desperation.

It is funny though, that Bill and Hillary used her being tired and out of it at 11pm as an excuse for her repeated "misstatements", when she has built this last leg of her campaign on her "unique" ability to be "ready at 3am". Seriously, how the hell can we expect her to even be coherent at 3 o'clock in the morning when she starts rambling lies about sniper fire as early as 11pm?? Perhaps we will have to start scheduling national crises for before 9pm on weekdays and before 10pm on the weekend.

Just when you think the Clintons couldn't get any more ridiculous and full of shit right? Oh well, all I know is that if she somehow manages to beat Obama (not happening) and she then somehow manages to beat McCain (not a chance in hell) and becomes president, I don't want her anywhere near the red button if she has had even a sip of Sleepytime® tea.

*Update: Here is Tim Russert's video mythbusting of Bill's "one time late at night" excuse:

Hillary Weighed Political Ambition Vs Genocide, Accepted Both

Every time I think we know everything about Hillary's Bosnia lies something else seems to turn up. To be fair, this actually has less to do with her constant lies about her trip there, and more to do with her husband's overall policy of sitting on his hands while watching the unfolding genocide in Bosnia. Evidence seems to suggest that the reason Bill reneged on his campaign promise of stopping the genocide was because he didn't want to waste precious political capital on stopping the genocide in Bosnia when he needed that capital to help get Hillary's ill-fated (and ill-managed) health care pet project off the ground. (Similarly, Hillary has stated that around that same time she was also worried that NAFTA's passage might take focus off of her health care plan, although there is no evidence that she ever let those concerns get in the way of her unequivocal support for NAFTA).

The following excerpt is from Sally Bedell Smith's biography of the Clintons For Love of Politics (emphasis mine):

Taking the advice of Al Gore and National Security Advisor Tony Lake, Bill agreed to a proposal to bomb Serbian military positions while helping the Muslims acquire weapons to defend themselves—the fulfillment of a pledge he had made during the 1992 campaign. But instead of pushing European leaders, he directed Secretary of State Warren Christopher merely to consult with them. When they balked at the plan, Bill quickly retreated, creating a "perception of drift." The key factor in Bill's policy reversal was Hillary, who was said to have "deep misgivings" and viewed the situation as "a Vietnam that would compromise health-care reform." The United States took no further action in Bosnia, and the "ethnic cleansing" by the Serbs was to continue for four more years, resulting in the deaths of more than 250,000 people.

Christopher Hitchens corroborates the course of events:

I can personally witness to the truth of this, too. I can remember, first, one of the Clintons' closest personal advisers—Sidney Blumenthal—referring with acid contempt to Warren Christopher as "a blend of Pontius Pilate with Ichabod Crane." I can remember, second, a meeting with Clinton's then-Secretary of Defense Les Aspin at the British Embassy. When I challenged him on the sellout of the Bosnians, he drew me aside and told me that he had asked the White House for permission to land his own plane at Sarajevo airport, if only as a gesture of reassurance that the United States had not forgotten its commitments. The response from the happy couple was unambiguous: He was to do no such thing, lest it distract attention from the first lady's health care "initiative."

Now the Clinton penchant for political calculation is well documented, but I must say that this takes the cake. Even worse is that her poor handling of her health care project, and her attempted credit stealing for the FMLA and SCHIP shows that all of this wasn't done out of an honest passion for fixing our broken health care system, but out of a desire to pad her resume with policy bona fides while looking ahead to a carpetbagging Senate run as a stepping stone back into the White House. Now I know that is a cynical view, but it is a view that is taken in light of her tendency to introduce legislation (on health care issues, among other things) in the Senate, and then put in absolutely no effort to fight for it to ever be heard from again, let alone passed, while at the same time bragging about introducing said legislation in order to hype her legislative prowess as well as her "sincere and deep commitment" to health care, and children, and education, and veterans, etc, etc (while never mentioning that introducing legislation is easy and means next to nothing if one doesn't put in the leg work to see that it gets off the runway).

So yes, you tell me how far she would go for her political ambitions. I know all signs (from this election to her entire political life before that) point to the fact she would say and do anything anything to get ahead.

Christopher Hitchens, never at loss for words or opinions sums it up nicely in light of her most recent exploitation of the Bosnia crisis for political gain:

It's hardly necessary for me to point out that the United States did not receive national health care in return for its acquiescence in the murder of tens of thousands of European civilians. But perhaps that is the least of it. Were I to be asked if Sen. Clinton has ever lost any sleep over those heaps of casualties, I have the distinct feeling that I could guess the answer. She has no tears for anyone but herself. In the end, and over her strenuous objections, the United States and its allies did rescue our honor and did put an end to Slobodan Milosevic and his state-supported terrorism. Yet instead of preserving a polite reticence about this, or at least an appropriate reserve, Sen. Clinton now has the obscene urge to claim the raped and slaughtered people of Bosnia as if their misery and death were somehow to be credited to her account! Words begin to fail one at this point. Is there no such thing as shame? Is there no decency at last? Let the memory of the truth, and the exposure of the lie, at least make us resolve that no Clinton ever sees the inside of the White House again.

But I sure am glad she was able to support NAFTA through all this. Political capital is not without its costs.

Mythbusting Hillary: From The Bosnians Themselves

At this point we all know about Hillary lying about her trip to Bosnia in order to fluff her foreign policy experience. Today, however, there comes another side of the issue, part mythbusting, but also highlighting a more important aspect of the lie, namely what it meant to the people of Bosnia whose lives really were in constant danger during the years of war. Here are some of the reactions from the real victims, including the little girl who served as Hillary's photo-op on the tarmac when she claimed she was running for cover from sniper fire:

SARAJEVO, Bosnia - The Bosnian girl who famously read a poem to Hillary Rodham Clinton during her 1996 visit to the war-torn country is shocked - and her countrymen infuriated - that the former first lady claimed to have dodged sniper fire that day.

Emina Bicakcic, now 20 and studying to become a doctor, told The Post she stood on the tarmac at the air base in Tuzla, greeted Clinton and even had time to share the lines of verse she'd written - all without fear of attack from an unseen enemy.

"I was surprised when I heard this," Bicakcic said, referring to Clinton's assertion that she braved snipers upon landing, ducking and sprinting to military vehicles.

Other Bosnians said they had one of two reactions to Clinton's debunked action-hero account of her visit: laughter or anger.

"It's an exaggeration," said former acting President Ejup Ganic, who was present during Clinton's visit. "No one was firing. There were no shots fired."

Sema Markovic, 22, a student, said she has long respected Hillary as a strong leader but was angered by her remarks.

"It is an ugly thing for a politician to tell lies,' she said. "We had problems for years, and I don't like when someone lies about them. It makes us look bad."

Clinton has since admitted she "misspoke."

Bicakcic, asked if she feared any threat of violence that day, said she felt just the opposite.

[...]

A worker at the airstrip where Clinton landed said the surrounding hills that could have harbored snipers were far too distant to pose any real threat to the first lady.

He said that he found her false account hard to stomach and that it unnecessarily revived difficult memories.

Many Bosnians - still confronted with bullet-scarred and burned-out buildings from Sarajevo to Tuzla - said their very real experiences with violence should not serve as cheap fodder for Clinton's political ambitions.

"It was a horrible lie," said 29-year-old Midhat Efendira.

Like most Bosnians, he expressed a deep appreciation of Bill Clinton for his role in ending the war. But he found Hillary Clinton's remarks intolerable.

"It was a low blow," he said. "She did it to gain sensational publicity."

Efendira said that Bosnians are closely following the US presidential race and that Hillary's remarks have damaged the formerly untouchable Clinton name in the country.

Sead Numanovic, the deputy editor-in-chief of Bosnia's largest newspaper, Dnevni Avaz, laughed at Sen. Clinton's account of the alleged sniper fire and her claim that she "misspoke."

"My first thought was, she must be kidding," he said. "When someone threatens your life, you don't make a mistake."

Numanovic said his paper has not even bothered to cover the story.

"We don't have space for someone's lies," he said. "Why is she so stupid? It doesn't portray her as a real leader."

Some Bosnians contrasted Clinton's jaunt to the truly dangerous visits paid by now-deceased former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and former Turkish Prime Minister Tansu Ciller in 1994.

In an effort to call attention to Sarajevo's plight, the two female heads of state donned flak jackets and were driven throughout the heart of the bullet-riddled city at the height of the conflict.

Two days after their visit, 69 people were killed in a mortar attack on a central market.

Hillpocrisy & Lies (University Edition)

At the height of the revelations that Hillary had lied about her trip to Bosnia as First Lady, Hillary's campaign desperately flailed at the Obama campaign with this gem, in a desperate attempt to divert attention from her lies:

Sen. Obama consistently and falsely claims that he was a law professor. The Sun-Times reported that, "Several direct-mail pieces issued for Obama's primary [Senate] campaign said he was a law professor at the University of Chicago. He is not. He is a senior lecturer (now on leave) at the school. In academia, there is a vast difference between the two titles. Details matter." In academia, there's a significant difference: professors have tenure while lecturers do not. [Hotline Blog, 4/9/07; Chicago Sun-Times, 8/8/04]

First, this is an incredibly pathetic and transparent attempt to make up for being caught in a lie. Second, her campaign was wrong in saying that all professors have tenure, because they do not. Third, "details matter"? Seriously? This coming from the same person who fabricated WHOLE EVENTS from her trip to Bosnia (not to mention all of her other serious lies), and repeated them for months to try to prop up her foreign policy credentials, and then after she was exposed by video evidence tried to explain it all away as "I'm human" and "I simply misspoke" and "I was sleep deprived" and "the people don't want to talk about this, they want to talk about the issue"? But now this is relevant? And now details matter?? Yet again, the hillpocrisy is just stunning. And yes, I do believe details matter, like this one released today by the University of Chicago:

The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.

Oh details, details, so inconvenient aren't they Hillary?

Update (4/1): Add some more hillpocrisy to the pile because apparently Hillary felt a little differently last year when she sent out a press release trumpeting the endorsement of California State Senator Sheila Kuehl, who she describes as a former "law professor at Loyola, UCLA and USC Law Schools". Only her official title was that of "Instructor", which technically would have ranked her below the position Obama held, if that sort of thing mattered, which apparently it does (but didn't previously) to Hillary. Yet another example of Hillary changing her position 180 degrees depending on who she is trying to bullshit at the time.

A Tailspin of Lies and Hillpocrisy

So Hillary has responded to the revelation (video evidence) that she had been lying through her teeth about her Bosnia trip since the campaign began by saying she misspoke, and even blamed sleep deprivation. Now excuse me, because I'm apparently just a gullible voter, but usually a misstatement is when you fudge a word once, not when you repeatedly fabricate a story that is at the heart of your "experience" argument which in turn is at the heart of your campaign and all of your attacks against your opponent. Also, I don't think you can call it a misstatement when people raised questions about it weeks ago, and then you disparage them and say they were wrong, and continue to repeat the lies even more brazenly. If it was simply "misspeaking" you probably would have stopped yourself and thought back really hard to recall if any of it was true, but you didn't, even though all of your statements were completely false, not even close to being accurate. Not to mention you made similar repeated "misstatements" concerning all of your other main examples of experience too, now that seems kind of odd doesn't it? And blaming it on sleep deprivation? Have you had sleep deprivation since this campaign began and you started lying about your "superior experience"? Did sleep deprivation lead you to write these lies into your speeches? Did you fall asleep at the keyboard and your fingers went sleepwalking and added lies to your speeches, in speech after speech? C'mon now Hillary, talk to us like we aren't gullible children for a change.

As if her lies on top of lies weren't enough, last night in an interview with Fox News Hillary added barefaced hillpocrisy to the mix:

"I'm a human being. I made a mistake and owned up to it," Hillary told Greta Van Susteren. "But that's not what people talk to me about. When I'm out campaigning ... people want to talk about the economy and health care, and they want to know what are you going to do to get fix our country and get it back on track, and help my family and me.

"And that what I'm really engaged in. Because, you know, when you've been on a campaign for 14 months there's all kinds of other distractions, but at the end of the day this is a hiring decision," she said.

Okay, so first, "owned up to it" apparently means repeatedly lying about it, and disparaging those who gave conflicting accounts, and then lying some more, until you are faced with video evidence of your lies and you can't lie anymore, so then you lie again by saying you simply "misspoke" and blame it on sleep deprivation. Yeah, that sure sounds like "owning up to it" to me!

Second, she does this thing she always loves to do, and it is starting to annoy the hell out of me. She uses "people" to say what she wants to say. She'll say "that's not what people want to talk to me about", because she can't come out and say that that isn't what SHE wants to talk about. Watch some of her videos, she does it over and over again, when she goes on the attack, it is "people want to her about Obama's (supposed) lack of experience", or "people want to hear about how wonderful I would be as Commander-in-Chief", and every time something comes up she doesn't want to talk about suddenly "people don't want to talk about my taxes, they want to talk about the issues." She uses "people" as a scapegoat for everything, so she can claim she didn't bring it up, it is just "the will of the people." And let's not forget the fact that she has no problem providing people with questions she wants to be asked.

So fine, let's pretend Hillary really wants to not get distracted by these "trivial matters" like her lying about her experience, the very foundation of her candidacy and her attacks against Obama. But wait...wasn't Hillary just yesterday trying to revive the Rev. Wright fiasco to get the heat off her recently exposed lies? What about when your campaign immediately called for the head of Samantha Power for her silly off the record opinion of you? Was that more important than the issues? More important than health care? What about how every time you are feeling the heat you scream "Rezko!" like that hyped up, debunked crap will save you. Is that more important than the war in Iraq or the economy? C'mon Hillary, how do you expect us to take you seriously when in the same day you desperately try to revive the Rev. Wright smears against Obama to cover your own ass you go on Fox News of all places and say you want to get back to the issues because that is what is important? Hillary, you are the most pathetic example of a hypocrite that I think I've ever seen. You are so lucky the media never connects your statements in one minute to your contradictory statements in the very next, or you'd be in a big pot of trouble.

Update: Breaking new video evidence out that shows Hillary was indeed deep in a war zone during her Bosnia trip, check it out below, it is a miracle she even survived, what a war hero, that Hillary Clinton:



The horror, the horror.

Mythbusting Hillary: Lies On Top Of Lies

Amazingly enough, the MSM is actually responding to a story about Hillary’s blatant, chronic resume revisionism. The one they picked up on was the Bosnia story, thanks to Sinbad, blogosphere buzz, and the Washington Post fact-check article I posted a few days ago. Will this lead to a closer look, a vetting if you will, at Hillary’s false claims of superior experience? Maybe, maybe not, I won’t hold my breath, but I’m a little more hopeful now than I was a few days ago. Here is a transcript (with links and emphasis added by me) from The Today Show courtesy of The Huffington Post:

MATT LAUER: I still remember winning a Little League championship singlehandedly when I was ten, probably didn't happen. But this isn't the little league. This is someone running for President. There were reporters on the trip and she's using her experience as a deciding factor. How could this happen?

CHUCK TODD: It's worse than that, Matt. there have been reporters questioning her story on this a few weeks ago. One even reached out to the comedian Sinbad, who was also on this trip to get his recollection of it and it differed the First Lady. So somebody didn't scrub that speech. It was in prepared remarks last week. Not only did she say it with certitude, but it was in her prepared text. So this was a real sort of bone-headed mistake on the campaign's part at a time when everybody is looking at everything so carefully.

LAUER: And does it make people go back and start to question everything she said?

TODD: Right. She's been talking about her role in the Irish Peace process, she's been talking about her role in children's health care. So I think all of this is going to invite some renewed scrutiny on some of her claims of experience. And it's at a time when she wants the focus to be on Barack Obama and questions about him.

Chuck Todd was right on the money this morning, it wasn't that she misspoke, she said it multiple times, with conviction, it was written into her speeches, and used it as solid evidence of experience as she attacked Obama for supposedly not having enough experience. On top of that, even after it was first questioned, and reporters got conflicting accounts from Sinbad, she didn't look back at the event and go "you know, perhaps I didn't remember that correctly, maybe I should stop saying those things.” No, instead she brushed off Sinbad's contradicting claims as ridiculous because they are coming from a comedian, while repeated her lies yet again (see video below). And THEN the irrefutable video evidence comes out, and oops, who was blatantly lying, over and over again while trying to support a false claim of superior experience? That isn’t a misstatement, that isn’t a gaffe, that is a purposeful attempt use a bogus story to misinform the public. It is also much harder to brush off as an accidental gaffe when she has made similar lies, time and time again, on her involvement with passing NAFTA, with passing the FMLA and SCHIP, with her experiences in Northern Ireland, Kosovo, Rwanda, etc. This is a clear pattern of deception, and paired with her shameless attacks against Obama it is particularly disturbing and despicable.

Hopefully the media won’t buy into this “misstatement” Clinton Shuffle, hopefully they’ll pick up on the pattern, the other documented cases of her exaggerations and distortions, and hopefully they’ll connect the dots, and show the voters that her whole campaign is based on lies, and indeed she is the one who hasn’t been vetted. Maybe the media can redeem itself somewhat, maybe not, who knows. Here is a transcript from The Early Show this morning:

HARRY SMITH: This is so interesting because her campaign comes down and says this is a misstatement. Is this Pinocchio syndrome, an exaggeration, or a misstatement of fact?

JEFF GREENFIELD: Funny you mention that because The Washington Post which does fact checks based on how many Pinocchios a statement is worth gave this one four. And the reason really, it's the contrast between the vividness of her memory and the damning nature of the videotape. If she had said I visited the Balkans and I met with our troops, she did. Fine. No problem. But it's the nature -- it's like a fish story where the fish grows every time you tell the story. And in this case, she's so clear and vivid about what she remembers compared to the reality that it frankly reminds me of the old Groucho Marx line, who are you going to believe, me or your lyin' eyes? It's an embarrassment.

Here is the video of her basically saying that Sinbad is full of crap, while going on to repeat the lie, yet again. Accidental misstatement? Not a chance:

Mythbusting Hillary: Experience (Bosnia Edition) --Updated

[Here is some further mythbusting of Hillary's hyped up Bosnia war zone claims. In response to Sinbad's mythbusting of her past comments she repeated the lies (in true Bush, or Bill, fashion, when caught in a lie, repeat lie again and again), saying they were taking sniper fire and that she was rushed into a vehicle to retreat to a safer location. See the picture of her apparently running for cover with her head down below:]

Hillary's Balkan Adventures, Part II
by Michael Dobbs, The Washington Post

Greeting ceremony, Tuzla military airport, Bosnia, March 25, 1996.

"I 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."

--Hillary Clinton, speech at George Washington University, March 17, 2008.

Hillary Clinton has been regaling supporters on the campaign trail with hair-raising tales of a trip she made to Bosnia in March 1996. In her retelling, she was sent to places that her husband, President Clinton, could not go because they were "too dangerous." When her account was challenged by one of her traveling companions, the comedian Sinbad, she upped the ante and injected even more drama into the story. In a speech earlier this week, she talked about "landing under sniper fire" and running for safety with "our heads down."

There are numerous problems with Clinton's version of events.

The Facts

As a reporter who visited Bosnia soon after the December 1995 Dayton Peace agreement, I can attest that the physical risks were minimal during this period, particularly at a heavily fortified U.S. Air Force base, such as Tuzla. Contrary to the claims of Hillary Clinton and former Army secretary Togo West, Bosnia was not "too dangerous" a place for President Clinton to visit in early 1996. In fact, the first Clinton to visit the Tuzla Air Force base was not Hillary, but Bill, on January 13, 1996.

Had Hillary Clinton's plane come "under sniper fire" in March 1996, we would certainly have heard about it long before now. Numerous reporters, including the Washington Post's John Pomfret, covered her trip. A review of nearly 100 news accounts of her visit shows that not a single newspaper or television station reported any security threat to the First Lady. "As a former AP wire service hack, I can safely say that it would have been in my lead had anything like that happened," said Pomfret.

According to Pomfret, the Tuzla airport was "one of the safest places in Bosnia" in March 1996, and "firmly under the control" of the 1st Armored Division.

Far from running to an airport building with their heads down, Clinton and her party were greeted on the tarmac by smiling U.S. and Bosnian officials. An eight-year-old Moslem girl, Emina Bicakcic, read a poem in English. An Associated Press photograph of the greeting ceremony, above, shows a smiling Clinton bending down to receive a kiss.

"There is peace now," Emina told Clinton, according to Pomfret's report in the Washington Post the following day, "because Mr. Clinton signed it. All this peace. I love it."

The First Lady's schedule, released on Wednesday and available here, confirms that she arrived in Tuzla at 8.45 a.m. and was greeted by various dignitaries, including Emina Bicakcic, (whose name has mysteriously been redacted from the document.)

You can see CBS News footage of the arrival ceremony here. The footage shows Clinton walking calmly out of the back of the C-17 military transport plane that brought her from Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany.

Among the U.S. officials on hand to greet Clinton at the airport was Maj. Gen. William Nash, the commander of U.S. troops in Bosnia. Nash told me that he was unaware of any security threat to Clinton during her eight-hour stay in Tuzla. He said, however, that Clinton had a "busy schedule" and may have got the impression that she was being hurried on her way.

According to Sinbad, who provided entertainment on the trip along with the singer Sheryl Crow, the "scariest" part was deciding where to eat. As he told Mary Ann Akers of The Post, "I think the only 'red-phone' moment was: 'Do we eat here or at the next place.'" Sinbad questioned the premise behind the Clinton version of events. "What kind of president would say 'Hey man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife. Oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you."

Replying to Sinbad earlier this week, Clinton dismissed him as "a comedian." Her campaign referred me to Togo West, who was also on the trip and is a staunch Hillary supporter. West could not remember "sniper fire" himself, but said there was no reason to doubt the First Lady's version of events. "Everybody's perceptions are different," he told me.

Clinton made no mention of "sniper fire" in her autobiography "Living History," published in 2003, although she did say there were "reports of snipers" in the hills around the airport.

The Pinocchio Test

Clinton's tale of landing at Tuzla airport "under sniper fire" and then running for cover is simply not credible. Photographs and video of the arrival ceremony, combined with contemporaneous news reports, tell a very different story. Four Pinocchios.

Update (TPIP): Here is a video, showing the greeting ceremony, and then showing her repeating the lie of how there was no ceremony because she military transport had to come in fast to avoid the sniper fire and after they hit the ground she had to run straight to the cars for cover:



You'd think that would be a pretty devastating lie for a campaign built on purportedly superior "experience", akin to Al Gore claiming to invent the internet, if only Gore had actually made that claim, and if Gore had actually had no hand in creating the internet, and if Gore had based his entire presidential campaign on his superior computer programming skills. But alas, the media will be completely silent on it, as usual. Gosh, poor Hillary the media just hates her SO much! Totally out to get her..

Update (3/26): Here is an audio clip of an interview with the pilot and commander of the flight crew on Hillary's Bosnia trip. Turns out, there was no sniper fire, the base was completely safe and secure, they did not do any special evasive landing, his crew never told her or anyone to sit on their flak jackets, and in case I missed this before, he also pointed out that contrary to her repeated comments that she was the first high profile American to go to Bosnia after the peace accord, the President and the Secretary of Defense actually went before her.

Mythbusting Hillary: Experience (Sinbad Speaks Out Edition)

[Nearly all of Hillary's argument that she has what it takes to be Commander-in-Chief rests on completely exaggerated accomplishments and events taken from her First Lady days. Check out the "Full Debunk Edition" of Mythbusting Hillary for more details, but for now here is an insider look at her Bosnia claim, from fellow Commander-in-Chief threshold-passer himself, Sinbad:]

Sinbad Unloads on Hillary Clinton
by Mary Ann Akers

Finally, the Barack Obama campaign has found a big gun to help shoot down Hillary Rodham Clinton's self-proclaimed foreign policy experience. And he may be the wackiest gun of all: Sinbad, the actor, who has come out from under a rock to defend Obama in the war over foreign policy credentials.

Sinbad, along with singer Sheryl Crow, was on that 1996 trip to Bosnia that Clinton has described as a harrowing international experience that makes her tested and ready to answer a 3 a.m. phone call at the White House on day one, a claim for which she's taking much grief on the campaign trail.

Harrowing? Not that Sinbad recalls. He just remembers it being a USO tour to buck up the troops amid a much worse situation than he had imagined between the Bosnians and Serbs.

In an interview with the Sleuth Monday, he said the "scariest" part of the trip was wondering where he'd eat next. "I think the only 'red-phone' moment was: 'Do we eat here or at the next place.'"

Clinton, during a late December campaign appearance in Iowa, described a hair-raising corkscrew landing in war-torn Bosnia, a trip she took with her then-teenage daughter, Chelsea. "They said there might be sniper fire," Clinton said.

Threat of bullets? Sinbad doesn't remember that, either.

"I never felt that I was in a dangerous position. I never felt being in a sense of peril, or 'Oh, God, I hope I'm going to be OK when I get out of this helicopter or when I get out of his tank.'"

In her Iowa stump speech, Clinton also said, "We used to say in the White House that if a place is too dangerous, too small or too poor, send the First Lady."

Say what? As Sinbad put it: "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"

Mythbusting Hillary: Experience (Full Debunk Edition)

Every Hillary supporter who buys into her "experience" argument should read this, and every Obama supporter should memorize it and have it bookmarked, because this is the most thorough and comprehensive rundown of her experience I've come across yet.

Greg Craig (now an Obama supporter), a former senior advisor to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, and former advisor to Senator Kennedy on defense and foreign policy issues before that, someone who has known the Clintons for decades (he even introduced them to each other), eviscerated Hillary's "experience" argument today, and then made her eat the scraps:

When your entire campaign is based upon a claim of experience, it is important that you have evidence to support that claim. Hillary Clinton’s argument that she has passed “the Commander- in-Chief test” is simply not supported by her record.

There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton played an important domestic policy role when she was First Lady. It is well known, for example, that she led the failed effort to pass universal health insurance. There is no reason to believe, however, that she was a key player in foreign policy at any time during the Clinton Administration. She did not sit in on National Security Council meetings. She did not have a security clearance. She did not attend meetings in the Situation Room. She did not manage any part of the national security bureaucracy, nor did she have her own national security staff. She did not do any heavy-lifting with foreign governments, whether they were friendly or not. She never managed a foreign policy crisis, and there is no evidence to suggest that she participated in the decision-making that occurred in connection with any such crisis. As far as the record shows, Senator Clinton never answered the phone either to make a decision on any pressing national security issue – not at 3 AM or at any other time of day.

When asked to describe her experience, Senator Clinton has cited a handful of international incidents where she says she played a central role. But any fair-minded and objective judge of these claims – i.e., by someone not affiliated with the Clinton campaign – would conclude that Senator Clinton’s claims of foreign policy experience are exaggerated.

Northern Ireland:

Senator Clinton has said, “I helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland.” It is a gross overstatement of the facts for her to claim even partial credit for bringing peace to Northern Ireland. She did travel to Northern Ireland, it is true. First Ladies often travel to places that are a focus of U.S. foreign policy. But at no time did she play any role in the critical negotiations that ultimately produced the peace. As the Associated Press recently reported, “[S]he was not directly involved in negotiating the Good Friday peace accord.” With regard to her main claim that she helped bring women together, she did participate in a meeting with women, but, according to those who know best, she did not play a pivotal role. The person in charge of the negotiations, former Senator George Mitchell, said that “[The First Lady] was one of many people who participated in encouraging women to get involved, not the only one.”

News of Senator Clinton’s claims has raised eyebrows across the ocean. Her reference to an important meeting at the Belfast town hall was debunked. Her only appearance at the Belfast City Hall was to see Christmas lights turned on. She also attended a 50-minute meeting which, according to the Belfast Daily Telegraph’s report at the time, “[was] a little bit stilted, a little prepared at times." Brian Feeney, an Irish author and former politician, sums it up: “The road to peace was carefully documented, and she wasn’t on it.”

Bosnia:

Senator Clinton has pointed to a March 1996 trip to Bosnia as proof that her foreign travel involved a life-risking mission into a war zone. She has described dodging sniper fire. While she did travel to Bosnia in March 1996, the visit was not a high-stakes mission to a war zone. On March 26, 1996, the New York Times reported that “Hillary Rodham Clinton charmed American troops at a U.S.O. show here, but it didn’t hurt that the singer Sheryl Crow and the comedian Sinbad were also on the stage.”

Kosovo:

Senator Clinton has said, “I negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo.” It is true that, as First Lady, she traveled to Macedonia and visited a Kosovar refugee camp. It is also true that she met with government officials while she was there. First Ladies frequently meet with government officials. Her claim to have “negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo,” however, is not true. Her trip to Macedonia took place on May 14, 1999. The borders were opened the day before, on May 13, 1999.

The negotiations that led to the opening of the borders were accomplished by the people who ordinarily conduct negotiations with foreign governments – U.S. diplomats. President Clinton’s top envoy to the Balkans, former Ambassador Robert Gelbard, said, "I cannot recall any involvement by Senator Clinton in this issue." Ivo Daalder worked on the Clinton Administration’s National Security Council and wrote a definitive history of the Kosovo conflict. He recalls that "she had absolutely no role in the dirty work of negotiations."

Rwanda:

Last year, former President Clinton asserted that his wife pressed him to intervene with U.S. troops to stop the Rwandan genocide. When asked about this assertion, Hillary Clinton said it was true. There is no evidence, however, to suggest that this ever happened. Even those individuals who were advocating a much more robust U.S. effort to stop the genocide did not argue for the use of U.S. troops. No one recalls hearing that Hillary Clinton had any interest in this course of action. Based on a fair and thorough review of National Security Council deliberations during those tragic months, there is no evidence to suggest that U.S. military intervention was ever discussed. Prudence Bushnell, the Assistant Secretary of State with responsibility for Africa, has recalled that there was no consideration of U.S. military intervention.

At no time prior to her campaign for the presidency did Senator Clinton ever make the claim that she supported intervening militarily to stop the Rwandan genocide. It is noteworthy that she failed to mention this anecdote – urging President Clinton to intervene militarily in Rwanda – in her memoirs. President Clinton makes no mention of such a conversation with his wife in his memoirs. And Madeline Albright, who was Ambassador to the United Nations at the time, makes no mention of any such event in her memoirs.

Hillary Clinton did visit Rwanda in March 1998 and, during that visit, her husband apologized for America’s failure to do more to prevent the genocide.

China

Senator Clinton also points to a speech that she delivered in Beijing in 1995 as proof of her ability to answer a 3 AM crisis phone call. It is strange that Senator Clinton would base her own foreign policy experience on a speech that she gave over a decade ago, since she so frequently belittles Barack Obama’s speeches opposing the Iraq War six years ago. Let there be no doubt: she gave a good speech in Beijing, and she stood up for women’s rights. But Senator Obama’s opposition to the War in Iraq in 2002 is relevant to the question of whether he, as Commander-in-Chief, will make wise judgments about the use of military force. Senator Clinton’s speech in Beijing is not.

Senator Obama’s speech opposing the war in Iraq shows independence and courage as well as good judgment. In the speech that Senator Clinton says does not qualify him to be Commander in Chief, Obama criticized what he called “a rash war . . . a war based not on reason, but on passion, not on principle, but on politics.” In that speech, he said prophetically: “[E]ven a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.” He predicted that a U.S. invasion of Iraq would “fan the flames of the Middle East,” and “strengthen the recruitment arm of al Qaeda.” He urged the United States first to “finish the fight with Bin Laden and al Qaeda.”

If the U.S. government had followed Barack Obama’s advice in 2002, we would have avoided one of the greatest foreign policy catastrophes in our nation’s history. Some of the most “experienced” men in national security affairs – Vice President Cheney and Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and others – led this nation into that catastrophe. That lesson should teach us something about the value of judgment over experience. Longevity in Washington, D.C. does not guarantee either wisdom of judgment.

Conclusion:

The Clinton campaign’s argument is nothing more than mere assertion, dramatized in a scary television commercial with a telephone ringing in the middle of the night. There is no support for or substance in the claim that Senator Clinton has passed “the Commander-in-Chief test.” That claim – as the TV ad – consists of nothing more than making the assertion, repeating it frequently to the voters and hoping that they will believe it.

On the most critical foreign policy judgment of our generation – the War in Iraq – Senator Clinton voted in support of a resolution entitled “The Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of U.S. Military Force Against Iraq.” As she cast that vote, she said: “This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction.” In this campaign, Senator Clinton has argued – remarkably – that she wasn’t actually voting for war, she was voting for diplomacy. That claim is no more credible than her other claims of foreign policy experience. The real tragedy is that we are still living with the terrible consequences of her misjudgment. The Bush Administration continues to cite that resolution as its authorization – like a blank check – to fight on with no end in sight.

Barack Obama has a very simple case. On the most important commander in chief test of our generation, he got it right, and Senator Clinton got it wrong. In truth, Senator Obama has much more foreign policy experience than either Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan had when they were elected. Senator Obama has worked to confront 21st century challenges like proliferation and genocide on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He possesses the personal attributes of a great leader -- an even temperament, an open-minded approach to even the most challenging problems, a willingness to listen to all views, clarity of vision, the ability to inspire, conviction and courage.

And Barack Obama does not use false charges and exaggerated claims to play politics with national security.

BAM! Spot on! And tell me, why has that rabidly anti-Hillary, pro-Obama media not been able to point out any of this, all CRITICAL to her campaign, in months of campaigning? This isn't even about vetting, this is about basic resume fact checking, and it isn't hard. How's that for media bias?