Will Hillary's Bosnia Lie Be Reported By The Media?

Last year in July, I was on CNN's "Roland Martin Debates" and said that YouTube's greatest contribution to politics was that a candidate had to be authentic. That the person had to make statements that were consistent.

I then used the example of presidential candidate, Senator Hillary Clinton, who attacked he rival Senator Barack Obama for stating that he would talk to and meet with our enemies, when just a few months earlier, Senator Clinton herself said she would do the same thing and the evidence of this is captured on YouTube.

Well, it seems that Senator Clinton learned nothing at all from my statements or the fact that YouTube itself exists as a powerful force for recording what people do and say now, and in our history. Senator Clinton's just made a huge error in judgement that could and should be the final flip-flop that damages her campaign.

In a speech held just one day after Senator Obama's historic "A More Perfect Union" presentation, Senator Clinton clamed that she landed in Tulza, Bosnia under "sniper fire," adding: "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." Clinton said.



But this YouTube video shows just the opposite: We see first that several newspapers have identified Senator Clinton's lie in what happened. Senator Clinton says in the video that they landed under heavy sniper fire and that there was no ceremony. The video then presents footage showing just the opposite, with Clinton walking with her daughter Chelsea and with a large group of people and being greeted by Bosnian heads of state.

The video says that the movie was created by Clinton campaign strategist Mark Penn. The question is will the mainstream media pick up the story.

The answer on the newspaper level is "yes". The Washington Post presented this story on Sunday March 22, entitled "Sniper Fire and Holes In Clinton's Recollection" and reports that "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 8-year-old Muslim girl, Emina Bicakcic, read a poem in English. An Associated Press photograph of the greeting ceremony, below, shows a smiling Clinton bending down to receive a kiss."

Sinbad First Points To Clinton Lie The great comedian Sinbad was the first one to report that Senator Clinton was lying months ago, when he said "I think the only 'red phone' moment was 'Do we eat here or at the next place?' "

The Washington Post ends the story by giving Senator Clinton "Four Pinocchios."

I've not as of this writing seen this story reported on CNN or Fox or MSNBC, but what's clear to me this year is that the television news system in America is in shambles and has been taken over by entertainers who are influnced by advertisers and PR hacks.

There's no news anymore.

There are just attempts at influencing American public opinion for the purpose of helping some institution advance in power. The only check and balance system that exists is the online news media.

CNN's still presenting the Rev. Wright sound bites again and again. There's nothing -- and has not been to date -- about this news. And this news is about the person running for President and not someone who never thought of running for president and retired from preaching in the church.

It has to be asked why doesn't CNN or Fox explain who it backs for President, just as newspapers do? At least Americans would know and be able to make an informed choice about where they get their news.

Right now, it's a circus out there and there's no reason to consider television news to be a credible source on matters of business and politics. The only service they seem to "get right" is in the reporting of disasters, where having an "on the scene" person and camera gives those of us who are not there vital information about what's happening.

This was certainly true during 9-11. But disasters happen once in a while; business and politics is an everyday thing.

read more | digg story

Hillary Clinton Flip-Flops Yet Again - This Time On Nukes!

Let's see. She's flip-flopped on Iraq, diploamacy, and now the use of nuclear weapons. And all to counter Senator Barack Obama. She's really scared of losing to him, so much so she's endangering the Democratic Party's chance of winning against the Republicans should she win the nomination.

Clinton Expressed Views on Nukes in 2006 - Huff Post

BETH FOUHY | August 9, 2007 04:33 PM EST |

NEW YORK — Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton, who chastised rival Barack Obama for ruling out the use of nuclear weapons in the war on terror, did just that when asked about Iran a year ago.

"I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table," she said in April 2006.

Her views expressed while she was gearing up for a presidential run stand in conflict with her comments this month regarding Obama, who faced heavy criticism from leaders of both parties, including Clinton, after saying it would be "a profound mistake" to deploy nuclear weapons in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

"There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table," he said.

Clinton, who has tried to cast her rival as too inexperienced for the job of commander in chief, said of Obama's stance on Pakistan: "I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons."

But that's exactly what she did in an interview with Bloomberg Television in April 2006. The New York senator, a member of the Armed Services committee, was asked about reports that the Bush administration was considering military intervention _ possibly even a nuclear strike _ to prevent Iran from escalating its nuclear program.

"I have said publicly no option should be off the table, but I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table," Clinton said. "This administration has been very willing to talk about using nuclear weapons in a way we haven't seen since the dawn of a nuclear age. I think that's a terrible mistake."

Clinton's views on the potential use of nuclear weapons appear to have changed since then.

Her campaign spokesman, Phil Singer, said the circumstances for her remarks last year were different than the situation Obama faced.

"She was asked to respond to specific reports that the Bush-Cheney administration was actively considering nuclear strikes on Iran even as it refused to engage diplomatically," he said. "She wasn't talking about a broad hypothetical nor was she speaking as a presidential candidate. Given the saber-rattling that was coming from the Bush White House at the time, it was totally appropriate and necessary to respond to that report and call it the wrong policy."