Hilary Gets Booed by Heroes. Had it coming?

Great Debates
81

just a couple of stray thoughts in passing:

  1. For those who don’t know the personalities here, for Scylla to suggest that some one on the conservative side of the spectrum is making him wish for the company of some one as far left here as stoid, well, that should make ya sit up and take notice.

  2. december you posted a list of stuff re : HRC, saying the items were either true or reported as true, giving your source as several commentators (gee, where have we heard that before). It was immediately pointed out that much of that list appears on Snopes as debunked (which takes it right out of the rhelm of ‘truth’ and into the area of negative smear campaign, and ummm, gee, wasn’t most (if not all) of that stuff either stuff that happened **after ** she got to Washington or stuff that wasn’t really well known until after she got there? Which begs the question - she was reviled by certain elements long before she publically defended her hubby re: Monica, long before the Health Care stuff, long before the white house staff incidents. etc

82

What the hell are you talking about? Who has been trying to “get” GWB in anything like the nasty, personal, lying way that Clinton was “gotten”? And why, even if it exists, would you lump me in with them?

83

Wait a minute! Elvis’s earlier post had a vague reference to Snopes. I assume that Elvis was referring to the article about HRC’s alleged support of the Black Panthers who were tried for the murder of Alex Rackley. That’s the only Snopes article relevent to my post. Elvis was implying that Snopes had debunked only one thing that I said, not much of the list, as wring claimed.

I was well aware of that Snopes article when I posted earlier, and I carefully worded my comment. Snopes didn’t debunk what I said, which was, “Groups she has supported have been opposed to law enforcement personnel, calling them “Pigs!” And, the Black Panthers, who she supported, actually attacked policemen.”

Snopes debunked a different, although related, statement: “Hillary Clinton played a significant role in defending Black Panthers accused of torturing and murdering Alex Rackley.” See: http://www.snopes2.com/

BTW although I love Snopes and read it regularly, this particular essay was one of their weakest. (In fact, I had some correspondence with Barbara M. on it.) Although they rated the HRC-Rackley story as “false”, their discussion only showed that it hadn’t been conclusively proved. In fact, according to Snopes, the falseness of the accusaton is that HRC didn’t play a significant role in the Panthers’ defence, although Snopes says that she did play a very small role.

The Snopes essay implies that HRC was a BP supporter, to some degree. It goes on at length to justify having supported the BP’s at one time. (I’m sympathetic to that POV, since I also supported them, at one time.) In effect, Snopes’s message seems to be: HRC may well have been a supporter of the BP’s at one time, but she shouldn’t be dinged for that.

The Snopes essay describes a specific activity HRC took in support of the BP’s. “The sum total of her involvement in the trial [of BP’s for the Rackley murder] was that she assisted the American Civil Liberties Union in monitoring the trial for civil rights violations.” The fact that she took an action on the side of the BP’s is evidence that she supported them, at least to some degree.

The bottom line is that Snopes didn’t set out to debunk what I said, and they actually provided evidence that what I said was true.

84

Fair disclosure: I was referring by memory (a bad habit) to another article debunking the claim. A few minutes of searching showed the original article by Mark Steyn in National Review, another bastion of neutrality and objectivity :slight_smile: . ALL, repeat ALL, other hits (Yes, I’ve done it) either don’t attribute the claim at all, or simply refer back to Steyn. He claimed Hillary made the claim re Sir Edmund’s name to “New Zealand media”, who would certainly be expected to have jumped all over it. But you’ll find exactly zero mention of it on New Zealand media sites. Maybe she had them all killed, too :slight_smile: .

Would you care to reconsider where the burden of proof lies now? And “lies” is a good word for it, without such proof, which isn’t forthcoming.

But wait – you’re claiming that to be the biggest lie Hillary ever told??? Gawdamighty. It’s worse than I thought.

In the post mentioned, you called her a “Communist”. Why? Because a long time ago somebody else did?

Do you have any idea how many lives were ruined by people throwing that word around not all that long ago? Your later backtrack to claiming that as a simple synonym for “far left” doesn’t hold up well, either - that’s simply claiming ignorance instead of hatred.

One more slander that you can’t recognize is even wrong, much less apologize for. That’s even sadder than Steyn’s Edmund Hillary lie, and your naive, unquestioning embrace of it.

Still waiting. Shouldn’t be hard, if it was “all over the news” - unless that term to you only includes Limbaugh, Drudge, and Free Republic etc.

Who of course has no personal axes of his own to grind, and of course ought to be believed if he says anything that the right wing enjoys hearing. Some corroboration would be nice, even a non-Free-Republic cite. Further, if that represented a habit of hers, there would surely be other instances and other witnesses, right?

85

One can always find an excuse to disbelieve uncomfortable things. Mark Steyn writes for the National Post – a respectable Canadian newspaper, comparable to the Wall Street Journal. He’s a reliable, main stream columnist.

Before you called Steyn a liar, maybe you should have e-mailed him and asked for his source. That you didn’t find it via a search engine doesn’t prove that it doesn’t exist.

You know I never said that. Please re-read the thread.

Elvis, the name of the book is “State of a Union: Inside the Complex Marriage of Bill and Hillary Clinton.” Author Jerry Oppenheimer. The book lists the names of the three witnesses. Please read the book and thenm come back. (Please don’t complain that the author writes for the National Enquirer. Independently of the book, all 3 witnesses confirmed that they had heard what Oppenheimer said.)

Additional corroboration coming right up.

http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2000/8/2/64908

So, there are five witnesses that HRC has used anti-semitic rhetoric. Interestingly, all five worked for Bill Clinton or on behalf of one of his campaigns.

86

I saw it as the opposite. This was an event intended for the rescue workers, not an opportunity to get in front of a camera for a politician. It was not the place or time for Hillary to be. Let the cops and firefighters act however they like, that event was supposed to be in celebration of them.

87

Alleged cocaine use? Release of 20-year-old DUI citations? Alleged AWOL status from the Air National Guard? Lowest IQ of any President? Didn’t earn his degrees from Yale and Harvard?

**

Hey, if the foo shits . . .

88

I applaud and completely agree with December and Graymatters.

I also feel that regardless of your political leanings it is in poor taste to boo someone at a public venue.

My personal reaction would have been to quietly get up and leave. After all it is still a free country and I certainly don’t have to sit and listen to HRC.

Character DOES count.

89

I applaud and completely agree with December and Graymatters.

I also feel that regardless of your political leanings it is in poor taste to boo someone at a public venue.

My personal reaction would have been to quietly get up and leave. After all it is still a free country and I certainly don’t have to sit and listen to HRC.

Character DOES count.

90

Like I said earlier: This would be a valid observation Morrigan, if these were people at an event held for Hillary, or the Democratic party. But this event was in celebration and support of the people working in the trade center ruins. This was their night. They had every right to boo.

The only thing they wanted to hear less than HRC was Richard Gere tell them that now is a time for peace and forgiveness. Would Hillary be shocked if she were boo’d by the members of an NRA conference? If not, then I am surprised that she and her advisors were so surprised at being boo’d by the cops and firemen at the rally.

91

Good point.

I have read or heard that HRC didn’t attend Yankee games, because she (or her advisors) thought she might be booed. If this is so, then I’m surprised that she (or her advisors) didn’t foresee a similar risk at this rally.

92

I’d go along with this and say that, yes, George W. has taken his fair share of lumps and weathered more than a few unfair personal attacks.

Except who cares? What does it matter? What is this–a contest? Nyah nyah nyah, my guy has taken more beatings than yours?

Black eyes and scars ain’t no sign of success in fight.

It’s pretty pathetic to have to run around crying victim all the time in order to score political points. It’s not a very dignified strategy, and it’s not one I’ve ever seen Bush use. Frankly, he doesn’t seem interested in finding out all the ways people have mistreated him and parading them before the world like they are personal accomplishments.

93

Huh? Why? Did I miss something and Hilary has come out in favor of the terrorist’s actions? Has she at any time, ever, expressed anything but absolute horror at what happened and total support and appreciation for the rescuers and firemen?

Because that’s the only way your statement would make a lick of sense.

stoid

94

Well, maybe.

I would assume you are aware that the majority of our law enforcement personnel have a distinctly conservative “law and order” outlook, which, considering the circumstances under which they labor, is entirely understandable.

Further, they tend to blame liberals and liberal administrations for “coddling criminals”, that sort of thing.

You think its tough being a lefty on the SDMB, you should hang out in C’ouer D’Alene Idaho for a couple of days. Its kind of a Mecca for retired cops.

95
  • I’d be pissed as well if someone called my colleagues murderers, which is what Hillary did.*

Jan. 17, 2000. At the Rev. Al Sharpton’s annual Martin Luther King Day celebration, Hillary Clinton sends her condolences to the Diallo family and calls the shooting “murder.”

Feb. 8, 2000. PBA President Patrick J. Lynch exchanged the following letters with Hillary Rodham Clinton:

Dear Mrs. Clinton:

Your recent characterization of the Diallo tragedy as “murder” is most disturbing, not only to me but to all members of the New York City Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association – indeed, to all law enforcement officers across the state. As you know, it has been the subject of valid criticism in the press and in legal circles as well.

These four New York City police officers went to work that day determined to provide the same level of service and commitment every New York City police officer provides every day, 24 hours a day. What happened that night a year ago demonstrates the level of stress and the split-second nature of the decision-making process that, unfortunately, confronts our officers constantly. These officers acted with the purest of intentions; what happened was a tragedy no one could have predicted.

Make no mistake about it, as a lifelong resident of this city — and as a parent –- I have nothing but sincere sympathy for the family of Mr. Diallo, whose life was brought to a tragic conclusion by an unfortunate sequence of events. I know, from many hours of conversations with the officers involved, that they share my level of sorrow for Mr. Diallo’s family. Some of them are parents themselves.

We at the PBA are also concerned about comments indicating you may support bringing federal charges against these officers should they be acquitted in the Albany County Courthouse. As the “murder” comment violates the legal standard that the officers are innocent until proven guilty, we believe federal charges after acquittal would violate the principle against double jeopardy.

That both characterizations were expressed in the context of a campaign appearance with Al Sharpton on the Reverend’s turf only adds to our concerns.

Therefore, we respectfully urge you to issue a statement clarifying your remarks.

Sincerely,

Patrick J. Lynch
PBA President
Dear Pat:

In response to your letter, I want to clarify my reference to the Amadou Diallo trial. I clearly misspoke, as I and my campaign have said when asked. As a lawyer, I know that the four officers charged in the shooting death of Mr. Diallo have a right to due process and I want to make sure that they are given that fundamental right. Only a jury can decide their guilt or innocence and I did not mean to suggest otherwise. I sincerely hope that this trial will proceed quickly and fairly.

I strongly support our brave men and women in law enforcement who proudly serve their communities. I know that the remarkable drop in crime we have experienced in New York and around the nation is a tribute to the hard work of our officers who face tremendous risks every day to keep our communities safe. That is why I have fought to put 100,000 more police on the streets, and would fight for funding for up to another 50,000 officers. I have also supported efforts to provide scholarships for college for current officers. In addition, I have strongly supported efforts to ban “cop-killer” bullets that can penetrate through bulletproof vests, endangering the lives of law enforcement, as well as increased investment in bulletproof vests for law enforcement at the state and local level. I have also supported expansion of federal penalties for those convicted of assaulting law enforcement officers, and have supported the death penalty for those convicted of killing law enforcement officers. If I am elected Senator I will continue to fight for law enforcement because the work you do is so vitally important to our communities.

I appreciate this opportunity to explain my remarks. I value your service to our communities and hope that we will work together in the future.

Sincerely,

Hillary Clinton
Feb. 25, 2000. The four Street Crime officers are acquitted of murder in the death of Diallo.

96

Okay, information I didn’t have. Perhaps she might have, in fact, anticipated a negative response from some members of the audience.

That does not, however, excuse the response, which I still think was poor form, to say the least.

stoid

97

december wrote:

Um … okay.

And how does this differ from George Bush Sr.'s support of groups that used terrorism in the Middle East?

98

King Rat quoted a letter from the PBA president to Hillary Clinton:

Funny then, isn’t it, that the BUSH administration (the first one, not the current one) engaged in exactly this kind of double-jeopardy Federal indictment when the four officers in the Rodney King beating were acquitted.

99

Actually I wasn’t specifically thinking about the NYC shooting when I wrote this. I just thought it to be common knowledge that any working class jobs like cops and firemen would be conservative voters and the wrong forum for Hillary to be in. Especially when they are all drinking.

100

Who thinks it’s tough being a lefty around here? I certainly don’t. I’d say we’re matched about fifty-fifty. And even then, most of us are pretty tolerant of others.