I have to leave and don’t have time for an in depth study of her movements that day. I’ll have to do some research later. However the comedian Sinbad was along with them that day and he said no such thing as what she described ever happened, plus she herself never made the argument you’re making. So I’m going with my previous post for now.
Don’t be a hater, Yoggy. The tube was always for you guys. 
She said, “Now let me tell you what I can remember, OK — because what I was told was that we had to land a certain way and move quickly because of the threat of sniper fire. So I misspoke — I didn’t say that in my book or other times but if I said something that made it seem as though there was actual fire — that’s not what I was told. I was told we had to land a certain way, we had to have our bulletproof stuff on because of the threat of sniper fire. I was also told that the greeting ceremony had been moved away from the tarmac but that there was this 8-year-old girl and, I can’t, I can’t rush by her, I’ve got to at least greet her — so I greeted her, I took her stuff and then I left, now that’s my memory of it.”
Which is pretty close to what I said. Sinbad, the comedian, was not briefed on the plane. Others who were briefed on the security situation, back her up that there were sniper threats and that there was a sense of danger to the situation.
Do you still stand behind your statement that she was referring to leaving a helicopter, or do you admit your understandable mistake in remembering that she was exiting a plane?
She was clearly exiting a helicopter in the clip I posted. And clearly Sinbad would know if he and they were dodging bullets as they ran to their vehicles, briefing or no. (And speaking of the briefing, it probably occurred to her as she was being briefed that a story about ducking sniper fire would make for good campaign fodder).
If you keep this stuff up I’m afraid I’m going to have to conclude you aren’t worth responding to.
She was exiting a helicopter in part of the clip you showed, sure, as part of the compilation of her visit. That is not what she landed in at the base that she was talking about. She landed in a C-17 at the base in the events that she was talking about.
I only brought up your misstatement about the helicopter to show how easily mistakes can be made, are you really going to insist that it was a helicopter that she landed in at the base where the event in question took place rather than admit your error?
Once again, you ignore the point that there was no sniper fire, but there was a briefing about the threat of sniper fire on the plane.
No, I didn’t ignore it. I used it to posit that Hillary used it to construct a phony coming-under-fire story.
And there you go again, making a big deal out of tautologies. Do you think parsing off-hand remarks for misplaced qualifiers or commas is the way to make progress in America?
When you return from 7-Eleven and tell your wife they were out of swiss cheese, are you being as truthful as possible? No, to be as truthful as possible you’d have to mention the 19-year old girl you could hardly keep your eyes off, or your ogling the liquor section, or whatever.
If Hillary had instead made a “perfectly honest” statement like your notional one, she might be guilty of gross political incompetence. In the present climate she has to watch her words carefully as the political operatives you admire will be happy to extract 10 seconds out of context and to flood the airwaves with it over and over and over.
But you admit that you misremebered that the story that she told took place while exiting a plane, not a helicopter? Or do you still insist that you are correct in that it was a helicopter that this whole controversy revolves around?
Anyway, I gotta go for the evening. Rejoin in the morn.
Works for me.
No tautology is involved.
If you seriously need me to explain why a failure to discuss the liquor section of the store does not vitiate the honesty of “They were out of Swiss cheese,” let me know.
But I will explain here why I believe it is valuable to correct hyperbole like “…as honest as she’s able to be.”
“As honest as she’s able to be,” as used here does not come across as unambiguous hyperbole. The speaker is suggesting, literally, that the only instances of dishonesty from Secretary Clinton arise from complex situations which were imperfectly summarized by simple answers – that her attempts to communicate honestly were frustrated by the complexity of the factual framework.
That’s not true. In fact, Secretary Clinton has lied in order to make herself look better than the truth would. That may well be a necessity of modern politics – or indeed of politics in any age – but it’s not correct to call that “as honest as [one] is able to be.”
Again, I absolutely agree that her dishonesty pales when compared to Trump’s reckless disregard for the truth. But that does not entitle her to the benefit of “as honest as she’s able,” and I’m not willing to let that comment pass unremarked.
Have Clinton supporters recycled the pro-Edwin Edwards bumper sticker from his gubernatorial race against David Duke?
I have supported Hillary since 2008 yet I find that I suddenly need this sticker.
Wait wait wait. Just because you hate on Hillary doesn’t mean you a sexist anymore than hate on Obama necessarily implies racism. And anti-Clinton doesn’t mean pro-Trump. Your post makes some hasty generalizations.
Superficially your point seems logically valid. You remember enough elementary logic to realize it is false to reason
All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Therefore all mortals are named Socrates
In the real world, your post shows you to be an idiot. We’ve talked a lot about about Hillary in this thread so let’s discuss Obama for a moment. Why exactly do you imagine non-racists hate Obama?
Some idiots hate Obama because he’s the “Teleprompter President.” He’s one of the most articulate and most intelligent Presidents we’ve had in a very long while but he … needs a teleprompter. He uses pauses effectively in his speech … because he’s a stuttering idiot. He got a law degree magna cum laude from Harvard (and was President of the Harvard Law Review) … but only got in to Harvard because of affirmative action. Bush and Cheney did all the hard work, getting Osama bin Laden cornered in a luxury condo in North Pakistan … and Obama tries to take credit for the kill. And on and on and on.
His daughters dress like sluts, Michelle looks like a fat monkey. No, we’re not racist, we just don’t think fat monkeys should be First Lady.
One Doper started a thread to complain that Obama “shamed” a Marine guard by making him hold an umbrella over him in the rain. :smack: That Doper crawled away, tail between legs, when photos were presented of Bush, Bush and Reagan under Marine-held umbrellas.
Hatred of Obama is sometimes not racist? Bullshit!
One can disapprove of Obama’s policies. (80% of those who do are morons, but not necessarily racist). But to “hate” (your word) Obama? For what? I started this thread in part because I sincerely wonder where all the irrational hatred of Hillary comes from, but the source of hatred against Obama cannot possibly be in doubt. Why do you think non-racists hate Obama, Cad? Is it the death camps? That he tried to close the Gitmo torture camp … or that he didn’t? Is it, as some Teabaggers explain, that he pretends to be half-white?
You are stupid, Saint Cad, very very stupid. I’d already seen enough of your prior posts to know you were a clinical moron. Now I’m promoting you to imbecile.
Your fetish for cardboard tubes and pedophiles continues to do your reputation proud
Le snore…
Pardon my French 
And in your halcyon days of the 1950’s, neither a woman nor a “black guy” would have run for president. Back then, people* knew* their places…
To be fair, the cardboard tube thing was in fact something he was recommending other posters try. As to what sort of stimulus the thought of other Dopers attempting to penetrate cardboard tubes might have given him: well, that would be pure speculation, so I won’t go there.
Thanks for the clarification, I’ll have to ask him about it next time. 
I wonder what it is about the 50s that renders morons incapable of separating the good from the bad. Perhaps you could speak to this issue.
My objection to the way things are now vs. the 50s has nothing to do with sexism or racism and everything to do with the way people behave. Also the way government is run…especially when it comes to education.