One might think after the kerfluffles she suffered in trying to inflate her resume that she played an instrumental role in bringing peace to Northern Ireland and dodging sniper fire in Bosnia, Hillary would have learned her lesson and refrain from the self-puffery.
But according to the Sunday Life newspaper, during a speech she made to the Stormont parliament she said that Belfast’s landmark Europa Hotel was devastated by an explosion when she first stayed there in 1995.The Europa, where most journalists covering the decades-long conflict stayed, was famed as Europe’s most bombed hotel, earning the moniker “the Hardboard Hotel”.
However, the last Provisional IRA bomb to damage the Europa was detonated in 1993, two years before President Clinton and his wife checked in for the night.
The last time the Europa underwent renovations because of bomb blast damage was in January 1994, 22 months before the presidential entourage booked 110 rooms at the hotel.
Mrs Clinton told assembled politicians at Stormont: “When Bill and I first came to Belfast we stayed at the Europa Hotel … even though then there were sections boarded up because of damage from bombs.”
Oopsy.
Comment by DarthRove on 10/19 @ 7:41 am #
Does Hillary come up with her own self-aggrandizing statements, or does she farm that task out to a staffer?
Comment by JD on 10/19 @ 7:45 am #
It was her “sincere perception” dammit. Facts are not relevant.
Comment by sdferr on 10/19 @ 7:48 am #
Mes. Clinton is a manifest irrelevancy in the policy making world of Pres. Barry Obama, whether simply made so by the President himself or by other influences in the White House matters not. Yet so far as we can see, Mrs. Clinton, unlike Sec. of State William Rodgers, who fought his own losing battle for influence in foreign policy making during his tenure under Pres Nixon, chooses to make no public display of her dissatisfaction at her marginalization but more or less cheerily goes about her business attending to puffery and nonsense. Some heavyweight operator she has proven to be. Will she ultimately be remember for her *cackles*, her *cankles* or her utter ineffectiveness as an advocate for American interests on the international stage? I vote cuckoldry.
Comment by N. O'Brain on 10/19 @ 7:59 am #
It’s good to know that’s it’s just not her resume that’s well padded.
Comment by geoffb on 10/19 @ 8:45 am #
Being the NY Senator during the appropriate time period she, or her staff, figured it takes as long or longer in Belfast to repair terrorist damage as it does in NYC (See, or not see, Center, World Trade).
Comment by Charles on 10/19 @ 9:15 am #
She decided to go into a profession where you lie for a living (politics). Big surprise that statements turn out to be “exaggerations”.
We’ll be welcomed as liberators. Major combat operations have ended.
He’s just like Jessie Jackson.
I did not have sex with *that woman*
Read my lips. No new taxes.
I invented the internet.
I could regress back to Roman Senators (and beyond), but you get the point.
Comment by Spiny Norman on 10/19 @ 9:15 am #
Some one should tell Obama that surrounding himself with radicals, idiots and buffoons does NOT make himself look good by comparison, or even reasonable.
o_O
Comment by Charles on 10/19 @ 9:33 am #
In other news – When a politician does actually tell the truth, their opponents respond by – putting it in a campaign commercial – because truth is not allowed in politics:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdaYyBt0qUc&feature=player_embedded
Comment by gus on 10/19 @ 9:40 am #
Obama has never been honest or competent. He’s a made for Hollywood faux President.
What concerns me here, is that LIBTARDS do not object to BALD FACED PROVEN LIES. Hillary Rodham claimed she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary. He didn’t scale Everest until Rodham was a kindergartner. She claimed she CORKSCREWED down in Bosnia and was “whisked away”. There are pictures of Thunder Thighs Rodham recieving flowers on the tarmac. These aren’t opinions these are facts. LIBTARDS lie more often than not.
Comment by Charles on 10/19 @ 9:51 am #
It’s funny how you guys think one side has a monopoly on liars. Are you really so naive about politics? Obama’s the latest in a long string of celebrity politicians. See also: Reagan, Schwarzennager, Eastwood, Franken.
Comment by BJTexs on 10/19 @ 9:52 am #
This doesn’t rise to the level of “reinventing history in my own image” Tuzla as it more clearly reflects Clinton’s slapdash need to pump up her bona fides. Clinton not being the warmest of people nor having the natural air of compassionate understanding that Bubba projected finds little, desperate ways to connect with the audience at hand. the fact that she is so ham handed about it speaks volumes as to her ego and state of mind.
She’s simply not the sort of person with which one would be interested in sharing a picnic.
Comment by BJTexs on 10/19 @ 9:53 am #
Charles: Where above did any commentator say that liars only come from one party?
Reading is fundamental!
Comment by Rich Cox on 10/19 @ 10:01 am #
BJT, forget not how much Bubba did/does inflate his own alternate reality too. It is endemic to these two and their crowd.
Comment by Charles on 10/19 @ 10:05 am #
#12: BJTexas
Thought is was implied, as only one person from one party was mentioned. Didn’t “read” any mention of the other party, but I’m happy to step out of the way and let you bash them both. Dedicating a post to it also implies “politician tells a lie” is actually noteworthy.
Comment by "The One" on 10/19 @ 10:06 am #
#6, The word “lie” has a meaning. Twisting it into meaning something else is a technique which only weakens your argument around these parts.
#10, Assertions and straw-man based on the purposely flawed argument in #6, plus a list of things one of which is completely not like the others.
Comment by BJTexs on 10/19 @ 10:09 am #
No, Charles, every time any politician tells a lie, it should absolutely, positively ne noteworthy, as well as snark worthy, joke worthy and derision worthy. That should be the the one issue that defines epic, pristine non-partisan agreement amongst all.
Unfortunately I see more lies and dissembling from the left than I do from the right. (IMHO)
Comment by JD on 10/19 @ 10:09 am #
BJ – Just let Charles argue with those imaginary positions.
Comment by BJTexs on 10/19 @ 10:13 am #
You’re right, JD. It’s impolite to interrupt a person while they are arguing with themselves.
My Bad! Carry on!
Comment by DarthRove on 10/19 @ 10:15 am #
Charles, not to sound contentious, but “lie” means “I know this is a false or dishonest statement and I’m saying it anyway”. “Lie” does not mean “saying something about the future and ending up wrong.”
Comment by Charles on 10/19 @ 10:15 am #
#15, the “false argument” that lying is a duty required of politicians? That false argument?
And #10 was not a response to my own #6, it was a response to #9 which labeled Obama a “Hollywood faux President”, like Hollywood faux politician is something unique to Obama. He’s not even the most egregious example (having not worked in Hollywood, like many other (personally) successful politicians).
Comment by sdferr on 10/19 @ 10:19 am #
Charles, might “made for Hollywood” have referred to the manner in which Obama is especially beloved in Hollywood by the denizens of Hollywood rather than stand as an expression of his having come from Hollywood in the way some actors turned politician have done, do you think?
Comment by sdferr on 10/19 @ 10:20 am #
Let me put the question another way, Charles. Are you dishonest?
Comment by JD on 10/19 @ 10:20 am #
“… do you think?”
That was rhetorical, no?
Comment by sdferr on 10/19 @ 10:21 am #
Why yes, of course it was JD.
Comment by Charles on 10/19 @ 10:25 am #
#16 – naive. The list of politicians who haven’t lied is vanishingly small. In fact, I know of none. Maybe some county commissioners who simply haven’t faced sufficient scrutiny, but none at a national level. Expecting them to be honest is ludicrous. Utterly divorced from all reality.
#19 – This implies that after a decade in politics, a politician even knows what’s true any more. But assuming they do, about some things, you can point to lies by every notable political figure. Next to central black-hole of total-lies orbits the entire galaxy of 1% truths. Even a half-truth is worse than if they’d just shut up, as it’s designed to use a truth to lead down a false path, and you can find 1/2 truths uttered by any national politician in seconds.
Comment by JD on 10/19 @ 10:26 am #
Everyone does it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Comment by McGehee on 10/19 @ 10:30 am #
That’s because the original post is about only one politician. Does a post have to run a laundry list of every politician known to have lied, in order to be allowed to mention any one such?
Methinks you are a concern troll. ‘Hammered.
Comment by geoffb on 10/19 @ 10:31 am #
#20, Since you have this ability, to not comprehend what you are reading, but to put your own spin on the words of others. Not even quoting them accurately or completely there is no sense in arguing with you as you will put your own twist on the words others use.
Comment by Charles on 10/19 @ 10:32 am #
#21 – Good point. Yes, democrats tend to by buoyed by Hollywood and the media (the media outside of Fox, talk radio, and the Republican blogosphere), doves, and women, and minorities. Republicans tend to be bouyed by church pulpits, the smaller conservative media faction, hawks, men, and whites.
I’m not sure why Charlie Sheen is more relevant than Pat Robertson, but if he is to you, well, to each his own.
Comment by sdferr on 10/19 @ 10:33 am #
So Charles won’t be of any help to us geoffb, at least insofar as we might be seeking to know the truth about things? Pity.
Comment by sdferr on 10/19 @ 10:34 am #
“I’m not sure why Charlie Sheen is more relevant than Pat Robertson, but if he is to you, well, to each his own.”
What the heck does that mean? Who is Charlie Sheen to me or Pat Robertson and why have either of them entered the conversation here?
Comment by DarthRove on 10/19 @ 10:38 am #
Charles, if your central point is “Take everything the gummint people say with a box of Morton’s Salt”, then we are agreed.
Comment by McGehee on 10/19 @ 10:39 am #
So he’s not only a concern troll, he’s an anti-intentionalist. Figures.
And if he’s imagining Charlie Sheen and Pat Robertson in the convo, his last name might very well be Johnson.
Comment by sdferr on 10/19 @ 10:41 am #
I’m thinking that Charles is yet another assertion monkey to add to our growing collection.
Comment by Charles on 10/19 @ 10:43 am #
#27 – “concern troll” LOL. I’m not sure how I’m more concerned than the rest of you. You all seem quite concerned that Hillary told another whopper. Enough to write a whole post on it, and comment on such post. Concern indeed.
“That’s because the original post is about only one politician. Does a post have to run a laundry list of every politician known to have lied, in order to be allowed to mention any one such?”
If you want to post new news that one particular cup of water can make things wet, I guess you can. I guess you don’t have to cite all other cups of water that are exactly the same, or even the broader physical constant that all water’s wet. Other unique news items for your consideration:
Pilot Sully personally believes the Earth is round.
Liberal blogger X labels Rush Limbaugh a racist.
Olympic weight lifter Y believes that iron is heavy.
Conservative blogger Z cites new Obama conspiracy to ruin America.
Comment by Charles on 10/19 @ 10:48 am #
#32 – Agreed!
#33 and 34 – you’re both obviously Label Trolls.
Comment by DarthRove on 10/19 @ 10:50 am #
I was more amused than “concerned”, but OK. It seemed like a fun thing to riff on this morning, and then a jumping-off point into the discussion of “why do these people feel the need to puff themselves up needlessly?” But “concerned”? Nah.
Comment by JD on 10/19 @ 10:50 am #
So, it is a mendoucheous twatwaffle. Never takes long …
Comment by sdferr on 10/19 @ 10:52 am #
Yes Charles, that’s it, you’ve got it! We label newly discovered entities with just as much felicity and alacrity as you are wont to assert about minds. Very perceptive of you.
Comment by LTC John on 10/19 @ 11:31 am #
When folks in thos eposition show themselves to be serial manglers of the truth, it should be shown, mocked and made to be something uncomfortable to either do, defend or ignore.
I wish the “media” would actually report on this whenever a political figure engages in such fanciful recitation of history (ie. see John Kerry in Cambodia, etc.).
Comment by Wm T Sherman on 10/19 @ 11:42 am #
The issue is competence. Our secretary of state should at a minimum, tell high-quality whoppers that can’t be instantly fact-checked and shown to be false.
With this unfortunate habit, and other gaffes such as the “reset” button, she makes herself an international laughing stock for no good reason. All cost, no gain. She projects incompetence; incompetence projects weakness; therefore, she is a bad secretary of state.
Comment by Carin on 10/19 @ 11:52 am #
t. Yes, democrats tend to by buoyed by Hollywood and the media (the media outside of Fox, talk radio, and the Republican blogosphere), doves, and women, and minorities. Republicans tend to be bouyed by church pulpits, the smaller conservative media faction, hawks, men, and whites.
Does Charles really want to play this game?
I’m thinking it could be kinda fun. I”ve got an hour before I need to go work out … who wants to play?
Democrats tend to be buoyed by those who don’t pay taxes.
Republicans are buoyed by those who join the armed forces.
Comment by BJTexs on 10/19 @ 11:56 am #
Oh, oh! I’ll play!
Democrats tend to be generous with other people’s money.
Republicans tend to be generous with their own money.
Comment by ghost707 on 10/19 @ 11:59 am #
Charles schtick is moral relativism, and relativism for it’s own sake. For some reason I am envisioning a football…
Comment by JD on 10/19 @ 12:05 pm #
The ultimate sacrifice to a leftist is to spend my money for me.
Comment by DarthRove on 10/19 @ 12:09 pm #
Or take two jets to Copenhagen, whatever.
Comment by JeffS on 10/19 @ 12:10 pm #
“I vote cuckoldry.”
I so ain’t going there.
Otherwise, I’m with W.T. Sherman: one would think that the Secretary of State could lie competently. Alas, ’tis not so. Too bad Billary doesn’t have one of her reset buttons installed on her forehead.
Comment by sdferr on 10/19 @ 12:14 pm #
I thought everyone was supposed to know that her swinging brass balls were bigger than Bill’s, JeffS. ;-)
Comment by ghost707 on 10/19 @ 12:34 pm #
It will be fun if she runs against President Clown Shoes in 2012. The whoppers from the both of them might create a tear in the time/space continuum thingy.
Comment by Charles on 10/19 @ 12:59 pm #
Again, the definition of all politicians. Seriously, they hone their skills during campaigns, where their mutual attacks are based on things they’d like people to believe, and then carry the skill with them into their lucrative and powerful political careers.
I agree, that would be nice. But without the fact checking, there is the issue of what’s happening when any politician’s lips are moving.
Luckilly, our adversaries are also headed by politicians. They’re equally dishonest, corrupt, and self-centered.
Huh? All politicians are character-flawed egomaniacs who lie, and have since the first politicians in history. That’s moral relativism?
As though a massive standing army is such a great idea.
You seem to think I’m arguing that democrats are supported by those good and noble, and Republicans, the opposite. They’re both supported by:
Demented – An out of touch with reality constituency (birthers on one side, global warming will flood my house tomorrow on the other)
Naive – People who for some reason trust politicians, as long as it’s their party’s politicians. (put unions and 20 year olds in the military here)
Stupid – People who aren’t paying attention and get upset about how much one person’s wardrobe costs, or how much another pays for a haircut. (a.k.a most people)
Comment by JD on 10/19 @ 1:05 pm #
I think we should scrap our military altogether.
Comment by Carin on 10/19 @ 1:19 pm #
As though a massive standing army is such a great idea.
You seem to think I’m arguing that democrats are supported by those good and noble, and Republicans, the opposite. They’re both supported by:
Demented – An out of touch with reality constituency (birthers on one side, global warming will flood my house tomorrow on the other)
Naive – People who for some reason trust politicians, as long as it’s their party’s politicians. (put unions and 20 year olds in the military here)
Stupid – People who aren’t paying attention and get upset about how much one person’s wardrobe costs, or how much another pays for a haircut. (a.k.a most people)
Certainly both side have their share. The issue is what we/the media/ the politicians DO with these factions. Do they use them? do we encourage them? How does the media treat these outliers?
The media couldn’t get enough of Sarah Palin’s wardrobe and the fact comments regarding her being able to see Russia.
CNN, though, fact checked a SNL skit.
Personally, I don’t know a single liberal IRL (or here) with whom I can have a thoughtful, intelligent political conversation. Even smart folks – during last year’s elections – were calling Palin a stupid bitch.
Comment by ghost707 on 10/19 @ 1:51 pm #
Charles,
When Nancy Pelosi get’s on national tv and says the CIA has lied repeatedly to Congress, what is the effect?
When John Kerry get’s on national tv and says …”there is no reason that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women…” What is the effect?
When Barack Obama get’s on national tv and says that our troops are air raiding villages and killing civilians, what is the effect?
When John Murtha accuses troops of murder, when in fact they were found to be innocent, what is the effect?
Do you see where I am going with this? I bet you don’t.
Comment by TaiChiWawa on 10/19 @ 3:19 pm #
“Mazarin never told lies, but always deceived you: now Metternich always tells lies, and never deceives you.”
~ Talleyrand
Comment by sdferr on 10/19 @ 4:09 pm #
Kristol on Gates being blindsided by Rahm Emanuel yesterday:
Comment by B Moe on 10/19 @ 4:22 pm #
How many posts you think Charles is going to spend telling us this is a non-story and it is silly to be talking about it?
Comment by bill on 10/19 @ 9:01 pm #
Pat Robertson vs. Charlie Sheen, okay I’ll bite. Pat Robertson, a somewhat doddering generally good-hearted guy who loves his God and his country. Sheen a dim-witted pervert truther whose equally demented dad sleeps on sewer grates to empathize with the homeless. Speaking of homeless I was walking through my local library today. one of the unwashed fleabags had taken his shoes off. Pages were curling up in books, pasty faced librarians were turning green. Yikes!
Comment by Slartibartfast on 10/21 @ 7:35 am #
In other words, they’re all fair targets for criticism.
And only so many hours in a day, so we picks our targets as we pleases. It is, as you say, a target-rich environment.
It amuses us, just as trying to show us the futility of it all amuses you.
Comment by Oofy on 10/22 @ 5:40 pm #
Have you seen the video of her saying it? Amazing.
Here it is, with just a bit of tweaking. How she can get away with such stuff is beyond belief.
http://bit.ly/4rBiDb