As Stephen Black pointed out, the URL I gave in my previous posting did not contain the quotation from *Living History*. Apologies, that was a slip on my part. The correct URL should have been:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/25/73956/3732/410/483692 Also: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080324/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_bosnia_1 John Nichols writes: >I have seen the file clips on CNN, so I know that the story was not >entirely correct. I suspect that since she was reading from a prepared >speech, a speech writer was probably also involved. I now have to >wonder who misconfabulated. "...not entirely correct"? In fact it bears almost no relation to what the newsreels show actually occurred: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BfNqhV5hg4 >However, an anonymous poster on a declared anti-Hillary, pro-Obama >site -- that is enough to convince me that she is lying! [In context, of course, meaning "no way"! - A.E.] I don't think the essential facts of the episode depend on anything stated by the anonymous poster, only on factual statements based on what Hillary stated in her speech, and what the newsreels at the time show. Personally I don't think it is a satisfactory explanation to say that she deliberately lied, because she could hardly have been unaware that her account would be contradicted. That's why I think it is a fascinating question to consider what was going on in her mind when she made the statement. I find it hard to accept the notion she could possibly be exonerated on the ground that the speech may have been written by a script-writer. To my mind her whole tone, her saying "I certainly do remember that trip to Bosnia... I remember landing under sniper fire", the little self-deprecating laugh as she says "we ran with our heads down to get to the vehicles", her adding "Now that is what happened", counts against that interpretation. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BfNqhV5hg4 I don't think her own explanation really explains the conundrum: "Now that was what I said when I was sleep-deprived. I misspoke... That was sleep-deprivation or something." http://www.broadcastyoutube.com/watch?v=0lsffxWZbXs&feature=user Tim Shearon writes: >Allen >You wrote: "That raises the question of how a memory of meeting local >children that was later written down some six years after the event could >be transformed into her not being able to stop, and running and ducking >under sniper fire." >Perhaps it does. On the other hand, I think it is just as likely it wasn't >a failure of memory at all but, as she said, "I misspoke." At least that's >what I remember her saying. :) >To invoke simplicity, we as psychologists are sometimes too quick to > see deeper psychological explanations relating to confabulation, failure, >etc. In this case it seems to me just as likely to be simple embellishment >of the story. If you are campaigning and start to tell the story, "I ran for >cover under sniper fire" sure sounds more compelling than, "There had >been sniper fire so we canceled the outdoor meeting and went inside". :) >Of course, she did embellish a good bit more than this but I suspect her >memory didn't fail nor that she lied. I think it likely she was just trying >to tell a better story- at least equally likely anyway. (But that would >remove the teaching moment, no?) >But that would remove the teaching moment, no?< No, I don't think so! It's hard to get past the fact that it wasn't just a "better story", but an almost completely false story. Tim's second posting: > Allen- Well, if what Stephen Black has said is the case, that she was there >too long after hostilities ended to have had such an adjustment, it appears it >could be, lying, embellishment, *and* confabulation!! Touche'! Tim I think tiredness due to sleep-deprivation, getting carried away as she starts telling the story, is part of it, but I really am at a loss to understand how she could come up with such a vivid account that was so far from the facts even in the slightly exaggerated terms she herself had published five years earlier. And I think there's another aspect to Hillary's account worth noting. She introduced her story as follows: "I certainly do remember that trip to Bosnia, and as Togo said, there was a saying around the White House that if a place was too small, too poor, or too dangerous, the president couldn't go, so send the First Lady. That's where we went." http://tinyurl.com/3skwhs Can anyone seriously believe that if a place was too dangerous for the President to go to, White House staff would say (other than as a joke), oh, we'd better send Hillary, or that Bill would countenance it for one second (though he might have suggested sending the Vice-President.-:) ) (I think that the fact that Hillary immediately followed this with her account of the supposedly hazardous landing at Tuzla precludes any notion that she herself was meaning it to be taken as a joke.) And did she really forget that Chelsea was with her - are we supposed to believe that she would have taken Chelsea along had the trip been considered at all dangerous? Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London http://www.esterson.org --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
