Hillary, Countess Of Chappaqua, Gets Caught Lying Again!

Hillary, the Countess Of Chappaqua, has been caught telling more whoppers. This latest fish story began on March 17, when she said this about a fact-finding trip junket she and her daughter Chelsea made to Bosnia back in '96:

"I remember landing under sniper fire. 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."--Hillary Clinton, speech at George Washington University, March 17, 2008.

Hillary Clinton has been regaling supporters on the campaign trail with hair-raising tales of a trip she made to Bosnia in March 1996. In her retelling, she was sent to places that her husband, President Clinton, could not go because they were "too dangerous."

When her account was challenged by one of her traveling companions, the comedian Sinbad, she upped the ante and injected even more drama into the story. In a speech earlier this week, she talked about "landing under sniper fire" and running for safety with "our heads down."

The Washington Post decided to look into her claims of heroism under fire, and found them to be completely bogus, as reporter Michael Dobbs attests:

As a reporter who visited Bosnia soon after the December 1995 Dayton Peace agreement, I can attest that the physical risks were minimal during this period, particularly at a heavily fortified U.S. Air Force base, such as Tuzla. Contrary to the claims of Hillary Clinton and former Army secretary Togo West, Bosnia was not "too dangerous" a place for President Clinton to visit in early 1996. In fact, the first Clinton to visit the Tuzla Air Force base was not Hillary, but Bill, on January 13, 1996.

Had Hillary Clinton's plane come "under sniper fire" in March 1996, we would certainly have heard about it long before now. Numerous reporters, including the Washington Post's John Pomfret, covered her trip. A review of nearly 100 news accounts of her visit shows that not a single newspaper or television station reported any security threat to the First Lady. "As a former AP wire service hack, I can safely say that it would have been in my lead had anything like that happened," said Pomfret.

According to Pomfret, the Tuzla airport was "one of the safest places in Bosnia" in March 1996, and "firmly under the control" of the 1st Armored Division.

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 eight-year-old Moslem girl, Emina Bicakcic, read a poem in English. An Associated Press photograph of the greeting ceremony, above, shows a smiling Clinton bending down to receive a kiss.

"There is peace now," Emina told Clinton, according to Pomfret's report in the Washington Post the following day, "because Mr. Clinton signed it. All this peace. I love it."

The First Lady's schedule, released on Wednesday and available here, confirms that she arrived in Tuzla at 8.45 a.m. and was greeted by various dignitaries, including Emina Bicakcic, (whose name has mysteriously been redacted from the document.)

You can see CBS News footage of the arrival ceremony here. The footage shows Clinton walking calmly out of the back of the C-17 military transport plane that brought her from Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany.

Among the U.S. officials on hand to greet Clinton at the airport was Maj. Gen. William Nash, the commander of U.S. troops in Bosnia. Nash told me that he was unaware of any security threat to Clinton during her eight-hour stay in Tuzla. He said, however, that Clinton had a "busy schedule" and may have got the impression that she was being hurried on her way. See clarification below.

According to Sinbad, who provided entertainment on the trip along with the singer Sheryl Crow, the "scariest" part was deciding where to eat. As he told Mary Ann Akers of The Post, "I think the only 'red-phone' moment was: 'Do we eat here or at the next place.'" Sinbad questioned the premise behind the Clinton version of events. "What kind of president would say 'Hey man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife. Oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you."

Replying to Sinbad earlier this week, Clinton dismissed him as "a comedian." Her campaign referred me to Togo West, who was also on the trip and is a staunch Hillary supporter. West could not remember "sniper fire" himself, but said there was no reason to doubt the First Lady's version of events. "Everybody's perceptions are different," he told me.

Clinton made no mention of "sniper fire" in her autobiography "Living History," published in 2003, although she did say there were "reports of snipers" in the hills around the airport.

Hillary Rodham-Clinton's revisionist attempt to turn what was a simple goodwill trip back in '96 into some sort of earth-shaking foreign-policy coup-de-etat on behalf of her serially-philandering "husband" is laughable.

We agree with the Washington Post's assessment of "Four Pinnochios" (see rating criteria here) for the "whoppers" which she told concerning that particular fact finding trip junket.

And should Hillary, the Countess of Chappaqua, somehow become our President, we can expect many more of these types of falsehoods.

Dixville Notch This!

Dixville Notch, New Hampshire is the little out-of-the-way hole-in-the-wall settlement that has made a cottage industry out of being the first folks to vote in that state's "God-given" first in the nation presidential primary election. This arrogant little hamlet is described thusly:(emphasis added)

Dixville Notch is an unincorporated small village in the Dixville township of Coos County, New Hampshire, USA. The town is known for being one of the first places to declare its results for the New Hampshire Presidential primary and U.S. Presidential elections.It is located in the far north of the state, approximately 20 miles (30 km) from Canada.

The village is named for the mountain pass (or "notch," in White Mountains terminology) about a hundred feet (30 m) uphill from it, that lies between Dixville Peak and Sanguinary Mountain, and separates the Connecticut River's watershed from that of the Androscoggin. Dixville Notch is also the location, in dramatic mountains about 1800 feet above sea level, of The Balsams Grand Resort Hotel; one of a handful of surviving New Hampshire grand hotels, it is situated on a 15,000 acre (61 km²) plot, accommodating golfing in the summer and skiing in the winter.

Dixville Notch is best known in connection with its longstanding middle-of-the-night vote in the U.S. presidential election, including during the New Hampshire primary (the first primary election in the U.S. presidential nomination process). Starting in the 1960 election, all the eligible voters in Dixville Notch gathered at midnight in the ballroom of The Balsams. The voters cast their ballots and the polls officially are closed one minute later. The result of the Dixville Notch vote in both the New Hampshire primary and the general election are traditionally broadcast around the country immediately afterwards.

(Ed's Note:) Here's the "official" tally for this year's primary election in Dorksville Dixville Notch:

Democrats:
Barack Obama received 7 votes. (the landslide winner)
John Edwards: 2 votes.
Bill Richardson: 1 vote.
Hillary "the Countess of Chappaqua" Rodham-Clinton: 0 votes.

Republicans:
John McCain: 4 votes.
Mitt Romney: 2 votes.
Rudy Giuliani: 1 vote.
Mike Huckabee: 0 votes.
Fred Thompson: 0 votes.

If those 17 votebots registered electors who inhabit that cold, God-forsaken, pig trail quaint little hamlet weren't the self-appointed "first voters in the nation," I think that it's safe to say that this hole-in-the-wall wouldn't even be on the map much less garner nationwide attention every four years.

But all sarcasm aside, isn't what they do in Dixville Notch also indicative of three certain small states' (Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina) inordinate amount of influence on the Presidential election process?

Within days of Iowa's caucuses and New Hampshire's primary, it has been customary for a number of candidates (most often all but one or two) to stop actively campaigning or drop-out of the race altogether.

The usual reason that candidates quit is that following the primary, campaign funds tend to dry-up for those who did not win or at least place second.

The reason why funding is not forthcoming is because the winners of Iowa's caucuses and (especially) New Hampshire/South Carolina's primaries are historically seen as having the "Big Mo" (Mo is for momentum, a term coined by George H.W. Bush.) and those who are willing to donate money to a candidate usually want to give their cash to a winner.

And money, it has been said, is the "mother's milk of politics."

If the pattern established in the past few election cycles holds true, (and even in an election cycle as interesting as this one, we see no reason why it should not) the nomination process will be finished in-all-but-name-only after South Carolina's primary is held on January 26th.(And yes, we know about Nevada's brand new Jan. 16th caucus; its influence remains to be seen.)

In all likelihood, the nominees will be known long before the primaries and caucuses that are scheduled for February's so-called Super Duper Tuesday, in which voters of at least 24 states will get to participate in what will be, in all probability, a worthless exercise that has historically served as a "coronation" for the one active candidate remaining.

Therefore, Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina have an inordinate amount of influence on the presidential election process while those of us who live in states with larger populations (such as Texas, New York, and California) have little or no say in determining who gets to be the standard-bearer for either of the Republicans or the Democrats.

When pressed, the residents of these three (especially Iowans and New Hampshirites) will say that they should always be first so that they can engage in "retail politics." In other words, they want to be first because the can meet the candidates "up close and personal."

They also never fail to assure us that they "take their responsibility very seriously" and that they are in the best position to "put the candidates through their paces." What's unsaid is that they feel that it is their "right" to eliminate less-desirable candidates from consideration so that the rest of us (who live in the other 47 states) won't make the mistake of choosing the "wrong" candidate.

I find the smugness of Iowans and New Hampshirites to be particularly galling.

The argument put forward by those who say that the position of the priviliged three must be preserved doesn't stand up to scrutiny as there are other states with small populations that could just as easily serve as fertile grounds for "retail politics."

How about a "first in the nation" primary in one of the other smaller-population states such as.... Montana, Mississippi, or even Delaware?

Just imagine the fun and pure excitement (not to mention entertainment value) of having a "first in the nation" primary in one of the "interesting" smaller-population states such as New Mexico, West Virginia, or (for real kicks) Louisiana?

If instead of spending two or more years pampering the already-spoiled populaces of Iowa and New Hampshire, (Who've come to not only expect but to demand this pampering by presidential aspirants, even to the point of extracting promises from the candidates to uphold the process if elected.) the candidates had to plan for caucuses/primaries held in any of the states listed above, they would have to prepare themselves to meet a whole new (and different) group of people which are concerned with some very different issues than those issues that concern folks in relatively rural (and relatively affluent) Iowa and New Hampshire.

But that's not going to happen as officials of the "perpetual three who decide" don't hesitate to get together and orchestrate their efforts to maintain their monopoly.

Of course, the inhabitants of these three otherwise insignificant states Iowa, (total population: 2.9 million) New Hampshire, (1.3 million) and South Carolina (4.3 million) couldn't do to us what they do without help. These relative few have the connivance of the leadership of both the Democrat and Republican parties, who punish any state that has the audacity to challenge the "presidential selection monopoly" that has been (and is) enjoyed by the residents of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.

What will be done to democratize the process?

In all probability, nothing.

I'd be willing to bet that in four years, the states of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina will still insist on picking our presidents for the rest of us while the two major parties, (who actually control the process) will do nothing to alter this demonstrably anti-democratic travesty.

We can only hope that the less than 9 million folks who live in these three little states pick two good nominees for the 291 million of us who don't get the opportunity to meaningfully participate in the nomination process.

Hypocrite Alert: That Romney Don't Hunt!

The nearly endless presidential election cycle is hardly underway and already the lying has begun:

BOSTON - To hear Mitt Romney talk on the campaign trail, you might think the Republican presidential candidate had a gun rack in the back of his pickup truck.

"I purchased a gun when I was a young man. I've been a hunter pretty much all my life," he said this week in Keene, N.H., to a man sporting a National Rifle Association cap.

Yet the former Massachusetts governor's hunting experience is limited to two trips at the bookends of his 60 years: as a 15-year-old, when he hunted rabbits with his cousins on a ranch in Idaho, and last year, when he shot quail on a fenced game preserve in Georgia.

Last year's trip was an outing with major donors to the Republican Governors Association, which Romney headed at the time.

An aide said Wednesday that Romney was not trying to mislead anyone, although he confirmed Romney had been hunting only on those occasions in his life.

Read all about the lying over there.

Where's a candidate like this guy or like that one when our Country so desperately needs him or her?

Perhaps an honest-to-goodness statesman (or woman) will emerge from the pack this time around.

Oh... that's right.... we nearly forgot two little (but vitally important) factors problems: the states of Iowa and New Hampshire think that they have a God-given right to pretty much determine which two candidates that the rest of us out here in the other 48 states get to vote for (or against) every four years.

And for the better part of the next 19 months, the candidates will spend countless days crossing and re-crossing each and every village, town, hardware store, diner, pig-trail, feed-lot, and arrogant little hamlet of those two mostly rural states while lying through their teeth pandering to the interests of the 3 million (about the same number as the city of Chicago) or so mostly rural, mostly smug, often condescending voters who have gotten very spoiled used to having a full-slate of candidates routinely show-up every election cycle in order to drop vast sums of money chasing so relatively few (and unrepresentative of the rest of the country's) votes.

If past history is any indicator of future performance, most candidates will quit within a few days of New Hampshire's January primary, leaving only one (or two) viable candidates in each party's race. (And yes, we know about the vast multitude of states who have moved up their primaries this time around, which will likely only serve to further magnify the importance of Iowa and New Hampshire.)

Since the 99 percent of Americans who don't have an opportunity to participate in the Iowa caucus or the all-powerful New Hampshire primary will continue to have little or no say in the two parties' nomination process, (with a population of 45,000 people, our California town has never had a visit by a presidential contender in its 100 year history) we don't think that we'll be seeing the likes of Harry S. or Theodore anytime soon...

So... we'll most likely be getting the same type of lying weasels candidates who won't tell us the truth and have little to fear in the way of being held accountable for their dishonesty while on the way to the carefully choreographed and utterly predictable coronations freakshows that nowadays pass for the parties' nominating conventions. ----------------------------See our latest posts.