saulpaulus

Oh for CRYING OUT LOUD!!! There was NO sniper threat. It was a lie that for those of us who have served is the most outrageous of all...lying about being under fire. Moreover, it was repeated over and over again for months in spite of repeated warnings that it was untrue. And when she is called on it, what does she do? She blithely dismisses it as a "misspeak" based on what she was "told". Another lie. I guarantee you no one ever told her she was under threat from sniper fire. Then she tries to change the subject back to Pastor wright.

As to Canada NAFTA , it may be the Canadians who are lying. I live in Canada. Mr. Harper and his crowd have no desire to see a liberal in the White House. In fact, their brand of Machiavellianism makes Bush and Rove look like schoolboys. Most likely though, the advisor spoke out of turn and Obama kicked him to the curb. That happens in most any campaign. Whole other kettle of fish from lying about being under fire. Everyone in the military now associates her with her draft dodging, Red Square photo op husband. She can count on the fingers of one hand the number of people in the military, including retirees like Wes 'Brownnose" Clark, that will still support her. McCain would destroy her in the Fall and not break a sweat. He could, except he won't get the chance. Obama all the way!!! posted 03/31/2008 at 15:06:10

Believe what you like. There is no action for criminal defamation in the US. It does exist in the UK, hence, for example, Holocaust denier David Irving's case against Holocaust scholar Deborah Lipstadt and her publisher in the UK and NOT in the US.

Statements of opinion are absolutely protected in the US by the First Amendment. Libel (print) and slander (oral) are technically allowable civil actions for defamation in the US but only regarding statements of fact. They are extraordinarily difficult to prove. First, you have to prove the statement is one of fact. Second, truth has been an absolute defense against libel since Zenger (1734).

The only exception to the truth defense is if the person had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the matter. Someone more expert than I might wish to comment as to whether Valerie Plame, for instance, might have a claim on these grounds after Bush operatives outted her as a CIA operative.

In the case of Hill and the Bosnia episode, neither applies. The truth of the matter has been convincingly established by video and she has admitted to it. Also, since this was a public event and she was and is a public figure, the privacy exception doesn't apply. posted 03/29/2008 at 19:19:21

OBTW, Hillary has no grounds for a defamation suit. #1 Statements of opinion are absolutely protected under the First Amendment #2 Truth is an absolute defense against libel and the truth of this matter has been convincingly demonstrated by a video and admitted to by Hillary herself and #3 There is no such thing as criminal defamation in the US, although it does exist in Canada and the UK, for example. posted 03/29/2008 at 03:31:30

Let me guess...you have never served in the military, have you? Saying you were under fire when you were not is not an exaggeration, it is a complete misrepresentation of the facts...most folks would call it a lie. Now if Hill was content to remain senator or was running for governor, that might not be such a big deal. She is, however, seeking to be Commander in Chief. Again, that means that she gets to send men and women into combat where they may be injured, killed, or tortured. I am sorry but I do not want someone as President with such a casual regard for the truth on such a life-or-death issue. if Hill had wanted to put this issue behind her, she could have dealt with it as Obama did...make a major address on it and confront it honestly. No, she blithely dismissed it and then tried to change the subject to Pastor Wright. That is not the kind of courage and honesty that I want from the President of the United States. posted 03/28/2008 at 15:39:39

It makes a world of difference. This woman wants to be Commander in Chief. That means that when that phone call DOES come at 3 AM, she will decide to send men and women into battle where they may be injured, killed, or tortured. And she LIED about being under fire. Don't tell me she forgot. I know Vietnam vets 35-40 years on and WW II vets 60+ years on who remember every detail of their time under fire. There is nothing those of us who have served take more seriously than being dishonest about experience under fire. If you don't believe me, ask the family of Admiral Boorda, Bill's Chief of Naval Operations. He committed suicide when it came out that he had been wearing decorations for combat service that he had not earned. She's lost whatever respect she had among the military, active duty and veterans. posted 03/28/2008 at 12:36:25

You know Supershrink, I sleep better now than I would if Hill were to become president. How can I trust someone to take that 3 AM phone call when she either cannot remember that she was NOT under fire or lied about being under fire?. How can I trust her to send men and women into combat where they may be injured, killed or tortured, making loved ones widows and orphans?

This may seem like a small thing to you, but there is no bigger issue for those of us who have served. For someone to "misspeak" about being under fire not once but at least three times in prepared remarks is reprehensible---especially when that someone voted to authorize a war that has cost the lives of over 4000 men and women. And don't tell me she forgot. My uncle and others like him remember every detail about being under fire. My uncle is in his mid 80s and he might not remember what he had for dinner last week, but if I called him now, he would be able to recount every detail, every sight, sound, and, above all, smell of a Japanese suicide attack on his position in Okinawa over 60 years ago. If Hill said she had forgotten a dinner order 12 years ago, I would believe her. I do not believe her when she says she forgot that she was not under fire. posted 03/28/2008 at 02:07:23

First, stop shouting. It's rude. Second, i recall an explanation, not an apology. Third, you don't misspeak about being under fire...EVER!!! Especially not in the middle of a war she helped authorize that has cost the lives of over 4000 US men and women.

If you think this is nothing, ask the Boordas what they think. Their husband, father, and grandfather Admiral Jeremy "Mike" Boorda was Chief of Naval Operations under Clinton. When it was revealed that he had worn combat decorations he had not earned, he committed suicide.

I served in the Navy and, although I was never under fire, I know men who were. My uncle was on Okinawa in 1945. Sixty years on, in his mid-80s, he still vividly recalls it. You don't forget and "misspeak" about.it later and it is not a minor issue. This woman wants to be Commander in Chief. That means that when that phone DOES ring at 3 AM, she'ill be called upon to send men and women into harm's way to be dismembered. killed, or tortured, creating widows and orphans.

Everyone in the military remembers that her husband not only dodged the draft but staged a photo op with our enemies in Red Square while their guns and bullets were killing men his age in Vietnam. No one is going to want to serve under her. posted 03/27/2008 at 17:47:05

The main result of Hill's efforts to bash Obama as inexperienced has been to destroy the rapport she was trying to create with the military. The military, from admirals to E-1s, will never forgive her for her "sniper fire" claim any more than they did Admiral Jeremy 'Mike" Boorda, Clinton's Chief of Naval Operations, who committed suicide when it was revealed that he was wearing combat decorations he had not earned. And Boorda wasn't married to a draft dodger who shook hands with the enemy in Red Square while men his age were getting their butts shot off in the 'Nam. She's totally lost credibility with the military. In fact, other than Wes "Brown Nose" Clark, I don't she has a single friend left in the military. I am ex-Navy, BTW. posted 03/27/2008 at 15:04:09