As to whether there was actual sniper fire or only the threat of sniper fire, that’s a distinction without a difference. If the pilots made an evasive, corkscrew approach and the passengers were told to sit on their bulletproof vests, the threat was very real.

Hillary was being truthful when she said “I remember landing under sniper fire.”

http://obama.senate.gov/press/060124-obama_to_vote_n/index.php

If the former, “we landed under the threat of sniper fire” and “we landed under sniper fire” — would be a mis-speak, a couple of words got dropped out in the speech as delivered. (Or perhaps the speech as transcribed.)

Should Alice Palmer be included in this list? See http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-0704030881apr04,0,6468332.story I suppose Ferraro doesn’t count.

In Hillary’s case, CBS News knows the video they shot of her Tuzla, Bosnia arrival in 1996 doesn’t tell the whole story. They know very well how pictures and editing can lie, yet they claim their video proves Hillary’s recollections are dishonest. It’s nonsense.

Look closely at the recent CBS News report. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BfNqhV5hg4
The Tuzla arrival video begins on the tarmac, after Hillary’s airplane has already landed and after Hillary and her party have already deplaned. There is no video which contradicts Hillary’s statements that “I remember landing under sniper fire” or that the “hair-raising flight into Bosnia ended in a corkscrew landing.” Furthermore, no one disputes the threat of sniper fire as the C-17 troop-transport jet began it’s descent into Tuzla, and no one disputes that the plane made evasive maneuvers to avoid it.

Here’s what Hillary said recently: “When we were flying into Bosnia—part of the reason we were in the C-17 was because part of it is armored—I was move up into the cockpit, everyone else was told to sit on their bulletproof vests. You recall that. And, we came in . . . in an evasive maneuver. Those of you who’ve been on C-17s or C-130s know that one of their great characteristics is that they can take off very quickly and they can maneuver agilely to avoid incoming fire.”

Sit on your bulletproof vest because there’s a chance you might be shot? That sure sounds like a harrowing and dangerous flight to me! What’s more, we don’t know whether snipers were actually firing at the plane during it’s descent or not, and neither would the plane’s occupants know unless a bullet actually hit the plane somewhere near the passengers.

Hillary’s statement that they landed “under sniper fire” (or at least the threat of sniper fire) is TRUTHFUL!

Now, let’s look at Hillary’s statement about what happened after the plane landed. She said: “there was no greeting ceremony and we basically were told to run to our cars.” Cheryl Atkisson of CBS News claims “Problem is, that’s not what happened,” and provides about thirty seconds of video—showing Hillary on the tarmac, shaking hands with soldiers and kissing a little girl—which purportedly proves otherwise.

The problem with CBS’s proof is two-fold. First, “greeting ceremony” implies something more formal than just some handshakes. Hillary has said elsewhere that the greeting ceremony was moved indoors due to threat of snipers, and the CBS report avoids saying whether there was an indoor greeting ceremony or not. Second, what else happened on the tarmac besides the thirty seconds that CBS shows us? We don’t know, but it could very well be that at some point Hillary was told she had to leave because of threat of snipers.

Hillary’s statement that “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,” could also be TRUTHFUL.

Bottom line, it might have been more accurate to say the plane landed under THREAT of sniper fire, and the tarmac greetings were cut short due to THREAT of sniper fire. But, for CBS to spin Hillary’s recollections as dishonest is, well, dishonest.

Compare the recent CBS News report (above) to the original report which aired in 1996: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pef5AUt-tic
There is a huge difference in tone and emphasis. In 1996, CBS said “This is one of the most dangerous places where U.S. forces are operating. The President himself never made it this far inside Bosnia when he visited in January.”

I think the CBS video of the First Lady walking in a combat zone with soldiers in full combat gear shows a woman of tremendous courage. That’s what I see.

But a corrupt greasy pig in the form of Obama, on the take, who has never done an honest day’s work in his life, is OK?

You people are messed in the head.

If you aren’t a republican troll, I feel sorry for you, buying into that republican and Obama spew, being played for the fool.

All those poor earnest people, being played for fools by camp Obama.

How sad.

I know he tacitly approved of Alito, when real progressives were up in arms.

KLEIN: I think that there is — that being first lady really isn’t the greatest credential for being commander in chief. But that’s something that we have known in the past.

Now that’s what I’m talking about…this is my bottom line with regard to FraudBama.

A picture is worth a thousand words. So let the MSM keep showing the footage of her surrounded by troops, greeting the military in a dangerous war zone that even the president didn’t tour.

And compare that to Senator Nada.

This is the real reason why they want Hillary to drop out now. So that he can crib note his way with a CRASH COURSE TOUR of photo ops in important places like Afghanistan, Europe, and Iraq for the November election.

He is such a fake!

We’ve seen the 1996 CBS story! Stop trying to lie about it Douglas!

Sure it might not have been any more dangerous than the buildings that the Oblamers doomed their constituents to,

so that they could get a mansion that they couldn’t otherwise afford,

but Rezko’s trial has just started.

Millions and millions of your tax dollars wasted because of Oblamer and the corrupt Daley machine.

Double Standards? Like the Oblamers never getting anything but smiley faces by the media for months on end?

And the Oblamers saying they’re above politics as usual, but…

instead writing a memo about injecting race into the campaign and blaming others,

lying about domestic policy advisor Goolsby’s visit with the Canadians,

having an advisor call Hillary a monster to the press in Europe

having that same foreign policy advisor call the voters in Ohio a bunch of Archie bunkers

claiming to be uniters and yet supporting one of the biggest hate groups in the country for 20 years.

Not Professor - Senior Lecturer

“I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution,” Obama told an audience at a campaign fundraiser. “I believe in an attorney general who is actually the people’s lawyer, not the president’s lawyer.”

Except he wasn’t a Constitutional Law Professor. He was a senior lecturer. Not a professor. There’s a difference and he knew it. Does that mean, gasp, that Senator Obama lacks character? Or is this just another instance of what’s sauce for the goose is excusable for the gander?

Well perhaps because many of them have to google and youtube it because they were 2, 3, 6, or 10 years old. I was raising my son, running a store, calling Congress trying to stop the carpet bombing.

But what do facts matter when you can wiki your life away?