Clinton Forced to Backpedal Over Bosnia Sniper Story

By Anastacia Mott Austin

Hillary Clinton has made experience, especially in foreign matters, a cornerstone of her campaign.

But one of the stories she has repeatedly used to demonstrate she’s faced tough situations overseas will have to be retired, after news crews revealed it was made up.

Clinton has shared the story of her trip to Bosnia in 1996 with daughter Chelsea, saying that she went there because it was considered "too dangerous" for husband Bill Clinton, President at the time. (However she apparently thought it safe enough for her daughter to accompany her.)

Recounting a harrowing story of landing in a "corkscrew pattern," used by pilots to avoid enemy sniper fire, Clinton said on more than one occasion that "…I remember landing under sniper fire," and "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."

Clinton told the story again at George Washington University last week. Comedian Sinbad, who had accompanied Clinton on the 1996 trip to entertain the troops, caught wind of the speech and told reporters it was untrue.

Sinbad told the press that the trip had been part of a USO tour, and that he and singer Sheryl Crow were also along. In fact, during an interview with a reporter from The Washington Post, given six days before the most recent speech, Sinbad relayed his frustration at the former First Lady’s version of events. Contrary to statements from her campaign staff (who said it was a momentary lapse in memory), she had repeated the story several times, including during a stump speech before the Iowa primary.

One might think that a savvy politician might avoid repeating a falsity once it’s been revealed to the press. But maybe Clinton doesn’t read The Washington Post.

As to Clinton’s claims that the First Lady is sent into areas too dangerous for the President, Sinbad quipped, "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."

Clinton’s response to Sinbad’s version of events was to dismiss him as "a comedian." Again, perhaps a sharp media personality might choose to tone the story down at that point. But Clinton forged ahead, telling the whole "sniper attack" story once again during the George Washington University speech last week.

Unfortunately for Clinton, by that point news outlets had become curious about the story, and her version of events was repeatedly and soundly debunked.

The Washington Post, in a follow up story, reported that "a review of nearly 100 news accounts of her [March 1996] visit shows that not a single newspaper or television station reported any security threat to the first lady."

In addition, several television news stations re-ran footage of the trip and the tarmac scene which Clinton had described as so fraught with danger. In it, the then-First Lady and her daughter walk slowly on the tarmac, smiling, greet several dignitaries and American armed forces officials, then bestow a kiss on an eight-year-old girl who read them a poem about peace.

The Post’s political writer bestowed "four Pinocchios" on Clinton, a rare and dubious honor only given those who display "real whoppers," as opposed to the lesser-numbered Pinocchios, which are reserved for "some shading of the facts," "significant omissions or exaggerations," and "significant factual errors."

Clinton’s camp at first attempted to ignore the fiasco, but when it became clear that it wasn’t going away, Clinton released a statement to The Philadelphia Daily News, which included that her version of events was merely her own memory of it, and that she was a human being, after all, who sometimes made mistakes. "You know, I think that, a minor blip, you know, if I said something that, you know, I say a lot of things, millions of words a day," said Clinton. "So if I misspoke, that was just a misstatement."

A misstatement that she just happened to repeat over and over again, and used as an example of her foreign policy experience.