OK, am I the only one troubled by this story from the Associated Press?

GREENSBURG, Pa. (AP) — Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday she made a mistake in claiming that she came under hostile fire in Bosnia 12 years ago, as rival Barack Obama’s campaign continued to challenge her credibility.

In a recent speech and interviews, the New York senator described a harrowing scene in Tuzla, Bosnia, in which she and her daughter, Chelsea, had to run for cover as soon as they landed for a visit in 1996. But video footage of the day showed a peaceful reception in which a young girl greeted the first lady on the tarmac.

In case you missed it, here it is in a nutshell: Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton claimed in a recent speech and interviews that when she and daughter Chelsea visited Bosnia in 1996, “I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.”

Imagine the horrors: the First Lady and First daughter fly to war-torn Bosnia and are greeted by sniper fire and have to run for their lives! There’s just one little problem: It didn’t happen!

Clinton started back-peddling when journalists checked the files. Instead of being greeted by sniper fire as claimed, Mrs. Clinton and daughter were greeted peacefully on the tarmac by a young girl. I doubt the young girl was heavily armed.

Now I know that campaigning is a long and arduous task. I also expect momentary glitches in memory from time to time. So, when journalists challenged Clinton on her account of the day, I expected her to say that she had confused the Bosnian trip with another trip during which she was greeted with sniper fire. There’s just one little problem: It didn’t happen!

So now Presidential candidates can make up harrowing stories of near death, and when disproved can just apologize and say that they “misspoke.”

I guess we can’t blame Hillary – she learned from one of the best. Remember that her husband “misspoke” when he looked you straight in the eye and claimed “I never had sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky.”

You can call it a “misspeak” if you want. I’ll just call it a lie.

Last week we editorialized against the City of Alton’s attempt to pass an ordinance that would require private clubs to obtain a liquor license. I opined that a new ordinance did not seem necessary to control a small number of private clubs in a city of thirty thousand residents.

The proposed ordinance would affect private clubs that serve alcohol to members or guests, and it seemed to me that the ordinance must be much ado about nothing. A couple of buddies playing cards and sharing a case of beer, or a group of ladies having wine with a monthly luncheon shouldn’t require a liquor license.

In my way of thinking, a “private club” was a bunch of like-minded individuals that share a common interest, be it fishing, antique cars, quilting or yes, motorcycles. If they pool their funds and rent a storefront to hold their meetings (rather than meeting at someone’s home), that’s fine by me. If everybody wants to chip in and buy a pony keg for after the meeting, there are DUI laws in place if they over imbibe.

I still feel that way.

However, we have heard from more than a few readers that brought to my attention a much larger concern in Alton. Apparently there are some in town that want to form a “private club” in order to skirt state and local liquor ordinances. The idea is to form a “private club” to restrict entrance and sell or supply alcohol without having the necessary licenses and insurance required by state law. I don’t agree with that.

So, at the risk of contradicting my own editorial, I guess we need a new definition for the term “private club”. If the “club” is really a front for a private tavern, it needs to have the same licenses and insurance as any other tavern.