I guess there's just no pleasing them.
Take a look at the lineup of the seven Miami men ("Emerging threat calls U.S. home," June 24) charged with -- what? Being terrorists? Fomenting terrorism? [They look like] a gaggle of sad sacks.
Our government, in its wisdom, spends our taxpayer dollars to infiltrate cells of disaffected losers and then claims to uncover evil in our midst. These guys look as though they could use jobs paying $12 an hour, with health insurance and two weeks' paid vacation. Instead, prosecutors will spend millions to try them, hoping to see them sentenced to 15 or 20 years in prison for thinking bad thoughts.
Does anyone seriously think these guys represent anything except the underbelly of a sick body politic? When the emperor wears no clothes, this is his idea of a major achievement.
JUDY MELLOW, North Portland
What's the difference between al-Qaida and the people arrested in Miami for terrorist intentions? From the perspective of Bush administration public relations about the "war on terror," none.
From the perspective of physical danger to us, much. In lieu of capturing Osama bin Laden and his chief [followers,] President Bush resorted to having the FBI entrap a few impoverished, angry men [who had] grand visions of nihilist notoriety.
Portraying this motley crew in Miami as a serious threat that would have developed without the FBI's "assistance" strains credulity.
Gambits like this undermine the excuses for domestic spying, secret programs and violations of our constitutional rights that they are intended to reinforce. The Bush administration seems much better at violating our Constitution than it is at capturing or killing real terrorists.
TOM SHILLOCK, Northeast Portland
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Fun with O's Letters to the Editor
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
30 comments:
and listen to the lefties scream and whine that, "Bush knew and did nothing to save us" when the next attack succeeds.....sheesh.
Maybe, next attack, the New York Slimes can cry about how much they knew and printed beforehand.
For anyone who missed it, the Murtha thing WAS a misquote!
The newspaper that quoted Murtha is now issuing a correction, stating the following:
"Correction: An article in Sunday's editions misinterpreted a comment from U.S. Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., at a town hall meeting in North Miami on Saturday. In his speech, Murtha said U.S. credibility was suffering because of continued U.S. military presence in Iraq ,and the perception that the U.S. is an occupying force. Murtha was citing a recent poll, by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, that indicates a greater percentage of people in 10 of 14 foreign countries consider the U.S. in Iraq a greater danger to world peace than any threats posed by Iran or North Korea."
Who wants to be the first to apologize to Sen. Murtha? Anyone?
Kind of slow with that, aren't you? Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back, though. The Sentinel is a notoriously left leaning paper and editors issuing this "correction" is to be expected.
Like I've already said, whenever you lefty's are caught in the usual gaffes, it's always a case of, "misquoted," "out of context," or "misinterpreted." Same old nonsense.
Now, since quotes are no big deal, when do you all admit your outrage for the past 3 years over the 16 words quoted by Bush in the SOTU address in 2003 was just a spin?
Just love the double standard and hypocrisy.
Yet the "left leaning" Sentinenal was useful for your nefarious purposes, at least for a while. You got caught, plain and simple and should be mightily ashamed. But no, you try to spin. The next attempted Murtha smear will be much more difficult. This episode has been one of enlightenment as to the tactics of the right and this blog. Thank you.
Kind of slow?
The correction is dated 6/28/06, which was yesterday. Am I now expected to break into your regularly scheduled broadcasts with urgent updates? I'm not on the internet 24/7 trying to prove anyone wrong. I posted it when I found it in an attempt to enlighten those who may not have found out about it.
I'd ask you to prove that the Sentinel is "notoriously left leaning", but ... anyway.
And, in this case, Senator Murtha *WAS* misquoted. This is beyond him *claiming* he was misquoted. There's an admission -- PROOF -- that he was misquoted.
It's important, Lew. Actual facts and honest representation of the facts are important.
knowhowtospell, it was available on the 27th, that's when I saved it. I was waiting to see how long you all would take to try to gloat over absolutely nothing. As I said, as left leaning as the Sentinel is, anyone with an ounce of brains should have known the "correction" was soon coming.
Funny thing is, though, even in the "correction," Murtha admits he actually said those words, just nuances, as usual, that they were "taken out of context." Usual lefty tactic when caught with their pants down.
I have yet to see a lefty stand by their words when they find out they outraged people. It's always, "Out of Context," "Misinterpreted," or "Misquoted." Yet, where are the apologies over the left's slamming Bush for the past 3 years over his quote of 16 words from British Intelligence included in the 2003 SOTU speech?
Odd how you all can condemn unmercifully those 16 words and Bush, yet, excuse a curmudgeon as Murtha over quoting others in support of his view (as he basically admitted doing).
Next will be a doctored transcript to make it look as if he didn't use them at all.
He said it, was caught outraging people, was exposed and as usual, whines being taken out of context and the useful idiots on the left fall for it, again.
Nice double standard reeking of hypocrisy, boys.
Since when is standing up to a lie, proving the lie, and making a record with the newspaper's correction gloating?
Unfortuately, for Lew there were also other reporters there when Murtha spoke that confirmed that Murtha did not say what the Sentinenal said he said. No wonder Lew sat on the retraction. Lew should be physically exhausted from all his back-pedalling
You keep mentioning those 16 words. They aren't part of this discussion. They are a separate issue. With the exception of the first line of this paragraph, I have not mentioned them at all. They are absolutely irrelevant to this discussion.
I am talking about what Senator Murtha said, and that's all.
Smoke and mirrors, genius. That's all you've got. Bait and switch.
You're the kind of guy who could step in a giant puddle and say it hasn't rained.
And we on the left are accused of being "Kool Aid drinkers." It's amazing.
Just amazing.
You said you'd give me $50 if the quote was proven to be incorrect, so please let me know when you're ready to pay up.
I posted this in the other Murtha thread, too"
**************
Here's an example, for those who don't fully grasp what is going on here.
If Victoria reads a message from a neo-Nazi and says:
"So this clown is at a pro-white rally and told the other attendees that 'all niggers should die', which is outrageous, offensive, and horrible ..."
I cannot turn around and say, "Victoria taft said that all niggers should die" -- despite the fact that those were literally the words that came out of her mouth. She said them, context be damned!
She was simply stating what someone else had said, and I cannot hold her accountable for those words, because her intent was not to attribute those words to herself.
Same thing here, guys. Murtha quoted a poll; he didn't claim those beliefs were his own.
Get it?
Dang...even the 16 words were CORRECT!
You all sure expend a lot of verbiage to show your hypocrisy and double standard.
That you can excuse Murthas use of his quote and condemn Bush for quoting 16 words from the British 3 years ago shows me how wrong the left is.
inknowhowtospell, the 16 words are very much a part of things, when you take the blinders of the left off. Plese xplain how you condemn one and excuse the other, when it is your party continually saying how they are "taken out of context" and "misinterpreted."
Do you have anyone on the left that will stand by what they have said?
And Lew, you sure sure expend a lot of verbiage dancing around the issue and trying to change the subject.
Unfortuately, for Lew there were also other reporters there when Murtha spoke that confirmed that Murtha did not say what the Sentinenal said he said.
Really? From Murtha's own site;
“I was recently misquoted following a speech I gave at a Veterans forum at the Florida International University Biscayne Campus on June 24, 2006. During the speech, I made a point that our international credibility was suffering, particularly due to our continued military presence in Iraq and that we were perceived as an occupying force. For illustrative purposes, I provided the example of a recent Pew Poll which indicates a greater percentage of people in 10 of 14 foreign countries consider the U.S. in Iraq a danger to world peace than consider Iran or North Korea a danger to world peace."
Nuance the words all you wish, he admitted himself that he said it!! He just claims he provided it as an illustrative statement.
Now, when do you admit the left's bias and politicizing of Bush's quote of 16 words 3 years ago?
Hypocrisy at it's highest.
iknowhowtospell, I mention Bush's 16 words to show the world the depth of liberal hypocrisy.
That you all can condemn his 16 word quote for 3 years then turn around and justify and deny Murtha's similar quote as innocent and not said is typical and is there for all to see.
Say what you wish, nuance all you wish, the left's double standard and hypocrisy is more prevelant than ever.
I swear to god, it's like speaking to an infant. My goodness.
Here it is, broken down into smaller bite sized pieces for you.
A. "I made a point that our international credibility was suffering"
Yes, he made a point. Nice job on highlighting the "I made a point" part. It's important, because this is what HE said.
Now, let's move on to:
B. "I provided the example of a recent Pew Poll which indicates a greater percentage of people in 10 of 14 foreign countries consider the U.S. in Iraq a danger to world peace than consider Iran or North Korea a danger to world peace."
You highlight "provided". Provided does not mean "say as a matter of my own opinion."
What you SHOULD have highlighted as the most important part of the sentence is "people in 10 of 14 foreigh countries" -- because THESE are the people who are saying the US is the bigger danger, not Murtha himself.
Murtha is quoting others to give an example.
Did you not comprehend my example about using a horrible quote about racism above and separating the person who says the words from the person who attributes those words to someone else?
If you say, "I like cream cheese", and then I say, "Lew says 'I like cream cheese'". it does not mean that I like cream cheese. You said it, I repeated what you said. You like it, not me.
By your rules, and using your words, I could claim that you said the following:
"Bush's ... words ... show the world ... that ... his ... double standard and hypocrisy is more prevelant than ever."
It's not what you said, is it?
But those are your words, aren't they? In the order you used them?
You have to start to understand the importance of context. Perhaps you don't understand the definition of the word. Maybe you're just yanking my chain and fooling around with me. Maybe you have a learning disability. I don't know.
Context: "discourse that surrounds a language unit and helps to determine its interpretation"
Like I keep saying, nuance. Please explain how he "made a point" and "provided an example" in a spoken speech without speaking those words.
Bray all you want, deny all you want, he admitted speaking those words. Obviously, just like Bush did with his 16 words, they were spoken in support of their view.
Yes, Murtha was "quoting others," but so was Bush. That didn't stop the left from haranguing for what he said, not what he quoted, for the past 3 years. And now, you defend Murtha trying to make it appear as if he somehow made his point and provided an example in a spoken speech with speaking the words.
This is very typical hypocrisy from the left when one of their own is caught with their pants down. The reporter did not create or chop his words to make it appear as if he said something else, she quoted his quote, which he admitted in nuance that he had to have spoken.
I'm sure glad I graduated school before this new type of education set in.
The more you defend this while your side continues to condemn others for their quotes just shows the hypocrisy of the left all the more. If this is an example of todays higher education, the country is in real trouble. But, after "it all depends on whatthe meaning of the word is is" we should all know that.
Keep braying at the moon. Sooner or later, you will nuance that to it really is made out of swiss cheese.
AAAAAGH!
OK, this is just a ridiculous battle of semantics. I get it now.
You have no winning hand, so your endgame is to try to use circular logic.
Yes, Murtha said the words, but they were words he was quoting from someone else. What about this is so difficult to understand? How do you not understand that when quoting from somone else, you are merely duplicating words but not necessarily intent or personal feelings?
I gave examples using racism and cream cheese, assuming you'd be able to figure out one or the other. Apparently, I was naive.
How do you not get this? How do you feed and dress yourself every morning? What color is the sky in your world?
Victoria? Do you feel the way he does on this (that by quoting someone else, Murtha automatically agrees with it), or do you think that Lew is not understanding what I'm saying?
And "understanding what I'm saying" does NOT imply that you agree with my views, Murtha's views, or anyone's but your own. Simply, is my point too difficult to understand?
Do I need to simplify it further?
Do any of Victoria's conservative listeners get my point at all? Saying yes does not concede defeat on this issue -- it just means that you understand my argument, because I can't figure out how to enlighten Lew here (not make him agree, necessarily -- just get where I'm coming from).
Because he doesn't get it, and I want to know how I can help him expand his horizon a bit.
LOL, iknow, just can't bring yourself to see the obvious. I don't need my horizons expanded, son, I've been on your side of the fence a long time ago and abandoned it as unrealistic.
You refuse to see the hypocritical stance your side takes in this, after condemning any quotes used by those you disagree with.
Ya'll always have to have it both ways, so long as you feel right. Reality will set in one day and you just may find yourself feeling awfully foolish.
The poll Murtha quoted was an OPINION poll, used to demonstrate an example of how others viewed the US and some of its current policies.
Bush's "16 words" were not opinion, but rather were presented as fact in order to press the case for war and place US troops in harm's way.
Apples and oranges.
Nice try, iknow, but no cigar. Even in the SOTU speech everyone condemns, Bush's exact words were, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Oddly enough and much to the left's chagrin, the British stand by their report Bush quoted. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence largely discredited Joe Wilsons claims about Iraq not seeking uraniaum.
So, Bush stated a quote and credited the source.
Murtha, on the other hand, quoted a poll to support his view of America being hated so much. Did he actually credit it as a "pew opinion poll?" Did he state who was asked? Did he speak any qualifiers at all about this poll? With no transcript of the actual speech, who knows?
Still, there is transcripts and audio and video of him accussing Marines of committing "COLD BLOODED MURDER" before any investigations were finished.
Personally, I'd be willing to bet that he did not credit the quote as a poll at that moment. I could be wrong, but my money would be he just stated it outright and when it came back to bite him, he pulled the tired old lefty, "I was misquoted," "Misinterpreted," "Taken out of context" feint.
But, my real point is that there really isn't much difference between the two useages of the quotes by either. The real difference is the blind defense of Murtha and the outright condemnation of Bush.
Apples and oranges? Not hardly.
"The real difference is the blind defense of Murtha and the outright condemnation of Bush."
Lew, switch the names, and the exact same statement could easily apply to you.
Maybe in your world, iknow, but not in the real world.
Bush has yet to claim he was "misquoted," Misinterpreted," or "taken out of context."
That is a big difference.
This is just too funny!!!!!
As we all know, Senator Biden, 2008 Democrat Presidential Hopeful, recently committed a small gaffe when he stated, "In Delaware, the largest growth in population is Indian-Americans moving from India. You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I'm not joking."
Of course, this raised a few eyebrows and Senator Biden has now issued a defense of his words.
Any guess as to what he says?
"The Delaware senator said his words were taken out of context."
Like I said, too funny. We can't make this stuff up!!!!
Biden Defends Remarks
Here -- and I want you to remember this, because it's proof that liberals are not *all* part of some collective mindset -- I agree with you.
Biden does appear to be backpedalling, and his statements were foolish and embarassing (both his original statements and his follow-up).
While I will keep defending Senator Murtha and his statements, I will not do the same for Biden, who, if I remember correctly, had to drop out of a presidential campaign several elections ago due to accusations of plagiarism.
He is not a good Democrat. Not my kind of Democrat, at least. (Not to be confused with liberals, for the record -- though I am definitely a liberal, there are many Democrats with whom I take issue, and I am a registered independent.)
Biden should be ashamed of himself.
iknow, believe it or not, I can understand your devotion and defense of Murtha. However, that doesn't change the facts.
Try this editorial and maybe you'll see what I mean.
The Washington Times Editorial, Nobles and Knaves
First of all, I have not seen the video that this editorial mentions, so I cannot refute or support their assertion that his meaning is "clearer" or not from watching it.
However, from that link:
"They think it's more, uh, we're more dangerous to world peace than North Korea or Iran."
Again, further proof that he was quoting others and NOT SPEAKING HIS OWN OPINION.
How do you not understand this?
The sentence from this link about using these opinions if he disagreed with them is nonsense. This is, in itself, an opinion. It's like asking, "why would you mention that doctors think smoking causes cancer if YOU don't think it does?" Makes no sense. It is utter nonsense.
iknow, I too would love to see and hear the video. However, your assertion to his "They think" comment ties right back into Bush's 16 words.
Murtha said, "They Think," so he is entitled to a pass, as he is merely quoting.
Bush said, "The British Government has learned."
Let's see, "they think," compared to "the British government has learned." Other than three extra words, I don't see much difference, other than the second to last sentence in the article.
"Mr. Murtha should have the courage to stand behind his words."
My entire point is not so much the words of either, it is who stood behind his words and who weasled out of them.
That, my friend, shows a defintie double standard.
"The British government has learned earned" implies FACT.
"They think ..." implies OPINION.
You're wrong. And Murtha's words were none that he has had to "weasel out of".
Either you know you're wrong but are afraid to admit it (I've been wrong many times and am not ashamed to own up to it), or you're too blind to see the clear facts in front of you because you're so loyal to this administration that you believe everything the talking head righties (Hannity, Malkin, etc.) want you to believe. These are the horizons I tell you that you need to expand. If they tell you the sky is brown, don't believe them if you know in your heart it is blue.
iknow, I am neither of what you wish to claim. It is not I that am blind to the facts. Murtha did indeed "weasel" out of the statement as he presented it in the usual "I was misquoted," "misinterpreted," and "taken out of context" nonsense we so often here.
He did not state it was a quote from a Pew Poll until he expoded in his face, some 3 days later. Many from the left claimed he never said it all, but then changed to he was just quoting.
Given his previous gaffes and his latest after this one, it must be blind allegiance to give him any credibility at all.
His latest? In an interview quoted in the Johnstown Tribune-Democrat, Murtha has attacked his opponent, Diana Irey. According to the article, “Murtha said he is concerned about Irey’s motivation for running against him, considering her husband, Robert, is CEO of a Canonsburg-based firm that secured a $300 million contract with the Iraqi government two years ago.“I worry about that,” he said. “If they’re benefiting from this war, and if this is the reason she’s in this, it really bothers me. I don’t like that.”
Who would really be benefiting from the war?
In an article from the publication, “The Hill,” Jack Murtha is identified as “the No. 1 beneficiary of defense campaign donations in the House … and has not fallen below No. 3 for Congress as a whole” for the past 3 years!
As for his opponents husbands business, Ms. Irey responded on her web site, “For the record: My husband, Robert Irey, is a partner in a firm that once had a subcontract with the Iraqi Government, jointly administered by the U.S. Department of Defense, to help the new democratic Government of Iraq take over the burden of defending itself by refurbishing equipment and material destroyed or damaged by the war. Had that contract been fulfilled, it would have allowed the Iraqi Government to take over more of the burden of defending itself sooner – which would have had the result of making possible a withdrawal of U.S. troops sooner than they would otherwise have been able to come home.”
“But that contract was terminated more than a year and a half ago, when one of Bob’s partners and one of their employees were murdered in Iraq - a fact reported at the time by both the Los Angeles Times and The Associated Press, and, therefore, presumably known to Jack Murtha.”
She goes on to say that other than one $10,000 down payment, her husband’s firm has not received a dime of the $1.6 million owed.
Claim what you wish, Murtha has lost any credibility he may have once had and is not only an embarrassment to the Marines, he is an embarrassment to the Democrat Party (the old Democrats, not the John Dean type) and the people of Pennsylvania.
Post a Comment