Ted Re..Please.........your point was that Sen. Murray's loyalty to the US is somehow in question because she praised one aspect of OBL's MO.
Once again, here is the post you are referring to. Please point out where I said she was unpatriotic, or even hinted at that.
To:tejek who wrote (156582)
From: hmaly Saturday, Dec 21, 2002 8:18 AM
View Replies (2) | Respond to of 156859
Ted rE....She's right. Its too bad, Fudd, your unable to see the implications of what the Senator is saying but instead have to put her down because she isn't politically correct by your standards
Here is what she said.
"We haven't done that," Murray said. "How would they look at us today if we had been there helping them with some of that rather than just being the people who are going to bomb in Iraq and go to Afghanistan?"
She is flat out wrong. The US is the biggest giver of aid to Afghanistan, and has been long before the war. How many children would there be left, for those alledged schools, if the US didn't bring in food aid. Why not point out that the US also brings in aid, but different types. Isn't it quite possible the difference is how you give something. The US gives money to different aid organizations, such as charities and food banks, who then use the money to buy needed items. Thus the people connect the food with those charities, rather than the US; while OBL goes around personally sometimes and make a big deal about the pittance he gives them.. Sort of like some of the drug dealers did in Harlem so no one reported them to the police. And many of the Arab charitiies are run by OBL so he can skim off money to buy arms. Say, for every $1000 given to the charity, $200 might go to buying aid, and the rest for expenses and buying arms. OBL, just as many charities here do, have a big reason to advertize about their good deeds, so they can get even more donations and OBL can fund more arms. The fact that this woman is too dense to know these things is the problem. She is praising OBL use of charities to fund arms as a good thing for the people of Afghanistan; when in fact it was that type of funding which allowed OBL to destroy TWC, which led to Afghanistan being partially destroyed
Can't find it? Neither can I.
We were talking about connections to al Qaeda, not WMD.
Yes we were in that sentence. And I hope you will note that I said WMD when I was talking about Lieberman and Murray. The connection. I have heard those same allegations about GW's claims about Saddam's WMD, that because we haven't officially seen the evidence yet, that means it doesn't exist. Well, both Lieberman, and Murray (Murray in on the foreign affairs committee) have seen some of the classified documents, and both have said they believe Saddam has them. Now GW has hinted of possible proof of Iraqi involvement with Al Qaeda. Just like the WMD, just because GW hasn't shown you personally the evidence doesn't necessarily mean he doesn't have it.
I swear........conservatives must think they are visionaries. No one, including Sen. Murray, disputes the fact that Saddam is an evil pain in the butt. The issue is whether we can accomplish the dismantling of his WMD with or without having to go to war.
While that is a fine issue, we weren't discussing that issue in my answer. Here is the first paragraph of your post.
However, she did not think military action was necessary at this time and voted against the Iraq resolution. Once again, like many of her constituents, she believes we should be putting our efforts into capturing al Qaeda.
Where on earth in that statement are we discussing Saddam's WMD there. You stated that Murray thought finding Al Qaeda was our top priority. I posted her Iraq war resolution speech, and in there she said flat out, no question, that disarming Saddam's WMD a is America's top priority; not finding Al Qaeda operatives as you are claiming.
The litmus test for determining whether free speech is applicable or not has to do with the issue of endangerment; hence, screaming "fire" in a crowded theater is not considered a reasonable exercise of freedom of speech. However, praising OBL's charity work does not fall into that category
Just how sure are you, that her little speech there won't endanger her job come next election.
I think she twisted the facts to suit her purposes. I didn't say she was unpatriotic.
She didn't twist anything; you are twisting her words in an effort to make her look bad.
Once again, I have posted my original reply up above. Please let me know what part I intentionally twisted and how.
Damn, give me a break..........this wasn't a re-election speech. These kids won't be able to vote for another 5 years!!
All the more reason for her to stay on topic; and not twist facts to bolster her antiwar position. |
