GOP Rep: Iraq spin more important than soldiers deaths

Nethercutt hails Iraq's recovery

'It is a better ... story than losing a couple of soldiers every day'

By WYATT BUCHANAN

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

Rep. George Nethercutt said yesterday that Iraq's reconstruction is going better than is portrayed by the news media, citing his recent four-day trip to the country.

"The story of what we've done in the postwar period is remarkable," Nethercutt, R-Wash., told an audience of 65 at a noon meeting at the University of Washington's Daniel J. Evans School of Public Affairs.

"It is a better and more important story than losing a couple of soldiers every day."

He added that he did not want any more soldiers to be killed.

Nethercutt is a member of the House Appropriations Committee that approved President Bush's $87 billion request for military and reconstruction expenses in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Dan Senor, an adviser to U.S. administrator for Iraq L. Paul Bremer, also spoke to the UW audience -- by phone. A traffic accident kept him from catching a plane in Washington, D.C.

Nethercutt and Senor highlighted the return of electricity to Iraq, which now has a higher megawatt output than it did before the war. Reconstruction has targeted schools and hospitals, and the Americans are spending 3,500 percent more on health care than Saddam Hussein did, Senor said.

He said the Iraq effort needs the financial support Bush has asked for from Congress.

"It gives us the tools to finish the job here," Senor said.

Nethercutt said the faster infrastructure rebuilding is completed, the faster the country can take care of itself and the United States can leave.

"So in five years or less, we're out of there," said Nethercutt, who plans to challenge Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., for her seat. "I'm as fiscally conservative as anyone can be ... but I think it is a smart investment for this country to make."

He said he has no doubt that weapons of mass destruction are in Iraq, have been in Iraq or that there was a program there to produce them. Many potential weapons sites are awaiting inspection from Americans, he said.

"That's not an excuse, just a reason. It's not surprising that we haven't found huge supplies of weapons," Nethercutt said, adding that what inspectors are looking for could fit in a space the size of a two-car garage.

During a question-and-answer session, some in the audience questioned the need for the United States to deal with the United Nations.

"I've had my moments where I felt the United Nations was counterproductive to its charter," Nethercutt said.

Aida Kouyoumjian, who grew up and attended school in Baghdad, told Nethercutt she was glad the United States did not rely totally on the U.N. for approval.

Another audience member, Dan Goldhaber, a professor in the public affairs school at the UW, asked Nethercutt for clear criteria for when the United States should get involved in other countries.

Nethercutt said Saddam Hussein provided a good model for threats the nation should confront with its pre-emptive policy. Terrorism attacks that can kill large numbers of people have made pre-emptive action necessary, he said.

"We can't counterpunch anymore," Nethercutt said.

"spin" is exactly what the newspaper has done. this is fully covered on the andrew sullivan website. the congressman has demanded that the newspaper quote his full remarks and not part of the remarks out of context. the newspaper is on a vendetta against the congressman and has done an editorial and political cartoon on the out of context remarks. it is shameful what this newspaper has done. go to:

http://www.andrewsullivan.com

the full story is there.

>"spin" is exactly what the newspaper has done. this is fully

>covered on the andrew sullivan website. the congressman has

>demanded that the newspaper quote his full remarks and not

>part of the remarks out of context.

Yes - what the newspaper did is cut off his sentence in the middle when pretending to quote him. They lopped off the last part of his sentence which completely changed the meaning, and even admitted to this wrongdoing. They totally deceived their readers by lying about the Congressman's statement - and violated every known principle of journalistic ethics by placing a period in the middle of his sentence.

It's the same thing Maureen Dowd did in her column a few months ago when she used an unethical ellipse to cut out part of President Bush's statement on Al Qaeda and made it seem like he said the opposite of what he actually said. These newspapers are willing now to invent things and even change quotes to advance their agenda.

But save your breath complaining about it here. The liberal-worshippers here are crazed beasts, so filled with hatred for George Bush that the truth couldn't matter any less to them.

And besides- everyone knows that liberal papers like the New York Times and others would never do anything wrong, so this all just must be an honest mistake.

"So the story is better than we might be led to believe – I'm – just – indicting the news people – but it's a bigger and better and more important story than losing a couple of soldiers every day which, which, heaven forbid, is awful."

Here's the full quote from Andrew Sullivan's site.

And????????

He still says that the administration's Iraq spin is more important story than soldiers getting killed. Of course, he's quick to qualify that their deaths are awful, but he's still putting the spin ahead of our military. That's disgusting. No wonder Doug/TruthTeller liked it.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20031028/cartoon20031028.gif

i guess if you define "spin" as giving any opinion, then yes, the congressman did "spin" his remarks. so if he did not think that progress was being made, that would be "spin", too. the congressman was in iraq and talked about what he saw; he was giving a first hand report.

to me, "spin" is distorting facts to support an opinion. that is what the newspaper did by purposely half quoting the congressman's remarks to have them appear to support the paper's position. there is no question in my mind that the newspaper not only engaged in clear distortion ("spin" to me) but has continued to mislead it's readers with an editorial and the cartoon printed about.

the real story should be the distortion by the newspaper.

Had the newspaper done something like change it to "The deaths of soldiers in Iraq is unimportant" I'd say yes, there is a story and that Nethercutt was misquoted. In this case, the meaning of the words was the same whether it was Nehercutt's actual words or the way the newspaper presented it. Nethercutt still said that the administration's good news spin was more important than the soldiers deaths.

There is no unethical act severe enough for liberals to criticize if they perceive it as promoting their agenda.

I mean, here's a newspaper CAUGHT lopping off the last part of A Congressman's sentence, and lying to their readers by misquoting the sentence as though it ends in the middle of it- and they say: "Whats' the big deal"?

Same with the Maureen Dowd column where she edited out part of President Bush's sentence to make it seem like he said the opposite of what he said. So, the New York Times - the "paper of record" - lies to its readers about what the President of the United States says by deliberately misquoting him, and they don't care about that either, because, hey, it's only George Bush whose quotes are being distorted, and he's Satan, so why would anyone complain?

Yet again this week the NYT had to publish a "correction" because, in a story on the disorder in Iraq's infrastructued, they printed a "news article" in which they created the false impression that the destruction of Iraq's infrastructure was due to the US invasion. As the correction pointed out - and as anyone with a working brain knows - the vast majority of the disorder is due to 30 years of Saddam Hussein's theft of the country's resources, not the invasion.

But that won't matter to these ideologues either. No lie is so big that it isn't just fine with them as long as the target is Bush.

i am sure you meant to say that no lie is too big for Bush. he is after all the king of lying presidents.

10. "I have been very candid about my past."

9. "I’m a uniter not a divider."

8. "My [tax] plan unlocks the door to the middle class of millions of hard-working Americans."

7. "This allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem cell research."

6. "We must uncover every detail and learn every lesson of September the 11th."

5. "[We are] taking every possible step to protect our country from danger."

4. "I first got to know Ken [Lay in 1994]."

3. "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." And, "[saddam Hussein is] a threat because he is dealing with al Qaeda."

2. "We found the weapons of mass destruction."

1. "It’s time to restore honor and dignity to the White House."

http://www.bushlies.com

And of course, there's Bush's latest lies from his press conference this week:

During a White House press conference--in which Bush argues that his adminsitration is making progress in Iraq despite the escalating violence in Baghdad--he makes several false or misleading statements.

* When he is asked about the large "Mission Accomplished" banner that hung on the USS Abraham Lincoln during his triumphant May 1 speech aboard the aircraft carrier, Bush suggests the crew of the ship--not White House staff--had been responsible for the sign's appearance. Subsequent news reports disclose the banner was produced by the White House.

* When a reporter notes that a recent donors' conference only produced $13 billion in pledges for reconstruction in Iraq--leaving a $23 billion shortfall--Bush says, "Iraqi oil revenues...coupled with private investments should make up the difference." Yet L. Paul Bremer, the head of the U.S. occupation authority in Iraq, has said that in the near-term oil industry revenues will cover only the industry's own costs. That is, there will be no oil revenues available to pay for reconstruction.

* Bush says of the war, "We took action based upon good, solid intelligence." To date, the House intelligence committee (which is led by a Republican), the GOP chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, chief WMD hunter David Kay, and Richard Kerr, a former deputy CIA chief, have each said that their reviews of the prewar intelligence on Iraq's WMDs and the supposed connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda showed that the prewar intelligence was circumstantial, inferential, fragmentary, and full of uncertainties. They have not pronounced the prewar intelligence either "good" or "solid."

* Bush claims, "I was the first president ever to have advocated a Palestinian state." On January 7, 2001, President Bill Clinton said, "There can be no genuine resolution to the [Middle East] conflict without a sovereign, viable Palestinian state that accomodates Israel's security requirements and demographic realities."

http://www.bushlies.com/newlies.php

But that won't matter to these ideologues either. No lie is so big that it isn't just fine with them as long as the originator is Bush.

I know Bush lies, idiot. I've said so 100 times. As Oren pointed out, no matter how many times it's said, your minute brain can't process it, becasue you think like a Stalinist: one either spouts your party line and is a Comrade, or one doesn't and is an enemy.

The Bush White House lies about as much as you do and the New York Times does and the standard liberal media outlets do - which is to say a lot.

Responding to documentation that liberal media outlets fabricate quotes by saying "Bush lies" is a complete drooling nonsequitor.

However what your pin size brain can't seem to comprehend is that the Seattle post Intelligencer didn't change the meaning of what Nethercutt said. It's the typical "I was misquoted" bullshit that people who get caught saying stupid things use to try and make themselves look less stupid.

Whether they changed the meaning or not, it is misreporting if you do not quote the whole thing or use ellipsis to indicate that you have not used the whole thing. It is bad journalism and it is misreporting. If someone did this to one of your gurus you would be all up in arms. Since it was not done to one of yours then it just did not change the meaning (without the whole statement how can you as a reader know whether the meaning was changed or not - the Times with Krugman, Herbert, Dowd, Rich change the meaning and think nothing of it). You really don't understand integrity in journalism at all, do you. I can say that Fox News when it slanted the news did not really change the meaning and I would be just as accurate as you are in your posting on this subject.

Well, we did get the complete quote, and the meaning was still the same. According to nethercutt, the Administration's spin is more important than the deaths of our soldiers. SPI should have quoted him correctly the first time so that their gaffe wouldn't overshadow his. His comments are still disgusting and beneath contempt. Our soldiers are over there putting their lives on the line for the Iraqi people and the Halliburton Corporation. Our troops are the one part of the Iraquagmire I have no beef with. Maybe it's about time Republicans started caring more about people and less about money and relection.

You really don't understand that changing someone's words by cutting off the quote in the middle and not indicating that there was more to the sentence than you quoted makes it invalid? In your opinion if you think that what was written even though it was not the whole quote, was chopped out without indicating that there was more to the sentence, amounted to meaning the same thing based on YOUR interpretation of what the original person said makes it OK to do this just does not cut it. I know you are trying to get to your actual point which is you think the GOP doesn't care for people but the points you are making on the way just are not valid!! You are saying that if you think the quotes are equivalent, then the quotes are equivalent. No one else gets a look-in to see if they agree or not.

>You really don't understand that changing someone's words by

>cutting off the quote in the middle and not indicating that

>there was more to the sentence than you quoted makes it

>invalid?

It's seriously fucking amazing, isn't it? So many of them think that ANY tactic - no matter how blatantly unethical, deceitful, or just plain wrong - is acceptable if it's used to attack and destroy their political enemies, i.e., Republicans. No matter how many times you make what ought to be the self-evident point -- that it's inexcusable for a newspaper to distort and falsify quotes -- BoN and similar comrades will never admit it's wrong, because the target was a Republican and a Republican policy. That, by itself, makes it right to them. Same with this CBS Movie, the distortions of Maureen Dowd, etc. etc.

It's pure Stalinism -- the party line is all that matters, and no tactic in service of the ideology can possibly be criticized. They are so consumed with hatred for George Bush -- they hate him more than Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il combined -- that they will actually endore any strategy, no matter how repulsive and dishonest, if they think it will lead to his defeat.

Over the last 12 months, I have actually gone from admiring this Administration to believing that its defeat is warranted and necessary. What is so disturbing is that after spending time here - and being exposed to the truly tyrannical, dishonest and obsessive extremism of the liberals here - one begins to think: "THIS is the alternative?", and the Bush Administration, by comparision, begins to look better and better.

I think that's what will happen to the Democrats in the campaign if the BoN ideologues are not hidden - people will be reminded again of what liberals really are - be reminded of all the reasons they have been spat out as unacceptable - be reminded of how extreme and authoritarian and intolerant and dishonest the hard-core liberals are - and those who were flirting with the idea of abandoning the Repubplicans due to their extremism will realize that the alternative, as hard as it is to believe, is actually worse.

>It's seriously fucking amazing, isn't it? So many of them

>think that ANY tactic - no matter how blatantly unethical,

>deceitful, or just plain wrong - is acceptable if it's used to

>attack and destroy their political enemies, i.e., Republicans.

> No matter how many times you make what ought to be the

>self-evident point -- that it's inexcusable for a newspaper to

>distort and falsify quotes -- BoN and similar comrades will

>never admit it's wrong, because the target was a Republican

>and a Republican policy. That, by itself, makes it right to

>them. Same with this CBS Movie, the distortions of Maureen

>Dowd, etc. etc.

I agree the the SPI did not properly quote Nethercutt. If, when the full quote was revealed, the meaning of what Nethercutt had been accused of sayinghad changed, I would agree with you. The meaning didn't change. It was the same. Shame on the SPI for doing that because all they ahd to do was run with Nethercutt's actual statement and there would be no legitimate call for misquoting.

>It's pure Stalinism -- the party line is all that matters, and

>no tactic in service of the ideology can possibly be

>criticized. They are so consumed with hatred for George Bush

>-- they hate him more than Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and

>Kim Jong Il combined -- that they will actually endore any

>strategy, no matter how repulsive and dishonest, if they think

>it will lead to his defeat.

Of course, the Repiglicans don't do that, do they? I mean, demonizing a group of people by saying they hate world dictators more than George Bush. The GOP party line is any criticsm at all of the President is aiding and abetting terrorism. How's that for a partty line for you? Stalinism indeed.

>Over the last 12 months, I have actually gone from admiring

>this Administration to believing that its defeat is warranted

>and necessary. What is so disturbing is that after spending

>time here - and being exposed to the truly tyrannical,

>dishonest and obsessive extremism of the liberals here - one

>begins to think: "THIS is the alternative?", and the Bush

>Administration, by comparision, begins to look better and

>better.

Perhaps if you weren't such a mouthpiece for the MisAdministration, you wouldn't get repsonses you don't like. Much like Faux News, you pretend to be Fair and Balanced, but you've been nothing but a shill for the GOP.

>I think that's what will happen to the Democrats in the

>campaign if the BoN ideologues are not hidden - people will be

>reminded again of what liberals really are - be reminded of

>all the reasons they have been spat out as unacceptable - be

>reminded of how extreme and authoritarian and intolerant and

>dishonest the hard-core liberals are - and those who were

>flirting with the idea of abandoning the Repubplicans due to

>their extremism will realize that the alternative, as hard as

>it is to believe, is actually worse.

Authoritarian? Intolerant? Dishonest? http://www.bushlies.com

RE: GOP Rep: Iraq spin more important than soldiers dea...

>What is so disturbing is that after spending

>time here - and being exposed to the truly tyrannical,

>dishonest and obsessive extremism of the liberals here - one

>begins to think: "THIS is the alternative?", and the Bush

>Administration, by comparision, begins to look better and

>better.

So...your choice next November will be between voting for the Bush administration and voting for the liberal posters on HooBoy's message center?