Bloggers have caught a politician saying one thing in a speech, while carrying a very different rendering of a critical passage at a supposed "transcript" of that speech.
The difference is significant.
The transcript whitewashes a slander on the performance of US troops in Iraq delivered by a United States senator.
Specifically, New York's Charles Schumer gave a made a speech on the floor of the Senate last week ascribing the turnaround in the Anbar province in Iraq to the locals, and discrediting the notion that American troops could have had anything to do with it.
Here is the relevant portion of Armchair General Schumer's speech you will hear at the YouTube video:
And let me be clear. The violence in Anbar has gone down in spite of the Surge, not because of the Surge.
The inability of American soldiers to protect these tribes from Al Qaeda said to these tribes, "We have to fight Al Qaeda ourselves."
However, that section of the "transcript" of Schumer's speech posted at his Senate web site (a backup screen cap, in case the transcript gets revised at a future date, is here) reads thusly:
And let me be clear: the violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge.
The lack of protection for these tribes from al Qaeda made it clear to these tribes, "We have to fight al Qaeda ourselves."
Sweetness & Light appears to have been the first to catch the discrepancy. Allah at Hot Air and Mark at Weapons of Mass Discussion, where I first learned of it, have also weighed in on this.
Mr. Schumer will say anything to try to bring about America’s defeat in Iraq and in the war on terror in general. For the Senator is also a traitor.
But, it turns out, Chuck Schumer is not only a liar and a traitor, he is a coward as well.
Four days after Schumer's speech, it's very clear that Old Media could care less about the senator's speech, never mind the "transcript" sleight-of-hand:
- A New York Times search on "Schumer" (may require free registration) shows that the "All the News That's Fit to Print" paper didn't even cover the speech by the Empire State's senior senator.
- A Washington Post search on "Schumer Iraq" (not in quotes; requires free registration) also has no coverage.
- A Google News search on "Schumer Iraq" (not in quotes) has articles about Schumer's speech at places like Investors Business Daily, and Men's News Daily. Neither report noted the transcript disparity. More important, the search results show that the speech itself, let alone the "transcript" disparity, were of no interest to the wire services or Old Media outlets.
Many New York voters would certainly take umbrage at Schumer's characterization of our troops as "unable" -- if they knew.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
—Tom Blumer is president of a training and development company in Mason, Ohio, and is a contributing editor to NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
It's scum like Chuckie
September 9, 2007 - 23:21 ET by BlazerIt's scum like Chuckie Schumer, Harry Reid, and Jack Murtha to name a few that make me yearn for the time when traitors like these Dhimmicrats would've taken a few nice, cozy seats next to the Rosenbergs.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
Bush as Senator Palpatine!
September 10, 2007 - 00:09 ET by nofateBlazer: Speaking of "scum and villainy", I just caught a special the other night on the revisionist History Channel about one of my favorites, Star Wars, entitled Star Wars: The Legacy Revealed. So there I sit, munching popcorn, drinking a soda, enjoying the show, when they cut to Senator Palpatine speaking to the senate, and being granted the power that led to him becoming Emperor. Classic play on the Caesar motif that ended the Roman Republic. So far, good story, plausible metaphor. The screen then cuts to a shot of George Bush and his speech that drew up sides in the WOT. I nearly choked! The libs are at it again. StarWars.com has this to say about that part of the special:
But that's not the whole picture because they left out the comparison to Senator Palpatine. Gimme a break! As Obie Wan said: "We must be cautious".
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
On the ground reports from a man walking with the troops in Iraq:
http://www.michaelyon-online.com
I take Star Wars as just
September 10, 2007 - 00:39 ET by BlazerI take Star Wars as just a classic G vs. E story. Being it came out thirty years ago, I imagined at the time it was a metaphor that the U.S., and it's allies were the Rebel Alliance, and that the empire was the Communist bloc. Even Reagan made good use of Star Wars analogies naming his SDI after it, and coining Russia the "evil empire".
One could go back along written history, and compare this movie to past events.
Other than that Star Wars is just a story, albeit a damn good one.
At least episodes IV through VI were, imho.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
"Even Reagan made good use
September 10, 2007 - 01:04 ET by robert108"Even Reagan made good use of Star Wars analogies naming his SDI after it..."
I think it was the leftie media types who called SDI "Star Wars", in order to make it sound far-fetched and impractical. Of course, it brought down the Soviet Union...
I believe you're right on
September 10, 2007 - 05:38 ET by motherbeltI believe you're right on that, robert..it was an attempt to make it sound like a "space-age weapon" (hence the word "wars" in the title) instead of the defensive mechanism that it was.
As for Schumer's speech, thank heaven for YouTube!! Why politicians think they can get away with editing their past remarks after the fact, is beyond me. I wonder how long it will be before the YouTube sites says "That video is no longer available." I think we should download it and save it!
"Not only are ye a cheat, ye're a gutless cheat as well." -Doyle Lonergan in "The Sting".
SDI/Star Wars
September 10, 2007 - 07:26 ET by misterbee241It was the illustrous Senator from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy that gave the disparaging name Star Wars to SDI.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={EE557707-6970-466B-9845-0A6D8F7BA373}
Other than that Star Wars
September 10, 2007 - 01:34 ET by nofateOther than that Star Wars is just a story, albeit a damn good one. At least episodes IV through VI were, imho.
Absolutely, and I was enjoying that special, because while not a nut about it, I have always loved the star wars G vs. E story. Episodes I - III were such a letdown, especially I & II. I was looking forward to them, but found them dissapointing as movies.
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
Your best bet for on the ground Iraq reports:
http://www.michaelyon-online.com
As stated, author Carl
September 10, 2007 - 09:10 ET by BuxomAnnieMcGreggorAs stated, author Carl Silvio must be a profound ignoramous. To imply
that it is "almost impossible" not to hear Bush's famous quote... and
suggest that this qualifies as "prophetic" is disingenuous at best. The
script was written AFTER Bush made his speach. Silvio is either
forgetting this part, doesn't know the real meaning of the word
"prophetic", thinks the public is ignorant, is himself an ignoramous in
colassal proportion, sleeps with his ex-wife's dog and has contracted
"K-9 Siphylus", all of the above.
I'm afraid the Force is weak with this one.
Reverse Prophecy
September 10, 2007 - 11:27 ET by nofate"The script was written AFTER Bush made his speach "
B. A. McG: What a great point! I never thought of that until you pointed it out. But if he's sleeping with his ex-wife's dog, she needs to call Caesar Millan: shht-shht. I feel sorry for that poor dog.
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
http://www.michaelyon-online.com
Media Bias by Ommision
September 9, 2007 - 23:32 ET by nofateTom: finally. I have been looking, as you did, all over the antique media sites and found nothing about this. I first heard about it on Laura Ingraham's show on Wednesday, I think, and then on Rush later that day or the next. I'm glad this finally got on to YouTube so that all can see and hear the traitor in the raw. He is a disgrace, and the MSM is guilty of bias by omission. I'm waiting to see if someone does a Lexis/Nexis(sp?) search of the timeline of this disgusting slander on the troops. This should be playing all over the media, instead the coward Senator Schemer tries to hide it by taking it off of his website. Looks like an attempt at revisionist history uncovered. Shades of Russia where they actually put out photos that showed liquidated party members with a smudged out hole where they had once been, in an attempt to prove they had never existed. Thank God for the alternative media: doing the job the antique media used to do.
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
For the real front line story of the surge:
http://www.michaelyon-online.com
Who are the idiots that
September 10, 2007 - 00:13 ET by rbosqueWho are the idiots that keep voting for this herd of pigs to stay in the Senate?
Some voters are just insane.
Speaking
September 10, 2007 - 00:58 ET by BlazerSpeaking of sniveling-whiny-leftist-bannana republic-wannabe-despots, check out good ole' Kos supportin' the troops again.
The headline in his post reflects his sentiments concerning our brave men, and women in uniform from the beginning.
F.U.
by kos
"Update: After his congressional testimony, where will Petraeus go? Straight to Fox News for an "exclusive" one-hour interview, apparently to shore up the support of the dead-enders.
If he wanted to build credibility as a "serious" and "non-partisan" military leader, he'd have chosen legitimately non-partisan news outlets. But that's not what he is."
You mean like Edwards, and the rest of the Dhimmicrats do?
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/9/10/03824/7921
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
Schumer thought he had it all figured out, huh?
September 10, 2007 - 01:09 ET by BarkerChuck Schumer has definitely crossed the line; the line that seperates us from our enemy. He is certainly giving aid and comfort to the enemy, in word and in deed. Schumer needs to get down on his knees and beg forgiveness from our fighting men and women. We are at war, but Schumer is, and has been, fighting against our President, the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, and now he has taken his fight to the very Armed Forces themselves.
In my opinion, and let me stress this is just an opinion, Senator Charles Schumer, and his ilk, should be brought up on charges of treason against the United States of America, tried, and, if found guilty, summarily executed.
Senator Charles Schumer,
September 10, 2007 - 08:35 ET by motherbeltSenator Charles Schumer, and his ilk, should be brought up on charges
of treason against the United States of America, tried, and, if found
guilty, summarily executed. -Barker
At least your proposal involves the law.
Remember Alec Baldwin on Conan O'Brien's show during impeachment? This is from Brent Bozell's Media Check column at the time: (12/98):
I’m thinking to myself if we
were in other countries, we would all right now, all of us together,
[starts to shout] all of us together would go down to Washington and we
would stone Henry Hyde to death! We would stone him to death! [crowd
cheers] Wait! Shut up! Shut up! No shut up! I’m not finished. We would
stone Henry Hyde to death and we would go to their homes and we’d kill
their wives and their children. We would kill their families. [stands up
screaming] What is happening in this country?
He later said it was just a joke. (That Baldwin, he's such a card!!!) That's liberal humor for you.
I posted the following on
September 10, 2007 - 14:05 ET by PeskyDaneI posted the following on the open thread earlier - would love to get a response from anyone with some legal knowledge:
I would love to hear from someone on this site who has some in-depth knowledge of the law. Mica - I would guess that there are plenty of redundant laws attached to spending bills going back to the reconstruction that allow congressmen to say anything - both on and off the floors of the House and Senate - that permit them to voice infinite sedition without any kind of penalty.
"Being it came out thirty
September 10, 2007 - 04:38 ET by ckc1227"Being it came out thirty years ago, I imagined at the time it was a
metaphor that the U.S., and it's allies were the Rebel Alliance, and
that the empire was the Communist bloc."
Flash forward to today, and the libs have a different take on things. Today, the USA is the evil empire, with Bush as the Emperor, and Cheney as Vader, with the Rebel Alliance being a mix of democrats in congress, kos-monauts and al queda, since they all seem to be sharing talking points.
This is the Democrats
September 10, 2007 - 04:42 ET by Ruths husband BenThis is the Democrats further politicizing the war. They have decided
the Petraeus report favors the Republicans, so the are issuing the
Betrayus report to counter it. They could care less if it hurts
America, so long as it helps their cause.
What took so long???
September 10, 2007 - 06:22 ET by CTI've been searching the net and looking for comment on the traitor Chucky Schemers speech on the floor of the Senate since last week. Talk about hiding from ones own words, his Senate speech has fallen into a black hole. I couldn't even find a link to it on CSPAN.
Chucky Schemer needs to be confronted with his own words at every opportunity, endlessly, at least until he apologizes to the troops and America. This is a great county and our troops are outstanding 'despite' the fact Chucky Schemer is in the U.S. Senate.
Why would New Yorkers (or anyone) take
September 10, 2007 - 07:56 ET by ding7777umbrage at Shumer for paraphasing what Col. Pete Devlin (chief of intelligence for the Marine Corps ) stated re Anbar: "military operations [are] unable to extend and sustain security beyond the perimeters of their bases"
You Bet
September 10, 2007 - 08:12 ET by Sua Sponte 75Because the Schuckster is an asshat at best. Talking about security sustainment and the push of operations thought out and conducted by the likes of CPT Travis are two different things. You too are one of the individuals who happen to be ignorant of those operations. Now that things are working and progressing they've now resulted in making things up and slandering the individuals work that is now coming to pass.
"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"
Wow, Dingy. You are even
September 10, 2007 - 08:58 ET by Roger the ShrubberWow, Dingy. You are even more pathetic than usual this morning. You forgot to wipe off that Kool-Aid smile.
You are referring to a
September 10, 2007 - 09:13 ET by PeskyDaneYou are referring to a report and/or e-mail that's a year old. Did you think no one would check?
The "age" of the report is not material in this instance since
September 10, 2007 - 11:25 ET by ding7777the author of this post specifically stated Shumer's use of the word "unable" to characterize our troops amounted to slandering U.S. troops when in fact Col. Pete Devlin (chief of intelligence for the Marine Corps ) has also stated that "military operations [are] unable to extend and sustain security beyond the perimeters of their bases" .
Did Col. Devlin also "slander" the troops by reporting they were unable to protect the Anbar tribes?
Of course it's relevant, ding
September 10, 2007 - 11:34 ET by RJSchumer's statement was made to refute our military's responsibility for gains from a current action. In doing so, he denegrates our military.
Explain how the year-old report you reference compares either to current events in Iraq or to Schumer's message about the military.
Schucksters words...
September 10, 2007 - 11:42 ET by Sua Sponte 75I guess your reading a different quote than the rest of us. The Schuckster basically said the surge was failing in that violence was going down but not because of the efforts of the troops, therefore "in spite of". Big difference and doesn't equate failure because of.....Despite what the Schuckster says, he's not on the ground here and there has been a definite decrease since the surge in addition to the local tribal involvement who see the surge as our vow to assist them in securing their environment and being able to take control. It's an asshat angle to try and downplay what's been accomplished because they are now besides themselves that it's working, so the only thing left to do is trash the operations. CPT Travis knew it from the begining and now it's coming to pass. Schucksters statements are slanderous no matter how you all try to be an apologist for him. In addition, if this weren't the case, funny how transcripts were so quickly removed from his site as with others. People know an assclown when they see one, even other assclowns recognize it and immediately distance themselves from it. Please explain how saying that the effort you put forth was futile because it had nothing to do with the sucess now occuring?
"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"
Ding - you may consider yourself owned.
September 10, 2007 - 13:58 ET by PeskyDaneCOL Devlin's statement, which you are not even referencing first hand, is a year old. Which means that he made an assessment based on current troop strengths and posture - last year! This was before the current surge was even a low moan in the back of your sister's throat, much less given birth.
Your context isn't even relevant. But then you are a lib.
Ding, I now officially own you.
The surge had very little to do with Anbar's
September 10, 2007 - 19:15 ET by ding7777success and that's what Schumer is saying.
Both Schumer and Col. Devlin correctly said that the U.S. military was unable to protect the tribes in Anbar, because the Sunni sheiks were suporting the Al Qaeda-linked militants.
It wasn't until the Sunni sheiks rejected the militant rule and started to cooperate with U.S. and Iraqi forces the militant violence decreased.
Wrong again, ding
September 10, 2007 - 19:24 ET by RJSchumer's statement was made to refute our military's responsibility for gains from a current action. In doing so, he denegrates our military, as do you.
You've yet to explain how the year-old report you reference compares either to current events in Iraq or to Schumer's message about the military.
I'm curious, though. Why such a difficult time accepting the successes of our military? Is it because your position on Iraq forces you to hope for failure?
Ding's Training Video
September 10, 2007 - 19:29 ET by Sergeant ROCKThe troops Chucky Schumer supports.
Well, then, I guess 6 months ago,
September 10, 2007 - 20:17 ET by ding7777before the SURGE, General Petraeus at his confirmation hearings, was (to use your word) "denigrating" our military because he credited the Anbar sheiks for the positive direction of decreasing violence in Anbar.
Ding, you are still
September 11, 2007 - 08:26 ET by PeskyDaneDing, you are still owned. You can't even address RJ's point:
You've yet to explain how the year-old report you reference compares either to current events in Iraq or to Schumer's message about the military.
Ding, you show a dangerous ignorance in the matter of military assessments and a grade school mentality with respect to the geo-political picture.
Somehow, in your mind you've equated a general's pat on the back to the local leaders for their cooperation to "denigrating" our troops. Does it occur to you that the local sheiks may have increase their level of cooperation (as you admit) with or without the surge due simply because our troops are doing a good job over there? If the local sheiks see cooperating with coalition forces to be in their best interest, then let's give credit where its due. To the troops on the ground, their commanders, and by fiat, the president.
Nicely done, Dane
September 11, 2007 - 08:33 ET by RJAnd well put. Unfortunately, I don't think it will penetrate ding's ideological bulwarks.
Not relevant, ding
September 11, 2007 - 08:29 ET by RJYou're flopping around, trying to get traction, but you've got no case.
Schumer specifically discredited the actions of our military. Petraeus was specificaly giving credit to the Anbar sheiks. Not hard to understand the difference.
I ask again. Why do you have so much difficulty giving credit to our military? Is it because the left has locked itself into a "need to lose in Iraq to win politically" scenario?
Yeah, he positively
September 11, 2007 - 08:45 ET by PeskyDaneYeah, he is positively straining and grasping for thoughts at this point.
Ah the Schuckster
September 10, 2007 - 08:03 ET by Sua Sponte 75After slandering the troops and our efforts I'm surprised he didn't follow up with "we support the troops" mantra. This assclown along with Dirty Reid are shining examples of what happens after years of getting your ass spanked on the playground in elementary school. Definitely gets a permenant place on my "people I'd like to smack" list. He obviously has no perspective nor historical background on the Anbar province and more often than not rely on some page to keep them "updated" on what's going on in the world. This is a pure slap in the face to dedicated individuals such as CPT Travis P and his astounding work in the province. Bet the Schuckster doesn't even know who CPT Travis P is. It's difficult to find the words to describe this crapweasel (HT MM).
"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"
"It is not the critic who counts, not the one who points out how the strong man stumbled or how the doer of deeds might have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred with sweat and dust and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause;who, if he wins, knows the triumph of high achievement; and who, if he fails,at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat."
i guess i don't find
September 10, 2007 - 08:28 ET by pmohbucki guess i don't find schumer's comments surprising ... with bin laden assuming the reigns of the DNC and doling out democrat talking points with his latest infomercial.
i'm just wondering when bush will finally come to his senses by adding liberal democrats to the terror threat list. i would love to see the likes of harry reid, john kerry, dick durbin, joe biden and this loser schumer publicly admonished by the President as being pro-bin laden.
when bin laden's speech actually specifies the democrat party in congress to take action ... that's very telling.
Our troops
September 10, 2007 - 09:40 ET by iveseenitallDimos love to bash our troops--the heroes who are keeping us safe. Schumer and his pals are traitors to our nation. "Liberal" is a misnomer. They are close-minded ideologues who want us to lose in Irag so the they can be re-elected. S.O.B.'s.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
This is an outrage at its best
September 10, 2007 - 09:45 ET by CapitalismRulesThere can be no doubt whatsoever that Chuckie and his cronies have aligned themselves with terror, murder, mayhem, hate, radicalism, anti-Americanism and loathing for the military that protects he and his family every day. This makes me sick in the worst possible way. The politics on the left is just pitiful. It's like pulling a pedestrian away from an oncoming bus only to have that individual spit in your face, slap you and write hate mail to your family for tugging on his shirt.
Hey Chuckie, your boys (and one, dare I say, lady) will not take the White House because we are founded on liberty, tolerance and justice, not hate-spewing from the Reichstag floor!
Charles Schumer is one of
September 10, 2007 - 14:12 ET by fitzfongCharles Schumer is one of the most disgusting and dangerous people in the world. When you combine his sheer stupidity, arrogance and dishonesty with his unwarranted power, you have a very subversive, treasonous cocktail.
Just Remember
September 10, 2007 - 20:12 ET by pbthinkerJust remember, it's Bush who's dividing the country. It's Bush who failed to bring a new tone to Washington, and it's Bush that forced Schumer to say what he said. BDS is alive and well, in the Democratic Party and with Chuckie Schumer.
Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.