Idiotic Statements by Liberal Senators

[MDindef]

Found this on the Baptist Press News today:

McMINNVILLE, Ore. (BP)--Art Linkletter should consider a new television show based on his popular "Kid's Say the Darndest Things" program. He could call it "Politicians Say the Stupidest Things." Given the gaffes of recent weeks, he would have no shortage of guests.

The most recent "Foot-in-Mouth" award goes to Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., who shared some of her observations concerning the war on terror while addressing an audience of high school students. You might have missed these scintillating insights, since most major news outlets have yet to find the senator's comments newsworthy.

In her closing remarks to a Vancouver High School class, Murray said, "We've got to ask why is this man [Osama bin Laden] so popular around the world. Why are people so supportive of him in many countries that are riddled with poverty?"

Murray's answer to the question she posed is Osama's benevolence: "[He's] been out in these countries for decades, building schools, building roads, building infrastructure, building daycare centers, building healthcare facilities, and the people are extremely grateful. We haven't done that. How would they look at us today if we had been there helping them with some of that...?"

Critics charge the statements are unpatriotic. Supporters assert the comments were made off the cuff and therefore should be dismissed. Murray is defending her remarks by saying she was simply trying to raise questions about American foreign policy. I find the whole situation amazingly insightful.

Considering Murray's statement came on the heels of Trent Lott's now infamous praise of Strom Thurmond, one would think that Democratic leaders and national media alike would have taken the senator to task -- if for nothing else the gross inaccuracy of her comments. However, it seems that when Democrats and/or liberals misstate the facts they are only raising questions or broadening dialogue. I will remind you, meanwhile, that some of Lott's sharpest critics were Republicans and conservatives.

One does not have to be a foreign policy guru to catch the inaccuracies in Murray's observation. While some experts agree that bin Laden has spent some money in Sudan and Afghanistan on constructing schools, roads and hospitals, these projects are not quite as benevolent as Senator Murray might lead us to believe.

According to a Fox News report, the roads bin Laden built had the purpose of transporting soldiers to training camps, the schools were used to indoctrinate students in Osama's America-hating brand of Islam, and the hospitals were intended not for average citizens but for soldiers injured in the battle with the Soviets. As for the daycare centers, well let's just say they were invisible.

If I can uncover the misleading nature of Murray's comments, surely those more in the know who make their living in and around Capitol Hill should be able to as well. However, at this point very little has been reported on the senator's comments and, as far as I know, no Democratic leader has uttered a peep on Murray's misstatement.

In light of the Trent Lott situation, I was led to believe that politicians -- and others in the public eye -- were now going to be held accountable for insensitive, inaccurate and/or misleading statements. However, considering the inattention Murray's comments have received thus far, it seems only Republican or conservative politicians and/or leaders are going to be required to meet a higher criterion. Can you say media bias? How about Democratic double standard? I thought you could.

Acting legend John Wayne is reported to have said, "Life is tough. It's even tougher if you're stupid." I understand politics is anything but easy. However, it should be tougher if you say and/or do stupid things, party affiliation and political philosophy notwithstanding.

 

[Bruzilla]

As much as I dislike Sen Murray, I don't think that anyone can take issue with her comments. I saw the replay of her comments on FNC, and everything that she said was valid.

Trade Afghanistan for New York City for a moment, and trade Bin Ladin for John Gotti. Gotti was a murderous thug who was loved by the people he victimized because he gave them money, parties, did "favors" for them, etc. He was like Robin Hood to a lot of New Yorkers. Same deal with the Afghans, and Murray was exactly right in what she said.

 

[MDindef]

Interesting point of view...

 

[Larry Gude]

Taking exception, Bruz...

Gotti, to my knowledge, did not declare war on another nation or an entire people. He was a crook who supported his business by making as many people as possible, those in a position to harm him anyway, invested in his continued success. Motivations included monetary gains and physical harm.

Osama is/was revered, if not for his actual actions, certainly for his intentions as a true believer, leader and defender of the faith. I’ve learned nothing to suggest his motivations were that of organized crime.

No one is rioting in favor of Osama in order to have a nice fireworks display; unless it includes infidels dying in large numbers.

Senator Murray, in my opinion, can respect Osama Bin Laden and his humanitarian works all she likes as long as she also recognizes that he would love to kill her, her family, her colleagues and all of her fellow citizens as part and parcel to achieving his goals.

Gotti, in contrast, would have been happy to simply own her and have her do his bidding, which, to me, sounds a bit like what she is doing for Osama.

 

[Bruzilla]

Larry.... the point of Murray's remarks were why the Afghans liked Bin Ladin. Not why Americans should like/dislike Bin Ladin. In keeping that fact in mind, Murray's remarks were accurate.

 

[Larry Gude]

What I read...

We've got to ask why is this man [Osama bin Laden] so popular around the world.

I thought I was addressing why the Islamic world may like the guy even more than "we" may like a Gotti...

But, Iwill not pick on a Steeler fan on this day of mourning...

I was pulling for your guys.

 

[demsformd]

Too often conservatives see attempting to understand why other people think the way that they do as unpatriotic or wrong. Senator Murray supports the War on Terrorism and I think that she voted for the Homeland Security bill (I'm not sure though, can someone enlighten me?). I often try to see why conservatives think the way that they do, does that mean that I am against my ideology?

 

[Frank]

She seemed not to be suggesting that we should strive to understand why other people think - she seemed to be comparing his humanitarian record to that of the United States - "we're not doing that". It was really a stupid remark.

I don't care if the broken record mantra of conservatism seems to be 'patriotism'. Liberals are just as quick to cry 'racism' when it suits them, because just as conservatives are likely to believe that liberals hate the U.S., liberals will believe that conservatives are all racists. What's the difference?

 

[demsformd]

No, not all conservatives are racist, they merely do not see things the way that we liberals do and in my opinion, their ways would not do as much for race relations as ours would.

Why is it stupid to say that we are not helping to build schools overseas? You know the schools helped Osama spread his message of hatred, maybe we could do that too and spread our message of love and compassion. That is what she was aiming at it seems.

 

[Larry Gude]

I'm thinking that perhaps...

…3000 DEAD, MURDERED human beings, untold BILLIONS of dollars in international commerce and the OVERT reality that an identifiable, specific type of people are willing TO DIE based on their RELIGIOUS fundamentalism in order to KILL those specifically DIFFERENT than themselves MAY, perhaps, have at least a little bit to do with why some people have a tiny problem with the context and tone of the dear Senators speech.

Does anyone know how much effort Osama put into doing just exactly what the blessed Senator was ostensibly trying to do, IE, understanding those different than self in order to get along? To live in peace?

I commend the Senators good intentions and we can certainly expect that religious American citizens will get the same attempts at understanding and thought from their elected representatives, especially those that don’t kill people, especially from Senator Murray? Or, are they just nuts and understanding is reserved for other people?

Is that a fair question?

Anyone care to quantify the number of private US dollars sent overseas in, say, the last ten years for pure charity?

Anyone care to put a number on the amount of US citizens who have gone overseas in the last 40 years specifically to lend their time and expertise to people in need?

How about the numbers that are chosing not to in the last decade because of the increase in kidnappings and murders, often by people claiming to be Muslims?

Anyone think the money we send, private and federal, to help people around the globe, of ALL backgrounds and ALL religions, has somehow been missed by the good Senator, especially as it eclipses Bin Ladens gifts thousands of times AND doesn't have that other "stuff" (mass murder) tagging along?

 

[Bruzilla]

Once again... it all goes back to why Middle Eastern people like and support Bin Ladin. They like and support him because they've gotten a lot out of him. In addition to the things that Murray mentioned, he also pretty much led the charge to force the Soviets out of Afghanistan and was willing to put his money where his mouth was to make it happen.

Another reason is that Bush Sr. and Clinton chose to deal with Bin Ladin on a equal basis. He blows up an embassy, we blow up one of his buildings. While that made the US look even-handed to some, it made Bin Ladin and his ilk look like they were just as powerful as the United States. This made him even more of a hero.

I don't think that Murray's comments about the US building roads and schools was out of line either, other than to show her as naive. We could have built lots of schools and roads out there, but as long as we are on Israel's side, there will never be any shortage of militants denouncing the United States.

By the way... Liberals are far more racist than conservatives. Could an author of any color get away with writing a book called "Stupid White Men?" Could there ever be "White Entertainment Television?" In the US, you can say any demeaning, racist, thing about whites and get away with it. Liberal leaders are constantly saying that conservatives are all white and don't care about blacks. That's racism!

 

[Tonio]

I once heard a saying, "Don't let the reality blind you to the perception." Murray was correct when she pointed out that bin Laden is a hero to many Muslims. Any war against terrorism has to take that into account. The military front isn't the only front in that war. We're losing the propaganda war, and we need to win.

Maybe Murray was lobbying for some sort of Marshall Plan for places like Afghanistan. I think that idea is worth considering. The original Marshall Plan probably did more than anything else to keep Western Europe from falling under Soviet control after WW2. Now I sound like Kevin Kline in A Fish Called Wanda--"If it weren't for us, you'd be the smallest province in the Soviet Empire."

 

[demsformd]

Originally posted by Bruzilla
By the way... Liberals are far more racist than conservatives. Could an author of any color get away with writing a book called "Stupid White Men?" Could there ever be "White Entertainment Television?" In the US, you can say any demeaning, racist, thing about whites and get away with it. Liberal leaders are constantly saying that conservatives are all white and don't care about blacks. That's racism!

"White Entertainment Television" is NBC, ABC, TNN...All of these stations have primarily white audiences, thus shouldn't we call them part of the white television network? How many black newcasters do we see on these networks. A token one yes, but not enough. BET provides the black community with a common cultural dividend, which is something that we can get through the other stations, TNN especially. Why is "White Entertainment Television" racist? Because if such a network exsisted, it would definitely be run by neo-Nazis or KKK members (or maybe even the Republican Party that's a joke).

So we think that all conservatives are white huh? I think that you just made a broad stereotype and one that we liberals do not subscripe to. There are black conservatives (granted there are few). Look at Steele, Watts, and Thomas, they are conservative as they get almost. But can't we all agree that there are far more blacks that are liberal than conservative?

Isn't the author of "Stupid White Men" white? How could he be racist against his own race?

Here's what racism is...endorsing a segregationist candidate for president, opposing civil rights legislation, opposing voting rights legislation, opposing government programs to revitalize low-income neighboorhoods, opposing a holiday for Martin Luther King Jr., opposing welfare payments for the poorest of African-Americans, creating a voter reach-out effort that includes passing out fliers that mislead the public about election processes or making black stay home on election day. What ideology endorsed these sort of ideals? The conservative one.