NationStates Jolt Archive

While that obtuse woman, Meridith Vieira, was interviewing Tom DeLay, she started pressing him about some comments he made about how a definite withdrawal date will give aid and comfort to the enemy. So Vieira starts her lecture, ""In a poll taken last week, sir, 59 percent of Americans say they agree that troops should be removed from Iraq by the fall of 2008. So does that mean that more than half of Americans are unpatriotic, that they're, they're abetting the enemy?"

Of course, we know that's just stupid talk, but that's the way a lot of reporters think. Fortunately, DeLay wades right in. He answers similar questions about three or four times, but then Vieira tries to deliver her strike-out pitch. She asks, ""Well I think they are saying though, sir, not to beat a dead horse here, but I think they are saying they want American troops out by the fall of 2008." To which DeLay hammered back: "I didn't know you spoke for the American people." The ball cleared the upper deck and Vieira went back to her softball questions.

Good job.

And someone who was forced out of office due to the stink of corruption being too strong for even GOP to stand anymore, and who left with a 20% approval rating, does speak for the American people?

"In a poll taken last week, sir, 59 percent of Americans say they agree that troops should be removed from Iraq by the fall of 2008."

"Well I think they are saying though, sir, not to beat a dead horse here, but I think they are saying they want American troops out by the fall of 2008."
Yeah, that's pretty much the conclusion most people would draw, if the poll is accurate.

But no...

http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e267/Flaw3dLegacy/lalalaicanthearyou.jpg

Who is being obtuse here?

Ah. The media should ask Democrats tough questions, but God forbid it asks Republicans tough questions, right Myrm?

Of course, the only Home Runs Tom Delay will be hitting soon is the scoring he's going to do with his roommate Bubba in the county jail.

While that obtuse woman, Meridith Vieira, was interviewing Tom DeLay, she started pressing him about some comments he made about how a definite withdrawal date will give aid and comfort to the enemy. So Vieira starts her lecture, ""In a poll taken last week, sir, 59 percent of Americans say they agree that troops should be removed from Iraq by the fall of 2008. So does that mean that more than half of Americans are unpatriotic, that they're, they're abetting the enemy?"

Of course, we know that's just stupid talk, but that's the way a lot of reporters think. Fortunately, DeLay wades right in. He answers similar questions about three or four times, but then Vieira tries to deliver her strike-out pitch. She asks, ""Well I think they are saying though, sir, not to beat a dead horse here, but I think they are saying they want American troops out by the fall of 2008." To which DeLay hammered back: "I didn't know you spoke for the American people." The ball cleared the upper deck and Vieira went back to her softball questions.

Good job.How is that a win for DeLay? Viera was right--she's speaking for the 59% of Americans who want out, and lots of those people elected Democrats in 2006 and took control of Congress away from the Republicans. And the question Viera asked was a legitimate one, because DeLay made that very argument on Meet the Press (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17628142/page/6/) Sunday.

MR. RUSSERT: Mr. Delay, you raise an interesting point in an interview--in your political column. You talked about congressmen advocating withdrawal, and you conclude by saying, "Yes, I am questioning their patriotism." Why is that?

FMR. REP. DeLAY: Well, I--it, it is my opinion that when you go to war, we ought to all come together. You can debate going to war, that's a legitimate debate. But once you have our soldiers and our, our young people dying on the battlefield, we should come together, and we shouldn't have what we had yesterday on the Mall of, of, of--in Washington, D.C. When the--those are not, in my mind--my opinion, patriots that are talking about impeaching the commander in chief, that are--that are--work as, as Tom's group works....

MR. RUSSERT: But setting a date for--is setting a date for withdrawal...

FMR. REP. DeLAY: ...every step of the day, undermine--I think it's aiding and abetting the enemy. When you tell the enemy what your strategy is, that's aiding and abetting the enemy because they can use that strategy to come back and harm your soldiers.
DeLay said opposition to the war is aiding and abetting the enemy. Still want to say it's an unfair question to ask DeLay?

While that obtuse woman, Meridith Vieira, was interviewing Tom DeLay, she started pressing him about some comments he made about how a definite withdrawal date will give aid and comfort to the enemy. So Vieira starts her lecture, ""In a poll taken last week, sir, 59 percent of Americans say they agree that troops should be removed from Iraq by the fall of 2008. So does that mean that more than half of Americans are unpatriotic, that they're, they're abetting the enemy?"

Of course, we know that's just stupid talk, but that's the way a lot of reporters think. Fortunately, DeLay wades right in. He answers similar questions about three or four times, but then Vieira tries to deliver her strike-out pitch. She asks, ""Well I think they are saying though, sir, not to beat a dead horse here, but I think they are saying they want American troops out by the fall of 2008." To which DeLay hammered back: "I didn't know you spoke for the American people." The ball cleared the upper deck and Vieira went back to her softball questions.

Good job.
If that's a home run of any fashion, I'm a rhinoceros... from Mars.

A politician not answering a straight question is 'hitting a home run'?

We should enter the British Cabinet in MBL, we'd win everything.

There's a big difference between a desire to have something happen and a law that requires it. That's all. Those polled, not the entire American population for reasons we discussed at length in a thread on Iraq, would like to see us out of Iraq. Frankly, I'm surprised the number isn't at 100%. Those in the Washington, DC majority would like to turn that desire into a law. There's the contrast and there's the aid and comfort -- a mandatory withdrawal, regardless of what conditions exist at that time.

There's a big difference between a desire to have something happen and a law that requires it. That's all. Those polled, not the entire American population for reasons we discussed at length in a thread on Iraq, would like to see us out of Iraq. Frankly, I'm surprised the number isn't at 100%. Those in the Washington, DC majority would like to turn that desire into a law. There's the contrast and there's the aid and comfort -- a mandatory withdrawal, regardless of what conditions exist at that time.

So let me get this straight. Legislators who are representing their constituents are aiding and abetting the enemy?

So let me get this straight. Legislators who are representing their constituents are aiding and abetting the enemy?

Apparently, the legislators are largely concerned with bringing home the pork, rather than bringing home the troops, as many promised.

Apparently, the legislators are largely concerned with bringing home the pork, rather than bringing home the troops, as many promised.

Wrong thread. False logic, too, but wrong thread.

So let me get this straight. Legislators who are representing their constituents are aiding and abetting the enemy?
I don't know that many constituents have said, "Get out by 2008." Looks to me like a thousand people participating in a poll have expressed that desire. Let's even say that the poll is representative and reliable, legislators should have the sense to make better decisions that just to rely on a majority opinion. That's why we don't live in a democracy, isn't it?

There's a big difference between a desire to have something happen and a law that requires it. That's all. Those polled, not the entire American population for reasons we discussed at length in a thread on Iraq, would like to see us out of Iraq. Frankly, I'm surprised the number isn't at 100%. Those in the Washington, DC majority would like to turn that desire into a law. There's the contrast and there's the aid and comfort -- a mandatory withdrawal, regardless of what conditions exist at that time.

Remember kids, if your politicians listen to their voters they're criminals! Well, if they're democrats anyway.

She asks, ""Well I think they are saying though, sir, not to beat a dead horse here, but I think they are saying they want American troops out by the fall of 2008." To which DeLay hammered back: "I didn't know you spoke for the American people." The ball cleared the upper deck and Vieira went back to her softball questions.

Good job.

That wasn't exactly how that ended however. Her response was something to the effect of "No, I'm not speaking for the American people, I'm speaking about the results of the poll."

It was hardly a hammer that he flung, and she didn't dodge it.

I don't even think that much of her, but he hardly came off looking like he has more than a handful of operational brain cells.

I don't know that many constituents have said, "Get out by 2008." Looks to me like a thousand people participating in a poll have expressed that desire. Let's even say that the poll is representative and reliable, legislators should have the sense to make better decisions that just to rely on a majority opinion. That's why we don't live in a democracy, isn't it?
I'm going to disregard the whole "thousand people in a poll" bit because frankly, it's silly, and you know it.

There's a fuckload of space between "legislators should have better sense" and "they're aiding and abetting the enemy," which is what you were basically applauding DeLay for saying. DeLay, in the Meet the Press bit I quoted, said that once the war started, any further discussion was tantamount to treason, even though he had no problem going after Clinton when soldiers were in Kosovo.

I don't know that many constituents have said, "Get out by 2008." Looks to me like a thousand people participating in a poll have expressed that desire. Let's even say that the poll is representative and reliable, legislators should have the sense to make better decisions that just to rely on a majority opinion. That's why we don't live in a democracy, isn't it?

/facepalm


There just aren't words..

His entire answer to "the american people seem to want to be out of Iraq" is "well you didn't talk to all of the american people did you?"

This isn't an answer. This isn't even half an answer. I'm more inclined to believe Vierra just got fed up with the idiocy of the man she was dealing with and started fielding questions more to his apparent speed like "so if you could be a tree, what kind of tree would you be?"

Yes Delay hits one out of the field by stating that....a representative poll...isn't representative? If DeLay has a concern that the poll is not a representative sample than he should say so, and explain why. His argument wasn't brilliant, it wasn't clever, it was a showing of either ignorace or duplicity through the implication that a representative sample can't be representative because it doesn't poll EVERYBODY.

Of course, the only Home Runs Tom Delay will be hitting soon is the scoring he's going to do with his roommate Bubba in the county jail.

Cork-filled bats and grease in the glove, oh my! ;)

Delay has a new book out, which is the only reason he's even appearing outside his home town. Probably needs the cash for his defense fund.

Delay has a new book out, which is the only reason he's even appearing outside his home town. Probably needs the cash for his defense fund.

A new book? Isn't he the type who burns those kinds of things?
A new mission, anyway - time to make the pages sticky. :)

Since when did it become unpatriotic to try to prevent American soldiers from being killed or wounded unnecessarily? If you think, as I do, that the continued presence of American troops in Iraq isn't accomplishing any useful purpose, then doesn't it follow logically that the way to support them is to get them out of there?

You can argue with the premise that American troops aren't helping the situation in Iraq all you want. But whether or not you yourself agree with that premise, you should be able to see that my conclusion would be true if my premise is true.

But no, that would be dangerously close to being able to see both sides of an issue, and we all know where that leads: to the hatred of freedom. The only way we can preserve our freedom is to march in lockstep with the President and never question anything he tells us. If you question those in charge, even a little bit, you are an enemy of freedom. :rolleyes: