TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Oh Faux News, you silly jokers are at it again!

Oh Faux News, you silly jokers are at it again!

An interesting exchange between Faux News' Chris Wallace and John Kerry yesterday in reference to troop withdrawal in Iraq. Here's the transcript that Faux put up between the two:

quote:

WALLACE: Senator, as you just pointed out, the Senate voted this week and rejected a plan, in part authored by you, by a vote of 48-50 to call to begin the pullout of troops and eventually to set of goal of pulling them out in a year. When you are still... KERRY: No, Chris, that's wrong. Can I interrupt you there? I'm going to interrupt you there. WALLACE: Well, let me just ask the question and then you can set me straight on what I... KERRY: Well, fine. WALLACE: But in any case, you needed � you were 12 votes short. You weren't 3 votes short. You were 12 votes short of the 60 you would have needed to actually pass this. When Democrats are still so short, so far away from passing something that will actually force the president's hand, limit his policy, what do you do now? KERRY: Well, actually, Chris, we're 19 votes short because you need 67 to overcome the veto. And there would be a veto. We all understand that. But last summer when I brought that resolution to the floor, I got 13 votes, 48-13. That is an enormous change in a very short time. And what we've learned in the great fights of the Senate and historically in this country is you have to keep fighting. You keep trying. The Civil Rights Act didn't pass immediately. Important pieces of legislation take time. We will change this policy over time. But the reason I wanted to interrupt you there is because you and others in the media, and particularly on the Republican side of the aisle, continually characterize the plan we put forward as a complete withdrawal of all the troops and as a precipitous withdrawal. It is not a complete withdrawal. It specifically allows the president the discretion to leave troops there, to complete the task of training the Iraqis, and that is fundamentally all we ought to be there for. It allows the president to leave troops there to chase Al Qaeda and prosecute the War on Terror, and it allows him to leave troops to protect American facilities and forces. Now, six years into the war, really, what more could you want for our troops to be doing? This has got to � this debate has to be real, not a straw man debate where you set up a phony deal which is precipitous and complete withdrawal. It's a responsible plan that allows us... WALLACE: Senator? KERRY: ... to stay positioned against Iran and do what we need to protect American interests. WALLACE: Senator, let me just say for the record, I never said it was a complete withdrawal or a precipitous... KERRY: Yes, you did. If you go back and look at the transcript, you said all the troops out. WALLACE: Well, but I never said a complete or precipitous � I also said that it was a goal, not an absolute deadline. But you're right. It is not a complete withdrawal. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,259449,00.html

Now on the face of it and upon examination it looks as though Wallace is correct - he didn't say a complete withdrawal of all troops and would appear as if Kerry is wrong. The only problem, however, is that somewhat contradicts the video footage of the interview:

quote:

WALLACE: Senator, as you just pointed out, the Senate voted this week and rejected a plan, in part authored by you, by a vote of 48-50 to call to begin the pullout of troops and eventually to set of goal of pulling them *all* out in a year. When you are still...

Have a look yourself. Takes a few minutes but it starts around the 5 minute mark:

http://video.johnkerry.com/video/flash/031807_fns.html

Pretty interesting little scrub job by Faux, ain't it? Anyone really truly floored by this "Fair and Balanced" "news" channel? Anyone? Folks? Hello? This thing on? Bueler?

isnt criticising fox news like shooting retarded children?

as an aside- can a veto be overcome if a certain % of votes is reached in the senate? i didnt know this. thanks.

Yep, 2/3rds will override a veto.

Has to pass both houses though.

well I don't know that this deserved a threat, but *clap*. Yay Kerry, you have a gooder memory! Lift operator, Lift operator--that man cut in line! HE SAID ALL!!!

I mean seriously. Is John Kerry not like the most long winded politician in congress?

In case anyone was wondering the right answer to the actual question Wallace asked, it was:

quote:

Originally spoken by John Forbes Kerry ...last summer when I brought that resolution to the floor, I got 13 votes, 48-13. That is an enormous change in a very short time.

The rest was just political hot air and grandstanding. Smashing response John! That molehill is now a mountain!

Have you ever noticed the tactic that politicians use, Opus, when they're trying to think on the fly? Instead of saying "uhm," they'll say the person's name. Just sayin'...funny stuff man.

The way Kerry presents it, the legislation he wants to pass won't change anything, yet it will change everything. Is the difference simply that he wants more power?

quote:

Kerry here again... It specifically allows the president the discretion to leave troops there, to complete the task of training the Iraqis, and that is fundamentally all we ought to be there for. It allows the president to leave troops there to chase Al Qaeda and prosecute the War on Terror, and it allows him to leave troops to protect American facilities and forces.

Forgive my ignorance, but how is this different from "stayin' the kourse?" Did he just leave out the major point of the legislation? What else do it do, Opus?

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka well I don't know that this deserved a threat, but *clap*. Yay Kerry, you have a gooder memory! Lift operator, Lift operator--that man cut in line! HE SAID ALL!!!

The point, sir, was that Faux News DELIBERATELY scrubbed out their transcript in order to make Wallace look correct, when in fact he was not.

Now, if a MSM did this on any given day in order to make a Republican look bad and a "reporter" like Wallace look correct, do you not think we would be hearing this 'till the fucking cows come home from all Wingnut news sources? You think you wouldn't see this headlined on Drudge?

quote:

I mean seriously. Is John Kerry not like the most long winded politician in congress?

You know I'm not a big fan of him, and I wasn't really concentrating on much else he had to say other than what Faux deliberately scrubbed out.

quote:

The rest was just political hot air and grandstanding. Smashing response John! That molehill is now a mountain! Have you ever noticed the tactic that politicians use, Opus, when they're trying to think on the fly? Instead of saying "uhm," they'll say the person's name. Just sayin'...funny stuff man.

Yeah. You think he's bad - Biden is freakin' notorious for it.

quote:

The way Kerry presents it, the legislation he wants to pass won't change anything, yet it will change everything. Is the difference simply that he wants more power? Forgive my ignorance, but how is this different from "stayin' the kourse?" Did he just leave out the major point of the legislation? What else do it do, Opus?

The legislation he is attempting to pass is more in line with the Iraqi Study Group's suggestions. The difference is Bush does not have any phased redeployment plan or set date for that plan, and the context of Bush's plan is a "hold and secure" military tactic that focuses away from training the Iraqis and more towards securing via U.S. military means. A similiarity can be given on the going after al Qaeda, but last I knew of this was not so much a primary focus of Bush's plan, but I could very well be incorrect. Kerry's plan in line with the Iraqi study group also allows a number of troops to remain in order to protect the American bases and forces being redeployed.

So those are the primary differences as far as I can see, although I'm stating this a bit on the spot without further examination (dinnertime, and I'm hungry dammit!).

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN isnt criticising fox news like shooting retarded children?

Actually change that to ANY 'news' channel and I'd agree with you

Fox News behind the scenes...

[[ LINK REMOVED ]]


Basically, Rupert Murdoch runs that mofo with an iron fist, from the top down. There is no journalism at fox news. That decrepit fundamentalist organization can hardly claim to be "fair and balanced".

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.