November 30, 2005
Greatly Exaggerated
In the WSJ's subscriber-only "Political Diary" yesterday afternoon, John Fund reported that Senate Min. Leader Harry Reid had told Reno's NBC affiliate: "I heard that Osama bin Laden died in the [recent Pakistan] earthquake, and if that's the case, I certainly wouldn't wish anyone harm, but if that's the case, that's good for the world."
That section was soon made available to the public on the RNC's website, and conservative bloggers jumped right on it. As the 5/17 Blogometer records, they had already jumped on him for mentioning the FBI file of then-Bush jud. nominee Henry Saad.)
- Power Line posted a reader letter asking: "What does Harry Reid know that we don't? If there is something to this, why is Harry Reid leaking sensitive national security information before our intelligence agencies have anything to say? If there isn't, why is Harry Reid spreading falsehoods and hearsay?"
- NC-based schoolteacher Betsy Newmark was quicker to judge: "If senators can't be trusted with top secret information, they won't be able to perform their Constitutional obligations to oversight of the Executive branch. They must be trusted to keep their big yaps shut. And this guy goes off blabbing to the local news station!"
- And so was Varifrank, who posted images of a few "loose lips sink ships" type WWII-era posters.
However... [WILLIAM BEUTLER]
NV columnist Jon Ralston noted in his subscriber-only Flash Report later that evening: "By the way, all the senator said was that NPR had been reporting that Bin Laden may be dead and if so..." Among the few bloggers to get it about right was DC-based left-libertarian Dave Weigel: "Am I missing something? A lot of people were speculating that bin Laden died in the Pakistan earthquake. If you hear Reid's entire quote, it sounds like he was going off those speculations -- he actually said 'I heard today' that he may have died, which is a little less loaded than the 'had been informed just that day' James Bond spin John Fund takes on it."
To see the interview for yourself, KRNV has the video.
For more buzz from the political blogosphere, make sure to check out today's edition of the Blogometer.
Posted at 03:14 PM
Comments
I think what the conservatives meant to say was "Democrats are not permitted to comment on events, except Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller."
JoshA | 11.30.05 07:37 PM
 |
I seem to recall that John Fund has a long-term habit of such misapprehensions (all conveniently skewed in the desired partisan slant). The mystery to me is why anyone considers him to be worth listening to.
James | 11.30.05 08:21 PM
|
I seem to recall that John Fund has a long-term habit of such misapprehensions (all conveniently skewed in the desired partisan slant). The mystery to me is why anyone considers him to be worth listening to.
Seems to me one could say the same thing of the New York Times (slanting another direction, of course).
Want some examples?
AlrightAlready | 11.30.05 09:04 PM
|
Heh, a link to powerlineblog, which was just used as an example of how their reader got this story so wrong. Can you say irony? Classic.
NotAlrightAlready | 11.30.05 09:22 PM
|
You tell them AlrightAlready.
Hindrocket's Gay Lover | 11.30.05 09:28 PM
|
Well, Mr. AlrightAlready, no doubt it does seem that way to you, which also makes you quite wrong.
nobody | 11.30.05 09:31 PM
|
Yup, the NY Times does issue corrections. unlike people like Bill O'Reilly and the single shared brain cell from Minnesota that calls itself Powerline.
Ragz | 11.30.05 09:52 PM
|
It's been 1,535 days since GWB said he'd catch UBL 'Dead or Alive?'
Usama bin Laden:
A dead nemesis perpetuated by the US government
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osama_dead
When you hear a threat which is "probably" made by bin Laden, just remember that he's "probably" dead. Also think about who benefits from your believing he's alive.
"Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified." http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spyring
US official quoted in Carl Cameron's Fox News report on the Israeli spy ring and its connections to 9-11.
crusader bunnypants | 11.30.05 09:53 PM
|
Weigel: You'd admit to writing for the Spectator? Lord. I'd think you'd want to apologize for that, not brag about it. That's like proudly stating you just wet your drawers.
g | 11.30.05 10:26 PM
|
Leaving aside whether Reid was leaking secret info, what about this nugget?: "...I certainly wouldn't wish anyone harm..."
Did Reid really say that? Why would any decent American not wish Osama bin Ladin harm?
The Editors, American Federalist Journal | 11.30.05 10:38 PM
|
American Federalist Journal:
I'm thinking Reid said it because J E S U S told him.
RetiredGeneral | 11.30.05 11:12 PM
|
Editors of AFJ,
Did you even bother to read the whole sentence or did you just stop at "I certainly wouldn't wish anyone harm"? Go ahead, go read the rest of the sentence.
Jefe | 11.30.05 11:47 PM
|
Well if he did say it, it is a safe bet he didn't say "I certainly wouldn't wish Osama bin Ladin harm". You call yourself editors? Would you "wish anyone harm" in that earthquake, including innocent women and children? Why would any decent American wish that?
NotEditors | 12.01.05 12:08 AM
|
And why would any decent American not question why an act of God will be (or was) necessary to finish off bin Laden? Missed him at Tora Bora, then fixated on Saddam. Worst president ever.
pissed off moderate | 12.01.05 12:17 AM
|
I'm assuming Reid’s comments about "not wishing anyone harm" was referring to the possibility that Osama bin Laden might have been killed in a tragic earthquake that took the lives of countless innocents. I might be wrong about this, but restraining yourself from seeming to celebrate the death of one horrible person killed indiscriminately along with thousands of others is probably what most decent American's would consider 'decent'.
ARRON | 12.01.05 12:22 AM
|
Actually,
George Bush does not wish Osama harm, as he is a good buddy.
Mary | 12.01.05 12:23 AM
|
Why would any decent American not wish Osama bin Ladin harm?
Why would any decent American wish anyone harm? Aren't Americans supposed to be morally superior to bin Laden?
M.B. | 12.01.05 12:24 AM
|
Well, "Editors", it's actually rather Christian of Harry Reid not to wish harm to people. Even mass murderers and enemies of America. Something Jesus said about enemies comes to mind...of course, wingers never pay much attention to those parts.
On a pragmatic level, it's obvious that Reid is a polite guy, but tough as nails in a pinch. So it's exactly what I would expect him to say, by force of habit.
theo | 12.01.05 12:24 AM
|
>Did Reid really say that? Why would any decent American not wish Osama bin Ladin harm?
Good god, are you really that stupid? His obvious meaning was to the effect that "I am not indifferent to the deaths of other innocent people if OBL did in fact die, or justifying their deaths as collaterally necessary to his death, but..." That he didn't express himself better is no doubt due to his failure to always bear in mind that morons like you are out there. I know it's hard for wingnuts to imagine people with more on their minds than their own fantasies of vengeance, but people with the normal range of human emotions do exist. Even in Congress. Really.
Nutz2U | 12.01.05 12:34 AM
|
Gee, The Editors, Senator Reid may have been wishing it hadn't taken an earthquake and the deaths of so many innocents to get Osama bin Forgotten, I mean bin Laden.
Some of us are skeptical the administration has demonstrated the will to bring him to book for the WTC attacks. Tora Bora comes to mind.
paul | 12.01.05 12:45 AM
|
[Leaving aside whether Reid was leaking secret info, what about this nugget?: "...I certainly wouldn't wish anyone harm..."]
Well, in case it was some poor Afghani farmer crushed under his walls, you know? It's just a verbal catch-all phrase, not indicating that he wished bin Laden any good at all. Do you always speak correctly and succinctly when extemporizing? I thought not.
Ed
Ed Drone | 12.01.05 12:45 AM
|
You guys spend your free time rreesponding to this? Pathetic
patco13 | 12.01.05 12:56 AM
|
It's just not good PR to say "great, the mother$%&&$ is dead!" It doesn't make us look good. Yes, Osama Bin Laden is an evil man, but we don't need to go around saying things like that. It doesn't reflect good on our culture. It's like the whole torture thing.
cameron crazy | 12.01.05 01:06 AM
|
Why does the right not want OBL found?
It's amazing but exactly where is the national security issue involving OBL's death? Why would that be a NS issue?
And this bozo Varifrank suggesting that Reid STFU over mentioning OBL's death?
Why?
How would mentioning OBL being dead have any affect on NS other than to keep us all in the dark so that Bush can go around saying how much danger we're all in? He promised to bring OBL in dead or alive and he failed miserably.
I would think these people on the right would be glad to hear this but instead of asking why this hasn't been made major news they jump over Reid?!
MYOB'
.
MYOB | 12.01.05 01:14 AM
|
You're really grasping as straws there "The Editors of the American Federalist Journal". It's fairly obvious what he means.
john | 12.01.05 01:15 AM
|
Aw shucks, democrats are just so stupid, they're stupid and they think stupid stuff and do stupid things, it's just so stupid how stupid those stupid democrats are. I mean how can anyone be so stupid?
OK, so that's my audition to be a wingnut blogger on Powerline ... can I write stupid lies about stuff now? Please huh can I?
And for the nuts in the room, there is a difference between slanting your take on the truth, and lying. The New York Times slants its coverage in the direction of the truth, with a classic journalistic bias toward the underdog. Powerline, O'Reilly, and Republicans in general, are just liars.
Questions?
GollyGOP | 12.01.05 01:39 AM
|
A true follower of either Christ or Buddha would not wish anyone, repeat anyone, harm.
So much for the enlightenment of the editors at the American Federalist Journal; but then, we never thought they were.
After years of observation, I have noticed that the Right (wrong) attracts people who are not concerned with truth or goodness, only self aggrandizement which they extend to their "group" at various levels. Without exception. Sad.
Write Approach | 12.01.05 01:46 AM
|
Any word yet as to when DeLay will be going to prison?
Rocky | 12.01.05 01:52 AM
|
Uhh.
Because wishing harm on others is wrong. Did you not have a mother? Did she not hold you?
Without moral authority, you just have might makes right...
And look what happens when you ignore nuremburg...
Krackonis | 12.01.05 02:01 AM
|
Decent Christian Americans would never wish anyone harm, not even their 'enemies.'
Church Secretary | 12.01.05 02:13 AM
|
Why would any decent American not wish Osama bin Ladin harm?
Note to Jeff Gannon:
Not all of us Americans need hate to survive.
Log Cabin Republicans | 12.01.05 02:15 AM
|
And you call yourselves editors?
You are aware of the death toll that quake caused, right? I believe it is not a stretch to realize the senator is saying that though the quake was catastrophic (87,000 dead last I read), it might be possible to see some good from that event (Bin Laden's presumed demise).
Excellent disregard for context.
JustPassingThrough | 12.01.05 02:52 AM
|
Did Reid really say that? Why would any decent American not wish Osama bin Ladin harm?
I don't know, why wouldn't any decent American not want to FIND OBL?
But, George W. Bush sure doesn't seem to be doing much to accomplish that. Can anyone remember the last time he mentioned his named?
Oh and wasn't there something Bush said about, oh, six months after 9/11, about OBL?
"I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.... You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you." - GW Bush, 13 March 2002
I await your sputters of outrage, The Editors of American Federalist Journal.
renato | 12.01.05 03:21 AM
|
He wasn't talking about Osama -- he was trying not to wish harm to the millions of *other* people affected by the earthquake. He said it's good for the world if Osama has been killed.
This Guy | 12.01.05 03:25 AM
|
Leaving aside whether Reid was leaking secret info, what about this nugget?: "...I certainly wouldn't wish anyone harm..."
Did Reid really say that? Why would any decent American not wish Osama bin Ladin harm?
I don't know tell us, since you are the only person(s) to suggest that anybody doesn't want to do him harm. Reid said "...that's good for the world." so apearantly Reid was delighted at your ideological cousin's possible death.
I know that conservatives like The Editors of The American Federalist Journal, and Osama Bin Laden spend time trying to wish people harm, but most of the world is not as twisted.
Civilized people want to bring criminals to justice. People need to know why they are wrong and that they must answer to society. It would be much better if Bin Laden is executed rather than randomly killed in a natural disaster. That is one of the reasons that Liberal societies are better than terrorists. Conservatives would have us drop down to the level of their fellow religious conservatives in Al Quaeda, thus reducing our society to just another faction fighting some other faction. We wont let you or your counterparts do that to us. In the end we will win.
History shows a gradual change toward more open societies, more liberal societies, more equality and more freedom. In the end the conservatives, whether they call themselves Al Quaeda or Republicans, will be defeated only to rear their ugly heads again some other day. Constant vigilance is one price of freedom.
Sherm | 12.01.05 03:35 AM
|
I agree with the Editors TOTALLY!!1!
ANYONE who says "I certainly wouldn't wish anyone harm," like from a killer earthquake for instance, is a total DEGENERATE, since "anyone" ASLO includes BIN LADEN!!!!!!
Then, RIGHT AFTER that, he says that the earthquake was a GOOD thing, becuase it killed bin Laden!!Q!!!1!!Q!!
So he's a TRAITOR in the WAR ON TERRORISM and PLUS THE BATTLE AGAINST NATURAL DISASTERS, which Bush is TOTALLY WINNING TOO except for the DUMB STUPID LOCAL OFFICIALS!!!!!Q!!1!!!!
anonymous | 12.01.05 03:38 AM
|
Exactly how and why could it possibly "harm America" if the news that Osama is dead were leaked? The mind boggles.
And what happened to the short-lived wingnut outrage at the leak that forced the CIA's secret gulags into the European consciousness? Oh yeah, it turns out it was probably GOP Senators, that explains the sudden target shift, of course.
melior in France | 12.01.05 04:20 AM
|
Buy a clue. What Reid said was equivalent to someone saying "I don't advocate violence but someone really needs their ass kicked" or "I'm against capital punishment but wouldn't shed a tear if serial killer X was fried" or something along those lines.
Keith | 12.01.05 04:26 AM
|
Editors of American Federalist Journal.
Do you think that maybe Reid was commenting on the tragedy of tens of thousands who died in that earthquake, and putting bin Laden?s reported demise in that context?
The Duke-stir | 12.01.05 04:43 AM
|
AlrightAlready, you want some examples of the NY Times partisan slant?
Judith Miller
David Brooks
William Safire
Christopher Hitchens (Times contributor)
Memo to AlrightAlready - it's not good debating style to beat one's self in one's own debate.
GK | 12.01.05 06:59 AM
|
Hummph...I guess the people at AFJ haven't heard of Christ and His teachings. Funny how these imbeciles will claim Christ as their own, yet do everything and I do mean everything to make Him weep.
Lee Burl | 12.01.05 07:16 AM
|
This is emblematic of political blogging in general. For the most part it is a mile wide and an inch deep.
Blogging has shown the true complexion of most political discourse in the US, which can be summed up as a schoolyard fight between bullies. Of course, that is not surprising from a country that solves its problems by bombing and torturing people.
Hooray for our side!
Anad | 12.01.05 07:25 AM
|
I think the GOP is missing a great opportunity in not recruiting OBL.
The dude has terrific fiscal responsibility, heads an organization that works with very little infrastructure (tiny govt), is apparently very effective even to launching precision, "shock & awe"� strikes around the globe, all the positive attributes the Repubs say about themselves.
Doesn't the Bible say something about "embracing ones enemies".................
Sky-Ho | 12.01.05 08:22 AM
|
GK, don't forget John Tierney. He makes David Brooks look good.
And that's just the Op-Edders. The not-very-liberal-at-all NYT, if anything, veers rightward in its reportage: Judith Miller has been zampolit for the RNC and PNAC since the mid-1980s. Jeff Gerth, the guy who gave us TWO bogus "Clinton scandals", Whitewater and Wen Ho Lee, is a buddy of longtime Clinton foe and Arkansas Republican operative Sheffield Nelson. And that's just off the top of my head.
But of course, in the Corporate State, the corporate media is the state media.
Phoenix Woman | 12.01.05 08:30 AM
|
john fund, now let's see. isn't he the ex-wall street journal editorial writer who slept with a mother, then slept with her daughter, then got the daughter pregnant, then told the daughter to get an abortion although fund is publicly against abortion? yes, i think that's who john fund is.
zipflock | 12.01.05 08:35 AM
|
John Fund is an upstanding journalist and a credit to the profession. I think I'm in love with him not only for his fine mind buut for his hot body as well.
Mary Rosh | 12.01.05 08:35 AM
|
Wow, a recurring troll!
I used to see this The Editors, American Federalist Journal post nonsense on Think Progress all the time. Iguess he decided to branch out with his vapid ramblings.
John S. | 12.01.05 08:39 AM
|
I want someone to investigate whether John Fund legally had a name change. I mean, come on! Does the world really believe that somebody that wrote for the WSJ has the last name of "Fund"?????
John G | 12.01.05 09:13 AM
|
Powerline has been on my list of sites that are untrustworty with any newsworthy item for some time. Neocon hysteria is unlike any other, and shrillness is at the top of the list of things that I avoid when reading blogs. Few are shrill the way Fund is shrill.
Nittacci | 12.01.05 11:21 AM
|
I guess the people at AFJ haven't heard of Christ and His teachings.
Judging by their line-up of columnists, I'd say you're right.
Tukla in Iowa | 12.01.05 02:46 PM
|
You guys spend your free time rreesponding to this? Pathetic
patco13 | 12.01.05 12:56 AM
Better than doing it during working hours :)
pathetic or not.
demodred | 12.01.05 05:27 PM
|
John Fund sounds like a very fine name for a WSJ journalist since that is where the financial advice they dispense will put any funds you care to invest.
ent lord | 12.02.05 10:21 AM
|
Post a comment
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.
