Skip to comments.Did AP Cover for Biden on ‘20th Century’ Mix-Up?
Posted on 02/17/2010 11:38:24 AM PST by Free ThinkerNY
"I refuse to accept the notion that the United States of America is not going to lead the world economically throughout the 20th Century."
The AP article covering Vice President Joe Biden's remarks does not reflect the error: "I absolutely refuse to accept the notion that the United States of America is not going to lead the world economically throughout the 21st Century," Biden said during remarks to supporters on the Delta campus
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.tv ...
Finally, something Biden and I can agree on.
The AP always covers for the dimoKKKRATS.
Meh. The AP was probably using the “prepared remarks” provided to them (i.e., a copy of the speech), and not actually literally transcribing the speech.
Unless this was during a Q&A session?
I have more faith in Pravda today than I do in the AP or other elements of the “state controlled” media.
Any old geezer could make a mistake like that...like Bob Dole in 1996 calling the Dodgers of that year “the Brooklyn Dodgers.” Joe Biden doesn’t have a surplus of working brain cells so he has to conserve them for more important matters.
Obama is laying low now and appears to be sending Biden out instead. Obama will now go back to when the Mao Loving Anita Dunn said they controlled what the media knew with taped videos and no questions can be asked. He will do townhalls and meetings with no press. This is why Gibbs is on twitter now so he can spin quickly when the truth comes out. It’s the new Obama is being found out so everything he says must be choreographed now. So they send out Biden, the biggest gaffemeister around.
Seriously think about a president afraid of the press. Obama can only pass his agenda if he can lie without being asked questions.
Ann Coulter on Biden’s terrorist trial remarks.
Coulter: Bush Wanted To Try Richard Reid by Military Commission, But Left-Wing Wouldn’t Let Him
COULTER: “The headline, well, I remember it from these ferocious fights throughout the Bush administration, and that is you keep — we keep hearing that Bush sent Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, into a civilian court as if, you know, that was his choice.
No, he came out about a month after 9/11 and issued. He issued executive order for military commissions. And immediately, the left wing, particularly the left-wing legal community, went mental. Senator Leahy, the Democrat head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was denouncing this. He had all of the human rights mix, amnesty. The entire law professor faculties across America denouncing Bush for doing this without congressional approval, without Congress passing laws.
Immediately, there were about six bills in Congress, setting up military tribunals of their own, including John Conyers’ bill, which would apply only to the 9/11 terrorists.
And — and so obviously, this was a matter that was heavily litigated over the next seven years. It went to the Supreme Court twice. The Supreme Court struck down Bush’s executive order for military tribunals with ferocious dissents, I might add, by justices Scalia and Thomas.
And then Congress back in — this is in 2006 now — writes a military tribunal law that itself gets appealed to the Supreme Court. The first military tribunal under Bush, after endless litigation from the left, from left-wing lawyers, did not occur until summer of 2008. At that point, Bush had...
O’REILLY: OK. Let me stop — let me stop you there. So what you’re saying there is that the argument that Alan Colmes and others make, Vice President Biden, that 300 captured terrorists have been tried in civilian court is not valid, because there was no other way to try them. Because of all the legal challenges, you couldn’t put them in military commissions, because every two minutes there was a blockage of the action. Is that what you’re saying?
COULTER: That’s right. Not only that but just specifically because of the left wing that we couldn’t go forward with military tribunals which, by the way, I agree with Scalia and Thomas on, were constitutional. It is — the president is the commander and chief in war time.
They view Dems are good hearted, do-gooders and Repubs are mean-spirited a-holes. Son naturally, its ok to provide cover.
You know that little episode still sends shivers up my spine. Think about it. Why did he just immediately say "christian" in response, instead of saying, you mean your christian religion? Instant cover.
I would have said, "YOUR MUSLIM RELIGION!" What do you mean by that? Are you a Muslim still?
And of course we all know he is, don't we.
Did he mean the 19th century?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.