Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Chastened Rangel Backtracks on Anti-Troop Comments
Newsmax.com ^ | 3-28-2003 | Carl Limbacher

Posted on 03/29/2003 9:07:17 AM PST by Paul Atreides

Engulfed by a firestorm of outrage over his comments suggesting that U.S. troops were deliberately killing women and children in Iraq, Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-NY, said Friday that he should have been more careful with his words.

"There is no question that if I had a chance to reword that, that I would have done a much better job," the embattled Democrat told nationally syndicated radio host Sean Hannity.

Appearing Thursday night on Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes," Rangel had complained, "I just don't believe that you bomb women and children in order to enforce [the U.N. resolution on Iraq]."

When challenged on his claim that U.S. forces were killing Iraqi civilians, Rangel responded sarcastically, "You're right. They're shooting themselves. They just don't know they're being liberated."

Although the mainstream press ignored Rangel's outburst, NewsMax.com's initial report on the episode along with viewers' reactions to his remarks ricocheted throughout the Internet. By Friday morning the Harlem Democrat's diatribe was topic number one on talk radio.

The nation's top radio talker Rush Limbaugh began his show excoriating Rangel, calling his comments "undiluted, pure, 100 percent, thoroughbred hatred from the Democrat who would be Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee if the Democrats were in charge." He then replayed extensive audioclips from Rangel's Fox News Channel appearance.

Hours later a chastened Rangel appeared on Hannity's radio show in a bid to clarify his statement. Under intense questioning the top House Democrat was combative at first, maintaining for 15 minutes that his words were being distorted. But then he finally relented.

"I have no argument with your statement that our men and women that are in combat put themselves more in harms way by the precautions they are taking to avoid the injury to innocent people, innocent civilians and women," he told Hannity. "There is no question in my mind that I did not say nor did I mean that the injury of the women and children was deliberate."

The antiwar congressman then attempted to revise his words:

"What I wish I had said is that I am against the war, that the war is because of the violation of the United Nations resolution, [and] that I wish that we allowed the United Nations to enforce the breach of that resolution. As a result we didn't do it, we are in war, it means combat, it means collateral damage.

"And as a result of that, the pain is not only the pain that our men and women are facing. But they are [sic] the pain of innocent people, that although not deliberate, bombs fall on them. Many times it's the bombs of the Iraqis that fall on them as they're shooting at our planes."


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: hallofshame; rangel; scum
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-58 next last
Thank God for talk radio!! I shudder to think what that evil scum would get away with if we didn't have it.
1 posted on 03/29/2003 9:07:17 AM PST by Paul Atreides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Paul Atreides
The mainstream media's suppression of this story is a criminal act.
2 posted on 03/29/2003 9:12:40 AM PST by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul Atreides
Another scumbag who's glad he's not subject to Texas Common Law.
3 posted on 03/29/2003 9:12:48 AM PST by Feckless
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul Atreides
Where's the apology? All I saw was that he was sorry he got caught. He should volunteer for human shield duty.
4 posted on 03/29/2003 9:14:28 AM PST by Bernard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bernard
Were that his accusations true, we should slap a wig and dress on Rangel, put Daschle in a baby carriage, and drop the two off in the desert and let our troops have at them.
5 posted on 03/29/2003 9:15:38 AM PST by Paul Atreides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Paul Atreides
His words were no different than screaming "Fire!" in a theater. He is attempting to incite hatred and violence within the United States, and should be tried as a common criminal. Freedom of speech is guaranteed in this country, but Rangel is over the line, being treasonous. Why does the American public allow this?
6 posted on 03/29/2003 9:17:19 AM PST by TommyDale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul Atreides
Rangel proved beyond doubt that he does not have the necessary qualities for president.

In fact, he has more of the qualities of traitor.
7 posted on 03/29/2003 9:20:32 AM PST by ClancyJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bernard
I listened to strangle rangal trying to worm his way out of reponsibility for his words.

First he tried to say they were misconstrued, then he tried to blame Sean.

Finally he had to admit that it was a poor choice of words that he used.

SCUMBAG
8 posted on 03/29/2003 9:24:37 AM PST by South Dakota (Just so you know, I'm saddened that daschle and McGovern are from my state)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Paul Atreides
Trent Lott makes a comment that was taken to imply racism ( interpretation) and was forced out of his position. This maggot claims definitivey that our military is bombing innocent civilians and what happens? Nada. I think he should do more than just say he mis spoke. I say he should resign from the house, return his Bronze Star( still don't believe he did what he claims to have done in Korea) and repent for his anti-Americanism
9 posted on 03/29/2003 9:25:01 AM PST by shadeaud (Liberals suffer from acute interior cornial craniorectoitis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TommyDale
Why does the American public allow this?

Rangel is the congressman from Harlem and has been in office a long time. I can't even imagine if he were the chairman of House Ways and Means(tax writing committee). He will not be replaced in congress until after his funeral, after which they will elect an annointed replacement.

10 posted on 03/29/2003 9:30:14 AM PST by Mister Baredog ((They wanted to kill 50,000 of us on 9/11, we will never forget!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Mister Baredog
Come to think of it, I am not aware of any blacks (with the exception of those in the Bush Administration) who are not opposed to the Iraq action.
11 posted on 03/29/2003 9:32:36 AM PST by TommyDale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Paul Atreides
Rangel needs a size 11 cowboy boot right up his a**. What a first class jerk !
12 posted on 03/29/2003 9:35:27 AM PST by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TommyDale
JC Watts (of course, intelligent THINKING man that he is...)
13 posted on 03/29/2003 9:37:43 AM PST by pcgTheDestroyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Paul Atreides
Charlie Rangel is a liar. He said what he said very forcefully on the show, and then, when Hannity took issue with him, Rangel repeated himself in the same terms, also very forcefully. I'd have to work very hard to overcome the urge to expectorate on Charlie Rangel if he came within range. It's good that Texas and NY are so far apart.
14 posted on 03/29/2003 9:37:57 AM PST by Clara Lou (... Democrats, united as ever in opportunism and error.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul Atreides
There is no backtracking! This punk MUST be held accountable. The time to think about what you're saying is BEFORE you say it; that is especially true if you're in a position of influence or power. We didn't buy it from the Dixie Chunk, and we're not buying it from Rangel.

Let there be a Day of Reckoning for these loudmouths!!!

15 posted on 03/29/2003 9:38:21 AM PST by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul Atreides
I AGREE.

Part of me thinks he's still getting away with too much.

He hasn't changed his convictions. He'd still sell the USA down the river for a few popularity points or added power mongering.

Scum is too lofty a label for him.
16 posted on 03/29/2003 9:42:43 AM PST by Quix (QUALITY RESRCH STDY BTWN BK WAR N PEACE VS BIBLE RE BIBLE CODES AT MAR BIBLECODESDIGEST.COM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul Atreides
There is nothing like a good fetch upside the head to clarify one's thinking. Unfortunately, the feeble response of the mainstream press to Charlie's outrageous assertions did not succeed in delivering a sufficiently effect reminder that this sort of muddied reasoning and poor selection of words should not be tolerated. Charlie will be right back at it, tomorrow or the next day, delivering the word to the troops as to how to carry on a running fight with the Bush Administration, and being a voice for the frustrated minions of the liberal-lefty cohort that is united mainly in their hatred of George W. Bush. Nothing personal, you understand. This is just business.
17 posted on 03/29/2003 9:43:14 AM PST by alloysteel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul Atreides
Why was Charlie given a chance to revise his statement--- I believe he call for Trent Lott to resign when made a stupid statewment -- I don't remember Charlie R asking for a "revision" .
18 posted on 03/29/2003 9:45:48 AM PST by tsali1927
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks
Rangel needs a size 11 cowboy boot right up his a**.

...and a cough drop.

19 posted on 03/29/2003 9:48:56 AM PST by Neenah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: South Dakota
And Sean did give him a chance to retract or modify. He wouldn't back down.
20 posted on 03/29/2003 9:50:20 AM PST by Let's Roll (And those that cried Appease! Appease! are hanged by those they tried to please!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: TommyDale
I know of two black Rep. who voted against the Black Caucus and voted to support Pre. Bush: Rep. (GA) Denise Majette (who replaced Cynthia McKinney) and the Rep. from Alabama, whose name I can't remember.
21 posted on 03/29/2003 9:52:16 AM PST by Atlantian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Paul Atreides
Charlie a liar? You mean Rats are actually capable of lying?

Charlie needs to receive proper salutations whenever and wherever he appears in public.
22 posted on 03/29/2003 9:52:41 AM PST by Jimmy Valentine's brother (The US and British led weapon inspections in force has begun!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul Atreides
Turd.
23 posted on 03/29/2003 9:54:56 AM PST by Octar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul Atreides
Appearing Thursday night on Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes," Rangel had complained, "I just don't believe that you bomb women and children in order to enforce [the U.N. resolution on Iraq]."

Note to future political opponent:

Remind him of these spoken words next time he's up for re-election.

24 posted on 03/29/2003 9:55:55 AM PST by paws_and_whiskers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul Atreides
I listened to Rangel lie and twist and Sean held his feet to the fire. Rangel is a communist and should be mailed to Cuba.
25 posted on 03/29/2003 9:56:14 AM PST by bmwcyle (Semper Gumby - Always Flexable)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Atlantian
"I know of two black Rep. who voted against the Black Caucus and voted to support Pre. Bush: Rep. (GA) Denise Majette (who replaced Cynthia McKinney) and the Rep. from Alabama, whose name I can't remember."

Thanks. I didn't know that. Rangel should be targeted and removed from the US congress too.

26 posted on 03/29/2003 9:58:57 AM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Paul Atreides
Were that his accusations true, we should slap a wig and dress on Rangel, put Daschle in a baby carriage, and drop the two off in the desert and let our troops have at them.

ROFL! What a picture your suggestion brings to mind!

27 posted on 03/29/2003 10:02:07 AM PST by arasina (PRAY for our troops, our president, our journalists, the POWs and the innocents!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Paul Atreides
Gotcha Chollie!
28 posted on 03/29/2003 10:04:02 AM PST by ricpic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul Atreides
"There is no question that if I had a chance to reword that, that I would have done a much better job,"

"I meant what I said but I didn't say what I meant"......."What I really meant was,....well....to be as obnoxious as possible."

Even at the expense of our honorable troops.

29 posted on 03/29/2003 10:06:21 AM PST by Tom Bombadil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul Atreides
Charlie!....go to the Natalie Maines corner of disgrace and plant your obtuse schnozz in it.....after you pull your head from your ass.

...and take your constiuients who elect you year after year with you please!
30 posted on 03/29/2003 10:09:42 AM PST by wardaddy (G-d speed our fighters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul Atreides
Talk radio and FReeping!

How many people FReeped Rangel?

One
31 posted on 03/29/2003 10:28:01 AM PST by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul Atreides
"What I wish I had said is that I am against the war, that the war is because of the violation of the United Nations resolution, [and] that I wish that we allowed the United Nations to enforce the breach of that resolution. As a result we didn't do it, we are in war, it means combat, it means collateral damage.

What violation of the United Nations resolution? Point to any UN resolution that this operation is in violation of. Name the specific paragraph. There isn't one. It doesn't exist. UNSC 1441 clearly affirms that Iraq _IS_ in material breach of UNSC 678 and 687 and states that "serious consequences" _WILL_ follow. It gave them an additional 6 months to demonstrate to the inspectors that they were not in breach. The Iraqi government did not demonstrate that. They evaded and thwarted the inspectors at every chance. The time stated in 1441 expired, the "serious consequences" clause invoked and the war authorization previously granted unanimously by the UNSC in 678 and 687 commenced. Exactly what violation is there?

As far as wishing the UN had enforced the resolution -- that's all it is -- a wish. We gave the UNSC a chance, we offered to go back with yet another redundant resolution, but France said they would veto it no matter how it was written. They simply refused to enforce anything. They had a chance, but Chirac got down on his belly, and slithered away instead.

32 posted on 03/29/2003 10:28:22 AM PST by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty" not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul Atreides
Let's wait and see, shall we? Maybe Rangel is going to pull a Maurice Hinchey and tailor his comments to suit whatever audience he, Rangel, is speaking to at the moment...
33 posted on 03/29/2003 10:31:04 AM PST by mewzilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul Atreides
I am a yet another witness to his quite blatant and clear accusations that our military are bombing women and children, with the clear meaning that it is done with intent. He did not, whatsoever, mispeak. Hannity, numerous times, recited his words on the tv program...and Rangle NOT ONCE retracted those words. HE'S A LIAR.
34 posted on 03/29/2003 10:37:33 AM PST by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClancyJ
Rangel proved beyond doubt that he does not have the necessary qualities for president.

Rangel doesn't even have the necessary qualities to be a congersman.

And the qualities required for serving in the Congers are mighty, mighty low.

I am deeply, deeply disappointed and troubled, Tim, at Rangel's effort at redeeming himself. He has proved to be a miserable failure at diplomacy. ;)

His apology (?), evoked by the power of the internet and talk radio, is a non-apology. Like unto the Ditsie Chick who shot off her mouth.

35 posted on 03/29/2003 10:38:26 AM PST by Ole Okie (dit dit dit dah! V for Victory!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Paul Atreides
He can't backtrack.

He is plainly what he is. A leftist enemy of America who like Saddam insures his power by making his constituients dependent on his largess.

Cross him on his turf at your peril.

36 posted on 03/29/2003 10:43:57 AM PST by bert (Don't Panic !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul Atreides
Another baghdad of crap.

So this piece of work was a soldier once. So now he can say anything he wants to about our troops.

B.S.
He's ticked that Bush is President and like all good liberals he hates the military.

37 posted on 03/29/2003 10:57:18 AM PST by husky ed (FOX NEWS ALERT "Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead" THIS HAS BEEN A FOX NEWS ALERT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul Atreides
Did you hear where he also lied about the over representation of blacks in the military? That has been debunked by the Pentagon, but Charlie still repeats the lie.

Then he went on to the big lie about killing civilians.
38 posted on 03/29/2003 11:05:45 AM PST by Badray (I won't be treated like a criminal until after they catch me and convict me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul Atreides
The worst thing about this is that Charlie Rangel has a reputation is an experienced, relatively moderate black politician, who knows how to compromise and get things done.

It's a sad state of affairs when even the moderate Democrats think they have to come out with radical, treasonous talk to please their fellow Democrats.

Grand Wizard Byrd is another example. He's a southerner, with a public reputation as a judicious gentleman whose main interest in life is bringing back immense amounts of pork to West Virginia. He too has been off the walls recently.

This kind of behavior is likely to do these politicians in. What plays with their extremist base doesn't play with people in general.
39 posted on 03/29/2003 11:19:21 AM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul Atreides
Yup. And the editorial pages of lots of newspapers.

Rangel isn't going to get away with this so easily. The editors and reporters may not mention this, but letters to the editor will.
40 posted on 03/29/2003 11:21:05 AM PST by OpusatFR (How can war protesters support Saddam when he is killing his own people! What sort of evil are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul Atreides
"Thank God for talk radio!! I shudder to think what that evil scum would get away with if we didn't have it."

-----and the internet ---and Fox--- and intelligent conservatives who won't just sit and let things pass!

Rangel can wrangle any angle he wants. He can't change what he said. He said what he said because he is a rabble rouser and means to put this administration in as bad a position as he can. He can try to change his wording all he wants, but the damage has been done. He had better watch himself, because we are on to him and will be watching.

41 posted on 03/29/2003 11:21:07 AM PST by Exit148
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shadeaud
Trent Lott getting forced out was not a bad thing for us.

Rangle needs a whuppin.
42 posted on 03/29/2003 11:33:01 AM PST by annyokie (provacative yet educational reading alert)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Paul Atreides
Media Ignore Rep. Rangel's Slurs on U.S. Military
43 posted on 03/29/2003 11:37:01 AM PST by ru4liberty (I don't know what tomorrow holds, but I know Who holds tomorrow. May His Name ever be praised!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla
Let's wait and see, shall we? Maybe Rangel is going to pull a Maurice Hinchey and tailor his comments to suit whatever audience he, Rangel, is speaking to at the moment...

Nope, Rangel was one of the House members who did not vote for the resolution to support the troops and the Commander in Chief.

44 posted on 03/29/2003 11:38:05 AM PST by mware
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Paul Atreides
Sean Hannity was standing on Rangel's tail, or he'd have run.

The disgusting Sharpton-style demagogue Rangel said we're bombing women and children to enforce sanctions.

Bravo, Sean.

45 posted on 03/29/2003 11:42:26 AM PST by PhilDragoo (Hitlery: das Butch von Buchenvald)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PhilDragoo
Were Charlie's "brave" heroic activities in Korea because he volunteered to fight the communist threat,or was Charlie "forced" to become involved because he was DRAFTED???

From listening to his hatred towards the US military,I know where to place my money betting on which one.Somebody should ask Charlie this question as the lead off in his next interview.

His reply would expose and explain his actions at this time...

46 posted on 03/29/2003 11:55:31 AM PST by musicman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Atlantian
For the record (I know, I'm very late):

The congressman from Alabama is Artur Davis, who replaced the more liberal, Ghaddafi-loving Earl Hilliard. He certainly would have voted the opposite of Davis. I had the pleasure of voting against Hilliard in the Democrat primary runoff.
47 posted on 03/31/2003 1:52:53 AM PST by WhaChuLookinAt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: WhaChuLookinAt
BUMP
48 posted on 03/31/2003 1:54:09 AM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
Rangel is a slimebucket BUMP!


Victory

Quagmire, they say
Like Vietnam
Our side has failed
The war's a bomb

Pure desperation
Lying spin
Shows how they hate
To see us win

Truth is we're winning
As it's never been done
All of our foes
Are on the run

They've bloodied our nose
Once or twice
But we have them all
In a fatal vice

We own the skies
Above their head
If they move a muscle
They're surely dead

We can hit them
At twice their range
While on the move
We can engage

We mourn our dead
Our losses bite
But historically
Casualties are light

They torture those
Who can't defend
For that they'll hang
On that depend

All of those
Not on our side
Will soon be crushed
Nowhere to hide

EV
49 posted on 03/31/2003 1:56:14 AM PST by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Charlie is getting to be about as horrid as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. I think that he is really, really, REALLY angry, that after all of these years, he still isn't in charge of something and that his party is NOT the majority in both house , as well as holding the White House. He's lost his mind.

Thanks for the poem. :-)

50 posted on 03/31/2003 1:59:52 AM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-58 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson