Local papers break silence on Patty Murray

SEATTLE – The newspaper that broke the story of Sen. Patty Murray's commendation of Osama bin Laden's nation-building tactics published an editorial today asserting that the senator erred by failing to tell "a room of young minds that America is the most benevolent of nations."

Noting that her office is "doing damage control by flicking mud at 'right-wing demagogues,'" the Vancouver Columbian said Murray, D-Wash., neglected to give U.S. actions context or credit.

"The senator should be assured that more than the 'right wing' is concerned that a U.S. senator does not see the importance of representing America in a correct light to its young people," the Columbian said.

The newspaper editorial said Murray had every right to say what she said and that "no resignation is necessary." But the paper insisted that she "also had every obligation as a U.S. senator and high-level representative of this country and this state to present the United States in a far more accurate light."

"That she didn't is something voters can consider when she is up for re-election," the Columbian said.

The Columbian reported last Wednesday on a session Murray had with students at Columbia River High School in Vancouver, Wash., in which she asked them to ponder why bin Laden is "so popular around the world."

Murray said bin Laden has been "out in these countries for decades, building schools, building roads, building infrastructure, building day care facilities, building health care facilities, and the people are extremely grateful. We haven't done that."

The second-term senator, who is up for re-election in 2004, then asked the students: "How would they look at us today if we had been there helping them with some of that rather than just being the people who are going to bomb in Iraq and go to Afghanistan?"

Two other Washington state newspapers, the Tacoma News Tribune and the Seattle Times, also weighed in on Murray's remarks today.

The News Tribune headlined its editorial, "A shallow lecture from Sen. Murray," while the Times commented on, "Those silly attacks on Sen. Patty Murray."

The News Tribune opened rhetorically with, "Should Washington's U.S. Sen. Patty Murray resign her seat in disgrace for suggesting the United States could learn something from Osama bin Laden's charity work?"

The Tacoma paper said, "Of course not, despite all the hyperventilating to that effect from national conservative action groups and right-wing talk radio."

The News Tribune said, however, that she should have chosen her words more carefully.

Murray "vastly" overstated "the extent of bin Laden's supposedly humanitarian works, which were largely confined to the Sudan and Afghanistan," the News Tribune said. "And those in the Muslim world who idolize bin Laden do so mainly because he successfully struck a heavy blow against the United States with attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, not because he was a paragon of philanthropy."

The Tacoma paper said it thought Murray was trying to say that the U.S. needs to be "better neighbors" and less unilateral in its conduct of foreign affairs.

"That's a legitimate argument," the News Tribune said. "But bin Laden is no paragon of philanthropy, and no amount of American generosity would have prevented bin Laden and al-Qaida from putting innocent Americans in the crosshairs."

Calling election time "the silly season," the Seattle Times editorial board blasted Washington Republican Party Chairman Chris Vance and Rep. George Nethercutt, R-Wash., for their "shenanigans" and "gasbaggery" over Murray's remarks.

The Times noted Vance's press release characterizing Murray's message to the students as an inference that the "United States somehow deserved or brought on the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks."

"Oh please, what nonsense!" said the editorial board of the state's largest newspaper.

"Fact is," the Times said, "Murray's information about bin Laden is right. The Associated Press quoted a bin Laden expert saying the senator's comments were 'a generalization, but mostly accurate.'"

The Seattle paper concluded, saying, "Sen. Murray challenged bright students, who might be soldiers in the war on terrorism, to make sense of our nation's circumstances. How subversive!"

Oh, no! Not another GOP faux pas!
by JohnHuang2
December 23, 2002

Oh no, not again.

Folks, if you thought the media firestorm over Trent Lott was overkill, well, you ain't seen nothing yet, my friends. Just wait till the media jackals, licking their chops, sink their teeth into this one.

Brace yourself: I predict the latest GOP foot-in-mouth/faux pas, once the network newsies get wind of it, will make you downright nostalgic for Lott. Jennings, Rather, Brokaw, Woodruff et al, right about now, are probably drooling.

What is it with Hill Republicans and bloopers these days, anyway? Sheesh, haven't we already been embarrassed enough? Seemingly, when it comes to gaffes/goofs/verbal boners, Congressional Republicans have, for reasons which baffle me, more than their fair share. Is there something in the water, or what?

One wag suggested, only half-jokingly, keeping a muzzle on GOP pieholes.

Talk about handing our enemies the ammo to shoot us, the blooper I'm about to tell you about, far and away, takes the cake.

No, it's not another 'racially tinged' remark, if that's any comfort, but it's verbal arson guaranteed to spark an even bigger media hullabaloo, all the same.

And, worse still, unlike the Lott spat -- which, despite weeks of negative publicity, ended with Republicans on top and Democrats on defense again -- this looming controversy has, I'm afraid, the potential for real, long-lasting damage to the Party.

It involves, at once, the GOP's greatest strength but the Democrats' greatest vulnerability: National Security.

Democrats, chafing after midterm elections dominated by questions of security and defense, will, no doubt, go to town on this latest GOP gaffe. Republicans, from Presidents Dwight Eisenhower to Richard Nixon to Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush, have, on foreign and defense matters, amassed considerable political capital. Then along comes this stupid GOP Senator whose slip-of-the-tongue threatens to throw it all away. Incredibly, this Senator is, to boot, up for reelection in '04!

What Senator, you ask? What slip-of-the-tongue?

Well, you're not going to believe this (actually, when I heard about it, I could barely believe it myself) but, here goes:

First of all, this GOP Senator, to be fair, claims she was only trying to be "intentionally provocative" in an effort to elicit a thoughtful discussion, you see. Speaking last week to students at a high school honors class in Vancouver, Wash., GOP Senator Patty Murray (R-Wa.) touched off a furor after telling attendees that America has a lot to learn from terror mastermind Osama bin Laden -- no, not the terrorism, but what she called his tireless work to "help" the sick and the poor of this world.

"We've got to ask: Why is this man [Osama] so popular around the world?" the GOP Senator Thursday told dumbfounded students at Columbia River High School. "Why are people so supportive of him in many countries that are riddled with poverty?"

He's also got, I would add, a huge fan base at Harvard and Berkeley and Hollywood and CNN and Democrat National Committee headquarters, but that's besides the point.

So, why is Osama so popular? Because, 'splains Sen. Murray, Osama is not as bad as evil Bush makes him out to be, after all; in fact, he's a pretty swell dude -- more like a missionary whose vocation in life is doing good works, works of charity, serving the poor -- a kinda Mother Teresa with nails-and-bolts-packed explosives strapped to her body.

Sure, his 'noble deeds' include leveling a couple of skyscrapers one September morning, and, sure, thousands of innocent men, women and children perished, but, hey, can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs, right?

Forget 9/11 for a moment, Sen. Murray seems to suggest, instead wrap your mind around all the wonderful altruism Osama, the virtuous terrorist, er, philanthropist, has provided:

"He's been out in these countries [serving the poor] for decades, "Sen. Murray gushed, "building schools, building roads, building infrastructure, building day-care facilities, building health care facilities, and the people are extremely grateful."

So, how does warmonger Bush stack up against big-hearted Osama and his unselfish devotion to the downtrodden and powerless? Has Bush shown as much good-will and concern for the well-being of the poor and oppressed as Osama has?

No way, says Sen. Murray. "We haven't done that."

Why, Osama's loving and caring, kinder and gentler, 'compassionate terrorism' beats Bush's 'compassionate conservatism' hands-down, says Sen. Murray!

"How would [the poor] look at us today, "Sen. Murray mused, "if we had, [like Osama], been there helping them . . . rather than just being the people who are going to bomb in Iraq and go to Afghanistan?"

Her fellow Republicans, to their credit, immediately pounced.

"It is absolutely outrageous and despicable to imply, "said state GOP chairman Chris Vance, "that the American government should learn a lesson from the madman who murdered thousands of American citizens."

Mr. Vance added angrily that he knows "Sen. Murray has a habit of sticking her foot in her mouth, but this goes way beyond a simple gaffe, "it "sent the message to these students that the United States somehow deserved or brought on the September 11 terrorists attacks. I think all decent people can agree that we most certainly did not, that this was an unprovoked attack of terrorism."

Strong words, yes, but the real test, as I see it, is whether Republicans take it a step further, beyond demanding retraction, and call on one of their own to resign, making the Senate 50-50 again, putting the Democrats within striking distance of retaking the gavel in January.

One thing about this episode I do find strange, very strange though: This happened last Thursday, right? That's 5 days ago; here we are, five full news cycles later, yet, the networks have yet to pick up this story...

I just can't figure that out...

Unless . . . UNLESS . . . WAIT A MINUTE!

AH-HA! I should've known! Patty Murray's a DEMOCRAT, NOT A REPUBLICAN!

What was I thinking?! Sheesh!

Small wonder we haven't heard a peep from Tom Brokaw, nor Dan Rather, nor Peter Jennings about any of this. The media would rake a Republican Patty Murray over the coals by now. We'd see endless 'Will-Patty-Murray-Be-Forced-To-Resign?, or, 'Is-This-The-End-Of-The-Republican-Party?' media panel discussions/symposiums. Shows titled, "GOP melt-down: Countdown to bankruptcy" would breed like rabbits. Apologies? To heck with apologies -- nothing short of her hand on a platter would satisfy the press. Even censure wouldn't suffice.

Will we ever even see a network blurb on this?

Ha! Don't hold your breath.

By the way, her office defends her comments this way: Look, Osama's no darling, but, hey, he's not some white southerner running as a Dixiecrat, either! So there!

So Strom Thurmond is, by this perversion of logic, worse than Osama bin Laden.

Go figure.

Some question Murray's sanity.

I say, what sanity?
Anyway, that's...
My two cents...
"JohnHuang2"
Copyright Enrique N. ©2002

Wednesday, December 25, 2002
Quote of the Day by demosthenes by Jonathon Spectre

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.