Posted on 09/15/2009 7:02:45 AM PDT by markomalley
President Obama and New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd owe Rep. Joe Wilson an apology.
All three made news for what they had to say during, or in regard to, Obama’s remarks Sept. 9 to a joint session of Congress.
All three said things that were either demonstrably untrue — or at the least, impossible to prove.
Yet only the South Carolina Republican has offered an apology — and, ironically, only Wilson faces further discipline.
Even more ironic, the declaration that got Wilson in trouble (and deservedly so) was a spur of the moment, emotional, gut-level, not-screened-by-anyone-else response to something he had heard and found objectionable; the declarations that should have gotten both Obama and Dowd in trouble were carefully measured and rationally concocted declarations that, presumably, had been screened by professionals.
This raises the question: which is the more offensive communication, the immediate, inappropriate emotional outburst, or the meticulously crafted misstatement of truth?
Let’s go back to the night of the speech, when Obama stunk up the joint with one of the most bitterly partisan speeches ever delivered from that podium.
Not only was it bitterly partisan, it was uttered sanctimoniously in the language — and with the condescending tone — of a lecturer addressing students, rather than as it should have been — in the humble rhetoric of an invited guest, offered an opportunity to persuade.
And it was full of half-truths and untruths.
For instance, Obama declared at one point, “[U]nder our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.”
FactCheck.org found otherwise: “But the House bill would permit a ‘public option’ to cover all abortions, and would also permit federal subsidies to be used to purchase private insurance that covers all abortions, a point that raises objections from anti-abortion groups. That’s true despite a technical ban on use of taxpayer dollars to pay for abortion coverage.”
Obama also said, “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our federal deficits either now or in the future. Period.”
Now, that could be true — but if it is, it would mean that he’s not signing into law the plan that he himself supported earlier in the year, which was scored as a $239 billion net revenue loser over 10 years by the Congressional Budget Office.
And then, of course, there was the statement that led to Wilson’s outburst: “There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants,” Obama said. “This, too, is false — the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.”
The Congressional Research Service reports: “Under HR 3200, a ‘Health Insurance Exchange’ would begin operation in 2013 and would offer private plans alongside a public option … HR 3200 does not contain any restrictions on non-citizens — whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently — participating in the Exchange.”
The CRS also points out that the bill has no provision mandating that those seeking coverage or services provide proof of citizenship. Republicans noted this during the Energy and Commerce Committee’s markup, and offered two amendments to ensure that verification and enforcement provisions were included in the legislation — but the amendments were defeated by Democrats.
So on at least three matters of substance, it appears clear that Obama was not telling the truth.
Now, should Wilson have exclaimed, “You lie!”
No, he should not have, for two reasons — first, because it was just plain rude to interrupt an invited guest, and, second, because even though Obama was not telling the truth, Wilson should not have used the word “lie” to describe those untruths, because “lie” necessarily implies knowledge of a deliberate intent to deceive.
Wilson himself acknowledged this, during an appearance on “Fox News Sunday” with Chris Wallace: “I believe he was misstating the facts … I truly would have said it in a different way if I had time.”
Enter Dowd, who apparently believes she has the gift of The Shadow — she, and she alone, knows what evil lurks in the heart of Wilson.
Dowd wrote in Sunday’s column: “Wilson clearly did not like being lectured and even rebuked by the brainy black president presiding over the majestic chamber.”
On what basis does she make this claim?
None.
Did she interview Wilson, and ask him directly?
No.
Does she claim to have interviewed anyone who knows Wilson?
No — but she did interview two South Carolina Democrats, each of whom responded with, not surprisingly, “helpful” comments about the xenophobic and racist nature of South Carolinians.
To call someone a racist in America today is perhaps the strongest charge that can be leveled. It is the 100-megaton thermonuclear warhead of political discourse. It destroys those against whom it is leveled.
Dowd had no business leveling the charge against Wilson.
She owes Wilson an apology. Come to think of it, so does Obama.
Dem doublespeak and DBM newspeak is all about the deliberate attempt to deceive. They either are themselves or they hire speechwriters who are masters of this.
“..meticulously crafted misstatement of truth?”
MoDo’s columns are just a repeat of nutroot talk. She was never more than a gossip queen.
It’s laughable she complains about right wing hate. Her columns are nothing but hate fests.
She’s been running on fumes for years.
Its racist demagoguery and little else. And still “respectable” conservatives will sit across from their liberal counterparts and proclaim said lib as honorable, as honorable as Goebells.
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.