America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 21 years ago by Robby. 54 replies replies.
2 Pages12>
Rangel calls US Military "Child Killers"
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
Lazygardner Offline
#1 Posted: Fri, Mar 28 2003, 10:07 AM EST
Joined: 08-20-2002
Posts: 176
Friday, March 28, 2003

Media Ignore Rep. Rangel's Slurs on U.S. Military

The mainstream media have ignored Rep. Charlie Rangel's near-treasonous attack on the U.S. military , in which he falsely charged that our armed forces are bombing innocent Iraqi women and children: Rangel Slams U.S. Troops as Child Killers.

A midday search of LexisNexis and Google News and the Web sites of the networks reveals no mention of Rangel's outrageous remarks on last night's "Hannity & Colmes" broadcast on Fox News Channel.

These same media giants raged for weeks about GOP Sen. Trent Lott's remarks about Strom Thurmond but have overlooked or even excused far worse remarks by leftist Democrats such as Sen. Patty "Osama Mama" Murray, Rep. Marcy Kaptur and now Rangel and Wanda Baucus, wife of Sen. Max Baucus.
Spiny Norman Offline
#2 Posted: Fri, Mar 28 2003, 1:18 PM EST
Joined: 09-04-2002
Posts: 899
""""A midday search of LexisNexis and Google News and the Web sites of the networks reveals no mention of Rangel's outrageous remarks on last night's "Hannity & Colmes" broadcast on Fox News Channel. """"

You know what's really strange? As of 1715 CST, there's no mention of it on SHAWN HANNITY'S SITE EITHER!
Spiny Norman Offline
#3 Posted: Fri, Mar 28 2003, 1:19 PM EST
Joined: 09-04-2002
Posts: 899
So you think he is ignoring himself?
usahog Offline
#4 Posted: Fri, Mar 28 2003, 1:26 PM EST
Joined: 12-06-1999
Posts: 22,691
http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2003/3/27/220947

Always look to Newsmax for the things that Media Removes....

Hog
usahog Offline
#5 Posted: Fri, Mar 28 2003, 1:27 PM EST
Joined: 12-06-1999
Posts: 22,691
btw scroll to the Bottom and read more news on the homefront against the Soldiers....


Hog
Spiny Norman Offline
#6 Posted: Fri, Mar 28 2003, 1:38 PM EST
Joined: 09-04-2002
Posts: 899
Oh yea, no bias there.....

I would'nt put much stock in what either had to say. Probably why the media missed it. They were doing something exciting like watching paint dry.
Robby Offline
#7 Posted: Fri, Mar 28 2003, 4:44 PM EST
Joined: 10-30-2002
Posts: 5,067
hummm, is your point that Rangals remarks are "totally acceptable?" Not inflamatory? or Incendeary? Right in line with your POV? A soul mate?
usahog Offline
#8 Posted: Fri, Mar 28 2003, 4:59 PM EST
Joined: 12-06-1999
Posts: 22,691
IMO I think Rangel and Doushal should step down...and there are a few others on the Senate floor whose way outlasted there need to be in there seats... even though Doushal tried to retract his remarks they Did come out of his mouth and weather there was a War on or Not... he is a Commie for thinking out loud in the Position he holds... and Rangel... he should know better being a Vet and all....

Spiny, Bias or not those were the Words He used Openly in front of Millions Televised...

Hog
Robby Offline
#9 Posted: Fri, Mar 28 2003, 6:09 PM EST
Joined: 10-30-2002
Posts: 5,067
They should be excoriated "literally" not figuratively...
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#10 Posted: Sat, Mar 29 2003, 6:54 AM EST
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
sorry i don't see anything refering to child killers.

if that is what he said, he was refering to dim sun's desperate need for war. i see nothing denegrating our soldiers.

if that is the sum and substance of what he said, the reach to child killers is completely uncalled for.

i agree that daschle is a wimp, a weasel, a man of no substance. mispelling his name is childess and i doin't think he becomes a commie because of his aforementioned traits.

as a matter of fact, his wife is a lobbiest, i believe for the airlines, and i believe he voted the $15,000,00 to the airlines relief fund or he'd be back in the bathroom reading hustler, because his wife would have a lot of headaches
Robby Offline
#11 Posted: Sat, Mar 29 2003, 11:24 AM EST
Joined: 10-30-2002
Posts: 5,067
Rick, I didn't see the show, but I wouldn't put it past him... Besides, I still say they should be excoriated on general principle.
usahog Offline
#12 Posted: Sat, Mar 29 2003, 12:02 PM EST
Joined: 12-06-1999
Posts: 22,691
Rangel tries to retract what he said...

http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.shtml?a=2003/3/29/113218

Hog
justforfun Offline
#13 Posted: Sat, Mar 29 2003, 2:45 PM EST
Joined: 03-06-2002
Posts: 797
Here's an email to Charlie Rangel I sent and his response:

Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2003 2:32 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Comments RE US Military

Shame, shame, shame.

I once thought relatively well of you. Given your recent comments on television last night, you should be deported to live permanently in Iraq.

TRAITOR!!!!


Response I received a few hours ago:

Recently, on the Hannity and Colmes TV show, Sean Hannity challenged my patriotism because I said, "I just don't believe that you bomb women and children in order to enforce something against a lying cheat."

50 years ago, I was a young American in combat, fighting the communists in North Korea. Our soldiers are brave young men and women just for being there, and I know they're scared, like I was. My heart truly goes out to them--and to their families--who I know are praying and worried to death.

Our troops don't know who is the enemy--whether they are men in uniforms or in street clothes. Our troops don't target men or women or children. They're in guerrilla warfare, and the only rule is to defend themselves. And no matter how much we do to pinpoint targets from the air, bombs don't know the difference between enemy troops and innocent people.

What Sean Hannity does not know, because he did not serve in the armed forces, is that soldiers obey the orders of the Commander-in-Chief. Our troops are doing that. But if we were not in this war, there would be no bombing at all, and it would not be necessary to consider the issue of "collateral damage."

Nothing is more precious to Americans than our freedom to speak out, to disagree. It's frightening that, in their passion for this war, some people are accusing anyone who opposes it of being unpatriotic. If members of Congress are going to be attacked for fulfilling their responsibility to their constituents to speak out on matters of war and peace, then we might as well tear up the Constitution.

I do not support the war, but I revere the troops, and I am drafting legislation that will show, in a tangible way, the country's appreciation for their sacrifice. The program will provide generous higher education and health care benefits, for the troops after their discharge, their spouses and children. For those who wish to go into business, it will provide the necessary resources.

Sean Hannity deliberately distorted my views on the program in his attempt to challenge my patriotism. I will continue speaking on behalf of my constituents and in defense of the Constitution. I will not be intimidated.
docrks Offline
#14 Posted: Sat, Mar 29 2003, 2:53 PM EST
Joined: 03-03-2003
Posts: 2,708
"Hate War ---- but Love the American Soldier --Got it?"

Gen. Hugh Moore (of "We Were Soldiers" fame)

said to Dan Rather and Mel Gibson on 60 Minutes
E-Chick Offline
#15 Posted: Sat, Mar 29 2003, 4:20 PM EST
Joined: 06-15-2002
Posts: 4,877
Rangle pissed off the wrong country...
Robby Offline
#16 Posted: Sat, Mar 29 2003, 6:07 PM EST
Joined: 10-30-2002
Posts: 5,067
I said it before he said this, he's a worthless P.O.S. (in so many words). His words speak better than any conviction I could possibly make...

"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-N.Y., 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."

He's a worthless P.O.S that showed his true colors in an extemporaneous comment to the media and now he's trying to retract it... he should be hung by his... Let's just say "thumbs". Opposing views welcomed. Please! Rickamavan? Cwelmie? Anywone!!?? PLEASE!! TRY TO DEFEND THIS POS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! COME ON, BRING IT...
Robby Offline
#17 Posted: Sat, Mar 29 2003, 6:12 PM EST
Joined: 10-30-2002
Posts: 5,067
I could make horible, horible comments that could offend many people and then retract them after the fact, would that undo what I had said? Or would it be a cheap attempt to redeem myself?
Robby Offline
#18 Posted: Sat, Mar 29 2003, 6:14 PM EST
Joined: 10-30-2002
Posts: 5,067
Spiney? Rick? Cwhelmi? Anyone?
Robby Offline
#19 Posted: Sat, Mar 29 2003, 6:26 PM EST
Joined: 10-30-2002
Posts: 5,067
standing by...
Robby Offline
#20 Posted: Sat, Mar 29 2003, 6:40 PM EST
Joined: 10-30-2002
Posts: 5,067
waiting patiently...
Robby Offline
#21 Posted: Sat, Mar 29 2003, 6:46 PM EST
Joined: 10-30-2002
Posts: 5,067
uh huh, that's what I thought...
Robby Offline
#22 Posted: Sat, Mar 29 2003, 6:53 PM EST
Joined: 10-30-2002
Posts: 5,067
docrks? care to defend Mr. Rangal?? Care to sleep well after doing so???
Robby Offline
#23 Posted: Sat, Mar 29 2003, 6:59 PM EST
Joined: 10-30-2002
Posts: 5,067
Hey, here's an easier task, Hitler, simply misunderstood? feel free to debate. Pro's and con's. Come on Lib's, you can do it. There's not much room between "Mr. Rangal and Mr. Hitler"...
Robby Offline
#24 Posted: Sat, Mar 29 2003, 7:14 PM EST
Joined: 10-30-2002
Posts: 5,067
ummm hummmm... Well, all I can say is, conservatives 1, liberals 0... Let me know when you're ready to defend one of your "heros"....
Robby Offline
#25 Posted: Sat, Mar 29 2003, 7:22 PM EST
Joined: 10-30-2002
Posts: 5,067
Come on! It's still early on the west coast!! No libs that want to defend one of your own? Charles Rangel??!!
Robby Offline
#26 Posted: Sat, Mar 29 2003, 7:32 PM EST
Joined: 10-30-2002
Posts: 5,067
Come on. Someone must respect "Mr. Rangel..."

"Recently, on the Hannity and Colmes TV show, Sean Hannity challenged my patriotism because I said, "I just don't believe that you bomb women and children in order to enforce something against a lying cheat."

Surely SOMEONE must believe strongly in this Democrat Spokes Person? And his opinions???

Anyone? Rick? Anyone?
Robby Offline
#27 Posted: Sat, Mar 29 2003, 7:49 PM EST
Joined: 10-30-2002
Posts: 5,067
Yeaup. Your silence speaks "volumes"...
Robby Offline
#28 Posted: Sat, Mar 29 2003, 8:07 PM EST
Joined: 10-30-2002
Posts: 5,067
tick toc...
Robby Offline
#29 Posted: Sat, Mar 29 2003, 8:15 PM EST
Joined: 10-30-2002
Posts: 5,067
well if none of you spineless ba$tards can defend his remarks, perhaps if you have a patriotic bone in your worthless bodies, you could always disparage his remarks? Can I get an amen from some of our "less than conservative brothers on the board?" Speak now or forever condem yourselves to spineless status!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Robby Offline
#30 Posted: Sat, Mar 29 2003, 8:27 PM EST
Joined: 10-30-2002
Posts: 5,067
Come on Rick (and other dems) if you don't condem it, you're a party to it:

"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."
Robby Offline
#31 Posted: Sat, Mar 29 2003, 8:32 PM EST
Joined: 10-30-2002
Posts: 5,067
believe me, I will top this thread for the next 3 weeks... You can ignore it, or you can respond. Silence is "acceptance" that your party is the party of "bafoons". I can accept that there are concervative a$$holes, i.e., Quayle. He is worthless. Why can't any dems accept the fact that Rangel is lower than bat guano in the lowest cave? There must be one or two libs with the stones to admit this? I'll accept two.
Robby Offline
#32 Posted: Sat, Mar 29 2003, 8:34 PM EST
Joined: 10-30-2002
Posts: 5,067
waiting patiently...
Robby Offline
#33 Posted: Sun, Mar 30 2003, 4:43 AM EST
Joined: 10-30-2002
Posts: 5,067
Come on, I'm not in a glass house, show me your stones! I should go something like this, "I'm a Democrate, I voted for Gore, and yes, you're right, Rangel is a worthless piece of ...." Give it a try, you'll feel better and be glad you did.
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#34 Posted: Sun, Mar 30 2003, 6:44 AM EST
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
Robby
Robby
Robby
Robby

my post told you all i had to say. but i will add to it for you.

rangel got a bronze star for leading 40 trapped men to safety. he had no political clout at the time. the medal was earned. he said he should have phrased it more succinctly. i guess to prevent the mass hysteria you seem to be undergoing and trying to provoke

george never earned a gold star for attendance.
justforfun Offline
#35 Posted: Sun, Mar 30 2003, 10:30 AM EST
Joined: 03-06-2002
Posts: 797
Rick: Recanteur Rangel, in typical left wing emotionally charged style (something I was guilty of during the Vietnam War), opened mouth and inserted both feet without first considering the effects of his ill chosen words.

While the man is a war hero in my opinion, and is very deserving of of his Medal of Honor (Korean war), I cannot fathom, nor understand, the depths he will sink in his (political) efforts to attack this administration (for his own personal gain). While his drive to become the chairman of the Ways & Means Committee is quite obvious/evident, he should think first and then speak. As a lawyer, I would think his legal background would have taught him such, however, he's been in public service too long (and by the way I feel this way about all politicians, regardless of party affiliations), and after an 8 year dose of being in the inner circle of the Clinton administration, it is obvious he's become a true bureaucrat yearing for more and more power, at the sake of whomever stands in his way.

He's nothing more than a career politician, and the poster person in support of term limit arguments. On second thought, he is the representative of East Harlem, so reluctantly, I guess I'd rather see him in his position than Al Sharpton (lesser of two evils).

justforfun Offline
#36 Posted: Sun, Mar 30 2003, 10:32 AM EST
Joined: 03-06-2002
Posts: 797
'yearing' should have read 'yearning'; however, given the circumstances of the statement the former may be just as applicable.
jgjam Offline
#37 Posted: Sun, Mar 30 2003, 10:40 AM EST
Joined: 05-16-2002
Posts: 909
All I can say is that I'm glad that we have a free society and I'm not force to live in the state of New York to be represented by the likes of Rangel, Clinton and Schumer. If the people of New York like them and continue to vote them into office they are perfectly entitled to do so. No matter how radical much of the rest of the nation views their positions.

John
Robby Offline
#38 Posted: Sun, Mar 30 2003, 3:35 PM EST
Joined: 10-30-2002
Posts: 5,067
So Rick, no harsh words for Mr. R? perhaps he could have phrased it differently? Phrased it differently? Let's see, what did he say again? Oh yeah! I remember!! He said our troops were BABY KILLERS!!

You're refusal to recognize this for what it is, quite frankly is "sickening"... Is there any level he or other liberals could sink to before you would openly express disappointment?? You seem to be sacrificing core principles for the sake of "political expediency" i.e., I'm not going to admit that he was wrong because we're like-minded and that may jeopardize the beliefs you hold dear. I would be willing to wager a rather sizeable amount of money that if the shoe was on the other foot, and Gore were in the white house prosecuting the same war, and a conservative Republican said that the military "in country" were "BABY KILLERS!!" You sir would be "apoplectic"... Therefore, I reject your argument as insincere. Would anyone else like to give it a real try? A believable defense of that SCUM BAG RANGEL?

I will gladly take on all comers (let’s just be glad I’m not dyslexic…)
Robby Offline
#39 Posted: Sun, Mar 30 2003, 3:36 PM EST
Joined: 10-30-2002
Posts: 5,067
Please note, I was assuming you have core principles...
Charlie Offline
#40 Posted: Sun, Mar 30 2003, 4:38 PM EST
Joined: 06-16-2002
Posts: 39,751
Yes Rangel won a Bronze Star and all the more reason he should not have put his foot in his mouth! He has a habit of doing this on issues and should be tossed out of Congress on his butt!

Ricky, you never miss a chance to take a shot at President Bush do you? Get over it and accept the fact he is a great leader.

Charlie
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#41 Posted: Sun, Mar 30 2003, 11:13 PM EST
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
robby

yes i do
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#42 Posted: Sun, Mar 30 2003, 11:16 PM EST
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
Charlie

he is not a leader. he is a child of money. a mass murderer. the anti-christ that will destroy this country.

i don't like him.
usahog Offline
#43 Posted: Mon, Mar 31 2003, 4:05 AM EST
Joined: 12-06-1999
Posts: 22,691
Rick how can you call Bush an Anti Christ when you don't even know anything about Christ himself???

I would like to hear what you know about Christ so I can get your View on what an Anti Christ is???

Thanks
Hog
Charlie Offline
#44 Posted: Mon, Mar 31 2003, 7:12 AM EST
Joined: 06-16-2002
Posts: 39,751
Amen to that Hog! But the biggest crime of Ricky boy's post was calling GWB a mass murderer. Rick you are really off base on that point and should apologize to the board for that statement.

You disappoint me by saying something that stupid and ignorant. Yes, we expect you to come from left field with your comments, but the Martin Sheen type of statement that you made is just way out of line and I am ashamed of you for saying such a stupid thing.

Charlie
Robby Offline
#45 Posted: Mon, Mar 31 2003, 8:12 AM EST
Joined: 10-30-2002
Posts: 5,067
"Surely" that comment was for effect only...
Spiny Norman Offline
#46 Posted: Mon, Mar 31 2003, 9:51 AM EST
Joined: 09-04-2002
Posts: 899
"""hummm, is your point that Rangals remarks are "totally acceptable?""""

No. nor are they (after getting the actual quote), totally unacceptable.

"""Not inflamatory? or Incendeary?"""

Certainly to you. I prefer to take the statements of ALL politicians, pundits, political hacks and talking heads with a great deal of skeptcism.

"""Right in line with your POV?"""

If you had been paying attention to any of my postings, you might be more familier with my "POV". You would have noticed that I am not particularly thrilled with either party. I consider most (not all) politicians to be self serving individuals who prefer to serve the monied interest that got them there. I am allways skeptical of their motives. You may have noticed that I am quick to kill rumors, embellishments, mis-quotes, political spin etc, because I feel that no debate is worth a $&*# without acurate facts.
You may have noticed that I believe in a balanced debate. When for example the statement is made that the major networks are biased to the left, I will happily point out that FOX, (a major network) is very much biased to the right. If you hold up President Bush as infallable and of a higher moral standard, I most likely will point out his shortcomings.
It may appear to you that I favor the left politically, but that is more a reflection of this forum favoring the right in such greater numbers.

A soul mate? """

not a chance. (An incorrect assumption on your part. Besides, I havn't got a soul.)

As to the actual quote by Rangal..........

"I just don't believe that you bomb women and children in order to enforce [the U.N. resolution on Iraq]."

That is WHAT HE SAID! His actual words. Someone else (someone with an obvious axe to grind), added the "baby killer" bit.

"""believe me, I will top this thread for the next 3 weeks... You can ignore it, or you can respond. Silence is "acceptance""""

Don't mistake my silence for acceptance. Had you stopped your rant long enough to think about it, you might have figured out that there are some on this board who do not monitor it hourly as you do and in my case do not participate at all over the weekends. (bumped 18 times? jeez!)


"""your party is the party of "bafoons". """

Not my party. (Yet another erronious assumption on your part).

"""So Rick, no harsh words for Mr. R? perhaps he could have phrased it differently? Phrased it differently? Let's see, what did he say again? Oh yeah! I remember!! He said our troops were BABY KILLERS!! """

Still quoting him incorectly even after having 3 days to research the actual quote. (I suspect that you are not interested in what he said, only in what you want to believe that he said).

In my mind, there is a world of differance between what he said and the phrase "baby killers".

And to further clarify MY POV.

I do not believe that our troops target civilians.
I believe we go to extroardinary lengths to avoid collaterial damage of any kind.
I believe we do a better job of that then any other military on the planet.
I believe that in spite of their best efforts, people make mistakes, complex hardware malfunctions and innocent people will die as a result.

Now Robby, read this next part very carefully.

Do not assume that because I do not support the present political handling of this war, that it equates to a lack of support for our serviceman and the job they have been tasked with!
As a matter of fact, I would caution against assuming anything about me. I'm likely to do the oppisite just to piss you off!

-Spiny






Robby Offline
#47 Posted: Mon, Mar 31 2003, 12:42 PM EST
Joined: 10-30-2002
Posts: 5,067
heheh well put Spiney.

Except the part,
"As to the actual quote by Rangal..........

"I just don't believe that you bomb women and children in order to enforce [the U.N. resolution on Iraq]."

That is WHAT HE SAID! His actual words. Someone else (someone with an obvious axe to grind), added the "baby killer" bit. "

Babies (innocent women and children) the point is the same. The age was misstated. I was OUTRAGED by his remarks and even further outraged by the seeming "defense and acceptance" of what was clearly inexcusable behavior on his part.

If Bush or some other conservative screwed up BIGTIME and one of the less conservative members pointed that out, I wouldn’t defend a bogus position simply because I’m conservative. I felt (strongly) that this is what some were doing. It’s bogus and insincere. I can accept different opinions, I can’t abide contrarians who choose to be so seemingly solely for the purpose of philosophical purity, i.e., I’m never going to say anything bad about a conservative because I’m conservative. That’s just BS! And it’s what I perceived rightly or wrongly, and not from you personally.
Robby Offline
#48 Posted: Mon, Mar 31 2003, 2:40 PM EST
Joined: 10-30-2002
Posts: 5,067
Here's the recording of it. Make up your own mind...

http://play.rbn.com/?url=abcradiog2/hannity/g2demand/rangell1.rm&proto=rtsp
Robby Offline
#49 Posted: Mon, Mar 31 2003, 2:44 PM EST
Joined: 10-30-2002
Posts: 5,067
I agree with you, Rick, and Charles Rangle. I think it's terrible that we're bombing women and children just to enforce a UN resolution. Terrible. I'm personally embarrassed to be an American. I wonder if New Zealand will take me? After all, I mean Peter Arnet and everything...
E-Chick Offline
#50 Posted: Mon, Mar 31 2003, 4:27 PM EST
Joined: 06-15-2002
Posts: 4,877
Thanks for the link Robby...
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages12>
Back to Top