Chairman Torkildsen Responds to Deval Patrick

Huh? (0.00 / 0)

I need to listen to Patrick's speech.

“The family does not exist for society or the state, but society and the state exist for the family.” "People have no problem trying to influence other people's children, but no one wants someone influencing their own."

---

by: Renee @ Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 17:48:12 PM CDT

Is this really what has your panties in a bunch? (0.00 / 0)

Honestly?

The events of September 11, 2001 were horrific, you know that.  They disrupted individual families and our collective sense of security and well-being.  It was a "wake-up" call to our own vulnerability.  And it represents a catastrophic failure of human understanding.  In its wake, I believe we have been governed by fear.

Fear is what drove us to round up people of Arab descent, many of them American citizens, and to hold hundreds without cause or charge.

Fear led us to lose focus on a known enemy in Afghanistan and invade Iraq instead.

Fear justified what I believe to be the greatest assault on personal freedoms (in the Patriot Act) and the greatest aggregation of Presidential power in much of our history.

Fear created the Guantanamo detention center, where the very rule of law that has made our democracy an envy of the world has been set aside.

Just a few months ago in a radio interview, a senior Pentagon official, Charles "Cully" Stimson, named some of the law firms providing free representation to the Guantanamo detainees and suggested that corporate America make those law firms - and I quote - "choose between representing terrorists and representing reputable firms."  He attempted to mark these lawyers as enemies of society.  There was no subtlety in his message.

Oh, yeah, Deval is sooo off the mark here. ::rolls eyes::

---

by: Yellow Cake? @ Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 22:52:55 PM CDT

My mistake... (0.00 / 0)

...that is not from Deval's 9/11 speech, it's from the Mt. Wachusett Community College commencement on May 17, 2007.

I still wonder WTF the big deal is about, though?

---

by: Yellow Cake? @ Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 22:58:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You wouldn't (0.00 / 0)

understand now would you.  You and other liberals see nothing wrong with what Deval Patrick said because you probably believe that we caused the terrorists of 9/11 to hate us by being in their area of the world. 

No the terrorists are an organization that sees our very way of life as abhorrent.  They want to install a worldwide caliphate that rules the world according to Sharia.  What they did on 9/11 is not the result of a failure to understand.  I understand all too well what they want to do to us.

In regards to Iraq.  We needed a strong foothold in that region.  In order to fight them in their corner of the world. 
To me that was always what Iraq was about. 

Full Disclosure
http://www.redmassgroup.com/pr...

---

by: Rob "EaBo Clipper" Eno @ Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 05:32:16 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

First of all.. (0.00 / 0)

...nothing in what Gov. Patrick said suggests that WE brought the attack on ourselves.  The "catastrophic failure in human understanding" can just as easily have meant that our government failed catastrophically to understand the threat, or a number of other things for that matter, but you and apparently your party leadership impute a meaning to those words that conveniently fits your political agenda.  An then it gets politicized for political reasons just in time for some convenient election time chest thumping.  Not that I'm surprised that republican leadership would exploit 9-11 for political reasons, but it is still despicable and shameful.  All of the things that were "objectionable" about Patrick's speech were not said by Patrick, but "translated" by Torkildsen and then attributed to Patrick in Torkildsen's rebuttal.  Somehow I don't think the families of those killed in the attacks of 9-11 feel honored by knowing that they are being used as tools for partisan gain.

Second, the idea that because we are in Iraq we are fighting them there and not here is perhaps the most naive idea ever put forth in American policy history.  We already had such a strong hold in Afghanistan (all of those gains have now been lost, btw) and there is no proof whatsoever that that assertion is even remotely true.  On the contrary, there have been a number of successful and foiled terror plots around the world and in our own country since the Iraq occupation began.  All we have managed to do is deplete our resources to the point that when we really need them we won't have them. 

---

by: schulteraffe @ Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 06:30:13 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Patrick's comments (0.00 / 0)

...nothing in what Gov. Patrick said suggests that WE brought the attack on ourselves

This does:

"Among many other things, 9/11 was a failure of human understanding. It was a mean and nasty and bitter attack on the United States. But it was also a failure of human beings to understand each other, to learn to love each other."

---

by: dweir @ Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 06:42:11 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

No.... (0.00 / 0)

...it certainly does not.  Not even close.  Noting in that statement lays blame at the feet of the American people. 

---

by: schulteraffe @ Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 06:45:30 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

It strongly suggests it my friend (0.00 / 0)

Full Disclosure
http://www.redmassgroup.com/pr...

---

by: Rob "EaBo Clipper" Eno @ Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 06:49:06 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

No... (0.00 / 0)

...it doesn't.  You strongly want to see it.  That statement is completely neutral.  In fact, if anything the blame is being laid at the feet of the aggressor.  The defenders of the current administration's policy in Iraq are becoming increasingly sensitive the more that it becomes clear that the policy was fractured from the start.  Patrick criticises the US only for what they did after the attacks.  Get used to it, because there is going to be much more where that came from.  Soon, it will be coming from the republicans running for president who won't have a choice when they finally start to understand the political temperature of the electorate.

---

by: schulteraffe @ Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 06:59:30 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Schultzee, can you read? (0.00 / 0)

But it was also a failure of human beings to understand each other, to learn to love each other."

When Devalue Patrick talks about "each other" who do you think he is talking about?  He is referring to the two parties involved in the attacks of 9/11 and that would be the perpetrators of the crime and the victims of the crime.  And that would be "terrorists" and "The American People".

Who do you think he is talking about if not those two parties?  Is he talking about Hannity and Colmes, Steve and Eydie, Frick and Frack, chocolate and peanut butter, Hagler and Leonard, who, who do you think he was f*ckin talking about?????

---

by: Vote3rdpartynow @ Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 07:12:58 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think.... (0.00 / 0)

...that he was talking about a general and sad reality that most human strife stems form a basic inability to understand one another.  A very true, but ultimately benign statement.  It does not even come closed to blaming the victim.  It seems that it is the republican party in this case who wants to frame the statement that way in order to pound the war drums a little louder to catch some of the good old 9-11 political fever.  Sad really.  Shame on you all.

---

by: schulteraffe @ Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 13:56:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"I think....that he was talking about a general and sad reality that most human strife stems form a basic inability to understand one another" (0.00 / 0)

Wow Schulteraffe that was deep, and a far far FAR reach at best.


CNN - The MOST news stories per hour in cable news!

---

by: Republican Rock Radio Mania @ Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 14:56:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Then... (0.00 / 0)

...you should be able to do better than only off handedly refuting my assertion and you certainly should then be in a position to defend the politicization of a tragedy by your party's leadership.  You can't and you haven't which is very telling. 

---

by: schulteraffe @ Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 17:49:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

OK.... (0.00 / 0)

you're wrong, as "general strife" was not the topic of "WHAT" he was talking about, a specific and evil act of war was. 

Most human strife comes from the want of POWER, MONEY, or NATURAL RESOURCES.

Nice try.  The man said what he said, despite your futile attempts to redirect.

"The best part will be the arrest of all the biotech workers....."  --JH

---

by: ElectricStrawberry @ Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 12:47:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes... (0.00 / 0)

...and what he said facially neither means what you are asserting or what I am asserting.  It is all in the interpretation.  And your fearless leader twisted Patrick's words to politically capitalize on 9-11, which is much more dispicable than not carefully choosing your words so as not to be clear in your meaning.  Shameful.

---

by: schulteraffe @ Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 17:48:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Schultzee, that was week. (0.00 / 0)

Devalue Patrick wasn't being philosophical about man's inherent condition blah, blah, blah.  Devalue Patrick was saying that we share the responsibility for 9/11 by failing to understand and love them. 

It is one more perfect example of how this lameass Governor is on the side of the perps instead of the victims.  We saw this same approach with the raid on the illegal immigrants in New Bedford, we saw the same thing with his approach with Ben LaGuer. 

As for your statement that it is the GOP that is making an issue here - I would remind you that it was Devalue Patrick that made the statement - and on 9/11 no less.  He was the one that showed up and said what he said.  We, the GOP, are just telling you we think he is an asswipe.

---

by: Vote3rdpartynow @ Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 15:23:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes... (0.00 / 0)

...he said what he said.  There is a perfectly benign interpretation of his words.  They are not facially objectionable.  But the MA Republican leadership jumped on them and twisted them in a way that uses a national tragedy to prop up a candidate who has some room to make up in the polls before next months election.  Yes, you the GOP are just telling us what you think, 9-11 is too politically exploitable for you to have any real reverence when you can feign objecting to a single turn of phrase. 

---

by: schulteraffe @ Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 17:56:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

We'll make sure to inform Emily Rooney that (0.00 / 0)

she's become a shill for the GOP.

Well Shulty, you're bravely and gamely (and single-handedly) defending your man against us mean and nasty people who don't love him. Bully for you!!

---

by: wavemaker @ Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 18:10:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You're neither... (0.00 / 0)

....mean, nor nasty, as a general rule.  But Patrick's comment is at best indefinite.  A meaning has been assigned to it for political purposes.  That's exploitative and sad.  Emily Rooney is welcome to her opinion.  I disagree with her as readily as I do with Torkildsen.

---

by: schulteraffe @ Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 18:15:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

only a liberal (0.00 / 0)

could seriously think that the cause of 9/11 was that the terrorists failed to sufficiently love us (and us them).

its all part of the incredible unreality of being a liberal.

---

by: demolisher @ Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 17:16:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't.. (0.00 / 0)

..think anyone said that but you.  The cause of 9-11 was complicated and multi-layered.  The base of much human tragedy is in fact a lack of mutual understanding, and it seems that is an appropriate comment to make in a civic speech, but no one said the cause of 9-11 was that the terrorists failed sufficiently to love us but you. 

It's part of the incredible unreality of being a conservative who makes up things to support their attempt at politicizing national tragedies.

---

by: schulteraffe @ Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 17:44:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

In Schultzee's words...."The cause of 9-11 was complicated and multi-layered." (0.00 / 0)

actually here are Gov. Patricks words . . .

"9/11 was a failure of human understanding. It was a mean and nasty and bitter attack on the United States. But it was also a failure of human beings to understand each other, to learn to love each other."


CNN - The MOST news stories per hour in cable news!

---

by: Republican Rock Radio Mania @ Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 10:32:52 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

At the very least, it is a statement (0.00 / 0)

that both we and the muslim extremists are to blame. We don't understand and love them, they don't understand and love us, so therefore, they attacked us.

Otherwise, he wouldn't have referred to "human beings" failing to understand "one another."

Deval's statement (especially when regarded alongside Yellow Cake's quotes from a commencement address) exhibit a considerable degree of inward blame.

Fear. Sweet mother of God.

---

by: wavemaker @ Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 08:07:34 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

but on 9/11 (0.00 / 0)

I don't think that would be appropriate though on the anniversary.

“The family does not exist for society or the state, but society and the state exist for the family.” "People have no problem trying to influence other people's children, but no one wants someone influencing their own."

---

by: Renee @ Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 08:56:21 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Okay... (0.00 / 0)

...it is just silly to parce "human beings" and "one another" because they can mean the same thing depending on the context.  And the context here does not support your inference facially.  It is an interpretation that is being used to fuel political propoganda by your party.  Sorry, Patrick is not the bad actor in this sceanrio. 

---

by: schulteraffe @ Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 13:58:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I make no "inference," (0.00 / 0)

I apply the words themselves according to their ordinary meaning -- and I indeed do consider them to mean the same thing.

It's "parse."

---

by: wavemaker @ Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 15:09:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

If they mean... (0.00 / 0)

...the same thing than your original comment has no value.

Please refrain form trying to prop up poor reasoning with spelling corrections.  It looks desperate and no one likes an officious snit.

---

by: schulteraffe @ Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 17:37:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Pot - Kettle (0.00 / 0)

"no one likes an officious snit"

---

by: wavemaker @ Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 17:46:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sorry Schultzee and/or Yellow Cake (0.00 / 0)

you are soo far off the mark, I only wish Asa Bearse was here to call you an assclown.


CNN - The MOST news stories per hour in cable news!

---

by: Republican Rock Radio Mania @ Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 11:58:46 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Lets.... (0.00 / 0)

...see, a republican party official jumps on a benign statement about the tragedy of the human condition and uses it as a political fire work to try and drum up some 9-11 fever at a time when the party is trying to rally support for a candidate who happens to be related to a 9-11 victim.  Not, that is pretty much the mark, bullseye I'd say.

---

by: schulteraffe @ Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 14:01:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

keep trying Schulteraffe : ) (0.00 / 0)

CNN - The MOST news stories per hour in cable news!

---

by: Republican Rock Radio Mania @ Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 16:10:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Emily Rooney (0.00 / 0)

Was just on 96.9 as she is every Thursday and she expressed how floored she was with the comments.  They are indefensible.

Full Disclosure
http://www.redmassgroup.com/pr...

---

by: Rob "EaBo Clipper" Eno @ Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 17:29:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well.. (0.00 / 0)

...if Emily Rooney said so...

Weak.

I think I've been defending them just fine.  It is the cooption and manipulation of the 9-11 tragedy for republican self aggrandizement that is indefensible.  Somehow no one here seems to offer a defense.  Probably because there is none.

---

by: schulteraffe @ Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 17:40:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

lol ...RRR (0.00 / 0)

Don't drag Asa into this....this is what he was talking about.

Everyone I hope is enjoying not being in an "echo chamber" and going around and around with (I like the term) an "officious snit"

As far as I'm concerned, the TROLL doesn't exist. By all means continue to enjoy yourselves.

"From MY cold dead hands"

---

by: Knightbrigade @ Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 21:20:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

If I... (0.00 / 0)

....don't exist why are you commenting?  And about nothing but me, in fact.  Seems I do exist.  In CAPITAL LETTERS no less. 

---

by: schulteraffe @ Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 21:24:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

@ eabo way up thread (0.00 / 0)

I don't understand because it was given no context.

The old "they hate us for our freedom" line? That's been debunked enough times that I won't even engage that here. In fact, I thought it had been ridiculed out of existence by now.

"They want to install a world wide caliphate?" That may be true. But Osama knows he isn't going to cripple the US with a one day attack killing thousands of people? 20 hijackers can't take on 300,000,000 people. In no way was 9/11 an attempt to help install a caliphate.

As far as dismissing the blowback theory as you did in the first line of the post, the CIA, the bipartisan 9/11 commission, and most of the thinking world understand that US foreign policy in the region plays a roll in the terrorists motivations. It's not just us crazy liberals who subscribe to the idea of blowback, it is the mainstream.

---

by: Yellow Cake? @ Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 14:34:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well gee, "plays a role" (0.00 / 0)

Of course it "plays a role" -- we'd certainly hope so.

But what the radical islamists want, and nothing less, is that the U.S. remove itself entirely from any presence in the muslim countries. And do you think that if we did that (including American-owned businesses(?!?!?)), do you think they'd say ókay, thanks, now we'll leave you alone, peace man'?

So of course, no American foreign policy could ever satisfy them, because we can't, and shouldn't, have no presence in the M.E.

There has always been blowback.You think the Kuwaitis want us to leave? The Saudis?

---

by: wavemaker @ Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 17:00:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No, I don't think if we left they'd change there mind... (0.00 / 0)

...and they certainly aren't changing their mind with us staying in Iraq.

I'm saying 9/11 was not designed to force us to remove our interests in the Middle East. No one would think that such a relatively small scale attack (as opposed to a full scale traditional war) would make the US withdraw from the region.

---

by: Yellow Cake? @ Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 19:21:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

LOL well gee yellow, (0.00 / 0)

why do YOU think they executed this diabolical plan -- what do you think they were trying to accomplish?

---

by: wavemaker @ Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 21:37:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

First... (0.00 / 0)

...they wanted to inflict psychic trauma on America and it's government and also wanted to disrupt the American economy. I think most people can agree on that.

But let's be clear, even if bin Laden could sneak every member of al-Qaeda and all of al-Qeada's resources into the United States, al-Qeada could not topple the US government and install a caliphate. Everyone of us knows that and Osama knows this. They may want a caliphate, but they understand it is an unachievable pipe dream. 

Osama said that 9/11 was punishment for three transgressions: : U.S. military in the Middle East, aggression against the Iraqi people, and support for Israel. I'm inclined to take his word that that was part of the reason for 9/11.

Also, some are of the opinion that Osama wanted to bait the US into more military action in Muslim nations. Osama speculated that this action would help strengthen Muslim unity against the US and would give the Muslim world more political strength world wide.

I don't think they give a shit that we have freedom and our women "dress like whores". Maybe that's what they've convinced the guy on the street to hate about America. But given that the 9/11 hijackers had a penchant for booze and strip clubs, I don't think that the overwhelming reason for 9/11 was a disgust for our lifestyle, it seems to me that it was a political action to gain strength, power, and wealth to the people who control the radical muslim world.

They (the Muslims in power) don't want to convert us, they want to deteriorate our world wide political and economic hegemony so they get a bigger slice of the pie. (In my opinion.)

---

by: Yellow Cake? @ Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 11:15:55 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yellow (0.00 / 0)

These people look at history in thousands of year swaths.  They are still upset over the Crusades for example.  Would 9/11 have set up a Caliphate in the US the next day, no.  Does that mean it is not their goal, no to that as well.

They will continue to attack us to shore up their influence back home.  They do that by getting us out of the region.  Then they can form the caliphate in the middle east.  Once that is done Europe is next on the agenda.  Due to asinine immigration policy and demographics where muslims are going forth and multiplying at much greater rates than native Europeans we are witnessing the downfall of a Christian west and the ascendency of a muslim Europe if the Europeans don't get their act together. There is stage two in the plan.

Then they become stronger.  Isn't it much easier to be fighting them over there now than to wait until it's too late?


Full Disclosure
http://www.redmassgroup.com/pr...

---

by: Rob "EaBo Clipper" Eno @ Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 06:53:37 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

So.... (0.00 / 0)

...it is a good thing then that we invaded a country where they had not presense and gave them room rush in, spread out and shore up that influence that you speak of?

I submit again, that "fight them over there instead of here" position is perhaps the most politically naive concept ever to see the light of day. 

---

by: schulteraffe @ Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 08:22:29 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

No it is exactly what we should have done. (0.00 / 0)

We need a strong foothold centrally located in that region as a base to fight them.  Iraq is that centrally located place. 

Saddam Hussein supported terrorists and terrorism.  The Bush Doctrine everybody subscribed to in the wake of 9/11 explicitly stated that if you support terrorism you open yourself up to military action.  For this reason and the fact that Saddam Hussein flaunted the terms of the cease fire of the 1990 war, remember that war like the Korean War never ended, opened himself to attack. 

The Iraq war was at it's start and is now central to the war on terror.

Full Disclosure
http://www.redmassgroup.com/pr...

---

by: Rob "EaBo Clipper" Eno @ Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 09:01:08 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Wow... (0.00 / 0)

...circular logic to defend a blood bath.  We have completely depleted our resources and our reputation to regulate a civil war all the while helping to further destabilize a region whose stability is of ulimate importance to the world.  Not to mention we accidentally propped up Iran in the process and have still managed to see terror attacks actively being planned and in a number of cases executed throughout the western world. 

Weakening our strategic advantage while emboldeing the enemy is the best way to wage a war?  News to me.

 

---

by: schulteraffe @ Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 10:48:13 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

sooooo..... RRR (0.00 / 0)

Again........lol ..DON'T drag Asa...INTO this he's relaxing over at RED STATE...

"From MY cold dead hands"

---

by: Knightbrigade @ Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 21:33:02 PM CDT