Bloggers have caught a politician saying one thing in a speech, while carrying a very different rendering of a critical passage at a supposed “transcript” of that speech.
The difference is significant.
The transcript whitewashes a slander on the performance of US troops in Iraq delivered by a United States senator.
Specifically, New York’s Charles Schumer gave a made a speech on the floor of the Senate last week ascribing the turnaround in the Anbar province in Iraq to the locals, and discrediting the notion that American troops could have had anything to do with it.
Here is the relevant portion of Armchair General Schumer’s speech you will hear at the YouTube video:
And let me be clear. The violence in Anbar has gone down in spite of the Surge, not because of the Surge.
The inability of American soldiers to protect these tribes from Al Qaeda said to these tribes, “We have to fight Al Qaeda ourselves.”
And let me be clear: the violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge.
The lack of protection for these tribes from al Qaeda made it clear to these tribes, “We have to fight al Qaeda ourselves.”
Mr. Schumer will say anything to try to bring about Americaâ€™s defeat in Iraq and in the war on terror in general. For the Senator is also a traitor.
But, it turns out, Chuck Schumer is not only a liar and a traitor, he is a coward as well.
Four days after Schumer’s speech, it’s very clear that Old Media could care less about the senator’s speech, never mind the “transcript” sleight-of-hand:
- A New York Times search on “Schumer” (may require free registration) shows that the “All the News That’s Fit to Print” paper didn’t even cover the speech by the Empire State’s senior senator.
- A Washington Post search on “Schumer Iraq” (not in quotes; requires free registration) also has no coverage.
- A Google News search on “Schumer Iraq” (not in quotes) has articles about Schumer’s speech at places like Investors Business Daily, and Men’s News Daily. Neither report noted the transcript disparity. More important, the search results show that the speech itself, let alone the “transcript” disparity, were of no interest to the wire services or Old Media outlets.
Many New York voters would certainly take umbrage at Schumer’s characterization of our troops as “unable” — if they knew.
Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.
UPDATE: How far is the mental distance from apparently playing with site traffic counts to changing the transcript of a speech to remove a damning passage in the name of self-protection? I would suggest that the answer is “not as far as you might think.”