On CNN, Gergen distorted Obama's response regarding U.S. deaths in Iraq
SUMMARY: During post-debate analysis of the November 15 Democratic presidential debate, U.S. News & World Report editor David Gergen claimed that Sen. Barack Obama "was asked about, is the surge [in Iraq] working, he couldn't even acknowledge, hey, look, the death numbers are down," adding that Obama "dismiss[ed] it altogether." In fact, Obama did not refuse to acknowledge that U.S. deaths in Iraq "have been declining steadily since the spring"; he said that it is "absolutely wrong" to conclude from a decline in violence in Iraq that President Bush's strategy is working.
On the November 15 edition of CNN's Anderson Cooper 360, while discussing the just-concluded Democratic presidential debate in Las Vegas, U.S. News & World Report editor at large David Gergen claimed that when Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) "was asked about, is the surge [in Iraq] working, he couldn't even acknowledge, hey, look, the death numbers are down," adding that Obama "dismiss[ed] it altogether." Gergen went on to say of Obama: "You're the straight guy here. You're the guy who can tell us the truth. Acknowledge that some things are working better here." But Obama did not refuse to acknowledge that U.S. deaths in Iraq "have been declining steadily since the spring" -- questioner and CNN anchor John Roberts' actual assertion; Obama said that it is "absolutely wrong" to conclude from a decline in violence in Iraq that President Bush's strategy is working.
During the debate, Roberts said, "2007 is the deadliest year so far since 2003 for American forces, but it's also true that U.S. troop deaths have been declining steadily since the spring." He then asked: "Is General David Petraeus correct when he says that the troop increase is bringing security to Iraq?" CNN host Wolf Blitzer later asked Obama the "same question." The senator responded: "There is no doubt that because we put American troops in Iraq, more American troops in Iraq, that they are doing a magnificent job, and they are making a difference in certain neighborhoods." He later added, "If we have seen a lowering violence rate, that's only compared to earlier this year" and that "the notion that somehow because we've gone from horrific violence to just intolerable levels of violence, and that somehow that justifies George Bush's strategy is absolutely wrong."
Moreover, just before Gergen made his claim that Obama "couldn't even acknowledge" that "the death numbers are down," CNN host Anderson Cooper aired a portion of Obama's response during the debate, in which Obama said: "The overall strategy is failed, because we have not seen any change in behavior among Iraq's political leaders, and that is the essence of what we should be trying to do in Iraq." It was during that same response that Obama said U.S. troops "are making a difference in certain neighborhoods."
From the November 15 edition of CNN's Anderson Cooper 360:
COOPER: Obama also weighed in on Iraq strategy. Let's play that.
OBAMA [video clip]: The overall strategy is failed, because we have not seen any change in behavior among Iraq's political leaders, and that is the essence of what we should be trying to do in Iraq.
That's why I'm going to bring this war to a close.
COOPER: David, it didn't seem like the war was as front and center in this debate as it has been in past debates.
GERGEN: No, it was not. I think that's because the surge has had an impact, has reduced the number of casualties. And the temperature has gone down in Iraq. It's no longer, you know, the top story in the news either.
And there's much more fear about Iran. And, of course, because Pakistan is on a knife edge, it's more -- you have less focus on Iraq. And it almost seemed that, when Barack Obama was asked about, is the surge working, he couldn't even acknowledge, hey, look, the death numbers are down. I mean, there is something that's happening here that's important. It had to be -- he had to sort of dismiss it altogether.
And it was sort of like, you know, come on. You're the straight guy here. You're the guy who can tell us the truth. Acknowledge that some things are working better here. And I thought he didn't take advantage of that.
From CNN's November 15 broadcast of the Democratic presidential debate:
ROBERTS: To Governor [Bill] Richardson [NM]: A military police unit from the Nevada National Guard, stationed about 12 miles from here, just left for its third tour of duty in Iraq.
I want to talk to you for just a moment here about the effect of the troop increase over there. It's true that 2007 is the deadliest year so far since 2003 for American forces, but it's also true that U.S. troop deaths have been declining steadily since the spring, and, in fact, in the month of October, they were at their lowest level in nearly two years. At the same time, there has been a marked decline in the number of deaths of Iraqi people.
Is General David Petraeus correct when he says that the troop increase is bringing security to Iraq?
[...]
BLITZER: Senator Obama, I'll put the same question to you.
Is General Petraeus' strategy working?
OBAMA: There is no doubt that because we put American troops in Iraq, more American troops in Iraq, that they are doing a magnificent job, and they are making a difference in certain neighborhoods.
But the overall strategy is failed because we have not seen any change in behavior among Iraq's political leaders, and that is the essence of what we should be trying to do in Iraq.
That's why I'm going to bring this war to a close. That's why we can get our troops out -- our combat troops out within 16 months. That's why we have to initiate the kind of regional diplomacy, not just talking to our friends, but talking to our enemies, like Iran and Syria, to try to stabilize the situation there.
But I just want to make this important point, because all of us as we're campaigning, we're seeing this in human terms. People are on two, three, four tours of duty. Families are carrying an enormous burden.
This year, we saw the highest casualty rates for American troops in Iraq since this war started.
The same, by the way, is true in Afghanistan. If we have seen a lowering violence rate, that's only compared to earlier this year. We're back to where we started back in 2006.
BLITZER: All right.
OBAMA: And so, the notion that somehow because we've gone from horrific violence to just intolerable levels of violence, and that somehow that justifies George Bush's strategy is absolutely wrong, and I'm going to bring it to a halt when I'm president of the United States.
BLITZER: Thank you, Senator.
Well its possible Gergen is working for the Clintons again.
Gergen distorted nothing. What's with MMFA today and these false distortion accusations? Gergen specifically said that Obama did not acknowledge that the death numbers are down, which Obama did not acknowledge. There was no distortion.
Gergen is one of the fairest and most intelligent pundits on any network. He is very careful not to spin or distort anything. MMFA owes him an apology for this one.
I wonder if Hillary is mad at MMFA for what they said about Gergen.
Baloney Gergen is a longtime conservative spinmiester and YES Obama aknowledged the level of violence is down.
And so, the notion that somehow because we've gone from horrific violence to just intolerable levels of violence
From horrific to just intolerable IS an aknowlegement of less violence.
You're wacko. Gergen worked for Clinton.
Tommy
Exactly how soon we forget
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton/interviews/gergen.html
Yes, we forget he was advisor to THREE Republican presidents and was resented by Clinton's staff:
"An advisor to three Republican presidents, Clinton brought him to the White House in 1993 in a move that caused resentment among the White House staff."
[link to www.pbs.org]
But he did a good job and helped President Clinton. One of the great elements of President Clinton was his ability to look at the person not the party his appointment of William Cohen, Gergen and his wonderful friendship today with G HW Bush. Too bad many today are not willing to cross the lines and work together like Pres Clinton did.
While that is true and I even agree its irrelevant to the point that Gergen IS a longtime conservative spinmiester.
Solon I agree with you on that one, Gergen is a big time Con liar spin doctor.
Right, what are the chances I forgot? Actually it isnt relevant, Morris also worked for Clinton are you going to tell me HE isnt a conservative spinmiester?
So did Dick Morris. Clinton hired conservatives he wasnt Bush who hires only yes men. Gergen was also Reagans first communications director.
Your're stupid and your point is irrelvant.
No, don't address the fact that your point about Obama's comment was completely shot down, just call Solon "wacko" for no valid reason.
Why aren't Sue and Doris complaining about the personal attack and talking about how the first person who calls names is the one losing the argument?
Brabanitio
I can not speak for Sue, but if you are refering to Tommy calling Solon a "wacko" It is wrong and Tommy owes him an apology. (Not that it matters what i think though and I do not know why you even asked what my opinion is).
I think you are taken more seriously than you think you are.
Precisely. Obama said that while the violence is down, there's no way of being certain it was a result of the surge.
As usual, Tommy is grasping at straws. And losing his grip.
If you read the above, Obama said "Its absolutley wrong to assume the Bush strategy regarding Iraq is working." It may be wrong to assume that the absolute reason that the violence/death toll is down, but it is also wrong to assume that it hasn't played a part in the decline.
The only thing Media Matters owes this elite pudit-in-chief Gergen (a George Will clone) is a good swift kick right in his right-wing ass.
He lied and took a cheap shot at Obama.
Your argument is laughable Tommy. Gergen heard what he wanted to hear (or not hear, in this case).
I think Gergen made a good point. I don't see why MMFA is bringing this up. There is no distortion. Obama emphasized the following:
This year, we saw the highest casualty rates for American troops in Iraq since this war started.
I think that goes to Gergen saying:
And it almost seemed that, when Barack Obama was asked about, is the surge working, he couldn't even acknowledge, hey, look, the death numbers are down. I mean, there is something that's happening here that's important. It had to be -- he had to sort of dismiss it altogether.
Which Obama did as evidenced by this quote:
OBAMA: And so, the notion that somehow because we've gone from horrific violence to just intolerable levels of violence, and that somehow that justifies George Bush's strategy is absolutely wrong, and I'm going to bring it to a halt when I'm president of the United States.What do you think Obama's acknowledging here:
OBAMA: There is no doubt that because we put American troops in Iraq, more American troops in Iraq, that they are doing a magnificent job, and they are making a difference in certain neighborhoods.
Gergen must have been dozing off when Obama said this.
I guess Another American was dozing...
off, too. Maybe they were listening to a Fred Thompson speech?
Exactly, in MMFA's eyes even an accurate summary or analysis is distortion. It's ridiculous.
It's not accurate at all. Gergen claimed that Obama refused to acknowledge lower fatality rates. In fact, Obama did acknowledge them, just not in the way that you or apparently Gergen would have liked.
The only acceptable response: U.S. casualties are down, therefore the surge, and by extension, everything about the Bush administration is a fantastic success.
Why can't people just say that, and stop thinking?
That is not the point of this idiotic beef by MMFA.
It seems to be the idiotic point YOU are trying to make since Obama DID aknowlege the lessening casualties. Just in a way you and Gergen didnt like.
Horrible and intolerable are different things? Right, only in liberal double-speak where one can't be nailed down to anything.
Keep selling that.
"Horrible and intolerable are different things? Right, only in liberal double-speak..."
and in the wacko left wing dictionary.Are they the same thing in the future, Tommy?
Your joke may resonate some thrill for you HBL, but it's getting a little tired, sorry. But if that's all you've got instead of addressing the point, go for it.
The point you missed is that horrible and intolerable are different words.You called it doublespeak.And I apologize for posting something that you consider "tired".I can't believe you can write that with a straight face, but what do I know?
Well I would use horrible and intolerable interchangably, but then, what do I know?
Tommy - how about this example, for Republicans:
Most Republicans believe that 4,000 American troop deaths is HORRIBLE.
However, about 28% of Americans, a majority of Republicans, agree that 4,000 American troop deaths is NOT INTOLERABLE.
Therefore they are not interchangeable.
Tommy the Time Travler jokes are hillarious.
Keep up the good work HBL!
Yes tommy in the ENGLISH language when you say we have gone FROM horrific violence to JUST intolerable levels you are making a distinction and they ARE different things. Try to keep up.
Besides Obama calls it a "notion", so he acknowledged nothing. Gergen's analysis is spot on, and you are not, again.
The fact that you obviously can't read makes any debate with you impossible. I'll let somebody else explain it to you this time.
Glad you're wimpering away this time, no leg to stand on is rough. Sorry. I know a misplaced thread here just drives you insane as you can't defend it, but you'll have to live with it this time.
"the notion that somehow because we've gone from horrific violence to just intolerable levels of violence, and that somehow that justifies George Bush's strategy is absolutely wrong"
The "notion" refers to the justification, not the levels of violence. The word "because" defies your interpretation. If it were as you claim, then it would be "the notion that somehow we've gone from horrific violence...". The "because" asserts that it's something that actually has happened, not a hypothetical.
Sorry, Brab, I didn't see that you'd already pointed out Tommy's mistake. Not that two corrections is going to make any difference.
;0)
Besides Obama calls it a "notion", so he acknowledged nothing.(Tommy)
He calls the idea that it justifies Bush's plan "a notion", not the decline in casualties.
Gergen is conflating violence being down and the surge working.
The whole point of the surge is to allow time for the Iraqis to form a government acceptable to the major factions currently fighting a civil war.
While violence is down no one is suggesting the Iraqis are any closer to a political solution than they were pre-surge.
Obama is correct and Gergen is wrong.
It's premature to conclude the surge is working simply because violence is down when the goal is a political solution.
You, too, miss the whole point of MMFA's beef with Gergen here, don't you? It isn't about the surge working or not, it's about Gergen's accurate analysis and summary of what Obama said.
Yes Tommy as usual MMFA and all of the posters here besides you are missing the point again.
OBAMMA: But the overall strategy is failed because we have not seen any change in behavior among Iraq's political leaders, and that is the essence of what we should be trying to do in Iraq.
Johnny,
You prove Tommy's point. Obama is dismissing the fact that casualties are down in order to shift the argument from what was once, "we can't win" to an immediate reconciliation of political factions.
He has to repeat that violence is up for all of 2007 when the surge did not even start until (if memory serves me,) midway through the year. Since then, everyone but the Democratic leaders dismiss that violence has gone down.
The Democrats again and again prove they are invested in defeat. Fortunately that investment will pay off next November. :-)
gads! Instead of the word dismiss above, I meant to say acknowledge.
Sorry again for any confusion.
I give up. I realize there are two instances of dismiss in my original post above.
My correction is intended for the second one in the second sentence in the second paragraph where I should have said
He has to repeat that violence is up for all of 2007 when the surge did not even start until (if memory serves me,) midway through the year. Since then, everyone but the Democratic leaders acknowledge that violence has gone down.
mea maxima culpa
Understood AA.
And more to Gergen's point, he was saying that he expected Obama to at least acknowledge that simple fact, that deaths are down. As you say, he shifted to a referendum on Bush's failure in the overall effort, which may be a fair point......but normally Obama's candor is his strong point, not politicizing everything for effect, and Gergen felt he missed that opportunity - which he did.
But Gergen distorted nothing.
Which Obama did Gergen was NOT accurate.
The Democrats again and again prove they are invested in defeat. Fortunately that investment will pay off next November. :-)
By your use of the word 'fortunately' I am inferring that you also want the U.S. to lose the war? Why do you hate America? Why do you hate freedom?
What do you think Obama's acknowledging here:
OBAMA: There is no doubt that because we put American troops in Iraq, more American troops in Iraq, that they are doing a magnificent job, and they are making a difference in certain neighborhoods.
Gergen must have been dozing off when Obama said this
While warmongers like YOU continue to show you are invested in getting as many Americans killed as you possibly can. You inanely pretend that the solution is a military one only. If the Iraqis cannot put together a stable government then our unsupportable level of troops in Iraq will not have achieved the goal BUSH HIMSELF said was the POINT of the surge so its YOU missing the point once again not Obama.
Do you think Gergen watched the debate?
He's denying Obama said something the transcript and video clips clearly show him saying.
I am not arguing with you, you are a colossol waste of my time, sorry. Read the entire transcript of this topic, and then read Gergen's analysis. He is not distorting anything.
We disagree.
You can save yourself a lot of time by just starting every thread with "WE DISAGREE, MMFA IS WRONG AS USUAL, I DON"T EVEN KNOW WHY THIS THREAD IS HERE AND ANYWAY IT'S MY OPINION SO I DON'T HAVE TO JUSTIFY IT TO ANYONE!!!!"
The discrepency is whether or not horrible and intolerable are indeed different levels of violence. For you Tommy they are not, and I can't say I totally disagree. My issue is that it's Obama's opinion. He purposely chose to phrase his response that way because he wants America to understand we can't let a minor decrease in violence be spun into a great decrease as it has been by the likes of Hannity and O'Reilly.
August,
That is a fair point, but I still do not think Gergen's analysis of Obama's answer rises to any level of distortion.
And it almost seemed that, when Barack Obama was asked about, is the surge working, he couldn't even acknowledge, hey, look, the death numbers are down. I mean, there is something that's happening here that's important. It had to be -- he had to sort of dismiss it altogether.
OBAMA: There is no doubt that because we put American troops in Iraq, more American troops in Iraq, that they are doing a magnificent job, and they are making a difference in certain neighborhoods.
But the overall strategy is failed because we have not seen any change in behavior among Iraq's political leaders, and that is the essence of what we should be trying to do in Iraq.
OBAMA: And so, the notion that somehow because we've gone from horrific violence to just intolerable levels of violence, and that somehow that justifies George Bush's strategy is absolutely wrong,
Don't mind my copy & pasting job here, it's so I can see for myself what Gergen is claiming vs Obama's statements.
Ok after sitting here thinking for a bit, I'm gonna have to disagree with Gergen, whom by the way I have a great deal of respect for.
First off Gergen seems a tad miffed that Obama wouldn't acknowledge that something important is happening. Is it? Obama is correct not to offer much here in the way of praise. The surge has not helped change things politically within Iraq. That, I assumed was the ultimate goal.
Obama may not have phrased things the way Gergen liked, but in fact Obama did acknowledge the violence had gone down a notch. He just didn't gush over it. And why should he? Horrific violence lowered to just intolerable levels with no political solution in sight is nothing to go gaga over.
Jeter,
I understand what you're saying, but Obama was specifically asked if the surge was working? As Gergen says, his candor and honesty should have had him at least acknowledge that yes, the surge has reduced American casualties...that is all he is saying, just say the deaths are down.
Instead he dismissed it from horrible to intolerable, which is virtually no distinction at all, and went on about the failure of the war - which is a fair point but Gergen felt he missed an opportunity to display his candor. I just don't think Gergen distorted anything.
But on this, we see it differently. It's cool, your thoughtful opinion is always respected.
Ok Tommy I can see why you don't think Gergen distorted anything. I'm just sort of reading it a tad differently.
To be honest, this one made my head hurt.
;-)
I hear ya, but I think David Gergen is one of the fairest and most honest pundits around. When I listen to him I feel as though I am getting an honest take on things, not partisan spin. He deserves much respect for that from me. So maybe I am giving him the benefit of the doubt here, he is not a bombthrowing screamer like so many, and I appreciate that.
Tommy -
If the surge worked so magnificently, shouldn't we be making preparations to bring the troops home?
Oh, right, I forgot the rules:
Surge works: Keep surging!
Surge doesn't work: More surge!!
That is BULL he said it went FROM horrific to JUST intolerable. There is no possible reasonable reading of that statement that would mean it didnt aknowlege the level of violence has dropped.
Jeter,
Saying that violence is down in neighborhoods and saying that it went from horrific to intolerable do not sound like acknowledgments to me.
By using the term "neighborhoods" to qualify his statement, Obama is implying that violence overall is not down.
And based on your analysis, It is the first time I've ever heard the word "intolerable" used as a positive modifier to the violence in Iraq.
AA,
I read it as Just Intolerable which is a tad different than only Intolerable
Hey I'm learning how to parse & I'm working on my nuance skills ;-)
The death of our troops is intolerable in this situation, they shouldn't be dying at all. There's no reason for us to be over there right now.
Would you rather Obama jumped up and clicked his heels together: "Woo-hoo! 10 troops died this week! YEEEAH!!! That's WAAAAY better than 15 troops. Go USA!!! Freedom is on the march!
I don't understand how you can find joy in the death of our soldiers, maybe it's just a Republican thing.
Thanks, Jeter. You got it. Tommy was trying to divert the issue to whether horrible and intolerable were vastly different in meaning, when that was Obama's point-there was a drop in U.S. deaths (which was acknowledged, contrary to what others here have written), but it was insignificant in the scope of our misguided war in Iraq, and not provable that that decline is due to the surge.
As insignificant as the difference between "horrible" and "intolerable", and definitely nothing to start jumping up and down cheering about.
That seems to be what Gergen's whining about, that Obama acknowledged the facts, but didn't satisfy Gergen by interpreting those facts in the way that he wanted, i.e.,falling for the Bush admin. and righty media line.
Leave it to you to misrepresent Gergen, his non-affiliation with the "Bush media line" and the entire topic thread itself, not to mention myself and Jeter's disagreement. Nicely done.
I expect better from you HBL.
Have a nice weekend, Tommy.
You do the same.
NO HBL is exactly right. You are trying to say horrific and intolerable mean the same when he actually said FROM horric to JUST intolerable which makes it CLEAR to anyone not denying reality itself he WAS aknowleging a drop in violence just not to the level YOU and Gergen would prefer. Gergen is a conservative he has ALWAYS been a conservative he can be fair I will say that he will also often slip into being a conservative spin doctor. Probably its an unconcious political bias but its nonetheless there and THIS is an example.
If I said you went from hysterical to crazy, would that make a difference?
That depends if I said you went from moronic to abject stupidity would THAT make a difference. You tried to dishonestly parse Obama. You were torn to shreds. Get over it.
Tommy, I don't understand. HBL is just saying why he thinks the thread belongs here. It's just like a disagreement over one's opinion of a movie or favorite color. There's no need for him to have a basis for it.
So I'm not sure what more you expect from him, since he's lived up to your stated standards. Maybe you could explain what would be "better"?
Brab, it's just like my first post on this thread- Just say the thing that they want to hear, which Tommy said wasn't the point.Apparently it is.
What I could have done better is to agree that Obama didn't acknowledge a decline in U.S. casualties (when he did), and agree with Tommy that Gergen was right (when he wasn't).
If I could only get over this truth-telling handicap, maybe I'd meet Tommy's expectations more often.
It wasnt accurate. Obama DID aknowlege a lessening of violence anyone who can read the English language can see that.
Unless you were a major voice for the Nixon/Ford/Reagan administrations.
It's ironic the same people who want to call Matthews a liberal because he worked for Tip O'Neill and want to call Russert a liberal because he worked for Moynihan and Cuomo are willing to call Gergen impartial.
Compared to the lunatic fringe currently running the republican party he may seem impartial but there's no mistaking where his loyalties lie.
This argument reminds me of the ancient Briton who said of the Romans, "They make a desert and call it peace." The violence is down for a number of reasons, some connected to the escalation and some not. One of the reasons is the fact that ethnic cleansing of neighborhoods has been largely completed, so convenient targets are in shorter supply. Another is that we've started to arm the Sunnis who were attacking us prior to the "surge," and they're now biding their time and preparing for the next phase of the civil war. The same goes for the Shiite militias. Present violence is down to merely, as Obama says, "intolerable." Future violence will be horrific.
For Gergen to castigate Obama for not admitting that the surge is working is to require that Obama buy into the dishonesty of those who argue that it is. The surge is working only if you accept the moving of the goalposts (the only consistently successful policy of this administration). It has not, as it was supposed to do, resulted in political progress. Those on the right like to blame the Iraqis for this. The blame, my fellow Americans, is on us. We chose to go in and stir up the pot in this land which was ancient before our nation was even an idea, totally ignoring the realities on the ground in favor of pie in the sky ideologies dreamed up in the Arrogant Enterprise Institute.
Gergen framed the entire question as a "surge working if U.S. casualties are down" opinion. That, my friends, is spin. Obama I think cares about the actual situation. Apparently so do the Iraqis, if you would like to find out what they think.
From ABC news poll:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3571504
"Barely a quarter of Iraqis say their security has improved in the past six months, a negative assessment of the surge in U.S. forces that reflects worsening public attitudes across a range of measures, even as authorities report some progress curtailing violence.
Apart from a few scattered gains, a new national survey by ABC News, the BBC and the Japanese broadcaster NHK finds deepening dissatisfaction with conditions in Iraq, lower ratings for the national government and growing rejection of the U.S. role there."
<!-- -related- -->That was a good answer. Gergen just did not seem to wish to acknowledge it.
Any way I think the military in Iraq is doing things to make it appear the surge is working such as going on fewer patrols and staying in those certain neighborhoods so there can be pictures of how things are getting back to normal.
Immediate withdrawal of all U.S. troops would cause American casualties to plummet. I wonder if all of our conservative posters* here would acknowledge that withdrawal was working.
*Not Jeter, you get to sit at the grown-up's table today.
Hey thanks Beach BUT....
I'm not sitting with any "grown up" Moonbats like these:
Cambridge lefties have at last begun to show their true colors - and they sure as hell aren’t red, white and blue.
You know all that rhetoric about hating the war in Iraq, but supporting the U.S. troops who are there? Well, fuhgedaboudit!
A troop of Boy Scouts in Cambridge set up donation boxes at 33 polling stations in that city on election day last week. Their mission was to collect amenities for troops serving overseas - those little items like snacks and lip balm that make life a little easier. The Scouts had spent considerable time and money to publicize the event, distributing fliers in city buildings, libraries and local businesses well ahead of time, according to their troop leader, Jamisean Patterson, writing in this week’s Cambridge Chronicle.
Then one resident in one precinct complained about the implied “pro war” message, according to Marsha Weinerman, executive director of the Election Commission. The city’s law department was consulted and “it was determined that the best course of action would be to remove the boxes,” Weinerman told the Chronicle.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/editorials/view.bg?articleid=1044992
OK Jeter, I never said there weren't nuts on the left too.That stuff is ridiculous, when one busybody can get the lawyers nervous enough to cover themselves like that.
Of course, some of those Cambridge lefties may have had other reasons for putting the kibosh on the deal- Imagine how many Republican men would be prowling the area with all those boy scouts hanging around!
You would have been disappointed if I stopped after the first paragraph.
Does David Gergen still remind anyone fo Yertle the Turtle?
BTW, how come every time I drop in to MMFA I see the same old tired handles posting? Don't you guys realize you're all just preaching to the converted, or having a circle jerk or something like that?
I can only speak for myself, but I had no idea.Preaching and circle-jerking- together at last.
Laissez, you might want to jump over to the savage thread where finarfin just loves laissez faire and calls liberals "commies."
I don't know 'bout everyone else, but I don't watch much television and find reading and posting on here sort of an interesting diversion. Plus like a lot of the familiar old handles.
Mary, I hope this isn't too forward, but I hope you like my familiar old handle.
Yep, like it just fine. That goes for all you other insane but loveable old handles out there.