Yesterday the Nethercutt for Senate campaign released a new video ad with a clip of Sen. Patty Murray making her now infamous statement from 2002 attempting to explain why Osama bin Laden is popular in the Muslim world:
He’s been out in these countries for decades, building schools, building roads, building infrastructure, building day care facilities, building health care facilities, and the people are extremely grateful. He’s made their lives better.The explanation that Osama is popular for whatever humanitarian work he might do and not for his murderous jihad is ridiculous. Such a world view would only make sense to someone in, say, a Madison, Wisconsin Unitarian church Sunday school kumbaya circle, or, for example in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer editorial board. But more than that, the factual assertion that Osama would build daycare facilities is patently absurd. Osama is only popular in the most backward Islamic societies where women with young children do not work outside the home and therefore have no need for daycare facilities.
Here is how the Seattle Post-Intelligencer reported on the ad
Democratic Sen. Patty Murray and Republican challenger George Nethercutt have each made past remarks about terrorism or Iraq that they wished they had said differently, and yesterday each campaign pummeled the other for it.the article doesn't challenge Patty Murray's defense that quoting her own remarks is a "lie". Instead, it changes the subject and raises from the vault some of Nethercutt's old remarks that the P-I itself had earlier misquoted. The P-I doesn't bother to question whether Murray's factual assertions are even true, let alone that her interpretation is sensible.
Today's report in the Seattle Times was reasonably well balanced. It included a quote from Nethercutt challenging Murray on the facts
Does she really believe her assertions? I defy her to find a day-care center that Osama bin Laden has builtNevertheless:
Murray declined to say she had made any error in her statements about bin Laden cited in the Nethercutt ad.It also quotes a noted expert on bin Laden:
Peter Bergen, a journalist and author of a book on bin Laden, said there is no evidence bin Laden had built day-care facilities or schools, as Murray suggested.It stopped short of pointing out the obvious incompatibility of daycare facilities with Osama's view of the role of women.
I've contacted the Murray campaign and asked them to present evidence that Osama built any daycare facilities. I assume that if such evidence exists and served as the basis for Murray's statement, the campaign and/or the Senator's office would have it available to send me. If they can't provide it, we can assume she just made it up. Will the P-I, which endorsed Patty Murray for re-election even before the primary and without even interviewing George Nethercutt, challenge her on this point?
Please, no wagering.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at September 30, 2004 10:45 AM | Email ThisOn another note, I am disappointed that Senator Murray is distorting Congressman Nethercutt's strong leadership for diabetes. Lets not forget that Nethercutt started the Diabetes Caucus on Capitol Hill. As a diabetic, I know Nethercutt is one of the greatest allies in the fight against diabetes.
While I voted for Senator Murray in the last election, I want a Senator who will stand up to the terrorists, not support them!
Posted by: Jahan Wilcox on September 30, 2004 11:29 AMOn another note, I am disappointed that Senator Murray is distorting Congressman Nethercutt's strong leadership for diabetes. Lets not forget that Nethercutt started the Diabetes Caucus on Capitol Hill. As a diabetic, I know Nethercutt is one of the greatest allies in the fight against diabetes.
While I voted for Senator Murray in the last election, I want a Senator who will stand up to the terrorists, not support them!
Posted by: Jahan Wilcox on September 30, 2004 11:30 AMMe two. Murray got blasted by THE expert on al Qaeda - Peter Bergen - trusted by CNN and its viewers (including me) to spill the truth. I also read Bergen's book "Terror, Inc." I don't recall any mention of bin Laden = humanitarian. I recall many mentions of bin Laden = terrorist, heart of hate, blah, blah, blah.
See my blog in 5 min. - I'll link to the Seattle Times article too with my "BlogThis!" button...
Posted by: Josef on September 30, 2004 12:31 PMBut I still stand by my point on another post that the Nethercutt ad makes it look like she just started praising bin Laden in a speech, rather than the fact that she was talking about why so many people in the Middle East would support a terrorist.
A perfect example of this is the number of suicide bombers who take such an extraordinary step because they hope to earn money and gifts for their families. Saddam used to reward Palestinians in this way.
Posted by: Michael on September 30, 2004 01:04 PMIt's not an accident that many terrorist money laundering schemes run at some point through charities. It's a central and organizing principle of devout Islam, and in addition to their nefarious purposes towards the U.S. and its allies, they also provide assistance to people in need. The front works because it goes side by side with non-terrorist Islamic charities in producing measurable benefit for some segment of their supporters. How many people want to bite a hand that's fed them?
What Murray was saying is that there's a reason that a freak like bin Laden has an opening into hearts and minds over there that goes beyond the appeal of striking the infidel oppressor. It may be unpleasant to hear, but it's true. These organizations are supported by public tolerance in their native lands, and they recruit from a large pool of people, most of whom never have nor will commit any terrorist act.
It's those people, those who silently consent, that are open to be swayed. They haven't committed to violence, but they don't have much to say against the enemy of their enemy, even if they don't like the tactics. They have reasons, motivations, and beliefs in response to perceptions of the world around them that could be changed to our favor with right effort on our part. An intelligent engagement resulting in progress towards peace and prosperity would dry up that pool of public sympathy for people who go outside the system to achieve their goals through mayhem and murder. Because their resentment comes from a sense of powerlessness and neglect, it can't be eliminated by the sort of unilateral military activity that makes the target population feel even more powerless. And military strikes can't be followed by a reconstruction policy that leaves them feeling more neglected.
Many citizens of these countries feel that they get screwed if they don't fight, and screwed if they do fight. So given a choice, some of them will inevitably choose to fight and hope they get lucky, because nothing else has worked.
When enough people in positions of power finally understand these concepts, they will make lasting progress towards peace. Not before.
Posted by: natasha on October 1, 2004 02:28 PM