ABC News Whore Distorts Clinton's Comments RE "Slow Down Economy to Reduce Greenhouse Emissions"

[El Pinko]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/01/bill-we-just-ha.html

Bill: "We Just Have to Slow Down Our Economy" to Fight Global Warming

January 31, 2008 9:26 AM

In a long, and interesting speech, he characterized what the U.S. and other industrialized nations need to do to combat global warming this way: "We just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions 'cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren."

At a time that the nation is worried about a recession is that really the characterization his wife would want him making? "Slow down our economy"?





That's the beginning of the piece, and the tone of the piece throughout - he's basically saying that Clinton is ADVOCATING slowing the economy to cut greenhouse gases.

In fact, he's even got a link to a video that ONLY includes Clinton saying "We just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions", with the before-and-after context of the speech totally cut out.

But look further down in the piece and see what Clinton ACTUALLY said...






"And maybe America, and Europe, and Japan, and Canada -- the rich counties -- would say, 'OK, we just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions 'cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren.' We could do that.

"But if we did that, you know as well as I do, China and India and Indonesia and Vietnam and Mexico and Brazil and the Ukraine, and all the other countries will never agree to stay poor to save the planet for our grandchildren. The only way we can do this is if we get back in the world's fight against global warming and prove it is good economics that we will create more jobs to build a sustainable economy that saves the planet for our children and grandchildren. It is the only way it will work.



Clearly he is talking about a hypothetical "Yes, we could do this, but then..." He's not advocating slowing the economy at all.

These whores NEVER stop lying and spinning. EVER.


This guy claims to be a "correspondent on politics and popular culture", but as far as I can tell, he's nothing but an overtly partisan hack.

Another of his articles is another anti-Clintons smear piece centering on that Kathleen Willey person who who stalked, then accused Clinton of raping her, then was found to have lied to the Independent Counsel and the FBI.

[rucky]

1. Thank you for the context.

a rare sight in these parts.

[ToughLuck]

2. Great post..Thanks!!

[Jim__]

3. I don't believe anyhting the MSM says - especially about the Clinton's.

I might take what they say as a hint of something to look into; but, most of their "reporting"is along the lines that you've pointed out here.

[nels25]

4. I agree - Out of Context

I noticed that too when I read it.

I will support Barack but ABC misrepresented President Clinton's overall statement.

[El Pinko]

6. I'm probably going for Obama, too, but I am NOT Anti-Clinton.

Welcome aboard, by the way!

:hi:

[El Pinko]

13. delete

nt

[El Pinko]

16. kick

nt

[Deja Q]

21. I wish I read that earlier.

I owe an apology.

Earlier today, on errands, other POVs hit me as well.

I'm getting way too depressed as of late.

[lapfog_1]

5. Two points

Yes, context is important.

But a better way to say what he was trying to say is

"We could partially solve our economic crises by developing alternative green energy technologies, not only here, but all around the world, which would also fight global warming".

I wouldn't open up the whole Paula Jones / Monica / Kathleen / etc stuff... that's what people don't want to go back to. Better to just let it rest. Yes it was or is unfair.

[Rosabelle]

18. economic crisis???

How exactly does "slowing down the economy" help resolve an economic crisis? The US is technically not even in a recession yet.

There is nothing wrong with developing green technology, but I don't see how it will create more jobs than what the market would already produce as we move in that direction. Even if there are government subsidies, the taxes necessary to support the effort will the economy jobs.

Eliminate subsidies of any kind and let the market move towards cheaper technology, such as nuclear.

[Rock_Garden]

7. Excellent work, El Pinko. K&R!

[DJ13]

8. Just admit it

Clinton snubbed our economy.

Maybe Mathews can figure out a way to turn this into a negative for Obama.

[LiberteToujours]

9. Blatant media lie

I also noticed this direct misinformation and am quite upset by it. If you agree with me that he was misquoted, complain about it here as I did:


http://abcnews.go.com/Site/page?id=3052660

[El Pinko]

10. Done!

Thanks for the link!

[newportdadde]

11. Sort of like Andrea Mitchell doing the last half of the Clinton fairy tale comment over and over

with no context.

[Bitwit1234]

12. We all know what they are trying to do...Make McCain president.

[Jim__]

14. Rush just quoted the article on his show - the out of context part.

Then he stated how this shows what the clintons, Gore, etc really want.

I wonder if the ditto heads ever wonder about how much they're lied to.

[El Pinko]

15. Of course he did! He's the KING of the liars!

By the time ABC puts out a tiny retraction, it will be forgotten, but the meme of the Clintons as "pro-recession tree-huggers" will be firmly planted in a bunch of rubes' minds.

[Rosabelle]

17. ABC report is accurate: Clinton did so say it.

Clinton is in fact saying that the only way to leave our planet better for our grandchildren is to slow down the economy, BUT the developing nations won't agree to this because they don't want to remain poor. Therefore, he claims that the poor countries have to be convinced that it will be beneficial economically to join the rich nations and slow their economies down too, even though there is no proof such a scheme would infact create jobs and wealth. It is completely illogical that it would. ABC is correctly reporting what Clinton has said: that the solution to global warming is to slow down the economies of all nations not just ours.

[Deja Q]

20. And that in turn probably kills a lot of people.

The solution is to find ways of living cleaner, not wasting, and being responsible.

Is killing really the answer?

[Deja Q]

19. Bill's a real phony. He's the same guy who rescinded the federal 55mph speed limit.

First of all, Bill can tell Al not to fly around all the time in small personal jets. Use normal ones like everyone else...

Second of all, the day Greenpeace bashed Apple for its known record (2007), it became clear that Al is just a figurehead on Apple's board. Has been since April 2003...

But I digress.

I saw this speech last night and remembered very clearly how BIll presented this concept it was a HYPOTHETICAL!!What if we slowed down our ecconomy then what would happen???Other countries like china and india would say well we are not going to do that because we have to catch up. Then Bill said something to the effect well we all have to get into this fight together and create the new industries that are going to make life better for everyone including China and India etc.

A person responded directly on that abc article and he's right.

Sorry Jake, you got it 100% wrong. Clinton doesn't want to slow down the economy, he wants to spur the economy by encouraging the developement of 21st century technology. You obviously must be aware of this by now. We await your retraction.

Well, with more Americans with such degrees losing jobs to offshoring, just because it's cheaper (talent or otherwise having nothing to do with it, there are unintentional repercussions from offshoring that must be addressed.)

Are you kidding me? The economy is already slow, if I sell my house I lose money even after 3 years....and I got it at a deal in a decent place to live! You really want to slow down the economy even more to solve the "major" problem that the average global temperature has risen, something like, 1 degeree over the last 100 years? Does Clinton want us to hurt more financially then our fathers to solve the mythical "global warming" that has no chance of effecting even our (30 somthings) great grandchildren, if it even truely exists? (kind of like bigfoot)

Insane, possibly, but that happens to people when we have leaders without vision.

Which candidates truly have what it takes?