« Rumsfeld Slip Fuels Conspiracy Mills | Main | Holidays In Airport Hell »

What Ever Happened to Reading Comprehension?

The moonbats are going wild over Rumsfeld's mistatement about Flight 93 being shot down over Pennsylvania. They are saying the Rumsfeld admitted the U.S government shot the plane down.

It is quite clear the moobats never took reading comprehension in the third grade. Even with the misstatement, there is no way a rational person could read it that way. Here is the quote:

And I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York, [or the people who -ed] shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon, the people who cut off peoples' heads on television to intimidate, to frighten -- indeed the word "terrorized" is just that. Its purpose is to terrorize, to alter behavior, to make people be something other than that which they want to be.
[bracketed words inserted]

Anyone who can read should have no trouble understanding he was referring to the terrorists, not the Air Force!

His mistatement was that they (the terrorsits) did not shoot the plane down of course, they hijacked it and crashed it... Really quite irrelevant distinction to someone at the Sec of Def level. His job is to make sure we break them up so they don't do it again.

But certainly anyone who passed the third grade should be able to read the context and realize he was talking about the terrorists, and not the United States Air Force. -- Of course considering the source(s) and it really should come as no surprise...

If our schools spent more time teaching Reading Comprehension and less time on 'sex ed' and 'cultural diversity' maybe, just maybe, people would learn to read.

BTW Kev blogged this below but did not have the quote so had a different take.

UPDATE: Jay adds something very important in the comments... IF the transcript was transcribed wrong or if Rumsfeld meant to say "brought down" it makes perfect sense. Any links to the video?


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference What Ever Happened to Reading Comprehension?:

» The Pink Flamingo Bar Grill linked with What Ever Happened to Reading Comprehension? Via

» Conservative Cat linked with 12/28/04: Stupidity

» Secure Liberty linked with Rumsfeld On Flight 93

» Murdoc Online linked with Rummy admits it?

Comments (21)

"Those who would cite this ... (Below threshold)
Bill K:

"Those who would cite this as proof of some gigantic cover-up are missing the point. Rumsfeld misspoke, and most likely the misspeak represents the situation the SecDef wishes had happened. If one of the 4 hijacked flights of 9/11 had actually been shot down don't you think that the Bush administration would have been able to raise a tiny victory flag over the fate of that last flight?

Wouldn't we all have felt better in the days after 9/11 knowing that a hijacked plane headed for a spectacular crash could be intercepted and downed even though it was not really planned for? Of course that didn't happen. The 9/11 report has cockpit conversations that prove that the hijackers themselves crashed the plane in response to the passenger rebellion."

Kevin is replying to it as he meant the US shooting it down too. Don't get on your high horse too much there.

You are awfully sensitive to this issue seeing as almost everybody universally agrees it was a simple slip of the tongue.

sigh-- As usual you don't g... (Below threshold)
Paul:

sigh-- As usual you don't get it... Kev did not quote the transcript, you did!

THEN you missed that he was speaking about terrorists. Can you really not understand it???? It is quite simple if you read it.

I know he was, my god. My ... (Below threshold)
Bill K:

I know he was, my god. My commenting on kevin's post and my comment on Rumsfel... nevermind. We agree for the love of god. Rumsfeld slipped up, said terrorists shot down the plane (instead of caused its crash), Kevin wrote a post about how moonbats think the slip meant the us gov shot it down, i agreed that was ludicrous, and pointed out other ludicrous statements from people, while, parenthetically, pointing out why thinking the terrorists would shoot it down (if you read rumsfeld statement correctly) would also be stupid.

your apparent need to disag... (Below threshold)
Bill K:

your apparent need to disagree with me about everything is astonishing.

sigh- Bill you completely m... (Below threshold)
Paul:

sigh- Bill you completely missed my point... Don't worry, I'm used to it.

Well, perhaps I am so overs... (Below threshold)
Bill K:

Well, perhaps I am so oversimplyfing it that I fail to catch what you are getting it.

What do you believe me to not understand.

Hmm... "brought" rhymes wit... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

Hmm... "brought" rhymes with "shot," and "brought down" in this context makes a great deal of sense. That plus the grammatical deconstruction Paul did makes this, to me, another tempest in a teapot.

J.

What the moonbats are sayin... (Below threshold)
John S.:

What the moonbats are saying isn’t necessarily ludicrous. The FBI told us the plane crashed at 10:03. But every seismograph on the east coast puts the crash at 10:06.02. There also is the undisputed fact that a 1,000 lb. chunk of engine somehow was blown off the plane 6,000 feet from the impact site. And a dozen witnesses saw burning debris falling from the sky. And another half-dozen described the F16 that was in the area. Heat seeker anyone? Why wouldn’t the Bush administration want to tout this tiny success? Well, the moonbats speculate that the cockpit tape in those 3 “missing minutes” reveal that the passengers had overpowered the hijackers and the private pilot known to be on board had taken control. And then the right wing exploded. Oops.

John put down the bong and ... (Below threshold)
Paul:

John put down the bong and walk away.

Wouldn't we all have fel... (Below threshold)
julie:

Wouldn't we all have felt better in the days after 9/11 knowing that a hijacked plane headed for a spectacular crash could be intercepted and downed even though it was not really planned for?

No, I wouldn't. The plane crashed. It did not need to be shot down. Your Sohpie's Choice fantasy is just plain weird.

Oh, Julie, your need to cri... (Below threshold)
Bill k:

Oh, Julie, your need to criticize me has come back to bite you. Those words are Kevin's, not mine.

- All of this is interestin... (Below threshold)

- All of this is interesting of course....but even more interesting is a question focusing on the plane that hit the pentagon. The fact that the fighter intercepts were easily in the vicinity a full 5 to 10 minutes before the inbound airliner, which had been tracked a considerable distance before entering Washington airspace. (It takes approx, 2 minutes to fly from the airbase south of the Capital).A more interesting question would be was the order to bring it down ever issued and if it was was the oreder refused....

- I know I sure as hell wouldn't want to be put in a position of shotting down an unarmed passenger plane, but of course given the situation you'd have no choice. Never mind the hell you'd face in the aftermath and the press and public and lunitic groups etc......

Nothing is coming back to b... (Below threshold)
julie:

Nothing is coming back to bite me, Bill. Quoting a post in the comment section of a different post without clear attributions, is your error. I still find the statement uncomfortable and disagree with it.

It was more for Paul's bene... (Below threshold)
Bill K:

It was more for Paul's benefit, and he knew where it was from.

Is it "pick on Bill day" or... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Is it "pick on Bill day" or something?

Does it really matter if it... (Below threshold)
Drew - Dallas, TX:

Does it really matter if it was shot down or not? The means still doesn't justify the end, no matter what the left-leaning friends think.

Let's just say for argument's sake that the order was given, and followed. What exactly does this change? Experience tells us that committees will be formed, months (or more) of investigations will follow to yield us ... ...what exactly? I'd say that it's accountability for Bush and individuals in the Military as opposed to accolades for anyone who would give and/or receive an unthinkable order and have to follow it.

Although this version of the story won't stop Hollywood/TV/Media/Publishing from digging into the issue (i.e. making the entire thing up) and implying that the terrorists appear less evil than they are and somehow all of this is W's fault.

Again, it's the media that would rather report on non-news like this that has some remote chance of smearing Rumsfeld or Bush instead of remembering the remarkable mobilization efforts that were made to clear the skies after the attacks with tough decisions being made at every level.

The mobilization by the FAA and the Military in the hours after the attacks can be compared to the mobilization of U.S. industry during WWII. Instead of men and women hammering rivets into military equipment you think of the Military, FAA decision makers and air traffic controllers who mobilized and cleared thousands of aircraft to safe destinations in just a few hours.

It's another lame attempt to make the Bush Administration look bad...

Liberals are obsessed with ... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Liberals are obsessed with proving their paranoid suspicions, which all paranoids are. Patterns in the sky spell out doom, or some other something or other that a paranoid just knows, KNOWS, is so...the "face" on Mars, the "Zionists," the "NeoCons," the "one world order" and all that and on and on and on...you cannot discuss logically much of anything with anyone who is paranoid because they will only become more resolute in their paranoid delusions and then include anyone who attempts to reason with them as among that which fuels their delusions (anyone not commisserating in the delusions becomes part of the delusions, adds emphasis to their paranoia and is labelled as one of those types of things/persons/affiliations upon which the paranoia is defined).

There is literally and really nothing that Rumsfeld or Bush or any other person who is not involved in "challenging" those targets that paranoid delusions focus upon, just nothing of any sense that can be said or written that will break through the delusions, in my experience.

Rumsfeld's misspeak, mumbled concept communicated there is easy to comprehend in a straightforward fashion and yet, here we go again, TRYING to counter paranoid delusions, TRYING to explain to paranoid personalities what the simple mumbled statement means, so easy to comprehend for most, so problematic and inciting to paranoid personalities.

The sickness of this sort of paranoia drains and zaps public discourse, and it demeans and insults the memories of the lives lost in the tragedies of 09/11 and all others lost in service to fellows. But that never seems to be a consideration to many liberals, who, instead, again and again, insist that these incidents are all about them, instead.

Maybe they are, when you think about it from a non paranoid perspecitive, maybe these tragedies really are all about liberal fanaticism and paranoid delusions. Osama/Usama Bin Laden certainly seems to suffer from the problems of paranoid schizophrenia, as do many among the most high profile left in the U.S.

That was probably John Kerr... (Below threshold)
Neo:

That was probably John Kerry's plane that was reported shot down over Pennsylvania, as no real Senator could lose that bad to .. anyone.
Like Paul McCartney of the Beatles, John Kerry was replaced by a look-a-like Republican. He went on to say ridiculous things like voting for stuff before voting against it, and stuff like that .. really stupid stuff. He also had to center on talking about his Vietnam experience because in the rush to get ready for the switch he only read half of the brief on Vietnam, skipping entirely the brief on the Kerry Senate record, thus not having the whole set of details to refer to by memory. There are reports that he performed better in bed than the original, but that has not been confirmed as of yet.

HA! Neo gets to the real tr... (Below threshold)
Paul:

HA! Neo gets to the real truth!

Former USAF F-16 pilot here... (Below threshold)
Faith+1:

Former USAF F-16 pilot here...or as we preferred to call it the Viper. Just a few years earlier than 9/11 I was transisionted to work with the ANG stationed at Langley AFB, VA for fighter inteceptor.

In those days we mainly chasd Blackjacks and Bears off the coast. Had 9/11 happened just a couple of years earlier there is a big chance I would have been one of those tasked with the possibility of intercepting a civilian airliner. I could have been on duty that day.

Thank God I was not.

I say this to establish that I DO know a little something about what it takes to bring down an airliner sized aircraft.

It would not have been done in s single AIM-9 shot (as one said a "heatseeker". BTW, that's more of a Hollywood term not a military one. It's one way we used to spot pseudo-military types.) but more likely more than one shot.

It would NOT have been the choice of the pilot to fire. He would have had to get clearance to fire from several levels. It took four confirmations to get authority just to lock on to the Russian bombers and we KNEW back then they were bad guys.

The government hiding a shoot down doesn't make sense. Given what was happening that day I think if the USAF had been forced to shoot down an airliner people would have thought it tragic--but necessary. Remember, 3 aircraft had already been used as missles. We thought as many as 10,000 might be dead in the towers alone.

Thinking Rumsfeld was "confessing" is a stupid argument for a stupid conspiracy made by stupid people who don't know and don't care to learn ANYTHING about the military.

What do you mean its W's fa... (Below threshold)

What do you mean its W's fault? Its all the fault of Karl Rove!




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy