"In a long, and interesting speech, [Clinton] characterized what the US 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"?
Compare that with what Clinton actually said, in context:
"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."
See the difference? Tapper obviously can't... & that's a problem.
What did Jake Tapper mean by the confession "I don't really think", which appeared in his blog yesterday?
In a short entry with a misleading headline and complete distortion of a quote of former President Bill Clinton, Tapper confessed "I don't really think."
In an update published later, Tapper said "I understand," which seemingly contradicts his earlier confession.
Or perhaps he just misspoke.
We here at Wingnuts & Moonbats cannot be certain.
For the full text of Tappers comments--full, proper, & undistorted by creative editing--please follow the link above.
-- comment on Tapper's blog by Ida Noe, on 2/1/08, at 9:22:15 AM (I rewrote it, a little, both for style & so it'd make sense here)
A few comments later I wrote a comment of my own in support of "Ida's" & blasting Mr Tapper a bit more, but it was removed shortly thereafter... (There was a place to add my site url, allowing other readers to click my screen name & end up here--which I did--& now I'm wondering whether that was the problem... There are many comments blasting Tapper, but no comments at all that link to the blogs of those making the comments...)
As far as I can recall, it went something like this:
Ida Noe (2/1/08, 9:22:15 AM) was right on target.
I once thought you were a reliable reporter, but this blog entry makes me question whether you ever were...
As was obvious to pretty much everyone who saw or read the whole passage (except you, obviously), Clinton was expressing an example of what NOT to do to solve Global Warming, and your careful editing of the video & subsequent blog post gives a patently dishonest impression of what he actually said.
You claim not to understand Clinton's meaning, but that doesn't wash for a major network's Senior National Correspondent for their Washington bureau. Whether by ineptitude or design, your failure to comprehend simple English (& if you did understand more than you're letting on, creative license with this story) makes you a poor reporter unworthy of your position.
Instead of apologizing, Tapper is now defending his egregious post by insisting that addressing global warming will in fact slow the economy, whether Clinton said it or not:
"This is the much more important issue here. Any serious effort to reduce greenhouses gases will have an impact on the economy and, initially, that impact could be negative."
- Think Progress � ABC Publishes Hit Piece Against Bill Clinton, Peddles Right-Wing Misinformation On Global Warming