The Repubs’ latest fabrication is that Roosevelt himself personally endorsed private accounts, and presumably the cuts in benefits that go with them.
According to Roosevelt’s grandson, James Roosevelt Jr., who is a former Associate Commissioner on Social Security, the quote was taken completely out of context. Keith Olbermann had him on the show to clear things up. The two of them go over the quote in question with a fine-toothed comb and provide the larger context in which it appears.
(see below for full quote within context)
Even a simple reading of the quote makes it clear that Roosevelt envisioned private accounts in addition to regular benefits, for those who could afford to invest in them, so they would have additional benefits later. (Not as a replacement for the current system.)
Video – Keith Olbermann and Roosevelt’s Grandson Call Bush Roosevelt Claim A Fraud (14 MB)
Audio – Keith Olbermann and Roosevelt’s Grandson Call Bush Roosevelt Claim A Fraud (MP3 – 9 MB)
Transcription:
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, father to the New Deal and, at minimum, mid-wife to the Social Security system, would have endorsed President Bush’s plan to partially privatize it. Our third story of the countdown, that is the claim anyway of at least three conservative commentators and several Republican congressman, but it turns out, those guys pretty much just made it up…
At the risk of doing a little too much reading, just to put it on the historical record, let me read the entire quote from which those quotes were pulled (portion of quote misused by Brit Hume and others is in italics):
“In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles. First, non-contributory old age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance. It is of course clear that perhaps 30 years to come funds will have to be provided by the States and the Federal Government to meet these pensions. Second, compulsory contributory annuities which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations. Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amount received in old age. It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supported annuity plans.”
Category Archives: Revisionist History
More On The Shrub’s Attempt To Cover Up His Ever-changing Story About The Cost Of The War By Removing Web-based Evidence Of His Administration’s Lies
The Shrub is trying to cover his tracks by deleting hundreds of damning documents from the Internet. Nice try shrubby, but the built-in redundancy of the Web will hopefully save the day on this one.
White House Covers Tracks by Removing Information
In a high-tech cover-up, the Washington Post this morning reports the White House is actively scrubbing government websites clean of any of its own previous statements that have now proven to be untrue.1 Specifically, on April 23, 2003, the president sent his top international aid official on national television to reassure the public that the cost of war and reconstruction in Iraq would be modest. USAID Director Andrew Natsios, echoing other Administration officials, told Nightline that, “In terms of the American taxpayers contribution, [$1.7 billion] is it for the US. The American part of this will be $1.7 billion. We have no plans for any further-on funding for this.”
The president has requested more than $166 billion in funding for the war and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan this year. But instead of admitting that he misled the nation about the cost of war, the president has allowed the State Department “to purge the comments by Natsios from the State Department’s Web site. The transcript, and links to it, have vanished.” (The link where the transcript existed until it caused embarrassment was http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/nightline_042403_t.html).
Shrub Attempts To Alter History By Removing Web Documents
White House Web Scrubbing
Offending Comments on Iraq Disappear From Site
By Dana Milbank for the Washington Post.
White House officials were steamed when Andrew S. Natsios, the administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development, said earlier this year that U.S. taxpayers would not have to pay more than $1.7 billion to reconstruct Iraq — which turned out to be a gross understatement of the tens of billions of dollars the government now expects to spend.
Recently, however, the government has purged the offending comments by Natsios from the agency’s Web site. The transcript, and links to it, have vanished.
This is not the first time the administration has done some creative editing of government Web sites. After the insurrection in Iraq proved more stubborn than expected, the White House edited the original headline on its Web site of President Bush’s May 1 speech, “President Bush Announces Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended,” to insert the word “Major” before combat.
Since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, administration Web sites have been scrubbed for anything vaguely sensitive, and passwords are now required to access even much unclassified information. Though it is not clear whether the White House is directing the changes, several agencies have been following a similar pattern. The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and USAID have removed or revised fact sheets on condoms, excising information about their effectiveness in disease prevention, and promoting abstinence instead. The National Cancer Institute, meanwhile, scrapped claims on its Web site that there was no association between abortion and breast cancer. And the Justice Department recently redacted criticism of the department in a consultant’s report that had been posted on its Web site.
Stephen Colbert Stands Up For The Shrub’s Consistent Iraq War-U.N. Policy
This is from the September 11, 2003 program.
This clip follows this one. (Watch it first. It will make the clip below a lot funnier.)
Stephen Colbert took the liberty of editing together numerous Shrub speeches in order to create a clip of him actually speaking the words that Rummy and Colin claim he’s been saying all along.
Stephen Colbert On The Shrub’s Consistent Iraq War-U.N. Policy (Small – 8 MB)
The Daily Show (The best news on television.)
Daily Show On The 9-11 Anniversary And The Shrub’s Revisionist History On Its Stance On U.N. Involvement In Iraq
This is from the September 11, 2003 program.
These should have been edited into two different clips, but I blew it, so there it is.
The first part is a nice introspective piece from Stewart about 9-11.
Next, a great Shrub War update follows. Highlights include Rummy’s new calm and sedated demeanor — compared to his wartime royal smugness (a.k.a. “Rummy Then and Now”), Colin Powell trying to make peace in the U.N., and both Rummy and Colin saying that the Shrub has always sought U.N. involvement.
If you think this is revisionist history. Just wait till you see the Stephen Colbert clip that follows!
Partial Transcript:
Jon Stewart:
Now while the President’s decision to seek a resolution giving the U.N. a greater role in Iraq seems like…uh…I don’t know… a 180? Administration Officials say this has been the plan all along.
Donald Rumsfield put it this way: “This isn’t anything new. There’s no big news story here.”
Colin Powell says: “The President has said this from the very beginning.”
They’ve been saying these things the whole time? I can’t believe I didn’t realize that. I must be reading the wrong papers. Watching the wrong tv new shows. Listening to the wrong radio stations. Living on the wrong planet.
9-11 Intro and The Shrub’s 180 Degree Turnaround On U.N. Involvement In Iraq (Small – 11 MB)
The Daily Show (The best news on television.)
Washington Post Quietly Republishes Substantial Revision Over 7 Hours After Publication
Today is a sad day. It’s the day I felt compelled to start a “Revisionist History” category to keep track of articles in major news publications whose words have ben modified from their original printing to alter the meaning substantially — and without any word about the alterations.
The first time I took note of this was when MSNBC changed their story several times over a five day period regarding the attack on protesters at the West Oakland Docks in April.
Today’s posting is from the Washington Post. I’m totally bummed out about this one, because I like the Post and would like to be able to consider it a noteworthy “newspaper of record,” as they say. I do respect this newspaper, and I hope that someone over there will step up to the plate to explain to us how this could have happened, and hopefully assure us that it will not happen again.
Here’s the “before” story: White House Wants Baker to Head Iraq Reconstruction.
Here’s the completely overhauled “after” story: Bush Considers New Overhaul of Postwar Iraq Administration.
Notice that “Staff writer Vernon Loeb contributed to this report” in the original, yet “Staff writers Vernon Loeb and Rajiv Chandrasekaran contributed to this report” of the current version. Perhaps Chandrasekaran did the rewrite?
Here’s where the two versions have been compared side by side. (There’s a lot of other goodies on that page too.)
So there you have it. I’ve got a ton of other stuff going up today I’ve been working on all weekend…but this seemed pretty important.
(Thanks, Kevin)