THE POLITICS OF MORAL STAMPEDE: Did Donald J. Trump blame the generals for Yemen?


Part 3—What Hewitt and Maddow said:
On Thursday morning, March 2, Hugh Hewitt made an extremely dumb remark in the Washington Post.

Hewitt is a conservative talk radio host and a frequently-used MSNBC contributor. His opinion column in the Post concerned Donald J. Trump's address to Congress two nights before.

We highlight the dumb remark:
HEWITT (3/2/17): The heart of the speech...was the president's tribute to Chief Special Warfare Operator William "Ryan" Owens and his widow, Carryn, who in an act of incredible courage attended the speech and allowed the nation to grieve with her. By doing so, she invited every patriot to thank in their hearts and prayers all families who have suffered such losses, every veteran who has absorbed a wound. It was a transcendent moment, and indeed a defining moment. This president will stand by his troops.
"This president will stand by his troops?" Whatever a person may think of Trump's tribute to Owens that night, that comment was strikingly dumb.

In what way did Trump's remarks show that "he will stand by his troops?" We thought of the previous dumbness which brought Hewitt to these pages. We refer to the moment when Hewitt was shown applauding one of Trump's statements during a presidential debate—a debate at which Hewitt himself was serving as a moderator.

Hewitt is a high-IQ person given to the occasional dumb remark. His remark about Trump standing by his troops was one such nonesuch moment. That said:

Needless to say, our own liberal team swung into action in response to Trump's remarks about Owens that night. In one such manifestation, we stood in line to complain that Trump had "exploited" Carryn Owens and/or her husband's death during his speech.

Our lizard brains screamed this assessment and so we rushed to repeat it. For one example, click here.

Did Donald J. Trump exploit Carryn Owens? The judgment is easily uttered. Did he prove that he "will stand by his troops?" That was dumb all the way down.

That said, these are times of moral stampede. Such times encourage endless stiff-necked moral judgment, including interpretations of extemporaneous remarks based on stiff-necked true moral belief.

We refer, of course, to the debate which occurred on the evening of February 28 between the aforementioned Hewitt and his cable colleague, Rachel Maddow. Their debate followed a brief preliminary debate between Hewitt and Brian Williams, a reformed TV fabulist of the pre-Trump strain.

The Hewitt-Maddow debate involved conflicting interpretations of earlier remarks by Trump. Dumb as his subsequent comment was, we thought Hewitt displayed the better judgment in this debate, in which his stiff-necked, true-believing adversary seemed unable to grasp the fact that she interpreting Trump's earlier comments at all.

At issue was a pleasing script our liberal tribe quickly adopted. According to this pleasing script, Trump had semi-contradicted himself in his remarks about Owens that night.

In his address to the Congress, Trump clearly said that the raid in which Owens died had been a success. Anonymous sources had said different, many pundits noted.

(Trump directly attributed this assessment to General Mattis. Because all mainstream pundits have sworn by the greatness of Mattis, cable stars and liberal columnists have tended to hurry past this point as they denounce Trump's assessment.)

Liberal pundits tended to denounce that assessment by Trump. That said, the debate between Hewitt and Maddow turned on a different point.

On the morning of Trump's speech, Trump had appeared on Fox and Friends, the pitiful program he has described as the TV press corps' most honest. He was asked about Owens' death, and about the fact that Owens' father had refused to meet with Trump.

Owens' father had pleased our stampeding tribe greatly. On Fox and Friends, Trump offered this. Because dueling interpretations are involved in what came later, we'll offer no points of emphasis:
TRUMP (2/28/17): Well, this was a mission that was started before I got here. This was something that was, you know, just—they wanted to do. They came to see me, they explained what they wanted to do, the generals—who are very respected. My generals are the most respected that we've had in many decades, I would—I believe. And they lost Ryan. And I was at the airport when the casket came in, the body came in, and it was a very sad—with the family,and it's a great family incredible wife and the children. I met most of the family. And I can understand people saying that. I'd feel, you know, I'd feel— What's worse? There's nothing worse.

But again, this was something they were looking at for a long time doing. And according to General Mattis, it was a very successful mission. They got tremendous amounts of information.
You can watch the Q-and-A here.

Our lizard brains told us liberals to say that Trump was "blaming the generals." But had he really been blaming the generals? That was the deathless, largely pointless debate in which Hewitt and Maddow engaged that night.

Alas! In its typical scattershot way, MSNBC never got around to transcribing its programs on the night of Trump's speech. If you want to see the opening round of the debate we're discussing—the opening round between Williams and Hewitt—you can just click here.

Because we get tired of doing MSNBC's work, we won't transcribe their exchange. Starting around the two-minute mark, Williams asks Hewitt if "you will concede" that Trump had seemed to "blame the generals" on Fox and Friends that morning.

Hewitt says no, he won't concede that point. He says he didn't hear Trump's remarks that way. He explains what he thinks he heard Trump say instead.

A few minutes later, Maddow returned to this topic; her sense of annoyance was showing. To watch her great debate with Hewitt, you can just click here.

On that second tape, Maddow jumps in to challenge Hewitt's interpretation of Trump's remarks on Fox and Friends. Here's what we recommend for your consideration:

As she speaks with Hewitt, Maddow refuses to accept the fact that she's offering an interpretation of Trump's remarks! Her moral certainty is so strong that she thinks she's simply reporting facts. At one point, our own stiff-necked true believer engages in the fascinating highlighted exchange:
MADDOW (2/28/17): Hugh, his quote was, "This was a mission that was started before I got here. They explained what they wanted to do, the generals, who are very respected. My generals are the most respected that we've had in many decades, I would—I believe. And they lost Ryan."

I mean, he was asked about his reaction to this loss in this raid and to the grief of this seal's father, who has spoken publicly about the fact that he didn't want to meet this president on that tarmac at Dover.

He responded by saying, "This was started before I got here." As in, this wasn't me. Don't put this on me.

HEWITT: Yeah, well we just have to disagree, Rachel—

MADDOW: That's what he said. I'm not doing psychoanalysis.

HEWITT: I know! No, but it's not. It's interpretation.
In that last remark, Hewitt tells Maddow that she is interpreting Trump's remarks. Here's the interesting part of this debate:

Maddow refuses to concede or accept that basic point! She denies, to the very end, that she's offering an interpretation of what Trump said that morning. She maintains this stance to the end.

Near the end of the great debate, as Maddow signals displeasure with Hewitt, Hewitt offers this:

"I heard it completely differently. And that's the divide in the country. People hear things differently."

That's a very important point. Flatly, Maddow rejects it. Again, she seems to say that she's simply repeating facts. Hewitt is wrong and Maddow is right. Thus spake Maddowthustra!

Was either of these debaters right in his or her interpretation of Trump's remarks? We'd be inclined to say no. We think both parties were over-interpreting Trump's extemporaneous comments.

Was Donald J. Trump blaming the generals for what happened in Yemen on Fox and Friends that day? Our liberal lizards told us he was. It was a pleasing moralistic interpretation of Trump's remarks.

We'd say his remarks were less clear.

Was Trump blaming the generals? In our view, it's hard to say, in part because nobody asked him.

Extemporaneous remarks are often unclear; that's why follow-up questions were invented. No one followed up on Fox and Friends, cable TV's greatest program. At that point, the tribes took over, offering dueling accounts of what they said they heard.

We think Hewitt over-interpreted Trump's remarks; so did the stiff-necked Maddow. Having said that, there was a key distinction between the two, a distinction which made that debate a real keeper:

Hewitt acknowledged the fact that he was interpreting Trump's remarks. Maddow made no such admission. She seemed to think she was simply reporting the facts. Insisting on that stiff-necked claim, she was very, very not-smart.

A moral stampede is under way at the present time. Our own liberal and pseudo-liberal tribe is now stampeding quite hard.

Our lizards keep telling us what to see, think and say. This provides a great chance for us to spot the gross shortcomings which exist Over Here, within our own highly unskilled, vastly self-impressed tribe.

Tomorrow: A moral stampede of the past! The most consequential moral stampede of the past twenty-five years

Coming Friday: As part of our liberal moral stampede, we doctored what Rudy said


  1. Why is there blame? The operation was a success (according to Mathis), and a soldier died. Casualties are a normal part of war. You don't blame FDR because a lot of soldiers died in WW2.

    1. This is the point. Trump never apologizes for anything. He never admits fault, never says he is or was wrong. It is part of his philosophy of what it means to be a leader (and a man).

      The better word is responsibility. He did not take responsibility when he explained that the raid originated with his generals and they conducted it (obviously).

      Trump has no concept of responsibility, much less the understanding that the President takes responsibility for everything, whether WWII or Hurricane Katrina. It is his job to organize the response to whatever happens, and the outcome of those activities goes back to him, whether successful or not. Trump doesn't get that.

      So Somerby is correct when he says Maddow is "interpreting" and likely correct that Trump doesn't see the raid as blameworthy, no matter what the result (or what Mattis said about it) because Trump never sees himself as blameworthy. He cannot -- it is part of his narcissistic personality disorder that he cannot examine his own flaws and cannot accept criticism.

      So Maddow made a mistake, but we liberals with our lizards guiding our thought are not mistaken about Trump's failure to take responsibility for his own decisions, no matter how great his generals are.

      And I am so tired of Somerby telling us how awful we are because we understand that Trump is evading responsibility, even if we don't talk about it in the correct philosophical, logical, technically accurate terms. Neither does Hewitt and neither does Trump -- or we wouldn't be having these discussions. Language is messy but that doesn't make Trump less of a weasel when he blames generals and won't get the point that when a Seal is lost you don't call the mission a success because it ignores the value of human life to do so, which is part of what offended that Seal's father and others, especially those who have served in the military. These formalities matter to people -- they aren't empty traditions that Trump can trample over in his oafish blindness.

    2. If things that "matter to people" are important to you, why would you suggest calling a mission a failure (which this one wasn't) within days after its completion if ever? There were many failed missions in the context of larger successful wars because they are inevitable. 20/20 hindsight does not justify suggesting a person gave his life for nothing, which is the effect of "That mission was a failure." There are contexts in which the degree of success can be and is weighed and argued. Avoiding certain unnecessary language that you only want to hear because you think it would help your political agenda matters to people and you should and probably do understand that.

      Everyone understood the gravity and meaning in honoring of the widow in Trump's speech, and that it transcended politics. Begrudging it is not a good look.

    3. FDR personally signed letters to the parents of fallen soldiers in WW2.

      There are conservatives who believe that FDR made the depression worse and was a failed leader during WWII. These interpretations of history have as much validity as Hewitt's comments or Trump's beliefs. There are more objective standards by which former presidents can be evaluated, just as there is a larger context by which Trump's actual responsibility for that raid can be judged. Pretending there are no such standards and that Hewitt's claims are as valid as Maddow's is ridiculous.

      Liberals considered themselves part of the reality-based community. We do not live in a post-modern world in which everyone's opinion is valid, no matter how much it conflicts with evidence. Somerby cannot ignore the larger context of Trump's remarks, which show Trump for what he is.

    4. Here are the standards by which the raid can be judged less than a success: (1) a Seal life was lost, (2) civilian lives were lost, including children, (3) a helicopter was damaged and had to be destroyed to prevent technology from falling into enemy hands, (4) no important data was recovered, (5) because no data was recovered, the objectives of the mission were not met.

      If the goal of the mission was to show that Trump could look presidential and make military decisions, that would be better met if he understood the connection between his orders and real world consequences. But maybe it is enough for him to just make things happen.

      The problem with the way Trump "honored" the widow is that he let the moment go on too long, had an expression of satisfaction (not grief) on his face, and then commented that the applause was the longest ever (as if it were a contest). The fascination of the camera with her crying wasn't Trump's fault, but it represented the cynical use of her grief for political purposes. People who are grieving deserve privacy -- they shouldn't be made a public spectacle.

    5. No fair bringing up Benghazi. As DavidinCal has already pointed out, the Republican Congress had no idea rejecting calls for additional security funding for American outposts, like Benghazi, would lead to the deaths of four Americans. The Republican Congress turned down the additional funding requests because, at the time, they were trying to make believe the richest country in the history of mankind was broke---so they could tie the hands of President Obama, and he would not receive any credit for helping American citizens during a global recession and time of high unemployment.
      IOW, as DavidinCal sees it, the Republican Congress was doing nothing more than putting party before country, and therefore should not, in any way, be held accountable for the deaths of 4 Americans at Benghazi.

    6. Yes, thank you Robert, and as we know, DinC represents the party monotonously lecturing about taking personal responsibility for their actions. And they never do.

    7. The operation was a success (according to Mathis),..

      What is your source for that, Comrade DinC? Please don't point to a statement coming out of the WH. Show me the actual verified quote from Mattis.

      First the chickenshit coward Prince PissBoy Pervert the First, tried to shift the blame onto President Obama. Then the fucking ignorant bastard blamed the military. What the fuck is his job anyway?

    8. mmMarch 8, 2017 at 7:17 PM -- You have a point. I cannot find a quote about Mathis calling the operation a success except for Trump's assertion. I agree with you that Trump's unsupported word isn't sufficient. OTOT I haven't seen any knowledgeble, non-partisan statement that the operation was a failure.

    9. mm,
      That personal responsibility Republicans are always shouting about is for the poor and minorities only.
      But let's not call them hypocritical bigots who shouldn't be anywhere near the levers of power, because that truth would hurt their feelings.
      Republicans hate "Political Correctness" right up until the point you tell them the truth about themselves.

    10. The difference is Obama, George W Bush, Clinton, Carter all accepted accountability, even though they had no direct control over operations. It appears that Trump 45* hasn't made that leap yet.

    11. Comrade DinC, maybe your first clue should have been when the pervert traitor you voted for started pushing the fable that it was Obama's plan all along.

  2. Stiff-necked Maddow is off the deep end and the rest of them are following her. It isn't clear who these people are raging to. In reality only each other because they aren't influencing a single vote in their direction.

    1. The election is over -- hadn't you heard?

    2. She has a thick neck too.

  3. Perhaps Somerby belongs to some tradition in which morality is not part of cultural norms, not shared values, not collectively held judgment. Using the term "moral stampede" to refer to the agreement that strongly held moral views have been violated implies that there is something wrong with the moral views held by a group of people. "Stampede" characterizes us as cattle, willing to run off a cliff in our herd-panic, started by something trivial like a scary noise. What an ugly metaphor.

    Why doesn't Somerby like liberals? Why this relentless hate speech, day in and day out, as if this were not a liberal blog but a conservative one where we are the other who must be ridiculed and hated?

    Yes, we share a response to Trump's violation of norms and it is based on shared morality and yes, we are expressing it urgently during a time when his outrages occur daily. And yes, he is saying and doing outrageous things. We are not mistaking or misunderstanding that.

    I don't like Maddow. I cannot abide Hewitt -- I turn him off the minute I recognize his voice. I don't find him high IQ -- I find him reliably offensive as he smugly recites Republican talking points. Only Conway is worse.

    Somerby keeps claiming that we enjoy criticizing Trump and his people. We don't. We are majorly depressed, in despair, desperate at the harm being done to liberal accomplishments and the destruction of real human lives by the right. 10 million will lose healthcare. 55,000 fewer Syrian refugees will find safety here. Special ed is losing its infrastructure. Planned Parenthood will be unable to help poor women deal with health issues. Environmental protections have already been rolled back in the name of deregulation. These are real consequences, not nit-picks and Trump is responsible for every one of them.

    1. I certainly can't speak for Somerby, and although I think he's generally great I think that he goes a little far with the "both sides" discussion today.

      My interpretation of Somerby is that he's telling us that we need to be careful in our language and actions. That emotionally "stampeding" because one person or another is favored or disfavored at a particular time isn't helpful to anyone, and in fact usually results in bad consequences.

      He's been writing this blog for nearly 20 years. He's been very right about some very big items - that the media are less-than-worthless, and that liberals refuse to call them out on their unwillingness to do their job.

      Now that liberals have finally awoken, they're pushing-back in ways that oftentimes are unhelpful and/or careless, allowing the opposition to either disregard what's said (because it's wrong) or take unbrage at the way it was said (because it's insulting rather than enlightening).

      You're right about everything you said, and sometimes I don't think that Somerby expresses himself in the best fashion. But I'm very convinced that he has the right ideas and that it will be helpful to listen carefully to his thoughts.

    2. "We are majorly depressed, in despair, desperate at the harm being done to liberal accomplishments and the destruction of real human lives by the right. 10 million will lose healthcare. 55,000 fewer Syrian refugees will find safety here"

      800,000 real human lives will be unnecessarily ended by their mothers this year and these killings will be met with approval or either silence by people who identify themselves as progressives. Pardon us if we don't think your moralizing is anything but an exercise in making yourself feel good.

    3. That's a bogus number given that the abortion rate is decreasing. You forgot to answer my last question about why so many men are so upset about abortion when they are not the ones who have babies. It puts you in the position of moralizing on behalf of someone else, instead of minding your moralizing. I heartily recommend that you never have an abortion since you are so passionately against it. What gives you the right to control the thoughts, opinions and behavior of other human beings?

    4. The key word is "unnecessarily." Who determines that? Most abortions are spontaneous, many go unnoticed physiologically, when they are noticed they are called miscarriages. God decides (or nature, or fate, or some combination of genetics and health, depending on your beliefs about such things. Shall we call God a murderer for unnecessarily ending those lives? Many women feel that way, when they are disappointed in their hopes for a wanted birth. But life doesn't always work out as desired. Women who have abortions feel the same way. Liberals and conservatives alike have complex feelings about being and becoming pregnant, having or losing a child. A man is ill-equipped to empathize because the loss of fatherhood is qualitatively different, even if important to the man. So, it is offensive when you come here to propagandize and express your desire to control women and their choices. Whatever motivates you to do this is probably very sad, but many of us are not in a mood to empathize, especially those of us with unfortunate past experiences that you clearly don't understand. Best would be for you to go away or find a more receptive blog to spew your mistaken numbers at.

    5. And on International Women's Day too.

    6. Unnecessarily means a healthy fetus, including one who might have a form of disability, and a healthy mother who kills the individual she voluntarily produced, because he or she inconveniences her in some way. The vast majority of abortions that occur.

      These killings are not in any way analogous to miscarriages unless you believe a child dying of cancer is the same as one being shot by his mother because both events happened in the same place or at the same age.

      You can talk about controlling women and past experiences in an attempt to justify unnecessary killings of human beings based only on their her age and location.

      What motivates people do discuss these killings is the fact that killing is wrong and the unnecessary killing of a human being should be met with social disapproval.

      Killing someone for convenience reasons does not earn one an exemption from moral judgement because she happens to be female and you have decided sparing her from any disapproval for her unnecessary and unethical act trumps the human value of the individual whose life she took. Pushing the normalization of this behavior is abhorrent.

    7. "Why are men upset about abortion?" Are men supposed to approve of unnecessary killing? For now, it is a fact of biology that the mother, a woman, is the only one who can provide the individual she produced the ability to survive at a certain age. Expecting her to do so instead of ordering his or her killing is not sexist, and the choice to kill him or her for convenience which is the case in the vast majority of these killings, is wrong under every definition of morality there is except one that places a woman's feelings above all other considerations, even the life and death of others.

    8. Men are not supposed to decide what is necessary and what is unnecessary for women. They kill enough as it is. The vast majority of abortions are not done "for convenience." Someone like you doesn't seem to have a clue what women's feelings are, so you are a great example of why choice is needed when it comes to abortion and other women's health care issues.

      A man cannot decide how "voluntary" a pregnancy was for a woman. Your responses here are messed up in so many ways I don't have the energy to debate you any more. I do wish you weren't so obviously troubled over this topic. It seems unhealthy to me.

    9. The debate isn't about choice. That is a different debate and there are obvious ethical arguments in favor of the legality of abortion. That isn't the same question as whether the vast majority of people who avail themselves of the legal right are killing someone for convenience. Legality does not place an act above reproach. How voluntary a pregnancy is is not a grey area. Negligently producing a child doesn't give parents a defensible reason to end his life. The point of this discussion is to remember the numbers killed here every year, a response to the "despair" described over the comparatively miniscule numbers of uninsured and blocked immigrants. Out of sight out of mind is not an adequate reason for ignoring them.

    10. You don't measure the value of lives in numbers.

    11. The number of babies killed by abortion in this country is zero. You're confusing a baby with a fetus.
      Besides, being Pro-life isn't about babies. It's about keeping women in their place. Are you the last person on earth not to realize this by now?

    12. Johnny,
      Your point is valid. Bob is merely asking liberals to apply general semantics to both their interpretation of what others say AND to their own replies. Good advice in politics, diplomacy, and marriage.

    13. Robert, motives don't matter in ethical questions. "It's about keeping women in their place" for some. There are numerous unethical motivations possible for every ethical act. No one said "baby," the term used is "fetus." Those terms are meaningless deflections. They are words to describe ages of human beings. Baby is used interchangeably with fetus. No parents describe their developing fetus as the fetus. Abortion doctors describe the same individual as a fetus. Yours is an argument with a purpose of helping people look the other way. You were the same human individual when you were called a fetus, baby, child, or adult and at no point in your development did you lack the value you have now. At no point in your development when you did not present an imminent threat to another individual's life or were not permanently suffering could someone ethically end your life.

    14. People call their new car their "baby" too.

      "You were the same human individual when you were called a fetus, baby, child, or adult..."

      I'm much smarter than I was as a fetus. Probably why I reject modern Conservative ideology.

    15. 3:22 PM,
      I'll remember this when some Conservative asshole pisses and moans about the phony "deficit".

    16. Wouldn't the fact that people also call their car their baby support the irrelevance of the semantical issues involved in deciding how to regard the entity in question?

    17. "Robert, motives don't matter in ethical questions."

      That says a lot about someone who isn't concerned about millions losing their healthcare and the plight of Syrian refugees, just because progressives bring it up.

  4. Kevin Drum describes yet another analysis of the Presidential election. He concludes:

    "Once again: Clinton did nothing particularly wrong in her campaign. She didn't ignore working-class whites. She wasn't too cautious on policy. She didn't overestimate the impact of educated voters. She wasn't complacent. What happened was simple: 12 days before the election, the FBI director released a letter saying he had found a brand-new trove of emails and implying that this might finally be the smoking gun about her private email server. That's it.

    We'll never know for sure if James Comey did this because he's terminally stupid and didn't realize what impact it would have, or if he did it knowing full well what impact it would have. But he did it. And that's why Donald Trump is president."

    What kind of "moral stampede" does that represent, Somerby?

    1. Blaming Comey is a way of not blaming the real culprits of the , which were Hillary Clinton revealing herself in her deplorables speech and Pocahontas defining her campaign with brilliant strategies like embracing "nasty woman."

    2. Incoherent as usual. Better trolling please.

  5. TDH writes: "Hewitt is a high-IQ person given to the occasional dumb remark."

    Occasional, like every fucking day.

    I think so but the prospect of MSM elevating every controversy into scandal has never been real else Fast & Furious, IRS, server would have triggered widespread indeed 24/7 coverage of demands for special counsels, resignations. Even #Benghazi was largely ignored by MSM Hugh Hewitt, March 2, 2017 via Twitter

  6. In the quote of Trump, from a strictly grammatical (stiff-necked?) point of view, the only antecedents to the pronoun "they" are "the generals" or "My generals." Trump probably meant "they" as collectively everyone involved in the mission, but "probably meant" isn't the job of journalists, thus Maddow's "That's what he said..." And "extemporaneous" is pretty much how Trump rolls.

    1. Is it a good idea for Trump to surround himself with generals who tell him what he needs to hear? Mattis said the mission was a success but no one else with expertise thought so.

      Reports are that Trump's staff spends a lot of time fluffing him, to reassure him that he is great and that he is doing a wonderful job and everything is going along swimmingly. Telling him the truth gets you fired (or not hired).

      Hitler had generals who were afraid to tell him when the war started going badly. Hitler reportedly didn't take bad news well. As a consequence, Hitler made mistakes that hastened his defeat. People were afraid to tell him the truth because he punished them for it, as Trump does.

      Is it a good idea for Trump to surround himself with generals who won't tell him the truth?

      Even worse, Trump has a group of friends who he calls on his cell phone and talks with to get reassurance about his ideas. These people have the status of trusted advisers and they tell him what he needs to hear when he staff may not. Is that a good idea now that instructions for how to hack cell phones are now freely available? But who has the guts to stop him from doing this?

  7. Maddow weaves a story every day in that first 20 minutes of the show that connects dots, pulls things together, pulls historical references that really is just an amazing piece of work. You come out of it smarter. It's as simple as that.

    1. If you're relying on that 20 minute daily train wreck of fantasy and stupidity you're losing IQ points and becoming less sane. There is something wrong with her.

    2. Cash me outside howbou dah!

    3. Lucky Greg. If history is any guide, once he's so insane he's a mouth-drooling moron, he'll rap-up the Republican nomination for President of the United States in no time.

  8. Maddow had an interpretation of what Trump said. But I see no interpretation of those words by Hewitt. You can't prtend there is a conflict of interpretations if one side doesn't offer an alternative.

    1. Maddow refuses to accept the fact that she's offering an interpretation in the first place. The dude just pointed out to her it was an interpretation. She seems to feel her interpretation is objective fact.


    IF you are looking for a loan amount of little or huge amount between $10, 000USD to $100,000.00USD @ 2% interest rate, you will have to contact Victoria Financier Trust Company ( ). She help me with funds urgently when i was desperate in need of money to payoff my debt after my husband medical expense and more funds assistance to pay our mortgage and refinance my business. I read about Victoria Lawson on how she have help lots of person and she attend to me urgently when i contacted and explain my situation to her. She has help lots of persons that i refer to her too. Contact her now with VIA EMAIL:

    *Full Name:_________



    *loan amount:_________

    *Loan duration:_________


    *Purpose of loan:_________

    *Monthly Income:__________


    *Next of kin:_________

    *Email :_________