March 29, 2006
McKinney’s office has released the following response to today’s incident:
“Earlier today I had an unfortunate confrontation with a Capitol Hill Police Officer. It is traditional protocol that Capitol Hill Police Officers secure 535 Members of Congress, including 100 Senators. It is the expectation of most Members of Congress that Capitol Hill Police officers know who they are. I was urgently trying to get to an important meeting on time to fulfill my obligations to my constituents. Unfortunately, the Police Officer did not recognize me as a Member of Congress and a confrontation ensued. I did not have on my Congressional pin but showed the Police Officer my Congressional ID.“I know that Capitol Hill Police are securing our safety, that of thousands of others, and I appreciate the work that they do. I deeply regret that the incident occurred. I have demonstrated my support for them in the past and I continue to support them now.”
Note how the sentence following her non-apology apology begins with “I”. Me, me, me.
32 Responses to “Cynthia McKinney’s Non-Apology Apology”
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Register to comment here.
10:59 pm [ Quote ]
This lady doesn’t mean what she said. She’s pissed off that the Capitol Police Officer didn’t have 635 faces memorized. I’m pissed off that she EXPECTS that! Is she trying to be serious?
I hope that police officer gets a nice big settlement. I hope this costs her re-election too.
She hits a police officer for trying to follow procedure. haha. wow.
10:59 pm [ Quote ]
liberals….will they ever learn?
11:17 pm [ Quote ]
“I deeply regret that the incident occurred.”
Where is the actual apology? Im sure the cops regret the incident too, since they were just doing their job.
Apparently, the easiest way to infiltrate the Congress building is to get someone who looks like a politician, have them talk importantly on a cell-phone and simply stride imperiously past the guards.
If I worked in a building that is a prime target for terrorist attack and has been subject to repeated incidents and false alarms, I would WANT them to stop me every, single time.
McKinney is so freepin’ full of herself, what a pompous aholian. People actually voted for this joke? What an embarrasment for the country.
11:49 pm [ Quote ]
Did she ever wind up getting arrested?
11:53 pm [ Quote ]
The chitter-chatter is that the cop is pressing charges and the biggies are trying to push it off until after the current session. There should also be video of the entire incident.
Whether or not its true, I dont know yet. Regardless, the cop in question should get his face on tv and tell the story.
If I get frisked on the way into a stadium, McChicken can sure as hell get frisked going into Congress.
12:32 am [ Quote ]
You find nothing wrong in her non-apology for an incident that she caused?
No wonder the left falls in love with guys like Tookie Williams.
For liberals there is no end to their rights and no beginning to their responsibilities.
1:18 am [ Quote ]
she’s kind of a dolt and clearly she was wrong, but when people speak it is common to use the first person. the fact that she began a sentence with “I” proves and shows nothing. really, is that the best you can do to debunk this half-assed apology?
1:21 am [ Quote ]
Non apologetic bullshit the left would never accept form any GOP politician…Trent Lott..anyhow, more of the same..move along, the left LOVES to circle the wagons around their crooks, liars, wire tappers, leakers of national security secrets and they warp themselves into to such absurd pretzels pieces doing so.
Let the fucked up contortionist take place and stand back, cuz it’ll hurt—especially since it just fricken killed their comedy “tough” security plank.
3:47 am [ Quote ]
Hardcore leftists like this imbecile are all about “me me me”.
That’s the irony.
5:02 am [ Quote ]
There are conflicting accounts of the situation. Jumping to conclusions on this is stupid and ignorant, since none of us were there. And guess what: No charges have been filed. Moreover, even if they had, in the US legal system there is a little thing called “presumption of innocence”. Maybe you’ve heard of it? Well, you should know about it, because if it went to court and you were called for jury duty , your prejudice would (theoretically) disqualify you.
You guys should be ashamed of yourselves.
Was she required to issue an apology? No. So why paint it as though she had shirked her duty? Honestly, the slanted presentation of this incident is quite obvious.
If you’re trying to “expose the left”, why must you rely on distortions and insults?
6:39 am [ Quote ]
perspicio
She would not be making a “statement” had it not happened…
..perspicio…you have been exposed
7:43 am [ Quote ]
McKinney’s Actions not unusual for Democrats
....REP Patrick Kennedy:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/664866/posts
...Sen Hillary Rodman CLinton:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/2/13/131728.shtml
8:30 am [ Quote ]
Bubba, I agree whole-heartedly. Your final comment says it all.
YHBE!
8:31 am [ Quote ]
I did not have on my Congressional pin
End of story. There is a purpose for that pin, it allows the congressperson to walk through easily, without it, they shouldnt expect anything different from the officers on duty.
11:13 am [ Quote ]
Bubba,
Didn’t Cheney make a statement about his shooting accident? Does that mean he’s guilty of a crime?
Double standard games will makes you look like a hypocrite and a fool.
11:32 am [ Quote ]
perspicio changing the subject is a complete sign of a failed debate and weak mind. You have been, exposed.
Cynthia McKinney hit the cop, it was no accident and here you are defending this racist troll. Pathetic to say the least.
To the people of Georgia, what were you “not” thinking?
11:49 am [ Quote ]
Wondered when this racist pig would play the race card:
An unconfirmed statement attributed to McKinney has been released on the Internet, where she allegedly claims to have been harassed by Capitol Hill Police.
The statement’s writer says that she has been harassed by white police officers she says do not recognize her due to her recently changed hairstyle.
“Do I have to contact the police every time I change my hairstyle? How do we account for the fact that when I wore my braids every day for 11 years, I still faced this problem, primarily from certain white police officers,” the statement says.
The writer details the incident, saying, “I was rushing to my meeting when a white police officer yelled to me. He approached me, bodyblocked me, physically touching me. I used my arm to get him off of me. I told him not to touch me several times. He asked for my ID and I showed it to him. He then let me go and I proceeded to my meeting and I assume that the Police Officer resumed his duties. I have counseled with the Sergeant-at-Arms and Acting Assistant Chief Thompson several times before and counseled with them again on today’s incident. I offered also to counsel with the offending police officer.”
12:12 pm [ Quote ]
You can’t possibly act like non-denial denials are a Democratic invention. Ever watch a Scotty M press conference?
“I’m not aware…”
‘Nuff said.
12:29 pm [ Quote ]
Icerigger,
I didn’t change the subject. I pointed out a parallel. It was on-topic and relevant. Public officials are expected to release statements about events with legal ramifications that they have been involved in.
You, sir, have changed the subject by impugning my character instead of dealing with the factuality of my statements. In doing so, you perfectly exemplify the point of my original post, so I’ll restate it.
If you’re trying to “expose the left”, why must you rely on distortions and insults?
12:30 pm [ Quote ]
Or non-apology apology. Same principle. I’m curious as to how the second part should have started, though. Would you have preferred that she simply say
“Capitol Hill Police are securing our safety?”
That sounds like the kind of thing you say after an anthrax threat.
Or maybe some kind of weird third-person passive tense thing. “The officer on duty is rightly apologized to by myself” – damn, there’s that “me” again. We liberals are so evil.
12:32 pm [ Quote ]
Tom,
I read that article, too. But it has not been attributed to McKinney. So it’s nothing but conjecture at this point.
Yet you have already accepted it as truth. That’s pretty irresponsible.
Back up a few steps, take a deep breath, and try putting your best foot forward.
1:03 pm [ Quote ]
Is it me or does it seem it is always liberals who get into confronations with the “little people” trying to do their job.
2:00 pm [ Quote ]
McKinney should have just told him to “Go fuck yourself” instead, and she’d have the neocons’ support.
2:15 pm [ Quote ]
Rob,
It’s you.
http://www.exposetheleft.net/video/bush-it.mp4
3:14 pm [ Quote ]
in the US legal system there is a little thing called “presumption of innocence”. Maybe you’ve heard of it? Well, you should know about it, because if it went to court and you were called for jury duty , your prejudice would (theoretically) disqualify you.
You guys should be ashamed of yourselves.
Oh BS, You indict every GOPer with no courtesy grace period to “hear the facts” or “presumption of innocence”. Get off your high horse and admit she screwed up bad.
3:17 pm [ Quote ]
McKinney should have just told him to “Go fuck yourself” instead, and she’d have the neocons’ support.
Well there is a tape and witnesses, I’ll bet she didn’t say “oh sorry” after she resorted to violence…so there’s still hope
6:16 pm [ Quote ]
takeapill,
I “indict every GOPer”? What in God’s name are you talking about? That’s a wildly inaccurate accusation.
11:57 pm [ Quote ]
Stupid cow.
Yes, she DID display her congressional ID; but ONLY after the detainment/punching occurred.
6:38 am [ Quote ]
Just a quick word before replying to perspicio; you have to understand the language politicians speak in. When you get right down to it, I think most of them have an inherent fear of saying “I’m sorry” because it sounds too simple and doesn’t have enough syllables to sound intelligent. So they release big statements like this. So yeah, she said she was sorry, but it was in political-speak (which they might as well call a second language).
Now then, back to perspicio:
“Didn’t Cheney make a statement about his shooting accident? Does that mean he’s guilty of a crime?”
I’ll keep it simple: Nope.
He claimed it was a hunting accident, the lawyer who was shot acknowledged it was an accident, and the police that investigated called it a hunting accident. Hunting accidents aren’t punishible by law unless the dude dies (then it falls into manslaughter, negligence, etc).
Punching a cop is kinda hard to do by accident, don’t you think?
So that was a poor parallel to draw, at best.
5:37 pm [ Quote ]
SethWynd,
My parallel was fine, but you maligned it (unintentionally, I believe) by applying facts from the Cheney/Whittington incident that did not emerge until later. In other words, you “put the cart before the horse”.
The parallel holds for the early stages of each example: A public official releases a statement about an incident with possible legal ramifications of a similar nature, but has not been charged with anything.
You can’t logically bring in what happened later in either example. If you could, that would imply that the future affects the past. It would be like saying, “Now that Whittington corroborates Cheney’s story, Cheney’s statement DID prove he wasn’t guilty.” Sorry, but…nope.
All I was saying was this:
In the Cheney case, it was irresponsible for people to assign guilt to Cheney based on either the fact that the incident occurred, or that he issued a statement regarding it – and the same standard applies to McKinney in her case.
The statement alone does not address the question of guilt.
5:40 pm [ Quote ]
...’scuse me…that last line should read:
Neither the existence of an incident nor the statement about it addresses the question of guilt.
11:52 am [ Quote ]
I am amazed at how so many people make puerile personal attacks instead of addressing the issues.
As a new citizen of this wonderful country, I am deeply disappointed in the shallowness of the political discussion, based it seems, in prejudice and preconceived “sound bites”. There is little meanigful discussion or debate. This is not the America the founding fathers had envisaged