Thursday, May 24, 2007

Edwards Unmasked

John Edwards, face of the Democratic party, is either dangerously stupid, dangerously evil, or dangerously dishonest.

Probably all three.

This evening I saw him on CNN while at the gym. His "arguments" are ridiculous.

First, he begins with this point of view:
JOHN EDWARDS, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Any compromise that funds the war through the end of the fiscal year is not a compromise at all. It's a capitulation.
The President today, however, made the point that the reality of the situation today is that al-Qaeda is in Iraq and planning to make attacks on the US from its enclaves there -- not a statement of opinion, but of hard intelligence -- so it is vital to continue fighting them there rather than retreat and let them plot against us in safety.

That is obvious, yet this is the position of Edwards:
EDWARDS: What they should do is continue to submit funding bills supporting the troops to the president with a timetable for withdrawal. And if the president of the United States, George Bush, continues to veto those bills, it's the president who's deciding he's not going to fund the troops. And ultimately that would actually require George Bush to start withdrawing troops from Iraq.
Interesting logic there, isn't it? Bush must accept a withdrawal of the troops, or he will be responsible for...a withdrawal of the troops. And it will be Bush's fault!

Edwards then portrays the President as the real threat to be stopped, rather than the terrorists plotting to kill us all:
This president is not going to negotiate about this, Wolf.

How clear could anything be?

He will not negotiate. He will not compromise. He does not think he's capable of doing anything wrong. He has to be stopped.

And the power that the Congress has is its constitutional power to fund. And they need to use that power to force this president down a different course. It's that simple.
Wolf Blitzer asked Edwards how he squared his desire to cut the war off at the knees this instant with this reality:
BLITZER: The president spoke out today at the U.S. Coast Guard commencement and he said the threat right now from al Qaeda in Iraq is enormous. And he made the comparison to Vietnam.

Listen to what he said.


GEORGE W. BUSH, U.S. PRESIDENT: The enemy in Vietnam had neither the intent nor the capability to strike our homeland. The enemy in Iraq does.


BLITZER: All right, what do you say to the president, Senator?
And right then and there, I said to myself, if Edwards claims Bush must stop fighting this threat because he was responsible for creating it, I will laugh myself silly!

And this is what he said:
EDWARDS: I say the president has used this term that he uses over and over -- global war on terror -- as a political slogan. He uses it to justify everything he does -- Guantanamo, the ongoing presence in Iraq, spying on Americans. He uses it to bludgeon people who disagree with him, who dissent and speak out in this democracy against it.

And he doesn't deal with the fact that he's completely devastated our military, both men and women and equipment, during the course of this war in Iraq, made us more vulnerable.

And on top of that, he's done incredible damage to the America's moral authority in the world. And it's that strength and moral authority that's required in order for America to lead. That's what the president of the United States has to focus on.
That's just the warm-up, it gets even better! To his credit, Blitzer, somewhat aghast, pressed on for a clarification of that string of bizarre non-sequitors:
BLITZER: The president has just declassified intelligence, though, suggesting that Osama bin Laden instructed al Qaeda in Iraq to plot attacks against the United States from their sanctuary, from within Iraq.

We're going to be speaking later with Fran Townsend, the president's homeland security director.

Don't they have a point when they say al Qaeda in Iraq potentially could represent a huge threat against U.S. interests outside of Iraq?

EDWARDS: Yes, BUT they created this mess in the Iraq War.

And what is Osama bin Laden doing still at large? [go to hell, Edwards, for that crack! How many shots did Clinton have? -- ed.]

I mean, this is all the responsibility of the president of the United States and this administration. The reason there are terrorists actively engaged in what's happening in Iraq right now is because of the mess that George Bush and his administration have created there, completely ignoring the advice of military leadership -- uniformed military leadership. [advice of the military leadership? What advice? -- ed.]

So to now use a mess that they created to justify their ongoing so-called global war on terror makes absolutely no sense.

Makes no sense?

No, Edwards, you make no sense!

Because a threat exists in Iraq for whatever reason, if you can blame Bush for it, he can't continue to act against it? What's he supposed to do, Edwards? Go back in time and HAVE YOU CHANGE YOUR OWN VOTE AUTHORIZING FORCE IN IRAQ???

This is a leading candidate of the Democratic Party and former Vice Presidential nominee talking!

And he is a raving lunatic!

And the Democratic party embraces him rather than marginalizes these highly dangerous and outrageous comments!

Blitzer just couldn't believe what he was hearing:
BLITZER: Let me ask you this, Senator.

Before the U.S. leaves Iraq, shouldn't the U.S. try to destroy al Qaeda in Iraq so that they don't represent a threat down the road?

EDWARDS: Wolf, we have a responsibility -- and the president of the United States has a responsibility -- to identify al Qaeda everywhere it's operating. And not just al Qaeda -- any terrorist group -- anywhere that it's operated. And use every tool available to us to stop them before they can do us harm. And that means military intelligence, our diplomatic tools, our alliances. All those things are an immediate responsibility of the president of the United States.

But what's missing from this administration is any kind of long- term plan to undermine the forces that create terrorism, the forces that create moral authority for America to lead, education, health care, fighting global poverty, fighting the spread of disease.

I mean those are the things that undermine the forces of terrorism, and we're doing nothing about any of those things.
So...we fight al-Qaeda in Iraq with education and health care.


First, it's a blatant lie that we're doing "nothing about any of those things" -- and Edwards knows it.

And second, where do we build those schools and hospitals? In Iraq in the middle of a war zone? Where al-Qaeda blows them up if we don't fight them?

Or here in the U.S., will that stop terrorism or is that just pork for your lefty bleeding heart idiot supporters?

What the hell are you talking about, you blithering moronic twit?

Edwards must be booed off the national stage and ridden out of town on a rail, tarred and feathered, for these totally irresponsible and dangerous statements!

Can't even Democrats realize this man is going to get them killed?


Blogger truthteller said...

Democrats deny the war on terror for what it is; a real war against millions who want us dead. Edwards voiced what legions on the far-left in this country believe, that somehow the Islamo-fascist threat is contrived. This is a dangerous naiveté that threatens the future of America. Because of blind hatred for the Bush administration, liberals are willing to sacrifice America's future and security. In more than 50 countries around the globe, young people train daily for the opportunity to kill Americans en mass. Turning your head to this reality presents a problem. You deny the daily activities in hundreds of training camps from the Sudan to Indonesia to Syria. You deny the mindset and programming that allows a person to strap a bomb to their person and commit suicide in order to murder. John Edwards is not someone who should occupy the Oval Office. His denial is a danger to us all.

3:16 AM, May 24, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What part of "terrorists don't do diplomacy" doesn't Edwards (and his ilk) get!?!?!?!?
File under: Dummkopf!

-Mlle. T.

10:53 AM, May 27, 2007  

Post a Comment

<< Home