Posted on 07/29/2004 8:35:15 AM PDT by churchillbuff
Here's from Andrew Sullivan's blog this morning (in which he calls himself a "pro-war neocon" - go figure):
Edwards gave an immensely tough, hawkish pro-war speech. They really are pulling a Kennedy in 1960. One passage stood out, resplendent:
""We will lead strong alliances. We will safeguard and secure our weapons of mass destruction. We will strengthen our homeland security, protect our ports, protect our chemical plants, and support our firefighters, police officers, EMTs. We will always... We will always use our military might to keep the American people safe. And we, John and I, we will have one clear unmistakable message for Al Qaida and these terrorists: You cannot run. You cannot hide. We will destroy you.""
(By way of comparison, here's what yours truly, a pro-war neocon, proposed Kerry should say last Sunday night: To the murderers of al Qaeda, let me say this. Do not even begin to interpret a Democratic victory as some sign that we will acquiesce to your murderous intent and nihilist politics. In the war against Jihadism, there is no Democrat or Republican. There is simply American. We will unite to defeat you and to secure our country.)
But there was more. Edwards committed his party to victory in Iraq:
""With a new president who strengthens and leads our alliances, we can get NATO to help secure Iraq. We can ensure that Iraq's neighbors, like Syria and Iran, don't stand in the way of a democratic Iraq. We can help Iraq's economy by getting other countries to forgive their enormous debt and participate in the reconstruction. We can do this for the Iraqi people. We can do it for our own soldiers. And we will get this done right. A new president will bring the world to our side, and with it a stable Iraq, a real chance for freedom and peace in the Middle East, including a safe and secure Israel. Howard Dean may spin that as a way to bring troops home. But Edwards also pledged more troops and more defense spending as a whole. I fail to see how Joe Lieberman could quibble with much that was in Edwards' address.""
It shows in startling clarity when you ask: What do Democrats really believe? The answer for the activist heart of the party is suggested by a Boston Globe poll of a cross section of 400 delegates. As the Globe reported, 80 percent of them say they opposed the decision to start the war in Iraq and 95 percent oppose it now. Unlike Kerry, 62 percent support gay and lesbian marriage. Almost nine out of 10 describe themselves as supporters of gun control
Do you believe any politician, other than a handful, tells the truth? I don't. Heck, Dubya said he was for small government and *domestic* spending has skyrocketed during his administration. Watch what they say not what they do.
Yesterday Teresa Heinz Kerry told a group of homosexual the following:
"If nothing else, you will have a mom in the White House, you can call on me any time."
She is also told them to call her "Mama T".
Here you go Andrew I hope you are happy now. However your happiness may very short lived because what Mama T said yesterday is going to finish John Kerry once the Bush campaign relate her statement to Middle America.
The comments of a lightweight one-term senator from S. Carolina equals ''commitment''???
Edwards' speech was replete with magical thinking; the insurgents in Iraq will go away because I say they will. They will like us better than they like Bush, so they will lay down their arms.
That's watch what they do not what they say.
What are you trying to do, use guilt by association. If I were to stoop that low I'd say that your position is closer to Michael Moore, Danny Glover, and Barabara Streisand's than to any serious political candidate or most freepers....
Andres Sullivan "fecalcicle" alert....
The saddest part of Sullivan's political leanings always being dictated by his personal preferences is that he is one of the most brilliant and astute thinkers and writers of all the editorialists. And he has quite a grasp of history and literature and many subjects. I used to love reading his columns but lately he most definitely has an agenda in this race, and it certainly isn't to re-elect Pres. Bush. And for him to go with Kerry and Edwards seems to contradict much of what he professed to believe earlier.
Who really thinks Edwards and Kerry are pro-Iraq war? It's like Terry McA saying to O'Reilly that he never called Bush a liar. They change their opinions and words with the polls and latest hyped info from the media.
Andrew is lying to himself if he believes this. I thought he was too smart to fall for this crap. Obviously not.
If that is your point, then your point is an ass.
Your whole defense is based on a pedantic reply to one word 'parrot,' when the truth is that what Kerry would have done in Iraq and what you would have done in Iraq are barely distinguishable: nothing.
Yes, except for Neville.
I heard committed and party and stopped listening.
Look for The Green Party candidate, Independent Ralph Nader (the true anti-war candidates) to be the only ones to get a boost out of the Dems convention. Yeeeeeeehaaaa!!!
You might have that backward.
Yes, Kerry and Edwards will say anything they have to, to get elected.
And afterward, they will do anything they want to, regardless of what they have said.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.