EDWARDS DEFIES LOGICON SUNDAY SHOWS
Asserts Saddam “Imminent Threat,” Belittles Afghanistan Democracy And Acknowledges Can’t Pay For Campaign Promises
_________________________________________
Posted on 10/10/2004 5:07:48 PM PDT by RWR8189
EDWARDS DEFIES LOGIC
ON SUNDAY SHOWS
Asserts Saddam “Imminent Threat,” Belittles Afghanistan Democracy And Acknowledges Can’t Pay For Campaign Promises
_________________________________________
Huh? So This Edwards Supports The President On The War In Iraq? Even Russert Is Confused! RUSSERT: “I think what confuses people, Senator, is that there seems to be a difference in rhetoric and emphasis. Back in October of 2002, you voted to authorize the country to go to war. In fact, you said this about Saddam: ‘I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country.’ ‘The most serious and imminent threat to our country.’ And you underscored it by saying this:” EDWARDS (on video): “I think Iraq and Saddam Hussein present the most serious and most imminent threat.” RUSSERT: “Most serious and imminent threat. Were you just dead wrong?” EDWARDS: “No, I think Saddam Hussein was a very serious threat. I stand by that, and that’s why we stand behind our vote on the resolution.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 10/10/04)
Edwards Today Agrees With Edwards In 2002 That Iraq Not Diversion . . . . We Think? RUSSERT: “I want to bring you back to Tuesday night when you were talking about the war in Iraq, as compared with the war against Osama Bin Laden. Let’s listen.” EDWARDS (on video): “Our point in this is not complicated. We were attacked by al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden. We went into Afghanistan and very quickly the administration made a decision to divert attention from that and instead to begin to plan for the invasion of Iraq.” RUSSERT: “Your point being that the war in Iraq was a diversion from the war on terror against Osama Bin Laden?” EDWARDS: “Correct.” RUSSERT: “I want to bring you back to October of 2002, to something you said then.” EDWARDS: “Yes, sir.” RUSSERT (quoting Edwards): “‘Others argue that if even our allies support us, we should not support this resolution because confronting Iraq now would undermine the long-term fight against terrorist groups like al-Qaeda. Yet, I believe that this is not an either-or choice. Our national security requires us to do both, and we can.’ So you were urging the President in October of 2002 to fight the war against terror in Afghanistan and embark on the war in Iraq. Now you are saying…” EDWARDS: “No, sir.” RUSSERT: “Now you are saying it’s a diversion.” EDWARDS: “No, I would respectfully disagree with what you just said, Tim. What I said was it was important to continue to wage an aggressive war against terrorism, to win the war against terrorism, and also to confront Saddam, who was a serious threat. That’s why the vote on the resolution, both John Kerry and I still stand behind. It was the right thing to do to confront Saddam Hussein…”(NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 10/10/04)
Edwards Says He Will Be Cutting Back On His Spending Promises Because Numbers Don’t Add Up. Sen. Edwards, What Will You Cut? WALLACE: “Are you saying right here and now that if the numbers when you get into office don’t add up, that it’s the spending programs that go first?” EDWARDS: “Yes. Plus – don’t forget the other things that I just said but yes, on top of the other things I said, if we have to cut something back, for example, I know John’s already talked about it’s necessary cutting back national service programs, early childhood, I mean, some other things that are near and dear to our heart. But if they’re necessary, we’ll do it.” (Fox’s “Fox News Sunday,” 10/10/04)
Edwards Belittles Monumental Achievement Of Democratic Elections In Afghanistan. RUSSERT: “Senator, this morning millions of Afghans are lining up for the first time ever to vote for president of their country. Should that be considered a major foreign policy success for President Bush?” EDWARDS: “Oh, it’s a good thing that the election is taking place. As you know, it’s been postponed twice because of security concerns. But there are lots of problems in Afghanistan, and some of those problems you and I have discussed on your show in the past. First of all, they’ve resumed their drug trade. They’re now producing 75% of the world’s opium. There are still significant parts of the country under the control of drug lords and warlords, parts of the country that are still insecure. So, there are still very serious problems in Afghanistan that continue up until today.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 10/10/04)
Just give Edwards a baby rattle, a cookie, and an ambulance to chase:)
These guys really are Laurel and Hardy! Hopefully, only 45% of the voting public will be fooled in to voting for them.
Paraphrasing Mark Steyn, Edwards is so oily that if we could find a way to tap him, we wouldn't need to import any crude from the Saudis!
The windsurfer's campaign is over and the breck girl knows it.
All of this is just to scary....and the exposure of just how whacked-out these people are, is getting more intense. There is just no way these people can get control of this country....it is not an option.
>“Senator, this morning millions of Afghans are lining up for the first time ever to vote for president of their country. Should that be considered a major foreign policy success for President Bush?” EDWARDS: “Oh, it’s a good thing that the election is taking place. As you know, it’s been postponed twice because of security concerns. But there are lots of problems in Afghanistan,<
Oh, I am really, really learning to dispise this little man.
Tim Russert should have been one of the moderators...Bush believes so strongly in his convictions, he would have been able to come out on top...but Edwards and Kerry would have been sliced and diced by Russert. Russert is a liberal BUT he does ask the hard questions.
So Afghans vote for the first time in 5,000 years, and all Edwards can manage to do is complain that things aren't perfect there?
At least their malpractice lawsuits aren't a big problem.
Developing..............
None of this makes sense. For instance, we have drug trade in this country and elections in this country. Does Edwards think these are mutually exclusive? I don't get his point. They've not had elections in Afghanistan in 5000 years! Should we be shocked because there are some problems with their first election? Seems like the fact there are elections at all is more important than whether there were a few logistical problems.
None of this makes sense. For instance, we have drug trade in this country and elections in this country. Does Edwards think these are mutually exclusive? I don't get his point. They've not had elections in Afghanistan in 5000 years! Should we be shocked because there are some problems with their first election? Seems like the fact there are elections at all is more important than whether there were a few logistical problems.
Bush has got to get an ad using the quote of Kerry's that he would NOT raise taxes from the Friday debate. Then, get the quote from Edwards this morning stating that in order to not raise taxes, they would have to CUT BACK on some (not named) programs that they have promised in the campaign. In other words, they are already admitting that they have exaggerated all of the little "goodies" that they have promised. Does this quailify as a flip-flop or just a lie?
Remember, Kerry and Edwards have not been to either Afghanistan or Iraq so they have no right to critisize anything that has/has not been done. How can you complain about something that you have no direct knowledge of?
Welcome to tne club.
I put him in the klintoon club a long time ago. Along with his sidekick.
"EDWARDS DEFIES LOGIC.."
says it all. Mutt and Jeff, Laural and Hardy, beavis and butthead, ad nauseam
Apparently DNC thinks their polls are accurate that an increasing majority of Americans believe baby John is ill-equipped to even be running for VP - I can find no other reason why they'd send him out to all the weekend shows today and make such a mockery of himself & the Kerry / Edwards "nuisance" policy on terrorism and their constantly changing positions on Iraq. The retreat from their "plans" and proclaiming they'll drop stuff left and right since he couldn't even begin to justify their own numbers, was outright pathetic.
Problems with the first election?!!?? Good gawd man! Don't you realize that some people got bad magic markers that were NOT indelible!!! Aghhhh! the inhumanity! ;-)
My guess is that the election in Afghanistan will have fewer problems than our election on November 2. If it's at all close the DemocRATS will send in their thousands of lawyers to really muck thing up.
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.