Today’s villain: John Edwards

Loading

You’ll see in the article below that Democratic presidential candidate and bonafide phony John Edwards is talking out of both sides of his mouth. According to the AllAmericanPatriots.com, Edwards had some sharp words for Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson.

In a recent statement, Thompson asserted that Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden is “more symbolism than anything else,” for which Edwards released the following statement:

“Fred Thompson said today that Osama bin Laden is ‘more symbolism than anything else’– after the recent National Intelligence Estimate found that Al Qaeda has rebuilt itself to its pre-9/11 strength. Not only has the Republicans’ so-called ‘war on terror’ failed to make us safer, now they’re taking their eye off the ball again.”

Here’s the bottom line: John, you can’t have it both ways. How can you be so disingenuous to deny a war on terror exists, yet declare that if elected president you would hunt Osama bin Laden to ends of the earth, thus bringing him to justice for orchestrating the murders of over 3,000 innocent civilian in New York, Washington D.C, and Pennsylvania.

Here’s the full article:

“Sept. 7, 2007, Chapel Hill, North Carolina – In response to Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson’s assertion that Osama bin Laden is “more symbolism than anything else,” Sen. John Edwards released the following statement:

“Fred Thompson said today that Osama bin Laden is ‘more symbolism than anything else’– after the recent National Intelligence Estimate found that Al Qaeda has rebuilt itself to its pre-9/11 strength. Not only has the Republicans’ so-called ‘war on terror’ failed to make us safer, now they’re taking their eye off the ball again.

“I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Six years ago, President Bush declared that he wanted bin Laden ‘dead or alive.’ That bin Laden is still at large is Bush’s starkest failure. I can make you this solemn promise: as president, I will never rest until we have hunted bin Laden down and served him justice. And I can tell you one thing: I don’t care what bin Laden says in his video about our politics or our policy in this country. This murderer of thousands of innocent Americans has no right to be heard. The only thing he deserves is justice, and as president I will do everything in my power to deliver it to him.

"Unlike Senator Thompson, I have offered a bold new counterterrorism policy defined by the principles of strength and cooperation that will actually counter terrorism. The centerpiece of my plan is a new multilateral organization called the Counterterrorism and Intelligence Treaty Organization (CITO) that will unite strength and cooperation to create a new coalition of nations cooperating to root out and shut down terrorist cells."

"Fred Thompson should know better. Responsible candidates for president talk about real solutions that will make America safer from terrorism. They don’t ignore the fact that George Bush’s policies have only made the threat of terrorism worse."

crossposted at The Twin Cities Conservative

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
3 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I would also point out that Bin Laden and Al Quaida are not identical entities. In particular, I do not thing that Al Quaida will cease were Bin Laden to die (or be already dead).

I don’t think I agree with your take on the speech. If I read you right, you’re saying that Edwards denies either the existence or the desirability of a war on terror. There are at least two interpretations that result in no contradiction: Edwards could be saying that he supports a war on terror (a real one), but that the Republican war on terror is phony. Or he could be saying that he supports going after Bin Laden, specifically, but that this does not constitute part of a war on terror. Given his other comments on Al Qaeda and counterterrorism, I’d assume he’s arguing the first point.
I’m afraid you’re probably going to hear a lot more along these lines (unless you mute the TV whenever a Democratic candidate appears). Between OBL still being free and Bush at some point saying he wasn’t a top priority (I forget the exact quote) I’d expect any of them who wants to look tough on terrorism to attack the Republicans on this point.

I hear what you’re saying, but the question I have is: How is the “phony Republican war on terror” different from a “REAL” war on terror? Are we fighting the wrong enemy? When you come out and say, as Edwards did, that the “war on terror” is nothing more than a bumper sticker slogan, it sure doesn’t sound good.