O'Reilly cropped Edwards' statement on terror in order to claim "Edwards looks dopey"
On the June 4 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, discussing former Sen. John Edwards' (D-NC) response to a question from moderator Wolf Blitzer during the June 3 Democratic presidential debate, host Bill O'Reilly aired a clip of Edwards saying: "What this global war on terror bumper sticker -- a political slogan, that's all it is, all it's ever been -- was intended to do was for George Bush to use it to justify everything he does." O'Reilly commented: "The good news here is that most Americans in both parties understand that Muslim extremists want to kill us and will if they get the chance. So John Edwards looks dopey." In fact, just before making that statement, Edwards stressed the threat of terrorism and discussed his strategy for preventing it, telling Blitzer: "As president of the United States, I will do absolutely everything to find terrorists where they are, to stop them before they can do harm to us, before they can do harm to America or to its allies. Every tool available -- military alliances, intelligence -- I will use."
From the June 4 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: Now, this is the hallmark of the far left. We saw it again last night in the Democratic debate when the far-left candidate John Edwards once again called the war on terror a bumper sticker.
EDWARDS [video clip]: What this global war on terror bumper sticker -- a political slogan, that's all it is, all it's ever been -- was intended to do was for George Bush to use it to justify everything he does.
O'REILLY: Now, Senator Edwards isn't smart enough to understand that his strategy is killing him. In the latest ABC News poll, he's down to 8 percent among Democratic voters, losing six points in less than a month.
The good news here is that most Americans in both parties understand that Muslim extremists want to kill us and will if they get the chance. So John Edwards looks dopey. The New York Times looks dishonest. And the far left loses all day long, which of course is a good thing.
What is not a good thing is the press using its power to help a political party in its news pages. That is corrupt.
From CNN's June 3 broadcast of the Democratic presidential debate:
BLITZER: Senator Edwards, let me let you clarify what you said the other day. You said the war on terror is a bumper sticker, not a plan. With the news yesterday, this alleged plot at JFK [Airport in New York City] which could have done, supposedly, horrendous damage and caused an incredible number of casualties, do you believe the U.S. is not at war with terrorists?
EDWARDS: I reject this bumper sticker, Wolf. And that's exactly what it is. It's a bumper sticker.
As president of the United States, I will do absolutely everything to find terrorists where they are, to stop them before they can do harm to us, before they can do harm to America or to its allies.
Every tool available -- military alliances, intelligence -- I will use.
But what this global war on terror bumper sticker -- political slogan, that's all it is, all it's ever been -- was intended to do was for George Bush to use it to justify everything he does: the ongoing war in Iraq, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, spying on Americans, torture.
None of those things are OK. They are not the United States of America.
"What is not a good thing is the press using its power to help a political party in its news pages. That is corrupt."
You said it Bill.
You got it Alchemist!
The media has been in bed with the Bushies for years; only recently have they been questioning his moves. I blame the media almost as much as Bush Co for its lazy and sloppy pandering to Bush...which lead to the Chaos in Iraq!
Even knowing this Edwards still looks Dopey if not more Dopey. Bill was just trying to help Edwards
Of course, Edwards is right. The "Global War on Turr" is a GOP talking point used to justify everything from endless imprisonment of "terror" suspects to the optional, ill-conceived Iraq War. It is also used quite frequently to beat Democrats over the head and accuse them of everything from unpatriotic behavior to treason.
Yes, there are terrorists in the world and, yes, they are a threat. However, George Bush's "War on Turr" is simply rhetoric.
Edwards was stupid in choosing the words "bumper sticker" when referring to the war on terror, and advocating finding and killing terrorists at the same time. This is a contradiction.
Why didn't he just say that the magnitude of the war on terror has been exaggerated? But no...he had to choose a controversial phrase that his campaign knew was going to be spun by the corporate right-wing media.
John Edwards should have been smarter and realized that the goal is to make oneself understood. A lot of people didn't understand what he meant, even with the context of his whole speech provided.
truthseeker77, while I agree that Edwards made a statement susceptible to spinning, I think his intent was clear- that the reality of Terrorism is bigger than a bumper sticker.
"Edwards was stupid in choosing the words "bumper sticker" when referring to the war on terror, and advocating finding and killing terrorists at the same time. This is a contradiction."
No it isn't. First off, note that Blitzer was asking him about a previous "bumper sticker" comment. So obviously in this response has to include that, and he explained what he meant by it perfectly well.
The point is that "global war on terror" is a meaningless phrase. There's no cohesive, coherent strategy behind it. Your argument seems to be that if someone points that out, they can't say that they want to fight terrorism in a meaningful, effective way, or it's a contradiction.
If you think that talking about the "magnitude" of the war on terror would have better, you are out of your mind. That would clearly suggest that our concerns are overblown. That's just as easy to misinterpret and spin, if not much more so, than what he said.
As MMFA has repeatedly shown, Right Wingers will spin anything said by someone in the opposition.
Brabanito: You hit the nail on the head about John Edwards "bumper sticker" comment. I have been angry about how this has been taken out of context by a number of right wing pundits and spun.
John Edwards is correct and saying it loud and clear- the "war on terror" is and has been a bumper sticker slogan for the Bush administration.
They have shamelessly exploited Americans fears to make an end run around our Constitution.
The "Color Code" danger level has been used and abused to such an extent that it became a joke. it was used during the last presidential campaign.
Propaganda has become a tool to control they masses by this administration and parroted so well by the main stream media.
The many "bumper sticker" slogans that are completely meaningless- are repeated over and over again with the literacy and understanding level of about a second grade child.
The fact that John Edwards can reason and use his powers of critical thinking and explain to Americans why the so called "war on terror" by this administration is meaningfulness threatens their hold on power.
The British started our war on terror back in the 1700's. I think what the right wing means is that they don't want Linda Blair making any more movies. Otherwise their war on terror means nothing. Terror IS after the fact. It is like a war on horror.
DJ:
Will you explain what you mean by this?
"The British started our war on terror back in the 1700's."
Truthseeker, Edwards made it clear that he meant that Bush uses the phrase only to justify policies which he discribed aren't what America should be about instead of doing what Edwards would actually do. End the Iraq war and fight the terrorists whare they actually come from. There was no confusion.
Plus you even blame Edwards for "[choosing] a controversial phrase that his campaign knew was going to be spun by the corporate right-wing media." As if he is responsible for other people lying. He didn't choose the phrase based on how it is going to look politically. He based it on how it accurately represents reality. Accurately representing reality is the best way to get my vote.
O'REILLY: Now, this is the hallmark of the far left.
Leaving aside whether Edwards is a member of the "far left", I think BilldO is correct in one respect; Edwards was able to examine two complete and conflicting thoughts (The real threat of terrorism and the "dopey" sloganeering of the GOP), while O'Reilly's fruit fly-like attention span and Republican shilling only allowed him to absorb half of it, not understanding any of it.
Somebody draw Bill a chart.
Edwards far left test.
Anti-abortion: check.
Cut and run: check.
Socialized Medicine: check.
Soak the rich: check.
Estate Tax: check.
Sounds like meets the litmus tests.
Leatherhelmnut posting straw-man talking points — check.
Thanks for clearing that up, Leather. Edwards now gets my vote!
When did anti-abortion make the list?
Leather needs to upgrade his helmet.
He left off "pro-death-penalty: check", by the way. One of the things that bugs me about Edwards' positions. (Well, that and the fact that he probably knew that Bush was lying us into Iraq and voted for it anyway.)
Tell me, do you ever detach from Flush Limpbough's flabby teat?
Majority of the American public (according to all available polls)
Pro Choice: check
Ending the Iraq Occupation: check
Public Health Care: check
Estate Tax: check
Progressive tax policy: check
I guess the majority of the country is "far-left" according to leatherhelmet. It must be the difference between mean and median that I learned about in statistics class.
Actually, polls show that the vast majority of the American people oppose the death tax, and a majority supported Bush's tax cuts as well. Seriously, who would actually want to pay higher taxes as the Democrats propose? Also, while most people don't want an outright ban on abortion, they also don't want abortion on demand with no restrictions. Polls show that most Americans want more restrictions on abortion than there currently are, but not an outright ban on abortion. They take a middle position on the issue. They don't really agree with the Republicans or Democrats. But you are right on the other two issues.
Who would want to pay higher taxes? No one who doesn't want to pay the bills that he himself runs up, and would prefer to put them on a credit card for his kids to take care of after he croaks.
Leatherhead far right test
Wants to get as many Americans killed as possible check
Puts the interests of HMOs and corporations above people who need medical care check
Take from those who have little to give to those who have much check
Get rid of the Paris Hilton windfall tax check
incapable of reasoning beyond a bumper sticker slogan - check and mate!
"Wants to get as many Americans killed as possible check"
Aren't you talking about the Democrats who support the holocaust known as abortion?
"Puts the interests of HMOs and corporations above people who need medical care check"
You're actually right about that one. The medicare prescription drug bill simply added an additional layer of government, and like most government programs it didn't really solve anything.
"Take from those who have little to give to those who have much check"
No. Just cut taxes for everybody and let people live their own lives without government interference.
"Get rid of the Paris Hilton windfall tax check"
Get rid of the death tax which is a violation of private property rights and forces people to give away more of THEIR OWN ASSETS after they have been paying taxes their entire lives.
No I am talking about the warmongers who LOVE to see Americans get killed in Iraq. Taxes are NOT a violation of property rights thats just dumb. You cons always want a free lunch. You WANT a society but dont want to pay for it. Also Property doesnt HAVE rights. People have rights.
Wants to let the gay illegal alien abortionists steal Christmas: Check
You left out "secular progressive".
b.o.'s frontal lobes get their blood supply directly from his transverse colon.
Edwards is appealing to the leftist factions of his base, he knew exactly what he was saying when he used the term "bumpersticker".....this was no slip or misinterpreted or misunderstood phrase whatsoever.
These candidates words are scripted down to "I have to pee", so he chose the words exactly and knew they would get him press, attention and applause from the hard Democratic base - which is his only hope in distancing himself from Hillary if he is to get any traction in the primaries.
Edwards is appealing to the leftist factions of his base...
Naturally. However, if you mean to assert that his statement appeals only to the furthest left, I doubt it.
he knew exactly what he was saying when he used the term "bumpersticker".....this was no slip or misinterpreted or misunderstood phrase whatsoever.
Umm...yes. He meant - and continues - to say it. You state this as if he or someone has argued otherwise; but they haven't. I don't understand your point.
It's way more than headline grabbing. It's the damn truth. The war frame is a dishonest Republican fabrication.
Just deal.
How is it a dishonest Republican fabrication when Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama believe there is a War on Terror?
Hint: Clinton is not a leftist.
Right. And Newt Gingrich isn't a conservative.
Doesn't make the war frame honest or anything other than a rhetorical tool just because some Democrats accept the term.
If Bush had been President on December 7th, 1941, he would have commenced a "War on Suprise Attacks", then told us to all go shopping, then he would have invaded Bolivia, because there was a remote chance the Bolivian Navy could conduct a surprise attack...
Is there oil in Bolivia?
Allow me to answer my own question; "Is there oil in Bolivia?"
If there was, Bush couldn't find it!
If Bush had been President on December 7th, 1941, he would have commenced a "War on Suprise Attacks"
That's very good... please allow me to expand on it a bit.
Put those who attacked the U.S. on 12/7/41 in civilian clothes... and make it so George W. Bush had both a personal relationship (of "good friends") and business relationship (oil) with the Japanese Royal family... then add in that those who attacked us that day had been found by a Congressional investigation (the JCI) to have been sponsored by that Royal family (the president's "good friends" and business partners)... and have the president not only suppressing the findings of that Congressional inquiry, but then drawing the American People off of the complicity of his "good friends" and business partners in those attacks, by distracting them in an invasion of a country that had nothing whatsoever to do with those attacks (an invasion that baloons defense spending, allowing the president and his "good friends" and business partners to 'double dip' into the attack)...
An invasion which you made out to be of Bolivia, but I'd have said Venezuela, for it's oil.
It would be a perfect analogy to today's 'war on terror' (Bush's slogan, in place of 'JUSTICE for the attacks of September 11, 2001'), in terms of the events of December 7, 1941...
A date which also lives in infamy, but one for which the American People ultimately got JUSTICE...
...unlike 9/11, for which we only got a slogan.
"War on Suprise Attacks" is a great analogy. I've got another one. Terrorist groups and philosophy dominated a significant part of our country no less than 4 decades ago. The central terrorist organization that needed to be defeated and thankfully were defeated was the Ku Klux Klan.
What would George Bush have done if he was president on 9/15/1963. Would he have leveled entire Birmingham neighborhoods with bombs just to make sure that all of the terrorists were killed? A tactic Bush often uses in Iraq.
Edwards is right and BO is wrong. Who made BO the leading voice on the fight against terror? Hey BO where is Osama?
Better be careful because Sue/Ellie NotthatGeorge will attack you for being a right winger .
As president of the United States, I will do absolutely everything to find terrorists where they are, to stop them before they can do harm to us, before they can do harm to America or to its allies.
Every tool available -- military alliances, intelligence -- I will use.
The thing is, if you asked Bush he would say this is exactly what he is doing. Fighting them over there so we don't fight them over here or some statement like that. Edwards comment in this regard is meaningless because it all boils down to whether or not you agree with his assessment of what is necessary at the time.
Right now there are terrorists in Iraq. I guess with an Edwards Presidency there is no withdrawal in that case since he will do ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING TO FIND TERRORISTS WHERE THEY ARE AND STOP THEM BEFORE THEY CAN DO HARM TO US. Well, they are already doing harm to us by killing our troops. Withdrawing from an area where known terrorists are wouldn't seem to be an option under his plan.
What is so typical of politicians is evident when Edwards calls the war on a terror a "bumpersticker", and then proceed to say he will find terrorists where ever they are, before they harm us - well, Duh? Really? What a novel and detailed strategy that is? If that isn't a "bimpersticker" slogan, I don't know what is.
Tommy the fact is it is a bumpersticker. We never got bin Laden, left Tora Bora. We invaded Iraq which had nothing to do with 9/11.
Casey, Just because the war has been waged in Iraq with incredible ineptness, does not mean it's a bumpersticker. It is a real war with the civilized world against the uncivilized world, we are in a global war on terror against Islamofanatics, that is a fact.
Islamofanatics or what Bush likes to say Islamofacists is a made up Republican GOP talking point meant to further divide people.
It's a truthful statement meant to protect you and all other Americans from getting killed.
Statements do NOTHING to protect you or your kids - actions do. Bush's actions have endangered all of us, and have had the added benefit of driving this country into the toilet.
It is a real war with the civilized world against the uncivilized world, we are in a global war on terror against Islamofanatics, that is a fact.- tommy
The world isn't neatly divided into civilized and uncivilized.
There is no war against a tactic
Islamofanatic is a subjective description, with no clear definition or boundary.
These are not facts, Tommy.What happened to you last night? You're not normally so squarely in the "adult diaper" crowd.
This semantic bickering is meaningless. We are in a war, period. Against people who want us to 1) Be second class citizens, or 2) Become Muslims, or 3) Die. You can discuss what this is all day long with the likes of John Edwards - let the serious people deal with the real threats.
And John Edwards is not serious?
He's serious about doing whatever he needs to in order to get the nomination for his party. Beyond that, I have no idea.
Sorry I tend to see Tommys point on this one. I was dismayed at Edwards smirk and mock of Senator Clinton when she discussed 9/11. I do think the war in Iraq is a disaster and immoral but there is a "war" on terror that just has not been waged correctly.
Let me say that I would choose Hillary Clinton to sit in the Oval Office and be Commander in Chief fighting Islamic radicals any day of the week, if it was a choice between her and John Edwards.
I agree. I think Senator Clinton understands who wants to harm us ,as she has stated she witnessed the devestation in NY on 9/11. Her husband was President when we were hit in 93. She is clearly someone who will protect America and restore Americas relations.
Doris,
Are you saying that because Hillary was a witness to the 9-11 attacks that somehow gives her more credibility in fighting terror?
No but I am saying she has a personal involvement in it as a NYer.
Well yeah, but I see that as not an attack on New York but rather America. Granted it was more emotional to those directly involved but to say that because she is a New Yorker (a stretch in it's own right) she is justified in being more agressive in fighting terror is a bit silly, with all due respect of course.
Your opinion is noted, no disrespect taken. I unlike one poster will not personally attack you because of a difference of opinion or call you a "numbskull".
Doris now remember Tommy said if the choice were between Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. I think Tommy's going to choose one of those guys on the right that was recently aptly described by a disgruntled traditional Republican as the "Stepford Candidates" I am very pleased with the choices on the Democratic side. Although I secretly wish Gore would get in it win it all. The world's been out of sorts since the theft of the century that occurred in 2000. Maybe that would re-set the charmic clock. Any of the choices on the left for me would be better than those let's bomb them to hell psychos’ that were on last night (except Ron Paul). But I’m sure Tommy agrees with their tax policies. Now I’ve grown to really like Tommy, but Tommy really really loves his money and he’s not into that common good thing.
Lynn
I agree about Al Gore, I also wish he would get into the race. I do like Senator Clinton however I feel she is the leader in an outstanding field.
Nope. Give me Edwards, he knows the dishonesty of the war frame and is dedicated to defusing terrorism from the bottom up. That is to say combining policies of social justice with international cooperation to infiltrate terror cells along with cooperative intelligence gathering to bring the thugs under the reins of law and order.
Hillary, well she just thinks Iraq has been mismanaged. That is crap. Iraq was cluster___ invasion from go. It's immoral to occupy Iraq and disregard her sovereignty, no amount of saying its' a war can make the occupation a moral endeavor.
I think you should also be 'clear' regarding the apparent fact that, if the choice were between a Democrat and a Republican, you would likely choose a Republican every time... regardless. Your point is moot.
Did you decide this because of his and her stances on the war, or because of their staces on other issues? I ask, because I think they seem to have the same basic stance on the war.
No, because in my view Edwards is a political opportunistic phony......and I don't trust him to be in a position of authority with anything more than a can of malfunctioning hairspray.
Oddly [drumroll] I sort of agree with you. Except the hairspray thing, which I think is a cheap shot.
...And, as you have often inferred in many posts in the past... we have a 2-party dominated system... and it's a lesser of two evils.
If the choice - at this point, following 7 years of the most heinous Republican-run gov't this country has ever seen - is between John Edwards and and Republican... I'll pick John Edwards every time.
How have you arrived at your conclusions about Edwards? Have you met the man or are you getting your information about him from the "liberal media" to make your judgment?
That is absolutely scary, Tommy. I wold be interested to know what makes you believe that Hillary would be better than Edwards in fighing terror?
HC has been in the White House arena, she knows what it's like.....she is tough. It's not really a policy decision for me at this point, yet, besides who could be worse than Bush?
Edwards is a wimp, in my opinion. That's not to HC is my first choice for President, I have no idea at this point. But I definitely ruled out any support for Edwards, but I have not for Hillary.....we will see.
I just flat out disagree. Just because she was first lady for eight years does not summarily give her the credentials to be a leader on the terror front. She might be tough, I don't know. She may burst into tears during a crisis. Who knows? I don't know that you can legitimately make an argument that she isn't as phony or more phony than Edwards. Generally, he has been more consistent with his beliefs.
"Let me say that I would choose Hillary Clinton to sit in the Oval Office and be Commander in Chief fighting Islamic radicals any day of the week, if it was a choice between her and John Edwards"
I agree. As much as I dislike Hillary Clinton, the thought of Edwards being President scares me. Hillary seems to at least take a somewhat tough stance on terrorism.
And how is what Edwards said not dealing with terrorism in a serious way? What else is there besides what he listed...preemptive war?
Calling it a "bumpersticker" is hardly serious enough for the adults. Perhaps the children's table would be more welcoming to his seriousness.
Tommy, he's not calling "terrorism" a bumpersticker. He's talking about the "global war on terror", which is Bush's incoherent, inexplicable strategy against it. Don't you understand the difference?
You are more than willing to rationalize or explain Edwards words any way you'd like. Their meaning and intent is very clear.
Clear to you, Tommy. How you choose to interpret what he said.
If you truly believe that we are in Iraq to wage war on 'uncivilized' terrorists... you're fooling yourself.
And you are incapable of answering a simple question. Edwards listed alliances and intelligence. As someone who's soured on the war, what else would you suggest we do to fight terrorism? What is it that he's not talking about that a "serious" person should be?
Or is your contention that Edwards really doesn't want to make any such efforts, through your amazing mind-reading powers?
Tommy, are you trying to say that Edwards's "clear meaning" was that the War on Terror is literally a piece of paper with adhesive on one side? Cause otherwise I don't understand your criticism.
Unless I'm missing something, there's just the literal meaning of "bumpersticker" and the figurative meaning which is "a slogan."
I mean, I really don't get it. What are you saying he meant?
Pointing out that your opinions are not facts is not "semantic bickering".
Do you really think that those three things are what Iraqis want? I would argue that there are roughly two types of people in Iraq right now - a) those who are fighting for control, and b) those who are trying to survive. Both of these groups want 1) the US to get out of the country. As a result, group (b) is supporting group (a) right now because right now they have a common goal. After the US leaves, then you'll begin to see where their wants differ.
People in group (a) will want to continue fighting until they control the country and the money and power that goes along with that.
Group (b), on the other hand, will probably be more concerned with 2) security and 3) jobs. Of course, by that point, it will be nearly impossible for them to oust the groups that they are supporting right now. What a crappy situation.
Eerie how your picture of Iraq looks so much like the USA during the past 6+ years. Fortunately, we here have not been subject to the whim of a madman at the helm of a 3rd-party "superpower" bent only on perpetuating the havoc.
"We are in a war, period. Against people who want us to 1) Be second class citizens, or 2) Become Muslims, or 3) Die."
BALONEY, AND YOU KNOW IT.
No terrorist organization, to my knowledge, has ever made such ridiculous and inane demands of the U.S. These are nothing more than B.S. talking points pushed by rightwing bobbleheads talking out of their @$$es from the safety of their news desks and radio microphones.
We are in a war against people who want the U.S. out of the Middle East and to stop supporting Israel, PERIOD.
It is a real war with the civilized world against the uncivilized world,
Tommy demonstrates his ignorance here and shows his own bumper sticker menatality. Iraq was probably THE MOST civilized of the Middle Eastern countries under Saddam. It was not (nor is now) uncivilized.
Once again, your bitterness fails your common sense.....so try and tell those that were murdered and raped by their own government under Saddam just how civilized their society was.
Yeah, I would have to take, say, Dubai or Bahrain over pre-war Iraq in the civilisation category.
Better than it is now - sure. Switzerland on the Tigris... not so much.
So then Columbia isnt a civilized society because of the rapes and murders their government is involved in. And yet we give them so much foriegn aid. If we objected so much to the rape and torture rooms why didnt we shut them down instead of putting them under new management? Yeah Saddam was a brutal butcher. Switzerland on the Tigris it wasnt but just how subjective are we going to be here. A WHOLE lot of our allies would flunk the standard you just gave.
Hey, some guys were forcibly sodomized by the NY Police a few years ago under Guiliani's reign. I suppose that makes he and his city entirely uncivilized, too. Oh, dear.
"so try and tell those that were murdered and raped by their own government under Saddam just how civilized their society was."
I'm disappointed, Tommy; your arguments usually appeal to reason, not emotion. But to answer in the same vein:
Perhaps those thousands murdered and raped by Saddam could sit around discussing the issue with the hundreds of thousands of children and babies killed by the sanctions imposed by the "civilized world" after the first Iraq War. They could be joined by the over six hundred thousand Iraqis killed since we became responsible for their security. (I accept the Lancet estimate. Their methodology has been vetted and declared accurate by Johns Hopkins University. I don't expect you to agree. Plug in your own number if you like.) As interested observers, we might invite the two million members of the Iraqi middle class, the professional and academics, who have had the good fortune to escape the cauldron which is Iraq under American occupation.
The sanctions, by the way, were imposed to "motivate" the Iraqis to overthrow Saddam. They were instituted under the first President George Bush, and continued by Bill Clinton and George II, under the aegis of the UN. Since they drastically limited the availability of food and medicines in Iraq, and since between three hundred thousand and half-a-million Iraqi children died from complications of malnutrition, this constituted the use of starvation to achieve a political result. That is a War Crime, for which we as a people, and presidents of both parties, are culpable.
Now you can disagree about the criminal implications, and you'd no doubt make strong arguments. (NOTE: to anyone tempted to accuse me of "hating America": Don't bother. the use of that bromide identifies you as a mental and moral midget {with apologies to the vertically challenged}). The fact remains, however, that the sanctions resulted in horrific childhood mortality, and that fact is well known, and resented, in the Muslim world. Osama has made effective use of this in his pronouncements, and it is one of the reasons that he has achieved heroic stature.
Tommy, unless this "War on Terror" is fought logically, and prosecuted with the intent of defeating terrorism and not creating more terrorists, it is nothing more than a bumper sticker.
Terrorism is a tactic. A tactic is an action or strategy, planned to achieve a specific goal. If their goal is to exterminate us, we've got to make sure that there are fewer new terrorists.
Therefore, the only way to win against terrorism is to determine how we stop creating more terrorists and concentrate on eliminating those who've taken up arms against us.
If we don't try to dry up the pool of potential terrorist recruits, our only hope is to kill every last one of them, men, women and children.
Of these two options which would you prefer?
Worrier,
I am not debating the tactics or the strategy, what I am saying is Edwards intent is to minimize the struggle we are in by saying it's nothing more than a bumpersticker. We are all adults who should be able to deal with the threats we face with honesty, we don't need politicians to fearmonger, or downplay the war we are in.
Edwards motiivation is purely political to appeal to his base, that's all it is. Bush does the same thing, I am not excusing him by any means. But to sit there and argue semantics and whether this war is a slogan or not is ridiculous - it is a global international life and death struggle against Islamic radicals who want us destroyed. Slice it or call it anything you'd like......we need all of our attention focused on the best way to combat this and stop all the political maneuverings, from both sides. This should not be a partisan issue at all.
That portrayal is not consistent with what Edwards said. How is it "downplaying" terrorism by saying that he'll do everything he can to prevent it? You can say that Bush's efforts are nothing more than a bumpersticker without saying that terrorism isn't that important. That's exactly what Edwards did, of course.
Let me be clear, I would say it absolutely is downplaying it when you equate a global war against international terrorism with "my kid is the student of the month at blah blah elementary school"
You are incapable of separating "terrorism" from Bush's "war on terror". It's really not that difficult. Bush's "war on terror" is a joke. It's meaningless. It is accomplishing nothing. That's why it's a "bumpersticker". I would think that it's the mark of a serious person who addresses that and wants to make more effective and sensible efforts to combat the serious problem.
Tommy, you're having one of your contrarion for the fun of it days. You must understand by this point that you're beating yourself in the argument.
Terrorism is a threat deserving much more than simplistic bumpersticker slogans.Quit playing dumb.
Pointing out our differences of opinions and not accepting yours as facts is not "playing dumb"
Right. The way you do it is "intellectually dishonest." Right from the point where you start with a quote out of context.
Bravo.
I think the difference is that most conservative ideology fits nicely on a bumper-sticker, so arguing the silliness of that concept may not be comprehended by a serious conservative unless you can properly fit your argument nicely onto a bumper-sticker.
That's rich coming from a liberal who cherishes government run programs that live and die by making sure the details of their existence are rarely mentioned by more than a bumpersticker - Like;
1) Invest more in Education.
2) Health care for everyone.
3) Invest in the middle class.
4) Clean up the environment.
5) and their latest; The global warming crisis.
Wow. Nice straw man.
Tommy, at least pretend to try; it makes us feel better.
Tom, come on. Edwards point... is that Bush has mishandled the so-called 'war on terror' and has reduced everything he and his cadre do to bulleted talking points, absurd catch-phrases and nonsensical slogans... all of which, have no substance.
This, ultimately - however poorly phrased - is Edward's point. You interpreting it as some slight against the (again) so-called 'war on terror' is acting as apologist for Bush... however, much you may disagree with Edwards.
And Edwards detailed plan for fighting terrorism is not talking bullet points? Are you serious? I will find terrorists and stop them, yada yada yada yada................
That's good enough for you?, and a far cry from Bush's talking points, how exactly?
First, I'm no big fan of Edwards... likely will not vote for him. However, I think Bra has pointed out some distinctions... that are reasonable. You don't like the use of the term 'bumper sticker' we got that. You could have easily 'inferred' from Edwards' comments -things that need no inference, he said it -- that he a) would institute diplomatic means, b) work with neighbors and allies, c) etc.. You don't want to do that. Fine.
Greek,
You and others are missing the point, all the while trying to spin Edward's bumpersticker comment. He said what he said and knew exactly the inference him comment would give, for crying out loud, he is not stupid. He knew it would energize the far left crowd in his party because it's the red meat they want to hear from a candidate.......and it's his only hope of getting any primary traction. And then he backs it up with a touchy feel good "bumpersticker" type slogan of his own about finding terrorists before they harm us, give me a break!
He is a phony, and a poltical opportunist who is pedaling uphill against HC and he knows it.
Again, I agree with you re Edwards. I've never really liked him. And, perhaps I'm misinterpreting your beef with the 'bumper sticker' comment because you have more 'conservative' leanings. But, at this point... I'm not entirely sure why his comments are that much worse than anyone else's? Frankly, I think they're ALL phonies (including Hillary, etc). So, who are we gonna choose? The least phony phony? I'm just looking at this from the perspective of -- no more Republicans in the executive office. Period. If that sounds harsh, so be it. I've had it. Not to mention, the level of discourse from the Democrats has always seemed more intelligent than the nonsensical 'bumper sticker' sloganry perpetually used by the Republicans... that's Edward's point, I think. And, I don't think it's that out of line to say.
So, ah... perhaps I'm just the guy he's targeting with his 'bumper sticker' slogan? If I have a choice, it won't make me vote for him ;-)
Greek,
I agree, they are all phonies to a certain extent - we can't really get away from that because it's a necessary evil inherent in politicians, they have to be all things to all people - at least on some level. But it's the phony pandering that I cannot stand from some politicians......they talk to the people like we're morons and cannot deal with tough issues and difficult decisions.
We want leaders we can trust and have our collective best interest, if they're phony and not genuine at every turn, well so be it. Edwards is the worst for me, personally. I don't make any bones about it.
HC is far more attractive to me and it may surprise you but I admire alot about her, she is tough and smart. And I believe if elected she would govern more like her husband, from the middle. Her presidency does not scare me like it does some conservatives - maybe I'm crazy.
That's entirely fair. And, coming from you - a conservative 'moderate' let's say... I think it's meaningful. At this point, however, I'm distrustful of all of them. And, sadly, I do not believe that the majority of voters in this country would elect a woman president...regardless of how 'we' like to portray ourselves as the shining bastion of equality and freedom. But, that's another topic.
You and others are missing the point, all the while trying to spin Edward's bumpersticker comment.
Spin? What's the spin angle on this from Edwards or the left? Even Edwards clarification was consistent with the original message, at least by my understanding of it.
Edwards point was simply that the "war on terror" phrase is being used as a "bumper sticker" (i.e., marketing slogan) by Bush as justification for policies that have failed to hit the mark. Do you disagree that Bush has used the phrase in this manner? Do you disagree that Bush's policy has been a failure?
I'm not sure what more there is to say about the strategy. Alliances and intelligence, that's pretty straightforward. What else do you expect to hear about it at any time, much less during a time-limited debate?
I think there's another method that would be more effective than alliances and intelligence - stop funding dictatorships in the Middle East. Take Saudi Arabia for example. We give them money for oil, they give the money back to us by buying weapons and planes and other military accessories. They then use these weapons to repress their own population, disallowing free speech, free elections, women driving cars and other dangerous things.
Then you have a population of young men who are educated and have money, but no freedom. These young men hear America tell them that they hate democracy, while at the same time supporting the government that represses them. They may be "uncivilized" as Tommy claims, but they're not stupid. And they'd have to be pretty stupid not to recognize the hypocrisy inherent in the situation.
What? Pointing out that America's foreign policy contributes to terrorism? Treason!
I joke of course, I would love to see our general policies in the Middle East change. Whether we can expect a candidate in either party commit to that is dubious, of course, but that would certainly help in reducing terrorism.
At the risk of being even more treasonous, I'd like to point out that it's not just our foreign policy, it's our attitude. Many people are unable to see Iraqis or Saudis or, in general, OTHERS as being rational actors. I know there have been many instances of O'Reilly talking about how "they" don't respect life, or hate democracy, or resent freedom. Even people I ran into in my grad program, educated people who were deliberately studying Middle East policy, sometimes had a hard time letting go of feelings of superiority. We need to help them, women who wear the veil are just uneducated and don't understand that the veil means oppression, if we just teach them...
If you sit back and think for a moment that these are people - real people - in Iraq who are being killed, or kidnapped, or terrorized... that they feel it just as much as we do when their brothers are killed or their daughters raped... it's overwhelming and depressing. Which is why I try not to think about it too often.
Nice handle! And, as a busybody lurker here, I like your politics as well. Your first (that I have seen) couple of posts were spectacularly on point, and well written. Thanks!
"The thing is, if you asked Bush he would say this is exactly what he is doing. Fighting them over there so we don't fight them over here or some statement like that."
And Bush's description of his actions means what, exactly?
"Right now there are terrorists in Iraq. I guess with an Edwards Presidency there is no withdrawal in that case since he will do ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING TO FIND TERRORISTS WHERE THEY ARE AND STOP THEM BEFORE THEY CAN DO HARM TO US."
We're creating terrorists and insurgents, Bruce. That's not the same thing as "finding" them. Also remember that it's only 3-5% of the enemy that is actual Al Queda.
"Well, they are already doing harm to us by killing our troops. Withdrawing from an area where known terrorists are wouldn't seem to be an option under his plan."
So let me get this straight. Because Bush put our troops into this situation, Edwards couldn't pull out because there are some terrorists there? If we pull the troops out, then the terrorists can't do any more harm to them!
Because Bush can describe his actions a certain way, that means that when Edwards talks about alliances and intelligence that it's meaningless, and that he would have to leave troops in an area where they are being harmed...because there are terrorists there. He talks about alliances and intelligence, therefore he must leave troops in harm's way.
I truly hope you can clarify the mess you just posted.
Edwards is the one who should clarify, not me. If you don't agree with my interpretation of what he said, it's because what he said can be interpreted in too many ways to be a relevent answer. That's why I think his answer is meaningless. It all comes down to what he would ACTUALLY DO and by saying he would do ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING tells me nothing.
So, your ridiculous comments are justified because Edwards made a blanket statement about potential efforts against terrorism? Right.
He's saying that the fight against terrorism is important, and worth a great effort. He's also saying that the "global war on terror" is meaningless as Bush is running it, because it's a hollow excuse to do whatever he likes. Why this is so vague or open to interpretation that he'll keep troops in harm's way because they need to be where the terrorists are is difficult to understand.
You can, and should, do better.
Edwards says the fight against terrorism is important and worth a great effort. Wow? A great effort? How eloquent. Them's fightin' words!
Well, what do you want? If he's going to criticize what Bush is doing against terrorism, he has to say that he is committed to fighting it to, or all the right-wing nuts will jump on it as proof that he wants to appease terrorists or doesn't care about it or whatever other nonsense. But if he puts in the necessary phrasing, then it's vague and meaningless and not enough to describe what he wants to do.
Give me a damn break, would you?
Well, give Edwards credit for knowing the exact thing to say, you're right about that.
In other words, you had no point. Thanks.
What else would you have him say....maybe something like I won't use the military to engage in nation building.
Of course, Bush said that too. I'm more inclined to believe other people would actually mean it, though.
Yeah that was my point. Bush said it and directly contradicted his campaign rhetoric.
I thought it might have been your point. but wasn't sure if you were simply describing what Bush actually did. Either way, it's something Edwards could say.
Not only did Bush say it, but he ridiculed, oversimplified and distorted Gore's position. Meanwhile most conservative pundits were out there echoing Bush about how absolutely wrong "nation-building" was. Of course, three years later they did an absolute 180 in unison without so much as a reasonable explanation for the change other than "9/11 changed everything" or some such crap.
All I was trying to say is that what Edwards said is no different than what Bush said pre-Iraq. We will hunt down the terrorists and hold them to account and blah blah blah...But what somebody says doesn't matter, it's what they do. So I don't really care what Edwards says, nor should you unless he is very specific which, in my opinion, he wasn't.
Well said, and that's why him calling Bush's war a "bumpersticker" is no better than what Edwards himself has said......pitiful on specifics and details, and big on slogans and toughtalk.
Tommy,
You know, it is as if you fail to recognize that the current administration has used the "war on terror" as a campaign slogan. They have used it as a tool to politicize all manner of policy debate in this nation. They have used the "war on terror" to scare people into believing that they are the only ones who can protect them. They have used the "war on terror" to erode civil liberties and demonize dissent. That is a reality. They have used the "war on terror" as a slogan to further political means. So, yes it is a bumper sticker. To think otherwise is just refusing to accept reality.
Edwards probably would have called The Cold War a bumper sticker.
I'm getting the idea here that it's the word "terror" as say opposed to "terrorism" that seems to be the problem.
Would the War On Terrorism work better for some of you?
There was a Cold War, there is a War On Terrorism.
Both are simply terms to define a conflict that is not a full scale WAR like WWII.
No. My posting above yours explains my issue with the administrations use of the slogan "war on terror". I could care less if it was called a "limited engagment of various sorts designed to eliminate radical muslims" the point is that the administration has used the slogan for political purposes amongst other things. It is a filthy display and one of the most disrespectful things you could do while men are in the field.
The term The Cold War was evoked by past administrations to describe our conflicts with Communist nations.
There is a ver real War on Terrorism.
I agree that Bush has pushed the limits and "used" that term for his own "political purpose", but that doesn't mean the "war" doesn't exist. That was my point.
Believe me I'm not sticking up for Bush, or his war in Iraq, which I do not consider to be a part of the War On Terrorism.
O.K. fair enough. I know what the cold war was. I grew up during the 50's and served in the 60's.
Edwards understands that there's a real struggle against terrorism, whether you call it a "war" or not, that's why he said he would do everything he could to fight it. Everyone understands terrorism is a real threat. What Edwards said about Bush's "global war on terror" (which includes the war in Iraq, of course) doesn't change that a bit.
A better comparison would be to "The War on Drugs." Your Cold War analogy doesn't hold water.
There is a ver real War on Terrorism.
When did Congress declare it? And whom against? How do we win it? When are we sure it's over? Who will sign the surrender treaty? Where will it be signed?
Then answer the same questions for The War on Drugs.
Ya know, using the phrase and hiring a "Czar" doesn't a war make.
As long as we're offering analogies, it seems to me that the War on Terror fits somewhere between the Cold War and the War on Drugs. In fact, it seems to share even more characteristics with the latter. I.e., the War on Terror has no national boundaries, a readily shifting landscape of adversaries and no likely end.
Tommy,
Let me expand on this a little more. This subject as it has evolved aggravates me to no end. This administration has used "the war on terror" slogan to politicize a military action for their own political benefit. That sir, is a slap in the face to every American who has ever worn the uniform and served this great nation. You can't rationalize this or justify this. They have politicized this fight and it is a filthy disrespectful thing to do. Anyone who supports this is just as guilty as Bush and Cheney. Period.
I agree. And what really bothers me is that every day another Republican presidential candidate will use this "War on terror" to further his political career at the expense of our military. It's easy to push this line of bull when they don't have a personal stake in the effort.
Again, I'm eager to hear what specifics anyone expected him to list. What is even possible in this context? Besides, if he were to list anything specific a reasonably intelligent person couldn't figure out on their own, wouldn't that be revealing information to the enemy? One could say that you couldn't possibly elect him, because if you did the terrorists would know what our strategy would be.
By your logic, just about any comments about what anyone would do are "meaningless". You don't know what he would do, but to link that to what Bush did isn't fair in the least. Is it reasonable to think he would do anything along the same lines as Bush? Or commit political suicide by ignoring terrorism completely, perhaps? Let's be clear about this;the neo-con influences in this administration are unparallelled and unprecedented. It's like someone says they'll paint your house and then they burn it down, then the next time someone says they'll paint your house you say "I've heard that before! forget it!".
Fair point. BTW I wanted to thank you for holding me to a high standard in my posting, I admit this thread wasn't my best effort. Too much multi-tasking today, not that it should excuse poor communication or logic. But I take your rebuttals as a compliment for some of my prior efforts. I do appreciate your opinions.
Of course, we all have our days, and multi-tasking has hampered me more than once. A large part of my tone was due to great surprise, since it's pretty rare for me to have that many issues with one of your posts. I think they're generally well thought-out.
Well yes, but how can you know exactly what you will do during a crisis. I dare say he won't read a book upside down with a "deer in the headlights look on his face if we are attacked." I dare say he won't be adamant about finishing his vacation if a major hurricane strikes a large city.
To be fair, I don't think he had the book upside-down. I believe that was an altered photograph.
The deer-in-the-headlights look was genuine, though, to be sure.
I don't know, it seems that the video shows the same thing. I may be wrong but in Farenheit 9-11 I seem to remember this exact thing.
Really? I give Bush as little credit for his intelligence as just about anyone, but I think he knows how to read a children's book. I'm curious, and would be surprised if he actually did that.
Well that is what I am thinking. I could be wrong but I could swear that was pointed out in the movie. It's been awhile though.
I believe you may be thinking of an Eminem video - but if so... kudos, Gramps! ;-)
Gramps!!!? why you little..... I oughta....one of these days. Seriously, I could swear that the video shot on that day in the classroom shows that. Maybe you can find it seeing as how it is easier for you young folks to work these dagnabbed computers.
I found some video here.
This is a still - it's hard to tell which way the book is facing.
This is still my favourite Bush Photoshop evah.
The inside page of the still shot does appear to be right-side-up. (The two lines above the art).
There are terrorists all around the world. We don't and won't occupy all those places to fight terrorism, first off, and secondly, our occupying force in Iraq is not doing much fighting of terrorism right now.
We cannot be expected as a nation to fight civil wars like this in which the terrorism present is Iraqi against Iraqi. There are terrorism cells in Iraq that threaten our troops now. We should go after them. If we identify any cells that threaten people worldwide, we should go after them too. Our troops in Iraq are not part of the global war on terror. They're sitting ducks, taking potshots from the civil war combatants for the most part.
We can have the vast majority of our troops leave Iraq and still fight any terrorism that might spring from Iraq.
That isnt precisely accurate since he also said he doesnt think much about Osama ben Forgotten. I dont see how in the world that can be reconsiled with your beggining statement
Edwards plan is more of international cooperation and hunting of terrorists rather than thinking Iraq is the only important part.
Iraq is not full of terrorists, it is full of insurgents. I realize the terminology and the difference between these two are difficult to grasp, but there is a different.
People who bomb London subways in an otherwise peaceful country with no military occupation are terrorists. They aim to scare the populace and shake up the government.
People who kill American soldiers and Iraqi citizens in a country occupied unlawfully by foreign forces that took a country that was held stable under the control of a Tyrranical ruler and turned that country into a chaotic pit of Hell are insurgents. They aim to take those they see as an occupying cancer and remove them - one way or another - from their country.
There are terrorists in Iraq, as well - this is evident from mere fact that through our involvement there, Al Quaida now has factions in the country because they followed us there. Those terrorists are being sent in from other countries (many of them African, oddly enough). Our continued violence in the region and meddling in the lives of arabs is resulting in more members of AQ every day. We are not fighting terrorism in Iraq at its source, and that is what Edwards is referring to.
By the way - you say Bush would say that he's doing that already? Hogwash. He is not using our alliances, as a matter of fact, he spat upon our alliances and has scoffed at the idea of forming new ones. To suggest that this administration's handling of this sick, sad mess is the best we could do with a NEW President is not only false, but it's tellingly depressing.
Wars begin to be lost when one side loses the initiative. Bush has snatched defeat from the jaws of victory twice: once in Afghanistan when his ADHD kicked in and he shifted attention to Iraq; and a second time in Baghdad, when he thought bringing down a regime was the end of the game, rather than the beginning of a huge, complicated challenge.
Since then he has used Osama bin Laden (when of course, he wasn't "thinking about him very much") and the "War on Terror," as buzz words, bumper stickers, whatever you want to call them. It's all hot air. What he hasn't done is what great leaders do in times of national crisis: he hasn't united the country and taken it to war. He has divided the country and sent our military into harm's way, supported by nothing more than slogans.
I would ask those who hold out for our continued presence in Iraq to explain, in specific terms, how it will advance our national interest. The way I see it, our present policy serves the national interests of Iran, and the strategic interests of jihadists.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070501faessay86304/bruce-riedel/al-qaeda-strikes-back.html
After the Republican debate last night, I was watching a panel discussion with Paul Begala and two rightwing commentators.
Mitt Romney said
And that is that if you’re saying let’s turn back the clock, and Saddam Hussein had opened up his country to IAEA inspectors, and they’d come in and they’d found that there were no weapons of mass destruction, had Saddam Hussein, therefore, not violated United Nations resolutions, we wouldn’t be in the conflict we’re in. But he didn’t do those things, and we knew what we knew at the point we made the decision to get in.
But that's not true. Saddam did let them in. They were in the process of determining that Saddam was telling the truth finally when he said that he had no WMD's. Bush chased them out in order to invade. What we knew when Bush invaded was that we had faulty intelligence that had been proven faulty by those darn UN inspectors. Bush ignored the facts from the men on the ground and went with the faulty intelligence instead. That's what a numbskull he is, that he justified the invasion using bad guesswork instead of facts!
Begala mentioned that right off the bat, and the two conservative commentators defied reality and continued to abuse the truth. Begala was flabbergasted with their positions. If you didn't see it, you missed a fun time!
There's gotta be some personal animosity between O'Liar and Edwards. Musta been a private diss to his highness Lord O'Liar. Lord Loofah certainly has thin skin doesn't he? I know! It's because Edwards was the first to put the kybosh on the Fox debates and it has grown to the other candidates and bloggers so successfully that Fox and O'Reilly are still fuming about it. I say let's push to diminish Fox even more! O'Reilly has confirmed that it's working.
truthseeker77,
Although I respect your opinion, I have to disagree with some of your points. I feel that most people do understand what he meant and it is not as controversial O'Reilly makes it out to be. It doesn't matter what he said or says from this point on, the right-wing spin machine will completely try to discredit it anyway. That's what they do. In fact, Edwards should take a play out of the Republican playbook and shove the "bumper sticker" slogan down their throats until it becomes synonymous with the empty "War on Terror" slogan.
Just my thought. Peace.
Why are we all falling down on the job?
This is the 34th post in this thread. I can never remember an O'Reilly thread that was so serious for so long.
It seems pretty clear to me that Edwards is referring to the Bush administration's use of the term "War on Terror" to justify its criminal behavior as the Bumper Sticker...not the terrorist threat itself. What's so hard to understand about that? It is also clear from the rest of his statement that he does take the terrorist threat seriously. This is all just Flying Monkey Propaganda...as usual, and I think the conservative posters here are being disingenuous...as usual.
Has there ever been a study to see what demographics watch the O'Reilly Factor? I think that would be worth researching. If anyone knows, please let me know.
One of the Republican posters opined here recently that only old folks and mediaMatters watch O'Reilly.Of course, this same poster seems to have about the same grasp of things that BilldO does.
Hahaha... Timing is everything! ;-)
Mike,
Yes there have. I am not going to go looking again but as I remember it, most of his audience is people over 50.. maybe mostly over 60? I forget now.
As I inferred in a previous thread, MMFA and those of us who like to debate should thank our lucky stars that Bill is out there. He provides half the grist in this old mill.
Personally I think he jumped the shark a long time ago.
While 50s and 60s is probably on par with a lot of news and political programming (and heck, the nightly news and even Letterman and Leno) everything I've heard has O'Reilly skewing toward an older demo, even in comparison to those.
There was that study, though, that showed that Fox News viewers tend to make a lot of mistakes when quizzed about current events. I think that's probably the more telling data point.
It is a bit more complicated than that. Older white males are often the most informed about current political events comparative to other demographic groups. Considering that is the main demographic for O'Reilly viewers, they may score higher than you might think despite O'Reilly's general silliness and lack of any real value.
I suspect the higher scores may be more of a consequence of the demographics than anything O'Reilly might contribute.
It would simply be more appropriate to say "The war against Terrorist".
By labeling it the "war on Terror" it's easy cloud the real issues. We can guage a war on Al Qeada or Hams ETC. We cannot gauge our progress in a war on terror, just like we can't wage a war on drugs(We can wage a war on drug cartels). In this since it is appropriate to label the phrasing of "GWOT" as a bumper sticker slogan.
"So John Edwards looks dopey." More concise political analysis staring Bill O’Reilly as,,,,"The Beaver".
Hahahha.... Funny!
Terrorism isn't a sticker
It requires tactics smarter, not slicker
Tommy pretends
As he tries on Depends
That of he and BillO, he's the thicker
Too Funny!
I am not overfond of Edwards, but I do hope that this is the first step towards retiring "War on..." slogans.
How long have we had a War on Poverty? And how's that going? Don't even get me started on the Wars on Drugs, Christmas, etc.
Seems like one way to make sure something lasts forever is to declare rhetorical "War" on it. If we'd had a "War on Fascism" instead of a real war in the 1940s, there'd probably still be a swastika flying over Paris...
Or maybe try reverse psychology. Let's have the War on Common Sense. Or the War on Great Sex.
while O'Reilly's fruit fly-like attention span and Republican shilling only allowed him to absorb half of it, not understanding any of it.- HuntingtonBeachLefty
Sorry but that's just insulting to Drosophila everywhere !!!
*************
Remember, time flies like an arrow,
fruit flies like a banana. (anon.)
That was Groucho - as a committed Marxist, I object to your anonymisation of my hero!
As an avowed Marxist, I won't belong to any group that would allow me to be a member. That includes the Marxists.
The quote you provided is from Julius (Groucho) Marx.
I'm opposed to erections (Kim Jong Il)
And you can tune a piano, but you can't tuna fish.
"An erection is like the Theory of Relativity - the more you think about it, the harder it gets."
-unknown
Here's one of my favorites.
“Q: What do you get when you cross an insomniac, an agnostic, and a dyslexic?
A: Someone who stays up all night wondering if there is a Dog.”
-Julius Henry Marx (1890 -1977)
Edwards is right this is a bumper sticker war. The war on terror is nothing more than a political slogan.
Who is kidding who when one hides behind the "support the troop" stickers. All it tells everyone is you don't have the guts to drive around with "support the war stickers" on your car and Bush doesn't have the guts to get out from behind the "support the troop" political slogan either.
He has changed his reason for this war so many times and stated insane remarks about the war such as "fight them their so we don't have to fight them here" if there was any truth to that statement take the war to the south pole then; less civilians will be killed that way. But there is no money to be made for the private contractors if the war was in the south pole.
This Iraq war is a private contractors wet dream. Money for nothing and all are probably Bush pioneers.
I say if you have to hide behind a "support the troop" slogan and show no balls to say it for what it is then this is a bumper sticker war on terror. The day Bush ever has the guts and come out and tell the people: "yeah I fixed the facts start a war, yeah fighting terrorism was not on my list of reasons for going to war against Iraq my reasons came from the PNAC of which 11 members were part of my staff and they wanted this rebirth of imperialism back in the 1990s and I bought into it at your peril and I'm hoping to pass the buck on anyone else and get the hell out of here and laugh all the way to the bank. Deep down inside I only have my middle fingers for the troops and my knees fall on the floor only to the war profiteers.
We're fighting a War on Terror...we're fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here...if we leave Iraq, they'll follow us home...yada yada yada
If the thousands dead and millions displaced is too remote to easily grasp, consider this - just to fund the going cost of the Iraq conflict, we would need to pay an additional $5 per gallon for gas at the pump. How does $8 per gallon gas sound? Still worth it or worth a second thought?
This is not the first time O'Reilly has cropped a statement to make himself look right. Not that surprising, but funny .
When I see conservative posters supporting Hillary I know it's time to vote for Edwards. It's like the morons who voted for Tailgunner Joe Lieberman believing him to be a "centrist" which couldn't be further from the truth if their lives depended upon it.
Hillary is in this for herself and no one else. Her ego is running this entire thing. Once in she will be another wishy washy CIC doing what is safe and if that means making bad decisions based upon "What if" then we are in for perpetual war.
IF Gore doesn't jump in then Edwards is our only logical choice.
Right on. Great take ont the situation.