Reply #19: Uh, because he thinks 9.11 justifies Iraq? [View All]

[robbedvoter]

Just one reason - besides they made those polls. By chosing Edwards, kerry cedes the Clarke/9.11 responsibility issue to Bush. This new Yorker would not take kindly to it.


9.11 justifies war in Iraq - WMD lies
Debate
"Can I just go back a moment ago -- to a question you asked just a moment ago? You asked, I believe, Senator Kerry earlier whether there's an exaggeration of the threat of the war on terrorism.
"It's just hard for me to see how you can say there's an exaggeration when thousands of people lost their lives on September the 11th."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/transcripts/debatetranscript29.html
comments MI:
http://www.moderateindependent.com/v2i2scdebate.htm
That was completely absurd and a huge moment in this debate.  Edwards, whose weakest point already is his lack of gravitas and foreign policy credentials, now said flat out that he is incapable of understanding that, despite the fact that 9/11 occurred, the President could still have lied and exaggerated.
What does one have to do with the other?  The answer is nothing.
To stand there and assert that you can't say, "there's an exaggeration when thousands of people lost their lives," is to buy into the most basic lies of the Bush administration.  It is the sort of thing the amoral puppets at FOX News assert.
9/11 occurring did not make Saddam have WMDs, and if the President exaggerated, as the Carnegie Report detailed him and his administration doing, then he exaggerated, regardless of what else happened.  There is no connection, and no useful presidential candidate would ever assert that allowing the slaughter of American people somehow means that it is impossible for lying to exist.  What is the connection?
Absolutely this was an horrific answer.