<$BlogRSDUrl$>

10/10/2004

 

Kerry & Edwards can be both for & against the war


National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice told FNC's Chris Wallace that the President was "absolutely" correct to invade Iraq because "this president, post-September 11th, was not going to let threats continue to gather."

I found a Reuters article which alleges that candidate John Edwards went on several Sunday Morning talk shows and disputed this.
"There are lots of threats waiting to happen all over the world," Edwards said. "That doesn't mean that that justifies invading a country."
The assertion of the Reuters piece is: "Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards on Sunday disputed a White House assertion that it was right to topple Saddam Hussein even if he had no illegal weapons because he posed a future threat."

That is wrong. On ABC's This Week, host George Stephanopoulos asked Edwards to name three mistakes he had made. Edwards could name two, one of which – and Steph pinned him down on this – was believing that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. He said – as close to unequivocally as this ticket can get – that the invasion was, in fact, the right thing to do. The way the President did it, he argued, was the wrong thing about it.

As I've said, this is where the Kerry's flip-flops pay off for him. He can say that he supports the war as an appeal to those voters who support the war, but he can let the some in the MSM depict him as anti-war for those who oppose it. He can have it both ways.

This doesn't work with most voters, but Kerry is hoping it will work with enough.

0 comments

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?