WingNut writer, Benjamin Shapiro, has written a rather wordy condemnation of John Edwards and the comments he made during Sunday night's debate. Shapiro referred to Edwards, in the text of his headline, as a, "slimy demagogue," and tries to solidify his position by addressing the comments Edwards made concerning the war in Iraq...
"But it was John Edwards, outflanking Obama, who provided the most
memorable moment of the evening, summing up nearly six years of liberal thought
with a single paragraph:
"[W]hat this global war on terror bumper sticker –
political slogan, that's all it is, it's 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."
Call Edwards what you like, but he was the only one who had the temerity to speak the truth on the subject of Bush's war and the atrocities that have resulted from his blatant stubbornness. What originally was, I believe, a concerted effort to bring those responsible for the attacks on our homeland to justice has become a quagmire, perpetuated by suppositions and outright lies told by the Chimperor and other members of his administration. Shapiro continues...
"Of course, Edwards' aphoristic denunciation is itself paradigmatic
bumper-sticker politics. His strategy is sloganeering. And sadly enough, his
pithy shallowness mirrors the Democratic base far more than Clinton's newfound
moderation or Obama's faux profundity. If everyone who slaps a "War Is Not The
Answer" sticker on their Prius votes for Edwards, the charlatan from North Carolina could breeze to the
Democratic nomination."
Was Mr. Shapiro trying to win some contest for using as many "five and ten dollar words" as possible? Or, was his word choice simply a distraction from the "pithy" argument he was making? The latter is most likely true, because what Shapiro said was simply ignorant. Edwards likened the war to a bumper-sticker slogan, but he never created a slogan or in any way suggested that he even needed a slogan. Frankly, Mr. Shapiro missed the point entirely.
Here, Shapiro shows that he knows very little about those who support Edwards...all the while using his dictionary to try and prove otherwise...
"By contrast, Edwards' supporters are the true blue, the loyal foundation.
They are the disappointed Deaniacs and Ned Lamont backers. They are the "Bush
Lied, Kids Died" contingent, the "No War For Oil" crowd. They are the Michael
Moore followers, the Al Gore worshippers. They are the vapid but solid core of a
radical party – a party that has risen to power by obfuscating its radicalism
and opening its arms to Americans disaffected with President Bush."
Anyone who talks with an Edwards supporter, something Shapiro probably neglected to do, would know that Al Gore is the absolute last person we want to see in the White House. Anytime the idea that Gore should make another run comes up, the response from Edwards supporters has been the same..."Please don't." My other problem with this paragraph is Shapiro's assertion that questioning the motives of our president and pointing out the problems with the way in which our president conducts war operations automatically wins us the label of, "a radical party." It's the duty of Americans to bring forth such questions, and part of what being a responsible citizen means. There's absolutely nothing radical about it...plain and simple. The fact that more and more Americans are realizing the depth of the Bush administration's deception is simply a sign that the citizenry is paying attention.
Shapiro and others who share his obvious distaste for the truth can, and probably will, continue to denigrate Edwards for his unwavering stance on this particular issue. Hopefully, Americans will continue to recognize that Edwards is simply telling the truth.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment