http://bbs2.clutchcity.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=80146&perpage=30&pagenumber=2 Included in the article but omitted from TJ's excerpt: Defense: The Edwards campaign says that Peters' anonymously sourced story "has no bearing in fact" and that Edwards has never been to an event that included Leah Rabin.
with all due respect, the question wasn't whether Edwards had been to an event that included Leah Rabin, but rather whether he knew who she, or her father were. the "defense" is a response to a question that wasn't asked. nice try tho...
Let's see -- Slatowned? Editowned? Authorowned? Saletowned? I'm not sure which one to go with. BTW, I always wondered if somebody bothered reading this forum and now I guess I have my answer, I always thought that they were above the , uhh, "Fray"...
basso: The accuser is anonymous, the report is secondhand, and the campaign says the story is false. There's zero corroboration. Do you really want to stoop to that? Do you think we should believe anonymous secondhand stories about how Bush used cocaine or forced a girlfriend to have an abortion?
Ho ho ho! Calling The_Conquistador out with a special thread? I welcome the challenge! Will, the bottom line is that I could have taken this quote from one of *many* sources. It's all over the net. I chose yours as a courtesy to you. I did not purposefully delete any piece of your article. Frankly, the piece that was omitted really doesn't have any bearing on whether Edwards has a solid understanding of Middle East relations, as basso correctly pointed out. It's one of those non-denial denials. Maybe he didn't go to the reception because he didn't know who Rabin was? Convenient excuse, but frankly it does not make Edwards' blunder any more respectable. Frankly it's off-topic. You can't deny what was said by saying that you've never been to a reception with the person. That's just silly and tangential. The facts, sir, at that time would actually support a weak understanding of foreign relations for young Johnny. Johnny had almost zero exposure to politics prior to his Senate run. He was too busy trying jacuzzi cases and holding job-making corporations hostage. Here is the question for you, sir: Why did you put it in your article if you are here trying to downplay its credibility?
you missed my point. the story may or may not be true. the denial however does nothing to disprove it, and merely raises an utterly irrelevant point in at attempt to obscure the issue.
Yes, irrelevant to the real issue that TraderJorge was raising in a legitimate, thoughtful, openminded fashion. Let's just recap things here: Somebody writes something, a sophomoric troll selectively edits it in one of his numerous attempts to antagonize people to make it say something it does not, hoping to get it by us; the author personally busts him on it; you align yourself with the sophomoric troll, because...uh, because..uh the real "issue"...which is that George W. Bush is da bomb and it doesn't matter to you if Edwards spun straw into gold, because you're really, really concerned about Israel policy in the event of Edwards presidency, and aren't ready to dump on him at all for a superficial reason, right? You two deserve each other. Have fun protecting America from those of us who hate it so damned much.
SamFisher, you are wrong. I didn't selectively edit the article. I only posted what was relevant. This conserves bandwidth. Non-denial denials simply aren't relevant as explained above. The exclusion of the non-denial denial in no way altered the meaning of the clip. Sorry 'bout that. It should surprise no one that Johnny Edwards' weak credentials on foreign policy are being brought to the forefront. It's a *real* issue here as we are currently at war. Dick Cheney is going to just steamroll Johnny in the VP debates. I can't wait. Cheney's gravitas and experience will be too much for Mr Fake Bake and Phony Smile to handle. Deal with it.
Since we're nitpicking here. I don't think anyone would be concerned if Edwards didn't know who Leah Rabin's father was. Now him not know who her husband is another matter.
This thread will be an instant classic in terms of debate methodology when finished. rimbaud, thanks for your contribution. When it's all finished, you will have aided my cause greatly. Ho ho ho!
my bad, i conflated the article with some of the press from his funeral in which i remember his daughter being prominent. nice catch tho.
Trader, c'mon, buddy. If being "all over the net" makes a totally uncorroborated story true, then I've got 50 stories about Bush and coke and his girlfriend's abortion to sell you. "Doesn't have any bearing?" You're saying I should ignore Edwards' denial because it has no "bearing" on his qualifications? Then presumably you agree we should all ignore this anonymous secondhand uncorroborated story about Edwards, since the Edwards campaign says it has "no bearing in fact"? How is that a non-denial denial? Sounds like a plain denial. It was part of a series we did on all the candidates. We looked for two "gaffes" from each candidate and assessed the verifiability and significance of each. In Edwards' case, we couldn't find anything really bad, even with the help of the RNC. So we put up the best we could, which, as you can see, was pretty weak. I'm not saying Edwards is some kind of wise man. He's pretty green. But Bush had no more political experience than Edwards has, and Bush had less experience in foreign affairs, and Bush was running for the top job. It's funny to hear Republicans wailing 4 years later about Edwards' inexperience, and Democrats scoffing 4 years later that experience doesn't matter.
wailing about bush's lack of experience in foreign affairs is a bit like closing the barn door after the cows have escaped. yes, in retrospect, and particularly in light of 9/11, i would like a VP or POTUS cadidate to have more experience that Bush had or Edwards has. that said, bush has performed admirably (IMO), na dhas plent of FO experience to run on. but shouldn't we aspire to something more, particularly in light of 9/11? should he win, edwwards would be the least qualified VP in modern times. even Qualyle had twice as much time in congress (4years in the house, 8 in the senate) as edwards. "less qualified than qualye." how's that for a campaign slogan. whetever other qualities edwards may bring to the ticket, and i admit he's a wonderful campaigner, he brings little in the way of practical governing experience. not the guy i want a heart beat away in a post 9/11 world. boring though he may have been, gephardt would've been a far better choice, that is, if one is serious about being able to govern. but perhaps winning is a higher priority? as to the original point of this thread, edward's denial has enough non-ness to it to be positively nixonian. surely josh marshall or someother intrepid internet slueth can find an answer for us. question josh: "was there an event nearby featuring leah rabin at the time in question?" if so, that would lend some credence to the report. if not, the the report is obviously bogus. btw, rabin was murdered in 1995. John, jr. entered the senate in january '99. i doubt he payed much attention to mideast politics prior to mid-98 or so...
1. A non-denial denial from an interested party does not constitute a successful rebuttal. By saying the statement "has no bearing in fact" he doesn't definitively conclude that he didn't say it. All he had to say was "I did not say that." He failed to do so. It's a way to deflect it with legalease. It's Clintonesque. By saying that Edwards didn't attend a reception, he clearly does not deny saying what he said. Edwards is very weak on foreign policy. 2. Why do the liberals consistently bring up Bush's experience prior to the 2000 race. The comparison is no longer valid. ForbesKerry/Edwards are running against the 2004 Bush, not the 2000 Bush. Bush has a wealth of foreign policy experience, including courageous leadership during wartimes. The 2000 Bush is no longer running for office -- a more mature, experienced Bush is. Big difference. BIG. 3. The story being all over the net does not make it true, however it does slightly bolser the credibility of it. Many other news agencies/sources picked up on it as well, thereby risking their credibility by posting it. Heck, Slate picked it up and published it. Alone, this does not make it true, however it does add to its credibility. 4. What validates me in this entire thread is the following: I posted the link for the article for all to see. Had I been purposefully trying to mislead, I wouldn't have posted the link. Anyone could have followed the link and seen the non-denial denial. Heck, Rocketman95 even found it. By posting the link, I am free and clear of any attempt to mislead by selective editing. I did tell the whole story. SamFisher, KingCheetah and rimbeaux owe me apologies. This thread title needs to be changed because it is simply inaccurate. VINDICATION
National Review Says- "Bush is an imbecile." http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200407120818.asp
Look who started the thread.... Will Clutch Crew I think I'm gonna shout out loud the day you stick your foot in your mouth one too many times, get called on it, then call out the wrong person (an admin) and subsequently get banned.
You are an idiot who likes to dress in women's clothing...ooops...I mean, I am sorry. I shouldn't have said that I like fishes. They are not delicious. Seriously. Way over the line. Why do you have such an inferiority complex? Thinking I owe you an apology for finding humor in your word usage? Poor kid. I am sure whatever you think about yourself can't be that bad. Look to yourself and find the answer. There is no such thing as "smart" and "dumb" it is all effort and opportunity. Nose to the grindstone! Spoonful of sugar! Huzzah!
For the record, I don't believe in banning people for their views, and if Clutch started banning people every time they took something out of context, the only people left here would be lurkers. You shouldn't have to fear being banned, or worry about what title appears next to a person's name, to treat them fairly. As to the "Crew's" politics, as far as I can tell, if we ever had to vote on a presidential election, it'd be closer than Florida. We're here for the Rockets, not for the R's or D's. As far as the D&D forum goes, I believe in more opinions, not less. And in this case, more facts.
