On Sep 6, 4:17 am, Mark Hickey wrote:
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

...


FWIW I heard John Edwards , in his televised debate with Dick
Cheney, attribute the attacks to Saddam Hussein. It was clearly
a slip of the tongue as he said it immediately after accusing
Cheney of deliberately confusing the two.

Kinda makes you believe in karma, doesn't it?

Other persons have noted Rumsfeld and Condoleesa Rice making
similar slips.

It's hard to believe that they did say something that could be snipped
out of context and "prove the point"...

Yet you had NO trouble believing that Edwards did it....

...

See also:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.f...owse_thread/th...

C'mon... that's the very definition of grasping at straws... an
unidentified sound bite on a political entertainer's show? Besides,
no one has "blown up the World Trade Center" since 1993 or so.

One of the follow-ups noted that is Limbaugh's schtick. I remind
you that Newt Gingrich credited Limbaugh for being a major
contributor
to the success of the Republican Party during the "Contract
with America" campaign.


Mr Limbaugh can deny claiming Saddam Hussein was responsible since
it was a statement by someone else that he played on his show. But
it is clear WHY he played it and also WHY he played it in the manner
that he did.

I dunno - I suppose someone should ask him. But when we start mixing
Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken with historical political discussions,
we're off in the weeds, don'tcha think? ;-)

See above.

Someone like Michael Moore exercises a strong but episodic influence.
Limbaugh is a constant and coordinated influence.

Yes, they are entertainers and so idally should have
virtually NO influence but the reality is very different.

It is like name-recognition at the polls. If some bozo
changes his name to John F Kennedy it really shouldn't
give him an edge in the election, but do you suppose it
did?

An idiot's vote counts just as much as a thoughtful person's
and can be had with much less effort.

--

FF