On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 18:41:48 -0500, Robert Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > An equally bizarre boast was when Edwards said 90% of coalition > > casualties were American and Cheney rejoindered: > > > > "When you include the Iraqi security forces that have suffered > > casualties, as well as the allies, they've taken almost 50 percent > of > > the casualties in operations in Iraq, which leaves the U.S. with 50 > > percent, not 90 percent." > > > > Why would you try and make the causalty figures higher? > > Also, why would you claim that the country being attacked is part of > the coalition? Indeed. The claim is straight forwardly nonsense. What I'm confused about is why he even made it since it doesn't seem very politically useful. I guess he just can't stop lying just for the sake of it. I particularly liked the fact he later used it as a jumping point for these comments to Edwards: "He won't count the sacrifice and the contribution of Iraqi allies. It's their country. They're in the fight. They're increasingly the ones out there putting their necks on the line to take back their country from the terrorists and the old regime elements that are still left. They're doing a superb job. And for you to demean their sacrifices strikes me as... You suggested somehow they shouldn't count, because you want to be able to say that the Americans are taking 90 percent of the sacrifice" Breathtaking. Cheney seems to have succeeded though, or at least John got the "deliberately and offensively misrepresent your opponent" message: >At any rate, you have to be a pretty rabid partisan to bash Bush and Cheney >for lowing taxes on the poorest Americans. Martin _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
