I don't like the quote, I don't like Edwards, I don't have any reason to believe that this is what he meant and I despise these messengers as much as I despised right-wing "messengers" who were also only "quoting" John Kerry a few months ago when he misspoke about the education level of the troops in Iraq. What makes these messengers any less disgusting than those who attacked Kerry?
So you are calling them liars? Because you don't like the quote? Messengers should not quote directly? Oh man, you do have a problem...
Were those who "quoted" John Kerry's joke about the troops liars in your opinion? Or are they respectable reporters?
These "messengers " provided their own interpretation of what Edwards said. He did not say that Israel is the biggest threat, he said that a possibility of an Israeli attack on Iraninian nuclear facility is. There is a huge difference between what he said and how they were trying to re-phrase it, Edwards did not address the issue of whether the attack would be justified or not, whether it would be Israel's fault of Ahmadenejad's, whether it would be avoidable, whether the alternative would be an Iranian nuclear attack on Israeli cities or peace and prosperity. A possible attack is the biggest threat and Israel is the biggest threat are two completely different concepts.
Reporting quotes is not lying. It was up to Kerry to explain his quote, if necessary. Anyway, your straw man concerning Kerry is duly noted. This is about Edwards, what he said...not the messengers. Take it up with Edwards... You are the type who would muzzle the free press simply because you "don't like the quote."
LOL, you are the one obsessed with whether they are or are not liars. My problem with this situation is that these so-called "messengers" did not provide the context of the quote, instead they provided their own interpretation.
You suggested they were liars to begin with, or do you forget your own words: "That's not what he said or at least not what he meant." They did provide the quote: "There are other emerging fissures, as well. The aggressively photogenic John Edwards was cruising along, detailing his litany of liberal causes last week until, during question time, he invoked the "I" word -- Israel. Perhaps the greatest short-term threat to world peace, Edwards remarked, was the possibility that Israel would bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. As a chill descended on the gathering, the Edwards event was brought to a polite close." I have seen no retraction from Edwards, no claim from his camp that the authors are lying, nor any explanation thus far.
In all fairness I see no quotations around Edward's remarks. Nor any context. I also suspect the author of the piece was not present at the event so it's second hand hearsay type stuff.
trying to figure out what he said wrong? seems like we only have freedom of speech...if its politically correct. Kind of like Tim Hardaway apologizing for 'hating fags....why? its hi opinion and he's entitled to dislike anyone he wants.....especially those sword swallowing f#ing faggots!!!