The OAO Vice Presidential Debate Thread

[NoCalMike 0]

aw yes.. the paranoid "Cheney didn't preside over the Senate" conspiracy.

 

Granted.. how the hell that would be a conspiracy.. I don't know. Cheney probably got the Queer Eye guys to make over Ted Stevens so he looked like Dick Cheney, or something

isn't it also true that Cheney voted the same exact way as Kerry did on Military/Defense spending over the last twenty years, sanz two times?

[Guest MikeSC]

aw yes.. the paranoid "Cheney didn't preside over the Senate" conspiracy.

 

Granted.. how the hell that would be a conspiracy.. I don't know. Cheney probably got the Queer Eye guys to make over Ted Stevens so he looked like Dick Cheney, or something

isn't it also true that Cheney voted the same exact way as Kerry did on Military/Defense spending over the last twenty years, sanz two times?

Possibly. I guess Cheney better not be elected President. Oh wait, he isn't RUNNING for President.

 

I'll just say this: The left has shown a thorough inability to state when their guy didn't do well. The right had few problems saying Bush hardly looked good against Kerry on Thurs.

-=Mike

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Kerry's also inconsistent, and consistantly wrong

 

then again..

 

"My opponent says he has a plan for Iraq. Parts of it should sound pretty familiar -- it's already known as the Bush plan."

"In Iraq, Senator Kerry has a strategy of retreat; I have a strategy of victory"

 

(math says: Kerry plan = retreat + Bush plan, Bush plan = victory + other good stuff. Then again, this is from a President who has run up the deficit and calls his opponent a "Tax and Spend Liberal".. as if Bush didn't spend enough so far)

 

what is the deal with all these politicians using the "[My name] Plan" term?

 

it seem more constant than in previous elections. Even the Republican running for Congress has her "Patterson Plan".. we're the victims of a plan epidemic here.

[Guest GreatOne]

Don't forget, John Kerry-Edwards has a plan!!!!!!!!

 

OK it's dying, regardless of the new name twist....................

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

I guess "blah blah has an idea" or "blah blah has a strategy" isn't hard-hitting enough

[Lil' Bitch 0]

I felt Cheney ONWED Edwards in the debate. Dick came off with more style and substance. Beautiful cheapshots with the "This is the first time I ever met you" sentence and the "His track record speaks for itself" line was awesome.

 

Plus, Edward didn't remember some of the questions and it had to be repeated to him, showing me he wasn't paying attention.

 

He also went back to getting the final say so on a previous when he was supposed to be talking the current subject. Last time I checked, you weren't supposed to do that in a debate.

 

It also seemed to me he was just repeating the same stuff. Over and over again. I'm like Alright, Edwards. we fucking get it on what your plans are going to be.

[bob_barron 0]

Well, it seems to me that Cheney had no problems going off-topic at certain points throughout the debate. In fact, I distinctly remember Cheney being asked a question about the situation in Israel, saying that he "wanted to go back to the previous question" that referred to Halliburton, then launched into a nonsensical personal attack on Edwards' voting records. He already went completely off-topic in this response from the original question. Why not use that time to actually address something in the debate - LIKE the Halliburton charges brought up only a moment ago - instead of going for the cheap low blow, which had become a trend throughout the night.

 

That's because on the issue of Israel- both men agreed pretty much that Israel was in the right and the attacks need to stop.

 

So why go into facts and figures when both him and Edwards pretty much agree on the same thing and Edwards has no record of being anti-Israel?

 

And, if we're even going to assume that Cheney had ONLY those 30 seconds - which is the completely wrong mindframe anyway - he could have done more in that short amount of time. Obviously, at this point, he should have it down pat just why all those charges against Halliburton are false, and he pretty much should be able to recite these reasons quite quickly. Instead, he said that Kerry and Edwards are putting up a "smokescreen" - a comment that was repeated incorrectly several times throughout the night - and gave the public the wrong web address.

 

He failed with this subject.

 

IT. TAKES. MORE. THEN. 30. SECONDS. TO. DEFEND. HALIBURTON.

 

I don't understand why you're just sticking to these incredibly weak points.

 

 

You're still assuming a lot. You can not take for granted that people tuned into the post debate analysis long enough to get the correct website - especially since it's not a guarantee that this analytic shows even released the correct web address anyway.

 

Still kicked Edwards ass? Hardly.

 

I hope to God in Friday's debate all George W. Bush does wrong is give a wrong web address. That is all.

 

 

It seems to me he had the rest of the night to do that if he wished. Perhaps he just didn't know how.

 

 

This is a myth that I'm afraid people around here are beginning to believe. Edwards brought quite a few facts into this debate, and it'd be nice if you bothered to listen to them.

 

After Cheney tried to attack Edwards on his voting record, John was able to come back with his own criticisms. Like how Cheney voted against making Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday a national holiday.

 

Or when Cheney called against the release of Nelson Mandela.

 

Or when Cheney voted against Head Start.

 

How about when Dick was against the Meals for Wheels senior program?

 

As Powerplay said- Cheney showed that Edwards and Kerry had a consistent voting record on various issues while Cheney voted against those things once.

 

I never got why MLK Day was a holiday- but it's a nice day off.

 

Edwards mentioned certain facts about the Halliburton deal that, in this debate, were not contested at all. How the company got a $7.5 million no-bid contract in Iraq, and instead of part of their money being withheld, which is the way it's normally done, because they're under investigation, they've continued to get their money. Certainly something that could remain with the American public.

 

I don't get what that has to do with Cheney. Bother the Army.

 

When Cheney brought up the benefits of the No Child Left Behind Act, Edwards made sure to mention that they didn't fund the mandates they put in schools all over the country. As a result, over 800 teachers had to be laid off in Cleveland alone.

 

Powerplay nailed that one.

 

Stop with the rhetoric that Edwards didn't have facts.

 

I could bring up more if you'd like. He had facts about Cheney's voting record. He had facts about the Bush/Cheney policies.

 

You're spouting the "Edwards had no facts" line so much that I'm afraid you might be believing it.

 

Please do. But you said you were leaving the thread since as usual when you try to debate issues you get owned and run away.

 

Edwards had weak talking points that got shredded and facts that never rattled Cheney.

 

 

If the Kerry/Edwards stance on the issue is the one that pleases the most people, why is that a problem?

 

Because it's a stupid plan and it's just their attempt to appeal to as many people as possible.

 

Bush is dividing the country on the issue of gay marriage by taking such a hard, one-sided viewpoint on it. Not only does he want gays to NOT have the right to marry, he wants to make it a constitutional amendment that it not be allowed. He doesn't want gay couples to have any of the same rights that opposite-sex couples have at this point.

 

Good for President Bush. Let the country debate it out. Let the people decide. Let it be in the public forefront.

 

Unlike Kerry and Edwards' plan of 'Well ummm benefits not marriage states I don't know!'

 

I'm glad we have someone who took a stance on the issue.

 

 

 

 

So then you shouldn't note that Cheney has broken ranks with the President on gay marriage. Not only does it not accomplish anything, but it makes Bush look even worse that he plans to move on with the idea to step on gay rights, despite the fact that his own Vice President has a gay daughter. Miscommunication all around.

 

This is probably the dumbest thing you've said.

 

Cheney has his stance. Bush has his. I'm sure Cheney and Bush are fine with it. Should Cheney quit?

 

 

QUOTE

CHENEY CAN'T DO ANYTHING. He can't vote on anything (unless it's a tie), he can't block a bill. Should he resign cause he disagrees with President Bush on one issue? Edwards obviously had no real stance on gay marriage so he tried to bring a man's personal life into the forefront to make a point. He failed.

 

 

 

Again, there was an actual reason behind bringing the man's personal life into the topic. Can you not see that there is a problem with our President if he blatantly disregards the fact that his own Vice President has a homosexual daughter? Can you not see that there is a problem if our Vice President is not taking a bigger stand to rally for his daughter to actually have some rights as a gay American?

 

Edwards brought Cheney's daughter into the debate for just a moment, to show the unique hypocrisy that is facing the Bush administration.

 

He succeeded.

 

Actually he failed miserably. The goal was to get Cheney to disagree with Bush so Edwards could jump all over it. Cheney calmed thanked Edwards for his kind words and didn't take the bait. I guarantee Edwards would've.

 

You really have no case here.

 

Look in other threads then.

 

Mike and GreatOne - who I'm convinced are the same person - couldn't wait for Cheney to thrash him on the subject of health care.

 

Didn't quite happen that way.

 

I asked for a source. You can't provide one.

 

Me: 1

You: 0

 

 

Then there's a double standard here. If it's okay for Cheney to go off the topic to answer something else, then it should certainly be okay for Edwards to do it.

 

It is since whenever Edwards would try to hammer him Cheney would point out the fact that he's never there to vote on anything.

 

Also, I don't see where you got this notion that Edwards kept going back to talk about health care. I believe he only did it one more time after the question had passed. He really didn't go back and constantly harp on it, so I don't know where this is coming from.

 

Because he did. Since that's the only thing he remotely knew what he was talking about.

 

 

Cheney said Kerry's tax-cut rollback would hit 900,000 small businesses. This is also misleading. According to IRS data, a tiny fraction of small business "S-corporations" earn enough profits to be in the top two tax brackets. Most are in the bottom two brackets.

 

Cheney charged that Kerry voted 98 times to raise taxes. But factcheck.org - the same site that Cheney TRIED to advertise during the debate - said that nearly half of those motions weren't necessarily for tax increases, but just to continue the procedural motion.

 

Let's not forget that Cheney also said Kerry and Edwards were opposed to the No Child Left Behind Act when, in fact, both men voted for the law and supported modifications to fund billions of dollars in order to support the program.

 

Cheney not only went off topic when he tried to attack Edwards.

 

He was misleading and wrong when he did it!

 

Why didn't Edwards call him on this like you did?

 

And Cheney did say they supported it- but then now say they don't.

 

And now we're back to the fact that you didn't understand Edwards closing statements.

 

I understand what he meant. He failed.

 

 

 

Let me give you a lesson about speech-writing.

 

To get the audience's attention early and in a powerful way, it's often good to begin with a personal anecdote. Edwards did this by noting how his father used to sit in front of the television and try to learn mathematics, with the hope that he could improve his own status. The American Dream is to have the opportunity to improve yourself in this country, and Edwards father was trying to do that. Edwards then shifted the statement smoothly to show that the Bush administration has not kept this American Dream idea thriving like it once was.

 

I hope I don't have to sum up the message of the speech for you a third time.

 

It's funny how you acted all smug and smart here but then once again, like you always do, you ran away from the debate when your arguments started getting ripped to shreds. Kind of like the Toronto thread.

 

You really aren't good at this.

 

I understood what Edwards' was trying to do but he didn't do it effectively. I don't care that his father watched TV. I care about what Edwards can do for this country.

 

Give me a chance is not convincing.

 

 

 

The point was that Edwards dad was looking to study math on the television in order to try to move up in the country. Long ago, his dad had the hope that, in the United States, there was still the chance for upward mobility.

 

For many, that hope has disappeared in the United States under the Bush administration. Many are without jobs - those jobs, of course, being outsourced into other countries. Many are suffering when it comes to the financial situation, and thus it's nearly impossible for them to try to get out of the rut they currently sit in. And, of course, many feel the stranglehold that the rich have in this country is an insurmountable mountain to climb.

 

This wasn't the viewpoint years ago. Years ago, there was the viewpoint that anybody could succeed as long as they had a steady job and the desire to move upwards.

 

That viewpoint has changed.

 

Whether you agree with the idea is up to you. But that is the message Edwards was trying to convey, and I think it was a valid one.

 

With the closing statement, it was time to leave an impression on the American audience. Edwards already usd a wide array of facts throughout the entire debate - now it was time to really drive home the point.

 

I believe he did it with flying colors.

 

Edwards gets his ass handed to him the whole debate and then when he has the best chance to try and gain some momentum- he ignores the issues anf everything and just talks about his father.

 

He needs to understand he's not trying to get a guilty verdict. He's trying to become Vice President.

 

Cheney told me what I'd get and why I should vote for Bush/Cheney. Edwards didn't.

 

Cheney won- accept it and move on. Most Republicans accepted that Kerry did really well last Thursday.

 

You really are grossly misinformed.

 

These candidates are human. You can not fault a man like John Edwards to be somewhat nervous in the biggest night of his life thus far. Simple debate? Many were saying that the entire foundation of both campaigns could rely on this debate. If the Bush/Cheney ticket fell again in this debate, the Kerry/Edwards one could have gotten a measure of momentum that would have been difficult to come back from. If Kerry/Edwards completely failed here, that could have been the end of the election for them. There was a lot of pressure placed on this debate and Edwards, who had never been in this type of situation before, felt a little nervous about it.

 

You're so wrong it's frightening. Vice Presidential debates don't really mean much in the long run. It can help momentum and I think this will help the Bush-Cheney camp.

 

I understand he was nervous. But he let it affect his presentation. Cheney probably was nervous too. He didn't.

 

Was he sweating bullets? Hell no.

 

He was sweating.

 

Bob, you are quite the amazing man if you were never anxious about publically speaking to a larg amount of people before.

 

Perhaps John just doesn't have the poise you do.

 

 

Why, look at George W. Bush after all, then. I don't think there was ever a President that ever stumbled over his own words more, looked more dumbfounded during speeches and debates, and was just a worse public speaker.

 

But I guess we don't include him, huh?

 

And you know what? I'm such a partistian biased bastard that Bush's stumbling and long pausing really pissed me off and I felt really hurt what could've been a good performance. But I'm biased eh NY Untouchable?

 

It's a shame your bias steps in the way of seeing the truth.

 

It's a shame you're so fucking stupid.

[bob_barron 0]

Barron, if I were you, I would definitely hold off on the immature insults in this discussion. All the material I could use on you would last me a lifetime.

 

But of course instead of using it on me you run like a bitch.

 

Remember when you called me a gimmick poster and I repeatedly called you on it. Again- nothing.

 

I'm done with this thread. I've made my points, and I believe I've backed up those points well with solid facts. I don't see the point in responding to yet another long-winded Pro-Cheney post with an equally long-winded Pro-Edwards post. This carousel is just going to keep continuing circling repeatedly, with no one getting won over in the end. My opinion is known, I have backed up that opinion, and it would be foolish for me to spend another hour writing a ridiculously long post to defend that opinion yet again.

 

Translation: I really don't know what I'm talking about and I can't keep justifying trying to bring up someone's daughter up in a debate.

 

 

Let's just let the facts speak for themselves. Opinions on the debates last night have been mixed. Some feel Cheney came out as the winner. Some feel Edwards came out as the winner. Many feel that the debate turned out to be a tie. It's only when you walk into the TSM Current Events folder that the results become considerably skewed to the right. This folder does not represent the standard judgment of the Vice Presidential Debate. Opinions HAVE been mixed - look at all the news sources if you don't believe.

 

It's only in the TSM CE folder where people aren't blind. I don't agree with the debate being even at all (I think most news stations just call them even) and I let that known. You tried to be all YAY EDWARDS and you had nothing.

 

While I've enjoyed participating in this thread, there are still some problems that need to be addressed. Calling people "stupid" or "morons" for having a perfectly valid opinion is just ridiculous, and it hurts the quality of the discussion as a result. If posters would just hold off on the needless insults and the unfunny jokes - GreatOne, I'm staring right at you - debate in this folder would be much more intelligent. Some of the discussion in this thread worked out well, but it could have worked out better.

 

Either way, I'm done for this particular thread. I've made my point, and it would just be silly for me to type out one more incredibly long response about this debate. Why should it come to that? The next Bush/Kerry debate is coming up fast, and I'm sure discussion in that thread will be just as heated. Should be fun once again.

 

I'm glad you enjoyed the thrashing the TSM Conservative Brigade gave you. Come back again!

[Guest MikeSC]

Damn, did I just see the mild-mannered Bob Barron just bitchslap that guy or what?

 

*sniff* They grow up so fast.

-=Mike

[Styles 0]

Damn, did I just see the mild-mannered Bob Barron just bitchslap that guy or what?

 

*sniff* They grow up so fast. 

        -=Mike

It's always the quiet ones!

 

By the way, I would debunk all his distorted thoughts on the debate as well but Bob and Powerplay pretty much nailed it for me.

It's never been anything personal to me for John Kerry, but you don't know how happy I was to see that smoke and mirrors, sleazy, pandering, ankle biting, pretentious, in over his head, patronizing scum of a trial lawyer get absolutely owned. God willing he will never be a heart beat away from the presidency.

[Guest MikeSC]

It blows my mind that no liberal blog can actually admit that Edwards did so poorly.

-=Mike

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

Just out of curiousity, for the outspoken Republican voters in the thread/folder, would there be a democratic candidate that you might consider voting for had they won the nomination or whatever?

[Styles 0]

Just out of curiousity, for the outspoken Republican voters in the thread/folder, would there be a democratic candidate that you might consider voting for had they won the nomination or whatever?

Joe Lieberman, maybe Dick Gephart. I was open to John Kerry as well until he started selling out his opinions to please the Deaniacs. He lost me for good when he tagged on Edwards.

[bob_barron 0]

There's no real Democrat I can think of.

 

I like Lieberman but the whole PTC thing bothers me.

 

I may vote for Charles Schumer for Senate but that's just cause Howard Mills has nothing to ensure he has a hope in hell.

 

And thanks Mike and Slapnuts. :-)

[Lil' Bitch 0]

Just out of curiousity, for the outspoken Republican voters in the thread/folder, would there be a democratic candidate that you might consider voting for had they won the nomination or whatever?

 

The Democrats should have gone with Howard Dean, he was by far the best choice. He wasn't afraid to stand up for what he believed in, wouldn't take any shit from anybody, and the guy was full of energy, we need a leader like that! And then they picked old boring ass Kerry instead.

[Guest BDC]

Just out of curiousity, for the outspoken Republican voters in the thread/folder, would there be a democratic candidate that you might consider voting for had they won the nomination or whatever?

 

The Democrats should have gone with Howard Dean, he was by far the best choice. He wasn't afraid to stand up for what he believed in, wouldn't take any shit from anybody, and the guy was full of energy, we need a leader like that! And then they picked old boring ass Kerry instead.

Dean would have been a, I think, a better nominee for the Dems. Deon hit on the reasons, plus the fact that he'd be very stubborn with his stuff, which is good. Sticking to your guns is something I love to see in politicians and part of the reason I despise Kerry.

[2GOLD 0]

Dean would have been scary. I get the feeling at any moment he would have went to Florida and snapped an Alligator in half just to prove he could.

 

..now that I think about it.

 

DEAN 2008!

 

I'm trying to think if there is any Republican I'd vote for and I'm blanking.

[snuffbox 0]

Dean would have been better....but he would have eventually gotten McGoverned by the Dem establishment.

 

Of course, Kerry seems to be doing quite well these days...unfortunately for Bush, its the American public that decides the election and not the Republikid characters here at TSM...and the polls definitly show Kerry evening the race up with the President.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

Author's Note | I spent Tuesday evening watching the debate, and then writing about it. When I was done, I went to the website Dick Cheney told Americans to visit in order to get the truth about Kerry's record. Cheney said we should view 'FactCheck.com,' but as a seasoned internet scrambler, I knew immediately he meant 'FactCheck.org'. Not much difference between a .com and a .org, right?

 

Wrong. FactCheck.com is a website owned by George Soros. The banner headline across the top of the page reads 'WHY WE MUST NOT RE-ELECT PRESIDENT BUSH.' You can assume what the content to follow has to say, or you can go visit the site yourself. I'd love to see what Soros' hit counts look like on Wednesday morning. This is a fairly solid allegory for Dick Cheney's night at the desk. - wrp

 

 

 

Cheney's Avalanche of Lies

By William Rivers Pitt

t r u t h o u t | Perspective

 

Wednesday 06 October 2004

 

"The vice president, I'm surprised to hear him talk about records. When he was one of 435 members of the United States House, he was one of 10 to vote against Head Start, one of four to vote against banning plastic weapons that can pass through metal detectors. He voted against the Department of Education. He voted against funding for Meals on Wheels for seniors. He voted against a holiday for Martin Luther King. He voted against a resolution calling for the release of Nelson Mandela in South Africa. It's amazing to hear him criticize either my record or John Kerry's."

 

- Senator John Edwards, 10/05/04

 

Cheney and Edwards at the National Prayer Breakfast, 02/01/01

 

Clearly, Dick Cheney is no George W. Bush.

 

On Thursday night in Florida, Bush exposed himself as unprepared, easily ruffled, angry, excitable and muddled. As one wag put it, he came to a 90 minute debate with 10 minutes of material. On Tuesday night in Ohio, Cheney showed the American people who is really running things at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. He was controlled, calm, every inch the CEO in charge.

 

Cheney was also every inch the snarling, hunch-shouldered golem that has made him one of the least popular politicians in recent memory. He seldom looked up at moderator Gwen Ifill, or at the cameras facing him, choosing instead to speak into his own chest for the entire night. Cheney appeared, overall, to cut quite the frightening figure, the dark night to Edwards' optimistic day.

 

The other problem for Cheney, of course, was the way he lied with nearly every word that passed his curled lips. It was a virtuoso performance of prevarication, obfuscation and outright balderdash. On Thursday night, George W. Bush played the part of a man who couldn't possibly defend his record. On Tuesday night, Cheney acted as though that record did not exist.

 

Cheney was behind the eight-ball before he even entered the hall, tasked to defend his administration's rationale for invading and occupying Iraq. Unfortunately for him, journalists record statements made by important people. In 1992, then-Defense Secretary Cheney spoke to the Discovery Institute in Seattle, WA. Recall that the United States was flush from the trouncing of Iraq in the first Gulf War. Cheney was asked why coalition forces didn't roll tanks on Baghdad and depose Saddam Hussein. Cheney's response, given 14 years ago, could well describe the mess we currently find ourselves in.

 

"I would guess if we had gone in there," said Cheney in 1992, "I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home. And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties. And while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war."

 

For the record, 1,064 American soldiers have died in this second round of war in Iraq. An additional 138 soldiers from the 'coalition' Bush and Cheney assembled have also died, bringing the total to 1,202. Edwards made the point several times that the United States was bearing "90% of the coalition causalities" in Iraq, and that the American people are bearing "90% of the costs of the effort in Iraq." Cheney tried to say this wasn't true, but the body count numbers don't lie, and never mind the burden being carried by the Iraqi people, more than 20,000 of whom have perished since the invasion began.

 

"And the question in my mind," continued Cheney in 1992, "is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth? And the answer is not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."

 

Cheney's answer to this glaring contradiction, of course, is "September 11," i.e. the terrorist attacks changed everything. It doesn't change the facts of a disastrous occupation, or the overwhelming financial burden being placed on American taxpayers because of Bush administration failures, and it certainly doesn't explain 1,064 folded American flags handed to American families who thought their sons, daughters, husbands, wives, mothers and fathers were going to Iraq to destroy weapons of mass destruction and protect the United States.

 

Page 01 of the Washington Post for Wednesday 06 October carries an article titled 'Report Discounts Iraq Arms Threat,' which reads in paragraph one: "The government's most definitive account of Iraq's arms programs, to be released today, will show that Saddam Hussein posed a diminishing threat at the time the United States invaded and did not possess, or have concrete plans to develop, nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, U.S. officials said yesterday."

 

Yes, the lies were thick before Cheney took his seat at the desk on Tuesday night. They got thicker. Edwards, in a theme repeated throughout the night, stated that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the attacks of September 11, and that the Bush administration had erred grievously by diverting attention from Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda and into Iraq. Several times, Edwards accused Cheney of rhetorically combining Iraq and 9/11.

 

"I have not," replied Cheney, "suggested there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11."

 

Hm.

 

"His regime has had high-level contacts with al Qaeda going back a decade and has provided training to al Qaeda terrorists." - Cheney, 12/2/02

 

"His regime aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. He could decide secretly to provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against us." - Cheney, 1/30/03

 

"I think there's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government." - Cheney, 1/22/04

 

"There's been enormous confusion over the Iraq and al-Qaeda connection, Gloria. First of all, on the question of - of whether or not there was any kind of a relationship, there was a relationship. It's been testified to. The evidence is overwhelming. It goes back to the early '90s...There's clearly been a relationship." - Cheney, 6/17/04

 

One could argue, perhaps, the definition of "is" on this matter. Cheney did not state specifically in any of the above quotes that Iraq was involved with 9/11. But the repeated claim that Iraq was connected to al Qaeda, a claim that has been shot to pieces dozens of times over, establishes enough of an Iraq-9/11 connection to satisfy a man who appears to believe that a frightened populace is a happy populace.

 

George W. Bush doesn't even believe Cheney on this point. An article by Reuters from September 18, 2003, had Bush telling reporters, "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in September 11." Bush was forced into this scramble because his Vice President had, again, made this discredited connection between Iraq and 9/11 on 'Meet the Press' the previous Sunday by claiming, "more and more" evidence was being found to justify the connection. It wasn't true then, and it isn't true now.

 

Cheney's unruffled, monotone demeanor became demonstrably agitated only a few times on Tuesday, but those times were telling. They came when John Edwards mentioned Halliburton. Edwards accused Halliburton, essentially, of war profiteering, and went so far as to describe how the company, while run by Cheney, was trading with nations now considered to be enemies of America.

 

"While he was CEO of Halliburton," said Edwards, "they paid millions of dollars in fines for providing false information on their company, just like Enron and Ken Lay. They did business with Libya and Iran, two sworn enemies of the United States. They're now under investigation for having bribed foreign officials during that period of time. Not only that, they've gotten a $7.5 billion no-bid contract in Iraq, and instead of part of their money being withheld, which is the way it's normally done, because they're under investigation, they've continued to get their money."

 

Cheney was allotted 30 seconds to reply to this explosive charge. His response: "The reason they keep mentioning Halliburton is because they're trying to throw up a smokescreen. They know the charges are false."

 

Edwards' reply to this in-depth rejoinder: "These are the facts. The facts are the vice president's company that he was CEO of, that did business with sworn enemies of the United States, paid millions of dollars in fines for providing false financial information, it's under investigation for bribing foreign officials. The same company that got a $7.5 billion no-bid contract, the rule is that part of their money is supposed to be withheld when they're under investigation, as they are now, for having overcharged the American taxpayer, but they're getting every dime of their money."

 

A few more facts: According to the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Houston Chronicle, the New York Times, the Petroleum Economist and scores of other reporters and media outlets, Halliburton in the time of Dick Cheney dealt with both Iraq, Iran and Libya through a variety of subsidiaries and in defiance of scores of international sanctions. Cheney did not like the sanctions against these countries, and went out of his way to make sure Halliburton could get around them and turn a tidy profit.

 

On June 13, 2000, one month before joining the Republican presidential ticket, the Los Angeles Times reported Cheney's claim that, "We're kept out of (Iran) primarily by our own government, which has made a decision that U.S. firms should not be allowed to invest significantly in Iran, and I think that's a mistake." When speaking to the Cato Institute on June 23, 1998, Cheney stated, "Unfortunately, Iran is sitting right in the middle of the (Caspian Sea) area and the United States has declared unilateral economic sanctions against that country. As a result, American firms are prohibited from dealing with Iran and find themselves cut out of the action."

 

Cut out of the action?

 

It went on like this for 90 minutes, and got quite silly at one point. Cheney tried to paint Edwards as an absentee Senator by claiming he'd not met Edwards until that night. CNN and the other networks, a couple of hours later, began showing video of the two of them sitting together for several hours during the National Prayer Breakfast in February of 2001. It seems a silly thing to lie about, what with all the chaos and dead people we're all dealing with, but the media appeared happy to seize upon it. So it goes.

 

Cheney looked for all the world as if the whole thing bored him. One can hardly blame him. When your entire professional and political career is a tapestry of untruths, telling them again for the umpteenth time could indeed be quite dull.

 

William Rivers Pitt is a New York Times and international bestseller of two books - 'War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know' and 'The Greatest Sedition is Silence.'

 

-------

 

 

 

Still, isn't gonna get me to vote for Kerry/Edwards, but HEY its almost as good as a vote for Bush/Cheney right guys?

[Guest MikeSC]

Wow, that was a whole lot of nothing.

-=Mike

[Guest GreatOne]

Wow, Cheesy bringing the relevance again...................

[Guest MikeSC]

Aw hell, I'm bored enough.

Cheney was also every inch the snarling, hunch-shouldered golem that has made him one of the least popular politicians in recent memory.

Demonized by the menstrual left is hardly universal hatred.

He seldom looked up at moderator Gwen Ifill, or at the cameras facing him, choosing instead to speak into his own chest for the entire night. Cheney appeared, overall, to cut quite the frightening figure, the dark night to Edwards' optimistic day.

Hm, methinks the author has a crush.

 

Cheney was behind the eight-ball before he even entered the hall, tasked to defend his administration's rationale for invading and occupying Iraq. Unfortunately for him, journalists record statements made by important people. In 1992, then-Defense Secretary Cheney spoke to the Discovery Institute in Seattle, WA. Recall that the United States was flush from the trouncing of Iraq in the first Gulf War. Cheney was asked why coalition forces didn't roll tanks on Baghdad and depose Saddam Hussein. Cheney's response, given 14 years ago, could well describe the mess we currently find ourselves in.

 

    "I would guess if we had gone in there," said Cheney in 1992, "I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home. And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties. And while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war."

Of course, mentality on such problems changed with --- well, you know.

 

We learned that half-assing things and not taking advantage of all things you can to stop terrorism can bite us in the ass. Hell, Clinton learned that lesson with his OBL policies in the 1990's.

 

I'd rather have a President who DOESN'T half-ass things.

For the record, 1,064 American soldiers have died in this second round of war in Iraq. An additional 138 soldiers from the 'coalition' Bush and Cheney assembled have also died, bringing the total to 1,202. Edwards made the point several times that the United States was bearing "90% of the coalition causalities" in Iraq, and that the American people are bearing "90% of the costs of the effort in Iraq." Cheney tried to say this wasn't true, but the body count numbers don't lie, and never mind the burden being carried by the Iraqi people, more than 20,000 of whom have perished since the invasion began.

So, Iraqi deaths count --- only when their unverifiable civilian deaths?

 

The Iraqis are fighting with us. Obviously, they are A PART OF THE COALITION. But, hey, letting facts slow down a story probably hasn't been a problem with anybody from this site.

Page 01 of the Washington Post for Wednesday 06 October carries an article titled 'Report Discounts Iraq Arms Threat,' which reads in paragraph one: "The government's most definitive account of Iraq's arms programs, to be released today, will show that Saddam Hussein posed a diminishing threat at the time the United States invaded and did not possess, or have concrete plans to develop, nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, U.S. officials said yesterday."

And since the author CLEARLY didn't read the report, he CLEARLY doesn't have a clue.

I have not," replied Cheney, "suggested there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11."

 

    Hm.

 

    "His regime has had high-level contacts with al Qaeda going back a decade and has provided training to al Qaeda terrorists." - Cheney, 12/2/02

Hmm, that links Iraq to 9/11 --- how?

"His regime aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. He could decide secretly to provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against us." - Cheney, 1/30/03

Same question.

"I think there's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government." - Cheney, 1/22/04

Notice a theme?

"There's been enormous confusion over the Iraq and al-Qaeda connection, Gloria. First of all, on the question of - of whether or not there was any kind of a relationship, there was a relationship. It's been testified to. The evidence is overwhelming. It goes back to the early '90s...There's clearly been a relationship." - Cheney, 6/17/04

Damned factual accuracy.

One could argue, perhaps, the definition of "is" on this matter. Cheney did not state specifically in any of the above quotes that Iraq was involved with 9/11.

But, but, you "Edwards accused Cheney of rhetorically combining Iraq and 9/11" was a legitimate argument -- but you just said what Cheney said.

But the repeated claim that Iraq was connected to al Qaeda, a claim that has been shot to pieces dozens of times over, establishes enough of an Iraq-9/11 connection to satisfy a man who appears to believe that a frightened populace is a happy populace.

Umm, shot to pieces by whom? Not the 9/11 Commission.

George W. Bush doesn't even believe Cheney on this point. An article by Reuters from September 18, 2003, had Bush telling reporters, "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in September 11."

Which, while admittedly hard to follow, doesn't begin to actually contradict a word Cheney said.

Bush was forced into this scramble because his Vice President had, again, made this discredited connection between Iraq and 9/11 on 'Meet the Press' the previous Sunday by claiming, "more and more" evidence was being found to justify the connection. It wasn't true then, and it isn't true now.

News to the 9/11 Commission.

Cheney's unruffled, monotone demeanor became demonstrably agitated only a few times on Tuesday, but those times were telling. They came when John Edwards mentioned Halliburton. Edwards accused Halliburton, essentially, of war profiteering, and went so far as to describe how the company, while run by Cheney, was trading with nations now considered to be enemies of America.

 

    "While he was CEO of Halliburton," said Edwards, "they paid millions of dollars in fines for providing false information on their company, just like Enron and Ken Lay. They did business with Libya and Iran, two sworn enemies of the United States. They're now under investigation for having bribed foreign officials during that period of time. Not only that, they've gotten a $7.5 billion no-bid contract in Iraq, and instead of part of their money being withheld, which is the way it's normally done, because they're under investigation, they've continued to get their money."

 

    Cheney was allotted 30 seconds to reply to this explosive charge. His response: "The reason they keep mentioning Halliburton is because they're trying to throw up a smokescreen. They know the charges are false."

 

    Edwards' reply to this in-depth rejoinder: "These are the facts. The facts are the vice president's company that he was CEO of, that did business with sworn enemies of the United States, paid millions of dollars in fines for providing false financial information, it's under investigation for bribing foreign officials. The same company that got a $7.5 billion no-bid contract, the rule is that part of their money is supposed to be withheld when they're under investigation, as they are now, for having overcharged the American taxpayer, but they're getting every dime of their money."

 

    A few more facts: According to the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Houston Chronicle, the New York Times, the Petroleum Economist and scores of other reporters and media outlets, Halliburton in the time of Dick Cheney dealt with both Iraq, Iran and Libya through a variety of subsidiaries and in defiance of scores of international sanctions. Cheney did not like the sanctions against these countries, and went out of his way to make sure Halliburton could get around them and turn a tidy profit.

 

    On June 13, 2000, one month before joining the Republican presidential ticket, the Los Angeles Times reported Cheney's claim that, "We're kept out of (Iran) primarily by our own government, which has made a decision that U.S. firms should not be allowed to invest significantly in Iran, and I think that's a mistake." When speaking to the Cato Institute on June 23, 1998, Cheney stated, "Unfortunately, Iran is sitting right in the middle of the (Caspian Sea) area and the United States has declared unilateral economic sanctions against that country. As a result, American firms are prohibited from dealing with Iran and find themselves cut out of the action."

 

    Cut out of the action?

A CEO has only one concern: Helping his COMPANY. And he could have disagreed with federal policy. So be it. I doubt many people would have supported Clinton seizing OBL when he was President.

 

And it's a real shame how factually inaccurate the claims are.

Cheney tried to paint Edwards as an absentee Senator by claiming he'd not met Edwards until that night.

Pretty damned effectively to boot.

CNN and the other networks, a couple of hours later, began showing video of the two of them sitting together for several hours during the National Prayer Breakfast in February of 2001. It seems a silly thing to lie about, what with all the chaos and dead people we're all dealing with, but the media appeared happy to seize upon it. So it goes.

You know what's odd?

 

Edwards didn't try and correct it?

 

We have two options: It was either hyperbole, and if so, it was gold.

Or Edwards is of so little consequence that Cheney forgot about him. Which is hardly praise.

Cheney looked for all the world as if the whole thing bored him.

Agreed. But, hey, he was debating a flywieight.

One can hardly blame him. When your entire professional and political career is a tapestry of untruths, telling them again for the umpteenth time could indeed be quite dull.

 

    William Rivers Pitt is a New York Times and international bestseller of two books - 'War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know' and 'The Greatest Sedition is Silence.'

You know what's weird? That last sentence actually fits Mr. Pitt to a tee.

-=Mike

[Guest whitemilesdavis]

I don't want to derail the left vs. right debate going on here, but did anyone else think that the lady moderating this debate did a horrible job?

She seemed very over-her-head to me. Of course, there was the mistake in giving Edwards the 15 seconds, but there were also several other things that stood out to me as amateurish.

[Guest MikeSC]

I don't want to derail the left vs. right debate going on here, but did anyone else think that the lady moderating this debate did a horrible job?

She seemed very over-her-head to me. Of course, there was the mistake in giving Edwards the 15 seconds, but there were also several other things that stood out to me as amateurish.

She was a vast improvement over Lehrer. And I suspect she'll be better than Bob Schieffer.

 

Of course, I also think Bush should have refused to have Schieffer as a mod, considering CBS' track record with him.

-=Mike

[Guest whitemilesdavis]

I thought Lehrer did what he was supposed to do - stay out of the way. She was an unsettling prescence at the debate. It shouldn't be her job to get the debaters off, only to ask the questions, and move the night along smoothly. I thought she was pathetic on all counts.

[Guest MikeSC]

I thought Lehrer did what he was supposed to do - stay out of the way. She was an unsettling prescence at the debate. It shouldn't be her job to get the debaters off, only to ask the questions, and move the night along smoothly. I thought she was pathetic on all counts.

I thought Lehrer asked some insanely horrible questions, while Ifill did not.

 

OT: Somebody has hacked Electoral-vote.com. Well, unless you believe Kerry has 98% of the vote in every state...

-=Mike

[Guest whitemilesdavis]

I thought her gay marriage question to Cheney, and experience question to Edwards were rediculous. There was no answer for either of them. They were only asked to get a reaction.

Oh, the whole "don't say the candidates name" question was incredibly dumb too.

 

Well, unless you believe Kerry has 98% of the vote in every state...

 

Wow, I knew he cleaned up in the debate, but I never knew it would cause that kind of swing.

[Guest MikeSC]

What I don't get it --- why is the press making a huge deal about Cheney and Edwards having met --- YET, not a word about the glaring inaccuracy of Edwards' "millionaires laying around their pool pay a lower tax percentage than soldiers in Iraq"?

 

Which, Edwards should know, is false since troops in a war zone don't PAY taxes.

-=Mike

[Guest whitemilesdavis]

Yeah, that was stupid, but so stupid it could be taken as sarcasm. Cheney seemed dead serious.

 

But yeah, both made stupid comments.

[Guest MikeSC]

Yeah, that was stupid, but so stupid it could be taken as sarcasm. Cheney seemed dead serious.

 

But yeah, both made stupid comments.

Edwards comment couldn't be confused as sarcasm. It was either a lie or he was too ill-informed to know the truth.

-=Mike