The Veep Debate

[Paladin D]

Please try to not critize Edward's apparent watery eyes (at one point). My eyes tend to water easily for some odd reason, even when I'm in a good mood.

[Guest Aluigi]

it wasn't so much the watery eyes, it was more of that combined with this instant of a really sad face that made me CONVINCED he was gonna cry

[Iacobus]

[quote name='Aluigi' date='Oct 5 2004, 10:01 PM'] Iacobus, Cheney himself REFERENCED factcheck.org saying he didn't have enough time to go through all the haliburton stuff so they should just go there if they're interested. [/quote]
The overwhelming sense here is that Chency won. I am going to read up on it tm, factcheck should also have the anaylsis up by tm.

And Al, I am glad to hear that. I didn't watch the debate so I wouldn't have known. So yeh. But that is uber sweet.

I should start my homework tonite.

It takes two to tango.

[Guest Aluigi]

no one take my comments about him crying seriously, i'm just kidding around

[Ash Wednesday]

The "Senator Gone" diatribe was really brutal. "I didn't meet you until I walked onto the stage tonight."

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='Ash Wednesday' date='Oct 5 2004, 10:52 PM'] Edwards seemed like a nice young earnest boy protesting because his wise and grumpy old dad (Cheney) just grounded him for doing something stupid. [/quote]
That is a vry accurate description of the thing. I missed the end. Did Cheney ever make him start crying?

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='Aluigi' date='Oct 5 2004, 11:01 PM'] At one point, I honestly thought I saw a tear in Edwards eye i'm gonna see if I can zoom in on a pic of it and try to show it, cuz that'll make pspx havta vote bush, right? lol [/quote]
You will have to more than ust moisture gathering in the corner. I want a full fledged teardrop.

[J.R.D]

It was like a machine Gun and a stick and cheny was the the machine gun

[Ash Wednesday]

[img]http://photopile.com/photos/dead/auctions/149493.jpg[/img]

[StColette]

[quote name='Ash Wednesday' date='Oct 5 2004, 09:52 PM'] Very well put. Edwards seemed like a nice young earnest boy protesting because his wise and grumpy old dad (Cheney) just grounded him for doing something stupid. [/quote]
roflllllllll

[MC Just]

Cheney whooped his butt. You know though, I'm getting tired of hearing the democratic complaint about Iraq, some go as far as to say Bush is responsible for the americans dying over their...I will (seriously) leave this country if Kerry and Edwards wins.

[Iacobus]

[quote name='Ash Wednesday' date='Oct 5 2004, 10:34 PM'] The "Senator Gone" diatribe was really brutal. "I didn't meet you until I walked onto the stage tonight." [/quote]
I was reading about that today... and it makes sense.

The VEEP knows very few senetors, esp the democrats, and rarely goes to the Senate unless it is to preside over a GOP meeting.

Bush just made me sick today, as a side note.

[Iacobus]

Something is up with FactCheck.org right now. If it doesn't open just keep trying. And FactCheck Dot Come, Mr. VP, was not the site you were thinking of, nevermind that they rerouted that url to the owner of "Swift Boats For Truth"'s site.


[url="http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=272"]http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=272[/url]

[quote]Cheney's "First Time"

Cheney claimed Edwards has such a poor attendance record in the Senate that he was just meeting Edwards for the first time during the debate, even though Cheney visits the Senate every Tuesday. But the Kerry-Edwards campaign quickly documented at least two instances in which Cheney had met Edwards previously. Edwards escorted Elizabeth Dole when she was sworn in as North Carolina's other senator on January 8, 2003, according to Gannet News Service. Cheney administered the oath.

Cheney also was present with Edwards at a National Prayer Breakfast on Feb. 1, 2001, when a transcript shows Cheney acknowledged Edwards among those at the gathering:

    Cheney: (Feb. 1, 2001): Thank you. Thank you very much. Congressman Watts, Senator Edwards, friends from across America and distinguished visitors to our country from all over the world, Lynne and I are honored to be with you all this morning.[/quote]

[quote]Jobs Figures

Both Edwards and Cheney quoted selective and misleading figures about jobs, and even Cheney got confused.

Edwards said 1.6 million private sector jobs and 2.7 million manufacturing jobs had been lost during the Bush administration. Both figures are accurate, but omit the growth in employment by federal, state and local governments. The net loss in total employment is actually 913,000 as of August, the most recent figures available.

Cheney claimed Edwards was using old data from 2003, which wasn't the case.

Cheney correctly noted that 1.7 million jobs have been added in the past year, since payroll employment bottomed out in August of last year. New employment figures are due on Friday from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the last report before election day. It now appears certain that Bush and Cheney will end their term with payroll employment still below where it was when they took office, the first time that's happened since the Hoover administration.[/quote]

[quote]Cheney Overstates Iraq Resolution

Cheney repeatedly said Edwards had voted "for the war" and "to commit the troops," when in fact the Iraq resolution that both Kerry and Edwards supported left the decision to the president and called for intensified diplomacy.

The resolution for which Edwards and Kerry voted said, "The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate."

And Edwards made clear in a statement at the time of his vote that he hoped to avoid war by enlisting broad support from the United Nations and US allies:

    Edwards ( Oct. 10, 2002 ): I believe we should act now for two reasons: first, bipartisan congressional action on a strong, unambiguous resolution, like the one before us now, will strengthen America's hand as we seek support from the Security Council and seek to enlist the cooperation of our allies.

    If the administration continues its strong, if belated, diplomacy, backed by the bipartisan resolve of the Congress, I believe the United States will succeed in rallying many allies to our side.

    Second, strong domestic support and a broad international coalition will make it less likely that force would need to be used.

In fact, not even Bush himself characterized the resolution as a vote "for war" at the time. Speaking at the White House Rose Garden Oct. 2, 2002, Bush said:

    Bush (Oct. 2, 2002): None of us here today desire to see military conflict, because we know the awful nature of war. Our country values life, and never seeks war unless it is essential to security and to justice. America's leadership and willingness to use force, confirmed by the Congress, is the best way to ensure compliance and avoid conflict. Saddam must disarm, period. If, however, he chooses to do otherwise, if he persists in his defiance, the use of force may become unavoidable.
[/quote]

[quote]Edwards on Halliburton: Partial Credit

We can only give Edwards partial credit for his Halliburton attack, however. He implied that Cheney was in charge of the company when it did business with Libya in violation of US sanctions, but that happened long before Cheney joined the company.

Edwards was also slightly off when he said Halliburton paid millions in fines "while he (Cheney) was CEO." What he meant was that it paid fines for matters that took place while Cheney was in charge. And in fact, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced Aug. 3 that Halliburton will pay $7.5 million to settle a matter that dates back to 1998, when Cheney was CEO.

Halliburton failed to disclose a change in its accounting procedures that resulted in making its earnings look better. Cheney himself was not charged with any wrongdoing, however. The SEC said Cheney "provided sworn testimony and cooperated willingly and fully in the investigation."

On other matters, Edwards said Halliburton "did business with Libya and Iran, two sworn enemies of the United States" and is now "under investigation for having bribed foreign officials" while Cheney was CEO.

    *
      Iran: Indeed, Halliburton has said it does about $30 million to $40 million in oilfield service business in Iran annually through a subsidiary, Halliburton Products and Services Ltd. The company says that the subsidiary fully complies with US sanctions laws, but the matter currently is under investigation by a federal grand jury in Houston.
    * Bribery Investigation: U.S. and French authorities currently are investigating whether a joint venture whose partners included a Halliburton subsidiary paid bribes or kickbacks to win a $12 billion construction project in Nigeria.
    *
      Libya: Edwards was wrong to include Libya, however.  In 1995, before Cheney joined the company, Halliburton pled guilty to criminal charges that it violated the U.S. ban on exports to Libya and said it would pay $3.81 million in fines. Those violations dated back to 1987 and 1990.[/quote]

[quote]Cheney Plugs FactCheck

Cheney got our domain name wrong -- calling us "FactCheck.com" -- and wrongly implied that we had rebutted allegations Edwards was making about what Cheney had done as chief executive officer of Halliburton.

In fact, we did post an article pointing out that Cheney hasn't profited personally while in office from Halliburton's Iraq contracts, as falsely implied by a Kerry TV ad. But Edwards was talking about Cheney's responsibility for earlier Halliburton troubles. And in fact, Edwards was mostly right.[/quote]

[quote]Other Dubious Claims.

    *
      Cheney used a misleading figure to support the idea that the administration was "deeply concerned" about the toll that AIDS has taken on poor countries, stating that the administration has "proposed and gotten through the Congress authorization for $15 billion to help in the international effort." That's true, but the $15-billion figure was to be spread over five years -- and when it came to asking for money to be actually appropriated and spent Bush sought only $2 billion for the fiscal year that just ended. Congress increased that to $2.4 billion.
    *
      Cheney and Edwards both made misleading statements about each other's education records, specifically on the No Child Left Behind law. Cheney claimed "they were for it; now they're against it." But while Kerry has criticized the law as being underfunded and called for some changes he has not called for the law's repeal. Edwards claimed "they said they were going to fund their No Child Left Behind; $27 billion short today." In fact, overall federal funding for education grew 58% in Bush's first three years, though many governors and congressional Democrats say even more is required.
    *
      Cheney said Edwards "has got his facts wrong. I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11." But The Washington Post reported Oct. 6 that Cheney often "skated close to the line in ways that may have certainly left that impression on viewers," especially by repeatedly citing the possibility that hijacker Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi official, a theory disputed by the 9/11 Commission.
    *
      Cheney claimed Kerry had voted 98 times to raise taxes. As we've pointed out before, that's an inflated figure that counts multiple votes on the same tax bills, and also counts votes on budget measures that only set tax targets but don't actually bring about tax increases by themselves.[/quote]

I posted those because they were the replies to the issues (statements) most brought up in this thread. Kinda weakens any Chency victoy.

[Guest Aluigi]

i'm not concerned about Cheney meeting Edwards before, it was a personal story to get accross the point that Edwards had a bad attendence record.

Kerry/Edwards voted to give the President the POWER TO GO TO WAR. That was the point. You cannot give power to go to war and make the decision UP TO THE PRESIDENT and then claim you didn't support the war. I still think Cheney got him on that. they all of course wanted to avoid war, the disagreement came when Bush saw Sadam being up to his old tricks still refusing to comply and took that as a sign that the threat they had made needed to be backed up with action.

What about when Cheney CRUSHED edwards on the casualty figures by factoring in the Iraqui Sequirity forces which are not TECHNICALLY "the coalition" but still allies helping us fight to secure the country.

[Paladin D]

Don't forget about [b]Edwards[/b].


[quote]Summary



Cheney wrongly implied that FactCheck had defended his tenure as CEO of Halliburton Co., and the vice president even got our name wrong. He overstated matters when he said Edwards voted "for the war" and "to commit the troops, to send them to war." He exaggerated the number of times Kerry has voted to raise taxes, and puffed up the number of small business owners who would see a tax increase under Kerry's proposals.

Edwards  falsely claimed the administration "lobbied the Congress" to cut the combat pay of troops in Iraq, something the White House never supported, and he used misleading numbers about jobs.[/quote]


[quote]"Lobbied to Cut Combat Pay"

Edwards: They sent 40,000 American troops into Iraq without the body armor they needed. They sent them without the armored vehicles they needed. While they were on the ground fighting, they lobbied the Congress to cut their combat pay. This is the height of hypocrisy.

-0-

They said that they supported the troops; and then while our troops were on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, they went to the Congress and lobbied to have their combat pay cut.

Cutting Combat Pay?

Edwards twice accused the administration of having "lobbied the Congress" to cut the combat pay of troops in Iraq, when in fact the White House never supported such a plan.

Rather, the Defense Department proposed allowing a temporary pay increase for all troops worldwide (even those not in Iraq or Afghanistan) to expire, and promised to maintain current pay levels for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan with separate pay raises if necessary.

Army Times reported in its issue for the week ending Aug. 18, 2003 that a Pentagon budget assessment sent to Congress in July called for letting a temporary combat pay raise enacted earlier that year for troops worldwide expire at the end of the fiscal year, Sept. 30. The result would have been a cut of $75 a month in "imminent danger pay" and $150 a month in "family separation allowances."

But according to an Aug. 15 American Forces Press Service report, David S.C. Chu, defense undersecretary for personnel and readiness, said the department could raise hardship duty pay or incentive pay. The bottom line: "We are not going to reduce their compensation," Chu said. The Pentagon also said in an Aug. 14 news release : "This is an issue of targeting those most deserving, and certainly people serving in Iraq and Afghanistan are in these categories."[/quote]


Why must politicans lie to achieve their agendas? If I was a politican, I wouldn't lie (though there would be a temptation to do so). It's pathetic to see how politics are these days.