A Compendium of Cheney Lies

UberLutheran · Oct 6, 2004

Dick Cheney said:
Cheney: "You've missed a lot of key votes .... Your hometown newspaper has taken to calling you Senator Gone. You've got one of the worst attendance records in the United States Senate. Now, in my capacity as vice president, I am the president of Senate, the presiding officer. I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in session. The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight.''

THE TRUTHEdwards has indeed missed many votes and hearings since he began running for office, notably skipping a vote on energy policy that would have forced him to choose between the competing interests of Iowans and New Hampshire residents. Cheney is on the Hill on Tuesdays, but he is virtually unseen. Cheney attends weekly Republican lunches, and is only on the floor if his constitutional tie-breaking vote is required. Elizabeth Edwards and the Kerry campaign said last night the two men had met at the National Prayer Breakfast in 2001, where Cheney acknowledged Edwards's presence. Edwards also escorted incoming Senator Elizabeth Dole to a swearing-in ceremony in 2003, where Cheney administered the oath of office.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/debates/articles/2004/10/06/fact_checking_the_debate/

UberLutheran · Oct 6, 2004

Dick Cheney said:
"I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11, but there's clearly an established Iraqi track record with terror."

THE TRUTH: Cheney has consistently asserted strong prewar links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, even after the 9/11 Commission definitively concluded that there had not been a collaborative relationship between the two. In a radio interview in January 2004, Cheney said: "I think there's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi government." [/b]Cheney has also been one of the strongest administration voices for several years bringing up reports of a possible meeting between 9/11 plot ringleader Mohamed Atta and an Iraqi agent in Prague in April 2001 as possible evidence of an Iraqi connection to the 9/11 attacks; the existence of that meeting has been widely discredited.[/b]

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/debates/articles/2004/10/06/fact_checking_the_debate/

Wade in the Water · Oct 6, 2004

I commented on this and will put up the statement I had in another thread:
Cheney blatantly lied about Edwards' Senate attendance.

[font=verdana, arial, helvetica]Meeting Was Not First for Cheney, Edwards
Vice President Dick Cheney, Sen. John Edwards Met Twice Before Debate Despite Cheney's Statement

The Associated Press

CLEVELAND Oct. 6, 2004 Vice President Dick Cheney said Tuesday that the debate against Democratic Sen. John Edwards marked the first time the two had met. In fact, the two had met twice previously.
"Now, in my capacity as vice president, I am the president of Senate, the presiding officer. I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in session. The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight," Cheney told Edwards during the debate.

In February 2001, the vice president thanked Edwards by name at a Senate prayer breakfast. Edwards aides also said the two met when the first-term North Carolina senator accompanied, Elizabeth Dole, to her swearing-in by Cheney in January 2003.

Edwards didn't forget. The Democratic vice presidential nominee noted the discrepency at a post-debate rally in a Cleveland park and used it as an example of Cheney "still not being stratight with the American people."

"The vice president said that the first time I met Senator Edawrds was tonight when we walked on the stage. I guess he forgot the time we sat next to each other for a couple hours about three years ago. I guess he forgot the time we met at the swearing in of another senator. So, my wife Elizabeth reminded him on the stage," Edwards said as the crowd roared.

According to Edwards staff, Cheney replied, "Oh, yeah."

"She reminded him about the truth," Edwards told the crowd, "and come November, we're going to remind him that the American people do not want four more years of George W. Bush."

Cheney made the remark in accused Edwards of frequent absences from Senate votes.[/font]

If you look at Edwards attendance record, it shows that he was their regularly up until 2003, and this occurred because of his run in the Democratic primary.
[font=verdana, arial, helvetica]North Carolina
John Edwards (NC)
Roll Call Vote Analysis
Year Voting Participation
2003 61%
2002 100%
2001 99%
2000 100%
1999 99%

To avoid some partisan replies, I'll put up John McCain's attendance record, which shows similar attendance. If you look at any politician that served in Congress and then ran in Republican or Democratic primaries, you'll similar attendance numbers.[/font][font=verdana, arial, helvetica]
Arizona
John McCain (AZ)
Roll Call Vote Analysis
Year Voting Participation
2003 99%
2002 92%
2001 96%
2000 78%
1999 64%[/font]

Wade in the Water · Oct 6, 2004

It's not hard to pick up any newspaper and see that this is just a blatant Cheney lie.

UberLutheran · Oct 6, 2004

Dick Cheney said:
"You [Edwards] made the comment that the Gulf War coalition in '91 was far stronger than this [US-led coalition in Iraq now]. No. We had 34 countries then; we've got 30 today."

THE TRUTH: Beyond the US, countries in the current coalition have contributed only about 15 percent -- or 25,000 of the 160,000 non-Iraqi troops stationed in Iraq. In 1991, coalition countries contributed about 24 percent - or 160,000 of the roughly 660,000 troops stationed in the Persian Gulf. Egypt alone sent 38,500 troops, more than all the foreign partners now in Iraq combined.

Note: The "Coalition of the Willing" includes such powerhouse countries as Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Albania, Moldova, Uzbekistan, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Solomon Islands, Mongolia, Palau, Tonga, Eritrea, Rwanda, and Angola.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/debates/articles/2004/10/06/fact_checking_the_debate/

UberLutheran · Oct 6, 2004

Wade in the Water said:
I commented on this and will put up the statement I had in another thread:
Cheney blatantly lied about Edwards' Senate attendance.If you look at Edwards attendance record, it shows that he was their regularly up until 2003, and this occurred because of his run in the Democratic primary.
[font=verdana, arial, helvetica]North Carolina
John Edwards (NC)
Roll Call Vote Analysis
Year Voting Participation
2003 61%
2002 100%
2001 99%
2000 100%
1999 99%

To avoid some partisan replies, I'll put up John McCain's attendance record, which shows similar attendance. If you look at any politician that served in Congress and then ran in Republican or Democratic primaries, you'll similar attendance numbers.[/font][font=verdana, arial, helvetica]
Arizona
John McCain (AZ)
Roll Call Vote Analysis
Year Voting Participation
2003 99%
2002 92%
2001 96%
2000 78%
1999 64%[/font]

Interesting: Cheney "forgot" to mention that Edwards had a 100% attendance record in 2002. Maybe if Cheney had showed up more than once a week (for Republican lunches on Tuesdays), he would have noticed that Edwards was present for all those votes.

praying · Oct 6, 2004

And since we are truth seekers:

According to Patrick Leahy, Cheney is there every Tuesday but only meets with REPUBLICAN SENATORS so that could explain why if he never met Edwards before last night. He failed to mention that little ditty. Also he is the first Republican VP to only meet with Republicans how is that for extending the olive branch of bipartinship.

Edited to ad:
I had posted this earlier in another thread so apparently the if he ever met him is he met him.

phoenixdna · Oct 6, 2004

Why don't you combine all of these into a single thread. Creating a new one for every one of these seems a bit like trolling IMO. I was tempted to create a parody thread illustrating how ridiculous it is that you are seeking to draw too much attention to yourself, but being new to this site I'm worried about being modded. Surely its against the posting rules here to create 10 threads on the same subject.

the Colonel · Oct 6, 2004

Although your point may be well taken, Cheney did not technically lie. The definition of "far stronger" was nebulous and something that the Kerry/Edwards team never fleshed out in their attack.

Something that really surprised me about both Kerry and Edwards in the debate is that they did not take the opportunity to really hammer this point home. Instead of just repeating the inprecise notion that the Bush admin had not put together a stong coalition, they should have made points about the differences between the Bush 41 coalition and the Bush 43 coalition. Perhaps it would have been political suicide to say that the bulk of the current coalition is made up of non-contributing, sycophantic, minor countries?

UberLutheran · Oct 6, 2004

Dick Cheney said:
"We heard Senator Kerry say the other night that there ought to be some kind of global test before US troops are deployed preemptively to protect the United States."

THE TRUTH: At last Thursday's debate, Kerry said: "No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/debates/articles/2004/10/06/fact_checking_the_debate/

ksen · Oct 6, 2004

Where's the lie? Kerry said in your quote that we would need to prove to the world our reasons were legitimate before we attacked. That sounds like ceding authority to me.

If we need to attack someone in order to prevent an attack on us I don't really care what the rest of the world says.

Wade in the Water · Oct 6, 2004

ksen said:
Where's the lie? Kerry said in your quote that we would need to prove to the world our reasons were legitimate before we attacked. That sounds like ceding authority to me.

If we need to attack someone in order to prevent an attack on us I don't really care what the rest of the world says.

He never said prove before we attack. He said show our legitimacy with whatever action we take, so unilateral preemptive action can be done anytime, but you have to have legitimacy in that action. For instance, attack Iraq, but you find WMD.

chalice_thunder · Oct 6, 2004

Bush is in PA right now, and just said: "My opponent has announced "The Kerry Doctrine." Then he went on to lie about what Kerry said.

This man's twisting and lying is intolerable. Why can't he stick to "restoring honor to the presidency" like he promised 4 years ago?

Watching him standing there, smirking and blatantly lying to the American people, it is easy to see that this man knows nothing about honor or integrity.

4 more weeks
4 more weeks
4 more weeks
4 more weeks

Macrina · Oct 6, 2004

Thank you, UberLutheran and Wade, for your information and outside fact-checking sources. When I was watching the debate, I caught several bits of misinformation that you have mentioned, but I was perplexed by the Edwards-attendance-thing. I shouldn't be surprised that Cheney misled on that one, too... I appreciate having the facts to clear it up.

The thing that troubles me is that Cheney sounds so convincing and authoritative that I don't think a lot of people will question him. He got some really good (if unfounded) zingers off at Edwards last night, and that may do some damage. And we know that the public swallows misinformation all too readily: just look at how many people still think we were attacked by Saddam Hussein.

burrow_owl · Oct 6, 2004

Where's the lie? Kerry said in your quote that we would need to prove to the world our reasons were legitimate before we attacked

I think the idea is that we ought to. If there's a case in which it's clear that we have to attack or else, or some country has attacked us, etc., then we don't need to get approval. We certainly ought to try, but it isn't a necessary condition.

The multilateralist approach recognizes that it's in our interests to get international legitimacy., both from a short-term perspective (more resources at our disposal; more cost-spreading, more risk-spreading) and from a long-term perspective (maintaining that international legitimacy is important gives us another diplomatic tool to work with in the future).

ksen · Oct 6, 2004

Wade in the Water said:
He never said prove before we attack. He said show our legitimacy with whatever action we take, so unilateral preemptive action can be done anytime, but you have to have legitimacy in that action. For instance, attack Iraq, but you find WMD.

At the time nearly the whole world thought Iraq had WMD's so at the time the attack WAS legitimate. Now we are there, Saddam is gone and the Iraqis are getting ready to have their first elections. Iraq is clearly better off and the area will be safer once the permanent government comes into power.

burrow_owl · Oct 6, 2004

ksen said:
At the time nearly the whole world thought Iraq had WMD's

Yeah, but no proof. They were just guesses. And, as it turns out, BushCo. had mighty good reason to think that their evidence of the nuclear pipe-hoojamaboppies weren't for nuclear purposes. Legitimacy requires proof, and requires a showing that less drastic measures won't work.

We all knew Dahmer was guilty, for example, but the state can't just execute him. They need to go through the whole show and the process in order for the punishment to have legitimacy.

Reader Nilus · Oct 6, 2004

Even if Iraq had WMD that still would not have made the war that Bush launched on Iraq as just by any standard, as the USA was never under any threat from Iraq. The war is about OIL greed and nothing more.
Jeff the Finn

chalice_thunder · Oct 6, 2004

jeffthefinn said:
Even if Iraq had WMD that still would not have made the war that Bush launched on Iraq as just by any standard, as the USA was never under any threat from Iraq. The war is about OIL greed and nothing more.
Jeff the Finn

Now we are back to the truth that was told so long ago. Somehow, BushCo successfully diverted our attention.

ksen · Oct 6, 2004

You guys need to stop beating the war for oil drums. If it was about us getting their oil, why am I still paying nearly $2.00 a gallon for gas? Where is all this oil we went to war for?

We went to war because with the information we and the British had it was what needed to happen. We did it, we didn't find what we expected, but we can't undo what we did. So we are there now helping the Iraqis to become a thriving, self-governing society.

Would you rather we put Saddam back in power?

A Compendium of Cheney Lies

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Snazzy Title Goes Here

The Title Which-Must-Not-Be-Named

STARGATE SG-1!

Well-Known Member

Wiki on Garth!

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Macrinator

Senior Contributor

Wiki on Garth!

Senior Contributor

SISU

Senior Veteran

Wiki on Garth!

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency