A Compendium of Cheney Lies

[jameseb]

Contrary to what most of the responses to my post say, nobody teaches me what to think and say. I have a mind of my own, and I'm proud to use it at every opportunity. There is one less murderous tyrant in power in the world; to view that as anything but a good thing demonstrates nothing less than a contemptible moral ambiguity that demeans the very essence of what it means to be a human being. Are they all gone? No; it can't be done, not right now, and probably not in my lifetime. But there are a lot of children sleeping easier in Iraq these days, knowing that they won't find Mommy or Daddy in a plastic bag on the doorstep in the morning.

The bafflegab spun out by liberals about Iraq is so totally ridiculous that I'm not surprised none of you even has a clue about what's really going on in the Middle East. You cite Reuters stories and CBS broadcasts while nodding sagely, believing that you've been educated by your contact with such august minds and reporters, never knowing or caring that deep down, they not only don't like you, they don't trust you. You're not smart enough to figure out the truth for yourselves, so they have to spoonfeed it to you. And you gobble it up, never knowing that all they're giving you is empty calories with no nutrition.

Any time there is good news coming from Iraq, you dismiss it as being irrelevant, but at the slightest hint of faltering by Americans, you jump all over it and announce that not only is the sky falling, but it's bringing the planetary bodies with it to finish the job. You watch the casualty reports like vultures, eagerly counting down to the next special number so you can join in the John Kerry sing-along of 'a tragic milestone,' never once thinking about what those soldiers believed in, never once caring if they thought their cause was worth fighting and dying for. You dismiss the sacrifices made not only by your own military, but by the people of Iraq itself; 90% of the casualties in this war are American, right? As the Vice-President so pointedly told Senator Edwards, his numbers discount the sacrifices made by the Iraqis themselves, the people who are fighting for their freedom alongside the Americans. The thousands and thousands of Iraqis who are taking up arms to defend their country against the insurgents who want to restore a madman to power, or at least install a new one just like the old one. The thousands of Iraqis who are training to be police officers and security guards, the men who are stepping into harm's way for the same reason that your forefathers did two hundred and thirty years ago: freedom is worth fighting for, and even dying for. You snub the prime minister when he comes to your country to thank your president and your military for giving Iraq the chance to be free. You ignore the fact that he narrowly escaped death at the hands of Saddam Hussein's thugs, and call him a puppet instead of acknowledging the incredible courage it takes for him to stand up and make himself a target for every lunatic in the Middle East who wants freedom killed along with him.

Sixty years ago, had there been as many angry, anti-military people in America as there are today, had there been as many people protesting and screaming out about how Roosevelt had set up Pearl Harbor to drag America into a war over global domination, had there been as many vicious news stories and partisan media reports...America would no longer exist as a free country. Those of you who were still alive would be speaking German...those of you who aren't white, well...I'm sure you can figure that out for yourselves.

Thirty years ago, had there been an Internet to spread different viewpoints instead of the same thing being spouted on television and in the newspapers by the media, had people been allowed to know the truth about things like the Tet Offensive (which was an American military victory, but a liberal/communist propaganda victory), not only would America have won the Vietnam War, but the men who fought there, were wounded there, and who died there, wouldn't have had to come home to the cries of 'baby-killers' and 'war-criminals' spread by visionaries like John Kerry and Jane Fonda. They would have been given the heroes' welcome they deserved, instead of being spat on by their countrymen.

Today, when there is good news you scorn it; when there is bad news, you flock to it. You seek style and ignore substance; you prefer a man who follows political winds instead of a man of personal convictions. And you vilify those who break ranks, who seek a different path, who recognize the futility of the same old arguments, the same old rhetoric, the same old feel-good pap that sounds wonderful, but never works. Successful blacks who succeed in spite of their obstacles are called race-traitors and 'house-blacks.' Those who seek real solutions instead of the usual meaningless catch-phrases are called radical and dangerous. And those who choose not to follow the path laid out by those who claim to know better than everyone else, are looked down on as unworthy vermin.

This is the legacy your visionaries have left for you. This is how your worldview will be remembered. Not as progressing to greater equality, but demanding homogenity where it cannot exist, scorning the individual in favour of the collective, and hating those who refuse to fall into line and disappear into the night.

And the worst thing is that I doubt that any of you will see this for what it is; instead, some of you will attack me in response. Some of you will report me and say I'm flaming you. Some of you will completely ignore this, and go on dutifully reciting the latest rhetoric. None of this will surprise me. It never does, not anymore. But I'll keep on saying it, because unlike some people, I believe that truth is important.

Borealis-Thing, you make my heart sing...
You make everything, groovy...
Oh, Borealis-thing!

The Troggs (if they are indeed the original artists) shoudl have wrote that song for you..

Well said, sergeant-major. (and let's see if this bumps the thread where it belongs...testing.....now!)

 

[praying]

So you'd prefer to have a murderous dictatorial thug continuing to torture, rape, and murder his own countrymen

While this is the ONLY thing not in dispute about Sadaam this has nothing at all to do with the reasons proffered for the war. Period, so it is irrelevant to the argument of should we have done what we did based on the reasons offered for the war.

while financially supporting terrorists who are plotting to kill YOU and YOUR CHILDREN,

Please porvide concrete US government source evidence of this.

all under the stern and watchful eye of the global organization who were getting billion-dollar kickbacks and turning a blind eye to his human rights violations

You mean like America did when it was expedient to do so? Or as we continue to do with Korea who HAS WMD and is just as evil a dictator as Sadaam.

while trumpeting the evils of the only democracy in the Middle East?

And Israel has what to do with this discussion?

Is that what you Democrats call a foreign policy?

No we don't want exxaggerated twisted views used as forgein policy that is what we have now.

 

[praying]

There is one less murderous tyrant in power in the world; to view that as anything but a good thing demonstrates nothing less than a contemptible moral ambiguity that demeans the very essence of what it means to be a human being.

Is there anyone who disputes this, why is it either or. We can say we're glad he is gone but if we had to do over again given the reasons we went (which was not humanitarian) we would not. What is the problem with that line of thought.

But there are a lot of children sleeping easier in Iraq these days, knowing that they won't find Mommy or Daddy in a plastic bag on the doorstep in the morning.

and there are a lot of children who don't sleep easy Iraq these days, and children may not find Mommy and Daddy on doorstep because they blown up in a car bomb attack.

So yes there are kids who sleep better but it is not all roses and fun, not by a very very long shot.

You cite Reuters stories and CBS broadcasts while nodding sagely, believing that you've been educated by your contact with such august minds and reporters, never knowing or caring that deep down, they not only don't like you, they don't trust you. You're not smart enough to figure out the truth for yourselves, so they have to spoonfeed it to you. And you gobble it up, never knowing that all they're giving you is empty calories with no nutrition.

Personally I prefer US governmet sources for referencing facts, but it seems the Republicans ignore facts.

Any time there is good news coming from Iraq,

I suggest this, why don'y you be the poster child for Iraq and post a steady stream of "good news" coming from Iraq. Not blogs, or non-verifiable I got this in an email, news. Please provide this wealth of good news that is flowing, enlighten us.

you jump all over it and announce that not only is the sky falling, but it's bringing the planetary bodies with it to finish the job. You watch the casualty reports like vultures,

Actually it is not a jump more like a I told you so.


As for the rest no one is dismissing the sacrfices of the soldeirs or the Iraqui's but that does not mean don't question just accpet.

Vietnam, WWII different times different wars different reasons that HAVE NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on the Iraq war debate.

 

[Peso]

Once upon a time, there was a little boy named Adam Walsh. Unfortunately, little Adam was abducted and killed (and that's a bad thing), but as a result, little Adam's father began a TV show called "America's Most Wanted" which resulted in the capture of many, many criminals (and that is a good thing). So, because Adam's killer did a bad thing that resulted in a good thing, does that mean he did the right thing ?

My point being ?: We went into Iraq without clearly justified reasons (and that's a bad thing), but now an tyrannical dictator is out of power (and that is a good thing), does that mean we did the right thing ?

 

[chalice_thunder]

...but now an tyrannical dictator is out of power (and that is a good thing), does that mean we did the right thing ?

nope

 

[USincognito]

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.

First part - Actually, global was a poor word choice, he meant universal or nation-wide because he was referring to the U.S.

Second part - So what about countries like North Korea that feel they need to attack the U.S. so we don't attack them?

Has everyone in this country forgotten how effective MAD was at preventing WWIII from happening, or what?

 

[drboyd]

.

So you'd prefer to have a murderous dictatorial thug continuing to torture, rape, and murder his own countrymen <snip> Is that what you Democrats call a foreign policy?

You're absolutely right, Borealis! It's no fair that Saddam should have all the fun. I think the USA should torture, rape, and murder Iraqis!

 

[joebobned]

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]

Hey that's pretty cool. Can you cite the source?

 

[Grizzly]

I have a mind of my own, and I'm proud to use it at every opportunity. There is one less murderous tyrant in power in the world; to view that as anything but a good thing demonstrates nothing less than a contemptible moral ambiguity that demeans the very essence of what it means to be a human being. Are they all gone? No; it can't be done, not right now, and probably not in my lifetime. But there are a lot of children sleeping easier in Iraq these days, knowing that they won't find Mommy or Daddy in a plastic bag on the doorstep in the morning.

Actually, there are alot of children much worse off now than when Saddam was in power. The country had electricity, working hospitals, and Saddam was not indiscriminatly bombing the suburbs with smart bombs. Certainly some children ARE better off without Saddam, but a whole new cohort of children are now worse off. Don't forget that.

The bafflegab spun out by liberals about Iraq is so totally ridiculous that I'm not surprised none of you even has a clue about what's really going on in the Middle East. You cite Reuters stories and CBS broadcasts while nodding sagely, believing that you've been educated by your contact with such august minds and reporters, never knowing or caring that deep down, they not only don't like you, they don't trust you. You're not smart enough to figure out the truth for yourselves, so they have to spoonfeed it to you. And you gobble it up, never knowing that all they're giving you is empty calories with no nutrition.

What is ironic about this is that I feel the same way toward conservatives. Conservatives have been spoonfed neo-con garbage and swallow it whole. They fill themselves with Foxnews, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity and feel as if you have some kind of fair and balanced view of the world. This cuts both ways, Borealis. I believe most conservatives are deluded. You believe we are deluded. Where do we go from here? I see our government as one that brought us to war because Saddam was an "immediate threat to our security" and that war was a last resort to defend ourselved. Now we know that was wrong, our administration is spinning the "Saddam was a bad man and needed to go" humanitarian card and I see you and your ilk lapping it up. But make no mistake. That was not the reason we went to war. And no amount of fear mongering spin is going to make that go away.

THINK!!! You claim to be proud to think on your own. Is it not obvious to you that the reasons we went to war are no longer valid? That we must now justify our mistake?

This is the legacy your visionaries have left for you. This is how your worldview will be remembered. Not as progressing to greater equality, but demanding homogenity where it cannot exist, scorning the individual in favour of the collective, and hating those who refuse to fall into line and disappear into the night.

the legacy of liberals?

Sufferage Rights
Civil Rights
Abolition
Workplace protections
Clean and safe environments
Social Security
Health Care for the poor

That's what we'll be remembered for. What will todays brand of conservatives be remembered for?

Corporate rights
Free-market capitalism
Anti-homosexual rights
Anti-choice
Increased intrusion of the government into our daily lives.

The saddest thing I see is the merging of religious conservativism with political conservatism. Political conservatives have co-opted the religious conservative movement and used it toward their own purposes. As long as a politician is a prophesed Christian who is against gay marriage, abortion, and Church-State Separation, it doesn't matter if he wants to send your job oversees or that his policies don't provide health care to 40 million americans. He can give HUGE tax cuts to the wealthy, allow our environment to become polluted, and let workers suffer in terrible work-place environments. What kind of America do we want to live in? Not the kind that the conservatives are pushing, I can tell you that.

 

[MethodMan]

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/

And these were so memorable, that even Edwards forgot them during the debate.

 

[Borealis]

Is there anyone who disputes this, why is it either or. We can say we're glad he is gone but if we had to do over again given the reasons we went (which was not humanitarian) we would not. What is the problem with that line of thought.

There is someone who disputes it: John Kerry. He's more concerned with 'global tests' and 'wrong war, wrong place, wrong time' than he is about the people of Iraq. His snubbing and insulting of Prime Minister Allawi makes that perfectly clear.

and there are a lot of children who don't sleep easy Iraq these days, and children may not find Mommy and Daddy on doorstep because they blown up in a car bomb attack.

The difference is, the people doing the car bombing are being hunted down by the government instead of being paid by them.

So yes there are kids who sleep better but it is not all roses and fun, not by a very very long shot.

No, but I've yet to hear a liberal say anything positive about the changes in Iraq, despite the support America is getting from Iraqis. Your post is a good example of that; you're looking for the negative instead of trying to find the positive.

Personally I prefer US governmet sources for referencing facts, but it seems the Republicans ignore facts.

And what facts did I ignore here?

I suggest this, why don'y you be the poster child for Iraq and post a steady stream of "good news" coming from Iraq. Not blogs, or non-verifiable I got this in an email, news. Please provide this wealth of good news that is flowing, enlighten us.

Sure. But don't be disappointed when I don't cite Reuters or the alphabet media for stories, since they're not offering those.

Actually it is not a jump more like a I told you so.

It's a jump. It's a running long jump with a Dean Scream and a crash landing. We don't get 'I told you so's' anymore. More like "I yelled this before!!!! Pay attention!!!!"

As for the rest no one is dismissing the sacrfices of the soldeirs or the Iraqui's but that does not mean don't question just accpet.

Bovine fecal matter. A lot of people are dismissing the sacrifices. John Edwards did so in the debate, as did John Kerry. They BOTH said that America was doing all the fighting and taking all the casualties. That's dismissing the Iraqi sacrifices. And every time the media or the Democrats spoke about 'a tragic milestone,' they were more interested in the body count than the actual lives involved. There was no concern for the soldiers themselves, only that their deaths could be used to attack George Bush in an election campaign.

Vietnam, WWII different times different wars different reasons that HAVE NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on the Iraq war debate.

Oh, really? Tell that to John Kerry and Dan Rather.

 

[Borealis]

Actually, there are alot of children much worse off now than when Saddam was in power. The country had electricity, working hospitals, and Saddam was not indiscriminatly bombing the suburbs with smart bombs. Certainly some children ARE better off without Saddam, but a whole new cohort of children are now worse off. Don't forget that.

The Americans aren't discriminately bombing anyone. They're targeting terrorists. As for electricity and working hospitals, they are being rebuilt. And for a change, the number of hospitals outnumbers the number of rape rooms and torture chambers. The overall effect on the Iraqi people and their children is most definitely positive.

What is ironic about this is that I feel the same way toward conservatives. Conservatives have been spoonfed neo-con garbage and swallow it whole. They fill themselves with Foxnews, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity and feel as if you have some kind of fair and balanced view of the world.

Except that in my case, you're wrong. I can't watch Fox News, because I'm in Canada and our government, in their infinite wisdom, has decreed that Fox News is not allowed in Canada. The same for Hannity and Limbaugh. I do check out Limbaugh's website, because I've found it very interesting to note that he regularly and accurately predicts liberal and Democrat actions before they happen. For example, he said two days ahead of the first debate that the media would declare a Kerry victory. And they did, some of them before the debate even happened.

This cuts both ways, Borealis. I believe most conservatives are deluded. You believe we are deluded. Where do we go from here?

Accept that I'm right. That's what John Kerry would say.

I see our government as one that brought us to war because Saddam was an "immediate threat to our security" and that war was a last resort to defend ourselved.

Except that's incorrect. "We cannot allow the threat to become imminent," remember? That's what Bush said in the SOTU. An imminent threat in today's technological era is a threat that is already on its way to your shores. The point was to prevent that from happening.

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

Now we know that was wrong, our administration is spinning the "Saddam was a bad man and needed to go" humanitarian card and I see you and your ilk lapping it up.

And when did they start 'spinning' this? Oh, you mean when Bush said this?

The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning.

Note the excerpt? From the same speech as before. Yes, the majority of the speech's discussion of Iraq centred on WMDs, because the entire world believed that he had them. The French knew it, since they were giving him weapons themselves. The Kurds knew it, since he'd been using them on their villages. But the fact that Hussein was a murderous dictator who killed his own people in batch lots was never off the table.

But make no mistake. That was not the reason we went to war. And no amount of fear mongering spin is going to make that go away.

America went to war for several reasons. Primarily it was to disarm a madman. That's been done. Another reason was to give the Iraqi people their freedom to choose their own destiny. That is also being done. And America went to war to prevent a terrorist supporter from doing any more damage, either to his own people, America, or the rest of the world.

Saddam Hussein will never threaten anyone again. As far as I'm concerned, that's nothing but good.

THINK!!! You claim to be proud to think on your own. Is it not obvious to you that the reasons we went to war are no longer valid? That we must now justify our mistake?

I have thought. I've thought about the NSA satellite photos of convoys crossing the Iraq-Syria border while Powell and Bush were trying to get the UN on board. I've thought of the mass graves in Iraq. I've thought of the visceral images of planes flying into the World Trade Center, and I've thought about how I never want to see anything like that again. I've thought about how Saddam Hussein was given 14 months to hide or transfer the weapons he had while France and Germany did everything they could to buy him time. The only mistake was in allowing the UN to stall as long as they did.

the legacy of liberals?

Suffrage Rights

Turn of the century.

Civil Rights

1965.

Abolition

1865.

Workplace protections

1950s.

Clean and safe environments

Sounds pretty, but it hasn't happened.

Social Security

A badly flawed welfare system.

Health Care for the poor

Finally, something recent.

That's what we'll be remembered for.

Will you? Not likely. Your predecessors might, but you won't. You'll be remembered for:

* antiwar protests
* reverse racism
* anti-American writings and speeches
* global tests
* education degradation
* the Oral Office
* aid and comfort for terrorists

Nice list, isn't it? That's today's liberals; you listed yesterday's accomplishments.

What will todays brand of conservatives be remembered for?

Corporate rights

That's not new.

Free-market capitalism

Right, because only neo-cons ever thought that was a good idea.

Anti-homosexual rights

Pro-family.

Anti-choice

Pro-life, or anti-abortion.

[QUOTE}Increased intrusion of the government into our daily lives.[/QUOTE]

My irony meter just went off the charts. 'Global village?' The NEA? Hello, McFly! The entire concept of the government social safety net was Franklin Roosevelt's contribution to American society. And don't even get me started on Clinton.

The saddest thing I see is the merging of religious conservativism with political conservatism. Political conservatives have co-opted the religious conservative movement and used it toward their own purposes.

Ah, yes...the vast Right-wing conspiracy theory, right? Did it occur to you that the reason political and religious conservatives are joining together is because they both believe the same things?

As long as a politician is a prophesed Christian who is against gay marriage, abortion, and Church-State Separation, it doesn't matter if he wants to send your job oversees or that his policies don't provide health care to 40 million americans.

Outsourcing again? Boy, you people really are masochists, aren't you? How many American jobs are owned by foreign companies? How many Americans work for Honda or other foreign companies? Do you really want to pull back all outsourcing? Because when you do, you can expect that the jobs that come home will be more than offset by the exodus of jobs back to Japan and other countries.

He can give HUGE tax cuts to the wealthy,

And proportional tax cuts to the middle class, who are more than grateful for it.

allow our environment to become polluted,

It was already polluted. What did the Johnson, Carter, and Clinton administrations do about that? Clinton at least had the excuse that after two years he faced a Republican Congress.

and let workers suffer in terrible work-place environments.

Where did this come from?

What kind of America do we want to live in? Not the kind that the conservatives are pushing, I can tell you that.

Maybe you don't, but on November 2nd you're in for a rude surprise.

 

[Borealis]

.You're absolutely right, Borealis! It's no fair that Saddam should have all the fun. I think the USA should torture, rape, and murder Iraqis!

I don't even need to click on the link to know you're referring to Abu Ghraib. Thank you for proving my point: you are morally equating a few American soldiers who crossed the line with an entire regime that relished doing these things.

 

[HumbleMan]

I don't even need to click on the link to know you're referring to Abu Ghraib. Thank you for proving my point: you are morally equating a few American soldiers who crossed the line with an entire regime that relished doing these things.

A few American soldiers who were working under the command of officers of the US Army, who were not, BTW, regular Army, but Intelligence. I believe England is trying to bring that up, but the DoD is not allowing her to (since under UCMJ the military decides how both sides of the court martial will play).

Once again, WMD, or should I say the imminent fact that they could launch an attack on their neighbors within 45 minutes, was one of the main selling points for this invasion, not human rights.

 

[Grizzly]

The Americans aren't discriminately bombing anyone. They're targeting terrorists. As for electricity and working hospitals, they are being rebuilt. And for a change, the number of hospitals outnumbers the number of rape rooms and torture chambers. The overall effect on the Iraqi people and their children is most definitely positive.

Your statements remain to be proven. For their sake, I hope you are right. But I fear you are not.

Except that in my case, you're wrong. I can't watch Fox News, because I'm in Canada and our government, in their infinite wisdom, has decreed that Fox News is not allowed in Canada. The same for Hannity and Limbaugh.

What? Is that true? I can't say I support that decision. I think Fox news is biased, but I would never support removing them from the airwaves.

I do check out Limbaugh's website, because I've found it very interesting to note that he regularly and accurately predicts liberal and Democrat actions before they happen. For example, he said two days ahead of the first debate that the media would declare a Kerry victory. And they did, some of them before the debate even happened.

that wasn't too hard to predict. Have you seen our president speak in public lately? Answer news questions from the media that aren't prepared for him? I'm not sure what happened to W, but his public oratory skills have diminished over time. I lived in Texas when he was govenor, and he wasn't nearly that bad.


more later.....(gotta work).

 

[Firscherscherling]

I love the neocon talk about how they choose the "truth" and liberals choose the lies.

Anyone see the old clip of Dick Cheney sitting right next to John Edwards when they were appearing at an event together? They showed it on the Daily Show last night.

Maybe that 18" gap between them prevented them from a proper introduction...

"truth"

 

[MethodMan]

I love the neocon talk about how they choose the "truth" and liberals choose the lies.

Anyone see the old clip of Dick Cheney sitting right next to John Edwards when they were appearing at an event together? They showed it on the Daily Show last night.

Maybe that 18" gap between them prevented them from a proper introduction...

"truth"

Like I said, Edwards apparently forgot about it too. He was to busy obfuscating Cheney's main point. But keep parroting the liberla line .

 

[Firscherscherling]

Like I said, Edwards apparently forgot about it too. He was to busy obfuscating Cheney's main point. But keep parroting the liberla line .

OK. Help me out here.

We have absolute evidence that Cheney's statement was a combination of half truths and outright lies. First, the Tuesdays he "spends in the Senate" are at the Republican luncheon. They are not spent in the chamber. How odd he wouldn't bump into Edwards at the Republican luncheon, eh?

Then we see that his statements about Edward's attendance are not accurate. This was shown earlier in the thread.

Now we have a video of the men appearing side by side at the same function. Evidence of the total and complete lie that they have never met.

So here is where I need the help. You say there was obfuscating of Cheney's point. Since his statement was a total fabrication, which part of it was the point? It was a statement about Edward's senate attendance. It was a lie.

The point I get is that he is a blatant, sorry, stinking, flat-out, no-question-about-it, in-your-face, unapologetic mother-f*!#@%ing liar. What is the point you get from it? If Edwards had said the same thing in reverse, I'd say he was a liar as well. This one isn't a case of spin. This is a case of a total lie. The lie is not justified because Edwards didn't call him on it.

Now, remember, you are accusing me of towing a liberal line on this. I suggest you be able to answer without doing so yourself. How do you justify this blatant lie?

 

[MethodMan]

Now, remember, you are accusing me of towing a liberal line on this. I suggest you be able to answer without doing so yourself. How do you justify this blatant lie?

I wasn't in the justification mode. My point? I don't think it was blantant at all. Wrong - yes. If it was so blantant, Edwards would have simply said, "Mr. VP, We met......" My record is the Senate is..... But how did he respond?

1. I attend at least 15 prayer breakfasts a year. I could not remember who sat next to me 2 months ago much less 3 years.

2. How many hands does Cheney shake is a day?

3. Ms. Dole's ceremony? Without looking, who was on the stage at the time. Don't bother looking.

Edwards couldn't cloud Cheney's main point and niether will you. John Edwards was an insignificant Senator from NC that made no real contribution other than a liberal vote in the US Senate. It would have been better if Edwards would have said something like,"I was constantly overshadowed in the press by Ted Kennedy and Tom Daschel."

Don't you find it odd that it was Edward's wife was the one to run out onto the stage to remind everyone that the two had actually met?

Like I said

 

[Firscherscherling]

I wasn't in the justification mode. My point? I don't think it was blantant at all. Wrong - yes. If it was so blantant, Edwards would have simply said, "Mr. VP, We met......" My record is the Senate is..... But how did he respond?

1. I attend at least 15 prayer breakfasts a year. I could not remember who sat next to me 2 motnhs ago much less 3 years.

2. How many hands does Cheney shake is a day?

3. Ms. Dole's ceremony? Without looking, who was on the stage at the time. Don't bother looking.

Edwards couldn't cloud Cheney's main point and niether will you. John Edwards was an insignificant Senator from NC that made no real contribution other than a liberal vote in the US Senate. It would have been better if Edwards would have said something like,"I was constantly overshadowed in the press by Ted Kennedy and Tom Daschel."

Don't you find it odd that it was Edward's wife was the one to run out onto the stage to remind everyone that the two had actually met?

Like I said

Ok. I get it. That was your long-winded way of saying, "I don't care. the lie doesn't matter. I can build myself a house of cards to justify it."

In fact, we can add a new rule to the debates. The Republican can make up lies, and the Democrat can spend his time refuting the lies. I mean, why focus on the issues? Thats pretty much been the rule for the campaign, why not for the debates?

And you are right. Cheney is totally justified in saying they never met even thought they met on several occasions. I mean, there are 100 senators. Thats a LOT of people to remember. Poor old guy.