Vice Presidential Debate

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
drivemytrabant said:
Congressional auditors have said that the contracts received by Halliburton met the legal guidelines put forth in giving a contract without competition--because Halliburton was the only company with the capability to perform some of the work.

Edwards also said that "They sent 40,000 American troops into Iraq without the body armor they needed." General Peter Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs disagrees saying that "every soldier and Marine on the ground had body armor."

Edwards said that we have spent 200 billion on Iraq when it is clear as the Vice President pointed out that 120 billion is the number and the rest of the money Edwards is referring to is for Afghanistan and the global war on terror.

Cheney did say that Iraq supported terrorism:
"Concern about Iraq specifically focused on the fact that Saddam Hussein had been, for years, listed on the state sponsor of terror, that they he had established relationships with Abu Nidal, who operated out of Baghdad; he paid $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers; and he had an established relationship with Al Qaida."
He also stated that "The report also points out that at one point some of Zarqawi's people were arrested. Saddam personally intervened to have them released, supposedly at the request of Zarqawi"
Not disputed opinions but facts.

Edwards did not respond to the question of would Saddam Hussein would still be in power had he and Mr. Kerry been in office.

Edwards dodged the "Global Test" question by saying "Well, let me say, first, he said in the same segment — I don't remember precisely where it was connected with what you just read — but he said, point blank, "We will never give anyone a veto over the security of the United States of America."

Ms. Ifill said that "French and German officials have both said they have no intention even if John Kerry is elected of sending any troops into Iraq for any peacekeeping effort. Does that make your effort or your plan to internationalize this effort seem kind of naive?" Edwards responded by dodging this question as well. "Well, let's start with what we know. What we know is that the president and the vice president have not done the work to build the coalition that we need — dramatically different than the first Gulf War. We know that they haven't done it, and we know they can't do it."

Mr. Edwards did not explain why he missed what Mr. Cheney called " a lot of key votes: on tax policy, on energy, on Medicare reform." Mr. Cheney also said that he had " one of the worst attendance records in the United States Senate." Along with the classic line: "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."

Goodness I forgot one:
Edwards said that while U.S. troops were fighting in Iraq, the Bush administration "lobbied the Congress to cut their combat pay. This is the height of hypocrisy."

Its also untrue.

When increased allowances for the troops was set to expire as stipulated by the CONGRESS, the Pentagon said it would make up for any shortcomings in the troops pay through incentive pay or other means.
 
sharky said:


They are. the point is Cheney said he never made a connection between al Qaeda and Iraq yet he has REPEATEDLY done so.

Yes but part of your post said that Saddam was a "man who provided safe harbor and sanctuary to terrorists for years"
This is clearly true. It is also clear that no fewer than five high-ranking Czech officials have publicly confirmed that Mohammed Atta, the lead September 11 hijacker, met with Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim al-Ani, an Iraqi intelligence officer working at the Iraqi embassy, in Prague five months before the hijacking. Is this not the meeting of an al Qaeda official with and Iraqi official? While this is not a concrete connection between Saddam and al Qaeda, it certainly disproves that there was no contact between Iraq and al Qaeda.
 
sharky said:


Style points? First of all, his bald head was too shiny and his tie was too dark. Presence? Edwards runs, Cheney is fat. He obviously had a bigger presence.

I don't want style and presence. I want plans, ideas, and not international quagmires. If I was voting for president based on style points, I would vote for the guys from Queer Eye.

well we all know that kerry and edwards have a plan for iraq :up: they keep telling us that they have a plan over and over again :up: good for them :up: they should be proud of themselves :up: maybe some day they'll share that plan with the rest of us :up:
 
Hawk269 said:


This might just be the worst analogy I have ever read. Musicians communicating was like Saddam and Al-Qaeda?


AJ

I thought it was pretty good.

Hawk,

Youre an intelligent guy, and I appreciate your point.
I dis agree with your logic however.

Similar musical groups do communicate when theyre going to release their work, what type of work they're going to do release etc. They are not entirely specific. No I'm not saying they camp out at eachother's studio, like the 9-11 Report states. No one has said that.

Btw, have your read the entire 9-11 Report?

thanks,
diamond
 
Last edited:
sharky said:


Style points? First of all, his bald head was too shiny and his tie was too dark. Presence? Edwards runs, Cheney is fat. He obviously had a bigger presence.

I don't want style and presence. I want plans, ideas, and not international quagmires. If I was voting for president based on style points, I would vote for the guys from Queer Eye.
Jenny,
Its been a while.
How ya been kid?

What's wrong w/partially bald heads btw?

I do think Cheney won on substance as well.
Be good.


your friend,
diamond:)
 
sharky said:
And remember that whole "I never met Edwards before tonight."

CHENEY LIED!


I love how we throw out the term "lie" like it was a casual greeting.

Take a look at the c o n t e x t of his statement. Cheney shows up to perform his senate duties. Edwards hasn't been around as much. Cheney was simply making the point that he never met him on the Senate floor.


But if you think old CSPAN images are more important than Edwards doing his job as a senator, then by all means go with it.
 
Cheney met him on the Senate floor when Edwards attended the swearing in of Senator Elizabeth Dole of NC. Cheney's bald head is on the left with his back to the camera. He is FACING John Edwards.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/6/104324/489

And Patrick Leahy said last night that Cheney probably didn't meet Edwards for business. Cheney did indeed go almost every Tuesday to meet with senators but as Leahy said, he RARELY met with Democratic senators
 
It's obvious that Cheney didn't tell the truth in order to deliver a nifty one-liner, I don't know why it's so hard to admit to that and move on.
 
it's apparent brother cheney was underwhelmed with edwards first intoduction and had forgotten about it.

john edwards never went out of his way to introduce himself in the Senate, that's the point.

db9
 
u2sangel said:
During the debate last nite Cheney mentioned the website factcheck.com click the link and see what you find! http://www.factcheck.com


I guess that is what you call a freudian slip.


Hopefully some of his uninformed supporters will go there and learn something.




edit to ask

Why this is not the 'headline' on Drudge?
 
Last edited:
diamond said:
it's apparent brother cheney was underwhelmed with edwards first intoduction and had forgotten about it.

john edwards never went out of his way to introduce himself in the Senate, that's the point.

db9

Then what about the second and the third? And how could he really go out of his way to talk to Cheney if Cheney only met with Republicans? What about Tim Russert saying both men shook hands and made pleasantries when they met backstage at his show? Fact remains that Cheney was trying to be cute and came off as a liar.

As for serving as acting president of the Senate, Cheney did so two Tuesdays in four years -- the same amount as John Edwards.
 
Last edited:
deep said:
I guess that is what you call a freudian slip.

Hopefully some of his uninformed supporters will go there and learn something.

Cute. I guess you love third party influences on the campaign.



Good old Soros.
 
Edwards came off as overrated and dorky (especially when he giggled when he couldn't stop mentioning Kerry's name for that one question he wasn't supposed to) and Cheney came off as old, gruff, and ugly which is how he's always been. IMO... given the format of the debate, Cheney was more effective. Both dodged points but Cheney had the memorable lines (paraphrase: How can you stand up to terrorism if you can't even stand up to Howard Dean [ouch]) and Cheney actually countered quite a few Edwards points effectively with facts (be they accurate or questionable) while Edwards continually used the answer time for specific questions for prior questions (not a good use of time generally).

IMO Cheney "won" the debate. It could be a by a smidge or it could be by a lot. Either way, Cheney came off as the more effective debater while at the least Edwards didn't come off looking like William Stockdale.

Touching moment for Cheney was in reference to the issue of gay marriage...

I think Edwards closing statement was pretty good though.

If Bush had come out against Kerry the way Cheney did against Edwards, Bush would be at the advantage at this point and not worrying about a shrinking lead. IMO Cheney debated the way I thought Bush should have debated on foreign policy night. Maybe for the next time out, Bush should have Cheney speaking into his earpiece instead of Rove b/c Bush would probably be more effective then. :wink:
 
Last edited:
Flying FuManchu said:
On another note, I thought it was pretty funny that factcheck.org got a plug by Veep Cheney...

They didn't. Internet squatter factcheck.com did.

As for Cheney's zingers, the Howard Dean thing was ok. His problem was one of his big zingers "i've never met you before tonight." was a total lie. His "I never said there was an Iraq-al Qaeda connection." was as big as the non-existant Al Gore "I invented the Internet."

Edwards was a bit off his game and didn't really stay on target. That being said, I LOVED his response to Cheney's attack on his voting record. I mean, c'mon! Who votes against Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King Jr. and American grandmas?
 
I think the issues of Cheney's votes in the past are relatively effective (in terms of the Martin Luther King holiday, Mandela, etc. - maybe energize the base but I think swing voters don't give rat's ass in the sense that those issues were around in the first election and din't hurt him that much then) I'm not saying Edwards didn't have some effective moments but Cheney's was more effective. Hell, Bush had some effective moments but that didn't win him crap or make him more effective then Kerry was.

Yeah... Cheney should have gotten his addresses straight but it was pretty funny either way just b/c its factcheck.org getting a plug... Maybe Kerry will mention snopes.com LOL
 
Flying FuManchu said:
Actually factcheck had a piece/ information that made Cheney look good and tried to show that Cheney doesn't benefit from Haliburton., etc...


What is EVEN funnier is you and Cheney are WRONG.

factcheck.org

says Edwards was essentially RIGHT.

Edwards essentially correct
The center had run a piece saying Cheney had not profited personally while in office from Halliburton’s Iraq contracts, and that was the piece Cheney was referring to.

But on Wednesday morning, the center's Web site had a detailed analysis of the vice-presidential debate, and it says that much of what Sen. John Edwards said about Halliburton (HAL, news, msgs) was correct.

The problem here comes from separating what Cheney did as vice president and what he did as Halliburton’s chief.

There is no evidence that, in his current job, Cheney acted improperly with regard to Halliburton. With the exception of one vague e-mail on the issue sent to the vice president’s chief of staff, there is nothing to indicate that Cheney had anything to do with Halliburton’s sole-source contract from the Pentagon.

Moreover, there is no indication he benefited in any way from that contract. His arrangement for receiving deferred compensation from the company was cleared by government ethics officers, and is standard practice.

Doing business with Iran
But Cheney’s record as Halliburton’s chief executive is cloudier.

Edwards was wrong to say Halliburton paid millions in fines while Cheney was its chief executive – but not wrong by much. The Securities and Exchange Commission only recently announced that Halliburton would pay $7.5 million to settle a matter that dates to 1998, when Cheney was chief executive. Cheney was not charged with wrongdoing.

Edwards was also only half-right when he said Halliburton “did business with Libya and Iran” while Cheney was at the helm. The company did do business with Iran, but it stopped doing business with Libya before Cheney joined the company.

We’ll do fact checking of our own Wednesday on “Capital Report.” We’ll talk to two undecided voters who watched the vice-presidential debate, and we’ll try to find out how the presidential race may change as a result.
 
:huh: uhmmmm factcheck.org is down still so I have no way of bringing up that piece...

That factcheck piece was what I was referring to b/c the Kerry/ Edwards campaign has been insinuating that Cheney is doing some under the table business/ profitting with Haliburton while being Veep. Factcheck was saying that was not the case.
Your source mentions that....

The center had run a piece saying Cheney had not profited personally while in office from Halliburton’s Iraq contracts, and that was the piece Cheney was referring to.

The article you mention agrees with that sentiment mentioning that Cheney has no interests or did not profit from Haliburton except for deferred payment of what he is OWED. Cheney sold his stock options and gave them to charity, etc...

Again your article basically clears Cheney of some of the Haliburton attacks... like this statement...

There is no evidence that, in his current job, Cheney acted improperly with regard to Halliburton. With the exception of one vague e-mail on the issue sent to the vice president’s chief of staff, there is nothing to indicate that Cheney had anything to do with Halliburton’s sole-source contract from the Pentagon.

As for the issues Cheney MAY have had with Haliburton before his vice-presidency... even your source material isn't clear on that.

But okay... b/c its you deep... I'll just say I'm wrong and Cheney is EVIL.... EVIL I tell you. :wave:
 
Last edited:
DaveC said:
No lying eh?

So where are the WMD's?

Where's the Saddam-Al Qaida connection?

Shall I go on?

Yep.

The criteria for war in the case of Saddam was whether or not he had VERIFIABLY DISARMED of all WMD per the 1991 Gulf War Ceace fire. Saddam failed to do this which made the war necessary.

Members of Saddam's regime have had contact with members of Al Quada in the past.

You can go on if you want.
 
Back
Top Bottom