Vice Presidential Debate

[Headache in a Suitcase]

since i left for the bar, i've since come back... and have gotten through 2 pages since the last time i posted and have become just so completely disgusted that i can't even read anymore and i need to respond.

george bush clearly lost the debate to john kerry... it's not that his ideas or reasoning was any better, it's just that kerry was better at debating.

john edwards CLEARLY lost the debate to dick cheney... it's not that his ideas or reasoning was any better, it's just that cheney was better at debating.



I... as a fucking republican... can clearly admit that my guy got creamed the other night. now it's time for joe democrat to step up to the plate and admit that their guy, joe boy band john edwards.... clearly LOST this debate, just as GW clearly LOST the first presidential debate.



and as for no al qaeda in iraq... what in the bluest of all blue fucking hells do you call al zaqarwi? a fucking welcoming comittee?

Was there WMD in iraq? as of now, no. do we know if it was taken out of the country durring the debate over wether we should or shouldn't go to war? no... we don't. but until we have any proof that that didn't happen, then attack all the hell you want on that issue. the only defense on that issue is based on suspicion... not fact.

however... al zaqarwi IS in iraq. he WAS in iraq before the invasion. he IS al qaeda. there is no dispute on that issue. dispute the WMD claim all you want... you WIN that argument. it was a stupid argument by the bush admin to begin with. but do NOT argue that there's no al qaeda in iraq.

 

[Diemen]

Chris Matthews is a liberal [my emphasis]

[Rant]
You know what? I've had it with this shit. Stop using liberal as if it's an insult. It's not. Using it as one only shows how utterly close-minded you are. The same goes for liberals using conservative as an insult (though you don't really see it nearly as much). Liberals are not your enemies. Conservatives are not your enemies. If you have disagreements with someone's political opinions, deal with them specifically and don't label an entire group as bad. It's childish. Kinda like turning "French" into an insult. You should be above this petty crap.
[/Rant]

 

[GibsonExplorer]

Headache,

Like Edwards accurately pointed out, there are al-Qaida in many nations worldwide. We're not going to connect that terrorist ring to every nation in which it is present, are we?

Also, I truthfully don't think Edwards lost at all. I only can concede that Edwards might have been too eager to "win". He wanted to get Cheney badly, I could tell. But if you're telling us that Edwards had lost this debate as badly as Bush had lost the first round, you're absolutely wrong. Edwards got his points across effectively. He was articulate, forceful, and intelligent. So was Cheney. It was a good debate.

 

[deep]

since i left for the bar, i've since come back... and have gotten through 2 pages since the last time i posted and have become just so completely disgusted that i can't even read anymore and i need to respond.

george bush clearly lost the debate to john kerry... it's not that his ideas or reasoning was any better, it's just that kerry was better at debating.

john edwards CLEARLY lost the debate to dick cheney... it's not that his ideas or reasoning was any better, it's just that cheney was better at debating.

It sounds like you are equating the outcome of the debates evenly.


It was a format that Cheney excells in.

He has done hundreds? of Sunday shows over his career sitting down with an interviewer.

For people that expected the smooth lawyer to whip Dick's ass it is a big win for team Bush.

The fact that Cheney rarely mentioned Bush is odd.

 

[Danospano]

That debate was soooo utterly boring I could only watch about 15 minutes before I started pulling out my teeth.

I expect the deadpan performance from Dick Cheney, but John Edwards was just as dull and predictable as always. Thank goodness we have John Kerry running for president. Oh wait...doooh!

 

[A_Wanderer]

I would love to see a Democrat candidate in the mould of Harry Truman.

 

[Spooner]

...

and as for no al qaeda in iraq... what in the bluest of all blue fucking hells do you call al zaqarwi? a fucking welcoming comittee?

I laughed out loud on this one. headache...you're the man. I feel the same as you man being a republican.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Zarquari is not Al Qaeda, he represents the same ideology and modus operandi as Al Qaeda but is more like a rival - it is very easy to say the WoT is just about Al Qaeda, but news flash; it is bigger than that, you have hundreds of organizations with the intent of killing innocents in a holy war - we must defeat this persistent menace and it will never be done with pure millitary might, political, economic and social reform throughout the Islamic world is key to this - all human beings deserve liberty and dignity, that is the only way to defeat the ideology of hatred that is Islamofascism. Lets make no mistakes here, Saddam may well have had links to Islamist terror organizations, he certainly supported terrorism against Israel. Now I doubt that any information pertaining to Al Qaeda/Iraq linkage that has been presented shows anything solid. There were certainly offers and meetings but nothing conclusive. I implore everybody to consider that since the collapse of the regime the Islamofascists have entered the country to reshape it as Afghanistan Redux - only this time it would control massive quantities of oil and could wield power in toppling Gulf States. The investment of toppling the New Iraq is draining on the finances of terror - expertise, weapons and support are being spent for this. Success in Iraq would be delivering a crushing defeat to the Islamofascist cause, Iraq may not have been a hotbed of terrorism before the war - but it is a key front today, we created a second front and it is doing its job well, a brilliant piece of realpoltik, crushing a dictatorship, removing troops from Saudi Arabia (we solved the "root cause" of Al Qaeda's existence and yet it still exists, this is because they will not stop until they deliver victory over all enemies - namely everyone who does not subscribe to their - shall we say - hardline Islamic values, liberty in the Islamic World starting with a Shiite/Sunni nation.

**Note regarding use of the term Islamofascist**
I was scolded for saying Islamist because some fail to understand context, hence I am forced to go all out and use a term which I feel is too charged.

 

[DrTeeth]

While we're on the subject of al-Zarqawi:

CIA Report Finds No Conclusive Zarqawi-Saddam Link

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A CIA report has found no conclusive evidence that former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein harbored Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, which the Bush administration asserted before the invasion of Iraq.

"The official says there is no clear cut evidence that Saddam Hussein even knew Zarqawi was in Baghdad," ABC reported.

 

[A_Wanderer]

This business about the harboring of Zarqawi - there is no conclusive evidence, however there is no evidence to the contrary. What we know is that the man was going to Baghdad and operating, it is a definite posibility that the mukhabarat knew of his presence. It was very irresponsible of the administration to use conjecture as fact - it does nobody any good and when credibility is required again people will be less inclined to trust.

 

[pax]

Let's try and keep things cordial here, kids.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I don't think Cheney won at all, and not just because I'm supporting Kerry/Edwards. I think Edwards at least held his own, and I think he's quite articulate and informed. Cheney seemed to me to be all about same old same old. I wonder if he will EVER admit the lack of connection btwn Saddam and Al Qaida...

"Oh yeah"

Meeting Was Not First for Cheney, Edwards

By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer

CLEVELAND - Vice President Dick Cheney said Tuesday night that the debate with Democratic Sen. John Edwards marked the first time they had met. In fact, the two had met at least three times previously.

Cheney made the remark while accusing Edwards of frequent absences from Senate votes.

"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.

On Feb. 1, 2001, the vice president thanked Edwards by name at a Senate prayer breakfast and sat beside him during the event.

On April 8, 2001, Cheney and Edwards shook hands when they met off-camera during a taping of NBC's "Meet the Press," moderator Tim Russert said Wednesday on "Today."

On Jan. 8, 2003, the two met when the first-term North Carolina senator accompanied Elizabeth Dole to her swearing-in by Cheney as a North Carolina senator, Edwards aides also said.

Edwards didn't forget their prayer-breakfast meeting. The Democratic vice presidential candidate noted the discrepancy at a post-debate rally in a Cleveland park, calling it an example of Cheney "still not being straight with the American people."

"The vice president said that the first time I met Senator Edwards 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."

 

[U2democrat]

i thought it was a tie, and i'm leaving it at that.



though 90 minutes of john edwards wasn't too shabby either.

 

[JOFO]

Personally, I found it incredibly offensive that Cheney didn't thank Edwards in his closing remarks, while Edwards thanked him.

He also didn't even get up from his chair at the end to shake his hand.

I don't need some bitter old man who doesn't even have common decency and whose capaign slogan is "You're all gonna die if you don't vote for us" to be 2nd in line to run the U.S. of A.

And, I'm not going to admit that Edwards lost, because according to numerous polls, he didn't lose; and according to me, he didn't lose either.

 

[verte76]

I thought the debate was a draw. Both made good points, and it was very much a counter-punch affair, not at all like the veep debate four years ago, which the press called a "courtly meeting" and "a meeting of gentlemen".

 

[joyfulgirl]

The fact that Cheney rarely mentioned Bush is odd.

He must secretly be humiliated by Bush.

I thought Edwards started out weak but once he realized that his courtroom style wasn't going to fly, he toned it down, got more real and got stronger. Cheney was damn good, though. As much as I despise the man, I have to say he pulled out some awesome shots. Still, that steely coldness I wouldn't think would sit well with Americans. He just comes across as an articulate thug to me.

 

[U2democrat]

my favorite line was from edwards that we can't take four more years of their experience. i've been saying the EXACT same thing for months now. hmmmmm, do i sense a connection between me and edwards?

but i still think it was a tie. they were both VERY strong and tough.

 

[LarryMullen's POPAngel]

The fact that Cheney rarely mentioned Bush is odd.

Throwing a bone to the consipracy theorists that Cheney i really the President.


j/k... I thought it was a tie. Just for the fact that Edwards held his own.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

i curse way too much when i post after drinking.

 

[diamond]

The Man With The Yellow Hat won this debate.

He won it on prescence and style points.

db9

 

[JOFO]

i curse way too much when i post after drinking.

it's ok man; I do it too much sober.

 

[Diemen]

I just had the chance to watch the debate last night, and to me it seemed like a draw. I was actually surprised (and a bit relieved) to see Edwards come out as strong as he did against Cheney and the Bush administration. Cheney clearly had some stronger responses, but he also backed away on several challenges from Edwards (Haliburton, voting against the same defense programs Kerry voted against, voting against plastic weapons ban, Martin Luther King Day, release of Nelson Mandela, meals on wheels, etc).

 

[Hawk269]

From the Washington Post:
"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda [is] because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," Bush told reporters after a Cabinet meeting at the White House.

Bush said he had called Saddam Hussein a threat "because he had used weapons of mass destruction against his own people. He was a threat because he was a sworn enemy to the United States of America, just like al Qaeda. Now, he was a threat because he had terrorist connections, not only al Qaeda connections but other connections to terrorist organizations."

As recently as Monday, Cheney said in a speech that Hussein "had long-established ties with al Qaeda."

Bush, in his speech aboard an aircraft carrier on May 1, 2003, asserted: "The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda and cut off a source of terrorist funding."

"We didn't do anything to provoke the attack of 9/11. We were attacked by the terrorists, and we've responded forcefully and aggressively."

From cnn.com:
In June, Cheney said "we don't know" whether Iraq was involved in 9/11.

In September 2003, Cheney said Iraq under Saddam had been "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."


HOWEVER, during the debate with Edwards, Cheney said, "The senator has got his facts wrong. I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11, but there's clearly an established Iraqi track record with terror."

Now do you want to continue this little merry-go-round or do you want to GET REAL?

Let's put 2+2 together. Bush and Cheney consistently link Iraq to Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda was proven to be directly responsible for 9/11. So you are either suggesting that Al-Qaeda was not responsible for 9/11 or you are just denying that Bush and Cheney have been linking Iraq and 9/11 as a basis for an unjustifiable war, which is clearly a position that a reasonable person would not agree with based on the quotes above.

I'll continue this dance all night long, except I will be using quotes and facts and you will be using your opinion and rhetoric.

Have a good one.

AJ [/B]

I'm still waiting for a response to the content of my post.

Anyone want to try to refute these facts?

AJ

 

[diamond]

Headache,

Like Edwards accurately pointed out, there are al-Qaida in many nations worldwide. We're not going to connect that terrorist ring to every nation in which it is present, are we?
.

Some of us are coming along.
Even John Edwards.
We conservatives are very proud of you.

The first step is realizing Ai Qaida is in many countries. Very good.
For the last 3 years President Bush has said the War on Terror is
A Global War On Terror.

Al Qaida was in many countries before 9-11 planning to rehit the USA. I say REHIT as Al qaida did hit here during the 90s.

That the majority of Al Qaida are now in Iraq should say something.. To say that there was no knowledge or collaboration is like saying Bono and Michael Stipe are not in the same musical group (WELL DUH) but 'barely are accuainted with each-other.' Their ties are stronger than that and probably let eachother know of their on going work while they are doing it..

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that Saddam and al Queda communicated with eachother prior to and post 9-11.

Connect the dots, Sadaam probably knew of 9-11 and did nothing but waited and encouraged the terrorists that Iraq would be a safe haven for them later. Iraq has now become the new front.

If Saddam didn't want Iraq to become the new front he would have complied with the UN sacntions.-sp
It's that simple.

I would rather take the terrorists out there than here.


db9

 

[drivemytrabant]

Couple of things from the debate last night--ABC is reporting that Dick Cheney won--CBS is reporting that Edwards won. As hawk269 pointed out--Mr. Cheney is on record as meeting Mr. Edwards 3 times. But seeing as how Mr. Edwards did not point out this fact during the debate--they must not have been very memorable. I don't think Mr. Cheney would lie about something that could so easily be disproved--but I'm sure most of you are going to disagree with me. Could it not be possible that he (along with Mr. Edwards) just forgot about the prior meetings?

 

[Hawk269]

That the majority of Al Qaida are now in Iraq should say something.. To say that there was no knowledge or collaboration is like saying Bono and Michael Stipe are not in the same musical group but 'barely are accuainted with each-other.' Their ties are stronger than that and probably let eachother know of their on going work while they are doing it..

This might just be the worst analogy I have ever read. Musicians communicating was like Saddam and Al-Qaeda? You clearly don't know anything about either musicians or this political issue, since you offer nothing but opinions, which are completely contradicted by the 9/11 commission (a bi-partisan FACT-finding group).

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that Saddam and al Queda communicated with eachother prior to and post 9-11.

Connect the dots, Sadaam probably knew of 9-11 and did nothing but waited and encourage the terrorists that Iraq would be a safe haven for them later.

db9

You have no proof of any of this rhetoric. The 9/11 Commission report presents the facts and supports NOT ONE WORD of what you are saying. So keep on talking, but a little evidence to support your assertions would be a nice touch once in a while.

AJ

 

[sharky]

Cheney did not say in that clip that Saddam was behind 9/11! He stated that the war in Iraq would deny the terrorist of a potential base and supplier in the war on terrorism. Saddam Hussien was sending aid to terrorist in Israel who were walking into cafe's and disco's bombing civilians.

Sting, please READ my earlier post in this thread. On 9/13/04:
On Thursday in Cincinnati, Ohio, Cheney described Saddam as a "man who provided safe harbor and sanctuary to terrorists for years" and who "provided safe harbor and sanctuary as well for al Qaeda."

CHENEY LIED!

And remember that whole "I never met Edwards before tonight."
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/6/02029/3041

CHENEY LIED!

Geez, the evident is crystal clear right in front of you. How can you not see it? I respect your opinions Sting, but I don't have any respect for you if you keep denying these blatant lies when the facts are right in front of you.

 

[drivemytrabant]

Sting, please READ my earlier post in this thread. On 9/13/04:
On Thursday in Cincinnati, Ohio, Cheney described Saddam as a "man who provided safe harbor and sanctuary to terrorists for years" and who "provided safe harbor and sanctuary as well for al Qaeda."

CHENEY LIED!

Abu Nidal and Zawquri are not terrorists?

 

[sharky]

He won it on prescence and style points.

db9

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.

 

[sharky]

Abu Nidal and Zawquri are not terrorists?

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