Edwards Scores With Cheney Gaffe
Ultimately there is only one point which I think will be remembered from tonight's vice presidential debate, and it will help John Kerry and John Edwards. For the most part, a vice presidential debate has little impact, and by the end of the week most of tonight's debate (including most of the many incorrect statements made by Dick Cheney) will be forgotten--except for one major point.
John Edwards hammered Dick Cheney on the Bush administration's false claims that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. Ultimately Edwards got the knock out blow when Cheney committed a tremendous gaffe. Cheney claimed that he never stated that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. In one statement, Cheney both undermined the Bush administration's case for the war, and undermined his own credibility.
From now on, whenever Bush or Cheney attempt to justify the invasion of Iraq based upon 9/11, they can contradict them with Cheney's statement at the debate.
Cheney's credibility is hurt by the easily obtained evidence that he is contradicting himself. NBC and MSNBC repeatedly showed a tape of Cheney claiming Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks on Meet the Press. Many other public statements from Dick Cheney show the same.
Of course there were many other factual errors, and I'll only look at a handful of them here.
Cheney continued to attribute the rising cost of health care on malpractice. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office found that malpractice only accounts for 2% of health care costs, and that Bush's plan would only reduce health care costs by less than half of one percent. In an era when insurance premiums are increasing by double digits annually, this is meaningless, and is just an excuse for Bush to do nothing about heath care costs.
Cheney was wrong about his comments on weapons systems, as he opposed many of the same weapons systems which Kerry opposed because they were wasteful. Cheney also left out the many weapons systems which Kerry did support.
Cheney was wrong when he commented on voting percentages (and even wrong when he claimed he had never met John Edwards before, as photos popping up on the web show). Voting percentage while running for President is not a good indicator of overall Senate work. Even Bill Frisk backed Kerry and Edwards on this (perhaps as he realizes he might be in this situation in the future):
“It'll be a challenge for them because they’re going to have very busy schedules,” Frist said, referring to Kerry and Edwards. “I don’t think any games are going to be played on our part or their part. They’re doing a great public service by running for other public office, and I respect that.” --Senate Majority Leader Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.)
http://www.thehill.com/news/071304/john.aspx
Cheney was wrong when he characterized the no votes on the $87 billion appropriations bill as being a vote showing lack of support for the troops. If this is the case, how can he justify Bush's threat to veto the bill if changes were made in how it was funded (which was the real dispute, now a question of support for the troops)? Bush's veto threat was even more remarkable considering that he has never exercised the veto.
Cheney was wrong when he accused Kerry of flip flopping on Iraq. Review of Kerry's statements including his Senate floor speech at the time of the Iraq War Resolution, his other major pre-war statements such as his Georgetown speech, his statements at the onset of the war (when Kerry called for regime change in Washington), and his statements during the campaign have all been consistent. The only inconsistencies have been invented when political opponents have misquoted Kerry. Besides beign consistent, Kerry warned about the problems we are now faced with in Iraq from the beginning. If only Bush and Cheney had listened.
I'd also like to see someone ask Dick Cheney about the programs he voted against, such as Head Start and Meals on Wheels. Either he stands by his votes, and is shown to be on the far right, or he now backs these programs and is a flip flopper.
John Edwards hammered Dick Cheney on the Bush administration's false claims that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. Ultimately Edwards got the knock out blow when Cheney committed a tremendous gaffe. Cheney claimed that he never stated that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. In one statement, Cheney both undermined the Bush administration's case for the war, and undermined his own credibility.
From now on, whenever Bush or Cheney attempt to justify the invasion of Iraq based upon 9/11, they can contradict them with Cheney's statement at the debate.
Cheney's credibility is hurt by the easily obtained evidence that he is contradicting himself. NBC and MSNBC repeatedly showed a tape of Cheney claiming Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks on Meet the Press. Many other public statements from Dick Cheney show the same.
Of course there were many other factual errors, and I'll only look at a handful of them here.
Cheney continued to attribute the rising cost of health care on malpractice. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office found that malpractice only accounts for 2% of health care costs, and that Bush's plan would only reduce health care costs by less than half of one percent. In an era when insurance premiums are increasing by double digits annually, this is meaningless, and is just an excuse for Bush to do nothing about heath care costs.
Cheney was wrong about his comments on weapons systems, as he opposed many of the same weapons systems which Kerry opposed because they were wasteful. Cheney also left out the many weapons systems which Kerry did support.
Cheney was wrong when he commented on voting percentages (and even wrong when he claimed he had never met John Edwards before, as photos popping up on the web show). Voting percentage while running for President is not a good indicator of overall Senate work. Even Bill Frisk backed Kerry and Edwards on this (perhaps as he realizes he might be in this situation in the future):
“It'll be a challenge for them because they’re going to have very busy schedules,” Frist said, referring to Kerry and Edwards. “I don’t think any games are going to be played on our part or their part. They’re doing a great public service by running for other public office, and I respect that.” --Senate Majority Leader Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.)
http://www.thehill.com/news/071304/john.aspx
Cheney was wrong when he characterized the no votes on the $87 billion appropriations bill as being a vote showing lack of support for the troops. If this is the case, how can he justify Bush's threat to veto the bill if changes were made in how it was funded (which was the real dispute, now a question of support for the troops)? Bush's veto threat was even more remarkable considering that he has never exercised the veto.
Cheney was wrong when he accused Kerry of flip flopping on Iraq. Review of Kerry's statements including his Senate floor speech at the time of the Iraq War Resolution, his other major pre-war statements such as his Georgetown speech, his statements at the onset of the war (when Kerry called for regime change in Washington), and his statements during the campaign have all been consistent. The only inconsistencies have been invented when political opponents have misquoted Kerry. Besides beign consistent, Kerry warned about the problems we are now faced with in Iraq from the beginning. If only Bush and Cheney had listened.
I'd also like to see someone ask Dick Cheney about the programs he voted against, such as Head Start and Meals on Wheels. Either he stands by his votes, and is shown to be on the far right, or he now backs these programs and is a flip flopper.
posted by Ron Chusid at 9:57 PM
21 Comments:
Great stuff!
http://thelastminute.typepad.com/
Great Stuff?? The fact remains that neither Kerry nor Edwards have made a real statement on defense that holds water. Kerry has consistantly voted against weapons systems that we need, Kerry has looked at the war is Iraq as an opportunity to bring down the president. Did Saddam plan and exicute the 9/11 attacks, hell no - and nobady has said he did. However there is proof that an Iraqi agent picked up two 9/11 hijackers at the airport at Kuala Lumpur for their big pre-9/11 meeting. And oh by the way, Ramzi Yousef, who attacked the World Trade Center in 1993, was an Iraqi intelligence agent. The fact is al-Zarqawi is Al Qaeda, you may have heard his name on the news. Look, I am not a Bush supporter, or a Kerry supporter. I am someone who thinks that you need to deal with the facts and that elections should be about taking a stand. Kerry is incapable of taking a stand on anything to this point. He does a great job of talking and working a crowd, but where is the true stand. How is he going to hunt down terrorists around the world if he is unwilling to provide us with the weapons and equipment we need? Edwards sounded really good when he discussed health care reform last night. However, I never heard how the hell he was going to fund it. Look, I would love to believe everything Kerry and Edwards are putting out in these debates, but I just don't buy it. The arguments that they laid before undecided voters like me were about as genuine as Kerry's tan. He said it was real, sure.
I'm an independent voter who votes for Dems more than Republicans. But this year I'm voting Repub for president because the Dems have failed to put forth a coherent and believable plan.
As for the VP debates, Edwards got annihilated. Whenever he was backed into a corner, which was frequently, he either (a) told a folksy story (b) made reference to the incredibly vague Kerry/Edwards "plan" or (c) talked about health care -- off topic.
Edwards was in way over his head and it showed.
I am not sure which debate the originator of this blog saw but I sure didn't see Edwards win...Sure Cheney made gaffes but even when both of them were to talk about themselves without mentioning either canidate..Edwards not one but at least twice mentioned Kerry....and I didn't even watch the whole statement by Edwards..and of course my opinion isn't the only one..it seems every news organization gave the debate to Cheney..go figure...
John Kerry most certainly does not have a record of voting against needed weapons systems. Kerry has a record of voting for the systems we need, while being voting against those which are wasteful. Dick Cheney frequently agreed with John Kerry in opposing the same weapons systems as Kerry when in Congress and Secretary of Defense.
The outright lies told by Bush and Cheney regarding contacts between Iraq have been contradicted by the 9/11 Commission and are being picked up by much of the media, so no need to go into that here.
Kerry warned about terriorism well before 9/11 and is committed to respond to this problem. In contrast, George Bush ignored the recommendations of his predicessors in the Clinton Administration re taking on al Qaeda. George Bush ignored the warnings of the intelligence communitte prior to 9/11.
THE INVESTIGATIONS ON 9/11 HAVE MADE IT VERY CLEAR THAT IT WAS THE INCOMPETENCE OF GEORGE BUSH WHICH ALLOWED THE 9/11 ATTACKS TO OCCUR.
John Edwards out debated Dick Cheney as is becoming clear from most of the analysis of the debates. Cheney only mangaged to stay alive in the debates by repeatedly lying. As the fact checking has progressed, the degree of dishonesty has become increasingly apparent.
Dick Cheney advised people to go to Fact Check to defent him against Edwards' attacks. This morning Fact Check reported that Dick Cheney was wrong--their research does not defend Cheney.
You are wrong about factcheck.org. I just came from that site. It does not defend Cheney on his dealing with Halburton. But it also does not dispute Cheney. It clarified many issues. And oh by the way..Edwards was caught lying...er misleading things. Such an honest man Edwards is...and again what TV are you watching? Edwards was beat hands down. This is from FactCheck.org.
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."
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 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.
A Kerry ad implies Cheney has a financial interest in Halliburton and is profiting from the company's contracts in Iraq. The fact is, Cheney doesn't gain a penny from Halliburton's contracts, and almost certainly won't lose even if Halliburton goes bankrupt.
The ad claims Cheney got $2 million from Halliburton "as vice president," which is false. Actually, nearly $1.6 million of that was paid before Cheney took office. More importantly, all of it was earned before he was a candidate, when he was the company's chief executive.
The fact is that when Goerge Bush took office the 9/11 attacks were already well into the planning stages. The failure of the Clinton administration to take any action during the numerous, although less dramatic, attacks during his 8 years in office allowed terrorists to train and prepare. But please tell me, how does Kerry plan to hunt down all the terrorists out there? And, you can't dispute he voted against the suppliment that was needed to support troops in the field last year. He said the things he needed to say to get the support needed to beat out Dean, now it appears he is saying whatever he needs to in order to get into the whitehouse. I am not seeing a real plan beyond 2 NOV
If Fact Check is correct, the ad stating Cheney received compensation while in office is incorrect. However, that is just one charge, with Fact Check verifying many of the others. Fact Check specifically stated this morning that Cheney was incorrect in citing them in his defense against Edwards charges. Cheney also benefits in the long term from such profits for Halliburton.
The charges against Kerry on defense spending are outright lies from the Bush campaign. Fact Check and others have repeatedly exposed these lies. Kerry has a long history of support for spending for a strong defense.
Kerry did not oppose supplies for the troops as the last comment incorrectly states. It was George Bush who sent them with insufficent supplies. The $87 billion vote was a dispute over how the money would be funded, not over whether to support the troops. Kerry made it clear that he knew the bill would pass, and that if there were enough votes to prevent it from passing the result would be an alternative bill to supply the troops.
In contrast, George Bush, who has not vetoed anything while in office, did threaten to veto this bill if the manner of funding it was changed. If this bill is really a litmus test of support for the troops, how could Bush have considered vetoing it?
Regarless of whether we count in government jobs, and even if we look at the recent upswing, the overall economic record for the Bush Administration remains the worst since Herbert Hoover. That's hardly a record to run on.
It was Clinton who took action against al Qaeda, in contrast to Bush I and Reagan who failed to. The success of the Clinton Administration in limiting damage from terrorist attacks has been cited as one reason why Bush failed to take the problem seriously.
The 9/11 attacks were in preparation, but could still have been prevented if Bush had listened to the recommendations of the Clinton administration and had reviewed his own defense briefings.
Cheney's attack that Kerry couldn't take on Howard Dean, so how would he take on al Qaeda is total nonsense. The rest of us recall that Kerry defeated Howard Dean rather soundly.
Please explain to me what Clinton did to fight terrorism...Do you recall Libya? I believe it was Reagan not Clinton who bombed them...in fact I know it was Reagan...let's see what did Clinton do...oh yeah..deny troops much needed tank support in Somalia...oh and what else...lets see USS Cole...nothing..thats it absolutly nothing...embassy in Kenya...mean anything...? and of course lets not forget current situation...Bush taking the fight to the terrorist...and cutting off supply of money...mmm don't have to be blind to see what is happening....and that Kerry is a loser...and one without respect....
What actions did clinton take? In the span of a few months all these cells just popped up? Come on! Clinton may or may not have expressed the terror threat as being the most pressing issue at the debriefs - I doubt it - but he never took action. Although there is a concensus that going into Afgahnastan was the right thing to do, I don't believe, based on his prior inactions, Clinton would have gone in even after 9/11.
That is a different issue though. Kerry has said he will track down these terrorists, but with a global test. How then will he root them out of Jordan, Syria, and Iran? All places where Al-Zarqawi feels very compfortable moving around. Kerry is very good at stating the tough points, and sharp-shooting. But both he and Edwards keep refering to a PLAN that only they have any knowledge of. Hell edwards promised health care for everybody, cheap perscriptions, greater catistrophic coverage, and lower premiums. Sounds wonderful. How's that suppose to work? Where does the money come from? Well it's all in his plan!!! All the terrorists in the world are going to be hunted down, every nation of the world will Love the U.S., and Iran and North Korea will surrender all their nuclear development - Why? Well, because it is a part of Kerry's plan! Give me something real.
What actions did clinton take? In the span of a few months all these cells just popped up? Come on! Clinton may or may not have expressed the terror threat as being the most pressing issue at the debriefs - I doubt it - but he never took action. Although there is a concensus that going into Afgahnastan was the right thing to do, I don't believe, based on his prior inactions, Clinton would have gone in even after 9/11.
That is a different issue though. Kerry has said he will track down these terrorists, but with a global test. How then will he root them out of Jordan, Syria, and Iran? All places where Al-Zarqawi feels very compfortable moving around. Kerry is very good at stating the tough points, and sharp-shooting. But both he and Edwards keep refering to a PLAN that only they have any knowledge of. Hell edwards promised health care for everybody, cheap perscriptions, greater catistrophic coverage, and lower premiums. Sounds wonderful. How's that suppose to work? Where does the money come from? Well it's all in his plan!!! All the terrorists in the world are going to be hunted down, every nation of the world will Love the U.S., and Iran and North Korea will surrender all their nuclear development - Why? Well, because it is a part of Kerry's plan! Give me something real.
It was a great debate of good and evil. The handsome gentleman against the fat, bald thug with the lesbian daughter. When the Kerry/Edwards administration takes control and implements the plan for a new world, there will be no more American war machine on the doorsteps of the poor countries of the world.
Many years ago, America did not intervene is the affairs of other nations and lived in peace . Let that time come again.
It was a great debate of good and evil. The handsome gentleman against the fat, bald thug with the lesbian daughter. When the Kerry/Edwards administration takes control and implements the plan for a new world, there will be no more American war machine on the doorsteps of the poor countries of the world.
Many years ago, America did not intervene is the affairs of other nations and lived in peace . Let that time come again.
By Anonymous, at 11:31 AM
Are you out of your mind?! This is the kind of support that Kerry brings with him that is dangerous. The world is not a nice place, and you can't issolate yourself from it. If you want peice, You had better be willing to fight for it. If you think that ANYBODY can just pull the U.S. inside it's borders and live happily without being disterbed by the neighbors, you are stoned. And I think that last posting proves that you need to stay off the keyboards when you have been smokin that stuff.
and away from the polling booths!
If you want to review Kerry's actual positions and criticize them, there is room for discussion.
However, if all you can do is misquote Kerry and Edwards, while showing absolutley no knowledge of their positions, there really is nothing to talk about.
It really is scary that people who are so misinformed as our annonymous poster are voting in this election. It is scary because it shows how fragile our democracy really is. Who needs dictatorships when there are people this gullible and incapble of examining the facts? Forutnaley the pollilng results coming in over the last week show there are an increasing number of people who are catching on to the truth about Bush.
Ok lets talk about Kerrys policy...oh yeah..which position...is he standing for today....he can never make up his mind...Kerry is a loser..as well as his supporters....and don't tell me he is good for leading...he could not lead himself out of a wet paper bag...
Evidently we have a scared Freeper here who needs to rant... Sorry, please go back to wherever it is you came from.
George W Bush is a miserable failure. You've evidently bought into all of his lies, including the ones about John Kerry. Bush is no warrior, he's a flop as a war president, he chickened out of Vietnam and years later he went into Iraq with out a plan, to pick up after Daddy.
Bush is going down, and John Kerry is taking him down... piece by piece. The majority American public is not nearly as gullible as you Freepers are. They've had enough of Bush's failed policies and they know the truth about John Kerry and his record.
John Kerry will turn this mess in Iraq around, and heal this country of the ills of "W"!
Kerry has been very consistent in his positions.
Bush has been very consistent in lying about his opponents in every race he's been in--something he learned from his father. (Too bad he didn't listen to his father, or John Kerry, before going into Iraq).
Bush simply lies about is opponents positions, and many of his supporters buy it when he claims that his opponent has changed positions. They're not smart enough to actually check for themselves what the opponenet has been saying.
I guess that explains the trends for the less educated to be more likely to support Bush. It's hard to believe he can keep fooling his supporters with the same lines in every election.
Ron,
I am not sure if you feel that I am uninformed because I gave little (actually no) credit to the idea that Kerry will drop some plan for a new world on us all and there will be piece everywhere and we can just stay safely to ourselves. If so, Please educate me, How is John Kerry going to bring a piece to the world that Jesus Christ couldn't attain? How is John Kerry going to secure this nation from within our borders and have piece for all? If my scoffing at that notion makes me uninformed, then count me. If you believe that you can just declare piece and it will be so, then show me how. Don't be scared of my vote, be scared that people out there really believe John Kerry will get them all health insurance and that the prices will go down, and that everybody will prosper and live in piece. Those folks have a rude awakening if Kerry gets into office. Bait and switch. I am still waiting for the great health program Hillary was to get for us all.
On defense, on the one side we have Kerry, who has a long history of taking on terrorism. He exposed their money laundering in the Senate, and wrote a book about the dangers when the Republicans were denying there was a problem. In contrast, we have George Bush who made the wrong decisions every step of the way both before 9/11 and after. Bush's only defense is to lie, including his untue claims about Kerry's record.
On health care, don't confuse Hillary and Kerry. Hillary's plan was a terrible plan. At the time I thought the Democrats deserved to lose Congress for backing such an awful plan--until I saw how irresponsibly and corruptly the Republicans have behaved while they have been in control of Congress.
Kerry does not say he will give people health coverage. Kerry's plan is actually more in line with traditional Republican principles. People like Newt Gingrich have agreed with portions of it. Conservative publications lke Kiplinger Report describe is plan as friendly to small business.
Kerry's plan includes a number of pragmatic solutions which concentrate on free market rather than government solutions. His policies would make it easier, and less expensive, for businesses to provide health care to employees. Back when it was estimated that there were 43 milliion without health care, nonpartisan experts estimated Kerry's plan would result in coverage for 27 million of them (with Bush's plan only covering about 4 million). Keep in mind that you are paying for the now 45 million without coverage. Cost shifting adds quite a bit to the cost of Medicare and Medicaid.
Post a Comment
<< Home