Cheney has said a couple of times that he doesn’t have enough time to respond to things Edwards is saying. Wonder what would happen if Edwards turned to him and said, “Well then, how about if we schedule another debate next week with no silly time limits?”
He’s perfectly right. It would have been an immediate challenge that would have sealed the deal… “You’re not chicken, Dick, are you?”
Wonder if Mark will mention this on his blog or not– somehow I doubt it, I didn’t say anything about how good his book Superheroes In My Pants is, which is to say quite good. Of course, what I want is the collection of the “Show Business” columns from Crossfire…
Cheney’s no fool, and for that matter neither is Edwards. I mean, sure, I know you’re biased, Glenn, but anyone taking a good look at Edwards’ record, and he’s from my state, would be hard pressed to understand what makes him suited to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency. I mean, I never heard the News and Observer call Edwards’ “Senator Gone” but there are lots of people here who have said he was “Missing in Action”. there was an effort by his own party to get him to resign so Erskin Bowles could take over his Senatorial duties, but Edwards resisted that, not declaring until absoulute the last minute that he was not going to seek another term in office. Of course, by that time, NO ONE, including his own party thought he could even keep his Senate seat. There’s a joke circulating around here that if Kerry-Edwards wins, on January 21, Edwards will start his campaign for the the presidency again.
Edwards’ “lied” when he told the audience that Kerry would always tell them the truth. According to FactCheck.ORG, the website Cheney got wrong the other night, one of Kerry’s ads say that Cheney gains financially from what happens in Iraq with Haliburton. It also states that they are flat out wrong. what’s more since Cheney had to disclose this financial information when he became a candidate, the Kerry camp knows it’s a lie.
The truth is that both men were playing fast and loose with the truth, spinning it which ever way favored their own camp.
Wonder if Evanier will have the guts to point out the truth. Probably not.
Actually, I read Evanier’s blog pretty consistently, and he’s quick to admit mistakes, and mention when “his side” (he’s not too fond of Kerry, but really doesn’t see how anyone can trust the Bush administration, and I’m in complete agreement with him on this one.) makes misakes, prevaricates, lies or does anything else he finds ethically objectionable.
In all honesty, I’d love to hear a thoughtful, rational analysis from a Bush supporter that takes into account bush statements, counter-statements (“we found the weapons”, “we never said that there were weapons” etc.) the paper from the leading prizewinnning Nobel scientists that the Bush administration manipulates and ignores scientific findings, the staffer that was fired for telling the public the truth about the Medicare bill, Cheney’s publicly verified contradictions on Iraq, Bush’s opposing of the 9-11 commission, quite frankly everything documented in the book “All the president’s Spin” (written by the guys at spinsanity, who flag kerry, moore, and the democrats for misleading as often as they flag the republicans) and pretty much the last four years and then explain precisely what this administration has done to earn said Bush-supporter’s trust and another four years.
It doesn’t bother me that Bush spins things his way. Who doesn’t? I listened to Gwen Ifill ask Kerry the other night at the debate a point blank question that frankly was simply a yes or no question. on whether if Kerry moved to keep Saddam contained that meant that he woulkd still be in power right now. Well, if Kerry was to keep him contained, of course he’d still be in power. Edwards instead of telling the truth as he had just said he would attempted to spin it.
I like Bush. I think sometimes he misspeaks and people take it out of context. Sometimes I think he’s off his nut, and sometimes I don’t know what he was thinking. I even heard Rush Limbaugh say one time that he couldn’t explain why Bush had done something against his base’s wishes.
I was in a discussion just this morning with a co-worker who’s voting for Bush, but normally, he’s a Democrat. He was going on and on about how Cheney had lied about something. in the debate. When I asked him about Edward’s lies, he didn’t think that Edwards had lied about anything. When I pointed it out and showed it to him in the newspaper no less, he STILL didn’t believe Edwards had lied. “He just misspoke or he just didn’t know,” was the response. And this guy is voting FOR Bush!!!
My thinking on the matter is that politics are mostly POV.
I think that sometimes a person has to ask themselves when spin is simply putting things in a positive light, and when it is outright deceptions. Check out http://www.spinsanity.org/topics/#GWBush
And you’ll find outright, deliberate deceptions, and statement that the Bush team has made that simply aren’t true.
I’ll still admit, I’m flabbergasted that anyone can like Bush after all he’s done. One example? He disregarded the Powell doctrine-a statment made by an experienced ex-general- in favor of Dick Cheney’s approach. Cheney, as far as I’m aware has no military training or experience. Now we have over a thousand American soldiers dead and counting, and countless Iraqi civilian casualties, mostly due to very poor planning. How a man who has don’e this is “likable” is well beyond me.
I went to SpinSanity. To say I was a little disappointed is understating it to the Nth degree. It’s obvious that the so called “editors” are filtering things through their admittedly biased political POVs. There’s hardly anything written on Kerry, and I know for a FACT that the man has “misled” voters several times on numerous occasions and there’s no mention of it. Then of course there’s the Rush Limbaugh story where he’s calling people like George Stephanopoulus “Mustapha”. Rush does that kind of stuff all the time. It’s a funny way that he has to describe people of a certain mindset. He also calls Dashcle “PuffDaschle” and Carville “Snakehead” when Carville’s wife sometimes subs for Rush.
Sites like this just re-enforce my point. Biased reporting and commentary will give you biased Points of View.
That didn’t answer my question about Bush is “likable” considering that his war plan chose Powell’s experience over Cheney’s opinion and now we have over a thousand dead U.S. solidiers because of that.
So I should hate Bush just because you feel he was wrong about Iraq having WMD’s? Pardon me for saying that’s stupid. Look, I understand that soldiers are dying. But you’re gloating from a point of hindsight advantage. Even the Doffler report states that Saddam had intended to restart his WMD program once sanctions were lifted, and I suspect that had we listened to Powell, lifted sanctions and Saddam had restarted his WMD program you’de be singing the same tune but with Powell and Cheney’s names switched.
Thing is, Saddam wasn’t contained as Kerry says. Germany, France and Russia were all circumventing the sanctions. Saddam was selling his oil through Syria. He was paying money to disrupt the Mideast Peace talks by, at the very least, paying the family of suicide bombers. My guess is that he was also funding Hamas.
Furthermore, the inspections were actually benefitting Saddam by buying him more time and making richer with money he didn’t have to account for. And it kept his country men weak and poor so they couldn’t rise up against him and couldn’t get help from outside the country.
Think about it, if Saddam had no more WMDs, then why was he dragging his feet so hard with Hans Blix and the inspectors? Why not just show that he had complied to the UN resolutions. He could have had the sanctions lifted, and his people could have gotten food and medicine. So why drag it out?
Saddam was gambling that people like Powell would hold Bush back and give him more time to complete his plans.
If Bush is “likable” despite getting it wrong, then perhaps it’s due to the fact that the person he was “wrong” about was such a morally depraved and sadistic monster that no one cares that he got it wrong.
I suspect you wouldn’t like Bush if he stopped by and gave you the winning numbers to the Powerball lottery.
When I referred to the powell doctrine I was making no reference whatsoever to whether or not Saddam had WMD’s. The “powell doctrine” as I have consistently seen it referred to, was that, if we were going to attack, the best way to attack was with overwhelming force and numbers. In powell’s opinion, that would have led to fewer soldiers dying. Dick cheney, a man with no military training or experience, convinced Bush that a smaller force was enough.
I wasn’t in favor of the war. You claim that waiting longer would have helped Saddam. THe reports I’m reading these days (and beforehand) say that he was weakening. Why was he dragging his feet with Hans Blix? From what I’ve read, Blix has stated that it was the Bush administration that pulled them out when they wanted to keep looking. I agree with Kerry that the U.S. had higher priorities than going after Saddam alone, at that time, and with the plans they used. If a president is going to invade, it makes sense to listen to those with experience, training, and a proven track record. Bush didn’t.
THe whole “likable” aspect comes in that I haven’t seen a lot of reasons for anyone to be proud of bush or his record. The reason some give for supporting bush? He’s “likable.” My statement is that I don’t find anyone who has run such a deceitful administration, refused to admit mistakes, announced that his takes cuts would stimiulate the economy and then refuse to admit that they didn’t, whose administration sacked a member for telling congrss, “We told you the Medicare Bill would cost this much, actually we knew that it would cost over a 100 billion dollars more,” who went to war sloppily planned and against the suggestion of competenet military advisors, etc.. is likable in any way.
From what I saw we did attack with overwhelming force . We met little resistance and very few soldiers died.
Second let’s not forget that when Bush declared the war was over, he was right. Even today, we are not fighting Iraqi forces, we’re fighting insurgents and rebels determined to undermine our efforts to form a democracy.
I didn’t say that you were in favor of the war. I figured you weren’t or you’d be supporting Bush. You didn’t answer my question about Saddam dragging his feet with Hans Blix. Yes, I know Blix wanted to keep looking, or claims he did, but Saddam wasn’t co-operating very much with Blix either. It wasn’t until Bush threatened force that Saddam was more forth coming, but even then it was too little too late.
I don’t have problem with Bush or his administration and yeah, I like him. His tax cuts did stimulate the economy. All you have to do is ask an economist . And anyone with any Business 101 knowledge knows that unless all the “wealthy” people took their tax cuts and put it under their mattresses, they probably invested that money or at very least put it in the bank. That meant more money available for making loans at lower interest rates. this was a relatively short-lived recession.
I guess it’s one of those “agree to disagree” bits. My point about the war was that Bush ignored the experienced and competent planners in favor of the inexperienced.
As for when a war is really over, I’ll admit to having a hard time pinning that one down. You say were not fighting “Iraqi forces” but from what I’ve been reading (bbc.co.uk and others) a lot of Saddam’s forces went underground and are part of the insurgency now. If I recall correctly, Bush didn’t say that the war was over, he said that “major combat” was over (however he chooses to describe that.
When it comes to Saddam dragging his feet with blix, last I checked, the inspectors were claiming that bush was impeding them, not Saddam. I don’t see why it was “too little, too late” since, from what I saw, Saddam was weakening, (most Arab leaders thought his “election” was a joke and showed how much he was losing control.)
As for the economy, I’ve been taking a graduate economics cource over the summer, I have been checking out what various economists have said, and a lot of them (Krugman, and Greenspan if i’m not mistaken) said that the tax cuts were a bad move. Tax cuts don’t always stimulate the economy, (and if we’re talking about the national economy only, it’s easy enough to take those saivngs and send them overseas where, if they have any effect on the U.S., it’s gonna take awhile.) Short lived recession? I’ve known too many people with advanced degrees who still can’t get a good paying job.
For me, the whole likable argument comes down to deceit. There is enough evidence available that this administration openly lies, not spins, for me to consider them completely unlikable.
Lastly,
“I didn’t say that you were in favor of the war.”
I apologize if I implied that you did.
Okay, Jon. I agree to disagree. but a few last points.
1. Bush didn’t ignore the competent and experienced planners. He just picked the ones you agree with. Once again, hindsight is 20/20. The ones you say were right could have just as easily been wrong.
2. Saddam dragged his feet for twelve years, dude. If he had destroyed the WMDs, why didn’t he let the inspectors have unimpeded access to the scientists? Why did he hold up inspections of certain sites? Why did he kick the inspectors out? Why? Why? Why?
3. Most Arab leaders aren’t elected themselves.
4. I Googled Greenspan’s comments on the tax cuts and the economy, and as far as I can see he thought it was a good idea, provided the government find some other way to replace the money, and that was ostenibly to keep the deficit from getting out of line.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5942222/
5. Greenspan, the expert you chose to use, was quoted in that same article as saying �The most recent data suggest that, on the whole, the expansion has regained some traction,� Greenspan said in his statement to the committee. He noted that consumer spending and housing starts rebounded in July after a weak June, and he said business investment �remains on a solid upward trend.� While job growth has been weak this year compared with past expansions, Greenspan pointed out that the August results released last week represented an improvement over results from June and July.
�If it weren�t for the oil prices I would be very optimistic about where the economy is going,� he said in response to a question from the committee.
“1. Bush didn’t ignore the competent and experienced planners. He just picked the ones you agree with. Once again, hindsight is 20/20. The ones you say were right could have just as easily been wrong.”
I’ll assume you meant to type, “picked the one’s you *didn’t* agree with.”
“Once again, hindsight is 20/20. The ones you say were right could have just as easily been wrong.”
Except for the fact that Powell was well trained, experienced and had a great track record whereas Cheney didn’t. It’s not 20/20 if a large chunk of the well trained say, “We should wait, we shouldn’t go in, if we go in it will be a disaster (including G. Bush the first)” and then, surprise, suprise, it’s a disater.
“2. Saddam dragged his feet for twelve years, dude. If he had destroyed the WMDs, why didn’t he let the inspectors have unimpeded access to the scientists? Why did he hold up inspections of certain sites? Why did he kick the inspectors out? Why? Why? Why?”
1. The truth is, I can’t read the man’s mind.
2. From what I could tell, he was playing a losing game of delay, delay, delay.
3. If I recall, he often asked the inspectors back in when Bush pulled them out.
“3. Most Arab leaders aren’t elected themselves.”
The point I was making was that he was losing what little support he had left. There were those in the Arab world who offered him token support, and his farce of an election was another nail in the coffin.
As for Greenspan, Krugman, et al. The point I was trying to make was that not all economists shared Bush’s rosy view. I read the article you linked to (and a link therein showing Greenspan’s full tesitmony) and maybe I misread it but I didn’t see a single remark about Bush’s tax cuts. It seemed that Greenspan’s biggest concern is the budget deficit, which, when I read the news, is mostly due to 1. bad economy 2.Bush’s Tax cuts 3. Bush’s war 4. Bush’s budget.
Anyway, I’m glad that we were at least able to type it over generally without the name-calling and rancor on the main boards. I still remain puzzled that Bush has any support, due to the number of conservatives that think he spends like a drunken sailor, and the past four years in general. I can understand those that don’t like Kerry, (just as I sympathized with those that didn’t like Gore.) but given that Republicans had experienced people such as John McCain, Steve Forbes, Phil Gramm, etc. (I may not agree with them but I can’t deny their experience in certain matters.) I’m really surprised that his party went with someone with Bush’s track record. They seemed (to me anyway) to have much better candidates.
I’ll assume you meant to type, “picked the one’s you *didn’t* agree with.”
Yep. My bad.
Except for the fact that Powell was well trained, experienced and had a great track record whereas Cheney didn’t. It’s not 20/20 if a large chunk of the well trained say, “We should wait, we shouldn’t go in, if we go in it will be a disaster (including G. Bush the first)” and then, surprise, suprise, it’s a disater.
Except that Bush wasn’t going on Cheney’s word alone. Tommy Franks had just as much training and experience as Powell. He saw a different scenario. Plus, Powell’s Iraq experience was as an air war. That’s a whole different animal.
1. The truth is, I can’t read the man’s mind.
Which is what made him dangerous.
2. From what I could tell, he was playing a losing game of delay, delay, delay.
Exactly. the deeper question is why?
3. If I recall, he often asked the inspectors back in when Bush pulled them out.
Bush didn’t pull them out. The UN did. And almost up until the point when Bush attacked Saddam, Blix was STILL reporting to the UN that Saddam was stonewalling.
I can understand those that don’t like Kerry, (just as I sympathized with those that didn’t like Gore.) but given that Republicans had experienced people such as John McCain, Steve Forbes, Phil Gramm, etc. (I may not agree with them but I can’t deny their experience in certain matters.) I’m really surprised that his party went with someone with Bush’s track record. They seemed (to me anyway) to have much better candidates.
Better for who? The Democrats? Most of the names you mentioned are lightning rods in some way. Forbes has more ties to business than Bush. Can you imagine what they’d be saying about him? They’d be characterizing Gramm as the new Jesse Helms. And McCain is just so moderate that he’s a RINO.
AS for better candidates, I could say the same for the Dems. Why Kerry? Why not Lieberman? Wasn’t he supposed to BE VP anyway, according to the Dems? Or Howard Dean? I don’t agree with him, but at least the man had principals. Heck, I see Nader as just this side of a communist and I’d vote for him before I would Kerry.
I’ll admit that a lot of what the Democrats do confuses me too. I can’t say that I saw a huge difference between Kerry and Dean. I’m leftist enough that I prefer Nader and Camejo (may write them in, may not.) And WHile I’m still not sure why Saddam played the game he did (stalling, hoping the coalition would break up) one thing I forgot to mention is that he wanted to scare Iran. They’re builing up nukes, Iraq and Iran had fought a war, and Saddam wanted to think that Iraq had nukes to defend itself.
As for McCain being a RINO, that seems to be a “your mileage may vary.” If he’s that moderate, I would think that it would gain a lot of votes. Whether or not it would galvanize the base, I have no clue.
And WHile I’m still not sure why Saddam played the game he did (stalling, hoping the coalition would break up) one thing I forgot to mention is that he wanted to scare Iran. They’re builing up nukes, Iraq and Iran had fought a war, and Saddam wanted to think that Iraq had nukes to defend itself.
Still doesn’t completely explain it. Saddam knew that the US was no friend of Iran. Ostensibly, that was the reason the US ‘buddied up” to Saddam under the Reagan Admin.
Even during this war, the US was concerned with Iran.
As for McCain being a RINO, that seems to be a “your mileage may vary.” If he’s that moderate, I would think that it would gain a lot of votes. Whether or not it would galvanize the base, I have no clue.
It probably wouldn’t. There’s a reason why conservatism is king in the Republican party, and there are so many factions in the Democratic party duking it out for power that it actually amazes me how the Dems can even keep a coalition together.
By the way. The author David Brin (davidbrin.com) has some ineresting articles on this election. You may want to check them out.