Cheny has met Edwards a couple of times. Lying or Senile?

i think this is one of the things that irritates me most about the democrats, equationg every misstatement, mistake of overstatement, with "a lie." it completely devalues the word "lie." you should try reserving that word for instances where it actually applies. it'd only strengthen your case.

 

ECHO to the 10th power.....

It is ridiculous to characterize such a simple mis-statement as a lie. It's mean spirited-- all the things you commonly accuse the Republicans of being!

 

I called it a lie, because it was a lie. It was not a misstatement or a mistake. They met several times, and it was clearly said by Cheney for effect.

Much of what Bush said was a mistake and not a lie regarding WMD. But Bush did lie when he said that he read a report from the IAEA that didn't exist. Or if that was mistake, then the next fabricated report he claimed to read in a lame coverup attempt was a lie, as was the third report which was released post the original statement.

In that instance Bush either lied the first time, on the two cover-up attempts, or on all three.

I dont' say that everything Bush said regarding WMD's was a lie, but that part certainly was a lie.

What Cheney said last night was clearly done to make a point, and with no regard for the accuracy. That too is a lie.

If you don't like that lie, then we can turn to the lie that Cheney never tried to equate Saddam with 9/11. There is video of him doing just that, and he's been busted for it before. Cheney lied. It wasn't a mistake, or a misstatement.

I call lies, lies, and more often than not I'm willing to give them credit for it being a mistake.

Admitting a lie when it's shown will only strengthen your case.

 

Well then why didn't Cheney just say "you are absent from the senate too much etc..." instead of telling a silly/obvious lie?

 

so, is this a lie?

http://www.rockthevote.com/rtv_draft.php

--
A NEW MILITARY DRAFT?

It's on everyone's lips. And it directly affects YOU.

There's no question about it: the United States military is being stretched thin. Our Armed Forces are not only on active duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also in some areas of the former Soviet Union, South Korea and Europe.

At a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week about post-occupation Iraq, Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) thrust the issue of reinstituting a military draft right into the public debate. "There's not an American ... that doesn't understand what we are engaged in today and what the prospects are for the future. Why shouldn't we ask all of our citizens to bear some responsibility and pay some price?" The Senator went further and argued that restoring compulsory military service would force "our citizens to understand the intensity and depth of challenges we face."

The Nebraska Republican added, "those who are serving today and dying today are the middle class and lower middle class." The draft, he argues, would spread the responsibility of military service in Iraq equally among all Americans.

Senator Hagel's remarks come on the heels of statements by both the U.S. General in charge of American forces in Iraq, General John Abizaid, as well as Senator John McCain (R-AZ), who are insisting that the United States needs more soldiers to help with the situation in Iraq.

These leaders are not the only ones talking about the looming personnel crisis in our military. Options that don't include a draft have also been presented by other members of Congress, including a proposal by Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) to move forces that are currently stationed in Europe to Iraq.

The push to reinstate the draft is not a one party issue. It has support from both Republicans and Democrats alike. Congressman Charles Rangel (D-NY), a prominent African American leader, has been a long time supporter of reinstating a draft. "As a veteran, I strongly believe that fighting for our country must be fairly shared by all racial and economic groups. Nobody wants to go to war, but the burden of service cannot fall only on volunteers who, no matter how patriotic, are attracted to the military for financial reasons."

Why all of the sudden is there interest by politicians in the draft?

These recent statements stem from a growing belief that the U.S. government's original plan to scale back our military presence in Iraq by this summer will be stalled by the continuing difficulties there. Despite the President's promised June 30 th deadline to give back control of Iraq's government to the Iraqis under the United Nations, it's not clear under the current state of affairs when our military role there will begin to wind down even if we hand over power on time.

Why all of the sudden, should YOU be interested in the draft?

You are the generation of Americans that would be drafted into military duty, not the politicians talking about it. And so we ask you. Do you think the draft is FAIR? Our country was a different place in the 1970's, when the last draft occurred. We have new factors to consider in 2004:

* In 2004, women serve in the military--many have died in Iraq. Back in the day, women were not drafted. Should women be drafted today?
* In 2004, its "don't ask, don't tell." The military's policy towards homosexuals in the military prevents them from serving openly. Should the military discharge draftees who indicate their sexual orientation when asked to serve?
* In 2004, nearly two-thirds of high school graduates are enrolling in college. During the last draft, this number was lower and college students could defer the draft in order to finish school. With more draft eligible people attending college, should the United States continue that policy?

Some things to think about.

* Check out this article from this Village Voice about young New Yorkers debating the draft issue
* Check out this news clip from MTV about the draft

This issue potentially affects your life. So, if you care about you, you should be aware that this debate is taking place in Washington right now. It's also taking place among your candidates for elected office. Be part of the discussion. After all, if you don't stick up for your opinions, who else will?

 

wow Bush supporters criticizing someone else's high degree of absenteeism?

"A CBS News tally shows that President Bush is now making his 38th visit to his Prairie Chapel ranch since taking office. Add up the number of full or partial days he has been there -- it comes out to 254.

"That's about 20 percent of his presidency. Add in his time at Camp David and the Bush family home in Kennebunkport, Maine, and the percentage more than doubles."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18516-2004Aug20.html

 

It's certainly propoganda, it's hard to lie about the future. It is certainly trying to play to people's fears. It's also not the kind of thing I support.

But since when did I ever make a comment on that? I said that I gave Bush the benefit of the doubt on most of what he said regarding WMD. I won't call something a lie just to degrade a person. Basically Bush was wrong a lot, and ignored some intel data in order to support an idea that he or others in his cabinet wanted. There were people in his administration that didn't want successful diplomatic relations and were hoping for war. If Bush listened to them he's still responsible. I told you the one real lie that I'm certain about from Bush. But being mistaken, ignoring the right data, and accepting the wrong data, doesn't paint that much more of a rosy picture of Bush.

Sometimes politicians lie. Cheney has lied last night, and before. Bush lied about the incident I mentioned before. Whatever the reasons are, I wont' get into, but they told lies, and calling them on it, isn't a crime or over reacting. It's just pointing out the truth.

 

nice try, but there's nothing to prevent the president from fully discharging his duties and obligations from crawford, kennebunkport, or baghdad. on the other hand, there's no absentee ballot for senate votes.

 

I hope Cheney told her to go f herself.

Maybe Edwards doesn't leave much of a lasting impression.

 

Do the numbers 33 of 36 ring familiar? I think those were the numbers he cited in the followup sentence.

 

Yes, Bush took 33 weeks of vacation out of a possible 36...

 

Can you blame him?

 

Only if he was French.

 

Anyone watch the Daily Show tonight?

Their piece on the VP debate was better than the prez debate.

 

well in August 2001 when Bush was at Crawford for 27 days he met with George Tenet only once and if you believe Tenet they didn't have any phone conversations. When Bush got back to DC Tenet briefed him at least 6 times during the first 8 days of September 2001. Doesn't that suggest that the President can fulfill his duties better at the WH than at his ranch?

http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/06-11-04/discussion.cgi.7.html

 

tenet called the iraq wmd info a slam dunk. i assume you would argue that he was wrong about that, correct? why would you then imply the president should have been meeting with him more in the days before 9/11? or do you only have faith in our intelligence apparatus when it's convenient, ie, impacts negatively on the president?

 

I thought it was funny, but it was totally mis-representative of Cheney's remarks.

For example, they took a reiteration of Edwards' remarks uttered by Cheney and mocked them as if they had been Cheney's own words. It's funny but it's not accurate.

 

So what you're saying is it's sort of like watching a Michael Moore "documentary"?

 

The Daily Show is the only fair and balanced "news" show on TV anymore. The are equal opportunity offenders.

JS said: In case you didn't see it the debate went something like this:

Cheney: "GRRR"

Edwards: "Gaah-lee!"

Cheney: "GRRR"

Edwards: "Shazam!"

Cheney: "ARRGH"

Edwards: "Wow-wee!"