• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

FactCheck.org bitch slaps Cheyney's debate points

Status
Not open for further replies.

goodcow

Member
http://www.factcheck.org/printerFriendly.aspx?docid=272

According to my count... They give Cheney: 10 Misquotes/Exaggerations and Edwards 5 Misquotes/Exaggerations including the list at the very bottom of the page..



Cheney & Edwards Mangle Facts

Getting it wrong about combat pay, Halliburton, and FactCheck.org

October 6, 2004

Modified:October 6, 2004
Summary



Cheney wrongly implied that FactCheck had defended his tenure as CEO of Halliburton Co., and the vice president even got our name wrong. He overstated matters when he said Edwards voted "for the war" and "to commit the troops, to send them to war." He exaggerated the number of times Kerry has voted to raise taxes, and puffed up the number of small business owners who would see a tax increase under Kerry's proposals.

Edwards falsely claimed the administration "lobbied the Congress" to cut the combat pay of troops in Iraq, something the White House never supported, and he used misleading numbers about jobs.
Analysis



"FactCheck.com"

Cheney: Well, the reason they keep mentioning Halliburton is because they're trying to throw up a smokescreen. They know the charges are false.They know that if you go, for example, to FactCheck.com (sic), an independent Web site sponsored by the University of Pennsylvania, you can get the specific details with respect to Halliburton.

Cheney Plugs FactCheck

Cheney got our domain name wrong -- calling us "FactCheck.com" -- and wrongly implied that we had rebutted allegations Edwards was making about what Cheney had done as chief executive officer of Halliburton.

In fact, we did post an article pointing out that Cheney hasn't profited personally while in office from Halliburton's Iraq contracts, as falsely implied by a Kerry TV ad. But Edwards was talking about Cheney's responsibility for earlier Halliburton troubles. And in fact, Edwards was mostly right.

Edwards on Halliburton: Partial Credit

We can only give Edwards partial credit for his Halliburton attack, however. He implied that Cheney was in charge of the company when it did business with Libya in violation of US sanctions, but that happened long before Cheney joined the company.

"Halliburton"

Edwards: While he (Cheney) was CEO of Halliburton, they paid millions of dollars in fines for providing false information on their company, just like Enron and Ken Lay.

They did business with Libya and Iran, two sworn enemies of the United States.

They're now under investigation for having bribed foreign officials during that period of time.

Edwards was also slightly off when he said Halliburton paid millions in fines "while he (Cheney) was CEO." What he meant was that it paid fines for matters that took place while Cheney was in charge. And in fact, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced Aug. 3 that Halliburton will pay $7.5 million to settle a matter that dates back to 1998, when Cheney was CEO.

Halliburton failed to disclose a change in its accounting procedures that resulted in making its earnings look better. Cheney himself was not charged with any wrongdoing, however. The SEC said Cheney "provided sworn testimony and cooperated willingly and fully in the investigation."

On other matters, Edwards said Halliburton "did business with Libya and Iran, two sworn enemies of the United States" and is now "under investigation for having bribed foreign officials" while Cheney was CEO.

*
Iran: Indeed, Halliburton has said it does about $30 million to $40 million in oilfield service business in Iran annually through a subsidiary, Halliburton Products and Services Ltd. The company says that the subsidiary fully complies with US sanctions laws, but the matter currently is under investigation by a federal grand jury in Houston.
* Bribery Investigation: U.S. and French authorities currently are investigating whether a joint venture whose partners included a Halliburton subsidiary paid bribes or kickbacks to win a $12 billion construction project in Nigeria.
*
Libya: Edwards was wrong to include Libya, however. In 1995, before Cheney joined the company, Halliburton pled guilty to criminal charges that it violated the U.S. ban on exports to Libya and said it would pay $3.81 million in fines. Those violations dated back to 1987 and 1990.

"Lobbied to Cut Combat Pay"

Edwards: They sent 40,000 American troops into Iraq without the body armor they needed. They sent them without the armored vehicles they needed. While they were on the ground fighting, they lobbied the Congress to cut their combat pay. This is the height of hypocrisy.

-0-

They said that they supported the troops; and then while our troops were on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, they went to the Congress and lobbied to have their combat pay cut.

Cutting Combat Pay?

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."

"You Voted For the War"

Cheney: It's awfully hard to convey a sense of credibility to allies when you voted for the war and then you declared: Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time. You voted for the war, and then you voted against supporting the troops . . .

-0-

We've seen a situation in which, first, they voted to commit the troops, to send them to war, John Edwards and John Kerry, then they came back and when the question was whether or not you provide them with the resources they needed -- body armor, spare parts, ammunition -- they voted against it.

Cheney Overstates Iraq Resolution

Cheney repeatedly said Edwards had voted "for the war" and "to commit the troops," when in fact the Iraq resolution that both Kerry and Edwards supported left the decision to the president and called for intensified diplomacy.

The resolution for which Edwards and Kerry voted said, "The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate."

And Edwards made clear in a statement at the time of his vote that he hoped to avoid war by enlisting broad support from the United Nations and US allies:

Edwards ( Oct. 10, 2002 ): I believe we should act now for two reasons: first, bipartisan congressional action on a strong, unambiguous resolution, like the one before us now, will strengthen America's hand as we seek support from the Security Council and seek to enlist the cooperation of our allies.

If the administration continues its strong, if belated, diplomacy, backed by the bipartisan resolve of the Congress, I believe the United States will succeed in rallying many allies to our side.

Second, strong domestic support and a broad international coalition will make it less likely that force would need to be used.

In fact, not even Bush himself characterized the resolution as a vote "for war" at the time. Speaking at the White House Rose Garden Oct. 2, 2002, Bush said:

Bush (Oct. 2, 2002): None of us here today desire to see military conflict, because we know the awful nature of war. Our country values life, and never seeks war unless it is essential to security and to justice. America's leadership and willingness to use force, confirmed by the Congress, is the best way to ensure compliance and avoid conflict. Saddam must disarm, period. If, however, he chooses to do otherwise, if he persists in his defiance, the use of force may become unavoidable.

Confusion over Jobs

Edwards: Here's what's happened: In the time that they have been in office, in the last four years, 1.6 million private sector jobs have been lost, 2.7 million manufacturing jobs have been lost . And it's had real consequences in places like Cleveland.

Cheney: And the data he's using is old data. It's from 2003 . It doesn't include any of the gains that we've made in the last years. We've added 1.7 million jobs to the economy.

Jobs Figures

Both Edwards and Cheney quoted selective and misleading figures about jobs, and even Cheney got confused.

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 claimed Edwards was using old data from 2003, which wasn't the case.

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.

"First Time"

Cheney: You've got one of the worst attendance records in the United States Senate.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's "First Time"

Cheney claimed Edwards has such a poor attendance record in the Senate that he was just meeting Edwards for the first time during the debate, even though Cheney visits the Senate every Tuesday. But the Kerry-Edwards campaign quickly documented at least two instances in which Cheney had met Edwards previously. Edwards escorted Elizabeth Dole when she was sworn in as North Carolina's other senator on January 8, 2003, according to Gannet News Service. Cheney administered the oath.

Cheney also was present with Edwards at a National Prayer Breakfast on Feb. 1, 2001, when a transcript shows Cheney acknowledged Edwards among those at the gathering:

Cheney: (Feb. 1, 2001): Thank you. Thank you very much. Congressman Watts, Senator Edwards, friends from across America and distinguished visitors to our country from all over the world, Lynne and I are honored to be with you all this morning.

Confusion over Casualties

Edwards: It's one of the reasons that we're having so much difficulty getting others involved in the effort in Iraq.

You know, we've taken 90 percent of the coalition causalities . American taxpayers have borne 90 percent of the costs of the effort in Iraq.

Cheney: The 90 percent figure is just dead wrong. When you include the Iraqi security forces that have suffered casualties, as well as the allies, they've taken almost 50 percent of the casualties in operations in Iraq , which leaves the U.S. with 50 percent, not 90 percent.

90% of the Casualties

Cheney disputed Edwards's statement -- often repeated by Kerry -- that US forces have suffered "90% of the coalition casualties" in Iraq, saying that in fact Iraqi security forces "have taken almost 50 percent" of the casualties.

Both men have a point here, but Edwards is closer to the mark.

Edwards is correct counting only "coalition" forces -- those of the US, Britain and the other countries that took part in the invasion and occupation of Iraq. According to CNN.com, which keeps an updated list, 1,066 US service men and women had died from hostile action and other causes during the Iraq operation as of Oct. 5, of a total 1,205 for all coalition countries. That's just over 88% of the coalition deaths.

We know of no accurate count of deaths suffered by Iraqi security forces, but an estimate reported both by the Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post puts the figure at 750. Lumping those estimated Iraqi deaths with fatalities suffered by coalition forces produces a total of 1,955. Of that, the estimated Iraqi portion is 38% (not "almost 50%" as Cheney claimed) and the US total amounts to 55%.

"900,000 Small Businesses"

Cheney: Well, the fact of the matter is a great many of our small businesses pay taxes under the personal income taxes rather than the corporate rate. And about 900,000 small businesses will be hit if you do, in fact, do what they want to do with the top bracket.

That's not smart because seven out of 10 new jobs in America are created by small businesses.

Small Businesses

Cheney made a puffed-up claim that "900,000 small businesses will be hit" should Kerry and Edwards raise taxes on individuals making more than $200,000 a year, as they promise to do.

As we've explained before, 900,000 is an inflated figure that results from counting every high-income individual who reports even $1 of business income as a "small business owner." Even Cheney and his wife Lynne would qualify as a "small business owner" under that definition because Mrs. Cheney reports income as a "consultant" from fees she collects as a corporate board member, even though she had no employees and the business income is only 3.5% of the total income reported on their 2003 tax returns.

A better figure comes from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, which recently calculated that the Kerry tax increase would hit roughly 471,000 small employers. That's barely half the figure Cheney used.

Other Dubious Claims.

*
Cheney used a misleading figure to support the idea that the administration was "deeply concerned" about the toll that AIDS has taken on poor countries, stating that the administration has "proposed and gotten through the Congress authorization for $15 billion to help in the international effort." That's true, but the $15-billion figure was to be spread over five years -- and when it came to asking for money to be actually appropriated and spent Bush sought only $2 billion for the fiscal year that just ended. Congress increased that to $2.4 billion.
*
Cheney and Edwards both made misleading statements about each other's education records, specifically on the No Child Left Behind law. Cheney claimed "they were for it; now they're against it." But while Kerry has criticized the law as being underfunded and called for some changes he has not called for the law's repeal. Edwards claimed "they said they were going to fund their No Child Left Behind; $27 billion short today." In fact, overall federal funding for education grew 58% in Bush's first three years, though many governors and congressional Democrats say even more is required.
*
Cheney said Edwards "has got his facts wrong. I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11." But The Washington Post reported Oct. 6 that Cheney often "skated close to the line in ways that may have certainly left that impression on viewers," especially by repeatedly citing the possibility that hijacker Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi official, a theory disputed by the 9/11 Commission.
*
Cheney claimed Kerry had voted 98 times to raise taxes. As we've pointed out before, that's an inflated figure that counts multiple votes on the same tax bills, and also counts votes on budget measures that only set tax targets but don't actually bring about tax increases by themselves.

Sources



Pam Easton, "Halliburton To Pay Fine For Failing To Disclose Accounting Change," The Associated Press, 3 Aug 2004.

Bloomberg Business News, "Company Fined In Trade With Libya," The New York Times , 15 July 1995.

Richard Whittle and James Landers, "Cheney's Years at Halliburton Under Scrutiny, Inquiries Into Company Political Allies Say," The Dallas Morning News , 8 Sept. 2004: 1A.

WashingtonPost.com, "A Halliburton Primer ," 11 July 2002.


Forces: U.S. & Coalition/Casualties , CNN.com, accessed 6 Oct 2004.

Raju Chebium, "Dole To Focus On National Security, Economy, Health care," Gannett News Service , 8 Jan. 2003.

Vice President Dick Cheney Delivers Remarks At National Prayer Breakfast," FDCH Political Transcripts , 1 Feb. 2001.

Editorial, "Our Kerry Iraq Guide," The Wall Street Journal 30 Sept.
2004: A16.

Vince Crawley and Dario Lopez-Mills. "Pentagon Pushes for Cuts in Danger, Separation Pays." Army Times . 18 Aug. 2003.


Vince Crawley. "DoD Officials Vow to Keep Combat Pays Intact." Army Times. 25 Aug. 2003.


Kathleen T. Rhem. "Officials: No Intention of Lowering Pay for Troops in Iraq, Afghanistan." American Forces Press Service. 15 Aug. 2003.


Jacob Freedman, "Bush's Top Legislative Accomplishments," Congressional Quarterly Weekly, 27 Aug. 2004.
Glenn Kessler and Jim VandeHei, "Misstatements Include Iraq, Taxes And Voting," The Washington Post, 6 Oct. 2004: A15.
 
Maybe so but, if I were to say who had the larger degree of mistatements (again if you are expecting total honesty and no spin from a politican you are a fool) I would say Cheney was more egregious.
 

StoOgE

First tragedy, then farce.
Makura said:
Um, not really. And they're pretty tough on Edwards too.

It comes down much harder on Cheney however... which is amusing considering he was the one who used the sites name in the debate.
 

DarienA

The black man everyone at Activision can agree on
Celicar said:
So they're both liars? Now I don't know who to vote for!

"Listen; I'm a politician which means I'm a cheat and a liar, and when I'm not kissing babies I'm stealing their lollipops. But ... it also means I keep my options open..."
 

Makura

Member
Lets look at it shall we?

1. Cheney got the URL wrong. - Who cares.

2.
Cheney: Well, the reason they keep mentioning Halliburton is because they're trying to throw up a smokescreen. They know the charges are false.They know that if you go, for example, to FactCheck.com (sic), an independent Web site sponsored by the University of Pennsylvania, you can get the specific details with respect to Halliburton.

- "In fact, we did post an article pointing out that Cheney hasn't profited personally while in office from Halliburton's Iraq contracts, as falsely implied by a Kerry TV ad."

3.
Edwards: While he (Cheney) was CEO of Halliburton, they paid millions of dollars in fines for providing false information on their company, just like Enron and Ken Lay.

They did business with Libya and Iran, two sworn enemies of the United States.

- "Halliburton failed to disclose a change in its accounting procedures that resulted in making its earnings look better. Cheney himself was not charged with any wrongdoing, however. The SEC said Cheney "provided sworn testimony and cooperated willingly and fully in the investigation."

- "In 1995, before Cheney joined the company, Halliburton pled guilty to criminal charges that it violated the U.S. ban on exports to Libya and said it would pay $3.81 million in fines. Those violations dated back to 1987 and 1990."

- "Indeed, Halliburton has said it does about $30 million to $40 million in oilfield service business in Iran annually through a subsidiary, Halliburton Products and Services Ltd. The company says that the subsidiary fully complies with US sanctions laws, but the matter currently is under investigation by a federal grand jury in Houston."

So Halliburton's relationship w/Iran is under investigation - that's it? This doesn't support the shady cloak and dagger picture Edwards was trying to paint here.

4.
Edwards: While they were on the ground fighting, they lobbied the Congress to cut their combat pay.

- "...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."

5.
Cheney: It's awfully hard to convey a sense of credibility to allies when you voted for the war...

I think FactCheck get it's wrong here. The "FACT" is, the resolution clearly states "The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate." Despite all of their politicaly advantageous mixed messages (which they can now conviently use to cover their butts), I think Kerry and Edwards knew exactly what they were voting for.

6.
Edwards: Here's what's happened: In the time that they have been in office, in the last four years, 1.6 million private sector jobs have been lost, 2.7 million manufacturing jobs have been lost . And it's had real consequences in places like Cleveland.

Cheney: And the data he's using is old data. It's from 2003 . It doesn't include any of the gains that we've made in the last years. We've added 1.7 million jobs to the economy.

- "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."

"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." - dotcom bubble + 9/11 = nuff said

7.
Cheney: You've got one of the worst attendance records in the United States Senate.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.

While I'll agree this is political hyperbole to make a point, FactCheck fails to debunk the "met" issue. Administering an oath to a group and acknowledging someone in a speech hardly equates with meeting someone.

8.
Edwards: You know, we've taken 90 percent of the coalition causalities . American taxpayers have borne 90 percent of the costs of the effort in Iraq.

Cheney: The 90 percent figure is just dead wrong. When you include the Iraqi security forces that have suffered casualties, as well as the allies, they've taken almost 50 percent of the casualties in operations in Iraq , which leaves the U.S. with 50 percent, not 90 percent.

They're both using different ways of calculating the loss and both are off on their percentages.

9.
Cheney: Well, the fact of the matter is a great many of our small businesses pay taxes under the personal income taxes rather than the corporate rate. And about 900,000 small businesses will be hit if you do, in fact, do what they want to do with the top bracket.

- "A better figure comes from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, which recently calculated that the Kerry tax increase would hit roughly 471,000 small employers. That's barely half the figure Cheney used."

Cheney inflated the number - but his point remains. Almost half a million small businesses is nothing scoff at.

10.
Cheney used a misleading figure to support the idea that the administration was "deeply concerned" about the toll that AIDS has taken on poor countries, stating that the administration has "proposed and gotten through the Congress authorization for $15 billion to help in the international effort." That's true, but the $15-billion figure was to be spread over five years -- and when it came to asking for money to be actually appropriated and spent Bush sought only $2 billion for the fiscal year that just ended. Congress increased that to $2.4 billion.

Cheney never claimed it WASN'T going to be spread over 5 years - FactCheck doesn't have a point here.

11.
Cheney and Edwards both made misleading statements about each other's education records, specifically on the No Child Left Behind law. Cheney claimed "they were for it; now they're against it." But while Kerry has criticized the law as being underfunded and called for some changes he has not called for the law's repeal. Edwards claimed "they said they were going to fund their No Child Left Behind; $27 billion short today." In fact, overall federal funding for education grew 58% in Bush's first three years, though many governors and congressional Democrats say even more is required.

12.
Cheney said Edwards "has got his facts wrong. I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11." But The Washington Post reported Oct. 6 that Cheney often "skated close to the line in ways that may have certainly left that impression on viewers," especially by repeatedly citing the possibility that hijacker Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi official, a theory disputed by the 9/11 Commission.

Weak. "skated close to the line" is editorializing and the WP seems to be guessing what the viewers took away from the statement. Believing Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi official does not mean you think Iraq helped with 9/11 - which Cheney never claimed.

13.
Cheney claimed Kerry had voted 98 times to raise taxes. As we've pointed out before, that's an inflated figure that counts multiple votes on the same tax bills, and also counts votes on budget measures that only set tax targets but don't actually bring about tax increases by themselves.

I'll give this one to FactCheck, but keep in mind that multiplte votes are still votes.
 

maharg

idspispopd
I like how Edwards and Kerry stating explicitly why they voted for the authorization to use military force AT THE TIME is 'convenient butt-covering', but being vague but pointed is not.
 

Pimpwerx

Member
Makura: Are you a plant by the Cheney-Bush campaign? You have to be. That said, I'd take the word of factcheck.org over you, if you don't mind. At least I can pretend factcheck.org doesn't have an agenda. PEACE.
 

DarienA

The black man everyone at Activision can agree on
Makura said:
Weak. "skated close to the line" is editorializing and the WP seems to be guessing what the viewers took away from the statement. Believing Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi official does not mean you think Iraq helped with 9/11 - which Cheney never claimed.

I'm curious do you deny then that the administration has lead people to this particular pasture(to believe there was a connection) without saying it explicitly?
 
They don't want the voice of reason spoken folks, 'cause otherwise we'd be free and otherwise we wouldn't believe their fucking horseshit ies, nor the fucking propaganda machine, the mainstream media, nor buy their fucking horseshit products that we don't fucking need and become a third world consumer plantation, which is what we're becoming. Fuck them! They're liars and murderers. All governments are liars and murderers.

Bill Hicks!
 
So let me get this straight, Makura... in between all of the selective quoting, you honestly believe they almost always got it wrong when picking apart Cheney, yet they always got it right when critiquing Edwards?

That's awesome.
 
Banjo Tango said:
So let me get this straight, Makura... in between all of the selective quoting, you honestly believe they almost always got it wrong when picking apart Cheney, yet they always got it right when critiquing Edwards?

That's awesome.

You should read most of his other posts, there's even more unintentional comedy gold.
 
I think FactCheck get it's wrong here. The "FACT" is, the resolution clearly states "The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate." Despite all of their politicaly advantageous mixed messages (which they can now conviently use to cover their butts), I think Kerry and Edwards knew exactly what they were voting for.

So are you saying that Bush was lying when, in the speech quoted in the article, he specifically said that passing the resolution wouldn't make war inevitable and might in fact be the "best way to avoid conflict"?
 

Makura

Member
Bizarro Sun Yat-sen said:
So are you saying that Bush was lying when, in the speech quoted in the article, he specifically said that passing the resolution wouldn't make war inevitable and might in fact be the "best way to avoid conflict"?

Of course not. I'm saying I think Kerry/Edwards were being disingenuous if they ever claimed that the reason they voted for the resolution was because they saw it as only a deterrent. If you don't want to go to war, you don't vote to give the President the authority to.
 

DarienA

The black man everyone at Activision can agree on
Makura said:
Of course not. I'm saying I think Kerry/Edwards were being disingenuous if they ever claimed that the reason they voted for the resolution was because they saw it as only a deterrent. If you don't want to go to war, you don't vote to give the President the authority to.

IS that so? Well as an example various UN resolutions were passed that authorized the use of force for violation of them... yet that force was never brought to bear. [theory]Those resolutions were passed as a way to show support from the member organizations of the movement to force Iraq to comply and be able to show SOME type of OR ELSE. This resolution was the US way of showing full support for getting Iraq to comply...OR ELSE.

You don't always want to USE the stick... but sometimes you have to at least be able to SHOW the stick.
 

Keio

For a Finer World
Makura said:
believing Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi official does not mean you think Iraq helped with 9/11 - which Cheney never claimed.

But do you think these might mean:

CNN said:
Vice President Dick Cheney, in a speech Monday in Florida, raised eyebrows by reasserting claims that Saddam "had long-established ties with al Qaeda."
CNN said:
In September, Cheney said Iraq had been "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/16/911.commission/
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/15/bush.alqaeda/index.html

I'd still say that Cheney was "misleading", compared to Edwards whose missed facts can be considered as gaffes and generalizations.
 

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
Makura said:
Of course not. I'm saying I think Kerry/Edwards were being disingenuous if they ever claimed that the reason they voted for the resolution was because they saw it as only a deterrent. If you don't want to go to war, you don't vote to give the President the authority to.
Now I know you ran away from this thread:
http://www.ga-forum.com/showthread.php?p=451185#post451185


BTW, they saw it as a deterrent AND a last resort option.
 

Makura

Member
Hitokage said:
Now I know you ran away from this thread:
http://www.ga-forum.com/showthread.php?p=451185#post451185


BTW, they saw it as a deterrent AND a last resort option.

What exactly in that thread did I "run away from"?

If they were against an attack - but wanted to threaten Iraq, they should have voted against the authority to go to war and voiced their opinion that more should be done before giving Bush a blank check. But they didn't. They voted for it knowing full well it gave the President the freedom to attack Iraq.

Another toothless threat would have done nothing. That's even more apparent after reading parts of the new ISG report.
 

Keio

For a Finer World
If they were against an attack - but wanted to threaten Iraq, they should have voted against the authority to go to war.
And in what way is that threatening? Anyway, if you remember last weeks debate, it should be clear to you that it wasn't a blank check and more was promised, but not delivered.

Kerry said:
I believe that we have to win this. The president and I have always agreed on that. And from the beginning, I did vote to give the authority, because I thought Saddam Hussein was a threat, and I did accept that intelligence.

But I also laid out a very strict series of things we needed to do in order to proceed from a position of strength. Then the president, in fact, promised them. He went to Cincinnati and he gave a speech in which he said, "We will plan carefully. We will proceed cautiously. We will not make war inevitable. We will go with our allies."

He didn't do any of those things. They didn't do the planning. They left the planning of the State Department in the State Department desks. They avoided even the advice of their own general. General Shinsheki, the Army chief of staff, said you're going to need several hundred thousand troops. Instead of listening to him, they retired him.

The terrorism czar, who has worked for every president since Ronald Reagan, said, "Invading Iraq in response to 9/11 would be like Franklin Roosevelt invading Mexico in response to Pearl Harbor."

That's what we have here.
 

Makura

Member
The terrorism czar, who has worked for every president since Ronald Reagan, said, "Invading Iraq in response to 9/11 would be like Franklin Roosevelt invading Mexico in response to Pearl Harbor."

This new favorite sound bite coming from the Dems is specious, naive and irresponisble. It asks people to ignore the ACTUAL timeline of the War on Terror post-9/11.

We attacked Afghanistan immediately after 9/11, not Iraq.
 

xsarien

daedsiluap
Makura said:
This new favorite sound bite coming from the Dems is specious, naive and irresponisble. It asks people to ignore the ACTUAL timeline of the War on Terror post-9/11.

We attacked Afghanistan immediately after 9/11, not Iraq.

Note that the quote is from a Republican.
 

SteveMeister

Hang out with Steve.
Makura said:
This new favorite sound bite coming from the Dems is specious, naive and irresponisble. It asks people to ignore the ACTUAL timeline of the War on Terror post-9/11.

We attacked Afghanistan immediately after 9/11, not Iraq.

The quote doesn't say "immediately". It says "in response to", which is what the Bush administration did. I don't think you'll find too many people -- Democrats or Republicans -- who disagree with attacking Afghanistan in response to the 9/11 attacks. But the quote doesn't question that -- it questions attacking IRAQ in response to the 9/11 attacks, and the report shows that that questioning was justified.
 

Keio

For a Finer World
Thanks for a very substantial answer, grabbing one off-topic part of the quote ^_^

Finishing the job in Afghanistan, instead of going on about Iraq's fictional ties to terrorists would have been a good idea, though.

And, well, many people do believe that Iraq was the intended target all along.

60 minutes said:
In the aftermath of Sept. 11, President Bush ordered his then top anti-terrorism adviser to look for a link between Iraq and the attacks, despite being told there didn't seem to be one.

The charge comes from the adviser, Richard Clarke, in an exclusive interview on 60 Minutes.
 
Makura said:
Another toothless threat would have done nothing.
Which is why they voted for the toothed threat.

If you think Kerry and Edwards have been lying about their real position for two years, though, what do you make of the Bush quote "America's leadership and willingness to use force, confirmed by the Congress, is the best way to ensure compliance and avoid conflict." ?
 

Makura

Member
SteveMeister said:
The quote doesn't say "immediately". It says "in response to", which is what the Bush administration did. I don't think you'll find too many people -- Democrats or Republicans -- who disagree with attacking Afghanistan in response to the 9/11 attacks. But the quote doesn't question that -- it questions attacking IRAQ in response to the 9/11 attacks, and the report shows that that questioning was justified.

Iraq was not a response to 9/11. Taking on Al Qaeda in Afghanistan was. Iraq is part of the larger war on terror - the impetus of the war being the events of 9/11.

This is bigger than Al Qaeda. It's politically advantageous for the Democrats to pretend otherwise at the moment , but no doubt these are the same people - if we HADN't gone into Iraq - who would now be whining about how the Bush administration has failed the American people by leaving someone like Hussien in power in a post 9/11 world. They'd probably even be blaming the inaction on some Halliburton/big oil conspiracy.
 
It's politically advantageous for the Democrats to pretend otherwise at the moment , but no doubt these are the same people - if we HADN't gone into Iraq - who would now be whining about how the Bush administration has failed the American people by leaving someone like Hussien in power in a post 9/11 world. They'd probably even be blaming the inaction on some Halliburton/big oil conspiracy

This is what we call a STRAW MAN. It's a huge fallacy in debating, and if you make one more of them, I'm banning you for a week.
 

Makura

Member
Keio said:
Thanks for a very substantial answer, grabbing one off-topic part of the quote ^_^

Finishing the job in Afghanistan, instead of going on about Iraq's fictional ties to terrorists would have been a good idea, though.

And, well, many people do believe that Iraq was the intended target all along.

I've been trying - I kept getting a timeout error.

I already addressed your point. If truly the most important thing to Kerry at the time was to simply scare Saddam yet reign in the President to some degree, I think he would have voted no - because once he casts that vote, no matter how much he may want the President to pursue other avenues, he has just given the full authority to Bush to do what he pleases. The resolution was NOT "We give you the authority Mr. President, but check with Kerry first to see if he's satisfied - oh and don't forget to appease Germany, France and Russia who are benefiting from the Oil-For-Food scam". In reality it's "The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate." I think Kerry knew very well that's what that vote meant and if he had any reservations he should have cast a nay.

Kerry: "He didn't do any of those things"

Now THAT is a lie.
 

iapetus

Scary Euro Man
Drinky Crow: Are you seriously saying Makura gets a week ban per logical fallacy? We're talking heat death of the universe here...
 
No, just that if he makes one more remark along the lines of "Kerry would..." or "the Democrats would..." he gets a week off to improve his logic and debate skills.
 
So attacking a guy who has NO WMDs and has at WORST paid off a few sucide bombers is a more crucial and immediate target than Saudi Arabia, Iran, or North Korea? You're SERIOUSLY arguing that Iraq was SUCH a priority that we hindered and eventually squandered our legitimate venture in Afghanistan?

STUPIDITY.
 

NWO

Member
Makura said:
Iraq was not a response to 9/11. Taking on Al Qaeda in Afghanistan was. Iraq is part of the larger war on terror - the impetus of the war being the events of 9/11.

This is bigger than Al Qaeda. It's politically advantageous for the Democrats to pretend otherwise at the moment , but no doubt these are the same people - if we HADN't gone into Iraq - who would now be whining about how the Bush administration has failed the American people by leaving someone like Hussien in power in a post 9/11 world. They'd probably even be blaming the inaction on some Halliburton/big oil conspiracy.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

If we didn't go after Saddam we would have been able to take out a majority of the terrorists in Afghanistan and would have caught Bin Laden by now.

But you want to know why Bush hasn't gone after Bin Laden with 100% effort like he SHOULD have to begin with?

Its simple. If they would have caught Bin Laden back 2 years ago they couldn't use the "Don't vote for Kerry/Edwards because they can't protect you against terrorists like Bush and Dick can" excuse.

This administration doesn't give a fuck about the people and they would love to draw out this war FOREVER so that they can use it against any Democrat who's running for President.

His fear tatics wouldn't work if there were no more terrorists.

By going after Saddam he caught somebody who was bad but wasn't a threat to America so he can say he's "strong against terrorists" even though he didn't catch the guy who we was originally going after.

That's why he said Bin Laden wasn't a threat to this country because he never had any intention of going after him in the first place. He said oh let's go after the terrorists and then quickly changed it to Iraq when everyone was still waving around their American flags at a time when they would have invaded ANYBODY if the President said they were a threat. Just look at all the attacks against Muslim people in America after 9/11. They wanted blood from somebody and when Bush said I'm giving you Saddam instead of Bin Laden people went crazy with joy rather than going after him for NOT making a push to catch the guys who did and are still planning an attack on us.

Just put it this way: If Saddam wasn't caught and Bin Laden remains on the run who is going to be a bigger threat to the US now and for the next 10 years? Iraq was NEVER going to attack us. But you as sure hell know that Bin Laden has his sights set on us and could attack at any time.

Nobody was fearing Iraq on 9/11 or after 9/11 until the President LIED and said they had WMDs and that they were connected to Bin Laden.

If he didn't lie about the WMDs and the false connections then everybody would have said "STFU about Iraq and go out there and catch the terrorists you hick. What's the matter with you? You want to catch Saddam and not Bin Laden. Get it through your retarded head that nobody cares about Saddam going after your daddy except you and we want the person responsible for 9/11 (Bin Laden) caught or killed."
 

Makura

Member
So attacking a guy who has NO WMDs

I'll leave aside all the points I would like to bring up regarding this becuase I'm pretty sure you'll probably just laugh at them, but I will say the hindsight is 20/20.

and has at WORST paid off a few sucide bombers

He's done many things in addition to financing murderers

is a more crucial and immediate target than Saudi Arabia, Iran, or North Korea?

Do Saudi Arabia, Iran, or North Korea have the history of UN violations and hubris towards the UN that Saddam had?

Are Saudi Arabia, Iran, or North Korea at least willing to begin negotiations?

I might agree with you that Kim Jong Il is as dangerous or more dangerous than Saddam, but at least his government is willing to talk.

You're SERIOUSLY arguing that Iraq was SUCH a priority that we hindered and eventually squandered our legitimate venture in Afghanistan?

"I caught just a part of a news conference that [Kerry] gave wherein he talked about how bad it was that the Commander-in-Chief had taken troops away from me and put those out of Afghanistan and put those troops to work in Iraq. Sean, that's absolutely incorrect. You know, hey, my name's Tommy Franks, and I don't lie. Reading my book the way you have, I would refer you to page 386 of my book where we go ahead and we talk about the fact that the President used to stress to me every day his concern that we should not distract from Afghanistan and the fight there while we were conducting Iraq. We entered Iraq with 9,500 troopers in Afghanistan. And by the time we finished major combat in Afghanistan-or in Iraq-we had 10,000 troops in Afghanistan."

- Gen. Tommy Franks
 

DarienA

The black man everyone at Activision can agree on
Makura said:
I'll leave aside all the points I would like to bring up regarding this becuase I'm pretty sure you'll probably just laugh at them, but I will say the hindsight is 20/20.

Hindsight? <looks at coalition make up vs. kuwit liberation coalition makeup> Well shit somebody knew.

Do Saudi Arabia, Iran, or North Korea have the history of UN violations and hubris towards the UN that Saddam had?
North Korea.... has hubris towards the world.

Are Saudi Arabia, Iran, or North Korea at least willing to begin negotiations?
Saddam hadn't thrown the UN inspectors out again.... that would = negotiations to me.

I might agree with you that Kim Jong Il is as dangerous or more dangerous than Saddam, but at least his government is willing to talk.
As dangerous? or more? Try way more. Kim Jong is crazy AND has a much more capable military. In terms of negotiating? Let's see Saddam... had in inspectors in his country... North Korea... hmm no inspectors there... Saddam... no nuclear program... North Korea... definitely a nuclear program.

Yes I definitely see how Iraq was much more of a threat than NK... and don't get me started on Iran another country that is moving along the nuclear weapon development path...
 
DarienA, Makura/Ripclawe are just feeding us, virtually verbatim, the busted strawmen so crudely constructed on the front page of instapundit.com.

It's funny, because I scan instapundit.com just find out what sort of ludicrous idiot spin the latest bad news out of the world theatre will get, and I find that "informed conservatives" barely even bother to reformat the talking points before cutting-and-pasting them into the "Reply" box.
 

DarienA

The black man everyone at Activision can agree on
Drinky Crow said:
DarienA, Makura/Ripclawe are just feeding us, virtually verbatim, the busted strawmen so crudely constructed on the front page of instapundit.com.

It's funny, because I scan instapundit.com just find out what sort of ludicrous idiot spin the latest bad news out of the world theatre will get, and I find that "informed" conservatives" barely even bother to reformat the talking points before cutting-and-pasting them into the "Reply" box.

I was wondering why postings from Makura, Ripclawe and Cooter seem to be very similar in these threads....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom