I wonder what the families of our dead troops would think about that statement?

Oh, I think that lots has "come of" their lies and hopefully in November we'll be able to add a new administration to the list.

Ah, the droning mantra of Bush-haters... Lies, Lies, Lies... and yet, nothing ever seems to come of it...

The fact of the matter is, that you know it's true, and this is all you can say.

Ah, the blatent disregard of honesty from the Bush-lovers...Lies, Lies, Lies, so what, who cares, what's the big deal?....

I wonder what the family members of our troops who've been killed in action would think about that statement.

Oh, I think that lots has come of their lies and hopefully come November we'll be able to add a brand new administration to the list.

Ah, the droning mantra of Bush-haters... Lies, Lies, Lies... and yet, nothing ever seems to come of it...

This is all you can say because you know you're wrong.

Ah, the blatent disregard of honesty of the Bush-Lovers...Lies, Lies, Lies and who cares, so what, it doesn't matter...

I wonder how the family of one of our soldiers killed in Iraq would feel about that statement.

Oh, I think plenty has come of their lies, and hopefully in November we'll be able to add a new administration to that list.

Ah, the droning mantra of Bush-haters... Lies, Lies, Lies... and yet, nothing ever seems to come of it...

This is all you can resort to because you know it's true, you know he lied and there is no reasonable defense.

Ah, the blatent disregard for honesty from the Bush-Lovers...Lies, Lies, Lies...and so what, who cares, what's the big deal...

No matter who says anything about Bush that can be thought of as negative, some how it is Bush Bashing, or the source is not telling the truth, or they are old or they are Democrats , etc, etc, etc.

If God himself declared that George W. Bush lied or made a error, the Bush supporters would tell God he was wrong!!!!! Wake up Look at the lack of jobs, the deficit, the trade deficit, Gas prices, health care costs and our lack on an energy poicy that works, Iraq. All this is George W. Bush. Only the trade deficit existed in 2001 when he took office. He was the President that promised to establish a better atmosphere in this nation. He was to be the president of ALL the people. There has never been more discord in this country in my life time than in 2004 because of George W. Bush!

If God himself came down and said George W. Bush lied or made a error, the Bush supporters would tell God he was wrong. Open your eyes- Look at lack of jobs, look at the deficit, trade, healthcare, gas prices, the way the Iraq War is going, No WMD etc etc etc.

Ah, the droning mantra of Bush-haters... Lies, Lies, Lies... and yet, nothing ever seems to come of it...

Perhaps we'll be able to file this gem under "Famous Last Words." (Would that we were so lucky.)

I resent being called a Bush hater almost as much as I resent the double standard (some) Bush supporters deploy around these kinds of questions. I don't hate President Bush I just don't think he should be president. And increasingly I don't just think Kerry is a better alternative (ABBA etc.) -- I think he will make a very good president.

Yet again, I find myself listening to BakerStreet cling to and defend an OBVIOUS misstatement. What is so hard about saying, "Yeah, that wasn't quite accurate of the Vice President"? You still get to support the guy. You still get to go after Edwards for his manipulations of facts (and there were more than a few of those!) OMG...did you see that???? I just did with Edwards what I am asking you to do with Cheney. Problem is, repeatedly BakerStreet and his ilk are unwilling to admit even the slightest wiff of a fault with anyone associated with their candidate. Kinda like the President that way, huh? And maybe that's one of the clearest indications of the significant differences between these two candidates/parties/worldviews. One of them values consistency and stubbornly sticking to a course of action or line of argument even when the evidence does not support it. And frankly, that is WAY scarier than the so-called flip-flopping the Right is trying to attribute (in typical double standard fashion) to Kerry.

I implore all of you "CHENEY DIDN'T LIE" AND "YOU ARE BUSH HATERS" people to visit this most intresting site:

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=272

Cheney told you to go there, so if you won't take my word for it take his

I have a question. Was everything all the candidates (numbers, claims, etc.) said entirely factual? Who were the ones that made these lies? If I remember correctly, in the first debate, both Bush and Kerry said some things that weren't true. Was it true with Cheney and Edwards? If so, then I think we should all be recognizing that all of the candidates running for Presidents are huge liars who must be impeached.

The sad truth is that both sides (all? sides) in a political campaign routinely make claims that opponents can call lies, because they are trying to cast "facts" in a light favorable to them. Getting into these "liar, liar, pants on fire" exchanges largely misses the point. Us poor voters have the job of sorting it all out and deciding on the basis of the preponderance of evidence (such as it exists) and our personal values and beliefs who is the better choice for President. May all who are eligible evaluate the candidates as best they can and exercise their right to vote.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Newsweek reports that in the VP debate, Cheney gave all new reasons for why we went to war with Iraq. This article looks at why these new reasons hadn't been emphasized (mostly because they are misleading or untrue) and why the originial reasons are not being stressed by the Bush campaign (they've been disproved). Cheney saying he never said there were ties between Al Qaida and Iraq....that's just too easy to refute, but they prove it in this article.

"Cheney’s miscues on Iraq are especially notable because he has been perhaps the single most vigorous advocate—both internally and in public—for the war. " -Newsweek

The full article on the distortions by Cheney on Iraq last night. Link

"Cheney saying he never said there were ties between Al Qaida and Iraq....that's just too easy to refute, but they prove it in this article."

Could you post a link to where he said that? Odd, reading the transcript of the debate I can't seem to find it. What I find that he said is:

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

Then he gave reasons that he believes that to be true, such as the fact that when Zarqawi left Afghanistan, he went to Baghdad BEFORE we announced intentions to invade it.

I think it's basically true that all candidates tell lies, and frankly, the fault isn't theirs, it's ours. The American people are inconsistent, but they expect their leaders to be consistent; which means that politicians have to change their views but always claim they haven't. For example, while I think it's simplistic to say that Kerry was for the War before he was against it, that's a pretty accurate description of American voters. At various times, a majority have said that the War was a mistake, but when you ask if they're more or less likely to vote for a candidate because he supported the war, many more people say they're more likely to vote for that candidate. So there you have it: most Americans think the War was a mistake and most Americans want a President who supported the War.

None of this would be a problem if Americans accepted that their leaders could change their minds, but that's also seen as a weakness. So -- somewhat bizarrely -- politicians are forced to claim that they've been saying the same thing all along, even though it's the voters themselves who''ve flip-flopped. Here's an example: during the first debate, Kerry said that the Iraq War was a mistake. Later, when asked whether troops were dying for a mistake, he said that they weren't. There's a contradiction there. But the source of that contradiction is in ourselves. Polling shows that many Americans have come to believe that the Iraq War has a mistake that has made us less safe, but to honor our sons, daughter, mothers and father who've died for our country, we cannot bear saying their deaths were in vain.

Personally, I think Cheney's lie was pretty egregious. He implied that he's presided over the Senate every Tuesday since he took office; in fact, he's done it twice. I'm genuinely surprised that not one Bush supporter has acknowledged that Cheney was at least misleading on this point. It's one thing to support a candidate, it's another to pretend that your candidate has no flaws. Look above and you'll see I said Kerry contradicted himself. Why can't you acknowledge the flaws in your own candidates?

The reason that people who oppose Bush bring up Cheney's lies is that we think Bush supporters pretend -- or maybe even believe -- that their own candidates are more virtuous. It says something that the main attack of the Kerry campaign has been that Bush made serious mistakes in Iraq, while the main attack of the Bush campaign has been that Kerry flip-flops. The Kerry campaign's attack is substantive, while the Bush campaign's is stylistic. You see that, right? And that's precisely why people who oppose Bush have highlighted Cheney's lies. I agree, all politicians lie, so why is the Bush campaign trying to win based on the claim that Bush and Cheney don't?

Well your quote says right in it that he has not suggested a connection between Iraq and 9/11. But if you read the article linked, the authors mention that there are numerable instances where he has suggested a connection. A simple lexis-nexis search turns up plenty of documents including, for example, a June 18, 2004 article in the Seattle Post "CHENEY AGAIN INSISTS SADDAM HAD TIES TO AL-QAIDA" where Cheney mentions the links several times.

Then he gave reasons that he believes that to be true, such as the fact that when Zarqawi left Afghanistan, he went to Baghdad BEFORE we announced intentions to invade it.

Well here is what he actually said:
"The senator has got his facts wrong. I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11, but there's clearly an established Iraqi track record with terror.
And the point is that that's the place where you're most likely to see the terrorists come together with weapons of mass destruction, the deadly technologies that Saddam Hussein had developed and used over the years.
Now, the fact of the matter is, the big difference here, Gwen, is they are not prepared to deal with states that sponsor terror. They've got a very limited view about how to use U.S. military forces to defend America.
We heard Senator Kerry say the other night that there ought to be some kind of global test before U.S. troops are deployed preemptively to protect the United States. That's part of a track record that goes back to the 1970s when he ran for Congress the first time and said troops should not be deployed without U.N. approval.
Then, in the mid-'80s, he ran on the basis of cutting most of our major defense programs. In 1991, he voted against Desert Storm.
It's a consistent pattern over time of always being on the wrong side of defense issues.
A little tough talk in the midst of a campaign or as part of a presidential debate cannot obscure a record of 30 years of being on the wrong side of defense issues.
And they give absolutely no indication, based on that record, of being wiling to go forward and aggressively pursue the war on terror with a kind of strategy that will work, that will defeat our enemies and will guarantee that the United States doesn't again get attacked by the likes of al Qaeda." -Cheney, CNN Transcript

--- I don't see Cheney mentioning anywhere Zarqawi going to Baghdad in that statement among other things. Interestingly enough, many of the defense programs proposed to be cut were proposed by Secretary of Defense Cheney.

About Kerry's defense record being distorted, read here Link

Including my favorite:
Cheney, at the time defense secretary, had scolded Congress for keeping alive such programs as the F-14 and F-16 jet fighters that he wanted to eliminate. Miller said in his speech that Kerry had foolishly opposed both the weapons systems and would have left the military armed with "spitballs." During that same debate, President George H.W. Bush, the current president's father, proposed shutting down production of the B-2 bomber -- another weapons system cited by Miller -- and pledged to cut defense spending by 30 percent in eight years.

Or....

President Bush, Cheney and Miller faulted Kerry for voting against body armor for troops in Iraq. But much of the funding for body armor was added to the bill by House Democrats, not the administration.....

The Democrats can't have it both ways.

If you want to believe Cheney lied and that he and Edwards had formally met then Edwards is a pathetic fool for not correcting him then and there.  Or you can accept the more likely role that while they were physically near each other before, they had never formally introduced.

The line was effective not just because of the words but because of Edwards' lack of response.

Reply #63 By: rugbyshawn - 10/7/2004 9:40:47 AM About Kerry's defense record being distorted, read here Link

The Washington Post is not a good source to be using in this instance. Let the facts speak for themselves.

Defense & Nat'l Security Votes to Cut Defense Spending by 2% (S. Con. Res. 29, CQ Vote #49, Apr 25, 1991) Votes to Slash Over $3 Billion from Defense (H.R. 2707, CQ Vote #182, Sep 10, 1991) Votes to Cut $6 Billion from Defense (S. Con. Res. 106, CQ Vote #73, Apr 9, 1992) Votes Against Military Pay Raise (S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #73, Mar 24, 1993) Kerry Introduces Plan To Cut Numerous Defense Programs: Cut the number of Navy submarines and their crews Reduce the number of light infantry units in the Army down to one Reduce tactical fighter wings in the Air Force Terminate the Navy’s coastal mine-hunting ship program Force the retirement of no less than 60,000 members of the Armed Forces in one year. (S.1163, Introduced Jun 24, 1993) Introduced an amendment to SLASH defense spending by 4 billion dollars and Intelligence spending by about 1 billion. Senator Inouye, Very Liberal (D) from Hawaii had the following comments: Amendment 1452, 1994, Senate Floor The amendment offered by Senator Kerry would reduce the 1994 appropriations for national defense by about $4 billion. I believe the Members of this body should recall that Congress has already reduced DOD's budget in 1994 by more than $18 billion. Moreover, in each and every year of the past 10 years, Congress has cut the funds provided for defense. We have already cut defense spending drastically. ... Now if I may comment on another section that reduces funding for intelligence programs, and this amendment would reduce such funding by about $1 billion. Madam President, the intelligence budget has already been cut by almost 18 percent over the past 2 years. An additional reduction of $1 billion would severely hamper the intelligence community's ability to provide decisionmakers and policymakers with information on matters of vital concern to this country. These issues include nuclear proliferation by North Korea--this has been on the front pages for the past 3 or 4 months--peacekeeping efforts in Bosnia and Somalia, as well as terrorist threats against American citizens and property. ... At a time like this, is it prudent to reduce funds for the very intelligence programs which we need to identify these targets? This amendment would do that. It would blind our pilots. Is this the time to cut the satellite programs that give our forces warning of attacks? I hope that we will keep this in mind... If we do and this amendment passes, then we are putting blindfolds over our pilots' eyes. ... Voted NO on the Defend America Act of 1996. This bill stated that it would be U.S. policy to deploy by the end of 2003 a national missile defense system that (1) is capable of providing a highly effective defense of U.S. territory against limited, unauthorized or accidental ballistic missile attack; (2) will be augmented over time to provide a layered defense against larger and more sophisticated ballistic missile threats; and (3) does not feature an offensive-only form of deterrence. Introduces a bill to SLASH Department of Defense Funding by 6.5 Billion (S. 1580, Introduced Feb 29, 1996) (No one was willing to co-sponsor this bill!) Voted YES to freeze defense spending for 7 Years, slashing over $34 Billion from defense. (S. Con. Res. 13, CQ Vote #181, May 24, 1995) Voted NO on Strengthening of the trade embargo against Cuba. Conference Report on H.R. 927; Bill H.R. 927 ; vote number 1996-22 on Mar 5, 1996 Voted NO on considering deploying National Missile Defense, and amending ABM Treaty. Bill S 1635 ; vote number 1996-157 on Jun 4, 1996 Voted YES on banning chemical weapons. Resolution of ratification of the Chemical (Comprehensive) Weapons (Convention) Ban; Bill S. Res. 75 ; vote number 1997-51 on Apr 24, 1997 In 1997, the conservative Center for Security Policy awarded Kerry a score of 0 out of a possible 100 on 14 key defense votes – including funding for space-based laser programs. Voted YES on limiting the President's power to impose economic sanctions. Motion to table the Lugar Amdt #3156.; Bill S. 2159 ; vote number 1998-201 on Jul 15, 1998 Voted NO on deploying missile defense as soon as possible. Bill S 1873 ; vote number 1998-262 on Sep 9, 1998 Voted YES on allowing another round of military base closures. Bill S.1059 ; vote number 1999-147 on May 26, 1999 Voted NO on cap foreign aid at only $12.7 billion. H.R. 2606 Conference Report; Bill H.R. 2606 ; vote number 1999-312 on Oct 6, 1999 Voted YES on adopting the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty; Bill Treaty Document #105-28 ; vote number 1999-325 on Oct 13, 1999 B-2 Stealth Bomber: Repeatedly Votes to Cut or Eliminate B-2 Stealth Bomber (H.R. 3072, CQ Vote #203, 9/26/89) (H.R. 3072, CQ Vote #310, 11/18/89) (S. 2884, CQ Vote #208, 8/2/90) (S. 2884, CQ Vote #209, 8/2/90) (S. 1507, CQ Vote #174, 8/1/91) (H.R. 2521, CQ Vote #206, 9/25/91) (S. 2403, CQ Vote #85, 5/6/92) (S. 3114, CQ Vote #216,9/18/92) (S. 2182, CQ Vote #179, 7/1/94) Missile Defense: Repeatedly Votes to Cut or Eliminate Missile Defense (S. 1507, CQ Vote #168, 7/31/91) (S. 1507, CQ Vote #171, 8/1/91) (S. 1507, CQ Vote #172, 8/1/91) (S. 1507, CQ Vote #173, 8/1/91) (H.R. 2521, CQ Vote #207, 9/25/91) (S. 2403, CQ Vote #85, 5/6/92) (S. 3114, CQ Vote #182, 8/7/92) (S. 3114, CQ Vote #214, 9/17/92) (S. 3114, CQ Vote #215, 9/17/92) (S. 1298, CQ Vote #251, 10/9/93) (S. Con. Res. 63, CQ Vote #64, 3/22/94) (S. 1026, CQ Vote #354, 8/3/95) (S. 1087, CQ Vote #384, 8/10/95) (S. 1745, CQ Vote #160, 6/19/96) (S. 1873, CQ Vote #131:, 5/13/98) (S. 1873, CQ Vote #262, 9/9/98) (S 1635, CQ Vote #157, 6/4/96) (S. 2549, CQ Vote #178, 7/13/00)

Now you want to tell me again how his voting record is distorted? Have a nice day!

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=147

Starting in 1997 Kerry voted for every regular Department of Defense appropriations bill and for every authorization bill as well.

Republicans shouldn't make too much of these votes, however, since President Bush's own father announced in his 1992 State of the Union address that he would be ceasing further production of B-2 bombers and MX missiles, and would cut military spending by 30 percent over several years.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=177

Two years later Cheney's Pentagon budget also proposed elimination of further production of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle as well. It was among 81 Pentagon programs targeted for termination, including the F-14 and F-16 aircraft. "Cheney decided the military already has enough of these weapons," the Boston Globe reported at the time.

the factcheck.org servers seem to be busy, i got these quotes and links from an old article of mine and the google cache.

try the google cached pages if you time out:
http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:k4LOOUSLG7wJ:www.factcheck.org/article.aspx%3FdocID%3D147+site:factcheck.org+cheney+b-1&hl=en

http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:Elp0KhUn4pQJ:www.factcheck.org/article.aspx%3FdocID%3D177+&hl=en

drmiler...we already went over this in a prior forum where you posted the exact same list....so instead of circular arguments I will just say go back to the original time you used this list and then you can go through all the same arguments again (including circumstances of the votes-which oddly enough this Post article goes into leading me to think you didn't read it, Repubs agreeing on certain items with Kerry - including Cheney, voting for most defense appropriations since 9/11, etc etc etc)....that way we don't have to wear down our fingers typing the same things....

Or read Russell's post above mind which lists some of the same arguments from the previous forum....

rugbyshawn : Again, again, again, could you show me where Cheney said anything connecting Hussein and 9-11 in the debate, or could you just admit that you were wrong? Cheney linked Iraq and Al Qaeda, and gave instances that they funtioned in Iraq, and pointed to the fact that A Qaeda members fled to Iraq before we invaded.

P.S.

"I don't see Cheney mentioning anywhere Zarqawi going to Baghdad in that statement among other things. "

I posted a link to the debate transcript. If you don't read it, you won't see him mentioning it...

This is the beauty of your point. Cheney said Hussein and 9/11 were NOT connected in the debate

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

However, he has many times said they are connected outside of the debate. One example (of many):
Link

Also read the Newsweek article originally mentioned. It includes things like:
Zarqawi and Saddam
In fact, U.S. intelligence officials tell NEWSWEEK, after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, Zarqawi went first to Iran—a country that many officials have long believed had far more consequential relationships with terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda, than Saddam’s regime. And while the new CIA report confirms that Zarqawi unquestionably did later move to Baghdad—and received medical treatment there before the war— there is still no hard evidence on whether he was being supported or assisted by Saddam’s regime.
Iraq and 9/11
Cheney, challenged by Edwards, insisted last night that “I have not suggested there’s a connection between Iraq and 9/11.” But that claim is belied by an array of interviews and public comments in which Cheney has done precisely that—by repeatedly invoking claims that 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta had met in Prague with an Iraqi intelligence agent. That allegation was also debunked by the 9/11 commission after the panel found abundant evidence that Atta was actually in the United States at the time the rendezvous supposedly took place.
Iraq and Nukes
As for administration claims that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program—claims that had been championed by Cheney more than any single high-level official—Duelfer found that Saddam had actually abandoned his nuclear efforts years earlier.
Saddam training Terrorists
"The point is that that's the place [Iraq] where you're most likely to see the terrorists come together with weapons of mass destruction, the deadly technologies that Saddam Hussein had developed and used over the years," he said......
Asked if Duelfer's team had found any evidence that Iraq had provided such training for terrorists, the U.S. official familiar with Duelfer's report shook his head and said simply: "No."

So during the debate (and a LARGE nationwide audience) he says he has not suggested a connection between Iraq and 9/11 but on the stump speeches and in smaller talks or on shows like Meet the Press he consistently says there is a connection.

Answer to your PS - I was referring to the quote above the Zarqawi statement in my post. I know he mentioned him at some point during the debate since I watched it.

This really, really burns my ass, and is the same stuff we see from Kerry supporters here all the time. They propose something as a lie, even when many others at the time believed it, and then they use that as a jumping off point for their OWN LIES.

Again, a perfect example.

rugbyshawn said above:

"Cheney saying he never said there were ties between Al Qaida and Iraq....that's just too easy to refute, but they prove it in this article."

and that is a LIE, he claimed he hadn't made connections between Iraq and 9-11, and the ONLY evidence your flimsy article puts forth about that were reports that originated from other intelligence sources, and than were believed to be true at the time. Cheney even says "We just don't know" in one of those quotes

As for his original statement, I pointed out that it was untrue, and rugbyshawn still persists. This goes beyond making a mistake and is purposefully misleading...

I think most of the boo-hoo, Liberal and Conservative propaganda about lying is silly. But if you are going to come here and outright lie yourself, you have no business making any accusations against anyone else.

"In fact, U.S. intelligence officials tell NEWSWEEK, after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, Zarqawi went first to Iran—a country that many officials have long believed had far more consequential relationships with terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda, than Saddam’s regime."

Do you realize how much empty propaganda that is???

If you pick up a fekkin globe, you'll see that in order to GET TO IRAQ FROM AFGHANISTAN, YOU HAVE TO TRAVEL THROUGH IRAN... Zarqawi wasn't gonna rent a car, drive over to Pakistan, get a ticket on American Airlines, and fly into Iraq... (and even if he did, whatever nation he flew over you'd STILL try and say he wen't to first...)

again, people in this election who scream liar the most tend to be the worst at embracing the truth...

In question 7, when Cheney talks about Zarqawi and the poison center.
From Newsweek:
Cheney also left out the fact that the alleged poisons facility that Zarqawi allegedly supervised was in a part of northern Iraq not controlled by Saddam's government.