What exactly does this mean, Mr. Cheney? - Page 2 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #11 of 21 (permalink) Old 10-06-2004, 03:35 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mzsmbs's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 1972 Mercedes 250 (/8) W114/M130
Location: on a high bank of a creek
Posts: 7,296
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
RE: What exactly does this mean, Mr. Cheney?

exactly djugurba.

i think al zarqawi wasn't even in iraq untill we let him in by removing sad. now i think abu nidal was there but i just can't see it as harbouring...sad had his butt in abu ghraib



in political asylum
mzsmbs is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #12 of 21 (permalink) Old 10-06-2004, 04:38 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
RE: What exactly does this mean, Mr. Cheney?


Oops
Edwards and Cheney were careful not to repeat the mistakes of last week's debate. But there were still enough blunders to keep the blogosphere buzzing
WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Rebecca Sinderbrand
Newsweek.com



Updated: 4:20 p.m. ET Oct. 6, 2004Oct. 6 - The night was like a duel right from the start. After an initial handshake, Vice President Dick Cheney and Democratic challenger Sen. John Edwards sat silently onstage for a tense five-minute pre-debate period without acknowledging each other. And from the opening question, the pair went on the offensive, sparring in ways that matched their personal styles.

For Cheney, the task was to dominate the debate and single-handedly deflect attention from the president’s widely panned performance against challenger Sen. John Kerry last Thursday. Not only did the vice president have to fight Senator Edwards for the country’s attention—he had to battle to win viewers over from the New York Yankees-Minnesota Twins match-up on the first night of the baseball playoffs.

Edwards had a daunting assignment of his own: to sustain the Kerry campaign’s momentum by out-dueling one of the masters of the art of the verbal shiv. And to do it in a format the North Carolina senator notoriously had yet to master—the roundtable style that had seemed to stall his progress during the primary season, stifling his courtroom-honed dramatic skills.

Cheney delivered sharp but seemingly dispassionate jabs at the Kerry-Edwards ticket in the monotone manner that’s long been his signature campaign style. The Democrat matched him criticism for criticism, trying—at times uneasily—to adapt his folksy, animated mannerisms to the roundtable format the Democratic team had agreed to in exchange for a third Bush-Kerry face-off.

Both men were clearly aware of the ways their opponent’s strengths highlighted their own shortcomings. Even the vice president’s staunchest supporters admitted that he came into the evening with a charisma deficit, confronting a candidate with the highest likeability numbers in the race. So Cheney offered measured, detailed attacks—both personal and political—designed to highlight their experience gap. Edwards, a first-term senator with a limited foreign-policy background, knew he’d be facing a man with an intimidating resume loaded with three decades worth of solid Washington credentials. He tried to turn that experience into a liability, reciting a laundry list of administration policy critiques before delivering the punch line: “Mr. Vice President, I don't think the country can take four more years of this kind of experience.�

Both drew from the lesson of last week’s Bush-Kerry matchup: make sure the debate revolves around your opponent’s policies, not your own. Repeatedly, Edwards sliced at the administration’s decisions in Iraq; just as often, Cheney parried, steering the conversation back to John Kerry’s Senate votes and plans for that country. Unlike the president, Cheney seemed unsurprised by and ready for a debate dominated by sharp questions about the administration’s Iraq policy. The 90-minute session covered a host of issues, but returned overseas again and again: the word “Iraq� was mentioned onstage twice as often as “jobs.� (And reflecting the personal nature of much of the onstage combat, Halliburton was mentioned almost as often as health care.)

Typically, vice presidential debates haven’t had much impact on the presidential race, but this isn’t a typical year, and certainly not a typical vice president. Both campaigns had anticipated that the closeness of the race and Cheney’s unusually prominent role would change the dynamics of the debate, and clearly the vice president’s record provided a tempting target. On the other hand, both sides freely admit that voters tend not to make their final decisions based on the bottom half of the ticket; the candidates’ main function last night was to act as surrogates for their bosses. Edwards seemed almost too eager on that score, working John Kerry’s name into nearly every answer, even when explicitly prohibited by moderator Gwen Ifill. Cheney didn’t need that directive: his references to the president were considerably sparser.

There were a few missteps on both sides. Edwards stumbled verbally several times, at one point repeating a presidential mistake from the last debate: citing Saddam Hussein’s name instead of the intended reference, Al Qaeda mastermind Osama bin Laden. For his part, Cheney’s main gaffes, while less obvious onstage, were of the variety the blogosphere revels in. A zinger aimed at Edwards’s Senate attendance record (“The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight�) that drew “oohs� from journalists watching the debate from the nearby “spin alley� viewing area was soon neutralized by gleeful left-wing bloggers who circulated screengrabs of the two side by side at a February 2001 prayer breakfast. Meanwhile, an incorrect Internet address mentioned by Cheney led to an unexpected opportunity for the administration’s opponents. Intending to cite factcheck.org, a nonpartisan campaign resource administered by the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg School of Communications, the vice president instead mistakenly directed viewers to factcheck.com—an unclaimed URL that by the end of the evening was snapped up by webmeisters unknown. Post-debate visitors who visited the site were automatically redirected to GeorgeSoros.com, the Web site of the pro-Kerry billionaire who blasts the president’s policies and calls for his defeat.

In the end, the two men battled to an uneasy draw unlikely to significantly shift the campaign dynamic heading into Friday’s presidential debate. They ended the night much as they’d spent the previous 90 minutes, by providing viewers with a sharp contrast drawn from their respective stump speeches. John Edwards cited boyhood memories in a pitch on how the Democratic ticket would preserve “the bright light of America.� Dick Cheney used his closing time to stress that the Bush administration had pursued the “only viable option for winning the war on terrorism�—and that the final outcome of that fight hinged on the “strong leadership of the president.� As duels went, neither candidate may have struck a fatal blow—but there was plenty to delight the bloodthirsty.


FeelTheLove is offline  
post #13 of 21 (permalink) Old 10-06-2004, 06:56 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
RE: What exactly does this mean, Mr. Cheney?

Man, Cheney is having a really bad day with his debate assertions. Here's another one - last night he pumped up and spun the progress in Iraq with his rosy portrait of the UN and its march to free elections in Iraq next January. Here's whats really going on - things are so bad in Iraq the UN is pulling out! Bush fed us the same claptrap last week. Between everything else today, Edwards' tag line "Mr.Cheney, your not being straight with the American people" is showing to be the truest thing said in the debate:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134659,00.html

FeelTheLove is offline  
post #14 of 21 (permalink) Old 10-06-2004, 10:51 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
RE: What exactly does this mean, Mr. Cheney?

This is un-frikkin believable. Newsweek goes after Cheney's lies "big time". Here's a kicker - remember in the debate when Cheney said the Iraq was "harboring Abu Nidal", and old 70's era Palestinian terrorist? HE WAS DEAD ! They crucify him in this article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6192327/site/newsweek/
FeelTheLove is offline  
post #15 of 21 (permalink) Old 10-06-2004, 11:24 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Member
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 1986 300SDL
Location: Boston
Posts: 383
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
RE: What exactly does this mean, Mr. Cheney?

Cheney. The gift that keeps on giving.
LK ONE is offline  
post #16 of 21 (permalink) Old 10-07-2004, 12:03 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mzsmbs's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 1972 Mercedes 250 (/8) W114/M130
Location: on a high bank of a creek
Posts: 7,296
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
RE: What exactly does this mean, Mr. Cheney?

and the snow ball is getting bigger...[8D]



in political asylum
mzsmbs is offline  
post #17 of 21 (permalink) Old 10-07-2004, 12:15 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
RE: What exactly does this mean, Mr. Cheney?

Hey - here's something weird - the right wing sites are eerily silent when you lurk em. I think they just got a collective kick in the nuts over all of this shit - Lying Cheney, Bremer the Stoolie, Rumsfeld the Stoolie, 2 CIA reports: NO WMD and NO Nukes and NO al-queda in Iraq, and its only Wednesday. At the rate they are going, Bush ought to screw an intern by Friday just to top everything off. I notice the rightwingers have been just as quite here. Maybe even they are waking up to the fact that this whole country got taken for a ride, too.
FeelTheLove is offline  
post #18 of 21 (permalink) Old 10-07-2004, 12:37 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mzsmbs's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 1972 Mercedes 250 (/8) W114/M130
Location: on a high bank of a creek
Posts: 7,296
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
RE: What exactly does this mean, Mr. Cheney?

it's just awfully hard to to defend all that stuff when information to the contrary is all over the air waves...

I just hope that this keeps going this way till the finish line... it's still too close for my liking and if you look at electoral votes it's probably even closer. Indiana is going to throw its mighty 2 votes (wooo!) towards shrubster, i am sure. we have had a dem governors for 16 years though and it's close this time around but hopefully the schrub cronie will not prevail this time..



in political asylum
mzsmbs is offline  
post #19 of 21 (permalink) Old 10-07-2004, 06:40 AM
BenzWorld Junior Member
 
AdMaven's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Posts: 10
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to AdMaven
RE: What exactly does this mean, Mr. Cheney?

Answer this one Dick: (reported in March 2004)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/

Avoiding attacking suspected terrorist mastermind
Abu Musab Zarqawi blamed for more than 700 killings in Iraq

With Tuesday’s attacks, Abu Musab Zarqawi, a Jordanian militant with ties to al-Qaida, is now blamed for more than 700 terrorist killings in Iraq.

But NBC News has learned that long before the war the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself — but never pulled the trigger.

In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide.

The Pentagon quickly drafted plans to attack the camp with cruise missiles and airstrikes and sent it to the White House, where, according to U.S. government sources, the plan was debated to death in the National Security Council.

“Here we had targets, we had opportunities, we had a country willing to support casualties, or risk casualties after 9/11 and we still didn’t do it,� said Michael O’Hanlon, military analyst with the Brookings Institution.

Four months later, intelligence showed Zarqawi was planning to use ricin in terrorist attacks in Europe.

The Pentagon drew up a second strike plan, and the White House again killed it. By then the administration had set its course for war with Iraq.

“People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president’s policy of preemption against terrorists,� according to terrorism expert and former National Security Council member Roger Cressey.

In January 2003, the threat turned real. Police in London arrested six terror suspects and discovered a ricin lab connected to the camp in Iraq.

The Pentagon drew up still another attack plan, and for the third time, the National Security Council killed it.

Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi’s operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.

The United States did attack the camp at Kirma at the beginning of the war, but it was too late — Zarqawi and many of his followers were gone. “Here’s a case where they waited, they waited too long and now we’re suffering as a result inside Iraq,� Cressey added.

And despite the Bush administration’s tough talk about hitting the terrorists before they strike, Zarqawi’s killing streak continues today.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

AdMaven is offline  
post #20 of 21 (permalink) Old 10-07-2004, 08:03 AM
BenzWorld Senior Member
 
Date registered: Sep 2003
Vehicle: 300d, 409d
Location: Denver, CO USA
Posts: 440
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: What exactly does this mean, Mr. Cheney?

I find it odd that Kerry/Edwards and the media are not following up on the obvious issue related to the lies about the reason for the war in Iraq.
Bush may be stupid enough to believe the lies, but Cheney is too smart to really believe them. This leaves the question of why did they go to war, if the reasons were not the ones given to the public?

The answer to that question is not being pursued. Why not? Do Kerry/Edwards actually accept the underlying rationale of Pax Americana but don't want to admit to it? Do they not have an acceptable alternative to that view of foreign policy? Are they afraid the American public would not look favorably on their alternative? Is it too substantive an issue to be discussed during an election?
kerry edwards is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome