Cheney Didn't Help Bush: Kerry 2 - Bush 0

10/07/2004 07:46:33 PM · #103

Originally posted by emorgan49:

John Edwards was in the VP debate. If this is supposed to mean something, I guess he's in on the conspiracy as well.

edit:
Here's the quote, in case anyone forgot:

"They gave the responsibility of capturing and/or killing Saddam -- I mean, Osama bin Laden to Afghan warlords..."

...in answering the second question of the night, the first posed directly to him.

Message edited by author 2004-10-07 19:55:49.

Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f2.8D

10/07/2004 08:09:01 PM · #104

Originally posted by bdobe:

Clearly there's a staunch pro-Bush camp that will not recognize nor acknowledge the deceit that this administration has perpetrated on us all.

As there is a staunch anti-Bush camp that will not recognize nor acknowledge the deceit that the Kerry/Edwards campaign is perpetrating on them.

Originally posted by bdobe:

The key factor among these poll numbers is that since the 1st presidential debate the trend line has favored Mr. Kerry. Again, remember that after the RNC convention Mr. Bush had generally held the lead. Moreover, since the VP debate Mr. Bush's drop in support has continued -- specially among "independent" voters.

You forget to account for the lag. Today's graph still relies heavily on polls taken before the VP debate. The "drop in support" showing up now is still the reaction to the first debate. As I posted earlier (lost, I'm sure, in 50 postings of some irrelevant list of countries ;) ), the first post-VP-debate poll shows Cheney won; what effect it will have remains to be seen.

David Ey

Nikon D80

10/07/2004 08:13:04 PM · #105

Don't you see? Bush and Rumsfeld has him confused too. It's a conspiracy.

Message edited by author 2004-10-07 20:16:01.

10/07/2004 09:00:30 PM · #106

Originally posted by RonB:

Oh. You mean much the same way that by actively linking Halliburton to Dick Cheney, the Kerry/Edwards consortioum exploits the tacit connection most Americans make between the Vice-President's former position at Halliburton and the Pentagon's cost overrun charges against them. Or how by actively linking the Saudi Royal Family to Bush, the Kerry/Edwards consortium exploits the tacit connection most Americans make between Saudi Arabia and the 9/11 hijacker/terrorists. Kinda like that.

What's tacit about the Cheney/Halliburton connection? The only people being tacit about it are the Bush administration. Kerry and Edwards aren't the first to be bring up this connection, there are many journalists who've been writing and reporting about it for a long time. In addition, Cheney is still getting paid by Halliburton, so I'm not sure you could even state "former position at Halliburton." And, he gets quite a large salary from them too. Sounds to me like a conflict of interest.

Same applies to the Bush family ties with the Saudis. The only ones being tacit about it are the Bush administration, but reporters have been reporting those connections for a long time.

10/07/2004 09:10:05 PM · #107

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Originally posted by thelsel:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
US weapons inspector, Charles Duelfer (appointed by the Bush administration) released a 900 page report yesterday declaring that NO WMDs could be found in Iraq and that they had all been destroyed by 1992 yet again undermining the rationale for the invasion of Iraq.

DemocracyNow.org

...and the report also states that Iraq had every intention to reconstitute its weapons programs in the future. So would you have rather fought Hitler in 1936 or 1940?

So, who would you have rather fought, al Qaeda back when we had them on the run in Afghanistan and then let them get away when we invaded Iraq, or fight them now that they have proliferated in Iraq and all over the world. I think you, and the president, chose the latter. Very very bad judgement and misleading the American public and world as Saddam Hussein was NO threat to anyone at the time we invaded Iraq.

Given just those two choices, and assuming that we did, in fact, have bin Laden on the run in Afghanistan ( that is, he had not already fled to Pakistan, or elsewhere ), probably the former. But, if we're going to entertain hindsight, how about an even more important choice - that is: would you have rather fought al Qaeda when we ( may have ) had bin Laden on the run in Afghanistan or taken bin Laden out of the picture completely back when he was offered to us ( that is , to Clinton ) by the Sudanese in July, 2000 for extradition on charges that he was involved in the bombings of the U.S. Embassys?

That's fine Ron, if you want to go blame Clinton for missing the chance to take Bin Laden, I have no problem with that, but it still does not get Bush off the hook as the problem was his after 9/11 and he not only missed getting him, but by going into Iraq, he helped proliferate al Qaeda cells in Iraq and all over the world. Not to mention, now we've made even more enemies of the Arab world where before they would have supported us in our attempts to fight terrorism. Instead, we are viewed in Iraq, the Arab world, and around the world, as terrorists ourselves. Oh, that's dandy that we are isolating ourselves like that.

Not only that, but we invade Iraq too hastily, without a solid plan, without enough supplies, without enough enlistees to do the job over the long haul, and without a clue as to who we are fighting.

Either this administration is stupid, or they are just plain diabolical.

10/07/2004 09:22:31 PM · #108

Originally posted by emorgan49:

Ellen, that sounds to me like the "RATS" ads that the Bush administration ran in 2000 against Gore.

MadMordegon

10/07/2004 09:26:14 PM · #109

Olyuzi I think this editorial puts some of it in perspective. Also, this flash movie shows jokingly in part the strategy that works so well.

Bush administration officials public statements on Iraq in reguards to al-Qaeda
They made enough innuendo and spin, it worked:

PIPA / Knowledge Networks Poll - October 2 2003

PIPA / Knowledge Networks report

Support for the war and misperception Iraqi WMD found
(May - Sept 03)
Support for war among those who believed:
US has found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction 73%
US has NOT found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction 41%
.

Support for War and Misperception of Evidence of Iraqi Links to al Qaeda
(June - Sept 03)
Support for going to war among those who believed:
The US has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization 67%
The US has NOT 29%
.

Pre-War (Feb 03) Approval for Unilateral Action and Beliefs About al Qaeda Links
Aprove if President proceeds without UN approval among those who believed:
58% Iraq was directly involved in carrying out the September 11th Attacks.
37% Iraq gave substantial support to al Qaeda, but was not involved in the September 11th attacks.
32% A few al Qaeda individuals visited Iraq or had contact with Iraqi officals.
25% There was no connection at all.
.

Washington Post pole Aug 2003:
"How likely is it that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11th Terrorist attacks?"
32% Very likely
37% Somewhat likely
12% Not very likely
3% Not at all likely
.

A more recent September 19-21st 2003 CNN/USA Today poll asked
"Do you think Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11th terrorist attacks, yes or no?"
43% Said yes, down from 51% in March 2003.
.

Network Statistics
.

Weapons of Mass Destruction
Since the war with Iraq ended, is it your impression that the US has or has not found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction?
US has:
Fox 33%
CBS 23%
NBC 20%
CNN 20%
ABC 19%
Print Media 17%
PBS-NPR 11%
.

Evidence of Links Between Iraq and al Qaeda
Is it your impression that the US has or has not found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization?
US has:
Fox 67%
CBS 56%
NBC 49%
CNN 48%
ABC 45%
Print media 40%
PBS-NPR 16%
.

World Public Opinion
Thinking about how all the people in the world feel about the US having gone to war with Iraq, do you think:
The majority of people favor the US having gone to war:
Fox 35%
CBS 28%
CNN 27%
NBC 20%
Print media 17%
PBS-NPR 5%
.

Frequency of Misperceptions
Evidence of al Qaeda Links, WMD Found, World public Opinion Favorable.
Respondents with one or more misperceptions:
Fox 80%
CBS 71%
ABC 61%
NBC 55%
CNN 55%
Print media 47%
PBS-NPR 23%
.

The list goes on and on. I wonder how the American public could come to such conclusions if nobody was saying or implying such things. Hmm.

Had the American media been liberal leaning as many say, there may not be a war.

Message edited by author 2004-10-07 21:27:11.

10/07/2004 09:29:51 PM · #110

Originally posted by ScottK:

As there is a staunch anti-Bush camp that will not recognize nor acknowledge the deceit that the Kerry/Edwards campaign is perpetrating on them.

The left didn't need Kerry or Edwards to know the deceit that the Bush administration was hoisting upon the nation, Iraq and the world. There were anti-war demonstrations way before Kerry or Edwards were even chosen as Dem candidates.

Cam

Sony DSC-F717

10/07/2004 10:03:48 PM · #111

Here is my take on the next 2 debates. Sorry to non hijack the thread, but people get so off track.

The next debate will be on the economy. Obviously this will be a give and take debate. Kerry will argue too many jobs are going overseas...and that is true. Bush will argue that a huge part of the economy collapse was due to 9-11.....also true.

So they will come up with figures to support there side...probably inflated on both sides.

But, the economy is doing much better and I think Bush will do a much better job in the debate. He certainly laid an egg in the first one.

So it will be interesting to watch....even fun just to see how they do.

I say if Bush does a better job, and and splits the vote in the next two debates he wins. If he pulls another stinker, it will go to Kerry.

10/07/2004 11:02:01 PM · #112

Originally posted by Riggs:

Riggs, I think you forgot one important issue that Kerry is going to hammer away at: the budget deficit.

Cam

Sony DSC-F717

10/07/2004 11:05:31 PM · #113

Riggs, I think you forgot one important issue that Kerry is going to hammer away at: the budget deficit.

No doubt about that.

LoudDog

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

10/08/2004 12:22:13 AM · #114

Does anyone know what the budget defcit really is? It's not as big of a deal as you may think.

10/08/2004 05:55:05 PM · #115

Another Kerry/Edwards lie from the debates (repeated, almost verbatim in both debates, since they were reading from the same prepared script):

"The president made the judgment to divert forces from under General Tommy Franks from Afghanistan..."

Yet, according to the man Kerry specifically names:

Gen. Franks also took issue with Kerry's claim that troops and equipment from the Afghan war were diverted to Iraq.

"The day we started operations in Iraq we had about 9,500 Americans operating in Afghanistan," Franks said. "That number, in fact, increased during operations in Iraq and continues to increase today."

More of Gen. Franks comments (plus others, including a bit of obvious spin) are here.

10/08/2004 06:00:42 PM · #116

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Originally posted by emorgan49:
During the first debate when Bush said bin Laden when he meant Saddam Hussein do you think it was an accident or deliberate? I just wonder since Rumsfeld made the same slip twice in a speech a couple of weeks before. Are we, the general public, supposed to be confused between the two?

Ellen, that sounds to me like the "RATS" ads that the Bush administration ran in 2000 against Gore.

No, this is what sounds like the "RATS" ads from 2000.

(Both assertions seem pretty stupid to me, but if you want to play stupid paranoia games, at least get it right.)

MadMordegon

10/08/2004 06:15:27 PM · #117

Scott how bout those statistics above, nice huh?

Also just found some highly sorced/documented pages detailing Mr. Bush's record I thought people in this thread might be interested in seeing here and here.

10/08/2004 06:19:12 PM · #118

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Good Lord, are you dense or a liar? Its getting tiring dealing with the same stupid falsehoods over and over. From FactCheck

[/i]A Kerry ad implies Cheney has a financial interest in Halliburton and is profiting from the company's contracts in Iraq. The fact is, Cheney doesn't gain a penny from Halliburton's contracts, and almost certainly won't lose even if Halliburton goes bankrupt.

The ad claims Cheney got $2 million from Halliburton "as vice president," which is false. Actually, nearly $1.6 million of that was paid before Cheney took office. More importantly, all of it was earned before he was a candidate, when he was the company's chief executive.[/i]

Its a dead horse, quit beating it.

Cam

Sony DSC-F717

10/08/2004 06:30:40 PM · #119

I wonder why it is no one from the left ever says anything good about Kerry and how well he can lead the country....its always I hate Bush/Cheney.

Message edited by author 2004-10-08 18:56:59.

10/08/2004 06:59:49 PM · #120

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

The list goes on and on. I wonder how the American public could come to such conclusions if nobody was saying or implying such things. Hmm.

Had the American media been liberal leaning as many say, there may not be a war.

The air in here reeks of paranoia, so I'll take this one from this angle:

I vividly remember at the time the case was made to the UN, afterwards the media and pundits (particularly the left-leaning ones; of course those fully tilting left were in the "no war at any price" camp) began hammering home the idea that the sole or prime grounds the administration had given were the presence of WMDs and links to 9/11. And I remember screaming (figuratively speaking) NO! that's not the primary reason that was given. The case was that Hussein was a threat to us, to the region and to the world, that he supported and harbored terrorists, that he had consistantly thumbed his nose at UN resolutions and inspection teams for over a decade, and that sanctions were not working. As support for these assertions, evidence (corroborated by intelligence gathered by many countries) was presented (and accepted as legitimate by pretty much everyone at the time, including John Kerry) that Hussein was building WMDs. But pretty much the only thing reported and commented on by the media and pundits were the WMDs.

And I knew, at that point in time, that if anything less than a fully armed nuclear weapon was found in Iraq, they would crucify Bush on his grounds for going to war.

So, yes, I suspect the liberal media at some level set up the expectations of the public, with the hopes of being able to undermine confidence in the president's motives.

In fact, in light of what has just come out about the corruption of the sanctions and oil-for-food programs, and the BILLIONS Hussein paid out in bribes, maybe he slipped a couple mil and the info that there really weren't any WMDs to a few friendly journalists and got the ball rolling.

How's that for some paranoia, all you Bush/Nazi/Saudi/Bin Laden/Halliburton whackos! ;)

10/08/2004 08:09:31 PM · #121

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Yes, quite a resume there. As usual, dump enough BS in there and noone could dig their way out.

However, picking one at semi-random, I took a gander at this article about Bush's early business dealings. To be honest, I've really pretty much ignored all the white noise around that issue, so I thought it would be interesting to see what the hubbub is. Ignoring the fact that, after getting about half way through I had yet to find anything terribly shady or incriminating about Bush's involvement, it was pretty interesting to find this:

The company's biggest backer was fund manager George Soros*. In late 1984, Harken was appointed exclusive agent and manager of Soros Oil Inc., a privately held corporation formed to invest in oil and gas properties. The deal allowed Soros shareholders to exchange their interest for shares of Harken stock.

* Full disclosure: The Open Society Institute, which was founded by George Soros, is a funder of the Center for Public Integrity.

So, the source of your (by proxy) information on Bush's early business dealings, which is supposedly slipshod and shady, is an "investigative" piece by an organization funded by the man who has made it his sworn mission in life to remove Bush from office??? Full disclosure indeed.

And George Soros was a business partner of Bush's, was he? And now he's out to destroy him. When it was accused that this sort of relationship was was behind the animosity of Bush towards Bin Laden, it was a deep, dark conspiracy - there's evil work afoot. Now, we find out that its a former "business partner" (probably not a correct term, but the article isn't clear) of Bush who's behind all this anti-Bush propoganda. Maybe you need to reexamine the source of all these "facts" you've bought into. ;)

And, BTW, aside from some sideways inuendo, the gist I get from what I read of that article is:
- Bush started an oil exploration company;
- There's no record of how it did for the first four or five years - which probably means it did OK, otherwise there would be more details;
- During the Texas oil crash of the early to mid eighties, his company ran into trouble, just like practically the entire oil industry in Texas;
- But Bush's company didn't go under, like many did;
- Instead, he succesfully took it through several mergers that eventually, I would guess, made him quite a bit of money.

Sounds like a success to me. But maybe I missed the dirt...

10/08/2004 10:59:17 PM · #122

Originally posted by ScottK:

Scott, the thing that was most crucial to the war in Afghanistan was the special forces and they were diverted to Iraq.