Debate tonight

[Evan]

Cheney got called out on that one though, he had in fact met Edwards at a social event a couple years ago.
I guess he meant to say hadnt met him in the senate?

[BLINGMW]

Cheney got called out on that one though....

maybe so, and the democrats had to scramble to prove that wrong, as if it mattered. I think the point was, and still is, "I've been doing this a long time, and I don't know who the hell you are, you little shit". It was AWESOME. :lol: And Cheney had that one waiting too, waiting for Edwards to attack him on Haliburton, and he did.

They each had a couple good jabs, but it wasn't supposed to be a boxing match. I think both of them did a good job defending their positions, and the format was much more productive than the presidential debate where they weren't even allowed to talk to eachother. I do wish that Bush/Cheney would defend themselves on the "you guys let Osama slip away by passing the job of his capture off to someone else" point though. That came up in both debates, and neither addressed it. Kind of a big deal to let that one go if it's true! :?

[ButtDyno]

Hilarity ensues:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=272">http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=272</a><!-- m -->

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.

[JackoliciousLegs]

Cheney got called out on several things by the media. The big one was when Cheney explained that he had never made a correlation between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Not the daily show, but the news showed multiple clips of Cheney saying "We have direct evidence to support that Iraq is involved with Al Qaeda and other terrorist activity." "Iraq poses an imminent threat" .. etc

Oh, and I love how they just released this report saying that there were no WMDs in Iraq... nor were there any near completion. They had had a program in place that was squashed by the sanctions. Congratulations Mr. Bush, you've misled the american people... into a WAR. into debt. into foreign occupation. Hey man, tax cuts are way more important. I'll still vote for ya! ::thumbsup::

[JackoliciousLegs]

oops, i was wrong

[iraq] had not begun any program to produce them

geez, sorry for misinforming you. my bad. wouldn't want you to think that there were any fledglings of WMDs either.

The danger is already significant and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?"

[Mike]

<-- just watched 9/11. we need that fool out of office.

[Sijray21]

<-- just watched 9/11. we need that fool out of office.

easily influenced by media bias....

[Ryan T]

Everyone blames everyones opinions on media bias. There is a lot of factual information out there that people disregard as "media bias." Oh well, all the jabber hasn't changed my vote.

[Mike]

Everyone blames everyones opinions on media bias. There is a lot of factual information out there that people disregard as "media bias." Oh well, all the jabber hasn't changed my vote.

yup. this war is and always was retarded, the guy doesn't get my vote for the sole reason that 1000 of our peers have perished for nothing.

[JohnC]

Everyone blames everyones opinions on media bias. There is a lot of factual information out there that people disregard as "media bias." Oh well, all the jabber hasn't changed my vote.

yup. this war is and always was retarded, the guy doesn't get my vote for the sole reason that 1000 of our peers have perished for nothing.

Well, except for that whole "freeing the Iraqis from an evil dictator" thing. Regardless of the current situation on the ground, or how we got there (or why), at least So Damn Insane ain't in charge anymore.

[Mike]

Everyone blames everyones opinions on media bias. There is a lot of factual information out there that people disregard as "media bias." Oh well, all the jabber hasn't changed my vote.

yup. this war is and always was retarded, the guy doesn't get my vote for the sole reason that 1000 of our peers have perished for nothing.

Well, except for that whole "freeing the Iraqis from an evil dictator" thing. Regardless of the current situation on the ground, or how we got there (or why), at least So Damn Insane ain't in charge anymore.

in attacking without provocation, we managed to piss off a ton of people worldwide...

i know we see on tv a lot of iraqis that love what we have done, but what they fail to show you is the nearly equal number that hate us for doing what he have done. you think the little kids whose civilian families were obliterated by our bombs are going to grow to love us?

i ask you, what threat was saddam posing?

apparently W never read his history books, vietnam was a failure.

[JohnC]

Everyone blames everyones opinions on media bias. There is a lot of factual information out there that people disregard as "media bias." Oh well, all the jabber hasn't changed my vote.

yup. this war is and always was retarded, the guy doesn't get my vote for the sole reason that 1000 of our peers have perished for nothing.

Well, except for that whole "freeing the Iraqis from an evil dictator" thing. Regardless of the current situation on the ground, or how we got there (or why), at least So Damn Insane ain't in charge anymore.

in attacking without provocation, we managed to piss off a ton of people worldwide...

I agree that this is definitely the case.

i know we see on tv a lot of iraqis that love what we have done, but what they fail to show you is the nearly equal number that hate us for doing what he have done. you think the little kids whose civilian families were obliterated by our bombs are going to grow to love us?

No. Do you think that those little kids whose parents and siblings were killed or tortured by Saddam love him?

i ask you, what threat was saddam posing?

WMD-wise? Not much at all. But is it a bad thing that an evil man who held a country hostage with fear isn't there any more?

apparently W never read his history books, vietnam was a failure.

Discounting the obvious "I'm not sure W can even read" joke - making a comparison to the Vietnam war is ignorant, and I know you're smarter than that Mike. Here's the question though - how is this war different, and what can we learn from Vietnam that could help us draw conclusions about Iraq?

I guess my point about Iraq is that W was extremely misleading about the reasons for going in. If he had said from the outset that we were going to invade Iraq to kick Saddam out and set up a democracy and finish what George the First had started, then these questions of motivations wouldn't be quite so brutal. But the Iraqi's have the potential for a much brighter future now than 2 years ago.

That all being said, I see the United States' abundance of nuclear weapons and the lack of peace in the Middle East as an opportunity. Just wipe the slate clean. The oil's underground, it'll be okay :twisted:

[Mike]

appears i agree with you for the most part... i guess i am valuing the cost (1000 young lives of innocent americans) as higher than the benefit (removing saddam and setting things up for a better iraq).

[ButtDyno]

If we had said "we are going to remove a dictator and free people", that's one thing. I don't remember anyone ever saying that was the reason we invaded (until after the fact, when no WMD turned up)

The problem with that argument is, there are oodles of repressive regimes out there, and some of them are worse. Think about how many people China has killed/tortured/put in prison... you don't see us invading them ("never fight a land war in Asia"). That's just the most obvious example, but there are plenty of places we could "nation build" if killing dictators became our foreign policy goal #1..

john

[ViPER1313]

There is genocide occurring in Sudan at this very moment - we are not invading Sudan and liberating its people. It boils down to an interest in oil - we have not invaded Sudan because we have little motivation to do so. More of the September 11th hijackers were Saudi than anything else, but we have not invaded Saudi Arabia because we are on friendly oil-receiving terms with it's government. It's not some crazy conspiracy theory; it's just the cold hard truth. I'm sure many leaders would love to pull all of out troops out of all of the Middle East, close our borders and call it a day, but we would run into an energy crisis of mass proportions.

"She goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."
-John Quincy Adams, speaking of America

[damnit458]

So we invade to get rid of someone who holds his country in fear...
Yet the main reason people agreed to invade was because of the FEAR they had of WMD, which was falsely inspired by W and his administration...

[JohnC]

If we had said "we are going to remove a dictator and free people", that's one thing. I don't remember anyone ever saying that was the reason we invaded (until after the fact, when no WMD turned up)

The problem with that argument is, there are oodles of repressive regimes out there, and some of them are worse. Think about how many people China has killed/tortured/put in prison... you don't see us invading them ("never fight a land war in Asia"). That's just the most obvious example, but there are plenty of places we could "nation build" if killing dictators became our foreign policy goal #1..

john

What if the argument was "remove a dictator if it seems practical to do so"? Who would be against removing dictators - that's a good thing right? But who decides what a dictator looks like, or what a dictatorship (or oppressive regime) looks like? Or if it's a threat to a single country or a group of countries or the world?

[ButtDyno]

What if the argument was "remove a dictator if it seems practical to do so"?

Practical?? You're kidding, right? Practical is a word that should be used to describe minivans, not nation building. Is 1000 lives and $100 billion+++ "practical"? The whole "creating democracy where it didn't previously exist" thing isn't ever going to be "practical".

Who would be against removing dictators - that's a good thing right? But who decides what a dictator looks like, or what a dictatorship (or oppressive regime) looks like? Or if it's a threat to a single country or a group of countries or the world?

Right, that's my point If our foreign policy is "get rid of dictators and free oppressed people" instead of "squish anyone who poses a serious tactical threat to us" there would be no end to the work that would have to be done.

john

[Mike]

I firmly believe we ought to let other nations run their natural way... Who are we to say who is good and evil? If we keep to ourselves (unless of course we are threatened or attacked) we would all be happier.

"I am a uniter." - George W Bush

Has anyone ever seen this nation so torn apart politically? How many times in your lives have you seen bumper stickers that read "Anybody but ____." Never... What the man is doing cannot be good for our nation if so many disagree with it.

[JohnC]

What if the argument was "remove a dictator if it seems practical to do so"?

Practical?? You're kidding, right? Practical is a word that should be used to describe minivans, not nation building. Is 1000 lives and $100 billion+++ "practical"? The whole "creating democracy where it didn't previously exist" thing isn't ever going to be "practical".

Yes actually, I was kidding 8) Trying to spur some better discussion more than anything else - and pointing out (in a roundabout sort of way) that what we're doing in Iraq, regardless of the intentions or outcome, shouldn't become the "norm". And I can't help but wonder if W might try it again, especially now that there are thousands of ideally positioned American troops.