October 05, 2004

Edwards-Cheney

Question: Is Cheney so underbriefed that he thinks Zarqawi was in "Baghdad"--as opposed to in the northern zone that was no-go for Saddam Hussein? Or is this just another lie? At least Cheney doesn't say that A.Q. Khan has been "brought to justice".

This is hard for me to score. Cheney lies. Edwards (politely) calls him on it. But would anyone who hasn't followed this believe that Cheney would lie so much? I scarcely believe it myself.

Cheney says that it is John Kerry's fault that our troops went into battle without body armor. Edwards says Halliburton... no bid contract... millions in fines... advocating lifting sanctions on rogue nations... trading with sworn enemies of the United States...

Cheney's body language is not good Posted by DeLong at October 5, 2004 06:43 PM | TrackBack

Comments

I be;ieve that Zarqawi was in Baghdad when he had his leg amputated. Since he has two legs now, either he had three before or Allah made it grow back. I find both possibilities disturbing.

Posted by: gcochran at October 5, 2004 06:56 PM

are we watching the same debate? damn, i feel like buying a car from john kerry... he's a cheeseball...

Posted by: lee at October 5, 2004 07:01 PM

Wel, lee, must be another debate, since it's Cheney vs Edwards in this one.

Twilight zone.

Posted by: Carol at October 5, 2004 07:13 PM

gcochran is on the ball Brad. The claim is (or was) that Zarqawi was briefly in Baghdad for medical treatment. The story was a leg amputation, but as noted, Zarqawi's amputated leg can't grow as fast as Cheney's nose.

Recently the CIA has concluded that there is no conclusive evidence that Zarqawi was ever in Baghdad (I mean until we invaded, he's probably been there since).

So what is it with the CIA, Bremer and Rumsfeld saying things that make it real tough for Cheney just before the debate. Couldn't be that he has gotten on anyone's nerves could it ?

Posted by: Robert Waldmann at October 5, 2004 07:17 PM

In re body language:

Edwards:
http://www.imdb.com/gallery/mptv/1310/Mptv/1310/5344_0001.jpg?path=gallery&path_key=0056592

Cheney:
http://www.geocities.com/lewtonsite/capra/wonderfullife/wonder_6_270.jpg

or this
http://wso.williams.edu/~rfoxwell/starwars/pics/Lightning.jpg

Posted by: bellatrys at October 5, 2004 07:22 PM

gcochran: "Since he has two legs now, either he had three before or Allah made it grow back. I find both possibilities disturbing."

Allah is all merciful, donchano. He can do any bloody thing he pleases -- including chopping off heads. Fatwa on your head for doubting Allah's power.

Posted by: Atanu Dey at October 5, 2004 07:32 PM

The one thing I like about Cheney is that he's transparent with his disregard for Americans in general. There's no, let's pretend the average Americans understands or cares about Washington issues. I'm not even going to use the thirty second rebuttals. Just let me get back to ruling the rest of you. Edwards fumbling the no 'John Kerry' can be used in this question is kind of sweet, or idiotic. He loves John Kerry! He's thinking about him all the time. JK + JE = White House. Geez, this is why debates should be done standing up and not sitting down.

Posted by: chickensoup at October 5, 2004 07:33 PM

You could read this a number of ways. Edwards as too slick and partisan; Cheney too tired to hold high office.

One interesting point: Ifill's question on "flip-flops" shows that if you haven't already made up your mind on it, the issue is dead.

Posted by: sm at October 5, 2004 07:45 PM

Just keep repeating the lie, and perhaps the sheep will fall into line.

The guy is unbelieveable.

Posted by: UrgentInsurgent at October 5, 2004 07:51 PM

I have to say, I was yelling at Edwards for most of the night - "call him on the Medicare BS - talk about how the suppression of the real cost is just another example of the misleading of this administration!!! "

But you know, the real disappointment was the moderation, or lack thereof. All debates should have electrically wired chairs/podiums that the moderator can activate when the candidate starts wandering away from the question. At the very least, she should have stopped both of them on the AIDS question when they pandered like a... well, politician. And there should be a rule that you cannot spend 90 seconds of a two minute answer criticizing the other guy. I wanna see her stand up and scream, "ANSWER THE QUESTION, BEEAATCH!!!" Of course, we all know that won't play very well in the heartland...

Posted by: Greg in WA at October 5, 2004 08:15 PM

Brad DeLong writes:
>
> Cheney's body language is not good

By which I mean you think that looking down a lot and making random busy hand gestures isn't an effective debate strategy? No, I don't think so either. I have this weird idea that somebody tried to coach him out of this stuff, but Cheney seems to think it's better to look and sound like Montgomery Burns from the Simpsons, except with even less eye contact.

Now, I think this "peripheral" non-verbal thing is important because I'm not sure how people are going to react to the ideas expressed here in Edwards vs. Cheney. Cheney doesn't say anything new, or many things that are obviously true, but this hasn't hurt him so far. Edwards, on the other hand, had the *annoying* habit of going back to the previous question before he answered the current one. It drove me nuts, and I kinda like the guy. But one thing I have to say is this: the Edwards strategy of saying that the administration isn't being straight with the American people dove-tails *perfectly* with the lousy non-verbal stuff that Cheney was putting forth tonight. I don't think anybody takes the VP debate too seriously, but it's not clear to me that Cheney helped his or Bush's cause that much tonight, at best.

Posted by: Jonathan King at October 5, 2004 08:20 PM

I was really disappointed and I am a huge Edwards fan. He kept not answering the questions. I equate Bush with the anti-Christ and I would score this one for Cheney. He can tell a whopper and still sound like Moses. Edwards sounded unprepared to me (!!!!!), so I hope they do a better job fact-checking and put out a list. What would really be great is a picture of Cheney and Edwards together since they've never met...

Posted by: just pete at October 5, 2004 08:32 PM

Close on style which like-it-or-not is worth 80% of the final score. Cheney didn't melt down like Bush. Edwards scored important new points which will resonate with voters-- Halliburton and Cheney's congressional record were very well done. Edwards hit some long balls, if not homers, with his closing and his defense of trial lawyers. Brilliant stuff. That was the edge in a close debate. Edwards is definately this election's beer-buddy.

Zarqawi was noise in this debate but it will be a major part of tomorrow's fact checking which Republicans won't like.

Posted by: dennisS at October 5, 2004 08:35 PM

I was really disappointed and I am a huge Edwards fan. He kept not answering the questions. I equate Bush with the anti-Christ and I would score this one for Cheney. He can tell a whopper and still sound like Moses. Edwards sounded unprepared to me (!!!!!), so I hope they do a better job fact-checking and put out a list. What would really be great is a picture of Cheney and Edwards together since they've never met...

Posted by: just pete at October 5, 2004 08:37 PM

Zarqawi may have been in Baghdad seeking medical treatment for a sinus infection. No, I'm serious, that is the current speculation. I wrote a lot about Zarqawi back in July. See here: http://fugop.blogspot.com/2004/07/tentative-conclusions-on-nbc-zarqawi.html

Posted by: Dave M at October 5, 2004 10:07 PM

Edwards didn't have enough time to lay the complete whammy on the dark emperor. Even said nice things about him to throw Cheney off, which almost humanized DC for a moment and made JE look gracious and kind. Gwen Ifill was pretty sad, clearly coming from a RNC Talking Points rhetorical space. Oh that Gingrich memo just rolls on. I sent Kerry 100 bucks for GELAC. Now some turkey for Tony....

Posted by: bigfoot at October 6, 2004 12:57 AM

Oh, and Zarkon the merciless was in the Kurd zone, protected from Iraqi attack by American and British air power. Bush could have had him early on, before invasion, according to the BBC, but he became the bete noir du jour at some point when Bush needed a boogie man in Iraq. Details, schmetails, as they say at the Pentagon. Eerily similar to Limbaugh's claim that Clinton was repeatedly offered custody of Bin Laden, except this charge is apparently true. As true as reality gets anymore, at least.

Posted by: bigfoot at October 6, 2004 01:01 AM

If only Lush had supported stem cell research in 2001, all our soldiers could have gone into battle with 3 legs and 2 heads. This would have permitted us to prevail over the Mighty Three-Legged Warriors of Allah.

But, noooo. He did NOT support our troops and now look where we stand. (so to speak).

Posted by: bushwahd at October 6, 2004 06:15 AM

Regarding Cheney's body language, what gives with the 90 minutes of death grip hands clasping? It reminded me of Dr. Strangelove trying to maintain control over his mechanical arm. Could he appear any more maniacal and frightening? That he is a lying liar goes without question.

Posted by: DC at October 6, 2004 07:37 AM

Regarding Cheney's body language, what gives with the 90 minutes of death grip hands clasping? It reminded me of Dr. Strangelove trying to maintain control over his mechanical arm. Could he appear any more maniacal and frightening? That he is a lying liar goes without question.

Posted by: DC at October 6, 2004 07:40 AM

Can someone provide a link showing the likely location of Zarqawi in the northern no-go zone.

And possibly his likely movements?

thanks-

Posted by: mickslam at October 6, 2004 01:34 PM

BTW, boy do Cheney, Rummy, and company look tired and withered. Time to go for the final blow.

Posted by: roundtana at October 6, 2004 06:15 PM

I think this bespeaks his time in CEO-land. I used to be a marketing manager in high tech. We lied all the time, about everything, habitually. Our management lied. We lied to our customers, we lied to our employees. Nearly everyone was lying about everything. Our finance guys did fuzzy math-- actually they had a bit more integrity than the marketing folks. The engineers lied constantly-- mostly about schedules and budgets. Our sales guys were, well, it was amazing. They were just dens of falsehood. The trade press was bought and paid for by our advertising dollars, and the analysts were our paid shills. Everybody was completely and totally full of shit.

The world of business is *very* different from the world of government-- or at least it should be, and was, before our first CEO president and CEO vice-president took office. Business is all about selling, and selling is all about either spinning or outright misrepresenting things. People tolerate lies in business and especially in the process of selling products-- just turn on your TV and have a look at the commercials, they're all utter bullshit.

Of course, politicians lie too, but there are at least standards of truthfulness and disclosure that they are *expected* to adhere to, especially in an open government like ours. Over the last 20 years, with the glorification of the "private sector", government has tried too hard to become like business, with the Bush Administration as its absolute nadir. The bar has lowered; if Nixon had pulled the crap that Bush did, he never would have been appointed president in the first place, or if so would have been impeached within the first year of his first term.

Posted by: Publius at October 9, 2004 11:06 PM