Daily Kos

Cheney, Edwards at second meeting

by kos

Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 07:43:24 AM PDT

Video of the second Edwards/Cheney meeting has been found. From Mark Kraft's Livejournal:

That's Cheney on the left edge of the screen, administiring the oath to newly minted NC Senator Elizabeth Dole.

Update: Tim Russert is going around saying that Edwards and Cheney met backstage on his show, and shook hands and exchanged pleasentries. This is the gaffe that killed the debate for Cheney.

  • ::

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 174 comments

  •  Unbelievable! (none / 0)

    This should be the banner of B/C 04's entire campaign.

    Will speak to all of you from the UK over the next few days..... will check in here for updates!

    Jail to the Chief Jail to the Chief

    by Barbara H on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 07:40:30 AM PDT

  •   Dick doesn't have eyes in the back of head (none / 0)

    or does he?

    maybe he didn't see him there.

    heh.

    Resist much, obey little. ~~Edward Abbey, via Walt Whitman

    by willyr on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 07:41:09 AM PDT

    •  That's not him (none / 0)

      Cheney is facing Edwards (see the left edge of the picture)

      The Core4

      by Dr Dive on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 07:43:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Facing him (none / 0)

      The bald guy there isn't Dick. Dick's the one facing Edwards on the very side of the screen. Right freaking in front of him. Hilarious.

      disclaimer: I'm John Kerry's Internet Director

      by BriVT on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 07:43:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  eyes (none / 0)

      Look again.  In the photo Cheney is facing Elizabeth and somebody else administering the oath and Edwards is right in the middle behind the two.  Cheney probably ignored his very existence since Edwards is a Dem.  Amazing isn't it, how nasty the repubs are if you "are not one" of them.  Exclusive little monsters they are.

      Grandma Jo II

      by glitterscale on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 07:45:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  That's not Cheney facing the camera (none / 0)

      It's Larry Craig, being sworn into another term, who's standing next to Dole.

      Cheney can be seen at the left side of the shot, and he's facing Craig, Dole -- and Edwards.  

      And at that kind of ceremony, everyone participating shakes hands before, after, or both.  Especially when you have a sitting senator from one party escorting a newly-elected senator from the other party, the collegiality of it has everyone at least acting palsy.  

      Of course, the VP may have told Edwards to Cheney himself....

      by Steady Eddie on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 07:45:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  How Dick Remembers... (none / 0)

        As a memory aid, Dick's doctor told him, in the bowels of his secret medical lair buried within the vice presidential residence in Washington, D.C. to use colorful language to remember whom he meets. Shortly thereafter he left for the Capitol and told Vermont Senator Pat Leahy to go f*&# himself! That's the only reason Dick Halliburton remembers meeting Leahy.

        by drplaud on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 07:54:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Craig, Schmeg (none / 0)

        Cheney Weenie.

        All the Pugs look alike from behind.

        My bad.

        Resist much, obey little. ~~Edward Abbey, via Walt Whitman

        by willyr on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 07:57:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  It is the duty (none / 0)

      of the sitting Senator of the State, to escort the newly elected Senator to the platform AND TO INTRODUCE HER TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE! Immediatley before this picture was taken Edwards was required, by custom of the Senate to say something like "Mr. President, may I present the Senator from the State of North Carolina, Mrs Elizabeth Dole." straight in Cheney's lying face. This is too precious. How do you suppose the media are going to deny that the statement was a baldfaced lie?

      "If I pay a man enough money to buy my car, he'll buy my car." Henry Ford

      by johnmorris on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 07:56:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  If Dick Cheney had really never met (none / 0)

      John Edwards,The Senior Senator from N. Carolina then he failed as VP.The VP only has 2 Constitutional duties.1)to suceed the president2)Preside over the senate(President of the Senate).
        If the VP had not had contact with any Senator that would be proof in itself that he had not fulfilled his constitutional duty as far as I'm concerned.Admitting,or gloating,as Cheney tried to do,that as President of the Senate you had never met with a Senior Senator from any state shows just how shallow and inafective Dick Cheney has been at his Constitutional Duties.

      http://dumpjoe.com/

      by ctkeith on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:08:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  What about Russert's comment this morning (none / 0)

    that Cheney and Edwards had been together in his studio at the same time (presumably, not on screen together)?  Anyone have Lexis-Nexis to follow up on that? (There may be some little political column snippet that followed.)

    That of course would make a third time.

    by Steady Eddie on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 07:42:39 AM PDT

  •  Even Dickie's Cheap Shots.. (none / 0)

    are lies. BushCo is so used to lying, they do it even when there's nothing to gain.

    by Bill From PA on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 07:43:24 AM PDT

    •  Bush/Cheney are pathological LIARS (none / 0)

      I agree, Cheney is an excellent liar because he practices his craft during all his waking hours.

      Maybe some of the TV talking heads will pick up on this, Gwen Ifil certainly didn't, but of course she has to watch what she says because Colin Powell Jr might slap her down if she dared to question the liar Cheney.

      by MD patriot on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:30:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Smirky is spinning as we type (none / 0)

    And his chosen lapdog audience is lapping it all up like Alpo.
    So smug, so loathsome.

    In the face of such prevarication (on Kerry's part), he said who wouldn't make a face?

    Spin on this, Asshat.

    Let the great world spin for ever down the ringing grooves of change. - Tennyson

    by bumblebums on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 07:43:24 AM PDT

    •  I had (none / 1)

      to turn it off....and after his making faces statement he continues to tie the war in Iraq with making us safe from terrorism.

      Basically he makes fun of Kerry's pointing out that terrorists are NOW in Iraq (which they were NOT until Bush invaded Iraq).  

      Once again he ties in fighting terrorism with invading Iraq, that was the point I had to turn him off.  This admnistration is without a decent, honest statement between them.  Invading Iraq did NOTHING TO PROTECT US FROM FUTURE TERRORIST ATTACKS! Rather our actions there have made us all the more likely TO be attacked.

      God, November can't come soon enough.

      Have left overs? Visit my new blog http://leftovermagic.blogspot.com/ for ideas on how to create new recipes from left overs.

      by SanJoseLady on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 07:49:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  LIARRRRRRR!!!!! (none / 0)

    Darth Vader, you have been exposed!!!

    GDoyle

    "Deserves got nothing to do with it"-William Munny, "Unforgiven"

    by GDoyle on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 07:43:52 AM PDT

  •  Where is Dole anyway? (none / 0)

    I had totally forgotten about her.  What is she doing?

    by TrentL on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 07:44:16 AM PDT

  •  i just had to flash an lte to wilkes barre (none / 0)

    newspaper trashing the ongoing bush speech.  everybody needs to chime in.  write letters to wilkes barre and other pennsylvania papers and let them know that bush is a moron and his rhetoric is based on lies and half-truths.  we need to start attacking bush whereever he speaks.  bring up the screened audiences.  bring up the lies and distortions.  nail him.  

    by thebloviator on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 07:44:36 AM PDT

  •  photographic evidence (none / 1)

    that's 2 out of 3:

    On Feb. 1, 2001, the vice president thanked Edwards by name at a Senate prayer breakfast and sat beside him during the event.

    On April 8, 2001, Cheney and Edwards shook hands when they met off-camera during a taping of NBC's "Meet the Press," moderator Tim Russert said Wednesday on "Today."

    On Jan. 8, 2003, the two met when the first-term North Carolina senator accompanied Elizabeth Dole to her swearing-in by Cheney as a North Carolina senator, Edwards aides also said.

    now let's link this lie to the big lie Cheney told (Iraq-AQ connection).

    by thirdparty on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 07:44:39 AM PDT

    •  Stupid liberals-- (4.00 / 3)

      --how many times do we have to tell you that 9/11 changed everything? Look at the first two examples. "On Feb. 1, 2001, the vice-president thanked Edwards...." "On April 8, 2001, Cheney and Edwards shook hands...." Have you traitorous commies forgotten what happened next? That's right, 9/11. Which anyone who's been watching the media knows CHANGED EVERYTHING. Including whether or not Cheney and Edwards have met. Deal with it.

      Now, that still leaves the January 2003 meeting. Well, guess what: the awesome power of 9/11 to CHANGE EVERYTHING extends into the future, too. It's hard to say offhand whether someone else swore Dole in, or whether Edwards was off conspiring with terrorists at the time--who can say?

      My point is, talk about the debate all you want, but don't insult the American people by dragging facts into it. All this so-called "irrefutable photographic evidence" proves is that you are still living in a "pre-September 10th" world, to quote our great President. Only when you abandon your 9/9-esque fixation with "evidence" and "truth" will you be relevant again.

      Love,
      A GWB Republican

      --standard .sig file blog plug--

      by Matt on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:55:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  W is for Whopper (none / 0)

    and Dick is, too...

    "Whatever happens, Dick, we'll always have Poland... Won't we Dick?"

    by MemesRUs on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 07:44:42 AM PDT

  •  Somewhere (none / 0)

    There is video of Cheney & Edwards shaking hands at that swear in.  This needs to be found.  Any ideas?

    The Core4

    by Dr Dive on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 07:44:44 AM PDT

  •  I'm still surprised (none / 1)

    that none of the major news outlets are focusing on this...at least not on the web. (Maybe I'm missing some...I just got up, being a West Coaster.)  Perhaps these are clips that show better on air than as pictures on the web?  I would think that the media would *love* to see Cheney do such a major slip with multiple photo documentation of his lies.  A couple of 'fact checking' pages note that Edwards said at the rally that he'd met Cheney, but passing on what the candidate said makes it sound far less true than actually posting the photo documentation.

    by mjenkins on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 07:44:54 AM PDT

    •  Why? (none / 1)

      To expose Cheney's lies undermines the current media narrative.  They will not alter that narrative despite the truth.  Plus, these big media companies are not going to go nuclear on Cheney.  This story would, if played above the fold, do that.  If the old prick will lie about something this silly, he'll lie about anything.  They're not going to put the man on the slippery slope.  

      No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his accomplices. - Edward R. Murrow

      by CrazyHorse on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 07:50:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Even better why.... (none / 1)

        ...Cheney says he has never met Edwards. We now have 3 documented cases where he DID, at least two at official Senate events.

        Meeting people is what politicians do for a living. As is remembering their names. What we have here is a case where Cheney's own words prove he is losing his memory.

        It's already part of the popular wisdom that Unka Dick is the grownup at the White House, exercising mature restraint over Boy George. It is also well known to the least-informed among us that Unka Dick has severe heart problems.

        Shouldn't be too hard to hit the first two points and then conflate it with "why doesn't the Vice President remember meeting Sen. Edwards?" Conclusion: the top of the ticket is nuts and the bottom half is growing senile.

        To segue into the suggestion that Cheney keeps switching stories about the Sadaam/911 connection because he doesn't remember the truth would be even nicer....

        Where are we going, and why am I in this handbasket?

        by Xan on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:13:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  You're not a West Coaster (none / 0)

      You're a Left Coaster.

      Barbar Boxera wins another term.  CA, WA and OR are all Kerry.  We kick ass.

      by paradox on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:06:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Sweet! (none / 0)

      OK...CBS just aired the picture of Cheney and Edwards at the prayer meeting.  That and they started the segment on the debate saying (paraphrase here): "Well, it looks like Edwards won last night's debate based upon the polls conducted by CBS news..."

      Although later in the segment they reported that instant polls last night (presumably those on the various websites) indicated a draw.  When 80% to 20% in favor of Edwards is a draw according to the media, we're in big trouble.

      by mjenkins on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:06:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm Seeing It Mentioned (none / 0)

      Both cable and broadcast. I've heard it in a fact-check segment and also as an aside in a different report on speech highlights.

      They're not making a huge deal of it probably (I suspect) because the major point, that Edwards has a spotty attendance record, is evidently true.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:12:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Recently (none / 0)

        They're not making a huge deal of it probably (I suspect) because the major point, that Edwards has a spotty attendance record, is evidently true.

        Only since announcing his candidacy for President. It was over 95% for his first 4 years, including well over 1000 votes at which Cheney was presumably presiding.

        by rppa on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:20:32 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Incredible Attendence (none / 1)

        "Before this year, Edwards missed just seven votes out of 1,307 in his first four years in office, Briggs said." Thats 99.5% of the votes in his first 4 years.

        "During his five years in the Senate, Edwards voted 1,551 times out of 1,626 roll-call votes, Briggs said, or 95.4 percent."

        And the zinger:
        "In April, Edwards canceled several campaign appearances and flew from Charleston, S.C., to Washington for an unexpected vote on the Senate budget resolution, Briggs said. The GOP-backed budget passed 51-50, with Vice President Dick Cheney casting the tie-breaking vote."

        So we know that even if they didn't meet at this vote, Edwards attendence was spectacular.

        From this journal article.

        "You must be the change you wish to see in the world" Mohandas Gandhi

        by baracon on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:50:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  The media & the photos (none / 0)

      I don't think that people in the media know about these photos yet, or at least have pressing reasons to present more than one.

      That said, we do. Every photo is another lie, presented in a way that Cheney cannot dodge. It's a very basic, understandable lie, which makes it all the more powerful.

      That said, you may want to write your local paper, TV station, etc.

      by Mark Kraft on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:32:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Tweety (none / 0)

    I saw Tweety on MSNBC and he stuck with the "Cheney blew him off the stage" theory from last night, and re-mentioned that for him it was the attack about meeting him first on the stage was the zinger that did it...No mention from him of the vast evidence building to the contrary...

    He did hit Cheney hard in the second half of the conversation about lying about never insinuating that Saddam was connected to 9/11...But he summed that it was a win for Cheney...

    I think now it is Tweety refusing to level with the American people...Tweety, you made a mistake, admit it!

    TexasDemocrat
    Giggity giggity giggity...Iraq's a Quagmire

    by TexasDemocrat on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 07:46:57 AM PDT

    •  Matthews (none / 0)

      I'm not sure what to think about Mr. Hardballs.   Is he morphing into an aged fart, so he gravitates toward his own kind?   Why?   Does he feel threatened by younger and more vital men?

      Cheney did speak with great authority, for a guy who appeared to be dying right there on stage.  Big deal.   He was wrong about something so pitiful as never having met Edwards before, yet we have documentary evidence that they've met at least three times, let alone all the other times in the Senate they've met.  If you are going to make a charge, get your facts straight, "Dick".

      This is the problem with the Uncle Grumpy administration.  They've been given such a free pass by the press, in the face of repeated fabrications of information, that they've gotten sloppy.   The rest of the world has figured them out, and commonly brands Bush and Cheney as bald-faced liars, not to be trusted in either word or deed.

      Chris Matthews is just a bit slow.   He'll catch up eventually, and when he realizes that he's been made to look like a fool, I don't think he's going to be a happy camper.

      by arthura on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 09:42:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Reindeer Games (none / 0)

        The GOP establishment told Matthews and Scarborogh that if they didn't call this one for Cheney, they wouldn't get invited to any more of their free booze parties and trips to the Bahamas.

        It's all about Tweety not getting invited to any reindeer games after the last debate.

        Politics ain't beanbag--Mr. Dooley

        by LeftCoastTimm on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:01:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  The only problem (none / 0)

        with Chris Matthews calling Cheney a winner is that even in the face evidence to the contrary he will want to stick with his story just to save face.  Otherwise he will look like an idiot. Hmmmm.....

        "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."-George Orwell

        by Babsnc on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:22:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Matthews made to look like a fool (none / 0)

        Yes, it's happened and Blondie is PISSED.

        He was on the later TODAY show raging, just raging about Cheney's lies last night, specifically about never having met Edwards and about never linking Saddam with 9/11. Ann Curry was trying to shush him, and at one point said, "What does it MATTER, Chris?"

        I kid you not. What does it matter when the All Powerful Rs cheat and lie and do all their naughty/nasty business? Why should anyone care?

        Matthews stayed in full ballistic mode, fury on his face, steam rising from the back of his platinum blonde locks.

        Let's see what he does with it; will he be reined in by the powers that be at NBC or will he follow through?

        Since Russert broached the topic of Cheney's lies to begin with (Katie Couric saying, "WHY does he do these things?) it could be NBC has decided to turn Cheney out to pasture...

        --felix

        by felix19 on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 12:38:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  At least three meetings (none / 0)

    They met a third time, at a taping of meet the press, according to Tim Russert.

    http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20041006_463.html

    Drudge has the link posted, along with the prayer breakfast photo.

    By the way, Bush is giving another one of his idiot speeches right now. Does anyone find it unsettling that he keeps making fun of Massachusetts? He could make fun of liberal politicians, but no, he insults the whole state...isn't he supposed to care about all 50 states equally? Doesn't this send the message that he's biased against the state in making decisions? Just imagine if Clinton had gone around in 96 saying how worthless Kansas was.

    Also, Bush has mentioned OB-GYNs yet again. WTF is their fascination with OB-GYNs???

    Finally: The thing I hate the goddam most about Bush giving a speech is his ceaseless habit of patting the podium with his right hand to emphasize each word in a given sentence, i.e., "We(tap) must(tap) protect(tap) this(tap) nation(tap)."

    "The time has come. The time is now. Just go. ... I don't care how. You can go by foot. You can go by cow. Hillary R. Clinton, will you please go now!"

    by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 07:47:26 AM PDT

    •  cuz luntz told him to appeal to the women (none / 0)

      bring up ob/gyn's so women think bush is fighting for their health

      it doesn't seem to matter that ob/gyns pay more for insurance because they get sued more often for malpractice because they get a little too touchy feely during examinations

      by thebloviator on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 07:52:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Hard Work (none / 1)

      He opened by talking about visiting a place where people work hard. I'm sure he'd know, considering everything he does is hard work!

      Strangely though, his important new speech on terrorism and the economy is his standard stump speech - doesn't sound like hard work to me; even his speechwriters aren't required to do anything! Perhaps it's the sounding articulate and folksy that's the hard work, when we all saw the real George W Bush at the debate last week.

      by Rob M on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 07:52:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm not surprised the media doesn't care. (none / 0)

    Is this really the biggest lie on which we can catch Cheney?  He can easily blow this off as "I forgot", as "I have met hundreds of congressmen and millions of people over the last 4 years."

    hillary voted for the war.
    the angry red planet and graphic design

    by ashleyGA on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 07:47:33 AM PDT

    •  but.. (none / 1)

      if you are going to use it in a nationally broadcast debate, and use it as your big "gotcha!", you had better be right. more than anything, it shows that Cheney will lie about anything, anywhere, anytime.

      by canadian lane on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 07:48:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  gotcha! part 2 (none / 0)

        Hmmm, I didn't think it was his 'gotcha' line; Cheney did use a few one-liners.  I thought the mention of Kerry bending to Dean's political winds was more harsh.
        I get the impression that Cheney doesn't care what anyone thinks; you can tell from his responses that the he can tell lies and let the response roll off of him.  Unlike Edwards, he is clearly trying to appear to a narrow (1/2 the electorate) group, and not all of America.  Cheney will just respond that 'your facts are wrong' and that 'the record speaks for itself', knowing that most people will not check the record and will let themselves be convinced by his display of confidence.

        hillary voted for the war.
        the angry red planet and graphic design

        by ashleyGA on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:00:08 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  How disgraceful that K or E (none / 0)

          should notice that a huge anti-war movement is gathering around Dean and consider the implications of that.

          After all, according to BC04, being "resolute" means that you don't give a shit what the populace thinks about your policies.

          by dinazina on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:35:11 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  You can't forget (none / 0)

      Three times!

      He met him three separate times, then lied about it on national TV to score a zinger.

      Stephanie Dray
      of Jousting for Justice, a lefty blog with a Maryland tilt.

      by stephdray on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 07:57:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  NO - it's not the biggest lie (none / 1)

      There are much more serious lies ("we will be greeted as liberators," "Saddam and Osama were buddies."...etc)

      BUT BUT BUT

      This is such an easy one to disprove AND there are pictures.  Cheney's charge was a total smear and the Dems are right to latch on to this bone and don't let go.  If people question Cheney's integrity on his smears they will eventually question everything.

      AND PS - John Edwards is not just a congressman.  He is a US Senator - just one of 50.  Dick Cheney, as VP, is the President of the Senate.  

      That is hardly an easy blow off.  In fact it makes Cheney look really, really bad.

      by dmichaeld on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 07:58:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Err... 100 (none / 0)

        by magicrusslc on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:00:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I may easily be wrong (none / 0)

        Well, the first things you mention, while untrue, can be written off as speculations and opinions.  No one will think Cheney is a liar just because he poorly judged the ferocity of a people who do not want their country occupied.

        However, like you say, there are pictures here, but I think for it to gain momentum, it would have to be spun so that Cheney was trying to defame character and mislead the public with 'i never met you', rather than just being snide.  It that can be done, I'd be happy to see it.

        AND PS - there are 100 US Senators, and they are all congressmen.

        hillary voted for the war.
        the angry red planet and graphic design

        by ashleyGA on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:05:50 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  yep, there are 100 - my bad, bad (none / 0)

          My point was that he wasn't "just" a congressman.  He's part of a group of 100 of which Cheney is the President.

          Either way - if Cheney tries the tactic of "I meet so many people - it's hard work, real hard work to keep the mental rolodex current, hard work, ....real hard work."  He will be skewered - it's not an option.

          What is so untrue about Cheney denying that he ever said that Iraq and Al Quaeda were linked?  He said it, he denied he said it.  LIE.  Another easy catch.

          Also, the "I never met you comment" was a direct attack on Edward's record in the Senate.  He was defaming Edward's character and misleading the public.  

          by dmichaeld on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:20:06 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  IIIII...want candy (none / 0)

            What is so untrue about Cheney denying that he ever said that Iraq and Al Quaeda were linked?  He said it, he denied he said it.  LIE.  Another easy catch.

            Ah, I was referring to the 'flowers and candy' comments.  As far as the Iraq/Al Qaeda connection goes, you and I know that it is a lie, but I think Cheney will prove able to twist it into subjective terms that makes it 'not untrue' for a receptive audience.
            I did enjoy that Cheney was forced to address the connection comments early on, saying that he never tried to make a connection; I think that comment could be held up to previous comments to the contrary.  It would be easier to prove that he is sending mixed messages with his own words than it would to convince his adherents that what he has said is not true 'on the ground'.

            hillary voted for the war.
            the angry red planet and graphic design

            by ashleyGA on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:35:23 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  absolutely agree (none / 0)

              Can't wait for the DAILY SHOW with the montage of Cheney saying:

              "I never said that"

              CUT TO

              Cheney saying that on Meet the Press

              Let's see if the major news outlets do it also.

              Here's hoping GA will be in play (one can dream)!!!!!!!!!!

              by dmichaeld on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:41:52 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Voters can absorb this Cheney lie very easily. (none / 0)

      Some of the lies on issues can get kinda technical. For policy wonks only kind of stuff. This lie is very easy to absorb. Anybody can see Cheney sitting next to Edwards for two hours in that video and understand he's lying.

      ...and get rid of these gawd damn voting machines. Blackboxvoting.org

      by nyetsoup4you on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:02:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  One word: Gore (none / 0)

      Yes, it is stupid. But the media laps this sort of trivial thing up. It is starting to filter into the mainstream coverage; see Newsweek's analysis, frex. And the current headline story on one of the local Philly station's web sites is "Debate Was Not First Meeting For Cheney And Edwards."

      We've got to play the cards we're dealt, and if this is the way to spread "Dick Cheney is a big lair," then that's what we've got to do.

      by YT on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:27:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  BINGO! (none / 0)

        Absolutely correct.

        Yes, it's horribly stupid - but it's the way the political world works in this day and age.  It was unfair to Gore and is probably unfair to Cheney.

        But if this world were fair President Gore would be running for a second term.

        by dmichaeld on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:38:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  The Pattern (none / 0)

      The insightful thing about Cheney's attack and lies is this:

      When this administration is challenged (and rightfully so) on decisions they have made, they don't answer those challanges -  they lie, they distort, and they attack.  What did they do to Joseph Wilson?  What has 3 months of "flip-flop" been?  What was last night?

      They can't defend their record, so they lie and attack.

      We need to call them on this.

      by jpecot on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:46:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Power, Corruption, and Lies (none / 1)

    The CBC has a documentary tonight about Cheney's lies and addiction to deception.

    More info in the diaries.

    by canadian lane on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 07:47:37 AM PDT

  •  already sent LTEs (4.00 / 3)

    The theme: if Cheney will lie so obviously on something small, how do we know he's telling the truth when it really counts?

    This is an opening to get the average voter to understand that this Administration lies about everything. There's so much ammunition from this debate that we could all write an LTE a day for the next week, each day about a different lie.

    by ashmead on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 07:47:40 AM PDT

  •  Shades of 2000; loving it (4.00 / 2)

    Is this turning out to be 2000 in reverse or what? The Gore sighs are now being played by President Pissy Face. And the Gore made-up "exagerrations" are now being played by Cheney's real, live lies. It's like I slipped through some kind of barrier into bizarro world, where everything is the same, but it's all opposite. --looks up, checks if sky is still blue--

    I, for one, am having much fun with it.

    disclaimer: I'm John Kerry's Internet Director

    by BriVT on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 07:48:21 AM PDT

    •  Wider image of Cheney, Edwards, and Dole (none / 0)

      This is a composite picture made up of 3 grabbed frames from the Prayer Breakfast video.  Click on it to see a larger image (if it doesn't work, use the link below).  It's a lot clearer that the guy with his back to us is Dick Cheney, and there's a Senate flag next to him to show where they are... yes, Cheney looking at a small group that includes Edwards, in the Senate.  The other two men in the photo are John Cornyn (TX) and Larry Craig (ID).  Perhaps these Republicans could be asked whether Mr. Cheney ever met Mr. Edwards in the Senate before.

      If you can't view this photo directly, go the article on The General and click that image.  I apologize for the multiple posts but I could not get this image to show until I tried this version.  Probably comes from using blogger as the photo source.  I noticed that when I refreshed a view of the website the photo came back here.  Bizarre.

      Must find other webspace.

      Chaos, fear, dread. My work here is done.

      The Music Room - Every weekend. Music & Musicians discussion.

      by madhaus on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 01:48:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I Said This On Another Thread (none / 0)

    But does anyone remember how earlier this year Kerry made a negative comment about what Dim Son was like when they were at Yale, and Bush indignantly denied that they have ever met there?  That ended up being covered up pretty quickly.  Now, they were both Skull and Bones members, and being two years ahead of Bush would have meant that Kerry was probably at some point involved in the vetting of new members, so for Bush to make this claim was patently ridiculous.  However, since Bones members are not even supposed to acknowledge the group exists, Kerry couldn't mention this.

    I think what this proves is that both Bush and Cheney are a dumb as they are viscious.

    "L'enfer, c'est les autres." - Jean Paul Sartre, Huis Clos

    "L'enfer, c'est le GOP!" - JJB, from an idea by oratorio

    by JJB on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 07:48:23 AM PDT

    •  I like it. (none / 0)

      >as dumb as they are viscious.

      I like this -- subtly insinuating that they're not just vicious, they're also viscous.

      by ne plus ultra on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:03:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, (none / 0)

        I was channeling Dan Quayle there.  It does inadvertently point up their essentially oily nature, like a couple of mutations that oozed their way out of the primordial muck.

        "L'enfer, c'est les autres." - Jean Paul Sartre, Huis Clos

        "L'enfer, c'est le GOP!" - JJB, from an idea by oratorio

        by JJB on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:09:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Skull and Bones info (none / 1)

      Since they were two years apart, Kerry wouldn't have been involved in the selection of members from Bush's class.  New members are tapped by members of the class immediately ahead of them, with criteria such as extracirricular offices and (ahem) legacy status being taken into account.

      by hughster on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:00:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's Interesting (none / 0)

        But wouldn't Kerry have taken part in those bizarro initiation ceremonies?  

        They would certainly have met up at some point.

        Thanks for the insight into the process, anyway.

        "L'enfer, c'est les autres." - Jean Paul Sartre, Huis Clos

        "L'enfer, c'est le GOP!" - JJB, from an idea by oratorio

        by JJB on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:03:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Skull & Bones (none / 1)

      Kerry was on the U.S.S. Gridley when Bush got inducted into Skull & Bones.  He wouldn't have been involved in his induction.

      Seems hard to believe they never met at a reunion though.

      But I always thought that Kerry never claimed he met him, but rather that "I knew his kind," meaning the lazy rich kids.

      Now who did know Bush was Garry Trudeau.  He served on a party planning committee with Bush.  Bush was a senior and Trudeau was a freshman.  Trudeau's comment was "Oh Bush was a real leader.  If someone said we should order six kegs, Bush would say 'let's order eight kegs' and you'd better believe we ordered eight kegs."

      Politics ain't beanbag--Mr. Dooley

      by LeftCoastTimm on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:24:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  limbaughs medical records seized LEGALLY (none / 0)

    As reported by foxnews

    by thebloviator on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 07:49:37 AM PDT

  •  This shouldn't be played as a lie (none / 0)

    so much as "Dick Cheney says he never met John Edwards, maybe if he weren't so virulently partisan he would actually be able to exchange a few civil words with his Democratic rival and acknowledge their existence."

    by pegm on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 07:50:13 AM PDT

  •  Aaaargh! (none / 1)

    Will Kerry be given equal time to compensate for this staged idiocy that's going on now in PA?

    This is so infuriating. Hate that man.

    Let the great world spin for ever down the ringing grooves of change. - Tennyson

    by bumblebums on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 07:50:32 AM PDT

  •  In all fairness... (none / 1)

    What Cheney actually said was "Mumble, mumph gurgle bzzzt. Mmmph mumble hmm-mmmm, mumble pfft smack mumbledy-mumph."

    Waste more of your day at The Next Hurrah.

    by Kagro X on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 07:50:46 AM PDT

  •  We all (none / 1)

    need to make sure that the last time Dick Cheney swears in a new Senator from North Carolina, its Erskine Bowles who will take over Edwards' seat.

    http://www.bowles2004.com/main/

    The Poorest of All Men is not the man without a cent but the man without a dream.

    by EMKennedyLucio on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 07:51:57 AM PDT

  •  Frank Leahy raises a larger issue. (3.66 / 3)

    On one of the post-debate shows (and before it was established that Cheney had lied re: meeting Edwards), Leahy was asked if it was  likely that Cheney could have not met a particular senator given that the Veep is at the Senate most Tuesdays.

    Leahy responded that Cheney meets exclusively with the Republicans.  He said the Dem senators stand by and watch a motorcade of 35-40 cars pass by every week (do they drive somewhere to caucus?).  He lamented that the Democrats would love to meet with Cheney but...  Here he trailed off and shrugged.

    This is particularly interesting in light of Ifill's question to DC about Bush's failure to be a "uniter not a divider."  Cheney said it's been a great disappointment that the Senate has been so divided, he can't really explain it, they hope to do better...

    With us or agin' us, sign the loyalty oath or no admittance, ask a tough press conference question and have your access cut off, dissent is not tolerated.

    It's all the same mindset with them.

    What did the President know and when did he stop knowing it?

    by Pyewacket on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 07:54:46 AM PDT

  •  quick question (none / 0)

    (previously posted earlier in a different thread.  Am reposting here:)

    Does anyone know what channel the debates will be on in the UK?  I don't want to miss Friday's debate and don't know where to look to find their schedule.  I will be in London.

    Thanks,

    Jail to the Chief Jail to the Chief

    by Barbara H on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 07:55:10 AM PDT

  •  From Olbermann.. (none / 0)

    The Boxing Commission (me) thus penalizes Fighter Cheney 10 points for untruthfulness, 10 points for forgetting his acquaintances, 2 points for snideness, and 2 points for hitting himself with his own jab. Republican spin doctors are penalized 10 points each for premature jocularity.This fight is awarded to Fighter Edwards on points.    

    The Boxing Commission will reconvene here Friday night for Bush-Kerry II, the Kablooey in St. Louie.

    He is the only one at msnbc who actually understands how to blog...and he its sometimes pretty funny... and soon he will have his own blog

    Send him love...KOlbermann@MSNBC.com

    by tiberius on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 07:56:31 AM PDT

  •  Oh..My...God.... (none / 0)

    You mean Dick "the Mole Man" Cheney....LIED?

    I'm not going anywhere. I'm standing up, which is how one speaks in opposition in a civilized world. - Ainsley Hayes

    by jillian on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 07:58:52 AM PDT

  •  Cheney's global test for the Iraq War (none / 1)

    Who was more mature last night?

    Why Dick of course! Blessed with a bald head, a dispeptic smirk permanently lodged on his countenance, the portly VP projected an air of dignified superiority.

    But we now know that from behind this deliberate, calm facade came the most peurile military strategy since the Bay of Pigs.

    If Dick Cheney, the architect of the Iraq invasion, had a "global test" checklist for the war, it would look something like this:

    • Impress fellow Americans and show other "states of concern" (and France, Russia, and China) who's boss
    • Project Bush as a strong decisive leader
    • Permanently disarm Saddam, replace dictator with pro-American regime, * Liberate millions of Iraqi Muslims, improve American image in the Middle East
    • Protect Israel (gets Jewish and evangelical Christian vote)
    • Get the economy going: channel taxpayer dollars into war
    • Get business for Halliburton: secure own post-White House future
    • Set up bases in Iraq to facilitate staging of wars with other "states of concern"
    • Wrap up Iraq in time for elections

    If Cheney had thought this through, he would have added this to the list:

    * Plant WMDs should we not find any

    Can you imagine Clinton's reaction when he got this letterfrom Cheney (then CEO of Halliburton) and other neocons in 1998, advising an invasion of Iraq?

    "North Korea, Iran, Iraq, or similar states [should not be allowed] to undermine American leadership, intimidate American allies, or threaten the American homeland itself," the PNAC concluded.

    This is Exhibit A why we need to shut down think tanks--America needs more doctors, engineers, scientists, artists, and philosophers, not policy wonks who (for financial or reasons of ego) wind up becoming front men for special interests.

    Where are they now? Many PNAC letter signatories ended up counseling (and then abandoning) the Bush 43 administration.

    Peter W. Rodman
    William Schneider, Jr
    Vin Weber

    by adamdc on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 07:58:55 AM PDT

  •  As Homer Simpson... (none / 1)

    ...said when his "untruths" were exposed when running for garbage commisioner:
    "Oh that was just a lie..."

    Obama!

    by MichaelPH on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 07:59:31 AM PDT

  •  Mr. Vice President - some advice: (none / 0)

    Stop, Drop and and Roll.

    That is one serious conflagration blazing away on your trousers.

    WAKEup! 2004 - Women Advocate Kerry/Edwards

    by snippy on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:00:04 AM PDT

  •  My email to MSNBC/Hardball (3.50 / 2)


    If Ms. Mitchell appears on your program again, perhaps you can ask if she would like to re-address this comment:

    "[I] think Dick Cheney did awfully well at, first of all, putting John Edwards in his place, saying that I have been presiding over the Senate and I didn't meet you until tonight. Talking about his not having been on the job was pretty devastating."

    If it was so "devastating" when Ms. Mitchell thought Chaney was telling the truth, presumably it would be even more devastating (but for Chaney) given that the vice president was lying.

    Oh, and perhaps she could elaborate on her phrase, "putting John Edwards in his place." What "place" exactly is Ms. Mitchell referring to? It sounds like the NBC reporter, er, analyst, er, pundit, doesn't really like the Senator. Who knows, perhaps it's just a phrase she heard at the Greenspan household.

    by thorchallgren on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:00:32 AM PDT

  •  Well one thing is for sure (none / 0)

     he sure didn't win the Miss Congeniality award last night.

    Lunch Lady

    by Lunch Lady on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:01:37 AM PDT

  •  Cheney has a mental problem.... (none / 0)

    ...at least that is what I expect to read in Charles Krauthammer....He lies when he doesn't need to, which is the same horrific problem he said Al Gore had. Thus, he has a mental problem..

    Wars not make one great. - Yoda

    by Volvo Liberal on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:04:35 AM PDT

  •  SOUTH FLORIDA ONLINE POLL on veep debate (none / 0)

    Needs help -- some freeper was on auto-hammer.  The poll is listed twice on the same page.  Hit the top one.  Vote early and often!  We're down about 30,000...

    Florida Sun-Sentinel

    http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-1005vpdebate,0,2900095.story?coll=sfla-home- headlines

    Don't believe everything you read or hear. Check it out for yourself.

    by Daemmern on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:04:53 AM PDT

    •  Ha ha ha ha (none / 0)

      That's my hometown paper. Broward County (which the Sentinel serves) is THE most Democratic county in the nation. To think Edwards would be down at all in one of their polls is laughable. To think he's down 30,000 is flat out ridiculous. It's like a poll in Oklahoma showing Edwards won the debate by 30,000 votes.

      "The time has come. The time is now. Just go. ... I don't care how. You can go by foot. You can go by cow. Hillary R. Clinton, will you please go now!"

      by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:22:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Interesting. (none / 0)

      This appears to be the exact same poll, right down to the response tallies, as the Newsday poll linked to upthread.

      Waste more of your day at The Next Hurrah.

      by Kagro X on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:29:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sorry, not upthread. (none / 0)

        Actually in a diary, here.

        Is this a common thing? I mean, these aren't meant to be scientific polls, but isn't it more than just typically misleading for people in Long Island to be reading what they probably believe is local opinion, when in fact a substantial portion of the results are coming from readers of the Florida Sun-Sentinel?

        Forget the fact that all the polls are being freeped from everywhere. That's a given. But does this seem a little more unusual to anyone?

        Waste more of your day at The Next Hurrah.

        by Kagro X on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:41:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Polls need work (none / 0)

      I was just voting and noticed that Cheyney had taken the lead in Fox, AOL and Newsday polls

      by observer393 on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:29:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  lol! (none / 0)

      You can just click away on that one - it doesn't use cookies to stop voting multiple times.

      Now, don't get carpel tunnel anyone....

      by storme on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:05:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  zx (none / 0)

    This is off topic, but I'm listening to Bush's speech and I'm furious.  Bush keeps mentioning that Kerry voted against the $87 billion for Iraq.  Chaney mentioned it several times last night.  Yet Kerry and Edwards just will not respond to this for some reason.  I've heard Kerry say something that he misspoke about it.  But he never explains it.  He's had chance after chance.  Edwards had chances lase night.  But they just refuse to do it like it's going to go away.  Bush also mentioned Kerry voted against many defense programs.  Last night was the first time I heard Edwards or Kerry confront this.  What is wrong with this campaign?

    And since this was presented as some sort of policy speech, it'e live coverage on news networks.  But it was just a campaign speech to counter his debate performance and lay the groundwork for friday.  I doubt A Kerry speech before Friday will get the same attention.  I can already hear what Bush will say Friday.  "Senator Kerry talks well and chooses his words carefully but that doesn't change the facts that I'm committed to defend this country but his record speaks for itself...voted for the war but against supporting the troops...blah blah blah."

    by fstop on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:06:31 AM PDT

    •  agreed (none / 0)

      Why the FUCK haven't they smacked down the $87b.  I have been holding out hope that it would be hammered in the debates, but I haven't seen any good rebuttal yet.

      Come on guys!!  It is the greatest GOP talking point and one that is easily defused, what the HELL is taking you so long!

      Bush threatened to VETO the bill!! HOW HARD IS IT.

      by Craziel on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:17:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Kerry/Edwards have not used all of the defenses (none / 0)

        There are several defenses to the $87 billion vote, and yesterday, we hear Edwards call sending in troops without body armor when the war started the height of hyporcrisy.  That to me is the best defense to the $87 billion vote.  Cheney lied and said that K/E voted against the troops when they got there.  No, they were already there without the body armor and other supplies in March 2003.  That's Bush's fault and his alone.  

        As I posted earlier, what happened in March 2003 shoots holes in the argument that Bush supports the troops and that he doesn't send mixed messages.  But I agree that K/E have not said that Bush threatened to veto the bill that would fund the troops.  Let's hope Friday we'll hear that.    

        by Dr Van Nostrand on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:32:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Agreed... (none / 0)

          that is THE opening tack to tack.. then follow it with the "and to answer the question directly, I supported a version of the bill that would have paid for correcting your deadly misjudgment and petulance in sending our troop sin there without the body armor in the first place, by returning to Clinton tax rates for the upper 1% instead of heaping the debt of your mess not our children and grandchildren you Mr. President threatened to veto that version, and backed a version that sought to sweep your deadly mistakes under the run by running it up as debt...which I think is wrong."

          Why they don't hammer it this way I will never now.

          cheers,

          Mitch Gore

          Wanna win in '08...?

          Put your money where your mouth is.

          by Lestatdelc on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 02:23:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  more (none / 0)

        I can't remember who said it, maybe Altrios, but a good added point to explaining the $87 billion vote is that if the war on terror is a long term, all-encompassing deal, why was Bush willing to mortgage our future on only the second conflict in the war?  If the war or terror is protecting our future, isn't it also important to protect our country's financial future?

        by fstop on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:37:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  The point is this (none / 0)

    If Dick Cheney will tell a calculated, bald-faced lie about the simple fact of whether or not he met Sen. Edwards, then what else has he or will he lie about?

    He embodies the pathological lying this administration engages in.  Their grip on reality is tenuous at best because they lie regularly.  My apologies to the fictional Col. Jessup, but, "They can't handle the truth."

    They don't even know what it is.

    "Sir, we've already lost the dock." A Zion Lieutenant to Commander Lock, The Matrix Revolutions

    by AuntiePeachy on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:10:11 AM PDT

  •  Elizabeth Edwards is a CLASS ACT (none / 0)

    Sorry if this has been posted upthread or on another thread--

    From ABC news online:

    "Edwards didn't forget their prayer-breakfast meeting. The Democratic vice presidential candidate noted the discrepancy at a post-debate rally in a Cleveland park, calling it an example of Cheney "still not being straight with the American people."

    "The vice president said that the first time I met Senator Edwards was tonight when we walked on the stage. I guess he forgot the time we sat next to each other for a couple hours about three years ago. I guess he forgot the time we met at the swearing in of another senator. So, my wife Elizabeth reminded him on the stage," Edwards said as the crowd roared.

    According to Edwards' staff, Cheney replied, "Oh, yeah."

    "She reminded him about the truth," Edwards told the crowd, "and come November, we're going to remind him that the American people do not want four more years of George W. Bush."

    I was wondering what she was saying to him after the debate. She is a very classy lady (oh, and I think she's totally hot too--can't resist).

    by Skyresh on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:11:31 AM PDT

  •  Chris Matthews pisses me off (none / 1)

    last night he was fawning all over Cheney's performance, today on TODAY he bashes Cheney.  Its nice that he corrects himself, but the guy does this for a living.  Politics is all he studies,  all he cares about.  He should have been able to highlight Cheney's rhetoric and lies last night without having to wait for everybody else to establish the facts before he would chime in.

    that said kudos to being able to change your mind after receiving new facts chris.  now please teach that trait to our president please.

    by thebloviator on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:12:54 AM PDT

  •  Bush Campaign Speech Today (none / 0)

    The Bush campaign probably pissed off the media today.  The campaign kept saying it would be a significant speech.  The media responds by carrying it live, but it turns out to be the same old Kerry-bashing stump speech.  My guess is that the media will downplay coverage as a result.

    by minndem04 on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:18:15 AM PDT

  •  not the most important lie but... (none / 0)

    This lie by Cheney is important because of the photographic evidence against it.  Lazy TV loves images.  No explanation needed.  Edwards needs to begin every public appearance from now on by saying, "Hi, have we met?"  Maybe have someone ask his wife if she's met Edwards before.  As Bush and Co. have proven, the politics o