PeterDavid.net

wow... in his first few statements, cheney has denied trying to link saddam and al queda, he has misrepresented the global test, edwards and kerry's voting record.

i don't think ive ever seen somebody veer so far away from the truth so fast and stay on such a determined course away from it.

I wonder if they can see themselves on a TV monitor. I could have sworn I just saw Cheney look slightly off his focus and then straighten up, giving an appearance of being bigger than Edwards. It was weird and may be my imagination, but I could have sworn....

"i don't think ive ever seen somebody veer so far away from the truth so fast and stay on such a determined course away from it."

Yeah, not since Edwards was in the Vice Presidential debate!

Oh, wait...

At least Cheney isn't doing as flat-out poorly as his employee--er, I mean his boss W. did.

And let's keep a running tally of how often Cheney says, "Wrong place, wrong war, wrong time." I counted four times for Bush, and my mom insisted it was five. So far, Cheney has uttered that phrase twice.

Cheney talking about "winning friends and allies"? Do I smell a best seller if these guys need work in January..... "How to Win Friends and Influence Allies"? Certainly would sit next to many of the other dollar books.

Ah, but Peter, if Edwards attacks about draft dodging, it opens up a counterattack that Kerry stating in the 90s that past military service during Vietnam shouldn't be relevant at a time Clinton was being attacked.

Now the attack about the administration trying to cut military pay goes to the heart of administration's base and strength.

-- Ken from Chicago

Ooh, now Edwards interrupted Cheney. A violation on Edwards' part, though I can't say I blame him, given Cheney's blatant Straw Man argument of putting words into Edwards' mouth regarding him "demeaning" our Iraqi allies.

Shit, now Cheney's half of the split screen just went black now before they cut back to all three of them.

Peter, I'm sure a visit to Spinsanity and Factcheck could start to untangle some of the "facts" and figures tossed around.

-- Ken from Chicago

".... well, that's all ya got." By far, the best line in the debate thus far.... unfortunately, made by the moderator.

"Hit on Cheney's background with Halliburton. "

Hmm..this is going to be good..

Only company in the US that can do the job HAlliburton is doing in Iraq. The other companies that do it are foriegn. So is Edwards saying we should outsource american jobs and money?

The 9:33 comment? Yup. I decided I was going to watch this debate with my eyes closed (not sleeping, just closed) to see if I could just judge on what they said. Which was often, "Answer the question, please! The question she asked!"

It seems to me that when Edwards gets louder, Cheney gets softer. He really is controlling himself, except for those comments at the beginning of his rebuttals.

Oooh...more personal attacks...

I keep remembering what you noted about Kerry and Bush avoiding the cameras, and I have to say, it's much worse tonight. Very distracting.

Also, someone should have told Cheney that if he keeps steepling his hands and rubbing them menacingly, he looks like some combination of Mr. Burns an Dr. Evil.

So far, from a gut reaction, it's a draw. Both competent speakers, head to head.

Cheney sounds much more presidential (or more executive, actually) than GWB.

Edwards is doing a great job making it clear that Saddam is not Osama, e.g. Iraq is NOT 9/11.

Edwards looks juvenile and sounds as if he's grasping at any stick to keep from falling.

Cheney is absolutely pummeling the kid.

Record speaks for itself, and it's not very distinguished. Pow. Cheney with another pummel.

"Cheney is absolutely pummeling the kid."

Hmm..I'm a big Cheney fan, and I wouldn't say that.

I do think Edwards lawyer attitude may turn off swing voters though.

9:33 Thus far Edwards and Cheney are spending most of their time calling each other liars, which gets kind of tiresome.

It's reminding me of the Monty Python routine where you Michael Palin goes to John Cleese for an argument.

-- Schwa ---

NASTY! A personal attack on Edwards' Senate attendance that Cheney was obviously waiting to voice. He even made it sound like he was Edwards' supervisor dressing him down.

Slick, but nasty. Republicans will love it, Democrats will cry foul.

What debate are you watching?

Cheney looks creepy and menacing... his big head is looking right into the camera, and he's speaking like he's at a lecture... no message, and total avoidance of the questions.

Edwards is speaking to the audiance and making sense.

I'm a Kerry/Edwards supporter, but that "first time I've met you" line was brilliantly played.

Haliburton Haliburton Haliburton. Check out factcheck.org today. They have a great article about how the Dems lie about it.

You figure with Cheney's history of heart trouble and having a stent installed, he's learned to control his emotional state and reactions to be subdued.

He seems squeeze his hands together to almost squeeze out excessive emotional replies and when in control he lets go of his hands.

-- Ken from Chicago

Cheney's comment about "not even there to vote on it" seems underhanded. Maybe I'm naive, but aren't Kerry and Edwards on the campaign trail?

Answer the question...answer the question...answer the question...just gotta keep saying it.

The "Senator Gone" was a good comment. However, it makes it seem like Cheney was always there...anyone got a check on that?

Same sex marriage question...oooh...

STOP ANSWERING THE LAST QUESTION! MOVE ON!

I need a bottle opener.

Is it a good sign in a debate to try answering the current question by answering the previous?

If so, Edwards is doing jussssst fine.

From another blog:

Dick Cheney Attended Only One Public Hearing of the House Intelligence Committee. But as a member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence from 1985 to his nomination as Secretary of Defense in early 1989, then-Representative Dick Cheney (R-Wyo.) attended only one public committee hearing - a 1986 meeting on potential U.S. military involvement in Angola. [Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, House of Representatives, Government Printing Office Hearing Reports; Washington Post, 2/7/85; Los Angeles Times, 3/11/89]

"Maybe I'm naive, but aren't Kerry and Edwards on the campaign trail? "

Hmm..maybe that's why Bob Dole did the right thing and resigned from the senate when he ran...

It's a new concept...*SHOCKER*!

Well so far it's even steven. I agree both probably have skewed facts so that's not much to go on. Both say "that's just incorrect" too much. Soon we can reduce this to them pointing at each other and yelling "liar liar pants on fire". Both are better speakers than either Kerry or Bush. More fluent.

Both are nastier than either Kerry or Bush especially Cheney. He constantly comes close to actually insulting Edwards. Not sure that's actually a smart thing. The camera work is stupid and inconsistent. Show both. All the time. period.

Cheney is pretty composed considering it's him, obviously far smarter than Bush (but then he is one of the hands going into the puppet) and has more (be it dubious) facts. But he sure as hell blinks a LOT when Edwards talks. Not smart. It looks like everything he hears takes him by surprise. And I think he's getting more and more smirky with an aura of contempt. Might look negative too. Cheney also sounds extremely dull, like a tax form with a voice.

Edwards has the whole Kennedy thing going for him and he speaks in a way that's more appealing than the 'tax form' speak. Maybe to some it's too much 'slick lawyer'. Again, how you look at it. But he should get on the ball more. Some will see "young know nothing vs seasoned politician". Others "young bright politician vs snarly dusty old liar". Eye of the beholder, though the truth is probably in the middle here.

Content wise I see no real surprises. None is really getting the better of the other here so far.

Y'know... I like this moderator.

Even though that was tantamount to a mild flirtation she was having with Cheney.

John

"Thank you very much for the kind words about my family."

That and the "first time I've met you" were notable if watching the debate, maybe not in a review.

I suspect Edwards citing Bush administration trying to cut military pay has longer replay value.

-- Ken from Chicago

I, too, like the moderator a lot. She and Cheney are kinda cute in their way...

It's nice to hear about lawsuit reform now. They seem to be whacking each other less, talking about the issues more.

Hmm, doesn't Edwards reportedly have a weakness in one of his trials using questionable medical science?

Peter, gay marriage is a dividing issue with Democrats, just as stem cell research divides Republicans.

-- Ken from Chicago

P.S. If politicians REALLY wanted to limit frivolous medical lawsuits, or frivolous lawsuits in general, they could simply cap the LAWYER fees.

Both are geniuses in attacking each other and each other's president/running mate. But neither is any good at answering those attacks.

And did Cheney memorize every single vote Kerry made in the last 30 years? Edwards keeps hitting the Halliburton button, hehe. And Cheney keeps ignoring it. Pffff answer something, guys....please.

Wait a second, is Edwards MIMICKING Cheney's clasping his hands and similar hand gestures?

Other than that, I agree, they are more substantive and debating the issues than attacking each other.

-- Ken from Chicago

Both are better speakers and have their facts but I assume a lot of each other's attacks are true since it's either not answered or simply "that's not true" on both sides.

Edwards is 50 years old and still looks like a kid or Pikachu or a cute bunny rabbit (and not the evil ones that cause people to sing and dance themselves to death) whenever he threatens to attack Al Quaida, in the Dem convention and during the debate tonight.

-- Ken from Chicago

OH MY GOD! After 1 and 3/4 of debates a question from the Moderator about the democratic candidate's history. Dude, she better start watching her back.

Moderator is doing well, but sounds like she has marbles in her mouth much of the time.

Camera work SUCKS. At the beginning of the debate, the split screen had Edwards on the left and Cheney on the right, opposite of where they were sitting next to each other. Very awkward.

Good points to Cheney for pointing out Edwards lack of participation in the Senate. That's something we here in NC have found troubling for 6 years. That's why he had no chance of being reelected.

It is interesting, this lack of response (or in many cases, a response that comes a question later) to the attacks being made. I'm not sure how that's gonna play--as a denial, as an affirmation, or that it's simply not important to the person.

I don't think looking at it as not important works very well, thought.

Oh no! not the "down and out family history".

As THE DAILY SHOW mentioned, Illinois' senator candidate, Barack Obama, has everyone beat by being the son of an African goat herder.

-- Ken from Chicago

Peter, why did you think it was CHENEY who kept being secured away in an undisclosed location during times of crisis?

-- Ken from Chicago

Interesting mannerisms by Edwards throughout the debate. Of particular note are his hand gesturing. Very, very reminiscent of Clinton's..... especially when he does that two-handed kinda-thumbs-up-thingy when making a pint.

Also, when Edwards is writing notes with the squaring and other non-writing notations, he looks exactly like any artist at a comic con doing sketches. Weird association, I know, but I need to be engaged by something going on here.

"'The best defense is a good offensive' you know who said that? Mel, the cook on 'Alice.'" - ed gruberman, tae kwon leep/boot to the head, the frantics

Just how many times can Edwards (and Kerry in the last debate) say "We have a plan" and then not give any details of the plan?

This has been fairly boring, but not a disaster for either.

But ultimately it's a case of....

"I know Aaron Sorkin, and candidates, you're no Aaron Sorkin..."

(Just how many times can Edwards (and Kerry in the last debate) say "We have a plan" and then not give any details of the plan?)

Well if they said the plan then everyone would know it! Any good supervillin (and before you think that I’m a republican because of this comment, I think deep down all politicians are wanna be supervillins.) only tells his plans when he thinks he has won and has the hero, or in this case the voter tied up. Therefore I expect to hear the plan on the night of the election, but before the polls close!

In the Cheney – Dr. Evil comparison. Cheney and bush do keep asking for increased military spending in terms of hundreds of Billlllionnnsss of dollars. Curious!

If Edwards wanted a knockout, why didn't he ask about Saudis harboring terrorists and why the administration didn't go after that country?

If Cheney, well, had a couple shots, especially the "first time I met you". It parallels Kerry's saying it was Osama not Saddam who attacked America, the inverse of Kerry's "global test" line. Altho Cheney's version might be denying linking Saddam to 9/11, but since that was early in the debate, it might be lost to te debate watchers, altho news coverage can pick up on it.

-- Ken from Chicago

No "knock out" by either candidate, but neither of them was hurt. A definite draw.

And if anyone is watching NBC, they're going to have a report on the "bloggers" covering the debate soon. Will this be one that is mentioned...?

Lockhart attacks Bush and Cheney for saying they would do the same thing all over again to attack Iraq but Matthews calls him on it asking why Kerry said the same thing in hindsight and Lockhart tries to dodge answering it as Kerry didn't know, that it was ploy to get inspectors back in, while dodging that Kerry said IN HINDSIGHT after WMDs were not found, after a thousand American troops dead and greater numbers of Iraqi allied troops dead.

Another example of the silliness of asking "spinners" to comment since you pretty much know what they gonna say.

-- Ken from Chicago

PAD,

I haven't read all the commentary before this, but I think it's great that you're minute by minute blog reflected Cheney doing well at times. This is quite a contrast to Paul Begala in his blog on the Bush debate. For my part, I think Cheney came out on top, but VP debates really don't matter. Given the sorry job that Bush did in the first debate, I imagine Republicans wishing that Cheney were the Presidential candidate rather than the VP. I myself am a conservative and wish there were a conservative in the race. Bush doesn't qualify.

Regards,

Dennis Donohoe

A Republican "spinner" dodging the question about whether an unemployed Cleveland factory worker thinks the way out of the economic depression is by being more business friendly by bringing up medical malpractice.

More silliness, more spin, no matter which side

-- Ken from Chicago

After watching this debate I have to give the edge to Cheney. There were many instances of missed opportunities for Edwards. I don't think he did poorly, but I think he could have done much better. I guess Cheney just garnered the most points, although I believe he was untruthful or possibly deluding himself in several instances.

PAD wrote: "Edwards is trying to walk an extremely fine line. I'm willing to bet that both Kerry and Edwards do believe in a right to gay marriage, but if they come out and say that, they risk offending...what? Seventy percent of the people? Still, I wish they had the guts to come out and say, Yeah, we support it, that's one of the reasons we're different from the GOP, we really believe government shouldn't be telling people what they can't do if they're not hurting anybody."

Hmmm. Are you actually suggesting, PAD, that Kerry and Edwards are being less than truthful? After Kerry has repeatedly said a key difference will be that they will tell the truth to the American people?

Jim in Iowa

As much as it pains me to admit it, I have to give it to Cheney. He did a good job portraying himself as more credible than Edwards, and there's a lot of people out there who "don't know and don't care" to find out the truth for themselves. Let's just hope the ratings were down for this one, although I'm sure the RepubliKKKan spin machine will be going into overdrive to gloat about this one.

10:29 I suspect Texas democrats would have something to say about Bush allegedly having "reached across the aisle" in Texas to Democrats. I susp

What was the rest of that?

Well, as it happens, the Texas Lt. Governor (and actually more powerful position under the state Constitution) worked VERY well with Governor Bush. No one thought that Bush would get much legislation passed because he and Bullock would lock horns so much. Both state houses were controlled by the Democrats. However, the opposite happened. They became friends and made things happen. It was one of the better examples of bipartisanship I'd seen.

Since Bush left, the atmosphere in Austin between the governor and the legislature has definitely worsened.

When Bush ran against Richards, it was really an interesting choice. Both were very similar in how they would said they would run the state (national politics are very different than state) and I was undecided for a while. Richards finally lost it for me when she advocated a state-wide curfew for teens to deal with gang violence. Not leaving it to the local towns, but state-wide. That was enough of a difference for me. In a state this size, having that kind of one-size-fits-all policy would have been a disaster.

PAD wrote: "I think it'd be cool if Edwards said, "I don't have a long resume like Cheney's. On the other hand, at least my resume doesn't have me shaking hands with Saddam.""

Actually, this is one easy slam that Cheney missed. Paraphrased, Edwards twice said that a long resume does not necessarily mean competence (or soemthing to that effect). It would have been even more cool if Cheney had said: You are absolutely right. Senator Kerry's long resume doesn't prove he is a competent leader. Name one significant piece of legislation he sponsored and got through the senate in his 19 years. Just one. I will give you the remaining 60 minutes to do so."

Jim in Iowa

I'm a Kerry supporter 100%, but Cheney dominated here. He had command of the issues, and Edwards looked like a lightweight who had to rely on talking points. Cheney's wrong on the issues, but Edwards wasn't able to put that across in any effective way. He just looked like someone completely out of his depth getting schooled by his elder.

The experience thing cuts both ways. Cheney/Kerrey are clearly the more experienced, Bush/Edwards less so. I think it was a setup though to try and get Cheney to slam it, to come back on Bush. Cheney didn't fall into it though.

I think Cheney definitely has the edge in this one. Edwards did a lot better than I thought, but I think Cheney did quite well.

I think, in terms of negatives, Edwards came across at times as too slick and like a lawyer. That is subjective, but I think Cheney did less to hurt himself in that way.

I don't have cable, so I am stuck with PBS (which does ok) or the broadcast networks. I am very put off by the split screen. In this case, Edwards, I think, came out a little worse. The problem, though, is that it is not fair. Either it should be split screen the entire debate, or not at all. If a candidate has to scratch his nose or yawn at the wrong moment, whoever controls the cameras has the choice of whether to cover it or not. I am NOT claiming an actual bias. I am simply saying that to show it some of the time is not the right way. (It did seem that there were far more split screens of Bush listening in the first debate than of Kerry. Maybe it is a perception, but I would be interested to go back and count the minutes they actually covered Bush listening versus Kerry.)

Jim in Iowa

Saw about half of it, and would have to give it a win for Chaney but both nowhere near a knockout and much less than Kerry over Bush in their debate.

Chaney came across as knowledgable and competent (and I'm now positive that if it were Chaney v. Bush in this format, Dubya wouldn't even know what hit him). He also put Edwards on the defensive quite a bit. Edwards, while not even close the extent that Dubya did, tended to over use repetition of talking points. He also, to me at least, came across as a bit swarmy.

Well, I just looked at the polls of the major news organizations and at this point in time, they all say Edwards won the debate. Even Fox news. I sadly still think Cheney won, but I wonder why they are calling it for Edwards so far.

Matt,

Now you know how Republicans felt the other night. Bush lost so badly on style it was awful. Kerry looked great - no matter how much I disagreed with him.

Two reasons I think Cheney won:

1.) He had the best line when he noted that he had been at the Senate most Tuesdays and tonight was the first time he had ever met Edwards.

2.) Cheney provoked a response from Edwards out of turn when he began arguing with Cheney before he was done.

Jim in Iowa

Karen,

Online polls are woefully inaccurate - and very prone to vote stacking. I'd wait for a real poll tomorrow or Thursday to get a better sense of it.

It was Robin Vs Two-Face (who kept flipping to the unscarred side therefore remained more Harvey Dent - thought I was hoping for Two-Face to come out.)

All I wanted to know if Robin would be Dick Grayson, Jason Todd or Tim. It was a little Tim mix with the guy who played Robin on the 1960's TV show. He spent too much time quoting and praising Batman (Carey).

I don't understand in these debates why both Democratic candidates have such a hard time attacking Bush's record. It's not like there isn't any ammunition. Both debate when they could have obviously went for the jugular, they only smacked a little wrist. Either it's harder then it looks (lost jobs, tax cut for rich, illegal declaratioin of war for reasons proven to be false, theft of the election in 2000), or as I asserted before, the Democrats are purposely throwing this election.

I refer all to the Bush/Clinton debate. Clinton wiped the floor with Bush Sr with but one statement "you made this mess, and I can clean it up." Comparitively daddy didn't pull nearly half the stuff the Dubya has, yet we get Demoncratic candidates that seem unable to knock this out the ball park. This is sad, indeedy.

"10:36 Cheney plays the fear card. Naturally. Edwards speaks of hope; Cheney speaks of fear."

Ah.

When Edwards says America's bright light is flickering...not sure one can say that's a message of hope. I appreciate your (PAD) Democratic party convictions, but let's not go too crazy trying to make hope from Edwards' not quite hopeful statements.

Watched this one with interest and gotta say it was a lot closer than the previous debate.Both candidates seemed aware of the camera and audience and both at least did some homework.
Im still disturbed by the constant "BOOGA,BOOGA
the terrorists are gonna get ya"riff from Cheney,nice follow up by MSNBC showing ol Palpatine suggesting the 911/Saddam connnection.While he doesnt come out and openly say it is very strongly implied.
Edwards really should have used less John kerry and i statements though,got kinda redundant.While Halliburton is supposed to be the only company qualified to do the work ,exactly what service are they providing??Anyone?
Some polls have edwards winning by a bunch but its early,and will wait til tommorrow.Overall the young jedi did well ,but the sith lord did his damage.I call this a draw to a slight win for Cheney.Of course his evil Jedi powers give him an edge.:)

I was really dissapointed that Edwards mention Halliburton so damn much, but didn't properly ask the Vice President why his Former Company had so much Leverage in rebuilding Iraq, and Afghanistan. I really wanted more of that Trial Lawyer to come out more, instead he seemed to damn... passive with Cheney.

Why no mentions of Cheney's secret meetings with ENRON for the Energy Plan?

Jim in Iowa:

"1.) He had the best line when he noted that he had been at the Senate most Tuesdays and tonight was the first time he had ever met Edwards."

Funny thing is, what Cheney said is either a misremembrance or an outright lie. National Prayer Breakfast, 2001: he called him by name. Also, Edwards escorted new U.S. Senator Elizabeth Dole in 2003 at the swearing-in ceremony. Who administered the oath to Dole? That's right--Dick Cheney.

There's photographic evidence, of course (I've seen it)--and it'll be all over the news reports tomorrow, I'm sure.

Whoops.

(Besides the fact, Cheney's very seldom there when the Senate convenes.)

Close debate tonight, certainly closer than the Presidential debate the other night, but I think Edwards edged out Cheney, who went for a few too many low blows for my tastes. No knockout punch.

~Gary

I thought the debate was a photo-finish, to be sure. But I think Cheney edged it out by a nose.

My question, what was up with the AIDS question? Definitely not a major point of either campaign, nor a key issue to most of the country. We all want the AIDS problem stopped and (domestically) what can we do besides throw more money at a cure? I didn't like the moderator, but I did like how she didn't screw around and directly questioned the candidate's on some of the most personally controversial issues.

Point of order: Cheney's accusation that it was "the first time" that he had met Edwards is simply a lie. The Kerry campaign has photos (check salon.com's War Room) and transcripts of Cheney and Edwards on the same stage sitting next to each other.

Like too many of Cheney's "slam dunks," lying lies from lying liars. (Al Franken's line, sure, but unfortunately true.)

And on the Iraqi casualties, two points. First, when did Iraq join the coalition, and where are the outstanding statistics? Second, I think that it should be pointed out that though it's likely true that 20,000 Iraqis died for their freedom during this war, most were killed by Americans under Pres. Bush's orders.

Cheney can "win" a debate, but only with continuous distortions and lies.

Personally, overall a draw, but at least Edwards was daring enough to tell the truth, and anyone who's read a biography knows how hard it is for a factual account to equal a ficitonal one. Why do you think most Hollywood "true stories" are "based on..."

AD

Just saw a repeat of the debate on CNN. I feel the debate was close, but would give it to Cheney based on his statesmanship and slightly more substantial answers, though I can see how some may think Edwards did better.
At least Cheney gives Bush some positive momentum going into Friday, which is important. Because even though I agreed with what Bush had to say in the first debate and felt he was substantive, only a blind and deaf man would think he came across very well in the first debate.
It should be quite interesting Friday.

Best moment in the debate, IMHO...

Dick Cheney: "And with respect to this particular operation, we've seen a situation in which, first, they voted to commit the troops, to send them to war, John Edwards and John Kerry, then they came back and when the question was whether or not you provide them with the resources they needed -- body armor, spare parts, ammunition -- they voted against it. I couldn't figure out why that happened initially. And then I looked and figured out that what was happening was Howard Dean was making major progress in the Democratic primaries, running away with the primaries based on an anti-war record. So they, in effect, decided they would cast an anti-war vote and they voted against the troops. Now if they couldn't stand up to the pressures that Howard Dean represented, how can we expect them to stand up to Al Qaida?"

The man hit the nail on the head there. You can actually go back and follow Kerry and Edward's coments on the war and see how the become anti-war during the Iowa primary. Sad really.

Some interesting things in the debate--which was a draw ... but wasn't. I'll explain in a moment.

It was actually more bloodless than I would have thought--although I liked one gutshot that the Dems did which no one at home saw: Edwards' people used one of the seats in the audience provided them to sit Sen. Patrick Leahy right front and center in front of Cheney. Leahy, you may recall, is the guy Cheney told on the Senate floor to go fuck himself.

Me, I wanted more blood. I wanted to see Edwards reach out with something like, "Now, Senator Kerry was too polite to say this, but I was born in the South, and I'm the son of a mill worker. Where we come from, we call things as they are--and you're LYING, Mr. Vice President. Again. You do it a lot, I've noticed."

By the same tack, I wanted to see Cheney come out with, "Those are some nice ideas about how you would reform the system, Senator. But it doesn't change the fact that the very system you propose to change is the one you used to become rich, and the one which allowed you to buy a seat in the Senate."

The best line of the night? Cheney's. But not in the way he wanted, I'll warrant: Instead of answering a Halliburton question, he directed viewers to go to a website, Factcheck.com, a nonpartisan site run by the Annenberg School of the University of Pennsylvania, so they could see the refutations of wrongdoing there for themselves.
Thing is, it is Factcheck.ORG which is what he was thinking of; Factcheck.COM was bought quite some time ago by billionaire George Soros--it directs you to his website, a "Why We Must Defeat George Bush" website.

(Parenthetical the First: While Factcheck.org does have an articles stating that a Democrat ad about Cheney still making money from Halliburton is misleading, and a couple of examples where Dems overstate the caee against Halliburton, it really doesn't have anything which counters the specific claims by Edwards tonight--and in fact, has a great number more articles which deal with Republican misstatements and misinformation than with Dems'--so even had Cheney correctly directed viewers, he would have hurt his case.)

(Parenthetical the Second: Say what you will about Soros and his campaign to help de-elect Bush, at least he puts himself front and center--as in the two-page ad he took out in many major Newspapers Tuesday--and shows his face, as opposed to conservative billionaires Richard Scaife, T. Boone Pickens, and Harold Simmons.)

(Parenthetical the Third: Anyone else notice that Cheney mentioned his boss--the guy he's trying to get reelected--by name just three times in the whole ninety minutes?)

(Parenthetical the Last: It should be noted that, as of September, the non-U.S. members of the Coalition of the Willing, though totalling thirty as asserted by the Vice President, account for less than 10,000 troops in Iraq? That's including the UK's 7,900, mind.
By comparison, there are fifteen to twenty thousand troops in Iraq employed by private military contractors--and there are roughly 140,000 American troops in-country.)

And I'm quite disappointed in Ifill as moderator--I don't mind softball questions, but I object to the sort of leading questions designed to enable press-release-like soundbites. Plus, she hit edwards with a disproportionate number of "Gotcha!" questions, while letting Cheney mostly slide.

Oops; forgot to say why the debate wasn't really adraw. A great deal of present politics on the national level these days is based on perception, and Edwards wins that battle, in rather the same way that Kennedy was seen to have won the debate on TV even when radio listeners thought Nixon won. I predict you'll see a small Kerry/Edwards bounce coming out of this debate, just because the Democratic candidate was more appealing.

Every time I see John Edwards (and since I live in North Carolina, that isn't very often...RIMSHOT! THANK you, ladies and gentlemen!) I think of Greg Stillson from Stephen King's THE STAND.

I'm just saying, keep your toddlers at a safe distance, just in case someone starts shooting.

Peter David: 10:15 I think it'd be cool if Edwards said, "I don't have a long resume like Cheney's. On the other hand, at least my resume doesn't have me shaking hands with Saddam."
Luigi Novi: I’ve seen the footage of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam, but I didn’t know Cheney did too. Were you talking about Rumsfeld, Peter, or did Cheney do this too?

And yeah, this debate was more boring than the Bush/Kerry one. I’m watching a tape of the debate now, because about 40 minutes into watching it live, I felt so sleepy that I went to bed.

Mark Kunzli: I'm sure the RepubliKKKan spin machine will be going into overdrive to gloat about this one.
Luigi Novi: Equating the entire Republican party with racist murderers and terrorists is uncalled for.

"Cheney is pretty composed considering it's him, obviously far smarter than Bush (but then he is one of the hands going into the puppet) and has more (be it dubious) facts."

First off, I just have to say... That lends itself to some... unpleasant mental images. Ew.

Must... fight it... with images of Puppet Angel... Whew. All better now.

I don't see why people make a big deal out of vice presidential debates... I mean, let's face it, the VP doesn't do much aside from wait for the guy ahead of them to die.

Cheney's a liar and Edwards is a cypher (at least to me). Neither inspires any confidence in me at all. My only regret from last night? That I wasn't home to watch Veronica Mars instead.

(Cheney is pretty composed considering it's him, obviously far smarter than Bush (but then he is one of the hands going into the puppet)

If they ever make a movie about this, I hope Frank Oz plays the part of Bush, and operates the puppet.

lol muppet Bush, ....wait, actually that last statement is a pretty disturbing image should your mind, like mine, be somewhat in the gutter. I'd like it stricken from the record your honor before someone brings up Miss Piggy and places her in a compromising position.

Bill: I think you mean Stillson from The Dead Zone. And thanks, by the way, for making that association. Now I think of John Edwards and just think "Tiger!" Very freaky. :-)

Eric

"Point of order: Cheney's accusation that it was "the first time" that he had met Edwards is simply a lie. The Kerry campaign has photos (check salon.com's War Room) and transcripts of Cheney and Edwards on the same stage sitting next to each other."

Actually, this only reinforces the point Cheney was making. Yes, he had met Edwards before, but *not* on the Senate floor, which was the point of Cheney's comment. If Cheney knew he had met Edwards before, then this was, indeed, a low blow. I suspect he didn't remember, but only Cheney knows for sure.

Bottom line: Edward's attendance in the Senate was horrible, even before he began campaigning.

When Edwards threw back at Cheney his record of voting against things like restricting plastic guns (no idea why or the context), Cheney's best response would have been: "We can talk about why I voted that way another time. The point is, at least I was there to cast my vote as a repersentative for my constituency. You don't even bother to show up."

Regarding an earlier question about Haliburton and what exactly they are doing? They are rebuilding the oil infrastructure. Why was it a no bid contract? Because there was not other company in the US or in any country that was an ally when we went into Iraq that could even do the job.

This whole thing about the Haliburton bid is pretty pathetic when looked at in context. Not a great analogy, but consider it this way: What if Bill Gates had become the VP instead of Cheney. What if Gates had taken the paycut, completely divested himself of ties to the company? The Democrats would be accusing Gates because the vast majority of computers are using the Windows operating system. This outright lie continues to be perpetuated in spite of it being absurd.

Sidenote: I agree we should hold Haliburton accountable for how they actually do the job they promised. The reality that the Democrats seem to ignore is that if Gore had won and if Gore had invaded Iraq, Haliburton still would have gotten the contract because they are the Microsoft of the oil production world.

Jim in Iowa

Two points:

1) Cheney did not divest himself entirely from Haliburton. He still owns stock in the company through a trust.

2) The idea that Haliburton is the only company that could put out oil fires is patently false. There was a Texas based company that inquired about bidding on the job, but was told that they were not prepared to accepted applications. This was *after* the no bid contract had been given to Haliburton in a secret deal.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041006/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_iraq_13

Heard from the White House: "D'Oh!"

Luigi Novi: Equating the entire Republican party with racist murderers and terrorists is uncalled for.
Absolutely True, Luigi. I dislike most Republican politicians, but the entire party should not be compared to the idiots in white sheets.
Jim in Iowa:
The problem with the analogy of Bill Gates is this: if Bill Gates totally separated himself from Microsoft, even to the point of removing all stock, all income from them... I would agree with you that Democrats would look silly yelling at him because of the computers.
Cheney, on the other hand, has waiting for him, when he is out of office, a huge deposit of cashola from Haliburton. A "Thank You" gift for when he left to run for office. And he still owns stock, as seen above.
If Cheney relinquished all of that, he could at least be technically above suspect. But so far, he hasn't.

Travis

"Cheney, on the other hand, has waiting for him, when he is out of office, a huge deposit of cashola from Haliburton. A "Thank You" gift for when he left to run for office. And he still owns stock, as seen above. "

And the distortions continue. What Cheney has waiting for him is, in essence, his paycheck from before he became VP. It was just deferred. It is not a thank you gift for what he has done as VP. It is the pay that is owed him for his job. And to suggest that he should reject the pay that is already owed him is absurd. The reality is that this pay is already set, whether Haliburton doubles in value or drops to half of its value.

Also, it is inaccurate to say he still owns stock. They were put into a blind trust. The reality is Cheney did *more* than required to divest himself from ties to Haliburton.

Jim in Iowa

Also, it is inaccurate to say he still owns stock. They were put into a blind trust. The reality is Cheney did *more* than required to divest himself from ties to Haliburton.

Which is what I said, Jim. Note the use of the word "trust" in my post.

And it's still a far cry from "completely divesting himself" from Haliburton as YOU said. Maybe it was more than required under current ethics rules, but that's just an argument for making those rules tighter.

My understanding is that the only remaining money owed to Cheney is a severance/pension. It's not tied at all to the company value, so he has no stake in how the company does. I suppose he could do a pension buy-out for the sake of appearance, though. It still seems like a tempest in a teapot, though.

Bill Mulligan and others:

Actually, Chenny vs Edwards reminds me frighteningly of the Beast vs the Smiler from Warren Ellis' Transmetropolitan.

Hmmmmm, all I can say is, whom would you rather go after terrorists: Darth Vader or Gomer Pyle, USMC?

Well, vote Republican and you'll have both!

Carl:

>Hmmmmm, all I can say is, whom would you rather go after terrorists: Darth Vader or Gomer Pyle, USMC?

Well, let's see..... Vader was a ruthless murderer who ultimately lost his battle and his empire to the rebels, while Pyle is a good-hearted, empathetic goof whose persistance and genuine concern for others always paid off and influenced everyone he interacted with in the end. Although both are extremes, I'd never cast a vote for a Vader.

Fred

"Bill: I think you mean Stillson from The Dead Zone"

Yep. Big duh on my part. Actually, cross John Edwards and Howard Dean and it's totally Stillson.

Also, it is inaccurate to say he still owns stock. They were put into a blind trust. The reality is Cheney did *more* than required to divest himself from ties to Haliburton.

You know, Bud Selig has his ownership of the Milwaukee Brewers in a "blind trust" as well - and the team is still run by her daughter.
(Note: the team is finally being sold.)

However, part of Selig's legacy will be that he never fully removed himself fully from his position as a baseball team owner. So, as commissioner, it has always appeared like a conflict of interest.

The same with Cheney and Halliburton and his "blind trust".
For the Bush Admin, there was no other choice, when there were likely other choices out there that would not have created such a conflict of interest.

Just so you know, I plan to vote for Kerry. As for last night's debate, I felt that Cheney won, but only by a small measure. I was slightly disappointed in Edwards since I thought that he would do a better job.

On the other hand, perhaps Edwards did do a better job. Remember, the main purpose is not to convince everybody how great is Edwards. No, the main purpose is to convince everybody how great is Kerry. Edwards mentioned Kerry constantly throughout the debate. Cheney barely mentioned Bush.

This whole argument about Cheney and his stock is another smoke screen. The stock is in a blind trust, which means Cheney doesn't even know if it has all been sold off and invested in another company. I realize that by watching the values in the stock markey, he could make guesses, but the point is that he does not know.

There is an assumption that Cheney is evil and that he would willingly and deliberately send people to their death to simply increase his and his friends wallets. On what basis is this made? If you look at Cheney prior to 2000, you find no reason to think this is the case. YOu may not like that he is a rich guy who made money in the oil industry, but he himself has never shown the lack of ethics that other company CEO's have shown. And Edward's smear by association last night was exactly that. The fact that someone did something unethical in a subcorporation does not show in any way that Cheney knew, approved, or looked the other way.

It is also interesting how people are so quick to say that Cheney should just walk away from the millions he was owed as the CEO of Haliburton. Why? If so, why should Alec Baldwin take another paycheck for a movie? Why should Bruce Sprinsteen or the Dixie Chicks take another dime for a record?

Bottom line, these charges are false and have never been proven. I suspect that while they would never admit it, this is payback for the Rose Law Firm and Whitewater allegations that were made against the Clintons. Funny how when the shoe is on the other foot, it changes everything. (For the record, other than the fact that they stonewalled for years in answering questions, I never criticized Clinton for Whitewater, etc. There were plenty of policy issues I disagreed with him on, and I far preferred he be rejected because of his views and actions in office than what he did years before that.)

Jim in Iowa

For those interested in finding out information from an original source and not just rumors, here is what is officially found on the RNC website. The website includes extensive documentation that shows the allegation that Cheney benefits personally is false.

In regards to stock, here is what it says:

Stock Options

That still would leave the possibility that Cheney could profit from his Halliburton stock options … However, Cheney and his wife Lynne have assigned any future profits from their stock options in Halliburton and several other companies to charity. … [W]e asked for a copy of the legal agreement they signed, which we post here publicly for the first time. …

Here is the web address:

http://www.gop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=4803

Jim in Iowa

My apologies. I missed a crucial statement on the RNC website. This information did not come from them, it comes from FactCheck.org, so it does come from a non-partisan source. It does go to the original source, however, in that it provides actual documentation from Cheney's lawyer that demonstrate he is not just claiming to have given the stock to charity, it is in writing. They give actual pay stubs that show Cheney did, in fact, get most of the 2 million pay before he was sworn into office.

Here is the original link at factcheck.org so that you can make sure the RNC site did not leave out any points they did not agree with:

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=261

Bottom line: The only possible charge that can be made is that Cheney is going to war to line the pockets of his friends. That charge is absurd and insulting when you look at the character of Cheney and what he has done all of his life. You may not agree with how he votes or all of his politics, but a charge such as this is so absurd as to have never been repeated.

Jim in Iowa

Hm. I think a charge CAN be made that Cheney and the Administration is overly soft on Enron (internal transcripts have shown management admitting manipulation of the California energy market, yet the pertinent federal authority has been been either very reluctant to prosecute such shenanigans or are enforcing the contracts that resulted in such manipulations).

On the matter of WMDs, I know the press today is focusing on the fact that the inspector did not find and does not expect to find stockpiles of WMD's. But read farther. They found clear evidence that Saddam had developed the structures to produce WMD's. My question to Kerry (and his supporters) is this: How long do you wait to take action? Saddam had been under sanctions for over a decade, and he still was pursuing nuclear materials and WMD's. He was hindred, but he basically had everything ready to go the first time we blinked. Do you wait until he has actually made them? And don't wast my time with pointless arguments about other countries developing WMD's. Iraq is the one country in this generation that used WMD's, invaded a neighbor, and was guilty of large scale massacres.

Here is a British version of the same story. Notice how the tone is markedly different from CNN, ABC, cBS, etc.

Saddam threat 'greater than feared' Oct 6 2004

A key report on Saddam Hussein's weapons shows he was an even greater threat than previously thought, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has said.

The group hunting for the dictator's weapons of mass destruction is expected to announce it has found no evidence of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

But Mr Straw said the Iraq Survey Group report proves "in terms of his intention", Saddam was an "even starker" threat than thought.

Mr Straw said Saddam would have built up WMDs if he had not been ousted from power.

Speaking on a trip to Baghdad, he said: "I personally am in no doubt whatever that had we walked away from Iraq and left Iraq to Saddam, Saddam would have indeed built up his capabilities, built up his strength and posed an even greater threat to the people of Iraq and the people of the region than before."

The head of the ISG, Charles Duelfer, will set out his findings in his final report to the US Senate tonight.

He is expected to say Saddam did not have WMD at the time of the US-led invasion.

The failure to find WMD will be particularly damaging to the Prime Minister because of his reliance on them as the justification for going to war.

He has already accepted that intelligence suggesting Saddam had WMD was wrong, and he has taken full responsibility for any mistakes in British intelligence.

http://icberkshire.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/nationalnews/tm_objectid=14725679&method=full&siteid=50102&headline=saddam-threat--greater-than-feared--name_page.html

Jim in Iowa

Jim,

Certainly, it'd make no sense to wait until someone had the nuclear capability to kills millions. I would suggest, and did at the time to anyone locally who'd listen to my rants, that it would have been beneficial to confirm said weapons, not the desire to have them, and get some support before going in to war virtually alone based on very tentative information that had been presented as tentative.

Bush was in northeastern PA today and countered the opponent's point of going to war without global support by saying that we had "Britain and Poland" with us and that "they were not coerced" into it. Immediate affirmation came to mind that the vast majority had to make the choice..... U.S. or Iraq. I've no doubt that they were told so too.

oops, another governmental report came out today stating a finding of Iraq not having had a Nuclear development in place since 1992.

I heard it on NPR, but here's a link to an online source:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3598318&thesection=news&thesubsection=world&thesecondsubsection=&reportID=562588

While I thought Kerry won the first presidential debate, Cheney handily smacked around Edwards during the VP debate. I was extremely surprised to see Edwards flushed and rattled several times -- I did not expect a successful trial lawyer like him to have such weak armor.

Note to Kerry partisans: Be prepared for a much stronger showing by Bush on Friday. I watched Bush's Pittsburgh speech this morning, and it absolutely kicked butt. He was relaxed and in fine form -- and very presidential.

This election is definitely going down to the wire.

R.:

>Note to Kerry partisans: Be prepared for a much stronger showing by Bush on Friday. I watched Bush's Pittsburgh speech this morning, and it absolutely kicked butt. He was relaxed and in fine form -- and very presidential.

Guess we'll see. Bush is always relaxed when he isn't being criticized. When he gets feedback, whether it be from a reporter, political opponent, etc., is when we see him react.

I wrote: "I watched Bush's Pittsburgh speech this morning..."

I meant Pennsylvania speech -- sorry!

oops, another governmental report came out today stating a finding of Iraq not having had a Nuclear development in place since 1992.

As is often the case, the rest of the article is ignored. The article you posted states, and I quote:

Iraq's nuclear weapons programme had deteriorated since the 1991 Gulf War, but Saddam did not abandon his nuclear ambitions, he said.

Bush never said Saddam had nuclear weapons, but that Saddam was intent on gaining some.

It is true that sanctions seemed to truly set Saddam back in the area of nuclear weapons. However, the same article says the following:

By the time of the US-led invasion in 2003, Iraq would have been able to produce mustard agent in months and nerve agent in less than a year, he said.

Saddam clearly had an active weapons program. In the area of chemical weapons, it was still moving forward, not backwards.

Another article also noted that Saddam had gone foward with developing key components for a missle, with the clear hope and plan that he would have chemical and/or nuclear warheads to put in them. You don't spend millions of dollars on a missle program for nothing.

WMD's were never the sole reason for invading Iraq. The fact that they are not there is troubling in that it reflects an enormous problem with our intelligence services. But the war was conducted on more than finding stockpiles of WMDs.

Jim in Iowa

Clarification: The follwoing sentence is my comments, not a quote from the article; the bold should have only been for the word "never" :

Bush never said Saddam had nuclear weapons, but that Saddam was intent on gaining some.

Jim in Iowa

Jim:

>>oops, another governmental report came out today stating a finding of Iraq not having had a Nuclear development in place since 1992.

>As is often the case, the rest of the article is ignored. The article you posted states, and I quote:

>Iraq's nuclear weapons programme had deteriorated since the 1991 Gulf War, but Saddam did not abandon his nuclear ambitions, he said.

Jim, there's a helluva difference between possession and intent to possess.

Fred,

And you don't see a difference between "intent to possess" and "will possess within a few months time without outside intervention"?

Gorginfoogle:

>And you don't see a difference between "intent to possess" and "will possess within a few months time without outside intervention"?

I certainly do, although outside intervention need not take the form of an ill-conceived war.

Yes, yes, all these comments are well and good, but will no one mention the most shocking thing from last night? You know what I mean.

The ending of NIP/TUCK? I mean, JesusTapDancingChrist, what the hell was that? I thought the reveal of Ava Moore's secret was impressive, but those last five minutes . . . OMFG.

:)

And you don't see a difference between "intent to possess" and "will possess within a few months time without outside intervention"?

Pressure was on Saddam for more than 10 years. Does anybody honestly think that we would've backed off him at any time?
Like I've said, we had him contained - there were no nukes, no WMD, no projects in progress.

Not a damn thing to justify this world when there are greater and more immediate threats out there.

Anybody can claim that he had designs for it. That much is pretty obvious. But he wasn't the immediate threat Bush made him out to be. Why can't the rest of you admit that?

And thus the problem here still remains the whole "preemptive" nature of what Bush wants to do. This isn't Minority Report here - where we can get away with trying to predict who is going to do what.

But that's what Bush wants to do. He wants to look like he's reading minds, and then, in the face of all contrary evidence, he refuses to back down when he's wrong.

No, all Bush has done is prevent us from going after the bigger and more immediate threats because now we're stuck to being committed in Iraq.
Thank you George "I'm a dumbass" Bush.

*Well, vote Republican and you'll have both!*

Welp, better then a would-be Frenchman that will go to the UN for his lunch money or goober that made his money off the backs of spurious law-suits.

*Well, let's see..... Vader was a ruthless murderer who ultimately lost his battle and his empire to the rebels, while Pyle is a good-hearted, empathetic goof whose persistance and genuine concern for others always paid off and influenced everyone he interacted with in the end. Although both are extremes, I'd never cast a vote for a Vader.*

God, that's funny, you'd send a born-again every 5 minutes sucker that only through bad TV-writing got out of jams his naivity put him in. And in my book, if Vader had been in real life, the Taliban would have been all liquidated in about one day. You need to fight fire with fire, not good thoughts, lollipops and health care. What a bunch of bullsh*t...

"The ending of NIP/TUCK? I mean, JesusTapDancingChrist, what the hell was that? I thought the reveal of Ava Moore's secret was impressive, but those last five minutes . . . OMFG."

I have a favor to ask. We watched Smallville and taped Lost. When we watched Lost we got to the end, where evrybody was getting along, sharing stuff, acting nice, lost puppies were being returned, I think the Byrds were playing "Come Together" in the background, and we all leaned in close because it was obvious that Something Truly Awful was about to happen. We starting making predictions--a shark was going to do a Samual L Jackson number on the pregnent girl, the reanimated corpse of the dead cop was going to suddenly open its eyes, the Harlem Globetrotters were going to show up--and then the tape ran out.

help. please.

Carl:
>God, that's funny, you'd send a born-again every 5 minutes sucker that only through bad TV-writing got out of jams his naivity put him in.

No, I implied that I WOULDN'T vote for Bush.

"And you don't see a difference between "intent to possess" and "will possess within a few months time without outside intervention"?"

So when are we going after Korea that already possesses nukes? What about Russia?

I want a nuke to0, does that mean George Adolf Bush is gonna launch an offensive invasion of me?

**God, that's funny, you'd send a born-again every 5 minutes sucker that only through bad TV-writing got out of jams his naivity put him in. And in my book, if Vader had been in real life, the Taliban would have been all liquidated in about one day. You need to fight fire with fire, not good thoughts, lollipops and health care. What a bunch of bullsh*t...***

Ahhh... so the ENDS do justify the Means... my bad... I guess I was told wrong.

Travis

Actually, Vader wouldn't have wiped out the Taliban that fast. Think of Vader as the big Governemnt, say, the U.S.A. and the Taliban and it's network of terrorists as the Rebels. We've all seen how that turns out.

Vader starts as Anikin and the Palpatine claiming they're implementing measures to protect everyone's security and safety, but slowly they're creeping in and taking control of everything and opressing the citizens...

And we all know by now how Episodes 4-6 show who won, the Rebels or the Empire....

I have a favor to ask. We watched Smallville and taped Lost. When we watched Lost we got to the end, where evrybody was getting along, sharing stuff, acting nice, lost puppies were being returned, I think the Byrds were playing "Come Together" in the background, and we all leaned in close because it was obvious that Something Truly Awful was about to happen. We starting making predictions--a shark was going to do a Samual L Jackson number on the pregnent girl, the reanimated corpse of the dead cop was going to suddenly open its eyes, the Harlem Globetrotters were going to show up--and then the tape ran out.

Actually, last night's episode just ended like it did once before, with the guy who used to be on Alias sitting on the beach. He was watching the father and son with the dog. He had a grin on his face, but it almost looked calculated and like he knew something they did not.

Now the previews for next week show them running out of food and having to hunt. The big, bad, whatever it is appears to be chasing down the grinning man as he stares in awe of the big bad. Of course, the way they do clips for next week, who knows what will really happen.

Jim in Iowa

**the guy who used to be on Alias **

Terry O'Quinn. He was Peter Watts in Millenium, an FBI Agent in the X-Files movie, Howard Hughes in the Rocketeer, and has a lot of other stuff to his name, also.

Travis

Anybody can claim that he had designs for it. That much is pretty obvious. But he wasn't the immediate threat Bush made him out to be. Why can't the rest of you admit that?

Ok, I will bite. Why can't I admit it? Because it is a matter of perspective. I fully agree that are intelligence was bad. Either he had the weapons and snuck them out of the country (and our intelligence failed to see where he took them), or he destroyed them in 1991 (and our intelligence failed to know this). He did not have WMD's ready to hand over to anyone.

What this report and admissions from Saddam also shows is that Saddam never quit pursuing these goals. In terms of nuclear WMD's, he was a long ways off. We never claimed he had nuclear WMD's, just that he was pursuing them. While he was farther behind than we knew, his intent was clearly there. And while the aluminum tubes may well have not been for nuclear purposes, everyone forgets that Saddam actually was trying to buy that yellow cake stuff in Africa.

In terms of chemical warfare (which seem to be the easiest WMD's to make), Saddam had substantially rebuilt. As other articles make clear, it is a very short process to change a pesticide plant into a chemical weapons plant. Saddam had way too many pesticide plants and vast quantities of it stored at military bases for it to be anything other than to be converted into chemical weapons at the first opportunity. There is not only intent, there is hard evidence he had restored his ability, he just had not begun to stockpile the finished product.

Back to your point: We obviously disagree about the meaning of "immediate threat." It is important to note that Bush never used the word "immediate." He used terms like "gathering" to say it was headed in that direction, not that it was immediate. But if we attack, then obviously we feel the threat demands "immediate" attention, so why did Bush (and I agreed) fell this was true?

Someone posted that Saddam was contained and that we were not going to let up on the sanctions. That statement is such a joke. We, the USA, were not going to let up (at least not with Bush in office). But the same report that came out yesterday that said there were no stockpiles of WMDs also clearly said that many nations, especially China, Russia, and France, had been violating those very sanctions. We may not have let up, but key "allies" in the rest of the world already had.

What does this mean? Saddam really had little to fear and no pressure to actually change in his direction. He could get all of the ingredients out to make his cake, knowing that he would very shortly be able to start baking again. Saddam did not have to spend the next decade to rebuild. He already had done so stealing the oil for food money that should have gone to his people.

So why did we have to act "immediately"? I will give three reasons.

1.) Waiting would have done nothing to have changed Saddam, and it would only have given him more time to get ready for when the sanctions were lifted or for when the world quit paying attention. Waiting longer would only have demonstrated we did not mean what we said and that he could do as he pleased.

2.) Waiting with the sanctions in place did NOT help us in the eyes of the Arab world. They knew of the thousands who died from lack of food, medicine, etc., in Iraq. They blamed the western world, especially, the USA, for the sanctions, not Saddam for stealing the money from the oil for food program. There were Arabs joining terrorist groups before we ever invaded, and that number was growing. By acting, we created the possibility of ending the stand off, elminiating the human rights abuses, and creating a free Iraq. Contrary to what many say here, that was a stated reason for the war beyond the issue of WMDs.

3.) September 11 changed everything. I know that has been overused, but it is nonetheless true. Here is how it changed things: We can no longer wait for what we used to call an "immediate" threat when it comes to terrorists. September 11 was not planned in 2 months. It took years to put in place. At what point do you act to stop it? It is absurd, in my opinion, to wait until a week or a month before they strike. You end the threat at the earliest opportunity.

Here is where I know many of you do not understand or agree with Bush's logic. Bush and Cheney do not believe Saddam was behind September 11. What they did believe (as Cheney said in the debate) was that Saddam would be an obvious and easy place for terrorists to get WMDs. While we now know that Saddam no longer has stockpiles of WMDs, we did not know it at the time we went to war. Not to excuse our intelligence, but part of the reason we did not know was because Saddam wanted Israel and Iran to believe he still had WMDs so he refused to show anyone what he actually did or did not have. He was bluffing, and he was going to continue to bluff. We tried to call his bluff. I know some of you wish we had given more time to the inspectors. What you forget is that Saddam had an agenda. He did not want to admit he no longer had stockpiles and so I think we could have inspected for the next 10 years and never been sure of what he had.

This is a crucial point: Saddam could have prevented our invasion. If Saddam had truly allowed the inspectors freedom to look, he could have averted the whole war. That does not excuse our bad intelligence, but it is wrong to say Bush went in knowing the intelligence was wrong.

Bottom line, why was Saddam a threat that we had to act on now and not later? Because he was a caged and hungry lion just waiting to get out and the bars on the cage were beginning to bend. Because it takes a long time to gear up to war, especially when you learn Saddam could have begun manufacturing mustard gas within a few months. Saddam did not have a gun to our heads. In fact, it is very possible that Saddam himself would never have held a gun to our heads. But there is no doubt in my mind that if a terrorist (such as Al Qaeda) were to say they would use a chemical WMD on Israel, he would have given it to them in a heartbeat and not cared if they also used it on us.

Saddam was a real, active threat, constantly working to escape his cage. We were correct to take action now and not wait until the WMD's were manufactured and on their way here.

Jim in Iowa

I hate bold and italics. I seem to regularly fail to turn them off, and preview doesn't work. Sorry if it made my previous post harder to read.

Jim in Iowa

Jim:

>In terms of chemical warfare (which seem to be the easiest WMD's to make), Saddam had substantially rebuilt. As other articles make clear, it is a very short process to change a pesticide plant into a chemical weapons plant. Saddam had way too many pesticide plants and vast quantities of it stored at military bases for it to be anything other than to be converted into chemical weapons at the first opportunity. There is not only intent, there is hard evidence he had restored his ability, he just had not begun to stockpile the finished product.

According to Charles Duelfer, the top U.S. Arms Inspector, Bagdad destroyed its hidden chemical weapons stockpile in 1991 and there had been no indications that production resumed afterward.

Someone posted that Saddam was contained and that we were not going to let up on the sanctions. That statement is such a joke.

I have made that statement and it is hardly a joke.

You must have read another report, because the report says that Saddam wasn't in any process of building new WMD's.

2.) Waiting with the sanctions in place did NOT help us in the eyes of the Arab world.

And invading Iraq has? Are we living on different planets!?

Bush just doens't give a damn what the rest of the world thinks. All that goodwill after 9/11, flushed down the shitter.
Something to be proud of, eh?

Available information indicates that Saddam himself was indeed pursuing a number of weapons programs, from disease bombs to nukes.

However, he was using available funding to build palaces and statues. Apparently, his scientific staff were lying to him on a daily basis about the wonderful progress they were making, as they seemed to prefer falsehoods to having generators connected to their genetalia (a standpoint with which I happen to agree, not that they'd care...).

In other words, there were not WMD programs ongoing in Iraq before we invaded. There were a bunch of scientists who claimed to the ignorant peasants watching over them that they were building weapons, but in fact they were only saving their own skins.

That, apparently, is why we invaded - because Dubya was as gullible as Saddam, when it came to what he wanted to believe...

Jim wrote:

"Saddam was a real, active threat, constantly working to escape his cage. We were correct to take action now and not wait until the WMD's were manufactured and on their way here."

I think you are absolutely right, Jim. All this 20-20 hindsight stuff is election year BS, and all the folks who are coming out of the woodwork now, puffing up their chests, pointing fingers and saying, "I told you so," are full of hot air.

The fact of the matter is, almost all Democrats and Republicans thought Saddam had this stuff two years ago, including Kerry and Bush. So did the world leaders and intelligence agencies of every country that had any respectable intelligence infrastructure. Even the cherry on top of this whole sordid WMD sundae, former CIA Director George Tenet, said the case for WMD in Iraq was a "slam dunk."

Virtually ALL experts were wrong about Iraq's WMDs to varying degrees, and regardless of WHO was sitting in the White House, the intel on Iraq would have been dead wrong about WMDs. Which means, if ANY crisis would have popped up for ANY president regarding Iraq, the advice and counsel from the intelligence community would have led whoever sat in the Oval Office astray. THAT'S the REAL problem here.

R:

>I think you are absolutely right, Jim. All this 20-20 hindsight stuff is election year BS, and all the folks who are coming out of the woodwork now, puffing up their chests, pointing fingers and saying, "I told you so," are full of hot air.

Not completely. There were plenty of people watching this going down, getting info from both national and international news agencies and saying, "Hey, let's make sure that this intell is right before we go in like stormtroopers", especially when it leaked early on that the intell was shaky.

>The fact of the matter is, almost all Democrats and Republicans thought Saddam had this stuff two years ago, including Kerry and Bush. So did the world leaders and intelligence agencies of every country that had any respectable intelligence infrastructure. Even the cherry on top of this whole sordid WMD sundae, former CIA Director George Tenet, said the case for WMD in Iraq was a "slam dunk."

Tenet was playing to his audience, IMO. Both the weapons issue and the Hussein/bin Laden connection had been questioned by critics and ignored. This seemed especially suspect after hearing a publicly released audio of bin Laden condemning Hussein as an ally of the west and not a true Muslim. Doesn't sound like an ally to me.

>Virtually ALL experts were wrong about Iraq's WMDs to varying degrees, and regardless of WHO was sitting in the White House, the intel on Iraq would have been dead wrong about WMDs. Which means, if ANY crisis would have popped up for ANY president regarding Iraq, the advice and counsel from the intelligence community would have led whoever sat in the Oval Office astray. THAT'S the REAL problem here.

I disagree. The real problem here is that there wasn't any crisis popping up. Bush got impatient, saw an opportunity and took the initiative on his own. The guy had a plan in place for invsion of Iraq before 911 even happened.

Remember, we are talking about a man who has yet to be able to identify a mistake... any mistake.

(One sticky point for war critics to grasp and deal with: The report is clear Hussein would have resumed making weapons if the U.N. had ended inspections and sanctions.)

A detailed report in last Sunday's New York Times makes a strong case that Cheney's erroneous assertions about Hussein's nuclear program hinged on the theories of one junior CIA analyst. The analyst's claims were dismissed by a majority of the U.S. government's experts, but Cheney's rhetoric exalted them into "proof."

This was from an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer. Bolding was me.

You must have read another report, because the report says that Saddam wasn't in any process of building new WMD's.

Your statement is incomplete. Saddam had not actually produced actual chemical WMD's. However, he had very clearly put all of the systems in place that in a *VERY* short amount of time he could have indeed resumed production of chemical WMD's. The report is quite clear on this fact. Why is this so hard to grasp? For Saddam to be ready to produce mustard gas in just a few months time, that is an immediate threat. More importantly, it demonstrates a clear intention to continue to violate the UN resolutions. Where do you think he would stop?

If a known drug dealer is put under house arrest, and he assembles all of the components to set up a meth lab, but just hasn't actually begun producing the drug, it would be clear what his intentions were and that he had violated his parole. In fact, it would be clear that he remained a very active problem. Do you want to sit there and "baby-sit" him for the rest of his life? Do you secretly hope that he does not set up a lab in the back of his closet (metaphorically speaking) and begin producing the drugs?

The unwillingness to understand the nature of Saddam Hussein blows my mind.

2.) Waiting with the sanctions in place did NOT help us in the eyes of the Arab world.

And invading Iraq has? Are we living on different planets!?

You miss the point. Either way, we were looking bad in the eyes of the Arab world. Either way, you have some Arabs becoming terrorists. If we did not invade, that condition would have dragged on for years. Exacltly how long would we have kept up the sanctions? Another 10 years of the Arab world hearing of the starving kids in Iraq because of the evil US sanctions would have been extremely damaging. What is worse, other countries were violating the sanctions, so Saddam still was using the money for both WMD development and for building his own palaces. Should we just sit around and say it is not our problem as another 20,000 or 30,000 or 50,000 kids die from lack of food and medicine because of the agenda of one man? The lack of condemnation for Saddam by many of you on this site is astonishing. Love or hate the war, love or hate George Bush, he is *NOTHING* like the man we removed in Iraq.

Yes, invading has resulted in some Arabs joining with the terrorists. But if we suceed in Iraq, it will be a short term problem. If we set up a free Iraq and get out, then a whole new dynamic will begin. Things at least have the strong possibility of getting better.

It is a horrible thing to go to war. It is tragic that many in Iraq have died (whatever country they are from). But unless we are prevented from truly winning the peace and establishing a free Iraq, it is certain that we will save far more people than will have died in this conflict.

This was the right war at the right time. It has not been perfect. There are many things in hindsight we could have done better -- but that is true in anything. If Bush is allowed to finish what he has started (or, for that matter, if Kerry will truly finish what we started if he is elected and if he will stick to it in spite of it being hard), then a new era will begin in the middle east.

Jim in Iowa

http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pri&dt=041007&cat=news&st=newsd85iph900&src=ap

Even Bush is conceding that there were no WMDs before we invaded.

Of course, he still won't admit he made a mistake, but I guess it's progress.

A quote from Den's article:

>"America is safer today with Saddam Hussein in prison," Bush said in a surprise statement to reporters as he prepared to fly to Wisconsin.

How in God's name can this in any way be termed "a surprise statement"? This is the only thing we've been hearing him repeat for the past year and a half.

Of course, he still won't admit he made a mistake, but I guess it's progress.

For just a moment, let's try to remove the "Bush factor" from this equation. Let's say President X has made a decision. In hindsight, some aspects of why were wrong, but in the bigger picture, he does still think the direction he went is right. In addition, he has made adjustments in how he moves forward with his direction.

President X knows, however, that this is a campaign year. To even admit he sneezed at the wrong time is to hand live ammo to his opponents. So will he "admit" that there were some mistakes made? Probably not. That would be political suicide. The real question is not simply will he admit he made a mistake. The real question is what will he do next time.

Neither candidate has been very willing to admit a mistake. Kerry has made his share, and he is quite good and "nuancing" why he was right. Bush does the same, though admittedly in a blunter way.

Which leads us back to reality. Are there aspects of the war that should have been done differently? Of course. In the big picture, looking at all the factors, should we have gone to war? I think so, and I think Bush does as well. It is right -- and patriotic -- to disagree if you genuinely believe differently. My hope, though, is that sentiment is based less on a hatred for Bush and more on a desire for what is best for this country. I assume later is true, but the rhetoric makes it hard to know at times.

Clinton never has come completely clean about the Monica affair. Whether you agree about its importance or not, the fact is, even while out of office, he has not really done so.

Yes, invading a country is different in some important ways, but the practice is the same. Presidents generally are not going to get "vulnerable" and admit all of their mistakes. That does not necessarily mean they are stupid or stubborn. It can simply mean they know politics and that any admissions of an error, no matter how small, will be used as a political football by the other party.

I have a very simple question: Do you honestly believe Bush will invade another country if he is re-elected? Short of a major change that we cannot forsee, I strongly doubt it. Iraq was a unique set of circumstances, whatever motives you assign to Bush for invading it. I think they were honest and good motives. Even if I am wrong and Michael Moore is right, there is no other country that Bush would invade like he has Iraq.

Jim in Iowa

Jim:

>I have a very simple question: Do you honestly believe Bush will invade another country if he is re-elected? Short of a major change that we cannot forsee, I strongly doubt it. Iraq was a unique set of circumstances, whatever motives you assign to Bush for invading it. I think they were honest and good motives. Even if I am wrong and Michael Moore is right, there is no other country that Bush would invade like he has Iraq.

I don't think Bush would do it for 2 reasons:

1) Our country no longer has the resources to have the choice to initiate a war, necessary or not, with another country.

2) I don't think that his cabinent would let him. Cheney would have to have his fingers pried away from his neck. ;)

Honestly, I simply haven't seen anything nearing a learning curve with the current president. It may seem harsh and I honestly don't mean it to be anything more than a statement of observation that adds to my complete lack of trust in the man and his abilities to effectively and productively lead this country.

Fred

Fred wrote:

"I disagree. The real problem here is that there wasn't any crisis popping up. Bush got impatient, saw an opportunity and took the initiative on his own. The guy had a plan in place for invsion of Iraq before 911 even happened."

That wasn't my point. Let's pretend Al Gore was sitting in the Oval Office these past four years and Saddam was still in power. And let's also pretend that Saddam suddenly got a wild hair one day (not at all far-fetched) and decided to lob a few scuds at Israel, Turkey or even Kuwait. Al's suddenly got a crisis on his hands and needs intel to decide what course of action to take, and how fast to take it. Well, lo and behold! He gets handed the same ambiguous and incorrect WMD intel Bush was handed. Does he ignore it all and use his ESP to settle on a correct course of action? Nah! He blunders into a big mess as well.

Like I said a loooong time ago, when it comes to decisions made based on intel, it's ALWAYS going to be garbage in; garbage out. Intel assessments tend to hedge with lots of mights, coulds and maybes (after all, you can't blame anyone for being wrong if an analysis isn't definitive in the first place), which is why I was very surprised that Tenet went out on a limb with his "slam dunk" comment.

Some here have said Bush "pressured" Tenet into that response, but put yourself in Bush's position. Here he's got an intel machine that has cost billions to build and sustain, and no one wants to be definitive about any information they provide. Wouldn't any of us, at some point, finally say in exasperation, "Listen, I want a straight answer on this. Do the Iraquis have this WMD stuff or not?"

And THAT'S the problem that needs fixing, regardless of WHO gets elected in November.

Everyone was saying the VP debates were boring, but I actually thought they were more interesting than the presidential ones, and were more flattering to both Cheney and Edwards.

I really hate politics. Here are your choices..

1.) No foreign policy at least not any that wouldn’t first need to be approved by the UN.

A great deal of domestic policy, a lot of which is for the greater good, but also a lot of which throws money at minorities without providing any real solutions. (“Here’s your check. Don’t make something of yourself, and Dear God, don’t move into my neighborhood.”)

Or

2.) A foreign policy that while keeping the country as a whole safe, also consists of picking fights with other countries.

A total and complete ignorance of any domestic issues.

No WMD's,No ties to Al Queda,no imminent threat....Why did we invade again????Please dont sell me that he had intent or desire to have the weapons as the answer.I mean we have shown we have MOAB's and intentions on DaisyCutter bombs so other countries seeing us as having the intent to attack or build more can stage a preemptive strike right??Jeez stopping drinking the Kool aid
and think beyond what this administration is trying to feed us.
Oh now there is a TERROR THREAT to our Schools ,with unconfirmed information about an actual threat that might take place ,maybe ,
BOOGA ,BOOGA THE TERRORISTS ARE GONNA GET YA!!!!!!

BTW NIP/TUCK Finale:.....Holy F***ing S***!!!!!
She's a man BABY!!!!!!The whole ending sequence..
WHOAH!:0 .That hit me like a bat upside the head.
Is the show coming back next season??I like Christian's character ,I gotta know what happens!!!

It is comments like this that defy logic:

Oh now there is a TERROR THREAT to our Schools ,with unconfirmed information about an actual threat that might take place ,maybe ,
BOOGA ,BOOGA THE TERRORISTS ARE GONNA GET YA!!!!!!

The Bush administration did not raise the terror alert level. They did not rush out with fear tactics. They have simply stated what is obvious to anyone who watched events in Russia: It is possible terrorists could try the same thing here. The stories make clear that this has been an ongoing process that began a few weeks ago when the attack happened in Russia.

It would be criminally irresponsible for the government to not have taken these steps. If they did nothing, and an attack happened, there would be an understandable anger at the lack of thinking ahead.

I can accept idealogic differences of opinion. But to make comments like this is a gross over reaction to what happened today. It is uncalled for and irresponsible.

Jim in Iowa

Nope, just another example of Bush Administration fear-mongering at election time.

As Jim mentioned, everyone recoognizes the possibilities for school after Russia, not to mention Columbine (and a recent local scare here in the Metro Detroit area).

"Vote for anyone but Bish and the terrorists will get you!!!"

Oh please, Jim .In no way am i making light of the possibilty of children of being attacked.Any one in their right mind should already be taking
steps to insure the safety of our children going to school.Living in the philadelphia area I well aware of the dangers our children face everyday.
Bladestar obviously got the point .
Its just more fearmongering plain and simple.
Quite frankly ,you should spare yourself for when I say TRULY say something uncalled for.

"There is an assumption that Cheney is evil and that he would willingly and deliberately send people to their death to simply increase his and his friends wallets. On what basis is this made?"

He's a politician. By definition, that makes him an amoral liar who would butcher his granny for an extra vote.

"Oh now there is a TERROR THREAT to our Schools ,with unconfirmed information about an actual threat that might take place ,maybe ,
BOOGA ,BOOGA THE TERRORISTS ARE GONNA GET YA!!!!!!"

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/US/schools_threat_041007-1.html
From the story...
"A man described as an Iraqi insurgent involved in anti-coalition activities had downloaded school floor plans and safety and security information about elementary and high schools in the six states, according to officials.

School officials in Fort Myers, Fla.; Salem, Ore.; Gray, Ga.; Birch Run, Mich.; two towns in New Jersey; and two towns in California have been told to increase security in light of the discovery."

So much for unconfirmed.

And WHO described him as an Iraqi Insurgent? Gladys Kravitz?

We have more to fear from the "Trench Coat Mafia" and troubled kids in schools than terrorists.

Besides, if they want to really hurt/scare Americans, they';d be hitting the shopping malls and shopping centers.

No, schools would be the worst for fear - at least if several were done randomly at once. People drop their kids off at schools assuming they will be safely educated. If malls were bombed, people would just shop on Amazon more. If schools were bombed, they'd either have to be fearful every day they dropped their kids off, or quit their jobs to homeschool.

They don't even have to actually carry anything out to disrupt and cause fear. Look at what the ABCNews report has stirred up, even though NOTHING has actually happened or any proof of anything planned.

America, land of the sheep. Hopefully the people will wake up and see how many times GWB's crack(-smoking) team has cried "WOLF!...er, I mean TERRORIST!" so often...

My school had a bomb threat last thursday. We herded all 2600 students (plus 100+ faculty) into the stadium and waited. And waited. Hours went by. it was about 5 or 6 hours later before they brought any water out. Turns out the bomb sniffing dogs got excited over a backpack of what turned out to be innocent kid stuff--between the scented highlighters, nail polish, and Splitz-B-Gone hair spray with Added Papaya Extract, I guess it all added up into something that reminded the hounds of plastique.

Meanwhile, I'm thinking how I'll bet nobody ever checked for bombs under the bleachers. The last thing that would have passed through my mind, other than chunks of bleacher, would be how I never wanted to have the word "ironic" show up in my obit.

The local paper suggested that whoever called in the fake bomb threat should have to clean the bathrooms with a toothbrush. Yeah, THAT'LL show him!

Yes, invading has resulted in some Arabs joining with the terrorists.

Wow, what a way to downplay the sitaution.

It's done far more than that, but you probably missed that as well.

"I think you are absolutely right, Jim. All this 20-20 hindsight stuff is election year BS, and all the folks who are coming out of the woodwork now, puffing up their chests, pointing fingers and saying, "I told you so," are full of hot air.

The fact of the matter is, almost all Democrats and Republicans thought Saddam had this stuff two years ago, including Kerry and Bush. So did the world leaders and intelligence agencies of every country that had any respectable intelligence infrastructure."

And yet most every other world leader was willing to wait to let the UN inspectors finish their job. Bush was not. Over a thousand American deaths later, we discovered that if the UN inspectors had been allowed to finish their job, they would have found nothing.

Bush didn't want to find nothing. Bush wanted to invade. So he used 9/11 to stir the pot, scare people, and he invaded. It's as simple as that, and all the rest is BS.

PAD

For the past four years I've been trying to keep and open mind. I've consistently asked myself, "Despite the fact that I'm pretty much a dyed-in-the-wool left winger, is there anyting I'm reading/hearing (among various groups, such as the conservative NRO.com) that would convince me to change my mind and support Bush and Co. over the Democrats? (Actually, I generally vote Green first, then libertarian, then Democrat. I have voted for some republicans in the past who then let me down.) I haven't been able to find anything. Are there any Bush supporters here that are willing to post, "What would make me change my mind, stop supporting Bush, and support his opponent:"?

"Are there any Bush supporters here that are willing to post, "What would make me change my mind, stop supporting Bush, and support his opponent:"?

yes. If Kerry could convince me that he has a plan to stabalize Iraq, foment a badly needed revolution in Iran and, if necessary, do wahtever it takes to eliminate the threat of North Korea.

Bush wants to do those things but I'm uncertain that he has a good plan to do so. Kerry...is all over the place. Too much of a crapshoot. The campaign has so emphasized the "I'm not Bush!" aspect that there has been little attention given to what Kerry is.

For some, not being Bush is quite enough. Not for me.

Also, on principle, I would insist on his opening all health records, his wife's financial records, and his military records. Given the fact that we allow the president to have the power to turn us and our children into smouldering piles of ash with the touch of a button, I don't think they have any right to keep secrets, thank you very much.

And yet most every other world leader was willing to wait to let the UN inspectors finish their job. Bush was not. Over a thousand American deaths later, we discovered that if the UN inspectors had been allowed to finish their job, they would have found nothing.

Finish their job? 12 years later and after countless roadblocks and you thought they were going to be allowed to "finish"? How many times were they turned away at inspection sites? How many inspection sites were warned due to the inspectors own rooms being bugged? How long before they were finished? Another 10 years?

The Hussein government was not cooperating with the inspections, they were doing everything they could to impede it. If Saddam had done what he had said he was going to to in 1991 - allow unfettered access to sites, destruction records, and material destruction observation - there would have been no question, no doubt and no need for a military response.

The rest of the world was happy to keep Hussein in power in order to line their own pockets. Typical two-sided diplomacy: rattle sabres at the UN, but take kickbacks on the other side.

Finish their job? 12 years later and after countless roadblocks and you thought they were going to be allowed to "finish"? How many times were they turned away at inspection sites? How many inspection sites were warned due to the inspectors own rooms being bugged? How long before they were finished? Another 10 years?

And yet, for all of the bullying and such on Hussein's part, there were no WMD.

So, I'd have to say that the inspections were working.

And how's this for news:
In the 90's, Cheney pushed for sanctions against Iran to be removed. Why? To help Halliburton.

Looks like he's had more important things on his mind than fighting terrorism over the