Cheney MUST be held accountable

Agrajag · Post by **Agrajag** » 2004-10-07 04:06am

I've had it with this man. He is, without a doubt, a stone-cold liar at virtually every turn with regard to this administration. Enough is enough and this has to be brought out to a point to where he is made to bear responsibility for this failing.

As I said in the VP thread, the MOMENT I heard Cheney claim that the first time he met Edwards was when Edwards came out for the debate, I knew it had to be flat out wrong. My first thought is that it is clear from all records that Edwards, even for a Senator that has been out of town rather often, he has voted hundreds of times. There's no way he could not have met the Vice President UNLESS the Vice President was not there.

Now we've found out about the prayer breakfast where they sat next to each other for 3 hours, elbow-to-elbow and Cheney thanked Edwards by name. We find out about Edwards escorting Elizabeth Dole to be sworn in by Cheney to the Senate. We now also hear that Tim Russert says they shook hands and spoke on his show a while back.

It's also now being reported that, in fact, Cheney has only presided over the Senate TWICE in 4 years. Does this quote from the debate sound like two times in 4 years? "I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in session." Since when is twice in 4 years equal to most Tuesdays?

http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/new ... 855527.htm

The spinners are trying to say, "Oh, he didn't mean that literally, he meant it in a bigger picture way that Edwards has been absent in the Senate often." BULLSHIT. This was clearly a practices, orchestrated ATTACK against Edwards and it's based on nothing but lies. It's one thing to twist some financial numbers as we all know the old saying about statistics. It's another thing to knowingly fabricate a direct broadside against someone when you flat out know it is not true in the least.

On a related matter, I also notice the spinners saying that Cheney's votes when he was in the House, where he was the LONE vote to free Mandela and voted against Martin Luther King Day and some other rather embarrasing votes, aren't relevant. Why is it that this man's record is NOT relevant but Kerry's voting record from 20 years ago is and that his Vietnam record from 30 years ago is???

This is ABSURD and the people who continue to listen to the completely fictional content that this cretin spews out need to wake up and realize they've been HAD. Cheney is playing you for a FOOL.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-10-07 04:26am

Agrajag wrote:Cheney is playing you for a FOOL.

What about his fucking lie that he never said in the past that there were ties between Iraq and AQ? Even AFTER the 9/11 commission debunked that crap, he STILL said the ties were there.

If the Bush Admin gets reelected, I'm sorry to say but it would really prove that the US is full of scared sheep.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-10-07 04:37am

Welcome to politics. Visitors, please dont spit on the contestants.

Agrajag · Post by **Agrajag** » 2004-10-07 01:46pm

Exactly my point. Nothing this guy says should be viewed as credible. NOTHING.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2004-10-07 01:51pm

I'm not sure who I like less in that administration, Cheney or Ashcroft.

Probably Ashcroft.

Agrajag · Post by **Agrajag** » 2004-10-07 02:22pm

At least Ashcroft is at a lower rung and less visible. I think as a person I would find Ashcroft more objectionable on a daily basis. Cheney seems like he'd be a great neighbor in real life and such but he's just a heartless, non-ethical lying bastard when it comes to his professional life. He's at war every day in his mind.

EmperorChrostas the Cruel · Post by **EmperorChrostas the Cruel** » 2004-10-07 02:57pm

Agrajag!

If you arte going to put in a web link, put in the relavant text if the link requires REGISTRATION!

I have enough spam as it is, and giving my email address out to one more list seller doesn't sound good.

Agrajag · Post by **Agrajag** » 2004-10-07 03:11pm

Sorry about that. I've been registered there for so long I didn't even think of that. Here it is:

Cheney: Related to that same point, the vice president said: "Now, in my capacity as vice president, I am the president of Senate, the presiding officer. I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in session."

Except that he's not. Records show that Cheney has presided over the Senate just twice in his nearly four years in office. In fact, Edwards also presided over the Senate twice.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-10-07 03:14pm

Ender wrote:I'm not sure who I like less in that administration, Cheney or Ashcroft.

Probably Ashcroft.

Ashcroft's kept his mouth shut recently, so I don't have too many problems with him.

Agrajag · Post by **Agrajag** » 2004-10-07 03:25pm

Well, I'm looking for a website to verify this but Ed Schultz (a liberal ex-conservative) radio show host just went over Edwards voting record.

The bottom line is that his total attendance is 84.8%. I missed the initial numbers but from the start of his term up to 2002, he was nearly 100% on voting. In 2003 it dropped down to 61% and in 2004 it was 42%.

The key is that this is NOT anywhere near the negligent record Cheney suggested.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-10-07 03:28pm

Agrajag wrote:Well, I'm looking for a website to verify this but Ed Schultz (a liberal ex-conservative) radio show host just went over Edwards voting record.

The bottom line is that his total attendance is 84.8%. I missed the initial numbers but from the start of his term up to 2002, he was nearly 100% on voting. In 2003 it dropped down to 61% and in 2004 it was 42%.

The key is that this is NOT anywhere near the negligent record Cheney suggested.

When you average it no, it's not too bad. But when you're talking about missing more sessions than you attend, and some critically important ones at that, then it does become a real issue. Cheney did exagerate, but there's a reason that Bobl Dole stepped down for his run; you can't do both.

Agrajag · Post by **Agrajag** » 2004-10-07 03:45pm

Dole only stepped down because he was at the end of a long run. Note that Bob Dole did NOT step down for the run for the White House in 1976 when he was Ford's VP candidate.

It's common for Senators to do both.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-10-07 03:51pm

Agrajag wrote:Dole only stepped down because he was at the end of a long run. Note that Bob Dole did NOT step down for the run for the White House in 1976 when he was Ford's VP candidate.

It's common for Senators to do both.

It is indeed done, especially for the weaker ticket. As for Dole in 1976, back in 1976 campainging wasn't near the 24/7 deal is today, especially not for VPs. It can be done though.

But then again if you show up to work only 42% of the time, I don't think your boss will accept that the absence isn't as bad as it seems as a valid excuse.

Agrajag · Post by **Agrajag** » 2004-10-07 05:05pm

I agree with your final view of the 42% situation. However, if they don't win, Edwards will have the time to address that next year and then head back to his home state to make his case for why he chose that path. It's up to them to choose whether that's good enough or not. I know one thing, I wouldn't want to have to be in that position. If you win, no one can really say much of anything. If you lose, it could be more costly than you think.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Cheney MUST be held accountable

Cheney MUST be held accountable

Re: Cheney MUST be held accountable