I am pre-emptively making this thread so instant reaction is able to occur.

Your forget "Did not watch it" :( now I have to get to get JamesR to change the poll. Next time I close the thread.

Oh, for the love of ... at any rate, Edwards needs to bite a little harder.

"It's my subforum and I can cry if I want to"

Hey I would watch it if I could, but I'm babysitting little sister and she very intent on cartoons, got the DVR recording it though.

Watching this debate I found out,
-Edwards is Zionist,
-Has more aggressive ideas about foreign policy than the current Republicans..
Jees, Maybe I wouldn't mind these Democrats afterall. Vote Kerry so we get a war in Iran!

I think it's obvious. Cheney, like him or not - is the real deal. Edwards looks like a kid to me.

Oh, for the love of ... at any rate, Edwards needs to bite a little harder
I agree.

I thought Cheney started out better but fell behind in the end. I can’t really tell who won. If I had to pick it would be Edwards because people will remember what was said last the most. However, it was too close.

p.s. Is it just me or is lehrer is a way better moderator?

Well my ompinion: We know who the REAL president is.

As for who won, I call it a tie. However I did like the "Remeber shock and Ahs, well look at it now"..Point well driven.

Godless.

MSNBC has it's poll. thus far. 76% to 24 Edwards leading.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/#survey

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/index.html
they also have edwards ahead.

Is a rush transcript available anywahere yet?
I am at work, and rather then listen to the debate, I was over-ruled by the guys that wanted to listen to the Yankees game (as if WATCHING baseball isn't boring enough, they want to LISTEN to it?).

I asked my mother to record it for me, but I can't wait.

Found one (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/debates/articles/2004/10/05/transcript_of_the_vice_presidential_debate?mode=PF )

Even I can understand, but "edwards won" seems silly to me. Cheney was clearly more eloquent and statesman-like. I thought his argument was more compelling as well. Edwards seemed like the Opey turned greedy laywer pretending he's better than than "greedy" business-man. He's a sham and it's obvious. It's obvious Cheney more capable as vice-president. He won the debate easily IMO.

That said, I don't know if that matters much in the scheme of things. If you don't like the Bush agenda, you will likely vote against him regardless. I'm really shocked at the large percentage of people who think Edwards won. That doesn't seem right at all. I'd swear from what I saw I figured the majority would call it a draw or it would be split right down partisan lines.

Wes,
Obviously I haven't seen it yet, so I can not judge who "won", but based on your comment, I have to ask: Are you basing your assessment on their personalities or the substance and validity of what was actaully said?

That's just my impression of the whole. That includes content where like I said, I could see how one might think "even", though I personally think Cheney clearly performed better. That is of course, partially because from what I know of them, I simply don't like Kerry/Edwards. I was willing to hear what Edwards had to say, but IMO, comparatively it did lack substance. It seemed like talking points - much like Bush's comments in the first debate, except Edward's delievery was far better than Bush's.

Where specifically do you think Cheney surpassed Edwards other than personality?

I would have to wade through the transcript to say specifically where, and I doubt i'll bother. I was basically trying to refute either argument to myself as they went through and by about 2 to 1 I couldn't refute what Cheney was saying as compared to Edwards. At least in those cases, I found one argument valid and one simply tactical and basically empty.

I should add I suppose that I don't think a debate really says much as to their qualifications. My judgement there was basically in my overall sense of the man's ability. While Edwards seemed like a capable guy, Cheney has 20 years insider experience and he's very very sharp IMO. It was to me like the difference between a the professor and the eager TA.

Sleazy lawyer or sleazy bussinesman? Hard "likability" question to answer. I guess people prefer bussinessmen, cause they are more directly involved in the rape, lies and plunder. Lawyers are using more indirect, sleazy ways to the fortune. Thus, in the common psyche, sleazy bussinessmen are more attractive cause they do more direct dirty work=deserve it more. Lawyers appears like jackals stealing juicy chunks from the BIG predators.

Undecided: "I am pre-emptively making this thread so instant reaction is able to occur."

Good thinking. As for me, I fell fast asleep on the couch right after the debate. Dog Bliss America. Now that I've slept on it, I think the Cheney-Edwards debate was a very healthy thing for the USA. It covered a lot of ground, and brought out the worldview of each candidate's respective party leadership, and contrasted the personalities of Cheney and Edwards. Highly revealing and educational, I hope that a large proportion of America was paying close attention tonight. I think both of these men are smarter and better communicators than their respective running-mates, and as a result convey more information.

They took the gloves off more than their running-mates, too, which was healthy. On homosexuality issues it was interesting to see the two corner each other against the same prejudices in their respective parties, to the point where nothing further could be said.

Edwards spoke dramatically more clearly than Kerry, while dutifully backing him up. Cheney barely concealed his venomous self, and managed to preserve his commanding lead in his party, as promoter of false assumptions and fabrications: Like Iraq as a breeding ground for terror, justifying invasion (never mind the chronology, folks); Like an economy that is on the right track (never mind the debts and outsourcing). Form followed function for both men. The slick middle-American lawyer, and the stodgy American-Kremlin schemer. So far as "winning" the debate by better making his case, and as regardless as possible of ideology, I think that Edwards was far ahead of Cheney, by nature and by training.

One highly-disturbing low point to me was the response of both men to a question about the Palestinian-Israeli peace "process", which became a contest in bowing and scraping to Israel while ignoring all pretense of advocating even-handed future arbitration on America's part (which Edwards won). I am sure that for Arabs watching the debate around the world, the familiar and callous incantation (that Palestinian tragedies are sub-human non-issues, in comparison to Jewish ones, so far as America's ruling elite is concerned) was reinforced in highly damaging ways in that moment. Many more people are condemned to suffer and die with each public hardening of America's alliance with Israel, and I could feel these future deaths, and a slipping of American purchase in the Mideast (including Iraq) in the pit of my stomach, as the malevolent spells were canted again, exhorting a horrific fate for untold thousands of people in the future. I doubt that many American viewers understand how corrosive such expressions as these from these representative American leaders are, when they reach the Arab world.

Another disappointment to me was that I was expecting a "town hall" interaction with the audience. I keep hoping that America can reinvent a functional and coherent dialogue between government and the people.

The USA needs many more debates- They educate, they illuminate the extremely subtle contrasts within our "2-party" system, and they stimulate much-needed popular self-examination of the collective American will. If this were a continuous national pastime, the future would be so much brighter for us.

I still haven't watched it, but I just finished reading the transcript.

I have to say (much to my chagrin) that I am inclined to give Cheney the edge.

One thing that I have always liked about Cheney is that, although I don't agree with him on many issues, he is straight forward and frank, and I think this debate reflected that.
There were a few too many times that Edwards all but ignored the question (or Cheney's response) altogether, and just ran off on his own about something unrelated just to get a few jabs in.

Edwards also disappointed me in that he kept touting that he and Kerry "have a plan" foe everything, but when given this opportunity to lay out some of the details of these "plans" he opted rather to spend his time taking pot-shots and pointing out the foibles of the current administration. Often times those pot shots were unrelated to the topic at hand.
He could have, and in my opinion SHOULD HAVE, spent time saying, "this is what we will do" rather then spending his time saying, "this is what THEY did/didn't do".

Granted, Cheney seems fond of entirely avoiding responding to anything that may not shine a favorable light on his administration, but I would MUCH rather see someone blatantly ignore something than try and put a spin on it, or completely redirect the response. Especially redirect it in a way that, rather than bringing up favorable points in his direction, bringing up point aimed at dragging down the opponent.

Edwards should have stuck to the facts and stuck to what they plan on doing to address the issues.
Instead he did his best to turn it into a mud-sliging contest.

Yes, Cheney did some slinging himself (Edwards Senate attendace record and such) , but to a much more moderate degree.

Edwards really showed his greasy trial lawyer tactics and I didn't like what I saw.

Cheney, although I disagree with his politics, and therefore wouldn't give him my vote, I think showed himself, as he consistently has, as a good man with integrity.
Too bad his politics suck, I would like to see a straight-shooter like him in the big chair.

Thankfully I can hold onto the fact that Kerry tromped all over Bush in last week's debate.

A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL

You'd just as soon have Dick Cheney over for a cup of coffee as have the local mortician over for a cup of tea.

But let's face it, tonight's debate pitted the Democratic vice-presidential candidate against the Republican Vice-President, who is really the acting President of the United States. Although as boring as drying wallpaper and as brazen a liar as a ballroom pickpocket, Cheney clearly, once again, proved that junior is just the pedigree puppet whose strings are pulled by Dick. http://www.buzzflash.com/editorial/04/10/edi04071.html

Giiss I'm not the only one that noticed that Dick is the REAL puppeteer while Bush is the pupet. Dick spoke more elonguently, than bush, seemed more informed, than his president, I bet in private meetings, Dick is issueing orders while the puppet listens.

Godless.

Another issue to consider this time around; the draft seems imminate to continue the war on terrorists, neithe of these candindates can stretch our voluntary service men further than they are all ready. This is the issue, that Kerry understands very much, to have more involvement of UN on the effort of WOT , and bring them back to the table, since this administration blew them off.

http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=Hacks%20Target%20Homepage.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=86&rnd=407.8921374718872

Godless.

I completely agree with Hypwaders on a "disturbing low point" being the discussions on Israel/Palestinian. There really is no releif for that situation and I felt a sense of hopelessness when listening to the two.

On who won the debates, I put them tied. Edwards held up pretty nicely with the more experienced Cheney. It was obvious that these men REALLY do not like each other. Maybe Cheyney had a little edge on content but Edwards won on style and ... well ...looks (looks DOES matter today in America). In any case, it doesn't matter who won. People don't vote for VPs and I doubt that yesterday's debate will make any significant impact on undecided voters.

I watched the entire thing (to the detriment of my Chinese studies :() but I was rather impressed by both candidates. There is no question that Cheney had an edge over Edwards on the gravitas portion of the debate. But Edwards had the optimisitic charm initative, which Americans like. This is what American democracy is all about, very rarely is it about actual issues, but usually about personality, and is there even a question as to who won on that one? It tickled me when I saw the comparison btwn Cheney and Edwards when Ifill introduced both of them. Cheney in a stoic almost comatose gaze, and Edwards *BAM* with those whites. About the Israel/Pal issue there is no question that even with a democratic ticket Israel's superhumanity will be perserved. Its the power of the Zionist vote in the US, and their lobbying influence in Washington. I do think these men realize that what they are doing in the region is only detrimental to American's future security. I don't think Edwards pushed hard enough on the fact that the administration does support outsourcing, or the Halliburton thing hard enough. Cheney calls Halliburton a smoke screen, when you are screaming for a lifting of sanctions against Iran who you then called part of the "Axis of Evil" shows the corporatism that this administration adhere's to. It was a tie imo.

Cheney clearly stated his position. I can't verify, but he said clearly that he was asking for the sanctions to be lifted because at the time they were imposed by only the US, which allowed other companies a unique edge over Haliburton. As the CEO of that company at the time, how is that the wrong decision? He said that even at that time he would not have opposed UN sanctions.

I cannot believe that supposedly intelligent and educated individuals still assert that Cheney is frank. He is NOT frank. He projects frankness as a political tactic. He made statements he knew were lies, and when he was most dismissive, he was lying.

The debate was a draw, both candidates did what they set out to do. Both candidates appealed to the groups they wanted to appeal to. I was bored.

I really wish that either Bush or Cheney would have the clarity to destroy the point "but we should have done more inspections". What? So you mean to tell me that you think that independent inspections - by a corrupt organization like the UN, under the thumb of Sadaam Hussein - you mean to tell me that you would rest the security of the American people.... the security of the world on those results? Need I remind you of the 12 years of refusal to cooperate? Need I remind you that Sadaam's crew basically made "dance around the inspectors" a new artform? Something to that effect with a good closer line about how retarded you would have to be, when personally charged with ensuring the safety and welfare of the American people, to trust in anything that resulted from that sham of an inspection process.

Note that I don't necessarily think the inspectors themselves were the sham, it was the process they were involved in - since ultimately Hussein controlled it (since it was his turf).

Yes, our invasion and subsequent inspections have certainly proven those U.N. inspectors wrong. Why, they couldn't find anything, while we have found massive evidence of weapons of mass destruction related programs!

I thought it was about a tie overall.

I felt Cheney actually performed better in the sit down style debate. He clear and calm. However, there were some points he simply avoided and his attacks on edwards looked like he was reaching to me. The bit about never meeting edwards was particularily bad, especially now that there is evidence being shown that this is clearly a lie.

Edwards was a little too lawyer like for my tastes. He had many canned responses. He talked about each of points but sometimes seemed to avoid giving necessary details. His attacks on cheney i felt were justified and scored points.

Overall I don't think this will change many minds as both did pretty well representing the platforms of their party.

Lastly, I also was disappointed in the israeli/palestine discussion. Although, it was entirely expected. Edwards focused completely on Israel and Cheney avoided it.

Yes, our invasion and subsequent inspections have certainly proven those U.N. inspectors wrong. Why, they couldn't find anything, while we have found massive evidence of weapons of mass destruction related programs!

Didn't say they were wrong. Said the process couldn't be trusted. Please try to be honest.

Sorry Wes, but derision is the proper response to a claim that the U.N. couldn't be trusted when our guys came to the same conclusion. Ask Vladmir Putin.
Tony Blair ran into both phenomena and came away severely shaken when he visited Moscow last Tuesday. The British prime minister thought he had a good personal relationship with the Russian president, but Vladimir Putin is a former intelligence officer and, like his American and British counterparts, he was outraged at the way the US and British governments misrepresented the intelligence they got from their own agencies in order to justify their war. Unlike the people at the Central Intelligence Agency and MI5, however, Putin was free to speak — and did he ever.

Putin openly mocked Blair for the failure of the “coalition” to find any of the fabled WMD even weeks after the end of the war: “Where are those arsenals of weapons of mass destruction, if indeed they ever existed? Perhaps Saddam is still hiding in an underground bunker somewhere, sitting on cases of weapons of mass destruction, and is preparing to blow the whole thing up and destroy the lives of thousands of Iraqis.” The Russian journalists at the press conference roared with laughter — maybe it loses something in translation — but Blair looked distinctly grim. He is going to have lots more practice at that.
http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2003%20Opinion%20Editorials/May/20%20o/The%20missing%20WMD,%20By%20Gwynne%20Dyer.htm

And there was this classic from The Onion just prior to the war:
Saddam Enrages Bush With Full Compliance
WASHINGTON, DC—President Bush expressed frustration and anger Monday over a U.N. report stating that Iraqi president Saddam Hussein is now fully complying with weapons inspections. "Enough is enough," a determined Bush told reporters. "We are not fooled by Saddam's devious attempts to sway world opinion by doing everything the U.N. asked him to do. We will not be intimidated into backing down and, if we have any say in the matter, neither will Saddam." Bush added that any further Iraqi attempt to meet the demands of the U.N. or U.S. will be regarded as "an act of war."

It's funny because it's true.

Sorry Wes, but derision is the proper response to a claim that the U.N. couldn't be trusted when our guys came to the same conclusion. Ask Vladmir Putin

I did call the UN corrupt, but that is really not the crux of the point I made is it? It's what I'd call incidental, though perhaps I could have been more clear.

The process does not fault the players, as I explained clearly. The fault was Hussein and that you had to inspect on his turf, so you could never get a warm fuzzy from the process because he may have the wool over their eyes before they step on site. If you were in a position of responsibilty regarding this issue, you have to consider his track record. Given his track record, prudence requires that you assume the worst.

and assuming the worse in this case turned out wrong.

Wes, you are speaking as though UN weapon inspectors were from North Korea or so. NO. They were mostly Americans and Western Europians owing their alleagiance to their states, caring little about UN. That's why UN weapon inspections are considered as CIA third eye everywhere. So cut self-righteous bull.

Too bad they didn't have a real debate, just a moderated Q&A session. Halliburton spokesmodel Cheney looked very presidential, he seems to be the one really in charge of the Bush administration, and although the facts just aren't on his side, he delivered his lies well. The invasion of Iraq was arguably a good cause, but ineptly planned and executed, with no credible intelligence to prove the case to the world, which we now have to rely on for help.

Wes, you are speaking as though UN weapon inspectors were from North Korea or so.

Then you aren't reading what I wrote. Take a deep breath and try actually reading, rather than what you presume I must be saying. Note I said:

"The process does not fault the players, as I explained clearly."

(the inspectors and the UN would be players right?)

"Note that I don't necessarily think the inspectors themselves were the sham, it was the process they were involved in - since ultimately Hussein controlled it (since it was his turf)."

NO.

Your admonishment is premature and misdirected.

They were mostly Americans and Western Europians owing their alleagiance to their states, caring little about UN.

As if I implied or stated otherwise?

So cut self-righteous bull.

Were I to begin it, I'd stop it. Perhaps you can try it yourself. Your assessment of what I said is simply wrong. You should apologize for talking shit like that.

and assuming the worse in this case turned out wrong.

But making the assumption was right.

I cannot believe that supposedly intelligent and educated individuals still assert that Cheney is frank. He is NOT frank. He projects frankness as a political tactic. He made statements he knew were lies, and when he was most dismissive, he was lying.

You may very well be right about his record and dishonesty.
I am not enough of an expert on him to argue it, even if I disagreed.

It seems to me, though, that he is, like I said, a straight-shooter.
I noticed it back when they were running aginst Gore.
I honestly think he believes in what he is saying, and says it openly and honestly.
Last night was a perfect example.
He could have lied about his position on gay marriage, he could have spun it and *not really lied*, but he didn't.
He disagress with Bush, but he supports him, and made that clear, even though most Conservatives are strongly against it.

I respect a man who sticks to his guns, whether or not I agree with him.
I respect Cheney.

wesmorris,

The assumption turned out wrong.

one_raven,

Do your repect him even if he sticks to his claims even when they are wrong?

wesmorris,

The assumption turned out wrong.


The point is that the correct decision was made at the time. They lacked the benefit of clairvoyance. Too bad you weren't around to guide them. They did the right thing at the time given the information they had - but it is frequently touted as incorrect based on bogus, confused arguments - like for instance the typical haters who present hindsight as if it were known or knowable at the time.

one_raven,

Do your repect him even if he sticks to his claims even when they are wrong?

If his facts are incorrect and he knows they are? No.
What, for example?

Well, Wes, you have a quite convoluted and inconsisted logic.

You say "UN is corrupt, cannot be trusted"=Iraq invasion was justified.

At the same time "UN" weapon inspectors send their reports first to the CIA and Mi6 then to UN. Therefore, corrupt UN does not matter at all. As soon as UN weapon inspectors set their feet on the ground, UN does not matter, its corruptness does not matter.

As for corruptness UN: well, if one bring bunch of 3rd world guys into UN headquarters they will try to make a buck in any possible way through so well-know to them bureaucratic see-saw. Cause they do not give a damn, it's gold mining time. However, UN is largerly "talking" organization with little power. So, as long as a BIG decision is made, UN corruption does not matter at all. How petty UN corruption would have affected UN weapon inspectors in Iraq? I would understand that giving power over billions dollars to the "eager" UN bureaucrats (food for oil program, for example) is not a good idea. However, little $ could have been made on the UN weapon inspectors. Therefore, UN corruption is irrelevant in this case and cannot be used as an excuse.

The evidence present at the time was not very good, it was possible before hand to say that there was not enough evidence to warrant invasion of Iraq.

I was never convinced of Iraq's threat to the U.S. And I'm in good company.
Despite the Bush Administration's assertions, allies of the United States did not fully agree with the Administration's assessment on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Prior to the war in Iraq, some foreign countries questioned U.S. assertions on WMD presence in Iraq. Now, some in the U.S. Congress question whether or not the intelligence agencies manipulated intelligence to gain support for the war in Iraq. However, the White House insists that U.S. intelligence on Iraq's WMD were fairly presented. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said that the efforts of the Saddam Hussein regime to conceal its actions "clearly give a picture of a regime that had weapons of mass destruction and was determined to conceal them."1
The debate on Iraqi WMD continues. For example, Russia was not convinced by either the September 24, 2002 British dossier or the October 4, 2002 CIA report. Lacking sufficient evidence, Russia dismissed the claims as a part of a "propaganda furor."2 Specifically targeting the CIA report, Putin said, "Fears are one thing, hard facts are another." He goes on to say, "Russia does not have in its possession any trustworthy data that supports the existence of nuclear weapons or any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and we have not received any such information from our partners yet. This fact has also been supported by the information sent by the CIA to the US Congress."3 However, Putin was apprehensive about the possibility that Iraq may have WMDs and he therefore supported inspections. The Russian ambassador to London thought that the dossier was a document of concern. "It is impressive, but not always…convincing."4

French intelligence services did not come up with the same alarming assessment of Iraq and WMD as did the Britain and the United States. "According to secret agents at the DGSE, Saddam's Iraq does not represent any kind of nuclear threat at this time…It [the French assessment] contradicts the CIA's analysis…"5 French spies said that the Iraqi nuclear threat claimed by the United States was a "phony threat."6

After Secretary of State Colin Powell's speech on February 5, 2003 to the United Nations Security Council, the focus of discussion among U.S. allies changed. France, Russia, and Germany did not find Powell's "evidence" strong enough to support the U.S.'s stance on the Iraqi threat. However, having already questioned the veracity of the dossier and CIA report, they instead concentrated on persuading the international community to continue UN inspections.

Other experts said that the evidence is not sufficient enough to prove that Iraq has WMDs. However, what Secretary of State Powell did prove was that Iraq was capable of producing WMDs.
http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iraq/usallieswmd.html

Before the war I thought the WMD claims were a smokescreen to try to legitimize an invasion that had been in the planning stages prior to Bush's inauguration. Nothing since then has changed my mind.

Imagine if they had tried to make a case for doing this if 9/11 hadn't happened. Only the fact that so many ignorant Americans still believe that Saddam had a hand in that attack allowed this invasion to happen. 9/11 was Osama's gift to the PNAC.

Well, Wes, you have a quite convoluted and inconsisted logic.

You mean "I'm coing to read into it whatever I want regardless of what was actually said".

You say "UN is corrupt, cannot be trusted"=Iraq invasion was justified.

No I don't. If you're going to bother to comment, please actually read what you're commenting about - especially after screwing it up twice. Read, think. It's pretty straightforward. Don't let criticism of the UN throw you off, as that was only two words out of quite a few which I've already explained that it's incidental. Your refusal to comprehend that is beyond me.

At the same time "UN" weapon inspectors send their reports first to the CIA and Mi6 then to UN. Therefore, corrupt UN does not matter at all.

Wow we agree. I bet you wish you said that before I did. How do you consider yourself qualified to discern "convoluted and inconsisted logic" when you don't even know what was said? I'd understand in a typical conversation, you might not have heard. Here though, it's typed right there. What the hell is wrong with you?

I did mention the word corruptoin once, later to note that I could have been more clear and that the word was incidental, yet for whatever reason, that's the focus of your criticism? Something that I barely mentioned? I re-iterate, what's your problem?

As soon as UN weapon inspectors set their feet on the ground, UN does not matter, its corruptness does not matter.

As I said, the corruptness of the UN is incidental. So you are basically paraprasing me. Well done.

As for corruptness UN: well, if one bring bunch of 3rd world guys into UN headquarter .... case and cannot be used as an excuse.

Okay so you can repeat yourself. I'm not impressed. Should I presume you're stupid, or would you like to tell me why you have no point? Revisit my posts here. See through your presumption. Consider the process, rather than the players. Consider that it was on his turf and therefore under his control.

It's a wonder that millions of TV screens didn't shatter as U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney's nose poked right through them last night. Just as he has in many, if not all, of his TV appearances since the terror attacks of 9/11, Cheney lied again during his 90-minute debate with Democratic vice-presidential contender, North Carolina Senator John Edwards.

Cheney even lied about lying about Iraq's supposed stores of weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein's supposed ties to Al Qaeda, and just about everything else in this supposed "war on terror" — not to mention the illicit activities of Halliburton, the oil field supply corporation he used to run in the 1990s.

"The senator has got his facts wrong," Cheney said after the first of many times Edwards hammered him on Osama bin Laden. " I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11, but there's clearly an established Iraqi track record with terror."

If this column had a video component, right now we'd be rolling back the tape to show Cheney on CNBC's The Capital Report, as recently as last June, lying to host Gloria Berger. He denied what he said on Meet The Press in 2001, that it was "pretty well confirmed" that lead 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta had meetings with Iraqi intelligence.

"No, I never said that. ... Absolutely not," he told her — although he did.

That's also how it went last night when Edwards rat-tat-tatted on Halliburton's tax loopholes and deals with Saddam Hussein, Libya and Iraq.

Cheney coolly accused him of "trying to throw up a smokescreen" and making charges that are false. He then directed viewers to go to http://www.factcheck.org for the truth.

Trouble is, the website, maintained by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, only deals with charges that Cheney continued to profit from Halliburton, which won no-bid contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq, after he was elected. Meanwhile, the allegation that his company did business with the so-called "axis of evil" remains undisputed.

http://www.worldpress.org/link.cfm?http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1097013011462&call_pageid=968332188854&col=968350060724

So you mean to tell me that you think that independent inspections - by a corrupt organization like the UN, under the thumb of Sadaam Hussein - you mean to tell me that you would rest the security of the American people.... the security of the world on those results?

Did you write this, Wes? You do not trust CIA anymore? Well, who would.

Note that I don't necessarily think the inspectors themselves were the sham, it was the process they were involved in - since ultimately Hussein controlled it (since it was his turf).

Did you write this? Inspectors (i.e. CIA) were selecting places where to inspect. Sadam could have played a tough guy once or twice (rule of the power game aimed mainly on his own people), but inspectors always got what they wanted. Add their spies, bribery, satellites=Sadam could not hide anything if he had anything.

And lastly, Sadam in nearly 70y.o. the only fucking thing he was thinking about was how to die his own death while being a ruler. Making second Chingis Khan out of Sadam, who was dreaming about world domination and attacking the USA, is the top of the American paranoia. It's unbelievable people buy it.



p

Factcheck.org is pretty cool, and worth a bookmark. Thanks Cheney!

Cheney & Edwards Mangle Facts (http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=272)
Cheney wrongly implied that FactCheck had defended his tenure as CEO of Halliburton Co., and the vice president even got our name wrong. He overstated matters when he said Edwards voted "for the war" and "to commit the troops, to send them to war." He exaggerated the number of times Kerry has voted to raise taxes, and puffed up the number of small business owners who would see a tax increase under Kerry's proposals.

Edwards falsely claimed the administration "lobbied the Congress" to cut the combat pay of troops in Iraq, something the White House never supported, and he used misleading numbers about jobs.

The evidence present at the time was not very good, it was possible before hand to say that there was not enough evidence to warrant invasion of Iraq.
Yes it was possible.
I agree.
We have the same opinion.
That doesn't mean the Cheney agreed or agrees with us.

sorry I was talking to wesmorris.

So you mean to tell me that you think that independent inspections - by a corrupt organization like the UN, under the thumb of Sadaam Hussein - you mean to tell me that you would rest the security of the American people.... the security of the world on those results?

Did you write this, Wes? You do not trust CIA anymore? Well, who would.

"under the thumb of Hussein" was intended to mean "the process was under his thumb", I do believe I specified I could have been more clear as I clarified. I don't understand how you are relating the CIA to what was said above since you didn't specify. So I don't understand the context of your question. I didn't mention the CIA. It turns out apparently, that they weren't very good at doing what they're supposed to do. Their intelligence was apparently, very old or simply lame. Some intelligence gathering to make the entire executive branch and their allies look like morons.

Note that I don't necessarily think the inspectors themselves were the sham, it was the process they were involved in - since ultimately Hussein controlled it (since it was his turf).

Did you write this? Inspectors (i.e. CIA) were selecting places where to inspect.

"Where" has little to do with it. I saw a big expose (I thikn it was CBS or something) on the whole works he had set up do fool inspectors. It was elaborate. You think a paranoid schizo like Hussein lets guys into his country to take a look at his programs? Though I believe the inspectors did everything they could for the most part, it seems they were just pawns in his game for the most part.

Sadam could have played a tough guy once or twice (rule of the power game aimed mainly on his own people), but inspectors always got what they wanted. Add their spies, bribery, satellites=Sadam could not hide anything if he had anything.

He played tough guy every day of his life. I'm sure the inspectors got what they wanted, everything except information about what Sadam was really up to. Well, I can only attest to the plausibility of that special I saw on the tube about it (I think it was 60 minutes or dateline or something), but man, he had his spies on them, they had illegal materials in cars. They were hauling them out as inspectors came in, driving them around the building until they left. He had their rooms bugged. He tried to bribe them. On and on. Was I there? No, is that plausible? Well yeah. That's all I have to go on. It was very convincing to me.

And lastly, Sadam in nearly 70y.o. the only fucking thing he was thinking about was how to die his own death while being a ruler.

That's tripe. You have no idea what he was thinking. He's a bloodthirsty fuck. He was probably thinking "how can I go out in a blaze of glory". Regardless, you can't say one is more likely than the other. You sound like an apologist to me. The man is a killer, a bloodthirsty, cold-blooded, murdering pyscho-path. To think hes "the only fucking thing he was thinking about was how to die his own death while being a ruler." is silly to me.

Making second Chingis Khan out of Sadam, who was dreaming about world domination and attacking the USA, is the top of the American paranoia.

I don't think he was thinking about world domination too much, but obviously he was at minimum considering the domination of the middle east. Who knows what he might have done with success in that department. Regardless, the US/UN stopped him. The US was the key figure in that stop. Think he probably had a grudge? Nah huh? He wasn't stupid, he would never attack the US directly. See how that lends to the case that he might try it... indirectly, for instance by letting asshats like zarkowi hang out and train people without giving him a hard time? Nah, that's just paranoia eh?

Regardless, that shit doesn't have much to do with the issue I brought up in the first place. This is about trust. You couldn't trust him, yet you had to in order to believe that the inspections could be effective. Given a 12 year track record of violation spawned by an invasion, given the standing grudge from that invasion, given 9/11, given that he was jacking the inspectors around (but pretending he wasn't), given the UN proclamation of "serious consequences" if he kept jacking around and that he did keep jacking around but like that mattered because you couldn't trust the process anyway, given all that shit, the only sensible move was to enact those "serious consequences". Further, the "serious consquences" allow regime change in that country, which was already US policy.

It's unbelievable people buy it.

It's unbelievable to me that you're an apologist for a man who would slit your throat without a second thought.

Source: Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/)
Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A11612-2004Oct6
Title: "When Cheney Met Edwards"
Date: October 6, 2004

Dan Froomkin, in his "White House Briefing" online column, follows up the Vice Presidential debate:

The pundits on television last night were calling it the most memorable line of the vice presidential debate -- even before they knew the half of it.

Vice President Cheney, in full dudgeon, was lecturing John Edwards for his poor Senate attendance when he brought out the long knife.

"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.

"The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight."

But it turns out that it's just not true.

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A11612-2004Oct6)

http://blog.johnkerry.com/blog/archives/Cheney-Edwards.jpg
The men who never met: The Kerry campaign released this image last night;
Sen. Edwards is on the left, Vice President Cheney in the middle in this 2001 photo.

As the debate ended, word went out that Elizabeth Edwards, the Democratic VP candidate's wife, deigned to argue with Vice President Cheney on the point, recalling a prayer breakfast in 2001. The Kerry campaign bolstered that claim by releasing a C-SPAN image from the event three years ago in which Sen. Edwards and Vice President Cheney stood side by side.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, the target of Cheney's infamous profane outburst, sketched in some details. Froomkin points to a Los Angeles Times article:

Cheney's accusation also started to backfire once his nemesis, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), started giving interviews explaining that when Cheney visits, the vice president only meets with Republicans.

As Peter Wallsten writes in the Los Angeles Times: "Although Cheney is the Senate's presiding officer, he actually sits in the chamber only on rare occasions, such as to break a tie vote and to swear in new senators.

"He does attend the GOP senators' weekly luncheons to discuss party strategy. But only Republicans attend, and Cheney usually breezes into the building, goes to the meeting, then leaves without hobnobbing with Democrats."

Wallsten writes: "Bush campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt described the prayer breakfast photo as evidence of an 'inconsequential meeting.' "

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A11612-2004Oct6)

The Associated Press noted three known meetings between the two: the prayer breakfast in Feb., 2001; an April, 2001 taping of NBC's Meet the Press; and a Jan., 2003 encounter at Elizabeth Dole's swearing-in ceremony.

Comment:

Those who consider me part of the Democratic Party's rhetorical machine would be at least pleased to find that I'm puzzled by the pro-Edwards hoopla in the wake of last night's debate. While the North Carolina Senator did not do poorly per se, he certainly was not as effective as the Vice President. Yet perhaps Cheney's facial expression--one of perpetual disgust--shadowed his performance even more than I had considered; even before the details of Cheney's falsely-founded slam became known, the reaction seemed to play to the Edwards camp: his puppy-dog sincerity was apparently overwhelming, is all I can figure.

Nonetheless, we see might see an aspect of why CBS news is being tolerated: wrong premise, right message. Typically, the voters don't seem to check in on whether or not certain facts are true; many are still surprised at the degree of deception taking place in the GOP politic, but that still doesn't explain why Edwards never met Cheney on defense records: it is certainly well enough to point out that John Kerry voted for the largest appropriations bill in history, but why not take some time to hit back over votes "to cancel weapons programs". All Kerry ever did was vote against an appropriations bill seen as detrimental to readiness and therefore bad for the military. Cheney? He's the one that sat in front of Congress and laid out the reasons why the F-15's "that protected New York on 9/11" should be cancelled. Anyone looking at the record can find three things:
(1) The majority of Kerry's "thirteen votes against defense programs" center around one appropriations bill over a decade ago.
(2) Newspaper articles and editorials from the period criticize that appropriations bill, saying "(Poppy) Bush's budget" was bad for the military.
(3) Cheney testified before Congress that certain programs should be cancelled; among them the F-15 and AH-64

And that's the centerpiece of the Bush camp's criticism of Kerry's defense record. Edwards should have hit those three points: they take twenty seconds at most to lay out.

Nonetheless, if the GOP's attacks against Kerry's defense record are severe political exaggeration, what can we say of a curmudgeonly Vice President scolding a Senator on a premise that is demonstrably false?

It is the GOP's argument ad hominem: several appeals to fallacy intended to evoke a personalized, emotional response in people: Kerry is weak (gasp!) on defense; Edwards is weak (for shame!) on attendance and duty ... the GOP is weak (huh?) on honesty. The GOP is playing a superficial shell game; it's almost as if people, determined to believe a hidden nugget of truth exists somewhere, line up to play again and again. Or, better yet, three-card monte. Do the voters really think they can win with Dick and Bush dealing the cards?

So what can be said if the most memorable line of the debate turns out to be a lie? Does the hard-punching criticism settle in, or do the voters for once put style on the shelf in favor of substance? This is the GOP politic at its best, the bigotry of low expectations. People expect a greater degree of sleaze from Republicans, and often seem to revel in it. Edwards, based on Leahy's post-debate comments, could have made the same attack on Cheney, but it would have been no less true, and would the people and the media have taken the line in stride, or would the day-after rumblings in the press--the memorable line was a lie--take center-stage as an embarrassment to the Democrats?

It would be pointlessly repetitive to reiterate that Vice President Cheney has no shame: it's common knowledge, and doesn't seem to disturb people unduly.

Perhaps my assessment of the debate is too influenced by my low expectations of the voters; maybe they really are awake this time around.
____________________

• Froomkin, Dan. "When Cheney Met Edwards". WashingtonPost.com, October 6, 2004. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A11612-2004Oct6

See Also -

• Wallstein, Peter. "Cheney and Edwards Have Met Before". Los Angeles Times, October 6, 2004. See http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/2004/la-na-meet6oct06,1,7026204.story?coll=la-home-headlines
• FDCH E-Media. "Transcript: Vice Presidential Debate". WashingtonPost.com, October 5, 2004. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/debatereferee/debate_1005.html

Image Credit -

C-SPAN image via JohnKerry.com

The most interesting observation I made after last nights debate was not who won(I thought it was a tie), but how minor leaugish Bush is compared to the other 3 people involved in this race. All 3 are erudite and seem to be very aware, as oppose to Bush; or maybe I'm just reading him wrong. You get the impression(from last nights debate) that this is really not Bush foreign policy, or Bush Doctrine, but Cheney Foreign policy, or Rummy Doctrine.

I think most informed conservatives(not the bible thumper kind) aren't really voting for Bush, but for Cheney and the rest of the very smart people Bush has working for him. I myself wouldn't mind Cheney as president (base on the impression of last nights debate alone). Bush on the other hand just seems too minor leaugish.

If I look at a president or anyone running for office with the the feeling that "I KNOW I can do a better job than him," I can't vote for that person.

A most excellent observation:


not who won . . . but how minor leaugish Bush is compared to the other 3 people involved in this race. All 3 are erudite and seem to be very aware, as oppose to Bush; or maybe I'm just reading him wrong.

There's a certain amount of wisdom in such a point: perhaps this explains the pages of rules insisted upon by the Bush campaign, although certain analyses of the first Bush-Kerry debate would suggest that plan to have backfired somewhat. Most likely, it was a minor consideration in the reasons for the rules, but we can rest quite confidently presuming that the GOP handlers have been aware of the issue the whole time. The entire campaign has the effect of shifting attention away from the president.

http://undertheradar.org/devronika/images/vpdebate.jpg

I thought the debate was fairly even, BUT Cheney really screwed himself with blatant and obvious lies. Saying he never met Edwards, and lieing about never making an Iraq-Al Quada connection, are blunders that lessened his credibility.

Source: New York Times (http://nytimes.com/)
Link: http://nytimes.com/2004/10/06/opinion/06wed1.html
Title: "The Running Mates Debate"
Date: October 6, 2004

My puzzlement continues, checking in with the editors of the New York Times:

Mr. Edwards is normally known for his wide grin and boyish appearance, but he was serious and tough last night. If his main task was to show that he could stand up to the older and more experienced vice president, he did everything he needed to do, especially during the discussion of foreign policy - the area that is supposed to be his weak suit. Mr. Edwards was particularly on point when Mr. Cheney attacked John Kerry as a lawmaker who had consistently voted against military expenditures. Much of the arms spending Mr. Kerry voted against, Mr. Edwards noted, was for the same programs Mr. Cheney had fought to cut when he was secretary of defense.

When talk turned to Iraq, viewers must have wondered whether the two men were discussing the same war. Mr. Cheney stuck to the Bush administration's mantra, insisting that the invasion had been carried out for all the right reasons and that things were going well in Iraq, and very well indeed in Afghanistan. Mr. Edwards described a war that was badly planned, launched on the basis of incorrect intelligence and turned into a morass that sucks American attention away from a struggling Afghanistan and the war on terror.

Mr. Cheney had by far the harder job because even loyal supporters of the administration acknowledge that things are not going all that well overseas. It was hard to seem credible when he insisted repeatedly that the Bush administration had done "exactly the right thing" in Iraq and that if he had to do it again, he would recommend the "same course of action."

New York Times (http://nytimes.com/2004/10/06/opinion/06wed1.html)

Perhaps I'm just too focused on the superficial issues; perhaps I didn't watch closely enough. At this point, I'm waiting for the transcript to a few seconds' worth of Countdown that I happened to catch in which one or another of Newsweek's editors-on-loan made what is the best case yet to explain Edwards' apparent success. We'll wait for the transcript on that.

But the New York Times seems very complimentary to Senator Edwards. It's not that I would disagree with the Times' critique of Vice President Cheney, but rather I'm still wondering what it was so many people saw in Edwards' performance that I'm missing. Drilling Cheney to the wall on defense records would have taken no more than twenty seconds, but Edwards was unprepared to come off-message long enough to provide vague guideposts for detail. He could have used Cheney's condescension to tack the GOP to the shed, but he didn't. Nor would it have been an undignified attack to do so, and Edwards--celebrated profusely as a trial attorney--ought to know well enough to see that.

In the end, I'm happy the ticket I'm supporting sees some benefit thus far legitimized by the press and informal-polling circles. Maybe the numbing denial is wearing off, and Americans see too clearly the differences, and are ready enough for a change that Edwards' performance was bound to be considered strong so long as he didn't start sucking goats onstage.

But it is also a tough task; Edwards, in seeking a more dignified position to work from, played the role of "good boy" to Cheney's sourly-paternal lecturing.

Maybe it's just the realization that Cheney, for all his flash, was still merely full of crap.

Who knows? I'm still scratching my head at it.
______________________

• New York Times. "The Running Mates Debate". October 6, 2004. See http://nytimes.com/2004/10/06/opinion/06wed1.html

Didn’t the GAO say that this administration has been the worst in regards to the military? Something to that effect? Anyways I was watch Rev. Sharpton debating with another reverend over the debate, and they started talking about the black vote, and the GOP puppet reverend talked about how good this administration has been to blacks…then Sharpton rebutted, that voting against Mandela in the 80’s is the essentially the epitome of the Cheney machine, how can a man who states he represents the best interests of blacks, vote against their greatest leader? I didn’t know Cheney supported Apartheid till now…(not exactly surprising is it).

Source: MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/)
Link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6198334/
Title: "Transcript - Countdown with Keith Olbermann - October 6, 2004"
Date: October 6, 2004

OLBERMANN: . . . . The truth fouls may have cost Cheney, a clear, if not land slide victory. Before the I never met Edwards story was ever refuted, ABC News poll had all viewers saying the VP won the debate 43 percent to 35, 19 percent said it was a tie.

So it has Cheney winning by eight points, a margin that almost matches the difference in who was watching. ABC found 38 percent of those viewing were Republicans, only 31 percent Democrats. At “Democracy Core,” Bob Strum's organizations, although he is on leave from it. Cheney was viewed as 40 to 37 victor. Among the uncommitteds polled by CBS however, 41 percent thought Edwards had won, 28, Cheney. And asked how the view of Edwards had changed during the debate, nearly half of the uncommitted said, for the better. Only 14 percent for the worse. And our msnbc.com debate boxing commission scored it pretty evenly, eight round to Cheney, eight to Edwards.

The original decision given to Cheney on intangibles reversed morning when the commission penalized him 10 points for untruthfulness, 10 more forgetting his acquaintances, and two more for hitting himself with his own punch. So, did the vice president win the debate or did he lose it by leaving himself wide open for today‘s Wednesday morning quarterbacks?

MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6198334/)

Part of my confusion about people's reactions in the wake of Tuesday's Vice Presidential debate between Senator Edwards and Vice President Cheney is that time and experience--reliable, but not perfect teachers--suggest it rather foolish to get my hopes up, but it does seem possible that the Rove rope has reached its end and given a snap!

The GOP's campaign has been so mired in deception well-beyond the common bounds of vulgar American politcs, and the press so capitalized on cost-saving, spectacular reiterations of headlines that one comes to view the "undecided" voters paraded on news programs to give their wise input about the latest developments in a vastly-twisted political cycle in the same terms as an "O.J. Simpson jury" or an "Oliver North jury": you start to wonder just who these people are, and what rock they're hiding under.

Of course, that's not fair. The press plays a line that could be reasonably construed as playing to the undecided voter in some obscure interpretation of journalistic duty that I cannot say I would necessarily fight with. However, combined with the cost considerations of running a business, the sensationalist, substance-free headlines have helped define the undecided voter as nearly insensate and rather quite stupid. Such an assessment would come as a surprise to most of Sciforums' undecided voters, but stop and think for a moment: How dumb does the news media think you are?

Consider the press mantra: John Kerry needed to define himself; voters didn't see him as being any different from George W. Bush. Perhaps in certain ways that's true, but by the time we got to the first presidential debate of the cycle, we were supposed to pretend that undecided voters still hadn't figured out the difference:
"Bill, you painted your house again!"
--I did. The last painter did such a poor job that I had to call someone else in. Had him do the whole thing over again, just to be sure.
"But why?"
--Because the last painter did a bad job. I can't leave my house that exposed.
"But it's the same color!"
--Because that's the color I want. It's the right color for the house.
"Then why did you paint it a second time?"
--To get the job done right.
"But it's the same color!"
--Right. I wanted that color. I wanted it done right.
"So why didn't you have the first painter fix it?"
--He said there was nothing wrong with it.
"So you paid someone to paint it the same color a second time when there was nothing wrong with it?"
--How much more clearly can I explain it? He used crappy paint, overstated the bill, and never finished the job. I had to have that first paint taken off so new paint could be put on.
"But it's the same color."

In recent weeks, press circles have been grumbling about the GOP campaign; political reporters wearied of rehearsed pep rallies in which no substance would be offered. After a while with nothing to do on the GOP beat, they started doing their jobs, and when they did the criticism came on. The last couple weeks have seen print journalists and commentators alike cutting into the Bush administration for its stream of extraordinary misstatements--it's "hate speech", remember, to call a lie a lie; gotta love that conservative political correctness: the only incorrect thing is the truth--and it's entirely possible that in Cheney's fantastic performance, people in general--press and public alike--have come to the end of their rope.

OLBERMANN: Ain‘t too many ways to cut this about Mr. Cheney meeting Senator Edwards. Either the vice president had a really embarrassing memory slip or he lied. Do we have any idea of which?

MILBANK: You‘re imposing such a stringent definition of meeting. I don‘t feel I‘ve met someone until I sat down with them until I sat down with them for 90-minute in a televised debate, so, lets cut the man some slack. Look, it sounded like a premeditated line. It was obviously the rehearsed sort of thing. So somebody at the staff level should have at least done a little Lexus-Nexus search to discover this. It‘s possible it slipped the vice president‘s mind. It is inexcusable that nobody actually checked it out.

OLBERMANN: Is it worth it to have this fire storm afterwards just to get that line in the paper? In other words, could it have been a deliberate attempt just to get that line in, even though he knew it may not be true at the time?

MILBANK: There was an indication—the Democrats said after the debate it was actually, Mrs. Edwards that came up to the vice president and said, you know, that‘s not fair, that we have met you before. And according to the Democrats, that was met with a sly smile and an, oh, yes, right. Which indicated that he may have done that deliberately.

But obviously, this is not something the vice president and their people wanted. Because as you noted, he came out quite strongly in the debate. It is this sort of second-guessing. Remember after the famous Al Gore sighs from 2000. Basic, we in the press didn‘t notice last night. It really started to bubble up in the day, two, three after.

MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6198334/)

There is a certain levity in considerations of Vice President Cheney's performance; note Milbank's sarcasm. It resembles slightly the release of concerns, not necessarily pent-up frustrations. A weight lifted from a chest, so to speak.

Of Cheney's Iraq-Al Qaeda issue, Milbank noted: "This is a long standing issue with the vice president. He has repeatedly made these references . . . . He‘s always been at the edge of the rhetoric in the administration. Always a little more out there. He got caught on that last night."

Nor is Milbank alone in either her humor and criticism:

OLBERMANN: Let‘s broaden this out slightly and try to assess the overall impact of the debate on the campaign. A pleasure as always to be joined by Howard Fineman, NBC News political analyst and chief political correspondent of “Newsweek” magazine.

Howard, good evening.

HOWARD FINEMAN, NEWSWEEK: That‘s howardfineman.org.

OLBERMANN: Thank you. Edu.

FINEMAN: Edu.

OLBERMANN: We‘re educating the viewer. One small picture question here before we get to the big ones. Dick Cheney, could not remember meeting John Edwards or he didn‘t tell the truth about meeting John Edwards. But Edwards never said, hey wait a minute, vice president, we met three times. That seems almost as strange. Why didn‘t he say something?

FINEMAN: I don‘t know. It would have been one heck of a moment if he had. If John Edwards had said, Mr. President, your so—Mr. Vice president, you‘re so divorced from reality on all fronts, you don‘t remember having met me two or three times. He didn‘t do it in an odd way, it is almost better this way. Because, this has filled up the news of the day in politics. And given John Edwards and John Kerry a free day they weren‘t expecting . . . .

. . . .OLBERMANN: One of the vice president‘s goals last night in the big picture thing had to be, stop that bleeding from Bush/Kerry 1 last Thursday.

FINEMAN: I think he got it done initially. I think psychologically, and politically, he did stop the bleeding because the vice president was able to articulate in much forceful and grave term, the overall theory of pre-emptive war and the notion that freedom is the precursor of stability and tranquility on the planet. He was much more articulate and eloquent about it than George Bush was in the debate last week.

And on the contrast, in terms of somebody with a sense of gravitas who knew what war was all about, and who steamed tough guy, I think Dick Cheney won that on stylistic grounds. But what looked like gravitas yesterday looks like divorce from reality this morning. And it‘s—and it‘s the Democrats‘ theory of their attack on George Bush and Dick Cheney that they‘re divorced from reality. That they don‘t know what‘s going on around them in Iraq. They don‘t know what the original justifications were for any. They don‘t even get facts straight in a debate. I would say today, if you were rescoring the debate as of this minute, I think John Edwards would have won it.

OLBERMANN: . . . . So, who won this debate?

Not Cheney or Edwards but the Democrats or the Republicans.

FINEMAN: The whole race as I see it, Keith, now, in talking to Democratic and Republican strategists, they confirm this. It is a race between Republicans effort to tear down John Kerry and make him seem incapable of and unqualified for being commander in chief. And the flow of the news, and its ability to destroy the Bush administration. The flow of the news here on reports about weapons of mass destruction. On whether Zarqawi was in Iraq. From Paul Bremer about critiquing the lack of troops in Iraq. Both in terms of the original justification for the war and the handling of the war, there hasn‘t been a good story for this in months. And minute by minute, day by day, that flow is what Kerry and Edwards are trying to take advantage of here. And I think in the end, Edwards, did score some points on that.

MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6198334/)

It is, in a way, as if the press had given the Bush campaign a Free Pass, allowing escalations of chicanery all through the Democratic primary and early electoral season, even the conventions. Perhaps, in that sense, it was Georgia Democrat Zell Miller's keynote speech to Republicans that drew aside careful scrutiny of the convention itself.

But in these first debates, the press seems to have sharpened its fangs, and whether the voters have or not is a depiction left to a self-justifying commercial news-media industry; after all, it could be that the voters have been this sharp the entire time, and simply not well-represented by a press seemingly dedicated to pandering to the lowest common denominator among undecided voters.

In the end, Fineman's brief analysis is part of what convinced me that Edwards and the Democrats had pulled off what can be called a victory. When Newsweek is pushing the line on MSNBC, it's reasonable to consider the issue defined for the purposes of public discourse. Yet the situation shows remarkable subtlety insofar as such discretion has hitherto seemed absent.

Suddenly, then, I'm left with two stages of good feeling: Edwards, apparently, had some successful impact in Tuesday's debate, and it seems that the sleeping electorate is definitely awake, and coming 'round to call things what they are, regardless of the political correctness.

And you know, if calling a lie a lie wasn't considered "hate speech" by the GOP, perhaps the backlash against Cheney's sleights of fact would be less than it is. After all, if you could call a lie a lie, it wouldn't take so many words to justify the criticism.

Some things are fairly self-evident so long as people choose to look.

This time 'round, they're looking. Obviously, I'm pleased.
____________________

• MSNBC.com. "Transcript - Countdown with Keith Olbermann". October 6, 2004. See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6198334/

Geting down to it! who do you think this war was fought for?.

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/485736.html

Israel picks the country and we come a running!!. The us is the puppet and Israel is the puppeter.

nough said!.

Godless.

More evidence that fairly informed Republicans(again, excluding the bible-thumper kind) don't respect Bush's intelligence or abilities as a president.

Ann Coulter on the Cheny/Edwards debate...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=108&ncid=759&e=1&u=/ucac/20041007/cm_ucac/heartpatientoutrunsambulancechaser

Notice how she waits until this debate to start barking. I'm beginning to think that informed conservative republicans don't really care about Bush as predesident, but more about maintaining power and control in U.S government, regardless of whos at the helm.

Yes, but we all know what Ann Coulter's worth. "Barking" comes out of the wrong end of the dog.

Perhaps as much value as Michael Moore or Stuart Smalley? Maybe even Rush Limbaugh?

Do you actually read Mr. Moore's books? Or Mr. Franken's?

Perhaps you help me with something that's been troubling me of late: What is the difference between truth and lies?

Remember, Coulter prints straight lies. If you don't like what Moore has to say, you can flip through the notes and take it up with the people writing the articles and source material he draws from. Take the Tampa "mystery flight" in the wake of 9/11, for instance. Some commentators have made the point that the 9/11 Commision debunked the story, and that proves Moore's hatred. I've never gotten a page number out of those folks, any sense of explanation of what they mean. And nobody has addressed the fact that Kathy Steele, who wrote the original story in Florida, hasn't been called on the carpet for lying, nor have her named sources. Nor do they know what to say about Tampa Airport verifying the flight and noting the unusual tracking methods involved with the plane. Yet the journalist behind the story is forgotten. Her two named sources are forgotten. And conservatives continue to bash Moore as if he made the whole thing up himself.

And you're certainly welcome to bash on Franken. All he ever did was take Rush & Coulter's boundaries and work within them from a different perspective. I understand that people who can't comprehend comedians will have some trouble with such books, and Franken was certainly irresponsible in not thinking of that and on those grounds not publishing any of his books.

What is the difference between truth and lies?

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/handshake300.jpg


The truth is he was our friend and we didn't care he was poisoning the turks with gas, because we sold it to him. :eek: It was only when S.H. didn't want to play ball with US anymore that he became a foe!!.

Godless.

Do you actually read Mr. Moore's books? Or Mr. Franken's?

Nope. I've seen two of Moore's movies and heard Franken on Air America a bit. Both make me sick (Kind of like Limbaugh and Hannity do).

Perhaps you help me with something that's been troubling me of late: What is the difference between truth and lies?

Excellent question. It's not that the definitions aren't clear, it's discerning their proper application that's the trouble isn't it?

Remember, Coulter prints straight lies.

You're positive that Moore doesn't? I respect that, but disagree as I'm quite suspect of him. Having not read his books I'm in no position to courtique them, but he lies in his movies - so what's the difference? What's the difference between a lie and a distortion? I think maybe that's what's really bothering you? (well, that and the difficulty picking any factuality from the barage of information available). Even if that isn't what's bothering you, that's what's got my goat of late. It's an interesting time in history - that we flounder in the sea of information we demand. I'm convicted in my perspective, but tentatively... as ultimatley who the fuck am I? I don't know if I'm right, you're right, or we're both way, WAY off from objective reality. Like I said before I think it really does come down to: "can you relate"?

Of course sometimes we can, most of the time... maybe not so much. Clash is inevitable in every aspect of life in which you cannot relate to the individual to whom you cannot relate, unless they're your slave or whatever. *shrug* Such is life I suppose.

If you don't like what Moore has to say, you can flip through the notes and take it up with the people writing the articles and source material he draws from.

That does nothing to explain the one-sided distortion of it.

Take the Tampa "mystery flight" in the wake of 9/11, for instance. Some commentators have made the point that the 9/11 Commision debunked the story, and that proves Moore's hatred.

We're all haters T. It's a matter of degree. He hates corporate america and all it represents. It's written all over his face, book, movies and corrupt, hypocritical smile. But he's convicted in it. So his hate is truth? I'm sure he "hate's from love", in that he believes all that shit is fundamentally wrong, so he fights it. Do I blame him? Not at all. He still makes me sick - because I can't relate. What's true beyond that, is that there is profit in it for him to continue not to be able to relate. He is in fact motivated at this point by his success (not simply monetary, but his popularity) to continue his belief system. To me, it seems that all information on his radar that might contradict or expose his partisan ridiculousness must be shot down before given the chance to be considered as valid. Bah, it's just pyschology. People are complicated justifiers of their bullshit. You do it. I do it, everyone does it. He does it majorly IMO. He's in denial of the potential validity of alternative perspectives, due to the fact that he believes so strongly in what he does. That's kind of the nature of things... it's the opportunity cost of caring - people who care about the opposite must be at fault. Something to that affect anyway. (i never feel confident in whether I've chosen affect or effect properly, quite annoying to me).

And conservatives continue to bash Moore as if he made the whole thing up himself.

Politics is competition. They want to win, so does he. What do you expect? Okay maybe I can guess what you expect, but I don't think it's realistic. People are at a given time the resultant of their life. As such, their choices are limited to that scope (and whatever stuff their imagination and/or current stimulous can spin onto their existing isness).

And you're certainly welcome to bash on Franken.

He's just a bomb-thrower like the rest.

All he ever did was take Rush & Coulter's boundaries and work within them from a different perspective.

That sounds pretty apologetic. He's gross, just like they are. When you lose interest in objectivity... you're a partisan right? Do two wrongs make a right? That certainly doesn't sound like you.

I understand that people who can't comprehend comedians will have some trouble with such books, and Franken was certainly irresponsible in not thinking of that and on those grounds not publishing any of his books.

I don't think it's that simple, but what you said is true. It's my opinion that he's either a very very bad comedian or is barely masking his hatred with "comedy".

What is the difference between truth and lies?

Like I said, I don't think there's a problem with the definitions... it's whether or not they apply that's the tough call. Worse, what's the difference between a lie and a distortion? What's a distortion to begin with? Distortion invokes perspective doesn't it? If it invokes a perspective, two conflicting statements may be true if they're not precise. From an ant's perspective, maybe my shoe is HUGE... but to me it's normal sized. If we were to make the respective claims should we agree? Which is true?

Since the stuff that happens around the world that we hear about via media of some sort isn't really there for us to see, any information that relays more than simple logistics (this was there, that was there) is subject to the perspectives it passed through before it got to you. Anything regarding what someone said or did should be suspect right away because even the simplest statements, taken out of context, etc could be factually incorrect.

"I have to go to the bathroom!" I said as a camera took my picture... but they didn't know that I'd been in a discussion that lead me to replace the word "france" with "bathroom" for a minute so we could talk in code.

Perhaps our curiousity, which is really a reflection of our desire to survive (the more I know about what's happening, the higher the chance I can sustain my survival) - has simply surpassed our ability to utilize the information effectively. In other words, perhaps the demand for more and more media is in an inverse relationship with the reliability of the information you can get from that media.... yet it's our only source, it's entertaining and gives us reason to interact ... perhaps if only for the mental masturbation of dissecting why it is that we can't trust what media offers us...

the truth is he was our friend and we didn't care he was poisoning the turks with gas, because we sold it to him. :eek: It was only when S.H. didn't want to play ball with US anymore that he became a foe!!.

Godless.

Uhm... that's how alliances are formed and fall. Nice work!

Actually maybe it's more that our ability to gather and dissiminate information (factual or not) has increased exponentially - beyond that which can be rationally absorb (even if we were inclined to be rational as a species). Our curiousity drives it, but how do we discern the validity of any of it? We relate to it. We take the parts that we can relate to, weight it by whatever scale we personally can use (because there is no real objective means to do it, meaning how can you build a video camera that only records truth?) and move on. The more we pile it up on either side of the political spectrum or in any particular internal skew, the less likely we are to be able to relate to those who piled it on elsewhere. If we're convicted in our beliefs (SO many factors contribute to that conviction or lack thereof!), they are doomed to be bashed against those that oppose it (at least figuratively I'd think).

Opinions are mostly based on what (or who) you believe. It doesn't surprise me that most Republicans believe Iraq was a threat; most of them are christians, and if you can worship a jew who was executed over 2,000 years ago, you can believe anything.

Ramachandran: The idea that Iraq represents any kind of clear and present danger is, of course, without any substance at all.

Chomsky: Nobody pays any attention to that accusation, except, interestingly, the population of the United States.

In the last few months, there has been a spectacular achievement of government-media propaganda, very visible in the polls. The international polls show that support for the war is higher in the United States than in other countries. That is, however, quite misleading, because if you look a little closer, you find that the United States is also different in another respect from the rest of the world. Since September 2002, the United States is the only country in the world where 60 per cent of the population believes that Iraq is an imminent threat - something that people do not believe even in Kuwait or Iran.

Furthermore, about 50 per cent of the population now believes that Iraq was responsible for the attack on the World Trade Centre. This has happened since September 2002. In fact, after the September 11 attack, the figure was about 3 per cent. Government-media propaganda has managed to raise that to about 50 per cent. Now if people genuinely believe that Iraq has carried out major terrorist attacks against the United States and is planning to do so again, well, in that case people will support the war.

This has happened, as I said, after September 2002. September 2002 is when the government-media campaign began and also when the mid-term election campaign began. The Bush Administration would have been smashed in the election if social and economic issues had been in the forefront, but it managed to suppress those issues in favour of security issues - and people huddle under the umbrella of power.

This is exactly the way the country was run in the 1980s. Remember that these are almost the same people as in the Reagan and the senior Bush Administrations. Right through the 1980s they carried out domestic policies that were harmful to the population and which, as we know from extensive polls, the people opposed. But they managed to maintain control by frightening the people. So the Nicaraguan Army was two days' march from Texas and about to conquer the United States, and the airbase in Granada was one from which the Russians would bomb us. It was one thing after another, every year, every one of them ludicrous. The Reagan Administration actually declared a national Emergency in 1985 because of the threat to the security of the United States posed by the Government of Nicaragua.

If somebody were watching this from Mars, they would not know whether to laugh or to cry.
http://info.interactivist.net/article.pl?sid=03/04/11/2040201&mode=nested&tid=1

I especially like the mention of an observer from Mars. Just try and imagine explaining the Iraq war to an alien.

Noam Chomsky is considered to be on the left of the spectrum, but I find that he is a close to an objective commentator on world events as I've ever come across. He observes humans and our governments as an entomologist would observe an anthill. And the picture that emerges from such observation isn't pretty.

Nope. I've seen two of Moore's movies and heard Franken on Air America a bit. Both make me sick (Kind of like Limbaugh and Hannity do).

Look, Wes, there is a difference between saying George W. Bush is bad for the economy because his policies have failed to address certain issues, as well as noting that such policies only add to the already tremendous burden reserved to future generations, and arguing unsupportable theses about the character of newspaper editors.

Is it hateful to say Bush stole the election in 2000? I would concede to the College and leave it be were it not for the other shennanigans taking place.

Excellent question. It's not that the definitions aren't clear, it's discerning their proper application that's the trouble isn't it?

I see evidence that the definitions aren't clear. Calling a lie a lie is decried as "hate speech".

The people have always, insofar as I can determine, complained of the dishonesty of politicians. Yet we continue to elect and empower those lying politicians, in part because that level of lying seems to serve people outside political circles. It is the same lying you find in advertising and criminal law: you show half the truth while concealing the other.

And we've become accustomed to that, because not everybody is a conspiring hater inasmuch as people are entitled to diverse opinions.

So if MoveOn, for instance, says Bush is bad for the economy, while the thesis is unproven in a theoretical isolation of the concept, it is, at least, arguable.

As I read your position, however, an arguable but unproven thesis is as factually and morally deficient as, for instance, the Swift Vets.

For Cheney to have pointed out that Edwards had a spotty attendance record in the Senate? Fair game. To wind up with a factually-incorrect punch in the teeth as the Vice President did? What? It's a lie.

Take those examples and look closely at them:
• "Political interpretation of information/sales job" (MoveOn) vs. "Insistence on facts contradicted by historical record to the point of defaming the past, present, and future service of America's armed forces" (Swift Vets)
• "Political interpretation/sales job" (spotty attendance record) vs. "Outright lie" (never met)

Is there any difference to you? If we're considering a picnic together, is there a difference between me eyeing the overcast and saying I think it won't rain and telling you that the sky is chartreuse with lavender and turquoise spots? If I'm selling you a car, is there a difference between pointing out fuel economy while not mentioning the vehicle's less-than-perfect safety-testing results, and telling you that the car scored perfect in safety testing?

You're positive that Moore doesn't? I respect that, but disagree as I'm quite suspect of him.

I'm suspect of him the way I'm suspect of everybody: How far do I have to bend my perception of reality in order for this person's position to make sense? With Moore, it's generally not too far.

His errors are rather quite small, and often dependent on the reader. When I read the anti-Moore sites showing his errors, I spend most of my time laughing at those folks; while they might blast Moore for the corrected error in Columbine regarding sponsorship of the "Willie Horton ad", I have to say that, remembering the 1988 campaign, I can't really disagree with the original. As a legal attribution, yes, it's problematic. But as the discussion of 527's has digressed into avoiding the essential question of why the 527 "loophole" exists in the first place, you could find pundits on both sides of the aisle discussing the relationship between secondary ads (e.g. 527s) and the campaigns; in those discussions, pundits discussed how the Bush/Quayle '88 campaign capitalized on those outside advertisements. As I recall, Roger Ailes (cf "FOX News calling the election" controversy) was in on the Horton ad. The lack of connection, much like Moore's error, is a legalism. Artistically, Moore has not done anything wrong; he has painted a compressed picture of that situation that is more accurate than his detractors would have you believe.

The argument that Moore made an unfair distortion of the Willie Horton ad is an arguable but unproven thesis. In the end, my verdict on those folks is that I would hate to watch a movie with them; it would be a depressing and wasted experience, as they don't seem to understand how to view art. It's sort of the difference of, say, laughing at an old Andrew Dice Clay joke because he has the respect of celebrity, and getting pissed off at a guy in a bar for saying the same things to your wife. When you watch the old Dice videos or listen to the recordings, you hand him the credit of being an artist, and you don't take what he says as a literal representation of himself according to your perceptive priorities. You grant him leeway to establish himself in terms comprehensible to you.

Picture feminazis, unable to get the joke, choking on their rage at a misogynistic Dice. It's about the same as the anti-Moore folks, to me. Most of them have no idea what they're actually looking at.

Having not read his books I'm in no position to courtique them, but he lies in his movies - so what's the difference?

Which lie upsets you most? Let's try it that way. I'm happy to take a whack at it and see if there's something I think you're missing.

What's the difference between a lie and a distortion? I think maybe that's what's really bothering you?

Partially, but not entirely. Mostly, it's the way people treat different ideas as the same. Telling a woman no, those jeans don't make her ass look big, is a lie that can save your life. I have no moral objection to any guy who ducks the question or lies in order to get out of it. But lying to a woman and trying to con her into a sexual tryst is a bit different. Why? Because in the first case, the woman shouldn't be asking; it's a dumb, vain question, and much like, "How are you, today?" an honest answer is the last thing expected. In the second case, lying to someone in order to get them to do something that might endanger their health risks a bigger stake: a person's health and wellbeing.

Do you see the difference, even in outright lies?

Now, what about the subtlety of politics? I'm nearly ecstatic in the wake of the Edwards-Cheney debate because it suggests that the escalated political distortions have run out of room to grow.

And part of what has disturbed me is the appearance of trust given by people to politicians; look at the difference between the immediate scoring of the Edwards-Cheney debate and the morning-after. The morning-after analysis is what I find so striking; without acknowledgment of the degree of distortion, yes, Cheney crushed the challenger. Until the morning after that debate, I was wondering where that sense of discretion was among my American neighbors.

So let's take a neutral look at the difference:
• Imagine that you and I are running for the same office. Part of the question of the office is how resources should be distributed. I tell the people I have a good plan that ensures they have access to the resources. To you, that might sound like a lie. It may be that you believe the only right and healthy thing to do is throw it all out there and let the jackals carve each other up. And to me, such chaos might sound like a lie. But we both have unproven and arguable theses. Neither one of us is being straight with the people, but there are indicators of what can be expected. If the first thing I do on getting elected, for instance, is restrict access to those resources so that some people just can't get to them, I will have made my position into a lie. If I execute my plan perfectly and it fails, I haven't lied but merely believed in an incorrect concept. Likewise if you're left with a field of dead competitors and a pile of unused resources.

• What if, on the other hand, I tell the people that you molest children? Especially when the reality behind the story is that you never have?

Even if that isn't what's bothering you, that's what's got my goat of late. It's an interesting time in history - that we flounder in the sea of information we demand.

To leave it at the idea that the information is good, bad, or ugly doesn't quite leave enough room to work. However, it does well enough to make a simple point: I perceive you looking at the good, the bad, and the ugly and saying, "It's all information, therefore, it's all the same to me". This is tantamount to looking at apples, bananas, and bell peppers and saying, "They're all fruit, so it's all the same to me". You know that Miami-modern architecture? White, squarish buildings that resemble doctors' offices? Metal railings, glass-block windows, clean lines? I despise it. It's terribly unaesthetic to my palate. I do, in fact, carry a prejudice against this architectural style inasmuch as I hope to never live in such an ugly dwelling. Wow, I'm prejudiced; after all, this isn't like my distaste for "contemporary rambler", which I hate after having lived in a few. But, hey, I'm prejudiced, and--call me crazy--I don't see how that prejudice compares in any relevant way to someone that hates black people, or Jews, or women, or Muslims, or Americans, &c., with no respectable reason. I don't see how my prejudice against an architectural style matches up in intellectual, psychospiritual, or moral terms with racism. However, and this is a long-running puzzle I have when discussing anything with you, it seems to me that by your terms, prejudice is prejudice, and if hating black people for being black is morally reprehensible, so is my bigotry against ever living in a Miami-modern building.

Like I said before I think it really does come down to: "can you relate"?

Anyone who's ever worked a job where you have to sell anything, be it a product or an idea, can relate to a certain degree of political dishonesty. People don't like to call it dishonesty because they see it in themselves. Can we relate? An excellent question.

But the validity of one's assessment of the facts is not independent of the validity of said facts. As I recall, you've made it perfectly clear that you don't sexually molest children. Thus, to consider whether I owe you my sympathy toward some psychological condition that compels your child abuse is not a valid consideration.

Likewise in the political arena. People understand the pitch wherein you simply downplay the negatives while highlighting the positives. It's the mainstay of selling anything. And yes, that's even transgressed into saying the negatives don't exist. Which is problematic, but such a position often buckles under the merest hints of scrutiny. Take Cheney and the GOP blasting Kerry's defense record, for instance. Thirteen times he voted against certain programs? Actually, it's only twice if you go and look closely at what the party offers, although that particular distortion falls inside the bounds of acceptability to the American people. In the meantime, the Bush administration has downplayed a certain fact: John Kerry voted against various programs by voting against an appropriations bill that was criticized for weakening the military. Dick Cheney, however, sat in front of Congress and explained why those very same programs should be terminated, including the famous F-15's "that defended New York on 9/11". So it's curious to me that the Democrats haven't called him out on that point. As it is, Cheney is merely downplaying the negatives. However, if you point it out directly, will he respond as he did with the Iraq-Al Qaeda bit by lying outright?

That does nothing to explain the one-sided distortion of it.

Well, to the one, it's a matter of opinion. If we trim Moore to few-enough words, it's definitely one-sided. But you should try his criticisms of the Democratic party. They're merciless.

By your standard--as I understand it--even the comedians standing in front of the brick wall ought to be shot because they pronounce opinions based on distortions of fact. (Seinfeld is first up!)

We're all haters T. It's a matter of degree.

And a matter of outcome. Sometime in the last day or so I wrote a short blurb about John Brown at Harper's Ferry. Yes, attacking an armory was probably a bad idea, but it's hard to criticize his leap to action when we consider that more than a half-million people would die over the next several years in consideration of the very question he acted on. And it's hard to know what to think, from our modern anti-terrorism perspective, of the fact that when this hater's vision was realized, slaves were freed.

Is it morally unacceptable to hate hatred? Or do we owe tolerance to intolerance? Given that the product of human intolerance is the limitation of people, and hatred of that limitation aims toward emancipating people from those very bonds, can it be said that refusing to tolerate intolerance, or even hating hatred, is really the same thing as hating someone for the color of their skin? If someone proposes the limitation of all people, is it hateful to fight against that intolerance?

What is the same about hating a child molestation and hating Jews? Are they really equal in their outcome?

You give the appearance of equivocation, Wes, and in the end it seems a surrender to the inevitability of human imperfection. Why we should surrender to it now, when we're approaching a threshhold at which we can shake off one or two of those shackles and reassess the situation is beyond me.

He hates corporate america and all it represents. It's written all over his face, book, movies and corrupt, hypocritical smile.

That's a bit of a generalism considering Moore's Dude, Where's My Country? was published by Warner Books. Yeah, that Warner.

My father was a capitalist for most of his life. His opinions have run the gamut, including the extreme. He doesn't reject business or business theory, but he's had it with the way the business community conducts itself.

I think there's a difference between hating business in America and hating "corporate America", which is a term suggesting that the will of the nation is subject to the fancies of commercial corporations.

I have a hard time believing Moore hates the underlying process that pays him enough to write books and make movies. However, I have no doubt that Moore hates the way that process is being used. Those of us who made the apparent mistake of paying attention to our parents, teachers, &c., when we were younger learned a certain ethic that may be lacking since the 1990s; we were taught that good business was to find a need in society and fill it; work hard, innovate, do well. But since then, innovative ideas like "every person walking into your store is a customer"--which was used to encourage underpaid sales associates to harass the grandmother they see every week just browsing through the aisles--have come to be regarded in the sense that the money in your pocket rightfully belongs to someone else. Ask a simple, Weberian question: Is "economy" a tool for human endeavors, or do people exist to serve "economy"?

What Moore hates is that latter option, which seems to be the prevailing idea. Ask any capitalist what happens in America when people stop spending and start saving their money. Now take that idea and turn it into something that nearly resembles a religion. "____ Company is dedicated to providing well-made housing to individuals and families ...." I mean, such a statement is a lie, but we can relate to it, so we let it pass. What the statement should say, in order to be accurate, is, "______ Company is dedicated to maximizing profits in order to please our shareholders". These days, the only door in the house that shuts when you push it closed is the front door. Corners, in the end, are cut. Think of Florida: two kinds of houses fared better than any others during the recent hurricane rush: houses less than two years old, and houses 80-100 years old. The reason for this is simple: the old houses were overbuilt. In the meantime, cost-cutting measures ended that practice of using really good wood and too many nails. Well, too many nails compared to actual necessity. The newer houses, two years or less, were built under a new rule in Florida that applies hurricane standards to new construction. The devastated homes that came in between? Well, a large amount of devastation can be pinned on the cost-cutting. Building a house incapable of surviving its environment for a suitable period of habitation seems rather nonsensical, yet it's good business.

Why can you never have "the perfect product" for consumers? Because you'd be out of business once everybody had one. Success is failure, and vice-versa, and yes we can cycle that out to the eventual confusion of how one can be the other can be the one can be the other can be the one .... (Which cycle seems to grip at least an aspect of our discussion.)

But he's convicted in it. So his hate is truth? I'm sure he "hate's from love", in that he believes all that shit is fundamentally wrong, so he fights it. Do I blame him? Not at all. He still makes me sick - because I can't relate.

Look, if Michael Moore had his "hateful" way, your standard of living would definitively rise. And perhaps that is something you can relate to.

What's true beyond that, is that there is profit in it for him to continue not to be able to relate. He is in fact motivated at this point by his success (not simply monetary, but his popularity ) to continue his belief system.

Surely, you're not faulting him for being human. There is profit in it for him to continue not to be able to relate ... relate to what? To your view? To the corrupt views of the lying politicians? To the corrupt views of the capitalists who put economy before the people it serves? To his millions of readers? Hey, he relates pretty well on that last.

To me, it seems that all information on his radar that might contradict or expose his partisan ridiculousness must be shot down before given the chance to be considered as valid.

You seem to be stuck in a cycle; I point again to an earlier consideration:
• The validity of one's assessment of the facts is not independent of the validity of said facts.

Which review, of course, would take days of the kind of scrutiny none of us are willing to be put through by others.

However, I would propose that the majority of the information on his radar that might contradict or expose ridiculousness is, in itself, ridiculous and invalid.

Think of it this way: there is a standard, and I think we can both agree it is generally dishonest; e.g. people can relate to the distortions of basic politics and commercial advertising. And the vagaries and distortions of such rhetoric are generally accepted. However, we only seem to note it when the "other side" is about it. In this, yes, Moore plays politics.

But what of another scenario, in which the "other side" has broken rhythm not only to make a straw man out of what's accepted as part of the game, but also to escalate that and crowbar open the range of acceptability. The dishonesty of such a maneuver is multivalent: pretending something consistent with pattern is an aberration; pretending the escalation is dishonest; and feigning anger or moral disapproval of what becomes the demonstrably lesser of problematic aspects. Suddenly, it's not just complaining about what's always been there, but adding something new to the mix and pretending it's all the same.

People are complicated justifiers of their bullshit. You do it. I do it, everyone does it. He does it majorly IMO.

Agreed, agreed, agreed, agreed, and that last is your opinion indeed. But what chance does Moore have of ever breaking that image with you? You've already condemned him, and much of the "factual" basis upon which that condemnation rests is, whether you know it or not, shaky. John Edwards and Veep Dick both took greater liberties with the truth than Moore is accused of, and nobody calls them haters. Well, okay, we know about Dick. But still, it's not like our candidates for the executive are held to the same scrutiny as our filmmakers.

He's in denial of the potential validity of alternative perspectives, due to the fact that he believes so strongly in what he does.

The validity of which alternative perspectives? The ones that say freedom is the right to shut your mouth when the government says so, or that having a name similar to someone who might possibly have committed a crime is reason to suspend one's voting rights? The ones that measure justice in terms of how much oil you have to offer us? True, I'm criticizing the Bush administration directly there, but which alternative perspectives and what validity? Some detail would help the consideration, since as you're aware, some things left in the abstract include a broader range of complications than our discussion necessarily requires.

That's kind of the nature of things... it's the opportunity cost of caring - people who care about the opposite must be at fault .

An abstract consideration the worthiness of which I don't doubt, but at some point I must invite you "back to life, back to reality".

Sometimes, the people who care about the opposite are at fault.

Politics is competition. They want to win, so does he. What do you expect?

I would quote a page or so of Brust, but it turns out to be three or four pages, the sum of which is as follows:

Piro: As I understand the lady's point, it is this: Are you actually saying that, if the goal to be achieved is noble, we are permitted to use ignoble means to accomplish it?

Aerich: Not the least in the world .... Those who say the ends justify the means, and those who say the ends do not justify the means, are both wrong.

Tazendra: Both wrong? Impossible! You perceive, they are saying opposite things, therefore, if one is right, the other must be wrong. And if one is wrong, the other must be right. Is that not logic?

Aerich: It is logic, of a form .... It is, however, incomplete. In this case, it is not the answer that is wrong, it is the question.

Tazendra: Bah! How can a question be wrong?

Aerich: Well, if I were to ask you whether you prefer to fight a battle empty-handed, or holding a piece of cloth, you might tell me that my question was wrong; that, in fact, you would rather be holding a certain length of tempered or folded steel .... There is a relationship between means and ends, but it is neither one of justifying, nor of failing to justify .... It is one of prescribing and proscribing .... Consider that, if I am at my home, and wish to visit a neighbor who is located along a road that runs to the east, I will not usually travel west. My decision to travel east is not justified by my goal of visiting my neighbor, but is rather determined by it.

Röanna: But is it not true that there are many roads to a destination?

Aerich: Indeed, that has often been said. But one can only walk upon one. And the decision as to which road to take is determined by the goal. One must know one's destination, and perhaps be aware of other matters--dangers upon some roads, or a particular view one enjoys along another, or delays from flooding along a third. All of these matters, subordinate to the goal, influence our decision as to the road we choose.

Piro: And so, if one finds oneself using dishonorable methods to achieve a goal, it would follow that the goal, itself, is dishonorable? Or, if not dishonorable, in some other way flawed?

Brust, 224-225

In this, I think Moore has the more honorable goal, but he is human and therefore not without his flaws. We shrink away from the notion of redemption largely because of its religious implications, but where is the redemption in one or the other demarcated party in a dispute?

In the fictitious version above, our heroes--a party of about seventeen--is preparing to face an army that numbers near 100,000; their dispute is about sorcery, essentially a discussion of weapons of mass destruction. They have sorcery, the enemy doesn't. Or, as Pel would chime in momentarily after that discussion, "It requires a certain bending of logic to consider that our use of sorcery might be dishonorable, when we are about to enter a battle outnumbered by something like a thousand to one."

For them, the difference was a matter of restoring an empire on noble or ignoble pretense. The rules of accession are on their side--they have the imperial relic--and are led by a reluctant empress against a scheming army led by an incompetent, power-mad Duke.

In the real world, we face this difference every day. People with the best of intentions fail to see flaws in their outlook, and make what can be considered mistakes that impede their progress toward the intended goal.

Is Moore guilty of this? Of course! He's human. But it is easier to find redemption in the platform he works with than it is in that of what he opposes. As American communists and the botchery of the whole Fourth International shows, self-exclusion does nothing to get you political clout. We might, also, ask the Anarchists. I wouldn't expect anyone to comprehend their answer, unless we have a time machine that can dig up Emma Goldman and others of the day.

If I say that my opponent's position is falsely-founded and therefore poorly conceived, that sounds political. But what if his position is that women, being inferior, ought to be paid lower wages in the workplace? After all, one can construe the benefits in terms of "corporate America", at least until the plan backfires, as it surely would. If we compare a falsely-founded pretense (e.g. inferiority of women) and its accompaniment solution (e.g. pay lower wages to women) to its political opposition, that people are equal before the law and thus should be paid based on relevant criteria such as job performance, experience, and general capability, well, it's all the same, isn't it? They're both just political positions?

People are at a given time the resultant of their life. As such, their choices are limited to that scope (and whatever stuff their imagination and/or current stimulous can spin onto their existing isness).

While I agree with the first part most certainly, that may only be you and I, because to consider those issues in terms of, say, crime, the prevailing discussion (with its flawed version of the goal, perhaps) pushes such considerations to the side; why "justify" or make excuses for criminals? And yes, their choices are limited to that scope. John Brown couldn't tolerate slavery, and felt the political institutions failed him. So he made a choice, and was executed for the results of that choice.

Interestingly, Yvonne Haddad, in 1982, wrote something similar of the Muslim world:

It had become evident for some time that although the Arab countries had constitutions and elected parliaments, these institutions were not effective. Some Western observers have blamed the failure of hte parliamentary systems on the alien nature of consultative democracy to the Ara mind. Clearly their failure was also hastened by the attitude of the colonial rulers towards such institutions. Whenever foreign governments or their representatives disliked what the democratically elected deputies decided, they tried to countermand their wishes by a variety of means such as seeking their dismissal or applying relentless direct pressure, blackmail, or bribery. When Arab government attempted to use European law to assure freedom and the implementation of the will of the people, it was these same colonial rulers who ridiculed them and treated them as upstarts.

Haddad

By your standard, Wes--at least, as it puzzles me--we might say that John Brown and an Islamic radical are one and the same. One sought liberty for people, the other seeks a version of liberty whereby you are free to shut up and obey. I tend to think there's a difference between John Brown and Osama bin Laden, but people do like to tell me I'm not in touch with reality. So who knows? Maybe I'm wrong, and we should just nuke the whole world, ending the human question entirely.

I don't actually disagree with your point, except we might be applying it differently.

I think different circumstances would have grown a different Michael Moore. I think different circumstances would have grown a different John Brown or Osama bin Laden. Different circumstances would have grown a different George W. Bush, or Wesmorris, or Tiassa.

As it is, Moore's errors of paradigm may simply be the result of the environment in which that paradigm developed. Thus, a sharp criticism of "corporate America" might well be appropriate because of the impact such issues have had on him. If I, having never been laid off, can't relate ... frankly, that would mean I'm not trying. After all, if I can't relate to my neighbor losing his job, how can I possibly shed a tear for a dead child or give a rat's behind about soldiers in Iraq?

Perhaps it's a matter of will. I see humans as a social creature and wish to take part in the human endeavor. If I opt out, it's hard to argue anything other than nihilism, and as such I would probably agree with you across the board.

He's just a bomb-thrower like the rest.

He's a comedian, for heaven's sake. Certainly, the degree to which he has delved into politics represents an unusual path from A to B, but he's a comedian taking a comedic look at the circus of politics. Lots of people want fair play, but they cry like angry children when it comes about. Think of Jon Stewart and Bill O'Reilly. Both are pushing books accessible to children. Bomb-throwers? Or is there some difference between an O'Reilly/Scarborough/Miller and a Stewart/Moore?

But yes, bash away. To address the other side of that:

That sounds pretty apologetic. He's gross,