Skip to the Main Content

Note:These pages make extensive use of the latest XHTML and CSS Standards. They ought to look great in any standards-compliant modern browser. Unfortunately, they will probably look horrible in older browsers, like Netscape 4.x and IE 4.x. Moreover, many posts use MathML, which is, currently only supported in Mozilla. My best suggestion (and you will thank me when surfing an ever-increasing number of sites on the web which have been crafted to use the new standards) is to upgrade to the latest version of your browser. If that's not possible, consider moving to the Standards-compliant and open-source Mozilla browser.

October 6, 2004

Who the heck are you?

In the debate, Dick Cheney lambasted John Edwards for his spotty attendance record in the Senate:

Now, in my capacity as Vice President, I am the president of the Senate and 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.

As a gazillion bloggers instantly pointed out:

Edwards and Cheney, side by side
National Prayer Breakfast, February 1, 2001

Thank you. Thank you very much. Congressman Watts, Senator Edwards, friends from across America and distinguished visitors to our country from all over the world …

Evidently, the old codger has grown senile. Could it be time to put him out to pasture?

Update: “If it’s Tuesday, this must be …” Edition

Apparently, Cheney can’t remember where he spends his Tuesdays either. Of the 127 Tuesdays on which the Senate was in session, he was present for only two.

I suppose this might come down to a matter of semantics. As a former president might have remarked, “It all depends on what the meaning of ‘most’ is.”

Posted by distler at October 6, 2004 12:46 AM

TrackBack URL for this Entry:   http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/cgi-bin/MT-3.0/dxy-tb.fcgi/448



7 Comments & 1 Trackback

Re: Who the heck are you?

> Could it be time to put him out to pasture?

Can we find a better replacement than someone whose idea of debating to is to repeat rehearsed lines that are off-topic? Edwards changed the subject of nearly every question he was asked so that he could hit the planned talking points.

Posted by: Eugene Wallingford on October 6, 2004 8:47 AM | Permalink | Reply to this

On-topic

Edwards changed the subject of nearly every question he was asked so that he could hit the planned talking points.

Sure his responses were rehearsed. That’s the difference between a debate and an interview. But they were, as far as I could tell, on-topic.

And they didn’t contain whoppers like

With respect to Israel and Palestine, Gwen, the suicide bombers, in part, were generated by Saddam Hussein, who paid $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers. I personally think one of the reasons that we don’t have as many suicide attacks today in Israel as we had in the past is because Saddam’s no longer in business.

surely Cheney’s most creative justification yet for invading Iraq.

Can we find a better replacement…?

Sorry, you only get to choose the one or the other. It is a mathematical certainty the either Kerry/Edwards or Bush/Cheney will take the White House in January 2005. Your job is to decide which would be better, or less bad. No doubt there’s someone else who would be wonderful. They’re not an option this time out …

Posted by: Jacques Distler on October 6, 2004 10:27 AM | Permalink | PGP Sig | Reply to this

Re: On-topic

>And they didn’t contain whoppers like
>
> With respect to Israel and Palestine, >Gwen, the suicide bombers, in part, were >generated by Saddam Hussein, who paid >$25,000 to the families of suicide >bombers.

Do you not believe that Saddam Hussein paid $25 000 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers?

Posted by: Conrad Owen on October 6, 2004 1:07 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: On-topic

Are you being deliberately obtuse, or can you not help yourself?

Are you under the blissful misapprehension that Saddam was the only party making lavish donations to the families of suicide bombers?

Do you actually think that the fact that he (as opposed to, say, the Saudis) has stopped making such donations has anything to do with the decrease in the number of suicide bombings?

And, if so, do you think that constitutes a justification for the invasion of Iraq?

The Vice President may be suffering from early-onset dementia (which would certainly explain a lot). But that does not explain why anyone else would take his remarks seriously.

Posted by: Jacques Distler on October 6, 2004 3:58 PM | Permalink | PGP Sig | Reply to this
Read the post Mr. Cheney, You Remember Mr. Edwards ...
Weblog: Joe Grossberg
Excerpt: The blogosphere is so good at fact-checking others' statements....
Tracked: October 6, 2004 9:28 AM

Re: Who the heck are you?

I wasn’t trying to be obtuse. I hadn’t heard of Saudis making contributions to suicide bombers families but it does sound plausible.

It does mean Saddam was actively sponsoring terrorists though. But I don’t think it alone would be a justification for invading Iraq.

Posted by: Conrad Owen on October 7, 2004 12:30 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

Sponsoring terrorists

It does mean Saddam was actively sponsoring terrorists though.

Certainly true.

But there’s a big difference between sponsoring Palestinian terrorists and sponsoring Al Qaida. I’m not defending one or the other, merely pointing out that they are different.

And, even as a sponsor of Palestinian terror, Saddam was a mere bit-player, compared to the Saudis, the Syrians, the Iranians, …

Posted by: Jacques Distler on October 7, 2004 3:30 PM | Permalink | PGP Sig | Reply to this

Re: Who the heck are you?

If I understand well, the bloggers inlucing Jacques have produced overwhelming evidence that it was not the first time, but rather the second time when Edwards appeared in the Senate - which is pretty cool. ;-)

According to the available evidence, Dick Cheney was better in that debate. Also, George Bush was slightly better than John Kerry in their second debate.

Posted by: Lubos Motl on October 10, 2004 8:28 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

Post a New Comment