Wednesday, October 06, 2004
Cheney's Lies From Mars
Dick Cheney didn't disappoint. Here are a few of the "lies from left field" we predicted he'd throw at John Edwards:
Not even the opponents of gay marriage in Massachusetts claimed the state's constitution needed to be changed to permit gay marriage. Their argument against it was based on the claim that gay marriage was inherently bad for marriage and children and that the state had a constitutional duty to protect those things. The court disagreed--but nether side ever claimed that allowing gay marriage would entail modifying the constitution.
Simply put, Cheney grossly distorted the facts.
His misstatement is more than just a misunderstanding--it's a deliberate attempt to muddle the public's understanding of both the legal issues surrounding gay marriage, and the role of the courts in government. Gay marriage itself is not the point here; John Kerry and George Bush both oppose it. What matters is that Dick Cheney deliberately mischaracterized the legal issue at stake. Why? Why did he intentionally misstate the court's position, and the nature of the dispute here in Massachusetts?
And here's a beaut, in response to Edwards' pointing out that by not assembling a true international coalition before invading Iraq, the Bush administration left the US paying 90% of the casualties:
More to come, certainly, as we chew this over.
All material on this site © 2002-2007 201k.com - All Rights Reserved.1. "...in Massachusetts we had the Massachusetts Supreme Court direct the State of the Legislature of Massachusetts to modify their constitution to allow gay marriage. And the fact is that the president felt that it was important to make it clear that that that's the wrong way to go, as far as he's concerned."The SJC of the Commonwealth did not "direct the State of the Legislature of Massachusetts to modify their constitution to allow gay marriage". The Court found that the state constitution as written gives gays the right to marry, and allowed time for the Legislature to amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage should it so desire.
Not even the opponents of gay marriage in Massachusetts claimed the state's constitution needed to be changed to permit gay marriage. Their argument against it was based on the claim that gay marriage was inherently bad for marriage and children and that the state had a constitutional duty to protect those things. The court disagreed--but nether side ever claimed that allowing gay marriage would entail modifying the constitution.
Simply put, Cheney grossly distorted the facts.
His misstatement is more than just a misunderstanding--it's a deliberate attempt to muddle the public's understanding of both the legal issues surrounding gay marriage, and the role of the courts in government. Gay marriage itself is not the point here; John Kerry and George Bush both oppose it. What matters is that Dick Cheney deliberately mischaracterized the legal issue at stake. Why? Why did he intentionally misstate the court's position, and the nature of the dispute here in Massachusetts?
2. "The reason they keep trying to attack Halliburton is because they want to obscure their own record. ...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."Here's the truth:
Oct. 6, 2004 | CLEVELAND (AP) -- Vice President Dick Cheney said Tuesday night that the debate with Democratic Sen. John Edwards marked the first time they had met. In fact, the two had met at least three times previously.No one should be surprised to hear that this lie from mars came in response to Edwards' telling the American people that Halliburton did business in Iraq contrary to US sanctions while Dick Cheney was CEO.
On Feb. 1, 2001, the vice president thanked Edwards by name at a Senate prayer breakfast and sat beside him during the event.
On April 8, 2001, Cheney and Edwards shook hands when they met off-camera during a taping of NBC's "Meet the Press," moderator Tim Russert said Wednesday on "Today."
On Jan. 8, 2003, the two met when the first-term North Carolina senator accompanied Elizabeth Dole to her swearing-in by Cheney as a North Carolina senator, Edwards aides also said.
And here's a beaut, in response to Edwards' pointing out that by not assembling a true international coalition before invading Iraq, the Bush administration left the US paying 90% of the casualties:
3. Mr. Cheney: Well, Gwen, the 90 percent figure is just dead wrong. When you include the Iraqi security forces that have suffered casualties, as well as the allies, they've taken almost 50 percent of the casualties in operations in Iraq, which leaves the U.S. with 50 percent, not 90 percent.Get it? Dick Cheney is saying we haven't suffered 90% of the casualties stemming from the invasion of Iraq if you count the dead Iraqis, too. You have to stand back and admire that one. Even if we knew how many Iraqi casualties there have been--which we don't because the Bush Administration won't release the figures--you have to wonder how many dead Iraqis would consider themselves "coalition casualties".
More to come, certainly, as we chew this over.
