October 05, 2004

VP Cheney lied.

During tonight's US vice-presidential debate, Dick Cheney went on a tirade about John Edwards alleged poor attendence record in the Senate. Said Cheney:
'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.'

Judging by this photo of a US Senate prayer breakfast in 2001, this magpie suspects there's just a teensy chance that isn't true.

Edwards & Cheney, 2001

We know we're commiting a logical fallacy here, but if Cheney will lie about something this trivial, what won't he lie about?

And did anyone else notice that Cheney didn't thank Edwards at the end of the debate? Yeah, this is just a matter of form, but the omission seems significant to us.

Via Scott Bateman.

Posted by Magpie at October 5, 2004 10:21 PM | Elections | Technorati links |

well damn. that's a real shame. It pretty much sucks when you get slammed by a lie, doesn't it? Of course, the data about Edwards missing 70% of committee meetings on the Intelligence (how did he get that spot!?) is sound. Maybe you all will reconsider the next time you go to spread lies or nuanced truths. I think the attacks on Bush + co for Iraq are mostly groundless and certainly partisan. you should all be properly ashamed for not encouraging the debate in more substantiative terms. You may not be able to debate on those terms, of course. If the issue is Roe v Wade, then you should say so. I am sure the "right" leaning blogosphere would love to make hay with the Republicans about this issue. I'll bet the blogosphere could create enough of a debate and hoo ha to ensure preservation of 2nd trimester abortions and that is a reasonable compromise in my book, being pro-choice. donchya think?

ps. nice going on the GOP office vandalism, btw. keep that up.

Posted by: self hypocritical at October 5, 2004 11:22 PM

excuse me, but it was cheney himself that made a big deal out of whether he'd met edwards or not. if the veep hadn't have wanted to make his cheap political shot, i doubt any bloggers would be talking about whether the two men have met and i certainly wouldn't have posted that picture (which i do believe speaks for itself) and i think that being wrong -- or lying -- about something like whether a meeeting had taken place certainly has a bearing on cheney's credibility and trustworthiness when more important facts are involved. like his continuing assertion (up to last night, at least) that there were links between saddam hussein & al-qaeda, and between iraq and terrorism.

the rest of your message, i think our readers are certainly smart enough to decide for themselves whether criticism of dubya's administration is just groundless partisan attacks or whether it's based in facts on the ground in iraq.

Posted by: Magpie at October 6, 2004 08:17 AM

Self, Edwards is running a campaign, He missed those time in the LAST YEAR. How many times did Cheney's Conter terrorrism comittee meet? oh yeh 0. THe republicans are also vandelizing DEM. HQ's. So give me a break. Nether side should be doing it.

Posted by: Goose1 at October 7, 2004 07:41 AM