one of many cheney lies.

[OGTEleven]

Iraqis do count. They count as much as Americans. The only time they DON'T count is when you are not talking about them, and categories that by definition EXCLUDE Them. There are ZERO Iraqis in the coalition forces. That is what Edwards said and was talking about.

58952[/snapback]

Why would he use coalition figures only? To make the percentage higher for the sake of using it in a debate? In what universe does Iraqi effort not count in an Iraqi war? His use of that figure was misleading and he inteded it to be.

 

There is a total number of people that have died in the war. Some of them were the good guys (US, coalition, Iraqi fighters, Iraqi bystanders). Some of them were the bad guys. The ultimate test of whether the war is worth it lies in whether their sacrifice has made the world a better place. That determination remains to be seen, but anyone that expected it to be clear by now was clearly misguided.

 

Parsing up numbers to make someone look bad is a common tactic in a debate. Edwards used it. Cheney called him on it. Pretty striaghtforward really.

[VABills]

Yeah and when the US said coalition they meant everyone fighting in Iraq.  I guess you and your ilk misinterpreted it to mean everyone except the cockroach Muslim people.

58964[/snapback]

 

Ah...you are right. When someone says coalition I generally assume they mean coalition. I'm going to have to buy a right wing whacko dictionary!!!

58969[/snapback]

Let's see what the dictionary says:

 

Main Entry: co·a·li·tion

Pronunciation: "kO-&-'li-sh&n

Function: noun

Etymology: French, from Latin coalescere

1 a : the act of coalescing : UNION b : a body formed by the coalescing of orig. distinct elements : COMBINATION

2 : a temporary alliance of distinct parties, persons, or states for joint action

- co·a·li·tion·ist  /-'li-sh(&-)nist/ noun 

 

 

 

Well I don't see where it excludes those cockroach Muslims that Edwards implied. So I guess Edwards was wrong, and you're being a lemming on this point.

[tennesseeboy]

Why would he use coalition figures only?  To make the percentage higher for the sake of using it in a debate?  In what universe does Iraqi effort not count in an Iraqi war?  His use of that figure was misleading and he inteded it to be.

 

There is a total number of people that have died in the war.  Some of them were the good guys (US, coalition, Iraqi fighters, Iraqi bystanders).  Some of them were the bad guys.  The ultimate test of whether the war is worth it lies in whether their sacrifice has made the world a better place.  That determination remains to be seen, but anyone that expected it to be clear by now was clearly misguided. 

 

Parsing up numbers to make someone look bad is a common tactic in a debate.  Edwards used it.  Cheney called him on it.  Pretty striaghtforward really.

58970[/snapback]

 

Come to think about it...why don't we include civilian casualties, women and children? That might be an idea and it might make us understand what misery we are exporting in this silly war.

[RkFast]

Back to the original point.

 

If its a "lie" not a gaffe what Cheney said, then it must now be assumed that what KERRY said last week about "Treblinka Square" and about the "NYC Subways being shut down" must now be reclassified as "lies" instead of the gaffes they were considered until now. So YOUR boy must now be considered a "liar" just like Cheney is!

 

DING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thanks for playing.

[erynthered]

Hey Tenny, were you cheering for your boy last night with Pom Pom's?

"Go Johnny go" "Go Johnny go"

 

 

I liked the Senetor Gone comment.

 

 

 

 

mmmmmm, Free grouper sammmich, paid for by Tenny.

[Kelly the Dog]

Why would he use coalition figures only?  To make the percentage higher for the sake of using it in a debate?  In what universe does Iraqi effort not count in an Iraqi war?  His use of that figure was misleading and he inteded it to be.

 

There is a total number of people that have died in the war.  Some of them were the good guys (US, coalition, Iraqi fighters, Iraqi bystanders).  Some of them were the bad guys.  The ultimate test of whether the war is worth it lies in whether their sacrifice has made the world a better place.  That determination remains to be seen, but anyone that expected it to be clear by now was clearly misguided. 

 

Parsing up numbers to make someone look bad is a common tactic in a debate.  Edwards used it.  Cheney called him on it.  Pretty striaghtforward really.

58970[/snapback]

That's just crap, IMO. Look at the transcript, I posted the portion of relevance in this thread. Edwards was talking about a specific part of this war, not the war in general. He was talking about going it alone, and the Kerry position of not getting a strong enough or big enough coalition before enetring it. Edwards was not talking about ALL people in the war, he was talking about specifically the coaltion forces and the Americans dying because Bush couldn't build a coalition. Cheney just flat lied when he said the 90% figure is dead wrong because the 90% figure of coalition casualties is dead right.

[GG]

I though we learned a long time go that we can deep six this server if we get into statistical battles.

 

Kerry/Edwards' 90% figure of "coalition casualties" would also lose some steam when compared to a 80% of "coalition casualties" that US suffered in GW 1. But what the hey, 90% is better than 80% for that soundbite.

 

The underlying note is that Kerry/Edwards still carry on the imprimatur of needing Western European acquiescence. Can’t make the move without sipping the vin on the Seine.

 

I do find it interesting that in poo-pooing the participation of East Europe’s troops, Kerry/Edwards hints that the brave French soldiers are vastly superior to the old Soviet war machine.

[Alaska Darin]

This was another total stevestojan answer, and a flat lie by Cheney. Edwards was tal;king about building a coalition rather than going at things basically alone. Edwards CLEARLY said the U.S. has taken 90% of THE COALITION CASUALTIES. Cheney came right back ten seconds later and said "That 90% is just dead wrong. If you add the Iraqi's...

 

Here is the exchange:

58921[/snapback]

Would that be a coalition with the French and Germans? They ain't coming.

 

There was a story in one of the German papers quoting the German Chancellor. He was told by the Kerry camp that he and Jack Chirac would be the first two heads of state invited to the White House if Mr. Kerry won the election. His response: "I was afraid of that."

 

They sound super willing to join in. Jesus Pete, you're smarter than that.

[tennesseeboy]

Coalition casualties have been defined by news sources for some time.

 

coalition casualties

Cheney tried to get around the fact that we are losing more soldiers than we should, that we are sending home more wounded than we should and the the Iraqis should be suffering 80% or more of the casualties. IT ISTHEIR COUNTRY!!!

They should be taking care of the insurgents and we should be pulling our soldiers out of there (not to mention that we shouldn't have been there in the first place.)

[Kelly the Dog]

Would that be a coalition with the French and Germans?  They ain't coming.

 

There was a story in one of the German papers quoting the German Chancellor.  He was told by the Kerry camp that he and Jack Chirac would be the first two heads of state invited to the White House if Mr. Kerry won the election.  His response:  "I was afraid of that."

 

They sound super willing to join in.  Jesus Pete, you're smarter than that.

59004[/snapback]

I don't really care about the French, and never thought they would join. In fact, the only way they would join is if virtually everyone else joined. But that is not necessarily what I or what I believe the Kerry/Edwards position to be. We needed the support of the other nations in a myriad of ways, not necessarily only troops and money. We needed their populations behind us, which Bush couldn't get because of his arrogance. We needed the governments of the world to back us as this is the right thing to do at the right time so it didnt appear to the Muslims that America was being imperialistic and after their oil and messing in Middle East affairs again. So that young potentially extemist Muslims didnt join the fray against us. We needed these other nations, even the equivalent of the tiny ones that Bush did convince (or coerce or bribe) so that the world thought this was a just war. hat we got was the complete opposite, and it fueled the hatred. That was a bigger element IMO of the importance of the coalition building even more so than the troops or the money. There wouldnt be as big an insurgency IMO if there wasnt a perception that we did this alone.

[KD in CA]

The fact that they didn't meet on the Senate floor is no big deal.

 

 

You're joking, right?

[OGTEleven]

That's just crap, IMO. Look at the transcript, I posted the portion of relevance in this thread. Edwards was talking about a specific part of this war, not the war in general. He was talking about going it alone, and the Kerry position of not getting a strong enough or big enough coalition before enetring it. Edwards was not talking about ALL people in the war, he was talking about specifically the coaltion forces and the Americans dying because Bush couldn't build a coalition. Cheney just flat lied when he said the 90% figure is dead wrong because the 90% figure of coalition casualties is dead right.

58992[/snapback]

What was the reason Edwards chose to talk only about the coalition? Could it be because it made the numbers "better"? Should he get to frame all of the arguments in the debate or should Cheney call him out when he chooses to argue about a portion of an overall topic?

 

The real argument about building a coalition is multi-faceted. There are very real questions about side deals France, Germany and Russia (not to mention the UN) had going with Saddam. Assuming for the moment that side deals existed and would not reflect well on the leadership of these countries, would they have EVER joined a coalition anyway? Even if there were no side deals, but these countries had a vested interest in seeing the US knocked down a peg, might that have left them against a coalition? Who decides how big a coalition is big enough? (Seriously, who decides that?)

 

If the US decides now is the time to take action or the consequences will detrimental to us, should we still wait to be nice guys? An argument about why it was the wrong decision is one thing, but this coalition thing is a big red herring.

 

John Kerry has still not joined the 91 coalition. Is it big enough yet or should we leave Saddam in Kuwait?

[Kelly the Dog]

What was the reason Edwards chose to talk only about the coalition?  Could it be because it made the numbers "better"?  Should he get to frame all of the arguments in the debate or should Cheney call him out when he chooses to argue about a portion of an overall topic?

 

The real argument about building a coalition is multi-faceted.  There are very real questions about side deals France, Germany and Russia (not to mention the UN) had going with Saddam.  Assuming for the moment that side deals existed and would not reflect well on the leadership of these countries, would they have EVER joined a coalition anyway?  Even if there were no side deals, but these countries had a vested interest in seeing the US knocked down a peg, might that have left them against a coalition?  Who decides how big a coalition is big enough?  (Seriously, who decides that?)

 

If the US decides now is the time to take action or the consequences will detrimental to us, should we still wait to be nice guys?  An argument about why it was the wrong decision is one thing, but this coalition thing is a big red herring.

 

John Kerry has still not joined the 91 coalition.  Is it big enough yet or should we leave Saddam in Kuwait?

59041[/snapback]

The reason that Edwards only chose to speak about the coalition in that segment because that is what the QUESTION WAS from Gwen Ifill.

 

The question was basically, explain what Kerry meant about the "Global Test". The question was about getting other nations to join the war. That is why. That was the only category of the question. Edwards answered it in context.

[tennesseeboy]

You're joking, right? 

59038[/snapback]

 

Actually it says as much about Cheney's role in the Senate. Did you see Senator Leahy last night? He said Cheney comes in on Tuesdays and meets in private with the Republican Senators and only Republicans. Of course he never met Edwards in the Senate. He avoided ALL dem senators, except perhaps to swear at them. It is another example of the divisiveness that was alluded to later in the debate. It is why there is a perception of two Americas. I would like to see that change. For instance when BIB and KRC and Eryn buy me my grouper I'm going to take a photo of the four of us with our life size posters of Hillary and Bush in a veritable lovefest and will encourage Vice President Edwards to make a point of including Republican Senators in all discussions. Koom by yah..my lord..koom by yah...

[GG]

I don't really care about the French, and never thought they would join. In fact, the only way they would join is if virtually everyone else joined. But that is not necessarily what I or what I believe the Kerry/Edwards position to be. We needed the support of the other nations in a myriad of ways, not necessarily only troops and money. We needed their populations behind us, which Bush couldn't get because of his arrogance. We needed the governments of the world to back us as this is the right thing to do at the right time so it didnt appear to the Muslims that America was being imperialistic and after their oil and messing in Middle East affairs again. So that young potentially extemist Muslims didnt join the fray against us. We needed these other nations, even the equivalent of the tiny ones that Bush did convince (or coerce or bribe) so that the world thought this was a just war. hat we got was the complete opposite, and it fueled the hatred. That was a bigger element IMO of the importance of the coalition building even more so than the troops or the money. There wouldnt be as big an insurgency IMO if there wasnt a perception that we did this alone.

59036[/snapback]

 

But if you've been following BiB diatribes, US is doing exactly that behind the scenes. Search for his posts on Pakistan.

 

I really do wish that Cheney would have hit Edwards with a stick every time he brought out the ridiculous "we trusted the Afghan warlords to hunt Osama" tripe. He very well knows that US stopped the hunt as soon as they got to the Pakistan border.

 

Of course there are many anti-war types here that say that we should have continued on into Pakistan. But, I'm guessing most rational people recognize why that would not be the wisest idea.

[Alaska Darin]

I don't really care about the French, and never thought they would join. In fact, the only way they would join is if virtually everyone else joined. But that is not necessarily what I or what I believe the Kerry/Edwards position to be. We needed the support of the other nations in a myriad of ways, not necessarily only troops and money. We needed their populations behind us, which Bush couldn't get because of his arrogance. We needed the governments of the world to back us as this is the right thing to do at the right time so it didnt appear to the Muslims that America was being imperialistic and after their oil and messing in Middle East affairs again. So that young potentially extemist Muslims didnt join the fray against us. We needed these other nations, even the equivalent of the tiny ones that Bush did convince (or coerce or bribe) so that the world thought this was a just war. hat we got was the complete opposite, and it fueled the hatred. That was a bigger element IMO of the importance of the coalition building even more so than the troops or the money. There wouldnt be as big an insurgency IMO if there wasnt a perception that we did this alone.

59036[/snapback]

Don't let your idealism get in the way of reality. That post is nothing but tripe and created hysteria.

 

The world doesn't have the stomach to look outside their windows. Hence the reason everyone continues to have the unrealistic expectation that governments will work together to fix problems for the right reasons. It's also the reason the UN is nothing more than an irrelevant corrupt oligarchy that is contributing significantly to the strife around the planet. But we can keep pretending if it helps you sleep at night.

 

I'd love to know how our monopolistic imperialism and going after oil has helped. It was $51 YESTERDAY.

[Alaska Darin]

Come to think about it...why don't we include civilian casualties, women and children? That might be an idea and it might make us understand what misery we are exporting in this silly war.

58981[/snapback]

While you're at it, add in the effect on same of those "Oh so effective" UN sanctions that you libbers are so very fond of.

[Kelly the Dog]

Don't let your idealism get in the way of reality.  That post is nothing but tripe and created hysteria.

 

The world doesn't have the stomach to look outside their windows.  Hence the reason everyone continues to have the unrealistic expectation that governments will work together to fix problems for the right reasons.  It's also the reason the UN is nothing more than an irrelevant corrupt oligarchy that is contributing significantly to the strife around the planet.  But we can keep pretending if it helps you sleep at night.

 

I'd love to know how our monopolistic imperialism and going after oil has helped.  It was $51 YESTERDAY.

59094[/snapback]

I think I didnt articulate my point well or you misinterpreted. I didnt mean that we are necessarily imperialistic or that the war was about oil. I meant that a large portion of the Arab world and world in general believes that we are. And the way this war was propagated by Bush made all their wrong opinions about us look more than ever to be true. At that has hurt us badly in a lot of ways. I don't think governments are going to get along ever. But perception is reality to the ignorant and uneducated even moreso and the perception around the world is we were virtually the only ones (besides the Brits) that wanted to attack Iraq pre-emptively. Its hurt us in the war, its hurt us bad as more and more young Muslims are being swayed to the dark side, its hurt normal citizens in the perception of Americans around the world for travel and other non-war items. It fuels the fire for the hatred against us. There's little way that we can come out of this looking good unless there is a complete reversal and a solid democracy in Iraq and the way this war was produced gives me few signs of it.

[KD in CA]

Actually it says as much about Cheney's role in the Senate.  Did you see Senator Leahy last night?  He said Cheney comes in on Tuesdays and meets in private with the Republican Senators and only Republicans. Of course he never met Edwards in the Senate.  He avoided ALL dem senators, except perhaps to swear at them.  It is another example of the divisiveness that was alluded to later in the debate. It is why there is a perception of two Americas.  I would like to see that change.  For instance when BIB and KRC and Eryn buy me my grouper I'm going to take a photo of the four of us with our life size posters of Hillary and Bush in a veritable lovefest and will encourage Vice President Edwards to make a point of including Republican Senators in all discussions.  Koom by yah..my lord..koom by yah...

59058[/snapback]

 

I wanna grouper sammich!

 

Did Frenchy's survive the storms ok?

[Alaska Darin]

I think I didnt articulate my point well or you misinterpreted. I didnt mean that we are necessarily imperialistic or that the war was about oil. I meant that a large portion of the Arab world and world in general believes that we are. And the way this war was propagated by Bush made all their wrong opinions about us look more than ever to be true. At that has hurt us badly in a lot of ways. I don't think governments are going to get along ever. But perception is reality to the ignorant and uneducated even moreso and the perception around the world is we were virtually the only ones (besides the Brits) that wanted to attack Iraq pre-emptively. Its hurt us in the war, its hurt us bad as more and more young Muslims are being swayed to the dark side, its hurt normal citizens in the perception of Americans around the world for travel and other non-war items. It fuels the fire for the hatred against us. There's little way that we can come out of this looking good unless there is a complete reversal and a solid democracy in Iraq and the way this war was produced gives me few signs of it.

59170[/snapback]

Let me just say that I disagree with you. These people can be swayed to believe anything. They would blow themselves up in the name of Allah whether we invaded Iraq or not. It was simply a matter of time before they hit us (which 9/11 proved). That is the plight of the hopeless and is EXACTLY what their handlers have been preying on for eternity.

 

The best hope we have as a society is to give them hope. A true representative Republic smack in the middle of their caste system. Their other choice is a smoking hole.