The transcript from the Cheney v. Edwards debate is here.
The following encapsulates why I believe Cheney won.
Best line of the evening:
Cheney: Now if they couldn't stand up to the pressures that Howard Dean represented, how can we expect them to stand up to Al Qaida?Best question by moderator Gwen Ifill:
Part of what you have said and Senator Kerry has said that you are going to do in order to get us out of the problems in Iraq is to internationalize the effort. Yet French and German officials have both said they have no intention even if John Kerry is elected of sending any troops into Iraq for any peacekeeping effort. Does that make your effort or your plan to internationalize this effort seem kind of naive?Edwards' response did not address the question.
Worst closing statement:
Edwards: I have grown up in the bright light of America. But that light is flickering today.The message: vote for Kerry-Edwards only if you've given up on America and your real standard of living is only getting worse and you believe that a government run by a bunch of limousine liberals like Kerry, Edwards and McAuliffe will give you economic benefits you can't acquire through your own hard work and talents; and you believe that our troops are wasting their time in Iraq and Afghanistan.Now, I know that the vice president and the president don't see it, but you do.
You see it when your incomes are going down and the cost of everything -- college tuition, health care -- is going through the roof. You see it when you sit at your table each night and there's an empty chair because a loved one is serving in Iraq or Afghanistan ... That's why we have a plan to keep you safe and to fix this mess in Iraq.
Now about that mess in Iraq and the empty chairs: This only amplifies more of the same Kerry-Edwards incoherence. Earlier in the debate Edwards said, as a criticism of Bush and Cheney, that
What Paul Bremer said yesterday is they didn't have enough troops to secure the country.But how does Kerry-Edwards plan to correct for this (i.e. increase the number of troops) and also "fix the mess in Iraq" and also stop America's light from flickering because of those empty chairs at the dinner table? We know they won't succeed in internationalizing the occupation, because, as noted, Edwards failed to answer the charge that counting on more international help is naive. The only other way to reconcile all of Edwards various competing statements is that they will bring more troops home and refill all those chairs in the kitchens where America's lights are flickering in order to put enough troops in Iraq to secure the country. You have to admit, that's not a bad way to implement Kerry's promise from last week's debate that he will "lead those troops to victory" even though "there is no viable exit strategy".
The fog of incoherence wins neither debates nor presidential elections.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at October 05, 2004 11:37 PMwhile i disagree with your analysis, i do agree with the conclusion that cheney won the debate.
frankly, of all 4 persons involved, cheney seemed the most substantive, though i disagree with his stance on many of the issues.
cheney certainly appears to be the tail wagging the gwb dog.
whose in charge anyway?
Posted by: dinesh on October 6, 2004 07:51 AMWasn't it brilliant how John Edwards used John Kerry's plan to win the peace and expose the Evil Dick Cheney as a cruel and stupid warmonger? Winning the peace is very thoughtful and intelligent because everyone knows exactly what winning the peace means and how it relates to every war humankind has fought...
Remember how impressed you were when you read how Julius Caesar laid out his plan for winning the peace in high school history class? Wasn't it awesome to learn how similar it was to Sun Tzu's strategies for winning the peace? Isn't it amazing to think that FDR and Eisenhower were able to co-op those plans for winning the peace in Europe and Japan?
What's that you say? "Winning the peace" is a poorly-constructed bit of leftist soundbite politics with absolutely no historical facts to back it up?
Whoa, if leftists believed in a god, I would say they were going to charge anyone saying that kind of thing with heresy!
Posted by: Scott on October 6, 2004 08:04 AMIf Kerry/Edwards reduce the troop levels in Iraq, then why do we need the two extra army divisions that Kerry proposes?
Posted by: Kinch1 on October 6, 2004 08:12 AMTo occupy Iran, which John Kerry, who will not leave our security to anyone else, and who will preempt as necessary (w/ other people's approval, once the "global test" is passed), will certainly do, since they've already rejected his plan of giving them nuclear fuel.
Or maybe North Korea.
And let's not forget: We've still got troops in Kosovo (but that's not a quagmire).
Posted by: Dean on October 6, 2004 08:19 AMI think the Bush Administration has the best possible allies for the battle to create a free Iraq governed under democratic principles, the Iraqi's themselves. While I welcome the contributions of the British, the Aussies, the Poles, the Italian's and all of the other members of the coalition to eliminate Saddams regime, only the Iraqi's themselves and their blood will ever enable Iraq to transition to a self-sustaining free nation.
The ever increasing size of the Iraqi forces and their growing contributions to the battles against the Bathhist holdouts, the criminal gangs and the foreign terrorists clearly brightens the prospects that a successful transition in Iraq will occur.
The ankle bitters can continue to endlessly critize every aspect of this war and we will surely have our problems along the way. Not every battle will always be a victory, but this strategy surly offers the best opportunity of success.
Posted by: Gary B on October 6, 2004 10:53 AMYeah, but you know something, Gary B?
When I was sitting next to John Kerry, there in Cambodia, listening to the Christmas carols play, I remember thinking, "If only the Vietnamese on our side fought like the Vietnamese on their side, then maybe we'd win this war."
And then, when I was sitting next to contras in Nicaragua, looking back on my time w/ John, I remember thinking, "If only our side fought like the guerillas and resistance fighters, then maybe there'd be no need for those freedom fighters to have to rebel." And looking at the governments in El Salvador and Guatemala and Nicaragua, I know both John and I were right.
Which is why, sitting here in a Swift boat on the Tigris, and thinking back to those chilly Christmas nights on the Mekong in Cambodia, I know that John Kerry knows what I'm thinking: That those Iraqis fighting on our side are fighting for the wrong side.
Posted by: Dean on October 6, 2004 12:23 PMHow can we bring allies into Iraq? Three points (I can easily go up to 20):
1. Bush/Cheney (or Cheney/Bush) have repeatedly said that people should stop calling the war a big distraction, wrong war, in the wrong place at the wrong time. You know what? the WHOLE world already knows it. In fact they knew it in November 2001.
2. DO NOT CALL THE UN A FAILURE ON DIPLOMACY, moreover when the UN Security Council was right and we (or our President) was wrong. I think that would have help, but might be a bit too late. An apology.....uhmmm....
3. Stop lying about it. You know what made headlines overseas about last night debate? No, it was not Howard Dean. It was not attendance records or voting against the liberation of Nelson Mandela. It was that Cheney was caught lying about his suggestions of a connection between 9/11 and Iraq.
Brilliant Sono, absolutely amazing. With your insight you should be writing op-eds for the NYT's.
Tell me which allies that aren't presently in Iraq wd enter, if only those dunderheads wd listen to your genius advice?
Posted by: hen on October 6, 2004 03:28 PMYou will see starting next January with John Kerry in the White House.
If you do not believe me go to: www.factcheck.com, Cheney's favorite website, and say hello to Mr. Soros.
i'm so glad none of us are in charge. we all sound like hacks.
people on both sides seem to be arguing the fundmental question: what do you do in iraq now?
Posted by: dinesh on October 6, 2004 09:29 PMo.k. cheney is a confirmed liar.
Posted by: dinesh on October 6, 2004 09:40 PMAlthough I hate Cheney and everything he currently stands for, I have to say that he did better than Edwards in the debate. I wouldn't go so far as to call it a win, because on substance most of what he said was some degree of misleading up to and including lies, but he sure looked better prepared and more able to lead. E.g. "Now if they couldn't stand up to the pressures that Howard Dean represented, how can we expect them to stand up to Al Qaida?" Well, they didn't cave to Howard Dean. They voted for the fiscally conservative way to send $87 Billion to support the troops, which was by not adding it to the deficit but rather paying for it as we go.
France and Germany said they wouldn't send troops to Iraq. Well, they might be otherwise persuaded, but even if they are not, there are a lot more countries in NATO, not to mention the real possibility that we could get additional support from outside NATO, just like we did with the Gulf war.
Posted by: Simon on October 7, 2004 01:18 AMI recommend you read the Wasington Post's refereed transcript where they fact check and explain many of the candidates statements that warrant investigation. It is a fairer (if not funnier), more balanced, and more informative commentary on the debate than you'll find on this blog.
shorter Sono - Feel free to ignore me. I'm talking out my ass.
Thanks, i'll do just that.
Taa.
Posted by: hen on October 7, 2004 04:20 AMHen; I do not know if you were being ironic, but I answered you already. Let's stop the arrogance, let's stop lying, hope for a change in the WH. I hope you found instructive www.factcheck.com
Posted by: Sono on October 7, 2004 08:48 AM"wait til kerry is elected" is not an answer.
My question stands: Which "allies" will Kerry get to join our coalition once elected President?
Oh and go to a Soros site for the truth? What a riot you are.
Posted by: hen on October 7, 2004 09:34 AMHen: It was Cheney himself the one who send us to www.factcheck.com. You see even when he is fact checking, he makes factual mistakes. I think he meant www.factcheck.org, where, by the way, it is established that Edward was right in the facts of the accusation he made during the debate.
You must be an engineer. I do not mean it in a bad way, but you cannot apply to international policy math equations. You cannot answer questions saying if I do this and then I add another action, I will get this specific result. You have to set up policies to drive you in some direction. The deal in Iraq is hard. It is like a friend offering you to invest in buying a house. When you refuse saying that it is a bad investment, the call you a moron, and he buys it anyway. When he finds out that the house was a lemon, ask you for money to fix the roof, but he is still calling you stupid and insisting that the investment was a good one. What do he have to do to win you back?
It is not the best analogy, but it is the best that I can come out after a whole day of hard work.
And please do not take this message as patronizing, because it is not my intention.
Cheney calling a website com instead of org, to most people is a simple mistake - what is your point?
You made a point - i asked you to support your point - you are unable to do so: Therefore you are either lying or ...... lying.
You must be a democrat. I don't mean to be patronizing but you have no answers even tho you say you do, you flip and flop and try to change the subject and you think that by Cheney directing people to a URL with the wrong . com/org direction is somehow important.
I'd say it was fun chit chatting but then i wd be a democrat.
Posted by: hen on October 8, 2004 04:09 AMSorry Hen. I realize it was a low punch that Cheney website thing. A low punch against you, not against Cheney. It is just that I cannot stand that tone of arrogance that Cheney has. I personally find Cheney to be a mediocre, hidden under "an actitud".
What do I have not answer for? Cheney lied in the debate, The Bush adm. was wrong in the weapons thing, UN was right. Bush was wrong in assessing the danger of Iraq, the UN was right. Bush and Cheney keep saying they were rigth and everybody was wrong. Is that the way to bring people back? and I say back, because most countries were with us in Afghanistan.
Who is coming back? Yes, I might be a democrat. I cannot see that until the changes are made. What do I can see, it is that nobody is coming back if Bush is reelected (well,... elected).
I tell you what, if Bush is elected and countries start coming back, I will run around my block naked and vote for Nethercutts in all upcoming elections, to pay for my arrogant mistake.
Sorry for the website, I recognize that not everybody is as insanely obssesive as I am with this election. Once again sorry.