I agree with the general sentiment that last night’s debate was a “tie.” At least in the sense that I don’t think it swayed very many voters in one direction in the other. And speaking of the “swayable” voters, can the news networks quit showing these panels of “undecided”–i.e., clueless–voters? Does anyone learn anything from these people? I think it would nearly as informative to show me standing in the store muttering, “Now which pair of socks should I buy?”
At any rate, a number of bloggers have already noted some of the difficulties Cheney had with the truth. And even right-leaning TV talking heads had a hard time repeating this with a straight face:
CHENEY: The senator has got his facts wrong. I have not suggested there’s a connection between Iraq and 9/11, but there’s clearly an established Iraqi track record with terror.
What was Cheney’s point in trying to move the goal posts and include Iraqis in the coalition to liberate themselves? Does he think Americans are going to be fooled on how many U.S. casualties there have been? The media has at least gotten that much correct.
I thought Cheney’s inclusion of the Iraqis in the coalition was the perfect example of how this war has been conducted and justified to the nation from the beginning. I was disappointed Edwards didn’t jump on this insanity. If Edwards had responded sharply he could have put Cheney away completely. A good response would have been something like,”The topic of debate is the true nature of the coalition BEFORE the war started. Are you saying that Iraq was one of the 30 nations in the coalition supporting the invasion of Iraq? You just witnessed right here before the nation and the world the stretching of logic, spinning, and deception that has plagued this administration’s war from the beginning. It’s time to tell the truth, and you Mr. Vice President, by this glaring example are not capable of doing that”.
Ok, sorry for the speech, but that shifting coalition crap really got under my skin.