| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 7/9 |
| 2004/10/6 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33949 Activity:moderate |
10/6 If you look in the transcript of last night's debate, Cheney said
the following: (from http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004b.html
"...They know that if you go, for example, to http://factcheck.com (sic),
an independent Web site sponsored by the University of Pennsylvania,
you can get the specific details with respect to Halliburton."
Try it. go wo http://www.factcheck.com oops.
I wonder exactly how this happened.
\_ Here's the story:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12901-2004Oct6.html
\_ whois http://factcheck.com:
Registrant: (I bet it's an offshore Halliburton subsidiary)
Name Administration Inc. (BVI)
Box 10518 A.P.O.
Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands B.W.I.
\_ this is already all over the blogs
\_ It now redirects to Location: http://www.georgesoros.com
"George Soros, the billionaire investor and philanthropist, is
beginning a nationwide tour this week to talk about how the war
in Iraq is making America less safe -- and why President Bush
should not be re-elected." How wierd..
should not be re-elected." How weird..
\_ slate claims Soros took advantage of Cheney's blunder and bought
up http://factcheck.com.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2107809
Is this even possible? Could the domain name propagation even
happen that fast?
\_ It's more likely someone already owned the domain and put in
a redirect.
\_ slate has corrected the article to state this. |
| 7/9 |
|
| www.debates.org/pages/trans2004b.html State Boards of Election 2004 campaign button Debate Transcript October 5, 2004 The Cheney-Edwards Vice Presidential Debate VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES' DEBATE AT CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY, CLEVELAND, OHIO SPEAKERS: RICHARD B CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES US SENATOR JOHN EDWARDS (NC), DEMOCRATIC VICE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE GWEN IFILL, HOST, PBS'S "WASHINGTON WEEK" IFILL: Good evening from Case Western Reserve University's Veale Center h ere in Cleveland, Ohio. I'm Gwen Ifill of "The NewsHour" and "Washington Week" on PBS, and I welc ome you to the first and the only vice presidential debate between Vice President Dick Cheney, the Republican nominee, and Senator John Edwards, the Democratic nominee. These debates are sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates. To night's will last 90 minutes, following detailed rules of engagement wor ked out by representatives of the candidates. I have agreed to enforce t he rules they have devised for themselves to the best of my ability. The questions tonight will be divided between foreign and domestic policy , but the specific topics were chosen by me. The rules: For each question, there can be only a two- minute response, a 90-second rebuttal and, at my discretion, a discussion extension of one minute. A green light will come on when 30 seconds remain in any given answer, ye llow at 15 seconds, red at five seconds, and then flashing red means tim e's up. There will be two-min ute closing statements, but no opening statements. There is an audience here in the hall, but they have been instructed to r emain silent throughout. The order of the first question was determined by the candidates in advan ce, and the first one goes to Vice President Cheney. Vice President Cheney, there have been new developments in Iraq, especial ly having to do with the administration's handling. Paul Bremer, the former head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, gave a speech in which he said that we have never had enough troops on the g round, or we've never had enough troops on the ground. Donald Rumsfeld said he has not seen any hard evidence of a link between Al Qaida and Saddam Hussein. Was this approved -- of a report that you r equested that you received a week ago that showed there was no connectio n between Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Saddam Hussein? CHENEY: Gwen, I want to thank you, and I want to thank the folks here at Case Western Reserve for hosting this tonight. It's a very important eve nt, and they've done a superb job of putting it together. It's important to look at all of our developments in Iraq within the broa der context of the global war on terror. And, after 9/11, it became clea r that we had to do several things to have a successful strategy to win the global war on terror, specifically that we had to go after the terro rists where ever we might find them, that we also had to go after state sponsors of terror, those who might provide sanctuary or safe harbor for terror. And we also then finally had to stand up democracies in their s tead afterwards, because that was the only way to guarantee that these s tates would not again become safe harbors for terror or for the developm ent of deadly weapons. Concern about Iraq specifically focused on the fact that Saddam Hussein h ad been, for years, listed on the state sponsor of terror, that they he had established relationships with Abu Nidal, who operated out of Baghda d; Specifically, look at George Tenet, the CIA director's testimony before the Committee on Foreign Relations two years ago when he talked about a 10-year relationship. The effort that we've mounted with respect to Iraq focused specifically o n the possibility that this was the most likely nexus between the terror ists and weapons of mass destruction. The biggest threat we faced today is the possibility of terrorists smuggl ing a nuclear weapon or a biological agent into one of our own cities an d threatening the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans. If I had it to rec ommend all over again, I would recommend exactly the same course of acti on. The world is far safer today because Saddam Hussein is in jail, his government is no longer in power. Thank you to the folks of Ca se Western and all the people in Ohio for having us here. Mr Vice President, you are still not being straight with the American pe ople. I mean, the reality you and George Bush continue to tell people, f irst, that things are going well in Iraq -- the American people don't ne ed us to explain this to them, they see it on their television every sin gle day. We lost more troops in September than we lost in August; The truth is, our men and women in uniform have been heroic. Our military has done everything they've been asked to do. There are Republican lea ders, like John McCain, like Richard Lugar, like Chuck Hagel, who have s aid Iraq is a mess and it's getting worse. And when they were asked why, Richard Lugar said because of the incompetence of the administration. What Paul Bremer said yesterday is they didn't have enough troops to secu re the country. They also didn't put the alliances together to make this successful. We need a president who will speed up the training of the Iraqis, get more staff in for doing that. We need to speed up th e reconstruction so the Iraqis see some tangible benefit. We need a new president who has the credibility, which John Kerry has, to bring others into this effort. IFILL: You have 30 seconds to respond, Mr Vice President. We've stood up a new gov ernment that's been in power now only 90 days. The notion of additional troops is talked about frequently, but the point of success in Iraq will be reached when we have turned governance over to the Iraqi people; the y have been able to establish a democratic government. They will have free elections next January for t he first time in history. We also are actively, rapidly training Iraqis to take on the security res ponsibility. And I'm confident that, in fact, we'll get the job done. Mr Vice President, there is no connection between the attacks of Septemb er 11th and Saddam Hussein. And you've gone around the country suggest ing that there is some connection. And in fact the CIA is now about to report that the connection between Al Qaida and Saddam Hussein is tenuous at best. And, in fact, the secretar y of defense said yesterday that he knows of no hard evidence of the con nection. You and Senator Kerry have said that the war in Iraq is the wrong war at the wrong time. Does that mean that if you had been president and vice president that Sad dam Hussein would still be in power? EDWARDS: Here's what it means: It means that Saddam Hussein needed to be confronted. that we gave the weapons inspectors time to find out what we now know, that in fact there were no weapons of mass destruction; that we didn't take our eye off th e ball, which are Al Qaida, Osama bin Laden, the people who attacked us on September the 11th. Now, remember, we went into Afghanistan, which, b y the way, was the right thing to do. We had the 10th Mountai n Division up in Uzbekistan available. We turned -- this is the man who masterminded the greatest mass murder an d terrorist attack in American history. They gave the responsibility of capturing and/or killing Saddam -- I mean Osama bin Laden to Afghan warlords who, just a few weeks before, had be en working with Osama bin Laden. Our point in this is not complicated: We were attacked by Al Qaida and Os ama bin Laden. We went into Afghanistan and very quickly the administration made a decis ion to divert attention from that and instead began to plan for the inva sion of Iraq. And these connections -- I want the American people to hear this very cle arly. Because the re is no connection between Saddam Hussein and the attacks of September 11th -- period. A nd, in fact, any connection with Al Qaida is tenuous at best. IFILL: Mr Vice President, you have 90 seconds to respond. I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11, but there's clearly an established Iraqi track record with terror. And the point is that that's the place where you're most likely to see th e terroris... |
| www.factcheck.com -> www.georgesoros.com Download Soros speech (PDF) The Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change are pleased to support t he effort that George Soros has undertaken to speak out on the failure o f George Bush's foreign policy, the crisis in Iraq and the need for a ne w direction in our country's foreign policy. I have n ever been heavily involved in partisan politics but these are not normal times. I have been demonized by the Bush campaign but I hope you will give me a hearing. President Bush ran on the platform of a humble foreign policy in 2000. If we re-elect him now, we endorse the Bush doctrine of preemptive actio n and the invasion of Iraq, and we will have to live with the consequenc es. As I shall try to show, we are facing a vicious circle of escalating violence with no end in sight. But if we repudiate the Bush policies at the polls, we shall have a better chance to regain the respect and supp ort of the world and to break the vicious circle. George Soros, the billionaire investor and philanthropist, is beginning a nationwide tour this week to talk about how the war in Iraq is making A merica less safe -- and why President Bush should not be re-elected. Thi s is the speech he delivered at the National Press Club in Washington on September 28. "America has gone off the railsTo the extent that I can contribute to im proving the world in which we live, I want to do it, and I'm in a better position than a lot of other people." View Article The 74-year-old Soros said the theme of the tour would be that Bush had g enerated hatred of the US throughout the world and made the country mo re vulnerable to attack. |
| www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12901-2004Oct6.html All RSS Feeds Cheney Drops a Dot-Bomb in Debate Vice President Directed Viewers to Site Critical of Bush Administration By Dana Milbank Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, October 6, 2004; Sign Up Now But when people followed Cheney's instructions, they wound up at a site s ponsored by administration antagonist George Soros. "Why we must not re- elect President Bush," the site blared. "President Bush is endangering o ur safety, hurting our vital interests, and undermining American values. Instead, he directed the nation's attention t o a Web site that refers people to sellers of dictionaries and encyclope dias -- at least at first. "Suddenly they had 48,000 hits in an hour, then 100 hits a second," said John Berryhill, a lawyer for the company. com -- a site that could handle the traffic, was not soliciting funds and clea rly wasn't tied to Bush. "And you got to admit it was kind of cute," Ber ryhill said. Soros's Web site issued a statement saying it had nothing to do with the redirection of traffic. "We are as surprised as anyone," said Michael Va chon, Soros's chief of staff. Gradually, people became aware of Cheney's mistake, and the White House t ranscript of the debate was annotated with the correct address. org was not much more helpful than Soro s in knocking down Edwards's charges. Cheney "wrongly implied that we had rebutted allegations Edwards was maki ng about what Cheney had done as chief executive officer of Halliburton, " the Annenberg site wrote in a posting today. "In fact, we did post an article pointing out that Cheney hasn't profited personally while in off ice from Halliburton's Iraq contracts, as falsely implied by a Kerry TV ad. But Edwards was talking about Cheney's responsibility for earlier Ha lliburton troubles. |
| www.georgesoros.com Download Soros speech (PDF) The Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change are pleased to support t he effort that George Soros has undertaken to speak out on the failure o f George Bush's foreign policy, the crisis in Iraq and the need for a ne w direction in our country's foreign policy. I have n ever been heavily involved in partisan politics but these are not normal times. I have been demonized by the Bush campaign but I hope you will give me a hearing. President Bush ran on the platform of a humble foreign policy in 2000. If we re-elect him now, we endorse the Bush doctrine of preemptive actio n and the invasion of Iraq, and we will have to live with the consequenc es. As I shall try to show, we are facing a vicious circle of escalating violence with no end in sight. But if we repudiate the Bush policies at the polls, we shall have a better chance to regain the respect and supp ort of the world and to break the vicious circle. George Soros, the billionaire investor and philanthropist, is beginning a nationwide tour this week to talk about how the war in Iraq is making A merica less safe -- and why President Bush should not be re-elected. Thi s is the speech he delivered at the National Press Club in Washington on September 28. "America has gone off the railsTo the extent that I can contribute to im proving the world in which we live, I want to do it, and I'm in a better position than a lot of other people." View Article The 74-year-old Soros said the theme of the tour would be that Bush had g enerated hatred of the US throughout the world and made the country mo re vulnerable to attack. |
| slate.msn.com/id/2107809 Cheney Drops the Ball The vice president declines to refute Edwards during the debate. In response to a series of at tacks from John Edwards on Cheney's tenure as CEO of Halliburton, the vi ce president said that Kerry and Edwards "know the charges are false. com, an independent We b site sponsored by the University of Pennsylvania, you can get the spec ific details with respect to Halliburton." com" into your browser, you get redirected to a page titled, "Why we must not re-elect President Bush: a personal message from George Soros." But maybe Cheney was lucky to have misspoken, because there was a larger problem with his response: It isn't true. specific details with respect to Halliburton," but t hose details have nothing to do with the charges Edwards made. The Democ ratic running mate said that Halliburton, while Cheney was CEO, "did bus iness with sworn enemies of the United States, paid millions of dollars in fines for providing false financial information, it's under investiga tion for bribing foreign officials." org rebuts is a diffe rent charge, that Cheney collected $2 million from Halliburton "as vice president." It turns out that Cheney collected a good chunk of that mone y as vice president-elect, including nearly $15 million on Jan. org, I tell her, and it says no thing about what Edwards said, about trading with the enemy, about bribi ng foreign officials, about providing false financial information. The Facts" page at the Bush-Cheney debate site d oesn't get Edwards' claims correctly either: "Edwards' Claim: The Depart ment Of Defense's Contracting Process In Iraq Is Rife With Cronyism And Secrecy," it says. I thought he said Cheney trad ed with the enemy, bribed foreign officials, and provided false financia l information. On those charges, the Bush-Cheney campaign has no answers , at least not tonight. com" was the debate writ small in many ways: E dwards would make a charge, and Cheney would have no answer for it. Three times, when offered a chance to respond to something Edwards had said, Cheney declined, leaving Edwards' critique to stand on its own. Edwards went through a long list of votes that Cheney made as a congressman: against Head Start, against banning plastic weapons that can pass through metal detectors, against Meals on Wheels, against the D epartment of Education, against Martin Luther King Day, against the rele ase of Nelson Mandela. Cheney d eclined to defend or explain a single one of his votes. On gay marriage, Edwards said the constitutional amendment proposed by the president was unnecessary, divisive, and an attempt to distract the country from impo rtant issues such as health care, jobs, and Iraq. Cheney declined to ref ute any of Edwards' points, and instead thanked him for his kind words a bout his family. On homeland security, Edwards said the administration h as failed to create a unified terrorist watch list, and it foolishly scr eens the passengers on airplanes but not their cargo. We need to be not just "strong and aggressive" but also "smart," he said. Cheney's respons e: to decline a chance to respond, which is the same as ceding the point . On one occasion, Cheney said the Kerry-Edwards tax plan w ould raise taxes on 900,000 small businesses, and he said that was a bad idea because small businesses create 7 out of 10 jobs in America. But t he two statements have nothing to do with each other. Those 900,000 smal l businessesdouble the real number that would be affected, according to CNNdon't create 70 percent of the nation's jobs. On another occasion, Cheney criticized Kerry for supporting defense cuts that Cheney supporte d as secretary of defense during the first Bush administration. Other st atements were simply false, rather than merely deceptive or misleading. For example, Cheney said he had never asserted a connection between 9/11 and Iraq. Cheney defended himself and the adm inistration capably during the opening questions about Iraq and the war on terror, and I was disappointed when Edwards failed to give an answer to Cheney's criticism that he and Kerry have no plan to deal with state sponsors of terror. And Edwards got mauled when Cheney said Edwards, by saying that 90 percent of the casualties in Iraq were American, was sayi ng that the deaths of Iraqi soldiers fighting with the US "shouldn't c ount." We're halfway through the debates, and I think that each side still has o ne big question that it hasn't answered. Kerry and Edwards haven't given an adequate explanation of how they would approach states that sponsor terrorism and harbor terrorism. If Iraq was the wrong country to focus o n, what was the right country? Or do they support a br oader Bob Graham-style war against Hamas, Hezbollah, and other terrorist organizations? If regime change isn't the right policy for dealing with state sponsors of terror, what is? Would a Kerry-Edwards administration wage a "war on terror," or just a war on al-Qaida? The question for Bush and Cheney is the same, but from the opposite side. Most important, what is their answer to a question that Edwards posed a nd Cheney ignored: "There are 60 countries who have members of al-Qaida in them. Chris Suellentrop is Slate's deputy Washington bureau chief. Explainer: How To Predict a Volcanic Eruption How To Predict a Volcanic Eruption Scientists monitoring Mount St. Helens said last week that there was a 70 percent chance th... |
| factcheck.com -> www.georgesoros.com Download Soros speech (PDF) The Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change are pleased to support t he effort that George Soros has undertaken to speak out on the failure o f George Bush's foreign policy, the crisis in Iraq and the need for a ne w direction in our country's foreign policy. I have n ever been heavily involved in partisan politics but these are not normal times. I have been demonized by the Bush campaign but I hope you will give me a hearing. President Bush ran on the platform of a humble foreign policy in 2000. If we re-elect him now, we endorse the Bush doctrine of preemptive actio n and the invasion of Iraq, and we will have to live with the consequenc es. As I shall try to show, we are facing a vicious circle of escalating violence with no end in sight. But if we repudiate the Bush policies at the polls, we shall have a better chance to regain the respect and supp ort of the world and to break the vicious circle. George Soros, the billionaire investor and philanthropist, is beginning a nationwide tour this week to talk about how the war in Iraq is making A merica less safe -- and why President Bush should not be re-elected. Thi s is the speech he delivered at the National Press Club in Washington on September 28. "America has gone off the railsTo the extent that I can contribute to im proving the world in which we live, I want to do it, and I'm in a better position than a lot of other people." View Article The 74-year-old Soros said the theme of the tour would be that Bush had g enerated hatred of the US throughout the world and made the country mo re vulnerable to attack. |