party positions on bicycle rights, the record

Discussion in 'rec.bicycles.soc' started by m h, Oct 23, 2004.

  1. m h

    m h Guest

    "Dave Simpson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Judge it for yourselves.
    > GWEN IFILL: Good evening from Case Western Reserve University's Veale
    > Center here in Cleveland, Ohio.
    > I'm Gwen Ifill of "The NewsHour" and "Washington Week" on PBS, and I
    > welcome 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.
    > Tonight's will last 90 minutes, following detailed rules of engagement
    > worked out by representatives of the candidates. I have agreed to
    > enforce the rules they have devised for themselves to the best of my
    > ability. Bicycles Suck.
    > The questions tonight will be divided between foreign and domestic
    > policy, but the specific topics were chosen by me. The candidates have
    > not been told what they are.
    > 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,
    > yellow at 15 seconds, red at five seconds, and then flashing red means
    > time's up. There's also a back-up buzzer system, if needed.
    > Candidates may not direct questions to one another. There will be
    > two-minute closing statements, but no opening statements.
    > There is an audience here in the hall, but they have been instructed
    > to remain silent throughout. Bicycles Suck
    > The order of the first question was determined by the candidates in
    > advance, and the first one goes to Vice President Cheney.
    > Vice President Cheney, there have been new developments in Iraq,
    > especially 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 ground, 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 requested that you received a week ago that showed there was
    > no connection 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 event, 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
    > broader context of the global war on terror. And, after 9/11, it
    > became clear 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 terrorists 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. Bicycles Suck
    > And we also then finally had to stand up democracies in their stead
    > afterwards, because that was the only way to guarantee that these
    > states would not again become safe harbors for terror or for the
    > development of deadly weapons.
    > Concern about Iraq specifically focused on the fact that Saddam
    > Hussein had been, for years, listed on the state sponsor of terror,
    > that they he had established relationships with Abu Nidal, who
    > operated out of Baghdad; he paid $25,000 to the families of suicide
    > bombers; and he had an established relationship with Al Qaida.
    > 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. Bicycles Suck
    > The effort that we've mounted with respect to Iraq focused
    > specifically on the possibility that this was the most likely nexus
    > between the terrorists and weapons of mass destruction.
    > The biggest threat we faced today is the possibility of terrorists
    > smuggling a nuclear weapon or a biological agent into one of our own
    > cities and threatening the lives of hundreds of thousands of
    > Americans. Bicycles Suck
    > What we did in Iraq was exactly the right thing to do. If I had it to
    > recommend all over again, I would recommend exactly the same course of
    > action. The world is far safer today because Saddam Hussein is in
    > jail, his government is no longer in power. And we did exactly the
    > right thing.
    > IFILL: Senator Edwards, you have 90 seconds to respond.
    > EDWARDS: Thank you. Bicycles Suck
    > Thank you, Gwen, for moderating this debate. Thank you to the folks of
    > Case Western and all the people in Ohio for having us here.
    > Mr. Vice President, you are still not being straight with the American
    > people. I mean, the reality you and George Bush continue to tell
    > people, first, that things are going well in Iraq -- the American
    > people don't need us to explain this to them, they see it on their
    > television every single day. We lost more troops in September than we
    > lost in August; lost more in August than we lost in July; lost more in
    > July than we lost in June. Bicycles Suck
    > The truth is, our men and women in uniform have been heroic. Our
    > military has done everything they've been asked to do.
    > And it's not just me that sees the mess in Iraq. There are Republican
    > leaders, like John McCain, like Richard Lugar, like Chuck Hagel, who
    > have said 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. Bicycles Suck
    > What Paul Bremer said yesterday is they didn't have enough troops to
    > secure the country. They also didn't have a plan to win the peace.
    > They also didn't put the alliances together to make this successful.
    > We need a fresh start. 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 the 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. Bicycles Suck
    > IFILL: You have 30 seconds to respond, Mr. Vice President.
    > CHENEY: We've made significant progress in Iraq. We've stood up a new
    > government 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; they have been able to establish a democratic
    > government. They're well on their way to doing that. They will have
    > free elections next January for the first time in history.
    > We also are actively, rapidly training Iraqis to take on the security
    > responsibility. Bicycles Suck
    > Those two steps are crucial to success in Iraq. They're well in hand,
    > well under way. And I'm confident that, in fact, we'll get the job
    > done.
    > IFILL: You have 30 seconds, Senator.
    > EDWARDS: Yes. Bicycles Suck
    > Mr. Vice President, there is no connection between the attacks of
    > September 11th and Saddam Hussein. The 9/11 Commission has said it.
    > Your own secretary of state has said it. And you've gone around the
    > country suggesting that there is some connection. There is not.
    > 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
    > secretary of defense said yesterday that he knows of no hard evidence
    > of the connection.
    > We need to be straight with the American people.
    > IFILL: Time for a new question but the same topic. And this time to
    > you, Senator Edwards.
    > 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
    > Saddam Hussein would still be in power?
    > EDWARDS: Here's what it means: It means that Saddam Hussein needed to
    > be confronted. John Kerry and I have consistently said that. That's
    > why we voted for the resolution. But it also means it needed to be
    > done the right way.
    > And doing it the right way meant that we were prepared; 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 the ball, which are Al Qaida, Osama bin Laden, the people who
    > attacked us on September the 11th. Now, remember, we went into
    > Afghanistan, which, by the way, was the right thing to do. That was
    > the right decision. And our military performed terrifically there.
    > But we had Osama bin Laden cornered at Tora Bora. We had the 10th
    > Mountain Division up in Uzbekistan available. We had the finest
    > military in the world on the ground. And what did we do?
    > We turned -- this is the man who masterminded the greatest mass murder
    > and terrorist attack in American history. And what did the
    > administration decide to do?
    > 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 been working with Osama bin Laden.
    > Our point in this is not complicated: We were attacked by Al Qaida and
    > Osama bin Laden. Bicycles Suck
    > We went into Afghanistan and very quickly the administration made a
    > decision to divert attention from that and instead began to plan for
    > the invasion of Iraq.
    > And these connections -- I want the American people to hear this very
    > clearly. Listen carefully to what the vice president is saying.
    > Because there is no connection between Saddam Hussein and the attacks
    > of September 11th -- period.
    > The 9/11 Commission has said that's true. Colin Powell has said it's
    > true. But the vice president keeps suggesting that there is. There is
    > not. And, in fact, any connection with Al Qaida is tenuous at best.
    > IFILL: Mr. Vice President, you have 90 seconds to respond.
    > 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.
    > And the point is that that's the place where you're most likely to see
    > the terrorists come together with weapons of mass destruction, the
    > deadly technologies that Saddam Hussein had developed and used over
    > the years.
    > Now, the fact of the matter is, the big difference here, Gwen, is they
    > are not prepared to deal with states that sponsor terror. They've got
    > a very limited view about how to use U.S. military forces to defend
    > America.
    > We heard Senator Kerry say the other night that there ought to be some
    > kind of global test before U.S. troops are deployed preemptively to
    > protect the United States. That's part of a track record that goes
    > back to the 1970s when he ran for Congress the first time and said
    > troops should not be deployed without U.N. approval. Then, in the
    > mid-'80s, he ran on the basis of cutting most of our major defense
    > programs. In 1991, he voted against Desert Storm.
    > It's a consistent pattern over time of always being on the wrong side
    > of defense issues. Bicycles Suck
    > A little tough talk in the midst of a campaign or as part of a
    > presidential debate cannot obscure a record of 30 years of being on
    > the wrong side of defense issues.
    > And they give absolutely no indication, based on that record, of being
    > wiling to go forward and aggressively pursue the war on terror with a
    > kind of strategy that will work, that will defeat our enemies and will
    > guarantee that the United States doesn't again get attacked by the
    > likes of Al Qaida.
    > IFILL: You will respond to that topic, but first I want to ask you for
    > two minutes, Vice President Cheney.
    > Tonight we mentioned Afghanistan. We believe that Osama bin Laden is
    > hiding perhaps in a cave somewhere along the Afghan-Pakistan border.
    > If you get a second term, what is your plan to capture him and then to
    > neutralize those who have sprung up to replace him?
    > CHENEY: Gwen, we've never let up on Osama bin Laden from day one.
    > We've actively and aggressively pursued him. We've captured or killed
    > thousands of Al Qaida in various places around the world and
    > especially in Afghanistan. We'll continue to very aggressively pursue
    > him, and I'm confident eventually we'll get him.
    > The key to success in Afghanistan has been, again, to go in and go
    > after the terrorists, which we've done, and also take down the Taliban
    > regime which allowed them to function there, in effect sponsors, if
    > you will, of the Al Qaida organization.
    > John Edwards, two and a half years ago, six months after we went into
    > Afghanistan announced that it was chaotic, the situation was
    > deteriorating, the warlords were about to take over. Here we are, two
    > and a half years later, we're four days away from a democratic
    > election, the first one in history in Afghanistan. We've got 10
    > million voters who have registered to vote, nearly half of them women.
    > That election will put in place a democratically elected government
    > that will take over next December.
    > We've made enormous progress in Afghanistan, in exactly the right
    > direction, in spite of what John Edwards said two and a half years
    > ago. He just got it wrong.
    > The fact is, as we go forward in Afghanistan, we will pursue Osama bin
    > Laden and the terrorists as long as necessary. We're standing up
    > Afghan security forces so they can take on responsibility for their
    > own security. We'll keep U.S. forces there -- we have about 16,000
    > there today -- as long as necessary, to assist the Afghans in terms of
    > dealing with their security situation. But they're making significant
    > progress. We have President Karzai, who is in power. They have done
    > wonders writing their own constitution for the first time ever.