Anatomy of a Lie

Re: Anatomy of a Lie

Absolutely. But surely you understand: It is easier and less costly to change the way people think about reality than to change reality. (I've read that somewhere)

:-D

or

or both...

Actually, there's a language subtlety I'm not getting about the middle part:


What exactly does the "up" in "up in the Senate" imply? Does it have to mean "up on the acting president's bench", or could it be consistent with him being in the Senate without presiding? As in: "The White House is down there on Pennsylvania Avenue, the Senate is up there on Capitol Hill. I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays ..." My language instinct is a bit foggy on this one.

Quote, "It is easier and less costly to change the way people think about reality than to change reality." That just doesn't seem to apply to Iraq. <smile>

Yeah. I think the clear implication is, I'm the guy who presides over the senate most of the time. And I've never met this guy Edwards before. Which means his attendance is lousy.

Implication aside, i can't figure out if there is a letter-of-the-law reading that is less egregiously false. (I won't go so far as to say true...)

I wasn't going to make you

Bookmark - very interesting thread, Soz.

Thanks Sozobe for all your hard work..it is much appreciated.

The lies are having their effect, but it probably isn't what the GOP was hoping for:

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-battleground04-an1006.html?mod=home_interactive_features

This is pretty significant, but we shouldn't get cocky. We can only be unrelenting in revealing the true character of this administration. Let's hope they cleaned the floor at the second debate before Kerry wipes it again with Bush.

Speaking of lies:

htt://www.factcheck.org

John Edwards attendance in the Senate, courtesy of Democraticunderground.com:

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/a_three_sections_with_teasers/votes.htm

1999 Cast 371 out of 374 votes for a 99.2% voting record
2000 Cast 298 out of 298 votes for a 100% voting record
2001 Cast 377 out of 380 votes for a 99.2% voting record
2002 Cast 253 out of 253 votes for a 100% voting record
2003 Cast 281 out of 459 votes for a 61.2% voting record
2004 Cast 84 out of 198 votes for a 42.4% voting record

OVERALL Edwards has cast 1664 out of 1962 votes for a 84.8% voting record.

Now, let's look at Cheney's attendance record while President of the Senate:

Via Dave the pro. Last night in he debate, Dick Cheney said the following:

Now, in my capacity as vice president, I am the president of Senate, the presiding officer. I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in session. The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight.

Cheney's lie about never meeting Edwards has been exposed repeatedly and by many sources. However, the first part is actually a much bigger lie. As Senate attendance records show, in the 126 Tuesdays the Senate has been in session during Cheney's tenure as Vice-President, he has actually only presided over the Senate as President on two occasions. During the same stretch, to fill in for Cheney's repeated absence, Edwards has served as acting President of the Senate on two occasions.

The complete list in in the extended copy. The source for this information is Congressional Record.

2001
1/30 Enzi
2/6 Chafee
2/13 Chafee
2/27 Allen
3/6 Burns
3/13 Reid
3/20 DeWine
3/27 Chafee
4/3 Smith
4/24 Chafee
5/1 Chafee
5/8 Chafee
5/15 Frist
5/22 Chafee
5/29 Enzi
6/5 Byrd
6/19 Carper
6/26 Bayh
7/10 Nelson
7/17 Clinton
7/24 Byrd
7/31 Stabenaw
9/25 Wellstone
10/2 Clinton
10/9 Clinton
10/16 Edwards
10/23 Byrd
10/30 Bingaman
11/13 Murray
11/27 Jeffords
12/4 Stabenaw
12/11 Carnahan
12/18 Nelson

2002
1/29 Nelson
2/5 Kohl
2/12 Stabenow
2/26 Landrieu
3/5 Edwards
3/12 Landrieu
3/19 Miller
4/9 Cleland
4/16 Reed
4/23 Wellstone
4/30 Nelson
5/7 Miller
5/14 Cleland
5/21 Nelson
6/4 Durbin
6/11 Corzine
6/18 Dayton
6/25 Landrieu
7/9 Reed
7/16 Corzine
7/23 Reed
7/30 Clinton
9/3 Reed
9/10 Corzine
9/17 Reid
9/24 Stabenow
10/1 Miller
10/8 Miller
10/15 Reid
11/12 Cheney
11/19 Barkley (MN)

2003
1/7 Cheney
1/14 Stevens
1/22 Stevens
1/28 Stevens
2/4 Stevens
2/11 Stevens
2/25 Stevens
3/4 Stevens
3/11 Stevens
3/18 Stevens
3/25 Stevens
4/1 Stevens
4/8 Stevens
4/29 Stevens
5/6 Talent
5/13 Ensign
5/20 Alexander
6/3 Stevens
6/10 Stevens
6/18 Murkowski
6/24 Coleman
7/8 Stevens
7/15 Stevens
7/22 Chaffee
7/29 Stevens
9/2 Stevens
9/9 Stevens
9/16 Stevens
9/23 Stevens
9/30 Sununu
10/21 Stevens
10/28 Stevens
11/4 Stevens
11/11 Warner
11/18 Stevens
12/9 Stevens

2004
1/20 Stevens
1/27 Enzi
2/3 Stevens
2/10 Stevens
3/2 Stevens
3/9 Hagel
3/16 Sununu
3/23 Stevens
3/30 Ensign
4/6 Cornyn
4/20 Stevens
4/27 Chambliss
5/4 Stevens
5/11 Stevens
5/18 Stevens
6/1 Stevens
6/8 Hutchinson
6/15 Stevens
6/22 Allard
7/6 Burns
7/13 Stevens
7/20 Enzi
9/7 Stevens
9/14 Chafee
9/21 Enzi
9/28 Stevens
10/05 Stevens

So there you have it. Another exposed lie. When are the American people gonna finally have enough of this nonsense?

Thanks for getting more info, Dookiestix, appreciated.

Does anyone have a link to the original congressional record? I guess it's not nicely laid out like that, you have to wade through it? (Just trying to be nonpartisan in my cynicism/ critical eye.)

As things stand though, I certainly believe it.

Question -- was Cheney supposed to be there every time? I mean, is he the one who has an absolutely abysmal attendance record? (2 out of 126 times, that's less than 2% attendance, or more than 98% hooky-playing.) As in, was he supposed to be the presiding officer every single time, and therefore if he wasn't, it was because he was absent? Or is it standard for the official presiding officer to share duties?

Obviously, Cheney told a whopper here, but I'm trying to figure out if it's another one of those best defense is a good offense things where he not only said something false and smeary but in doing so tried to take attention off of his own considerable shortcomings...

Executive Business meetings in the Vice President's Room. Doesn't say anything about the VP attendance as far as I've noted. http://judiciary.senate.gov/oldsite/ex322000.htm

Interesting thread, soz. I was listening to Democracy Now, hosted by Amy Goodman, the other day and a guest of hers spent a good deal of time on this very subject.

I'll see if I can dig up the transcript.

Soz, I couldn't find the transcript, but I believe I found the show. I think it was John Nichols who ripped apart Cheney's absurd statement, but the interview was not printed in its entirety. But it's still worth reading...

Democracy Now

In the meantime, I'll continue looking for the segment I mentioned.

Thanks, Gus! I've got tetchy phone line problems and it's taking forever to download, (which usually means I'm about to get cut off), but sounds interesting.

very interesting script Gus...thanks

You're very welcome, soz, and panzade.

sozobe writes:



IMO, this administration has been consistently taking America's attention off of their considerable shortcomings. My hope and dream is that the Democrats are finally playing hardball in a way that the Republicans weren't ready for, and they're are calling this administration on so many lies now, that it is bound to leave a strong impression on the electorate that these guys just cannot be trusted.

gus, Thanks for the link. Reveals alot about Cheney. He's beyond evil.