After watching the full 90 minute debate last night, I believe John Kerry was the victor. As many pundits have noted, Kerry was smooth and well spoken, while Bush was agitated and nowhere near the top of his game. To be sure, Bush had his moments, but the night belonged to Kerry for one simple reason: George Bush had several opportunities to expose the flaws in John Kerry's arguments, and he struck out.
So now it's my turn to bat.
John Kerry repeatedly hammered Bush on the fact that the Iraq war is a distraction, and as a result we're allowing trouble to brew in North Korea and Sudan. What Bush should have said:
quote:
My opponent has said for several years that Saddam Hussein must be disarmed. My opponent had access to the same intelligence to which I did, and voted in support of military action. As to whether we should be focused on North Korea or Sudan, it is clear to anyone who has followed world events for the past 20 years that Iraq presented the clearest and most imminent danger to world peace. Iraq's nuclear weapons program was not as advanced as is North Korea's, due in part to Israel's pre-emptive strike on a nuclear facility many years ago. But regardless of their progress on the nuclear front, Iraq was ruled by a dictator intent on waging war in the middle east. This dictator attacked 3 separate nations over the past 20 years. This dictator deployed chemical weapons. This dictator would clearly do whatever he could to harm Israel and the United States. North Korea, on the other hand, has done no such thing. Certainly the intent of my administration is to help in the containment of North Korea's nuclear weapons program, but if I had to choose between containing North Korea or Iraq under Saddam Hussein, I'd make the same choice once again. With his statements, my opponent is showcasing the type of judgement that makes him unfit for command. He does not understand the nature and severity of global threats, and he does not understand that it is impossible to simultaneously negate every world threat. We must address the most severe threats first, and that is what we've done in Iraq.
(confident head nod to moderator)
John Kerry said this administration let Osama Bin Laden escape in the mountains of Tora Bora. Kerry said Bin Laden is still in Afghanistan. What Bush should have said:
quote:
What my opponent fails to realize is that the commander in chief does not dictate battlefield tactics. I am as disappointed as anybody that we have not yet brought Bin Laden to justice, but to suggest that his escape was a result of a poor strategy is a mistake. More importantly, it is not clear that Bin Laden is in Afghanistan. It is suspected that he is actually in the tribal regions of Pakistan, which leads me to a very important point. Before September 11th, Pakistan was not necessarily our ally. In fact, Pakistan helped bring the Taliban to power, and was a supporter of the Taliban. But through the diplomatic efforts of my administration in this war on terror, we are now receiving unprecedented cooperation from Pakistan. They are with us in our search for Bin Laden. They were instrumental in capturing Khalid Sheikh Muhammed. And in the face of great public opposition at home, President Musharraf remains committed to our alliance and committed to dismantling Al Qaeda. My opponent campaigns on the premise that we have no allies. My opponent says we are going it alone. My opponent says we have alienated the entire Muslim world. I'll ask my opponent to tell that to President Musharraf next time he visits our great nation.
(confident nod to moderator)
John Kerry said we have spent $200 billion in the war against Iraq. What Bush should have said:
quote:
Actually, $80 billion of that is allocated to the war in Afghanistan. I'm just thankful that my opponent's vote against so many of our key weapons systems were not deciding votes. Had other senators voted so consistently against defense initiatives, our military would not have had the tools they needed to perform so admirably on both fronts.
(confident nod to moderator).
So there you have it; Three John Kerry hanging curveballs, and three missed opportunities by George Bush to knock the ball out of the park (and perhaps out of the race).
When Kerry accused Bush of diverting troops and funds to Iraq from Afganastan, Bush should hav told us that this was an out and out lie. He didn't but, General Franks did in an interview after the debate. Franks was pretty upset about Kerry lying to the American public during this debate.
Point being, if you are a liberal, it doesn't matter if your candidate lies, just as long as you believe in him.
Can you believe this guy? Nope.
"Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those who say this are witless." ~Ayatollah Khomeini
missed opportunities. and yet you bush supporters will never bring yourselves to acknowledge that he has missed opportunities in the war against terror as well? is it any wonder that the majority of world nations don't like and don't trust bush? his performance in the debate illustrates precisely why he doesn't have the right stuff to be president in these crucial times. kerry does.
Jim, I had hoped this thread would stay on topic of the debate, as opposed to the Bush presidency.
I think that by developing an alliance with Pakistan, and by diplomatically disarming Libya, we have made HUGE strides in our war on terror. Claims that the Bush administration has missed many opportunities are pure conjecture.
USA1, you're corect - I saw that Tommy Franks interview as well. You could tell he was not happy with the way Kerry tried to characterize the allocation of our resources. He was clear that the troops in the Afghan theatre had everything they needed to be successful.
Musharraf also denied that the United States has been increasing pressure on Pakistan during the past few months to capture or kill bin Laden.
"There is absolutely no pressure," Musharraf said, noting "It's a joint responsibility of the whole coalition, and also Pakistan, to eliminate terrorism from Pakistan."
Musharraf was less enthusiastic in his support for the U.S. war in Iraq, saying the world is less safe in the wake of the invasion.
"I would say that it has ended up bringing more trouble to the world."
Musharraf also said that because of the situation in Iraq, he does not foresee Pakistan sending troops to help with the effort.
Bush stunk up the room last night because it was unavoidable. Your suggested "missed opportunities" are not supported by the facts. Neither is Bush. The debate looked like an adult taking the car keys from an impetuous adolescent who has driven into a ditch.
Here in America we are descended in blood and in spirit from revolutionists and rebels - men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine. As their heirs, may we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion.
Dwight D. Eisenhower
To call a Kerry lie means to miss the Bush lie about Libya, which was an ongoing negotiotiation since 2000. This disarmament started with Libya taking responsiblity for the bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland. His announcement to get rid of his weapons program had nothing to do with the Iraqi invasion and Republicans keep talking about as if it has; it was an effort start late in the Clinton years but negotiaitions went full steam in the beginning of the Bush administration. They just try to lump that in with their war in Iraq and "War on Terror."
As to your comments about what Bush should have said, they are far too open to get hammered. You talk about Iraq attacking three nations, but the U.S. supported him in one of those attacks (i.e. Iran). You also conveniently leave out the efforts of precision strikes by Clinton and his maintenance of the No-Fly Zone (as said by Kerry) as boxing in Saddam Hussein. Containment of Iraq did not just involve the U.S. but was also a join effort with allies like Israel and Great Britain. But then you also have to ask, who is more dangerous? A leader with nuclear weapons that is testing them, or a leader that has no evidence of a weapons program; even if you "had the capabilitieis to think about maybe having some weapons" , that still is not as dangerous as a country that knowingly has weapons. Nuclear weapons are a danger to us all and you should focus on the most immediate threat, those that have them. And again, Kerry gave Bush the authority, which didn't mean Bush had to go to war the way he did.
The comment on Pakistan, all you would have to bring up is the U.S. helped keep the Taliban in power too since the 1980's so to say that Pakistan did it, as if that meant anything, makes no sense. The U.S. has dirty hands all over the world so to say that its current enemy was propped up or helped by another country would open you up to attack on U.S. hypocrisy. And unless Bush felt like saying Reagan and his father were wrong in the 1980's I think he was smart to keep his mouth shut. In addition, what happened a few months back that Pakistan had all those fighters cornered and they just got away? The same thing happened in Tora Bora, people surrounded, and then they just got away. No, the president doesn't make all the battle strategies but he certainly has a huge influence, so you can't act as if it is okay of the president doesn't take an active role, and perhaps the president's lack of battefield experience is showing his incompetence in carrying out this war.
As for saying that Kerry didn't vote for defense bills, they really couldn't have gone after him on the body armor bill since he sponsored a bill saying the government must reimburse soldier's families for body armor. Voting no on Star Wars wouldn't help the military then and it is not helping now. We could go down the list and explain the reason why trying to talk about weapons systems won't do anything. Because for every weapon system, most votes based on their nuclear capacity, you have other votes that don't just come from 1992-1993.
You say he should have said all those things, but then he would have been hammered even worse.
I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody.
- Bill Cosby
The guy who takes a chance, who walks the line between the known and unknown, who is unafraid of failure, will succeed.
- Gordon Parks
EthicalAtheist said this in post #6 :
Bush stunk up the room last night because it was unavoidable. Your suggested "missed opportunities" are not supported by the facts. Neither is Bush. The debate looked like an adult taking the car keys from an impetuous adolescent who has driven into a ditch.
Bush got owned like a cheap slave.
I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody.
- Bill Cosby
The guy who takes a chance, who walks the line between the known and unknown, who is unafraid of failure, will succeed.
- Gordon Parks
EthicalAthiest, why don't you read your own material before you draw erroneous conclusions?
Musharraf said that we are not increasing pressure to find Bin Laden. How does that mean we do not have an alliance? Musharraf's response indicated that our current tactics are not politically driven by the Bush administration in this election season. It does not mean we are diminishing our focus on finding Bin Laden.
More iimportantly, Pakistan has been very aggressive in the war on terror. Musharraf has helped track down countless Al Qaeda terrorists despite criticisms at home and his supposed displeasure with Iraq.
So stay with me here: Pakistan remains with us in this fight. Pakistan continues to participate in the dismantling of Al Qaeda. Despite political challenges at home, the leader of Pakistan stands strong in his commitments to the United States. Yet EthicalAthiest does not recognize this an alliance?
Perhaps your understanding of alliance was developed at the French School of Military and Political Alliances?
This is really funny how we all watched the same debate but saw different outcomes at the same time.
I guess it is all perception on what you believe or want to believe to be true.
If you know the facts behind the questions it was evident who won this debate. If you base it on who you think spoke more eloquently you have a different opinion.
The facts are all there for us. All you have to do is do the reasearch and listen caefully.
From what I saw and based on facts only, Kerry was still lying and it cannot and should not be ignored. If he will stand infront of the American public and thw world and still lie. How can we really expect him to tell the truth should he be elected? Will he tell us anyting to fulfill his life long dream of becoming President? The answer is yes he will.
"Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those who say this are witless." ~Ayatollah Khomeini
His announcement to get rid of his weapons program had nothing to do with the Iraqi invasion and Republicans keep talking about as if it has; it was an effort start late in the Clinton years but negotiaitions went full steam in the beginning of the Bush administration.
Another poster who doesn't even read his own writing. Not only did the Bush administration ratchet up the negotiations, but Bush policies made it clear to everybody that state sponsored terrorism will not be tolerated.
More good stuff:
quote:
But then you also have to ask, who is more dangerous? A leader with nuclear weapons that is testing them, or a leader that has no evidence of a weapons program; even if you "had the capabilitieis to think about maybe having some weapons" , that still is not as dangerous as a country that knowingly has weapons.
I know the whole world is trembling right now because India has nukes! Give me a break.
We have to analyze a whole host of factors when determining which nations present the biggest threat. We know for a fact that Saddam wanted nuclear weapons. We know for a fact that he had a history of aggression. But we could never know precisely when/how he'd get nuclear weapons. Don't you understand that once he had nuclear weapons, it would be too late to disarm him w/ conventional warfare?
I don't care what anyone says, the military is being politically motivated. After Allawi's visit, they went to take a city controlled by insurgents. Today, after the debate, they again went to take a city buy insurgents. If you think that these military incursions are not politically motivated, that is a definite pipe dream.
I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody.
- Bill Cosby
The guy who takes a chance, who walks the line between the known and unknown, who is unafraid of failure, will succeed.
- Gordon Parks
usanow said this in post #11 :
Another poster who doesn't even read his own writing. Not only did the Bush administration ratchet up the negotiations, but Bush policies made it clear to everybody that state sponsored terrorism will not be tolerated.
The point here is that this was before 9/11/01, so you missed my point. You talk about terror this, terror that, but that rhetoric began after 9/11/01 and after the full steam negotiations with the Bush administration. Talk about pulling quotes out of context...
quote:
usanow said this in post #11 :
I know the whole world is trembling right now because India has nukes! Give me a break.
We have to analyze a whole host of factors when determining which nations present the biggest threat. We know for a fact that Saddam wanted nuclear weapons. We know for a fact that he had a history of aggression. But we could never know precisely when/how he'd get nuclear weapons. Don't you understand that once he had nuclear weapons, it would be too late to disarm him w/ conventional warfare?
The fact that you bring up India, shows that you're avoiding the threat assessment. We all know North Korea was a bigger threat, so why even bring up India? In addition, we could talk about the India-Pakistan conflict, which was getting worse but the 9/11/01 attacks changed that, not really looking good for the president on nuclear proliferation.
Again, you say Saddam Hussein wanted nuclear weapons, but he didn't have any, that doesn't mean invade the country. Or actually maybe it does, invade the countries you know have nothing because you know they can't stand up to you.
I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody.
- Bill Cosby
The guy who takes a chance, who walks the line between the known and unknown, who is unafraid of failure, will succeed.
- Gordon Parks
Nowhere did I say there is no alliance. I am simply pointing out that it is not a particularly strong one. Musharraf is, to use Republican rhetoric, a flip-flopper. Stop twisting words. Musharraf is quoted as being displeased with Iraq. There is no supposed displeasure. Also, he said he won't provide any troops. Wow, that's some alliance.
Here in America we are descended in blood and in spirit from revolutionists and rebels - men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine. As their heirs, may we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion.
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Nowhere did I say there is no alliance. I am simply pointing out that it is not a particularly strong one. Musharraf is, to use Republican rhetoric, a flip-flopper. Stop twisting words. Musharraf is quoted as being displeased with Iraq. There is no supposed displeasure. Also, he said he won't provide any troops. Wow, that's some alliance.
See the problem is they put moral support at the same level as physical support with troops. That's how you get the numbers to add up to 30-40 nations (What number is it now? ).
I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody.
- Bill Cosby
The guy who takes a chance, who walks the line between the known and unknown, who is unafraid of failure, will succeed.
- Gordon Parks
10-01-2004 03:31 PM
, that still is not as dangerous as a country that knowingly has weapons. Nuclear weapons are a danger to us all and you should focus on the most immediate threat, those that have them. And again, Kerry gave Bush the authority, which didn't mean Bush had to go to war the way he did.
