Kerry just handed Bush his behind...

[loki09789]

"pounding" ?

1. The wording Kerry used was indeed, unfortunate. No doubt we will hear it in the commercials. But I do not think that one use of the words 'global test' could constitute a 'pounding'.

2. "Hard Work". How many times did the President use that phrase? "Mixed Messages".

3. Senator Kerry did talk about building alliances. Recall that you state you are 'for' foriegn cooperation. Of course that brings us back to the 'Respected in the World' language from the DNC.

4. Personally, I was disappointed that Kerry answered that 'Pre-Emptive' war was something he would not give away. Prevention is, to me acceptable. Pre-Emption is not.

Mike

1. I was using that quote/example as a description of how Kerry kept emphasizing (ie Pounding) the issue of international approval/cooperation. So much so that he could be percieved as one who would sacrifice decisiveness for international popularity.

2. Yeah, "Hard Work" got real old fast.

3. I don't know if the 'international impression' damage is nearly as bad as it has been portrayed by him AND he won't win over the international community when he can't even pick up and remember to acknowledge Poland (after Bush mentioned it twice) or after he could be percieved as trivializing the sacrifices of far smaller nations that are contributing 'in the hundreds' of troops when that contribution could, proportionate to their population could very well be a big deal. Not to mention the fact that "every life is precious" but the international community could see his comment of 'in the hundreds' as a derisive comment - whether 100 or 1,000 some nation committed troops into harms way - that deserves respect - and the international viewers might not feel too loved by Kerry with comments like that.

4. What President or Presidential hopeful is ever going to approve of a reduction in the powers of the Presidential office. Individually, we have the 'right' to pre-emptive strike under most Use of Force penal codes. You have to 'reasonably percieve' a threat but you don't have to wait for the first strike - same with national use of force. I don't think that it would be fair if the law (or presidential powers) were set up that no matter how clear the threat was popping the guy before you got popped was automatically wrong.

 

[michaeledward]

1. I was using that quote/example as a description of how Kerry kept emphasizing (ie Pounding) the issue of international approval/cooperation. So much so that he could be percieved as one who would sacrifice decisiveness for international popularity.

2. Yeah, "Hard Work" got real old fast.

3. I don't know if the 'international impression' damage is nearly as bad as it has been portrayed by him AND he won't win over the international community when he can't even pick up and remember to acknowledge Poland (after Bush mentioned it twice) or after he could be percieved as trivializing the sacrifices of far smaller nations that are contributing 'in the hundreds' of troops when that contribution could, proportionate to their population could very well be a big deal. Not to mention the fact that "every life is precious" but the international community could see his comment of 'in the hundreds' as a derisive comment - whether 100 or 1,000 some nation committed troops into harms way - that deserves respect - and the international viewers might not feel too loved by Kerry with comments like that.

4. What President or Presidential hopeful is ever going to approve of a reduction in the powers of the Presidential office. Individually, we have the 'right' to pre-emptive strike under most Use of Force penal codes. You have to 'reasonably percieve' a threat but you don't have to wait for the first strike - same with national use of force. I don't think that it would be fair if the law (or presidential powers) were set up that no matter how clear the threat was popping the guy before you got popped was automatically wrong.

1. In order to accept the 'perception' of one who would deny security in favor of popularity, you need to look at his 'emphasis' and his 'language'. To indicate a 'pounding' on the topic, you need to disregard his statements that he would never turn over the United States Security to anyone. You can't just throw out the words he actually spoke concerning security.

3. Concerning Poland's participation. Poland first announced it would participate in March of 2003. There initial commitment was for 54 soldiers from GROM, a commando unit, a logistic ship with a crew of 50, and 74 anti-chemical contamination troops. I have seen one report that indicated that these troops were not in place by the March 20, 2003 invasion date. I have also seen reports that the GROM did encounter Iraqi troops.

As I recall Senator Kerry's statement, the one which the President said 'he forgot about Poland', Kerry was specifically talking about 'When the Invasion Started'. In this context (if my memory is correct, I haven't yet check the transcript), it may be that Kerry was correct to not include Poland.

Lastly, let's not forget that Poland specifically asked President Bush that their participation not be used for "propaganda purposes". (George Bush had a speech on March 26, 2003 that highlighted Poland's participation). Perhaps this is the reason that Senator Kerry did not mention Poland's participation.

4. I am not arguing against the use of force when the country can 'reasonably percieve' a threat. The Bush Doctrine of Pre-Emption states that the United States had the right to attack before a threat can materialize.

 

[DavidCC]

http://www.lp.org/press/archive.php?function=view&record=676

"Though Kerry pointed out that Bush made "a colossal error of judgment" in invading Iraq, he pledged to continue the error if elected and said "we don't have enough troops there."

Libertarians say America is in deep trouble when its two main presidential contenders can spend 90 minutes arguing over the best way to perpetuate a failed government policy. "

"The purpose of having a strong military isn't to get us into wars, it's to keep us out of wars," Seehusen said. "Adopting a foreign policy of neutrality and non-intervention and using the military only for defensive purposes is the best way to protect our nation.

"If there's one positive development from last night's debate, it's that Bush and Kerry gave the American people a long list of things the next president should NOT do: wars not to fight, lies not to tell, lives not to sacrifice, and money not to spend. Perhaps we should at least thank them for that."

 

[Xequat]

Xequat ... I would just like to point out that Both Senator Kerry and President Bush are big-leaguers on 'the home team'. I think the analogy is a poor choice, and displays bias ... which you're entitled too. Bias, and its elimination is one of the reasons debates are held.

*Gore sigh* Thank you for the enlightenment.

Anyway, I'd like to add to what I said earlier. I think Kerry won on style, hands down. I got so tired of hearing "hard work" and mixed messages. Bush missed opportunities, especially the two times that Kerry said something along the lines of "I'll answer that question directly, but first..." and then spent his entire time responding to the previous thing that Bush had said on a different question, totally ignoring the question that he had just been asked. I don't have the transcript, but maybe someone can see it in there. What I'd like to see is during the next debate, they both come out and expose the lies and deceptoins that they threw at each other during this one (yes, they both did it).

I would certainly give the win to Kerry on style and presentation. He gave me a little better idea of what he stands for. But, I don't think it was anything that will sway many, if any people's votes. It wasn't the knockout punch you need to defeat the defending champion. (Is that analogy any better?)

 

[PeachMonkey]

Lastly, let's not forget that Poland specifically asked President Bush that their participation not be used for "propaganda purposes". (George Bush had a speech on March 26, 2003 that highlighted Poland's participation). Perhaps this is the reason that Senator Kerry did not mention Poland's participation.

It might also be that the Polish Prime Minister has stated that Poland was "misled" on Iraq having Weapons of Mass Destruction:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/17/iraq/main617857.shtml

Further discussion of Poland would have only served to hurt Bush, if the actual facts were to be taken into account.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

I did not get to see the entire debate, so I will try to find transcripts/video online.

I think Kerry did a good job. I was befuddled by Bush's smirking, slouching, and staring out at the audience as if totally distracted when Kerry was talking. I wish Kerry had addressed the "flip-flop" label even more directly - and mentioned that the bill he voted for was changed when then he later voted against it.

The silence from Bush at times was eerie. It seemed like it took him a while to figure out what to say, and he seemed to completely miss the point of a few of Jim's questions.

I hope Kerry emphasizes that coalition building and international treaties are not "letting other nations control us", but about being smart in terms of terrorism and national/international security. If you piss off lots of other countries, who's going to watch your back?

 

[loki09789]

1. In order to accept the 'perception' of one who would deny security in favor of popularity, you need to look at his 'emphasis' and his 'language'. To indicate a 'pounding' on the topic, you need to disregard his statements that he would never turn over the United States Security to anyone. You can't just throw out the words he actually spoke concerning security.

3. Concerning Poland's participation. Poland first announced it would participate in March of 2003. There initial commitment was for 54 soldiers from GROM, a commando unit, a logistic ship with a crew of 50, and 74 anti-chemical contamination troops. I have seen one report that indicated that these troops were not in place by the March 20, 2003 invasion date. I have also seen reports that the GROM did encounter Iraqi troops.

As I recall Senator Kerry's statement, the one which the President said 'he forgot about Poland', Kerry was specifically talking about 'When the Invasion Started'. In this context (if my memory is correct, I haven't yet check the transcript), it may be that Kerry was correct to not include Poland.

Lastly, let's not forget that Poland specifically asked President Bush that their participation not be used for "propaganda purposes". (George Bush had a speech on March 26, 2003 that highlighted Poland's participation). Perhaps this is the reason that Senator Kerry did not mention Poland's participation.

4. I am not arguing against the use of force when the country can 'reasonably percieve' a threat. The Bush Doctrine of Pre-Emption states that the United States had the right to attack before a threat can materialize.

Dude, I am not in the debate with you about the debate (this looks like the reaction guys use to have after coming out of a ROCKY movie and can't separate vicarious from reality). I think I know what he was emphasizing and what he meant about cooperation and weighing decisions vs. rashness....I was posting my observations in a casual tone about the possible perceptions other than what I saw (like from foriegn viewers or Americans who don't want to hear about asking permission of the global community). That is analysis, which is separate from opinion...

I CAN say he 'pounded' the point because that is how I saw it (and I did do it so it is possible). Just like I could say that Bush 'pounded' the point that 'it's hard work' (though he used those words repeatedly when Kerry simply restated the same position of global acceptance/involvment) OR the idea that Bush kept 'pounding' the 'flip flop' characterization of Kerry (though he didn't use the same words everytime he went there). I was using 'pounding' to mean 'kept coming back to'....where do we disagree?

BTW, mentioning Poland invovlement during a debate as informational counterpoint is not propaganda IMO. They were there, they are supporting the effort and he mentioned it as evidence that we are not alone and that coountries are coming on board from NATO/UN sources. Regardless of the background (though your theoretical rationale seems awefully stretched), to the VIEWER it looked like he missed or ignored Poland for recognition and it could look like that to Polish Government officials as well, so that could look inconsistent with the idea of building bridges and winning back global credibility.

I am evaluating the DEBATE not talking about my decisions about the DEBATORS.... if you don't agree, lovely. Let freedom ring.

4. Actually you were referring to your disappointment that Kerry didn't say that he would give up 'first strike' decision power for the Presidency....how does that have anything to do with how Bush used it? Kerry's point was that he would want to retain that power, but that he would use it more wisely and rationally than Bush did, at least that is how it looked to me.

 

[pete]

kerry swung and missed at the meatball...

question:when do we pull out of iraq?
correct answer: the process will begin as soon as i'm sworn into office. i will not continue the mistakes made by the previous administration. that would be a home run...

he said he went to vietnam, came back and opposed the war... but then couldn't really do anything about it. now, if elected, he can. he can make things right very quickly. saddam is out (why did we toss him back like an undersized bass?)... no WMDs to be found... no al-qaida camps.

but he didn't exactly say that. wht he did say was more political claptrap... guess he'll get alot of "anybody but bush votes"

do you remember, your president nixon... do you remember the bills you had to pay or even yesterday?

 

[psi_radar]

I thought Kerry absolutely nut-punched Bush. Kerry neatly rebuffed Bush's constant "a Commander-in-Chief can't send mixed messages" refrain and summarized our misadventures in Iraq with his statement "you can be certain, and still be wrong."

At points, Bush seemed befuddled, possibly insane, and completely pissed off. One thing that scared me is that he really seems to have no separation in his own mind between Al-Quada and Iraq. It appears he really believes his own rhetoric--that the Iraqis are terrorists and attacked US--which is both revealing and frightening. Kudos to all the networks that ignored the "rules" and chose to show reaction shots. To those that are reading transcripts instead of watching the footage, stop now, you're not getting the full story.

 

[OULobo]

I was befuddled by Bush's smirking, slouching, and staring out at the audience as if totally distracted when Kerry was talking.

*snip

The silence from Bush at times was eerie. It seemed like it took him a while to figure out what to say, and he seemed to completely miss the point of a few of Jim's questions.

My thoughts exactly. GW looked like a cross between a teenager mugging at his teacher in high school and a broken record spouting the same thing over and over. Hard for me to respect a man that constantly looks like he's pouting about doing his homework. He says he has proven to us that he can be a leader; my question is how good of one has he proven to be?

 

[Feisty Mouse]

question:when do we pull out of iraq?
correct answer: the process will begin as soon as i'm sworn into office. i will not continue the mistakes made by the previous administration. that would be a home run...

But would leave an completely destabilized Iraq, open to civil war, internal (and external?) terrorism, and so forth. As much as I think we should have never gone in there, and as much as I think it was wrong, it would be even more wrong to zip out of there and leave the country to flounder and sink. It's our responsibility to stabilize the country as best we can. I wish it weren't so.

 

[PeachMonkey]

It's our responsibility to stabilize the country as best we can. I wish it weren't so.

Unfortunately, as has been discussed by former NSA director William Odom, it is completely impossible for us to stabilize that country.

 

[Phoenix44]

Remember, Bush consistently speaks only to a hand picked audience of loyalists. He's accustomed to a built in laugh track for his wise cracks and canned applause for his opinions. When you take away his fan club, his platitudes and repetitive sound bites fall flat. He must have been shocked.

He should have practiced on a real audience.

 

[psi_radar]

Unfortunately, as has been discussed by former NSA director William Odom, it is completely impossible for us to stabilize that country.

I found this enlightening:

http://www.angelfire.com/nt/Gilgamesh/history.html

Iraq's history is incredibly rich and tumultuous. It's a pretty tall order to expect citizens of Iraq to put down their allegiances to their tribes, ethnicities, and religious groups to join in a democratic experiment. I hate to say it, but I think it took a tyrant like Saddam to keep them unified. Now that they're released from his hold, all these groups now have the freedom to exercise their bid for power. Let's hope they (Baa'ths, Sunnis, Shi'ite, Kurds, etc.) can do it within the forum of democratic politics, but I'd say that's optimistic thinking.

 

[mj-hi-yah]

Anyone see the recent Saturday Night Live episode where they showed Bush with his big gulp reading his answers for the debate off of his hands, arms and legs? Well, while watching the debate I must admit I had to giggle a couple of times, because it looked as if Bush was looking around the podium to find where he'd written his answers...

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Unfortunately, as has been discussed by former NSA director William Odom, it is completely impossible for us to stabilize that country.

That may be true. What is the best thing for us to do? I'm not convinced that just high-tailing it out of there is the answer.

And who will protect the Halliburton employees then?

 

[michaeledward]

That may be true. What is the best thing for us to do?

I have stated my favor for the 'Three State Solution' in the past. It is the one answer that has been unacceptable to all of those in the Bush Administration, but it is still the one that makes the most sense.

There are all sorts of external problems with a three state solution. But internally, I believe it would be best for the Iraqi's.

An independent Kurdish state (Turkey would hate this) in the North.
A Sunni state in Baghdad and about.
A Shi'ite state in the South.

This is beginning to happen already. The once secular education program has turned more traditionally Islamic since the occupation.

The problem with 'Democracy' in Iraq, is that it seems they are of the point of view that Democracy means 'Majority Rule' ... The Sunni's can't allow this, because they are a minority. Democracy must mean the Minority is Protected against the whims and passions of the Majority. If we can sell that idea, then maybe, Iraq can become a democracy. But much of their history needs to be overcome for this idea to gain hold.

Mike

 

[Tkang_TKD]

That may be true. What is the best thing for us to do? I'm not convinced that just high-tailing it out of there is the answer.

And who will protect the Halliburton employees then?

That my friend, is a very good question. What is the best thing for us to do? I agree with you that beating feet isn't the answer.

As for the Haliburton employees...They are every bit lawful combatants as the soldiers on the ground. Maybe the should sub-contract a defense contractor to protect them.

 

[SenseiBear]

We do have a responsibility now that we have invaded Iraq and toppled the government to fix what we have destroyed.

and how is a tough question. I think we would get more respect and support if we were not profitting from it, picking the people who are running and rebuilding the nation. I know I would question our motives less...

If we write the checks (we blew all that stuff up after all) but have a group of UN member countries do all the contracting for assistance and rebuilding, on our dime... The group probably should not consist of any members of the security council.

As for government, maybe a governing council of 2 or 3 popularly elected reps from each major group (Shiite, Sunni, Kurdish) gets to set policy. Or roll out as complete a general election as possible, and elect the top 15 people to a governing council... Some combination of the two. Any popularly elected government will likely be an Islamic nation, representatives may be clerics, and may be radical... But if that is what Iraq wants, that is their choice.

Yeah, we will likely have problems with them later. But any process we lead and direct will be suspect.

 

[whalen]

I saw the debate and was also impressed ,It would have been nice if there were no rules and Both Candidates could be asked anything,

The guy i dislike is chenney for fun look on this website http://www.halliburtonwatch.org

It is funny how chenney never turned in stocks when left . the more our Government gives Halibuton no bid contracts it is win win for chenney,

Hal artyon: