Mind-numbing partisanship aside, Bush actually had many sharp, articulate thoughts. He went dull toward the end, but to suggest he couldn’t finish a sentence is also to suggest you spent more time gazing at your navel than you did watching the debate.
I heard someone suggest that the debate was more like a couple of press conferences that happen to take place at the same time.
I think that is an accurate description.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Bush actually had many sharp, articulate thoughts. [/quote]
Show as many as necessary to be considered “many.” You’d be hardpressed.
It is far more unfair to make a bad policy decision then use the notion of the troops morale to block any criticism. Under that reasoning it would be impossible to critcize and military action. As long as Kerry remians respectful and chooses his words carefully it is fine for him to criticize Bush.
The only way conservatives would be happy is if Kerry said that Iraq was the greatest war ever. In fact Iraq was a huge blunder that was based on the idealistic and naive idea that the Iraqi’s would rapidly assimilate into a democracy.
Need a login but it is free.
Good thing he was so “resolved” that he didn’t let the facts get in the way.
Oh yes, and don’t tell me just because the nytimes is liberal means the article is biased. The assesment is from the National Intelligence Council.
The war in Iraq was a bad mistake but it is one we will have to deal with. Though I doubt Kerry will make the situation there much better or worse at least I feel that he will make future policy decisions on facts and not unfounded idealism.
RSU,
I could list quotes, even find liberals who agree with me, but it’d be lost on you, since you’re channeling all your political information through your tinfoil hat.
As is,
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134152,00.html
Have a read of the transcript. Good back and forths between the two candidates. Honest pundits realize that this event was good for the race, in that while we may not have learned anything new, we did get a reaffirmation of what makes the men different in terms of their values.
But you have to read with a bit of an open mind - I realize you may lose your pasrtisan lapdog status by giving the debate and balanced and reasonable view, but give it a try.
Also, while I am not much of a pollwatcher, Gallup had this for postdebate:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/?ci=13237
Interesting set of numbers.
This is the debate I saw.
Most of the news today has it spun down to almost a 51% to 49% split. Is there no shame?
An “undecided” teacher friend of mine called me up last night afterward and made the comment that she was “embarrassed for Bush”.
Of course she still isn’t ready to make up her mind until after the other debates…
For accuracy sake a company is approx. 100 men. Poland sent 3. 300 men would not fit on one hand. Poland does not have a large military. 300 Special Forces Troops is a big committment.
Read up on their contributions. Nobody questioned their valor and ability to take on the tough jobs.
I know it is easier to be fast and loose with the facts, such as Senator Kerry does, but the truth is easier to research.
Poland sent 300 troops. Wow.
The Polish president also said: "They deceived us about the weapons of mass destruction, that’s true. We were taken for a ride.?
If you are going to “remember” Poland, remember all of it.
[quote]hedo wrote:
I know it is easier to be fast and loose with the facts, such as Senator Kerry does, but the truth is easier to research.[/quote]
Check your own facts, Dilbert. Poland was not involved in the initial miltary action in Iraq. That was the point being discussed: which countries were contributing to the “coalition” when Bush pulled the trigger on Iraq.
I am curious as to the disagreement as to whether or not our coalition really qualifies as any thing to write home about. What do Ya’ll think?
I’m of the opinion our coalition is near-worthless, and only was created to draw attention away from our nearly-unilateral war mongering (Thanks to Tony B. for keeping us with one major ally).
We have 90% of the forces on the ground. Between our roughly 32 “allies,” 22,000 troops have been in theatre. The British are helping, they supply about 5% of the total (9,000). Nothing against Poland, but they aren’t exactly committing armored divisions over there. Spain, Honduras and the Dominican Republic have pulled out due to their enraged citizens. 80% of Italians opposed military involvement, but their government has been pressured by the US to stay. After no WMD’s were found, Poland protested, and threatened to pull their troops out, but US “aide” convinced them to stay. Australia has only 250 men in Iraq. Thailand, Norway and New Zealand-- after large scale public protests-- will have their troops out by the end of the month. The Phillipines have left already, and Japan only allows non-combat operations. Other members of our mighty internation coalition, mostly against domestic public opinion include Latvia (100 troops), Estonia (30), Mongolia (160), Macedonia (37) and Kazajhstan (25). Note that NO ARAB states are involved. Counter that with desert storm uno, where most were happy to help, and Russia was even involved… and Germany, and France, etc. THAT was a coalition of the willing, backed by the UN.
Oh but I Left out Romania and Bulgaria, who sent some troops (a couple hundred each, I believe), desperately trying to get into NATO 
Anyway, even IF this coalition was all formed up before the war (it wasn’t), now it is crumbling. I don’t mean to suggest American must do exactly as the rest of the world wants, but I rather like getting along with the majority of the world unless we are in true and present danger. I guess I feel that Saddam was not an acute risk… but if you really think he was, then I suppose I can see your desire for unilateral war.
[quote]Lumpy wrote:
As I already said, Poland sent a small handful of guys for the initial effort. You could count them on 2 hands, if I’m not mistaken. [/quote]
Lumpy,
Which is it, about 10 guys, or 300? Let’s get to the bottom of this question, dont’ run off now.
wow Mr. Chen you really win the debate by it being 200 versus 20. I bet those 180 troops are really going to swing the battle in our favor.
The coalition is only coaltion by name. It consists of the U.S. and Britain. The only reason most of these other countries gave tropps is because they wanted political favors from us later.
The fact of the matter is that Iraq was a catastrophic mistake. It is so bad that most people don’t want to admit it and would prefer to cling to whatever bizarre statement Allawi or Bush puts forward because it makes them feel better.
Kerry’s plan for Iraq is worthless. Here is a clear rebuttal by Martin Peretz in The New Republic:
It’s not just that he has exaggerated what has gone wrong in Iraq. His entire speech was premised on the assumption that there were European troops and Muslim troops and United Nations gendarmes who would have gone to war with us against Saddam had Bush only waited another few days, weeks, months in the spring of 2003. That is a lie. And now, he holds out the same false promise. It is true, he admits, that there is a Security Council resolution calling on U.N. members to provide soldiers and trainers and a special brigade to protect the U.N. mission in Iraq. “Three months later,” he admits, “not a single country has answered that call.” Of course, Bush is to blame. And what should Bush do? He should “convene a summit meeting of the world’s major powers” and “insist that they make good on that U.N. resolution.”
There is something risible in Kerry’s faith in these hopeless transactions brokered by Kofi Annan and in the United Nations itself, which is staging yet another tragic, do-nothing performance on Darfur. He surely knows there is no cavalry of Europeans and Arabs about to ride to Iraq’s rescue (especially since he intends to withdraw American troops, hardly a move that will give other nations confidence). He surely knows there are no foreign funders willing to bear the financial burden, either. But, if he admits that, then much of his critique of Bush’s Iraq policy collapses, and with it his confidence in the honorable community of nations–the kind of phrase of which liberals are fond. Except that the nations to which it refers are neither honorable nor a community nor, in many cases, even nations. Kerry may want to rely on their goodwill, but I don’t.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Which is it, about 10 guys, or 300? Let’s get to the bottom of this question, dont’ run off now.
[/quote]
Ever hear of Google?
“Poland’s role in Iraq”
Bush made an error when he corrected Kerry to say he forgot to mention that Poland supplied forces when the invasion began. Kerry said there were three countries – Great Britain, Australia and the United States – and Bush said, “Actually, he forgot Poland.” Poland later supplied troops, and actually commanded a zone of Iraq. But it was not part of the original ground invasion. And though Bush said there are 30 countries in the coalition, he neglected to say that about a half-dozen countries have withdrawn their troops in recent months."
I doubt either man will change much in Iraq.
The key point is whether you want a leader who ignores the facts and makes decisions based on how he wants the world to be rather than how it actually is. There are plenty of clear examples of how he consciously ignored the facts so that he could invade.
I would prefer not to have another four years with Bush lest he screw the pooch again.
[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
This is the debate I saw.
Most of the news today has it spun down to almost a 51% to 49% split. Is there no shame?
An “undecided” teacher friend of mine called me up last night afterward and made the comment that she was “embarrassed for Bush”.
Of course she still isn’t ready to make up her mind until after the other debates…[/quote]
How typical of you to believe the a “dot com” poll means a damn thing in the real world.
Keep you eyes on your computer screen, and watch the election slip away from your beloved Senator “Always Will Be” Kerry.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Actually, the strongest point that Bush pushed and in fact a central theme, was Kerry’s constant questioning of the war. Kerry calling it “the wrong war at the wrong time.” Then denigrating the Iraqi leader.
How does one lead after a campagin based upon that sort of talk?[/quote]
I think this point that Bush repeated over and over and over was quite fallacious. Look, why can’t Kerry criticize the war – it’s not HIS war! Bush’s point would make sense if Kerry sent the troops to war and then said “wrong place, wrong…,” but HE didn’t, Bush did. And Kerry thinks Bush did so wrongly.
True, but only in the sense of logical necessity. BTW, what was Bush’s point, because it didn’t seem like he made one.
But more people voted for him.
Dear Lump,
I will concede that Bush made a mistake with reference to Poland being part of the original team, at least that’s what the article you linked says.
How about this quote from Kerry-
And we’ve got weapons of mass destruction crossing the border every single day.
What on earth does he mean “weapons of mass destruction” crossing into Iraq everyday. Maybe he meant to say RPGs or something.
What do you think Lump?
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
How about this quote from Kerry-
And we’ve got weapons of mass destruction crossing the border every single day.
What on earth does he mean “weapons of mass destruction” crossing into Iraq everyday. Maybe he meant to say RPGs or something.
[/quote]
My interpretation was that he was referring to the numerous suicide bombers and terrorists coming across the borders rather freely. He wanted to hammer home his point about border security, or the lack thereof. Either he considers a bomber that kills 40 kids a weapon of mass destruction (an arguable point, I would say), or he was using a bit of figurative speech, say hyperbole, metaphor, or whatnot.
Does that work for you? I think that interpratation makes sense, kind of a “we have suicide bombers-- real weapons of mass destruction-- crossing the borders daily!” message?
-jon
I don’t live in the US so I don’t get as much coverage of the campaign as you guys. But can anyone give me a clear explanantion of Kerry’s position on Iraq and explain how it is consistent with all his previous comments on Iraq?