MichFan

I had this feeling watching the debates last night that Bush is used to carrying out debate and discussion on a beach of classified knowledge but last night he was constrained to the sand box of what has been disclosed to the public. I took his grimaces as being out of disgust over Kerry saying the things he was saying for political advantage when Bush knew Kerry has been briefed on the big picture.

chicot, the real bombshell against Kerry in that discussion was Bush's correction of Kerry stating that Kerry was talking about plutonium and the issue with N. Korea was enriched uranium. Who woulda thunk Bush would have a better grasp of the issues than Kerry? Bush consistently won discussions on the basis of facts, but Kerry still pulled away with style points.

I was just being a wisearse and playing stupid. Welcome back. Hope your Uncle's doing better. Kerry did more than what he needed to do tonight, quit yer splitting hairs.

James, if it turns out that Kerry was wrong in every case and that Bush's corrections were accurate, it will be a story with legs. Kerry won the eloquence war, but if people learn to equate his eloquence with falsehoods he will lose credibility in future debates. I can tell you that since I posted this topic, it is just getting worse. Tommy Franks is on now contesting more things that Kerry said as infactual. Who would have ever thought that Bush would win the debate over who has the best handle on the issues? That may now be the case. I knew his policies would resonate better, but my gosh Kerry is supposed to be a walking, talking library. The guy was wrong way too many times. Again, I'm still waiting to hear about the Iran sanctions and non-proliferation funding. If these go Bush, it is a serious embarassment for Kerry.

I wholheartedly disagree that Kerry is a big loser. If you gage this debate on points, it was close to a draw. But you cannot overlook the fact that this was a HUGE accomplishment for Kerry. Kerry's base will finally be whipped up. His performance tonight is what the Dems needed and he came through for them. He was an unknown to many prior to tonight, and he finally landed on the scene big time. We all pay attention to and are much more knowledgeable about politics and the issues. We are all now watching the talking heads on the cable channels. The casual viewer at home saw a guy who seemed to have his stevestojan together, changed the channel, and is in bed by now. Also, the warning light tactic backfred on the Republicans. It forced Kerry to be succinct, and he came off better because of it. Fellow Repubs -- too many in our party were sitting around this week ready to ring the death bell for Kerry's campaign. The opportunity was there, of course, but people were naive to think Kerry was going to bomb in a debate. This was a huge wakeup call for the Dems and if we don't get our act together this thing is going to swing. Despite all of the bumbling by Kerry & Co., they clearly had this date circled on the calendar and they are now locked and loaded.

What do you think the FoxNews poll would be? How many Republicans are watching this debate on ABC or especially CBS for cripes sake? This debate did nothing to change the split. Both candidates served their base well. I believe Kerry probably gained more "independent undecideds" because he stood toe to toe with Bush on foreign policy and most of these people don't care to think about the underlying differences. But as I stated in my topic about facts, Kerry may have played loose with his remarks, and the American people will remember it if this turns out to be the case.

This debate went exactly how I thought it was going to. Kerry arrived as advertised, so did Bush. Either may have left himself exposed, however. There were many points where the candidates rebutted each other over facts. Bush seemed to get the better of these, and therefore I give Bush a slight edge because he made me think despite all the eloquent language Kerry was using, he was blowing smoke one too many times. I saw a CNN analyst raise around four issues where facts stated were inaccurate, they were all missed by Kerry (N. Korea had nukes long before Iraq war, UBL is in Pakistan not Afghanistan, failure to acknowledge Poland as a major partner). Now I'm interested in hearing about the Iran sanctions, non-proliferation funding, etc. This could be the ultimate takeaway from the debate and may set the course for discrediting Kerry in future debates.

BiB, the only thing I can offer is to look at the Taliban and Afghanistan. Afghanistan was such a security mess that the people were willing to accept the Taliban just to restore some sense of security. AQ is looking for a new home base and they see vulnerability/potential for the same situation in Iraq. Insurgency can be and has been handled by giving a political voice to those who feel they are being left out. But AQ will only be appeased when they control the nation. Iraq will likely be a protracted battle, and despite partisan bickering no one should doubt deep down inside that this is a major battle in the war on terror.

It would be classic if Kerry said something like "If you are wise you would listen to me", "I don't like the look of it", or "You will live in happiness too". You know -- like the oompa loompa doompadee do.

So are you suggesting that all 30+ pages of stipulations in the agreement were authored exclusively by the Bush campaign and that Kerry ceded to them purely to get a third debate? I think you're confusing the RNC with the U.N.

Not even in the same ballpark. Frazier wouldn't have whined like a baby about it the day of the fight. And how do you know how much of this was Bush versus how much was Kerry? You make it sound like Bush was the only one who wanted stipulations. That's wrong.

Like I said, if Kerry is willing to commit war crimes in Vietnam I'm sure violating a debate rule would be no problem. Of course the easy reply would be "Well Senator Kerry, since you've flip flopped on everything else in this campaign I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you'd flip flop a gentlemen's agreement."

No wonder you're supporting Kerry. You take a guy with no record and a limited tour of duty over a guy who rallied the troops and won more than he lost. Now that we have the benefit of hindsight -- Flutie was a much better Bill than Johnson. It's not too late, Rabid. You have foreshadowed the failings of your internal crystal ball. Vote Flutie! Vote Flutie! Vote Flutie!

Somethings are better left unsaid. I'm sure most of the viewers will say that to themselves. Now if Kerry gets covered with pancake to hide the fake bake, it would be funny if Bush said "Dude, what are you hiding under all that makeup?"

Since when was the basis for going to war a multiple choice question with no option for "all of the above"? I hope Kerry does ask the question the way you typed it verbatim. Especially the Saddam/twin towers thing. Bush would wipe the floor with him. The American people would see yet another indication of Kerry's desparation and ignorance. Quick, type up some memos and get a hold of CBS -- maybe they can get you in touch with Lockhart by 9:00 and you can plant that question. Of course, the candidates aren't allowed to ask questions of each other, but if Kerry is willing to commit war crimes in Vietnam I'm sure violating a debate rule would be no problem.

To add to that -- many Americans see 9/11 as a justified reason for Bush changing positions on policies such as nation-building and see the difference between what Clinton was doing in Africa and what Bush is doing in the Middle East. Many Amercians do not see taking the Democratic candidacy from Dean as a justified reason for Kerry changing his positions.

Rabid, you can't judge decisions made years ago based on how the wind is blowing on any given day (e.g., I can't tell you WMD's are definitely going to turn up, you can't tell me they are definitely not going to turn up). Iraq is far from being resolved and no one has a clue as to how history is ultimately going to judge it. Many of your responses to the case I presented based on 2002 information are your beliefs based on current events. That plays right into my argument. The fact is when it comes to Iraq, you are lumped in with the "no justification" crowd and I am lumped in with the "right decision" crowd. These are not little crowds, each represents roughly half of the country. Accept the label and wear it proudly. I do mine. Bush got a bump at the convention because the RNC did a magnificent job of helping people recall what it felt like in the aftermath of 9/11. If he can create a similar flashback on Iraq, it will be game over for Kerry. The purpsose of my post was to remind those willing to be open-minded about things what the Democrat and Republican leaders, and what Kerry himself, were telling us in the bulid-up to the war. I don't consider any of them liars, including Kerry (when it comes to his pre-war remarks). That about sums up the collective opinion of Kerry's base. The internals on the latest polls indicate he is now slipping with minorities and the poor. He has a month to start driving some sense of passion or this election could be a disaster for him. Maybe he can pull it off tonight.

Coach, would you please explain to me how one goes about sending their wife to Iraq? And if they can actually pull that off, then could you also explain to me how you ensure they die once they get there? You can't make a point effectively if you can't use the English language properly. You are failing to sway any of your intended audience because your choice of words indicates you are a partisan hack.

In response of the tripe that the libs have posted in this thread, and in anticipation of the same from their Vietnam war hero tonight, I offer the following. You cannot lead a country making judgements based on the past. Hindsight is always 20/20 with regards to the path you've taken, but offers little insight about consequences of taking the alternative. When this country was approaching the final decision about the Iraq war: - the American government had a policy of regime change in Iraq, inherited from the Clinton administration - The U.S. Congress voted resoundingly to support the use of military force - There was world consensus that Saddam had WMD's, the debate was over whether to continue with inspections or finally take action - America and U.K. were accused of killing a million Iraqi children due to the sanctions they championed at the U.N. - The U.N. was growing weary of Iraq sanctions and we were nearing the very real possibility of a rollback on these sanctions led by France and Germany - Saddam was harboring Nidal and Zarqawi - Czech intelligence was insisting that Iraqi representatives met with 9/11 planners - Saddam had increased the raping, torturing, and killing of dissenters and their families - Most of the opponenets to the war were the same people who protested U.S. action in Afghanistan (in other words, they had already discredited themselves in public opinon) - Mainstream U.S. opinion was not willing to be patient with regards to Saddam in the wake of 9/11 - Government officials knew what was going on with Oil For Food (France, Germany, and Russia opposition was highly discredited by strategic planners) The people who are now so admantly opposing the war based on what we know today are nothing more than Monday morning quarterbacks. They think they know it all -- actually, they know they know it all -- based on their knowledge of current events. Of course they still have no clue as to what will occur six months from now. Kerry is a card carrying member of this club and I shudder at the thought that we'll manage the war on terror over the next four years by looking into a crystal ball or flipping tarot cards. I shudder at the thought that we will empower a Commander in Chief who's attitude is that if we win it was worth it, if we lose it wasn't worth it.

I don't hold any of the examples you cited against the President because the Executive Branch, just like other branches, is afforded shelters from transparency and Bush's position was that he was standing up for the rights of the Executive Branch. Bush yielded on the Rice testimony after it was clear he had made his point in this regards. The energy policy is pretty easy to figure out on your own -- if the tree huggers say they weren't at the table then obviously they weren't at the table. That's fairly transparent. If you want to talk about failure to be transparent, then consider the following: - Kerry won't sign a release to make all of his military records available. (Bush has) - Kerry is actively suppressing availability of a book he wrote in the early 70's critical of the military. - Kerry has not been open about the nature of his talks with the N. Vietnamese when the war was still being waged. - Kerry has not been forthright regarding his attendance at Senate committee meetings. - Kerry has not defined his positions on many of the critical issues by putting them in writing and submitting legislation to address them - Just prior to the 2000 election, the Democrats felt that transparancy included revealing a conviction that had been exponged. How does this give you any sense that Kerry and the Dems will be better? If anything it shows me that they have no respect for transparency and fail to understand the appropriate use of it.

I know, if I were picking on his politics I wouldn't have, but it was more of a personal jab at his lack of humor and the liberal angel on my shoulder convinced me that it wasn't a very nice thing to do. Must stop listening to that darn liberal angel, she gets me in trouble every time.

Sorry, I just didn't see the humor. If you had started it with some funnier quotes I might have even jumped in with something like -- "Man that feels good, Laura. Bill and Monica have nothing on us". But I was being a bit of an arse with that response and apologize for it.

Hey now, hey now, we can have a respectful disagreement about issues of politics but that just went too far. :I starred in Brokeback Mountain:

So Kerry wears flip flops but expects Bush to buy New Balance? I still have to give Bush credit for picking a covered shoe.

Huh? So Bush wears imitation Nikes and Kerry wears flip-flops? I guess I still pick Bush because he's still better equipped to handle someone stepping on his toes. You can nuance things all you want, but Kerry is on record with his votes and is on record with his public statements. If you can put all of those together and come up with one clear and consistent policy on Iraq then you belong right by Kerry's side with Lockhart, Carville, and Begala.