The Presidential Debate

[USAir757]

However, even with hindsight being 20/20, I also said that before the war I thought it was the wrong thing at the wrong time.

When would you have made the call? After you got the UN's permission? Or after Saddam sold a nuke to a terrorist to drop on 5th Avenue? I feel like a broken record sometimes.

Kerry stands a chance of getting that support from the countries like France

Explain to me how you think John Kerry will be able to rally more diplomatic and military support than president Bush... especially when he is saying "this is the wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time." Certainly doesn't seem like a good selling line to me. Like a sales manager telling all his people, alright, go out there and sell this stuff, and then saying all over the place that the product sucks. Nobody is going to buy in.

Saudi Arabia may denouce terrorism, but they are also the country that offered amnesty to terrorists.

Amnesty if they turned themselves in, KC! That was the whole point. To get these guys numbered and out of their programs to bomb embassies and things of that sort.

I continue to scratch my head wondering why Bush hasn't attacked the Saudis.

They haven't been dodging weapons inspections and acting flippant with the UN... not even for a short time, let alone over a decade like Iraq had.

Osama condemned saddam

You can't make a statement like that without some back up. Let's see a link on this one sentrido, because I have a hunch you and Osama didn't talk this one out over lunch.

Bush called Kerry a fliper on Iraq, and Kerry gave a clear explanation of his view and how consitant it has been.

You and I both know Kerry has been anything but consistent on Iraq. I'll agree that as far as the debate goes, JK had the upper hand in the argument, and was seemingly more prepared to deal with the rebuttal on the questions. He had prepared so well that no matter how many times he had to defend his position, it would still give the impression that he never changed his mind. But going from supporting the war, to not supporting the war, to funding the war, to not funding the war.... then running on a ticket to "win the peace" with virtually no tangible plan to do so.... this guy has been everything but consitent.

Also, for all of his wordyness, Kerry is a much better debater than Gore, and I think took Bush much more seriousely.

I'll agree with that... but it's not saying much. Al Gore couldn't argue his way out of a paper bag... and half of this country even voted for him. Just goes to show you guys have some pretty low standards for your liberal candidates.

Key point on your article, Sentrido:

"Iraq's nuclear infrastructure, they concluded, had been dismantled by sanctions and inspections. In short, Mr. Hussein's nuclear ambitions appeared to have been contained.

Then Iraq started shopping for tubes.

According to a 511-page report on flawed prewar intelligence by the Senate Intelligence Committee, the agencies learned in early 2001 of a plan by Iraq to buy 60,000 high-strength aluminum tubes from Hong Kong."

Not knowing what you know now, and with UN weapons inspectors being thrown out on their butts every single day, only allowed to visit certain palaces, etc... what would you have done? Your answer, I already know, is going to scare me. That's why I have to vote for W.

 

[sentrido]

"The next day, Energy Department officials ticked off a long list of reasons why the tubes did not appear well suited for centrifuges. Simply put, the analysis concluded that the tubes were the wrong size - too narrow, too heavy, too long - to be of much practical use in a centrifuge.


What was more, the analysis reasoned, if the tubes were part of a secret, high-risk venture to build a nuclear bomb, why were the Iraqis haggling over prices with suppliers all around the world? And why weren't they shopping for all the other sensitive equipment needed for centrifuges?


All fine questions. But if the tubes were not for a centrifuge, what were they for?


Within weeks, the Energy Department experts had an answer.


It turned out, they reported, that Iraq had for years used high-strength aluminum tubes to make combustion chambers for slim rockets fired from launcher pods. Back in 1996, inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency had even examined some of those tubes, also made of 7075-T6 aluminum, at a military complex, the Nasser metal fabrication plant in Baghdad, where the Iraqis acknowledged making rockets. According to the international agency, the rocket tubes, some 66,000 of them, were 900 millimeters in length, with a diameter of 81 millimeters and walls 3.3 millimeters thick.


The tubes now sought by Iraq had precisely the same dimensions - a perfect match.


That finding was published May 9, 2001, in the Daily Intelligence Highlight, a secret Energy Department newsletter published on Intelink, a Web site for the intelligence community and the White House."


Please read the whole article.

 

[USAir757]

Is the fact that they were going to use them to make rockets as opposed to nukes supposed to give me a warm fuzzy feeling?

 

[Fly]

Regardless of how much you keep saying it, the facts IMHO, show that Kerry did NOT change his stance on the war. He supported the war as long as certain, predetermined parameters were met. When it became abunduntly clear that Bush had decided long before that we were going to war, regardless of the lack of criteria, that is when Kerry said STOP. Kerry agreed to invasion with UN support, a well thought out plan, and only as a means of last resort. None of the criteria was met, therefore he stayed on the line and Bush is the one who flip flopped.

 

[EyeInTheSky]

There were supposed to be four debates; Bush wanted only two; the Kerry camp 'settled' for three. You know what's going to happen? Bush is doing so poorly in the polls after the debates it wouldn't surprise me if he pulls out of the last debate. Of course, he'll cite some important National issue that had to occupy the debate time slot. Just watch...

 

[Fly]

Sure hope he doesn't decide to invade another country to divert our attention.

 

[KCFlyer]

When would you have made the call? After you got the UN's permission? Or after Saddam sold a nuke to a terrorist to drop on 5th Avenue? I feel like a broken record sometimes.

You know, there ain't no guarantee that the Saudi's will fund (indirectly of course...they are working on their masters thesis in money laundering) a group who WILL sell a nuke to a terrorist to drop on 5th avenue. But they are "with us" despite the fact that they have offered amnesty to terrorists. We only think Saddam helped harbor terrorists groups, so that became a reason du jour for the attack. The Saudi's offered amnesty to terrorists which, if you check out Websters, is a far sight worse than harboring.

Explain to me how you think John Kerry will be able to rally more diplomatic and military support than president Bush... especially when he is saying "this is the wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time." Certainly doesn't seem like a good selling line to me. Like a sales manager telling all his people, alright, go out there and sell this stuff, and then saying all over the place that the product sucks. Nobody is going to buy in.

Bear with me on this....maybe, just maybe he can rally more diplomatic support because back in March '03, the rest of the UN was saying "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time"...so Bush just said "to heck with y'all" and got his "coalition of the coerced" to send OUR troops into Iraq. Perhaps Kerry can tell them "My predicesor made a mistake...I need your help now to help minimize the damage that his actions created. "

Amnesty if they turned themselves in, KC! That was the whole point. To get these guys numbered and out of their programs to bomb embassies and things of that sort.
They haven't been dodging weapons inspections and acting flippant with the UN... not even for a short time, let alone over a decade like Iraq had.

English wasn't my strong suit, but where does amnesty come into play when the words that were spoken were "you're either with us or with the terrorists". The Saudi position sure seems like they are trying to have it both ways. I just can't figure out how this one works out when the options were "either" and "or". That makes me think that Bush speak with forked tongue.

 

[KCFlyer]

Sure hope he doesn't decide to invade another country to divert our attention.

[post="187228"][/post]​

Don't scare me. Let's see....Iran it toying with Nukes, as is North Korea...I feel an invasion of Indonesia is in the works because there have been numerous terrorist activities going on there.

 

[EyeInTheSky]

Don't scare me. Let's see....Iran it toying with Nukes, as is North Korea...I feel an invasion of Indonesia is in the works because there have been numerous terrorist activities going on there.

[post="187252"][/post]​

Oh why not invade Poland!! Then Bush can say to Kerry: "See their entire military really is in Iraq!" 🙄

 

[NWA/AMT]

I thought Bush came off as angry that he had to be there. He seemed to keep repeating certain buzzwords like 'speak clearly' and 'resolute' but really seemed upset that he had to defend the decisions he's made. He did a moderately good job of stating his own positions, although no one was in any doubt what they were, but did a bad job defending his positions or attacking Kerry's logically rather than emotionally.

Personally I thought the low point was when Bush went for the emotional tactic of using the Iraq War widow as an example to support his argument, but I have a pretty low tolerance for such things. I think Kerry did a pretty good job of pointing out that opposition to the war does not equate to not supporting the warriors and keeping away from emotional arguments.

Kerry came off as relaxed and self assured. I thought he did a moderately good job of stating his own positions and a very good job of defending his statements. Where he did well was in attacking Bush's positions, which helped serve to make Bush look cranky, I suppose. He did a good job of pointing out the differences between the two candidates and making himself seem a good alternative to the current president, which is all he really could expect from the event.

I don't get too worked up over who 'won' or 'lost' such things. They're so carefully controlled that there aren't going to be any real surprises or revelations. I think that, like everything else in the political process these days, the question of who won or lost is subject to the predisposition of the individual. The idea, to me anyway, is for the candidates to be in front of the people without the massive campaign apparatus and present their ideas and defend them. By that standard it was a good debate.

 

[USAir757]

I think that, like everything else in the political process these days, the question of who won or lost is subject to the predisposition of the individual. The idea, to me anyway, is for the candidates to be in front of the people without the massive campaign apparatus and present their ideas and defend them. By that standard it was a good debate.

Couldn't agree with you more. Very well put.

 

[Fly]

Very well put indeed.....but, luckily, Kerry won. hehehe Now here's to hoping he keeps it up (pass that boy the Viagra)

 

[TWAnr]

From my email inbox:

A friend who is blind thought that Bush had an ear piece because of the way that he spoke (haltingly) and the way which he came up with numbers that made it seem that he was being coached. Her take on it was quite interesting. Because she has been blind since childhood she can literally hear a pin drop. I told her that she missed some priceless expressions by GWB. Her response was that to hear him in the debate was priceless enough for her. She is a Republican who will be voting for Kerry.

And then I saw the following:

During the Presidential Debate Bush made what may be his most costly error- he exposed that he’s using an ear piece to help him answer debate questions.

In the middle of an answer bush said, "now let me finish" as if someone was interrupting him - yet nobody did - he was talking to the person in his ear piece.

The ’let me finish’ quip was clearly bush talking to someone (probably Rove) in his ear piece- saying ’let me finish’ (before you give me the next answer).

He blows it 60 seconds into his 90 second reply- so no warning lights had gone off and the moderator had not motioned for him to end as there was plenty of time left.

Bush Blows Debate: Talks to Rove in Earpiece!

A mere coincidence?

 

[EyeInTheSky]

You guys know this is just jib/jab between the parties. Two days ago a bunch of Republicans swore Kerry had a "crib sheet" during the debate. (see here http://www.drudgereport.com/dnc57.htm). Now, it appears it was just a pen (see here http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/31273.htm) Now, I assume the Dems have come up with the earpiece bombshell. It's getting really stupid on both sides.

 

[FredF]

And the bum on the Grassy Knoll actually fired a rocket that brought down twa800 so that he could remotely controll two planes to crash into the WTC towers so that Osama could escape and Kerry could get elected just so Hillary can't run in 2008.


Yep. You seem to be onto something.

:blink: