“The audience will remain absolutely silent for ninety minutes.” We’ll see about that.
Bush moved faster across the stage to make it seem as if he’s welcoming Kerry. So first cred for Bush.
9:06: Kerry answered the question directly and with animation, but looks directly at the moderator. Bush looks to Lehrer but spends most of his time looking directly into camera. His answer was a non-answer, but he looked good doing it. Bush then dodges the follow up question.
9:10: Bush thumps his podium repeatedly. New drinking game: Every time a podium is thumped, toss back a shot. Kerry has yet to look into the dámņëd camera. Ah! Okay, just for a second there. Bush looks bored. Bush continues to refer to “my opponent.”
9:18 Bush attempts to defend the multi-pronged battle against terrorism, but tends to wander and mixes up names (although points for getting that one Arab guy.) More podium thumping. Bush is now attempting to paint Kerry as flipflopping. Kerry could respond to it, but doesn’t really.
9:20 Kerry seems credible on how he would improve on homeland secruity. Bush tosses back credentials in terms of the money that he’s spent. However he’s left Kerry an opening in talking about how he established the Dept of Homeland Security…which was a Clinton idea and which Bush refused at first to establish. But Kerry missed the opening. Now Kerry is thumping the podium. Bush finished strong.
9:27 Kerry continues to use grass-root examples to illustrate points. Oooo…Kerry cites Bush Sr. I was wondering if he was going to do that. Now Bush is in an interesting situation. Does he stand there and diss his dad? Unfortunately Kerry isn’t actually responding to the original question about when and how to bring the troops home. Again Bush is trying to paint Kerry as being unsupportive. Kerry gets a good point about which is worse in terms of making mistakes, but he should have stopped talking right after that.
9:31: Kerry keeps speaking of pulling allies together, but doesn’t make entirely clear how he’s going to accomplish that other than that he’s different. Overall, his comments remain more cogent. Kerry is taking notes. Wonder what he’s going to say. Bush is starting to sound whiney. His voice is coming across as defensive. Bush keeps repeating the same phrases, claiming that for Kerry to disagree with what’s going on in Iraq is somehow “denigrating.”
9:35 Wait, what? Bush is saying that the reason we’re having all these problems in Iraq is because we did too GOOD a job with the invasion? What we’re dealing with is the result of efficiency? Uhm…okay. Kerry is now fighting back on the “denigrating” thing, but he’s leaving himself open because he said he would not have done everything the same…except he’s on record on saying he would have.
9:40 Kerry should avoid phrases like “I believe” and “I will try.” It makes him sound indecisive.
9:44 “Was it worth it.” This is the question that Kerry booted the other day with Diane Sawyer. Bush is now going for the human interest angle, and doing a good job. Kerry once again doesn’t address the notion of “was it worth it.” What the heck is his problem with answering this squarely? Say “Hëll no, it wasn’t worth it.” Create a clear demarcation between him and Bush. I’m also starting to get pìššëd øff that Lehrer that he is letting Bush steamroll into rebuttals. Especially since Bush is merely reiterating what he said before. Kerry’s thirty second rebuttal is stronger than Bush’s.
9:53 Goddammit, Lehrer, will you rein in Bush. He keeps jumping in at will.
9:54 “The enemy attacked us.” But not Iraq! This is typical of the blurring Bush has done that convinced 3/4 of this country that Saddam attacked on 9/11. “A President has to be willing to use force.” That’s not the problem. The problem is that by all accounts he was eager to use force.
9:56 Yes! Yes! Kerry hit the same line I did. Bush left a wide opening and this time Kerry grabbed it. Very solid response. And yet again Bush jumps in to have the last word. And Kerry makes an incredibly sound point in response. That round to Kerry.
10:00 “I’m not sure what he means by passes the global test?” Kerry made it pretty clear, so I don’t know what Bush doesn’t get. Bush is now defending the notion of not joining the global criminal court. Huh? Ðámņ, I wish Kerry would push for a 30 second response.
10:03 Bush seems fatigued and wandering. He’s stopped looking into camera and instead at Lehrer. Lehrer is now starting to take a firmer hand, taking the time to try and delineate the difference between Bush and Kerry in regards to Korea.
10:10 The audience is remaining quiet. Wow. For the first time, Bush refers to him as “Senator Kerry” in the question about character. Bush is walking a real tight rope on this one. I hope they stop trying to make jokes; the silence is getting embarrassing. Bush is once again playing the flip flop card. Now Kerry can either be aggressive and attack Bush, or he can be defensive to answer the uncertainty issue.
10:13 “Certainty sometimes can get you in trouble.” Wonder how that will play in Peoria. Is Bush insinuating that Kerry has been changing his “core values?”
10:17 Kerry is so confident he can say “nuclear” that he says “nuclear proliferation” twice in a row. Bush tries to say it and misses. Again Lehrer is clarifying matters, which is good.
10:24 A discussion on Russia is deteriorating into a reiteration of Korea and yet more about Saddam. It’s like the whole thing has gone off the rails.
10:26 Kerry is now looking directly into camera for his final comments. He’s got to do more of that in the next two. Bush gets in some last minute podium thumping. The “valley of peace” line isn’t bad. Nice imagery.
Be sure to tune in to “The Daily Show” and their live coverage. And boy, I can’t wait for the VP debate.
• 
Peter, all seriousness aside, you did an excellent job and one that will doubtlessly be many times more honest than that of the professional pundits. Considering your clear preference for one candidate over the other, that is truly commendable.
All seriousness aside?
It would be less than honest if he was serious.
Peter, Bush has REPEATEDLY “dissed” his dad. Haven’t you read Maureen Dowd’s BUSHWORLD or seen one of her billion appearances this summer, like on the Imus in the Morning show (simulcasted on MSNBC) hyping the book? Bush has said he wouldn’t cut and run in Iraq. He often cites the example of Reagan while ignoring 41.
As far as Kerry not able to answer a straight question, did you see last night’s DAILY SHOW which had clips of him with Diane Sawyer? It was painfully funny or comically tragic how he couldn’t or wouldn’t answer a straight question.
Lehrer is of the “give them the slack to hang themselves” school of journalism. For some odd reason, he believes the focus should be on the interviewee. Altho he coulda hired the Oscar or Emmy orchestra to play music for folk going long.
— Ken from Chicago
P.S. “It’s not a debate. It’s a joint appearance.” IOW, twice as many boring political speeches at once. No wonder the first debate is the most-watched one. People are reminded how mind-numbingly boring they can be.
Watching the debate on C-SPAN was the way to go. The split screen was quite instuctive: Bush the figetting, petulant child, Kerry the calm, refined adult.
The debate went to Kerry, no question. He unnerved Bush early; His answers were more varied and thoughtful; He used the words of Bush’s father against him. He stumbled only marginally, nothing to discredit him. Bush, on the other hand, stammered, er-ed & ah-ed his way through the three canned responses, was clearly unconfortable (as anyone watching the C-SPAN feed could see) and fatigued as the debate went on.
A glimmer of hope. Finally!
Mark
I was watching ABC , and they used the split screen too.
Wow! I watched C-SPAN and it still seemed like Bush presented substancive plans and well thought out responses and Kerry kept giving his previous sound bites and evasive answers. Kerry had to keep flipping through notes, Bush knew his answers.
I’d give it to Bush.
But then again, I am almost as biased as PAD.
I just haven’t drank any kool-aid that my candidate has served.
but will Florida screw it all up again?
This time they can blame it on hurricanes, and not punch cards
“It would be less than honest if he was serious.”
Just in case YOU were serious, I meant waht I said about PAD presenting a pretty fair accounting of what happened. Check out the left and right wing blogs for a slightly more biased take (“Kerry comes off as a manicured Oompa-Loompa!” “You can almost see Karl Roves arm shoved up Bush’s ášš so he can manipulate his lips!”).
PAD earned some mad street cred in my book. Actually, I have no idea what that means but my students say it all the time. Yo, homely.
I would like to see this type of language in a televised debate!
I’m a Bush supporter, but I think Kerry won the debate. Let’s face it, the few people left who haven’t made up their minds are likely to be deciding based on style, not substance. Kerry won on style tonight. He’ll bump a few points.
Kerry did not flip through notes: he was WRITING notes to himself, as was Bush. S.O.P in debates.
I honestly can’t see how anyone could say that Bush’s responses were substantiative. He could not move beyond the three responses that Rove programmed into him: “It’s hard work in Iraq”; “My opponent is not consistent”; “The world is a better place.” That’s it. Everything else out is mouth was a variation of those talking points.
Face it: tonight Bush has to call Kerry his daddy.
Well, Kerry is simply more intelligent and a better speaker. As for Bush, I’m sorry, but if a grade school teacher hemmed and hawed and ‘uuhh’-ed like this, or had this many ‘what am I saying’-silences, I’d be embarrassed for him. Let alone when it’s the so-called ‘leader of the free world’.
Oh I forget, that’s part of his ‘charm’. I think Bush definitely faltered, expecially in the end, and he was a good bit more repetitive than Kerry. Not to mention talked more in vague soundbites too.
Oh and did anyone else notice? Monumental blunder in my opinion: Bush tried to keep on quoting the puppet-president of Iraq. You know the guy HE put in place. The guy that hasn’t actually BEEN in Iraq in 35 years and is pretty much america’s marionet and is seen by the arab world as such. They’ve been parading him around the US the last few weeks so he can say how great Bush is like a good little boy. Of course Kerry can’t and won’t SAY the man is just a puppet because you can’t say that out loud. And Kerry didn’t.
Bush did. Himself. Trying to defend it he said something like “…why, that would be like saying he’s just a puppet!” Congrats. That IS the issue with that guy that works against you, the negative view you should avoid at all costs and YOU YOURSELF just used those words and threw that notion into the debate.
Sounded a tad on the dumb side to me. I noticed he didn’t mention him afterwards anymore. Honestly. That is the most powerful man of the world right now…..It’s downright depressing.
PAD, I was expecting a fairly partisan review of things from you, I’m forced to admit. Thanks for making what I thought was a relatively impartial review of the debate. It was appreciated.
CNN / GALLUP POLL ON WHO WON DEBATE
Kerry: 53
Bush: 37
CBS POLL ON WHO WON DEBATE:
Kerry: 44
Bush: 26
Tie: 30
ABC POLL ON WHO WON DEBATE:
Kerry: 45
Bush 36:
Tie: 17
I think Bush won on substance, Kerry on style. Bush came out of the corner strong, but showed signs of slowing down about an hour into the debate. It took Kerry a while to get off of the campaign speech talking points and finally start answering questions.
As for the split screen, it was said earlier today that most networks would be using a pool camera for cutaway shots, but I think (either by agreement or most networks having the same idea) to use the split screen to show both almost constantly. I was flipping between Fox and ABC, and noticed that both stayed mainly on a split, but if Jim Lehrer had a direct rebuttal question, they would show a 3 box shot. All-in-all, good show, from a technical point-of-view.
Wow, BUSH is pulled an Al Gore!
The eye rolling, the heavy sighs, it’s like Bush forgot what sunk Gore.
Unreal
Kerry had to keep flipping through notes, Bush knew his answers.
Umm, since when it is wrong to flip through notes or to take notes?
Maybe he jotted something down that he thought of that he could use later? Doesn’t that make sense?
To me, it shows that he’s always thinking, always considering.
It beats just sitting there like a pre-programmed robot yammering out memorized lines like a bad Shakespearean actor. Hëll, it sounds like Bush couldn’t even do that without problems.
Up here in Canada we are feeling as interested/concerned about this as you guys are. Someone way up the line pointed out the fact that other nations around the world are definitely affected by American politics, and I for one am holding my breath for the results.
I liked how when they went to split screen the podiums didn’t match up. That was one of the big points the Bush Folx wanted so no one notices that Bush is half a foot shorter than Kerry.
ETA: It’s been bugging me, so I dug out my DSM-IV to see what the symptoms were. Bush is certainly showing a lot of the symptoms of a substance-induced psychotic disorder with delusions. I wonder if Bush is still in AA?
He turned his life over to Jesus to fix his drinking & drug problems…did he even go to treatment?
On the issue of notes, I rewatched the debate with my wife on TiVo and noticed that Pres. Bush’s (who also took notes, BTW) were big letters surrounded by ovals and little lines. For lack of a better way of saying it, it seems that while Sen. Kerry was speaking, instead of listening, he was doodling. Disturbing.
As to content for Pres. Bush? What content, exactly? I suspect the most accurate synopsis of Pres. Bush’s “content” was said by Sen. Kerry himself: “More of the same.”
He asserted no new initiative. He stood by his bogus coalition. He even took the time to stare into the camera and yell at America like a Dad yells at his teenager (and I’m paraphrasing here): “You better vote for me, ’cause only I’m gonna get’tem.” Incidentally, implying that Sen. Kerry won’t. An assertion, given the record, that is as unlikely as it is silly. Does he treat his foreign allies with the same contempt and arrogance he’s treating the American people?
Sen. Kerry created a lucid, consistent argument for the “war” on terror and highlighted the need for intelligence, allies, and (with no loss of power) sensitivity that will work. “Big stick” realpolitik clearly doesn’t, and Sen. Kerry is considered enough to realize that.
I’m sorry that some people didn’t notice. Perhaps like the President, you’re forming your counter-argument (or trying to remember it) while Sen. Kerry was speaking and so you weren’t really listening. Maybe you were doodling. Whatever it was, you could not have been listening.
I only caught bits and pieces over the radio as I worked, but what I heard, I gotta give to Kerry.
He nailed Bush on the “Our enemies attacked us on 9/11, but Iraq didn’t” thing.
PAD, you surprised me. For you, that was actually a “fair and balanced” entry. You’re like Bill O’Reilly or something!
As for the debate—I’ve suspected as much, and last night proved it beyond the shadow of a doubt: John Kerry is a pacifist. He can’t come out and admit it, obviously, but he tossed enough crumbs to his fellow peaceniks during the debate to make it clear. For instance…
I think the United States should have offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel, test them [Iran], see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes.
Only a pacifist would seriously consider fascists and pseudo-Muslim dictators to be deserving of a presumption of innocence. Foreign leaders who do not believe in basic human rights for their people or a democratic form of government must be treated differently than those who do. A good place to draw the line is not to give these demonstrably untrustworthy characters nuclear components. Honestly, it amazes me that a Presidential candidate could say this on national television and still be in the race. Here is a man who has deluded himself into thinking that dictators have softer, more “peaceful” sides to them that need coddling. How can he be taken seriously in a time when foreign policy is of critical importance?
But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you’re doing what you’re doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.
More pacifism. For anything to pass the “global test”, it has to appeal to Europeans, and Europeans are, by and large, liberal. Try finding the elaborate conservative media network we have in the United States (right-wing talk radio, FOX News, The Washington Times, The Wall Street Journal, etc.) in any of the European countries. (Good luck to you in your hopeless task, by the way.) And countries dominated by liberalism tend to let their militaries shrink and fall into disrepair. So for any proposed military venture to pass the “global test”, it needs to be a) something with a workload that can be shouldered by small, out-of-date militaries , b) something that won’t involve many deaths on either side, and c) waged against somebody other than Muslims (or pseudo-Muslims, because these áššhølëš aren’t true Muslims), because that might breed more terrorists. Which makes “global test” a codephrase for “pacifism”, because I don’t see how those conditions would be conducive to any future operations against our current batch of enemies (Iran, North Korea, Syria, etc.)
You talk about mixed messages. We’re telling other people, “You can’t have nuclear weapons,” but we’re pursuing a new nuclear weapon that we might even contemplate using.
Pacifists, in their even-handed, don’t-ruffle-the-feathers way, tend not to see a difference between democracies and theocratic dictatorships. To them, it’s just another way of doing things, and to object would be culturally insensitive. I’d argue that theocratic dictatorships are being culturally insensitive to their citizens by not allowing them to define the culture in which they live through the everyday exercise of basic human and democratic rights. I’d also point out that as citizens in a democratic society, it is in their best interests to oppose non-democracies, since only non-democracies, not other democracies, attack democracies. Kerry appears to be one of those pacifists to which the above needs to be explained.
I am very surprised that so many members of the media (even some conservatives, like Jay Nordlinger at the National Review) are chalking this up as a victory for Kerry. Kerry has provided Bush with a ton of ammo for his next round of campaign ads, and if Rove and Co. handle it properly, I don’t see how Kerry can recover. Kerry left the ball in Bush’s court, and any time you have to rely on your opponent’s ineptitude for success, you’re taking the matter out of your hands. And not being in control of your own destiny is not how I would define victory.
As for the post-debate TV coverage, the initial reaction from the gang over at MSNBC was that Kerry had “won” the debate, though a few minutes later, they conceded that Bush was the better man in the first half-hour. Which only means that they’re living in that old media cocoon, because newsflash, guys: a lot of people don’t have to watch the entire thing like you do. They get up to go to the bathroom, they talk with friends and family and miss certain details, or they get bored and do something else (and there was certainly a lack of energy onstage to prompt them.) You’ve got to weigh what’s upfront heavier than what comes after. Do it that way, and Bush definitely “wins” the debate.
Also, is there anything more useless on cable news shows than having two campaign advisers spend a segment debating one another? How enlightening is it to have two guys who are basically paraphrasing the opinions and talking points of their bosses go at it? You might as well have two tape recorders with tape loops of the candidates yacking away—at least they’d be easier to book. Really, paid opinions are no fun to listen to. Get off of it, already.
So anyway, Round 1 goes to Bush, but Kerry survives to fight another day…as long as Bush doesn’t screw up with the post-debate ads.
-Dave O’Connell
jumpthecup.blogspot.com
I think the Saturday Night Live (or MAD TV) sketch on this one would be easy.
“Pres Bush, How would you get the troops home?”
Bush: My opponent is inconsistant.
“Pres Bush, what about the money being spent on Iraqu instend of domestic issues.”
Bush: My opponent is inconsistant.
“Pres Bush, what about letting Ben Laudden escape?”
Bush: Well, in answer to that charge I have to state clearly, my opponent is inconsistant.
“Pres. Bush, what’s your middle name?”
Bush: Good question. Of course you know I have to say, my opponenant is inconsistant.
That’s pretty much how it went yesterday. In too many place Bush looked kinda sad repeating himself 1000 times with the say stuff. It’s the republican way, keep repeating it no matter how true or false it is. Its a pretty sad way.
I’m gonna guess that Jr. began abusing alcohol in his early teens.
As a veteran of the special education system and thus a passing fammilairity with most of the symptoms of various stuff, my diagnosis for Mister Bush is his substance abuse problems of the past excerbated pre-existing conditions: mainly dyslexia and ADD.
Scav:
>>ETA: It’s been bugging me, so I dug out my DSM-IV to see what the symptoms were. Bush is certainly showing a lot of the symptoms of a substance-induced psychotic disorder with delusions. I wonder if Bush is still in AA?
>He turned his life over to Jesus to fix his drinking & drug problems…did he even go to treatment?
When one looks at addiction or addictive personalities, it need not necessarily be focused on alcohol nor drug usage. Substitute eating, gambling, relgion, relationships, etc and we are still talking about unhealthy behaviors.
Watched the debate on CSPAN and read the transcripts on MSNBC.com.Okay ,from a pure visual standpoint Point to Kerry.Bush looked annoyed and kind twitchy.Kerry calm,thinking and slightly amused by his opponent.
The actual substance of the debate i give to Kerry also.The best points he made to me were about the “daisycutter” nukes,and that cause you have resolve doesnt you mean are right.At least something along that line.
I was at one point undecided but after reading ,watching CSPAN ,and informing myself i gotta go Kerry.
The best line for me was on MSNBC after the debate one of the commentators said Bush brought 30 minutes of material to a 90min debate.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Are the VP debates gonna be televised also?I have only began paying attention to politics closely the past few years(big mistake on my part).Very interested to see the Edwards vs the Cheney (assuming he comes out of his undisclosed location long enough)
Various ramblings.
***********
If a pacifist is someone who sees a war as the result of a policy failure, then I’m a pacifist.
Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement policy failed spectacularly; we might have had WW II anyway, but trying to be nice to Hitler certainly didn’t help. Of course, if the policy was just to stop the SOB from expanding beyond his borders, then Germans would still have suffered and the Holocaust would still have happened.
I’ll leave it to wiser — or more argumentative — than I to sort out whether 7 years of global war was better or worse than 15-20 years of letting the a country fester under him.
But there are two issues with Iraq that seem to be so obvious that no one actually mentions them.
* First, and I know I’ve said this in PAD’s forum before, armies of occupation rarely work in the long term.
* Second, a power vaccuum can be much worse than a tyrant. The tyrant has at least a superficial obligation to meet his subject’s needs.
*************
“America first” is healthy patriotism, just as “me first” is healthy egoism. “America only” is just as pathological as “me only”
Bush seems offended at the idea of a world court that could try Americans. Isn’t the idea behind a world court that it can try citizens of any country?
Democracy should scale up. As a citizen, I have to put up with other citizens, and they with me. If a corporation can be treated as a person, then a nation can be considered as a global citizen.
******
Am I the only one who had a consistency issue with Bush saying “no country can tell America what do do” with his insistence that China had to be involved in the talks with N. Korea?
********
The debate was on National Security, which is supposed to be Bush’s strong suit. Depending on who you talk to, Kerry’s performance was anywhere from strong win to close tie. My memory barely goes back to last week, but weren’t performances like that how Bush I and Gore lost?
Meant to say “the Edwards vs Cheney debate”
refering to them as the edwards and the cheney makes them sound like Professional Wrestlers.
If you SMEEEEEELLLLLLLLL what the Cheney is cooking!!!! 🙂
Interesting debate all around. I did see some areas where Kerry could have done better. Bush’s “It’s my job” quip did some slight damage.
I did wonder which debate Bush was at however. When Kerry was asked about specific instances of Bush lying, and Kerry gave instances and mentioned that Osamma was using the invasion of Iraq as a rally point to recruit people to fight America, Bush came back and said that Osamma was not going to determine how America defended ourself.
What?
Where did that get said? What script was Bush reading? And it wasn’t the first time that it happened, that was just the most obvious.
I did thing Bush got nailed with the “Our enemy attacked us, Iraq didn’t attack.” line.
You can really tell who the Bush supporters are, atleast, since they are the only ones naive enough to believe Bush came out ahead from the debate last night.
I did wonder which debate Bush was at however. When Kerry was asked about specific instances of Bush lying, and Kerry gave instances and mentioned that Osamma was using the invasion of Iraq as a rally point to recruit people to fight America, Bush came back and said that Osamma was not going to determine how America defended ourself.
What?
The point was that you don’t base your military policy based on how the enemy portrays your actions. We shouldn’t back out of Iraq just because bin Laden is portraying it as a war on Islam. We shouldn’t back out of Saudi Arabia because bin Laden is offended by our presence. Military policy is based on what is best for America’s security first.
You never really know how these things will turn out until a few weeks go by. Will Republicans be able to make hay out of the “global test” remark? Will Saturday Night Live portray Bush as a fidgity child? Kerry was lucky that his one big “bushism”– “Treblinka Square”–is one that is difficult to make much fun of (Holocaust references are generally not big laugh getters).
On pure style Kerry was the obvious winner but since Democrats have, against all logic, portrayed the president as a drooling imbecile, mere victory may be seen as a defeat. Can’t say they weren’t warned.
Mark L said:
“The point was that you don’t base your military policy based on how the enemy portrays your actions. We shouldn’t back out of Iraq just because bin Laden is portraying it as a war on Islam. We shouldn’t back out of Saudi Arabia because bin Laden is offended by our presence. Military policy is based on what is best for America’s security first.”
I fine point but I wish to point out that formulating a defense against your enemies without considering what your enemies’ responses to that defense will be is criminally stupid. Ossama bin Laden doesn’t get to write our defense plans, but not taking his likely responses to what we do to defend ourselves is, well, criminally stupid.
Sure, you can give Kerry the victory if you base your decision on style, but was that particular outcome ever really in doubt? Who didn’t already know that Kerry was a better orator than Bush?
However, I find it hard to believe that either side can claim victory on substance (setting partisanship aside, of course). Both candidates were boring. Both candidates spent most of the debate avoiding answering the questions and failing to provide details. We learned nothing new.
And folks wonder why the average joe doesn’t follow politics or care about voting?
David Hunt said:
“Posted by: David Hunt at October 1, 2004 10:49 AM
Mark L said:
“The point was that you don’t base your military policy based on how the enemy portrays your actions. We shouldn’t back out of Iraq just because bin Laden is portraying it as a war on Islam. We shouldn’t back out of Saudi Arabia because bin Laden is offended by our presence. Military policy is based on what is best for America’s security first.”
I fine point but I wish to point out that formulating a defense against your enemies without considering what your enemies’ responses to that defense will be is criminally stupid. Ossama bin Laden doesn’t get to write our defense plans, but not taking his likely responses to what we do to defend ourselves is, well, criminally stupid.”
Both statements have merit. You can’t let what others do with your actions control your actions. Militant islamics were calling for the death of Americans before we took our recent military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. The fact that they are now using our current involvement as a further rallying cry should neither surprise us, nor be an incentive for us to cease taking actions.
But not considering a range of responses is, as David said, criminally negligent. Bush stated in defense of his comments that we were too successful in Iraq that Saddam’s supporters laid down their arms, and that’s why we didn’t “get them.” I take that to mean that, rather than try to fight a conventional battle against an unstoppable army, they did what any smart person would…they hid. Blended into the local population, only to wage what amounts to what used to be called a guerrilla war against us. It sounds like Bush expected the National Guard to fight us to the last man. The fact that they’d actually recognize they could never beat us in a straight up fight and retreat to take us on on their own terms didn’t seem to be a possibility for Bush. It’s this single-minded stubborness, an inability to see the larger picture, that makes Bush as president a liability rather than an asset. I think that came out in last night’s debate. Bush wears his emotions openly on his face, in his expressions, in his reactions. In a president, that’s a bad quality. He also had several moments of “deer-in-headlight.” After 4 years in office, and additional years as a governer, you’d think he’d had learned how to compose himself in a less embarrassing manner. I’ve heard countless Bush supporters say that’s “part of his charm,” that it makes him a “more real guy.” Well, I don’t want an average Joe running my country. I don’t want someone who’s going to be catching flies while his brain strives to keep up during a critical international negotiation.
You can really tell who the Kerry supporters are, atleast, since they are the only ones naive enough to believe Kerry came out ahead from the debate last night.
Ken:
>You can really tell who the Kerry supporters are, atleast, since they are the only ones naive enough to believe Kerry came out ahead from the debate last night.
Not the only ones. Turn on the television and listen to most of the analysts. The majority that I’m hearing across the boards on various stations are saying Kerry came across better overall than Bush did. While it is too early to get any real read on how or if this will have a long-tern effect, stating that only Kerry supporters are “naive enough” to think that Kerry came out ahead is….. well, naive.
Fred
“On pure style Kerry was the obvious winner but since Democrats have, against all logic, portrayed the president as a drooling imbecile, mere victory may be seen as a defeat. Can’t say they weren’t warned.”
Now now… I’ve never said he drooled. Caught bits and pieces of the debate. LOVED seeing Bush act like he had ADD the entire time. Made my night.
I just substituted ‘Kerry’ for ‘Bush’ in an obviously biased and ignorant post made earlier than mine.
So, style without substance is what we want in a President?
Ken:
>You can really tell who the Kerry supporters are, atleast, since they are the only ones naive enough to believe Kerry came out ahead from the debate last night.
>Not the only ones. Turn on the television and listen to most of the analysts. The majority that I’m hearing across the boards on various stations are saying Kerry came across better overall than Bush did. While it is too early to get any real read on how or if this will have a long-tern effect, stating that only Kerry supporters are “naive enough” to think that Kerry came out ahead is….. well, naive.
Fred
I believe he’s making a commentary on something said above, an honestly arrogant comment towards republicans. Both sides will view this as they see fit, but this was only the first round. Two more, I believe, and both could come out swinging.
Of course, with Bush, he’ll be swinging on a playground and telling the other countries to stay out of his sandbox…
Hey Bill, how are ya feeling this am? I wonder how many people have woken up the morning after listening to a presidential debate with nausea and a splitting headache.
Bush stated in defense of his comments that we were too successful in Iraq that Saddam’s supporters laid down their arms, and that’s why we didn’t “get them.” I take that to mean that, rather than try to fight a conventional battle against an unstoppable army, they did what any smart person would…they hid.
See, if that were truly the case, then we wouldn’t be losing ground, we would have had the troops, weapons, and armor we need in Iraq.
But we don’t. We are ill equipped and were ill prepared for the insurgency.
This gov’t did not expect it. The Iraqis did not roll over and give up like we assumed. And now we’re paying for it.
I just substituted ‘Kerry’ for ‘Bush’ in an obviously biased and ignorant post made earlier than mine.
Hardly biased and hardly ignorant.
PAD gave a fair and balanced account of the debate, and if Kerry actually did that badly, you know everybody would be jumping on it, even those who support Kerry.
Plain and simple: even those that support Kerry don’t think he has a snowball’s chance in Hëll because, for whatever reason, Bush the Idiot will still get the votes.
This is why I made the comment about those that believe Bush won the debate: there can’t be any other possibility.
Hardly biased
Maybe not completely ignorant, but definitely biased.
ee, if that were truly the case, then we wouldn’t be losing ground, we would have had the troops, weapons, and armor we need in Iraq.
But we don’t. We are ill equipped and were ill prepared for the insurgency.
This gov’t did not expect it. The Iraqis did not roll over and give up like we assumed. And now we’re paying for it.
I see that. You see that. And the Bush Administration even says that. But I get the feeling that a lot of Bush supporters thinks that this is a minor point. That baffles me, because I consider this kind of strategic planning to be an important part of being a President.
Maybe not completely ignorant, but definitely biased.
Sorry, but I’m not going to be biased in favor of an idiot, regardless of Democrat or Republican. So, in this case, I’m biased in favor of IQ level, apparently.
That’s a bias Bush will never overcome.
That baffles me, because I consider this kind of strategic planning to be an important part of being a President.
Exactly. So when Bush supporters say “What’s Kerry’s plan?” I want to know what Bush’s plan WAS, as well as what his plan is for NOW.
Calling Bush an idiot, when he clearly isn’t, shows just how biased you are.
Hey, there is nothing wrong in admitting bias, but just don’t act like it doesn’t exist or that it is a better bias.
Calling Bush an idiot, when he clearly isn’t, shows just how biased you are.
Shall we go with incompetent, then? At least in regards to Iraq? Because he CLEARLY didn’t do good contingency planning, nor did his team do much planning beyond the point of rolling the tanks in.