There’s nothing more moronic than watching pundits or news agencies run around asking “Who won the debate?” because, if it had been a real debate rather than a sort of shared press conference, there would be no question. A proposition would be put forward (usually beginning with the word “Resolved”) and at the end a panel of judges, keeping careful score of logically based argumentation, would announce who won.
That doesn’t exist here. In this case, there’s only one measure of success: Whether the small group of undecided voters was swayed one way or the other. The election’s not going to be decided by people like me, who thought that Kerry overall gave a polished, professional and–most important–presidential presentation, because I was rooting for Kerry anyway. And it’s not going to be decided by Bush supporters who came away declaring that Bush triumphed because they were–I dunno–watching another debate entirely, through glasses so rose-colored that Elton John would consider them too gaudy to wear.
No, this election is going to resolved by some guy named Mel, driving a Dodge Durango in Scranton, who might have twigged to the notion that Bush has globally done for America what the Boston Strangler did for door-to-door salesmen, but still hasn’t been able to move beyond the devil one knows versus the devil one doesn’t. The question is whether Mel was watching and whether he was swayed one way or the other, or will even show up election day.
If enough Mels vote for Kerry, Kerry won. If they vote for Bush, Bush won. It’s really the only verdict that matters.
PAD
• 
I’d have to say Kerry had the edge — not because of the debate arguments themselves (that was a tie, in my opinion) — but because Kerry seemed more in control of his emotions and smooth in his delivery. Bush seemed agitated and irritated throughout most of the debate, and because of this, came off as being on the defensive, in my opinion. The constant blinking of his eyes did not help this perception, either.
Well, if posture and looks were all that matter, and apparently it is to the Dems, then Kerry won.
If plans based in reality and confident knowledgeable answers are what matters, then Bush won.
If by presidential presentation you mean that they were able to recite campaign rhetoric over and over, then Kerry did do that.
If by presidential presentation you mean they gave answers that should a clear knowledge of our relationships with other countries and an factual understanding of world events and homeland security, than Bush did that.
‘should’ be ‘showed’.
I hate typos.
“If plans based in reality and confident knowledgeable answers are what matters, then Bush won.”
How can you say that? Bush “corrected” Kerry about Poland going into Iraq with us, but that in fact is WRONG. Poland came in AFTER we had already taken Baghdad.
Bush said he knows how the world think/acts and Kerry’s plan can’t work. If that
If plans based in reality and confident knowledgeable answers are what matters, then Bush won.
Can I start laughing now?
If by presidential presentation you mean they gave answers that should a clear knowledge of our relationships with other countries and an factual understanding of world events and homeland security, than Bush did that.
Sure, Bush has basically said he doesn’t give a dámņ what anybody else thinks.
I’d love to see somebody ask what Bush would do if some other country made a preemptive strike that we didn’t agree with.
I bet the Bush Admin would be šhìŧŧìņg themselves.
Bush has created an even bigger mess than existed in the days post-9/11.
If that is an “understanding of world events”, then we are up Shìŧ Creek, folks.
ok, FYI..note to self..*next time, use spell checker and READ over before you post.*
check.
Sure, Bush has basically said he doesn’t give a dámņ what anybody else thinks.
I must have missed that line when watching last night. I read the transcript and still can’t find it. That is odd.
Oh, I get it, you are buying into some whacko theory that if Kerry becomes President that the world will stop fighting and start holding hands and that Kerry has some great power that will make new countries help in the Iraq situation.
If by presidential presentation you mean that they were able to recite campaign rhetoric over and over, then Kerry did do that.
I thought that was Bush, who repeated Kerry’s ‘wrong war, wrong place, wrong time’ quote over and over and over, as if it were the only thing he knew how to say.
I so wanted Kerry to quote Emerson on consistency, but of course that would have come off as rude and erudite, so it’s probably better that he didn’t.
But PAD is right, it is the Mel’s (and the Melanie’s) who in the end will make the decision.
For the record (as anyone who has read my other posts will know), I am solidly behind Bush.
That being said, I agree with PAD. Those solidly behind either candidate will not be changed by last night.
Who won? I freely admit Kerry did in style and debating skill. In ideas? I think both stayed on message, both dodged some questions, and both made some minor mistakes.
The reality? I think the debates play a role, but I suspect that this debate will not make or break either candidate. Neither hit a grand slam home run.
Jim in Iowa
(P.S. My rose colored glasses were lost last night.)
For reasons way too boring to go into, I ended up listening to part of the debate (hey, it was on at 2am British time!) on the radio rather than watching it on TV.
And on radio? Kerry walked all over Bush. Kerry at least sounded like he was fluent in the english language and not worried about whether or not he could string the next sentence together.
I swear, some of the pauses while Bush was getting the right word from his head to his mouth were so long I thought the radio had packed up.
One more thought: The next week will be a better test of who won as there is time to “unpack” and verify what both sides said.
Putting my “rose colored” glasses back on, I would almost predict point bounce for Kerry in the next day, followed by a 3 point decline as there is time to think about what both said.
Jim in Iowa
Pennsylvanians love to stick with the “devil you know” whenever possible. I mean, look at our two senators, so Mel in Scranton will probably end up voting for Bush no matter how stupid he looked last night.
My comments:
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA….
And you can choose what I’m laughing at… because there’s so much…
Travis
Oh, I get it, you are buying into some whacko theory that if Kerry becomes President that the world will stop fighting and start holding hands and that Kerry has some great power that will make new countries help in the Iraq situation.
No, I don’t believe all will be fine and dandy with Iraq if Kerry is elected, but I think he will atleast make an effort and not do is finest to pìšš øff everybody else.
Bush has no clue as to what he’s doing, yet everybody goes along with it. Another 4 years where Bush just gives everybody the finger?
It’s so mind boggling that I’m surprised my head hasn’t exploded yet.
For the diehards it doesn’t matter who “won”. I support Bush’s ideas, even if he doesn’t always present them well. In a post-9/11 world, I want Bush’s version of preemption more than Kerry’s.
I said this in another post and I think it bears repeating. Most people already have an opinion on which of the two world-views they support, and the debate is of no matter except pride. Most of the undecideds are more likely to be swayed on style at this point, so this is a potentially big plus for Kerry.
Bush could have delivered the knock-out blow last night and he blew it.
Funny thing, my step son had a mock election at school yesterday. When asked why he voted for John Kerry, his responce was because Bush was already president and wanted the other guy to have a chance too.
Cool, dude! Thanks for mentioning me.
I’m voting for Nader.
Mel
In a post-9/11 world, I want Bush’s version of preemption more than Kerry’s.
And this is where Bush proves he and many people in this country are idiots, because far too many people believe Saddam had something to do with 9/11, and that Iraq was important to the war on terror.
Al Qaeda should be the focus of the war on terror, and they weren’t in control of Iraq. Bin Laden is still loose too.
But I’d love to see Bush’s reaction if somebody else did a preemptive strike that Bush didn’t approve of. I bet it wouldn’t go both ways then.
Man, I swear to Gawd if I hear that stupid Dem-mented comment that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are the only focus of terror in the world…. So, I guess if we just stayed on them period and Saddam was left in power, developed nukes, used them on Israel or an American target, well, sh*t, that would been okay……. Duuuuuuuhhhhhhmocrats…
Who won?
The debate was designed to make sure there was no substance at all, so it comes down to style.
Kerry looked and sounded presidential. Bush looked and sounded like a petulent child.
Kerry won on style.
I disagree with PAD’s remarks. I think the Daves are going to decide tht election this year. We will distract the Mels with shiny objects and race off to the voting booths while the Mels just stand there, transfixed and slack-jawed.
And our dominance will continue to grow, as we consistently place in the top 20 in baby names. The Mels, on the other hand, are a dying breed, slowly but surely being swept into the dustbin of history.
So take that, Mels! (Also, most of you are murderers and will be shot down by the police soon enough.)
-Dave O’Connell
jumpthecup.blogspot.com
Addendum to last post: And don’t think you can poke a hole in our armor by pointing out our typos, either. It’s just another distraction we’ve laid out for you while we busy ourselves with the task of deciding the future of America.
-Dave O’Connell
Hmmm…. Please excuse me, but after these posts, I have some questions:
1 – Why everybody is thinking about Iraq and nobody is thinking about Bin Laden and Al Qaeda in the “war against terrorism”? Especially after what happened in Madrid, I think that was a proof that Al Qaeda is alive and kickin’…
2 – Why exactly was Iraq the main terrorism center of the world? I mean, I didn’t read any military movements from Iraq in a few years…
Craig,
That’s because some of us use a wider lens than just Iraq vs. al Qaeda. Every intelligence network thought Saddam had and would potentially use/sell WMDs. He successfully managed to get them hidden or destroyed. I think it is the former – likely in Syria.
Go to a site like MEMRI and you will see some examples of the hate towards the West going on over there – and it’s been going on since long before Iraq.
Getting free markets and free governments is the best way to stop this in the long run. It helps eliminate poverty – which contributes greatly to the feelings going on. In the short run (next 10 years) this will be ugly, but in the long run this is what needs to happen in the Middle East.
“Man, I swear to Gawd if I hear that stupid Dem-mented comment that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are the only focus of terror in the world…. So, I guess if we just stayed on them period and Saddam was left in power, developed nukes, used them on Israel or an American target, well, sh*t, that would been okay……. Duuuuuuuhhhhhhmocrats…”
Noooo, no one is saying that. We’re saying that the focus of our retaliation should have been on the terrorists who attacked us…not on the country filled with millions of civilians who didn’t.
We’re further saying that if we’d “stayed on” our pursuit of bin Laden, we might actually have caught him…rather than Bush suddenly saying that the man who he swore he’d bring in “dead or alive” is now no longer someone he’s especially focused on (talk about your flipflops.) And beyond that, we’re saying that every shred of evidence to this point indicates that Saddam was contained, that he was NOT developing nuclear weapons, and that if we hadn’t invaded while telling the UN to sod off, Saddam would still have no nuclear weapons, we might have bin Laden, a thousand soldiers and thousands more Iraqi men, women and children wouldn’t have been killed by us, and we wouldn’t be churning out terrorist recruits by the carload.
Or to put it in a way you’ll understand: D-uh.
PAD
We might as well give up, PAd. Our troops should be using some of these guys’ skulls for armor instead of what they’ve got – the skulls are far thicker.
But, as I said, the WMD weren’t important – if the WMD were moved to Syria, we have done nothing to Syria, and apparently we’re more than justified in levelling Damascus to the ground if we think they have them.
And for all the intelligence in the world, it, collectively, failed. Maybe they should turn some of that oh-so wonderful intelligence toward finding bin Laden.
I’d also like to know what more you people want than when our own Secretary of State, Colin Powell, says that Saddam didn’t have the WMD we thought he did:
The only thing where we got it wrong and where our presentation did not hold up was the actual stockpiles,” Powell said. “We’ve seen nothing to suggest that he had actual stockpiles. That was not right.”
He added, “As we’ve gone back and looked through the intelligence, there are indications that we had bad sourcing that we should have caught. For that I am disappointed and regret that that information was not correct.”
Of course, Powell then goes on to use, again, the whole “we’re better off without him”, as if that excuses everything.
I’d like to think that our over 1000 US soldiers would be better off alive, too, and could have been put to better use, like finding bin Laden.
Saddam, the great imaginary threat.
Unbeknownst to Kerry adviser Mike McCurry, a C-SPAN camera quietly followed McCurry as he found Kerry adviser Joe Lockhart on Spin Alley floor and asked him his impression of the debate. Lockhart candidly said to McCurry ,
Frankly, I am getting more and more suspicious as to why Bush has not bothered to capture/kill Bin Laden. Perhaps Michael Moore was right? Could Bush be too beholden to the Bin Laden Family? Think about it, why is Bin Laden still alive? We should have removed him three years ago. Bush’s response last night when talking about Bin Laden was a joke.
PAD , just out of curiousity
how many undecided voters are there?
does anybody really know?
Speaking strictly in terms of debate format, last night’s showing wasn’t a very good one.
I participate regularly in formal, Robert’s Rules of Order debate as part of a Literary Society I joined when I was a student at UGA, and continue to debate as an alumni. In a debate, you’re supposed to focus on the arguments and rhetoric of your opponents and pick them apart, usually with the burden of proof on one side. While it’s real easy to argue back and worth with sound bytes and witticisms, it’s much, much harder than you’d expect to create and maintain a cogent and cohesive argumentative platform. In other words, it’s one thing to have a position, and it’s quite another to be able to capably defend and advance that position. Over the years, I’ve gotten to know a bunch of talented and thoroughly excellent debaters that could eat both Bush and Kerry alive on a debate floor, at the same time, without breaking a sweat.
Last night’s showing was more directed issue campaigning than debate. The format was crap. Neither side answered many of the most direct questions, instead evading with campaign rhetoric (though I note Kerry asked more direct questions than Bush, meaning that Bush left more questions unanswered). The few direct questions that were answered substantively were asked by Lehrer, and those were usually clarifications of statement. So, nothing substainive was said, nor could anything substantive have been said because the candidates couldn’t directly question one another, just respond to a sound byte with their sound byte. I was disappointed by the whole thing, and I’m really hoping that the next debate will be formatted in such a way that the candidates will actually be able to make or score substantive points over one another. I’d like to see the two of them question each other directly… that’ll get those swing voters to pick a dámņ side already.
That OTHER John Byrne
J. Alexander wrote:
“Frankly, I am getting more and more suspicious as to why Bush has not bothered to capture/kill Bin Laden. Perhaps Michael Moore was right? Could Bush be too beholden to the Bin Laden Family?”
Oh, c’mon — bin Laden tried to kill George W’s father. Get real.
Historically, there are plenty of people who could not be found even when a zillion people were looking for them — Jimmy Hoffa, D.B. Cooper, etc.
And look how long it took to catch Ted Kaczynski (the Unabomber) — who might still be loose had his own brother not turned him in.
I never cease to be amazed by those rose colored glasses. I mean, last night was laughable. Bush stammered, and yammered, and repeated the same 3 or 4 catch phrases over and over again, despite the context of the current argument. He constantly broke the rules that his own team crafted in the form of a 32-page document by talking over Kerry, jumping in, and grabbing a 30 second extension without asking or being offered. He had a few shining moments, but his stubborn insistance to stick with his ‘plan’ (which he claimed to have ‘outlined’ immediately after rambling about lofty ideals without any substance) and his constant suggestion that any form of criticism serves the enemy shows how much faith he has in democracy.
If we’re talking about style, Kerry clearly won, and almost nobody argues that fact. If we’re talking about a clear message, I believe Kerry came out on top again. He (for once) managed to express his ideas, and even to admit some of his past follies, where Bush continued to try to paint a picture of a man incapable of making a wrong decision without ever really articulating what it is that he plans to do, other than ordering more body bags.
I can’t wait for the next debate; Bush is clearly outclassed. I am glad that folks are finally waking up from the 4+ long year stupor and finally realizing what an intelligent, articulate, presidential candidate can do to represent our country. The red-neck, backwoods, half-literate, dry drunk, ex-coke head, draft dodging moron has had enough time in the spotlight. He’s not cute, he’s not humble, he’s not a ‘regular guy’, and he’s certainly not presidential material. It’s time for him to go home (though they clearly don’t want him there; his home town newspaper has endorsed Kerry).
Phinn
Oh, c’mon — bin Laden tried to kill George W’s father. Get real.
Uh, what are you smoking?
Unlike, say 9/11that’s something that Saddam Hussein was actually responsible for.
Lets all be honest, facts and cogent argumenst aren’t what wins “debates” in this country. What wins debates is how you look, how succinctly you speak, what movements and getsures you make and how many flubs you make..basically American political debates are all about style and substance can go screw itself.
So on the basis of whats important to john & Jane Q. Public we were presented to with a hopeful who had good posture, a nice tan(luckily the orange faded bu debate night), didn’t seem to stumble over his words and presented himself in a stately, dignified manner. On the other side we had an incumbent who vacillated between a bored, petulant child and a guy who’d rather be playing golf. Throw in the “ums”, “uhs” and interminable silent pauses and its pretty dámņ easy to see who came out on top.
Well, I’ve finally come around. Bush IS a leader. He has led his followers into his fantasyland where Iraq is making progress and he won last night.
Den W. wrote:
“Unlike, say 9/11that’s something that Saddam Hussein was actually responsible for.”
Oops! Oh, well. Won’t be the first mistake I ever made. 🙂
But despite my momentary despot dyslexia, my main point — that finding people who don’t want to be found (or are dead) is very tough to do — still has much validity.
I hope to god Bush is not re-elected next month and I will be doing my part to aid in that effort (living in a decidedly red state, however, makes my assistance somewhat wasted). I still look for Bush/Cheney to pull bin Laden out of their ášš just before the election anyway. How opportune would that “capture” be? That, or another “terrorist” attack on a U.S. target.
I suppose I may be in a minority of one, but I am still not convinced of the “facts” of the previous attack. The people who told me it was Osama and al-Qaida are the same people who told me Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. I tend not to believe anything someone else tells me unless I can verify it for myself anyway. It would not shock me to discover that certain unscrupulous individuals used, or even directed, the events of 9/11 to advance their own evil agenda. Yes, I guess I am a conspiracy nut afterall.
Yes,you are!
Just out of curiosity, did anybody happen to notice that it was actually Bush who broke many of the ridiculous rules that his surrogates pushed for, and not Kerry? It was Bush who pushed for those idiotic game show colored lights on the podium so that viewers would see when Kerry went over his time. In fact, it was Bush’s light that ended up flashing red more than Kerry. I’m fairly sure it was Bush’s people who insisted that neither candidate should speak directly to the other, but Bush broke that rule. And while I’m not sure if this was in the rules or not, but it was certainly Bush who broke in with rebuttals on a number of occasions, forcing the moderator to back-pedal and give him those additional 30 seconds.
And the best one of all was the Bush campaign’s insistence that the air conditioning be set at so-called ‘industry standards,’ as opposed to the cooler temperature that Kerry’s people requested. Reason being that the Bush people had seen Kerry sweat at a previous debate, so they thought this would make him look bad. After watching the debate last night, I couldn’t help thinking Bush was wishing for a cooler room, because he often looked flushed and uncomfortable. Incidentally, apropos of nothing, but being married to a makeup artist, don’t the candidates know about a product called Sweat Stop, which is applied to sweat-prone actors before they go on camera to help relieve the problem?
And finally, after last night, it’s easy to see why the Bush camp was pushing for no cutaways. When the networks basically ignored this idiotic rule, viewers were treated to lots of wonderful cutaways showing our president looking like a petulant child. Thanks goodness for cutaways.
If you watched CSPAN you would have been trested to the moment when it looked like GW either had a massive case of brain freeze or somebody zapped him with a cattle prod.
*Noooo, no one is saying that. We’re saying that the focus of our retaliation should have been on the terrorists who attacked us…not on the country filled with millions of civilians who didn’t.
We’re further saying that if we’d “stayed on” our pursuit of bin Laden, we might actually have caught him…rather than Bush suddenly saying that the man who he swore he’d bring in “dead or alive” is now no longer someone he’s especially focused on (talk about your flipflops.) And beyond that, we’re saying that every shred of evidence to this point indicates that Saddam was contained, that he was NOT developing nuclear weapons, and that if we hadn’t invaded while telling the UN to sod off, Saddam would still have no nuclear weapons, we might have bin Laden, a thousand soldiers and thousands more Iraqi men, women and children wouldn’t have been killed by us, and we wouldn’t be churning out terrorist recruits by the carload.
Or to put it in a way you’ll understand: D-uh.*
So, we should have waited until a mushroom cloud appeared in some nice spot, like a mall in Israel or perhaps Washington DC? I know Demmento-crats have a hard time multi-tasking or thinking, but you folks act like the USA can’t look for Bin Laden and stop a terrorist state at the same time. I mean, we are not at war in Afghanistan (some attacks but not like Iraq) so, we have teams looking, not in combat, for Bin Laden. I am sorry they are not reporting to you and the others at Misguided Liberals HQ, but even if you got their briefings you would spin them into lies anyway. Thanks for the attempted smackdown PAD and Craigy, keep on smiling while the DUH-NC loses again and pins their hopes on Hitlery in 2008.
“I flipped before I flopped on that issue…” John F*cking Kerry in the remake of “Day of the Dolphin”
DUH-NC? Hiterly? Reminds me of those old Cracked Magazine parodies, which were never anywhere near as funny as Mad, because they just spelled the names differently. And honestly, they’re not all that funny here either. In the words of the late great Tallulah Bankhead, ‘There is less in this than meets the eye.’
PAD wrote:
That doesn’t exist here. In this case, there’s only one measure of success: Whether the small group of undecided voters was swayed one way or the other. The election’s not going to be decided by people like me, who thought that Kerry overall gave a polished, professional and–most important–presidential presentation, because I was rooting for Kerry anyway. And it’s not going to be decided by Bush supporters who came away declaring that Bush triumphed because they were–I dunno–watching another debate entirely, through glasses so rose-colored that Elton John would consider them too gaudy to wear.
I’d just like to point out for the record that there is also a group of Bush supporters who cringed through about 1/3 of Bush’s airtime last night, but who still can’t stand Kerry.
I liked the Cracked parody cover of Flash Gordon that had Ming holding a can of shaving cream in each hand and covering the earth in foam while saying “Puny Earthlings, Who Will Shave You Now!”
This is an informal test, in which the answers will not be revealed, nor will you be graded. After answering each question, all I ask is that you ask yourself why
Forgive my ignorance ,but when the Prez mentioned a missile defense system last night was he serious????How is a missile defense system that only works 20% of the time gonna help in “the war against terror”???Have any terrorists ever launched a missile outside of a Steven Seagal movie???
Speaking as a former Mel the debate last night didnt change my opinion,if anything it confirmed what i already thought about the candidates after reading up on them both.
Now We wait for rounds two and three and Edwards
vs Emperor Palpatine…I mean VP Cheney.:)
Deano- You are correct. What good does missile defense do when terrorists are more likely going to try to smuggle in a suitcase nuke.
John Edwards vs. Emperor Palpatine would be F*CKING AWESOME. 🙂
And now for my $0.02…
Starting off fair (and balanced!), my criticism of Senator Kerry was that he refused to look into the camera for more than a few seconds during the debate, doing so only as it drew to a close. That made me uncomfortable; the camera is, for all intents and purposes, America’s eyes. Not looking into the camera is not looking into the eyes of potential voters. I don’t like that. Kerry’s detractors (like Bush’s) accuse him of being vague and skirting around the truth, lying about his background, etc. A good move for Kerry during the next debate would be to remember that the moderator is not the one he needs to answer. He needs to answer to America, because American voters are really the ones asking these questions.
My main critique of Bush is that he continually paints Kerry as “indecisive.” He used the reasoning that Kerry read the same intelligence reports he did, and by that reasoning, voted in support of going to war in Iraq. Now, Kerry is saying that it was the wrong thing to do. Bush uses this as an example of “flip-flopping,” which is one of the Republican Party’s most common attacks on Sen. Kerry.
However, what Bush fails to understand is that of course you’d vote to go to Iraq if all accounts are telling you that they’ve got nuclear weapons stockpiled in the desert and they’re going to use them on us any day now. Yeah. I think that would justify a preemptive strike.
But the fact of the matter is, IT WAS FAULTY INTELLIGENCE. Everybody knows this. The Bush Administration has even admitted to this. So I don’t count Kerry changing his mind as “inconsistency.” I call it “adaptability.” There are new and different threats in Iraq now, different challenges that the Americans and our allies are facing. The nuke threat didn’t pan out (unless you count Iran, in which case, hey, Bush only missed by one letter). So yes, Mr. President, now we have to change tactics instead of doing the same things we’ve been doing.
In Absolute Geek terms, say you’re hacking your way through a Final Fantasy game with an Ice Sword. Sooner or later, you’re gonna have to face off against an ice monster. Your old sword isn’t gonna cut it (no pun intended). You’re going to have to change tactics.
It’s Bush’s stubbornness, unwillingness to admit when he’s made a mistake and his unwillingness to take steps to correct those mistakes are a lot of people’s biggest problems with him. A change in tactics would probably be a very good thing in Iraq at the moment, because obviously we’re f*cking it up so far. We’re not facing the threats we went in there to face. We’re faced with civil unrest and kidnappings and beheadings and, let’s face it, a power vacuum. The Iraqi Prime Minister is seen by a lot of Iraqis and more than a few Americans as Bush’s puppet. Even Bush himself said the word – in denial of such an allegation, but nevertheless, he was the one who put the suggestion out there last night. Not too bright.
Saddam is gone. We got that motherf*cking bášŧárd out of power and in a jail cell where he belongs until we send him to hëll. But we’re not sure what to do now. We went in without an exit strategy, and the ensuing confusion and chaos is not something Bush or his advisors are prepared to deal with.
If Bush wants to win this election, he has got to admit that his plans for Iraq need to change. He’s got to come up with a way of pulling troops out of Iraq and finding a way for the new Iraqi government to really assert itself. We cannot occupy Iraq indefinitely. We freed Iraq from an international terrorist and evil man, true. But we should not look to subjugate Iraq to America. A supportive force in Iraq is probably necessary, but like Kerry said, we’re shouldering 90% of the cost and the responsibility for this war. We went in without UN support. Really dumb. We need to focus on what we can do to make the Iraqi government stronger and more able to protect itself from insurgents. Eventually, Iraq needs to become a strong, independent nation that is not a threat to a possiblity of peace in the Middle East. It could very well become a strong force of democracy in the Arab world, but not if it’s being treated as an extension of the American Empire, which is what Bush is going to keep on doing if he’s elected.
It’s not going to be Bush or Kerry who accomplishes that goal; in fact, I don’t even see it happening in my lifetime. Generations could go by before it finally happens, but steps to have to be taken at some point, and the earlier the better. Kerry is willing to change along with the situation. Bush is not. I’d rather have Kerry than Bush in office. I liken the man to a Weeble – he may wobble, but he won’t fall down.
End rant! 🙂
“10. Halliburton received billions of dollars worth of government contracts for post-War Iraq by fairly competing with other companies
D. B and C”
Just read an article yesterday about this topic.10 Defense contractors have had the same opportunities for “fair “competition on contracts
totaling about 682 billion dollars !!!!Mind you these same contractors also donated about 450 million bucks in campaign contributions and lobbying funds.by the way guess who jumped from number 37
to enter the the top 10 in the last 2 years
Yes Folks……… Haliburton the former(?)employer of Vp Cheney.What a coincidence(sarcasm dripping profusely)