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 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.
Here, then, is a partial list of things you probably don’t believe:
The distance from the Earth to: the sun, the moon, Mars, Alpha Centauri
Acceleration due to gravity is uniform across the surface of the Earth
Absolutely anything that happened before you were about 3
All matter is composed of elements, each of which has an unique number of electrons, protons, and neutrons (the last of which is variable between isotopes)
That Richard Lattimore’s translations of The Oddysey and the Iliad are faithful to the original archaic Greek texts
That John Kerry went to Vietnam (Sure, he says he did, but did you see him deplane in Saigon?)
Light comes out of the lamp when you flip the switch because of electricity, and not because of a small captive demon in the bulb
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.
No, you’re right. Of course, the unscrupulous individuals were in Al Quaeda, which has an evil agenda…
http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/beaconnews/top/a01debate2.htm
Excerpt: On the first day of Professor Blomgren’s political science class at Aurora University earlier this month, 21 of her 26 students said they planned to vote for Senator John Kerry this November.
But despite their left-leaning preferences, the students
I thought they both came of as lying politicians rather than wise statesmen. I’m voting for Badnarik.
Posted by: J. ALexander at October 1, 2004 04:19 PM
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.
Okay let me go ahead and say that I’m going to vote for Bush so you can go ahead an prejudge everything I say as stupid.
Do you really believe that Bush has some kind of back stage deal or in some way obligated to the Bin Laden family that he is on purpose not trying to find him? Did a man that evil and amoral somehow become president of our country? I hope not.
Light comes out of the lamp when you flip the switch because of electricity, and not because of a small captive demon in the bulb
That’s not entirely true. My small demon isn’t captive. He’s an employee of mine.
This whole thing puts me in the mind of Transmetropolitan. 🙁
“Do you really believe that Bush has some kind of back stage deal or in some way obligated to the Bin Laden family that he is on purpose not trying to find him? Did a man that evil and amoral somehow become president of our country? I hope not.”
The morning of 9/11, Bush the senior was having breakfast with a member of the Bin Laden family in New York not too awfully far from the twin towers. This was documented and reported by the CBC.
have a nice day.
If enough Mels vote for Kerry, Kerry won. If they vote for Bush, Bush won. It’s really the only verdict that matters.
Which is why we should all be glad they didn’t let Nader play.
Unlike some of my more conspiracy-minded brethren here I don’t believe the administration or any other “shadow-y groups” allowed 9/11 to happen. I do think, however, that the Bush administrition exploited 9/11 for political gain after the fact to the hilt, which is reprehensible enough.
My favorite moment in the debate : I watched on CSPAN, which as has been noted here previously had a split-screen of the two candidates’ faces up the entire time and BOTH TIMES that Kerry said “The president and I both love America very much!” Bush shot Kerry a total “Whatchoo talkin’ bout, Willis?” look. I laughed out loud both times and rewound the tivo to make sure it wasn’t imagined.
The morning of 9/11, Bush the senior was having breakfast with a member of the Bin Laden family in New York not too awfully far from the twin towers. This was documented and reported by the CBC.
You think he was there to watch? And which of Osama’s FIFTY TWO siblings was Bush meeting with? Are they all terrorists? Considering a fifty-third bin Laden sibling (now deceased) was a partner with both Presidents Bush in an oil company in the 1970s (15-20 years before Osama joined the “jihad” against all things that are not Krikkit– er, you know what I mean) there is probably a benign explanation for that meeting– like maybe that it’s a meeting of the Carlyle Group. Look at the CBC’s own website: http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/saudi.html
To think that one of the most powerful families in America’s oil-producing region is economically connected to one of the most powerful families in the Middle Easts’s oil-producing region. Wow. I didn’t see that coming. That proves that Bush is giving a terrorist a free pass. Either that… or the American nation has given up on the concept of attainder by blood. “The Saudi government has said that the family signed a statement officially disowning Osama in 1994, a year after the first terrorist attack on the World Trade Center. The Saudi government also stripped bin Laden of his citizenship, which resulted in self-exile to Sudan. When I asked a senior United States intelligence officer whether anyone had considered detaining members of the family, he replied, ‘That’s called taking hostages. We don’t do that.'” http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?011112fa_FACT3
Carl: 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….
Luigi Novi: The problem is not that they
I was just reading an article in the Nation by Jonathan Schell. He wrote about a silver lining in the massive mistakes made by this administration in going to war. If there had been WMD’s and ties to Al Quaida our troops over there would have been toast and we would likely have had a nuclear attack on home soil by now. Now, my opinion is that if they truly had WMD’s we would never have gone in. Why? Because this administration is more than willing to negotiate with countries that do have WMD’s. Going against Iraq was easy because they did not have the capabilities we were told they have. Going against an enemy that could fight back, well, tha’s another story.
I guess everyone’s forgotten what happened when Iraq really did attempt to build a nuke, back when (in the ’80s, I think…).
The Israeli Air Force bombed the bejeezus out of the reactor the Iraqis were building to generate the plutonium they wanted. That’s why you never saw a mushroom growing over Tel Aviv. Had another such reactor been built (and it does take a very special reactor design to get weapons-grade plutonium or uranium), I’m fairly confident the same fate would have befallen it – especially given that Saddam handed his air forces over to the same nation he’d recently fought a decade-long war with, during Gulf War I. (I will confess, his naivete made me chuckle – he expected his “Arab brothers” to overlook the previous ten years, and just give him his weapon systems back???)
“(15-20 years before Osama joined the “jihad” against all things that are not Krikkit– er, you know what I mean)”
HA HA HA HA HA
Yeah, we should have waited for the nukes to be ready and the missiles awaiting to be launched. We know that’s the Dem-mentedcrats way. Or to actually sell or *give* our enemies the technology, right? Rift that one…
Carl:
>Yeah, we should have waited for the nukes to be ready and the missiles awaiting to be launched. We know that’s the Dem-mentedcrats way. Or to actually sell or *give* our enemies the technology, right? Rift that one…
Carl, you’re obviously trying to bait people here that identify as Demcorats, but do you belive that anyone who disputes the president on his way of dealing with these issues is a democrat?
How opportune would that “capture” be? That, or another “terrorist” attack on a U.S. target.
Actually, at this point, I can’t see how a terrorist attack would “benefit” Bush.
Since Cheney has basically said “vote for the other and we’ll get attacked”, it certainly wouldn’t help morale to get another attack on Bush’s watch (and nearly a full 4-years of it).
So, we should have waited until a mushroom cloud appeared in some nice spot, like a mall in Israel or perhaps Washington DC?
Sure, and if anybody is going to provide the nuke, it’ll be Al Qaeda, not Saddam.
This was the case before 9/11, the case after 9/11 and before we removed Saddam from power.
You guys who defend this war in Iraq still fail to show how Saddam was this “imminent danger” that Bush has got you believing.
But we have what, 15k troops in Afghanistan? We have 37.5k troops in S Korea alone, and over 100k in Iraq.
Somehow, I think more troops in Afghanistan would give us a better chance at finding bin Laden. I don’t know why I would think this, since bin Laden is “no longer important”, but I suppose time and the potential for another 9/11 will tell.
Yeah, we should have waited for the nukes to be ready and the missiles awaiting to be launched.
You know, a number of countries have nukes. Iraq wasn’t one of them.
But hey, I’ve pulled this logic card before, and the Republicans didn’t like it: N Korea says they have nukes, but we shouldn’t wait for them to drop them on us, we should invade. That’s the Republican way, the way of the preemptive strike.
It’s still amusing how they don’t appreciate that line of thought now, when there’s a valid threat…
I understand the undecided. I don’t think its a matter on not getting the difference between the two choice:
Choice #1 – Bush – war crazy, GOP care nothing for Americans who are not white, not ultra rich, not over 45. Will get us all killed if left unchecked.
Choice #2 – Kerry – keeps looking weak, refuses to attack back and look like a “man.” Democrats a party run by ultra rich pretends to care about everyone even if they keep excluding non-whites, non-ultra rich, not over 45. They will only bomb weaker countries in case of a sex scandal.
This idea that because people died so everyone could vote (according to my dog, past dogs died to give dogs the right to vote, yeah) it doesn’t matter if you don’t like the choices, if you think they both suck in on way or another – you are just supposed to vote because someone died to give you the right. I thought people died to give up the “right” – meaning the choice. But I was wrong. We are not suppose to let “choice” enter into to it at all. Just vote, no matter how bad either chioces are. Vote or you are a traitor, disrespectful, and hate America.
I like that logic. So Martin Luther King was one of those people who died. So If two Klansmen ran for office, I’m supposed to vote for one or the other simply because, well, he died to give us the right. I wonder if he was alive which Klansmen he’d vote for?
War Monger or weakling. I’m so glad people died to give me the choice between either. Yeah.
If the choice is between two klansmen,maybe you should enter in to the race. The only two places that I could think a race like that would exist is Alabama or Louisiana.
But that aside, your argument is too confused to really try to refute. You are not a traitor by not voting. You are just lazy or ignorant. If the choices are so bad, then do something about it. Become a choice or get someone that you respect to enter in the race. Politics should not be a career and the average guy is who is needed to make any changes.
But hey, I’ve pulled this logic card before, and the Republicans didn’t like it: N Korea says they have nukes, but we shouldn’t wait for them to drop them on us, we should invade. That’s the Republican way, the way of the preemptive strike.
It’s still amusing how they don’t appreciate that line of thought now, when there’s a valid threat…
Because it’s not logical. Saddam ran an outlaw regime, sanctions were not bringing him down, and he was not willing to negotiate/come clean with the international community. Right now, North Korea is interested in getting financial incentives from the US and is still willing to talk.
Is North Korea a threat? Yes, but not as long as they are at the negotiation table.
Guys? Has anyone here seen the George Butler documentary, Going Upriver: The Long War of John Kerry? I just saw it tonight, and I gotta say, if you’re one of those people voting for Kerry simply because he’s “not Bush,” but you’re not that enthusiastic about him, then you GOTTA see this film. If Thursday’s debate represented the beginning of a shift in the public’s mind about him, then this film is the second half of that one-two punch. The public needs to know about this film.
My spoiler-free review of it is at: http://64.33.77.146/discus/messages/8/24843.html?1096774357.
I’m studying rhetoric right now, hence the terminology below.
I hate to admit it, but Bush has good ethos. He actually does a good job of establishing a relationship between himself and the audience. He presents himself as a likable guy, and this facade gains him much credibility that he otherwise wouldn’t (and shouldn’t) have. In that sense, he’s a great rhetorician. But if you actually listen to what he has to say, I think you will find some problems with the idea of him continuing his time in office, at least in terms of pathos and logos. He persuades us by appealing to our fears (via pathos), which is rather underhanded and the worst kind of manipulation. He also fails to appeal to our sense of reason (logos). He tells us there are WMDs (an appeal to our emotions of fear), but fails to back it with evidence (an affront to our desire for reason). What we have is a president who attempts to persuade us by appealing more to emotions than to reason, and I think this is very dangerous.
I just can
Yeah, the electoral coolegte really makes you feel like your vote counts…
Whatever happened to a simple majority? Isn’t that supposed to be a cornerstone of a democratic system?
Queen: America has never been a democracy. Our governmental form is a republic. This allows for checks and balances to stop the masses from exerting total control.
Anyone seen this?
http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/001054.php
I really don’t import if Kerry wins o Bush wins… what really matters is that you are not a good american, Peter. You’re other fat, stupid, jewish white man with stupid ideas who thinks about himselg as a genius… Ha, ha, ha… Did you ever read something from Alan Moore? He’s the only genius in the medium, not a silly writer that steals the best lines in famous films and use them in his poor-unfunny comics.
If he’s an example of the Mel’s PAD was talking about, our country is in way more trouble than I thought.
Anyone seen this?
“>http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/001054.php
Just did and quite frankly, it doesn’t prove anything. He pulled out a bunch of index cards that *may* have had info on it. More likely, he pulled out blank cards to write on. Considering Bush broke the debate rule of no rebuttals and repeatedly stepped on Kerry’s replies, this really gets no traction.
Just did and quite frankly, it doesn’t prove anything. He pulled out a bunch of index cards that *may* have had info on it. More likely, he pulled out blank cards to write on. Considering Bush broke the debate rule of no rebuttals and repeatedly stepped on Kerry’s replies, this really gets no traction.
Hmmm. The problem is that the rules stated,
” Each candidate must submit to the staff of the Commission prior to the debate all such paper and any pens or pencils with which a candidate may wish to take notes during the debate, and the staff or commission will place such paper, pens and pencils on the podium, table or other structure to be used by the candidate in that debate.
A candidate’s unilateral use of prepared notes could provide a distinct advantage in the debate, hence their mutual prohibition.
Imagine if George Bush had note cards that contained verbatim quotes of Kerry’s various contradictory positions. Even paraphrased, a litany of these statements could have been used to devastating effect.
(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…)
Apparently Carl found some weapons of mass destruction in Iraq all on his own the rest of us were not aware of.
After this whole Iraq debacle our troops should get a break. If Bush wins he should have them invade someplace nice for some BS reason, like the French Riviera.
(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. )
Hey being from Arkansas I don’t think you should be talking about Clinton that harsh….Oooo your ragging on Bush, sorry bout that.
A candidate’s unilateral use of prepared notes could provide a distinct advantage in the debate, hence their mutual prohibition.
Which is why this wasn’t a debate, it was simple a string of sound bytes.
They need a REAL debate.
Now I make a lot of jokes on here because I like to erroneously think I’m a funny guy. That’s why my type key login plugs my web comic site, to bring about further humor (Much thanks to the couple of folks who came to my site from one of my posts by the way.) But if I may be absolutely serious for just a couple of sentences, which I promise won’t happen often, I have a question for Carl. From a previous post in response to PAD:
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.
Carl, do you really, honestly think that name calling (Demmento-crats) strengthens your argument in any way? Aside form being able to hurl insults can you hold a civilized argument with another intelligent human being? Now I don’t know about the other posting stings but on this one your not managing it. Now if all you want to do is be insulting and call groups and people you don’t agree with names, in an attempt to hurt PAD’s feeling or get him angry or what have you, go right ahead. I’m sure PAD can take it, and am likewise confident that he could take it better than you. I guess my point here is that the name calling and insults only go to show the rest of the board your lack of decorum and wit. On the other hand, please continue. They make me laugh my ášš off.
(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.)
If Bush wins he’ll make Iraq the 51st state (up yours Guam)and rename it ether Really West Virginia or New Dakota.
(Unlike some of my more conspiracy-minded brethren here I don’t believe the administration or any other “shadow-y groups” allowed 9/11 to happen. )
Your wrong, it was section 31, and only Dr. Bashir can save us!
On a related note I always wished PAD would get to write another DS9 novel…
Entering late…
Kerry won the debate. Bush, frankly, looked like he was bumbling his way through the majority of the debate session, barely able to speak at times, and when he did, he spoke in circles, also full of “uh’s” and “um’s”–not coming off as exceptionally intelligent. Kerry articulated very, very well and his key points were well-taken. (Only one Bushism for Kerry–“Treblinka” when I’m sure he meant Lubyanka.)
I wonder how Bush would choose to defend his stance on war vets’ benefits, which he and his Republican majority have cut severely–so that those currently serving in Iraq won’t have a whole lot to come home to–including VA hospitals closing, etc., etc. It’s no wonder, in an analysis of Bush’s policies, that the American Federation of Government Employees, the gov’t union, is endorsing the Kerry/Edwards ticket. What’s worse–someone who went to war and saw what happened there, then came back and protested, or someone who has been making sweeping efforts to ensure that the veterans coming home after their tours in Iraq have no future?
~Gary
I’m a vet and I haven’t seen any of these “decreases” in my benefits. Veterans benefits and pay have been increasing, not decreasing. When Democrats say “cuts,” they mean that the increase isn’t big enough.
If Bush looked tired to you, it might help to remind yourself that he spent the whole day with Florida hurricane victims and that was emotionally draining. Kerry, of course, was busy preparing for the debate and having his agent orange color removed from his face.
And the American Federation of Government Employees and “the gov’t union” will endorse any party that is for government expansion… which the Democrats have been for for decades, so the fact that they are endorsing a Democrat this year isn’t really saying much.
DW
I’m a vet and I haven’t seen any of these “decreases” in my benefits. Veterans benefits and pay have been increasing, not decreasing. When Democrats say “cuts,” they mean that the increase isn’t big enough.
Then please, explain the House budget resolution that passed 3/20/2003, headed up by House Republicans, cutting compensation for disabilities and education benefits by as much as $14.6 billion and vets’ health care funding by as much as $14.2 billion over the next 10 years. What’s happened to the VA over the previous few years? Their budget keeps shrinking. Even now, especially now, the VA hospitals have suffered layoffs and many, especially in this area, are in danger of closing their doors forever. Consider too that about 40% of vets are homeless and, without help, that number will increase with the current troops arriving home. Veterans and their families have various medical problems that require treatment (i.e. inherited illness from Agent Orange–and that was a very dirty comment you made regarding Kerry and the dangerous toxin–shame!) and require an organization behind them to help them get the treatment they need.
Bottom line: just because some of these things aren’t happening to you doesn’t mean they aren’t happening to someone. It’s like being sick (like I am now *coughs*)…just because you aren’t now doesn’t mean that someone else out there isn’t, nor does it mean you won’t have the illness at some future point.
If Bush looked tired to you, it might help to remind yourself that he spent the whole day with Florida hurricane victims and that was emotionally draining. Kerry, of course, was busy preparing for the debate and having his agent orange color removed from his face.
Then I say that he’s got nobody to blame but himself for appearing as haggard and articulating as poorly as he did during the debate. What activity ultimately has more of a payoff for him…attending to a few hundred people who were victims of an unfortunate series of natural disasters, or preparing himself for a debate that could well determine his entire political future before millions of Americans? I thought so.
And the American Federation of Government Employees and “the gov’t union” will endorse any party that is for government expansion… which the Democrats have been for for decades, so the fact that they are endorsing a Democrat this year isn’t really saying much.
Bush established mandatory quotas to contract out about 500k jobs across federal agencies. He rewrote rules, making it harder for workers to appeal contracting out decisions. He championed legislation giving DoD and Homeland Security managers full power over rules & pay increases. A million federal employees are in danger today of losing their collective bargaining rights. And last but certainly not least, he’s tried again and again to eliminate overtime pay, and now it seems he’s succeeded. Many of those people who’ll be denied overtime pay are–you guessed it–veterans. John Kerry has fought hard against all of the above.
I guess closing VA hospitals and decreasing the amount of vets served by eliminating a category of vets is not a decrease in benefits. We haven’t gotten much in the way of a cost-of-living increase in many moons. When we say cuts we mean cuts, we’re not whining about not getting big enough increases. Cuts means CUTS.
Bush went to “comfort” the hurricane victims for more photo ops. He knew he had the debate and instead of properly preparing he had to let the world know how “compassioate” he is. You are makeing excuses for his poor perfomance. He knew the stakes, but felt he could use his tried and true method of repeating false things so many times we’d believe it. Didn’t work this time.
I’m not surprised the Government union is for Kerry, considering they made the Dept. of Homeland Security union free. Why would they vote for an administration trying to keep them from organizing?
Well, Gary, I guess I was typing as you were posting. I also want to mention that Bush did NOT look tired. He looked like a man who could not articulate what he was thinking because if he were honest no one would vote for him. He took so much time to answer so he could censor his first thoughts with something that would be more palatable to the American people.
Gotta love these sound bytes from Condi Rice:
“I stand by to this day the correctness of the decision to take seriously an intelligence assessment that Saddam Hussein would likely have a nuclear weapon by the end of the decade” if action wasn’t taken.
“We were all unhappy that the intelligence was not as good as we had thought that it was. But the essential judgment was absolutely right. Saddam Hussein was a threat,” she said.
Later, in an interview on CNN’s “Late Edition,” Rice said, “If you underestimate the nuclear threat of a tyrant, you make a really big mistake.”
Everybody in that administration is so stuck on “well, we were wrong about the WMD, but getting Saddam was more important”, that they still fail to just admit that Saddam didn’t have WMD, he didn’t have a nuclear program, and that there are far greater threats out there.
Hëll, Castro is a tyrant, let’s bomb the šhìŧ out of Cuba. That smegger won’t die fast enough for us. But he’s a tyrant, and you never know when a tyrant might try and get some nukes.
That’s good enough reasoning right there… if you’re a Republican.
The argument that Saddam was a bad guy who might someday have WMDs is like arresting someone who doesn’t have a gun on the grounds that he’s a bad guy and he might someday buy a gun and he might do something bad with it.
There are plenty of dictators in the world — and we have done and do business with most of them — but we don’t, can’t, overthrow them all. We went into Afghanistan (with a *lot* more international support, BTW) because we had proof that they had attacked us. We went into Iraq because Bush had wanted to get Hussein from day one and because he used the 9/11 fears (if we don’t get rid of Hussein we’ll face another 9/11) to justify a lack of evidence or aggression towards us. And now we have zero credibility internationally (except maybe in England and Poland), we have over 1,000 dead American soldiers Bush put in harm’s way (not to mention many, many more dead Iraquis), and we have a quagmire it will take years, if not decades, to get our troops out of.
Actually, according to an article in the Nation, Poland is not that pleased with us anymore, either.
While we’re on the subject of the whole preemptive strike business, and Iraq, and Bush, and everything, just bear in mind a couple things:
1. There’s an article over at http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/britt_23_2.htm discussing the 14 common threads of Fascist regimes. Last I checked…guess what country had all 14 in common? Hint: it’s not Iraq…
2. It’s funny, but I looked online to try and trace who of the big powers in Washington that actually went off to fight in a war, any war. It seems that they’re pretty split down party lines: the majority of Democrats went off to fight, while the majority of Republicans never did. The big guys on TV & radio who are pro-Bush? Never went. Just seems curious, is all.
Kerry/Edwards ’04!
~G.
The thing that staggers me the most is Bush running around calling Kerry’s comments about a global test for a just war “the Kerry Doctrine.”
No. It’s not. Kerry was simply reiterating and rephrasing the philosophy of a “just war” that was first put forward by St. Augustine, reframed and discussed by such men as Thomas Aquinas, and is one of the basic underpinnings of the Catholic Church in terms of its philosophies about war and when it’s appropriate. The notion of Bush taking doctrine that stretches back thousands of years and has been espoused by some of the most learned men and philosophers of all time, and trying to paint it as an indication that Kerry is weak on terrorism, is quite possibly the most appalling distortion he has yet to throw at the American public. I just wonder how many people are dumb enough to swallow it.
PAD
Is North Korea a threat? Yes, but not as long as they are at the negotiation table.
So when is Bush planning on starting negotiations with them? When the next mushroom cloud of NK turns out to be a real nuke?