My $.02 on the debate this A.M.
Find a Conversation
My $.02 on the debate this A.M.
| Fri, 10-01-2004 - 9:15am |
So from what I got from the debate...
Bush is tired. (I can imagine that spending the day with hurricane victims and relief workers can be pretty draining, what did Kerry do all day? I can only imagine.)
Kerry did better than I expected, although, I completely disagree with him.
One thing really stood out...Kerry wants to deal one-on-one with Kim Jong Il and leave out important allies like China and South Korea, and yet says the war in Iraq is a bust b/c we don't have enough allied support?!?
Just shows me that Kerry will disagree with ANYTHING the President supports and support anything Bush disagrees with.
Hey, it'll give the "anybody but Bush" crowd a boner!

Pages
Exactly my point -- Kerry wants bilateral talks. He does not want to include our allies. Yet in the same breath he wants to "build better relationships" with our Allies. As to his explanation of what happened in North Korea prior to this -- I'm sure its much more complicated than how he makes it appear.
His "big plan" in Iraq, as of last week at least, is to get our "allies" to shell out a bunch of cash and put a lot of their troops in Iraq while we take ours out. Yeah, they'll go for that?!? The only "allies" Kerry is concerned with is France, Germany and the U.N. The rest he has shown disdain and disrespect for. How is that being "closer to the center"?
No wonder you are a Kerry supporter, you are both living in the past. This is not the cold war, or Vietnam.
He didn't "blow him off." He rightfully questioned and called him on things he said. We want the truth, not made up stories. Our fellow citizens are dying there... Iraqis are dying there, and we are losing the most important cause... having Iraqi's on our side. Kerry alluded to a report by our intelligence services that says the prospects aren't good... yet we have done nothing to earn goodwill beyond what our troops do individually. Our government has to show we have their best interests at heart, and we don't. We have foreigners go to do work there, foreign companies (read that as US companies) get huge contracts... we don't show them where their money is going, don't have their services stabilised, and they fear the bad guys, because they are there when we go home after wandering through the neighbourhood. We had to do it better, and we didn't. Rumsfeld chastised the Pentagon planners for wanting huge numbers, preferring a small, fast force. Oops... guess they know a bit more about this planning than you do, Don.
>>His "big plan" in Iraq, as of last week at least, is to get our "allies" to shell out a bunch of cash and put a lot of their troops in Iraq while we take ours out. Yeah, they'll go for that?!? The only "allies" Kerry is concerned with is France, Germany and the U.N. The rest he has shown disdain and disrespect for. How is that being "closer to the center"?<<
And Bush's plan? Take a look at the body bags and blown up children in Iraq. You can say Kerry wishes to suck up to Europeans all you want, go ahead, make fun of the French while at it... but if we wish a stable world, we need to work together. This vision of America as boss has got to end... there is a fair chance that in 50 years the Chinese will match our economic and military power... and when that happens? Are you prepared for them to throw their weight around like we do? Or would it be preferable to work together with them and other countries?
>>No wonder you are a Kerry supporter, you are both living in the past. This is not the cold war, or Vietnam.<<
I've explained in several posts why I support Kerry. In my opinion this president is reckless, there is nothing that humbles him. His personal history is repleat with gambles and recklessness. I don't wish our country to be at his disposal for such purposes.
I don't think Kerry is perfect. I dislike his view on same sex marriage for instance... but I view him as a moderate, one who is not extreme, kind of like Ford and Carter after the Nixon meltdown... and this country badly needs a Ford type right now, it doesn't need a wild maverick.
If you were to poll the rest of the world, believe you would find Kerry is overwhelmingly favoured, because the world is scared of Bush. So am I.
>>No wonder you are a Kerry supporter, you are both living in the past. This is not the cold war, or Vietnam.<<
I hardly live in the past, and fully recognise the dynamics of evolving times and circumstances. Yet I am also a fair student of history, particularly the 20th century, and know there are mistakes made that we need to learn from. Vietnam is not Iraq... Iraq is far more explosive in a world view, because of the confluence of Iran (a non-Arabic state) the Kurds, various factions of Islam, Turkey, etc. The region is more volatile now, not less, and that is not a good thing... at all. What if bin Laden were suddenly thrust into a leadership role in Saudi Arabia, a la Khomeini in Iran in 1979? I'm quite sure we would act... what if Israel (or us) decide to take out Iran's nuke potential? What if the Kurds decide now is the time to be independent, not only splitting Iraq, but spilling over into Turkey and Iran?
A Brit report a couple of months ago suggested Afghanistan was in danger of being lost. Iraqi women are feeling more pressure to cover themselves. It's a crazy place that makes our west in 1880 look like a typical main street suburb in 2004. No country has the ability to take it on and straighten it out. None. In the 1980's we played smart ass and helped the Afghani rebels give the CCCP a bloody nose... and I forget who it was now, but we were warned that we were creating a nightmare for the future. And they were right... out of it came bin Laden and the Taliban. What consequences will come of our not thinking this through and acting unilaterally?
Edited 10/1/2004 4:32 pm ET ET by rayeellen
He also fixed his fake tan which was acquired while playing football in Wisconsin while those he played with did not receive that same distinctive orange glow.
Why doesn't he just admit that he used tan-in-a-bottle? Trying to pretend he got it while playing football just makes it more obvious he's lying.
It doesn't matter to me. The bottom line is that being a great debater doesn't make a great leader. A good leader mainly has his integrity as clout in terms of shoring up allies. If what you see is what you get, then Bush is definitely it. With sKerry, one doesn't know when the flip will flop. If you cannot be consistent, if your word cannot be trusted, then you will not be effective in drawing allies to support your position.
I go by the old adage: Actions speak louder than words. sKerry's actions have proven that he will be weak-willed as the leader of our great nation.
Sometimes, tough times call for unpopular decisions. Knowing that sKerry changes tune at every change in polling data is proof that he cannot take a stand that could hurt him 'politically'. It's all about politicking to liberals.
I was on the computer while listening to the debate on TV. It actually made me focus on what was said and as a result, many things stuck in my mind. Transcripts do help jog the memory and I normally read them after a show. But I like your suggestion. That way, people wouldn't be so easily distracted by the candidate's appearance. But then, if style is the only thing a candidate has to offer...
I've watched Kerry in action since he first came into the public eye upon his return from Vietnam, and there is nothing in his record to suggest this... in fact, you totally underestimate him, and I hope Bush does as well. Every other opponent has so far, to their peril.
Pages