ABC News poll

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
ABC News poll
80
Fri, 10-01-2004 - 2:56pm




I keep hearing that polls are showing Kerry the winner, but in this poll at least, more people feel it was a tie or that Bush was the winner than that Kerry won.

Personally I thought Kerry was the better debater, but when people go back and think about his responses they'll find that he's not said anything different, just polished up the act a bit. He still wants to put the UN in charge of our national security, he still claims both that Saddam was a threat yet insists that Bush misled the American people on that very issue, he still has no plans for Iraq that differ from the president's, aside from his boasting that he will get other countries to share the burden, even though they have repeatedly said they won't no matter who is president, he still claims to be better at building alliances even as he disrepsects the very allies who supported us and disrespects our vital ally Prime Minister Allawi. He claims nuclear proliferation is our biggest threat but he wants to dismantle one of OUR nuclear programs, a "bunker buster" bomb that could be crucial to deterring nuclear strikes for the folks who actually LIVE in bunkers (aka terrorists), so I guess he's still back with those who felt a nuclear freeze was the best way to end the Cold War. After all these years he still doens't understand the doctrine of peace through strength.

Bush as usual did not express himself very well, but his positions are better for the country IMO.

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-24-2003
In reply to: liveanew
Fri, 10-01-2004 - 3:11pm
With regard to "putting the UN in charge of our national security," Kerry has not said anything like that, in fact he emphasised the opposite. I do agree that we should not exempt ourselves from the World Court. We stand here with this self righteous attitude and wish to charge this leader or that leader with war crimes, yet exempt ourselves, as if we are not capable of such things. History, both recent and past, tell us otherwise. If we expect the rest of the world to honour such rules... then so should we. We don't rule the world, we are part of it.

And I totally agree with Kerry on that dumb new bomb. How hypocritical of us to growl at North Korea and Iran, as we arte building better nukes. Quite frankly, we should be ashamed of doing building such things.

As for the poll you linked to, it says Kerry won by 9 points... hardly a tie.


Edited 10/1/2004 3:17 pm ET ET by rayeellen

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
In reply to: liveanew
Fri, 10-01-2004 - 3:22pm


He said that any military action needs to "pass the global test". That's a fundamental difference between Kerry and the President. While the president welcomes the support of our allies he doen't believe we need their permission when he feel our national security is threatened. John Kerry once agreed with that position, incidentally, but now seems to want to clear our national defense with the UN before proceeding.



Given the anti-Anerican sentiment in the world today I find it amazing anyone could not support such a move. Our troops could be tried and executed for war crimes by countries who hate us. Thank goodness President Bush will not give away our national sovereignty in that way. One more reason to vote for him over Kerry!



Once again, a fundamental difference. The fact that North Korea and Iran have or soon have nukes is even MORE reason for us to have the latest technology. Once again, it appears that some have learned nothing from the Cold War. You may find some satisfaction in our not being "hypocritical", I'd rather protect us from nuclear attacks. The difference is that North Korea and Iran are likely to USE nuclear weapons in aggression against their neighbors, whereas we are not. Despite how the rest of the world would like to portray us, some of us still believe we're the good guys.

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-07-2003
In reply to: liveanew
Fri, 10-01-2004 - 3:33pm
Umm, the poll you posted shows that 45% felt Kerry won, 36% felt Bush won, and 17% were undecided. . .
Avatar for independentgrrrl
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
In reply to: liveanew
Fri, 10-01-2004 - 3:34pm
Could you explain to me what sKerry meant when he mentioned a 'global test'? If that is not deferring the the UN then what exactly did it mean?
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-18-2004
In reply to: liveanew
Fri, 10-01-2004 - 3:39pm

Hello geschichtsgal!


Welcome to the board!

Miffy - Co-CL For The Politics Today Board

Visit My Website!

Email me!

Miffy - Co-CL For The Politics Today Board

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-15-2004
In reply to: liveanew
Fri, 10-01-2004 - 3:44pm
OK, I'm guessing here, because I've never met John Kerry and obviously can't read his mind. That said, I think he may have been saying that any wars that he would declare would have to be legal, according to international law. Likely, the reason is that illegal wars leave troops susceptible or open to prosecution as war criminals. If the war is legal, no worries there?
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-24-2003
In reply to: liveanew
Fri, 10-01-2004 - 3:50pm
>>He said that any military action needs to "pass the global test". That's a fundamental difference between Kerry and the President. While the president welcomes the support of our allies he doen't believe we need their permission when he feel our national security is threatened. John Kerry once agreed with that position, incidentally, but now seems to want to clear our national defense with the UN before proceeding.<<

Kerry clearly stated he reserved for the presidency the right to act, but that we ultimately are accountable to our own citizens and to the world... he is right on in this view. We are not above anyone else. Yes, we can protect ourselves, but I didn't see Saddam bombing NY, did you?

>>Given the anti-Anerican sentiment in the world today I find it amazing anyone could not support such a move. Our troops could be tried and executed for war crimes by countries who hate us. Thank goodness President Bush will not give away our national sovereignty in that way. One more reason to vote for him over Kerry!<<

And why is there anti-American sentiment in the world? In the early 1960's, one could pick up National Geographic, and would see in story after story of lands around the world, someone had a picture of JFK in their home. He was a symbol of hope... and this president has now achieved the exact opposite view of America. Yay for George... we appreciate the world thinking we are asses.

>>Once again, a fundamental difference. The fact that North Korea and Iran have or soon have nukes is even MORE reason for us to have the latest technology. Once again, it appears that some have learned nothing from the Cold War. You may find some satisfaction in our not being "hypocritical", I'd rather protect us from nuclear attacks. The difference is that North Korea and Iran are likely to USE nuclear weapons in aggression against their neighbors, whereas we are not. Despite how the rest of the world would like to portray us, some of us still believe we're the good guys.<<

We have enough bombs to blow up the world like 10 times over... more than every other country combined times who knows what number. There was a story in the Washington Post last week about how memos are circulating in the White House (under the protective cover of drafts) about taking action against Iran... if he does that, this country is in jeopardy because it will send the entire middle east into war. He can't be that ignorant.

We have to lead by example... if you tell another country "no nukes," don't be designing new ones, it looks... and smells... bad.


iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
In reply to: liveanew
Fri, 10-01-2004 - 3:55pm
I read that too, and was a bit confused....

I personally felt that Kerry did present his case in a more coherent manner, but then again, we all know that Bush is not the worlds best debater.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-24-2003
In reply to: liveanew
Fri, 10-01-2004 - 4:00pm
I cannot speak for Kerry, but think he got twisted in words... I took it to mean we are part of this world, and as such... the world can hold us accountable, just as we hold the rest of the world accountable. If we wish to be a stable, respected partner in the world, we too must be a good citizen, and must exhaust all possibilities before resorting to war. In this case, we did not... whilst the military had reservations (as I am sure Colin Powell did) others were itching to do this.

I was against this war from the first hint of an idea about one, but was totally surprised that there was no real plan for the aftermath... thought sure they would have had that well prepared, especially given how we approached Japan and Germany. That we didn't says much... scary much. No thought given to the factions within Iraq and holding them together, no thought to getting services up and running, no thought to employment... we lost the Iraqi people with our lack of planning in the first six months. Had we been ready to deal with these things, it might have been different. We acted like spoiled brats, and wanted the spoils because we fought. I'd love to see an accounting of every Iraqi dollar from oil revenue... where it has gone since the war. Bet Iraqi's would as well, and if we were doing things right, we could have stopped such suspicion by publicising the information.

I read a story in the NY Times magazine last week called "Fern Holland's War." I posted it on the Feminism Today board, and if you scroll back a bit can find and read it. It is rather lengthy, and is not about our actions, rather about this remarkable woman, but there are things in there that give a view from within on why this has all gone wrong.

Avatar for schifferle
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
In reply to: liveanew
Fri, 10-01-2004 - 5:29pm
The margin of error was +/- 4.5%, therefore a possible tie.

Pages