Prez. Debate
Moderators: Tunnelcat, Jeff250
Prez. Debate
So, I wasn't too impressed. Neither of them seemed to really get anywhere. Bush kept on talking about how Kerry is screwing up for now b/c "He isn't being a good commander in chief by saying this war was a mistake." Kerry couldn't get past the fact that maybe the war was started incorrectly. It seems like my options are this: A wet noodle or a uncooked one pointed in the wrong direction.
I think they both talked in circles the whole time
"Bush cut funding for retrieving nuclear materials from the former Soviet Union"
"did not"
"did so"
yada yada
though I think kerry had the stronger arguments of the two, he finally voiced his base and took stands on things that he should have done long ago. I agree with his foreign policy ideas. We cannot just try and handle things by ourselves. We gotta rebuild relationship with the rest of the world. I don't understand why Republicans think we're the only country on Earth.
In any case, Bush kinda fell flat on a lot of things. Didn't answer questions. Kerry didn't really capitalize on anything, like usual. Another day.
"Bush cut funding for retrieving nuclear materials from the former Soviet Union"
"did not"
"did so"
yada yada
though I think kerry had the stronger arguments of the two, he finally voiced his base and took stands on things that he should have done long ago. I agree with his foreign policy ideas. We cannot just try and handle things by ourselves. We gotta rebuild relationship with the rest of the world. I don't understand why Republicans think we're the only country on Earth.
In any case, Bush kinda fell flat on a lot of things. Didn't answer questions. Kerry didn't really capitalize on anything, like usual. Another day.
-
Lothar
- DBB Ghost Admin
- Posts: 12133
- Joined: Thu Nov 05, 1998 12:01 pm
- Location: I'm so glad to be home
- Contact:
On style, I think Kerry had the lead. He looked calm and collected and energized, and he spoke smoothly and confidently. Bush looked a little flustered and tired, and paused a lot (in part, because he spent the day visiting some of the cities hardest hit by the string of hurricanes.)
In terms of substance, Kerry finally took some stands on some positions. There was at least some substance there. But there wasn't a whole lot -- he spent a lot of time saying "Bush doesn't have a plan, I have a plan" but didn't spend much time telling us what the plan was. Bush pretty much just stuck to the same substance he's been giving us for the past year, so there was nothing new there.
In terms of responding to each other, Bush never really gave Kerry anything new to respond to -- he repeated what we all already know, and Kerry gave the criticisms we all expected. Kerry did give Bush some new material, but Bush didn't capitalize nearly as much as he could have.
For example: Bush responded very well to Kerry's "global test" line. But there were half a dozen other Kerry lines that Bush could have really destroyed him on.
Short-term, there was no clear winner. We might see a slight Kerry boost, but nothing substantial. Long-term, the Bush campaign and pro-Bush 527's have some new Kerry material to work with, and I think they'll capitalize. I think they'll take the "global test" line and the "one consistant position" line and really push those into the public eye. I also think they'll use Kerry's words to alienate his base a bit. He's had "one consistant position" -- but most of his base didn't vote for him for the current version of that position.
I think I have a pretty typical Republican viewpoint -- we should keep other countries in mind when we act, but we shouldn't let other countries dictate terms to us. If we're going to go into Iraq, weigh the costs -- is what we're doing there important enough to go in spite of France's criticisms? Are their criticisms important enough that we should hold off? Are their criticisms based on a fundamental difference of opinion (such as "pre-emptive war is OK" vs "pre-emptive war is wrong")? Just like in any other type of decision (for your family, for your company, etc.) you have to weigh the arguments and then do what you think is right. Sometimes that means you'll act in spite of someone else's criticisms.
The naive and uneducated view says that you're "ignoring" those criticisms or that you don't think they matter. But most of the time, you haven't ignored the criticisms -- you've considered them, and found that after considering them, you're not convinced by them, so you act in spite of them.
In terms of substance, Kerry finally took some stands on some positions. There was at least some substance there. But there wasn't a whole lot -- he spent a lot of time saying "Bush doesn't have a plan, I have a plan" but didn't spend much time telling us what the plan was. Bush pretty much just stuck to the same substance he's been giving us for the past year, so there was nothing new there.
In terms of responding to each other, Bush never really gave Kerry anything new to respond to -- he repeated what we all already know, and Kerry gave the criticisms we all expected. Kerry did give Bush some new material, but Bush didn't capitalize nearly as much as he could have.
For example: Bush responded very well to Kerry's "global test" line. But there were half a dozen other Kerry lines that Bush could have really destroyed him on.
Short-term, there was no clear winner. We might see a slight Kerry boost, but nothing substantial. Long-term, the Bush campaign and pro-Bush 527's have some new Kerry material to work with, and I think they'll capitalize. I think they'll take the "global test" line and the "one consistant position" line and really push those into the public eye. I also think they'll use Kerry's words to alienate his base a bit. He's had "one consistant position" -- but most of his base didn't vote for him for the current version of that position.
LOL... you probably don't understand it because it isn't what we actually think. (And people wonder why I keep talking about straw men. Heh.)I don't understand why Republicans think we're the only country on Earth.
I think I have a pretty typical Republican viewpoint -- we should keep other countries in mind when we act, but we shouldn't let other countries dictate terms to us. If we're going to go into Iraq, weigh the costs -- is what we're doing there important enough to go in spite of France's criticisms? Are their criticisms important enough that we should hold off? Are their criticisms based on a fundamental difference of opinion (such as "pre-emptive war is OK" vs "pre-emptive war is wrong")? Just like in any other type of decision (for your family, for your company, etc.) you have to weigh the arguments and then do what you think is right. Sometimes that means you'll act in spite of someone else's criticisms.
The naive and uneducated view says that you're "ignoring" those criticisms or that you don't think they matter. But most of the time, you haven't ignored the criticisms -- you've considered them, and found that after considering them, you're not convinced by them, so you act in spite of them.
It's funny that the "global test" line is so ripped on by Republicans. This is the line in context:
1. Before the President declares war, it's important that he has convinced the majority of the American people that what the government is about to do is just and proper. A case has to be made to show why the war is necessary. A leader can't just go busting down the doors to some country just because of hunches, suspicions, or perhaps more ulterior motives. The case has to pass scrutinization.
2. The world at large should understand why we made the decision we did, and we should be prepared to explain why we did it. The neo-conservative ideal of "multinational support is optional, we must act in our best interest" is a falsehood, in my opinion. The strength of the western world has been in its alliances. Alliances are what won past wars. Alliances are what made Desert Storm a far swifter campaign than this one. Yet, as both candidates would maintain, we're holding about 90% of the ball in Iraq. I don't call that sharing the burden or effectively drawing in allies.
The reason for the lack of support - many countries didn't think our argument passed the sniff test. Which is fine - some countries would perpetually disagree I'm sure. But that doesn't mean you go blasting in with guns blazing anyway, nor that you don't continue to try to foster allied support. A massive international effort beyond the primary two - the US and Great Britain - would have royally laid the smack down on these paltry insurgents in Iraq. But because we rushed ahead, we're stuck holding most of the pie here.
The biggest problem with Iraq, I feel, is that it wasn't scrutinized. Where are those nuclear weapons Cheney was so convinced they had anyway? Was Hussein a more important threat than Bin Laden or the North Koreans? If we sat on the issue and talked about it some more in the Senate and House, we might have come to a more informed conclusion. But instead it was ushered down the governmental chain of command. I think this is what Kerry, be it hypocritical or not, was trying to get at.
It's kind of like the PATRIOT Act. No one wanted to look Un-American, so we pass this moronic act of legislation and only in hindsight do we realize "Uh, hey, that eroded a lot of freedoms, didn't it? Gues we oughta' fix that." People just believed what was said, nodded, and moved on. Had the Administration truly been forced to prove its case to the offices and the people, the outcome could have been quite different. We might have decided "Perhaps Kim Jong Il is the threat and sanctions and continued training of anti-Saddam Iraqi soldiers would suffice." Or we might have concluded the same thing. Who knows? Either way, we don't have egg in our collective faces when we don't find the nuclear weapons, or when the insurgents are stronger than we expected.
Regarding the debate itself, I have to echo what some random CNN commentator said. The people who were going to vote for Kerry because he was "someone other than Bush" have fears rested because there's actually something substantial about the candidate himself. Bush came across as hissy and arrogant - actually a lot like Gore in the 2000 elections.
And Kerry also made a point that I personally think characterizes Bush. It's great to be a stalwort in your beliefs. You can fight toward them endlessly and strive to fulfill them. You can completely convince yourself and others that what you say is true and justified and necessary.
But that doesn't mean your beliefs are correct...
There are two things I walk away with from this passage.John Kerry wrote: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.
1. Before the President declares war, it's important that he has convinced the majority of the American people that what the government is about to do is just and proper. A case has to be made to show why the war is necessary. A leader can't just go busting down the doors to some country just because of hunches, suspicions, or perhaps more ulterior motives. The case has to pass scrutinization.
2. The world at large should understand why we made the decision we did, and we should be prepared to explain why we did it. The neo-conservative ideal of "multinational support is optional, we must act in our best interest" is a falsehood, in my opinion. The strength of the western world has been in its alliances. Alliances are what won past wars. Alliances are what made Desert Storm a far swifter campaign than this one. Yet, as both candidates would maintain, we're holding about 90% of the ball in Iraq. I don't call that sharing the burden or effectively drawing in allies.
The reason for the lack of support - many countries didn't think our argument passed the sniff test. Which is fine - some countries would perpetually disagree I'm sure. But that doesn't mean you go blasting in with guns blazing anyway, nor that you don't continue to try to foster allied support. A massive international effort beyond the primary two - the US and Great Britain - would have royally laid the smack down on these paltry insurgents in Iraq. But because we rushed ahead, we're stuck holding most of the pie here.
The biggest problem with Iraq, I feel, is that it wasn't scrutinized. Where are those nuclear weapons Cheney was so convinced they had anyway? Was Hussein a more important threat than Bin Laden or the North Koreans? If we sat on the issue and talked about it some more in the Senate and House, we might have come to a more informed conclusion. But instead it was ushered down the governmental chain of command. I think this is what Kerry, be it hypocritical or not, was trying to get at.
It's kind of like the PATRIOT Act. No one wanted to look Un-American, so we pass this moronic act of legislation and only in hindsight do we realize "Uh, hey, that eroded a lot of freedoms, didn't it? Gues we oughta' fix that." People just believed what was said, nodded, and moved on. Had the Administration truly been forced to prove its case to the offices and the people, the outcome could have been quite different. We might have decided "Perhaps Kim Jong Il is the threat and sanctions and continued training of anti-Saddam Iraqi soldiers would suffice." Or we might have concluded the same thing. Who knows? Either way, we don't have egg in our collective faces when we don't find the nuclear weapons, or when the insurgents are stronger than we expected.
Regarding the debate itself, I have to echo what some random CNN commentator said. The people who were going to vote for Kerry because he was "someone other than Bush" have fears rested because there's actually something substantial about the candidate himself. Bush came across as hissy and arrogant - actually a lot like Gore in the 2000 elections.
And Kerry also made a point that I personally think characterizes Bush. It's great to be a stalwort in your beliefs. You can fight toward them endlessly and strive to fulfill them. You can completely convince yourself and others that what you say is true and justified and necessary.
But that doesn't mean your beliefs are correct...
-
Will Robinson
- DBB Grand Master
- Posts: 10135
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2000 3:01 am
You make it sound like Bush took office and said "Hey, let's look at this Iraq situation for a minute!"Kyouryuu wrote:The biggest problem with Iraq, I feel, is that it wasn't scrutinized. Where are those nuclear weapons Cheney was so convinced they had anyway? Was Hussein a more important threat than Bin Laden or the North Koreans? If we sat on the issue and talked about it some more in the Senate and House, we might have come to a more informed conclusion. But instead it was ushered down the governmental chain of command.
When in reality it was 'sat on' through a decade of sanctions and 17 U.N. resolutions!
The allegations made by Bush & Co. to go after him were all made by previous administrations and numerous countries! Including those that voted against Iraq on the U.N. security council all the while breaking their own "laws" by doing business with Saddam under the table!!
You can argue going to war wasn't the right thing to do if you want to but don't try to pass off that line of crap that Bush just created this situation out of whole cloth. That's bullcrap!
It's clear Saddam was doing just fine under the sanctions, only the innocents in Iraq suffered and Saddams prosperity coming out of the defiance of the U.N. resolutions only emboldened him and other anti-western arab factions.
Post 9/11 we entered a new era. An era in which the west can't afford to allow the likes of a Saddam to prosper and expand and finance suicide bombers and cultivate his options to further his goal of becoming a Pan Arabic leader. Just because Saddam wasn't the mother of all terror didn't mean we had to let him continue. That's the new reality that 9/11 unleashed on us. Why weep for him and his ilk, he got what he deserved. They now reap what they sow. They should have stuck to killing their own and hiding the graves, we were ok with that
-
BlueFlames
- DBB Ace
- Posts: 206
- Joined: Thu Aug 05, 1999 2:01 am
But it is an era where we can let North Korea violate nuclear arms treaties without fear of military reprisal and let Iran continue developing their atomic bomb unchecked? There were better targets to be chosen on better grounds and better evidence than Iraq. Bush Jr. had his priorities mixed up.Post 9/11 we entered a new era. An era in which the west can't afford to allow the likes of a Saddam to prosper and expand and finance suicide bombers and cultivate his options to further his goal of becoming a Pan Arabic leader.
-
Will Robinson
- DBB Grand Master
- Posts: 10135
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2000 3:01 am
You couldn't be more wrong.BlueFlames wrote:There were better targets to be chosen on better grounds and better evidence than Iraq. Bush Jr. had his priorities mixed up.
Each threat has it's own strategic downside.
In N. Korea they have enough *conventional* weaponary on the border of S.Korea to turn Seoul into a parking lot in the first few hours of combat! linkage
Not to mention the fact that overthrowing Kim Jong Ill woudn't do nearly as much for our efforts to dismantle islamo-fascist factions as overthrowing Saddam did.
Saddam was exposed by his violation of U.N. resolutions and geographically in the right place for us to pose a threat to others in the region.
Do you think Iranian Whacko's would be threatened by U.S. forces in Korea?
People opposed to Bush for political reasons try to sell that line that Iraq wasn't a part of the war on terror but it's not true. Iraq is one of many places that needed to be changed in the war on terror.
It is, after all, the "War on Terror", not the War-on-some-terrorists-who-are-hiding-in-the-caves-of-Pakistan-but-not-terrorists-in-other-places
and we will fight it in the way that suits us strategically not in the way that looks fair on paper.
Not at all.Will Robinson wrote:You make it sound like Bush took office and said "Hey, let's look at this Iraq situation for a minute!"
I'm not claiming that no consideration was taken. I'm merely arguing that it was accelerated through the chain of command. So was the PATRIOT Act. Every politician in the post-9/11 world was obsessed with "proving" their patriotism. And so they all scurried along and passed the PATRIOT Act, much to the dismay of civil liberties groups the country over. Only now are the same politicians and judges taking a look at the contract they signed and realizing that many parts were unconstitutional. Why didn't anyone bother to object before it was signed? Surely, no one wanted to be labeled as Un-American.
I submit Iraq is a similar case. Bush firmly decided to go to Iraq. Which is fine and all, but how much scrutiny did his allegations really fall under? Or was everyone so obsessed with their personal image that no one dared to stand in the way?
-
Lothar
- DBB Ghost Admin
- Posts: 12133
- Joined: Thu Nov 05, 1998 12:01 pm
- Location: I'm so glad to be home
- Contact:
were you watching the same world I was? There was a LOT of scrutiny about Iraq. There were protests long before Bush delivered any sort of ultimatum to Saddam.
Though, I suppose one relevant question would be: why didn't anyone question anything EXCEPT the WMD evidence? Another: why didn't anyone question anything INCLUDING the WMD evidence during the 12 years before?
Though, I suppose one relevant question would be: why didn't anyone question anything EXCEPT the WMD evidence? Another: why didn't anyone question anything INCLUDING the WMD evidence during the 12 years before?
Apparently not.Lothar wrote:were you watching the same world I was?
Because, at the time, this was Bush's primary reason for going to Iraq. The case was proposed by the administration that Saddam had nukes and they stuck with it, even though evidence was inconclusive.Lothar wrote:Though, I suppose one relevant question would be: why didn't anyone question anything EXCEPT the WMD evidence?
Our job wasn't finished in Afghanistan. Al Queda left Tora Bora and Bin Laden went with them. The President was trying to make the case that Iraq was more significant, and that the possibility of Saddam having nukes was more important than hunting down the guy we know slaughtered 3,000 of our people and laughed at it.
Just imagining an event of Hiroshima's horror happening in one of our major cities, is a pretty frightening thought. It's not surprising, then, that the administration would advance that as the primary argument. And, in the wake of 9/11, not surprising that no politician would want to stand in the way.
Under Clinton and even the latter half of Bush Sr., U.N. inspectors were getting access to Iraqi missile sites looking for, you guessed it, signs of WMD. There was that whole runaround Saddam gave us with revoking permission, then granting permission that made headlines at least twice a week. I'd say the presence of WMDs was definitely questioned.Lothar wrote:Another: why didn't anyone question anything INCLUDING the WMD evidence during the 12 years before?
Or hidden underground in the sand? Saddam had plenty of time in advance to hide all of them. He could have very easily adopted Russain tactics of underground bunkers and facilities to hide these weapons, yet people are so shallow they dont take that into account.Iceman wrote:Why doesn't anyone ask the question ... "How did the Iraqis get their WMD out of Iraq and hidden in Syria so fast that we couldn't find them".
-
CaseyManDude
- DBB Cadet
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 9:48 pm
- Location: Uranus! Hah, hah, hah.
- Contact:
It was less productive than that. I find most political discussions start at that point and descend toBeowulf wrote:I think they both talked in circles the whole time
"Bush cut funding for retrieving nuclear materials from the former Soviet Union"
"did not"
"did so"
yada yada...
"You suck!"
"No, you suck!"
No, you..."