This is in addition to my list above.

8. Kerry criticizes Bush for not equipping and training Iraq's security forces, but then criticizes Bush for shifting 16 Billion to equip and train them.

9. Kerry criticizes Bush for not being flexible, and then criticizes Brush for being flexible by shifting money.

More to come.

I think kerry's best stance was that Bush is in fact responsible for the situation in North Korea. Bush turned his shoulder to them for some time, and in that time they took the supplies and used them to build nuclear weapons.

Reply #53 By: sandy2 - 10/1/2004 2:06:09 PM I think kerry's best stance was that Bush is in fact responsible for the situation in North Korea. Bush turned his shoulder to them for some time, and in that time they took the supplies and used them to build nuclear weapons

What a crock. What is the US to be? The world's watchdog?

What a crock. What is the US to be? The world's watchdog?

Are you kidding?  The U.S. has been the world's watchdog for quite some time.  Remember Vietnam?

I think Kerry handled this debate the way he should have.  There are clear differences between them and that is what he had to take care of.  There is still a long road ahead for both candidates.

one thing that struck me, is with Kerry's vast debating abilites (I dare not call him a master debator, oh damn!) I had expected more from him.

Sandy2

If you think we can or could have done anything militarily about N. Korea you are dreaming. China would enact their defense treaty with N. Korea. I think China is really just waiting for us to do this.

Now Kim Ill on the diplomatic side basically wants to extort food, money and nuclear material out of the US in direct talks. Even after Clinton walked into that treaty, Kim Ill continued to research their nuke program (The UN has confirmed that). Just because you have a two hundred dollar cameras looking at a reactor, does not mean they can't just research less where or just plug in a film. North Korea is playing us like a rope a dope on one on one talks, because they know we can't do any military actions due to China.

By adding other countries, more leverage can be used. President Bush correctly said China is the way to NK. Kerry is showing that he does not know international politics.

That's My Two Cents

You know what really bugs me? The right calls the UN a burden, a dead weight group, a waste, but then they feel free to utilize the UN's information when it helps their case, and even in cases where it doesn't like this one. They resort to an organization they don't respect because they know they can't win, because Bush is the reason North Korea has its weapons and Bush is the reason we find ourselves in this situation.

Those were some of the near hitches I saw last night, but I don't believe any are going to prove to be a hurdle for Kerry. Let's watch the polls this week and the final election. I predict the Bush "bounce" gone, and the incumbent not reaching the critical 50% mark in any major poll. The appearance last night from Bush was enough to stop any momentum Bush may have had. I think he's sunk.

Reply #58 By: sandy2 - 10/1/2004 2:31:02 PM You know what really bugs me? The right calls the UN a burden, a dead weight group, a waste, but then they feel free to utilize the UN's information when it helps their case, and even in cases where it doesn't like this one. They resort to an organization they don't respect because they know they can't win, because Bush is the reason North Korea has its weapons and Bush is the reason we find ourselves in this situation

You know what???? Facts are just that, Facts. Where they come from is irelevant>

Everyone I am seeing that feels moved one way or the other by last nights performances already had their mind made up. The closest thing I have seen to the admission of a changed vote is the guy who was once gonna vote against Bush, but after last night he's decided to vote for Kerry... ...

Unless the debate hit the wishy washy voters hard, I wouldn't expect much of a change in the polls. Frankly if what happened last night could excite you enough to change your vote, then a warm breeze would be as good for you as viagra...

Just *maybe* you should go read this link. Seems not everyone is as optimistic as you seem to be

Yeah, I checked that out. There are a lot of Republicans cheerleading for the president, such as Senator Weld who claimed Bush "won" the debate. I'm so sorry, if Kerry had presented himself as poorly as Bush I'd be raising hell. You should think about that, and pray he does better next time, it reflects badly on Bush when he does such a pitiful job.

Lee:

Despite your very accurate observations, what I think is key to remember about the debates is that they, like so much else in politics, are very much based on appearance. In this most important aspect, Kerry performed remarkably and Bush seemed more like "candidate Bush" of old. In regards to Bush having the "substance", I think his reliance upon now stale Rovisms speaks for itself.

Reply #62 By: Deference - 10/1/2004 2:50:38 PM Just *maybe* you should go read this link. Seems not everyone is as optimistic as you seem to be Yeah, I checked that out. There are a lot of Republicans cheerleading for the president, such as Senator Weld who claimed Bush "won" the debate. I'm so sorry, if Kerry had presented himself as poorly as Bush I'd be raising hell. You should think about that, and pray he does better next time, it reflects badly on Bush when he does such a pitiful job.

And just maybe you forgot this. Mike Reagan (President Reagans son) may be a republican but he's a Kerry fan!

Lets face a few facts here folks. Bush is no debater. The guy hasn't even mastered the english language. He has no viable arguement for how bad things are going for him on all fronts. How could Kerry NOT win the debate? bush 2.0 could only repeat the same tired rhetoric that he has been spouting for the past year.

He got smoked...Plain and simple.

And Lee? bush 2.0 is a liar. The record shows that clearly.

Reply #64 By: thatoneguyinslc - 10/1/2004 2:59:01 PM Lets face a few facts here folks. Bush is no debater. The guy hasn't even mastered the english language. He has no viable arguement for how bad things are going for him on all fronts. How could Kerry NOT win the debate? bush 2.0 could only repeat the same tired rhetoric that he has been spouting for the past year. He got smoked...Plain and simple.

Do you do a lot of reading? Just maybe you should do a LOT more!

Are you praying drmiler? Come on! Bush needs you!

It hasn't taken too long for the words of the leaders especially Kerry to be misrepresented.

Kerry Did not say we should go into the Sudan unilaterally, he actually said they would not go int the Sudan at all. They would get the African Union to do the peace keeping (Because let's be honest Americans are not the best at keeping peace) and do their part with aid. President Bush agreed and used the Liberian experience as a model for how to approach the problem. To be honest I don't remember Kerry using the words "Saddam was not a threat" not that he didn't say it. He did say there were 30 or 40 other countries who posed a bigger threat than Saddam at the time of the invasion and he was also quick to point out that Iraq and Saddam did not attack the US after Bush stated "we were attacked" when talking on the issue of removing Saddam.

When the debate was over I was pleased because Kerry showed the composure and affluence a world leader needs, while Bush as has been stated in this forum, stuck to his points and simply repeated them over and over. At one point Kerry talked about North Korea and Bush's rebuttal was about Iraq. But now that it is the morning and it has sunken in more I'm a little depressed because I realize Bush will be given credit for winning the debate simply by showing up and taking a verbal beating. It's quite sad. If, god forbid I was an American, there is no way I would partake in such a farce of "democracy" and "freedom". Check your buzz words at the door and give your head a shake.

Everyone I am seeing that feels moved one way or the other by last nights performances already had their mind made up. The closest thing I have seen to the admission of a changed vote is the guy who was once gonna vote against Bush, but after last night he's decided to vote for Kerry... ...

Indeed. My mother and I watched the latter half of the debates, and while she felt that Kerry did better, I felt that Bush did better, although we both agreed that both candidates made some stupid mistakes. These people saying Kerry kicked Bush's ass (are there any saying Bush kicked Kerry's?) are the same people who have shown themselves quite zealous about their dislike of Bush. One has to wonder if they're even trying to be objective.

You know what really bugs me? The right calls the UN a burden, a dead weight group, a waste, but then they feel free to utilize the UN's information when it helps their case, and even in cases where it doesn't like this one. They resort to an organization they don't respect because they know they can't win, because Bush is the reason North Korea has its weapons and Bush is the reason we find ourselves in this situation.

Wasn't Clinton the one who made the deals with North Korea?

By adding other countries, more leverage can be used. President Bush correctly said China is the way to NK. Kerry is showing that he does not know international politics.

That's what bothered me about Kerry. He disapproves of how we went into Iraq without the support of UN and yet he wants us to deal with North Korea, a nation that's a bigger threat than Iraq (especially due to its relation with China), alone.

Despite your very accurate observations, what I think is key to remember about the debates is that they, like so much else in politics, are very much based on appearance. In this most important aspect, Kerry performed remarkably and Bush seemed more like "candidate Bush" of old. In regards to Bush having the "substance", I think his reliance upon now stale Rovisms speaks for itself.

Good insight yourself. I looked at it a little different then you though. I think Bush's handlers (they both have those) said to keep with the same old points. This way he will be seen as staying on track and not changing due to political pressure. Just tell me Kerry would not have jumped all over a change in policy. Did the tactic work? I don't know yet.

What many people fail to see that the Debate does not end when the camera at the podium is turned off. Just as many thought Gore had won in 2000, but two weeks later you could not find a person who still held that opinion.

Let’s just see what happens it's not over until late night on the 2nd of Nov. Wait a second maybe a few months later after the lawyers are finished.

That's My Two Cents

Good stuff, Lee, good stuff.

He did say there were 30 or 40 other countries who posed a bigger threat than Saddam at the time of the invasion

Thirty-five to forty countries in the world had a greater capability of making weapons at the moment the president invaded than Saddam Hussein. Kerry

The question to Kerry is how many of those countries are our Allies or are not a threat to the US? Just because the UK, Germany, France, Russia, Finland, Holland, Canada, Mexico, Russia, Italy, Spain, Japan, China etc.... has the the capability of making weapons at the moment means that we should attack and disarm them first? That was a weapon of mass distraction statement.

I am with Brad on this one even though I only read the transcripts... Will it matter? hmmm....

I didn't watch the debate. I played Sims 2 and I drank beer.

I found this about some of their mistakes Link

I thought the "Pottery Barn Rule" was pretty funny, one of the bigger spins made by Kerry that night

The U.S. has been the world's watchdog for quite some time. Remember Vietnam?

One word: France.

Mike Reagan (President Reagans son) may be a republican but he's a Kerry fan!

I think you mean Ronald Reagan Jr., Michael Reagan is quite the conservative.

That's what bothered me about Kerry. He disapproves of how we went into Iraq without the support of UN and yet he wants us to deal with North Korea, a nation that's a bigger threat than Iraq (especially due to its relation with China), alone.

Not to mention their military is still completely intact has had time to rebuild whatever they lost in the Korean War 50+ years ago. They have more up to date weapons, tanks, training, etc. than Iraq, and right now have a big brother watching their back that would sweep back in just like they did during the Korean War to help the North. Face it China is the key to getting any sort of compliance from North Korea and Ole Kimmy Boy.

As for Bush being the one to blame about North Korea and nukes, which is somebody's gross misjudgment. For one the policies that lead to North Korea getting it's weapons all happened under the watch of one William Jefferson Clinton, and the fact that they got produced under Bush, does not change the fact that their production facilities were in place and unharmed during the era of one William Jefferson Clinton, if anything you should rest the blame on not acting preemptively, and on the other you should blame China. We can't get jack squat done with North Korea diplomatically because of China backing North Korea, and Kerry showed that he was ignorant of how to act with North Korea properly.

So we go into Iraq with no allies, oh wait Kerry said we had no allies in Iraq, I don't know what the British, Aussies, and Polish think about that. Yet Kerry is supporting we go to war with North Korea or act on North Korea all by our lonesome or with at least the backing of South Korea. If you want a bloodbath than Kerry is your man for North Korea, if he wants to make himself a feasible candidate he needs to do a complete 180 on that and fast. Trust me when I say this, if we went to war with North Korea, 1,000 will look like a good number and this is my bottom line.

P.S. Still voting for Badnarik because he still has the toughest policy on the border issue, plus he wants to get the political 'red herrings' out of politics.

- GX

Oh besides South Korea having our backs in a worse case scenario with North Korea, Japan would also give support since it is in their backyard as
well.

- GX