Draginol Draginol

Bush and debating

▼

Bush and debating

Painful to watch

from JoeUser Forums

For me, watching Bush debate is a lot like watching my son play baseball. While I may root for him to do well, I feel helpless in being able to make him do well.

Like when my son is batting, I try to will it that he'll hit the ball. Similarly, while observing Bush, I try to will it that he'll nail a point.

So when Kerry says lamely, "I consider nuclear proliferation to greatest threat to our nation." I'm using all my mental energy to try to get Bush to say something like "Well Senator, I consider going after the blood thirsty terrorists who are trying to murder Americans to be our top priority."

Bush isn't as quick on his feet as Kerry.  Kerry, a former prosecutor, is in his own in having to put together a compelling argument on the fly.  Bush defeated Gore in the 2000 debates because Gore came across as a haughty lecturerer.  Kerry won't make that mistake.

One might argue that Bush lost the debate on style -- which is what really matters but won it in terms of substance. Bush's arguments are stronger IMO but he isn't able to put those arguments forward in a compelling way.

Kerry's Iraq position is incoherent. Idealogues on the left may be content to parrot the line "Kerry voted for the president to have authorization to use force so that he would have more leverage to get the UN to put those inspectors back." But any clear thinking American is not going to fall for that.  The US did not have 200,000 troops sitting in Kuwait as mere bargaining chips.  Kerry knew, as did every other senator know, that barring a miracle (i.e. complete capitulation by Saddam) that US troops would be invading Iraq before the hot weather returned (by March 2003 in other words).  To argue anything else is simply being naive at best or untruthful at worst.

But that's where being a good public speaker comes into play.  Kerry is able to put forth his disengenous position because Bush isn't able to put forward a simple and effective counterargument.

And those of us on the side lines can only look on helplessly. Just like I do when I watch my kid playing baseball. 

politics
18,756 views 66 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
The ONLY REASON terrorists are killing Americans and the Iraqie people today is because George W. Bush invaded IRAQ! There was No terrorist operation in Iraq before we started the WAR. We have exchanged an Evil Dictatorship for a terrorist operation that could turn into an all out civil war. Way to go George W. He should have read what his father had to say about going into Iraq.
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
It amazes me about how quickly people will just accept whatever the media says they should believe. The following statements come from my own personal experience. In the early 90's, I worked in northern Iraq with the Kurdish refugees. I had to deal with Sadaam's people on almost a daily basis.

You say: " The ONLY REASON terrorists are killing Americans and the Iraqie people today is because George W. Bush invaded IRAQ! There was No terrorist operation in Iraq before we started the WAR."

This is complete hogwash. In Iraq, I would wake up with the slightest noise at night, fearing another attack from Sadaam loyalists. I watched buses and cars explode in front of me (less than 30 feet away), and those explosions were in front of Kurdish schools and hospitals. When a gov't authorizes attacks against innocent civilians, then I call that a gov't who sponsors terrorism. And for all you people who are saying that "IRAQ never had WMDs"... Did you forget that the United States actually sold Iraq biological and chemical weapons. And to prove my point. I personally saw the skin of some Kurds who can into the hospital who had been gas bombed with chemical weapons. And according to the UN, a chemical weapon is a WMD.

WAKE UP - Sadaam, as a dictator, sponsored terroristic activities in his own country. And all you people shouting from the rooftops that George W Bush created the terrorists and has endangered the freedom of the world, you have no idea what freedom is and how valuable it is. Since being back in Iraq, I have seen hope in the eyes of your average citizen of Iraq. Now it is true that many of the Iraq people the media is interviewing are upset about Sadaam not being in power...but that is because they used to be in positions of power. And now they are not in their priviledged position. If you were to go to any average, working class Iraq citizen, you will find a grateful person, just beginning to experience this elusive thing called freedom.

I'm sick and tired of people just repeating what they hear from candidates or ABC/CBS/NBC/FOX/CNN news anchors. Our nation needs to learn to think for itself and not just spout party lines.
Galactic Civilizations III
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
Many countries have WMD. If we are to attack every country that has such weapons( or could make them) we will be at war all over the world. The danger is not from rogue states liks Iraq that have something to loose if they were to attack the US or any other major power. Our problem is if one of these terrorist groups obtain a nuclear weapon or some types of bio. weapons. Poison gas has much more limited application and could be dangerous in a very limited area it is NOT the danger the other two present. I am a former nuclear weapons officer and know just a bit about the real dangers.

Saddam had no such weapons or a way to deliver them. There are a lot more immediate problems then Iraq. By attacking them we have tied up our military and Intel assets and have stimulated the moslem terrorist groups all over the world. Because of the way Bush went into Iraq, we have weakened our situation with many other countries and with no WMD our credibility is also suspect.. This war was not part of the war on terrorism and Bush has made our situation far more difficult.
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
Something's been bothering me for a while now ...

If Bush is a firm believer in the success or rightness (depending on how the individual ranks one over the other) of his administration's choices and the American public shares these beliefs, then why isn't he playing up his whole administration more as, "elect me and you'll be getting this whole team." If the policies themselves have some cachet, then shouldn't the people responsible for these choices add to his "electability"? If the guy isn't a great public speaker, why keep the focus solely on himself? Why not remind the public about the great team that helped get you this far, and, consequently, if they vote him out the US government will be losing? This is a tactic Kerry can't rely on since he hasn't formed a shadow cabinet of any sort AFAIK.

Or are Americans (I'm asking since I'm not one) solely concerned with the guy at the top of the pyramid even though they don't directly elect him?
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
First of all, I think Saddam shipped the WMD's to Syria before the invasion and with Saddam's billions finanacing the WMD's you think Irag was not a threat? Lastly, do you know what a nuclear or bio attack would do to the economy of the US? do you enjoy your car and house? Then, by all means possible, Saddam had to go.
Reply #31 from PolMach Forums Top
then why isn't he playing up his whole administration more as, "elect me and you'll be getting this whole team." If the policies themselves have some cachet, then shouldn't the people responsible for these choices add to his "electability"?


Bush has allot of good talented and experienced people working for him. Which is a good sign of a good President. President Washington surrounded himself by what I think was the best ever. But sometime these people don't like to play together. You may not see it so much from where you are, but here the media loves to air anything that looks like there is a disagreement in the President cabinet.

That's My Two Cents
Reply #32 from PolMach Forums Top
Good question, sunwukong, it seems the debates really do favor solely focusing on the candidates themselves. Perhaps the candidates feel this way as well and play along. Bush has an experienced and skilled cabinet, it makes me wonder how they could act almost impulsively in the face of their combined years of experience. Exit strategy? We'll figure that out later...maybe they aren't aiming for an exit. Who knows?

I don't think most Bush supporters are voting Bush because they favor or even approve of the majority of his policies. It seems that when I talk to the average Bush supporter on the street, they say the reason they'll vote for him is because 1) He'll keep us safe from the terrorists! 2) He's prolife 3) He's pro-gun. It's as if all the other issues in the U.S. and the world at large are moot. I enjoy frequenting these forums partly because the majority of the Bush supporters here usually have more to say.
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
The most recent polls show over 80% of thoes polled want changes should Bush win a second term. About 60% want MAJOR changes. Now what do any of think the chances are of Bush making any changes much less major changes if he is re-elected? That is not how. "stay the Course" Bush is built. Therefore if he is re-elected there will most likely be even more disatisfaction in America. It is time for a change of the resident at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. We need policies that are more centrest and that will never happen if Bush remains President.
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
The ONLY REASON terrorists are killing Americans and the Iraqie people today is because George W. Bush invaded IRAQ! There was No terrorist operation in Iraq before we started the WAR.


COL, you've lost your mind. Tell that to the families of the thousands of victims whose bodies were found in the mass graves discovered since the invasion. Tell that to the Kurds. The difference is that the terrorists were wearing Iraqi government uniforms and acting on Saddam's orders, or those of his whack-job sons; now they are freelancers afraid they will lose out in the power struggle, supported by opportunists, many of them non-Iraqi jihadists. And despite your claim, bin Laden was offered sanctuary by Saddam (9/11 Commission Report) - he just decided to go elsewhere.

The notion that there would be no terrorist threat to America if we had just left Iraq alone is idiotic.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #35 from PolMach Forums Top
Tell that to the families of the thousands of victims whose bodies were found in the mass graves discovered since the invasion.

The Iraqi's have had all the fun, now it's our turn, let's get that American body count up! Makes sense, right?
Reply #36 from PolMach Forums Top
If Bush isn't good at thinking on his feet, maybe he shouldn't be president of the United States. This is especially true when he takes random action (like the invasion of Iraq) without adequate planning.
Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top
If Bush isn't good at thinking on his feet, maybe he shouldn't be president of the United States. This is especially true when he takes random action (like the invasion of Iraq) without adequate planning.


Or what to do in response to an attack, such as September 11th. A president should be able to say, a plane crashed?! Terror? Alright order all planes down now and shoot any plane that is about to hit the world trade center, the white house, the pentagon, the capital, or any other important government buildings in washington. Order all federal offices on lockdown, federalize the maryland and virgina national gaurds and (insert what ever else is done during a possible attack here). INSTEAD of sitting in the classroom like a dunce.
Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply to Daiwa

Yes, Saddam was evil. There are other Dictators that today are allowing a millions people to be in danger. Millions have died in Africa. There is only one reason a President should place our military in danger and that is to protect America and our freedom. Although Saddam was evil, he was NOT a threat to our freedom. We have people in this world who are a danger to our freedom and we have diverted our limited resources away from fighting them to get rid of Saddam. In so doing we have created more not less enemies for us. We are not the worlds policemen and we are not the enforcement agent for the United Nations Security Council. It was the Iraq people and the moderate moslem countries that should have removed Saddam not the United States!
Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top
"The Iraqi's have had all the fun, now it's our turn, let's get that American body count up! Makes sense, right?"

humorous...

"INSTEAD of sitting in the classroom like a dunce."

even more humorous

Instead of being, well, yourselves, it seems like you would cut Brad some slack, acknowledge that he is being damn fair about the debates, and have a reasonable discussion. Instead, you just do what you always do, start a Liberal feeding frenzy, take advantage of any consideration, and take the blog as far off topic as possible.

What really, really annoys me, is that I am not hatefully anti-Dem in real life. I come here, though, and see how you guys feed on misinformation, misdirection, outright lies, and bitterness... THEN I am hatefully anti-Dem. As has been said, anti-Bush people are their own worst enemy.

Reply #40 from PolMach Forums Top
The saying of e e cummings comes to mind, "Consistancy is the hobglobben of little minds". Works for me to describe the , "stay the Course" mind of George W.


Was he the guy who also said 'politics is a seat of which every arse has sat except that of a man.'?

- GX
Reply #41 from PolMach Forums Top
Instead of being, well, yourselves, it seems like you would cut Brad some slack, acknowledge that he is being damn fair about the debates, and have a reasonable discussion. Instead, you just do what you always do, start a Liberal feeding frenzy, take advantage of any consideration, and take the blog as far off topic as possible.

Actually, the line you quoted me as saying was in reference to Daiwa's post #34.

You should also check my last line in post #32, that also includes you, don't stereotype just because somebody isn't on the same side of the fence. I understand your frustration, but keep in mind, you often get what you give.
Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top
Nothing I could do could further stereotype you guys than what you do yourself...
Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top
It was the Iraq people and the moderate moslem countries that should have removed Saddam not the United States!

COL Gene

How exactly were the Iraqi people to rise up against Saddam? He was a dictator who killed people just because of their ethnic background or their religion. Imagine what he would have done if they rose up against him! They had NO freedom.
Reply #44 from JoeUser Forums Top
"How exactly were the Iraqi people to rise up against Saddam?"

They did rise up agasint him. He killed 100,000 shiites in the south during one episode. the hundreds of thousands of others were killed over the years as well.

None of his neighbors could remove him. No one else wanted to because he was worth billions to them. COL Gene knows this. It's election year, though.

Reply #45 from JoeUser Forums Top
I have also brought out some of the points in my Florida Debate and After, ablog posted on this web. I felt that Bush made a very poor show in the debate and it was Kerry who came across looking very presidential.. He had complete mastery over the nitty gritty of policy and all Bush II could do was squirm and grimace like a cagewd animal.
Reply #46 from JoeUser Forums Top
COL Gene
The saying of e e cummings comes to mind, "Consistancy is the hobglobben of little minds". Works for me to describe the , "stay the Course" mind of George W.


Actually it was Ralph Waldo Emerson in his essay "Self-Reliance." The full quote being, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."

I find your arguments as unfortunate as your quoting ability.
Reply #47 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Actually it was Ralph Waldo Emerson in his essay "Self-Reliance." The full quote being, "A foolish consistency..."

Keyword being "foolish". Granted, Dems seem to feel that any consistancy is foolish. Why else would they pick a guy who fought a war and then was against a war, wants to save the nation but spent decades in Congress bargaining it away, and who has finally ended up once again being for a war, and then against it...

Evidently a foolish INconsistancy is easily overlooked by people with an irrational hatred for Bush...

Reply #48 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply to Gene NASH

THANKS FOR THE CORRECTION. However the application to Bush is proper. I went back and re-read the quotation which is: A foolish consistancy is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen ....
Reply #50 from JoeUser Forums Top
Gosh, if we base going to war on UN resolutions that have been ignored, then I suppose Israel is our next target. After all, there are more UN resolutions against Israel than any other country in the world.