Bush and debating

Don't despair, Drag.

Style may have carried the day in the past when TV was more of a novelty and we had fewer sources of information, but if style alone were what people are & have been paying attention to in this campaign, Kerry would already have been way ahead. Everyone likes to pretend that Nixon lost the election because of his debate appearance, but the fact is Kennedy won the election because of Daly. All that stuff about him sweating on camera was just part of the propaganda campaign of TV network news departments to solidify the "power" of television. Also interesting that when a Democrat wins a "stolen" election, it's OK and the winner adored, but when a Republican wins a "stolen" election he is a pariah. Unless something really bad happens between now and election day, I still think Bush will squeak it out.

Cheers,
Daiwa

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."

The reason we went into Iraq was that we believed at the time they had WMD, correct me if
I am wrong, but nuclear weapons are one of many things that fall under the heading of WMD.
Therefore President Bush obviously feels that the proliferation of WMD, nuclear or otherwise,
is a top priority. At the time we went into Iraq the "blood thirsty terrorists", or at least the
ones directly responsible for planning the mass murder of nearly 3000 Americans, were
cornered in Afghanistan. President Bush pulled troops from Afghanistan in order to attack
Iraq. In other words, President Bush thought it was a higher priority to address the
POSSIBILYTY of WMD in Iraq than to root out the mastermind of 9/11. Perhaps this is why
your attempt at mental telepathy failed.

Yes, I agree with American_girl's point. After all, during the debate Bush agreed with Kerry that nuclear proliferation was the greatest threat.

BUSH: Secondly, we've set up what's called the -- well, first of all, I agree with my opponent that the biggest threat facing this country is weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a terrorist network. (from CNN's debate transcript).

American_Girl - you are wrong. We did not go into Iraq because we thought he had WMD.  At least, that wasn't the primary reason.

To put it as succinctly as I can we went into Iraq because after 9/11 we really could no longer to dicker around with outlaw regimes in that part of the world. Saddam had flouted the UN resolutions and cease fire terms for a decade and no one knew what the heck was going on in there. The UN gave Saddam one final chance to comply with his previous obligations and once again he started playing games with the inspectors just like he did before.  This time, however, enough was enough and the US and its allies removed him.

That said - I think Bush blew it in the debate because Kerry clearly doesn't see us in a hot war based on what he said and Bush failed to take advantage of that.

American_Girl - you are wrong. We did not go into Iraq because we thought he had WMD. At least, that wasn't the primary reason.

Actually, Draginol, I think American Girl is right. At least, we were told that the reason we were entering Iraq was because of WMD's. Without WMD's, Iraq was no more a threat to us than the Vatican.

Our war in Iraq is bankrupt in several ways. First, rogue states, like Iraq, Iran , North Korea will not attack a major power especially the only super power on earth today. The reason for this is very simple to do so would be to commit suiside. Rogue states are run by dictators that are dependent on maintaining power to act they way they want. If they attacked the US they loose everything. The only way a rogue state would be a threat is if the could provide a terrorist group WMD without it being traced back to them. Thus, the idea that Iraq was a danger to America , with or without WMD is incorrect.

Second, we should have known that for a western Christian nation to invade a moslim country, unless they were a immediate threat was a error. This action enabled the radical terrorists to obtain more people to help then fight us. We than made it worse by what took place in the prisons.

The so called coalition was a token in that only England provided any level of asets and even their contribution was small. The people of the four countries that did provide a small amount of help had no support from their people for the war. In fact the people of England, Spain, Poland and Iitaly were far more opposed to their government helping the US than our people were aginst the war. Bush got a handfull of leaders to support his position but no one else.

Next, who made the United States the enforcement agent for the UN Security Council Resolutions? NO ONE!

Finally we diiverted the majority of our military force to fight a country that was no danger to the United States. In so doing we diverted our limited military resourses from dealing with the real denger the radical terrorist groups all over the world. We did remove an Evil Dictator, one of many in the world today, and created a hot bead of terrorist activity where such did not exist before the War. Now there is the real possibility of a civil war or the establishment of a government that may be hostil to us in the future. Many are glad Sadam is gone but they do not want the US there. To cap this situation, we did not find the WMD which is why we claimed Iraq was a danger to us, which as I have explained would not have been true even if the had WMD. Yes, Sadam used them on his own people. Yes he attachked his neighbor, but he did not and would not have ever attacked the US. North Korea and Iran are more dangerous rogue states than Iraq. Pakastan provided more nuclear weapons transfer than Saddam ever did.

The Iraq War is NOT ANY PART OF THE WAR ON TERRORISM. It was a major error that has impacted our rerlationship with other countries, misused our resources and reduced the effort where the real danger to America lies!

Reply #6 By: COL Gene - 10/2/2004 4:36:02 PM Our war in Iraq is bankrupt in several ways. First, rogue states, like Iraq, Iran , North Korea will not attack a major power especially the only super power on earth today. The reason for this is very simple to do so would be to commit suiside. Rogue states are run by dictators that are dependent on maintaining power to act they way they want. If they attacked the US they loose everything. The only way a rogue state would be a threat is if the could provide a terrorist group WMD without it being traced back to them. Thus, the idea that Iraq was a danger to America , with or without WMD is incorrect.

Of course that is *your* *opinion*!

limited military resourses

Limited military resources?????
I will agree with you on one point. We are not nor should we be the UN's enforcement arm!

Nice analogy. I will vote for Bush but have never thought him strong in a debate.

I agree about the style and the ability of Kerry to convey his points, while Bush had trouble thinking on his feet as much. I wouldn't make assumptions about these Rogue states not attacking the U.S. there are ways of attacking without directly attacking, like supporting a terrorist network. All you have to do pubically is disavow any knowledge while secretly divert funds to them. Sadam was supporting a terroist network post 9/11 and certainly pre 9/11 as well. The fact that a major wanted terrorist winded up taking refuge in Bagdad is indication of that.

rogue states, like Iraq, Iran , North Korea will not attack a major power especially the only super power on earth today.

What about Afghanistan? They obviously weren't troubled by harboring terrorists who were waging a war against the world's only super power.

I think this is a major point of contention. Some people think that 9/11 was some sort of freak accident, and that the threat of retaliation is enough to keep the US safe from state-supported terrorism.

After probably hundreds of posts on the subject, numerous conversations ending in "understandings", people still claim WMDs were the reason we went into Iraq. This is one of those times that it's almost preferable to deal with the conspiracy nuts that think we went there for oil, or because the our zionist overlords ordered it...

History is written by the witless, evidently.

To put it as succinctly as I can we went into Iraq because after 9/11 we really could no longer to dicker around with outlaw regimes in that part of the world. Saddam had flouted the UN resolutions and cease fire terms for a decade and no one knew what the heck was going on in there. The UN gave Saddam one final chance to comply with his previous obligations and once again he started playing games with the inspectors just like he did before. This time, however, enough was enough and the US and its allies removed him.

Okay then what about Iran and North Korea? Your arguement does not hold up. Bush went into Iraq for other reasons it is quite clear to me after my own research what those reason were and are. The invasion has made this country less safe not safer. Iraq is not a breeding ground for terrorists and soon they will be on our shores with another attack. Especially if Bush stays in office with his assinine policies. It is the US policies that is the problem with us being attacked. It has NOTHING to do with them hating freedom. I cringe whenever I hear Bush make that statemet. They attack us because they hate freedom that we enjoy. BAH all crap!

Iraq is now a breeding ground to correct my statement. (Where is the editing abilities? )

Afghanistan never attacked the US but it did make the error of supporting terrorists that did. They paid the price. That is what would happen to any rouge state that attacked a major power. The United States, Russia , China and others powerful nations would react the same way.

Iraq was not capable or attacking the United States and the no fly zones, sanctions and UN inspectors made them incapable of action aginst their neighbors. Bush had the idea of removing Saddam from the outset of his administration long before 9/11. We have tied up the vast majority of the Army in this conflict as well as our Intel assets. The last straw will be if in the end Iraq either goes into civil war (that we will have created) or a government develops that is another problem for us. I hope neither of these things happen for the brave military that have died and been injured in this war.

Kerry is correct, it was the Wrong Way at the Wrong Time and in the Wrong Place. Except for that Bush got it right! Now that we have broken the pot, it is ours and we must try not to allow complete termoil to result from our actions. The best reason not to re-elect George W. is so that we never make this same error again. Bush would do just that. This BS of a "Strong Leader" is why Bush should not be reelected. Nepolian was a strong leader but he was not good for France. If Bush wanted to go from his home in Texas to the West Coast and some how got on the road to New York, he would "Stay the Course" He would never get to the West Coast where he wanted to go, but he would have stayed the course. That is not the type of leadership that works. It is not the type of leadership the United States Needs!

The best lines from last night's debate (I'm paraphrasing)::

BUSH: We have a backup plan in Iraq, but we're not going to need it because we're working hard. Working hard...The backup plan? Well we'll remove Allawi from office and put someone in who knows how to be a strong leader. One who knows how to keep an insurgency in check..

LEHRER: Who would that be?

BUSH: Well....Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein works hard. And there would be no on the job training. This man ran the country for 30 years, he could just hit the ground running. And he works hard.
------------------
KERRY: I want to make one point absolutely clear. I have had one position on Iraq. I am for the action in Iraq.....when I'm talking to a pro-war rally. And I am against the action in Iraq when I talk to anti-war rallies. Jim that's not flip-flopping, that's pandering! And I think America needs a president who knows the difference.
------------------
One last one....

BUSH: We work hard. Sometimes come in on Saturday. Sometimes we order in. We work hard. Frankly I don't know why my opponent would want this job. It's hard!

(NOTE: This is from SNL not the actual debate)

To put it as succinctly as I can we went into Iraq because after 9/11 we really could no longer to dicker around with outlaw regimes in that part of the world. Saddam had flouted the UN resolutions and cease fire terms for a decade and no one knew what the heck was going on in there. The UN gave Saddam one final chance to comply with his previous obligations and once again he started playing games with the inspectors just like he did before. This time, however, enough was enough and the US and its allies removed him.

I guess then I am mistaken too because I thought we went in because of WMD. In fact, I thought that if Mr. Bush actually spoke more to the fact that Iraq was so against UN resolutions (all of them) and that we can't allow a country to do that post 9/11, more people would have been with him.


Maybe this was Bush being 'sweaty' under the cameras as to all the confusion. I really thought we went in because of WMD's, not Iraq's consitant breaking of UN resolutions. Actually that would have made more sence to me, but ask the American public and all I hear is "Iraq had something to do with 9/11 or they had WMD" not that "Iraq had 10+ UN resolutions and we can't allow a country to continue on this path in a post 9/11 world".

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.

Okay then what about Iran and North Korea? Your arguement does not hold up.
Desert Fox


Well, actually is does Desert Fox. Iraq has about 18 resolutions. You can not say that about Iran or North Korea or or that matter any nation on this planet. Face it, the world openly said Iraq was a major misfit in how it treated its people and how it treated others. In a post 9/11 world you can not allow nations to be so far off the main line and denounce so publicly and yet they (or Iraq in this case) get away with it. Terrorism is based on the reality that there are people who live so poor, so sad, so jobless, so lacking rights, that they are hot beds for terrorist activities

In other words, Iraq became first on the list. I think the bet that Bush made was that to attack Iraq, North Korea would think twice and Iran would have a democratic neighbor. He thought the world would not allow Iraq to become a terrorist hotbed after the war (but he is wrong about that one, the world will just sit and watch and point fingers instead of helping)

To put it as succinctly as I can we went into Iraq because after 9/11 we really could no longer to dicker around with outlaw regimes in that part of the world. Saddam had flouted the UN resolutions and cease fire terms for a decade and no one knew what the heck was going on in there. The UN gave Saddam one final chance to comply with his previous obligations and once again he started playing games with the inspectors just like he did before. This time, however, enough was enough and the US and its allies removed him. Okay then what about Iran and North Korea? Your arguement does not hold up. Bush went into Iraq for other reasons it is quite clear to me after my own research what those reason were and are. The invasion has made this country less safe not safer. Iraq is not a breeding ground for terrorists and soon they will be on our shores with another attack. Especially if Bush stays in office with his assinine policies. It is the US policies that is the problem with us being attacked. It has NOTHING to do with them hating freedom. I cringe whenever I hear Bush make that statemet. They attack us because they hate freedom that we enjoy. BAH all crap!

How does your point follow from mine? What binding UN resolutions are out there against Iran and North Korea?

There were 17 UN resolutions demanding Iraq comply. None, that I know of, against Iran.  Moreover, Iraq is located right in the middle of the part of the world these terrorists come from.

And to say Iraq wasn't a terrorist breeding ground before we invaded seems a bit naive to me.

But feel free to let me know what US policy justifies people flying hijacked commercial airliners into the largest buildings in the world. What is our policy of trying to help the starving people (mostly Muslims) in Somalia? Or maybe our defense of the Muslims in Bosnia during the 90s?

But let's take you at your word - that it's US policies that caused 9/11.  If such policies excuse the mass murdering of innocent Americans, then surely the US is totally excused from any deeds it carries out in response.  The Bush policy has been fairly straight forward - after 9/11 the US has moved to a policy of cleaning house. It's going to take decades to complete but in 4 years we've gotten rid of the Taliban, sent Al Qaeda into the caves and removed Saddam. In the next 4 years the US will have to help make sure Iraq has a peaceful democratic government and come to terms with Iran.  In the 4 years after that you'll probably see North Korea, Saudi Arabia and Syria be dealt with.  Hopefully, none of these objectives will require military action.

Reply to Draginol

There is no question we are far less safe today than before the Iraq War. In fact the terrorists have become more disbursed and even more difficult to deal with. In addition, we have created an new place for them to plot aginst us-- IRAQ!

There is no question we are far less safe today than before the Iraq War. In fact the terrorists have become more disbursed and even more difficult to deal with. In addition, we have created an new place for them to plot aginst us-- IRAQ!

Oh, i wasn't aware that you were the final arbiter of reality.  I believe we are safer today than we were before then and I consider myself pretty informed.

You are at odds with world events. Our own state dept admitted terrorist incidents are increasing. Sec Def said the same thing as well as the Sec of State. Intel est say things are getting more not less dangerous. Tell our military arround the world we are safer. Tell Israel, England, Russia, Spain and this list goes on. Thank GOD we have not had another attack in our country. That does not mean the danger is less!

Our own state dept admitted terrorist incidents are increasing. Sec Def said the same thing as well as the Sec of State. Intel est say things are getting more not less dangerous. Tell our military arround the world we are safer. Tell Israel, England, Russia, Spain and this list goes on.

Well dua... The reason why attacks are going up (just before an election) is becuase this is their chance to get someone into the Presidency of the US that will not destroy them. If Bush remains in office, the attacks will drop off because they know the tactic didn't work and will get disheartened. But Kerry is doing his best to provide the Terrorist every bit of hope they need for this one last effort before elections. Just like he did 30 years ago for the North Vietnamese.

It's not CP, but it's true.

That's My Two Cents

If Bush remains in office, the attacks will drop off because they know the tactic didn't work and will get disheartened.

do you really think that the attacks will decrease if bush gets reelected? they own entire cities now. we can't keep much secure outside the green zone. hell, some of the hostage kidnappings occurred a few hundred yards from the green zone in broad daylight. they aren't attacking to get bush out of office, they're attacking because they are successfully grabbing territory. as soon as bush is re-elected do you think they're just gonna drop their ak-47s and rpgs and go, "damn, our devious plan failed, time to go back to being po'ed and unemployed?"

as soon as bush is re-elected do you think they're just gonna drop their ak-47s and rpgs and go

No, not as soon as re-election. Fewer terrorists will consider going to or stay in Iraq if they know the fight will be tough with Bush. But they will swarm in when they know they can effect our elections and get a man of appeasement in office. But lets be real here, it is still early in this fight and just today the Iraqi Army has retaken cities.

But don't denie that those coming to fight in Iraq was not spurred on by Kerry's Doom and Gloom speeches. The Al Jazzier network airs every sound byte of Kerry preaching this.

That's My Two Cents