Presidential Debate

[Roland]

I see a lot of Bush supporters in these posts so far, eager to point out Kerry's faults.  How about Bush's faults?  Will you 'side-step' these questions the same way Bush sidestepped them in the debate, or will you answer them?

1.) The CIA told Bush there were no WMD in Iraq before our invasion - this is well documented!  Why did he "mislead" Americans about the WMD being in Iraq when he KNEW there weren't any?

2.) The casualties is very high in this war and climbing daily, getting worse actually as time goes on.  The interim-president in Iraq said in a statement that the situation was terrible and growing worse by the day!  Why did and does Bush continues to "mislead" Americans, telling them that the war in Iraq is going well?

3a.) As Kerry pointed out, why did Bush assign native warlords who hate America just as much as Iraq must now to find and capture Osoma Bin Ladden instead of our own well-trained military?

3b.) No, instead he focused all of our resource on Iraq because Bush claims Iraq was the breeding ground for terrorists and was a major threat to America (his reasoning for lying to us in the first place and defending this war insofar).  I find this amusing since Iraq has no WMD and no way of creating them for years to come with all their sanctions, yet Korea and Pakistan pose a much bigger threat than Iraq ever did.  Why is Bush ignoring these other dangerous terrorist countries and focusing on Iraq?

4.) The head spokesman for the United Nations called the war in Iraq "illegal", but was coy to not make any accusations against Bush (perhaps out of fear).  Bush overstepped the ruling of the United Nations to not go to war in Iraq and closed the doors on many other nations so far.  Is Bush is so pompous to think that he overstep anyone he wants to be the worlds police force?  Here is my main question: what is Bush doing to repair Americas reputation that he was so quick to cast into disarray?
I have tons more questions but some comments also.  I can't trust a Commander in Chief of America who misleads the American public on purpose to go to war.

I don't believe some fanatic wrote up false papers for Bush being in Viet Nam and I find it funny that somehow a major news corporation ran a story they could not substantiate claiming bush being in Viet Nam was true.  Truth is, there are no papers or proof Bush was ever in Viet Nam.  Furthermore, someone went out of their way to forge papers saying he was there, and a forgery charge like this carries a thirty (30) year sentence but I don't see any investigations taking place.  IMO, Bush must have deeeeeeeeep pockets, or else his "loyal" supporters are just as "misleading" as he is.
[right][snapback]56871[/snapback][/right]

You see what you want to see. There are far more people pointing out Bush's faults than Kerry's, and if you can't see that, you're not paying nearly enough attention to this thread to make such sweeping accusations.

I'm virtually the only Bush-supporting voice in this thread, with most of the people either being undecided, not putting any input, or siding more with Kerry. I'm not saying I praise the ground Bush walks on, but he certainly swayed me more with his words than Kerry did.

I don't agree with everything Bush says or does, nor do I agree with all he has said or done previously. But I also am able to read between the lines, and see past the blind assumption that the President is the sole responsible party for the U.S. There's a reason we have 3 sections to our government - it's called "Checks and Balances". I think a lot of people need to go back to middle school and study up on it. Far too many people are flying to stray rumors and wild accusations that simply don't hold up to any shred of scrutiny.

Enough ranting, though. I hate sticking my head out in debates, especially ones where I'm either outnumbered, or where they're political. :P I fall more behind Bush than Kerry, and I have my reasons for that, but I'll never swear blind allegiance to Bush (nor anyone else for that matter), and I'll be the first to point out ANY persons faults, regardless of party. I do it often enough as it is.

[Doc]

This year's elections is like walking into a sex toy shop. All you have to choose from is a bunch of illusions and a set of pricks.

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

I miss Howard Dean.

I mean, here's a fellow that says what he means and means what he says, doesn't sit on his war record, doesn't meander through a codicled response to deftly answer a pointed question with a blanket response... and could go toe-to-toe with Bush on the basis of "friendly" and "straightforward".

The bugger could belt out a bellow, too. I found that amusingly refreshing, but apparently actual, real passion scares the hell out of the soccer-mom demographic. Mr. Smith isn't allowed into Washington in this day and age... we want our representatives coy and relaxed and non-threatening, please. Alas and alack... for the loss of passion in our candidates also seems to drain out any actual "leadership" that they may invest in the nation.

But, the Democrats, in their wisdom and over-riding hatred of Bush and desire to pick their "best horse" to run the race, overlooked picking the man that could actually stand up for the principles that would provide a difference... a juxtaposition against the President's record and promises. A more "true" Left-versus-Right choice... even though they may be a bit more centrist than the Lefties or Righties would wish. Perhaps he wasn't the "sure bet" against the President... but he was a good one.

20/20 hindsight, I suppose. But I remember a year ago when the Democratic Primaries were in swing, and I was actually interested in watching a candidate speak his mind. Today, that candidate is trying to stop Kerry from drowning in morass that is his own campaign.

To me, Howard Dean and John McCain are of the same cut: Men that speak their beliefs and speak truth to power. Their methods cost them the demographics necessary to win elections... but their methods win them respect as well. Men that should be leading a nation, but never will?

Perhaps Colin Powell still belongs in that cut as well. I'm no longer sure.

[Assur]

Hi

Just to clear up a few points

-The US senate rejected the Kyoto treaty in a non-binding vote by 98:0 in Clintons time, so that is not something that can be blamed on Bush. Anyway the EU signed the treaty but is now backsliding, just like with the Maastricht Criteria and the Lissabon Resolution. With China and India industrialising we can all forget about all that eco stuff anyway!

-As regards the ICC, as far as I know the US constitution forbids the signing away of sovereign rights, so once again that is institutional and not just Bush.

-Kofi Annan was responsible for Africa at the UN during the genocide in Rwanda, and he didn't do anything at all, just like with Darfur at the moment! Just because the Europeans like him doesn't mean he is a good guy.

-As regards international law and Iraq, the war was illegal in a strict reading of international law, just like the attack on Serbia in 1999, when all the Europeans participated!

P.S. As far Iraq is concerned, the US went in for the wrong reasons, totally screwed up everything after the military victory (it couldn't have turned out worse if somebody had intentionally sabotaged it) and is going to lose the peace. Every possible outcome in Iraq will be detrimental to US interests.

good karma

[channel1]

Oh please -  let that man rot in well-deserved obscurity...err..... retirement !  I wouldn't wish him on anyone, let alone our favourite neighbours.  :)
[right][snapback]56869[/snapback][/right]

The more I think of it, the better I like the idea of Cretien as POTUS.

Think of it: poor Paul Martin got screwed over for years, waiting for Cretien to finally step down. Having to deal with U.S. President Cretien would probably be enough to make Martin hang himself.

-rcv-

[JustAGuy]

Good idea.  I don't think ANY of the candidates would be capable of running the U.S.ofA. decently.  They should hire someone from outside the U.S., I can think of a few who could do it.  Jean Cretien would do a great job. :)

-rcv-
[right][snapback]56866[/snapback][/right]

Oh, oh! How about Arnold Schwarzenegger? *cough*

[kandrathe]

the infamous speeches featuring George's nice "You're either with us or with the Terrorists / against us" line as an indirect response to allies asking for more time for weapon inspections. (well, waiting two weeks is realy too much to ask when there is a risk of having bad weather conditions for an invasion during spring / summer) Guess what, being called a Terrorist is nothing that makes one feel positive towards the one making that claim!

You're pretty good at taking things out of context. That statement was to nations like Libya, Iran, Yeman, Pakistan, Sudan, UAE, etc. The message was clearly that we will no longer tolerate enclaves that allow terrorists safe harbor and training facilities.

It had nothing to do with France, or Germany's attitiudes and the security council's inability to grow a spine and follow up rhetoric with tangible actions. 12 years of flaunting the will of the world, and playing cat and mouse with UNSCOM and UNMOVIC was all the vacillation that the US would tolerate.

[Chaerophon]

It had nothing to do with France, or Germany's attitiudes and the security council's inability to grow a spine and follow up rhetoric with tangible actions. 12 years of flaunting the will of the world, and playing cat and mouse with UNSCOM and UNMOVIC was all the vacillation that the US would tolerate.

Much of the Western world interpreted that comment in exactly the same way as D-Dave. Perhaps they were mistaken in doing so, and that wasn't Bush et al's intent; fair enough. The point is that he never really clarified. The speech was quite ambiguous, and you can't really blame people for interpreting it as such. I, for one, think that it is a bit of a stretch to suppose that the speech wasn't intentionally unclear.

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

One doesn't build alliances, much less friendships, with threats. "With us or against us" is a threat.

It reminds me greatly of a scene that I saw with my 5 year-old daughter playing with her friends on the playground a few weeks back. Another girl the same age said "Play the game I want to play, or I will not be your friend ever again". Bush's rhetoric played to that same immaturity and control-issue mentality. It also garnered him and the entire USA the same response from several countries that my daughter gave to her snippish companion:

"Whatever."

:rolleyes:

[WarLocke]

Hmm, I dunno.  Mariah, or Drew maybe, but I think Jim is too unpredictable.
[right][snapback]56868[/snapback][/right]

Drew Carey for President!

Ryan Stiles and Colin Mochrie for the Joint Chiefs!

(Dangit, I deleted my Captain Hair image...)



Now don't make me bust out the Sesame Street color-coded terrorist warning thingy!

[kandrathe]

Much of the Western world interpreted that comment in exactly the same way as D-Dave.  Perhaps they were mistaken in doing so, and that wasn't Bush et al's intent; fair enough.  The point is that he never really clarified.  The speech was quite ambiguous, and you can't really blame people for interpreting it as such.  I, for one, think that it is a bit of a stretch to suppose that the speech wasn't intentionally unclear.
[right][snapback]56925[/snapback][/right]

Here is the context... It is not a five year old on the playground.

Today, Palestinian authorities are encouraging, not opposing, terrorism. This is unacceptable. And the United States will not support the establishment of a Palestinian state until its leaders engage in a sustained fight against the terrorists and dismantle their infrastructure. This will require an externally supervised effort to rebuild and reform the Palestinian security services. The security system must have clear lines of authority and accountability and a unified chain of command.

America is pursuing this reform along with key regional states. The world is prepared to help, yet ultimately these steps toward statehood depend on the Palestinian people and their leaders. If they energetically take the path of reform, the rewards can come quickly. If Palestinians embrace democracy, confront corruption and firmly reject terror, they can count on American support for the creation of a provisional state of Palestine.

With a dedicated effort, this state could rise rapidly, as it comes to terms with Israel, Egypt and Jordan on practical issues, such as security. The final borders, the capital and other aspects of this state's sovereignty will be negotiated between the parties, as part of a final settlement. Arab states have offered their help in this process, and their help is needed.

I've said in the past that nations are either with us or against us in the war on terror. To be counted on the side of peace, nations must act. Every leader actually committed to peace will end incitement to violence in official media, and publicly denounce homicide bombings. Every nation actually committed to peace will stop the flow of money, equipment and recruits to terrorist groups seeking the destruction of Israel -- including Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah. Every nation actually committed to peace must block the shipment of Iranian supplies to these groups, and oppose regimes that promote terror, like Iraq. And Syria must choose the right side in the war on terror by closing terrorist camps and expelling terrorist organizations.

He was clearly fingering states that are funding and supplying the terrorists bombs and weapons. Not France, or Germany because they stood up against the Iraq war at the security council.

[Chaerophon]

Wrong speech...

Transcript of President Bush's address to a joint session of Congress on Thursday night, September 20, 2001.

...Americans are asking:  How will we fight and win this war?  We will direct every resource at our command -- every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war -- to the disruption and to the defeat of the global terror network.

This war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion.  It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes.  Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen.  It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success.  We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest.  And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism.  Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) 

From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime....

Ambiguous enough for you? Is Canada supporting the terrorists by not endorsing the war in Iraq? France? Germany? Is not being "with" the US in this instance, then, an act that "supports" terrorism? Let's not forget that all those many moons ago, before the many strategical shifts in rhetoric, Iraq was invaded as a part of the war on terror. If we refuse to deport Canadian citizens to Guatanamo, are we then 'supporting terrorism'? Who are we allowed to trade with? Do we have to ask permission?

It was a very deliberate choice of words and its coercive intentions were quite clear.

[Armin]

From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime....

I'm still waiting for the Bush administration to make true on THIS promise.

But I still haven't heard about any US Air Force forces bombing Langley, Virginia.

After all, there's absolutely compelling evidence that from THERE Usama Bin Ladin got funded, trained and armed while he was still supposedly killing communists in Afghanistan and the Taliban were still the Mujaheddin.

Also, the same organisation based there armed, funded and supplied intelligence (including up-to-date satellite imagery) to a certain Saddam Hussain al Tikriti during the Iraq-Iran War in the 1980's. Prominent bringer of support was a certain Mr. Donald Rumsfeld...

I'm probably naive, but perhaps the best way to fight terrorism would be to stop CREATING them... <_<

Or supporting their propaganda by making a few tens of thousands families MORE hating the US for killing one of their members...

But what do I know, I'm from stupid old Europe :P

[JustAGuy]

I miss Howard Dean.

Me too. He wasn't necessarily a breath of fresh air, but at least he spoke with some emotion. I'd rather have seen Dean as Kerry's running mate, rather than Edwards, considering Edwards is a little pansy, pussyfoot, spineless yes-man, from what I can observe anyway. Clark probably would have been a good choice as well.

Here's a funny Filibuster Cartoon; Edwards and Kerry, running mates... hehe

To me, Howard Dean and John McCain are of the same cut:  Men that speak their beliefs and speak truth to power.  Their methods cost them the demographics necessary to win elections... but their methods win them respect as well.  Men that should be leading a nation, but never will?

Perhaps Colin Powell still belongs in that cut as well.  I'm no longer sure.
[right][snapback]56906[/snapback][/right]

I believe Colin Powell is of that same cut, he just made a horrible mistake that will cost him his career and credibility. That mistake? Joining the Bush camp. Bad timing, and a dash of bad judgement, that's all that was.

EDIT: Moved the link

[Sir_Die_alot]

You put up that long quote and still insist on analizing the one line. How about analazing the rest from that paragraph?

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes.

Maybe this is why we went to Iraq? No we can't have that. What would the Bush haters cry about then? Instead of "Bush lied, people died." they would have to say "Bush told us what he was going to do, but we don't care anymore because the rubble of the WTC has been cleaned up."

Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen.

Apparently Americans and the world still didn't expect it. Maybe they think "lengthy" means "over by next year".

It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success.

Well the first was definantly true. Considering there isn't another flaming building in America, and the terrorists' desire to make it happen, I think it is safe to say the second prediction has come to pass.

We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest.

Sounds good. This actually bothers you?

And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism.

Maybe this is his point that makes you cringe. Well if Canada, France, or Germany did the above I would certainly say they chose "with the terrorists" instead of "with us".

[Taem]

I suppose this is just as good a spot as any to put the following observation:

I had a long in-depth conversation with someone I respect very much who is pro-Bush. We didn’t debate at all, but rather had a very fulfilling conversation about politics. I got to hear his point of view and I think it may be one many Bush supporters share. I’d like to share my observation here.

His point of view is that our country (America) is so deep in s**t in regards to Iraq and our relationship with other countries, that he thinks someone with some real “balls” needs to be in office to make sure things get done right. He thinks Kerry will form alliances and sign peace treaties instead of doing what needs to be done, and that in the long-run, Iraq *will* turn into a real threat if its not taken care of properly. He believes Bush is the right person because he is just arrogant enough to keep the other countries at bay that disagree with our tactics and can still resolve our problems.

I found myself agreeing with him on many points. The main point we agreed upon is that Iraq needs to be taken care of before it returns to bite us back in a big way. With all the warlords moving in, terrorism is obviously in the future without some kind of major intervention. I do disagree that condescension towards other countries in regards to their opinions on our actions is appropriate. I think Kerry is stronger in this area and will repair and amend our broken continental relationships, however I do worry about Iraq.

Our conversation did not change my pro-Kerry stance, but gave me more respect and understanding for those who are pro-Bush. I think before our conversation, I pictured pro-Bush supporters as Republican to the core, hardcore Christians, or just plain ignorant. I now realize that it is I who was ignorant of their opinions. I’m not sure if I had this point of view because I didn’t agree with Bush’s policies of the environment, or what I perceived as his deliberate ‘lying’ to the American public, but in any case my head was in the sand. I think its important to remember that there are two sides to every argument, and two sides to every opinion.

[Chaerophon]

Simple answer. I included the entire paragraph so that there would be some context.

Maybe this is why we went to Iraq? No we can't have that. What would the Bush haters cry about then? Instead of "Bush lied, people died." they would have to say "Bush told us what he was going to do, but we don't care anymore because the rubble of the WTC has been cleaned up."

A rather huge stretch. Add the emotional appeal of "WTC rubble" and you've said... absolutely nothing!

Apparently Americans and the world still didn't expect it. Maybe they think "lengthy" means "over by next year".

Nope. By "lengthy" most assumed that subsequent battles would be against those most relevant to the terorist threat. For instance, finishing matters in Afghanistan before extending operations to Iraq. Fact is, Iraq didn't really have much of anything to do with terrorism. It was, perhaps, a broader political and economic security issue that "needed to be dealt with" (in view of the larger context of American political hegemony). Equating Iraq and Afghanistan is a mistake.

Well the first was definantly true. Considering there isn't another flaming building in America, and the terrorists' desire to make it happen, I think it is safe to say the second prediction has come to pass.

Well. We shall see about that. As far as I can tell, fundamentalist Islam and the "terrorist world" has at least as much, if not more support now, post-Iraq than it did before operations commenced.

Sounds good. This actually bothers you?

Sure, it sounds great. Point is that there is more to stopping terrorists than chasing them around. In the process of invading Iraq, American military involvement has probably bred as many new terrorists as it has caught. Granted, sovereign nations might think twice before harbouring terrorists. However, they can't really do much other than 'act nice' at an ambassadorial level if the bulk, or even a significant percentage of their populations support the terrorists.

Maybe this is his point that makes you cringe. Well if Canada, France, or Germany did the above I would certainly say they chose "with the terrorists" instead of "with us".

Did you read my post? I don't think that you understood it. You did not address the point, that's for sure. Bush, or more accurately, his strategic 'team', was completely ambiguous with their blanket statement, and it was intentional. "With us or against us" is an empty and counterproductive rhetoric. Allow me to oversimplify to a ridiculous extent; as sovereign nations, we reserve the right to judge what is justified and useful and what is not. It is possible for 'us' to disagree with US action. In so doing, we may not necessarily be 'supporting' terrorists. If Canada decides that they don't want to deport citizens without due process a la the Patriot Act, is it really the US's place to hold such an ambiguous threat over our head? I guess in some senses, it's not a matter of 'right or wrong'. Fair enough. It just 'is'. Regardless, the threat remains.

[Thecla]

I think its important to remember that there are two sides to every argument, and two sides to every opinion.
[right][snapback]56995[/snapback][/right]

Well, this is a nice sentiment; but there are many sides to every argument and every opinion, including whether the earth is flat, or war is peace.

[kandrathe]

We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest.&nbsp; And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism.&nbsp; Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.

Is the textual context, but 9 days after the main US financial district was turned into a still burning ruin and 3,000 people had been killed. Can you grant him and the US a little slack in being a bit pumped up emotionally?

A little introspection is in order. Imagine the center of this being destroyed.

[Chaerophon]

Can you grant him and the US a little slack in being a bit pumped up emotionally?

Sure. It's still a less than veiled threat. I fail to see how D-Dave is taking Bush's comments out of context.