[-V-]

I'm a little biased but I believe Kerry's convention speech was brilliant and his debate performance was even brighter.

Bush repeated the same old tired rhetoric that we've heard over and over and looked terrible on camera during Kerry's turns.

Kerry did miss one opportunity, though. Bush said he knows how tough it is for the soldiers in Iraq because "I see it on TV". Kerry should have rebutted, "I know what it's like in the field of war not because I've seen it on TV, but because I've been there. And that's why I would only send America's sons and daughter's to war only as a last resort after I've fully exhausted every other option.

I thought CNN splitting the screen and magnifying Bush's screen to make him appear as big as Kerry, was PATHETIC!

[-V-]

found this debate comment on a sports forum:

Bush sure isn't the most articulate president we've had but I really don't think he's just shooting from the hip. It's clear diplomacy wasn't going to help in Iraq and going back to the U.N. wouldn't have helped--good call by George there. Tthe bottomline is that He acted on the intelligence he received to go into Iraq, you really can't fault Bush there. I think a few years from now, we'll look back and say that was the right decision and a big step towards freedom throughout the world.

As far as North Korea and Iran go...well you know you're not gonna be able to stop anyone from making nukes/weapons of mass destruction. And as seen in Iraq, if you give someone enough time, such said weapons can surely be moved. I trust Bush's and the admin's judgment on dealing with the countries that possess weapons.

Bush has a plan he most definitely does. He may not look good in articulating it, but his heart's in the right place and he's a God-fearing man. There's something to be said for that. We're in good hands.
my reply:

It's clear diplomacy wasn't going to help in Iraq and going back to the U.N. wouldn't have helped
apparently diplomacy was working because he had no WMD's and was clearly less of a threat then a lot of other countries. Also, just before the invasion the lead weapons inspector said they were making good progress, there were no imminent threads that they knew of and he asked for more time to finish the work they started.

He acted on the intelligence he received to go into Iraq, you really can't fault Bush there
if you can fault Dan Rather for faulty reporting you can hold the President accountable for trusting and exaggerating information that cost us 200 billion and 1100 lives so far.

I think a few years from now, we'll look back and say that was the right decision
a few years from now when the Bush admins "soma" in your drinking water weares off you are going to realize that instead of solving the middle east conflict he created another endless cycle of killing in Iraq

We're in good hands.
you'll realize what kind of hands your in when you, your child, or someone you know has to kill or be killed in Iraq for Bush's war or Osama strikes again because Bush was preoccupied with Saddham.

[amylee]

I agree with everything that you thought. I did think that kerry did some sidestepping there with the whole, wrong war, wrong time, wrong place. I think he should have stated more clearly when he said it.. He should have said. "I do not agree with this war, I believe it was the wrong place, the wrong time, but I KNOW that we must take care of it because this is where we have been led today and I promise as your president, I will make this right..

I think a lot of fear is being pounded into American's heads that Kerry will not be able to finish the job.. I don't think that’s true, but I think its key to Kerry's campaign that he enforce his desire to evoke change in Iraq..

I'm not great at this politics thing, but I do know that America NEEDS desperately a change for the good.

Oh yea, I guess I'm kinda back. I left for personal reasons but I'm feeling stronger...

I do like this site.

Amy

[-V-]

Welcome back Amylee. I'm glad it was a short leave.

[-V-]

CNN / GALLUP POLL ON WHO WON DEBATE
Kerry: 53 Bush: 37

CBS POLL ON WHO WON DEBATE:
Kerry: 44 Bush: 26 Tie: 30

ABC POLL ON WHO WON DEBATE:
Kerry: 45 Bush 36: Tie: 17

Mort Kondracke: This is the President's turf, this is the place that the President is supposed to dominate, terror and the war in Iraq. I don't think he really dominated tonight. I think Kerry looked like a commander-in-chief.

Kate O'Beirne, National Review Online s the Corner: "I thought the President was repetitive and reactive."

Jonah Goldberg, National Review Online's the Corner: "The Bush campaign miscalculated on having the first night be foreign policy night."

Bob Schieffer: The President was somewhat defensive in the beginning

Mark Shields: "The President showed a few times obvious anger"

Bill Kristol, Weekly Standard: I think Kerry did pretty well tonight, he was forceful and articulate.

Bob Schieffer: Kerry got off to a very good start.

Joe Scarborough: It was John Kerry s best performance ever&As far as the debate goes, I don t see how anybody could look at this debate and not score this a very clear win on points for John Kerry. (MSNBC)

Andrea Mitchell: This is the toughest we ve ever seen John Kerry. He attacked the very core of the President s popularity. He s basically saying, who do you believe? (MSNBC)

Tim Russert: Tonight he seemed to find his voice for the Democratic view of the world.

Fred Barnes on FNC: "Kerry did very well and we will have a Presidential race from here on out."

[amylee]

I totallly agree with those poll statistics.. we'll see how the next debates look..


amy
Ps. thanks for the welcome back

[Badandy]

found this debate comment on a sports forum:


my reply:


apparently diplomacy was working because he had no WMD's and was clearly less of a threat then a lot of other countries. Also, just before the invasion the lead weapons inspector said they were making good progress, there were no imminent threads that they knew of and he asked for more time to finish the work they started.

Reality check time. He never submitted to the reports. If he had truly disarmed, he would have told the UN he had done so and allowed them unrestricted access to Iraq. I don't see why you are so against the idea that Saddam had WMD's, he has used them multiple times in the past and there is no reason to disarm.


if you can fault Dan Rather for faulty reporting you can hold the President accountable for trusting and exaggerating information that cost us 200 billion and 1100 lives so far.

No, wrong again. The info he looked at and conveyed was not exxagerated. Many people looked at the same intel and said Saddam needed to be removed.

[-V-]

I don't see why you are so against the idea that Saddam had WMD's
I love how Bush keeps lowering the bar on the Saddham threat. First, our fear was nuclear weapons, then WMD's, then biological weapons, then a "weapons program", and in the debate Bush simply warned about Saddham having/making "weapons". Let's cut the bullshit. Bush wanted Saddham dead even if he was armed with sticks and stones.

Anyway, Saddham didn't have WMD's (unless you watch FoxNews) and even if he did, as Kerry pointed out in the debate, 35 to 40 nations have WMD's.

First, though, tell me why we can have WMD's but selected countries cannot. We should still be on parol for dropping 2 nuclear bombs that killed millions of civilians (targeting civilians is defined as "terrorism")

2nd, tell me why we have the right to unilaterally and preemptively invade other countries but other countries cannot.

3rd, tell me why our sons and daughter are assigned to the job of overthrowing selected evil dictators. Isn't that why we started the U.N.? And if you tell me the U.N. is powerless, I'll tell you it is only because we continue to weaken it instead of using our "super power" to make it stronger.

[Badandy]

I love how Bush keeps lowering the bar on the Saddham threat. First, our fear was nuclear weapons, then WMD's, then biological weapons, then a "weapons program", and in the debate Bush simply warned about Saddham having/making "weapons". Let's cut the bullshit. Bush wanted Saddham dead even if he was armed with sticks and stones.

blah, I didn't say anything about that :)

Anyway, Saddham didn't have WMD's (unless you watch FoxNews) and even if he did, as Kerry pointed out in the debate, 35 to 40 nations have WMD's.

Are you saying he never had WMD's and never used them? My point is, is if he had them and used them, there is no reason a dictator like that would disarm.

First, though, tell me why we can have WMD's but selected countries cannot

Because we know those countries (Iraq) will use or support their use on our allies.

2nd, tell me why we have the right to unilaterally and preemptively invade other countries but other countries cannot.

3rd, tell me why our sons and daughter are assigned to the job of overthrowing selected evil dictators. Isn't that why we started the U.N.? And if you tell me the U.N. is powerless, I'll tell you it is only because we continue to weaken it instead of using our "super power" to make it stronger.

Your 2nd and 3rd arguements are tied together, so I hope you don't mind if I talk about them in one area. We have the right to "unilaterally invade" (even though both you and I know it wasn't unilateral) because when the UN issued the order that Saddam disarm/comply or military action would be taken, we actually meant it. This is not meant to be a crude metaphor, but it ends up being taken as such but, "the UN doesn't have any balls." They make a resolution, if it is not complied with, they say there will be consequences. We are the only ones who actually go through with their own word. We don't need France, we need the whole UN to enforce their own mandates, or let us do it ourselves (which I hope we don't have to do in a situation such as this).

[-V-]

for your enjoyment:

'Faces of Frustration'
http://www.democrats.org/news/200410010006.html

[Badandy]

I agree! Heaven forbid someone show a tad bit of emotion when they are being unfairly personally attacked by someone trying to win his job. Isn't that aweful.

[-V-]

I agree! Heaven forbid someone show a tad bit of emotion when they are being unfairly personally attacked by someone trying to win his job. Isn't that aweful.

and I agree that Bush's puss is funny but insignificant. It was his content that really sucked. Cheney demonstrated in his debate who really is in charge in this administration.

[Badandy]

And I agree with your first part of your comment :)