The 1st Bush\Kerry Debate: Who Won? Please Eplain Why.

Liberalmaverick,

KERRY: "[H]e can rebuild both chemical and biological. And every indication is, because of his deception and duplicity in the past, he will seek to do that. So we will not eliminate the problem for ourselves or for the rest of the world with a bombing attack." (ABC?s "This Week," 2/22/98)

LM: This is an obvious statement anyone can agree with. Of course he can rebuild chem or bio weapons - it would have been very difficult for him to do it, and it would have been near impossible for him to do so without us finding out - but there was the possibility he could do it. And of course his ability to do so cannot be stopped with a mere bombing attack; it would require active inspectors on the ground as well as constant intelligence monitoring of Saddam's activities and assets moving in and out of the country.

The quote you posted doesn't indicate anywhere a support for war. Show me where it says he wants war.

Nor does it show Kerry "requiring active inspectors".
In addition it definatley says nothing about opposition to war. Because of his other statement supporting ground troops if needed, that whole quote IMO lends itself to supporting a Military Campaign against Saddam...even back in '98.


KERRY: "I am way ahead of the commander in chief, and I?m probably way ahead of my colleagues and certainly of much of the country. But I believe this. I believe that he has used these weapons before. He has invaded another country. He views himself as a modern-day Nebuchadnezzar. He wants to continue to play the uniting critical role in that part of the world. And I think we have to stand up to that." (ABC?s "This Week," 2/22/98)

LM: Show me where he "new" what should really be done. Show me where he advocates war.

Back then, Clinton had merely an arm's legnth approach to Iraq and terrorism in general. Kerry agreed that he was ahead of Clinton and wanted to "stand up" to Saddam. Clinton already was thru the UN resolution bullcrap and lobbed a couple dozen missle at him. That is what Kerry meant by saying we needed to do more!
So couple that with supporting ground troops and what do you have?

You have to understand what was already done by Clinton at the time to fully grasp Kerry's position.

KERRY: "Outside chance, Chris. Could it be done? The answer is yes. But he would view himself only as buying time and playing a game, in my judgment. Do we have to go through that process? The answer is yes. We?re precisely doing that. And I think that?s what Colin Powell did today." (MSNBC?s "Hardball," 2/5/02)

LM: He said, clearly, that diplomacy could "be done" and that it has to be tried, through the two "The answer is yes."

And Kerry voted for authorizing military force, not to actually use it. And he voted for it before the U.N. resumed inspections.

Voted for it but not to use it? Please. He should have voted against it then. I see it as Kerry just wanting to be "popular".

"If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement...even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act."

LM: He said we have the right. Right is not, I repeat, NOT, the same as obligation. He said we can, NOT that we should.

I agree...he said we have the right. What he does in this quote is acknowledge that mostly US enforcment is ok in this situation even if the UN SC fails. This is a far different position than he takes today in his Bush bashing...arguing that we are "going it alone".

LM:In regards to the quote itself, yes Kerry knew the threat. He acknowledges it now. What he accuses Bush of doing is hyping up the threat, of making it seem much greater and much more imminent than it really was.

I would like to see the evidence of Bush "hyping" up the threat. Because the 9/11 report states that there was no "hyping" by the Bush Administration.

Also, your "further inv

 

Qui Rune

On bush flat out lying

"President Bush, speaking to the nation this month about the need to challenge Saddam Hussein, warned that Iraq has a growing fleet of unmanned aircraft that could be used "for missions targeting the United States."

Last month, asked if there were new and conclusive evidence of Hussein's nuclear weapons capabilities, Bush cited a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency saying the Iraqis were "six months away from developing a weapon." And last week, the president said objections by a labor union to having customs officials wear radiation detectors has the potential to delay the policy "for a long period of time."

All three assertions were powerful arguments for the actions Bush sought. And all three statements were dubious, if not wrong. Further information revealed that the aircraft lack the range to reach the United States; there was no such report by the IAEA; and the customs dispute over the detectors was resolved long ago. --10.22.02, Washington Post"
(I can back up that last part from even more additionl testimony if you wish)

And as of this morning hot off the press at CNN

"The final report by the 9/11 commission, issued in July, also concluded that Iraqi officials might have met with Osama bin Laden or his aides in 1999, but there was "no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship."

In June, President Bush repeated his administration's claim that Iraq under Saddam's rule was in league with al Qaeda, saying that fugitive Islamist militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi ties Saddam to the terrorist network."

Sounds dishonest to me. Certainly at least exaggeration at best.

I also notice your also notice your last post...

What he does in this quote is acknowledge that mostly US enforcment is ok in this situation even if the UN SC fails.

I don't think he's doing anything of the sort. He's reassuring the people that even without UN approval that we can still act if necessary. He also doesn't say mostly US enforcement is OK, only that its the likely scenario if a policy of enforcement comes to pass. That's a far cry from being okay with it and again its consistent with his "war as a last resort" policy. Be careful of how you interpret things in the absence of explicit statements made.

Also...

Let me ask you a question: What do you consider the canniseters of Mustard and Serrin Gas we found? Or the Labs? Or the Missiles that were equipted to carry Chemical weapons? Everyone seems so quick to say there are no WMD's but the truth is there were traces of them...just not the stock piles we and everyone else in the world thought were there.

Traces are not good enough given what we were lead to believe was there and none of them were deployable according to military intelligence and never would have been without our knowing in advance and none had the power to reach U.S. soil. (I will prvoide links if necessary.)

Thus threat to U.S. = 0

A bad reason for war.
.

 

"Im new to this thing but Kerry probably isnt the best president, didnt he lie to get out of a war? Id vote for bush and I dont know who won the little debate/"

There is so much wrong with this statement it's unbelievable. Do me a favor and if you're actually planning on voting this year, start reading now and don't stop until November.

Which war did Kerry supposedly lie to avoid? Was it the Vietnam War? The one where he served as a swift boat in VIETNAM!!!?

Now on the other hand, Bush, who you'd supposedly vote for because Kerry some how avoided Vietnam while still being there and getting shot at early and often, at best used his family's extensive connections to get a posh post in the National Guard in Texas, and at worst went AWOL for months, avoided Vietnam just fine.

 

Kerry won the debate.

The real question though is if it'll matter. Personally I only really pay attention to rasmussen, the weekly polls by other orginizations just seem stupid to me. Rasmussen poll results are from three days of polling, so todays were the first that were done completely after the first debate and PResident Bush still has a respectable lead.


Now of course that could change, however I would hope the poor showing in the first debate encourages him to do better the next two times.

 

I believe they are referring to some rumours that were circulating at one point that, while in Vietnam, Kerry shot himself in the leg to earn a third Purple Heart, and thus get to go home.

Unsubstantiated at best. Defaming at worst.

Buddy, Don't you think Richard Nixon would have gotten wind of that the FIRST time around?

You know, the first person who originally hired Paul O'Niell to go after Kerry, perhaps the largest impeteus currently behind the Swift Boat for truth ads?

 

Kerry lied to follow the interests of the people which is when they are SUPPOSED to lie. We MAKE them lie.

PRECISELY! PRECISELY!

*round of applause*

 

Kerry won on style.

Bush won on substance.

Kerry gave no policy initiatives, parroted Bush's Iraq policy, gave mixed signals about foreign involvement in future security issues (multilateral into Iraq, but bilateral with N. Korea and who cares about the Sudanese, right?), didn't explain his pre-debate Iraq stance(s)...

Bush defended himself, came off as a normal guy as well as a man of conviction. He might not have sounded polished, and that is why Kerry wins for style. But simply put, Bush said more that mattered when the day was done.

 

Bush defended himself, came off as a normal guy as well as a man of conviction. He might not have sounded polished, and that is why Kerry wins for style. But simply put, Bush said more that mattered when the day was done.

You're kidding!

Bush won on content? Can you give some examples?

Depa Billaba

 

Bush defended himself, came off as a normal guy as well as a man of conviction. He might not have sounded polished, and that is why Kerry wins for style. But simply put, Bush said more that mattered when the day was done.

This is actually upheld by Rasmussen. About the situation after the debate, he says:

The first debate did little to change voter perceptions of the candidates' political ideology. However, following the debate, there was an increase in the number who say finishing the mission in Iraq is more important than getting troops home as soon as possible.

Based on that point alone, Bush very well may have won the debate in the long term, because More people trust Bush to handle Iraq. Again from Rasmussen:

Overall, by a 51% to 40% margin, voters say they trust Bush more than Kerry to handle the situation in Iraq.

As I said before, the jury is still out on who really won the debate. If the debate were the end-all, be-all of the election, then Kerry would have won outright. However, because the winner is only really decided on Nov 2, and the responses to the debate overall still favor Bush in the polls, it's entirely possible that it will be seen as a vicoty for Bush overall.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Bush defended himself, came off as a normal guy as well as a man of conviction. He might not have sounded polished, and that is why Kerry wins for style. But simply put, Bush said more that mattered when the day was done.

This isn't true. Kerry was in command of more facts than Bush despite not being the current president. This is precisely part of the reason why he was able to win.

 

Based on that point alone, Bush very well may have won the debate in the long term, because More people trust Bush to handle Iraq.

But Kerry made progress in that category, and Bush can be hurt by worsening news from Iraq, along with any other negative events related to Iraq.

 

A good politician may have views that contradict the majority, but a good politician also tempers those views until the time is right to set forth those ideas.

Kerry tempered his anti war views at a time when it would have been a political killer. That accounts for half the quotes being used against him. But these quotes always contain a reservation for changing of mind.

As for the vote on the war resolution, it was a vote for unilateral war, only if absolutely last resort.

Anyone would vote for that. The resolution was a trick by the Bush admin to come up with a legal way to pre-empt without actually following through with inspections. Kerry was far too trusting.

That resolution shouldn't even have been created in the first place. Its like asking people if they would vote to defend their families from dying if a killer was about to kill them. Who wouldn't vote for it? Why would one even need a vote on that? Because the Bush admin had already decided what it was going to do.

 

okay I hope you will not be angry when I say this but I think somwbody must say this..

I think that the democracy in america can´t function with only two big partys and that there must be a lot of other partys with other opinions and I think also that there is no matter who will be the president ´cause if kerry will be the new president he must go on with "bringing democracy to iraq" because when he will stop this, there will be anarchy..but I also think that there must be other things for the humans in iraq and not only weapons and death..

Please understand my opinion and I hope you will be able to tell me mistakes..and I also know that I can´t understand everything ´cause I´m from Germany so tell me what you think..

 

sure, kerry will have to contiunue bringing democracy to Iraq, but gone will be the shady dealings with who and how will be running Iraq, as well as the overt American industrial interest in the region. According to PNAC, Cheney never plans on relinquishing power over Iraq. That gang of thugs has its own agenda. Kerry will deliver on what the thugs are only claiming they want to do.

Chaos is a given at this point. We already f*&^ed up. The best thing to do is make the most of it for the Iraqi people and give up our interests in the region.

Cutting our losses and taking responsibility would be good. Maybe we should give Iraq to the most democratic neighboring country, stay just long enough to aid the transition, and simultaneously try Bush (or just Cheney, since Bush may have been hoodwinked) for War crimes.

 

Come on Kimball, that's some retroactive logic.

Think of it this way: Who benefitted from the debate? Clearly, it was Kerry. Who was hurt by the debate? Bush.

Kerry won the debate. Bush would have been better off right now had there been no debate.

Whether Kerrys' win is enough to catapult him to winning the election remains, but don't let your brother's delusions cloud your own judgement.

 

Clearly Kerry is playing Politics. Period. I am just not buying into his bull.

No...you're just buying another brand of it.

So thats why this thing says Kerry lied while good men died

"Bush lied and good men (and women) died" works just as well.

Bush won on substance.

Yeah. If saying "Its a hard job"....shrugging shoulders repeatedly, and flaming out on answers is substance...then yeah...he won.

Bush looked like a complete fool...accept it. No style...no points...no matter what you can conjure up in your imaginations in order to believe Bush won...He didn't. Kerry is no peach, either....but anything beats a simpleton in office.

But simply put, Bush said more that mattered when the day was done.

Again....if flaming out is "Saying more that mattered" is winning...then yeah...he won.

 

Bush won on substance.



Substance?

What substance?

Seriously, all the real conservatives I know admitted Kerry came out on top in this virtually every which way. Trying to say Bush won this thing is such foolishness.

 

Seriously, all the real conservatives I know admitted Kerry came out on top in this virtually every which way. Trying to say Bush won this thing is such foolishness.

I disagree. Bush has by far the best message to our troops and, (in probably the best part of his speech), "all those who plead in silence for freedom." His message is solid and has always been the same: we must win this battle, and we are winning it. Kerry seems to have no regard to what the troops hear come out of the Commander in Chief's mouth. Our troops as well as the Iraqis need to know that America believes in the power of freedom. Kerry gives no such message. He lives in a comatose state consisting of "Wrong war, worng place, wrong time".

Bush ahs proven he can win this war. The poolls reflect that.

 

Come on Kimball, that's some retroactive logic.

Think of it this way: Who benefitted from the debate? Clearly, it was Kerry. Who was hurt by the debate? Bush.

According to Rasmussen's polling figures, Bush also benefited from the debate, specifically relating to Iraq. If the debate made more people believe that we need to finish the job in Iraq, and also made more people believe that Bush will handle Iraq better, then Bush has gained a clear benefit from it.

I have said all along that the debate was a tie, and I've said that for one clear reason. The only way to really evaluate whether you win the debate or not is if you achieve your goals from it. Both candidates achieved their goals (Kerry, to move to the offensive, Bush to stress the importance of Iraq and the War on Terror). Kerry provided better style, but that alone does not make it a victory.

This isn't some high school or college debate, where you can win the debate on style or points alone. It is the end results that decide thw final winner, and that won't be known until November 2.

Whether Kerrys' win is enough to catapult him to winning the election remains, but don't let your brother's delusions cloud your own judgement.

Joking or not, it is not wise to call any user's opinions "delusions", even if they are the sibling of a moderator.

Kimball Kinnison

 

I don't know if that's such a useful way to assess the outcome of a debate. Certainly, if Kerry wins the election, people will look back at the first debate as the real turning point for the campaign - Kerry's relentless effort into the home stretch.

If Kerry loses the election, however, people may not necessarily conclude that Bush "won" the debate. There are too many potential intervening causes. Edwards might completely screw up tonight - embarrassing himself and the campaign and capsizing Kerry's chances. Or Kerry might do that himself at his next debate. Or Bush may decide to take Osama bin Laden out of the freezer and defrost him. Or there may be some kind of horrible, bigger-than-usual catastrophe in Baghdad next week, or the price of oil may go up to $60 barrell, etc.

In general, if Kerry loses, his campaign problems started long before the debate, and if Kerry wins it will be because of something that happens now that the debate is over. So, you might as well pick a debate winner now.

 

Bush ahs proven he can win this war. The poolls reflect that.

The situation certainly doesn't reflect that. It's an unwinnable situation unless there are major changes made to the plan. Thinking it's going fine shows nothing but ignorance.

Do you rely on polls to win a war? For your sake and mine I hope not.

 

The situation certainly doesn't reflect that. It's an unwinnable situation unless there are major changes made to the plan. Thinking it's going fine shows nothing but ignorance.

I for one am very glad we did not succumb to that thinking in WWII. No war goes "well." War by its very nature must be bloody, depressing work. But that is the price of freedom. If I were a troop, I would rather hear a message of hope than one of flip-floppy despair.
This war is winnable. "The day we stop believing democracy can work is the day we lose it." Now where did we hear that......

 

If I were a troop, I would rather hear a message of hope than one of flip-floppy despair.

that may be, but sometimes you need to hear something that you'd rather not hear. i'd rather hear a doctor tell me that i'm fine than have him tell me i have a terminal disease, but if i actually do have a terminal disease, i need to hear it whether or not it makes me feel all warm anf fuzzy inside.

besides, if you actually were in Iraq right now, you wouldn't be so optimistic about the war. the troops who are actually there already know how badly it's going.

This war is winnable.

no, it's not. it's debatable if it ever would have been, but it certainly isn't now. the only thing we can realistically talk about is an exit strategy that leaves an Iraq that is reasonably stable the immediate term and sustainable in the long term. everything else is simply detached from reality.

 

"That is the price of freedom."

But why are we paying that price when our freedom is so clearly not at stake? Unless of course you're justifying the war on the grounds that we're securing a future oil supply.

Oil is the only word that somehow connects up to American soldiers being in Iraq to "protect our freedom and our way of life," since of course without plenty of Middle Eastern oil, our way of life is toast.

 

Oil is the only word that somehow connects up to American soldiers being in Iraq to "protect our freedom and our way of life."

the hard fact of the issue is that while our freedom is not at stake here, our way of life is, but i'm not sure that it's sustainable anyway. on every level, from personal household finances to local and state governments to the federal government, our economy is functioning on a lifeline of credit which is getting more and more frayed the further we overextend ourselves.

equally importantly, we're totally addicted to oil and unable to wean ourselves of that. that's becoming more and more of a liability as reserves start dwindling and India and China start consuming more and more of them and competing with us for the very lifeblood of our economy.

when you look at those two things combined, it's somehow appropriate that this President is driving us into bankruptcy with an orgy of deficit spending in some Quixotic quest to try to seize the last of the oil as it starts to run out. it's almost operatic or something.