So..who won the debate? Kerry vs. Bush

[MrBishop]

I watched some of it..in bits and pieces. Seems that Kerry tripped at the start, but recovered quickly and had some nice uppercuts. I think that he won the debate, but not with enough of a lead to make a difference. Bush started off well, tripped in the middle and recovered. He didn't get as many sound bytes out as he'd have wanted.

Comments?

The president has made, I regret to say, a colossal error of judgment, and judgment is what we look for in the president of the United States of America," Kerry said of the war. "I would not take my eye off of the goal: Osama bin Laden."

"We are facing a group of folks who have such hatred in their hearts, they'll strike anywhere with any means," he said, also arguing that "the biggest disaster that could happen is that we not succeed in Iraq."

 

[brownjenkins]

i'd say kerry... bush was on the defensive and kinda lost at times... he's gotta lose the "umms" and learn to just pause... he does fine with the prepared speeches, but the open format gets him

that said, i agree, no big change other than kerry showing he can be presidential and even admit to a mistake... rare thing these days

outside of the speaking difficulties, bush presented himself pretty well too... nothing new, but he reinforced his basic position clear enough

 

[rrfield]

Wow, only one thread on the debate...and it was started by a Canadian no less

The thing that stuck me most was that there were a few times when Bush asked for extra time, then either had nothing to say or he would rehash some phrase he muttered 4 questions ago.

 

[PT]

Every time I hear about a debate coming up I get excited cause I might actually hear something about their position. Then I watch it. Then I wonder what it was they actually said.

 

[MrBishop]

Wow, only one thread on the debate...and it was started by a Canadian no less

The thing that stuck me most was that there were a few times when Bush asked for extra time, then either had nothing to say or he would rehash some phrase he muttered 4 questions ago.

Gonz, RM and TOO only come in later in the day. Guess that they were too frustrated to post last night

 

[HomeLAN]

I watched the first 30 minutes. That was enough to tell me they were merely fencing with the same fucking lines they've played with for the past 5 months.

I turned to a porno. More entertaining, and just as informative.

 

[Gonz]

I was in a Michigan hotel room. I watched all 90 minutes. It had to have been one of the most boring spectacles I've ever seen. Horrible format with horrible actors.

Bush stayed on message & won the first third, got bored & wanted to leave.

Kerry said nothing but looked good saying it. He won the last third.

The middle third should have been scheduled for a suicide break.

The media follows rigid pre-disposed formats. Liberals say Kerry won. Republicans say Bush prevailed. Those of us who watched it called it a draw.


Now for the fun stuff:

“I’ll Never Give A Veto To Any Country Over Our Security.”

“No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you’re doing what you’re doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.”

“Reason For Going To War Was Weapons Of Mass Destruction, Not The Removal Of Saddam Hussein.”

“I would disagree with John McCain that it’s the actual weapons of mass destruction he may use against us, it’s what he may do in another invasion of Kuwait or in a miscalculation about the Kurds or a miscalculation about Iran or particularly Israel. Those are the things that – that I think present the greatest danger. He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat.” (CBS’ “Face The Nation,” 9/15/02)

“We Are 90 Percent Of The Casualties And 90 Percent Of The Cost: $200 Billion – $200 Billion That Could Have Been Used For Health Care, For Schools, For Construction, For Prescription Drugs For Seniors, And It’s In Iraq.”

NBC’S TIM RUSSERT: “Do you believe that we should reduce funding that we are now providing for the operation in Iraq?” SEN. JOHN KERRY: “No. I think we should increase it.” RUSSERT: “Increase funding?” KERRY: “Yes.” RUSSERT: “By how much?” KERRY: “By whatever number of billions of dollars it takes to win. It is critical that the United States of America be successful in Iraq, Tim.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 8/31/03)

“You Don’t Send Troops To War Without The Body Armor That They Need.”

“I don’t think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That’s irresponsible. What is responsible is for the administration to do this properly now. And I am laying out the way in which the administration could unite the American people, could bring other countries to the table, and I think could give the American people a sense that they’re on the right track. There’s a way to do this properly. But I don’t think anyone in the Congress is going to not give our troops ammunition, not give our troops the ability to be able to defend themselves. We’re not going to cut and run and not do the job.”

(S. 1689, CQ Vote #400: Passed 87-12: R 50-0; D 37-11; I 0-1, 10/17/03, Kerry Voted Nay; “Highlights Of Iraq, Afghanistan Measures,” The Associated Press, 10/17/03)

“We can’t leave a failed Iraq. But that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a mistake of judgment to go there and take the focus off of Osama bin Laden. It was.”

“But The President Made A Mistake In Invading Iraq.”

PBS’ JIM LEHRER: “Are Americans now dying in Iraq for a mistake?” KERRY: “No, and they don’t have to, providing we have the leadership that we put – that I’m offering.”

“Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it’s the right authority for a president to have. But I would have used that authority as I have said throughout this campaign, effectively. I would have done this very differently from the way President Bush has.” (CNN’s “Inside Politics,” 8/9/04)

“What I think troubles a lot of people in our country is that the president has just sort of described one kind of mistake. But what he has said is that, even knowing there were no weapons of mass destruction, even knowing there was no imminent threat, even knowing there was no connection with al Qaeda, he would still have done everything the same way. Those are his words. Now, I would not.”

CNN’S BILL HEMMER: “The White House would say that dozens of countries are helping now in the effort on the ground in Iraq and they are engaged with the U.N., as well, how would more international involvement prevent the violence we’re seeing today?” SEN. JOHN KERRY: “Well, the fact is that those countries are really window dressing to the greatest degree. And they weren’t there in the beginning when we went in, and they’re not carrying the cost of this war.” (CNN’s “American Morning,” 3/2/04)

“The President Says That I’m Denigrating These Troops. I Have Nothing But Respect For The British, Tony Blair, And For What They’ve Been Willing To Do.”

“I’ve Had One Position, One Consistent Position, That Saddam Hussein Was A Threat.”

“We Now Know That Iraq Had No Weapons Of Mass Destruction, And Posed No Imminent Threat To Our Security.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At New York University, New York, NY, 9/20/04)

“My Position Has Been Consistent: Saddam Hussein Is A Threat. He Needed To Be Disarmed.”

“Saying There Are Weapons Of Mass Destruction In Iraq Doesn’t Make It So.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks To Democrat National Convention, Boston, MA, 7/29/04)

“I Have Always Said We May Yet Even Find Weapons Of Mass Destruction.” (Fox News’ “Fox News Sunday,” 12/14/03)

and for the topper, the DNC post-debate video is about the faces thet GW made while Kerry is speaking (shown)...they used music instead of Kerry's words

 

[Oz]

The media follows rigid pre-disposed formats. Liberals say Kerry won. Republicans say Bush prevailed. Those of us who watched it called it a draw.

A draw? Bush, not the most coherent person on the planet admittedly, only answered the same question for the whole 90 mins, regardless of what Kerry was stating, asking I can only presume he got himself confused and stuck with what he thought he knew the answer to.

Kerry made points and backed them up with many examples of how his government would do things differently, some I thought he made sense with, some I thought he was speaking out his arse about

Overall tho'.....I agree with many others, the whole thing was just a spectacle, barely watchable. If men are talking about holding the reigns to the the most powerful country in the world, then they should be allowed the freedom to speak, either Rhetorically or in answer to their oppositions questions/accusations. This whole "two minute answer, 90 second response or 30 seconds to exchange opinions" was sheer lunacy. A disgrace to any viewer with two braincells to rub together

 

[Gonz]

Kerry made points and backed them up with many examples of how his government would do things differently

Without using the "visit my website" line, name one.

 

[Oz]

Without using the "visit my website" line, name one.

hmm....lessee.......just off the top of my head having an actual PLAN for the situation(s) in Iraq ..... y'know, just the little thing, international realations, a practically totally destroyed foreign policy, working to actually prevent "rogue nations" from developing nuclear weapons, instead of diverting resources elswere.....removing Afghanistan from it's new found status as No.1 producer of the worlds Heroin supply.

Not really biggies, I guess, but maybe something that the current administration can't handle

 

[Gonz]

Again, I ask what that plan is. I never heard anything beyond "I will do a better job". I (seriously) can't recall a single absolute about what he's planning.

I do recall that certainties are bad though.

 

[Oz]

Oh, and one more thing, I had to laugh at the way Bush kept accusing Kerry of changing his stance on the Iraq situation (I guess all those flipflops being waved around at the party conference was still stuck in his brain)......Kerry stood ten foot away from him and told the man his stance on Iraq and all bush could do was accusing him of changing his mind, when the man was stood there telling him his stance! I guess if you don't have a good argument, then you pick out flaws

Didn't anyone ever tell Bush that the ability to change your mind......actually proves you have one

 

[Gonz]

flip flop....look through the quotes-a few reside there.

Didn't anyone ever tell Kerry that changing your mind to fit the political affiliation at the momnet is a flip flop?

 

[Oz]

Again, I ask what that plan is. I never heard anything beyond "I will do a better job". I (seriously) can't recall a single absolute about what he's planning.

I do recall that certainties are bad though.

Did you actually watch the debate Gonz?

Kerry knows the Iraq situation is failing, failing badly. The coalition can't succeed by itself. The international community is needed, make the Iraq problem a problem for all. At the minute the insurgents see it as Us v's Them, only when they realise that there is no "them" or that "them" is everyone will they back down......Kerry seems to understand this pretty well

 

[Oz]

flip flop....look through the quotes-a few reside there.

Didn't anyone ever tell Kerry that changing your mind to fit the political affiliation at the momnet is a flip flop?

But is changing your mind on a situation, to adapt to a changing situation flipflopping? No. That, is the sign of intelligence......any fool can keep pissing into the wind, an intelligent man changes his stance

 

[Gonz]

Did you actually watch the debate Gonz?

Kerry knows the Iraq situation is failing, failing badly. The coalition can't succeed by itself. The international community is needed, make the Iraq problem a problem for all. At the minute the insurgents see it as Us v's Them, only when they realise that there is no "them" or that "them" is everyone will they back down......Kerry seems to understand this pretty well

Yes. DId you? He never ever gave a gameplan. He spouted incongruous rhetoric. I've noticed you've not given an example.

It's failing & only the UN can ride in & save the day. Huh. Wait, who is the UN's muscle?

 

[Gonz]

Debate text

 

[Oz]

Yes. DId you? He never ever gave a gameplan. He spouted incongruous rhetoric. I've noticed you've not given an example.

I think you've got Kerry and Bush mixed up dude (Kerry is the tall one). If you honestly expected to hear a full "game plan" in the two minute window in which they were allowed to speak.......well, your idea of a workable game plan is pretty simplistic, I can see why you're a bush supporter

It's failing & only the UN can ride in & save the day. Huh. Wait, who is the UN's muscle?

Same people who are the coalitions muscle (and after hearing the actual stats of groundtroops, I think the word coalition is grossly misused). Did anything ever get stronger by taking part of it away/working without part of it?

Before I leave this thread (nothing here that hasn't been discussed a million times before)....lemme ask you this Gonz.

Do you think that the removal of Saddam Hussein should have been planned and conducted in a better way? If so, why do you continue to support a man who refuses to budge in his current "plans"?

 

[catocom]

But is changing your mind on a situation, to adapt to a changing situation flipflopping? No. That, is the sign of intelligence......any fool can keep pissing into the wind, an intelligent man changes his stance

It depends on how stiff the wind is.
If it's not too stiff, just piss harder.

 

[Gato_Solo]

Do you think that the removal of Saddam Hussein should have been planned and conducted in a better way? If so, why do you continue to support a man who refuses to budge in his current "plans"?

I think the plan to remove Saddam went perfectly. Too fast, but quite well. The plan for Iraq after the war...that's another beast entirely. If we'd have known toppling Hussein was going to be that fast and easy, then we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now. The biggest problem since the end of major hostilities has been trying to get the Iraqis to do something on their own (insurgents not-with-standing). Most Iraqis don't participate in, or even like, the insurgency. They want a stable, peaceful, existence. The insurgents (mostly from outside Iraq) just want the coalition out. If they'd let us do our job of rebuilding, we could be out in 5, or 6, years, but, at the rate they keep destroying the infrastructure we're putting in, we might be there until 2100 AD. Gotta love fanaticism...