Out of the Loop

Bush looked like an idiot last night.  Especially during split-screen action.

schrags

Alright, I know you are a democrat. I agree Bush is not the most efficient public speaker, but the fact of the matter is he is a pretty good president. His policies are creating more jobs than we have had in a long time. Our nation is safer as a result of his efforts. He sticks to his guns and makes choices that are in the best interest of our Great Nation.

This guy has had, argueably, the toughest presidency since FDR. In fact I believe it is tougher than FDR's. Hawaii at the time of the attack on Pearl Harbor was just a US interest and not yet reached statehood. Our mainland was attacked during Bush's presidency. They tried to blow up the world trade center during Clinton's presidency and all he did was mention it in passing, instead of preventing the disaster that was September 11, 2001.

Some people have the audacity to blame Bush for 9/11, but in actuality it is really the Clinton Administration that should be held accountable. Bush had only been in office less than 8 months when we were attacked. Even with his change in domestic policy and strengthening our defenses, it takes between 12-18 months for these policies to take effect.

But he is a bad public speaker!

I can handle this. I loved his facial expressions when Kerry was making accusations. It was like he was sucking on a lemon. And he has such troubles formulating coherent sentences.... it's really quite something to watch.

But also.... as Tina put it last night, "Kerry: What's with the long face?"

Get it out folks, I want to see a debate here.

"Bush's policies are creating more jobs than we have had in a long time" Job creation is rebounding somewhat since the end of 2003, but by no means would I describe the rate as" more than we've had in a long time." We're still in the red over the course of Bush's presidency, admittedly due to 9/11, but still, job confidence is not high.

Our nation is not safer as a result of his efforts. Is it safer because Bush says so? Saying that it is is a GOP talking point. What is safer? The fact that Bush's invasion of Iraq has stirred up more anti-US sentiment than ever? Do you feel safer travelling overseas now than you did before? Bush makes you think you're safer because he says so, but he's trying to tuck you safely into bed until Nov 2.

He sticks to his guns. Yes he does. Bush sticks to his guns even when he's wrong. Somewhere along the way, this trait became a Great American Virtue. We were attacked on our mainland by Al-Qaeda and Bush attacked Iraq. I'm happy that Saddam is not in power, but by the logic Bush uses in taking him out, we should be invading North Korea and Iran too. I'd be equally happy if Kim Jong Il were not in power, but we can't invade everybody we don't like. These countries are huge threats to the safety of the U.S. and the world. I guarantee that after this mess in Iraq, we won't be doing that. Either Bush knows in his heart that the way he has handled Iraq is a fuck-up and he won't admit it OR he really believes democracy is just around the corner. On one hand he's not giving us the straight story, on the other he's a fool.

I don't blame Bush for 9/11. I blame Osama bin Laden for 9/11. I wish Bush had as well. Instead he blamed Saddam Hussein.

Sticking to guns and having confidence in your decision is better than flip-flopping and appearing indecisive.

I wish people would drop this macho concept of "sticking to your guns" as something laudable. Having strong beliefs is respectable, but not adjusting to a changing domestic and global sociopolitical climate is foolish.

I am a staunch republican... I admit that. I think you have all presented some very valid points that are near and dear to your hearts and feelings regarding this presidential race. My only rebuttal to what you have said is this...Do you plan on voting for John Kerry because he is the best candidate or because he isn't Bush. For me personally, I am voting for Bush, because I think he is a better candidate (the best candidate...he is not).

Even as a republican,I do not agree with everything he has said and done. I choose candidates with whom I agree with on the majority of issues, not every issue. I am not going to vote for Alan Keyes. He has stepped way over the line, and made a mockery of what we the GOP is trying to accomplish. Barack O'Bama is a wonderful candidate, who tends to hover around the middle as he is a moderate. If I were a Democrat, I would be damn sure that he was on our ticket in 2008. I think most people can identify with a guy that has pulled himself up by the bootstraps and not had everything handed to him.

Holy Hippies Batman!

My favorite people these days are those that insist we must replace President Bush but can fail to offer up any reason other than "he'll (Kerry) will just do a better job", of course I don't necessarily fault his supporters since this guy fails to share one iota of detail regarding his plans. Now, I consider myself a rather staunchy Republican but even so I've managed keep a somewhat open mind lately due to my distaste for the war in Iraq. I just fail to see where Kerry will be able to turn this around, he fails to share detail on his steps other than stating he'd like to have a summit with the world's leaders to discuss solutions in Iraq. Even though both France and Germany (the only formidable allies worth a damn that aren't already helping) have publicly stated that they won't touch Iraq not now and not ever, I don't believe John Kerry could change their minds any better than our current leaders, which leaves us back at square 1.

My major problem with last night was Mr. Kerry failing to do his homework, especially on the topic of nuclear weapons in North Korea. The CIA has already stated NUMEROUS times that the North Koreans have had nuclear capabilities and weaponry since the Clinton adminsitration, YES, the C-L-I-N-T-O-N administration.

Bottom line is that I fail to see how Kerry could do a better job because he hasn't shared one bit of detail on how he would fix foreign policy. I won't even touch the flip-flopping topic because I believe his true weakness is not really having ANY clue.

For those nay sayers, who seem to be running rampid on this blog, I think that Bush's cut away shots were merely a show of his frustration has he listened to the diarrhea that was seemingly flowing from his opponents mouth.

I will end this rant with one great quote from last night....

"anyone who doubts that the world is safer without Saddam Hussein does not have the judgment to be president." ~ Senator John Kerry

I couldn't agree more.

Sorry for the double-post but I did have an excellent experience at lunch while walking through Rittenhouse Square here in Philly, the Kerry supporters were out in full-force today...when asked if I'd like to have George Bush removed from office, I replied wisely with...

"8 more years"

to which she replied

"hey, that's like not possible"

...you don't say?

Perhaps the Watermelon Jolly Rancher should run for office?

Please inspire me with more funny blogs than political topics. I like to laugh aloud in my cubicle.

I'd vote for watermelon.

Norwood, don't fear. The stories aren't leaving. I just really enjoy listening to people argue about politics. I find it extremely entertaining. I also like to laugh aloud in my cubicle.

You might fail to see where Kerry will be able to turn this around, but he is willing to admit we need to turn it around. I agree Kerry sounds dumb when he says we're going to get Europe involved more in Iraq. He's not fooling anyone with that line. Nobody is going to touch this thing with a 10 foot pole and for good reason.

That said, why do you think nobody will help? Because Bush didn't involve other nations when it would have made sense to do so before the situation got really bad. Bush's explanation of why we are fighting so many insurgents now is ridiculous...

Bush speaking: "But because Tommy Franks did such a great job in planning the operation, we moved rapidly, and a lot of the Baathists and Saddam loyalists laid down their arms and disappeared. I thought they would stay and fight, but they didn't.

And now we're fighting them now."

First, we've fought a ton against Al-Sadr's militia, a Shiite group that hated Saddam. We're fighting other people who didn't care for Saddam, but are tired of US occupying forces. We're fighting Al-Qaeda trained insurgents who came into the country since our invasion. And, yes, we're probably also fighting some former Baathist Saddam loyalists.

Is Bush suggesting that if the Saddam guard soldiers had stood and fought, we'd still be fighting them now? I hardly think this is plausible.

Show me where the CIA has stated numerous times that North Korea had nuclear weapons since the C-L-I-N-T-O-N administration. There were scattered intelligence reports in the late 1990s that North Korea had a uranium enrichment program which they were doing behind the back of Clinton's 1994 agreement that North Korea stop pursuing nuclear capabilities -- though this agreement was written with plutonium in mind. I believe North Korea was following the letter but clearly not the spirit of the agreement. They're like, "oh, we can't do plutonium. we'll ship out these fuel rods and dismantle our plutonium reactors. So, we'll pursue uranium instead."

Kerry said nothing untrue about North Korea. The fact is that North Korea is much more complicated than anything that was revealed in the debate. Again, show me where we knew that North Korea had nuclear weapons since the late 90s (as opposed to nuclear power enrichment programs, which is not the same thing).

We can debate facts and positions all day long, but Kerry won the debate. It may not translate into a huge swing in the polls, but Kerry needed to come off as straightforward and consistent to counteract Bush's negative ads. I believe he did that.

You just said it yourself, no need me for me to provide backup, the North Koreans developed the uranium program behind the back of Clinton (probably while we were busy fighting someone elses war in Somalia). Agreed we can debate the facts all day long but John Kerry did state that, "And while he's been diverted...North Korea's gotten nuclear weapons and the world is more dangerous"

So then it comes down to symantics...North Korea utilized uranium instead of plutonium but still disobeyed the 'spirit' of the agreement that Clinton inked, and we failed to monitor that agreement under BOTH administrations. But when did they begin to pursue these capabilities Mr. Kerry?

Again, do your homework please.

And you can believe all you want that they were only utilizing the nuclear enrichment programs for power only, that's why they kicked out the IAEA inspectors and the monitoring equipment.

I never said that the enrichment programs were for power only. Don't put words in my mouth. The North Koreans began nuclear research in 1964. In the 80s, North Korea really began in earnest to try to produce plutonium fuel for weapons. Don't throw this on Clinton alone. North Korea has been a problem for US administrations for a helluva long time.

What you quote Kerry as saying is in fact true. North Korea *did* get weapons during this administration. (I have yet to find one primary source online that shows we knew North Korea had launchable weapons during Clinton's administration as you stated. If you find it, show me.)

Does that mean that the weapons are all Bush's fault? No, of course not. But the statement isn't wrong either. It's a rhetorical statement to demonstrate that attention to Iraq has allowed North Korea to operate more freely than we'd like.

For the record, I agree with Bush's plan that we ought to continue multi-lateral talks with North Korea. The U.S. doesn't have the same weight with North Korea now that we used to. It's critical that we keep China's influence in the meeting room.

I agree with that, the Chinese are key to the whole thing.

I'm not throwing it on Clinton alone, as I said before and we seem to agree that we clearly failed to monitor and police this situation across several adaministrations.

What scares the piss out of me and everyone else is that the North is just waiting to steam roll the South.

Again, sorry for the double-post but plenty of good and reliable stuff on both side of the N. Korea issue, here:

http://www.cdi.org/nuclear/nk-fact-sheet.cfm

Read New York Times OP - ED by Paul Klugman for Oct 5, 2004 for an intresting take on the debates.