You Can't Run On Third And Long

Kerry needed a big win in the debate tonight, and didn't get it.

[UPDATE: Subsequent commentary and polling suggests that I am detached from reality.]

Here is a transcript; my Evil Excerpter delivers this:

...KERRY: Yes, we have to be steadfast and resolved, and I am. And I will succeed for those troops, now that we're there. We have to succeed. 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. Now, we can succeed. But I don't believe this president can. I think we need a president who has the credibility to bring the allies back to the table and to do what's necessary to make it so America isn't doing this alone.

...BUSH: My opponent says help is on the way, but what kind of message does it say to our troops in harm's way, "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time"? Not a message a commander in chief gives, or this is a "great diversion."

As well, help is on the way, but it's certainly hard to tell it when he voted against the $87-billion supplemental to provide equipment for our troops, and then said he actually did vote for it before he voted against it.

BUSH: Not what a commander in chief does when you're trying to lead troops.

LEHRER: Senator Kerry, 30 seconds.

KERRY: Well, you know, when I talked about the $87 billion, I made a mistake in how I talk about the war. But the president made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is worse?

I believe that when you know something's going wrong, you make it right. That's what I learned in Vietnam. When I came back from that war I saw that it was wrong. Some people don't like the fact that I stood up to say no, but I did. And that's what I did with that vote. And I'm going to lead those troops to victory.

LEHRER: All right, new question. Two minutes, Senator Kerry.

Speaking of Vietnam, you spoke to Congress in 1971, after you came back from Vietnam, and you said, quote, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

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.

Does Kerry think the invasion of Iraq was a mistake, or not?

MORE: Back in August Bush was tormenting Kerry with the "if you knew then what you know now, would you have attacked Iraq?" question. I had guessed then that Kerry's tortured answers were an attempt to avoid this "last man to die for a mistake" problem. Kerry's curent approach is much more ingenious - it was a mistake, but no, it wasn't.

UPDATE: Did I punt with men on base? The Prof questions my pin placement, but I say Kerry left it short.

UPDATE 2: Someone out there is bound to agree with me. I'll take Fred Barnes.

Comments

[FREEPer]

Who won the debate polls:

http://www.cnn.com

http://www.time.com/time/

http://www.msmagazine.com/debate_poll.asp

http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/debatei/

http://www.boston.com (Look for "survey: Who did better in the debate?")

http://www.newsday.com (Look for "Poll: Rate the candidates")

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6123733/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6028629/ (vote under Polls -> MSNBC)

http://www.nbc5i.com/index.html

http://argusleader.com

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/

http://nbc25.com/webpoll.asp

http://www.tbo.com/

http://www.newsnet5.com/index.html

http://www.channelcincinnati.com/index.html

[The Kid]

Cheney thought that Bush did a fair job.

Here’s a good blow-by-blow.

[blumes]

It's clear that Kerry thinks that Saddam was a threat - but going to war the way Bush did has made us less safe.

[Brian]

The consensus - not including propanganda artists like Sean Hannity - is that Kerry won. And the consensus is right.

He didn't hit a grand slam, but at the very worst, it was a solid double. For the most part, he was clear and decisive, whereas Bush was actually stumbling for words.

All Kerry had to do to really decimate Bush was say something like, "Mr. President, you made the connection between Saddam and 9/11. Nobody has made that connection but you. Do you have some information we don't have?" Bush wouldn't have an answer. He would have been utterly speechless. And then kerry would have hit his grand slam.

[SaveFarris]

"It's clear that Kerry thinks that Saddam was a threat - but going to war the way Bush did has made us less safe."

And which way was that? The way that ended with Saddam in a spider hole? The "Let's not wait for Jacque Chirac's permission" way?

Inquiring minds want to know!

[ahem]

Maguire, you're delusional. Bush is the guy on third and long. And that's after several delays of game tonight.

Talk about trying to polish a turd.

[ed]

Hmmmm.

1. "All Kerry had to do to really decimate Bush was say something like,"

sigh.

Which would have been a lie because Bush has never actually said that. Just like Bush never actually said that Iraq was an imminent threat either.

And can I point out that Kerry actually did say:

"9/11 Commission confirms there was no connection to 9/11 itself and Saddam Hussein, "

2. "It's clear that Kerry thinks that Saddam was a threat - but going to war the way Bush did has made us less safe."

Ok this is funny as hell.

Kerry: "... Saddam Hussein didn't attack us. ..."
Kerry: "... We had Saddam Hussein trapped. ..."

So. How is Saddam a threat then?

Funny stuff. Especially the part about the "nuclear fuel". Imagine that! Kerry is advocating, in a national debate, giving IRAN *nuclear fuel*. WTF??

Kerry: "... I think the United States should have offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel ..."

Holy crap!

[ed]

Hmmm.

I see that DNC memo has brought out people in force. How did that memo go? Oh yeah. Hit the blogs, vote on polls and drum up a lot of noise to the effect that Kerry won.

Yeah sure. Right. I'd suggest re-reading the transcript.

[ed]

Hmmm.

Yup. Looks like the DNC spam-the-polls effort is definitely underway.

[sym]

you see, the war's a mistake with bush in power. it won't be as much of a mistake if kerry wins, because kerry will fix iraq. I believe it, and it seems like the post-debate polls (just how did the dnc "spam" the gallup polls, ed?) agree with me.

[ch2]

You are a lot more optimistic than me. I thought foreing policy would be our strength. Bush should have blown Kerry out of the water. The other debates are about domestic policies, and Kerry has no inhibitions about making big promises and outspending us into the ground.

[Ben]

In answer to your question "Does Kerry think the invasion of Iraq was a mistake, or not?" the answer is yes. He does believe its a mistake and he does not believe it is a mistake.

[Ben]

It's a mistake to remove Saddam, and the way Kerry will fix it, as best I can figure out, is to convene a summit and allow France to give us a "global test"

He will solve the Iran problem by giving them nuclear fuel. He will solve North Korea by doing exactly what Clinton did, which resulted in North Korea getting the bomb.

Yeah right Kerry won. Give me a break.

[pseudodubdub]

Kerry did well enough to make his supporters happy, Bush didn't make his supporters very happy. Who won the middle? My guess would be Bush took home his share, Kerry less so. The President could have rock'd 'em and sock'd 'em and energized his base like Kerry, but as the front runner that's probably not the best strategy. He'd score some points, but lose the soft middle that wants to be secure but doesn't want to vote for an ideological nut.

Interestingly, I think Bush got visibly exasperated with Kerry's insistent equivocation. Then, so did I. Now that's leadership!

[Mimi]

From the debate transcript~

Kerry: "The only building that was guarded when the troops when (sic) into Baghdad was the oil ministry. We didn't guard the nuclear facilities."

So, Kerry is now admitting there WERE WMDs, right? Or at least programs to make them, right? If not, then why criticize the President for not guarding nuclear facilities that didn't exist?

[The Kid]

Kerry hurt himself with the Slavo-American vote.

For some reason he can’t say “Poland” and confused “Teblinka,”, site of a Nazi extermination camp in Poland, with Lubyanka, another Polish town.

But it’s Lubyanka Square, not Treblinka Square as Kerry spoke, that served as the mailing, er, shipping address for the KGB HQ.

Now the Poles in Poland can’t vote, but those in Chicago can. Even after they dead and gone, admittedly, usually for Democrats.

[Cecil Turner]

"So, Kerry is now admitting there WERE WMDs, right? "

No, they still had ~500 tons of yellowcake left over from Osirak days in a facility at Tuwaitha. The IAEA had been inspecting it for years, and there was some controversy after the war when the facility was apparently breached. Here's an overview of the program, and here's Greenpeace's take on the post-war breach. I saw Goldberg's jab about it, but the bottom line is that he was either out to lunch or trying to be cute.

[rea]

"Especially the part about the "nuclear fuel". Imagine that! Kerry is advocating, in a national debate, giving IRAN *nuclear fuel*. WTF??"

You don't seem to understand nuclear issues.

You can do two things with spent nuclear fuel. You can dispose of it as waste, or you can recycle it in a process that generates more nuclear fuel, but also plutonium that can be used to make bombs.

Unless you are going to ban using nuclear reactors to generate electricity, you have to allow a country to obtain new nuclear fuel for its reactors from outside sources if you don't want it making plutonium.

Iran's present excuse for making plutonium is that it's just trying to obtain more fuel to make electricty. Kerry's proposal takes that excuse away. Allowing Iran to obtain more nuclear fuel in exchagne for renouncing plutonium production is a step away from an Iranian bomb.

You could figure this out with about 5 minutes on Google-why didn't you?

[Gary]

I don't think Bush did great, but I don't believe Kerry supporters can now say they know exactly what Kerry would do. Kerry's really good at rambling off rhetorical bs when facts don't get in the way. He's been living his whole life in a fantasy land oc Cambodia Christmas' and magic hats.

[MaDr]

rea

Can you explain why the country with the second greatest oil reserves in the world needs nuclear reactors?

[Cecil Turner]

"Allowing Iran to obtain more nuclear fuel in exchagne for renouncing plutonium production is a step away from an Iranian bomb."

No, it's addressing an "excuse" that nobody but an idiot would believe for an instant. And providing them more raw material (and time to refine their program) in exchange for a piece of paper . . . which is essentially what we did with North Korea. Sound like a good plan to you?

[Cecil Turner]

Back on point, ISTM Kerry was the clear style winner, while Bush probably outscored him on content. Normally the latter would be slightly more important, as pundits dredge up useful bits to throw back into the candidates' faces--and the big point on that score is the one Hugh Hewitt and others honed in on: "America will never elect a man who believes in (1)"global tests," or (2)that we can't be trusted with 'bunker-busters.'" Most of the prime time punditry doesn't appear to be interested in pursuing that line of thought, however, and would rather handicap the horse race. This may well shape up as another MSM vs Blogosphere grudge match to see who has the greater influence as opinion leader.

Overall it was a good night for Kerry in that he didn't get blown out of the water on his weakest subject. And Bush is consistently terrible at public speaking. But it's hard to see how a lot of opinions would be shifted by last night's performance, and Kerry was more desperate for a win. I'll go with Joe Lockhart on this one: "The consensus is it was a draw."

[Brian]

ed,

Bush has tried to connect 9/11 and Saddam many times. There's no truth behind the connection. It's about time Kerry called him on - and while I respect his good debate performance, I'm disappointed he didn't do just that.

As for taxing and spending, it's hilarious that you talk about fiscal responsibility when it comes to Bush. He wants to spend more than Kerry, yet he has no new revenue. What's that about having no ability to pay for anything?

[Brian]

"while Bush probably outscored him on content."

In what way? By repeating the same tired, mostly baseless charges that he's repeated on the campaign trail? I'd hate to be a Bush debate director for the domestic policy debates. He has even less credibility there, and more often than not, he resorts to fictious statements when bashing Kerry.

"America will never elect a man who believes in (1)"global tests," or (2)that we can't be trusted with 'bunker-busters.'"

Kerry's point? Almost certainly that we have to have more stringent requirements before going to war. It was another poorly phrased idea, but it was obviously a sensible idea.

"Most of the prime time punditry doesn't appear to be interested in pursuing that line of thought, however, and would rather handicap the horse race. This may well shape up as another MSM vs Blogosphere grudge match to see who has the greater influence as opinion leader."

If the media payed attention to Bush's policy positions on, say, tax cuts, he would have been dead in the water a long time ago. He's depended on the media's usual lack of drive to actually check out the factual basis for his statements more than anyone I can imagine.

"But it's hard to see how a lot of opinions would be shifted by last night's performance, and Kerry was more desperate for a win. I'll go with Joe Lockhart on this one: "The consensus is it was a draw.'"

The problem was, Bush, et al have painted Kerry into such a caricature that anything other than a dreadful performance was a victory. It's sort of like how some of Bush's critics make him to be some Nazi-like figure, when people who aren't terribly partisan see that's not the case. They think he's a nice guy and think the critics are crazy.

The fact that Kerry had substantive points to make and made them well only made Bush's hole deeper.

[Slartibartfast]

The problem was, Bush, et al have painted Kerry into such a caricature that anything other than a dreadful performance was a victory.

Works both ways, Brian. They both won?

Hell, Kerry didn't even understand how we're attempting to exert leverage on NK. He erroneously thought Bush had enacted sanctions on Iran. And he did a horrible job defending his ever-changing position on Iraq. Lastly, Bush absolutely killed him on credibility as a world leader. How, exactly, is Kerry going to represent himself as better on Iraq, when he's discounting Iraq's provisional leader, his campaign is calling that same leader a puppet, and he's (depending on the day) calling our efforts over there a mistake.

Sorry, Brian. Kerry did well, but it was no slam dunk. All Kerry walks away with is some vague assertion that he'll do it better, and as evidence for the claim he gives...a laundry list of things to do that Bush is already doing, for the most part. In other words, he too is offering more of the same.

And just was that lame, purposeless story about going into Treblinka[sic] Square? What did that have to do with anything at all?

[HH]

Yes, Kerry did knock down that "no connection with Iraq and 9/11" straw man... and sadly Bush once again did not come back with tales of the agreements and cooperation between Iraq and al Qaeda found in... the 9/11 Commission. He also should have mentioned the attack by Zarqawi yesterday, and how he sent Powell to the UN to warn about Zarqawi in Iraq prior to the war. Missed opportunities - but those don't mean Kerry won. Kerry made gaffe after gaffe and the MSM ignores them all.

[HH]

"Bush has tried to connect 9/11 and Saddam many times."

And of course no examples are forthcoming. Even the NY Times put together a list of pronouncements and we saw time and time again how the Bush admin. made very clear that they were not saying there was a connection. Kerry batted away straw men, Bush looked pissed and was tired from visiting hurricane victims... so apparently this is how the MSM anoints a president.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

"And just was that lame, purposeless story about going into Treblinka[sic] Square? What did that have to do with anything at all?"

Appeal to Reagan Democrats?

[Cecil Turner]

"Bush has tried to connect 9/11 and Saddam many times. There's no truth behind the connection."

Nonsense. In the first place, the 9/11--Saddam connection is only of interest to those who view the war on terror as a reactive law enforcement exercise. For those who view it as a measure to prevent future attacks, the only connection of interest is Saddam--terrorists. Which has been proven beyond any doubt.

In the second, we have no way of knowing Saddam's precise involvement in 9/11. The 9/11 commission said there was no "collaborative relationship." Saddam almost certainly didn't plan it, but his links to Al Qaeda certainly included safe haven to Zarqawi and company, and likely included financial support funneled through the UN's Oil-for-Food program. Does aiding and abetting qualify as a "connection"? I bet most Americans would say "yes, absolutely."

[Cecil Turner]

"It was another poorly phrased idea, but it was obviously a sensible idea."

Again, nonsense. You can read whatever you like into Kerry's ideas, because he doesn't communicate them clearly. There was one point to make (Iraq), and he never got around to making it.

"The fact that Kerry had substantive points to make and made them well only made Bush's hole deeper."

Bush isn't in a hole, he's got a significant lead. TM's original analysis is dead on--Kerry needs a clear win, which he didn't get in round one. Kerry probably helped himself by looking credible, but his "substantive points" were rare, and his message remains garbled. (And I still don't know what he would have done on Iraq.)

[Brian]

"Works both ways, Brian. They both won?"

I didn't say that.

"Hell, Kerry didn't even understand how we're attempting to exert leverage on NK. He erroneously thought Bush had enacted sanctions on Iran. And he did a horrible job defending his ever-changing position on Iraq. Lastly, Bush absolutely killed him on credibility as a world leader."

Nonsense.

"How, exactly, is Kerry going to represent himself as better on Iraq, when he's discounting Iraq's provisional leader, his campaign is calling that same leader a puppet, and he's (depending on the day) calling our efforts over there a mistake."

How is the congress going to work with Kerry, whom they've implied is siding with terrorists, and how will they both work together to present a strong, resolute face to the terrorists when the Republicans have vbeen so divisive with their comments?

"Sorry, Brian. Kerry did well, but it was no slam dunk"

*In no way shape or form did I say it was slam dunk. Using baseball for analogies, I said at worst it was a solid double, but that it wasn't a grand slam. I'm not really sure how you can claim that I said it was a slam dunk. Did you not read what I say? Or did you just not care?*

"All Kerry walks away with is some vague assertion that he'll do it better, and as evidence for the claim he gives...a laundry list of things to do that Bush is already doing, for the most part. In other words, he too is offering more of the same."

Setting aside your obviously partisan slant, the trouble with this debate is, the options are limited. There aren't that many places to find a grand solution. I don't expect either of them to come up with something bold.

Bush has had his turn, he has screwed it up, and he has lost his chance for another term. He just has nothing to offer, whereas Kerry, whose options, like Bush, are limited, probably won't be as incompetent and irresponsible as Bush.

"And just was that lame, purposeless story about going into Treblinka[sic] Square? What did that have to do with anything at all?"

I don't remember that. I'll have to read over the transcript.

[Brian]

"And of course no examples are forthcoming."

Look at his "Mission Accomplished" speech on the aircraft carrier. He implied that Saddam and 9/11 were strongly connected by calling him an "ally" to the terrorists. It's possible he never directly said something like "Saddam and Al Qaeda were connected to 9/11," but he's implied it many, many times.

"Bush looked pissed and was tired from visiting hurricane victims... so apparently this is how the MSM anoints a president."

Oh, please. If the media (which is neither really liberal nor really conservative) actually investigated the claims that Bush has made in, well, just about every area, he would be dead in the water.

[Slartibartfast]

I didn't say that.

Irrelevant.

Nonsense.

Wrong.

How is the congress going to work with Kerry, whom they've implied is siding with terrorists, and how will they both work together to present a strong, resolute face to the terrorists when the Republicans have vbeen so divisive with their comments?

Let's see...all of Congress has done this? Even the Democrats? Meanwhile, the Kerry campaign has called the ONLY leader of Iraq a puppet, as well as dissed Australia and Poland in particular and all of the coalition in general. I'm thinking that Kerry's going to have a much harder time mending fences with the very allies he's saying are crucial. Unless by "allies" he means Germany and France only.

I'm not really sure how you can claim that I said it was a slam dunk.

Did I quote you? I'm pretty sure I didn't quote you. It's a figure of speech, Brian.

Setting aside your obviously partisan slant

Got it. Mine is bad, yours is just fine. Or was this a deliberate irrelevancy?

He just has nothing to offer, whereas Kerry, whose options, like Bush, are limited, probably won't be as incompetent and irresponsible as Bush.

I think Kerry's got all the right stuff to screw the pooch, Brian. See where the war of opinion gets you?

[sym]

come on people. in debates, the guy who confuses saddam and bin laden, has to admit he actually does know who caused 9/11 (it was like saying "I know that the sky is blue. I know that."), and seems to believe we'd be nowhere in the war on terror without a couple thousand Polish troops (is Rove guning for Illinois?) is the guy that lost the debate.

George Bush is a far better politician than Kerry and he should have destroyed him this debate. He's going to be regretting this missed opportunity for a long time.

[Brian]

Cecil,

"Nonsense. In the first place, the 9/11--Saddam connection is only of interest to those who view the war on terror as a reactive law enforcement exercise. For those who view it as a measure to prevent future attacks, the only connection of interest is Saddam--terrorists. Which has been proven beyond any doubt."

That's an extreme muddyin' of the waters, Cecil.

You're now verging off into some form of relativism. Either there was a connection of there wasn't a connection, and in this case, there's no evidence that Saddam was connected to 9/11.

"In the second, we have no way of knowing Saddam's precise involvement in 9/11."

Then Bush and Cheney should stop steadfastly implying that he was involved.

"Saddam almost certainly didn't plan it, but his links to Al Qaeda certainly included safe haven to Zarqawi and company..."

Uh, not so much.

"Again, nonsense. You can read whatever you like into Kerry's ideas, because he doesn't communicate them clearly. There was one point to make (Iraq), and he never got around to making it."

I say that it was a poorly phrased idea. You say that he doesn't communication clearly, which is often the case. What's the problem?

"Bush isn't in a hole, he's got a significant lead."

Those were pre-debate results. Nobody was denying that was leading.

"TM's original analysis is dead on--Kerry needs a clear win, which he didn't get in round one."

I'm not really sure how much more clear his win could be. His win was clear, even if it wasn't a slam dunk or a grand slam, but we are unsure of the results in the polls. They will come in a day or two.

"Kerry probably helped himself by looking credible, but his 'substantive points' were rare, and his message remains garbled. (And I still don't know what he would have done on Iraq.)"

He had some substantive points, such as the threat of nuclear proliferation. And if you are unsure of where he stands, read over his statements.

[Brian]

"Irrelevant."

It's quite relevant. I didn't say something which you claimed I said. Don't do that, Slid.

"Wrong."

False.

"Let's see...all of Congress has done this? Even the Democrats?"

You know I meant the Republicans. They were mentioned just a few clauses down the sentence.

"Meanwhile, the Kerry campaign has called the ONLY leader of Iraq a puppet, as well as dissed Australia and Poland in particular and all of the coalition in general."

Two comments made in the heat of the moment don't equal much in this case. And how did he diss the coalition?

"Did I quote you? I'm pretty sure I didn't quote you. It's a figure of speech, Brian."

You keep implying that I saw it was a slam dunk, when I clearly said it wasn't.

"Got it. Mine is bad, yours is just fine. Or was this a deliberate irrelevancy?"

I think you knew what I meant and that you are just being difficult.

"I think Kerry's got all the right stuff to screw the pooch, Brian. See where the war of opinion gets you?"

What?

[Slartibartfast]

I didn't say something which you claimed I said.

Now you're putting words in my mouth. Bad form.

False.

Now you're just being obtuse.

You know I meant the Republicans.

Sorry, your mind is closed to me. Are you implying that some undisclosed number of Republicans in Congress voicing public disdain of Kerry is on the same level of disaster as Kerry's insulting our allies in Iraq? Just trying to be clear, here.

Two comments made in the heat of the moment don't equal much in this case.

How many comments did each Republican in Congress make about Kerry? What's the temperature of the moment got to do with it?

And how did he diss the coalition?

How can I count the ways? Every time he says anything at all deriding the level of involvement of our allies, he insults them. Doesn't take much nuance to see that...maybe just a little bit more will do it. Sending his daughter to Australia to tell them they're wrongly involved didn't help much, either. Not actually knowing who our allies are while being dismissive of their involvement is just adding insult to injury.

You keep implying that I saw it was a slam dunk, when I clearly said it wasn't.

No, you said he was one irrelevant question based on flawed premises (plus, of course, a Bush response straight out of fantasy) shy of a grand slam. So, no you didn't say it was a grand slam directly. It's just a fantasy away from a grand slam.

I think you knew what I meant and that you are just being difficult.

Again, I'm having trouble reading your mind. If you meant something that you didn't say that had some relevance to the discussion, please do come right on out and say it.

What?

Indeed.

[Cecil Turner]

"You're now verging off into some form of relativism."

No, you're missing the point. If you're looking for revenge, Saddam's connection to 9/11 is critical. If you're trying to stop future attacks, it's irrelevant--the only thing that matters is his support for terrorists.

"He had some substantive points, such as the threat of nuclear proliferation. "

He seems to think the main problem of nuclear proliferation is loose material in the former Soviet Union, and that the President cut funding for the program to round it up. Neither of which are correct.

[ed]

Hmmmm.

1. @Brian
So the clear examples of where Bush "tied 9/11, AQ and Saddam together" were actually "implied". Sorry but I don't have time for you. Write me something when you've actually got something relevant to write.

2. @rea
"You don't seem to understand nuclear issues."
Oh so that's it. Wow. So the real reason for giving Iran even more enriched uranium is so they won't have to go through the difficult process of refinining spent fuel rods. Yeah, that's the ticket. We wouldn't want to make the Mad Mullah's go through all that trouble.

Now that's completely ridiculous rea. Next time less Google, more thinking please.

And don't forget Kerry's "test". He wasn't going to give the Iranians the nuclear fuel so they wouldn't produce plutonium. He was going to do it to test their intentions. Which would accomplish exactly what? What's he planning to do when the Mad Mullahs take and refine the free fuel rods into plutonium? Point a finger and yell "naughty! naughty!"??

Be helpful, be relevant, less Google. Search engines don't replace cognitive thought.

3. @sym
"(just how did the dnc "spam" the gallup polls, ed?)"
Terry Mcauliffe sent out an email detailing how Democrats could help shift the post-debate spin by spamming blogs, message boards and online polls.

That's what I was referring to.

4. @brian
"The consensus - not including propanganda artists like Sean Hannity - is that Kerry won. And the consensus is right."
The "concensus" is wrong, and probably mostly generated by Democrats anyways. Kerry looked ok and didn't make a complete fool of himself. But Kerry did manage to contradict himself several times and offered up some truly amazing gaffes. All of which I expect the GOP to hammer Kerry with over the next few weeks.

The simple fact is that Bush won the debate handily. The trick isn't to win the debate on the night of the debate. It's to win the debate in the days following the debate. Remember Gore supposedly won the first debate in 2000. Right until a few days later when everyone agreed that he actually lost that debate. So I'd give it a few more days before you come around to my point of view.

5. @brian
"The fact that Kerry had substantive points to make and made them well only made Bush's hole deeper."
I'd suggest reading the transcript because Kerry's "substantive" points really aren't. They're more along the lines of "I can do what you can do but I can do it better". Only endless repetitions of the same. The simple fact is that Kerry really hasn't presented a serious plan for anything.

6. @brian
"How is the congress going to work with Kerry, whom they've implied is siding with terrorists, and how will they both work together to present a strong, resolute face to the terrorists when the Republicans have vbeen so divisive with their comments?"

Now that's really, amazingly, funny. Divisive? I'd suggest you look at what the Democrats are doing. "Un-American", "unpatriotic", "hitler", "facists", "nazis", etc etc etc. Then there is Kerry's sister in Australia who has been telling the Aussies that they shouldn't be allies because that makes them a target in the GWOT. Yeah. That's helpful that is.

What's the harshest thing any Republican elected official has said about Kerry? Eh? And nothing "implied" please or indirectly attributed quotes. Offer up a straight quote that can be directly attributed to a specific person. Democrats tend to make stuff up when discussing what Republicans are supposed to have said.

This ought to be amusing.

[abb1]

If you're trying to stop future attacks, it's irrelevant--the only thing that matters is his support for terrorists.

Well, Mr. Allawi is a terrorist, does it matter to you, or you're just spinning?

He acknowledges that he gave help to the CIA and MI6 after he arrived in this country from Saddam's Iraq. But there is an even murkier past that includes close links to Saddam's Mukhabarat intelligence agency in the 70s. Though a Shia, as a young man Dr Allawi was also a convinced Ba'athist, and when he came to found the Iraqi National Accord in the wake of the first Gulf war, it was to Ba'athist exiles that he looked for support. The INA - unlike Chalabi's INC, which had no muscle inside Iraq - was encouraged to attack and harry Saddam's regime as best it could, which, according to a recent article in the New York Times, included car bombs against civilian targets. A former CIA agent, Robert Baer, recalled that one bomb blew up a school bus and that children were killed - precisely the same terrorist tactics that are causing havoc among the civilian population in Iraq today. "Send a thief to catch a thief," observed another former officer mordantly.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1284526,00.html

[ed]

Hmmm.

@abb1

"New York Times". "www.guardian.co.uk".

Well that pretty much sunk that argument. Both organizations are extremely anti-Bush, anti-Republican and definitely anti-Iraq. Well I guess that makes them perfect for quoting on any of those subjects. All you need now is a quote from Lockhart and some press releases from the DNC.

The real convincing part is where Robert Baer is quoted about a bomb blowing up a school bus, but doesn't actually attribute the bomb to Allawi. That's real convincing that is.

[TM]

The very Kerry-philic Fred Kaplan apparently has nuclear issues as well:

Iran: This was an odd one. Kerry said that the United States should have provided nuclear fuel to Iran to test its true intentions, to see if Iran used the fuel for energy or bombs. If they made bombs, then we should apply sanctions. Bush said we did apply sanctions. Kerry came back that the United States applied the sanctions unilaterally instead of operating with France, Germany, and Britain. Bush replied that it wasn't his administration that applied those sanctions.

All in all, a remarkably confusing exchange in which both candidates uttered several contradictions and non sequiturs. Kerry's position, I'd thought, was to offer Iran the nuclear technology while denying them the fuel. Giving them fuel makes no sense.

Still, give the point—slightly—to Kerry, because, as he pointed out, the Bush administration's policy on Iran, to date, is to do nothing.

This scoring makes no sense, either - shorter Kaplan: Kerry was daft, but I'm sure he meant something else, Bush is working with our allies, the UN, and the IAEA, so score it for Kerry.

[TM]

How Fred Kaplan got that wrong is a mystery to me, but here is an article, and Kerry's website itself.

[Cecil Turner]

"Well, Mr. Allawi is a terrorist, does it matter to you, or you're just spinning?"

If you're worried about protecting the US from future terrorist attacks, the "terrorists" working for the CIA are not the ones of primary interest. Which I suspect you could figure out for yourself, if you weren't so busy playing in the water under the bridge.

[Brian]

"Now you're putting words in my mouth. Bad form."

You keep implying I said something that I didn't imply or say. Stop doing that.

"Now you're just being obtuse."

What is your big problem with Kerry's statements on North Korea?

"Sorry, your mind is closed to me. Are you implying that some undisclosed number of Republicans in Congress voicing public disdain of Kerry is on the same level of disaster as Kerry's insulting our allies in Iraq? Just trying to be clear, here."

What exactly did you think I meant?

And stop acting like Kerry pissed all over the allies, metaphorically speaking. He was a bit too harsh, but he didn't do anything to cause a permanent rift.

"Every time he says anything at all deriding the level of involvement of our allies, he insults them."

The problem there is that you believe any factual statement is meant to be critical. Saying that most allies have only a few hundred troops there, if that, isn't always critical. In fact, it's probably not critical. It's simply a truthful statement.

"Sending his daughter to Australia to tell them they're wrongly involved didn't help much, either. Not actually knowing who our allies are while being dismissive of their involvement is just adding insult to injury."

That was his sister, Diana Kerry, and I'm quite sure he didn't send her there to piss off and scare Australians.

"No, you said he was one irrelevant question based on flawed premises (plus, of course, a Bush response straight out of fantasy) shy of a grand slam. So, no you didn't say it was a grand slam directly. It's just a fantasy away from a grand slam."

No, not so much. You said this: "Sorry, Brian. Kerry did well, but it was no slam dunk." I'm going to say this and then I will be done arguing with you about this topic: if he had asked Bush that question, it likely would have been a slam dunk. There was no connection between Saddam and 9/11, no matter how many times the Bush administration says or implies otherwise. He would have scored a lot of points because of that, not because of something else. But he didn't do that, so his performance was merely very good, instead of outstanding.

"If you meant something that you didn't say that had some relevance to the discussion, please do come right on out and say it."

I think you knew what I was saying even though you tried to pretend otherwise.

"Indeed."

Explain your statement, because you meant that I didn't get.

[Brian]

"No, you're missing the point. If you're looking for revenge, Saddam's connection to 9/11 is critical."

Oh, Cecil, you're so much smarter than that, and I know it, so don't try to act like that. You know that Saddam's alleged connection to 9/11 was one of the reasons we went to war. The fact that it is entirely fictious undermines one of the central reasons for going into Iraq.

"If you're trying to stop future attacks, it's irrelevant--the only thing that matters is his support for terrorists."

And what would that be?

"He seems to think the main problem of nuclear proliferation is loose material in the former Soviet Union, and that the President cut funding for the program to round it up. Neither of which are correct."

Why is that?

[Cecil Turner]

"Still, give the point--slightly--to Kerry, because, as he pointed out, the Bush administration's policy on Iran, to date, is to do nothing."

Idiotic. On Iran, we've already passed Kerry's apparent limit (sanctions), without him even noticing, have invaded the two bordering countries, and set up a local defense alliance (Caspian Guard). I suspect the Mullahs have noticed. A point for Kerry? Please.

Kaplan's entire article is more of the same. On Iraq, even he admits Kerry isn't going to "clean up the resulting mess," yet scores that as a Kerry win as well. (Hey, I'm starting to see a pattern.) He seems to think nuclear proliferation is predominantly a former Soviet Union issue, despite a mountain of contradictory evidence. On the DPRK, he apparently fails to realize the current crisis began with the Korean admission they hadn't been abiding by the 1994 Agreed Framework (or any of the earlier agreements, for that matter) and apparently thinks the Korean nuclear program started after 2000. It's an amazingly clueless analysis--wrong on every point.

[Brian]

"Sorry but I don't have time for you. Write me something when you've actually got something relevant to write."

What a weasly way out of trying to not answer the question.

"The "concensus" is wrong, and probably mostly generated by Democrats anyways. Kerry looked ok and didn't make a complete fool of himself. But Kerry did manage to contradict himself several times and offered up some truly amazing gaffes. All of which I expect the GOP to hammer Kerry with over the next few weeks."

Please! Nobody but the most extreme partisans, like Fred Barnes and Sean Hannity, thought that he did well.

And what are they going to hit him with, my friend?

"The simple fact is that Bush won the debate handily. The trick isn't to win the debate on the night of the debate. It's to win the debate in the days following the debate. Remember Gore supposedly won the first debate in 2000. Right until a few days later when everyone agreed that he actually lost that debate. So I'd give it a few more days before you come around to my point of view."

The public thought he won that debate, but the pundits spun it as if Gore lost.

"They're more along the lines of "I can do what you can do but I can do it better". Only endless repetitions of the same. The simple fact is that Kerry really hasn't presented a serious plan for anything."

That's a truly stunning piece of commentary from someone whose candidate has made a race of lying relentlessly about his opponent, having his congressional allies smear him, and keep repeating the same tired slogans from the campaign trail even when he was off the campaign trail.

""Un-American", "unpatriotic", "hitler", "facists", "nazis", etc etc etc."

Those comments come from *some* people in the Democratic base, not big representatives of the party. (By the way, I know that you are trying to dig up some inflammatory quote that some Democratic senator or congressman made, but save it. It's done far more often on the Republican side.)

"Then there is Kerry's sister in Australia who has been telling the Aussies that they shouldn't be allies because that makes them a target in the GWOT. Yeah. That's helpful that is."

That's a great non-sequitor, but unfortunately, stupid comments from Diana Kerry don't equal stupid, disgraceful comments from GOP congressional leaders.

"What's the harshest thing any Republican elected official has said about Kerry? Eh?"

In the past two weeks, people such as Dennis Hastert, Dick Cheney, and Orrin Hatch have all implied that Kerry is siding with with the terrorists or will appease the terrorists, or something similar to that.

This piece from TNR offers up some quotes.

Also, why did you dodge my comment about the budget and spending plans?

[abb1]

"New York Times". "www.guardian.co.uk".

Well that pretty much sunk that argument. Both organizations are extremely anti-Bush, anti-Republican and definitely anti-Iraq.

LOL. Anti-Iraq is funny, thanks pal.

Well, at this point you won't find any pro-Bush independent press anywhere - even his local Crawford, TX newspaper endorsed Kerry, so he is now officially above any criticism.

Congratulations, Ed.

[Cecil Turner]

"You know that Saddam's alleged connection to 9/11 was one of the reasons we went to war."

No. (And rather than accuse you of being disingenuous, I'll assume your misreading is unintentional.) When the President said:
"Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans--this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known." He was not referring to the 9/11 hijackers in another attack . . . because they were already dead. He was referring to a future attack, with WMDs. Whether the future threat was carried out by a group brand-named "Al Qaeda," or some other name, is irrelevant. Its relationship to the previous attack is also irrelevant.

There were essentially two demands in UNSC resolution 1441: 1) stop supporting terrorists; 2) dismantle WMD programs. Saddam didn't get it. He continued holding public check-signing parties for families of suicide bombers, and hid his WMD activities behind an elaborate system of smoke and mirrors. The connection with 9/11 was never the point.