Powered by TypePad

« "Inarticulate" And Inaccurate | Main | Too Busy Being Shrill To Be Funny »

September 30, 2004

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth? Cut it out.

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

Apropos of what, exactly?

What exactly did you think I meant?

What you said, naturally.

He was a bit too harsh, but he didn't do anything to cause a permanent rift.

You hope.

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.

Which would be all well and good, if that was all he was saying. Still, it's not exactly team-building to publicly flog the willing participants for not participating up to one's standards. Which, by the way, remain unstated.

That was his sister, Diana Kerry

Well, as long as it's his sister, no problem.

and I'm quite sure he didn't send her there to piss off and scare Australians.

I don't care why he sent her there, the fact is she insulted them.

it likely would have been a slam dunk

So, are you invested heavily in the stock market, with prognostication skills like that? Look, this argument has been shot down, repeatedly, and hanging your rhetorical hat on a bullet-riddled argument is an exercise in futility.

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

Your mind-reading skills are even worse than mine!

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

Hey, finally, communication occurs. It's neat how this works: I say something, and you dispute it, agree with it, ask for clarification, or something else that forwards the conversation. Or, you know, anything but single-word replies like "Nonsense".

Since you asked, here's what I meant: in any discussion, my unsubstantiated opinion is going to count for precisely as much as yours. You say:

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 I can say anything I please counter to that. I could even say Kerry as President would invite terrorist attacks (although I wouldn't, because I have a little pride in my written word), and that'd have just as much substance as what you said.

And it doesn't even matter if you believe me, because you've got nothing at all outside of your own feelings to point to for substantiation.

And it only took us four or five exchanges to get to this point. In the old days, we were only allowed one word per rebuttal; debates could go thousands of rounds.

ed

Hmmmm.

1. @abb1
"LOL. Anti-Iraq is funny, thanks pal."
You're welcome. But my point is substantiated by the bias exhibited by both media organizations. They are both anti-Iraq as they are both anti-Democratization and anti-Liberation. In my point of view, people who prefer Saddam in power are definitely anti-Iraq.

2. @abb1
"even his local Crawford, TX newspaper endorsed Kerry"
Which means absolutely nothing. In fact I'd suggest that, if you were actually searching for a meaningless assertion, that would definitely fit the bill.

3. @brian
"Also, why did you dodge my comment about the budget and spending plans?"
Was that directed at me? Why? When did either the budget or "spending plans" ever come up with me? When did I ever state that Bush, of all people, was fiscally responsible? I seem to remember having written the opposite in times past. But not at all in this thread.

4. @brian
"In the past two weeks, people such as Dennis Hastert, Dick Cheney, and Orrin Hatch have all implied ..."
Ahh there's that word "implied" again. As you will note, in re-reading my post, that I demanded a directly attributable quote to a specific person that wasn't "implied". So how about you try again and this time provide some real explicit quotes?

5. @brian
"That's a great non-sequitor, but unfortunately, stupid comments from Diana Kerry don't equal stupid, disgraceful comments from GOP congressional leaders."
You're right, if there actually were stupid, disgraceful statements from GOP congressional leaders. On the other hand Kerry's sister is an official member of his campaign so it's pretty awful for her to be encouraging the Aussies to jump ship just for political purposes.

What's Kerry's plan? Win the Presidency and then hope the Aussies will change their minds? How?

5. @brian
"Those comments come from *some* people in the Democratic base, not big representatives of the party. "
Ummmm. Wrong. They come from Terry Mcauliffe, Teresa Kerry and other operators. A few came from Michael Moore, who was feted by the DNC, the Kerry campaign and Terry Mcauliffe. etc etc etc. Sorry brian, the people who wrote/uttered those statements are mainstream Democrats.

6. @brian
"That's a truly stunning piece of commentary from someone whose candidate has made a race of lying relentlessly about his opponent"
You're amusing the heck out of me you know that right? Ok I'll bite. List at least one **lie** that Bush has uttered/written about Kerry. And be explicit about date, time, circumstances and provide a referential link. C'mon, I triple-dog dare you.

Nobody disses a triple-dog dare.

:)

I gotta run, but I'll address your other points later on tonight. Good luck.

Brian

"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."

What you are saying is true. He was talking about future threats, but on numerous occasions, he implied that Saddam was connected with 9/11. He used it as a means to go to war - not the only means, but a significant one. Your statements, as I said, are accurate, but they do not negate the fact that the president used Saddam's (fictitious) connection to 9/11 to go to war.

"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."

That's debatable, at least about the WMD programs.

"The connection with 9/11 was never the point."

That's just it. There was no connection!


Brian

"...so he is now officially above any criticism."

That's a bit of a stretch.

Cecil Turner

"Your statements, as I said, are accurate, but they do not negate the fact that the president used Saddam's (fictitious) connection to 9/11 to go to war."

Reference, please. (And preferably something approximately as authoritative as the State of the Union I cited.)

"That's just it. There was no connection!"

Prove it. (No, I'm not serious.) Does funding through UNSCAM count? I think it does--though again, the question is almost entirely academic to my mind.

Brian

"Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth? Cut it out."

Okay, I get your game.

"Apropos of what, exactly?"

Answer the question.

"You hope."

Yes, as I hope, and as you should hope, too. We don't know the damage, if any, so let's not act like we do.

"Which would be all well and good, if that was all he was saying. Still, it's not exactly team-building to publicly flog the willing participants for not participating up to one's standards. Which, by the way, remain unstated."

You are either not reading what I am saying or missing the point entirely. He wasn't criticizing our allies. He was merely pointing out that Bush's assertion we have a broad coalition, one which is composed of many nations and not mostly composed of US soldier, is misleading.

"Well, as long as it's his sister, no problem."

That's so not what I meant - and you know it. Don't act like that.

"I don't care why he sent her there, the fact is she insulted them."

She probably did, but like I said, those words came out of her mouth, not Kerry's. He'll be president, not her. And yes, she is a representative of the campaign. She made a dumb mistake. You keep harping on this as if she spit in the prime minister's face and told all Australian soldiers that she hopes they die.

"Hey, finally, communication occurs. It's neat how this works: I say something, and you dispute it, agree with it, ask for clarification, or something else that forwards the conversation."

I don't really understand what was so hard about clarifying what you meant.

"and I can say anything I please counter to that. I could even say Kerry as President would invite terrorist attacks (although I wouldn't, because I have a little pride in my written word), and that'd have just as much substance as what you said."

Can you please tell me what Bush's solution are? He's created quite a mess over there. It seems like he wants to continue doing what we are doing, which may or may not work.

"And it doesn't even matter if you believe me, because you've got nothing at all outside of your own feelings to point to for substantiation."

That's not true. If you cannot tell me what Bush's new solutions are, you will have proven my point: that he doesn't have any.

"And it only took us four or five exchanges to get to this point."

It's not my fault.

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

Brian

"Was that directed at me? Why? When did either the budget or "spending plans" ever come up with me?"

It didn't. Some other guy with a short name, ch2, said it. I'm sorry about the mistake.

"So how about you try again and this time provide some real explicit quotes?"

I already did that with this>.

"You're right, if there actually were stupid, disgraceful statements from GOP congressional leaders."

See above.

"On the other hand Kerry's sister is an official member of his campaign so it's pretty awful for her to be encouraging the Aussies to jump ship just for political purposes."

I don't think that was her intention.

"What's Kerry's plan? Win the Presidency and then hope the Aussies will change their minds? How?"

What a great straw man.

"come from Terry Mcauliffe, Teresa Kerry and other operators."

Proof?

"few came from Michael Moore, who was feted by the DNC, the Kerry campaign and Terry Mcauliffe. etc etc etc. Sorry brian, the people who wrote/uttered those statements are mainstream Democrats."

Moore's no more of an official spokesman for the Democrats than Ann Coulter is for the Republicans. It's fair to include him in criticism if both he the Democrats do somehing bad, but he's not an official spokesman for the DNC. He's a mere supporter, one that I'd like to get rid of soon.

"List at least one **lie** that Bush has uttered/written about Kerry"

Oh, come on, that's too easy.

On October 1, 2004, at a 2004 Victory Rally, President Bush said the following:

And we have a difference in this campaign when it comes to health care. If you listen carefully to what my opponent proposes, he wants government to dictate. He wants government to tell you how to purchase your health care. He wants the federal government to run health care. I want you to decide. I want you to be the decision-maker when it comes to health care.

As The Washington Post noted, he's been doing this a lot. Its editorial was written on September 15, so he was doing it for about two or three weeks before the rally that I mentioned above. And The Post has a great, absolutely on target line that characterizes what Bush is doing: "This is not a caricature of Mr. Kerry's plan -- it's fiction." Essentially, The Washington Post editorial board was calling Bush a liar.

And it was right. Nothing in Kerry's plan says that the government will be running all health care programs. Not one damn thing. The government will be a partner in a broad reinsurance program, but we are not becoming Canada or a country like that in regards to health care.


Brian

"Reference, please."

For starters, go here. This is what he said:

The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more.

Now, of course, he didn't directly state that Saddam was connected with 9/11 That way, he can weasel his way out when he's questioned about it.

"Prove it."

Since Bush, et al keep insisting that Saddam was connected to 9/11, it's up to him to finally show us how.

Cecil Turner

"This is what he said . . ."

"Ally of Al Qaeda," "source of terrorist funding," no "gain" of WMDs. Looks like you just made my point for me. Note "connected to 9/11" isn't in there. And also note it's all geared toward a future threat, and not the past, which is part of the job description.

Greg F

"List at least one **lie** that Bush has uttered/written about Kerry"

Brian proclaims premature victory:
Oh, come on, that's too easy
.

“And The Post has a great, absolutely on target line that characterizes what Bush is doing: "This is not a caricature of Mr. Kerry's plan -- it's fiction." Essentially, The Washington Post editorial board was calling Bush a liar.”

“As The Washington Post noted …”
What's not open to debate is the falsity of the Bush campaign's description of the Kerry plan as "a hostile government takeover of our nation's health care system."

Oh really? Not open to debate? Me thinks the WaPo says more about their economic ignorance then Bush's statement here. Just because WaPo says it’s false does not make it so. This economist gives a very specific example of Kerrys “government to run health care” plan.

“To qualify for the rebate pool you must adhere to these new rules...these new controls. The last one in particular is troubling. It is pretty much accepted by economists that who pays a given tax is irrelevant. If the tax is levied on the firm it will try to pass those costs on to the consumer. The consumer will react in two ways first by substituting to un-taxed items (the substitution effect) and to curtail spending in general (the income effect). This means both the consumer and the firm will share part of the burden of the tax. Right now with benefits firms get certain tax benefits as do the employees. By lowering the costs of those benefits the tax benefits change. Should all of the savings go to the employees? Well as an employee I'd like that, but I'm not entirely sure this should be the case. What is disturbing is that John Kerry is willing to force firms to this outcome.

Try again Brian.

Slartibartfast
Answer the question.

I would, but I have no idea what you're asking. Hence the request for clarification vis a vis context.

Yes, as I hope, and as you should hope, too. We don't know the damage, if any, so let's not act like we do.

You can't imagine the damage a fellow like Kerry could do in the Oval Office? You're nearly alone on this thread, in that respect. Start thinking.

She made a dumb mistake.

Which is, properly, followed by a humble and quite public apology.

I don't really understand what was so hard about clarifying what you meant.

I was, after all, happy to oblige you in the very next paragraph. With you, it takes nealy half a dozen exchanged to get to the point. Count your blessings.

Can you please tell me what Bush's solution are? He's created quite a mess over there. It seems like he wants to continue doing what we are doing, which may or may not work.

Bush has created quite a mess. Bush has. Great jumped-up Jeebus in a sidecar, Brian, have you read the papers? Do you even understand what's going on over there? Obviously you don't if you think Bush created the problem. Bush has made his own plans known; for me to parrot them would be senseless. Since you're busily combing through the transcript, I suggest you read Bush's plan and Kerry's plan, and tell me in what material way they differ.

That's not true. If you cannot tell me what Bush's new solutions are, you will have proven my point: that he doesn't have any.

Once again, that point-repellant field around you proves superior to my efforts. I give up. But, for the sake of completion: Bush's plans exist separately from my willingness to discuss them with you.

It's not my fault.

Mrph. Hmmmphh. Sknxxx. BWAHAHAHA! Oh, stop it; you're killing me.

Slartibartfast

More on Kerry's military expertise here.

Brian

Hey Greg F,

That economist recently said that he was coming around to Kerry's plan, but not that that matters or anything. Steve's comments talk about specific provisions of a government plan that people enter into, but that makes sense, since it's not just a program where cash is transfered. There's virtually nothing in Kerry's program that amounts to Kerry trying to nationalize health care Absolutely nothing. We are not getting a system like Candada's.

You are really grasping at straws here. You can continue to try and deny this, but there's absolutely no room for you to argue. You are not going to even come close to winning this one, my friend.

Brian

Correction: "Canada."

Brian

""I would, but I have no idea what you're asking. Hence the request for clarification vis a vis context."

Go up and find the original question.

"You can't imagine the damage a fellow like Kerry could do in the Oval Office? You're nearly alone on this thread, in that respect. Start thinking."

That's such a gross distortion of what I said.

"Which is, properly, followed by a humble and quite public apology."

She probably should apologize, but the fact that hasn't done is the least of our concerns.

" With you, it takes nealy half a dozen exchanged to get to the point. Count your blessings."

_________

" you even understand what's going on over there? Obviously you don't if you think Bush created the problem."

I don't think he created all the problems, but he certainly started the one we are in now (meaning the war, not the overall instability of the region).

"Bush has made his own plans known; for me to parrot them would be senseless."

I've got a good idea of them, but there doesn't seem to be anything that stands out.

"Since you're busily combing through the transcript, I suggest you read Bush's plan and Kerry's plan, and tell me in what material way they differ."

Their plans aren't massively different, since options are so limited. I've said this before, mind you.

"Bush's plans exist separately from my willingness to discuss them with you."

Please stop giving such ridiculous responses. I know he has plans, but, to use a particularly heinous cliche, they seem to be "more of the same."

"Mrph. Hmmmphh. Sknxxx. BWAHAHAHA! Oh, stop it; you're killing me."

Good, so you can take a joke.


Slartibartfast
Go up and find the original question.

I'm thinking you don't even remember. But, for the record, here's the history:


Brian:

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

You brought up North Korea. I do in fact have issues with Kerry's statements on North Korea, but you had no idea. Unless...stop that, you're creeping me out.

Anyway, that whole series of exchanges was based on exactly nothing.

I don't think he created all the problems, but he certainly started the one we are in now (meaning the war, not the overall instability of the region).

If you think there would even be a mess to be discussing without the aforementioned instability, well, I want some of what you're on.

Greg F

“That economist recently said that he was coming around to Kerry's plan… “

Link please?

“There's virtually nothing in Kerry's program that amounts to Kerry trying to nationalize health care Absolutely nothing.”

Both the claim of “nationalize” and/ or “Canadian” by Brian are straw men. Nothing in the WaPo article made any reference to “nationalize” or “Canadian”. Brian just pulled them out of his hat, or should I say, from a place where the sun don’t shine. He even misrepresents the WaPo article which says:

“… the Kerry health care plan would amount to a "government-run healthcare plan" …

Do you understand what “would amount to” means Brian? (Hint, it doesn’t mean nationalize). The Canadian system is nationalized, it is owned, operated, and run by the government. IOW Brian, the government does not have to “nationalize” health care to effectively control it. Getting back to the original question, “list at least one **lie** that Bush has uttered/written about Kerry”.

ed

Hmmmm.

7. @brian (continued)
"The public thought he won that debate, but the pundits spun it as if Gore lost. "
Because it takes time to analyse what a candidate says in order to determine whether or not what they said opens a weakness. Take Kerry as an example. He talked good, but the substance of his words is just incredibly insane.

8. @brian
"And what are they going to hit him with, my friend?"
Hmmm. "Global Test". Proposing to give Iran "nuclear fuel". Flip-flopping on Saddam where Kerry states that Saddam was a threat, and then spends time outlining why Saddam isn't (in his mind) a threat. etc etc etc.

9. @brian
"What a weasly way out of trying to not answer the question."
You have a lot of passion about this, which can be good, but the details are a little thin. I'm going to continue doing this whole slow-mo debate analysis if what you're writing is something I can find on DemocraticUnderground. A prime example is my challenge that you offer a concrete quote and yet you responded with an "implied". If you either don't, or cannot, fulfill the terms of a challenge then you lose that point. If you're not going to bother reading what I write, as opposed perhaps to what you think I wrote, then this is just a waste of time for both of us.

ed

Hmmm.

Sorry, a correction:"I'm NOT going to continue doing this whole slow-mo debate analysis if what you're writing is something I can find on DemocraticUnderground."

Teach me to try eating and posting at the same time. :)

ed

Hmmmm.

1. @brian
"It didn't. Some other guy with a short name, ch2, said it. I'm sorry about the mistake."
*shrug* no problem, it happens to everyone.

2. @brian
"I already did that with this>."
I don't subscribe to The New Republic. Please find a public source or simply quote it directly.

3. @brian
"See above."
ditto #2.

4. @brian
"I don't think that was her intention."
I can understand the sentiment, but that's wrong and you know it. What she is trying to do is manipulate the Australian election, force John Howard out of office and force another Coalition member out. Doing so will damage President Bush and that is what she is aiming for.

That it is almost treasonous is not a matter for debate. And before I see any rebuttal I'll remind you that it was AQ that detonated bombs in order to accomplish the same thing. That AQ and Kerry's sister have the same EXACT goal is reprehensible and is something that Kerry should have repudiated. But he has NOT.

5. @brian
"What a great straw man."
I'd suggest you find out what a "straw man" is before using that term. The question is very germaine to this discussion. If Kerry's sister is successful in convincing the Aussies that continued cooperation with America in the GWOT is something that is putting Australia in unacceptable danger, then how is Kerry planning on reaquiring their cooperation? Wouldn't this poison the mutual relationship? Possibly in a more permanent fashion.

6. @brian
"Proof?"
http://instapundit.com/archives/017573.php
http://semiskimmed.net/bushhitler.html
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=%5CPolitics%5Carchive%5C200408%5CPOL20040826a.html
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/johnleo/jl20040628.shtml
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0310/S00193.htm
http://news.bostonherald.com/national/view.bg?articleid=33260
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-09-09-heinz-kerry-health-care_x.htm
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1222191/posts
http://wizbangblog.com/archives/003572.php

Should I continue?

7. @brian
"Moore's no more of an official spokesman for the Democrats than Ann Coulter is for the Republicans. It's ..."
Hehe. Michael Moore attended the Democratic Convention by sitting next to Jimmy Carter in the special VIP section. He's also a propagandist who is working closely with the Kerry campaign. You could make the argument that he isn't an official member, but he's certainly feted like he is one.

Which was covered by my exact words.

8. @brian
"fair to include him in criticism if both he the Democrats do somehing bad, but he's not an official spokesman for the DNC. He's a mere supporter, one that I'd like to get rid of soon."
But the DNC and Kerry's campaign treats him as if he were a prized member of the group. You may wish it otherwise, but it doesn't change the simple fact that the DNC is relying on Moore's evasions, misrepresentations and outright propaganda to manipulate the coming election.

9. @brian
"And we have a difference in this campaign when it comes to health care. If you listen carefully to what my opponent proposes, he wants government to dictate...."
Wrong. Kerry's proposal is to enact a government run healthcare system. What is sometimes called a "single provider" or "nationalized healthcare" system. And yes it does require the government to dictate the terms of such a system.

Here you go: http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st269/

Time for bed. Good night all.

Brian

"Anyway, that whole series of exchanges was based on exactly nothing"

Apparently.

"If you think there would even be a mess to be discussing without the aforementioned instability, well, I want some of what you're on."

What the hell are you talking about?

I said that Bush created a mess, specifically the war and its problems, but that the region was very unstable even before the war. Do you disagree with that?

Brian

"Link please?"

Sure. I believe this was where it was implied.

"Both the claim of “nationalize” and/ or “Canadian” by Brian are straw men. Nothing in the WaPo article made any reference to “nationalize” or “Canadian”."

Did you even bother to read the goddamn editorial? There was nothing about Canada, yes, but I never said that there was. I mentioned it as an example. But it did mention how Bush keeps saying/implying that Kerry wants to nationalize health care. Here is the relevant passage:

This week the Bush campaign unveiled an ad accusing Mr. Kerry of advocating "a government-run healthcare plan" that puts "Washington bureaucrats in control." This is not a caricature of Mr. Kerry's plan -- it's fiction. The cost of Mr. Kerry's plan is open to debate; the Kerry campaign puts it at $653 billion, while the Bush campaign, not surprisingly, cites the $1.5 trillion estimate of a conservative think tank. What's not open to debate is the falsity of the Bush campaign's description of the Kerry plan as "a hostile government takeover of our nation's health care system."

(By the way, that $1.5 trillion number is a complete sham. Kenneth Thorpe of Emory responded to AEI's numbers and showed how bogus they were.)

"Do you understand what 'would amount to' means Brian?"

Again, did you read the editorial? Here's another relevant passage:

In fact, what's striking about Mr. Kerry's approach is the degree to which it builds on the existing system. There are no employer mandates, no price controls, no premium caps; instead, Mr. Kerry seeks to lessen the financial pressure on employers through a voluntary program in which the government would shoulder some of the costs of catastrophic care. He also attempts to lower insurance costs for individuals and small businesses by letting them buy into a version of the plan offered to federal employees. And he would expand coverage for, among others, uninsured children -- in the very government program for which Mr. Bush pledged, in his nomination acceptance speech, to "lead an aggressive effort to enroll millions of poor children who are eligible but not signed up."

If that doesn't do it for you, go to johnkerry.com and read his health care plan. There's nothing in it that means the government is controlling the system.

"IOW Brian, the government does not have to 'nationalize' health care to effectively control it."

Even if you want to split hairs like this, you still have no case.

Bush *has* lied about Kerry's plan. He's done so several times. Here's another example. He is not nationalizing the system, nor is his intention to control it.

You are really trying to wiggle your way out of this, but you will fail. It's truly pathetic. Accept the fact that Bush lied and move on.

Brian

"I don't subscribe to The New Republic. Please find a public source or simply quote it directly."

Stuff like this has been quoted many times. Here's what you can do to find all your heart desires. Go to Google News. Type in "Orrin Hatch" or some other name, like "Dennis Hastert," and "John Kerry." You will get a bunch of links.

"What she is trying to do is manipulate the Australian election, force John Howard out of office and force another Coalition member out. Doing so will damage President Bush and that is what she is aiming for."

And you know this...how?

"Proof?"

The first one is good, as is the fifth, but the second one isn't. And the rest of them either don't pass the smell test or barely pass it.

The difference is, nobody takes those claims seriously. We all know Bush is not Hitler or anything like that. But a lot of people will seriously consider the dispicable claim that Kerry is aligning himself with terrorists and things of that nature. So while I will criticize the Democrats - not their supporters, like Michael Moore - who make inflammatory claims, it's far worse to imply that your opponent would let countless Americans die by siding with America's enemies.

"Should I continue?"

No, since most of your links made reference to left-wing pundits and groups, who are not representatives of the Democrats.

"Michael Moore attended the Democratic Convention by sitting next to Jimmy Carter in the special VIP section. He's also a propagandist who is working closely with the Kerry campaign."

He is a propagandist. I've said that before. But where is the evidence that he's working with the Kerry campaign?

"But the DNC and Kerry's campaign treats him as if he were a prized member of the group. You may wish it otherwise, but it doesn't change the simple fact that the DNC is relying on Moore's evasions, misrepresentations and outright propaganda to manipulate the coming election."

Eh, not so much. I think he's treated sort of like Al Sharpton. They didn't want him there, but if they knew they didn't have him come, he would have made a bigger noise than he would have by simply being there. And while the DNC is benefitting from Moore's political nonsense, it's not putting it out there or controlling him.

"Wrong. Kerry's proposal is to enact a government run healthcare system. What is sometimes called a "single provider" or "nationalized healthcare" system. And yes it does require the government to dictate the terms of such a system."

That's an absolutely false charge. If you want to read about his plans, go to johnkerry.com and knock yourself out.

Nobody is out there calling it a nationalized system - except for NCPA, which is wrong - for a damn good reason: it's not a nationalized system.

Slartibartfast
I said that Bush created a mess, specifically the war and its problems, but that the region was very unstable even before the war. Do you disagree with that?

Wait. You're saying Iraq was very unstable before the war?

Brian

No, that's not what I am saying.

Slartibartfast

So what are you saying, Brian? Quick, before the suspicion that you have no idea takes over completely.

Brian

"So what are you saying, Brian?"

I believe what I said was that Iraq was relatively stable before the war. We actually controlled, or so I've heard, more space before the war than we do now. And by making that country more unstable, I think that we made the region more unstable.

Slartibartfast

Ah.

I don't think you're going to get much traction using an argument whose alternative is keeping Hussein in power, but saying Iraq was more stable before is a true statement.

So, if I've understood you properly, Bush has made a mess out of Iraq by removing Hussein, and by doing so allowing instability to spread?

Brian

"I don't think you're going to get much traction using an argument whose alternative is keeping Hussein in power, but saying Iraq was more stable before is a true statement."

Well, if the issue is demagogued to death and grossly simplified, it's hard to make in a presidential campaign.

"...Bush has made a mess out of Iraq by removing Hussein, and by doing so allowing instability to spread?"

Partly, at least. Are you going to agree with the notion that the country was relatively stable with him in power?

Slartibartfast
Are you going to agree with the notion that the country was relatively stable with him in power?

Absolutely. People were being killed in a much more orderly manner when Hussein was at the helm.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame