US Presidential Debates 2004

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
81

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Faisal: *
I am still waiting for myvoice's comments. Where is he? Bush didn't do *THAT bad, really! :confused icon:

ps. :-D
[/QUOTE]

Man....some of you obviously don't have jobs to attend to. Those of us who do, can't always be at your call to deliver instant feedback.

IMO Kerry "won" the debate because he accomplished what he had to in order to stay a viable candidate. He opened himself up to some real sharp haymakers that the President never threw. I think GW was so intent on "staying on message" that he was not intellectually quick enough to veer from the script and go after Kerry based upon what Kerry said last night.

For all the good things Kerry did for himself last night by stating what appeared to be a consistent if somewhat lame position, you've got to remember that the position he said last night was a new one recently crafted. Therefore, for a large majority of people watching the debate who have never heard Kerry's inconsistent previous positions, he came off pretty good. Kerry looked good to them in this snapshot. Problem is, there is a whole film (moving pictures) covering months and years. The GOP got lots of fodder for their cannons from Kerry last night that they can juxtapose against things he said last week, last month and last year. What Bush couldn't exploit last night, the GOP will exploit in the coming days and weeks.

Thus, Kerry won the moment which ought to narrow the gap between the candidates in the short run but any gains will likely dissipate over the remainder of the election.

82

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *

Problem is, there is a whole film (moving pictures) covering months and years. The GOP got lots of fodder for their cannons from Kerry last night that they can juxtapose against things he said last week, last month and last year. What Bush couldn't exploit last night, the GOP will exploit in the coming days and weeks.

[/QUOTE]

The problem for the Repub's is that the Democrats have Bush's last 4 years to exploit.

83

OG Bhaijaan,

I am in the process of reading “Ghost Wars” and so far the only claim Coll made is that all the documents declassified to the date the book was written show that CIA had no direct contact with Bin Laden but they did know he was as Anti-Western as Hikmatyar and Sayyaf.

Also, the first Iraq war was what pissed Bin Laden & his associates off to a point to directly attacking US soil.

But then you and I will have a very different outlook while reading the same book, as I spent my 80s in Peshawar and not in the US of A.

84

"OG Bhaijaan,

I am in the process of reading “Ghost Wars” and so far the only claim Coll made is that all the documents declassified to the date the book was written show that CIA had no direct contact with Bin Laden but they did know he was as Anti-Western as Hikmatyar and Sayyaf.

Also, the first Iraq war was what pissed Bin Laden & his associates off to a point to directly attacking US soil."

Ahmadjee,
I am in agreement with you, sorry if I was not clear. But Bin Ladens’ first attack was in Feb of 1993, more than a year after Clinton is in office.

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/terror-qaeda.html

Then in 1996, and 1998, there are attacks on Khobar towers and US embassies respectively. If there is somehow the implication that Reagan should have been a mind reader, and somehow known that there was a lunatic in the mountains of Afghanistan, then it is certainly MORE plausible that Clinton should have known after 2 successful attacks. By the way, Kerry is on the Senate Intelligence Committee (although attendence is spotty) during this time. Other than lob a couple of badly placed cruise missles, Clinton did not declare war on OBL, and here we are today. The formation and development of AQ happened on Clintons’ watch. The record on the failed agreement with North Korea is even worse. There was obviously not enough “trust but verify” in that agreement. Halfway efforts come back to bite…

85

OG Bhaijaan, I know when the first attack on US soil was blamed on Bin Laden and who was president at the time but as a matter of argument, if it can be contended that Clinton didn't pay attention in his years of office and so Sep 11th happened on Bush Jr. clock, then by the same logic one can assert that 12 years of Republican policies are partly responsible for making Bin Laden a menace.

Don't you agree?

86

Well, Kerry position on war is fundamentally confusing. It doesn't make it right or wrong, its just hard to understand what exactly he will do differently.

Makes you wonder, though, how would it have played out had Dems gotten Dr Howard Dean... a truly anti-war candidate. He'd have said the war is wrong, and lets bring the troops back home. As opposed to Kerry who says the war is wrong, but lets continue to fight. Is Dean's position more easily fathomable and more importantly does it resonate more clearly with majority of the voting public?

87

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *

The problem for the Repub's is that the Democrats have Bush's last 4 years to exploit.
[/QUOTE]

That's real wishful thinking on your part. What we have are a whole bunch of folks who have decided to vote for Bush and pretty close to the same amount of folks who have decided to vote for Kerry. Then we have a relatively small slice of the electorate who are undecided or who could change their minds. They don't agree with either side on a whole host of issues but they will cast their ballot for the guy they are most comfortable with or who they mistrust the least.

Bush's advantage with these voters is that they have 4 years of experience with him and, whether they agree with him or not, they know what he believes and the way he will likely proceed over the next four years. While that may scare you, it doesn't scare them or they wouldn't be undecided still. ** Thus, during the debates, GW tries to stay on message and not blow it. He is what he is and that is to his advantage with this group of voters. **

Kerry's challenge is much greater. He is asking for this group of voters to change leaders in a time of war. This is an extremely difficult sell. Even if these voters disagree somewhat with what Bush has done, Kerry has got to make them real warm and fuzzy about him. Thus, he cannot appear just as good as Bush. He must appear substantially better to them. Being a flip-flopper and changing positions will not do the job. Kerry gave his campaign new life last night to be sure. Unless and until Kerry knows who he is and what he believes in, he cannot convey to the voters who he is and what he believes in. This is his debate challenge.

88

"OG Bhaijaan, I know when the first attack on US soil was blamed on Bin Laden and who was president at the time but as a matter of argument, if it can be contended that Clinton didn't pay attention in his years of office and so Sep 11th happened on Bush Jr. clock, then by the same logic one can assert that 12 years of Republican policies are partly responsible for making Bin Laden a menace."

12 years of Republican policies? I dunno, perhaps the Russian invasion had a little to do with it too! Those same Republican policies put a lot of pressure on the Soviet Union, and freed a lot of people in a lot of countries.

People are pretty free and easy with "cause and effect". Did Reagan creat OBL. Doubtful. His parents, his country, his Mullah, his education, his experience in life perhaps. This "blame" seven degrees removed is sort of stupid. The best computer in the world is hard pressed to see all the possible moves on a chess board. Anticipating every reaction in the world of Billions of people is a little much eh? The Soviets were evil. resist evil. Not so hard.

Whether it is Kerry or Bush or any future president, I am sure that he will manage to piss off someone somewhere everyday. That is the price of power. Presidents are only accountable to the people who elect them. If Reagan knew that he was setting the stage for OBL, would he have changed a thing? doubtful. He would have expected future presidents to deal with challenges like he dealt with the Soviets. Clinton blew it. He did not assess the risk and take care of it. Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 months. In a government as huge as the US that is barely enough time to find the toilets.

89

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
Clinton blew it. He did not assess the risk and take care of it. Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 months. In a government as huge as the US that is barely enough time to find the toilets.
[/QUOTE]

If Clinton blew, so did Dubya, as he had the same intelligence about Bin Laden as Clinton (actually Dubya had 7 1/2 months of additional intelligence than Clinton before 9/11). The Bush administration reviewed the Intel and did nothing and your trying to give them a pass on this because they only had 7 1/2 months?? Enough with the blame displacement, if your going to blame the Clinton administration then you have to equally blame the Bush administrations inaction.

90

No one has mentioned it yet but I found it astounding that there was not one single question relating to the Israeli/Palestinian issue. I think Israel was only mentioned once (in passing by Kerry) in the whole debate. Did I miss something when I went to get a beer or take a leak?

Since the terrorists claim (occassionally) that they hate us so becAuse of our support for Israel and our disdain for the Palestinians, you'd think that Lehrer would have asked at least one question about Israel.

91

Actually Bush mentioned Isreal once too...

"A free Iraq will be an ally in the war on terror, and that‘s essential. A free Iraq will set a powerful example in the part of the world that is desperate for freedom. A free Iraq will help secure Israel . A free Iraq will enforce the hopes and aspirations of the reformers in places like Iran. A free Iraq is essential for the security of this country."

92

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
No one has mentioned it yet but I found it astounding that there was not one single question relating to the Israeli/Palestinian issue. I think Israel was only mentioned once (in passing by Kerry) in the whole debate. Did I miss something when I went to get a beer or take a leak?

Since the terrorists claim (occassionally) that they hate us so becAuse of our support for Israel and our disdain for the Palestinians, you'd think that Lehrer would have asked at least one question about Israel.
[/QUOTE]

MyVoice, do you think this is an issue a "going2be" PRESIDENT (and that of) USA can handle?! Arafat is playing his game, Sharon his own.
It would have become a satirical show than a debate, when considering that the same who vanish are those who produce. Gettin me?

93

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ali_R: *

MyVoice, do you think this is an issue a "going2be" PRESIDENT (and that of) USA can handle?! Arafat is playing his game, Sharon his own.
It would have become a satirical show than a debate, when considering that the same who vanish are those who produce. Gettin me?
[/QUOTE]

Ali_R: Sorry but I really am not gettin your point.

I don't think GW or Kerry would have a very good answer for most questions that could have been asked about Israel/Palestine. A good questioner would have made both of them squirm. I would have enjoyed watching to see which candidate would pander more for the Jewish-American vote.

I would like to hear a clear and coherent vision of what the candidates see as a solution or resolution to that conflict that is in the US interest. A free and democratic Iraq is in our interest and we are shedding our soldiers blood to make that happen. Do the candidates believe that a free and democratic Palestine is in our best interest and what sacrifices are they willing to make to have that happen? Do either of them have the foggiest notion of how to help make that happen?

Heck, I'm just a schmoe who has extensively studied the history of the conflict and think I've advanced some better ideas on how to get that conflict resolved than any politician that I've heard from.

94

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *

Ali_R: Sorry but I really am not gettin your point.

I don't think GW or Kerry would have a very good answer for most questions that could have been asked about Israel/Palestine. A good questioner would have made both of them squirm. I would have enjoyed watching to see which candidate would pander more for the Jewish-American vote.

I would like to hear a clear and coherent vision of what the candidates see as a solution or resolution to that conflict that is in the US interest. A free and democratic Iraq is in our interest and we are shedding our soldiers blood to make that happen. Do the candidates believe that a free and democratic Palestine is in our best interest and what sacrifices are they willing to make to have that happen? Do either of them have the foggiest notion of how to help make that happen?

Heck, I'm just a schmoe who has extensively studied the history of the conflict and think I've advanced some better ideas on how to get that conflict resolved than any politician that I've heard from.
[/QUOTE]

I guess the most reasonable answer on your question is, that there is no answer to this conflict, hence there is no ending to it.
Secondly most of the American voters don't even dream of seeing an end to this conflict, because most of them are now busy with their own security. Internal affairs have priority therefore the debate on Iraq is not one that will affect the votes.
Most of those who vote Kerry vote because they think things will change in America, if wars are fought or not is secondary. Since American history repeats itself. I dont see a end to conflicts, since America profits from it in any condition.
So let Bush come or Kerry the wars wont end.

95

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ali_R: *

I guess the most reasonable answer on your question is, that there is no answer to this conflict, hence there is no ending to it.

[/QUOTE]

absloutly true....yep there is no end to israel-palestine conflict....the roots of their animosity and hatred towards each other are extremely deep and it is almost impossible for them to have a normal relationship.....i believe that they will keep fighting and killing each other and one day they will realize that enuf is enuf and only then will a peaceful relationship exist between them. No outer element can force them to have even a workable relationship.

96

UTD,

Seven and a half months may sound like a lot of time to you, but remember that the transition was delayed significantly by the Supreme Court challenge and the fouled up election. As a result, many of the appointees were severely delayed. And, by the time Bush got on board, Al Qaedda operatives were already in the country, and the organization was well funded and operating around the world, and the CIA was depleted over the last 8 years. You are hopelessly underestimating what any new administration could have done to change the course of events. by the time Bush arrived it was a fait accompli. A government the size of ours does not spin on a dime.... 9/11 was clearly a Clinton failure.

Of course we will avoid the transition problems this time by retaining the same administration. :)

97

i thought it is not a bad idea to have some typical British perspective of last night’s presidential debate…

Watching Henry Fonda outshoot John Wayne

Michael Billington
Saturday October 2, 2004
The Guardian

It was billed as “a gladiatorial encounter unique in world politics”. Actually, given its rigid format, there were times when the televised debate between John Kerry and George Bush reminded me of a politicised version of Just A Minute. You felt if Nicholas Parsons, rather than Jim Lehrer, had been in charge Bush would have got hammered for repetition, deviation and hesitation: often in a single sentence.

If anything, it was the epic length of the encounter that turned it into some kind of heavyweight contest for a prize purse.

On the left, we had the patrician figure of “Gentleman” John Kerry: a veteran fighter known for his upright stance but thought to be defensively shaky and incapable of landing a knockout punch.

On the right, we had George (“King Con”) Bush, famed for his deft footwork, over-zealous seconds and legendary capacity to nobble the referee and turn a defeat into a technical victory. In the event it was Kerry who emphatically won, outpointing Bush, by my calculation, in 12 of the 15 rounds.

By the end of a punishing, if riveting, fight both looked decidedly groggy. Kerry, by a slip of the tongue, gave the impression he was for, rather than against, nuclear proliferation. And by the final round Bush was so glassy-eyed that, given the chance by Lehrer to defend the charge that he was a liar, he went into auto-pilot attack on Kerry’s alleged flip-floppery.

Throughout, in fact, Bush’s swallowed vowels and slurred speech suggested a faintly punch-drunk old champ; and when he talked of the “moolahs” in Iran one wondered whether he was confusing them with the expected moolah to be gained from Iraq.
Advertiser links
Progressive Insurance - Official Site

Save hundreds on car insurance - compare rates online at…

Auto Insurance

Are you a driver over 50? You could save up to $300 in…
aarp.thehartford.com
Save on Auto Insurance Instantly

Get a quote, compare quotes, and buy your policy instantly…
quote.esurance.com

But it was an evening when the contender, rather than the title-holder, had everything to prove; and Kerry, to my surprise, turned out to be nimble in defence and quick in attack.

He came out with the best, if clearly well-rehearsed, line of the night when he said that attacking Iraq after 9/11 was “like Roosevelt invading Mexico in response to Pearl Harbor”.

And, when asked what colossal misjudgments Bush had made, he jokingly asked “Where do you want me to begin?” With his imposing mass of hair and seamed, Henry Fonda-like features, he even managed to look like a president in waiting.

Bush, in contrast, relied heavily on that folksy, down-home manner and sub-John Wayne drawl that has kept him ahead in the polls. But when he claimed “I don’t need anybody to tell me to go to the UN” you suspect there was a hollow laugh in Downing Street.

And too often he seemed both over-rehearsed and badly briefed: he kept repeating his pre-programmed mantras about Kerry’s inconsistency, yet often looked as if he was floundering in his 30-second responses.

One thing was certainly clear: Alex Jennings’s portrayal of him in David Hare’s Stuff Happens as a shrewd politician and wise fool now looks unduly flattering.

But what do I know? I cringed when Bush, in response to a question about the American soldiers killed in Iraq, talked of his tearful prayers with a bereft war widow; yet a Republican spin doctor described this as an incredible “risk” that would play well with the electorate.

Equally significant was the moment when Lehrer accidentally referred to 10,052 American lives lost in Iraq before hastily correcting it to 1,052. Had he been speaking of Iraqi lives lost, the former figure might have been more nearly correct.

And, to watch the news after the “gladiatorial” contest and to see images of a reported 35 children caught in the latest Baghdad crossfire, was to move from the shadow-boxing of a rigidly structured debate into the world of deadly reality.

98

Kerry appreared much more articulate and in command of the issues. Bush once again showed us his 'deer in the headlights' routine. Kerry was much more presidential, Bush looked silly and not very bright (imagine that), squirming and smirking like a school boy. For all the rules Bush negotiated, they worked in Kerry's favor. Bush couldn't even fill his 3 minute closing statement, stopping 20 seconds short of presenting his vision. He coudn't come up with anything else to fill the time I guess since he has no foreign policy vision except the failure that is Iraq. This was the beginning of the end for this failed president. God Bless America

99

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Seminole: *
Kerry appreared much more articulate and in command of the issues. Bush once again showed us his 'deer in the headlights' routine. Kerry was much more presidential, Bush looked silly and not very bright (imagine that), squirming and smirking like a school boy. For all the rules Bush negotiated, they worked in Kerry's favor. Bush couldn't even fill his 3 minute closing statement, stopping 20 seconds short of presenting his vision. He coudn't come up with anything else to fill the time I guess since he has no foreign policy vision except the failure that is Iraq. This was the beginning of the end for this failed president. * God Bless America**
[/QUOTE]

And now tell us how Bush become President, since many here have no clue how that could happen. Even u would do better i guess.

And yeah,....Blond and blue eyes, that is not Jesus!

100

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
UTD,

Seven and a half months may sound like a lot of time to you, but remember that the transition was delayed significantly by the Supreme Court challenge and the fouled up election. As a result, many of the appointees were severely delayed. And, by the time Bush got on board, Al Qaedda operatives were already in the country, and the organization was well funded and operating around the world, and the CIA was depleted over the last 8 years. You are hopelessly underestimating what any new administration could have done to change the course of events. by the time Bush arrived it was a fait accompli. A government the size of ours does not spin on a dime.... 9/11 was clearly a Clinton failure.

[/QUOTE]

I'm really surprised OG that you would try and pass off such pathetic excuse for Bush's inaction because he was only in office for 7 1/2 months. Perhaps if Bush didn't spend so much time on vacation pre-Sept 11th he would have had time to act? I really wish the Repub's would pin 9/11 on Clinton and use the excuse you’re giving Bush’s team, you can bet your ass the American Public would send Bush on vacation for good.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *

Of course we will avoid the transition problems this time by retaining the same administration. :)

[/QUOTE]

Yes, the Repub's are already running with this one, pump up fear so Americans will be scared to change leaders. Unfortunately for Dubya Kerry is now showing that he can and will do a better job leading the fight against terror, Karl "fear" Rove didn't anticipate that.