N*F*B: Opinions on the Debate

[fastTa]

The "polls" suggest that Kerry won the first of 3 debates however I cannot fathom how. The vote preferences remain unchanged, but that is typical. The major networks keep referring to the fact that Bush was repeatedly getting agitated. Well, I would too if I was forced to listen to the disgustingly pompass and arrrogant ignorance from the mouth of a traitor.

What do you think?

[SteveH95Formula]

I agree. If we pull out of Iraq all our work and lives would be to nothing. We given way too much to just give up now and let the terrorist take over the country. I've got other issues but I'm not too impressed with Kerry's speeches and views.

[Coop '02Z]

Yeah Kevin,

It looked more like irritation to me than what the reporters were describing it as. Looked like he was thinking "idiot" as he looked over at Kerry running his mouth.

[Jeff_in_Atl]

My grades for the debate are as follows,
Kerry=B
Bush=C
Moderator=B+

Bush looked annoyed at times during Kerry's responses. I don't blame him, I was too. But I don't think it is going to go over very well. The DNC is supposed to come out with a TV add today showing the president's annoyed reactions.

I tell you one thing, Kerry said a lot of I would spend more on a bunch of things. I don't know where the money is going to come from. Well I do, us.

My analysis is on the surface Kerry won. He had points to make and he laid out his reasons. Further examination of his reasons is where I had some problems. I didn't hear much specific details. Some details he did say was to double special forces. Somebody help me but he voted for reducing the army from 18 divisions to 10 in 1994 I think it was. Now he says he wants to increase the size of the army. This says to me that he is not good at planning for the future.

I thought Kerry opened the door several times for Bush to have some good come backs but Bush didn't do it. He did say one time that he didn't know where he would get the money to do what he wants to do but he didn't hammer it very hard.

I thought it was a good example of Kerry not being consistent when they talked about North Korea and how Kerry wants it to be bilateral talks but he wants Iraq to be multi lateral talks. You have to give that one to Bush.

Kerry said several times that he would have done Iraq differently by getting the UN on board but I don't think he understands that he couldn't have done it. France was taking billions of dollars from the oil for food program and they were going to back deposing of Saddam for anything. Actually I think he does understand it but he is using it as a bashing point against Bush. The problem is a lot of people believe that someone else could have gotten France to help. The only thing that might have worked would have been to give France more money than he was getting from the oil for food program.

I think someone who is not sure who they will vote for who is listening to the debate would swing towards Kerry if they were not a critical thinker and not educated on what is going on and the history of it all.

Independent analysis http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html

[markd79ta]

Regardless of someone's personal opinions, it is a terrible mistake to argue about Iraq or the war on terror. It sends the message of division and weakness to our enemies. It will give them hope that they can win this. If Kerry is not careful...they will. He is doing the nation a real disservice by going this direction with his campaign for his own personal ambitions. I can understand why Bush is annoyed...I am annoyed too. Maybe the best thing that can happen is for Kerry to win this, and watch the crises unfold...maybe people would get a clue. However, probably not...most have forgotten 9/11 anyway...pretty much...the whole thing is just hopeless. The county is imploding as all great civilizations have; it is just a matter of time.

[TODD 2000 V6 CAMARO]

I was literally yelling at the tv when Kerry had the gall to say that Bush sent the troops over there without proper body armor. That would be the armor Kerry himself voted against!!! He is so flip-floppy in his stances on things, it just irritates the crap out of me, so I can see why Bush was getting annoyed. One thing that I liked was that Bush was responding very much like I think I would have. I can relate so much better to him. He is a real person as opposed to the robot politicians he seems to always run against.

[Jay 02 TA ws6]

Did anybody catch Kerry chastizing Bush for taking troops away from the Osama hunt and using them for Iraq?

I ask because at the end of that rant, Kerry said this, "we need more troops there (and he was referring to Iraq)."

If you picked up on it, you could see that Kerry realized the inconsistency of what he just said with a hesitant micro-reaction with his face and voice, but I don't think too many people caught it.

He started out critisizing Bush for taking troops away from the Osama hunt to send them to Iraq, and then finished by saying we need more troops in Iraq.

[Sean 94z28]

I agree with the analysis' given so far.

It seems that the democrats and media have created an atmosphere where Bush is restricted from "calling it like it is". The truth is, no amount of special forces is going to root out the terrorists of the world. A war focused exclusively on Afganistan would be in-effective due to our fragile alliance with Pakistan, and the volitility of the general area. The governments that support or allow terrorists to operate need to be the target.

As for the war in Iraq being mis-guided, I use the drug dealer anology. This seems appropriate due to the problem with seeking a global concensus for military action. If you were a drug dealer and the police called you for 30 days in a row to say you would be busted, should police expect to find drugs when the finally do come? I highly doubt it. An Iraqi weapons program of any size was given an ample opportunity to "disappear" starting when the threat of invasion appeared serious. Months past during our negotitations with the UN. Not to mention how ineffective and anti-US the UN anyway.

Sounds like a possible scenario to me. Maybe not. I say the atmoshpere is such that merely suggesting what I said would hurt the president. Saddam either had, or would have aquired (after the spotlight left him), WMDs. The world is MUCH better off without him.

Simply being the most powerful military was not enough to deter an attack on our citizens. This shows that the nation must be willing to use its military to change the leadership of nations that support terrorists. With any luck, demonstrating our "willingness" to act, will add to the deterent effect and convince others the disarm without military persuasion.

I fear this reality (my opinion of course) is just a little too much for a lot of people handle. Can't we all just get along?

Our only mistake in Iraq was letting the UN convince us not to take out Saddam in the Gulf War. We know better now.

Sean

[Rhode Island Red]

What I got out of it, that maybe most people did not catch is ..

Kerry says we spent over 200 billion dollars on Iraq so far, and states that money is better spent on domestic issues such as affordable prescription coverage...while towards the end of the debate, Kerry says the iraq borders we do not have enough troops guarding the borders to stop the insurgents infiltrating iraq....

Guess what Kerry It's going to take a lot more than what bush has spent to close and guard the Iraq borders on top of what we spend right now (big time contradiction here complaining about spending $ while saying spending $ to pay our troops to close off the borders to bad guys is necessary)

All in all, no matter how I perceive Kerry, I see Kerry raising taxes faster than Kerm can squirt out burrito's from taco bell, and we'd be no better off than bush being in power... at lest bush didn't contradict himself, and stayed with his doctrines vs kerry contridicting himself.

I do not like how bush has done some backroom dealings so far such as opening forests to further logging, going backwards 20+ years on environental enforcement by taking away epa powers.. and etc that is not really noticed... but I do not see Kerry doing any better, and passing the largest tax increase in US history to pay for his so called "fixes" ...

What will win me over to one's cadidates side is their domestic agenda... Bush is already weak there (he vetoed my raise every single year so far and both reps and democrats have overriden his veto in congress) ... I think Kerry is a dumb moron, but if his domestic issues are stronger than Bush's (they appear to me this way already) I might have no choice to vote Kerry... and I am a republican .. plus I do not like being mislead in the reason why we went to iraq to boot .. I hold the pres personally responsible for that..

[Jeff_in_Atl]

Simply being the most powerful military was not enough to deter an attack on our citizens. This shows that the nation must be willing to use its military to change the leadership of nations that support terrorists. With any luck, demonstrating our "willingness" to act, will add to the deterent effect and convince others the disarm without military persuasion.
Sean

A perfect example of this is Lybia. I only hope Iran and North Korea see it the same way.

[Sean 94z28]

What will win me over to one's cadidates side is their domestic agenda... Bush is already weak there (he vetoed my raise every single year so far and both reps and democrats have overriden his veto in congress)

I understand, but don't agree. I am in the private sector and we too are in a 2 year "wage freeze". My family could really use a raise too. I am sure glad to be employed though. As Americans we are sharing the burden of a wounded economy. One of the most fundemental principles of a free market economy is the following tax strategy:
Weak economy: Lower Taxes
Strong economy: Raise taxes
A Kerry wage increase followed by a Kerry tax increase, is net zero.

Think the economy is bad now, try another major terrorist attack. Dead terrorists and overthrown gov'ts that support them is our quickest course to economic stability.

If you live where I do, CA, W is the enemy not terrorists.

Sean

[gimp19]

I think Bush was very weak, right from the begining Kerry handed him his ass on a platter. He still cant come up with a good awnser to why he went about the B.S war in Iraq the way he did. He's such a dumbass he cant even give a speech without pausing for 10 seconds. I hate him and want him gone

[TraceZ]

I think Bush was very weak, right from the begining Kerry handed him his ass on a platter. He still cant come up with a good awnser to why he went about the B.S war in Iraq the way he did. He's such a dumbass he cant even give a speech without pausing for 10 seconds. I hate him and want him gone

Kerry voted against the use of force in the first Iraq war, claiming that those kinds of votes are to actually go to war, not just authorize the force. I dont have the exact quote, but he new THEN dang well what the vote was for.

Kerry voted FOR the use of force in this recent war. He knew EXACTLY what that meant. the reason he gave last night about not wanting to go to war right away was BS. The perceived threat was real and immediate. There were 17 resolutions. Does he really think that resolution #18 would had made a difference? They knew we were coming so far in advance that they could had easily disposed of any evidence of a WMD program before we arrived.

The intelligence at the time said there were WMD. Kerry knew it, Bush knew it. Now Kerry is flip flopping on it to appeal to the anti-war people. He is full of crap and spinning what really happenned.

Next, Kerry voted against the funding package that would had helped the troops that he himself approved to be sent. What is that?? "I voted for it before I voted against it"?? WTF?

I agree Bush was weak last night. Many of us could had stood in for him and ripped Kerry a new rear. I think he was exhausted from taking the day to look at the damage in Florida from the storms. Too much sun? Who knows, I cant make the excuses for him. He should of drilled Kerry much harder. I was disapointed.

[Nightrage]

All the kids in my English class today (i'm out of high school and in the 13th grade now ) were talking about how Kerry whooped Bush. They're all voting Kerry. It's terrible to see how high school has brain washed these kids by pointing out everything that Bush has done wrong as opposed to the good decisions he's made. I don't think Bush can pull it off guys

[Jeff_in_Atl]

Kerry made a comment on ABC 2 days ago where he said knowing what he knows now he would not have voted for giving the president the authority to go to war. Well hind sight is 20/20. That is an unfair statement.

Pretend you were president, you had the FBI, CIA, Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Saudi Arabia all telling you that Saddam had WMD's. What would you do? "Well I know everyone on the face of the planet says he has them but I'm not going to do anything about it." That would be irresponsible and not only worthy of impeachment but a dereliction of duty charge. It's unfair to use the knowledge we have now to judge the actions he took back then not considering the information he had then. A lie is only a lie if you said something that was known to be untrue when it was spoken. If it turns out to be false later it is not a lie, it is a mistake. Period.