I thought it was very clear

Kerry thought the first priority should have been bin Laden...

Does Kerry agree that Saddam needed to be disarmed? Yes. Was he in favor of sanctions, weapons inspecting, and diplomacy to do so? Yes. Was he in favor of pre-emptively attacking Iraq without any real allied backing (England, Austrailia... and Poland?)? No... but once something is done - like an invasion - it must be done right. "You break it, you bought it" was his metaphor. He doesn't think Bush did it right.

Well, the truth hurts doesn't it. the argument was that Bush would keep terrorism from striking our country, meaning Kerry could not keep it from happening because he doesn't feel Saddam was a threat and just isn't tough enough for the job. Baloney. I didn't say Bush flew a couple of planes thru the buildings, I said he brought it once. Maybe I should have said it happened once while he was in office.

And about the Clinton comment, why does that matter?

You make it sound like you think the terrorists acted because they hate Bush. They did it because they hate America, and no president will ever change that. The president can make sure it doesn't happen again though. How much has happed in the US since the attacks? How much in other countries?

To be fair, Zoltan, both candidates either misquoted or misrepresented the other's policies an awful lot. This is the nature of politics. It happened in 2000, it happened in 96, it happened every four years before that. Same as it ever was.

Why Kerry won the debate has to do with how he responded; Kerry was cool and held his head high. He spoke slowly and clearly in response to Bush's accusations. Bush, however, started slouching and got flustered when Kerry leveled an accusation at him. He actually just stared forward a few times because he couldn't think of anything to say.

I am not saying that either candidate is right or wrong tonight; I am merely saying that aesthetically, John Kerry did a far better job at the exercise of debating. And that usually makes a difference.

I agree that N. Korea is a big threat...but going back to what Clinton was doing, as kerry suggests, is what got us into this predictament in the first place. It is funny that we should only deal with other countries, the UN, etc.....except with N. Korea where we should go it alone. I guess we could just pay N. korea off to keep their cheating on their nuclear agreements secret....like Clinton did,

I'm not at all saying that it's because terrorists hate Bush, all I'm saying is that either candidate will make sure nothing like this will happen again.

Kerry isn't going to be a weak president who cannot make a tough decision if need be.

So CJ, you'll give Kerry a pass on "wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place. " (Iraq. . .which, was an ADDITIONAL war endevor, which he voted for, that came AFTER GW Bush got an alliance with Pakistan, and we had gone into Afganastan and systematically dismanteled alqaida) because, "Kerry thought the first priority should have been bin Laden"?

So, Kerry would DO NOTHING until OBL was captured . . . as Saddam, the big-time terrorist funder, "was a threat" . . .but not THAT big of a threat, because, as Kerry said tonight "Saddam Hussein didn't attack us. . . .We had Saddam Hussein trapped."

. . .but, Kerry "had one position, one consistent position, that Saddam Hussein was a threat. "


----
Now I will give credit to whoever on the Kerry team figured out this melding of the flip-flop, into a floip. But even supposedly slow GW figured this out on the fly.

LEHRER: What about Senator Kerry's point, the comparison he drew between the priorities of going after Osama bin Laden and going after Saddam Hussein?

BUSH: Jim, we've got the capability of doing both.

As a matter of fact, this is a global effort.

Bush forced Kerrys floip . . .imagine that, Bush's reality is a bit more complex than Kerry's floip. Yet, some how the simple-minded buy it and conclude; "yeah . . .stoopit boosh. . . how cum no binloiden"

Though I am a staunch Bush supporter, I thought he was weak. There were so many times when I thought Kerry opened himself up to real criticism that Bush did not act upon. Bush only mentioned Kerry voting down the $87 million appropriations once. He was too soft when the question on character came up. I would have liked to see Bush ask for Kerry to sign the papers to release his full military records, for example. He had a national audience, and I would have loved to hear Kerry's response. What excuse would he have for saying no? Not that I think it is completely relevant as to whether or not he would be a good president (which IMO he would not) but would go a long way towards defining his character. And after all, Kerry's whole campaign has been his "war hero" status.

I think Kerry proved himself to be the better salesman, even though the product he's selling still seems to ring a bit hollow. I think Kerry still wants to straddle the middle ground as whether the Irag war is a good or bad war. Bush I think all too often found himself on the defensive and behaved as though he were some school child getting a good scolding from his teacher while Kerry was speaking. On the whole I think Bush comes off as more sincere and likable while I found Kerry to be mean spirited.

Some factcheck stuff here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134160,00.html

As an aside I watched the post-dabate coverage on foxnews before watching the debate itself (delayed). From what was said on fox I was expecting to see Kerry bore the audience to death & George firmly state his beliefs (which would not have surprised me). Wow. Did those people watch the same debate?

The Clinton comment matters as much as your Bush comment, my friend: you see, even though Bush was in office on 09-11-2001, the terrorists planned to do this long before - when Clinton was in office. The same Clinton who had the opportunity to capture Bin Laden. Bush didn't have that opportunity. Clinton did.

If I were to point fingers at someone who could have prevented 9-11, I wouldn't point fingers at President George W. Bush. However, you seem to.

Remember: terrorists don't care who is president at the time, they just care about extracting the most amount of pain and death upon the weakest possible target at the most opportune time.

-Z-man.

What I was talking about was how clear John Kerry was DURING THE DEBATE. We are talking about the debate here - nothing before, nothing afterwards. Did Kerry change his policy on Iraq? Probably. Do I care? Not really - I know a lot of people who were against it at first, but once we invaded changed their tunes a little... and I know a lot of people who were for the war at first but then changed their minds.

DURING THE DEBATE, Kerry expressed his point clearly and concisely. Bush tried to pin the "flip flop" label on him, but Kerry just shot back with "This is what I think, plain and simple".

Did anyone else notice this?

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

Lehrer: Are Americans now dying in Iraq for a mistake?

KERRY: No, and they don't have to, providing we have the leadership that we put -- that I'm offering.

?? huh ?? Was it a mistake or not - Mr. Kerry please make up your mind.


Kerry: I will build an alliance...


Bush: He says the cornerstone of his plan to succeed in Iraq is to call upon nations to serve. So what's the message going to be: "Please join us in Iraq. We're a grand diversion. Join us for a war that is the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time?"

Bush finally made a good point - I agree that Bush acted a little nervous at times - but I think his message was very clear. Kerry gives me the impression of someone who will keep modifying his argument until he says what he thinks the listener wants to hear.

Though I agree that Kerry "won" the debate, it wasn't in a way that will sway voters atleast the undecided type. I watched with four others and we actually had an argument after as to whether Kerry was going to pull out of Iraq or not??? I said no, ecveryone else said yes. Who was right?


Anyway, there was no huge knockout, but Kerry did himself some favors and some diservice. For instance, here is the next Bush ad they should run.

President Kerry walks up to soldier and tells him "this war was a mistake, you shouldn't be here" [cue bewildered look on soldiers face] Kerry then taps him on the behind and says "now get back in there!"

I think that would really get the idea across.

Kerry Lying + Bush Lying = Kerry Truth*(WTF?)
 

I gotta say that during the debates, I saw that our Mark Wilson could have had Jim Lehrers job. ..

JIM LEHRER: "New question, Senator Kerry. Two minutes. You've repeatedly accused President Bush, not here tonight but elsewhere before, of not telling the truth about Iraq. Essentially, of lying to the American people about Iraq. Give us some examples of what you consider to be his not telling the truth."
SEN. KERRY: "Well, I've never, ever used the harshest word as you just did."

It seems that we covered this here. . . . Seems that Kerry did claim that Bush LIED.

Anyone remember?

I think Lehrer did a better job of challenging Kerry than Bush did.

Agreed.

I find that interesting.

It's as if Bush wanted to ensure that he didn't appear to be mean. He even gushed-on about Kerrys super-duper family.

From that "debate" no one would conclude that Bush is a war-monger.

Kerry otoh, was very aggressive in his rhetoric. . . "not enough . . need to do more . .better" . . .yadda-yadda. . . .stronger, faster . .. able to leap tall accomplishments in a single "help is on the way" :rolleyes:

Anyway, I know that a lot of independents and libs feel that Bush has done FAR too much.

Some folks still do not seem to understand that crushing terrorism is complex, as opposed to Bush's plan, which is conveniently simple. That's why Kerry seems undecided and equivocal. Solving the terrorist problem is not just a matter of smugly spewing rhetoric about how we're not going to back down, etc. Whatever president eventually has to undo the damage being done right now, will have to use a multi-pronged approach.

And the DO NOTHING aware goes to Dubya, definitely, as does the flip-flop award. We're diverting resources away from crushing the terrorists, in order to clobber some muslims for political gain. Not so much troops I am told, as scarce intelligence resources. Apparently, there is a mountain of documents captured in Afghanistan that still need to be translated, and we have too few translators....many of whom have been deployed from Afghanistan to Iraq. And here's an interesting couple of quotes for anyone thinking Dubya is taking the battle to BinLaden, but Kerry would DO NOTHING:

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. IT is our No. 1 priority, and we will not rest until we find him" President Bush on 9/13/01

"I don't know where he (Osama bin Laden) is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." President Bush, six months later.

Now what does this say about his resolve in fighting terrorism, and what does this say about his supposedly steadfast leadership? And since the last quote was made as we were gearing up for the Iraq invasion, what does this say about how Dubya prioritizes political objectives versus national security objectives?

Bush did not come across as a war-monger as much as incompetent and confused.

There was plenty more that could have been said, but it might have strained the attention span of the typical viewer.

Where Kerry could have gone for the jugular, he pulled his punches. For instance, he could have laid it out simply:

When Bush was hammering him about voting for the
war but against the $87b, why did he decline to say, "I voted for it
because I trusted you, which turned out to be a mistake, and I voted
against the $87b because the plan on how to spend it was a mess."

He wouldn't have even had to call W a liar to do that.

Maybe so.
He may not have sounded like a war-monger, but he did sound (and look!!) like an idoit, a broken record, and frustrated, selfish, little imp.