Tabs on the Debates

[tabs]

Straight up Bush lost the debate....he was on the defensive the whole time...and never once could put together Kerrys inconsistent statements and use them against him. It was a very bad night for Bush, and might very well cost him the election.

1. Kerry want to negioatiate with N Korea unilaterally, when he wants to build coalitions on every other subject.

Fact of the matter is Bush is right about bringing in all the other concerned nations (having a vested interest) in the negioations with N Korea.... The N Koreans are notorious at playing games during negioations.

2. Kerry is right when he says the GREATEST danger is Nuclear Proliferation...mostly in loose Nuclear materials falling into the wrong hand....he made a comment about the porousness of Americas borders....and that Bush isn't doing enough to close those borders.

Reality check here...Theres virtually no way you can check all the cargo that comes into America....the logistics of doing it are astronomical..yet Bush didn't respond..but how can he and not appear like he isn't doing his job.

3. Does Kerry believe that Al Queda and Bin Laden are the only enemies we face in the war on terror...I have long felt that Gore would have invaded Afgan and once that was acomplished and had Al Queda on the run, Gore would have called it good...Here that same logic surfaces again...one thing we must not forget is that the people who FUND terrorism are our enemy too, and this is a spiders web that reaches into places we can only imagine...And are those people who secretly fund Terrorism people who John Kerry would call friend????

The big question that must/will be answered is how much involvment did Sodam have in funding Al Quedea in paticular...and how much of that money came from the Food for Oil program...and who facilitated that corruption...those people are our enemies as well..(.I personally think that it is more a case of greed than malice towards the USA..but grievous harm was done to our country none the less..).


All in all I would say Bush is doing a competent job as President, he does make mistakes and usually corrects his course once they are apparent...Remember that American AWAC that was forced down in China in 2001...Bush made the appropriate meaningless apology and we got the plane back... Bush is obviously not a detail man.. as Regan wasn't , but is willing to make the hard decisions in a straight forward manner...

One thing Bush could not say is how close to collapse America came after 911. Kerry knows fully well how grievous the situation was and still plays the game like it's business as usual...

I personally think Kerry would make a BAD President..His beliefs and more over his backers are extreme Liberals... when Kerry says that he would defend America he means it...I have in numerous posts talked about the "system" and how it limits and dictates what the policies of the USA are going to be...and that any elected offical is just a temporary occupant of the office.

I would postulate here that if a major terrorist attack takes place in the USA on a Kerry watch, it was apparent that Kerry was in some way negligent or his response was weak willed...Kerry will not survive his term as president..it maybe that he is just left as a seat warmer like Jimmy Carter was after his faux pau's....there will be in one way or another a coup de etat....so beware of any sudden illness that the President might develope.

There is one thing about Bush...he does let U know that the USA is in a dangerous high stakes game and that the outcome is in no way certain..

[cmccuist]

Excellent analysis Tabs. Bush was supposed to have the upper hand on foriegn policy and he let that opportunity get away. In Bush's defense, it's hard to argue with Kerry on Iraq because he's so capricious.

I agree that Bush could have done better, but I don't think it will cost him the election. Kerry still didn't explain how he would do anything different. Kerry made some headway, but only on how he is a good debater, not whether he'll make a good leader.

[red-beard]

Originally posted by tabs
1. Kerry want to negioatiate with N Korea unilaterally, when he wants to build coalitions on every other subject.

Fact of the matter is Bush is right about bringing in all the other concerned nations (having a vested interest) in the negioations with N Korea.... The N Koreans are notorious at playing games during negioations.

That was amazing, when he stated earlier that we needed to work with other nations more and work as a coalition. China is the Key to North Korea, since they have the leverage because they give the most aid. Does China wants North Korea armed with nukes?

Originally posted by tabs
2. Kerry is right when he says the GREATEST danger is Nuclear Proliferation...mostly in loose Nuclear materials falling into the wrong hand....he made a comment about the porousness of Americas borders....and that Bush isn't doing enough to close those borders.

Reality check here...Theres virtually no way you can check all the cargo that comes into America....the logistics of doing it are astronomical..yet Bush didn't respond..but how can he and not appear like he isn't doing his job.

The problem is that Kerry made some bold statements about what he will do, but nothing about how. How will you secure all of the Russian nuclear material in 4 years? Does he simply think it's a monetary issue? And once we have this nuclear material, what will we do with it? Sheesh, we can't even put our own nuclear waste to bed, what are we going to do with Millions of pounds of enriched unranium and plutonium?

Originally posted by tabs
3. Does Kerry believe that Al Queda and Bin Laden are the only enemies we face in the war on terror...I have long felt that Gore would have invaded Afgan and once that was acomplished and had Al Queda on the run, Gore would have called it good...Here that same logic surfaces again...one thing we must not forget is that the people who FUND terrorism are our enemy too, and this is a spiders web that reaches into places we can only imagine...And are those people who secretly fund Terrorism people who John Kerry would call friend????

Yes, he does. You are correct. We need to cut off the funding. Kill the funding and you hurt the terrorists more than dropping a few bombs. The "Oil for Food" program provided a means to fund Al Queda. It has be shown that several of the companies were sending money to Al Queda. Not Saddam himself, but some of the "companies" doing business with Saddam.

Originally posted by tabs
Straight up Bush lost the debate....he was on the defensive the whole time...and never once could put together Kerrys inconsistent statements and use them against him. It was a very bad night for Bush, and might very well cost him the election.

Very true. He looked very tired. I don't know. Something. But this debate hurt Bush and helped Kerry.

[juanbenae]

why are we in need of coalitions with korea, but iraq was worth doing alone? seems W wants it both ways, depending on what he has done to this point.

kerry's take on a global acceptance on a war situation is right . cheney is ripping that right now, but had we waited maybe our 90% man power and cash in iraq would be shared by other allies.

my favorite was bushs' long pauses before giving an answer. i got up and had a snack during one.

i think kerry did himself well last night. bush shoed why we are where we are in the global scheme of things right now. the word is distain, and we are right now.

i was not FOR kerry, but against bush until last night. kerry came a little closer to EARNING my vote, as opposed to default against bush.

nice work JFK.

[tabs]

Sometimes when you assert yourself everybody who you have been passive with doesn't like it, because they aren't getting their way anymore.

I look at it this way Bush maybe a poor excuse for a President, however he is better than Kerry who will be a BAD president. I really believe Kerrys Ultra Liberalism and indecisive political record in the Senate make him a poor choich for President. Kerry will implement programs using Executive Orders and what he can get through Congress.. that will make California look like a bastion of Conservativism.

Kerry also said his plan...was to have a Summit Meeting of all the pertinent parties on Irwreck....Summit meetings historically don't result in much of anything, except photo ops.

So Kerry is banking on his Pretty Face (his wishy washyness?) and a Summit meeting to get other countries involved in Irwreck.... Realistically if things in Irwreck are so bad, why would anybody sign on for the headache...the reality that it's in the best interest of the Western Allies hasn't fazed them yet...so what is Kerry going to have to give away to induce them to get on Board for Irwreck...remember it's your paycheck that he is playing with.

[island911]

Originally posted by k911sc
...
kerry's take on a global acceptance on a war situation is right . . ..

gotta love that pic of annan.

[tabs]

I would postulate that within 72 hours of a Kerry Presidency, he would sign and Executive Order using National Security as it's basis outlawing Assualt Weapons in the USA... Within 6 months would try and pass a National Registration of Firearms Act if not a complete consfication of handguns in the USA again on National Security Grounds...