Quote:Am I the only one who thought Bush's confusion of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden early in the debate was telling? (I actually predicted before the debate that he would do this and it would hurt him--half right, I guess.) This is the third time in the last couple of weeks, I think, that a top Bush official has said "Saddam" when he meant "bin Laden." Rumsfeld did it twice in the same speech earlier this month. (He corrected himself the first time, but that didn't stop him from later comically asserting, "Saddam Hussein, if he's alive, is spending a whale of a lot of time trying to not get caught. And we've not seen him on a video since 2001.")
The fact that this transposition has happened repeatedly doesn't strike me as a coincidence. I think at any given time since the Cold War, the country has had (at most) one larger-than-life diabolical foreign villain (usually compared to a greater or lesser degree to Hitler): Saddam, Qaddafi, Milosevic, bin Laden, Saddam again. The Bushies have gone to great lengths to conflate Saddam and bin Laden in the public mind, or even displace the latter in favor of the former as U.S. enemy #1. The fact that they've now verbally confused the two (at least) three times in the last few weeks suggests to me they've pushed the idea so hard that even they are having trouble keeping the two men straight. I'm a little disturbed that no one else seems to consider this a big deal.
(
link).
I'd say the fact even Kerry did it, too, just makes it an even bigger deal.
I'm disturbed that it's not a big deal. My husband and I gawped and pointed and said did you SEE that?? when Bush did it... but yeah, would've been more of a slam dunk if Kerry hadn't done a version as well. I don't think Kerry did it in a playing-into-it-all way, as he specifically jumped on "they attacked us" later and a general theme has been fine, Afghanistan, fine, Osama, but GET Osama and get things taken care of Afghanistan before gallivanting off to Iraq. I think with him it was more of a which boogeyman? oops not that boogeyman the other boogeyman. But the conflation is definitely upsetting.
The Rumsfeld one is rather blatant.
They've duped themselves into doublethink with their own propaganda, and they've got the majority of the US population believing it.
Kerry denigrates our allies and calls them the coerced then says he is going to build a strong coalition... what with the French and the Spanish? Does Kerry really think they are going to come with him into Iraq? Kerry is in fantasy land. Kerry's grand delusions... he is senile. Kerry has denial syndrome. He denies he was for the war then insults Bush for having a strong resolve. Kerry denies the fact that he saw the same intelligence and made the same decision that Bush did yet he has changed his opinion on the war where Bush has been consistent. I Kerry can get anything done. Why didn't he talk about what he has accomplished in 20 years in the senate? Because he is a windsurfing do nothing! HE does not show up for work and expects us to think he will get things done for America? He calls Allawi a puppet then expects that Allawi will want to work with him? When the UN does not want to go into Iraq with Kerry is he going to call them puppets? I can he he is no great communicator or capable of building a coalition. Kerry said he would have made a better choice than to go into Iraq but he is contradicting himself... What a liar.
Kerry says the US was not a party with France, Germany and Great Britain on the Iran talks.. But the US was a party to the talks. So Kerry has faulty intelligence... so by the same logic he used on Bush on WMD that would make Kerry a liar. How could he miss the fact that we were involved in the talks? Was Kerry certain and wrong?
If Kerry had been in the white house the Iraq war probably wouldn't even have been kontemplated. There was nothing to suddenly trigger a change in policy towards the country. If Kerry had gone about "disarming" Iraq, he more than likely would have waited until the inspectors had done their job, Saddam would have been known not to posess WMDs, and the war would have been avoided. In the event that Saddam did not cooperate with the inspectors, Kerry would have waited until that was painfully obvious, and then some, before invading, therby securing logitimacy and support for the war.
You think Kerry is insulting to coalition members? Bush still claims the war was justified, now that is insulting.
RexRed wrote:Kerry says the US was not a party with France, Germany and Great Britain on the Iran talks.. But the US was a party to the talks. So Kerry has faulty intelligence... so by the same logic he used on Bush on WMD that would make Kerry a liar. How could he miss the fact that we were involved in the talks? Was Kerry certain and wrong?
"On the Iran front, the president's account of his successes amounted mostly to taking credit for efforts his administration has actually opposed. "We worked very closely with the foreign ministers of France, Germany, and Great Britain" on the Iran front, Bush declared, and that's true. But much if not most of that work consisted of urging the Europeans--unsuccessfully--to
abandon their engagement-centered approach to Iran."
(Michael Levi
in TNR)
I finally got around to watching the debate. It was interesting to see the two candidates face-to-face in an unscripted, non-cheerleading setting. Especially interesting was what the candidates said in their non-verbal communication. Kerry did nothing special, just listened when his opponent was talking and answered the questions Jim Lehrer asked him. Bush, on the other hand, seemed restive and scowled like a miffed teenager upon hearing accusations from Kerry and tough questions from Lehrer. Moreover, he repeatedly seemed to spend considerable time figuring out whether he wanted to answer the question at hand or not, and precisely which way he was going to answer it or not to answer it.
In their verbal communication, I didn't hear much from either candidate that added to their campaign positions. The only thing that surprised me was how George Bush seemed to speak of all the bad guys of the world as a single entity called "the enemy". As several people noted before in this thread, both candidates misspoke and confused Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden. The relevance of such supposedly revealing moments is easy to overstate, and I would caution against making too much of them. The difference that matters to me is that for Bush, the mis-speaking was in line with his intended rhetoric about "the enemy", while for Kerry, his misspeaking was out of line with it. One candidate had a Freudian slip once and didn't repeat it, the other built his campaign rhetoric and even his foreign policy upon it. That's the important part, not the misspeakings themselves.
It was nice to see how well Kerry did. While I am not swingable in my preference for president this year, I had only supported Kerry on an "anything but Bush" basis before the debate. After it, I feel for the first time that while he probably wouldn't make a great president, he would just as probably make a decent, competent one.
Hi Thomas. Good to see ya!
As to body language, I thought there was a lot said. Though probably unconscience, I thought it was telling when Kerry was talking about Bush changing positions that he moved his right hand palm up, palm down, palm up, palm down as he made each point.
Just a little body language that without saying "flip-flop" got his point across.
Thomas wrote
Quote:It was nice to see how well Kerry did. While I am not swingable in my preference for president this year, I had only supported Kerry on an "anything but Bush" basis before the debate. After it, I feel for the first time that while he probably wouldn't make a great president, he would just as probably make a decent, competent one.
Who could ask for more than that. Competence and decency in the oval office once again.
squinney wrote:As to body language, I thought there was a lot said.
having grown up with a father who's military experience included, but was not limited to, a stint as a drill instructor for the navy, it was pounded into me every single day to "suck it in. stand up straight and chest out".
so it really bothers me when a president is just about always leaning an elbow on the podium, or hunched over it. there's a big difference between hanging out down at the bar shooting the bull and addressing the world as a nation's leader.
at the same time, i find it amazing that kerry gets spewed on for standing up straight. "he's got a rod up his back. hahahahaha".
i just don't know.
So it must kill you to know that Kerry, a Navy man himself, demanded his purple hearts and the early dismissal that comes with those purple hearts, huh?
He didn't "demand" them - ordinary folks out on the river didn't get to "demand" anything of their superiors, not if they were a swiftboat's skipper either.
Kerry received his medals according to the rules that applied, which did not specify how much shrapnel you had to have scrape or stuck up which body part. If you have any problems with that, take it up with those who wrote the rules back then.
Did anybody notice, btw, how most of the conservatives' swiftvet rhetorics has retreated from the fierce, "he lied / broke the rules to get his purple hearts" allegations - to something more like: "well, he may have formally had the right to those purple hearts (and thus the chance to leave) - but if he had been a real man he wouldn't have taken them"?
Interesting, no?
Interesting, yet not surprising.
Shifting tactics to attack the weakness when their argument is completely fubared is nothing new for Conservatives. Remember
WMD
then WMD programs
Then WMD program-related Activities
Then, He WANTED WMD program-related Activities once he was sure we weren't looking anymore.
Yeah f*cking right.
Cycloptichorn
McGentrix wrote:So it must kill you to know that Kerry, a Navy man himself, demanded his purple hearts and the early dismissal that comes with those purple hearts, huh?
i thought we had left that stuff behind... but since you mention it;
what kills me on this topic is, that a priviledged little draft dodger that wouldn't even fulfill the commitment of showing up to fly the plane that we spent a million dollars training him on is the darling of the uber-patriotic crowd while a guy that volunteered for combat gets his ass ground up by the republican spin machine.
that's what kills me. and it doesn't sit too well with the old man either. he's voting democrat for the first time since roosevelt.
DontTreadOnMe wrote:McGentrix wrote:So it must kill you to know that Kerry, a Navy man himself, demanded his purple hearts and the early dismissal that comes with those purple hearts, huh?
i thought we had left that stuff behind... but since you mention it;
what kills me on this topic is, that a priviledged little draft dodger that wouldn't even fulfill the commitment of showing up to fly the plane that we spent a million dollars training him on is the darling of the uber-patriotic crowd while a guy that volunteered for combat gets his ass ground up by the republican spin machine.
that's what kills me. and it doesn't sit too well with the old man either. he's voting democrat for the first time since roosevelt.
So when your father said "suck it in. stand up straight and chest out" he was referring to what?
Kerry got scratched and got a medal for it. That's not exactly "sucking it in" now is it?
McGentrix wrote:So when your father said "suck it in. stand up straight and chest out" he was referring to what?
Kerry got scratched and got a medal for it. That's not exactly "sucking it in" now is it?
"Excessively patronizing postures are often an indicator of those whose self-images exceed their ability."
mcg.... you are hopeless... i'm not gonna get into any of this $hit again. it's over.
move on. but i love ya anyway man.
