Will You Watch the Debate?

Bush debate boo boos
One of the most amazing debate goofs Bush made that demonstrates his lack of knowledge about world events facts was his statement that, "A.Q. Kahn was brought to justice."

In fact, the Patistani scientist was not brought to justice for providing nuclear secrets to Libya, Iran and North Korea. He was pardoned for his crimes, not brought to justice. It will be interesting to see if the Media and the pundents pick up on this major Bush misstatement. ---BBB

"Musharraf Pardons Scientist Who Passed On Nuclear Secrets"

"All is settled, and with mutual satisfaction. The father of the Pakistani atomic bomb has taken responsibility for the leakage of military technology to Libya, Iran and North Korea. President Pervez Musharraf immediately pardoned him, evidently satisfied at removing suspicion off Islamabad's military establishment, which he leads. The entire operation, however, looks like a cover-up, or even fraud. Mohammed El Baradei, the head of the IAEA, has expressed some general doubts and worries.... 'This is only the tip of the iceberg,' said Baradei. He believes that Khan did not act alone and that others were involved as well.... No one is convinced that this is the entire truth. Washington probably isn't either but at the moment it cannot afford to destabilize Pakistan while the hunt for Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaida members is still on, and whose most important bases are probably located somewhere in Pakistan and Afghanistan.... If [Washington] were to demand the whole truth from Pakistan now, it would embarrass Musharaff...and would risk losing him."

The fact that Kerry used the bunker buster issue AGAINST Bush demonstrates the fact that he is STILL against the major weapon systems we possess and against America being militarily strong.

BumbleBeeBoogie


A.Q. Kahn was brought to justice and pardoned... not just pardoned. There was a deal involved... he spilled the beans for his pardon. He wasn't just apprehended and set free. Bush's terminology is correct as usual.

My bad dude... I should have been clearer. Kerry's answer was 10 times better than Bush's... 10 to 1, but on a scale to 100.

My problem with both is they both had to be asked before it was brought up at all. Both men are already in positions that they should have been asking the American people to step in a long, long time ago. Military action to stop genocide, IMHO, could easily be sold to the American people as work that needs to be done. Blow some sunshine up our asses about how great we are and we'll pay for just about anything. Hell I don't think the French would oppose it if someone cared enough to shame them into addressing it.

Aside from being the right thing to do; Bush could have gotten a lot of mileage by going to bat for a people that have nothing to offer in return. Kerry could have gotten a lot of mileage out of shaming Bush for not doing it. Clearly (to me), neither really cares.

Both Bush and Kerry are full of sh!t on the subject, or they would have been raising their voices long ago. Just my honest opinion.

John Kerry

A strong America and a weak military...

Bush

No plan, but a whole bunch of cool new bombs!

Rex,
Your argument is a straw man argument that circumvents the question I posed. I didn't say Afghanistan and Iraq were better off with the Taliban shooting women publicly and Saddam cutting out their tongues. I didn't say they hate freedom.

I said it is the US that is the biggest violator of Afghani and Iraqi freedom. The US is occupying both counties, and is attempting to impose what it believes is the best political/economic system for them, and is operating through puppet governments in both countries.

That's freedom, Rex?

In Afghanistan we've replaced the Taliban with a puppet who controls all of one city, Kabul. The rest of Afghanistan is controlled by warlords, some of whom are Taliban. They are fighting our occupation of their country and the puppets we're propping.

"The ongoing insurgency is a mixture of that nation's traditional, persistent low level conflict between various groups and powerful figures, and the global insurgency centered on radical Islam. In a sense, Afghanistan represents a continuation of lawlessness, more than open conflict, with various militant groups vying for power.Sometimes acting in concert but often in isolation, these insurgent groups exert a presence that is growing in light of the upcoming national elections in September. At the same time, the jihadists, led by Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda, remain determined to see that Afghanistan is a battlefield in their global struggle with the United States. To the extent there is a coherence to the strategy and the ideology of the Afghan insurgency, it is derived from this linkage to the global insurgency."(Insurgency In Iraq And Afghanistan: Change and Continuity, Steven Metz and Raymond Millen, Strategic Studies Institute)

In Iraq we've occupied the country and replaced Saddam with a puppet government and have provoked a nationalistic insurgency that has amalgamated with islamist terrorists. We've replaced the killings committed by Saddam with the killings we and the insurgency and Islamist terrorists are committing.

"The United States did not expect to bear the brunt of the responsibility for stabilizing Iraq after the collapse of the Hussein regime. The expectation was that the existing Iraqi security forces would remain intact and play the major role, and that international peacekeepers would lend vital support. Very quickly though, it became clear that armed opposition to the American-led occupation was emerging, and that neither the security forces of the old regime nor international forces could substitute for U.S. and, to a lesser degree, British forces." (Metz & Millen)

Insurgency In Iraq And Afghanistan: Change And Continuity Steven Metz and Raymond Millen, Strategic Studies Institute

kickycan

Bush did says the "plan" was to get NATO to "help" train the Iraqi forces to protect their own country and the UN to help secure the elections and to hold at least two summits (Japan and Arab) to gain a stronger international support.

Now what was Kerry's "plan" cut the military budget to spend it here at home and train the Iraqi army three times faster? With what resources? Wishful thinking? Oh yea, scatter the army all over... and to cut and run in 4 years and leave a vacuum in the middle east for terrorists to commit another genocide.

Infrablue

Are you suggesting we held elections the day we invaded? I am also sure we would have left by now had the terrorists that Kerry says, "were not in Iraq" were not blowing up and beheading innocent Iraqi's and international aid workers.

If Afghanistan is so mad at us and our democracy why are so many willing to face death to register to vote...

In the meantime the Afghanistan army is getting stronger too by the thousands.

It is just more pessimistic leftwing talking points.

I choose to believe in power of the Afghanistan people and the Iraqi people to overcome this current struggle and and reach for the democracy that as Bush rightfully says shall make the world a safer place.

You do not seem to have faith that democracy can win out over drug addicts/peddlers and un united warlords? I do not agree with you. Look at how many millions of the Afghanistan people have registered to vote!

Leftwing political pessimistic talking points designed to produce a failure for the current president. I have heard it all before and I can see it for what it is... so can the majority of the American people. The Kerry camp seems to forget we in America know the power of a freely cast vote.

I voted for Gore and now I am voting for Bush that should tell you how much I do not like Kerry. I would never vote for him after what he said about the vets, and other actions he took at the time... and his extreme left voting record in the senate, NEVER

The goal since the SALT I and SALT II and the treaties thereof has been to reduce nuclear weapons proliferation.

Telling other people, "You can't have nuclear weapons," but all the while develope new nuclear weapons of our own is sending mixed messages. Worse still, it's barefacedly hypocritical.

We can't have it both ways.

I guess this is the center of debate discussion. hard to tell with 57 threads on the same subject. In any case, I think the debate was clearly a Kerry triumph, but people who think Bush was eviscerated are kidding themselves.

The more quick-thinking, knowledgeable Kerry dominated the debate in a technical sense. However, Bush's strategy of running his themes into the ground, then raping them again and again is a crude but efficacious tactic.

The same thing happened in 1994 when Bush squared off against Anne Richards in Texas: Richards displayed her mastery of the nuances of policy, but Bush ended up "wining" the debate by utilizaing his Marlboro Man image and ceaselessly repeating his themes.

It looks like the public may have seen through it this time, judging by the first reactions. Still, Bush won the Texas debates because people underestimated the effectiveness of his dumbed down strategy, and he may just do the same this time around if Kerry isn't careful.

Yeah, it's easy to dismiss a lucid and sober analysis that is inconvenient to your position, Rex, but the reality is that the insurgency in Iraq is growing, and the Taliban has not been wiped out in Afghanistan, and they are amalgamating with the other factional warlords there.

Right-wing propagandistic self-delusions certainly do moisten the eye and set the heart aflutter:

"we in America know the power of a freely cast vote!"

"I choose to believe in power of the Afghanistan people and the Iraqi people to overcome this current struggle and and reach for the democracy that as Bush rightfully says shall make the world a safer place."

"Faith that democracy can win out over drug addicts/peddlers and un united warlords! Look at how many millions of the Afghanistan people have registered to vote!"

But in the end that's all they are, right-wing propagandistic self-delusions.

So what, because "we in America know the power of a freely cast vote" we're going to jam it down someone else's throat?

The struggle that the Afghan people and the Iraqi people is for freedom, and it is increasingly becoming a struggle for freedom from our occupation and the fanatical terrorists that our occupation has incited and attracted to those countries.

Voting has never done anything to affect the rates of "drug abuse/peddling" in the US, Rex. Why would that be different for Afghanistan? This is another straw man argument.

Tribal warlords are a part of Afghan culture and history, Rex. We're trying to circumvent that aspect of Afghan culture. Our chauvinistic ignorance about the histories and cultures of these countries is getting in the way of our good intentions.

Occupation and imposed political systems are freedom, Rex?

Yep, ILZ, hammer the message, and don't let the questions get in the way. It's simplism is highly effective on the American proles.

Crude but efficacious.

Very good writing and thinking tonight, InfraBlue.

Infra

I cannot imagine you are an American or you would have posted your state "proudly" under your name.. Nothing but hate America propaganda. If you are an American I would be ashamed of myself if I were you.

We once occupied Japan too! We once occupied Germany also! If this was not a respectable forum I would have a few choice names for you. You have just shown rank pessimism and a defeatist attitude while Americans are doing all they can and footing the bill to bring freedom to Iraq and Afghanistan. I know you have no respect for freedom. Are you saying the Arabs want tyranny? Hahaha! America is only guiding the process of democracy. You have not only insulted America but you have insulted Arabs and their own sensibility. If America was in the Middle East for tyranny we would never have left Germany or Japan to their own governing bodies!

That Arnold pic was for you...

The liberated women in Iraq and Afghanistan would like to tell you what they think of your "theory". You choose to be part of the problem and not part of the solution. You sling your slander at the new governments in Iraq and Afghanistan as if you have the slightest idea of what you are talking about. You are most sadly mistaken.

I do not believe in your negative assessment of the future. Or your extreme leftist America haters you quote. You want the endeavor to fail so America will look bad... You dig up your trash and toss it where you sleep. Well America won't fail and you will eat you words someday. I will be here to feed them back to you so you will never forget how wrong you are. You hate the republicans because they are right and you are most misguided by your hate lies and the twisting of your slanted truth.

I will not even post a detailed rebuttal to your lies, I will just cast my vote for Bush! So will the majority of Americans and you can be part of the extreme left minority and America haters if it floats your boat. It is folly to be wise in the face of such ignorance.

Joe

Where is "the city" Paris? You wouldn't last one day under the Taliban... You think Infra has such good reasoning? Well why don't you go live with the terrorists in Iraq and see how much they like you before they saw your head off and make you spout the Koran... I am sure you will compliment them on their thinking too.

hey rex...we know you're one bad mofo....but tone down the rhetoric will ya?

First, a big pot of chicken soup with matzo balls to nimh. Always happens to me, I work work work at some big project, get through it, and then crash.

Yes, nice writing InfraBlue.

Linkat? You out there? Again, no pressure, but I'm so curious...