C-SPAN2 is once again the best place to watch the debate!

That is not true. On the Iraq thread I showed you sources of when the Bush administration started the drum up for the war they began to recieve doubts about the claims that they were making. Bush ignored those doubts and presented the intellegence reports minus the doubts. So the evidence that Kerry and others from congress saw was misleading so they could not make an informed decision.

Kerry still says that he would vote to authorize the resolution even knowing what he knows now. He still believes that Saddam posed a threat that needed to be dealt with. But not in the way that Bush did it. There was no need to rush to war without letting the process work its course and without a plan and without enough troops and without enough equipment for the troops going in and without a plan for after the fall of Saddam Hussien. (the vote about 87 billion has been explained, take it or leave it but there is no need to go into all again)

The reason that Kerry that thinks that Saddam still poses a threat is simply because he possesed the knowledge of how to build WMD and at some point given his open hostility towards the US could have given that knowledge to others or could have began to build up his own WMD which is the more likely event. However none of that was such a looming threat that we had to rush to war before exhausting all other alternatives.

There are lots of countries with brutal dictators who abuse their own people. If those events were currently taking place at the time of the drum of the war it would been understandable and people would have been behind the war.

Here is anybody's quess, except it's from David Kay:


Former top weapons search David Kay had a different take. "Look, Saddam was delusional," Kay said on the Today show. "He had a lot of intent. He didn't have capabilities. Intent without capabilities is not an imminent threat."


Who else fullfills the definition of someone with good intentions.....
???

Joe

Gee, Joe, are we allowed one guess? LOL

Well its not george bush, i don't believe he has good intentions. but that's just my opinion of the man.

also george bush does carry out his intentions which is the whole problem. He actually has the power to do whatever he takes a notion to.

And they always woik to get mo and mo power.

It's hard woik.

Joe writes:


If you believe John Kerry would agree to or do ANYTHING that George Bush said in 2001 or since, and if you believe that John Kerry voted for the war based on the president's encouragement to do so, I have some great bridges I would like to sell you. If you question George Bush's judgment who believed in his cause, how much credibility should we give a potential president who chose to go with information he knew was flawed? I think you have to be just a bit delusional, or at least myopic, to ignore all the plethora of witnesses out there dating back more than a decade and conclude that this was all George Bush's fault. I also think it is very very very wrong to be declaring a war unjust, illegal, and immoral in the face of the evidence, the wonderful good that has been accomplished, and when we have soldiers on the ground in harms way.

But differences of opinion is what makes the world go around. I will give up at this point and wish you all well.

See? I told you Bush won the second debate.

How Bush Won Round 2
By WILLIAM SAFIRE

Published: October 11, 2004

When pro-Kerry commentators solemnly pronounce Debate Round 2 to have been "a draw" - you know George Bush won that round.

The president won because he went in with a theme spoken by the heavyweight champion Joe Louis, just before his 1946 rematch victory over the lighter, faster Billy Conn: "He can run, but he can't hide." (The Brown Bomber caught up with Conn in the eighth round of that first TV spectacular.)

Bush's debate plan was to keep boring in on the Kerry record: flip-flopping this year on the war, but all too consistently liberal for 20 years on tax increases.

On the war, Kerry almost eagerly made Bush's point, at first saying, "I do believe Saddam Hussein was a threat," and moments later denouncing Bush for being "preoccupied with Iraq, where there wasn't a threat."

The president exploited the contradiction in Kerry's latest policy, which claims the ability to attract troop support from France, Germany and Russia - while agreeing with them that the war was a diversion. To Kerry's "plan" to hold a summit, Bush asked: "And what is he going to say to those people that show up to the summit? 'Join me in the wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place'?"

Although Kerry accused the Bush campaign of "mass deception," he let the president focus on that illogical policy. The Democrat weakly cited recent worrying by Republican Senators Richard Lugar and Chuck Hagel, recited a list of retired generals who endorsed him and embraced Ronald Reagan. Such a stretch for conservative company, followed by a plaintive "We will get tough!," hardly shows strength.

When Kerry complained again of "going it alone," Bush was ready with a powerful counterpunch: "Tell Tony Blair we're going alone. Tell Silvio Berlusconi we're going alone. Tell Aleksander Kwasniewski we're going alone."

This not only showed that Bush knew these allies personally, but could also pronounce Kwasniewski's name, which reminded Polish-Americans that Poland's president had responded angrily to Kerry's brushoff of his country's sacrifices in the first debate. (Next day, Australians re-elected John Howard, a staunch coalition member, who trounced a cut-and-run opponent - good news for coalition leaders.)

When the questioning turned to taxes, Kerry pandered with a liberal's absurd promise not to sign legislation raising taxes on anybody making less than $200,000 a year, neglecting only to say,"Read my lips."

Kerry also blundered with a weird attack on an $84 item in the Bushes' federal income tax return, supposedly from a timber business. "I own a timber company? That's news to me," said Bush, adding engagingly in what was the most natural moment in the debate, "Need some wood?" It turns out that Kerry relied on an Annenberg Web site that later admitted it had been confused, which left the Democratic candidate out on a hardwood limb. Bush was too much the gentleman to point out, now that their income taxes were in dispute, that Mrs. Heinz Kerry paid only 11 percent in 2003 on her $5 million income, while the Bushes paid 28 percent.

(Although every Bush slip gets delighted examination - he called Kerry "Kennedy" and he said, "Internets"; can you imagine? - Kerry's minor gaffes attract little notice. When citing his overseas travel in the first debate, Kerry talked of visiting the old K.G.B. headquarters "in Treblinka square." He meant Lubyanka Square; Treblinka was the Nazi death camp. We all make mistakes.)

As Bush picked up steam, Kerry seemed to lose heart, again evoking Lugar and Hagel, skillfully backing away like Billy Conn. Asked about high damage awards gained by trial lawyers that drive up everybody's insurance premiums, he replied that John Edwards and he "support tort reform," even to limitations on punitive awards. Bush delivered a body blow: "You're now for capping punitive damages. That's odd. You should have shown up on the floor in the Senate and voted for it then."

In an anguishing moment, Kerry said he was against partial-birth abortion (as are most voters, including many pro-choice) and then explained why he voted against the ban that is now law. Countered Bush: "He was given a chance to vote and he voted no. . . . It's clear for everybody to see. And as I said, you can run, but you can't hide."


E-mail:[email protected]


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/11/opinion/11safire.html?oref=login&oref=login&hp

Because William Safire says so?

Here's a novel idea, since we in America are fans of high standards. How about a president who can win a debate by actually winning a debate. Have we set such unbelievably low standards for him that we consider a tie a win for him?

According to Safire it wasn't a tie. Bush won. That will be affirmed in the polls this week I think. We'll see.

Yeah, but that's like saying, according to the Bush campaign Bush won. How about an independent source? I think it was pretty obviously NOT a decisive victory for Bush.

I posted earlier that if I was judging the debate (old highschool debate coach/judge here though that's pretty ancient history now), I would have given Kerry the edge on form and style but Bush won hands down on substance as he kept Kerry pretty much on the defensive.

But the proof will be in the polls this week. It took a few days before the public gave Kerry the win in the first debate. Like I said, we'll see.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6465847

It's quite evident that Fox has a blind spot in her views about most things political even though she tries to balance with "I'm a republican, but..." Any neutral viewer of the debates and polls could see how close the run for the presidency is. Only a myopic viewer would see what Fox sees.

Trying to figure out "intent" in the world leaders may be a search in futility if it's for the intention of a preemptive attack on their country. Bush got the Brits and a few others to follow him into Iraq, but I doubt very much any will follow Bush into the next war on the basis of "intent."

And then there are those who prefer to analyze and criticize other members rather than engage in the debate.

Politics makes for strange bedfellows.

After the revelation of the Nixonian "dirty tricks" (i.e., the thugs actually dared to break into and burglarize the "Watergate"offices of their opposition!) we have to be aware of the extreme lengths that te faction is willing to go to in order to secure their hegemony.

When we witness the same corrupt faction endeavoring to subvert and smother Internet interaction, we should damned well be alarmed...
we should be wise to their deceptions and tactics and find a way to turn these things AGAINST them.

AND WE WILL.

Fox, Exactly what debate are you talking about?