Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Nash on October 01, 2004, 08:07:09 PM
-
A day has passed since the debate, and here's how I see it.
Keep in mind, I'm only sharing this because I know how deeply you care about my opinion. Erhm........
Prior to the debate, the Bush campaign had been extremely successful in taking the focus off of the Bush record, and placing it squarely on Kerry's character. "Don't look at our record, because Kerry is a Flip Flopper." (Yes, that's a non sequitur but coming from the Bush team, we should all be used to it by now).
Anyways... Bush's lead was not built upon his policies nor some great confidence in him, but by the simple belief that Kerry just wasn't solid enough to become President.
Last night, the Bush campaign's magic trick was finally revealed for what it was. Forget the ads, forget the Swifters, forget the "flip flopping".... People finally got a chance to see Kerry outside of some concocted kaleidoscope lens.
I don't want to harp on how truly bad Geedub was last night. (http://www.pleasurecaptains.com/favor/howsmall.html) Because I don't think that was ever in contention. People already knew he was a train wreck. The question was, who is the bigger train wreck?
This "lesser of two evils"...
I was thinking about this today... I must be the only person on this BBS that disagrees with that sentiment. Even the socialist communist librahls here seem to support Kerry only grudgingly. It's my belief that even they have succumbed to Rove's crass finesse.
There was an interesting story today....
You know how during the debates, they assemble all these so-called "undecideds" into a room to watch the debate, then hear their thoughts afterwards. Well there was this one guy who, instead of saying "I thought Kerry did well but I'm going to take a wait and see attitude...."..... No, the dude became furious.
He got angry with the reporter in the room after watching a performance by Kerry that simply defied everything he had come to know about Kerry through the media. He felt mislead. Kerry was not the guy that had been portrayed to him.
That's telling.
Because again, Bush's lead isn't due to any confidence in Bush or his policies; it's due to a lack of confidence in Kerry. Very shaky ground to base a campaign on - but of course the Bush team had no choice but to go that route. What were they going to do but attack Kerry - tout Bush's record? Fahgetaboudit.
So... What happens now when Kerry is seen as a viable alternative? Easily capable of being CiC? Presidential. More than viable?
The old house of cards began to crumble last night as people got to see Kerry first-hand.
What happened was.... almost an upheaval. A paradigm shift. The question of Kerry's fitness was answered soundly. What now? We're forced to go back and examine Bush's record. What a shift.....
The flip-flopper rhetoric? Gone. The Vietnam BS? Gone. All of it erased. It no longer holds water. It no longer stands up to any measure of reality or importance. It's certainly not the boogeyman people were led to believe it was.
I could hear it in the spinner's voices today. It was the sound of resignation.... almost (but not quite) of defeat. And we're talking about people whose job it was to go out there and paint a rosy picture.
I could see it in Fox News' completely fabricated article today on how Kerry bragged about his finger nails... then suddenly retracted - replaced by an apology.
I watched it as the Kerry side became so totally energized after very nearly waving the white flag.
I read it in the Bush team's innability to come up with some marginalizing box within which to place what transpired last night.
IMHO.... The jig is up. Finally.
Maybe, just maybe people will wake up out of a long sleep... and stop saying "lesser of two evils". Maybe people will wipe the Rove induced crud out of their eyes and finally see Kerry in his own right, and not for how he's been portrayed. Maybe now, Kerry won't be seen as a weak candidate, a mistake who was in way over his head.
The guy always was, and will continue to be, a blessing to the United States.
And Creamo, if you're wondering? Yes, this is perhaps my gayest post evar! :D
Gentlemen? Keep it civil.....
-
part time senator John Heinz-Kerry is a poser.
-
It really bothers Nash that Bush kicked Kerry's butt.
Reminds me of that old Pottery Barn saying, you know the one, "You break it, you fix it".
Or maybe it reminds Kerry of his time back at "Treblinka Square".
Or was that Cambodia? Doesn't matter, he wasn't at either place.
-
Nice post Nash. :aok
After I read it, a scene from the Blues Brothers movie came to mind for some reason. The scene of the church service,singing, dancing ect. with Belushi,Akroyd, James Brown. :D
Frodo
-
Who gives a shxt what some tree chopping canuck thinks about our presidential candidates? ehhh?
dago
-
It's hard work... it's such hard work...
yawn...
Peter Principle in action...
-
Originally posted by Sandman
It's hard work... it's such hard work..
Bush: "I see on the TV screens how hard it is."
dying on your TV screen is hard work.
-
an interesting opinion and certainly with merit. But the opinion does not represent my views, not by a long shot. I must admit, kerry would make a great prime minister.
-
Nash I completly disagree with you....not that Kerry did well but that Bush did so poorly.
I don't think in my heart of hearts that it's all been a smokescreen, I'm not tha paranoid. BUT, as a person that usually leans to the right I have to say I was disapointed in our presidents performance.
Kerry through the entire debate left himself wide open for several contradictions but Bush just sat there and recited talking points.
Bush could have hammered him on N. Korea and used that to ilistrate the point he was making that Kerry has no stance except that of wich way the political wind is blowing.
To top it off Bush did not speak well at all. I have heard this man speak SOOOOOO much better in the past but last night he was stuttering and stammering to find the words. He was on the defensive the whole time.
Kerry OTOH illistrated his points very clearly....even if they contradicted things he said previously in the debate. He almost took a stance and showed some kind of conviction but even to a preson like me I disagree with his answers.
Just my opinion on the matter.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
It really bothers Nash that Bush kicked Kerry's butt.
No Actually I do think that kerry won the debate.
I wouldnt call it a butt whipping but he won.
And I was initially impressed by Kerrys performance.
then I went over it. and over it and over it again.
I dont think much has changed.
Kerry put forth alot of rhetoric but very liitle in the way of substance
And he still flip flopped.
Wrong war but right ot get rid of hussain.
Sending our troops into battle without the proper gear but yet voted against the the money to send them the gear
Bush didnt perform as well as kerry did but he managed to stay about even when had he appplied himself he could have easily blew kerry out of the water had he just pressed the atrocious voting record which right now I see as Kerrys soft underbelly.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
No Actually I do think that kerry won the debate.
I wouldnt call it a butt whipping but he won.
And I was initially impressed by Kerrys performance.
then I went over it. and over it and over it again.
I dont think much has changed.
Kerry put forth alot of rhetoric but very liitle in the way of substance
And he still flip flopped.
Wrong war but right ot get rid of hussain.
Sending our troops into battle without the proper gear but yet voted against the the money to send them the gear
Bush didnt perform as well as kerry did but he managed to stay about even when had he appplied himself he could have easily blew kerry out of the water had he just pressed the atrocious voting record which right now I see as Kerrys soft underbelly.
I don't. After listening to it again and reading the transcript it was obvious Bush owned him.
-
No kidding... Nader looked completely outgunned. :aok
-
Originally posted by Sandman
No kidding... Nader looked completely outgunned. :aok
The liberals won't let Nader debate.
-
Best moment of the debate:
After Kerry talked about the soldiers not having the protective body armor they needed, Bush pointed out that Kerry voted against buying it for them.
Two blatantly obvious things came from that:
1) Kerry does not support the military like he tries to pretend
2) Kerry is a handsomehunk
Bush owned Kerry!
dago
-
Not quite as bad as Dubya stating that our victory in Iraq happened to fast and his insistance that Hussein had to be disarmed.
-
What's cool now... to me....
Is that all this same BS that was tossed this summer... It looks different to me now.
I'm reading it, and I can practically SMELL the fear coming off of the letters.
-
Originally posted by Nash
What's cool now... to me....
Is that all this same BS that was tossed this summer... It looks different to me now.
I'm reading it, and I can practically SMELL the fear coming off of the letters.
Fear of?
LOL I dont sence fear in either side.
Actually its going pretty much the way I expected it.
the diehard Bush people are swearing their man is the greatest as are the kerry people.
-
Just because someone votes no to body armour doesn't mean they don't support their troops.
Where do you think the money comes from when they purchase these sets of body armor? Nothing against the troops, but theres due place and time and reason. During the Rangers time in Mogadishu, they removed some pieces of their armor to move better, be less weighted down, and to ease off the heat.
As for Bush, for a guy that has problems stating what hes done in office and the 'hard work' he does, that goes to show that he has no power and that theres someone behind the curtains running the show.
Kerry 'flip-flops' because he can and because its when the situation presents itself. The situation in Iraq, about sending them in but less funding it like saying, "I'm going to beat up this guy, but instead of bringing a bat, I'll bring this wrench."
There are so many things to be done in this country and some people just want to see change.
-
Kerry is a true chameleon
From an anti-military and and anti-intelligence dove, he is now the greatest war hawk of all time and only he can get us back on track.
Bush took us into this and I'd like to see how he finishes the job.
At least he did something about terrorists.
-
I kept expecting one of them to say:-
"Anything can happen in the next half an hour" ;)
-
There was no "debate". The scripted questions and the rules of conduct eliminated the possibilty of any real debate.
Scared?? I'm only scared that there are enough canuks that have moved down here to influence the elections. Kerry is the closest thing to a socialist that has been in our government. You say that GWB can't run on his record? Are you insinuating that Kerry is running on his record? If that guys voting record in the Senate, when he actually showed up, was put out for public review, I can only hope that the majority of the people that support him now would understand what he is. My country is not about collectivism. It's not about shared wealth. It's about working your bellybutton off to make your own way and reaping the benefits.
My worst fear in this election is that women will vote democrat because of the abortion issue. Every woman I talk to thinks that every conservative in this country is dedicating their lives to revoking the Roe vs Wade decision. The left leaning media has done more damage than can be measured after countless years of associating conservatives with the far right religious nuts. Most people I know that lean to the right are in favor of abortion rights. Not all, but most. Unfortunatly, this is the issue that most women I talk to base their vote on. The idea that this country can be turned from democratic republic to socialist republic is not even an issue to them.
Every step counts. The Republicans are only a small step better than the Democrats in this. My country needs a new third party leader that will show this.
Where's that breathalizer:D
-
Originally posted by Nash
What's cool now... to me....
Is that all this same BS that was tossed this summer... It looks different to me now.
I'm reading it, and I can practically SMELL the fear coming off of the letters.
Yeah. The moonbats realized the debates aren't going to drag Kerry's campaign out of the crapper.
-
Kerry has an uphill battle. I think its been pointed out no wartime president has ever lost the election.
There is also a block vote on the right that wouldn't budge had Bush sat at the podium and clucked like a chicken. They're voting to keep the gay teachers, illegal immigrants, violent minorities, commie pinko college teachers from sneaking into their kitchen to steal their pot roast. They are quite sure that abstract hoard is at their door.
So this election will be about fear. In spite of all its smug bravado, the hawks want you to be in fear for your life when you walk into that voting booth. Better that then risk people making a rational decision.
I have no doubt, terrorism is more possible in the United States today than it was 20 years ago. But I also know the chance of me dieing to a terrorist act is a lot less than me dieing in a robbery or car crash. I'll be damn if I vote like theres a gun to my head, or buy into a policy of fear.
Sorry ditoheads - this is not the time to be shrinking violets.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
So this election will be about fear. In spite of all its smug bravado, the hawks want you to be in fear for your life when you walk into that voting booth. Better that then risk people making a rational decision.
Spot on.:aok
-
Prior to Thursday, Bush was ahead by 5-15 points in the polls. Even if Kerry gains 2 points, Bush is dead even to ahead by 10. That's still a significant lead. Unless something happens in future debates that is seen as vastly different from the first debate, then any kind of bounce Kerry gets from Thursday will likely not be repeated.
If you all recall this time 4 years ago, Bush was ahead in the polls after losing the first debate. He stayed ahead and won the election.
-
nash... stick with music... you have no understanding whaatsoever about the American people.... you prove it time after time. I think whoever said that kerrie would make a great prime minister hit it square on the head.
I have no idea why American politics is so important to you.... it seems.... bizzare... you are a strange little guy.
lazs
-
The guy always was, and will continue to be, a blessing to the United States.
S! Nash.
I'm looking for a liberal woman with hairy armpits and sandals with green wool socks as we speak, to share this precious BBS moment.
Oh heck, only Melissa Etheridge and friends will do. Her Rock the Vote for Kerry concert is pry the most moving thing I have experienced. Godspeed.
(http://www.chicagogamesinc.org/EtheridgeTwo-Med.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Creamo
S! Nash
lolz :D
-
I think Nash hit the elephant right in the trunk.
The Bush spin machine has been doing great, but they couldn't spin a live debate. Bush had about 5 talking points he had to regurgitate over and over until he just sounded coached and clueless. I think the next debate we should allow GWB to have a mic in his ear, so he can be assisted to not sound stooopid.
It would even things out a might.
Check out the spin meisters now. "Sure Kerry won, but when we really look into what he said...."
ROFL Kerry won, but he did it with the wrong words? Hehehehe.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I have no idea why American politics is so important to you.... it seems.... bizzare... you are a strange little guy.
lazs
Why are the politics of Iraq and Iran important to so many Americans, even to the point were they advocate for an invasion or airstrikes?
funny bunch of people....
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
Kerry has an uphill battle. I think its been pointed out no wartime president has ever lost the election.
Plus in at least the last 4 elections the man that won the first debate didnt win the election.
-
You guys are kooky if you think anything changed much for Kerry after that debate.
If anything, he provided more "flip flop" material to be used against him.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
You guys are kooky if you think anything changed much for Kerry after that debate.
Wishful thinking. We'll know if anything changed when the first polls are released that were taken after the debates.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Wishful thinking. We'll know if anything changed when the first polls are released that were taken after the debates.
here is my guess
1. tell me if you think John Kerry or George W. Bush would better handle the situation in Iraq: Bush 54% Kerry 43%
2. trust more to handle the responsibilities of commander in chief:
Bush 55% Kerry 42%
3. who was more believable? Bush 50% Kerry 45%
4. was more likeable: Bush 48% Kerry 41%
5. Agreed with you more on the issues you care about:
Bush 49% Kerry 46%
6. Had a good understanding of the issues: Bush 41% Kerry 41%
7. Demonstrated he is tough enough for the job: Bush 54% Kerry 37%
Kerry wins on style though...which goes a long way when you can't take a stand on any issues.
So Kerry "won" the debate skill contest, but did nothing to change people's opinion of his ability to lead.
-
I'd agree with anyone that says Bush looked like an idiot.
I'd disagree with anyone that said Kerry's flip-flops were put to rest, or that the attention will be turned completely over to Bush. Wrong.
The moderator specifically asked Kerry about his assertion "Bush lied about WMD". Kerry denied saying it. How long will it take to search the last month's headlines of the New York Times?
Kerry was packaged better, but it was still boloney. Bush should never be allowed to drive a car after dark (deer in the headlights syndrome). Both were losers in my book.
-
Try decaf... youll spray when you talk less...
Cheers IKON
-
"The Race is On
With voters widely viewing Kerry as the debate’s winner, Bush’s lead in the NEWSWEEK poll has evaporated
WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Brian Braiker
Newsweek
Updated: 6:04 p.m. ET Oct. 2, 2004Oct. 2 - With a solid majority of voters concluding that John Kerry outperformed George W. Bush in the first presidential debate on Thursday, the president’s lead in the race for the White House has vanished, according to the latest NEWSWEEK poll. In the first national telephone poll using a fresh sample, NEWSWEEK found the race now statistically tied among all registered voters, 47 percent of whom say they would vote for Kerry and 45 percent for George W. Bush in a three-way race."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6159637/site/newsweek/
-
LOL LOL LOL
did Bush ever have a lead in Newsweek?
real shame skerry had to rely on his four month war hero sandwich tour instead of his 20+ years in the Senate for his qualification to be POTUS and lead - LOL
"I know what combat is ... "
this guy makes me puke...
-
Guys- Kerry won debate #1. Get over it. A minor victory true, but he did win. I watched it, did you guys?
If both sides would put aside the partisan glasses they'd see neither side has anything to crow about.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
If both sides would put aside the partisan glasses they'd see neither side has anything to crow about.
Ya think so? I think it's on account of wearing partisan glasses that anyone could suggest that this thing was a wash.
It was a blow-out.
Y'all may not have liked Kerry's performance, but that's because your mind is already made up.
18% of all voters fall into the undecided category. The race is close - within, say, 3%.
That leaves the potential of someone getting a 15% lead out of these undecideds. Guess who a bunch of them went to last Thursday? And there's another three of these debates to go.
My guess is that next Friday's goes worse for Bush - if that's even possible. He's going to again bring about 20 minutes worth of material to a 90 minute debate. I think the only thing Bush knows how to say regarding the economy is "tax cut - good." On second thought, he's going to run out of things to say in 10 minutes - tops.
Bush is in deep, deep trouble here.....
-
Nash, I watched and saw no blowout.
1. Expressed himself more clearly: Kerry 60% Bush 32%
2. Had a good understanding of the issues Kerry 41% Bush 41%
3. Agreed with you more on the issues you care about : Bush 49% Kerry 46%
4. Was more believable: Bush 50% Kerry 45%
5. Was more likable: Bush 48% Kerry 41%
6. Demonstrated he is tough enough for the job: Bush 54% Kerry 37%
The Gallup poll of registered voters saw what I said I saw right after the debate. They saw Kerry as the better speaker with a better manicure, nothing else.
Isn't that strange that Kerry won the debate, but the registered voters watching still didn't change their opinions on who would be the better leader?
The American people are not going to elect the best debater, we are going to elect the person we trust will do the better job.
It's funny watching all the elation over Kerry's "victory". Kerry did the best he possibly could have imagined and Bush did worse than he has ever done, yet people still feel the same about Kerry afterwards. Not a good sign for Kerry.
-
There's been some heavy scrutiny of Gallup lately... I personally think their stuff is junk.
You've got the same problem as folks are criticizing Rpm and Thrawn about... Basing your conclusion on a single poll.
I think it's fine to use it to give an early indication, maybe... but don't put all yer eggs into that basket.
-
Btw, Nuke....
Originally posted by NUKE
They saw Kerry as the better speaker with a better manicure, nothing else.
I take it you you saw the phoney story Fox News ran before they yanked it and apologized? Nice try, Fox....
What a bunch of tools those guys are....
-
I don't view the polls as much either, but this one backed up what I said in the "it's on like chicken" thread right after the debate. I said almost exactly the same thing.
I saw what I saw and I always make up my own mind about my opinions.
My honest opinion was that Kerry came off as the best speaker, but didn't say anything. He sat up there and spewed lies and mistruths all night.
He came off as a stone cold liar to me, because I know what the man has said and done on his actual record are totally opposite of what he was saying.
Bush came off as tired and irritated, but he has never waivered in what he beleives is the best coarse of action in Iraq. Kerry has taken 50 different positions and EVERYONE knows it.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Btw, Nuke....
I take it you you saw the phoney story Fox News ran before they yanked it and apologized? Nice try, Fox....
What a bunch of tools those guys are....
I did not see the story. You mean he didn't get a manicure?
-
One thing is painfully clear:
The "debate" did nothing to sway people. Absolutely nothing. Those that need swaying most likely did not watch it. Those that did, knew who "won" before it even started.
-
I'm not saying polls are bad or innacurate.
Just some are. And I wouldn't put a whole lot of stock into what I consider to be the best, if that was the only one I saw.
You say that Kerry basically lied up there. I saw a list that breaks down everything Bush said on Thursday, and there was so many innacuracies, so many attempts to mislead, it's silly. Either that, or he really doesn't know what he's talking about.
Wanna compare notes?
You say Bush came off as tired. It looked to me like he took it as a personal affront that he even had to endure questions about his performance as CiC. Rolling your eyes is the new 'Sighs'!
-
Originally posted by Mini D
One thing is painfully clear:
The "debate" did nothing to sway people. Absolutely nothing. Those that need swaying most likely did not watch it. Those that did, knew who "won" before it even started.
So clear that it is painful?
That clear?
Really?.....
It's wild to me to think that you could draw such a conclusion, based on..... er.... what again?
-
Originally posted by Nash
I'm not saying polls are bad or innacurate.
You say that Kerry basically lied up there. I saw a list that breaks down everything Bush said on Thursday, and there was so many innacuracies, so many attempts to mislead, it's silly. Either that, or he really doesn't know what he's talking about.
Wanna compare notes?
You saw a list? I saw "live" most of Kerry's lies, from knowing what he said and done in the past.
Bush innacuracies? List them. I'd take innacuracies over flat out lies any day.
Yeah, let's compair notes.
-
Originally posted by Nash
You say Bush came off as tired. It looked to me like he took it as a personal affront that he even had to endure questions about his performance as CiC. Rolling your eyes is the new 'Sighs'!
Kerry didn't have to answer ONE question regarding his 20 year performance as a Senator, or his voting record on Iraq and funding troops. Kerry's record was ignored.
-
"100,000 Iraqi security forces trained".
The Pentagon says that only about 53,000 have undergone training.
"Three-quarters of al Qaeda leadership has been captured."
Al-Qaida refills its ranks and leadership continually.
"10 million people have registered to vote in Afghanistan." There aren't even 10 million eligible voters in the country.
"Kerry's proposal to have direct talks with North Korea would end the six-nation diplomacy."
Each of the other four countries has held direct talks with North Korea during the six-party process – and China has repeatedly asked the Bush administration to talk directly with North Korea.
"The A.Q. Khan network has been brought to justice."
Khan was pardoned by President Pervez Musharraf. In fact, not a single person involved in his network has been prosecuted anywhere.
"I've increased spending by "about 35 percent" on nonproliferation efforts since I've taken office."
He proposed a 13 percent cut – about $116 million – and much of the increases since then have been added by Congress.
-
Nash, I thought you were gonna list *your* notes. Now I need to spend time trying to verify those.
Are you telling me that you noticed these during the debate?
Even though you looked them up on some sight, is that the best you have?
Man, this won't be pretty.
I'll start by listing *MY* response to your post, not looking up weather or not they are true.
-
I said "I saw a list."
You said "You saw a list?"
Now yer wondering why this list isn't my own notes?
-
Originally posted by Nash
I said "I saw a list."
You said "You saw a list?"
Now yer wondering why this list isn't my own notes?
It's good, I'll play.
Just pointing out that, as you watched the debate, you probably didn't notice these. Was curious what YOU saw during the debate, other than Kerry being a good speaker.
Goes a long way in undertanding your view that it was a blowout for Kerry. If you don't know the issues and can't ID the lies and innacuracies on your own, what did you base your views on?
-
Except for the The A.Q. Khan thing, and having only a general feeling that the proliferation statement had to be garbage, the rest were easy to spot.
-
Originally posted by Nash
"100,000 Iraqi security forces trained".
The Pentagon says that only about 53,000 have undergone training.
"Three-quarters of al Qaeda leadership has been captured."
Al-Qaida refills its ranks and leadership continually.
"10 million people have registered to vote in Afghanistan." There aren't even 10 million eligible voters in the country.
"Kerry's proposal to have direct talks with North Korea would end the six-nation diplomacy."
Each of the other four countries has held direct talks with North Korea during the six-party process – and China has repeatedly asked the Bush administration to talk directly with North Korea.
"The A.Q. Khan network has been brought to justice."
Khan was pardoned by President Pervez Musharraf. In fact, not a single person involved in his network has been prosecuted anywhere.
"I've increased spending by "about 35 percent" on nonproliferation efforts since I've taken office."
He proposed a 13 percent cut – about $116 million – and much of the increases since then have been added by Congress.
1. 100k troops trained: doesn't matter to me *if* Bush was wrong on numbers. 53k? Who defines trained? I trust that we are training the Iraqis the best we can. Electing Kerry won't change this.
2. Al Qaeda leadership: no watermelon they replace leaders. At least Bush took down a lot of the ones responsible for 911.
3.10 mill registered in Afghanistan: I don't know, do you?. I know that Afghanistan is rid of the Taliban and they will have free elections. Number of voters not a concern to the American voter
4. NK talks: NK DEMANDED to ONLY talk with the US as a condition of talks. Bush said screw off, it's not a US/NK issue, not gonna be dropped on our laps as such. It's an issue that must involve the countries of the region. I agree 100%
5. Nuclear nonproliferation: Bush has to apporove of congresses increase in order for it to take affect, so Bush in fact did increase spending.
6. The A.Q. Khan network: no idea about that.
Now get ready to anwer mine.
-
^ huh?
I bet your (what's going on here?) real (?) list is about as based on "fact" as what you just posted.
-
Please re-frame that Nash, didn't understand what you meant.
-
Nevermind... go ahead, bring on the real list that points out Kerry's "lies."
-
okay, but give me a little time. I'm going to read a transcript of the speach and then point them out, all on my own...no links.
-
Kerry:I have a better plan to be able to fight the war on terror by strengthening our military, strengthening our intelligence, by going after the financing more authoritatively, by doing what we need to do to rebuild the alliances
Kerry has consistantly voted to cut military programs, and proposed a cut Intelligence spending AFTER 911 by 1.5 billion. He also missed every public senate intelligence meeting in the year after 9/11.
KERRY: I believe in being strong and resolute and determined. And I will hunt down and kill the terrorists, wherever they are.
He voted against the first gulf war. He says he will hunt down and kill terrorists wherever they are? So he's gonna go into Chechnya, Saudi Arabia, Britain, and every place they are? sure.
But we also have to be smart, Jim. And smart means not diverting your attention from the real war on terror in Afghanistan against Osama bin Laden and taking if off to Iraq where the 9/11 Commission confirms there was no connection to 9/11 itself and Saddam Hussein, and where the reason for going to war was weapons of mass destruction, not the removal of Saddam Hussein.
Kerry voted for the use of force against Iraq. Kerry noted that Saddam had WMD and was a threat to the US. He Said the world was safer now that Saddam was not in power. He saw the EXACT same intelligence as Bush did.
First of all, he made the misjudgment of saying to America that he was going to build a true alliance, that he would exhaust the remedies of the United Nations and go through the inspections.
Bush did go through the UN and did build a true alliance of over 35 countries. The UN even passed a "last chance" resolution, which Iraq ignored. The UN's "last chance" resolution was ignored, exhausting all options. In fact, the ONLY reason inspectors were allowed back into Iraq was that Bush threatened Iraq....nothing to do with the UN
And Iraq is not even the center of the focus of the war on terror. The center is Afghanistan, where, incidentally, there were more Americans killed last year than the year before; where the opium production is 75 percent of the world's opium production; where 40 to 60 percent of the economy of Afghanistan is based on opium; where the elections have been postponed three times.
Kerry thinks Afghanistan is the "center" of the war on terror? Opium? what? The war on terror is GLOBAL and he knows it.
The president moved the troops, so he's got 10 times the number of troops in Iraq than he has in Afghanistan, where Osama bin Laden is.
Kerry knows that Osama is alive and in Afghanistan?
You don't send troops to war without the body armor that they need.
I think that's wrong. Humvees -- 10,000 out of 12,000 Humvees that are over there aren't armored. And you go visit some of those kids in the hospitals today who were maimed because they don't have the armament.
Kerry voted AGAINST funding the troops. FACT. He has always voted against military spending.
And we got weapons of mass destruction crossing the border every single day, and they're blowing people up. And we don't have enough troops there. we have WMD crossing the borer every day? WTF is he talking about?
-
I've got lots more, just posted that because I was worried the text was too much for one post.
-
You better post this other list, because the one you just posted doesn't have any Kerry lies.
-
Originally posted by Nash
So clear that it is painful?
That clear?
Really?.....
It's wild to me to think that you could draw such a conclusion, based on..... er.... what again?
I'm sorry... what thread are you reading?
As far as painfully... there's been a relative wince with virtually every thread you've been a part of big guy. I throw nuke in with that one. Where I draw that conclusion seems to already be clear in this thread.
Now if sandman, MT, grun and martlet could join in... you guys would reach a virtual nirvana.
-
Geez Mini - You are perhaps the biggest drama queen I've ever seen.
Heh.... Ooh cutting!
:rofl
-
Yes, we have to be steadfast and resolved, and I am. And I will succeed for those troops, now that we're there. We have to succeed. We can't leave a failed Iraq.
Steadfast??? Kerry voted for the Iraq war, then called it a mistake. He is resolved when he says the war was the wrong war at the wrong time? Why did he vote against the 87 billion in funds for our troop, becaue he wants to succeed?
hink we need a president who has the credibility to bring the allies back to the table and to do what's necessary to make it so America isn't doing this alone.
and he "brings" our allies to the table by calling them the coalition of the bribed. He discredited every US ally who supported us in Iraq...35 countries.
]first of all, what kind of mixed message does it send when you have $500 million going over to Iraq to put police officers in the streets of Iraq, and the president is cutting the COPS program in America
I thought Kerry said could do better in Iraq?
This president thought it was more important to give the wealthiest people in America a tax cut rather than invest in homeland security
Bush created the homeland security department, one of the largest agencies in US history. And the taxe cuts were not for the wealty, look it up.
The president just said the FBI had changed its culture. We just read on the front pages of America's papers that there are over 100,000 hours of tapes, unlistened to. On one of those tapes may be the enemy being right the next time.
why has Kerry proposed cutting intelligence funding by 1.5 billion then?
And the test is not whether you're spending more money. The test is, are you doing everything possible to make America safe?
In all of his carrer, what has Kerry done to make America safe?
My message to the troops is also: Thank you for what they're doing, but it's also help is on the way. I believe those troops deserve better than what they are getting today.
just sickening. He voted not to fund them.
The United Nations, Kofi Annan offered help after Baghdad fell. And we never picked him up on that and did what was necessary to transfer authority and to transfer reconstruction. It was always American-run.
We asked for UN help from the begining. The UN left Iraq after a bomb went off.
Secondly, when we went in, there were three countries: Great Britain, Australia and the United States. That's not a grand coalition. We can do better.
Yeah, screw those allies and the 33 others, they are chit...we can do better.
Chit, I'm not even halfway through.. too tired now.
I'll continue tomorrow.
-
Still no lies...
Try again tomorrow then.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Still no lies...
Try again tomorrow then.
He lied when he said he had one consistant stance on Iraq.
He lied when he said the US did not have a coalition ( he said 3 countries)
He lied when he said he thought Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time. He voted to authorise it himself.
He lied when he said Afghanistan was the "center" of the war on terror.
He lied when he implied that he knew Osama was alive and in Afghanistan.
He lied when he said the US did not ask for UN help.
He lied when he said "help is on the way" to our troops.
Chit, I can go on ....
-
Originally posted by Eagler
LOL LOL LOL
did Bush ever have a lead in Newsweek?
Yes.
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm
Yet another assumption of yours shot down. :rolleyes:
-
#1) BUSH:
“Of course, we're after Saddam Hussein — I mean, bin Laden. He's isolated. Seventy-five percent of his people have been brought to justice.” [Bush, First Presidential Debate, 9/30/04]
FACT: 19 of The Top 22 al Qaeda Operatives Remain at Large. “Efforts to ensnare the original list of Al Qaeda's most-wanted men are also going slowly. Of 22 top terrorists listed by America in October 2001, only three have been captured or killed…” [Economist, 8/14/04]
FACT: Bush Claims To Have Wiped Out 3/4 Of Al Qaeda, Yet The Organization Is Resurging And Morphing. Despite Bush’s claims over the past several months that “much of Al Qaeda’s leadership has been killed or captured,” new evidence from Al Qaeda double-agent Mohammed Naeem Noor Khan’s computer, seized in Pakistan, shows that a “new generation of operatives…[appears] to be filling the vacuum created when leaders were killed or captured.” According to intelligence analysts, “Al Qaeda’s upper ranks are being filled by lower-ranking members and more recent recruits.” Al Qaeda is “more resilient than was previously understood and has sought to find replacements for operational commanders like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah and Walid Muhammad Salih bin Attash, known as Khallad, all of whom have been captured.” Although several major leaders have been captured, “the new operatives appear as committed to striking the U.S.” [Bush Remarks, 9/14/04; New York Times, 8/10/04; Wall Street Journal, 8/16/04]
#2) BUSH:
“We're spending reconstruction money.” [Bush, First Presidential Debate, 9/30/04]
FACT: Only $1.1. Billion of Reconstruction Funding Has Been Spent: According to U.S. officials, only $1.1 billion of the $18 billion reconstruction package authorized by Congress has been spent - and half of that was for security costs. [Washington Post, 9/15/04; Associated Press, 8/30/04; U.S. News & World Report, 9/20/04]
#3) BUSH:
“Had the honor of visiting with Prime Minister Allawi. He's a strong, courageous leader. He believes in the freedom of the Iraqi people. He doesn't want U.S. Leadership, however, to send mixed signals, to not stand with the Iraqi people. He believes, like I believe, that the Iraqis are ready to fight for their own freedom. They just need the help to be trained…. we've got 100,000 trained now.” [Bush, First Presidential Debate, 9/30/04]
FACT: Interim Prime Minister Allawi Proves Bush Is Exaggerating Number of Trained Iraqi Forces. Allawi: “The training of Iraqi security forces is moving forward briskly and effectively. The Iraqi government now commands almost 50,000 armed and combat-ready Iraqis.” [Allawi, Address to Joint Session of Congress, 9/23/04]
#4) BUSH:
“We'll give you all the equipment you need, and we'll get you home as soon as the mission's done, because this is a vital mission.” [Bush, First Presidential Debate, 9/30/04]
FACT: Soldiers Lacked Armored Vehicles, Still Buying Their Own Equipment as Late as This Year. In late March 2004, the AP reported, “Soldiers headed for Iraq are still buying their own body armor - and in many cases, their families are buying it for them - despite assurances from the military that the gear will be in hand before they're in harm's way. The Portland Press Herald wrote that “In early March, Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, questioned Acting Secretary of the Army Les Brownlee about the shortage of body armor and fortified Humvees for troops serving in Iraq. Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., said after a visit to Iraq in mid-June that U.S. forces still need better armored equipment. Of the 15,000 Humvees in Iraq, about 1,500 to 2,000 are armored, according to the Army.” [Associated Press, 3/26/04; Portland Press Herald, 7/2/04]
#5) BUSH:
“Japan will have a summit for the donors, $14 billion pledged. And Prime Minister Koizumi is going to call countries to account to get them to contribute.” [Bush, First Presidential Debate, 9/30/04]
FACT: Bush Relying on Japanese Diplomacy and Credibility to Get Money Already Pledged Last Year in Madrid: “In addition, a conference of Iraqi donors is set for October in Tokyo, with administration officials hoping for more success than it had at one in Madrid a year ago. While $13 billion was pledged at the time, only about $1 billion materialized, in part because of reluctance to transfer money when security in Iraq is so poor.” [New York Times, 9/25/04]
#6) BUSH:
“We convinced Libya to disarm.” [Bush, First Presidential Debate, 9/30/04]
FACT: Libya's Decision To Disarm Preceded The Bush Administration And War In Iraq. According to Tony Blair, Libya first approached the US and Britain regarding its weapons question as the Iraq war approached. Blair said, “Libya came to us in March [2003] following successful negotiations on Lockerbie to see if it could resolve its weapons of mass destruction issue in a similarly cooperative manner.” The son of Libyan leader Moammar Qaddafi dismissed any link in his father's decision to the war in Iraq or the capture of the former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. Saif Al-Islam Gadhafi told CNN that “the capture of Saddam or the invasion of Iraq is irrelevant” to Libya's announcement. Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment believes that Libya's decision “goes back over 10 years of international pressure on the Qaddafi regime…[the] whole move precedes the Bush administration and precedes the war in Iraq.” [Washington Times, 12/20/03; CNN.com, 12/20/03]
#7) BUSH:
“NATO is helping now [in Iraq].” [Bush, First Presidential Debate, 9/30/04]
FACT: Today there are only 40 NATO trainers in Iraq. [AP, 9/22/04]
#8) BUSH:
“If America shows uncertainty or weakness in this decade the world will drift toward tragedy.” [Bush, First Presidential Debate, 9/30/04]
FACT: Bush and Rumsfeld Send Mixed Messages In Winning the War on Terror.
Bush says we can’t win the war on terror: When asked ‘Can we win?’ the war on terror, Bush said, “I don’t think you can win it.” [New York Times, 8/31/04]
Rumsfeld doubts the U.S. has a long term plan to win the War on Terror. “With respect to global terrorism, the record since September 11th seems to be … We are having mixed results with Al Qaida… Today, we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror. Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?.” [Internal DoD Memo, “Global War on Terrorism,” Rumsfeld, 10/16/03; Reprinted in USA Today, 10/22/03]
#9) BUSH:
“My opponent looked at the same intelligence I looked at and declared in 2002 that Saddam Hussein was a grave threat.” [Bush, First Presidential Debate, 9/30/04]
FACT: White House Manipulated Public Iraq Threat Assessment to Mislead Nation Into War. “The 90-page, classified [National Intelligence Estimate] was deemed insufficient for a Congress deliberating on war or peace. Legislators needed to refer to a public document [called a White Paper], one that the American people themselves could read in order to decide whether Saddam posed an imminent threat…Unfortunately, the White Paper not only condensed but also distorted and manipulated the intelligence in the NIE to paint an even worse threat…Cautious evaluations were converted into assertions of fact, and conclusions were revised, not merely abridged, in order to make the strongest possible case for war.” [Vanity Fair, 5/2004, p. 281]
#10) BUSH:
“We have 1,000 extra border patrol on the southern border, more than 1,000 on the northern border.” [Bush, First Presidential Debate, 9/30/04]
FACT: Bush Wrong on Border Patrol Officers. Based on Customs and Border Protection (DHS) staff briefing on August 16, 2004 on the FY2005 budget request and memos from DHS on September 4, 2004, Border Patrol increased from FY 2001 at 9,821 agents to 10,839 as of September 2004. There are 989 agents on the northern border and 9,850 on the Southern border. In reality, Border Patrol has lost 15 positions - not gained 2000 as Bush asserted. Border Patrol officers have been moved from the Southern Border to the Northern Border under the Patriot Act. [House Select Committee on Homeland Security Ameica at Risk 2/04; Office of Congressional Affairs US Customs and Border Protection; DHS 9/4/04]
-
#11) BUSH:
“We'll be implementing a missile defense system relatively quickly, and that is another way to help deal with the threats that we face in the 21st century. My opponent is opposed to missile defenses.” [Bush, First Presidential Debate, 9/30/04]
FACT: John Kerry Supports Deploying a Missile Defense System That Works. But President Bush is relying on an unproven system that cannot protect the nation from the most imminent dangers we face. The GAO found in April 2004, “as a result of testing shortfalls and the limited time available to test the BMDS being fielded, system effectiveness will be largely unproven when the initial capability goes on alert at the end of September 2004.” In fact, the system has only been tested eight times, most recently in December 2002 - a failed test. Since President Bush announced his intent to deploy in 2004, all subsequent tests have been delayed or cancelled-most recently until November 2004, after the elections. The Pentagon's own Chief Weapons inspector, Thomas Christie, says said he “will not be able to provide a confident assessment of the system's viability ahead of the planned deployment” due to an absence of realistic flight testing. Christie estimates that the system can only hit its target about 20% of the time. [GAO, “Missile Defense: Actions Needed to Enhance Testing and Accountability,” 4/04, pg. 4.; Aviation Week & Space Technology , 9/20/04; The Washington Post, 9/14/04]
#12) BUSH:
“We've allocated $7 billion over the next months for reconstruction efforts. And we're making progress there.” [Bush, First Presidential Debate, 9/30/04]
FACT: Iraqis Won’t See Reconstruction Money For At Least A Year. “Despite President Bush's promise to spend $9 billion on reconstruction contracts in Iraq in coming months, administration and congressional officials said on Thursday it could take more than a year to pay out that much money.” [Reuters, 9/30/04]
#13) BUSH:
On funding for First Responders: “We are doing our duty to provide the funding.” [Bush, First Presidential Debate, 9/30/04]
FACT: Bush Has Cut Funding For First Responders. Bush Cuts Funding for State and Local Homeland Security Grants by $800 Million and training funding in half. Bush cut funding to the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Domestic Preparedness, which supplies a variety of first-responder grants to state and local governments, by $800 million, to $3.6 billion in 2005 from $4.4 billion in 2004. Bush cut state and local grant funding for first responder training, exercise, and technical assistance by nearly half, from $320 million in 2004 to $178 million in 2005. [Department of Homeland Security, 2005 Budget in Brief, http://www.dhs.gov; http://www.omb.gov]
FACT: Bush Cut Resources for Firefighters. George Bush cut grants for equipment and personnel to local fire departments by $246 million in his 2005 budget. According to the International Association of Firefighters, “The FIRE Act grant program has received $5 billion worth of requests,” and “has awarded grants totaling just 10% of that need.” Kevin O'Connor of the International Association of Firefighters said, “This [2005] budget is profoundly disappointing to first responders … It's a continuation of the president's lack of commitment to first responders in general and firefighters in particular.” [http://www.dhs.gov; http://www.iaff.org; UPI, 2/2/04; http://www.cfr.org]
Bush Consistently Cut COPS Program. Bush proposed cuts in the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program in 2002, 2003, and 2004. Bush’s 2005 budget cuts the program by 87 percent. And, according to a secret OMB memo, Bush and Ashcroft plan to cut the COPS program by $43 million in 2006 and freeze funding at that level through 2009. [House Budget Committee Democratic Caucus, 2/6/04]
#14) BUSH:
“There will be elections in January.” [Bush, First Presidential Debate, 9/30/04]
FACT: Bush Administration Sending Mixed Messages On Iraqi Elections.
Rumsfeld Said Elections Will Be Denied To Some Iraqis. Rumsfeld: “If there were to be an area where the extremists focused during the election period, and an election was not possible in that area at that time, so be it. You have the rest of the election and you go on. Life’s not perfect,” Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee. [AP, 9/23/04]
Powell: “It doesn't mean that everybody got to vote on that particular day. What's our turnout on any particular day for a variety of reasons? So, we don't need a 100-percent turnout of every single citizen.” [Fox News Sunday, 9/26/04]
#15) BUSH:
“My administration worked with the Congress to create the Department of Homeland Security so we could better coordinate our borders and ports.” [Bush, First Presidential Debate, 9/30/04]
FACT: White House Opposed Creation of Department of Homeland Security. In October 2001, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said Bush opposed creating Office of Homeland Security position for Ridge. “[T]he president has suggested to members of Congress that they do not need to make this a statutory post, that he [Ridge] does not need Cabinet rank, for example, there does not need to be a Cabinet-level Office of Homeland Security because there is such overlap among the various agencies, because every agency of the government has security concerns,” Fleischer said. [White House Press Briefing, 10/24/01]
#16) BUSH:
“And by the way, we've also changed the culture of the FBI to have counterterrorism as its number one priority. We're communicating better.” [Bush, First Presidential Debate, 9/30/04]
FACT: Many Al Qaeda Recordings Not Being Transcribed. “Audio recordings that relate to Al Qaeda investigations are supposed to be reviewed within 12 hours of interception under F.B.I. policy. But the report found that deadline was missed in 36 percent of nearly 900 cases that the inspector general reviewed. In 50 Al Qaeda cases, it took at least a month for the F.B.I. to translate material. The F.B.I. ‘has not prioritized its workload nationwide to ensure a zero backlog in the F.B.I.'s highest priority cases - counterterrorism cases and, in particular, Al Qaeda cases,’ the report found.” [NYT, 9/28/04]
#17) BUSH:
“Well, actually, he forgot Poland.” [Bush, First Presidential Debate, 9/30/04]
FACT: Actually, Polish Troops Were Not Part Of The Initial Invasion Of Iraq. "Except for a few commandos, Polish troops were not part of the original ground invasion." [Washington Post, 10/1/04]
FACT: President Of Poland Says He Was Misled About WMD In Iraq. Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski told a group of European reporters “But naturally I also feel uncomfortable due to the fact that we were misled with the information on weapons of mass destruction.” [CBS News.com, 3/18/04]
#18) BUSH:
“And the Taliban, no longer in power; 10 million people have registered to vote in Afghanistan in the upcoming presidential election.” [Bush, First Presidential Debate, 9/30/04]
FACT: Bush Exaggerates the Number of Registered Voters. “Human Rights Watch this week said that figure was inaccurate because of the multiple registrations of many voters. In a lengthy report, the respected organization also documented how human rights abuses are fueling a pervasive atmosphere of repression and fear in many parts of the country, with voters in those areas having little faith in the secrecy of the balloting and often facing threats and bribes from militia factions.” [Wash Post, 10/1/04]
#19) BUSH:
“The minute we have bilateral talks the six-party talks will unwind.” [Bush, First Presidential Debate, 9/30/04]
FACT: Six Party Talks Have Stalled Under Bush’s Policies. The Bush administration has acknowledged that the six party talks “will not resume this month despite North Korean commitments to do so.” [Associated Press, 9/28/04]
#20) BUSH:
“Actually, we've increased funding for dealing with nuclear proliferation about 35 percent since I've been the President.” [Bush, First Presidential Debate, 9/30/04]
FACT: Spending To Secure Soviet Stockpiles Down Under Bush. Funding needs to secure stockpiles in the Former Soviet Union were clear at the outset of the Bush Administration, yet in real terms Bush has requested less money on average than the Clinton Administration did in its last year in office - despite a campaign pledge in 2000 to fund Nunn-Lugar. [Bunn and Weir, Securing the Bomb, Arms Control Today, 3/2004]
-
I only saw the highlights of the debate, but I thought Bush aquitted himself reasonably well. If anything, he was guilty of making it too obvious that he was told to say that Kerry was inconsistent...so that was his reply to pretty much everything (on the highlights, anyway).
It was like watching two boxers in the ring...Kerry had a repetoire, but Bush was keeping it simple.
How much of an effect do these debates have (Nixon and Kennedy apart) on the elections anyway?
Ravs
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
blah blah blah
You quote the media as "fact" now?
That worked well with CBS, didn't it?
-
I see Martlet, so you can't actually refute any of the statements, gotcha. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Mini D
One thing is painfully clear:
The "debate" did nothing to sway people. Absolutely nothing. Those that need swaying most likely did not watch it. Those that did, knew who "won" before it even started.
Recent polls seem to indicate you are mistaken.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
I see Martlet, so you can't actually refute any of the statements, gotcha. :rolleyes:
Refute? Heck, I didn't even read them.
-
That's cool, it's totally up to you if you like to keep your head firmly buried in the sand.
Hey if you close your eyes, the monsters can't see you.
-
The consensus here in AH-land:
Kerry won on style (wasn't that what Bush was supposed to win?), and Bush won on points.
The reason:
Kerry mislead or lied.
The record so far:
Multiple Bush lies have been pointed out, zero Kerry lies have been pointed out.
-
Originally posted by Nash
The consensus here in AH-land:
Kerry won on style (wasn't that what Bush was supposed to win?), and Bush won on points.
The reason:
Kerry mislead or lied.
The record so far:
Multiple Bush lies have been pointed out, zero Kerry lies have been pointed out.
Zero Kerry Lies?
-
Well.... in everything you posted that you thought were lies, I spotted one which could be.... actually....
-
Originally posted by Nash
Well.... in everything you posted that you thought were lies, I spotted one which could be.... actually....
which one?
-
Kerry even lied when he said he never said Bush lied about WMD.
Kerry said he never used the "most drastic" word.....but he did.
Kerry is a pathalogical liar.
-
It was:
"This president thought it was more important to give the wealthiest people in America a tax cut rather than invest in homeland security"
You said:
"Bush created the homeland security department, one of the largest agencies in US history. And the taxe cuts were not for the wealty, look it up."
Kerry was essentially saying that the Bush admin didn't invest in Homeland Security. When he used the word "rather". But by creating Homeland Security, Bush did invest in it.
-
from such shallow minds ...
-
You wanna expand on that a little, Eagler?
-
Originally posted by Nash
You wanna expand on that a little, Eagler?
and give you reason to continue ur rabid ranting? no thanks..
-
Didn't think so....
Call everyone shallow and run for it.
Way to go.