Presidential Debate: Who Won?
____________________________________
by Bob Clasen
I thought that Kerry was smoother, more eloquent, a better debater.
I thought Bush could have done much better in explaining his position. But he did make the necessary arguments, in a not entirely artful manner.
On the substance, Kerry seemed tonight to be saying that he intends to persevere in the war until we win because defeat is not an option.
But Kerry did not convince me that his constant practice of saying that this is the “Wrong War at the Wrong Place at the Wrong Time” is going to help to win the war. To say that the present war is a “colossal mistake” a grand “diversion” from the real war on terror does not help to motivate anyone to win the war. How is this going to motivate other countries to join the coalition? He says we should have spent the 200 billion dollars on school lunches and other important programs. If the war is such a colossal mistake, isn’t the thing to do to pull out and not waste any more soldiers or money on such a grand diversion from the real war on terror?
It is discouraging to our troops, discouraging to our allies, discouraging to the people of Iraq and encouraging to our enemies, the terrorists who are “pouring over the borders” in Iraq to talk like this. It does not help to create the necessary political will to persevere to win the war that Kerry claims must be won.
Kerry tried to argue that all his seemingly conflicting positions are actually consistent, if understood correctly. I did not find his argument intelligible, let alone persuasive.
____________________________
by Bob Clasen
I thought that Kerry was smoother, more eloquent, a better debater.
I thought Bush could have done much better in explaining his position. But he did make the necessary arguments, in a not entirely artful manner.
On the substance, Kerry seemed tonight to be saying that he intends to persevere in the war until we win because defeat is not an option.
But Kerry did not convince me that his constant practice of saying that this is the “Wrong War at the Wrong Place at the Wrong Time” is going to help to win the war. To say that the present war is a “colossal mistake” a grand “diversion” from the real war on terror does not help to motivate anyone to win the war. How is this going to motivate other countries to join the coalition? He says we should have spent the 200 billion dollars on school lunches and other important programs. If the war is such a colossal mistake, isn’t the thing to do to pull out and not waste any more soldiers or money on such a grand diversion from the real war on terror?
It is discouraging to our troops, discouraging to our allies, discouraging to the people of Iraq and encouraging to our enemies, the terrorists who are “pouring over the borders” in Iraq to talk like this. It does not help to create the necessary political will to persevere to win the war that Kerry claims must be won.
Kerry tried to argue that all his seemingly conflicting positions are actually consistent, if understood correctly. I did not find his argument intelligible, let alone persuasive.
____________________________
Comments
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
I think you understand that I place a very high degree of importance on the credability of our leaders. Bush failed to convince me that the war was necessary or that we are safer today BECAUSE OF IRAQ'S DEFEAT MILITARILY.
Kerry has raised a theoretical difference in approach that can not be proven one way or the other. The right seems to appoach foreign policy like Custer and the Indians. They resent the "global test" suggested by Kerry. We don't need friends. I think if the threat were imminent, then screw the rest of the world. But if your wrong, then you deserve to be critisized because we do need allies. Not every problem can be solved by just bombing an annoying nation.
Based upon the war's after intelligence, the war wasn't needed to prevent an imminent threat. Thus Kerry's argument is sound.
However, Kerry isn't going to pull out of Iraq and leave disaster any more than Bush will. And that doesn't mean a disaster - i.e. a CIVIL WAR isn't inevitable.
I admire Bush for sticking to his guns, because his constituents drive pickups with gun racks, watch NASCAR, listen to country or Christian music, say sempre fi, OR ARE VERY RICH. But to the thinking.....
staying on message just shows a contempt for those that don't swallow the entire Bush-Cheny Adgenda.
He still looks like he will win. I think the Cheney-Ewards debate may be even more entertaining.
I did record the debate and will watch even though I know the ending, depending on which review you read.
Can't wait to hear Bush defend himself on National issues such as environment and jobs.
Hey, maybe that's why I'm working nights, its GWs fault!
cheers