Bush and debating

Painful to watch

Published on October 2, 2004 By Draginol In Politics

For me, watching Bush debate is a lot like watching my son play baseball. While I may root for him to do well, I feel helpless in being able to make him do well.

Like when my son is batting, I try to will it that he'll hit the ball. Similarly, while observing Bush, I try to will it that he'll nail a point.

So when Kerry says lamely, "I consider nuclear proliferation to greatest threat to our nation." I'm using all my mental energy to try to get Bush to say something like "Well Senator, I consider going after the blood thirsty terrorists who are trying to murder Americans to be our top priority."

Bush isn't as quick on his feet as Kerry. Kerry, a former prosecutor, is in his own in having to put together a compelling argument on the fly. Bush defeated Gore in the 2000 debates because Gore came across as a haughty lecturerer. Kerry won't make that mistake.

One might argue that Bush lost the debate on style -- which is what really matters but won it in terms of substance. Bush's arguments are stronger IMO but he isn't able to put those arguments forward in a compelling way.

Kerry's Iraq position is incoherent. Idealogues on the left may be content to parrot the line "Kerry voted for the president to have authorization to use force so that he would have more leverage to get the UN to put those inspectors back." But any clear thinking American is not going to fall for that. The US did not have 200,000 troops sitting in Kuwait as mere bargaining chips. Kerry knew, as did every other senator know, that barring a miracle (i.e. complete capitulation by Saddam) that US troops would be invading Iraq before the hot weather returned (by March 2003 in other words). To argue anything else is simply being naive at best or untruthful at worst.

But that's where being a good public speaker comes into play. Kerry is able to put forth his disengenous position because Bush isn't able to put forward a simple and effective counterargument.

And those of us on the side lines can only look on helplessly. Just like I do when I watch my kid playing baseball.

Comments (Page 2)

joetheblow

on Oct 03, 2004

To put it as succinctly as I can we went into Iraq because after 9/11 we really could no longer to dicker around with outlaw regimes in that part of the world. Saddam had flouted the UN resolutions and cease fire terms for a decade and no one knew what the heck was going on in there. The UN gave Saddam one final chance to comply with his previous obligations and once again he started playing games with the inspectors just like he did before. This time, however, enough was enough and the US and its allies removed him.

I guess then I am mistaken too because I thought we went in because of WMD. In fact, I thought that if Mr. Bush actually spoke more to the fact that Iraq was so against UN resolutions (all of them) and that we can't allow a country to do that post 9/11, more people would have been with him.

Maybe this was Bush being 'sweaty' under the cameras as to all the confusion. I really thought we went in because of WMD's, not Iraq's consitant breaking of UN resolutions. Actually that would have made more sence to me, but ask the American public and all I hear is "Iraq had something to do with 9/11 or they had WMD" not that "Iraq had 10+ UN resolutions and we can't allow a country to continue on this path in a post 9/11 world".

COL Gene

on Oct 03, 2004

The saying of e e cummings comes to mind, "Consistancy is the hobglobben of little minds". Works for me to describe the , "stay the Course" mind of George W.

joetheblow

on Oct 03, 2004

Okay then what about Iran and North Korea? Your arguement does not hold up.
Desert Fox

Well, actually is does Desert Fox. Iraq has about 18 resolutions. You can not say that about Iran or North Korea or or that matter any nation on this planet. Face it, the world openly said Iraq was a major misfit in how it treated its people and how it treated others. In a post 9/11 world you can not allow nations to be so far off the main line and denounce so publicly and yet they (or Iraq in this case) get away with it. Terrorism is based on the reality that there are people who live so poor, so sad, so jobless, so lacking rights, that they are hot beds for terrorist activities

In other words, Iraq became first on the list. I think the bet that Bush made was that to attack Iraq, North Korea would think twice and Iran would have a democratic neighbor. He thought the world would not allow Iraq to become a terrorist hotbed after the war (but he is wrong about that one, the world will just sit and watch and point fingers instead of helping)

Draginol

on Oct 03, 2004

Okay then what about Iran and North Korea? Your arguement does not hold up. Bush went into Iraq for other reasons it is quite clear to me after my own research what those reason were and are. The invasion has made this country less safe not safer. Iraq is not a breeding ground for terrorists and soon they will be on our shores with another attack. Especially if Bush stays in office with his assinine policies. It is the US policies that is the problem with us being attacked. It has NOTHING to do with them hating freedom. I cringe whenever I hear Bush make that statemet. They attack us because they hate freedom that we enjoy. BAH all crap!

How does your point follow from mine? What binding UN resolutions are out there against Iran and North Korea?

There were 17 UN resolutions demanding Iraq comply. None, that I know of, against Iran. Moreover, Iraq is located right in the middle of the part of the world these terrorists come from.

And to say Iraq wasn't a terrorist breeding ground before we invaded seems a bit naive to me.

But feel free to let me know what US policy justifies people flying hijacked commercial airliners into the largest buildings in the world. What is our policy of trying to help the starving people (mostly Muslims) in Somalia? Or maybe our defense of the Muslims in Bosnia during the 90s?

But let's take you at your word - that it's US policies that caused 9/11. If such policies excuse the mass murdering of innocent Americans, then surely the US is totally excused from any deeds it carries out in response. The Bush policy has been fairly straight forward - after 9/11 the US has moved to a policy of cleaning house. It's going to take decades to complete but in 4 years we've gotten rid of the Taliban, sent Al Qaeda into the caves and removed Saddam. In the next 4 years the US will have to help make sure Iraq has a peaceful democratic government and come to terms with Iran. In the 4 years after that you'll probably see North Korea, Saudi Arabia and Syria be dealt with. Hopefully, none of these objectives will require military action.

COL Gene

on Oct 03, 2004

Reply to Draginol

There is no question we are far less safe today than before the Iraq War. In fact the terrorists have become more disbursed and even more difficult to deal with. In addition, we have created an new place for them to plot aginst us-- IRAQ!

Draginol

on Oct 03, 2004

There is no question we are far less safe today than before the Iraq War. In fact the terrorists have become more disbursed and even more difficult to deal with. In addition, we have created an new place for them to plot aginst us-- IRAQ!

Oh, i wasn't aware that you were the final arbiter of reality. I believe we are safer today than we were before then and I consider myself pretty informed.

COL Gene

on Oct 03, 2004

You are at odds with world events. Our own state dept admitted terrorist incidents are increasing. Sec Def said the same thing as well as the Sec of State. Intel est say things are getting more not less dangerous. Tell our military arround the world we are safer. Tell Israel, England, Russia, Spain and this list goes on. Thank GOD we have not had another attack in our country. That does not mean the danger is less!

Lee1776

on Oct 03, 2004

Our own state dept admitted terrorist incidents are increasing. Sec Def said the same thing as well as the Sec of State. Intel est say things are getting more not less dangerous. Tell our military arround the world we are safer. Tell Israel, England, Russia, Spain and this list goes on.

Well dua... The reason why attacks are going up (just before an election) is becuase this is their chance to get someone into the Presidency of the US that will not destroy them. If Bush remains in office, the attacks will drop off because they know the tactic didn't work and will get disheartened. But Kerry is doing his best to provide the Terrorist every bit of hope they need for this one last effort before elections. Just like he did 30 years ago for the North Vietnamese.

It's not CP, but it's true.

That's My Two Cents

russellmz2

on Oct 03, 2004

If Bush remains in office, the attacks will drop off because they know the tactic didn't work and will get disheartened.

do you really think that the attacks will decrease if bush gets reelected? they own entire cities now. we can't keep much secure outside the green zone. hell, some of the hostage kidnappings occurred a few hundred yards from the green zone in broad daylight. they aren't attacking to get bush out of office, they're attacking because they are successfully grabbing territory. as soon as bush is re-elected do you think they're just gonna drop their ak-47s and rpgs and go, "damn, our devious plan failed, time to go back to being po'ed and unemployed?"

Lee1776

on Oct 03, 2004

as soon as bush is re-elected do you think they're just gonna drop their ak-47s and rpgs and go

No, not as soon as re-election. Fewer terrorists will consider going to or stay in Iraq if they know the fight will be tough with Bush. But they will swarm in when they know they can effect our elections and get a man of appeasement in office. But lets be real here, it is still early in this fight and just today the Iraqi Army has retaken cities.

But don't denie that those coming to fight in Iraq was not spurred on by Kerry's Doom and Gloom speeches. The Al Jazzier network airs every sound byte of Kerry preaching this.

That's My Two Cents

COL Gene

on Oct 03, 2004

The ONLY REASON terrorists are killing Americans and the Iraqie people today is because George W. Bush invaded IRAQ! There was No terrorist operation in Iraq before we started the WAR. We have exchanged an Evil Dictatorship for a terrorist operation that could turn into an all out civil war. Way to go George W. He should have read what his father had to say about going into Iraq.

Ciperl

on Oct 03, 2004

It amazes me about how quickly people will just accept whatever the media says they should believe. The following statements come from my own personal experience. In the early 90's, I worked in northern Iraq with the Kurdish refugees. I had to deal with Sadaam's people on almost a daily basis.

You say: " The ONLY REASON terrorists are killing Americans and the Iraqie people today is because George W. Bush invaded IRAQ! There was No terrorist operation in Iraq before we started the WAR."

This is complete hogwash. In Iraq, I would wake up with the slightest noise at night, fearing another attack from Sadaam loyalists. I watched buses and cars explode in front of me (less than 30 feet away), and those explosions were in front of Kurdish schools and hospitals. When a gov't authorizes attacks against innocent civilians, then I call that a gov't who sponsors terrorism. And for all you people who are saying that "IRAQ never had WMDs"... Did you forget that the United States actually sold Iraq biological and chemical weapons. And to prove my point. I personally saw the skin of some Kurds who can into the hospital who had been gas bombed with chemical weapons. And according to the UN, a chemical weapon is a WMD.

WAKE UP - Sadaam, as a dictator, sponsored terroristic activities in his own country. And all you people shouting from the rooftops that George W Bush created the terrorists and has endangered the freedom of the world, you have no idea what freedom is and how valuable it is. Since being back in Iraq, I have seen hope in the eyes of your average citizen of Iraq. Now it is true that many of the Iraq people the media is interviewing are upset about Sadaam not being in power...but that is because they used to be in positions of power. And now they are not in their priviledged position. If you were to go to any average, working class Iraq citizen, you will find a grateful person, just beginning to experience this elusive thing called freedom.

I'm sick and tired of people just repeating what they hear from candidates or ABC/CBS/NBC/FOX/CNN news anchors. Our nation needs to learn to think for itself and not just spout party lines.

COL Gene

on Oct 03, 2004

Many countries have WMD. If we are to attack every country that has such weapons( or could make them) we will be at war all over the world. The danger is not from rogue states liks Iraq that have something to loose if they were to attack the US or any other major power. Our problem is if one of these terrorist groups obtain a nuclear weapon or some types of bio. weapons. Poison gas has much more limited application and could be dangerous in a very limited area it is NOT the danger the other two present. I am a former nuclear weapons officer and know just a bit about the real dangers.

Saddam had no such weapons or a way to deliver them. There are a lot more immediate problems then Iraq. By attacking them we have tied up our military and Intel assets and have stimulated the moslem terrorist groups all over the world. Because of the way Bush went into Iraq, we have weakened our situation with many other countries and with no WMD our credibility is also suspect.. This war was not part of the war on terrorism and Bush has made our situation far more difficult.

sunwukong

on Oct 03, 2004

Something's been bothering me for a while now ...

If Bush is a firm believer in the success or rightness (depending on how the individual ranks one over the other) of his administration's choices and the American public shares these beliefs, then why isn't he playing up his whole administration more as, "elect me and you'll be getting this whole team." If the policies themselves have some cachet, then shouldn't the people responsible for these choices add to his "electability"? If the guy isn't a great public speaker, why keep the focus solely on himself? Why not remind the public about the great team that helped get you this far, and, consequently, if they vote him out the US government will be losing? This is a tactic Kerry can't rely on since he hasn't formed a shadow cabinet of any sort AFAIK.

Or are Americans (I'm asking since I'm not one) solely concerned with the guy at the top of the pyramid even though they don't directly elect him?

ggray97

on Oct 03, 2004

First of all, I think Saddam shipped the WMD's to Syria before the invasion and with Saddam's billions finanacing the WMD's you think Irag was not a threat? Lastly, do you know what a nuclear or bio attack would do to the economy of the US? do you enjoy your car and house? Then, by all means possible, Saddam had to go.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!