![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rowynI was running A Game of October Thursday night, and accordingly I didn't watch the presidential debate. Admittedly, I probably wouldn't have watched it even if I hadn't had other plans. For one thing, I would've had to plug in a TV set to do so. And find the rabbit ears that are around somewhere. Oh, and figure out what stations we can actually tune in with rabbit ears. Come to think of it, it might've been easier to find a webcast version, if there was one.
But I was curious, so I made my way through a transcript over the course of Friday and this morning. I'm a couple of days behind on LJ, but I expect my friends list will be peppered with post-debate commentary. I wanted to finish the transcript before I got to those entries.
It might be nice to make up my own mind for once.
Didn't quite work out; I wound up hearing about the debate from two of my Republican friends before I finished reading the transcript. But I don't think that made a big difference in my final opinion on it.
Everyone I've spoken with says that Senator Kerry won the debate, from a rhetorical standpoint. I'm told he looked better and sounded better. That shows even in the transcript: Senator Kerry made fewer grammatical errors, and was less likely to correct his word choice. The difference between the two of them in the opening of the transcript is stark: the senator's words read like an essay, while the president's are clearly those of a man speaking.
But I do miss the experience of seeing their delivery. I wonder if I would have found Senator Kerry more persuasive if I'd seen the debate?
While reading the transcript, I took some notes on what I was thinking about what was being said. For what they're worth, here they are.
There is a part of me that agrees, very strongly, with President Bush on one thing: that Senator Kerry is making a strategic error in calling Iraq "the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time". This is independent of whether or not the statement is true, in fact. Emphasizing "it was a collossal error of judgement" is terribly demoralizing. It is a soundbite that makes you think "so we need to stop, we need to get out, we need to correct this terrible error." I don't think that Senator Kerry means that -- he says that he's committed to staying in Iraq and creating a free and peaceful nation.
But that's not the effect of those strong words. The effect is to make us feel weak when we still need to be strong, to make us want to retreat when we need to stand our ground.
I'm not sure how I feel about that, overall. I generally believe in honesty and admitting errors, so if Senator Kerry thinks he and the president made a mistake in authorizing this war, I ought to favor Senator Kerry saying as much. But in these particular circumstances, I'm very uneasy with it. I want the focus in Iraq to be "what do we do next?" not naval-gazing over whether we did the right thing. When we've won or surrendered, then we can argue over what was a mistake or not. While we're still fighting, I don't want to argue about how we got here.
But is that a fair thing for me to ask? Iraq is the central question of the current presidency. It's the most important thing that President Bush is responsible for, and if Sen. Kerry wins, it will be his largest responsibility. (I think that many other things are more important to America herself, -- the economy, civil rights, health care, etc. -- but those are not issues dominated by the presidency. Foreign policy is. Especially wartime policy.) Anyway, I'm not sure it's fair of me to say "Senator Kerry shouldn't ask this question, or make this statement, because it makes us look bad." Democracy isn't about looking good, and democracy shouldn't be shoved to one side for every conflict. Not sure how I feel about that.
I should note that I don't see an inherent contradiction in this argument. There's nothing innately wrong with him voting for the war two years ago and thinking it was a mistake now. New information emerges. Fair enough. There's nothing contradictory about thinking the war was a mistake and yet still wanting to see it through to victory, either. That's a nuanced position, and people are allowed to have nuanced positions without it making them indecisive. But I still feel in my gut that the nuanced position isn't as strong a stance to take, and that in a war, you want all the strength you can get.
Another Iraq point that Kerry made, and that I found interesting, was the notion that our soldiers aren't as well-armored or equipped as they could be. I'd like to hear more about that -- this is the first I've heard on that count.
Which leads me to something Senator Kerry does which *does* seem inconsistent to me. Through the debate, he tries to cast himself as 'the right person to support soldiers in Iraq'. Yet he also hammers on President Bush repeatedly for spending too much money on Iraq. [Fact check: that $200 billion figure he threw around was wrong. I love this fact check article. I wanna see more on that]. OK, so in the senator's version of the world, the war effort is supposed to be funded by France and Russia or something. I guess this is how he can get away with saying the president isn't sending enough support at the same time that he's saying the president is spending too much. But, personally, I don't thik the senator is going to be able to pull off a coalition to *fund* Iraq. We had UN support and a coalition going into Iraq in '90, but America still did most of the spending and most of the dying. America does most of the funding for the *UN*. Hello, we're the economic and political powerhouse of the world; we are that rich guy who doesn't deserve a tax break. If we want something done, we pay for it.
And Senator Kerry's response when President Bush brought up his no-vote on the $87 billion appropriations bill was positively cringe-worthy. "when I talked about the $87 billion, I made a mistake in how I talk about the war. But the president made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is worse?" Again, *this* makes him come across as inconsistent, and it sure doesn't give me confidence that he truly plans to carry through on Iraq. The whole thing makes it sound like his whole plan is to get the foreign aid for Iraq, which would be nice if he can pull it off. But if he can't, what *is* he going to do?
I liked President Bush's response to "What criteria would you use to determine when to start bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq?" I know people are supposed to love timetables and that it seems very strategic to know when you're going to leave, and evasive to say 'when the job is done'. But 'when the job is done' is the answer I want. I don't want to hear 'in six months' [Fact check: when the president accuses his opponent of saying, "Well, get me elected, I'll have them out of there in six months", that's wrong, too] or in five years or whatever. I don't think we're to which supposed to know the time frame at this stage, and I certainly don't want us to commit to a time frame and when the time's up, declare "We won, the South Vietnmaese can take it from here."
I appear to be more pro-Bush than I realized. This is probably because so much of the debate is taken up by Iraq. At the time the war started, I was uncertain as to whether or not this was the right move. But one thing I've never doubted is that, once we went in, we were supposed to stick to it and do everything possible to make Iraq stable and free. I feel confident that President Bush shares this committment. (Wow. It feels so strange to say that: I am confident a politician agrees with me. How odd.) Anyway, I don't feel the same way about Senator Kerry. He may say now that he'll support our troops in Iraq, but the sense I get is that this means replacing them with someone else's troops. If he can't pull off his vastly increased foreign support, I don't know what he'd do. But my instincts say that he'd pull America out of Iraq if world opinion remained against an occupation -- even if Iraq was still a mess.
When Sen. Kerry is asked what he would do differently on homeland security, he spent most of his response attacking the president for what he hasn't done, which annoys me. It annoys me even more that he chooses to say President Bush isn't doing enough; no mention made of the potential for abuse in the Patriot Act, for example. I guess if I want someone worried about civil liberties, I'll need to look elsewhere.
Anyway, OK, he'll fund COPS programs and firehouses (firehouses are funded federally?) and protect nuclear and chemical plants. Not sure what proposed protections are for nuclear chemical plants; I should research that. And Sen. Kerry wants to secure the former Soviet Union's nuclear materials; bully for him, because that's certainly a job worth doing.
Not sure any of this is worth a tax increase (or "reversal of the last tax cut", if you prefer.) Nobody's gonna score any points with me talking about tax increases on "the rich". I don't like taxes, but I positively LOATHE targeted increases and cuts alike. Oh, yes, that's the problem with the current tax code -- it's too SIMPLE! Let's make it more COMPLICATED! What an improvement! *ahem*. Tangent, ignore me.
Does Kerry really favor joining the International Criminal Court? Apparently, he does favor the Kyoto treaty. Ooog, not scoring any points with me on these, either.
Oooh, they started this *really* interesting discussion on what we're doing in North Korea. Much too short. Very strange, with President Bush saying that the six-way talks including China, Russia, Japan, and South Korea were effective (are they? no idea, though it sounds like an excellent idea) while Senator Kerry thinks we should hold bilateral talks (why? not clear.) This was just long enough to get me interested without explaining anything satisfactorily. Hmph.
It's nice that they both took pains to show some personal respect for each other. Kudos to them both for that.
I'm looking forward to the next debate. Maybe I'll even watch it next time.
But I was curious, so I made my way through a transcript over the course of Friday and this morning. I'm a couple of days behind on LJ, but I expect my friends list will be peppered with post-debate commentary. I wanted to finish the transcript before I got to those entries.
It might be nice to make up my own mind for once.
Didn't quite work out; I wound up hearing about the debate from two of my Republican friends before I finished reading the transcript. But I don't think that made a big difference in my final opinion on it.
Everyone I've spoken with says that Senator Kerry won the debate, from a rhetorical standpoint. I'm told he looked better and sounded better. That shows even in the transcript: Senator Kerry made fewer grammatical errors, and was less likely to correct his word choice. The difference between the two of them in the opening of the transcript is stark: the senator's words read like an essay, while the president's are clearly those of a man speaking.
But I do miss the experience of seeing their delivery. I wonder if I would have found Senator Kerry more persuasive if I'd seen the debate?
While reading the transcript, I took some notes on what I was thinking about what was being said. For what they're worth, here they are.
There is a part of me that agrees, very strongly, with President Bush on one thing: that Senator Kerry is making a strategic error in calling Iraq "the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time". This is independent of whether or not the statement is true, in fact. Emphasizing "it was a collossal error of judgement" is terribly demoralizing. It is a soundbite that makes you think "so we need to stop, we need to get out, we need to correct this terrible error." I don't think that Senator Kerry means that -- he says that he's committed to staying in Iraq and creating a free and peaceful nation.
But that's not the effect of those strong words. The effect is to make us feel weak when we still need to be strong, to make us want to retreat when we need to stand our ground.
I'm not sure how I feel about that, overall. I generally believe in honesty and admitting errors, so if Senator Kerry thinks he and the president made a mistake in authorizing this war, I ought to favor Senator Kerry saying as much. But in these particular circumstances, I'm very uneasy with it. I want the focus in Iraq to be "what do we do next?" not naval-gazing over whether we did the right thing. When we've won or surrendered, then we can argue over what was a mistake or not. While we're still fighting, I don't want to argue about how we got here.
But is that a fair thing for me to ask? Iraq is the central question of the current presidency. It's the most important thing that President Bush is responsible for, and if Sen. Kerry wins, it will be his largest responsibility. (I think that many other things are more important to America herself, -- the economy, civil rights, health care, etc. -- but those are not issues dominated by the presidency. Foreign policy is. Especially wartime policy.) Anyway, I'm not sure it's fair of me to say "Senator Kerry shouldn't ask this question, or make this statement, because it makes us look bad." Democracy isn't about looking good, and democracy shouldn't be shoved to one side for every conflict. Not sure how I feel about that.
I should note that I don't see an inherent contradiction in this argument. There's nothing innately wrong with him voting for the war two years ago and thinking it was a mistake now. New information emerges. Fair enough. There's nothing contradictory about thinking the war was a mistake and yet still wanting to see it through to victory, either. That's a nuanced position, and people are allowed to have nuanced positions without it making them indecisive. But I still feel in my gut that the nuanced position isn't as strong a stance to take, and that in a war, you want all the strength you can get.
Another Iraq point that Kerry made, and that I found interesting, was the notion that our soldiers aren't as well-armored or equipped as they could be. I'd like to hear more about that -- this is the first I've heard on that count.
Which leads me to something Senator Kerry does which *does* seem inconsistent to me. Through the debate, he tries to cast himself as 'the right person to support soldiers in Iraq'. Yet he also hammers on President Bush repeatedly for spending too much money on Iraq. [Fact check: that $200 billion figure he threw around was wrong. I love this fact check article. I wanna see more on that]. OK, so in the senator's version of the world, the war effort is supposed to be funded by France and Russia or something. I guess this is how he can get away with saying the president isn't sending enough support at the same time that he's saying the president is spending too much. But, personally, I don't thik the senator is going to be able to pull off a coalition to *fund* Iraq. We had UN support and a coalition going into Iraq in '90, but America still did most of the spending and most of the dying. America does most of the funding for the *UN*. Hello, we're the economic and political powerhouse of the world; we are that rich guy who doesn't deserve a tax break. If we want something done, we pay for it.
And Senator Kerry's response when President Bush brought up his no-vote on the $87 billion appropriations bill was positively cringe-worthy. "when I talked about the $87 billion, I made a mistake in how I talk about the war. But the president made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is worse?" Again, *this* makes him come across as inconsistent, and it sure doesn't give me confidence that he truly plans to carry through on Iraq. The whole thing makes it sound like his whole plan is to get the foreign aid for Iraq, which would be nice if he can pull it off. But if he can't, what *is* he going to do?
I liked President Bush's response to "What criteria would you use to determine when to start bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq?" I know people are supposed to love timetables and that it seems very strategic to know when you're going to leave, and evasive to say 'when the job is done'. But 'when the job is done' is the answer I want. I don't want to hear 'in six months' [Fact check: when the president accuses his opponent of saying, "Well, get me elected, I'll have them out of there in six months", that's wrong, too] or in five years or whatever. I don't think we're to which supposed to know the time frame at this stage, and I certainly don't want us to commit to a time frame and when the time's up, declare "We won, the South Vietnmaese can take it from here."
I appear to be more pro-Bush than I realized. This is probably because so much of the debate is taken up by Iraq. At the time the war started, I was uncertain as to whether or not this was the right move. But one thing I've never doubted is that, once we went in, we were supposed to stick to it and do everything possible to make Iraq stable and free. I feel confident that President Bush shares this committment. (Wow. It feels so strange to say that: I am confident a politician agrees with me. How odd.) Anyway, I don't feel the same way about Senator Kerry. He may say now that he'll support our troops in Iraq, but the sense I get is that this means replacing them with someone else's troops. If he can't pull off his vastly increased foreign support, I don't know what he'd do. But my instincts say that he'd pull America out of Iraq if world opinion remained against an occupation -- even if Iraq was still a mess.
When Sen. Kerry is asked what he would do differently on homeland security, he spent most of his response attacking the president for what he hasn't done, which annoys me. It annoys me even more that he chooses to say President Bush isn't doing enough; no mention made of the potential for abuse in the Patriot Act, for example. I guess if I want someone worried about civil liberties, I'll need to look elsewhere.
Anyway, OK, he'll fund COPS programs and firehouses (firehouses are funded federally?) and protect nuclear and chemical plants. Not sure what proposed protections are for nuclear chemical plants; I should research that. And Sen. Kerry wants to secure the former Soviet Union's nuclear materials; bully for him, because that's certainly a job worth doing.
Not sure any of this is worth a tax increase (or "reversal of the last tax cut", if you prefer.) Nobody's gonna score any points with me talking about tax increases on "the rich". I don't like taxes, but I positively LOATHE targeted increases and cuts alike. Oh, yes, that's the problem with the current tax code -- it's too SIMPLE! Let's make it more COMPLICATED! What an improvement! *ahem*. Tangent, ignore me.
Does Kerry really favor joining the International Criminal Court? Apparently, he does favor the Kyoto treaty. Ooog, not scoring any points with me on these, either.
Oooh, they started this *really* interesting discussion on what we're doing in North Korea. Much too short. Very strange, with President Bush saying that the six-way talks including China, Russia, Japan, and South Korea were effective (are they? no idea, though it sounds like an excellent idea) while Senator Kerry thinks we should hold bilateral talks (why? not clear.) This was just long enough to get me interested without explaining anything satisfactorily. Hmph.
It's nice that they both took pains to show some personal respect for each other. Kudos to them both for that.
I'm looking forward to the next debate. Maybe I'll even watch it next time.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-10-02 09:55 am (UTC)North Korea openly wants bilateral talks (and has since their nuclear reactor program was declassified [2002]). I presume it's an attempt to change the format to something ineffective. There are good reasons to want Red China involved, and (barring ICBMs or reliable Airbus reprogramming), North Korea isn't a direct threat to anywhere in the U.S. other than Alaska and Hawaii. However, their being able to reach the West Coast is an issue if you're in Kansas.
Incidentally, I'm somewhat paradoxed about that situation.
IMO, G.W.Bush forced North Korea to develop breeder nuclear reactors by attempting to restrict their oil imports. However, I think that (ultimately) just about everyone that can technically and politically manage breeder reactors should have them, if they can't get into near-earth orbit on their own.
Problem is, the current government of North Korea can't politically handle them. [How many governments derive substantial revenue from the black market? North Korea does.]
Breeder Reactors
Date: 2004-10-02 10:18 am (UTC)The (operating) reactor on Yongbyon only produces about 5 megawatts of power and is not a significant contributor to their electrical power needs (but would significantly help with any nuclear weapons program). I would be amazed if there wasn't a way to generate more than 5MW of power by using the funds spend on Yongbyon to buy fuel oil, so North Korea being "forced" to reprocess plutonium (and remove the seals on the fuel rods) doesn't seem like a natural way to look at the history on this.
Re: Breeder Reactors
Date: 2004-10-02 10:46 am (UTC)North Korea does not have to spend "funds" internationally in any recognizable sense to keep that nuclear program going. At least, until the spare parts run out. North Korea does have to spend "funds" internationally recognizably to import fuel oil. And the CIA-estimated value of their total exports for 2002 was U.S.$1.044 billion. (Proportionally, North Korea's trade deficit is awesome.)
no subject
Date: 2004-10-02 11:24 am (UTC)Now what do we do about it?
http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/other/failheed.htm
===|==============/ Level Head
no subject
Date: 2004-10-02 04:32 pm (UTC)I need convincing that
no subject
Date: 2004-10-02 05:32 pm (UTC)===|==============/ Level Head
Inhaling arithmetic.....
Date: 2004-10-02 07:51 pm (UTC)[Following calculations assume I'm not blasted on scale factors...proportionality to GDP calculations are stretching my credulity. Raw Data sources: CIA factbook, DoE energy forecast.]
North Korea's 2001 oil consumption was estimated as 85,000 bbl/day. At $23.71/bbl (2002 typical price for the U.S.), this is ~36% of total value of imports, or ~71.2% of total value of exports. Compared against GDP: ~0.3%.
It's theoretically possible for North Korea to import the oil without resort to subsidies. However, proportionately the importation costs are substantially smaller for the U.S. in terms of import/export values, and phenomenally smaller in terms of GDP [~0.003%].
Re: Inhaling arithmetic.....
Date: 2004-10-02 10:20 pm (UTC)I'm toao impatient to think this morning :)
Date: 2004-10-02 10:03 am (UTC)For one thing, the HMV's have this neat armor plating kit which essentially changes them into light afv's rather than heavy motor pool. I'll try to dig up the exact reference, but Fred Kaplan's "War Stories" thing in slate ran something about this a while ago...I'm not sure if that's the end of it or not...I think they might be short of body armor too.
On a related topic, while I firmly believe strategic missile defense is a good thing, I also believe we need to do considerably more work on two critical aspects: complex software systems and sensor/guidance tech. Bush has made a huge error in the amount of money he has thrown at the neo-SDI project. Both of these tech areas are close to hopeless right now, in terms of what is needed for the task and what we have...and so Bush has squandered an amazing amount of money that isn't going to have a significant effect on making us safer.
It is true that you can learn something by doing and by tinkering around...however, there is still loads of theoretical research to be done. And pure research has irregular gains...you never know if you're in a Manhattan project situation...just on the verge of a paradigm shift...or if you're in the AI situation...constantly promising fantastic things and failing to deliver them becuase the task keeps growing new obstacles as fast as you get breakthroughs...
There is _so_ much basic security work that needs doing (ports and borders, human data sifters, disaster preparedness, rapid-response teams for when (it will happen) a "spectacular" happens again to try and get anyone involved picked up ASAP... For Bush to funnel resources to one problem (protecting against North Korean nukes) that is relatively remote and difficult to predict and budget for from something concrete, immediately pressing, and fairly well defined.
(I just don't see Kim the Younger wanting to have his society glazed. While he's a lying fool in most regards, I think he's honest that he wants these mainly for defence (and to bully his neighbours a bit, but annoying as that is, it isn't critical to American security))
Now, it's not like the democrats don't ever do pork barrel projects too...and Kerry nor the democrats have raised this argument...so I guess unfortunately, again, we're in a case where neither candidate has a good position on an important issue. So once again I end up saying "A pox on both their houses"....
(and yah, for me, this isn't thinking...just expelling prefabricated idea clusters)
Re: I'm toao impatient to think this morning :)
Date: 2004-10-02 10:38 am (UTC)Look at his routing of resources to his weapons development, and routing it away from the basic sustenance of his people. The starvation rate there is terrible, and the US assistance that SHOULD have helped this did little, as Kim controlled where it went.
He is not after "defense". Who would have attacked him?
I generally agree on the anti-missile aspects, though AI is much more successful in its spin-offs. North Korea could have a nuclear weapon in our harbors now, just as Iraq would have likely done by this time.
Part of the SDI effort involves that detection, and that, at least, is very worthwhile.
===|==============/ Level Head
Re: I'm toao impatient to think this morning :)
Date: 2004-10-02 04:42 pm (UTC)If that actually held up under detailed investigation, that would indirectly confirm my suspicion that Kim the Younger may not have significant control over the North Korean government bureaucracy.
Re: I'm toao impatient to think this morning :)
Date: 2004-10-02 05:28 pm (UTC)Ted Kennedy.
He was allowed to continue on. But they did give him a hard time. ];-)
===|==============/ Level Head
no subject
Date: 2004-10-02 10:31 am (UTC)In large measure, it was. On the other side. The great majority of Hussein's military hardware came from France and Russia. French Mirage and Russian MiG fighters made up Hussein's air force, and we're finding more of these buried in the desert for a rainy day. (Actually, a "rainy day" would make them harder to dig up, but...)
Side note: The US has provided Iraq, decades ago, less than 1% of its military hardware and supplies. Russia/Soviet Union, more than 57%. The next largest contributor is France. We are often accused of "arming Hussein", but the reality shows a different picture.
We are, as Mr. Kerry continually stressed, bearing about 90% of the burden currently. (This number is a bit misleading, as non-US forces were more than 20% of the early involvement. Since then, we've added a great many more people, changing the percentage.)
There is no scenario that anyone has ever suggested that would NOT have us bearing the majority cost. The difference is arguing 75% versus 85%. It is of no real consequence, as the French, Russians, others and Germany (FRoGs) were owed billions of dollars by Hussein, were actively seeking on his behalf to lift the sanctions, were opposing US efforts to interrupt his WMD development, and had already cut deals with Hussein to take over his oil industry and give him huge kickbacks as soon as the sanctions were lifted.
Germany and France have already said publicly that they will NOT send troops to Iraq with a Kerry presidency. Kerry could conceivably change their minds, by paying Hussein's debts to them out of the US taxpayers' pockets, and by giving them Hussein's previous deals on oil.
The UN actively would like to see an Iraqi government hostile to the US. It is becoming, every day, more pro-radical Muslim in its approach.
What is not much talked about is that Sudan is Muslim Arabs in the north of the country selling oil (for many years!) and non Muslim blacks in the south LIVING where the oil actually is. Pipelines carry it from the poor desert South to the rich North, and the people native to that region are being starved into oblivion. The Muslims are doing this because, were the South to succeed in its goal to be a separate country, IT would be rich and the North poor.
Thus, the UN will take no action that will interfere with this process. And the "criminals" in Sudan committing the atrocities and genocide ARE the government. Were Bush to attempt to help, you will instantly hear "It's another oil war!" from anti-war protestors.
===|==============/ Level Head
no subject
Date: 2004-10-02 10:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-02 11:06 pm (UTC)That US-only-negotation business has not had impressive results with NK. And it is indeed what they would prefer.
===|==============/ Level Head
no subject
Date: 2004-10-02 11:27 am (UTC)http://cns.miis.edu/research/korea/index.htm
===|==============/ Level Head
no subject
Date: 2004-10-02 01:41 pm (UTC)At first, I thought it was a real weakness that Bush repeated himself over and over and over again. But upon reflection, the viewing audience may only be able to remember one or two "take away" points from the debate. While Bush hammered on those (which bored me, and made him seem insubstantial), Kerry was trying to make as may points as possible. In the final analysis, Bush's tactic may have been the wiser.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-02 02:17 pm (UTC)I agree with your perception of Mr. Bush's performance, and was disappointed by it. As I indicated to my Lady at the time, I was possessed of an irrational feeling of wanting to take over for Mr. Bush.
He is doing the right thing, but managed to make himself look amateurish in the debate. That cost could be huge, if it causes people to elect the person who does the wrong thing but looks smoother doing it. That is his opponent's legacy, in my opinion.
===|==============/ Level Head
no subject
Date: 2004-10-02 04:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-02 02:12 pm (UTC)I do think Kerry was the better speaker. Bush's umming and uhing drove me bananas.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-02 05:42 pm (UTC)As long as they are not in Iraq, apparently. Or at least, this is ambiguous.
We know, at this moment, that there are large numbers of terrorists in Syria and Iran. Does he suggest that he will immediately mount attacks on those countries when he takes office? This sounds rather unlikely to me. Mr. Bush sought, and obtained, a United Nations resolution authorizing his action, but Mr. Kerry's statement seems to have no such condition.
Kerry said, two years ago, that we must yank Saddam Hussein out whether or not we had UN approval or a coalition to help us. He seems to have a slightly different opinion, at least Thursday evening.
===|==============/ Level Head
no subject
Date: 2004-10-02 10:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-02 11:10 pm (UTC)===|==============/ Level Head
Watch Them
Date: 2004-10-02 07:01 pm (UTC)Go to http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/30/debate.main/, and look on the sidebar for the "Video" box.
Having gone to the trouble of reading the thing ....
Date: 2004-10-02 10:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-04 09:32 am (UTC)