Master Debaters
Hmm...
Bush states firmly in his closing remarks that the Army will remain "volunteer" (that means no draft.) Well...I'll let you know how that promise turns out if it's two years from now and I'm helping secure a girls' school in Falluja.
I'm shocked that nobody brought up the murder of 30-odd kids in Iraq yesterday. If there's ever an argument that things suck over there right now, that's it.
I don't really have an opinion on who "won" this debate. I'll just say that it was better than I thought it'd be.
Kerry's embracing of bilateral (so much for going to the international community) talks with N. Korea seems foolish to this hawk's ears. Maybe we should just buy another ten years of peace with them. You know, like Clinton did.
Bush's defense of Putin was goofy. Sort of saying, "He's a totalitarian, but he's my bud."
It's still weird to hear candidates refer to the U.S. as "the homeland."
Bush is a horrid public speaker.
Kerry is good.
After watching the debate, I can say with some authority that I have absolutely no idea whether Kerry thought Iraq was a threat or not. Clearly, he didn't want to come right out and say that men are dying for a murky cause, but he also didn't make any sense when railing against Bush for not having men seal Iraq's borders, guard their munitions, and nuke facilities, and then turn around and say, "Iraq didn't have WMDs."
Also, Kerry attacking the President (rightfully) for "outsourcing" the war in Afghanistan ultimately fails when he turns around and talks about bringing more people in (persumably to do our fighting for us) in Iraq.
As the National Review summarizes...
"[Kerry's platform is]: The war was a mistake, but I'll fight to win it anyway, but it is a distraction, and I'll send more equipment, but we're spending too much on it, and I'll inspire other countries to join us, but the countries who are there aren't doing much worth commending, etc., etc."
Anyway, I'll let Asa pick apart Bush's end of this hilarity.
Bush states firmly in his closing remarks that the Army will remain "volunteer" (that means no draft.) Well...I'll let you know how that promise turns out if it's two years from now and I'm helping secure a girls' school in Falluja.
I'm shocked that nobody brought up the murder of 30-odd kids in Iraq yesterday. If there's ever an argument that things suck over there right now, that's it.
I don't really have an opinion on who "won" this debate. I'll just say that it was better than I thought it'd be.
Kerry's embracing of bilateral (so much for going to the international community) talks with N. Korea seems foolish to this hawk's ears. Maybe we should just buy another ten years of peace with them. You know, like Clinton did.
Bush's defense of Putin was goofy. Sort of saying, "He's a totalitarian, but he's my bud."
It's still weird to hear candidates refer to the U.S. as "the homeland."
Bush is a horrid public speaker.
Kerry is good.
After watching the debate, I can say with some authority that I have absolutely no idea whether Kerry thought Iraq was a threat or not. Clearly, he didn't want to come right out and say that men are dying for a murky cause, but he also didn't make any sense when railing against Bush for not having men seal Iraq's borders, guard their munitions, and nuke facilities, and then turn around and say, "Iraq didn't have WMDs."
Also, Kerry attacking the President (rightfully) for "outsourcing" the war in Afghanistan ultimately fails when he turns around and talks about bringing more people in (persumably to do our fighting for us) in Iraq.
As the National Review summarizes...
"[Kerry's platform is]: The war was a mistake, but I'll fight to win it anyway, but it is a distraction, and I'll send more equipment, but we're spending too much on it, and I'll inspire other countries to join us, but the countries who are there aren't doing much worth commending, etc., etc."
Anyway, I'll let Asa pick apart Bush's end of this hilarity.
4 Comments:
Where'd you get that headline from, huh?
As for Kerry's position on Iraq - I agree that he didn't articulate it well, but if you do the work, it was in there.
He thinks that going INTO Iraq, the way that we went into Iraq, was a mistake. Now that we're there, the honorable thing to do is to fight until we win the peace.
Essentially, there are two different wars at issue here (which is sort of a semantics problem that has led to much of this simplistic "flip-flopping" label): There was the war before the "Mission Accomplished" banner, and the war after. The for/against slate needed to be wiped clean between those two wars, because even if you were vehemently opposed to going into Iraq, the circumstances changed and the new decision became: Do we stay here and fix this mess we created, or do we say "Oops, our bad" and leave? With the exception of the most lefty of peaceniks, the majority of people, whether they were for or against the first war, agree that we have to fight and win the second war. That's not a flip-flop, that's a re-evaluation of new circumstances.
And if one more pundit says that Kerry voted for the war, I'm gonna throw something at my TV (not really). The vote wasn't to go to war, the vote was for the authority. Again, a matter of semantics, but it's pretty important, and goes right to the heart of the Right's Special Ed-esque "flip-flop" chant.
For more specifics on how consistent Kerry has been in his stance on Iraq, check out this non-partisan analysis from FactCheck.org:
http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=269
What this article points to, is Kerry's biggest flaw as a candidate (though it's a flaw that wouldn't necessarily matter as a president): He has trouble speaking concisely, so voters have to do the legwork of wading through his verbosity, and as I've said before, the American people are morons.
Has he made a few inconsistent comments? Sure, but no more than any other politician (including the president). It's par for the course. [As for the "outsourcing" in Afghanistan thing tonight, I think that seeming contradiction stems from a poor attempt at clever phrasing - the real point (I think) he was trying to make is not that it was inherently wrong to have foreigners fight that fight, but it was wrong to have those particular foreigners fight that particular fight. The poor choice of the word "outsourcing" just confused (not mixed) his message]
It's the most costly failure of Kerry's incompetent campaign that they ever allowed this "flip-flop" thing to gain so much traction and perceived validity. It should've been nipped in the bud months ago.
I thought he could've done a much better job tonight of dismantling the absurd "flip-flop" argument once and for all, not only making it the non-issue that it should be, but turning it in his favor. And once that argument is stripped away, what's left of the Right's rationale for calling Kerry unfit? That he's rich and speaks too good English?
Yes, where did you grab that title? How interesting.
Both candidates seemed to secure their constituencies, but I don't think there's any question that Kerry had more presence and that Bush's reliance on repetition ("It's hard work") cost him. I don't want to say he looked unprepared, but maybe that's the result of being a poor public speaker.
I think the quick answer to your Kerry question is that Kerry thought Iraq was a threat, and once the sabre rattling got inspectors back into the country he would have liked if they could give a yay or nay to the "are they a threat" question before military action. That's a perfectly consistent position.
It's funny because that's the supposed flip-flop that gets the most play, and it really isn't a flip-flop. Maureen has illustrated much better examples on Begum, but they don't get any play. Kerry did a pretty good job of standing up to the Iraq flip-flop charge last night and if that holds then he may debunk the entire rep, at least for swing voters.
As for North Korea, I'd rather buy peace than end up with war. Maybe that's just me.
Gentlemen.
Master Debaters is hardly original.
That said, PCPD put it in my mind last night after he pointed out an actual pundit used it non ironically on MSNBC.
Secondly, using the title at the same time as Alan was coincidence and nothing more.
Thirdly, Kerry's a tool.
Post a Comment
<< Home