Your Reactions to the First Debate

[Ned]

Originally posted by The diplomat
Did anyone notice that twice kerry said that we failed to secure Iraq's nuclear facilities? What facilities was he talking about? I thought Iraq no longer had a nuclear program.

Overall, Bush did a good job of staying on message and delivering his main argument clearly. But Bush should have responded more to Kerry's attacks. Kerry's claim that we outsourced the attack on Tora Bora was not accurate. Bush should have responded to that by explaining that we did have special forces heavily involved in Tora Bora but we also involved native fighters because it is their land, they know the terrain best.

I have no idea why Bush should have to explain tactical level decisions of commanders in the field. That should not even be subject to this debate except for that misanthropic Moore and the recent statements of Ted "the Swimmer" Kennedy.

[Alexander's Horse]

A reputable Australian straw poll gave it 67% to Kerry to 13% Bush, 20% undecided.

That result probably reflects just how little respect Bush has in Australia, and more widely internationally. A point Kerry made repeatedly.

[Gibsie]

I stopped watching and went to bed after the nuclear proliferation response came out from Kerry. Having written a book on that subject, Kerry just completely whupped ass on that question, and Bush's response was so feeble that I couldn't keep watching.

I don't think there was a huge difference in it overall, but Kerry edged it on what I saw.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
A reputable Australian straw poll gave it 67% to Kerry to 13% Bush, 20% undecided.

That result probably reflects just how little respect Bush has in Australia, and more widely internationally. A point Kerry made repeatedly.

What is the main beef Aussies have with Bush?

[Alexander's Horse]

hmmm, some would say worse but I think he's seen as stubborn and a risk taker.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Gibsie
I stopped watching and went to bed after the nuclear proliferation response came out from Kerry. Having written a book on that subject, Kerry just completely whupped ass on that question, and Bush's response was so feeble that I couldn't keep watching.

I don't think there was a huge difference in it overall, but Kerry edged it on what I saw.

Gibsie, what you think Kerry's proposal to dump the six party talks in favor of bilateral negotiations between the United States North Korea where everything was on the table including the 1953 armistice agreement?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
hmmm, some would say worse but I think he's seen as stubborn and a risk taker.

Some would say steadfast and bold.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Ned
I have no idea why Bush should have to explain tactical level decisions of commanders in the field. That should not even be subject to this debate except for that misanthropic Moore and the recent statements of Ted "the Swimmer" Kennedy.

You are right. Bush should not have to defend tactical command decisions. But, when you do not respond to an attack, people will assume it is true. By not responding to Kerry's attack, people might assume that Bush failed in Tora Bora.

Bush should have said: "No, we did not outsource the attack on Tora Bora. US and allied elite special forces were heavily involved in that operation. Furthermore, afghan fighters have a stake in defending their land and they know the difficult terrain best. It is sound military strategy to employ forces who know the terrain best and know how to fight the enemy. So, our military commanders recommended that we involve afghan fighters in the operation. I trust the judgement of the military commanders in the field. They know the best way to wage war. But how can my opponent claim that we need more allied forces to share the burden in Iraq and yet claim that in Afghanistan we should not have involved other forces?"

[Alexander's Horse]

And this flip flop business - the Bush camp is trying to make a virtue out of not adjusting policy to suit changing circumstances.

[Ned]

Very, good, Diplomat. A simpler answer by Bush is that he would stand by his commanders in the field while Kerry would publicly attack them and undermine our troops' morale.

[Whaleboy]

Some would say steadfast and bold.

Pretty words, but think about what they mean? Who else was steadfast and bold from history, as opposed to flexible? Hitler, Stalin, Ivan the Terrible, Bloody Mary, the list goes on...

[Drake Tungsten]

Yeah, if Kerry's so well-versed on nuclear proliferation issues, then why were his answers about the North Korean and Iranian nuclear programs so ignorant and misleading?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
And this flip flop business - the Bush camp is trying to make a virtue out of not adjusting policy to suit changing circumstances.

Horse, the problem is that Kerry changed his position due to the Dean candidacy succeeding.

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by Ned
Gibsie, what you think Kerry's proposal to dump the six party talks in favor of bilateral negotiations between the United States North Korea where everything was on the table including the 1953 armistice agreement?

I don't know, but the current system clearly has not worked, so maybe it's time to take on a new direction. After all, you wouldn't have been happy to keep to the status quo in Iraq if Saddam Hussein was genuinely working towards nuclear weapons, would you?

[DanS]

Bush was clear and forceful on defending the United States, especially the first time that he said all of his canned stuff. His style will not play well overseas and with partisan democrats, but plays very well with his base. I don't know what it will do to the undecideds. I guess the undecideds are a hodgepodge.

I thought Bush owned the first part of the debate, but maybe that's entirely because he was speaking my language.