Your Reactions to the First Debate

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Next debate is supposed to be a Town Hall type of debate.

This might be the opportunity for Kerry to shine because of the two, Bush is the more scripted kinda guy.

Bush is good talking to common people though, and Kerry sucks at it. This will depend on whether it is more of a debate or bull session.

[Ned]

On substance, I think it was a draw. Kerry won on his style.

People listening to the debate might have a distinctly different impression of who won. In 1960, Nixon lost on visual style. But people who only listened to the debates thought that Nixon won.

Kerry should pick up a few points here because of this debate. Bush has some damage control to do.

[Berzerker]

1) Yes I voted for authorization to go to war, but the ONLY difference I have is that Bush should have done this and that and the other thing, before he went to war; and

Those caveats are kind of important, might have avoided this war.

2) The Iraq war was a colossal mistake. Bush should have focused on Afghanistan....

He's right, finish the job at hand, not let a bunch of Afghan warlords go into Tora Bora and capture him for us. Who made that decision? Wasn't someone too concerned with capturing OBL. Any heads roll? Well, just the guy (Shinseki?) who said we'd need many more soldiers to pull this off. His head rolled because his advice was not only unwanted, but it conflicted with Rummy and the boyz...

These two positions don't add up. But Bush didn't hammer it home.

They do add up, Kerry wanted the President to have the authority to go to war as leverage over Saddam but also wanted the President to try and avoid the war by following certain steps first, and it's clear the Bushies were planning to get Iraq within days or weeks after 9/11 so the steps they were planning on didn't include Kerry's ideas.

But Kerry is either a fool or using a ploy we see many in Congress use to avoid blame for dumb wars - give the power to declare war to the President. If he does and it blows up in his face, blame the Prez. If he doesn't, blame him for the results of inaction. If he does and wins big, try to get your picture taken with him at the first state of the union address of the second term.

[Berzerker]

Ted

What about the economy?

This was like a 100% Iraq debate

Planned that way, foreign policy was given it's own night instead of being included in with a bunch of domestic issues which will probably dominate in the next debate. I just get tired of these politicians constantly pretending like US involvement in the ME began with 9/11 or GW I & II. They won't tell us why because they (and their predecessors) are to blame for current events in a cause and effect way and the causes range from good to evil, i.e., we've been sh-tting on Muslims for decades even if we've done someone in the region good... Think of the mean little boy who likes to torture animals getting the bright idea of smacking a hornet's nest with a stick...

Of course, if we weren't screwing around over there we would see a different reality, presumably one without 9/11, but who knows what else might have happened without us smacking the hornet's nest.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Berzerker

He's right, finish the job at hand, not let a bunch of Afghan warlords go into Tora Bora and capture him for us. Who made that decision? Wasn't someone too concerned with capturing OBL. Any heads roll? Well, just the guy (Shinseki?) who said we'd need many more soldiers to pull this off. His head rolled because his advice was not only unwanted, but it conflicted with Rummy and the boyz...

I'm surprised that Bush didn't step up and defend himself on this one. Well not surprised really, as he was so disorganized. But he should have defended himself here.

There were some serious limitations to our ability to project force into Tora Bora at that time. Firstly, logistics. We had very quickly elbowed our way into Afghanistan with very limited forces at that point. Most of the ground forces that put the Taliban to the run were Afghanis. We supplied air power, money and command and control via our Special Forces, but we didn't have ground forces capable of securing that area available in Afghanistan, and even if we had had them there, we would not have been able to lift them to, and supply them in that area.

Secondly, we just plain didn't have many troops capable of operating effectively at the altitude of the Tora Bora complex. Even the 10th Mountain isn't so much of a real mountain division as it is a glorified infantry division. For a very in depth article on the subject check out this link:

http://www.geocities.com/equipmentshop/realmountaindivision.htm

Suffice it to say that the Afghans were our only option if we wanted to move on Bin Laden while our intel was still worth acting on. The deficiencies in our capabilities were not something that could have been remedied in a timely manner. While one could fault Bush as the commander in chief for not noticing and beginning to rectify the situation during his first nine months or so in office, one would have to lay a good deal more blame on the Army, the previous administration and congress for not noticing these problems for many years previously.

That said, the campaign in Afghanistan was brilliant. The main reason that we even had a chance to nail Bin Laden at all is because of the rapidity and subtelty of our operations in Afghanistan. He just didn't see us blowing away his base so easily or rapidly with so few troops or so undercutting his allies with so much political acumen.

[DRoseDARs]

I noticed they had to stand the whole time for this debate. Will they be allowed to do so during the next one? I don't think Bush is going to be able to sit down again for the next few days as Karl Rove is going to spank his ass RAW for that sh!tty performance tonight.

[DRoseDARs]

Is it just me or did both candidates and the moderator totally give up on the little lights after like the first 15 minutes? Seemed like they were just blinking on and off in a loose pattern based on who was talking over them and whether the moderator could be arsed to press the buttons in the first place.

[Docfeelgood]

That you can hold one view, but adjust that view as facts and information come along allowing you to more finely craft your view to make it work better.

So it is better to be stuborn than open to suggestion?

thank you for trying to explain but I am still confused.

[DRoseDARs]

Here's the thing: Is Bush being 'resolute' or 'stubborn'? Conservatives would have you believe he's the former; critics the later. IMO what Kerry is getting at is that you can hold beliefs and positions, but you must be willing to adjust them appropriately when new data calls for such adjustment. Bush is being critisized for painting an Everything-is-Coming-Up-Roses picture of Iraq while the death toll keeps climbing. He seems to dodge some of the inconvenient aspects of the reality on the ground, if not ignore them outright, in order to sell Iraq as progressing forward full steam ahead.

[Docfeelgood]

So Bush is "flipflopping" on Iraq?

[Bosh]

Here's a damn good column by the strongly pro-Bush managing editor of the conservative National Review:

http://www.nationalreview.com/nordlinger/nordlinger200410010114.asp

I especially recommend it for Drake and any other conservatives who weren't able to see the debate.

[Drake Tungsten]

Thanks, Boshko! Will read it now...

I'm not really a conservative, though...

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Docfeelgood
So Bush is "flipflopping" on Iraq?

If only...

No no no, Bush is being resolute/stubborn on Iraq. Kerry voted to give authorization for Bush to declare war on Iraq and since then has become a critic of Bush's handling of the war. That's why conservatives are saying Kerry is flip-flopping. Kerry did vote 'yes', but he was expecting Bush to exhaust all other options before declaring war. Paraphrasing from somewhere else (the debate? another poster?) Kerry felt the authorization was to send a clear message to Saddam that we weren't f*cking around, that if he persisted in being a douchbag we were coming for his ass. It was meant to scare him into compliance, but also to allow President Bush to make good on the threat if necessary.

[Berzerker]

Originally posted by Sikander


There were some serious limitations to our ability to project force into Tora Bora at that time. Firstly, logistics. We had very quickly elbowed our way into Afghanistan with very limited forces at that point. Most of the ground forces that put the Taliban to the run were Afghanis. We supplied air power, money and command and control via our Special Forces, but we didn't have ground forces capable of securing that area available in Afghanistan, and even if we had had them there, we would not have been able to lift them to, and supply them in that area.

Secondly, we just plain didn't have many troops capable of operating effectively at the altitude of the Tora Bora complex. Even the 10th Mountain isn't so much of a real mountain division as it is a glorified infantry division. For a very in depth article on the subject check out this link:

http://www.geocities.com/equipmentsh...indivision.htm

So he made a few mistakes before the mistake of letting OBL go.

Suffice it to say that the Afghans were our only option if we wanted to move on Bin Laden while our intel was still worth acting on. The deficiencies in our capabilities were not something that could have been remedied in a timely manner. While one could fault Bush as the commander in chief for not noticing and beginning to rectify the situation during his first nine months or so in office, one would have to lay a good deal more blame on the Army, the previous administration and congress for not noticing these problems for many years previously.

If we wanted to, we could have flooded Tora Bora with soldiers. Politics got in the way, not logistics.

That said, the campaign in Afghanistan was brilliant. The main reason that we even had a chance to nail Bin Laden at all is because of the rapidity and subtelty of our operations in Afghanistan. He just didn't see us blowing away his base so easily or rapidly with so few troops or so undercutting his allies with so much political acumen.

The Taliban not only still exist, our guy in Kabul is claiming he needs their help to secure the country. What does that tell you? Oh yeah, and what's his name is probably dancing back and forth across the Afghan-Pakistan border. Now, if you want to limit the "brilliance" to the actual military offensive to remove people, yes, brilliant. But politics got in the way just like every war since WWII...

[Docfeelgood]

So if I hire someone to do a job on my house,I give them the goahead and then they do a poor job, I voice my dislike then this is "flipflopping"?

Ya know, I cannot find it in my dictonary.

I know it is slang but I have not heard it used much.