Good debate

[Crazy Cooter]

I hope they all are.

[GGKoul]

Bush looked like he didn't want to be there... But it was good

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Here's a little something I threw together tonight...

[DougHillman]

I think this debate is remeniscent of the Kennedy / Nixon debate.  Or the Terwilliger/Quimby showdown.

As a fairly impartial observer I don't feel that, based on what was said, either candidate did a particularly good job.  Certainly not good enough to be labeled a clearcut "winner."

Bush dwelled far too much on the "waffeling" point.  Mention it a few times here and there, but not every single time you get to talk.  I think that Bush made most of the points he needed to make, but he sounded sorta petulant and looked smug the entire time.  

Kerry didn't say anything.  Sure he said alot of, "I'm gonna do this, I'm gonna do that, and I'm gonna do it in 6 months or 4 years, yada yada yada."  That's all nice and good.  Solid platform.   Now, how exactly are you planning on doing that?  I don't want to have to go to johnkerry.com to find out.   Unless you wanna explain it to us, it just seems like smoke & mirrors.  

Undoubtably, Kerry is the better debater.  I don't think anyone would ever question that.  So, of course he comes across as more poised and polished.  Bush is far from being a great public speaker and it showed.  Repititious and he was obviously a little lost for words at times.  As I said, he looked smug and acted condescending.  Certainly not the way to win friends.  

But is this really what intelligent people base their decisions upon though?  How the candidate looked & sounded during the debate?


This "debate" was really little more than an extended campaign commercial for each candidate and the dialog between the two smacked more of grade school name calling than it did a true debate.  Hopefully the "town hall" format of the next one will get us some more insight into how either of them actually plans to accomplish their stated goals.  We KNOW you both want essentially the same thing.  A safer America, an American withdrawal from a free & democratic Iraq, the cessation of terrorist attacks, etc.  Let us know how you're going to accomplish that, and let us vote upon which we think is more viable.

D

[DYNAGOD]

Kerry didn't say anything.  Sure he said alot of, "I'm gonna do this, I'm gonna do that, and I'm gonna do it in 6 months or 4 years, yada yada yada."  That's all nice and good.  Solid platform.  Now, how exactly are you planning on doing that?  I don't want to have to go to johnkerry.com to find out.  Unless you wanna explain it to us, it just seems like smoke & mirrors

and how exactly was he supposed to lay down the intricate details and how to's of a multifaceted 4 year plan in a 120 seconds?
he said, heres what im going to do,theres obviously not enough time to get into it now, if you want the fine details go here..
i think thats anything but smoke and mirrors and shows he had a plan to give you that information and the answers you want.
smoke and mirrors??? as john stewart said, maybe it was my tv..

[Crazy Cooter]

It would be nice if there was more time allotted so each could expand on their ideas/explanations, but at least it's this is a start.  Personally, I'd rather see each candidate (and Nader too, he's always had some good points) talk for 15 minutes each night.  They could cover more topics and be able to explain in more detail.  I also think people would be more involved and more aware of where each candidate stood on all the issues.

Is "more aware" proper english?  Sure doesn't sound right... but you get my point.

[abrannan]

But is this really what intelligent people base their decisions upon though?  How the candidate looked & sounded during the debate?


This "debate" was really little more than an extended campaign commercial for each candidate and the dialog between the two smacked more of grade school name calling than it did a true debate.  

No, intelligent people don't base their decisions on how a candidate looked and sounded during the debate, but a large portion of America does.  The debates are won and lost by body language, and certain looks, and the inevitable one-liners and pot-shots.  I don't think I've ever seen a candidate spell out exactly how something is going to be accomplished in a debate, and I don't expect to ever see it.  

[Dartful Dodger]

This debate was as informative as any of these political topics.
I don't think anyone would have crossed over to either side because of it.   Which is good, because that means Bush will win.

[fredster]

Hey, I'm a Bush Supporter, but Kerry was very good.

Kerry did what he needed to do to swing the independents in this one.

It was Bush's to loose, and he didn't come off that well.  I'd have to give the appearance and presentation to Kerry, hands down.  Bush was haulting in his presentation and really looked tired.

Kerry finally seemed to put together a really clear picture of his support/non support of the Iraq war.

I was interesting to note that Gitmo was not mentioned.  

The spin teams are in full force on both sides.

I'm glad there are two more.  Bush didn't pull this one out.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Then how do you explain the fact that every single independent focus group came out leaning Kerry after the debate?

[MAME nut]

Hey Mr. C.....

Do you have any more LIBERAL sources that can say that Kerry won???

   LMFAO  

[Darkstalker]

But is this really what intelligent people base their decisions upon though?  How the candidate looked & sounded during the debate?

Not entirely, but it is a factor.  The fact that Bush seemed very nervous and irritated towards the end speaks volumes about his character.  He said he was an "easy going guy," but his body language said something entirely different.  It is a high stress situation, and in that regard Kerry very much seemed in control, while Bush stumbled for words and made many nervous gestures.  If he can't be in control during a debate, why would someone feel he would be in control during office?  Bush had that same "deer in headlights" look from that tape of him on 9/11 when Kerry started talking about Nuclear Proliferation.

Do you have any more LIBERAL sources that can say that Kerry won???

You consider MSNBC and CNN Liberal?  Interesting viewpoint, care to explain why?

I don't think anyone would have crossed over to either side because of it.  Which is good, because that means Bush will win.

It isn't about getting people to "jump ship" per say, it's about winning undecided voters.

Sure he said alot of, "I'm gonna do this, I'm gonna do that, and I'm gonna do it in 6 months or 4 years, yada yada yada."  That's all nice and good.  Solid platform.  Now, how exactly are you planning on doing that?

I've got to agree with DYNAGOD here.  Yes, it would be nice for him to explain how he's going to do it, but 90 seconds is hardly enough time to outline exactly all the details on his proposed Iraq exit strategy.

I'm looking forward to the domestic debate and hearing their thoughts on the national debt, housing costs and job outsourcing...

[namzep]

Oh, I get it.  Media's all liberal blah blah blah.  That tired schtick gets annoying the 7,000,000 time it's tried.  Any impartial observer could see that Kerry won the debate hands down.  Bush looked like a petulant child and kept trying to jump in but, when he did, he didn't have any real point.  It is a truely terrifying thought that the American public might reelect the idiot to a second term.  It really doesn't say anything about the average American voter other than that 1) most are easily misled and 2) voter apathy is the name of the day.  

On the subject of Gitmo and such I believe that they got together (the two sides) and agreed not to bring up certain topics.  Probably to avoid making either candidate looking too bad.

[spocktwin]

  Anyone and I mean anyone who doesn't know that CNN and MSNBC and certainly CBS is liberal is living under a rock.......it would be like saying that Fox is not conservative in its views.........geez people open your eyes.  I love this country but way too much BS and not enough substance from either side.

[namzep]

CNN is the closest to balanced news network of them all.  It's just that Fox News is so far to the right that others appear left by comparison.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

CNN and MSNBC and certainly CBS is liberal is living under a rock.......

Uh, I'm Liberal and these networks don't speak for me. I wish they did, 'cuz this hillybilly nation needs a good dose of good liberal propoganda. So sorry, next wing-nut conspiracy....

I love this country but way too much BS and not enough substance from either side.

Btw, unfortunately the majority of people in this country don't seem to want substantive debates. We live in a country where style trumps substance. Believe me, if this would have been a "real" debate, Bush would have come out looking even WORSE (if that's possible). Kerry mopped the floor with the petulant Child-in-Chief with only 90secs to answer.

[Dartful Dodger]

CNN is the closest to balanced news network of them all.  It's just that Fox News is so far to the right that others appear left by comparison.

Yeah, I hate how Fox News used fake documents to hurt the guy they were against because the guy they were against was so perfect.

Oh wait, wrong station, and defiantly wrong guy.

But if your one of the easily misled, you'll believe the media telling you they're a balanced, and you probably still believe Kerry has a chance.

[whammoed]

Quote from Kerry:
"Well, you know, when I talked bout 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?"


Is there any question at all that this election is about the lesser of two evils?  Even one on the candidates thinks so!

[Dartful Dodger]

Quote from Kerry:
"Well, you know, when I talked bout 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?"


Is there any question at all that this election is about the lesser of two evils?  Even one on the candidates thinks so!

Making a mistake is worse.

Freeing Iraq was necessary.

[DrewKaree]

The fact that Bush seemed very nervous and irritated towards the end speaks volumes about his character

I'd be HIGHLY interested in what you think "character" means.  I've never even THOUGHT to consider that someone being nervous or irritated would be chalked up to "character", so please expound.  

[whammoed]

Would you qualify either candidate as a masterdebater?

[hunky_artist]

Is "more aware" proper english?  Sure doesn't sound right... but you get my point.

don't worry, that's perfect english  

what's the alternative.... awarerer?  

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Damn that Liberal media!!!

Fox News has now posted a retraction and apology for the piece with the fabricated Kerry quotes ...

Earlier Friday, FOXNews.com posted an item purporting to contain quotations from Kerry. The item was based on a reporter's partial script that had been written in jest and should not have been posted or broadcast. We regret the error, which occurred because of fatigue and bad judgment, not malice.

The only retraction doesn't name the reporter in question, Carl Cameron, which was noted in the statement Fox News gave TPM this afternoon. EDIT: Carl Cameron is in charge of covering the Kerry campaign for Fox. Fair and Balanced ---my bottom---.

Damn them again!!!
Added three inches to Bush...

mrC

[Crazy Cooter]

Is that pic comparison for real?  The little lady was saying the Bush campaign requested the podiums be seperated further so he wouldn't look short during the debate.  I think she may have been right.  Too much.

[TA Pilot]

As a fairly impartial observer I don't feel that, based on what was said, either candidate did a particularly good job.  Certainly not good enough to be labeled a clearcut "winner."

Kerry delivered well.  He did not do well in substance.  His "position that I've always had on Iraq", isn't.  

He called the war a mistake... and then, 15 secomds later, said that the troops had not died for a mistake.  

Well, John - Mistake?  or not?  
When you decide, again, let us know.



Kerry didn't say anything...

Kerry's Plan for Iraq is to do exactly what the Bush administration is already doing - just "better".

No details on the "better".

And in making the argument that Bush did not put together a "broad coalition" does nothing but belittle the efforts of the countries that ARE there.  38 states are at present supporting the effort, one way or another - 18 of which are members of NATO.

I'm not sure how you get more from your allies when you belittle their efforts - unless you're talking about France and Germany, who have said repeatedly that they will not send troops.

90% of the cost in Iraq is being paid by the US.   Thats more or less the case in every 'coalition' we've been in since WW2 - including the ones in which the French helped out with.

Unilaterally invaded Iraq?  With at least 3 allies (4 if you count Canadian exchange offisers that the Canadian army decided to let stay w/ the US units) with boots on the ground?   How could it have been "unilateral"?

Passed the global test?  Whats that mean?
Prove to the world that we're right about doing something?  Doesnt that necessitate that they have to 'OK' our reason for war?   If not, why not?


In all honesty, whenever Kerry takes a position on Iraq, et al, if you arent wondering how long it will be before he changes it, you REALLY arent thinking.

95% of steamship containers -arent- inspected when they reach the US.  This is because the USCS identifies potentially threatening shipments -before- they reach the US and then pull them to the side for inspectons.  There isnt any way you cant inspect them all, and there isnt any need to inspect them all - the insinuation that you have to is simply playing on fear born of ignorance (like they do with "assault weapons"  ).

Cut taxes at the expense of Homeland Security?  Can anyone honestly say that any tax cut kept us from spending a dime on anything?  Of course not.  The argument that HS funds were limited by the "tax cuts for the rich" is nothing but class warfare and playing to more fears borne of ignorance.

[Floyd10]

Damn that Liberal media!!!

Fox News has now posted a retraction and apology for the piece with the fabricated Kerry quotes ...

Earlier Friday, FOXNews.com posted an item purporting to contain quotations from Kerry. The item was based on a reporter's partial script that had been written in jest and should not have been posted or broadcast. We regret the error, which occurred because of fatigue and bad judgment, not malice.

The only retraction doesn't name the reporter in question, Carl Cameron, which was noted in the statement Fox News gave TPM this afternoon. EDIT: Carl Cameron is in charge of covering the Kerry campaign for Fox. Fair and Balanced <auto-censored>.

Damn them again!!!
Added three inches to Bush...
mrC

Actually the AFP one is doctored. I've studied it carefully

[mr.Curmudgeon]

playing on fear born of ignorance

Isn't that what Bush/Cheney have been campaigning on since 9-11??? They should make that their d*mn slogan: Bush/Cheney '04: Playing On Fear Born Of Ignorance!

Anyhow, the thing that sticks out to me now (mostly care of Joe Scarbourough's commentary) is this:

This man, George W. Bush, the President of the United States, has sent our soliders - our friends, our family, our sons, daughters, sisters, brothers, wives and husbands - to a distant land to face death every day under a blinding desert sun for his ill begotten war. Over a thousand have been killed, tens of thousands more have been battered and maimed. Their blood and gore running through the dirty streets...and he can't STAND UP STRAIGHT behind the podium and face this nation for a measley 90-f'in minutes with the pride and dignity our soldiers, and our citizens deserve?

Are these soldiers lives and their families loss not worth his time?

No matter what you think of either candidates style and substance, it was obvious that Bush didn't want to be there being forced to answer questions. Given his behavior, you have to ask yourself, how can you respect a president who wants to lead a nation, but not answer to it's people?


mrC

[TA Pilot]

Posted by: mr.Curmudgeon
Isn't that what Bush/Cheney have been campaigning on since 9-11??? They should make that their d*mn slogan: Bush/Cheney '04: Playing On Fear Born Of Ignorance!

Yeah.  Terrorists?  They arent a threat to the US.  You just imagined all the attacks, both before and after 9/11.

Did you ever think, for just a minute, that maybe you -should- be afraid of the terrorists, what they want to do, and what they'd do to you, your family and your country, if they had the chance?



Given his behavior, you have to ask yourself, how can you respect a president who wants to lead a nation, but not answer to it's people?

If this is the best you can muster after the entire 90 min debate, either -for- Kerry or -against- Bush, then Kerry has problems.   Not that I mind.

[DougHillman]

On a completely off-topic aside, TA, what year is yours?  My first car when I was 16 was a 7 year old 1979.  Brown, tan cloth interior, gold birds, T-tops, 403 automatic.  Traded it for a '76 with T's and a 455 4-speed.  Have had a coupla others along the way, including a '75 with a 400 and a '73 Firebird with a 350.

D

[Crazy Cooter]

http://www.factcheck.org

That site shows how the Bush campaign has misquoted Kerry regarding his stand on Iraq.  It shows that, as Kerry has always said, his position has NOT changed.

It's not a "Pro-Kerry" site by any means, it's a site that rips on ads done by both parties pointing out the flaws in the arguements.  It should clear up a few things around here on both guys and should be mandatory reading before voting IMO.

TA: "maybe you -should- be afraid of the terrorists, what they want to do, and what they'd do to you, your family and your country, if they had the chance"
Was I afraid before 9/11?  No.  Am I afraid now?  No.  Do I feel safer with the changes made since 9/11?  No.  Let me explain.  If these terrorists group want to hurt me or my family, they'll find a way to do it.  There's nothing we as a Nation can do to *stop* terrorism.  These groups are generations deep in the stuff.  It's like the Nazi wann-be's and the KKK.  Too blinded by hate to see reason.
You included an interesting phrase in your qoute "...if they had the chance".  In general, do you feel people should be held accountable for actions they may do "if they had the chance" or for actions they have done?

[shmokes]

The thing I loved most was when Bush would actually ask for an extension, and then have absolutely nothing to say.  

[spocktwin]

  TA what year do you have.....I bought a 78 t-top in '81 and have had it ever since.  I have the 400T/A engine and she is the second lady in my life.......have to give the wife top billing even though I have had the T/A for much longer then I have been married to her ha ha

[DrewKaree]

http://www.factcheck.org

That site shows how the Bush campaign has misquoted Kerry regarding his stand on Iraq.  It shows that, as Kerry has always said, his position has NOT changed.

Now, I don't expect you to lay out Bush's defense also, but that little snippet is almost as deliberately misleading as MrC and Kerry himself!

I'll also HELP you and link to the actual story you're referring to.

Kerry has never wavered from his support for giving Bush authority to use force in Iraq, nor has he changed his position that he, as President, would not have gone to war without greater international support.

That's what they say.  So the debate is about (1) him always giving Bush authority to use force in Iraq.  Bush did use force in Iraq.  Are you saying, then, that where Kerry DOES differ is "how he (Kerry) would have used that force in Iraq"?  

And (2)Kerry would not have gone to war without greater international support.  Great.  Again and again, that statement is thrown out there.  Again and again, Kerry refuses to pin down (and Bush - I HATE this about him, his unwillingness to be just a LITTLE mean - refuses to ask Kerry) HOW MANY OTHER COUNTRIES WOULD KERRY HAVE    "REQUIRED"     OF THE U.S. BEFORE HE WOULD HAVE WENT TO WAR.  It's one thing to throw out a statement with no real meaning, it's entirely another to say "I would have done it differently" and never state how.  One of you Kerry supporters please tell me, what is YOUR definition of "greater international support".  Skip the "The U.N. needed to agree with and offer support", because the opportunity to do so was there, they dicked around with Sadaam for 10+ years, and Sadaam continually, CONTINUALLY kicked sand in the face of the U.N. and the inspections.  Or, if you just can't help yourself, and that's your pat answer, tell me how much longer we should have continued to let Sadaam go on with the way he guided the inspectors to where he wanted them to go.  What MORE should the U.N. have done to get Sadaam to allow the full disclosure the U.N. was looking for?

And from the site, Cooter, referring to the debates:

Kerry continued to refer to "the cost" of the Iraq war as $200 billion, when it fact the cost to date is just over $120 billion, according to budget officials. Kerry is counting money that has been appropriated to be spent in the fiscal year that started Friday, Oct. 1. Much of the money Kerry counts has not even been requested formally by the Bush administration, and is only an estimate of what will be sought sometime in the coming year, to be spent later. We've pointed this out before  in detail.

Kerry said U.S. forces allowed Osama bin Laden to escape in 2001 during the battle at Tora Bora in Afghanistan because the administration "outsourced" fighting to Afghan "warlords." Actually, it's never been clear whether bin Laden actually was at Tora Bora.

It is true that military leaders strongly suspected bin Laden was there, and it is also true that the Pentagon relied heavily on Afghan forces to take on much of the fighting at Tora Bora in an effort to reduce US casualties. But Kerry overstates the case by stating flatly that "we had him surrounded."

Cooter, you say

Let me explain.  If these terrorists group want to hurt me or my family, they'll find a way to do it.  There's nothing we as a Nation can do to *stop* terrorism.  These groups are generations deep in the stuff.  It's like the Nazi wann-be's and the KKK.  Too blinded by hate to see reason.

So are you then conceding that Kerry's statement that hundreds and thousands of box-cars are making it into our ports without being searched.....you're conceding that it would be ludicrous to think that more money to do so is going to stop the problem...it WOULD help, but it's not the "be all/end all" Kerry paints it to be?  Painting it as something needed to be done INSTANTLY, rather than the way it's being implemented, is an effort to mislead?

I don't think you meant to, but you adopted Bush's statement....We in American have to be right 100% of the time, the terrorists only need to be right ONCE.

Don't worry, that stuff you feel on your skin after agreeing with him, it'll come right off with a little Irish Spring and steel wool....just rub EXTRA hard  

[Trimoor]

If the goal in Iraq was to kill Saddam (they should have picked him off ten years ago when they had the chance), why did they send a huge army in?

It seems like the same thing could be accomplished with four snipers.
Then they wouldn't have to deal with a huge controversial war.

Oh, and has anyone else noticed the interesting trend in presidential elections?
The taller cannidate has always won. (really)

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Yeah.  Terrorists?  They arent a threat to the US.  You just imagined all the attacks, both before and after 9/11.

Did you ever think, for just a minute, that maybe you -should- be afraid of the terrorists, what they want to do, and what they'd do to you, your family and your country, if they had the chance?

You're the one with all the guns, seems to me you're pretty adept at being scared. Myself, no...I'm not afraid of terrorists. I want to kill them.

If you think podium pounding and chest puffing will lead us on a path to victory, and you're comfortable with a false sense of security for you and your loved ones, while our perceived imperialistic policies increase the ranks of fundamentalist groups around the globe...then vote Bush.

I, however, will remain vigilant and informed, aware of the realities of the global war on terror without allowing fear to cloud my judgement. I want a president that will do the same. I want a smarter, more accountable president. I want a man who knows the horrors of war, not a privileged one who shirked his duty. I want Kerry to lead this nation using informed diplomacy first, force if absolutely necessary. Any other approach, and the terrorists have already won. I'm sorry you can't understand that, maybe you should go to the shootin' range and pop off a couple of rounds, I'm sure that'll show them darn evil-doers and it'll make you feel safer in the process.

Like I've said before, I used to be scared. 9-11 terrified me. But not anymore...I realize fear has gotten our nation into much more danger. Fear is not great foreign policy.

Given his behavior, you have to ask yourself, how can you respect a president who wants to lead a nation, but not answer to it's people?

If this is the best you can muster after the entire 90 min debate, either -for- Kerry or -against- Bush, then Kerry has problems.   Not that I mind.

Right. *Kerry* has problems. Somehow I'm not suprised you wouldn't take issue with a weak little chickenhawk who'd send our troops to die and not have the courage to face the nation with dignity. Obviously you're comfortable with giving Bush another mulligan. Seems about right. Sure it's not Clinton's fault? or something?

[Crazy Cooter]

http://www.factcheck.org/ is great resource as I said.  It is not for either candidate.  That's why everyone should read it.

On Iraq:
1- Kerry wanted military action to be the LAST resort.  He, like I, feel Bush did it too early.  IE: Cooter says: "I personally support military action against North Korea.  Just not today."  Taken out of context it would look confusing.  What my "Kerry comment" (tm) means is that if N. Korea needs a beat down, let's do it.  But that doesn't mean to do it later today.  Putting our soldiers on foreign soil is a big decision with major consequences.  It isn't something we should be doing without thinking it through.
2- Greater International Support defined - Cooter says: "Greater International Support is other countries commiting the level of resources that we are".
Money:  Where is it?  Troops:  Where are they?  Commitment: Why is everyone leaving?
What percentage of our military is in Iraq?  What percentage of our GNP is being spent there? Compare that to the percentage of our "coalition" allies.  The "coalition" Bush put together is a joke.  Then he told the other countries they couldn't help rebuild.  Then they awarded all (and I mean ALL) the construction contracts to the company Cheney worked for prior to becoming VP.  That's some little Boy's Club there...

I don't know anything about boxcars.  Never shipped or received one.  But I do know there's no such thing as a "be all/end all".  Whatever we do, we will be struck by terrorists again.  Your vote either way will not change this fact.  I agree that more precautions we take will help though.  The sooner the better.

"We in American [sic] have to be right 100% of the time, the terrorists only need to be right ONCE"
If we're not right 100% of the time, then we are wrong.  Hopefully, we learn and make changes to try and fix the problem.  To me, Bush is wrong on several issues not just Iraq or Terrorism (they are different topics).  I'm making a change.  No steel wool required.  

"Actually the AFP one is doctored"
How tall are they?  That would settle it.  I know Bush is shorter, noticed it on the split screen during the debate by referencing the background.

[Crazy Cooter]

Haha
Chickenhawk

**please not the subliminal message included in this message**

[DrewKaree]

I want Kerry to lead this nation using informed diplomacy first, force if absolutely necessary

What information would you have Kerry use in order for him to be able to use "informed diplomacy"?

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I want Kerry to lead this nation using informed diplomacy first, force if absolutely necessary

What information would you have Kerry use in order for him to be able to use "informed diplomacy"?

Well, simple. The very same information that Bush and Co. completely ignored in the rush to war with Iraq. The information coming from the inspectors on the ground in Iraq Re: lack of WMD, the information provided by various experts regarding the disasters that we are now forced to deal with on a daily basis in Iraq (Some of that information coming from Bush I, and Cheney themselves). Kerry promises to heed these things FIRST and foremost when making decisions of such importance. Bush has already proven he feels above such petty things. He wanted the war, not the information saying it was a terribly disasterous idea. He failed. He's fired.

Looks like the dam is breaking, Kerry now leads in the polls: http://www.drudgereport.com/flash1nw.htm (via: Drudge, of all people.)

[DrewKaree]

http://www.factcheck.org/ is great resource as I said.  It is not for either candidate.  That's why everyone should read it.

I agree with you on that point.  If, however, you want to make a claim based on what they say, it would be nice (some might say intellectually honest) to link to the exact story you are referring to, rather than make a charge based on a website's story, and to let others muddle around trying to figure out what story you are referring to.  If someone (let's say Sephroth, since he was looking for info) hasn't looked into the info yet, and you post about something without giving him the info you are referring to, what if he read a story that KINDA pertained to your view, yet didn't agree with yours?  You're only hurting yourself by indirectly linking to your story/fact/statistic.  

On Iraq:
1- Kerry wanted military action to be the LAST resort.  He, like I, feel Bush did it too early.  IE: Cooter says: "I personally support military action against North Korea.  Just not today."  Taken out of context it would look confusing.

[/sup]no, the context is factually correct as you have stated it.  It just needs further fleshing out, as in (and this is the "context" everyone is searching for - the ducking of answering this) "IF you support military action, but only as a last resort, WHEN do you feel we should go to it....if not a mythical "today", then WHEN....it's the WHEN, THE WHEN, THE WHEN that is Kerry's major problem.  The mythical "when we have exhausted all "informed diplomacy" is ANOTHER cloud-in-the-sky notion that never gives a straigh answer.  

You can ALWAYS fall back on "I'm for it, just not now".  It's the unwillingness to lay out WHEN HE WOULD think it necessary that shapes his "flip-flop" image to a finely-honed point.

But that doesn't mean to do it later today.  Putting our soldiers on foreign soil is a big decision with major consequences.  It isn't something we should be doing without thinking it through.

[/sub]if you honestly think that decision to put our soldiers into Iraq was done at the drop of a hat, you're misinformed beyond belief.  The logistics alone dictate that it couldn't be done.  Also, I'd have to question what you were doing leading up to this war, because it obviously wasn't reading/watching/listening to ANY media of any sort.  This was written/reported/spoke about ad nauseum.  By what definition do you think we went into Iraq without thinking it through?

2- Greater International Support defined - Cooter says: "Greater International Support is other countries commiting the level of resources that we are".
Money:  Where is it?  Troops:  Where are they?  Commitment: Why is everyone leaving?
What percentage of our military is in Iraq?  What percentage of our GNP is being spent there? Compare that to the percentage of our "coalition" allies.

[/sub]To "blanket answer" your points - we have more than others.  

So you are basing your definition of support on how much other countries are willing to give us.  It's about fairness.  I see.  Is it fair that we also send aid to other countries in all sorts of fashions (money, food, military aid)?  By that same ludicrous standard, we also should never have gone into Croatia, Haiti is someplace that should be dismissed....the "fairness" of others actions...dynamite definition.

Then he told the other countries they couldn't help rebuild.

Again, the facts you have to support this would be nice, because all I heard was...and let me put this so you can understand it....the countries WITH us in fighting this war could help, after all, it's only "fair"....FRANCE, GERMANY, RUSSIA....BEAT IT".

I don't know how you manage to (well, I know it doesn't support your position, so it IS convenient to do so) overlook the Oil for Food programs, or the sale of arms and supplies to Sadaam...see, those countries were "getting their share" before we went in there.  It just so happened to be at the expense of the Iraqi people...See, Sadaam only "trickled down" the torture and poverty, not the money he was making from these deals  

Then they awarded all (and I mean ALL) the construction contracts to the company Cheney worked for prior to becoming VP.

facts to back this up, being such a strongly worded statement, please

But I do know there's no such thing as a "be all/end all".  Whatever we do, we will be struck by terrorists again.  Your vote either way will not change this fact.

But Kerry made it sound as if Bush was missing the boat big time on that one area, and that if he's elected, he'll "do it better" than Bush.  You mean to tell me that if Kerry is elected, we could be struck again?!?!
 ANOTHER RINGING ENDORSEMENT FOR KERRY
I'm voting for the guy who'll DO something about it, instead of talk to nation after nation hoping they'll offer something "fair" to help us out

If we're not right 100% of the time, then we are wrong.  Hopefully, we learn and make changes to try and fix the problem.

but, as you so clearly stated above, we can't EVER be right, since "we will be struck again".  Again, why should Americans allow Kerry to try to fix a problem that is, by YOUR definition, unfixable?  

As for your other problems with Bush, we're all MORE than happy to discuss them ( No duh, hey?  Even MrC seems to have decided "If you can't shush 'em, join 'em" )  We even allow the reddest of neck amongst us to speak!

Peace and bong hits to everyone
DK