Presidential Debate thread

[Krakrok]

What they will effect is my life at home. Their policies on the Patriot Act, the treatment of Homeland Security, the job market, social issues, etc.

Join the EFF Action center for a good time. I usually send faxes as letters are to slow and emails are too easy to delete.

http://action.eff.org/

---

I thought it was interesting how Kerry talked about the loose nuclear material in Russia, and according to Kerry, Bush's current plan for cleaning it up will take 13 years. Kerry claimed his plan would do it in 4 years. Bush had no response.

[SirBruce]

The fact that Iraq is now one big recruiting/training ground for the terrorists of tommorow makes me feel that Im less safe. I hope I'm proven wrong, really I do.

Therefore, the US shouldn't have attacked Germany or Italy or Japan, because that just made them recruit/train more soldiers.

Completely different time, situation, culture. Enough with the stupid comparisons.

If time, situation, and culture had something to do with your position, you should have SAID that.  Instead, you said the fact that the war made the country a training ground for more enemies was what bothered you, and that is something that is true of a large number of wars.

If you don't want stupid comparisons, don't make stupid statements.

Bruce

[MrHat]

Bruce - Have you ever lived in the Middle East? And if so, where?

[SirBruce]

Even though every single link between AQ and Iraq has been discredited at the worst and tenuous at best.

Wrong.  If you actually READ the 9/11 report, the links between AQ and Iraq are well-documented.  No evidence of an operational collaborative relationship at the time of the war, to be sure, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  The evidence we do have tells us that the two were interested in working together, and there were numerous contacts and links between them.  Plus, terrorism is more than just AQ; Iraq has been assisting and harboring non-AQ terrorists for years.

Please to prove that.

It's IN THE REPORT.  Do I need to quote the report at you?  Why can't you just read the relevant passages yourself?

Bin Ladin was also willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with Iraq, even though Iraq’s dictator, Saddam Hussein, had never had an Islamist agenda—save for his opportunistic pose as a defender of the faithful against “Crusaders” during the Gulf War of 1991. Moreover, Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army.53
To protect his own ties with Iraq,Turabi reportedly brokered an agreement that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against Saddam. Bin Ladin apparently honored this pledge, at least for a time, although he continued to aid a group of Islamist extremists operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan) outside of Baghdad’s control. In the late 1990s, these extremist groups suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces. In 2001, with Bin Ladin’s help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam. There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime  tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.54
With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Ladin himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995. Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request.55 As described below, the ensuing years saw additional efforts to establish connections.

There is also evidence that around this time Bin Ladin sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are  reported to have received a significant response.According to one report, Saddam Hussein’s efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin.74
In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin’s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence.
In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin’s Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December.75
Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides’ hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.76

Though intelligence gave no clear indication of what might be afoot, some intelligence reports mentioned chemical weapons, pointing toward work at a camp in southern Afghanistan called Derunta.On November 4, 1998, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York unsealed its indictment of Bin Ladin, charging him with conspiracy to attack U.S. defense installations. The indictment also charged that al Qaeda had allied itself with Sudan, Iran, and Hezbollah.The original sealed indictment had added that al Qaeda had “reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.”109 This passage led Clarke, who for years had read intelligence reports on Iraqi-Sudanese cooperation on chemical weapons, to speculate to Berger that a large Iraqi presence at chemical facilities in Khartoum was “probably a direct result of the Iraq–Al Qida agreement.” Clarke added that VX precursor traces found near al Shifa were the “exact formula used by Iraq.”110This language about al Qaeda’s “understanding” with Iraq had been dropped, however, when a superseding indictment was filed in November 1998.111

In February 1999,Allen proposed flying a U-2 mission over Afghanistan to build a baseline of intelligence outside the areas where the tribals had coverage. Clarke was nervous about such a mission because he continued to fear that Bin Ladin might leave for someplace less accessible.He wrote Deputy National Security Advisor Donald Kerrick that one reliable source reported Bin Ladin’s having met with Iraqi officials, who “may have offered him asylum.” Other intelligence sources said that some Taliban leaders, though not Mullah Omar, had urged Bin Ladin to go to Iraq. If Bin Ladin actually moved to Iraq, wrote Clarke, his network would be at Saddam Hussein’s service, and it would be “virtually impossible” to find him. Better to get Bin Ladin in Afghanistan, Clarke declared.134 Berger suggested sending one U-2 flight,but Clarke opposed even this. It would require Pakistani approval, he wrote; and “Pak[istan’s] intel[ligence service] is in bed with” Bin Ladin and would warn him that the United States was getting ready for a bombing campaign: “Armed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad.”135Though told also by Bruce Riedel of the NSC staff that Saddam Hussein wanted Bin Ladin in Baghdad,Berger conditionally authorized a single U-2 flight.Allen meanwhile had found other ways of getting the information he wanted. So the U-2 flight never occurred.136

There are numerous other examples.

 Frankly, everything I've read says that AQ fucking hated Saddamn almost as badly as he did the US.

That's why you should stop reading liberal-biased media.

 If there is no evidence of an operational collaborative relationship, that means THEY WERE NOT WORKING TOGETHER. That's all you need right there. They weren't working together.

No, that's not all you need right there.  There is evidence they WANTED to work together, that they were TRYING to work together, and that Hussein WAS working with OTHER terrorists.  We don't know if he ever did work with AQ on an operation, but it's very possible he did or would have had we not stopped him.

Bruce

[Margalis]

Did you READ what you quoted. Fucking A!

"Moreover, Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring ANTI-SADDAM Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army.53 "

"Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is NO EVIDENCE that Iraq responded to this request."

"There is also evidence that around this time Bin Ladin sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. NONE are reported to have received a significant response.

"But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States"

"Blah blah they were working together...This language about al Qaeda’s “understanding” with Iraq had been dropped, however, when a superseding indictment was filed in November 1998" (translation: bad info)

---

The level of "cooperation" between Bin Laden and Iraq was no larger than the level of cooperation between Bin Laden and Iran, Saudi-Arabia, Afghanistan, the Sudan,  Pakistan (our ally?), etc etc etc. In fact, it's smaller than those.


HaemishM wrote:
"Frankly, everything I've read says that AQ fucking hated Saddamn almost as badly as he did the US. "


Bruce lied about:
"That's why you should stop reading liberal-biased media. "


Hey Bruce, remember a certain speech from Bin Laden about that 9/11 attacks. WHERE HE SAYS HIMSELF HE DISLIKES SADDAM AND THE GOVERNMENT OF IRAQ? Is that what you call "liberal media." Nice, I didn't know that Bin Laden wrote for the Village Voice on the side. Man gets around.

All your sad quotes come down to this: At various points when it was convenient for one side or the other, they talked a bit about doing something but then didn't. Yay! Mostly it comes down to agreeing to leave each other alone, rather than actively attack each other.

If you want to play the "let's attack people who were responsible for 9/11" game Iraq is a very poor target. If you want to play "let's attack people who bolster Bin Laden" Iraq is STILL A POOR TARGET.

That's is what is dishonest about you people chanting over and over that Saddam and Bin Laden are in bed. Bin Laden was much more involved with and supported by a lot of other places, none of which we are attacking.


"No, that's not all you need right there. There is evidence they WANTED to work together, that they were TRYING to work together, and that Hussein WAS working with OTHER terrorists. We don't know if he ever did work with AQ on an operation, but it's very possible he did or would have had we not stopped him. "

That's fucking pathetic. There are plenty of places that didn't just "want" or "try" to work with Bin Laden, they WERE WITHOUT A DOUBT working with Bin Laden. And for them it isn't just "possible" they would have worked with AQ, they WERE.

If you want to say that Iraq "cooperated" with AQ that's fine (as long as you qualify it to not be "operation" cooperation, also known as "actual cooperation", as long as you acknowledge that plenty of other places cooperated MUCH MORE DIRECTLY AND TO A MUCH LARGER EXTENT.

If you can't acknowledge that, please shut up already. You aren't lobbying to attack Iraq, because your logic suits a lot of places NOT named Iraq much better. If your list is based on terrorist and AQ support and cooperation, Iraq is far down on the list.

Gee, does "prioritization" mean anything to you? Apparently not. GUYS SOME OFFICIALS IN IRAQ THOUGHT ABOUT MAYBE WORKING WITH AQ AT SOME POINT MAYBE, AND WERE REJECTED BUT THEY MAYBE ARE THINKING ABOUT IT AGAIN LETS ATTACK!!!11111!!!111


Edit: Let me point out the stupidty of quoting a report where most of the most "damning" evidence comes from Richard Clarke, who your hatchet men have tried to discredit as a "bitter, jealous old man." And we all know what Clarke thinks about how the Bush administration has handled things. Next time you are going to quote someone, don't quote someone that clearly and vehemently disagrees with you.

It's extremely sad that on one hand you can dismiss Clarke while making it personal, then trot him out later as "evidence" to support your position when we all know he DOESN'T support it.

It's not just said, it's very dishonest.

"In the aftermath of Sept. 11, President Bush ordered his then top anti-terrorism adviser to look for a link between Iraq and the attacks, despite being told there didn't seem to be one.

The charge comes from the adviser, Richard Clarke, in an exclusive interview on 60 Minutes. "

Oops. Your source material disagrees with your conclusions!

Quick, come up with a terrible analogy to Germany for the win!

[kaid]

If what you listed is the proof of Bin Ladin working with sadam then why did we not attack Saudi Arabia. We have far more concrete proof of ties between  Saudi Arabia and the terrorists than we did with Iraq.

Hell Sadaam was a very secular ruler he wanted nothing to be more important to his people than him and he actively repressed the Islamic Zelots because he feared they would work with Iran against his government.

Sadaam is not a good man and the world will be better off without him but removing him opens up Iraq for the very people who we supposedly went to war to stop.

kaid

[Paelos]

Do you liberals want it spelled out for you, we went after Iraq (not Saudi Arabia or N. Korea) because we KNEW we could whomp their ass and make a statement to the middle east at the same time plus get economic benefits of possible oil deals. That's the reasoning. Not WMDs, not vendettas, not any of the BS that both extremes have tried pinning on the situation. Someone needed an asswhooping and we doled it out because it was easy to do, and at the time many people were for it.

Now we have hindsight, but no time machine.

[Baldrake]

Umm, Paelos, perhaps I have my sarcasm filter set too high, but that's exactly what "we liberals" have been saying the whole time.

[kaid]

Of course that is why we went in there I just dislike all the moral preaching about how Sadaam was giving hand jobs to Bin Ladin.

Frankly there should never have been a second gulf war because we fucking should have did it right the first time. Bush Sr. should have finished what we started the first time around. We had the justification we had the force and the people at the time may have believed us enough to help.

After we encouraged them to overthrow Sadaam they BELIEVED us and thought we would help so they tried. They ones who did got their asses handed to them while we twiddled our thumbs. This is why the people in Iraq now don't believe anything we say and one big reason we are getting as little help by the Iraq people as we are.


kaid

[Big Gulp]

Bzzt.

No the reason is so that white middle aged men of the same two parties can be voted in over and over again. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Bzzt.  Democracies function on a consensual, voluntary basis.  Fining someone for not voting kind of defeats that purpose, no?

Look, I understand that you, and most of the world, really want the government to be your sugar daddy and absolve you of all personal responsibility.  I, however, tend to view the role of government as being a limited one.  They provide for defense, and maintain social order.  That's pretty much the role of government in a nutshell.  They don't exist to take away individual liberty (and that's what coercing your citizenry to the polls is).

Fact of the matter is that if you're a non-felon adult you have the right to vote.  You also have the right to not vote.  If you're going to be a democracy then you have to believe in giving people choice.  And one of the choices for a citizen is the right to NOT CHOOSE.

[HaemishM]

Thank you, Bruce, for quoting the 911 report so concisely. It saves me the time of having to look for the links, and also proves you dead wrong in the process. How did what you say disprove anything I said? How is quoting Richard Clarke, who your boy Bush has repeatedly said is untrustworthy, help your case in anyway? How does sponsoring the Kurdish revolution against Saddam equal Saddam and AQ being in bed together? Did you read what you quoted?

There is so little tying those two together in what you quoted as to be infinitesimal. Maybe they talked a few times. Maybe. Most of the intelligence can't even corroborate that they talked. Fuck, I've talked to my dead grandparents more than it seems AQ talked to Hussein's regime.

Do you liberals want it spelled out for you, we went after Iraq (not Saudi Arabia or N. Korea) because we KNEW we could whomp their ass and make a statement to the middle east at the same time plus get economic benefits of possible oil deals. That's the reasoning. Not WMDs, not vendettas, not any of the BS that both extremes have tried pinning on the situation. Someone needed an asswhooping and we doled it out because it was easy to do, and at the time many people were for it.

Well, yes that's what we want. We want the President, his administration, in short, our fucking government to tell us the reasons they are doing things, especially things that cause us to lose over 1000 of our young men and women in some backwater desert country. If you tell us we need to attack this country because it has WMD, goddamnit, it better have WMD. That's what a government is supposed to do, not lie, coerce and obfuscate their reasons for doing so. Shit, if I wanted a government to lie to me, I'd just pick any number of Communist regimes.

The reasons we keep hitting the Bush administration with about Iraq are the very fucking reasons HE HIMSELF SAID we needed to go to war. It isn't as if the "liberal media" made up the whole WMD thing and said that's why we have to go to war. These are things Bush and his cronies ACTUALLY SAID.

I want my government to tell me the truth, not piss on my head and tell me it's rain, then call me a dirty, terrorist-supporting traitor because I questioned the authenticity of the piss you were calling rain.

[Margalis]

I don't think mandatory voting makes sense. It just doesn't, and it wouldn't solve the two party system woes anyway.

The best suggestion was the system where if your first choice loses, your second choice gets their vote. Under that system you aren't "throwing your vote away." Or a runoff system.

The biggest problem though is just the money the two parties have.

[Paelos]

Umm, Paelos, perhaps I have my sarcasm filter set too high, but that's exactly what "we liberals" have been saying the whole time.

I know, I was just saying that's the right answer, and we know its the right answer. BOTH sides know its the real reason, and yet we are still here. Bush dodges it because its politically damning, but really, it makes no difference.

The point was we all know why, the rest is political lipservice that has to be said to win the election. You can't pin it on Bush because even definitive logic has no place on Capitol hill, so why bother? That won't win you the election, sorry. Give it up. Get some ideas together, get a plan down, and focus on the future. It seems that everyone is SO focused on the issue that it's become trite and stupid. We get it, move on.

[Nebu]

My impressions of the debate (that is the topic, right?)

1) Kudos to Bush on being a class act when asked about Kerry's character.  I thought Bush looked relaxed and confident.  I'm also guessing that he was briefed to NOT be negative... he showed some self-restraint and didn't attack when the opportunity presented itself.  I had not seen this side of Bush and I have to say that it impressed me.  

2) Bush spent most of his time responding and repeating the same themes.  I think he would have made a stronger showing if he had stuck to specifics and been a bit more open about his errors.  If Bush would state that he made mistakes and has a plan to correct them, it would win many of the swing voters.  I also have no clear picture that he has an exit strategy for Iraq.  I also don't feel he was clear enough on how he plans to disarm N. Korea.  

3) Kerry, though he didn't go into the detail I would have liked, did a good job in making his points.  This debate strengthened his position.  I think the town hall debate coming up will also be a victory for Kerry.  As a career politician, he's obviously the better debater.  If Kerry had been more specific and spent less time trying to rebut Bush, I think he would have been a more clear victor.  As it stands, I say he was the winner but he didn't hit the homerun he needed to in order to capture more of the swing vote.

Conclusion: Though both men showed some strengths, I felt that Kerry had more substance to him.  Granted, neither man really had much, but given the choice I'd have to say that Kerry gave a stronger showing.   I also think that although a bit muddled, this debate clarified the positions both have on the role of the US in world politics.  As far as foreign policy goes, I have to say that I am on the side of Kerry.

[SirBruce]

Did you READ what you quoted.

Yes.  Did you read the REST of it, where despite all of the cherry-picked quotes you cited, they nevertheless attempt to work together?

The level of "cooperation" between Bin Laden and Iraq was no larger than the level of cooperation between Bin Laden and Iran, Saudi-Arabia, Afghanistan, the Sudan,  Pakistan (our ally?), etc etc etc. In fact, it's smaller than those.

Pakistan changed its course to become more allied with us because we went after Afganistan.  Iran and Afghanistan are both enemies, so no surprise there.  Elements in the Sudan are as well.  Saudi Arabia, like Pakistan, has realized the error of their ways and is now cooperating with us.

Hey Bruce, remember a certain speech from Bin Laden about that 9/11 attacks. WHERE HE SAYS HIMSELF HE DISLIKES SADDAM AND THE GOVERNMENT OF IRAQ?

That's one thing.  The charge was that EVERYTHING he read was that Bin Laden hated Iraq, with the contextual implication was that Bin Laden hated it ENOUGH not to ever cooperate with them.  The 9/11 report clearly contradicts that position.  Perhaps this distinction is a bit too complex and subtle for some people to grasp.

Is that what you call "liberal media." Nice, I didn't know that Bin Laden wrote for the Village Voice on the side. Man gets around.

No, that's not what I would call "liberal media".  Why would you make such a silly statement, just to try to score rhetorical points?  Why don't you address the facts?

All your sad quotes come down to this: At various points when it was convenient for one side or the other, they talked a bit about doing something but then didn't. Yay! Mostly it comes down to agreeing to leave each other alone, rather than actively attack each other.

No, mostly it comes down to both sides wanted to work together on something, but we don't know if they ever did.  In some cases, US actions changed the geopolitical dynamics such that such cooperation never had a chance to fully materialize.  Had the US done nothing, it is very possible the two would be working together today.

If you want to play the "let's attack people who were responsible for 9/11" game Iraq is a very poor target. If you want to play "let's attack people who bolster Bin Laden" Iraq is STILL A POOR TARGET.

It's "Let's attack terrorists, and regimes who fund and harbor and assist terrorists, and any regime that intelligence indicates are trying to get WMD which, in turn, may give or sell to terrorists."  Iraq not only qualifies under that, but Iraq was also busily shooting at US planes, attempting to assassinate our former leaders, and was violating numerous UN resolutions, all the while maintaining a dictatorship that was brutalizing its own people and threatening its neighbors.

That's is what is dishonest about you people chanting over and over that Saddam and Bin Laden are in bed. Bin Laden was much more involved with and supported by a lot of other places, none of which we are attacking.

I never chanted that they were in bed.  Nor did I, or the administration, use the Iraq-AQ connection as a reason for war by itself.  Rather, I countered the assertion by anti-war activists that there WAS no connection.

"No, that's not all you need right there. There is evidence they WANTED to work together, that they were TRYING to work together, and that Hussein WAS working with OTHER terrorists. We don't know if he ever did work with AQ on an operation, but it's very possible he did or would have had we not stopped him. "

That's fucking pathetic. There are plenty of places that didn't just "want" or "try" to work with Bin Laden, they WERE WITHOUT A DOUBT working with Bin Laden. And for them it isn't just "possible" they would have worked with AQ, they WERE.

And believe me, they are on our "list" to deal with as well.  In some cases, like Iraq, invasion is in order.  In other cases, diplomacy is sufficient to get them on our side and to help us take out the people responsible.

If you want to say that Iraq "cooperated" with AQ that's fine (as long as you qualify it to not be "operation" cooperation, also known as "actual cooperation", as long as you acknowledge that plenty of other places cooperated MUCH MORE DIRECTLY AND TO A MUCH LARGER EXTENT.

And as long as you acknowledge that WE SHOULD DEAL WITH THOSE COUNTRIES TOO, UP TO AND INCLUDING INVASION IF NECESSARY.

If you can't acknowledge that, please shut up already. You aren't lobbying to attack Iraq, because your logic suits a lot of places NOT named Iraq much better. If your list is based on terrorist and AQ support and cooperation, Iraq is far down on the list.

Again, you confuse the issue by focusing on AQ.  Terrorism is more than just AQ.  But we agree that Iraq is "on the list" and as such needs to be dealt with.  And we dealt with it.  The list doesn't need to be taken in order, nor does every country on the list warrant the same solution.

Gee, does "prioritization" mean anything to you? Apparently not. GUYS SOME OFFICIALS IN IRAQ THOUGHT ABOUT MAYBE WORKING WITH AQ AT SOME POINT MAYBE, AND WERE REJECTED BUT THEY MAYBE ARE THINKING ABOUT IT AGAIN LETS ATTACK!!!11111!!!111

For all the other reasons I cited, yes, lets attack.

Edit: Let me point out the stupidty of quoting a report where most of the most "damning" evidence comes from Richard Clarke, who your hatchet men have tried to discredit as a "bitter, jealous old man." And we all know what Clarke thinks about how the Bush administration has handled things. Next time you are going to quote someone, don't quote someone that clearly and vehemently disagrees with you.

Why not?  I quoted him specifically because people like you DON'T vehemently disagree with him, but instead believe he speaks the truth.  Well, if you believe Clarke, then you must believe his conclusion of the Iraq-AQ connections.  If you don't want to believe Clarke, you are free to ignore those points, and concentrate on the others.

It's extremely sad that on one hand you can dismiss Clarke while making it personal, then trot him out later as "evidence" to support your position when we all know he DOESN'T support it.

It's not just said, it's very dishonest.

No, it's Clarke being dishonest, saying now that he doesn't support an Iraq-AQ link when he himself was one advocating the existance of such a link prior to his recent flip-flop.

"In the aftermath of Sept. 11, President Bush ordered his then top anti-terrorism adviser to look for a link between Iraq and the attacks, despite being told there didn't seem to be one.

The charge comes from the adviser, Richard Clarke, in an exclusive interview on 60 Minutes. "

Oops. Your source material disagrees with your conclusions!

Ummm, you confused yourself again.  The issue is Iraq-AQ links, not Iraq-9/11 links.

Quick, come up with a terrible analogy to Germany for the win!

The analogy would be that Germany didn't attack us at Pearl Harbor.  It's a terrible analogy, though.

Bruce

[HaemishM]

Congratulations, Bruce. You have now SirBruced the ever-living fuck out of this topic, and still haven't proven your point.

[Margalis]

Your source material disagrees with you. Is that so hard to wrap your head around?

So, when Clarke wrote his report, he was telling the truth, but now he's lying. That's convenient. I like the zero evidence that supports that. So, he's telling the truth when he agrees with you, but otherwise not. Nice. Funny how that works out.

Why attack Iraq FIRST. You haven't answered that. The issue IS the tie between 9/11 and Iraq. That what the Bush people have been saying. THAT'S WHAT BUSH SAID LAST NIGHT.

Or did you miss that part about they attacked us, so we have to attack them back?

What part of "no operational cooperation" is hard to understand? The 'no' ?

Seriously, this is pathetic. You can't selectively decide what to believe from the SAME source material. That's just self-serving bullshit.

I believe Clarke that there was no operational cooperation. I believe there may have been some vague plans or tacit agreements to leave each other alone. I believe Clarke that Iraq was not tied to 9/11 and was not an imminent threat.

You just believe what is convenient.

It's the same logic that lead Bush to say that the miscalculation in the Iraq war was we won too fast. It's just denial of reality and convenient reasoning. Or, the attacks in Iraq are getting worse and that's a sign that we are winning. (Because, losing is winning, and dying is winning) Of course, winning is also a sign of winning.

So you are basing your arguments on a source you claim is untrustworthy, except for the parts you would just like to believe are true because it helps your argument..brilliant.

[Abagadro]

If you want to see how badly Bush has dropped the ball in going after Al Queda in favor of Iraq, I'd recommend the article "Bush's Lost Year: How the War on Iraq Undermined the War on Terror, an Inventory" in this month's The Atlantic. I don't think it is available online unfortunately.

[Margalis]

Haven't you been paying attention caveman? Iraq and Al-Queda had no operational cooperation, but MAY have had some sort of non-operational cooperation, or maybe not but maybe it was in the works for the future!

Richard Clarke saw that as a clearly imminent threat, except when he didn't, but he was lying that time, but not the other time, when it also wasn't an imminent threat.

[Dark Vengeance]

Not to jump into the shitstorm, already in progress, but I think some folks mistakenly believe the war on terror is supposed to be exclusively against Al-Qaeda, and is supposed to be exclusively about avenging the victims of 9/11. This is simply not the case.

Whenever you guys get done arguing over any attempts at tying Iraq & 9/11, maybe you can address that Iraq did have connections to Al-Qaeda (though perhaps not as exciting as some expected), and that Saddam had given aid to other terrorist groups (IIRC, including Hamas).

Then give people the following options on the ballot:
Vote Republican: name of candidate
Vote Democrat: name of candidate
Vote neither: I hate both and this two party system sucks.

I would be willing to bet that a HUGE majority of people would pick the third option.

Newsflash, Surf, voting 3rd party or simply NOT VOTING is a means of saying that the major party choices and the system suck. And a HUGE portion of the population already exercises this option, primarily by not voting.

Personally, I couldn't bring myself to watch the debate much. I think I'm just too emotionally involved in this Presidential Election.

I'm not going to jump in your shit too much over this one, believe it or not. At least you're starting to recognize that your position is fuelled far more by emotion than by logic, or factual research.

I get this when I talk to folks at my local pub....after a few minutes of dicussion, it comes back down to gut feelings and vague statements about "I just don't trust the guy" or "just looking at him you can tell he's up to no good".

It's a valid position and all, but that's the point where I realize that I am wasting my breath by trying to debate facts, policy, and decisions. You can't satisfy an emotional objection with a logical response, nor a logical objection with an emotional response.

I think it's a shame that you've already decided based on gut instinct, and choose not to watch the debates, but it's your choice to make and I respect that. So long as you aren't making emotionally-driven specious arguments, or trying to claim that society prevents you from being properly informed, it'll stay that way, and I'll continue to toss some courtesy in your general direction.

I see Bush Jr. denying Kerry's accusations and the basic premise I stick to is, "Bush Jr. screwed up a lot and now he's in denial in an attempt to save his political career."

Kerry's basic premise isn't even that Bush made a mistake by going to war, but rather the way in which he went to war. This is a running theme that his handlers should have picked up on earlier....that it's not so much *WHAT* Bush has done, but *HOW* he has done it.

On foreign policy, that is the entire debate in a nutshell.....well, that and Kerry's convenient 20/20 vision of what we SHOULD HAVE done better, and a few vague commitments about what he is going to do in the future. (Although his pledge to secure all nuclear materials in the former USSR within 4 years is nice and specific, if a bit optimistic).

In that sense, Bush's statements about "It's hard work" become all the more relevant.....it's much easier to say what you're going to do than to actually get it done.

CRIPPLE FIGHT!!!

I think overall, sight on scene, it was a draw. Kerry made the strong "it's not what he did, but how he did it" argument.....Bush countered with "the commander in chief has to have a strong, consistent position for our troops, allies, the Iraqi citizens, and even our enemies....and calling this 'the wrong war' is not how you do that".

Bush flubbed more, but everyone knew he would....he's not as polished, and for some voters that even works to his advantage, making him seem more likable and real. I look for Bush to do well in the town hall format debate for this exact reason.

No major gaffes, no big crowd-pleasing stumpers either. However, I think Kerry was more effective last night than he had been all year.....the time requirements placed emphasis on delivering a concise message, and he actually did it once or twice. For this reason, I think he is going to win the media aftermath, and the sound byte contest on the evening news. A good evening for Kerry, yet still not decisive enough IMO to cause a significant shift in the polls.

I was a little distressed though to see that CNN and other stations chose to ignore the negotiated rules about showing reactions and cutaways. Just seems a bit unethical IMO to ignore the rules the participants agreed upon....especially given the responsibility of the media as the source of this information for almost ALL Americans.

Anyway, Bush's big challenge is in the economic debate, primarily in reminding Joe Sixpack that the dotcom implosion, 9/11, the accounting scandals had a cause/effect relationship with the job losses, outsourcing, downsizing, and economic funk of the past 4 years. Joe Sixpack doesn't automatically connect what happens on Wall Street with his being laid off 6 months later. It's a tricky point to make, because people don't like thinking about 9/11, they don't like talking about 9/11, and they sure as hell don't want to hear about 9/11 or how it still plays a role in our current economic situation....the tendency will be to tune out. Additionally, look for Kerry to try and hit again and again on the tax cuts (knowing it takes longer than the average attention span to explain how they actually do help the economy, or why the highest brackets got the biggest cuts), and for him to launch salvos at Bush about "'hiding behind 9/11 as an excuse'.

That being said, let the shitstorm continue.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

[Margalis]

I saw some cutaways in the first few minutes, then they stopped.

As far as ethics is concerned, who gives a shit? The debate rules are a sham, and neither party has any qualms about leaking garbage to the media all the time. I think it's absurd to complain about ethics after you've purposely leaked the identity of a CIA agent out of personal spite.

You can't count on the media to have no ethics whatsoever, then complain about a tiny "ethical" infraction.

To be clear, I'm not jumping on you and saying *you* personally can't complain, but the Bush and Kerry people can't complain.

As far as generic terrorism is concerned, obviously we do not view all terrorists and terrorism as equal. We don't go after terrorists that don't pose us any threat. We're not going to attack Ireland any time soon, or Palestine.

If you want to simply state that Iraq has some ties with some terrorists, that's ok. Hell, Saddam sent money to the families of Palestinian bombers. That's a point of interest but nothing more. Our war on terror is very much a war on terror that threatens us directly, not a global "all terrorism is bad" war. Sure, we think that all terrorism is bad (or most, anyway), but we aren't actively doing anything about it.

Clearly we are not hell bent on busting on anyone who supports any terrorists. It's about 9/11 and threats similar to 9/11.

I would remind people that terrorism had been going on for a long long time before 9/11. It IS about 9/11.

[SurfD]

Compulsory voting so politicians have to cater to everyone and preferential voting so you can list the candidates you like in order from best to worst.  

Yeah, compulsory voting is a keen idea.  Why, all the third world dictatorships are doing it!

What a jackass idea that is.  Let's force people who aren't politically motivated, aren't up on the issues, and are resentful of being forced to the polls or made to pay a fine pull the lever for leader of their country!  Fucking genius, that is.

There's a reason that voting is voluntary, and along with the right to vote comes the right NOT TO VOTE.  It's kind of part and parcel of living in a freedom-based society; the government not coercing it's citizens.

Perhaps we could start a seperate thread on this topic and let Gulp froth and boil there.  Anyhow, I may have been a bit unclear about the origional intention of "Mandatory Voting".

See, we are not forcing the uneducated, unmotivated, resentfull, etc, to make an uninformed decision, we are forcing them to actually 'Register' their stance.

See, forcing them to record their preference /= to forcing them to pick a candidate.  You could give them a balloted option for "None of the above". That was essentially what my third option was for.

Consider: how many people dont vote because of the belief that their choice will be meaningless in the end anyhow (one of those "other" parties)?  How many dont vote because they just dont like any of the current choices?  How many for other reasons? Statistically, what you get from your voting info is essentially who prefers republican, democrat, or the few people that doggedly vote for that other party every year in the desperate hope that by some fluke they will win some day.

If you actually required mandatory voting, and made the polls much more easily accessed, while at the same time providing an option to "vote for no one", there by exercising your right to "not vote", you would get a much clearer idea of exactly where the "majority" of the US stands.

I still stand by the fact that there would be a desturbingly large number of "none of the above" votes clocked in, because as it stands, I imagine many people simply cast their ballot Republican/Democrat beacuse to give it to one of the other parties would be, as people like to say, "throwing your vote away".

I guess the simple question however would be. Does the US government election ballot already have an option for "None of the Above", or are you forced to pick someones candidate?

[chinslim]

Jeez, let's boil it down to plain and simple:

Bush was PWNED last night.  Can an incumbent Commander in Chief stutter and stammer, stare off into nowhere, and backtrack on arguments any worse that he did?

[schild]

Jeez, let's boil it down to plain and simple:

Bush was PWNED last night.  Can an incumbent Commander in Chief stutter and stammer, stare off into nowhere, and backtrack on arguments any worse that he did?

No he wasn't. I'm not a supporter of Kerry and if Bush were 'PWNED' like you said, it would mean that Kerry said something that piqued my interest. He didn't. He said the same old shit we've heard a thousand times - but this time he had a time limit. Whoopty fucking doo. Waste of 90 minutes of my life and confirmation that whoever wins this fall, we lose.

[MrHat]

Jeez, let's boil it down to plain and simple:

Bush was PWNED last night.  Can an incumbent Commander in Chief stutter and stammer, stare off into nowhere, and backtrack on arguments any worse that he did?

No he wasn't. I'm not a supporter of Kerry and if Bush were 'PWNED' like you said, it would mean that Kerry said something that piqued my interest. He didn't. He said the same old shit we've heard a thousand times - but this time he had a time limit. Whoopty fucking doo. Waste of 90 minutes of my life and confirmation that whoever wins this fall, we lose.

The only sure winner is Canada.

Fucking Canucks.

[SurfD]

Depends, if you get Bush, we likely get bullied into a Missile Defence program agreement which we neither really need, really want, or can actually guarantee will fucking work at all under real world conditions.  Which my tax dollars are going to be syphoned off to spend on.  I wouldnt exactly call that a win.....

[Righ]

Bush screwed the pooch last night. But as Schild says, it matters little. Kerry is likely to be every bit as authoritarian. Vote on the same stupid personal choices that shouldn't be political divisions, such as abortion. Vote on war and peace with this country or the next. There is no Jefferson on the ballot. Simply choose which freedoms you wish to lose first.

[Calantus]

Yeah, "forced voting" doesn't actually force you to vote for a candidate, it just demands that you show up on the day and at least pretend to vote. Last year our council boundaries shifted a little and my house happened to change districts 1/2 a week before council elections (they're small governing bodies for each district incase you don't have them where you are - think Mayor), and they only told us the very day of voting. Naturally this means I know exactly nothing about who's running. So I rock up, pick up the pencil, make the appropriate motions with said pencil, fold the bigass piece of paper and pop it in the box. No voting by me and only about 1/2 hour taken out of my day.

It's not hard to cast a donkey vote, even Florida residents could manage. And I hear you guys get a curtain, so you don't even have to pretend to be writing.

The idea behind it is that if you have to go, you catch the people that DO have an oppinion but otherwise couldn't be buggered going to the ballot. If you're there anyway and you have an oppinion you might as well put it down. But then it's not really important either, the American system works well enough.

[Righ]

But then it's not really important either, the American system works well enough.

A lot of people are laughing.

[Calantus]

But then it's not really important either, the American system works well enough.

A lot of people are laughing.

You might like to note that "well enough" is rather variable in its scope and tends to fall a little bit more towards the middle than either "perfect" or "crapola". Just thought I'd point that out.

[Comstar]

If you actually required mandatory voting, and made the polls much more easily accessed, while at the same time providing an option to "vote for no one", there by exercising your right to "not vote", you would get a much clearer idea of exactly where the "majority" of the US stands.

Well, we Australia, has that. You can choose to write nothing on the ballet, or scribble F you all on it, or do it wrong delibartly. It's recorded how many votes are donkey votes at any rate, but the percentage as far as I know, is very small.

I guess the simple question however would be. Does the US government election ballot already have an option for "None of the Above", or are you forced to pick someones candidate?

Don't they have an option to "write in" a persons name?

[Toonces the Driving Cat]

The War on Terror is not just about AQ.  Democrats want to make it that, because that way they think they can just kill UBL and declare victory and bring all the troops home.  This demonstrates their fundamental inability to understand the nature of the terrorist threat the entire world faces.

Bruce

Oh please, don't tell me you actually buy into all this fear-mongering. Terrorism is nothing new. It's been going on since the dawn of time, just like crime, and is not a threat capable of growing very large. The only reason we have a hair up our collective butts about it right now is because one group of terrorists got lucky and were remarkably successful in their stunt (911).

Now in 2004 terrorism is just a buzz word being used by Bush as a personal strong-point to play to in his bid to retain power and continue to serve the corporate interests who support him as a politician.

When people like you talk about "global terror threat" you are perpetuating this diversion and contributing to the propaganda that diverts us away from the real issues, like putting America back in the hands of its people and moving forward to a global society that achieves great things rather than blowing each other up.

The Driving Cat.

[Dark Vengeance]

Wow. Just....holy shit. In this day and age, you're claiming that all of the concerns about terrorism are basically a bullshit political ploy?

Put the cork back on the fork, Ruprecht.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

[Toonces the Driving Cat]

What I'm saying is that terrorism is like crime. It goes up, it goes down, incidents happen, and we are concerned about it always. Doesn't mean its some heretofore-unknown new threat to the world that forces us to change all our policies or our beliefs. On a personal level, I feel no more threat to my personal health from terrorists than I did before 911.

[Dark Vengeance]

And if someone boosted a few billion dollars of money from the federal reserve and went on a killing spree in the process, you had best believe we'd have candidates talking about being tough on crime.

Funny nowadays thinking about how many people spouted about 'we will never forget' in regards to 9/11 a couple years ago, that have already planted their heads firmly back in the sand.

Your position is essentially "meh, it's always a problem, but nothing worth worrying about". It is a specious argument at best.

Bring the noise.
Cheers..............