GOP talking points hit the email early, eh? You must have spent all morning cutting and pasting this "essay"!

Nice work. Polly wanna cracker?

Bush lost. He looked and sounded like the confused moron he is. One can't admire consistency for it's own sake: a fool is a person who is wrong -- but consistent -- which sums up Bush on Iraq.

Kerry sounded articulate, informed, and presidential.

Oh, and did I mention that Iraq is STILL a mistake and a disaster?

Actually, I typed this out in about 15 minutes. Kerry is not hard to figure out. As I say in my post, he's great on paper, but in terms of substance during the debate, he came across as both weak and naive. Kerry was saying, "this is what we must do," and Bush was able to say, "been there, done that."

By the way, the DailyKos thinks Kerry lost last night's debate. I think that Kerry squeeked by to live for another day.

David

Well I guess you prefer the "Lousy in Reality" President to the "Great on Paper President"? I guess it does get down to whether you do like Bush's plan for "more of the same". For myself the last 4 years haven't been the best years the nation had, and the things Bush has done to solve some of the problems (they aren't ALL his fault) have NOT solved the problems, either with terrorism OR with the economy.

On a different note, I had to laugh about George Bush's reference to how things were before September 10th. After repeating September 11th for 3 years now, you'd think he would get the date right.

Despite my laughing, I don't know if I'm ready for four more years of a President that you don't even EXPECT to keep important facts straight in his head. At least he didn't repeat some of his former repeated boners such as "Saddam wouldn't allow arms inspectors in Iraq" or "Europe supported our war against Iraq".

It is Senator Kerry who pledges "more of the same," only, he adds "faster" to that equation. On the major issues which matter to Americans, Kerry promises faster results in Iraq and faster economic growth.

That's all fine and good but it boils down to another politician blowing smoke. As I said, it looks great on paper...

David

I had to laugh about George Bush's reference to how things were before September 10th

You misremembered the President's statement. He was talking about the fact that treating terrorism as a police matter was the way we did things on September 10, after that, it all changed.

David

The consensus, according to the broadcat media (including CNN and Fox) this morning, seems to be that it was Bush who "came across as both weak and naive."

Making claims doesn't change facts: last night Bush, in a rather weak and naive manner, gave us "more of the same" by repeating scripts that weren't germane to the questions, and did in fact promise "more of the same" failed policies.

"Resolve" can be a good thing, but not when you have a death grip on the handlebars and crank up the revs as you continue to head for the edge of the cliff.

That's just stupid.

As I said, you need to talk to your guy Kerry, because he promised even MORE of more of the same... Or something like that.

So, at some level, the Kerry Campaign is acknowledging that President Bush has done some things correctly. He can harp on Iraq all he wants, but Americans know that we have killed more terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan in the past few years than we have in the past decade.

In the end, Iraq will be free and terrorists will have been dealt a fatal blow in that there are not one but two active democracies in the heart of their territory (excluding Israel, which is not Arab territory).

David

No, David, to all of the above (in comment 7).

You can't sell those mischaracterizations, and your conclusions are disputed by many more knowlegdable foreign policy professionals.

And even were it possible to create a "free Iraq, even with the current loose adminstration definition for that, no reasonable person could possibly believe that this would "deal a fatal blow" to terrorism.

I'm quite certain that I wouldn't find a claim like that even on NRO or in the OpinionJournal. It's pure fantasy.

Well I think the ones who would disagree with you, and anyone else that doubts what I've said, are the terrorists themselves. They don't want a free Iraq OR a free Afghanistan because they know that people in other Middle East nations will want to the same thing.

You are free, of course, to call it a fantasy, but fifteen years ago most people would have called the collapse of the Soviet Union the same thing.

What we dream, we can achieve.

David

Ignoring facts, David, doesn't change them.

All the terrorists in the world are not in Iraq; in fact, General Abizaid himself said last Sunday that he believes there are fewer than a thousand foreign fighters in Iraq.

Wiping out all the terrorists in Iraq, if we could, would make only a small dent. The radical Islamist threat has been spread by Bush's unilateralist invasion of Iraq to at least 60 countries. As the experts tell us:

'In Iraq, a problem has been created that didn't exist there before. The events in Iraq have had a profound impact on the entirety of the jihad movement.' Judge Jean-Louis Brugulere, French anti-terrorism investigator.

'Once these guys have gone to Iraq to train, they know how to use weapons and explosives. That's the first level: Iraq as a new Afghanistan, a Chechnya.' Pierre de Bousquet de Florian, director of Frances intelligence agency.

'Al Qaeda is increasingly being invoked as an ideological motivation of Islamic radicals.' Gijs de Vries, counter-terrorism coordinator for the European Union.

'Destroying Al Qaeda will not resolve the problem.' M.J. Gohel, head of the Asia-Pacific Foundation, a London think tank.

The new model of Islamic terrorism was born May 16, 2003 on the outskirts of Casablanca. That day a band of unemployed young men from the neighborhood, most of whom lived on the same narrow street, carried out five nearly simultaneous attacks.

The death toll was 45, including 12 of the 14 bombers.

Moroccan and foreign authorities discovered that the bombers had no previous ties to extremism ... Moroccan authorities identified Karim Mejatti, a Moroccan veteran of Afghanistan, as the person who recruited them ... authorities were struck by the speed with which he converted them into suicide bombers.

Spanish anti-terrorism police who visited Casablanca after the attacks said they were convinced the tactic could be replicated in Europe. The prediction came true 10 months later in Madrid. [Al Qaeda Seen as Wider Threat 9/26/07 subscription]

Good points David.

I am a Bush supporter, but I must admit, I am pretty pissed off at the lack of disrespect Ralph Nadar has been given.

Democrats have been fighting like crazy to get this guy off ballets because "he takes votes away From Kerry like he did for Gore"

My opinion on this, is that Gore didn't do a good enough job to CONVINCE people to vote for him. Its not Ralph's faught Gore didn't get elected, and it won't be Ralphs fault if Kerry isn't elected. I honestly think he should have been involved in last nights "debate". The people in America have the right to hear what he has to say as a Presidential candidate. Even if he only gets like 3 % of the vote, he deserves to have his voice heard.

Two points Hal:

1. First of all, you have a lot of French sources there. I'm half joking, but, really, the French have disagreed with the Iraq war all along, mainly because they were in bed with Saddam via the "Oil for Food" program. Prime Minister Allawi has been saying all along that foreign fighters are streaming into the country, especially from Iran, to prevent the formation of a Democracy in Iran. They don't want free elections, they want another Islamic state, where women are property and anyone who disagrees with their religion deserves death.
   
2. Kerry has been recently emphasizing over and over that we missed the boat on al Qaeda. "Why haven't we gotten Osama," asked Kerry last night. If the President is too focused on one issue, then Kerry is far worse.

I admit I hadn't checked the transcipt on the September 10th issue before I commented on i, but I did just now and it says this, "That's kind of a pre-September 10th mentality," http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6146353/

Face it, from moment to moment Bush doesn't know what he's talking about, do you want a decisive President that you don't trust to know at any particular moment what even happened during his own term of office?

Some of us could really use spell-checking for blog comments, eh?

Well, BTP, I think most everyone knew what he was talking about because, taking the whole thing in context, it is exactly what Bush has been saying regarding Kerry's stance for months. As a matter of fact, Kerry changed his stance because it wasn't resonating with voters.

But if you want to obsess on that, go for it! That's the beauty of living in a free country.

David

1. Allawi and Kerry are both wrong on this - General Abizaid, the commander doing the fighting on the ground, says foreign fighters have not been streaming into Iraq, and of the perhaps as many as 50,000 resistance fighters "fewer than 1,000" are foreign fighters. The reality is that it is native Iraqis who want the U.S. occupation force out and control of their own desitiny, whether that be Islamic or democratic.

2. Your conclusion simply does not follow.

Your final claim is groundless wishful thinking.

We have more terrorism because of the Bush crusade (his word, and spread through all of Islam) in Iraq and one-sided support of Israelis against Arabs (he scuttled his own "road map" by telling the world that Israelis can stay in the Palestinian territories they've occupied).

This has angered Muslims around the world and, as I said, turned even moderate Islamic countries into breeding grounds for terrorists.

Our version of "democracy" enforced in one country in the Middle East, even if it were to happen, is not going to reduce the threat of Islamic extremists to America.

Bush clearly does not understand the nature of the threat posed by radical Islamists, hence will never be able to protect the U.S. from it.

And every day not spent addressing the real threat brings potential disaster closer.

Well, I guess you have really adapted the "soft bigotry of low expectations" when it comes to George Bush. It's never what George says, it's what you think he meant to say. It's not the reasons that George SAID we had to fight the war on Iraq, it's the reasons he LATER said. It's not that George flip-flopped on "nation building" its all about flip-flopping.

I guess if I didn't obsess about what George Bush actually DOES, I could concentrate on his "image" instead.

I would vote for George's "image" in a second, it's his actual performance in office (including his performance as a speaker) that bothers me.

How can anyone claim George has a "clear and consistent vision"? Only by ignoring the fact that he can't even make a "clear sentence" on a consistent basis.

I'd have to say that your expectations are pretty low if you are defending Kerry, the guy who missed 70% of the public hearings for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence the year after 9/11. Even if what you say is true, I'll take a man who has tried and failed over a slacker seeking power at any price any day.

David

How about someone, David, who has failed at everything he has tried - domestically and internationally - in the four years he has been in power and will do anything to hang on to that power?

Failed at EVERYTHING Hal? Failed in freeing both Afghanistan and Iraq? Failed at putting Saddam in a jail cell, at killing 75% of al Qaeda's leadership, of helping to get the economy moving again after the bursting of the dot com bubble, 9/11, AND the Wall Street Scandals?

President Bush has had to deal with many more challenges, including a recession he inherited from Clinton's last year in office, than Bill Clinton ever did. Clinton's claim to fame is that he managed to survive impeachment.

Hal, thank you for setting yourself at the extreme end of this debate. It serves as a reminder to me that reason is not part of our debate.

For example, can you answer any of my above points? How about the one where I mention the fact that Kerry critisizes Bush for being too unilateral in Iraq and not unilateral enough with North Korea? Inquiring minds want to know.

David

Manicure anyone?

Some of my stats regarding Kerry's Senate Intelligence Committee attendence were off. Here is the information from FactCheck.org:

Kerry often touts his eight years on the Senate Intelligence Committee as a prime qualification for office. The Bush ad takes that on, describing Kerry as a no-show for most of the committee's public meetings. If anything, the ad understates Kerry's lack of attendance...

The Bush ad shows Kerry promising to "immediately reform the intelligence system," then counters with an announcer saying "as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee Kerry was absent for 76 percent of the committee's public hearings." As support for that statement, the Bush campaign states that Kerry is listed as present at only 11 of the 49 public meetings of the committee while he was a member, from 1993 through January, 2001, when Kerry left the committee.

FactCheck.org examined the official, published records of those hearings. And indeed, Kerry is listed as attending only 11 of those hearings.

Kerry's apparent absence from 38 of the hearings actually figures out to an absentee rate of 77.6%.

David, you're just too easy.

Afghanistan and Iraq are disasters, and that is recognized in a clearly bipartisan way.

Saddam is essentially irrelevant, as he was not a threat to America.

"75% of al Qaeda's leadership" is just more right-wing spin. That just means that 18 of the top 24 leaders have been captured, but Al Qaeda has at least 18,000 members so the losses didn't make any kind of dent. (And doesn't address the 100,000 or more Islamic extremist out there looking for out blood, nor the countless new terrorists created by this administration.)

Any claims about the "great economy" are demonstrably false if you're one of the many millions whose real income has dropped during this administration, or one of the 45 million without health care coverage, or one of the 15 million or so wanting jobs but unable to find them (because the jobs are all in Mumbai and points East).

The Bush response to 9/11 started right, but then he abandoned the war on terrorism for a politically-motivated unilateralist invasion of Iraq that created hordes of new terrorists.

(I didn't and don't much care for Clinton, so say whatever you like about him.)

Facts matter.

So does the ability to understand them.

Flanagan: "...the ultimate solution for the growing terrorist threat is simple, promote democracy in the heart of the terrorist's recruiting grounds."

I'm so sick of this load of fantasy bullshit. Give 'em the vote and watch them vote for a fuckin' medieval Islamic THEOCRACY.

Than whatta ya do?

Re-invade?

Feh. Admit it: You want their oil.

In this Coke vs. Pepsi "debate", Flannelman makes the amateur mistake of talking about his perceived enemy. So we know all about what he doesn't like other product in competition for market share.

But we know nothing about why the product he is shilling for is any good or desirable. Does it taste good? We don't know. If you drop an aspirin in it, will it let you get laid? We don't know. Has it included cocaine in the past? Again, we don't know.

I would be better off if Flannelman and his ilk insisted on sending out messages about enlarging my breasts and penis because at least then I'd know they are only doing this for greed, not just being terminals for dumb ideology.

Well, I do love the rush that Democrats have made to abandon any support they've had in the past for removing Saddam from power. Present company excepted, many Americans see that move as necessary for making America a safer place.

Dems in Congress agreed unanimously, then they disagreed, now many still agree, but, of course Kerry agrees or disagrees depending upon where the moon is aligned, or which secret foreign supporter hopes he will win the election, or some such arbitrary occurrence that causes Kerry to do an about face and shift positions.

And that ultimately is the point to my entire post which none of you has been able to answer. You simply ignore the faults of YOUR candidate and attack Bush, declaring that "Bush is bad."

Ooooh! Very sophisticated of you. :-D

As bad as think Bush might be, Kerry is FAR worse. Which is why he's trailing in the polls and will likely continue to do so right through the elections. Then you can tell me how America was cheated and deceived.

I look forward to that conversation.

Thanks,

David

One other quick thing. If you look at the 96 election, economic indicators are better than where they were when Clinton was running. The other thing was that many Republican partisans were harping on Clinton just as you are on Bush. As a matter of fact, Clinton was counting on that.

Your stance, which is to call everything that Bush does and is, essentially "evil" helps the President. You need to listen more to Dick Morris.

Thanks,

David

Clearly you haven't read the comments, David, or you wouldn't claim "you simply ignore the faults of YOUR candidate and attack Bush."

The reason for the long list of complaints about Bush is because he has been a total screw-up, utterly incompetent.

His greatest skill appears to be his ability to give a good stump speech. And even that is a recently-learned skill that he loses when the situation requires more than a scripted response from him.

You saw the debate, you know that's true.

He's an empty vessel and it's time to dump him.

And another thing, your projections onto your opponents simply are not a good way to argue. The technique simply does not prove any of your points.

One might even say that it is "evil."

Hal- I hesitate to get in on this, because neither Bush nor Kerry is my candidate, but a reality check, please.

To call Bush "a total screw-up, utterly incompetent" is miles off the mark, in both reality and perception.

Your long list of complaints is obviously not the nation's. If it were, Kerry would be up by a vast majority in the polls. Alas.

Fact is, both Bush and Kerry are flawed candidates, and supporters of both have chosen their side based on their willingness to ignore some flaws in favor of other positives, or, they see many of the things that you have a complaint about as a strength.

The last time a President was widely seen as a total screw-up, utterly incompetant was Carter, and it showed on the campaign trail, and in the election result. I do not accept that Carter was a total screw-up, but the majority of the people did. This is the difference between your analysis and the reality.

No, Mike. A huge posrtion of the populace sees Bush as a total screw up.

Many others, like even many leading neoconservatives, see him as only a partial screw-up, but a major screw-up on major issues like Iraq and the "war on terrorism."

Mike,

Thanks for your comments. You are right on the mark. I don't claim that President Bush is perfect, he's made plenty of mistakes, and I've blogged those opinions.

Good luck with getting Hal to offer up some moderation on this topic, though I'm sure he does on other topics. The image comes to mind of trying to squeeze blood from a stone. ;-)

Thanks again for your comments.

David

Disparagement avoids having to deal with facts, doesn't it, David?

Bush has totally screwed up on all the major issues on which a president is supposed to provide leadership and some level of competence:

• fighting terrorists (ran away from it);


• the invasion of Iraq (increased threat to Americans and America);


• homeland security (besides the above items, has paid only lip service to doing anything about it, cutting expenditures as we speak);


• the economy (deficits that may take the world down with us);


• jobs (mild recovery but still lost a net 1 million, while the number of unemployed increased by an additional 5 million);


• health care (those without any increased by 5 million, and costs increased by tens of billions paid to corporations);


• international trade (running record deficits while signing bilateral protectionist trade agreements).

Since Flannelman has so much faith (and it seems to be faith) please entertain us and let us know which you would let GW Bush do to you:

1) fill out your income tax form

2) give you a haircut

3) negotiate your auto/health insurance plan

And please explain why you think he would do a good job, thank you very much.

Again, I say, great job of avoiding all the points I make in my post above. The fact is, you sound just like the fanatical Clinton haters did in 1996. All you have to do is substitute "Bush" for "Clinton" and WALLAH, you have the same mindless, angry rhetoric.

Again I'll ask, what do you have to say on the fact that, on the day of the debate, one of Kerry's very FIRST comments was how his heart went out to struggling Floridians. Yet, while President Bush was out visiting those struggling Floridians, taking stock of their losses and talking with people who had lost EVERYTHING, Kerry was off getting a manicure.

His nails looked beautiful during the debate, by the way.

David Flanagan

For example, can you answer any of my above points? How about the one where I mention the fact that Kerry critisizes Bush for being too unilateral in Iraq and not unilateral enough with North Korea? Inquiring minds want to know.

Ever heard of nuance, Blogcritic's Representative of the Christian Far Right? You find fault with that remark because you can't wrap your mind around the reality that one size doesn't fit all. It is definitely possible to be too (insert adjective) in regard to one country and not (insert same adjective) enough in regard to another. Nor is policy you deem contradictory limited to Democratic administrations. For example, at the same time the Reagan administration beat the drum for democracy in the Soviet Union, it supported 'constructive engagement' with South Africa, i.e., maintaining the status quo. Need we even discuss what it was doing in El Salvador and Nicarauga while accusing the Soviets of meddling in Cuba and Namibia? You have taken an analytical problem you have and used it to claim there is something wrong with applying different policies to different circumstances. Kerry is making sense. You aren't.

I realize that your congregation at Free Republic probably told you the reasoning in this entry was wonderful. But, little dissension from boilerplate far Right polemics is allowed there. You shouldn't be surprised that this entry is going over less well here.

Dude: did you even read this?
Again I'll ask, what do you have to say on the fact that, on the day of the debate, one of Kerry's very FIRST comments was how his heart went out to struggling Floridians. Yet, while President Bush was out visiting those struggling Floridians, taking stock of their losses and talking with people who had lost EVERYTHING, Kerry was off getting a manicure.


So, showing up for a photo-op is more important than, well, I don't know what-the-point-you're-trying-to-make.

I'm sure if my trailer had been blown to bits, I'd want a sock-puppet to use the wreakage as a photo-op, instead of some guy somewhere saying he was upset about it.

No, David, that's Fox Channel bullshit - that "manicure" crap is another right-wing lie meant to demean and diminish the opposition.

A fox reporter simply pulled it out of his ass, and when Fox was called on it they pulled the false story off the site.

I wish you and the right-wing slimebags would stop the lies.

Yo, D.F. You might wanna pray. The latest reputable poll, Newsweek's, has John Kerry even with Shrub. The disapproval is being credited to the very remarks you are lauding. Shrub's ridicule appears to have backfired.

Reading through this thread it seems to me, David, that you have difficulty distinguishing neocon and right-wing spin (your "points") from facts, many of which were presented in the comments already (read them again if you really care).

So maybe we do need to address the script point by point, although I doubt that even that will register.

1 and 2 are essentially the same point, and there's nothing wrong with Kerry's positions.

Believe it or not, different situations and problems may require different solutions.

With North Korea, there is no reason to believe that the U.S. could not be working the problem though a channel different from that of the six nations. Instead, Bush buried his head in the sand and let NK continue building its nuclear and missile arsenals.

That may be Bush's biggest security failure yet.

3 - There is no contradiction here and Kerry is right.

Bush abandonded the war against terrorists where they were (Afghanistan) and put American lives at risk in a country where the terrorists weren't (Iraq).

Kerry was very right on 4, and I have detailed the facts to you numerous times:

The $87 billion act you keep spinning was a bad bill, full of pork, so Kerry wanted to split troop support into a separate bill he would vote for. The Republicans killed that, and instead voted to keep the pork for Halliburton and other American contractors, while sending the troops into Iraq with 12,000 Humvees but with 10,000 of those with no armor at all.

Details can be found at Bush Flopped on Terrorism and Security.

He may not be back, Hal. When a thread turns into largely a refutation of what he said in an entry, Flanagan tends to post another, often similar, entry. This entry has to be at least the tenth time around for his older allegations.

"He may not be back"

One can only hope, MD :-)