Posted on 10/01/2004 6:10:21 AM PDT by xzins
In order of priority, Kerry's major mistakes and gaffes from last night. The first few clearly disqualify him from being president...ever...
1. Putting Nuclear Fuel in the hands of the Ayatollah of Iran. Kerry actually suggested this last night and it is mind-boggling. Iran is the major supporter of terrorism in the world. At a minimum, we are giving them material for a dirty bomb.
2. The major issue confronting America is proliferation of WMDs, to include nuclear, into the hands of Terrorists, but Kerry sees nuclear proliferation only as the major issue...without regard to the terrorists who killed 3000 on 9/11 or the nation in question. He doesn't know why the war is taking place. He puts Iceland in the same category as Al Qaeda.
3. Kerry requires a Global Test before we protect America. Pres. Bush caught this immediately and called it for the critical error in protecting America that it is.
4. Kerry denies a multi-lateral approach to N. Korea. He has previously said that Pres. Bush FAILED by not pursing a multi-lateral approach in Iraq. In Iraq, Pres. Bush has most of our major allies supporting us and providing soldiers. In N. Korea he has brought the China, Russia, Japan, and S. Korea into partnership to pressure N. Korea and Kerry sasy NO MULTI-LATERAL. This flip-flop is right on national TV and it goes unnoticed.
5. Kerry continued to demean the contribution of our allies by calling into question their sacrifice. He counted numbers without any regard for the size and other commitments of those other armies.
6. Kerry again flip-flopped on Iraq saying early in the debate that Saddam Hussein should be gone and simultaneously saying that the mission was a mistake.
7. Kerry continued to demean the mission in Iraq and in doing so he demeans the sacrifice of the trooops, because Kerry consistently questioned the mission itself.
Kerry might be criticized for taking notes as Bush spoke, and people will know he was just "acting" like he was making notes. But Bush's facial reactions will be used against him in democat ads. Bartlett said this morning that Bush knew ahead of time the cameras would be on him all the time, but (I hate to say this), Bush didn't look like he knew.
Well of course he does. He was in Vietnam, you know.
I'm not sure, but I think I remember the IAEA saying something about Iraq's "nuclear power" program.
Maybe they were in the process of building another one.
I think he was talking about the military coalition of external countries, not Iraq itself.
I disagree.
I'm a counselor. I don't think his expression was angry. I thought it looked like a person in deep, intense thought.
Maybe agitation at their discussion of his being a liar..but that was an unfair question.
Other than that, all I saw as deep, intense, brow-furrowing reflection on his face.
Then he's wrong....he's saying that dead Iraqis DON'T COUNT???!!!
What a heartless SOB that is!
Maybe. Kerry talked like there were several of them and it was a done deal that they existed and needed guarding.
Point scored by poster concerning there was a plan for reconstruction by having the wisdom to go in and prevent destruction of the oil production capabilities. They didn't want a repeat of all those fires.
No. I think you're getting off the point. They were discussing whether Bush was successful or not in building a military coalition of external countries from the world community.
But you are right in that Bush could have mentioned that a lot of the casualties now are Iraqi's and they have skin in the game etc
But I will do my best.
This though is a foreshadowing of the next debate(s). Kerry is going to try and make outsourcing an issue.
I can see it coming... thats what we need to prepare for.
>So they did have them? I don't remember ever reading that they did. Israel took out Iran's nuclear facility.
Do you recall the stories about our finding a nuclear faciltity of some kind, not far into the war. I recall stories of people using barrels, that had once held nuclear material, to haul water.
I wonder how many of those folks are now dead.
but like I've said earlier, these "style" issues will take a backseat to substance when the American people have time to mull over the debate.
Bush scored big on reminding people of Kerry's flip flops. Kerry actually admitted that what he said didn't matter. Did you get that? It came when Kerry tried to explain away what he had said by comparing it to what Bush actually did in Iraq.
Bush scored big on North Korea. Pointing out that it was Clinton who got snookered by North Korea, and beautifully explaining why 5 way talks with them is much better than just US and North Korea at the table.
Bush scored big on Iran. Pointing out that sanctions against Iran were in place since Clinton.
Bush scored big on how Kerry has insulted and belittled our allies in the coalition.
Bush scored big on defining leadership qualities which Kerry lacks. He pointed out how Kerry changed his opinion based on politics and polls.
Yes, I do recall those stories, but they aren't the same as a fully-functioning nuclear plant, let alone several scattered around as Kerry clearly stated.
The "both" comment relates to #4 in my list.
It was when he flipped from "bilateral" on N. Korea to including China when he said "both."
He flip-flopped right on TV.
Excellent points....every one of them.
I think you'll find that some of those facial expressions were agitation...perhaps...but that the greater majority were simply Bush in serious reflection mode.
His answers were far too calm for them to have been "anger." In fact he even said in his laid back way at one point, "I'm a calm guy."
And the first proliferation example he cited was our program trying to develop bunker-busting bombs. Typical lib-think of finding fault with the US. It also ties to Kerry's 20 year record of opposing numerous weapons programs. I though W would knock this out of the park, but he totally missed the opportunity Kerry had teed up for him.
Memo to Rove and Hughes: Grab onto this and drive this stake through Lurch's lib-heart.
I think Pres. Bush learned in the Gore debates that it's the 72 hours after the debate that matter when it comes to driving things out of the park. After the first Gore debate, we were told that "Gore won."
Time proved that SUBSTANCE won.
That means that the President came out on top last night.
I agree with you. I thought "You opposed Pres. Reagan and called for a nuclear freeze, you puke."
Not very presidential to use sloppy language. I still say that one should factor in the Saddam Iraqi Army, Mujhadeen and insurgent casualties into the number.
Americans need to be reminded that our guys are not dying in a vacuum over there. That we are giving better than we get.
Worked with NK so probably will work for Iran just as well.
Nuts 'n money
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.