NEWS: Bush, Kerry Spar In First Presidential Debate

Originally posted by Gazrok

Funniest moment for me? Bush drinking from an empty glass... five times.

It's far better than his blank doe-like stare he'd often use, hehe...

Damn! I completely forgoten about that. I was playing a drinking game where I had to drink after every time Bush took a drink or attempted to eat his face. I guess it is really no wonder why I don't recall so much of last night.

Wow, this is amazing. Do you truly think Kerry walked away with that debate? How many of you actually watched it. It was amusing for both of them and neither was perfect, far from actually. Both rehasing the same verbage from an hour earlier, but many of the questions deserved the same answer or response.

I am discouraged that everyone still thinks that Bush is a Dumbo and that Kerry is the light at the end of the tunnel. I did not get that from the debate at all. I think it is easier to comment on the short comings of another and not offer anything good that Kerry or Bush said. Please point something out.

MR. KERRY-I think my favorite was how he complained that the current president had streched us to thin in the world with the war on terror, yet he had a plan to make sure he could put troops into Africa. Did no one hear that? HE was stating for over an hour we should nt be in other countries, and we need to pull out and that he has a plan in 6months to do it, yet later inthe debate he commits those troops mentioned above to Africa. If he can contridict himself in one hour, what can he do in 4 years. When he bought up Haliburton I thought I was on Rense reading a conspiracy transcript of the debate. Rolling your eyes at he opponent, that was classic, so glad they had the split screens. I'll ask what Bush did, where does he expect to get the money for the plans he was openly asked to explain but dodged.

NOw on to Bush....I thought the gesture of thanking Kerry and complimenting his family was a perfect gesture. To show he is a real person. He did slip up a few times with words, but so did Kerry. I think if I was the pres and was debating before the world I might forget I didn't have water in my glass? Is that something that is criteria fir runing a country. Maybe there are more pressing things on his mind. His constant message was one of no lies and straight forward talk. AS far as chewing, it is a nervous habit I usualy do to not hit someone when i am angry, or concentrating real hard. Again, is this grounds to say he lost the debate.

Bush painted a perfect picture of the war on terror.
"We are..........We're facing a group of folks"
My God, a group of folks is what you find at the buffet bar.

Originally posted by esdad71
Wow, this is amazing. Do you truly think Kerry walked away with that debate? How many of you actually watched it. It was amusing for both of them and neither was perfect, far from actually. Both rehasing the same verbage from an hour earlier, but many of the questions deserved the same answer or response.

I am discouraged that everyone still thinks that Bush is a Dumbo and that Kerry is the light at the end of the tunnel. I did not get that from the debate at all. I think it is easier to comment on the short comings of another and not offer anything good that Kerry or Bush said. Please point something out.

MR. KERRY-I think my favorite was how he complained that the current president had streched us to thin in the world with the war on terror, yet he had a plan to make sure he could put troops into Africa. Did no one hear that? HE was stating for over an hour we should nt be in other countries, and we need to pull out and that he has a plan in 6months to do it, yet later inthe debate he commits those troops mentioned above to Africa. If he can contridict himself in one hour, what can he do in 4 years.

Good point...not to mention, I just heard part of what Kerry said in the debate.... He said something to the likes that Bush lied, that we went to war to get rid of wmd and not to get rid of Saddam's regime......

I guess he forgets what he has said in the past..

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 |

Excerpted from.
www.warroom.com...

In the above he says we need to disarm him because he is a murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime...... so what is it Kerry?? Make up your mind man...be a man and say what's really in your mind....obviously...he can't for some reason....

before i forget, and once more, before people start bashing without any facts to back their claims, lets also see what Kerry was saying about wmd......again....

Oct 9, 2002: "The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation."

Excerpted from.
www.kerryquotes.com...

So in the above Kerry is saying that they knew since 1998 (Clinton, a democrat, was in office for those who can't remember..) that Saddam was continuing building wmd.....

Only in America can a stupid, head bobbing neocon be allowed to be president. This man bought his way thru all his fancy schools obviously.
and Yale???? What does this say for Yale to turn out such an un-classy cowboy? Money talks

Originally posted by Muaddib
Good point...not to mention, I just heard part of what Kerry said in the debate.... He said something to the likes that Bush lied, that we went to war to get rid of wmd and not to get rid of Saddam's regime......

I guess he forgets what he has said in the past..

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 |

Excerpted from.
www.warroom.com...

In the above he says we need to disarm him because he is a murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime...... so what is it Kerry?? Make up your mind man...be a man and say what's really in your mind....obviously...he can't for some reason....

That is not what Kerry said. He called Bush on the fact that the coalition he built was not like the one that was promised to Congress when he asked for authorization to go to war. He also said that Bush did not exhaust the remedies of the United Nations as promised. He pointed out that Bush said that he would plan properly, and that didn't happen. He also said that Bush promised that war would be a last resort--and it wasn't.

And did you read the entire speech that Kerry gave at GW University on January 23rd of 2003? It was a brilliant speech--I would post the entire text here, but it is pretty lengthy--how about some other quotes from the same speech from which you grabbed that single quote?

"The Bush Administration has a plan for waging war but no plan for winning the peace. It has invested mightily in the tools of destruction but meagerly in the tools of peaceful construction. It offers the peoples in the greater Middle East retribution and war but little hope for liberty and prosperity.

What America needs today is a smarter, more comprehensive and far-sighted strategy for modernizing the greater Middle East. It should draw on all of our nation's strengths: military might, the world's largest economy, the immense moral prestige of freedom and democracy - and our powerful alliances.

Let me emphasize that last asset in this mission: our alliances. This isn't a task that we should or need to shoulder alone. If anything, our transatlantic partners have a greater interest than we do in an economic and political transformation in the greater Middle East. They are closer to the front lines. More heavily dependent on oil imports. Prime magnets for immigrants seeking jobs. Easier to reach with missiles and just as vulnerable to terrorism."

We need to make certain that we have not unnecessarily twisted so many arms, created so many reluctant partners, abused the trust of Congress, or strained so many relations, that the longer term and more immediate vital war on terror is made more difficult. And we should be particularly concerned that we do not go alone or essentially alone if we can avoid it, because the complications and costs of post-war Iraq would be far better managed and shared with United Nation's participation. And, while American security must never be ceded to any institution or to another institution's decision, I say to the President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition. Mr. President, do not rush to war.

And I say to the United Nations, show respect for your own mandates. Do not find refuge in excuses and equivocation. Stand up for the rule of law, not just in words but in deeds. Not just in theory but in reality. Stand up for our common goal: either bringing about Iraq's peaceful disarmament or the decisive military victory of a multilateral coalition.

Read the full text here

Sounds like the mans' mind is made up to me.

Originally posted by dgtempe
Only in America can a stupid, head bobbing neocon be allowed to be president. This man bought his way thru all his fancy schools obviously.
and Yale???? What does this say for Yale to turn out such an un-classy cowboy? Money talks

I guess that's why Kerry does not make mistakes, he does not slip in his speeches or makes obvious errors in grammar when he speaks huh? he is so educated that he does not make mistakes in his speeches.....Most politicians, most people will make errors when making a speech, including Kerry.

BTW, Kerry chose a rich woman to marry to, and he has many supporters that are millionares and billionares. Does money talk in a presidential campaign? Of course, the more money you spend, the more the people are going to know about you.

Originally posted by lmgnyc

That is not what Kerry said. He called Bush on the fact that the coalition he built was not like the one that was promised to Congress when he asked for authorization to go to war.

That's not what Kerry said? Let me quote directly from the link you gave, you obviously did not read it.

Second, without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses.

He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction.

That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm.

Excerpted from.
www.gwu.edu...

Oh, btw, you can find the above quote halfway down the link.

[edit on 1-10-2004 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib

That's not what Kerry said?

I was referring to your comments about the debate. Go back to your post.

Let me quote directly from the link you gave, you obviously did not read it.

Obviously, you did not read the speech if you would use a quote out of context that does not represent his position. Selective editing is not the way to win arguments--isn't that what you guys are so pissed off at Michael Moore for? It is the same tactic. Go back and READ the speech and then tell me if the quote is representative of his position and if that is different than the points he made last night.

I can't see how you would think that the quote accurately captures the message of the speech. C'mon, people, let's stop with the manipulation.

Anyone can write or give a speech, but it takes a man to back up what he says with ba**s.

I don't want to hear about Kerry's service as applied to being the leader of the free world. If we go by his record as far as what he will do in office, we'll all get shot in the ass and then complain about it. I want to know what he will do know, and from the sound of last night it is not promising. Look at his political record, That is what is important. He cannot make a choice for hjimself which is what the dems want, a puppet.

Don't hate Bush because says what he feels and thinks, he has money and the fortune to be born privelaged. Ffind a real reason. Find a piece of foriegn policy and chew it up. I am the first to admit he made tough and sometimes unclear choices, but he made them and stuck by the choice he made. HE has a record of being a hard ass in office that took no crap. That is who I want to lead my country.

Kerry clearly pummeled the chimp. It wasn't even funny. I was disgusted with how stupid and lack luster bush presented himself last night. Then the idiot fires back today after the debates, can you say day late and dollar short?

What debate were you watching? Pummeled like a chip. Again, did you watch it? Comment on something that occured.

After watching John Kerry misquote numbers and say something completely ridiculous regarding Iran, I have decided to vote for George Bush. How can John Kerry imply that the US did not try to get involved with Iran and that the USA should have provided Iran with their nuclear fuel and then monitor them to make sure they wouldn't use them for weapons purposes. He followed up by saying that we would then use sanctions on Iran if they began to get off track. Have sanctions deterred Iran before? Does John Kerry remember what the result of a similar action from Bill Clinton resulted in? Ever hear of a country called North Korea? How well are those sanctions working? Is North Korea only using nuclear technology for peaceful energy purposes? I don't think so.

Originally posted by lmgnyc

Obviously, you did not read the speech if you would use a quote out of context that does not represent his position. Selective editing is not the way to win arguments--isn't that what you guys are so pissed off at Michael Moore for? It is the same tactic. Go back and READ the speech and then tell me if the quote is representative of his position and if that is different than the points he made last night.

I can't see how you would think that the quote accurately captures the message of the speech. C'mon, people, let's stop with the manipulation.

Oh I see...so if lets say there was a song that had in its lyrics something like... "let's get rid of all hispanics and take them down... " You would say that you have to continue listening to all of the song to see what they are talking about?

(by the way I am Hispanic, that't why I chose the above analogy so noone can say I was making a racist comment)

BTW, Moore doesn't flip flop, he completely makes up claims that are not true.

Let's see what Kerry said on another of his speeches before the war...

All those miscalculations are compounded by the rest of history. A brutal, oppressive dictator, guilty of personally murdering and condoning murder and torture, grotesque violence against women, execution of political opponents, a war criminal who used chemical weapons against another nation and, of course, as we know, against his own people, the Kurds. He has diverted funds from the Oil-for-Food program, intended by the international community to go to his own people. He has supported and harbored terrorist groups, particularly radical Palestinian groups such as Abu Nidal, and he has given money to families of suicide murderers in Israel.

I mention these not because they are a cause to go to war in and of themselves, as the President previously suggested, but because they tell a lot about the threat of the weapons of mass destruction and the nature of this man. We should not go to war because these things are in his past, but we should be prepared to go to war because of what they tell us about the future. It is the total of all of these acts that provided the foundation for the world's determination in 1991 at the end of the gulf war that Saddam Hussein must: unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless underinternational supervision of his chemical and biological weapons and ballistic missile delivery systems... [and] unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear weapon-usable material.

Excerpted from.
www.independentsforkerry.org...


[edit on 1-10-2004 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Nerdling
This photo sums it all up really.



He looks like a broken man.

Nerdling, he actually looks like an annoyed man because of all of Kerry's flip flops.

[edit on 1-10-2004 by Muaddib]

No Nerdling, as he is a so called Vietnam Vet, I, as others, think that perhaps this (below and quoted) really says it ALL:

Kerry Calls The Iraq War A "Mistake" But Says Our Troops Are Not Dying For A "Mistake"

Come again?
Say what?
You tell us what really says it all again, k?


seekerof

[edit on 1-10-2004 by Seekerof]

I think it's honestly a mistake to try to argue about who won the debate on substantive grounds. For the most part, the candidates stuck to many of the same messages they've recently been promoting on the campaign trail. There wasn't really anything particularly new said at last night's debate, at least if you're a regular follower of political news. There were no real gaffes on substance (like Mondale saying he'll raise taxes), and there was no single "gotcha" moment. So on those grounds I'd call it a draw, although I believe that really means a win for Kerry because Bush was expected to outperform Kerry on this subject -- in fact, it's the reason his campaign wanted it to be the topic of the first (and most-watched) debate.

Where modern television debates are won or lost is on the intangibles of appearance, and you can not say that it was even close in this regard. Bush continually looked flustered and annoyed at Kerry, while Kerry maintained a veneer of cool consistency throughout the entire debate. [Note: I'm not mentioning the problems Bush had with speaking coherently because at this point this is what people expect from him and is nothing new.] I think most people would think that it appears more "presidential" to keep your cool rather than getting frustrated and constantly rolling your eyes, as Bush did the entire evening. Sure, you can argue that he was annoyed at Kerry's "flip-flops." But when you're on a national stage, you simply can not afford to let any cracks in your facade show through. And unfortunately for Bush, this is what seemed to happen last night. They're not quite on par with Bush Sr. constantly checking his watch during the '92 debates (where did he have to be anyway?), but they were noticeable to a national television audience.

I'm not saying that's a good or fair way to assess a debate. I'm just saying that in a media age, this is what most people are going to take away from what they saw last night.

Are your serious?? What you did by taking a quote out of the context of Kerry's speech and proclaiming that it provided proof that he gave Bush unconditional support to go to war is the same as if I took your last comment and made the claims that you were against hispanics because Mauddib said on 10/1/2004 "I was making a racist comment" when speaking about hispanics.

Your logic makes no sense. To pick and choose statements out of a speech is called selective editing and it is disingenuous. You can't quote someone out of context, ignoring the surrounding comments when it changes the meaning of the quote. Yes, he said that Saddam is a threat, but he also said that there were certain conditions that needed to be met before going to war. The text of the GW speech conveys the same position on Iraq as was conveyed at last night's debate--you can't deny that unless you have a problem with reading comprehension.