*DAMN R6 Forum

Discuss which canidate will fare better in this debate.

Kerry unless there are telepromters for Bush.

I was sitting in the GSU today(big cafateria at my school) and these people came in and started singing about how Cheny was a fat nazi, and how Bush was clinically insane. Then they started talking to me, person to person, about how the debates are all staged with ridiculous rules so that "bush's alchoholism won't come out." I'm a liberal guy, but all this shit offended me, being obviously untrue. I think/hope Kerry will win the debate, solely by the virtue that he can control his tounge and his voice box effectively.

It's gonna be fun to see the 2 biggest assholes duking it out for probably the worlds most important position.

Kerry will do better... It always helps to have intelligence.

All I can say right now after viewing the first 45minutes of the debate, Kerry's poise is confident, Bush is more slumped and nervous.  Bush has trouble speaking as he keeps pausing and saying "uh" "uh".  He needs to think before he speaks.  Now I'm not saying Kerry hasn't done the same, but he seems better prepared.  Kerry seems to make references back to his combat career when asked about the Iraq war.  Bush just sounds too weak and laughable when he tries to back-up his statements.  Bush also keeps repeating points like when he said Saddam Hussein was a threat 3 times in his 60 seconds.  The way they both respond to each other is quite different.  Kerry looks neutral and serious, while Bush cracks me up when he "smiles" and raises his eyebrows whenever he speaks.  Ok, thats my quick observations...back to debate.

Bush's answers were light, not facts, we had to take his word on everything. Kerry gave numbers, made some strong points and was on the offense almost everytime.

winner: kerrry.

Kerry wore a red tie and looked like the Devil at a funeral home in that black suit.[/size]

Bush looked like the good guy with his nice blue tie.[/size]

Winner:  BUSH

lol naturally you would say that, bobby. From the looks of Kerry's plan to me, USA is going to get run over by terrorists.

How is kerry going to be over run with terrorists? What is bush doing to close our borders? Not only are our borders in mexico still ridiculously porous, but now the people who come through can have kids and they can go to public school without paying taxes. They can drive in california.

Bush stuttered, Kerry was confident and composed.

Winner: Kerry.

The American people already know Bush isn't a great public speaker, which actually helps him.

Winner:  BUSH![/size]

Good thing you can't vote. From the looks of it Kerry could take Bush out in a street fight.

Kerry sat back and tried to hack at Bush the whole time. Yet Bush was able to realize Kerry has these flip flop ideas, and said that America needs a stable president that has his heart set one way. Of-course Kerry is better debater than Gore and bush, but his polices are dangerous and scary. You can say all you want about Bush and the way he speaks, he did that 4 years ago and that didn't stop him from winning the election. All in all it was a good debate and i look forward to watching the next two.

How does it help for your leader to be a horrible speaker? If one is not able to quickly put together and present percise, detailed and intelligent thoughts, how is one supposed to talk to world leaders, let alone rule the country and inspire trust and loyalty in the people?

Oh MAN.

Kerry went all out on policy, gave numbers and statistics, had many and various points.

Bush was on defense, made very few points, and basically said "we are doing that, and it will pay off sometime."

It was ridiiiiiculous. After the debate all the republican kids at my school went crazy, saying stuff like "Kerry is such a douchebag, look how long his face is, his family is so ugly" etc, which troubles me, because in the election of a candidate who will make policy decisions that affect not only us but the entire world, i think worrying about a candidate's physical appearance, his family life, and even his military record should be of much less concern than the ideas he has for the future.

Anyway, Kerry also made mention of the fact that there is tons of unsecured nuclear material in Russia that needs to be taken care of. Bush failed to respond to that, and handled the N. Korea issue poorly as well. He said we need China's support (geee, can't we do it all unilaterally?!), and that Jiang Zemin was here in Texas for talks about it, but isn't China just as bad as North Korea? Why do we have to play ball with the real bad guys in this world to get stuff done?

Hum, back on topic, in my opinion Kerry won the debate. I thought his arguments were much more aggressive, diverse, and addressed several issues very well (N.Korea, Russia, genocide in Africa, Iraq, Iran, domestic spending, etc) whereas Bush was left beating the dead horse that is Iraqi freedom. Call me on this if you think I'm wrong.

Bush really liked the phrase "wrong place wrong time wrong war"or whatever. he repeated it like five times.

I suppose I'll just get called biased, but I think Kerry clearly won tonight, and it would take a pretty amazing argument to say Bush was really even close. Bush had multiple just complete lapses and looked like a deer in headlight. He got caught dead trying to link 9/11 and Saddam.

Bush didn't have any specific statements about how he is going to help our homeland security, he just says "we'll fight them abroad so they won't be here." That isn't a plan for homeland security. Bush also pushed the flip-flopper thing so many times, and Kerry made himself very clear and showed that he didn't flip-flop.

Kerry's biggest flaw IMO was making light of the support that Bush did get. Yes, it was fairly insignificant and mostly token, but it still doesn't reflect well.

Regarding the war on terrorism, i.e. Afghanistan and Al Queda, Kerry was much more clear on saying that it is where the focus is. I was happy to hear him speak about doubling the special forces, which along with his focus on fixing the intelligence community is vital in fighting terrorism correctly. It is how to fight the war on terrorism in a "sensitive" or "smart" manner...it needs to be cautious so you don't kill civilians and recruit for Al Queda.

Regarding homeland security as I said, only Kerry really made our security here very important.

Regarding Iran/N. Korea, Kerry came off much more concerned about nuclear proliferation and generally actually dealing with WMD while Bush came off only mildly concerned about these. That Bush is pushing for new nuclear weapons is a black eye.

Finally, about Iraq, Bush kept on talking about "disarming" Saddam...but considering Saddam was not armed in terms of WMD, it is hard to have disarmed him, that is why inspections were needed.

So Kerry wins on Iraq, on WMD, on homeland security, and on the war on terrorism. Basically Kerry won every aspect and didn't have any blatant stumbles. Kerry didn't score as many points as he could, but still stood out clearly as the person with an actual plan and stronger but without being stubborn

Actually, that was my only complaint about Kerry's performance. I don't think Kerry hammered that into the ground as he should have, instead I think he rather brushed it under the rug and went on to attack Bush's policy.

.... which is fine, because that's what candidates SHOULD debate, though I think that many people eat up the kind of attack Bush was making there. The reasons for disliking Kerry I usually hear from the right are that he's a flip-flopper and very unclear on his platform and policy, and it's something he should have delved into much deeper than he did.

And what the fuck does that have to do with anything? I stated my opinion, which obviously you don't agree with. You don't like it, you stfu.

Calm down dude, I was merely making a statement at the same level of intelligence as your second post.

Then keep it to you're self and stop talking about things that are off topic and irrelevant. We are not trying to flame here.

Roger that, sorry spetsnaz.

I guess it could be relavant to kerry not being able to catch a football. but back on topic. maybe we could get soem more bush supporters in here (smart ones) to help point other things out.

Nope, I think you're exactly right.  And I'm relieved to see you, as someone I've disagreed with over some issues, still make the objective argument.  I'm not going to bother posting my thoughts on the debate because it'd be impossible to see them as unbiased, but I think the most telling analysis is of how people are "spinning" the results.

 I can't recall anything we've disagreed upon, the morality argument aside. Then again, I have terrible memory.


Thus the media networks have yet to declare a "winner", though one would think in a one on one debate the result would have to be fairly obvious. Ultimately, the spin put on the arguments, and not their prima facie value, will determine who "won". It's too bad, really.

anyone who was actually paying attention to the debate tonight should have realized:

bush got fried tonight. half of his "answers" were nothing more than verbal diarrhea and bumbling contradictions. he could barely manage to repeat kerry's answers, let alone come up with coherent retorts for them.

i neednt say more.

Latest polls:

CNN / GALLUP POLL ON WHO WON DEBATE

Kerry: 53
Bush: 37


CBS POLL ON WHO WON DEBATE:

Kerry: 44
Bush: 26
Tie: 30


ABC POLL ON WHO WON DEBATE:

Kerry: 45
Bush 36:
Tie: 17

Cookie, I actually think you are right to a large degree. I think Kerry could have done an even better job making his stance firm, (which really in all honesty has been consistent, I could get a number of newspaper article links of journalists analyzing his statements and coming to this conclusion) but he did at least not fail to address this at all.

To add to Spetsnaz's numbers, the online polls for CNN and MSNBC have Kerry with 70-78% and Bush with 18-30%...I think in objective terms it is pretty clear Kerry won the style/skill part of the debate. There will still be the ideologic/agenda differences that determine whether someone actually likes what they are hearing, but when it comes to undecideds who do not strongly lean towards either side, that Kerry did better in this way is a benefit to Kerry.

So I respect people who think Kerry is wrong and Bush is right (if they explain it,) but I don't necessarily respect people who say Bush did better tonight.

You know what stumped me?  Bush getting into how we're spending a lot of time and money on missile defense systems to defend the country.

From the way he was talking, the nukes capable of landing on where i live (Seattle) from North Korea were second burner, while he was beating the dead horse of terrorists with WMDs as much as he was and has been, it made me wonder this:  How do missile defense systems stop a suitcase nuke, or keep someone with an aerosol can full of Anthrax out of the country?

I recent heard from a friend who ws in iraq during the original rush to bagdad.... He said that they actulay indeed found WMD in oraq.. but the weapons were not classified as wmd by the UN so they had to repost them as not being wmd.. but he said from the looks of them they were wmd.

on MSNBC:

Updated: 10:26 p.m. ET Sept. 30, 2004

Pres. Bush
31%
Sen. Kerry
69%



winner by KO: KERRY !

     What's Fox's poll say? I want my fair and balanced reporting, damnit!

LOL loth. Yeah forget the resst we need fox.

Ps. wish to god i could have watched it... although id have only probably ended up screaming at the TV and given myself a heartattack

you can prob find a torrent up somewhere for it if you look hard enough

My friends played a drinking game with it. The rule: everytime one of them said something that made you want to reach through to TV and strangle them, take a shot.

OMG where they trying to kill themselves? How many managed not to get rushed to hospital to have their stomachs pumped?

go to c-span.org, you can watch a stream of it.
I thought Kerry shined in the debate. Bush was visibly uncomfortable and just kept repeating the same old stuff over and over again.

all other major networks had a poll, i'm wondering why Fox did not...... oh yes thats right, because Bush lost the debate !

Fox made theirs less visible. Bush is barely winning at the conservative's favorite news channel. It is less reliable than the others though, 50,000 votes on Fox compared to 1.6 million on MSNBC; 350,000 on CNN.

In the past 12 hours it seems the trend has been towards Bush...but that may be a sign that what happened in 2000 is happening again. Those that actually watched the debates in 2000 favored Gore, those who simply read about it favored Bush. It seems like the uninformed may lean towards Bush again this time.

plus people voting on fox are more likely to vote for Bush since its a conservative channel.

Oh... I thought it was just the uninformed that voted for him!!  :o

ok no more wise cracks. From what i watched of it Kerry handled himself better - And on several topics bush didnt seem able to come back - What really got me was this "is that the image we want to give to the guys in Iraq"

its like hes saying that if you've made a mistake you mustn't put it right and say you were wrong - you must keep going becasue otherwise you might look a bit stuipd and it might give people the inpression your not doing your job if you tell them!

even the financial market agreed on Kerry's victory. Nasdaq is up 2%,

Here's the best breakdown of Bush's collapse last night:

"Tonight, for the first time in a number of years, George Bush the individual -- a wholly different creature from the stage-managed president -- was forced to face his times. And the truth is that George isn't cut out for these times. He's not a capable war leader. His moral clarity is a kind term for simplicity, not a synonym for vision. His straight talk is all there is, he's not obscuring a capacity for complexity that he chooses to obscure for the sake of uninformed audiences. Tonight, George Bush was by turns petulant and belligerent, and by all accounts lacking. But the truth is that this is how George always was, the lie will be the conservatives who attempt to spin this into a single bad night. That Bush has turned in better performances before is all part of the problem. The Emperor, after all, has a coterie of very fine tailors. It's just that they insist on making clothes that are far, far, too big for him."

http://www.pandagon.net/mtarchives/003571.html (http://www.pandagon.net/mtarchives/003571.html)

Right.  They found them.  But the UN told them they weren't wmds.  SO Bush, the man who defied the UN to go to war, didn't trumpet the findings of these errant wmds.  

"By the looks of them." -- does your boy have x-ray eyes? Is he trained to work with nukes, chemicals, and bio tech?

Bullshit man, bullshit.  

What I wonder is how much the guys in Iraq like fighting in order to have Bush squash political dissent. It really is McCarthyism what the Bush Administration is trying to do by continually shouting about Kerry's being critical of the President is helping our enemies and hurting our country. In fact, what Kerry is doing is his patriotic duty and Bush is trying to push fascism...I don't think the guys in Iraq are fighting for the cause of fascism, they are fighting for democracy...which is what Kerry is participating in. I think the Administration really needs to be hounded for their McCarthyist comments.

Well for tose of you who want to see this... there is a torrent on suprnova for the debate..

Well I am glad to see that we are all varying degrees of Liberal, or at least anti-Bush. I hope you guys caught the Daily Show that aired 30 minutes after the debate. But honestly we need a republican to try and defend bush......Buc?

Dude, Bucc is anything but a Republican.  He is a Libertarian.  I am one of the few Republicans on these forums.[/size]

You know.. after warching the debate.. I feel it was a tie... Bush might have said uhh alot... but thats also b/c he is not a great public speaker.... Both makes statments that were wel thought through. I hope to be able to see something better in the next debate that would sway my view of both these men (b/c as of right now.. I will be voting for  myself as a write in vote b/c i dont feel like one guys will be better then the other)

Nah GS, you are just happy you don't have to hurt them when they say something you don't agree with.

Any honest person wouldn't call that a tie. It was a distrubingly easy win for Kerry -- Bush didn't even fight back.  He struggled the whole night to but a conherent sentance together.  That's not being a man of the people who talks plainly, that's being unable to TALK.  It was the most frightening thing I've seen of this president -- his inablity to express himself, and his clear inablity to to deal with having to listen to someone else speak.  It was a shock.

Bush wasn't just defeated, he was shamed.  Kerry was everything we want in a President. Bush wasn't even able to string a sentance together, let alone score points on his PRIMARY ISSUE OF FORIEGN POLICY AND NATIONAL DEFENCE. If you can't win on your own ground, you just can't win, Mr. Bush.

Dubya could have atleast gave us some statistics. For the most part he put forth unsupported statements, assuming we will take his word for it. He didnt even put forth fake statistics.

Stop giving biased opinions Six. If you are gonna knock on Bush, at least give detailed info.

From the perspective of style, skill, and influence on the voting public, Kerry won without a doubt. It just cannot be argued any other way because it is a fairly objective matter.

Issues, though they are more important than the aforementioned elements, are going to be decided based on previously determined ideologies. Naturally someone who agree's with Bush's ideology will find Bush's stance preferable, but that doesn't mean Bush won. However, with those who were not ideologically attached to either candidate, whether they agree on the issues will have a good bit to do with the more objective elements so even on issues, Kerry probably won by shifting the moderate voters more in his direction.

If it is an opinion isnt it defacto biased?

Please apply this same opinion equally, to both sides.  How often have I posted facts and details? Very often.

If you watched the debate you saw a President who could not defend himself or his policies. Instead of giving us facts or details -- nah, he gave us rhetoric and misstatements.

Whatever you think of how he's run the country, the fact remians he dropped the ball during the debates and made himself look foolish on the very issues he's supposed to be the best on. Kerry had a far better grasp of what is going on in Iraq, in North Korea, and in Iran. He slamed the President on his repeated mistakes in those areas (if you really[/i[ want me to get transcriptions of his comments and Bush's in regards to this I will). And Bush refused to acknowledge his mistakes. As Kerry said, you can be certain, but you can also be wrong.

Bush had statements. Kerry had facts.  Bush had high concept responses to policy questions. One example -- When he was asked about the deaths in Iraq this was his reponse:

"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work. You know my hardest, the hardest part of the job is to know that I committed the troops in harm's way and then do the best I can to provide comfort for the loves ones who lost a son or a daughter or husband and wife."

I see.  Details, right?  Policy? No.  Just statements that have no meaning, only emotion. Bullshit instead of reality. It's hard, is it? Maybe you could tell us how you'll do better, instead of complaining about how tough the shitstorm you created is.

and

"And, you know, I think about Missy Johnson, fantastic young lady I met in Charlotte, N.C., she and her son, Brian. They came to see me. Her husband, P.J., got killed-been in Afghanistan, went to Iraq. You know, it's hard work to try to love her as best as I can knowing full well that the decision I made caused her, her loved one to be in harm's way."

Huh? What the fuck did he just say?

Why don't you want the President to give details on how best to love the wife of a dead man?

This is our President. He can barely speak on one of the most important moments of his life. He barely draw thoughts together, or speak coherently. And details? Policy? None. Just more of the same bullshit.

Big Talk is no excuse for failure.


Please dude, why do you need me to give you details that are staring you in the face?

All these links and stuff come from all these liberal sites. Maybe if it was reliable.

Anyways, Kerry had so many different positions on every matter my head was spinning. He said something like "Saddam wasn't a threat but when we captured him he was." Shit like that is all that pisses me off. You are acting like Kerry is god and he makes no mistakes. They are there you just simply don't look for them.

Crypt, what Kerry said was: "I've had one position, one consistent position, that Saddam Hussein was a threat. There was a right way to disarm him and a wrong way. And the president chose the wrong way."

And just because a liberal says it doesn't mean it is not true. You can't say something isn't reliable simply because it is from a "liberal site." You can feel you need to double check a point by looking for other sources, but you can't just dismiss it.

Sigh.  Jeez man.

Almost all the links I post are direct links to the non-partisan websites that post raw info, data, or analysis.

For example, my transcript of Bush's words is directly from CNN and is a transcript, not my own confabulation of Bush's quotes. My analysis is my own. I fully disclose my opinions. AND I post facts, not made up quote, dude.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/01/debate.transcript.10/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/01/debate.transcript.10/index.html)

You are not quoting Kerry. You are making shit up. You want me to post details or to be more accurate? Don't throw rocks if you live in a glass house.

I am not acting like Kerry is god. I am acting like Kerry is the clearly beter choice. That's it.

Well to be honest with you.. this person went into the navy in the nuclear program.. servered his 6 yes he had to server in the program.. and was working for a research institute around here... after 9/11 he reinlisted in the ARMY this time.. so yes.. I would say he knows what he is talking about.

Wait, so our forum's very own Lee.Harvey knows more about the state of Iraqi WMD than does any of the American weapon inspectors, like David Kay, that have been sent to look around Iraq, and have found no evidence of a working WMD program. How honored we are of your presence and we hope you'll honor us with a shred of proof other than talking out of you ass.

Thats weird... Since every scrap of evidence and information we seem to have recieved says that there have been were and are not any WMDs in Iraq - or anything even close to WMDs. the worst he seemed to have were some small missiles....

hey.. I'm going on what he told me.. and what he said he saw with his own eyes.. and I gave you his past expirence with it... Up to you weather you belive him or not... Al I know is that he said what they found was not technicaly WMD by UN standards... but that was only b/c they were lacking certain quilities (parts) to classify them as such. Thats what he sad.. take it or leave it.

And back to the discussion.  Here's a little comment from the very conservative Tucker Carlson.

"No matter how you feel about Bush, watching him speak is difficult. It?s like watching a drunk man cross an icy street," - Tucker Carlson, last night on Real Time with Bill Maher.


Tuck = not a liberal

Finally, some honesty from the right.

I love when I hear you guys repeat the media and say there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.  What a crock of shit.  What, do you guys really believe that EVERY intelligence agency on EARTH was wrong???  The better question to ask is "WHERE THE FUCK DID THEY SEND THEIR WMDs?".  As for me, and many of my friends I've talked to in various intelligence agencies, those WMDs are more than likely now in Syria.  Syria and Iran should be our next targets in the War on Terrorism.

Peace.

-GhostSniper Out.[/size]

No. i didnt get "served.. I mearly stated some info.. that came from a repatible scorce.. Like I said in the post B4.. its up to you weather you want to belive it.. But I guess you are soooo Hell bent that the war is wronge that you dont care what anyone has to say...

Was that adressed to me? I wasn't talking about your views or anything, I was merely remarking upon the fact that Bondo served you up some smack down.

Actually, GhostSniper, the UN and Hans Blix did not think Saddam had WMD.

Saddam's chemical and biological weapons have expiration dates (that stuff doesn't last forever) and the last reported manufacture of it was before the 91 war...it has long since become non-lethal. As for the nuclear capabilities, the Niger thing was a hoax. Saddam may have had programs present to be able to get these WMD at some point when the UN had dropped sanctions or stopped keeping an eye on them. However, they didn't have them presently as Bush claimed and they were not an active threat. This isn't what the press says, this is what the intelligence says. Even the US intelligence was heavily qualified.

The only thing that was so sure about Saddam's WMD was the bullshit intelligence Ahmad Chalabi gave us...and he is a tool of Iran.

FSB intel said their were weapons in Iraq as well. Not to mention MI6 and Mossad. So, there were a few intel agencies that got fooled in additon to the CIA.

Have you read the CIA's actual report on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction?  Though used to justify thousands of deaths, the report doesn't really come down with all that much certainty about the illegal weapons.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm (http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm)

Most statements in the report are qualified in some way - "probably," "very likely," etc.  It's pretty convincing that they're there, but with the hindsight of our not having found any, you've got to take the actual statements into account.

OK someone just posted somthing really funny on the forum. Would someone mind explaining this to me - i think the guy apparently served in the US military so im guessing he knows a little bit about armaments and a bit about  WMDs etc:


I wonder whether he has ever heard of People called "Weapons Inspecters" a group of scientists and military personel and other relevant groups who are considered to be the most informed, knowledgable and experiecned people in their area of expertese.
I wonder if he also is aware that what he has posted is total bullshit - Not every intelligence serivice was wrong - They didn't all say iraq had WMDs in the first place. The fact that the Joint British American Intelligence presented has allready been found to be totally flawed and incorrect might just be a tiny little issue that he conveniently "overlooked"

We joke over here that the American Government and some individuals are so stupid that their next move will be to Invade Syria or Iran... Its only funny because its stuch a stupid idea. I wonder whether they can fullfill the steriotype.

Better question.  Why does every intellegence agency in the world now think they were wrong?

Or maybe it's because they were wrong.

The Emperor has no clothes.

(http://images.ucomics.com/comics/tmdho/2004/tmdho041002.gif)

Sixhits, you just made my day.

Ghost Sniper, the way I would do it, i.e. the right way, would be first to focus on cleaning up Bush's mess. Second, with a rebuilt intelligence community and larger special forces I would focus on precision attacks against terrorist cells around the world. However, attacking soverign nations (Syria or Iran or whatever) would not be the plan, it is wrong to do that without very strong international support or direct threat, but we can do the small opperations unilaterally. I would use diplomacy (bilateral talks, multilateral talks, the UN) to deal with problems with governments of soverign nations.

As a result of this policy, terrorists would be attacked without massive civilian deaths, thus they would be hurt without helping their cause, we would have more respect to make international deals and we would successfully have these countries under control and could slowly push them in the direction of democracy and freedom. The world would be safer and more peaceful and everyone would be happy ;) Ok, so it wouldn't be that perfect, but it would be a hell of a lot more successful than Bush's plan.

P.S. My final, comprehensive commentary about the first debate is here. (http://bondurant.blogspot.com/2004/10/presidential-debating-1the-only-good.html)

They found Bush li'l notebook right after the debate:

(http://homepage.mac.com/jeroenkeep/bush2.gif)

True, you asked him, but I answered for myself, and you choose that nice evasion tactic.

More info on the WMD issue.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/international/middleeast/03tube.html?ei=5090&en=2e1cdcc5b66e0332&ex=1254456000&partner=rssuserland&pagewanted=print&position= (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/international/middleeast/03tube.html?ei=5090&en=2e1cdcc5b66e0332&ex=1254456000&partner=rssuserland&pagewanted=print&position=)

"Senior administration officials repeatedly failed to fully disclose the contrary views of America's leading nuclear scientists, an examination by The New York Times has found. They sometimes overstated even the most dire intelligence assessments of the tubes, yet minimized or rejected the strong doubts of nuclear experts. They worried privately that the nuclear case was weak, but expressed sober certitude in public.

One result was a largely one-sided presentation to the public that did not convey the depth of evidence and argument against the administration's most tangible proof of a revived nuclear weapons program in Iraq"

and

"Suddenly, Joe's work was ending up in classified intelligence reports being read in the White House. Indeed, his analysis was the primary basis for one of the agency's first reports on the tubes, which went to senior members of the Bush administration on April 10, 2001. The tubes, the report asserted, "have little use other than for a uranium enrichment program."

This alarming assessment was immediately challenged by the Energy Department, which builds centrifuges and runs the government's nuclear weapons complex.

The next day, Energy Department officials ticked off a long list of reasons why the tubes did not appear well suited for centrifuges. Simply put, the analysis concluded that the tubes were the wrong size - too narrow, too heavy, too long - to be of much practical use in a centrifuge.

What was more, the analysis reasoned, if the tubes were part of a secret, high-risk venture to build a nuclear bomb, why were the Iraqis haggling over prices with suppliers all around the world? And why weren't they shopping for all the other sensitive equipment needed for centrifuges?

All fine questions. But if the tubes were not for a centrifuge, what were they for?"


It's a great article that really gets to the heart of the problem in this Adminstration's intelengence.  It's not that they didn't have good intel.  It's that they filtered out all possiblities that they didn't agree with. If you'd like some insight into how we went to war and what went wrong with our intelegence, give this one a read.





Back to the debate:
You can get with this, or you can get with that...

Heh.

http://www.looptvandfilm.com/blog/this_or_that.mov (http://www.looptvandfilm.com/blog/this_or_that.mov)

Bush had ear piece in debate? http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=3562 (http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=3562)  

lol thats amazing... Surely he didn't have an ear piece, its not allowed in those things is it?

Did anyone notice the strings as well, im sure i caught the glimpse of the pupetteer controling bush ;) oh wait, thats the administration and Big US business.

OMG, Bush is getting raped !! I've never seen Kerry like that .

Did Kerry learn to catch a football?  No.

case closed.

bobby I agree...that's the impression I got watching...

How is it that people are actually disagreeing with that assessment?

Ok...are we still talking about last Thursday or are we now talking about tonight. I would have given Bush the win tonight if he had answered the final question properly and actually given specific examples of mistakes he made.

Obviously Kerry dominated the first debate though.