Reply With Quote
So, Bush ....
I'm surprised nobody mentioned the discrepancy (on the part of both candidates) in regards to strategy towards Iran and North Korea.
One nation, we are dealing with as a part of a coalition. The other, somewhat unilaterally. Neither candidate seems to believe we should deal with both countries in the same manner.
I wouldn't pretend to know much about what we're doing with either country, and now I'm a bit confused.
So, Bush ....
I think it's pretty much a tie, depending on who you believed before the debate. I think a tie helps Kerry though, makes him look more credible.
For example, on North Korea, I think Bush dropped the ball, plain and simple. During the Bush administration, NK became a nuclear power, whether we like it or not. Maybe you believe Bush on this.
spurster,
I disagree. Kerry says the only way to do anything (i.e., Iraq) is to get others involved, then he says we should talk to NK by ourselves.
Nothing we are going to do is going to hold NK in check. But if the largest country in the world (China), right down the street, tells you to knock it off, you're probably gonna listen.
Are the posts getting rearranged?
Never mind, yoni glitch...
Although I agree that the debate has essentially been a draw, I disagree that a tie helps Kerry. If Kerry wanted this debate to make a difference, he needed to score a solid win or at least hope that President Bush would commit a major gaffe. Neither of those things happened.I think a tie helps Kerry though, makes him look more credible.
I like the way President Bush say's 'mullahs' as "mooolahs"
At least he didn't say "mullets".
I agree, Kerry needed a home run or a fielding error and got neither. That leaves the status quo, Bush leading going into the election...
One down, two to go.
"mooolahs" sounds better with "nuculer"I like the way President Bush say's 'mullahs' as "mooolahs"
At least he didn't say "mullets".
A lot of Bush's campaign is based on painting Kerry as half-crazy in some way. The more reasonable Kerry looks, the more that helps Kerry.
On the same foot, the Kerry people are trying to paint Bush as being aloof, misguided, and not caring about the world.
As much as Kerry hammered that we should treat NK unilaterally, people have to be wondering what's up with that.
Nah, people have seen too many crazies that look normal and even reasonable. I mean, look at Al Gore.
Kerry did teeter on the edge of leftist Wacko a couple of times tonight...
Stay away from Halliburton, John. Just don't go there.
And, his rant on nuclear non-proliferation approached the position of unilateral disarmament. Yikes! Scary stuff...
Kerry was the one who needed a clear victory in this debate. Bush only needed to hold his own. This was Kerry's last chance to turn this election around. This debate was focused exclusively on the issues of national security and leadership. Again, part of the problem is that the Left has spent the last 3 years or so telling us how horrible and stupid a man is Bush.
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((gong))))))))))))) ))))))))))))))))))))))
Wrong!
Please take a seat or ask John Kerry for the correct answer!!
danny boy do you have a clue as to why the US might find Poland significant?
who cares it's Poland
lol
Oh so Eastern Europe is not significant despite the fact it's one of the most pro-American parts of Europe.
Sincerely,
Franklin Roosevelt - 1945
That's why Danny thinks its insignificant.
Danny doesn't care because there are no terrorists there to "love". Your true colors are showing Dan!
Poland would not have even been in the coalition if Saddam didn't owe them millions of dollars. Besides, the Poles would have left Iraq yesterday if it was their decision alone to make.
Then why weren't the French and Russians a part of the coalition?
...but yet Halliburton was...humm...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
