Posted on 10/01/2004 11:59:47 AM PDT by Mudboy Slim
Insight's "Bush Won!!"
Posted October 1, 2004
By Adam Yoshida
"As has been pointed out at length over recent days, the final verdict on any debate takes two or three days to be rendered. But let me try and pre-empt that now: Bush won not only the debate but, in all probability, the election. Senator Kerry stood up well but, once more, he didn't say anything. In fact, coming out of the debate, I'm less clear as to what Kerry actually thinks about Iraq and the broader War on Terrorism than I was before I went in. Kerry's managed to "win", at least in the initial post-debate spin, simply because he's a better speaker than the President. But no one has yet considered the implications of what the man said during the debate, but merely how prettily he said it.
If he's to be believed (which is an open question) Kerry's foreign policy ideas are potentially the most ruinous proposed by any Presidential candidate since George McGovern in 1972. Senator Kerry proposes an American foreign policy that is consistent only in that it dovetails exactly with the stuff prescribed by the global elites. Kerry's "plan" for Iraq is simply a fantasy. He's going to "call a summit": and do what? Is the man so deluded to think that foreign nations are going to deploy their troops to Iraq simply at his beck and call? Because, if you take out the part about the foreign nations, Senator Kerry doesn't really have a plan.
I'm convinced that, if elected President, Senator Kerry will manage to buy as many African and Asian UN Blue-Helmets as he can and then he'll flee Iraq at a greater-than-deliberate speed. His constant repeating of his bizarre non-plan to have the French, Germans and unidentified "Arab" nations step to the rescue (Jordan doesn't have an Army, so who is he going to ask: Syria? Saudi Arabia?) simply reinforces the idea that he doesn't have a plan to do anything more than sound minimally competent enough to get elected. Kerry also made a number of fundamental mistakes of fact when speaking about the war and foreign policy which, I think, the Bush campaign would be wise to mercilessly pound upon.
First, during the third question, Senator Kerry said that, "The president moved the troops, so he's got 10 times the number of troops in Iraq than he has in Afghanistan, where Osama bin Laden is." This is a potentially huge error, perhaps even a "there is no Soviet domination of Poland" level error. I don't think that anyone in the know thinks that Osama Bin Laden, even if his is alive, is in Afghanistan. Even CNN's reporter pointed this fact out immediately after the end of the debate. If Senator Kerry wants to hammer Bush for getting Osama Bin Laden, he'd damn well better, at the very least, remember which country he's in. And this also, of course, wasn't a slip of the tongue: it was the center of his entire argument on the matter, namely that Bush has, "got 10 times the number of troops in Iraq than he has in Afghanistan, where Osama bin Laden is." Except he's not there, Senator.
The second mistake, again, exposes a fundamental error of policy and reality on Senator Kerry's part and it deserves some real examination. It deserves extensive quotation: "With respect to North Korea, the real story: We had inspectors and television cameras in the nuclear reactor in North Korea. Secretary Bill Perry negotiated that under President Clinton. And we knew where the fuel rods were. And we knew the limits on their nuclear power...While they didn't talk at all, the fuel rods came out, the inspectors were kicked out, the television cameras were kicked out. And today, there are four to seven nuclear weapons in the hands of North Korea."
Senator Kerry misses entirely, and presumably his entire national security team misses, the significance of the point that President Bush then raised next when he said, "the breach on the agreement was not through plutonium. The breach on the agreement is highly enriched uranium." That bears repeating: Senator Kerry either didn't know, or hoped the public wouldn't know, the difference between the two and the mechanics of how North Korea developed its nuclear weapons. What happened is this: in 1994 the Clinton Administration, with more than a little help from former President Jimmy Carter, did exactly what Kerry would now have the United States do: they sat down for bilateral talks with the North Koreans and hammered out a deal. As part of that deal, the North Koreans offered seemingly extensive inspection options to prove that they weren't going to go on developing nuclear weapons. After all, having cameras on there, inspectors, and everything else sounds like a fairly secure arrangement: but they found an entirely different way of developing the weapons they wanted and they did so while receiving extensive American aid.
It bears repeating, because Senator Kerry's windy response has hidden within it his real plan for the North Koreans, "I want bilateral talks which put all of the issues, from the armistice of 1952, the economic issues, the human rights issues, the artillery disposal issues, the DMZ issues and the nuclear issues on the table." Read that closely again. "The economic issues." What economic issues? Think about it. Does he mean that North Korea wants to sign a free trade agreement with the United States? Of course not: he means that he plans to follow the Clinton approach of bribing, appeasing, and kicking the problem down the road.
The third issue comes back to the nuclear matters again. This time to Iran. Once more he repeated his absurd plan to have the United States provide "nuclear fuel" to Iran. To describe this as an insane idea would be a very mild way of putting it. It's broadly comparable to giving an enraged spree-killer an AK-47 in an attempt to discover if they can be trusted with automatic weapons. Naturally the Kerry campaign says that they'll have inspections and close controls over the "nuclear fuel" that they plan to give Iran. Yeah and how well did all of those safeguards work out with North Korea?
If the nation wants a President who can deliver lies in a convincing voice, they'll vote for Kerry. If they want a man with a clear vision, steady resolve, and a real plan to win the War on Terrorism, they'll vote for President Bush.
Adam Yoshida is a freelancer writer who runs his own web site.
Ping...MUD
I think most would agree that Kerry won on style, but Bush won on substance - and which would you rather have?
BEFORE the debate - Brit Hume said: 78% of President Bush's current supporters want him to keep us in Iraq and if possible do more militarily to fight the war on terror.
plus
something like 28% of Kerry's supporters think we must do more militarily to defeat the terrorists! So President Bush with his much stronger stand and steadiness in this war WENT IN with a strong advantage and did nothing to hurt that advantage - increased it if anyone with eyes and ears was paying attention!
Absolutely correct.
Kerry has no plan.
If he had a 'plan' he'd impart tell people what his vision is.
His problem is he has double vision, he sees and says one thing one day, and capitulates the next.
He's like an ostrich - a big bird with his head in the sand. He gives a lot of flap, but he can't fly!
After reading all the negative comments about Bush I was afraid to watch but when I did I was pleasantly surprised.
Bush did GREAT! He was fresh and strong.
Wow, that's pretty good :)
You know, it's been said that the smartest of us are not easy to understand. I think that Bush team is pretty good.
So we will see, but we have to go and VOTE! It's not finished yet.
As expertly pointed out by El Rushbo today, isn't it telling that the DemonRATS' post-debate video relates entirely to a compilation of the faces, smirks, sighs etc. uttered or displayed by Dubyuh, while the GOP's post-debate spin centers on quoting Kerry verbatim, then offering evidence as to how what Hanoi John says is UNTRUE!!
The contrast is damning...MUD
Ping...MUD
Insight Magazine has insight, who would have guessed? Excellent points made.
Which means 72% of Kerry's supporters want US to do less or the same...if Kerry were to win the Presidency, does anybody really believe Kerry would alienate 3/4ths of his base by doing what is necessary to win the War on Terror?!
No, Kerry would waver, despite lying and saying he NEVER wavers...MUD
Hey Mud,
I had not read this yet. Good find!
I posted last night that once people started dissecting what was actually said last night that Kerry would be the loser. Great find!
"if you take out the part about the foreign nations, Senator Kerry doesn't really have a plan."
quite true; saying you "have a plan, a plan" "doesn't make it so . . ."
You cannot win the debate on style and not on substance. That is NOT "winning the debate"!
He was a "stylistic" bag of hot air. That is as much as I will concede.
You fundamentally cannot convince people that you are a better candidate to run this war, by merely POSITING that you would be. And for those judging the debate on "debating points" -- it is considered a failed argument if you hold up an argument only supported by ASSERTION. Kerry offered NO PROOF or CONVINCING LOGIC.
Bush DID attack this lack of support for Kerry's basic position, which boils down to "I would be better than President Bush BECAUSE I SAID SO." President Bush pointed out how his criticism of our allies undermine not only the alliance, but in effect, KERRY'S WHOLE PLAN which is posited upon alliances. This was a knock-out blow, logically cutting Kerry's plan into shreds.
Bush WAS convincing in this. I don't see why people are falling all over themselves to give Kerry a debate win on "style" or "debating points." You cannot WIN a debate on "style or debating points" if your assertions are unsupported and your logic is internally inconsistent. He should have been called "out" on debating points, and perhaps merely praised as a glib speaker for people who like that smarmy approach to discourse . . . .
IOW Bush won the debate. The Gallup poll overnight proved it: Kerry did not convince people! His arguments did not did not hold water and failed to convince people, so he LOST the DEBATE!
Guys, please do not succumb to this media-driven analysis of "winning the debate" by agreeing that you can win a debate by out-glib-tonguing the opponent. You have to win the ARGUMENT in order to win the debate, and Kerry did NOT. He Lost!
Should I go on? ;)
As noted above, if Kerry wasn't a "Senator Of Bafflement" (Limbaugh's way to call Hanoi John an "S.O.B." fer those non-dittoheads), he'd alienate either 28% or 72% of his Base. Therefore, he must continue to talk outta both sides of his mouth fer the next month or risk an even greater LANDSLIDE!!
FReegards...MUD
feel even better about the debates ping...
PING to Yoshida
Thank-you bttt
A person who is adept at debating can take any position and sound convincing.
In a presidentail election it is not who wins but the one you believe.
I trust and believe in Bush.
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.