Q 4 (to Bush): What about Senator Kerry's point, the comparison he drew between the priorities of going after Usama bin Laden and going after Saddam Hussein?
Q 18 (to Bush): All right. Mr. President, this is the last question. And two minutes. It's a new subject -- new question, and it has to do with President Putin and Russia. Did you misjudge him or are you -- do you feel that what he is doing in the name of antiterrorism by changing some democratic processes is OK?
I'm not the least bit surprised that Lehrer would show any partiality or bias, but I am amazed that Imus the Anus would question him on it, given Imus the Anus' hero-worship of Goofy Horse's Ass Kerry.
Bottom line; Anyone from PBS, CNN, ABC/CBS/NBC, NYT, etc. ought to be disallowed or the questions predetermined by a panel or something. I don't care if Lehrer just reads them, but if he has the sole responsibility of choosing them, then that's just wrong.
Ben Stein would be a good moderator.
Britt Hume.
Heck, I'd even support Alan Colmes.
Anne Coulter.... :D
One of the last questions at the end of this debate on foreign policy was from Lehrer to Bush: Do you PERSONALLY think that Senator Kerry lacks the character to be president.
It was shocking and outrageous and GWB said "That's a loaded question", then went on to respond very well, praising Kerry's family but saying he does not agree with his Senate record and so on.
1 (to Kerry): Do you believe you could do a better job than President Bush in preventing another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States?
Q 2 (to Bush): Do you believe the election of Senator Kerry on November the 2nd would increase the chances of the U.S. being hit by another 9/11-type terrorist attack?
Q 3 (to Kerry): "Colossal misjudgments." What colossal misjudgments, in your opinion, has President Bush made in these areas?
Q 4 (to Bush): What about Senator Kerry's point, the comparison he drew between the priorities of going after Usama bin Laden and going after Saddam Hussein?
Q 5 (to Kerry): As president, what would you do, specifically, in addition to or differently to increase the homeland security of the United States than what President Bush is doing?
Q 6 (to Bush): What criteria would you use to determine when to start bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq?
Q 7: (to Kerry): Speaking of Vietnam, you spoke to Congress in 1971, after you came back from Vietnam, and you said, quote, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"
Q 8: (to Bush): You have said there was a, quote, "miscalculation," of what the conditions would be in post-war Iraq. What was the miscalculation, and how did it happen?
Q 9 (to Kerry): You just -- you've repeatedly accused President Bush -- not here tonight, but elsewhere before -- of not telling the truth about Iraq, essentially of lying to the American people about Iraq. Give us some examples of what you consider to be his not telling the truth.
Q 10: (to Bush): Has the war in Iraq been worth the cost of American lives, 10,052... uh... 1,052 as of today?
Q 11: (to Kerry): Speaking of your plan, new question, Senator Kerry. Can you give us specifics, in terms of a scenario, time lines, et cetera, for ending major U.S. military involvement in Iraq?
Q 12: (to Bush): Does the Iraq experience make it more likely or less likely that you would take the United States into another preemptive military action?
Q 13(to Kerry): What is your position on the whole concept of preemptive war?
Q 14 (to Bush): Do you believe that diplomacy and sanctions can resolve the nuclear problems with North Korea and Iran? Take them in any order you would like.
Q 15 (to Kerry): Senator Kerry, you mentioned Darfur, the Darfur region of Sudan. Fifty thousand people have already died in that area. More than a million are homeless. And it's been labeled an act of ongoing genocide. Yet neither one of you or anyone else connected with your campaigns or your administration that I can find has discussed the possibility of sending in troops.
Q 16 (to Bush): Clearly, as we have heard, major policy differences between the two of you. Are there also underlying character issues that you believe, that you believe are serious enough to deny Senator Kerry the job as commander in chief of the United States?
Q 17 (to Kerry): If you are elected president, what will you take to that office thinking is the single most serious threat to the national security to the United States?
Q 18 (to Bush): All right. Mr. President, this is the last question. And two minutes. It's a new subject -- new question, and it has to do with President Putin and Russia. Did you misjudge him or are you -- do you feel that what he is doing in the name of antiterrorism by changing some democratic processes is OK?
Talk about bias! Why is this man still acting as "moderator?"
Thq questions don't matter; only the answers.
I think Bush has lured Kerry into the briar patch.
Kerry was forced to be a bigger hawk than Bush, and he gains nothing by that.
No Bush voter is going to be converted by Kerry's blustering, but lots of Michael Moore voters are going to start thinking about Kerry's two extra divisions, and his doubling of the Special Forces, and his promise to go everywhere and fix all the problems of the world. Some will ask themselves which social programs will be cut to pay for all of this.
Some folks will wonder why it is best to go it alone in North Korea, but everywhere else requites a coalition.
Eventually someone will ask how the U.N. can be trusted after stealing kid's milk money.
Eventually someone will ask how the French and Russians can be motivated, since Kerry himself said they were too entangled in self interest.
Kerry fancies himself as a great military tactician, better than the generals on the ground. He could fight Tora Bora and Falujia better than the guys wo did it. This will be fun to watch. The last American presidents who diddled in tactics were LBJ and Carter.
to eveyone that didnt protest Ron Reagan being on MSNBC as an analysist this is what you get today:
On MSNBC, Ron Reagan declared Kerry "the clear
winner" since he was "better informed, he was more presidential."
CNN's NewsNight featured a guest who called Kerry the winner and
charged that Bush "got his ass whooped."
question to bush: why do you beat your wife??
question to skerry: why does george beat his wife.
Thought you might be interested in this thread.
My Lord, horrible one sided questions like was the loss of life worth it, asked two different ways. UGH
The question I wanted to her was this:
"Senator, you claim to be strong on Defense of the country, yet you voted against every major weapons systems currently being used in the war on terror. How do you justify those votes?"
Yes, it's true the questioning held a bias.
I expected it, so I'm hardly going to act surprised it occured.
I'm hesitant to pursue allegations of bias. Bush won these on substance, if people start raising a fuss about obvious bias we risk the "sore loser" label. Bush didn't emerge as a "loser" and I do not want it tagged to him after the event.
At the moment people are beginning to focus on the substance of the debate. It's the wrong move to turn our attention to bias when Kerry's own statements crucify him.
Interesting that Imus apparently thought it was notable to ask the question
When Lehrer asked Bush if the Iraq war was "worth it," that was an insult and a trap. There can be no doubt about the partisan bias. Kerry was never asked about all the times he voted against various needed weapons systems, even though he is viciferous about being SO very supportive of the military.
Kerry has at least two faces and the MSM aids and abets him.
I was disappointed with Dubya.
I expected the edge to the questions, and I believe that Dubya & Co. should have expected that, also. I don't think that any of the questions, regardless of bias, should have been especially unexpected (except the one about Kerry's character), and Bush could have had his own carefully scripted replies.
Bush also seemed unprepared to counter the easy lies that Kerry put out there. Perhaps he was even astounded that Kerry did that! Still, I believe he should have been prepared for SOME of those, too, but all too often Kerry's lies were left uncontested. Of course, that seems to be the Demonrats' general strategery: throw out as many damaging lies as possible, and the opposition won't have enough time to expose ALL of 'em.
Is the public getting wise enough to notice that? I sure hope so!
After reading the trasscript, Lehrer needs to be removed. His questions were very biased.