Firearm Forums - Arms Locker banner
1 - 6 of 6 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,118 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Well the debate went well, but sadly as I see it, it went well for both parties.

I think President Bush performed very well, and I commend his efforts. There was a point, however, at which President Bush could have given a knockout counter-punch to Senator Kerry, but he may have missed his shot. Senator Kerry throughout the campaign and in the debate has made it known that he faults President Bush for not getting enough UN assistance in Iraq. He further faulted the president repeatedly for not getting a large enough coalition of allies to join us in Iraq and the war on terror. He did both of these over and over again in during the debate.

Then Senator Kerry readily pointed out that North Korea with its nuclear weapons program is one of our worst problems, and he blamed this on President Bush. Whereas President Bush favors a multinational set of talks with North Korea, Senator Kerry would have the United States enter into bilateral talks with Korea thereby counting out any help we would get from other nations. Senator Kerry did not mention the UN in this regard, he did not mention our allies in this regard and he did not mention working with any of the other world powers in this regard. President Bush on the other hand has worked with the UN and with a coalition of our allies in Afghanistan, Iraq, the war on terror. President Bush is also willing to work with multiple nations (most world powers) in North Korea, including China. Too bad that he did not point out, during his rebuttal, that Senator Kerry had actually flip flopped on the importance of our allies and the UN: this by his insisting on having them for the war on terror - but yet insisting on bilateral talks with North Korea thereby snubbing his nose at any countries which would help.

Had the president seized this opportunity, I believe he would have defeated Kerry by an overwhelming margin from which the Kerry campaign could not recover.

All the best,
Glenn B
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,467 Posts
on the NORTH KOREA wmd's G.W.B could have had a 'knock out ' round, as WE KNOW "WHO PUT IT THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE" and didn't state IT!



another, would have simply been to brass ball state, that iraq is the center piece, for a made in the U.S.A. BOOT PRINT! and the rest will fall/follow/cest to exiscist, .


i know , :rolleyes: what a bigotted $sshole i am !

[read your book, were just fightin' a delaying tactic, imo anyway! ]:madeuce:

but i do take pride, in WHO/WHAT we americans are.

thanks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,648 Posts
I think there were a number of missed opportunities for nailing (s)Kerry. The vote on the 87 billion - Kerry claimed he misspoke. I would have nailed him for bringing up the casualties due to no body armor, etc - he voting against providing the funding for those items.

Also, when he was talking about not giving the UN a chance in Iraq - I would have asked how many more resolutions? Also on not bringing the UN in on the contracts, I would have simply said "Oil for food" - another UN disaster.

There were other opportunities, but the debates were what they were....

:devil:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,117 Posts
u r ignoring the fact that the "multinational" talks with Korea broke down several days BEFORE this debate. Bush quickly ran out of his memorized lines. You could see it by the expression on his face, and how he kept returning to the few things that he could remember to say.
 

·
Site Founder
Joined
·
4,814 Posts
How come we always have to vote between twiddle-dee and twiddle-dum during presidential elections? Isn't the office of President of the United States of America a worthy goal for a worthy candidate any more? Or is it just that there is no way that a worthy person can get that far in the corrupt political system?

Sometimes I just get tired of voting against the worse of two evils.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,279 Posts
I believe that there is no way that a worthy person can get that far in the 2 party system. Even if they are honorable people when first elected, they are soon corrupted and have to adopt the party line or be defeated in the next election. Ron Paul may be an exception but I don't know much about him except that he is a tremendously wealthy doctor.

RIKA
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Top