Democrats & Liberals: Archives

I was struck that the immediate post-debate commentary centered on the excellent perfomrance of Kerry and had little to say about the almost frightening inability, after the first half hour, of the President to respond coherently, or on point. This deterioration progressed so far that at one point near the end Bush literally had no response and Lehrer tried to prompt him with a word or two that (and I paraphrase) ‘perhaps you object to…’ For the majority of the debate you could almost see the relief in Bush when the first time warning would light up. I alternated through the four broadcast networks and three major cable outlets after the debate; while the commentators generally compared the President’s performance unfavorably to Kerry’s, they did not go into detail and were, overall, quite mild.

Bush wasn’t shrill. He was whining.

Bert:

As I watched the “debate” ( I almost hate even calling it that), I felt that Kerry looked a bit better than Bush last night. I thought Kerry did a nice job of suggesting that you can be consistent, but still wrong—-this is a phrase that many people may be moved by.

I also thought Bush missed an opportunity to position Kerry as what I believe he is: a Monday morning armchair quarterback.

It’s easy for Kerry to cast blame, for instance, on the Tora Bora issue, by using hindsight. I suspect that had US forces gone into Tora Bora and experienced the high casualty rate that was very likely, Kerry would now be casting blame for THAT decision. It’s easy to look BACKWARDS and find the right path, but much harder to look forward and see the right path before it exists.

This is where I continue to find fault with Kerry. He says he will forge a better coalition—I doubt he will. He says he will fight a better war—I doubt it.

The biggest clue I get from Kerry is his insistence—-now—-that the world is better off with Saddam out of power. Yet, had Kerry been in the White House the past 4 years, we wouldnt know. Kerry would never have taken Saddam out of power. So its easy for him to applaud a decision that would have been too tough for him to make, and condemn other decisions that have been made.

But, as far as just last night’s debate, I felt Kerry looked better. The bottom line is that he needed to in order for his candidacy to have a chance. It’s now more of a dogfight than had Bush won the debate.

Good article, BUT, having watched some of Fox News’s post debate wrap up, I don’t recal any major bias. The fox panel talking-heads seemed to pretty much agree that Kerry did better over all and was the clear winner in style. I think there was some debate over who had better substance, which is in contention since neither said anything new, striking, or very specific. That being said, again, Fox News (at least when I was watching) seemed to tip its collective hat to a Kerry win.

-D

Bert—

You stated: “Bush’s performance, made clear the ‘plain spoken’ appeal to me. Who else but a bunch of ignorant trash that sits in the hot sun all day watching cars circle a track, could be happy with such a dimwit as President?”

I watched the debates last night on C-SPAN and listened to the callers afterwards, and I am convinced that not a mind was changed, despite Kerry’s stellar performance when held up to the light of Bush’s “good hearted” and hapless answers. Ignorance is fast becoming bliss in the country and those who support Bush with an unwavering heart believe what they believe because they can not or will not think for themselves; it is far too hard an exercise. It is easier for the masses to follow blindly, then to lead with vision and clarity, both of which take work!

It is clear from last night debates that Kerry commands a much clearer grasps of the issues, and a better understanding of America’s role in the world as the Earth only remaining superpower. Ours is to lead by example in league with our allies, not unilaterally, with arrogance and distain perched upon our shoulders.

Let me just say that I -love- it when people call their political opponents idiots, ignorant, or imply that they are evolutionary throwbacks. That’s very rational. It also reallly helps get your point across. There’s nothing like a good insult to guarantee a lack of good will. That’s just the kind of warm, open minded attitude that’s going to win this election for you.

Nice work. You should run for office.

Joe-
Will the world be safe if Iraq falls into chaos, or worse, finds a new, more charismatic dictator? The declaration that the world is safer with Saddam gone is not so much fact as opinion, but opinion repeated for emotional effect. There were 65 nations that had more WMD production capability. There were two nations to either side that had not just more support for terrorists, but actually had a more public history of such support. Add to that Tommy Franks telling Bob Graham that Somalia and Yemen were more obvious second and third targets, and one gets the sense that it took some major manipulation of the data to make the equation come out in favor of a war in Iraq.

In the end, all the Republicans have to offer is partisan doubt, and accusations of inconsistency that look more like projection of Bush’s problems than description of Kerry’s.

Stephen:

We’ve had this conversation before. You seem to think the world should immediately be safer, but that’s just not a plausible hope. As I’ve said before, I suspect you’d have called the world less safe the day after the D-Day invasion. You’d have complained about the massive casualties and deaths. You’d have complained that the intelligence information was horribly flawed. You’d have complained that whoever was in charge (men like Eisenhower and Roosevelt) should be removed from their positions. The truth is that D-day was a single step towards a safer world, and a step that needed to be taken in order for successive steps to work. So it goes with the war on terror.

The road to safety is not a short drive. I believe we started on the path to safety when the US showed toughness and resolve in the face of tragedy. I believe we have continued on this road as we have held Iraq accountable to its promises, rather than let Hussein play cat and mouse for another 12 years.

Stephen, I know we disagree on how to make the world safer. I believe that were John Kerry president over the last 4 years, we would not have taken any significant steps towards safety. We would have talked, held summits, issued resolutions etc, and in effect, POSTPONED the problem. This is what Bill Clinton did. I liked his bombing of Iraq—that was a good first step, but he didnt continue it. Perhaps he would have continued with another 4 years of office—we will never know.

Postponing the problem, or simply dealing with the symptoms, is never the answer. You must DEAL with the problem. I believe Bush is doing that. I just as fervently believe that John Kerry never would.

Why does Bush respond with arrogance? I am refering to the answer to “Do you think Sen. Kerry would do a better job if elected?” … he started out saying “I know that won’t happen and I am going to be the ……”

I am not much into politics but common sense suggests that such an answer reveals the arrogant brat in a human…don’t y’all think ?

This deterioration progressed so far that at one point near the end Bush literally had no response and Lehrer tried to prompt him with a word or two that (and I paraphrase) ‘perhaps you object to…’

I was really shocked by that. Lehrer told Bush to rebut Kerry’s reference to “truth”, something that Bush apparently didn’t even notice. If Lehrer had given that kind of help to Kerry, people would be calling for his head.

Of course this is academic, because Bush still looked like a drolling buffoon. Sorry Damon, but what else do you call someone who stares blankly at you while they try to remember the rehearsed answer to your question? Not claiming that he will lose… people are using to him acting like that and apparently think it is OK. Amiable dunce.

jbod —

What do you think will make the world safer? (I’m asking for specifics.) And how much are you willing to give up to make it so?

Bush opened quite strongly, I thought, while Kerry seemed to stumble slightly on the first question. But after that, it just got better and better for Kerry, and it got worse and worse for Bush. It’s like Bush ran out of cliche stump speech lines after only the first two questions, apparently because he just doesn’t have much to say beyond the simplistic sound bites he delivers to adoring hand-picked crowds in his recent stump speeches. Bush also showed, more than ever before, that he just isn’t sharp enough to discuss important policy issues in detail. He doesn’t understand them beyond the platitudes of his little catch phrases and simple constructs. I think many Republicans know this about him and are comfortable with that kind of leader, a leader who sees complex things simply, but I think a lot of Americans may have been a little surprised to see the President repeat himself so many times during the debate, and to actually see him smirk and shrug when he ran out of pre-packaged things to say about the important issues.

I agree that anyone who watched only the first couple of minutes would have seen a less lopsided debate than what those of us who watched more or all of it saw.

Also, Bush at one point muttered “tax gap”. Did he accidently reveal his campaign’s new rhetorical tactic? We’ll see, but I wouldn’t put it past him to accidently reveal a secret on national television.

I also think that Bush’s overtly fearful and nervous behavior at the debate should convince my well-meaning but probably clinically paranoid liberal friends that the Administration is most definitely nowhere close to catching Osama bin Laden, much less hiding him in a bunker underneath the Bush/Cheney’04 campaign headquarters prepping him for an “October surprise”. If there’s one thing this President does not have, it’s a poker face. The man is holding, at best, a pair of fives right now. Faced with such an opponent, Kerry has, correctly, raised the stakes.

-Cf

While I was more impressed by Kerry’s performance than by Bush’s ‘hard work, hard work’ rant, the dilemma right now is neither of them has a convincing exit strategy - because quite possibly there is none.

Bush’s strategy seems to be: let’s keep doing what we’re doing and hope for the best.

Kerry wants to bring in allies to share the burden, but I agree with Bush there that it isn’t likely that foreign governments will jump at the opportunity to get involved in that mess.

The most important question to me is: what is the effect of the invasion/liberation/take your pick
of Iraq on Islamic radicalism and terrorism?

Contending that the terrorists are making some sort of last stand in Iraq is rediculous - this war perfectly serves their aims. They have the United States directly involved in two armed conflicts in countries which have proven to be very resistant to any form of sustained foreign rule (Afghanistan especially) and are successfully communing with insurgents, nationalists and other groups which have radically different agendas but are now faced with a common enemy.

Right now my prediction is that the involvement in Iraq will be long, costly in terms of blood and treasure and lead to mediocre results at best. Either it becomes an unstable democracy perceived as weak by a large chunk of the population and under constant threat by insurgents - or we witness a full-scale civil war.

Unfortunately, neither candidate has the supernatural abilities to make that mess go away over night.

P.S. My apologies for any bad spelling/grammar - English is only my second language.

Coffee said:

“Contending that the terrorists are making some sort of last stand in Iraq is rediculous - this war perfectly serves their aims. They have the United States directly involved in two armed conflicts in countries which have proven to be very resistant to any form of sustained foreign rule (Afghanistan especially) and are successfully communing with insurgents, nationalists and other groups which have radically different agendas but are now faced with a common enemy.”

Exactly!

I suspect that had US forces gone into Tora Bora and experienced the high casualty rate that was very likely, Kerry would now be casting blame for THAT decision.

Not hardly, joe. After al Qaeda’s attack on the United States, Americans were (still are) willing to sacrifice quite a lot to get those bastards. Bush told us to go to Disney World, and he’d take care of it. Well, he didn’t.

“I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.”

Thanks for nothing.

Right now my prediction is that the involvement in Iraq will be long, costly in terms of blood and treasure and lead to mediocre results at best.

Coffee, there are two other options: Bush is floating the idea of just withdrawing after the January elections and letting untrained Iraqi troops take over, and Kerry is going to get more international forces to help out so we can start to draw down.

For those who doubt Kerry can get other countries involved, just remember that France already offered to send peacekeeping troops to Iraq - Bush turned them down.

The Bush administration has abandoned the idea of giving the United Nations more of a role in the occupation of Iraq as sought by France, India and other countries as a condition for their participation in peacekeeping there, administration officials say.

“The administration is not willing to confront going to the Security Council and saying, ‘We really need to make Iraq an international operation,’” an administration official said. “You can make a case that it would be better to do that, but, right now, the situation in Iraq is not that dire.” - Friday, August 15, 2003

Coffee said Kerry wants to bring in allies to share the burden, but I agree with Bush there that it isn’t likely that foreign governments will jump at the opportunity to get involved in that mess.

Look at it this way: who would have a better chance at bringing in broad international support? Bush, the one who failed to establish it in the first place? Or Kerry, in a new administration, with a clean slate and an intelligent and credible outlook on how to go about it? Certainly the international support just won’t jump on board right when Kerry is sworn in, but as far as having a chance at bringing them in, I think a Kerry administration presents our best chance while a Bush administration will give us, well, more of the same.

Kerry displayed a couple of new tactics that were very smart and may reflect a new level of cleverness and strength in his campaign.

For example, although he talked about Vietnam several times, he stopped using the word “Vietnam” itself, instead using more subtle but clear allusions to his combat experience. We all know what war he’s talking about when he said “I know what it’s like for a soldier to not know what danger is around the corner”.

He was totally prepared for several occassions where the President lied about Kerry’s record and statements. He countered most of them effectively, and made the President look cheap for even attempting such misleading tactics right there on national television. In fact, he even capitalized on the President’s own fantastic self-delusion when he pointed out that Bush, right there on national television, actually said that Saddam “attacked us” - I am so glad that Kerry was on the ball enough to see that as an opportunity to skewer the President for his bizarre misrepresentation (or even misperception) of concrete reality.

He was unafraid to use the most negative statistics possible in describing the President’s record, even when the statistics were projected (the $200 billion dollar cost for Iraq) or fuzzy. That may sound cynical, but Bush has never EVER used an honest statistic in his life, so why should Kerry?

He was gentlemanly when he declined to call the President a “liar”, but he still managed to hammer on the president’s credibility relentlessly.

He alluded the the President’s use of the word “flip flop”, and in so doing managed to pin that childish epithet back on Bush without ever even saying the words. It’s like Kerry’s rubber and Bush is glue!

He laughed warmly and thanked the President for the personal comments he made about their families. The President’s attempt to diffuse the situation with kindness backfired by actually loosening up Kerry and putting him in a happier mood. The President, on the other hand, seemed flustered throughout the exchange.

He answered the “87 billion dollar question” with the kind of deftly simple answer that would make Karl Rove proud: he framed it as a humorous case of him simply mis-speaking about his vote. Bush was totally flummoxed by this response, and was thus unable to capitalize on the issue any further.

And his spinmeisters have performed brilliantly in the post-debate struggle to “frame” the match-up as a Kerry victory. I hope they can keep it up.

There are a lot of things to be happy about, and I look forward to the Vice Presidential debates next week.

Some stylistic critiques for John Kerry:
1) Demeanor: Why didn’t you look at the camera more? Jim Lehrer isn’t the only voter you need to reach!
2) Family Values: Where the hell were your children? Bush had his whole family onstage with him, where were your girls? The Heinz boys?
3) Frenchiness: Would a blue tie kill you? And watch it with that hand-around-the-back when you shake hands!
4) Smile: Show your teeth when you smile, otherwise it looks like a shit-eating grin. Those whitening sessions weren’t for nothing, you know!
5) Honorariums: Bush called you “my opponent” and “my challenger”. You correctly called him “the President”, and it’s good of you to show him respect, as Clinton did with his father. But you don’t have to do it every single time: a very occasional “my opponent” or “Mr. Bush” wouldn’t hurt.

But overall, without a doubt, I like where the candidate and his campaign are going. Bush is back on the ropes, where he should be.

-Cf

I though Kerry won the debate last night. The problem is that he came off as an anti-war canidate. The big problem I have with Bush is that although he attacked Iraq, he hasn’t attacked Iran and North Corea yet. My take is this, will Kerry actually attack these countries he criticises Bush about for not taking action. NO WAY!! Keryy will do nothing but talk. I will give Bush 4 more years to attack Iran, North Korea, and anyone else harboring terrorists, weapons, or anti-american Hate.

> and anyone else harboring terrorists,
> weapons, or anti-american Hate

So, that means you want us to invade Great Britain, Japan, South Korea, Italy, Spain. There’s plenty of anti-American Hate over there.

Oh, and France.

And we should also invade countries that are harboring weapons? So now we have to invade Canada, Australia, Russia, China, India, and every single other country in the world?

-Cf

Joe-
What were we fighting to be safe against? Terrorism and WMDs wielded by them, Saddam Hussein or both. That was the threat posited, and had it materialized in real life, yes, I would have believed this war would make us safer.

Do I need to tell you what happened? Without those threats materializing, the whole rationale behind making America safer by this war collapses. There was a problem in Iraq, no doubt, and Saddam deserved to be deposed, but there was no problem that demanded our invasion, no problem whose postponement would create a serious threat to this country anytime soon.

In a time of peace, it would have been unthinkable that we would strike first, strike pre-emptively, only to find ourselves emptyhanded for evidence to support our invasion. But now in a time of war, when our enemies are so determined to exploit every weakness, such a fiasco becomes very unacceptable.

There’s no comparison with D-Day. D-Day was an invasion of a mainland target from the sea, trying to punch through hardened defenses. Things didn’t go too smoothly, as a matter of fact, and Omaha Beach was a real tactical fiasco, with many things going wrong. That said, the cause was clear, just, and most importantly, it was true. There was no question as to why we were landing there on D-Day- to liberate France, and eventually the rest of Europe. In Iraq, the liberation of the country was an afterthought of defending ourselves, and not the main legal or legislative basis for the war. There’s the comparison, really. As I’ve said, I would have had us take twice the casualities, if the threat was real.

Hell, I felt I was willing to endure WWII level casualties in Afghanistan. If we had lost in a day fighting the Taliban and al-Qaeda, what we lose in a month or a week fighting insurgents in Iraq, I’d still back the war to the hilt.

But that’s my real point. The cause must be just and the casualties necessary. I will not stomach being misled into war, and I will not stomach losing soldiers to stupidity in the planning and execution of the war.

Hell, I felt I was willing to endure WWII level casualties in Afghanistan. If we had lost in a day fighting the Taliban and al-Qaeda, what we lose in a month or a week fighting insurgents in Iraq, I’d still back the war to the hilt.

Mind if I second that?

> Hell, I felt I was willing to endure WWII
> level casualties in Afghanistan.

Yep, me too. I was one of those who were sure that the American attack would suffer some of the same difficulties that the Soviets did. I even said so in public. But I did not for one split second think that it wasn’t worth it. I still don’t.

Please notice that it is perfectly possible to emphatically support a war effort *and* to speak frankly about the risks and about what we would do if we didn’t succeed. It’s not pessimism, it’s just honesty, and it’s how America wins wars.

-Cf

Despite all the blather regarding who did what to whom in the debates (Kerry clearly “won”), the most interesting thing I’ve seen in the subsequent flash polls came from ABC News.

The showed pretty much the same numbers as everyone else, but with one additional question. They asked which candidate voters preferred, both before and after the debate:

Before/After
Bush 50%/51%
Kerry 46%/47%
Nader 1%/0.5%

Basically, for now at least, the debate meant nothing as far as voter preference. The numbers will certainly shift in the days and weeks ahead but it’s clear that not many minds were changed on Thursday night in either direction.

NOTOTH,

Your polling example reminds me of a recent post, where someone cited a Gallup poll of Likely Voters on the eve of the 2000 election, as proof of their historical accuracy. However, they were conspicuously at a loss in producing 2000 Gallup polling from 5 weeks before the same election.

It is pleasantly surprising to see this Comment thread devoid of the real time spin coming from Bush apologists: he was tired from visiting hurricane victims that day; and, Jim Lehrer is obviously a member of the Liberal Media Elite and out to sabotage the President!

Those here who doubt Kerry’s vow to corral allies to our aid in Iraq (as Bush Sr. did before Desert Storm), would no doubt disagree that the world hates us for one singular reason - George W. Bush. President Resolute may have succeeded in pissing them off in just 3 1/2 short years, but they wisely separate him from their positive opinion of America, burnished over centuries.

My advice to the Bush campaign? Punt the remaining two debates. Remember, Bush negotiators demanded Terrorism/Nat’l Security as the first debate’s subject matter (and the President’s supposed strong suit), hoping for a knockout punch. Now, a debate on the Economy promises deeper potholes for the President, and more than likely, same result.

Stephen:

We are simply going to have to disagree on this. I think the war in Iraq is justified while you think it isnt. We both have many reasons for our beliefs, and I’ll admit that you have some well thought out reasons. I happen to disagree with the premise in your reasoning, but that alone does not make your premise illogical or wrong. You simply see things differently from me.

Alejo:

You asked, “What do you think will make the world safer? (I’m asking for specifics.) And how much are you willing to give up to make it so?”

This has the potential to be a vast question, but I’ll give you some general and some specific things.

In general, I have felt the US needed to show the world that we would not be weak in the face of attacks. Our muted responses in Africa, Lebanon, Somalia, Yemen and in the first WTC bombing etc have emboldened terrorists, who felt they could attack the US with relative impunity. Changing that viewpoint was and is essential. By showing our resolve, we tell terrorists, and more importantly those who harbor terrorists, that their actions will not be tolerated. Its like the big kid on the playground who, after having been bullied mercilessly, finally slugs a tormenter, and forever leaves a different impression on his attackers.

We need to win in Iraq and Afghanistan, and create relatively safe countries. If this works, and life for these people gets better, then we give people in similar countries a new hope for a better life. It is this better life that will help prevent some of the root causes of terrorism.

We need to secure our borders better. I’m willing to accept some level of profiling, though as a white male, I’m less a target of profiling. I dont see how to secure our borders without profiling to a degree. (Its interesting that even those AGAINST profiling admit to wanting a measure of profiling, when they claim we should not check out a grandmother, or a wheelchair bound passenger. This is simply reverse profiling.)

We need to continue to monitor nuclear activity around the globe. It may be unfair to be one of the few countries with nukes, but I dont see anyone truly wishing that Hitler, Idi Amin, Pinochet etc had had nukes, just so we could say that life is fair.

We need to have some measure of intrusiveness in our lives, as given by the Patriot Act and others. Without some level of intrusiveness, I dont see that we will have access to the intelligence info we need. Its a balancing act or a tightrope of how to do this without going overboard.

Aong others things as well, we need to rebuild our alliances. I’m not disturbed by the anger from some allies currently. Some of my closest and most valued friendships have undergone similar breaches and have emerged stronger as a result. Our allies have NOT been supportive in the manner we should be able to expect, and Bush has let them know this. Better that than continuing to have weak alliances. But its also time to begin rebuilding the friendships.

Hope that answers some or all of your questions.

joe, excellent post.

By showing our resolve, we tell terrorists, and more importantly those who harbor terrorists, that their actions will not be tolerated.

Our response in Afghanistan against al Qaeda and the Taliban government demonstrated that perfectly (almost).

But I’m not sure why it was then necessary to unilaterally invade Iraq instead of N. Korea, since that message is: If you have nukes, we can be deterred.

If this works, and life for these people gets better, then we give people in similar countries a new hope for a better life.

I have hope for Afghanistan - if we can get a large enough international force (including more US troops) in there to “convince” the warlords to participate in the government, completely root out the Taliban and al Qaeda forces that are operating freely, and institute a good alternative to the poppy economy.

In Iraq, smarter people than me (Fukuyama, for one) have already given up on a happy solution. The options seem to be civil war, a government propped up in perpetuity by US troops, or a democratically elected Islamic theocracy. I’m not thrilled by any of those options. I think the only way Iraq might work, is to make it a UN mandate until a tradition of democratic process takes hold.

Our allies have NOT been supportive in the manner we should be able to expect

They offered to help last fall, Bush turned them down. Rather than lead the UN and NATO as international organizations, Bush chose to treat them as a toolbox where he could pick and choose services a la carte. Neither organization’s members felt it was in their best interest to play that game, and I agree.

The Bush administration has abandoned the idea of giving the United Nations more of a role in the occupation of Iraq as sought by France, India and other countries as a condition for their participation in peacekeeping there, administration officials say.

“The administration is not willing to confront going to the Security Council and saying, ‘We really need to make Iraq an international operation,’” an administration official said. “You can make a case that it would be better to do that, but, right now, the situation in Iraq is not that dire.” - Friday, August 15, 2003

As for the rest, I totally agree with you about the nuke monitoring, and I only differ with you in degree on the rest. Good post.

Bush wasn’t shrill. He was whining.

Steve, according to Karl Rove, Bush was “pensive”.

I’m not sure how that’s better, but there you go.

JBOD:
Our allies have NOT been supportive in the manner we should be able to expect

AP:
They offered to help last fall, Bush turned them down.

If I’m remembering this wrong let me know (I’m sure you will!) But wasn’t their offer to “help” talking about rebuilding contracts? $$$$$$$$$$$
Thinking also that the major conflict was over? Bush wanted the countries that put up the risk and stood by our side to get first shot at any finincial payoff in the outcome.
They wanted to help alright. Themselves!

avg, it wasn’t about the money,

Though the administration has decided against seeking a separate resolution to give the United Nations any authority over security, some officials say that consideration might be given to getting wider UN authority over the multibillion-dollar reconstruction of Iraq.

It was about who would have authority over security in Iraq.

Rumsfeld, according to administration officials, vehemently opposes any dilution of military authority over Iraq by involving the United Nations, either through UN peacekeepers or indirectly in any UN authorization of forces from other countries.

American military officials say they fear that involving the United Nations, even indirectly, will lessen the latitude the United States must have in overseeing Iraqi security and pursuing anti-American guerrilla forces or terrorists.

BTW, the way you remember it is interesting,

Bush wanted the countries that put up the risk and stood by our side to get first shot at any finincial payoff in the outcome.

You framed the issue as one of who would benefit from the spoils of war. From that statement, you could just as well make the argument that Bush and his buddies “wanted to help alright. Themselves.”

As far as I can tell, Bush has been pretty clear that we’re not in Iraq for the money (Ha!) - or the oil, for that matter (at least not directly).

What I’m getting at is, fans of the invasion seem perplexed that anyone would think the US has nefarious motives - I mean, duh, we’re the United States, right? It should be self-evident that our mission is just and true.

But, not eveyone thinks that way. And after President Bush being wrong about the WMD, even fewer do so.

And posts like yours don’t help the president’s credibility.

Bush to be Secretly Coached During Debates

President Bush was fitted with micro receivers in his ear canals in preparation for the next two debates. Sources say the President will be secretly coached with facts and verbal prompts to give the appearance that he is intellectually superior to John Kerry.

The illusion is over. The Bush campaign was ahead in the polls mostly due to the success of their attacks on John Kerry. When your policies fail and you have nothing to run on, your only means for re-election is to attack and discredit your opponent. In the first debate Bush was stripped naked before the American public without the comfort of his political war dogs at his side. Even his favorite worn out chant, “flip-flopper,” was not working for him. With no one to look to for help, no Carl Rove, no Dick Cheney, Bush found only the podium to lean on while Kerry stood tall and erect. You see it’s easy to stand on your own feet when you have the intellectual capacity and qualifications to be a real President.

Coment deleted for breaking our Critique the Message, Not the Messenger policy. Please find another site to post your personal attacks, Lamont. Your access to comment here has been removed. —WatchBlog Manager