Debates #2
Question 3
"What colossal misjudgments, in your opinion, has President Bush made in these areas?"
The Question presumes misjudgment and so allows a list as an answer rather than some argument to support the notion that any misjudgment was made. Kerry claims, "First of all, he made the misjudgment of saying to America that he was going to build a true alliance." Apparently for Kerry a true alliance is not one where the participants share a worldview, wish to participate, and don't need coddling. A true alliance is one where consensus is achieved by all of the members of the security council, regardless of the fact that they often have irreconcilable policy goals, because we can have a summit. "...That he would exhaust the remedies of the United Nations and go through the inspections." On the contrary, Bush argued the opposite, that when the UN speaks, it has to mean what it says, and that he would enforce resolutions for the UN, even without the UN. "Now, once there, we could have continued those inspections.
We had Saddam Hussein trapped." A profound misreading of the situation. "He also promised America that he would go to war as a last resort. Those words mean something to me, as somebody who has been in combat. 'Last resort.'" Its means "after its too late". Kerry will wait until the costs of action have skyrocketed.
"You've got to be able to look in the eyes of families and say to those parents, 'I tried to do everything in my power to prevent the loss of your son and daughter.'" This is a recipie for no action. Everything about Kerry says no action. His standard for consenus will prevent any action, waiting until action is absolutly neccesary will prevent action, and wanting to be able to look into the eyes of grieving parents means no action. This is the true Kerry, his claims that he intends to win, that he won't waver is just a lie. "And we pushed our allies aside." France and Germany are the only allies that matter to Kerry, and their illegal ties to Saddam don't give him a moment of pause. "And so, today, we are 90 percent of the casualties and 90 percent of the cost: $200 billion." Kerry's failure to recognize that our wealth and power is perponderant is such a profound failure of understanding, one wonders if he thinks Elvis Presley will sing at his inauguration. "$200 billion that could have been used for health care, for schools, for construction, for prescription drugs for seniors, and it's in Iraq." Twenty years of Senate votes attest to the idea that Kerry would always prefer to defund defense and intelligence for social spending. News Flash Senator, this is not a road to victory. Forget Elvis, Kerry wants Bach to play. "And Iraq is not even the center of the focus of the war on terror. " Kerry either ignores the explanation of what Iraq is intended to do, he's a liar, or an idiot. Very likely all three.
Bush pointed out Kerry's earlier statements supporting deposing Saddam and intervening in Iraq. Sensible for a 30 second responce.
Question 4
"What about Senator Kerry's point, the comparison he drew between the priorities of going after Osama bin Laden and going after Saddam Hussein?"
Bush said, "Jim, we've got the capability of doing both." So obvious its stunning.
"As a matter of fact, this is a global effort." So it must be if victory is the goal.
"To say that there's only one focus on the war on terror doesn't really understand the nature of the war on terror." Stunningly obvious.
Kerry repeats his embarassing analysis which is as off the mark as his analysis of Vietnam and the Cold War. If Kerry says the sun rises in the east, I advise you to verify that yourself.
"You don't send troops to war without the body armor that they need." Armor of any kind has very specific advantages, normally being light and agile is better than being heavily armored. "10,000 out of 12,000 Humvees that are over there aren't armored." We have armored vehicles. There is a reason we didn't armor the Humvee. There is a reason we don't have a completely mechanized and armored army.
Monday, October 04, 2004
Saturday, October 02, 2004
The Debates #1
Eighteen Questions and closing statements, lets have a look. I watched the debates, and will be following the text at CNN.com's transcript.
Question 1
"Do you believe you could do a better job than President Bush in preventing another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States?"
This is a bad question. What idiot says no to this question? The whole series of debate quetsions are frequently bad examples of question framing because there is one obvious right answer. A good question is open-ended, such as "What is your plan to prevent another 9/11 terrorist attack on the United States?" Such a question does not waste time with the "my plan can beat up your plan" part of the answer.
Kerry's plan here is to make us better liked by those who are alienated by Bush's Iraq policy. This will greatly reduce the chance of a 9/11 terrorist attack from French state terrorists. Its not likely to have any effect on states or groups that already hate us. Kerry will have a summit with allies and they will hold hands in a circle and a fairy will sprinkle magic dust on the participants. To take Kerry a little more seriously, Kerry's mistake here is to think that more could be done. People like the French, Germans, and Russians are already sharing intelligence on terrorists, where we have problems with the is our Iraq policy, not in fighting terrorists outside of Iraq. Kerry is offering a platiutude. Yeah, I like apple pie too. Apple pie doesn't stop terrorism. Kerry also claims he can do a better job training Iraqi's, preparing for election, and mixing a Tom Collins. He can say he sings better than Bing Crosby and dances better than Fred Astaire, but I didn't see him in Holiday Inn. Claims offered with no articulation of a plan are arguments about nothing more than character. Take my word for it. Rather than allowing citzens to evaluate evidence critically to determine which claims were sensible and which were preferable, we were given nothing but an empty claim.
Bush offered the following: "Seventy-five percent of known Al Qaeda leaders have been brought to justice." A doctrine that extends guilt to those who offer support or refuge, denying terrorists sanctuary in states where the "you're with us or against us" line has pushed the line of cooperation as far as it is likey to go. Is this a coalition of the coerced, yes. Lybia was coerced into abandoning terror sponsorships and WMD programs. Good thing, I say. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia went from being Taliban supporters to active allies in the war on terror. They didn't do that because we asked real nice. "In Iraq, we saw a threat, and we realized that after September the 11th, we must take threats seriously, before they fully materialize. Saddam Hussein now sits in a prison cell. America and the world are safer for it." Solid explanation of the rational. He contines a few lines later by saying, "we're pursuing a strategy of freedom around the world, because I understand free nations will reject terror." That's it in a nutshell.
Question 2
"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?"
Another dumb question. Assuming that Kerry had offered a plan in question 1, this question would be unnecesary, even if rephrased into an open-ended question, like why is your plan better, point by point. As it is, this is just a restatement of the first question, an a waste of time.
For example, Bush just rejects the premise of a Kerry victory and goes on about what a leader he is. He says some good things, like, "This nation of ours has got a solemn duty to defeat this ideology of hate," and, "The best way to defeat them is to never waver, to be strong, to use every asset at our disposal, is to constantly stay on the offensive and, at the same time, spread liberty." Good solid stuff, but its not an answer to the question. I will say that Bush was probabaly playing the nice guy by answer the question in some form of a "no". Pat Cadell suggests that Bush was wooing women and independents who didn't want to see the kind of toughness we saw at the Convention. There is a women who has said that several times on Brit Hume's show (not Maura Liason, maybe CeCe Conally?), and there may be others who thought he should. I think the better answer would have been, "Because the chance of another major attack decreases when we engage the enemy in the middle east, rather than allowing him to plan a major action, my more aggressive policy does a better job preventing a possible subsequent attack. Right now, many terrorists are too busy trying to prevent Iraq from building a foundation for democracy to attack us here. Suppose we both withdrew from Iraq and established a lasting peace, what would the terrorists do when they left? They would plan more attacks."
Eighteen Questions and closing statements, lets have a look. I watched the debates, and will be following the text at CNN.com's transcript.
Question 1
"Do you believe you could do a better job than President Bush in preventing another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States?"
This is a bad question. What idiot says no to this question? The whole series of debate quetsions are frequently bad examples of question framing because there is one obvious right answer. A good question is open-ended, such as "What is your plan to prevent another 9/11 terrorist attack on the United States?" Such a question does not waste time with the "my plan can beat up your plan" part of the answer.
Kerry's plan here is to make us better liked by those who are alienated by Bush's Iraq policy. This will greatly reduce the chance of a 9/11 terrorist attack from French state terrorists. Its not likely to have any effect on states or groups that already hate us. Kerry will have a summit with allies and they will hold hands in a circle and a fairy will sprinkle magic dust on the participants. To take Kerry a little more seriously, Kerry's mistake here is to think that more could be done. People like the French, Germans, and Russians are already sharing intelligence on terrorists, where we have problems with the is our Iraq policy, not in fighting terrorists outside of Iraq. Kerry is offering a platiutude. Yeah, I like apple pie too. Apple pie doesn't stop terrorism. Kerry also claims he can do a better job training Iraqi's, preparing for election, and mixing a Tom Collins. He can say he sings better than Bing Crosby and dances better than Fred Astaire, but I didn't see him in Holiday Inn. Claims offered with no articulation of a plan are arguments about nothing more than character. Take my word for it. Rather than allowing citzens to evaluate evidence critically to determine which claims were sensible and which were preferable, we were given nothing but an empty claim.
Bush offered the following: "Seventy-five percent of known Al Qaeda leaders have been brought to justice." A doctrine that extends guilt to those who offer support or refuge, denying terrorists sanctuary in states where the "you're with us or against us" line has pushed the line of cooperation as far as it is likey to go. Is this a coalition of the coerced, yes. Lybia was coerced into abandoning terror sponsorships and WMD programs. Good thing, I say. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia went from being Taliban supporters to active allies in the war on terror. They didn't do that because we asked real nice. "In Iraq, we saw a threat, and we realized that after September the 11th, we must take threats seriously, before they fully materialize. Saddam Hussein now sits in a prison cell. America and the world are safer for it." Solid explanation of the rational. He contines a few lines later by saying, "we're pursuing a strategy of freedom around the world, because I understand free nations will reject terror." That's it in a nutshell.
Question 2
"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?"
Another dumb question. Assuming that Kerry had offered a plan in question 1, this question would be unnecesary, even if rephrased into an open-ended question, like why is your plan better, point by point. As it is, this is just a restatement of the first question, an a waste of time.
For example, Bush just rejects the premise of a Kerry victory and goes on about what a leader he is. He says some good things, like, "This nation of ours has got a solemn duty to defeat this ideology of hate," and, "The best way to defeat them is to never waver, to be strong, to use every asset at our disposal, is to constantly stay on the offensive and, at the same time, spread liberty." Good solid stuff, but its not an answer to the question. I will say that Bush was probabaly playing the nice guy by answer the question in some form of a "no". Pat Cadell suggests that Bush was wooing women and independents who didn't want to see the kind of toughness we saw at the Convention. There is a women who has said that several times on Brit Hume's show (not Maura Liason, maybe CeCe Conally?), and there may be others who thought he should. I think the better answer would have been, "Because the chance of another major attack decreases when we engage the enemy in the middle east, rather than allowing him to plan a major action, my more aggressive policy does a better job preventing a possible subsequent attack. Right now, many terrorists are too busy trying to prevent Iraq from building a foundation for democracy to attack us here. Suppose we both withdrew from Iraq and established a lasting peace, what would the terrorists do when they left? They would plan more attacks."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)