The First Debate Redux
After sleeping on it, mulling it over with my morning coca-cola, and reading some others' opinions, I still call it a draw.
Both candidates failed to add any depth to their oft' mentioned "plans" for Iraq.
President Bush totally glossed over the obvious challenges we're facing in Iraq. But I still don't think it merits being called a quagmire. I was really hoping that he would be blunt about the situation; but I guess that's not possible during a campaign.
Kerry made way too much out of Osama Bin Laden being the one who attacked us on 9/11 and not Iraq/Saddam The fact that Bin Laden has not been captured or confirmed dead does not in anyway mean that the War on Terror is misguided or off-track. The fact that we've begun cleaning out the viper's nest in Iraq while still working to stabilize Afghanistan is called "strategy"; kind of like focusing on Germany before Japan in WWII.
Kerry's most ludicrous mantra is how quickly he will bring home the troops. All the different timetables he’s proposed are unrealistic. I say “all the timetables” because I’ve heard him offer several different scenarios: 4 months, 6 months, 1 year. Whatever he finally decides on is far too quick. Iraq is a long term commitment.
North Korea seems to have pushed everyone’s buttons as well. But dealing with NK requires a totally different strategy. We’ve seen from the way NK blatantly violated the agreement during the Clinton administration that they only view negotiations as a stalling tactic. We need China and the other regional powers at the table with us. Kim Jong Il wants the bilateral talks because he knows it will be easier to drag them on and on; or that it will be more believable to simply walk away from the table calling the USA alone impossible to deal with, rather than six nations acting together.
Both candidates spouted incorrect statistics and offered no real solid info on how they plan to lead over the next four years.
Here’s the factcheck.org take on the debate:
Both candidates failed to add any depth to their oft' mentioned "plans" for Iraq.
President Bush totally glossed over the obvious challenges we're facing in Iraq. But I still don't think it merits being called a quagmire. I was really hoping that he would be blunt about the situation; but I guess that's not possible during a campaign.
Kerry made way too much out of Osama Bin Laden being the one who attacked us on 9/11 and not Iraq/Saddam The fact that Bin Laden has not been captured or confirmed dead does not in anyway mean that the War on Terror is misguided or off-track. The fact that we've begun cleaning out the viper's nest in Iraq while still working to stabilize Afghanistan is called "strategy"; kind of like focusing on Germany before Japan in WWII.
Kerry's most ludicrous mantra is how quickly he will bring home the troops. All the different timetables he’s proposed are unrealistic. I say “all the timetables” because I’ve heard him offer several different scenarios: 4 months, 6 months, 1 year. Whatever he finally decides on is far too quick. Iraq is a long term commitment.
North Korea seems to have pushed everyone’s buttons as well. But dealing with NK requires a totally different strategy. We’ve seen from the way NK blatantly violated the agreement during the Clinton administration that they only view negotiations as a stalling tactic. We need China and the other regional powers at the table with us. Kim Jong Il wants the bilateral talks because he knows it will be easier to drag them on and on; or that it will be more believable to simply walk away from the table calling the USA alone impossible to deal with, rather than six nations acting together.
Both candidates spouted incorrect statistics and offered no real solid info on how they plan to lead over the next four years.
Here’s the factcheck.org take on the debate:
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment