My favorite quoute was “A free Iraq will secure Israel” excuuuuse me the Israilie’s have a problem with the Palestinians’s not Iraq. Over and Over he showed his true stupidity. I can’t wait for the second debate! [/quote]
Stupidity, eh? Well it just so happens to be that Saddam Hussein financially supported Palestianian terrrorists. This HAS been proved. Saddam also had contacts with Al-Quaida terrorists. Bin Ladens second in command (you’ll have to forgive me I always forget their names) even went to Iraq to heal-up when he was wounded in Afghanistan after a US attack.
I’ll give you some stupidity:
Kerry saying there isn’t really a coalition even though there a re more than 30 nations involved in Iraq now. Kerry stating that those nations don’t send that many troops. Does that mean that they don’t contribute? Maybe thay can’t afford to send more troops. They do put their citizens in harms way. He’s talking about forming a coalition but is insulting the countries who ARE in a coalition. He accuses Bush of scaring away other countries, while he’s doing it himself right there! But then again “coalition” in Kerry’s words probably means France and Germany. Two countries that have already stated not to get involved in Iraq no matter who wins the election. In the meantime his sister is doing all she can to damage the coalition with Australia.
Kerry accuses Bush of not arming his soldiers well. He stated that the soldiers don’t get enough armour and only 2000 out of 12000 humvee’s had armour plates. Funny that he voted against the 87 million that was supposed to give the soldiers this gear.
Then there’s the north Korea issue:
Kerry states that Bush should’ve paid more attention to North Korea (NK). Fact is that Bush has formed a coalition with countries surrounding NK. And they are working on the problem multi-laterally. If the US will engage in negotiations on it’s owon then it’ll insult it’s coalition partners. YET this is what Kerry expected Bush to do. Fact of the matter is that as far as NK is concerned Bush is doing exactly what Kerry supposedly wants. Use diplomacy and work multilaterally. YET Kerry would’ve done things different.
He also doesn’t seem to understand that Saddam was a more eminent threat. Saddam as opposed to Kim Jung II has a track record of starting wars. In Saddam’s case diplomacy hadn’t worked over the past 10+ years, whereas the diplomatic road is not closed as far as NK is concerned.
Then there’s the afghanistan issue. Kerry kept saying that the focus of the war on terrorism should be on Afghanistan. Well we’re doing all we could possibly do in Afghanistan. We don’t need half the US army in there. It would be like killing a fly with a bazooka!
I don’t think Bush lost. I will admit that I feel he should’ve done better. He seemed a bit off, I’ll admit that. But his arguments, as his policy are rock solid! I don’t think Kerry COULD have done better. His speeches were well articulated, and he looker like his wife’s million bucks, but on substance… he was no match for Bush.