TO: WIll Collier
RE: Debate As a Bore

Not really. But I guess it has to do with what one finds interesting. Some people could care less about hearing two people 'discuss' an issue. Others find it full of information that they find useful.

And I guess that explains your next statements:

"Two highly superfluous observations..." -- Will Collier

If you can be that concise with this, there's something odd going on in your head. Superfluous? If it is 'unnecessary', why are you wasting bandwidth? Just say you couldn't care less and leave it at that.

On the other hand, you comment about the "Treblinka Square" gaff. It's not the dry hole you think. Rather, it is another indicator, that came out of the debate as a whole, that there is a problem with Kerry. One, that if Bush had committed it, the so-called "major media" would be on like ugly on an ape. It may not be the be all and end all of the affair, but it is, as some MI weenie would put it, an 'indicator'; not only of Kerry, but of the MSM.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

It is a secret ballot, so Kerry hand me the keys to your Ducati.

I need a link: I've never before heard of a Ducati. What do they look like?

I'm betting you couldn't fit 3 carseats in one...

Topic: don't bust on Will for wasting bandwidth, you're not the one who's paying for it.

"Treblinka Square" isn't meaningless, but when stacked up against:
-- "global test"
-- assuming moral equivalence among all nations with and seeking nuclear weapons capabilities
-- summits-r-us
-- calling for bi-lateral and multi-lateral talks in NK
etc etc etc

... the slip-o'-the-tongue barely makes the list of noteworthy things to talk about.

I thought Bush looked tired and somewhat pissed-off. He was his usual inarticulate self, but he danced with the one he brung. Resolve. Determination. Take the fight to the enemy. NEVER waver.

Kerry was a slick-talking, well-dressed, well-rehearsed gas-bag. I KNEW that he couldn't go 90 minutes without shitting his pants with an obvious lie and I was correct.

I know who I'm voting for.

"But I guess it has to do with what one finds interesting. Some people could care less about hearing two people 'discuss' an issue. Others find it full of information that they find useful."

That's what was odd, at least on my part. You don't have to read much of either this or my own site to see that I'm as much of a political junkie as any "civilian." I've watched every minute of every debate since Reagan vs. Carter (the exception was Gore vs. Kemp, which I turned off in disgust halfway through), but this one just didn't get my juices flowing.

Maybe it was just me, but I doubt it. I sincerely think the entire show was just too scripted and dull, all around--at least the half-hour that I watched. It could well have gotten better afterwards.

I think that if one compares the extent to which Boston was shut down for the Democratic National Convention, with how much New York City was shut down for the Republican National Convention, Kerry should not have gone there.

I don't know...replacing the name of a Russian landmark with that of a Nazi death camp is just, well, bad. There's no real meaning beyond that of an innocent gaffe though. No biggie. (of course we all know what the media reaction would have been if Bush said the same thing)

Kerry gave Bush a heck of a lot of rope to fashion into a noose though, and it could mean big trouble for the next debates. Bush can and should be able to make the case that Kerry would put popularity in the international community ahead of US interests. The "Global test for preemption" should be Exhibit A.

TO: Will Collier
RE: Maybe...

"Maybe it was just me, but I doubt it." -- Will Collier

...there is a bug going around. I've got it myself. You feel like you don't give a s---, about ANYTHING.

Then again, it may be your television. Too much of a 'good thing'. I killed mine years ago. Needless to say, I didn't watch the debate. But I do enjoy debates. I did it myself, long ago and far away.

"I sincerely think the entire show was just too scripted and dull, all around..." -- Will Collier

Well, if it was all so scripted, why was it Bush was getting all the hard-balls? I doubt if the scripting, which the campaigns saw beforehand, would have been allowed to stand if it was so well written. On the other hand, was there a bait and switch on the part of Lehrer? Enquiring minds want to know.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt with the 'bug' theory. I can't focus on code at the moment. I'd rather blog.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

A Ducati is a fine Italian motorcycle, the essence of performance and style. I'll take mine in red, please. :)

It wasn’t just you. I was looking forward to this one so much that I had trouble getting to sleep the night before. Seriously…

And maybe that caught up with me last night, because I fell asleep for about 20 minutes during the middle of the debate. I was disappointed, to say the least.

Does anyone know anything about the suitcase nuke Kerry was talking about? Didn't he claim that he was in on catching a suitcase nuke for $250 million in the middle east? Why have I never heard anything about that? When did that happen?

I think the fact that any of you are stupid enough to not know what John Kerry was talking about when he said the "global test" in regards to pre-emptive war, then you all should not be voting. Or rather, vote for Bush because its always the blind leading the blind. Essentially Kerry was stating that there is a standard by which the world agrees that preemptive warfare is necessary and then there are those others that would not pass as globally, or better said universally agreed to be good enough reasons. For example, declaring war on Hitler versus war on Vietnam. If you would rather be confused by his comment and spin it to mean something completely out of context from what he intended then feel free, but I'm just not that ignorant. There is a universal belief that preemptive war is necessary under certain circumstances. He was not equating that "global test" to a permission slip. Bush showed how he can't keep up when he interpreted it otherwise.

Leaving aside the fact that there was no preemptive war declared on Hitler precisely because "the world" held a summit and declared "peace for our time", I doubt that Italy, Japan, and (early on) Russia would have "universally agreed" to launch it. Do you actually believe that every nation of the world has the same view of their self-interest?

Apparently, you are unable to grasp that this is exactly the point that the president was making, that you will rarely get "the world" to agree on anything, and that he will not hold our self-interest hostage to CESM's that are trying to protect their 70% oil deals with a dictator.

Your point is not enhanced by personal insults.

Britton:

Here's the point: at least 60% of Americans could not possibly care less whether "the world agrees that [a certain] preemptive war is necessary". What they care about is whether or not it's in the best interests of the US. One of Bush's best attacks on Kerry is that he would require a "permission slip from the UN" in order to go to war. Kerry has repeatedly claimed that isn't so. Talking about a "global test" destroys his defense, because yes, the two are equal.

We don't expect France to give a shit about the best interests of the US. As a consequence, we don't give a shit about whether or not France approves of our actions.

Now, 30 - 40% do care. However, that's not enough to win an election.

Which is why Kerry is going to lose. Big time.

Britton: there is a standard by which the world agrees that preemptive warfare is necessary...

Oh, I knew exactly what Kerry meant when he said "global test," and GWB did, too. And we are not stupid, we just reject this concept as a bad, bad idea. If we trusted the rest of the world to do what was right for the US, the US wouldn't be here anymore.

FWIW, I found the debate simultaneously nerve-wracking and boring. As I am in Pacific time and the debate ran smack through dinner and getting-kids-ready-for-bed time, I didn't watch it live. I listened to pieces of it via TiVO (my husband had the TV on at the other end of the room) while bouncing around among liveblogging sites. IOW, I left the heavy lifting of actually paying close attention to others, to whom I am most grateful.

TO: Britton
RE: Testing. Testing. Hello! Is Anybody Paying Attention?

"He [Kerry] was not equating that "global test" to a permission slip." -- Britton

Au contraire, ma cherie. [Please pardon my french.] That is exactly what he was proposing.

Any reasonably prudent individual could see that. Otherwise, please explain what he was proposing. Please be specific. I know that could be difficult, as Kerry doesn't provide much to go on. However, please keep in mind whatever specifics you may cite, would have to be confirmed by Kerry....at least eight times, before we were certain of his 'nuance'.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

Will,

I think the Treblinka comment was far more damaging to Kerry than you might think. I'm not Jewish, but when my grandfather, who was a WWII vet and saw the camps, started to fall into ill health, he charged me with carrying on his tradition, carried on since the day he got back to America, of carrying in his wallet laminated photos his company took of the attrocities they saw, so that the horrors would never be denied or forgotten. He asked me to sit and listen to his accounting of the things he saw, of the unspeakable depravity. He was an old Italian guy, a devout Catholic, yet he had studied the aftermath and knew the names and awful stories of all of the death camps. He made sure I did as well. I think there's more of this kind of thing out there than you might think, especially as the greatest generation comes to terms with its mortality and realizes it must pass on the lessons it has seen lest they be forgotten.

I was watching the debate in a mixed crowd, including with some friends who are varying degrees of "Jewish" in their heritage or self identity. But everyone in the room stiffened and looked at each other when Kerry said that. To folks who have seen the photos, or god forbid, who lost chunks of their family trees at that camp or a similar place, Kerry's flippant attempt to look like he was an intelligence wonk who rubbed elbows with those who unearthed the KGB's secrets came off horribly wrong. He tried to name-drop like an overzealous job seeker, but he dropped the name of a death camp. Its a hallowed and sacred thing to those who are impacted by it, incuding me by the photos I'm now charged to cary forward to future generations. I do not at all mean to make light of it, but its akin in kind (although much more extreme in degree) to calling the GB Packer's home turf "Lambert Field." It may seem like a little slip, but to those who are vested with the "baggage" of a place, in this case those who appreciate the horror of what "Treblinka" stood for, it was far more than a mere gaffe.

-- My 2 cents. --Gonzo

Hi, I'm an airhead American voter. I haven't bothered to pay any attention to how well the candidates deport themselves or speak in public, or their positions on any issues for all the time they've been in public service let alone this campaign, and I'm going to make my voting decision based on whoever looks presidential in the debates. Did I forget to mention that the votes of people like me will probably rule your lives for the next four years?

Hi, I'm a pompous piece of shite, who thinks that democracy is the bomb in Zambia, but disagrees with it in the United States when it may seem that my beliefs are not held by everybody with the franchise. Did I forget to mention that if my candidate doesn't win, I'll spend the next four years attempting to demonstrate that the election was stolen?

Let's examine:

"No President, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got to do in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test, where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."

Couldn't be clearer. Bush (and the rest of us) knew exactly what Kerry meant.

World opinion is not a court that determines the burden of proof for the United States to act. We don't need to "prove" anything in order to defend ourselves. The President needs to act in the best interests of the United States of America, not pander for popularity.

It of course needs to be done responsibly, seriously, and carefully, but the President answers to no one but the American people. Certainly not some farcical global consensus.

I get up at 4:30 AM every day. This debate was like the anticipation for Christmas day. We're going to get something new, John Kerry as President. Kerry kicked ass boy, you got bored because your man lost hard. Just speaking the truth here.

Kerry was more polished than Bush, more articulate and had a more theatrical projection of 'authority'. But he's a flake: that whole stanza about North Korea and how Bush/Powell blew it by pushing for a multi-partite approach to the NK Nukes, is rubbish. There is only one way to corner Lil Kim and that's by having China, Russia and the US on the same team at the same time. Kerry's East-Coast centricity may be confusing him - from down here, in the Pacific, NK's Nukes are very real and the last thing we need is Lil Kim getting into Bi-Lats with the US and using that as a chance to play Little-Big-Man, Castro-of-the-Orient games. Kerry doesn't get it.

I think the fact that any of you are stupid enough to not know what John Kerry was talking about when he said the "global test" in regards to pre-emptive war, then you all should not be voting.

Ah, let's start the debate by calling people who disagree with me 'stupid'. That's gonna lead to a good discussion, you betcha.

Or rather, vote for Bush because its always the blind leading the blind.

...and then, let's follow 'stupid' with another insult.

You're not here to persuade anyone, are you? If you want to vent, go to usenet or the Democratic Underground boards, or the Indymedia forums, don't do it here.

Essentially Kerry was stating that there is a standard by which the world agrees that preemptive warfare is necessary and then there are those others that would not pass as globally, or better said universally agreed to be good enough reasons.

I'd be delighted if Kerry came out and said this, because then Bush could rebut it. Unfortunately, Kerry didn't, so instead it'll be me rebutting your assertion.

The closest thing to a 'universally agreed' reason justifying pre-emptive a attack is an imminent threat. That's it- and the reason it's close to universal is because it's in the UN Charter, and action taken in the face of an imminent attack is considered defensive.

In all other cases, what determines if a nation agrees with the justification is entirely based on that government's calculation of if it would serve that country's national interest, and there is no 'universally agreed' criteria other than 'this nation will support actions that serve our national interest'.

For example, declaring war on Hitler versus war on Vietnam.

*Please* elaborate.

You might want to read a history book first.

If you would rather be confused by his comment and spin it to mean something completely out of context from what he intended then feel free, but I'm just not that ignorant.

...nah, too easy. Moving on...

There is a universal belief that preemptive war is necessary under certain circumstances. He was not equating that "global test" to a permission slip.

Um, than exactly what *did* he mean, if not that the approval of other governments was necessary?

I vote for a President based in part on if I think he will take action to advance the US's interests- not those of other countries, unless those interests are in common with the US's. And I see no benefit to the US in making other nation's interests a higher priority than our own.

Bush showed how he can't keep up when he interpreted it otherwise.

Well, a lot of other people are coming to the same conclusion Bush did, which leads me to think it's more likely that either 1) that is what Kerry meant, or 2) he did a poor job of communicating what he meant. In both cases, the fault is Kerry's, not Bush's

If "global test" doesn't mean actually getting the rest of the world's approval, then it means behaving in such a manner that we are able to assure ourselves that we have the approval of the rest of the world, which is even more despicable.

re: Global Test

Would Israel's attack on the Osirak facility in the 80s have passed the 'global test'?

Post 9/11 does it make more sense to follow Israel's lead on pre-emption or worry about passing the 'global test'?

I sorta liked Kerry's claim that WMDs were pouring across the border. Another Treblinka moment.
I also had a hard time understanding his comment regarding winning the war on terror, ie strengthen Homeland Security, form a strong alliance ... he included "cut our finances".

Lubyanka isn't merely "a Russian landmark" - horror-wise, it is more or less the equivalent of Treblinka.

Bush should go after France with a vengence. Kerry/France in every sentence.

Kerry's big screwup was rejecting the development and building of those new bunker-busting tactical nukes.
The Norks, and probably Iran, have their nuke program(s) buried so deep under solid rock that if Kim gets a way to hit the West Coast, we're screwed. Sure, we can destroy the whole country, it will do a helluva lot of good after we lose LA, Seattle, San Francisco and Portland. As well as Silicon Valley, Sacramento, San Diego and surrounding environs.
Dosen't help that the same guy is doing all he can to scuttle missile defense.
Gotta wonder why the Left Coasties consistantly vote Donk, they must not care if they live or die.

Election day is just 30 days away. Local Republicans need any time you could spare, as well as the enthusiasm you are showing here, to help President Bush.

There are all sorts of jobs, large and small, where you can contribute. Last weekend, and I will be doing this weekend also, I walked my local neighborhood contacting registered Republicans from a list provided by my local contact.

I just had to remind fellow Republican neighbors to be sure and vote in this important election, where to vote, and hand out a state party generated card that listed the party recommended candidates for local, state, and federal offices. It is the first time I had done anything like this and I am glad I did. I met like minded neighbors and new friends.

If you would prefer to write opinions for news outlets, etc, various help is needed. If you could contribute some time to help President Bush, just go to:

http://www.gop.com/GetActive

and enter your zipcode or state for your local contact information.

Well, I finally took the plunge. Watching Kerry in the debate, I was so put off by his dithering, blithering mis-statements, fibs, and calls for unilateral disarmament and more SUMMITS, that I decided to accessorize my car by putting a "W04" sticker in the window.

I've had cars vandalized in the past, and I live in the People's Republic of Seattle, so the risk is not inconsequential.

I just hope my neighbors will still speak to me when they see it. They're all Democrats, but up until now I've kept my political leanings quiet (even during their own impromptu lectures) so we've always gotten along fine.

TO: HT
RE: Good On You

However, I'd recommend doing the reverse.

Remove the sticker (or keep it), but when you find yourself in a 'lecture', go into rebuttal mode. Don't be quiet when you hear something outrageously wrong.

But, do, try to be polite.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

I don’t watch Presidential debates for the same reason I don’t like going to children’s plays, amateur theatricals and school assemblies: they are not particularly entertaining and I get no pleasure watching people embarrass themselves.

Their ostensible purpose is risible. If you can’t figure out which candidate you support based on your understanding of the issues, debates will not provide an answer. Debates favor the liar over the truth teller. They favor the facile over the thoughtful and the handsome over the homely. Debates are – in many ways – less truthful that paid political ads since how things are said in a debate often has more of an impact than what is said.

That does not mean that I have not paid any attention to the first debate of this campaign. I have given the impact of the debate an opportunity to percolate, to be spun by the spinmeisters and to be dissected by the various interest groups. And here is my conclusion;

1) The first reaction of most of those who watched the debates is that Kerry won on style. To paraphrase one commentator, it sounded as if Bush came to a 90 minute debate with 30 minutes of material.

2) The second reaction of most commentators is that neither candidate delivered a knockout punch. No one exploded. No minds were changed.

3) The Democrats are using outtakes from the debate to illustrate Bush’s facial expressions when Kerry was speaking.

4) The Republicans are using outtakes from the debate to show Kerry flip-flopping.

The bottom line is this; the effect of debates is almost always to provide a story for the days and weeks after the debate. The Kerry camp’s only ammunition from debate number 1 are Bush facial expressions. The Bush camp is using Kerry’s words from the debate to reinforce his flip-flops, and is beginning to use both his nuclear disarmament comments and his “global test” comments as new ammo against him.

The Democrat response is weak and content-less. It will reinforce Bush haters but will not persuade the uncommitted. The Republicans came away with more ammunition to fire at Kerry. Most Americans have no problems with our nuclear arsenal and few want our foreign policy to pass a “global test.”

The early conventional wisdom is wrong. The winner of the debate is Team Bush.

A "global test" doesn't mean that all countries - or even any countries - have to agree with what you're doing. It just means that what you do should be defensible.

Saying you're going into Iraq because you know without a doubt that they have WMD, etc. and then forcing Colin Powell to have to apologize for his U.N. speech is the example presented by Kerry of how not to do things.

I discuss that here.

All the jokes about "will it be multiple choice?" might be slightly funny if it weren't so sad that many people fail to understand that America's credibility is important.

The choice can be summed up in 10 words.

TO: The Lonewacko Blog
RE: Hey!

"Saying you're going into Iraq because you know without a doubt that they have WMD, etc. and then forcing Colin Powell to have to apologize for his U.N. speech is the example presented by Kerry of how not to do things" -- The Lonewacko Blog

Where do you imagine the Syrians got the gas they're apparently using in Darfur?

Regards,

Chuck(le)

I agree with Peter, the one that really bugged me was the Bunker Buster comment. Kerry is reviving the concept of unilateral nuclear diarmament.

This cannot be acceptable to any large segment of the American people. Americans believe, and rightly so, that we are the good guys. We can be trusted with nuclear weapons. Our possesion of nuclear weapons is an assurance to the rest of the world that they can live in peace.

American possesion of nuclear weapons is not a reason or excuse for the other nations of the world to so arm themselves.

Kerry is adopting the posture of the tinpot dictators like Lil Kim and and the Mad Mullahs of Iran, who say: "If the United States has nuclear weapons, I should have them also, so I can protect myelf from American Imperialism."

If I were the RNC I would have a major national ad campaign focusing attention on this amazing bit of implicit anti-Americanism.

Hey there all you RepubliSpins!

Just wanted to weigh in and build on what Britton said, to counteract Bush's latest ventril-Rove-quist talking point about the meaning of 'global.' Restored to its CONTEXT, here's what Kerry said:

"But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."

Notice he said that the people have to understand what's being done, and that it should have EVIDENCE and ARGUMENTS that demonstrate why doing so is necessary. Notice what he doesn't say: that anyone else has veto power over such a course of action. So, unless Bush is stupid--or, even though he is, but Rove's smart enough to know this--it would be difficult to misunderstand what Kerry means here. It's obvious. Unless your candidate is so pathetic, inarticulate, and dishonest that you have no avenue of response other than to take two words out of context to plug them into the meta-narrative you've spent $100 ramming home to the public.

Can any of you think for yourselves?

TO: C. Fox
RE: Okay...

...maybe YOU could tell us where Syria got the chemical weapons they seem to be testing in Darfur.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

P.S. Here's a link to the report....

Syria Tests Chemical Weapons in Darfur

P.P.S. If it were just Die Welt reporting this, I'd not be so interested. However, several months ago, a member of the Sudanese government asked Syria to remove chemical weapons from their soil.

I guess the Syrians talked them into keeping them there. That official is probably dead now.

I believe Syria has had a WMD program for a number of years. Assuming that report (which I blogged when it came out) is correct, they could have gotten it from Iraq, they could have developed it themselves, or they could have gotten it from other countries.

Should we invade Syria based on that report?

If we say we're going to invade Syria based on that report:

1. Will anyone believe us now when we assert that Syria has WMD? ("That's what you said about Iraq! Fool us once...")

2. If we do invade, and it turns out they didn't have WMD, won't we look foolish yet again?

Perhaps we should consider our future credibility around the world when making assertions rather than looking like prevaricating pinheads.

TO: The Lonewacko Blog
RE: Perhaps

"I believe Syria has had a WMD program for a number of years." -- TLB

But, please explain why NOBODY IN THE WHOLE FREAKING WORLD mentioned it until this year.

I could be wrong. Perhaps you could provide a valid URL that would prove me so?

Thanks,

Chuck(le)

P.S. What you believe, or I for that matter, and what is true could be the difference between two different universes.

P.P.S. Please supply a url, supporting your belief that is from a reliable source of information. Maybe Bush's mentioning Syria having such weapons in a State of the Union address. Or something like that. However, a report from some reliable news agency, don't bother with CBS, could suffice.

"Notice he said that the people have to understand what's being done, and that it should have EVIDENCE and ARGUMENTS that demonstrate why doing so is necessary. Notice what he doesn't say: that anyone else has veto power over such a course of action."

Uh, no C. Fox. Kerry didn't say the rest of the world has only to understand. He said our actions have to pass the global test...implying that we can not take action if that test isn't satisfied.

He didn't say "veto" and he didn't have to . "Veto" doesn't enter into it. Kerry said plain as day that other countries will set the standard for the ability of the United States to launch a preemptive strike.

No nuance. Not cryptic. If you have a problem with that, you have a problem with John Kerry.

Oh yeah, remember how I said in an earlier comment there was a hidden dynamic beyond partisanship that explained why no one seemed to be able to decide who won the debate?

Proceed.

Re: The "Gloabl Test"

Folks, let's start with the basics: words mean things.

Kerry could have said "I will launch preemptive attacks when I believe it is in America's best interest to do so."

He didn't say that. The reason why he didn't say that is because he doesn't believe that.

The only way for it to mean something to talk about a "global test" is for the speaker to believe that opinions outside the US as to whether or not we go to war matter.

They don't.

Not to a large majority of Americans. Whether you call it a veto, a "permission slip", a "vote", or whatever, it doesn't matter. No Representation without taxation. You're not paying for our government, you're not living here, you're not an American. You don't get a say as to what we do.

And that is why the "global test" hurts Kerry, and is why he's going to lose.

Britton

You're history knowledge is lacking.

First, as you now know, preemptive war wasn't launched against Hitler.

Second, if you're talking about the United States, FDR didn't ask for a declaration of war against Germany - just Japan.

We went to war with Germany when Germany declared war on us.

Third, Kerry's "Global Test" is a declaration that he thinks pre-emptive war by the United States is only appropriate if "the world" would agree it's justified. In short, his decisions about whether or not to use military force will be based, at least in part, on how the world will receive it.

Wrong test - it should be nothing more, and nothing less, than

"Is military action in the National Interest of the United States?"

"Under these circumstances, is it the best available means by which to advance our National Interests?"

"What risks do we run by pursuing some lesser means of advancing our National Interests?"

"What are the ramifications of those lesser means failing?"

I just went over to Lonewacko's blog and posted this. I want to ensure that he gets it. If either Britton or C.Fox can answer me, great. Please though, no "It's self-evident" types of arguements. That's just a waste of oxygen on your part, and a waste of time for me...

To: The Lonewacko Blog

Could you please explain to me, in the simplest terms possible, why is it so important to be liked? To be well-thought of abroad?

I do not understand why this is important.

It is completely subjective.

W did exactly what he said he was going to do. If you are not with us, you are against us.

If you honestly think that this does not breed respect in other countries, and it is most assuredly a grudging respect, but respect none the less, then you and I do not speak the same language.

Do you sincerely think that the vast majority of the planet is going to stop doing business with us, attempt to isolate us, the richest nation on earth, because they don't like us? Because they don't get a warm-fuzzy when thoughts of us float through their mind(s)?

How fascile a position that appears to be to me. What a colossal misunderstanding of real-politik you seem to have.

Maybe it's me. Please teach me. I want to know. What is it that I am missing that you seem to have such a solid grap on?

And please note, I have lived for years at a time on other continents, both as a civilian and as a Marine. I speak 3 languages and a smattering of 4 others.

Thanks for your time,

Semper Fi,
Capt Smythe

you forgot this lie of kerry's: that iraq was invaded to draw attention from not finding bn ladin in afghanistan; actually, as everybody knows, it was the other way around: afghanistan was invaded, to later get at iraq - which is a strategic hotsop of the near east region!

Restored to its CONTEXT, here's what Kerry said:

"But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons

Then what's the problem? "Because Congress said I could" is a perfectly legitimate reason.

TO: Will Collier
RE: So....

...you think debate is 'boring'?

How about this business of Kerry bringing proscribed materials to the lecturn?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. The decision is not final, once the protagonists stop flapping their gums.

P.P.S. Right about now, if I were on the Bush re-election campaign committee, I'd be asking the people in charge of running the debates, "What kind of circle-jerk are you running here?"

This comes from my experiences in debate. Violations of the rules of engagement are justification for removal of the judges, if they do not properly deal with the situation.

Chuck, President Bush would love you to contribute whatever help you can provide. Just go to this
site to volunteer:

http://georgebush.com/Secure/BushTeamLeaderSignUp.aspx

TO: Jim R
RE: Thanks

I've looked at the site. Maybe I'll do something. However, I was wondering, how do they suggest the walkers approach a house with a Kerry for President sign stuck in the yard out front?

Regards,

Chuck(le)