The trouble with this forum may be that it is too rapid. Bloggers will be immediately asked to comment, and will naturally adopt positions, which will later be hard to back away from. Those engaged in this exercise should consider certain facts beforehand:

1) Are the Candidates' positions on the Deficit and Budget sound policy? Will the Candidates have to change their policies on Taxes, and eventually call for Tax increases?

2) Are the Candidates realistic in statement of their health care policy? Remember it is possible at all times to condemn both Candidates.

3) Iraq is turning into another Vietnam, without realistic resolution, and with escalating Casualties. Has either Candidate a realistic approach to exiting Iraq and Afghanistan?

4) What Candidate is most realistic about Job Creation? The plan of creating Jobs by creating massive Government deficits has failed drastically.

5) Is either Candidate realistic about reducing the Trade Deficit? Continuance of such levels of Trade Deficits will force eventual Dollar devaluations. One must remember Treasuries are functionally identical to Dollars to the World markets, and the U.S. Government has been printing money to pay it's bills. lgl

The Daily Show's John Stewart was asked by Charlie Rose last night how he might design a news show. John said he'd like a news anchor to have instant access to experts so he can immediately catch a politician's lie and hold him accountable. John specifically mentioned using the "blogosphere" to do this somehow... tapping into experts scattered around the 'Net.

kerry seems much more comfortable/in control. unfortunately, i think he's doing a much better job. "i made a mistake by voting for the war. bush made a mistake by invading iraq. which is worst" or something like that. kerry is better.

next debate kerry will look into the camera.

Bush: What would the troops think if I admitted this is the wrong war at the wrong time? (He has said this at least twice.)

Is this to imply that if he wasn't President he would also think it was the wrong war at the wrong time?

Bush: Why would we want to join the ICC if it could hold our troops accountable for our actions?

Is this a position that make sense to anyone?

It's cool to hear we have 100,000 Iraqi troops now. I feel much better.

He went to see KGB HQ underneath TREBLINKA square? Kerry mixes up LUBIANKA street in Moscow and a Nazi death camp. Looks like the memories of his visit to Moscow are fading...

Why does Bush keep saying that they have the same intelligence? Doesn't it seem like Mister President should have access to different intelligence?

Bush missed a home-run hit. We haven't taken 90% of the losses. Our 1000ish, Iraq defense troops 750ish. No way, unless you aren't counting Iraq as part of their own defense....

So, JonK, are you saying the President should keep essential intelligence away from the Senate?

A mild joke, but no, the Senate should have access to the same intel as the President, foolish as it might sometimes seem.

John Kerry said that Bush had to shutdown the subway during the RNC. I used the subways everyday in NYC during the RNC. I don't remember them being shutdown and I rode the night of Bush's speech on the E Train which runs under Penn Station. I know this doesn't sound like a big deal but Kerry used it as an example that the lack of security in America. I never feared for my safety because of terrorism during the RNC just whacked out anarchists and the ABB crowd.

>>9:29 PM: "I made a mistake in how I tallked about the war in Iraq. President Bush made a mistake by deciding to invade Iraq." That's a good line.

How is that a good line? It's an outright lie. By voting against the 87 billion, Kerry did a hell of a lot more than make a mistake in how he worded his verbal criticisms of the war.

Bush's best line came in the following exchange:

Lehrer: He said you lied...does that raise your hackles?
Bush: No, I'm a pretty calm guy.

I think Bush is going to come away from this one with a significant advantage. You couldn't tell what Kerry was trying to say. He brushed aside the fact that Polish special forces were integral in winning the conventional stages of the war even after Bush tried to remind him. He came damn close to blowing off Great Britain. HE says we're gonna push aside China, SK and Japan and go straight to NK. Is this the guy who can supposedly make us more respected in the world? C'mon!

Kerry was on the Senate Intelligence Committee in the period when the Senate had to decide whether to authorize the use of force in Iraq. He thus had access to anything the president had on Iraq.

I think that Kerry scraped a win with wonks and Bush scraped a win with everyone else. Also, Bush dominated the debate early on. That gave him a head of steam that carried him for a good while.

Overall, Bush by a nose, which is bad news for Kerry.

Bush has dry mouth syndrom when he is critisized. I was concerned he would have to go to the bathroom before it was over.

I was surprised at everyone saying it was a draw or narrow Kerry win. I thought Bush won although clearly had some flubbed moments - although so did Kerry. The problem I thought was that even when Kerry sounded strong it was with points I don't think anyone believes him on. (i.e. Korea bilateral talks, getting multinational, never wavering)

Like others I was surprised Bush didn't speak about 9/11 more.

Kerry put Bush on the defensive the moment the debate began. Notice how it was Bush who was constantly wanting that extra 30 second rebuttal.

Loved your Blog. My favorite comment is about those damn Yankees!

Sen. Kerry won the debate. [By how much can
be up for discussion.] Kerry showed 'better
debating ability'. 21 speaker points.
Bush gets 19 speaker points.

Kerry was a little sketchy on the facts
however. As someon pointed out, among
other things he mis-identified the name
of the square under which the KGB dungeon
was hosted.

The important question we need to ask ourselves
is whether or not debating ability is the
proper way to determine who should be President.

"are there really thirty states with active WMD programs?"

I'm pretty sure I could come up with a list if I looked enough. Many of those might be defensive, but perhaps a full thirty are offensive.

I hope Bush doesn't call him Vlah duh MIR, it's Vluh DEE muhr.

Bush fumbled and stumbled on many of the questions, leaving long pauses during which I checked my watch. I kept asking myself, "this guy is president of the United States?"

Bush defended his (U.S.) border policies. If Kerry had jumped on that and talked about how the Bush administration has released thousands of non-Mexican illegal aliens - some from terrorist countries - from jail, he could have scored huge points. Only about five minutes was given to homeland security, but perhaps during the other debates.

Bush: "love [Missy Johnson] as much as I can..." WTF?

Bush: "[Kerry's] plan [for Iraq] won't work." Bush before: "Kerry's plan is the same as our plan."

Bush: "We use diplomacy every chance we get" It just doesn't work for Bush...

Bush didn't understand what everyone else understood when Kerry defined the "global test"...

Clear win for Kerry.

The way you know Kerry KILLED Bush in the debate was by watching the first 5 minutes of Fox News afteward. Mort, Kristol, and gang all conceded kerry won. They stretched things out as much as possible for Bush, and tried ot make the points Bush should have made themselves. It was the funniest thing I've seen on TV. They then tried to scrounge up the worst points for Kerry in the debate, and replay them on TV.

That was gut reaciton, BEFORE RNC could distribute talking points.

What I also love is how Dan make's Bush "strongest selling point", apparently a strategic mistake. That is truly hilarious.

Comment #2:

The one time Kerry puffed up was when he said Britain and Australia with America did not make a "GRAND ALLIANCE". As if Britain and Australia are nothing and the smaller allies even less.

Kerry seems to have the idea his presidency and his alliances have to be GRAND, above any in American history. Whether they accomplish more than Bush's is beside the point.

Not a single idea Kerry proposed is anything new from what he has said before. I would like to know what Kerry's reaction would be when the DRNK deligates walked out of a meeting following one of his grand speeches.

But not at the loss of my vote. This election will be the most important vote I ever cast. I'll feel like I have struck a blow for freedom.

I thought Bush looked like the parent whose young child is throwing a tantrum in public and is trying to resist yelling at he child.

North Korea's Nuclear Program:
An Assessment of U.S. Options, "When Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly visited North Korea in early October, he presented his counterparts in Pyongyang with U.S. intelligence suggesting that North Korea had sought and acquired materials necessary to build gas centrifuges to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

Good debate. Substantive over stylistic. Kerry did well. Bush did good. Both met or exceeded individual expectations. Kerry might shore up his support among panicky Dems with his performance.

Bush stumbled almost every time he tried to speak. He was clearly flustered, and was even lost at times. He can't think on his feet, which I think even his supporters have to admit, but this is worse. He looked incompetent. In the split screen, when he wasn't talking, he looked peeved... bitchy even. Clear victory for Kerry. Polls will start to swing toward Kerry right away. I expect we will have a new terrorist warning shortly in a vain attempt to prop up Bush.

Bush looked exasperated most of the evening, like a man who knew what he wanted to say but just couldn't find the words. Kerry looked poised and kept his verbose prolixity under tight rein. Sorry Republicans.

A stunning win for John Kerry. Cool, poised, and confident, he exhibited a sound grasp of the issues and articulated a clear vision for his presidency. The President, meanwhile, looked was to busy bumbling to say anything coherent. How the media can call this debate a "draw" is beyond me. One candidate showed himself to be a far more capable leader than the other -- and it certainly wasn't W.

Hey if the Yankees clinched the AL east and their prize is to play the Twins, then that works for me.

I'm a Boston guy and have always disliked Kerry, but I thought Kerry mopped up on Bush especially on the viscersl response/body language count. He looked poised, in control, very competent, and constantly engaged, while Bush looked tired, annoyed, dogmatic, and sometimes lost or rattled.

In 20 years, I've never seen the Kerry I saw tonight. If a lot of people really watched the debates, I think Kerry will get a decent bounce. If people just listen to the war of opinions about what happened, then the effects will probably be blunted.

In surveying the post debate punditry, even Fox didn't say much good about Bush. They pointed out lots of good things kerry did too. In a report from spin alley, the sense seemed to be that the Kerry people were buoyed, and the Bush people were saying that it was a draw and their guy had kept things the same as before. Read between the lines on that.

When I hit NBC, they had a panel with 6 undecided voters, who all said Kerry had a stronger night. Sure, they mightta cooked these books, but it was the impression I had too, and I'm not at all a partisan, I don't like either of them.I thought Kerry looked in charge while Bush seemed overmatched.

9:29 PM: "I made a mistake in how I tallked about the war in Iraq. President Bush made a mistake by deciding to invade Iraq." That's a goodline.

This was the biggest applause line of the evening amongst the group of people I watched the debate with.

Charles - Did you see Kerry in the split screen? He had a snarl on that would give Cheney a run for his money. No one is going to argue that Bush is the world's greatest debator. But he did quite well in the debate. You couldnt tell what Kerry was trying to say. Bush's strongest point was that he stuck to this line - that Kerry is inconsistent and you can't figure out what his message is. Kerry made sure to say that it wasnt a mistake to go into Iraq - even though thats all he's been saying in this campaign and even though he said otherwise elsewhere in the debate. We have to win, Kerry and Bush both say. But how is Kerry going to convince the troops that they need to win when he doesnt even believe in what they are fighting for? Whoever said Kerry won 21-19 in speaker points, I would agree with. I dont think Bush necessarily won convincingly, but neither did Kerry.

10:03 PM: Bush keeps pronouncing "mullahs" as "mooolahs" -- that can't be correct, can it?

*************************

Yes it is correct, the U sound in Farsi is much closer to a Spanish U than an English one.

Don't you have any Iranian friends?

Bush got his ass whooped. He can't think on his feet. His stubborness really hurt him tonight... I wouldn't be surprised at all if he is trailing in the polls after this...

Kerry won this debate on style. But its easy to win when the other guy has to do all the defending. Where were questions concerning Kerry's judgement on foriegn relations? If not from his statements on the campaign, how about 19 years worth form the Senate? The questions were slanted. Truly, if you see how Bush defended himself, Bush won on substance. Unfortunately, too many Americans are impressed by "style".

I thought Kerry missed opportunities to throw at Bush the personal criticism that Bush does not handle well. The word "incompetence" was never used, for example, and when Bush went on his "mixed messages" theme for the 5th time Kerry couldn't find a way to say he thought the reason to be worried about where Iraq was heading wasn't the troops, the allies, or Allawi -- it is a bad commander in chief.

But overall Kerry came away with an edge. Bush, I thought, overdid the staying on message thing by repeating the same lines 4 and 5 times in a short period of time. He was absolutely right in knocking Kerry for his endorsement of bilateral talks with North Korea, which is a terrible idea, but not very many people know enough about Korea to feel strongly about this one way or the other. Bush also suffered from a weird camera angle that made him look shorter than he is, and couldn't lose a kind of lemon-lips expression when Kerry was speaking.

The camera didn't do Kerry any favors either, or rather Kerry didn't favor himself by always talking at Jim Lehrer rather than to the camera. He looked better than Bush as the debate proceeded, though. Jim Lehrer as moderator? Personally, I like panel formats and follow-ups; these candidates obviously hate both, so Lehrer's fairly soft questions were all we had to work with. The questions posted on Dan's board were better. At least Lehrer didn't allow himself to be trampled the way Gore and Bush trampled him four years ago.

How big an edge for Kerry? Enough to keep people interested for the town hall thing next week. Not a good night for Bush, but it could have been worse.

Bush's inability to react tonight reminds me of the infamous 7 minutes on 9/11. I think this debate will really haunt him and will likely cost him the election.

Generally, a draw. Kerry, slightly, on style; Bush, significantly on substance, especially in light of the fact that most of the questions were adversarial (which is why he asked for so many addition 30 seconds to respond). Tonight doesn't change the race, but it probably changes the chatter amongst Kerry's primary support, the media.

Gallup polled ~ 600 people, Kerry won the debate 53%-37% . I think we know who won the debate, and pretty clearly. The only thing now is, who will have one the debate in a week after the wingnuts spin, spin, spin and ignore all the facts.

I thought it was a rather clear win for Bush. Hugh Hewitt has a scorecard for each response that I agree with.

Pundits and Kerry supports will be disappointed when the national race polls come out next week.... What plays in Cambridge and Manhattan does not play well in the heartland.... And there Bush wins every time in this debate.

Kerry has this forceful and authoritive way of speaking (all the time). To me it distracted from what he said. When you look at what Kerry said, it's incoherent. Our allies are worthless, but I'm going to have more of them. Invading Iraq was a colossal mistake, but we can win it with my leadership and my magic plan. Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, W is for wrong, but I'm going to get the Allies to go in and win it for us, because the USA can't win the war.

What are Kerry's anti-war Democrat base going to think, when Kerry's promised to win the Iraq War? Kerry's militarism killed his Convention bounce and he's doing it again.

Kerry flubbed Pottery Barn, flubbed Treblinka Square, claimed to be consistent on Iraq and he BROUGHT UP HIS SERVICE IN VIET NAM AGAIN.

For Pete's sake! Only his tone and attitude are keeping him up. Just wait for people to get to the substance.

lol, someone citing Hugh Hewitt, to claim Bush won. LOL. Hewitt is a first-rate partisan hack. First rate, no doubt at all. The gallup poll and the initial thoughts from Fox news hacks said it all. Kerry won.

What happened in North Korea:

The goal of the agreed framework was to put restrictions on the plutonium that North Korea already had. At the time, there was some unaccounted for material that could constitute 1-2 bombs. The only evidence (as I understand it) that these bombs existed was simply that some amount of material wasn't there.

As part of the agreed framework, we also included a provision that North Korea not enrich uranium. This, however, wasn't a big deal. Uranium enrichment is hard and takes a long time. The plutonium was the proximate and vastly more serious issue.

Now, as Bush came to office, in the midst of a rather incoherent attempt at a North Korea policy, accused them -- correctly -- of attempting to enrich uranium. The North Koreans, perhaps surprisingly, admitted to it and essentially said 'so what'. The Bush administration cut off the aid that was part of the agreed framework and North Korea threw out the monitors from Yongbyon.

It should be emphasized that the removal of the plutonium was always the red line of this situation. As soon as that happened, who knows where it goes and it becomes a period of months until North Korea definitely has 5-6 nuclear weapons as opposed to a possible one or two. (Whether or not their designs would work, who knows until the test. The designs aren't exactly secret, however.) Bill Clinton, according to all the accounts I know, was willing to go to war with North Korea over this issue.

So, what happened when North Korea threw out the monitors, broke the seals and removed the plutonium?

Nothing.

Nothing at all.

Jabba, you are an idiot, perhaps you ought to try to get some non-wingut friends to understand that Kerry's speech was a gigantic success.

What I love is that, Bush lost the debate on his supposed largest politcal strength. Wait till we get to the economy and health care. The true beleivers are truly pathetic.

Wingnut Schnieder reports on the gallup's debate poll on cnn.

Before debate, who are you going to vote for?
Bush 52 , Kerry 44

Who won the debate
Kerry 53, Bush 37

Kerry comes out with better favorable ratings arising from debage. Bush still has better security polling.

Unrelated but hilarious, ,WashPost is reporting that the whitehouse wrote Allawi's speech. I'm sure insta-idiot will report on this throughout the week.

To do the math for the wingnuts who never made it out of highschool, an 8 point lead for Bush, turned into a 24 point swing in terms of who won. TWENTY-FOUR points. BUSH LOST, LOST, LOST. Keep trying to stammer and spin.

A draw, with Kerry perhaps eking out a win.

But mark my words, that "Global test" line is going to come back to haunt him.

Bush did better than I expected - his command of the facts was surprising to me - but Kerry was in control from start to finish.

The best line to me - "nuclear proliferation" - without a second's hesitation. All Bush could do was agree with Kerry.

This is an ace-in-the-hole that Kerry's been hiding for weeks, and he's got the President dead to rights on it - why the hell didn't Bush fund Nunn-Lugar? I've never heard any explanation of this.

I watched the debate with a democratic friend (I being republican). My friend who had already been leaning toward backing Bush , came away 100% certain that George W. Bush was worth crossing party lines for...were you guys watching the same debate that we were? I thought the President had the same look that most Americans have when they listen to John Kerry....a look of bewilderment and disbelief. Kerry is a man without substance...Bush won hands down.

Danny,
I'm not sure what debate you watched. If you disagree with every single position of John Kerry then fine. But if you're interested in analyzing the actual debate, especially in terms of how undecided or soft supporters think then subtle things matters of performance and stature count for a lot. Expectations were that on this score Bush would beat Kerry. But the opposite happened. Face it. Bush looked angry, defensive and incoherent. And as for being "on-message" he almost made it into a parody by using literally the same phrase over and over. One of the important points about being on message is that you slightly mix up the syntax but deliver the same fundamental point. For example, don't just say "flip flop" but say indecisive, wavering, unsteady, etc. The campaign has done a good job of being on-message but not clownishly repetitive. Bush tonight looked like he thought all he had to do was say a few stock phrases over and over. In respone Kerry just breezed past it, realizing that Bush was making more trouble for himself than for Kerry.

Kerry, on the other hand, looked confident, decisive and in command. His policies may be garbage but he appeared very presidential. The contrast with Bush was jarring.

why the hell didn't Bush fund Nunn-Lugar? I've never heard any explanation of this

Good question. But an even better question is, Why does John Kerry think we should cease production of bunker-busting bombs that can destroy rogue nations' WMD programs?

I thought Kerry won this debate by a hair but opened up a HUGE window of vulnerability by showing his true peacenik/freeze tendencies.

Unilateral disarmament was an asinine idea in 1983; it's even more dangerous now. Rove and co. will probably go to town on this one.

I hate to say it but Kerry cleaned up. Every time Bush groped for words I cringed and moaned and gave a 'why me' gesture with my hands. Bush won on substance but nobody will remember what the questions or positions are tomorrow. Kerry came across as polished, Bush as inarticulate and confused. And his expression on the split screen was also cringeworthy.

On the bright side for Bush, I don't know that there are many undecideds left to be persuaded by Kerry.

In a report from spin alley, the sense seemed to be that the Kerry people were buoyed, and the Bush people were saying that it was a draw and their guy had kept things the same as before

Not how Lockhart saw it. From Drudge:

LOCKHART: DEBATE CONSENSUS A 'DRAW'

Unbeknownst to Kerry adviser Mike McCurry, a C-SPAN camera quietly followed McCurry as he found Kerry adviser Joe Lockhart on Spin Alley floor and asked him his impression of the debate. Lockhart candidly said to McCurry , “The consensus is it was a draw.”

What on earth is the rationale for halting production of bunker-busting bombs? Who gave Kerry this bright idea?

Bunker-busting weapons are an essential tool for non-proliferation in that they can destroy rogue nukes hidden deep underground.

We alone have them. Destroying them is a patently stupid idea that not even Helen Caldicott would have dreamed up. I can't believe Bush did not rip it to shreds, or that Rove will not in coming days rip it to shreds. How can anyone who takes WMD seriously vote for Kerry after watching him passionately argue for unilateral disarmament?

I was surprised at how many opportunities for some Zing both Bush and Kerry missed. For example, Dan and others think highly of Kerry's, "I made a mistake in how I talk about the war. But the president made a mistake in invading Iraq." Bush's Zing? My opponent thinks his mistake is talking - that he's inarticulate. He's dead wrong. His mistake? When asked to provide critical supplies to our troops in Irag --and Afghanistan -- he chose to hang the troops out to dry since it was Democrat primary season and he judged he couldn't be too far right of the Deaniacs.

Bush's pronunciation of 'mullah' seems incorrect to me. While Iranians may say it that way, it is an Islamic title and so probably Arabic, not Farsi, in which case, Bush is incorrect.

Listening to the debate, instead of watching it, was an interesting experience. Kerry was the clear winner- Bush can't string together an original sentence and comes across as inarticulate.

I can't believe what I'm reading here. A draw? Even a Bush win? Bush has substance???!! Holy mackerel!

Bush had to pause (dead air on TV... tsk tsk) and collect his thoughts often before mumbling a bunch of semi-coherent platitudes about liberty and freedom. This could have been a knock out if Kerry had been stronger. As such, Kerry wins on points, though it's gotta be a unanimous decision.

And this "foreign affairs" debate was supposed to be a win for Bush? Just wait until they get on to domestic issues at the next debate. Jobless recovery and outsourcing. Deficit. Health insurance. Social security. What a mess. I want to see W explain the "ownership society" to Ozzie and Harriet.

Has anyone mentioned that seeing Bush’s collective responses in the debate from beginning to end reveal a sloppy impression, but when chopped up into sound bite clips - bush looks really good? Sounds like a good Hughes/Rove strategy if you are facing the best debater since Cicero!

On mullah vs. moo-lah: The American Heritage Dictionary, by my reading, disagrees with Bush: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=mullah

They give two alternate pronunciations, one with the oo of 'took' and one with the u from 'cut'. Neither are close to the way Bush pronounced it.

One of the MSNBC commentators said it best: "This debate is unspinnable. Kerry clearly won on an issue that was widely thought to be the President's strongsuit."

and Lex,

The question was on new Bunker Buster bombs of the NUCLEAR variety. I can understand why George might be afraid to tackle the word "NUKULER", but its a legitimate point. Hypocritical policy is bad position to have if you're serious on NPT.

I was nervous about tonight's debate. The format seemed designed to suit Bush's strengths - repeating platitudes until he uses up his time - and I didn't like the idea of no follow-up questions.

Oh, am I glad I watched! Kerry was articulate and definitive, able to answer intelligently ex tempore, and obviously knows his stuff. It was a joy to see and hear. Called Bush out on his whoppers so beautifully, too: kindly, gently, almost pityingly explaining the difference between Bush's empty slogans and objective reality.

And Bush -- my god! Inarticulate, all but incapable of moving beyond his talking points, and even WITH his talking points he couldn't fill the time without going into brainlock blank stare mode. He provided some memorable WTF moments comics will be dining out on for a while, too.

If the Bush supporters here really think Bush won the debate, they should go visit LGF and NRO. It's like a funeral over there; they could probably use the cheering up.

lex writes: "Bunker-busting weapons are an essential tool for non-proliferation in that they can destroy rogue nukes hidden deep underground."

And it's a damn good thing we didn't have them in 2003, or Bush might have used them on all those extensive underground weapons lab bunkers that Saddam didn't actually have.

Dan writes: "(UPDATE: Bill Schneider confirms Gergen's assumption -- the pre-debate polling sample was 52 to 44 in favor of Kerry)."

I'm pretty sure he said the pre-debate polling had Bush in the lead, not Kerry.

Gallup can blow me, and Kerry still did enough to stay in the race. The next Dem that cites the Gallup poll should wash their mouth out with soap (4% advantage for Republican identifiers, ring a bell?). Look at the poll, its still the same.

I think Kerry was better on mannerisms--he looks, speaks and generally acts presidential (or "royal", actually, but we don't know the difference). But as for substance, Bush definitely won. I mean, Kerry kept saying that he would have "done it differently" in Iraq, and then chided Bush for not doing another round of inspections and resolutions, which is "not doing it" instead of "doing it (differently)". The dumbass comment about sanctions on Iran and Bush's response made me laugh out loud.

I'm really disappointed in Lehrer. I wanted to hear Kerry explain his history of appeasement policies in the context of the GWOT. We got to see a fair bit of his inner peacenik, but we didn't get to hear the faulty reasoning behind such thinking or the challenge of it (didn't Carter say we were "free of the inordinate fear of communism" just before the Soviets invaded Afghanistan and restarted their expansionist drive in South America? Kerry was on that bus, remember).

In the end, I think that Kerry came across as being safe to vote for, simply by not blowing it (and by not being confronted by Lehrer) -- his head didn't split open and Lucifer did not pop out -- so he will probably solidify some of his weak support. Bush doesn't have much weak support (it's hot or cold, mostly) so that will mean Kerry is more likely to get a boost.

Aside from the poise and repetitiveness issue, it seemed to me that Bush did a lot more dodging of points than Kerry. For example, on the subject of proliferation, and specifically, the insecurity of the stocks in the former Soviet Union. My understanding is that most proliferation experts point to that as, far and away, the biggest threat for a terrorist acquiring nuclear weapons. Not from any rogue nations, like North Korea or Iran. And Bush never said a thing about security of those stocks, which is not surprising, since I don't recall him ever talking about the issue in the last four years.

There were other instances as well, like when Kerry pointed out Saddam Hussein didn't attack us, and Bush responded, "I know that," but then didn't address the point.

Not how Lockhart saw it. From Drudge:

Well gosh, if Drudge says it, it must be true.

I think that Kerry 'won' in the sense that if this was your first chance to see the Senator (outside campaign commercials), you couldn't help but be impressed by how calm, collected, and, yes, commanding he was. There are a lot of people who still haven't paid much attention to this race- some of them are my good buddies. But, quite a few of those same people tuned in tonight (one report I saw said that as many as half the people who will vote on November 2 were watching tonight). If you tuned in tonight expected to see a "weak liberal flip-flopper", you would've be disappointed.

I am a solid Bush supporter, and I'd suggest that the next time the Senator tries to use the President's father's own words against him, that Bush reply "The last time I checked, my father was voting for me--and I doubt that he'll change positions on that!"

I think this was a missed opportunity by Bush, but one that I'll forgive him for.

With that said, my criticism for Senator Kerry pertains to an inconsistency in his policy...

Why does Senator Kerry, like Bush, support a larger coalition in Iraq, but unlike Bush, support a smaller coalition in North Korea?

Waffle,

You're misinformed. We already have a nuclear bunker-buster, the B61-11.

From CDI:

Little noted in this debate is the fact that the United States has been at work on similar weapons since the mid-nineties and already has a bunker-busting nuclear weapon, the B61-11, a nuclear gravity bomb.4

The Pentagon began developing the B61-11 in 1993 and deployed it in 1997. Treading lightly around its obligations under the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which the United States observes but has never ratified, American nuclear scientists billed B61-11 as a spin-off of an existing weapon. By putting an iron casing around the nuclear warhead, the design theoretically allowed the weapon, released from an aircraft, to burrow through earth or concrete to destroy its target - the same mission officials at the Department of Energy envision for weapons currently being studied.

Funny that Kerry didn't have a problem with the Clinton administration's explicit threats to destroy Libya's underground nuclear weapons facilities by means of bunker-busting bombs.

In 1996, the United States even threatened to use the B61-11 against Libya. When American intelligence learned that the Libyans were building a large underground plant to develop chemical weapons, Defense Secretary William Perry stated publicly that the United States would consider its whole range of weapons to stop construction - an implicit reference to nuclear weapons.

As I say, he's arguing for disarmament. And going against a policy already put in action by a Democratic administration that was actually faced with a rogue state determined to push ahead with its underground nuclear program.

We're back to 1983 again, and the same silliness that we heard from the freeze crowd. Bush/Rove will make mincemeat of Kerry just as Reagan did of Mondale in 1984.

ps--the nunn-luger funding is red herring junk. There are multiple sources of funding. The amount of on-books budget was indeed reduced, but there were other appropriations that were issued as part of other works, and the cumulative funding has indeed gone up. Check out the non-partisan sites on proliferation; the facts and details are out there.

I wish that Bush had more forcefully responded to this point other than to say "we increased spending 35%" but that's why these 2-minute debates suck so much. There were lots of other things that needed responding to and weren't addressed. OTOH, I was pleasantly surprised by many of the responses, especially those which I had not heard from Bush before ("I don't think Kerry was misleading us when ..." lol).

pps--Kerry is on the Senate Intelligence committee which has oversight responsibilities for the CIA. Sure they operate under the executive branch, but Kerry's group is there so that the legislative branch has checks and balances. By sitting on that committee, Kerry did have direct acccess to every single piece of intel that Bush had. Worse, his committee is partly (but only partly) responsible for the failures, since they clearly failed on their oversight duties. I mean, the check and balance is useful only when it is used right?

Waffle, you're not seriously arguing that we should be less tough on the mullahs than Clinton and Perry were on Khaddafi, are you?

Jack Straw's farcical mission to Teheran is finished. We've already sold bunker-busters to Israel-- perhaps those include some B61-11s. Obviously, diplomacy without a credible threat to destroy the mullahs' facilities is meaningless.

As is Kerry's posturing on these weapons, which will not convince anyone in Teheran not to push forward with their nuclear program but which would deprive us of the most credible deterrent we have for any rogue state aspiring to build underground nuke production facilities.

Funny that Clinton and Perry saw fit to brandish this weapon against Libya in 1996-- after which, lo and behold, Khaddafi halted construction of his undergraound nuclear facilities-- but that Kerry now says it serves no purpose.

Even funnier that Kerry attacks Bush for refusing to change tack, or learn from "new facts" as they emerge. Kerry's understanding of deterrence was frozen, as it were, around 1983.

Too bad. He turned in an otherwise OK performance last night. He'll spend the next thirty days trying fruitlessly to respond to Rove's attacks on him as an idiot peacenik stuck in the early 1980s. Learned nothing, forgotten everything.

Marc writes: "I am a solid Bush supporter, and I'd suggest that the next time the Senator tries to use the President's father's own words against him, that Bush reply "The last time I checked, my father was voting for me--and I doubt that he'll change positions on that!""

That's a bit like saying, "Oh yeah? Well.. my Mom says I'm the handsomest guy in town. So there."

It's kinda pathetic.

Marc writes: "Why does Senator Kerry, like Bush, support a larger coalition in Iraq, but unlike Bush, support a smaller coalition in North Korea?"

A few years back, Republicans were all up in arms about Chinese espionage against the US.

Now, they want Communist China to be our first line of defense against North Korea.

I dunno, do you really trust China to be an honest participant, not cutting side deals with North Korea?

China is scared of N. Korea selling nukes on the open market too. I mean, they don't want fundies in ~Indonesia getting them either. That's really all that matters here.

Wow!

Some truly deluded folks out there tonight.

Anyone who thinks this debate was a slam dunk win for Kerry is engaging in wishful thinking, at best.

Anyone out there who thinks this debate will cost Bush the election needs to report back to their rooms for their nightly dose of sedatives.

Wow!

Anyone whose followed the campaign to this point can easily see right past Kerry's lies, despite how many times he repeats them (i.e. I've never waivered in my life ... I've been consistant on Iraq ... yada, yada, yada, ad nauseam). Kerry is clearly hoping that viewers haven't been following his escapades up to this point. Nothing else could explain such blatantly inaccurate and dishonest statements.

Kerry knows he's in trouble, but his incessant intellectual chest thumping (we can do better, cuz I'm so much smarter ...) is so both juvenile and nausiating, and it doesn't play as well with the public as Kerry would like to think it does. Ditto for his ... they like me better ... claims.

His repeated claims that Bush alienated old Europe and that's why they wouldn't join the coalition are pure B.S, an outright lie. They were all on the take, cashing in on the Oil-for-Food program kickbacks from Saddam. Kerry knows this, which is what makes his arguement even more abnoxious than if he actually believed it.

If Bush made a mistake here, it was not pointing that out to neutralize Kerry's arguement.

Beyond that, Bush's inarticulate nature comes as no shock to anyone, which is why I fail to see why so many put so much stock in it. People don't care about how he says it, it's what he says and what he does. When you review the last 4 years on that basis, never mind Kerry's lackluster 20 year free ride in the Senate, Kerry doesn't hold up well.

He has limited responsibilities as a Senator from Massachusetts. Show up to vote. Show up for the Intel Committee meetings. Kerry meets these limited responsibilites by blowing them both off almost entirely. AWOL, if you will.

Is this the hallmark of a competent leader and future president?

NOT!

By the way, Lex is right, the B61 was a pre-existing weapon in the U.S. arsenal.

That's not a ploy, it's fact.

I know, I convoyed and loaded them.

Kerry obviously won this one. He got the initiative early and maintained it throughout the dabate. And while Sullivan thinks Kerry erred in not laying a killing punch, I think it showed he has class and is a fine gentleman. He could indeed have destroyed Mister Bush when he wavered on the question of whether he felt it was worth the 1000+ lives. But instead, Kerry offered a supportive arm by saying that he agreed with Bush. A class act. I am sure Bush was appreciative, if not those who enjoy seeing people destroyed.

Kerry, Soldiers and the World won tonight. Help is indeed on the way.

We just saw the next President of the United States, and I like what I saw.
And I imagine you feel a little better about the future yourself.

Thanks for sharing your thought-processes.

-Anonymoses

What's amazing to me is, how the wingnuts don't care that Dear Leader let OBL completely get away. IT shows their deep sincere commitment to the WoT. I mean, standing still for 7 minutes while the country was under attack, apparently is not sufficient. Keep the wingnutery going, Cognitive-Disonance '04!

Bush did fine. Kerry did, too. Props to Lehrer, though, who realized that Kerry was the sideshow and Bush the main event. Nothing was Kerry-centric in the debate, everything revolved around Bush.

Such a setup is going to make Kerry look good in comparison but that's not really enough, Kerry's sewn-up the ABB vote, he needs the Kerry vote. He didn't do anything to stoke that fire tonight, he was a strict contrarian with no vision, no positive message, none of the leadership traits that resonate in your gut. Unless you count vainglory...

Bush, I think, did a good job on defense and a poor job on offense. He's not exactly a five-tool player, but he's solid.

I'm a supporter of Bush's hardline and will vote for him in November. Nevertheless, he just got his ass kicked by Kerry in the debate. If I could remotely trust Kerry to do the right thing regarding Iran in the future, I might vote for him.

Enough with the $87 billion vote already.
When it looked like the Dems and moderate Republicans were going to make part of the $87 billion a loan to Iraq instead of a grant, the White House threatened to veto it - body armor and all.
When the loan idea was voted down, Kerry voted against the final $87 billion in protest.
Bush was just as prepared to veto as Kerry was to vote 'no' if it had gone the other way. What's unclear about that?

Kerry didn't "kick ass" last night. He spoke fluent sentences in a measured and calm tone, giving the lie to the notion that he's a tinhat nut. If Kerry's goal was to show that he's not a flashback-suffering, golddigging schizo warHeRoSLASHWarCRImiNal, then he succeeded.

But if his goal was to put forward intelligent, serious policy prescriptions for Iraq, Iran and North Korea, he failed utterly. What the man actually said, in many cases, was fatuous.

The most asinine little fairy tale he repeated-- and he's been slapped down again and again on this by the Euros and by US leftists themselves-- was the one about how "Help is on the way" from France and Germany in the form of soldiers in Iraq. Again, idiocy delivered in a steady voice, a la Ted Baxter. And there was also the foolishness about bargaining with the mullahs, and the stupidity of unilaterally throwing away the bunker-buster missile that Clinton's team used to scare Khaddafi in 1996 and deter him from continuing with his own underground nuclear program.

EARTH TO KERRY: EUROPEAN "HELP" IS NOT "ON THE WAY". The lefties know it, the French Germans Belgians Swiss Spanish Dutch and Danes know it, your own people know it.

So stop insulting everyone's intelligence and try another tack, surfer dude.

And do not f*** with our deterrent by throwing away our bunker-busting missiles. It's not 1983, and you're not Helen Caldicott.

What was with Bush's stammering and stuttering.

" um, ah, er .. fffffffffffffff ... fffreedom, ah"

Looked awfully grumpy and dour.

Kerry seemed confident. A bit of a surprise.

Alice in Wonderland:

Bush clearly won on substance, and Kerry clearly won on style. Before the debate, I would have bet anything that it would have gone the other way, if there were going to be a split.

Did Bush realize he needed to prepare for this debate. He was hunched over , slumping into the poor podium. I thought he was doing a great Cheney impersonation. Since the questions were not hand selected---along with the usually stocked right wing audience--I believe he was not used to a REAL WORLD setting/audience. It was a staged event---but not nearly as staged /scripted/cast as the many faux events starring laura--and george jr. here in ohio. Bush made a few points--but a clear loser to Kerry in this revealing debate.

Did Bush realize he needed to prepare for this debate. He was hunched over , slumping into the poor podium. I thought he was doing a great Cheney impersonation. Since the questions were not hand selected---along with the usually stocked right wing audience--I believe he was not used to a REAL WORLD setting/audience. It was a staged event---but not nearly as staged /scripted/cast as the many faux events starring laura--and george jr. here in ohio. Bush made a few points--but a clear loser to Kerry in this revealing debate.

I'm perplexed concerning the vaunted "substance" of Bush's statements. He said, repeatedly, 1) mixed messages 2) hard work 3) wrong war, wrong time, wrong place and 4) ... right, there were only three things he said. Nothing related to his policies, his decisions, his presidency. Shouldn't an election featuring an incumbent swing on the incumbents record?

People couldn't understand what Kerry said? Did they have the sound off.? It was excrutiating waiting for Bush stumble to get his thoughts together. How about that crack about the tax gap? Forgot that the rules prohibited audience reaction, huh. I thought Bush improved through the evening. Kerry started off hot and stayed hot.

I'd really like to think that my president is capable of reasoned thought on complex issues, this debate made it clear the Bush isn't up to that task.

"Bush won on substance"?

Give 2 examples.

Bush wins on substance in that debate only if you are on his side already. And style was telling last night. The phantom Kerry the RNC and the media has put out there was replaced with a much better approximation of the man, and was juxtaposed with a petulant smirking opponent.

I watched him fail miserably to talk about our North Korea policy other than China has to be part of it otherwise we're doomed. How far do you think China will help?

My view of the "flow" of the debate is that Kerry started off strong and Bush started off weak, yet as the debate continued Bush gained steam and confidence while Kerry lost much of his initial edge in presentation.

Kerry "won" the debate on style, not substance, but even on this point we really have to define what is meant by "won." Was Kerry more polished and articulate? Sure. Did Bush come across as defensive and at times visibly annoyed? Yep. But Bush's "weakness" as a debater is also his strength. I think the President came across as the more sincere and honest candidate. (And I think the polls bear me out on this.)

Bush "lost" by not winning. (I know... that statement comes close to being a Bushism.) By this I mean that Bush COULD have won if he had been more aggressive. In fact, I think Bush could have knocked Kerry out of contention completely if he would have just grabbed the offensive replying to Kerry's position calling for the unilateral cancellation of our "Bunker-Busting" weapons program aimed at a (as Kerry himself noted!) nuclear weapon armed North Korea.

Frankly... I'm surprised so few people have picked up on this.

In terms of "imminent" threat, there's no greater danger to world peace than North Korea. A conventional or even nuclear/biological/chemical war that might within days lead to thousands or even tens of thousands of American military and civilian deaths is more likely to start in the Korean Peninsula than anywhere else on earth. North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il is crazier and better armed than Saddam Hussein ever was - even before the First Gulf War!

If... God forbid... we're ever forced to use military force against North Korea it'll be a far bloodier war if we don't have the capacity to take out many, most, or (optimistically!) all of North Korea's nuclear weapons which are... IN BUNKERS!!!

I mean... this is vintage Kerry - vintage left-wing Vietnam era protester Kerry. I realize that Jim Lehrer didn't really ask any questions about Kerry's 20-year Senate record or his past foreign policy and intelligence votes on the Senate floor, but Bush should have inserted Kerry's past record into the debate.

Also... Bush should have bashed the U.N. and especially the French. I understand that it was the Bush plan to avoid "attacking" Kerry personally and to avoid appearing "bullying" or hot-headed, but to not tie in French/German/Chinese/Russian/et al commercial and foreign policy self-interest into Kerry's "multinational" mantra was a missed opportunity.

Regarding Iraq...

Yeah... Bush was definitely on the defensive throughout the debate. (As previously mentioned, this was due to Lehrer's questioning as much as to Kerry's debating skill.) That said... did you come away from the 90-minute debate knowing any more about what Kerry intends to do in Iraq than you did before the debate began? Bush's answer regarding leaving it to the commanders on the ground and the diplomats to answer when we actually start withdrawing large numbers of troops may not have been the most satisfying... but at least it was an answer. Kerry gave NO firm answer to the question!

Anyway... that's my take.

I'm really surprised the "Global Test" comments are not getting more attention. It was a direct exchange, and a clear point of difference. Some people think it makes sense, and others think it is a clear error for Kerry. I'm of the latter opinion - it was a major error where Kerry actually let his core beliefs show through.

Actually, Jonah's point about outsourcing in Afghanistan vs. Iraq is astoundingly dumb.

It would certainly be a bad idea to outsource security in Iraq to Afghan warlords, or the Iraqi equivalent. But that's not what Kerry is advocating, as far as I know.

Exactly Damien...and Rove et al will be sure to drive it home.

Several commenters have noted that Bush frequently looked peeved when Kerry was talking. I noticed it was usually when Kerry was making accusations about focusing on Iraq instead of the WoT.

I think the reason Bush was peeved is this: the invasion of Iraq is a step in a plan of attack in the overall WoT. First Afghanistan, then Iraq, then Iran, then North Korea. But Bush can't say that. He CANNOT tip his hand, tell his enemies what he intendes to do, and still have his war strategy be successful. So he is frustrated, knowing what he knows and not being able to refute Kerry's whining.

That's my two cents on Bush's peeved looks. Anyone want to bet me that this turns out this way by the end of Bush's second term? You heard it here first.

There are good moolahs and bad moolahs in Iran. There are even some fabulous moolahs. And some iron sheiks also.

I have to say I struggle with the disconnect between what impresses me and what seems to impress most people watching debates like this. Neither candidate got high marks for substance in my book; Kerry insisted he had a plan while providing no details that seemed at all practical, while Bush's main point seemed to be that criticizing his decisions sent mixed messages to troops in the field. Kerry endorsed one really dreadful idea -- bilateral talks with North Korea -- and Bush, in charge of the biggest-spending administration in world history, dismissed Kerry's ideas about homeland security spending by asking how he would pay for them.

But Kerry looked better, and blanked out many fewer times than Bush did. My assumption is that this meant more to viewers and a media far more oriented to campaign dynamics than it is to government than it does to me. Also, to reiterate a point I made yesterday, Bush's reaction to personal criticism is a major potential weakness. Kerry's criticisms last night were relatively mild and mostly indirect -- this wrong war, that administration failure. If Kerry focused his attack, for example by ascribing one policy error or another to Bush's own incompetence, Bush's reaction might do him more damage than the charge would.

So do the Kerry supporters think GIVING Iran
nuclear material to see if they use it for
'peaceful' purposes is really a good idea?

Why not give an 8 year old a semi-automatic
weapon and a target to shoot at and see
if he uses it correctly? Tell you what,
I will promise to punish him 'appropriately'
after we attend your funeral.

And what did Kerry mean by "the global test"?
Bush quite substantively picked up on that one.
Does the U.S. need "gobal" approval before it
defends it's interests? I suppose we could
get the UN on board if we bribe them enough.

And can there be more than two parties in
"bi-lateral" talks? I think China might want
to be involved with the North Korea issue.

So substance was on Bushes side.

Kerry was obviously the "better debator". I
would certainly want him to be my partner in
any debating contest.

But I can't understand why that means the
good Sen. from Mass. should be President.

Someone please explain why debating ability
should be the only reason to vote for a
candidate.

I was blown away by Bush's discomfort under fire. What we saw last night was a weak man, and his stuttering, agonizingly long pauses, and verbal missteps show that. Perhaps the only time in his presidency that we've seen what he's like when he's caught out, under pressure, and answering hard questions.

Like most independents and undecideds, I think Kerry dominated him.

Some people here seem to have internalized the Bush campaign lies to the point that they now believe that anything that contradicts the lies is itself a lie. And they are disappointed now that Bush wasn't able to articulate his lies.

Here is the problem: Bush is still mainly trying to leave the outright lying to others so that he will not publicly be called a liar by the media. That's why he couldn't respond "better" to Kerry's points. He would have had to lie.

And that's also why you guys out there who think that Bush "won on substance", but failed to deliver his lines well enough, are saying that: it's imaginary substance, based on lies that others have articulated for him (the swift vets, Cheney, Zell Miller etc.).

Kerry won the debate, but he didn't score a decisive victory just yet. But if Bush's performance doesn't improve in the next two debates, that might well cost him the election.

Kerry's Iran strategy is the same strategy that failed with North Korea. As part of a bi-lateral deal negotiated by the Clinton administration, the US gave North Korea two light water reactors in exchange for assurances that it would not pursue nuclear weapons. The North Koreans cheated.

Here's what Kerry said in the debate last night:

"I think the United States should have offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel, test them, see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes. If they weren't willing to work a deal, then we could have put sanctions together. The president did nothing."

Only a credulous candidate would believe that an energy-rich country needs nuclear reactors for peaceful persons. Only a morally-impaired candidate would think that a country led by Islamic fanatics is interested in the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Only a suicidal candidate would give nuclear fuel to a country that has already threatened Israel with nuclear holocaust. But Senator Kerry thinks we should offer them fuel to see whether or not they'll use it peaceful purposes. I guess that makes him credulous, morally-impaired and suicidal.

The Mullahs will build their nuclear arsenal in bunkers deep underground yet Kerry wants to deprive the US of the sole means of destroying those bunkers. He said:

"Right now the president is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to research bunker-busting nuclear weapons. The United States is pursuing a new set of nuclear weapons. It doesn't make sense.

You talk about mixed messages. We're telling other people, "You can't have nuclear weapons," but we're pursuing a new nuclear weapon that we might even contemplate using."

Kerry still doesn't understand that there is a difference between free democratic countries retaining nuclear weapons for defense and rogue regimes seeking to acquire nuclear weapons for offense. That proves he is a credulous, morally-impaired, and suicidal candidate.

I was blown away by Kerry's outright prevarications and two-sidedness on the issues. First he claims he would have "done it differently" and then proceeds to tell us how he wouldn't have done it all, opting for another resolution instead of war.

Kerry's comments that Iraq has not attacked us is an outright lie or stunning ignorance. Saddam attempted to assassinate a former president, blew up American cultural institutes in Prague and Manilla, and more. Kerry sits on the intel committee and has no excuse for these kinds of lies.

Like most knowledgable folks, I think Kerry threw it away. The flimsies will still like him.

Jon, Charlie:
Only the Intelligence Committees have full access to all of the intel that the POTUS has. So, no, Kerry didn't have access to all of the intel the President had, but he had access to the same intel summaries the President had. The summaries, however, don't contain the caveats and contradictory information available in the actual intel. If the President is only using the summaries to make decisions (possible) then he is being irresponsible in not considering all the information available to him.

Danny:

Poland would disagree with you, since they have said they were lied to in being brought into the war...

I think the first rule of debating was at work here: the one who gets mad loses.
Bush got mad, and lost the debate.

The question is, and has always been, how will the debates affect the "swing" voters. It will probably take a week or more to determine the effect of this debate on undecided or less committed voters. At most, I expect this to even things up at about 47-47 or so for the next couple of weeks.

As for blogger reactions, I prefer to avoid the purely partisan hack blogs (like Kos and Hugh Hewitt) for commentary. It might be more informative to look at people like Andrew Sullivan, Mickey Kaus, Dan here... Their assessments of the debate are far less likely to be colored by purely partisan intents and therefore are more likely to be even-handed.

In re the style vs substance weighting, note the downline questions in the Gallup poll.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/?ci=13237

better able to handle Iraq: K-43, B-54
trust more as C-in-C: K-44, B-54
good understanding of issues: K-41, B-41
agreed with you on issues: K-46, B-49
more believable: K-45, B-50
more likeable: K-41, B-48
tough enough for the job: K-37, B-54

did better in the debate: K-53, B-37

So there you have it--Bush did better on substance, but Kerry won on style (only), and Gallup is using style as the metric.

I think both candidates did well. Kerry impressed me, but he impressed me in the way a magician impresses you. You dont know how he pulled it off but you're pretty sure it wasnt real magic. I think Bush zinged him quite a bit but he also missed some golden opportunities such as pointing out that 'outsourcing' to Afghan warlords is basically what Kerry is advocating in Iraq right now. Also i think Bush had a brilliant chance to show his CIC bonafidis by blasting Kerry for second guessing Tommy Franks and the people on the ground. Tommy Franks basically debunked the whole issue on CNN about 15 minutes later so I guess it doesnt matter. Kerry should be careful, he cant claim to be out of the intelligence loop while at the same time second guessing all the military decisions of the last 3 years. It makes him seem like an armchair general. Stick to the political decisions.
Kerry missed some golden opportunities to blast Bush on specific blunders in Iraq. Why didnt he point blank ask Bush _why_ there are still terrorists pouring over the borders of Iraq? Why arent the borders sealed? He hinted at it but that would have been devastating. Some righteous anger at how practically none of the Iraq money has been spent yet would have been 1000 times more effective than whining about how it would better have been used propping up the welfare state here. All the exchange showed me was that Kerry isnt going to be any more zealful in kicking ass in Iraqi reconstruction. Will he pinch pennies so he can get his healthcare bills passed?
As far as presentation, Kerry took it, he looked and sounded very good. Personally I was just really pleased that we got a real honest to god debate out of this. I thought Lehrer did an ok job, but he never questioned Kerry on his record which was a clear example of bias. The guys running for president shouldnt he have to defend his record at some point?

Zathras"There are good moolahs and bad moolahs in Iran. There are even some fabulous moolahs. And some iron sheiks also."

Best comment in the thread.

I yearn for the 80s when international disputes were settled in the wrestling ring. No matter what you've heard, the Cold War was decided via a flag match between the tag teams of The Iron Shiek and Nikoli Volkav vs Hulk Hogan and Hacksaw Jim Duggan.

Normally the debates don't mean anything unless one guy slips on a banana peel (Ford re Poland), but this time the debate may have finally done some good by forcing a real discussion of specific policy choices going forward for Iraq Iran and NoK.

Kerry's back in the game, but if Bush will get his own head back in the game, he should have no difficulty ripping Kerry's positions to shreds on the above issues. "[European] help is on the way" is the most egregious but not the only idiocy that's ripe for shredding. Kerry's foolish proposal for a freeze on bunker-busters is also an easy target.

Kerry may have won the skirmish but opened up a huge vulnerability that will lose the war.

Kerry won on style and substance. That is not to say the Bush did terrible. In fact, Bush did well for the first 10-15 mins. He looked strong and resolute. Unfortunately, he clearly became fuddled once he ran through his talking points the first time and had to repeat them... over... and over... and over... If you go back to the transcript, Bush did not really have much to say that any real substance. It is fair to say that he offered no real plan or goal for Iraq except to keep on trucking on, which is clearly a downward spiral... just read the news. On style, this was not the typical Bush who seems calm and unflinching (e.g. the 2000 debates and on the current campaign trail). He appeared upset and almost angry (rather Gore-like from 2000). Probably because his typical campaign handlers could not control what questions were asked of him.

Kerry on the otherhand had a better handle on substance and style. I really cannot understand anyone who says Bush had better substance. Kerry certainly came off more "presidential" than Bush. While he did answer the flip-flop charge on the "war" resolution" pretty well on a couple of occasions, he should have driven that point home more. He should have directly attacked the whole "$87 billion" vote charge as well (although his "which is worse" line was pretty good). Also, he did not effectively point how poor the post-war was planned and how poorly it is being managed. He certainly missed some great opportunities.

All in all, there will be no major shift among Dems and Repubs. However, Kerry should get some shift in the Undecideds and Independents. Most importantly, Bush really needed a decisive blow here, and his group was hoping for one. However, he did not get even close. Why did he need a big hit here? Because he is going to have a hard time explaining away the economy in the upcoming debates.

My understanding of the nuclear fuel offer to Iran is that the idea is the following:

We give Iran nuclear fuel in a form specifically designed for use in power generating reactors and not easily adaptable to weapons use. (Some sort of special ceramic ball form that suspends the fissile material in a non-enriched form,m from what I've heard.) They give up their other stuff.

Further we painstakingly account for every drop of it and give more new fuel only as we get back old spent fuel. If Iraq doesn't agree, then we expose their contention that they are just messing with fissile material for the sake of fuel generation.

It's not a perfect idea, but it sure doesn't seem worth dismissing as pure idiocy. But then how many of the people making fun of this idea have any understanding of the actual details?

10:03 PM: Bush keeps pronouncing "mullahs" as "mooolahs" -- that can't be correct, can it? UPDATE: Apparently it is -- points for Bush.

President Bush is now getting debating points for correctly pronouncing a word? Just how low are your expectations for his speaking skills anyway?

You are all missing the point.

Kerry won big in what really mattered.

He just destroyed all the advertising money the Bush campaign spent trying to convince people that Kerry is something he isn't.

Bush had gained an advantage with the speech he gave at the convention and with his attach ads that painted a caricature of Kerry as a flip-flopping weak on defense democrat.

Anyone who watched the debates realized that caricature was unreal and that Kerry is a realist who could be trusted to be President.

Having people believe in that caricature is the
only hope Bush has to win the election. He clearly can not win on his record. His campaign looks as if he is the challenger running against the incumbents poor record.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/Vote2004/debate_poll_040930.html

John Kerry won the first debate and with it a shot at reinvigorating his campaign for the presidency, an ABC News poll found. But in the first blush, vote preferences among viewers were unmoved.

So much for that 20+ point "swing".

It's a sign of desperation when GOP operatives and hacks flood message boards and steal people's names. I am confident that the ignorant "Badjarian" does not know what his fake name means.

Favorite Bush quotes: "...uh....I....uh..."

"My opponent's...muh-mi--muh-mixed messsages..."

"[sputter]"

How can anyone keep us safe when he is as weak and uncertain as this man, who was afraid to testify before the 9-11 Commission without his father figure Dick Cheney and hesitated before answering almost every question last night?

"It's not a perfect idea, but it sure doesn't seem worth dismissing as pure idiocy. But then how many of the people making fun of this idea have any understanding of the actual details?"

I understand the details, and it remains absurd. The problem here isnt the deal, per se. The problem is the entire thought process is premised on the possibility that Iran really wants peaceful nuclear power and if we just fit the right peices in the puzzle everyone will be happy. No! Iran is developing nuclear weapons. That has to be foremost in our minds. This is the identical gag pulled by the NKs on us, IDENTICAL. Iran is stalling, if we for an instant play into that hand we are alread beaten. First and foremost we have to understand what we are negotiating. It isnt how can we satisfy Iran's desire for nuclear energy. It is how can we find a peaceful way to intimidate Iran into understanding that the price of developing weapons will be greater than the reward, and furthermore that if they slap the carrot away the stick will be inevitable. John Kerry absolutely does not understand that dynamic. Unfortunately the Mullahs very much do.

Kerry was on the Senate Intelligence Committee in the period when the Senate had to decide whether to authorize the use of force in Iraq. He thus had access to anything the president had on Iraq.

What fantasy world do you live in? The Bush administration shared more intelligence with Bob Woodward than Congress.

Woodward says immediately after that, Rumsfeld told Gen. Tommy Franks to develop a war plan to invade Iraq and remove Saddam - and that Rumsfeld gave Franks a blank check.

”Rumsfeld and Franks work out a deal essentially where Franks can spend any money he needs. And so he starts building runways and pipelines and doing all the preparations in Kuwait, specifically to make war possible,” says Woodward.

“Gets to a point where in July, the end of July 2002, they need $700 million, a large amount of money for all these tasks. And the president approves it. But Congress doesn't know and it is done. They get the money from a supplemental appropriation for the Afghan War, which Congress has approved. …Some people are gonna look at a document called the Constitution which says that no money will be drawn from the Treasury unless appropriated by Congress. Congress was totally in the dark on this."

"What fantasy world do you live in? The Bush administration shared more intelligence with Bob Woodward than Congress."

The White House doesnt provide intelligence to Congress at all. The intel agencies report directly to Congressional oversite, and any senator can ask for further intelligence beyond that.

Bush may have generally pronounced the vowels of Mullah right, but I'm pretty sure he botched how the word is supposed to be pronounced.

It's usually said faster, without the drawn out MOOO LAHHH

I'm not aware that anyone besides Dan has mentioned this here, but Abu Ghraib didn't come up at all last night.

Now I principally fault Jim Lehrer for this. Bringing up difficult topics not contained in either candidate's stump speech is his job. But I thought it odd that while John Kerry was going on about making America more respected in the world he managed to mention Kyoto and Bush's slighting of Kofi Annan without saying a word about the one thing that did more damage to our reputation than anything else that's happened in the last four years.

I'm not saying that drawing attention to this would have been a huge vote-getter -- though Bush's response would have been interesting to see. But just getting through the election can never be the only objective of a candidate who takes the duties and obligations of the Presidency seriously. Kerry right now is just another politician trying to ascend the greasy pole; there are still a lot of people to whom he must prove he is something more than that, someone with convictions that do not depend on polls of voters or organized interest groups, someone in short who is something better than Bush, as opposed to being not any worse. Acknowledging the harm done to America's mission in Iraq and its work in the world by Abu Ghraib would have been a start. Kerry still has two chances to go.

There seems to be a general consensus that Kerry "won" the debate from the "style" perspective. In terms of actual substance, I believe that it came out a bit of a draw, if only because President Bush was not able to properly verbalize an appropriate response. He clearly looked distracted - maybe something's actually going on in the WoT?

My perspective of Kerry is that while coming across as more "presidential", whatever that means, his responses were for the most part unintelligble. Bi-lateral talks with NK? A broad coalition in Iraq? Bad idea on NK becauase SK, China, Japan and Russia have to live next door and thus they have a vested interest in the outcome. A broad coalition on Iraq with whom? Europe has been blinded by the Oil for Food program. Does Kerry think he can convince France to participate just because he speaks the language?

All in all, Bush could have done better and I think we will see a much better performance in the next 2 debates. Expect Kerry to have a turn playing defense.

How anyone can say that the debate was anything other than a clear victory for Kerry is beyond me. Bush was childlike.

Mark Buehner: The problem here isnt the deal, per se. The problem is the entire thought process is premised on the possibility that Iran really wants peaceful nuclear power and if we just fit the right peices in the puzzle everyone will be happy. No! Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

You know that, I know that, and the President knows that. The problem is that our troops are bogged down in a country that didn't have its own nuclear program (which was why they were trying to obtain it from somewhere else), so we don't have any military leverage over Iran at all anymore.

Which means we need to convince the world. And our credibility isn't all that great right now. So calling Iran's bluff on needing nuclear power seems a lot more reasonable than just staying the course, waiting around, and ending up with another North Korea.

Kerry was asinine. "European help is on the way," unilateral freeze on bunker-busters, "global test"... Fatuities delivered smoothly.

If Bush had not been half asleep he could easily have ripped Kerry to shreds.

"so we don't have any military leverage over Iran at all anymore."

Totally untrue. We could deprive Iran of most of their nuclear infastructure in an afternoon and continue until the stars burn out.

"Which means we need to convince the world."

Another fallacy. The world understands, they just dont care. You think Jaques Chirac and Vladimir Putin are rubes that are having the wool pulled over their eyes by wily Mullahs? They know, they dont care. That is why Kerry's insistance that he can make them understand or whatever is so ludicrious. Face it, Iran getting nukes doesnt bother France, Germany, or Russia, especially when there is money to be made and especially when it ties up the US's attention. They perceive it to be more in their interest to put a pie in the US face than to keep nukes from Iran, assumin the US will keep things under control anyway. That is a deadly miscalculation.

"And our credibility isn't all that great right now."

Our credibility is excellent. If Bush tells Iran he will attack them if they persist, Iran will believe him. That's the only credibility that matters in the real world.

"So calling Iran's bluff on needing nuclear power seems a lot more reasonable than just staying the course, waiting around, and ending up with another North Korea."

Brilliant. Call Iran's bluff by letting them stall long enough to field some nukes and then telling the world 'see, I told you so'. A rather pyrrhiac victory i'd say. We have to stop playing games, Iran will develop nukes if we dont stop them, and no body else is going to stop them. Period.

And what did Kerry mean by "the global test"?
Bush quite substantively picked up on that one.

Oh yeah, he sure did: "I'm not exactly sure what you mean, passes the global test, you take preemptive action if you pass a global test. My attitude is you take preemptive action in order to protect the American people, that you act in order to make this country secure"

Bush's response was not too bright. Kerry had just said that he would preemptively strike if necessary: "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. Here we have our own secretary of state who has had to apologize to the world for the presentation he made to the United Nations..."

Is Colin Powell having to apologize to his counterparts throughout the world a good thing for America's image? Shouldn't we care what other countries think of us? Shouldn't we care about our credibility around the world? Or, should America be known as the country that fibs?

mullah: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/audio.pl?mullah01.wav=mullah

moolah: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/audio.pl?moola001.wav=moola

The mullah variant is the closer one of two offered. They're still not anywhere close.

As a point of clarification regarding buster-bunking nukes:

First, some detail from the Christian Science Monitor (similar info available elsewhere)

"The administration's immediate aim is to improve on its only existing earth-penetrating nuclear weapon, the 1,200-pound B61-11 gravity bomb. Entering the US arsenal in 1997, the B61-11 has an selectable yield of from 1 to 300 kilotons, nuclear experts say. But it can reach only a limited depth underground – 10 to 20 feet in a dry lake bed in one government test – and "cannot survive penetration into many types of terrain," according to the Pentagon's Nuclear Posture Review submitted to Congress in January.

A study is planned on the design and cost of a heavier, 5,000-pound modification of the B61-11, to see whether it could burrow deeper with its original warhead intact. Greater depth, in theory, would allow a lower-yield bomb to cause more underground destruction while also limiting nuclear fallout on the surface. Legislation moving through the House this week grants $15 million in the fiscal year 2003 budget to study such a "robust nuclear earth penetrator."

The current push is separate from failed efforts in previous years to develop so-called "mini-nukes." A 1994 law prohibits the nuclear laboratories from undertaking research and development that could lead to a precision weapon of less then 5 kilotons, because it would blur the distinction between nuclear and conventional war."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0509/p01s02-usmi.html

Second, as seen in the transcript, Kerry was *IN NO WAY* arguing that we unilaterally eliminate existing nuclear weapons from our arsenal. He was arguing that, in order to be seens as (to use a favorite word of some) consistent, we cease efforts to develop new nuclear weapons if we expect other nations to do the same.

"And part of that leadership is sending the right message to places like North Korea.

Right now the president is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to research bunker-busting nuclear weapons. The United States is pursuing a new set of nuclear weapons. It doesn't make sense.

You talk about mixed messages. We're telling other people, "You can't have nuclear weapons," but we're pursuing a new nuclear weapon that we might even contemplate using.

Not this president. I'm going to shut that program down, and we're going to make it clear to the world we're serious about containing nuclear proliferation. "

"Right now the president is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to research bunker-busting nuclear weapons. The United States is pursuing a new set of nuclear weapons. It doesn't make sense."

Right now my local police station is spending thousands of dollars to equip the SWAT team with more advanced weapons. And yet they persist in locking up criminals for carrying illegal weapons. Makes a lot of sense.

lex writes: "If Bush had not been half asleep he could easily have ripped Kerry to shreds."

Hey, it looks like the Republicans have all "seven dwarfs" wrapped into their candidate.

Sleepy, Dopey, Grumpy, Happy, Bashful.

But definitey not Doc. Make it the six dwarfs.

Drat, forgot Sneezy.

No real evidence of Bush being especially sneezy, so make it "Chokey" or "Trippy" or "Clutzy".

Kerry's bunker-buster confusion perfectly highlights the crucial difference between him and Bush, between dovish Dems and hawks of either party.

The B61-11 "bunker-buster" is in fact a nuclear weapon. It's already in production and has already shown its deterrent value. From CDI:

Little noted in this debate is the fact that the United States has been at work on similar weapons since the mid-nineties and already has a bunker-busting nuclear weapon, the B61-11, a nuclear gravity bomb.4

The Pentagon began developing the B61-11 in 1993 and deployed it in 1997. Treading lightly around its obligations under the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which the United States observes but has never ratified, American nuclear scientists billed B61-11 as a spin-off of an existing weapon. By putting an iron casing around the nuclear warhead, the design theoretically allowed the weapon, released from an aircraft, to burrow through earth or concrete to destroy its target - the same mission officials at the Department of Energy envision for weapons currently being studied.

In 1996, the United States even threatened to use the B61-11 against Libya. When American intelligence learned that the Libyans were building a large underground plant to develop chemical weapons, Defense Secretary William Perry stated publicly that the United States would consider its whole range of weapons to stop construction - an implicit reference to nuclear weapons.5

Why is Kerry going against a policy that his own party's leaders pursued, with success, when they held the White House?

Is he stupid, or just a perpetual knee-jerk nuclear freeze activist? Talk about being stuck in a rut.

Jon H: tee hee!!

About those "Thirty-five to forty countries in the world had a greater capability of making weapons at the moment the president invaded than Saddam Hussein"...

Never mind the accuracy of the numbers. What I want to know is this: Which countries? Democratic rule-of-law nations, or dictatorial hellholes?

fling93: so we don't have any military leverage over Iran at all anymore.

Mark Buehner: Totally untrue. We could deprive Iran of most of their nuclear infastructure in an afternoon and continue until the stars burn out.

If we can, that begs the question, why haven't we? That would've headed off any questions about Dubya's plan or lack thereof concerning Iran. Never mind, with Iran's closer ties to al Qaeda and more advanced nuclear program, they're obviously a higher priority threat than Iraq in the first place.

And of course, if we have all this excess military capability available, why do insurgents still control any Iraqi cities? Why don't we yet have the troop levels recommended by Shinseki to maintain stability so that there are no questions about whether elections will be valid?

Our credibility is excellent. If Bush tells Iran he will attack them if they persist, Iran will believe him. That's the only credibility that matters in the real world.

Which again begs the question, why hasn't Dubya told them that? What is he waiting for? China?

Iran is a constitutional theocracy, so striking Iran translates directly into "bombing clerics and ayatollahs". All energies are going towards flipping it from the inside instead. I sure do wish we were doing better here, like arranging meetings between Iranian military and democratic agents (so as to preclude armed conflict for a bloodless coup), but much of this may have to wait until democratic Iraq and Afghanistan can put social pressure on Iran's borders.

As for telling Iran that they will not be allowed to have nukes, that message has been delivered already. Powell said it. Putin said it. So have others.

"If we can, that begs the question, why haven't we? That would've headed off any questions about Dubya's plan or lack thereof concerning Iran"

We havent because, to borrow a term, this is not an imminent threat. Iran isnt likely to build a nuke tomorrow. We have a small amount of time. Next month is as good as now, so why not give the Euros there chance? There are a few other options that could work short of bombing, but negotiations arent one of them for the simple fact that there is nothing we can offer Iran that is more important to them them nukes.

"And of course, if we have all this excess military capability available, why do insurgents still control any Iraqi cities?"

It doesnt require any additional military capacity to launch two dozen tomahawk missiles from a couple ships in the gulf. The Israeli model is very much alive.

"Which again begs the question, why hasn't Dubya told them that? What is he waiting for? China?"

He has. He plainly stated on O'Reilly that Iran would not be allowed to have nuclear weapons. Doesnt get much plainer than that. My only gripe with Kerry is that he wont make the same pledge, that he will bomb Iran before allowing them to have nukes, as a last resort. I can only assume that if Iran manages to develop nukes Kerry will let them.

"As for telling Iran that they will not be allowed to have nukes, that message has been delivered already. Powell said it. Putin said it. So have others."

And all that is moot unless Kerry says it, assuming he is elected.

Mark Buehner: We havent because, to borrow a term, this is not an imminent threat. Iran isnt likely to build a nuke tomorrow.

In striking contrast to Iraq, who wasn't likely to build a nuke before Iran?

Mark Buehner: If Bush tells Iran he will attack them if they persist, Iran will believe him.

fling93: Which again begs the question, why hasn't Dubya told them that? What is he waiting for? China?

Buehner: He has. He plainly stated on O'Reilly that Iran would not be allowed to have nuclear weapons. Doesnt get much plainer than that.

And by your claim, Iran must believe him because, "Our credibility is excellent."

So... why haven't they disarmed? Could it be because we have no military leverage over them, and they're calling Dubya's bluff?

dan

what's your p-value after the first debate?

'Iran is a constitutional theocracy, so striking Iran translates directly into "bombing clerics and ayatollahs'

How do you find and isolate these exactly ? The Iranian Nobel Prize winner last year, the dissident Shirin Ebadi, strongly denounced the invasion of Iraq, saying that was not a way of bringing democracy.

'All energies are going towards flipping it from the inside instead.'

Sure doesn't look like it. The only agents we seem to have are the MEK, who are despised by Iraqis since they acted as Saddam's engorcers, and by almost all Iranians -- Theocrats, moderates, dissidents

So if a terrorist, stole or bought a nuke from the kleptocrats that run Russia, what would we do? There would be no response. Fortunately, Dear Leader is doing everything in his power to leave the russian nukes unprotected and let russia fall into totalinarism again. Long live the neo-nut dream! Cognitive-Disonance '04!

From teh debate, both Kerry & Bush agreed nuclear proliferation was the largest threat to America. Let's examine shrub's record on preventing this threat to america

(1) He has let North Korea build several nukes during his tenure, and effecitvely ignored them for 2 years, doing nothing.
(2) He has left hundreds if not thousands of nukes unprotected in the Kleptorussia
(3) Iran is on its way to becoming a nuclear power
(4) He Let OBL Get away, when he was surrounded
(5) HE sat for 7 minutes doing nothing while the country was clearly under attack on 9/11

Ok, so the last two dont have to dowith nukes, but they tie into national security.

COGNITIVE-DISONANCCE '04!

"In striking contrast to Iraq, who wasn't likely to build a nuke before Iran?"

We had no way of knowing without invading. They were and are both intolerable threats.

"Which again begs the question, why hasn't Dubya told them that? What is he waiting for? China?"

You arent listening. He has told them. Im getting tired of repeating myself.

"And by your claim, Iran must believe him because, "Our credibility is excellent."

So... why haven't they disarmed? Could it be because we have no military leverage over them, and they're calling Dubya's bluff?"

No, because there is an election in a month with a contender that has made it abundantly clear that he is the exact kind of useful idiot that they can jerk around long enough to get their nukes built.

Look, once you build a nuke or two, you basically are set. Jor asks why we havent 'done anything' about NK? The answer is because NK can end the lives of half a million SKs and perhaps as many Japanese if we 'did something'. Once they announced they had a nuke (thanks Madeline Albright!) the rest was academic.
Nukes are insurance, once you have a couple you can build as many as you want. Thats why its a club. Thats why its essential to keep Iran out. We cant do much about NK now, but I think we can all agree 1 maniac regime with nukes is infinately better than 2.

Screwed my name up.

Last but not least, from the democracy loving Dear Leader whose Sec. of Defense (Rummy) gave us Abu Ghraib, apparently his freedom loving Attorney General now wants to OUT SOURCE the TORTURE.

DAN THIS IS YOUR THING. They are OUT SOURCING! You can tell us how it saves money and stuff, and trade is good, and competitive advantage, etc. etc. All good in the long run!

Its truly hilarious, how 'educated' people thought the most illiberal people in the country were somehow magically going to demomcratize a foreign land they knew absoloutely nothing about. I really woudl love to have Dan as a professor, if he allows such gigantic gaping holes to pass in the arguments his students make in their term papers.

Anyone who thought Iraq had a nuclear capacity before the war was an idiot. Anyone who still thinks Iraq had a nuclear capacity needs to be checked into a mental hospital. Mark Buehner -- that means you! Go team cognitive disonance '04!

Jor, you've abundantly established what you think about the president, the war, and terrorism in general. Just try to remember that the only reason you can sleep peacefully at night is because rough men stand ready to do violence to defend you. I know you must hate that.

Buehner: We had no way of knowing without invading. They were and are both intolerable threats.

Yes, but one of them had nuclear plants, one of them did not. If we were going to invade both, we would have by now. It's clear that our military had only the capability to do one at a time (unless you don't listen to them when they tell you exactly what the occupation will entail).

So which one should have been higher priority?

Buehner: Im getting tired of repeating myself.

I wasn't repeating the question. I was quoting myself to provide context for your reply (since MT doesn't have good message threading mechanisms). Thus, the italics and the "fling93:" in front of it.

fling93: So... why haven't they disarmed? Could it be because we have no military leverage over them, and they're calling Dubya's bluff?

Buehner: No, because there is an election in a month with a contender that has made it abundantly clear that he is the exact kind of useful idiot that they can jerk around long enough to get their nukes built.

Given how Dubya has essentially stalled on doing anything about NK by waiting around for China, and with our military occupied with just trying to regain control of Iraq, I honestly don't see why Iran would care either way. For all we know, they may finish building a nuke before our election anyway.

Mark Buehner: Look, once you build a nuke or two, you basically are set.

I address that point at length here. Basically, you are set only for defensive purposes. Which kinda tips you off on what NK's intentions are. Now, which "useful idiot" have they been "jerking around" all this time?

Mark,

when the cognitive disonancce finally wares off, you'll realize that the war in Iraq had nothing to do with the war on teror, and if anything was a gigantic set back. OF course you don't have to go all that way to vote ABB -- I think maybe watching Bush stumble through a couple more debates, and realizing Iraq is being run by the village idiot, will persuade you, its time to change leadership.

One day, when I'm older, I'm sure you'll be able to explain to me how Bush is really preventing terrorist threats by leaving all those nukes out like candy in totalitarian, kleptocratic store we call Russia -- is a great idea for our security. And after you explain that, you'll be able to explain how a tax-cut to the wealthy was more important than securing our border, shipments, and chemical plants.

And I'm sure, when you decide to face reality, the neo-cons and grownup republicans who should know better will finally decide its time to get shrill. I mean even Even Andrew "There is no War I wouldnt Support" Sullivan has gone shrill, and started calling you guyskool-aid chuggers. Drezner is behind Sullivan. That's pathetic. The neo-cons have lived up to the chcarge that they are chicken-hawks. The facts are completely clear, and people like Drezner, who really ought to no better, have no excuse to hedge anymore. The only excuse is they are worried about personal career options as a result of speaking out. Truly, the neo-cons have lived up to chicken-hawk image 110%.

With all due respect, Jor, I think you're acting like a troll.

Monkey fell out of the tree and the monkey handlers went running around like headless chickens.

Bush lost this debate.
He had his clock cleaned.
He was clearly unprepared.

And come now people, we all know Bush is not a smart man, so why does the facade continue? Why do obviously smart people still hold on to this image of Bush that is clearly at odds with reality.
Be men and stand up and admit it - Bush lost.

Fling, I completely agree I'm acting like a troll, BUT, the people on this board aren't you're average Bush supporter. Most people who are going to vote for Bush, really don't know all the details of the war or the economy. They are going to vote for him cause their priest or friends are, or cause they believe he's a "strong leader". Fine, whatever. most people who vote for Kerry will also vote with very little information.

However, the people on this board know full well this administration complete incompetence as well as all the details of their attrocities. I will not list them again, cause we all know them. The Bush voter who doesn't know better is on ething, but the people on thi sboard are another thing.

If you believe in basic american values (freedom, democracy, transparency, equality, hapiness for all, etc.), its pretty clear you can construct a logical proof negating the possibility for voting for Bush at all. Hence, IF you know the facts, and you choose to ignore them and continue to support bush, you are a TROLL.

Hence, I think its fair to act like a troll, when dealing with trolls. I think my characterization of Dan as a chicken-hawk is completely accurate. HE has never made a case for holding any confidence whatsoever in Bush. The only clear reason is because his future career prospects will be hurt. He's the poli sci prof, he knows about analyzing descions in terms of power.

A long time ago Claire said, "I think the reason Bush was peeved is this: the invasion of Iraq is a step in a plan of attack in the overall WoT. First Afghanistan, then Iraq, then Iran, then North Korea. But Bush can't say that. He CANNOT tip his hand, tell his enemies what he intendes to do, and still have his war strategy be successful. So he is frustrated, knowing what he knows and not being able to refute Kerry's whining."

Do you think iranians and north koreans haven't assumed this is his plan? Do you seriously think they'd change their behavior in any significant way if he made it official, when they've been figuring for 3 years or so that this is exactly what he's planning?

The people Bush can't tell about this plan are voters. *Those* are the people you're calling "his enemies". A lot of voters believe this is his plan and approve and want him to win the election. A lot of voters believe this is his plan and strongly disapprove and want him to lose. It's the voters who haven't been paying attention that he has to fool. Not the iranians and north koreans.

Jor: Hence, I think its fair to act like a troll, when dealing with trolls.

Fair, perhaps (although being susceptible to cognitive bias just means you're human, not necessarily a troll). But I'm of the viewpoint that antagonizing someone you disagree with is just more likely to get them to dig in defensively than to listen to you. And if you think they're a lost cause already, then perhaps your time and effort would be better spent on somebody else.

But that's just my $0.02. I know I shouldn't be acting like the board police or anything. I know my last few comments were a bit testy themselves, and so I'm one to talk.

Pat said, ""You talk about mixed messages. We're telling other people, "You can't have nuclear weapons," but we're pursuing a new nuclear weapon that we might even contemplate using."

Kerry still doesn't understand that there is a difference between free democratic countries retaining nuclear weapons for defense and rogue regimes seeking to acquire nuclear weapons for offense. That proves he is a credulous, morally-impaired, and suicidal candidate."

This is something that neither side wants to be clear about. I will try to make it clear even though getting it clear leads us that much closer to civil war in the USA. (Which I think we're still pretty far from -- the kindling has been laid but nobody has gotten out any matches yet.)

The question here is whether we actually hope to negotiate with iran or not.

A successful negotiation would have iran dismantle their nuke-producing stuff, and turn over their highly-purified materials or publicly mix them back into less-pure form, and accept intense inspections for the forseeable future. We know how to do inspections now. They might honestly agree to that if all alternatives look worse. A successful agreement would be much better than the alternatives for us, too -- provided we didn't have to agree to sweeteners that were too bad.

If we don't get a negotiated agreement then our alternatives are to accept iran with nukes, or oppose them with military action.

Say we choose military action. We can't get by with just airstrikes because they can then give advanced weapons to iraqi insurgents and attack our shipping into iraq with missiles. Similarly we can't just do a punitive expedition, knock out all their power plants and phone exchanges etc and go home. Not only do we need them to keep pumping oil, but they could still give tank-killers etc to iraqis and they could still attack our supply ships in the gulf. As long as our army is fighting in iraq, war with iran means we must disarm them. The hard way is an occupation, the easy way is to nuke them.

If we kill, say, 10 million persian civilians with the justification that we can't trust them with nukes, the rest of the world is likely to see considerable irony.

War with iran would be very hard for us, but maybe we could bluff them; it would be very hard for them too and they might agree to give up their nukes and allow inspections to avoid war.

Or we could get friendlier. The obvious offer we could make them would be a nuclear-free middle east. Syria has agreed, I'm sure jordan and egypt would agree, probably the saudis etc would.

No war for us in iran, no nukes except whatever terrorists bring in from russia, it's better for everybody if the agreement can be made.

But it would have the disadvantage that we wouldn't get to fight our war with iran that some of us have been drooling for.

Obviously Bush can't admit that he intends to get us into another disastrous war. And just as obviously Kerry can't admit that he hopes to negotiate an amicable peace. If either of them admitted their desires they would lose votes.

But in the context of actual negotiations, we have to consider how it looks to the other guy. And when we try to negotiate and our stand is "We are good guys who can be trusted with nukes. You are bad guys who can't be trusted with nukes. So unless you give up your nukes right now we're going to nuke you" it should be obvious that the other guy will hesitate to surrender. There are some people you can just listen to a little and decide "Better dead than that man's prisoner.".

When you start out with the stand that we're all good and they're all bad so they should just surrender, you're demanding war.

Mark Buehner wrote, "Iran isnt likely to build a nuke tomorrow. We have a small amount of time.

Why do you think that?

Assuming Bush wins, iran is depending on getting a few nukes quicker than we predict. So they'll have them before we're scheduled to stop them.

One obvious approach would be to buy russian nukes that have gone bad, and reprocess them. They wouldn't have nearly the work of processing fuel. Say they started with six old weapons and got enough to rebuild 5 weapons with a bit left over -- they wouldn't even have to make their own designs, if they could form the material into the right shapes well enough.

They're betting their civilians' lives that they can make nukes faster than we expect. Why are you sure they can't?

"Next month is as good as now, so why not give the Euros there chance? There are a few other options that could work short of bombing, but negotiations arent one of them for the simple fact that there is nothing we can offer Iran that is more important to them them nukes."

What good are nukes to them? Their main use for nukes is to keep insane governments from nuking them. If we gave them some other way to make sure that the USA and israel won't nuke them, they might accept it.

Lonewacko blog wrote, "Is Colin Powell having to apologize to his counterparts throughout the world a good thing for America's image? Shouldn't we care what other countries think of us? Shouldn't we care about our credibility around the world? Or, should America be known as the country that fibs?"

Those aren't the only two choices.

Next time we want to smash some nation we could tell the world, "The USA has decided we want to smash that there nation because we want to. If anybody objects we'll smash you too. We don't owe you any explanations or apologies.".

That would shut up a lot of the critics.

As long as we are stronger than any possible combination of other nations and invulnerable to terrorism and debtfree, we can do whatever we want. We don't owe anybody anything.

But if we need other nations to cooperate with us, maybe we need to pay some attention to their opinions.

I think North Korea "nukes" issues should be more covered.
There's insufficient debate about this in US.
I'll wait for this in next phase of this campaign.

Big win for Kerry. In addition to questions of style, Kerry kept Bush on the defensive, a position the President does not handle well. After all, as the incumbent, Bush must be judged on his performance in office, and Kerry wisely is shifting the focus of the country onto Bush's weaknessess rather than his own.

That being said, Kerry's various points don't tie together well in any sort of narrative thread. Had the terms of the debate shifted to Kerry's shortcomings, I think we'd be singing a different tune now.

Bush looked bad: fidgety, bitchy, impatient,impish. He was missing the easy, casual cool that so characterized his performance in the 2000 debates. Style rules, and Kerry routed him on style.

I'd be that way to If i had to deal with everything he's dealt with during his 4 yrs. To top it off he's had to deal with the monsters down in Florida, the worse in 130 years. I wonder if that had anything to do with his demeanor?