14) Debate Live!
September 30th, 2004Bush still comes off as way-too eager. Instead of a cool and calm
debater, he get’s very excited and tries to respond without leave of the
moderator. I know this doesn’t matter, in the greater scheme of things
… And is how I would react, but I am not a professional! The Prez
needs to calm down.
Also, it’s hard for Kerry to call Bush a unilateral world actor
(concerning Iraq) and then complain that he is not acting unilateral
enough (!) when reacting to Iran & N. Korea.
Did Kerry just mention “Back-door draft?” Oh, no he di’int! That
was crazy, he’s trying his hardest to rerun the 72 campaign … He
really is. I swear to God that Kerry wants this to be a peace, love, and
understanding campaign in the face of a cruel and cold Nixon.
Unfortunately, this is not the 70’s, this is not Vietnam, and Bush is
not Nixon.
Kerry’s position is not really as confused and contradictory as it
seems. His position is simple: I am against whatever Bush is for, if you
hate him then vote for me! That’s why saying we “went it alone” in Iraq
and then “we’re not doing enough” in N. Korea. Unfortunately, people who
hate Bush enough to vote for Kerry, are already going to vote for Kerry.
Which swing states, and undecided voters is he appealing to? None that I
know!
Runester,
Kerry saying that something needs to be done about N. Korea and Iran does not equate to him saying that we should attack them unilaterally. You are injecting your own biases into his message..
your friend,
BK
Well, yeah! Of course I’m biased, this is my journal! 8^)
Anyway, what I was trying to say (and didn’t do too well at) was that in one sentence Kerry criticized Bush for acting unilaterally when he decided to go to war in Iraq - then he criticized Bush for not acting unilaterally when trying to deal with N. Korea. So, Bush should have exhausted all possible diplomatic options with Iraq (which some of us argue, he did) but should throw up his hands and cut out all of the other players interested in working with us to contain / influence N. Korea?
To be fair, though, none of that is even the point. Clinton did the whole bilateral agreement with N. Korea, and they lied, cheated, and developed nuclear weapons - while accepting financial and other aid. Why would we do that again? If we know they cannot be trusted, and will use this as one more excuse to hold off western reaction in order to give them even more time to build their missiles … why repeat a failed policy? Personally, I suspect that Bush wants China involved, because they are apt to get a lot more brutal then America is willing to. They could put 200K soldiers on the border of N. Korea and then proceed with the negotiation … something we would not do.
On the other hand, thanks for the comment ~BK. It’s good to know that my readership in the tens of unique viewers has a few friends included!