Runester

Was there a clear winner? I don’t think so. I liked the presentation of both, and no one made any mistakes or blunders (as far as I could tell). They are both master debaters! (snicker, snicker …)

I really think that based on content, people are going to choose the person they ALREADY agreed with. So, Rep’s think that Cheney won and Dem’s think that Edwards won. I really don’t think many minds are going to be changed. Unlike the first debate, neither’s performance was a blunder.

What do I think? (just in case anyone cares). I think that Cheney was more succinct, used real numbers, pointed to specific accomplishments and specific plans. [I also think he made half a dozen snarky remarks to/at Edwards, a little sarcastic and a little funny!] I think that Edwards harped too much on health care without explaining what their plan really is and while using some very convoluted logic concerning allies / success / Iraq.

Halliburton came up, several times. All charges connecting Cheney with Halliburton misdeeds are insinuations. Why insinuations? Because they have been investigated multiple times, and by those who would benefit by exposing any connections … and they have found no wrong doing on Cheney’s part. Funny, these investigations are not mentioned by the Dem’s who seem to say “Halliburton” and then wink as if, “you know what I mean.” Well, guess what - I do know what they mean. They mean, insinuation and mud slinging, regardless of facts or fairness, is a better tactic then facing the public with their own record.

I just heard quite a LIE on FoxNews on the part of the Dem analysis of the debate. Cheney said that Saddam was NOT connected to 9/11 but WAS connected to Al Qaeda. That is not conjecture, that is proven and has been included in multiple reports. So, the lie … is that stating that there was an Iraq / Al Qaeda connection implies an Iraq / 9/11 connection. NO, IT DOES NOT! The implication is that Saddam had ties to multiple terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda, and that he had & used WMD’s (and may still have had them at the start of the war … at least according to the worlds intelligence agencies, and agreed to by both Kerry & Edward); so the threat posed by a state with WMD’s and terrorist ties was and is very real.

The WMD’s weren’t there. That’s not an embarrassment, that’s a relief. We are safer today, because they weren’t there … we needed to act, and after acting properly discovered that the threat was not as grave as suspected does not negate the decision.

Here’s an analogy. Picture a policeman coming upon a murder. He sees a victim, shot to death. He sees a suspect standing over the victim, and holding something like a gun in his hand. The policeman asks the suspect to disarm, the suspect refuses. The policeman draws his gun and demands the suspect disarm and show his hands; the suspect again refuses. The policeman, looking at the evidence available and confronted with what he believes is an armed and dangerous and belligerent assailant … he fires and injures him. Now, does the existence, or lack their of, of a gun on the suspect retroactively change the policeman’s decision? Is it reasonable to stand in agreement with the policeman’s decision up until the weapon is discovered to be an unloaded gun instead of a loaded one?

This is a fair analogy. Saddam had WMD’s and used them on the Kurds and on Iran. He refused to allow UN inspectors to verify they had been destroyed; repeatedly refusing all efforts to confirm their status and violated every UN sanction for twelve years. That puts him in the role of potentially armed and belligerent suspect. Further, now that the regime has been toppled and no WMD’s have been found, we can say that the apparatus and means of producing more DID exist. That sounds a lot like an unloaded gun to me. So, Kerry & Edwards agreed with the decision until it was made and no WMD’s were found? So, the result retroactively negates the decision? I don’t accept that, and I don’t respect people who do.

Personally, I’d rather have Cheney for president then Bush. VP will have to do.