"Cheney's glaring weak spot was the way he handled the domestic AIDS question."

I disagree really on this point. I thought Cheney handled the dmoestic AIDS question rather well. Edwards, however, did not talk about it at all during his alotted time. And the moderator you could tell was ticked off about that when she made a 'snap' in her voice as she went ot the next question.

Edwards kept going back to previous question trying to make up traction and Cheney kept him on the defensive almost the entire time.

Good debate, and definitely an advantage to Cheney. Edwards would have done better if he could have got a footstep, but Cheney was relentless in allowing it.

Cheney admitting ignorance of the statistic was weak. He was unprepared for the question and talked about international when she specified domestic. I thought it was weak.

I think Cheney definitely won this debate, although I am not sure that it will have much influence on the race, other than to maybe remind some voters enchanted by Kerry's style in the presidential debate, just how weak he really is on defense issues.

One thing that really bothered me about Edwards is that he kept going back to questions already asked rather than asking the question that was asked. It was annoying.

I totally agree that the questions this time around were better and more balanced, and I thought she had some pretty challenging questions for Edwards to answer, and made him try to defend why their ticket would do better, rather than spend the whole time making Cheney defend the administration.

I was bothered though that the whole foriegn policy time was allotted to Iraq, other than the Halliburton question. I would have liked to have seen some N Korea and Iran specific questions, as well as maybe a passing mention of the Oil for Food scandal at the UN.

I agree that his answer on domestic AIDS was weak, but I have to admit my first response to the questions was other than CDC type education and record keeping, I don't know that it is the federal governments job to solve the AIDS crisis, but then I tend to think the government has far exceeded its constitutional scope in what it should be doing.

Plus, I really doubt anyone is going to be choosing the next president based on what the VP candidate said about aids in the US.

Did Edwards put him away? NO

Did he need to? NO

Did undecideds have a favourable impression of Cheney before the debate? NO

Are their impresions of Cheney likely to have been changed by this debate? NO

So the net result is a wash and on to the next debate. The one thing undecideds might take away from this debate is that Cheney - Kerry would be a better face-off and given the chimps performance in the 1st debate, why isn't Cheney president? or is he?

Cheney destroyed Edwards for most of the debate. It looked like "rope a dope" to me. I think the most important obliteration came when Cheney corrected the 90% troops statistic, Edwards reiterated the wrong statistic, and brilliantly scolded Edwards for his disrespect for the Iraqi troops.

The point is that the VP debate is a job interview! The job? Take over as President in a heartbeat.

And IF that moment comes it will, by definition, be a moment of grave national crisis.

Edwards flunked the job interview. And the country doesn't need a "trial lawyer in chief". The country needs an effective Vice-President prepared and capable to be President. Clearly that was and is Cheney! PERIOD.

Are their impresions of Cheney likely to have been changed by this debate? NO

I think that you are wrong on this one. Many folks probably thought that Cheney makes that Darth Vader breathing noise when he speaks ...

Democrats are dominating the VP debate online polls. People can vote at cnn.com
and joe.msnbc.com we need to get Cheney's #'s up...right now like
70% are saying edwards won. The DNC Chairman has a coordinated effort
to win these polls.
Trent

Bill, spot on regarding domestic AIDS issue. I cringed for him. Cheney looked like an evil scientist which was amplified by his inability to show anything but his bottom teeth when his mouth is open.

Was Edwards doing origami? I kept hearing paper ripping.

Overall, I call it a tie (reluctantly). Polls on CNN and MSNBC are showing 70% Edwards, 30% Cheney. Do conservatives and republicans have slower web connections, or are these numbers an accurate reflection of opinion?

What do you think of this working theory (assuming a 30-70 split, which was the average) -- the country consists of approximately 30% conservatives. Normal republicans, undecided voters, democrats, and liberals were willing to admit that Kerry won the first debate -- most likely these people make up the remaining 70% of the votes tallied.

Note, I'm not suggesting that this has anything to do with the final vote on Nov. 2. I'm only addressing the willingness to admit that Kerry won the first debate. It seems that the hardcore conservatives would never admit defeat. The numbers from the VP debate should be interesting tomorrow.

The online polls are meaningless.

The Godfather takes care of business. This wasn't even close. Edwards must have left a puddle in his chair. That was such a poor performance for Edwards that it is bound to hurt the ticket. It was that bad.

It was that bad in fact that even the punditry isn't even trying to spin Edwards out of the @sskicking he just received.

..one thing Cheney did was put this wimp in his place..fact after fact after fact..if you are still undecided who belongs in the WH..that scares me..please wear a sign so we can avoid you...

"The DNC Chairman has a coordinated effort to win these polls."

trent: You have posted the first conspiracy theory. Congrats! How do you suppose he did it? Did he hand out high speed computers, and purchase extra bandwidth? Or do you think he's in cahoots with the ultimate god of the web who controls access to websites (wait, that's a silly proposition). Spin control in place here. Don't start.

If you have to worry about on-line voting results of msnbc and cnn, we can't help you. The American people saw Dick Cheney take a young Mr. Edwards out behind the woodshed and give him a nice paddling. And don't think the American people didn't see who's ready to be one-heartbeat away from the Presidency.

In addition, Kerry's voting record in the Senate is finally on the table and is ripe for President Bush to take advantage of on Friday.

John Edwards files a lawsuit...

After being knocked out by Vice-President Cheney during the debate, John Edwards has decided to file assault and battery charges against the VP. Cheney replied that the assault was captured on videotape and it was obvious the Edwards threw the first punch, therefore his actions to render his opponent helpless was only performed as an act of self-defense.(j/k)

Bill from INDC

You know I'm right!

The public saw the same Cheney they have allways seen, but last week they saw an image of the president that's been hinted at but carefully hidden from public view. If we see more of that or worse, having a heavywight VP isn't gonna save him.

Anonymous Scientist -

Actually, both parties were trying to spin the polls, it's true ...

And the Dems have been more successful at organizing poll stuffing. But the online polls are meaningless.

I wonder if Edwards, being a typical liberal, will file an abuse suit against Cheney for having spanked him so soundly.

Hmmmmm.

My personal favorite line of the evening was: "Classic example: He won't count the contribution, the sacrifice of our Iraqi allies." Ouch! But I loved Cheney's conspiracy theory (Kerry flip-flopped to compete with Dean as the anti-war candidate in the primaries, then flip-flopped again to compete with Bush as a toughguy in the election). I hadn't heard that particular theory before, and Cheney used it to good effect. Edwards had nothing but "Kerry has been consistent" in response, and that's so obviously patent BS that I think he hurt himself there.

Bushman: I'm not sure what you meant when you said, "If you have to worry about on-line voting results of msnbc and cnn, we can't help you." For the record, I've already admitted (reluctantly) that I think it was a tie. I just thought it was interesting to mention the online polls. I don't agree with Bill that they are "useless". Something must explain the sudden closing of the gap between presidential candidates. The only thing I can think of is the debate. Many people speculated that the online polls were irrelevant immediately after the first debate. They said that online polls are not an accurate reflection of reality. But here we are, with closer "offline" presidential polls than pre-debate.

Cheney smartly passed a few times, that came off good with me - I don't know why.

The Edwards' "everything is a complete mess in Iraq - beheadings, etc." whatever, doesn't work with me as well as the "needed more troops, no plan for the peace" arguments.

Cheney didn't even try to answer the Halliburton deal.

Cheney scored a knockdown with the "if you can't stand up to Howard Dean how can you stand up to Usama". This rang true with what I remember about the Primaries.

Edwards kept going backwards and he pissed off the moderator more than a few times.

Tora Bora and Gay Marriage were just glancing blows, Halliburton was one notch better. On the other side, the Senate record, vote against Desert Storm, the Howard Dean crack, and the "I just met you today" - scored.

I give it to Cheney on the margin - the real victim is Kerry.

I think Edwards did pretty decent, but he let himself get bitch slapped at least 3 times. So he was effectively steamrolled.

But Gwen Ifel did an excellent job. Way better than I was expecting.

Bill, we have all seen these "urban legend" e-mail chains. Just because it's on a website doesn't make it true. Do you really believe that a random e-mail (spam) is going to move someone to turn on the computer, go to a website, and cast a vote? E-mail like this is more annoying than anything.

I argue that anyone who bothers to cast an online vote will cast an online vote without the e-mail suggestion. It's a silly argument anyway. I just think it would be really boring to see a bunch of posts regarding spinning the online vote. Both sides are doing this, so both sides are represented. And, you can only vote one time anyway (don't preach to me about robots, deleting cookies, etc. - I write this type of code every day - I know the possibilities).

Matt

Since when were Iraqi security forces part of the Iraq invasion force ?

Don't think about it for too long, your head may explode!

Good job on the blog, Bill. My only quibble is that I'd say it's official that Andrew Sullivan lost his capacity for objective analysis months ago. He has turned into the new MoDo. Let's call him AnSu.

Cheney admitting ignorance of the statistic was weak. He was unprepared for the question and talked about international when she specified domestic. I thought it was weak. Posted by Bill from INDC at October 5, 2004 11:41 PM

No, No. no. This was Ifell’s low moment in an otherwise fine job as moderator.

AIDs has been on board now in Society for more than two decades and if young black women don’t know about it and how you might catch it, it is not the fault of hyperactive government or media programs, but of a Black subculture that owes nothing whatsoever to Dick Cheney or George Bush. Does that make them bad men that they have other things on their minds than the idiocy of young black women who –after a full twenty years of being warned – sleep with Badd Boyz?

And why on God’s earth should Cheney have known Ifell’s stats? Are they, in fact, true? Anyone?

"Does the sound of Susan Estrich's voice make anyone else hot? Hello? Hello?"

Someone needs to give Susan Estrich a blue-swirlie. Dunk her head in a toliet bowl and wash the drivel out.

"I can't decide whether he does himself a disservice by just (wrongly) citing factcheck.com (it's '.org') and dismissing it"

Bill: I think he would have been better off by not pointing people to factcheck.com or factcheck.org First, factcheck.com points to GeorgeSoros.com - the headline on his homepage is "Bush is endangering our safety, hurting our vital interests, and undermining American values." ha, ha ha! That's just funny!

Factcheck.org may give an uneducated voter more info than either candidate is interested in revealing.

Ha, ha, ha - GeorgeSoros.com!

Oops, I accidentally put the wrong link for factcheck.org

Re "Global Test" see my post on Roger L. Simon's site.

Global test my foot!!!

[...]

The L.A.M.E. (Liberal American Media Establishment) has failed in its jounalistic responsibility to objectively inform the American people on a number of stories. Rathergate is just the tip of the iceberg.

With whom will Sen. Kerry seek counsel?

The UN is nothing more than a sham nowadays. They can pass resolution after resolution until the cows come home. The genocide in Sudan is still taking place by the Islamofascists who pay no heed to these missives.

[...]

Read more here

Ron Wright, Moderator
HSPIG Forums Site
www.hspig.org

DISCLAIMER - These are not the opinions/positions of my employer and/or organizations I'm affiliated.

"Cheney admitting ignorance of the statistic was weak. He was unprepared for the question and talked about international when she specified domestic. I thought it was weak."

Cheney went just a bit off the rails there, while apparently trying to decide if Gwen was making up the statistic she cited. He got back, however, and his admission of ignorance seemed appropriate to me, both because he was, in fact, ignorant on that one issue (no shame there) and because I still can't decide if the stat that Gwen used means a hill of beans in the overall AIDS issue in the US.

Susan Estrich? You are one sick SOB, Bill.

Hi all,

I loved the fact that Vice President Cheney relayed the same sentiments that I and others have been writing about regarding kerry, his internationalist quote from the 1970 Crimson regarding UN approval for the use of troops, and his TRUE Global Test remark in full context.

2004 (Global test = I'm an Internationalist) 1970

When you place those two quotes in full context like I did here yesterday, you get the full effect of what Kerry would do if elected.

The Vice President knows the real John Kerry, and I will help him explain this to as many people as I can before election day.

This debate is about the issues and records of the Candidates. Originally I was skeptical about the moderator, but she did an excellant job this evening.

Finally the issue of Kerry and Edwards voting records, and lack thereof, have enetered the election, much to the dismay of democrats, I'm sure.

When the citizens of this nation go to the polls on November 2nd, the records of Both the President and the Junior Senator from Massachusetts will be in play.

And Lehrer was embarrassed tonight compared to how Gwen handled the questions. She was unbaised, as opposed to Lehere who NEVER asked even one question about Kerry's 20 Years in the senate and his record.

Regards,
Sonar5

Online polls are meaningless without a login. I can write a Perl user agent in 10 minutes to repeatedly stuff one.

Whether there is a conspiracy or not taking them with any seriousness is as silly as believing conspiracy theories without evidence.

Ifill was fairer than Lehrer. However, she apparently felt the need to editorialize that the US has been absent from the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, feeding Edwards an easy response to agree with her. Hey, at least she asked a question about Israel, which Leher failed to do in 90 minutes devoted entirely to foreign policy.

Oh and regarding the On-line polls.

I have a theory. Conservatives work for a living and went to bed after the debates since they didn't have any Union Scheduled Campaign office thrashings to do in the morning.

Democrats have trashed a campaign office. Union Thugs, that is, and there have also been two shootings at other Bush Campaign Offices.

This goes to show just how desperate democrats are in this election.

They also have burned crosses into lawns in Madison Wisconsin.

And that is a major difference between why the democratic party is not the same party it was 40 years ago. It is an Extremist party, and they have handed it over to nutjob policy groups who advocate violence, voter fraud, and only have their special interests at heart and not the good of the nation, in my opinion.

Regards,
Joe

I meant swastikas were burned into lawns, not crosses. I mistyped, and I apologize.

the online poll thing is simple, Terry McAwful sent out emails before the first debate and this debate to the DNC faithful to flood the online polls after each debate and flood Letters to the Editor, the funny thing is WaPo took McAwful to task because they were getting Letters to the Editor declaring Kerry's win before the debate even began- remember there was some controversy over some monkey business with voting for American Idol, some allegation that you can program a computer to stack the deck, well I wonder.....just kidding, sort of....

...and yes Republicans work for a living, someone has to support the Democratic base that riots for a living in between collecting welfare checks...

to me the shock of the night was to hear MSNBC with a very liberal panel except Joe Scarborough almost immediately declare Cheney a winner, even Ron Reagan Jr. had to concur that there was a "stature" gap.....and even Tom Brokaw loved Cheney's line, if you can't handle the pressure from Howard Dean, how are you going to handle Al Queda? hilarious.......

Edwards continued to use the 90% of the war's casualties are American as a way of showing this isn't as an international an effort as the Gulf War. Why didn't Cheney point out actually in the Gulf War the portion of coalition casualties was higher - 92%

I thought Cheney had a good response, regarding casualities in Iraq.

We should not take lightly the contributions of everyone in the coalition

Even the President recognizes teh contributions whereas keery/Edwards do not. And that is pathetic on Kerry's part.

And then Edwards basically shuns the Iraqi's and their contributions the same as Kerry snubs Poland and others.

And Cheney nailed him on it. Great job.

This was not unlike a courtroom "debate," an activity for which Mr. Edwards is supposedly especially adept. I've seen enough of them to know, however, that the flash defense attorney (for that is what he is to Kerry) was buried under the older, wiser, prosecutor's confident statement of the facts.

Re: AnSu (loved that!), i.e., Andrew Sullivan: He fell down months ago and can't get up. I understand that the gay marriage issue is personal and important, but I can find no respect for someone who would not only toss his avowed convictions about Bush and the GWOT to the winds, but suddenly avow the opposite stance. He has no reason other than the intensely personal. I'm not against the personal, but one must consider the whole context. If we eventually lose the war, he won't be worried about gay marriage, he'll be worried about keeping his head.

The man has made a perfect fool of himself.

To end on topic (and speaking of fools): Dick Cheney doesn't suffer fools lightly. :)

This statement by the kerry campaign that 90% of the casualties are American. This means that Iraqies are Non People they do not count. This is a fundamentally racist statement in it's assumption. If you cut a Iragy do they not bleed.

KS,
Actually, the 90% of casualties is among the coalition forces, and as I remember it said in the context of how lopsided the contributions to that coalition are, both financial and military. And your connecting the Iraqis to Joseph Merrick with your "do they not bleed" comment could just as easily be said to imply (not assume, by the way) that Iraqis are deformed in some way? Now why would you say that?

The statement is 90% of the casualties. The Iraqies are not in the coalition. Why are they not human are they some kind of lessor form of humanity. The statement implies that the Iraqies deaths are not worthy of being counted. that there lives are of less value. This is a racist view of the world

I think Kerry's and Edwards' penchant for discounting the contributions of the allies who are there is a horrible move in the goal of proving themselves on foreign policy-he keeps stressing the need for more participants, but he can't even praise the people who are already involved.

I think Cheney's stats on the 90% casualty figure were excellent, Edwards had no response, and Cheney had obviously prepared to answer that one.

Wow. Yes, you're right, the Iraqis are not in the coalition. Which makes Iraqi casualties not part of the coalition casualties. Iraqi casualties and coalition casualties are two different things. Their not being part of the coalition does not make them less than human, it just means you can't join a coalition to invade your own country, after the fact. Therefore, US casualties represent 90% of coalition casualties, in which context Kerry and Edwards have been speaking. It's not hard. You'll get it.

mantis -

"Therefore, US casualties represent 90% of coalition casualties, in which context Kerry and Edwards have been speaking. It's not hard. You'll get it."

You are playing with semantics, and you are wrong.

The real point is that John Edwards is specifically discounting the contribution of the Iraqis in the post-war struggle. The new government's security forces and army are, in fact, now part of "the Coalition."

"It's not hard, you'll get it."

"I have a theory. Conservatives work for a living and went to bed after the debates since they didn't have any Union Scheduled Campaign office thrashings to do in the morning."

Sonar5: I love your comments. You are truly a man of wisdom. Keep up the good work.

BTW - How do you know so much about burning crosses, er ah, swastikas?

"The statement is 90% of the casualties."

No, the statement is "90% of the COALITION casualties."

Since when is the country we invaded part of the coalition? Having Allawi announce that they are doesn't exactly fill me with confidence, since he wasn't democratically elected (installed by the occupying power doens't exactly count).

Personally, I'd give a narrow victory to Cheney:

-Ifill was awful. Her questions were good, but she let the candidates walk all over her. Even I was sick of Edwards going back to the last question by the end.

-It was 90 minutes of hand-to-hand combat. Both men landed some solid punches (and who knows what the reasonable Zeitgeist will latch onto). Cheney ketp talking about the war on terror and repeating his ridiculous conspiracy theories (WMD, Saddam-Al Qaeda), while Edwards went for a "kitchen sink" approach (Cheney opposed MLK!)

-Cheney was statesmen like. He alsways has been. I can't understand how Bush and Edwards seem incapable of holding themselves together for 90 minutes. A Kerry-Cheney ticket would actually be the best combo of the four.

-Both men missed serious opportunities to go after the other. All Children Left Behind just sat out there, though Edwards finally got to it (2 questions later, or something).

-It's clear who wears the pants in the White House.

In the end, because it was a narrow victory for Cheney (as opposed to the resounding victory for Kerry Thursday), I think people are going to just chalk it up to experience and wait for the Big One...Friday's debate.

That's gonna be a doozy.

"Since when is the country we invaded part of the coalition?"

I think you can include them, considering they are the ones working jointly with the forces there. Also, Kerry has a record of slamming anyone and anything involved with the effort, because France didn't want to play too.

"Ifill was awful. Her questions were good, but she let the candidates walk all over her. Even I was sick of Edwards going back to the last question by the end.
"

I actually agree with this, Edwards tendancy to backtrack to already asked questions was driving me crazy. I told my husband that if it was Bill O'Rielly moderating the debate he would have told Edwards "no" of course this is probably why he won't ever be asked to moderate a debate.

"In the end, because it was a narrow victory for Cheney (as opposed to the resounding victory for Kerry Thursday), I think people are going to just chalk it up to experience and wait for the Big One...Friday's debate."

I pretty much agree with this, I don't think too many people make up their mind based on the VP debate, although Cheney did land a lot of blows to Kerry in regards to his senate record and his record of being soft on defense, so that may have a small effect, but there really isn't that much electorate out there to sway anymore either, most people have made up there minds.

mantis, yes, and if you don't count Wednesday then a week has six days. I believe the point is that the Iraqi millitary and security forces are, in fact, full-fledged coalition allies now. Which makes them de-facto members of the coalition. They did not "join a coalition to invade their own country", they joined a coalition to help ensure the future of their fellow countrymen and of the new country that was returned to them from the thugs and terrorists they're fighting against. As is clearly shown by their willingness to fight and die beside their other allies.

Since when is the country we invaded part of the coalition?

When their security forces and army are part of a newly installed government that's an ally of the US.

1. Semantics
2. You are caught up in the standard passion play that we are we (the West) and they are them (the Iraqis). Whether you like it or not, the new government headed by Allawi is indeed "Part of the Coalition."

You denigrate them and minimize the rest of your argument by middling over this point. Edwards was smacked around by Cheney on that one in a similar manner.

And moebius -

I'd say the rest of your debate analysis is more-or-less right on, though I think you overstate Cheney's role in decision-making. But either way, I'm comfortable with that.

"When their security forces and army are part of a newly installed government that's an ally of the US."

Well, one that's been INSTALLED by the US, anyway. If we gave the Iraqi people an actual vote on the matter, who knows what would happen.

The Iraqis are NOT part of the Coalition; the Coalition refers to the countries that made a choice to go in and get Saddam, then stabilize Iraq against the insurgents. The Iraqi police forces (the worst and most thankless job in the world right now, bar none) are members of the Coalition only insofar as they are stuck in a situation they never wanted to be in in the first place.

Have the Iraqi's sacrificed a great deal in this endavour? Absolutely. Is that a noble sacrifice? Yes. Did they CHOOSE to be in this situation? Absolutely not.

Edwards point, while effectively questioned by Cheney, stands: the US has been too isolated in its endeavours to secure and stabilize Iraq, and we are in desperate need of SOMETHING to get the job done. That means troops from the Arab street, and a reconstruction effort from the EU (another ball Edwards dropped...his "Reconstruction -->Buy-in-->Commitment" argument could have been incredibly effective was incredibly persuasive, but not followed up).

The Administration isn't focusing on these efforts. Instead, we're getting a thinly-veiled "Vienamization" that is destined to fail.

The basic point (you need an edit function!) is that Iraq is not properly part of a "Coalition of the Willing"...because they WEREN'T particularly willing. We need to create a situation where fewer Iraqis are dying (and that includes the police, who are more properly victims in all this), and that means the US has to stop trying to do this by itself.

I think that the most significant lasting development of this debate is that the K/E mantra of "90% of the casualties; 90% of the cost" is now verboten. They won't dare say it again. This was a major part of their case against the war in Iraq. Read here for more.

The US has to stop trying to do this by itself? What are you talking about? The current coalition has more countries than the Korean War did. Who else do you want? France? they are more trouble than they are worth. Germany? same. China? bad idea and never gonna happen.

Brtitain is worth 4 Frances miltarily and Autralia is worth 2 easy. Kerry denigrates poland who has thousands of troops in Iraq and actually likes us.

The only other country who has signifacnt miltary pull is Russia and hopefully you can see the problems with that. When you take the oil for food UNSCAM into account your point becomes completely ludicrous. Wake up! Countries operate off of self interest. France is never going to be that helpful. Not because they are evil nd they hate us but because that is how france has played international politics for hundreds of years.

The idea that we can suddently get "world approval" is so naive that it verges on insanity. You accuse Bush of not having enough allies yet he has 30. Do you realize that the colaition includes 2 of 3 the most most wealthy nations in the world? the US and Japan. The other one is China. Take off your asshat.

I always thought Daddy should be on top of the ticket. For all the bitching one hears about the electoral college, no one ever notices that it's impossible for someone from Wyoming, Montana or Idaho to become president.

Did anyone hear that big RIIIPP! when Cheney was closing? Probably an Edwards tactic to fuss around when opposing counsel is cross-examining the plaintiff.

Posted by Anonymous Scientist at October 6, 2004 08:19 AM

"BTW - How do you know so much about burning crosses, er ah, swastikas?"

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

Too easy Anonymous Alleged Scientist,

You see, the Swastikas Burned on the lawn in madison Wisconsin was very easily confused by another democrat RACIST, that of none other than that ADMITTED Racist Democratic Senator Robert Byrd, admitted KKK member. He is a racist, the KKK burned Crosses, some of them supported swastikas too, and the leap is not too far to make. Those types of Violent Pathetic actions need to be condenmed by everyone, but apparently not you, as you chose to attack me on it instead of the message.

This is another example of Racist views by democrats, violence begets their party of nutjobs, and you try to turn it on me without even condemning the acts. Another sad example.

Let's me know where you stand. well, I have my integrity.

Did you get a good chuckle out of the burning as well?

Typical of you in your responses. The best you can do is attack me instead of the message, even as you ignored any Logical opportunity to defend it.

You are no better than Edwards who didn't even bother to acknowledge the Iraqi's who are dying when given the chance.

It is becoming obvious what the democratic party in this country stands for.

Racist Violence, contempt for allies, Voter disenfranchising, and a penchant for adhering to policies meant to destroy our constitution, our way of life, and submit to the will of France, and The United Nations.

You sir edged as similar response as Edwards did last evening.

So Typical.

Have a day,
Sonar5

And Bill,

He started this attack on me, please note that. I said nothing to him in my above posts, only relating facts which he chose to ignore.

That is the spirit in which he didn't mean his apology the other day, when given the first chance to respond to a discussion, he IGNORES the discussion and chooses to attack me instead.

Bill, I will always defend myself whenever attacked.

Regards,
Joe

Ctob:

"The current coalition has more countries than the Korean War did. Who else do you want? France? they are more trouble than they are worth. Germany? same. China? bad idea and never gonna happen."

Waita NOT engage with the arguement. No argument here that France and Germany won't send troops. My suggestion was for troops from other ARAB states. Troops that might have a little more legitimacy than "Occidental Occupiers." Money, on the other hand, is painless to give.

"Kerry denigrates poland who has thousands of troops in Iraq and actually likes us."

2500 troops is technically "thousands," yes, but Poland also does not like the fact that they were hoodwinked on the WMD. They aren't pulling their troops out because Kerry didn't give them a shout out in the debate...unless they know something we don't about how our election will turn out.

"Wake up! Countries operate off of self interest."

Yes, you are absolutely right, which is why Edwards' "buy in" chain actually make sense. Shutting France out of the reconstruction money will NOT play to their self-interest. Giving them a buy-in in terms of reconstruction MIGHT. No bid contracts to Republican donors will NOT encourage other countries to help.

"The idea that we can suddently get "world approval" is so naive that it verges on insanity. You accuse Bush of not having enough allies yet he has 30."

Thirty and dropping. How many have we lost now? 3? 4?

"Do you realize that the colaition includes 2 of 3 the most most wealthy nations in the world? the US and Japan."

Japan's pulling its troops.

I hope we can all pull out our troops in the future.

As more and more Iraqi's get trained, that is the Goal.

As Iraq emerges ss a Democracy the democrats will scream as we pull out our troops, see told you so...

What a bunch of hypocrites.

And Poland had 6500, not 2500, and 17 of them died for the freedom of the Iraqi's.

You know, there is agood article about the President of Poland that the insignificant major media won't run above the fold, but will bury it.

I suggest you read it, for what Kerry means to others in the world.

Read about Poland's Presidents' Comments here. Here

Regards,
Sonar5

"the Coalition refers to the countries that made a choice to go in and get Saddam, then stabilize Iraq against the insurgents. "

Your definition has two problems.

It discounts any countries that sent troops in after the initial invasion, and more importantly by the second half of the definition, Iraq does meet the requirement and is in fact a member of the coalition, since they are seeking to stabilize Iraq against the insurgents.

Sonar5-

According to a Brookings Institute Iraq report updated on the 4th of October (2004), Poland has the 3rd largest non-US troop compliment, at 3,000.

www.brookings.edu/iraqindex

And Don't believe everything you hear about Poland pulling out. That statement was made by the Defence Minister in Poland, and has been rebuffed.

You folks need to get the facts straight and do some research before spewing mistruths about a Poland Withdrawel.

I suggest Google, but I've already done the work for you.

Regards,
Sonar5

From:
Read about a Withdrawel Here

"5th October 2004

Storm bursts around when to pull troops out of Iraq

From Poland A.M.

"No matter what the situation will be like in Iraq, we should withdraw our army from that country by the end of 2005", announced Defense Minister Jerzy Szmajdziński yesterday morning in an interview for TVN24.

These words led to an angry response from Prime Minister Marek Belka, a denial from President Aleksander Kwaśniewski and numerous jokes from opposition parties. Later in the day, Foreign Minister Włodzimierz Cimoszewicz declared that a date of withdrawing from Iraq has not been settled. Also, President Kwaśniewski during his visit to Paris, had to make a statement on the issue, saying that while this date is being considered, it is not definite. Prime Minister Belka, who could not hide his anger, claimed that Szmajdziński's announcement was not discussed with him beforehand. (Rzeczpospolita, p. A1) A.K. "

And according to THE PRESIDENT OF POLAND, it was 6500, I'll take his word for how many troops he has committed.

Maybe it is that number now, but it was 6500.

Either way, it was Underestimated above, and is probably not the main point, which is they gave 17 of their countrymen's lives so that Iraq can be free.

Well sonar5 made the point about poland pulling. My remarks about thousands was perfectly reasonable 2500 is significantly between 10000 and 1000. If it had been 25000 I would have said tens of thousands. I don't think this is misleading.

So again I ask who? Turkey? They already refused to help. They wouldn't even let us move troops through. Iran? Syria? Saudi Arabia? Hasn't there been all sorts of flack for bush consorting with saudis. Kuwait?

As for the buy in point, this is a legitimate point of difference. You think it will motivate them to help. I do not. I think France has made it fairly clear they will obstruct us as much as possible with out being antagonistic. I believe they still play a detente sort of game. If you don't think so, well its possible.

Yes...underestimated by 500 troops. A terrible error...

Oh, and by the way...you're wrong.

From the AFP article you've looked at, I assume:

"The key US ally, which heads a multinational force of 6,500 administering a swathe of south central Iraq to which it sent more than 2,500 of its own troops, will hand over control of the province of Karbala, he said."

Poland is ADMINISTERING a force of 6,500 troops...including troops from states other than Poland. Poland itself has "sent more than 2500 of its own troops."

Understand the distinction?

"And Don't believe everything you hear about Poland pulling out. That statement was made by the Defence Minister in Poland, and has been rebuffed."

All you've managed to do is show that certain parties weren't happy with the announcement...not surprising since the Defense minister seems to have broken party protocol. Kind of like certain parties weren't happy with Bremer's announcement.

"Bizarrely failed to slam his opponent's lack of experience, which Eiffel handed him on a silver platter."

i noticed that too, but i think Cheney's response was appropriate. He was winning after all, and he knew it.

I don't think Bremmer has the position to judge on Troop Strengths. he wasn't the military Commander with that decision.

I've read where Bremmer stated he gave opinion on troop strength, that doesn't mean the President or the Commanders in the field had to take his advice, they considered this and then the President made his decision.

This wasn't up to him to decide, and rarely in Government do all parties to a conversation agree.

We only need to look at when our kids ask for semthing and we say no, you don't need that.

If Bremmer was the Military Commander in the field, and not the Civilian one, I would heed more credence to his claim.

He has also backed off of that statement in a Speech at Michigan Stet University, but don't look for the MSM to fully report that either.

Sonar,

Fair enough. Still, Bremer had a first hand account of the situation in Iraq, and for a major player in the Reconstruction to break ranks is quite serious.

"He has also backed off of that statement in a Speech at Michigan Stet University, but don't look for the MSM to fully report that either."

I caught that...I believe his response was "I never meant for that to go on record.

You NEVER say anything in front of a public audience that you don't expect to hear about in the news the next day.

Oh, and while Cheney's "I never met you before tonight" hit last night was a great one, it was also a lie (or at least a half truth). Dudge reported on it this morning, including a picture of the two sitting together. Unless it was another "Hanoi John" forgery...but I'm not sure what the VRWC would gain from that.

I agree, Cheney messed up on that one.

Maybe he meant that he never saw him on a tuesday or when he Presided as president of The Senate.

Either way, Edwards never responded to his truancy in the senate, and he should have.

That is how they are being framed, and I think it is working. I like that of course.

And I'm all for discussing their Senate Records, but they hide from them.

Regards,
Sonar5

dude, Susan Estrich is hot? you seem in otherwise control of your faculties... so is this a Bill version of the Jeff G monkeydance/edwards bunnies that I don't really get? cause just hearing Estrich's name gives me the willies.