"mexed messages" talking point one, two and twelve through 36. 30 minutes of material brought to a 90 minute debate -- poor performance by Bush.

I read Kerry's plan on the website, before I read this post. We came to the same conclusion it seems. HOW? How is Kerry going to do what he says should be done?

I think the reason Kerry doesn't go deeper into the plan is because the American people will have a HOW question of our own.

How are we going to pay for it??

Mark: You're right, it was a poor performance by Bush. He lost the debate. However, I don't think Kerry won anything by winning the debate. He survived and didn't have a meltdown. Thats a bonus, and it makes the next 2 debates necessary.

Kerry did a lot of talking but didnt say a damn thing of any substance. He has absolutely no idea what ittakes to be President.

I agree. Kerry said very little about his plans. His emphasis was Monday morning quarterbacking. He was playing attack lawyer, not President. Which attack lawyer do you pick Kerry as? Ken Starr, Johnny Cochran? He wasn't even close sympathetic enough to be Perry Mason.

Yours,
Wince

Jerry:

I think it was incredibly ballsy of Bush to criticize Kerry's domestic security plan by wondering how he would pay for it. Considering that Bush puts his own tax cuts ahead of domestic security right now.

I believe that the "4-point plan" that Kerry referred to is this:

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/

..which doesn't look so esoteric that it couldn't be explained during the debates.

Is this indeed the "plan" he's referring to? Has anyone seem anything else on his website that might quality?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what his "plan" is. As he stated in his speech, he's going to unilaterally cut our nuke program. He wants to get us out of Iraq 6 months after he takes office. This is the old "cut bait and run like hell" plan. If you don't think he's serious, take a look at what he and his buddies did to the South Vietmanese. We pulled out of Vietnam and cut aid. This man is experienced in retreat and defeat. The stakes are little higher this time. Do you really want this war to come back to our shores? If you do, he's your man.

I think Kerry's 4-point Iraq plan is actually here:
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/iraq.html

Ralph,

He made an awfully strong statement about finishing the job in Iraq. He could use his powers of nuance for good by calling a small force reduction and the establishment of permanent bases "bringing the boys home". Are you contending he will use his powers of nuance for evil by declaring victory and going home?

Use your great powers of nuance for good, Kerry-san!

Yours,
Wince

Honestly, and I know I'll probably get crucified for saying this, but I agree with Kerry that it's completely hypocritical to expect other countries to disarm and give up their WMDs when we won't do the same. Or at least take steps to start reducing the numbers of ours. After all, we're the only country to actually use nukes. And please don't start the argument that we only did it to end the WWII war in the Pacific and that it ultimately saved lives. We killed hundreds of thousands of civilians (with the actual bombing and the after effects of the radiation) in order to save tens of thousands of our own soldiers. I don't think that's a fair trade.

Kathy,

Yes, and it is completely hypocritical for the police to disarm felons. The Germans were prohibited from having machine guns (the WMD of the time) after WWI, too. They cheated, BTW.

Yours,
Wince

Kathy,

Do you also believe it is hypocritical to take guns away from criminals and allow law abiding citizens the right to bear arms?

Should I give up my gun before the criminal does?

I understand what your saying but I don't think that we should ever go first. Let's say we get rid of everything. Then N.Korea and Iran tell us to fuck off and keep theirs. What position would Kerry have put us in?

Kathy,
Our nuclear stockpiles are at 1958 levels. We cut, cut and cut. What did we end up with? Pakistan and NK becoming nuclear powers. I'm all for setting an example but I think this is yet another example of failure on the part of the UN.

http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nudb/dafig9.asp

As for Japan, it's generally accepted that at least a million people would have died in an invasion of mainland Japan. This would include US troops, Japanese troops and Japanese civilians. Based on my knowledge of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, I don't think 200,000 people died total. You need to look at Dresden for an example of how convential weapons can be equally or more so devestating. Japanese industrial hubs would have been devestated in a like manner in order for the invasion to have succeeded.

Kathy -

Yes, you're going to catch heat on this. I agree with Ralph and the facts, not opinion, bear Truman's decision out. The US was alone in finishing the war off in Japan. Truman received intelligence that over 500,000 Japanese troops were massing to defend Japan against a ground invasion and would "fight to the last man". The casualty count of a ground invasion would be horrendous for US troops as well as Japanese troops and civilians. Truman made the hard call and brought the Japanese to the bargaining table, something they were unwilling to do until Nagasaki happened.

http://www.milnet.com/nukeweap/hiroshima/hiroshima.htm

And before you cry "foul", remember this was war and Japan made the choice to enter into it against us and their refusal to surrender at the end forced Truman to act. Perhaps Truman could have engaged the Japanese in "nuanced dialogue" except that line of BS didn't exist back then.

I'd say it's really sad that people here think that we're so perfect and right, and can never see that we're intimidating to others, and the reason they WANT nuclear weapons is for the same reason the soviets wanted them. M.A.D.

I do think we need to limit our research into such things as tac-nukes(which is what Kerry said)...

Do you think it's easier to get a little uranium from a rogue state, or pick up a UXO from a battlefield in order to process it? How would a tac-nuke work, like an RPG?

You guys complain about Kerry not giving details. What the HELL did Bush give? Nothing...

All strut, no substance.

He's misleading anyways. 100,000 troops trained? Less then 10,000 are fully trained. At this rate and in the climate in Iraq, how are you going to train this many troops in enough time? Kerry would pull the troops into stable allied countries, and train them there.

We're not gonn convince each other anyways, so why are we really arguing the point?

Kerry has plenty of problems as a candidate, but a lack of wordiness is not among them. The Bush debate team hoped to capitalize on his rambling with the podium lights, but I think it had the opposite effect of indicating to Kerry when he was in "Boring!" territory. If there's one thing the America voter hates, its being bored (cf. Gore).

I agree that the answer to the question of 'How are we getting out of Iraq?' was not answered effectively by Kerry. Unfortunately for Bush, this question contains a tacit assumption that getting out of Iraq is important, and asking this question puts the election into Kerry territory. Its hard to envision a better outcome of this debate for Kerry than this. Another major coup for the Kerry team was the focus on nuclear proliferation. The administration has been hammering on theme of "terrorists with WMD" for a long time, and Kerry simply picked up the meme. Bush practically handed the ball to Kerry on this one.

Kerry's remarks on nuclear proliferation was one of the few unscripted and genuine points in the debate, and possibly the campaign. This seems like an issue that Kerry is personally concerned with, even the reason he got into politics in the first place. Offering to give North Korea and Iran fuel that can only be used for the peaceful purposes the claim to want it for is an innovative idea that may not actually work, but puts us on a solid track to involve other nations in committing troops if military action becomes necessary.

Well Dave, we'll argue until you get your facts straight - I'll refer you to General Sharp's recent briefing about the state of police training in Iraq - suffice it to say there are nearly 40K who have completed the 8 week training academy and are ready to go onto the street. The stated goal is to get the force up to 135K.

Read on - the numbers are around the middle of the page, and its not only their police force we're building up - - you think this stuff happens over night? They are volunteering in droves mainly because its a job and they all need one, but also because they are tired of bad guys terrorizing their neighborhoods and blowing people up.

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20040920-1322.html

Ironically what they need isn't people, its vehicles - you think Oprah or Pontiac would donate some vehicles to Iraq? Hmmm...nah.

And yes, the Iraqi police recruits are doing their training in Iraq, where the terrorists (err, insurgents, err freedom fighters) are trying to kill them faster as we can train them. They know its only a matter of time until the scales tip against them - that or until Kerry gets elected. As for training, let's jet the Iraqi police trainees off to Switzerland so they can train at the posh Insitut Montana where Kerry did a hitch as a boarding student. We'll teach them to shoot weapons in a nuanced, non-threatening manner, and the Swiss can teach them to yodel and hide money in Swiss bank accounts. Oh, and ski. Gotta learn how to ski while you're there.

Dave,
I personally read blogs and comments because I'm interested in the opinions of other people. I'm committed to be as informed as possible on these issues. I post my opinion when I feel I can add something to the discussion. I have been swayed by well contructed opinions and I might have helped sway some people with my opinion. If I become completely polarized in my views, I will stop visiting blogs.

I sincerely believe you don't understand the gravity of the situation. The enemy is ruthless. They killed thousands of people as they worked in their offices. They killed hundreds of young children in their school. They kill children in the streets of Baghdad. These people are ruthless animals and there is no doubt in my mind that they would kill as many of us as possible given the chance. Given the situation, I fully support the Pentagon in developing any weapon they see fit in order to combat these animals. If you disagree, tell me the limits you would like to place on the Pentagon in terms of fighting people who hang bombs from school gymnasium basketball rims. I'm all ears.

Kathy, we are not asking all countries to disarm, just countries that harbour and abet people that want to wipe us out and say so regularly. It might be hypocritical, but it is also smart.

By the way, there is at least one country which fits the above description which we are NOT asking to disarm: France.

Mike -

Offering the Iranians nuclear (err, sorry: nuc-u-lar) fuel is right up there with the Swiss giving their addicts needles so they don't contract or spread HIV. You KNOW they're going to take drugs, so you cordon them off and try to manage their activities and limit the damage to the individual addict.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hppb/hepatitis_c/pdf/harm_reduction_e/switzerland.html

Except in this case, giving the Iranians nuc-u-lar fuel doesn't just affect an individual drug addict. It affects millions of people, presumably Israelis, who would be incinerated should the Iranians get a little trigger happy - - whoops! Want to take away our nukes? Want to nuke us right back? What about all the oil reserves that would be spoiled as a result?

How about no nukes in Iran - period?

Mike,
Kerry's work on nuclear non-proliferation in the Senate the last 20 years has paid off big dividends. OBL is now in Pakistan and Pakistan has nukes. We are literally hamstrung. Prior to the Iraq invasion, Pakistan had a thriving nuclear black market going and only collapsed thanks to our agressive war efforts. Clinton literally tried to bribe NK into not developing a nuke and we all now know that they were breaking the agreement while Clinton was in office. They admitted it once they realized we meant business. I don't see how this non-proliferation issue works for Kerry.

Oscar -

Interesting post, and it takes "Dave's" post in a slightly different direction.

Exactly what constitutes "being intimidating" as a country? Having nuclear weapons like the French (and others) do, or being willing to use military force to project your forces as another tool of continuing "political intercourse with the addition of other means" (to quote von Clausewitz).

I'd rather be a country able to defend itself AND go after the bad guys than France or Germany who are cannot - or will not - do any more than wring their hands and carp about how bad the US is.

DC:

I've already linked to this on the other debate thread, but since this seems to be where the action is... Truthtelling on Iraq forces and reconstruction:

http://tinyurl.com/5nw7p

Wow, Bush said 135,000 and 90000 + 45000 comes to. . .
Adam, I don't think your link or your point helped you one bit.

Hmmm, if you go through LTG Sharp's presentation, you find the following figures about halfway down the page:

38921 - Iraqi Police Service, counted as "trained" by having gone through their academy and deemed "ready to go on the street" by LTG Sharp

61904 - Iraqi National Guard members, who we presume are trained and "on the street" already

Taken together you have 100,825 Iraqis in either a police or military role. That's pretty darned close to what the President said. Actually it's MORE than the President said, but your TinyUrl article was nearly a month ago.

All of which misses the point - we are over there helping the Iraqis rebuild their police and defense capabilities in addition to reconstructing their infrastructure. It's going to take time and be seriously opposed by terrorists who want to destabilize the government and make America look bad enough to cause us to pull out prematurely.

I was laughing my a$$ off at Dave's post that Kerry would pull the Iraqis into a stable country and train them - holy crap, what is that all about? Part of training them in country is to let the bad guys know that they better get their licks in sooner rather than later because "help is on the way" from IRAQIs, not from John Kerry who disses their leadership and who would pull America out of Iraq in a New York minute if he gets the chance.

Would have been nice for Kerry to come clean on what "all the allies" means. Of course, I also understand why he doesn't do it.

Kathy, we used nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to break their will to fight. Same reason we firebombed Dresden and Tokyo.

It worked too.

No one knows how John Kerry will do things better? Well, let’s just look at what he alluded to last night.

He wants stop and inspect every single freight shipment that comes into our country. This in it self would bring our economy to a screeching halt. We’d probably starve in the winter because all of the food that we import would rot on the docks while waiting months to be inspected. There would be no more fishing industry because they too would have to go through an inspection every time they came back from sea. Meanwhile all of their fish and seafood would rot in their cargo holds while awaiting inspections.

He wants to shut down all of our borders. That would require putting troops across all of our borders. Hmm. Lets look at the math a little bit. Now I will admit that my numbers here are very crude and I haven’t done any real research. But please indulge me anyway.

Let’s see, we have about 12,000 miles of borders. To put a minimal amount of protection to protect our borders, I would estimate that we would need about 10 soldiers per 100 yards. Each soldier would work an 8 hour shift so we would need about 30 soldiers for every 100 yards of border that we’re trying to defend.

12000 miles x 1670 yds/mile /100 yds = 200,400 stations around our border

200,400 stations x 30 soldiers = 6,120,000 soldiers. (Wow, John Kerry the hawk – that seems plausible!)

Now let’s say we have to pay these soldiers, feed them, house them, and arm them.

$10,000 pay + $5000.00 to house and feed + $50,000 to arm them = $65,000/man

So, 6,120,000 soldiers x $ 65,000.00 = $ 397,800,000,000/year (and Kerry is squawking about 200 billion for 2 years in Iraq and we only have 120,000 troops there)

Now the real number has to be much higher but I think you all get the idea.

I know, I know, we’ll just tax the top 2 percent of the population. That will solve everything.

Don Watkins on Kerry's nuclear disarmament proposal:

"I don't think you can be any more explicit than that: 'The United States can't tell countries like Iran and North Korea they can't develop nukes because we are developing nukes.' Um, John, don't think you're ignoring one important fact - we're good and they're evil?"

And on why he's voting for Bush:

"Robert Tracinski put it best: "George W. Bush cannot be trusted to fight the war properly, but John Kerry can be trusted to retreat and surrender." Bush will not win the war, and he cannot even be trusted to keep the terrorists from going nuclear...but John Kerry can be trusted to to let them get nukes."

"And so I'm decided.

"I am an anti-Bushite for Bush."

That's where I am, too. Too bad he won't be writing his series on conservatism vs. Objectivism. It would have been extremely interesting to read.

On Daniel J. Flynn's book "Intellectual Morons":

"Take the best case. Hayek (and, today, Thomas Sowell) attempts to make a non-ideological for conservatism. His argument, in effect, is that human beings aren't smart enough for totalitarianism."

ha! ha! ha!

Don Watkins: Anger Management

To the extent that they're supporting George Bush for president, they're none too bright for conservatism either.