who watched or listened to the debates last night?

Wow! Lots of Kerry supporters in here.

The facts:According to the Gallup Poll, Kerry won on almost every front in the debate except in two (and the most important two for that matter) poll questions - believability of the candidate and whose policies the voter agreed with. So it was a victory for Kerry in the sense that he came across as a more articulate person than Bush, but make no mistake about it, Bush still leads the real race.

The fact is, Kerry doesn't have any real, substantial plan to do anything about the situation in Iraq. He didn't say anything new in the debate - just the same old "allies" thing. Well, as we'll find out in the near future, the "allies" who didn't support the war had their own economic motives associated with the Oil-For-Food program in Iraq. They stood to gain from it as long as Saddam was in power.

I have been listening carefully to Kerry's speeches and following his campaign. I have yet to be convinced about his abilities to be a President. And many of you above reinforce my point. You just don't like Bush and want to see him go. You don't care who replaces him.

First of all, Republican, just realize that the issue discussed yesterdays(homeland security, war in Iraq, national security) are supposed to be Bush's strong suits and purportedly Bush's "button men" thought Bush would manhandle Kerry on that front. They stand corrected. Secondly, if Bush can't perform well when the topic discussed was supposed to be his strongpoints, I wonder how much of a regression will be observed come debate 2 and debate 3.
Dick Cheney might decide to do his regular "attack dog" routine next week when he debated John Edwards, but the likeability issue here is quite paramount, given that Cheney's popularity rating has been hard-hit, due to his supposed Halliburton links and what not. John Edwards is a likeable guy, and a Southerner to boot, a key fact which will abet in delineating Kerry as a centrist, and can also persuade the undecideds in key swing states down South to vote for the Kerry/Edwards ticket. I only see Bush going on a downward spiral henceforth. Kerry was a giant on stage yesterday, not only physically, but also intellectually. He really did tower over Dubya boy.

Even Freepers are jittery about Bush's performance yesterday. Democratic bloggers are very happy with Kerry's performance. Andrew Sullivan also believes John Kerry came out the winner. More undecideds are leaning towards Kerry after yesterday's debate.

Kerry basically wiped the floor with Dubya Bush.

Ignore all typos.

John Kerry for the President !!!!

Hey palpali gaule....wow u are an american? Cool....it's rather awesome to have your perspectives flow in this thread than just us Nepalese. I am glad u liked my views. No offense but I have to disagree with jagaltay bhoot and republican. Jagaltay bhoot...we knew that IRAQ was suspicious at the time and yes Kerry supported the vote then but only if BUSH promised to do it as a last resort. We were still in a war with Afganistan when we went to IRAQ. BUSH had no preparation for it. It is a very serious and thoughtful thing when u decide to go to war. He didn't take his time......UN and lot of foreign countries declined to help...he should think then...why is everybody protesting against it?

No matter how much pressure u get from inside, it is a question of people's lives and deaths. UN wanted to take their time to inspect the weapon but well next thing u know they are already bombing...what we found?.....Saddam Hussein not the weapon. Yes, he's a bad guys but doesn't mean US can go and bombard people there first in the name of weapon and then "oh we want to rescue people from Saddam?" North Korea is a bigger threat than IRAQ everybody knows that...why IRAQ? There was no connection between 9/11 and IRAQ (which most americans thought there was)!

When it comes to France and Germany, they did the right thing not supporting the unjust war. If they don't think IRAQ war was right then they have the right not to send the troops there. Why kill innocent soldiers for no cause? Most of the european countries and UN warned BUSH but he was sooo sure he can win and find the weapon but he lost it. At one point he wouldn't even listen to UN. When every other country has to listen to UN and resolve issues peacefully. What about billions of dollars spent from the national budget to fix IRAQ......while people here have no health insurance and are poor as hell.....

If BUSH re-elects I don't know what would our future hold? Do u think he ever tried to understand why the enemies tried to attack us? Dominating with powerful machines and bombs to surpress enemies won't solve the long term problem. They will become even acrimonious.... no powerful bombs in the world will stop the enemies. The real problem is US's foreign policy. If he gets together with muslim leaders and try to understand why do they hate us soooo much then we will at least get somewhere. Bombarding places won't solve this problem instead so many innocent people are killed because the missed bombs and lot of children die after the war during sanctions!

And republican, no offense again, at least Kerry agrees to discuss with other european countries and UN in order to resolve this. To find out the root of muslim world's "hate"?If Kerry asks for help...they might give him. BUSH didnt ask for help! Not even when he needed the most? U got to admit when it's wrong and admit it! It's not an insult to ask for help and discuss the matter. As we have already invaded and made the country full of choas, we have to think of something quick to bring the troops back and keep the country stable. So that no more troops are killed and innocent people!

Both BUSH AND KERRY ARE NO GOOD BUT IF I HAVE TO CHOOSE, KERRY HAS A LOT OF CONFIDENCE AND BRAIN! As we have no third option!

BTW Sweetie Pie ma ta hazur ko diwana bhaye yaar.. U r as good as kerry in Debate..Keep it up.

Debate focuse mostly on WAR ON IRAQ.. In fact debate was not as interesting as suppose to be.. But BIG question mark again on BUSH. BUSH le feri afno khutta ma afai bancharo hanyo. He said WAR ON IRAQ is consequence of Sept 11th attack but however Sept 11 commission had already clarify that no evidence found against iraq being involved on attack.

About north Korea and Iran, none of those come up with solid resolution..

Kerry le hasayo, when he said America nevertheless has WMD on thousands in no#, it sounds like "AMERICA KO HUNU HUNE, ARUKO KINA NAHUNE". But if America is not policing world, world had long been demolished..Imagine, if IRAQ is world powerful country, by now we would have turn to Muslim.. Abuiiiiiiiiiiii yo age ma circumsizm kasari tolerate garinthyo hola.. hehehehehe

Good points pisces! But sorry I am taken hmmm.... sorry deewana ji!

Sweetiepie, though US was still at war at Afganistan, there was no guarantee that Saddam would not use his supposed- to- be- WMD against American interests. Whether Iraq had links with 9/11 or not, future coordination between two criminals like Saddam and Bin Laden can not be ruled out.

However, you are right in mentoining that "it is a matter of people's life and death". That is why Prez Bush had to attack Iraq because it was a matter of american people's life and death. Americans had thought long and hard (more than years) by the way.

Regarding Frnace and Germany, Prez Bush is the president of Americans and he has the responsibility of safeguarding Americans and American interests first. While doing so, if he can garner support from his allies, it is better. If he can not, they are irrelevant. Also, how long were France and germany ready to wait? They had already waited yearrs. Another 20 or 30 or a full century?

Iraq and North Korea are on the same league. The different treatment must be part of their strategy. You dont treat all your enemies the same way.

If you bear in mind the level of information and perceivec threat the amrrican administration had at that time (and not what they found after the war) , many of youur issues like "we went there but what we found? Saddam, nt the weapon" do not need any answering.

I hope it answwers most of your questins.

Hogwash Jagaltay bhoot, let's review some of the lies by BushCo

1. Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. WHere are they?
2. Iraq tried procuring WMD materials from Africa. This has been proven wrong thorougly. Bush in fact even included this point in his State of the Union address.
3. Saddam had links to Al Qaeda. This is such baloney. Al Zarqawi was running rampant in places the dictator had no control over. Saddam was a secularist. He in fact had Christians and Shiahs in high positions. If anything, terrorists posed a threat to his regime, and as we know Bin Laden himself deemed Saddam a Kaffir due to his secularist agenda. If Al Qaeda-Saddam connection can't be ruled out, then Bush needs to show us the evidence that these two were connected. He gave us zero proof. Certainly, president has the right to preempt war to help America, but as Colin Powell said it best, if you break it, you own it, or something of that nature.



Now, these three points have been proven wrong completely, and so BushCo are making the pretext that Saddam was cruel to his people. Wolfowitz himself said that only this reason isn't enough to attack Iraq. Furthermore, there were 30 different nations that purportedly have capability to develop nuclear weapons. If we wanna be the global police, let's do something about them too. Then again, what will Bush do about the N. Korean nukes? They already have developed 6-8 nuclear warheads according to recent analysis. Now even Iran is challenging America. Due to Bush's failed doctrine of "You are either for us or against us", America has been isolated from the rest of the globe, and we have a lot of catching up to do. YOu don't declare nations as "axis of evil" and not expect repercussions from it. Cowboy mentality might work if you're iin the midwest, but hell no, it sure ain't working if you're involved in politics. We are truly alone in the world now.

Thanks to BushCo, terrorism has truly reared it's multiheaded extremist head in Iraq. I am holding BUsh accountable for 1000 American casualties for an unjust, unncessary war fought for profits for Halliburton and other big corporations and will be voting for Kerry.
I was having my doubts about Kerry a few days back due to his "flip-flopping" ways, but wednesday's performance sealed the deal. When I cast my vote, I'll not be casting my vote against Bush, but rather I'll be casting my vote for Kerry. Bush makes it sound like consistency is like a badge of honor. Tell that to Hitler who was quite consisteny in killing, maiming, torturing innocent Jews, gypsies, Slavs, homosexuals and handicaps.

Flipflopping is the hallmark of an intellectual.

Rather a flipflopper than a speech impaired dunce who can't utter even a single sentence witout making any error.

Honestly thuggedout, I did not understand the meaning of hogwash and would request you to keep that to yourself.

Your first three questions are already answered in the first para of my ealier post.

About 30 nations, again, you dont treat all of them in the same manner.

If you have the right to vote and want to vote for mr kerry, good to you. Thats what democracy is about. I am not in the us, nor have the right to vote but if i could, I would vote for bush.

And regarding your last sentence, it seems you are ridiculing of a mild form of dislexia. I would not.

Cheers

*ridiculing of mild = ridiculing a mild

No, you didn't quite answer my three points. Your justification basically is that there was no guarantee that Saddam Hussein would not use his "supposed" WMD's. First of, for this to be valid, Bush needed to bolster his claim with solid and concrete sets of evidence. He did not do so, as most of his so-called "proofs" were either subjective or just plain wrong. Secondly, if Bin Laden declares Saddam a kuffar, future coordination between him and Saddam is basically a stretch. The doctrine of preemption is basically a gamble, because the future cannot be predicted.
The neocons are the ones behind the Saddam Hussein debacle. As you know, Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld had drafted a letter in the 1990's to Bill Clinton to depose Saddam Hussein because of his threat. Clinton did not cave in to pressure from the neocons, as containment was working perfectly. Wolfowitz even had a plan to invade Iran.
Pat Buchanan, a paleocon and a true conservative, has a book out about how neoconservatives, many of whom were ex-trotskyites and socialists, have hijacked and shaped the Bush presidency. As he correctly points out, many of them have sympathy to the Israeli cause. In fact, there are some people working in the Bush presidency who are also citizens of Israel.

John Stuart brought Seymor Hirsch--the guy who first promulgated the Abu Ghraib scandal-- a few days ago, and he was cringing at the thought of the next Bush presidency. It's the neocons that are the problem. Bush is just a sheep.

Paleocons like Pat Buchanan and Robert Novak are isolationists and believe that we should first be focusing on securing our own borders. He also elucidates the fact that we should sit on the fence on the Israel-Palestine problem, rather than support Israel obstinately. I at least respect Buchanan for his neutral approach.

Saddam's consistent denial (for 10 years) to let uN inspectors visit freely is enough to strongly believe he had "supposed" WMD.

Of course, future coordination between saddam and bin-laden was a prediction. Given their common hatred towards american interest (not to mention saddam's and bin laden's religion), I believe it is a good and robust prediction. Yes, the preemptive strike was a gamble, worth taking the risk instead of being like a sitting duck for another 9/11 or even worse attack.

Your points about other high profile people, about some of whom I may not have any knowledge, have been noted. About sympathy towards Israel cause, there is no doubt.

Nepal's consistent decline to allow foreign intervention is enough to suggest that it consciously/willingly harbors terrorism (Maoists)? Is that sufficient reason for foreign invasion?

Excellent points "thugged out"!! Thanks for the response jagaltay bhoot. Do u think BUSH really wants to remove Saddam because he was a bad guy? Think about it. None of these things mattered when Rumsfeld supported Saddam full-heatedly around mid-80's. Even knowing that IRAQ was making chemicals.....U.S government (Raegan) didn't stop him! Instead they helped Saddam by selling whopping $1.5 billion worth of high techology, modern helicopters, for the war purposes! And yes as a result in 1988 Saddam killed tons of kurds! But if U.S was soooo concerned about this dictator and humanity then why didn't it do something then? Even after he killed kurds american DOW CHEMICAL sold million worth of pesticides to IRAQ despite the warning that IRAQ could later use it as agents in future war. In 1991, when US attacked IRAQ, kurds killing spree was barely mentioned. US was the key supporter of IRAQ then! So all of a sudden BUSH is concerned about humanity??? IT doesn't make sense!


When we were at the war in Afganistan, americans seemed very vulnerable and sad. Because he couldn't find BIN LADEN, he wanted to divert our attention to WMD. It's because of his incapability to catch BIN LADEN made him turn to another war. It was the right opportunity for him to take advantage of vulnerable people "lying" that 9/11 and Saddam are connected! And then there were WMD problem......even if he found out that WMD was a threat then he should think through with it! UN backed BUSH's concern and let the inspectors go in and check.... nope they couldn't find anything!! What makes BUSH so sure that WMD is still there? He was acting all in anger not with a cool brain as a president of USA should do at the moment of crisis!

US government didn't think long and hard about SADDAM ! NOPE! NADA! Did u know five hundred thousand children killed after the war (sanction)! Did americans care? NADA! US government takes only U.S citizens are human being not foreign citizens as human beings. IRAQ is now haunting US because they were the ones who helped IRAQ with chemicals. If u ask this today to our leaders.......they shamelessly deny it! Com'on be honest !

France and Germany did the right thing. Yes, sometimes u have to wait 20 yrs to make sure that u aren't killing innocent people instead of 20 seconds. I will call them wise leaders. Millions of people all around the world(including U.S) won't protest for nothing! BUSH Should get a clue! Some people consider it as a mini'vietnam war! Now that tells us something! U.S government is responsible about 2.5 million people who died in vietnam. I just don't want another war like that or similar! Haven't U.S government learnt their lesson yet?

Everybody dislikes US's foreign policy. That's why they hate us. They consider BUSH as an "International Terrorist". In general I hate wars, ones who tries to extinct ciivilization in the name of war.....who should we be supporting ? People who are for civilization or for someone who tries to eradicate it? BUSH is not a god who thinks he can rule the whole world! If he stays for 4 more yrs....women in US will go back to 1940s position....not having the basic right to have a baby or not.... I think church and state should be separated! Just because he's religious doesn't mean we are! We need a president who lives in 2004 mentality! It is so silly to see him trying to stop that stem cell research! Did u know that Laura BUSH and BUSH's mom don't agree with him in this matter? He just wants the vote from churchgoers..who are his loyal followers.....Even just for this reason......there's no way I would vote for BUSH!

GEORGE W BUSH

Sweetiepie, yes I agree that iraq was supported by the US during Iraq -Iran war and even provided with chemicals. Even Bin-laden, who fought in aganistan agaisnt Russia, is a product of USA. No doubt about that. But neither Bush nor Kerry are to be blamed for that.

Chemicals were also sold, yes. UN inspectors did not find anything, but hte check was not completed. The very chemicals that past US govt had sold to Iraq was foundn unaccounted for. No US president could stay complacent about that, be it Bush or Kerry.

About sanctions, it was US-proposed but backed by security council. Regarding another issue, I think you are pointing towards abortion rights. Its a very sensitive issue. Even without church being involved, the life of an unborn baby, the right of a woman who may have been forced to be pregnant and many more issues could be at stake.

This much for today. This is sat night. Enjoy everyone!

kerry did quite well on the debate though!!!!!

My My, aren't you all great Monday quarterbacks with a pre-9/11 mentality.

Facts: There's no proof that Bush lied about anything. Independent commissions (including both Reps and Dems) have investigated this and said that the CIA gave faulty intelligence to the administration, saying that WMDs in Iraq was a "slam dunk" case. That's why George Tenet has resigned, he took the fall for CIA's blunders. Every, and I say EVERY single person who received the intelligence came to the conclusion that Iraq did possess WMDs. Before the war, John Kerry himself appeared on TV and said that there was no doubt Saddam was a threat and had to go and that HE WOULD VOTE FOR THE WAR. And he did vote for the war.

This president made a decision based on the same intelligence everyone else received and came to the same conclusion that everyone else did. It seems pretty ridiculous now that all these left-wing fanatics call him a liar. PROVE it first! If Bush is a liar, then every Democrat who voted for the war is also a liar.

I'm not one of these right-wingers who think everything's swell in Iraq. I know its a mess out there. But I don't think Kerry can do any better than what Bush is doing right now. And I don't want Kerry to become President and provide a boost to all these left-wingers who think Saddam was an angel and he didn't deserve to have his ass kicked by the US. Jeezz, the way they talk about him, you'd think he was the Pope.

By the way, France, Germany, Russia, etc. didn't go to war because they were benefiting from the UN Oil-for-Food program in Iraq. Its a big corruption scandal that's gonna come out soon (its being investigated at the UN). Hearing stuff like "France and Germany did the right thing" makes me laugh - as if they were guided by their morals! They were more concerned about their fat wallets.

Sweetie Pie says "If he stays for 4 more yrs....women in US will go back to 1940s position....not having the basic right to have a baby or not.... " hahahha Sweetie, here again ?.. U are awesome,,, you think women rights, you dream women rights, you write women rights.. Hazur ko ta aba Pau nai parnu parla justo lagyo.

My hunch tells me BUSH will definately win, reason Kerry is not competant enough to lead BUSH in election. Debate is nonetheless sitcom to me. One was overwhelmed and another was pointless and they had been hovering on and over same with same conclusion. So I didn't get much out of debate.

But yet to see who will lead as president. There are some extra miles for them to think how to lead the whole world effectively than just America. The devastation of world is in nigh. There are lots other serious paradigm US need focus on rather than rattling against Iraq. Whoever is goin to be a leader should bring in some phenomenol changes in foriegn policy and international issues that develope tranquility in the course of time.

But I am more concern about fate of world if BUSH is re-elected. Whether there is going to be other pre-emptive war or not? I guess another target is goin to be IRAN. Bush still think IRAN is not in that state to retaliate. Perhaps may not be able to but Russia may come in action in a one way or another, now again if attempted by American. The reason! Iran contribution in Russian economy awesomely huge, and literally they are partners and forming strong allies within.

Though Russian agrees for Nuclear proliferation back in 2002, the initiation hasn't been done yet. Russian's nukes are thousands in no# either solicited or unsolicited state. Putin is makin money out of it. And now those nukes are major source of economy. Russian is now a major suppliers of nukes to the Muslim world. In other hand, Putin has started undercutting freedom within the country. Political rivals have been either isolated or executed. This resembles the return of tyrany. That will effect international political areana as well. European is already concern about it, they marked it as Putin's threating attirbute towards Russia's neighbour.Putin as in person is now back in the power. Russia is tryin to get back its long lost dignity. I believe if anything futher goes against Russian interest, we will get nothing see than another turmoil. Forget about French and Germans..

My presumption; if BUSH wins the election, dumbass will attempt on Iran for sure. But what BUSH may fail to take in account is, Iran mayl charge back with stronger allies in her side like Russia. Iran wont stay calm as Iraq. This Event will help to inflame another catatrophic war.

America needs President with "BAACHA RA BAACHNA DEU" philoshophy...