Jump to content

Time for the fact checkers


MichFan

Recommended Posts

This debate went exactly how I thought it was going to. Kerry arrived as advertised, so did Bush.

 

Either may have left himself exposed, however. There were many points where the candidates rebutted each other over facts. Bush seemed to get the better of these, and therefore I give Bush a slight edge because he made me think despite all the eloquent language Kerry was using, he was blowing smoke one too many times. I saw a CNN analyst raise around four issues where facts stated were inaccurate, they were all missed by Kerry (N. Korea had nukes long before Iraq war, UBL is in Pakistan not Afghanistan, failure to acknowledge Poland as a major partner). Now I'm interested in hearing about the Iran sanctions, non-proliferation funding, etc. This could be the ultimate takeaway from the debate and may set the course for discrediting Kerry in future debates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[F]ailure to acknowledge Poland as a major partner.

51703[/snapback]

 

You mean like the 1,000 Polish sharpshooters who put six bullets in Malcolm X?

 

I joke. I joke! ;)

 

Omitting Poland as a partner in Iraq isn't a major gaffe. How often do you hear about Poland in the news? It's U.S., England, Australia.

 

And you try to give a speech watched by 50 million people in 60 seconds. I've done it in front of 20 people and it's damn hard. Both of them made some minor mistakes; I'd say it's a wash. The real story in the debate is on the big issues, not SO much on the minusule detail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

James, if it turns out that Kerry was wrong in every case and that Bush's corrections were accurate, it will be a story with legs. Kerry won the eloquence war, but if people learn to equate his eloquence with falsehoods he will lose credibility in future debates. I can tell you that since I posted this topic, it is just getting worse. Tommy Franks is on now contesting more things that Kerry said as infactual.

 

Who would have ever thought that Bush would win the debate over who has the best handle on the issues? That may now be the case. I knew his policies would resonate better, but my gosh Kerry is supposed to be a walking, talking library. The guy was wrong way too many times. Again, I'm still waiting to hear about the Iran sanctions and non-proliferation funding. If these go Bush, it is a serious embarassment for Kerry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not surprisingly, I have to agree with Mich here. Kerry REALLY blew it on some issues...and yes I think leaving Poland OUT when he talks about keeping the allies was a big gaffe. It won't be so easy to say "Oh, well, it was just a little thing because the GOP is going to HAMMER him on being ill-informed on what is clearly the most pressing concern of this country.

 

Bush clearly walked away more knowledgeable about what's going on, and by the time people like Tommy Franks and Rudy Guiliani get done with whomever will listen, more and more will start to creep out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Osama bin Laden is in Pakistan? That is a fact?

 

Please, for the love of God and country email the President. He needs to know this immediately. If you know where he is we may be able to catch him! Hurry!

 

The FACT is that no one knows where he is. What APPEARS to the possible answer is that he is either just inside the Pakistan border from Afghanistan, or just inside the Afghanistan border from Pakistan.

 

Or he could be in Toledo. There is no fact to argue. Where he is is an opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing that will stick with most people a few days from now is not how smooth and well manacured kerry looked, but how many times GWB had to correct him, and how manys times he will be corrected by the media in the coming days.

 

At the end of the day, it is mostly about the content, kerrys arguement that he would do a better job is simple not that strong. He will never be able to escape his inability to take one position and stick with it. People see right thru that. Except of course for the nitwits who for some unknown reason have yet to make up there mind. Forget about the fact that most of these folks probably cannot even spell their name, they will never even be able to find the voting stations, unless they are lead there with a bottle of wine, and a piece of cheese.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This debate went exactly how I thought it was going to.  Kerry arrived as advertised, so did Bush.

 

Either may have left himself exposed, however.  There were many points where the candidates rebutted each other over facts.  Bush seemed to get the better of these, and therefore I give Bush a slight edge because he made me think despite all the eloquent language Kerry was using, he was blowing smoke one too many times.  I saw a CNN analyst raise around four issues where facts stated were inaccurate, they were all missed by Kerry (N. Korea had nukes long before Iraq war, UBL is in Pakistan not Afghanistan, failure to acknowledge Poland as a major partner).  Now I'm interested in hearing about the Iran sanctions, non-proliferation funding, etc.  This could be the ultimate takeaway from the debate and may set the course for discrediting Kerry in future debates.

51703[/snapback]

 

"N. Korea had nukes long before Iraq war"

 

That is by no means a fact. It is speculated that North Korea may have one or two nukes, it is certainly not a fact. It is not known for sure whether they have them yet, let alone when they got them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

chicot, the real bombshell against Kerry in that discussion was Bush's correction of Kerry stating that Kerry was talking about plutonium and the issue with N. Korea was enriched uranium. Who woulda thunk Bush would have a better grasp of the issues than Kerry? Bush consistently won discussions on the basis of facts, but Kerry still pulled away with style points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

chicot, the real bombshell against Kerry in that discussion was Bush's correction of Kerry stating that Kerry was talking about plutonium and the issue with N. Korea was enriched uranium.  Who woulda thunk Bush would have a better grasp of the issues than Kerry?  Bush consistently won discussions on the basis of facts, but Kerry still pulled away with style points.

52051[/snapback]

 

Ok, I'll take your word for that. I haven't seen the debate yet (I'm not staying up untill 3am to watch two idiots talk stevestojan). I may catch the "highlights" later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I'll take your word for that. I haven't seen the debate yet (I'm not staying up untill 3am to watch two idiots talk stevestojan). I may catch the "highlights" later.

52063[/snapback]

 

Make better use of your time. Are The Apprentice or Survivor on in UK?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

chicot, the real bombshell against Kerry in that discussion was Bush's correction of Kerry stating that Kerry was talking about plutonium and the issue with N. Korea was enriched uranium.  Who woulda thunk Bush would have a better grasp of the issues than Kerry?  Bush consistently won discussions on the basis of facts, but Kerry still pulled away with style points.

52051[/snapback]

Absolutely correct. This is a perfect example of the kind of thing that will come back to bite Kerry in the ass. When people start realizing he was speaking in very general terms and really stretching the truth in many cases.

 

The dems this morning are acting like a college fratboy drunk who just got laid, but have yet to roll over and find out what they were banging last night was the football team's four-legged mascot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we're giving the average American citizen too much credit. This is a society based on sound-bites, fast food, and convenience. To get to the bottom of some of these issues takes time and effort and I don't think most people care that much about the issues, they care more about their impressions and what the media will spoon feed them. The facts are secondary to the emotional connection people make to the candidates and most people have already made up their minds. They will see whatever they want to see without objectivity.

 

RunTheBall

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Non-proliferation and counter proliferation are amongst the highest DoD priorities, and are very heavily funded. The process is what takes time, it's not a question of funding. Senator Kerry is way off the mark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"N. Korea had nukes long before Iraq war"

 

That is by no means a fact. It is speculated that North Korea may have one or two nukes, it is certainly not a fact. It is not known for sure whether they have them yet, let alone when they got them.

51995[/snapback]

 

Uh, yeah...whatever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

James, if it turns out that Kerry was wrong in every case and that Bush's corrections were accurate, it will be a story with legs.  Kerry won the eloquence war, but if people learn to equate his eloquence with falsehoods he will lose credibility in future debates.  I can tell you that since I posted this topic, it is just getting worse.  Tommy Franks is on now contesting more things that Kerry said as infactual.

 

Who would have ever thought that Bush would win the debate over who has the best handle on the issues?  That may now be the case.  I knew his policies would resonate better, but my gosh Kerry is supposed to be a walking, talking library.  The guy was wrong way too many times.  Again, I'm still waiting to hear about the Iran sanctions and non-proliferation funding.  If these go Bush, it is a serious embarassment for Kerry.

51741[/snapback]

 

 

BINGO....the reason why Kerry sounded good is because he seemed to be prepared with all these "facts" to back up his arguements.....if they turn out to be lies then Kerry is nothing but a big phony while Bush stuck to what he knew....give me a "says what he knows" leader over a spin doctor any day....

 

By the way.....another "fact" Kerry tried to throw out there was that our soldiers in Iraq were trying to go on the internet to purchas their own body armor because it wasn't being supplied to them by their country. I was listening to the Laura Ingram show this morning and a parent of a soldier called in and explained the situation.....their son was in fact given his body armor the question came about because the distributers who make it for the military were not producing it fast enough......so they did some checking on the internet but never had to buy it.....

 

Does the Kerry campaign expect Bush to go the plant and help churn some out for them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...