Presidential Debate II Comment Thread

[Talon Karrde]

Living down to your title, I see...

Wow, an appeal to my title to try and win your argument. How fucking original.

[SirNitram]

Karrde, if you're not going to present an argument, go the fuck away. No one gives a shit. Same to Degan.

[Talon Karrde]

Karrde, if you're not going to present an argument, go the fuck away. No one gives a shit. Same to Degan.

Holy shit. Why not go read my original opinion that drew the moronic reply of HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

[Durandal]

Sounds like Talon hasn't had his nap.

[SirNitram]

Karrde, if you're not going to present an argument, go the fuck away. No one gives a shit. Same to Degan.

Holy shit. Why not go read my original opinion that drew the moronic reply of HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Yea, that opinion drew a 'Holy shit' out of me too, but again, if you're not going to present an argument, run along now.

[Ender]

Respectfully request a partial HOS consisting of the Karrde dumbfuckery.

[Axis Kast]

Whereas Bush has already proven his incompetence.

Bush has vindicated himself on Iraq; there was a decision to be made, and he made it. We need a proactive President, not a reactive one. The Wall Street Journal had an excellent article on this topic just yesterday.

Uncertainty about Kerry is no excuse for retaining the Fuckup-in-Chief.

Considering that Kerry has promised something that, in order to be true, would have to mean the world was no longer functioning properly, I'll take my chances.

[Patrick Degan]

Whereas Bush has already proven his incompetence.

Bush has vindicated himself on Iraq; there was a decision to be made, and he made it. We need a proactive President, not a reactive one. The Wall Street Journal had an excellent article on this topic just yesterday.

You mean Bush has dredged up yet another post-hoc excuse for the war —the rationale of which was thoroughly demolished by the Duelfer report.

Uncertainty about Kerry is no excuse for retaining the Fuckup-in-Chief.

Considering that Kerry has promised something that, in order to be true, would have to mean the world was no longer functioning properly, I'll take my chances.

Naturally, since it seems you can't bring yourself to admit you've hitched your wagon to a lying fuckup who was too stupid to know it's not a good idea to shoot first and ask questions later.

[Ender]

Whereas Bush has already proven his incompetence.

Bush has vindicated himself on Iraq; there was a decision to be made, and he made it.

The fact that he made a decision in no way whatsoever vindicates the decision. Proof that it was the right decision would be vindication. That proof is noticably missing.

We need a proactive President, not a reactive one.

This entire War on Terror is a reaction to 9/11 your moronic piece of swine shit.

Considering that Kerry has promised something that, in order to be true, would have to mean the world was no longer functioning properly, I'll take my chances.

I see, and who exactly defines what it means that the world is "functioning properly"?

[Darth Wong]

Bush has vindicated himself on Iraq; there was a decision to be made, and he made it. We need a proactive President, not a reactive one.

This line is beautiful. No, really. It's such a perfect example of meaningless management doublespeak that one could not improve upon it. It's almost as good as "paradigm shift" or "think outside the box".

[Axis Kast]

You mean Bush has dredged up yet another post-hoc excuse for the war —the rationale of which was thoroughly demolished by the Duelfer report.

Except for the fact that, “Gee, we thought there was something there – especially because all of the intelligence analysis we were initially receiving said so with a great deal of confidence” isn’t merely an excuse; it’s a factual statement of how the decision-making process occurred.

Naturally, since it seems you can't bring yourself to admit you've hitched your wagon to a lying fuckup who was too stupid to know it's not a good idea to shoot first and ask questions later.

Nice obfuscation. Now explain again which European nations Kerry will extract more guarantees of support from in the wider War on Terror – assuming, of course, that you can identify European nations purposely compromising the institutions of cooperative security merely to “shaft Bush” in the first place, that is. I suppose I’ll also take the chance to remind you that this is about the dozenth time I’ve requested such a justification. And I’m already confident it’ll soon be the thirteenth time you’ve dodged it.

The fact that he made a decision in no way whatsoever vindicates the decision. Proof that it was the right decision would be vindication. That proof is noticably missing.

The context in which the decision was made justifies the decision, you fuck-up. If you can’t debate what I actually say, admit it. Putting words in my mouth just makes you look more stupid.

This entire War on Terror is a reaction to 9/11 your moronic piece of swine shit.

Kerry strikes me as another potential Clinton; slow to act on the international scene. While I can’t see him obsessively pandering to Europe, I wouldn’t put it past him to dig in his heels and really set back proactive counter-terrorism by sending a message that we’re going to revert back to the mindless, failed diplomatic tactics of the Clinton era. Bilateral talks with North Korea, anyone?

I see, and who exactly defines what it means that the world is "functioning properly"?

It’s logic, idiot.

If Kerry is claiming – as he is – that he can exact concessions of greater cooperation from countries now participating in the War on Terror, it is his prima facieposition that they are currently holding back – presumably because of their dislike for Bush.

Yet it is also true that cooperative security benefits everyone. Holding back hurts not only the group, but also the individual. If the individual doesn’t submit its intelligence to the whole, there are necessarily less resources to follow up on that intelligence. So Europe must be hurting itself to shaft Bush, if Kerry is right.

Of course, that goes against all logic. Why would Europe cut its nose to spite its face? If Kerry can’t cite an actual element of the War on Terror he’ll improve by bringing Europeans to the table more readily than Bush has (outside the War in Iraq), then he’s all hot air.

[Patrick Degan]

You mean Bush has dredged up yet another post-hoc excuse for the war —the rationale of which was thoroughly demolished by the Duelfer report.

Except for the fact that, “Gee, we thought there was something there – especially because all of the intelligence analysis we were initially receiving said so with a great deal of confidence” isn’t merely an excuse; it’s a factual statement of how the decision-making process occurred.

Except for the fact that the issue was highly in doubt even at the time, that Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice were caught on fucking videotape in 2001 acknowledging that Iraq was no threat, that the CIA's reports had quaifiers attatched, and that there was no actual moment of decision being faced which precluded further inspections by UNMOVIC and the IAEA to determine the truth of the matter before war.

Naturally, since it seems you can't bring yourself to admit you've hitched your wagon to a lying fuckup who was too stupid to know it's not a good idea to shoot first and ask questions later.

Nice obfuscation

Yours.

Now explain again which European nations Kerry will extract more guarantees of support from in the wider War on Terror – assuming, of course, that you can identify European nations purposely compromising the institutions of cooperative security merely to “shaft Bush” in the first place, that is. I suppose I’ll also take the chance to remind you that this is about the dozenth time I’ve requested such a justification. And I’m already confident it’ll soon be the thirteenth time you’ve dodged it.

No, it's merely the dozenth time you've brought up this particular Red Herring and it's getting awfully smelly at this point —especially as you're still determined to conflate the late war with Iraq and the War on Terror. And as I've never implied that European nations are deliberately compromising the WoT solely to "shaft Bush", we'll just list this as yet another invention of yours which has no relevance to reality. Particularly as the issue at hand is not the wider War on Terror but how to stabilise the mess that is Iraq, hopefully before the country collapses into a three-way civil war.

[The_Nice_Guy]

No he couldn't do that at all. You simply cannot come out as too agressive in these types of debates. They shouldn't even really be called debates; a debate is not a popularity contest while the Presidential debates are by definition precicely that. You may be an expert debater Mike but I'm guessing that you wouldn't do very well as a politician--you have to appeal to people's humanity, not their intellect. If Kerry had attacked Bush on that, he would have come off as petty and spiteful to most people.

There are several ways to win an argument.

You can bludgeon them with logic. Or you can attempt to seduce them with platitudes.

Guess which method politicians and voters prefer?

TWG

[The_Nice_Guy]

BTW, the media was predicting a dead heat or marginal victory for Latham in the Australian elections, but ended up with a substantial Howard victory.

This serves as circumstantial evidence of pro-leftist bias in the media, and I feel we should not rely too much on the polls and the media. If the same bias/misjudgement holds true for the US elections, then a dead heat in the media split down between Shrub and Kerry might actually be a significant victory for Bush come Nov 3.

In any case, Kerry should still fight on as if he was 10 point behind. He absolutely CANNOT rely on the media after the drubbing Latham took; it's simply not a reliable indicator of success.

TWG

[Axis Kast]

Except for the fact that the issue was highly in doubt even at the time, that Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice were caught on fucking videotape in 2001 acknowledging that Iraq was no threat.

At what time were the Rice and Powell soundbytes recorded? Before or after September 11, 2001?

, that the CIA's reports had quaifiers attatched, and that there was no actual moment of decision being faced which precluded further inspections by UNMOVIC and the IAEA to determine the truth of the matter before war.

Firstly, all reports have qualifiers attached. The former CIA head referred to the accusations that Iraq had weapons as “a slam dunk.” We were receiving information from as disinterested parties as Germany and France suggesting that they, too, had reason to believe that Saddam was armed with prohibited weapons. Furthermore, the huge holes in the sanctions regime – evident to anybody who tracks the legal record surrounding it – were striking and even scary.

Second, given Saddam’s history of obfuscation, and the small size of the UNMOVIC and IAEA teams, it’s hardly a leap of logic to suggest that only an invasion can provide conclusive evidence about WMD. At that point, Bush was already afraid Europe would prolong really dealing with Saddam Hussein anyway, and rightfully considered the UNMOVIC/IAEA route an unnecessary shuffling of the problem to the back burner. In fact, I imagine that the fact that Iraq only became a major issue once he began talking about it really bothered him from the beginning.

No, it's merely the dozenth time you've brought up this particular Red Herring and it's getting awfully smelly at this point —especially as you're still determined to conflate the late war with Iraq and the War on Terror. And as I've never implied that European nations are deliberately compromising the WoT solely to "shaft Bush", we'll just list this as yet another invention of yours which has no relevance to reality. Particularly as the issue at hand is not the wider War on Terror but how to stabilise the mess that is Iraq, hopefully before the country collapses into a three-way civil war.

Kerry has pledged to expand the War on Terror by drawing support from allies disenchanted with Bush. That means he is claiming to be able to do MORE with the same group of nations. Which is to say that he’s accusing Bush of having so alienated Europe that they would willingly retard their contributions.

Furthermore, we already know that Kerry won’t be able to draw any other parties into Iraq.

[Gil Hamilton]

At what time were the Rice and Powell soundbytes recorded? Before or after September 11, 2001?

As Iraq was not at all connected with 9-11, before or after is irrelevant, since Iraq has exactly the same amount of threat to it as before.

[Axis Kast]

As Iraq was not at all connected with 9-11, before or after is irrelevant, since Iraq has exactly the same amount of threat to it as before.

What happened on September 11, 2001 lowered our acceptable threat threshhold considerably.

By all previous standards, Afghanistan had represented no major threat to American interests. After September 11, 2001, that was no longer true.

Becuase September 11 proved that our enemies need have very few conventional resources to do us significant damage, we had to review all of the potential dangers on the international stage with an even more critical and wary eye. That meant a considerable elevation of the threat potential of a regime like the one in Iraq.

[PainRack]

There are several ways to win an argument.

You can bludgeon them with logic. Or you can attempt to seduce them with platitudes.

Guess which method politicians and voters prefer?

TWG

You forgot our own trademarked variant. You can sue them to bankruptcy..

[Illuminatus Primus]

By all previous standards, Afghanistan had represented no major threat to American interests. After September 11, 2001, that was no longer true.

You're a fucking idiot - I suppose this is why before 9/11 we had begun to tie them to Ramzi Yousef and the original Trade Center bombings (unless you suffer from schitzophrenia/are Paul Wolfowitz in which case reality does no effect you and you'll cite debunked Iraq theories). The Treblinka plot? Having to blast the camps in '98? You're off your hinges.

9/11 taught nothing to those in the know - as Richard Clarke's book amply demonstrated - it only provided the previously absent public impetus to destroy the Taliban and finally hit the camps in Afghanistan.

Becuase September 11 proved that our enemies need have very few conventional resources to do us significant damage, we had to review all of the potential dangers on the international stage with an even more critical and wary eye. That meant a considerable elevation of the threat potential of a regime like the one in Iraq.

Yeah, and the Treblinka plot and the Trade Center bombing and hell - conceptually speaking - Oklahoma taught us nothing about the few resources needed to launch major attacks.

All you ever do is speak is useless philosophical abstractions. What was Iraq going to do to us before 9/11 that was acceptable that was not after 9/11. Back up you sophistry or shut the fuck up.

[Alan Bolte]

What happened on September 11, 2001 lowered our acceptable threat threshhold considerably.

My response to 9/11 was "Well that sucks, but what fucking took them so long?" I was only surprised by the lack of follow-up, which I came to understand later. Anyone who was paying attention could see that it was possible for someone sufficiently determined to do a lot more then strap some explosives to themselves and walk into a mall. And we didn't have entire intelligence organizations giving us detailed accounts of what we've managed to catch going on in the world. If we had to be punched in the face to realize that we were surrounded by angry people with fists, then I think we should be asking ourselves about the competence of our leadership.

[Agrajag]

At what time were the Rice and Powell soundbytes recorded? Before or after September 11, 2001?

Hahaha. In other words, were they lying before or after September 11th?

Nice one.

BTW, you might want to go check out that Electoral College map you sent me a while back. It seems to have changed a bit.

[Coyote]

Kast, I hate to say this, but bear in mind that I support the war in Iraq and I actually think that we would have been here one way or another--

--but that said, I still realize that the way this whole thing has been handled was "poorly conceived" to put it nicely, or gawdawful stupid to be more blunt.

The war was sold on flimsy reasons and for all the wrong reasons; the post-war spin was pathetic and there was no post-war peace plan-- it has been patchework after patchwork. A war should not be run like Microsoft Windows.

I think we had legitimate reasons for this war but the set-up, planning, and aftermath were rife with errors and stupidity.

That things have gone as well as they have is NOT a monument to the wisdom of our leaders, but rather a monument to the ingenuity and adaptability of the local commanders, troop organizations, and civilian workers on the ground here. Working with local Iraqis, I feel that unit commanders have made the most progres here-- the political leaders back in DC are actually out of the initiative loop.

[Durandal]

I think we had legitimate reasons for this war but the set-up, planning, and aftermath were rife with errors and stupidity.

Stop flip-flopping. Either you support the war or you don't.

[Axis Kast]

You're a fucking idiot - I suppose this is why before 9/11 we had begun to tie them to Ramzi Yousef and the original Trade Center bombings (unless you suffer from schitzophrenia/are Paul Wolfowitz in which case reality does no effect you and you'll cite debunked Iraq theories). The Treblinka plot? Having to blast the camps in '98? You're off your hinges.

You’re diminishing the power of your own argument, citing examples of minimal response from our side of the fence – i.e. responses that told the rest of the world unequivocally: “We don’t think they rate high enough to be too worried about.”

9/11 taught nothing to those in the know - as Richard Clarke's book amply demonstrated - it only provided the previously absent public impetus to destroy the Taliban and finally hit the camps in Afghanistan.

Which makes it the functional inaguration of a strategic paradigm shift. You can jack off all you like to images of Richard Clarke sitting in some war room and shouting about the need to take action to everyone who will listen. The real change didn’t come, however, until after September 11.

Yeah, and the Treblinka plot and the Trade Center bombing and hell - conceptually speaking - Oklahoma taught us nothing about the few resources needed to launch major attacks.

Oh, they taught us. It’s a matter of whether we learned or not.

All you ever do is speak is useless philosophical abstractions. What was Iraq going to do to us before 9/11 that was acceptable that was not after 9/11. Back up you sophistry or shut the fuck up.

Exist. That’s patently clear, dipshit.

If we had to be punched in the face to realize that we were surrounded by angry people with fists, then I think we should be asking ourselves about the competence of our leadership.

It’s more than just leadership; the build-up occurred across too many presidencies to attributable to just a handful of people. And we see the real reason why even today: people overestimate the power of deterrence of the United States of America. They discount whatever does not seem like a hulking, obvious threat. And until they have some clear example of that, the government has a very difficult time moving forward. Hell, that’s an excuse you and yours constantly fall back on in relation to Clinton.

Hahaha. In other words, were they lying before or after September 11th?

Nice one.

BTW, you might want to go check out that Electoral College map you sent me a while back. It seems to have changed a bit.

No, you fucking moron. It means their standards of what actually constituted a worrisome threat would have changed after September 11.

I sent you an Electoral College map? Really?

[Illuminatus Primus]

You’re diminishing the power of your own argument, citing examples of minimal response from our side of the fence – i.e. responses that told the rest of the world unequivocally: “We don’t think they rate high enough to be too worried about.”

No stupid. You said by all standards there was a different meaning of threat before. That's ridiculous. The ONLY different post and pre 9/11 is the public will to deal with said threats.

Which makes it the functional inaguration of a strategic paradigm shift. You can jack off all you like to images of Richard Clarke sitting in some war room and shouting about the need to take action to everyone who will listen. The real change didn’t come, however, until after September 11.

The ONLY different post and pre 9/11 is the public will to deal with said threats.

There was no difference in threat itself.

Oh, they taught us. It’s a matter of whether we learned or not.

I say again: you don't think Clarke and others in the know wanted to do something about it - I know he did, he said as much - the only thing that changed was the public will to carry out action, not the definition of threat, imbecile.

Exist. That’s patently clear, dipshit.

Somewhere beneath all your horseshit is "epistemology, political precedent, human sociology, and the definition of English words all changed on 9/11. Cuz I say so. Yup."

It’s more than just leadership; the build-up occurred across too many presidencies to attributable to just a handful of people. And we see the real reason why even today: people overestimate the power of deterrence of the United States of America. They discount whatever does not seem like a hulking, obvious threat. And until they have some clear example of that, the government has a very difficult time moving forward. Hell, that’s an excuse you and yours constantly fall back on in relation to Clinton.

I don't know moron, maybe the rest of us want obvious and clearly truthful indications of clear and present danger before we drop hundreds of billions all our "slack" in military resources, and probably decades and thousands of lives down the drain on the "oh well, action needed to be taken."