Distortions Galore at Second Presidential Debate

The_Neon_Cowboy

A great read:

Distortions Galore at Second Presidential Debate

Both candidates played loose with the facts at the second Presidential Debate in St. Louis Oct. 8. Bush claimed Kerry's health-care plan would lead to rationing and "ruin the quality of health care in America," a claim unsupported by neutral experts. Kerry claimed the Bush administration had forced the Army Chief of Staff to retire for pushing to send more troops to Iraq, but in fact he retired on schedule.

We offer a sampler of the dubious and sometimes false statements made by each of the candidates.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@docID=275.html

thomasabarnes

"Kerry said that the Duelfer report on the unsuccessful search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq had demonstrated that United Nations sanctions against Iraq "worked.'' Actually, that report "did not draw a firm conclusion about whether the sanctions and inspections succeeded in disarming Iraq," according to the New York Times Oct. 9."

I dont need a report to know that Bush made a hasty move in invading Iraq when he did. The UN already expressed that the US should allow the inspectors to continue their work in Iraq. There were no WMD in Iraq. We know that, now. But, civilians and US troops have died and are still dying as a result of the Invasion. We could have used Special forces to get Saddam. Killing or capturing Saddam 1st, would have weakened his followers. Then, we could have sent in Troops, and wouldnt have had to use all the bombing that randomly killed innocent civilians, and that would have lessened the amount of casualties over there. Or some plan other than the bombing could have been developed. And, if the bombing is needed, there were at least one avenue to investigate before the decision was made (that was to use the inspectors). So, in my view the invasion was not conducted as a last resort.

"Whether the sanctions and inspections succeeded in disarming Iraq" or not is not my bases of disagreeing with Bush invading Iraq, my bases of disagreement is concern and regard for human life. In the war on terror, violence is inevitable, but it's a good idea to be smarter in the way the war on terror is carried out. I believe a better military plan could have resulted in a lesser amount of casualties. And the apparent lack of WMD in Iraq strongly suggests that if the inspectors had continued their job, we would have discovered what we know now (no WMD there), So to let them continue was not a bad idea, and the casualty count probably could have been decreased.

thomasabarnes

ronnn

Speaking as a non-usa er, Kerry presented his version of the truth so much better than Bush. Was sort of an hilarious mis match of wits.

The_Neon_Cowboy

john kerry can't run from john kerry's record
his biggest oponet and enemy is him self in this race

pr0digal jenius

just like bush's biggest enemy is the fact that we've watched him screw up many times already...lol


my how i hate the both fo them

DigitalisAkujin

I find it amazing how so many people don't like either and yet we don't have anyone else. At the same time it's rather ironic no one is voting for nader. Haha in this case I'd rather have him then anyone else

ronnn

No I think his biggest opponent is a wired manequin speaking for some neo right swengali. Is hilarious the wired bush story.

vince3425

i agree, kerry screwed himself when he brought in his War history

raid517

I think what's clear is that Kerry showed himself to be the better debator over all three debates. But I still am uncertain if that is enough to win him the election. In a sense you almost get the impression that a lot of people think that Kerry may be overqualified for the job. It's almost nuts to think about it - but I'm not sure a lot of Americans will vote for a guy who they feel is so much smarter than them. He seems like the intelligent teacher type with a firm grasp on all the various facts and statistics, whereas Bush comes over as being - well maybe not so smart by comparision, but at least believing (or so many Americans seem to assume) in what he says. I think a lot of people are just afraid that if they vote for Kerry now, he might one day bamboozle them, try to trick them with the 'facts' - and maybe change his opinion on various positions he has taken now. The flipflopping allegations did hurt Kerry - next time they need to find a guy who starts out saying the same stuff he ends with saying.

Bush may have taken the country to the brink of disaster and bankruptcy - but at least he has consistently told people where he was taking them.

At the end of it all I am not at all inpired very much by either candidate. I think both are probably quite bad for America. Bush for the way he has spread mistrust and dislike of American foreign policy around the world and has cast America adrift from the international community - and also for the way he has turned America into a terror camp all of his own making - and Kerry for his inconsistancy, where he lectures everyone about the interests of the common man, while slowly becoming stiffer, as he worries silently about getting creases in his $1000 lilac cented shirts. Smart as he may be he does loose ground as he tries desperately to always be fair and see both sides to every argument - while never really getting down to dealing with anything of any real substance.

It isn't much of a choice. In a sense if it wasn't so perverse it would almost be funny to see Bush relected - because at least a lot of Americans would end up getting exactly what they deserve. What a desolate paranoid country America will be by the time he is finished with it.

But there are some very dark clouds on the horizon too - so it might be hard to smile too much.

At least I guess the fears that lots of people had about America going storming about the world might not come true - as currently the US can't really afford it.

But I don't envy you. They both suck. I happen to think Bush sucks a little more - but what the hey, I wouldn't choose either of them.

The world will still become one sick place if Bush is relected. But at least it might be interesting.

GJ

The_Neon_Cowboy

Im sytle yes, in substance no....

raid517

In style and in whatever - but that's not the point. Really to be honest these debates - this whole thing - has taught me an awful lot about American politics. The biggest surprise is the extent to which most people will take consistancy and sincerity (no matter how fake that scincerity ultimately is) over intelligence and a willingness to adapt as events progress. I think the last part might be a little too generous to Kerry, as his willingness to adapt can seem a tad bemusing at times - but in many ways I feel that both comparisions do hold. Providing you can say a thing often enough, say it in as many different ways as you can - and in as many different scenarios as you can - and can continue repeating it, when long after for anyone who cares to look a little deeper into what's being said, it has stopped resembling anything approaching the truth, many will interprit this as a form of scincerity and will continue to believe in it, regardless of the harshness of any of the realities that surround them.

Anyway, there is a good doccumentary show comming on the BBC on Tusday evening about "The State of Terror" that is America today. It basically talks about how Bush has succeeded in terrifying the American polulation into agreeing with him on virtually any stance. It discusses how he has used the relatively minor threat of a few Arab extremists to rattle the cages of a lot of ordinary American people into believing that the entire American nation is at threat, how ge has used the propoganda of terror and fear to in an attempt to radically reshape the consitutution and to change fundamentally the relationship between government , private enterprise and church - and who ultimately stands to gain from all this.

I intend to record the show. I wish I could send it to some of you guys. The BBC do allow distribution of such material for 'educational purposes', so maybe if one of you guys has some spare bandwidth and an understanding of BitTorrent or FTP, we could work something out. If anyone is interested, they can PM me.

GJ

lenchmob

I wonder if the show will be airing on BBC America. If it is I'll certainly record it for viewing at a later time.

raid517

I doubt it mate, when is the last time you watched a really good thought provoking doccumentary on American TV? That sort of thing just does not happen any more.

That's why doccumentaries are so poplular in cinemas - because that in many ways is the only place left you can go to see genuine independant debate still active within the American media. (And even then it is very hard to get a movie like this distributed in America).

All other media has been supressed - so that everyone is afraid of the accusation that they are somehow unpatriotic if they even dare try to ask any of the more difficult questions that confront America today.

Again it is political control of the public and the mass media, via the tactics of terror. They use your nightmares, your worst fears to control you - and to supress any possible form of dissent.

What I find interesting above all else is how easily this is achieved. It seems almost as if if you can make people afraid enough, they will agree to virtually anything. This is the formula Bush and his chums have discovered - and are exploiting to it fullest possible extent.

But I do not understand the sheer level of fear. What happend to the backbone that was America after the war? What became of the America that stood up against the tyrany that was the Soviet Union, who stood in defense of liberty and freedom, who in the face of the threat of utter nuclear annihilation, did not give up one iota of her freedoms, did not opt to sumarily throw people in jail without trial, did not seek to restrict the freedoms of her citizens in any way and did not seek to treat the constitution as a political plaything, to be changed or altered on a whim.... What I wonder became of that America?

After all the threat we faced then was much more deadly and much more potent than any we face today. For those who lived through this, who remember waking up every day and always being aware somewhere in the back of our minds that on that day, much like any other, the entire world could come to an abrupt and sudden end - and all of those we loved and cared for could be instantly and horribly killed in a nuclear fireball - yet somehow we managed to carry on with our lives regardless - this level of fear over what is essentially a few disorganised Arab exitremists is at best inexplicable - and at worst abhorrent. It seems to me that many of these people don't seem to know the meaning of terror - or indeed of what real courage is.

This is what Kerry meant by saying he would reduce the terrorists to the status of a minor anoyance - because we need to get your country out of the mindset of fear that it is currently in. That is when whoever is in power at that time can stand up and declare a real victory. For only when we are no longer afraid can we win.

These guys do not have the means to end the progress of the free world - but with a little application, some courage and a lot of good police work and with the help of out friends - both at home and on the international stage - we do have the means to end them.

They can hit us sure, but they cant ever hit us hard enough to make us stay down - not for long. To be so afraid over so little is nonsensical.

London survived the blitz in WWII - and that was a thousand times worse than anything that these people can do to you.

Only when everyone realises this can we get on with living our lives again...

GJ

pr0digal jenius

looooong time ago

there were 1-2 interestign ones about columbine, but aside from thsoe...nothing

ColdPenguin

3rd parties are never taught in schools, don't receive money from the Federal Election Commision, don't have enough money for television ads, receive absolutely no air time, and that the news only covers the 2 candidates engraining into people's minds that there's only two choices. I also find it amazing that both candidates belong to skull and bones and no one cares. Bush appointed around 10 skull and bones buddies into his administration including like the SEC cheif i think.

Anyway I agree with everyone who says our news is a problem. The internet is definately helping a lot, as anyone can speak their mind spending no money and yet have their voice heard. However people usually have to be smart enough to try and search for that information in the first place, and also there's always the comeback that "You just read that off the internet, since anyone can write stuff on the internet its completely false, its only true if its on the nightly news." etc.

The news is being suckered with the ideal of objective reporting. To your average newscaster that means spending an equal time repeating republican talking points as the time spent yelling democratic talking points, instead of commenting on the validity of such talking points. I'm sure newscasters probably have told themselves "I can't beleive I'm reporting this." but they do it anyway in an effort to be objective and non-partisan, and I beleive the Bush administration takes advantage of this to the extreme.