go go go!

go go go!

Too long- I aint reading that! What do you take me for? Literate?

I think it was almost a draw just because it seemed like W got fed up with Kerry pulling stuff out of his er...pinkytoe. It showed me that Kerry will say anything to get elected. Bush is gonna have to put the smack down during the next debate, though. It was crazy seeing how often Kerry switched positions just during the debate: War was a mistake, but soldiers not dying for a mistake. Need UN's permission, but not for Korea. What a scumbag.

I think it was a draw. kerry lied about lying. What a great pumpkin-headed doofus. (Did you notice those two stripes of reddish-orange on his cheeks? The agent orange was trying to get through his botox make-up.)

Glad I missed it. It must really be the drizzlin' shits to be a swing voter, and have to rely on this type of shindig in order to make up your mind. Hell I already know who I'm voting for in 2008......well I know who I'm voting against anyway.

First to sat First!
I thought the debate was a waste of my time. I was quite dissapointed.

Kerry lied like nothing else. He stated that our spending for the war in Iraq so far was about $200Billion which is at least a $130Billion (if not more)load of shit blatant lie.

He claimed that he saw men die in the "Heat of Battle" while in Vietnam.

He claimed to have seen secret KGB files in Treblinka Square(why would the KGB give kerry high priority clearence, let alone show him files that "don't exist"?

To be fair Bush made an overstatement of trained troops in Iraq unless he was talking abot Ex-Baathists, Al-Quaida, and the Mahdi Army in addition to the ING and IPF.

"Question 6 to Bush: When will you bring troops home from Iraq?"
Neither of them answerd this question, and I'm surprised that Lehrer let them get away with the feces they spewed when asked.

To think I could have solved complex equations instead of watching that blather.

I thought the debate was amazing. It truly was an awesome display of what American engineering can do in a pinch. Those were the best animated robots I had even seen in my life. It was like those debate-o-bots took all my memories of Disneyland animatronics bears and ripped their heads off and crapped thoughtful canned responses their necks. Frank is right, I want me a purple heart for my now limbless expectations blown off by that televised debauchery. I would sooner label a proctologist my dentist than that nonsense a “debate”. If you were actually an “undecided” voter and last night changed your mind about anything except how cool it would be to get a light box to carry around in order to contain conversations in public, then you need a swift kick to the throat or equally import vital area. Well, maybe not that far, but at least a stern Clockwork-Orange style indoctrination into reality.

yep, I thought it was a snoozer. Would have been more fun if W had gone ballistic, probably would have cost him the election, but it would have been fun. DNC I've seen today keep talking about how angry W looked, so why not play it to the hilt? W looks at Jf'nK "What the #$@%$^% are you smoking?" "What have you been doing in the senate the last 20 years?" I didn't pay close attention because we couldn't afford to replace the TV if I had. grrrrrrr.

I think the pajamahadeen needs to fact-check this trip to newly defunct Soviet Union and find out if Kerry and maybe Sandy Berger took their OWN KGB files out in sock, unidies, etc.

Here's the thing about the ICC I wish someone (Cheney?) would bring up:

You know, if Pres. Bush had not walked away from the ICC, John Kerry could be tried for the War Crimes that he testified before Congress UNDER OATH the he committed. Even though Congress gave hime immunity to testisfy, the ICC is not bound by that...

Yours is the best commentary so far.( as always!)

"kerry blah blah blah.." just about sums it up.

Bush seemed as though he thought kerry was a joke and it was beneath him to even answer his barbs only because he knew kerry would only change his position, so why bother thinking of a good comeback when he could draw pictures!

bush had substance.. kerry had a facial an orange tan and a botox treatmentin order to look presidential

I read kerry has a pet monkey, and contributes ketchup profits to the monkey militia.... just thought you'd want to know.

Talked to my boss and one professor today, boss watched CBS (???wtf) he said they did not show the timing lights, he did not know where they were, my prof watched CPSAN or CNN (ADD) and they did not show them either.
How can you not show the timing lights?!? The media would have had to purposefully block them, right? sKerry's camp bitched about them and they blocked them. I watched FNC, duh, anybody else know if the other networks blocked the lights?

winner: a draw

CLS1

cspan showed the lights.

Was I the only one to see Kerry have to restrain the freak-show? At the end you have the Bushes on one side and the Kerrys on the other. Te-ray-sah looked like she wanted to talk to the Bushes but they were walking off the stage. She pointed and probably said something like "!%$*&*&^!!!". Kerry slapped her hand down pretty quick.

The Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown, lied again! There is no such thing as Terblinka Square in Russia. Terblinka was a NAZI DEATH CAMP during WWII. Does he not remeber where he's visited? That's like me saying I went to Australia when I actally visited Austria!

It has been brought to my attn. that Treblinka was infact a nazi concentration camp.

Lubyanka is where the KGB offices were.

I wonder what's wrong with the peoples of Mass to reelect a moron like kerry for Senate?

If anything he would have gone to Lubkanya (sp?)... but then again the KGB only begain declassifing SOME of their documents in 1990. Take that ugly orange man tan!

Unfortunately, Kerry did have the upper hand... so far as debating goes, he was in command of the situation.

However, for those who care about what someone is actually saying, Kerry biffed himself. He essentially said nothing. Sure, Kerry had the slick rhetoric and carefully crafted doublisms down pat, but that's his problem. Yes, it made Bush's job of rebuttal more difficult, but only because it took so much effort to figure out what the heck Kerry was really saying, to translate the Kerryspeak into English and then finally rebut that. Kerry's problem is that's all he has going for him, that the American Street[TM] has no idea what he's saying.

So who is the winner? I don't know. It depends on how stupid, how easily taken in by hollow rhetoric, the people of the United States are.

Okay, Frank, A for effort on the debate analysis ... but it was kind of like the debate itself. Sorry! Stick to your strong suit! For the next debate, how about doing an IMW parody. Bush gets to wash Kerry's mouth out with soap for every lie and flip flop he says ... then when Kerry attacks Bush's character and credibility, Bush gets to whack him over the head with his podium: "Didn't your momma ever learn you to show respect for your betters?" *whack* "That is not how you talk about the President of the United States!" Bush would be a lot more awake and less disgusted if he could take his frustration out on Kerry every time Kerry lies.

Your analysis is by far the best and most entertaining I've seen. Yet another reason your site is the first I go to each day.

I think it would have been more interesting if, instead of pounding on the podium, Bush picked it up and beat Kerry over the head with it.

Whtever happened to the good old days when those seeking leaadership roles would gather in a circle in the middle of the village, naked, battle axes in hand and commense mortal combat. The only thing i want to hear out of Jim Lehrers mouth in the next round is "FIGHT!"

Is it just me, or did Leher's questions seem crafted to keep Bush on the defense? The questions posed to Kerry gave him the ball to be on the offense, while the questions posed to Bush (except for the character difference question) forced him into a defensive posture. Seriously...wtf? Hopefully the 'town hall' style debate next week will be a little better in that regard.

And maybe they'll allow the audience to bring paintball guns. Wouldn't that be sweet?

There was a debate last night?!?

Why didn't anyone let us know? What are they trying to hide?!?!? The fascists are again controlling the information flow...for...uh...oh wait! Sorry, I thought this was D.U. comments. Never mind.

Excellent Frank, but LonGGGGGGG, like the debate. I watched it last night and even read some of the official transcript. Your transcript was not as long, and much more entertaining.

Mongo

I dont like how bush lied about the number of iraqi troops in iraq. he kept saying there were 100,000 trained, but there are only 50,000 trained and lots of those are corrupt or useless.

did anyone else notice Kerry unzip as he approached his podium? what was up with that? what was happening beneath his podium? maybe it was a silent reminder to himself not to pull a Gore and approach Bush on the stage during the debate (?)

You forgot about Poland!

Now, watch this drive.

If the next two debates are as boring you'll have enough purple hearts to get out of Vietnam.

Draw?!? Bush won the debate hands-down. He exemplified the qualities a leader must have to be successful. Kerry, on at least 2 questions, did not actually answer what he was asked to; he just commented on what "this President" wasn't doing.

Did anyone else catch Kerry's line (in reference to Iran, I think) that we should GIVE THEM NUCLEAR FUEL and see if they actually use it for what they said they would? I damn near had a stroke, which was probably avoided because the vessels in my forehead had already burst when he was talking about leading our troops and being a strong leader blah blah blah.

And one more thing: you don't "win" the peace, you CREATE the peace.

I think that Bush prolly lost the debate; however, Kerry is still a gobber and will still lose the election regardless.

The next debate should be a draw...as in pistols at noon.

--Dubya gets MAJOR points from me for restraining himself... I honestly don't know how he kept from physically attacking that horror movie poster boy...!

--Yep... the elitist lawyer from massachusets appeared to be the more "polished" speaker last night. No argument here...

--Frank, the "notes" of the candidates... geez, man... that almost killed me...

That was better than a Mad magazine version of the debate.

Frank funny.

Frank wrong.

Bush won ... both the U.S. and global tests.

- Time will tell but what I took away from last night is that Bushes side had decided to give Kerry all the political rope he would take to hang himself. No matter how well rehersed and polished you are if you talk long enough you're bound to use your own feet for target practice. Sort of a debating version of Rope-a-dope. Kerry was pretty slick most of the time but in four area's I think he was traped into revealing certain facts about his attitudes that most believed but were unsure of.

- 1). He thinks that questions of National Security, and all that entails, needs the approval of the world "court" (meeting an international test).

- 2) In spite of everything that we've seen and, is yet coming to light, he still see's the UN as some sort of viable international arbitor and decision maker.

- 3) He hammers on Bush about not having a larger coalition before going to war in Iraq, but takes the exact opposite position on Korea where anyone who knows the history of the last 50 years in that country and all the failed unilateral efforts on the part of the US gets gas at the mere thought of that. (btw he's wrong about "when" NK got atom weapons...Its widely believed they had them during the later part of the clinton admin. at the very time that unilateral had accomplished nothing)

- 4) He showed a much larger audience that he is willing to totally diss the coalition friends we do have as well as the Iraqi leader, calling the war a distraction and the coalition one of the coerced and bribed, at the same time insisting he would somehow "convince" abdurant countries that have stated, as recently as a few days ago, they would under no circumstances help in the Iraqi war, to join us in the wrong war ect ect.

- If all of that isn't enough to convince people he's irrelevant there's no brain cells at work in their skull's...

The notes were priceless. Someone will probably claim they were forged, though.

As I said to my co-worker about the debate last night, if you need to watch these things to "decide" who to vote for, you don't deserve to vote!

I don't understand "moderates" or "independants" or ""undecideds". If you have a set core of values, you can tell pretty quickly who stands for what, anbd vote that way. Maybe it is that values thing. Stick a finger into the wind, see which way the wind blows, then decide. Sheesh!

As for the debate, Kerry performed as I expected him to - as a elitest windbag prattling on about how will do everything better, with no details.

I think W did a decent job, I think he will do better in the next debate. He isn't the best speaker in the world, but I trust him more than the Frenchurian Candidate anyday. He had the Gravitas to take out Saddam, who did attack us, everyday, firing at planes in the no fly zone, remember?

As for the moderator, Jim Lehrer? Uber-Lib, folks, c'mon! Biased? Uh, yeah!

I am in agreement with the others, I would love to see them duke it out, or draw pistols, or something!

Frank - I almost died laughing, the pictures from the notes are too much.

I think someone needs to remind JFK that the cold war has been over with for over 10 years now....Since when is Russia an issue? You cannot do something President Reagan has done awhile ago.

That is the longest post I've ever seen in my life..

That was pretty decent frank, I LOVED the notes. Can't wait to see you do the next one.

I agree. I think it was a draw. However, this would not have been the outcome had W been able to bitch slap John F-ing Kerry everytime he flip-flopped or outright lied! In fact, given those rules, John F-ing Kerry wouldn't have lasted past the first 30 minutes! Let's hope for better rules in the next one!

One thing I don't get is why anyone, especially President Bush, isn't mentioning the use of a roadside IED (an artillery shell, as I recall) containing sarin gas against one of our convoys a few months ago. Last time I checked, sarin is classified as a chemical weapon, and therefore WMD. I guess since only a few of our soldiers got nailed, it doesn't really count.

I know, without a doubt, that Bush will be re-elected. He has to be. I don't want to be over-dramatic, but the current world situation would shift irreparably against us if Kerry is elected. What the libs simply don't or won't understand is that this isn't a damned game. This is reality. Terrorists don't give a flying sh*t whether or not you "went to the table and brought more countries in." They don't care if you "served in Vietnam." It is unfortunate, but the only thing they understand is force, and we have far more of it than they do. I hope the gloves come off on November 3 after Bush finishes his second inauguration.

"What the libs simply don't or won't understand is that this isn't a damned game."

As possibly the token liberal here (actually, I'm worse: a moderate) who likes IMAO (hey, Frank is funny!) I'd kindly like to say: Bull.

Do I, as a liberal, consider this a damned game? Hell no. There's way too many people dying for this to be a game, and the stakes are too high. The issue isn't with the cause -- Terrorism cannot be negotiated with, or ignored. The issue is with the means of fighting it. There is still no solid evidence that Saddam Hussein and al-Queda had any connection with each other. Meanwhile, the Taliban is reforming in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The Australian embassy in Indonesia got carbombed. (Especially poignant to me, as an Australian.)

Has the Bush government done anything well while in office? Yes. The Afghanistan campaign was, for the most part, an absolutely brilliantly handled campaign, doing incredible damage to the terrorist supporting Taliban. (And what's more, they handled the 'soft war' elements of it perfectly, as well, denying al-Queda its chances to cast America as the Great Satan invading Muslim countries and trying to wipe out Islam -- It's kind of hard to pull that off when it's Afghani's themselves doing most of the fighting for the US!)

But the Iraq war has been a mirror image of this, and has strengthened al-Queda for all the reasons Afghanistan didn't. It's not helping America, or any of the other countries in the Coalition of the Willing. (And make no mistake, Australia should and will stay a firm ally of the US no matter what.)

I'm only one liberal. Hell, I'm not even an American, I'm an Australian liberal, so if that disqualifies me from a say in your mind, so be it. But as far as I'm concerned, don't you dare say that liberals think this is some damned game. I am a liberal, and I don't think this is a game for a moment. I love Australia (and America, too) too much to treat terrorism and Muslim extremism as anything other than assaults on our lives, freedoms and security. And it'd be nice to have world leaders who did that, too.

As far as I can see, all George Bush sees in the war on terror is a point for re-election.

(Standard disclaimer: Conservatives in the crowd, I really do not have a problem with you. Diversity of opinions is what makes democracy great. Don't kill me, because Chomps is getting way too eager to do that himself.)

Hey Sean! You must be a moderate! If you are a liberal, you are the only one I have ever met who thought diversity of opinion was a good thing! They mostly just call you Hitler for disagreeing politely with them!

You get idiots in every crowd. Maybe we just have better liberals in Australia than America. Then again, according to Frank, I'm a dirty goddamn communist for supporting the metric system. Heh.

I'm mainly just posting to challenge that one point. Otherwise, I know this is a conservative talkspace and I won't interfere. But if anyone wants a handy liberal target, I can surrender and appease with the best of them! :)

The cartoon Bush's quotes is your best ever! Definite T-Shirt material!

IMO, Bush spoke straighter (of course). Kerry's hand gestures were seriously getting on my nerves! I was really concentrating on deciphering the KerrySpeak and it was distracting.

Bush was obviously tired, but he spent all day pouring himself out to the people of Florida who are in need of it. Anyone know what Jf'nK did all day? I'm guessing: Manicure, $1000 hair cut, orange chemical peel (EW!), beauty nap (didn't work) and memorizing his flim-flam lines.

Sean, the liberal media treats the war on terror like a game; when the media places more importance on posting any story, even if the evidence for it is forged, if it will run down America and discourage our troops and make Americans feel that everything we do and say is BAD BAD BAD. BAD SUPERPOWER, you can't do anything right! Go slink away with your tail between your legs! When the islamists want us (Westerners) dead and our civilization buried. Then they call the terrorists kidnapping innocent people and beheading them slowly with rusty dull knives "freedom fighters" and refuse to mention that the devoid of human compassion animals who shot kids in the back in Beslan and refused them water for three days before that were radical Islamists ... doesn't it seem to you they are treating this whole thing like a game?

And the liberal Dems are just as bad .. willing to subvert national security if it will get them back in power ... perhaps the mistake is in clumping ordinary, every day liberals in with their leaders in the media and in politics ... but then why do liberals seem so content to have the "it's all a game" crowd be their representatives and spokesmouths? There are Dems who are not treating this like a game: Joe Lieberman or Zell Miller come to mind ... but they have been relugated to the attic by the rest of the Dems ... so what are we to think about liberals when this kind of stuff is happening?

I think Bush should have gone out in a cowboy hat with six-shooters strapped to his sides and said, "John Kerry is a 'haughty French-looking Massachucetts senator who, by the way, served in Vietnam'!"

Sean,

People who bleed with us get a say. Thank you and our Aussie friends for the help. By the way, you don't sound like a Yank liberal. You aren't blaming America for everything

Took forever to get through this and thank the stars I didn't watch the doggone thing! Thanks, Frank, for doing this. Yer take is hysterical! Love the notes and agree the Bush notes are definite t-shirt material. I like the idea of doing an IMW for the next one, too. :cheers:

First of all... MountainMama, Mongo, thanks for receiving me so well. I really appreciate the warm welcome.

OK, points in turn. The media. It's always amused me that the Left is convinced the media is Right-Wing biased and the Right is convinced the media is Left-Wing biased. The best explanation I've heard came from a friend of mine, who said "The media is media biased." Bingo. The media (in general and there are exceptions) doesn't care who it's hitting -- It only cares that it's creating salacious gossip. If Kerry gets into power, the media will start looking for scandals on him as quickly as they've looked for dirt on Bush. Ideally with photos. (The news of torture in Iraqi prisons like Abu Ghraib was long around before the photos surfaced, and it was only then that the media pounced.) They're treating it "like a game", I'd say that's fair, but it's not because of any liberal bias, it's because they're the [expletive deleted] media.

There is some real genuine bias out there, mind. Any paper that refuses to call someone who beheads people for video cameras a terrorist counts.

As for the Dems, MountainMama, could you offer some specific examples?

See, one of the reasons I don't like Bush is the exact same thing -- I think he's treating the war on terror as a tool to ensure his own re-election more than actually ensuring American (and by extension, Australian, British, etc.) security. Concrete examples of this would include the outing of Pakistani agent Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan, and the pressure put on the Pakistani government to capture a "high value target" during the Democratic convention. Both of these events happened, they're absolutely, demonstrably true. And that, to me, is treating the war on terror "like a game".

And the reason why guys like Lieberman and Miller are sidelined is fairly simple: Because most liberals don't agree with them. Both seem convinced that invading Iraq was a good thing, for example, and that's not something most liberals agree with.

Mongo, the US was not attacked because of anything it did. It was attacked because there are Muslim extremist assholes who believe they are waging holy war, and specifically because there's one extremist asshole who wants to create a unified Islamic state spreading the entire Middle East. What I would criticise the US for doing is engaging in a foreign policy that gives said asshole ammunition in his recruiting efforts.

Or, to put it more simply: My problem isn't with America. My problem is with Bush, and with how Bush has handled a genuine crisis and threat. And I think there's more liberals than myself who feel that way.

If there's anything there people want me to answer any questions about, please ask. And if I have insulted or offended, please forgive me. It ain't my intention. I just really want to try and clear up, in one little place at least, the notion that liberals (or at least liberals like me) treat this like a game. 'cause we don't. We just disagree with how this war is being fought.

Sean, you have us all wrong. We don't think you're "a dirty ****** communist for supporting the metric system." We think you're a dirty ****** communist for being a foreigner. ;-)

You're right, my bad. Easy enough mistake to make, though, you have to admit. :)

Sean.. All I can say is Amen! It is very true that the media shouldn't be considered representative of any individual political views. It's the main way to determine if someone is an idiot; find out if their political beliefs are those that the media tells them to have.

As a libertarian I find myself wholly dishearted by my options this coming election. Thanks for posting the review Frank, when I started throwing stuff at the tv and yelling at both Bush and Kerry my friends made me go in the other room and play video games. Now I know the rest of the debate was as redundant as the beginning!

I wuz too buzy having a life to watch the Yawnfest. Thankz for the edited scenario.
But one thing I did notice about the pics of Kerry, is he wearin' lipstick?
Having him as prez and gettin' attacked will be like having the 3 stooges all in one as our leader at large.
Or maybe that will the Keystone Kops plus Micheal Mooron combined as our leader.

Last note: Again, thanks for all of the IMAO readers for being so welcoming and reasonable. You guys are great!

Sean, here is the reson why Afgahnistan and Iraq were fought so different. In northern Afgahnsistan there was a big batch of people who didn't like the taliban. So we sent all the Green Beret guys we had over there to train and lead the Northern Aliance; becuse thats the way Green Berets fight, they train and lead forieners, so that forieners can die instead of Americans. In Iraq we couldn't do that because Sadam sprayed all the militant resistance groups in the north (and the south for that matter). So we could't just send GBs to train and lead, and we had to do more than let the USAF bomb everythng that moved. So we did what the US always does when we can't trick some else into fighting for us: we had to fight the war ourselves. So there we go, the whole US Army, division after division, Ranger battalion after Ranger batalion. But that's the beauty of the US military. We don't just have one trick up our sleeve, we have enough different tools that we can fight a war however it takes to win. As a reservist, cadet, and genral military history buff, I coulda told you that this was the way it would turn out back when they first started the talks of invaison. The only things i missed were the Iraqi military giving up Bahgdad so easily, Abu Garib (those people weren't MPs they were support attached to an MP unit, i.e. supply,admin,etc., so stop giving us MPs a bad name!), and Falusia. But in my version of events there wouldn't have been a Falusia...there would be much more carpet bombing. BTW, if all goes well we'll be ther for the next 10yrs, in slightly decreaseing numbers(we're already starting to bring more guys back than we are sending) and then we will hve a nominal presence there. Remember: the US still has troops in Germany and Japan, and that was almost sixty years ago

Scipio: Understood, and I agree that you couldn't have used the tactics in Afghanistan in Iraq. My point is that the Afghanistan tactics had additional side benefits that Iraq's approach lacked.

Quick bit of clarification: I completely agree that if you were going to attack Iraq, then yes, the only way to do it was to mobilize troops. Afghanistan was handled better by the alliance with local groups who knew the territory better and how to fight the Taliban. Complete agreement. (And it's worth noting that, denied an approach from the north by Turkey, that we pulled off a mini-Afghanistan with the Kurds.) Both invasions were very well planned from a military standpoint.

What I argue is that the war in Iraq was at all required, and that it has indeed harmed our cause, not helped it.

WELL AFTER READING THESE MY GOD AM I GLAD I DIDNT WATCH THAT BULL. ANYWAY IM REALLY GLAD KERRY DIDNT WIN- THE TERRORISTS ARE AFRAID OF BUSH NOT THE GOD DMNED CAR SALESMAN!