Thursday, September 30, 2004

Debate 2004 -- Round 1

My take -- Kerry was more poised, but it's still symbolism over substance for the Senator.

I do wish the President had done more to go for the jugular -- like when Kerry brought up the tax cuts, Bush should have countered with the assertion that those tax cuts would result in MORE government revenue (from economic growth) than their alleged "cost" to the Treasury -- and that it was small businesses, not just "fat cats" that would have been impacted by Kerry's insistence on "no tax cuts for the rich."

There are two questions for the Senator, that were neither asked nor answered:

> How is he going to deliver on all his poised promises regarding multilaterialism tonight ... since the fulfillment of those promises depends upon the actions of others, who may find it more in their (short-term) interest to elevate their world standing by diminishing America's standing ... or have shown themselves to already be corrupt (i.e. Oil-For-Food)?

> He says that he believes we should change our approach if it isn't working ... then why is he advocating a RETURN to the "September 10" reliance on multilaterialsm and diplomacy that dominated our foreign policy for the last 50 years ... a diplomacy that did virtually NOTHING to diminish the power of terrorists and dictators?

I also noticed that Kerry tried to emphasize the threat of nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists and rogue states ... while totally ignoring the potential for chemical-weapons production Saddam had ... a threat that was more likely IMO to be implemented, had we left him in power, than NK or Iranian nukes.


The Senator continues to misjudge the somewhat less lethal, but more likely to be realized, threat of such weapons.

His answer ... yes, he was a threat, but we can hold a summit and contain that threat ...

Talk's cheap ... resolve costs dearly




Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?