October 01, 2004
"Debate" Could Have Been Worse
Printable Version | [eMail this article!] |In my opinion, the so-called "debate" could have been worse. There could have been many more lies and distortions (see FactCheck analysis). Personally, I thought that Bush was repetitious and made a few responses that I couldn't figure out how he got there, and I felt that on the whole Kerry made some good points, I doubt that few who were "undecided" became so on the basis of last night's showing.
Interestingly, I thought that the one point where Bush made his best showing was in the difference in opinion over whether bilateral talks with North Korea or the involvement of China, Japan, Russia, etc. offered the most leverage. While I disagree with the premise that it is an either/or situation, Bush pointed out the difference well.
Of course, the fact that we have gotten to the point we have has nothing to do with bilateral vs multilateral talks with North Korea. But that is like the argument about Iraq. We shouldn't be there but now we are.
Another thing that jumped out at me was also from Bush. He said something to the effect that a free Iraq would support Israel. That seemed totally out of the blue, and my first response was "a free Iraq, might very well not be pro-Israel." It was interesting that Kerry got Israel into a comment as well. Given what they were both responding to in terms of questions, they both had to stretch to get support of Israel into a response. I assume that was to send a message.
A UTJ reader sent me the following response:
Bush: "We have to stay on the offensive. Stay on the offensive. Stick to offense." Yeah, when fighting against people who welcome the possibility of mutual destruction, you really want to stay on the offensive. Gooood thinking.
I would agree with that opinion.
Anyone want to share your thoughts on the "debate?"
Posted by rowan at October 1, 2004 07:55 AM | TrackBack | Printable Version | [eMail this article!] |Greg Palast summed up my feelings with his Mr. Tall and Mr Small commments if you are not on his email list, recommend you get on it, or go to his website gregpalast.com.....don't misunderstand me I want Kerry to win and I am begging everybody I know to vote for him, even though he is not my candidate of "choice" (such as it is).
Basically I thought the debates were lackluster, Bush seemed irrated that he even had to be there, buttter wouldn't have melted in Kerry's mouth. But I was wanting Kerry to say what he did thirty years ago when asked "How do we get the troops out of VIet Nam" his reply was
BY SHIPS......The same applies for Iraq...
"I would agree with that opinion."
Mine or Bush's? I don't know if I was clear; I'm approaching this from a fairly abstract angle.
Offense, or the use of force to inflict damage on opponents, works (as an indirect method of defense, which is its stated purpose) in three ways that I can think of.
One, it contains an implicit threat to do more and more damage, which may deter the opponent.
Two, it may reduce the opponent's physical capabilities.
Three, a special case of two, the opponent may be annihilated.
Now, the standard media picture of the "war on terror" portrays the "terrorists" as people who believe in martyrdom and therefore are not going to be deterred appreciably by danger to themselves. That alone dramatically reduces the utility of violence, which usually relies at least as much on fear as on practical effects.
Then according to the government, 9/11 was perpetrated by nineteen people with plastic knives, so if the plan is to achieve safety by "weakening" the terrorists, they're going to have to get pretty damn weak. As for the hope of eradicating them entirely, they hide too well and the US is making fresh enemies left and right.
In this situation, offense is not a viable defense and I would think the appropriate response would be to focus on defense first. E.g. Kerry's point about the shipping containers, and about the stray nuclear materials. And then figuring out just what went wrong with the air defenses, and securing the dams and the nuclear plants and things. For the reasons I've mentioned, I would have thought that making America more durable would take precedence even over invading Afghanistan (not that the US couldn't afford to do both), let alone invading unrelated countries. And that's why Bush's suggestion to focus on offense didn't make sense to me; offhand, it doesn't seem like the most efficient use of resources.
-Daniel.
Well Daniel, I thought that I was agreeing with you.
There is a saying "The best defense is a good offense." That may work in some limited situations, but I don't think it applies in the war on terrorism - or empire building which is what Bush is actually doing.
What is being labeled as "terrorism" strikes me as desperate efforts at the edge of extremity. Attack, attack, attack, does not seem the way to stop whatever is driving people to such desperate measures. Shock and awe, massive air strikes, overwhelming fire power and troops, are not undermining or addressing the problems or issues. Doing more of what Bush is doing (which is only increasing the violence) will likely continue to increase the violence - not make anyone safe.
Posted by: rowan at October 1, 2004 09:04 PMI agree entirely, and I'm glad we're on the same page.
-Daniel.