I agree with your assesment. From a nonverbal point of view Kerry was somewhat ahead. When you listen to the words and logic, Kerry really had a lot of non-sequiturs and brought in buzz words/ideas. This was, to a large extent, a classic example of style vs substance which I think is a key issue of our times. The left loves glibness.

Kerry is convinced that He, and He alone can save the world. Bush is convinced that the spread of Liberty and Freedom is the way to a more peaceful world.

Kerry started nearly every sentence with the word "I". Bush said "We".

Kerry was nebulous as usual. What was this crap about him training the Iraqi's faster and better? Is he going to do a Vulcan mind meld with them?

I think "W" scored the biggest points on the "global test" statement. Kerry wants one world government. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to look around and see that most of the other leaders in the world are cowards.

If we'd had Kerry in WWII, we'd all be speaking German right about now. Chamberlain would have love this guy.

Kerry was nebulous as usual. What was this crap about him training the Iraqi's faster and better? Is he going to do a Vulcan mind meld with them?

I think "W" scored the biggest points on the "global test" statement. Kerry wants one world government. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to look around and see that most of the other leaders in the world are cowards.

If we'd had Kerry in WWII, we'd all be speaking German right about now. Chamberlain would have love this guy.

What I found most interesting is that Bush went into Iraq "to disarm Sadaam". He said that inspections and diplomacy and sanctions would never work.

Bush is obviously wrong, because inspections, diplomacy, and sanctions had ALREADY worked and Sadaam had ALREADY disarmed as required by UN Resolutions.

Bush believes America is strong enough that it can do whatever it wants even if the whole world is against us. That may even be true, but is it wise? Bush said you're either with us or against us. So why did Bush do so little to win over the countries who were against us to be on our side?

Kerry believes the more allies we have, the more support we have around the world, the stronger we will be. The collective voice of the worlds democracies speaking in unison carries far more weight than the single voice of the biggest single power acting in its own selfish interest. Yes, we can go it alone, but isn't it much more preferable to have the majority of the free world standing shoulder to shoulder with us?

The Iraq war has become an ideological one as demonstrated by the administration's belief that regardless of whether Iraq had WMDs, ridding the world of Saddam is a good thing. Tonight the president said Iraq is the central front on the war on terror, for if we establish a peaceful and democratic Iraq, it is a huge blow to terrorism.

If this is a war of ideas and not one of self-defense then the good opinion of the world is a requirement to win this war. We are not fighting the war to convince ourselves that a free Iraq will lead to peace and stability in the middle east. We need to convince the world that the war is legitimate and that Iraq's fight for democracy is legitimate. In that sense we do need to pass the "global test" or the war in Iraq is a failure.

It's time to acknowledge that there is a huge discrepancy between this administration's intentions and how its actions are received in the world. It's time we started paying attention to how we are perceived in other nations, because we are indeed losing the war of ideas.

"The collective voice of the worlds democracies speaking in unison carries far more weight than the single voice of the biggest single power acting in its own selfish interest."

Tell that to Darfur.

Not just Sudan, but Kosovo. Not only did the U.S. do all the dirty work, we had to do it while Russia was trying everything to sabotoge us!

Simon ought to read today's Lileks. Hell, everybody ought to read todays Lileks.

http://www.lileks.com/bleats/archive/04/0904/100104.html

Ask yourself this: you’re a dictator who has violated the terms of a peace treaty over and over again, and frequently shoots at the planes enforcing the treaties. Who do you fear the most? A) The magnificent concert of allies in the UN, some of whom you’ve bought off, who are desperate to prove their legitimacy by prolonging the process into the 22nd century

B) The United States, Britain and Australia, who have several hundred thousand troops on your border and frankly are in no mood to put up your crap any longer.

Bush lost the debate,,, admit it guys.
ya'll have nothing.

Bush is Toast, he's done.

give it up

The president has not been candid we us:
Some examples from the debate:

1. Iraqi troops: The president said there were 100,000
Reality Check: Allawi said there were 50,000. But Allawi's numbers also appear to be inflated. This week Iraq Gov. had to fire 40,000 troops in training.

2. The president said he had a coalition of 30 countries in Iraq.
Reality Check: Under his amazing leadership 12 nations have already withdraw. And I don’t forget Poland.

3. The president said there were 10 million people register to vote in Afghanistan
Reality Check: UN estimates that there are only 9.8 million people in Afghanistan eligible to vote. That estimate includes all rural areas under control of warlords.

4. The president has stated the following reasons for rushing to war:
a. WMD (Wrong)
b. That guy tried to kill my Dad (I don’t know)
c. From WMD to “Weapons Programs” (Wrong)
c. The UN inspections were not working (Wrong)
d. Connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein (Wrong)
e. Saddam getting uranium from Niger (Wrong)
f. From “Weapons Programs” to “Related Program Activities” (what the F that means?)

But now we got the truth: SADDAM HUSEIN ATTACKED US ON 9/11

Gee, Matt (and Lileks), thanks for the false dichotomy. A weak UN or the US and two allies were not the only possibilities for action. We could have had most of NATO, as well as Russia, China, and Japan, and some of the other Middle Eastern states on our side. It would have been much better to have at least SOME large countries that are predominately Muslim on our side.

In any case, we sure did make dictators more afraid. That's why Kim Jeung Il went ahead and built himself some nuclear bombs and why Iran is going to do so as fast as they can.

You want your enemies to be afraid of attacking you. But if your enemies are afraid you are going to attack without warning or provocation, then they really have no choice but to coutner-attack with all their might. So you really don't want your enemies to be THAT afraid of you.

Simon,
"It would have been much better to have at least SOME large countries that are predominately Muslim on our side."
Obviously you did not pay attention to the behaviour of Egypt, to name one, when Bush was in Aquaba trying to start that "multilateral Road Map". Very nuanced the whole procedure was.
While the Europeans sabotaged their own "iniative" politically, the Egyptians, at best, turned a blind eye to arms smuggling to maintain the heat contrary to US efforts to get peace into the region.
There are no countries that would honestly go along with the US, while the French, Germans and Russsians were solidly against.
Just where did being nice to the Saudis get the US?

its hard work, gotta work hard b/c its hard work. work hard. hard work. work hard. hard work.

bush's assessment of the situation in iraq. stupid.

fear will not cower a terrorist organization or a dictator. eliminating their support will undermine their ability to operate. we are neither scaring terrorists or dictators (witness the increase in terrorist attacks since invading iraq and the nkorea, iran and pakistan's activities) nor are we undermining their ability to operate (b/c capturing and killing individuals will not eliminate terrorists, witness israel's efforts to eliminate hamas).

i didn't expect shark to give an objective evaluation of the debate. he didn't. suggesting that bush won on the substance of what was said is simply silly. bush was innacurate and inarticulate. he had 30 minutes of campaign slogans for a 90 minute debate.

apparently this country is so dumbed down that we cannot differentiate between:

1) attacking al qaida in afghanistan as a response to the 9/11 attack and attacking iraq as a response to their (non)wmd threat;

2) the need for pre-emptive strikes when faced with an imminent threat to our national security vs. the pre-emptive strike b/c our president wants to nation build. iraq posed no imminent threat....hence no need for a pre-emptive strike. nkorea poses a greater threat yet no pre-emptive strike....why? must be b/c our president is a coward? no, we don't strike nkorea b/c they don't pose an imminent threat to us..

3) truth vs. fiction--e.g. all of the factual errors that bush repeatedly makes (eg the number of troops trained) that his supporters seem to gloss over. if clinton did this, you guys would call for impeachment, assess his character as flawed and call him a serial prevaricator. perhaps bush's past has led him to these point where he cannot differentiate truth from fiction.

kerry is flawed no doubt. but in order to restore credibility to our nation's highest office, bush must go. find another republican for 2008 to defeat kerry, but let's reset the deck and get some honesty back into our national dialogue instead of this GED level political philosophy regarding freedom and democracy.

bush got hammered....its tough when you're answers can't be written out in advance, the moderator doesn't have to sign an loyalty pledge and the questions aren't known in advance.

in fact, its hard work.