Debate #1 wrap-up; Update: Kissinger repudiates Obama

posted at 11:06 pm on September 26, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Given the uncertainty surrounding the presidential debate tonight, I wasn’t sure exactly what to expect.  Both Barack Obama and John McCain have had to fly more than they expected in the last couple of days, and neither got a chance to focus on preparation, at least not to the extent they planned.  I figured we’d see at least one major gaffe or breakdown from one of the candidates, and honestly, I wasn’t looking forward to seeing it.

However, I think both men did better than I expected.  Neither seemed to show any effects from the hectic pace of the past week, and both appeared ready and relaxed at the start of tonight’s debate.  I’d also include Jim Lehrer in that description, even though he had to rewrite part of his script to accommodate the economic crisis.  Lehrer gave the debate a light touch as moderator, allowing the candidates plenty of space to talk and encouraging dialogue rather than speechmaking.  It was perhaps one of the best presidential debates I’ve seen in this cycle, maybe the best.

With that said, McCain clearly got the best of Obama tonight.  After a shaky couple of minutes to start the first question, McCain jabbed at Obama all night long — and he got Obama obviously flustered.  While McCain kept his equanimity and never raised his tone or pitch, Obama got visibly upset, his voice pitched higher when responding to McCain, and Obama interrupted more.  Obama also kept calling McCain “John” while McCain used the more proper “Senator Obama”, a difference that grated as the evening wore on.

Substantially, McCain also bested Obama on both economics and foreign policy.  On the former, it was most apparent when Lehrer asked both candidates what they would cut as President after the bailout package passes.  Obama could not bring himself to commit to one single cut, and instead talked about all of the funding he wanted to create for pet programs.  McCain noted that he has long championed spending reductions and proposed a spending freeze on all but the most vital programs.  When challenged on this point, Obama refused to say whether he would accept a freeze.

I did have a moment of frustration with McCain on the first question, a round I think Obama won.  He never challenged Obama’s assumptions that the current credit crisis came from too little regulation.  I kept expecting McCain to talk about the disaster of the Community Reinvestment Act, and the mandates from Congress that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac encourage bad lending by buying up bad paper.  Instead, he tried to out-populist Obama, and Obama sounds more authentic as a populist.

On foreign policy, Obama did better than expected, but still fell short.  I think his response on the decision to go into Iraq was quite good (even if I disagree with it), but he kept trying to argue that he didn’t demand a precipitous withdrawal in 2007 when the record clearly shows he did — and he beat Hillary to death with it in the primaries.  McCain drew blood when he pointed out that for all of Obama’s talk about the priority of Afghanistan, he never once bothered to visit that front until last July, even though his Senate subcommittee has jurisdiction on NATO issues.  Obama spluttered in response but never did explain why such an important theater wasn’t worth a single visit from him.

On Georgia, Russia, and eastern Europe, McCain proved himself the master of detailed foreign-policy thinking.  While Obama talked briefly about the potential for NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine and pledged to “rebuild Georgia’s economy”, McCain explained the geopolitical realities of the entire region, and Russia’s intentions for it.

If Obama expected the old man to be too tired to debate properly, he is surely disappointed tonight.  McCain kept Obama on defense all night long, made Obama lose his composure, and maintained his own in a very presidential performance.  This one is a clear win for McCain.

Update: Obama tried to twist out of the “no preconditions” statement by claiming that Henry Kissinger supported it.  McCain openly scoffed at the notion, and for good reason — Kissinger didn’t say it:

Henry Kissinger believes Barack Obama misstated his views on diplomacy with US adversaries and is not happy about being mischaracterized. He says: “Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain. We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality.”

Either Obama lied, or he’s too inexperienced to understand what Kissinger said and actually meant.

One more point about Obama’s obfuscations about “preparations” as opposed to “preconditions”: he originally said that he would meet with Ahmadinejad, Castro, Kim, and Chavez in his first year in office:

QUESTION: In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since.

In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?

COOPER: I should also point out that Stephen is in the crowd tonight.

Senator Obama?

OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration — is ridiculous.

How much “preparation” time would he have?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Obama has a traditional, Christian, God-fearing family with upright, conservative values. Can the same be said for McCain?
philnewkirk on September 27, 2008 at 5:14 AM

And as we all know the moon is made out of green cheese.

rplat on September 27, 2008 at 9:19 AM

As for my thoughts on the debate, I am a McCain supporter, but I thought Obama won this debate…not by much, but I think he won. Certainly just about everyone on this site thinks that McCain won. And surprise of surprises, if you go onto Huffington Post, just about everyone thinks Obama won!
asc85 on September 27, 2008 at 9:14 AM

I watched most of it, listened to the first part in the car, and didn’t hear or see McCain trash Obama at all. I was hoping to hear McCain as fired up, maybe approaching the levels of his ‘fight with me’ moment from his acceptance speech. Obama didn’t stumble as much as I hoped. Because that’s what he does when he’s off prompter. I didn’t see a clear win. I really didn’t see McCain win this either.

wise_man on September 27, 2008 at 9:19 AM

wise_man:

I think there is truth in that, but then again I think this sort of thing can come back on them as well. It helps to produce cynical distrustful people who are less likely to believe in government or have any faith in it. Hence, even when the Democrats win, as in the case of Congress, they end up with a lower approval rating than Bush.

Terrye on September 27, 2008 at 9:20 AM

Obama has a traditional, Christian, God-fearing family with upright, conservative values. Can the same be said for McCain?
philnewkirk on September 27, 2008 at 5:14 AM
Holy Mother of GOD who the hell is this liar???

wise_man on September 27, 2008 at 9:16 AM

An Axelrod ASStroturfer, most likely.

AZCoyote on September 27, 2008 at 9:20 AM

I’m sorry, Terrye – to which comment is that for?

wise_man on September 27, 2008 at 9:20 AM

Keemo:

Well,I guess it depends on what you mean by socialism.

Terrye on September 27, 2008 at 9:20 AM

Having done a quick review of this morning’s Google News Grand Rounds, a high percentage of the MSM Machine is spinning that the debate was a tie.

This means that McCain had an overwhelming victory.

And to undecideds who didn’t watch the debate, a tie most likely ends in McCain’s favor, as he is a known quantity, while Obama is who?

Loxodonta on September 27, 2008 at 9:22 AM

wise_man:

I was referring in the deliberate attempts by the left to demonize Bush or their political enemies.

If you tell people that presidents are behind plots to kill Americans, that they carry out illegal wars, then it is not just that president that will be tarred, but the whole process and institution. I think that sometimes the left forgets that.

Terrye on September 27, 2008 at 9:25 AM

Loxodonta:

Ahh, so in order not to look like complete morons,they say it was a tie.

figures.

Nina Easton on Fox said McCain won hands down and seemed sort of surprised that there was any question about it.

Terrye on September 27, 2008 at 9:27 AM

As for my thoughts on the debate, I am a McCain supporter, but I thought Obama won this debate…not by much, but I think he won. Certainly just about everyone on this site thinks that McCain won. And surprise of surprises, if you go onto Huffington Post, just about everyone thinks Obama won!
asc85 on September 27, 2008 at 9:14 AM

We are in an ideological war in which there is neither middle ground nor any chance of reconciliation. Our differences are irreconcilable and the ultimate outcome, which will come, will be too violent and destructive to even mention.

rplat on September 27, 2008 at 9:27 AM

I think McCain, but more importantly I think Obama lost, the man was annoying.

Terrye on September 27, 2008 at 9:28 AM

This is what I mean by Socialism Terrye:

Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society.[1][2] Modern socialism originated in the late nineteenth-century working class political movement. Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution, it being the transitional stage between capitalism and communism.[3][4]

All socialists share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth into a small section of society who control capital, and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.[1]

Socialism is not a discrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and program; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalization, sometimes opposing each other. Another dividing feature of the socialist movement is the split on how a socialist economy should be established between the reformists and the revolutionaries. Some socialists advocate complete nationalization of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; while others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy. Social democrats propose selective nationalization of key national industries in mixed economies combined with tax-funded welfare programs; libertarian socialists advocate co-operative worker ownership of the means of production; most Marxists (some inspired by the Soviet economic model), advocate centrally-planned economies. By contrast, Social-Anarchists, Luxemburgists, the U.S. New Left and various forms of libertarian socialism favor decentralized ownership via co-operative workers’ councils and participatory planning.

In the 1970s and the 1980s, Yugoslavian, Hungarian, Polish and Chinese Communists instituted various forms of market socialism combining co-operative and State ownership models with the free market exchange.[5] This is unlike the earlier theoretical market socialist proposal put forth by Oskar Lange in that it allows market forces, rather than central planners to guide production and exchange.[6] Anarcho-syndicalists, Luxemburgists (such as those in the Socialist Party USA) and some elements of the United States New Left favor decentralized collective ownership in the form of cooperatives or workers’ councils.

Keemo on September 27, 2008 at 9:29 AM

I meant to say I think McCain won, but more importantly I think Obama lost.

Terrye on September 27, 2008 at 9:29 AM

Terrye on September 27, 2008 at 9:25 AM

Of course the Huffington Post/MoveOn PAC/Code Pink people don’t care. But it’s pretty amazing when democrats such as the DNC chair, congressman Dennis Kucinich and former congresswoman Cynthia McKinney and others participate in this. Once you cross the line, that’s it. There’s no going back.

These people lose their status as politicians, and – for me, are now just nothing more than freaks.

wise_man on September 27, 2008 at 9:30 AM

Ed, Obama doesn’t need any prep time; he can multi-task. Are you disrepecting THE ONE!

sophiesmom on September 27, 2008 at 9:33 AM

Keemo:

I am aware of what socialism is. My point is that some people think public education is socialism. There is a difference in using government to improve people’s lives and being a socialist. In fact one could say that the military is socialistic because it has a cradle to grave policy for many people in that system…and yet most Americans believe that we owe our veterans a great deal and that they have earned everything they get.

However, back in the Civil War there were people who said there should be very little pay for soldiers because it created a class of mercenaries and these men should fight for their country for duty, not pay.

That is my point. Some people see things differently. Even when dealing with well known concepts and isms.

Terrye on September 27, 2008 at 9:34 AM

If you expected McCain to tar and feather Obama in order to win, you failed to observe that the debate accomplished its purpose. And if you want Obama tarred and feathered, you’re going to have to do that on your own and suffer the consequences.

A Statesman does not trash his opponent in order to win the debate. The Statesman proves the opponent’s ineffectual strategy, proves the opponent’s inaccuracies, proves the opponent’s lack of preparation and lack of ability to respond effectively to world crisis. McCain did that hands down without rancor. McCain proved his own strength of character throughout the debate, not ever loosing his composure, always responding particularly to the words and ideas of his opponent, assigning fault according to recorded fact, not fabricated propaganda.

Obama failed to respond in kind. Obama is not presidential material. Obama does not have anything that the POTUS must have in order to serve our nation with grace, dignity and prowess. Obama squandered the opportunity to show America that he is anything other than a flim-flam man.

Obama lost everything beyond his own pea-brained contingency.

McCain won hands down as an officer, a gentleman, a Senator and great Statesman, and a true American hero.

maverick muse on September 27, 2008 at 9:34 AM

A Statesman does not trash his opponent in order to win the debate.
maverick muse on September 27, 2008 at 9:34 AM

By ‘trash’ I mean, to win by his words and point out where he is correct and where his opponent is wrong, and to do so in a manner that O’Reilly did with Obama when he confronted him with his bigoted former paster. Obama’s reply to when O’Reilly said his racist rants were on DVD’s on sale in the lobby – Obama replied with a shrug and said “What can I say.”

wise_man on September 27, 2008 at 9:37 AM

My point is that some people think public education is socialism.

maverick muse on September 27, 2008 at 9:37 AM

I was impressed with McCain. I have not been for him, but I liked him last night. I think it is terribly important for him to win this election. Obama obviously doesn’t think we have a problem with FM & FM. He especially would not cut funds to those hack organizations like ACORN. Hopefully McCain will get in and CUT CUT CUT…

reshas1 on September 27, 2008 at 9:42 AM

This seems to be a really good summation of the debate.

wise_man on September 27, 2008 at 9:43 AM

I think there is one aspect of this debate that shouldn’t be forgotten . . . Obama’s handlers had been gaming this debate for days and filling Obama with canned answers and behavioral alternatives. McCain on the other hand was working in Washington then jumped on a plane and went directly to the debate. If this is the best they can produce then Obama is in trouble and will need every bit of cover the leftist media can give him

rplat on September 27, 2008 at 9:44 AM

Yes, rplat. And on Rush Limbaugh’s friday radio program (beginning of hour 3 if i’m not mistaken) he pointed out how poorly Obama did with only his poorly created notes that were handed to him by his staffers. He didn’t know what he was talking about, and the meeting with him and the others senior members fell apart.

wise_man on September 27, 2008 at 9:47 AM

wise_man

good Politico link to Simon’s assessment.

maverick muse on September 27, 2008 at 9:49 AM

Yeah, it’s all good. Especially:

But McCain attacked back. “I understand why Sen. Obama was surprised and saddened that the surge succeeded beyond his wildest expectations,” he said.

wise_man on September 27, 2008 at 9:52 AM

wise_man

O’Reilly can certainly deliver some great knock-outs. [Wright didn’t come up last night, and won’t come up in any MSM debate.]

McCain mastered Obama’s inadequacies last night with an even tenor.

Ill will was not wholly melted down into the will of God: but although in general he could say, I come ‘not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me;’ yet now and then nature rebelled, and he could not clearly say, ‘Lord, not as I will, but as thou wilt.’ His whole soul is now consistent with itself; there is no jarring string. All his passions flow in a continual stream, with an even tenor, to God. [John Wesley Defines Christian Perfection, 1739]

maverick muse on September 27, 2008 at 10:02 AM

Silly Wabbit: “preparation” and “preconditions” mean Obama will leave the teleprompter home.

katablog.com on September 27, 2008 at 10:10 AM

As for my thoughts on the debate, I am a McCain supporter, but I thought Obama won this debate…not by much, but I think he won.

asc85 on September 27, 2008 at 9:14 AM

Can you give me some specifics that I can go back and review?

Certainly just about everyone on this site thinks that McCain won. And surprise of surprises, if you go onto Huffington Post, just about everyone thinks Obama won!

asc85 on September 27, 2008 at 9:14 AM

Believe me, I have considered that. I cannot stand partisan politics when it leads people to obfuscate the truth and even tell bald faced lies. I do not want to find myself it that position.

Having said that, I cannot get past many things Obama said.

1) He thought that Kissinger agreed with him. Kissinger castigated Obama for being wrong about that. Now, did Obama lie, or did he REALLY think that meeting with Aloonboonyjab without conditions is such sound foreign policy that the preeminent foreign policy expert agrees? Either way, this is a major problem for a candidate and shows a thorough lack of understanding of FP.

2) Obama did say he would attack Pakistan. He tried to justify it by saying it was a sound policy. But that wasn’t McCain’s counterpoint. McCain’s problem was that a president DOES NOT say that ALOUD. It puts your ally in the position to have to publicly and forcefully repudiate the remark. It also PUBLICLY accuses our ally of not helping us.

3) Obama tried to lump everyone into his remark about the surge exceeding our wildest expectations. Not me. Not John McCain. And not a lot of folks. He refuses to admit his error in judgment on the wisdom of the surge and if he had his way, we would have been out of Iraq a year ago. Months and months before the surge has actually succeeded. He also played politics with our troops lives when he voted against funding their bullets and body armor. As a matter of fact, the dems have been trying to lose this war for 3 years for the simple reason that they want to win the presidency.

So, considering all those facts, AND the president is solely responsible for FP, I cannot square your assertion that Obama won.

csdeven on September 27, 2008 at 10:19 AM

The rampant barrage of absolute lies that the DNC/MSM are flooding for “public record” is beyond anything that I have ever witnessed, ever. Vietnam was as heated a schism as ever; but the press covered both sides at first before taking its absolute bias to its absolute non-limits.

THIS TIME conservatism never was recognized but only smeared with lies, and each smear begat a house of cards that facts rip to shreds.

2008 is unprecedented in the totality of fabricated lies sung in monotonous unison by the entire Leftist Choir. Obama wants to assume himself the composer of this epic monotone opus and and maestro conducting his choral ensemble of deceivers. That his innate limits leave him without talent, without sense of virtue, and without training we are supposed to remain oblivious? As Obama flays his arms and we hear their drone rise to a shriek, Americans either choose to join their tingling leg insanity, or Americans see and hear Obama’s monumental decadence for what it is: DANGEROUSLY OBNOXIOUS.

maverick muse on September 27, 2008 at 10:28 AM

Silly Wabbit: “preparation” and “preconditions” mean Obama will leave the teleprompter home.

The inverse:
Preparation means someone prepared his lines; preconditions mean Obama requires his teleprompter attached to his head at all times.

maverick muse on September 27, 2008 at 10:31 AM

Instead, he tried to out-populist Obama, and Obama sounds more authentic as a populist.

Lol!

There is nothing authentic about barack Hussein.

Obama just came across as a scared little wimp.

Mccain was bullying him around and taking control while Obama was obviously flustered,nervous and afraid.

SaintOlaf on September 27, 2008 at 10:32 AM

Instead, he tried to out-populist Obama, and Obama sounds more authentic as a populist.

If stuttering and uttering foolishness “sounds more authentic as a populist”–get over such convolutions. Obama is a cheap imitation of Marx; Obama hasn’t a shred of authenticity regardless of the original or alternative definition of “authentic”. Get over your own mythology, even as you demand we all face reality.

maverick muse on September 27, 2008 at 10:39 AM

When Kerry debated Bush back in 2004 the media proclaimed Kerry the clear victor is all three debates.

Why should we expect any different opinion from the MSM this time around?

Hopefully we will have a similar result in the presidential election as we did in 2004 too, in spite of the Democrat candidate’s impecable credentials and superior intellect pointed out by the media.

fogw on September 27, 2008 at 10:42 AM

Get ready for “McCain STOLE the election” ….. from the left – again, fogw.

wise_man on September 27, 2008 at 10:51 AM

i could not stand Barry last night, had to turn the debate off (its on DVR so I can go back and catch glimpses if I feel like it) after about 20 mins. He could not answer any of John’s comments, and kept interrupting him with little snide comments like, “er, that’s not true” and my favorite, as he interrupts McCain, “Hold on, there’s a lot in there”, as if he just gets to stop “John” from making his points and start addressing them. Wait in line Barry, you’ll get your time. Thanks to all on the comment board, I enjoy reading the responses here far more than listening to the liberal media try to lie to my face.

righthanddrive on September 27, 2008 at 10:53 AM

I enjoy reading the responses here far more than listening to the liberal media try to lie to my face.

Absolutely, righthanddrive. And myself as well.

wise_man on September 27, 2008 at 10:58 AM

FactCheck said that McCain and Obama were both right in regards to Kissinger. Even though they quote Kissinger directly as saying Obama was wrong and misstated his position they still claim that Obama was partially correct.

John McCain has had to fight a sea of intellectual dishonesty that borders upon the criminal.

Jdripper on September 27, 2008 at 11:20 AM

If you expected McCain to tar and feather Obama in order to win, you failed to observe that the debate accomplished its purpose. And if you want Obama tarred and feathered, you’re going to have to do that on your own and suffer the consequences.

A Statesman does not trash his opponent in order to win the debate. The Statesman proves the opponent’s ineffectual strategy, proves the opponent’s inaccuracies, proves the opponent’s lack of preparation and lack of ability to respond effectively to world crisis. McCain did that hands down without rancor. McCain proved his own strength of character throughout the debate, not ever loosing his composure, always responding particularly to the words and ideas of his opponent, assigning fault according to recorded fact, not fabricated propaganda.

Obama failed to respond in kind. Obama is not presidential material. Obama does not have anything that the POTUS must have in order to serve our nation with grace, dignity and prowess. Obama squandered the opportunity to show America that he is anything other than a flim-flam man.

Obama lost everything beyond his own pea-brained contingency.

McCain won hands down as an officer, a gentleman, a Senator and great Statesman, and a true American hero.

maverick muse on September 27, 2008 at 9:34 AM

That was extremely well said and worth repeating!

I thought it was interesting that supposedly Obama was going to try to get McCain to lose his temper, and Obama was the one who looked ready to blow a gasket throughout.

Maverick, I also agree with your assessment of the DNC and MSM. I’m not old enough to remember the coverage in Vietnam, but through this election cycle I’ve seen the DNC run with the omissions, half-truths and strait out lies because they know most in the media are aiding and abetting their goal of total control. It’s more than a bit frightening.

4shoes on September 27, 2008 at 11:26 AM

test

Akzed on September 27, 2008 at 11:37 AM

I keep reading that there were no major gaffes. This was a major gaffe and it ought to be rammed into Obama big time.
What am I missing?

drjohn on September 27, 2008 at 11:50 AM

I think that Ed’s review of the debate is spot on. For once, I can’t even think of a snarky remark to make. Ed nailed it.

I would like to add something, though.

Truth in advertising: I didn’t see the entire debate. I TIVO’d it, and plan to watch it later, perhaps when I’ve had a few drinks and a mellow enough that Obama’s manner doesn’t have me throwing something through my TV screen.

Mr. Obama came off to me as quite polished. What I did see convinced me that, despite the hassles of the last few days, he has had time to prepare. He excels, after all, as does his treasonous party at the smooth lie.

Mr. Obama was style. He came off as if he was reciting his own campaign literature — all promises, “forty acres and a mule”, without the mechanisms worked out to deliver — very smoothly and with all the responses to all the predictable counters rehearsed. He performed stylishly.

Mr. McCain seemed ragged. He seemed, instead of rehearsed, to be more “just flew in, and boy are my arms tired”, and speaking off the top of his head. Hence, the bulldog grip on earmarks and his concentration on spending cuts when that point had passed. But, when it came to the war, the “surge” and other foreign affairs topics, he spoke with sort of an “I seem to remember that you…” tone. It was genuine, and he displayed a knowledge of affairs which bespoke actual experience and thought, not a weekend’s briefing.

In short, he was substance.

So, we had a display of style v. substance. That’s a pretty stark choice to me, n’cest pas?

Puritan1648 on September 27, 2008 at 12:19 PM

My wife told me a story after the debate. When she was little, she saw her mom had some baker’s chocolate. She wanted some because it looked so good. But, of course, tasted horrible. That is how she sees Obama after the debate – he looks good, the substance doesn’t match.

I told her she was racist.

Phred on September 27, 2008 at 12:40 PM

mojave,
Are you serious? The grand plan is to kill everyone and ‘break their stuff’
Who has iran invaded like the nazi’s did? So scenes of ‘death to america ‘is all you need to ‘wipe iran from the map’.

If they sung it in the style of the beach boys would that still be a threat? Get a life,it is only a collection of buddies together.
The only images shown of iran is them jumping up and screaming. Iran is not camels and desert. They is a jewish community there,represented in parliment.Please look at other images you might be surprised to see the other side of iran.

Iran interfering in your war? Iran supported you in afghanistan,agreeing that if u.s. soldiers were shot down and landed in iran they would co-operate.

Iran held candlelit vigils following 9/11, and strongly condemned it.

There is a rising taking place,they are a proud nation .70% of iranians are under 40 and want change,they report that they were able to overthrown the shah,support them but don’t nuke them.

80 power stations bombed with all that toxic waste for ever in their country.What would it achieve? They have every right to develop nuclear power,it serves there country better if they use nuclear power for their domestic use,and sell there oil-they will get more money that way.

I emplore you to go out side your media for information.
Why can Israel have hundreds of undeclared nukes-not sighed up the NPA.No inspections.

The rest of the world has had enough of U.S hypocrisy and double standards.
‘nuke them’ for helping terrorists,so the U.K had every right to bomb boston and kill all who funded and supported the i.r.a who used it to kill british and irish civilians.
Where you with us or with the terrorists?

mags on September 27, 2008 at 12:43 PM

I am with you, mags. I shook my head watching the debate when both candidates claimed with a straight face that Iran is a threat to USA homeland. That kind of lie is what got us into the Iraq disaster. No more soldiers must die in vain; no more families must be torn apart. No more children must be separated from their mothers.

The time for war must be no more.

philnewkirk on September 27, 2008 at 2:17 PM

Who has iran invaded like the nazi’s did?

mags on September 27, 2008 at 12:43 PM

Try Lebanon, Iraq, and Israel.
Granted, they are more dysfunctional than the nazis, and less competent in general, so the effects are more chaotic and ineffectual, but they have sent people into other countries to attack them.

Count to 10 on September 27, 2008 at 3:12 PM

I am with you, mags. I shook my head watching the debate when both candidates claimed with a straight face that Iran is a threat to USA homeland. That kind of lie is what got us into the Iraq disaster. No more soldiers must die in vain; no more families must be torn apart. No more children must be separated from their mothers.

The time for war must be no more.

philnewkirk on September 27, 2008 at 2:17 PM

Please, come back to reality.

Count to 10 on September 27, 2008 at 3:13 PM

mags on September 27, 2008 at 8:53 AM

Is mags an Iranian operative, or just a loony lefty? His remarks seem to indicate he is not from the US.

Count to 10 on September 27, 2008 at 3:19 PM

Did not Sadam offer a $25,000 bounty to suicide bombers for every Jew they killed? Oh, yeah, but that’s not Al Queda.

bloggless on September 27, 2008 at 8:50 AM

Obama loves Saddam Hussein Obama has his middle name he can identify with him..

America also, had the “Iraq Liberation Act” that was passed and signed by Bill Clinton and passed by unanimous consent in the Senate.. Saddam was funding terrorist that bomb inside of Israel, and lying and denying inspectors access, after 9/11 we could not trust him, fail UN Resolution after resolution, we called his bluff, how he’s dead.

Chakra Hammer on September 27, 2008 at 4:17 PM

Please, come back to reality.

Count to 10 on September 27, 2008 at 3:13 PM

I came back to reality ever since I found God and realized war is Satanic.

philnewkirk on September 27, 2008 at 4:21 PM

My wife told me a story after the debate. When she was little, she saw her mom had some baker’s chocolate. She wanted some because it looked so good. But, of course, tasted horrible. That is how she sees Obama after the debate – he looks good, the substance doesn’t match.

I told her she was racist.

Phred on September 27, 2008 at 12:40 PM

Not LOL but chuckling heartily!

Sensitivity training for the whole fam?

hawkdriver on September 27, 2008 at 4:54 PM

I keep reading that there were no major gaffes. This was a major gaffe and it ought to be rammed into Obama big time.
What am I missing?

drjohn on September 27, 2008 at 11:50 AM

I agree. The Kissinger exchange and Hanks response is Ad fodder of the highest order!

hawkdriver on September 27, 2008 at 4:56 PM

wise_man:

I was referring in the deliberate attempts by the left to demonize Bush or their political enemies.

If you tell people that presidents are behind plots to kill Americans, that they carry out illegal wars, then it is not just that president that will be tarred, but the whole process and institution. I think that sometimes the left forgets that.

Terrye on September 27, 2008 at 9:25 AM

The left is too simplistic to think to the end result of their tactics. For one thing, they see no connection between a liberal president and a conservative president. They just see the conservatives as evil.

All that matters to the left is that you hold the right opinions (political correctness) and have good intentions. Leftist politicians can promise everything, because they don’t have to keep any promises. The important thing is the good intention

Bush, being somewhat conservative, is therefore an evil fascist madman who must be opposed. If one of their own becomes president, then the presidency is instantly a glorious and untarnished institution.

In other words, forget reasoning. It’s all about feeling.

theregoestheneighborhood on September 28, 2008 at 12:20 AM

Who has iran invaded like the nazi’s did?

mags on September 27, 2008 at 12:43 PM

Try Lebanon, Iraq, and Israel.
Granted, they are more dysfunctional than the nazis, and less competent in general, so the effects are more chaotic and ineffectual, but they have sent people into other countries to attack them.

Count to 10 on September 27, 2008 at 3:12 PM

Good answer. Iran frankly has not had the power to invade like the Nazis did. That’s why they use the weak regime’s tool, terrorism, to attack other nations. Iran has surpassed Syria to become the number one sponsor of terrorism around the world. They have aided terrorists in Iraq to target American troops. They have equipped and aided Hezbollah in Lebanon to undermine the government there, and in Israel.

Many individuals in Iran are quite friendly to the US and open to good relations. But the Iranian regime is a threat to everyone around them, and will continue to be a threat to the US as long as we’re in that area.

theregoestheneighborhood on September 28, 2008 at 12:30 AM