[quote name='Duo_Maxwell'][quote name='dennis_t'][quote name='Duo_Maxwell']Bush looked bad I'd certainly say, but your kind of quick to dismiss all his points, even if he stumbled through a a good portion of them, of course you hardly came in with unbias eyes anyhow so it was only natural to see Kerry's points as grand as Bush's as poor. And I disagree with your #4 especially. I sorry Kerry dodge those attacks not dismiss them with any kind of proof of his own. I like his speech about perents having to buy their kids body armor, the only problem is he's the guy that voted against funding potentially providing body armor.
I also liked how he talked up nuclear proliferation as this huge issue, but IMO Bush beat him out on the North Korea issue. It's kind of like the famous Nixon-Kennedy debate, you read the transcipts and it seems a lot closer than it looked on TV. I'll say this with ease though, if Bush manages to somehow get reelected than he could use a lot more practice with turning the mirror sideways or whatever to improve his formal speaking skills.[/quote]
So, you agree with Bush that Kerry has been impugning and denigrating the troops. Okay, then, show me where Kerry has done that. Provide me some quotes -- IN CONTEXT -- that show Kerry saying the troops suck and don't deserve our support.
And enough with the war funding. First, Kerry voted against it because Bush hadn't said how we would account for the extra money in the budget -- kind of a crucial thing when we're in a major deficit, wouldn't you think? Second, Bush himself threatened to veto the war funding if it didn't go his way (i.e., lawmakers wanted to put spending controls in place). Bush himself played politics with that war money, but I don't hear you raising that point at all.
Finally, on North Korea -- Bush said Kerry was mistaken to want bilateral talks because it would keep North Korea from negotiating with its neighbors. Well, guess what -- those neighbors WANT the U.S. at the table and they WANT bilateral talks, but Bush's stubborn foolishness won't allow us to go to the table. We've been pursuing Bush's strategy for four years now, and look where it's gotten us.[/quote]
Seeing how I never ever mentioned a single thing about denigrating our troops, I'll take it that you simply jumped to a conclusion I didn't make and leave it at that.
On to the war funding issue, that even though you say you've heard enough you called for someone to bring up by stating what you did in your OP. You brought up some good points that Kerry should've instead of ducking the argument. Although I don't know about you , but I think if the Army desparately needs money during the middle of war (which according to all sides they did) you have to give it to them ASAP instead of delaying and worrying about exactly how you're going to cover it. Nobody wants to see soldiers to possibly die while everyone is busy crunching numbers. I'll say I dunno much about your veto point about playing politics with money but it seems like a valid one.
As for NK I really wish we could've heard more on the topic as it seemed so pressing but they spent about 10 mins if that on it. Still you goated me so to speak so I'll try to make an argument for why builaterals are bad...If I remember, Clinton used them back in 1994 and we gave them a ton of aide money as well, but it seems as though it didn't work too well (somewhat thanks to Bush's people for not keeping contect, but still). What Allies want us to engage in bilateral talks? And before I go further it should be known we've met independently with NK envoys and through those meetings nothing developed. I know NK wants us to engage in bilateral talks, in fact it's exactly what they want. What better to divide and conquer these six nations. Plus countries like S Korea and Japan tried bilateral talks a little while ago. NK got some nice perks and the talks didn't do much of anything to stop them. To halt any kind of nuclear development they want "rewards." It's essentially a form of blackmail with nuclear weapons. Also, you don't wanna upset the balance of the allies we have in these talks. China and Russia likely have far better intelligence on NK than we do and we need that intelligence to conduct talks and asses their capabilities. If we leave them and start our own talks, we'll lose some of that intelligence, not to mention the leverage like was mentioned in the debates. To be honest, it's tough to see who's right on this issue because there are some factors that haven't been discussed much by either side, like what about the trade issues for instance. At the time of the debates it just seems like from what was said (btw Kerry himself said they weren't talking for two years, so how could it be four years?) in the debate, and seeing how Kerry didn't bring up the more convincing point you just did so I can't really include that. Instead all I got was some assurance from somebody who hasn't spoken with the NK gov't much, that his plan of both talks would somehow work. Seeing as how they say it's such an important issue I'm going to need more than that. Opposite that is Bush's lack of true success wit the multilateral talks, but i do find it being more effective, and the opposing views from this election doesn't help matters currently as NK will probably just wait it out and see who wins. The thing I probably find most odd is how Kerry wants to build up this great alliance or whatever for things like Iraq, but he seems to almost want to take the lone wolf approach here. That's an oddball foreign policy stance, but I'm not a master of foreign plicy issues at all, so I probably shouldn't be talking at all about any of this to be honest.[/quote]
I agree that the North Korea issue certainly deserved more than the single exchange that it got.
When you are talking about bilateral talks, though, that doesn't mean the U.S. is ignoring its allies. I think we would be in a better position to sit down and talk tough with North Korea if we had that additional intelligence from other countries and if Kim Jong Il understood we were speaking on behalf of his neighbors. But given Bush's arrogant dismissal of diplomatic procedure, I don't think that would ever happen under his watch.
Kerry's website gives a snippet of his proposed North Korea policy, and it doesn't mention any "lone wolf" stance:
The North Koreans have made it clear to the world - and to the terrorists - that they are open for business and will sell to the highest bidder. John Kerry and John Edwards believe that the United States must be prepared to negotiate a comprehensive agreement that addresses the full range of issues of concern to us and our allies. As president, John Kerry will have no illusions about Kim Jong Il. Any agreement must have rigorous verification and lead to complete and irreversible elimination of North Korea's nuclear weapons program.
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/asia.html
