nikkipornoface

If you read the entire quote, it becomes clear that Kerry took it out of context.

Bush was not saying he was not concerned about bin Laden in general. He was saying that he was not concerned with bin Laden because he was not in power and, as such, was unable to orchestrate attacks.

"And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure."

A bit vague, but read on

"I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned
about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots
for the Taliban."

Here, President Bush says that he was concerned when bin Laden had power and
was in control of something. This supports his previous statement that bin
Laden isn't a concern because he is "on the run."



Of course, when you take "I truly am not that concerned about him." out of the
context of the entire sentence, it makes it seem like Bush doesn't care about
bin Laden at all. However, when you read the rest of the quote, it becomes
apparent that he was referring to the fact that bin Laden is not a concern
because he has no power

Jimi

In the rebuttal.

nikkipornoface

Kerry didn't stay on topic. He resorted to his old "if I might go back to the previous question" tactics again.

Besides, Kerry keeps talking about his great "plans," yet, he hasn't elaborated on them. When questioned about these "plans," he simply goes back to the fact that his plan (for whatever topic) is good and will work

Jimi

He DOES elaborate on them! I don't understand how people for Bush don't see the elaborations. He is explaining his plans... "I have a plan to.... by...". He said that tonight... Bush strayed from almost EVERY topic. He would go to a completely different topic.

nikkipornoface

See, one of the things the untrained eye misses is that when Bush went "off topic", as people have been saying, he was really tieing everything together. For example, when they were talking about jobs and Bush talked about schooling. This is important because it is extremely true that you get a better job and more opportunities with a better education.

It's a little trick that debaters and people in politics like to use.

For Joe Common, it seems weird and out of place, but for me, a political scientist, it makes perfect sense

Jimi

hahaha, no way! He kept bringing up education when they were talking about economy. "No Child LEft Behind" has NOTHING to do with the economy.

nikkipornoface

Again, from a common perspective, they have nothing to do with one another. But from a political science perspective, they do. If more people were better educated, they would have better jobs and opportunities.

Jimi

Far, far stretch! You must be a political science student. So am I. Education was not the topic. You trying to tie the two together is, again, a far cry from reality.

Jimi

What about all these educated college grads who have lost their jobs to outsourcing? What about people who have had to take lesser jobs because of cutbacks? The economy today is much worse than it was four years ago! And, when we're talking economy, it's more of a short-term goal. Education may, in some very loose, vague idea, be related to economy.... but the children in school won't even have anything to do with the economy for years, even a decade.

nikkipornoface

Of course it is!!! When the financial center of the world crumbles to the ground, what do you expect? Financial prosperity?

Jimi

click on one of our sponsors! OR REMOVE ADS

BS! Now it's going to be blamed on 9/11?? Money is electronic, not tangible. The WTC didn't cause the economy to drop this much! Are you kidding me?! This has been a long, slow process, due to job loss, outsourcing, bad tax cuts, and bad leadership.

nyast

You have just said 3 times that bin Laden isn't a concern and has no power (actually referring to it as a "fact"). How do your textbooks define power? NO he doesn't have what we traditionally think of as power in that he is not "basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban."

He has the hearts and minds of millions of Muslims who don't want to see 'infidel ways' imposed in their countries (especially with military force). As we have seen, scores of these people are willing to end their mortal life at his behest. He has energized and given a voice to those who would exploit religious fervor and ignorance (sound familiar??) to their own political ends.

Also, althought we've captured 75% of the al Queda leaders identified as of 9/11, they have been more made up for in the increased numbers joining terrorists' insurgency. Osama bin Laden has shown that his attacks entail extensive planning and careful attention to detail. Who knows what other plots are in the works or what the untranslated intelligence we have could contain?

For you to quote as "fact" that "bin Laden is not a concern because he has no power" is (at the least) shortsighted and inaccurate.

nikkipornoface

OK, so, you don't think that 9-11 had any effect on the economy. You are entitled to your opinion, but you are wrong. When the financial center of the world...a place that held the offices of many major firms and corporations (Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch)...gets destroyed, it ripples through the economy. Those companies were "dead" for a few weeks while everything was sorted out.

In addition, you have the stock markets that had to react to the attacks. When a company isn't doing anything, traders get extremely worried and the market fluctuates. The Markets were down before 9-11 and they went down further after.

In responce to your last sentence "This has been a long, slow process, due to job loss, outsourcing, bad tax cuts, and bad leadership."

You aer simply using buzz words!! First off, How can you say 9-11 had no effect and then mention job loss. 9-11 caused all kinds of job loss and sparked companies to get very antsy as far as hiring and firing were concerned.
Next, you mention outsourcing. The fact that you say that effected the economy in a negative manner shows your lack of knowledge on the subject. When a company outsources its jobs, they reduce costs and, as such, increase profits. Those profits are passed along to the consumer and those who own the company (esp. if it is publicly traded).
You then mention the tax cuts. The tax cuts have been the only thing keeping a sinking economy from sinking further. Look at the economy from the just before the tax cuts to just after and you will see that the job market and other markets are doing much better.
Bad leadership...that is a personal opinion, so I am not touching that with a 50 foot cattle prod.

Finally, I would just like to say that 9-11 was not the sole cause for the sinking economy. This goes back to 1999 under the last President when the tech bubble burst. A fulurishing market and economy felt the burst and everything took a downward turn. Just before March 2000, it hit it's "bottom" and the markets and economy have been struggling to get back. The tax cuts have started to do that and will continue to do that.

When the tax cuts were first instituted in the 1980's under Reagan, their effects were not felt right away. However, if you look at his second term, prosperity abounded and continued for quite a time.

kgilly

While your statement above is true on people being more educated they would have better job opprtunities...but it was as jimi said, a far stretch from the question presented to him. Your statment on tying it all together is hogwash... In a debate you are given questions and a time alotted to answer that question, not to give a little here and little there and then after the debate say you were tying everything together. Also there are more people in the United States being educated now than ever before, more people are getting more opportunities...I don't see a viable excuse in the first place.