This debate wasn't as good as the VPs on Tuesday Night, but it was interesting for a few reasons.

First, you can tell the boys had Bush ready for this one.  The obviously told him to be more animated, and uber-aggressive.  It's probably the most animated we've seen Bush in public.  At first, I was skeptical whether this approach would work, but it was obvious by the end of the debate that it was wearing Kerry down, and Kerry seemed to falter along the stretch.

Bush looked to come out and prove that he can go point-counterpoint to Kerry, and that aggressiveness didn't make him look like he was putting on a phony show for the people.  That's good, because if he came out smiling every other second in this debate he would have had phony issues.  And I think he really felt he was connecting at the end, particularly after the timber joke on through.

I really don't know how the Bush campaign are really looking at the foreign policy part of the debate.  it really seemed to me as if they are more than willing to sit back and live off of the merits of their record.  The only problem is that Kerry is continously spinning it like a top, and he's been allowed to define the campaign's position as well as his own.  Bush did a much better job debunking some of Kerry's dream-induced foreign policy, but he still didn't go far enough.

It was the third time that Kerry/Edwards brought up that ridiculously stupid Tora Bora/warlord issue, and Bush/Cheney once again failed to address it and knock that mess out the park.  They might see this as simple ignorance that most would see as ridiculous, but people listen to mess like that.  And the fact is, they aren't getting any help with the press in refuting this mess. 

But the press is all too willing to try to bring up insignificant mess like this.  $84?  Give me a damn break.  If you want to mention SubChapter-S corps, how about Edwards's same loopholes to avoid paying hundreds of thousands in Medicare taxes?

Bush did do surprisingly good on all domestic issues: health care, the environment, taxes, and abortion.  The only one he stumbled on is the federal budget.  That should be the main thing the campaign works on over the weekend.  One thing that's going to be pushed by Bob Scheiffer (next week's moderator) will be the fact that none have talked about what programs and the like they will cut in order to deal with the deficit.  More than likely, Kerry will bullshit, but Bush can score some points with fiscal conservatives by cutting government waste as well as even call for a toning down on federal pork.  As a Republican, Bush will have more credibility on cutting costs than Kerry ever will, especially since Kerry never met a social program he didn't like.

All in all, it was a solid win for Bush, albeit there were lowered expectations placed on him after the first debate.  I think I was right in saying they didn't adequately prepare him in debate 1, and that was costly.  But I think they stemmed any kind of momentum Kerry had with this debate tonight (although that came with the overhype spin the media placed on the first debate, which CNN acknowledged tonight), and I expect a pretty decent showing at debate 3.

Alright, Bush needs to have his game face on tonight.  He let too much b.s. from Kerry slide a week ago.  Now it's time to start deconstructing his flimsy arguments.

This townhall debate crowd won't be nice.  As most of the questioning has for the previous two, this will lean towards Kerry's favor.  Bush has to come off as knowledgable and inquisitive towards that audience and the viewers on television.

Let's see how he does.

While the mainstream media is busy spinning the ISG report, there are a couple of media outlets that are finding out the truth within the Duelfer Report.

Too bad the media outlets aren't in the U.S.:

Saddam was convinced that the UN sanctions - which stopped him acquiring weapons - were on the brink of collapse and he bankrolled several foreign activists who were campaigning for their abolition. He personally approved every one.

To keep America at bay, he focusing on Russia, France and China - three of the five UN Security Council members with the power to veto war. Politicians, journalists and diplomats were all given lavish gifts and oil-for-food vouchers.

Tariq Aziz, the former Iraqi deputy prime minister, told the ISG that the "primary motive for French co-operation" was to secure lucrative oil deals when UN sanctions were lifted. Total, the French oil giant, had been promised exploration rights.

Iraqi intelligence officials then "targeted a number of French individuals that Iraq thought had a close relationship to French President Chirac," it said, including two of his "counsellors" and spokesman for his re-election campaign.

They even assessed the chances for "supporting one of the candidates in an upcoming French presidential election." Chirac is not mentioned by name.

This is the last piece of a puzzle that explains the background for the Iraq War.  The facts are simple:  Iraq bribed French and Russian nationals into vetoing any kind of military involvement into Iraq.  Now, we can give both countries the benefit of the doubt that they were going to vote against it anyway, but the fact remains that they were bribed and were protecting their businesses in the Oil-For-Food Scandal.

And it's surprising to watch to what lengths Saddam will go in order to maintain French protection, even to the point of supporting French politicians for reelection.

Here are some of the major names that Saddam targeted in Russia and France:

Among those named were Benon Sevan, the former head of the UN's humanitarian programme; President Megawati Sukarnoputri of Indonesia; the former French interior minister Charles Pasqua; and Vladimir Zhirinovsky, the founder of Russia's Liberal Democratic Party.

The CIA's internet list appeared to have been edited to protect the identities of several firms and individuals from the US and other countries that supported the war.

France and Russia pressed for the lifting of UN sanctions from the mid-1990s.

In 1992, according to Iraqi intelligence documents included in the report, Abdel-Razek Al Hashimi, the Iraqi ambassador to France, handed $1 million for the ruling Socialist party to Pierre Joxe, the defence minister.

It's no wonder that France has opposed every action against Saddam.  Isn't it interesting that leftists point to U.S. involvement in "creating" Saddam, but never talk about French involvement with him before and after Saddam invaded Kuwait. 

Here's more:

In June 2000, Iraq awarded $1.78 billion in short-term contracts under the food programme to France, worth 15 per cent of Iraq's total oil contracts, in the hope of ensuring support over sanctions.

Iraq's security services "flagged two groups influential to France's policy in the UN Security Council - government officials and influential citizens", the report said.

It disclosed that a $12 billion deal to build economic relations with Iraq was discussed with Russia's energy minister.

A staggering 32 per cent of oil-for-food contracts went to Russia in the form of oil vouchers and gifts in which the new oligarchs, officials and political parties were principal beneficiaries.

"The lion's share of Iraq's undeveloped oil fields went to Russia," said the report. In 2002, Russian firms negotiated 10-year contracts to begin exploring Iraqi oil fields.

An American official said: "There are a lot of active members of the Security Council who were violating the resolutions that they passed."

That last statement really sums it up.  Security Council bureaucrats were willing to pass these resolutions because they knew that they were undermining them behind the scenes.  And they were all too willing to allow Saddam to act beligerent while they were taking his oil and his money.  And Saddam thought they would come through in preventing the U.S. from taking him down.  However, he didn't realize that George Bush is not Bill Clinton, and would not allow these corrupt governments to stop us from making a regime change by going over the head of the United Nations.

And it needs to be emphasized throughout the rest of this election that these are precisely the countries John Kerry wants to embrace in his vision for America.  In light of this whole mess, an internationalist president is the last thing this country needs right now.

This is a column I wrote for a website (uhh....I don't even know what the URL is for the website or what it's named, but the guy who asked me to do it is cool, so I decided to do it.  I just might wanna get that information, huh? :) ).    I'm testing the waters to see if I want to start trying to do a bit of freelancing among newspapers trying to spice up their editorial pages and make a lil bit of extra money in the process, so I'm giving this a chance.  Tell me if ya like it.

If there was one thing that could be taken from the Vice-Presidential debate on Tuesday Night between Dick Cheney and John Edwards, it’s the distinct vibe that separates the two men.

Dick Cheney came off as the wizened scholar that acted as if he had simply closed a book he was reading backstage and came straight into the debate. He wasn’t simply looking to refute charges, but he wanted to answer questions and ask some rhetorical ones as well, in order to get the crowd to muse over the vision he and the President have for the next four years as well as the vision of his opponents.

John Edwards chose style, immediately stating the Vice-President was not being honest to the American people and tried to then hash talking points, as if he was at a simple political rally and not being held accountable immediately for the statements he made. It was obvious that the VP candidate was more interested in trying to shake Cheney’s stone-like demeanor than trying to do a point-by-point argument on the issues in this election. And he paid for that most of the night.

Perhaps the most telling exchange between the two men was how they perceived the coalition working to reconstruct Iraq. Edwards states that the United States had suffered over 90% of the casualties in Iraq. Cheney stated it was just over 50%. Now the mainstream media tried to claim both of them were right, and it was a measure of agreeing to disagree. However, they completely missed Cheney’s point: The losses suffered by Iraqis during this time should be counted, and it is disingenuous for Kerry and Edwards not to acknowledge their losses and their sacrifice. However, 90% always sounds better than 50%, so that’s why Edwards would rather use that stat instead of the one that accurately shows a cooperative effort.

It is a perfect example of the disdain this duo has shown towards the coalition itself; our most loyal allies whom John Kerry insulted as the “coalition of the coerced and the bribed”; to the new Iraqi Government, in which Kerry insulted Prime Minister Allawi by saying he was in speaking to Congress with President Bush “to put their best face on the policy”, and Kerry senior advisor Joe Lockhart even called Allawi a “puppet” and stated, “you can almost see the hand underneath the shirt today moving the lips." If elected to the Oval Office, John Kerry would have to soothe the fires of our allies working with us today before he could even think about making good on his campaign promise of bringing new allies to the table.

Listening to Edwards speak last night was like listening to another Kerry spokesperson on the cable networks, as he was more interested in telling the American people what John Kerry believes rather than what he believed. Meanwhile, Cheney spoke about what he knew to be true, and did it out of conviction. Cheney shows conviction not simply about the War on Terror and the current foreign policy outlook, but his positions on tax relief, creating jobs, health care reform, among others, and it just so happens that President Bush believes in those things as well.

The problem for Edwards is that a number of Americans really don’t know where he stands, and that was no different at 10:30 Tuesday night than it was 10:30 Monday night. It could be due to the fact that John Edwards is a one-term senator, and has only been placed into the spotlight in the last couple of years. Sure; he’s talked a lot, as he’s been in several debates during the Democratic primaries and making stump speeches throughout the campaign. But talk is cheap, and people want to see more than that. The problem is, Edwards was placed on the Democratic ticket because he was a slick talker.

Kerry nailed Edwards with his reference to being labeled “Senator Gone” by his hometown newspaper in North Carolina due to his absences during his U.S. Senate term, as most newspapers in the state have criticized him for. But Cheney really could have raised some eyebrows and done the American people a service by adding on to the criticism of Edwards in his home state.

Throughout the year, no poll picked John Edwards to defeat George Bush in his home state in a head-to-head match-up, and some stated Edwards would lose by double digits. Edwards’ state approval ratings have been consistently low, and a number of pundits have questioned whether Edwards would have been sent back to the Senate had he ran for reelection instead of running for President.

Hence, Cheney should have asked the American people two things: 1. Why should the American people elect Kerry President, and subsequently Edwards VP if North Carolina isn’t sure if they would have wanted him to be their senator, and 2. Why did John Kerry place Edwards on the ticket in the first place?

I would have LOVED to have seen Edwards respond to that.

Anyone who thinks this debate didn't go solidly in Cheney's favor is in denial.  Edwards got flustered, and Cheney came out with the heymakers.

I think someone on CBS said Cheney is like George Foreman:  slow and prodding, but when he hits ya with that right, you're really hurt.

And Cheney swung that right quite a few times, particularly in the first half of the debate.  Cheney went after Kerry with reckless abandon, just hitting him on the different positions on Iraq and how hypocritical it was for Edwards and Kerry to complain about troops not getting adequate funding and equipment when they voted no on the $87 billion allotment to do just that.

And the barbs were just killer.  "Senator Gone"?  Oh man.  You KNOW that hurt Edwards real bad.  I'm surprised Edwards could actually speak after that one.  But in his defense, he did come back as strong as you could expect him to do after a statement like that.

And finally, Cheney mentioned the fact that Kerry has done nothing but disparage the current coalition in Iraq.  I was hoping he would have mentioned the president of Poland's comments over the weekend, but what he did mention was pretty hard, and I don't think Edwards handled that well at all.

I'll be home tonight, and watching live.  In fact, I'm thinking about live-blogging it, but I doubt it.

Cheney has been put in the Bush position.  No, not the Dubya Bush position, but the Elder Bush position.  Lemme explain:

In 1984, most people felt that Reagan fared very poorly against Democratic candidate Walter Mondale and was in danger of letting him come within striking range of upsetting Reagan for the presidency.

But, it was then-Vice-President Bush that walked into the VP debates and mopped the floor with a not-ready-for-primetime Gerraldine Ferraro.  A good number of analysts point to that debate as the beginning of a blowout.

Now, this campaign is much closer at this point than Bush is in this one.  But a wipeout by Cheney would kill two birds with one stone:  It would put Bush back into a solid lead and definitely characterize Edwards as "not ready" - for Vice-President or for a presidential run in 08.

And Cheney has the skills to do it.  And Cheney isn't one to hold his tongue when provoked.  If Edwards comes in and tries that Halliburton or Enron mess with him, expect a quick tongue-lashing. 

The media will try to depict this as youth vs. experience (although Edwards is 50), and are hyping his debating skills.  But I know this guy.  He is just that - hype.  I expect Cheney to systematically dissect Edwards from head-to-toe with silent aggression.  I will be disappointed with anything less.

From CNSNews.com:

An African-American civil rights spokeswoman said on Wednesday that the new computerized voting machines "terrify" her, and that blacks are "afraid of machines like that."

Joanne Bland, the director and co-founder of the National Voting Rights Museum and Institute in Selma, Ala., told CNSNews.com on Wednesday that the new computerized voting machines are going to intimidate black voters in Florida and elsewhere and suppress their vote in the November presidential election because many blacks are not "technologically savvy."

"The computers really terrify me. The electronic voting -- the new machines -- I think it will turn off a segment in my community, particularly the elderly. We are not as technically savvy, and we are afraid of machines like that, and they (African-Americans) probably won't go [to the polls] and they probably won't ask for assistance, said Bland, who spent the last week in Florida.

"It is going to turn them off totally and I want that to stop," said Bland, who also serves as a spokeswoman for the Washington, D.C.-based Institute for Public Accuracy, which predicts that "several million voters" may be "deprived of voting rights again" in 2004.

First of all; lemme admit something.  When I first started this blog, I meant for it to be a politics and sports blog.  For regular readers, I haven't done alot of sports.  Yes, I still do keep up with it, but when I get in front of this keyboard and start typing sports is usually the last thing on my mind right now.

Why?  Because there is way too much at stake to take my mind off of this election.

I don't think alot of people realize what's really at stake here when we talk about the presidential election.  Oftentimes, conservatives get criticized for not being open-minded.  But when you ask them why they'll vote for John Kerry, it's mainly because he isn't Bush.

Well, they're right.  John Kerry is not George Bush.  In fact, these two are probably the most diverse candidates since Reagan and Mondale clashed in 84.  Back then, it was about the nuclear freeze.  Now it's about internationalism, and how it will dictate U.S. policy in the future.

The London Times reported today that the main culprits of the the Oil-For-Food scandal was Russia and France:

The report largely implicates France and Russia, whom Saddam Hussein targeted as he sought support on the UN Security Council before the Iraq war. Both countries were influential voices against UN-backed action.

A senior UN official responsible for the scheme is identified as a major beneficiary. The report, marked “highly confidential”, also finds that the private office of Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, profited from the cheap oil. Saddam’s regime awarded this oil during the run-up to the war when military action was being discussed at the UN.

And don't think Putin was the only one:

A French oil company teamed up with the regime to bribe a UN-appointed inspector monitoring exports of Iraqi oil. The inspector, a Portuguese national working for Saybolt, a Dutch firm, was paid a total of £58,000 in cash to forge export documents.

The French firm is linked to a close associate of Jacques Chirac, the country’s president. A spokesman for Saybolt said it would be investigating the allegations.

France is no surprise.  After all, they tried all they could to sabotage the war with those forged Niger documents.  As for Russia, well, it answers a few questions.  Putin did admit that he had given the U.S. intelligence about Saddam attempts to attack.  However, it's now obvious that money kept them from supporting any mission to oust Hussein as well.   

Now the New York Times jumped on this yesterday with information about a House subcommittee report that added China into the mix:

The paper suggests that France, Russia and China blocked inquiries into Iraq's manipulation of the program because their companies "had much to gain from maintaining'' the status quo. "Their businesses made billions of dollars through their involvement with the Hussein regime and O.F.F.P.," the document states, using the initials for the program. No officials of the three governments could be reached for comment.

The paper also accuses the United Nations office charged with overseeing the program of having "pressed" contractors not to rigorously inspect Iraqi oil being sold and the foreign goods being bought. The program office, headed by Benan Sevan, who is also under investigation by a committee appointed by the United Nations, turned a blind eye to corruption charges, the paper says, because it apparently saw oil-for-food "strictly as a humanitarian program."

But the problem is that the corruption kept money out of the mouths of the hungry and could have helped moderize and rebuild Iraq's infrastructure after the Gulf War.  According to the NYT, Saddam and the Iraqi Government made over $10 billion dollars since that program started in 1995.  And he did it by selling the oil for less than what it was worth to companies and traders who gave him kickbacks for it.  They turned around and sold it for a higher profit.  And the United Nations - who knew about this the whole time - was given hush money and let it happen.

Now let's talk about the election.  The Democratic presidential candidate says he should be elected because he can bring the United Nations in to help reconstruct Iraq. 

But there are two problems with that:

1.  In order to get the U.N. to do anything, you must get all the countries with veto power to agree.  France, Germany, and Russia got veto power, and they have all said they would use it for any resolution requiring forces to go into Iraq.

2.  Why should we try to gain influence with the countries that were right in the midst of corruption with a despot, and won't even admit their wrongdoing?

These are the countries that John Kerry wants to look to before we make a decision.  These are the countries in which John Kerry wants to administer a "global test" in order to determine whether we should use military force.  This is the "internationalism" that John Kerry embraces.  But it should be painfully obvious to anyone that internationalism is not in the best interest of America, nor will it uplift any country.  It will keep the rich richer, at the expense of the poor.

Make no mistake about it; if this was the United States who vetoed U.N. resolutions in order to protect U.S. companies who were conducting illegal business deals with a despot who has killed hundreds of thousands of people and has attacked other countries and our servicemen, you'd never hear the end of it.  ESPECIALLY if it was a Republican president, and ESPECIALLY if it was George W. Bush.  Every two-bit leftist around the world would be calling for his head.

Because these are countries that sided against the war, they get a pass.  It's an ends-justify-the-means approach.  And sadly, there's just enough people that could be hoodwinked into this joke of a candidate and one of the most simple-minded and dangerous ideas that this country could ever face.

I'm doing a quick breeze-through of this debate.  It's late, and I didn't get off of work until 1:00AM and didn't get home until after 2 (I had to stop by Walmart and get some stuff).

I was too busy working and trying to get in commercials during our broadcast of the debate to actually hear alot of it.  I'm watching the feed on Cspan.org right now, but I'm breezing through it.  I plan to have a more thorough analysis - question by question - of the debate once I get home from classes tomorrow.  But I'll give a quick reaction from the time being. 

Tonight, in a sense, was disappointing.  I know both Kerry and Bush wanted a lot of control in this debate, but I think it didn't work.  Now, Jeff Greenfield supposedly said this was the best debate in decades, and he's probably right.  But I feel there should have been more point/counterpoint in it than it was.

At the very least, Kerry came out on a better plane than Bush.  Not necessarily that Kerry won outright, but I think it temporarily stemmed the bad momentum that Kerry has had ever since the Swiftboat ads came out.

I remember posting about this on Okayplayer around the time this happened.

U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-Washington) said this in December 2002:

Murray said, according to the Vancouver paper, that bin Laden has been "out in these countries for decades, building schools, building roads, building infrastructure, building day care facilities, building health care facilities, and the people are extremely grateful. We haven't done that."

"How would they look at us today if we had been there helping them with some of that rather than just being the people who are going to bomb in Iraq and go to Afghanistan?" Murray asked.

Leave it to a Democrat to say some of the dumbest things on earth.  And they wonder why the country doesn't trust them to protect the homeland?

Nevermind that several scholars, like Daniel Pipes, have stated that Osama put most of his money into building his terrorist base, not social infrastructure.  What's really insulting is the fact that Murray was all too willing to fit the War on Terror is brazenly into her worldview; thinking that it can be alieviated simply by throwing money into the Middle East and hoping it will sprout peace.  Not only is that silly idea naive, but a review of 20th Century history will tell you it's dangerous.

But now, it's accountability time.  You see, Murray is up for reelection, and George Nethercutt released an ad criticizing Murray for her remarks and said she was excusing terrorists.

Check out the ad.  It's the first one labelled "Different".  If you're in Washington State or knows someone who resides there, tell them it's time to stand up and rid this embarassment from the Senate chambers.  We don't need people like this in D.C. from any state.