Arrogance and Spinning in the Town Hall, The Second Presidential Debate
By Anthony Wade
Pre-Debate, Put Those Blinders On!
The democrats tonight at the debate were passing out rose-colored glasses to the throngs, inferring correctly that Bush is constantly trying to paint Iraq , the economy and all of his failed policies as rosy as possible. Considering the vast amount of spin coming out from the right this week, maybe blinders would have been more appropriate.
There have been two huge stories emerging since Bush was handily trounced by Kerry at the first debate. Neither of them was positive for this administration that is quickly coming unraveled. Yet to hear the Bush Cabal talk about it, it is all good news.
On the Bush War front, the WMD reports came out this week. When Bush was asked about WMD a month ago, he casually said that he was waiting for Charlie's report. Well, Charlie didn't have any good news for Bush either. Charlie, is actually Charles Duelfer and his report on Iraq WMD finally confirmed what we all should have known. Iraq never had any WMD. The particulars of the report are as follows:
1) Iraq had essentially destroyed its illicit weapons capability within months after the Persian Gulf War ended in 1991
2) Iraq 's capacity to produce such weapons had eroded even further by the time of the American invasion in 2003
3) The last Iraqi factory capable of producing militarily significant quantities of unconventional weapons was destroyed in 1996
4) Mr. Duelfer concluded, Iraq had not possessed military-scale stockpiles of illicit weapons for a dozen years and was not actively seeking to produce them
5) Even if Iraq had sought to restart its weapons programs in 2003, it could not have produced militarily significant quantities of chemical weapons for at least a year, and would have required years to produce a nuclear weapon
6) A direct quote, "Saddam Hussein ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the gulf war, and found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program."
7) Mr. Duelfer concluded that Mr. Hussein had made fundamental decisions, beginning in 1991, to get rid of Iraq 's illicit weapons and accept the destruction of its weapons-producing facilities as part of an effort to end United Nations sanctions
8) A direct quote, "The regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of W.M.D. after sanctions,"
9) There was a complete absence of discussion or even interest in biological weapons" at the level of Mr. Hussein and his aides after the mid-1990's
10) The conclusion that mysterious trailers found in Iraq after the American invasion in 2003 could not have been used as part of any biological warfare program. The trailers' manufacturers "almost certainly designed and built the equipment exclusively for the generation of hydrogen," upholding claims by Iraqi officials that linked the trailers to weather balloons used for artillery practice
11) "We were almost all wrong" on Iraq , Duelfer told a Senate panel yesterday
This would be quite sobering news for anyone with a firm grip on reality. For Bush-Cheney however, it was hailed as vindication for the Iraq War. Yes, you read that right. Seizing on the most speculative and vague portions of the 1500 page report, the Bushies have insisted that this report is good news. They refer to the fact that Saddam was manipulating the UN Oil for Food Program, in which he had willing partners including some of our own companies and "coalition" members. They then use that fact to conclude that Saddam was manipulating the Oil for Food Program to win support for the lifting of sanctions. This part is certainly credible as the sanctions were crippling his country and as Ghadhafi also correctly realized recently he had to play ball to get the sanctions lifted in Libya . It is at this point though that the Bush Cartel takes a leap of illogic to state that Saddam wanted the sanctions lifted, so he could reconstitute his weapons programs. This flies in the face of any sensibility. The main goal a despot has, is to stay in power. Ghadhafi acquiesced not because of fright of the US , but because he realized that if he did not get the sanctions lifted he could not survive as leader because of the economic damage that was being done to his country. Saddam made his attempt to seize power in 1991 and was firmly routed. He then watched his country suffer through 10 years of sanctions that crippled Iraq and the infrastructure. Bush would have us believe that after suffering a humiliating defeat and ten years of debilitating sanctions, that the first thing he would have done is reconstitute weapons. That is patently absurd. He wanted the sanctions lifted so he could compete again in the global oil markets and rebuild his country first and foremost. Unfortunately for him, Cheney had drawn up maps of all his oil fields in his secret energy meetings in 2001 and had already decided to claim them for Halliburton.
What Bush wants to do is keep saying things are progressing even when he knows they are not. He wants to look you in the eye and tell you all the reasons you should be afraid. He has hammered Kerry on alleged flip-flopping when after the Duelfer report came out, Bush changed his REASON for going to war for the tenth time. We all heard and remember the lead up to the war when Bush and his cohorts pimped us on this misadventure. We were told 3,000 liters of this, 4,000 gallons of that and that there was the image of a "mushroom cloud" to be worried about. The Duelfer report blew all of that out of the water. We did not get a couple of things wrong, we got it all wrong. We got it wrong because Bush did not ask for honest intelligence, he asked for intelligence that would convince you and me to support his war. He got what he asked for. Bush lied to us and he lied to Congress. Now, after being caught in these lies, he looks you in the eye and says he is vindicated. Forget the rose colored glasses; he is either blind or he hopes you are.
The other major piece of bad news for Bush this week was the September jobs numbers. They revealed that Bush created a paltry 96,000 jobs. First of all, there was an expected 150,000 jobs, so expectations, which are usually conservative, could not even be met. Secondly, the economy needs to generate 150,000 jobs per month simply to keep up with the new job seekers. Lastly, these numbers ensure that George W. Bush will be the first president since Herbert Hoover of the Great Depression to preside over a net loss of jobs.
Sobering news for those of us with a firm grip on reality. In the land of the Bush blinders however, it supports the fact that we are turning a corner! The administration actually said today that these numbers, "shows the steady creation of jobs fueled by the pro-growth policies and strong economic leadership of President Bush." Steady is not what comes to mind when you fall over 50,000 jobs short of conservative expectations and what is needed just to keep up with new job seekers. Strong economic leadership??? What planet are these guys on? There has been a loss of 1.6 million jobs under this strong economic leadership. I don't think that we can afford another four years of this type of leadership. Don't take my word for it; let's see what national economists said about this report:
"Only the most ardent optimist would put a positive spin on this pattern of job creation," said Merrill Lynch economist David Rosenberg.
"This economy is still some 700,000 jobs short of the level prevailing in March 2001 and the average gain since employment bottomed has been 125,000. A typical employment rebound at this stage of the cycle is generally over 300,000 per month.
"Overall, the September employment report is disappointing," said Marie-Pierre Ripert, US economist at CDC IXIS.
"Even if it draws a better picture of the labor market, it nevertheless does not change the fact that the US economy has experienced a jobless recovery."
"This supports the story that there is slow job growth," said Dick Rippe, economist at Wachovia Securities.
We will hear tonight from Bush that the economy is getting stronger. It is a sham. His hope is that you don't realize it until it is too late. The economy is in shambles. You would have to be blind to not see that.
Lastly in the pre-debate we have heard the spin that this format is more to Bush's style as his folksy nature will make him seem more likable. This of course is opposite of what we heard during the debate negotiations. In fact, the Bush cabal tried to eliminate this format, as they did not think it played to Bush's strength. To agree to this debate, Bush won the concession of the topic switch between debate one and three. Bush wanted that more because he believed that with debate number one on foreign policy, he would crush Kerry and render the remaining debates meaningless. That strategy has collapsed after Bush's horrific performance in debate number one so now we hear that this is the debate that he will be strong in? That is spin if I ever heard it.
I will tell you why I do not believe this will be an effective medium for Bush. He is the most handled president in American history. He has been out pressing the flesh at "ask the president" sessions which are done in a town-hall format. Karl Rove however, did not want to expose his candidate to any negative questions, so everyone was pre-screened and had to sign endorsements of Bush before being allowed into the hall. Thus, the "average citizens" were patsies. The questions were softball. Probing questions such as "what is your favorite book" and "may I have the honor of shaking you hand" is all that George Bush had to worry about. For a complete analysis of one of these see my previous article taking apart one of the transcripts from these faux sessions:
http://www.opednews.com/wade_082004_ask_the_president.htm
By trying to protect Bush, Rove may have actually set him up because if things go fairly tonight, Bush will not be receiving friendly fire. Now we will get to see up close and personal if he has any coherent thoughts beyond "It's hard work, Saddam is better in jail, the economy is recovering, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, terrorists, be scared, be very very scared". We will see"
The Debate
John Kerry scored another victory tonight. He was far more prepared again. He not only cited national numbers and statistics in nearly every subject, but also knew the statistics specific to Missouri , which hosted the debate. George Bush performed better than he did last week, but to be fair, how could he not after that implosion? Bush lowered expectations so much that the turnaround appeared very dramatic. That does not mean though that he was not again thoroughly unmatched.
Iraq - Kerry destroyed Bush on his failed war. The Duelfer report ruined Bush's chances of claiming any legitimacy on the invasion. That did not stop Bush from dissembling about the report and saying it justified the war, but it rang hollow and the reactions from the crowd confirmed that. Bush repeats himself so much that he actually tried the old line that the invasion was justified because sanctions did not work. Kerry pounced on him and correctly stated that the Duelfer report actually proved the sanctions did work and if Bush did not rush us to war, the inspections would have bore that out. Kerry hit Bush hard with comments from two notable republican Senators who called the management of the war "dangerous" and "incompetent".
Jobs - Another solid Kerry victory. The jobs numbers were spun by the president as he tried desperately to reiterate that he has created 1.9 million jobs in the past 13 months. He could run from the overall record, but he could not hide as Kerry correctly pointed out that he is still the first president to preside over a net loss of jobs since the Great Depression. The 1.9 million is only 400,000 (in 13 months) over what is needed to keep up with new job seekers. Not a great record and Kerry exploited him on it.
Healthcare - Bush provided no specifics, handing the topic to Kerry. All Bush could say was tort reform. It has been documented that tort reform would only address half of one percent of the healthcare costs. Bush's entire plan tonight was exposed as limiting your right to seek legal redress if you are injured unfairly. Five million people have lost healthcare under Bush and he could not hide from the numbers tonight.
Tax Cuts - A Bush staple was exposed over and over again tonight. John Kerry constantly brought back many subjects to Bush's decision to provide 89 billion dollars to the top 1% of this country during last year alone. Bush tried to lie and say that Kerry was proposing trillions of dollars in new spending, frightening the crowd with fanciful tales of a Kerry tax increase if he was elected. The words sounded empty though as Bush almost seemed desperate, with nothing left to say except, "of course he is going to raise your taxes".
Environment - The boldest lying I have heard from Bush was in this area. Bush tried to sound like a Greenpeace candidate actually calling himself, "a good steward of the land". Boldly lying about his misnamed corporate handouts such as the "Healthy Forests Initiative" and "Clear Skies Act" Bush was called on the carpet again by Kerry. Healthy Forests is a handout to the logging industry and has been affectionately referred to as "No Tree Left Behind". Kerry correctly pointed out that if Bush had just left the Clean Air Act in place instead of implementing "Clear Skies", the air quality would be better. Bush came off as lying, pure and simple, which of course, he was.
Stem Cell Research - This appeared to be a draw as Kerry and Bush simply have a difference of opinion. Kerry feels that if the stem cells are going to be destroyed anyway, why not use them for research and Bush stays his course in protecting life, even if it defies logic. They both came off as very believable in their opinions though and neither scored a victory on this subject.
Abortion - Toughest question of the night for Kerry. He handled it as well as he could explaining that while he may not believe in abortion, he could not legislate it and take away someone's rights who does not share his beliefs. Bush stayed his course on his beliefs admirably. One could say that Bush certainly appeared more sincere.
Flip-Flopping - Kerry answered the critics decisively. He corrected the record to show the following attacks were baseless. One, Kerry explained that he has not changed his mind on No Child Left Behind; he simply wants the president to fund it, which he has not. Two, he has not changed his mind on the Patriot Act; he feels that John Ashcroft has abused it and it needs to be modified. Lastly, Kerry finally put this nonsense about the 87 billion behind him by explaining that he did not want to approve a 20 billion dollar "slush fund" for Halliburton and felt that Bush should repeal the tax cut for the top 1% to pay for it. Being fiscally conservative in a time of war is not being wishy-washy.
Importing Drugs from Canada - Kerry slammed Bush on this pointing out that Bush has had four years to do something about this and has not because he is in bed with the big drug companies. Bush had no answer for this and came off sounding weak at best and disingenuous at worst.
Overall, Kerry won on nearly all points. Bush sounded off his usual rehearsed rhetoric and also had the rudest moment of the night when he cut off the moderator and refused to let him decide the next follow up question by addressing the audience when he was not supposed to. The subject matter? Bush overran the moderator to rant about Kerry denigrating the coalition. Kerry nailed him on this too though by pointing out, "If Missouri, just given the number of people from Missouri who are in the military over there today, were a country, it would be the third largest country in the coalition, behind Great Britain and the United States." Ouch.
I eagerly watched the first half-hour of Chris Matthews and his panel after the debate to see their take. I was appalled with the coverage.
Post-Debate, Let's Play Softball!
The first 25 minutes after the debate the MSNBC "Hardball" show basically provided a Bush promo spot. Of those 25 minutes, Patrick Buchanan seemed to speak for 15 minutes of it. Not surprisingly, Buchanan sided with Bush but the comment he made was that Bush "wiped the floor with Kerry." What??? What debate was he watching? Matthews not only allowed it, but contributed to it. I understand that Bush did better than last week; he had to because he performed so miserably, but to suggest such a decisive Bush victory is just being dishonest. What we also saw tonight was the GOP talking points spin machine at full tilt.
In Buchanan's diatribe, he referred to Kerry's stature as "haughty" and criticized him for looking at Bush too much when answering questions. Besides the ridiculousness of this statement there was also no mention of what the bullying Bush did to the moderator! Back to the talking points though, 5 minutes later the first interview conducted was of a Bush campaign manager (did not get the name) who also then described Kerry as "looking down at people, he looked haughty". Coincidence? Well not when they interviewed Karen Hughes from the Bush Cabal some ten minutes later and she also described Kerry as "haughty". It was insulting to the intelligence of the viewers to assume that they could not connect the dots.
There was no mention of the fact that Bush laughed off Kerry's charge that Bush was counting himself as a small business owner because he earned $84 from a timber company. Bush essentially tried to say that Kerry was lying but the truth squad discovered that Bush did own a small portion of a timber company and claimed $84 on his taxes for it in 2001. There was no mention, critically, of the walk-over of the moderator by Bush. It was laughed about and Buchanan actually said it would play well with male voters. Can you imagine if Kerry had done it? It would be all the headlines. It is yet another example of the unfairness of the mainstream media.
Two hours into the post debate coverage and it did not improve. This problem starts with the panels. If you are going to stack the right side of the panel with names such as Buchanan and Ben Ginsberg, who represented Bush as an election lawyer, then it really is unfair to have the left voice be Andrea Mitchell who is centrist and someone else with the last name of Reagan. If you have people like Ron Silver, who will not say a bad thing about Bush, then the other side needs to be someone stronger, such as an Al Franken. What you get otherwise is this unbalanced show pretending to do analysis. Ben Ginsberg is not analyzing, he is stumping for Bush. Ron Silver is not analyzing, he is stumping for Bush. That is a fundamental difference that taints the credibility of the entire coverage.
Patrick Buchanan was also not being objective, he was stumping for Bush. Buchanan then was allowed to moderate the after hours portion of the show where he hammered home all night the nonsense that Kerry was beaten badly. His panel was Ron Silver, Ben Ginsberg and a woman from Newsday they kept shouting down that was supposed to be the "balance". MSNBC should be ashamed. Their coverage was atrocious and the people deserved better than to hear GOP processed talking points that they could have easily heard from Fox News. There was no challenging of Bush's repeated unproven claim that 75% of Al Qaeda has been "brought to justice" when Bush does not have ONE terrorism conviction. There was no challenging about Bush's repeated claim that the Taliban are gone, when they are back in control of 45% of Afghanistan . There was no challenging of the claim Bush made tonight of "I don't think the Patriot Act abridges your rights". No criticism of Bush's bizarre blending of the Dred Scott decision into the discussion of appointing of Supreme Court justices. No challenging Bush on the hypocritical statement "to destroy life to save life is one of the ethical dilemmas we face" when discussing the stem cell research he opposes. What about killing 20,000 Iraqis and 1000 soldiers to "save life" or "spread liberty"? Where is the journalism? Perhaps the worst parts of both the debate and the lack of honest analysis afterwards involved the last question of the night where Bush showed his true arrogance.
Unbridled Arrogance
The last question went to George Bush and was:
"President Bush, during the last four years, you have made thousands of decisions that have affected millions of lives. Please give three instances in which you came to realize you had made a wrong decision, and what you did to correct it. Thank you."
Bush spoke for his full two minutes and could not come up with one mistake, let alone three. Not one, in four years. Not one considering the Duelfer report said we were nearly ALL WRONG? Not one mistake when we have over 1000 dead soldiers even though Bush declared "mission accomplished", so long ago. Not one mistake when he has lost 1.6 million private sector jobs under his watch? Not one mistake when there are 50 million people without healthcare? Not one mistake with the deaths of over 20,000 Iraqi civilians as we have bombed houses, schools, and weddings with our "surgical strikes"? Not one mistake when Halliburton cannot explain 1.8 billion in billing? Not one mistake?
That is the arrogance of George W. Bush. It is the arrogance that looks at a report that reveals everything he said was wrong in relation to his decision to go to war and actually looks you in the eye and says it vindicates him. It is the arrogance that looks at a jobs report that is 54,000 less than conservative estimates and then looks you in the eye and says "we are on the move!"
George W. Bush lost tonight and he lost handily. Was he better than last time, yes. Was he better than Kerry, not at all. Kerry had a firm grasp on the numbers that affect you and I and Bush only had a firm grasp on his arrogance. What was more disturbing was the post-debate coverage that was slanted and unbalanced. In trying to frame the news instead of report it MSNBC have again been exposed as being untrustworthy. How can we conclude this? Let's take a look at what the people thought. With over 750,000 respondents, MSNBC's online poll had the debate 70% for Kerry and 30% for Bush. In the CNN online poll, with over 300,000 votes, Kerry won 78% to just 20% for Bush. Obviously the people understand what the talking heads don't. The politics of spin and arrogance are losing.
What is so frustrating about watching the MSNBC coverage is the utter lack of consistency and journalism. After the vice-presidential debate Ben Ginsberg tried to lend credibility to the debunked Cheney charge of a 9-11-Iraq link. Chris Matthews correctly would have none of it. He cut him off and corrected him. Fast-forward one hour and when Joe Scarborough, former republican Congressman and current faux journalist, took over the after hours portion, he actually had Ginsberg back on and gave him five minutes to state his position for this lie. That alone should tell you that there is no accountability. There is no real journalism. There is no truth.
The American people deserve better.
Anthony Wade is co-administrator of a website devoted to educating the populace to the ongoing lies of President George W. Bush and seeking his removal from office. He is a 37-year-old independent writer from New York with political commentary articles seen on multiple websites. A Christian progressive and professional Rehabilitation Counselor working with the poor and disabled, Mr. Wade believes that you can have faith and hold elected officials accountable for lies and excess.
Anthony Wade's Archive: http://www.opednews.com/archiveswadeanthony.htm
Email Anthony: takebacktheus@gmail.com
