Southside Mike, you have 90 seconds...

Southside Mike checks in with a eloquent and well-crafted response to my slightly over-the-top post about Lurch's winning last night. See below:

I just read your post on the debate, and there were some huge holes in

Kerry's positions, IMO.  First of all, Kerry said he accepted the

intellegence that the President had.  Which means he accepted the

whole WMD thing and threat to the world thing.  Now keeping that in

mind he chastised Bush for not accepting the recommendation to have

two additional divisions deployed over there, but on the other had

said he would not have committed 90% of troops and resources to Iraq.

So either he is saying that he would have sent a whole bunch more

troops over to Afganistan, or that the troops levels in Iraq are too

high.  Which is it?  He criticized Bush for spending $200 billion in

Iraq, (which could have gone to health care, school, prescription

drugs etc according to Kerry) but then went into detail about what

materials that our troops didn't have in Iraq.  So tell me how does he

plan to send two extra divisions into Iraq, more equiptment into Iraq,

but do it for cheaper than Bush is doing it?  Plus he wants to make

sure that more resources are committed to the real terror threat in

OBL.  Where is that money going to come from?  Just on a pure

mathematical basis, talking about adding 25% more troops should add at

least 25% more costs right?  Plus an add on for all of the extra stuff

that our troops don't have now, which means even without the new

equiptment for the exsisting troops we would have spent an extra $50

billion, above the $200 billion Bush has spent, in Iraq.  But $200

billion is too much?



The other part that really got to me was the NK nuclear references.

Who built the nuclear facilities in NK?  Hint it wasn't a Republican

President.  I have heard many leftists suggest that since Reagan is

the one who sold WMDs to Saddam during the Iran/Iraq war that somehow

the republicans were responsible for essentially giving a monkey a

gun.  So if Bill Clinton essentially gave NK nuclear capabilities,

aren't the democrats responsible for arming the monkey in this case?

Seems to me that would be the logical conclusion.



I definately think Kerry won the sound bit battle.  He did an

excellent job of getting his little snippets out there, which in the

21st century, is about the attention span he is catering too.  But

damn, if anyone actually puts together what he said, it can be

destroyed.  In his effort to be all things to all people, he really

said some stupid stuff.



I don't get it.