More Debate Responses

But first, shameless collective-self promotion: Obsidian Wings has been nominated for 'Best Group Blog' in Rox Populi's Best Political Bloggers Contest.

OK: On to the reactions, which I have chosen on the basis not of profundity or erudition, but of how much I enjoyed them.

Michael Berube has a lovely post that begins:

Well, Wolf, I have to say the surprise of the night was that John Kerry did not endorse Susan Watkins’s recent New Left Review essay, “Vichy on the Tigris," which, as its title suggests, likens the forces of Al-Sistani and Al-Sadr to the French Resistance (thereby also-- subtly-- likening US troops to the Nazis) and closes with the rousing phrase, “the Iraqi maquis deserves full support in fighting to drive them out.”

The LA Times describes the reactions of a group of previously undecided voters. Good news for Kerry: """I think he was very composed, very dignified and very on point," said Buechler, a secretary at the college, where the group watched the debate on a big-screen TV in a science lecture hall. "After listening to him, I can't believe I was undecided. He did a great job of fleshing out every point."". Really bad news for Bush: "Bruce Glazier, 60, a credit analyst for a hardware store, said he was uneasy by the president's long pauses and hesitation in answering some questions. "To be laughing at your president — and it wasn't that he said anything funny — that is not good," said Glazier, an independent who also came into the room undecided. "I wonder how he comes across to the rest of the world when he acts like that…. Is he making the world laugh at him too?""

Chris Suellentrop reports the following exchange: "Karl Rove must have known things didn't go well when the New York Post asked him whether this was the worst debate of President Bush's life. No, Rove insisted. This was one of the president's best debates, and one of John Kerry's worst. "Really?" asked the reporter, Vince Morris. "You can say that with a straight face?"" Think about it: the New York Post.

Xan at corrente links to a very interesting story about the protesters outside the debate, and comments: "This is Florida, people. Look at the numbers, look at the issues, look at the ethnicities, look at the occupations (or lack thereof.) And spread the word, don't let this one get buried in all the hoopla about the debate spin. Take heart. Hope is on the way." Check out the story for yourself to see why.

Debate humor: Opinions You Should Have has a lovely story entitled "'Spin Room' Tilts Off Axis, Wounding Twelve". Madeleine Kane has discovered the secret addendum to the debate rules. And you can see what Bush wrote on that pad of his here.

My nomination for best commentary you might not have read: Steve Clemons, who is always worth reading, and who on this occasion also draws some great comments. (I disagree with Clemons and agree with several of his commentators about Kerry's nuclear nonproliferation response.) It's very good.

And before I sign off, one more point about the debate itself. What was with Bush's endlessly repeated point that you can't lead/lead the troops/talk to allies/etc. if you think this is the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time? It doesn't seem to me to be all that hard to go to our allies and say: look, getting into this war was a mistake, but now we're there, and we need to make it right. (It would be hard if you were the one who made the mistake, but Kerry won't have that problem.) I don't think it would be hard to go to our troops and say: I didn't agree with some of the decisions my predecessor made, but that's water under the bridge' now we have to succeed. Imagine how silly this view would seem in any other context: if, for instance, a company had been driven almost to bankruptcy by the bad decisions of its CEO, and when that CEO finally stepped down, his or her replacement said: well, if I admit that serious mistakes were made, I won't be able to lead. That would be lunacy; and I think it's lunacy here.

So that leaves us with a question: does Bush actually believe this? If so, he's just wrong. If not, then I find it hard to avoid the conclusion that he is deliberately trying to convince the voters, meaning us, that anyone who criticizes the most important decision he made as President is in virtue of that fact unable to lead effectively. And that is unbelievably cynical, and (to me) frightening.

Comments

[postit]

Bush is dilusional and still believes in the neocon wetdream of a democratic Iraq as a bastion of freedom in the war between good and evil, the WOT.

His arguments make sense to evangelicals but to no one else. The rest of his supporters are opportunists, GOP politicians like Cheney who believe they can shape Bush's policies to their own idealogical advantage, business oportunists who believe they can buy economic advantage and then there are the great unwashed of the rural south and midwest an anthropological anomaly resulting from geographical and cultural isolation that can easily be led by the nose with a bit of flag waving.

[Meteor Blades]

"To be laughing at your president — and it wasn't that he said anything funny — that is not good."

True enough. But where has this guy been for the past four years?

[Jesurgislac]

This is the funniest version of the debate I've read:

BUSH: I refuse to change my position based on new information. Some call this pigheaded and kind of stupid. I like to think of it as decisive.

KERRY: Nuclear proliferation. And only part of the reason I choose this is because listening to my opponent say "nuclear proliferation" should be hysterical.

From FreedomFry's livejournal.

[lgl]

What worries me about all this is the fact that the American Public gives Bush a pass in lying. Clinton got impeached because he received oral sex and lied about it. Bush and Rumfeld wanted to go to war with Iraq, and used any evidence found, even that what was already known to be compromised and in error. Bush then states in this Debate that he wanted to go back to the United Nations for a mandate, when Everyone knows the leadership of his own Party had to force him to try the United Nations one last time. MORAL OF THE STORY: It is alright to lie about starting a war, but don't lie about getting free-lunch sex. lgl

[Brian]

"I wonder how he comes across to the rest of the world when he acts like that…. Is he making the world laugh at him too?""

We all laugh at him here in Britain. I think your American expression is "A Dumb-Ass".....

[Mad Kane]

Thanks so much for mentioning my debate humor!

[ElBow]

From Business Week (10.01.04) (Business Week??):

"Watching George W. Bush on the hot seat is painful. When he gets that fawn-in-the-deerjacker's-light look, you feel for the guy.

Besides that, he's the President and has led the nation at a time of enormous peril and uncertainty (some of it, arguably, of his own making). Love him or detest him, he sits at the desk where the buck makes its last stop.

But in Coral Gables, Fla., last night, Bush looked -- at least for the first half of the debate -- like Elmer Befuddled, a commander-in-chief not in command."

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/oct2004/nf2004101_0937_db009.htm

Elmer Befuddled? Ouch.

[Hugh Breiner]

Karl Rove is winning the post-debate contest

http://slate.msn.com/id/2107682/fr/rss/

Obviously "Global Test" is the Republican issue focus groups say is the most effective in spinning the debate.

What is the most effective Democratic issue? If the campaign knows, they really should tell us. If the campaign does not know, they really should find out.

A good defensive statement would be nice to, such as: Once again, Bush is trying to mislead the American people.

[Christopher Davis]

This is the Bush quote that should be going up against the "global test" spin:

"But to say that there's only one focus on the war on terror doesn't really understand the nature of the war on terror.

Of course we're after Saddam Hussein -- I mean bin Laden."

[Moe Lane]

"His arguments make sense to evangelicals but to no one else."

Nobody else?

"The rest of his supporters are opportunists,"

I do so wonder what opportunities I'm missing. Shoot, we don't even have a revenue stream here at ObWi.

" GOP politicians like Cheney who believe they can shape Bush's policies to their own idealogical advantage,"

Yes, yes, I'll be using this blog to popularize my running for district commissioner. Except, of course, that unless I'm allowed to sing my policy positions I'm out of luck. Stammer, you understand.

"business oportunists who believe they can buy economic advantage"

Better get that lemonade stand idea of mine up and running. It's raining Republican soup!

"and then there are the great unwashed of the rural south and midwest an anthropological anomaly resulting from geographical and cultural isolation that can easily be led by the nose with a bit of flag waving."

And this is precisely the thinking that is rapidly making the Democratic Party a strictly regional one.

At any rate, you left out "...and, yes, well, the portion of the country who more or less generally agree with the majority of the Republican Party's goals and methods, plus those who have developed a personal liking for President Bush." I note this because otherwise your commentary wouldn't have included me, and we can't have that.

Moe

PS: Postit, this is your one warning under the Posting Rules. Please read them fully before commenting here again.

[Jesurgislac]

and, yes, well, the portion of the country who more or less generally agree with the majority of the Republican Party's goals and methods, plus those who have developed a personal liking for President Bush."

Nice riposte, Moe... but:

I'm presuming that the (minority, you say, and you should know) goals and methods of the Republican party that you do not support include -

1. the obsession with banning gay marriage
2. the obsession with criminalizing abortion/abortion providers (which is a different point entirely from opposing abortion, as Catholic groups who focus on providing financial aid to pregnant women so they won't have to choose abortion for economic reasons can tell you)
3. the various anti-science obsessions (no teaching evolution, no stem-cell research, etc)
4. supporting the torturers rather than the whistleblowers (that infamous Justice Dept. memo...)
5. obsession with tax cuts
6. cutting resources from essential national security programs
7. the plan to sell off Iraq's national assets to the highest bidder (yes, yes, I know, you're in denial that Bush & Co even ever planned this...)
8. the general way the occupation/reconstruction of Iraq was botched
9. the Swift Boat Veterans for Slander...
& so on. I'm just going with what I'm fairly sure you're against - but I may be wrong about anyon

So, are we to take it that you're supporting President Bush because you like him? It's certainly doesn't seem to be because he gets behind the Republican goals and methods that you support.

Or so it seems. Perhaps my list above is all wrong.

[Timmy the Wonder Dog]

1. let the legislature decide
2. dignity of life (HRC theological perspective)
3. no stem cell research, another misrepresentation by the Dems.
4. see legisaltion passed by the Congress and executed by the Executive, I believe both were controlled by Dems at the time.
5. Private sector does a better job making productive investments
6. LoLs but detail the cuts, first responders don't count.
7. Blood for oil in a different context, apparently you missed the contracts that Saddam signed with the French and Russians.
8. See history of the reconstruction of Germany and Japan and how the Korean War was due to a poor win the peace plan in the Imperial Empire.
9. Swifties are all about a speech in 1971 where someone accused them of being war criminals.

[Jesurgislac]

1. let the legislature decide

Bush supported the Constitutional amendment. A Constitutional amendment declaring some US citizens to be permanently unequal is hardly something I would have thought Moe would get behind... or, indeed, most Republicans, except perhaps for those tormented by homophobia.

2. dignity of life (HRC theological perspective)

Dignity of life is not supported by criminalizing doctors or women in need: as we see here.

3. no stem cell research, another misrepresentation by the Dems.

I note you're not defending the Texas Republican attitudes to evolution... even if you are trying to misrepresent the Bush administration crackdown on stem cell research.

4. see legisaltion passed by the Congress and executed by the Executive, I believe both were controlled by Dems at the time.

Say what? This is just incomprehensible, Timmy: I hope Moe can do better.

5. Private sector does a better job making productive investments

And what does this have to do with tax cuts targetted at the super-rich?

6. LoLs but detail the cuts, first responders don't count.

Specifically, I was thinking of the program to secure the former-USSR's nuclear weapons... but Kerry went into considerable detail about other useful national security programs in the debate on Thursday.

7. Blood for oil in a different context, apparently you missed the contracts that Saddam signed with the French and Russians.

Apparently you don't know what I'm talking about. I refer to the plan to sell off all of Iraq's national assets (except the oil, of course) to the highest bidder. This was illegal if done by a military occupation, hence the hasty setup of a puppet government: it became impossible due to the insurgency.

8. See history of the reconstruction of Germany and Japan and how the Korean War was due to a poor win the peace plan in the Imperial Empire.

And this has what to do with how Bush & Co have botched the reconstruction/conquest of Iraq...?

9. Swifties are all about a speech in 1971 where someone accused them of being war criminals.

Which speech did you have in mind, and who made it? Well, of course I know you're refering to the right-wing myth that's sprung up around Kerry's famous Winter Soldier testimony to Congress, which claims that Kerry called the Swifties war criminals... which of course he didn't. And even if he had, it would not justify the lies, mistatements, and deliberate distortion of eyewitness testimony about Kerry's military career, which was decidedly what the Swift Boat Veterans for Libel were all about.

[Catsy]

Jes... honest question here. This is sincere, not rhetorical: why do you bother?

Debating with Timmy is a hobby that ranks somewhere below lobbying leash laws for pet rocks in terms of constructive use of time, for reasons whose explanation defy posting rules.

For entirely different reasons, I don't understand why you don't let it go with Moe. He's a basically decent, honest and cool guy who happens to be voting for Bush. I experience cognitive disconnect trying to reconcile the two myself, but you are not going to convince him that Bush is so criminal and incompetent that he shouldn't be reelected--not unless Bush pulls a Cheney on national TV, or something.

The only thing I can see the former doing is giving you a headache, and the latter just seems like pissing in Moe's Cheerios out of habit. And nobody likes pee-flavored breakfast cereal.

[Jesurgislac]

Catsy: you're right about Timmy. I am myself not clear why I still bother responding to him on any but the most flip level.

As for Moe: Hell, he's the perfect example, the poster child, of the informed, intelligent, and ethical Republicans who are still supporting Bush - a group of people I find completely incomprehensible. It may be that there are some things [spooky music] I was not meant to understand.

[JadeGold]

I experience cognitive disconnect trying to reconcile the two myself, but you are not going to convince him that Bush is so criminal and incompetent that he shouldn't be reelected--not unless Bush pulls a Cheney on national TV, or something.

Thomas Frank has written a book on this 'cognitive disconnect' called What's The Matter With Kansas? The book uses Kansas as a microcosm of the country to describe how today's version of conservatism has duped voters into supporting a party which militates against their own self-interests and proclaimed beliefs.

Of course, there are those (on both sides of the fence) who view politics as a game to be won regardless the means or the outcome. I share Jesurgislac's confusion (if that's the word)when professed conservatives act as if integral parts of their party's platform and dogma don't exist or are matters weighted equally with, say, top marginal tax rates.

Of course,

[rilkefan]

Not to speak for Moe, but I imagine he could come up with a list of positions the average informed smart ethical Democrat finds cringeworthy about her own party. Certainly I remember doing a fair bit of thinking during Clinton's terms, "He knows better but he's doing this cause he has to...", or "Damn it, get a backbone on your appointees", or "It may be popular, but it's not right", or "Jeez, quit that stupid lip-biting thing". And that this list wouldn't reflect the Dem's core reasons for voting the way she does.

[JadeGold]

Rilkefan: Please don't get me wrong--being a Dem or a GOPer doesn't mean you have to march in 100% lockstep with that party's platform or dogma.

For example, I saw our last democratically-elected President's support for DOMA as an act of political cowardice. I know why he did it but there's no excuse.

But we all understand politics is all about compromise; so if a Dem doesn't appoint some fire-breathing liberal to the bench, I can understand there's some measure of give-and-take and choosing the right battle to expend political capital.

These are not the issues I'd find particularly "cringe-worthy."

What I would find "cringe-worthy," however, involves more fundamental issues: vilifying gays, a willingness to restrict Constitutional rights, the politization of science, blurring the lines between state and church, etc. To my mind, these fundamental stances trump more subtle policy differences.

[Timmy the Wonder Dog]

Catsy always gets so emotional when I post, since he can't refute he just puts on the airs of an aggrieved party.

On Kerry in 1971, I always thought this was his most damning comment.

There are all kinds of atrocities and I would have to say that, yes, yes, *I committed* the same kind of *atrocities* as *thousands of other soldiers* have *committed* in that I took part in shootings in free-fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50-caliber machine guns which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search-and-destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare. All of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free-fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals.

Again Kerry is the ultimate political opportunists, because the Band of Brothers he speaks so highly about, he also accuses of being war criminals (following orders is not a defense). A number of Vietnam Vets take umbrage with Kerry playing politics with their service in Vietnam (I suspect they find Kerry to be a hypocrite), hence the Swifties have gone after Kerry with gusto. Some how may on the left, seem to be upset by their comments.

Jes, there is legislation with defines what torture is. You probably don't believe (spending too much time with Catsy) it, but it is true.

I would like to respond to the rest of the retort but apparently you've falling under Catsy's spell, what a pity.

[Timmy the Wonder Dog]

Jes, you noted that the Swifties have changed their name and expanded their roster of critics as detailed here

href="http://swift3.he.net/~swift3/neverforget.mov"> Is this what you meant by libel? Just asking.

[carsick]

Timmy
Following orders is not a defense but following official policy? see Free Fire Zones.
"All of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down."
Whose law are you breaking as an American if American law condones an activity. Geneva conventions? That's his point.

[Timmy the Wonder Dog]

Is this what you meant by libel? Just asking.

Jes, I didn't want you to miss it.

[carsick]

Timmy
I just bet you give the 9/11 widows as much credibility.

"Five outspoken Sept. 11 widows on Tuesday will publicly endorse John Kerry for president, throwing their weight behind the Democratic challenger in a heated campaign debate over who is best suited to defend the nation from another terrorist attack."

[Timmy the Wonder Dog]

Carsick, following orders is not a defense if you have committed a "war crime(s)". In fact as an Officer, Kerry had an additional responsibility to report same. He didn't.

Jes, I thought you might enjoy this ad

[Timmy the Wonder Dog]

I just bet you give the 9/11 widows as much credibility.

Only the ones I know personally.

[rilkefan]

Timmy, did Catsy strike a nerve?

Also, out of curiosity, if Kerry was ordered to commit a war crime, and that order was official US policy, who was he supposed to report to? The UN? Anyway, nice of you to acknowledge the truth of Kerry's testimony on the subject.

[carsick]

Timmy
You didn't address the policy vs. order point.
Hmmm

BREITWEISER: I think my own personal experience in the last three years...

...I'd hoped that President Bush -- someone that I voted for, that my husband voted for -- would have been my biggest ally in trying to correct the problems that occurred on the morning of September 11th and trying to make this nation safer.

And what I found out, for the last three years, is that he was our biggest adversary.

And I'm very disappointed --

WOODRUFF: Specifically because he what?

BREITWEISER: With regard to the 9/11 Commission, President Bush:

Fought the creation of the commission;

Fought the legislative language to make sure the commission was set up in a bipartisan manner;

Fought the funding of the commission;

Fought an extension for the commission;

Fought access to individuals and documents.

WOODRUFF: But in the last analysis, the president did come around on most of that, didn't he?

BREITWEISER: He came around after he was backed into a corner and after a 90-8 vote in the Senate. And it was a long year.

[postit]

Moe

I read the posting rules yet can't quite figure out where I infringed, please be specific.

[carsick]

It's clear, under military law, that military members can be held accountable for crimes committed under the guise of "obeying orders," and there is no requirement to obey orders which are unlawful.

However, here's the rub: A military member disobeys such orders at his/her own peril. Ultimately, it's not whether or not the military member thinks the order is illegal or unlawful, it's whether military superiors (and courts) think the order was illegal or unlawful.

[carsick]

postit
I think he was responding to your vast generalizations anout Bush supporters.
Your post says all Bush supporters are either evangelicals or opportunists.
Generalizations of that sort aren't welcome in ObWi threads.

[carsick]

postit
The specific wording in the rules is:
"Lastly, just a reminder that Left and Right have very broad definitions and that people are going to take it personally if you inform them that of course all Xs eat babies, should they themselves be Xs (or Ys trying to keep things cool)."

Either that or moe was just in a grumpy mood.

[Moe Lane]

"Either that or moe was just in a grumpy mood."

Strictly speaking, it doesn't really have to be an either/or kind of situation: postit could have been violating the Posting Rules AND I could have been in a grumpy mood*.

At any rate, now that the rules have been explained, I'm sure that the commenter will be happy to withdraw the offending comments.

Moe

*The latter condition is why I note, again, that commenters are free to send observations of violations of the Poting Rules to the above email, which is administered by Edward Underscore.

[Gromit]

TTWD: Jes, I thought you might enjoy this ad

The ad doesn't make any sense, Timmy. You have to completely suspend critical thinking to follow the its logic, since the clips of Kerry talking actually undercut the voiceover.

The ad says Kerry supported the war, cue clip of Kerry talking about disarming Saddam (no mention of war).

The ad accuses Kerry of opposing the war, cue clip of Kerry talking about how the timing of the war was all wrong.

The ad accuses Kerry of saying we should decrease funding for the war, cue clip of Kerry saying he wouldn't have made the costly errors Bush has made (no talk about defunding).

The ad accuses Kerry of wanting to increase funding, cue clip of Kerry saying that we should pay what it takes to win.

The ad accuses Kerry of believing Saddam had WMD's, cue Kerry talking about Saddam's WMD's (before the war, based on Bush admin's cherry-picked intelligence).

The ad accuses Kerry of believing there were no WMD's, cue Kerry speaking after the war about how Bush misled us to believe there were WMD's.

How are any of these positions inconsistent? Please explain, Timmy. If I let someone borrow my car, and he then wrecks it, is it a reversal for me to say "You shouldn't have wrecked my %&*# car" in light of the fact that I gave him the keys? Is it inconsistent to say wrecking it was an expensive mistake, but we should still pay the body shop? The worst I could be accused of is not realizing what a screwup the guy was before I trusted him with something of value. And this is the worst charge you can make against Kerry based on those quotes -- he didn't realize what screwups Bush and his team were before he handed them the keys to our military. Try making a campaign ad out of that, Timmy.

I can only hope more than half the electorate doesn't appreciate having its intelligence insulted in this manner.

[carsick]

Gromit
Here's the meme Timmy is shooting for:
Kerry wouldn't be a good president because he didn't realize that Bush wasn't a good president before Bush FUBARed everything.

Ha ha ha

[postit]

Seems I tarred with a rather large brush, apologies.

In hindsight I should have included the category of 'principled conservatives' who distinguish themselves by remaining true to conservative principles and values that contribute necessarily to the democratic process whilst acting equally as apologists for the particular regime in place today.

Rather like those 'principled democrats' who were able to defend Clinton's actions in the oval office with an intern.

I respectfully submit however that deceitfully commiting the nation to an unnecessary invasion and occupation at the cost of so much blood and treasure is infinitely more serious than being caught getting a blowjob and the apologists actions consequently more damning.

[Jesurgislac]

Timmy, I'm so much under Catsy's spell that all your attempts to attract my attention are just not working. Too bad. *throws Timmy biscuit* Now pick up your leash and run along.

[JadeGold]

If I let someone borrow my car, and he then wrecks it, is it a reversal for me to say "You shouldn't have wrecked my %&*# car" in light of the fact that I gave him the keys?

There's a famous scene in Animal House where the hapless Flounder has lent his brother's prized Lincoln Continental to the Deltas and the car is returned in far less than pristine condition.

Otter: Flounder, you can't spend your whole life worrying about your mistakes! You f*$#@& up -- you trusted us! Hey, make the best of it!

Bush was a frat boy, wasn't he?

[Timmy the Wonder Dog]

Jes, I'm sorry your mom won't let you play.

[Timmy the Wonder Dog]

Kerry started talking about Saddam's WMD's while there was still a Democrat in the WH, 1997 if you want to check the Congressional Record. You will have to point out to me the startling information which would change this nation's (or Kerry's) perspective of Saddam's WMD programs before the Oct 02 vote.

Gromitt, I will be watching for your post.

I liked the car analogy. But it would begin with the individual who allowed OBL to metasized and his first name isn't George.

[JadeGold]

But it would begin with the individual who allowed OBL to metasized and his first name isn't George.

That's right; it was Ronald.

[hilzoy]

Some of the intelligence available to Bush but not to Kerry before the vote is described here.

[Timmy the Wonder Dog]

Jade, actually it wasn't but please try again.

[Gromit]

You're dodging the question, Timmy. Are you unable or unwilling to defend the ad to which you linked?

[JadeGold]

Oh, but it was, Timmy. As I recall, Ronald said something about bin Laden and his friends being the equivalent of our founding fathers.

Of course, Ronald often did say some foolish and untrue things so who really knows?

[Timmy the Wonder Dog]

Your comment on the ad, was that it makes no sense. Actually, it is Kerry who makes no sense, which was the purpose of the ad.

Kerry does an excellent job on Kerry doing donuts on the issues. A 360 degree analysis, ends up with Kerry chasing his own tail, which is what the ad demonstrates.

[Anarch]

Your comment on the ad, was that it makes no sense. Actually, it is Kerry who makes no sense, which was the purpose of the ad.

I'm sure I speak for at least someone when I say: would you mind actually explaining, instead of merely asserting?

[Gromit]

Timmy, the ad claims "Kerry says A!" then plays a clip of Kerry clearly saying "B". The ad then says "But Kerry also says not A!" then plays a clip of Kerry saying "C". A couple of times it actually gets one of the characterizations right, but as far as I could tell never both, and the net result is that the makers of the ad come off looking like morons or liars or both.

And I doubt you want to get into an argument over whose candidates' statements make less sense, given that your candidate said that the "A. Q. Khan network has been brought to justice" and that missile defense is an important part of our response to the "threats that we face in the 21st century". The man is out of touch with reality.

[Jesurgislac]

Jade:

Jimmy Carter made the decision to support the wrong side in Afghanistan in 1979. Ronald Reagan picked up the ball and ran with it. Osama bin Laden first surfaced as a political leader/financier in Afghanistan, in the mid-1980s, supporting the mujahideen against the Communists. (Afghanistan history) It is highly likely, though I don't know how one would go about proving it, that the US was in the curious position, thanks to Reagan, of giving Osama bin Laden financial support in the 1980s.

Al-Qaeda itself, though, was based on an organization founded by bin Laden "to help veterans of the Afghan war", but first appeared as a force following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and the subsequent stationing of US troops in Saudi Arabia. cite

So in point of fact, actions by US Presidents from 1979 onwards have assisted and helped Osama bin Laden. There are no exceptions. Jimmy, Ronald, George, Bill, and George have all been helpful, in their various ways. If Jimmy Carter hadn't thought that the plight of Afghan women was irrelevant: if Ronald Reagan hadn't had the kneejerk attitude that terrorists should be supported providing they're "our" terrorists: if George Bush hadn't used the faked photos of a massed army on Saudi borders to get US troops into Saudi Arabia: if Bill Clinton had taken seriously Muslim outrage at leaving US troops in Saudi Arabia: if George W. Bush had decided to focus on Osama bin Laden/al-Qaeda rather than ignoring everything the outgoing Clinton administration had said and current warnings from the CIA about an al-Qaeda threat:

...things might have been different.