|
|
blog roll
|
christ on toast...,
2004-10-13 12:20:19
| Main |
purty graphic...,
2004-10-13 13:21:18
Kerry was in command of the facts and more resolute than he was in the first debate. He also had a lot more with which to hit Bush, including last week's report from U.S. arms inspector Charles Duelfer on the lack of WMDs in Iraq, and the charge by former occupation administrator L. Paul Bremer, who admitted that we didn't go into Iraq with enough troops.
Um, if you check the transcript Kerry mentions Duelfer once very briefly, letting Bush hammer his interpretation of it without contest, and never makes mention of Bremer in the debate once. I was reading along with the democrat partisan types over at atrios' blog and their enthusiam for Kerry's performance in the second debate I thought was maybe based on things they were imagining Kerry must have said because they were such obvious arguments. The story above about how Kerry made such arguments seems to confirm that. For as much as I could stand to watch Kerry simply repeated verbatim his comments from the first debate. His win would have been much more solid on Friday if he had, in fact, hammered the arguments his supporters apparently remember him making.
:: posted by buermann @ 2004-10-13 12:33:59 CST |
link
|
|
|
|
