Presidential Debates

A friend asked me to write about presidential debates.

I talked about CPD before. It is not fair that these debates are just two-sided debates. In my opinion CPD rules have to be changed. Their criteria for choosing participants of presidential debates seem unfair. The number of debates is far less than what it should be. Someone like Nader should have the opportunity to discuss those problems that are not important to either of the major candidates, or they don't want to discuss them. Wait! What I'm saying doesn't mean that I'm a Nader supporter. No.No... I'm not. I absolutely disagree with his decision of running for presidency. However I strongly support the change of CPD rules and I discussed some of the alternatives before. Any ways, those changes will not happen very soon and we have to be patient, but we should always have the important issue of changing debate rules and selection criteria in our mind! Lets talk about tonight. mm... I have nothing to say! We should wait and see what happens tonight!

Richard Perle was a political advisor who served in Reagan and Bush administrations.

In September 2003-almost a year ago- he Claimed:

"And a year from now, I'll be very surprised if there is not some grand square in Baghdad that is named after President Bush. There is no doubt that, with the exception of a very small number of people close to a vicious regime, the people of Iraq have been liberated and they understand that they've been liberated. And it is getting easier every day for Iraqis to express that sense of liberation."

Do you think he can say the same statement right now? Can he guarantee that what he expected to happen now will happen in a year from now? Is he surprised now?!

What Does "Serious Consequences" Mean?

Richard Boucher says the invasion of Iraq was legal since the UN resolution stated that if Saddam doesn't comply he will face serious consequences. This comes after Cofi Annan called the US invasion of Iraq illegal. Here is what he said

From our point of view and from the Charter point of view [the war] was illegal.

I'm wondering why does the US government need this war to be legal! Does it mean that whatever they do is legal and they always respect international laws?

A Quote From Gorge H. W. Bush

"Extending the war into Iraq would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Exceeding the UN's mandate would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the US could still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."

From "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam" by George Bush Sr and Brent Scowcroft, Time Magazine, 1998

Some questions came to my mind! Did the United States "exceed UN's mandate" by invading Iraq? Is it fair if we say that "other allies" supported the war in Iraq? Isn't US an "occupying power" in Iraq right now? Is "human cost of Iraq war" calculable?

Please...please...please do not be offended by this post!!

There is something that I want to share with you about the reaction of a friend of mine to what happened 3 years ago.

I will not forget what that friend told me some days after the 11th of September 2001.

"Let all Americans understand what is going on in the rest of the world. Let them really feel what they have done to citizens of other countries. Let them understand what others feel when Americans bombard cities of other countries and kill civilians. Let them see what "killing innocent people" means."

I really don't agree with what she said and I am 100% against killing civilians. Let me clarify that 9/11 attack was a shameful act of terrorism and in no way I want to defend the disgusting act of killing 3000 innocent people but what I am saying is that there is "some" truth to her argument!! What do you think? I want to ask you and her if Americans really understood what she wanted them to understand?!

Gallup reports a 2-point convention bounce for Bush. A worth mentioning point is that Bush has a 7-point lead among "likely voters" however his lead among "registered voters" decreases to 1 point. That highlights the importance of voter turnout in the coming election.

Presidential Polls

Rasmussen's daily presidential polls show that Bush is ahead of Kerry by 4 to 5 points. But in two other polls, i.e. Time Magazine and Newsweek, there is a significant difference. They suggest that Bush is ahead by a double-digit. Rasmussen Reports explains why there is such a huge difference in these polls.

I just couldn't believe my ears when a reporter from Iraq told Bill Moyers in Now With Bill Moyers that in average US army is attacked sixty times a day in Iraq! I'm just wondering who in Iraq calls them liberators not occupiers! I'm not blaming those soldiers but the guys who sent them there and didn't control their behavior. If it were the case we wouldn't have abuses in Abu Ghuraib. "No one can undo those images" the reporter said.

Arnold talks about Bush's decision but...

Arnold Schwarzenegger, yesterday's actor and today's governor of California, proclaimed that the majority of Americans actually hadn't supported the war in Iraq before it started! It was really shocking to me when I read that. I really couldn't believe my eyes. Amazingly he said

"The President didn't go into Iraq because the polls told him it was popular. As a matter of fact, the polls said just the opposite."

Every single poll that I am aware of showed that going to Iraq was overwhelmingly popular. Here is what Gallup says about popularity of Bush's decision:

"A majority of Americans supported the idea of the invasion of Iraq before Bush made the decision to commence military action in March 2003. Gallup's March 14-15, 2003, poll showed that 64% of Americans favored "invading Iraq with U.S. ground troops in an attempt to remove Saddam Hussein from power," and 57% agreed that the Bush administration "has made a convincing case about the need for the U.S. to take military action against Iraq." A March 17, 2003, CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll asked: "Do you approve or disapprove of Bush's decision to go to war if Saddam Hussein does not leave Iraq in the next 48 hours?" Sixty-six percent of Americans approved; 30% disapproved"

In his not very long speech, this was not the only time that he lied. Just click here to read another shocking lie by the very same person in the very same speech! I don't know what I should call their speeches in RNC. They were full of hatred and personal attacks.

And now look what Arnold said at the begining of his speech:

"Speaking of acting, one of my movies was called "True Lies." It's what the Democrats should have called their convention."

Well, I'm not in a position to defend Democrats but if someone that lies quite clearly at least twice in a speech is not a liar who is a liar then?

P.S.: Some gmail invitations are still left, if you want one hurry up!

Gmails to give away

I have some Gmails to give away. If you want one and dont already have one, just leave a message here and make sure to include your name and email address. I will invite you, so that you can have a 1 GB email. Hope you enjoy using Gmail.