Winning the battle-Losing the war?

Like many others last night, I got to watch the debate between President Bush and Senator Kerry. And like many others, I believe that Sen. Kerry's demeanor, speaking skills, delivery, and all the other "outer" apperances were were better than the President's. But is that what determines who "won" the debate? Although the Senator had the style, I question the substance. I want to look at just a couple of points that will shed some light on who actually won the debate.

1. The Senator repeatedly berated President Bush on the lack of multi-national co-operation with regards to Iraq. There's a couple of problems with that view. First of all, he ignores the help and co-operation of about 30 nations in Iraq. I'm sure the British are glad to know they have absolutely no claim to any success in Iraq. Second, this view assumes that those countries (France, Germany, etc) only the best interest of the world at heart. Of course they wouldn't have their OWN self-interest to think about. France stood to gain a windfall in oil contracts from Hussein once embargos were lifted. Even the UN can be faulted in this regard. There are reports surfacing about huge graft and corruption concerning the UN's administration of the "Food for Oil" programs in place before the war. Are these disinterested and impartial groups? Third, Mr. Kerry preached co-operation about Iraq, yet when asked about North Korea, insisted that "bi-lateral" talks must be convened immediately". As the President pointed out, that flies in the face of multi-national talks that are going on right now. I don't think you can have it both ways!

2. The senator never did tell us his own plans for ending the war in Iraq and bringing the troops home. When asked, he danced and obfuscated about the question, saying only that he would bring in other countries and he would provide leadership to bring them home. I can only surmise that in his arrogance, he truly believes that his superior New England brain will find a quicker solution than the puny Texas intellect of "Dubya". In this arena, though, past performance IS an indicator of futute performance. Senator Kerry voted for sending the troops to war and then voted against appropriations to supply them. This is unacceptable. Nothing kills morale quicker than knowing that you are not being supported by the government that sent you to battle. YOU CAN NOT PLAY POLITICS WITH THE TROOPS' SUPPLIES! Going back further, Lt. Kerry, coming home from Vietnam, chose to join in the opposition to the war that went past the protection of free speech to providing aid and succor to the enemy and bordered the line of treason. How much heart did he give the enemy in the 70s. How much heart is he giving the enemy now?

3. When asked if a president should be able to conduct a pre-emptive war, Senator Kerry gave a resounding "YES!" and proceeded to qualify it with the ability to "pass the global test". Was he saying that France has the ability to veto a war the President of the United States deems necessary? It sounds contradictory, in my opinion.

These highlight the biggest problem that the good senator has. He is so used to trying to stake out a wide position on any issue, as not to offend anyone, that he has lost the ability (if he ever had it) to say "This is what I stand for". So no matter how polished it is said, or how smooth it sounds, the words of the senator are fluid. And that is NOT what a leader, paticularly at war time needs to be. So based on the substance of what was said, the President may have lost the appearance battle, but he has won the substance war.