?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

 The rivals for the US presidency clashed bitterly in their first presidential debate last night as Barack Obama sought to tie John McCain to the failed policies of the Bush administration at home and abroad.

Mr Obama, seen by voters as weaker on foreign affairs, was judged to have held his own in the debate, while Mr McCain did not manage to expose any major weaknesses in his opponent. But his contempt for his rival was on display throughout, as he could not bring himself to look his opponent directly in the eye during the debate. Read more.

Simple question: Who do you think won the debate?

Edit: The Independent called it a draw

Comments

( Comment )
allhatnocattle wrote:
Sep. 27th, 2008 05:09 pm (UTC)
The thing is, if Saddam was such a threat, there were options for forcing a regime change that did not have to destroy the entire country. The USA forced the regime change in Chile on Sept 11 1973 without an invasion.

WMD's are weapons of MASS destruction. No bits and pieces were ever found. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Ziltch. Saddam had zero nuclear capability. That's what Colin Powell had lead us to believe in his address to the UN. It was a lie plain and simple.

Taking over a country in the way the Iraq War went down serves one purpose clearly; economic opportunity.

When looking at the current financial crisis, with banks and mortgage houses collapsing, it was foretold years ago it would eventually have to come down to this. Iraq Oil under American control would have greatly assisted to America's economy. It hasn't.
( Comment )