I must say that Bush did pretty well in the debate. He didn't come off as a complete bumbling idiot as he has in the past. Sure, there were a few little stutters and pauses, and yeah he looked just outright annoyed in the cutaways while Kerry was speaking, but he really held his own. Against Kerry, who's an experienced and talented debater, Bush came off as someone who simply has a different view of the world. I've said it before, that's really what this all comes down to: Who's world view is most like yours? There are more than one way to skin a cat, so which do you think is better? That's going to determine who you vote for.

However, as far as this debate was concerned, I think Kerry came out on top. Mostly because I think he came the furthest from where he started before the debate. Kerry needed to prove to people that he wasn't wishy-washy (or a flip flopper if you want to use the media's phrase), that he could be as strong and decisive as Bush is. And I think Kerry succeeded in that. I think to the undecideds, he'll no longer be looked at as the weaker candidate. Maybe people will no longer be voting against Bush, but FOR Kerry. In that sense, he made great strides forward during this debate, which is why I think he won the debate. Kerry put Bush on the defensive for the majority of the debate. Bush didn't fall backwards, but I don't think he moved forward either. There was no knockout punch, this wasn't Clinton v. Dole in 1996, but Kerry definitely had the harder hits. That's how I scored the debate.

Whether a vote was swayed really depends on the voter's world view now. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see less undecideds in the new polls. I think Kerry won the debate. I'm still voting for Kerry and feel better about doing it now, he most closely represents me and my world view. I don't think this debate won either side a great lead in the race, I think this debate just made the race closer. We'll see when the new polls come out.

Obviously, by now, you know I mean Bush. I really just don't trust him. And it looks like some of congress and his congressional aides don't believe what he's saying about Iraq either. Beyond the whole lie/mistake/misunderstanding that led us into Iraq ... Beyond the VERY premature "Mission Accomplished" speech ... He continues to spew forth Bushit about what's happening in Iraq today. In a recent article by Reuters:

He said nearly 100,000 "fully trained and equipped" Iraqi soldiers, police officers and other security personnel are already at work, and that would rise to 125,000 by the end of this year.

And he promised more than $9 billion will be spent on reconstruction contracts in Iraq over the next few months.

But many of these assertions have met with skepticism from key congressional aides and experts, and Pentagon documents, given to lawmakers and obtained by Reuters, paint a more complicated picture.

TROOP, POLICE TRAINING

The documents show that of the nearly 90,000 currently in the police force, only 8,169 have had the full eight-week academy training. Another 46,176 are listed as "untrained," and it will be July 2006 before the administration reaches its new goal of a 135,000-strong, fully trained police force.

Six Army battalions have had "initial training," while 57 National Guard battalions, 896 soldiers in each, are still being recruited or "awaiting equipment." Just eight Guard battalions have reached "initial (operating) capability," and the Pentagon acknowledged the Guard's performance has been "uneven."

Training has yet to begin for the 4,800-man civil intervention force, which will help counter a deadly insurgency. And none of the 18,000 border enforcement guards have received any centralized training to date, despite earlier claims they had, according to Democrats on the U.S. House of Representatives Appropriations Committee.

They estimated that 22,700 Iraqi personnel have received enough basic training to make them "minimally effective at their tasks," in contrast to the 100,000 figure cited by Bush.

The sad thing is that there are SO many Americans that hear Bush's words, and take them for truth. It's obvious by the polls which show Bush slightly ahead of Kerry for the election. Either they believe everything he says about the state of affairs in our country and abroad, or they don't care when he's wrong or lying. Either way, it's a very sad statement about our country. But Bush's inaccuracies don't stop there:

The status of election planning in Iraq is also in question. Of the $232 million in Iraqi funds set aside for the Iraqi electoral commission, it has received a mere $7 million, according to House Appropriations Committee staff.

While Bush said the commission has already hired personnel and begun setting election procedures, congressional aides said preparations in other areas were behind schedule.

According to a one-page election planning "time line," registration materials are supposed to be distributed in early October. The forms would be collected at centers where Iraqis pick up monthly food packages. Initial voter lists are supposed to go out by the end of October, which is during the holy month of Ramadan.

And this is another crucial flaw in Bush's planning (or lack thereof) in Iraq. He is entirely ignorant of the culture he has invaded. I've said it before, you can't introduce a political system based on Christianity into a Muslim country, and expect everyone to be happy about that. Now, he plans to conduct serious business during one of their religion's major holy times. His ignorance has killed thousands of people, and now it's breaking down his major plans to repair what he broke.

So far, the United Nations has been reluctant to send staff back into the battle zone. It only has 30 to 35 people now in Baghdad, no more than eight working on the elections.

"The framework for it (free and fair elections) hasn't even been set up. The voter registration lists aren't set. There have to be hundreds of polling places, hundreds of trained monitors and poll watchers. None of that has happened," Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State for President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, told ABC's "This Week."

With the violence expected to intensify in the run-up to the elections, congressional experts were also skeptical $9 billion could be spent on reconstruction projects within several months, as Bush asserted.

So the United Nations, congressional experts, and a former Secretary of State are spotting huge holes in the plans to rebuild the nation we invaded. But W. goes forward, spewing his Bushit, and millions of ignorant Americans go on buying it. It's scary. Really.

At this point, I'm just hoping the Kerry does a good job in the debates. Bush is a good debater. I know it's disturbing considering he hasn't exactly mastered the English language yet, but he's a good debater. Kerry needs to step up and solidify his persona. There are a LOT of undecided voters out there. And "undecided" this year means they don't want another four years of Bush, but aren't sure that Kerry is the answer. I understand that. Personally, I don't know if Kerry is the solution to our problems. I DO know that he's the best alternative to four more years of Bushit. I've taken that step. I just hope Kerry can get the undecided voters to do the same.

We're just under six weeks away from the biggest election of our times: George W. Bush v. John Kerry. And I've become slightly less than biased in this (can you tell?)

I really started off somewhat unbiased, trying to keep a level head and just watch it all from the sidelines, reporting what I see. But I guess I would make a lousy reporter, getting emotionally involved in the situation, wearing my bias on my sleeve. No station would ever hire me with my mixing opinion with fact. Well, except maybe Fox News. But they're obviously of the opposite opinion, so they likely wouldn't hire me either.

But thinking about the role of the reporters in this election brings me to Dan Rather. The last I read, people were calling for Rather's head on a stick, or at least his resignation. I'm not quite sure why though. He's a reporter. He reports. One night, he reported that his team had in their possession some papers which called into question W's war-time service, or lack of. As far as he knew, the papers were legitimate. So he went on the air and did his job, he reported. As we all know, the documents turned out to be fake. So explain why it's so much HIS fault that Rather should be fired?

Devil's advocate time. A leader of a team receives information that, to the best of his knowledge, is true. He acts on this information in a manner that proves to be disastrous to everyone involved, including people not on the team who rely on this man for his leadership. The information turns out to be entirely false. Should this leader be vanquished? How about his team that was responsible for the information in the first place? Would you still be answering "yes" to this, knowing that George W. Bush was the example, not Dan Rather?

See, W did the same things Rather did (if you believe his saying that he believed the Intelligence gathered pre-Iraq to be true ... and not that W. knew there were no weapons and no links to 9/11 but lied to get into Iraq). Of course, nobody died when Rather lied. Not true for George. And it's that kind of hypocrisy that has be so terribly biased this election.

It's not because I'm a Democrat, because I'm not. I'm a registered "non-partisan" which, in Nevada, is even less committal that voting as an Independent. They actually have an organization. Nope, I'm non-partisan. It is my earnest opinion that all politicians, by definition of their job, are full of shit, and are not to be trusted. The only reason to vote in the first place is to stand behind the guy who's selling the shit that smells the best to you. Whose bullshit SOUNDS better? Whose bullshit is more along the lines of your OWN bullshit. It's the reason I voted for Clinton. Twice. I LIKED his bullshit. It was MY KIND of bullshit. His faults were my kind of faults, except the whole "I didn't inhale thing". His fault there was not knowing how to properly smoke the ganj, and that's shameful. But in this election, after having witnessed four years of Bush's bullshit, I can't take anymore.

Let's just shorten it, shall we? Let's just call it "Bushit". It's easier. It's got a nice ring to it. At this point, I'd take the bullshit spewed forth by Miss Cleo instead of having to deal with more Bushit. So it's not at all surprising that I'm taken in my Kerry's bullshit. I LIKE his bullshit. There's some Hope in his bullshit. It's on the way.

For example: the original Bushit concept of "No Child Left Behind" was great. When W. cut taxes to that program after establishing it, making it entirely impossible, it made for a very clear sign of what W. thinks of education in this country. Now, Kerry says he's got a plan for education, and I read it, and it's not too bad. Is it bullshit? Quite possibly. Does it sound a lot better than hearing Bush say "no child left behind" again knowing that he already cut funding from it, and that he plans on cutting another $1.6 Billion from the program again in 2005? You're God damned right, it does. At least there's some hope of SOME progress in Kerry's bullshit.

And speaking God damning things...
W. got the election handed to him in Florida where, voters were turned away, disenfranchised, or otherwise confused, votes were counted and miscounted and remiscounted, and his brother was the Governor presiding over all of it. So how many hurricanes has Florida been hit with recently? How much damage is being done there? How many people have been killed?

Now, personally, I don't think God does shit like that, smiting people and all. But George W. Bush and the rest of the Christian Fundamentalists in this country DO think that way. Everything from winning the lottery to losing a limb or two is God's will. God does punish the wicked, especially the gay, with things like AIDS. So, if you follow my logic paired with theirs, I think God is pretty pissed at Florida. And at Bush. I think God may be tired of all the Bushit as well. That, or Allah really does hate us and is doing his part to kill off Americans.

Hey, you never know, do you? It's our god versus theirs, in a battle to see who has the biggest invisible friend. "My god can beat up your god." According to both sides, the Almighty, whatever name you call her, is on their side, guiding them to righteous victory over infidels and terrorists. Another lesson in Bushit: God is on our side. I believe that like I believe that one day, all the faithful are going to be sucked right out of their Reebok Classics and up to the right hand of God in Heaven to watch the plagues and tortures that befall His enemies on Earth. That sounds about as realistic as spending eternity in a paradise with 72 virgins, doesn't it? Well, if you don't know... Bush believes in the Rapture. That day when he'll be pulled from the planet to meet God and watch... who? the terrorists be punished? The Arabs? Muslims? Hell... JEWS?

Yes kids, our great leader believes in fairy tales like that one. He lives his life like one too. He sends our soldiers off to foreign land to rescue the poor form the evil dictators and expects them to be treated like knights on white horses. Well, we see how well that's turning out, don't we? Fairy tales aren't real, George. even if fairies are

Now, back home, we have an election coming up to decide who is the best person to lead us in this time of trouble. On one hand we have the person who GOT US INTO this time of trouble. On the other we have a man who has been knee deep in rice patties doing everything he can to get him and his team OUT of trouble.

Do you choose the man who started a war in a country over false pretenses, turned a self-defense reaction into an offensive against a person who never attacked us, and has caused over 1000 Americans to die for this unknown cause? Do you choose the man who ignored public opinion, both in his own country, and all over the world, effectively alienating us from the majority of the world's population? The man who did all of this while ignoring the problems his own country has, and has done nothing but divert funds meant to fix our country into this war, changing the best economy into the worst economy even seen? and smallest deficit into the biggest deficit the country's ever seen?

Or do you choose the man who thinks the whole thing was a terrible mistake and wants to do whatever it takes to correct it? Who realizes that mistakes have been made and need to be corrected? Who understand war and the costs of war, both political, monetary, and human? The man who wants this country to be respected again, rather than feared and loathed? The man who actually has a plan to take care of healthcare, education, the environment, AND national security?

It's your decision. You have to live with it. Unfortunately, so do the rest of us. Personally, I'll hang on to my bias and spew forth my own bullshit. And I'll cast my vote for the man who I think actually has a clue as to what might make me sleep better at night, proud to be an American, and able to say that I live in the best place on Earth. Because for the last four years, I can't say any of those have been true.

No more Bushit.