The OAO 9/30 Presidential Debate Thread

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

Bush's strengths were that he seemed less memorized and more from the heart than Kerry, and did a good job reiterating his positions and avoided some really loaded questions

 

I would have agreed with you up to a point. Bush went beyond the point where "reinteration" in hopes of the final impression being "freedom" "winnning" for him, and "diversion" "mixed messages" for Kerry, became "I'm lost, let's go back to these talking points where I'm safe..." and that, for me, was the final impression. In 2000 GWB did a much better job of doing that against Gore, where the impression of "morals" won out.

 

His weaknesses were his style of answering made him seem unsure or unprepared, in the pauses and stuttering. His closing statement was excellent though.

 

Agreed. It actually seemed like he didn't care about 99% of the debate and just focused on the Closing Statement, figuring that the last impression was the only important one. It's a pretty sound theory, at least focusing on the Closing Statement is, but I think he needed more in the body of the debate.

 

Kerry's strengths were that he looked very confident, he spoke without the pauses and akwardness of Bush and kept Bush on the defensive with some direct shots.

 

Kerry actually had me going "OH!", like he was on Jerry Springer. That surprised me because I expected him to go the Gore route and not want to appear like a bully. He managed to balance that pretty well.

 

His weakness was all style and no substance. He was quick to criticize Bush, but never really explained his own plans for things. What he did explain was either unrealistic and just plain wrong.

 

I don't think he had much style, I thought Bush did better with his eye movement and hand gestures (when he was talking confidently) and came off a lil more personable than JK - but he didn't come off as personable as I thought he would. I think the only time he really "shined" in that regard, was the story about the wife, and then about the twins and talking about JK.

 

I'll be honest, and I'm not afraid to say, that I don't follow politics. I pass over it, keep up with the themes and trends, but I think it's all bullshit anyways. I like debates though. I looked at both of them as objectively as I could, and gave them points for impressing me. To make me believe their bullshit. And they do that through speaking confidently and conveying their message in a reputable manner (Kerry citing the Generals who support him was a great move). I think, and a lot of people do, it's (debates) the best time to look at the candidates. Why? Because it's the time where they show who can bullshit best. Who can come off the best. And if the other guy can't catch you on your bullshit, then they're worse and you're better. That's why I hated Gores performance in 00, he didn't do ANYTHING to push Bush. To call him on things. And Bush continued to push the moral button and rest on his personable nature. He didn't come close to doing that tonight. He couldn't even bullshit.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

This is a riot!

 

Mike, Bush did poorly. He looked LOST at so many points during the debate (I've got at least 6) and almost broke down at one point when trying to explain his exit strategy of Iraq. Kerry didn't give a point-by-point assessment of how he was going to do it, but he at least appeared to have a focused, directed approach to handling the situation. Bush did not and he's the fucking president.

 

All of your points are meaningless Mike, do you want to know why? BECAUSE BUSH DIDN'T MAKE THEM. This is the concept of a debate. It was Bush vs. Kerry, not Kerry vs. Mike, and certainly not Kerry vs. Mike with-plenty-of-time-to-come-up-with-answers-and-counter-points-and-explain-them. In this context. In this debate. Kerry blew Bush out of the water. Whatever result that has on the election is for time to decide, but as of right now, he looked good and Bush looked bad. Get this around your head, thinking about it, maybe sleep on it, and then come back and chat.

Well said. Kudos!

[Guest MikeSC]

This is a riot!

 

Mike, Bush did poorly. He looked LOST at so many points during the debate (I've got at least 6) and almost broke down at one point when trying to explain his exit strategy of Iraq. Kerry didn't give a point-by-point assessment of how he was going to do it, but he at least appeared to have a focused, directed approach to handling the situation. Bush did not and he's the fucking president.

 

All of your points are meaningless Mike, do you want to know why? BECAUSE BUSH DIDN'T MAKE THEM. This is the concept of a debate. It was Bush vs. Kerry, not Kerry vs. Mike, and certainly not Kerry vs. Mike with-plenty-of-time-to-come-up-with-answers-and-counter-points-and-explain-them. In this context. In this debate. Kerry blew Bush out of the water. Whatever result that has on the election is for time to decide, but as of right now, he looked good and Bush looked bad. Get this around your head, thinking about it, maybe sleep on it, and then come back and chat.

Filibuster if you so desire. It won't make Kerry's lackluster performance less lackluster.

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

Neither guy was out of this world, but I did find it troubling that Bush brought about 30mins of material to a 90 minute debate.

[AndrewTS 0]

Neither guy was out of this world, but I did find it troubling that Bush brought about 30mins of material to a 90 minute debate.

This is rather true. Too much of the same old rhetoric by Bush.

 

I'll agree with Rudo that Kerry was clearly the better speaker, was clearly better prepared, and was much more calm and composed.

 

However, that didn't make his answers--or lack thereof--any better than they were.

Plenty of things he brought up didn't win me over: bending over backwards for an international community that are determined not to support us anyway, the ICC issue, the phantom plans that Kerry has for everything but won't even hint at the execution of, his personal anecdotes that frankly don't faze me, and his promises to perform certain tasks within an unrealistic time frame. He hardly shed the "flip flop" label here, and Bush did a decent job of seeing that it would stick.

 

I was disappointed to see both of them take some pretty low cheap shots at each other. What, do they think we're in Great Britain? Although Bush praising Kerry as a great family man, then...omitting any mention whatsoever of Kerry's wife cracked me up. If you've got nothing nice to say, I suppose. Kerry deserves a lot of credit for using Bush Sr. words about Iraq.

 

The callers who chimed in after the debate show me that a lot of people will ignore anything said and just hear what they want to hear. The woman who heard Kerry said he'd be bringing back "the boys" quickly was quite funny. Apparently she never heard "add two divisions" or the part about keeping an eye on N. Korea.

 

Too many past Iraa criticisms from Kerry--which are all valid in choosing a new leader, but are irrelevant for the current situation. Iraq is an escalation of commitment that isn't going to be cleared up in "6 months" no matter what Kerry wants voters to believe.

 

All in all, I don't think too many people are really going to have their minds changed by this. Bush supporters will continue to support Bush. Kerry supporters will continue to support Kerry. Bush didn't seem to have any major changes in plans in mind, and Kerry's plans and policies remain a mystery unless you want to take the stuff he mentioned on the campaign trail to heart, because he's not really implemented them into a precise platform.

 

I can't say, watching that debate, that "X is my guy now." As it is, I'm still supporting Bush with reservations.

[AndrewTS 0]

Oh--next week's debate is going to focus on domestic issues--which should be Kerry's strong suit. Since he defended himself quite well (even if I don't agree with a lot of what he said), if he can really pull it together it could really make a huge difference. I think domestic issues are going to be really tough for Bush to debate.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Debate #2 is Town Hall

Debate #3 is Domestic

[AndrewTS 0]

Debate #2 is Town Hall

Debate #3 is Domestic

My bad. Thanks.

[teke184 0]

Anyone else think that Kerry's "We should have given Iran nuclear fuel to test them" comment is going to blow up in his face down the road?

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

No, because the American public doesn't debate real issues.

[MrRant 0]

No, because the American public doesn't debate real issues.

[Guest GreatOne]

As much as Kerry dominated--if you listen to Rudo, Cheese, etc anyway--he also left himself open for a mass of blowups in the facial region, not limited to the multiple rebuttals that began with echoing Bush 'George Bush is absolutely right' (I can't blame Bush if he was sporting a mad WTF? there, 'Hell I thought this guy beat Weld.........')

 

BTW if Jingus ever wants to visit this thread:

 

9-22 (Simple question for Bush supporters pg 3):

So that's why Kerry had to play the 'Bush will bring back the draft' card, which has been debunked by Bush, Rumsfeld, and Powell countless times. I really believe the Dems should stop with this 'we're above them' crap cause they suck at it.

 

Of course, if you'd actually tried to read the article, you would've seen that Kerry NEVER said or even implied that Bush would bring back the draft.

 

I merely said he played the card

 

A simple acknowledgement that I was right will do thank you.

 

Oh and Highland nailed it earlier in that thread about the pres debates being lackluster, he's a third of the way there anyway................

[Vern Gagne 0]

Debate #2 is Town Hall

Debate #3 is Domestic

Debate #4.

 

Death Match.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Christ, I'm not reading 550+ posts on a topic I don't care about -- someone care to bring me up-to-date?...

[Guest INXS]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3705964.stm

 

President Bush:

 

I believe I'm going to win, because the American people know I know how to lead. I've shown the American people I know how to lead. I understand everybody in this country doesn't agree with the decisions I've made. And I made some tough decisions. But people know where I stand.

 

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Senator Kerry:

 

I believe in being strong and resolute and determined. And I will hunt down and kill the terrorists, wherever they are. But we also have to be smart. And smart means not diverting your attention from the real war on terror in Afghanistan against Osama bin Laden and taking if off to Iraq.

 

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

President Bush:

 

We're making progress. But the front on this war is more than just one place... The biggest disaster that could happen is that we not succeed in Iraq. We will succeed. We've got a plan to do so. And the main reason we'll succeed is because the Iraqis want to be free.

 

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Senator Kerry:

 

This president has made, I regret to say, a colossal error of judgement. And judgement is what we look for in the president of the United States of America.

 

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

President Bush:

 

The only thing consistent about my opponent's position is that he's been inconsistent. He changes positions. And you cannot change positions in this war on terror if you expect to win.

 

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Senator Kerry:

 

I've had one position, one consistent position [on Iraq]: That Saddam Hussein was a threat, there was a right way to disarm him and the wrong way, and the president chose the wrong way.

 

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

President Bush:

 

My opponent says help is on the way, but what kind of message does it say to our troops in harm's way - wrong war, wrong place, wrong time? Not a message a commander in chief gives, or this is a great diversion.

 

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Senator Kerry:

 

When I talked about the $87bn [extra money to provide equipment for US troops], I made a mistake in how I talk about the war. But the president made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is worse? I believe that when you know something's going wrong, you make it right. That's what I learned in Vietnam.

 

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

President Bush:

 

Of course we're doing everything we can to protect America. I wake up every day thinking about how best to protect America. That's my job.

 

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Senator Kerry:

 

Unfortunately, [Osama Bin Laden] escaped in the mountains of Tora Bora. We had him surrounded. But we didn't use American forces, the best-trained in the world, to go kill him. The president relied on Afghan warlords, and he outsourced that job too. That's wrong.

[Guest GreatOne]

And that proves?

 

All it does is say Bush has a plan--which admittedly he didn't expound on but he's also been doing that on the campaign.

 

And Kerry saying 'Yeah well I'm right Bush is wrong cause I SERVED IN VIETNAM'

[Styles 0]

Christ, I'm not reading 550+ posts on a topic I don't care about -- someone care to bring me up-to-date?...

Quick summaries of both guys points:

 

Bush believes we’re on the right track, that it was important for the War on Terror to remove Saddam and democratize Iraq. It’s hard work but he knows what he’s doing. He doesn’t believe Kerry posseses the trait of a Commander in Chief because he demoralizes our troops and alienates our allies when he calls Iraq “the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time.” (Great Bush line on how Kerry would get more countries to help: “Please join us in a grand diversion.”) He also believes Kerry *GASP~!* is indecisive and changes his positions to the whims of other nations. Bush says he has convictions which he will not wilt from. Bush also uses Kerry’s own quotes in support of the Iraq war against him, by cleverly saying he doesn’t believe Kerry mislead the public by calling Saddam a threat. Furthermore, he believes the key to North Korea is to continue the 6 party talks and not to alienate China from the process. He’s clear that the army will be all volunteer (in response to a Kerry draft cheapshot), and says the troops will come home when the job is done.

His delivery was weak though as he seemed lost at times pausing and stammering and sometimes got repeptitive.

 

Kerry believes Iraq has been totally screwed up and doesn’t think Bush did enough to bring more allies along and cites the US as 90% of losses and costs for the war. He questioned why a tax cut for the rich was more important than our security (I didn’t get that one), and made numerous references to JFK and Ronald Reagan to dry to draw comparisons (WTF?) Bush mislead the American public and believes we should have been concentrating our resources on Osama Bin Laden, not Iraq. He made a comparison to FDR attacking Mexico in response to Pearl Harbor. He made at least 7 or 8 references to his time in combat (I’m shocked, I know, yet I don’t think he ever used the “V” word) which means he knows what its like for the troops, and says his plan would bring them home in 6 months. On North Korea he believes we need to go back to bilateral talks with Kim Jung Il and believes nuclear proliferation is the biggest threat to the US, and we should stop producing our own nuclear weapons as an example to the world…yet we should give Iran nuclear energy to discourage them from making nuclear weapons.

Kerry’s delivery was his strong point. He looked and spoke with confidence and rarely ever stammered or seemed lost, and surprisingly stayed within the time better than Bush.

 

Hopefully that about sums it up. Clearly watching the debate Kerry presented himself better and wins on style, but if you actually examine the content of the debate, Bush nailed all his points, while Kerry either didn’t offer solutions or offered really BAD ones. I hope the content is stressed in the media…

[Guest MikeSC]

Oh--next week's debate is going to focus on domestic issues--which should be Kerry's strong suit. Since he defended himself quite well (even if I don't agree with a lot of what he said), if he can really pull it together it could really make a huge difference. I think domestic issues are going to be really tough for Bush to debate.

I'll go ahead and say it --- in the third debate, Bush will do just fine.

 

Kerry has one real problem --- if he wants to gripe about tax cuts, Bush can mention that even though Kerry has far more money than he, Bush paid more in taxes last year.

 

Both men like to play defense (the curse of having the same debate coach in college) and neither man will blow you away in their "specialty".

-=Mike

[2GOLD 0]

I just realized that Bush was stumbling and bumbling and it only ended in a draw. Does that really speak well of John Kerry that he couldn't nail Bush to the wall when Bush was lost?

 

I still say this was a blown chance by Kerry. Bush left the door open and Kerry just stared at it and said, "eh, maybe I'll go through later."

 

Hearing this ended in a draw when Bush was confused is not exactly the best of things the more I think about it.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

I hope the content is stressed in the media…

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

I don't care about the debates themselves -- were there any worthwhile flaming battles in this thread between Mike and Insert-Commie-Here?...

[Guest MikeSC]

I hope the content is stressed in the media…

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

I don't care about the debates themselves -- were there any worthwhile flaming battles in this thread between Mike and Insert-Commie-Here?...

I was actually pretty nice.

 

And Kerry's "global test" line is going to be a noose for him.

-=Mike

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

I heard about that line -- it'll do nothing.

 

Bush will air an ad with that soundbyte, Kerry will cry about partisan attacks and say he was against the "global test" before he was for it, and Big Media will ask W. why he's such a big meanie...

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

In his 30-second follow-up to the "When has Bush misled the public?" question, the president said:

 

The only consistent about my opponent's position is that he's been inconsistent. He changes positions. And you cannot change positions in this war on terror if you expect to win.

 

He repeated that sort of idea several times throughout the night. What a dangerous and dunderheaded idea. Both guys missed a bunch of kill-moments against the other, but Kerry outclassed the president tremendously in this debate. I appreciate the nuances of his positions (even if I have to get the follow-up from JOHNKERRY.COM YEAH INTERNET), and after seeing him perform so well I feel better about actually voting for him as opposed to against the sitting president.

[Dr. Tom 0]

Wow, this was a lot to read thru.

 

Anyway, I thought Kerry came out looking a little better than Bush. I don't think he hit this one out of the park, but he did well. Bush was affable, but not as aw-shucks as he's been in the past, which means he got away from one of his strengths. Kerry came across as a polished speaker: he never once said "um" or "uh," and only stammered a few times; Bush said um/uh and stammered in every reply. I think Bush's content was better than Kerry's, but Kerry's presentation was better. And since presentation matters more to the vast majority of people these days, that bodes well for Kerry.

 

Both men left openings for the other that weren't closed. They both got their digs in, but it seemed like those were prepared in advance. I expected Kerry to slam a few doors on Bush, and vice versa, and apart from a few isolated incidents, it didn't happen.

 

I think Kerry needed a more decisive win than he got. He's not the incumbent and he trails in the polls, and a really good showing would've done a lot for him. The Town Hall debate should be interesting -- Bush Sr. got owned by Clinton in their Town Hall, but W has a lot of charisma and general likability, two traits Kerry doesn't possess. If Bush does well in the Town Hall debate, he locks up the election. I'm sure the Democrats are expecting Kerry to do well in the Town Hall, and he needs to if he wants to have a serious chance in November.

[AmericanDragon 0]

Whoopi Goldberg: Republicans are so stupid.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

He should really stick to the TNA folder.

      -=Mike

This is from the guy who operates on campaign advertising as though it's fully truthful. ("That book wuz about yakuza, rite every1?!?!?!")

Don't you have a point to not make elsewhere?

Hint: There's more in that book than what was in that ad. But I know that a Bush/Cheney campaign ad is good enough to be a reliable source for you, so there's no point arguing over it.

 

 

Also, while Bush has a record to run on, it's not a very good one. His response to every claim that he's made a bad decision has been "Yeah well I make bad decisions but I STICK WITH 'UM."

 

Bush brought up that "I know that" Osama attacked us, and then completely went off on a tangent. He started talking about Hague when nobody even brought it up. He was all over the map last night, and it cost him.

[bobobrazil1984 0]

the content matters little as long as there aren't any huge f-ups, which there weren't. But Bush's scowling and angry annoyed reactions was kinda ugly. Kerry seemed to realize the camera would be on him and reacted accordingly.

 

Having slept on it, here's what i remember about the debate.

 

*Kerry ccriticizes something about Iraq*

Bush: he changes his positions!!!

*Kerry criticizes bush for not doing enough to stop Iran and N Korea from going nuclear*

Bush: He chanes his positions!!!

*Kerry says soemthing about funding*

Bush: he changes his positions and sends mixed messages!!!

*Kerry says something about bush's judgement.

Bush: he changes his positions!!!

 

give Bush credit for sticking on message, but I think it might not help him as much as it usually does, because at times I think he clearly avoided a more detailed effective response to some of kerry's attacks. What Kerry did well was put BUsh on the defensive. Foreign policy is Bush's strong suit with thep ublic so a knockout was probably not possible, but all things considered, I think he put the focus back on Bush's last 4 years and people's questions about whether they like his decisions or not. He also just came off better and smoother, and therer were times Bush did seem lost. I said it was a modest Kerry win, and most of the news reactions range from modest Kerry win to tie.

[Guest GreatOne]

Actually that, and Bush throwing all of Kerry's past quotes back at him was as memorable.

 

Any Kerry victory last night is short term at best. But where Bush din't kill him, the global test flop among others is out there to do so.

[SuperJerk 0]

Let me start out by saying that I agree with Bush that America shouldn't need permission from other countries to do the right thing. I, however, disagree with him about what "the right thing" is. Kerry did correctly assured the voters that he would not give other nations a veto power of America's security.

 

Kerry used some pretty fancy manuevering to try to demonstrate how he's been consistent on Iraq, but I'm sure if the American people will believe him. His argument that sanctions would have worked is not convincing.

 

Bush beautifully dodged the question about whether America was more vulnerable with Kerry as president by saying Kerry would never be president. That was a no win question.

 

I think Kerry's calm demeanor and knowledgability about the world should impress quite a few undecided voters. His arguments about how Bush was neglecting the rest of the world made sense and were well constructed.

 

Bush, on the other hand, seemed unsure of himself, and kept spouting the same catchphrases over and over to the point where he was using them to answer the wrong questions. Bush to said that the world was safer without Saddam Hussein when asked that question about North Korea. That'll get played over and over in a future Kerry ad.

 

I think this debate will do for Bush's campaign what the movie "Striptease" did for Demi Moore's movie career. Bush looked flustered and irritable while Kerry seems solid, intelligent, and confident. Kerry was clearly the winner.

 

It remains to be seen what impact this debate will have, and there are still two debates to go. I'm not going to get over-confident. Kerry's defense of the apparent contradiction that Saddam Hussien is a threat/the war is wrong opens up a new can of worms. Kerry's defense is that we could've taken care of this threat without going to war, and that he only voted for the war to give Bush negotiating power. That is not a easily defendable position, and I'm not sure if it'll be enough to convince most of the voters that he's a decisive decision maker. In fact, I'm sure to a lot of people it'll sound like a clever way to play both sides of the fence. The Republicans will certainly exploit this weakness, as they have been doing since Kerry became the front-runner. Kerry did manage to divert attention away from his vote against the $87 billion in additional funds by dismissing it as an error in speaking, not an error in judgement.

 

Bush made a big mistake though by trying to link Iraq to every other topic. When Bush defended his decision to go to war with Iraq by stating "they attacked us," Kerry pounced, noting that Iraq was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks. I already noted his improperly answering the question about North Korea by saying Saddam Hussein was a threat.

 

There's still a month until the election, and Bush has plenty of time (and plenty of help from his conservative allies) to undo whatever damage might have been caused by his visible frustration tonight. Remember, we are not electing a great debater, we are electing a leader. Voters may respect Bush's determination to do what he thinks is right more than Kerry's ability to talk circles around Bush.

 

I think the rest of America finally saw tonight what I saw in 1996 that made me admire Kerry in the first place. You may recall that I listed as one of my reasons for supporting Kerry during the primaries that he had been a strong and convincing advocate for himself and his positions during the Kerry/Weld debates 8 years ago. Win or lose, Kerry is a fighter. That's not a bad quality to have in a Commander In Chief.

[cbacon 0]

An excellent observation:

 

Human Rights: For Bush They're Convenient

 

There is something specific from last night’s Presidential debate that I wanted to touch on. It has to do with a quote from President Bush made in response to this question: ”New question, Mr. President, two minutes. You have said there was a, quote, "miscalculation," of what the conditions would be in post-war Iraq. What was the miscalculation, and how did it happen?”…

 

Here is the excerpt…

 

"It is hard work. It is hard work to go from a tyranny to a democracy. It's hard work to go from a place where people get their hands cut off, or executed, to a place where people are free."

 

    But it's necessary work. And a free Iraq is going to make this world a more peaceful place."

 

 

I wanted to point out that The Kingdom Of Saudi Arabia, a nation that is a both a close ally of the United states and whose royal family has had ties to the Bush family for years, use those exact methods to deal with criminals.

 

According to Amnesty International’s 2004 Report…

 

 

Flogging and amputation

 

    “Flogging and amputation continued to be imposed by courts as judicial corporal punishment. Among those sentenced to flogging during the year was a woman schoolteacher who received 120 lashes in addition to three and a half months in prison. She was reportedly convicted of planting drugs in the briefcase of her fiancé and reporting him to the police in order to have him imprisoned and facilitate her separation from him. According to one press report she was forcibly engaged to him by her family who refused her request to go back on the marriage.

 

    At least one person, Ghazi Muhammad Mohsen Abdul-Ghani, a Bangladeshi national, had his right hand amputated in March in Mecca. He was convicted of theft.”

 

    The Death Penalty

 

    “At least 50 people were executed. Nineteen of them were Saudi Arabian nationals; the rest were foreign nationals, including 19 Pakistani and six Afghan nationals. Twenty-six were convicted of drug-related offences and 24 were found guilty of murder. The number of those who remained under sentence of death was not known but they included two female domestic workers, Sara Jane Dematera, a Philippine national, and Sit Zainab, an Indonesian national. They had both been accused of murdering their employers and were sentenced to death after secret and summary trials in 1993 and 1999 respectively. Alexander Mitchell, a UK national, and William Sampson, a Canadian national, who were both sentenced to death on charges of lethal bombings in Saudi Arabia in 2000, were pardoned and released in August.”

 

 

Beheading is the standard form of capital punishment in Saudi Arabia. (Off With Heads, Steven Stalinsky, National Review).

 

The majority of the 9/11 terrorist were Saudi nationals, yet Saudi Arabia was not invaded, nor was military action against it proposed. Saudi Arabia is also not a democracy and is guilty of the same human rights violations used by President Bush in his response during last night’s debate to justify the invasion of Iraq. Strangely, relations between Saudi Arabia the United States remain unaltered.

 

The Saudis have spent a considerable amount of money making sure that their imagine in the States remains positive. For example…

 

Qorvis Communications

 

 

    Qorvis Communications is a public relations company with offices in Virginia and Washington D.C.

 

    History

 

    According to O’Dwyer’s PR Daily, Qorvis was “formed in August 2000 via the merger of Poretz Group (IR and technology PR), Weber-Merritt Co. (grassroots specialist) and JAS Communications (marketing communications)”. [1]

 

    In February, O’Dwyer’s listed the 2003 fee income for Qorvis as being $12.2 million. [2] O’Dwyers refers to Patton Boggs being an “investor” in Qorvis and as an “affiliate”. [3] [4]

 

    Clients

 

    Aside from its work for Saudi Arabia, Qorvis has also worked for the government of Haiti. According to a lobbyist registration report filed by Dellums & Associates for the period to December 30, Qorvis would "participate in the preparation or dissemination of informational materials" on behalf of Haiti. However, Michael Petruzzello told O'Dwyer's PR Daily that while the company had worked for Haiti in the past it was not involved with the current work. [5]

 

    Controversy over Saud account

 

    They announced several months after 9/11, on March 21st, 2002, that they were receiving a $200,000 a month retainer from the government of Saudi Arabia.

 

    In December 2002, the New York Times reported that three of the founding partners of Qorvis announced that they were leaving the firm. Times reporter Philip Shenon reported that associates said "their departure reflects a deep discomfort in representing the government of Saudi Arabia against accusations that Saudi leaders have turned a blind eye to terrorism." [6]

 

    The three departing partners were Bernie Merritt and Jim Weber, described as longtime Republican strategists and Judy Smith, "a former White House deputy press secretary who became the spokeswoman for Monica Lewinsky during President Clinton's impeachment". The three left to join the rival P.R. company Clark & Weinstock.

 

    "Outreach" for the House of Saud

 

    In an article that was published in the New York Sun on August 10 2004 - as well as numerous websites - the director of the Middle East Forum, Daniel Pipes, exposed a Saudi "outreach" program aimed at American universities. "A range of public figures—former ambassadors, university professors, think tank experts – routinely opine in America about the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia while quietly taking Saudi funds," he wrote.

 

    "They learnedly discuss Arabian affairs on television, radio, in public lectures, and university classrooms. Having no visible connection to Saudi money, they speak with the authority of disinterested U.S. experts, enjoying more credibility than, say, another billionaire prince from the royal family," he wrote. [“[7][8]

 

    In response to Pipes original article in the New York Sun, the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia’s Information Office distributed a media release stating that “neither the government of Saudi Arabia nor any public relations firm compensates these individuals for their activities. These esteemed experts on Middle East issues speak their own minds and on their own behalf. ” [9]

 

    The media statement, distributed by Qorvis, took exception to Pipes statement that Saudi Arabia paid five Middle East experts to speak on its behalf. “This is absolutely not true,” it insisted. Furthermore it wanted the the New York Sun to print “an immediate apology” to the five.

 

    The Professor of Political Science and Director of the Program on International Politics, Economics, and Security at the University of Chicago, Charles Lipson, explained in an e-mail released on Pipes website that he had been approached on several occasions by phone and e-mail by Sarah Burleson from Adelstein & Associates who had told him she was working on behalf of Qorvis Communications.

 

    In a June 17 e-mail to Lipson, now reproduced on Pipes website, Burleson explained that her company “provides external communications for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and one of the primary goals in our 2004 outreach campaign is to provide ongoing education to communities around the country regarding the importance and value of strong U.S.-Saudi relations.” [10]

 

    “It is crucial to reach Americans outside the Washington Beltway, and the Chicago area is a key market for us to address in that effort. One of our campaign components is to implement a speaker's bureau program on behalf of the Kingdom that reaches into target markets across the nation,” she continued.

 

    Burleson then went on to explain that “we have numerous spokespersons” that would be to present at Lipson’s International Politics, Economics and Security Program at the University of Chicago. She proceeded to list five possible candidates –Ambassador Walter L. Cutler, the President of Meridian International Center, Mary E. Morris the Vice President and Director of Programs for the Los Angeles World Affairs Council, Ambassador Richard W. Murphy –

a member of the Council on Foreign Relations in New York; freelance writer Sandra Mackey and Dr. Samer Shehata - Assistant professor of Politics at the Center for Contemporary Arab Studies in the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University.

 

    While the Saudi Embassy insisted in its media stated that it did not pay those named, Lipson says he had discussed with Burleson the fact that if any of the fiver were to speak at the Univeristy of Chicago they would only be able to pay the normal honorarium of $250.

 

    "At that point, she informed me that the P.R. firms would be paying all expenses, including travel and any associated honoraria, and that my speakers program would not have to pay anything at all. I did not explicitly ask whether these speakers received any fees directly or indirectly from the Saudi government, Saudi businesses, or Saudi philanthropies for this work, and she did not say," he wrote. [11]

 

    Lipson was puzzled at the prospect of such luminaries working as volunteers. “Apparently, these senior figures spend days flying around the country, speaking on behalf of a major Saudi P.R. initiative, while turning down compensation from the venues that host them, from the Saudis themselves, and from the Saudi P.R. firms. One obvious question is whether they are compensated by any other Saudi-based or Saudi-funded institutions ‘for these activities.’ The press release mentions only the government and the P.R. firms,” he wrote.

 

    O’Dwyers PR Daily attempted to contact Burleson but noted she “did not return” the call. [12]

 

    In an editorial to follow up the controversy after publishing Pipes original column, the New York Sun reported that it had contacted all five of the potential speakers listed by Burleson. "All five denied not only being paid by the Saudis but even being aware that the Saudis were trying to line up speaking engagements for them, let alone offering to reimburse the host institution for their expenses and honoraria," it reported.

 

    "We don't lack regard for these individuals, who have every right to express their views. No doubt they would take umbrage at being called "spokespersons" in a wire from the Saudis regime's p.r. people. By our lights it all adds up to a lesson in Saudi methods, courtesy of the inestimable Daniel Pipes," the Sun wrote. [13]

 

 

Not unlike the interim Prime Minister of Iraq, Iyad Allawi, the Saudis know that the use of a good US PR firm can help paint a rosy picture of something that is far being so.

 

All of that said, how can the President of the United States make such claims and use such examples as positives given America’s relationships with nations who are responsible for the very same atrocities?

 

The answer is simple. The defeat of human rights abuses played no part in the decision to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. They’re simply convenient justifications thrown to an ignorant public that will latch on to any scrap of positivism so that they might better sleep at night believing that justice is prevailing in the world.

 

What a terrible blanket to be under.

 

 

Source