And, an unexpected outcome it was. Going into the debate, only 21% of the assembled audience agreed with the motion that "the world is a safer place with a Republican in the White House." Two hours later, this mostly liberal and deeply anti-Bush crowd had a profound change of heart: 43% ended up voting for the motion.
The debate previewed three highly effective arguments -- put forward with devastating effect by the formidable Charles Krauthammer, and historian Niall Ferguson -- for why America, Canada and the world will be safer if John Mc-Cain and the Republicans form the next U. S. administration.
First, John McCain is not George W. Bush. The Republican nominee's positions on a host of issues -- most notably climate change, torture and the need for more multilateral diplomacy -- are the opposite of those held by the current occupant of the White House. Listening to Niall Ferguson summarize the foreign-policy agenda of a McCain presidency, it is hard to see much, if any, daylight between the global outlook of the Republican nominee and the majority of the policy positions held by Canadian government today. Simply put, John McCain offers Americans, and the world, a return to a more pragmatic and predictable role for the United States.
When the debate turned to the future of America's involvement in Iraq, Charles Krauthammer was able, amazingly, to fight Ms. Power to a draw on whether the world would be a less safe place if the occupation continued.
Specifically, Krauthammer blunted the all-Canadian audience's deep skepticism about the Iraq War was by drawing attention to the fact that violence in the country is at a four-year low, that Iraqi troops have successfully retaken Basra after the disastrous British pullout, and that the alliance between the Sunni and U. S. forces in Anbar province remains in place.(For the FACTS about the TRUTH in Iraq, see the Brilliant Post, "What the Media MUST HIDE, at All Costs")
It seems completely plausible to me that McCain, like Krauthammer, can use the improving situation on the ground in Iraq to avoid the war becoming, as Obama so desperately wishes it would, the ballot question in November.
If last week's Munk Debate provides some clues as to how McCain can garner support among "moderates" -- Torontonians, after all, are as a liberal as Vermonters, if not more so -- then a big part of the republican election strategy will be to exploit Obama's lack of foreign-policy experience.
****************************************************
And NOW, Thanks to the Bleeding Heart Cowards in Congress, like Obama, who wants to REWARD those who Chant "DEATH TO AMERICA!", and Pressure from Judiciary, now Gitmo Terrorists will have access to the U.S. CONSTITUTION, AS IF THEY WERE CITIZENS! WHEHN, in the entire history of America, have we taken Terrorist Enemy Combatants OFF THE FIELD OF BATTLE, and then Mirandized THEM, AS IF THEY WERE A SHOPLIFTER?! THESE ARE OUR ENEMIES IN WAR, CAPTURED OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES, THEY ARE NOT U.S. CITIZENS!
When, before, have we given Enimies in Battle Constitutional Protections? So NOW, we have NO MORE RESPECT FOR OUR LAWS, AND JUST MAKE THEM UP, AS WE GO ALONG?
Jeffery Tubin, that Assh*le Liberal Mouthpiece from CNN, said "Well, it's another BUSH defeat!" WRONG, ASSH*LE! It's an AMERICAN DEFEAT. It's a Defeat for Our GRANDCHILREN!
Every Action has a RE-Action. This Bastardization of Our Laws will have TWO RE-Actions.
First, some of our Soldiers might NO LONGER "take prisoners"! WHY SHOULD OUR BRAVEST, MOST HEROIC YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN RISK THEIR BLOOD, THEIR LIVES, JUST FOR TERRORIST CODDLING DEMOCRAT BLEEDING HEARTS TO JUST TREAT THEM LIKE SHOPLIFTERS? TO GIVE THEM MIRANDA RIGHTS, AND CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION? Or, maybe we'll do what CLINTON did! We'll just SHIP THEM OFF, to "Secret Locations", like Saudi Prisons, where they will be "taken care of". Hey, BILL CLINTON DID IT!
The debate previewed three highly effective arguments -- put forward with devastating effect by the formidable Charles Krauthammer, and historian Niall Ferguson -- for why America, Canada and the world will be safer if John Mc-Cain and the Republicans form the next U. S. administration.
First, John McCain is not George W. Bush. The Republican nominee's positions on a host of issues -- most notably climate change, torture and the need for more multilateral diplomacy -- are the opposite of those held by the current occupant of the White House. Listening to Niall Ferguson summarize the foreign-policy agenda of a McCain presidency, it is hard to see much, if any, daylight between the global outlook of the Republican nominee and the majority of the policy positions held by Canadian government today. Simply put, John McCain offers Americans, and the world, a return to a more pragmatic and predictable role for the United States.
When the debate turned to the future of America's involvement in Iraq, Charles Krauthammer was able, amazingly, to fight Ms. Power to a draw on whether the world would be a less safe place if the occupation continued.
Specifically, Krauthammer blunted the all-Canadian audience's deep skepticism about the Iraq War was by drawing attention to the fact that violence in the country is at a four-year low, that Iraqi troops have successfully retaken Basra after the disastrous British pullout, and that the alliance between the Sunni and U. S. forces in Anbar province remains in place.(For the FACTS about the TRUTH in Iraq, see the Brilliant Post, "What the Media MUST HIDE, at All Costs")
It seems completely plausible to me that McCain, like Krauthammer, can use the improving situation on the ground in Iraq to avoid the war becoming, as Obama so desperately wishes it would, the ballot question in November.
If last week's Munk Debate provides some clues as to how McCain can garner support among "moderates" -- Torontonians, after all, are as a liberal as Vermonters, if not more so -- then a big part of the republican election strategy will be to exploit Obama's lack of foreign-policy experience.
****************************************************
And NOW, Thanks to the Bleeding Heart Cowards in Congress, like Obama, who wants to REWARD those who Chant "DEATH TO AMERICA!", and Pressure from Judiciary, now Gitmo Terrorists will have access to the U.S. CONSTITUTION, AS IF THEY WERE CITIZENS! WHEHN, in the entire history of America, have we taken Terrorist Enemy Combatants OFF THE FIELD OF BATTLE, and then Mirandized THEM, AS IF THEY WERE A SHOPLIFTER?! THESE ARE OUR ENEMIES IN WAR, CAPTURED OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES, THEY ARE NOT U.S. CITIZENS!
When, before, have we given Enimies in Battle Constitutional Protections? So NOW, we have NO MORE RESPECT FOR OUR LAWS, AND JUST MAKE THEM UP, AS WE GO ALONG?
Jeffery Tubin, that Assh*le Liberal Mouthpiece from CNN, said "Well, it's another BUSH defeat!" WRONG, ASSH*LE! It's an AMERICAN DEFEAT. It's a Defeat for Our GRANDCHILREN!
Every Action has a RE-Action. This Bastardization of Our Laws will have TWO RE-Actions.
First, some of our Soldiers might NO LONGER "take prisoners"! WHY SHOULD OUR BRAVEST, MOST HEROIC YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN RISK THEIR BLOOD, THEIR LIVES, JUST FOR TERRORIST CODDLING DEMOCRAT BLEEDING HEARTS TO JUST TREAT THEM LIKE SHOPLIFTERS? TO GIVE THEM MIRANDA RIGHTS, AND CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION? Or, maybe we'll do what CLINTON did! We'll just SHIP THEM OFF, to "Secret Locations", like Saudi Prisons, where they will be "taken care of". Hey, BILL CLINTON DID IT!
