PLAIN TALK

Leonard Horwin October 22, 2004

(310) 785-6600 tel.

(310) 785-6644 fax

plaintalk@linkline.com

http://www.leonardhorwinplaintalk.com

Impression of Presidential Prospects at the Completion of the Third Presidential Debate

between George W. Bush and John Kerry on October 13, 2004

Questions and Answers are cited below as “Q” and “A”

1. Q: Who won this debate?

A: The clear winner was John Kerry.

The loser was President Bush, who seemed to be evading clear answers on practically every question raised by Senator Kerry as to the President’s responsibility for his failures.

2. Q: Do the results of this debate mean that Kerry and his vice presidential candidate are likely to be elected on November 2, 2004?

A: No.

But it makes much clearer the likelihood which previously was unclear, that the Kerry candidates may prevail at this election.

3. Q: Did that suggest in any way a likelihood of U.S. failure attributable to a change in leadership?

A: No, it made it very clear that the Kerry plans for takeover on every problem discussed, was accompanied by essential and well-thought-out plans for the nation under a Kerry administration.

4. Q: Were there any instances where the President’s responses to Kerry planned programs seemed to be clearer than the President’s other responses?

A: Yes. The President’s reference to alleged failures of Kerry as Senator to vote for the things he now proposes.

5. Q: Weren’t the points thus made decisive?

A: No, including, –because Kerry quickly filled in claimed congressional history, showing that Kerry did follow through on programs now proposed insofar as they came up in congressional action.

6. Q: Were there any physical aspects of the two debaters, which seemed to be suggestive of their inner feelings or intentions?

A: Yes. Kerry’s face and eyes throughout seemed to be confident and clear.

On the other hand, Bush’s eyeballs seemed hidden and remarkably small, from which any confidence could be gleaned.

7. Q: What do we see now as the overall picture?

A: Bush was the clear loser in this debate, both in the words used, and the confidence or openness or lack thereof in their content.

8. Q: Are there any overall observations that are timely now?

A: Yes.

(1) It cannot be overlooked that only a very few years ago, Bush was openly using addictive drugs.

(2) He purports to have quit himself of this habit by turning to “Born Again Christianity,” and reliance on Jesus for his guidance and inspiration.

(3) It is only a very few years later that Bush was aided by his father to try for and obtain the governorship of Texas, and thereafter try for the presidency, in which he got himself elected to president.

(4) Bush’s record as President reveals almost complete failure to draw terror lessons from what had already occurred in a variety of successful bin Laden destructions in Africa and elsewhere, as well as the actual prior damage inflicted by the terrorists on the 1993 status of one of the New York World Trade Buildings.

(5) Bush’s presidential leadership reveals lack of knowledge of history, and consequent tendency to leap to conclusions which shows him to be ready to use force and to stick by his decisions, in which he takes great pride.

9. Q: Can you cite specific instances of the President’s lack of background for the events in which he purported to lead?

A: (1) For example, he made no mention, nor does he appear ever to have realized the consequences of the Bush family knowledge that, as recently as the 1980's, the U.S. was practically an ally of Saddam Hussein in the latter’s bloody war to overthrow the fanatic Islamic control over neighboring Iran.

(2) This knowledge should have made it clear to him, that Iraq could not possibly count on Islamic Arab states for any war help, and accordingly would be totally unlikely to expect war with the United States.

(3) His doing so would lead inevitably to defeat. Moreover, it would obviously risk pushing the Islamic Arabs into what otherwise they would never do, –which is to join in war efforts of Hussein.

(4) The foregoing history should have made it obvious why Iraq’s Saddam, –as incorrectly assumed by President Bush to the contrary, had no part in the bin Laden Islamic hijacking and destruction of the U.S. planes and the World Trade Center Twin Towers in New York and the Pentagon Building in Washington, D.C.

(5) The foregoing should have made it abundantly evident to Bush that the United States needed to fix its immediate attention on the destruction of the bin Laden terrorists, and had no reason to assume Saddam Hussein responsibility for the attack on the United States, nor to risk American and Allied lives, money and economy on what has become the U.S. and Allied war against Iraq’s Saddam Hussein.

10. Q: Is there any overall summary to be drawn from the foregoing?

A: Yes. That this president seeking reelection, is directly responsible for catastrophic mistakes of U.S. policy, –including an irresponsible priority given a U.S. needless war against Iraq.

11. Q: Is there any overall conclusion the American voter should draw from the foregoing on November 2?

A: Yes. That reelection of President Bush would expose the nation, essentially to “more of the same” Bush lack of presidential awareness of history.

12. Q: Is there any special danger that the voter should have in mind?

A: Yes. The President’s predilection for “more of the same” means that he is very likely to take the nation into a gamble to win his presently losing war against Iraq (for which the President is responsible), by conscripting additional troops, –quite surely, all of the remaining U.S. National Guard members not now assigned to Iraq, and beyond that, a very definite risk that the President will want to improve his gamble by additional U.S. troops from other sources.

Time Magazine for October 18, 2004, in its World News section, p. 54, states in an article on “Politics of the Draft”:

“Bush says he won’t reinstate it. Forty-two percent of those polled by Time don’t believe him.”

13. Q: Is there any overall meaning to the foregoing?

A: Yes. We should have learned a lesson from the painful failure in Viet Nam, that the time to get out of ill-considered wars, especially in Asia, is when the original expectations of big victory have turned sour, –which is now happening in Iraq, –thus requiring wise leadership–which a Kerry but not a Bush–could apply, to get the nation’s commitment as gracefully as possible out of its increasing losses, –obviously with the prior agreement of its allies.

* * *

cc: George W. Bush, President

Richard Cheney, Vice President

John Kerry, Senator & Presidential Candidate

John Edwards, Senator and VP Candidate

Colin Powell, Secretary of State

Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense

Condoleezza Rice, National Security

Advisor

Colonel Oliver North

Tom Ridge, Secretary of Homeland

Security

John Ashcroft, U.S. Attorney General

Tony Blair, Prime Minister of Great Britain

Jack Straw, British Foreign Secretary

Newt Gingrich, Former Speaker of the

U.S. House of Representatives

Ariel Sharon, Prime Minister of Israel

Benjamin Netanyahu, Economy Minister for the Israeli Government

Israel’s “Women In Green”

National Unity Coalition for Israel

Arianna Huffington, Syndicated

Columnist

Oriana Fallaci, International Journalist,

Interviewer and Author

Yohanan Ramati, Chairman, Jerusalem

Institute for Western Defense

Gerardo Joffe, FLAME (Facts & Logic

About the Middle East)

Mortimer Zuckerman, Editor in Chief -

US News and World Report

Time Magazine

Washington Post - Attn: Bob Woodward

International Jerusalem Post

The Weekly Standard – Bill Kristol, Editor

The Wall Street Journal - Editorial and

p-Ed Department

Los Angeles Times, Op-Ed Department

Dr. and Mrs. Jordan Phillips,

Medical Books for China International