Debate made for plenty of water cooler talk today. I thought Kerry would have won over support with his performance, but everyone seemed to get the same impression I did, "Nice smooth performance, but still can't vote for him."

One coworker's comment was very representative of the lot: "I was starting to like him, but then did you hear what he said about ..."

Sounds like two of his statements stuck out to everybody. Makes me wonder if these will become the defining statements of the debate:

1 - GLOBAL TEST. The commander in chief can't defend America without permission from France?

2 - BUNKER BUSTERS. We're supposed to get rid of our weapons and have a summit because talking will be effective with the throat slitters.

We invaded a country, removed their genocidal despot, and started the process of creating a free, democratic government, and it took until several months into the reconstruction of the country before we hit our one-thousandth casualty. There's no way that would have been possible without the incredible technological weapons advancements of the last decade. If John Kerry had succeeded in blocking all the military projects he voted against, how many casualties would it have taken before we succeeded in removing Saddam Hussein?

Also: There's a new posting at The Green Side. I love the messages this Marine Major sends home about what his troops are doing and how things really are over there.

As you have seen from the news, Fallujah is reaching critical mass. Actually nothing has changed except for the fact that there apparently is the will to do what has to be done. We will see. The Marines are ready and the only thing they worry about is the backbone of the decision makers. If we are told to take the town again, we just cannot be ordered to stop like last time.

Read the entire message here.