Transcript & Video: Debate #1

FoxNews.com ^ | 0-30-04 | Transcript

[Salvation]

CORAL GABLES, Fla. — Foreign policy and homeland security were the focus of the first debate between President Bush and Sen. John Kerry. Following is a transcript of the debate.

JIM LEHRER, ANCHOR AND EXECUTIVE EDITOR, PBS' "THE NEWSHOUR": Good evening from the University of Miami Convocation Center in Coral Gables, Florida. I'm Jim Lehrer of "The NewsHour" on PBS.

[Salvation]

Ping!

[Salvation]

Ping!

[Salvation]

This is one where the President did get the Zinger in!

LEHRER: New question, Mr. President. Two minutes.

What criteria would you use to determine when to start bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq?

BUSH: Let me first tell you that the best way for Iraq to be safe and secure is for Iraqi citizens to be trained to do the job.

And that's what we're doing. We've got 100,000 trained now, 125,000 by the end of this year, 200,000 by the end of next year. That is the best way. We'll never succeed in Iraq if the Iraqi citizens do not want to take matters into their own hands to protect themselves. I believe they want to. Prime Minister Allawi believes they want to.

And so the best indication about when we can bring our troops home -- which I really want to do, but I don't want to do so for the sake of bringing them home; I want to do so because we've achieved an objective -- is to see the Iraqis perform and to see the Iraqis step up and take responsibility.

And so, the answer to your question is: When our general is on the ground and Ambassador Negroponte tells me that Iraq is ready to defend herself from these terrorists, that elections will have been held by then, that their stability and that they're on their way to, you know, a nation that's free; that's when.

And I hope it's as soon as possible. But I know putting artificial deadlines won't work. My opponent at one time said, "Well, get me elected, I'll have them out of there in six months." You can't do that and expect to win the war on terror.

My message to our troops is, "Thank you for what you're doing. We're standing with you strong. We'll give you all the equipment you need. And we'll get you home as soon as the mission's done, because this is a vital mission."

A free Iraq will be an ally in the war on terror, and that's essential. A free Iraq will set a powerful example in the part of the world that is desperate for freedom. A free Iraq will help secure Israel. A free Iraq will enforce the hopes and aspirations of the reformers in places like Iran. A free Iraq is essential for the security of this country.

LEHRER: Ninety seconds, Senator Kerry.

KERRY: Thank you, Jim.

My message to the troops is also: Thank you for what they're doing, but it's also help is on the way. I believe those troops deserve better than what they are getting today.

You know, it's interesting. When I was in a rope line just the other day, coming out here from Wisconsin, a couple of young returnees were in the line, one active duty, one from the Guard. And they both looked at me and said: We need you. You've got to help us over there.

Now I believe there's a better way to do this. You know, the president's father did not go into Iraq, into Baghdad, beyond Basra. And the reason he didn't is, he said -- he wrote in his book -- because there was no viable exit strategy. And he said our troops would be occupiers in a bitterly hostile land.

That's exactly where we find ourselves today. There's a sense of American occupation. The only building that was guarded when the troops when into Baghdad was the oil ministry. We didn't guard the nuclear facilities.

We didn't guard the foreign office, where you might have found information about weapons of mass destruction. We didn't guard the borders.

Almost every step of the way, our troops have been left on these extraordinarily difficult missions. I know what it's like to go out on one of those missions when you don't know what's around the corner.

And I believe our troops need other allies helping. I'm going to hold that summit. I will bring fresh credibility, a new start, and we will get the job done right.

LEHRER: All right, go ahead. Yes, sir?

BUSH: I think it's worthy for a follow-up.

LEHRER: Sure, right.

(CROSSTALK)

LEHRER: We can do 30 second each here. All right.

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."

As well, help is on the way, but it's certainly hard to tell it when he voted against the $87-billion supplemental to provide equipment for our troops, and then said he actually did vote for it before he voted against it.

Not what a commander in chief does when you're trying to lead troops.

LEHRER: Senator Kerry, 30 seconds.

KERRY: Well, you know, when I talked about the $87 billion, 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. When I came back from that war I saw that it was wrong. Some people don't like the fact that I stood up to say no, but I did. And that's what I did with that vote. And I'm going to lead those troops to victory.

[GailA]

I caught a TYPO in this statement it should read INCREASED: BUSH: Actually, we've decreased funding for dealing with nuclear proliferation about 35 percent since I've been the president. Secondly, we've set up what's called the -- well, first of all, I agree with my opponent that the biggest threat facing this country is weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a terrorist network. And that's why proliferation is one of the centerpieces of a multi-prong strategy to make the country safer.

[Salvation]

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."

[cpforlife.org]

On http://www.drudgereport.com/

"Bush inner circle suggests Bush visit with Hurricane victims earlier in day was emotionally draining, contributed to "tired" appearance in debate..."

While President Bush was dealing with the Hurricane victims, Kerry was getting a manicure. IMNSHO--Bush is salt of the earth and Kerry is a Parisian snob.

[Salvation]

Couldn't agree more!

[Tim716]

"I made a mistake in how I talk about the war. But the president made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is worse?"
Kerry.

That WAS NOT a great statement as Kerry supporters spouted after the debate. When you understand what he did there, and more importantly, why he did it; you may have a different opinion.



It was a masterful sidestep to a tough point he couldn't address (his VOTE against supporting our troops, not how he misspoke) followed up by a very slick debate trick.

Did you notice it? It's a classic.

First, you admit some trivial mistake on your part. Then, you take your current opinion, in this case that Iraq is a mistake, and present it as fact. It doesn't matter if history hasn't shown the outcome yet.
You then, using a strong voice, compare your trivial mistake to this implied huge mistake, and ask "Which is worse?" Of course the big mistake is the obvious answer. It's not yet proven it is a mistake, but you make the comparison and you move on quickly. Because you asked the loaded question that can only be answered in your favor with the comparison used, people feel they just agreed with you. We all agree that a big mistake is worse than a small one. We think you just made a big point, as what you said sounded powerful. It doesn't make what you said have merit, and it doesn't prove the "big" mistake even exists. It preys on people reacting to something without substance and then being moved on to another topic before it occurs to them. Very slick, and very effective.

Kerry did it. He did not have to tell 50 million people he voted against supporting our troops, and he even got a bonus. As well as succesfully ducking the issue, he got to use the bogus comparison trick to make it look like he made a point.

He ignored addressing his VOTE and began talking his way past it. By speaking of something similar yet completely unrelated, he made it appear the issue was how he misspoke, not the decision he made.

If he had addressed what the President pointed out about his "NO" vote, things would have been much different.
He would have had to say, no matter what his reason; he was one of a handful of Senators who did NOT vote to support our troops. He would have had to say he had done this when moments before he had said he would support them.
He would have had to admit this moments after stating he knew of stories of troops writing home asking for gear.
There would have been a sound bite for the news and ads to use comparing it to a previous one where he stated, "Voting against the 87 billion would be irresponsible."



Directly addressing the President's point would have been political suicide for him as the President spoke of how a Commander In Chief must always support those who serve.


And, if he had addressed the issue, that tricky question would have been a little different had he even dared ask.

He would have had to say, "I didn't support our troops in a time of war, and the President made a mistake in going to war, which is worse?"
It wouldn't have been such a great statement, would it have? People would have had to think about that one.
They would have realized this: We know not supporting our troops is wrong. We DON'T know yet, only history will tell, if going to Iraq was a mistake.
It was a masterful sidestep, and a lot of people missed it.
Kerry's Foreign Affairs Advisor stated afterwards that it was the best line of the night.

A lot of us didn't miss what really happened here, Mr. Fmr. Ambassador.
Many of us know what the real issue is: He didn't support our troops.

God bless this country, and God bless our troops and their Commander In Chief.

[BigSkyFreeper]

This debate will provide many nuggets of soundbytes for talk radio for the next several days. Mainly highlighting all the gaffes and flips and flops Kerry made in the 90 minutes he was behind that lectern.

[Graymatter]

Speaking as the pessimist I've been most of this year, I'm feeling pretty good right now. Although the President's delivery was mediocre, his message was clear and powerful. The transcript shows he hit all his marks, and the media will be hard put to show any clip, or offer any quote, of the President that does not do him credit.

Also, Kerry made several errors that the President corrected. For example, saying there had been no international summit yet. And the "global test" comment should haunt Kerry.

The President's best lines---the many times he mentioned mixed signals that Kerry is sending to the allies and the troops. And this: "He says the cornerstone of his plan to succeed in Iraq is to call upon nations to serve. So what's the message going to be: 'Please join us in Iraq. We're a grand diversion. Join us for a war that is the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time?'"

The pundits I'm hearing tonight aren't being as nasty as I expected. They're saying it's a slight advantage to Kerry.

In a few days Dick Cheney is going to demolish John Edwards. That's the only debate Bush/Cheney should have agreed to. GWB should not have given Kerry the dignity of standing on the same stage with him.

[no more apples]

This transcript is the also going to give everyone a chance to disect all the lies Kerry is stating about GWB. And I can't stand lying!

[Alia]

The Fact Checkers must have been burning keyboards during the debate last night:

http://www.georgewbush.com/debatefacts/Debate.aspx?stamp=9/30/2004%2010:29:34%20PM

Listening to John Kerry's part of the debate, well, was like watching Linda Blair's head spin in the Exorcist. It was entertaining. And upon this basis, many are saying that "Kerry Won". Okaaaay. John Kerry won the battle but lost the war. In the debate last night; and in re his positions. In fact, all he did was affirm that he would not win the WAR on terror. But that he would fight to end the sovereignity of America, ergo making him a "global hero".

Americans know it was a "global" jihad that led to the murder of 3,000 innocent people. How's this gonna fly in the privacy of the American heart? Not very far. Clear to me President Bush Team has a superb strategy for these debates; just as superb as their strategy in addressing the axis of evil has been, and continues to be. I've got this huge grin on my face this morning. lol. There's this thing about "resonances" in the human mind and the human soul. Issues that looked like "wins" by Kerry last night are going to be simmering in American backbrain as being at odds with what else he said.

Yes, my jaw dropping moment came when he asserted he would, in essence, declare "America a NUCLEAR FREE ZONE".. and somehow all those with dirty nukes were going to say "Yeaaaahhhhh! We're wid you, Kerry. You be the man. We be destroying our nukes now and because you are the man!" lol. John Kerry hammered hard on how many dangerous nukes were "out there" and told Americans he'd do nothing to protect them, except to point his index finger at himself when addressing rogue nations and say: "I order you to stop being bad".

On the plus side; it was obvious that John Kerry was nearly besides himself, trying to stop that snakey index finger from pointing at the audience, and Jim Lehrer. I kept seeing his hand go into withdrawl, like he had a string tied around that index finger "Remember! Finger Pointing is an Aggressive Body Language Gesture".

I thought President Bush played a fine hand!

[Convert from ECUSA]

I didn't watch the debate. In fact, I've never watched any of the presidential debates over the years. I've always had my mind made up on who I'll vote for before either of the two conventions start, much less when the debates start. Besides, in the past 10-12 years or so, watching one of the two on TV might push me beyond my limits of patience and charity, so better for me not to put myself in that situation.

Having said all that, I will add that as far as 2004 goes, I definitely will not, repeat will not, vote for Kerry. When the Dems can field Zell Miller, I might consider the Dems, but until then......

Kerry is the French candidate for the presidency. Feh!

[firewalk]

Thanks

[TankerKC]

I'm proud that important military figures who are supporting me in this race: former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili; just yesterday, General Eisenhower's son, General John Eisenhower, endorsed me; General Admiral William Crown; General Tony McBeak, who ran the Air Force war so effectively for his father -- all believe I would make a stronger commander in chief. And they believe it because they know I would not take my eye off of the goal: Usama bin Laden.

That's actually General McPeak (Kerry said it correctly, but the transcript is wrong). McPeak was the Chief of Staff of the Air Force during Gulf War I. He DID NOT run the air war. General Horner was the Air Component Commander for the war. McPeak is one of the least respected USAF leaders of all time!

[Salvation]

Thanks for the correction!

We need to get a lot of these to FoxNews Channel.

[SunkenCiv]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134152,00.html

KERRY: What I think troubles a lot of people in our country is that the president has just sort of described one kind of mistake. But what he has said is that, even knowing there were no weapons of mass destruction, even knowing there was no imminent threat, even knowing there was no connection with Al Qaeda, he would still have done everything the same way. Those are his words.

Now, I would not. So what I'm trying to do is just talk the truth to the American people and to the world. The truth is what good policy is based on. It's what leadership is based on.

[and later...]

KERRY: I have no intention of wilting. I've never wilted in my life. And I've never wavered in my life.

I know exactly what we need to do in Iraq, and my position has been consistent: Saddam Hussein is a threat. He needed to be disarmed. We needed to go to the U.N. The president needed the authority to use force in order to be able to get him to do something, because he never did it without the threat of force.

But we didn't need to rush to war without a plan to win the peace.

["what an egregious liar" ping; "waffler/flipflopper ping"; "which the **** is it?" ping]

[BigSkyFreeper]

I can't stand lying either. When one reads the transcript, one sees that Bush was on fire last night and Kerry opened himself up on so many fronts by lying through his teeth and flipping and flopping all over the ballpark on Iraq and North Korea! The viewers should pay more close attention to what John Kerry says instead of what John Kerry looks like or what he's wearing. Bush was ripping Kerry to shreds at the debate last night, but the only thing people could focus on was his smirk, the knot in his back, and all that other stylistic stuff, while ignoring Bush's substance.