Let the world know what Kerry really said.
(That he lied, mispoke, made mistakes, gaffed!)
Do you believe you could do a better job than President Bush in preventing another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States?
SEN. JOHN KERRY: Yes, I do.
But before I answer further, let me thank you for moderating. I want to thank the University of Miami for hosting us. And I know the president will join me in welcoming all of Florida to this debate. You've been through the roughest weeks anybody could imagine. Our hearts go out to you. And we admire your pluck and perseverance.
I can make American safer than President Bush has made us.
And I believe President Bush and I both love our country equally. But we just have a different set of convictions about how you make America safe.
I believe America is safest and strongest when we are leading the world and we are leading strong alliances.
I'll never give a veto to any country over our security. But I also know how to lead those alliances.
This president has left them in shatters across the globe, and we're now 90 percent of the casualties in Iraq and 90 percent of the costs.
I think that's wrong, and I think we can do better.
I have a better plan for homeland security. I have a better plan to be able to fight the war on terror by strengthening our military, strengthening our intelligence, by going after the financing more authoritatively, by doing what we need to do to rebuild the alliances, by reaching out to the Muslim world, which the president has almost not done, and beginning to isolate the radical Islamic Muslims, not have them isolate the United States of America.
I know I can do a better job in Iraq. I have a plan to have a summit with all of the allies, something this president has not yet achieved, not yet been able to do to bring people to the table.
We can do a better job of training the Iraqi forces to defend themselves, and I know that we can do a better job of preparing for elections.
All of these, and especially homeland security, which we'll talk about a little bit later.
LEHRER: Mr. President, you have a 90-second rebuttal.
PRESIDENT BUSH: I, too, thank the University of Miami, and say our prayers are with the good people of this state, who've suffered a lot.
September the 11th changed how America must look at the world. And since that day, our nation has been on a multi-pronged strategy to keep our country safer.
We pursued Al Qaeda wherever Al Qaeda tries to hide. Seventy-five percent of known Al Qaeda leaders have been brought to justice. The rest of them know we're after them.
We've upheld the doctrine that said if you harbor a terrorist, you're equally as guilty as the terrorist.
And the Taliban are no longer in power. Ten million people have registered to vote in Afghanistan in the upcoming presidential election.
In Iraq, we saw a threat, and we realized that after September the 11th, we must take threats seriously, before they fully materialize. Saddam Hussein now sits in a prison cell. America and the world are safer for it.
We continue to pursue our policy of disrupting those who proliferate weapons of mass destruction.
Libya has disarmed. The A.Q. Khan network has been brought to justice.
And, as well, we're pursuing a strategy of freedom around the world, because I understand free nations will reject terror. Free nations will answer the hopes and aspirations of their people. Free nations will help us achieve the peace we
BUSH: North Korea, first, I do. Let me say -- I certainly hope so. Before I was sworn in, the policy of this government was to have bilateral negotiations with North Korea.
And we signed an agreement with North Korea that my administration found out that was not being honored by the North Koreans.
And so I decided that a better way to approach the issue was to get other nations involved, just besides us. And in Crawford, Texas, Jiang Zemin and I agreed that the nuclear-weapons-free peninsula, Korean Peninsula, was in his interest and our interest and the world's interest.
And so we began a new dialogue with North Korea, one that included not only the United States, but now China. And China's a got a lot of influence over North Korea, some ways more than we do.
This is the same garbage Kerry spews forth -- that we will internationalize issues and use other countries to deal with the issues, mainly by "dialog".
So is Kerry saying if President Bush is President they will have died for a mistake, but if he is President thet will not have died for a mistake????
Transcript and video!
Is Kerry saying that he would have negotiated with bin Laden???
I doubt the Las Vegas line has changed much. My spread, 8 points Bush on Nov. 3........
KERRY: The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control.
No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.
But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.
Here we have our own secretary of state who has had to apologize to the world for the presentation he made to the United Nations.
I mean, we can remember when President Kennedy in the Cuban missile crisis sent his secretary of state to Paris to meet with DeGaulle. And in the middle of the discussion, to tell them about the missiles in Cuba, he said, "Here, let me show you the photos." And DeGaulle waved them off and said, "No, no, no, no. The word of the president of the United States is good enough for me."
How many leaders in the world today would respond to us, as a result of what we've done, in that way? So what is at test here is the credibility of the United States of America and how we lead the world. And Iran and Iraq are now more dangerous -- Iran and North Korea are now more dangerous.
Now, whether preemption is ultimately what has to happen, I don't know yet. But I'll tell you this: As president, I'll never take my eye off that ball. I've been fighting for proliferation the entire time -- anti-proliferation the entire time I've been in the Congress. And we've watched this president actually turn away from some of the treaties that were on the table.
You don't help yourself with other nations when you turn away from the global warming treaty, for instance, or when you refuse to deal at length with the United Nations.
You have to earn that respect. And I think we have a lot of earning back to do.
LEHRER: Ninety seconds.
BUSH: Let me -- I'm not exactly sure what you mean, "passes the global test," you take preemptive action if you pass a global test.
My attitude is you take preemptive action in order to protect the American people, that you act in order to make this country secure.
My opponent talks about me not signing certain treaties. Let me tell you one thing I didn't sign, and I think it shows the difference of our opinion -- the difference of opinions.
And that is, I wouldn't join the International Criminal Court. It's a body based in The Hague where unaccountable judges and prosecutors can pull our troops or diplomats up for trial.
And I wouldn't join it. And I understand that in certain capitals around the world that that wasn't a popular move. But it's the right move not to join a foreign court that could -- where our people could be prosecuted.
My opponent is for joining the International Criminal Court. I just think trying to be popular, kind of, in the global sense, if it's not in our best interest makes no sense. I'm interested in working with our nations and do a lot of it. But I'm not going to make decisions that I think are wrong for America.
Fluffs, farts, and folibles along with this "debate" are meaningless. The substance of the argument for both Bush and Kerry is well defined by this stage of the game and Kerry is lacking..Score points for nuance and good hair, but post 9/11 we may be looking for a bit more..
What do you think?
Any comments?
Ping!
Ping!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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!
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]