Posted on 10/01/2004 11:58:25 PM PDT by Former Military Chick
George Bush and John Kerry locked horns on live television today in the first face-to-face debate of the presidential election campaign.
The President and his Democratic challenger set out their different strategies on how to prevail in Iraq and win the war on terrorism.
But neither managed to deliver a knock-out punch during the 90-minute war of words at Miami University in Florida.
Senator Kerry accused his rival of a "colossal error in judgement" by invading Iraq, and offered a "fresh start" for America.
But Mr Bush hit back, saying he had proved himself as a leader and that the world was safer with Saddam Hussein removed from power.
During the debate, which focused on foreign policy and homeland security, Mr Kerry accused Mr Bush of leading America into the wrong war in the wrong time at the wrong place.
"Iraq was not even close to the war on terror until the president invaded it," the Massachusetts Senator said.
"He rushed to war in Iraq without a plan to win the peace," he said, adding: "We did not go as a last resort. That's not a judgement the President of the United States ought to take."
Watched by tens of millions of viewers, Mr Kerry said American forces should instead have focused on capturing Osama bin Laden after the September 11 terror attacks.
He said: "We need to be smarter about how we wage the war on terror." Mr Kerry said Mr Bush was not accepting the reality of a deteriorating situation in Iraq hours after dozens of children were killed in Iraq in the latest insurgent attack.
"This president, I don't know if he really sees what's happening over there," Mr Kerry said.
But Mr Bush, who has a small lead in the polls ahead of the November 2 election, repeatedly insisted that his opponent was sending "mixed messages" on the issue of Iraq.
"What message does that send our troops? What message does that send our allies? What message does that send Iraqis?" he asked.
He said: "The world is safer without Saddam Hussein.
"A free Iraq is going to make this world a more peaceful place." Mr Bush also accused Mr Kerry of "denigrating" allies, including Britain, by insisting that the US was practically alone in Iraq.
"That is not how you bring people together," Mr Bush said.
He added: "I have nothing but respect for the British, Tony Blair, and what they're willing to do." He insisted that sending troops to die was the hardest decision any president had to make.
He sighed and bowed his head as he recalled how he "prayed and teared up" with the wife of a fallen soldier.
Mr Bush said he hoped he never had to send troops into another war. He said he "never dreamt" when he was elected that he would have to commit troops to battle, "but the enemy attacked us".
Mr Kerry pointed out that Iraq was not behind the September 11 attacks.
While Mr Bush said he did not want to send more troops to war he went on: "The best way to protect our homeland is to stay on the offensive".
He added: "We will continue to spread freedom ... We have climbed the mighty mountain and I see the valley below, and it is a valley of peace." Mr Bush again suggested that Mr Kerry was inconsistent in his policies, adding that a president faced tough decisions and "cannot wilt under that pressure".
Mr Kerry shot back: "I have never wilted in my life."
He reinforced a central theme of his campaign, vowing to win back America's allies. "We need a fresh start, a new credibility and a president who can bring new allies to our side."
The alternative was another four years of Mr Bush and "more of the same".
But Mr Bush argued that world politics was not a popularity contest.
"Trying to be popular in the global sense, if it's not in our interests, makes no sense," he said. That is why he refused to sign America up the International Criminal Court where "unaccountable judges" could "pull our troops, our diplomats up for trial".
Mr Kerry charged that North Korea and Iran both had advanced their nuclear weapons programs during the Bush Administration, and that both countries are more dangerous now.
"As president I'll never take my eye off that ball," the senator said.
Mr Bush said he believed that a diplomatic initiative at present under way could solve the crisis with North Korea.
"On Iran, I hope we can do the same," he said.
Both men agreed that the biggest threat facing the US was nuclear proliferation.
Before making their closing statements, the Democrat and the Republican praised one another and lavished compliments on their families.
Both men have daughters who have been highly visible in the campaign. Mr Bush joked it was hard "trying to put a leash on them".
Political pundits immediately began analysing the debate as it drew to a close.
Early comments were that Mr Bush remained firmly on message, as expected, repeatedly saying his opponent changed his mind and his policies too frequently.
Mr Kerry was less wooden than Democrats feared and was able to deliver punchy responses without getting bogged down in detail, as he is known to sometimes do.
Mr Bush appeared perturbed when Kerry levelled some of his charges, scowling at times and looking away in apparent disgust at others.
Mr Kerry often took notes or stood with an impassive stare when the president spoke.
All neutral observers agreed that neither man managed to land a knock-out punch.
Mr Bush and Mr Kerry will go head-to-head again early on October 9 in St Louis, Missouri, and on October 14 in Tempe, Arizona.
Vice President Dick Cheney and Mr Kerry's running mate, Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, hold their only face-to-face debate of the campaign early on Wednesday in Cleveland.
Do American's want a world court? Do they care if there is a world court. This is a huge issue and if you were on the fence or a democrat hearing this, that when they go to the polls they will cast their vote for Bush.
If voters sat down and educated themselves about the world court and what it's set up to do, and the ramifications of going through a "global test", Kerry will only get the vote of the fringe left voters, leaving the President with a huge landslide margin of victory. These two issues are probably the most important foreign policy issues in a post 9/11 America.
It is the average Joe that will end up before this court eventually, for things like speaking out against globalism, or using hate speech, or being homophobic, or being anti-abortion, or being too religious.
That is what this court will branch out into doing, removing undesirables, and it won't remain one court it will brach out into several courts, in many nations.
The accused, nor his attorney will be allowed to review the evidence against him, there will be no writ of habeous corpus, years can pass without a charge leveled, or court date set. The defendent can be removed from his native country and held in prison in any other nation on earth. If the defendent wins his case, against all odds, he can be arrested before he leaves the court room and charged with the same, or another offense.
Welcome to the brave new world.
That is what this court will end up doing.
I so agree and cannot improve on your post. This should upset folks on both sides, but, not a word about it in the post coverage that I heard today.
Coverage was on style and who won and who didn't and not the substance.
You need to send your post in to your local papers. It is an excellent obsevation, thank you so much for sharing it.
Yep. The pundits were focusing on all the style of the debate. I've read FReepers post in the post debate threads who only had access to the debate by listening to it on the radio say that they got the impression Bush whipped Kerry from pillar to post, because they had no way of noticing the style of the debate. One gets the same impression of the substance of the debate from reading the transcript of the debate that Bush won hands down.
>>All neutral observers agreed that neither man managed to land a knock-out punch.
Yes, but the RATS still spun as hard as they could...
Per the cBS polling:
So lets say the pre-debate percentages represented the views of 1000 people…
we toss out the 310 pre-debate Kerry leaners and
we toss out the 190 pre-debate Bush leaners.
THAT leaves exactly 500 actual undecided persons PRE-DEBATE
Bush picked up 120 out of the 500 undecideds (or 24%)
Kerry picked up 70 out of the 500 undecideds (or 14%)
So, applying those pickup's to the R.C.P pre-debate averages yields...
| RCP Average 9/20 - 9/28 |
Undecided Adjustment Post-Debate |
|
| Bush | 49.50% | 50.72% |
| Kerry | 43.50% | 44.21% |
| Nader | 1.90% | 1.90% |
| Bush +6.0 | Bush +6.5 |
Heck, the POTUS or someone like Donald Rumsfeld might end up in front of the court tried as war criminals for defending America and the world from terrorism!
Small lead? Six points is a "small" lead??
F--- this World Court! It's time to take off your gloves, Dubya.
This is probably the single most important issue out of the debate. It directly effects how we prosecute the War on Terrorism. As a miltary man, the thought that I could be judged by a European who might not have qualms about scapegoating an American to appease his home constituency is very disturbing.
"Western Europe's 15 million-strong Muslim community is growing in power and size. The birthrate among Muslims in Europe is three times that of non-Muslims. While the Muslim population could double by 2015, the non-Muslim population is expected to shrink by 3.5 per cent."
-smh.com.au
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/01/26/1075087954378.html?oneclick=true
Try to imagine how Marines in the South Pacific or Rangers on D-Day during WW2 would have been effected if they had to worry about their heroic acts being subsequently judged by politicians (ICC/World court judges are very political, regardless of protestations to the contrary). The corruption of international bodies is amply demonstrated by the actions and crimes of the UN.
For a taste of European jurisprudence and sensibilities, read the following:
German cannibal sentenced to 8 years in prison
Last Updated Fri, 30 Jan 2004 13:32:37
KASSEL, GERMANY - A 42-year-old German man who confessed to killing, dismembering and eating another man who he said agreed to the grisly act was sentenced to eight and a half years in prison.
A German court convicted Armin Meiwes of manslaughter on Friday, ruling he had no "base motives" in the crime and sparing him a murder conviction.
The prosecution, who had been looking for a murder conviction and a life sentence, said they would appeal the verdict.
Prosecutors had argued that Meiwes, who met his victim over the internet, was satisfying a sexual impulse.
They said he filmed himself dismembering the victim before he ate him so he could "admire himself as a human butcher."
But Meiwes' lawyer argued that the slaying was a "homicide on demand." He said it was a form of mercy killing – because the victim gave his consent to be killed and eaten.
In his trial, Meiwes confessed in detail to the March 2001 killing of 43-year-old Bernd Juergen Brandes at his home in the nearby town of Rotenburg.
Brandes had travelled from Berlin in reply to an internet advertisement seeking a young man for "slaughter and consumption."
Meiwes testified that Brandes wanted to be stabbed to death after drinking a bottle of cold medicine to lose consciousness.
"Bernd came to me of his own free will to end his life," said Meiwes in a closing statement Monday. "For him, it was a nice death."
Meiwes said he regretted the killing.
"I had my big kick and I don't need to do it again," he said. "I regret it all very much, but I can't undo it."
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/01/30/cannibal040130
Center of mass hit. The ICC will be turned into a kangaroo court to persecute soldiers doing their job simply because their job happens to offend European or other socialist & third world sensibilities.
German cannibal sentenced to 8 years in prison
[...]
Brandes had travelled from Berlin in reply to an internet advertisement seeking a young man for "slaughter and consumption."
Meiwes testified that Brandes wanted to be stabbed to death after drinking a bottle of cold medicine to lose consciousness.
"Bernd came to me of his own free will to end his life," said Meiwes in a closing statement Monday. "For him, it was a nice death."
Seems to me like a clear case of "between two consenting adults"!
The scariest thing is that Kerry doesn't seem to ever understand the long-term implications of these things he supports!
Even scarier is the fact that he probably does understand the ramifications of the things he supports. It's the fact there is a part of his base that he's playing the finely tuned fiddle to that hates America first. If he doesn't pander to that group, they'll leave him in droves for some other screwball like Nader.
American Non-governmental Organizations Coalition for the International Criminal Court at www.amicc.org
and
American Bar Association Journal eReport cited at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1228315/posts
After reading all of Kerry's equivocation, I love this direct answer, though:
Questioner: "Would you sign the requisite treaty to put America in line with the rest of the Western world and become a member of the International Criminal Court?"
Edwards: "Yes"
I think they left out, "...said lawyer Edwards, as he drooled and cackled with delight."
BTW, note who supports AMICC ("a coalition of non-governmental organizations committed to achieving full United States support for the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the earliest possible US ratification of the Court's Rome Statute."). . . The good ol' Soros Foundation, among others.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
