Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Transcript & Video: Debate #1
FoxNews.com ^ | 0-30-04 | Transcript

Posted on 09/30/2004 10:47:50 PM PDT by 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.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Australia/New Zealand; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; Israel; Japan; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; Russia; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: 2004; bush; debate; debates; firstdebate; kerry; lehrer; napalminthemorning; transcript; us; wot
For your information

Let the world know what Kerry really said.

(That he lied, mispoke, made mistakes, gaffed!)

1 posted on 09/30/2004 10:47:50 PM PDT by Salvation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Salvation

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


2 posted on 09/30/2004 10:50:42 PM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

Do you want to ping your list?


3 posted on 09/30/2004 10:52:25 PM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: nicmarlo; bonesmccoy; cactusSharp; Dog Gone; Howlin; rfmad; Wphile; rintense; ladyinred; ...

Any comment?


4 posted on 09/30/2004 10:53:06 PM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Biggest flop

From tonight’s debate (1st Debate):

John Kerry: “He also said Saddam Hussein would have been stronger. That is just factually incorrect. Two-thirds of the country was a no-fly zone when we started this war. We would have had sanctions. We would have had the U.N. inspectors. Saddam Hussein would have been continually weakening.”

From Jan. 2004:

John Kerry: “This is a man who has used weapons of mass destruction, unlike other people on this Earth today, not only against other people but against his own people. This is a man who tried to assassinate a former president of the United States, a man who lobbed 36 missiles into Israel in order to destabilize the Middle East, a man who is so capable of miscalculation that he even brought this war on himself. This is a man who, if he was left uncaptured, would have continued to be able to organize the Ba'athists. He would have continued to terrorize the people, just in their minds, because of 30 years of terror in Iraq." (NBC's "Meet The Press," 1/11/04)

From tonight’s debate:

John Kerry: “And certainty sometimes can get you in trouble.”


5 posted on 09/30/2004 10:56:34 PM PDT by freestyle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
LEHRER: New question, Mr. President. Do you believe that diplomacy and sanctions can resolve the nuclear problems with North Korea and Iran? Take them in any order you would like.

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".

6 posted on 09/30/2004 11:09:35 PM PDT by tallhappy (Juntos Podemos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Speaking of Vietnam, you spoke to Congress in 1971, after you came back from Vietnam, and you said, quote, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" Are Americans now dying in Iraq for a mistake? KERRY: No, and they don't have to, providing we have the leadership that we put -- that I'm offering.

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????

7 posted on 09/30/2004 11:11:42 PM PDT by tapatio (If a dog makes a dash for my trousers, I shoot him down before he can bite)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1Mike; 3catsanadog; ~Vor~; ~Kim4VRWC's~; A CA Guy; A Citizen Reporter; abner; Aeronaut; AFPhys; ...

Transcript and video!


8 posted on 09/30/2004 11:13:14 PM PDT by Howlin (What's the Font Spacing, Kenneth?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

Here's the Colossal Misjudgments one:

LEHRER: New question, two minutes, Senator Kerry.

"Colossal misjudgments." What colossal misjudgments, in your opinion, has President Bush made in these areas?

KERRY: Well, where do you want me to begin?

First of all, he made the misjudgment of saying to America that he was going to build a true alliance, that he would exhaust the remedies of the United Nations and go through the inspections.

In fact, he first didn't even want to do that. And it wasn't until former Secretary of State Jim Baker and General Scowcroft and others pushed publicly and said you've got to go to the U.N., that the president finally changed his mind -- his campaign has a word for that -- and went to the United Nations.

Now, once there, we could have continued those inspections.

We had Saddam Hussein trapped.

He also promised America that he would go to war as a last resort.

Those words mean something to me, as somebody who has been in combat. "Last resort." You've got to be able to look in the eyes of families and say to those parents, "I tried to do everything in my power to prevent the loss of your son and daughter."

I don't believe the United States did that.

And we pushed our allies aside.

And so, today, we are 90 percent of the casualties and 90 percent of the cost: $200 billion -- $200 billion that could have been used for health care, for schools, for construction, for prescription drugs for seniors, and it's in Iraq.

And Iraq is not even the center of the focus of the war on terror. The center is Afghanistan, where, incidentally, there were more Americans killed last year than the year before; where the opium production is 75 percent of the world's opium production; where 40 to 60 percent of the economy of Afghanistan is based on opium; where the elections have been postponed three times.

The president moved the troops, so he's got 10 times the number of troops in Iraq than he has in Afghanistan, where Usama bin Laden is. Does that mean that Saddam Hussein was 10 times more important than Usama bin Laden -- than, excuse me, Saddam Hussein more important than Usama bin Laden? I don't think so.

LEHRER: Ninety-second response, Mr. President.

BUSH: My opponent looked at the same intelligence I looked at and declared in 2002 that Saddam Hussein was a grave threat.

He also said in December of 2003 that anyone who doubts that the world is safer without Saddam Hussein does not have the judgment to be president.

I agree with him. The world is better off without Saddam Hussein.

I was hoping diplomacy would work. I understand the serious consequences of committing our troops into harm's way.

It's the hardest decision a president makes. So I went to the United Nations. I didn't need anybody to tell me to go to the United Nations. I decided to go there myself.

And I went there hoping that, once and for all, the free world would act in concert to get Saddam Hussein to listen to our demands. They passed the resolution that said, "Disclose, disarm, or face serious consequences." I believe, when an international body speaks, it must mean what it says.

Saddam Hussein had no intention of disarming. Why should he? He had 16 other resolutions and nothing took place. As a matter of fact, my opponent talks about inspectors. The facts are that he was systematically deceiving the inspectors.

That wasn't going to work. That's kind of a pre-September 10th mentality, the hope that somehow resolutions and failed inspections would make this world a more peaceful place.

He was hoping we'd turn away. But there was fortunately others beside himself who believed that we ought to take action.

We did. The world is safer without Saddam Hussein.


9 posted on 09/30/2004 11:16:38 PM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: freestyle

Another falsehood..The push was on to lift sanctions on Iraq...by countries who wanted to do business openly with Iraq instead of bypassing sanctions as they were doing.


10 posted on 09/30/2004 11:17:24 PM PDT by MEG33 (John Kerry has been AWOL on issues of national security for two decades)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: All
That wasn't going to work. That's kind of a pre-September 10th mentality, the hope that somehow resolutions and failed inspections would make this world a more peaceful place.

Great line!

11 posted on 09/30/2004 11:18:35 PM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
And I believe that a fresh start, new credibility, a president who can understand what we have to do to reach out to the Muslim world to make it clear that this is not, you know -- Usama bin Laden uses the invasion of Iraq in order to go out to people and say that America has declared war on Islam.

Is Kerry saying that he would have negotiated with bin Laden???

12 posted on 09/30/2004 11:24:11 PM PDT by tapatio (If a dog makes a dash for my trousers, I shoot him down before he can bite)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tapatio
Click for Video Links
13 posted on 09/30/2004 11:26:29 PM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: tapatio

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

What about Senator Kerry's point, the comparison he drew between the priorities of going after Usama bin Laden and going after Saddam Hussein?

BUSH: Jim, we've got the capability of doing both.

As a matter of fact, this is a global effort.

We're facing a group of folks who have such hatred in their heart, they'll strike anywhere, with any means.

And that's why it's essential that we have strong alliances, and we do.

That's why it's essential that we make sure that we keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of people like Al Qaeda, which we are.

But to say that there's only one focus on the war on terror doesn't really understand the nature of the war on terror.

Of course we're after Saddam Hussein -- I mean bin Laden. He's isolated. Seventy-five percent of his people have been brought to justice. The killer -- the mastermind of the September 11th attacks, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, is in prison.

We're making progress.

But the front on this war is more than just one place. The Philippines -- we've got help -- we're helping them there to bring -- to bring Al Qaeda affiliates to justice there.

And, of course, Iraq is a central part in the war on terror. That's why Zarqawi and his people are trying to fight us. Their hope is that we grow weary and we leave.

The biggest disaster that could happen is that we not succeed in Iraq. We will succeed. We've got a plan to do so. And the main reason we'll succeed is because the Iraqis want to be free.

I had the honor of visiting with Prime Minister Allawi. He's a strong, courageous leader. He believes in the freedom of the Iraqi people.

He doesn't want U.S. leadership, however, to send mixed signals, to not stand with the Iraqi people.

He believes, like I believe, that the Iraqis are ready to fight for their own freedom. They just need the help to be trained.

There will be elections in January. We're spending reconstruction money. And our alliance is strong.

That's the plan for victory.

And when Iraq if free, America will be more secure.

LEHRER: Senator Kerry, 90 seconds.

KERRY: The president just talked about Iraq as a center of the war on terror. Iraq was not even close to the center of the war on terror before the president invaded it.

The president made the judgment to divert forces from under General Tommy Franks from Afghanistan before the Congress even approved it to begin to prepare to go to war in Iraq.

And he rushed the war in Iraq without a plan to win the peace. Now, that is not the judgment that a president of the United States ought to make. You don't take America to war unless have the plan to win the peace. You don't send troops to war without the body armor that they need.

I've met kids in Ohio, parents in Wisconsin places, Iowa, where they're going out on the Internet to get the state-of-the-art body gear to send to their kids. Some of them got them for a birthday present.

I think that's wrong. Humvees -- 10,000 out of 12,000 Humvees that are over there aren't armored. And you go visit some of those kids in the hospitals today who were maimed because they don't have the armament.

This president just -- I don't know if he sees what's really happened on there. But it's getting worse by the day. More soldiers killed in June than before. More in July than June. More in August than July. More in September than in August.

And now we see beheadings. And we got weapons of mass destruction crossing the border every single day, and they're blowing people up. And we don't have enough troops there.

BUSH: Can I respond to that?

LEHRER: Let's do one of these one-minute extensions. You have 30 seconds.

BUSH: Thank you, sir.

First of all, what my opponent wants you to forget is that he voted to authorize the use of force and now says it's the wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place.

I don't see how you can lead this country to succeed in Iraq if you say wrong war, wrong time, wrong place. What message does that send our troops? What message does that send to our allies? What message does that send the Iraqis?

No, the way to win this is to be steadfast and resolved and to follow through on the plan that I've just outlined.

LEHRER: Thirty seconds, Senator.

KERRY: Yes, we have to be steadfast and resolved, and I am. And I will succeed for those troops, now that we're there. We have to succeed. We can't leave a failed Iraq. But that doesn't mean it wasn't a mistake of judgment to go there and take the focus off of Usama bin Laden. It was. Now, we can succeed. But I don't believe this president can. I think we need a president who has the credibility to bring the allies back to the table and to do what's necessary to make it so America isn't doing this alone.

LEHRER: We'll come back to Iraq in a moment. But I want to come back to where I began, on homeland security. This is a two-minute new question, Senator Kerry.

As president, what would you do, specifically, in addition to or differently to increase the homeland security of the United States than what President Bush is doing?

KERRY: Jim, let me tell you exactly what I'll do. And there are a long list of thing. First of all, what kind of mixed message does it send when you have $500 million going over to Iraq to put police officers in the streets of Iraq, and the president is cutting the COPS program in America?

What kind of message does it send to be sending money to open firehouses in Iraq, but we're shutting firehouses who are the first- responders here in America.

The president hasn't put one nickel, not one nickel into the effort to fix some of our tunnels and bridges and most exposed subway systems. That's why they had to close down the subway in New York when the Republican Convention was there. We hadn't done the work that ought to be done.

The president -- 95 percent of the containers that come into the ports, right here in Florida, are not inspected.

Civilians get onto aircraft, and their luggage is X- rayed, but the cargo hold is not X-rayed.

Does that make you feel safer in America?

This president thought it was more important to give the wealthiest people in America a tax cut rather than invest in homeland security. Those aren't my values. I believe in protecting America first.

And long before President Bush and I get a tax cut -- and that's who gets it -- long before we do, I'm going to invest in homeland security and I'm going to make sure we're not cutting COPS programs in America and we're fulso unfortunately gave in to the chemical industry, which didn't want to do some of the things necessary to strengthen our chemical plant exposure.

And there's an enormous undone job to protect the loose nuclear materials in the world that are able to get to terrorists. That's a whole other subject, but I see we still have a little bit more time.

Let me just quickly say, at the current pace, the president will not secure the loose material in the Soviet Union -- former Soviet Union for 13 years. I'm going to do it in four years. And we're going to keep it out of the hands of terrorists.


14 posted on 09/30/2004 11:27:52 PM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

I doubt the Las Vegas line has changed much. My spread, 8 points Bush on Nov. 3........


15 posted on 09/30/2004 11:28:50 PM PDT by ChEng
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

KERRY:

And part of that leadership is sending the right message to places like North Korea.

Right now the president is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to research bunker-busting nuclear weapons. The United States is pursuing a new set of nuclear weapons. It doesn't make sense.

You talk about mixed messages. We're telling other people, "You can't have nuclear weapons," but we're pursuing a new nuclear weapon that we might even contemplate using.

TO SUM IT UP - Kerry asks "Why is it okay for US to have nuclear weapons but its not okay for North Korea (or the terrorists for that matter) to have them?"


16 posted on 09/30/2004 11:31:11 PM PDT by geopyg (Peace..................through decisive and ultimate VICTORY. (Democracy, whiskey, sexy))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: freestyle

Great stuff!


17 posted on 09/30/2004 11:35:32 PM PDT by kesg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

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.


18 posted on 09/30/2004 11:42:15 PM PDT by 68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub (MAKE SURE YOU ARE CURRENTLY REGISTERED AND VOTE Nov 2nd!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

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..


19 posted on 09/30/2004 11:48:34 PM PDT by ChEng
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eastsider; Gerish; sockmonkey; Gophack; SuziQ; tiki; Brices Crossroads; ventana; LadyDoc; ...

What do you think?

Any comments?


20 posted on 09/30/2004 11:53:31 PM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailback; thecabal; UofORepublican; usadave; WaterDragon; WHATNEXT?; Grampa Dave; xhrist; ...

Ping!


21 posted on 09/30/2004 11:56:17 PM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailback; thecabal; UofORepublican; usadave; WaterDragon; WHATNEXT?; Grampa Dave; xhrist; ...

Ping!


22 posted on 09/30/2004 11:56:20 PM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

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.


23 posted on 09/30/2004 11:58:43 PM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
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.
24 posted on 09/30/2004 11:59:03 PM PDT by GailA ( hanoi john, I'm for the death penalty for terrorist, before I impose a moratorium on it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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."
25 posted on 09/30/2004 11:59:39 PM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Salvation; All

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.


26 posted on 10/01/2004 12:04:37 AM PDT by cpforlife.org (Am I a part of the cure? Or am I part of the disease? Singing.... You are, you are, you are)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org

Couldn't agree more!


27 posted on 10/01/2004 12:06:57 AM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
"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.
28 posted on 10/01/2004 12:23:48 AM PDT by Tim716 (Maine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Salvation; Howlin

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.


29 posted on 10/01/2004 12:49:50 AM PDT by BigSkyFreeper (Real gun control is - all shots inside the ten ring)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
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.

30 posted on 10/01/2004 12:52:19 AM PDT by Graymatter (Reload Bush/Cheney 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BigSkyFreeper; Salvation

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!


31 posted on 10/01/2004 3:54:58 AM PDT by no more apples (God Bless our troops)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
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!

32 posted on 10/01/2004 4:26:59 AM PDT by Alia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

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!


33 posted on 10/01/2004 5:21:43 AM PDT by Convert from ECUSA (tired of shucking and jiving)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

Thanks


34 posted on 10/01/2004 7:21:43 AM PDT by firewalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
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!

35 posted on 10/01/2004 7:34:02 AM PDT by TankerKC (R.I.P. Spc Trevor A. Win'E American Hero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TankerKC

Thanks for the correction!

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


36 posted on 10/01/2004 8:19:07 AM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Alouette; JohnHuang2; SJackson; yonif; ValerieUSA; blam; FairOpinion; Ernest_at_the_Beach

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]


37 posted on 10/01/2004 10:15:28 AM PDT by SunkenCiv ("All I have seen teaches me trust the Creator for all I have not seen." -- Emerson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: no more apples

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.


38 posted on 10/01/2004 7:17:30 PM PDT by BigSkyFreeper (Real gun control is - all shots inside the ten ring)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson