"Koen Robeys" <
[email protected]> openbaarde zich in
news:
[email protected]:
> Via http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6161751/site/newsweek/ zit
> ik een artikel over het debat tussen Bush en Kerry te
> lezen. Daarin zie ik het volgende:
>
> "The attitude in the president's camp, by contrast, had
> been comparatively nonchalant, stemming from the mistaken
> belief that the spotlight would rest only on Kerry-and that
> Bush was playing a home game on the topic of the first
> debate, defense and foreign policy."
>
> De media lijkt te vinden dat Kerry ruimschoots won, en
> lijkt volop bezig die mening nu uit te vergroten. (Mij niet
> gelaten, integendeel. Toch opbiechten dat ik de
> heruitzending gezien heb, en Kerry hoogstens lichtjes beter
> vond.) Maar wat me nu van mijn stoel doet vallen, is dat ik
> nu voor de eerste keer iets besef dat nochtans in koeien
> van letters in alle kranten stond.
>
> Wel, laat me herinneren aan dingen die ik eerder schreef.
> Er was iets bij over hoe ik in dit stadium, bij een
> eventuele keuze tussen Bush en een chimpansee, voor de
> chimpansee zou kiezen. En als je nu in october 2001 de
> volgende uitdaging had gekregen: Vind een manier om de
> wereldwijde sympathie voor Amerika te verkwanselen en in
> het tegendeel om te buigen; verzwak verder zo efficiënt
> mogelijk zowel de mogelijkheden als de reputatie van het
> Amerikaanse leger; en vind daar boven op ook nog een manier
> om Bin Laden een propagandastunt te bezorgen van een
> kaliber waarvan hij nooit had durven dromen, dan zou ik
> begot niet weten wat je nu beter kon doen dan het
> buitenlands "beleid" van Bush rond Irak. En misschien heb
> ik ooit wel eens verwezen naar het artikel van Paul
> Krugman, waarin die herinner aan een film met een president
> die eigenlijk de diepste mol aller tijden is, een spion
> voor China met als opdracht de positie van de VS te
> verzwakken - zonder zichzelf te ontmaskeren, natuurlijk.
>
> En dus begon ik te leiden aan "cognitieve dissonantie".
> Toen ik doodeenvoudig als feit vernam dat Bush had
> aangedrongen op Irak als onderwerp van het eerste debat, en
> wel omdat hij dat als zijn "sterk punt" beschouwt, heb ik
> zelfs niet met de ogen geknipperd of de wenkbrauwen
> gefronst. Ik heb die mededeling gewoon genegeerd, ik heb
> het nog niet zien staan. En toch was het een minstens een
> tikje vreemd, nietwaar, dat een beleid dat volgens mij
> onmogelijk *nog* slechter kon gedaan zijn als het afkomstig
> was van een aap, door de president zelf als zijn "sterk
> punt" werd beschouwd.
>
> En nu lees ik bovenstaande zinnen, en ik krijg een schok.
> Bush dacht *werkelijk* dat zijn buitenslands "beleid" zijn
> sterk punt was. Bush dacht *werkelijk* dat zijn "defense
> and foreign policy" iets was om trots op te zijn; iets
> waarmee je kon naar buiten komen. Hij heeft *werkelijk*
> nooit gedacht aan de mogelijkheid dat je daar misschien wel
> met het grootste gemak gaten in kon schieten, die de
> vergelijking met de Maginotlinie kunnen doorstaan.
>
> Wel, ik denk natuurlijk nog steeds dat zijn beleid
> onbekwaam op het criminele af is geweest. Maar voor het
> eerst begin ik me te realizeren waar de veelgehoorde
> bewering over hoe hij "out of touch with reality" is op
> slaat. Misschien moet ik maar eens meer met een bekende
> regel gaan rekening houden: wijt nooit aan kwaadaardigheid
> wat nog door gewone domheid kan verklaard worden. Het lijkt
> er op dat ik het met de komplottheorie in de zaak Dutroux
> ook mis had...
>
>:-)
>
> Koen
>
>
En waar was Bush ergens van niveau?
Het is alleen spijtig dat in de transcript nergens vermeld
wordt wat beide kandidaten als welkomsttekst uitspraken.
Bush maakte zich hopeloos belachelijk door onmiddellijk zijn
pseudo now born christianity ten toon te spreiden.
Hoe gemakkelijk kunnen Amerikanen toch misleid worden.
Het was evenwel eigenaardig dat Kerry van zijn kant Israeli
aan het opvrijen was. Blijkbaar zijn beide kandidaten
evenwaardig als het over minachting ten toon spreiden gaat ten
aanzien van de rest van de wereld.
CORAL GABLES, Florida (CNN) -- The following is a transcript
of the first section of the debate between President Bush and
Sen. John Kerry held Thursday night at the University of
Miami. The topic of the debate was foreign affairs and, and
the moderator was Jim Lehrer of PBS.
The transcript is divided by questions and a link to the next
section is at the bottom of the page and in the box on the
right.
LEHRER: Good evening from the University of Miami Convocation
Center in Coral Gables, Florida. I'm Jim Lehrer of "The
NewsHour" on PBS.
And I welcome you to the first of the 2004 presidential
debates between President George W. Bush, the Republican
nominee, and Senator John Kerry, the Democratic nominee.
These debates are sponsored by the Commission on Presidential
Debates.
Tonight's will last 90 minutes, following detailed rules of
engagement worked out by representatives of the candidates. I
have agreed to enforce their rules on them.
The umbrella topic is foreign policy and homeland security,
but the specific subjects were chosen by me, the questions
were composed by me, the candidates have not been told what
they are, nor has anyone else.
For each question there can only be a two-minute response, a
90-second rebuttal and, at my discretion, a discussion
extension of one minute.
A green light will come on when 30 seconds remain in any given
answer, yellow at 15, red at five seconds, and then flashing
red means time's up. There is also a backup buzzer system if
needed.
Candidates may not direct a question to each other. There will
be two-minute closing statements, but no opening statements.
There is an audience here in the hall, but they will remain
absolutely silent for the next 90 minutes, except for now,
when they join me in welcoming President Bush and Senator
Kerry.
Good evening, Mr. President, Senator Kerry.
As determined by a coin toss, the first question goes to you,
Senator Kerry. You have two minutes.
Do you believe you could do a better job than President Bush
in preventing another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United
States?
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.
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 all
want.
LEHRER: New question, Mr. President, two minutes.
Do you believe the election of Senator Kerry on November the
2nd would increase the chances of the U.S. being hit by
another 9/11-type terrorist attack?
BUSH: No, I don't believe it's going to happen. I believe I'm
going to win, because the American people know I know how to
lead. I've shown the American people I know how to lead.
I have -- I understand everybody in this country doesn't agree
with the decisions I've made. And I made some tough decisions.
But people know where I stand.
People out there listening know what I believe. And that's how
best it is to keep the peace.
This nation of ours has got a solemn duty to defeat this
ideology of hate. And that's what they are. This is a group of
killers who will not only kill here, but kill children in
Russia, that'll attack unmercifully in Iraq, hoping to shake
our will.
We have a duty to defeat this enemy. We have a duty to protect
our children and grandchildren.
The best way to defeat them is to never waver, to be strong,
to use every asset at our disposal, is to constantly stay on
the offensive and, at the same time, spread liberty.
And that's what people are seeing now is happening in
Afghanistan.
Ten million citizens have registered to vote. It's a
phenomenal statistic. They're given a chance to be free, and
they will show up at the polls. Forty-one percent of those 10
million are women.
In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's
incredibly hard. You know why? Because an enemy realizes the
stakes. The enemy understands a free Iraq will be a major
defeat in their ideology of hatred. That's why they're
fighting so vociferously.
They showed up in Afghanistan when they were there, because
they tried to beat us and they didn't. And they're showing up
in Iraq for the same reason. They're trying to defeat us.
And if we lose our will, we lose. But if we remain strong and
resolute, we will defeat this enemy.
LEHRER: Ninety second response, Senator Kerry.
KERRY: I believe in being strong and resolute and determined.
And I will hunt down and kill the terrorists, wherever they
are.
But we also have to be smart, Jim. And smart means not
diverting your attention from the real war on terror in
Afghanistan against Osama bin Laden and taking if off to Iraq,
where the 9/11 Commission confirms there was no connection to
9/11 itself and Saddam Hussein, and where the reason for going
to war was weapons of mass destruction, not the removal of
Saddam Hussein.
This president has made, I regret to say, a colossal error of
judgment. And judgment is what we look for in the president of
the United States of America.
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; Admiral William Crowe;
General Tony McPeak, 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: Osama bin Laden.
Unfortunately, he escaped in the mountains of Tora Bora. We
had him surrounded. But we didn't use American forces, the
best trained in the world, to go kill him. The president
relied on Afghan warlords and he outsourced that job too.
That's wrong.
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
Osama bin Laden is.
Does that mean that Saddam Hussein was 10 times more important
than Osama bin Laden -- than, excuse me, Saddam Hussein more
important than Osama 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.
LEHRER: New question, Mr. President. Two minutes.
What about Senator Kerry's point, the comparison he drew
between the priorities of going after Osama 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 Osama 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 fully staffed in
our firehouses and that we protect the nuclear and chemical
plants.
The president also 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.
LEHRER: Ninety-second response, Mr. President.
BUSH: I don't think we want to get to how he's going to pay
for all these promises. It's like a huge tax gap. Anyway,
that's for another debate.
My administration has tripled the amount of money we're
spending on homeland security to $30 billion a year.
My administration worked with the Congress to create the
Department of Homeland Security so we could better coordinate
our borders and ports. We've got 1,000 extra border patrol on
the southern border; want 1,000 on the northern border. We're
modernizing our borders.
We spent $3.1 billion for fire and police, $3.1 billion.
We're doing our duty to provide the funding.
But the best way to protect this homeland is to stay on the
offense.
You know, we have to be right 100 percent of the time. And the
enemy only has to be right once to hurt us.
There's a lot of good people working hard.
And by the way, we've also changed the culture of the FBI to
have counterterrorism as its number one priority. We're
communicating better. We're going to reform our intelligence
services to make sure that we get the best intelligence
possible.
The Patriot Act is vital -- is vital that the Congress renew
the Patriot Act which enables our law enforcement to disrupt
terror cells.
But again, I repeat to my fellow citizens, the best way to
protection is to stay on the offense.
LEHRER: Yes, let's do a little -- yes, 30 seconds.
KERRY: The president just said the FBI had changed its
culture. We just read on the front pages of America's papers
that there are over 100,000 hours of tapes, unlistened to.
On one of those tapes may be the enemy being right the next
time.
And the test is not whether you're spending more money. The
test is, are you doing everything possible to make America
safe?
We didn't need that tax cut. America needed to be safe.
BUSH: Of course we're doing everything we can to protect
America. I wake up every day thinking about how best to
protect America. That's my job.
I work with Director Mueller of the FBI; comes in my office
when I'm in Washington every morning, talking about how to
protect us. There's a lot of really good people working hard
to do so.
It's hard work. But, again, I want to tell the American
people, we're doing everything we can at home, but you better
have a president who chases these terrorists down and bring
them to justice before they hurt us again.
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. [Interim] Prime Minister [Ayad] 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 [John] 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 went 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: 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 [that] 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 [bill]
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.
LEHRER: All right, new question. Two minutes, Senator Kerry.
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.
I believe that we have to win this.
The president and I have always agreed on that.
And from the beginning, I did vote to give the authority,
because I thought Saddam Hussein was a threat, and I did
accept that intelligence.
But I also laid out a very strict series of things we needed
to do in order to proceed from a position of strength.
Then the president, in fact, promised them.
He went to Cincinnati and he gave a speech in which he said,
"We will plan carefully. We will proceed cautiously. We will
not make war inevitable. We will go with our allies."
He didn't do any of those things. They didn't do the planning.
They left the planning of the State Department in the State
Department desks.
They avoided even the advice of their own general. General
Shinsheki, the Army chief of staff, said you're going to need
several hundred thousand troops. Instead of listening to him,
they retired him.
The terrorism czar, who has worked for every president since
Ronald Reagan, said, "Invading Iraq in response to 9/11 would
be like Franklin Roosevelt invading Mexico in response to
Pearl Harbor."
That's what we have here.
And what we need now is a president who understands how to
bring these other countries together to recognize their stakes
in this. They do have stakes in it. They've always had stakes
in it.
The Arab countries have a stake in not having a civil war. The
European countries have a stake in not having total disorder
on their doorstep.
But this president hasn't even held the kind of statesman-like
summits that pull people together and get them to invest in
those states.
In fact, he's done the opposite. He pushed them away.
When the Secretary General Kofi Annan offered the United
Nations, he said, "No, no, we'll go do this alone."
To save for Halliburton the spoils of the war, they actually
issued a memorandum from the Defense Department saying, "If
you weren't with us in the war, don't bother applying for any
construction."
That's not a way to invite people.
LEHRER: Ninety seconds.
BUSH: That's totally absurd.
Of course, the U.N. was invited in. And we support the U.N.
efforts there. They pulled out after Sergio de Mello got
killed. But they're now back in helping with elections.
My opponent says we didn't have any allies in this war.
What's he say to Tony Blair? What's he say to Alexander
Kwasniewski of Poland?
You can't expect to build an alliance when you denigrate the
contributions of those who are serving side by side with
American troops in Iraq.
Plus, 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?"
I know how these people think. I deal with them all the time.
I sit down with the world leaders frequently and talk to them
on the phone frequently. They're not going to follow somebody
who says, "This is the wrong war at the wrong place at the
wrong time."
I know how these people think. I deal with them all the time.
I sit down with the world leaders frequently and talk to them
on the phone frequently.
They're not going to follow somebody who says this is the
wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time.
They're not going to follow somebody whose core convictions
keep changing because of politics in America.
And finally, he says we ought to have a summit. Well, there
are summits being held.
Japan is going to have a summit for the donors; $14 billion
pledged. And Prime Minister Koizumi is going to call countries
to account, to get them to contribute.
And there's going to be an Arab summit, of the neighborhood
countries. And Colin Powell helped set up that summit.
LEHRER: Forty seconds, Senator.
KERRY: The United Nations, Kofi Annan offered help after
Baghdad fell. And we never picked him up on that and did what
was necessary to transfer authority and to transfer
reconstruction. It was always American-run.
Secondly, when we went in, there were three countries: Great
Britain, Australia and the United States. That's not a grand
coalition. We can do better.
LEHRER: Thirty seconds, Mr. President.
BUSH: Well, actually, he forgot Poland. And now there's 30
nations involved, standing side by side with our American
troops.
And I honor their sacrifices. And I don't appreciate it when
candidate for president denigrates the contributions of these
brave soldiers.
You cannot lead the world if you do not honor the
contributions of those who are with us. He called them coerced
and the bribed. That's not how you bring people together.
Our coalition is strong. It will remain strong, so long as I'm
the president.
LEHRER: New question, Mr. President, two minutes. You have
said there was a "miscalculation" of what the conditions would
be in postwar Iraq. What was the miscalculation, and how did
it happen?
BUSH: No, what I said was that, because we achieved such a
rapid victory, more of the Saddam loyalists were around. I
mean, we thought we'd whip more of them going in.
But because [Gen.] Tommy Franks did such a great job in
planning the operation, we moved rapidly, and a lot of the
Baathists and Saddam loyalists laid down their arms and
disappeared. I thought they would stay and fight, but they
didn't.
And now we're fighting them now. And it's hard work. I
understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every
day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's
necessary work.
And I'm optimistic. See, I think you can be realistic and
optimistic at the same time. I'm optimistic we'll achieve -- I
know we won't achieve if we send mixed signals. I know we're
not going to achieve our objective if we send mixed signals to
our troops, our friends, the Iraqi citizens.
We've got a plan in place. The plan says there will be
elections in January, and there will be. The plan says we'll
train Iraqi soldiers so they can do the hard work, and we are.
And it's not only just America, but NATO is now helping,
Jordan's helping train police, [United Arab Emirates] is
helping train police.
We've allocated $7 billion over the next months for
reconstruction efforts. And we're making progress there.
And our alliance is strong. And as I just told you, there's
going to be a summit of the Arab nations. Japan will be
hosting a summit. We're making progress.
It is hard work. It is hard work to go from a tyranny to a
democracy. It's hard work to go from a place where people get
their hands cut off, or executed, to a place where people are
free.
But it's necessary work. And a free Iraq is going to make this
world a more peaceful place.
LEHRER: Ninety seconds, Senator Kerry.
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.
The president says that I'm denigrating these troops. I have
nothing but respect for the British, Tony Blair, and for what
they've been willing to do.
But you can't tell me that when the most troops any other
country has on the ground is Great Britain, with 8,300, and
below that the four others are below 4,000, and below that,
there isn't anybody out of the hundreds, that we have a
genuine coalition to get this job done.
You can't tell me that on the day that we went into that war
and it started -- it was principally the United States, the
America and Great Britain and one or two others.
That's it. And today, we are 90 percent of the casualties and
90 percent of the costs.
And meanwhile, North Korea has got nuclear weapons. Talk about
mixed messages. The president is the one that said, "We can't
allow countries to get nuclear weapons." They have. I'll
change that.
LEHRER: New question. Senator Kerry, two minutes.
You just -- you've repeatedly accused President Bush -- not
here tonight, but elsewhere before -- of not telling the truth
about Iraq, essentially of lying to the American people about
Iraq.
Give us some examples of what you consider to be his not
telling the truth.
KERRY: Well, I've never, ever used the harshest word, as you
did just then. And I try not to.
I've been -- but I'll nevertheless tell you that I think he
has not been candid with the American people. And I'll tell
you exactly how.
First of all, we all know that in his State of the Union
message, he told Congress about nuclear materials that didn't
exist.
We know that he promised America that he was going to build
this coalition.
I just described the coalition. It is not the kind of
coalition we were described when we were talking about voting
for this.
The president said he would exhaust the remedies of the United
Nations and go through that full process. He didn't. He cut if
off, sort of arbitrarily.
And we know that there were further diplomatic efforts under
way.
They just decided the time for diplomacy is over and rushed to
war without planning for what happens afterwards.
Now, he misled the American people in his speech when he said
we will plan carefully. They obviously didn't.
He misled the American people when he said we'd go to war as a
last resort. We did not go as a last resort. And most
Americans know the difference.
Now, this has cost us deeply in the world.
I believe that it is important to tell the truth to the
American people. I've worked with those leaders the president
talks about, I've worked with them for 20 years, for longer
than this president.
And I know what many of them say today, and I know how to
bring them back to the table.
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 --
Osama bin Laden uses the invasion of Iraq in order to go out
to people and say that America has declared war on Islam.
We need to be smarter about now we wage a war on terror. We
need to deny them the recruits. We need to deny them the safe
havens. We need to rebuild our alliances.
I believe that Ronald Reagan, John Kennedy, and the others did
that more effectively, and I'm going to try to follow in their
footsteps.
LEHRER: Ninety seconds, Mr. President.
BUSH: My opponent just said something amazing.
He said Osama bin Laden uses the invasion of Iraq as an excuse
to spread hatred for America.
Osama bin Laden isn't going to determine how we defend
ourselves.
Osama bin Laden doesn't get to decide. The American people
decide.
I decided the right action was in Iraq. My opponent calls it a
mistake. It wasn't a mistake.
He said I misled on Iraq. I don't think he was misleading when
he called Iraq a grave threat in the fall of 2002.
I don't think he was misleading when he said that it was right
to disarm Iraq in the spring of 2003.
I don't think he misled you when he said that, you know,
anyone who doubted whether the world was better off without
Saddam Hussein in power didn't have the judgment to be
president.
I don't think he was misleading.
I think what is misleading is to say you can lead and succeed
in Iraq if you keep changing your positions on this war. And
he has.
As the politics change, his positions change. And that's not
how a commander in chief acts.
Let me finish.
The intelligence I looked at was the same intelligence my
opponent looked at, the very same intelligence.
And when I stood up there and spoke to the Congress, I was
speaking off the same intelligence he looked at to make his
decisions to support the authorization of force.
LEHRER: Thirty seconds. We'll do a 30 second here.
KERRY: I wasn't misleading when I said he was a threat.
Nor was I misleading on the day that the president decided to
go to war when I said that he had made a mistake in not
building strong alliances and that I would have preferred that
he did more diplomacy.
I've had one position, one consistent position, that Saddam
Hussein was a threat.
There was a right way to disarm him and a wrong way. And the
president chose the wrong way.
LEHRER: Thirty seconds, Mr. President.
BUSH: The only consistent about my opponent's position is that
he's been inconsistent. He changes positions. And you cannot
change positions in this war on terror if you expect to win.
And I expect to win. It's necessary we win.
We're being challenged like never before.
And we have a duty to our country and to future generations of
America to achieve a free Iraq, a free Afghanistan, and to rid
the world of weapons of mass destruction.
LEHRER: New question, Mr. President. Two minutes.
Has the war in Iraq been worth the cost of American lives,
1,052 as of today?
BUSH: You know, every life is precious. Every life matters.
You know, my hardest -- the hardest part of the job is to know
that I committed the troops in harm's way and then do the best
I can to provide comfort for the loved ones who lost a son or
a daughter or a husband or wife.
You know, I think about Missy Johnson. She's a fantastic lady
I met in Charlotte, North Carolina. She and her son Brian,
they came to see me. Her husband, P.J., got killed. He'd been
in Afghanistan, went to Iraq.
You know, it's hard work to try to love her as best as I can,
knowing full well that the decision I made caused her loved
one to be in harm's way.
I told her after we prayed and teared up and laughed some that
I thought her husband's sacrifice was noble and worthy.
Because I understand the stakes of this war on terror. I
understand that we must find al Qaeda wherever they hide.
We must deal with threats before they fully materialize. And
Saddam Hussein was a threat, and that we must spread liberty
because in the long run, the way to defeat hatred and tyranny
and oppression is to spread freedom.
Missy understood that. That's what she told me her husband
understood. So you say, "Was it worth it?" Every life is
precious. That's what distinguishes us from the enemy.
Everybody matters. But I think it's worth it, Jim.
I think it's worth it, because I think -- I know in the long
term a free Iraq, a free Afghanistan, will set such a powerful
in a part of the world that's desperate for freedom. It will
help change the world; that we can look back and say we did
our duty.
LEHRER: Senator, 90 seconds.
KERRY: I understand what the president is talking about,
because I know what it means to lose people in combat. And the
question, is it worth the cost, reminds me of my own thinking
when I came back from fighting in that war.
And it reminds me that it is vital for us not to confuse the
war, ever, with the warriors. That happened before.
And that's one of the reasons why I believe I can get this job
done, because I am determined for those soldiers and for those
families, for those kids who put their lives on the line.
That is noble. That's the most noble thing that anybody can
do. And I want to make sure the outcome honors that nobility.
Now, we have a choice here. I've laid out a plan by which I
think we can be successful in Iraq: with a summit, by doing
better training, faster, by cutting -- by doing what we need
to do with respect to the U.N. and the elections.
There's only 25 percent of the people in there. They can't
have an election right now.
The president's not getting the job done.
So the choice for America is, you can have a plan that I've
laid out in four points, each of which I can tell you more
about or you can go to johnkerry.com and see more of it. Or
you have the president's plan, which is four words: More of
the same.
I think my plan is better. And my plan has a better chance of
standing up and fighting for those troops.
I will never let those troops down, and will hunt and kill the
terrorists wherever they are.
LEHRER: All right, sir, go ahead. Thirty seconds.
BUSH: Yes, I understand what it means to the commander in
chief. And if I were to ever say, "This is the wrong war at
the wrong time at the wrong place," the troops would wonder,
"How can I follow this guy?"
You cannot lead the war on terror if you keep changing
positions on the war on terror and say things like, "Well,
this is just a grand diversion." It's not a grand diversion.
This is an essential that we get it right.
And so, the plan he talks about simply won't work.
LEHRER: Senator Kerry, you have 30 seconds. You have 30
seconds, right.
KERRY: Secretary of State Colin Powell told this president the
Pottery Barn rule: If you break it, you fix it.
Now, if you break it, you made a mistake. It's the wrong thing
to do. But you own it. And then you've got to fix it and do
something with it.
Now that's what we have to do. There's no inconsistency.
Soldiers know over there that this isn't being done right yet.
I'm going to get it right for those soldiers, because it's
important to Israel, it's important to America, it's important
to the world, it's important to the fight on terror.
But I have a plan to do it. He doesn't.
LEHRER: Speaking of your plan, new question, Senator Kerry.
Two minutes.
Can you give us specifics, in terms of a scenario, time lines,
et cetera, for ending major U.S. military involvement in Iraq?
KERRY: The time line that I've set out -- and again, I want to
correct the president, because he's misled again this evening
on what I've said. I didn't say I would bring troops out in
six months. I said, if we do the things that I've set out and
we are successful, we could begin to draw the troops down in
six months.
And I think a critical component of success in Iraq is being
able to convince the Iraqis and the Arab world that the United
States doesn't have long-term designs on it.
As I understand it, we're building some 14 military bases
there now, and some people say they've got a rather permanent
concept to them.
When you guard the oil ministry, but you don't guard the
nuclear facilities, the message to a lot of people is maybe,
"Wow, maybe they're interested in our oil."
Now, the problem is that they didn't think these things
through properly. And these are the things you have to think
through.
What I want to do is change the dynamics on the ground. And
you have to do that by beginning to not back off of the
Fallujahs and other places, and send the wrong message to the
terrorists. You have to close the borders.
You've got to show you're serious in that regard. But you've
also got to show that you are prepared to bring the rest of
the world in and share the stakes.
I will make a flat statement: The United States of America has
no long-term designs on staying in Iraq.
And our goal in my administration would be to get all of the
troops out of there with a minimal amount you need for
training and logistics as we do in some other countries in the
world after a war to be able to sustain the peace.
But that's how we're going to win the peace, by rapidly
training the Iraqis themselves.
Even the administration has admitted they haven't done the
training, because they came back to Congress a few weeks ago
and asked for a complete reprogramming of the money.
Now what greater admission is there, 16 months afterwards.
"Oops, we haven't done the job. We have to start to spend the
money now. Will you guys give us permission to shift it over
into training?"
LEHRER: Ninety seconds.
BUSH: There are 100,000 troops trained, police, guard, special
units, border patrol. There's going to be 125,000 trained by
the end of this year. Yes, we're getting the job done. It's
hard work. Everybody knows it's hard work, because there's a
determined enemy that's trying to defeat us.
Now, my opponent says he's going to try to change the dynamics
on the ground. Well, Prime Minister Allawi was here. He is the
leader of that country. He's a brave, brave man. When he came,
after giving a speech to the Congress, my opponent questioned
his credibility.
You can't change the dynamics on the ground if you've
criticized the brave leader of Iraq.
One of his campaign people alleged that Prime Minister Allawi
was like a puppet. That's no way to treat somebody who's
courageous and brave, that is trying to lead his country
forward.
The way to make sure that we succeed is to send consistent,
sound messages to the Iraqi people that when we give our word,
we will keep our word, that we stand with you, that we believe
you want to be free. And I do.
I believe that 25 million people, the vast majority, long to
have elections.
I reject this notion -- and I'm suggesting my opponent isn't
-- I reject the notion that some say that if you're Muslim you
can't free, you don't desire freedom. I disagree, strongly
disagree with that.
LEHRER: Thirty seconds.
KERRY: I couldn't agree more that the Iraqis want to be free
and that they could be free.
But I think the president, again, still hasn't shown how he's
going to go about it the right way. He has more of the same.
Now, Prime Minister Allawi came here, and he said the
terrorists are pouring over the border. That's Allawi's
assessment.
The national intelligence assessment that was given to the
president in July said, best-case scenario, more of the same
of what we see today; worst-case scenario, civil war.
I can do better.
BUSH: Yes, let me...
LEHRER: Yes, 30 seconds.
BUSH: The reason why Prime Minister Allawi said they're coming
across the border is because he recognizes that this is a
central part of the war on terror. They're fighting us because
they're fighting freedom.
They understand that a free Afghanistan or a free Iraq will be
a major defeat for them.
And those are the stakes.
And that's why it is essential we not leave. That's why it's
essential we hold the line. That's why it's essential we win.
And we will. Under my leadership we're going to win this war
in Iraq.
LEHRER: Mr. President, new question. Two minutes. Does the
Iraq experience make it more likely or less likely that you
would take the United States into another pre-emptive military
action?
BUSH: I would hope I never have to. I understand how hard it
is to commit troops. Never wanted to commit troops. When I was
running -- when we had the debate in 2000, never dreamt I'd be
doing that.
But the enemy attacked us, Jim, and I have a solemn duty to
protect the American people, to do everything I can to protect
us.
I think that by speaking clearly and doing what we say and not
sending mixed messages, it is less likely we'll ever have to
use troops.
But a president must always be willing to use troops. It must
-- as a last resort.
I was hopeful diplomacy would work in Iraq. It was falling
apart. There was no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was
hoping that the world would turn a blind eye.
And if he had been in power, in other words, if we would have
said, "Let the inspectors work, or let's, you know, hope to
talk him out. Maybe an 18th resolution would work," he would
have been stronger and tougher, and the world would have been
a lot worse off. There's just no doubt in my mind we would rue
the day, had Saddam Hussein been in power.
So we use diplomacy every chance we get, believe me. And I
would hope to never have to use force.
But by speaking clearly and sending messages that we mean what
we say, we've affected the world in a positive way.
Look at Libya. Libya was a threat. Libya is now peacefully
dismantling its weapons programs.
Libya understood that America and others will enforce doctrine
and that the world is better for it.
So to answer your question, I would hope we never have to. I
think by acting firmly and decisively, it will mean it is less
likely we have to use force.
LEHRER: Senator Kerry, 90 seconds.
KERRY: Jim, the president just said something extraordinarily
revealing and frankly very important in this debate. In answer
to your question about Iraq and sending people into Iraq, he
just said, "The enemy attacked us."
Saddam Hussein didn't attack us. Osama bin Laden attacked us.
Al Qaeda attacked us. And when we had Osama bin Laden cornered
in the mountains of Tora Bora (Afghanistan), 1,000 of his
cohorts with him in those mountains. With the American
military forces nearby and in the field, we didn't use the
best-trained troops in the world to go kill the world's No. 1
criminal and terrorist.
They outsourced the job to Afghan warlords, who only a week
earlier had been on the other side fighting against us,
neither of whom trusted each other.
That's the enemy that attacked us. That's the enemy that was
allowed to walk out of those mountains. That's the enemy that
is now in 60 countries, with stronger recruits.
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.
If the president had shown the patience to go through another
round of resolution, to sit down with those leaders, say,
"What do you need, what do you need now, how much more will it
take to get you to join us?" we'd be in a stronger place
today.
LEHRER: Thirty seconds.
BUSH: First of all, of course I know Osama bin Laden attacked
us. I know that.
And secondly, to think that another round of resolutions would
have caused Saddam Hussein to disarm, disclose, is ludicrous,
in my judgment. It just shows a significant difference of
opinion.
We tried diplomacy. We did our best. He was hoping to turn a
blind eye. And, yes, he would have been stronger had we not
dealt with him. He had the capability of making weapons, and
he would have made weapons.
LEHRER: Thirty seconds, Senator.
KERRY: Thirty-five to 40 countries in the world had a greater
capability of making weapons at the moment the president
invaded than Saddam Hussein. And while he's been diverted,
with nine out of 10 active duty divisions of our Army, either
going to Iraq, coming back from Iraq, or getting ready to go,
North Korea's gotten nuclear weapons and the world is more
dangerous. Iran is moving toward nuclear weapons and the world
is more dangerous. Darfur (Sudan) has a genocide.
The world is more dangerous. I'd have made a better choice.
LEHRER: New question. Two minutes, Senator Kerry.
What is your position on the whole concept of pre-emptive war?
KERRY: The president always has the right, and always has had
the right, for pre-emptive 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 pre-empt 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 pre-emption 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 pre-emptive action if you pass a
global test.
My attitude is you take pre-emptive 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.
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: 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, [former Chinese President] 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 got a lot of influence over North Korea, some ways
more than we do.
As well, we included South Korea, Japan and Russia. So now
there are five voices speaking to [North Korean leader] Kim
Jong Il, not just one.
And so if Kim Jong Il decides again to not honor an agreement,
he's not only doing injustice to America, he'd be doing
injustice to China, as well.
And I think this will work. It's not going to work if we open
up a dialogue with Kim Jong Il. He wants to unravel the six-
party talks, or the five-nation coalition that's sending him a
clear message.
On Iran, I hope we can do the same thing, continue to work
with the world to convince the Iranian mullahs to abandon
their nuclear ambitions.
We worked very closely with the foreign ministers of France,
Germany and Great Britain, who have been the folks delivering
the message to the mullahs that if you expect to be part of
the world of nations, get rid of your nuclear programs.
The IAEA (The United Nations' nuclear watchdog, the
International Atomic Energy Agency) is involved. There's a
special protocol recently been passed that allows for
inspections.
I hope we can do it. And we've got a good strategy.
LEHRER: Senator Kerry, 90 seconds.
KERRY: With respect to Iran, the British, French, and Germans
were the ones who initiated an effort without the United
States, regrettably, to begin to try to move to curb the
nuclear possibilities in Iran. I believe we could have done
better.
I think the United States should have offered the opportunity
to provide the nuclear fuel, test them, see whether or not
they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes. If
they weren't willing to work a deal, then we could have put
sanctions together. The president did nothing.
With respect to North Korea, the real story: We had inspectors
and television cameras in the nuclear reactor in North Korea.
Secretary Bill Perry negotiated that under President Clinton.
And we knew where the fuel rods were. And we knew the limits
on their nuclear power.
Colin Powell, our secretary of state, announced one day that
we were going to continue the dialog of working with the North
Koreans. The president reversed it publicly while the
president of South Korea was here.
And the president of South Korea went back to South Korea
bewildered and embarrassed because it went against his policy.
And for two years, this administration didn't talk at all to
North Korea.
While they didn't talk at all, the fuel rods came out, the
inspectors were kicked out, the television cameras were kicked
out. And today, there are four to seven nuclear weapons in the
hands of North Korea.
That happened on this president's watch.
Now, that, I think, is one of the most serious, sort of,
reversals or mixed messages that you could possibly send.
LEHRER: I want to make sure but in this one minute, I want to
make sure that we understand -- the people watching understand
the differences between the two of you on this.
You want to continue the multinational talks, correct?
BUSH: Right.
LEHRER: And you're willing to do it ...
KERRY: Both. I want bilateral talks which put all of the
issues, from the armistice of 1952, the economic issues, the
human rights issues, the artillery disposal issues, the DMZ
(the Demilitarized Zone between North and South Korea) issues
and the nuclear issues on the table.
LEHRER: And you're opposed to that. Right?
BUSH: The minute we have bilateral talks, the six-party talks
will unwind. That's exactly what Kim Jong Il wants. And by the
way, the breach on the agreement was not through plutonium.
The breach on the agreement is highly enriched uranium. That's
what we caught him doing. That's where he was breaking the
agreement.
Secondly, he said -- my opponent said where he worked to put
sanctions on Iran -- we've already sanctioned Iran. We can't
sanction them any more. There are sanctions in place on Iran.
And finally, we were a party to the convention -- to working
with Germany, France and Great Britain -- to send their
foreign ministers into Iran.
LEHRER: New question, two minutes.
Senator Kerry, you mentioned Darfur, the Darfur region of
Sudan.
Fifty thousand people have already died in that area. More
than a million are homeless. And it's been labeled an act of
ongoing genocide. Yet neither one of you or anyone else
connected with your campaigns or your administration that I
can find has discussed the possibility of sending in troops.
Why not?
KERRY: Well, I'll tell you exactly why not, but I first want
to say something about those sanctions on Iran.
Only the United States put the sanctions on alone, and that's
exactly what I'm talking about.
In order for the sanctions to be effective, we should have
been working with the British, French and Germans and other
countries. And that's the difference between the president and
me.
And there, again, he sort of slid by the question.
Now, with respect to Darfur, yes, it is a genocide. And months
ago, many of us were pressing for action.
I think the reason that we're not saying send American troops
in at this point is severalfold.
Number one, we can do this through the African Union,
providing we give them the logistical support.
Right now all the president is providing is humanitarian
support. We need to do more than that. They've got to have the
logistical capacity to go in and stop the killing. And that's
going to require more than is on the table today.
I also believe that it is -- one of the reasons we can't do it
is we're overextended.
Ask the people in the armed forces today.
We've got Guards and Reserves who are doing double duties.
We've got a backdoor draft taking place in America today:
people with stop-loss programs where they're told you can't
get out of the military; nine out of our 10 active duty
divisions committed to Iraq one way or the other, either
going, coming or preparing.
So this is the way the president has overextended the United
States.
That's why, in my plan, I add two active duty divisions to the
United States Army, not for Iraq, but for our general demands
across the globe.
I also intend to double the number of special forces so that
we can do the job we need to do with respect fighting the
terrorists around the world. And if we do that, then we have
the ability to be able to respond more rapidly.
But I'll tell you this, as president, if it took American
forces to some degree to coalesce the African Union, I'd be
prepared to do it because we could never allow another Rwanda.
It's the moral responsibility for us and the world.
LEHRER: Ninety seconds.
BUSH: Back to Iran, just for a second.
It was not my administration that put the sanctions on Iran.
That happened long before I arrived in Washington, D.C.
In terms of Darfur, I agree it's genocide. And Colin Powell so
stated.
We have committed $200 million worth of aid. We're the leading
donor in the world to help the suffering people there. We will
commit more over time to help.
We were very much involved at the U.N. on the sanction policy
of the Bashir government in the Sudan.
Prior to Darfur, Ambassador Jack Danforth had been negotiating
a north-south agreement that we would have hoped would have
brought peace to the Sudan.
I agree with my opponent that we shouldn't be committing
troops. We ought to be working with the African Union to do so
-- precisely what we did in Liberia. We helped stabilize the
situation with some troops, and when the African Union came,
we moved them out.
My hope is that the African Union moves rapidly to help save
lives. And fortunately the rainy season will be ending
shortly, which will make it easier to get aid there and help
the long-suffering people there.
LEHRER: New question, President Bush.
Clearly, as we have heard, major policy differences between
the two of you.
Are there also underlying character issues that you believe,
that you believe are serious enough to deny Senator Kerry the
job as commander in chief of the United States?
BUSH: That's a loaded question.
Well, first of all, I admire Senator Kerry's service to our
country.
I admire the fact that he is a great dad.
I appreciate the fact that his daughters have been so kind to
my daughters in what has been a pretty hard experience for, I
guess, young girls, seeing their dads out there campaigning.
I admire the fact that he served for 20 years in the Senate.
Although I'm not so sure I admire the record.
I won't hold it against him that he went to Yale. There's
nothing wrong with that.
My concerns about the senator is that, in the course of this
campaign, I've been listening very carefully to what he says,
and he changes positions on the war in Iraq.
He changes positions on something as fundamental as what you
believe in your core, in your heart of hearts, is right in
Iraq.
You cannot lead if you send mixed messages. Mixed messages
send the wrong signals to our troops.
Mixed messages send the wrong signals to our allies. Mixed
messages send the wrong signals to the Iraqi citizens.
And that's my biggest concern about my opponent. I admire his
service. But I just know how this world works, and that in the
councils of government, there must be certainty from the U.S.
president.
Of course, we change tactics when need to, but we never change
our beliefs, the strategic beliefs that are necessary to
protect this country in the world.
LEHRER: Ninety second response, Senator.
KERRY: Well, first of all, I appreciate enormously the
personal comments the president just made. And I share them
with him.
I think only if you're doing this -- and he's done it more
than I have in terms of the presidency -- can you begin to get
a sense of what it means to your families.
And it's tough. And so I acknowledge that his daughters --
I've watched them.
I've chuckled a few times at some of their comments.
And...
BUSH: I'm trying to put a leash on them.
KERRY: Well, I know. I've learned not to do that.
And I have great respect and admiration for his wife. I think
she's a terrific person ...
BUSH: Thank you.
KERRY: ... and a great first lady.
But we do have differences. I'm not going to talk about a
difference of character. I don't think that's my job or my
business.
But let me talk about something that the president just sort
of finished up with. Maybe someone would call it a character
trait, maybe somebody wouldn't.
But this issue of certainty. It's one thing to be certain, but
you can be certain and be wrong.
It's another to be certain and be right, or to be certain and
be moving in the right direction, or be certain about a
principle and then learn new facts and take those new facts
and put them to use in order to change and get your policy
right.
What I worry about with the president is that he's not
acknowledging what's on the ground, he's not acknowledging the
realities of North Korea, he's not acknowledging the truth of
the science of stem-cell research or of global warming and
other issues.
And certainty sometimes can get you in trouble.
LEHRER: Thirty seconds.
BUSH: Well, I think -- listen, I fully agree that one should
shift tactics, and we will, in Iraq. Our commanders have got
all the flexibility to do what is necessary to succeed.
But what I won't do is change my core values because of
politics or because of pressure.
And it is one of the things I've learned in the White House,
is that there's enormous pressure on the president, and he
cannot wilt under that pressure. Otherwise, the world won't be
better off.
LEHRER: Thirty seconds.
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.
LEHRER: New question, two minutes, Senator Kerry.
If you are elected president, what will you take to that
office thinking is the single most serious threat to the
national security to the United States?
KERRY: Nuclear proliferation. Nuclear proliferation. There's
some 600-plus tons of unsecured material still in the former
Soviet Union and Russia. At the rate that the president is
currently securing it, it'll take 13 years to get it.
I did a lot of work on this. I wrote a book about it several
years ago -- six, seven years ago -- called "The New War,"
which saw the difficulties of this international criminal
network. And back then, we intercepted a suitcase in a Middle
Eastern country with nuclear materials in it. And the black
market sale price was about $250 million.
Now, there are terrorists trying to get their hands on that
stuff today.
And this president, I regret to say, has secured less nuclear
material in the last two years since 9/11 than we did in the
two years preceding 9/11.
We have to do this job. And to do the job, you can't cut the
money for it. The president actually cut the money for it. You
have to put the money into it and the funding and the
leadership.
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.
Not this president. I'm going to shut that program down, and
we're going to make it clear to the world we're serious about
containing nuclear proliferation.
And we're going to get the job of containing all of that
nuclear material in Russia done in four years. And we're going
to build the strongest international network to prevent
nuclear proliferation.
This is the scale of what President Kennedy set out to do with
the nuclear test ban treaty. It's our generation's equivalent.
And I intend to get it done.
LEHRER: Ninety seconds, Mr. President.
BUSH: Actually, we've increased 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 multiprong strategy to make the
country safer.
My administration started what's called the Proliferation
Security Initiative. Over 60 nations involved with disrupting
the trans-shipment of information and/or weapons of mass
destruction materials.
And we've been effective. We busted the A.Q. Khan network.
This was a proliferator out of Pakistan that was selling
secrets to places like North Korea and Libya. We convinced
Libya to disarm.
It's a central part of dealing with weapons of mass
destruction and proliferation.
I'll tell you another way to help protect America in the long
run is to continue with missile defenses. And we've got a
robust research and development program that has been ongoing
during my administration. We'll be implementing a missile-
defense system relatively quickly.
And that is another way to help deal with the threats that we
face in the 21st century.
My opponent opposed the missile defenses.
We must have China's leverage on [North Korean leader] Kim
Jong Il, besides ourselves. And if you enter bilateral talks,
they'll be happy to walk away from the table. I don't think
that'll work.
LEHRER: All right. Mr. President, this is the last question.
And two minutes. It's a new subject -- new question, and it
has to do with President Putin and Russia. Did you misjudge
him or are you -- do you feel that what he is doing in the
name of antiterrorism by changing some democratic processes is
OK?
BUSH: No, I don't think it's OK, and said so publicly. I think
that there needs to be checks and balances in a democracy, and
made that very clear that by consolidating power in the
central government, he's sending a signal to the Western world
and United States that perhaps he doesn't believe in checks
and balances, and I told him that.
I mean, he's also a strong ally in the war on terror. He is --
listen, they went through a horrible situation in Beslan,
where these terrorists gunned down young school kids. That's
the nature of the enemy, by the way. That's why we need to be
firm and resolve in bringing them to justice.
That's precisely what Vladimir Putin understands, as well.
I've got a good relation with Vladimir. And it's important
that we do have a good relation, because that enables me to
better comment to him, and to better to discuss with him, some
of the decisions he makes. I found that, in this world, that
it's important to establish good personal relationships with
people so that when you have disagreements, you're able to
disagree in a way that is effective.
And so I've told him my opinion.
I look forward to discussing it more with him, as time goes
on. Russia is a country in transition. Vladimir is going to
have to make some hard choices. And I think it's very
important for the American president, as well as other Western
leaders, to remind him of the great benefits of democracy,
that democracy will best help the people realize their hopes
and aspirations and dreams. And I will continue working with
him over the next four years.
LEHRER: Ninety seconds, Senator Kerry.
KERRY: Well, let me just say quickly that I've had an
extraordinary experience of watching up close and personal
that transition in Russia, because I was there right after the
transformation. And I was probably one of the first senators,
along with Senator Bob Smith of New Hampshire, a former
senator, go down into the KGB underneath Treblinka Square and
see reams of files with names in them.
It sort of brought home the transition to democracy that
Russia was trying to make.
I regret what's happened in these past months. And I think it
goes beyond just the response to terror. Mr. Putin now
controls all the television stations. His political opposition
is being put in jail.
And I think it's very important to the United States,
obviously, to have a working relationship that is good. This
is a very important country to us. We want a partnership.
But we always have to stand up for democracy. As George Will
said the other day, "Freedom on the march; not in Russia right
now."
Now, I'd like to come back for a quick moment, if I can, to
that issue about China and the talks. Because that's one of
the most critical issues here: North Korea.
Just because the president says it can't be done, that you'd
lose China, doesn't mean it can't be done. I mean, this is the
president who said "There were weapons of mass destruction,"
said "Mission accomplished," said we could fight the war on
the cheap -- none of which were true.
We could have bilateral talks with Kim Jong Il. And we can get
those weapons at the same time as we get China. Because China
has an interest in the outcome, too.
LEHRER: Thirty seconds, Mr. President.
BUSH: You know my opinion on North Korea. I can't say it any
more plainly.
LEHRER: Well, but when he used the word "truth" again ...
BUSH: Pardon me?
LEHRER: ... talking about the truth of the matter. He used the
word "truth" again. Did that raise any hackles with you?
BUSH: Oh, I'm a pretty calm guy. I don't take it personally.
LEHRER: OK. All right.
BUSH: You know, we looked at the same intelligence and came to
the same conclusion: that Saddam Hussein was a grave threat.
And I don't hold it against him that he said grave threat. I'm
not going to go around the country saying he didn't tell the
truth, when he looked at the same intelligence I did.
KERRY: It was a threat. That's not the issue. The issue is
what you do about it.
The president said he was going to build a true coalition,
exhaust the remedies of the U.N. and go to war as a last
resort.
Those words really have to mean something. And, unfortunately,
he didn't go to war as a last resort.
Now we have this incredible mess in Iraq -- $200 billion. It's
not what the American people thought they were getting when
they voted.
LEHRER: All right, that brings us to closing statements.
And, again, as determined by a coin toss, Senator Kerry, you
go first, and you have two minutes.
KERRY: Thank you, Jim, very much.
Thank you very much to the university, again.
Thank you, Mr. President.
My fellow Americans, as I've said at the very beginning of
this debate, both President Bush and I love this country very
much.
There's no doubt, I think, about that.
But we have a different set of convictions about how we make
our country stronger here at home and respected again in the
world.
I know that for many of you sitting at home, parents of kids
in Iraq, you want to know who's the person who could be a
commander in chief who could get your kids home and get the
job done and win the peace.
And for all the rest of the parents in America who are
wondering about their kids going to the school or anywhere
else in the world, what kind of world they're going to grow up
in, let me look you in the eye and say to you: I defended this
country as a young man at war, and I will defend it as
president of the United States.
But I have a difference with this president. I believe when
we're strongest when we reach out and lead the world and build
strong alliances.
I have a plan for Iraq. I believe we can be successful. I'm
not talking about leaving.
I'm talking about winning. And we need a fresh start, a new
credibility, a president who can bring allies to our side.
I also have a plan to win the war on terror, funding homeland
security, strengthening our military, cutting our finances,
reaching out to the world, again building strong alliances.
I believe America's best days are ahead of us because I
believe that the future belongs to freedom, not to fear.
That's the country that I'm going to fight for. And I ask you
to give me the opportunity to make you proud.
I ask you to give me the opportunity to lead this great
nation, so that we can be stronger here at home, respected
again in the world, and have responsible leadership that we
deserve.
Thank you. And God bless America.
LEHRER: Mr. President, two minutes.
BUSH: Thank you very much tonight, Jim. Senator.
If America shows uncertainty or weakness in this decade, the
world will drift toward tragedy. That's not going to happen,
so long as I'm your president.
The next four years we will continue to strengthen our
homeland defenses. We will strengthen our intelligence-
gathering services. We will reform our military. The military
will be an all-volunteer army.
We will continue to stay on the offense. We will fight the
terrorists around the world so we do not have to face them
here at home.
We'll continue to build our alliances. I'll never turn over
America's national security needs to leaders of other
countries, as we continue to build those alliances.
And we'll continue to spread freedom.
I believe in the transformational power of liberty. I believe
that the free Iraq is in this nation's interests.
I believe a free Afghanistan is in this nation's interest. And
I believe both a free Afghanistan and a free Iraq will serve
as a powerful example for millions who plead in silence for
liberty in the broader Middle East.
We've done a lot of hard work together over the last three and
a half years. We've been challenged, and we've risen to those
challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the
valley below, and it's a valley of peace.
By being steadfast and resolute and strong, by keeping our
word, by supporting our troops, we can achieve the peace we
all want.
I appreciate your listening tonight. I ask for your vote. And
may God continue to bless our great land.
LEHRER: And that ends tonight's debate.
A reminder, the second presidential debate will be a week from
tomorrow, October 8, from Washington University in St. Louis.
Charles Gibson of ABC News will moderate a town hall-type
event.
Then, on October 13, from Arizona State University in Tempe,
Bob Schieffer of CBS News will moderate an exchange on
domestic policy that will be similar in format to tonight's.
Also, this coming Tuesday, at Case Western Reserve University
in Cleveland, the vice presidential candidates, Vice President
[Dick] Cheney and Senator [John] Edwards, will debate with my
PBS colleague, Gwen Ifill, moderating.
For now, thank you, Senator Kerry, President Bush.
From Coral Gables, Florida, I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good
night.