I'll be covering the third and fourth question of tonights debate. Please hotlist this entry and provide whatever input and suggestions you have regarding these two questions tonight. We're looking for any observations that can help get out the best spin for Kerry and deflect the pro-Bush spin.
Final comment. It has been an interesting experience doing this. I believe it has been helpful. It worked pretty well, but I've certainly learned a lot too. Someone else suggested that we get together sometime to discuss lessons learned. I'm all for that.
Question 3:
- Questioner: Anthony Baldy
- Occupation:
- Other Info:
- Question: Senator Kerry, the US is preparing a new Iraq government and will proceed to withdraw US troops. Would you proceed with the same plans as President Bush?
[Kerry] 2 minute Response
Anthony, I would not. I have laid out a different plan because the presidents plan is not working, you see that every night on the television. Chaos in Iraq.
King Abdullah of Jordan said just yesterday or the day before, you can't hold elections with the chaos that is going on today
Senator Richard Lugar, the Republican head of the foreign relations committee said that the handling of the reconstruction aid has been incompetent. Those are the Republican chairman's words
Senator Haegal of Nebraska said that the handling of Iraq is beyond pitiful, beyond embarrassing, it is into the realm of dangerous.
These are the words of two Republicans bot respected on the foreign relations committee.
Now I have to tell you, I would do things differently. I would reach out to our allies in a way that this president hasn't. He pushed them away. Time and again pushed them away at the UN. Pushed them away individually.
Two weeks ago there was a meeting of the North Atlantic Council, the political arm of NATO. They discussed the possibility of a small training unit or the complete takeover of training in Iraq. Did our administration push for the total training of Iraq? No. Were they silent? Yes. Was there an effort to bring all the allies around that? No. Because they've always wanted this to be an American effort.
They even had the Defense Department issue a memorandum saying don't bother applying to be part of the reconstruction if you weren't part of the original coalition. Now that's not a good way to build support for our troops and make American safer.
I'm going to get the training done for our troops. I'm going to get the training of Iraqi's done faster and I'm going to get our allies back to the table.
[Bush] 1 1/2 minute Rebuttal
Two days ago in the Oval Office I met with the finance minister from Iraq. He talked about how optimistic he was, and the country was, about heading toward elections. Think about it, they're going from tyranny to elections. He talked about the reconstruction efforts that are beginning to take hold. He talked about the fact that Iraqis love to be free. He said he was optimistic when he came, then he turned on the TV and listened to the political rhetoric and suddenly he was pessimistic. there is a guy taking great risks, along with others, for freedom. We need to stand with him.
My opponent says he has a plan. It sounds familiar cause it's called the Bush Plan. We're going to train troops and we are. We're going to have 125,000 by the end of December. We're going to spend about $7 billion.
He talked about a grand idea. Let's have a summit. We're going to solve the problems in Iraq by holding a summit. What is he going to tell those people who show up to the summit. Join me in the wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place. Risk your troops in a war you call a mistake.
Nobody is going to follow somebody who doesn't believe we an succeed and somebody who says the war where we are is a mistake.
I know how these people think. I meet with them all the time. I talk to Tony Blair all the time. I talk to Silvio Berlis... they're not going to follow an American President who says follow me into a mistake.
Our plan is working. we're going to make elections and Iraq is going to be free. And America will better off for it.
[Kerry] 30 second extended discussion
Ladies and Gentlemen, the right war was Ossama bin Laden and Afghanistan. That was the right place and the right time was Tora Bora when we had him cornered in the mountains. Now everyone in the world knows that there were no WMDs. That was the reason that congress have him the authority to use force. Not after excuses to get rid of the regime. Now we have to succeed. I've always said that. I have been consistent. Yes we have to succeed and I have a better plan to help us do it.
[Bush] 30 second extended discussion
First of all we didn't find out he didn't have weapons until we got there. My opponent thought he had weapons and told everybody he thought he had weapons.
Secondly, it is a fundamental misunderstanding to say that the war on terror is only Ossama bin Laden. the war on terror is to make sure that these terrorist organizations do not end up with WMD. That's what the war on terror is about. Of course we're going to find Ossama bin Laden. We've already got 75% if gus people. And we're on a hunt for him. but this is a global conflict that requires firm resolve.
[8051FSW]My comments
Bush says reconstruction is beginning to take hold.
There is a talking point or two here
1. the reconstruction seems to be perpetually 'beginning to take hold' but never quite actually taking hold
2. why is the reconstruction only beginning to take hold 18 months after the invasion
Bush never addresses the list of prominent people who think the situation in Iraq is impossible and shows incompetence. This is kind of incredible. The president is called incompetent by his opponent who is quoting a leader of the presidents party and he has nothing direct to say to the charge. That is striking.
Note that the 75% of all al Qaeda leaders (a dubious claim already) has become 75% of bin Laden's people.
Actually there were a lot of charges made by Kerry that Bush never addressed. Also, it is clear that Kerry once again got under Bush's skin.
Question 4:
- Questioner: Nikki Washington
- Occupation:
- Other Info:
- Question: My mother and sister traveled abroad this summer. When the got back they talked to us about the intensity of aggravation that other countries had with how we handled the Iraq situation. Diplomacy is obviously something that we really have to work on. What is your plan to repair relations with other countries given the situation?
[Bush] 2 minute Response
No, I appreciate that. I — listen, I — we've got a great country. I love our values. And I recognize I've made some decisions that have caused people to not understand the great values of our country.
I remember when Ronald Reagan was the president; he stood on principle. Somebody called that stubborn. He stood on principle standing up to the Soviet Union, and we won that conflict. Yet at the same time, he was very — we were very unpopular in Europe because of the decisions he made.
I recognize that taking Saddam Hussein out was unpopular. But I made the decision because I thought it was in the right interests of our security.
You know, I've made some decisions on Israel that's unpopular. I wouldn't deal with Arafat, because I felt like he had let the former president down, and I don't think he's the kind of person that can lead toward a Palestinian state.
And people in Europe didn't like that decision. And that was unpopular, but it was the right thing to do.
I believe Palestinians ought to have a state, but I know they need leadership that's committed to a democracy and freedom, leadership that would be willing to reject terrorism.
I made a decision not to join the International Criminal Court in The Hague, which is where our troops could be brought to — brought in front of a judge, an unaccounted judge.
I don't think we ought to join that. That was unpopular.
And so, what I'm telling you is, is that sometimes in this world you make unpopular decisions because you think they're right.
We'll continue to reach out.
Listen, there is 30 nations involved in Iraq, some 40 nations involved in Afghanistan.
People love America. Sometimes they don't like the decisions made by America, but I don't think you want a president who tries to become popular and does the wrong thing.
You don't want to join the International Criminal Court just because it's popular in certain capitals in Europe.
Bush thinks we have a great country with great values and he loves it. He knows that he has made unpopular decisions but says that they were based on principals and he will always stand on his principals. He compares himself to Reagan in this regard (standing on principals). He gives a list of unpopular decisions that he has made Iraq, some issues with Israel, not dealing with Arafat, the ICC. Repeats himself that they are based on principals. He does not say, however, what he would do to improve relations with these countries, which was in fact the question.
[Kerry] 1 1/2 minute Rebuttal
Nikki, that's a question that's been raised by a lot of people around the country.
Let me address it but also talk about the weapons the president just talked about, because every part of the president's answer just now promises you more of the same over the next four years.
The president stood right here in this hall four years ago, and he was asked a question by somebody just like you, "Under what circumstances would you send people to war?"
And his answer was, "With a viable exit strategy and only with enough forces to get the job done."
He didn't do that. He broke that promise. We didn't have enough forces.
General Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, told him he was going to need several hundred thousand. And guess what? They retired General Shinseki for telling him that.
This president hasn't listened.
I went to meet with the members of the Security Council in the week before we voted. I went to New York. I talked to all of them to find out how serious they were about really holding Saddam Hussein accountable.
I came away convinced that, if we worked at it, if we were ready to work and letting Hans Blix do his job and thoroughly go through the inspections, that if push came to shove, they'd be there with us.
But the president just arbitrarily brought the hammer down and said, "Nope. Sorry, time for diplomacy is over. We're going."
He rushed to war without a plan to win the peace.
Ladies and gentleman, he gave you a speech and told you he'd plan carefully, take every precaution, take our allies with us. He didn't. He broke his word.
[Bush] 30 second extended discussion
I remember sitting in the White House looking at those generals, saying, "Do you have what you need in this war? Do you have what it takes?"
I remember going down to the basement of the White House the day we committed our troops as last resort, looking at Tommy Franks and the generals on the ground, asking them, "Do we have the right plan with the right troop level?"
And they looked me in the eye and said, "Yes, sir, Mr. President." Of course, I listen to our generals. That's what a president does. A president sets the strategy and relies upon good military people to execute that strategy.
[Kerry] 30 second extended discussion
You rely on good military people to execute the military component of the strategy, but winning the peace is larger than just the military component.
General Shinseki had the wisdom to say, "You're going to need several hundred thousand troops to win the peace." The military's job is to win the war.
A president's job is to win the peace.
The president did not do what was necessary. Didn't bring in enough nation. Didn't deliver the help. Didn't close off the borders. Didn't even guard the ammo dumps. And now our kids are being killed with ammos right out of that dump.
[8051FSW]My comments
Bush does not answer the question. He never says what will be done to repair the alliances, he offers no suggestion of an olive branch to relieve the aggrivation. He simply asserts that he is standing on principal.
Also, it strikes me that his description of this as a matter of popularity is childish. These other countries had substantive objections to our policy. Dismissing it as a matter of "popularity" is the sort of thing that has caused the problem.
Kerry is being very strong and indeed harsh with Bush, but in a cool and composed way that doesn't come across as nasty. He is doing a very good job.
In Bush's 30-second response he basically said that he asked the generals if they had what they needed. This response was basically to blame the military and does not take responsibilty himself. Also, he is clearly angry. Kerry has again gotten under Bush's skin
In his 30-second response Kerry's tone is a bit angry but he's still cool and forceful. It was a beautiful, forceful and tough response by him.