I'd like to see what the Kos community thinks Kerry should say in Debate #1, and how he should say it. My thoughts follow, but I think he has to start off by making it clear
why it's important to hold a President --
any President -- accountable. If one thing's become obvious, it's this: millions of people really don't understand what's involved in a vital, well-functioning democracy: Kerry needs to take a moment to tell them... Otherwise he'll be seen as strident and negative, and Bush can coast to victory looking Presidential...
...folks need to be reminded (or told for the first time) that asking the President tough questions is
not unpatriotic. It's not rude. It's
essential to helping citizens make an intelligent decision about who should
work for them as President.
"CEOs hold their employees accountable. Parents hold their kids accountable. Why should the President be the only person in America that gets a free pass? So something like:
"Tonight, it's my job to tell you, straight up, how I'll govern this country. Exactly what my priorities are. How I'll lead. But that's not all. There's something else I need to do, too. And it won't be easy. I need to make sure President Bush gives you some straight answers.
"When Americans go to war, they're fighting for something very precious: the American way of life. In our democracy, everyone gets a say, everyone's voice matters, and everyone should get the information they need to decide for themselves.
"But if that's going to work, our leaders have to be ready to answer tough questions. Everyone must be accountable. Including the President. Especially the President. George Bush makes it almost impossible to hold him accountable. He hardly ever holds press conferences. If you're a regular citizen, you don't get to ask him a question unless you promise you already support him.
"Tonight, though, we finally have our chance. I intend to ask him some of the questions you might ask if you were here. Just like you, I can't wait to hear what he has to say."
Iraq:
You like to say you gave the military everything they asked for in Iraq. But the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff testified before Congress that he would need several hundred thousand troops to keep the peace in Iraq after the war. You didn't just ignore him. You forced him into retirement. You and Donald Rumsfeld knew exactly how you wanted to run this war, and you did it exactly the way you wanted. He was right. You were wrong. So, today, I ask you: Why did you ignore General Shinseki?
Your decisions in Iraq have damaged our military so badly it will take years to repair. And, as a result, we're far less safe than we ought to be. Here's just one example. Korea is one of the most dangerous places on Earth, Mr. President, yet you're pulling half our troops out, because there just aren't any to spare. They're all stuck in Iraq. Mr. President, how can you justifying showing weakness to the dictator of North Korea, when you know that weakness will only encourage him?
Mr. President, we're taking people in their 50s -- people who haven't served in the military in years, even decades -- and we're telling them, you have to come back and serve in Iraq. Mr. President, with a little planning, you wouldn't have had to rip these people away from their lives. Why didn't you do that planning?
Terrorism:
"You can be forgiven for ignoring the warning signs that something like 9/11 was going to happen. Only the very wisest of Americans, people like Richard Clarke, could see what was coming. And you did have other priorities in the Summer of 2001... you were trying to get your tax cuts through... But I do have some questions about what you've done since 9/11...
"After 9/11, you sent Special Forces troops into Afghanistan to search for Osama Bin Laden. That was a great decision. But then you pulled many of them out just a few months later, so you could send them to Iraq. Why did you do that?
"Mr. President, why are there fewer people in the CIA searching for Bin Laden today than there were before 9/11? Why won't you give the brave Americans who are still searching for Bin Laden the support they deserve?
"Mr. President, you know that the Al-Qaeda manual tells terrorists to come to the U.S. to buy high-powered weapons. Even most gun owners think they shouldn't be able to do that. Yet you let the assault weapons ban end. You lead the party that controls both houses of Congress. You could have used your influence to stop that. But you chose not to. Now, it's easier for terrorists to get these weapons right here in the U.S. You didn't lift a finger to prevent it. Why?
"Mr. President, you know this country has hundreds of extremely dangerous chemical plants. After 9/11, your own EPA wanted to set rules to make sure those plants were protected against terrorism. But you made them stop. You said the chemical companies should go ahead and fix whatever they felt like, voluntarily.
"Some people say it's because the chemical industry has contributed millions of dollars to your campaigns. But I can't believe a President would put the interests of a few chemical companies ahead of the safety of millions of citizens. So if you didn't do it for your contributors, why did you do it?
"Mr. President, three years after 9/11, 95% of the containers that come into this country still aren't inspected. Why is that? Shouldn't we be doing better than that, Mr. President?
Deficits
Your deficits are damaging our national security, Mr. President. Who's lending us the money to pay for them? Other countries. Like, for instance, China. The more we owe them, the more dependent we become. One day, they might just stop lending. Ask the people in Argentina what happens when that day comes: millions of people could find themselves out of work in days.
What happens when we disagree with one of our creditors over a matter of national security, and they decide to stop lending us money? What happens then, Mr. President? Have you thought about that? What's your contingency plan?
More to follow, but I'd sure welcome yours. Thanks!