The Derelict
04-10-2004, 18:42
Bush vs. Kerry: Their Foreign Policy Debate
Written by Joe Mariani
Sunday, October 03, 2004
To put it simply, John Kerry won the September 30 debate with President Bush on style, but lost on substance. Kerry supporters are gushing about how ''he looked so presidential,'' as though posing for a White House photo op will strike fear into the hearts of terrorists around the globe. Maybe Kerry could audition for a spot on ''The West Wing,'' but not in it. Real life isn't a TV show; talking points don't keep the country safe.
Despite the questions that were hopelessly biased against him, President Bush showed the same determination that he has for nearly four years, although he was apparently annoyed when listening to Kerry's relentless negativity, vague assurances, fact-twisting, attacks on Bush's character, and misrepresentations. If Bush seemed disgusted when Kerry lauded his own Vietnam war protest activities--calling the war a hopeless quagmire being fought for illegal reasons and lies, the same as he is doing to Iraq today--well, so was I. Just goes to show that Bush is human, too.
The first question that moderator Jim Lehrer of PBS asked Kerry was, ''Do you believe you could do a better job than President Bush in preventing another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States?'' Lehrer's first question to Bush, on the other hand, was, ''Do you believe the election of Senator Kerry on November 2 would increase the chances of the U.S. being hit by another 9/11-type terrorist attack?'' The way the questions were worded allowed Kerry to begin on a positive note, while forcing Bush to begin on a negative note. Remember that Lehrer's idea of commentary on the Ronald Reagan tribute at the GOP convention was reciting the liberal talking points against ''Reaganomics'' by way of rebuttal.
His questions during the 2000 presidential debates were also left-leaning. Lehrer continued to toss challenging questions at John Kerry like ''What colossal misjudgments, in your opinion, has President Bush made in these areas?'' and ''Are Americans now dying in Iraq for a mistake?''--effectively setting Kerry up to pound his talking points. Stores like the Sports Authority had better take note -- they need to restock on softballs. Bush, on the other hand, continued to get questions like, ''What criteria would you use to determine when to start bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq?'' and ''You have said there was a, quote, ''miscalculation,'' of what the conditions would be in post-war Iraq. What was the miscalculation, and how did it happen?'' Is it any wonder President Bush spent the entire debate on the defensive? He was debating two opponents--Senator Kerry and Jim Lehrer!
What points Kerry did make reeked of September 10th Clintonian-appeasement. His answer to North Korea's breaking of the 1994 agreement not to pursue nuclear weapons? He blamed it on Bush, although (to the best of my recollection) Bush was not the president in the mid-1990's, when the agreement was broken.
After Bush's tough diplomatic work to bring more nations into multilateral talks with Kim Jong Il, Kerry now wants to hold bilateral talks with North Korea. Perhaps we can sign a new agreement, just like 1994. By the time we discover that they've broken that too, Kerry will be safely out of office. President Bush had to waste his time correcting Kerry's facts on North Korea. ''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.'' Clinton's grand idea was to give North Korea nuclear fuel to test them, to see whether they used it for peaceful purposes, and it failed miserably, and they secretly built nukes. Now Kerry wants to make the same deal with Iran! Kerry wants to ''provide the nuclear fuel, test them, see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes.'' News flash: by the time you know they've built the Bomb, it's already too late. It's not likely they'll enrich the uranium out in the open with a neon sign saying ''Welcome to the Illegal Uranium Enrichment Project.''
Again and again, Kerry rephrased his new position that Iraq is ''the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time,'' and ''a diversion,'' even though he has agreed many times that Saddam was a danger, and that the world is better off without him in power. Taking casualties is ''wrong.'' Using Afghanis to hunt terrorists in Afghanistan is ''wrong.'' Bush disarming Saddam was ''wrong.'' Not subjecting Americans to an international court is ''wrong.'' Everything is ''going wrong.'' Yet Kerry still insists that he can get more foreign countries to send troops there to take the place of American soldiers. Bush did make a good point there, asking, ''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?' ''Kerry had better be a lot more persuasive in French and German than he is in English, especially since France and Germany have said unequivocally that there is no chance of them doing so. ''The French and German governments have made [it] clear that sending troops is out of the question,'' stated the Los Angeles Times in August 2004. This was more than a month ago, back when Kerry was certain that ''he could substantially reduce the number of U.S. troops within the first six months of a Kerry administration.''
Kerry continues to insult and deride our true allies, the 46 countries that DID join us in Iraq, as ''a trumped-up, so-called coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought and the extorted.'' Kerry claims that Bush could have gotten a ''grand coalition'' together if he'd been willing 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?' '' Well, who's talking about putting together a ''coalition of the bribed'' now? When Kerry's not insulting them, he's trying to scare away our key allies, which would please the terrorists we're fighting no end. Kerry's own sister visited Australia to warn them that they're a target for terrorist attacks. She said the United States is ''endangering the Australians now'' by the liberation of Iraq.
Kerry's answer to all foreign policy problems is to get a pat on the head from other countries, but obviously not the countries that helped us in Iraq. They're not a real enough coalition, not a grand enough alliance. Can you guess which countries (that sent no troops to Iraq) get to grade the ''global test'' Kerry said we must pass before defending ourselves? Kerry would ask for approval before preventing another country--say, Iran--from acquiring weapons of mass destruction, weapons that they could give terrorists to use against us. Which countries would he ask before launching a preemptive strike (which Kerry agreed that the President ''always had the right'' to use) to defend ourselves?
And what would he do if they say ''non'' again?
Written by Joe Mariani
Sunday, October 03, 2004
To put it simply, John Kerry won the September 30 debate with President Bush on style, but lost on substance. Kerry supporters are gushing about how ''he looked so presidential,'' as though posing for a White House photo op will strike fear into the hearts of terrorists around the globe. Maybe Kerry could audition for a spot on ''The West Wing,'' but not in it. Real life isn't a TV show; talking points don't keep the country safe.
Despite the questions that were hopelessly biased against him, President Bush showed the same determination that he has for nearly four years, although he was apparently annoyed when listening to Kerry's relentless negativity, vague assurances, fact-twisting, attacks on Bush's character, and misrepresentations. If Bush seemed disgusted when Kerry lauded his own Vietnam war protest activities--calling the war a hopeless quagmire being fought for illegal reasons and lies, the same as he is doing to Iraq today--well, so was I. Just goes to show that Bush is human, too.
The first question that moderator Jim Lehrer of PBS asked Kerry was, ''Do you believe you could do a better job than President Bush in preventing another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States?'' Lehrer's first question to Bush, on the other hand, was, ''Do you believe the election of Senator Kerry on November 2 would increase the chances of the U.S. being hit by another 9/11-type terrorist attack?'' The way the questions were worded allowed Kerry to begin on a positive note, while forcing Bush to begin on a negative note. Remember that Lehrer's idea of commentary on the Ronald Reagan tribute at the GOP convention was reciting the liberal talking points against ''Reaganomics'' by way of rebuttal.
His questions during the 2000 presidential debates were also left-leaning. Lehrer continued to toss challenging questions at John Kerry like ''What colossal misjudgments, in your opinion, has President Bush made in these areas?'' and ''Are Americans now dying in Iraq for a mistake?''--effectively setting Kerry up to pound his talking points. Stores like the Sports Authority had better take note -- they need to restock on softballs. Bush, on the other hand, continued to get questions like, ''What criteria would you use to determine when to start bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq?'' and ''You have said there was a, quote, ''miscalculation,'' of what the conditions would be in post-war Iraq. What was the miscalculation, and how did it happen?'' Is it any wonder President Bush spent the entire debate on the defensive? He was debating two opponents--Senator Kerry and Jim Lehrer!
What points Kerry did make reeked of September 10th Clintonian-appeasement. His answer to North Korea's breaking of the 1994 agreement not to pursue nuclear weapons? He blamed it on Bush, although (to the best of my recollection) Bush was not the president in the mid-1990's, when the agreement was broken.
After Bush's tough diplomatic work to bring more nations into multilateral talks with Kim Jong Il, Kerry now wants to hold bilateral talks with North Korea. Perhaps we can sign a new agreement, just like 1994. By the time we discover that they've broken that too, Kerry will be safely out of office. President Bush had to waste his time correcting Kerry's facts on North Korea. ''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.'' Clinton's grand idea was to give North Korea nuclear fuel to test them, to see whether they used it for peaceful purposes, and it failed miserably, and they secretly built nukes. Now Kerry wants to make the same deal with Iran! Kerry wants to ''provide the nuclear fuel, test them, see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes.'' News flash: by the time you know they've built the Bomb, it's already too late. It's not likely they'll enrich the uranium out in the open with a neon sign saying ''Welcome to the Illegal Uranium Enrichment Project.''
Again and again, Kerry rephrased his new position that Iraq is ''the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time,'' and ''a diversion,'' even though he has agreed many times that Saddam was a danger, and that the world is better off without him in power. Taking casualties is ''wrong.'' Using Afghanis to hunt terrorists in Afghanistan is ''wrong.'' Bush disarming Saddam was ''wrong.'' Not subjecting Americans to an international court is ''wrong.'' Everything is ''going wrong.'' Yet Kerry still insists that he can get more foreign countries to send troops there to take the place of American soldiers. Bush did make a good point there, asking, ''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?' ''Kerry had better be a lot more persuasive in French and German than he is in English, especially since France and Germany have said unequivocally that there is no chance of them doing so. ''The French and German governments have made [it] clear that sending troops is out of the question,'' stated the Los Angeles Times in August 2004. This was more than a month ago, back when Kerry was certain that ''he could substantially reduce the number of U.S. troops within the first six months of a Kerry administration.''
Kerry continues to insult and deride our true allies, the 46 countries that DID join us in Iraq, as ''a trumped-up, so-called coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought and the extorted.'' Kerry claims that Bush could have gotten a ''grand coalition'' together if he'd been willing 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?' '' Well, who's talking about putting together a ''coalition of the bribed'' now? When Kerry's not insulting them, he's trying to scare away our key allies, which would please the terrorists we're fighting no end. Kerry's own sister visited Australia to warn them that they're a target for terrorist attacks. She said the United States is ''endangering the Australians now'' by the liberation of Iraq.
Kerry's answer to all foreign policy problems is to get a pat on the head from other countries, but obviously not the countries that helped us in Iraq. They're not a real enough coalition, not a grand enough alliance. Can you guess which countries (that sent no troops to Iraq) get to grade the ''global test'' Kerry said we must pass before defending ourselves? Kerry would ask for approval before preventing another country--say, Iran--from acquiring weapons of mass destruction, weapons that they could give terrorists to use against us. Which countries would he ask before launching a preemptive strike (which Kerry agreed that the President ''always had the right'' to use) to defend ourselves?
And what would he do if they say ''non'' again?