By: Mary Mostert, Analyst, Banner of Liberty (www.bannerofliberty.com)
October 5, 2004
The first debate between President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry released a torrent of punditry that in effect centered around one question – who would make the better leader of America and the world? We’ve been told that Kerry “looked more presidential” than the more informal George W. Bush. Kerry himself addressed the issue when Jim Lehrer asked 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’s response took some considerable re-reading of his response to figure out what in the world his answer to that question actually was. First he said:
“No, and they don't have to, providing we have the leadership that we put -- that I'm offering.”
Apparently, from that sentence, he said that under Bush’s leadership it was not “for a mistake” that US soldiers died in Iraq, but that if we elect John Kerry it WOULD be “for a mistake” if any MORE soldiers died in Iraq. However, Kerry went on to counter what he had just said with:
“He (Bush) 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.’ 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 Shinseki, 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.”
The so-called “terrorism czar” is obviously a reference to Richard Clarke, whose field is cyber terrorism, was in Clinton’s National Security Council. In 1993 the first WTC attack took place and 18 US soldiers were killed by al-Qaeda Somalia. In 1996 al-Qaeda terrorists blew up the Khobar Towers killing 19 American soldiers. In 1998 US embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya were bombed and in 2000 al-Qaeda terrorists killed 17 and injured 39 in a terrorist attack on he USS Cole. By 1998 Richard Clarke was the “terrorism czar” praised by Kerry and the only response under Clinton and Clarke were a few missiles that took out a pharmaceutical company in the Sudan and a vacant training camp in Afghanistan. There was no international cooperation, no summits to address the growing terrorism capability of al-Qaeda.
Kerry said that the president promised in a speech in Cincinnati to "plan carefully. We will proceed cautiously. We will not make war inevitable. We will go with our allies." In the next sentence Kerry accused the president of doing NO planning but that he “left the planning of the State Department in the State Department desks.” Furthermore, Kerry said the President Bush “avoided even the advice of their own general. General Shinseki, the Army chief of staff” who said that to invade several hundred thousand troops would be needed.
Let’s examine that retort for a moment. Bush wanted to plan carefully and proceed cautiously and Kerry criticizes him because Bush tried diplomacy first through Colin Powell’s State Department? When Saddam ignored Bush and the United Nations, General Franks, with about a third of the troops Shinseki recommended, captured Bagdad and ousted Saddam Hussein, freeing 30 million people in a matter of days. To me that suggests that Bush was right and Shinseki was wrong.
Kerry went on to say:
“And what we need now is a president who understands how to bring these other countries together to recognize their stakes in this. … 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.”
Near the end of the debate, Jim Lehrer asked the President, “Do you believe that diplomacy and sanctions can resolve the nuclear problems with North Korea and Iran?” President Bush responded with:
“North Korea, first, I do” and “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.”
Kerry began a meandering attack on the President which Lehrer interrupted by asking:
“I want to make sure that we understand -- the people watching understand the differences between the two of you on this. (to Bush) You want to continue the multinational talks, correct?”BUSH: Right.
LEHRER: (to Kerry) 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 issues and the nuclear issues on the table.
LEHRER: (to Bush) And you're opposed to that. Right?
BUSH: The minute we have bilateral talks, the six-party talks will unwind.
In another exchange, Bush and Kerry agreed that the president has the right to wage a preemptive war, however Kerry qualified his approval by saying:
“…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.”
Bush responded with:
“My attitude is you take preemptive action in order to protect the American people, that you act in order to make this country secure.”
Those answers reveal a fundamental difference in leadership capability between the two men. Kerry believes an American president’s #1 goal is to obtain the approval of the United Nations. Bush believes as President his #1 goal is to protect the American people.
In a world of nuclear weapons, hatred and terrorists should an American president “bring other countries together” by ignoring threats to America or waiting until it is too late?
To Comment: Mary Mostert