Overall I think President Bush did well in the debate, but Kerry was better. Bush stayed on messsage, but Kerry was a better speaker. Bush seemed on the defensive most of the debate, and Kerry was on the attack right out of the starting blocks. If I had to pick a winner, I would say Kerry and only slightly because of his style.
The most stand out moments for me? There are a few, and they are all from Senator Kerry.
First, when Senator Kerry brought up Tora Bora as proof of the US diverting resources from Afghanstan to Iraq, and therefore letting Bin Laden escape from Tora Bora I was surprised. Troop buildup for Iraq was after Tora Bora. His exact words
“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.
….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.”
Senator Kerry might want to fire the staffer that told him troops were divertted to Iraq before/during the Tora Bora offensive and that’s why we didn’t get Bin Laden. The battle of Tora Bora took place in December 2001 and the serious troop buildup for Iraq didn’t begin until December 2002.
Second, Senator’s Kerry suggestion to give North Korea nuclear fuel to “test them” was just an assinine suggestion. Would you leave booze around the house of an alcoholic, to “test him” and see if he stopped drinking? Where’s the assurance that North Korea wouldn’t test them on their own people?
Again I give you his exact words from the transcript:
“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.”
There wasn’t a doubt that North Korea does not intend to use its nuclear program for peaceful purposes in 1992 and 1993. Why is there now? What’s different now? Oh, yes the party in the White House is different.
And finally, who could miss the glorious spectacle of Senator Kerry trying to explain his “one consistent position” on Iraq. My favorite part about this verbal maneuvering?
“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.”
Fire this staffer too, he’s wrong again. The resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq, aptly titled the resolution “To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq” (notice it was ‘use’ not ‘threaten to use’), was passed by both houses of Congress by October 11, 2002 and signed by the President on October 16, 2002. Troop buildup began in December of 2002. Where’s my calendar?
I tried to follow Senator Kerry’s “one consistent position” on Iraq. But I couldn’t make sense of it. You know what? I’m tired of trying to make sense of it. I needed graphs, and my head started to hurt. I’m a voter, he should be trying to sell me. So far, all he’s telling me is he would do better in Iraq because he’s not Bush. And that just doesn’;t do it for me.