Bush vs Kerry: Presidential Debates part one
The first round of the Presidential debates occurred this evening between Senator John Kerry and President George W. Bush. Overall, I think the debate was well organized and both candidates had some strong and weak points.
Bush seemed to be concerned with delivering a short, concise message: that we cannot be intimidated by terrorism, and that we must hold steadfast and continue along that path. John Kerry, while he agreed that we must continue the job, repeatedly cited that President Bush did not go into Iraq in the most effective manner. That he would have been far more diplomatic and would have passed the “global test” before taking preemptive action. Bush’s rebuttal was lucid, concise and to the point. He mentioned that Kerry saw the same intelligence reports that Bush and his administration and the United Nations had all seen. He mentioned that Kerry was in agreement, along with the rest of the world—Saddam Hussein was a threat that had to be reckoned with. The difference being that Kerry, in Bush’s perspective, would have deferred to the global population to tell him when he could protect America. I really think this lost the debate for Kerry.
Although Bush seemed to run out of material given his simple message, I believe that Bush had the upper hand here. I do think that Kerry utilized a brilliant spin tactic in his use of the word “outsourcing” in regards to our actions in Afghanistan. The Bush administration chose to use Afghani “war mongers” instead of our best military—given our military was invading Iraq at the time. Given the current issues with Halliburton, outsourcing has become a critical issue and I think that, while Kerry did not specifically say anything about this, people will hear the word and associate the negative idea.
Concerning the issue of invading Iraq, however, Bush seemed to be very clear in his reasoning as to why he decided to take preemptive action. I think the fact that Saddam had for so long gone against U.N. regulations, only furthers the reasoning behind our President’s decision. Instead of allowing him to grow stronger and stronger, Bush decided to take action. Kerry’s only response was that Saddam would not have grown stronger, that two-thirds of Iraq was a no fly zone and so on. However, I think it is quite clear that he had been gaining control and gaining support over the years, and would have definitely gotten stronger had we allowed him to break U.N. regulations yet again.
Unfortunately for Kerry, while he continues to negatively critique the President’s “plan” in Iraq, he never actually told the American people—in this debate or otherwise—exactly what his plan would be. Bush outlined his simply: we will train the Iraqis to defend themselves, garner support from foreign countries and at some point pull out. Kerry’s “plan,” though left unstated, seems to be something of the nature of alienating our allies by criticizing their involvement, alienating our troops and the American people by telling them this is the “wrong war, wrong place wrong time,” and letting the terrorists know that Iraq is the last place we want to be. Bush gave a very emotive response to all of this—and an important response indeed. He stated that this was the way to not have victory.
Kerry even criticized Bush for his tax cuts, telling us that instead of cutting taxes that money could have been used for Homeland Security; that Bush had not spent enough protecting our nation. Yet Bush has spent thirty-five percent more during his campaign on Homeland Security by strengthening our borders, changing the “culture” of the F.B.I and intelligence departments, and initiating programs like the Patriot Act in order to allow law enforcement to better engage domestic terrorism.
And to digress from the war on Iraq for a moment, certain issues like Iran and North Korea were touched on as well. Bush is adamant on not letting nuclear weapons being produced in Iran; however, Kerry’s standpoint is that we should allow Iran to create this pseudo-global warming prevention experiment, as if they were not really using this to produce nuclear weapons. This sort of behavior is what got us in the situation we are in now. As far as North Korea is concerned, it was a clear draw between the two candidates. I don’t think this issue has been resolved enough for me to comment on it.
Speaking of nuclear weapons, Kerry also asserted that he would cut all domestic funding of our own weapons, in order to ensure the proliferation of all nuclear weapons. The idea that we should cut off our military technology is a stance I would not take. I am somewhat surprised that Bush did not comment on this.
Ultimately, I think that, while Kerry was calm and articulate and refined, he was also uninformed, scattered, and problematic. Bush delivered a simple message and he delivered it well. He showed the clear problems with Kerry’s ideas and, further, that his ideas were insufficient. He has yet to give a clear, concise and obvious plan for his administration. And the promises that he makes are laughable and “absurd,” as Bush stated.
Bush seemed to be concerned with delivering a short, concise message: that we cannot be intimidated by terrorism, and that we must hold steadfast and continue along that path. John Kerry, while he agreed that we must continue the job, repeatedly cited that President Bush did not go into Iraq in the most effective manner. That he would have been far more diplomatic and would have passed the “global test” before taking preemptive action. Bush’s rebuttal was lucid, concise and to the point. He mentioned that Kerry saw the same intelligence reports that Bush and his administration and the United Nations had all seen. He mentioned that Kerry was in agreement, along with the rest of the world—Saddam Hussein was a threat that had to be reckoned with. The difference being that Kerry, in Bush’s perspective, would have deferred to the global population to tell him when he could protect America. I really think this lost the debate for Kerry.
Although Bush seemed to run out of material given his simple message, I believe that Bush had the upper hand here. I do think that Kerry utilized a brilliant spin tactic in his use of the word “outsourcing” in regards to our actions in Afghanistan. The Bush administration chose to use Afghani “war mongers” instead of our best military—given our military was invading Iraq at the time. Given the current issues with Halliburton, outsourcing has become a critical issue and I think that, while Kerry did not specifically say anything about this, people will hear the word and associate the negative idea.
Concerning the issue of invading Iraq, however, Bush seemed to be very clear in his reasoning as to why he decided to take preemptive action. I think the fact that Saddam had for so long gone against U.N. regulations, only furthers the reasoning behind our President’s decision. Instead of allowing him to grow stronger and stronger, Bush decided to take action. Kerry’s only response was that Saddam would not have grown stronger, that two-thirds of Iraq was a no fly zone and so on. However, I think it is quite clear that he had been gaining control and gaining support over the years, and would have definitely gotten stronger had we allowed him to break U.N. regulations yet again.
Unfortunately for Kerry, while he continues to negatively critique the President’s “plan” in Iraq, he never actually told the American people—in this debate or otherwise—exactly what his plan would be. Bush outlined his simply: we will train the Iraqis to defend themselves, garner support from foreign countries and at some point pull out. Kerry’s “plan,” though left unstated, seems to be something of the nature of alienating our allies by criticizing their involvement, alienating our troops and the American people by telling them this is the “wrong war, wrong place wrong time,” and letting the terrorists know that Iraq is the last place we want to be. Bush gave a very emotive response to all of this—and an important response indeed. He stated that this was the way to not have victory.
Kerry even criticized Bush for his tax cuts, telling us that instead of cutting taxes that money could have been used for Homeland Security; that Bush had not spent enough protecting our nation. Yet Bush has spent thirty-five percent more during his campaign on Homeland Security by strengthening our borders, changing the “culture” of the F.B.I and intelligence departments, and initiating programs like the Patriot Act in order to allow law enforcement to better engage domestic terrorism.
And to digress from the war on Iraq for a moment, certain issues like Iran and North Korea were touched on as well. Bush is adamant on not letting nuclear weapons being produced in Iran; however, Kerry’s standpoint is that we should allow Iran to create this pseudo-global warming prevention experiment, as if they were not really using this to produce nuclear weapons. This sort of behavior is what got us in the situation we are in now. As far as North Korea is concerned, it was a clear draw between the two candidates. I don’t think this issue has been resolved enough for me to comment on it.
Speaking of nuclear weapons, Kerry also asserted that he would cut all domestic funding of our own weapons, in order to ensure the proliferation of all nuclear weapons. The idea that we should cut off our military technology is a stance I would not take. I am somewhat surprised that Bush did not comment on this.
Ultimately, I think that, while Kerry was calm and articulate and refined, he was also uninformed, scattered, and problematic. Bush delivered a simple message and he delivered it well. He showed the clear problems with Kerry’s ideas and, further, that his ideas were insufficient. He has yet to give a clear, concise and obvious plan for his administration. And the promises that he makes are laughable and “absurd,” as Bush stated.
¶ Blogged at 10:55 PM - Linkback - Talkback (6) - 
Hi! My name's Adam Donaghey and this is my weblog. 
The Abductors (producer)
