*********************
Presidential Debate, Oct. 13
Tempe, Ariz. (Arizona State University)
Participants: George W. Bush, John Kerry
Moderator: Bob Schieffer, CBS
Topic: Domestic policy
A transcript of the debate as transcribed by e-Media Millworks, Inc.
Note the topic: Domestic policy. Bets on the first to speak also being the first to wander off into Iraq or the war?
SCHIEFFER: Gentleman, welcome to you both.
By coin toss, the first question goes to Senator Kerry.
Senator, I want to set the stage for this discussion by asking the question that I think hangs over all of our politics today and is probably on the minds of many people watching this debate tonight.
And that is, will our children and grandchildren ever live in a world as safe and secure as the world in which we grew up?
Ha. I bet you didn’t think I meant the moderator. Everybody drinks.
KERRY: Well, first of all, Bob, thank you for moderating tonight.
Thank you, Arizona State, for welcoming us.
And thank you to the Presidential Commission for undertaking this enormous task. We're proud to be here.
Mr. President, I'm glad to be here with you again to share similarities and differences with the American people.
Will we ever be safe and secure again? Yes. We absolutely must be. That's the goal.
Now, how do we achieve it is the most critical component of it.
I believe that this president, regrettably, rushed us into a war, made decisions about foreign policy, pushed alliances away. And, as a result, America is now bearing this extraordinary burden where we are not as safe as we ought to be.
Potentially controversial right off the bat. The Iraq war didn’t cause terrorism. That said, doves are banking on the idea that the ranks of Al Quaida are swelling because of mid-East resentment of the war, and that terrorist attacks are inevitable because of the war. On the other hand, there haven’t been more terrorist attacks on US soil since 9-11. Hawks would say that proves the effectiveness of the response, rather than the converse.
The measurement is not: Are we safer? The measurement is: Are we as safe as we ought to be?
Actually, I believe the question was whether we’d ever be safe again. He’d have done better to tie that in: the question is not whether we’ll ever be safe again, but are we as safe as we should be right now? Oh well.
And there are a host of options that this president had available to him, like making sure that at all our ports in America containers are inspected. Only 95 percent of them – 95 percent come in today uninspected. That's not good enough.
Okay, this is a bit bogus, according to this article:
This claim ignores that the manifests of all U.S.-bound cargo are screened before they reach American ports and all high-risk cargo is identified. U.S. officials then physically inspect the high-risk cargo — which accounts for about 5 percent of the overall total. On whether the inspections are adequate, a new report by the Homeland Security Department internal investigator that surfaced Wednesday concluded federal inspectors of oceangoing shipping containers still need to improve their detection equipment and search procedures to prevent terrorists from sneaking weapons of mass destruction into the United States.
So they don’t come in uninspected, just underinspected.
People who fly on airplanes today, the cargo hold is not X-rayed, but the baggage is. That's not good enough. Firehouses don't have enough firefighters in them. Police officers are being cut from the streets of America because the president decided to cut the COPS program.
Valid points, though straying from his premise: I thought the war caused us to be unsafe?
So we can do a better job of homeland security. I can do a better job of waging a smarter, more effective war on terror and guarantee that we will go after the terrorists.
Good. How?
I will hunt them down, and we'll kill them, we'll capture them. We'll do whatever is necessary to be safe.
Nothing like being specific.
But I pledge this to you, America: I will do it in the way that Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan and John Kennedy and others did, where we build the strongest alliances, where the world joins together, where we have the best intelligence and where we are able, ultimately, to be more safe and secure.
Again, nothing like being specific. We’ll get better intelligence (how?), build alliances (again: how? what if they don’t want to play ball?), and join the world together.
But in listing specifics, you mentioned intelligence and domestic law enforcement issues, while omitting any reference to foreign military action whatsoever. Given most of the terrorists aren’t currently on US soil, that concerns me a tad. All the intelligence in the world won’t help if you don’t have the ability to do something about it. This is an issue I’d really have liked to see addressed in some depth: would you agree that traditional law enforcement techniques are not designed to handle foreign insurgency movements such as Al Quaida, or not? And if you agree, what other than declaring war on countries that harbor terrorists would you propose? And what would you do if the alliances you propose won’t play ball?
This is where I want to play law professor. Put the hypo in terms most favorable to the hawk’s position and ask him how he would do it differently. Something like this (forgive me if it sucks, having never been a law professor):
Hypo: Another terrorist attack, with terrorists, clearly tied to a particular nation, “Terrorland.” According to your world-class intelligence, Terrorland pays only lip service to apprehending the terrorists. Behind the scenes, it is aiding the terrorists and covertly funding the activities. Government propaganda machines are used to bill the terrorists as “freedom fighters.” You go to the UN for aid, and find that the proposals put forth by the UN via such important, traditional allies as France and Germany are hollow: allowing in our troops, but only under their government’s (hostile) supervision and escort. Not surprisingly, we can only pick up scanty evidence of additional terrorist activity that way: the terrorists seem to have advance warning about where we are going and what we are doing. Our intelligence in the UN tells us that in exchange for these soft-ball concessions, certain members of our “allies” governments are getting trade perks and payoffs. Negotiations have reached a standstill, and the world is watching. What do you do?
Other odd thoughts: Ronald Reagan had the world join together? Was I asleep at the time?
Reagan needs an acronym, he’s out of place with the other two. RWR is just not happening for me, though.
SCHIEFFER: Mr. President, you have 90 seconds.
BUSH: Thank you very much.
I want to thank Arizona State as well.
But the Presidential Commission and John Kerry? Not so much. They can go screw themselves.
Yes, we can be safe and secure, if we stay on the offense against the terrorists and if we spread freedom and liberty around the world.
Makes it sound like peanut butter on some nice, fluffy white bread.
Sorry, was that out loud?
I have got a comprehensive strategy to not only chase down the Al Qaida, wherever it exists – and we're making progress; three-quarters of Al Qaida leaders have been brought to justice – but to make sure that countries that harbor terrorists are held to account.
Okay, let’s hear that comprehensive strategy. What’s it consist of?
As a result of securing ourselves and ridding the Taliban out of Afghanistan, the Afghan people had elections this weekend. And the first voter was a 19-year-old woman. Think about that. Freedom is on the march.
And Liberty is getting down on the dance floor. Think about that.
We held to account a terrorist regime in Saddam Hussein.
There was a terrorist regime in Saddam Hussein? Is this like that weird mirror thing: a terrorist inside a terrorist inside a terrorist?
In other words, in order to make sure we're secure, there must be a comprehensive plan.
Seriously, you listed some good things you’ve done to date. Still waiting on the details of that comprehensive plan, though.
My opponent just this weekend talked about how terrorism could be reduced to a nuisance, comparing it to prostitution, illegal gambling. I think that attitude and that point of view is dangerous. I don't think you can secure America for the long run if you don't have a comprehensive view as to how to defeat these people.
I knew you’d refer to the “terrorism as a nuisance remark.” You got that out of the way. Now gimme your comprehensive plan.
At home, we'll do everything we can to protect the homeland. I signed the homeland security bill to better align our assets and resources. My opponent voted against it.
We're doing everything we can to protect our borders and ports.
But absolutely we can be secure in the long run. It just takes good, strong leadership.
That’s it: do everything we can? You need some more concrete goals and objectives, dude. Think “seven habits.”
*********************
Then I realized I'll never get the answers I want. I want GWB to honestly outline what he would do differently if he'd known about the weaknesses in the evidence for WMD's at the time he made his decision to invade. I want Kerry to honestly answer what he would do if faced with the situation as Bush characterizes it, as in the hypo I outline. I want to know how they feel either one of them is fit to be leader of the free world considering all the distortions and accusations they're throwing around to muddy the waters, from "Kerry will cause terrorist attacks" to "Bush will draft everybody." Given that honesty with the people is such an issue in this election, I'd have thought that would be best avoided.
In the end, I'm with Greenman. Wonkette said it right:
10:28PM: Kerry closing speech: "Sound bite, sound bite, aspirational sound bite, hand gesture, God bless America, kill terrorists."
10:30PM: Bush closing speech: "God, education, sound bite, blink, compassion, pander, blink, pander, God, terror, blink, blink, liberty, God, terror, I rock."
10:31PM: Our call: Bob Schieffer wins. Audience loses. French neutral. America safer now that Saddam is out of power. No, wait. . . Fuck. What did the media tell me again?
No comments:
Post a Comment