THE SENATOR'S FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM:

Transcript of the Candidates' First Debate in the Presidential Campaign (09/30/04)

Mr. Kerry: I believe America is safest and strongest when we are leading the world and when we are leading strong alliances. I'll never give a veto to any country over our security, but I also know how to lead those alliances. [...]

Mr. Kerry: I believe in being strong and resolute and determined. And I will hunt down and kill the terrorists wherever they are. But we also have to be smart, Jim. And smart means not diverting your attention from the real war on terror in Afghanistan against Osama bin Laden and taking it 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.

This president has made, I regret to say, a colossal error of judgment. And judgment is what we look for in the president of the United States of America. [...]

First of all, he made the misjudgment of saying to America that he was going to build a true alliance, that he would exhaust the remedies of the United Nations and go through the inspections. In fact, he first didn't even want to do that. And it wasn't until former Secretary of State Jim Baker and General Scowcroft and others pushed publicly and said, you've got to go to the U.N., that the president finally changed his mind - his campaign has a word for that - and went to the United Nations. Now once there, we could have continued those inspections. We had Saddam Hussein trapped.

He also promised America that he would go to war as a last resort. [...]

And it's in Iraq. And Iraq is not even the center of the focus on the war on terror. The center is Afghanistan... [...]

Mr. Bush: My opponent looked at the same intelligence I looked at and declared in 2002 that Saddam Hussein was a grave threat. He also said in December of 2003 that anyone who doubts that the world is safer without Saddam Hussein does not have the judgment to be president. I agree with him. The world is better off without Saddam Hussein.

I was hoping diplomacy would work. I understand the serious consequences of committing our troops into harm's way. It's the hardest decision a president makes. So I went to the United Nations. I didn't need anybody to tell me to go to the United Nations. I decided to go there myself. And I went there hoping that once and for all the free world would act in concert to get Saddam Hussein to listen to our demands. They passed a resolution that said disclose, disarm or face serious consequences. I believe when an international body speaks, it must mean what it says. But Saddam Hussein had no intention of disarming. Why should he? He had 16 other resolutions and nothing took place. As a matter of fact, my opponent talks about inspectors. The facts are that he was systematically deceiving the inspectors. That wasn't going to work. That's kind of a pre-Sept. 10 mentality, the hope that somehow resolutions and failed inspections would make this world a more peaceful place. He was hoping we'd turn away. But there's, fortunately, others beside myself who believed that we ought to take action; we did. The world is safer without Saddam Hussein.

Mr. Lehrer New question, Mr. President. Two minutes. What about Senator Kerry's point, the comparison he drew between the priorities of going after Osama bin Laden and going after Saddam Hussein?

Mr. Bush Jim, we've got the capability of doing both. As a matter of fact, this is a global effort. We're facing a group of folks who have such hatred in their heart they'll strike anywhere, with any means. And that's why it's essential that we have strong alliances, and we do. That's why it's essential that we make sure that we keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of people like Al Qaeda, which we are.

But to say that there's only one focus on the war on terror doesn't really understand the nature of the war of terror. Of course we're after Saddam Hussein - I mean bin Laden. He's isolated. Seventy-five percent of his people have been brought to justice. The killer in, the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, is in prison. We're making progress.

But the front on this war is more than just one place. The Philippines. We've got help, we're helping them there to bring, to bring Al Qaeda affiliates to justice there.

And of course Iraq is a central part of the war on terror. That's why Zarqawi and his people are trying to fight us. Their hope is that we grow weary and we leave. The biggest disaster that could happen is that we not succeed in Iraq. We will succeed. We've got a plan to do so. And the main reason we'll succeed is because the Iraqis want to be free.

Had the honor of visiting the Prime Minister Allawi. He's a strong, courageous leader. He believes in the freedom of the Iraqi people. He doesn't want U.S. leadership, however, to send mixed signals, to not stand with the Iraqi people. He believes, like I believe, that the Iraqis are ready to fight for their own freedom. They just need the help to be trained. There will be elections in January. We're spending reconstruction money. And our alliance is strong. That's the plan for victory. And when Iraq is free America will be more secure.

Mr. Lehrer Senator Kerry, 90 seconds.

Mr. Kerry 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.

Mr. Bush Can I respond?

Mr. Lehrer Let's do one of these one-minute extensions. You have 30 seconds.

Mr. Bush Thank you, sir. First of all, what my opponent wants you to forget is that he voted to authorize the use of force. And now says it's the wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place.

I don't see how you can lead this country to succeed in Iraq if you say wrong war, wrong time, wrong place. What message does that send our troops? What messages does that send our allies? What message does that send the Iraqis?

No, the way to win this is to be steadfast and resolved and to follow through on the plan that I just outlined.

Mr. Lehrer Thirty seconds, Senator.

Mr. Kerry Yes, we have to be steadfast and resolved. And I am. And I will succeed for those troops now that we're there. We have to succeed. We can't leave a failed Iraq. But that doesn't mean it wasn't a mistake of judgment to go there and take the focus off of Osama bin Laden. It was. Now we can succeed. But I don't believe this president can. I think we need a president who has the credibility to bring the allies back to the table and to do what's necessary to make it so America isn't doing this alone. [...]

Mr. Bush: All right. My opponent says help is on the way, but what kind of message does that say to our troops in harm's way? Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time. That's not a message a commander in chief gives. Or this is a great diversion.

As well, help is on the way, but it's certainly hard to tell it when he voted against the $87 billion supplemental to provide equipment for our troops. And then said he actually did vote for it before he voted against it. It's not what a commander in chief does when you're trying to lead troops.

Mr. Lehrer Senator Kerry, 30 seconds.

Mr. Kerry Well, you know when I talked about the $87 billion I made a mistake in how I talk about the war. But the president made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is worse?

I believe that when you know something's going wrong you make it right. That's what I learned in Vietnam. When I came back from that war I saw that it was wrong. Some people don't like the fact that I stood up to say no. But I did. And that's what I did with that vote. And I'm going to lead those troops to victory.

Mr. Lehrer All right, new question, two minutes, Senator Kerry. Speaking of Vietnam, you spoke to Congress in 1971 after you came back from Vietnam and you said, "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?

Mr. Kerry No, and they don't have to, providing we have the leadership that we put-that I'm offering. I believe that we have to win this. The president and I have always agreed on that. And from the beginning I did vote to give the authority because I thought Saddam Hussein was a threat, and I did accept that intelligence. [...]

Mr. Kerry: What I think troubles a lot of people in our country is that the president has just sort of described one kind of mistake. But what he has said is that even knowing there were no weapons of mass destruction, even knowing there was no imminent threat, even knowing there was no connection of Al Qaeda, he would still have done everything the same way. Those are his words.

Now I would not. [...]

Mr. Bush: My opponent just said something amazing. He said Osama bin Laden uses the invasion of Iraq as an excuse to spread hatred for America. Osama bin Laden isn't going to determine how we defend ourselves. Osama bin Laden doesn't get to decide. The American people decide. I decided. The right action was in Iraq. My opponent calls it a mistake. It wasn't a mistake. He said I misled on Iraq. I don't think he was misleading when he called Iraq a grave threat in the fall of 2002. I don't think he was misleading when he said that it was right to disarm Iraq in the spring of 2003. I don't think he misled you when he said that, you know, if - anyone who doubted whether the world was better off without Saddam Hussein in power didn't have the judgment to be president. I don't think he was misleading.

I think what is misleading is to say you can lead and succeed in Iraq if you keep changing your positions on this war, and he has. As the politics change, his positions change. And that's not how a commander in chief acts.

I-let me finish. The intelligence I looked at was the same intelligence my opponent looked at. It's the very same intelligence. And when I stood up there and spoke to the Congress, I was speaking off the same intelligence he looked at to make his decision to support the authorization of force.

Mr. Lehrer Ninety-30 seconds. We'll do a 30-second here.

Mr. Kerry I wasn't misleading when I said he was a threat. Nor was I misleading on the day that the president decided to go to war when I said that he had made a mistake in not building strong alliances and that I would have preferred that he did more diplomacy.

I've had one position, one consistent position: that Saddam Hussein was a threat, there was a right way to disarm him and a wrong way. And the president chose the wrong way. [...]

Mr. Bush: Yeah, I understand what it means to be the commander in chief. And if I were to ever say this is the wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place, the troops would wonder how could I follow this guy? You cannot lead the war on terror if you keep changing positions on the war on terror. And say things like well, this is just a grand diversion. It's not a grand diversion. This is an essential that we get it right. And so I, I, the plan he talks about simply won't work.

Mr. Lehrer Senator Kerry, you have 30 seconds. Then a new question.

Mr. Kerry Secretary of State Colin Powell told this president the Pottery Barn rule, if you break it you fix it. Now if you break it, you made a mistake. It's the wrong thing to do. But you own it. And then you've got to fix it and do something with it. Now that's what we have to do. There's no inconsistency.

Soldiers know over there that this isn't being done right yet. I'm going to get it right for those soldiers because it's important to Israel, it's important to America, it's important to the world. It's important to the fight on terror. But I have a plan to do it. He doesn't.

Mr. Lehrer Speaking of your plan, new question, Senator Kerry, two minutes. Can you give us specifics in terms of a scenario, timelines, etc., for ending major U.S. military involvement in Iraq?

Mr. Kerry The timeline that I've set out, and again, I want to correct the president because he's misled again this evening on what I've said. I didn't say I would bring troops out in six months. I said if we do the things that I've set out and we are successful we could begin to draw the troops down in six months. [...]

Mr. Lehrer Mr. President, new question, two minutes. Does the Iraq experience make it more likely or less likely that you would take the United States into another pre-emptive military action?

Mr. Bush I would hope I never have to. Understand how hard it is to commit troops. I never wanted to commit troops. I never - when I was running - when we had the debate in 2000, never dreamt I'd be doing that, but the enemy attacked us, Jim, and I have a solemn duty to protect the American people, to do everything I can to protect us.

I think that by speaking clearly and doing what we say and not sending mixed messages, it is less likely we'll ever to use troops. But a president must always be willing to use troops, as a last resort. I was hopeful diplomacy would work in Iraq. It was falling apart. There was no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was hoping that the world would turn a blind eye. And if he had been in power - in other - we just said, let's the inspectors work or let's - you know, hope to talk him out, maybe the 18th resolution would work, he'd have been stronger and tougher and the world would have been a lot worse off. There's just no doubt in my mind. We would rue the day had we - if Saddam Hussein been in power.

So we use diplomacy every chance we get, believe me. And I hope to never have to use force. But by speaking clearly and sending messages that we mean what we say, we've affected the world in a positive way. Look at Libya. Libya was a threat. Libya is now peacefully dismantling its weapons programs. Libya understood that America and others will enforce doctrine. And the world is better for it.

So to answer your question, I would hope we never have to. I think by acting firmly and decisively it'll - it's less likely use - it's less likely we have to use force.

Mr. Lehrer Senator Kerry, 90 seconds.

Mr. Kerry Jim, the president just said, extraordinarily revealing and, frankly, very important in this debate. In answer to your question about Iraq and sending people into Iraq he just said, the enemy attacked us. Saddam Hussein didn't attack us. Osama bin Laden attacked us. Al Qaeda attacked us. And when we had Osama bin Laden cornered in the mountains of Tora Bora, 1,000 of his cohorts with him in those mountains, with American military forces nearby and in the field, we didn't use the best trained troops in the world to go kill the world's No. 1 criminal and terrorist. They outsourced the job to Afghan warlords who only, a week earlier, had been on the other side fighting against us, neither of whom trusted each other. That's the enemy that attacked us, that's the enemy that was allowed to walk out of those mountains. That's the enemy that is now in 60 countries with stronger recruits.

He also said Saddam Hussein would have been stronger. That is just factually incorrect. Two-thirds of the country was a no-fly zone when we started this war. We would have had sanctions. We would have had the U.N. inspectors. Saddam Hussein would have been continually weakening. If the president had shown the patience to go through another round of resolution, 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? We'd be in a stronger place today.

Mr. Bush First, listen -

Mr. Lehrer Thirty seconds.

Mr. Bush Of course I know Osama bin Laden attacked us. I know that. And secondly, to think that another round of resolutions would have caused Saddam Hussein to disarm, disclose, is ludicrous, in my judgment. It just shows a significant difference of opinion. We tried diplomacy, we did our best. He was hoping to turn a blind eye and, yes, he would have been stronger had we not dealt with him. He had the capability of making weapons and he would have made weapons. [...]

Mr. Lehrer New question, two minutes, Senator Kerry. What is your position on the whole concept of pre-emptive war?

Mr. Kerry The president always has the right and always has had the right for pre-emptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the cold war. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control. No president through all of American history has ever ceded and nor would I the right to pre-empt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.

But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got 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. [...]

Mr. Lehrer Ninety seconds.

Mr. Bush Let me-I'm not exactly sure what you mean: passes the global test. You take pre-emptive action if you pass a global test? My attitude is you take pre-emptive action in order to protect the American people. That you act in order to make this country secure. [...]

I just think trying to be popular kind of in the global sense, if it's not in our best interest, makes no sense. I'm interested in working with other nations and do a lot of it. But I'm not going to make decisions that I think are wrong for America.

It is just not possible to determine from what he said last night whether he thinks Saddam was a threat and had to be dealt with, which would be consistent with his vote for war, or whether he thinks Saddam was no threat and therefore dealing with him was a distraction from Afghanistan. So, on the single most important question being asked, whether it was right or wrong to remove Saddam he doesn't give a straight answer.

N.B.: Note also that he has to insist, against all the evidence, Osama is alive and in Afghanistan because he can't afford to be honest and say the pursuit of al Qaeda's remnants requires that we ebter Western Pakistan, with or without permission.

Posted by Orrin Judd at October 1, 2004 10:16 AM