Your contributions are the lifeblood of the Eye Opener - Every comment or question we publish or referral to a friend entitles you to 1 point in our 20% of Profit Pool
Send us your comments or questions
By Clicking Here

Send this story to a friend
By Clicking Here

The Calgary Eye Opener

Go to our home page
Go to our Archives page

Friday, October 01, 2004

The Sept. 30 Debate - Kerry overestimated the intelligence of the Amercian people and his own campaign staff

Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.

John Kerry put too much confidence in his campaign staff before last night's debate with President George W. Bush. His campaign staff signed him into a debate format (Click here to read the agreement the Democrats and the Republicans signed and to read what's it's all about) that allowed spin doctor Karl Roves to wind President Bush up with a memorized script and send him into the debate to repeat the script time after time - Bush totally ignored whatever issue he was supposed to discuss - he repeated and repeated and repeated. Under the format, Kerry could not cross-examine Bush or criticize his method of answering questions. Moderator Jim Lehrer should have, but did not, made Bush answer questions. As we advised a couple of weeks ago, Kerry should have objected strongly. He did not. And Kerry, as opposed to Bush, insisted in talking in long exotic words most Americans could not understand. Kerry overestimated the intelligence of the American people. Bush's Karl Rove did not. For example:

LEHRER (Moderator Jim Lehrer): New question. Two minutes, Senator Kerry.

What is your position on the whole concept of pre-emptive war?

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, though 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 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.

Here we have our own secretary of state who has had to apologize to the world for the presentation he made to the United Nations.

I mean, we can remember when President Kennedy in the Cuban missile crisis sent his secretary of state to Paris to meet with DeGaulle.

And in the middle of the discussion, to tell them about the missiles in Cuba, he said, "Here, let me show you the photos."

And DeGaulle waved them off and said, "No, no, no, no. The word of the president of the United States is good enough for me."

How many leaders in the world today would respond to us, as a result of what we've done, in that way?

So what is at test here is the credibility of the United States of America and how we lead the world. And Iran and Iraq are now more dangerous -- Iran and North Korea are now more dangerous.

Now, whether pre-emption is ultimately what has to happen, I don't know yet.

But I'll tell you this: As president, I'll never take my eye off that ball.

I've been fighting for proliferation the entire time -- anti-proliferation the entire time I've been in the Congress. And we've watched this president actually turn away from some of the treaties that were on the table.

You don't help yourself with other nations when you turn away from the global warming treaty, for instance, or when you refuse to deal at length with the United Nations.

You have to earn that respect. And I think we have a lot of earning back to do.

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.

My opponent talks about me not signing certain treaties. Let me tell you one thing I didn't sign, and I think it shows the difference of our opinion -- the difference of opinions.

And that is, I wouldn't join the International Criminal Court. It's a body based in The Hague where unaccountable judges and prosecutors can pull our troops or diplomats up for trial.

And I wouldn't join it. And I understand that in certain capitals around the world that that wasn't a popular move. But it's the right move not to join a foreign court that could -- where our people could be prosecuted.

My opponent is for joining the International Criminal Court. 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 our nations and do a lot of it. But I'm not going to make decisions that I think are wrong for America.

Bush won the debate, even though many pundits say otherwise (see what some of the pundits are saying by clicking here).

The Calgary Eye Opener

From the Toolbar at the top of this page make
The Calgary Eye Opener one of your Favourites or Bookmarks

If you enjoyed your read, please recommend the Eye Opener to a friend --- Click Here --- You'll help our circulation and


© Thomas O. Davis, All Rights Reserved