Weekly Shredder 13:
President Bush's Debate Do-Over
by J. Daniel Janzen

Last Thursday, the nation sat down to watch President Bush administer the coup de grâce to the grievously flailing campaign of John Kerry in a debate on foreign policy, supposedly the incumbent's strong suit. Instead, Democrats and Republicans alike were amazed to see a confident, concise, almost likeable Kerry reduce the commander in chief to confused mumbling about hard work, freedom, mixed messages and, on one memorable occasion, mexed missages. Maybe the GOP should have seen it coming; their own operatives had hailed Kerry as the greatest debater since Cicero. (Dick Cheney had it easy in the subsequent vice presidential debate; he only had to face a "cross between Atticus Finch and William Jennings Bryan," scowling and scolding his way to a tie.)

For archives, audio, and background about the column, click here.

The president's clock having been cleaned on live TV, his campaign went into damage control mode. No amount of spin would suffice; the crisis called for nothing less than a complete debate do-over — this time, by the president's rules. No smarty-pants moderator. No little lights to underscore the president's difficulty in filling his allotted time. A pre-screened audience not only permitted to applaud, but expected to do so. And of course, no John Kerry to embarrass Mr. Bush with his facts and his cogency and his non-gargoyle posture.

For the occasion, the campaign commandeered a previously scheduled event in Wilkes-Barre, Pa. on the Tuesday following the debacle in Coral Gables. Instead of delivering his planned address on medical liability, the president would say what his team wished he'd managed to say in the foreign policy debate, all written down for him to preclude awkward pauses and frustrated whingeing. But a one-sided debate is like the sound of one hand clapping; it leaves too much to the imagination, especially when something as important as the presidency is at stake. For the Weekly Shredder, it is both a privilege and a solemn duty to provide the other hand.

After a few minutes of the customary vamping — sorry I couldn't bring Laura, Tom Ridge says hi, let's hear it for [local candidate's name here] — and a truncated version of his domestic policy speech, President Bush gets to the point.

Our differences are also clear on issues of national security. When I took office in 2001, threats to America had been gathering for years.

And I steadfastly resisted the efforts of the intelligence community to bring them to my attention.

Then on one terrible morning, the terrorists took more lives than America lost at Pearl Harbor. Since that day, we have ...

... waged a global campaign (against our traditional allies), trained first responders (to get by without the funding they need), defeated the Taliban (then allowed them to disappear into the countryside and regroup), brought elections to Afghanistan (after a fashion) — everything but catch the guy who was actually behind the attacks, which, as Kerry pointed out, we botched.

A black market network that provided weapons materials to North Korea and Libya and Iran is now out of business. (Applause.)

As far as we know, anyway. Since we acquiesced in the full pardon given to ringleader A.Q. Khan, which precluded any further questioning or investigation, it's impossible to be sure.

And more than three-quarters of Al Qaeda's key members and associates have been brought to justice. (Applause.)

The administration has never accounted for this figure, which has been getting higher lately for no apparent reason. As an official with the Sept. 11 commission said, "This sounds like it was pulled out of somebody's orifice." Still, it's true that many of the bad guys we knew about three years ago have been caught or killed. If our crusader rhetoric wasn't driving unprecedented numbers of new recruits to their door, Al Qaeda would be in real trouble.

After September the 11th, America had to assess every potential threat in a new light. Our nation awakened to an even greater danger, the prospect that terrorists who killed thousands with hijacked airplanes would kill many more with weapons of mass murder. We had to take a hard look at everyplace where terrorists might get those weapons. And one regime stood out: the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein.

Yep, those terrorists might indeed have got weapons of mass murder (notice how he avoids the troublesome phrase "weapons of mass destruction") from Saddam Hussein — if he'd had any. Which he didn't. Which we knew.

Here, the president describes his attempts to deal with Saddam through diplomatic means (it doesn't take long). Then ...

When he chose defiance and war, our coalition enforced the just demands of the world.

Not to split hairs, Mr. President, but wasn't it you who chose war over the process previously in place, which it turns out had already succeded in keeping Saddam disarmed?

In a stirring departure from his mush-mouthed performance last week, Bush now successfully executes a series of well-crafted lines like "safer but not yet safe," "fight on every front" and "freedom is on the march" en route to this zinger:

My opponent agrees with all this — except when he doesn't. (Laughter.)

Good one! Kerry's flip-flopping has to rank as one of the most effective campaign themes ever devised. It's so catchy, people often fail to notice that the positions cited in evidence aren't necessarily contradictory.

... Senator Kerry said our soldiers and Marines are not fighting for a mistake — but also called the liberation of Iraq a "colossal error." He said we need to do more to train Iraqis, but he also said we shouldn't be spending so much money over there. He said he wants to hold a summit meeting, so he can invite other countries to join what he calls "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time." (Laughter and applause.)

Is it inconsistent to believe that the initial invasion of Iraq was wrong, but that we're now morally bound to see it through? Is there something paradoxical about admitting that we made a mistake (on another guy's watch) and asking other countries to help us fix it?

And, to get technical about it, Kerry never said we shouldn't be spending so much money over there. He said it was a shame that we were — but again, that's the situation we're now stuck with.

He said terrorists are pouring across the Iraqi border, but also said that fighting those terrorists is a diversion from the war on terror. (Laughter.)

Those terrorists started pouring over the border only after the US had invaded Iraq with too few troops and too little planning to seal its borders — Paul Bremer himself said as much. Kerry never said we shouldn't be fighting them now.

You hear all that and you can understand why somebody would make a face. (Laughter and applause.)

Now that's just sad.

My opponent's endless back-and-forth on Iraq is part of a larger misunderstanding. ... Senator Kerry approaches the world with a September the 10th mind-set. He declared in his convention speech that "any attack will be met with a swift and certain response." ... After September the 11th, our object in the war on terror is not to wait for the next attack and respond, but to prevent attacks by taking the fight to the enemy. (Applause.)

Saying that you'd respond to an attack doesn't imply that it's all you'd do. Kerry also mentioned the need to improve the security of our ports and the quality of our intelligence, and to bring new preventive resources to bear by forming more effective and inclusive alliances — measures you might have wanted to consider as well.

"Taking the fight to the enemy" sounds good, but what does it really mean?

... if America waits until a threat is at our doorstep, it might be too late to save lives. (Applause.) ... I refuse to stand by while dangers gather.

And yet you stood by, and continue to stand by, while Iran and Korea renew their nuclear programs. Shouldn't you be taking the fight to them, too? Or should we ask them to wait until we can free up a few troops from the last enemy we took the fight to?

My opponent has also announced the Kerry doctrine, declaring that American actions in the war on terror must pass a "global test."

AUDIENCE: Booo!

THE PRESIDENT: Under this test, America would not be able to act quickly against threats, because we'd be sitting around waiting for our grade from other nations and other leaders. (Laughter.)

Ah yes, the global test. Kerry made clear that what he's talking about is in no sense a veto, but rather a "smell test": is what we're doing truly justifiable, or will it damage our credibility and undermine our moral authority as the leader of the free world? Still, the phrase itself offers endless possibilities for literalistic distortion, and Bush milks them for all they're worth before moving on to Kerry's plan for Iraq.

There was one element of the Senator — there's one element of Senator Kerry's plan that's a new element. He's talked about artificial timetables to pull our troops out of Iraq. He sent the signal that America's overriding goal in Iraq would be to leave, even if the job isn't done.

Kerry handled this one straightforwardly last Thursday. Let's go to the tape: "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."

The president continues with a few words about the great progress they've been making in Iraq.

We've trained about 100,000 Iraqi soldiers, police officers and other security personnel, and that total will rise to 125,000 by year-end.

Considering that this statement went unchallenged both last Thursday and in this week's vice presidential debate, you can hardly fault the president for bringing it up in this friendly setting. Except that it's not true. There might be 100,000 Iraqis who fit some loose definition of "troop," but the vast majority have received little or no training to date. The actual number considered ready, able and reliable for front-line duty is closer to 5,000. But keep repeating it, Mr. President — that's how lies become true, right?

And although the terrorists will try to stop them, Iraq will hold free elections in January, because the Iraqi people want and deserve to govern themselves. (Applause.)

They sure do — polls show that the great majority of Iraqis consider the US presence an occupation, not a liberation. Polls also show rapidly declining confidence among Iraqis that secure elections will actually take place. But reality on the ground has never got in the way of Bush's starry-eyed optimism.

If Iraq becomes a free society at the heart of the Middle East, an ally in the war on terror, a model of hopeful reform in a region that needs hopeful reform, the terrorists will suffer a crushing defeat, and every free nation will be more secure. (Applause.)

Even Kerry couldn't argue with this. Similarly, if a frog grows wings, he won't bump his ass a-hoppin'. Sadly, the first scenario is about as likely as the second. Even before the recent worsening of the situation in Iraq, a classified National Intelligence Estimate said the best we could hope for was a highly tenuous political, economic and security situation — a far cry from "a model of hopeful reform." Other possibilities range from balkanization to all-out civil war.

Bush returns to the theme of Kerry's weakness by criticizing his votes against various defense programs over the years, concluding with this shocker:

And the record shows he has voted more than 50 times against missile defense systems that would help protect us from the threats of a dangerous world.

You mean the hugely expensive missile defense systems designed to defend against the least likely form a terrorist strike could take, that are being deployed despite the fact that they've never been fully tested, that the Pentagon's own experts give no better than a 20 percent chance of hitting the target even if they do function correctly? Yeah, that sure would have come in handy on Sept. 11, 2001.

Speaking of which ...

On September the 14th, 2001, I stood in the ruins of the Twin Towers. It's a day I will never forget. There were workers in hard hats yelling at me, "Whatever it takes." I remember trying to console people coming out of that rubble, and a guy grabbed me by the arm, and he looked me in the eye and said, "Do not let me down."

It's not hard to imagine what the guy meant: "Go after the people who did this and make sure they can never do it again." And yet, more than three years later, Al Qaeda remains a constant threat and Osama bin Laden remains at liberty.

President Bush knows bin Laden was the real enemy; his acknowledgement of the fact made for the truest moment of the real debate: "Of course I know Osama bin Laden attacked us. I know that."

Somehow, in the debate do-over, the name never comes up.

E-mail J. Daniel Janzen at dan at clownyard dot com.