Please register here to be on our list and then log on to our Message Board.
Presidential & Vice-Presidential
Debate Coverage
Mr. Bush: I have got a comprehensive strategy to not only chase down Al Qaeda wherever it exists - and we're making progress, three-quarters of Al Qaeda leaders have been brought to justice
Does that mean we're three quarters done in fighting the premier terrorist organization? It seems that Iraq has become a recruitment vehicle for Al Qaeda. Further, terrorism is growing in other countries, like Indonesia. What is our progress in those countries? Also, in terms of securing our safety, what is in your 'comprehensive plan' about dealing with Iran and North Korea?
Mr. Bush: Gosh, I don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. That's kind of one of those 'exaggerations'.
According to the Whitehouse transcript
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
on March 13, 2002 you said:
Mr. Bush: Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is -- really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission. Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. ... I just don't spend that much time on him ... -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.
It is apparent that you turned your attention away from Osama bin Laden and have allowed his organization to use Abu Ghraib as a recruitment vehicle.
Mr. Bush: 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.
No, you think about that. It is obvious that having a 19 year-old woman as the first voter is being used to exploit some political advantage, not the least of which is to mention this in the final presidential debate. Otherwise, why would the information about the identity of the very first voter travel to the POTUS (President Of The United States) in a matter of days? This was obviously a politically staged event. Admit it.Mr. Bush: Bob, we relied upon a company out of England to provide about half of the flu vaccines for the United States citizens and it turned out that the vaccine they were producing was contaminated. And so we took the right action and didn't allow contaminated medicine into our country.
It was the British that suspended Chiron's license and blocked the shipment. This action took place October 5th [see MHRA release: http://www.mhra.gov.uk/news/2004/chironfluvaccine.htm ], which says:
MHRA Chief Executive Officer, Prof. Kent Woods, added "Contrary to some reported statements, MHRA, as the responsible regulatory authority in the United Kingdom, made the decision to suspend Chiron's license after an internal meeting on October 4 and first informed the company and the FDA of this decision on October 5. At the same time, we informed other drug regulatory authorities via an intergovernmental rapid information alert."
The FDA and the Bush Administration was caught off guard, and didn't take action to investigate until 5 days later [see FDA release: http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/news/2004/NEW01123.html ]. Why is it that you take the credit for stopping shipment when it was the British government who moved to suspend their license?
On the same debate topic you said:
Mr. Bush: We're working with Canada to - hopefully they'll produce a - help us realize the vaccine necessary to make sure our citizens have got flu vaccinations during this upcoming season.
It is rather ironic that you wouldn't import drugs from Canada, and now seem to be looking to them to help with your vaccination shortage.
Mr. Schieffer: ... And let's continue on jobs. You know there are all kind of statistics out there, but I want to bring it down to an individual. Mr. President, what do you say to someone in this country who has lost his job to someone overseas who's being paid a fraction of what that job paid here in the United States?
Mr. Bush: I'd say, Bob, I've got policies to continue to grow our economy and create the jobs of the 21st century. And here's some help for you to go get an education. Here's some help for you to go to a community college. We've expanded trade adjustment assistance. We want to help pay for you to gain the skills necessary to fill the jobs of the 21st century. You know there's a lot of talk about how to keep the economy growing and we talk about fiscal matters. But perhaps the best way to keep jobs here in America and to keep this economy growing is to make sure our education system works. I went to Washington to solve problems and I saw a problem in the public education system in America. They were just shuffling too many kids through the system year after year, grade after grade without learning the basics. And so we said let's raise the standards. We're spending more money but let's raise the standards and measure early and solve problems now before it's too late. Education is how to help the person who's lost a job. Education is how to make sure this - we've got a work force that's productive and competitive. Got four more years, I've got more to do to continue to raise standards, to continue to reward teachers in school districts that are working, to emphasize math and science in the classrooms, to continue to expand Pell Grants, to make sure that people have an opportunity to start their career with a college diploma. And so to the person you talked to I say here's some help. Here's some trade adjustment assistance money for you to go to a community college in your neighborhood, a community college which is providing the skills necessary to fill the jobs of the 21st century. And that's what we'd say to that person.
Why did you switch the topic from jobs to education? What do pell grants, math and science have to do with the individual that's been working in a factory all his or her life and has just lost a job? The time frame for retraining is not a few short months, but years. That's assuming a job will be waiting out their when a person has gone through enough training and certification. What if the person is 55 years of age? How employable will he or she be? If the person wasn't fully vested from the pension in their old job, does it mean they have to start over from scratch to qualify for a new pension?
Mr. Bush: And just look at other countries that have tried to have federally-controlled health care. They have poor quality health care. Our health care system is the envy of the world
And what about countries like Sweden?
Mr. Bush: I believe that younger workers ought to be allowed to take some of their own money and put it in a personal savings account. Because I understand that they need to get better rates of return than the rates of return being given in the current Social Security trust. And the compounding rate of interest effect will make it more likely that the Social Security system is solvent for our children and our grandchildren.
Do the people realize that the interest income in these private accounts would be fully taxed?
Mr. Schieffer: Mr. President I want to go back to something Senator Kerry said earlier tonight and ask a follow-up of my own. He said, and this will be a new question to you, he said that you had never said whether you would like to overturn Roe v. Wade. So I'd ask you directly would you like to?
Mr. Bush: What he's asking me is will I have a litmus test for my judges. And the answer is no, I will not have a litmus test. I will pick judges who will interpret the Constitution. But I'll have no litmus tests.
Why won't you commit to an answer regarding judge selection based on whether or not he or she supports abortion?
Mr. Bush: only a liberal senator from Massachusetts would say that a 49 percent increase in funding for education was not enough.
WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THAT 49% INCREASE IN EDUCATION DURING YOUR FIRST TERM COULD POSSIBLY BE ENOUGH? GET REAL, IT IS NOT ENOUGH! IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS, THEN YOUR PRIORITIES ARE MORE THAN QUESTIONABLE.
Mr. Schieffer: Mr. President, new question, two minutes. You said that if Congress would vote to extend the ban on assault weapons that you'd sign the legislation. But you did nothing to encourage the Congress to extend it. Why not?
Mr. Bush: Actually, I made my intentions, my views clear. I did think we ought to extend the assault-weapons ban and was told the fact that the bill wasn't ever going to move. Because the Republicans and Democrats were against the assault-weapon ban, people of both parties. I believe law-abiding citizens ought to be able to own a gun. I believe in background checks at gun shows or anywhere to make sure that guns don't get in the hands of people that shouldn't have them.
But the best way to protect our citizens from guns is to prosecute those who commit crimes with guns. And that's why early in my administration I called the attorney general and the U.S. attorneys and said put together task force all around the country to prosecute those who commit crimes with guns. And the prosecutions are up by about 68 percent I believe is the number. Neighborhoods are safer when we crack down on people who commit crimes with guns. To me that's the best way to secure America.
Why wait till people commit crimes with guns? Why should we needlessly put our officers and enforcement personnel in harms way? You did nothing to encourage extending the ban. And wasn't it Edmund Burke, who in 1770, said "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."?
Mr. Bush: Religion is an important part. I never want to impose my religion on anybody else.
Then why are you imposing your religion on government laws? Specifically:
It is unfortunate that the President was so consumed with "Staying On Message". And the messages were 'liberal senator', 'extreme left', '98 times', 'liberty on the march', and so forth.
Being emphatic, looking empassioned, and dribbling an invisible basket ball, isn't the measure of a presidential leader.
Our take on the second presidential debate:
Although President Bush improved over his first debate, it seems that to redeem himself before the American public, he's definitely got his work cut out for himself. It is not a matter of mannerisms, but rather the substance. President Bush has to tell the American people in no uncertain terms, the decision making that explains how and why he handled the war the way he did. This includes taking responsibility for errors in judgment. It will not suffice to the American people to repeatedly hear that Saddam was a threat. He needs to account for why the Administration leaned so heavily on the Aluminum tubes as the principal evidence of a nuclear enrichment program and at the same time suppressed evidence that the tubes seemed to be suited for conventional rocket launchers (like those found in Apache helicopters). Apparently, these discrepancies were known by the most level senior officials in the Bush Administration [see article in NY times How the White House Embraced Disputed Arms Intelligence ](such as the National Security Advisor, Condoleeza Rice); who asserted to the public and the US Congress that the Iraqis were actively engaged in the production of weapons grade Uranium (and their interception of a shipment of Aluminum tubes was the principal evidence for justifying a pre-emptive attack). Until the President fully levels with the American public, there will be too many people who will not feel comfortable having him for a second term. Notable excerpts from the debate:Mr. Gibson: Mr. president, the next question is for you, and it comes from Jonathan Michaelson over here.
Mr. president, if there were a vacancy in the Supreme Court and you had the opportunity to fill that position today, who do you choose and why?
Mr. Bush: I'm not telling. I really don't have, haven't picked anybody yet. Plus I want them all voting for me. I would pick somebody who would not allow their personal opinion to get in the way of the law. I would pick somebody who would strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States.
Uh, let me give you a couple of examples I guess of the kind of person I wouldn't pick. I wouldn't pick a judge who said that the Pledge of Allegiance couldn't be said in a school because it had the words 'under God'' in it. I think that's an example of a judge allowing personal opinion to enter into the decision-making process, as opposed to strict interpretation of the Constitution. Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges years ago said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights. That's personal opinion. That's not what the Constitution says. The Constitution of the United States says we're all - you know, it doesn't say that. It doesn't speak to the equality of America.
And so I would pick people that would be strict constructionists. We've got plenty of lawmakers in Washington, D.C. Legislators make law. Judges interpret the Constitution. And I suspect one of us will have a pick at the end of next year, next four years. And that's the kind of judge I'm going to put on there. No litmus test except for how they interpret the Constitution. Thank you.
Mr. Gibson: Senator Kerry, a minute and a half.
Mr. Kerry: Thank you, Charlie.
A few years ago, when he came to office, the president said, these are his words: What we need are some good conservative judges on the courts. And he said also that his two favorite justices are Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas. So you get a pretty good sense of where he's heading if he were to appoint somebody.
Now, here's what I believe. I don't believe we need a good conservative judge and I don't believe we need a good liberal judge. I don't believe we need a good judge of that kind of definition on either side. I subscribe to the Justice Potter Stewart standard. He was a justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. And he said the mark of a good judge, a good justice, is that when you're reading their decision, their opinion, you can't tell if it's written by a man or woman, a liberal or a conservative, a Muslim, a Jew or a Christian. You just know you're reading a good judicial decision.
What I want to find if I am privileged to have the opportunity to do it and the Supreme Court of the United States is at stake in this race, ladies and gentlemen, the future of things that matter to you in terms of civil rights: what kind of Justice Department you'll have, whether we'll enforce the law. Will we have equal opportunity? Will women's rights be protected? Will we have equal pay for women, which is going backwards? Will a woman's right to choose be protected? These are our constitutional rights.
And I want to make sure we have judges who interpret the Constitution of the United States according to the law.
Mr. Bush: I think there ought to be parental-notification laws. He's against them. I signed a bill called the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. In other words, if you're a mom and you're pregnant and you get killed, the murder gets tried for two cases, not just one. My opponent was against that.
Mr. Kerry: ...with respect to parental notification, I'm not going to require a 16- or 17-year-old kid who's been raped by her father and who's pregnant to have to notify her father. So you've got to have a judicial intervention. And because they didn't have a judicial intervention where she could go somewhere and get help I voted against it. It's never quite as simple as the president wants you to believe.
