Archive for October, 2004
Next Entries »The Bush Doctrine vs. The Kerry Doctrine
Sunday, October 3rd, 2004Saturday in Ohio, Bush blasted what will now be known as the Kerry Doctrine:
“In the debate Senator Kerry said something revealing when he laid out the Kerry Doctrine. He said America has to pass a ‘global test’ before we can use American troops to defend ourselves. … Senator Kerry’s approach to foreign policy would give foreign governments veto power over our own national security decisions. I take a different view. When our country is in danger, the President’s job is not to take an international poll. The President’s job is to defend America. I work every day with our friends and allies for the sake of freedom and peace, but our national security decisions must be made in the Oval Office, not foreign capitals.”
Who do you want leading the war on terror? Bush with the doctrine of preemption, or Kerry with his permission slip policies?
Click the image to download a large JPG version showing exactly what the Kerry Doctrine means. Or click here for the PDF version.
New Kerry Ad Misrepresents Kerry’s Own Words in the Debate
Sunday, October 3rd, 2004The first debate is over, and while no one still knows what Kerry’s Iraq Plan is, he’s decided to run an ad that declares he won the debate. This rather pompous ad also accuses Bush of lying.
Narrator: “George Bush lost the debate. Now he’s lying about it. This is what you heard John Kerry really say:
John Kerry: “The president always has the right for pre-emptive strike.”
John Kerry: “I will hunt and kill the terrorists, wherever they are.”
This ad is clearly trying to neutralize the “global test” gaffe John Kerry made at the debate by cherry-picking Kerry’s own words to to make them sound more presidential and stronger on national security.
Iran Rejects Kerry Nuclear Proposal
Sunday, October 3rd, 2004Remember what John Kerry said at the debate?
With respect to Iran, the British, French, and Germans were the ones who initiated an effort without the United States, regrettably, to begin to try to move to curb the nuclear possibilities in Iran. I believe we could have done better.
I think the United States should have offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel, test them, see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes. If they weren’t willing to work a deal, then we could have put sanctions together. The president did nothing.
Well Iran has rejected Kerry’s proposal:
Iran on Sunday rejected a proposal by U.S. presidential candidate John Kerry who has suggested supplying the Islamic state with nuclear fuel for power reactors if Tehran agrees to give up its own fuel-making capability.
Foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said it would be “irrational” for Iran to put its nuclear program in jeopardy by relying on supplies from abroad.
“We have the technology (to make nuclear fuel) and there is no need for us to beg from others,” Asefi told a weekly news conference.
Kerry hasn’t even been elected, yet already his proposals are being rejected by foreign goverments. So far, Kerry’s diplomacy record is very poor.
HAT TIP: Thomas Wharry
Why Bush Won
Friday, October 1st, 2004It is understandable for both sides to claim victory after such an important debate. I really believe that George W. Bush took this debate easily. Kerry may have outperformed himself, but he did not outperform our President.
Kerry did perform better than most people expected, and the polls will confuse this with him winning the debate. He talked tough, but he did not come across as genuine. Bush spoke from the heart and came off as more human. Kerry said what he needed to say to survive despite the fact that what he said conflicts with the ideology he has practiced his entire career.
Reading over the Live Blogging Round Table between Mark, Kevin, and I, I noticed many things. Without the influence of post-debate media spin, we constantly saw President Bush nailing Kerry exactly the way he needed to. Kerry sought to answer questions he was not asked, avoiding saying anything substantive about his plan for Iraq and trying to suggest that funding at home has suffered… that Bush quickly and effectively rebutted.
Did Kerry remain on message during the debate? No. He repeatedly degraded the coalition in Iraq, all the while suggesting that he somehow will have the magic touch to bring other countries (read France and Germany) into it. Bush hammered him on that.
Kerry mentioned a fantasy summit, which combined with his “global test” theory prove that he will only defend America with the advice and consent of other nations.
The American people do not want that.
Another clear difference: Bush could point to things he has already done. Kerry could not even mention his twenty years in the Senate. Bottom line is this: Bush can run on his record, which allows him to make a case for his plan for the future. John Kerry is running on empty promises, which do not hold water when you compare it to what history has showed us he is willing and capable of.
John Kerry showed us who is really is: a 9/10 Democrat lost in a post 9/11 world. He wants to protect America if it “passes the global test.” Bush on the other hand has the attitude that “you take preemptive action in order to protect the American people, that you act in order to make this country secure.”
Bush won the debate with that line alone.
Bush showed us he was serious about defending our country. All John Kerry gave us was the “yes-no-maybe” bowl of mush that Zell Miller described at the Republican National Convention.
The score is Bush 1, Kerry 0.
UPDATE: Hugh Hewitt agrees it was a big Bush win…
Next Entries »