Before I begin, I want to point out that I'm not writing this to push the Bush agenda—I'm writing this to show that Kerry didn't this wonderful job at the debate. And I missed something he had said that I didn't point out in the first chapter:

"by reaching out to the Muslim world, which the president has almost not done, and beginning to isolate the radical Islamic Muslims"

Islamic Muslims John? When were Muslims anything other than Islamic? Did I miss something? Yet it's George Bush who is regarded as the idiot who can't speak. Anyway…

So far all Kerry has done is tell us he's going to hold a summit in Iraq and secure Soviet—wait, Russian—nuclear material in order to protect the homeland. This man wants us to vote him in as president?!

Onward!

After Bush responded to Kerry's "plan" to specifically defend the homeland (a.k.a. after he responded to the accusations), Kerry was allowed a 30 second response. This is what he said:

"The president just said the FBI had changed its culture. We just read on the front pages of America's papers that there are over 100,000 hours of tapes, unlistened to. On one of those tapes may be the enemy being right the next time.

And the test is not whether you're spending more money. The test is, are you doing everything possible to make America safe?

We didn't need that tax cut. America needed to be safe."

The FBI used to be primarily concerned with white collar and domestic crime, and less on counter-terrorism. As it stands, they need more Arabic translators—I don't see how that's a shot against Bush, unless John Kerry is telling us that somehow he'll be able to make more American speak Arabic and bring them to the FBI? Then Kerry brings up the tax cuts. What does that have to do with anything?! A domestic policy issue in a foreign policy debate? I don't get it. But about those tax cuts. The rich (whom Kerry is talking about when he says "we") are not the only ones who got a tax cut. Everyone who pays taxes got a tax cut. And on a new ad Kerry has put out, he says he is a "champion of the middle class" and how he'll cut the middle class' taxes. How is that possible if he's telling the President we didn't need that cut?!

The next question was to Bush about what criteria he'd use to bring home the troops in Iraq. Bush talked about how many he's trained and then answered the question by saying when the US Ambassador in Iraq is confident that Iraq can defend herself that we'll pull out. But how does Kerry answer?

"My message to the troops is also: Thank you for what they're doing, but it's also help is on the way. I believe those troops deserve better than what they are getting today.

You know, it's interesting. When I was in a rope line just the other day, coming out here from Wisconsin, a couple of young returnees were in the line, one active duty, one from the Guard. And they both looked at me and said: We need you. You've got to help us over there.

Now I believe there's a better way to do this. You know, the president's father did not go into Iraq, into Baghdad, beyond Basra. And the reason he didn't is, he said - he wrote in his book - because there was no viable exit strategy. And he said our troops would be occupiers in a bitterly hostile land.

That's exactly where we find ourselves today. There's a sense of American occupation. The only building that was guarded when the troops when into Baghdad was the oil ministry. We didn't guard the nuclear facilities.

We didn't guard the foreign office, where you might have found information about weapons of mass destruction. We didn't guard the borders. Almost every step of the way, our troops have been left on these extraordinarily difficult missions. I know what it's like to go out on one of those missions when you don't know what's around the corner. And I believe our troops need other allies helping. I'm going to hold that summit. I will bring fresh credibility, a new start, and we will get the job done right."

Once again, John Kerry DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION! He used a sound byte clip from his stump speeches of "Help is on the way," and then told a story of meeting two soldiers. And then he complained about Bush not having an exit strategy, talked about his tough missions (that he went on in Vietnam, of course) and then his all-important summit plan. Nowhere, however, did he lay out the criteria he'd use to bring home the troops in Iraq, which was the question. Kerry never answered it. If I'm not mistaken, the debates are not places to use your time making sound bytes and stump speeches.

Bush then brought up Kerry's different votes on the $87 billion bill. Here's what Kerry said in response:

"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."

Now, what Kerry is talking about is the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) movement he was apart of and a major leader in. And he's DEFENDING his being involved in it! This man accused Vietnam soldiers of atrocities they never committed, his words were used at the worst North Vietnamese POW camps American soldiers were being held at! Hell, the Communist Vietnamese have a picture of Kerry in their Museum of Victory over the United States parading him as a hero to their cause. And Kerry is DEFENDING it! Furthermore, he's then saying he used his vote on the $87 billion as a protest vote because he didn't agree with how the bill was to be funded. He and another senator added an amendment to the bill to make the rich pay for it by raising their taxes. It stood a chance of not passing, and Kerry was asked about that on CBS' Face the Nation.

LOS ANGELES TIMES' DOYLE McMANUS: "If that amendment does not pass, will you then vote against the $87 billion?" (CBS' "Face The Nation," 9/14/03)

KERRY: "I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That's irresponsible. What is responsible is for the administration to do this properly now. And I am laying out the way in which the administration could unite the American people, could bring other countries to the table, and I think could give the American people a sense that they're on the right track. There's a way to do this properly. But I don't think anyone in the Congress is going to not give our troops ammunition, not give our troops the ability to be able to defend themselves. We're not going to cut and run and not do the job." (CBS' "Face The Nation," 9/14/03)

He voted against it anyway, as a "protest." That's the kind of Commander-in-Chief I want…one who wants to protest funding troops and reconstruction because he doesn't like where the money is coming from. He's willing to put the safety of those same soldiers he's going to "help" on the line in order to push his own political agenda. How sweet. Hell, he was even PROUD of his vote:

"I'm proud to say that John joined me in voting against that $87 billion..." (John Kerry, Remarks At "Women's Voices: A Luncheon with John Kerry," Boston, MA, 7/12/04)

Proud John? Proud of denying money to reconstruction efforts and funding for the troops in Iraq? Yep, he's definitely the guy I want in the position of Commander-in-Chief.

Kerry continued his answer about Iraq:

"But this president hasn't even held the kind of statesman-like summits that pull people together and get them to invest in those states. In fact, he's done the opposite. He pushed them away. When the Secretary General Kofi Annan offered the United Nations, he said, "No, no, we'll go do this alone."

To save for Halliburton the spoils of the war, they actually issued a memorandum from the Defense Department saying, "If you weren't with us in the war, don't bother applying for any construction." That's not a way to invite people."

Hold on…I'm still laughing at that one. Halliburton?! Can everyone see that John Kerry is playing to the Far Left on this one? To actually bring up the conspiracy theory itself in a debate? My God people, this guy is running for President on this! But to go back to the beginning of that, Kerry criticizes the President for not holding "statesmen-like summits" (what the hell is a "statesmen-like summit" anyway?) and says the President pushed away countries. Since when? When did he once say tell any countries they could not get involved in this effort? Oh I remember, when they were against the war and fought us on it in the Security Council and then came back around to get our money on reconstruction efforts. Back to that in a second. Kerry brings up Kofi Annan and the UN "help"—that help lasted about two months before the United Nations THEMSELVES took off out of Baghdad due to a terrorist bombing. Bush never told Annana not to come to Iraq. They were IN Iraq, but ran off when it got too hot for them. Apparently the UN only likes peacekeeping missions when the peace already exists.

But back to Kerry's comment about the Defense Dept. memo. Yes, Bush did tell countries like France and Canada that they were not going to get OUR money (note: the British and others could give out contracts, we just weren't going to) for reconstruction—and had he done anything different, I believe he would have alienated his own country. Why should we reward countries like France and Canada and Russia (especially France and Russia who were against this war not for peace, but because Hussein was a great customer of their's) who fought us tooth and nail about Iraq with our own money? Kerry seems to believe this is a bad thing. A BAD thing that we denied money to people who didn't put their blood on the battlefield.

After the President defended himself against Kerry's ridiculous accusations, Kerry was allowed a rebuttal. Here's what he said:

"The United Nations, Kofi Annan offered help after Baghdad fell. And we never picked him up on that and did what was necessary to transfer authority and to transfer reconstruction. It was always American-run. Secondly, when we went in, there were three countries: Great Britain, Australia and the United States. That's not a grand coalition. We can do better."

If that doesn't say enough for John Kerry—he wanted to hand things over to those we-know-it-all Frenchies and the rest of the UN who didn't want to lift a finger UNTIL Baghdad fell. And when it did, the UN moved in. And they left just as quick.

And how about his treatment of our allies? "We can do better?" Basically, "Hey, Australia, Britain, and all you other guys who I don't even think are important to name, you guys suck. We could have done better than to get you." And THIS is the man who thinks he can bring everyone to the table and get them to do what HE wants? Is that a joke?! He just denigrated (to use the word Bush used) our closest allies for who? France? Germany? Russia? Are these the countries who would make our coalition "better?" I don't think they are. What war have the French won recently? Anyone?

Continuing, Kerry then responded to Bush when Bush answered a question about him admitting we miscalculated in Iraq. Bush basically stated that because we moved so fast through Iraq, he expected to have "whipped" more of the insurgents than we did. Kerry responded:

"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 with Al Qaida, he would still have done everything the same way. Those are his words."

Yes they are, because Bush never said anything about imminent threat, and the intelligence pointed to WMD, and yes, there is a connection to Al-Qaida, just not 9/11. But it was a good try anyway, right?

The juicy stuff is coming, just wait…