So then Jim the moderator had this exchange:

LEHRER: "Just for this one-minute discussion here, just for whatever seconds it takes: So it's correct to say, that if somebody is listening to this, that both of you agree, if you're reelected, Mr. President, and if you are elected, the single most serious threat you believe, both of you believe, is nuclear proliferation?"

BUSH: "In the hands of a terrorist enemy."

KERRY: "Weapons of mass destruction, nuclear proliferation. But again, the test or the difference between us, the president has had four years to try to do something about it, and North Korea has got more weapons; Iran is moving toward weapons. And at his pace, it will take 13 years to secure those weapons in Russia. I'm going to do it in four years, and I'm going to immediately set out to have bilateral talks with North Korea."

There it is again! "Iran is moving towards weapons," and he means nuclear ones. And yet he wants to give them nuclear material to test them! And there he is again talking about how he'll somehow secure those weapons in four years in Russia (but no specifics!) and he's going to have bilateral talks with the North Koreans! So, there it is: Iran should get nuclear material to test them even though they're moving towards nuclear weapons, alliances suck for North Korea but not for Iran, Iran, and the Sudan, and Russia cannot secure their own nuclear materials, so we'll do it for them in four years.

That's John Kerry's foreign policy.

Final question was about Vladmir Putin and his recent "suspension" of democracy in Russia. The president gave a pretty generic answer, then came Kerry's response, after some crap about going underneath the KGB and watching Russia work democracy:

KERRY: "I regret what's happened in these past months. And I think it goes beyond just the response to terror. Mr. Putin now controls all the television stations. His political opposition is being put in jail. And I think it's very important to the United States, obviously, to have a working relationship that is good. This is a very important country to us. We want a partnership. But we always have to stand up for democracy. As George Will said the other day, 'Freedom on the march; not in Russia right now.'"

That answer was almost identical to Bush's. So that's why it didn't shock me that Kerry used the rest of his response to say this:

"Now, I'd like to come back for a quick moment, if I can, to that issue about China and the talks. Because that's one of the most critical issues here: North Korea. Just because the president says it can't be done, that you'd lose China, doesn't mean it can't be done. I mean, this is the president who said "There were weapons of mass destruction," said "Mission accomplished," said we could fight the war on the cheap - none of which were true.

"We could have bilateral talks with Kim Jong Il. And we can get those weapons at the same time as we get China. Because China has an interest in the outcome, too."

Now wait just a second! The President's Mission Accomplished speech came at the end of the campaign to oust the Hussein regime, and if you haven't noticed, that was accomplished. That was the mission, it was accomplished. Shouldn't a "war hero" understand these things? Or is he going with yet another cheap shot from the Far Left? I'll go with the latter, thank you.

As for as the President saying there were weapons of mass destruction, well, so did John Kerry:

"It is not possible to overstate the ominous implications for the Middle East if Saddam were to develop and successfully militarize and deploy potent biological weapons. We can all imagine the consequences. Extremely small quantities of several known biological weapons have the capability to exterminate the entire population of cities the size of Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. These could be delivered by ballistic missile, but they also could be delivered by much more pedestrian means; aerosol applicators on commercial trucks easily could suffice. If Saddam were to develop and then deploy usable atomic weapons, the same holds true." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, p. S12256)

KERRY: "[H]e can rebuild both chemical and biological. And every indication is, because of his deception and duplicity in the past, he will seek to do that. So we will not eliminate the problem for ourselves or for the rest of the world with a bombing attack." (ABC's "This Week," 2/22/98)

SEN. JOHN KERRY: "[I]t is something that we know-for instance, Saddam Hussein has used weapons of mass destruction against his own people, and there is some evidence of their efforts to try to secure these kinds of weapons and even test them." (CBS' "Face The Nation," 9/23/01)

"I would disagree with John McCain that it's the actual weapons of mass destruction he may use against us, it's what he may do in another invasion of Kuwait or in a miscalculation about the Kurds or a miscalculation about Iran or particularly Israel. Those are the things that - that I think present the greatest danger. He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It's the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat." (CBS' "Face The Nation," 9/15/02)"

"Kerry Said Leaving Saddam Hussein 'Unfettered With Nuclear Weapons Or Weapons Of Mass Destruction Is Unacceptable.' (Jill Lawrence, "War Issue Challenges Democratic Candidates," USA Today, 2/12/03)

KERRY: "George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." (ABC News Democrat Presidential Candidates Debate, Columbia, SC, 5/3/03)

ABC'S GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: "I know you said you're agnostic about whether or not he misled the public on weapons of mass destruction. But do you have a hunch on whether you think they hyped the intelligence?" SEN. JOHN KERRY: "George, again, I think it would be irresponsible of me at this point to draw conclusions prior to all the evidence being on the table." (ABC's "This Week," 6/15/03)

Yep. That's John Kerry and his amazing flip-flopping ways!

Back to his final comment, about China having an interest in the outcome in talks with North Korea. He's right, so why he thinks pushing China away would work is beyond on even me.

So, now that you've seen the substance of Kerry's comments, do you really believe he "won" this debate? Or did he just use his Yale debate team skills to slide by questions and insert frightening answers in others. This man barely answered questions, he never laid out specifics, he used Vietnam as simple rhetoric (even though he was against that in 1992), he denigrated our allies, and he wants to give nuclear material to rogue countries like Iran.

And really quick, before I finish this up: Kerry thinks he'll get our allies into Iraq, right?

Just recently officials from both France and Germany weighed in on that thought:

"I cannot imagine that there will be any change in our decision not to send troops, whoever becomes president," Gert Weisskirchen, member of parliament and foreign policy expert for Germany's ruling Social Democratic Party, said in an interview.

Michel Barnier, the French foreign minister, said last week that France, which has tense relations with interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, had no plans to send troops "either now or later".

And how does Poland feel about John Kerry after this debate? Well, the president of Poland, Alexander Kwasniewski, said after the debate on Polish television: "I find it kind of sad that a senator with 20 year parliamentary experience is unable to notice the Polish presence in the anti-terror coalition." He also said: "[The] anti-terror coalition is larger than the USA, the UK and Australia. There are also Poland, Ukraine, and Bulgaria etc. which lost their soldiers there. It's highly immoral not to see our strong commitment we have taken with a strong believe that we must fight against terror together, that we must show our strong international solidarity because Saddam Hussein was dangerous to the world. That's why we are disappointed that our stance and ultimate sacrifice of our soldiers are so diminished."

But remember, John Kerry is going to bring all these allies into Iraq…because hey, he's a war hero.

Now, I know I promised to respond to the reviewers, but I'm exhausted. If I do respond, it'll be on the review board if anything. And no, I don't think I'll be doing a debate critique on each debate. I simply did one on this debate because Kerry was being touted as the clear-cut winner when if you look at what he said, it's down-right frightening.

And in case you're wondering, the transcript I used came from the Council on Presidential Debates through the . And the Kerry quotes were collected by the Republican National Committee—this doesn't mean they're made up, however. If you care to spend ten minutes, those quotes and more can be viewed, on the shows they were said, at .

Thanks for reading, hope you learned something.