Was Bush wired with an earpiece in Debate 1? Who was he linked up with? the Brain Karl Rove?

Many individuals noticed (respectively) that Bush had an awkward way of speaking, he paused before answering, he even remarked "let me finish" when there was no disturbance, and the most convincing piece of evidence is the picture of Bush's back (who was wearing a suit which is far to big for him, even though he gets them specially made at this one tailor who is incredibly expensive[i'll get the link it was in the New Yorker]) this picture of his back shows a strangely shaped bulge near the center top of his back. For those who think it some sort of microphone, the debate contract specifies that no microphones are allowed to be brought by individuals. It is also shaped so that it eliminates the posssibility that it is body armor. I will be researching this for the next few days, help me find the smoking gun, the blogosphere is lighting up with speculations. We need to investigate some hard facts and we need to create such a movment online that the mainstream media cannot ignore the evidence. Also remember that the original contract said that the cameras could not even show reaction shots or the backs of candidates(for bald spots), but these demands were ignored which probably made it harder to hide the bullshit. Also if you read mass media articles about how Bush prepped for the debate he did not spend time really at all prepping.

There is also testimony form an individual who says he watched a broadcast of Bush on French television and noticed he was recieving messages and repeating them.
BUSH IS A PUPPET, NOW IS OUR CHANCE TO PROVE IT TO EVERYONE.

Here are the links:
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/10/298647.shtml

Here is the site with the picture: http://www.bluelemur.com/index.php?p=321

http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=3562

http://www.isbushwired.com

http://theyknew.diaryland.com/041003_98.html

http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/008118.html

http://rense.com/general58/prompt.htm

http://crossroads.net/a/2004/10/01/debate_reaction/index.php

http://www.cosmiciguana.com/archives/002979.html

http://rense.com/general35/voices.htm

http://www.indybay.org/news/2004/10/1697371.php

http://ebradlee10.dailykos.com/story/2004/6/9/122728/8176

operation Northwoods(the government planned on using terrorism to get the public behind a war with Cuba[the document refers to the sinking of the Maine before the spainish-american war and insinuates this was done for the same reason of motivating the "democracy" to go to war]): http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/

Iran-Contra proved that the federal government of the United States of America is involved in drug smuggling. Where do they smuggle drugs you say? where else, the United States(specifically South Central Los Angeles). So here is the reasoning The CIA would hire criminals to engage in crimes, the sale of arms and the delivery of "humanitarian aid" and do you think these criminals would fly back in to the United States (gauranteed not to have to mess with customs) without some sort of contraband????:http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB113/#1

At the top of the hierarchy they all knew that they were smuggling drugs in to the country in order to fund a brutal terrorist group in Nicaragua and use Iran to exacerbate the Iraq-Iran conflict that we are using today to justify the invasion of Iraq(specifically the Halabjah mustard gas incident. Here are theories on how high the knowledge went and the fact that our government has made drugs illegal and then imports them(where do they import them you say? obviously where a great deal of poor minorities are duh![Don't you hate these NarcoPolitricks?]): http://www.bwbadge.com/bush.htm , http://www.parascope.com/mx/articles/garywebb/garyWebbSpeaks.htm
http://www.afn.org/~dks/i-c/x-discourse/draper.html


Why do we care about Iran-Contra in this modern day and age? Because our new administration is just recycled iran-contra drug smugglers http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20020311&s=corn
(remember Ollie North went on Fox news' Hannity and Colmes to try to "clear his name"(this is a euphemeism for mislead/lie to the american people to get them to believe he wasn't a known accomplice to massive drug smuggling operations)[Although North lost the election this is another example of Fox News being an agent of right wing propaganda even to the point that they will knowingly lie about an individidual responsible for a massive influx of cocaine in the mid-1980s, some argue this influx caused the 1986 crack epidemic in LA{including Gary Webb and many other sites: http://www.csun.edu/communications/ben/news/cia/ }]

Want Ashcroft to put you in a camp?????
LA Times- http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/CfCAHV.html
Wash. Post -http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/911mar2002.html#0303b

The CIA and drugs: http://www.csun.edu/CommunicationStudies/ben/news/cia/
"In my 30-year history in the Drug Enforcement Administration and related agencies, the major targets of my investigations almost invariably turned out to be working for the CIA." --Dennis Dayle, former chief of an elite DEA enforcement unit. FROM: Peter Dale Scott & Jonathan Marshall, Cocaine Politics: Drugs, Armies, and the CIA in Central America, Berkeley: U. of CA Press, 1991, pp. x-xi.

Never forget that according to the National Office of Drug Control Policy as published in Samuel Walker's book "Sense and Nonsense about crime and drugs"
74% of all people incarcerated for narcotics crimes are....you guessed it African-American.

Some people call this a conspiracy, you want conspiracy go look at those crazy fools who deny the halocaust and say we're descendents of aliens and all that crap. Or conspiracies of the ancient secret societies running our entire world. DOCUMENTED FACTS AINT' CONSPIRACY. If you think that during the Iran-Contra fiasco the CIA wasn't complicit in the smuggling of HUNDREDS OF TONS of Cocaine in to the United States then you are.........stupid, ok I said it you're stupid because the proof is there. The George Washington University National Security Archives is constantly subpeoning(spelling?) the federal government under the FOIA to get new documents. Senator Leahy just asked for a shitload of documents relating to the torture of Iraqi Civilians
(good job Leahy, Unlike many Americans who now have been inculcated with a belief that "Justice is un-american" I think we should find the people responsible for these morally repugnant acts[and I do NOT mean the soldiers I mean the people at the top who commanded it, all soldiers CAN do is follow orders they have their psyches broken down so all they CAN do is follow orders, they have been following orders and they are also victims because it is psychologically impossible not to have mental problems after you have sodomized civilian children {on videotape: http://www.pastpeak.com/archives/2004/07/post_1.htm}, raped women http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0421/mondo2.php , Tore at people with dogs, froze or burned them, starved them, beat them, and the two best ones{because Rumsfeld ADMITTED to authorizing them} The Hooding and threatening that you will die if you step off the box and the tying of an individual to a flat board and submerging them underwater http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444 . THESE LAST TWO METHODS WERE APPROVED BY RUMSFELD!!!!])

Let me run the list by you one more time:
-drug war, while smuggling drugs in to country, 74% of people incarcerated for drug crimes are Black

-Ashcroft has plans on concentration camps and how to get United States citizens in to them.

-Oil is about to run out so we are killing and torturing massive amounts of human beings in other countries for this finite resource.

-Freedom of Speech no longer exists in this country instead we have special barbed wire fenced in "free speech zones" and these are the places where it is OK to peacefully assemble.

-Freedom of religion has been diminished by the ongoing PR war against Muslims and the constant references to Bush's christian god. We are fighting a war for Born Again Christians, if you are not one of these hard-core evangelist christians or not a christian at all then how are these policies just???

-More and more of our taxpayer money is being cut from social issues and goes to one of two places: The military industrial complex to run the "war on terrorism" or the Prison industrial complex and law enforcement to run "the war on drugs" (also known as the "war on personal freedoms")

-So why are we giving our money to torture and kill innocents in Iraq, as well as put in cages our freinds and family (specifically the young and minorities) for victimless crimes. The answer is money, I ain't no communist so fuck off stupid neo-cons. I know thats what you're thinking if you've been conditioned by the right, but don't start coming with the same old republican attacks on any type of change by condemning it as communist. This has nothing to do with that argument. The point is simple: The Military and Prison industrial complexes are operated at a loss to provide us with great potential to commit evil. SLASH FUNDING!!(and I do not mean privatize prisons, people who make profit off of putting humans in cages are morally repugnant) I mean actually slash funding you can take 2 moves that would free up massive law enforcement funding: End the war on personal freedoms and the death penalty, these policies are far more expensive than the alternative(which is to not have either of them).
These tax-cut and spend conservatives and their "want to embolden the myth of 'being hard on crime'" freinds on the liberal end are both dumb asses, and don't ever let one side convince you that the other side spends or saves more. THE ONLY THING THAT HAS BEEN SHOWN TO SUSTAINABLY REDUCE CRIME IS A STRONG ECONOMY. We need to reduce defense spending, reduce law enforcement spending, legalize narcotics(which would destroy all gangs currently formed around the sale of narcotics), and stop playing world government(thats the UN's job to enforce the WMD treaties). This will leave tons of money for: treatment of addicts, drug education, prosecution of crimes that have a victim, and education(which is what our government SHOULD be spending the vast majority of its' money in, imagine a world where instead of dropping 100,000 bombs on Iraq, we only drop 98,000 and those other 2,000 instead of being made fund every inner-city school's art and music departments that got slashed (by people claming shrinking government is a higher ideal than education). It really isn't hard, unless the government is occupied by two parties and both are jingoists.

So whats the answer?
The constitution is our social contract. The theory behind a social contract is that when certain individuals start violating our constitution and the supreme court has been so co-opted it does not stop such obvious abrogations, then the social force of "the people" will reclaim their power and individual rights. This is what people call a revolution, the problem with the social contract is the only true motivation in the past for revolution has always been.....money. Essentially meaning that the middle class must be destroyed through a widening income gap, before any revolutionary action will ever occur. The US took this a step farther with a very powerful mass media that will always actively work against such an idea as "the people" reclaming the rights gauranteed to them by the constitution and declaration of independence. This means a massive movement has even less probability. So democracy was intended as the government that would make revolution obsolete, because of constant peaceful revolutions. Things like COINTELPRO destroyed these ideals our democracy has been hijacked by malevolent demagogues. They stand to benefit greatly from 9/11 and will be using it for sympathy in the next week. I am finding myself losing my opposition to the death penalty, becuase individuals who OKed the torture at Abu Ghraib should be given a trial(by a military tribunal in either an Ad-hoc world court or the International Court of Justice or the UN floor) and then executed if guilty. The crime of murder is much worse if our entire country funded it, OKed it, and then sat by and did nothing as we say what played out. YOU THINK ANYONE IN THIS WORLD GIVES A SHIT ABOUT 9/11 BESIDES AMERICA NOW!!!!?????? AMERICANS WATCHED THE BODIES BURIED IN DASHT LEILE, ALMOST THE SAME AMOUNT AS THE PEOPLE KILLED ON 9/11 WHAT PEOPLE CARE ABOUT IS THE UNITED STATES UNILATERALLY TAKING OVER A COUNTRY AND SYSTEMATICALLY TORTURING ITS' CITIZENS WE CANNOT FIGHT TERROR WITH TERROR! Or maybe real justice would be taking all the members of the administration that OKed these tactics and having dogs tear them apart, drown them, electrocute them, smear them with feces, rape their wives, sodomize their children, freeze them, burn them, starve them, and then finally dress them in military fatigues(without flak jacket of course, remember america doesn't care if the people dying for it are properly armored) and march their asses out in to the streets of Fallujah THAT WOULD BE A FITTING PUNISHMENT!

"Why do you hate america?" -Unwitting Imperialist
I don't hate America, I hate people who take the Idea of america(Codified in the Constitution and the Declaration of Indpendence) and shit on it. They shit on it and then drag it through even more shit, they fly to Eurasia to drag it through shit, they use it to justify the 20,000+ wounded in Iraq, the soon to be 1000 person death toll in iraq. What pisses me off more than people who accuse real patriots of being un-american, is when they hide behind the flag themselves. The united states constitution has never stood for colonialism or mercantilism or torture. These are the actions we take though. So to the people who call me anti-american because I am opposed to torture, to you sir or maam I say you are pro-torture so fuck off and stop hiding behind my flag. If you still think 9/11 had anything to do with Iraq then you're an idiot. If you think Afghanistan didn't have anything to do with Unocal you are also an idiot. If you think al-qaida just materialized out of thin air, and wasn't created by our funding and weapons when it was the mujahaden(Reagan's much ballyhooed 'freedom fighters')then you're ignorant. If you don't care that there is no actual point in time which we will definitively actually "win" the occupation of Iraq then you're a facist. If you think calling our country on its' evils is "anti-american" you are the anti-democracy and if the rest of america is like you, then democracy has already failed.

So now what?

We all sit in our respective homes, dutifully watching TV so we'll know what to buy when we get our next paycheck, pretending we live in a democracy but not actually voicing opinion instead shutting all voices of dissent down, bowing down to the flag which George Bush Jr. hides behind and uses for malevolent purpose, and we all embrace complacency.

"Our forefathers would think it's time for a revolution. This is why they revolted in the first place." Says Paul with a laugh, "They revolted against much more mild oppression." -Republican Ron Paul, talking about the Patriot act (thats right.....republican)

Democracy is the only form of government that has a chance of satisfying the right of self-determination. Democracy is also just a word, we need to be able to recognize when democracy has fully been co-opted by an oligarchic or facist power. We the people of the United States may have to forcefully take our democracy back if they start to herd us in to Ashcroft's camps and continue the erosion of our individual liberties.
Our greatest check on tyrannical power is set to go forth in November. We have all heard that this administration obviously has plans to halt the election, if they do I think we may have to react if we want to save the country we love.

-Jimothy J. Jones
(To all you haters, I do not advocate violence in any form, unless in self-defense, I am not seditious for the sake of being seditious, our forefathers gave us the duty to be vigilant over democracy, I am just one voice there are many others[maybe you agree that indefinite global warfare and systematic torture are the result of a fully functioning democratic system] we have to speak up though. The fundamental basis of democracy is that people speak up for their views, by looking through history we can establish empirical evidence, the illiterate hicks and the conservatives (who specialize in Ayn Rand type intellectual justifications of greed) that call us anti-american, these are the individuals who threaten our democracy. NEVER SILENCE DISSENT!!!
Even if they're wackos, idiots, and obviously wrong like those fuckers that don't belive in the halocaust or believe aliens control us, they're still humans that are gauranteed the right to an opinion. Don't just turn your back though, give them the facts, knowledge is power.

Part one of the Bush vs. Kerry debate analysis (debate #1, transcript, with comments) Miami 2004

This is half of the transcript of the First presidential debates of 2004. I did some analysis, pointin' out good and bad from both. I really wanted to do this because the most important point is that Acting President: Governor George Bush Jr. advocates a constant state of pre-emptive war as many as 4 times, this is eerily reminiscent of the third reich's blitzkreig to spread freedom to Europe. Here is the transcript, my interjections are in parenthesis and italics.




September 30, 2004 from Coral Gables, Fla.
Text From FDCH E-Media

Following is the transcript of the presidential debate between President Bush (R) and Sen. John F. Kerry (D). The moderator of the nationally televised debate was Jim Lehrer of PBS.

LEHRER: Good evening from the University of Miami Convocation Center in Coral Gables, Florida. I'm Jim Lehrer of "The NewsHour" on PBS.
And I welcome you to the first of the 2004 presidential debates between President George W. Bush, the Republican nominee, and Senator John Kerry, the Democratic nominee.
These debates are sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates.
Tonight's will last 90 minutes, following detailed rules of engagement worked out by representatives of the candidates. I have agreed to enforce their rules on them.
The umbrella topic is foreign policy and homeland security, but the specific subjects were chosen by me, the questions were composed by me, the candidates have not been told what they are, nor has anyone else.
For each question there can only be a two-minute response, a 90- second rebuttal and, at my discretion, a discussion extension of one minute.
A green light will come on when 30 seconds remain in any given answer, yellow at 15, red at five seconds, and then flashing red means time's up. There is also a backup buzzer system if needed.
Candidates may not direct a question to each other. There will be two-minute closing statements, but no opening statements.
There is an audience here in the hall, but they will remain absolutely silent for the next 90 minutes, except for now, when they join me in welcoming President Bush and Senator Kerry.
(APPLAUSE)
LEHRER: Good evening, Mr. President, Senator Kerry.
As determined by a coin toss, the first question goes to you, Senator Kerry. You have two minutes.
Do you believe you could do a better job than President Bush in preventing another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States?
KERRY: Yes, I do.
But before I answer further, let me thank you for moderating. I want to thank the University of Miami for hosting us. And I know the president will join me in welcoming all of Florida to this debate. You've been through the roughest weeks anybody could imagine. Our hearts go out to you. And we admire your pluck and perseverance.
KERRY: I can make American safer than President Bush has made us.
And I believe President Bush and I both love our country equally. But we just have a different set of convictions about how you make America safe.
I believe America is safest and strongest when we are leading the world and we are leading strong alliances.
I'll never give a veto to any country over our security. But I also know how to lead those alliances.
This president has left them in shatters across the globe, and we're now 90 percent of the casualties in Iraq and 90 percent of the costs.
I think that's wrong, and I think we can do better.
I have a better plan for homeland security. I have a better plan to be able to fight the war on terror by strengthening our military,(why would we need to strengthen our military? Why not just not become embroiled in a 2 front war with an all volunteer force) strengthening our intelligence(Is this necessary when the only real fuck up on 9/11 was the scheduling of multiple war games on the same day by NORAD), by going after the financing more authoritatively(this needs to be done by going after Saudi, Iranian, and especially Pakistani(ISI) cash), by doing what we need to do to rebuild the alliances, by reaching out to the Muslim world, which the president has almost not done, and beginning to isolate the radical Islamic Muslims(rather than fund them through the ISI as we did when we build the Taliban from the ground up, or the mujahadin to fight Russia), not have them isolate the United States of America.(this is a great point, kind of a euphemism for “you’re doing what osama wants you to do” implying that by his actions Bush really did cave in to the terrorists demands to essentially make the USA a bully that is now detested more than it has ever been in history)
KERRY: I know I can do a better job in Iraq. I have a plan to have a summit with all of the allies(here is where kerry comes out strong right in the beginning. He knew he was going to have to put the flip-flop thing to rest so he stated his specific plan for Iraq and what he would do better), something this president has not yet achieved, not yet been able to do to bring people to the table.(he shows that the summit is something that is exclusively under his control, that Bush has not been able to do it at all)We can do a better job of training the Iraqi forces to defend themselves(non-specific), and I know that we can do a better job of preparing for elections. (non-specific),
All of these, and especially homeland security, which we'll talk about a little bit later.
LEHRER: Mr. President, you have a 90-second rebuttal.
BUSH: I, too, thank the University of Miami, and say our prayers are with the good people of this state, who've suffered a lot.(if you saw this part on TV he really did not start strong, seemed like he was bitin’ Kerry’s lines, this could just be a result of the social psychology heuristic of primacy, but I still think Bush really was not prepared for an opening statement beside the sentence that comes next:)
September the(notice the THE) 11th changed how America must look at the world(non-specific),. And since that day, our nation has been on a multi-pronged strategy to keep our country safer.
BUSH: We pursued al Qaeda wherever al Qaeda tries to hide(unless its Tora Bora, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, or Russia). Seventy-five percent of known al Qaeda leaders have been brought to justice(THEN WHY ARE WE STILL IN AFGHANISTAN, this is BULLSHIT). The rest of them know we're after them.(notice the THEM, September THE 11th distinguished between THEM and us)
We've upheld the doctrine that said if you harbor a terrorist, you're equally as guilty as the terrorist(except when it is Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, or the United States like the 2 bin ladens who lived in VA and worked to raise funding for the World Assembly of Muslim Youth, a now recognized terror fund network, the FBI was not allowed to investigate them until the Bin Ladens were flown out of the country by the administration).
And the Taliban are no longer in power(first of all I HATE the Taliban, they stone women, they destroyed the ancient statues of Buddha in Afghanistan, BUT if they are no longer in power WHY ARE WE STILL IN AFGHANISTAN!?). Ten million people have registered to vote in Afghanistan in the upcoming presidential election(Population of Afghanistan:28.5 million[cite:wikipedia.com], facts: http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/09/28/afghan9402.htm )
In Iraq, we saw a threat, and we realized that after September the 11th(this is a common tactic, usually Bush will not mention Saddam unless using classical conditioning to associate Iraq with either: Al-Qaida, Osama, or 9/11. This is an attempt at what we would call “brainwashing” essentially meant to make us think of one of those three things when thinking of Iraq or Saddam), we must take threats seriously, before they fully materialize({1}this is the first time that Bush advocates continuing pre-emptive war in this speech). Saddam Hussein now sits in a prison cell. America and the world are safer for it. (if you believe Saddam was a threat to America you do not read a newspaper, you do not read history books, and you have a very poor grasp of international relations as well as geopolitical power games)
We continue to pursue our policy of disrupting those who proliferate weapons of mass destruction(seriously though, when did they start? What country? Yes qaddafi disarmed because he was scared shitless but qaddafi hasn’t been a threat for years like saddam, it would be like takin Castro out, these people aren’t very nice but fuckin A they they are not a threat to us)
BUSH: Libya has disarmed. The A.Q. Khan network(hadn’t heard of this before the speech gonna have to do a little research, turns out Khan was a criminal network selling weapons here is a link with real info, http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/02/05/pakistan.nuclear/ ) has been brought to justice.
And, as well, we're pursuing a strategy of freedom around the world,(what does this even fucking mean!?) because I understand free nations will reject terror(uhh remember Tim Mc Veigh?). Free nations will answer the hopes and aspirations of their people. Free nations will help us achieve the peace we all want.(the last thing this man wants is peace)
LEHRER: New question, Mr. President, two minutes.
Do you believe the election of Senator Kerry on November the 2nd would increase the chances of the U.S. being hit by another 9/11-type terrorist attack?
BUSH: No, I don't believe it's going to happen.(at this point I was like he doesn’t think we’re gonna get hit?,but no) I believe I'm going to win, because the American people know I know how to lead. I've shown the American people I know how to lead. (lead them in to a quagmire as Bush Jr’s dad would say about Iraq forced us to be occupiers “in a bitterly hostile land”)I have -- I understand everybody in this country doesn't agree with the decisions I've made. And I made some tough decisions. But people know where I stand. (perseverance or stubbornness? This affected 2 different audiences completely differently)People out there listening know what I believe(yah pre-emptive war yer gonna say it 4 times before the debate is over). And that's how best it is to keep the peace.(ok this is the first point I thought of 1984 by Orwell the saying “The Party” make people memorize: “peace is war”) This nation of ours has got a solemn duty to defeat this ideology of hate(yes fundamental Islam is somewhat hateful and dangerous, but you cannot defeat ideas unless you offer alternatives the idea we need to spread is democracy, not bullets with democracy written on them, the former seems a very similar situation to our current conflict, the latter is the true way to spread democracy, the peoples power is a strong enough idea that we do not need bullets. JOHN LOCKE NEVER FIRED A SHOT!). And that's what they are. This is a group of killers(that we not only built from scratch starting with the Mujahadin in Afghanistan we trained and funded to fight soviets, but also tried to influence afghanistan’s political and military development through using the ISI as the CIA’s proxy to encourage certain factions of the Taliban and keep intel on all high ranking military and political leaders in Afghanistan)who will not only kill here, but kill children in Russia(what those people did in Beslan was disgusting, but facism is not the answer), that'll attack unmercifully in Iraq, hoping to shake our will(I’d like to quote that dude from Uncovered! The Truth of the Iraq War [Directed by Robert Greenwald*great movie*] “we sent a buncha soldiers to be sitting ducks, in a place where people think the only good American is a dead one” not only this, but if you remember muslim rebels brought the Soviet Union down because of all the “mujahadin” that came from different countries[that is why Osama is Saudi but was in Afghanistan in the first fuckin place because he wanted to fight against foreign imperialism but the way you motivate people to fight against imperialism in an Arab state is religion THAT’S WHY WE USED IT TO BUILD THE MUJAHADIN, so now the same thing is happening “terrorists” ‘are streaming over the border’ that’s what we read all the time. This is the same situation we tried to create to drive Soviets outta Afghanistan, now the conditions are in Iraq and WE are trying to occupy I MEAN SERIOUSLY JUNIOR HOW OBVIOUS DOES IT HAVE TO GET!?).
We have a duty to defeat this enemy. We have a duty to protect our children and grandchildren.(we do have a duty to our grandchildren and children and that is simply TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, this is not happening with our current leadership, leaving our kids with a facist government is far more dangerous to them than a few crazy muslims, and YOUR CHILDREN ARE OUT THERE PROTESTING GETTING BEATIN’ BY THE COPS!!!!!! Or rounded up in the new military industrical complex’s pet industry: non-lethal crowd control like the huge orange nets to round people up))
The best way to defeat them is to never waver, to be strong, to use every asset at our disposal, *is to constantly stay on the offensive*(if you’re not scared of that statement then you do not believe in our constitution, a constant state of war, an advocation of future pre-emptive conflicts, this is disgusting, FAR more disgusting then wacko muslims killin kids in Beslan or wacko muslims getting flight traning from the Us military[and funding from Gen Mahmud Ahmed of the ISI in Pakistan, that Ahmed probably got from us(CIA) but we can’t prove it yet] and usin it to fly in to our buildings[that were built to withstand a crash with a commercial jetliner]) and, at the same time, spread liberty.(Constant war and spread liberty? Aren’t these mutually exclusive? Post a comment if you don’t think so)
And that's what people are seeing now is happening in Afghanistan.


Ten million citizens have registered to vote(population of Afghanistan: 28.5 million and remember may isntances of people being registered multiple times) It's a phenomenal statistic. They're given a chance to be free, and they will show up at the polls. Forty-one percent of those 10 million are women.
In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. You know why? Because an enemy realizes the stakes. The enemy understands a free Iraq will be a major defeat in their ideology of hatred.(this is ridiculous these muslims are not fighting because ‘they hate freedom’ that’s just stupid, their conception of freedom is different, they’re conception of religion is radically different then ours, its like a ‘I see that its all praise to him and you DO NOT!’ it’s a condescending perspective something I think as Americans we can VERY EASILY relate to because of our cultural similarities of –centrism)) That's why they're fighting so vociferously(you watch the video see if he actually says this haha, this was my guess of what he said too, but truthfully the word was not English haha I wonder if the guy or girl writing the transcript had to guess).
They showed up in Afghanistan when they were there, because they tried to beat us and they didn't(if we’ve won Afghanistan...why are we there?). And they're showing up in Iraq for the same reason. They're trying to defeat us(in my opinion this is proof they LOVE freedom not hate it, they have been fighting so hard against the occupying colonial power).
And if we lose our will, we lose(we must lose if Iraq is to ever be truly free and have a democracy created from its people not a group of aristocratic exiles, AND our current polices are creating votes for the islamo-facist parties). But if we remain strong and resolute, we will defeat this enemy(he means stubborn).
LEHRER: Ninety second response, Senator Kerry.
KERRY: I believe in being strong and resolute and determined. And I will hunt down and kill the terrorists, wherever they are(come on, this is too militaristic,I felt it was a mistake he should have said something like “bring them to justice”).
But we also have to be smart, Jim. And smart means not diverting your attention from the real war on terror in Afghanistan against Osama bin Laden and taking if off to Iraq where the 9/11 Commission confirms there was no connection to 9/11 itself and Saddam Hussein(nice evidence Kerry), and where the reason for going to war was weapons of mass destruction, not the removal of Saddam Hussein(good reminder that Bush is a liar). KERRY: This president has made, I regret to say, a colossal error of judgment. And judgment is what we look for in the president of the United States of America.
I'm proud that important military figures who are supporting me in this race: former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili; just yesterday, General Eisenhower's son, General John Eisenhower, endorsed me; General Admiral William Crown; General Tony McBeak, who ran the Air Force war so effectively for his father[Bush] -- all believe I would make a stronger commander in chief. And they believe it because they know I would not take my eye off of the goal: Osama bin Laden.(yeah fuck Iraq)
KERRY: Unfortunately, he escaped in the mountains of Tora Bora. We had him surrounded. But we didn't use American forces, the best trained in the world, to go kill him. The president relied on Afghan warlords and he outsourced that job too(outsouce was pretty funny, alluding to the job loss in a way). That's wrong.
LEHRER: New question, two minutes, Senator Kerry.
"Colossal misjudgments." What colossal misjudgments, in your opinion, has President Bush made in these areas?
KERRY: Well, where do you want me to begin?(way too arrogant)
First of all, he made the misjudgment of saying to America that he was going to build a true alliance, that he would exhaust the remedies of the United Nations and go through the inspections.
In fact, he first didn't even want to do that. And it wasn't until former Secretary of State Jim Baker(otherwise known as Satan’s Little Helper, his Baker Botts lawfirm defended the Saudi royals in a suit by the families of those killed in 911[and they label michael moore a traitor]) and General Scowcroft and others pushed publicly and said you've got to go to the U.N., that the president finally changed his mind -- his campaign has a word for that(I never laughed so hard watchin’ a presidential debate in my life) -- and went to the United Nations.
Now, once there, we could have continued those inspections.
We had Saddam Hussein trapped.
He also promised America that he would go to war as a last resort.(whoever believed that has never heard of Wolfowitz, Cheney, or Rumsfeld…oh yah and they’re stupid)
Those words mean something to me, as somebody who has been in combat. "Last resort." You've got to be able to look in the eyes of families and say to those parents, "I tried to do everything in my power to prevent the loss of your son and daughter."
I don't believe the United States did that.
And we pushed our allies aside.


And so, today, we are 90 percent of the casualties and 90 percent of the cost: $200 billion -- $200 billion that could have been used for health care, for schools, for construction, for prescription drugs for seniors, and it's in Iraq.
And Iraq is not even the center of the focus of the war on terror. The center is Afghanistan, where, incidentally, there were more Americans killed last year than the year before(so much for Bush’s statistic of Taliban being 75% dead); where the opium production is 75 percent of the world's opium production; where 40 to 60 percent of the economy of Afghanistan is based on opium(remember that the Taliban destroyed like all the poppies, the only poppy growing was taking place in regions ruled by the Northern Alliance as soon as we invaded the opium production skyrocketed and now Aghanistan is exporting a shitload more opium[personally I don’t give a shit but all those ass holes who think the drug war is worth fighting should start paying attention to how the government{specificallhy intelligence branches} steers drugs in to our country instead of away]); where the elections have been postponed three times.(this stat was new to me, pretty good stuff, another piece of evidence that democracy cannot be delivered down the barrel of a gun)
KERRY: The president moved the troops, so he's got 10 times the number of troops in Iraq than he has in Afghanistan, where Osama bin Laden is. Does that mean that Saddam Hussein was 10 times more important than Osama bin Laden -- than, excuse me, Saddam Hussein more important than Osama bin Laden? I don't think so.(this is a great message very populist, everyone hates Osama more than Saddam. Everyone knows Osama is the one who is responsible for 9/11 not Saddam, I fully agree that Bush created a massive diversion from his endless “war on terror”) LEHRER: Ninety-second response, Mr. President.
BUSH: My opponent looked at the same intelligence I looked at and declared in 2002 that Saddam Hussein was a grave threat.(he said he “represented a serious and grave threat” not to the United States though, maybe Iran or Kuwait) He also said in December of 2003 that anyone who doubts that the world is safer without Saddam Hussein does not have the judgment to be president.(Ok there is this world with Saddam Huessein as a dictator, and this world without, which one would you choose? Of course you’d pick the one without, but Kerry did not support going to war as a first option to do this.He thought diplomacy/sanctions and no dead American soldiers would be a much better way of doing it) I agree with him. The world is better off without Saddam Hussein.(is it better off with 1000 american soldiers dead?, 20,000+ wounded? Thousands of dead Iraqi civilians, probably more than saddam ever killed? Turning Abu Ghraib from Saddam’s torture chamber to Uncle Sam’s torture chamber? I mean wake the fuck up governor bush)
I was hoping diplomacy would work(Bush’s idea of diplomacy: “leave Iraq with your sons, or you will be invaded at a time of our choosing”WHAT DIPLOMATIC WORK DID HE DO????? NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!). I understand the serious consequences of committing our troops into harm's way(Of course he does, he defended Texas from the Vietcong).

BUSH: It's the hardest decision a president makes. So I went to the United Nations. I didn't need anybody to tell me to go to the United Nations(great move by Kerry, made Bush look like the puppet he is, when Bush is so pissed that Kerry would imply that Bush would pay attention to advice, its hilarious). I decided to go there myself.(yah sure yah did)
And I went there hoping that, once and for all, the free world would act in concert to get Saddam Hussein to listen to our demands. They passed the resolution that said, "Disclose, disarm, or face serious consequences." I believe, when an international body speaks, it must mean what it says.(Except when the resolution states: “the United States cannot invade Iraq”)

Saddam Hussein had no intention of disarming. Why should he? He had 16 other resolutions and nothing took place. As a matter of fact, my opponent talks about inspectors. The facts are that he was systematically deceiving the inspectors.(Ok this is where if you’re a Bush fan you actually have to experience some sort of historical amnesia, and only a few years old history also….1st:IF saddam was “deceiving” inspectors why haven’t the inspectors said anything of the sort, 2nd: If Saddam was “Decieving” the inspectors doesn’t that mean he was omitting certain info like locations and stuff doesn’t that mean that he has WMD?, 3rd: Saddam had no WMD we have learned so WHAT THE FUCK COULD HE HAVE POSSIBLY DECEIVED THE INSPECTORS ABOUT? DID HE FEED THEM DOG AND SAY IT WAS CHICKEN?)
That wasn't going to work. That's kind of a pre-September 10th mentality, the hope that somehow resolutions and failed inspections would make this world a more peaceful place.(as we have seen from the total lackof WMD in Iraq there were no failed inspections, the inspections were an unabashed success)
He was hoping we'd turn away. But there was fortunately others beside himself who believed that we ought to take action.
BUSH: We did. The world is safer without Saddam Hussein.(this is what we call a “Gross Oversimplification” this is a “sound bite” the “tip of the iceberg” those are all euphemisms for BULLSHIT!. If saddam had experienced a heart attack and dropped dead then hell yah the world would be safer. But taken by a mercantilist American military? Losing 1000 soldiers? Fuck that) LEHRER: New question, Mr. President. Two minutes.
What about Senator Kerry's point, the comparison he drew between the priorities of going after Osama bin Laden and going after Saddam Hussein?
BUSH: Jim, we've got the capability of doing both. (did not answer the question, no mention of “priorities” as Lehrer stated)As a matter of fact, this is a global effort.
We're facing a group of folks who have such hatred in their heart, they'll strike anywhere, with any means.(“anywhere” “with any means” these are statements meant to illicit a level of fear from the populace to look to the strong military type leader for protection. Then Bush will soothe them, reassure the unwitting imperialists that we are still the superior culture)
And that's why it's essential that we have strong alliances, and we do.(He is right the Republic of Palau, Romania, and Morocco)
That's why it's essential that we make sure that we keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of people like al Qaeda, which we are(unexplained)
But to say that there's only one focus on the war on terror doesn't really understand the nature of the war on terror(as kerry tries to draw a distinction between “the war on terror” and the occupation of Iraq, Bush keeps trying to blur the line, because he knows they are not the same).
Of course we're after Saddam Hussein -- I mean bin Laden(mistake or intentional method of conditioning to associate Bin Laden and Saddam). He's isolated. Seventy-five percent of his people have been brought to justice(again why are we still there? And as Kerry said why are there more deaths this year than the last?). The killer -- the mastermind(what a great buzzword right?) of the(I really don’t get the “the” September 11th attacks thing, he puts it before it every time) September 11th attacks, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, is in prison.
BUSH: We're making progress.
But the front on this war is more than just one place(flexing his Karl Von Clausewitzesque military mind). The Philippines -- we've got help -- we're helping them there to bring -- to bring al Qaeda affiliates(I believe by al-qaida affiliates he means: Muslim Fundamentalists) to justice there.
And, of course, Iraq is a central part in the war on terror. That's why Zarqawi and his people are trying to fight us(Zarqawi is Jordanian remember, also remember that it seems that he is almost a complete creation of the media, his “connection” to al-qaida is he fought against soviets in Afghanistan. This connection is redundant because we can invade any muslim country for no reason and the fundamentalist muslims will see that we have no fuckin reason and flood there to fight us). Their hope is that we grow weary and we leave(I hope beyond hope we can finally let the Iraqis be free, by pulling out our troops so they don’t have to suffer through our military checkpoints, our cruise missiles, and our random house searches)).
The biggest disaster that could happen is that we not succeed in Iraq(hate to break it to yah junior, but we ain’t succeeding). We will succeed. We've got a plan to do so. And the main reason we'll succeed is because the Iraqis want to be free(you mean this is the main reason we will not succeed in transforming Iraq in to our colony and another free market for us to exploit, because the Iraqis do want to be free, if you don’t believe it see how many of them have committed suicide just to kill a few Americans, or set up roadside bombs, every day an Iraqi is fighting against the US for freedom).
I had the honor of visiting with Prime Minister Allawi(otherwise known as “the butcher” for lining up 6 suspected insurgents and executing them with his own hand one by one, in a police station to set an example of how he wants insurgents to be dealt with). He's a strong(Euphemism for Facist), courageous (Euphemism for likes money more than life, so is willing to risk the assassination attempts for American dollars, just like any good exiled aristocrat)leader. He believes in the freedom of the Iraqi people(hahaha that ones just plain funny).
He doesn't want U.S. leadership, however, to send mixed signals, to not stand with the Iraqi people(euphemism for calling Kerry a flip-flopper).
He believes, like I believe, that the Iraqis are ready to fight for their own freedom(ready!? They’re doin’ it every day). They just need the help to be trained(you don’t really need to train to become a shaheed haha).
There will be elections in January(yah we’ll see how these “elections” turn out). We're spending reconstruction money(feeding in to Kerry’s argument). And our alliance is strong.
BUSH: That's the plan for victory.
And when Iraq if free, America will be more secure(I never agreed with Bush more, yes when America leaves Iraq, letting Iraq be free, America WILL be more secure, because we won’t have a buncha soldiers in a [as bush 41 said] “bitterly hostile land”). LEHRER: Senator Kerry, 90 seconds.
KERRY: The president just talked about Iraq as a center of the war on terror. Iraq was not even close to the center of the war on terror before the president invaded it(this is true, the only “terrorist’ activities were taking place in the northeast where Saddam never had control and where the US still does not have control).
The president made the judgment to divert forces from under General Tommy Franks from Afghanistan before the Congress even approved it to begin to prepare to go to war in Iraq.(fucked up stuff)
And he rushed the war in Iraq without a plan to win the peace. Now, that is not the judgment that a president of the United States ought to make. You don't take America to war unless have the plan to win the peace. You don't send troops to war without the body armor that they need(Remember when Bush took that Big trip to China in the midst of his “war on terror” the amount of money he spent on security could have purchased armor for every one of those kids in Iraq).
KERRY: I've met kids in Ohio, parents in Wisconsin places, Iowa, where they're going out on the Internet to get the state-of-the-art body gear to send to their kids. Some of them got them for a birthday present.
I think that's wrong. Humvees -- 10,000 out of 12,000 Humvees that are over there aren't armored(ever seen Blackhawk down?). And you go visit some of those kids in the hospitals today who were maimed because they don't have the armament.


This president just -- I don't know if he sees what's really happened on there. But it's getting worse by the day. More soldiers killed in June than before. More in July than June. More in August than July. More in September than in August.
And now we see beheadings. And we got weapons of mass destruction crossing the border every single day, and they're blowing people up. And we don't have enough troops there(nicely summed up vision of that thing Bush denies exists: “reality”).
BUSH: Can I respond to that?
LEHRER: Let's do one of these one-minute extensions. You have 30 seconds.
BUSH: Thank you, sir.
First of all, what my opponent wants you to forget is that he voted to authorize the use of force and now says it's the wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place(He voted to authorize force because Bush needed something to back up his threats, Saddam is smart enough to know how democracy works. If Bush had threatened him without the “apparent present ability” to follow through on the threat, the threat would have been of no use, so government worked together to give Bush this power so he could threaten Saddam, Kerry stated that he wanted to actually invadet only as a last resort. And on the day that bush entered he stated for the press he thought that more diplomacy should have been used) .
BUSH: I don't see how you can lead this country to succeed in Iraq if you say wrong war, wrong time, wrong place(I see how you can, you can try to change the dynamic in the war, being opposed to Rushing to war without a plan for afterwards is not mutually exclusive with trying to clean up the mess left after rushing in). What message does that send our troops?(the best message there is: you’re gonna be able to leave those desert slums playin bodyguard for oil companies and see your family again) What message does that send to our allies?(the “allies” hes talking about are the lap dogs that followed us in to Iraq, you think they give a shit? They’ll do whatever any president tells them to do, because they’re fuckin puppets[besides blair]) What message does that send the Iraqis?(FREEDOM WILL BE YOURS SOON!) No, the way to win this is to be steadfast and resolved and to follow through on the plan that I've just outlined.(he didn’t outline any plan, I’m just wondering if anyone else caught that?) LEHRER: Thirty seconds, Senator.
KERRY: Yes, we have to be steadfast and resolved, and I am. And I will succeed for those troops, now that we're there(heres the distinction between flipflop and being a steadfast leader. He knows the war is bullshit, but hes gonna try to clean up the mess essentially because: we are already there so its too late now). We have to succeed. We can't leave a failed Iraq. But that doesn't mean it wasn't a mistake of judgment to go there and take the focus off of Osama bin Laden(again the distinction, not flip-flopping just what people would call “common sense). It was. Now, we can succeed. But I don't believe this president can. I think we need a president who has the credibility to bring the allies back to the table and to do what's necessary to make it so America isn't doing this alone.(pounding that talking point that kerry=multilaterilist, while Bush=unilateralist) LEHRER: We'll come back to Iraq in a moment. But I want to come back to where I began, on homeland security. This is a two-minute new question, Senator Kerry.
As president, what would you do, specifically, in addition to or differently to increase the homeland security of the United States than what President Bush is doing?
Jim, let me tell you exactly what I'll do. And there are a long list of thing. First of all, what kind of mixed message does it send when you have $500 million going over to Iraq to put police officers in the streets of Iraq, and the president is cutting the COPS program in America?(the message is this whole thing was done for money haha) What kind of message does it send to be sending money to open firehouses in Iraq, but we're shutting firehouses who are the first- responders here in America(these two reasons are why the 2 largest Fire and Police unions have endorsed Kerry).
The president hasn't put one nickel, not one nickel into the effort to fix some of our tunnels and bridges and most exposed subway systems(This time its Kerry’s turn to try to illicit a response of fear from the populace). That's why they had to close down the subway in New York when the Republican Convention was there(but he does have stronger evidence). We hadn't done the work that ought to be done.
The president -- 95 percent of the containers that come into the ports, right here in Florida, are not inspected(again trying to get some fear).
Civilians get onto aircraft, and their luggage is X- rayed, but the cargo hold is not X-rayed.(again with the fear, this is not the Kerry that I personally am a big fan of, I personally ascribe to the belief that this is “the home of the brave” so its up to each of us to be courageous not just fold under the fear and worship John Ashcroft, observe the color coded terror alert every day, or other ridiculous shit hta ths been newly introduced to our mental enviornment) Does that make you feel safer in America?
This president thought it was more important to give the wealthiest people in America a tax cut rather than invest in homeland security. Those aren't my values. I believe in protecting America first.
And long before President Bush and I get a tax cut -- and that's who gets it(another hilarious shot) -- long before we do, I'm going to invest in homeland security and I'm going to make sure we're not cutting COPS programs in America and we're fully staffed in our firehouses and that we protect the nuclear and chemical plants(seems like filler).
The president also unfortunately gave in to the chemical industry, which didn't want to do some of the things necessary to strengthen our chemical plant exposure.
And there's an enormous undone job to protect the loose nuclear materials in the world that are able to get to terrorists. That's a whole other subject, but I see we still have a little bit more time.
KERRY: Let me just quickly say, at the current pace, the president will not secure the loose material in the Soviet Union -- former Soviet Union for 13 years. I'm going to do it in four years. And we're going to keep it out of the hands of terrorists(a comparative advantage fully distinguished in like 2 sentences a great line). LEHRER: Ninety-second response, Mr. President.
BUSH: I don't think we want to get to how he's going to pay for all these promises. It's like a huge tax gap. Anyway, that's for another debate(euphemism for “tax and spend liberal).
My administration has tripled the amount of money we're spending on homeland security to $30 billion a year(wasn’t he just complaining about too much spending? Trying to appeal to core conservative values and then claiming that the largest expansion of federal government in history is good?).
My administration worked with the Congress to create the Department of Homeland Security so we could better coordinate our borders and ports. We've got 1,000 extra border patrol on the southern border; want 1,000 on the northern border. We're modernizing our borders(I don’t give a shit about illegal immigration, but a lot of people do and Bush is spitting bullshit, he hasn’t done anything to halt illegal immigration). We spent $3.1 billion for fire and police, $3.1 billion.
We're doing our duty to provide the funding.
But the best way to protect this homeland is to stay on the offense(another advocation of a constant state of pre-emptive war). BUSH: You know, we have to be right 100 percent of the time. And the enemy only has to be right once to hurt us(if anyone made sense of this please tell me, because we have been wrong with every move).
There's a lot of good people working hard.
And by the way, we've also changed the culture of the FBI to have counterterrorism as its number one priority(because in his pre9-11 administration he told the FBI to back off the bin laden’s and ignored the “bin laden determined to strike US” memo). We're communicating better. We're going to reform our intelligence services to make sure that we get the best intelligence possible.
The Patriot Act is vital -- is vital that the Congress renew the Patriot Act which enables our law enforcement to disrupt terror cells.(the patriot act is a grave violation of our constitutional rights[but you probably all know that])
But again, I repeat to my fellow citizens, the best way to protection is to stay on the offense(another advocation of a constant state of pre-emptive war).
LEHRER: Yes, let's do a little -- yes, 30 seconds.
KERRY: 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(this is true, because of the huge shortage of Arabic translators employed in the intelligence agencies). KERRY: 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.
BUSH: Of course we're doing everything we can to protect America. I wake up every day thinking about how best to protect America. That's my job.
I work with Director Mueller of the FBI; comes in my office when I'm in Washington every morning, talking about how to protect us. There's a lot of really good people working hard to do so. (Bush has no policies or future ideas, just bullshit for this answer)It's hard work. But, again, I want to tell the American people, we're doing everything we can at home, but you better have a president who chases these terrorists down and bring them to justice before they hurt us again(more minority report shit). LEHRER: New question, Mr. President. Two minutes.
What criteria would you use to determine when to start bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq?
BUSH: Let me first tell you that the best way for Iraq to be safe and secure is for Iraqi citizens to be trained to do the job.
BUSH: And that's what we're doing. We've got 100,000 trained now, 125,000 by the end of this year, 200,000 by the end of next year. That is the best way. We'll never succeed in Iraq if the Iraqi citizens do not want to take matters into their own hands to protect themselves. I believe they want to. Prime Minister Allawi(the butcher) believes they want to.
And so the best indication about when we can bring our troops home -- which I really want to do, but I don't want to do so for the sake of bringing them home; I want to do so because we've achieved an objective -- is to see the Iraqis perform and to see the Iraqis step up and take responsibility.
And so, the answer to your question is: When our general is on the ground and Ambassador Negroponte tells me that Iraq is ready to defend herself from these terrorists, that elections will have been held by then, that their stability and that they're on their way to, you know, a nation that's free; that's when.(didn’t we transfer sovereignty?) BUSH: And I hope it's as soon as possible. But I know putting artificial deadlines won't work. My opponent at one time said, "Well, get me elected, I'll have them out of there in six months." You can't do that and expect to win the war on terror(why?).
My message to our troops is, "Thank you for what you're doing. We're standing with you strong. We'll give you all the equipment you need(as long as Lockheed, boeing, Halliburton, or Carlyle sell the equipment you need). And we'll get you home as soon as the mission's done, because this is a vital mission."
A free Iraq will be an ally in the war on terror(just like Afghanistan was an ally in the war on terror, because they contributed troops to our Iraq war hhaha, so that means we can say Iraq is with us when we invade Iran, just like Mike Moore sez “that’s one way to create a coalition, just keep invading countries”), and that's essential. A free Iraq will set a powerful example in the part of the world that is desperate for freedom. A free Iraq will help secure Israel(both candidates make naked attempts for the jewish vote). A free Iraq will enforce the hopes and aspirations of the reformers in places like Iran. A free Iraq is essential for the security of this country.
LEHRER: Ninety seconds, Senator Kerry.
KERRY: Thank you, Jim.
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.(this is a nice way of saying Bush is making soldiers stay longer than they’re required to and forcing them to go back to the desert slums even if they do not want to)
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(I LOVE that quote, very nicely done by Kerry to remind him that even though his father was a douche he was still a better president).
That's exactly where we find ourselves today. There's a sense of American occupation(sense?). The only building that was guarded when the troops when into Baghdad was the oil ministry. We didn't guard the nuclear facilities(this was a new fact for me, very scary).
KERRY: 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.(this was a cheap shot I mean everyone knows Bush won numerous medals for his bravery in defending Texas from the Vietcong)
And I believe our troops need other allies helping. I'm going to hold that summit(clear distinction between the two’s policies). I will bring fresh credibility, a new start, and we will get the job done right.
LEHRER: All right, go ahead. Yes, sir?
BUSH: I think it's worthy for a follow-up.
LEHRER: Sure, right.
(CROSSTALK)
LEHRER: We can do 30 second each here. All right.
BUSH: My opponent says help is on the way, but what kind of message does it say to our troops in harm's way, "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time"? Not a message a commander in chief gives, or this is a "great diversion." (from the war on terror”…that’s the rest of that quote)

As well, help is on the way, but it's certainly hard to tell it when he voted against the $87-billion supplemental to provide equipment for our troops, and then said he actually did vote for it before he voted against it. Not what a commander in chief does when you're trying to lead troops.
LEHRER: Senator Kerry, 30 seconds.
KERRY: 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.
LEHRER: All right, new question. Two minutes, Senator Kerry.
Speaking of Vietnam, you spoke to Congress in 1971, after you came back from Vietnam, and you said, quote, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"
LEHRER: Are Americans now dying in Iraq for a mistake?
KERRY: No, and they don't have to, providing we have the leadership that we put -- that I'm offering.
I believe that we have to win this. The president and I have always agreed on that. And from the beginning, I did vote to give the authority, because I thought Saddam Hussein was a threat, and I did accept that intelligence(they never mention that Bush intentionally instructed the CIA to data mine for justifications for war).
But I also laid out a very strict series of things we needed to do in order to proceed from a position of strength. Then the president, in fact, promised them. He went to Cincinnati and he gave a speech in which he said, "We will plan carefully. We will proceed cautiously. We will not make war inevitable. We will go with our allies."
He didn't do any of those things.(euphemism for calling him a liar) They didn't do the planning. They left the planning of the State Department in the State Department desks. They avoided even the advice of their own general. General Shinsheki, the Army chief of staff, said you're going to need several hundred thousand troops. Instead of listening to him, they retired him.
KERRY: The terrorism czar, who has worked for every president since Ronald Reagan, said, "Invading Iraq in response to 9/11 would be like Franklin Roosevelt invading Mexico in response to Pearl Harbor."(hilarious)
That's what we have here.
And what we need now is a president who understands how to bring these other countries together to recognize their stakes in this. They do have stakes in it. They've always had stakes in it.
The Arab countries have a stake in not having a civil war. The European countries have a stake in not having total disorder on their doorstep.
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(Rock on Kerry!), 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."
KERRY: That's not a way to invite people.
LEHRER: Ninety seconds.
BUSH: That's totally absurd. Of course, the U.N. was invited in. And we support the U.N. efforts there. They pulled out after Sergio de Mello got killed. But they're now back in helping with elections.
My opponent says we didn't have any allies in this war. What's he say to Tony Blair?(I’d say “where are the weapons Tony?” What's he say to Alexander Kwasniewski of Poland?(I’d say: “So do you think Poland is a world power? Because I sure as hell don't”) You can't expect to build an alliance when you denigrate the contributions of those who are serving side by side with American troops in Iraq.
Plus, he says the cornerstone of his plan to succeed in Iraq is to call upon nations to serve. So what's the message going to be: "Please join us in Iraq. We're a grand diversion. Join us for a war that is the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time?"
I know how these people think. I deal with them all the time. I sit down with the world leaders frequently and talk to them on the phone frequently.(He was struggling for something and all he could come up with was ‘phone calls’) They're not going to follow somebody who says, "This is the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time."
BUSH: I know how these people think. I deal with them all the time. I sit down with the world leaders frequently and talk to them on the phone frequently.(redundancy)
They're not going to follow somebody who says this is the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time. They're not going to follow somebody whose core convictions keep changing because of politics in America(couldn’t come up with ANYTHING so he just resorts to the flip-flopping slander).
And finally, he says we ought to have a summit. Well, there are summits being held. Japan is going to have a summit for the donors; $14 billion pledged. And Prime Minister Koizumi is going to call countries to account, to get them to contribute(a drop in the fucking bucket, remember the 90% stat). And there's going to be an Arab summit, of the neighborhood countries. And Colin Powell helped set up that summit.
LEHRER: Forty seconds, Senator.
KERRY: 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.
LEHRER: Thirty seconds, Mr. President.


BUSH: Well, actually, he forgot Poland. And now there's 30 nations involved, standing side by side with our American troops(how dare Kerry disrespect Palau and Romania, like Bush has disrespected France, Germany, and Spain).
BUSH: And I honor their sacrifices. And I don't appreciate it when candidate for president denigrates(Must only remember one word from his reading of the SAT words) the contributions of these brave soldiers.
You cannot lead the world if you do not honor the contributions of those who are with us. He called them coerced and the bribed. That's not how you bring people together.
Our coalition is strong. It will remain strong, so long as I'm the president.
LEHRER: New question, Mr. President, two minutes. You have said there was a, quote, "miscalculation," of what the conditions would be in post-war Iraq. What was the miscalculation, and how did it happen?
BUSH: No, what I said was that, because we achieved such a rapid victory, more of the Saddam loyalists were around. I mean, we thought we'd whip more of them going in.(I don’t buy it, the insurgents are coming from all over the Arab world, he was referring to the resistance after we took the oil ministry)
BUSH: But because Tommy Franks did such a great job in planning the operation, we moved rapidly, and a lot of the Baathists and Saddam loyalists laid down their arms and disappeared. I thought they would stay and fight, but they didn't.
And now we're fighting them now. And it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work.
And I'm optimistic. See, I think you can be realistic and optimistic at the same time. I'm optimistic we'll achieve -- I know we won't achieve if we send mixed signals. I know we're not going to achieve our objective if we send mixed signals to our troops, our friends, the Iraqi citizens.
We've got a plan in place. The plan says there will be elections in January, and there will be. The plan says we'll train Iraqi soldiers so they can do the hard work, and we are.
BUSH: And it's not only just America, but NATO is now helping, Jordan's helping train police, UAE is helping train police.
We've allocated $7 billion over the next months for reconstruction efforts. And we're making progress there.
And our alliance is strong. And as I just told you, there's going to be a summit of the Arab nations. Japan will be hosting a summit. We're making progress.
It is hard work. It is hard work to go from a tyranny to a democracy. It's hard work to go from a place where people get their hands cut off, or executed, to a place where people are free.
But it's necessary work. And a free Iraq is going to make this world a more peaceful place.(again I agree with him “a free Iraq IS going to make this world a more peaceful place” that’s why we got to get the fuck out so they can be free)
LEHRER: Ninety seconds, Senator Kerry.
KERRY: 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 Qaeda, he would still have done everything the same way. Those are his words.
KERRY: Now, I would not. So what I'm trying to do is just talk the truth to the American people and to the world. The truth is what good policy is based on. It's what leadership is based on.(the truth is also what Bush has been ignoring)
The president says that I'm denigrating these troops. I have nothing but respect for the British, Tony Blair, and for what they've been willing to do.
But you can't tell me that when the most troops any other country has on the ground is Great Britain, with 8,300, and below that the four others are below 4,000, and below that, there isn't anybody out of the hundreds, that we have a genuine coalition to get this job done.(Very easy to understand breakdown of the bullshit “coalition of the willing” shattering Bush’s assertion that this was a strong coalition in the first place)
KERRY: You can't tell me that on the day that we went into that war and it started -- it was principally the United States, the America and Great Britain and one or two others. That's it. And today, we are 90 percent of the casualties and 90 percent of the costs. And meanwhile, North Korea has got nuclear weapons. Talk about mixed messages. The president is the one that said, "We can't allow countries to get nuclear weapons." They have. I'll change that(Kerry is deft and precise, and takes him down real easy).
LEHRER: New question. Senator Kerry, two minutes. You just -- you've repeatedly accused President Bush -- not here tonight, but elsewhere before -- of not telling the truth about Iraq, essentially of lying to the American people about Iraq. Give us some examples of what you consider to be his not telling the truth.
KERRY: Well, I've never, ever used the harshest word, as you did just then. And I try not to. I've been -- but I'll nevertheless tell you that I think he has not been candid with the American people. And I'll tell you exactly how.
First of all, we all know that in his state of the union message, he told Congress about nuclear materials that didn't exist.(straight up)
KERRY: We know that he promised America that he was going to build this coalition. I just described the coalition. It is not the kind of coalition we were described when we were talking about voting for this.(straight up)
The president said he would exhaust the remedies of the United Nations and go through that full process. He didn't. He cut if off, sort of arbitrarily. (straight up)
And we know that there were further diplomatic efforts under way. They just decided the time for diplomacy is over and rushed to war without planning for what happens afterwards(straight fuckin up).
Now, he misled the American people in his speech when he said we will plan carefully. They obviously didn't. He misled the American people when he said we'd go to war as a last resort. We did not go as a last resort. And most Americans know the difference.
Now, this has cost us deeply in the world. I believe that it is important to tell the truth to the American people. I've worked with those leaders the president talks about, I've worked with them for 20 years, for longer than this president. And I know what many of them say today, and I know how to bring them back to the table.
KERRY: And I believe that a fresh start, new credibility, a president who can understand what we have to do to reach out to the Muslim world to make it clear that this is not, you know -- Osama bin Laden uses the invasion of Iraq in order to go out to people and say that America has declared war on Islam.
We need to be smarter about how we wage a war on terror. We need to deny them the recruits. We need to deny them the safe havens. We need to rebuild our alliances.
I believe that Ronald Reagan, John Kennedy, and the others did that more effectively, and I'm going to try to follow in their footsteps(attempt to condition us with the populist image).
LEHRER: Ninety seconds, Mr. President.
BUSH: My opponent just said something amazing. He said Osama bin Laden uses the invasion of Iraq as an excuse to spread hatred for America. Osama bin Laden isn't going to determine how we defend ourselves.(well he should if hes the one attacking, am I wrong about this?) BUSH: Osama bin Laden doesn't get to decide. The American people decide(yah the American people good job Bush, I might vote for you!).
I decided the right action was in Iraq(wait a minute… I thought you were just saying the American people decide ohhhh haha you suck, that will teach me to accept your words at face value[isn’t this a flip-flop in the course of 2 sentences?). My opponent calls it a mistake. It wasn't a mistake.
He said I misled on Iraq. I don't think he was misleading when he called Iraq a grave threat in the fall of 2002(yah neither does anyone else buddy, are you implying that because Kerry says you fucked up the war that he now thinks iraq wasn’t a grave threat to those around it?).
I don't think he was misleading when he said that it was right to disarm Iraq in the spring of 2003(disarm through weapons inspections).
I don't think he misled you when he said that, you know, anyone who doubted whether the world was better off without Saddam Hussein in power didn't have the judgment to be president.(redundancy) I don't think he was misleading.
I think what is misleading is to say you can lead and succeed in Iraq if you keep changing your positions on this war(flip-flop slander). And he has. As the politics change, his positions change. And that's not how a commander in chief acts.
Let me finish(Bush looked real stupid here, because Kerry didn’t do anything haha, yet Bush jumped all over his ass).
The intelligence I looked at was the same intelligence my opponent looked at, the very same intelligence. And when I stood up there and spoke to the Congress, I was speaking off the same intelligence he looked at to make his decisions to support the authorization of force.(again and again this argument comes up Kerry has consistently provided a good explanation for this that the president needed the ability to actually use force if he was going to threaten Saddam with it to get him to chill out on the inspectors)
LEHRER: Thirty seconds. We'll do a 30 second here.
KERRY: I wasn't misleading when I said he was a threat. Nor was I misleading on the day that the president decided to go to war when I said that he had made a mistake in not building strong alliances and that I would have preferred that he did more diplomacy.(again a clear distinction, a clear position, and is a strong argument against the flip-flop character assassination we get from Fox News and the Republican talking heads)
I've had one position, one consistent position, that Saddam Hussein was a threat. There was a right way to disarm him and a wrong way. And the president chose the wrong way.
LEHRER: Thirty seconds, Mr. President.
BUSH: The only consistent about my opponent's position is that he's been inconsistent. (no new arguments, Bush is not using his head in this response)He changes positions. And you cannot change positions in this war on terror if you expect to win.
BUSH: And I expect to win. It's necessary we win.(If anyone remembers Bush recently said publicly he was “not sure” we could win the war on “terror”its too bad Fox news doesn’t work for the democrats or this flip-flop label may have been attached to the other candidate…or was that the point?))
We're being challenged like never before. And we have a duty to our country and to future generations of America to achieve a free Iraq, a free Afghanistan, and to rid the world of weapons of mass destruction.

Part 2 comin soon, and Veep ass beatin of cheney