    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George W. Bush (2004, Book II)]
    [September 30, 2004]
    [Pages 2248-2271]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Presidential Debate in Coral Gables, Florida
    September 30, 2004

        Jim Lehrer. Good evening from the University
    of Miami Convocation Center in Coral Gables, Florida. I'm Jim Lehrer of
    the News Hour 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 2-minute response, a 90-
    second rebuttal, and at my discretion, a discussion extension of 1
    minute. A green light will come on when 30 seconds remain in any given
    answer, yellow at 15, red at 5 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 2-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]
        Good evening, Mr. President, Senator Kerry.
        As determined by a coin toss, the first question goes to you,
    Senator Kerry. You have 2 minutes.

    Preventing Future Terrorist Attacks

        Do you believe you could do a better job than President Bush in
    preventing another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States?
        Senator 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.
        I can make America 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 when 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;
    strengthening our intelligence; by going after the financing more
    authoritatively; 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, not have
    them isolate the United States of America.
        I know I can do a better job in Iraq, where I have a plan to have a
    summit with all of the allies, something this President has not yet
    achieved, not yet been able to do to bring people to the table. We can
    do a better job of training the Iraqi forces to defend themselves. And I

    [[Page 2249]]

    know that we can do a better job of preparing for elections. All of
    these, and especially homeland security, which we'll talk about a little
    bit later.
        Mr. Lehrer. Mr. President, you have a 90-
    second rebut.
        President 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.
        September the 11th changed how America must look at the world. And
    since that day, our Nation has been on a multipronged strategy to keep
    our country safer. We've pursued Al Qaida wherever Al Qaida tries to
    hide; 75 percent of known Al Qaida leaders have been brought to justice.
    The rest of them know we're after them.
        We've upheld the doctrine that said, ``If you harbor a terrorist,
    you're equally as guilty as the terrorist.'' And the Taliban, no longer
    in power; 10 million people have registered to vote in Afghanistan in
    the upcoming Presidential election.
        In Iraq, we saw a threat, and we realized that after September the
    11th, we must take threats seriously before they fully materialize.
    Saddam Hussein now sits in a prison cell.
    America and the world are safer for it.
        We continue to pursue our policy of disrupting those who proliferate
    weapons of mass destruction. Libya has disarmed. The A.Q. Khan network has been brought to justice. And as
    well, we're pursuing a strategy of--of freedom around the world, because
    I understand free nations will reject terror; free nations will answer
    the hopes and aspirations of their people; free nations will help us
    achieve the peace we all want.

    Likelihood of Future Terrorist Attack

        Mr. Lehrer. New question, Mr. President, 2
    minutes. Do you believe the election of Senator Kerry on November the 2d
    would increase the chances of the U.S. being hit by another 9/11-type
    terrorist attack?
        President Bush. No, I don't believe it's going to happen. 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. I have--I understand
    everybody in this country doesn't agree with the decisions that I've
    made, and I made some tough decisions. But people know where I stand.
    People out there listening know what I believe, and that's how best it
    is to keep the peace.
        This Nation of ours has got a solemn duty to defeat this ideology of
    hate, and that's what they are. This is a group of killers who will not
    only kill here but kill children in Russia, that will attack
    unmercifully in Iraq hoping to shake our will. We have a duty to defeat
    this enemy. We have a duty to protect our children and grandchildren.
    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, and
    at the same time, spread liberty.
        And that's what people are seeing now is happening in Afghanistan.
    Ten million citizens have registered to vote. It's a phenomenal
    statistic, that if given a chance to be free, 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. That's why they're fighting so vociferously. They showed up
    in Afghanistan when they were there because they tried to beat us, and
    they didn't. And they're showing up in Iraq for the same reason. They're
    trying to defeat us. And if we lose our will, we lose. But if we remain
    strong and resolute, we will defeat this enemy.
        Mr. Lehrer. Ninety-second response, Senator
    Kerry.
        Senator Kerry. I believe in being strong and
    resolute and determined, and I will

    [[Page 2250]]

    hunt down and kill the terrorists, wherever they are. But we also have
    to be smart, Jim, and smart means not diverting your attention from the
    real war on terror in Afghanistan against Usama bin Laden and taking it
    off to Iraq, where the 9/11 Commission confirms there was no connection
    to 9/11 itself and Saddam Hussein, and where the reason for going to war
    was weapons of mass destruction, not the removal of Saddam Hussein.
        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 are supporting me in this
    race: former Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili; just
    yesterday General Eisenhower's son, General John Eisenhower, endorsed
    me; General--Admiral William Crowe; General Tony McPeak, who ran the Air
    Force war so effectively for his father. 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, Usama bin Laden. 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 that he outsourced that job
    to. That's wrong.

    President's Judgment on Foreign Policy

        Mr. Lehrer. New question, 2 minutes, Senator
    Kerry. ``Colossal'' misjudgments--what colossal misjudgments, in your
    opinion, has President Bush made in these areas?
        Senator Kerry. Well, where do you want me to
    begin? [Laughter] 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 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--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.
    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, 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,
    where the elections have been postponed 3 times. The President moved the
    troops, so he's got 10 times the number of troops in Iraq than he has in
    Afghanistan, where Usama bin Laden is. Does that mean that Saddam
    Hussein was 10 times more important than Usama bin Laden--excuse me--
    Saddam Hussein more important than Usama bin Laden? I don't think so.
        Mr. Lehrer. Ninety-second response, Mr.
    President.
        President Bush. My opponent looked at the
    same intelligence I looked at and declared, in 2002, that Saddam
    Hussein was a grave threat. He also said, in
    December of 2003, that anyone who doubts that the world is safer without
    Saddam Hussein

    [[Page 2251]]

    does not have the judgment to be President. I agree with him. The world
    is better off without Saddam Hussein.
        I was hoping diplomacy would work. I understand the serious
    consequences of committing our troops into harm's way. 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; I decided to go
    there myself. 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. And they passed a resolution
    that said, ``Disclose, disarm, or face serious consequences.'' I believe
    when an international body speaks, it must mean what it says.
        But 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. That
    wasn't going to work. That's kind of a pre-September-10th mentality, to
    hope that somehow resolutions and failed inspections would make this
    world a more peaceful place. He was hoping we'd turn away. But there
    was, fortunately, others beside myself who believed that we ought to
    take action, and we did. The world is safer without Saddam Hussein.

    Priorities in the War on Terror

        Mr. Lehrer. New question, Mr. President, 2
    minutes. What about Senator Kerry's point, the comparison he drew
    between the priorities of going after Usama bin Laden and going after
    Saddam Hussein?
        President Bush. Jim, we've got the capability of doing both. As a
    matter of fact, this is a global effort. We're facing a--a group of
    folks who have such hatred in their heart, they'll strike anywhere with
    any means. And that's why it's essential that we have strong alliances,
    and we do. 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 Qaida,
    which we are. 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.
        Of course we're after Saddam Hussein--I
    mean, bin Laden. He's--he's isolated.
    Seventy-five percent of his people have been brought to justice. The
    killer in--the mastermind of the September the 11th attacks, Khalid
    Sheik Mohammad, is in prison. We're
    making progress, but the front on this war is more than just one place.
    The Philippines--we've got help--we're helping them there to bring--to
    bring Al Qaida affiliates to justice there. And of course Iraq is a
    central part of the war on terror. That's why Zarqawi and his people are trying to fight us. Their hope is that
    we grow weary and we leave. The biggest disaster that could happen is
    that we not succeed in Iraq. 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.
        I had the honor of visiting with Prime Minister Allawi. He's a strong, courageous leader. He believes in the
    freedom of the Iraqi people. He doesn't want U.S. leadership, however,
    to send mixed signals, to not stand with the Iraqi people. He believes,
    like I believe, that the Iraqis are ready to fight for their own
    freedom. They just need the help to be trained. There will be elections
    in January. We're spending reconstruction money. And our alliance is
    strong. That's the plan for victory. And when Iraq is free, America will
    be more secure.
        Mr. Lehrer. Senator Kerry, 90 seconds.
        Senator 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. 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. And he

    [[Page 2252]]

    rushed to 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 you have a plan to
    win the peace. You don't send troops to war without the body armor that
    they need. 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 have 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. 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 happening
    out 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've 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.
        President Bush. Can I respond?
        Mr. Lehrer. Let's do a--one of these one-
    minute extensions. You have 30 seconds.
        President 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.'' I don't see
    how you can lead this country to succeed in Iraq if you say ``wrong war,
    wrong time, wrong place.'' What message does that send our troops? What
    message does that send our allies? What message does that send the
    Iraqis?
        No, the way to win this is to be steadfast and resolved and to
    follow through on the plan that I've just outlined.
        Mr. Lehrer. Thirty seconds, Senator.
        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. 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 Usama bin Laden. 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.

    Homeland Security

        Mr. 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 2-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?
        Senator Kerry. Jim, let me tell you exactly
    what I'll do, and there are a long list of things. First of all, what
    kind of mixed message does it send when you've got $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? 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?
        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.
    That's why they had to close down the subway in New York when the
    Republican Convention was there. 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. Civilians get onto
    aircraft, and their--their luggage is X-rayed, but the cargo hold is not
    X-rayed. Does that make you feel safer in America?
        This President thought it was more important to give the wealthiest
    people in

    [[Page 2253]]

    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--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
    at our firehouses and that we protect the nuclear and chemical plants.
    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.
    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 4 years. And we're going to keep it out
    of the hands of terrorists.
        Mr. Lehrer. Ninety-second response, Mr.
    President.
        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 and--anyway, that's for another debate.
        My administration has tripled the amount of money we're spending on
    homeland security, to $30 billion a year. 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, more than 1,000 on the northern border.
    We're modernizing our borders. We've 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.
    We have to be right 100 percent of the time, and the enemy only has to
    be right once to hurt us. 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. 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. It's vital
    that the Congress renew the PATRIOT Act, which enables our law
    enforcement to disrupt terrorist cells.
        But again, I repeat to my fellow citizens, the best way to protect
    you is to stay on the offense.
        Mr. Lehrer. Yes, let's do a little--yes, 30
    seconds.
        Senator 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.
    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.
        President 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. He comes into 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. 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.

    Criteria for Withdrawal of U.S. Troops From Iraq

        Mr. Lehrer. New question, Mr. President, 2
    minutes. What criteria would you use to determine when to start bringing
    U.S. troops home from Iraq?

    [[Page 2254]]

        President 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.
    And that's what we're doing. We got 100,000 trained now, 125,000 by the
    end of this year, over 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 and protect themselves. I believe they
    want to. Prime Minister Allawi 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, is to see the Iraqis step up
    and take responsibility.
        And so the answer to your question is, when our generals 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 there's stability, and that
    they're on their way to--you know, a nation of--that's free. That's
    when. And I hope it's as soon as possible. But I know putting artificial
    deadlines won't work. My opponent one time said,
    ``Well, get me elected, I'll have them out of there in 6 months.''
    That's--you can't do that and expect to win the war on terror.
        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; and
    we'll get you home as soon as the mission's done, because this is a
    vital mission. A free Iraq will be a ally in the war on terror, 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. 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.
        Mr. Lehrer. Ninety seconds, Senator Kerry.
        Senator 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 the
    ropeline 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 went 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 where 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.
        Mr. Lehrer. New----
        President Bush. Jim----
        Mr. Lehrer. All right, go ahead. Yes, sir.
        President Bush. I think it's worthy for a followup----
        Mr. Lehrer. Sure.
        President Bush. ----if you don't mind.
        Senator Kerry. Let's change the rules. We can
    add a whole--[inaudible].

    [[Page 2255]]

        Mr. Lehrer. We can do 30 seconds each here.
        President Bush. All right. 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''? That's not
    a message a Commander in Chief gives--or ``This is a great diversion.''
    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. That's not what Commander in Chiefs does when you're trying to lead
    troops.
        Mr. Lehrer. Senator Kerry, 30 seconds.
        Senator 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.

    Planning and International Cooperation in Iraq

        Mr. Lehrer. All right, new question, 2
    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?'' Are Americans
    now dying in Iraq for a mistake?
        Senator 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--
    that intelligence. But I also laid out a very strict series of things we
    needed to do in order to proceed from the position of strength, and 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.
        They didn't do the planning. They left the planning of the State
    Department on the State Department desks. They avoided even the advice
    of their own general. General Shinseki, the Army Chief of Staff, said,
    ``You're going to need several hundred thousand troops.'' Instead of
    listening to him, they retired him. 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.'' 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 statesmanlike summits that pull
    people together and get them to invest in those stakes. 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.
        Mr. Lehrer. Ninety seconds.
        President 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

    [[Page 2256]]

    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? What's he say to Aleksander
    Kwasniewski of Poland? I mean, 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 for a grand diversion''? ``Join us
    for a war that is a 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. 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.
        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. There's $14 billion pledged, and Prime Minister
    Koizumi is going to call countries to
    account to get them to contribute. And there's going to be an Arab
    summit of the neighborhood countries, and Colin Powell helped set up that summit.
        Mr. Lehrer. Thirty seconds, Senator.
        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.
        Mr. Lehrer. Thirty seconds, Mr. President.
        President Bush. Well, actually, he forgot
    Poland. And now, there are 30 nations involved, standing side by side
    with our American troops, and I honor their sacrifices. And I don't
    appreciate it when a candidate for President denigrates the
    contributions of these brave--brave soldiers. It's--you cannot lead the
    world if you do not honor the contributions of those who are with us. He
    called them the ``coerced and the bribed.'' That's not how you bring
    people together.
        Our coalition is strong. It will remain strong, for my--so long as
    I'm the President.

    Postwar Iraq

        Mr. Lehrer. New question, Mr. President, 2
    minutes. You have said there was a, quote, ``miscalculation of what the
    conditions would be in postwar Iraq.'' What was the miscalculation, and
    how did it happen?
        President Bush. No, what I said was that because we achieved such a
    rapid victory, more of the Saddam loyalists were around. In other words,
    we thought we'd whip more of them going in. But because Tommy
    Franks did such a great job in planning the
    operations, we moved rapidly, and a lot of the Ba'athists and
    Saddam loyalists laid down their arms and
    disappeared. I thought we would--they would stay and fight, but they
    didn't. And now we're fighting them now.
        It's--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'll 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. And it's not only just America,
    but NATO is now helping. Jordan is helping train police. The UAE is
    helping train police. We've allocated $7 billion over the

    [[Page 2257]]

    next months for reconstruction efforts, and we're making progress there.
    And our alliance is strong. Now, 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.
        Mr. Lehrer. Ninety seconds, Senator Kerry.
        Senator 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 of Al Qaida, he would still
    have done everything the same way. Those are his words. Now, I would
    not.
        So what I'm trying to do is just talk the truth to the American
    people and to the world. Truth is what good policy is based on. It's
    what leadership is based on.
        The President says that I'm denigrating these troops. I have nothing
    but respect for the British and for 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 4 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. 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 gotten nuclear weapons. Talk about
    mixed messages, the President is the one who said we can't allow
    countries to get nuclear weapons. They have. I'll change that.

    Candidates' Candor and Consistency

        Mr. Lehrer. New question, Senator Kerry, 2
    minutes. You've 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.
        Senator 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. 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. The President said
    he would exhaust the remedies of the United Nations and go through that
    full process. He didn't. He cut it off, sort of arbitrarily. And we know
    that there were further diplomatics--efforts underway. They just decided
    the time for diplomacy is over and rushed to war without planning for
    what happens afterwards. 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

    [[Page 2258]]

    I know how to bring them back to the table.
        And I believe that 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, Usama bin Laden uses the invasion
    of Iraq in order to go out to people and say the--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 others did that more effectively, and I'm going to try to
    follow in their footsteps.
        Mr. Lehrer. Ninety seconds, Mr. President.
        President Bush. My opponent just said
    something amazing. He said Usama bin Laden
    uses the invasion of Iraq as an excuse to spread hatred for America.
    Usama bin Laden isn't going to determine how we defend ourselves. Usama
    bin Laden doesn't get to decide. The American people decide. I decided.
    The right action was in Iraq.
        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. I don't think he was
    misleading when he said that it was right to disarm Iraq in the spring
    of 2003. I don't think he misled you when he said that if--anyone who
    doubted whether the world was better off without Saddam Hussein in power didn't have the judgment to be President. 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, and he has. As the politics change, his positions change, and
    that's not how a Commander in Chief acts.
        I--let me finish. 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.
        Mr. Lehrer. Thirty seconds--we'll do a 30-
    second here.
        Senator 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. 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.
        Mr. Lehrer. Thirty seconds, Mr. President.
        President Bush. The only thing consistent about my opponent's position is that he's been inconsistent. He changes
    positions. And you cannot change positions in this war on terror if you
    expect to win. And I expect to win. It's necessary we win. 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.

    Hard Decisions/Support for the Military

        Mr. Lehrer. New question, Mr. President, 2
    minutes. Has the war in Iraq been worth the cost in American lives? Ten
    thousand fifty two--I mean, 1,052 as of today.
        President Bush. No, every life is precious. Every life matters. You
    know, my hardest--the hardest part of the job is to know that I
    committed the troops in harm's way and then do the best I can to provide
    comfort for the loved ones who lost a son or a daughter or a husband and
    wife.
        And you know, I think about Missy Johnson, who is a fantastic young lady I met in Charlotte,
    North Carolina, she and her son, Bryan. They
    came to see me. Her husband, P.J., got killed. He'd been in Afghanistan,
    went to Iraq. You know, it's hard

    [[Page 2259]]

    work to try to love her as best as I can, knowing full well that the
    decision I made caused her loved one to be in harm's way. I told her,
    after we prayed and teared up and laughed some, that I thought her
    husband's sacrifice was noble and worthy, because I understand the
    stakes of this war on terror. I understand that we must find Al Qaida
    wherever they hide. We must deal with threats before they fully
    materialize--and Saddam Hussein was a
    threat--and that we must spread liberty, because in the long run, the
    way to defeat hatred and tyranny and oppression is to spread freedom.
    Missy understood that. That's what she told me her husband understood.
        So you say, was it worth it? Every life is precious. That's what
    distinguishes us from the enemy. Everybody matters. But I think it's
    worth it, Jim. I think it's worth it because I think--I know in the long
    term, a free Iraq, a free Afghanistan will set such a powerful example
    in the part of the world that's desperate for freedom--it will help
    change the world--that we can look back and say, ``We did our duty.''
        Mr. Lehrer. Senator, 90 seconds.
        Senator Kerry. I understand what the
    President is talking about, because I know what it means to lose people
    in combat. And the question, is it worth the cost, reminds me of my own
    thinking when I came back from fighting in that war, and it reminds me
    that it is vital for us not to confuse the war, ever, with the warriors.
    That happened before.
        And that's one of the reasons why I believe I can get this job done,
    because I am determined, for those soldiers and for those families, for
    those kids who put their lives on the line--that is noble. That's the
    most noble thing that anybody can do. And I want to make sure the
    outcome honors that nobility.
        Now, we have a choice here. I've laid out a plan by which I think we
    can be successful in Iraq, with a summit, by doing better training
    faster, by cutting--by doing what we need to do with respect to the U.N.
    and the elections. There's only 25 percent of the people in there. They
    can't have an election right now. The President is not getting the job
    done.
        So the choice for America is, you can have a plan that I've laid out
    in four points, each of which I can tell you more about, or you can go
    to johnkerry.com and see more of it, or you have the President's plan,
    which is four words, ``More of the same.'' I think my plan is better.
    And my plan has a better chance of standing up and fighting for those
    troops. I will never let those troops down and will hunt and kill the
    terrorists, wherever they are.
        Mr. Lehrer. New--all right, sir, go ahead.
    Thirty seconds.
        President Bush. I understand what it means to be the Commander in
    Chief, and if I were to ever say this is the wrong war at the wrong time
    at the right--wrong place, the troops would wonder, ``How can I follow
    this guy?'' You cannot lead the war on terror if you keep changing
    positions on the war on terror and say things like, ``Well, this is just
    a grand diversion.'' It's not a grand diversion. This is an essential,
    that we get it right. And so I--the plan he talks
    about simply won't work.
        Mr. Lehrer. Senator Kerry, you have 30
    seconds, right.
        Senator Kerry. Secretary of State Colin
    Powell told this President the Pottery Barn rule: If you break it, you
    fix it. Now, if you break it, you made a mistake. It's the wrong thing
    to do, but you own it. And then you've got to fix it and do something
    with it. Now, that's what we have to do. There's no inconsistency.
        Soldiers know, over there, that this isn't being done right yet. I'm
    going to get it right for those soldiers, because it's important to
    Israel. It's important to America. It's important to the world. It's
    important to the fight on terror. But I have a plan to do it. He
    doesn't.

    [[Page 2260]]

    Timeline for Withdrawal From Iraq/Conditions in Iraq

        Mr. Lehrer. Speaking of your plan, new
    question, Senator Kerry, 2 minutes. Can you give us specifics--in terms
    of a scenario, timelines, et cetera--for ending U.S.--major U.S.
    military involvement in Iraq?
        Senator Kerry. The timeline that I've set
    out--and again, I want to correct the President, because he's misled
    again this evening on what I've said. I didn't say I would bring troops
    out in 6 months. I said, ``If we do the things that I've set out, and we
    are successful, we could begin to draw the troops down in 6 months.''
    And I think a critical component of success in Iraq is being able to
    convince the Iraqis and the Arab world that the United States doesn't
    have long-term designs on it.
        As I understand it, we're building some 14 military bases there now,
    and some people say they've got a rather permanent concept to them. When
    you--when you guard the oil ministry but you don't guard the nuclear
    facilities, the message to a lot of people is, ``Maybe--well, maybe
    they're interested in our oil.'' Now, the problem is that they didn't
    think these things through properly, and these are the things you have
    to think through.
        What I want to do is change the dynamics on the ground. And you have
    to do that by beginning to not back off of Fallujahs and other places
    and send the wrong message to the terrorists. You have to close the
    borders. You've got to show you're serious in that regard. But you've
    also got to show that you're prepared to bring the rest of the world in
    and share the stakes.
        I will make a flat statement: The United States of America has no
    long-term designs on staying in Iraq. And our goal, in my
    administration, would be to get all of the troops out of there, with the
    minimal amount you need for training and logistics as we do in some
    other countries in the world after a war to be able to sustain the
    peace. But that's how we're going to win the peace, by rapidly training
    the Iraqis themselves.
        Even the administration has admitted they haven't done the training,
    because they came to Congress a few weeks ago and asked for a complete
    reprogramming of the money. Now, what greater admission is there, 16
    months afterwards, ``Oops, we haven't done the job. We've got to start
    to spend the money now. Will you guys give us permission to shift it
    over into training?''
        Mr. Lehrer. Ninety seconds.
        President Bush. There's 100,000 troops trained, police, guard,
    special units, border patrol. There's going to be 125,000 trained by the
    end of this year. Yes, we're getting the job done. It's hard work.
    Everybody knows it's hard work because there's a determined enemy that's
    trying to defeat us.
        Now, my opponent says he's going to try to change the dynamics on
    the ground. Well, Prime Minister Allawi was
    here. He is the leader of that country. He's a brave, brave man. When he
    came, after giving a speech to the Congress, my opponent questioned his credibility. You can't change the
    dynamics on the ground if you've criticized the brave leader of Iraq.
    One of his campaign people alleged that Prime
    Minister Allawi was like a puppet. That's no way to treat somebody who's
    courageous and brave, that is trying to lead his country forward.
        The way to make sure that we succeed is to send consistent, sound
    messages to the Iraqi people that when we give our word, we will keep
    our word; that we stand with you; that we believe you want to be free.
    And I do. I believe that the 25 million people, the vast majority, long
    to have elections. I reject this notion--and I'm not suggesting that my
    opponent says it, but I reject the notion that
    some say that if you're Muslim you can't be free; you don't desire
    freedom. I disagree, strongly disagree with that.

    [[Page 2261]]

        Mr. Lehrer. Thirty seconds.
        Senator Kerry. I couldn't agree more that the
    Iraqis want to be free and that they could be free. But I think the
    President, again, still hasn't shown how he's going to go about it the
    right way. He has more of the same.
        Now, Prime Minister Allawi came here, and he said the terrorists are
    pouring over the border. That's Allawi's assessment. The national
    intelligence assessment that was given to the President in July said:
    Best case scenario, more of the same of what we see today; worst case
    scenario, civil war. I can do better.
        President Bush. Yes, let me----
        Mr. Lehrer. Yes, 30 seconds.
        President Bush. The reason why Prime Minister Allawi said they're coming across the border is because he
    recognizes that this is a central part of the war on terror. They're
    fighting us because they're fighting freedom. They understand that a
    free Afghanistan or a free Iraq will be a major defeat for them, and
    those are the stakes. And that's why it is essential we not leave.
    That's why it's essential we hold the line. That's why it's essential we
    win, and we will. Under my leadership, we're going to win this war in
    Iraq.

    Future U.S. Military Action

        Mr. Lehrer. Mr. President, a new question, 2
    minutes. Does the Iraq experience make it more likely or less likely
    that you would take the United States into another preemptive military
    action?
        President Bush. I would hope I never have to. I understand how hard
    it is to commit troops. I never wanted to commit troops. I never--when I
    was running--when we had the debate in 2000, I never dreamt I would be
    doing that. But the enemy attacked us, Jim, and I have a solemn duty to
    protect the American people, to do everything I can to protect us.
        I think that by speaking clearly and doing what we say and not
    sending mixed messages, it is less likely we'll ever have to use troops.
    But a President must always be willing to use troops. It must--as a last
    resort.
        The--I was hopeful diplomacy would work in Iraq. It was falling
    apart. There was no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was hoping that the world would turn a blind eye. And
    if he had been in power--in other words, we had said, ``Let's let the
    inspectors work,'' or ``Let's hope to talk him out; maybe an 18th
    resolution would work,'' he'd have been stronger and tougher, and the
    world would have been a lot worse off. There's just no doubt in my mind.
    We would rue the day if Saddam Hussein had been in power.
        So we use diplomacy every chance we get, believe me. And I--I would
    hope never to have to use force. But by speaking clearly and sending
    messages that we mean what we say, we've affected the world in a
    positive way. Look at Libya. Libya was a threat. Libya is now peacefully
    dismantling its weapons programs. Libya understood that America and
    others will enforce doctrine, and the world is better for it.
        So to answer your question, I would hope we'd never have to. I think
    by acting firmly and decisively, it will mean it's less likely to--less
    likely we have to use force.
        Mr. Lehrer. Senator Kerry, 90 seconds.
        Senator Kerry. Jim, the President just said
    something extraordinarily revealing and, frankly, very important in this
    debate. In answer to your question about Iraq and sending people into
    Iraq, he just said, ``The enemy attacked us.'' Saddam Hussein didn't
    attack us. Usama bin Laden attacked us. Al Qaida attacked us.
        And when we had Usama bin Laden cornered in the mountains of Tora
    Bora, 1,000 of his cohorts with him in those mountains, with the
    American military forces nearby and in the field, we didn't use the best
    trained troops in the world to go kill the world's number one criminal
    and terrorist. They outsourced the job to Afghan warlords who only a
    week earlier had been on the other side fighting against us, neither of

    [[Page 2262]]

    whom trusted each other. That's the enemy that attacked us. That's the
    enemy that was allowed to walk out of those mountains. That's the enemy
    that is now in 60 countries with stronger recruits.
        He also said Saddam Hussein would have been stronger. That is just
    factually incorrect. Two-thirds of the country was a no-fly zone when we
    started this war. We would have had sanctions. We would have had the
    U.N. inspectors. Saddam Hussein would have been continually weakening.
    If the President had shown the patience to go through another round of
    resolution, to sit down with those leaders and say, ``What do you need?
    What do you need now? How much more will it take to get you to join
    us,'' we would be in a stronger place today.
        President Bush. First, listen----
        Mr. Lehrer. Thirty seconds.
        President Bush. ----of course I know Usama bin Laden attacked us. I know that. And secondly, to think that
    another round of resolutions would have caused Saddam Hussein to disarm, disclose is ludicrous, in my judgment. It
    just shows a significant difference of opinion. We tried diplomacy. We
    did our best. He was hoping to turn a blind eye, and, yes, he would have
    been stronger had we not dealt with him. He had the capability of making
    weapons, and he would have made weapons.
        Mr. Lehrer. Thirty seconds, Senator.
        Senator Kerry. Thirty-five to forty countries
    in the world had a greater capability of making weapons at the moment
    the President invaded than Saddam Hussein. And while he has been
    diverted with 9 out of 10 active duty divisions of our Army either going
    to Iraq, coming back from Iraq, or getting ready to go, North Korea's
    got nuclear weapons, and the world is more dangerous. Iran is moving
    towards nuclear weapons, and the world is more dangerous. Darfur has a
    genocide. The world is more dangerous. I'd have made a better choice.

    Preemptive Action/International Cooperation

        Mr. Lehrer. New question, 2 minutes, Senator
    Kerry. What is your position on the whole concept of preemptive war?
        Senator Kerry. The President always has the
    right and always has had the right for preemptive strike. That was a
    great doctrine throughout the cold war, and it was always one of the
    things we argued about with respect to arms control. No President,
    through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the
    right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of
    America. But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got to do in a way that
    passes the test, that passes the global test, where your countrymen,
    your people, understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you
    can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.
        Here we have our own Secretary of State who's had to apologize to
    the world for the presentation he made to the United Nations. I mean, we
    can remember when President Kennedy, in the Cuban missile crisis, sent
    his Secretary of State to Paris to meet with de Gaulle, and in the
    middle of the discussion to tell them about the missiles in Cuba, he
    said, ``Here, let me show you the photos.'' And de Gaulle waved them off
    and said, ``No, no, no, no. The word of the President of the United
    States is good enough for me.'' How many leaders in the world today
    would respond to us, as a result of what we've done, in that way?
        So what is at test here is the credibility of the United States of
    America and how we lead the world. Iran and Iraq are now more--Iran and
    North Korea are now more dangerous. Now, whether preemption is
    ultimately what has to happen or not, I don't know yet. But I'll tell
    you this, as President, I'll never take my eye off that ball. I've been
    fighting for proliferation the entire time--antiproliferation the entire
    time I've been in the Congress. And we've watched

    [[Page 2263]]

    this President actually turn away from some of the treaties that were on
    the table. You don't help yourself with other nations when you turn away
    from the global warming treaty, for instance, or when you refuse to deal
    at length with the United Nations. You have to earn that respect. And I
    think we have a lot of earning back to do.
        Mr. Lehrer. Ninety seconds.
        President Bush. Let me--I'm not exactly sure what you mean, ``passes
    the global test.'' You take preemptive action if you pass a global test?
    My attitude is you take preemptive action in order to protect the
    American people, that you act in order to make this country secure.
        My opponent talks about me not signing
    certain treaties. But let me tell you one thing I didn't sign--and I
    think it shows a difference of our opinion, the difference of opinions--
    and that is that I wouldn't join the International Criminal Court. This
    is a body based in The Hague where unaccountable judges and prosecutors
    could pull our troops, our diplomats up for trial. And I wouldn't join
    it. And I understand that in certain capitals around the world that that
    wasn't a popular move. But it's the right move, not to join a foreign
    court that could--where our people could be prosecuted. My opponent is
    for joining the International Criminal Court. I just think trying to be
    popular kind of in the global sense, if it's not in our best interest,
    makes no sense. I'm interested in working with other nations and do a
    lot of it. But I'm not going to make decisions that I think are wrong
    for America.

    North Korea and Iran

        Mr. Lehrer. New question. Mr. President, do
    you believe that diplomacy and sanctions can resolve the nuclear
    problems with North Korea and Iran? Taking them in any order you would
    like.
        President Bush. North Korea, first--I do. Let me say I certainly
    hope so. Before I was sworn in, the policy of this Government was to
    have bilateral negotiations with North Korea. And we signed an agreement
    with North Korea that my administration found out that was not being
    honored by the North Koreans. And so I decided that a better way to
    approach the issue was to get other nations involved, just--besides us.
        And in Crawford, Texas, Jiang Zemin and I
    agreed that the nuclear-weapons-free North--peninsula--Korean Peninsula
    was in his interest and our interest and the world's interest. And so we
    began a new dialog with North Korea, one that included not only the
    United States but now China. And China has got a lot of influence over
    North Korea, in some ways more than we do.
        As well we included South Korea, Japan, and Russia. So now there are
    five voices speaking to Kim Chong-il, not just
    one. And so if Kim Chong-il decides again to not honor an agreement,
    he's not only doing injustice to America, he'd be doing injustice to
    China as well. And I think this will work. It's not going to work if we
    open up a dialog with Kim Chong-il. That's what he wants. He wants to
    unravel the six-party talks--or the five--the five-nation coalition
    that's sending him a clear message.
        On Iran, I hope we can do the same thing, continue to work with the
    world to convince the Iranian mullahs to abandon their nuclear
    ambitions. We've worked very closely with the Foreign Ministers of
    France, Germany,
    and Great Britain, who have been the folks
    delivering the message to the mullahs that if you expect to be part of
    the world of nations, get rid of your nuclear programs. The IAEA is
    involved. There's a special protocol recently been passed that allows
    for instant inspections. I hope we can do it, and we've got a good
    strategy.
        Mr. Lehrer. Senator Kerry, 90 seconds.
        Senator Kerry. With respect to Iran, the
    British, French, and Germans were the ones who initiated an effort--
    without the United States, regrettably--to begin to try

    [[Page 2264]]

    to move to deter the nuclear possibilities in Iran.
        I believe we could have done better. I think the United States
    should have offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel, test
    them to see whether or not they were actually looking for it for
    peaceful purposes. If they weren't willing to work a deal, then we could
    have put sanctions together. The President did nothing.
        With respect to North Korea, the real story, we had inspectors and
    television cameras in the nuclear reactor in North Korea. Secretary Bill
    Perry negotiated that under President Clinton. And we knew where the
    fuel rods were, and we knew the limits on their nuclear power. Colin
    Powell, our Secretary of State, announced one day that we were going to
    continue the dialog and work with the North Koreans. The President
    reversed him publicly, while the President of South Korea was here. And
    the President of South Korea went back to South Korea bewildered and
    embarrassed because it went against his policy. And for 2 years, this
    administration didn't talk at all to North Korea.
        While they didn't talk at all, the fuel rods came out. The
    inspectors were kicked out. The television cameras were kicked out. And,
    today, there are four to seven nuclear weapons in the hands of North
    Korea. That happened on this President's watch. Now, that, I think, is
    one of the most serious sort of reversals or mixed messages that you
    could possibly send.
        Mr. Lehrer. I want to make sure--yes, sir--
    but in this one minute, I want to make sure that we understand--the
    people--the people watching you understand the differences between the
    two of you on this. You want to continue the multinational talks,
    correct?
        President Bush. Right.
        Mr. Lehrer. And you want--you're wanting to
    do it----
        Senator Kerry. Both. I want bilateral talks
    which put all of the issues from the Armistice of 1952, the economic
    issues, the human rights issues, the artillery disposal issues, the DMZ
    issues, and the nuclear issues on the table.
        Mr. Lehrer. And you're opposed to that,
    right?
        President Bush. The minute we have bilateral talks, the six-party
    talks will unwind. It's exactly what Kim Chong-il wants. And by the way, the breach on the agreement was not
    to plutonium. The breach on the agreement is highly enriched uranium.
    That's what we caught him doing. That's where he was breaking the
    agreement.
        Secondly, you said--my opponent said that
    he'd work to put sanctions on Iran. We've already sanctioned Iran. We
    can't sanction them anymore. There are sanctions in place on Iran. And
    finally, we were a party to the convincing--to working with
    Germany, France,
    and Great Britain to send their Foreign Ministers
    into Iran.

    Iran/Sudan

        Mr. Lehrer. New question, 2 minutes, Senator
    Kerry. You mentioned Darfur, the Darfur region of Sudan. Fifty thousand
    people have already died in that area, more than a million are homeless,
    and it's been labeled an act of ongoing genocide. Yet, neither one of
    you or anyone else connected with your campaigns or your administration
    that I can find has discussed the possibility of sending in troops. Why
    not?
        Senator Kerry. Well, I'll tell you exactly
    why not, but I first want to say something about those sanctions on
    Iran. Only the United States put the sanctions on, alone, and that's
    exactly what I'm talking about. In order for the sanctions to be
    effective we should have been working with the British, French, and
    Germans and other countries. And that's the difference between the
    President and me. And there again, he sort of slid by the question.
        Now, with respect to Darfur, yes, it is a genocide. And months ago,
    many of us were pressing for action. I think the reason that we're not
    saying send American troops in at this point is several-fold. Number
    one,

    [[Page 2265]]

    we can do this through the African Union, providing we give them the
    logistical support. Right now, all the President is providing is
    humanitarian support. We need to do more than that. They've got to have
    the logistical capacity to go in and stop the killing, and that's going
    to require more than is on the table today.
        I also believe that it is--one of the reasons we can't do it is
    we're overextended. Ask the people in the Armed Forces today. We've got
    Guards and Reserves who are doing double duties. We've got a backdoor
    draft taking place in America today, people with stop-loss programs
    where they're told, ``You can't get out of the military,'' 9 out of our
    10 active duty divisions committed to Iraq one way or the other, either
    going, coming, or preparing. So this is the way the President has
    overextended the United States.
        That's why, in my plan, I add two active duty divisions to the
    United States Army, not for Iraq but for our general demands across the
    globe. I also intend to double the number of Special Forces so that we
    can do the job we need to do with respect to fighting the terrorists
    around the world. And if we do that, then we have the ability to be able
    to respond more rapidly. But I'll tell you this, as President, if it
    took American forces, to some degree, to coalesce the African Union, I'd
    be prepared to do it, because we could never allow another Rwanda. It's
    a moral responsibility for us in the world.
        Mr. Lehrer. Ninety seconds.
        President Bush. Back to Iran, just for a second. It was not my
    administration that put the sanctions on Iran. That happened long before
    I arrived in Washington, DC.
        In terms of Darfur, I agree, it's genocide, and Colin Powell so stated. We have committed $200 million worth of
    aid. We're the leading donor in the world to help the suffering people
    there. We will commit more, over time, to help.
        We were very much involved at the U.N. on the sanction policy of the
    Bashir Government in the Sudan. Prior to Darfur, Ambassador Jack
    Danforth had been negotiating a north-south
    agreement that we would hope would have brought peace to the Sudan. I
    agree with my opponent that we shouldn't be
    committing troops, that we ought to be working with the African Union to
    do so--precisely what we did in Liberia. We helped stabilize the
    situation with some troops, and when the African Union came, we moved
    them out. My hope is that the African Union moves rapidly to help save
    lives. Fortunately, the rainy season will be ending shortly, which will
    make it easier to get aid there and help the long-suffering people
    there.

    Character of the Candidates

        Mr. Lehrer. New question, President Bush.
    There are clearly, as we have heard, major policy differences between
    the two of you. Are there also underlying character issues that you
    believe--that you believe--are serious enough to deny Senator Kerry the
    job as Commander in Chief of the United States?
        President Bush. Whew, that's a loaded question. [Laughter]
        First of all, I admire Senator Kerry's
    service to our country. I admire the fact that he is a great dad. I
    appreciate the fact that his daughters have been so kind to my
    daughters in what has been a pretty hard
    experience for, I guess, young girls seeing their dads out there
    campaigning. I admire the fact that he's served for 20 years in the
    Senate, although I'm not so sure I admire the record. I won't hold it
    against him that he went to Yale. Nothing wrong with that.
        I--my concerns about the Senator is that in
    the course of this campaign I've been listening very carefully to what
    he says, and he changed his positions on the war in Iraq, changed his
    positions on something as fundamental as what you believe in your core,
    in your heart of hearts, is right in Iraq.

    [[Page 2266]]

    You cannot lead if you send mixed messages. Mixed messages send the
    wrong signals to our troops. Mixed messages send the wrong signals to
    our allies. Mixed messages send the wrong signals to the Iraqi citizens.
        And that's my biggest concern about my opponent. I admire his service. But I just know how this world
    works and that in the councils of government, there must be certainty
    from the U.S. President. Of course, we change tactics when need to, but
    we never change our beliefs, the strategic beliefs that are necessary to
    protect this country in the world.
        Mr. Lehrer. Ninety-second response, Senator.
        Senator Kerry. Well, first of all, I
    appreciate enormously the personal comments the President just made, and
    I share them with him. I think only if you've--if you're doing this, and
    he's done it more than I have in terms of the Presidency, can you begin
    to get a sense of what it means to your families. And it's tough. And so
    I acknowledge his daughters. I've watched them. I've chuckled a few
    times at some of their comments. [Laughter] And----
        President Bush. I'm trying to put a leash on them. [Laughter]
        Senator Kerry. Well, I know, I've learned not
    to do that. [Laughter] And I have great respect and admiration for his
    wife. I think she's a terrific person----
        President Bush. Thank you.
        Senator Kerry. ----and a great First Lady.
    But we do have differences. I'm not going to talk about a difference of
    character. I don't think that's my job or my business. But let me talk
    about something that the President just sort of finished up with--maybe
    someone would call it a character trait; maybe somebody wouldn't--but
    this issue of certainty. It's one thing to be certain, but you can be
    certain and be wrong. It's another to be certain and be right, or be
    certain and be moving in the right direction, or be certain about a
    principle and then learn new facts and take those new facts and put them
    to use in order to change and get your policy right.
        What I worry about with the President is that he's not acknowledging
    what's on the ground. He's not acknowledging the realities of North
    Korea. He's not acknowledging the truth of the science of stem cell
    research or of global warming and other issues. And certainty sometimes
    can get you in trouble.
        Mr. Lehrer. Thirty seconds.
        President Bush. Well, I think--listen, I fully agree that one should
    shift tactics, and we will in Iraq. Our commanders have got all the
    flexibility to do what is necessary to succeed. But what I won't do is
    change my core values because of politics or because of pressure. And it
    is--one of the things I've learned in the White House is that there's
    enormous pressure on the President, and you cannot wilt under that
    pressure. Otherwise the world won't be better off.
        Mr. Lehrer. Thirty seconds.
        Senator Kerry. I have no intention of
    wilting. I've never wilted in my life, and I've never wavered in my
    life. I know exactly what we need to do in Iraq and my position has been
    consistent. Saddam Hussein is a threat. He needed to be disarmed. We
    needed to go to the U.N. The President needed the authority to use force
    in order to be able to get him to do something because he never did it
    without the threat of force, but we didn't need to rush to war without a
    plan to win the peace.

    Nuclear Proliferation

        Mr. Lehrer. New question, 2 minutes, Senator
    Kerry. If you are elected President, what will you take to that office
    thinking is the single most serious threat to the national security of
    the United States?
        Senator Kerry. Nuclear proliferation--nuclear
    proliferation. There are some 600-plus tons of unsecured material still
    in the former Soviet Union, in Russia. At the rate that the President is
    currently securing that, it will take 13 years to get it.

    [[Page 2267]]

        I did a lot of work on this. I wrote a book about it several years
    ago--maybe 6 or 7 years ago, called ``The New War,'' which saw the
    difficulties of this international criminal network. And back then, we
    intercepted a suitcase in a Middle Eastern country with nuclear
    materials in it, and the black market sale price was about $250 million.
    Now, there are terrorists trying to get their hands on that stuff today.
        And this President, I regret to say, has secured less nuclear
    material in the last 2 years since 9/11 than we did in the 2 years
    preceding 9/11. We have to do this job. And to do the job, you can't cut
    the money for it. The President actually cut the money for it. You have
    to put the money into it and the funding and the leadership.
        And part of that leadership is sending the right message to places
    like North Korea. Right now the President is spending hundreds of
    millions of dollars to research bunker-busting nuclear weapons. The
    United States is pursuing a new set of nuclear weapons. It doesn't make
    sense. You talk about mixed messages. We're telling other people, ``You
    can't have nuclear weapons,'' but we're pursuing a new nuclear weapon
    that we might even contemplate using.
        Not this President. I'm going to shut that program down, and we're
    going to make it clear to the world we're serious about containing
    nuclear proliferation. And we're going to get the job of containing all
    of that nuclear material in Russia done in 4 years. And we're going to
    build the strongest international network to prevent nuclear
    proliferation. This is the scale of what President Kennedy set out to do
    with the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. It's our generation's equivalent, and
    I intend to get it done.
        Mr. Lehrer. Ninety seconds, Mr. President.
        President Bush. Actually, we've increased funding for dealing with
    nuclear proliferation about 35 percent since I've been the President.
        Secondly, we've set up what's called the--well, first of all, I
    agree with my opponent that the biggest threat
    facing this country is weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a
    terrorist network. And that's why we've put proliferation as the--one of
    the centerpieces of a multipronged strategy to make the country safer.
        My administration started what is called the Proliferation Security
    Initiative, over 60 nations involved with disrupting the trans-shipment
    of information and/or weapons of mass destruction materials. And we're--
    been effective. We busted the A.Q. Khan
    network. This was a proliferator out of Pakistan that was selling
    secrets to places like North Korea and Libya. We convinced Libya to
    disarm. It was an essential part of dealing with weapons of mass
    destruction and proliferation.
        I'll tell you another way to help protect America in the long--in
    the long run is continue with missile defenses, and we've got a robust
    research and development program that has been ongoing during my
    administration. We'll be implementing a missile defense system
    relatively quickly. And that is another way to help deal with the
    threats that we face in the 21st century. My opponent is opposed to the missile defenses.
        Mr. Lehrer. Just for this one-minute
    discussion here, is it 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?
        President Bush. In the hands of a terrorist enemy.
        Senator Kerry. Weapons of mass destruction,
    nuclear proliferation. But again, the test of the difference between
    us--the President has had 4 years to try to do something about it, and
    North Korea has got more weapons. Iran is moving towards

    [[Page 2268]]

    weapons. And at his pace, it will take 13 years to secure those weapons
    in Russia. I'm going to do it in 4 years, and I'm going to immediately
    set out to have bilateral talks with North Korea.
        Mr. Lehrer. Your response to that.
        President Bush. Again, I can't tell you how big a mistake I think
    that is, to have bilateral talks with North Korea. It's precisely what
    Kim Chong-il wants. It will cause the six-party
    talks to evaporate. It means that China no longer is involved in
    convincing, along with us, for Kim Chong-il to get rid of his weapons.
    It's a big mistake to do that. We must have China's leverage on Kim
    Chong-il, besides ourselves. And if you enter bilateral talks, they'll
    be happy to walk away from the table. I don't think that will work.

    President Vladimir Putin of Russia

        Mr. Lehrer. All right, Mr. President, this
    is--this is the last question, and 2 minutes. It's a new--new subject,
    new question. And it has to do with President Putin and Russia. Did you
    misjudge him, or are you--do you feel that what he is doing in the name
    of antiterrorism by changing some democratic processes is okay?
        President Bush. No, I don't think it's okay and said so publicly. I
    think that there needs to be checks and balances in a democracy and made
    that very clear--that by consolidating power in a central government,
    he's sending a signal to the Western world and the United States that--
    that perhaps he doesn't believe in checks and balances. And I've told
    him that.
        He's also a strong ally in the war on terror. He is--listen, they
    went through a horrible situation in Beslan where these terrorists
    gunned down young school kids. But it's the nature of the enemy, by the
    way. That's why we need to be firm and resolved in bringing them to
    justice. It's precisely what Vladimir Putin understands as well.
        I've got a good relation with Vladimir, and it's important that we
    do have a good relation because that enables me to better comment to him
    and to--better to discuss with him some of the decisions he makes. I
    found that in this world that it's important to establish good personal
    relationships with people so that when you have disagreements, you're
    able to disagree in a way that is effective.
        And so I've told him my opinion. I look forward to discussing it
    more with him as time goes on. Russia is a country in transition.
    Vladimir is going to have to make some hard choices, and I think it's
    very important for the American President as well as other Western
    leaders to remind him of the great benefits of democracy, that democracy
    will best help the people realize their hopes and aspirations and
    dreams. And I will continue working with him over the next 4 years.
        Mr. Lehrer. Ninety seconds, Senator Kerry.
        Senator Kerry. Well, let me just say quickly
    that I've had an extraordinary experience of watching up close and
    personal that transition in Russia, because I was there right after the
    transformation, and I was probably one of the first Senators, along with
    Senator Bob Smith of New Hampshire, a former Senator, to go down into
    the KGB underneath Treblinka Square and see reams of files with names in
    them. And it sort of brought home the transition to democracy that
    Russia was trying to make.
        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 for the United States, obviously, to have a
    working relationship that is good. This is a very important country to
    us, and 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.''

    [[Page 2269]]

        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 can have bilateral talks with Kim Chong-il, and
    we can get those weapons at the same time as we get China, because China
    has an interest in the outcome too.
        Mr. Lehrer. Thirty seconds, Mr. President.
        President Bush. You know my opinion on North Korea. I can't say it
    any more plainly.
        Mr. Lehrer. Right. Well, but what--he used
    the word ``truth'' again.
        President Bush. Pardon me?
        Mr. Lehrer. Talking about the truth of the
    matter. He used the word ``truth'' again. Did that raise any hackles
    that you--with you?
        President Bush. Oh, I'm a pretty calm guy. [Laughter] I mean, I
    don't take it personally.
        Mr. Lehrer. All right. Yes.
        President Bush. But you know, look, we looked at the same
    intelligence. We came to the same conclusion, that Saddam
    Hussein was a grave threat. And I don't hold
    it against him that he said ``grave threat.'' I'm
    not going to go around the country saying he didn't tell the truth, when
    he looked at the same intelligence I did.
        Senator Kerry. It was a threat. That's not
    the issue. The issue is what you do about it. The President said he was
    going to build a true coalition, exhaust the remedies of the U.N., and
    go to war as a last resort. Those words really have to mean something.
    And unfortunately, he didn't go to war as a last resort. Now we have
    this incredible mess in Iraq, $200 billion--it's--it's not what the
    American people thought they were getting when they voted.

    Closing Statements

        Mr. Lehrer. All right, that brings us to
    closing statements. And again, as determined by a coin toss, Senator
    Kerry, you go first, and you have 2 minutes.
        Senator Kerry. Thank you, Jim, very much.
    Thank you very much to the university again. Thank you, Mr. President.
        My fellow Americans, as I said at the very beginning of this debate,
    both President Bush and I love this country very much. There is no
    doubt, I think, about that. But we have a different set of convictions
    about how we make our country stronger here at home and respected again
    in the world.
        I know that for many of you sitting at home, parents of kids in
    Iraq, you want to know, who is the person who could be a Commander in
    Chief who can get your kids home and get the job done and win the peace?
    And for all the rest of the parents in America who are wondering about
    their kids going to a school or anywhere else in the world, what kind of
    world they're going to grow up in, let me look you in the eye and say to
    you: I've defended this country as a young man in war, and I will defend
    it as President of the United States. But I have a difference with this
    President. I believe we're strongest when we reach out and lead the
    world and build strong alliances. I have a plan for Iraq. I believe we
    can be successful. I'm not talking about leaving. I'm talking about
    winning. And we need a fresh start, a new credibility, a President who
    can bring allies to our side.
        I also have a plan to win the war on terror, funding homeland
    security, strengthening our military, cutting off finances, reaching out
    to the world--again, building strong alliances.
        I believe America's best days are ahead of us because I believe that
    the future belongs to freedom, not to fear. That's the

    [[Page 2270]]

    country that I'm going to fight for, and I ask you to give me the
    opportunity to make you proud. I ask you to give me the opportunity to
    lead this great Nation so that we can be stronger here at home,
    respected again in the world, and have responsible leadership that we
    deserve.
        Thank you, and God bless America.
        Mr. Lehrer. Mr. President, 2 minutes.
        President Bush. Thank you very much, tonight, Jim. Thank you, Senator.
        If America shows uncertainty or weakness in this decade, the world
    will drift toward tragedy. That's not going to happen so long as I'm
    your President. In the next 4 years, we will continue to strengthen our
    homeland defenses. We will strengthen our intelligence gathering
    services. We will reform our military. The military will be an all-
    volunteer army. We will continue to stay on the offense. We will fight
    the terrorists around the world so we do not have to face them here at
    home.
        We'll continue to build our alliances. I'll never turn over
    America's national security needs to leaders of other countries as we
    continue to build those alliances. And we'll continue to spread freedom.
    I believe in the transformational power of liberty. I believe that a
    free Iraq is in this Nation's interests. I believe a free Afghanistan is
    in this Nation's interests, and I believe both a free Afghanistan and a
    free Iraq will serve as a powerful example for millions who plead in
    silence for liberty in the broader Middle East.
        We've done a lot of hard work together over the last 3\1/2\ years.
    We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've
    climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley
    of peace. By being steadfast and resolute and strong, by keeping our
    word, by supporting our troops, we can achieve the peace we all want.
        I appreciate your listening tonight. I ask for your vote. And may
    God continue to bless our great land.
        Mr. Lehrer. And that ends tonight's debate. A
    reminder, the second Presidential debate will be a week from tomorrow,
    October 8th, from Washington University in St. Louis. Charles Gibson of
    ABC News will moderate a townhall-type event. Then, on October 13th,
    from Arizona State University in Tempe, Bob Schieffer of CBS News will
    moderate an exchange on domestic policy that will be similar in format
    to tonight's. Also, this coming Tuesday, at Case Western Reserve
    University in Cleveland, the Vice Presidential candidates, Vice
    President Cheney and Senator Edwards, will debate with my PBS colleague,
    Gwen Ifill, moderating.
        For now, thank you, Senator Kerry, President Bush. From Coral
    Gables, Florida, I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you, and good night.

    Note: The debate began at 9:02 p.m. in the Convocation Center at the
    University of Miami. In his remarks, the President referred to former
    President Saddam Hussein of Iraq; A.Q. Khan, former head of Pakistan's
    nuclear weapons program; Usama bin Laden, leader of the Al Qaida
    terrorist organization; Khalid Sheik Mohammed, senior Al Qaida leader
    responsible for planning the September 11, 2001, attack, who was
    captured in Pakistan on March 1, 2003; senior Al Qaida associate Abu
    Musab Al Zarqawi; Prime Minister Ayad Allawi of the Iraqi Interim
    Government; Gen. Tommy R. Franks, USA (Ret.), former combatant
    commander, U.S. Central Command; U.S. Ambassador to Iraq John D.
    Negroponte; Prime Minister Tony Blair of the United Kingdom; President
    Aleksander Kwasniewski of Poland; Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi of
    Japan; former President Jiang Zemin of China; Chairman Kim Chong-il of
    North Korea; President Umar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir of Sudan; and former
    Senator John C. Danforth, Special Envoy for Peace in the Sudan. Senator
    Kerry referred to Gen. John M. Shalikashvili, USA (Ret.), former
    Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff; Adm. William J. Crowe, Jr., USN

    [[Page 2271]]

    (Ret.), former Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff; Gen. Merrill A. ``Tony''
    McPeak, USAF (Ret.), former Air Force Chief of Staff; Lt. Gen. Brent
    Scowcroft, USAF (Ret.), former National Security Adviser; Gen. Eric K.
    Shinseki, USA (Ret.), former Army Chief of Staff; former Secretary of
    Defense William Perry; and President Roh Moo-hyun of South Korea.
    Senator Kerry also referred to the National Intelligence Estimate and
    the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
    Change.