[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 40, Number 40 (Monday, October 4, 2004)]
[Pages 2175-2195]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
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

[[Page 2176]]

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 
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. 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

[[Page 2177]]

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 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

[[Page 2178]]

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 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.

[[Page 2179]]

    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 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 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

[[Page 2180]]

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 terror 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?
    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 matter 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--

[[Page 2181]]

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].

    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.

[[Page 2182]]

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 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--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.

[[Page 2183]]

    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 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.

[[Page 2184]]

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 Nation 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 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.

[[Page 2185]]

    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 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

[[Page 2186]]

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.

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

[[Page 2187]]

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.
    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 
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

[[Page 2188]]

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 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

[[Page 2189]]

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 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.

[[Page 2190]]

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, 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

[[Page 2191]]

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. 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.

[[Page 2192]]

    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.
    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.

[[Page 2193]]

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 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

[[Page 2194]]

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.''
    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

[[Page 2195]]

to freedom, not to fear. That's the 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 network; Khalid Sheik Mohammed, senior Al Qaida leader 
responsible for planning the September 11 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, (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.