[ OUR OPINION ]
Debate energized
Kerry campaign
|
Opinion polls taken immediately after the debate declared Kerry the victor, even though recent surveys have shown Bush several points ahead in the race and far ahead in people's confidence in him as commander in chief. Several days are needed for a more accurate reading, but the debate clearly has energized a Kerry campaign that had been gasping for breath. For the moment, Bush supporters may display the frown he sported throughout the debate.
Kerry and Bush differ little on their plans for dealing with Iraq in the months ahead. Kerry said he would accelerate training of Iraq security forces, while Bush maintained that 100,000 Iraqi troops, police and other security forces had been trained and that number would reach 125,000 by the end of this year. Detailed estimates by the administration show that only a few thousand key personnel have completed training.
Bush was effective in questioning Kerry's promise to increase international support in a war that Kerry calls a "diversion" from the war against terrorism. As for summits of allies proposed by Kerry, Bush said summits already are planned -- a donors conference in Japan later this month, in addition to a summit of Arab countries.
The key disagreements in the debate were about the justification for the United States sending troops into Iraq in the first place. As he has stated repeatedly on the campaign trail, Bush said America went to war in Iraq because "the enemy attacked us."
Kerry pounced on that ridiculous assertion: "Saddam Hussein didn't attack us. Osama bin Laden attacked us. Al-Qaida attacked us. And when we had Osama bin Laden cornered in the mountains of Tora Bora (Afghanistan), 1,000 of his cohorts with him in those mountains, with American forces nearby and in the field, we didn't use the best-trained troops in the world to go kill the world's No. 1 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."
"Of course I know Osama bin Laden attacked us," Bush responded. "I know that." The president's oft-repeated assertion that "the world is safer without Saddam Hussein" did not answer Kerry's question of why bin Laden was allowed to get away.
Kerry's strong showing raises the stakes for the president in the second debate next Friday in St. Louis.
Structure of talks
is not so crucial
|
Kerry maintained that the prolonged dispute over that format gave North Korea two years to build up its nuclear arsenal. "While they didn't talk at all," Kerry said in the presidential debate, "the fuel rods came out, the inspectors were kicked out, the television cameras (in the nuclear reactor) were kicked out and today there are four to seven nuclear weapons in the hands of North Korea."
"I can't tell you how big a mistake I think that is to have bilateral talks with North Korea," Bush responded. "That's precisely what Kim Jong-il wants."
The difference between the structures of such talks is not as stark as it might seem. After representatives of the United States, North and South Korea, China, Japan and Russia began the supposed six-party talks in August of last year, a North Korean spokesman described them as bilateral within a six-party framework. White House spokesman Scott McClellan said they were six-party talks with "the opportunity during those meetings for North Korea or any other party to talk directly to another party."
The fourth round of talks had been planned for September, but North Korea apparently has decided not to enter talks until after next month's election. From any standpoint, holding such talks before then would be fruitless.
Nations often negotiate with each other in many different forums. Bilateral talks between the United States and the North would not keep the other four countries involved in the six-party talks from exerting pressure on North Korea without being in the same room with the others.
