Andrew: Debate Analysis

Bush’s Republican Policy Prevails in Presidential Debate

The recent presidential, re-election debate highlighted the oxymoronic policy of the John Kerry campaign. If President Bush had not refrained from embarrassing Senator Kerry on every point, the presidential election would, essentially, be over. It is unclear as to why the President did not embarrass a US Senator on national television; however, Bush was continually provided the opportunity to pull the trigger on “loaded statements” made by Kerry. Clearly, Kerry is thoroughly unqualified to hold the office of President of the United States. Kerry attacks the President on issues of foreign policy, but continually ignores the logic of policy and the actual facts.

Kerry criticizes President Bush on acting in Iraq without UN support. However, recent speeches in the UN are in favor of nation building and any international support that implement, or assist, forms of government that represent the respective population of nations in need. (c-span) Despite a lack of physical support and continual criticism by the United States media, the United States has likely received more respect from the majority of the UN than in past years. The UN is not a subsection of the US military. In basic logical theory, the US is doing a favor for the UN and that would only strengthen ties.

The President’s last speech to the UN was very diplomatic and emphasized the importance of democracy. It was not a slanderous attack on UN policy or any other nation’s beliefs. (c-span) Most nations in the UN would agree that Democracy is important in the world today.

The ‘war against terrorism’ is a global assault against a faction of people that are defined by, support of, or actions of, terrorism. This statement seems to be in support of Kerry, except for one fundamental fact; Iraq was using government funds to support terrorism rather than provide for its people. Although in contrast, it is equally fundamental that the United States should use funds to support US troops.

The proper allocation of funds that balance safety and prosperity is the fundamental purpose of any modern government. Kerry seems to be unable to grasp this point, in policy, or debate. With President Bush as leader, one thing can be sure; if anybody attacks the United States, they will pay. Kerry doesn’t seem stand strong on this point either. Kerry doesn’t seem to hold any stable, solid policy besides continually deceiving the American people, and playing towards the most ignorant political ideology.

The central issue is whether or not the war in Iraq was appropriate. Kerry’s argument would be easily debunked if the President had stated the facts about Saddam Hussein to the US people. The facts are that Saddam Hussein was supporting terrorism, and President Bush waged a war on all terrorism. (c-span) The President has never lied to the American people about his attempts to end terrorism against the US.

On the issue of nuclear proliferation, the United States now knows of increased production in countries such as Iran and North Korea. Kerry said that he would break a five nation alliance, created by Bush, and take on North Korea in, one on one, negotiation. In contrast with President Bush’s policy in Iraq; Kerry would lose strong allies, and Bush is gaining them. Bush does not support limiting focus on nuclear weapons, in any form, and Kerry has a fundamental misunderstanding of the reality of the nuclear world.

Kerry proposed increasing worldwide intelligence, which was introduced and implemented by the Bush administration. Furthermore, when Kerry addressed the threat of future terrorism, he neglected to mention the fact that many of the people who were a direct threat to the United States are dead; which, as a side-note, in no way diminishes the President’s focus on homeland security. Kerry’s arguments continually, either agree with President Bush, or negate Kerry's own proposed policy.

The Democratic candidate did have one successful outcome from the debate; he did prove the ability to manipulate information and deceive the American people with confidence and precision.

Personally, when I look at Senator Kerry, I see a candidate who could lead the United States in traditional, domestic affairs. Even then, I couldn’t see him handling foreign policy with the necessary level of proficiency. Unfortunately, the United States is not presently focused on the traditional, economic, domestic agenda. Given the knowledge Kerry displayed, tonight, on the issues of foreign policy, it seems clear to me that Kerry should not hold the position of President of the United States of America. He is wealthy, though.