Presidential Candidates Debate: Full Screen - Oct 8, 2004

Transcript Text

  • MR. GIBSON

    At 00:00:52
    2 minutes

    Good evening from the Field House at Washington
    University in St. Louis. I'm Charles Gibson of ABC News and "Good
    Morning America." I welcome you to the second of the 2004
    presidential debates between President George W.
    Bush, the Republican
    nominee, and Senator John Kerry, the Democratic nominee. The debates
    are sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates.
    Tonight's debate is going to be a bit different. We have
    assembled a town hall meeting. We're in the "Show Me State," as
    everyone knows Missouri to be, so Missouri residents will ask the
    questions. These 140 citizens were identified by the Gallup
    organization as not yet committed in this election.
    Now, earlier today, each audience member gave me two questions on
    cards like this -- one they'd like to ask of the president, the other
    they'd like to ask the senator. I have selected the questions to be
    asked and the order. No one has seen the final list of questions but
    me -- certainly not the candidates. No audience member knows if he or
    she will be called upon. Audience microphones will be turned off
    after a question is asked. Audience members will address their
    question to a specific candidate. He'll have two minutes to answer.
    The other candidate will have a minute-and-a-half for rebuttal. And I
    have the option of extending discussion for one minute, to be divided
    equally between the two men.
    (View cut data) All subjects are open for discussion. And you probably know the light
    system by now; green light at 30 seconds, yellow at 15, red at five,
    and flashing red means you're done.
    Those are the candidates' rules. I will hold the candidates to
    the time limits forcefully but politely, I hope.
    And now please join me in welcoming with great respect President
    Bush and Senator Kerry. (Applause.)
    Gentlemen, to the business at hand. The first question is for
    Senator Kerry, and it will come from Cheryl Otis (sp), who is right
    behind me.

  • Question

    At 00:03:31
    15 seconds

    Senator Kerry, after talking with several co-workers and
    family and friends, I asked the ones who said they were not voting for
    you, why. They said that you were too wishy-washy. Do you have a
    reply for them?

  • SEN. KERRY

    At 00:03:46
    2 minutes

    Yes, I certainly do. (Laughs.) (Laughter.) But
    let me just first, Cheryl (sp), if you will: I want to thank Charlie
    for moderating.
    (View cut data) I want to thank Washington University for hosting us here this
    evening.
    Mr. President, it's good to be with you again this evening, sir.
    Cheryl (sp), the president didn't find weapons of mass
    destruction in Iraq, so he has really turned his campaign into a
    weapon of mass deception. And the result is that you've been
    bombarded with advertisements suggesting that I've changed a position
    on this or that or the other.
    Now, the three things they try to say I've changed position on
    are the Patriot Act. I haven't. I support it. I just don't like the
    way John Ashcroft has applied it, and we're going to change a few
    things. The chairman of the Republican Party thinks we ought to
    change a few things. No Child Left Behind Act. I voted for it. I
    support it. I support the goals. But the president has under-funded
    it by $28 billion.
    Right here in St. Louis, you've laid off 350 teachers. You're
    150 -- excuse me, I think it's a little more -- about $100 million shy
    of what you ought to be under the No Child Left Behind Act to help
    your education system here. So I complain about that. I've argued
    that we should fully fund it. The president says I've changed my
    mind. I haven't changed my mind. I'm going to fully fund it.
    So these are the differences.
    Now, the president has presided over the economy where we've lost
    1.6 million jobs. First president in 72 years to lose jobs. I have a
    plan to put people back to work. That's not wishy-washy. I'm going
    to close the loopholes that actually encourage companies to go
    overseas. The president wants to keep them open. I think I'm right.
    I think he's wrong.
    (View cut data) I'm going to give you a tax cut. The president gave -- the top 1
    percent of income earners in America got $89 billion last year, more
    than the 80 percent of people who earn a hundred thousand dollars or
    less all put together. I think that's wrong. That's not wishy-washy.
    And that's what I'm fighting for, you.

  • MR. GIBSON

    At 00:05:47
    2 seconds

    Mr. President, a minute and a half.

  • PRESIDENT BUSH

    At 00:05:49
    1 minute

    Charlie, thank you, and thank our panelists, and
    Senator, thank you.
    I can -- and thanks Washington U. as well. I can see why people
    at your workplace think he changes positions a lot, because he does.
    He said he voted for the $87 billion -- or voted against it right
    before he voted for it (sic). And that sends a confusing signal to
    people.
    He said he thought Saddam Hussein was a grave threat, and now
    said it was a mistake to remove Saddam Hussein form power. Now I can
    see why people think he changes position quite often, because he does.
    You know, for a while, he was a strong supporter of getting rid
    of Saddam Hussein. He saw the wisdom, until the Democratic primary
    came along, and Howard Dean, the anti-war candidate, began to gain on
    him. And he changed positions.
    I don't see how you can lead this country in a time of war, in a
    time of uncertainty if you change your mind because of politics.
    He just brought up the tax cut. You remember we increased that
    child credit by a thousand dollars, reduced the marriage penalty,
    created a 10 percent tax bracket for the lower-income Americans.
    That's right at the middle class.
    He voted against it, and yet he tells you he's for a middle-class
    tax cut. It's -- you've got to be consistent when you're the
    president.
    There's a lot of pressures, and you've got to be firm and
    consistent.

  • MR. GIBSON

    At 00:07:24
    12 seconds

    Mr. President, I would follow up, but we have a
    series of questions on Iraq, and so I will turn to the next question.
    The question for President Bush, and the questioner is Robin Dahl
    (sp).

  • Question

    At 00:07:36
    1 second

    Mr. President --

  • MR. GIBSON

    At 00:07:37
    3 seconds

    Can you get a microphone, Robin? I'm sorry.

  • Question

    At 00:07:40
    32 seconds

    Mr. President, yesterday in a statement you admitted that
    Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, but justified the
    invasion by stating, I quote, "He retained the knowledge, the
    materials, the means and the intent to produce weapons of mass
    destruction, and could have passed this knowledge to our terrorist
    enemies."
    Do you sincerely believe this to be a reasonable justification
    for invasion when this statement applies to so many other countries,
    including North Korea?

  • PRESIDENT BUSH

    At 00:08:12
    2 minutes

    Each situation is different, Robin. And,
    obviously, we hope that diplomacy works before you ever use force.
    The hardest decision a president makes is ever to use force.
    After 9/11, we had to look at the world differently. After 9/11,
    we had to recognize that when we saw a threat, we must take it
    seriously before it comes to hurt us. In the old days we'd see a
    threat and we could deal with it if we felt like it, or not. But 9/11
    changed it all. I vowed to our countrymen that I would do everything
    I could to protect the American people. That's why we're bringing al
    Qaeda to justice; 75 percent of them have been brought to justice.
    (View cut data) That's why I said to Afghanistan, if you harbor a terrorist, you're
    just as guilty as the terrorist. And the Taliban is no longer in
    power, and al Qaeda no longer has a place to plan. And I saw a unique
    threat in Saddam Hussein, as did my opponent, because we thought he
    had weapons of mass destruction. And the unique threat was that he
    could give weapons of mass destruction to an organization like al
    Qaeda, and the harm they inflicted on us with airplanes would be
    multiplied greatly by weapons of mass destruction. And that was the
    serious, serious threat.
    So I tried diplomacy. I went to the United Nations. But as we
    learned in the same report I quoted, Saddam Hussein was gaming the
    oil-for-food program to get rid of sanctions. He was trying to get
    rid of sanctions for a reason. He wanted to restart his weapons
    programs.
    We all thought there was weapons there, Robin (sp). My opponent
    thought there was weapons there. That's why he called him a grave
    threat. I wasn't happy when we found out there wasn't weapons, and
    we've got an intelligence group together to figure out why. But
    Saddam Hussein was a unique threat, and the world is better off
    without him in power.
    And my opponent's plans lead me to conclude that Saddam Hussein
    would still be in power, and the world would be more dangerous.
    Thank you, sir.

  • MR. GIBSON

    At 00:10:15
    2 seconds

    Senator Kerry, a minute and a half.

  • SEN. KERRY

    At 00:10:17
    1 minute

    Robin (sp), I'm going to answer your question. I'm
    also going to talk -- respond to what you asked, Cheryl (sp), at the
    same time.
    The world is more dangerous today. The world is more dangerous
    today because the president didn't make the right judgments. Now, the
    president wishes that I had changed my mind.
    He wants you to believe
    that, because he can't come here and tell you that he's created new
    jobs for America. He's lost jobs. He can't come here and tell you
    that he's created health care for Americans, because 1.- -- what, we
    got 5 million Americans who've lost their health care, 96,000 of them
    right here in Missouri. He can't come here and tell you that he's
    left no child behind, because he didn't find No Child Left Behind.
    So what does he do? He's trying to attack me. He wants you to
    believe that I can't be president, and he's trying to make you believe
    it because he wants you to think I changed my mind. Well, let me tell
    you straight up: I've never changed my mind about Iraq. I did
    believe Saddam Hussein was a threat. I always believed he was a
    threat. Believed in 1998, when Clinton was president. I wanted to
    give Clinton the power to use force if necessary. But I would've
    used that force wisely. I would've used that authority wisely, not
    rush to war without a plan to win the peace. I would've brought our
    allies to our side. I would've fought to make certain our troops had
    everybody possible to help them win the mission.
    This president rushed to war, pushed our allies aside, and Iran
    now is more dangerous, and so is North Korea, with nuclear weapons.
    He took his eye off the ball, off of Osama bin Laden.

  • MR. GIBSON

    At 00:11:48
    5 seconds

    Mr. President, I do want to follow up on this one,
    because there were several questions from the audience along this
    line.

  • PRESIDENT BUSH

    At 00:11:53
    2 seconds

    (Off mike) -- rebuttal thing --

  • MR. GIBSON

    At 00:11:55
    6 seconds

    Go ahead. Go ahead. Well, I was going to have you
    do the rebuttal on that, but you go ahead. (Laughter.) You're up.

  • PRESIDENT BUSH

    At 00:12:01
    30 seconds

    (Laughs.) You remember the last debate? My
    opponent said that America must pass a global test before we use force
    to protect ourselves. That's the kind of mindset that says sanctions
    were working.
    (View cut data) That's the kind of mindset that said let's keep it at the United
    Nations and hope things go well.
    Saddam Hussein was a threat because he could have given weapons
    of mass destruction to terrorist enemies. Sanctions were not working.
    The United Nations was not effective at removing Saddam Hussein.

  • MR. GIBSON

    At 00:12:31
    3 seconds

    Senator?

  • SEN. KERRY

    At 00:12:34
    28 seconds

    The goal of the sanctions was not to remove Saddam
    Hussein, it was to remove the weapons of mass destruction. And, Mr.
    President, just yesterday the Duelfer report told you and the whole
    world they worked. He didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Mr.
    President.
    That was the objective.
    And if we'd used smart diplomacy, we could have saved $200
    billion and an invasion of Iraq, and right now Osama bin Laden might
    be in jail or dead. That's the war against terror.

  • MR. GIBSON

    At 00:13:02
    9 seconds

    We're going to have another question now on the
    subject of Iraq. And I'm going to turn to Anthony Baldie (sp) with a
    question for Senator Kerry.
    Mr. Baldie?

  • Question

    At 00:13:11
    17 seconds

    Senator Kerry, the U.S. is preparing a new Iraq government
    and will proceed to withdraw U.S. troops. Would you proceed with the
    same plans as President Bush?

  • SEN. KERRY

    At 00:13:28
    1 minute

    Anthony, I would not. I have laid out a different
    plan because the president's plan is not working. You see that every
    night on television. There's chaos in Iraq. King Abdullah of Jordan
    said, just yesterday or the day, before you can't hold elections in
    Iraq with the chaos that's going on today.
    Senator Richard Lugar, the Republican chairman of the Foreign
    Relations Committee, said that the handling of the reconstruction aid
    in Iraq by this administration has been incompetent. Those are the
    Republican chairman's words. Senator Hagel of Nebraska said that the
    handling of Iraq is beyond pitiful, beyond embarrassing; it's in the
    zone of dangerous. Those are the words of two Republicans, respected,
    both on the Foreign Relations Committee.
    Now, I have to tell you: I would do something different. I
    would reach out to our allies in a way that this president hasn't. He
    pushed them away, time and again. Pushed them away at the U.N.,
    pushed them away individually.
    Two weeks ago, there was a meeting of the North Atlantic Council,
    which is the political arm of NATO. They discussed the possibility of
    a small training unit or having a total takeover of the training in
    Iraq. Did our administration push for the total training of Iraq?
    No. Were they silent? Yes. Was there an effort to bring all the
    allies together around that? No. Because they've always wanted this
    to be an American effort.
    You know, they even have the Defense Department issue a
    memorandum saying don't bother applying for assistance or for being
    part of the reconstruction if you weren't part of our original
    coalition. Now that's not a good way to build support and reduce the
    risk for our troops and make America safer. I'm going to get the
    training done for our troops. I'm going to get the training of Iraqis
    done faster. And I'm going to get our allies back to the table.

  • PRESIDENT BUSH

    At 00:15:21
    1 minute

    Two days ago in the Oval Office I met with the
    finance minister from Iraq. He came to see me. And he talked about
    how optimistic he was and the country was about heading toward
    elections.
    (View cut data) Think about it. They're going from tyranny to elections.
    He talked about the reconstruction efforts that are beginning to
    take hold. He talked about the fact that Iraqis love to be free.
    He said he was optimistic when he came here, then he turned on
    the TV and listened to the political rhetoric, and all of a sudden he
    was pessimistic. This is a guy who, along with others, has taken
    great risks for freedom. And we need to stand with him.
    My opponent says he has a plan. It sounds familiar because it's
    called the Bush plan. We're going to train troops, and we are. We'll
    have 125,000 trained by the end of December. We're spending about $7
    billion.
    He talks about a grand idea; let's have a summit; we're going to
    solve the problem in Iraq by holding a summit. And what is he going
    to say to those people that show up to the summit? Join me in the
    wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place? Risk your -- risk
    your troops in a -- in a war you've called a mistake?
    Nobody is going to follow somebody who doesn't believe we can
    succeed and somebody who says the war where we are is a mistake. I
    know how these people think. I meet with them all the time. I talk
    to Tony Blair all the time. I talk to Silvio Berlusconi. They're not
    going to follow an American president who says "follow me into a
    mistake."
    Our plan is working. We're going to make elections, and Iraq is
    going to be free, and America will be better off for it.

  • MR. GIBSON

    At 00:16:55
    1 second

    Do you want to follow up, Senator?

  • SEN. KERRY

    At 00:16:56
    33 seconds

    Yes, sir, please.
    Ladies and gentlemen, the right war was Osama bin Laden and
    Afghanistan. That was the right place. And the right time was Tora
    Bora when we had him cornered in the mountains.
    Now, everyone in the world knows that there were no weapons of
    mass destruction. That was the reason Congress gave him the authority
    to use force, not -- after excuse to get rid of the regime.
    Now we have to succeed. I've always said that. I have been
    consistent. Yes, we have to succeed, and I have a better plan to help
    us do it.

  • PRESIDENT BUSH

    At 00:17:29
    37 seconds

    First of all, we didn't find out he didn't have
    weapons till we got there. And my opponent thought he had weapons and
    told everybody he thought he had weapons.
    And secondly, it's a fundamental misunderstanding to say that the
    war on terror is only Osama bin Laden. The war on terror is to make
    sure that these terrorist organizations do not end up with weapons of
    mass destruction. That's what the war on terror is about. Of course
    we're going to find Osama bin Laden. We've already got 75 percent of
    his people, and we're the hunt for him. But this is a global conflict
    that requires firm resolve.

  • MR. GIBSON

    At 00:18:06
    6 seconds

    The next question is for President Bush, and it
    comes from Nicky Washington (sp).

  • Question

    At 00:18:12
    26 seconds

    Thank you. Mr. President, my mother and sister traveled
    abroad this summer, and when they got back they talked to us about how
    shocked they were at the intensity of aggravation that other countries
    had with how we handled the Iraq situation. Diplomacy is obviously
    something that we have to really work on. What is your plan to repair
    relations with other countries, given the current situation?

  • PRESIDENT BUSH

    At 00:18:38
    2 minutes

    No, I appreciate that. I -- listen, I -- we've
    got a great country. I love our values. And I recognize I made some
    decisions that have caused people to not understand the great values
    of our country.
    I remember when Ronald Reagan was the president. He stood on
    principle. Some might have called that stubborn. He stood on
    principle, standing up to the Soviet Union, and we won that conflict.
    Yet at the same time, he was very -- we were very unpopular in Europe
    because of the decisions he made.
    I recognize that taking Saddam Hussein out was unpopular. But I
    made the decision because I thought it was in the right interests of
    our security.
    You know, I made some decisions on Israel that's unpopular. I
    wouldn't deal with Arafat because I felt like he had let the former
    president down and I don't think he's the kind of person that can lead
    toward a Palestinian state. And people in Europe didn't like that
    decision, and that was unpopular, but it was the right thing to do. I
    believe the Palestinians ought to have a state.
    (View cut data) But I know they need leadership that's committed to a democracy and
    freedom, leadership that'd be willing to reject terrorism.
    I made a decision not to join the International Criminal Court in
    The Hague, which is where our troops can be brought to -- brought in
    front of a judge, an unaccounted judge. I don't think we ought to
    join that. That was unpopular.
    And so what I'm telling you is is that sometimes in this world
    you make unpopular decision because you think they're right.
    We'll continue to reach out. Listen, there's 30 nations involved
    in Iraq; some 40 nations involved in Afghanistan. People love
    America. Sometimes they don't like the decisions made by America, but
    I don't think you want a president who tries to become popular and
    does the wrong thing. You don't want to join the International
    Criminal Court just because it's popular in certain capitals in
    Europe.

  • MR. GIBSON

    At 00:20:42
    2 seconds

    Senator Kerry, a minute and a half.

  • SEN. KERRY

    At 00:20:44
    1 minute

    Nicky (sp), that's a question that's been raised by
    a lot of people around the country. Let me address it, but also talk
    about the weapons the president just talked about, because every part
    of the president's answer just now promises you more of the same over
    the next four years.
    The president stood right here in this hall four years ago, and
    he was asked a question by somebody just like you, under what
    circumstances would you send people to war? And his answer was, with
    a viable exit strategy and only with enough forces to get the job
    done. He didn't do that. He broke that promise. We didn't have
    enough forces. General Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, told him he
    was going to need several hundred thousand, and guess what -- the
    retired General Shinseki for telling him that.
    This president hasn't listened. I went to meet with the members
    of the Security Council in the week before we voted. I went to New
    York. I talked to all of them to find out how serious they were about
    really holding Saddam Hussein accountable. I came away convinced that
    if we worked at it, if we were ready to work at letting Hans Blix do
    his job and thoroughly go through the inspections, that if push came
    to shove, they'd be there with us.
    (View cut data) But the president just arbitrarily brought the hammer down and said
    nope, sorry, time for diplomacy is over, we're going. He rushed to
    war without a plan to win the peace.
    Ladies and gentlemen, he gave you a speech and told you he'd plan
    carefully, take every precaution, take our allies with us. He didn't.
    He broke his word.

  • PRESIDENT BUSH

    At 00:22:13
    34 seconds

    I remember sitting in the White House looking at
    those generals, saying: "Do you have what you need in this war? Do
    you have what it takes?" I remember going down to the basement of the
    White House the day we committed our troops, as last resort, looking
    at Tommy Franks and the generals on the ground, asking them do we have
    the right plan with the right troop level? And they looked me in the
    eye and said, yes, sir, Mr. President.
    Of course I listened to our generals. That's what a president
    does. A president sets the strategy and relies upon good military
    people to execute that strategy.

  • MR. GIBSON

    At 00:22:47
    2 seconds

    Senator.

  • SEN. KERRY

    At 00:22:49
    31 seconds

    You rely on good military people to execute the
    military component of the strategy, but winning the peace is larger
    than just the military component. General Shinseki had the wisdom to
    say you're going to need several hundred thousand troops to win the
    peace. Military's job is to win the war. President's job is to win
    the peace.
    The president did not do what was necessary.
    Didn't bring in
    enough nations, didn't deliver the help, didn't close off the borders,
    didn't even guard the ammo dumps. And now our kids are being killed
    with ammos (sic) right out of that dump.

  • MR. GIBSON

    At 00:23:20
    10 seconds

    The next question is for Senator Kerry. And it
    comes from over here, from Randy Jacobs (sp).

  • SEN. KERRY

    At 00:23:30
    1 second

    Is it Randy?

  • MR. GIBSON

    At 00:23:31
    1 second

    You'll need a microphone.

  • SEN. KERRY

    At 00:23:32
    1 second

    Is it Randy? I'm sorry.

  • Question

    At 00:23:33
    18 seconds

    Yes, Randy. Iran sponsors terrorism and has missiles
    capable of hitting Israel and southern Europe. Iran will have nuclear
    weapons in two to three years time. In the event that U.N. sanctions
    don't stop this threat, what will you do as president?

  • SEN. KERRY

    At 00:23:51
    1 minute

    I don't think you can just rely on U.N. sanctions,
    Randy (sp), but you're absolutely correct. It is a threat. It's a
    huge threat. And what's interesting is, it's a threat that has grown
    while the president has been preoccupied with Iraq, where there wasn't
    a threat. If he'd let the inspectors do their job and go on, we
    wouldn't have 10 times the numbers of forces in Iraq that we have in
    Afghanistan chasing Osama bin Laden.
    Meanwhile, while Iran is moving towards nuclear weapons, some 37
    tons of what they call yellowcake, the stuff they use to make enriched
    uranium, while they're doing that, North Korea has moved from one bomb
    maybe -- maybe -- to four to seven bombs. For two years, the
    president didn't even engage with North Korea, did nothing at all,
    while it was growing more dangerous, despite the warnings of people
    like former secretary of Defense William Perry, who negotiated getting
    television cameras and inspectors into that reactor. We were safe
    before President Bush came to office. Now, they have the bombs and
    we're less safe.
    So what do we do. We've got to join with the British and the
    French, with the Germans, who have been involved in their initiative.
    (View cut data) We've got to lead the world now to crack down on proliferation as a
    whole. But the president's been slow to do that even in Russia. At
    his pace, it's going to take 13 years to reduce and get ahold of all
    the loose nuclear material in the former Soviet Union. I've proposed
    a plan that can capture it and contain it and clean it within four
    years.
    And the president is moving to the creation of our own bunker-
    busting nuclear weapon. It's very hard to get other countries to give
    up their weapons when you're busy developing a new one. I'm going to
    lead the world in the greatest counterproliferation effort. And if we
    have to get tough with Iran, believe me, we will get tough.

  • MR. GIBSON

    At 00:25:46
    2 seconds

    Mr. President, a minute and a half.

  • PRESIDENT BUSH

    At 00:25:48
    1 minute

    That answer almost made me want to scowl.
    He keeps talking about let the inspectors do their job. It's
    naive and dangerous to say that. That's what the Duelfer report
    showed. He was deceiving the inspectors.
    Secondly, of course we've been involved with Iran. I fully
    understand the threat. And that's why we're doing what he suggested
    we do, get the Brits, the Germans and the French to go make it very
    clear to the Iranians that if they expect to be a party to the world,
    to give up their nuclear ambitions. We've been doing that.
    Let me talk about North Korea. It is naive and dangerous to take
    a policy that he suggested the other day, which is to have bilateral
    relations with North Korea. Remember he's the person who's accusing
    me of not acting multilaterally? He now wants to take the six-party
    talks we have, China, North Korea, South Korea, Russia, Japan and the
    United States, and undermine them by having bilateral talks.
    (View cut data) That's what President Clinton did. He had bilateral talks with the
    North Korean, and guess what happened? He didn't -- he didn't honor
    the agreement. He was enriching uranium. That is a bad policy.
    Of course we're paying attention to these. It's a great question
    about Iran. That's why in my speech to the Congress I said there's an
    axis of evil -- Iraq, Iran and North Korea -- and we're paying
    attention to it, and we're making progress.

  • MR. GIBSON

    At 00:27:20
    6 seconds

    We're going to move on, Mr. President, with a
    question for you, and it comes from Daniel Farley (sp).
    Mr. Farley?

  • Question

    At 00:27:26
    11 seconds

    Mr. President, since we continue to police the world, how
    do you intend to maintain our military presence without reinstituting
    a draft?

  • PRESIDENT BUSH

    At 00:27:37
    2 minutes

    Yeah, great question. Thanks. I hear there's
    rumors on the Internets that we're going to have a draft. We're not
    going to have a draft, period. The all-volunteer Army works. It
    works particularly when we pay our troops well, it works when we make
    sure they've got housing, like we have done in the last military
    budgets. An all-volunteer Army is best-suited to fight the new wars
    of the 21st century, which is to be specialized and to find these
    people as they hide around the world. We don't need mass armies
    anymore.
    One of the things we've done is we've taken the -- we're
    beginning to transform our military, and by that I mean we're moving
    troops out of Korea and replacing them with more effective weapons.
    (View cut data) We don't need as much manpower on the Korean Peninsula to keep a
    deterrent. In Europe we have massed troops as if the Soviet Union
    existed and was going to invade into Europe. But those days are over
    with, and so we're moving troops out of Europe and replacing it with
    more effective equipment.
    So, the answer to your question is, we're withdrawing, not from
    the world, we're withdrawing manpower so they can be stationed here in
    America so there's less rotation so life is easier on their families
    and, therefore, more likely to be -- we'll be more likely to be able
    to keep people in the all-volunteer Army.
    One of the most important things we're doing in this
    administration is transformation. There's some really interesting
    technologies. For example, we're flying unmanned vehicles that can
    send real-time messages to stations in the United States. That saves
    manpower and it saves equipment. It also means that we can target
    things easier and move more quickly, which means we need to be
    lighter, and quicker, and more facile, and highly trained.
    Forget all this talk about a draft. We're not going to have a
    draft so long as I'm the president.

  • MR. GIBSON

    At 00:29:39
    1 second

    Senator Kerry, a minute-and-a-half.

  • SEN. KERRY

    At 00:29:40
    1 minute

    Daniel, I don't support a draft. But let me tell
    you where the president's policies have put us. The president -- and
    this is one of the reasons I'm very proud in this race to have the
    support of General John Shalikashvili, former chairman of the Joint
    Chiefs of Staff; Admiral William Crowe, former chairman of the Joint
    Chiefs of Staff; General Tony McPeak, who ran the air war for the
    president's father and did a brilliant job, supporting me; General Wes
    Clark, who won the war in Kosovo supporting me, because they all --
    General Bacca (sp) support me.
    Why? Because they understand that our military is overextended
    under the president. Our Guard and Reserves have been turned into
    almost active duty. You've got people doing two and three rotations.
    You've got stop-loss policies so people can't get out when they were
    supposed to. You've got a backdoor draft right now. And a lot of our
    military are underpaid. These are families that get hurt. It hurts
    the middle class. It hurts communities, because these are our first
    responders and they're called up and they're over there, not over
    here.
    Now, I'm going to add 40,000 active duty forces to the military,
    and I'm going to make people feel good about being safe in our
    military and not overextended, because I'm going to run a foreign
    policy that actually does what President Reagan and President
    Eisenhower did and others. We're going to build alliances. We're not
    going to go unilaterally. We're not going alone like this president
    did.

  • MR. GIBSON

    At 00:31:09
    1 second

    Mr. President, let's extend for a minute --
    (inaudible) -- issue of --

  • PRESIDENT BUSH

    At 00:31:10
    2 seconds

    Let me just -- one point. I've got to answer
    this.

  • MR. GIBSON

    At 00:31:12
    4 seconds

    Exactly. And with reservists being held on duty and
    some soldiers --

  • PRESIDENT BUSH

    At 00:31:16
    2 seconds

    Let me answer what he just said about going
    alone.

  • MR. GIBSON

    At 00:31:18
    1 second

    Well, I wanted to get into the issue of the backdoor
    draft.

  • PRESIDENT BUSH

    At 00:31:19
    32 seconds

    You tell Tony Blair we're going alone. Tell
    Tony Blair we're going alone. Tell Silvio Berlusconi we're going
    alone. Tell Alexander Kwasniewski of Poland we're going alone. We've
    got 30 countries there. It denigrates an alliance to say we're going
    alone, to discount their sacrifices. You cannot lead an alliance if
    you say, you know, you're going alone. And people listen. They're
    sacrificing with us.

  • MR. GIBSON

    At 00:31:51
    1 second

    Senator?

  • SEN. KERRY

    At 00:31:52
    30 seconds

    Mr. President, countries are leaving the coalition,
    not joining.
    (View cut data) Eight countries have left it. If Missouri, just given the number of
    people from Missouri who are in the military over there today, were a
    country, it would be the third largest country in the coalition,
    behind Great Britain and the United States.
    That's not a grand coalition. Ninety percent of the casualties
    are American. Ninety percent of the cost are coming out of your
    pockets. I could do a better job. My plan does a better job. And
    that's why I'll be a better commander in chief.

  • MR. GIBSON

    At 00:32:22
    6 seconds

    The next question, Senator Kerry, is for you, and it
    comes from Anne Bronsing (sp), who I believe is over in this area.

  • Question

    At 00:32:28
    20 seconds

    Senator Kerry, we have been fortunate that there have been
    no further terrorist attacks on American soil since 9/11. Why do you
    think this is? And if elected, what will you do to assure our safety?

  • SEN. KERRY

    At 00:32:48
    2 minutes

    Thank you very much, Anne (sp). I've asked, in my
    security briefings, why that is, and I can't go into all the answer,
    et cetera. But let me say this to you: This president and his
    administration have told you and all of us it's not a question of
    when, it's a question of -- excuse me, not a question of if, it's a
    question of when. We've been told that. The when, I can't tell you.
    Between the World Trade Center bombing in, what was it?, 1993 or so,
    and the next time was five year, seven years. They people wait.
    They'll plan. They plot.
    I agree with the president that we have to go after them and get
    them wherever they are. I just think I can do that far more
    effectively, because the most important weapon in doing that is
    intelligence. You got to have the best intelligence in the world.
    And in order to have the best intelligence in the world to know who
    the terrorists are and where they are and what they're plotting,
    you've got to have the best cooperation you've ever had in the world.
    Now to go back to your question, Nicky (sp), we're not getting
    the best cooperation in the world today. We got a whole bunch of
    countries that pay a price for dealing with the United States of
    America now. I'm going to change that. And I'm going to put in place
    a better homeland security effort.
    Look at -- 95 percent of our containers coming into this country
    are not inspected today. When you get on an airplane, your bag is x-
    rayed but the cargo hold isn't x-rayed. Do you feel safer?
    This president in the last debate said, well, that would be a big
    tax gap if we did that. Ladies and gentlemen, it's his tax plan. He
    chose a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans over getting that
    equipment out into the homeland as fast as possible. We have bridges
    and tunnels that aren't being secured. Chemical plants, nuclear
    plants that aren't secured. Hospitals that are overcrowded with their
    emergency rooms. If we had a disaster today, could they handle it?
    This president chose a tax cut over homeland security. Wrong
    choice.

  • MR. GIBSON

    At 00:34:48
    1 second

    Mr. President.

  • PRESIDENT BUSH

    At 00:34:49
    1 minute

    That's an odd thing to say, since we've --
    tripled the homeland security budget from 10 (billion dollars) to 30
    billion dollars.
    Listen, we'll do everything we can to protect the homeland. My
    opponent's right, we need good intelligence. It's also a curious
    thing for him to say since right after 1993 he voted to cut the
    intelligence budget by $7.5 billion.
    The best way to defend America in this -- in this world we live
    in is to stay on the offense. We got to be right a hundred percent of
    the time here at home, and they got to be right once. And that's the
    reality. And there's a lot of good people working hard. We're doing
    the best we possibly can to share information.
    (View cut data) That's why the Patriot Act was important.
    The Patriot Act is vital, by the way. It's a tool that law
    enforcement now uses to be able to talk between each other. My
    opponent says he hasn't changed his positions on it. No, but he's for
    weakening it.
    I don't think my opponent has got the right view about the world
    to make us safe. I really don't. First of all, I don't think he can
    succeed in Iraq. And if Iraq were to fail, it'd be a haven for
    terrorists, and there'd be money, and the world would be much more
    dangerous. I don't see how you can win in Iraq if you don't believe
    we should be there in the first place. I don't see how you can lead
    troops if you say it's the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong
    time. I don't see how the Iraqis are going to have confidence in the
    American president if all they hear is that it was a mistake to be
    there in the first place.
    This war is a long, long war, and it requires steadfast
    determination, and it requires a complete understanding that we not
    only chase down al Qaeda, but we disrupt terrorist safe havens as well
    as people who could provide the terrorists with support.

  • MR. GIBSON

    At 00:36:27
    13 seconds

    I want to extend for a minute, Senator. And I want
    -- I'm curious about something you said. You said it's not when, but
    if (sic). You think it's inevitable, because the sense of security is
    a very basic thing with everybody in this country worried about their
    kids.

  • SEN. KERRY

    At 00:36:40
    33 seconds

    Well, the president and his experts have told
    America that's it's not a question of if, it's a question of when.
    And I accept what the president has said. These terrorists are
    serious, they're deadly, and they know nothing except trying to kill.
    I understand that. That's why I will never stop at anything to hunt
    down and kill the terrorists.
    But you heard the president just say to you that we've added
    money. Folks, the test is not if you've added money. The test is,
    have you done everything possible to make America secure. He chose a
    tax cut for wealthy Americans over the things that I listed to you.

  • MR. GIBSON

    At 00:37:13
    2 seconds

    Mr. President.

  • PRESIDENT BUSH

    At 00:37:15
    30 seconds

    Well, we'll talk about the tax cut for middle
    class here in a minute, but yeah, I'm worried. I'm worried. I'm
    worried about our country. And I'll tell, all I can tell you is,
    every day I know that there's people working overtime doing the very
    best they can. And the reason I'm worried is because there's a
    vicious enemy that has an ideology of hate.
    (View cut data) And the way to defeat them long term, by the way, is to spread
    freedom. Liberty can change habits. And that's what's happening in
    Afghanistan and Iraq.

  • MR. GIBSON

    At 00:37:45
    12 seconds

    Mr. President, we're going to turn to questions now
    on domestic policy, and we're going to start with health issues.
    And the first question is for President Bush, and it's from John
    Horsman (sp).

  • Question

    At 00:37:57
    9 seconds

    Mr. President, why did you block the reimportation of safer
    and inexpensive drugs from Canada, which would have cut 40 to 60
    percent off of the cost?

  • PRESIDENT BUSH

    At 00:38:06
    1 minute

    Yeah, I haven't yet. I just want to make sure
    they're safe. When a drug comes in from Canada, I want to make sure
    it cures you and doesn't kill you. And that's why the FDA and that's
    why the surgeon general are looking very carefully to make sure it can
    be done in a safe way. I've got an obligation to make sure our
    government does everything we can to protect you. And my worry is is
    that, you know, it looks like it's from Canada; it might be from a
    Third World. We've just got to make sure before somebody thinks
    they're buying a product that it works. And that's why we're doing
    what we're doing. Now, it may very well be here in December you hear
    me say I think there's a safe way to do it.
    Other ways to make sure drugs are cheaper. One is to speed up
    generic drugs to the marketplace quicker. Pharmaceuticals were using
    loopholes to keep brand drugs in place, and generics are much less
    expensive than brand drugs. And we're doing just that. Another is to
    get our seniors to sign up to these drug discount cards. And they're
    working.
    Wanda Blackmoore (sp), I met here from Missouri. The first time
    she bought drugs with her drug discount card, she paid $1.14, I think
    it was, for about $10 worth of drugs. These cards make sense.
    And you know, in 2006, seniors are going to get prescription drug
    coverage for the first time in Medicare, because I went to Washington
    to fix problems.
    (View cut data) Medicare -- the issue of Medicare used to be called "Medi-scare";
    people didn't want to touch it for fear of getting hurt politically.
    I wanted to get something done. I think our seniors deserve a modern
    medical system. And in 2006, our seniors will get prescription drug
    coverage.
    Thank you for asking.

  • MR. GIBSON

    At 00:39:59
    2 seconds

    Senator, a minute-and-a-half.

  • SEN. KERRY

    At 00:40:01
    1 minute

    John, you heard the president just say that he
    thought he might try to be for it. Four years ago, right here in this
    forum, he was asked the same question: Can't people be able to import
    drugs from Canada? Do you know what he said? I think that makes
    sense; I think that's a good idea. Four years ago.
    Now, the president said I'm not blocking that. Ladies and
    gentlemen, the president just didn't level with you right now again.
    He did block it because we passed it in the United States Senate, we
    sent it over to the House, that you could import drugs. We took care
    of the safety issues. We're not talking about third-world drugs,
    we're talking about drugs made right here in the United States of
    America that have American brand names on them in American bottles,
    and we're asking that he be able to allow you to get them. The
    president blocked it.
    The president also took Medicare, which belongs to you, and he
    could have lowered the cost of Medicare and lowered your taxes and
    lowered the cost to seniors. You know what he did? He made it
    illegal, illegal for Medicare to do what the VA does, which is bulk-
    purchase drugs so that you can lower the price and get them out to you
    lower.
    (View cut data) He put $139 billion of windfall profit into the pockets of the drug
    companies right out of your pockets. That's the difference between
    us. The president sides with the power companies, the oil companies,
    the drug companies; and I'm fighting to let you get those drugs from
    Canada and I'm fighting to let Medicare survive. I'm fighting for the
    middle class. That is the difference.

  • PRESIDENT BUSH

    At 00:41:33
    1 second

    If --

  • MR. GIBSON

    At 00:41:34

    Mr. President?

  • PRESIDENT BUSH

    At 00:41:34
    34 seconds

    If they're safe, they're coming. I want to
    remind you that it wasn't just my administration that made the
    decision on safety. President Clinton did the same thing because we
    have an obligation to protect you.
    Now, he talks about Medicare. He's been in the United States
    Senate 20 years. Show me one accomplishment toward Medicare that he
    accomplished. I've been in Washington, D.C., 3-1/2 years and led the
    Congress to reform Medicare so our seniors have got a modern health
    care system. That's what leadership is all about.

  • SEN. KERRY

    At 00:42:08
    34 seconds

    Actually, Mr. President, in 1997 we fixed Medicare,
    and I was one of the people involved in it. We not only fixed
    Medicare and took it way out into the future; we did something that
    you don't know how to do, we balanced the budget. And we paid down
    the debt of our nation for two years in a row and we created 23
    million new jobs at the same time.
    And it's the president's fiscal policies that have driven up the
    biggest deficits in American history. He's added more debt to the
    debt of the United States in four years than all the way from George
    Washington to Ronald Reagan put together. Go figure.

  • MR. GIBSON

    At 00:42:42
    9 seconds

    Next question is for Senator Kerry, and this comes
    from Norma Jean Laurent (sp).

  • Question

    At 00:42:51
    15 seconds

    Senator Kerry, you've stated your concern for the rising
    cost of health care, yet you chose a vice presidential candidate who
    has made millions of dollars successfully suing medical professionals.
    How do you reconcile this with the voters?

  • SEN. KERRY

    At 00:43:06
    2 minutes

    Very easily. John Edwards is the author of the
    Patients' Bill of Rights. He wanted to give people rights. John
    Edwards and I support tort reform. We both believe that as lawyers --
    I'm a lawyer too -- and I believe that we will be able to get a fix
    that has eluded everybody else because we know how to do it. It's in
    my health care proposals. Go to johnkerry.com -- you can pull it off
    of the Internet -- and you'll find a tort reform plan.
    Now, ladies and gentlemen, important to understand. The
    president and his friends try to make a big deal out of it.
    Is it a
    problem? Yes, it's a problem. Do we need to fix it, particularly for
    OG-BYNs (sic) and for brain surgeons and others? Yes. But it's less
    than 1 percent of the total cost of health care.
    Your premiums are going up. You've gone up in Missouri about
    $3,500. You've gone up 64 percent. You've seen copays go up,
    deductibles go up. Everything's gone up. Five-million people have
    lost their health insurance under this president, and he's done
    nothing about it.
    I have a plan. I have a plan to lower the cost of health care
    for you. I have a plan to cover all children. I have a plan to let
    you buy-in to the same health care senators and congressmen give
    themselves. I have a plan that's going to allow people 55 to 64 to
    buy-in to Medicare early. And I have a plan that will take the
    catastrophic cases out of the system, off your backs, pay for it out
    of a federal fund, which lowers the premiums for everybody in America,
    makes American business more competitive, and makes health care more
    affordable.
    Now, all of that can happen, but I have to ask you to do one
    thing -- join me in rolling back the president's unaffordable tax cut
    for people earning more than $200,000 a year. That's all. Ninety-
    eight percent of America, I'm giving you a tax cut and I'm giving you
    health care.

  • MR. GIBSON

    At 00:45:07
    2 seconds

    Mr. President, a minute-and-a-half.

  • PRESIDENT BUSH

    At 00:45:09
    1 minute

    Let me see where to start here. First, the
    National Journal named Senator Kennedy (sic) the most liberal senator
    of all, and that's saying something in that bunch. You might say that
    took a lot of hard work.
    The reason I bring that up is because he's proposed $2.2 trillion
    in new spending and he says he's going to tax the rich to close the
    tax gap. He can't. He's going to tax everybody here to fund his
    programs. That's just reality.
    And what are his health programs? First he says he's for medical
    liability reform, particularly for ob-gyns. There was a bill on the
    floor of the United States Senate that he could have showed up and
    voted for, if he's so much for it.
    Secondly, he says that medical liability costs only cost 1
    percent increase. That shows a lack of understanding. Doctors
    practice defensive medicine because of all the frivolous lawsuits that
    cost our government $28 billion a year.
    And finally, he says he's going to have a novel health care plan.
    You know what it is? The federal government's going to run it. It is
    the largest increase in federal government health care ever. And it
    fits with his philosophy.
    (View cut data) That's why I told you about the award he won from the National
    Journal. That's what liberals do. They create government-sponsored
    health care. Maybe you think that makes sense. I don't. Government-
    sponsored health care would lead to rationing. It would ruin the
    quality of health care in America.

  • MR. GIBSON

    At 00:46:41
    12 seconds

    Senator Kerry, we've got several questions along
    this line. And I'm just curious if you'd go further on what you
    talked about with tort reform. Would you be favoring capping awards
    on pain and suffering? Would you limit attorney's fees?

  • SEN. KERRY

    At 00:46:53
    1 second

    (Off mike.)

  • MR. GIBSON

    At 00:46:54
    2 seconds

    Yes, to follow up on this for a minute. Thirty
    seconds.

  • SEN. KERRY

    At 00:46:56
    31 seconds

    Yeah, I think we should look at the punitive and we
    should have some limitations.
    But look, what's really important, Charlie, is the president is
    just trying to scare everybody here with throwing labels around. I
    mean, compassionate conservative. What does that mean? Cutting
    500,000 kids from After School programs? Cutting 365,000 kids from
    health care? Running up the biggest deficits in American history?
    Mr. President, you're batting 0 for 2. I mean, seriously, labels
    don't mean anything.
    What means something is do you have a plan? And I want to talk
    about my plan some more. I hope we can.

  • MR. GIBSON

    At 00:47:27
    1 second

    We'll get that in just a minute.
    Thirty seconds, Mr. President.

  • PRESIDENT BUSH

    At 00:47:28
    27 seconds

    You're right. What does matter is the plan. He
    said he is for -- you're now for capping punitive damages? That's
    odd. You should have shown up on the floor of the Senate and voted
    for it then. Medical liability issues are a problem, a significant
    problem. He's been in the United States Senate for 20 years and he
    hasn't addressed it. We passed it out of the House of
    Representatives. Guess where it's stuck? It's stuck in the Senate
    because the trial lawyers won't act on it. And he put a trial lawyer
    on the ticket.

  • MR. GIBSON

    At 00:47:55
    10 seconds

    The next question is for President Bush, and it
    comes from Matthew O'Brien (sp).

  • Question

    At 00:48:05
    28 seconds

    Mr. President, you have enjoyed a Republican majority in
    the House and Senate for most of your presidency.
    (View cut data) In that time, you've not vetoed a single spending bill. Excluding
    $120 billion spent in Iran and -- I'm sorry -- Iraq and Afghanistan,
    there has been $700 billion spent and not paid for by taxes. Please
    explain how the spending you have approved and not paid for is better
    for the American people than the spending proposed by your opponent.

  • PRESIDENT BUSH

    At 00:48:33
    1 minute

    Right. Thank you for that.
    We have a deficit. We have a deficit because this country went
    into a recession. You might remember the stock market started to
    climb dramatically six months before I came to office, and then the
    bubble of the 1990s popped. And that cost us revenue. That cost us
    revenue.
    Secondly, we're at war. And I'm going to spend what it takes to
    win the war, more than just $120 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan.
    We've got to pay our troops more. We have. We've increased money for
    ammunition and weapons and pay. And homeland security. I just told
    this lady over here we spent -- went from 10 billion (dollars) to $30
    billion to protect the homeland. I think we have an obligation to
    spend that kind of money.
    And plus we cut taxes for everybody. Everybody got tax relief,
    so as to get out of the recession. I think if you raise taxes during
    a recession, you had the depression. I come from the school of
    thought that says when people have more money in their pocket during
    tough economic times, it increases demand or investment. Small
    businesses begin to grow and jobs are added. We found out today that
    over the past 13 months we've added 1.9 million new jobs in the last
    13 months.
    (View cut data) I proposed a plan, detailed budget that shows us cutting the deficit
    in half by (sic) five years. And you're right, I haven't vetoed any
    spending bills because we work together.
    Non-homeland, non-defense discretionary spending was rising at 15
    percent a year when I got into office. And today, it's less than 1
    percent, because we're working together to try to bring this deficit
    under control. Like you, I'm concerned about the deficit. But I am
    not going to short-change our troops in harm's way. And I'm not going
    to run up taxes, which'll cost this economy jobs.
    Thank you for your question.

  • MR. GIBSON

    At 00:50:30
    3 seconds

    Senator Kerry, a minute and a half.

  • SEN. KERRY

    At 00:50:33
    1 minute

    Let me begin by saying that my health care plan is
    not what the president described. It is not a government takeover.
    You have choice. Choose your doctor. Choose your plan. The
    government has nothing to do with it. In fact, it doesn't ask you to
    do anything. If you don't want to take it, you don't have to. If you
    like your high premiums, you keep 'em. (Laughs.) That's the way we
    leave it.
    Now, with respect to the deficit. The president was handed a
    $5.6 trillion surplus, ladies and gentlemen. That's where he was when
    he came into office. We now have a $2.6 trillion deficit. This is
    the biggest turnaround in the history of the country. He's the first
    president in the 72 years to lose jobs.
    He talked about war. This is
    the first time the United States of America has ever had a tax cut
    when we're at war.
    (View cut data) Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, others knew how to lead. They knew
    how to ask the American people for the right things.
    One percent of America, the highest 1 percent of income-earners
    in America got $89 billion of tax cut last year. One percent of
    America got more than the 80 percent of America that earned from
    $100,000 down.
    The president thinks it's more important to fight for that top 1
    percent than to fight for fiscal responsibility and to fight for you.
    I want to put money in your pocket. I am -- I have a proposal
    for a tax cut for all people earning less than the $200,000. The only
    people affected (by) my plan are the top income-earners of America.

  • MR. GIBSON

    At 00:52:10
    12 seconds

    I both -- I heard you both say -- I have heard you
    both say during the campaign, I just heard you say it, that you're
    going to cut the deficit by a half in four years. But I didn't hear
    one thing in the last three-and-a-half minutes that would indicate how
    either one of you do that.

  • PRESIDENT BUSH

    At 00:52:22
    34 seconds

    Well look at the budget. One is to make sure
    Congress doesn't overspend.
    But let me talk back about where we've been. The stock market
    was declining six months prior to my arrival. It was the largest
    stock market correction -- one of the largest in history, which
    foretold a recession. Because we cut taxes on everybody -- remember,
    we ran up the child credit by a thousand, we reduced the marriage
    penalty, we created the 10 percent bracket -- everybody who pays taxes
    got relief.
    (View cut data) The recession was one of the shortest in our nation's history.

  • MR. GIBSON

    At 00:52:56
    1 second

    Senator Kerry, 30 seconds.

  • SEN. KERRY

    At 00:52:57
    34 seconds

    After 9/11, after the recession had ended, the
    president asked for another tax cut, and promised 5.6 million jobs
    would be created. He lost 1.6 million, ladies and gentlemen. And
    most of that tax cut went to the wealthiest people in the country. He
    came and asked for a tax cut. We wanted a tax cut to kick the economy
    into gear. You know what he presented us with? A $25 billion give-
    away to the biggest corporations in America, including a $254 million
    refund check to Enron.
    Wrong priorities. You're my priority.

  • MR. GIBSON

    At 00:53:31
    8 seconds

    Senator Kerry, the next question will be for you,
    and it comes from James Varner (sp), who I believe is in this section.
    Mr. Varner (sp).
    You need a microphone.

  • Question

    At 00:53:39
    19 seconds

    Thank you. Senator Kerry, would you be willing to look
    directly into the camera and, using simple and unequivocal language,
    give the American people your solemn pledge not to sign any
    legislation that will increase the tax burden on families earning less
    than $200,000 a year during your first term?

  • SEN. KERRY

    At 00:53:58
    1 minute

    Absolutely. Yes. Right into the camera, yes. I am
    not going to raise taxes. I have a tax cut, and here's my tax cut. I
    raise the child care credit by $1,000 for families to help them be
    able to take care of their kids. I have a $4,000 tuition tax credit
    that goes to parents, and kids if they're earning for themselves, to
    be able to pay for college. And I lower the cost of health care in
    the way that I described to you.
    Every part of my program, I've shown how I'm going to pay for it.
    And I've gotten good people, like former secretary of the Treasury Bob
    Rubin, for instance, who showed how to balance budgets and give you a
    good economy, to help me crunch these numbers and make them work.
    I've even scaled back some of my favorite programs already, like
    the child care program I wanted to fund, and the national service
    program, because the president's deficit keeps growing, and I've said
    as a pledge I'm going to cut the deficit in half in four years.
    Now, I'm going to restore what we did in the 1990s, ladies and
    gentlemen: pay as you go. We're going to do it like you do it. The
    president broke the pay-as-you-go rule.
    Somebody here asked the
    question about why haven't you vetoed something. It's a good
    question. If you care about it, why don't you veto it? I think John
    McCain called the energy bill the "no lobbyist left behind" bill. I
    mean, you got to stand up and fight somewhere, folks.
    I'm pledging I will not raise taxes; I'm giving a tax cut to the
    people earning less than $200,000 a year. Now, for the people earning
    more than $200,000 a year, you're going to see a rollback to the level
    we were at with Bill Clinton, when people made a lot of money. And
    looking around here at this group here, I suspect there are only three
    people here who are going to be affected: the president, me, and
    Charlie -- I'm sorry -- you, too. (Laughter.)

  • MR. GIBSON

    At 00:55:55
    3 seconds

    (Laughs.) Mr. President, 90 seconds.

  • PRESIDENT BUSH

    At 00:55:58
    1 minute

    It is not credible when he talks about being
    fiscally conservative. It's just not credible. If you look at his
    record in the Senate, he voted to break the spending -- the caps, the
    spending caps over 200 times. And here he says he's going to be a
    fiscal conservative all of the sudden? It's just not credible. You
    cannot believe it.
    And of course he's going to raise your taxes. You see, he's
    proposed $2.2 trillion of new spending. (Word inaudible) -- said
    well, how are you going to pay for it? He said well, he's going to
    raise the taxes on the rich. That's what he said. The top two
    brackets. That raises, he says, $800 billion. We say $600 billion.
    We've got battling green eyeshades. Somewhere in between those
    numbers. And so there's a difference -- what he's promised and what
    he can raise.
    Now, he's just going to break all of these wonderful promises
    he's told you about or he's going to raise taxes. And I suspect,
    given his record, he's going to raise taxes.
    Is my time up yet?

  • MR. GIBSON

    At 00:56:59
    1 second

    No, you can keep going.

  • PRESIDENT BUSH

    At 00:57:00
    1 second

    Keep going. Good. (Laughter.)

  • MR. GIBSON

    At 00:57:01
    1 second

    You're on a roll.

  • PRESIDENT BUSH

    At 00:57:02
    29 seconds

    You looked at me like my clock was up. (Light
    laughter.)
    I think that the way to grow this economy is to keep taxes low,
    is have an energy plan, is to have litigation reform. Because I told
    you, we've just got a report that said over the past 13 months we've
    created 1.9 million new jobs. We're growing.
    (View cut data) And so the fundamental question in this campaign is who's going to
    keep the economy growing so people can work? That's the fundamental
    question.

  • MR. GIBSON

    At 00:57:31
    7 seconds

    I'm going to come back one more time to how these
    numbers add up and how you can cut that deficit in half in four years,
    given what you've both said.

  • SEN. KERRY

    At 00:57:38
    34 seconds

    Well, first of all, the president's figures of 2.2
    trillion just aren't accurate. Those are the fuzzy math figures put
    together by some group that works for the campaign. That's not the
    number.
    Number two, John McCain and I have a proposal jointly for a
    commission that closes corporate giveaway loopholes. We got $40
    billion going to Bermuda. We got all kinds of giveaways. We ought to
    be shutting those down.
    And third, credible -- ladies and gentlemen, in 1985 I was one of
    the first Democrats to move to balance the budget. I voted for the
    balanced budget in '93 and '97. We did it. We did it --

  • MR. GIBSON

    At 00:58:12
    2 seconds

    Thirty seconds --

  • SEN. KERRY

    At 00:58:14
    1 second

    -- and I was there.

  • MR. GIBSON

    At 00:58:15
    1 second

    I'm sorry.
    Thirty seconds, Mr President.

  • PRESIDENT BUSH

    At 00:58:16
    33 seconds

    Yeah, I mean, he's got a record. He's been
    there for 20 years. You can run, but you can't hide. He voted 98
    times to raise taxes. I mean, these aren't make-up figures. And so
    people are going to have to look at the record, look at the record of
    the man running for the president. They don't name him the most
    liberal in the United States Senate because he hasn't shown up to many
    meetings, they named him because of his votes, and it's reality. It's
    just not credible to say he's going to keep taxes down and balance
    budgets.

  • MR. GIBSON

    At 00:58:49
    4 seconds

    Mr. President, the next question is for you, and it
    comes from James Hubb (sp) over here.

  • Question

    At 00:58:53
    14 seconds

    Mr. President, how would you rate yourself as an
    environmentalist? What specifically has your administration done to
    improve the condition of our nation's air and water supply?

  • PRESIDENT BUSH

    At 00:59:07
    2 minutes

    Off-road diesel engines, we a reached an
    agreement to reduce pollution from off-road diesel engines by 90
    percent.
    I've got a plan to increase the wetlands by 3 million.
    We've got an aggressive brownfield program to refurbish inner-
    city sore spots to useful pieces of property.
    I proposed to the United States Congress a Clear Skies Initiative
    to reduce sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and mercury by 70 percent.
    I fought for a strong title in the farm bill for the conservation
    reserve program to set aside millions of acres of land for -- to help
    improve wildlife and the habitat.
    We proposed and passed a healthy forest bill, which was essential
    to working with -- particularly in western states -- to make sure that
    our forests were protected. What happens in those forests, because of
    lousy federal policy, is they grow to be -- they are not -- they're
    not harvested, they're not taken care of. And as a result, they're
    like tinderboxes. And over the last summers, I've flown over there.
    And so this is a reasonable policy, to protect old stands of trees and
    at the same time, make sure our forests aren't vulnerable to the
    forest fires that have destroyed acres after acres in the West. We
    got a good, common-sense policy.
    Now, I'm going to tell you what I really think is going to happen
    over time is technology is going to change the way we live for the
    good for the environment. That's why I proposed a hydrogen
    automobile, hydrogen-generated automobile. We're spending a billion
    dollars to come up with the technologies to do that.
    (View cut data) That's why I'm a big proponent of clean coal technology, to make sure
    we can use coal but in a clean way. I guess you'd say I'm a good
    steward of the land. The quality of the air is cleaner since I've
    been the president. Fewer water complaints since I've been the
    president.
    More land being restored since I've been the president.
    Thank you for your question.

  • MR. GIBSON

    At 01:01:08
    2 seconds

    Senator Kerry, a minute and a half.

  • SEN. KERRY

    At 01:01:10
    1 minute

    Boy, to listen to that, the president I don't think
    is living in a world of reality with respect to the environment. Now,
    if you're a Red Sox fan, that's okay, but if you're a president, it's
    not.
    Let me just say to you, number one, don't throw the labels
    around. Labels don't mean anything. I supported welfare reform. I
    led the fight to put 100,000 cops on the streets of America. I've
    been for faith-based initiatives helping to intervene in the lives of
    young children for years. I was -- broke with my party in 1985,
    (when/one of ?) the first three Democrats to fight for a balanced
    budget, when it was heresy. Labels don't fit, ladies and gentlemen.
    Now when it comes to the issue of the environment, this is one of
    the worst administrations in modern history. The Clear Skies bill
    that he just talked about, it's one of those Orwellian names you pull
    out of the sky, slap it onto something. Like No Child Left Behind but
    you leave millions of children behind, here they're leaving the skies
    and the environment behind. If they just left the Clean Air Act all
    alone the way it is today, no change, the air would be cleaner than it
    is if you passed the Cleaner Skies Act.
    We're going backwards. In fact, his environmental enforcement
    chief air quality person at the EPA resigned in protest over what
    they're doing to what are called the new source performance standards
    for air quality. They're going backwards on the definition for
    wetlands. They're going backwards on the water quality. They've
    pulled out of the Global Warming, declared it dead, didn't even accept
    the science.
    (View cut data) I'm going to be a president who believes in science.

  • MR. GIBSON

    At 01:02:43
    1 second

    Mr. President?

  • PRESIDENT BUSH

    At 01:02:44
    32 seconds

    Well, had we joined the Kyoto Treaty -- which I
    guess he's referring to -- it would have cost America a lot of jobs.
    It's one of these deals where in order to be popular in the halls of
    Europe you sign a treaty. But I thought it would cost a lot of -- I
    think there's a better way to do it.
    And I just told you the facts, sir. The quality of air is
    cleaner since I've been the president of the United States. And we'll
    continue to spend money on research and development, because I truly
    believe that's the way to get from how we live today to being able to
    live a standard of living that we're accustomed to and being able to
    protect our environment better, the use of technologies.

  • MR. GIBSON

    At 01:03:16
    2 seconds

    Senator Kerry, 30 seconds.

  • SEN. KERRY

    At 01:03:18
    29 seconds

    The fact is that the Kyoto Treaty was flawed. I was
    in Kyoto and I was part of that; I know what happened. But this
    president didn't try to fix it, he just declared it dead, ladies and
    gentlemen. And we walked away from the work of 160 nations over 10
    years.
    You wonder, Nicky (sp), why it is that people don't like us in
    some parts of the world. You just say, Hey, we don't agree with you,
    good-bye. The president's done nothing to try to fix it. I will.

  • MR. GIBSON

    At 01:03:47
    7 seconds

    Senator Kerry, the next question is for you. It
    involves jobs, which is a topic in the news today. And for the
    question, we're going to turn to Jane Barrow (sp).

  • Question

    At 01:03:54
    20 seconds

    Senator Kerry, how can the U.S. be competitive in a
    manufacturing given -- in manufacturing -- excuse me -- given the wage
    necessary and comfortably accepted for American workers to maintain
    the standard of living that they expect?

  • SEN. KERRY

    At 01:04:14
    2 minutes

    Jane (sp), there are a lot of ways to be
    competitive. And unfortunately, again, I regret this administration
    has not seized them and embraced them.
    Let me give you an example. There's a tax loophole right now.
    If you're a company in St. Louis working, trying to make jobs here,
    there's actually an incentive for you to go away. You get more money,
    you can keep more of your taxes by going abroad. I'm going to shut
    that loophole, and I'm going to give the tax benefit to the companies
    that stay here in America to help make them more competitive.
    Secondly, we're going to create a manufacturing jobs credit and a
    new jobs credit for people to be able to help hire and be more
    competitive here in America.
    Third, what's really hurting American business, more than
    anything else, is the cost of health care. Now, you didn't hear any
    plan from the president, because he doesn't have a plan to lower the
    cost of health care. Five million Americans have lost their health
    care; 620,000 Missourians have no health care at all; 96,000
    Missourians have lost their health care under President Bush. I have
    a plan to cover those folks. And it's a plan that lowers costs for
    everybody, covers all children. And the way I pay for it -- I'm not
    fiscally irresponsible -- is I roll back the tax cut that this
    president so fiercely wants to defend, the one for him and me and
    Charlie. I think you ought to get the break.
    I want to lower your cost of health care. I want to fully fund
    education -- No Child Left Behind, special needs education. And
    that's how we're going to be more competitive, by making sure our kids
    are graduating from school and college.
    China and India are graduating more graduates in technology and
    science than we are.
    (View cut data) We've got to create the products of the future. That's why I have a
    plan for energy independence within 10 years. And we're going to put
    our laboratories and our colleges and universities to work. And we're
    going to get the great entrepreneurial spirit of this country, and
    we're going to free ourselves from this dependency on Mideast oil.
    That's how you create jobs and become competitive.

  • MR. GIBSON

    At 01:06:15
    2 seconds

    Mr. President, minute and a half.

  • PRESIDENT BUSH

    At 01:06:17
    1 minute

    Let me start with how to control the cost of
    health care: medical liability reform, for starters, which he's
    opposed.
    Secondly, allow small businesses to pool together so they can
    share risk and buy insurance at the same discounts big businesses get
    to do.
    Thirdly, spread what's called health savings accounts. It's good
    for small businesses, good for owners. You own your own account. You
    can save tax free. You get a catastrophic plan to help you, own it.
    This is different from saying, okay, let me incent you to go on the
    government.
    He's talking about his plan to keep jobs here. You know, he
    calls it an outsourcing, to keep -- stop outsourcing. Robert Rubin
    looked at his plan and said it won't work. The best way to keep jobs
    here in America is, one, have an energy plan -- I proposed one to the
    Congress two years ago, encourages conservation; encourages technology
    to explore for environmentally friendly ways for coal and use coal and
    gas; it encourages the use of renewables like ethanol and biodiesel;
    it's stuck in the Senate -- he and his running mate didn't show up to
    vote when they could've got it going in the Senate -- less regulations
    if we want jobs here; legal reform, if we want jobs here, and we've
    got to keep taxes low.
    Now, he says he's only going to tax the rich. Do you realize
    900,000 small businesses will be taxed under his plan because most
    small businesses are Sub-chapter S corps or limited partnerships, and
    they pay tax at the individual income tax level. And so when you run
    up the taxes like that, you're taxing job-creators, and that's not how
    you keep jobs here.

  • MR. GIBSON

    At 01:07:51
    16 seconds

    Senator, I want to extend for a minute. You talk
    about tax credits to stop outsourcing. But when you have IBM
    documents that I saw recently, where you can hire a programmer for $12
    in China, $56 an hour here, tax credits won't cut it in that area,
    will it?

  • SEN. KERRY

    At 01:08:07
    31 seconds

    You can't stop -- you can't stop all outsourcing,
    Charlie. I've never promised that, I'm not going to because that
    would be pandering. You can't. But what you can do is create a fair
    playing field, and that's what I'm talking about.
    But let me just address what the president just said. Ladies and
    gentlemen, that's just not true what he said. The Wall Street Journal
    said 96 percent of small businesses are not affected at all by my
    plan. And do you know why he gets that count? The president got $84
    from a timber company that he owns and he's counted as a small
    business. Dick Cheney's counted as a small business. That's how they
    do things. That's just not right.

  • PRESIDENT BUSH

    At 01:08:38
    34 seconds

    I own a timber company? (Laughter.) That's
    news to me! (Laughs; laughter.) Need some wood? (Laughter.)
    Most small businesses are Sub-chapter S corps, they just are. I
    met Grant Miliron (sp), Mansfield, Ohio. He's creating jobs. Most
    small businesses -- 70 percent of the new jobs in America are created
    by small business.
    (View cut data) His taxes are going up when you run up the top two brackets. It's a
    fact.

  • MR. GIBSON

    At 01:09:12
    7 seconds

    President Bush, the next question is for you and it
    comes from Rob Fowler (sp), who I believe is over in this area.

  • Question

    At 01:09:19
    25 seconds

    President Bush, 45 days after -- (clears throat) -- excuse
    me. Forty five days after 9/11, Congress passed the Patriot Act,
    which takes away checks on law enforcement, weakens American citizens'
    rights and freedoms, especially Fourth Amendment rights. With
    expansions to the Patriot Act, Patriot Act II, my question to you is
    why are my rights being watered down and my citizen's -- (word
    inaudible) -- and what are the specific justifications for these
    reforms?

  • PRESIDENT BUSH

    At 01:09:44
    1 minute

    I appreciate that. I really don't think your
    rights are being watered down. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't
    support it if I thought that. Every action being taken against
    terrorists requires a court order, requires scrutiny. As a matter of
    fact, the tools now given to the terrorist fighters are the same tools
    that we've been using against drug dealers and white-collar criminals.
    So I really don't think so. I hope you don't think that. I mean, I
    -- because I think whoever's the president must guard your liberties,
    must not erode your rights in America.
    The Patriot Act is necessary, for example, because parts of the
    FBI couldn't talk to each other. Intelligence gathering and the law
    enforcement arms of the FBI just couldn't share intelligence under the
    old law. And that didn't make any sense. Our law enforcement must
    have every tool necessary to find and disrupt terrorists at home and
    abroad before they hurt us again. That's the task of the 21st
    century.
    And so I don't think the -- the Patriot Act abridges your rights
    at all. And I know it's necessary. I can remember being in upstate
    New York talking to FBI agents that helped bust the Lackawanna cell up
    there. And they told me they could not have performed their duty, the
    duty we all expect of them, if they did not have the ability to
    communicate with each other under the Patriot Act.

  • MR. GIBSON

    At 01:11:20
    4 seconds

    Senator Kerry, a minute and a half.

  • SEN. KERRY

    At 01:11:24
    1 minute

    Former Governor Racicot, as chairman of the
    Republican Party, said he thought that the Patriot Act has to be
    changed and fixed. Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, who is the chairman
    of the House Judiciary Committee, has said over his dead body before
    it gets renewed without being thoroughly rechecked. A whole bunch of
    folks in America are concerned about the way the Patriot Act has been
    applied. In fact, the inspector general of the Justice Department
    found that John Ashcroft had twice applied it in ways that were
    inappropriate.
    People's rights have been abused. I met a man who spent eight
    months in prison, wasn't even allowed to call his lawyer, wasn't
    allowed to -- finally, Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois intervened and
    was able to get him out. This is in our country, folks, the United
    States of America.
    They've got sneak-and-peak searches that are allowed. They've
    got people allowed to go into churches now and political meetings
    without any showing of potential criminal activity or otherwise.
    Now, I voted for the Patriot Act. Ninety-nine United States
    senators voted for it.
    And the president's been very busy running
    around the country using what I just described to you as a reason to
    say I'm wishy-washy, that I'm a flip-flopper.
    (View cut data) Now, that's not a flip-flop. I believe in the Patriot Act. We need
    the things in it that coordinate the FBI and the CIA. We need to be
    stronger on terrorism. But you know what we also need to do as
    Americans, is never let the terrorists change the Constitution of the
    United States in a way that disadvantages our rights.

  • MR. GIBSON

    At 01:12:56
    4 seconds

    Senator Kerry, the next question is for you, and it
    comes from Elizabeth Long (sp).

  • Question

    At 01:13:00
    30 seconds

    Senator Kerry, thousands of people have already been cured
    or treated by the use of adult stem cells or umbilical cord stem
    cells. However, no one has been cured by using embryonic stem cells.
    Wouldn't it be wise to use stem cells obtained without the destruction
    of an embryo?

  • SEN. KERRY

    At 01:13:30
    2 minutes

    You know, Elizabeth, I really respect your -- the
    feeling that's in your question. I understand it. I know the
    morality that's prompting that question, and I respect it enormously.
    But like Nancy Reagan, and so many other people -- you know, I
    was at a forum with Michael J. Fox the other day in New Hampshire,
    who's suffering from Parkinson's, and he wants us to do stem cell --
    embryonic stem cell. And this fellow stood up, and he was quivering,
    his whole body was shaking from the nerve disease, the muscular
    disease that he had, and he said to me and to the whole hall, he said,
    you know, don't take away my hope, because my hope is what keeps me
    going.
    Chris Reeve is a friend of mine. Chris Reeve exercises every
    single day to keep those muscles alive for the day when he believes he
    can walk again, and I want him to walk again.
    I think we can save lives. Now, I think we can do ethically
    guided embryonic stem cell research. We have 100,000 to 200,000
    embryos that are frozen in nitrogen today from fertility clinics.
    These weren't taken from abortion or something like that, they're from
    a fertility clinic, and they're either going to be destroyed or left
    frozen. And I believe if we have the option, which scientists tell us
    we do, of curing Parkinson's, curing diabetes, curing a -- a -- you
    know, some kind of a -- of a -- you know, paraplegic or quadriplegic
    or, you know, a spinal cord injury -- anything -- that's the nature of
    the human spirit. I think it is respecting life to reach for that
    cure. I think it is respecting life to do it in an ethical way. And
    the president's chosen a policy that makes it impossible for our
    scientists to do that. I want the future, and I think we have to grab
    it.

  • MR. GIBSON

    At 01:15:35
    2 seconds

    Mr. President, a minute-and-a-half.

  • PRESIDENT BUSH

    At 01:15:37
    1 minute

    Embryonic stem cell research requires the
    destruction of life to create a stem cell. I'm the first president
    ever to allow funding -- federal funding for embryonic stem cell
    research. I did so because I, too, hope that we'll discover cures
    from the stem cells, from the research derived.
    (View cut data) But I think -- I think we got to be very careful in balancing the
    ethics and the science. And so I made the decision we wouldn't spend
    any more money beyond the 70 lines, 22 of which are now in action,
    because science is important, but so is ethics, so is balancing life.
    To destroy life to save life is one of the real ethical dilemmas that
    we face.
    There's going to be hundreds of experiments off the 22 lines that
    now exist that are active, and hopefully we find a cure. But as well,
    we need to continue to pursue adult stem cell research.
    I helped double the NIH budget to $28 billion a year to find
    cures. And the approach I took is one that I think is a balanced and
    necessary approach to balance science and the concerns for life.

  • MR. GIBSON

    At 01:17:04
    2 seconds

    Senator, 30 seconds. Let's extend.

  • SEN. KERRY

    At 01:17:06
    35 seconds

    Well, you talk about walking a waffled line. He
    says he's allowed it, which means he's going to allow the destruction
    of life up to a certain amount, and then he isn't going to allow it.
    And I don't know how you draw that line. But let me tell you point
    blank, the lines of stem cells that he's made available, every
    scientist in the country will tell you, not adequate, because they're
    contaminated by mouse cells, and because there aren't 60 or 70; there
    are only about 11 to 20 now, and there aren't enough to be able to do
    the research because they're contaminated.
    (View cut data) We've got to open up the possibilities of this research, and when I am
    president, I'm going to do it --

  • MR. GIBSON

    At 01:17:41
    1 second

    Senator --

  • SEN. KERRY

    At 01:17:42
    1 second

    -- because we have to.

  • MR. GIBSON

    At 01:17:43
    1 second

    Mr. President.

  • PRESIDENT BUSH

    At 01:17:44
    19 seconds

    Let me make sure you understand my decision.
    Those stem cell lines already existed. The embryo had already been
    destroyed prior to my decision. I had to make the decision, do we
    destroy more life? Do we continue to destroy life? I made the
    decision to balance science and ethics.

  • MR. GIBSON

    At 01:18:03
    10 seconds

    Mr. President, the next question is for you, and it
    comes from Jonathan Michelson (sp). Over here.

  • Question

    At 01:18:13
    10 seconds

    Mr. President, if there were a vacancy in the Supreme Court
    and you had the opportunity to fill that position today, who would you
    choose and why?

  • PRESIDENT BUSH

    At 01:18:23
    1 minute

    (Laughs.) I'm not telling. (Laughter.) I
    really don't have -- haven't picked anybody yet. Plus I want them all
    voting for me. (Light laughter.)
    I would pick somebody who would not allow their personal opinion
    to get in the way of the law. I would pick somebody who would
    strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States.
    Let me give you a couple of examples, I guess, of the kind of
    person I wouldn't pick. I wouldn't pick a judge who said that the
    Pledge of Allegiance couldn't be said in a school because it had the
    words "under God" in it. I think that's an example of a judge
    allowing personal opinion to enter into the decision-making process as
    opposed to strict interpretation of the Constitution.
    Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where
    judges years ago said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of
    personal property rights. That's a personal opinion; that's not what
    the Constitution says. The Constitution of the United States says
    we're all -- you know, it doesn't say that. It doesn't speak to the
    equality of America.
    And so I would pick people that would be strict constructionists.
    We got plenty of lawmakers in Washington, D.C. Legislators make law;
    judges interpret the Constitution.
    And I suspect one of us will have a pick at the end of next year,
    next four years.
    (View cut data) And that's the kind of judge I'm going to put on there. No litmus
    tests except for who -- how they interpret the Constitution.
    Thank you.

  • MR. GIBSON

    At 01:20:16
    3 seconds

    Senator Kerry, a minute-and-a-half.

  • SEN. KERRY

    At 01:20:19
    1 minute

    Thank you, Charlie.
    A few years ago, when he came to office, the president said --
    these are his words -- "What we need are some good conservative judges
    on the courts." And he said also that his two favorite justices are
    Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas.
    So you get a pretty good sense of
    where he's heading if he were to appoint somebody.
    Now, here's what I believe. I don't believe we need a good
    conservative judge and I don't believe we need a good liberal judge.
    I don't believe we need a good judge of that kind of definition on
    either side. I subscribe to the Justice Potter Stewart standard. He
    was a justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. And he said
    the mark of a good judge, good justice, is when you're reading their
    decision, their opinion, you can't tell if it's written by a man or a
    woman, a liberal or a conservative, a Muslim, a Jew, or a Christian.
    (View cut data) their decision, their opinion, you can't tell if it's written by a man
    or a woman, a liberal or a conservative, a Muslim, a Jew or a
    Christian.
    You just know you're reading a good judicial decision. What I want to
    find, if I am privileged to have the opportunity to do it -- and the
    Supreme Court of the United States is at stake in this race, ladies
    and gentlemen -- the future of things that matter to you in terms of
    civil rights; what kind of Justice Department you'll have; whether
    we'll enforce the law; will we have equal opportunity; will women's
    rights be protected; will be have equal pay for women, which is going
    backwards; will a woman's right to choose be protected? These are
    constitutional rights, and I want to make sure we have judges who
    interpret the Constitution of the United States according to the law.

  • MR. GIBSON

    At 01:21:53
    10 seconds

    Going to go to the final two questions now, and the
    first one will be for Senator Kerry, and this comes from Sara (ph)
    Degenhart (ph).

  • Question

    At 01:22:03
    24 seconds

    Senator Kerry, suppose you were speaking with a voter who
    believed abortion is murder, and the voter asked for reassurance that
    his or her tax dollars would not go to support abortion, what would
    you say to that person?

  • SEN. KERRY

    At 01:22:27
    2 minutes

    I would say to that person exactly what I will say
    to you right now. First of all, I cannot tell you how deeply I
    respect the belief about life and when it begins. I'm a Catholic.
    Raised a Catholic. I was an alter boy. Religion has been a huge part
    of my life. Helped lead me through a war. Leads me today. But I
    can't take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for
    someone who doesn't share that article of faith, whether they be
    agnostic, atheist, Jew, Protestant, whatever. I can't do that. But
    I can counsel people. I can talk reasonably about life and about
    responsibility. I can talk to people as my wife Teresa does, about
    making other choices and about abstinence and about all these other
    things that we ought to do as a responsible society. But as a -- as a
    president, I have to represent all the people in the nation and I have
    to make that judgment.
    Now, I believe that you can take that position and not be pro-
    abortion, but you have to afford people their constitutional rights.
    And that means being smart about allowing people to be fully educated,
    to know what their options are in life, and making certain that you
    don't deny a poor person the right to be able to have whatever the
    Constitution affords them if they can't afford it otherwise. That's
    why I think it's important.
    That's why I think it's important for the United States, for
    instance, not to have this rigid ideological restriction on helping
    families around the world to be able to make a smart decision about
    family planning. You'll help prevent AIDS. You'll help prevent
    unwanted children, unwanted pregnancies. You'll actually do a better
    job, I think, of passing on the moral responsibility that is expressed
    in your question. And I truly respect it.

  • MR. GIBSON

    At 01:24:28
    1 second

    Mr. President, a minute and a half.

  • PRESIDENT BUSH

    At 01:24:29
    1 minute

    Trying to decipher that. (Light laughter.) My
    answer is we're not going to spend federal -- taxpayers' money on
    abortion.
    I -- this is an issue that divides America, but certainly
    reasonable people can agree on how to reduce abortions in America. I
    signed the partial birth -- the ban on partial birth abortion. It's a
    brutal practice. It's one way to help reduce abortions. My opponent
    voted against the ban. I think there ought to be parental
    notification laws. He's against them. I signed a bill called the
    Unborn Victims of Violence Act. In other words, if you're a mom and
    you're pregnant and you get killed, the murderer gets tried for two
    cases, not just one. My opponent was against that.
    These are reasonable ways to help promote a culture of life in
    America. I think it is a worthy goal in America to have every child
    protected by law and welcomed in life.
    I also think we ought to continue to have good adoption law as an
    alternative to abortion. And we need to promote maternity group
    homes, which my administration has done.
    The culture of life is really important for a country to have
    that's going to be a hospitable society.
    Thank you.

  • MR. GIBSON

    At 01:25:55
    2 seconds

    Senator, do you want to follow up? Thirty seconds.

  • SEN. KERRY

    At 01:25:57
    41 seconds

    Well, again, the president just said categorically,
    "My opponent's against this, my opponent's against that." You know,
    it's just not that simple. No I'm not.
    I'm against the partial-birth abortion, but you've got to have an
    exception for the life of the mother and the health of the mother
    under the strictest test of bodily injury to the mother.
    Secondly, with respect to parental notification, I'm not going to
    require a 16- or 17-year-old kid who's been raped by her father and
    who's pregnant to have to notify her father. So you got to have a
    judicial intervention. And because they didn't have a judicial
    intervention where she could go somewhere and get help, I voted
    against it.
    It's never quite as simple as the president wants you to believe.

  • MR. GIBSON

    At 01:26:38
    2 seconds

    And 30 seconds, Mr. President.

  • PRESIDENT BUSH

    At 01:26:40
    23 seconds

    Well, it's pretty simple when they say, "Are you
    for a ban on partial-birth abortion, yes or no?" And he was given a
    chance to vote, and he voted no.
    (View cut data) And that's just the way it is. That's a vote. It came right up.
    It's clear for everybody to see. And as I said, you can run, but you
    can't hide. It's the reality.

  • MR. GIBSON

    At 01:27:03
    11 seconds

    And the final question of the evening will be
    address to President Bush, and it will come from Linda Grabel (sp).
    Linda Grabel's over here. (Laughter.)

  • PRESIDENT BUSH

    At 01:27:14
    5 seconds

    Put a head fake on us. (Laughter.)

  • MR. GIBSON

    At 01:27:19
    1 second

    I got faked out myself.

  • PRESIDENT BUSH

    At 01:27:20
    2 seconds

    (Laughs.) Hi, Linda.

  • Question

    At 01:27:22
    17 seconds

    President Bush, during the last four years, you have made
    thousands of decisions that have affected millions of lives. Please
    give three instances in which you came to realize you had made a wrong
    decision, and what you did to correct it. Thank you.

  • PRESIDENT BUSH

    At 01:27:39
    1 minute

    I have made a lot of decisions, and some of them
    little, like appointments to boards you've never heard of, and some of
    them big. And in a war, there's a lot of -- there's a lot of tactical
    decisions that historians will look back and say he shouldn't of done
    that.
    (View cut data) You shouldn't have made that decision." And I'll take responsibility
    for 'em. I'm human. But on the big questions, about whether or not
    we should have gone into Afghanistan, the big question about whether
    we should have removed somebody in Iraq, I'll stand by those decisions
    because I think they're right. It's really what you're -- when they
    ask about the mistakes, that's what they're talking about. They're
    trying to say, "Did you make a mistake going into Iraq?" And the
    answer is absolutely not. It's a right decision. The Duelfer Report
    confirmed that decision today, because what Saddam Hussein was doing
    was trying to get rid of sanctions so he could reconstitute a weapons
    program, and the biggest threat facing America is terrorists with
    weapons of mass destruction. We knew he hated us. We knew he'd been
    a -- invaded other countries. We knew he tortured his own people.
    On the tax cut, it's a big decision. I did the right decision.
    Our recession was one of the shallowest in modern history.
    Now, you asked what mistakes.
    (View cut data) I made some mistakes in appointing people, but I'm not going to name
    them. I don't want to hurt their feelings on national TV. But
    history will look back, and I'm fully prepared to accept any mistakes
    that history judges to my administration, because the president makes
    the decisions, the president has to take the responsibility.

  • MR. GIBSON

    At 01:29:33
    4 seconds

    Senator Kerry, a minute and a half.

  • SEN. KERRY

    At 01:29:37
    1 minute

    I believe the president made a huge mistake, a
    catastrophic mistake not to live up to his own standard, which was
    build a true global coalition, give the inspectors time to finish
    their job and go through the U.N. process to its end, and go to war as
    a last resort.
    I ask each of you just to look into your hearts, look into your
    guts. Gut check time. Was this really going to war as a last resort?
    The president rushed our nation to war without a plan to win the
    peace. And simple things weren't done. That's why Senator Lugar says
    incompetent in the delivery of services.
    (View cut data) That's why Senator Hagel, Republican, says, you know, beyond pitiful,
    beyond embarrassing, in the zone of dangerous.
    We didn't guard 850,000 tons of ammo. That ammo is now being
    used against our kids. Ten thousand out of 12,000 humvees aren't
    armored. I've visited some of those kids with no limbs today because
    they didn't have the armor on those vehicles. They didn't have the
    right body armor. I've met parents who've on the Internet gotten the
    armor to send their kids.
    There's no bigger judgment for a president of the United States
    than how you take a nation to war. And you can't say because Saddam
    might have done it 10 years from now, that's a reason. That's an
    excuse.

  • MR. GIBSON

    At 01:31:05
    1 second

    Mr. President.

  • PRESIDENT BUSH

    At 01:31:06
    36 seconds

    He complains about the fact our troops don't
    have adequate equipment, yet he voted against the $87 billion
    supplemental I sent to the Congress, and then issued one of the most
    amazing quotes in political history: I actually did vote for the $87
    billion before I voted against it.
    Saddam Hussein was a risk to our country, ma'am. And he was a
    risk that -- and this is where we just have a difference of opinion.
    The truth of the matter is, if you listen carefully, Saddam would
    still be in power, if he were the president of the United States, and
    the world would be a lot better off.

  • MR. GIBSON

    At 01:31:42
    2 seconds

    And Senator Kerry, 30 seconds.

  • SEN. KERRY

    At 01:31:44
    30 seconds

    Not necessarily be in power.
    But here's what I'll say about the $87 billion. I made a mistake
    in the way I talk about it; he made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which
    is a worse decision? Now, I voted the way I voted because I saw that
    he had the policy wrong and I wanted accountability. I didn't want to
    give a slush fund to Halliburton. I also thought the wealthiest
    people in America ought to pay for it, ladies and gentlemen. He wants
    your kids to pay for it. I wanted us to pay for it, since we're at
    war. I don't think that's a bad decision.

  • MR. GIBSON

    At 01:32:14
    9 seconds

    That's going to conclude the questioning. We're
    going to go now to closing statements. Two minutes from each
    candidate.
    And the first closing statement goes to Senator Kerry. I believe
    that was the agreement.

  • PRESIDENT BUSH

    At 01:32:23
    2 seconds

    Actually --

  • SEN. KERRY

    At 01:32:25
    1 second

    You want to go first?

  • PRESIDENT BUSH

    At 01:32:26
    2 seconds

    Either way. (Laughter.)

  • MR. GIBSON

    At 01:32:28
    2 seconds

    (Laughs.)

  • SEN. KERRY

    At 01:32:30
    2 minutes

    Thank you.
    Charlie, thank you.
    And thank you all. Thank you, all of you, for taking part.
    Thanks for your questions tonight, very, very much.
    Obviously the president and I both have very strong convictions.
    I respect him for that. But we have a very different view about how
    to make America stronger and safer. I will never cede the authority
    of our country or our security to any other nation. I'll never give a
    veto over American security to any other entity -- not a nation, not a
    country, not an institution.
    But I know, as I think you do, that our country is strongest when
    we lead the world, when we lead strong alliances. And that's the way
    Eisenhower and Reagan and Kennedy and others did it. We are not doing
    that today. We need to.
    I have a plan that will help us go out and kill and find the
    terrorist, and I will not stop in our effort to hunt down and kill the
    terrorists. But I also have a better plan on how we're going to deal
    with Iraq: training the Iraqi forces more rapidly; getting our allies
    back to the table with a fresh start, with new credibility, with a
    president whose judgment the rest of the world trusts.
    In addition to that, I believe we have a crisis here at home, a
    crisis of the middle class that is increasingly squeezed.
    (View cut data) Health care costs going up. I have a plan to provide health care to
    all Americans. I have a plan to provide for our schools so we keep
    the standards, but we help our teachers teach and elevate our schools
    by funding No Child Left Behind. I have a plan to protect the
    environment so that we leave this place in better shape to our
    children than we were handed it by our parents. That's the test.
    I believe America's best days are ahead of us. I'm an optimist.
    But we have to make the right choices to be fiscally responsible and
    to create the new jobs of the future. We can do this, and I ask you
    for the privilege of leading our nation to be stronger at home and
    respected again in the world.
    Thank you.

  • MR. GIBSON

    At 01:34:36
    3 seconds

    Senator.
    And a closing statement from President Bush.

  • PRESIDENT BUSH

    At 01:34:39
    2 minutes

    Charlie, thanks.
    Thank you all very much. It's been enjoyable.
    The contest for the presidency is about the future -- who can
    lead, who can get things done. We've been through a lot together as a
    country. Been through a recession, corporate scandals, war. And yet
    think about where we are.
    (View cut data) We had 1.9 million new jobs for the past 13 months. The farm income
    in America is high. Small businesses are flourishing. Homeownership
    rate is at an all-time high in America. We're on the move.
    Tonight I had a chance to discuss with you what to do to keep
    this economy going: keep the taxes low, don't increase the scope of
    the federal government, keep regulations down, legal reform, a health
    care policy that does not empower the federal government but empowers
    individuals, and an energy plan that will help us become less
    dependent on foreign sources of energy.
    And abroad we're at war, and it requires a president who is
    steadfast and strong and determined. I vowed to the American people
    after that fateful day of September the 11th that we would not rest
    nor tire until we're safe.
    (View cut data) The 9/11 commission put out a report that said America is safer, but
    not yet safe. There's more work to be done. We'll stay on the hunt
    of al Qaeda. We'll deny sanctuary to these terrorists. We'll make
    sure they do not end up with weapons of mass destruction. It's the
    great nexus. The great threat to our county is that these haters
    under up with weapons of mass destruction.
    But our long-term security depends on our deep faith in liberty,
    and we'll continue to promote freedom around the world. Freedom is on
    the march. Tomorrow, Afghanistan will be voting for a president. In
    Iraqi (sic), we'll be having free elections and a free society will
    make this world more peaceful.
    God bless.

  • MR. GIBSON

    At 01:36:43
    2 minutes

    Mr. President, Senator Kerry, that concludes
    tonight's debate.
    I want to give you a reminder that the third and final debate on
    issues of domestic policy will be held next Wednesday, October 13th,
    at Arizona State University in Tempe, Arizona, hosted by Bob Schieffer
    of CBS News.
    I want to thank President Bush and Senator Kerry for tonight. I
    want to thank these citizens of the St. Louis area who asked the
    questions, who gave so willingly of their time, and who took their
    responsibility very seriously. Thank you also to everyone at
    Washington -- (applause) -- I want to thank everyone at Washington
    University in St. Louis for being such gracious hosts.
    I'm Charles Gibson. From ABC News, from St. Louis, good night.