Question Number Nine: What should George W. Bush in his concluding remarks at the presidential debates?


America cannot misunderestimate the degree to which freedom-loving Americans threaten terrorists everywhere. America stands for freedom, and we have a God-given responsibility to spread freedom to all nations suffering under oppression from evildoers and tyrants.

We have been attacked by bad people who want us to get out of Iraq, leaving it in the hands of terrorists who would attack all freedom-loving people if they could.

Remember: You know what I stand for even if you don’t know what I mean.

I will spend every day protecting the American people as well as I can from further terrorist attacks. We have enjoyed significant success so far defending against this threat, and I want to continue our plan to make Americans safe from terror and America unsafe for terrorists.

Here is my pledge to the American people.

The time is over for America to do nothing while terrorists plot and execute missions that kill thousands of civilians.

Terrorists hide their faces when they execute people because they do not want to die, yet they think nothing of slaughtering little children. My opponent believes that I am a fear-monger, yet terrorists murdered little children, many of them infants, in a Russian school three weeks ago.

We are fighting barbarians. The danger is real, the threat is immediate, and the consequences are certain death. We must be vigilant, we must be decisive, we must be strong, and we must be clear about our objective: to eliminate terrorist threats against our nation at home and abroad.

We are fighting a war we did not ask for, a war we did not start, but one we will finish. We will show terrorists and those who harbor terrorists that the price they will pay for attacking the United States is much higher than they are willing to pay.

I will do my best to ensure that never again will innocent Americans make those last phonecalls to their loved ones and or jump to their deaths from the 104th floor of a burning building because planes were used as bombs.

I will do my best to keep the fight on the terrorists' soil, and not in our streets. I promise do my best to protect the American people and their children.


Blue-Stater Tim Horner writes this rebuttal:


Stay the course! It is working! We are succeeding! Democracy is coming to Iraq! No regrets! Nothing to change, and nothing to improve! For a country that demands excellence in everything we do, we seem to be pretty happy with the tiniest little baby-steps toward democracy and a whole lot of chaos.

But is this really the best we can do? Are we really safer now that there are more terrorists in the world? I don't care who the president is: When Americans are dying every day, I want our leadership to do something to stop it. And if it is not stopping, I want our leaders to swallow their egos and innovate. Is this too much to ask? But all we hear is: Stay the course! Stay with me! Any change will embolden the terrorists! Just hold still and let it keep coming! It won't last forever.

What kind of leader is this? Well, apparently, the one most attractive almost half the country right now. It appears that the worse it gets in Iraq, the more people are listening and nodding when Bush says we are winning. Were it not for the loss of human life, it would be comic. The hotter the chaos, the easier it is to listen to the cool, soothing words of our President. He looks so calm and in control.

Given the choice - and we do have a choice - many prefer our big, strong W over the death toll in Iraq. Bush tells us: "Just look at me, not over there. Everything is fine over here. Don't be so negative!"

Kerry wants to tell the truth about the dire situation facing our troops in Iraq. And he is talking about change. Real change. It's much easier to look at Bush. He is so comforting. He says everything is fine and that we are getting better every day and everything will be all right. Don't you worry. Daddy wouldn't let anything happen to you. Just close your eyes and sleep tight.

Well, I'm wide awake.


Blue-Stater Terri Falbo writes this rebuttal:

Mr. Franklin has the President assert that Homeland Security is making America a safer place. This is just not true.

Extensive research and evidence shows that no real resources are being put into Homeland Security to make us safe (see "Red Alert," by Matthew Brzezinski, Sept.-Oct. 2004 Mother Jones). The office of Homeland Security is a shoestring operation that has trouble recruiting and retaining personnel precisely because it is not viewed as serious:

1. Computers are not secure and can't receive classified data;
2. Funds have not been allocated to equip all airplanes for screening
baggage for explosives (though this could be done for what we spend in only
10 days in Iraq!);
3. Chemical sites are not secure (due to lobbying by the petrochemical industry);
4. First responders are not being given equipment or training necessary to
promote safety.

To me, the evidence demonstrates that President Bush and his colleagues are not concerned about keeping the majority of Americans safe.

Ms. Sneed has the President saying we will finish the war on terror - something he has wavered on (shall we say "flip-flopped"?). She says she believes we will make the terrorists pay a higher price than they are willing to pay. What would this be, since many have been more than willing to pay with their lives?

Closing statements by both red-staters seem to be based on a naïve, cartoon-like view of the United States in relation to the rest of the world. It is a nice fantasy to believe that our country has gone all around the world doing good and that there are just these evil barbarians out there. So all we have to do is fight the evil people over there and we will be nice and safe here at home. Unfortunately, the real world is not this neat, little fairy tale.

To conduct a serious fight against terrorism, we must have a more serious analysis - and use a little logic. As long as we allow foreign policy to be influenced by the needs of U.S. corporations for super-profits, the policy will work against freedom and democracy (since most free people want things like control over resources and decent pay and working conditions - which cut into super-profits). How can we then expect that people will not turn against us? And how can we expect that at least a percentage of those who do so would not decide they are willing to die if necessary to express their opposition?

We need policies that will isolate terrorists rather than create broader potential support for them. And we need more resources put into a real Homeland Security program to make our airplanes, ports, chemical sites, and public places safer.