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

We live in perilous times, different from any in the history of our nation. We are engaged in a war with an enemy different from any we have ever known. This war did not begin with the horrendous acts of Sept. 11, 2001, a cowardly attack in which almost 3,000 innocents perished on American soil.

This war is not confined to the issues of 9/11, but rather it extends to those that allowed the terrorists to go unchecked for two decades before to the present administration took office. My opponent claims a plan to win the peace, but he has never mentioned a plan for victory. Great progress has been made in bringing democracy to Afghanistan and to Iraq, even though grave problems still exist in the Sunni Triangle and in Fallujah. We will prevail.

We need a president who will make strong, principled decisions, not one with 20 years of conflicting, indecisive actions. Thirty years ago, my opponent opposed a war half a world away. He met with the enemy while our young men were fighting, dying, and being held captive. In 2003, he said Saddam Hussein was a ruthless dictator with weapons of mass destruction. Now that Hussein has been deposed, are we sure of my opponents position? My position has not wavered.

Homeland Security is making America a safer place. Our travel is safer, and our borders are more secure. Homeland Security is helping to ensure a future that is safer for all Americans.

It is true that our times are perilous, different from any our nation has ever
experienced, but with principled leadership, our nation will endure.


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.