Bush-Kerry face-off : Democracy in action

The first time I had the privilege of watching such a debate was between the two illustrious figures, namely John F Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon, in 1960 while I was a probationer Foreign Service Officer studying in America. It was a grand debate to which the American people paid, surprisingly, much more attention than expected. The quality of Presidential debates has since been maintained at a high level and it overshadowed most of the campaign efforts of the candidates themselves.

The first debate between the two contenders took place this time on the 3rd instant. According to most observers, the Republican challenger, John Kerry, performed better and helped gain his popular rating, which was a dismal low, almost close to that of President Bush. President Bush appeared somewhat tired on the stage and as such exhibited less dexterity in countering heavy onslaughts and a barrage of questions from his opponent. Presidential aides sought to explain later that Bush's posture could have been due to his visit to the flood affected regions in Florida earlier in the day. However, the President made up profusely in the second debate, on the 8th instant, in which he exhibited more confidence, better preparedness and even assumed a special style of delivery. Kerry, on the other hand, maintained well his reputation as a seasoned debater and forcefully carried on his arguments. Viewers rated the second debate more highly than the first one and credited both the candidates with almost equal score.

As for the substance of the debates, war on Iraq evidently seized the principal focus of attention. The President reiterated his support for the war in Iraq and claimed that Saddam Hussain had posed a threat to the United States and that the world was better off with Saddam in gaol without power. He argued that even if no stockpile of weapons of mass destruction was found in Iraq, there was evidence that Saddam had maintained his scientists and facilities in full readiness able to produce WMD at a short notice. Saddam intended to use them and would allow their access to terrorists, Bush contented. Kerry rebutted the arguments strongly. He asserted that Saddam had posed no imminent threat to the USA, but Bin Laden did. There was no effective connection between Saddam Hussain and Bin Laden or Al-Qaida, as was later established by Congressional findings. Instead of hunting for Bin Laden in Tora Bora mountains in Afghanistan, the President invaded Iraq in a colossal act of misjudgment and deception.

Though Kerry was not opposed to war in Iraq and shared the belief that Saddam had posed a grave danger to the world, he said he would have waged the war differently. He would have gone to Iraq only after all other possible means had been exhausted to rid Iraq of the WMD and done so only after forming a real grand coalition of nations. This would allow the United States to effectively share the burden of war with others. President's claim of having secured international support through a coalition of forces of some 30 nations in Iraq was dismissed by Kerry, stating that 90 percent of casualties in Iraq were suffered by American troops and also 90 percent of funds for the war were provided by the United States. Kerry asserted that the war in Iraq was a matter of choice than one of necessity, and claimed that $200 billion (actually $120 billion so far) spent on the war could have been better utilised by providing greater employment, better medicare and more educational facilities at home.

The most severe criticism leveled by the President was that his adversary had been inconsistent, wishy-washy and uncertain in his pronouncements and decisions. The American people would not accept a Commander-in-Chief (President), who would keep on changing his mind. He slighted the idea of Kerry's ability to operate in Iraq with the international community in what Kerry claimed to be a wrong war, in a wrong place and in a wrong time. The President pointed out how John Kerry had voted for the war and later made a volte-face and opposed the same war, unless he was inconsistent and indecisive. Kerry sought to defend himself by asserting that he was not wishy-washy and admitted that he had initially made the mistake by supporting appropriations for the war, though for different reasons, but reiterated that he would have conducted the war differently and would be able to lead it to peace.

The two candidates agreed that the greatest danger that the world would face in future was proliferation of nuclear weapons and expressed grim determination to fight terrorism both at home and abroad. They clashed on the US policy in Korea and Iran and also on domestic issues on employment, tax cut, medicare, education and other social services. Both of them, however, lauded the valiant role played by the US troops in Iraq and pledged to institute better homeland security measures to make America safe for its people. The two contenders also made it a point to assure that America would be stronger at home and Kerry expected America to be better respected abroad.

The most interesting episode that came to my mind took place at the end of the first debate when the moderator asked both the candidates to make some comments about each other. Though the two candidates shook hands cordially and hurled big smiles at each other both at the beginning and end of the debate, albeit for the camera and the audience, they had some words of praise for each other. Kerry lauded the role of President's wife Laura Bush which was reciprocated by the President speaking well about Kerry's daughters. Something flashed in my mind then. I wondered when would we attain the stage and witness our leading political figures meet cordially and have some nice words to say to each other, even it were for public consumption only!

M.M.Rezaul Karim, a former Ambassador, is a member of BNP's Advisory Council.