Beginning with the first televised presidential debate between Richard Nixon and the original JFK 44 years ago, style has often trumped substance in presidential campaigns. Aided by a set of questions authored by PBS's Jim Lehrer, which played directly into the hands of John Kerry and left President George Bush playing defense, the first presidential debate of 2004 was no exception. While the candidates' style points were close -- much closer than many expected -- it is substance, not style, which provides for the national-security interests of the United States.

While taking stage right to President Bush in last night's debate, Senator Kerry's stand -- or stands, shall we say -- on issues of national security placed him at far, far stage left. Style notwithstanding, the substance of Kerry's exchange on national security was anything but reassuring.

"My position on Iraq has been consistent." Sen. Kerry repeated those same words some half dozen times over the course of the 90-minute debate, so we just can't resist saying it: "Methinks he doth protest too much." (Of some mention, Kerry referenced his Vietnam "service" about half a dozen times, too.) Highlighting the "consistency" of his position, over the course of 90 minutes Kerry managed to say the war with Iraq was a "colossal error of judgment" on the part of the President and referred to the war as a "distraction" from "the real war on terror," but he managed to add that he believed Saddam was a threat when he voted to authorize the use of force, that the Iraqi people deserved to be free, and that he could "win the peace," while beginning to withdraw U.S. forces within six months, making our "bribed and coerced" allies, whose contributions he "respects," pick up the slack. He also implied he'd build a real coalition for Iraq, including France and Germany, and open reconstruction contracts to those nations -- the very ones who profited most (illegally under UNSC sanctions) from Saddam's rule, and who have both refused (as recently as this week) to be a part of any such coalition, even in the eventuality of a Kerry presidency. Consistent eh?

On the subject of our troops engaged in Iraq, Kerry remarked,

I understand what the president is talking about because I know what it means to lose people in combat. And the question, ‘Is it worth the cost?,' reminds me of my own thinking when I came back from fighting in that war. And it reminds me that it is vital for us not to confuse the war -- ever -- with the warriors. That happened before.

More to the point, who was the one perpetuating that confusion? Was Kerry criticizing the war when he testified before Congress in 1971 of war crimes by U.S. forces in Vietnam? NO! -- Kerry was accusing U.S. troops in the field of countless atrocities, playing directly into the hands of the Communist North. Ion Mihai Pacepa, the highest-ranking intelligence officer ever to defect from the Soviet bloc, said of Kerry's anti-American activities during the Vietnam War:

KGB priority number one at that time was to damage American power, judgment, and credibility. ... As a spy chief and a general in the former Soviet satellite of Romania, I produced the very same vitriol Kerry repeated to the U.S. Congress almost word for word and planted it in leftist movements.

General Vo Nguyen Giap, Vietnam's most decorated military leader, wrote in retrospect that if not for the disunity created by Kerry and his ilk, Hanoi would have ultimately surrendered.

Kerry can't have it both ways. His undermining of U.S. resolve, and that of our allies, in the war against terrorism, specifically on the Iraqi warfront with Jihadistan, is a direct assault on Americans fighting in Iraq. American and Allied Forces, and countless Iraqis, are being injured and killed because of the political dissent Kerry and his ilk are fomenting -- not unlike the American casualties Kerry's 1971 protests caused in Vietnam.

Back to the war at hand, Kerry relentlessly attacked President Bush, saying, "Saddam Hussein didn't attack us. Osama bin Laden attacked us." Then, when asked about the most dangerous security threat in the world today, Kerry didn't hesitate to reply, "Nuclear proliferation," to which President Bush added, "in the hands of terrorists." Though we can -- and have -- laid bare Kerry's national-security credentials, President Bush said it best, last night:

To say there's only one focus in the war on terror doesn't really understand the nature of the war on terror...the front of this war is in more than one place.

Though he recognizes nuclear proliferation to be the imminent threat to our nation's security interests, Kerry seems not to grasp -- dare we say it -- the "nuances" of dealing with such a threat. The Senator apparently thinks he can publicly ridicule Russian President Vladmir Putin as a tyrant one minute, then vow to secure all fissile materiel in the former Soviet bloc within four years the next minute. Does Kerry really believe we can do this apart from Russian cooperation? Who's the brazen unilateralist now?

To wit, Kerry's debate performance on these other fronts was equally disastrous. On the subject of Iran, Kerry was obviously confused on the whole issue of nuclear technology, as well as the historical facts concerning the sanctions against Iran.

The man who thought he spent Christmas in Cambodia first said we needed sanctions against Iran, then, when confronted with the fact that there are sanctions against Iran -- and you can't sanction them again -- Kerry blamed the President for the "unilateral" nature of those sanctions, to which Mr. Bush corrected, again, that those sanctions were in place "long before I came to Washington." Indeed, 29 October 1987, for the first set of sanctions, under President Reagan. 16 March 1995, under President Clinton, for a second set. 19 August 1997 for another set of sanctions, again under then President Clinton. Again, consistent?

By way of contrast, on the subject of North Korean nuclear armament, Kerry bemoaned the President's decision to abandon bilateral talks with dictator Kim Jung Il in favor of multilateral pressure -- a coalition, some might say -- involving China, Russia, South Korea and Japan. For some reason, when President Bush employs multilateral diplomacy it's a bad idea; Kerry would return to Clinton's tried-and-failed diplomacy of appeasement -- the same diplomacy under which North Korea was able to advance its nuclear program in secret, even adding enriched uranium to its plutonium-based weapons development.

And that's just how "consistent" Kerry can be in 90 minutes; let's not even think about four years.

Perhaps the key moment of the debate, as well as the point most clearly delineating just how stage left Kerry is on national security, was his comment,

No president through all of American history has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to pre-empt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got to do it in a way that passes the test. That passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing. And you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

Mr. Bush replied:

I'm not exactly sure what you mean: passes the 'global test.' You take pre-emptive action if you pass a global test? My attitude is you take pre-emptive action in order to protect the American people.

This tells all. The foreign-policy difference between Kerry and Bush is not multilateralism versus unilateralism. Both are, at times, legitimate tools of foreign policy, but not policies themselves. The difference, rather, is one of globalism versus national sovereignty in the promotion and defense of U.S. interests abroad. Kerry's globalist agenda, by his own admission, would sacrifice U.S. protection of her citizens and soldiers abroad to the caprices of the International Criminal Court. Kerry would seek UN approval for "preemptively" defending the United States -- approval of the same agency that so effectively issued no fewer than 17 resolutions against Saddam's Iraq and refused to enforce any of them, with Kofi Annan recently declaring the resolutions' enforcement "illegal."

With an approving reference to Charles DeGaulle, the French president who abandoned the U.S.-led coalition in the defense of the free world at a crucial moment of the Cold War, Kerry said he would restore our "credibility" with such leaders around the world. The Patriot unapologetically replies: It's time for these foreign leaders -- the likes of France and Germany, who have continued unhesitatingly to obstruct U.S. interests abroad and security around the globe -- to restore their credibility with us.

National security is not for the faint of heart, and John Kerry's feints of heart prove that the Senator from Massachusetts, replete with his history of foreign policy waffling and betrayal of the national trust, is simply not up to the task.

On the eve of our assault on al-Qa'ida and other Jihadistan forces in Afghanistan, President Bush addressed the nation, and closed with these words: "We will not waiver, we will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail. Peace and freedom will prevail." Indeed!

Quote of the week...

"If America shows uncertainly or weakness in this decade, the world will drift toward tragedy. That's not going to happen so long as I'm your president. ... We will continue to stay on the offense. We will fight the terrorists around the world so we do not have to face them here at home. We'll continue to build our alliances. I'll never turn over America's national-security needs to leaders of other countries as we continue to build those alliances."
--President George W. Bush

Open query...

"My opponent says we didn't have any allies in this war. What's he say to Tony Blair? What's he say to Alexander Kwasniewski of Poland? You can't expect to build an alliance when you denigrate the contributions of those who are serving side by side with American troops in Iraq. Plus, he says the cornerstone of his plan to succeed in Iraq is to call upon nations to serve. So what's the message going to be: ‘Please join us in Iraq. We're a grand diversion. Join us for a war that is the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time?'"
--President George W. Bush

On cross-examination...

"Senator Kerry has taken so many different positions on the issues facing the country that we thought he would benefit from the overview of the most interesting debate -- the one John Kerry is having with himself. He's been for the war, against the war and for it and against it again. Last week, he became an anti-war candidate again. This is a fatal flaw and the American people see through it. John Kerry is not able to take a principled position and is the wrong choice to guide America through this critical time."
--Rudy Giuliani

Kerry Waivers...

Here are a few more of Kerry's "Flips" in previous statements and "Flops" in the debate last night.

On Iraq as a source for terrorist WMD...
Flip: "Saddam Hussein has already used these [WMD] and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That...is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis."
Flop: Now Kerry says Iraq posed no terrorist threat, but then flips again in the middle of the debate, saying, "I have always agreed on that, and from the beginning, I did vote to give the authority because I thought Saddam Hussein was a threat."

On support for American forces in combat...
Flip: Kerry voted against $87 billion in funding to equip our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan with essential supplies like ammunition and body armor even though he said before the vote, "I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to – to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That's irresponsible." He explained later, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."
Flop: Now Kerry now says, "My message to the troops is...help is on the way. I believe those troops deserve better than what they are getting today."

On "lies"...
Flip: Kerry accused President Bush of lying: "This administration has lied to us. They have misled us."
Flop: Kerry now says to the moderator, "Well, I've never, ever used the harshest word ["lie"] as you just did."

Memo to "undecided" voters: If Thursday night's debate left you wondering who really has the right stuff to be president, visit http://kerry-04.org/right_wrong.php

The BIG lie...

"Iraq has been a constant perilous distraction from the real war on terrorism. Our preoccupation with Iraq has given al-Qa'ida more than two full years to regroup and plan murderous new attacks on us. ... The war in Iraq has made the mushroom cloud more likely, not less likely."
--Sen. Ted Kennedy, taking election-year scare tactics to a whole new level

Regrettably, President George W. Bush did not seize the moment to remind 55 million television viewers that on January 12, 1991, Sen. Kerry actually voted against S.J.RES.2, the congressional authorization that empowered President Bush 41 to liberate Kuwait after Saddam Hussein’s cruel invasion. This little bit of history sheds much light on Kerry’s past and casts a dark shadow over any of his new promises to successfully execute today’s war in Iraq.

Time and again on the campaign trail Kerry argues for a grand international alliance to win the Iraq war. He repeated this in the debate. But in 1991 the U.S. headed a grand alliance of 36 nations that was fully backed by a United Nations resolution. And Kerry still opposed that war to liberate Kuwait. The U.N.-backed coalition included Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Turkey, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, and Qatar. All the pieces were there, including the cause of justice. Still he voted against it. How, knowing this, can anyone believe Kerry when he says he will show us a better way to defeat our terrorist enemies today?

If ever there was a military action that passed the “global test” -- which Kerry argued for in the debate -- the Persian Gulf War was it. It overwhelmingly met Kerry’s dubious standard -- and still he opposed it. This reveals a credibility problem of the first order. Almost defining credulity, Kerry said in a brief statement on the Senate floor, in an accompaniment to his vote against the Persian Gulf War, that “The president made a mistake to unilaterally increase troops, set a date, and make war so probable.”

Clearly, Kerry has a very strong aversion to the use of military power under virtually any circumstance. Of course, this raises serious questions about Kerry’s ability to conduct  any  military operations against our fundamentalist radical-Islamist enemies. Can we really believe that the man who has called the war in Iraq a “grand diversion,” a “colossal error,” an “incredible mess,” and the “wrong war” in the “wrong place” at the “wrong time” -- pessimistic and defeatist statements all -- is capable of waging a strong foreign policy and prosecuting a military action of any sort? What’s really left here is the portrait of a politician steeped in ambiguity and equivocation who at bottom has a strong aversion to war of any kind, for any reason.

In one of his better moments in a somewhat energy-less debating performance, President Bush did in fact take Kerry to the woodshed for his notion of a “global test.” So did Bush’s vice president. In a campaign rally after the debate, Dick Cheney said, “We will never seek a permission slip to defend America.”

It seems to me that the American electorate knows full well that what’s at stake come November is not the next secretary general of the United Nations but the next president of the United States. In Bush’s closing statement he said, “I’ll never turn over America’s national-security needs to leaders of other countries. . . . and will continue to spread freedom. I believe in the transformational power of liberty. And I believe both a free Afghanistan and a free Iraq will serve as a powerful example for millions who plead in silence for liberty in the broader Middle East.” This excellent content will triumph over some stylistic mistakes. Kerry’s poor content, however, may have dug him into a deeper electoral hole.

The latest Gallup Poll of 615 registered voters who watched the presidential debate contains some startling results: On debate performance Kerry wins 53 percent to 37 percent. However, as to who would better handle the situation in Iraq, Bush wins 54 to 43. Who do these voters trust more to handle the responsibilities of commander-in-chief? Bush 54, Kerry 44. Who’s more believable? Bush 50, Kerry 45. More likable? Bush 48, Kerry 41. And the grand whopper -- Who is tough enough for the job? Bush 54, Kerry 37.

Surely this shows the good sense of the American voter. Debating points are one thing, but truly strong national-security content is a much more important matter.

John Kerry is one smooth operator.  In the first debate between President Bush and the Senator, Kerry was winsome, calm, well-spoken and semi-believable.  It’s hard to admit, but from a style standpoint, Kerry beat Bush.

Kerry’s Queer Eye for the Democratic Guy handlers must have been giddy.  His botoxed and over-tanned hide coupled with his freshly manicured fingers and his adept ability to verbally cross his t’s and dot his “I’s” made for slick political theater.  I’m sure it duly impressed the private schoolies in TV la-la-land and possibly swayed some swing voters who are moved by such oratorical and ocular obfuscation.

Bush was … Bush.  If you were looking for television eye candy and Demosthenes-like diatribe from President Bush during the first debate, you were disappointed.  He was his typical to-the-point self:  fish or cut bait.  After spending a full day in my great state of Florida, visiting hurricane victims [while Kerry was getting all gussied up with his manicurist], Bush looked semi-bored and perturbed with this “debate” with JFK, too. 

He just couldn’t shed the “Why are you bothering me while I’m trying to run this nation and fight a war, you pathetically over-primped Yankee?” look on his face.  It was reminiscent of how my champion pit bulls looked with yawning contempt at our neighbor’s over-quaffed, perfumed and manicured yapping Yorkies. 

Let me help any P.C. folks not from Texas understand my fellow Texan, George W. Bush.  When a Texan feels he’s around a weasel, it’s hard to keep those feelings from contorting his face and wearing his patience very thin. 

Even though Bush could’ve been a tad more TV-friendly, Kerry’s craft wasn’t enough to cause me to have temporary amnesia.  Kerry’s applaudable Clintonesque ability to make love to the camera wasn’t sufficient to make me mentally white out his two decade long senatorial voting history and believe now that he is the decisive tough guy that he’s trying to pawn off on the public. 

It is just too difficult for me to accept as gospel that he will do anything different militarily as president, from what he has talked about during his long hiatus as a Senator. 

One has to do mental gymnastics to square Kerry’s past, anti-defense Senate voting record with his present John Kerry, Terrorist Slayer sales job. With such an abysmal defense record, coupled with his insistence we’re in the wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time and the war in Iraq is a grand diversion, I don’t hear strong leader.
 

Kerry’s disses our allies, is dismissive towards the necessity of China helping de-nuke North Korea, and drips syrup whining that we mimic the French and Germans in walking abreast with the feckless U.N., in order to defend our land – and theirs, for God’s sake! -- against terrorism.  JFK, too, is a very articulate yet very confused wannabe skipper, who seems less like John F. Kennedy and more like Neville Chamberlain.
 

Bush on the other hand, as a war time president, has…
 

1. Stamped out Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

2. The Afghanis are having free elections for the first time, ever, with 10 million voters of whom 41% are women.

3. Osama bin Laden, who if not already dead, is squatting in a cave somewhere changing cell phones and laptops every 17 minutes because we are after him like nail polish on Kerry’s finger nails.

4. 75% of the world’s top terrorist thugs are in jail ... or hell.

5. Saddam Hussein is in prison awaiting his trial and execution. 

6. Udai and Qusai, his demented sons, are slow-roasting on Lucifer’s smoker.

7. Elections will be held in Iraq in January.

8. Libya has sent all the elements of its WMD programs, lock, stock and poison to America for safe destruction.

9. Saudi Arabia has organized the first [municipal] elections in its 80 year history.

10.  The sons of Libya’s and Egypt’s dictators have both foresworn any interest in succeeding their fathers.

11. And, most recently, Syria at last decreasing its armed forces in Lebanon and pledging, once again, to close down terrorist operations in their country.

My ClashPoint is this:  in the woulda-shoulda-coulda realm … sure, Bush could have pounced more forcefully on Kerry’s misinformation regarding:

1. the supposed [but non-existent] loss of support among military officials;

2. Saddam’s clear and dangerous support of Al Qaeda and several other terror groups;

3. his vote against the 87 Billion for body armor and other critical funding programs;

4. his endless flip-flops  on liberating Iraq and the policy of preemption;

5. his flat out lie that he never called Bush a liar;

6. his nonsense that Saddam’s capture has made us less secure;

7. his insisting that just because the French and Germans aren’t with us, we don’t have a coalition, despite more than 30 nations in our multinational force and providing training and security aid to assure a free Iraq.

But for whatever reason the President let the metrosexual candidate slide a bit.   Sure, Kerry looked presidential and sounded presidential.  But looks and sounds don’t mean squat to terrorists.  Decisive action does.  Dealing out hell and death to the deserving does. 

It’s here that Bush blows Kerry away.  Bush backs up his words: he’ll kill those who attempt to harm us and will not look to a feckless U.N. for a thumbs-up before he rains fire down on those who would kill us.  With Kerry, all we have are promises coming from a premise that contradicts his current claims at their very core. 

Sure, Kerry might have passed the TV dumb chick test.  In the real, wartime world, where nations are at stake, that means jack squat.  With dictators jailed, terrorist networks disbanded and those who remain scattered like lice around Fallujah, we know what Bush will do.  It is highly suspect what Kerry will do. 

JFK, too’s promises, promises?  No, thanks.  Dubya’s results, results?  More of the same, please.