The Sept. 30 debate between President Bush and Sen. John Kerry crystallized key differences between the two candidates on Iraq and foreign-policy issues.
Bush used his relentless "stay-on-message" tactic to no end, accusing Kerry at least six times of being indecisive on Iraq.
This sounded compelling the first time, but it was not persuasive after Kerry explained two things clearly:
First, Kerry's vote to authorize the president to go to war if it became absolutely necessary was not an endorsement of going to war after Iraq had let the U.N. inspectors back in, as it did immediately prior to the U.S. attack, and with almost no international support.
Second, Kerry originally voted for the $87 billion to fund Iraq reconstruction. But when Bush said he wanted to pay for this package through deficit spending, as he was unwilling to repeal tax cuts for the richest Americans, Kerry realized the funding mechanism was irresponsible and that future middle-class Americans would be the ones paying the price.
While these positions are more complex than political sound bites would indicate, they are in no way indecisive or inconsistent.
Yet Bush stuck to his one poll-tested "indecisiveness" line throughout the night, even after Kerry had convincingly replied to these charges and articulated his plans to internationalize the process of rebuilding Iraq.
Throughout the debate, Bush was unable to offer a policy for winning peace in Iraq other than what Kerry aptly called "more of the same."
I would much prefer a nuanced but clear policy over the failed Iraq policies we have seen thus far that continue to cost hundreds, if not thousands, of American and Iraqi lives.
Paxus Calta
Louisa