Vice-president Dick Cheney and Senator John Edwards argued along similar lines at a vice-presidential debate in Cleveland, Ohio, five days later.

Kerry insisted he can do a better job than Bush in fighting the “global war on terrorism,” winning some praise in ruling-class circles for his performance.

The first Kerry-Bush debate took place at the University of Miami in Coral Gables, Florida, five weeks before the November 2 election. Its theme was foreign policy and “homeland security.”

Agreeing on a common “America First” framework, the candidates of the two main capitalist parties debated tactical differences on how best to advance U.S. imperialism’s strategic interests around the world.

“I can make America safer than President Bush has made us,” Kerry said. “I have a better plan for homeland security. I have a better plan to be able to fight the war on terror by strengthening our military.”

One of Kerry’s main themes was the claim that Bush diverted Washington’s attention from what he said should be its main target—Osama bin Laden and his group, al Qaeda.

Referring to a handful of generals who have endorsed his candidacy, Kerry said these officers “know I would not take my eye off the goal: Osama bin Laden. Unfortunately he escaped in the mountains of Tora Bora. We had him surrounded. But we didn’t use American forces, the best trained in the world, to go kill him. The president relied on Afghan warlords and he outsourced that job too.” The latter statement echoed the Democratic candidate’s push for more protectionism to “save American jobs,” and his position that Bush’s economic policies have resulted in the “outsourcing” of U.S. manufacturing jobs abroad.

Kerry reiterated his view that the Bush administration acted unilaterally in invading Iraq and overthrowing Saddam Hussein, without adequate involvement of Washington’s imperialist allies. Nevertheless, he said, “I believe we have to win this. This president and I have always agreed on that.” Kerry proposed sending more troops to Iraq.

“What I want to do is change the dynamics on the ground,” Kerry said. “And you have to do that by beginning not to back off of Fallujah and other places and send the wrong message to terrorists…. You’ve got to show you are serious.”

This is precisely what the Bush administration is doing in Iraq now.

Kerry also said he would add two active duty divisions—up to 30,000 troops—to the U.S. military, “not for Iraq, but for our general demands around the world,” and that he would double the number of Special Forces personnel to more effectively fight the “terrorists.”

Neither Kerry nor Bush mentioned that the Pentagon is already in the process of adding 30,000 soldiers to the U.S. Army and strengthening the role and size of Special Forces.

On “homeland security,” Kerry said that Bush is not doing enough and that he would do more. He called for more extensive domestic security measures and more funding for police and other cop agencies, accusing Bush of diverting funds to Iraq that are needed for domestic policing and spy operations.

Bush countered by defending his administration’s course of action in Iraq and Afghanistan, asserting that Washington has made major gains in the “war on terror” in those countries, as well as in Pakistan, Libya, Indonesia, and elsewhere. “Iraq is a central part in the war on terror,” Bush said. And, he pointed out, “My administration has tripled the amount of money we’re spending on homeland security to $30 billion a year.”

Bush repeatedly targeted Kerry’s shifting positions on the Iraq war aimed at appeasing the various wings of the Democratic Party—his statements that this was “the wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time,” alternating with his vote and later proclamations in favor of the U.S.-led invasion. “You cannot lead if you send mixed messages,” Bush said. “Mixed messages send the wrong signals to our troops. Mixed messages send the wrong signals to our allies.”

Defending his policies known as the Bush Doctrine, the president said, “We’ve upheld the doctrine that said if you harbor a terrorist, you’re equally as guilty as the terrorist.”

Both candidates agreed that “proliferation of weapons of mass destruction” is the biggest single threat to U.S. “national security.”

Kerry accused Bush of pursuing policies that have actually led to the spread of nuclear weapons. While the White House has focused on the war in Iraq, Kerry said, “North Korea’s gotten nuclear weapons and the world is more dangerous. Iran is moving toward nuclear weapons and the world is more dangerous.” Kerry said Washington should pursue bilateral talks with north Korea and step up pressure on Iran to abandon its nuclear program. He said he would pick up the pace of retrieving “unsecured” nuclear material in the former Soviet Union, which he said is in danger of falling into the hands of “terrorists.”

Bush defended his administration’s course of pursuing six-party talks with north Korea, emphasizing the importance of trying to draw China into putting pressure on north Korea to abandon its nuclear program. He said Washington is already squeezing Tehran with sanctions. Bush also referred briefly to other steps his government has taken under the banner of “non-proliferation,” in particular the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) that has now been endorsed by more than 60 governments. Under the PSI, armed forces of imperialist powers and their allies have began to stop and board vessels with “suspect” cargo in international waters and often confiscate their goods.

The day after the encounter, commentators in the bourgeois media agreed by and large that Kerry had fared better in the debate than Bush, presenting his views in a more confident way, while the president appeared irritated and defensive. “John Kerry has reason to feel good about his performance,” the New York Post editors—who support Bush—noted October 1. “His much-vaunted debating skills were on full display last night. In contrast, President Bush too often rambled.” Opinion polls a few days after the debate showed that Kerry had closed the gap and was running about even with Bush, who was ahead by more than 10 percent in previous surveys in September.  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home