User:LockeShocke/Calming the Waters

Three years after September 11th, with the attacks fresh in their minds, Americans had the chance to decide the direction their country would take through a Presidential election. Accordingly, national security played a large role in the campaign–with a near majority of Americans naming it their number one concern. Luckily for incumbent George W. Bush, the public saw national security as his biggest strength, having guided the nation through the September 11th crisis that earned him approval ratings of 90%. John F. Kerry, a Senator from Massachusetts and the President’s Democratic rival, attempted to play up his own experience defending America by touting his service in Vietnam. Additionally, Kerry argued that Bush’s headstrong charge into Iraq was unnecessary, a foolhardy “profound diversion.” But Kerry’s efforts–often-appearing negative or contradictory–came up short, and the electorate sided with George Bush, who chose to showcase his resolve and experience.[1]

The contest between these two began on December 1st, 2002, when Massachusetts Senator John Kerry appeared on NBC’s Meet the Press and announced that he had formed an exploratory committee to examine the prospect of becoming the Democratic nominee for the 2004 Presidential election. He thus followed former Governor Howard Dean by about six months.[2]

After losing the Iowa caucus to Kerry, Dean, who had been the frontrunner, made what is derisively labeled his “I have a scream” speech. It fatally tarnished his image, and opened the door for Kerry to take the lead. Kerry went on to win in New Hampshire, Missouri, Arizona, and Delaware. On March 2nd, 2003, Bush called John Kerry to congratulate him on his strong showings thus far as it became more apparent that Kerry would receive the Democratic nomination for President. One week later, George W. Bush would receive the necessary delegates for the Republican nomination, having no legitimate challenger. Two days after that Kerry secured his party’s nomination.[3] In July 2004, Kerry formally accepted the Presidential nomination at the unusually early Democratic National Convention. A week later, TV commercials paid for by a ‘527’–a tax-exempt political organization unregulated by the Federal Election Commission–called “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” attacked Kerry’s Vietnam record and thus foreshadowed both the tone and content of the 2004 campaign.

Conventions
The Democratic convention gave Kerry a soapbox to preach against the alleged wrongs of the Bush administration’s previous four years. The Democratic platform devoted nearly its entire first half to national security–twice as much space as in the past. The document read as a laundry list of comparisons to and grievances with the Bush administration’s foreign policy. The Democrats tried preemptively to head-off what they knew would be Bush’s strength: national security.

The New York Times wrote that the platform called “for a wholesale rewriting of President Bush's national security strategy, [declared] that Mr. Bush's ‘doctrine of unilateral pre-emption has driven away [America’s] allies,’ and [promised] far more focus on reforming intelligence agencies and preventing nuclear terrorism.”[4]

The platform focused on nuclear proliferation, along with strategies for negotiating with North Korea and the importance of taking steps against Iran. As well, the Democrats cautioned against letting a doctrine of preemption define American foreign policy. These would become important talking points for John Kerry during debates and speeches as he tried to convince the country that George Bush had failed to keep America safe.

The Republicans chose to set their convention in New York: an ostentatious reminder of the President’s performance after the September 11th attacks. The G.O.P. reinforced this with speakers such as Rudy Giuliani, who said, "It was here in 2001 in lower Manhattan that President George W. Bush stood amid the fallen towers of the World Trade Center and said to the barbaric terrorists who attacked us, ‘they will hear from us’. They have heard from us!” The Republicans would continue to invoke the memory of September 11th; George Bush did so in the second sentence he spoke during the Presidential debates. [5]

Even though the disaster of 9/11 was arguably the reason that the electorate chose Bush in the end, Americans were sensitive to Republican allusions that attempted to capitalize on the events. Vice President Dick Cheney angered many when he implicitly told the crowd at the Republican Convention that electing John Kerry would endanger their lives, saying the “wrong choice” in November would make it more likely that the United States would “get hit again.”[6]

George Bush’s first wave of campaign ads used images of firefighters at Ground Zero carrying a coffin draped in an American flag. Bush came under fire, “assailed” by Democratic officials, relatives of victims of the September 11th attacks, and the International Association of Fire Fighters (a union that had already endorsed Kerry). The criticism, though damaging, was not universal: “‘The country needs to be reminded of 9/11,’ said Patricia Riley of Staten Island, who lost a sister at the World Trade Center. ‘The president has every right to point to his leadership during that time.’”[7]

Security: The Main Issues
Security proved to be the biggest issue during the campaign. Although Democrats would call into question Bush’s handling of Iraq, few openly doubted his use of force in Afghanistan, or his leadership immediately after September 11th. Americans persistently saw Bush as stronger on terrorism, perhaps because John Kerry had never had the opportunity to be the Commander in Chief ordering troops against Al Qaeda. Even women, expected to side with Kerry, saw national security as a main concern. “‘John Kerry was like a blind date you hadn't yet met in March. You could project on him anything you wanted,’ pollster Kellyanne Conway said of Kerry's ebbing support among women. Since then, she said, ‘he's rung the doorbell to pick some of them up, and they don't like what they see.’”[8]

Bush played to his strengths during the campaign, attacking Kerry on terrorism, while Kerry shot back, and included weaker indictments of Bush’s handling of the economy and domestic issues–Kerry’s strong points. But Kerry’s attempts at redirection were overshadowed by concerns about terrorism, which played into Bush’s hands.

Iraq
In the fall of 2002, the Bush administration had focused the public’s attention on Iraq and the threat from its dictatorial leader Saddam Hussein. It was necessary, they argued, to remove Hussein from power to make the world safer for democracy. Having seen evidence of Iraqi nuclear and biological weapons programs, on October 11th of 2002, by a vote of 77-23, the Senate passed House Joint Resolution 114, giving President Bush the authority to use force in Iraq. John Kerry voted in favor of the resolution, a vote that would demand some explaining in light of Kerry’s subsequent criticism of the war.[9]

Kerry later called the Iraq invasion a “profound diversion” from the War on Terrorism, distracting attention and personnel away from Osama bin Laden. As the president’s reasons for the war began to come under question and the death toll mounted, the war lost popularity with the public. Kerry attacked what became the infamous unfound stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction–a major reason for invading the country. On September 6th, Kerry proclaimed that Iraq was “the wrong war at the wrong time.” Bush seized the opportunity to accuse Kerry of insulting ‘our brave fighting men and women,’ and question his ability to build an international coalition, as Kerry had promised, while denigrating the war.[10]

Additionally, Kerry recited a line from the Democratic platform and accused Bush of resorting to war before diplomatic options were exhausted. Kerry’s rationale: The United Nations had passed Resolution 1441, which threatened “serious consequences” against Iraq if Hussein’s regime did not fully cooperate with weapons inspectors. Hans Blix, who led the UN commission to monitor Iraq, requested more time to complete his report. The International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iraq was complying with disarmament. Because of the UN’s reluctance to pass a second resolution threatening force against Iraq–despite pressure from the United States and Britain–the United States-led military coalition invaded Iraq. This action was considered by many to be a unilateral aggression in violation of the UN charter.[11]

Kerry argued that, by snubbing the United Nations, President Bush had failed to assemble a strong international coalition and had alienated traditional allies. “‘When [the United States] went in,’ said Kerry, ‘there were three countries: Great Britain, Australia and the United States. That's not a grand coalition. We can do better.’” Bush’s reply was infused with patriotism: “[N]ow there's 30 nations involved, standing side by side with our American troops. And I honor their sacrifices. And I don't appreciate it when a candidate for president denigrates the contributions of these brave soldiers.”[12] A letter to the editor written by Todd Buchanon of Eldora, Colorado, and published in The New York Times summed up the feelings of many concerned Americans:


 * The president said he would choose war only as a last resort.
 * Millions of Americans who had deep reservations about the war hoped that a united front against Saddam Hussein might somehow make war unnecessary. President Bush chose war while weapons inspections held Saddam Hussein in check; before an international coalition agreed that it was necessary; with poor planning for the aftermath; and in the face of warnings that war could further empower extremists.[13]

However, there was little argument between the two when the issue of reconstruction of Iraq surfaced in the second Presidential debate. Kerry insisted on reducing troop levels to the absolute minimum necessary for “training and logistics.” Bush countered, smiling as he said, “My opponent says he has a plan; it sounds familiar, because it's called the Bush plan... We'll have 125,000 [Iraqi troops] trained by the end of December. We're spending about $7 billion.” Once again, the President resorted to numbers to reassure the American people.[14] Putting the next nail in Kerry’s coffin, Bush questioned Kerry’s ability to double as a pessimist and a leader:


 * He talks about a grand idea: Let's have a summit; we're going to solve the problem in Iraq by holding a summit.
 * And what is he going to say to those people that show up at the summit? ‘Join me in the wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place. Risk your troops in a war you've called a mistake.’
 * Nobody is going to follow somebody who doesn't believe we can succeed and with somebody who says that war where we are is a mistake.[15]

Finally, a report of 380 tons of missing explosives previously documented by coalition forces came out 12 days prior to the election, and gave Kerry more ammunition for his assault on Bush’s handling of the war. Again, Bush’s tactic was to frame the Senator’s comments as demoralizing to the troops, but this time Kerry was careful in his phrasing. He clarified that while “our troops are doing a heroic job, the President, the Commander in Chief, is not doing his job.” Kerry saw this news as a capstone to his charges against Bush’s handling of the Iraq situation. These munitions could be in the hands of insurgents or Al Qaeda. But wherever they were, they were missing, and Kerry charged that it was Bush’s fault for not designating the munitions store a high priority.[16]

Axis of Evil
Another portion of the campaigns’ foreign policy debate revolved around the other two members of what Bush had dubbed, in his 2002 State of the Union Address, the Axis of Evil: Iran and North Korea. Believed by many to be on the brink of developing–or having already developed–nuclear weapons, the two countries loomed on the horizon of American foreign involvement.

Kerry and Bush debated the best strategy to adopt when negotiating with North Korea. While Kerry wanted the US to sit down alone with North Korea, Bush touted his accomplishment of assembling six countries to come to the table together. The President said, “It is naïve and dangerous to take a policy that [Kerry] suggested the other day, which is to have bilateral relations with North Korea. Remember, he's the person who's accusing me of not acting multilaterally. He now wants to take the six-party talks we have–China, North Korea, South Korea, Russia, Japan and the United States–and undermine them by having bilateral talks.” Bush made a habit of accusing Kerry of “undermining” national security: undermining these talks, undermining the Iraqi invasion coalition, and undermining troop morale.[17]

The New York Times asserted that North Korea had already developed six to eight nuclear weapons during Bush’s first term. But the paper reported that “election-year politics” had obscured the candidates’ true intentions. And even then, the vague strategy plans either side proposed for talks may have been implausible.

The reality is that America's bargaining options are almost as limited as its military options. Despite two years of intensive diplomacy alongside Europeans and Asians, the allies have still not agreed on a unified strategy. And while both Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry dismiss each other's approach, neither has yet described an approach that even his own advisers think has much of a chance of yielding real, permanent disarmament.[18]

Kerry also alleged that Bush had neglected the threat from Iran. The New York Times downplayed the threat, however, saying that the Israelis had already warned Iran and hinted at preemptive action, and that the regime of Khameni was still far from a nuclear bomb.[19]

For all Kerry’s talk of Bush neglecting threats, the public seemed sympathetic to the incumbent President, as they continued to favor him on national security. After all, he had invaded two countries and overthrown two regimes. Bush’s experience on dealing directly with terrorism trumped Kerry’s tough talking and nitpicking in the eyes of the electorate.

Security: Minor Issues
A handful of other “national security” topics were lesser issues in the campaign: port security, immigration policy, and missile defense.

When it came to port security, Kerry recited an unsettling statistic during the debates. He leveled with voters during the second debate: “Look, 95 percent of our containers coming into this country are not inspected today. When you get on an airplane, your bag is X- rayed, but the cargo hold isn't X-rayed. Do you feel safer?”[20]

Rather than establishing a connection with his public, Kerry’s informal tone and fear mongering more likely hurt his image. Statements like this, and when Kerry told the nation that they “deserve better [than George Bush],” may have backfired, patronizing Americans.[21] Bush shrugged off the attack on port security by saying he had increased the Homeland Security budget by $30 billion dollars. He added, “The best way to protect this homeland is to stay on the offense.” That is, the $250 billion spent on Iraq trumped the $30 billion spent at home.[22]

Bush and Kerry also differed on immigration policy. Bush, when asked in the candidates’ third debate about the estimated 8,000 illegal immigrants that enter the country every day, claimed an increase of 1,000 Border Patrol Agents on the Mexican border and gave the vague assurance of “new equipment.” Bush explained he was in favor of a temporary worker card for illegal aliens already in the US, but not amnesty, explaining that he ‘didn’t want to reward illegal behavior.’ Bush was a proponent of the typically less compassionate Republican point of view, but defended it rationally to the American people. Indeed, why ‘reward illegal behavior’?[23]

Kerry favored a guest worker program, similar to Bush's temporary card, but Kerry also favored giving citizenship under “an earned-legalization program.” Kerry’s more compassionate–and more lenient–plan also had an appeal of sensibility, but may have seemed humane to a fault and counterproductive.[24]

Missile defense has been a cornerstone of Republican national defense policy since Ronald Reagan proposed the idea in the 1980’s. But, tests of the program–an aegis of defensive missiles meant to intercept inbound warheads–have met with limited success. “Saying he was ‘living in the future,’ President Bush promoted his plans for a missile defense system on [August 17th, 2004] and said that its opponents were putting the nation's security at risk.”[25]

Kerry, opposed to the antimissile program, was in favor of scaling back its funding to increase the size of the Army by 40,000 troops in order to relieve National Guard troops on active duty. For this, Republicans criticized Kerry for being soft on defense. Georgia Senator Zell Miller was one of the first to point this out during the Republican National Convention, as he rambled off a list of defense proposals, including the missile shield, which Kerry voted against in the Senate.[26]

The Flip-Flop
Perhaps the most powerful of Republican indictments of Kerry was the infamous “flip-flop.” Many on the Right accused him of being politically motivated in switching his positions on important issues. For example, voters placed the onus on Kerry for criticizing the Iraq war after voting for it. In the first debate, Kerry tried to clarify: “I've had one position, one consistent position, that Saddam Hussein was a threat. There was a right way to disarm him and a wrong way. And the President chose the wrong way.” Bush’s response criticized Kerry’s leadership abilities, while highlighting his own unflinching optimism: “The only thing consistent about my opponent's position is that he's been inconsistent... you cannot change positions in this war on terror if you expect to win. And I expect to win.”[27]

Todd Buchanon’s aforementioned letter to the editor of The New York Times clarifies Kerry’s position as well as the candidate did at any point: “The war authorization resolution, which John Kerry voted for, gave the president authority to use military force if he determined that other means were not adequate to defend United States’ national security.” In Kerry’s eyes, the resolution was meant as a diplomatic threat against Iraq, not a blank check for war. Therefore, Kerry criticized the invasion as aggressive and headstrong.[28]

A particular spending bill that Kerry voted against–a bill that allocated $87 billion for reconstruction and equipment in Iraq and Afghanistan–also became a hot-button issue. Kerry again found himself on the defensive, having to explain why he “denied” the troops this money. The truth–which Kerry had trouble explaining–was that he “voted for the $87 billon before [he] voted against it.” He had changed his position because a tax cut favoring the rich was later removed. Trying to deflect public scorn over his first defense, Kerry explained, “When I talked about the $87 billion, I made a mistake in how I talk about the war. But the president made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is worse?”[29]

Another controversy went back to the days after September 11th, when Congress passed the Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001, and folded into it the Uniting and Strengthening America Act. John Kerry was one of the 89 Senators who voted in favor of the USA PATRIOT Act, but afterwards he began to criticize its use. In the second Presidential debate, Kerry boasted that three high-ranking administration officials also had qualms over the Act:
 * Former Governor Racicot, as chairman of the Republican Party, said he thought that the Patriot Act has to be changed and fixed.
 * ...The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee said [it would be] over his dead body before it gets renewed without being thoroughly rechecked.
 * ...[T]he inspector general of the Justice Department found that John Ashcroft had twice applied it in ways that were inappropriate...

Never mind, Bush insisted: the Act did not “water down” the rights of Americans, and Kerry was attempting to “weaken” vital anti-terrorism legislation. Bush told America that the Senator would take a step backwards in the War on Terror.[30]

As a footnote to John Kerry’s service in Vietnam, Republicans noted that, upon returning to the United States, he threw back the medals he earned–including three Purple Hearts–in protest. However, Kerry’s critics were not as aggressive as with other attacks, because this particular line of inquiry revealed George W. Bush’s questionable National Guard service. Kerry fought back, “I did obviously fight in Vietnam, and I was wounded there... To have these people, all of whom made a different choice, attack me for it is obviously disturbing.” One of his aides, Stephanie Cutter, elaborated: “Every time the Republicans force this debate, the only thing that comes across is that John Kerry is a war hero. And that is a stark comparison with George Bush, who still can't prove he showed up for National Guard duty.”[31]

But Kerry’s condemnation of war, past and present, struck a chord with voters. Republicans attacked him for insulting a wartime President. Some Americans questioned whether Kerry would properly prosecute the wars Bush had started if he were elected. Many voters were inspired by Bush’s resolve, that hadn’t seemed to lessen since September 11th.

Kerry made a tactical mistake during the first debate when he suggested America should have to “pass a global test”–to prove that a war was “legitimate”–before launching a preemptive strike. Bush seized on this, responding, “My attitude is you take preemptive action in order to protect the American people.”[32]

The incumbent told the American people what they wanted to hear: that they were the President’s highest priority, not that the rest of the world should agree with us before we attack. Kerry, attempting to repair his image, found himself continually assuring the American people that he would “never allow any country to have a veto over [American] security.” But he seemed to overcompensate with an uncharacteristically aggressive rhetoric, saying he would never hesitate to “hunt down and kill the terrorists.”[33]

Nevertheless, the damage had been done. Kerry had let something slip that would call his would-be Presidential resolve into question. On the contrary, the nation had seen the resolve of President Bush after 9/11. Three years later, the incumbent managed to inspire hope in much of the country, while his approval rating had cooled to a still-formidable 50%. The general zeitgeist of post-9/11 America seemed to work in Bush’s favor. He was a wartime president, the leader of a country in crisis.[34]

Outside Events
In addition to differences in policy and character, a number of events that took place during the campaign influenced the mind of the voter.

On April 28th, 2004, 60 Minutes II broadcast a story detailing the abuses of prisoners at the Iraqi prison in Abu Ghraib. Months before Kerry received the Democratic nomination, he came out attacking what was portrayed in the photos. He called the photos “sickening and appalling, depraved and sad.” Then, slowly working an indictment of Bush into his disgust, Kerry added, “there was evidently in the pictures themselves a lack of command control.” He said that a number of management mistakes, including “the lack of training, the rapid deployment of certain troops into positions that they shouldn't be in, [and] the overextension of Guard and Reserves” were to blame. Kerry added, “You have to change the entire dynamic,” implying that he was the man for the job.[35]

On September 13th, a Congressional ban on assault weapons was set to expire, and President Bush showed no support for its extension. Kerry, who received a lifetime rating of an F from the National Rifle Association based on his Senate voting record, urged an extension of the ban. “‘This is common sense,’ he said, referring to the extension of the ban... ‘I don’t understand the philosophy that says you’re making America safer when you take cops off the streets and put assault weapons back on them.’” Kerry asserted in the second Presidential debate that, because of Bush’s policies, terrorists could hypothetically purchase an assault weapon at a gun show without a background check.[36]

On October 6th, less than a month before the polls opened, Charles Duelfer, the head of the Iraq Survey Group–a fact-finding mission composed of British, American, and Australian experts–appeared before the Senate. Duelfer announced that the group had come to its conclusions about Iraq’s purported weapons of mass destruction: Since the Gulf War in 1991, when crippling sanctions were imposed, Iraq had produced no weapons of mass destruction, nor had it had the capacity to do so. But the Bush administration seized on a smaller note in the report, that Hussein had been “gaming” the UN oil-for-food program in an attempt to undermine sanctions and that, as the report stated, if the sanctions were lifted, Saddam had every intention of restarting his weapons program. Kerry contended that, because the main reason for invading Iraq had been eradicated ex post facto, the administration was now “making up reasons to go to war after the fact.”[37]

On October 30th, less than 100 hours before the election was to take place, Al Qaeda released a tape condemning President Bush. The tape reminded Americans that terrorist networks were still intact and had access to the media. Kerry used the tape as an opportunity to remind voters that Bush had failed to capture Osama bin Laden. But many Democrats were worried, and acknowledged that the tape was “welcome news for Bush.”[38]


 * The videotape–in which Mr. bin Laden taunts the president and makes vaguely threatening remarks about the nation's security–could well reinforce what has been the defining rationale of Mr. Bush's re-election candidacy since the morning that planes slammed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon: that the nation is at war, and that this Republican president can best protect it.
 * “'The more these images are out there now, the more it helps Bush,” said Joe Trippi, who was the campaign manager for Howard Dean.[39]

Simply, Osama bin Laden’s hatred of President Bush meant that the President must have been doing something right. Bin Laden would only want Bush out of office if he felt threatened by the incumbent. Bin Laden’s condemnation of Bush was all but a tacit endorsement of Democratic foreign policy, lending some credence to “Al Qaeda for Kerry” campaign mock-bumper stickers that had been in production for some time.

In his closing statement in the third Presidential debate, John Kerry assured the American people that, by strengthening foreign alliances, by cleaning up Iraq, and by securing the ports, he would “calm the waters of a dangerous world.” President Bush contrastingly made reference to a “west-Texas” painting that hung in the Oval office, and related its optimism to the viewers, an optimism that struck home, an optimism that was not reflected in John Kerry’s sometimes misspoken, sometimes patronizing calls for change.

As the polls closed on the night of November 2nd, 2004, and the tabulation began of 122 million votes, the numbers remained close in Ohio and four other states. But by the next morning, it became clear that President Bush had been re-elected. By a margin of more than three million popular votes and thirty-five electoral votes, the country had decided to give the incumbent four more years. John Kerry conceded at 11:00 am Eastern Standard Time.

On the day after the election, the St. Petersburg Times reprinted the results of an Associated Press exit poll. The poll, contrary to those taken during the campaign showed the economy and jobs leading terrorism as the most important issues of the election. But what was no surprise was that terrorism turned out to be a Republican stronghold in the minds of the voters. Among voters with whom terrorism ranked highest, Bush won 85% of the vote. In states that noted national security as their highest priority, Bush won 84% of the vote. A majority of swing state voters listed “strong leadership” and “clear stands on issues” as important qualities in a candidate–two qualities Kerry had trouble exhibiting.[40]

This was an election of actions as much as words, and the populace knew that Bush had taken action against terrorism. Kerry was forced to rely on potentially empty campaign promises. The Senator faced the problem of every candidate challenging an incumbent–the gap of political stature and experience. Kerry was unable to convince Americans that the situation had gone sour abroad. Consequently, the majority found themselves asking, “Why change horses mid-race?”

Kerry had voted against the $87 billion Iraq reconstruction funding bill, criticized a wartime President, and had argued Americans should submit to a global test before charging into war. The populace was not ready to admit that the war in Iraq–a war their neighbors, relatives, and friends were still actively engaged in–was a mistake. Under the weight of Bush’s ebullient optimism, Kerry appeared as a nitpicking naysayer. His words and his past–along with the magnanimous help of the Bush re-election campaign–painted him as a confusing flip-flopper riddled with nuance and subtlety, and he was forced to spend a good deal of time on the defensive as a self-apologist. For all his ifs, buts, errata and addenda, Kerry was unable to communicate a coherent, consistent front to the people.

Endnotes
[1] Wilgoren, Jodi, and Elisabeth Bumiller. "A Blistering Attack by Bush, a Long Indictment by Kerry." The New York Times 21 Oct. 2004.

[2] "United States Presidential Election, 2004 Timeline." Wikipedia. 15 Feb. 2006. 19 Feb. 2006 .

[3] Ibid.

[4] Rosenbaum, David E., and Sanger E. David. "Democratic Platform Focuses on National Security." The New York Times 4 July 2004.

[5] "2004 Republican National Convention." Wikipedia. 15 Mar. 2006. 24 Mar. 2006 .

[6] Richard, Stevenson W., and David M. Halbfinger. "Bush and Kerry Step Up Attacks in Swing States." The New York Times 11 Sept. 2004.

[7] "Backlash Swift on 9/11 Images in Bush Ads." Compiled from Times Wires. The St. Petersburg Times 5 Mar. 2004.

[8] Smith, Adam C. "Votes Split on Bush, Kerry." The St. Petersburg Times 30 Aug. 2004. sec. A: 1.

[9] "2003 Invasion of Iraq." Wikipedia. 24 Mar. 2006. 24 Mar. 2006 .

[10] Sanger, David E., and David M. Halbfinger. "Cheney Warns of Terror Risk If Kerry Wins." The New York Times 8 Sept. 2004.

[11] Ibid. 2003 Invasion of Iraq.

[12] “The First Bush-Kerry Presidential Debate.” Transcript. University of Miami. Coral Gables, Fl. 30 Sep. 2004.

[13] Buchanon, Todd. "Senator Kerry's Fateful Vote on Iraq." The New York Times 13 Aug. 2004. sec. A: 20.

[14] Ibid. “The Second Bush-Kerry Presidential Debate.”

[15] Ibid. “The Second Bush-Kerry Presidential Debate.”

[16] Ibid. “Bush Hits Back At Kerry Charge Over Explosives.”

[17] “The Second Bush-Kerry Presidential Debate.” Transcript. Washington University. St. Louis, Mo. 8 Oct. 2004.

[18] Sanger, David E. "What Can and Can't Be Done About North Korea and Iran." The New York Times 26 Sept. 2004. sec. 4: 3.

[19] Ibid. “Kerry Says Bush Has Ignored North Korea Threat.”

[20] Ibid. “The First Bush-Kerry Presidential Debate.”

[21] Bumiller, Elisabeth. "In Address to Guard, Kerry Says Bush Isn't Telling Truth on Iraq." The New York Times 17 Sept. 2004. 1-18.

[22] Ibid. “The First Bush-Kerry Presidential Debate.”

[23] “The Third Bush-Kerry Presidential Debate.” Transcript. Arizona State University. Tempe, Az. 13 Oct. 2004.

[24] Ibid.

[25] Halbfinger, David M. "Bush Promotes His Plan for Missile Defense System." The New York Times 18 Aug. 2004. 18.

[26] Ibid.

[27] Ibid. “The First Bush-Kerry Presidential Debate.”

[28] Ibid. “Senator Kerry’s Fateful Vote On Iraq.”

[29] Ibid. “The First Bush-Kerry Presidential Debate.”

[30] Ibid. “The Second Bush-Kerry Presidential Debate.”

[31] Nagourney, Adam, and Jodi Wilgoren. "Kerry Questions Bush Attendance in Guard in 70's." The New York Times 27 Aug. 2004. sec. A: 1.

[32] Ibid. “The First Bush-Kerry Presidential Debate.”

[33] Ibid. “The Third Bush-Kerry Presidential Debate.”

[34] "George W. Bush's First Term as President of the United States." Wikipedia. 8 Mar. 2006. 25 Mar. 2006 

[35] Wilgoren, Jodi. "Kerry Ties Prisoner Abuse to Bush Handling of War." The New York Times 15 May 2004. sec. A: 13.

[36] Wilgoren, Jodi. "G.O.P. Draws Criticism From Kerry on Arms Ban." The New York Times 11 Sept. 2004. sec. A: 13.

[37] "Bush: WMD Not the Issue." Compiled from Wire Reports. The St. Petersburg Times 8 Oct. 2004. sec. A: 13.

[38] Nagourney, Adam. "Tape Delivers Political Jolt to Campaigns in Final Days." The New York Times 31 Oct. 2004. 28.

[39] Ibid.

[40] "How Did Bush Win?" Associated Press. The St. Petersburg Times 3 Nov. 2004.