According to an estimate, around fifty five million Americans, and probably more people than these Americans in the rest of the world, watched and heard the first US 2004 presidential debate between President George W. Bush Jr., and his opponent, Sen. John Kerry.
Who won this debate? Answer to this question depends on how you look at the two candidates and what prejudices you have on your mind! Those suffering from an “Islamophobia” side with Republicans for now, while those who are more inclined to believe that the truth has been sacrificed by the current administration in launching an all-out war in places like Afghanistan and Iraq tend to side with Democrats.
In a CNN online poll over 70 people have voted for Kerry as the winner in the first presidential debate. Thus, the “Long Jaw”, John Kerry, is once again a horse to bet on in the Nov. 2, 2004 elections.
Since 1960s, these presidential debates have become an institution of their own in the US political system. In a civilized and highly developed society such debates are the hallmark of the best practices in a democratic political system that is worth studying and following by rest of the world.
In the Thursday debate Bush was seen to be on the defensive, stammering, searching for right words, and showing his disappointment over some of the responses from his opponent. In this “Truth or Dare” game, he had to repeatedly choose “Dare”, instead of saying a truth about the challenges posed to him. As many of us know, the “Truth or Dare” game is also a Western pastime, where kids gather, generally overnight, and throw embarrassing questions at their associates. In response, either a truthful answer is to be given or the contestant chooses to perform a “dare”, which is mostly an equally embarrassing action. In the first debate, Bush had to consistently avoid the “truth”, and go for “dares”, providing an opportunity for a hearty laughter to his opponents.
As expected, Iraq remained a focal point. Having no concrete reasons to attack Iraq, he had to explain it as an action to secure the USA and Israel. He was clearly targeting the Jewish-controlled media, and the Jewish voters by carefully including Israel in this debate. But it also painfully revealed the hidden objectives of the war: Securing Israel, using the Sept.11 as a pretext, and weakening the Arab countries around Iraq — Syria and Iran being targeted as the next possible missions.
In a larger US perspective, even this foreign policy issues-based debate was basically driven by domestic concerns: About the safety of the US citizens, and US troops, caught in a quagmire in Iraq. There was no mention of over 100,000 Iraqis killed by the US/UK and allied bombings. The only worry voiced was about the 1,000+ US troops killed in action so far. Palestine, and Kashmir are forgotten. Darfur was mentioned in passing, as the oily interests continue to slip those thoughts!
For the rest of the world it is not important who wins the November race. US history shows that its national policies are practiced with a long-term consistency and no major change takes place whoever may be the winner.
Maximum surprises that can be expected are the kids stuff like what happened when Democrats left the White House four years ago, when they removed the keys, such as “B”, “G”, and “W”, from computer keyboards, so that the new president’s name cannot be easily processed, until new keyboards are supplied. So, if Democrats do win the next elections, there would be more changes on the domestic scene than on the world stage.
It is also because there are forces elsewhere within the US which influence how the White House is run. “Pentagonists”, the planners, movers and shakers at the Pentagon have their own agenda, and they ensure that US moves its forces around the world according to what they think is good for the world. It is as though they have a “SimCity” like “SimWorld” simulation game running on their computers, and are bent upon winning it whatever may be the costs to “others”. Americans do not mind carrying out any mission or operations that can kill many thousands of their perceived “enemies” as long as they can chalk out a clear exit strategy for themselves.
One must praise the American democratic system, which pits a sitting president against his opponents so publicly and so mercilessly that at times the most powerful man in the world looks so helpless and so vulnerable.
Bush is known for twisting his sentences, and often giving out an oxymoronic message. Still he has shown some of his eloquence during the Republican convention and during this debate too. He was able to avoid sending any mixed and paradoxical messages.
As for the positive lessons of the US presidential debates, the Third World political leaders, writers, teachers, and intellectuals should look at them as a medium of communications with their masses where truth cannot be hidden. And both George Bush and John Kerry must be praised for their grace, poise, and objectivity with which this debate was conducted.
The American people will soon have a tough choice to make: Either reject the lies and actions based on such lies, or continue to suffer more of the same fate to which their over 1,000 countrymen have succumbed to up to now. The opportunity for Americans to say the truth, and avoid a dare, is just around the corner.
— Hashim Syed Mohammad Bin Qasim is an Information and Communication Technology Consultant based in Riyadh. [email protected]
