- Jul 12, 2018
- 9,858
First 2000 Presidential Debate
Foreign Policy & International Affairs
Foreign Policy & International Affairs
On October 3rd, President Al Gore and Speaker of The House George W. Bush met at the University of Massachusetts in Boston for the first of two presidential debates. This first debate would cover topics of United States foreign policy and international affairs, while the second debate would cover domestic affairs of the United States. Those invited to the debates were an equal number of Republicans and Democrats, and also a limited number of students from the University of Massachusetts. The election between President Gore and Speaker Bush had so far included more negative campaigning than was normal in an American presidential campaign, nevertheless the candidates had mostly managed to avoid insulting each other's character. A stereotype of modern American politics is that Republicans are sterner in foreign policy and are better at leading the nation in times of war or international troubles, while Democrats are more sympathetic to the working man. These generalizations are not, of course, entirely accurate - especially for these two candidates.
The debate started at time at 8:00PM EST. Jim Lehrer, the primetime anchor of PBS NewsHour, was the first thing that over 70-million Americans saw on their screens. He would be the moderator that evening.
MODERATOR: Good evening from the Clark Athletic Center at the University of Massachusetts in Boston. I’m Jim Lehrer of the NewsHour on PBS, and I welcome you to the first of two debates between the Democratic candidate for president, President Al Gore and the Republican candidate, Speaker George W. Bush of Texas. The debates are sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates and they will be conducted within formats and rules agreed to between the commission and the two campaigns. We’ll have the candidates at podiums. No answer to a question can exceed two minutes. Rebuttal is limited to one minute. But as moderator I have the option to follow up and to extend any particular give and take another three-and-a-half minutes. Even then, no single answer can exceed two minutes. The candidates under their rules may not question each other directly. There will be no opening statements, but each candidate may have up to two minutes for a closing statement. The questions and the subjects were chosen by me alone - tonight we will entirely focus on foreign policy and international affairs. I have told no one from the two campaigns, or the Commission, or anyone else involved what they are. There is a small audience in the hall tonight. They are not here to participate, only to listen. I have asked, and they have agreed, to remain silent for the next 90 minutes. Except for right now, when they will applaud as we welcome the two candidates, Speaker Bush and President Gore.
GORE: Well, Jim, I would first like to thank the University of Massachusetts and the Commission on Presidential Debates for organizing this event. These debates are important for our republic and for the American people, and I appreciate the work that you all put into this event tonight. Now, Jim, I do not think I have ever said that Speaker Bush does not have the experience. What I have questioned, though, are some of his proposed policies. I know that tonight's debate is focused on foreign policy so I will stick to that - but I respectfully believe that Speaker Bush's proposals for how we work with our allies and partners around the world, and how we handle our adversaries, would not be productive. We are partners with our allies in Europe and our friends around the world. I first and foremost believe that we must do what is best for the American people, but that is normally accomplished working with our partners instead of giving them orders. I also believe in talking to our adversaries. During my administration we have been successful in thwarting conflict numerous times because we were able to come to an understanding with others or fix a misunderstanding.
MODERATOR: Speaker Bush, one minute rebuttal.
BUSH: Well, we do come from different places. I come from West Texas where I represent the 19th Congressional District. I was chosen by my pears to be Speaker of the United States House of Representatives and I have overseen the creation and passage of a number of laws. I have served in the military and I was a fighter pilot. I know what it is to lead men and I know what it is to represent the people. I have worked directly in the law-making process, and I have even reached across the aisle and worked with folks, like President Gore, to make sure that we can get effective legislation through Congress. I think you can really put a distinction between President Gore and I when you look at how we want the national budget to look. President Gore wants to spend money on railroads and windmills, which aren't necessarily bad, but I firmly believe we need a strong military to protective our nation and our interests around the world.
MODERATOR: So, Mister President, I take it by your answer that when you were quoted in a recent interview with the "Washington Post" you purely meant that you disagreed with Speaker Bush's policies, and not that he does not have the necessary experience to be President?
GORE: Yes, Jim. For example, I pointed out that Speaker Bush wants to cut taxes by five-percent, yet he also wants to build ten more aircraft carriers and the fleets to accompany them. I also believe that we need a strong military, and our armed forces have grown significantly under my administration. But we have to be fiscally responsible. More than that, we have to be realistic. I believe that we need to make investments in national, regional, and local rail networks because that kind of transportation is going to be important in the future. It was the transportation of our parents and grandparents until we got the federal highway system. It will be more efficient for our economy, safer for the environment, and more convenient for the American people - not only that, but it will be something that this generation, and the next ten can enjoy and build off of. I will also point out that we have built a new carrier under my administration, dozens of state-of-the-art destroyers, and many cutting-edge submarines. And we are building more! I want the best equipment for our sailors, soldiers, and airmen and I want them to have all that they need.
MODERATOR: Thank you, Mister President. We are going to-
BUSH: Let me just say - thank you, Jim. Let me just say that what President Gore and I are proposing are very different. He is looking for a gradual increase in the size of our armed forces. From what I can see, we have entered a period of global instability that cannot be ignored. We needed a powerful military yesterday, when the Clinton-Gore Administration was scaling down our armed forces. I understand that the situation was different just five years ago, but we need more foresight when it comes to national leadership. We can negotiate, and talk, and talk, and talk, and hope that someone is listening - or we can be strong and prepared to respond to threats around the world. If you choose to elect me as President of the United States, we will begin construction on two new aircraft carriers during my first month in office and we will reassess who our friends and enemies are around the world - because not everyone is our friend. It's that simple.
MODERATOR: Speaker Bush, this question is for you now. Do you think that it was right for the United States to go to war with Turkey, and do you think it was handled correctly by the government?
BUSH: I fully support our armed forces and valiant effort that they made in Turkey. Had it not been for our efforts, the war in Turkey would still be going on. I can definitively say that it was the right decision to go to war with Turkey. They didn't leave us much of a choice and they started a genocide on their own people. That is not and will never be acceptable. While our armed forces fought valiantly and we, eventually, did the right thing by going to war with Turkey, we should have acted sooner, and we should have punched harder. American ground troops saw very little action in Turkey. The Marines should have been marching on Istanbul in a month. Instead, what happened? The administration had to play diplomacy and appease the British, the Australians, the Israelis, the Swedish, and the Russians - the last two I just mentioned, by the way, are not even countries we should be trusting in military operations. We had the strength and ability to sink the Turkish navy, ground and destroy its air force, and invade the country all in two months - we could have and should have done this on our own and allowed the British and Australians to provide logistical support and perimeter defenses. We-
MODERATOR: I'm sorry Mister Speaker, but your time is up. President Gore, your one minute response.
GORE: With all due respect, that was neither fair nor accurate. The Turks had approximately two-hundred F-16s, and possibly more. They bought these from Sparrow Industries. We caught them trying to build even more and I directed the State Department to stop Sparrow from exporting more to Turkey. These aircraft, designed in America by Americans, were going to be used to kill American, British, and other allied servicemen. It was clear to me, and it was clear to the Pentagon, that we would need assistance from our partners in Europe. We had to crush the Turkish air force and we had to sink their navy. Yes, we could have done it alone, but at what cost? The war against Turkey saw no Americans killed - not one. How incredible is that? We had virtually the entire surface fleet of the Navy deployed in the North Atlantic or the Mediterranean Sea. Out of all of those soldiers, sailors, and airmen, we didn't lose a single one and we still got the job done. That's because we worked with the British, the Swedish, and the Russians in the Mediterranean. They each brought something to the table, we worked together, and they pulled their fair share.
MODERATOR: That's your time, Mister President.
BUSH: Jim- Jim look, I have to respond to that. The fact that we lost no lives in that war is thanks to our leaders in the Pentagon and our servicemen in the field. As fantastic as that is, it is beyond the point. We should not have to work with such large coalitions of countries, some of which I wouldn't even call our friends let alone our allies. The Russians are having a change in government every other year and the Swedes have a de facto colony in South Africa - has everyone forgotten about that? Swedish troops are still in South Africa, right now, oppressing the native people there in an illegal occupation. Why should we work with them, why should we trust them? And why are we allowing Sparrow Industries to export these aircraft and weapons all over the world? I can tell you that we shouldn't, and we have the means to stop it. Sparrow Industries is not a sovereign nation and they have as much blood on their hands as the Turks do.
MODERATOR: Alright gentlemen, I'm trying to keep to the rules here. We have surpassed three and a half minutes. Now... Yes, Mister President I will give you thirty seconds but then we are moving on to a new question. Thirty seconds.
GORE: Had we not formed an international coalition, we would still be fighting in Turkey, and thousands of American sailors and soldiers would be dead or seriously wounded. We did the right thing working with other countries, period. I partly agree with Speaker Bush in regard to Sparrow Industries. The international arms trade has gone too far and the world needs to take measures to regulate it. I will soon have the United States Ambassador to the Global Assembly present a resolution that restricts the sale of weapons to foreign countries that pose a threat to global peace, makes arms trades more transparent, and holds the nations that these companies work in responsible for regulating them.
MODERATOR: I just want to remind both of you that your campaigns agreed to these rules, so I am just trying to uphold them as the moderator. So we are moving on to the next question. Mister President, this is sort of a complimentary question to Speaker Bush's question. The United States Naval Institute published several articles that offered some criticism to our response in Turkey, as did the Navy - the Institute noted that we did not have the necessary ships in place to ferry fifty-thousand soldiers to Europe and also criticized the timing of our fleet movements in the Atlantic and Mediterranean. The Navy openly said that they didn't have all of the proper armaments for this war and that things would be done differently in the future. Do claim responsibility for these shortcomings?
GORE: I claim full responsibility for all shortcomings and mistakes made on our side in this war. With that being said, I think our armed forces did an excellent job in unfavorable circumstances. Did we learn from this war? Yes! I can tell you some recently declassified things. For one, I have restarted blue-water patrols by the American Navy. We now operate in international and friendly waters to protect our interests, work with our allies, and protect global security. When the war with Turkey was declared our fleet had just come home from one of these deployments. Our sailors were trained, had practiced, and were ready for anything. These blue water deployment will allow us to respond quicker to international threats in the future. In regard to armaments, I agree with the Secretary of the Navy and the Naval Institute. Our previous policy was from the Cold War. We were ready to give "shock and awe", but our ships would not always set sail with the diverse assortment of missiles and weapons necessary to fight a war by sea, air, and land strikes. I have changed that, and now when our fleets deploy, they are not just ready for threats on every front, but they are ready to strike back with unrelenting force.
MODERATOR: Speaker Bush, your one-minute rebuttal.
BUSH: If the Navy had the right cruise missiles and the right sea strike missiles, the Navy could have flattened Turkish defenses in a week, by ourselves. If you choose to elect me as President we will not just have a couple of blue water patrols by our Navy. We will have three to four new carriers during my first term, regular armed patrols, and we will keep a very close watch on our those around the world that wish our harm and want to break global harmony. What has kept the world glued together since the end of World War Two has been the might of the American military and our leadership - I will continue that.
MODERATOR: Speaker Bush, you have repeatedly been critical of the countries that the federal government has been working with under the Gore Administration - you mentioned the Russians and Swedes earlier. Who do you think we should be working with instead?
BUSH: Jim, I want to make it clear. I want us to be friends with as many other countries around the world as we can. I think our international partnerships are important, but they cannot come at the expense of American interests. The British and the Australians are natural allies. We have worked with Anglo nations for centuries. I criticize our relationship with the Russians and Swedes because of our historical relationship with those countries, and because of their unpredictability. Like I said, Russia has been through three different governments in the past three years - not to mention they had been our enemy since the 1950s. Now look at Sweden, who was neutral in World War Two, and suddenly abandoned neutrality and disarmament in favor of erratically threatening nations around the world, tripling the size of their military, and colonizing Antarctica and South Africa. At best we can be cordial with Russia and Sweden, but they can't be our allies.
MODERATOR: Mister President, your one-minute response.
GORE: Jim, I remember the Cold War. Everyone watching remembers the Cold War. The Russians have been over a bumpy road after the fall of communism, but now they are trying to work with the world. They want to be partners with us and to work with us. I am confident that we have moved from enemies to adversaries, and we are now shifting from adversaries to partners. The Soviet Union and the United States came close to destroying mankind with nuclear weapons several times. Now imagine what our countries can do if we work together as partners. We can help building bridges instead of bombs and we can focus on global issues instead of thinking up ways to kill each other. In some ways I hold the Swedes in the same camp. They have shown more recently that they are willing to set aside their differences for the better of the world. They have already fought alongside us, so I'm willing to work with them more.
MODERATOR: President Gore, do you still value America's relationship with Great Britain, and do you think the Australians could be a worthy ally?
GORE: The British are our closest allies - there is no other country in the world that we can trust more than them. The British say that we have a "Special Relationship" and I agree with that. These past two years the Australians have come to us and made it clear that they want to be partners and work alongside us. I firmly believe that the Australians would make a reliable friend who brings a lot to the table. The State Department is, at this time, exploring diplomatic options with their government. There are other countries we can work with, like the Canadians, the Vietnamese, and the Koreans. Vietnam and our government signed an agreement to recognize the sovereignty of each other and to have a working relationship. We need to move past the war we had and look to the future. I believe that there are bright times ahead of us, but we need to make sure that we are ready for a dark hour in the future.
MODERATOR: Speaker Bush?
BUSH: A modern world where the British and the United States do not have a close relationship is unthinkable. We should foster that relationship and allow the British to work with us in whatever way benefits us both. But, I think that we can't be beholden to them, or the Australians, or the Vietnamese, or the Canadians. We must be able to act decisively and, if necessary, alone for the better good of our country and the world.
MODERATOR: Speaker Bush, who is our greatest geopolitical threat?
BUSH: It's simple: the communists. Whether they are in Russia, China, Vietnam, or any other country in the world. Communist parties all around the world have murdered millions, and sometimes hundreds-of-millions, of their own people. Their ideology is not tolerant of dissenting opinions - they hate the rich, and they hate the middle class. They hate religion, they hate the differences between men and women, and they hate morality. Communism is an ideology so poisonous and evil that we should extinguish, or at least isolate, any place that it takes hold. Specifically, I believe that China will eventually be a great geopolitical threat in the near future, I think that the likelihood of Russia's government to collapse again is possible and would be very destabilizing for the world order, and I think that Sweden's recklessness and unaccountability makes them a dangerous wild card that we are getting too close with. I am also concerned with the instability in Mexico, but that does not compare to the others.
MODERATOR: Yes, we are actually about to get to Mexico. Mister President, your rebuttal?
GORE: There is no one state that is our greatest geopolitical threat. What threatens our world most is destabilizing events that bring multiple countries into a war. Geopolitical threats to our country are ones that we would have trouble responding to. As much as we would all like to be isolationist and just worry about the Western Hemisphere, or North America, that is not an option. We have a moral obligation to the world to maintain the global order. Consider that if there was a global failure of the wheat harvest, where 75% or more of the wheat grown world-wide could not be harvested, a billion people would starve to death within six months. We must strive to keep the peace so that trade can continue and we can settle our differences like civilized people when possible.
MODERATOR: That's your one minute, Mister President. Sir, Mexico has been having serious issues for some time now. They have had what has basically been a civil war between their sovereign government and drug cartels. How should can we help the Mexicans with this extreme instability in their country?
GORE: The State Department has been in communications with the Mexican government. The Mexican government is winning in the skirmishes and conflicts against the drug cartels and is putting down civil disorder. All indications seem to predict that they will have this problem solved by the middle of 2001. I have offered assistance to the Mexican government, and I have spoken to the governors of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California. We have to keep our border secure and we should also be prepared to offer Mexico whatever kind of aid it needs. The federal government is planning to export military equipment to Mexico - this will help bolster their military and bring a surplus of money into the national treasury. I have directed the Border Patrol and the FBI to keep the U.S.-Mexican border closed until this conflict resolved. We are doing what needs to be done to keep America safe, and we have offered the Mexican government assistance. Now it is just a waiting game for their government, their police, and their military to resolve this problem.
MODERATOR: Speaker Bush, one minute, what say you?
BUSH: Jim, I say that's not good enough. These drug cartels are not protestors or little local gangs that are causing some minor gun violence. They're armed paramilitary organizations that sell poison to Mexicans and Americans. And now they're trying to take over the country that they're in. This level of corruption - it's not even corruption, it's so much more than that. This level of barbarism and violence can't be ignored. If I were President, the National Guards of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California would be federalized right now and on the border with their full complement of military equipment. And, if the tide of the war against the cartels started to go down, I would ask Congress for permission to intervene in the conflict and restore law and order. This is not a time of inaction, especially on our southern border.
MODERATOR: Speaker Bush, just to be clear, you are saying that you would have our armed forces invade Mexico?
BUSH: I'm saying that if the cartels were winning, we would have no choice. The cartels are not sovereign, they have no right legal right to govern Mexico and they no mandate from the Mexican people. Moreover, Mexico is our southern border. What kind of joke would it be for the world's only superpower to have a state in anarchy to the south of it? I hope that it wouldn't come to that, but if it did my administration would work very closely with the legitimate Mexican government to return Mexico to her people. On top of that, though, we need to take drugs more seriously.
GORE: Jim, Jim- I have to respond to that, I do. The Mexican government, and their military, are winning in these battles against the cartels. It is true that this is a serious situation, but it does not require us to invade Mexico. We have just gotten ourselves out of one war, and I do not want to bring us into another. We are readily prepared to provide the Mexican government with whatever they need to help fight these cartels and we already are by selling them military equipment. Also, may I add, that my administration has taken drugs very seriously. The Department of Education supports anti-drug programs in schools around the country and we have allocated hundreds-of-millions to the southern border to make sure that drugs do not get through.
MODERATOR: Gentlemen, one last question and then we will go to closing statements. I request that you both forgo your rebuttals because we are running short on time. Starting with President Gore: What do you think America's role is in global affairs?
GORE: America's role in global affairs is to provide security for the American people, whoever and wherever they may be, to secure our strategic interests, to ensure the safety of ourselves and our allies, and to defend and lead the Free World. With the great power that we have comes great responsibility. We have a moral duty to stop evil when we can and to help those who are willing to help themselves. As President I have brought allies and adversaries to the negotiating table. We have worked out solutions that have prevented conflicts and we have helped make the world a better and safer place. We can keep doing this, and if you want to head in the right direction I humbly ask that you cast your vote for me for President.
MODERATOR: Speaker Bush, same question: What do you think America's role is in global affairs?
BUSH: America's role is simple: we must do everything we can to benefit the American people and our country. No other country comes before the United States, regardless of who they are or what they need. We should only be part of international organizations that help us, not those that pulls us down and slow down our ability to react to problems. We do not need a consensus of others, be they the world or just allies, to act. In our role we need to be more decisive and strong. I do not believe that we have done all that we should have to defend American interests around the world. To fulfill our role we need a stronger military and we need to be prepared to use it.
MODERATOR: On that note we will stop here and go to closing statements. Speaker Bush is first.
BUSH: Thanks, Jim. Thank you to the University of Massachusetts and Mister President, thank you. It has been a good, lively exchange. There is a huge difference of opinion. Mine is I want to empower people in their own lives. I also want to go to Washington to get some positive things done. It is going to require a new spirit. A spirit of cooperation. It will require the ability of a Republican president to reach out across the partisan divide and to say to Democrats, let’s come together to do what is right for America. I know that you, the American People, want to live in a country that is safe. You're busy enough with work, starting businesses, and raising families to worry about what is happening on the other side of the world. That's why I strongly support that we spend the money to have a powerful military - an armed force so powerful that no one around the world would dare interfere or offend us. And, when necessary, we shouldn't be afraid to step up and act so that we can handle problems when they are far away, otherwise they'll eventually make their way here. I'm hopeful that the beginning of this twenty-first century is going to productive and bring technological wonders that we never would have thought possible. I’ve had a strong record of working with Democrats and Republicans in Texas to make sure no child is left behind. I understand the limited role of the federal government, but it could be a constructive role when it comes to reform, by insisting that there be a strong accountability systems. My intentions are to earn your vote and earn your confidence. I’m asking for your vote. I want you to be on my team. And for those of you working, thanks from the bottom of my heart. For those of you making up your mind, I would be honored to have your support.
MODERATOR: And President Gore, your closing remarks.
GORE: Thank you Jim. I want to thank everybody who watched and listened tonight because this is indeed a crucial time in American history. We’re at a fork in the road. We have this incredible prosperity, but a lot of people have been left behind. And we have a very important decision to make. Considering that we are already spending record amounts on the military, and that this number will still be going up in my next term, do we still need to double that amount? Or, can we set aside a portion of that money and use it on Americans and their families? Can we use that money for the public good and build railroads, homes, and clean forms of power generation? While we need to do everything we can to defend America, we have many places in America that need to be refurbished and refined. We have old cities that need new life. We have the Arsenal of Democracy, otherwise known as Detroit, and New York City that need revitalization. We also need better roads and schools in rural America. We can make all of these things happen, but we need the money to do it - and we must do it without putting our future generations in debt. I have been a soldier, a journalist, a congressman, a senator, Vice President, and President of the United States. I have the experience and I know what it takes to lead our country in uncertain times like this. I want to keep America safe and, at the same time, I want our country to be the most prosperous in the world - not just for the few, but for the many. Jim, thank you for moderating. Speaker Bush, thank you for the lively discussion, and my fellow Americans, thank you for your time.
MODERATOR: We will continue this dialogue next week on October 11th at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. The format then will be more informal, more conversational with the two candidates seated at a table with me. Thank you, Speaker Bush, President Gore. See you next week. For now from Boston, I’m Jim Lehrer. Thank you, and good night.
Last edited:
