1ST RESPONSE (2 min):
"Will we ever be safe and secure again? Yes, we absolutely must be. That's the goal. Now, how do we achieve it is the most critical component of it. I believe that this President, regrettably, rushed us into a war, made decisions about foreign policy, pushed alliances away, and as a result, America is now bearing this extraordinary burden where we are not as safe as we ought to be.

The measurement is not, are we safer; the measurement is, are we as safe as we ought to be. And there are a host of options that this President had available to him, like making sure that at all our ports in America, containers are inspected. Only 95 percent of them -- 95 percent come in today uninspected. That's not good enough. People who fly on airplanes today -- the cargo hold is not X-rayed, but the baggage is. That's not good enough. Firehouses don't have enough firefighters in them. Police officers are being cut from the streets of America because the President decided to cut the COPS program.

So we can do a better job of homeland security. I can do a better job of waging a smarter, more effective war on terror, and guarantee that we go after the terrorists. I will hunt them down, and we'll kill them, we'll capture them. We'll do what's ever necessary to be safe. But I pledge this to you, America: I will do it in the way that Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan and John Kennedy and others did, where we build the strongest alliances, where the world joins together, where we have the best intelligence, and where we are able, ultimately, to be more safe and secure."

2ND RESPONSE (90 Sec):
"Yes, we can be safe and secure if we stay on the offense against the terrorists and if we spread freedom and liberty around the world. I have got a comprehensive strategy to not only chase down al Qaeda, wherever it exists -- and we're making progress; three-quarters of al Qaeda leaders have been brought to justice -- but to make sure that countries who harbor terrorists are held to account. As a result of securing ourselves and ridding the Taliban out of Afghanistan, the Afghan people had elections this weekend. And the first voter was a 19-year-old woman. Think about that. Freedom is on the march. We held to account a terrorist regime in Saddam Hussein.

In other words, in order to make sure we're secure, there must be a comprehensive plan. My opponent, just this weekend, talked about how terrorism could be reduced to a nuisance, comparing it to prostitution and illegal gambling. I think that attitude and that point of view is dangerous. I don't think you can secure America for the long run if you don't have a comprehensive view as to how to defeat these people.

At home, we'll do everything we can to protect the homeland. I signed the homeland security bill to better align our assets and resources. My opponent voted against it. We're doing everything we can to protect our borders and ports. But, absolutely, we can be secure in the long run. It just takes good, strong leadership."

1ST REBUT (30 Sec):
"When the President had an opportunity to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, he took his focus off of him, outsourced the job to Afghan warlords, and Osama bin Laden escaped. Six months after he said Osama bin Laden must be caught, dead or alive, this President was asked, where is Osama bin Laden? He said, I don't know, I don't really think about him very much, I'm not that concerned. We need a President who stays deadly focused on the real war on terror."

2ND REBUT (30 Sec):
"Gosh, I don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. That's kind of one of those exaggerations. Of course, we're worried about Osama bin Laden. We're on the hunt after Osama bin Laden. We're using every asset at our disposal to get Osama bin Laden.

My opponent said this war is a matter of intelligence and law enforcement. No, this is a -- war is a matter of using every asset at our disposal to keep the American people protected."

1ST RESPONSE (2 min):
"Well, I think the fact that they're facing these repeated call-ups, some of them two and three deployments, and there's a stop-loss policy that prevents people from being able to get out when their time was up, is a reflection of the bad judgment this President exercised in how he has engaged in the world and deployed our forces. Our military is overextended. Nine out of ten active duty Army divisions are either in Iraq, going to Iraq, or have come back from Iraq. One way or the other they're wrapped up in it.

Now, I've proposed adding two active duty divisions to the Armed Forces of the United States, one combat, one support. In addition, I'm going to double the number of special forces so that we can fight a more effective war on terror with less pressure on the National Guard and Reserve. And what I would like to do is see the National Guard and Reserve be deployed differently here in our own country. There's much we can do with them with respect to homeland security. We ought to be doing that. And that would relieve an enormous amount of pressure.

But the most important thing to relieve the pressure on all of our Armed Forces is, frankly, to run a foreign policy that recognizes that America is strongest when we are working with real alliances, when we are sharing the burdens of the world by working through our statesmanship at the highest levels, and our diplomacy to bring other nations to our side.

I've said it before, I say it again: I believe the President broke faith with the American people in the way that he took this nation to war. He said he would work through the -- a real alliance. He said in Cincinnati, we would plan carefully, we would take every precaution. Well, we didn't. And the result is our forces today are overextended. The fact is that he did not choose to go to war as a last resort. And America now is paying already $120 billion, up to $200 billion before we're finished, and much more, probably, and that is the result of this President taking his eye off of Osama bin Laden."

2ND RESPONSE (90 sec):
"The best way to take the pressure off our troops is to succeed in Iraq, is to train Iraqis so they can do the hard work of democracy, is to give them a chance to defend their country, which is precisely what we're doing. We'll have 125,000 troops trained by the end of this year.

I remember going on an airplane in Bangor, Maine to say thanks to the Reservists and Guard that were headed overseas from Tennessee and North Carolina, Georgia. Some of them had been there before. The people I talked to, the spirits were high. They didn't view their service as a back-door draft, they view their service as an opportunity to serve their country.

My opponent, the Senator talks about foreign policy. In our first debate he proposed America pass a global test. In order to defend ourselves we have to get international approval. That's one of the major differences we have about defending our country. I work with allies, I work with friends. We'll continue to build strong coalitions. But I will never turn over our national security decisions to leaders of other countries. We'll be resolute, we'll be strong, and we will wage a comprehensive war against the terrorists."

1ST REBUT (30 Sec):
"I have never suggested a test where we turn over our security to any nation. In fact, I've said the opposite. I will never turn the security of the United States over to any nation. No nation will ever have a veto over us. But I think it makes sense, I think most Americans in their guts know that we ought to pass a sort of truth standard. That's how you gain legitimacy with your own country people, and that's how you gain legitimacy in the world. But I will never fail to protect the United States of America."

2ND REBUT (30 Sec):
"In 1990, there was a vast coalition put together to run Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. The international community, the international world said this is the right thing to do. But when it came time to authorize the use of force on the Senate floor, my opponent voted against the use of force. Apparently, you can't pass any test under his vision of the world."

1ST RESPONSE (2 min):
"Cheryl, the President didn't find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, so he's really turned his campaign into a weapon of mass deception. And the result is that you've been bombarded with advertisements suggesting that I've changed a position on this or that or the other. Now, the three things they try to say I've changed position on are the Patriot Act -- I haven't; I support it. I just don't like the way John Ashcroft has applied it. And we're going to change a few things. The Chairman of the Republican Party thinks we ought to change a few things.

No Child Left Behind Act -- I voted for it; I support it; I support the goals. But the President has under-funded it by $28 billion. Right here in St. Louis, you've laid off 350 teachers. You're 150 -- excuse me, I think it's a little more -- about $100 million shy of what you ought to be under the No Child Left Behind Act to help your education system here. So I complain about that. I've argued that we should fully fund it. The President says I've changed my mind. I haven't changed my mind. I'm going to fully fund it.

So these are the differences. Now, the President has presided over the economy where we've lost 1.6 million jobs -- the first President in 72 years to lose jobs. I have a plan to put people back to work. That's not wishy-washy. I'm going to close the loopholes that actually encourage companies to go overseas. The President wants to keep them open. I think I'm right; I think he's wrong.

I'm going to give you a tax cut. The President gave -- the top one percent of income earners in America got $89 billion last year; more than the 80 percent of people who earn $100,000 or less all put together. I think that's wrong. That's not wishy-washy, and that's what I'm fighting for -- you."

2ND RESPONSE (90 sec):
"I can see why people at your workplace think he changes positions a lot, because he does. He said he voted for the $87 billion and -- or voted against it right before he voted for it. And that sends a confusing signal to people. He said he thought Saddam Hussein was a grave threat, and now said it was a mistake to remove Saddam Hussein from power. No, I can see why people think that he changes position quite often, because he does.

You know, for a while, he was a strong supporter of getting rid of Saddam Hussein. He saw the wisdom -- until the Democratic primary came along, and Howard Dean, the anti-war candidate, began to gain on him. And he changed positions. I don't see how you can lead this country in a time of war, in a time of uncertainty, if you change your mind because of politics.

He just brought up the tax cut. You remember, we increased that child credit by $1000; reduced the marriage penalty; created a 10-percent tax bracket for the lower income Americans -- that, right at the middle class. He voted against it. And yet he tells you he's for a middle-class tax cut. It's -- you've got to be consistent when you're the President. There's a lot of pressures, and you've got to be firm and consistent."

1ST RESPONSE (2 min):
"Each situation is different, Robin. And obviously, we hope that diplomacy works before you ever use force. The hardest decision a President makes is ever to use force.

After 9/11, we had to look at the world differently. After 9/11, we had to recognize that when we saw a threat, we must take it seriously before it comes to hurt us. In the old days, we'd see a threat, and we could deal with it if we felt like it, or not. But 9/11 changed it all.

I vowed to our countrymen that I would do everything I could to protect the American people. That's why we're bringing al Qaeda to justice. Seventy-five percent of them have been brought to justice. That's why I said to Afghanistan, if you harbor a terrorist, you're just as guilty as the terrorist. And the Taliban is no longer in power, and al Qaeda no longer has a place to plan.

And I saw a unique threat in Saddam Hussein, as did my opponent, because we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. And the unique threat was that he could give weapons of mass destruction to an organization like al Qaeda, and the harm they inflicted on us with airplanes would be multiplied greatly by weapons of mass destruction. And that was a serious, serious threat.

So I tried diplomacy. I went to the United Nations. But as we learned in the same report I quoted, Saddam Hussein was gaming the oil-for-food program to get rid of sanctions. He was trying to get rid of sanctions for a reason. He wanted to restart his weapons programs.

We all thought there was weapons there, Robin. My opponent thought there was weapons there. That's why he called him a grave threat. I wasn't happy when we found out there wasn't weapons, and we've got an intelligence group together to figure out why. But Saddam Hussein was a unique threat, and the world is better off without him in power. And my opponent's plans lead me to conclude that Saddam Hussein would still be in power and the world would be more dangerous.

2ND RESPONSE (90 sec):
"The world is more dangerous today. The world is more dangerous today because the President didn't make the right judgments. Now, the President wishes that I had changed my mind. He wants you to believe that, because he can't come here and tell you that he's created new jobs for America; he's lost jobs. He can't come here and tell you that he's created health care for Americans because -- what, we've got 5 million Americans who have lost their health care, 96,000 of them right here in Missouri. He can't come here and tell you that he's left no child behind because he didn't fund No Child Left Behind.

So what does he do? He's trying to attack me. He wants you to believe that I can't be President. And he's trying to make you believe it because he wants you to think I change my mind.

Well, let me tell you straight up, I've never changed my mind about Iraq. I do believe Saddam Hussein was a threat. I always believed he was a threat -- believed it in 1998 when Clinton was President. I wanted to give Clinton the power to use force if necessary. But I would have used that force wisely, I would have used that authority wisely, not rushed to war without a plan to win the peace. I would have brought our allies to our side. I would have fought to make certain our troops had everybody possible to help them win the mission.

This President rushed to war, pushed our allies aside, and Iran now is more dangerous, and so is North Korea with nuclear weapons. He took his eye off the ball, off of Osama bin Laden."

1ST REBUT (30 Sec):
"Remember the last debate, my opponent said that America must pass a global test before we use force to protect ourselves. That's the kind of mind-set that says sanctions were working. That's the kind of mind-set that says let's keep it at the United Nations and hope things go well.

Saddam Hussein was a threat because he could have given weapons of mass destruction to terrorist enemies. Sanctions were not working; the United Nations was not effective at removing Saddam Hussein."

2ND REBUT (30 Sec):
"The goal of the sanctions was not to remove Saddam Hussein; it was to remove the weapons of mass destruction. And, Mr. President, just yesterday, the Duelfer report told you and the whole world they worked. He didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Mr. President. That was the objective. And if we had used smart diplomacy, we could have saved $200 billion and an invasion of Iraq, and right now Osama bin Laden might be in jail, or dead. That's the war against terror."

1ST RESPONSE (2 min):
"I would not. I have laid out a different plan because the President's plan is not working. You see that every night on television. There's chaos in Iraq. King Abdullah of Jordan said just yesterday, or the day before, you can't hold elections in Iraq with the chaos that's going on today. Senator Richard Lugar, the Republican Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said that the handling of the reconstruction aid in Iraq by this administration has been "incompetent." Those are the Republican Chairman's words. Senator Hagel of Nebraska said that the handling of Iraq is "beyond pitiful, beyond embarrassing, it's in the zone of dangerous." Those are the words of two Republicans, respected, both on the Foreign Relations Committee.

Now, I have to tell you, I would do something different. I would reach out to our allies in a way that this President hasn't. He pushed them away, time and again. Pushed them away at the U.N., pushed them away individually. Two weeks ago, there was a meeting of the North Atlantic Council, which is the political arm of NATO. They discussed the possibility of a small training unit, or having a total takeover of the training in Iraq. Did our administration push for the total training of Iraq? No. Were they silent? Yes. Was there an effort to bring all the allies together around that? No. Because they've always wanted this to be an American effort. You know, they even had the Defense Department issue a memorandum saying, don't bother applying for assistance or for being part of the reconstruction if you weren't part of our original coalition.

Now, that's not a good way to build support and reduce the risk for our troops and make America safer. I'm going to get the training done for our troops, I'm going to get the training of Iraqis done faster, and I'm going to get our allies back to the table."

2ND RESPONSE (90 sec):
"Two days ago in the Oval Office, I met with the Finance Minister from Iraq. He came to see me. And he talked about how optimistic he was and the country was about heading toward elections. Think about it. They're going from tyranny to elections. He talked about the reconstruction efforts that are beginning to take hold. He talked about the fact that Iraqis love to be free. He said he was optimistic when he came here. Then he turned on the TV and listened to the political rhetoric and all of the sudden he was pessimistic.

This is a guy who, along with others, has taken great risk for freedom. And we need to stand with him. My opponent says he has a plan. Sounds familiar because it's called the Bush plan. We're going to train troops -- and we are. We'll have 125,000 trained by the end of December. We're spending about $7 billion.

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 to 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 somebody who says the war where we are is a mistake. I know how these people think. I meet with them all the time. I talk to Tony Blair all the time. I talk to Silvio Berlusconi -- they're not going to follow an American President who says, follow me into a mistake. Our plan is working. We're going to make elections and Iraq is going to be free, and America will be better off for it."

1ST REBUT (30 Sec):
"Ladies and gentlemen, the right war was Osama bin Laden and Afghanistan. That was the right place, and the right time was Tora Bora, when we had him cornered in the mountains. Now, everyone in the world knows that there were no weapons of mass destruction. That was the reason Congress gave him the authority to use force -- not after excuse to get rid of the regime.

Now we have to succeed. I've always said that. I have been consistent. Yes, we have to succeed, and I have a better plan to help us do it."

2ND REBUT (30 Sec):
"First of all, we didn't find out he didn't have weapons until we got there. And my opponent thought he had weapons and told everybody he thought he had weapons. And secondly, it's a fundamental misunderstanding to say that the war on terror is only Osama bin Laden. The war on terror is to make sure that these terrorist organizations do not end up with weapons of mass destruction. That's what the war on terror is about.

Of course, we're going to find Osama bin Laden. We've already got 75 percent of his people, and we're on the hunt for him. But this is a global conflict that requires firm resolve."

1ST RESPONSE (2 min):
"No, I appreciate that. Listen, I -- we've got a great country. I love our values. And I recognize I've made some decisions that have caused people to not understand the great values of our country. I remember when Ronald Reagan was the President. He stood on principle. Some might have called that stubborn. He stood on principle, standing up to the Soviet Union. And we won that conflict. Yet at the same time, he was very -- we were very unpopular in Europe because of decisions he made.

I recognize that taking Saddam Hussein out was unpopular. But I made the decision because I thought it was in the right interests of our security. You know, I made some decisions on Israel; that's unpopular. I wouldn't deal with Arafat because I felt like he had let the former President down, and I don't think he's the kind of person that can lead toward a Palestinian state. And people in Europe didn't like that decision. And that was unpopular, but it was the right thing to do. I believe Palestinians ought to have a state, but I know they need leadership that's committed to democracy and freedom; leadership that will be willing to reject terrorism.

I made a decision not to join the International Criminal Court in The Hague, which is where our troops could be brought to -- brought in front of a judge, an unaccounted judge. I don't think we ought to join that. That was unpopular. And so what I'm telling you is, is that sometimes in this world you make unpopular decisions because you think they're right.

We'll continue to reach out. Listen, there's 30 nations involved in Iraq, some 40 nations involved in Afghanistan. People love America. Sometimes they don't like the decisions made by America, but I don't think you want a President who tries to become popular and does the wrong thing. You don't want to join the International Criminal Court just because it's popular in certain capitals in Europe."

2ND RESPONSE (90 sec):
"Nicki, that's a question that's been raised by a lot of people around the country. Let me address it, but also talk about the weapons the President just talked about, because every part of the President's answer just now promises you more of the same over the next four years.

The President stood right here in this hall four years ago, and he was asked a question by somebody just like you, under what circumstances would you send people to war. And his answer was, with a viable exit strategy and only with enough forces to get the job done. He didn't do that; he broke that promise. We didn't have enough forces. General Shinseki, the Army Chief of Staff, told him he was going to need several hundred thousand. And guess what, they retired General Shinseki for telling him that. This President hasn't listened.

I went to meet with the members of the Security Council in the week before we voted. I went to New York. I talked to all of them to find out how serious they were about really holding Saddam Hussein accountable. I came away convinced that if we worked at it, if we were ready to work at letting Hans Blix do his job and thoroughly go through the inspections, that if push came to shove, they'd be there with us. But the President just arbitrarily brought the hammer down and said, nope, sorry, time for diplomacy is over, we're going. He rushed to war without a plan to win the peace. Ladies and gentlemen, he gave you a speech and told you he'd plan carefully, take every precaution, take our allies with us. He didn't. He broke his word."

1ST REBUT (30 Sec):
"I remember sitting in the White House, looking at those generals, saying, do you have what you need in this war? Do you have what it takes? I remember going down in the basement of the White House the day we committed our troops -- as last resort -- looking at Tommy Franks and the generals on the ground, asking them, do we have the right plan with the right troop level? And they looked me in the eye and said, yes, sir, Mr. President. Of course, I listened to our generals. That's what a President does. A President sets the strategy and relies upon good military people to execute that strategy."

2ND REBUT (30 Sec):
"You rely on good military people to execute the military component of the strategy, but winning the peace is larger than just the military component. General Shinseki had the wisdom to say you're going to need several hundred thousand troops to win the peace. The military's job is to win the war. The President's job is to win the peace. The President did not do what was necessary -- didn't bring in enough nations, didn't deliver the help, didn't close off the borders, didn't even guard the ammo dumps. And now our kids are being killed with ammos right out of that dump."

1ST RESPONSE (2 min):
"I don't think you can just rely on U.N. sanctions, Randy, but you're absolutely correct, it is a threat -- it's a huge threat. And what's interesting is it's a threat that has grown while the President has been preoccupied with Iraq where there wasn't a threat. If he'd let the inspectors do their job and go on, we wouldn't have ten times the numbers of forces in Iraq that we have in Afghanistan chasing Osama bin Laden.

Meanwhile, while Iran is moving towards nuclear weapons, some 37 tons of what they call yellow cake -- the stuff they use to make enriched uranium -- while they're doing that, North Korea has moved from one bomb, maybe -- maybe -- to four to seven bombs.

For two years the President didn't even engage with North Korea -- did nothing at all, while it was growing more dangerous, despite the warnings of people like former Secretary of Defense William Perry, who negotiated getting television cameras and inspectors into that reactor. We were safer before President Bush came to office. Now, they have the bombs and we're less safe.

So what do we do? We've got to join with the British and the French, with the Germans who've been involved in their initiative -- we've got to lead the world now to crack down on proliferation as a whole. But the President has been slow to do that even in Russia. At his pace, it's going to take 13 years to reduce and get a hold of all the loose nuclear material in the former Soviet Union. I proposed a plan that can capture it and contain it and clean it within four years.

And the President is moving toward the creation of our own bunker-busting, nuclear weapon. It's very hard to get other countries to give up their weapons when you're busy developing a new one. I'm going to lead the world in the greatest counter-proliferation effort. And if we have to get tough with Iran, believe me, we will get tough."

2ND RESPONSE (90 sec):
"That answer almost made me want to scowl. He keeps talking about letting the inspectors do their job -- it's naive and dangerous to say that. That's what the Duelfer report showed. He was deceiving the inspectors.

Secondly, of course, we've been involved with Iran. I fully understand the threat. And that's why we're doing what he suggested we do -- get the Brits, the Germans and the French to go make it very clear to the Iranians that if they expect to be a party to the world, to give up their nuclear ambitions. We've been doing that.

Let me talk about North Korea. It is naive and dangerous to take a policy that he suggested the other day -- which is to have bilateral relations with North Korea. Remember, he is the person who is 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. That's what President Clinton did. He had bilateral talks with the North Korean, and guess what happened? He didn't honor the agreement. He was enriching uranium. That is a bad policy.

Of course, we're paying attention to these. That's a great question about Iran. That's why, in my speech to the Congress, I said there is an axis of evil, Iran, Iraq and North Korea, and we're paying attention to it, and we're making progress."

1ST RESPONSE (2 min):
"I hear there's rumors on the Internets that we're going to have a draft. We're not going to have a draft, period. The all-volunteer Army works. It works particularly when we pay our troops well. It works when we make sure they've got housing, like we have done in the last military budgets. An all-volunteer Army is best suited to fight the new wars of the 21st century, which is to be specialized and to find these people as they hide around the world. We don't need mass armies anymore.

One of the things we've done is we've taken the -- we're beginning to transform our military. And by that I mean we're moving troops out of Korea and replacing them with more effective weapons. We don't need as much manpower on the Korean Peninsula to keep a deterrent.

In Europe, we have massed troops as if the Soviet Union existed and was going to invade into Europe. But those days are over with. And so we're moving troops out of Europe, and replacing it with more effective equipment.

So the answer to your question is, we're withdrawing -- not from the world; we're drawing manpower, so they can be stationed here in America, so there's less rotation, so life is easier on their families and, therefore, more likely to be -- we'll be more likely to keep people in the all-volunteer Army.

One of the most important things we're doing in this administration is transformation. There's some really interesting technologies. For example, we're flying unmanned vehicles that can send real-time messages back to stations in the United States. That saves manpower and it saves equipment. It also means that we can target things easier and move more quickly, which means we need to be lighter and quicker and more facile and highly trained.

Forget all this talk about a draft. We're not going to have a draft so long as I'm the President."

2ND RESPONSE (90 sec):
"Daniel, I don't support a draft. But let me tell you where the President's policies have put us. The President -- and this is one of the reasons why I'm very proud in this race to have the support of General John Shalikashvili, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Admiral William Crowe, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; General Tony McPeak, who ran the air war for the President's father and did a brilliant job -- supporting me; General Wes Clark, who won the war in Kosovo -- supporting me -- because they all -- and General Baca, who was the head National Guard -- supporting me. Why? Because they understand that our military is over-extended under this President.

Our Guard and Reserves have been turned into almost active duty. You've got people doing three rotations. You've got stop-loss policies so people can't get out when they were supposed to. You've got a backdoor draft right now. And a lot of our military are underpaid. These are families that get hurt. It hurts the middle class, it hurts communities, because these are our first responders, and they're called up and they're over there, not over here.

Now, I'm going to add 40,000 active duty forces to the military. And I'm going to make people feel good about being safe in our military, and not over-extended because I'm going to run a foreign policy that actually does what President Reagan did and President Eisenhower did, and others. We're going to build alliances; we're not going to go unilaterally, we're not going to go alone like this President did."

1ST REBUT (30 Sec):
"You tell Tony Blair we're going alone. Tell Tony Blair we're going on. Tell Silvio Berlusconi we're going alone. Tell Aleksander Kwasniewski of Poland we're going alone. We've got 30 countries there. It denigrates an alliance to say we're going alone, to discount their sacrifices. You cannot lead an alliance if you say, you're going alone. And people listen. They're sacrificing with us."

2ND REBUT (30 Sec):
"Mr. President, countries are leaving the coalition, not joining. Eight countries have left it. If Missouri, just given the number of people from Missouri who are in the military over there today, were a country, it would be the third largest country in the coalition, behind Great Britain and the United States. That's not a grand coalition. Ninety percent of the casualties are American. Ninety percent of the costs are coming out of your pockets. I could do a better job. My plan does a better job, and that's why I'll be a better Commander-in-Chief."

1ST RESPONSE (2 min):
"Right. Thank you for that. We have a deficit. We have a deficit because this country went into a recession. You might remember the stock market started to decline dramatically six months before I came to office, and then the bubble of the 1990s popped. And that cost us revenue. That cost us revenue.

Secondly, we're at war. And I'm going to spend what it takes to win the war -- more than just $120 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan. We've got to pay our troops more -- we have. We've increased money for ammunition and weapons and pay and homeland security. I just told this lady over here we spent -- went from $10 billion to $30 billion to protect the homeland. I think we have an obligation to spend that kind of money.

Plus, we cut taxes for everybody. Everybody got tax relief -- so they get out of the recession. I think if you raise taxes during a recession, you head to depression. I come from the school of thought that says when people have more money in their pocket during tough economic times, it increases demand or investment. Small businesses begin to grow and jobs are added. We found out today that over the past 13 months, we've added 1.9 million new jobs in the last 13 months. I proposed a plan, detailed budget, that shows us cutting the deficit in half by five years.

And you're right, I haven't vetoed any spending bills because we work together. Non-homeland, non-defense, discretionary spending was at 15 percent a year when I got into office. And today it's less than one percent, because we're working together to try to bring this deficit under control. Like you, I'm concerned about the deficit. But I am not going to short-change our troops in harm's way. And I'm not going to run up taxes which will cost this economy jobs."

2ND RESPONSE (90 sec):
"Let me begin by saying that my health care plan is not what the President described. It is not a government take-over. You have choice. Choose your doctor, choose your plan. The government has nothing to do with it. In fact, it doesn't ask you to do anything -- if you don't want to take it, you don't have to. If you like your high premiums, you keep them. That's the way we leave it.

Now, with respect to the deficit, the President was handed a $5.6 trillion surplus, ladies and gentlemen. That's where he was when he came into office. We now have a $2.6 trillion deficit. This is the biggest turnaround in the history of the country. He's the first President in 72 years to lose jobs. He talked about war. This is the first time the United States of America has ever had a tax cut when we're at war. Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, others knew how to lead. They knew how to ask the American people for the right things.

One percent of America -- the highest one percent of income earners in America got $89 billion of tax cut last year. One percent of America got more than the 80 percent of America that earned from $100,000 down. The President thinks it's more important to fight for that top one percent, than to fight for fiscal responsibility and to fight for you.

I want to put money in your pocket. I am -- I have a proposal for a tax cut for all people earning less than the $200,000. The only people affected in my plan are the top income earners of America."

1ST RESPONSE (2 min):
"I have made a lot of decisions -- some of them little, like appointments to board you've never heard of, and some of them big. And in a war, there's a lot of tactical decisions that historians will look back and say, you shouldn't have done that, you shouldn't have made that decision. And I'll take responsibility for them. I'm human.

But on the big questions about whether or not we should have gone into Afghanistan, the big question about whether we should have removed somebody in Iraq, I'll stand by those decisions because I think they're right. That's really what you're -- when they ask about the mistakes, that's what they're talking about. They're trying to say, did you make a mistake going into Iraq? And the answer is absolutely not. It's the right decision.

The Duelfer report confirmed that decision today, because what Saddam Hussein was doing was trying to get rid of sanctions so he could reconstitute a weapons program, and the biggest threat facing America is terrorists with weapons of mass destruction. We knew he hated us. We knew he had been a -- invaded other countries. We knew he tortured his own people.

On the tax cut, it's a big decision. I did the right decision. Our recession was one of the shallowest in modern history. Now, you ask what mistakes -- I made some mistakes in appointing people, but I'm not going to name them. I don't want to hurt their feelings on national TV. But history will look back, and I'm fully prepared to accept any mistakes that history judges to my administration. Because the President makes the decisions, the President has to take the responsibility."

2ND RESPONSE (90 sec):
"I believe the President made a huge mistake, a catastrophic mistake not to live up to his own standard, which was build a true global coalition, give the inspectors time to finish their job and go through the U.N. process to its end, and go to war as a last resort.

I ask each of you just to look into your hearts, look into your guts, gut-check time. Was this really going to war as a last resort? The President rushed our nation to war without a plan to win the peace. And simple things weren't done. That's why Senator Lugar says "incompetent" in the delivery of services. That's why Senator Hagel, Republican, says, beyond pitiful, beyond embarrassing, in the zone of dangerous.

We didn't guard 850,000 tons of ammo. That ammo is now being used against our kids. Ten thousand out of 12,000 humvees aren't armored. I've visited some of those kids with no limbs today because they didn't have the armor on those vehicles. They didn't have the right body armor. I've met parents who've, on the Internet, gotten the armor to send their kids.

There's no bigger judgment for a President of the United States than how you take a nation to war. And you can't say, because Saddam might have done it ten years from now, that's a reason; that's an excuse."

1ST REBUT (30 Sec):
"He complains about the fact our troops don't have adequate equipment, yet he voted against the $87 billion supplemental I sent to the Congress, and then issued one of the most amazing quotes in political history: 'I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.'

Saddam Hussein was a risk to our country, ma'am. And he was a risk that -- and this is where we just have a difference of opinion. The truth of the matter is, if you listen carefully, Saddam would still be in power if he were the President of the United States, and the world would be a lot better off. [sic]"

2ND REBUT (30 Sec):
"Not necessarily be in power, but here's what I'll say about the $87 billion. I made a mistake in the way I talked about it; he made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is a worse decision?

Now, I voted the way I voted because I saw that he had the policy wrong, and I wanted accountability. I didn't want to give a slush fund to Halliburton. I also thought the wealthiest people in America ought to pay for it, ladies and gentlemen. He wants your kids to pay for it. I wanted us to pay for it, since we're at war. I don't think that's a bad decision."

Sources: Debate Transcripts taken from Whitehouse.Gov website

1ST RESPONSE (2 min):
"Yes, I do. But before I answer further, let me thank you for moderating. I want to thank the University of Miami for hosting us. And I know the President will join me in welcoming all of Florida to this debate. You've been through the roughest weeks anybody could imagine. Our hearts go out to you, and we admire your pluck and perseverance.

I can make America safer than President Bush has made us. And I believe President Bush and I both love our country equally, but we just have a different set of convictions about how you make America safe. I believe America is safest and strongest when we are leading the world and when we are leading strong alliances.

I'll never give a veto to any country over our security, but I also know how to lead those alliances. This President has left them in shatters across the globe. And we're now 90 percent of the casualties in Iraq, and 90 percent of the costs. I think that's wrong, and I think we can do better.

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, strengthening our intelligence; by going after the financing more authoritatively; by doing what we need to do to rebuild the alliances; by reaching out to the Muslim world, which the President has almost not done; and beginning to isolate the radical Islamic Muslims, not have them isolate the United States of America.

I know I can do a better job in Iraq, where I have a plan to have a summit with all of the allies, something this President has not yet achieved, not yet been able to do to bring people to the table. We can do a better job of training the Iraqi forces to defend themselves. And I know that we can do a better job of preparing for elections. All of these, and especially homeland security, which we'll talk about a little bit later."

2ND RESPONSE (90 sec):
"September the 11th changed how America must look at the world. And since that day our nation has been on a multi-pronged strategy to keep our country safer. We've pursued Al Qaeda wherever Al Qaeda tries to hide; 75 percent of known Al Qaeda leaders have been brought to justice. The rest of them know we're after them.

We've upheld the doctrine that said, if you harbor a terrorist, you're equally as guilty as the terrorist. And the Taliban, no longer in power; 10 million people have registered to vote in Afghanistan in the upcoming presidential election.

In Iraq, we saw a threat and we realized that after September the 11th, we must take threats seriously before they fully materialize. Saddam Hussein now sits in a prison cell; America and the world are safer for it.

We continue to pursue our policy of disrupting those who proliferate weapons of mass destruction. Libya has disarmed. The A.Q. Khan network has been brought to justice. And, as well, we're pursuing a strategy of -- of freedom around the world, because I understand free nations will reject terror; free nations will answer the hopes and aspirations of their people; free nations will help us achieve the peace we all want."

1ST RESPONSE (2 min):
"I don't believe it's going to happen. I believe I'm going to win because the American people know I know how to lead. I've shown the American people I know how to lead. I have -- I understand everybody in this country doesn't agree with the decisions I made. And I made some tough decisions. But people know where I stand. People out there listening know what I believe, and that's how best it is to keep the peace.

This nation of ours has got a solemn duty to defeat this ideology of hate, and that's what they are. This is a group of killers who will not only kill here, but kill children in Russia; that will attack unmercifully in Iraq hoping to shape our will. We have a duty to defeat this enemy. We have a duty to protect our children and grandchildren. The best way to defeat them is to never waver, to be strong, to use every asset at our disposal, is to constantly stay on the offensive, and at the same time, spread liberty.

And that's what people are seeing now is happening in Afghanistan. Ten million citizens have registered to vote. It's a phenomenal statistic, that if given a chance to be free, they will show up at the polls. Forty-one percent of those 10 million are women.

In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. You know why? Because an enemy realizes the stakes. The enemy understands a free Iraq will be a major defeat in their ideology of hatred. That's why they're fighting so vociferously. They showed up in Afghanistan when they were there because they tried to beat us, and they didn't. And they're showing in Iraq for the same reason. They're trying to defeat us. And if we lose our will, we lose. But if we remain strong and resolute, we will defeat this enemy."

2ND RESPONSE (90 sec):
"I believe in being strong and resolute and determined. And I will hunt down and kill the terrorists, wherever they are. But we also have to be smart, Jim. And smart means not diverting your attention from the real war on terror in Afghanistan against Osama bin Laden and taking it off to Iraq, where the 9/11 Commission confirms there was no connection to 9/11, itself, and Saddam Hussein, and where the reason for going to war was weapons of mass destruction -- not the removal of Saddam Hussein.

This President has made, I regret to say, a colossal error of judgment. And judgment is what we look for in the President of the United States of America.

I'm proud that important military figures are supporting me in this race: Former Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, John Shalikashvili. Just yesterday, General Eisenhower's son, General John Eisenhower, endorsed me. General -- Admiral William Crowe; General Tony McPeak, who ran the Air Force war so effectively for his father, all believe I would make a stronger Commander-in-Chief. And they believe it because they know I would not take my eye off of 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 that he outsourced that job to. That's wrong."

1ST RESPONSE (2 min):
"First of all, he made the misjudgment of saying to America that he was going to build a true alliance; that he would exhaust the remedies of the United Nations and go through the inspections. In fact, he first didn't even want to do that. And it wasn't until former Secretary of State Jim Baker and General Scowcroft and others pushed publicly and said, you've got to go to the U.N., that the President finally changed his mind -- his campaign has a word for that -- and went to the United Nations.

Now, once there, we could have continued those inspections. We had Saddam Hussein trapped. He also promised America that he would go to war as a last resort. Those words mean something to me as somebody who has been in combat. Last resort. You've got to be able to look in the eyes of families and say to those parents: I tried to do everything in my power to prevent the loss of your son and daughter. I don't believe the United States did that. And we pushed our allies aside.

And so, today, we are 90 percent of the casualties and 90 percent of the cost -- $200 billion, $200 billion that could have been used for health care, for schools, for construction, for prescription drugs for seniors, and it's in Iraq. And Iraq is not even the center of the focus of the war on terror. The center is Afghanistan where, incidentally, there were more Americans killed last year than the year before; where the opium production is 75 percent of the worlds opium production; where 40 to 60 percent of the economy of Afghanistan is based on opium; where the elections have been postponed three times. The President moved the troops, so he's got 10 times the number of troops in Iraq than he has in Afghanistan, where Osama bin Laden is. Does that mean that Saddam Hussein was 10 times more important than Osama bin Laden -- excuse me -- Saddam Hussein more important than Osama bin Laden? I don't think so."

2ND RESPONSE (90 sec):
"My opponent looked at the same intelligence I looked at, and declared, in 2002, that Saddam Hussein was a grave threat. He also said in December of 2003 that anyone who doubts that the world is safer without Saddam Hussein does not have the judgment to be President. I agree with him. The world is better off without Saddam Hussein.

I was hoping diplomacy would work. I understand the serious consequences of committing our troops into harm's way. It's the hardest decision a President makes. So I went to the United Nations. I didn't need anybody to tell me to go to the United Nations, I decided to go there myself. And I went there hoping that, once and for all, the free world would act in concert to get Saddam Hussein to listen to our demands. They passed a resolution that said, disclose, disarm, or face serious consequences. I believe when an international body speaks, it must mean what it says.

Saddam Hussein had no intention of disarming. Why should he? He had 16 other resolutions and nothing took place. As a matter of fact -- my opponent talks about inspectors -- the facts are that he was systematically deceiving the inspectors. That wasn't going to work. That's kind of a pre-September 10th mentality, to hope that somehow resolutions and failed inspections would make this world a more peaceful place. He was hoping we'd turn away. But there's, fortunately, others besides myself who believe that we ought to take action, and we did. The world is safer without Saddam Hussein."

1ST RESPONSE (2 min):
"Jim, we've got the capability of doing both. As a matter of fact, this is a global effort. We're facing a -- a group of folks who have such hatred in their heart, they'll strike anywhere with any means. And that's why it's essential that we have strong alliances, and we do. That's why it's essential that we make sure that we keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of people like al Qaeda, which we are. But to say that there's only one focus on the war on terror doesn't really understand the nature of the war on terror.

Of course, we're after Saddam Hussein -- I mean, bin Laden. He's isolated. Seventy-five percent of his people have been brought to justice. The killer in -- the mastermind of the September the 11th attacks, Khalid Shaykh Muhammad, is in prison. We're making progress. But the front on this war is more than just one place.

The Philippines -- we've got help -- we're helping them there to bring -- to bring al Qaeda affiliates to justice there. And, of course, Iraq is a central part of the war on terror. That's why Zarqawi and his people are trying to fight us. Their hope is that we grow weary and we leave. The biggest disaster that could happen is that we not succeed in Iraq. We will succeed. We've got a plan to do so. And the main reason we'll succeed is because the Iraqis want to be free.

I had the honor of visiting with Prime Minister Allawi. He's a strong, courageous leader. He believes in the freedom of the Iraqi people. He doesn't want US leadership, however, to send mixed signals, to not stand with the Iraqi people. He believes, like I believe, that the Iraqis are ready to fight for their own freedom. They just need the help to be trained. There will be elections in January. We're spending reconstruction money. And our alliance is strong. That's the plan for victory. And when Iraq is free, America will be more secure."

2ND RESPONSE (90 sec):
" The President just talked about Iraq as a center of the war on terror. Iraq was not even close to the center of the war on terror before the President invaded it. The President made the judgment to divert forces from under General Tommy Franks from Afghanistan before the Congress even approved it, to begin to prepare to go to war in Iraq. And he rushed to war in Iraq without a plan to win the peace.

Now, that is not the judgment that a President of the United States ought to make. You don't take America to war unless you have a plan to win the peace. You don't send troops to war without the body armor that they need. I've met kids in Ohio, parents in Wisconsin, places, Iowa, where they're going out on the Internet to get the state of the art body gear to send to their kids -- some have got them for a birthday present. I think that's wrong. Humvees, 10,000 out of 12,000 humvees that are over there aren't armored. And you go visit some of those kids in the hospitals today who were maimed because they don't have the armament.

This President just -- I don't know if he sees what's really happened out there. But it's getting worse by the day. More soldiers killed in June than before; more in July than June; more in August than July; more in September than in August. And now we see beheadings. And we've got weapons of mass destruction crossing the border every single day, and they're blowing people up. And we don't have enough troops there."

1ST REBUT (30 Sec):
"First of all, what my opponent wants you to forget is that he voted to authorize the use of force, and now says it's the wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place. I don't see how you can lead this country to succeed in Iraq if you way "wrong war, wrong time, wrong place." What message does that send our troops? What message does that send our allies? What message does that send the Iraqis?

No, the way to win this is to be steadfast and resolved, and to follow through on the plan that I've just outlined."

2ND REBUT (30 Sec):
"Yes, we have to be steadfast and resolved, and I am. And I will succeed for those troops, now that we're there. We have to succeed. We can't leave a failed Iraq. But that doesn't mean it wasn't a mistake of judgment to go there and take the focus off of Osama bin Laden. It was. Now we can succeed, but I don't believe this President can. I think we need a President who has the credibility to bring the allies back to the table and to do what's necessary to make it so America isn't doing this alone."

1ST RESPONSE (2 min):
"Jim, let me tell you exactly what I'll do, and there are a long list of things. First of all, what kind of mixed message does it send when you've got $500 million going over to Iraq to put police officers in the streets of Iraq and the President is cutting the COPS program in America? What kind of message does it send to be sending money to open firehouses in Iraq, but we're shutting firehouses, who are the first responders, here in America?

The President hasn't put one nickel, not one nickel, into the effort to fix some of our tunnels and bridges and more exposed subway systems. That's why they had to close down the subway in New York when the Republican Convention was there. We hadn't done the work that ought to be done.

The President -- 95 percent of the containers that come into the ports, right here in Florida, are not inspected. Civilians get on to aircraft and their -- their luggage is X-rayed, but the cargo hold is not X-rayed. Does that make you feel safer in America?

This President thought it was more important to give the wealthiest people in America a tax cut rather than invest in homeland security. Those aren't my values. I believe in protecting America first. And long before President Bush and I get a tax cut -- and that's who gets it -- long before we do, I'm going to invest in homeland security, and I'm going to make sure we're not cutting COPS programs in America, and we're fully staffed in our firehouses, and that we protect the nuclear and chemical plants. The President also, unfortunately, gave in to the chemical industry, which didn't want to do some of the things necessary to strengthen our chemical plant exposure. And there's an enormous undone job to protect the loose nuclear materials in the world that are able to get to terrorists. That's a whole other subject.

But I see we still have a little bit more time, let me just quickly say, at the current pace the President will not secure the loose material in the Soviet Union -- former Soviet Union for 13 years. I'm going to do it in four years. And we're going to keep it out of the hands of terrorists."

2ND RESPONSE (90 sec):
"I don't think we want to get to how he's going to pay for all these promises. It's like a huge tax gap -- anyway, that's for another debate.

My administration has tripled the amount of money we're spending on homeland security, to $30 billion a year. My administration worked with the Congress to create the Department of Homeland Security so we could better coordinate our borders and ports. We got a thousand extra Border Patrol on the Southern border, more than a thousand on the Northern border. We're modernizing our borders. We spent $3.1 billion for fire and police -- $3.1 billion.

We're doing our duty to provide the funding. But the best way to protect this homeland is to stay on the offense. We have to be right 100 percent of the time, and the enemy only has to be right once -- to hurt us. There's a lot of good people working hard. And by the way, we've also changed the culture of the FBI to have counterterrorism as its number one priority. We're communicating better. We're going to reform our intelligence services to make sure that we get the best intelligence possible. The Patriot Act is vital -- it's vital that the Congress renew the Patriot Act, which enables our law enforcement to disrupt terror cells.

But again, I repeat to my fellow citizens, the best way to protect you is to stay on the offense."

1ST REBUT (30 Sec):
"The President just said the FBI had changed its culture. We just read on the front pages of America's papers that there are over 100,000 hours of tapes unlistened to. On one of those tapes may be the enemy being right the next time. And the test is not whether you're spending more money; the test is, are you doing everything possible to make America safe. We didn't need that tax cut. America needed to be safe."

2ND REBUT (30 Sec):
"Of course, we're doing everything we can to protect America. I wake up every day thinking about how best to protect America. That's my job. I work with Director Mueller of the FBI. He comes into my office when I'm in Washington every morning talking about how to protect us. There's a lot of really good people working hard to do so. It's hard work.

But again, I want to tell the American people, we're doing everything we can at home -- but you better have a President who chases these terrorists down and bring them to justice before they hurt us again."

1ST RESPONSE (2 min):
"Let me first tell you that the best way for Iraq to be safe and secure is for Iraqi citizens to be trained to do the job. And that's what we're doing. We got 100,000 trained now, 125,000 by the end of this year, over 200,000 by the end of next year. That is the best way. We'll never succeed in Iraq if the Iraqi citizens do not want to take matter in their own hands to protect themselves. I believe they want to. Prime Minister Allawi believes they want to.

And so the best indication about when we can bring our troops home, which I really want to do -- but I don't want to do so for the sake of bringing them home, I want to do so because we've achieved an objective -- is to see the Iraqis perform, is to see the Iraqis step up and take responsibility.

And so the answer to your question is, when our generals on the ground and Ambassador Negroponte tells me that Iraq is ready to defend herself from these terrorists, that elections will have been held by then, that there's stability and that they're on their way to -- you know, a nation of -- that's free. That's when. And I hope it's as soon as possible. But I know putting artificial deadlines won't work. My opponent, one time, said, well, get me elected, I'll have them out of there in six months. That's -- you can't do that and expect to win the war on terror.

My message to our troops is, thank you for what you're doing, we're standing with you strong, we'll give you all the equipment you need, and we'll get you home as soon as the mission is done -- because this is a vital mission. A free Iraq will be a ally in the war on terror. And that's essential. A free Iraq will set a powerful example in a part of the world that is desperate for freedom. A free Iraq will help secure Israel. A free Iraq will enforce the hopes and aspirations of the reformers in places like Iran. A free Iraq is essential for the security of this country."

2ND RESPONSE (90 sec):
"My message to the troops is, also, thank you for what they're doing, but it's also, help is on the way. I believe those troops deserve better than what they are getting today. You know, it's interesting, when I was in a rope line just the other day coming out here from Wisconsin, a couple of young returnees were in the line, one active duty, one from the Guard. And they both looked at me and said, we need you, you got to help us over there.

Now, I believe there's a better way to do this. You know, the President's father did not go into Iraq, into Baghdad, beyond Basra. And the reason he didn't is, he said, he wrote in his book, because there was no viable exit strategy. And he said our troops would be occupiers in a bitterly hostile land. That's exactly where we find ourselves today. There's a sense of American occupation.

The only building that was guarded when the troops went into Baghdad was the Oil Ministry. We didn't guard the nuclear facilities. We didn't guard the foreign office where you might have found information about weapons of mass destruction. We didn't guard the borders. Almost every step of the way, our troops have been left on these extraordinarily difficult missions. I know what it's like to go out on one of those missions where you don't know what's around the corner. And I believe our troops need other allies helping. I'm going to hold that summit. I will bring fresh credibility, a new start, and we will get the job done right."

1ST REBUT (30 Sec):
"All right. My opponent says help is on the way, but what kind of message does it say to our troops in harm's way, "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time"? That's not a message a Commander-in-Chief gives -- or "this is a great diversion." As well, help is on the way, but it's certainly hard to tell it when he voted against the $87 billion supplemental to provide equipment for our troops, and then said he actually did vote for it before he voted against it. That's not what Commander-in-Chiefs does when you're trying to lead troops."

2ND REBUT (30 Sec):
"Well, you know, 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? I believe that when you know something is going wrong, you make it right. That's what I learned in Vietnam. When I came back from that war, I saw that it was wrong. Some people don't like the fact that I stood up to say no, but I did. And that's what I did with that vote. And I'm going to lead those troops to victory."

1ST RESPONSE (2 min):
"No, and they don't have to, providing we have the leadership that we put -- that I'm offering. I believe that we have to win this. The President and I have always agreed on that. And from the beginning -- I did vote to give the authority because I thought Saddam Hussein was a threat. And I did accept that -- that intelligence. But I also laid out a very strict series of things we needed to do in order to proceed from the position of strength. And the President, in fact, promised them. He went to Cincinnati and he gave a speech in which he said: We will plan carefully; we will proceed cautiously; we will not make war inevitable; we will go with our allies. He didn't do any of those things.

They didn't do the planning. They left the planning of the State Department on the State Department desks. They avoided even the advice of their own general, General Shinseki, the Army Chief of Staff -- said, you're going to need several hundred thousand troops. Instead of listening to him, they retired him. The Terrorism Czar, who has worked for every President since Ronald Reagan, said: Invading Iraq in response to 9/11 would be like Franklin Roosevelt invading Mexico in response to Pearl Harbor. That's what we have here.

What we need now is a President who understands how to bring these other countries together to recognize their stakes in this. They do have stakes in it; they've always had stakes in it. The Arab counties have a stake in not having a civil war. The European countries have a stake in not having total disorder on their doorstep. But this President hasn't even held the kind of statesman-like summits that pull people together and get them to invest in those stakes. In fact, he's done the opposite, he pushed them away. When the Secretary General, Kofi Annan offered the United Nations, he said, no, no, we'll go do this alone.

To save for Haliburton the spoils of the war, they actually issued a memorandum from the Defense Department saying, if you weren't with us in the war, don't bother applying for any construction. That's not a way to invite people."

2ND RESPONSE (90 sec):
"That's totally absurd. Of course, the U.N. was invited in. And we support the U.N. efforts there. They pulled out after Sergio de Mello got killed, but they're now back in helping with elections. My opponent says we didn't have any allies in this war? What's he say to Tony Blair? What's he say to Alexander Kwasniewski, of Poland. You can't expect to build alliance when you denigrate the contributions of those who are serving side-by-side with American troops in Iraq.

Plus, he says the cornerstone of his plan to succeed in Iraq is to call upon nations to serve. So what's the message going to be? Please join us in Iraq for a grand diversion? Join us for a war that is a wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time?

I know how these people think. I deal with them all the time. I sit down with the world leaders frequently and talk to them on the phone frequently -- they're not going to follow somebody who says this is the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time. They're not going to follow somebody whose core convictions keep changing because of politics in America.

And, finally, he says we ought to have a summit. Well, there are summits being held. Japan is going to have a summit for the donors. There's $14 billion pledged and Prime Minister Koizumi is going to call countries to account to get them to contribute. And there's going to be an Arab summit of the neighborhood countries. And Colin Powell helped set -- helped set up that summit."

1ST REBUT (30 Sec):
"The United Nations, Kofi Annan, offered help after Baghdad fell. And we never picked him up on that did what was necessary to transfer authority and to transfer reconstruction. It was always American-run.

Secondly, when we went in, there were three countries -- Great Britain, Australia, and the United States. That's not a grand coalition. We can do better."

2ND REBUT (30 Sec):
"Well, actually, he forgot Poland. And now, there are 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 -- brave soldiers. It's -- you cannot lead the world if you do not honor the contributions of those who are with us. He called them the 'coerced and the bribed.' That's not how you bring people together.

Our coalition is strong. It will remain strong, for my -- so long as I'm the President."

1ST RESPONSE (2 min):
"No, what I said was that because we achieved such a rapid victory, more of the Saddam loyalists were around. In other words, we thought we'd whip more of them going in. But because Tommy Franks did such a great job in planning the operations, we moved rapidly, and a lot of the Baathists and Saddam loyalists laid down their arms and disappeared. I thought we would -- they would stay and fight, but they didn't. And now we're fighting them now.

It's -- and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. And I'm optimistic. See, I think you can be realistic and optimistic at the same time. I'm optimistic we'll achieve -- I know we won't achieve if we send mixed signals. I know we're not going to achieve our objective if we send mixed signals to our troops, our friends, the Iraqi citizens.

We've got a plan in place. The plan says there'll be elections in January, and there will be. The plan says we'll train Iraqi soldiers so they can do the hard work -- and we are. And it's not only just America, but NATO is now helping. Jordan is helping train police. The UAE is helping train police. We've allocated $7 billion over the next months for reconstruction efforts, and we're making progress there. And our alliance is strong.

Now, I just told you, there's going to be a summit of the Arab nations. Japan will be hosting a summit. We're making progress. It is hard work. It is hard work to go from a tyranny to a democracy. It's hard work to go from a place where people get their hands cut off, or executed, to a place where people are free, But it's necessary work, and a free Iraq is going to make this world a more peaceful place."

2ND RESPONSE (90 sec):
"What I think troubles a lot of people in our country is that the President has just sort of described one kind of mistake, but what he has said is that even knowing there were no weapons of mass destruction, even knowing there was no imminent threat, even knowing there was no connection of al Qaeda, he would still have done everything the same way. Those are his words. Now, I would not.

So what I'm trying to do is just talk the truth to the American people and to the world. The truth is what good policy is based on. It's what leadership is based on. The President says that I'm denigrating these troops. I have nothing but respect for the British and for Tony Blair and for what they've been willing to do. But you can't tell me that when the most troops any other country has on the ground is Great Britain with 8,300, and below that, the four others are below 4,000, and below that, there isn't anybody out of the hundreds, that we have a genuine coalition to get this job done.

You can't tell me that on the day that we went into that war and it started, it was principally the United States of America and Great Britain and one or two others; that's it. And today we are 90 percent of the casualties and 90 percent of the costs. And meanwhile, North Korea has gotten nuclear weapons. Talk about mixed messages, the President is the one who said we can't allow countries to get nuclear weapons. They have. I'll change that."

1ST RESPONSE (2 min):
"Well I've never, ever used the harshest word, as you did just then, and I try not to. I've been -- but I'll, nevertheless, tell you that I think he has not been candid with the American people. And I'll tell you exactly how. First of all, we all know that in his State of the Union message he told Congress about nuclear materials that didn't exist. We know that he promised America that he was going to build this coalition -- I just described the coalition. It is not the kind of coalition we were described when we were talking about voting for this. The President said he would exhaust the remedies of the United Nation and go through that full process. He didn't. He cut it off, sort of arbitrarily. And we know that there were further diplomatic efforts underway. They just decided, the time for diplomacy is over and rushed to war without planning for what happens afterwards.

Now, he misled the American people in his speech when he said, we will plan carefully. They obviously didn't. He misled the American people when he said, we'd go to war as a last resort. We did not go as a last resort. And most Americans know the difference.

Now, this has cost us deeply in the world. I believe that it is important to tell the truth to the American people. I've worked with those leaders the President talks about. I've worked with them for 20 years, for longer than this President, and I know what many of them say today, and I know how to bring them back to the table.

And I believe that fresh start, new credibility, a President who can understand what we have to do to reach out to the Muslim world, to make it clear that this is not -- you know, Osama bin Laden uses the invasion of Iraq in order to go out to people and say that America has declared war on Islam. We need to be smarter about how we wage a war on terror. We need to deny them the recruits. We need to deny them the safe havens. We need to rebuild our alliances.

I believe that Ronald Reagan, John Kennedy, and others did that more effectively, and I'm going to try to follow in their footsteps."

2ND RESPONSE (90 sec):
"My opponent just said something amazing. He said, Osama bin Laden uses the invasion of Iraq as an excuse to spread hatred for America. Osama bin Laden isn't going to determine how we defend ourselves. Osama bin Laden doesn't get to decide. The American people decide. I decided. The right action was in Iraq.

My opponent calls it a mistake; it wasn't a mistake. He said I misled on Iraq. I don't think he was misleading when he called Iraq a grave threat in the fall of 2002. I don't think he was misleading when he said that it was right to disarm Iraq in the spring of 2003. I don't think he misled you when he said that if -- anyone who doubted whether the world was better off without Saddam Hussein in power didn't have the judgment to be President. I don't think he was misleading. I think what is misleading is to say you can lead and succeed in Iraq if you keep changing your positions on this war. And he has. As the politics change, his positions change. And that's not how a Commander-in-Chief acts.

Let me finish -- the intelligence I looked at was the same intelligence my opponent looked at, the very same intelligence. And when I stood up there and spoke to the Congress, I was speaking off the same intelligence he looked at to make his decisions to support the authorization of force."

1ST REBUT (30 Sec):
"I wasn't misleading when I said he was a threat. Nor was I misleading on the day that the President decided to go to war when I said that he had made a mistake in not building strong alliances, and that I would have preferred that he did more diplomacy. 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."

2ND REBUT (30 Sec):
"The only thing consistent about my opponent's position is that he's been inconsistent. He changes positions. And you cannot change positions in this war on terror if you expect to win. And I expect to win. It's necessary we win. We're being challenged like never before, and we have a duty to our country and to future generations of America to achieve a free Iraq, a free Afghanistan, and to rid the world of weapons of mass destruction."

1ST RESPONSE (2 min):
"No, every life is precious. Every life matters. You know, my hardest -- the hardest part of the job is to know that I committed the troops in harm's way, and then do the best I can to provide comfort for the loved ones who lost a son or a daughter or husband and wife.

And, you know, I think about Missy Johnson, this fantastic young lady I met in Charlotte, North Carolina, she and her son, Brian. They came to see me. Her husband, P.J., got killed. He'd been in Afghanistan, went to Iraq. You know, it's hard work to try to love her as best as I can, knowing full well that the decision I made caused her loved one to be in harm's way. I told her after we prayed and teared up and laughed some, that I thought her husband's sacrifice was noble and worthy, because I understand the stakes of this war on terror. I understand that we must find al Qaeda wherever they hide. We must deal with threats before they fully materialize -- and Saddam Hussein was a threat -- and that we must spread liberty, because in the long run, the way to defeat hatred and tyranny and oppression is to spread freedom.

Missy understood that. That's what she told me her husband understood. So you say, was it worth it? Every life is precious. That's what distinguishes us from the enemy. Everybody matters. But I think it's worth it, Jim. I think it's worth it, because I think -- I know in the long-term, a free Iraq, a free Afghanistan will set such a powerful example in a part of the world that's desperate for freedom. It will help change the world, that we can look back and say, we did our duty."

2ND RESPONSE (90 sec):
"I understand what the President is talking about, because I know what it means to lose people in combat. And the question, is it worth the cost, reminds me of my own thinking when I came back from fighting in that war, and it reminds me that it is vital for us not to confuse the war, ever, with the warriors. That happened before.

And that's one of the reasons why I believe I can get this job done, because I am determined, for those soldiers and for those families, for those kids who put their lives on the line. That is noble. That's the most noble thing that anybody can do. And I want to make sure the outcome honors that nobility.

Now, we have a choice here. I've laid out a plan by which I think we can be successful in Iraq: with a summit; by doing better training, faster; by cutting -- by doing what we need to do with respect to the U.N. and the elections. There's only 25 percent of the people in there. They can't have an election right now. The President is not getting the job done.

So the choice for America is, you can have a plan that I've laid out in four points, each of which I can tell you more about, or you can go to JohnKerry.com and see more of it -- or you have the President's plan, which is four words: More of the same. I think my plan is better. And my plan has a better chance of standing up and fighting for those troops. I will never let those troops down, and will hunt and kill the terrorists, wherever they are."

1ST REBUT (30 Sec):
"I understand what it means to be the Commander-in-Chief, and if I were to ever say, this is the wrong war at the wrong time and the right -- wrong place, the troops would wonder, how can I follow this guy. You cannot lead the war on terror if you keep changing positions on the war on terror, and say things like, well, this is just a grand diversion. It's not a grand diversion. This is an essential, that we get it right. And so I -- the plan he talks about simply won't work."

2ND REBUT (30 Sec):
"Secretary of State Colin Powell told this President the Pottery Barn rule, if you break it, you fix it. Now, if you break it you made a mistake, it's the wrong thing to do. But you own it, and then you've got to fix it and do something with it. Now, that's what we have to do. There's no inconsistency.

Soldiers know, over there, that this isn't being done right yet. I'm going to get it right for those soldiers, because it's important to Israel, it's important to America, it's important to the world, it's important to the fight on terror. But I have a plan to do it. He doesn't."

1ST RESPONSE (2 min):
"The time line that I've set out -- and, again, I want to correct the President, because he's misled again this evening on what I've said -- I didn't say I would bring troops out in six months. I said, if we do the things that I've set out and we are successful, we could begin to draw the troops down in six months. And I think a critical component of success in Iraq is being able to convince the Iraqis and the Arab world that the United States doesn't have long-term designs on it.

As I understand it, we're building some 14 military bases there now. And some people say they've got a rather permanent concept to them. When you -- when you guard the Oil Ministry, but you don't guard the nuclear facilities, the message to a lot of people is, maybe, well, maybe they're interested in our oil.

Now, the problem is that they didn't think these things through properly, and these are the things you have to think through. What I want to do is change the dynamics on the ground. And you have to do that by beginning to not back off of Fallujahs and other places, and send the wrong message to the terrorists. You have to close the borders. You've got to show you're serious in that regard. But you've also got to show that you're prepared to bring the rest of the world in and share the stakes.

I will make a flat statement -- the United States of America has no long-term designs on staying in Iraq. And our goal, in my administration, would be to get all of the troops out of there, with the minimal amount you need for training and logistics as we do in some other countries in the world after a war to be able to sustain the peace. But that's how we're going to win the peace, by rapidly training the Iraqis, themselves.

Even the administration has admitted they haven't done the training, because they came to Congress a few weeks ago and asked for a complete reprogramming of the money. Now, what greater admission is there, 16 months afterwards, oops, we haven't done the job, we got to start to spend the money now, will you guys give us permission to shift it over into training?"

2ND RESPONSE (90 sec):
"There's 100,000 troops trained, police, Guard, special units, border patrol. There's going to be 125,000 trained by the end of this year. Yes, we're getting the job done. It's hard work. Everybody knows it's hard work because there's a determined enemy that's trying to defeat us.

Now, my opponent says he's going to try to change the dynamics on the ground. Well, Prime Minister Allawi was here; he is the leader of that country. He's a brave, brave man. When he came, after giving a speech to the Congress, my opponent questioned his credibility. You can't change the dynamics on the ground if you've criticized the brave leader of Iraq. One of his campaign people alleged that Prime Minister Allawi was like a puppet. That's no way to treat somebody who's courageous and brave, that is trying to lead his country forward.

The way to make sure that we succeed is to send consistent, sound messages to the Iraqi people that when we give our word, we will keep our word; that we stand with you; that we believe you want to be free -- and I do. I believe that the 25 million people, the vast majority long to have elections. I reject this notion -- and I'm not suggesting that my opponent says it, but I reject the notion that some say that if you're Muslim you can't be free, you don't desire freedom. I disagree, strongly disagree with that."

1ST REBUT (30 Sec):
"I couldn't agree more that the Iraqis want to be free and that they could be free. But I think the President, again, still hasn't shown how he's going to go about it the right way. He has more of the same.

Now, Prime Minister Allawi came here and he said the terrorists are pouring over the border. That's Allawi's assessment. The National Intelligence Assessment that was given to the President in July said: Best case scenario, more of the same of what we see today; worst case scenario, civil war. I can do better."

2ND REBUT (30 Sec):
"The reason why Prime Minister Allawi said they're coming across the border is because he recognizes that this is a central part of the war on terror. They're fighting us because they're fighting freedom. They understand that a free Afghanistan or a free Iraq will be a major defeat for them. And those are the stakes. And that's why it is essential we not leave. That's why it's essential we hold the line. That's why it's essential we win -- and we will. Under my leadership, we're going to win this war in Iraq."

1ST RESPONSE (2 min):
"I would hope I never have to. I understand how hard it is to commit troops. I never wanted to commit troops. I never -- when I was running -- when we had the debate in 2000, I never dreamt I would be doing that. But the enemy attacked us, Jim, and I have a solemn duty to protect the American people, to do everything I can to protect us.

I think that by speaking clearly and doing what we say and not sending mixed messages, it is less likely we'll ever have to use troops. But a President must always be willing to use troops. It must -- as a last resort.

The -- I was hopeful diplomacy would work in Iraq. It was falling apart. There was no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was hoping that the world would turn a blind eye. And if he had been in power -- in other words, we had said, let's let the inspectors work, or let's hope to talk him out, maybe an 18th resolution would work, he'd have been stronger and tougher, and the world would have been a lot worse off. There's just no doubt in my mind. We would rue the day had Saddam Hussein been in power.

So we use diplomacy every chance we get -- believe me. And I -- I would hope to never have to use force. But by speaking clearly and sending messages that we mean what we say, we've affected the world in a positive way. Look at Libya. Libya was a threat. Libya is now peacefully dismantling its weapons programs. Libya understood that America and others will enforce doctrine, and the world is better for it.

So to answer your question, I would hope we'd never have to. I think by acting firmly and decisively, it will mean it's less likely to -- less likely we have to use force."

2ND RESPONSE (90 sec):
"Jim, the President just said something extraordinarily revealing and, frankly, very important in this debate. In answer to your question about Iraq and sending people into Iraq, he just said, the enemy attacked us. Saddam Hussein didn't attack us. Osama bin Laden attacked us. Al Qaeda attacked us.

And when we had Osama bin Laden cornered in the mountains of Tora Bora, 1,000 of his cohorts with him in those mountains, with the American military forces nearby and in the field -- we didn't use the best trained troops in the world to go kill the world's number one criminal and terrorist. They outsourced the job to Afghan warlords who only a week earlier had been on the other side fighting against us, neither of whom trusted each other. That's the enemy that attacked us, that's the enemy that was allowed to walk out of those mountains, that's the enemy that is now in 60 countries with stronger recruits.

He also said Saddam Hussein would have been stronger -- that is just factually incorrect. Two-thirds of the country was a no-fly zone when we started this war. We would have had sanctions, we would have had the UN inspectors. Saddam Hussein would have been continually weakening if the President had shown the patience to go through another round of resolution, to sit down with those leaders and say: What do you need? What do you need now? How much more will it take to get you to join us? We would be in a stronger place today."

1ST REBUT (30 Sec):
"First, listen, of course I know Osama bin Laden attacked us. I know that. And, secondly, to think that another round of resolutions would have caused Saddam Hussein to disarm, disclose is ludicrous in my judgment, it just shows a significant difference of opinion. We tried diplomacy. We did our best. He was hoping to turn a blind eye, and, yes, he would have been strong had we not dealt with him. He had the capability of making weapons, and he would have made weapons."

2ND REBUT (30 Sec):
"Thirty-five to 40 countries in the world had a greater capability of making weapons at the moment the President invaded than Saddam Hussein. And while he has been diverted with nine out of ten active duty divisions of our Army either going to Iraq, coming back from Iraq or getting ready to go, North Korea's got nuclear weapons and the world is more dangerous. Iran is moving towards nuclear weapons and the world is more dangerous. Darfur has a genocide; the world is more dangerous. I'd have made a better choice."

1ST RESPONSE (2 min):
"The President always has the right and always has had the right for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War, and it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control. No President, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got to do in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test, where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

Here we have our own Secretary of State who's had to apologize to the world for the presentation he made to the United Nations. I mean, we can remember when President Kennedy, in the Cuban missile crisis, sent his Secretary of State to Paris to meet with de Gaulle, and in the middle of the discussion to tell them about the missiles in Cuba, he said, here, let me show you the photos. And de Gaulle waved them off, and said, "No, no, no, no. The word of the President of the United States is good enough for me." How many leaders in the world today would respond to us as a result of what we've done in that way?

So what is at test here is the credibility of the United States of America and how we lead the world. Well, Iran and Iraq are now more -- Iran and North Korea are now more dangerous. Now, whether preemption is ultimately what has to happen, I don't know yet. But I'll tell you this, as President, I'll never take my eye off that ball. I've been fighting for proliferation the entire time -- anti-proliferation the entire time I've been in the Congress. And we've watched this President actually turn away from some of the treaties that were on the table. You don't help yourself with other nations when you turn away from the Global Warming Treaty, for instance, or when you refuse to deal at length with the United Nations. You have to earn that respect. And I think we have a lot of earning back to do."

2ND RESPONSE (90 sec):
"Let me -- I'm not exactly sure what you mean, passes the global test. You take preemptive action if you pass a global test? My attitude is you take preemptive action in order to protect the American people, that you act in order to make this country secure.

My opponent talks about me not signing certain treaties. But let me tell you one thing I didn't sign -- and I think it shows a difference of our opinion, the difference opinions -- and that is I wouldn't join the International Criminal Court. This is a body based in The Hague where unaccountable judges and prosecutors could pull our troops, our diplomats up for trial. And I wouldn't join it. And I understand that in certain capitals around the world that that wasn't a popular move. But it's the right move, not to join a foreign court that could -- where our people could be prosecuted. My opponent is for joining the International Criminal Court. I just think trying to be popular kind of in the global sense, if it's not in our best interest makes no sense. I'm interested in working with other nations, and do a lot of it. But I'm not going to make decisions that I think are wrong for America."

1ST RESPONSE (2 min):
"No, I don't think it's okay, and said so publicly. I think that there needs to be checks and balances in a democracy, and made that very clear -- that by consolidating power in a central government, he's sending a signal to the Western world and the United States that -- that perhaps he doesn't believe in checks and balances. And I've told him that.

He's also a strong ally in the war on terror. He is -- listen, they went through a horrible situation in Beslan where these terrorists gunned down young school kids. But it's the nature of the enemy, by the way. That's why we need to be firm and resolved in bringing them to justice. It's precisely what Vladimir Putin understands, as well.

I've got a good relation with Vladimir, and it's important that we do have a good relation because that enables me to better comment to him and to better to discuss with him some of the decisions he makes.

I found that in this world that it's important to establish good personal relationships with people so that when you have disagreements, you're able to disagree in a way that is effective.

And so I've told him my opinion. I look forward to discussing it more with him as time goes on. Russia is a country in transition. Vladimir is going to have to make some hard choices, and I think it's very important for the American President, as well as other Western leaders, to remind him of the great benefits of democracy, that democracy will best help the people realize their hopes and aspirations and dreams. And I will continue working with him over the next four years."

2ND RESPONSE (90 sec):
"Well, let me just say quickly that I've had an extraordinary experience of watching up close and personal that transition in Russia, because I was there right after the transformation, and I was probably one of the first senators -- along with Senator Bob Smith of New Hampshire, a former senator -- to go down into the KGB underneath Treblinka [sic] Square and see reams of files with names in them, and it sort of brought home the transition to democracy that Russia was trying to make.

I regret what's happened in these past months, and I think it goes beyond just the response to terror. Mr. Putin now controls all the television stations. His political opposition is being put in jail. And I think it's very important for the United States, obviously, to have a working relationship that is good. This is a very important country to us and we want a partnership. But we always have to stand up for democracy. As George Will said the other day, freedom on the march, not in Russia right now.

Now, I'd like to come back for a quick moment, if I can, to that issue about China and the talks, because that's one of the most critical issues here, North Korea. Just because the President says it can't be done, that you'd lose China, doesn't mean it can't be done. I mean, this is the President who said there were weapons of mass destruction, said "mission accomplished," said we could fight the war on the cheap, none of which were true. We can have bilateral talks with Kim Jong-il and we can get those weapons at the same time as we get China, because China has an interest in the outcome, too."

1ST REBUT (30 Sec):
"You know my opinion on North Korea. I can't say it any more plainly.

But, you know, look, we looked at the same intelligence. We came to the same conclusion, that Saddam Hussein was a grave threat. And I don't hold it against him that he said "grave threat." I'm not going to go around the country saying he didn't tell the truth, when he looked at the same intelligence I did."

2ND REBUT (30 Sec):
"It was a threat. That's not the issue. The issue is what you do about it. The President said he was going to build a true coalition, exhaust the remedies of the U.N., and go to war as a last resort. Those words really have to mean something. And, unfortunately, he didn't go to war as a last resort. Now we have this incredible mess in Iraq, $200 billion -- it's -- it's -- it's not what the American people thought they were getting when they voted."

1ST RESPONSE (2 min):
"My fellow Americans, as I said at the very beginning of this debate, both President Bush and I love this country very much. There is no doubt, I think, about that. But we have a different sent of convictions about how we make our country stronger here at home and respected again in the world. I know that for many of you sitting at home, parents of kids in Iraq, you want to know who is the person who could be a Commander-in-Chief, who can get your kids home and get the job done and win the peace? And for all the rest of the parents in America who are wondering about their kids going to school or anywhere else in the world, what kind of world they're going to grow up in.

Let me look you in the eye and say to you: I've defended this country as a young man in war and I will defend it as President of the United States. But I have a difference with this President. I believe we're strongest when we reach out and lead the world and build strong alliances. I have a plan for Iraq. I believe we can be successful. I'm not talking about leaving. I'm talking about winning. And we need a fresh start, a new credibility, a President who can bring allies to our side.

I also have a plan to win the war on terror, funding homeland security, strengthening our military, cutting off finances, reaching out to the world -- again, building strong alliances. I believe America's best days are ahead of us because I believe that the future belongs to freedom, not to fear. That's the country that I'm going to fight for, and I ask you to give me the opportunity to make you proud. I ask you to give me the opportunity to lead this great nation so that we can be stronger here at home, respected again in the world, and have responsible leadership that we deserve.

Thank you and God bless America."

2ND RESPONSE (2 min):
"If America shows uncertainty or weakness in this decade, the world will drift toward tragedy. That's not going to happen so long as I'm your President. The next four years, we will continue to strengthen our homeland defenses. We will strengthen our intelligence-gathering services. We will reform our military. The military will be all-volunteer army. We will continue to stay on the offense. We will fight the terrorists around the world so we do not have to face them here at home.

We'll continue to build our alliances. I'll never turn over America's national security needs to leaders of other countries as we continue to build those alliances. And we'll continue to spread freedom. I believe in the transformational power of liberty, I believe that a free Iraq is in this nation's interest. I believe a free Afghanistan is in this nation's interest. I believe both a free Afghanistan and a free Iraq will serve as a powerful example for millions who plead in silence for liberty in the broader Middle East.

We've done a lot of hard work together over the last three-and-a-half years. We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below and it's a valley of peace. By being steadfast and resolute and strong, by keeping our word, by supporting our troops, we can achieve the peace we all want.

I appreciate your listening tonight. I ask for your vote. And may God continue to bless our great land."

Sources: Debate Transcripts taken from Whitehouse.Gov website