Global reaction: No clear debate winner
But Kerry's critique of Iraq policies puts him back in the race.
The world's media played close attention to the US presidential debate Thursday night, primarily because it dealt with the issues the rest of the world cares about the most: terrorism, security, and the war in Iraq. And while most commentators said there was no clear winner, most felt that Democratic nominee Senator John Kerry used the discussion about the war in Iraq to score needed credibility for his campaign.
In an analysis for the
BBC, correspondent Rob Watson said Sen. Kerry was able to "
strike some serious blows against the president in his handling of the war in Iraq." But President George Bush didn't leave any huge openings for Kerry.
... after four years of being president, it is probably true that Mr. Bush is not used to facing the kind of close-up criticism that Mr. Kerry levelled at him. The president is surrounded by people who are always telling him that he is the leader of the free world. It must have come as a bit of a shock. But despite the pressure from Mr. Kerry, the president didn't make any serious gaffes that could have left a serious opening for the challenger.
The
Guardian said that Kerry had "
regained the initiative" in a "forceful performance," sometimes leaving the president "scowling and at a loss for words." The paper also said the decision by some of the TV networks to show a split screen of the candidates (rather than just the candidate speaking) worked to Kerry's advantage.
On several occasions, Mr. Bush could be seen sour-faced and nervous in reaction to some of Mr. Kerry's remarks. Similar "cut-away" shots of Al Gore in the first presidential debate four years ago sapped his campaign and helped put Mr. Bush into office.
Al Jazeera reported that Kerry "
delivered a strong performance that could put him back in the race after weeks on the ropes."
The Age, of Melbourne, Australia, thought that
no knockout punches were scored, and felt that both candidates had moments "when they shined."
The
South African Star commented that "the testosterone all but
fizzed off the screen" as the two candidates tried to show the "tens of millions of people around the world" who were watching the debate that they could solve the problem of Iraq. But the
Star noted that the candidates sparred over other global issues.
The two clashed on approaches to the North Korean nuclear crisis – Bush warning against Kerry's call for bilateral talks – and to Iran's moves to develop a nuclear program. But both agreed that the most serious threat to US national security was the possibility that terrorists like Bin Laden's Al Qaeda network might get their hands on nuclear materials. Reinout van Wagtendonk, in an analysis for
Radio Netherlands, felt Kerry won the first debate "on points." But he also pointed out that "Americans are
reluctant to change presidents in times of war or terrorism," and that President Bush's performance gave "voters no reason to change their minds."
The
Times of India, writes that Kerry showed "great élan in outmaneuvering President Bush," and
offered better solutions to the topics that were being debated.
Kerry however offered a better-defined exit strategy for Iraq, saying he would call a summit of US allies (and implying that a discredited Bush would not be able to do that), expand the alliance, and start recalling US troops as early as six months from now. Alan Freeman of the
Toronto Globe and Mail said that there was no "decisive moment" in the debate, but that Kerry "probably managed to make a close race closer" as he put Bush
on the defensive about Iraq.
Mr. Bush hewed to his line that the war in Iraq was part of a broader war against terrorism worldwide. "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 shake our will." Yet time and again, Mr. Bush was forced to explain his decision to invade Iraq and to admit that the war was not going as well as he usually proclaims before partisan crowds. "It's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. . . . But it's necessary work. And I'm optimistic." After he admitted how tough the war is, his optimism sounded hollow.
Also...
•
Indian scientist protests US sanctions (
Times of India)
•
It's time for moral courage on Iraq (
The Age, Australia)
•
The British are right – again, and again, and again ... (
The Daily Star)
• Feedback appreciated. E-mail
Tom Regan
.
|
RSS feed