The most crucial moment in the first Presidential debate on foreign policy came near the end. The moderator asked President George Bush if he, like John Kerry, believed that the most critical national security issue facing the nation was nuclear proliferation. President Bush replied yes--when "in the hands of a terrorist enemy."

Senator Kerry made no such distinction. He explained that the threat is posed by the mere existence of nuclear weapons, regardless of who has them. In fact, he chastised the United States (under the Bush Administration) for developing more nuclear weapons while demanding that terrorist states, such as Iran and North Korea, stop developing them.

Do you see the difference between the two candidates? One, President Bush, blames weapons of mass destruction for evil in the world when they are in the hands of terrorists. The other, John Kerry, says that the weapons are just as much a danger in the hands of Americans as they are when in the possession of terrorist states, and that the U.S. has no right to develop them in the interest of self-defense.

If defense and survival are the most important issues in this election--and they are--the debate should leave no doubt about whom to elect.

Michael J. Hurd

Author, GROW UP AMERICA! and EFFECTIVE THERAPY, psychologist and psychotherapist, President of Living Resources Inc.

John Kerry scored a strategic win in the debate on foriegn policy.

Kerry got George W. Bush to say that he is committed to U.S. intervention abroad, and that his administration regards foreign entanglements as a key component of his foreign policy.

Kerry also got president Bush to acknowledge that strong global governance under an entity like the United Nations is a goal to which the Bush presidency is committed.

The commitment to global government (and coresponding loss of U.S. sovereignty) under the UN is a position that Republicans and conservatives have accused liberals and Democrats of supporting. Conservatives have won elections in the past by claiming to be against global government under UN leadership.

By getting Bush to commit to what is an essentially liberal/Democratic foreign policy, Kerry blurred major policy differences.

Bush apparently realized the extent of his strategic errors and miscalculations late in the debate when he mentioned his opposition to the World Court. But by then, the damage had already been done. Because the damage was almost entirely done by Bush himself, who argued passionately against traditional conservative positions, it played right into Kerry's strategy -- raising grave doubts about Bush's ability to think and plan strategically, for victory.

Brian Lynch