Bush - Gore Debate Transcript (continued)

Back to previous text.
GORE: Just today the members of his political party said that they were going to ignore the orders of the new president of Serbia, and that they question his legitimacy. And he's still going to try to be actively involved. He is an indicted war criminal. He should be held accountable.

Now, I did want to pick up on one of the statements earlier. And maybe I have heard, maybe I've heard the previous statements wrong, Governor.

In some of the discussions we've had about when it's appropriate for the U.S. to use force around the world, at times the standards that you've laid down have given me the impression that if it's, if it's something like a genocide taking place or what they called ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, that, that alone would not be, that that wouldn't be the kind of situation that would cause you to think that the U.S. ought to get involved with troops.

Now, have to be other factors involved for me to want to be involved. But by itself, that, to me, can bring into play a fundamental American strategic interest because I think it's based on our values. Now, have I got that wrong?

LEHRER: Governor?

BUSH: OK, yes. I'm trying to figure out who the questioner was.

If I think it's in our nation's strategic interests, I'll commit troops. I thought it was in our strategic interests to keep Milosevic in check because of our relations in NATO, and that's why I took the positions I took. I think it's important for NATO to be strong and confident. I felt like an unchecked Milosevic would harm NATO.

And so it depends on the situation, Mr. Vice President.

LEHRER: Well, let's keep let's stay on the subject for a moment. New question, related to this. There have been I figured this out in the last 20 years, there have been eight major actions involving the introduction of U.S. ground, air or naval forces. Let me name them: Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, the Persian Gulf, Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti, Kosovo. If you had been president, are any of those interventions would any of those interventions not have happened?

GORE: Can you run through the list again?

LEHRER: Sure. Lebanon.

GORE: I thought that was a mistake.

LEHRER: Grenada.

GORE: I supported that.

LEHRER: Panama.

GORE: I supported that one.

LEHRER: Persian Gulf.

GORE: Yes, I voted for it, supported it.

LEHRER: Somalia.

GORE: Well, of course, and that, again, no, I think that that was ill-considered. I did support it at the time. It was in the previous administration, in the Bush-Quayle administration, and I think in retrospect the lessons there are ones that we that we should take very, very seriously.

LEHRER: Bosnia.

GORE: Oh, yes.

LEHRER: Haiti.

GORE: Yes.

LEHRER: And then Kosovo.

GORE: Yes.

LEHRER: We talked about that.

Want me to do t with you? Go through each one?

BUSH: No.

(CROSSTALK)

LEHRER: ... be Lebanon.

BUSH: No, I'm fine. I'll make a couple of comments.

LEHRER: Sure. Absolutely. Sure.

BUSH: Somalia. Started off as a humanitarian mission then changed into a nation-building mission, and that's where the mission went wrong. The mission was changed. And as a result, our nation paid a price.

And so I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building.

I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war. I think our troops ought to be used to help overthrow a dictator that's in our and it's in our when it's in our best interests.

But in this case, it was a nation-building exercise. And same with Haiti, I wouldn't have supported either.

LEHRER: What about Lebanon?

BUSH: Yes.

LEHRER: Grenada?

BUSH: Yes.

LEHRER: Panama?

BUSH: Yes.

LEHRER: Obviously, the...

BUSH: Well, some of them I've got a conflict of interest on, if you know what I mean.

LEHRER: I do. I do.

(LAUGHTER)

LEHRER: The Persian Gulf, obviously.

BUSH: Yes.

LEHRER: And Bosnia. And you've already talked about Kosovo.

BUSH: Yes.

LEHRER: But the reverse side of the question, Governor, that Vice President Gore mentioned for instance, 600,000 people died in Rwanda in 1994. There was no U.S. intervention. There was no intervention from the outside world. Was that a mistake not to intervene?

BUSH: I think the administration did the right thing in that case, I do. It was a horrible situation. No one liked to see it on our, you know, on our TV screens. But it's a case where we need to make sure we've got a, you know, kind of an early warning system in place in places where there could be ethnic cleansing and genocide the way we saw it there in Rwanda.

And that's a case where we need to, you know, use our influence to have countries in Africa come together and help deal with the situation. The administration it seems like we're having a great love fest now but the administration made the right decision on training Nigerian troops for situations just such as this in Rwanda. And so I thought they made the right decision not to send U.S. troops into Rwanda.

LEHRER: Do you have any second thoughts on that based on what you said a moment ago about genocide and...

GORE: I'd like to come back to the question of nation-building. But let me address this question directly first.

LEHRER: We'll do that later.

GORE: Fine.

We did actually send troops into Rwanda to help with the humanitarian relief measures. My wife, Tipper, who's here, actually went on a military plane with General Shalikashvili on one of those flights.

But I think in retrospect we were too late getting in there. We would have saved more lives if we had acted earlier.

But I do not think that it was an example o a conflict where we should have put our troops in to try to separate the parties for this reason, Jim: One of my, one of the criteria that I think is important in deciding when and if we should ever get involved around the world is whether or not our national security interest is involved, if we can really make the difference with military force, if we've tried everything else, if we have allies.

In the Balkans, we had allies, NATO, ready, willing and able to go and carry a big part of the burden. In Africa, we did not. Now we have tried our country's tried to create an Africa crisis response team there, and we've met some resistance. We have had some luck with Nigeria, but in Sierra Leone. And that, now that Nigeria's become a democracy and we hope it stays that way then maybe we can build on that.

But because we had no allies and because it was very unclear that we could actually accomplish what we would want to accomplish by putting military forces there, I think it was the right thing not to jump in, as heartbreaking as it was, but I think we should have come in much quicker with the humanitarian mission.

LEHRER: So what would you say, Governor, to somebody who would say, "Hey, wait a minute. Why not Africa? I mean, why the Middle East? Why the Balkans, but not Africa when 600,000 people's lives are at risk?"

BUSH: Well, I understand. And Africa's important, and we've got to do a lot of work in Africa to promote democracy and trade. And there's some the vice president mentioned Nigeria. It's a fledgling democracy. We've got to work with Nigeria. That's an important continent.

But there's got to be priorities. And the Middle East is a priority for a lot of reasons, as is Europe and the Far East and our own hemisphere. And those are my four top priorities should I be the president. It's not to say we won't be engaged nor trying nor should we you know, work hard to get other nations to come together to prevent atrocity.

I thought the best example of a way to handle the situation is East Timor when we provided logistical support to the Australians, support that only we can provide. I thought that was a good model.

But we can't be all things to all people in the world, Jim. And I think that's where maybe the vice president and I begin to have some differences. I am worried about overcommitting our military around the world. I want to be judicious in its use.

You mentioned Haiti. I wouldn't have sent troops to Haiti. I didn't think it was a mission worthwhile. It was a nation-building mission. And it was not very successful. It cost us billions, a couple of billions of dollars, and I'm not so sure democracy is any better off in Haiti than it was before.

LEHRER: Vice President Gore, do you agree with the governor's views on nation-building, the use of military, our military to for nation-building, as he described it and defined it?

GORE: I don't think we agree on thatI would certainly also be judicious in evaluating any potential use of American troops overseas. I think we have to be very reticent about that.

But, look, Jim, the world is changing so rapidly. The way I see it, the world's getting much closer together. Like it or not, we are now the, the United States is now the natural leader of the world. All these other countries are looking to us.

Now, just because we cannot be involved everywhere, and shouldn't be, doesn't mean that we should shy away from going in anywhere. Now, both of us are, kind of, I guess stating the other's position in a maximalist, extreme way, but I think there is a difference here.

This idea of nation-building is a kind of pejorative phrase. But think about the great conflict of the past century, World War II. During the years between World War I and World War II, a great lesson was learned by our military leaders and the people of the United States. The lesson was that in the aftermath of World War I we kind of turned our backs and left them to their own devices, and they brewed up a lot of trouble that quickly became World War II.

And acting upon that lesson in the aftermath of our great victory in World War II, we laid down the Marshall Plan, President Truman did.

We got eminently involved in building NATO and other structures there. We still have lots of troops in Europe.

And what did we do in the late '40s and '50s and '60s? We were nation-building. And it was economic, but it was also military. And the confidence that those countries recovering from the wounds of war had by having troops there we had civil administrators come in to set up their ways of building their towns back.

LEHRER: You said in the Boston debate, Governor, on this issue of nation-building, that the United States military is overextended now. Where is it overextended? Where are there U.S. military that you would bring home if you become president?

BUSH: Well, first, let me just say one comment about what the vice president said. I think one of the lessons in between World War I and World War II is we let our military atrophy, and we can't do that. We've got to rebuild our military.

But one of the problems we have in the military is we're in a lot of places around the world. And I mentioned one, and that's the Balkans. I'd very much like to get our troops out of there. I recognize we can't do it now, nor do I advocate an immediate withdrawal. That would be an abrogation of our agreement with NATO; no one's suggesting that. But I think it ought to be one of our priorities, to work with our European friends to convince them to put troops on the ground. And there is an example. Haiti is another example.

Now, there are some places where, I think, you know, I supported the administration in Colombia; I think it's important for us to be training Colombians in that part of the world. Our hemisphere is in our interest, to have a peaceful Colmbia.

But...

LEHRER: If you're just going to you know, the use of the military, there's some people are now suggesting that if you don't want to use the military to maintain the peace, to do the civil thing, is it time to consider a civil force of some kind that comes in after the military that builds nations or all of that? Is that on your radar screen?

BUSH: I don't think so. I think, I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean, we're going to have kind of a nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not.

Our military's meant to fight and win war. That's what it's meant to do. And when it gets over extended, morale drops.

And I'm not, I strongly believe we need to have a military presence in the Korea Peninsula, not only to keep the peace in peninsula, but to keep regional stability. And I strongly believe we need to keep a presence in NATO.

But I'm going to be judicious as to how to use the military. It needs to be in our vital interest, the mission needs to be clear, and the exit strategy obvious.

GORE: Well, I don't disagree with that. I certainly don't disagree that we ought to get our troops home from places like the Balkans as soon as we can, as soon as the mission is complete.

That's what we did in Haiti. There are, there are no more than a handful of American military personnel in Haiti now. And the Haitians have their problems, but we gave them a chance to restore democracy. And that's really about all we can do.

But if you have a situation like that right in our backyard with chaos about to break out and flotillas forming to come across the water and all kinds of violence there, right in one of our neighboring countries there, then I think that we did the right thing there.

Click here for more text of the debate.