< mickey kaus impersonation >The good news for Bush: Kerry might have won the debate, but it was a catostrophic victory!< / mickey kaus impersonation >

We learned some new things about Sen. John Kerry last night in his debate with President Bush. Kerry also confirmed some things:

1. He's a really good debater;
2. He's still interested in scrapping strategic weapons programs;
3. He confirmed the "Kerry Permission Slip Doctrine" last night;
4. Either he is making a conscious decision to lie about Tora Bora, or he's misleading the country based on bad intelligence.

First things first: Everybody knew he was a good debater because he creamed Bill Weld when they ran against each other for the Senate. So let's just say this was one of those things he confirmed.

But his idea of scrapping the "nuclear bunker buster" research makes one wonder: If Kerry was against all the critical weapons systems that won the Cold War, the war in Afghanistan and the military conflict in Iraq, what does this say about his opposition to research on nuclear bunker busters? And would Kerry also pull the plug on research into "agent-defeat warheads intended to sterilize stockpiles of chemical or biological agents" - which is companion research to the bunker busters? (Wouldn't we want a bio-chem version of "Star Wars?")

Would a Kerry presidency lead to a long-term weakening of the U.S. military? So far, we've only heard about the weapons systems he's wanted to kill. Does he support any?

And how about this from last night:

No president, though 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...(Emphasis added)

But? But what? He tells us:

...if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it 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.

Ah. The dreaded "permission slip." And by "prove to the world," does he mean 183 countries? Does he mean the U.N. Security Council, where Syria gets a vote? Or does he mean 30 countries willing to join a coalition to enforce U.N. resolutions against a tyrant? Everything that President Bush has been saying about Kerry's foreign policy, Kerry confirmed during the debates last night, it seems.

Now, about that Tora Bora remark:

Unfortunately, (Osama bin Laden) 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 and he outsourced that job too. That's wrong.

Retired Gen. Michael DeLong, second-in-command of the U.S. operations in Afghanistan, had this to say last week about Kerry's continuing Tora Bora remarks: "Sen. Kerry didn’t know what happened. He’s no more better informed than the armchair generals who went after us (on TV.) "

What did happen? According to DeLong: Al Qaeda militants ran into the hills and caves of Tora Bora and then hid among the civilians in the tribal/border area with Pakistan. Bin Laden was wounded, the Taliban was defeated, thousands of al Qaeda terrorists were killed. A full-scale, U.S. military assault on the civilian area would have led to massive civil war in Afghanistan, thwarted any hope for elections, and still couldn't have gauranteed bin Laden's capture.

(It also could have jeopardized the support of Pakistan - a critical, new ally with whom the U.S. relationship was just repaired after years of neglect during the Clinton Administration.)

Does Kerry know this, or is he ignoring the word of DeLong, retired Gen. Tommy Franks and others who actually ran the operation?

All in all, the Democratic candidate showed a continued disdain for military leadership, a disdain for using technology to build a better defense, and a disdain for the truth about Tora Bora. While he'd be willing to cut France and Germany in on the Iraq reconstruction contracts, he showed what could be perceived as a cavalier disregard for U.S. relations with countries such as Jordan, Pakistan, Great Britain and the others in the U.S. coalition. (Ignoring, for example, Jordan's decision to train Iraqi police.)

Gallup's overnight polling seems to suggest voters are saying, "Ok. He won the debate. But he hasn't proven he's more trustworthy on Iraq than Bush."

MORE: John Podhoretz also caught the "nuclear bunker buster" remark and believes Kerry handed Bush a valuable campaign issue.