TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Kerry should take the fight to Bush's backyard
Kerry should take the fight to Bush's backyard
IOW, if Kerry would actually focus on foreign policy and homeland security, the exact same issues that the Bush backers profess are his strongpoints, I contend that Kerry could do some serious damage to the Bush campaign. Consider the following:
1. We have not caught bin Laden. In fact, the message that Bush gave in March of 2002 during a press conference:
"I just don't spend that much time on him, to be honest with ya."
should be telling. You rarely hear bin Laden coming from Conservative pundits anymore. That should also be telling with this one exception: you hardly ever hear his name coming from very many Democrats either. In fact, bin Laden's name was never even mentioned during the Democratic Convention. Why? It should be a major issue and blow to this Administration that has failed to capture the culprit behind killing 3,000 innocent civilians. Yet, with glaring irony, that horrible event in our history was UTILIZED as a backdrop for the Republican Convention! That took balls on their part, if only the undecided voters would understand how misplaced it truly was considering we haven't even caught the real attacker.
2. Terrorist attacks have gone up, not down.
-Even Colin Powell had to embarrassingly correct himself after a Meet the Press interview (in May?) when he incorrectly stated that terrorist attackers have decreased. At times our Administration claims they have captured two-thirds of Al Qaeda's lesser leaders; sometimes, three-quarters. The 9-11 Commission says one-quarter. Terrorists killed more people�625�in 2003 than in any year other than 2001. They wounded more than ever�3,646 people.
What's clear is that terrorist groups like Al Qaeda and others have had a field day recruiting new members, which most analysts and foreign strategic studies agree. Unfortunately, the Iraqi War has played a central role in that, which brings me to my 3rd point:
3. Kerry should nail Bush's ass to the ground on the Iraqi issue.
This is THE issue, at least at the moment, where Bush will NOT openly discuss. And Kerry should be targeting this sucker with full vigor. Most individuals and analysts knew that Iraq is going to shit. But now we have intelligence reviews by both the Senate Intelligence Committees and the National Intelligence Estimate stating exactly that:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...a_st_pe/us_iraq
This is where Bush and the Neocons' idealism really went to crap. Iraq is a fucking mess, and the potential for it to become much worse is coming to fruition. Bush and the neocons refused to listen to individuals that told them anything outside of what they wanted to hear. It actually scares the crap out of me to think that Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney, and Bush himself truly believed that we would have been welcomed with open arms. They had no idea just how bad this guerilla warfare would turn out, and they failed, to this day, to adequately protect our troops
a. physically
-body armor and vehicle armor shortage
b. strategically
-security going to crap - $3 billion asked to be redirected towards security yesterday
-reserves having extended tours and other reserves being called up (backdoor draft)
It truly scares me just how ill-prepared their post-war plan truly was. Kerry could also use these words against Bush:
| quote: |
| Had we gone into Baghdad -- we could have done it, you guys could have done it, you could have been there in 48 hours -- and then what? Which sergeant, which private, whose life would be at stake in perhaps a fruitless hunt in an urban guerilla war to find the most-secure dictator in the world? Whose life would be on my hands as the commander-in-chief because I, unilaterally, went beyond the international law, went beyond the stated mission, and said we're going to show our macho? We're going into Baghdad. We're going to be an occupying power -- America in an Arab land -- with no allies at our side. It would have been disastrous. http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1999/03/a19990303bush.htm |
Re: Kerry should take the fight to Bush's backyard
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MisterOpus1 IOW, if Kerry would actually focus on foreign policy and homeland security, the exact same issues that the Bush backers profess are his strongpoints, I contend that Kerry could do some serious damage to the Bush campaign. Consider the following: 1. We have not caught bin Laden. In fact, the message that Bush gave in March of 2002 during a press conference: "I just don't spend that much time on him, to be honest with ya." should be telling. You rarely hear bin Laden coming from Conservative pundits anymore. That should also be telling with this one exception: you hardly ever hear his name coming from very many Democrats either. In fact, bin Laden's name was never even mentioned during the Democratic Convention. Why? It should be a major issue and blow to this Administration that has failed to capture the culprit behind killing 3,000 innocent civilians. Yet, with glaring irony, that horrible event in our history was UTILIZED as a backdrop for the Republican Convention! That took balls on their part, if only the undecided voters would understand how misplaced it truly was considering we haven't even caught the real attacker. 2. Terrorist attacks have gone up, not down. -Even Colin Powell had to embarrassingly correct himself after a Meet the Press interview (in May?) when he incorrectly stated that terrorist attackers have decreased. At times our Administration claims they have captured two-thirds of Al Qaeda's lesser leaders; sometimes, three-quarters. The 9-11 Commission says one-quarter. Terrorists killed more people�625�in 2003 than in any year other than 2001. They wounded more than ever�3,646 people. What's clear is that terrorist groups like Al Qaeda and others have had a field day recruiting new members, which most analysts and foreign strategic studies agree. Unfortunately, the Iraqi War has played a central role in that, which brings me to my 3rd point: 3. Kerry should nail Bush's ass to the ground on the Iraqi issue. This is THE issue, at least at the moment, where Bush will NOT openly discuss. And Kerry should be targeting this sucker with full vigor. Most individuals and analysts knew that Iraq is going to shit. But now we have intelligence reviews by both the Senate Intelligence Committees and the National Intelligence Estimate stating exactly that: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...a_st_pe/us_iraq This is where Bush and the Neocons' idealism really went to crap. Iraq is a fucking mess, and the potential for it to become much worse is coming to fruition. Bush and the neocons refused to listen to individuals that told them anything outside of what they wanted to hear. It actually scares the crap out of me to think that Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney, and Bush himself truly believed that we would have been welcomed with open arms. They had no idea just how bad this guerilla warfare would turn out, and they failed, to this day, to adequately protect our troops a. physically -body armor and vehicle armor shortage b. strategically -security going to crap - $3 billion asked to be redirected towards security yesterday -reserves having extended tours and other reserves being called up (backdoor draft) It truly scares me just how ill-prepared their post-war plan truly was. Kerry could also use these words against Bush: Guess who said those words? Bush Sr. in 1998 to a group of Gulf War veterans. Kerry could also nail him, and especially Cheney, for continuing to connect Saddam to 9/11 and Al Qaeda. It's fucking sickening to me that there's still a majority of individuals who believe there was a link, despite all the intelligence clearly indicating otherwise, until you realize just how many times these false statements are repeated by the likes of Cheney and others. Kerry could also nail him on the PRIMARY fact that troops, intelligence, and finance were pulled off of finding bin Laden and Al Qaeda members throughout the Afghanistan region, in order for the preparation to go to war in Iraq. Now the following criticisms has been used against Kerry: 1. He supported the Congressional policy that enabled Bush to send troops to Iraq 2. He stated that knowing what he knows now, he still would have supported an overthrow of Iraq. The first point can be framed in the sense that Kerry did, indeed, vote to give Bush the power to send troops to Iraq. Now it would be foolish to believe that this is where Bush's powers ended, and that Kerry did NOT vote for Bush to attack Iraq. However, the vote Kerry supported was to send troops and have UN weapons inspectors disarm Iraq. The inspectors were doing just that by investigating whether Saddam had WMDs. What Kerry did NOT support was the necessity for Bush to kick out the UN inspectors so hurriedly so he could immediately invade. There still has been no sound answer to this question to this day - what was the hurry? Regardless, I believe it was a mistake for Kerry to state the 2nd criticism, that he would have also supported an invasion of Iraq regardless. This implies that he too would have weighed the counterevidence against the claims of WMDs, and would have also ignored them. It's why I didn't include this as a rationale to use against Bush and the Iraqi War above. However, the simple logic that I described above could follow: -Would Kerry, as President, seen the desire to divert our attention away from bin Laden in order to fight a war that had no connection to those who attacked us in the first place? I'm inclined to say "no". -Would Kerry, even IF he asked troops to be sent, have hurriedly kicked out UN weapons inspectors, and have authorized a pre-emptive invasion without the UN approval on a country that had was not involved in attacking and killing 3,000 of our citizens? Again I'm inclined to say, "hell no". Now this is all speculation and hindsight, but regardless I believe the point can still be utilized quite effectively against Bush's supposed strength. If Kerry wants to make a good hard hit on Bush right now, he should take the Bush campaign fear factor and frame it around on Bush: we should be afraid of not just the terrorists, but this current Administration who's failed miserably at fighting terrorism. Opus1 |
Re: Re: Kerry should take the fight to Bush's backyard
| quote: |
| Originally posted by LiquidX Great points, and you are certainly right! Kerry should be nailing Bush, Im so surprised that Bush even has some type of lead in the polls.. Get on the ballot bro! |
Re: Kerry should take the fight to Bush's backyard
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MisterOpus1 -Would Kerry, as President, seen the desire to divert our attention away from bin Laden in order to fight a war that had no connection to those who attacked us in the first place? I'm inclined to say "no". -Would Kerry, even IF he asked troops to be sent, have hurriedly kicked out UN weapons inspectors, and have authorized a pre-emptive invasion without the UN approval on a country that had was not involved in attacking and killing 3,000 of our citizens? Again I'm inclined to say, "hell no". |
kerry's "scandals" look pretty lame in this light.
If he loses this election, it's not going to be because of his actions as much as his inactions. He needs to stop trying to wipe off the mud slung, and take a real offensive against this administration. Great Daddy Bush quote, Opus, it's a shame good sense skips a generation in that family.
Re: Re: Re: Kerry should take the fight to Bush's backyard
| quote: |
| Originally posted by JM they say 11 points. with the recent scandal airing all over prime time tv ( report that aired on CBS ) Kerry ratings will only go down. And i dont even think pres. Bush has made any mention of it - he will though, as soon as the media backs off and finds something new to talk about. >JM< |
Re: Iraq. Kerry can't touch it. Here's the problem. Bush's base is solidified on Iraq, Kerry's is not. Bush supporters support the war in Iraq by about 90% to 10%. Kerry supporters are against the war only at about 55%, with roughly 35% in favor of finishing the job. (10% undecided).
Why do you think he keeps trying to take nuanced positions on the issue? His voting base has two different takes on the way Iraq should be handled. He can't 'beat Bush over the head' with the issue because once he comes out and takes a strong stand, he'll alienate a chunk of his own voters.
FYI on the Pew poll. Not a lot of people are lending much credence to it, because other polls (like the new Gallup one today) haven't changed like that, and because Pew changed their sampling method. The Gallup poll will be officially released tomorrow, and will show Bush at 54%, Kerry at 40%, and Nader at 3%.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Kerry should take the fight to Bush's backyard
| quote: |
| Originally posted by LiquidX To my surprise, I just saw a Pew poll, saying that this candidates are now tied!! this same poll, said that, a week before, Bush was with a 50% and Kerry with a 42%.. and now tied?!?!.. Is this the first of polls to say the same?!?!.. let's see. |
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kerry should take the fight to Bush's backyard
| quote: |
| Originally posted by JM every poll is a bit different. i dont even know why i bother checking them out - what matters most is the election. >JM< |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by imokruok Re: Iraq. Kerry can't touch it. Here's the problem. Bush's base is solidified on Iraq, Kerry's is not. Bush supporters support the war in Iraq by about 90% to 10%. Kerry supporters are against the war only at about 55%, with roughly 35% in favor of finishing the job. (10% undecided). Why do you think he keeps trying to take nuanced positions on the issue? His voting base has two different takes on the way Iraq should be handled. He can't 'beat Bush over the head' with the issue because once he comes out and takes a strong stand, he'll alienate a chunk of his own voters. |
| quote: |
| As Secretary of Defense under George H.W. Bush, Cheney helped lead a multinational coalition against Iraq and was one of the architects of a post-war economic embargo designed to choke off funds to the country. He insisted the world should "maintain sanctions, at least of some kind," so Saddam Hussein could not "rebuild the military force he's used against his neighbors." But less than six years later, as a private businessman, Cheney apparently had more important interests than preventing Hussein from rebuilding his army. While he claimed during the 2000 campaign that, as CEO of Halliburton, he had "imposed a 'firm policy' against trading with Iraq," confidential UN records show that, from the first half of 1997 to the summer of 2000, Halliburton held stakes in two firms that sold more than $73 million in oil production equipment and spare parts to Iraq while Cheney was in charge. Halliburton acquired its interest in both firms while Cheney was at the helm, and continued doing business through them until just months before Cheney was named George W. Bush's running mate. Perhaps even more troubling, at the same time Cheney was doing business with Iraq, he launched a public broadside against sanctions laws designed to cut off funds to regimes like Iran, which the State Department listed as a state sponsor of terrorism. In 1998, Cheney traveled to Kuala Lumpur to attack his own country's terrorism policies for being too strict. Under the headline, "Former US Defence Secretary Says Iran-Libya Sanctions Act 'Wrong,'" the Malaysian News Agency reported that Cheney "hit out at his government" and said sanctions on terrorist countries were "ineffective, did not provide the desired results and [were] a bad policy." Two years later, Cheney traveled to another country to demand America weaken restrictions on doing business with Iran's petroleum industry, despite Clinton administration warnings that Iranian oil revenues could be used to fund terrorism. "We're kept out of [Iran] primarily by our own government, which has made a decision that U.S. firms should not be allowed to invest significantly in Iran," he told an oil conference in Canada. "I think that's a mistake." |
Regarding the polls
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6025962/
| quote: |
| The polls track the likely popular vote, not the realities of the U.S. Electoral College, which ultimately determine who occupies the White House. |
| quote: |
| Interest in the presidential debates is high with 61 percent saying it�s very likely they will tune in to watch � compared with 43 percent who said that in September 2000. Three in 10 said the debates will matter in their voting decision. |
i remember reading that Kerry said he will withdraw the troops from Iraq within 4 years time..if this is true, Kerry or Bush, Iraq would be still ubder occupation.
Now here is the thing that i wonder.
When Bush got elected, he suddenly faced the destruction of the Twin towers, public demanded wrath, Bush had no choice.
Ok the war campaings didn't go flawless, and now people starting to go against Bush right? and some still support.
Now the question, lets say Kerry gets elected, and he goes soft on terrorism, and the terrorists are still stubborn and strike again, what will Kerry do?
Does anyone know this? did he ever talk about it or did anyone ask him about this scenario? I am very curious about this..
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MisterOpus1 And here's some more ammo for him: http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww...&articleId=8498 |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Massive84 i remember reading that Kerry said he will withdraw the troops from Iraq within 4 years time..if this is true, Kerry or Bush, Iraq would be still under occupation. |
| quote: |
| Now here is the thing that i wonder. When Bush got elected, he suddenly faced the destruction of the Twin towers, public demanded wrath, Bush had no choice. Ok the war campaings didn't go flawless, and now people starting to go against Bush right? and some still support. |
| quote: |
| Now the question, lets say Kerry gets elected, and he goes soft on terrorism, and the terrorists are still stubborn and strike again, what will Kerry do? Does anyone know this? did he ever talk about it or did anyone ask him about this scenario? I am very curious about this.. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MisterOpus1 The public demanded justice to those who attacked us. Did Saddam attack us? |
It appears that Kerry has been listening to his supporters demanding to put Bush on the defensive with the Iraq issue.
'bout fucking time:
| quote: |
| Kerry Finds Ammunition in Intelligence Estimate By Dana Priest and Jim VandeHei The Washington Post Friday 17 September 2004 Citing a new classified intelligence report predicting serious troubles ahead for Iraq, John F. Kerry yesterday accused President Bush of living in a "fantasy world of spin" and refusing to speak honestly about mounting casualties, indiscriminate killings and chaos in Iraq. "Stability and security seem further and further away," Kerry said. The White House, which had planned a vigorous election-season defense of its Iraq strategy next week, was forced into the debate yesterday. White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the intelligence assessment "states the obvious," and he dismissed skeptics of the Iraq policy as "pessimists and naysayers." Bush, at a campaign stop, repeated his generally upbeat assessment of Iraq: "Freedom is on the march." The National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, representing the consensus view of the U.S. intelligence community and written in July, said Iraq's prospects for stability and self-governance over the next 18 months were, at best, "tenuous," according to U.S. government officials who have read it. The 60-page document produced by the National Intelligence Council set out three possible scenarios for the next year and a half in Iraq, the worst of which portrayed the country as descending into civil war. The assessment, which analyzed political, economic and security trends, blamed the mounting problems on Iraq's having no institutions and traditions upon which to build representative government and on resilient opponents, including Shiite militias, Sunni insurgents, foreign terrorists and common criminals. Revelation of the report's existence came on a day when Kerry used some of the toughest language of the campaign to paint a markedly different portrait of Iraq than the one Bush offers audiences. The president, whom polls show a majority of Americans trust more than Kerry to handle Iraq, talks frequently of how the United States is "making progress" stabilizing the war-torn nation and setting the stage for its first democratic elections in January. Democrats point out that Bush rarely, if ever, talks about casualties, the spread of terrorism, kidnappings and beheadings, and the strength of anti-American insurgents in and around Baghdad. Instead, Bush focuses on steady resolve and the broader war on terrorism. Bush did not mention the intelligence estimate -- first reported Wednesday by the New York Times -- as he made three campaign appearances in Minnesota yesterday. But he again emphasized progress. "There's a lot of violence in Iraq -- I understand that," he told a rally in Rochester. "But Iraq now has a strong prime minister, national council, and national elections are scheduled in January. The world is becoming more free." Kerry, speaking to thousands of National Guardsmen in Las Vegas two days after Bush addressed the same group, said the administration's strategy in Iraq is failing and that the White House is trying to hide that reality from the American people. "The president stood right here where I am standing and did not even acknowledge that more than 1,000 men and women have lost their lives in Iraq," Kerry said. "He did not tell that you with each passing day, we're seeing more chaos, more violence, indiscriminate killing. He did not tell you that with each passing week, our enemies are getting bolder -- that Pentagon officials report that entire regions of Iraq are now in the hands of terrorists and extremists." Kerry has been trying to turn Iraq into a referendum on Bush's honesty overall. Bush has "failed the fundamental test of leadership: he failed to tell you the truth," Kerry said. "The hard truth -- and it is a hard truth -- is that our president has made serious mistakes in taking us to war." Sen. Chuck Hagel (Neb.) joined a small, but growing, chorus of GOP voices sounding grave concerns about Iraq, comments that tend to support Kerry's view. "We've got to be honest with ourselves," Hagel said. "The worst thing we can do is hold ourselves hostage to some grand illusion we're winning. Right now, we are not winning. Things are getting worse." Despite the deteriorating situation in Iraq, Kerry has had a difficult time gaining a political foothold on the issue, which divides Americans like few others. A new poll by the Pew Research Center for People and the Press found that Bush enjoys a 52 to 40 percent edge on Iraq. "Unfortunately for Kerry, he's been unable to tap into that unhappiness, especially on Iraq," director Andrew Kohut said. The 3,500 National Guardsmen at the conference in Las Vegas gave Bush seven standing ovations, but Kerry received polite -- but only occasionally enthusiastic -- applause. Kerry's biggest applause lines occurred when he talked about new benefits for those who serve in the National Guard. Kerry has run into two problems of his own making, Democrats say: He voted to authorize the war in 2002; and he has yet to detail a markedly different strategy than Bush's for ending the conflict. Yesterday, Vice President Cheney used Kerry's Senate record against him. "Today, while speaking to the National Guard Association, John Kerry said that our troops deserve no less than the best," Cheney said in a campaign stop in Reno, Nev. "But I am stunned by the audacity of his statement -- Senator Kerry voted to send our troops into combat, and then denied them the support they needed once they were at war. We need a president who will back our troops 100 percent, and that's exactly what we've got in George W. Bush." A White House spokesman yesterday declined to release the July National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, citing its classification. Government officials, however, said the report identified serious problems in recruiting and training an effective Iraqi army and police force, establishing a competent central government and rebuilding significant Iraqi infrastructure. The report states in its "key judgments" section that the majority of Iraqis support self-governance -- without U.S. involvement. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), chairman of the Senate intelligence panel, released a statement yesterday saying he had reviewed the estimate, calling it "a fair, well-written piece. Any honest assessment would recognize that the next couple of years will be very challenging for the Iraqi government and for the U.S." White House spokesmen and other administration officials yesterday said the document did not offer any new insights. "Iraqi leaders and the Iraqi people have proven the pessimists wrong every step of the way," McClellan said. "There are areas where difficulties remain, and there are ongoing security threats . . . but the Iraqi people are determined to build a free and peaceful future." Administration officials plan to use next week's U.S. visit by Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi as the centerpiece of an effort to showcase progress toward democracy. The new NIE is the same type of broad intelligence assessment conducted in October 2002 that concluded Saddam Hussein's government possessed weapons of mass destruction, a finding presented by the administration as one of the main justifications for war. No such weapons have been found, and the 2002 NIE has in the past year been at the center of calls for revamping and improving U.S. intelligence. More recent intelligence assessments on Iraq after Hussein appear to be more perceptive. In January 2003, three months before the war began, for example, the CIA predicted that Iraq would likely split along ethnic and religious lines and that creating a representative democracy would be "long-term, difficult and problematic." Agency officials told the White House that there would be three to four months of goodwill toward U.S. troops before the Iraqi population turned hostile toward what it would see as an occupying force, according to a senior intelligence official who took part in the discussion. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2004Sep16.html |
He's last coupld of speeches has been pretty much on the defensive.. Id say since the beginning of the week.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka I bet he salivated at the mere thought of it! |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MisterOpus1 So we should attack those who drool too much? |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.