|
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 |
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
___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...
|
