|
Kerry should take the fight to Bush's backyard
|
View this Thread in Original format
| 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 . 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 ing 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 ing 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 |
|
|
| LiquidX |
| 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 . 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 ing 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 ing 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 |
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!:D |
|
|
| JM |
| 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!:D |
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< |
|
|
| .montecarlo. |
| 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".
|
something i've wondered... would kerry have held back on iraq (on the premise that it was still being inspected, and less of a threat than bin laden/al quaeda) and supported sending more troops to afghanistan?
granted, even with more troops there's no guarantee they'd find bin laden, but the chances would be exponetially higher. |
|
|
| ResonantDrag |
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. |
|
|
| LiquidX |
| 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< |
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. |
|
|
| 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.
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%. |
|
|
| JM |
| 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. |
every poll is a bit different. i dont even know why i bother checking them out - what matters most is the election.
>JM< |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| 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< |
http://www.pollingreport.com |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| 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. |
That may certainly be true, and I'll accept your premise that Kerry might actually alienate a number of his base voters by taking a strong stance one way or the other.
My advice is: take the strong stance on Iraq that I outlined and take the chances of alienating some voters. I would venture to guess that he may lose a few folks on the way, but the damage of votes lost would be minimal and manageable considering that the majority of his voters AND majority of undecided voters agree wholehartedly that Iraq is a ing mess that was handled AND managed piss poorly.
Now the question does follow on what Kerry would do differently NOW that we're already there. He has answered this question on numerous occasions - get more UN and NATO involvement:
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/...2004_0623e.html
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/nat...urity/iraq.html
Now I know the future situation could possibly be a lot more complicated than that, and may involve a much more intricate strategy. Or, it my come to the unfortunate point where we have no choice but to get the hell outa there and keep out of their civil war (God forbid). Who knows, and either of these situations may actually not be much different than what Bush might eventually propose himself, depending upon the future outlook.
The selling point, however, that Kerry should bring to the table is not what we should do now or in the future, though that is a legitimate point worth asking. Rather, Kerry should frame his argument over the mistakes this Administration has continually made with Iraq, pre-war, during the war, and post-war. He should then outline what he would have done differently.
And here's some more ammo for him:
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww...&articleId=8498
specifically:
| 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." |
|
|
|
| biodigit |
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. |
So basically it boils down to the three of the major battleground states; OH, PA and FL. Any candidate takes 2 out of these 3 states, along with no upsets in their projective winable states, that candidate will win.
| 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. |
So if/when Kerry annihilates Bush in those speeches, he has a great chance to get back in the race. |
|
|
| 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 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.. |
|
|
|
|
