WP: Kerry on Defensive About Iraq

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A63875-2004Aug13?language=printer

Over the past week, President Bush and Vice President Cheney have thrown Sen. John F. Kerry on the defensive with a daily assault designed to tarnish his credentials as a possible commander in chief. But the orchestrated attacks also revealed the president's vulnerabilities on the issue that continues to shape the presidential campaign as much as any other.

The volleys over terrorism came after Kerry and his advisers believed they had put behind them most questions about his capacity to lead the country in a war on terrorism. Instead, Kerry and his advisers allowed themselves to be drawn into a new debate about Iraq and terrorism and were forced to rebut daily charges that Kerry has equivocated and sent conflicting signals on national security.

Kerry advisers see the criticisms as both wrong and distorted. But the exchanges were a reminder of how the issue of Iraq has bedeviled Kerry's candidacy first in the Democratic primaries and now the general election as he has navigated between the demands of the antiwar faction in his own party and a desire to project strong leadership to a general-election audience.

The attacks also underscored the urgency within Bush's campaign to deny Kerry a sustained post-convention bounce. With some polls showing Kerry made clear gains against Bush on terrorism and national security, the president's weakness on the issues that once were his great strengths was on clear display.

[Nancy Waterman]

1. Kerry needs to define Bush's MO and not respond to the attacks

He needs to say something like: These are standard Bush/Rove tactics. They attack the character of their opponent. They fabricate, exaggerate, and outright lie, weaving a spider's web of deceit. They use third parties who are "officially" not involved with the campaign to impugne the character of their opponents. They did it to Gore, to McCain, to Ann Richards, and now they are dong it to Kerry. The old saying: the Devil works with a grain of truth applies here. They spin all kinds of distortions using a sliver of truth, just enough to make it believable, but really creating what amounts to a lie.

Bush should be put on the defensive for lying, for degrading the American political system with nothing of substance, only character smears. And McCain should be ashamed to support him.

[Cha]

3. This is excellent advise, Nancy.. We have

a Dem_Strategist on board du and I hope he picks up on this.

Because this is what's happening.

[Democat]

2. What isn't the Kerry campaign on the defensive about right now?

When you don't attack the other guy, you aren't on the offensive.

Bush attacks, he's on the offensive.

Kerry defends, he's on the defensive.

We could use more offense.

[coloradodem2005]

4. This is what worries me.

Can we get the roles back the way they were soon? Bush on defensive and Kerry on offensive? please?

[Democat]

5. Kerry on the offense? Take a look at this thread - you will be angry!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x618880

Kerry will be taking a break for the next few weeks according to the article in that thread! :(

[Demoiselle]

6. Get a grip, people.

1. It is the middle of August. We have a long way to go.
2. Reread the last paragraph in the post:
"The attacks also underscored the urgency within Bush's campaign to deny Kerry a sustained post-convention bounce. With some polls showing Kerry made clear gains against Bush on terrorism and national security, the president's weakness on the issues that once were his great strengths was on clear display."
...Methinks the Washington Post may have intentionally buried the lead! We know that it's not SOME polls, but MOST polls, friends. Of course they're going to attack!!! Although I don't think I would have voted with him, I can understand that Kerry's vote to support that damn resolution was a principled vote to strengthen the USA's negotiating hand. It would have been nice if Clinton had had such principled support from the Senate Repukes in his foreign policy manoeuvers. It would be nice if President Kerry has such principled support when he comes into office. All this talk about traps and offense/defense is "game" language, designed to distract from policy and principle. Please try to relax and give Kerry a little credit. He's a fighter.

[Nambe]

7. The irony is blinding.

And for far too many voters.

[brentspeak]

8. Kerry needs to tailor his speech more carefully

Yes, Bush and Cheney have been twisting Kerry's words, but they wouldn't be able to in the first place if Kerry hadn't been practically handing them ready-made soundbites from his speeches.

I know what he was trying to say about voting for the war resolution again even he knew that there were no WMD, but why did he have to be so vague about it? That and using the word "sensitive" anywhere near the words "fighting terrorism" are just the kind of things that Karl Rove looks for when he begins his early-mornings smear meetings.

It's Kerry's responsibility as a candidate on the campaign trail to be completely unambiguous when he makes his speeches and not to give Bush additional firepower. Just go in there and say "If president, I will obliterate the terrorists in any way I have to, no questions asked! And never again will America have to worry about a president who is literally sleeping on the job for an entire thirty days on vacation!" Speak plainly, Kerry, take a page from Truman.