Bush's Achilles Heel: Tora Bora and War on the Cheap

[DrFunkenstein]

It is not hard to find a Republican trying to suggest that Bush is strong on terror. The time is coming to nail him to the wall on this point, contrary to media groupthink.

1. Bush opposed Homeland Security, the flip-flopped after he figured he could use it as flag-draped cover for cutting worker's rights. And then pretended it was his idea.

2. Bush sat on his hands over restructuring the intelligence community despite glaring problems, defending Tenet as the bee's knees until he had no choice but to jettison him as scapegoat.

3. Terrorism increased under Bush's cowboy routine. This should be constantly pointed out to the media.

4. Most importantly - this is the one that Kerry is going to nail Bush for - Bush shortchanged the American public in Afghanistan. Rather than use the greatest soldiers in the world, Bush tried to fight Osama on the cheap, using fundamentalist warlords to fight terrorists.

Let me repeat that for effect - Bush rented fundamentalist warlords to fight terrorists. Did they do a good job and get Osama bin Laden for us? You know, the guy responsible for the murder of 3000 Americans?



It is time to call Dubya the "W" word. Wimp. Sure he struts around in jeans on his millionaire ranch and says stuff like "Bring 'em on" when speaking for the soldiers on the frontlines he never saw. But that doesn't make him tough. That makes him a peacock.

Bush is a peacock. All talk, no walk. All strut, no tut. Bush is a wimp. His father may have sipped tea, but at least he had some balls. Dubya is all mouth, no scrotum.

I know for a fact that Bush's cheapskate pansy act at Tora Bora pissed him off to no end. He called it "risk aversion," which is Kerry-speak for "Bush has no balls."

The day must come when whips it out and lays it all on the table (the Tora Bora debacle, that is). He needs to call Bush out hardcore on this, and tell the public that Bush put a proverbial sock in his flightsuit.

Bush always claims that "America is safer with Saddam Hussein behind bars." Fair enough, I don't disagree. Kerry needs to shift the question slighty and ask Americans, "Are we safer after invading Iraq, several hundred American lives later?" "Are we safer with our military overstretched in a country that posed no imminent danger while terrorist cells organize throughout the world?"

Media groupthink assumes Bush will retain national security as an issue. Horsepoop. Bush is campaigning on a house of cards. All Kerry needs to do is fan the air.



Here is Kerry even before he announced his candidacy:

“When given the opportunity to destroy Al Qaeda, the President turned not to the best military in the history of man,” he said in July, “but rather turned to Afghan warlords who only a week earlier were on the other side.”

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/content/?040126fr_archive02

Bring back that lovin' feeling.

[22181]

1. Dude, don't insult peacocks!

Other than that I'm with ya all the way. :)

[Gloria]

2. I'm waiting for the campaign to bring out Clark re: his 60-90 days

timetable on Iraq. He said that in 60-90 days we'd know if Iraq could be successful or if it was lost.

We're at the 60 day mark now. As the GOP Convention winds down, I'd like to hear the drumbeat.....it's out of control (Robert Fisk is already on message), and quite possibly, a failure....

[DrFunkenstein]

3. Kerry Won't Do It

He would be labelled a pessimist. Instead, he's just going to say Bush is a screw-up and can't get his administration to screw in a light bulb.

[flpoljunkie]

4. Great post, Dr. Funkenstein! John Kerry is indeed, the "Real Deal."

AP Photo/Gerald Herbert