Kerry needs to "go nuclear" on their asses

[Jacobin]

I'm sorry. SmirkCo, as predicted, is in the mud with this campaign.

There is PLENTY of dirt on Bush....more than enough to slime him with.

Take the gloves OFF. Stop complaining to the FEC. They will issue some mamby pamby order or opinion that will do nothing for the campaign.

Do the Goat Book Reading. Show him flying around the country like a chicken on 9/11. Go into his drunken first 40 years, his failed economic policies (show the dust bowl or something), the "mission accomplished crap" death and destruction in IraqNam, CondiSleeza admitting to the title of the PDB in that smirky little tone of hers, ALL OF IT, DAMMIT.

Just Do It. HIT 'EM WHERE IT HURTS.

:mad:

[quaoar]

1. The problem with going nuclear

Is that the soil is then contaminated for years.

[xchrom]

3. too late

you can thank reagan for that.

[MercutioATC]

2. Kerry's camp needs to say this:

We now know that these abuses were, in fact, occuring; perpetuated by a small number of U.S. military personnel. Yes, Sen. Kerry testified before a Congressional commission and told the truth. That was his duty as an American. To remain silent would have been to condone these abuses and contribute to their continuance.

Keep it simple. Spin it all you want, his "crime" was telling the truth...a truth we're all aware of now.

[Old and In the Way]

4. Here's the fuse-

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x644861

[OneBlueSky]

5. he sure as hell does . . .

if he wants to win this election . . . read this article from The Guardian to see how he's hamstringing himself by running on his war record rather than on the issues that matter . . .

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/comment/story/0,14259,1284048,00.html

"But Kerry can't do hypotheticals or hindsight. He has to be straight and clear. So, yes, he would have moved to oust Saddam. He'd have done, alas, just what the president did.

"And thus the me-too litany grows. Is America really embarked on a "war" against terror - as opposed to the pursuit of a particularly malign agglomeration of terrorists? It's a vital distinction, but Commander Kerry can't make it.

"Don't we hear rather too much about service nobility and rather too little about Abu Ghraib? Kerry, the super vet, is hamstrung there, too. Come to think of it, where is Osama bin Laden - or even Mullah Omar? The commander can't go there either. He'd be talking military failure, not military triumph.

"He could make hay with the Bush record day after day. Flip-flop? First flatten Najaf, then pick it up and dust it down. He could ridicule the Bush absurdity of bringing "democracy and freedom" to the Muslim world which doesn't appear to include Saudi Arabia."

[graywarrior]

6. Don't you mean nu-cu-ler?