Kerry's $200 billion rant against the Iraq War is not the best argument...

[kentuck]

People do not fall off their chairs at the mention of $200 billion. That is peanuts in the Federal budget and the scheme of things. Although it got good media coverage, it is not the best line of attack on the Iraq War, in my opinion.

[charlyvi]

1. I think it's pretty good....

When you tell the same people that the $200 billion was diverted from programs at home that could protect them against a terrorist attack on American soil. Or to capture Osama bin Forgotten, or fund Medicare, or educate children, or anything else except an unneccessary war. I think it's pretty good.

[russian33]

2. It rings true in NYC, where we've seen fire houses close...

..amount of cops cut down, etc...

[klook]

3. If they fell off their chairs at $87 billion

why wouldn't they fall off their chairs at $200 billion?

I think it's a good talking point, especially when Kerry lists the other things $200 billion could have bought us.

[LiberalBushFan]

4. It's not much compared to the tax cuts.

And anyone who thinks we're preventing terra by being over there will think 200 bil. is well worth it. And it would be if that were the case.

[sundancekid]

5. rings quite powerfully along battleground states for sure

[merh]

6. The way he makes the argument, it sounds like we would still

have spent the $200 billion on domestic programs and we would still have the huge deficit.

[The Magistrate]

7. It Is A Pretty Good Line, Sir

It taps into the same basic nativism as complaints about foreign aid: why is all that money being spent over there instead of here on us in the good old U.S.A.?

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[kentuck]

9. Perhaps so, but it seems secondary to :

1000 lives lost, lies to get us involved in the war, loss of respect around the world, and the way it has permitted terrorists to increase their numbers seem like better arguments to me, but that's just my opinion.

[charlyvi]

15. Of course it's secondary...

but these arguments aren't mutually exclusive. Because he mentions the money today doesn't mean he hasn't mentioned the lives lost, loss of respect, increasing terrorist numbers. I think the only thing I haven't heard from K/E is that shrub lied to get us into war. I don't know if he wants to come out and call shrub a liar--that could backfire and is a very unpresidential accusation even though it's true.

[The Magistrate]

22. It Is Secondary To Those Things, Sir

But it will resonate more widely just the same. It is beyond the truism that crowds, like flighty horses, can be moved by trifles: it frames it into the most basic of political questions: "What's in it for me?" and "Where's mine?"

"We don't want nobody nobody sent."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Proud2BAmurkin]

8. It's a GREAT LINE. Kerry is telling people what it would buy for THEM

things they can relate to.

[kentuck]

10. If the $200 billion was important to voters....

then the huge Bush deficit would be a dynamite issue, seems to me?

[charlyvi]

17. How do you know the deficit isn't a big issue?

I think many true conservatives think the deficit is VERY important. It's just not sexy; the sexed up stories get the media coverage. I have a feeling in November more than a few of the true fiscal conservatives will either vote for Kerry/Edwards or stay home. Also, when you mention that the deficit will have to be paid by our children and grandchildren, many parent's ears perk up, especially single moms.

[democrat in Tallahassee]

11. Keep Saying it over and over!!!

[wiggs]

12. 200 billion is some real money

Could have been used for domestic programs

Could have been used for domestic security

Could have been used strengthening relationships with allies

Could have been used more effectively in Afganistan

Could have been used to fight AIDS (which in some people's minds is one of the ways in which we can gain back world respect)

But also, military strength and financial strength go hand in hand. If spending money you don't have means creating debt, borrowing from other countries, raising interest rates, etc, then we are weaker militarily too.

[Julien Sorel]

13. $200 billion is about 10%

of total federal spending in a given year. That's a shitload of money. That puts a lot of cops on the street, teachers in the classroom, asphalt on the highways. $200 billion is about 1/3 of the projected defict spending next year. Bush cried when Congress sliced off $300 billion, I think it was, from his tax cut proposal last year. It's a lot of money.

[goodhue]

14. disagree

Linking failed Iraq war to US economic woe is key.
Resources wasted abroad that would be better used at home.
$200 billion is not peanuts but a substantial percentage of federal budget and could do wonders if directed at domestic programs.

[welshTerrier2]

16. bush did not and still does not understand Iraq

since no one opted to comment on my earlier post on this subject, i'll repost it here ... and btw, I agree, the $200 billion is NOT the best way to make the point against bush's Iraq position ... here's a link to my earlier post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=769910&mesg_id=769910

Mission Accomplished ... we've heard this discussed a million times ... we hear Democratic arguments like "bush said we won the war in Iraq but it's still going on" ...

the main issue isn't just whether combat is continuing ... bush easily dodges that bullet by saying that his speech was referring to "major combat" and that the "mission" he was referring to was the success of our brave troops who helped get rid of Saddam ...

there's a much more important point to make and I'm afraid we've done a very poor job making it ... we need to help voters understand that bush's judgment on Iraq has been wrong all along and continues to be wrong ...

bush thought our troops would be welcomed as liberators ... he listened to Rumsfeld's advice that this war could be fought with a small force heavily reliant on technology ... bush stated repeatedly that Saddam could use his WMD against the U.S. at any time ... he stated that Saddam was trying to obtain nuclear materials from Africa ... he believed a puppet government friendly to the U.S. would be well received by the Iraqi people ... and he believed that a Western-style democracy could be installed very quickly, perhaps in less than a year ...

bush was dead wrong on everything he believed about Iraq ... the fact that he regularly tries to associate himself with the brave men and women who serve in Iraq does not excuse his putting them in harm's way with an ill-conceived plan to, as Kerry so ineptly phrases it, "win the peace" ... Kerry needs "better words" than these to highlight bush's total failure to understand what the future in Iraq holds given our current, misguided course ... perhaps some enlightened DU'er can suggest some better words ...

bush believed there were direct ties between Saddam and al Qaeda ... he even suggested that Saddam was channeling WMD to terrorists ... that's not an easy thing to do given that he didn't have any !!!

and btw, for those needing a little documentation to support the case that bush tied Saddam directly to al Qaeda, here's a quote or two from bush's "mission accomplished" speech:

source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/20...

"The al-Qa'eda no longer have an ally in the regime in Iraq," he said. "Terrorists no longer have a funding source in the regime of Iraq.

"One thing is certain: terrorists will no longer have a source of weapons of mass destruction in the regime that used to be in Iraq because the regime is no longer."

using real video clips of bush's speeches, the American people need to be taught a history lesson on how bush viewed the Iraq war starting with day one ... he was wrong then; he's even more wrong now ... he's never demonstrated he understood what we've gotten ourselves into in Iraq ... and staying the course when things are going as badly as they are is the perfect definition of insanity ... a simple review of the record will tell the story very clearly ... bush's words on Iraq are the best evidence we have that he has failed our troops in Iraq, he has failed the American people and he has failed the Iraqi people as well ... his own words reveal that he has never understood the mission in Iraq ...

but so far, Kerry has failed to make the strongest possible case ... it's important that this gets changed ...

[sangh0]

18. No, it's not the best argument

There are numerous arguments, but only one is the best. I don't think candidate should rely on one argument. Also, the various arguments add up to a story, and stories are important.

[gratuitous]

19. Perhaps not the "best"

But who would have thought that attacking Kerry's military career was such a good idea? But it looked like a pretty good bit of demagoguery for a minute or two there, you have to admit.

As the sole argument against the Bush administration, yes, it's not the best argument. But those corrupt bastards have given us so much fodder, it's sometimes difficult to choose just what's the best argument for turning them out. But the wasted $200 billion, the wasted lives and the wasted time make for a pretty potent package. It's not a one-size-fits-all point, but it fits in a lot of areas, and by constantly hitting that point, it becomes something the Bush campaign will have to reckon with.

People have been complaining that Kerry hasn't defined any issues. This is a pretty good one. And those issues, at least from the Democratic side, don't just happen on their own. The media won't carry our water for us, but they will eventually get the message out if they're hit over the head with it 20 times or so.

[sangh0]

21. Well said.

It's not a one-size-fits-all point, but it fits in a lot of areas, and by constantly hitting that point, it becomes something the Bush campaign will have to reckon with.

Yep. We have to make them do what they're trying to make us do - play defense.

[Bread and Circus]

20. Sorry, I think it's great - $200 billion is a lot and sounds like a lot

It's also an issue for people who don't like their tax dollars wasted.