Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why won't Kerry hit harder on Iraq?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
newdealer Donating Member (232 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-09-04 12:13 AM
Original message
Why won't Kerry hit harder on Iraq?
I'm frustrated with the Kerry campaign's unwillingness to press the Iraq issue by focusing on how chaotic and unstable the whole region has become. I watched three Democratic congressmen on C-span making comments that I think Kerry really needs to emphasize. The main point of their remarks was that the war in Iraq has diverted the manpower and resources that should be in Afghanistan. Remember Bin Ladin? Remember when Bush said, "you can run but you can't hide." Well, Bin Ladin has ran and is hiding. The American public is unaware that the Taliban is reorganizing again in Afghanistan to the point where the new government has to negotiate with them. We are not safer because Saddam was overthrown. I think this would be a more powerful attack on Bush's failed foreign policy, than just talking about how the war in Iraq has taken away the resources we need for domestic programs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
fearnobush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-09-04 12:16 AM
Response to Original message
1. I'd like to start with "Osama Bin Ladin Determined to Attack Inside U.S."
Then scream out why the fuck Prince Bandar is more important than Colon Powell when it comes to war plans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cheshire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-09-04 12:18 AM
Response to Original message
2. First of all He did today and don't assume we don't know about the
Talivan reorganizing. Do you watch some special news?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newdealer Donating Member (232 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-09-04 01:00 AM
Response to Reply #2
7. special news source
No special news sources, just the BBC. They had an excellent piece about the situation in Afghanistan. Oh, and I never assume that anyone who posts here doesn't know everything already. I just post messages to express my ideas, anger, frustration and so on. I don't give a rat's ass who knows what. There's no need for being smug. The Republicans have that down to a science.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cheshire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-09-04 01:20 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. That's funny I thought you were smug. But deny it I don't care.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rndmprsn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-09-04 12:22 AM
Response to Original message
3. agreed
i hope the speech that kerry delivers on 9/11, reminds voters just that fact...that we are after al-queda the terrorists who hit us and use that moment to remind people that iraq was bush's choice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rbone Donating Member (1 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-09-04 01:17 AM
Response to Reply #3
8. Kerry's paid message can't compete with the free message the
media delivers for AWOL. I have paid attention, and Kerry's position seems consisitent and clear to me. The talking heads in the media distort it a dozen ways, and make it look like a dozen positions.

Kerry says he believes the vote giving AWOL the authority to take us to war if necessary was the right vote. AWOL said at the time he was going to build a coallition, and the vote sent a message to Saddam that we were serious. I agree with that vote. It was that vote that got inspectors back into Iraq.

I also think Kerry believes that AWOL screwed it up by going prior to getting world consensus. We don't need consensus, but if we don't have it, there should be an IMMEDIATE threat. Although most intelligence agencies in the world thought Saddam had or wanted WMD's, few thought they had the means to use or distribute them. It appears the rest of the world was right.

Further, I think Kerry believes that now that we created this mess, we can't just leave. If we left now, the insurgents would probably take over, and we would be worse off than before we started.

I think that all of this is a reasonable, well thought out position that you can either agree with or not. It is also nuanced, and so it is open to criticism and distortions (This is BushCo's typical response). In BushCo's world, if it can't be summed up in 1 sentance, it is over analyzed.

Now Kerry says that we need world partners, and we need to speed up the preperation of Iraq's new military/police. AWOL agrees with this now, and so the pundits say there is no difference between them. Maybe not, but that idiot got us into this mess. Do we want to trust his decision making on Iran and N. Korea? Also, AWOL now wants to get world partners, but a year ago, he gave them all the finger. Good luck AWOL.

Isn't this Kerry's message in a nutshell? Why is this too complicated for the media to wrap their heads around? Maybe they don't want to!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newyawker99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-09-04 09:12 AM
Response to Reply #8
14. Hi rbone!!
Welcome to DU!! :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-09-04 12:31 AM
Response to Original message
4. Little bit more in his approach than you describe
because of this President’s wrong choices, we’re spending $200 billion in Iraq instead of investing in making America energy independent. George W. Bush’s energy policy is to trust the big oil companies and the Saudis. In fact, a national news magazine just reported that a senior member of the Saudi Royal family said that as far as they’re concerned, in the U.S. Presidential election, “It’s Bush all the way.” I want an America that relies on its own ingenuity and innovation, not the Saudi Royal Family.

We’re going to invest in technology and the vehicles of the future, so that no young American will ever be held hostage to our dependence on oil from the Middle East. That’s the right choice; that’s the right direction; and that’s the right leadership for America.

Because of this President’s wrong choices, we’re spending $200 billion in Iraq while we’re told that we can’t afford to do everything that we should for homeland security. I believe it’s wrong to be opening firehouses in Baghdad and closing them down in the United States of America. It’s wrong to cut money for our first responders. It’s wrong to let 95% of the cargo that comes into this country get by without ever being physically inspected. That’s the wrong choice; that’s the wrong direction; and that’s the wrong leadership for America.

As President, I will set a new direction. We’re going to defend this country here at home. We’re going to do all we possibly can to protect it from another terrorist attack. And we’re going to make homeland security a priority, not a political slogan.

My friends, today we are bearing the cost of the war in Iraq almost alone – $200 billion and counting.

Nearly two years after George W. Bush spoke to the nation from this very place, we know how wrong his choices were. He says he “miscalculated.” He calls Iraq a “catastrophic success.” But a glance at the front pages or a look at the nightly news shows the hard reality: Rising instability. Spreading violence. Growing extremism. Havens for terrorists that weren’t there before. And today, even the Pentagon admits, Entire regions of Iraq are controlled by insurgents and terrorists.

I call this course a catastrophic choice that has cost us $200 billion because we went it alone, and we’ve paid an even more unbearable price in young American lives.

We need a new direction. I know what we need to do in Iraq. We need to bring our allies to our side, share the burdens, reduce the cost to American taxpayers, and reduce the risk to American soldiers. We need to train Iraqi military and police – we need to train them more rapidly, more effectively, and in greater numbers to take over the job of protecting their own country. That's what I’ll do as Commander-in-Chief – because that’s the right way to get the job done and bring our troops home.


September 8, 2004
Remarks on Bush’s Wrong Choices in Iraq That Have Left Us Without the Resources We Need at Home

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0908.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-09-04 12:34 AM
Response to Original message
5. Because he voted for it
Kind of difficult to hit hard on Iraq when he voted to give Bush that authority, unless he wants to look like a flip-flopping hypocrite. Kerry has to do a dance as it is. But, a plurality of primary voters had this crazy idea that someone who voted for the war was the best choice for a nominee, so that's who we're stuck with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jab105 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-09-04 12:37 AM
Response to Original message
6. Agreed!! The WEAKEST argument that he can make is that...
the war in Iraq has taken away resources that could be used at home. Bush will accuse him of not supporting the troops...STUPID!!

He NEEDS to say that the war in Iraq has kept us from focusing on the ar on terror...and be very clear (use 9-11 commission report) that the war on terror and the war in Iraq are two different things...

Kerry keeps blurring this, and it pisses me off to no end...why dont his advisers tell him, I just dont get it?!?!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Julien Sorel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-09-04 01:22 AM
Response to Reply #6
10. The answer is obvious.
They aren't nearly as smart as, and have far information to work with than, you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jab105 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-09-04 02:31 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. They may have far more information...but I'm out here in the real world...
I've had discussion with real live swing voters who have real live questions about this very issue...I'm in Florida, and have convinced 4 (of 5) swing voters to vote for Kerry instead of Bush...and all were leaning towards Bush because of this very issue...

I'm not claiming to be smarter than the advisers, and I dont need sarcasm...what I'm seeing is that the right wing has been very successful about getting their message out to a number of people that I deal with...

I see what needs fixing, and this isnt the proper way to do it, based on my dealings with people...so, should I not speak out because clearly the advisers must be smarter than me...

Uhh...no...thats what we did with the SBV crap, and look what happened...

This is the most important election in my lifetime...and I have the right to speak out if I dont think that Kerry is doing everything possible to kick * out!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jab105 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-09-04 02:35 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. The argument is that we will spend limitless money to fight the
"war on terrorism"...

So, if Kerry isn't COMPLETELY CLEAR AND SPECIFIC!! as to why Iraq has NOTHING to do with the war on terrorism...then it plays into the Republicans hands...

all they have to say is that Kerry doesn't have the right priorities...that Bush's priority is to keep America safe, but Kerry cant realize how important the war on terror is...Americans want to be safe...the war in Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism and made us less safe...THIS is what must be repeated over and over and over and over!!!!!

Kerry NEEDS to distinguish...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goodwalt Donating Member (199 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-09-04 01:38 AM
Response to Original message
11. Sad but true
I think it's fear of giving them one more talking point to call him "Flip-flopper" over. I sincerely think Kerry would make a fine Pesident under any circumstances. I'd also sooner vote for Charles Manson than Shrub- at least he'd have more trouble getting people to take his homocidal- nut job ideas seriously- but the politics of apeasement reasons for Kerry NOT going after Iraq- and NOT going after the assault weapons ban are the very reason I gave my heart and a couple checks to Howard Dean.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 07:00 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC