Why are we losing?.....IT’S THE WAR….STUPID

[wadestock]

In case you haven’t noticed…..Bushco has recently co-opted economy and health care issues and will probably make that a wash in the end.

It’s going to come down to the "WAR effort"....and if you don’t believe that...just look at how sensitive people were to Zell’s speech….and how that gave Bush his real bump coming out of the election. The buzz is on the street....Kerry ISN’T ARTICULATING how he differs with Bush on the war. Bush knows how to fight...and through HIM we will all be safer.

Truth is...Kerry HASN'T articulated what the REAL problem with this war is. It's not that it was started prematurely. The real point is not that it was planned poorly. People aren't struck with any of that.

The real difference lies in how either Bush or Kerry would fight the Iraq war and the “global war on terror”....IN THE FUTURE. What are the differences in the FUTURE???? Can anyone tell me????

Kerry has to articulate clear improvements over Bush in this regard….or else he won’t win.

We have become brain dead on these issues surrounding the war…

1. Better to fight it “there” than “here”.
2. People feel “safer” taking the fight to THEM….in other words…go on the offensive...not defensive.
3. We’re in a global war on terror….and even though the present Iraq situation looks pretty bad, it’s better than another 911.

Kerry is being characterized very effectively as one “who won’t kick ass”. No matter how you spin it....he is not viewed as being able to fight ANY WAR.

If you don’t turn this factor around...we’re dead in the water.

Here’s how you do it:

You have to expose this “kick ass mentality” for what it is...it’s irresponsible bullcrap that has fed into the military industrial complex and neoconservative/Barnett “new map” vision of how US militaristic pressure will reshape the Middle East, control terrorism, and oh by the way....bring the rest of the world naturally into a peaceful capitalistic environment.

America was never in this mode of militaristic pressure or such wild ambitions...and it better dam get out of this mode as fast as possible. Is Kerry man enough to expose this militaristic philosophy and its vision to reshape the Middle East????

Let’s hear ONE WORD out of his mouth that Bushco is REALLY AFTER RESHAPING THE MIDDLE EAST USING LONG TERM MILITARY PRESSURE. Let’s here him ask the question....”what are Bush’s administrations REAL GOALS for your sons and daughters of the future.

The clear fallacies of the Neoconservative new order or Barnett’s “new map”....

1. History shows no evidence of the US succeeding in promoting democracy through an aggressive militaristic mode or that capitalism has ever truly flourished because of such pressure.

2. Although we are the world’s greatest superpower...WE CAN’T AFFORD a world wide war of any type. We are quickly going bankrupt and the real assets are simply not there to wage long protracted wars…especially sitting on the type of debt we are. As you can see....Bushco and those neocons that believe otherwise have to turn a blind eye to this financial reality.

3. The last place we would ever succeed in selling the notion of capitalism is in the Middle East….especially since we’ve found no way to deal with Israel.

4. Militarism in the Middle East is the core reason for terrorism in the first place and why we were attacked in 911.

This militaristic doctrine is the monster that we have to take head on. Kerry must take us there....or else my friends.....you and I are soon to become part of a “new world order”.

[veteran_for_peace]

1. I think that you haven't been listening

Kerry is saying that he would handle things differently. The reason the message is not getting out is not because Kerry isn't saying anything it is because the media refuses to let him speak.

[Cronus Protagonist]

5. True dat

The Time article shows the thread poster's point to be untrue.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040920-695825,00.html

KERRY: "America is not as safe as we ought to be after 9/11. We can do a better job at homeland security. I can fight a more effective war on terror. The standard of living for the average American has gone down. People's incomes have dropped. Five million Americans have lost their health insurance. The deficit is the largest it's been in the history of this country. They're taking money from Social Security and transferring it to the wealthiest people in America to drive us into debt. They're shredding alliances around the world with people we have traditionally been able to rely on. That's what bothers me."

KERRY: " Draw the contrast; be crystal clear about it. That's what I've been doing every day. George Bush has made the wrong choices for America. He's leading the country in the wrong direction. John Edwards and I have better choices. We have a health-care plan for all Americans. We're going to stop subsidizing jobs that go overseas and create jobs here in America. We're going to fund education and not leave millions of children behind every day. The trail of broken promises and reversed decisions of this Administration is unlike any I have ever seen at any time that I have been in public life, and I'm going to draw that picture as clear as a bell."

KERRY: " The contrast could not be clearer. They spent a lot of money trying to confuse people, but I have been consistent. I would not have taken the country into war the way he did. I would not have put young Americans in harm's way without a plan to win the peace. I would not have interrupted as abruptly the effort to build alliances with other countries. I would not have turned my back on the international community. And Americans are paying a $200 billion cost today because this President rushed to war."

etc. etc. etc.


You might be a Republican if...
http://cronus.com/quiz

Commentary by a Republican...
http://cronus.com/republican

The REAL Republican Platform...
http://cronus.com/platform

Bush's Illustrated Resume
http://cronus.com/bushresume

Isn't That Strange?
http://cronus.com/oil

:)

[wadestock]

11. Nice Try.....

You're confused....

If this is the best example of Kerry coming out and saying that Bushco has certain ambitions to democratize the entire Middle East and use US military might to get there....you're way off.

"The contrast could not be clearer. They spent a lot of money trying to confuse people, but I have been consistent. I would not have taken the country into war the way he did. I would not have put young Americans in harm's way without a plan to win the peace. I would not have interrupted as abruptly the effort to build alliances with other countries. I would not have turned my back on the international community. And Americans are paying a $200 billion cost today because this President rushed to war."

Sorry...yes I do think Kerry is in the perfect place at the right time....he IS fully prepared to bring this war to a practical end...and minimize loss of life....BUT HOW WILL HE GET A CHANCE TO DO IT IF HE DOESN'T GET IN!!!!

The average person just doesn't get it. They have to be brought around to realize that the Repuke strategy is evil and dangerous....WHY????

For the reasons I've outlined....it's never historically worked, it threatens world security, it escalates terrorism in the process, and simply feeds on flawed neoconservative principles, etc etc.

How does Kerry accomplish this?
He gets tough.

Statements he could go on TV tonite with....

"I think the American people are confused as to the fundamental difference that I and George Bush have concerning the Iraq war. I think it's time to start articulating exactly what the difference is. #1 - I would not have started the war with the assumption that I could have a quick democratization of Iraq. Perhaps they never will endorce democracy. Do you think George Bush has a plan in this event?

I think it's very clear that George Bush and those that have supported this unprecented military offensive action by the United States in a completely different light than you and I do...and I think perhaps it's time to get out on the table exactly what their ambitions are and where they are most likely to take us.

You see, I don't believe that America's future will be solved through military pressure in such a way that we get countries to "buckle under" our force, and then hope that they endorce democracy in the meantime. I see a different view of America, which makes sense for America and which America has historically endorced. Our strength comes through leadership and example, not through force and cohersion.

I think it's time for the American people to take a fresh new look at George Bush and this Administration and honestly ask themselves where we will most likely go in the future. For one thing, George Bush will not abandon his illogical experiment to bring US like democracy to Iraq...and he and those who have become intoxicated with a new world view of military influence will probably use the next 4 years as a stepping stone to further illogical military actions....bringing this country that much closer to full time military involvement, a full time draft, debts as far as the eye can see, less security at home.....

And what will George Bush have to show for all of these dreams and ambitions but a world torn apart with uncertainty, with less respect for the United States, and with no gains whatsoever in terms of the world further embracing our American dream."

[Cronus Protagonist]

15. Oh, I want him to get tougher on Bush too

And he is doing that, as you can see. Not as far as you want, but it's not like he's not doing it. Just because the press isn't reporting it doesn't mean Kerry isn't doing it, and that's a problem that we all have.

Rather than rag on Kerry, we need to rag on the media for not reporting properly. It worked for the Republicans who now have every media outlet cowed into reporting hard right wing stuff as "centrist" so they don't get accused of being "liberal", yet even the hard right stuff is *still* labeled as "liberal" because it's not full blown racist neo-nazi authoritarian Dominionist enough.

What would happen if we labeled the media relentlessly, responding in kind? Perhaps they would find the center then.

[msturgis524]

2. The differences need to be made

I was sitting in bed last night with my girlfriend, we we're watching countdown. She asked me what is Kerry going to do differently on Iraq. We are both planning on voting Kerry. I pay attention, and yet I couldn't come up with a clear answer. How do we expect uninformed swing voters to no the difference. If there isn't a distinction people will vote him in out of laziness if nothing else.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

3. The answer is it's too late for Kerry on Iraq

it's a mess and not too many different ways to end it.

[wadestock]

13. You've hit the nail on the head......

I've had similar conversations with my wife. When she realizes that Bush is in fact a madman...then things fall into place for her.

For most people...all the facts and what ifs surrounding Iraq are simply too confusing. Then of course there's the 911 commission report and/or blaming everything on a failure of intelligence. Don't you remember when the 911 report came out and Bushco said in general that this would work in their favor?

What we have here is a madman. Let us not forget..."you have 48 hours to get out of town". He is the focal point through which a dangerous new course in American military tactics used in global tactical roles has taken root and can conceivably take this country into the toilet.

Of course I can always remind her that our son is 13, and that in 4 years or so....

I discussed this with a friend over lunch and saw a new sense of grief in his face......show me how this Iraq things ends I said....it doesn't.....it's just a starting point.....it is THE starting point.....and the argument gets morphed into Iran, Korea.....etc....it's all part of a very insidious plan....and terrorism really has not one goddam thing to do with any of it.

[msturgis524]

14. Exactly

And maybe thats the best answer. Maybe the biggest difference is Kerry won't treat this as the starting point. I worry though that far too many Americans want it to be, that they like the idea of cowboy justice. I know every time Kerry has tried to have an opinion on Iraq they have twisted his words and positions. Remember when he said he would reduce US troops, or that he'd improve foreign cooperation. The talking heads spouted off about how we were giving the enemy the wrong message, and we were marginalizing the contributions of other countries. Somehow he needs to convince Joe average that he will be different. I don't know how, but it needs to happen.

[wadestock]

21. I don't know if you saw the post I added below....

But I heard him on "IMUS in the morning"...big NY radio show.... this morning...and he had a golden opportunity to answer IMUS as to how he would bring home troops WITHIN 4 YEARS!!!!

Evidently IMUS had heard him say this or else Kerry has said this (I haven't found a reference myself)....but here was an opportunity to say at the very least "I PLAN TO BRING THE TROOPS HOME".

I fear that he's so afraid of being labeled anti-war or that he'd be caught up in the whimpy characterization of "cutting and running" that he couldn't even define this!!!

That's a no brainer. Christ, he could at least define himself as wanting to bring the troops home within 4 years. Bush hasn't done that and he could claim ownership at least to that. Let's be serious here....if he can't bring the troops home within 4 years, I'd vote him out the next time no matter what happened.

This doesn't necessarily have to work against him in regards to looking "anti-war". He simply puts together a PLAN...which consists of all the key elements he's talked about...but just put together in a specific fashion which better convinces average Joe that yes...troops would probably start moving home....then for the first time we start to think beyond quagmire and how to bring closure to this sick mess.

WTF is he afraid of? He's got the basic elements in place.

If he brings in more troops at first to jump start this better training and give the Iraqis a better chance to work on the ground, and then over the 4 years gets others nations to come in and provide assistance, why can't at least a significant portion of troops be logically brought home??? At that point he'd be viewed as a winner in the whole thing.

[asianjoanne]

4. we MIGHT be losing because...

right now, the majority of America is focused on the "terror" aspect. I mean, right now, MOST people are backing Bush just because "well, he took action! He defended us! We've never seen Kerry do anything!" The current administration are using typical scare tactics!

Everyone hear what CHENEY "advised" the other day? Here's the exact quote:

"It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States," Cheney told about 350 supporters at a town-hall meeting in this Iowa city.

For more about this, http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/politics/9601875.htm?1c

SO! Not only are Americans in fear of terrorists coming to America from Iraq and whatnot, but they're also afraid of the very administration that is running America! "Terra terra terra! If you don' vote for me....TERRA will occur again!"

Now that Colin Powell is or already has addressed that no stockpiles of WMD's have been found, nor will there be any found in the future...where's the "good basis" as to why we went to war with Iraq? The main objective to find WMD's is now DEAD!

It just gets me SO frustrated that these Freepers think that Bush is tougher on terrorism than Kerry would be if he were in office. Tell me if THIS sounds "soft on terror":

"The ability and willingness to direct immediate, effective military action to capture or destroy terrorist groups and their leaders.

A massive strengthening in intelligence gathering, analysis, and coordination coupled with vigorous law enforcement.

A relentless effort to SHUT DOWN THE FLOW OF TERRORIST FUNDS.

A GLOBAL EFFORT TO PREVENT WEAK AND FAILED STATES THAT CAN BECOME SANCTUARIES FOR TERRORISTS.

A SUSTAINED EFFORT TO DENY TERRORISTS ANY MORE RECRUITS BY WORKING FOR PEACE, PROMOTING DEMOCRACY, ECONOMIC GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT, AND IMPROVED EDUCATION, AND BY CONDUCTING EFFECTIVE DIPLOMACY."

{excerpt straight from "Our Plan For America" by John Kerry and John Edwards}

SO! I suggest to those righties who think Kerry is WEAK, they should READ THAT BOOK! Hell! It's freakin' FREE to download!

I agree, anyone who is still voting for Bush this election must be crazy...must belong in some sort of mental institution because their minds are not ALL THERE!

[wadestock]

9. This is what I fear.....

Kerry can throw out all the tough words he wants....people are not going to believe that he could be as tough (and possibly stupid helps along with this) to do what it takes to take it to their faces. You know...perhaps you do need a wild man to have the guts to fight terrorists right?*&^%$! (a duh)

So....
Kerry is going to lose conclusively on anything which has to do with the PERCEPTION that he can effectively fight terror "on their soil".

Bush wins on the war....UNLESS....

Kerry intellectualizes the difference between a drunk madman and all the henchmen lurking in the wings vs someone who really has a love for his country, and puts America truly in a world position of strength....not blind, wreckless, costly, dangerous tactics that represent hidden capitalist agendas.

I always think back to the classic Clint Eastwood movie when I think of W and what an immature arrogant pathetic loser he really is...

Clint said something like..."A man's got to know his limitations".

[Larkspur]

17. Unfortunately, Kerry isn't as quick a draw as Clint was

Kerry has to process all that nuance stuff first and by then Bush/Rove has assailed him on something else.

[wurzel]

6. War on "terrorism" need International cooperation.

Bush can't get it. Kerry can. That is the real difference.

[HFishbine]

7. I'm afraid if that's the approach you're looking for

we have the wrong candidate.

[BootinUp]

8. Just curious, who did you

back in the primaries?

[wadestock]

10. I wrote a good percentage of my posts on.....

the guy you have pictured.

Funny isn't it....how people thought how important the electability of Kerry was....how they agonized over this in the primaries and thought they were making the right decision.....

Now I've come honestly to believe that we're losing because we're losing on the war issue. I think Kerry can turn it around...he's smart enough....but hell....Wes would have done everything I've said in this post and 100 times more and 100 times better.

Not only that...I think he was the only one who could have completely turned around the present day hate generated by Limbaugh et al in terms of Dems being weak etc. When you listened to Clark you really got a sense of pride in being a democrat. It's this type of pride and intelligent perspective on America that is lacking in this view of how to restructure the Middle East and why America has truly lost its way. Wesley could have put this all beautifully in perspective, don't you think?

[Silverhair]

12. Yep. Wes would be leading now by at least 10 points.

We would own the WAR issue.

The fact is that Americans have NEVER paid much attention to a POTUS candidate's war record if they were a mere junior officer or an enlisted man during the war. They DO pay attention to the record of a General. Anybody ever heard of POTUS Ike? Now how about Pres. Dole, or McGovern? Ike was a famous general, while the losers were junior officers, and they ran against noncombat candidates. Legitimate heroes, but still only as juniors. JFK won, but only by a squeaker against a noncombat Nixon.

So everybody that has been hyping Kerry's genuine heroism has been talking up a point that Americans have historically disregarded.

[The Stranger]

16. Taking the position that he would have invaded even without WMD

was catastrophic. The term "Weapons of Mass Destruction" has become synonomous with lies, yet this position was completely ceded by Kerry's strategists.

[Owlet]

18. Yep..you're right

When they come to write the history of the campaign, that day at the Grand Canyon will stand out as the day kerry basically lost the election by becoming bush-lite. What a shame.

[wadestock]

19. Kerry has tried to redefine and clarify that issue....

I'll try and summarize where he is trying to clarify now...

1. He voted for the use of force (not war) based on the President's supplied information that WMD existed.

2. He had hoped that force would be used to leverage further inspections.

3. Bush going in the way he did was WRONG, for a number of reasons, which include being ill prepared to win the peace and lack of support of the troops.

And as you can see....this does make sense....however based on other statements as you've point out....the average person can get confused.

My point is this....he really hasn't DEFINED A COMPELLING POSITION on the war.

This morning he was on the IMUS in the morning show in NY. He was asked a number of questions and it was disturbing that his position on the war was so lackluster. During the interview I remember these key points...

1. Kerry said people should be asking Bush what his exit strategy is. He pointed out people thinking in terms of 4 to 5 years to even start to get to the job of ending this war is unacceptable. But as unacceptable as we all know this is....he didn't seize the opportunity to tell us how he would make it significantly shorter. They got bogged down once again in the history of going to war and all the bad things involved in the decision to go to war. People don't want to hear that...they want to here a positive compelling reason why KERRY will make all this better.

2. IMUS tried to lead him on to reveal how he would get the troops home within 4 years (evidently he said this to IMUS off line)...but he wasn't clear on this. He could have very easily said (at the very least)..."I'm going to do all I can to bring these kids home". He said "I'll have to see what the situation is in January"....and that Bush was making things more difficult everyday....thus the implication that he MAY NOT BE ABLE TO DO ANY BETTER ...because Bush has so screwed the whole thing up.

3. The best of the interview consisted of Kerry saying he would better support the troops. Yes we know that Kerry has been historically calling for more troops (as was advised and ignored by Rumsfeld, which has cost lives)...but even so....it's hard to view adding more troops as any big plus in terms of how Kerry somehow does an overall better job with the war effort.

All this further confirms my belief that Kerry simply thinks that he can lay back on the war issue and hope that people get the general sense that Bush and the war is all messed up. It's a HUGE mistake. We already know people are gravitating to an illogical belief that Bush is "better on the war" and it's inextricable connection to terror and ultimately the belief that we are more secure under Bush. Pathetic, but true as evidenced by the polls.

TIME IS RUNNING OUT!!!!

Kerry better quickly put aside the crap about going to war and what Bush did wrong....because it's becoming a non-issue with voters...especially the swing voters. He has to define himself as providing a better solution NOW to what is happening.

[The Stranger]

20. Here's the problem.

Iraq is Bush's albatross. Polls show Iraq was a disaster. The U.S. public feels it was not worth it. Throw in the fact that they were lied to ("weapons of mass destruction") and you have credibility added to the mix. Bush was practically begging to be disemboweled with this foreign policy, economic, diplomatic, and political disaster he has the country in.

But Kerry's people completely dropped the ball. Kerry's strategists' taking the position that Kerry would have invaded even if there were no "weapons of mass destruction" was utterly catastrophic. Now he has to explain, and re-explain, and re-re-explain, when all he had to say before was "weapons of mass destruction."