Kerry's got to change his position on the War.

[girl gone mad]

A few weeks ago, I asked DUers if it was too late for Kerry to take a strong stance against the War, and opinions were divided.

Iraq has degenerated to such a low point recently, that I think the inevitable flip-flop charges would be meaningless to most people. It's hard to care about someone flip-flopping when you see the images coming out of Iraq.

Kerry must hammer Bush every day for getting us into this mess. He doesn't need to be specific or answer questions about the IWR vote or even give a detailed plan. He must remind people that Iraq is now a quagmire, and Bush has only made one bad decision after another.

I think he needs to remind people that after 1000 lives and $300 billion, we are no better off in Iraq.

[MercutioATC]

1. The war is a losing argument for Kerry.

It's way too easy to attack his support for it.

He should stick to domestic issues, where he's on more solid ground.

[dennis4868]

2. I dont see how he can.....

stick to domestic issues when this election is about Iraq and the other war we are supposedly fighting (aka....the war on terror).

[Raya]

3. Wisemen post called for "War Summit." Kerry could use that to

clarify or pivot, but most importantly have a unified position
that is carried out by a totally respected team of national security
leaders.

A great idea. Have to look for the link.

[JI7]

16. oh course he can, just like he criticizes Bush for Afghanistan

even though he voted for the bill for that.

[hansolsen]

26. If Kerry isn't the superior candidate on the war in Iraq, then he will and

should lose this election. I reach this conclusion based, first, on my own opposition to the war and my deep regret that opposition is not represented in this campaign, and second, based on having watched the 2002 midterm elections where your domestic issues strategy was given a full scale trial run.

We lost our ass then and we will lose our ass again if your advice is followed.

That is so exquisitely clear I am surprised it isn't apparent to everyone.

[Ravy]

29. Kerrry *IS* superior on this issue.

When you are on the verge of running off of a cliff, ANY change in direction is a good thing.

Maybe that direction isn't enough change for most of us, but I feel assured that Kerry will be able to get us out, and more importantly, not start another unnecessary war with someone else in the process.

We are in a hole in Iraq. Bush is still digging.

[seabeyond]

4. i heard one dude of his on cnn say

we have to get in there and talk. cant remember exactly how he put it, but came off with me thinking kerry is looking at saying, k truce all lets all stop. i am new president you are dealing with. lets look where we are. talk to all the groups, include everyone, what do we need ot do to get this thing working so we can leave. and bring in middle east, and other countries.

a big shift in the area could be pulling out the halliburtans and giving the jobs back to the iraqi's and not make policy decision for iraq off of our interest

but i dont know.

[girl gone mad]

7. Interesting.

I've been wondering if Kerry is just waiting to play this hand until a bit closer to the election. Bush has been effective at hijacking some of Kerry's ideas in the past, and then saying "We're already doing that, so there is no difference between by position and Kerry's."

[seabeyond]

17. you are right on girl

adn then media jump on and say, kerry is saying the same as bush. what is the difference. i too would have learned

[AlCzervik]

5. He's got to tread very carefully on the war

if he were to come out and say it was a mistake i cant even begin to imagine the media machine revving up..."Kerry says your children died in vain" "Kerry flip-flops again!" thats what will happen.

[PeaceProgProsp]

6. Criticize execution. Don't criticize taking security seriously.

Kerry would lose if he were the anti-war candidate. Democrats have enough problems coming across as sufficiently competent on security and terror. The last thing the Democrats need to do is run someone who comes across as a pacifist.

I don't think a pacifist has ever won a presidential election.

Kerry merely needs to keep doing what he's doing on Iraq.

What he really needs to do is explain to people why they should be Democrats. He needs to explain what it means to be a Democrat, and then start fitting a lot of pieces together that flesh out the bigger vision.

[LittleClarkie]

11. Yes

He has foreign affairs knowledge.

I love it when the administration does something so stupid it pisses Kerry off. He's great when he's mad. He got mad about North Korea a couple of days ago. The reporter said Kerry's voice was shaking, he was so angry about the screw ups that lead to North Korea restarting their nuke plans.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AlCzervik]

19. just visiting?

[PeaceProgProsp]

27. What do you think he has done right?

Unless of course you think chaos is good?

[TexasSissy]

30. It would take too long to explain.

I suspect the Iraq War is not a main issue with you? Or you'd know?

To start with (just to start):

1. He gets a presidential bulletin entitled something like, "Osama Bin Laden determined to strike inside U.S." So he goes on a month long vacation (the longest vacation ever taken by a U.S. President, and he hasn't even been on the job a year!)

2. He has no meetings, telephone or otherwise, with his CIA Director while he's on the month long vacation.

3. Earlier that summer there had been intelligence middle eastern chatter indicating that "something big" was going to happen. This was before the presidential bulletin referenced above.

4. On 9/4, Richard Clarke, his expert on terrorism, tries to get the president to focus on terrorism, to no avail. He tells him this is a big threat. Bush and his admin. are focused on Iraq.

5. 9/11 happens. Bush is informed the country is under attack. Bush just sits there in the classroom (where he's at a photo-op) for seven long minutes, saying nothing, doing nothing, presumably waiting to be told what to do, where to go, etc.

6. There is no evidence that Bush gave any orders re 9/11. There is evidence that Cheney ran the country from his bunker.

7. On 9/12, there is testimony that Bush and his admin. immediately focused on Iraq, wanting to know the connection between Iraq and 9/11. Even though Tenet, the CIA Director, knew it was Al Qaeda who did the dastardly deed (he testified to this before the 9/11 Commission).

Presumably you know the rest? Bush and Cheney and others remain focused on bombing Iraq, never letting it leave their sights. They tell the country that Iraq has WMD...that they KNOW this (as opposed to BELIEVING that). They repeatedly imply that Iraq had something to do with 9/11. But they give WMD as the reason for the war. Then there's Bush's UN speech (where he tried to arrogantly browbeat the UN into supporting his war - a tactic that was sure to fail, and it did.)

And on and on and on.

[LittleClarkie]

8. I don't want him to be Nixon

"I have a secret plan for peace."

He didn't support the war with that vote. He supported giving the president the power to negotiate from a position of strength, only going to war if he had to. The president himself said he'd only use the power as a last resort, and with a coalition behind him.

Kerry went back to the place where Bush made that promise, and repeated what the president said, showing that the president had done none of it.

Kerry has got to be who he is. None of this backseat driving is going to get us anywhere. Either he gets elected on his own terms and in his own way, or he doesn't. I would rather he stood up for his integrity.

I swear we're as bad as they say his campaign staff is. "Go here!" "No, go here!" "You must do this!" "You must do that!"

For pete's sake, people. Get thee to the campaign office and do something YOURSELVES!

I did that today. I took the day off because it is my birthday, and spend most of the day, counting out bumperstickers for the Veterans for Kerry, calling veterans to get them to the right venue for Kerry in Madison, WI and then worked my way through two packets of phone canvassing packets.

DO SOMETHING!!

[AuntPatsy]

9. On Faux they are saying that Kerry needs to address what

his handling of the war in Iraq would be...

So my advice Kerry, Do the exact opposite...

[farmbo]

10. Keep in mind...Saddam goes on trial in October...

And you can bet that the timing of his trial was imposed directly form Rove's office.

That is Bush's October surprise.

The US media will be dominated with images of Saddam's mass graves, human shredders, and Uday's rape rooms.

The better course is to maintain that the war was necessary to topple Saddam, but the timing and execution were totally FUBAR'ed by a a self-absorbed, bumbling, amateur who played fast and loose with the facts and who failed to heed the advice of the professionals in the Pentagon and elsewhere.

Let's make Bush run against Kerry...not against Saddam.

[tedzbear]

32. Rove will make Kerry run against Saddam.

Once the American public is bludgeoned to death with constant reminders of Saddam's atrocities, they will be brainwashed into thinking Bush was right to invade and occupy Iraq. They will think 1,000 soldiers' deaths is worth it to keep those atrocities from happening to them here in their own home towns.

How can Kerry dismantle THAT lie? Rove is selling America a religious war (Christians vs. evil Islam) that demonizes Muslims just like Hitler demonized the Jews. I pray the majority of voters doesn't swallow the bait.

[noahmijo]

12. He has been doing this all this time

Or have you only been paying attention to the media?

[daydreamer]

35. Don't know what are you talking about?

:puke:

[LittleClarkie]

13. Look at this website

http://www.kerryoniraqwar.com/

And then go out and tell everyone how strong Kerry is on this subject, not how weak.

[WiseMen]

14. Prepared a defence of the IWR vote during the primaries. At this point

I think Kerry has to pass the batton to a "National Security Cabinet"
that can hammer the issue (and Bush) much harder than he can.

His trip-up on the "knowing what you now know" hypothetical has
put him in very difficult position. Only Wendy Sherman and Susan Rice
have been able to give a even passable defence of Kerry's meaning
and position on Iraq.

BTW, here is the link to my War Summit recommendation.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=804299

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Overseas]

The war has been mismanaged all along

>>Kerry has tried to explain that he voted to give * the authority to GO TO THE U.N. but not to rush to war. But since people don't want to try to understand that argument, he has lots of other material to use on the mismanagement of the war.

Kerry would not have rushed into Iraq when Osama was still on the loose. He would have stayed with the Afghanistan campaign to be sure that country was secure and free of Al Qaeda before rushing off elsewhere.

Once we were comfortable with the new government in Afghanistan and had helped Afghans resist both the warlords and the Taliban and rebuild their infrastructure, then we might have considered action in Iraq.

IF the UN weapons inspectors advised that action be taken because definite and current indications of WMD production or planning had been found.

He would definitely have handled the military operations far differently. He would not have sent soldiers into war without adequate armor-- he knows how important armor is.

He wouldn't send less troops than his military experts advised because he is too intelligent to have expected the Iraqis to greet the troops with roses. He has studied history and reads the intelligence reports from all sources and would not push the CIA to tailor its reports to his preferences.

He would certainly not have a legal advisor that would find it fine to subvert the Geneva conventions when interrogating a terrorist. He would know on a gut level that if we allowed an Abu Graib to occur, we would be putting our own troops at risk.

ETCETERA ETCETERA. He is so much better of a military strategist and soldier than the whole Bush team put together. Our country would be far more secure with Kerry as our president.

[andino]

20. All he has to say is that he gave Bush the authority

to go to war *if* he needed to.

Then explain how people should not blame him for giving Bush enough rope to hang himself!!!!

Look guys, this is a gimmie... All he has to say is that Bush was and currently is the commander in chief. He is the one that is responsible for his actions in Iraq. Not Kerry. Then he has to say that the senate voted on giving him the ability to go to war when he needed to. What has happened in Iraq with the problems comes directly from his administration. Kerry is not responsible for Bushs 'miscalculations'.

[Overseas]

21. The war has been mismanaged all along

>>Kerry has tried to explain that he voted to give * the authority to GO TO THE U.N. but not to rush to war. But since people don't want to try to understand that argument, he has lots of other material to use on the mismanagement of the war.

Kerry would not have rushed into Iraq when Osama was still on the loose. He would have stayed with the Afghanistan campaign to be sure that country was secure and free of Al Qaeda before rushing off elsewhere.

Once we were comfortable with the new government in Afghanistan and had helped Afghans resist both the warlords and the Taliban and rebuild their infrastructure, then we might have considered action in Iraq.

IF the UN weapons inspectors advised that action be taken because definite and current indications of WMD production or planning had been found.

He would definitely have handled the military operations far differently. He would not have sent soldiers into war without adequate armor-- he knows how important armor is.

He wouldn't send less troops than his military experts advised because he is too intelligent to have expected the Iraqis to greet the troops with roses. He has studied history and reads the intelligence reports from all sources and would not push the CIA to tailor its reports to his preferences.

He would certainly not have a legal advisor that would find it fine to subvert the Geneva conventions when interrogating a terrorist. He would know on a gut level that if we allowed an Abu Graib to occur, we would be putting our own troops at risk.

ETCETERA ETCETERA. He is so much better of a military strategist and soldier than the whole Bush team put together. Our country would be far more secure with Kerry as our president.

[hansolsen]

22. I believe Kerry must come down off the fence on Iraq and be specific.

I have been saying for weeks in this forum that John Kerry has not made clear where he stands on Iraq and that is killing us at the polls and will be a disaster going into the debates.

Now, I know Kerry faithful can reconstruct some clear version of what Kerry has been saying, but no two versions ever come out looking the same. It is time Kerry came came down off the fence and took a real stand on what he will do in Iraq now. That is the only way to take the initiative away from Bush on this issue.

Here are some clear policy changes Kerry could advocate and announce now:

1. Hold a referendum in Iraq to determine if the majority of Iraqi people want us there. If not, bring the troops home.

2. If they want us there, the Iraqi people must be willing to stand up an Iraqi army that will stand shoulder to shoulder with Americans and kill fellow Iraqis who oppose the new order. There is not a shred of evidence they are willing to do that. If not we should come home.

3. As a combat veteran I (john Kerry) will never send soldiers into battle where they cannot tell friend from foe. I will stop patroling Iraqi streets immediately. I will withdraw American troops to forward bases and send them out only to stop genocide. If they are sent into battle they will come out guns blazing. I will never order American soldiers into combat with rules of engagement where they cannot fire unless fired upon first.

4. I will go to Iraq and meet with the leaders of the Iraqi insurgency. My policy in the middle east will be based on more talk and less bombs.

Here is how Kerry should announce this policy:

QUOTE

QUOTE
Fellow citizens, hear me: I served in Vietnam and experienced the combat of war. I saw people killed and I killed enemy soldiers. I learned some things from that experience that will profoundly effect the orders I will issue as Commander and Chief. I will keep our soldiers safe from the folly of war. I will not send them on combat missions with no clear objective. I will not send them into battle where they cannot tell friend from foe. I will not ask them to fight for people who will not fight for themselves. I will never send American soldiers on a combat mission with rules of engagement where they cannot fire unless fired upon. I will never ask young soldiers to risk their lives because old men in high places cannot admit their mistakes.

I will go to Baghdad myself and I will meet with the leaders of the Iraqi insurgency. I will end this war * on * Iraq. I will not fire another shot in * that * war. I will hold an immediate national referendum in Iraq to determine if the Iraqi people want us to stay. If the people of Iraq want us out of there, I will bring the troops home. If a clear majority of Iraqis want us to stay, I will demand they stand along side American troops and prove it. If they refuse or shirk that duty, I will still bring our troops home. If they want us to stay and will stand with us, I will keep American forces there as true peace keepers.

I believe that God helps those who help themselves, and so do I. That principle will guide my policy in Iraq. Please give me your vote and your confidence. Please trust that what I learned in the rice fields of South Vietnam is relevant to what must be done now. I ask for your trust.

[Czolgosz]

23. On my computer, when I go to johnkerry.com,

Kerry already is hammering Bush every day for getting us into this mess in Iraq, and Kerry does note that Iraq is now a quagmire, and that Bush has only made one bad decision after another.

On my version of johnkerry.com, Kerry did remind people that after 1000 lives and $300 billion, we are still not where we ought to be in Iraq.

On my version of johnkerry.com, Kerry has been specific and he has answer questions about his votes and he has given a detailed plan on how he would have done things differently.

Funny, watching the news, you'd think Kerry was campaigning on the IMB Selectric curly apostrophe platform. Go figure.

What about Kerry's position has to change? Kerry was in favor of giving the president authority to deal with Saddam. Would we have wanted to ham string the president and leave him without authority to deal with a bad man (Saddam was probably as bad as Milsovitch but not in the league of bin Laden)? Kerry is shocked and disapproving as anyone that Bush fucked up the authority he was entrusted with. What about that position should Kerry change? Colin Powell said back before the invasion, "you break it, you bought it." Bush broke Iraq, we're stuck fixing it. Is the price too high? Hell yeah, because of Bush's arrogant go-it-alone bring-'em-on attitude and his no bid Halliburton contracts. It's too high a price, but it's the price we're stuck with because of Bush's arrogance. When you dismantle a country to impose regime change, you can't just walk away even when your predecessor screwed things up so bad that the price is unfairly high. What about that position should Kerry change?

On sports boards, I use an analogy for Kerry's position on Iraq: Say you have a one point lead in the last two minutes of a football game, and it's fourth and ten on the 15 yard line. It's your call. You send in the field goal kicker so he can give you a four point lead. But the field goal kicker falls on his ass on his approach to the ball, he gets up, snatches the ball from the holder, and tries to run around the end but gets intimidated and drops the ball which the other team scoops up and returns for a touchdown. Someone asks you if it was a good idea to send in the field goal kicker. The answer is, "yes, it makes sense to send in the field goal kicker on fourth and ten on the 15 yard line, but I sure wish he didn't fuck it up so bad." That's not a flip flop -- that's a recognition that there is a right way to do things and a wrong way, but there's no accounting for a player who can fuck things up beyond any reasonable expectation.

[LynnTheDem]

24. What Kerry said at the time...

"Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies."

Which we COULD have done...except BUSH KICKED OUT THE UN WEAPONS INSPECTORS.

http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html

WHY does Kerry have to change anything?

BUSH VIOLATED his own resolution.

[daydreamer]

34. Good work, totally agree

[n2mark]

25. In agreement

Kerry does not need to have answers what to do... he needs to say Shrub is wrong... how many lives lost? What happened to our relationships with other countries? Go on from there. But, push, push and push. that Bush's decisions were and are wrong for this war. It is now time for all of us to take our blindfolds off.

There are no solutions to this mess, but we need to talk our allies and to the Iraqui people including the insurgents to work on a solution. It may not happen within the year, but it could happen within four.

So at the age of 63, I deserve the right to be an idealists.

[rumguy]

28. He should simply be saying "We can't afford any more mistakes

in Iraq" - frame the debate using Bush's many failures....

Don't talk so much about the missing WMD, etc...everyone knows all that...

[sampsonblk]

31. No way! Just pound on the "deadly incompetence"

He can't change positions now. He is already being ridiculed in the press for doing that.

Its time to pound on the "deadly incompetence" of the Bush regime. And Kerry needs to get a real message and get people out there repeating it. Right now, he has too many messages and not one of them resonates.

[daydreamer]

36. Yes I agree

Incompetence is not a qualification for rehire.

[daydreamer]

33. Change from what position?

Kerry and most of the Congress and Senate voted to authorize for the use of forces if Iraq fails to follow the UN resolution to let UN inspectors to do their job. It was the president's dis ion to invade Iraq. As member of the United States Senate Kerry should give his support to the president so he could have as much negotiating power as possible and the UN inspectors could have a complete inspection. Bush Chenney wanted the war so bad they would not gave the inspectors more time. The war was his choice not the last resort for peace. The whole Congress and United State Senate were misled to vote for the authorization to use force under faulty intelligence. Where is WOMD? Where is the link between Saddam and Al ca Ida? Kerry was not wrong to vote for the authorization then, and Kerry has every right to question the "miscalculated" situation in Iraq now. Any leader who led country into a mess like that of Iraq war do not deserve to be rehired. Any American with eyes can see we are heading deeper into disaster. Do not fall for Kerry's "position" traps. That is republican's campaign tactics to keep us from talking about real issue. We need to focus on bush's mistakes otherwise we would fall into their traps again.