DAMN IT KERRY!!! CHALLENGE BUSH'S IRAQ LIES!!!!!!

[ulTRAX]

All too many Americans give Bush credit for being decisive when his policies are both dangerous and counter-productive. At the core of Bush's deceptions are the same mantras that he's used for 2 years. Kerry MUST challenge them.

The first is that the Bush continues to imply a connection between Saddam and 911 was a justification for the war. This claim has been refuted at every turn. Yet, Bush keeps playing this card. Why? Because it WORKS! A lie repeated often enough is often believed... and this lie works in Bush's favor. That Bush is either deluded or has contempt for the American People is another issue.

Second is the lie that we are safer with Saddam in prison than running Iraq. It's easy to see the appeal of this argument. It's the only consolation Americans have for supporting Bush's disastrous war. Yet it's hardly true. On the continuum of threats to US... where was Saddam? His armed forces were decimated after the Gulf War and sanctions kept them from being modernized. Saddam didn't even have control over his own airspace. Then there's the matter of the WMDs. He was a murderous tyrant... but hardly a threat compared to North Korea which has nukes, is building long range missiles, and is threatening the region.

Third is the Bush spin that we're fighting the terrorists over in Iraq so we don't have to fight them here. It sounds so good who could disagree. But it's just another lie. Bush is carefully spinning the illusion that the bloodier it gets in Iraq, it somehow proves we're kicking terrorist ass while Bush acting the part of the ever-arrogant Ugly American has become Bin Ladin's best recruitment tool. Bush has added to the list of those who despise us secular Ba'athists, Iraqi nationalists who resent the occupation, and a new breed of Islamic radicals who don't want a Iraq becoming a secular state.

Because Bush's lies and distortions go unchallenged, Bush gets higher approval in polls on the key issue of national security than if the American People knew the truth.... that what will make us safer is getting rid of Bush... and Kerry adopting a sane policy to the Islamic world. Whether Kerry has such a plan... it seems MIA but time will tell.

The only reason I can see for Kerry not challenging Bush's lies must be political.... that focus groups turn a thumbs down on the approaches they've tested. Yet if it's vital to the nation to have a sane policy toward the Islamic world then Kerry, if he's to prove he's worthy of being the leader of the world's only superpower, must LEAD.... and he can start by exposing these lies.

[EndElectoral]

1. Patience!..don't show too many cards until the debate, then crush him

[ulTRAX]

3. don't agree

First of all, there's no evidence Kerry is going to take on these popular lies anymore than he's willing to flesh out exactly how big the Bush deficit is. Kerry's giving Bush credit for $150 billion being borrowed from SS and pretending it's revenue.

These lies stuck because after 911 people were scared and were willing to Bush as long as he appeared decisive. Those lies were repeated over and over and who most who were questioning them didn't have the Bush Junta's access to the media. To this day, some 50% of the nation believes Bush and denies the truth. That is not just astounding.... it's scary as hell. But Kerry as the Party standard barer for the past 5 months is also responsible. To counter a oft-repeated lie requires oft-repeated rebuttals. Now this won't make any difference to the braindead Bush fanatics... but it would chip away at those who are amenable to rational arguments about how best to protect the nation.

I personally have no idea WTF Kerry is doing. He undercuts his own position that we should only go to war because we have to by saying he'd vote to give Bush war authority even knowing what we know today... ie that Saddam was never a threat or had connections with 911. Kerry doesn't annunciate a clear alternative to Bush's policy to the Islamic world. Then there's his failure to take on these lies.

While you may prefer to think Kerry's staffers are on top of the issues, sadly I think the evidence points to them being rather clueless.

[LittleClarkie]

6. He would have voted that way

To give Bush diplomatic chips to spend.

Not to immediately go to war without exhausting all other options and without all the things Bush said he was going to get first, like a coalition.

What's he supposed to say, "Yeah, great guy that Sadaam. Sorry to see him go."

Then the press would really eat him alive.

www.kerryoniraqwar.com

[ulTRAX]

35. what's Kerry to say?

I find Kerry's position on Iraq incoherent. Here's what I think Kerry SHOULD have said to explain his position... and it might have worked if he didn't recently say he'd STILL have voted for war authority knowing that there were no WMDs. It undercut his position that we should only go to war because we have to... not because we want to. Anyway... if I were Kerry's adviser:

KERRY "At some point Saddam had to be confronted. There were loose ends in the Gulf War concerning WMDs. Sanctions were not meant to last forever. The oil for food program was broken. The Iraqi people were suffering. The credibility of the UN was at stake.

The Bush administration acknowledged Saddam was contained and given our commitments in Afghanistan, confronting Iraq SHOULD have waited for another time. Saddam was NOT involved in 911 and Bush knew that.

But Bush chose that time to confront Saddam and only way to get UN inspectors back in was with a credible threat of force. That is what I authorized... to create that credible threat. I did not vote for war.

Bush broke trust with Congress and the American People by sabotaging the UN inspections and launching an illegal war based on a radical new doctrine, arrogance, wishful thinking and bad intelligence. This action was a dangerous diversion of resources away from the real war on terror and predictably resulted in increased instability in the mid-east and increased anti-American hatred.

But once the US was committed to this unwise war, we have to back our troops and insure a stable government. We broke it so we are stuck having to fix it. "

I think Kerry MUST also differentiate himself from Bush in stating a clear plan for dealing with the Islamic world... measures that will undo the damage Bush had done and might also ratchet down anti-American hatred. Ultimately there's no military solution to dealing with religious fanatics. We need the good will and cooperation of Islamic moderates. But what might be a sane policy toward the Islamic world is a topic for another thread. I posted some ideas at the Kerry forum http://forum.johnkerry.com/index.php?showtopic=74987

[no name no slogan]

5. Sounds like Mike Dukakis in 1988

He followed a similar plan: let Bush hammer away at you for several weeks-- preferably something about how you're "weak" on defense. Then, start fighting back in mid-October-- when Bush's lead is so high that he's unbeatable.

I guess that's why Kerry hired the guy from Dukakis's campaign :shrug:

[KingofRock]

26. I have a bad feeling about the debates. n/t

[physaf]

55. we've got to place a lot on the debates now

... Kerry's a good debater, though, so things are probably going to be OK.

[Vincardog]

2. John Kerry needs to grow a pair

He needs to deny the PNAC NEOCON's Imperial America policy NOW. He should say his first action in Iraq would be to ask the Iraq people do you want us here?

If they vote no get the hell out.

If they vote yes tell them to cowboy up and stand shoulder to shoulder with our troops against the Terrorists. How are we supposed to keep them safe without their cooperation?

He needs to expose the lies that we are somehow safer now that Bu$h has grown AlQuida from 6000 to 18000 and put our soldiers in harms way in Baghdad.

[LittleClarkie]

13. You want him to put on the tinfoil hat?

Oh no, Chicken Little.

I'm glad Wes is one of his advisors. So I know he knows.

He's hammering, he's hammering. He can denounce AFTER he's elected. Right now he's got to talk about things the average Joe can relate to. He's not listening to the Dukakis people right now. He's listening to the Clinton people.

If only the media were covering it.

Even though we're right about the neocons, we sound good and crazy to our friends when we try to explain it. I know my friends look at me strangely. So I just make oblique predictions of the future under a Bush second term. The only thing that might slow things down is if Bush started listening to other advisors.

[redstateblues]

22. Kerry's Got Balls- Grow Your Own

[brentspeak]

4. That would make too much sense

As well as shouting about Bush's lack of anti-terrorism efforts prior to 9/11, including his famous vacation.

But apparently Kerry and the people he's surrounded himself don't want to win this thing bad enough.

[mbali]

8. That's right - Kerry doesn't want to win as badly as you do . . .

Damn him for not trying hard enough to win this thing. If only he'd stop slacking off by putting in 20 hours a day campaigning and really get down to some serious campaigning, he might prove himself worthy of those sitting at home second-guessing his every word and action and dictating demands to him from their home computers.

What a hopeless failure Kerry is. Next time, why don't you throw YOUR hat into he ring, put your butt out on the campaign trail, and save us from hopeless slackers like John Kerry.

[ulTRAX]

12. I, Too, Wish Kerry would fight a better fight

mbali wrote: "That's right - Kerry doesn't want to win as badly as you do . . . Maybe you should have thrown YOUR hat in the ring and put your butt out on the campaign trail."

There's plenty of issues Kerry COULD exploit and does not. Whose fault is that?

[mbali]

15. There are issues that YOU think Kerry could exploit

There are numerous other issues that OTHER people think that Kerry could exploit.

The bottom line is that Kerry cannot and should not run after every issue that every Democrat thinks is important. He has a campaign strategy that he has determined is best for him and the fact that some of his supporters disagree really doesn't hold much water. It's easy and convenient to assume that if ONLY Kerry would do things the way I think he should, the entire campaign would be on different footing, but that's bull. Right now, your frustration seems to be that Kerry isn't getting traction with the issues he's focusing on but that if he exploited some other issues, he would miraculously change the way the press covers him, capture the attention and affection of a new chunk of voters and put Bush away even before the debates. This just wishful thinking, totally unconnected with reality.

The fact that Kerry's not doing what you think he should or what I think he should or what the guy down the street thinks he should does not mean that he's not running an effective campaign. Kerry knows a little more about campaigning in general and the specifics of this campaign than any (or at least most) of us do. He is aware of polling information, issues, and numerous other aspects of this campaign of which we aren't even close to being aware. Constantly second-guessing his every move based upon our limited knowledge of the playing field he's operating on is not the least bit helpful.

[ulTRAX]

18. history is littered.....

mbali wrote: "The bottom line is that Kerry cannot and should not run after every issue that every Democrat thinks is important. He has a campaign strategy that he has determined is best for him and the fact that some of his supporters disagree really doesn't hold much water. It's easy and convenient to assume that if ONLY Kerry would do things the way I think he should, the entire campaign would be on different footing, but that's bull."

Kerry can't even correctly state the true Bush budget deficit. How self-defeating can one get!!

All I can do is offer my observations that there are KEY issues that Kerry fails to exploit.. the deficit is one... Iraq is another. I'm hardly alone. Sue us.

No one has a monopoly on good advice. Deal with it. If you're suggesting that the all-wise Kerry people have it all under control... I find your view naive in the extreme. History is littered with failed candidates and their paid consultants.

[mbali]

45. Kerry IS citing correct numbers - the amount of the deficit depends

upon which measure is being used.

Kerry has correctly opted to cite the more conservative number, which makes complete sense in a campaign context. Your bizarre nit-picking notwithstanding, I doubt that any voter who is not compelled to vote for Kerry upon hearing the deficit is $422 billion will suddenly get up in arms if he says its $574 billion.

On the other hand, it is smart to cite the number that has been reported by the House Budget Committee Dems and in most news accounts. The lower number is astronomical and makes the same point as the higher number. Moreover, using the higher number would raise a red flag among the press, which reported the lower number, and leave him open to charges that he's inflating the figures. It doesn't matter whether that's true, attempts to explain at that point would only sound like parsing and distract attention away from the real issue - that Bush's deficits are astronomical and unacceptable.

[physaf]

56. good points

thanks for bringing them up

[ClassWarrior]

21. <Doing my best Church Lady...>

Hmmmmmm... could it be... THE PRESS?????

[LittleClarkie]

20. He bounced from Wisconsin to Ohio and back again

in two days. It's like watching a human yoyo. And then to fit in interviews to boot.

We're just starting the press blitz I think. After not giving any interviews, he built up some anticipation, and now he seems to be showing up everywhere, from Time, to Letterman to Imus. Increases impact I suppose. The local campaign seems to be of the same mind about yard signs. They haven't been handing out very many so far. They're planning a yard sign bombing mission, having them show up all at once. They figure that the Bush ones have been out there so long no one even looks at them now. When the Kerry ones pop up everywhere, folks will take notice, they reckon. I hope they're right.

The Veteran coodinator thinks that signs and bumperstickers are rewards for being active. I argue that it's better to have the visibility than to think about who deserves what. Problem is they're in short supply.

Back to Kerry: the only way he could do more is if he split in two.

[LittleClarkie]

14. Ah shaddap

If the media was covering him properly you'd see he's fighting.

We're not dead yet, people. Nix the naysaying and get out there and DO something.

[skooooo]

7. Where the hell have you been??

I hear him challenge the lies Bush told everyday.

[Mr_Spock]

9. The obviousness of the disaster in Iraq is becomming clearer every day

...even without Kerry's help. Kerry needs to wait for clear waters before jumping in here - otherwise he may be ignored and then the media will start criticizing him again. 7 weeks - still time to get your shots in - we want solid hits to the head, not a glancing blow.

[ulTRAX]

29. don't underestimate

Your post includes a presumption that there's some inherent human rationality and given enough facts irrational Bush supporters will ultimately adopt a rational position. I think history is clear: you're underestimating the infinite human capacity for self-deception on the side of the public and our "leaders". As early as 65 LBJ was convinced we could not win in Vietnam.... yet US Presidents kept the meat grinder going until we had our asses kicked 10 years later. Even as the Vietnam war dragged on for 12-15 years (arguably 25), there were all too many who bought the official lies and continued to support it. Hopefully Kerry can chip away at those who have allowed themselves to be duped by Bush... but he's not yet making an effective case because he's not directly challenging Bush's core lies. He's only regurgitating what everyone SHOULD already know from the 911 commission and the host of expose books published this year.

[dennis4868]

10. FROM THE IMUS SHOW THIS MORNING

IMUS: Back to the war on terror for a second. There hasn't been an attack in this country since September 11, 2001, three years. Have we just been lucky? Who gets the credit for that? Is there any credit due anybody?

KERRY: Well, I think that the FBI and the CIA are doing a better job than they were doing, and I give them credit for that. I think they've done some things better.

But we're not doing the things as well as we ought to be doing. I'm told that it's still very easy to get in with passport forgeries and other kinds of things. We know that there are people in the country, and frankly, a lot of the folks that I've talked to -- I can't go into all the briefings, but I can tell you that some people scratch their heads and they're not completely sure why. One thing is certain: Terror is up around the world over the course of the last year or two. And the number of troops that have been killed has been up every single month. It was up in June, it was up in July from June, it was up in August from July. And the fact is that we have whole areas of Iraq now where there are not -- where American troops can't go, where there are terrorists where there weren't terrorists before. And what the 9/11 widows said yesterday is really important. That the war in Iraq is not the principal war against terror that we were focused on in Afghanistan with Al Qaida. Osama bin Laden and Al Qaida did 9/11. Osama bin Laden and Al Qaida knocked those buildings down, hit the Pentagon, saw that plane, you know, those people courageously give their lives to save the nation's capital. And they're not in Iraq. And they weren't in Iraq. And Iraq was not the focus. The focus of Iraq was weapons of mass destruction. And the president has misled America about those weapons, about the intelligence, about the war. He's misled America about what we're achieving today and what is happening on the ground in Iraq. And I think we deserve a president who tells the American people the truth and who has the ability to bring our allies into this effort. The president has alienated so many people that they're just sitting on the sidelines, not even living up to the resolution of the U.N. that they voted for. And the president doesn't even seem capable of holding them accountable to that.

[cthrumatrix]

30. he was awesome on that show

[physaf]

57. keep pounding that he misled america

that is the best thing to do now.

[RevCheesehead]

11. READ THIS before you rant!

from Kerry rally in Madison, WI (today)
http://www.jsonline.com/news/state/sep04/259115.asp

>snip<
"I believe four more years of Bush is dangerous," she said. "It's dangerous to our environment. It's dangerous to our economy. I think it sends a bad message to other countries that have been allies."

Referring to Crow's hit that features the chorus "All I wanna do is have some fun," Kerry joked the song "unfortunately has become the theme of Halliburton, but we're going to change that." Halliburton, the firm formerly headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, has secured lucrative contracts related to the Iraq war.

The Massachusetts senator has been attacked by Bush as inconsistent because he voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq but opposed the funding measure that accompanied it. On Wednesday, Kerry argued he and others had warned Bush to be prudent about how he delved into that conflict.

But Bush turned a deaf ear to concerns about the number of soldiers needed, the strength of Iraqi nationalism and the need for a better postwar plan, Kerry said.

He said that Bush has made international terrorism more of a threat by invading Iraq.

"There are now whole communities in Iraq that are taken over by terrorists that weren't there before," Kerry said.

He said that the war had eaten up $200 billion that could have gone toward education and health care if Bush had handled Saddam Hussein's regime differently. He also scolded the president for underestimating the threats of Iran and North Korea, countries with nuclear ambitions that Bush once lumped in with Iraq as an "axis of evil."

****************

He IS making his case - the problem is the media's lack of full or accurate coverage. I'm waiting for this rally to be on C-SPAN.

And, check out this picture:

[mbali]

16. Yeah, but the fifteenth person from the left in the 54th row isn't smiling

Further proof that of how badly Kerry's screwing up.

[LunaC]

33. Wow! It warms my heart to see the size of the crowd! n/t

[dennis4868]

17. These are Kerry's exact words during his interview.....

with Imus.


"The focus of Iraq was weapons of mass destruction. And the president has misled America about those weapons, about the intelligence, about the war. He's misled America about what we're achieving today and what is happening on the ground in Iraq. "

[ulTRAX]

23. abstract vs concrete

Kerry may very well have said what you claim. My general criticism is that Kerry is too abstract when he could be concrete. For example, he talks of Bush's "record deficits"... yet when it comes to a number he states the wrong figure. He shows no understanding that but a few know what a billion is. It's a figure he needs to flesh out and has not done.

So too with his criticisms of Bush's Iraq policies. Kerry's positions on Iraq are incoherent... and he recently put his foot in his mouth by saying he'd vote the same way today knowing there were no WMDs or links to 911. How does square with that with his position never to fight a war unless we had to? To the best of my knowledge Kerry's NOT challenged the key Bush lies I mentioned. Even if he does so once, it's insufficient. Kerry needs to develope a simple anti-Iraq critique that takes on Bush's core lies and he needs to repeat it in every speech

[arewenotdemo]

25. Misled or LIED TO?

First of all, Kerry should NEVER EVER acknowledge the Cheerleader-in-Chief as "the President". This isn't a Senate race and any acknowledgment of the Office the Impostor holds automatically bestows him respect and credibility he does not deserve.

Furthermore, Kerry isn't doing himself any favors by simply and consistently accusing * of "misleading" America. What the hell does that mean anyways? If the implication is that * lied to the sheeple to consumate his obsession with Saddam, why not say it? Everyone, whether they'll admit to it or not, knows it, so why not say it?

"The President" hasn't "misled" the American people. George Bush has lied tothe American people. It's the truth and it needs to be hammered home.

[hansolsen]

34. I've been saying the same thing for months. Let's keep after 'em. N/T

[physaf]

58. you're right...

Kerry has to keep doing this.

[ClassWarrior]

19. Your idiotic post is on the same page as this one:

"Kerry Accuses Bush Of Dishonesty On Iraq (Read This Thread Or I QUIT!)"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=820089&mesg_id=820089

Of course, we can't have the truth stand in the way of a good disruption, can we?

[ClassWarrior]

24. Hmmmmm... no answer?? Do I hear crickets?...

[ulTRAX]

27. save your insults

ClassWarrior "Your idiotic post is on the same page as this one: Kerry Accuses Bush Of Dishonesty On Iraq (Read This Thread Or I QUIT!)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Of course, we can't have the truth stand in the way of a good disruption, can we?"

Save your insults for the day you actually make a valid point. There's nothing in that post or in what I hear in Kerry speeches that directly challenges the core Bush lies I outlined. Kerry is as ineffective in this as he is in criticizing Bush's fiscal record: Kerry can't even use the true Bush deficit numbers.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[paulk]

32. read this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x817346

Ann Richards is talking about YOU.

[mbali]

36. That is FABULOUS!

[ulTRAX]

37. history is littered......

AR said: "I've got two pieces of advice for you. One, understand that the people who are running the campaign have experience and know what they are doing. They are getting their message out, although you may not always hear it."

Leave it to the experts? Nonsense. History is littered with failed candidates and their paid consultants. While they may have better political instincts than most they are also just as capable of misjudgments and missteps. The simple truth is that a good idea can come from anywhere and a campaign shuts out critical voices at its own risk.

[mbali]

38. Which critical voices should the Kerry campaign listen to? Yours?

Mine? Skinner's? Coehlo's? Brazile's? Nader's? Gergen's?

Or the thousands and thousands of other "critical voices" who want to put their two cents into the Kerry Campaign strategy?

Why do you think they "shut out critical voices" just because they're not doing what YOU think they should do? Maybe they carefully considered suggestions like yours and concluded, like lots of other people, that they're not the best way to win this campaign.

[ulTRAX]

39. and your alternative is?

I see the way Bush is playing his Iraq distortions and I see no effective response from Kerry. Sue me for not wearing rose colored glasses. I'm sure life is much less complicated in Happy Land. Obviously your only position is to just trust the people who don't even have the sense to even quote Bush's actual deficit numbers. If they can't fully exploit a simple issue like that... no, I have no faith in Kerry's team.

[roseBudd]

40. We can expose the lies with print flyers

http://somnamblst.tripod.com
right click and Save Target As to save the 300 DPI TIF files for printing

[roseBudd]

41. If we all use our printers and copy machines we...

become the media

[mbali]

42. You should pay more attention to the campaign before you bitch about it

You said, "Obviously your only position is to just trust the people who don't even have the sense to even quote Bush's actual deficit numbers. If they can't fully exploit a simple issue like that... no, I have no faith in Kerry's team.

Obviously, you're just not paying attention:

KERRY CHALLENGES BUSH RECORD ON ISSUES

Sen. John Kerry accused President Bush on Wednesday of presiding over an "excuse presidency," challenging Bush's credibility on jobs, the record national deficit and the war in Iraq.

"This president has created more excuses than jobs," Kerry told the Detroit Economic Club. "His is the excuse presidency - never wrong, never responsible, never to blame. President Bush's desk isn't where the buck stops - it's where the blame begins."

. . .

He has promised to halve the federal deficit - now estimated at a record $422 billion for this year - while rolling back tax cuts passed during the Bush administration for people making $200,000 or more.

"This president consciously turned a $5.6 trillion surplus into trillions of debt for our children," Kerry said. "George Bush accomplished all of it in only four years. Imagine what he could do in another four years. I want to be clear, my friends: I'm not saying that president wanted these consequences. But I am saying that by his judgments, by his priorities, by the decisions he's made he has caused these things to happen or to grow significantly worse. And he refuses to admit the error of those choices." Associated Press, September 16, 2004

And, before you claim that he JUST started to do this . . .

Democrats Vow to Cut Deficit by 50% in Four Years

Seeking to exploit a budget deficit that has ballooned under President Bush, John F. Kerry pledged Tuesday to restore fiscal discipline in Washington as he barnstormed through small towns in southern Wisconsin.

On the fifth day of his trip across the country, Kerry offered his most detailed look at how he hopes to reduce the deficit while at the same time enacting a major expansion in health care coverage, assuring middle-class Americans a continuation of the tax cuts they have received under Bush, boosting spending on education and the environment, and giving state and local governments direct assistance.
. . .

During a question-and-answer session here, Kerry pointed to the Clinton administration's record, saying he would restore the kinds of policies that brought about sustained economic growth and a balanced federal budget. "When Bill Clinton left office, we had a $5.6 trillion surplus. Surplus!" he said. "That has now been turned into a deficit as far as eyes can see. What's worse is there is $6 trillion of unexplained expenditures and proposals. They don't say where the money is going to come from." Washington Post, August 4, 2004

And, you'll notice that Kerry's not only slamming Bush for the budget deficit he created, he's offering positive solutions for how he plans to solve the problem. Beating up on Bush is not enough - it might keep people from voting for Bush, but Kerry's offering reasons to vote Democratic.

Here's a clue - you are not the only person the campaign is communicating with. Just because YOU haven't heard Kerry say something does not mean that he's not saying it nor does it mean that he's not getting through to people.

Pay attention.

[ulTRAX]

43. Thanks for Proving my Point!

Quoting Kerry mbali wrote: "You should pay more attention to the campaign before you bitch about it"

"He has promised to halve the federal deficit - now estimated at a record $422 billion for this year - while rolling back tax cuts passed during the Bush administration for people making $200,000 or more."

That's the WRONG figure for the true Bush deficit. CBO estimate it at 574 BILLION and OMB at 600 BILLION. Kerry's giving Bush credit for 153 BILLION being borrowed from SS and treating it as regular revenue. The REAL deficit is on the "on-budget" side. And let's not forget that Clinton had a true ON-budget surplus of 87 Billion in FY00. So, Einstein, it's now time for YOU to paid attention.

If you download a copy of the CBO's "SEPTEMBER 2004 The Budget
and Economic Outlook: An Update" at www.cbo.gov

Scroll down to Table 1.2 CBO’s Baseline Budget Projections

Unified Deficit = 422 BILLION (number reported in news this month)
Off-budget surplus = +153 BILLION
On-budget deficit = -574 BILLION

OMB also has a newer estimate dated 7-30-04: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/05msr.pdf'
This provides the White House's 455 Billion deficit figure. You'll have to scroll down to Table 14. BUDGET SUMMARY BY CATEGORY where you'll see the real off-budget deficit is 600 BILLION.... with 155 Billion in off-budget surpluses being borrowed give that dishonest 455 Billion deficit figure that Bush was using in August.

Anytime you wish to retract your insults... feel free. But I won't be holding my breath.

[mbali]

44. You claimed that Kerry's not citing figures, not that he's not citing the

figures YOU want him to cite.

Why don't you contact Gene Sperling and the rest of Kerry's economic policy team and demand that they use YOUR figures instead? I'm sure they'll appreciate the heads up and jump at the opportunity to change the numbers in his speech so that he sounds as if he's contradicting the House Budget Committee Democrats, most published accounts and numerous other sources, thereby generating a nice long discussion, not about Bush's astronomical deficits, but whether the number is 422 or 574 and whether Kerry is inflating the figures.

If ONLY Kerry had excluded the Social Security surplus and said the the deficit was $574 billion instead of $422 billion, he'd be kicking Bush's ass right now. Certainly the difference between the $422 billion unified deficit and $574 billion on-budget deficit figure will make all the difference in the world to those voters who aren't alarmed by a $422 billion deficit, but will rebel against Bush if only Kerry tells them its $574 billion.

Please.

[ulTRAX]

46. please stop distorting my words

Piling on the distortions mbali wrote: "You claimed that Kerry's not citing figures, not that he's not citing the figures YOU want him to cite. "

Why don't you contact Gene Sperling and the rest of Kerry's economic policy team and demand that they use YOUR figures instead?"

First of all... I damn well know what I said and you are deliberately misrepresenting it. Here's ALL my other references to how Kerry is dealing with the deficits from this thread:
==================
"First of all, there's no evidence Kerry is going to take on these popular lies anymore than he's willing to flesh out exactly how big the Bush deficit is. Kerry's giving Bush credit for $150 billion being borrowed from SS and pretending it's revenue."

"Kerry can't even correctly state the true Bush budget deficit. How self-defeating can one get!!"

"All I can do is offer my observations that there are KEY issues that Kerry fails to exploit.. the deficit is one... Iraq is another. I'm hardly alone. Sue us."

"Kerry may very well have said what you claim. My general criticism is that Kerry is too abstract when he could be concrete. For example, he talks of Bush's "record deficits"... yet when it comes to a number he states the wrong figure. He shows no understanding that but a few know what a billion is. It's a figure he needs to flesh out and has not done."

"Save your insults for the day you actually make a valid point. There's nothing in that post or in what I hear in Kerry speeches that directly challenges the core Bush lies I outlined. Kerry is as ineffective in this as he is in criticizing Bush's fiscal record: Kerry can't even use the true Bush deficit numbers."

"I see the way Bush is playing his Iraq distortions and I see no effective response from Kerry. Sue me for not wearing rose colored glasses. I'm sure life is much less complicated in Happy Land. Obviously your only position is to just trust the people who don't even have the sense to even quote Bush's actual deficit numbers. If they can't fully exploit a simple issue like that... no, I have no faith in Kerry's team."
===============

I did NOT say Kerry was not using numbers as you claimed. You prefer distortions to retactions. I was REPEATEDLY said Kerry refuses to use the CORRECT deficit numbers. And they are not MY numbers. Since you obviously don't know what CBO and OMB stand for it's the Congressional Budget Office and Office of Management and Budget.

As for the numbers being used effectivly... Kerry has lost a golden opportunity to make these astronomical numbers less abstract. It's in this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x823352 Kerry SHOULD have been trying to make the public furious over Bush's fiscal irresponsibility and instead he's helping Bush conceal it. Why? I'm not sure yet. I suspect it's because Kerry is also using the same on/off budget scams to misrepresent his own budget plan. Want to see if the campaign answers my question: http://forum.johnkerry.com/index.php?showtopic=75835

[mbali]

47. $422 Billion Deficit - YAWN $574 Billion Deficit - YIKES!!!

I did NOT say Kerry was not using numbers as you claimed. You prefer distortions to retactions. I was REPEATEDLY said Kerry refuses to use the CORRECT deficit numbers. And they are not MY numbers. Since you obviously don't know what CBO and OMB stand for it's the Congressional Budget Office and Office of Management and Budget.

Thank you, but I am quite familiar with the CBO and OMB. And I know that they reported the numbers that Kerry cited. They also reported the numbers that you cited. The "correct" deficit figure depends upon which calculation one chooses to use - the CBO and OMB used both and Kerry opted to go with the more conservative number.

I doubt that anyone but you really believes that a $574 billion deficit is "less abstract" than a $422 billion billion one or that saying the deficit is $574 billion would "make the public furious," but saying it's $422 billion merely helps "Bush conceal {his} fiscal irresponsibility."

You seem to have a problem with Kerry actually being consistent with the numbers he uses and not playing shell games with different figures in a way that would make no difference to the voting public but would leave him wide open for distracting attacks on the accuracy of his numbers.

[ulTRAX]

49. Oh Good.... You've heard of the CBO

mbali wrote: "Thank you, but I am quite familiar with the CBO and OMB. And I know that they reported the numbers that Kerry cited. They also reported the numbers that you cited. The "correct" deficit figure depends upon which calculation one chooses to use - the CBO and OMB used both and Kerry opted to go with the more conservative number."

A lie is a lie. If off-budget surpluses must be used to cover on-budget deficits then those LOANS should be considered as a debt as are all the other loans to the government. Don't you think? Or don't you?

The unified budget is a scam to disguise the true extant of government fiscal irresponsibility. But after Clinton reached a true ON-budget surplus of 87 Billion in FY00... there's no reason to continue these games. Kerry should OWN this issue but i fear he's boxed himself in with a lame budget plan.

"I doubt that anyone but you really believes that a $574 billion deficit is "less abstract" than a $422 billion billion one or that saying the deficit is $574 billion would "make the public furious," but saying it's $422 billion merely helps "Bush conceal {his} fiscal irresponsibility."

Aside from the need to educate the people about these confusing budget issues Kerry DOES have a chance to prove Cheney wrong when he said "Reagan proved people don't care about deficits". This may be true but it's because both parties are playing games and the numbers are too abstract. Ya, I DO think there's an effective way to make these numbers less abstract. Check out this page http://www.crunchweb.net/87billion/ Ya, hearing about a billion and SEEING a billion might make all the difference with Joe Six Pack. I think Kerry should bring a block of cash on every stage and start fleshing the deficit numbers out.

I rechecked their math and they understate the amounts. Here's a proposed approach that I believe could be effective.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x823352 What I fear is that this approach can't be used because Kerry's own budget plan is nothing but Bush-light and fails to address how the Right has sabotaged revenues in an effort to strangle government.

[mbali]

50. Should Kerry haul out the Deficit Exhibit before he challenges Iraq lies

or after? For someone as arrogantly critical of John Kerry as you are, you seem to be having a pretty difficult time sticking to a message - it takes some doing to go from "Kerry must challenge Bush's Iraq's lies" to "Kerry needs to devote every speech to explaining the fine points of deficit calculation."

I can't think of a better way to ignite a crowd than to have Kerry "flesh out deficit numbers" at every rally, speech and event he does. After a few days, he'll be able to hold all of his events in the small conference room at the Holiday Inn.

[ulTRAX]

51. yawn

I see YOU prefer to keep changing the topic than sticking to it. I only raised the deficit issue as another example of why I don't think Kerry has his act together. Some chose to debate the example and stray from the main topic. Sue me for responding. I foolishly thought I could get though to the rose-colored glasses crowd. But I've learned long ago the Right has no monopoly on irrationality.

Your comical scenario might be taken seriously if it was connected to reality. No where did I suggest that a discussion of Bush's fiscal irresponsibility make up the entirety of a Kerry stump speech. I only suggested that the deficit/debt was an issue Kerry was not exploiting effectively. I just provided an example of how it could be exploited along with the other issues in the campaign.

Perhaps YOU provide an example of how Kerry's downplaying of the Bush deficit by 150+ Billion can help Kerry. Put up or shut up.

[physaf]

60. thanks for the discussion

it is good to see this info

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

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

[physaf]

59. you know, you're right, too.

i keep going back and forth on this stuff. seems it is really tough how to play for best effect.

[KoKo]

48. Bush and the Republican Congress Drove us Into Debt to Give Money

to the TOP 1% OF THE WEALTHY IN AMERICA WHO DIDN'T NEED IT!

BUSH HAS COOKED THE BOOKS TO TAKE AWAY MONEY FROM YOUR HEALTH CARE, YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY WHICH YOU HAVE PAID INTO FROM YOUR PAYCHECKS FOR DECADES!

BUSH HAS FAILED TO FUND SOCIAL PROGRAMS HIS OWN REPUBLICAN CONGRESS VOTED FOR AND HAS LEFT ALL CHILDREN BEHIND.

BUSH HAS HELD CLANDESTINE MEETINGS WITH SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS WHO HAVE DESIGNED OUR POLICY ON ENERGY, ENVIRONMENT, AGRICULTURE AND TRADE AND REFUSED TO RELEASE THE NAMES OF THESE PEOPLE!

BUSH IS RELYING ON THE GENEROSITY OF FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS TO PAY OUR NATIONAL DEBT AND IN FACT THEY OWN MOST OF OUR DEBT, BUT HE IS UNABLE TO BALANCE A BUDGET AND CONTOL SPENDING.

ETC...ETC...ETC..

[EndElectoral]

53. Just put Hagel's speech in a Kerry ad..tha'ts all you need

"At least you're acknowledging there is no grand illusion that we are winning"

[bigpathpaul]

54. Iraq: For What It's Worth, You Can Pass These Around

I tend to agree with most of what ulTRAX has to say.

With that said, here's some fodder:







The ads above, as well as others, are available as free, full-size, high-resolution JPEG or PDF downloads on my web site at http://www.bigpath.net. I hope you'll find them useful, and if you do, please forward, print, post, handout, carrier pigeon them to as many people as you can.

[IndianaGreen]

61. You expect Bush or Kerry to tell the truth about Iraq?

The truth is that we lost the war, and the only thing left to do is to bring the troops home ASAP.