Kerry needs to show Bush as indecisive and weak

[genius]

This will cut directly into Bush's debate strategy.

[wadestock]

1. I've posted what I thought was key....

No one responded....although I hope some read....I've forwarded the comments to a dozen other relevant connections to the campaign.

The basic gist of it was:

Kerry must show the difference in how to "win the peace". This has been his mantra and he must explain it clearly. Bush went in with a blitzkrieg victory, and dropped the ball...we know that...but what are the real compelling points for Kerry to make?

I think he has to articulate the way to win the peace this way...

1. Control on the ground - Has to be mobilized as a high tech anti-terrorist police force....MINIMUM 50,000 strong....and well equipped (threat previous comments in)....with bombproof HMMWVs, better armor etc.....now we accomplish better patrolling and less incidental deaths. Thread in comments about improved training also. The coalition sees this as a REAL HONEST attempt to get control on the ground. Who the hell would want to participate in an uncontrolled street fight with terrorists?????

2. The coalition....explain the various ways it specifically helps curb terrorism. Right now we're not cooperating as well as we should. We need help controlling the borders in Iraq. Shoot down the criticism that its all about getting "more French troops" into the action. Identify that as immature rhetoric.

3. Lesson of 911 - The lesson has to be explained in KISS terms. What we learned from 911 is that a dozen or so terrorists can cause immense damage using LOW TECH weapons...with NO COUNTRY allegiance (isn't this what they are by definition?) To fight an enemy ONE HAS TO FIRST UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE FIGHTING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THUS HE MOVES TO THE ISSUE OF HOW TO THINK LIKE THEM AND UNDERMINE THEIR ABILITY TO ATTACK US HERE IN THE US.

[theorist]

2. It will be much easier to make the argument for incompetence.

This is especially easy in terms of foreign policy. Even when you boil every foreign policy issue down to sound bytes, * is a complete, utter, miserable failure.

But I see why your idea is attractive: hit him where he's strong. The thing is that bush* is already perceived as "decisive and strong" and no 90-minute interview is going to change that. It's very frustratiing.