This Election Rests on ONE Stupid, Lying, Distortion...........

[BabsSong]

..and we, so far haven't answered. The whole Bush campaign rests on this logic they instilled in Americans: 9/11 happed - Bush responded with war - therefore it is a logical conclusion that Dems are weak on defense and will let you die in your beds.

I could write seven paragraphs on this but I'll hold my tongue. How in the hell do we confront and demolish this?? The people don't see Dems in action because it didn't happen on our watch. A beautiful set up for the repukes. But this is the #1 challenge to Kerry. I'm not talking about parading around his medals or tough talk to counteract this. I'm saying there has to be a direct confrontation that says "that's total bullshit" and explain why to the people. Any suggestions on how Kerry can do this??? It has to be hit head on. If he can do this, Bush has nothing left to hold him up. Otherwise, we have to struggle for every damn piece of ground in this election. This has to be the place to confront and destroy them.

[Cat Atomic]

1. Bush ignored the terrorists and made a corporate oil grab instead.

This argument is already being made, though not loudly or often enough. It's got the added benefit of actually being true.

[Junkdrawer]

2. From President-In-Exile Gore...

The Course of Action: The War on Terrorism, First

To begin with - to put first things first - I believe we should focus our efforts first and foremost against those who attacked us on September 11th and who have thus far gotten away with it. The vast majority of those who sponsored, planned and implemented the cold-blooded murder of more than 3,000 Americans are still at large, still neither located nor apprehended, much less punished and neutralized. I do not believe that we should allow ourselves to be distracted from this urgent task simply because it is proving to be more difficult and lengthy than was predicted. Great nations persevere and then prevail. They do not jump from one unfinished task to another. We should remain focused on the war against terrorism.

I believe that we are perfectly capable of staying the course in our war against Osama Bin Laden and his terrorist network, while simultaneously taking those steps necessary to build an international coalition to join us in taking on Saddam Hussein in a timely fashion. If you're going after Jesse James, you ought to organize the posse first. Especially if you're in the middle of a gunfight with somebody who's out after you.

I don't think we should allow anything to diminish our focus on the necessity for avenging the 3,000 Americans who were murdered and dismantling the network of terrorists that we know were responsible for it. The fact that we don't know where they are should not cause us to focus instead on some other enemy whose location may be easier to identify. We have other enemies, but we should focus first and foremost as our top priority on winning the war against terrorism.

Nevertheless, President Bush is telling us that America's most urgent requirement of the moment - right now - is not to redouble our efforts against Al Qaeda, not to stabilize the nation of Afghanistan after driving its host government from power, even as Al Qaeda members slip back across the border to set up in Afghanistan again; rather, he is telling us that our most urgent task right now is to shift our focus and concentrate on immediately launching a new war against Saddam Hussein. And the president is proclaiming a new, uniquely American right to preemptively attack whomsoever he may deem represents a potential future threat.

Moreover, President Bush is demanding in this high political season that Congress speedily affirm that he has the necessary authority to proceed immediately against Iraq and, for that matter, under the language of his resolution, against any other nation in the region, regardless of subsequent developments or emerging circumstances. Now, the timing of this sudden burst of urgency to immediately take up this new cause as America's new top priority, displacing our former top priority, the war against Osama Bin Laden, was explained innocently by the White House chief of staff in his now well-known statement that "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August."

More...

http://www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/02/02-09gore-speech.html

[H2O Man]

3. Great point!!!!

To do this, they have to smear Kerry's image as a war hero. That is the key to this. They will try to make him look unpatriotic and weak on defense. Remember, this is the first democrat to run as a war hero since 1960. The republicans fear this, just as they feared Clark. Tonight on Hardball, there was a segment on Nixon's attempts to smear Kerry. Listen: several Nixon men are in the bush administration. This helps us! We can compare the bush administration with the Nixon years. Liars, cowards, and criminals who rely on "smear tactics." I am sure that at a time when even TIME magazine says bush faces a crisis in public confidence because people know he LIES. Do you agree that this is one way to confront bush on this?

[rasputin1952]

4. For one thing, the 1st WTC bombing was done on Clinton's watch...

and the perpetrators of that crime were caught and tried.

Next, The Murrah building in OKC happened on the Clinton watch, and the perpetrators were caught and tried.

Where does bush stand on the capture of al-Qaeda people behind the 9-11 attacks....never mind. But Saddam, who had nothing to do with 9-11, is now in custody.

There are so many tings wrong with this administration is t is difficult to know where to begin. Let's see Jan '01 would be a good place, right after bush put up his right hand.

:grr:

[BabsSong]

6. resputin--that's the part nobody's talking abougt

.repubs make it sound like we just sat there and did nothing. Remember all the crap and condemnation Clinton had to go through to lob missles at Osama after the bombings, etc?? Repukes fought him all the say. BUT, repukes know that explaining that 'stuff' puts Americans to sleep. How the hell do we say to them that this is bullshit rhetoric and any Dem would have responded to an attack---only thing we would not have done was use the situation to launch a goddamn lying war for corporate buddies. That's the point that has to be driven home.

[Skip Intro]

5. Totally agree with your assessment

The facts matter far less than perception here, imho. Kerry is in danger of being defined as weak on terrorism, at least to the extent that it could change the outcome of the election. I don't know what the answer is, but I agree that this arena is where the election will be won or lost. And Kerry is going to need something more than a town-hall meeting or a blog on a website to define himself as strong to the undecided. And he must do this before the bush gang do it for him. I've already encoutered "Kerry will seek the UN's approval before protecting us" or some crap like that. Meanwhile bush is running around saying things like "we'll never seek a permission slip..."

I do not know what the answer to this situation is, but denying the circumstance exists is not smart. Maybe commercials, maybe a media-grabbing news conference, maybe a dramatic VP announcement - I don't know what the right move should be, but I am becoming worried about this.

It is a situation Kerry, and only Kerry, can and must diffuse and eliminate before the bush gang is able to get a solid toehold. And it needs to be done convincingly, and ASAP.