Can Kerry Cut the Iraq Invasion/War on Terror Linkage?

[nostamj]

As Paul Krugman's column today points out:

Polls suggest that a reputation for being tough on terror is just about the only remaining political strength George Bush has. Yet this reputation is based on image, not reality.

It seems to me that the best way to completely take this away from Bush is to sever the imaginary linkage between 9/11-War on Terror and The Iraqi Invasion.

Even during the ramp-up to the invasion, the bushies were unable to connect Saddam to Islamic fundamentalist terrorism--other than by empty innuendo.

Bush will continue to link the two and will use Kerry's votes and statements regarding Iraq to portray him as 'weak on terror'.

I think it's essential for him to get out now and SEVER the 'imaginary linkage' and for Bush to address his 'war on terror' and his 'invasion of Iraq' as the separate--and conflicting--issues they are.

I hope he becomes relentless on the issue of fighting international terrorism WHILE he exposes Bush's failure to do so.

- invading Iraq drew resources needed for the War on Terror in Afghanistan and the country is backsliding

- two years later, Bush is finally moving resources to capture OBL. Is this action to --finally--make American safer or is it to boost his re-elect numbers with another stunt?

- if Mr. Bush is committed to fighting terror, why are Americans still waiting for answers about intelligence failures surrounding 9/11?

I hope that any and every time Bush attempts to link Iraq to the WoT that Kerry immediately slaps it down and aggressively points out that they are separate issues requiring different approaches. (ie. you can't "Shock and Awe" terrorists into submission)

Kerry can take the 'terror' card away by exposing that Bush has been bluffing all along. It's rhetoric, not results.

Sound bite: For over a year now Bush administration officials and Mr. Bush him self have prouded proclaimed that "two-thirds of the al Qaeda leadership have been caught or killed." All well and good, but did you stop a year ago? Have you been trying but haven't found ANY more since the claimed 'two-thirds'? What is it?

[leesa]

1. I can't believe you buy this war on terrorism BS

It's pure sham...a way to sell arms and steal resources. It's an idiotic idea. The ONLY way to stop terrorism against the US is to stop BEING a terrorist towards other countries. Leave them alone and quit stealing their resources.

[nostamj]

3. uh.... I don't buy bush's WoT

never have.

but, as far as this election is concerned, it will be discussed.

Kerry needs to point out that bush is DEAD WRONG about it before he can offer his own approach to dealing with terrorism WITH the international community

[dennis4868]

2. What is being ignored is....

The Army War College came out with a report a few months ago that said the war in Iraq was a major distraction on the war on terror....I know why the media ignores this report (because they are liberal of course), but why doesn't Kerry pick up on this report by our own military?

[leftchick]

4. Wesley Clark did a great job of it during his campaign.

Every time he was given TV airtime, which wasn't much, he hammered home how bush* was forgetting the WoT and focusing on Iraq and how it was making us more vulnerable. Perhaps he could lend those talking points to JK now? :)

[truthspeaker]

5. Kerry and his supporters need to repeat this often:

The war in Iraq has nothing to do with fighting terrorism.

The war in Iraq has nothing to do with fighting terrorism.

The war in Iraq has nothing to do with fighting terrorism.

The war in Iraq has nothing to do with fighting terrorism.

The war in Iraq has nothing to do with fighting terrorism.

[Q]

6. Question: if Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terrorism...

...why is Kerry pledging to send in more troops? Can he have it both ways?

[truthspeaker]

10. maybe he thinks we have to clean up Bush's mess

But if so I disagree with him. I don't know if there's a practical way to help the Iraqis establish a sovereign government that really represents the people of Iraq. But sure as shootin' a foreign power can't install one by force. The longer we stay there, the stronger the resistance will become.

[nostamj]

11. why would sending more troops

to stablize the MESS left by the bushies in Iraq have anything to do with 'the war on terror'?

he has to have TWO ways.

one strategy for dealing with bush's disaster in Iraq
one strategy to rebuild internation cooperation in addressing global terrorism.

the whole point of my post is that he must separate them, I don't understand why your putting them back in the same basket....

[sangh0]

19. Q: HOw does misportraying Kerry's position help?

Kerry has not said that he will send more troops to Iraq. The 40,000 additional troops he is calling for will be sent around the globe to hot spots such as Germany, Japan, etc

[DuctapeFatwa]

7. Well, I guess he could give it a new name, but since he supports the

crusade he has to call it something, unless he just wants to go straight up and say yeah, we're imperialists, whatcha gonna do about it.

The US has already started low-grade invasions of Syria, Iran, and North Africa. If Diebold smiles on him in November he will inherit a Gaza-style occupation of a hefty chunk of the planet (don't forget sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean, staffed almost entirely with commercials)

[Toby109]

8. About that 2/3s.

Heard Dan Bartlett use that figure yesterday and wondered how long ago they have planned to use that stat/meme. It never seems to waver. How do they account for the terrorists who have been recruited and risen through the ranks since then? They can't and that makes that figure totally bogus.

[nostamj]

13. I'd love to find the FIRST instance of that 2/3s claim

and then chronologically list EVER further instance...

would be pretty damning?

were you LYING at the beginning?

or

have you been FAILING ever since?

Kerry should ask the question, forcefully. the bushies spew so many lies because they rarely get called on them.

[Bandit]

9. This is a very important point

We have a war on terror going on and a War on Iraq. They are two seperate wars and people need to be made aware of it. I'm tired of them lumping it all together. The War on Iraq is not a war on Terror in fact it is a War creating more terror. I guess if they want an endless war on terror they have to create more terror to excite the masses into spending more resources. Hence attack a sovereign nation and hope it pisses enough mid-easterners off to create more terrorists. Plan is working.

[Viking12]

12. He needs to hammer this theme!!

War College Study Calls Iraq a 'Detour'

WASHINGTON — A report published by the Army War College criticizes the Bush administration's global war on terrorism as "unfocused" and contends that the war in Iraq is "unnecessary" and a "detour" that has diverted attention and resources from the threat posed by Al Qaeda.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0112-01.htm

Full report:
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/pubs/2003/bounding/bounding.pdf

[nostamj]

14. yes, but

it is equally important that he sever Iraq from the WoT.

the only linkage between the WoT and Iraq should negative for bush:

the Iraq Invasion diverted attention and resources
the Iraq Invasion exacerbated and increased terrorism

[Viking12]

15. Maybe I'm confused

but I see that stressing the point that Iraq was "unnecessary" as a means of severing the two.

[Guaranteed]

16. He HAS to do this.

For defensive reasons, more than offensive. If the Bush adminstration is allowed to continue to link the war on terror with the Iraq war, Kerry's criticism of the Iraq war will make him look soft on terror. In fact, that's the Bush administration's plan.

So, yes, Kerry absolutely HAS to do exactly what you're saying.

[BabsSong]

17. This is a double, double, triple, double type of situation

(actually Dems have been trying to do this, the world understands, but too many morons here can't get it). First has to come getting rid of the perception that Iraq had any connection with al Qaeda and 9/11. Then, the next step is to make the case that BUSH IS WEAK ON TERROR because he failed to continue to go after the terrorists and instead went to fight a slam dunk war where there were no terrorist. Who was afraid to take on terrorists, baby???? And now that Bush's fuckola in Iraq, we now have created the terrorists' answer to Disney World; thus, now we have to get the world together to erradicate these boys and disperse them again. Bush gave them a damn meet-up place to have a jihaad bash!!!

[nostamj]

18. yes yes yes

separate them. bash them individually as utter failures

THEN point out how the joint failures have made both worse!

[Malva Zebrina]

20. somebody better come up with something soon

because Bush is gaining ground with the successful morphing of Iraq war into a war against terrorism. He is doing it and I think it is working--we know it is a damn lie, but it seems to me that Kerry is rather stuck here. Kerry voted for the war and that will be thrown back in his face.

They need to consult with some political psychologist on how to counter the propagandist lies re Iraq--course that does take money. Bush has millions to spend on propaganda and the best PR firms to sell him as an image . It is working and he's got them hired all over the place including Iraq.

[nostamj]

21. "Kerry is rather stuck here"

I don't agree. he can talk about the Iraq Invasion, the reason for his vote, and where he currently stands based on the revelations about false information.

he can also say that the reasons *presented* for the Iraq invasion included lies about any linkage to terrorism.

[Malva Zebrina]

22. well I am on his side but how can he defend that vote in view of

what a Robert Byrd said on the floor of the Senate more than once concerning attacking Iraq and also now, what ninety percent of the Spaniards knew was a lie?

I am for Kerry--I have no choice, but I think that his vote for the war, like many others was a political move.and I think that this vote now hampers him. Diane Feinstein reported receiveing thousands and thousands of letters urging her to not vote for it--she ignored her constituents.

I do not believe for a moment that Kerry could not see what I saw, and I am just the common man without any connections whatsoever to inside ifromation. I saw the same thing that the
Spaniards saw. I watched the proceedings at the UN and I kept up with the information. Kerry could have done the same and reached the same conlcusion. Why Powell's shameful display at the UN would have been the first clue to anyone with half a brain.

Others did see it--Byrd, Kuchinich and others did not vote for this slaughter. Kerry played it safe for himself, imo. I think he shot himself in the foot with that approach because he is now limited to criticize Bush.