Kerry needs to make the distinction between Iraq and the War on Terror NOW

[Guaranteed]

If he doesn't, he *WILL* lose. The media and the Republicans LOVE blurring the line between the two, acting as if Iraq was a hotbed of terrorist activity and we had to attack them to protect ourselves. They are doing the same thing right now with the Spain election.

If Kerry doesn't make sure that people see the difference between the two, his second-guessing of the Iraq war will become a very serious liability, and he will look soft on terror. He has to emphasize that this was an ELECTIVE war, and that Saddam was no threat to us, and nowhere near a terrorist.

He needs to do this NOW, and in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS. This is a big test for him- he absolutely has to get this message out.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

1. I agree. (EOM)

[NC_Nurse]

2. moi aussi!

carry on!

[Qanisqineq]

3. EXACTLY what I've been thinking!

[DuctapeFatwa]

4. Since he supports the crusade, that would not be a good idea

[AntiCoup2K4]

6. Does he support it again this week? I lost track a while ago.

Between his positions on the war and the marriage issue, you need a scorecard! ;)

[jpgray]

7. But he doesn't support the crusade in its current form

And since he is a much more talented politician than Bush, he can still do this without compromising his unyielding support for the crusade.

:)

Just putting it in your own terms there, but it's certainly a viable tactic no matter what your opinion is on Kerry's Iraq stance.

[Guaranteed]

10. JP-

Have you seen how they're spinning the Spain election? They're equating the war on terror with the Iraq war. Kerry either has to totally concede the issue to Bush, and say that he was right in EVERYTHING in invading Iraq, or COUNTER the assertion that invading Iraq was a matter of keeping our nation secure against terrorists at all (which would undermine any support he gave to invading Iraq in the first place). Kerry is stuck in the middle, here. He has to pick one side or the other- very, very quickly- or he's going to get SLAMMED.

This is very, very serious. The Republicans are about to drop a fuckin foreign policy A-bomb on Kerry. He'd better see it coming, or it'll be too late.

[jpgray]

12. But Kerry can easily counter-spin--the Bushes are on the shaky ground

Their current justification for the war is bereft of any association with terrorists. The original justification tied it to the war on terror, but that has now been thoroughly debunked. So while they run to the 'he's an evil madman' justification, that takes away from their 'it's part of the terror war' justification.

Kerry can say he supported a multilateral enforcement of the UN resolutions. That's not strictly what he voted for, but it is what he consistently advocated throughout the period before the vote until now.

Bush has no viable response to that. What will they say: 'why did Kerry let us screw Iraq up so much?' That's not the most effective campaign statement. From the left, Nader could savage Kerry with it, however.

So Kerry can say Iraq distracted from the war on terror, and yet still maintain that his votes and statements are consistent. The Bush administration could attack his statements, but in doing so could fatally undermine their own statements.

[Guaranteed]

16. That walks right into Bush's plan

If Kerry responds to the equating of the war on terror with Iraq by saying that he "wanted to go to the UN," that's saying that we have to go to the UN to respond to terrorists. That's not going to fly.

All of this afternoon and tonight the media has been talking about the Madrid bombings, Al Qaeda, the Spanish election, and the war in Iraq, linking them all together. "It's a victory for the terrorists," they're saying, because they made Spain withdraw support for the US's war on terror. You see how this all has to be broken up, clarified, the lies weeded out? If we let this stand, then electing Kerry is a victory for the terrorists, too- because he would only fight them if the UN was involved.

He has to make the distinction clear between the two. If they are allowed to blur the line, they'll kill him.

[DuctapeFatwa]

11. His main difference is he will share the loot, bush won't

He voted for the crusade, he has pledged to continue the crusade, to "take the fight right to terrorists everywhere," to quote from his website.

You may have missed it, but the US has already invaded Syria and North Africa, and continues its operations in Central Africa, it is becoming impossible to keep skirmishes on the Iran border out of the press.

If Diebold smiles on Kerry, he will have quite a lot of countries to crusade in.

As you say, he is a very good politician, and it is his support for the crusade that has gotten him this far: it's popular with the voting class, as evidenced by the poor showing by candidates who suggested such a slight deviation as running it off on UN letterhead.

Whether he likes it or not, he is locked in to supporting the Gaza-style occupation of a good chunk of the planet, and while making rich men richer is a good enough motive for political circles, and notwithstanding the small minority of Americans who participate at all in the political process, he will need the waw on terra to justify a whole lot of things that will have to be done as the US transitions away from non-defense related activities.

[Guaranteed]

5. I refuse to allow myself to be called unpatriotic again.

It's Kerry's job to make sure that doesn't happen.

[DrFunkenstein]

8. He Should Incessantly Repeat "The War On STATELESS Terrorism"

If he doesn't, he'll just play into Bush's militaristic territory. If he does, he points out that Bush is too stupid and too extreme to handle such a complex issue.

[frank frankly]

9. hell yes!

hell yes!!!!

[Gloria]

13. Agreed...and I also think he should pre-empt Osama....

See thread....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x463222

[digno dave]

14. How can he...he voted for IWR. Can you say Clark...Dean???

Because he voted for IWR he has NO AMMO on this issue at all, and that is sad.

[Guaranteed]

15. Well I've always thought that, too, but

he's got a much better chance of at least surviving the arena of foreign policy if he makes sure that the two issues are completely separated from each other.

[Guaranteed]

17. Rove sneaked up on Kerry...

I hope Kerry realizes it. He'd better move quick, or the election is going to be over by April.

That Spain bombing is the connection between the Iraq war and terrorism (as weak and indirect as it may be) that the Repukes need to "justify" the Iraq War, and call Kerry "weak on terror" and national security. He has to, has to, HAS to make sure Iraq and the war on terror stay separated from now on.

[no name no slogan]

18. Kerry needs to make a BOLD STAND

For instance:

If they try to smear him with the "weak on terror" label, simply ask BushRove where the WMD are in Iraq. Or better yet, tell them to produce the AQ-Saddam link. That will show just how bogus the whole thing was/is.

If he stands up, and makes a DEFINITIVE statement about these things, he'll come out okay. If he winges and waffles around on them, he's toast.

[IndianaGreen]

23. Kerry accepted the Bush argument that Iraq and war on terrorism...

are one and the same, instead of supporting the Spanish people decision at the polls that the 3/11 terrorist attacks were brought about Spain's participation in the war in Iraq.

Spain and Dean were right, Kerry and Bush were wrong!

[Fleshdancer]

19. It's pathetically sad how right you are. n/t

[frank frankly]

20. I'll say it again, BullGooseLoony, you are 100,000% correct

the way they are spinning the spanish election as a victory for the terrorists is disgusting and must be stopped

c'mon, JK!!!

[Guaranteed]

21. Kick- come ON, Kerry nt

[zoeyfong]

22. I'm not sure Kerry believes there *is* a difference. Why else did he jump

on Bush's iraq war bandwagon?

[jmatthan]

24. Americans in Iraq do not fight terrorists

but create and breed them.

For every Iraqi killed 10 terrorists are created in Iraq and several thousands outside. Remember President Mubarak's speech (31st March 2003) at the outset of the Iraq war?

"If there is one (Osama) bin Laden now, there will be 100 bin Ladens afterward," Hosni Mubarak said in reference to the al Qaeda terror network leader during a speech to army commanders in the city of Suez, some 80 miles east of the capital, Cairo.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/31/world/main547033.shtml

Hence Kerry standing up for America in Iraq is not a fight against terrorism, it is to foster the breeding ground for terrorism.

Where Al Qaeda had not hold it now has a stranglehold.

Remember it was the Americans who armed the Taliban and brought them to power.
Remember it was the Americans who supported Osma bin Laden.
Remember it was the Americans who set up bases in Saudi Arabia and caused the alienation of Osma bin Laden.

All of these show a lack of perspective in American Administration policy, whether it be Clinton or Bush.

The aim of the new President should be to contain terrorism and then create conditions to reduce it and its impact. It should be to create an atmosphere of peace between all nations.

The only candidate who has seen this has been Dennis Kucinich.

Jacob Matthan
http://www.findians.com/educated.html
Oulu, Finland