RNC Team Leader on pre-emptive war sells well - and Kerry Criticisms

RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie on why pre-emptive war sells in 04:

"Democrats are coalescing behind an 'aftermath policy' toward potential threats that is naive in the Post 9-11 world. It is a passive, reactive approach that fails to connect the dots and would put America's fate in the hands of people who seek to destroy us."

"Those unwilling or unable to stop terrorist activity by dealing with it will be forced to deal with its aftermath. Our choice is confronting terrorists in Baghdad or Boston, in Kabul or Kansas City."

And nuanced responses like Kerry’s, on Congressional Resolutions that say something other than just “Let’s go to war with Iraq, if the President wants to”, are responded to in the Washington Times with:

"If Senator Kerry regrets his vote to remove Saddam Hussein, he should just say so. If Senator Kerry would change his vote to remove Saddam Hussein, he should just say so. If Senator Kerry is embarrassed by his vote because it's unpopular with the antiwar base of his party, he should just say so."

The attack on Kerry by the chairman of the RNC sounds eerily similar to some of the things I've read here at DU.

And that is exactly why Kerry is going to lose if you put him up in 2004.

I must've missed it. Are you saying he would lose because he is the candidate they most fear? Or because your attacks against him are the same ones the Repubs are making?

There will be NO compromising centrist with an 11 year record of GOP buttkissing this time around. No Yucca Mt. and Sierra Blanca approving environmental racist will be the nominee.


That said...MWO has THIS to say about the Kerry detractors. The detractors sound just like you, Thorstein.....

MWO:

The willfully obtuse Mickster writes:


See also Terry Neal's excellent column on the efforts of four Democratic candidates who voted for the war to suddenly get very Dean-like and angry. Not surprisingly, Kerry ("yeah, I'm actually, I'm really shocked and I am angry") is the most transparently insecure and coarsely calculating in trying to have it both ways (taking credit for voting for the war while denouncing Bush for the intelligence that convinced Kerry to vote for the war).
(snip)

Even the most Faux News-addled Moron-American understands that John Kerry could vote for the Iraq resolution but also hope the diplomatic process would continue for much longer and with more effort than it did, and that Senator Kerry did not forfeit any ground on which to criticize Bush if and when Bush botched the issue or lied about intelligence.

As for those Bush apologists who now feign being overcome by the vapors or just plain raw stupidity over those Democrats' "poor judgment" in trusting the regime or "egregious political behavior" - what, exactly, is their argument going to be, now that their Unelected Fraud has been exposed as having mishandled the Iraq problem?
>>>>

You are doing nothing but attacking and that is just what the GOP wants you to do. Why don't you post something positive about somebody? Anybody! Let's hear about some reasons to vote for a Democrat - any Democrat!

(edit: clarity)

and the others from the Dean onslaught, and have been doing so for about 7 months. When they lighten up on Kerry, then I'll lighten up on them. Of course, now some of them are attacking Kucinich, too, so I'm on double duty. ;))))

I realize you want to give a short-hand answer, but resist the temptation to demonize Dean. He may have a lousy environmental record and a limited grasp of national-level politics, but that doesn't give him horns!

or nominate or not nominate someone based on how badly we think the Republicans are going to lie and attack them.

However, I find it frustrating that Kerry seemingly let himself get painted into this very obvious Republican box. ("Let's see Kerry vote against our very POPULAR war. Bwah hah hah!") He should have found a better way to deal with the problem. Now everyone thinks he gave Bush total consent for his war, and he isn't pointing out that he didn't. The Republicans and the peace advocates (of whom I am one) will both hate him for this.

that I don't hate Kerry for this, but I'm still having a hard time with the cognitive dissonance it has caused me.

That is so typical of the Bush administration. They are all reactionaries. Cheney (CEO of Hallburton) went around Tennessee and spoke about how if Saddam was not taken out soon, he would be romping around the world with his nuclear weapons. Saddam NEVER had nuclear weapons. Remember those "terror camps" that those reporters visited? The hawks in Washington claimed that a nuclear program was being developed there and that Al-Qaeda, in cohorts with Iraq, were producing biological weapons for distribution. The reporters and inspectors found NOTHING. Not only didn't they find anything, but they found that all of the buildings were old, worn-down and had obviously not been in use for a decade. The paint was chipped, the rooms were empty (except for some fungus, maybe that is what Cheney was speaking of ;) ).

Then they investigated a barn that Tony Blair stated houses biological weapons and all they found was some old fertilizer, cow dung and some white fungus growing ontop of them. Some WMD!

Bush is a liar! They blow everything way out of proportion and Cheney's stategy works because it plays on people's fears! They are using 9/11 to garner up support for their wars! It is proposterous!

Americanreborn

n/t