Stop conceding that Bush is "strong on terror".

It's a losing strategy.

The unified message from democrats should be "Bush is weak on terror and has made America less safe".

It doesn't matter what the polls say, since the only way to change them is to try and challenge the notion that Bush is doing a good job on the war on terror.

And the fact is, Bush is a failure on that front.

Invading a country with little to no ties to terrorist groups (which is surrounded by terrorist supporting nations), without a post-war plan, or even a plan on how to deal with the WMD we were supposed to fear, and without having enough boots on the ground to secure the country (or even nuclear waste dumps which could be looted for dirty bombs), while alienating nearly the entire known world in the process, and failing to build a coalition to help pay for it, while getting us into an easily predictable guerrilla war that has no end in sight where our soldiers are targets for anybody who can pick up a gun or make a bomb (in a country with porous borders, no less) in the middle of a continent where the US is almost universally hated, WAS NOT A SMART MOVE AGAINST TERRORISM.

It was one of the dumbest possible actions the US could have taken.

Any candidate who concedes that Bush is strong on terror, or made the world safer, is making a grave strategic mistake and I can't support them.

If that candidate is a self-proclaimed expert on foreign policy, that's strike two.

If they actually believe that Bush is strong on terror, that's strike three.

Any supporter of another candidate who concedes this, in an argument to get me to support their candidate, I won't take seriously.

People don't believe Bush is strong on terror because he is. They believe it because our party has been too willing to roll over on the issue in the face of polls. If they had actually been fighting back, the situation would be different today.

It's this whole "things are comletely different now" logic gap that seems so permanently burned into folks psyches by the propaganda mill, we tend to forget the "strong on terror guy" LET IT HAPPEN IN THE FIRST PLACE! So far, only CBS News, the 9-11 commission, half of the worlds intelligence networks , and countless citizens have confirmed this.

The only thing "strong" about * is the stench of the coverup built on the bodies of 3,000 innocent citizens.

what do i say? i ask because i am currently fighting this battle with my brother in law.

O I L
check it out for yourself. It's hard to believe , I know, that this isn't a worldwide war on terror.

They started talks with Britian shortly after.

thanx

Now you're going to make me break my bearfart freeze out.

I haven't googled this yet, but I heard it on NPR last week. The Lybians have been trying since 1999 to open their weapons programs to inspections. The PanAm/Lockerbie/Sanctions stuff was standing in the way. The settlement of that had more to do with Lybia's recent actions than the war on Iraq. See what you can find and take it to your brother in law.

level yet?

thanks for the help...i suck at google.

BTW...HF, come summer we will be on the same team, one way or the other.

Sure. In our heart of hearts, we both now that. But, for now, you suck. ;)

Try Googling "Lybia inspections 1999" or "Lybia inspections 1999 npr"

The impression I got was that the PanAm/Lockerbie stuff was being worked out at the time, along with other matters of Lybia's support for terrorism and that Lybia put inspections on the table. In fact, I think it was an ex-Clinton admin official who was interviewd on NPR. Maybe a fellow DUer with more experience at Internet searched can help find this. I'd do it, but I've got to run some errands.

Peace.

invasion of Iraq has forced him to disarm -- even if it were true -- unless the Bush administration made this (at the very least extremely embarrassing) admission part of a quid pro quo?

If he answers affirmatively, tell him that you admire his wholehearted faith in Khadafy's integrity, but you happen to know a little about the General.

Dean couldn't bring himself to admit that Kerry was right about Tora Bora so he backed up Bush instead. Shameful performance by Dean.

And he seems convinced it was a good idea! How f'ng out of touch with reality does Kerry have to be to think this war was a good thing?

But, yes, that's the same as refusing to criticize the way a battle went down in Aghanistan, and I can see your point.

???

supported with the same crucial measure giving Bush the final say whether force was needed or not. But hypocrites only use that to dump on Kerry.

Nevermind the differences between the two, which are many.

You just have no intention of showing fairness on that issue at all. Dean gets every break at the same time the hypocrites attack Kerry.

Do you guys really think Kerry has a credible campaign?

As far as I know, the Democratic candidates are all offering alternative ways of dealing with terrorism.

Whether voters believe that Bush is "strong on terror" is a different matter. I think lots of voters believe that Bush is doing SOMETHING about terrorism (whether it is right or wrong is a thornier question for voters to answer, of course) and expect a Democratic candidate for President to be qualified to do the same.

And generally, and candidate who says that capturing Saddam made us safer, or the war on Iraq made us safer, is on my shit list. That includes quite a few candidates.

I'm not talking about "pie-in-the-sky" candidates here! That man is so unelectable! ;)

You know it and I know it, but the masses don't. And as long as Bush drops "9/11" into every speech, people will think he knows what he's talking about. Believe me I wish the electorate was as smart as the people on DU but unfortunately that's not the case.

If we concede that Bush is strong on terror, we lose.
If we concede that Bush has made America safer, we lose.

When leaders in our own party rebuke common sense in order to pander to polls, we lose.

That's pretty much what the democratic party did since Bush's run-up to war. And we lost.

How about "Talks tough on terrorism, apparently with little success."

Condi Rice/Colin Powell in 2004! They are tough on terror and can beat Bush!!! Pander to ignorance. Never challenge!

we're just for the most part better informed.

Many people are suspicious of b*sh, leery of war, and receptive to the truth. They just need a nudge in the right direction. I've seen this happen with hardcore Republicans, and I've been amazed.

Thanks.

Strong at CREATING it, that is. At home and abroad.

And he's not getting nominated.

our Dems must counter this perception continuously.

Bush is a liar and he has not made us safer.

Rinse, Repeat.

Bush is a liar and he has not made us safer.

Rinse, Repeat.

And it's so fucking obvious that it should already be perfectly clear to any person informed by almost any measure of truth.

Real leaders lead people to the truth because the truth gives them the power to lead people. Status quo placeholders tell people what polls tell them people already think -- even if it's a blatant lie.

I wonder how many people here actually believe Bush is strong on terror.

for the massacre of 2002 was that we did not challenge Bush on terrorism, or much of anything... in fact, we didnt do very much at all, except vote for the war, tax cuts, and patriot act, and still lost.

Sheeple BELIEVE Bush is strong on terror.

Bush has been doing nothing but ratcheting up the terror level in this country constantly...to the point many of us are numb to the changing of the terror code...nand others of us are so scared out of our minds, that we will vote for Bush, because he is seen as strong on terror.

And yet, they have the NERVE to compalin we Dems use scare tactics on Senior Citizens?? Bush is using scare tactics on the whole friggin country!!

Sorry but every poll says he is. We all hate pollsters, but the average of their results are rarely off by more than four or five points--and chimp's strong by, like, 15. The cheerleading media and America's pervsive believing ehat the media tells them to believe has assured he will remain so.

I hear a lot of Dean supporters poop on the idea that Chimp is solid in the public mind on terra. Denial will result in certain loss. Fact facing will result in Clark's nomination and a win in November. It's our choice. Start thinking.

Remember, Afghanistan and Iraq were supposed to be part of "Woron Terra"

Toss the loser and vote the 4 star winner instead - it's a matter of National Security." ;)