Why is no one challenging Bush's 'great wartime leadership?'

Every dem interviewed by the pundits this morning, hemmed and hawed and eventually agreed that Bush did a 'great' job of leading this country after 9/11! What nonsense! DIDN'T THE ATTACKS OCCUR UNDER HIS WATCH? Hasn't he spent two years blocking any investigation into the attacks?

Here's a FREE downloadable flyer from TVNL to hand out to the gullible and the clueless who will be fed this propaganda from now till November. The great WARTIME president will by shoved down the voter's throats, and someone has to challenge that lie.

Get the flyer... give it out.... educated the uninformed!

http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/bush_failed_us_on_9_11.html

This is infuriating-- the dems are once again letting Bush* set the context for the debate about his presidency.

It is driving me out of my mind. Even Carville is giving it to him. If Bush is given free pass on 911 handling, it is giving him too much. The people will have a tendency to forgive this man if they feel he did/continues to do good job on fighting TERROR and TERRORISTS. If he was doing a great job, then I'd let him have the issue. But since he's not, and it hurts us to give him this issue, WHY ARE WE DOING IT?

on Wolfie today. he was the only one on the campaign trail that challeneged the convention wisdom. He actually accused * of breaking his oath of office by not "protecting the country".

Clark wouldn't let Bush take any credit. Said if Bush wants to make 9-11 an issue it could be a loaded gun back in his face.

This is how our Founding Fathers got their messages out to the public. If everyone who takes one, makes copies and then leaves them in different places, we can do a better job of informing the public than the ads or media can! But, you should just inform the public, without Bush Bashing...as much as he needs to be bashed. You don't want to turn the people away. You want them to start questioning their positions and seeing the truth. We do have the power!

Once the silly anti-bush stuff is thrown out there, many will dismiss it as unserious and not waste their time. We have to tackle issues seriously.

As for pamphleting I wholeheartedly agree.

He has a shtick about "any idiot could have pointed to the map of Afghanistan and told some generals to invade".

Kerry needs to say stuff like this too.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/07/politics/campaign/07KERR.html?hp

Kerry Condemns Bush for Failing to Back Aristide

"...Mr. Kerry's critique on Haiti, which Bush campaign aides dismissed as political, was emblematic of how he is already using foreign policy and national security issues in his contest with the president.

In his first in-depth interview on foreign affairs since effectively winning the Democratic nomination, Mr. Kerry hop-scotched around the world in the course of an hour. He took issue with Mr. Bush's judgment beyond their well-aired differences on Iraq, questioning his handling of North Korea, the Mideast peace process and the spread of nuclear weapons and arguing that he would rewrite the Bush strategy that makes pre-emption a declared, central tenet of American policy.

Mr. Kerry is trying a bit of election-season pre-emption of his own, attempting to short-circuit the White House argument that he is too much of a straddler, too indecisive and too captivated by the nuances of foreign policy to defend American interests.

"People will know I'm tough and I'm prepared to do what is necessary to defend the United States of America, and that includes the unilateral deployment of troops if necessary," said Mr. Kerry, who has rarely used the word "unilateral" in the campaign except to describe how Mr. Bush has alienated allies. "But my standard is very different from George Bush's.".."

that is fighting now. Clinton! Why don't we have people on our side on television, who remind people that Clinton built the military fighting now, post the 911 tragedy that happened on Bush's watch. Say it! It's true. The republicans say things that aren't true and don't worry about it. Why do we worry about saying true things?

The guy hid out for a day.
Does his big Cowboy Talk about getting Bin Laden.
Where's Bin Laden?

My local political group will use the flyer and other information in our political action March 20

These sycophantic centrists are the media whores' favorites.

Put Kucinich, Byrd, Frank, etc. on there and see how much bush-admin buttkissing you see.

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/100days/fp_facts.html

"Vision for Making America Secure Again and Setting the Right Course for Foreign Policy

At the Council on Foreign Relations, Senator John Kerry outlined the steps he would take to reverse the damage to U.S. security and leadership caused by President Bush’s flawed policies of unilateralism and preemptive war. Kerry recognizes that a global security effort and the war against terrorism require active participation of the international community. As President, John Kerry will move quickly to rebuild American alliances and define a global security strategy that is collective, not imperial, inclusive not exclusive, and cooperative not unilateralist.
In his speech, Kerry outlined the failures of the Bush Administration’s unilateralist foreign policy and described a detailed strategy for building alliances within the international community to win the war on global terrorism.

GEORGE BUSH’S FOREIGN POLICY HAS UNDERMINED AMERICA’S SECURITY.

The Bush Administration has pursued the most reckless foreign policy in modern history, turning its back on a century of American leadership. A President with no experience has implemented a strategy of unilateral and pre-emptive war that threatens to America’s safety and prosperity. In two short years, the Bush Administration has squandered the goodwill of the world, alienated our allies, overextended our troops, and compromised America’s security.

WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE WAR ON TERROR?

John Kerry believes that, despite the RNC’s public relations campaign, the Bush Administration’s failures in the war on terror speak for themselves. Osama bin Laden remains at large, while Indonesia, the Phillipines, Kenya, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey have come under assault by terrorists. Al Qaeda and the Taliban are regrouping in Afghanistan, creating the specter that it will again become a haven for global terrorism. Due to the lack of a post-war reconstruction plan and unwillingness to internationalize the effort, the situation in Iraq has degenerated into guerilla warfare and a new front in the war on terror. A stagnant peace process in the Middle East, long ignored by the Administration, is a lightening rod for anti-Americanism. And our security is further compromised by an unresolved North Korean nuclear situation, underfunded Homeland Security initiatives, and stalled critical intelligence reforms.

Kerry’s Vision for Building Alliances to Win the War on Terror
I. Create A New Era of Alliances
The United States cannot do everything alone; we cannot pay for everything by ourselves; we cannot defeat the forces of terrorism without others. To restore shattered alliances and develop a global security strategy on terrorism, Kerry would:
• Restore Diplomacy as the Tool of the Strong: In his first 100 days in office, John Kerry will send a message to the world that the United States has rejoined the community of nations, reaching out to strengthen relationships with NATO, old allies and new partners to create a new global coalition to fight terrorism. He will also make it clear that while preemptive military action remains an option, it will only be the policy of the United States when the threat to our national security is truly imminent.

• Re-Engage the United Nations: John Kerry believes that the United Nations must play a central role in the war on terror, and in combating other AIDS and global poverty. A Kerry Administration would seek to renew the mandate of the UN and also to reform its operations and revitalize its capacity. The United Nations will be seen as an asset, not a liability to a safer America.

o Create a United Anti-Terrorism Agenda: John Kerry will convene a summit with top world leaders to launch a global anti-terrorism agenda.



II. Deny Terrorists Sanctuaries
1. Winning the Peace in Iraq. John Kerry voted to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. In his Georgetown speech last January he urged the President to take the time to develop a real coalition, go through the UN, and make a viable plan for winning the peace. This President has done it wrong every step of the way. He broke his promise to have a real coalition; he broke his promise to go through the United Nations and honor the inspections process; and he broke his promise to go to war as a last resort. John Kerry’s plan that he outlined at the Brookings Institution this fall to build peace and stability in Iraq includes:
o Internationalizing the effort by finding ways to bring in more nations and more money to help in Iraq. The UN authorization for international forces in Iraq is finally in place, but to expand participation we have to share responsibility, which the Administration still won’t do. We need to conduct real diplomacy with the goal of really getting boots on the ground.
Transferring sovereignty to the Iraqis as quickly as possible by decoupling the establishment of an interim government from a constitutional process, and immediately putting the process under UN authority.
Expediting training of a new Iraqi security force by coordinating a program mixing sufficient classroom and on-the-job training for Iraqi recruits, and ensuring that when these Iraqis are sent out in the street they are given adequate support in terms of command, communications, and back-up.
2. Securing the Peace in Afghanistan. The Kerry administration would reinvigorate American leadership in the international effort to secure peace in Afghanistan by:

(1) increasing the number of NATO-led ISAF troops and expediting their deployment outside of Kabul;
(2) expediting the training of the Afghan National Army and police force;
(3) expanding the Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration program to disarm militias and neutralize warlords;
(4) calling on international donors to increase their reconstruction pledges; and
(5) exerting unified international pressure on Pakistan and Iran to tighten border controls to crack-down on infiltration of terrorists. While John Kerry is encouraged that the Bush Administration appears finally to understand the seriousness of their neglect of Afghanistan, he hopes that they will to match urgent action to their rhetoric.

3. Engaging Iran on Terrorism: Where the Bush Administration refuses to even attempt a non-confrontational foreign policy toward Iran, a Kerry Administration would recognize that limited cooperation with Iran in select areas of mutual interest is not only possible but in the best interest of both nations. A Kerry administration would work with Iran to deport senior al Qaeda leadership currently in that country by offering to trade them for MEK terrorists, pressuring them diplomatically and through the UN if that effort failed, and would work with Iran to stop the flow of Afghan narcotics across its borders.

4. Denying New Sanctuaries. Whether Al Qaeda, its affiliates, or organizations that are only part of the broader jihadist movement, terrorists require an international response that denies them sanctuaries and freedom of movement. A global effort to combat terrorism requires concerted encouragement by the international community for governments to make tough decisions to pursue terrorists, backing them up when they do so, and helping to strengthen the intelligence and investigative elements of local law enforcement. It also involves looking at the social context from which the terrorists arise and in which they continue to exist, and determining whether international assistance such as general education aid can be useful. The US cannot alone deal with failed and failing states; any effort requires the broadest of international coalitions as part of a global collective security strategy.


III. Cut-Off Terrorist Financing
John Kerry has worked hard to fight money laundering since leading the investigation into the BCCI scandal. Although international money laundering provisions originally drafted by Kerry were included in the Patriot Act, the Bush Administration has failed to take effective measures to curtail terrorist finance. Kerry will (1) impose financial sanctions against nations or banks that fail to cooperate in the effort to control money laundering, and (2) launch a "name and shame" campaign against individuals, banks and foreign governments that are financing terror. Those who fail to respond will be shut out of the U.S. financial system. There will be no sacred cows as we take the steps that are necessary to protect America.

IV. Engage Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia has long been a major supporter and financer of Islamic extremism at home and abroad, including in some cases financial support for terrorist organizations. Recently the Saudi government has declared that it is cracking down on terrorist financing and support for extremism, but its actions do not yet match its rhetoric. Today, John Kerry called for accountability. The US must do everything possible to ensure that Saudi reforms are real, not just window-dressing. He pointed to three major concerns: hate speech in Saudi textbooks and sermons, support for Hamas, and the anti-Semitic, 9/11 conspiracy theory of the Saudi Minister of Interior, Prince Nayef. Unfortunately, he said, we have too little leverage right now because of our nation’s deep energy and financial ties to the country. To alter the balance, John Kerry will reduce our dependence on foreign oil so that we are not held hostage to these interests. The Bush Administration has all but gone the other way. He will also consider other actions, including financial sanctions to nations that harbor terrorists.

V. Improve Intelligence Collection, Coordination & Analysis
Intelligence is the key to disrupting and dismantling terrorist organizations, and we need to improve it to fight terrorism. John Kerry will:
o Release 9/11 Information: A Kerry Administration will cooperate fully with the 9/11 Commission and provide the needed information on timely basis. Finishing this independent view is essential to national security.

o Improve Coordination: Kerry would also fix the coordination and information flow problems in the intelligence and law enforcement communities; we don’t need multiple watch lists; we do need to ensure that relevant agencies have access to critical intelligence in a timely fashion.

o Reform Domestic Intelligence: As President, John Kerry will begin to fix this problem immediately by making the Director of the CIA the true Director of National Intelligence with real control of national intelligence personnel and budgets. John Kerry will also undertake and complete a national intelligence review immediately.


VI. Middle East Peace Process
John Kerry believes that American absence from the Middle East Peace Process at senior levels, except for the occasional drop-by, has risked security for the US as well as states in the region. The recent effort by former officials of Israel and the Palestinian Authority to lay out a possible agreement on final status issues is an opportunity which must be seized and built upon. To demonstrate his commitment, John Kerry would:
• Appoint A Presidential Envoy For The Middle East Peace Process. Recognizing the relationship between the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process and combating international terrorism, Kerry will appoint a respected, senior-level Presidential Envoy to the Middle East Peace Process. The Envoy will report directly to the President and the Secretary of State and will be responsible for moving the Peace Process forward.




VII. Keep Weapons of Mass Destruction from Terrorists
Kerry understands that perhaps the greatest need for a new era of alliances comes from the gravest threats that terrorists can pose if they acquire weapons of mass destruction. As President, he will tackle this issue head-on by seeking a new international protocol to track and account for existing nuclear weapons and deter the development of chemical and biological arsenals. While George Bush is poised to set off a new nuclear arms race by building smaller and more usable nuclear bombs, Kerry will work to ensure that the United States strengthens the international non-proliferation regime.

VIII. Build Bridges to the Islamic World
John Kerry’s plan for building bridges to the Islamic world recognizes that positively influencing the hearts and minds of people in the region is a key component to winning the long-term war on terror. In recent years, the capacity of the United States to communicate and persuade has constricted even as the need has grown because our diplomatic presence abroad has been squeezed by tight budgets and our diplomats have been forced to withdraw behind concrete barriers in the face of terrorist threats. A Kerry Administration would fight to expand our diplomatic presence with a particular focus on the Islamic world. Kerry’s plan would:
o Promote Dialogue and Understanding by Appointing a Presidential Envoy to the Islamic World. Kerry will improve the reputation and understanding of America in the Islamic world by appointing a Presidential envoy who will be tasked with building social, cultural, and economic relations in key nations.

o Assist Civil Society Groups and Governments that Aid Democracy, Public Participation, and Free Expression. Kerry will ensure that the U.S. government works with the private sector and international institutions to help civil society groups and governments aid democracy, public participation, free expression, transparency and efficient economic management.

o Promote Cultural Understanding. Kerry will support the establishment of study centers within U.S. universities, expand development of “American corners” in cultural and educational institutions in the Arab and Islamic world, and launch a significant translation project to bolster material available in Arabic and other regional languages.

o Support the Creation of Opportunity for Youth in the Arab and Islamic World. Kerry believes that the U.S. should lead and support multilateral institutions in defining and implementing a mission for business development and technological advancement in the Arab and Islamic world. This strategy should emphasize an important role for women, creating a positive example of societies in which women are full economic participants.

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/homeland/enhance_intelligence.html

Plan to Restore American Security in Honor of Pearl Harbor Day
Highlights Plans to Enhance Intelligence, Improve Port Security

Roosevelt and Bush: Different Responses to Attacks 0n America.

On December 7, 1941, America was shocked by the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. And we paid a terrible price, with 2,388 brave Americans killed in an attack that we had not adequately anticipated. President Roosevelt responded immediately: Within days he issued an Executive Order mandating a full inquiry into what had gone wrong in order to prevent such a tragedy from happening again. There were numerous subsequent governmental inquiries into the attack to protect our security for the future.

On September 11, 2001, America was again struck by a surprise attack from a hidden enemy, and again we paid a terrible price. This time, however, the President's response was very different. Where President Roosevelt sought answers, President Bush has sought to avoid blame, repeatedly stonewalling the 9/11 Commission and Congressional efforts to understand the intelligence mistakes that led up to September 11th. In fact, the Bush Administration has not even completed the National Intelligence Review mandated at the beginning of the Administration. Nor has the Bush Administration taken the necessary steps to improve homeland security by making our ports safer.

As part of his broad plan to improve security, John Kerry would improve intelligence, improve port security, and treat those who served fairly.

Priorities
1) Improve Intelligence Capabilities
John Kerry understands that intelligence information is the key to disrupting and dismantling terrorist organizations and that we need to improve our intelligence capabilities, both domestically and internationally, in order to win the war on global terrorism. Kerry believes that in order to improve security and ensure we have learned lessons from 9/11, the Bush Administration must immediately cooperate fully with the 9/11 Commission and Congressional Intelligence Committee investigations. These investigations are an effort to fix a problem, not place blame, and speedy completion of these independent reviews is essential to enhancing our national security.
Fixing the coordination and information flow problems in the intelligence and law enforcement communities. For example, we do not need multiple watch lists, but we do need to ensure that relevant agencies have access to critical intelligence in a timely fashion.
Reforming domestic intelligence capabilities by immediately making the Director of the CIA the Director of National Intelligence, with real control of national intelligence personnel and budgets. John Kerry will also complete the National Intelligence Review immediately.

Increase the number of linguists in critical languages in our intelligence agencies, and work with key foreign intelligence services to improve human intelligence collection abroad.


2) Improve Port Security

John Kerry outlined steps he would take to improve port security as part of his comprehensive plan to improve homeland security. Currently, 95 percent of all non-North American U.S. trade moves by sea, concentrated mostly in a handful of ports. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration has not adequately funded the law to improve the physical security of ports. John Kerry believes we need to make improvements in port security without hindering the efficiency of our port system. Kerry will improve port security by:

Developing standards for security at ports and other loading facilities for containers and assure facilities can meet basic standards.

Improving security in commerce by accelerating the timetable for the action plans agreed to in the U.S.-Canada and U.S.-Mexico "smart border" accords.

Implementing security measures for cross-border bridges.
Pursuing modest safety standards for privately held infrastructure and will help owners find economical ways to pay for increased security.

Container Security. Containers are the primary vehicle for international cargo commerce, but current there is no global system for tracking and security. Despite the very real threat of entry of weapons of mass destruction in any one of the millions of containers which come into this country every year, the Bush Administration has been very slow to respond to this threat. Affordable, existing technology could allow sensors to be placed on containers which could track their position, signal when and where they were entered, and whether they contained radioactive or dangerous chemicals. As President, John Kerry will move immediately to protect American ports and commerce by funding and instituting such a system.


3) Ensure Fairness for Veterans, Service Members and Military Families

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/iraq/

Plan for Winning the Peace in Post-Saddam Iraq

Saddam’s Capture Represents Opportunity to Rebuild Alliances and Iraq
Speaking in Iowa, John Kerry outlined a plan for winning the peace in Post-Saddam Iraq, trying the former Iraqi leader, and building a lasting coalition to support our operations.

Capturing Saddam Represents an Opportunity for the U.S. Kerry believes that we have recently seen two major diversions from the historical path of American leadership. On one side is President Bush – who has taken America off onto the road of unilateralism. On the other side are those in the Democratic Party who threaten to take us on a trail of confusion and retreat.

Kerry believes that we don’t need a President who will walk away from the world or a President who will walk alone. He believes that we need a President who will lead the nations of the world into a new era of security, freedom, and peace. Kerry believes that capturing Saddam Hussein provides a new opportunity for the United States to build a broader coalition and win the peace in Iraq. Today he unveiled his plan to rally the world’s free and democratic countries into that coalition.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0205f.html

Statement from John Kerry on CIA Director George Tenet’s Speech at Georgetown University


February 05, 2004

For Immediate Release


“Today, the CIA Director, George Tenet, admitted that the intelligence agencies never told the White House that Iraq posed an imminent threat. But that’s not what the Bush White House told the American people. They said Iraq posed a ‘mortal threat,’ an ‘urgent threat,’ an ‘immediate threat,’ a ‘serious threat,’ and, yes, an ‘imminent threat’ to the people of the United States.

“Today, we found out that George Bush, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, and the rest of the Administration weren’t passing on sound facts on Iraq to the American people - they were playing politics with our national security.

“Americans should be able to trust that what the President tells them is true - especially when it comes to the life and death decisions of war and peace.

“We need to restore America’s credibility around the world and the trust of the American people in their government at home. That’s not going to happen with a sham commission hand-picked by George Bush to look into how these faulty facts on Iraq made it to the American people. It’s not going to happen while the Bush White House continues its stalling and stonewalling. What we need is for this President to take responsibility - to face the truth - and to finally tell the truth to the American people. And we need that now.”

I wish I only felt like I'm battling Repukes.

The Bush administration was briefed by Sandy Berger??? was it? as soon as they took over the WH. They were informed of the OBL dangers. They KNEW it was a priority and chose to IGNORE it. They shelved the info because of their ARROGANCE. They looked at the Clinton administration info as exaggeration and poo pooed all of it! THEY and THEY ALONE are at fault for what happened and Wesley Clark was the ONLY candidate to say it. THEY ALL should be held responsible. I want to see a long line of orange jumpsuits and handcuffs over 911 and what followed......not a bunch of damn Democrats agreeing with what happened! :grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr:

this should be said every five minutes on television. Blame Bush! He has opened the door with his new 911 campaign ads. Blame him, let's take a chance. maybe we might win.

for the dems to insist that bush didn't do enough to stop 911 from happening. When they deny that they didn't do enough, we say they should go under oath, as the 911 steering committee members have demanded, to explain what information they had and what their actions were prior to 911. If they refuse to go under oath, (which i'm sure they will do), then we ask the question: What is it that they are hiding by refusing to testify under oath.

Let's try to win the election.

I've been waiting to see what the response will be. If Kerry is going to fight back, he has to fight back. No checking the wind to see which way it blows.
The challenge to this nonsense is so obvious,there shouldn't even be a pause before it is brought up.
There's a big difference between leadership on the ground in Vietnam and leadership while flying around in a jet or behind guards in the White House.
Even if you grant that Bush exhibited leadership, it's not the same kind of leadership as being under direct fire.

See my posts above. The response is basically that veracity is not an appropriate handle for this poster. The claim that all the Dems are silent on Bush*'s failing wrt War on Terror are just not true.

:eyes: Do you sometimes feel like you're talking to a brick wall?

"You can only be so smart, but stupid knows no bounds"

I'm assuming you're intelligent or I wouldn't bother having a discussion.

Your original response was a questioning one. It did not assert anything that was untrue. Your post asked about the Dems response, so I posted a reference to Kerry's response. The disparaging comments were directed to those who are posting inaccurate and misleading info, not you. My apologies for not being clear about that.

I think the nature of these internet boards creates confusion sometimes. Especially with all the contextuality of things here over the past few weeks.

In one of my responses, since edited, I thought I was responding to a response from veracity. You wouldn't have like it. But after posting it, I realized it was you, so I re-wrote it.

It's not the first time I've done that. I have to be more careful in the future. Once again, thanks for your understanding.

:hi:

try to understand what I'm trying to get at. Maybe I wasn't clear enough so I'll try again.
In this sound bite culture, the detailed list of challenges to Bush's leadership, although true, fall into that realm of being ignored because they are facts facts facts.
It seems to me that the kind of rhetorical device that is being used by Bush supporters when they say, "well Bush had leadership also" equates the two types of leadership. My point is that the equation of the two types of leadership should be challenged.

Of course the questioning of the leadership in the manner you have detailed quite well above should also be done, but I'm arguing that more needs to be done. Answer soundbite with soundbite on a gut level on which a lot of voters tend to base their decisions.
I'm just concerned that the method of detailed listing of failures will come across too much like a policy wank for voters who need to be convinced.

I refuted the accuracy of your post. My remark about "veracity" was directed to the poster whose handle is "veracity"

"The response is basically that veracity is not an appropriate handle for this poster"

Direct quote from your post.
Maybe that's where I got the idea you were questioning my veracity.(on edit, I feel kind of dense, because I hadn't noticed the original posters nom de plume)

I'm not anti-Kerry. Direct quote from my post
"There's a big difference between leadership on the ground in Vietnam and leadership while flying around in a jet or behind guards in the White House.
Even if you grant that Bush exhibited leadership, it's not the same kind of leadership as being under direct fire."

That's pro-Kerry.

It was my mistake. See other posts for my explanation. once again, thanks for being so patient with me.

Point is that the only thing Bush can use as a claim to fame is 'wartime leadership!" That is exemplified by his use of the 9/11 images in his first commercial. The need to challenge this is painfully apparent....and the dems are falling back into their typical apology mode. (as they are over the accusation of Kerry being the greatest liberal in the Senate - horrors!) Time to strike back with truth. Ergo the flyer.

of "and the dems are falling back into their typical apology mode." when the facts show that Dems like Kerry, Kennedy, Pelosi, Harman, Schumer, etc are attacking Bush* on a daily basis

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/07/politics/campaign/07KERR.html?hp

Kerry Condemns Bush for Failing to Back Aristide

"...Mr. Kerry's critique on Haiti, which Bush campaign aides dismissed as political, was emblematic of how he is already using foreign policy and national security issues in his contest with the president.

In his first in-depth interview on foreign affairs since effectively winning the Democratic nomination, Mr. Kerry hop-scotched around the world in the course of an hour. He took issue with Mr. Bush's judgment beyond their well-aired differences on Iraq, questioning his handling of North Korea, the Mideast peace process and the spread of nuclear weapons and arguing that he would rewrite the Bush strategy that makes pre-emption a declared, central tenet of American policy.

Mr. Kerry is trying a bit of election-season pre-emption of his own, attempting to short-circuit the White House argument that he is too much of a straddler, too indecisive and too captivated by the nuances of foreign policy to defend American interests.

"People will know I'm tough and I'm prepared to do what is necessary to defend the United States of America, and that includes the unilateral deployment of troops if necessary," said Mr. Kerry, who has rarely used the word "unilateral" in the campaign except to describe how Mr. Bush has alienated allies. "But my standard is very different from George Bush's."...

when those 4 gigantic articles above have been boiled down to 3 words, like Lenin's "Land, Peace, Bread", then maybe I will make the effort to read them (the 3 words obviously). ;-)

instead we should demand that he testify under oath as to what leadership he exhibited prior to, during, and subsequent to 911. When he refuses to do so, we argue that it is logical to assume he is hiding something. We remind everyone that it is he who is asserting in his campaign commercials that he is exhibiting "leadership," with regards to 911. (He's betting his whole campaign on it, actually) If his assertion of great leadership on his part is true, why then will he not testify under oath and provide evidence of its existence?

It is not bashing Bush to demand a fair investigation of what happened. The last president was impeached and had to tesify under oath about his penis. That was bashing! Why is the murder of 3,000 people on George Bush's watch not worthy of an investigation to include sworn testimony by the president, since evidence had been presented by Sandy Berger to Bush, evidence that should have made Bush aware of an imminent danger of great magnitude about to be perpetrated on our country?

And by his brazen and blatent decision to use the 911 tradgedy to portray himself as a great leader as part of his election campaign, we are perfectly correct in using against him his unwillingness to testify under oath regarding his knowledge and actions prior to 911 in our campaign.

If he's done such a swell job, why is he blocking the investigation?

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/07/politics/campaign/07KERR.html

"Kerry Condemns Bush for Failing to Back Aristide

"...Had he been sitting in the Oval Office last weekend as rebel forces were threatening to enter Port-au-Prince, Senator John Kerry says, he would have sent an international force to protect Haiti's widely disliked elected leader, Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

"I would have been prepared to send troops immediately, period," Mr. Kerry said on Friday, expressing astonishment that President Bush, who talks of supporting democratically elected leaders, withheld any aid and then helped spirit Mr. Aristide into exile after saying the United States could not protect him.

"Look, Aristide was no picnic, and did a lot of things wrong," Mr. Kerry said. But Washington "had understandings in the region about the right of a democratic regime to ask for help. And we contravened all of that. I think it's a terrible message to the region, democracies, and it's shortsighted."

Mr. Kerry's critique on Haiti, which Bush campaign aides dismissed as political, was emblematic of how he is already using foreign policy and national security issues in his contest with the president..."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/07/politics/campaign/07CAMP.html

"...In his first direct comments on the advertisements with Sept. 11 images, Mr. Bush showed no sign of backing down. The White House has been embroiled all week in criticism from families of some victims of the attacks, as well from Mr. Kerry and his allies, that the commercials have crassly politicized a tragedy.

"First of all, I will continue to speak about the effects of 9/11 on our country and my presidency," Mr. Bush said when asked whether he would pull them.

"How this administration handled that day, as well as the war on terror, is worthy of discussion," he said. "And I look forward to discussing that with the American people. And I look forward to the debate about who best to lead this country in the war on terror."..."

These are not the same thing. One is legitimate, the other the rankest exploitation.

starts unjustified wars. Mrs. O'learys cow and chimp have much in common.

The reason for Bush's leadership inflation is due to so little being expected of him during the 9-11 ordeal. He didn't fall over and faint in public (the Pretzel attack was a private matter), wet his pants (that we know of) and go on a cocaine/Bourbon bender (that we know of).

To Republicans that means he's a hero. He preformed adequately with the big negative of wasting time, energy, money, lives, American goodwill and trust in Iraq.

Add that to the professional propaganda campaign to make him a supreme being and media lassitude this loser is still looked at as a viable leader by half the populace? Who are these people?

The last dozen or so posts describe the live interview he just did with Wolf Blitzer on CNN. He laid into Bush once again, on both Iraq and 9/11. On 9/11 "He can run on that if he wants, but I think it's just a gun pointing back to his own head." or something very close. Here's the thread link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=438655&mesg_id=438655

They read polls that give shrub high marks for his handling of the war on terror.

They're afraid of being painted as allied with the terrorists, or being called unpatriotic.

They're cowards, I guess.

there has never been a debate on that issue. If it was inappropriate in the past, for whatever reason, to debate Bush's "leadership" on 911, now is the time.

Bush has decided to run on it. He's banking that we will just continue to "let him have" without a debate the one issue he wants.

Yep, he expects that there will be no debate on the one issue he thinks he can win on. Ironically, it's an issue that he might not look so great on, if only there were a debate. But, since Wes Clark is not the candidate, I guess they're won't be any debate on the 911 issue.

I'm glad Kerry has long, detailed, policy positions on 911 and United States foreign policy, but if he or one of his surrogates doesn't go on television with a condensed, sound bite style summarization of George Bush's FAILED leadership, we will lose.

That sentence alone should finish Bush. What kind of "president" says that about himself? Someone should tell him, "No, no George! That's what other people say about you. You can't say it about yourself. It's not your line."

What a lamebrain he is.