How Can Kerry Most Effectively Bash this "Terrorism" Crap???

The image Bush and his criminals are trying to create of Bush protecting us from further terrorist's attacks since 9/11 is as bogus as their Iraq War. We haven't been attacked because the terrorists haven't decided to attack...yet. In fact, things are far more sinsister.

Bush fought the creation of a Homeland Security Dept. in the first place which was initially proposed by Democrats and has failed to fund it as promised for all these years! The insignificant amount of money which was allocated was made into just another pork barrel gift to his pigs----i.e., screw places like NYC and send rediculous amounts of money to Wyoming. Police and Firefighters and Mayors all over this nation have complained that they have not gotten the funding and they have no damn idea what even to do to "protect" the public. These are not the actions of an administration who is truly afraid of being attacked again. Either they are not concerned about being attacked again or they don't give a shit if we are. Bush has screwed security on the homefront just as much as he screwed going after bin Laden and the clan by diverting our money and resources to Iraq where he cloned terrorists.

This is classic "republican" where you tout as your strength exactly the opposite of what you have done. Somehow the total strength of Kerry being a war hero has been turned into Kerry trying to "explain" his honorable duty while the one who should be swinging in the breeze because of his service has buried his 'dishonor' behind the din of these attacks. On this 'terrorism' issue which is all the Lame One has to run on, the same table-turning has to be done back at him. I'd like Kerry to come up with about 5 simple sentences that tell the American people just how this bastard has done nothing about protecting us.......nothing long; nothing too tough for them to understand....just 5 hard hitting, fact spewing, sentences.

All Bush has is terror. Kerry and the Democrats have to get the focus back on the economy.

Trot out some "economic girlie-men" who've lost their jobs because of Bush policies/politics that promote out-sourcing. Headline the victims of Bush's economic terrorism.

We cannot let him get away with this chest thumping because it's not only lies but this bastard is actually putting this country IN danger rather than being it's savior from danger. Regardless of party, this is something the American people better sober up and realize---it's like finding out that the local police station actually does not have any cops, cop cars, guns, etc. when it is too late and your calling them for help as someone is breaking into your home!!! Sure, a good deal of Kerry's message needs to pound these bastards on all those areas that they have totally neglected and screwed the American people. But he needs a portion of the message that literally exposes Bush and mocks him-----the great warrior is only an AWOL bag of bullshit.

And a good one it was at that.

However, as evidenced by the Swift Boat Liars imbroglio, Reichsfuhrer Karl Rove is twisting every Kerry positive on "the homeland* security" into a negative. Furthermore, when taking a close look at Kerry's defense spending voting record it's as hawkish as any of these chest-thumping reactionary Repiglicans. Of course I'd like to know how an new nuclear attack submarine, supersonic jet fighter or aircraft carrier is going to be of much help in "the war on terror."

The Repigs, or one of their 527s, already have TeeVee commercials in my area questioning Kerry's defense voting record based mainly on procedural votes.

You also have to remember. Dubya's AWOL is of little concern to the reactionary crowd. "That was a long time ago, man" Though they have little compunction about dredging up Vietnam to wave the bloody shirt.

Moreover, the Repigs like to say that there hasn't been a terrorist attack within the United States since September 11, 2001. To which I reply that that's like the old story about the little boy standing on the street corner clapping his hands.

Asked what he's doing the little boy answers that he's chasing away polar bears. When the little boy's told that polar bears never lived in his town anyway he says, "See it's working!"

The "war on terror" is a loser issue for Democrats.

*I hate this word. It smacks of totalitarianism.

I would have surrogates asking that question every time they are questioned about Bush's supposed advantage on that issue.

When do we "smoke 'em out"?

Bush keeps reciting the line "We're spreading the peace." Kerry should say, "There is no peace to spread -- not as long as refugees are being slaughtered in Africa, commuters are being blown apart in Beersheba, children are held hostage in Chechnya, families are grieving in Nepal, and American parents are receiving the folded flags from their fallen sons' coffins. There is no peace to spread."

Instead of hunting down the terrorists who attacked us on September 11, Bush invaded Iraq, which did not have terrorists, had nothing to do with 9/11, and posed no threat to us. Now terrorists run amok, and new ones are joining up faster than we can kill them. IN IRAQ, terrorists are attacking OUR TROOPS. Because of Bush's admitted "miscalculation", our boys come home dead, maimed, and dismembered (and then are mocked by chickenhawks wearing purple heart bandages). Bush promised to get bin laden and win the war on terrorism. Now he says that catching bin laden isn't that important and that he doesn't think the war on terrorism can be won.

Well, it's obvious that HE isn't capable.

It's time for somebody new. Someone who went to war when he could have let someone else go in his place, was awarded medals for valor, and then came back home fighting to end that war. Someone who put away violent criminals as a prosecutor, and as US Senator took out the terrorist's bank. It's time for John Kerry.

That's a great concept for the Kerry camp to use------hey, Bush, who are those troops over there being attacked by the terrorist crowd you stirred up in Iraq..chopped liver...nonAmericans?? Did you forget to count them in your protecting the American people from terrorism??

Good one.

Bush was SLOW to recognize the threat of terrorism, focused instead on ICBMs.
He was SLOW respond on 9/11.
He was SLOW to approve the 9/11 Commission.
He was SLOW to establish the Dept of Homeland Security.
He was SLOW, even reluctant, to go after bin Laden especially when he was surrounded in the Tora Bora mountain region.

And he's failed -- failed to keep the world on our side, failed to allow the UN inspectors to do their jobs in Iraq, failed to keep terrorist groups from growing stronger in the middle east especially Iraq, failed to secure our ports, borders and nuclear facilities, and failed to protect the names of a CIA agent and a key source of info on terrorists.

General Clark has always been very good at explaining how the Chimp failed every step of the way, including well before 9/11. McPeak has been great out there in the last few weeks, as well. I hope they get them out there, keep them out there, but let Kerry himself hammer on the Chimp's SLOWness as well.

Kerry stood up and answered Bush's question about "knowing what you know today, would you vote the same" (And then changing the question after Kerry had answered).

Kerry's turn:

Are we safer having rushed to war in March?

Are safer having literally ignored State Department plans for the post-invasion peace?

Are we safer having used warlords against Osama bin Laden in Tora Bora instead of the U.S. military?

Are we safer by setting the conditions for the Abu Ghraib abuses?

Are we safer having delayed the 9/11 Commissions findings through endless stonewalling?

Are we safer for failing to apply the Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force in Baghdad? And I don't mean "shock and awe," I'm talking troop presence to set the tone for orer and stability. I'm talking about sufficient artillery support, sufficient supply lines. I'm talking about competently and successfully running a major military campaign.