Kerry's Last Stand
John Kerry must have the first sentence of what I've been writing because he finally stood up for himself. However, he didn't read the rest of what I had to say and he stood up for the wrong thing. Note: He stood up for what he believed, which is honorable; however, he did not stand up for a winnable Presidential campaign.
My take from his big speech yesterday is that 1) The war was wrong 2) Saddam was not a threat and 3) He will pull our soldiers out unless the UN helps. John Kerry is now officially an anti-war candidate.
Politically, this is not good. Bush can attack him too easily by saying things like "Saddam would still be killing hundreds of thousands of women and children if it were up to you" and "Next time there is a threat, you will wait for the UN and by than it could be too late", and "John Kerry would pull out our soldiers before their job is done, thus making 1,000 US soldiers die for nothing." And all this would be accurate, just imagine what it will be like after Rove's gets to it.
However, there are a few silver linings. 1) This could really draw votes away from Nader 2) Kerry might be more aggressive now that he is saying what he honestly believes in 3) He has to drive home the idea that he is bringing soldiers home while Bush is sending them to the deaths.
One more thing that Bush will definitely talk about that Kerry has to get ready for, which is that top Al Quaida members are executing Americans in Iraq. Bush will say that this is proof that they were always there and the fight in Iraq is a fight against terrorism.
My take from his big speech yesterday is that 1) The war was wrong 2) Saddam was not a threat and 3) He will pull our soldiers out unless the UN helps. John Kerry is now officially an anti-war candidate.
Politically, this is not good. Bush can attack him too easily by saying things like "Saddam would still be killing hundreds of thousands of women and children if it were up to you" and "Next time there is a threat, you will wait for the UN and by than it could be too late", and "John Kerry would pull out our soldiers before their job is done, thus making 1,000 US soldiers die for nothing." And all this would be accurate, just imagine what it will be like after Rove's gets to it.
However, there are a few silver linings. 1) This could really draw votes away from Nader 2) Kerry might be more aggressive now that he is saying what he honestly believes in 3) He has to drive home the idea that he is bringing soldiers home while Bush is sending them to the deaths.
One more thing that Bush will definitely talk about that Kerry has to get ready for, which is that top Al Quaida members are executing Americans in Iraq. Bush will say that this is proof that they were always there and the fight in Iraq is a fight against terrorism.
Comments
1) what was the imminent threat that iraq faced to the US that justified goign to war without the U.N.?
2) You should probably nkow what you are going to war for. Its a pretty damn important thing considering you are about to kill thousands of people. Oh and you can't change your answer half way through the war. We are here for weapons of...liberating the Iraqi people. That is obviously a way of saying well "we ain't found shit" and then trying to cover it up.
To the final point, couldn't Kerry simply point out that Al Queda is more heavy located in other countries and thus shouldn't those countries be concentrated on more than iraq? Or simply point out that there is no proof that there origin is Iraqi, could be saudi's coming over the border for all we know.
-2 cents-