|
Kerry's lead among women has now gone higher than the lead he had among women in the spring and in fact, his lead with security moms has gone higher than Bush's and FINALL Kerry is perceived as being more likable than Bush as a result of the first debate.
Kerry may finally have made the point that you can either FEEL more secure with Bush... or BE more secure with Kerry,as Kerry's priority would have been and IS rto go after the terrorists who actually did attack us on 9/11. that Bush took his eye off them and has given them three years to plan another attack that they would not be able to be planning if Bush had syayed the course at Tora Bora instead of moving the very troops that had chased Bin Laden and cornered him in that region away from the effort to capture him or Al Zawahiri.
The Bush people state it was not clear that Bin Laden was even in Tora Bora. but it was clear that "SOME IMPORTANT" leader of Al Qaeda was there, perhaps Bin Laden, perhaps Al Zawahiri, but Bush pulled out the crack Delta Force Mountain Brigade before we found out at all, leaving it to the Afghan Warlords to capture the Al Qaeda leaders and fighters in the area ot Tora Bora.
These war lords surrounded the Al Qaeda forces on three sides. leaving the mountain passes on the Pakistan border open and undefended. Whiever was in Tora Bora was free to take a nice
stroll over the border into the Northwest Territory of Pakistan, to be defended by tribal War Lords on that side of the border.
Have the Security moms asked themselves the unspoken Kerry question:
Given the choice. would you feel safer with Bin Laden and the Al Qaeda Leadership in prison or with Saddam Hussein in prison? And who decided to go after Saddam Hussein while letting Bin Laden and Al Qaeda remain free.
Kerry, the cold New England liberal, more likable than Bush?
Ever think you would see that ome coming, even though those of us who have been following Kerry since the beginning know that he is quite personable and nice. That is one of his major character traits that has caused most democrats to go after Kerry for not going after Bush when he baldfacedly simply lies about Kerry's record, and Kerrys consistancy of position. THe only thing the electorate hasto base the idea of Kerry being a flip flopper on is the very carefully crafted editing of Kerry's speeches the Bush campaign. Kerry has remained too much the gentleman to get as dirty as Bush. It took Bush's face in the split screens for the public to see exactly how likable Bush is. To Kerry's benefit.
All that is necessary to see Kerry's consistancy. particularly about Iraq is to go back to his written articles and soeeches about Iraq, going back even before the signing of the resolution authorizing force. Kerry was clear that force wasnot going to be authorized until Bush proved for certain that Saddam had WMD's and that he would not disarm of his own accord. Or that Saddam was linked to Al Qaeda, and in particular wasfound to have been involved with 9/11 or at least harboring, aiding and abetting those who had something to do with 9/11.
That is actually the text and authorization given by congress in the authorization to use force. That first, every effort to determine the truth of the matter of WMD's and linksto Al Qaeda must be determined, and then all peaceful diplomatic means be exhausted to get Saddam to disarm. Then an only then would it be appropriate to utilize increasing levels of force to get Saddam to comply.
The only fault I now find with Kerry's approach is that he is not firmly stating the truth about the "authorization of the use of military force in Iraq act of 2002"
He has pointed out that the force was authorized, but only after other methods had been tried and exhausted.
The Bush campaign and its supporters repeatedly point out that Kerry is a flip flopper becasue he signed the resolution "AUTHORIZING WAR'.
When Kerry does not attack this argument firmly he leaves himself open to the only thing that can favor the Bush Administrations claims to Kerry being inconsistant on Iraq. In doing so, heis reinforcing the Bush campaigns interpretation of the resolution. That signing it was an approval of anything Bush wanted to do.
Kerry must begin to direct the public to the resolution itself, to proove that Bush is intepreting the resolution as a blanket to go to war in Iraq, and that the act did not require that Bush exhaust diplomatic efforts before force could be used. That Bush did not exhaust diplomatic efforts, but waked away from them in mid stream,abandining the diplomatic process before the United Nations authoization of UNMOVIC's inspection process had been completed under the rules and procedures that UNMOVIC operatexd under.
Right now it is the Bush administration that is defining the legislation, what it did and did not authorize, and thus defining Kerry's vote as a vote for war where and when Bush chose.
The act,as written, clearly did not authorize the war that George Bush engaged in.
The facts bear out that Bush himself violated the terms set by the act the moment he chose to walk away from the inspections before they were completed and the final report of UNMOVIC presented, which by the timetables established by the U.N. rules governing UNMOVIC could not have been finished until the middle of June of 2003.
If Kerry begins to define the resolution in terms of its actual wordin, and not be subject to Bushisms, and Bush's interpretation of the resolution in the same fashion that his administration has interpreted everything, intelligence, etc, in a manner that favors what it has already decided it wants to do, then Kerry wins the election, hands down. He may win now, things looks good. But if the last misuse of power can be laid at Bush's doorstep the misuse of the authorization to use force as a last resort and only as last resort, the election can be Kerry;s without any possibility of failure.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
