"No matter who wins the presidential election, the terrorists will lose."

[Classical_Liberal]

That's what Kerry said.

Kerry seeks common front with Bush. How will Kerry win the election by saying this kind of thing. It is no different than saying "George Bush is right about the war on terror!"

AFP< SATURDAY, APRIL 24, 2004 10:45:30 AM >


WASHINGTON: US Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry has sought to present a common front with President George W. Bush on terrorism and the Middle East, but was rebuffed as someone lacking credentials to lead the nation in trying times.



The conciliatory remarks came on Friday as opinion polls showed the Massachusetts senator was badly trailing the president on the war on terror, Iraq and other foreign policy issues shaping up as possibly defining elements of the current election campaign.



"We share the same goal of total victory," Kerry declared, addressing an annual convention of the Newspaper Association of America. "And you can count on this: No matter who wins the presidential election, the terrorists will lose."

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-636907,curpg-1.cms

[JHBowden]

1. Do you oppose the war in Afghanistan?

If not, what is your problem? Just want an excuse to hate Kerry, eh?

[JI7]

2. good for John Kerry, he is a very smart man

[Classical_Liberal]

4. Why doesn't Kerry just say "Vote for Bush! He is a good President" n/t

.

[JI7]

25. because Kerry wants to be President

and would be a far better president than bush.

[Classical_Liberal]

31. Not according to Kerry

Kerry said Bush is a winner in the war on terror. BTW, I am not sure Kerry or the dlc adviser do want him to be President.

[JI7]

33. Kerry said terrorists will lose , not bush is a winner

[Classical_Liberal]

35. He said Bush will win the war on terror

. Read the the statement.

"No matter who wins the presidential election(this means Bush, Kerry, Nader, Harry Brown and Joe Blow), the terrorists will lose."

[JI7]

37. no, he said terrorists will lose

he didn't say bush is going to win the war on terror.

[Classical_Liberal]

38. "no matter who wins" Is Bush on running? n/t

.

[JI7]

40. Bush is viewed as strong on terrorism by most voters

[Classical_Liberal]

42. That is why most voters will probably vote for Bush

.

[JI7]

43. not if Kerry convinces them terrorists lose

no matter who wins the election. as terrorism is not the only issue out there.

[Classical_Liberal]

44. terrorism is the most important issue now as it was in 2002

the last time the brainless twerps at the dlc tried to take terrorism off the table.

[JI7]

47. in which election ?

mary landrieu and tim johnson won. in georgia saxby chambliss stole the election. in minnesota there was a backlash against democrats because of the negative coverage of the wellstone memorial.

[SlackJaw]

65. I think you are incorrect in your assessment...

It wasn't just the coverage of the Wellstone memorial that hurt in MN. The Memorial itself got off track. They booed republicans that came to honor Wellstone's memory. Wellstone's son turned the memorial into a political rally. He had every right to do that, but it wasn't smart. MN was ours to lose, and we lost it at the memorial.

[54anickel]

70. Wasn't Wellstone's son that turned it into a political rally. Seems you

are making the same statements as CNN, Faux and Rush made regarding the memorial. Did you happen to watch the entire service or just the few snippets CNN and Faux kept re-running?

[MAlibdem]

53. Bush did the same thing with Clinton foreign policy

Said he agreed with Clinton/Gore foreign policy in terms of Israel and in many other areas. Makes it a debate about domestic issues, the economy, and Iraq. People are not really educated about the war on terror to see how Bush is fucking up, and to really look into it takes a lot of effort.

[Classical_Liberal]

3. Dah, I oppose the war in Iraq

There were al qaeda in afghanistan which is why only pacifist opposed it.

How does Kerry win by agreeing with Bush on the war? Why did Kerry bother to run for President if he thinks Bush is even remotely adequet or right. I want someone who knows bush is a lughead bringing the country to ruin and courageous enough to call him on it.

[freetobegay]

5. Bush says the sun rises in the East

By your logic Kerry would have to disagree.

[Classical_Liberal]

9. Iraq is hardly as empirically correct as that.

and you know it.

[freetobegay]

16. Actually it is.

eom

[Classical_Liberal]

17. Where are the WMD? Where is the link between Saddam

and Al Qaeda?

[freetobegay]

20. Terrorists are everywhere

Who's talking wmd's? (neocon tactic?)

[MAlibdem]

54. WMD has never been the issue for pro-war dems

It's about spreading freedom.

And it's our responsibility. And we should be happy to spend whatever money we need to to spread our freedoms to those that do not have them. It is our duty, to do anything else would be hypocritical.

[Classical_Liberal]

57. hypocritical in what way?

There are a thousand places that are worse than Iraq, Saudi Arabia, China and Korea.

There are also much better ways to do it than with a war, and the near unwinnable conditions in Iraq prove it.

[zoeyfong]

62. Care to elaborate on that?

[JHBowden]

6. Why do you beat your wife?

Kerry doesn't support what Bush has done in Iraq. Petitio principii (begging the question) is a logical fallacy. I strongly recommend thinking clearly.

[Classical_Liberal]

12. Than why does he think Bush will win the war on terrorism

?

[JHBowden]

21. Both support

Both support a war against al-queda but differ on what needs to be done now in Iraq. I don't know why Bush or Kerry have different policies; I only know that they do.

[Classical_Liberal]

26. Bush is now asking the UN in.

.

[Nlighten1]

7. Kerry should be saying...

the war on terror is a crock of shit. Instead he is towing the line and allowing Bush to continue to decieve the American people.

[JHBowden]

11. So you don't support the war against al-queda?

In addition, do you think Kerry can win by supporting al-queda?

You've overlooked the possibility that one can support a campaign against international terrorism and remain unhappy about what Bush has done with Iraq.

[Classical_Liberal]

13. I do support the war against Al Qaeda

Iraq has nothing to do with it, and is distracting from it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. It had nothing to do with it

hence why it was a war of choice which should have never been fought.

If we cut and run the place will be where AQ does its training...

Not that bush underestand this either by the way, for him this is just about oil.

The world underestands the risk, but they also will not help until bush leaves... but cutting and running, which bush just MAY DO, for political reasons, will weaken our possition, and improve AQ's position with the youth of the Arab World... a second defeat to the Great Satan (the first one is the USSR and Afghanistan)

Now I would like our boys home as much as the next person, but there must be a way to avoid the worst case from occurring, and this means INTERNATIONALZING this mess that bush created... and this will not happen as long as bush is in charge

[Classical_Liberal]

27. That's nice. Now how does Kerry win if he thinks Bush's policy

is good?

[nadinbrzezinski]

66. You should LISTEN To the whole speech

and hear the statement in context. Then again I have no hope that you will do that. You are now of the idea that Kerry is Bush, no way of changing that doctrinaire point of view

[Nlighten1]

24. Supporting Al-queda?

Surely you aren't suggesting that calling the war on terror a farce means that you are supporting Al-Queda...is that really what you are saying?

[gate of the sun]

72. exactly correct Nlighten 1

but few want to face the facts on what Kerry said.

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. The war in Iraq was a war of choice

but if we just cut and run, from the POV of Al Qaida, they won against the Great Satan.

Now tell me how does INternationalizing the effort to avoid a failed state, match with Bush's cowboy go at it alone strategy?

And just exactly how will leaving a failed state behind benefit the overall war on terror, which is a REAL problem...

Granted we should have gone after Saudi Arabia, but that is another matter... truth be told we whacked a can of worms that should have never been whacked. And now we will have to pay the consequences,

But I fear internationalizing this will not be an option by November... either... mostly the INternational Community will see us flap and wail and FAIL

[Classical_Liberal]

15. I am not against bringing in the UN

but Kerry just said Bush's strategy in Iraq is a winning one. He is the one you should be arguing with not me.

[Democat]

10. Kerry has to be careful - the right wing will stab him in the back

The nicer you are to a right winger, the more they will stab you in the back - just ask Tom Daschle about that.

[arcane1]

14. "rebuffed as someone lacking credentials"

:wtf:


how about Bush's "credentials"? :shrug:

[Classical_Liberal]

22. Kerry thinks Bush has got good ones, unfortunately!`n/t

.

[Faygo Kid]

19. 2002 all over again - Dems lose

Yep, more of the "we support the president even more than the Republicans" mantra. I support Kerry; have contributed money to him. And am once again breathtakingly appalled that the Dems are going to repeat 2002. Bush emboldens and empowers the terrorists; Kerry does not take the underlying insanity of this war on, and has ceded the national security issue to Bush. He should give Bush credit for nothing, which is what Bush deserves, and provide a principled - and strong - alternative. What is he doing, trying to gain brownie points with Limbaugh and Hannity? Does anyone here think this will work? I am disheartened. Even non-political friends who say they will vote for Kerry really admire that Bush has scared the shit out of the world. And that is what we have come to.

[jobycom]

23. C'mon, CL, I know you're smarter than this

Kerry is trying to move on from this issue to the ones he will win on. When he's scored some points on other fronts he can revisit it and point out Bush's failures on terrorism. No need for it now. When the 9-11 Commission's report is released or squelched, Kerry will have ample time, and Bush will be on the defensive.

Kerry conceded nothing, he didn't say Bush was doing a good job, and he didn't say Bush will beat terrorism if he is reelected. All he said is "we" will win, no matter who is elected. That removes the whole thing from the debate. He's just declared that Bush is irrelevant to whether we win the war on terrorism. Now, find ANYTHING else Bush can even pretend to be doing a good job on. You can't, and that's what Kerry just said.

This is not the time or place to dig in and pick a fight on Bush's strength, not yet. Not when the 9-11 Commission will do much of that work for him later, if he just waits. Kerry can weaken him on other issues, and come back to this one when Bush is trying to recover on the other issues.

[Classical_Liberal]

29. You are dreaming if you think the most important issue this

year will be removed from the debate.

You are also dreaming if saying both sides are just as good on the War against terror is not endorsement of Bush's damned ridiculous policy in Iraq.

[tedzbear]

59. Exactly.

Bush is hanging onto 9-11 for dear life. It is his ONLY weapon, and the one he will use to counter Kerry's attacks on everything else. Rove's mantra to the voter is thus: forget the economy, forget bankrupt states, forget outsourcing to India, forget tax breaks for Richy Rich. The war on terra comes first, or else there won't be anything else to worry about. Therefore, vote Bush.

That's why Kerry needs to attack Bush's screw ups in Iraq and Afghanistan. Once he pops that bubble, Bush will deflate like a balloon.

[Faygo Kid]

32. I disagree. Take him on now. Otherwise, you concede the issue.

You put a lot of faith in the 9/11 Commission. It is misplaced. The BushBots have already discredited, or at least marginalized, the commission. This issue needs to be confronted now. Non-political friends (most of them) admire that Bush has scared the hell out of the rest of the world. That is frightening, but that is why Bush rides high in the polls. That is not the America I want to live in, and I don't think they do, either, but they must be presented with a rational alternative. Kerry must take this on now, there is no later, or more convenient time. It's only Bush's "strength" because the Dems are repeating the mistakes of the 2002 election. They have to take this issue on now AND later, or Bush won't need to cheat to be "re-elected."

[liberalpragmatist]

28. Kerry NEVER mentioned Iraq

Why do people insist on turning everything into a partisan battle? Kerry simply was making a noncontroversial, patriotic statement to appeal to swing voters and independents who aren't inspired by rabidly partisan diatribes. It's clear from the entire article what the context is: he is referring to the fight against Al Qaeda and Bin Laden alone, something that's evident from the follow-up remarks, when he chastises Bush for letting Bin Laden get away at Tora Bora.

Kerry never implied that his policies would be the same. The point is to present a common front above partisanship and recognize that we're all Americans who have a commitment to protecting American lives. Period. Not everything needs to be partisan.

[Classical_Liberal]

30. Bush is not winning the war on terror and has made it clear Iraq

is the central fight in it. Iraq is jeoperdizing the war and terror and Kerry should say it. Though not everything needs to be a partisan battle this sure as shit does.

[liberalpragmatist]

34. But Kerry isn't referring to Iraq

That's the point. Though reasonable people can disagree, I honestly think you are reading too much into this. The statement is this and this alone: No matter who wins, as Americans, we will fight terrorists. That's it. There's no discussion of who constitutes terrorists - it's simply getting down to the base of any argument - an uncontroversial point. Kerry never says that he agrees with Bush on the approach - in fact, he says he does not. He never mentions Iraq, making it clear he's referring to terrorists - a general term, yes, but it's clear from his statements he interprets terrorists as Al Qaeda and Bin Laden.

[Classical_Liberal]

36. we will fight terrorist and win see

Here it is again.

"No matter who wins the presidential election, the terrorists will lose."

It's also not true. We will lose the war against Al Qaeda if Bush wins this election and Kerry should say it.

[zoeyfong]

63. And when he voted for IWR, he was really voting against the Iraq war.

This kind of duplicity and double-speak is exactly what is wrong with kerry. Clearly, in the general lexicon, the 'war on terror' includes iraq, since that is the way bush defines it, and he is the head of the government and commander in chief. And again, we're *not* winning the war on terrorism, so unless kerry plans to make some major changes, we're not going to be winning it in the future.

[G_j]

64. but how do you address the fact

that according to most informed people in the ME, Bush's policies have fostered terrorism and have resulted in the lines blurring between moderates and radicals? Four more years of Bush will undoubtably increase calls to violence in the ME.
Kerry's statement is just plain wrong.

[LoZoccolo]

39. Dupe - but this is genius!

I've said before that this is genius.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1468563&mesg_id=1468712

[Classical_Liberal]

46. They tried to take terrorism off the table in 2002

Worked reall great at getting the repukes elected.

[Classical_Liberal]

50. True: Read this

http://slate.msn.com/id/2098894/

Frankly I think some of these people are Bush moles.

[cliss]

41. I disagree with Kerry and many posters here.

Kerry said, "No matter who wins the presidential election, the terrorists will lose".

I don't believe the terrorists will lose. Terrorism is too wide of a concept and it's used all over the world by different groups to create terror.

I believe both sides will batter each other, drop bombs, aim and shoot, hide out and use secret codes to communicate. But we won't eradicate it. Some terrorist activity created by the things that we do around the world.

We are pouring gas on the fire (no pun intended) that keeps the flames of terrorism burning.

[Sparkly]

45. This is a way to defuse the LIE from Chimp

that he and only he is "tough" on terrorism and will keep us "safe" yadda yadda yadda.... And it is VERY important that we stop the nonsensical idea that we may get terrorist attacks in order to affect the election against Bush "just like in Madrid" -- i.e., if Bush doesn't win, the terrorists win. A vote against Bush is thus a vote for the terrorists. They're pushing that idea and it's got to stop.

They're trying to paint Kerry as an "appeaser" or someone who will not be strong on national defense or anti-terrorism. It's very important that he stem that quickly. I think this statement is just part of an effort to do that.

[Classical_Liberal]

48. Bush can't look tough on terrorism by agreeing that Bush

is good at fighting terror.

[G_j]

49. I think I've discovered the problem!

IMO, some very suspect advice... :-(

[Generator]

51. I'm sorry but this is too obvious to me

I don't understand why you made it such a big deal around here,sometimes you have to take off the political Bush hating glasses long enough to see the forest for the trees.

If Kerry says, vote for me, a vote for Bush is a vote for the terrorists then he is just using the fascist(hey see that thread in GD) language that Bushco is already using.

In otherwords, as long as there is DEMOCRACY(see Spain) the terrorists will always lose. Democracy is the point, not who wins elections. It's not supposed to be a dictatorship around here, last time I checked, though it is sliding that way (hello Congess anybody alive in there?) and even if you have the worst president ever maybe there are still going to be checks and balances on it.

He's not saying Bush is right on terror, he's saying the American people are not in league with terrorists no matter who they vote for. Though, obviously some are so left here that they might think that way.

I think a vote for Bush is a vote for stupidity. But I guess I am not going to slander anyone that might vote for me and equate them with terrorists, get it? Kerry wants to win, he can't do that by insulting his five swing voters.

It's the Americans are all great speech.

[Classical_Liberal]

52. Nobody asked him to accuse Bush of terrorism

just don't say Bush will win the war on terrorism otherwise nobody has any reason to vote for Kerry. That is just commonsense. Why did Kerry do it?

The other thing is Cheney said that about Bush just today, so why thr fuck by nice.

[Guaranteed]

55. Yup. Stupid, stupid rhetoric by Kerry.

Kerry should be saying that Bush HELPS the terrorists by attacking countries that have done NOTHING to us. He should be saying that Bush is a reckless piece of shit.

[fujiyama]

56. What's even more pathetic

is praising someone that has already smeared you.

The Bush administration has whacked him in swing states with that irritating "Mr Kerry" ad, which literally said "John Kerry wrong on defense".

So Kerry simple comes back and says a Bush reelection will also be a loss for the terrorists.

Pathetic -- John McCain is defending Kerry more than Kerry is defending himself.

[tedzbear]

60. The "no matter who wins" was a HUGE mistake...

Why can't he repeat Bush's accusations and then explain to us why Bush is wrong! Kerry could explain that yes, he will kick terrorists' asses, but in a way that will make the world safer, not worse.

For Kerry to imply that he is just as good as Bush is completely idiotic politically. He should say Bush is shit and why. This is sooooooo 2002, it's scary.

Geez, I don't even like Kerry and you got me defending him. That means his comment must have sucked.

[salonghorn70]

58. I couldn't Have Said It Any Better

Than Generator and liberalpragmatist. Everyone else? Just step back from the computer and take a deep breath. :)

[zoeyfong]

61. ha ha ha. Just shows that kerry has nothing to run on. He is Bush's

twin on war, and nobody's listening on anything else. Also, if kerry thinks we're winning the war on terrorism, he's as deluded as bush.

[CTLawGuy]

67. Kerry has proven he is a true DLC hack

NT

[cindyw]

68. By the logic in this thread and logic is hard to find here, Kerry should

have said, "If I win the presidency, the terrorists will win."

Get a clue people. There really people out to kill Americans. 9/11 really did happen. Kerry is talking about fighting a real war on terrorism. The comment is not about defending Bush, it was about affirming his own recognition of the threat and his commitment to fighting it.

I know you all would rather that Kerry take the opposite position from Bush in all matters, but that's the attitude that got us 9/11 in the first place.

Let's not even go into the fact that Kerry has agreed that his presidency will mean fighting real war on terrorism as opposed to Bush.

[CTLawGuy]

69. No it isn't

Kerry can "affirm his own recognition of the threat..." without implying that Bush would win the war on terrorism.

What Kerry should have said is something to the effect of "I can certainly tell you that if I am elected, the terrorists will lose."

[Guaranteed]

71. You've missed the point entirely. nt