Should Bush's military record be an issue :: RunningForums.com

robp wrote:

megawill wrote:

RexRacer wrote:

Some relevant thoughts on this topic, both past and present, courtesy of Josh Marshall at talkingpointsmemo.com:

Here's a note from a long-time social progressive/economic conservative who has gone increasingly progressive since Bush took office:

Bush's Guard service is a loser for the Dems even if the dereliction stories are entirely true, which they likely are. The problem is that nobody cares other than Democrats who despise Bush, and they seem like just a petty reaction to the Swift Boat ads. I would love for this election to be about the environment, choice on abortion, separation of church and state, invasion of privacy/Patriot Act, the economy, and the culture of fear the Bush admin is creating. But it's about Iraq and terrorism. Unfortunately, Kerry has done a terrible job of getting out any cohesive and compelling message about either. Here's what he needs to hammer for the remainder:

1. Bush is A TERRIBLE LEADER IN THE "WAR ON TERROR". He has failed in the hunt for Osama, misdeployed resources, and put off allies who are key to our long-term success against terrorism. Look beyond the macho swagger of Bush and see that he is completely screwing up this incredibly important long-term battle.
Big words, no backing. Granted, Bin Laden is not in our hands. Al-Quada, to this point, has been rendered helpless in regards to the U.S. There have been no other attacks on U.S. soil and limited attacks elsewhere. Do you not think they would have dearly loved to pull something off at the Olympics? I don't believe he's put off any allies at all in the battle against terrorism.
2. Bush and the neocon puppet masters deceived the nation into Iraq, then completely blew the execution of a horrible war, costing us more than a thousand soldiers and billions of dollars, killing countless innocent Iraqis, and creating a disastrous and extremely dangerous situation for America for years to come.
More big words. Saddam was given a chance, he failed to utilize it. Iraq was invaded based on current intelligence that said the WMD's existed and were on Iraqi soil. It's possible that intelligence was wrong. Even the other nations of the UN were convinced he had them.

Would this talking head care to elaborate on how Bush blew the execution of this war? Many of those innocent Iraqis were killed by insurgents and forces loyal to Saddam. I take it that he has a crystal ball also in that he already knows this situation is going to be dangerous and disastrous for America for years to come.

3. Bush has blown the economy.
This is total bullsh!t. It's not possible for one man to blow an economy or resurrect one. I live in the Midwest, one of the areas supposedly hit the hardest. I personally don't know a soul that is on unemployment. There are jobs out there for people who want to work. It may not be in the field they dreamt they would be working in but there are jobs there.

4. Kerry is the man to put America and the world on course for a better future.
Kerry has yet to prove he's decisive enough to lead a country and that he can actually put sensible policies to work.

Kerry must not only make these points, he must be pissed off about them. Undecided voters are not compelled to vote by Kerry's suggestion that he can do Bush better than Bush. They, and the party voters we need to inspire to actually cast ballots, will respond to Kerry's passionate belief that Bush is seriously taking this country down a bad path and that Kerry can take us on a safer, more prosperous path. Unfortunately, Kerry's voting record on Iraq prohibits him from taking the real winning stand that the Iraq war was a horrible mistake. So he must refocus on the idea that Bush is a horrible president whose decisions are having disastrous consequences. Kerry has to want to lead this country, and he needs to show Americans that he wants badly to lead this country.

thanks for that, Rex...I couldn't agree more...I'm not familar with Marshal, I'll have to check his website out...

---
megawill

Hey Rob,

These aren't statements of truth so no need to refute them, just what Kerry needs to do to win.

Its all electoral/campaign politics from here on in. I think Bush has been fudging the truth for four years but if the rest of the voting public doesn't agree it doesn't matter and facts be damned.

Case in Point: Bush has been geeting great mileage out of this whole "first he voted for the war then voted against funding our troops" schtick for months. Few recall (to Kerry's shame) that Bush himself threatened to veto this same bill to fund the troops if it came to his desk with any tampering of his holy tax cut to our 1% to fund Iraqi reconstruction (18 bil out of 87 bil), as Dems had wanted and which Kerry voted for. Bush was backed on this veto threat by the op-ed pages of the WS Journal and Wash Times, two of the most pro-war op-ed pages in the country. THOSE ARE FACTS.

So Bush himself was threatening to veto the very bill that he now beats Kerry over the head with everyday for his no vote on, as a sign of his flip-flopping anti-military disloyalty, and facts don't mean a thing. Bush won on that story and now it has crystallized in people minds, no matter what happened back then. Campaign politics will determine this thing, not records or intentions. . . it almost always does.

Should Bush's military record be an issue

LIFEFORM SOCIAL COMMUNITY NETWORK