No matter who wins the election, terrorists lose" - Kerry

[robbedvoter]

Doesn't this man realize that just about each vote he got so far was due to the fact that "no matter who wins the election" is not an option for any of us?
Is he giving up on the 911 liability? Is he asking me to respect him as much as I respect W? He is about to get it.

"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

[ikojo]

1. Kerry...moving ever Bushward....

Not that he really had that far to go....

We want a CHANGE in leadership just not a D in front of the president's name.

C'mon Kerry...Bush is of the class that pretty much ostracized you in boarding school.

[keithyboy]

42. Wrong!! The terrorists won on 9/11 when Bush announced the war on terra

Our way of life is changed forever...and it is only going to get worse.

[w13rd0]

2. That's lame...

...the SUREST way for Kerry to lose is to tell us that it doesn't matter who wins. No Kerry, the terrorists will WIN if you let Bush sit in our damn house for another 4 years. And if you want to cede that, you've already ceded the damned election.

[rockymountaindem]

3. I ususally try to defend Kerry

but it kinda seems like he conceded the issue with that statement. Although I'd wait to see if this is a trend before I get mad.

[kalian]

4. Another confirming article....

wonderful....what a "choice" we have in 04.
Screw that ABB mentality.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TrueD]

26. He needs to see his base move to Nader

that will get his attention.

[krkaufman]

30. I wanna b-slap him, but...

I wanna slap him, but I'm still gonna vote for him. A vote for Nader remains a vote for Bush.

! IFs
! ANDs
! BUTs

[TrueD]

46. And a vote for Kerry is a vote for Bush if he keeps moving that way

I will at least be able to sleep at night.

[slinkerwink]

6. WTF???!!?!?! Shut the fuck up, Kerry!

[rockymountaindem]

7. Yeah, exactly.

He shouldn't have said that. Now what's he going to do when, if ever, he decides to criticize him on the issue?

Reading that really let a whole bunch of air out of my tires. Someone please tell me why he said that... please...

[robbedvoter]

9. He gave up both issues: 911 and Iraq

Whatever he says from now on, they'll play back: No matter who wins" - it's an endorsement.

[G_j]

71. couldTHIS be the problem?

who TF is advising Kerry?

[slinkerwink]

13. I was so excited after kerry dealt bush a blow

with his vietnam records....but now.....geez.

[w13rd0]

8. What's funny is that although Kerry is being all civil here...

...Bush and Cheney have both said that "In a Kerry presidency, the terrorists win" and things such as that. Quit being so stupid and civil Kerry, because you are getting rolled, just like you did with the IWR.

[bread_and_roses]

10. This is so discouraging

Everything those evil demons in charge are doing is increasing the hatred for US in the world, and most particularly in the Muslim world...why doesn't Kerry SAY that??? Why doesn't he talk about the evil of a "war" that has US troops killing infants?

[pocoloco]

11. WTF

was the ignorant SOB thinking??

[LoZoccolo]

12. This is so genius. I mean it.

Now hear me out. The perception that Bush* was good on terror was already there, and it seemed like the only issue on which people thought he was better. Because Kerry is not president - yet - the other side could say whatever they wanted about what he was or was not gonna do if he were in Bush*'s shoes and a certain number of people would believe that. I don't think Kerry could ever overcome this disadvantage - any plan on fighting terrorism Kerry could come up with would most likely be in the direction of fighting smarter, and as such, less understood by the general public. If he went into it, a large segment of people wouldn't even get it. Now you take Bush*'s strongest issue - and really his only issue - and create an equivalence between the two candidates on it, you get...that's right...an advantage or equivalence for Kerry on every issue! Kerry basically just co-opted Bush*'s "tough-on-terror" image that I don't think could really get tore down in the public's opinion by election day.

[robbedvoter]

14. OK, W, you win that one. 911, Iraq...let's talk economy what?

The media sez let's talk 911? Well then I am f*ed.
The genius first has to wonder who created the perception and who takes the stupid polls and why? Remember Richard Clark? His book? The movie? Woodward? Joe Wilson? Air America?
hey, there was a guy talling the truth on these issues - I thought if on the ticket, he's solve those perceptions.
Now, I don't think I want him on that loser ticket. Sorry. I am slowly disengaging from the whole thing. I never thought I'd get to the point of saying "who cares"....

[LoZoccolo]

17. It's not a concession on those issues.

It's a neutralization of the issue, and a co-opting of Bush*'s advantage. Kerry's better on the economy and a bunch of other stuff in people's minds, so he has an overall advantage now. He could go on about my plan regarding terror is better than his on this, but people cling to their leader when they think they're in trouble. Look at Bush*'s approval rating after 9/11 and Iraq. I don't think he could ever overcome that tendency no matter what he said and how much better it was. Now however tough people want to think Bush* is on terror, well, Kerry looks just as tough now.

[robbedvoter]

35. Coopting of W's "advantage"? Did you hear of one Richard Clarke?

What advantage? What is he coopting here? is he telling me he'll be as good on Terra as W was? Is he trying to change the subject in the middle of war, terra threats? Good luck with that.
Ignore the polls, make Wes Clark WP, give them hell and never retreat.
Instead, he's going after begala's mother in law who thinks W is a nice man. Good luck with her, cuz NYC just won't show up to vote in November.

[LoZoccolo]

19. Plus...

...he steals Bush's current advantage by saying this, while leaving Clark/Woodward/Wilson/Air America to pull the rug out from under Bush*!

I'm tellin' ya, this is great strategy. This guy or whoever is advising him is great at it. I have a certain respect for someone who knocked my primary candidate out of the top spot in like two weeks flat!

[rockymountaindem]

23. I think it is the 'it doesn't matter who wins the election' part

that really pissed me off the most. It would have been better if he said "the terrorists will never win the war no matter what" or something like that. I think it was the "it doesn't matter who wins the election". I'm afraid people will start believing it, including me.

[LoZoccolo]

24. I wouldn't worry.

It was about this one issue, and like I said, he was always at a disadvantage here just because people cling to their leader in this. Anything that departs from what that leader does would be viewed with an unfair amount of skepticism and doubt when people want to feel safe. He hadn't really addressed terrorism; now he may be seen as being as strong as Bush* in public perception. But even here he talks about his differences in strategy on it.

Meanwhile, Bush* can't talk about unemployment, etc, and that's where the distinctions do and will get made.

[robbedvoter]

41. Bush can talk about anything he damn pleases and the media will

echo and praise it to hell. he just talked about environment - attacked kerry on THAT. They control the agenda because they have the microphone - incumbency helps too. And reality helps too.
All things being equal, how can you take war and terrorosm off the table? Not in 2004. THEY EXIST.
Reminder: RNC CONVENTION AT GROUND ZERO.
It could be an embarrassement , or, kerry can make it the pageant that they are planning. In fact, he just did.
This New Yorker is off the bandwagon.

[Classical_Liberal]

70. NO Kerry is pulling the rug out from Clark/Woodward/Wilson

with such statements.

[Gloria]

27. I know how you feel, robbedvoter--Wes goes on TV the other day

and says "The terrorists are winning."..."we are not winning the war on terrorism." So how can Kerry even hint that Bush, if reelected, would win against terrorism??? It's ridiculous to give Bush any creedence on this. I can't bridge the chasm between Clark and Kerry's views on this. Even on Iraq--Wes has been hammering the Chalabi angle and all Kerry offers are these limp "Bush" answers.

I've included this little terror gem in a piece I'm writing about Kerry's woes. And I have a suggestion for him, based on what I've seen Clark doing....

Stay tuned....

[Classical_Liberal]

72. The same genius that caused us to do so well in 2002!

They also tried take terror off the table by agreeing with Bush then.

[KerryThatWeight]

15. What else could he do?

He's not perfect...are you?

[robbedvoter]

36. "Give them hell and never retreat" - that's what

I am not perfect, not running - but even I know that if you decide to confront bullies you don't give in. Of course, my candidate was perfect, but the media crowned Mt Softee here.
The "Not perfect" defense is for W....It never works for dems, BTW

[rockymountaindem]

16. This is unreal.

I just can't believe he said that. I'm sitting here in stunned disbelief. Although, everyone wants to make sure we "win" the war. I'm trying to figure out how I can explain this based on Kerry's differing concept of what "winning" means, but it isn't easy. How is he going to tell people how bad Bush* is on this issue if he can't condemn Bush*?

[Deja Q]

18. Hey Kerry, wait until AFTER the election to say these things!

All you're doing now is handing the election to *. Isn't that Nader's job, or do you want to give him votes?! :eyes:

[rolodomo]

20. Wild theory...maybe he's worried about the terrorists...

interfering, trying to throw the election? Another thought, maybe he's positioning himself as a badass for a "you screwed up, here's how I'll do it better" attack. Finally, that was an unusually narrow and very influential audience he was addressing.

[2Design]

21. the more he tries to tell us how much they are a like the more he scares m

....what the ..#@$@#$@#$@

This is our electable guy. What the @$%%$@$%@#$% is going on here. If we wanted Bush we wouldn't need someone else..... I am a staunch democrat at this point.....but this guy is making it very difficult..

Dennis....please step forward.........

Is it the skull and bones.... are they all into PNAC.....are we fooling ourselves.....

This is incredible.......IF they are doing this to him now and he is doing it to himself.....how will he survive their beligerent, nasty, characterizations that they do on a minute to minute basis.....

This is so hard.....we must win.....but this is like rooting for Boston......or the Mets.......


And every time I hear Hillary's name come up...... I just think...don't we have some great leaders anywhere....... the whole bunch of them......taking us into a war....how the $%#$%#$ did they ever give away all that power and vote for a war.....and give away all that money.....while they vote themselves raises....and freeze and cut.....benefits for soliders, seniors, welfare moms......what is wrong with these sick souls.....

I must go to ZZZZZZzzzzzz
This is just too sickening all the time.......
It is hard to be optimistic and keep fighting and wishing and hoping when this country seems to be so much of a warmonger......

This is not God's way...this killing and killing and more killing....
God help us....

[flaminbats]

22. Bush believes the opposite is true...

no matter who loses the terrorists win.

When will Kerry see that rat will do anything to stay in power?

[sandnsea]

25. run free, little terrorists, run free

Please explain to me what in the world is wrong with going after terrorists?

[robbedvoter]

37. It's wrong to endorse W's war on terra, and his skills against terrorism

especially with the many facts coming out.
W thinks he is fighting OBL in Iraq - Kerry just said "Right on". That's what's wrong. here's Dowd on it:

"In Bushworld, we're making progress in the war on terror by fighting a war that creates terrorists."

yet Kerry promised "total victory" and being as good as W

[markomalley]

38. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter...

...and until you deal with the fundamental issues that inspired these people to aim their rockets, bullets, and bombs in our direction, we will always be threatened. You can't "kill them all and let God sort them out" because when one dies, another will spring up in his place. You have to change the environment that breeds them.

K*'s attitude toward this is very disappointing to me because he is taking the same shortsighted view of the world that B* has.

[Mari333]

43. Maybe its time the USA started asking some real questions

Like,
why does the Mideast hate us so much?
why do we continue to prop up that asshole Sharon in Israel and give him whatever he wants, including assasinating people he doesnt like?
Why do we allow him to throw Palestinian people out of their homeland and tell them they cant come back?
Why do we attack muslim countries pre emptively for no damn reason and lie about it to do it?
Why do we allow missionaries to over run their countries and then say it isnt a crusade?
and as an aside, if YOUR kid was over there in between Fallujah and Baghdad like mine is, you would be singing a different tune.
You can change the channel.
I cant.

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

28. WE WERE DUPED...at least those who jumped on the Kerry bandwagon.

DEAN was the TRUE candidate with a better than decent chance at winning in Nov. Kerry is coming across like a limp dixk. He needs to cut this running towards the center crap. He may pick up a few fence sitters in the middle, but he's going to lose the same amount or more from his staunch liberal base to Nader if he's not careful.

JB

[Lorien]

31. Amen AWL

Amen!

[w13rd0]

33. It isn't even the "running to the center"...

...that bothers me, it's HIM SAYING things like "it doesn't matter who wins". After all, corporations will still get their tax cuts, Sharon will still get a green light, troops will still be in Iraq, media will continue to consolidate, the word liberal will still be demonized, the DLC will continue to try and alienate the base of the Democratic party while the GOP appeases their radicals, and Baker will still occupy an important role in government. So where is Kerry going to convince us that a transition team is even worthwhile?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

39. Smarter.

Smarter corporate tax cuts.
Smarter Sharon green light.
Smarter increase in Iraq troops.
Smarter media consolidation.
Smarter demonization of "liberal."
Smarter DLC alienation of the base.
Smarter role for Baker.

:shrug:

[Blasphemer]

53. I fear this will be my last year voting Democrat...

I feel stuck between a rock and a hard place because the BFEE is so evil and I couldn't live with myself if my vote allowed * to contaminate the Supreme Court with Scalia clones. However, once * is gone, the Dems have ALOT of work to do to convince me not to go Green permanently.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

62. Join the other 15 million active Democrats who feel the same.

[fujiyama]

29. Wow

Looks like is actually trying to lose this election.

So is he giving up on attacking Bush on foreign policy and national security?

So let me get this straight -- as Bush attacks Kerry as being soft on defense, Kerry concedes that Bush is good at fighting terrorism?

This is pathetic. Hell, pathetic doesn't begin to describe what I feel has happened to this campaign.

In Kerry we have a strong liberal record, but one that is absolutely unwilling to even defend it. Why should others do it if he can't? I remember reading that Kerry is escaping from his liberal record like a convict trying to escape the authorities. That's a pretty apt description.

[rman]

32. so it's not "if we give up all our freedoms, the terrorists have won"?

could have fooled me.

It's not like you want to follow the same methods that Bush does, is it now, Kerry?

[markomalley]

34. For all of you who flamed the h3ll out of me...

for saying k*=b* lite, I am graciously accepting apologies, provided they are humble enough.

We need a viable, progressive candidate in this election.

[mmonk]

40. Kerry, unfortunately

is following in the line of "me too" democrats on this foreign policy. The only difference is that these dems think what we should have done and what we should do is have more friends. Its quite a folly in that the reason we don't have any friends in this one (save Blair) is they are all against this approach.

[legin]

44. Assuming this is not the newspaper putting words in his mouth

You don't use the "total victory" words.

Why did the German people fight to the last man on behalf of Hitler ?

Because the allies had declared 'total victory' to be their goal, ie at the end of the war the German people were going to be at the total mercy of the allies, and the German people also knew that following in the train of the allied armies was the publically pronounced Morganthau Plan, which called for Germany to be stripped of all it's industries and turned into just a gigantic farm basically. The German people knew that eveything that they held dear as being German was going to be trashed, so they fought and killed a lot more allied soldiers than if someone had proclaimed publically a more sensible 'war aim' on behalf of the allies.

There are sections of an Open University set book which I got from a charity shop that decry this 'total victory' concept, so we are not talking rocket science here.

Declaring 'Total Victory' as your war aim makes your opponent fight harder.

[robbedvoter]

47. The article was kinda snarky, but this was a direct quote

And keep in mind - the credibility is enhanced by the fact that it was not published here.
If it was not a direct quote and I am wrong, I'd be in paradise - and only too happy to apologize. In fact - please , let me be wrong!

[Kitsune]

45. AUUUUUUUGHHHH

This man needs to be dumped at the convention. He has no hope of winning anything come November.

[doubles]

48. This is why the media wanted Kerry. Dean can think on his feet,

Kerry can't, he needs a kick in de arse!

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

56. EXACTLY. Dean was our BEST chance.

I'm all for a huge Dem convention fight to get Dean on the ticket, if Kerry continues down this Repuke-lite route.

Hell, if we wanted Repuke-lite, we would have pushed for Lieber-pussy as the nominee.

JB

[porkrind]

49. Jeez.

He should know better than this. This is an amateur, and maybe fatal mistake.

I'll vote for him, but it's killing me. :(

Why, Cruel Universe, can't we have Dean or Kucinich instead of Kerry? :(

[G_j]

50. outrageous !!

that makes me literally ill. Bush has done more to increase terror and endanger Americans than even bin Laden.
Kerry's statement seriously concerns me. If he really believes that then he has dangerously poor judgment. I'm starting to think it might be better to just screw the election and leave the country!

[htuttle]

51. Yet another test of my gag reflex from Candidate Kerry

The man can really be an goddamn idiot sometimes.

[JHBowden]

52. Kerry should say he *supports* international terrorism?

What is wrong with you people?

[htuttle]

54. Don't be dense

He should say that Bush is ineffective on terrorism, and take advantage of the NOW EXTENSIVE evidience available proving that point. Numerous non-partisan experts in the field have pointed out scores of things the Bush administration has done which have not only been ineffective, but directly increased the risk of terrorism.

By saying that Bush is 'effective' at preventing terrorism, he concedes them the whole issue when he could make it his one of his stronger points.

Nobody is saying Kerry should 'support' terrorism, although I'm sure Rush Limbaugh would have us believe that 'liberals' want to 'support terrorism'.

[JHBowden]

55. Kerry *does* say that Bush is ineffective on terrorism.

You guys are really stretching to believe the Kerry=Bushlite falsehood. Let it go.

[G_j]

57. Kerry is the one who said it.

"And you can count on this: No matter who wins the presidential election, the
terrorists will lose."

:wow:

[JHBowden]

58. Kerry opposes international terrorism. The horror.

We aren't going to get anywhere opposing the war against al-queda.

[htuttle]

61. ARE YOU PURPOSELY MISSING THE POINT?

Do you think Bush has done any good opposing Al Queda? or do you think he has strengthened Al Queda and other international terrorist organizations through his actions?

Richard Clarke and many others in the field say that Bush has strengthened al Queda in numerous ways due to wrongheaded polices and backwards priorities.

Are you saying Kerry should be proud to say he would act the same way?

You seem to be coming from a point of view that it is a given that Bush has been effective in preventing terrorism. So is Kerry. And that's my problem with it.

[robbedvoter]

69. Emulating the "Hard country to defend" boy? This is a joke, non?

[htuttle]

59. When?

That's not what I get from quotes like this from the above article:

"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."

Where does he distinguish between his plans and Bush's plans on this? He's not done a good job distinguishing the hair's breadth of difference between his policies on Iraq and Bush's as it is.

Statements like the above further cloud any difference on foreign policy, other than sort of a vague 'we'll work more with other countries' tone. How? Bush can claim that he has a little 'coalition' (or rather, he used to be able to claim that), and has worked internationally -- Kerry has NOT distinguished between what he would do differently. Does it merely come down to assigning the contracts more equitably? Is that his whole plan? So far to me, that's all I can see.

It's not ME who's calling Kerry 'bushlite' -- it seems to be candidate Kerry who's doing that himself.

Sure, I'm still ABB. I'll still be voting 'D' this November for president, whoever it is. However, I can't say I'm thrilled about it -- it's more a matter of a lack of workable alternatives at this point.

[robbedvoter]

60. Again, s-l-o-w-l-y: VALIDADITNG W'S MISTAKES is not GOOD

Dowd:
In Bushworld, you can reign as the antiterror president even after hearing an intelligence report about Al Qaeda's plans to attack America and then stepping outside to clear brush.

In Bushworld, we're making progress in the war on terror by fighting a war that creates terrorists.

In Bushworld, it's O.K. to run for re-election as the avenger of 9/11, even as you make secret deals with the Arab kingdom where most of the 9/11 hijackers came from.

Does any of this make you think that maybe Kerry should not use W as his shining mentor on the subject?

(there are a few good books on it too)

P.S. Saddam didn't blow WTC. Pass it on.

[Toucano]

63. Conceding the election prior to the convention.

There's one for the history books. Thanks, John. I'd like my money back please.

[Ms. Clio]

64. We are headed for a repeat of 2002

The most important point he should be making is that if he doesn't win the election, everyone on the entire planet will lose.

[robbedvoter]

65. Bingo! Vote for me or terra, war , famine, polution will kill you!

Vote for me as if your life depends on it.
it's the only way I am voting for him anyway. But he misses this point too!

[ithacan]

66. with Bush the Terrorists win BIG TIME!!!

I suppose Kerry is trying to seem moderate, but really.

It is SO obvious that if Bush wins, the terrorists win.

Bush and company are CLUELESS on how to deal with the rest of the world. Their policies are disastrous.

"Total victory" , but how is that defined? I hope Kerry's definition is very different than Bush/Cheney's.

[Toucano]

67. "I hope Kerry's definition is very different than Bush/Cheney's"

Hope in one hand, spit in the other. See which fills up first.

[bikebloke]

68. How Daschlesque

It reminds me of the Gore/* debates, with Gore agreeing with the little coward right and left.And when considering the Lieberman tact, he should keep in mind that Lieberman was trounced in the primaries. Kerry has to stop saying he's going to fight and really fight. Try going back to when he called the brownshirts lairs and crooks.