by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright September 8, 2004
All Rights Reserved.

emocratic nominee Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) finally got the message from the Republican National Convention that the GOP means business when it comes to reelecting President George W. Bush. He found out the hard way that Karl Rove—Bush's chief strategist and resident Machiavellian—had him targeted, taking off the gloves and relentlessly pounding him for four days at Madison Square Garden. One month early, Kerry—and his Democratic handlers—blew a golden opportunity in Boston's Fleet Center to go after the president. Instead, Kerry's team neutered all speeches, assuring a “positive message,” inadvertently shooting themselves in the feet. Kerry figured out the night of Bush's acceptance speech that it's time to let it all hang out—no more Mr. Nice Guy, taking the highroad and that sort of stuff. Kerry got the message: It's all out war.

      Long overdue, Kerry promptly fired his campaign manager Mary-Beth Cahill, prime architect of his Mr. Nice Guy approach. Kerry has borrowed some passion from former Vermont governor and presidential candidate Howard Dean, who rocketed to frontrunner attacking Bush's Iraq policy. What appeared like Bush's greatest strength could easily turn into his Achilles heel, namely, his handling of Iraq and the war on terror. Topping one thousand deaths is a rude wakeup call to many Democrats, independents and, yes, Republicans with growing concerns about an ugly guerrilla war. Iraq's “sovereign” entity, headed by interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, betrayed U.S. interests. “We're still at war,” Bush told congressional leaders. “We've got to do everything we can to protect the homeland,” pitching the phony link between the war in Iraq and terrorists most likely to attack the U.S.

      Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have played their best—and only—hands heading into November, insisting that the war in Iraq keeps terrorists off American streets. In reality, toppling Saddam created a power vacuum now sucked up by a Shiite majority, not, as the White House would have you believe, friendly to the U.S. but loyal to Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. When Iraq's chief Shiite cleric Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani negotiated an end to radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's siege of the Iman Ali Mosque in Najaf, Allawi promptly gave al-Sadr amnesty, leaving his murderous band of thugs called the Mahdi militia intact to kill more American troops. Allawi plays both sides, exploiting U.S. forces and, at the same time, giving al-Sadr a license to kill U.S. soldiers. Allawi's backdoor support for al-Sadr resulted in the deaths of countless America troops.

      Bush's plan of “democratizing” Iraq at the expense of U.S. soldiers and the national treasury makes no sense when Iraq's current leadership supports al-Sadr's uprising. When U.S. forces landed in southern Iraq 2003, they weren't greeted by flag-waving Shiites—a fantasy spawned by now discredited Pentagon darling Ahmed Chalibi. During the Clinton years, Chalabi was on the Pentagon's payroll, promising a Shiite revolt that never materialized. Before Bush took office and rehired Chalabi, he was fired by the Pentagon for fraud and incompetence. “The stakes are whether or not freedom and democracy triumph or whether or not we form the rule of law . . .” said Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, justifying mounting U.S. casualties. Powell has difficulty explaining how the U.S. can complete its mission when the current government supports Islamic radicals like Muqtada al-Sadr.

      Kerry's sudden opposition to the war strikes a cord with over 60% of registered voters who believe the war in Iraq was a mistake. Calling Saddam “murderous tyrant,” Bush rationalizes the costs of going to war. But voters must now decide whether the Iraq war justifies mounting U.S. casualties and drain on the federal treasury. “George W. Bush's wrong choices have led America in the wrong direction on Iraq and left America without the resources we heed here at home,” said Kerry, pointing to record federal deficits and expected cutbacks in aid to cities, education, Social Security and Medicare. Kerry's new criticism puts the White House on the defensive, explaining how to justify the costs. Promising “democracy” in Iraq won't bring back U.S. lives or replace the billions lost to the treasury. Kerry's new message resonates with voters across the political spectrum.

      Attacking Bush's Iraq policy represents Kerry's best strategy heading into November. Kerry's flagging campaign stemmed from his reluctance to take a decisive stand and speak out passionately on this year's pivotal issue: The war in Iraq. Putting doubt in voters' minds about Bush's handling of the war and national security—and tying it to real economic consequences at home—puts the White House on the defensive. Now that Kerry took a stand, Bush must counter with continued attacks on Kerry's credibility, pointing to his vote authorizing force but then voting against the $87 billion price tag. With U.S. casualties topping one thousand, Kerry's antiwar stand sets up a clear choice in November. Voters don't do nuance. They can now choose between Bush's Iraq policy and Kerry's plan to change directions. Kerry's new antiwar stand harks back to his more passionate side.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2002 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.