Why is Ted Kennedy saying our greatest vulnerability is a nuclear 9/11?

[Awsi Dooger]

Am I missing something, or does that fall smack into Bush's hands? Kerry fell behind in the polls when terrorism surged as a voter concern after the phony Republican convention and now we're promoting the possibility of the ultimate terrorist attack, geometrically worse than 9/11?

I understand the criticism, Bush's preoccupation with Iraq leaves us ignoring potentially more legit threats like evil North Korea. But if fringe voters are stupid enough to link Iraq with 9/11, and invading Iraq with making us safer from terror, won't the words nuclear 9/11 from a prominent Democratic senator further inflate terrorism as a concern and help Bush, not Kerry?

A CNN graphic tonight indicated the economy was the top voter concern at 35%, followed by terrorism at 34%, Iraq now much further down at 15%, and health care at 14%. Interesting that if you assign the economy and health care as Kerry strengths and terrorism and Iraq as favoring Bush, each side supposedly owns 49%.

[LittleClarkie]

1. Sounds like he read Kerry's book

That was one of Kerry's fears in 1997, that when the "big one" happened (and he didn't doubt that it would if we didn't guard against it) that it could be nuclear in nature.

"A New War" by John Kerry, proof that he's not saying these things about Iraq out of political opportunism. He really believes what he's saying, and has been saying it for a long time.

[Awsi Dooger]

2. Thanks, I'll have to read that book

But fear is now the principal ally of our opponent. I doubt it aids our cause to promote it.

[JI7]

3. because Bush failed in preventing spread of nuclear weapons

[secular_warrior]

4. We MUST attack Bush's perceived strength instead of being timid !

It amazes me how more Dems don't get it, and just want to run on "domestic issues" -- how good did that do us in the 2002 elections ?

Ted Kennedy is correct, and as usual, the party leadership doesn't give him full support.

We cannot cede the issue of national security to Bush when the voters are basing their choice on that issue. You cannot run on issues that have much less weight with the voters. They don't care about the economy and healthcare if they are dead. If they feel Kerry can't or won't protect them they won't listen (and aren't listening) to what he has to say on other issues.

Bill Maher was talking about this the other day. The GOP attacked Kerry's strongest point -- Vietnam. Maher said that Bush's strenght was 9-11 and how Maher and Michael Moore and few Dems tried to get the ball rolling on Bush and 9-11, on how Bush sat there reading to children, on the connection to the Saudis etc -- but the Democrats dropped the ball. Maher said it was their big chance to give Bush his own "swift boat" scandal and knock him down a few pegs before the RNC. But the Democrats as usual pull defeat from the jaws of victory.

[Awsi Dooger]

7. I disagree with almost everything

We have overlearned the supposed Willie Horton lesson from '88 to an absurd and masochistic degree. The Bush campaign does not give a damn about our strategy. They isolated a simple campaign theme and have pounded it relentlessly for months. We overreact to everything they do and therefore are always on the pathetic defensive. No coherent theme, and far too much of what we put out is based on Bush, not Kerry.

In the last two weeks we attacked Bush's stance on Iraq with little apparent traction. You are dead wrong if you think the GOP isn't thrilled to keep the focus on Iraq and terrorism and not the economy. And Ted Kennedy mentioning a nuclear attack only boosts terrorism as a fear. We are not going to catch Bush in regard to national security so it's a net negative if that issue is promoted.If Kerry focused on the economy it would nudge further AHEAD as the prime voter concern and force Bush to react for a change. Why hasn't Kerry sarcastically pointed out that Bush has not run a single ad touting his economic achievements? That is unprecedented and revealing. As I mentioned atop this thread, the economy already polls ahead the priority list at 35%.

Please, spare me the comparisons to 2002. Those senate races were battled on GOP turf and we had obscenely unrealistic hopes of road wins. Georgia, South Carolina, New Hampshire, Missouri, Texas, Colorado, South Dakota, Tennessee, Arkansas, North Carolina and Minnesota. Those were the states of the competitive races. I was brand new to DU then but warned how red those states were. Only Minnesota trends slightly in our favor.

I agree Kerry needs to be forceful on national security and everything else. He will be on Thursday. Also that a damning commercial should be run regarding Bush and My Pet Goat.

What amazes me is the lousy handicapping that proposes we desperately emulate everything the GOP does. We own the issues and the truth and have won the popular vote by 500,000+ votes in three straight elections. We insist 2000 was a stolen fluke, which it was, yet somehow we ignore that reality when evaluating 2004. Just think if Gore had rightfully won and taken office. The GOP would be reeling after three straight defeats and struggling to mimmick us, understand our electoral secrets. Right now a Bill Clinton would be laser focusing on domestic issues and cruising. Terrorism is at 34% in the polls only because we idiotically allowed Bush to get it there.

[secular_warrior]

14. I don't think national security is simply a "Bush campaign theme"

like Willie Horton. It is not just a matter of "focus". If Kerry were to ignore the issue (as he tried a few weeks ago) it would only appear that he is dodging the issue, and the press would constantly lament about the "black cloud of Iraq and the war on terror over the Kerry campaign" (as they did a few weeks ago when he wasn't speaking about it). It would become the elephant in the room (no pun intended).

Any way you look at it, the biggest issue of this post 9-11 election is ... surprise: national security ! National security issues/terrorism is not purely an invention of Rove. While Bush has made it a bigger issue than it is through fear mongering, playing to nationalism, and squelching dissent, it would've been the biggest issue regardless of who the president was. We can only convince voters to look at our issues by challenging Bush's national security policies and showing voters how ours are better. At the very worst Kerry has to convince voters that he can match Bush on security. There are moderate voters who Kerry must win over, voters like the "security moms" (social liberal/fiscal conservative) who are trending towards Bush based on this issue alone. If we can't convince these people Kerry is just as good or better on security, they're not going to look at what else we have to offer; this is not the '92 or '96 or '00 elections where security wasn't an issue where Dems could simply run on the economy. Clinton himself even says if '92 was like this election he would not stand a chance. Like I said, voters rather be alive than prosperous, and Bush has scared them enough that they're starting to believe he is the only one who can protect them. Kerry must break this myth. He has to captain his proverbial boat directly into enemy fire.

ps. I agree we simply can't kneejerk react to Bush and the GOP, which is why Kerry must lay out a strong, coherent plan -- a Kerry Doctrine --to oppose the neoconservative Bush Doctrine of preemption.

[bigtree]

5. Bush is arrogant and trigger happy

Chickenhawk with his finger on the button.

[Eagle_Eye]

9. Bush has given our enemy the biggest motivator of all: ANGER

People who once only hurled insults at us are now hurling bombs.

Vote anybody but Bush.

[SoCalDemocrat]

6. This is 100% the Bush spin and agenda

I can't believe Ted has become so stupid in his old age. Scaring people only makes them want to vote for Bush. Bad Ted, no biscut!

CNN and MSNBC have been pounding this spin out for weeks. It must of sunk into Ted's skull and how he's spouting it too.

[joanski01]

10. Senator Chuck Schumer tried

to get an amendment passed to the Homeland Security Bill allowing $150 million for upgraded, more powerful, geiger counters to inspect ship containters for nuclear weapons. The Republican Senate said "NO". Schumer said that we could easily do this, because we only allow ships in from 15 ports. Republicans said "NO", leaving us vulnerable to bombs being smuggled in very easily. Ted Kennedy knows this, as all the Senators do.

[kori]

13. It is a Falsehood that Bush keeps us safer, we must deflate that

or we lose.

We need more of that from Ted and others. We need to talk about less cops and first responders, we need to talk about NYPD and NYFD having the same communication system that led to the deaths of so many on 9/11. We need to talk about the lesson we have given all states. Do you really think we would have gone into Iraq if they did have nuclear weapons? We need to talk about Bush doing one thing NO ONE has done in a thousand years, not since Richard the Lionhearted has Islam been so united to defeat someone and establish the Muslim caliphate. We need to continue to pound in the fact that the war in Iraq is as Pat Buchanan has said "The worst strategic blunder in US History".

We need to talk about port safety, internal safety, We need to talk about billions spent in Iraq and most emergency responders in US not even having any protective suits against Bio or radiation threats. We have been warned by Osama, he will attack, I do not think he has failed to attack by Bushs security measures. I think he is doing what he needs to within his religion. He needs to warn us, he needs to offer us the time to convert, he needs to offer to teach us how to be Muslims, and we have to reject his offers then he can take the gloves off. Remember after 9/11 Osama was condemned by many Muslims for conducting an Offensive Jihad. He has convinced many that it was a defensive attack and to get the support of more mullahs he must follow proscribed conditions before attacking again. I think that is exactly what is happening.

[sandnsea]

8. Bush isn't protecting against it

He isn't doing anything about the loose nuke programs. He's wasted billions on missile defense that doesn't work. He's a failure on the issue. When Kerry was hammering this earlier in the year, the lack of port protection, etc., we were doing alot better. We won the economy issue, we always do. We need to win the terrorism and foreign policy issue, as well as Iraq, and John Kerry can do that, if he just turns up the heat a bit. That's what we elected him to do, win on ALL fronts. Get to it John!

[Pepperbelly]

11. because of Bush's incompetence, the odds of nuke disaster raised.

He eviscerated the program Bill Clinton had in place to secure the nuclear weapons and material in the former Soviet Union.

[Stephanie]

12. Bush didn't even protect the Iraqi nuclear sites

The nuclear sites in Iraq were LOOTED for WEEKS after the invasion. American troops did not even inspect them for weeks, and then they had no orders of what to protect and not enough troops to do it. Uranium that had been labeled and sealed by the AIEA was looted and dumped on the ground so the villagers could take the barrels. It's highly likely that some of the uranium wound up on the black market. If there is a dirty bomb, you can thank George Bush, who frightened us with lies about mushroom clouds before the war but could not even be bothered to protect the nuclear sites once we were in Iraq. Google Tuwaitha.