[Kerry can knock this out of the park] if it's framed as, "If what we know now is that over 900 U.S. soldiers have died and thousands more have been injured, disfigured and scarred for life - that over ten thousand Iraqi citizens have perished in the rush to war - that no-bid contracts for rebuilding would go to Cheney's companies - that Iraq continues to be a bloody deathtrap with unspeakable terror and fear - and that the evidence of WMDs was a lie - the answer, Mr. Bush, is a clear and emphatic 'NO!'"Fine. Don't listen. What the hell do I know anyway?Bush wants 'yes or no' from Kerry on war
President Bush challenged Democratic rival John Kerry on Friday to give a yes-or-no answer about whether he would have supported the invasion of Iraq "knowing what we know now" about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction.
Look, I completely understand Kerry's "nuanced" response, but these animals don't know nuance. They don't know a lot. They only know what they want to hear - and they run with it and hammer it and hammer it and hammer it into submission. And the press cares even less about nuance. They want a clever sound bite and Bush is delivering it for them at Kerry's expense.
Team Kerry. Please. You have to know your opposition. They're not subtle. They're not patient. They don't like detail. They do understand one thing: Kicking someone really hard and really swiftly in the nuts. They do it all the time. It makes them feel powerful. The response? You have to kick these guys in the nuts hard and you have to kick them in the nuts often. Because while nuance works for thinking people, it's ice cold death against these insane freaks. Next time, Mr. Kerry, just say "no."
And dammit, plant that foot of yours repeatedly in those little pebble-sized nobules of Silly Putty they call - you-know-whats.
Bush's Mocking Drowns Out Kerry's Explanation of Iraq VoteThe nuts. Aim well, Mr. Kerry.
For five days now, as the long-distance arguments between President Bush and Senator John Kerry have focused on the wisdom of invading Iraq, Mr. Kerry has struggled to convince his audiences that his vote to authorize the president to use military force was a far, far cry from voting for a declaration of war.
So far, his aides and advisers concede, he has failed to get his message across, as Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have mocked his efforts as "a new nuance" that amount to more examples of the senator's waffling.
Mr. Kerry's problems began last week when President Bush challenged him for a yes-or-no answer on a critical campaign issue: If Mr. Kerry knew more than a year ago what he knows today about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, would he still have voted to authorize the use of military force to oust Saddam Hussein?
As Mr. Bush surely knew, it is a question that can upset the difficult balance Mr. Kerry must strike. He has to portray himself as tough and competent enough to be commander in chief, yet appeal to the faction of Democrats that hates the war and eggs him on to call Mr. Bush a liar.
