From my standpoint, Bush has one major weakness, his inability to admit a mistake. He doesn't have the "aw shucks" manner of Reagan, nor the grace of Lloyd Bentsen when he admitted to a "beaut" of a mistake in fund raising in his 1988 debate. Instead, he gets petulant.
Since that is Bush's weakness, Kerry needs to emphasize various 'conundrums" where Bush really has no good answer. But he has to do it with terms that the audience can relate to. Chalabi is one major such issue. But most people don't know who Chalabi is. Kerry should mention the "accused Iranian double agent" Chalabi, and ignore the name from then on, hitting on "Iranian double agent". Chalabi, most people won't know, but "Iranian double agent" will get their attention. "How can you entrust someone who invites an Iranian double agent to sit with his family at the State of the Union address to protect this country?" Bush will likely sputter, claiming he didn't know Chalabi was an Iranian agent at the time, which allows Kerry to add "but you knew he was a convicted swindler, someone who had to escape Jordan in the trunk of a car to escape arrest for embezzling millions of dollars. A person with that record, and you let him sit in on high level discussions of military strategies, believe his word over the assessment of our own intelligence professionals, and claim later you're shocked to find out he's an Iranian con man who lied through his teeth?" Bush has no good
answer to Chalabi.
The same with the Tuwaitha nuclear facility in Iraq. Again, however, mention "Tuwaitha" once, and then hit "Iraqi nuclear facility" time and time again, a phrase the audience can relate to. Again, there is no good answer for our sending troops to protect the oil fields in the opening weeks of the war, but to forget the nuclear facility. If the administration truly believed that Iraq was "reconstituting" its nuclear program, failing to secure the site represents the grossest form of negligence, putting the safety of oil ahead of the safety of this country. On the other hand, if the reason no troops were sent until press reports came in that the site was being ransacked by vandals, was because the administration knew the UN had Iraq's nuclear program tied up in knots, then it was the most egregious form of deceit to lie to the public, indeed to the entire world, trying to scare them by visions of "mushroom clouds" when we knew Iraq's nuclear activities were dormant. Again, the best thing Bush could say is say he was outraged, and heads will roll! (But of course, no one's head has rolled) Worst of all is if Bush forgot about the plant, which would allow Kerry to ask how he can protect this country from nuclear blackmail if he "loses track" of just who has nuclear capabilities and who doesn't.
Again, he needs to keep the terms understandable. Iranian double agent, swindler, con man, nuclear facility. In order to educate, he has to stick with terms that will stick in peoples' minds. Also, attacking these issues fits in with a story line that people can relate to, the need for a "fresh start" with our allies. Kerry has to avoid trying to impress folks with the names of leaders or countries he has visited, but say that other countries have noted this administration's lack of credibility in so many areas, from the fake nuclear fears to taking the word of Iranian con men over US military professionals. We therefore need a fresh start in order to win more support. Again, this is something people can relate to, the need for a fresh start after too many bridges of credibility have been burned away.
I doubt that Bush would be so stupid as to whine that questioning him undercuts the troops. That would enable Kerry to remind him that HE knows what it's like to be in the field in harm's way, and telling the truth never hurts our troops. A way to undercut our troops and put them needlessly in harm's way is to take the word of an Iranian agent over our own military professionals about how tough an occupation will be.
Still if Bush gets desperate, he may try to avoid mentioning the troops, and suggest it is feeding overall "anti-American" sentiments abroad to
criticize him. Kerry can then cite American icons, such as George Washington: (Address to the Officers of the Army, March 15, 1783)
"If men are to be precluded from offering their sentiments on a matter which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences the consideration of mankind, reason is of no used to us; the freedom of speech may be taken away, and dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter."
And if you don't care for that, how about the 20th Century's contribution to Mount Rushmore, Teddy Roosevelt, railing against Woodrow Wilson in 1918:
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
I doubt Bush would be dumb enough to try to compete with such icons, but if he wants to try and put himself above them, let him. After all, if swing voters thought he was in the same league as Washington or Roosevelt, they wouldn't be swing voters any more.
Sorry for the length of this, but this is our last chance for tips before tomorrow!
Kevin