Kerry's task is to win undecideds. He must assume he has the base. That they have e decoded his recent statements and concluded he intends to cut and run. That means he must be strongly for winning the war against TERRORISM and adamant that he has never wavered on Iraq, that it has Bush who has waffled.He must contend that every asset deployed in Iraq brings an attack on the homeland closer.
If I were Kerry (and that assumes I would be just as unprincipled) I would make predictions of increased carnage in Iraq and leave it to the terrorists to vindicate me. He has a pretty good chance they will and an excellent chance they will try. Whatever they do, Kerry and I can rely on the press to magnify it. Then I would spend the next few weeks saying "I told you so" every time a bomb goes off.
I do not think he can do it. Clinton at his best might have been able to sell this package but it would have been a strain even for him. But then Slick would never have let himself be boxed into this position.
Given the present situation in Iraq, beheadings, car bombs, radical Imams, etc, it is nearly impossible today to make the case that you want to win the war on terrorism and bug out of Iraq. I have noticed that fewer and fewer people try to make the case that Iraq was not connected to global terrorism, it just is illogical and does not sell.
I do not see how he can spin it and win the undecideds, he has to be for the war in Iraq to win the war on terrorism and he base will not turn out if he is for the war. If he comes out as against the Iraq war , but wants to win the war on terrorism, he gets creamed for his statements and votes. I predict he will look like a complete fool on this issue and just make things worse for himself.