[smith288]

Lots of people have Mels feelings... I believe Bush hasnt been explaining the WMD situation clearly enough and letting democrats "explain" it their way.

Bush SHOULD get on tv, clearly explain that WMD was believed to be there by EVERYONE including Mr Kerry and the former administration.

Explain that we had to take action after 9-11 because we knew nothing on where they were or if they are gone, WHERE they went and if any organizations that Saddam sypathized with would use them.

Explain the idea behind Iraq and it being a pivitol location for democracy to flourish and hopefully as a result, fester to Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt etc...

Detail the fact we knew before hand and explain why we had to act based on those facts (fact that are safe to be detailed).


I just think Bush has been ill prepared to answer these questions thus far that are, in my opinion, easy as pie to answer.

[new cruelty]

Wow. Good points. Let's hope President Bush takes your advice.

[Steve_Seattle]

The Weekly Standard had a long article two weeks ago explaining and re-articulating the rationale for the war. One of the things that made it so strong was that the authors let CLINTON administration officials make the case for them. It was eye-opening and a reminder that the perceived threat from Iraq was long-standing, bipartisan, worldwide, and NOT a fabrication of a few neo-cons in think tanks.

[Eastbound]

"Bush SHOULD get on tv, clearly explain that WMD was believed to be there by EVERYONE including Mr Kerry and the former administration."

If I hear Pres. Bush getting on TV to try to please the stinking pinko commie liberals in this country on WMD one more time I'm going to puke. I heard him articulate the reasons for war several times and the first time was sufficient for me. When the h*ll are wimpy conservatives going to stop falling for the Delphi Technique? We have nothing to debate with the socialist/liberal/stinking commies. Period! To engage in debate on this is to play on the enemy's field -- and according to their rules.

President Bush, to steal a phrase of the enemy, can't we just move on?

[B Knotts]

Very well said. I think if Pres. Bush speaks directly, and from his heart, about why we went into Iraq, even those who might disagree will give him the benefit of the doubt.

For too long, the Democrats have been able to set the terms of the debate.

[GraniteStateConservative]

I believe I heard Norah O'Donnell say that Bush planned to address the nation on the anniversary of OIF and try to make OIF a big positive on Bush's resume in the minds of voters because it's not as of now. Maybe he'll cover the stuff smith288 and the Weekly Standard mentions.

[PISANO]

While I agree with you that the GOP doesn't articulate it's position as often or as vociferously as do the gimmies, I must say that everything you want, is common knowledge and has been done ad nauseam.

The only REASON that hasn't been given for going to war with IRAQ is IMHO the BEST. Iraq constinuously and consistantly VIOLATED the ARTICLES of SURRENDER from GULF WAR 1 and a RESUMPTION of HOSTILITIES by the United States was MANDATORY to make them comply with THEIR UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER TERMS.

This dispells the silly notion that this was a PRE-EMPTIVE war. How can anyone argue with the fact that we should have done NOTHING if Japan or Germany violated their UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER TERMS?

[paul51]

Explain .........

Are you saying he hasn't done it. How many times do you think it will take before dims and kerry supporters finally say, oh yeah, now I get it. The non believers will never believe. There is no point to explaining what has already been explained by the Pres and his supporters. You either get it or you don't.

[proud American in Canada]

"Bush SHOULD get on tv, clearly explain that WMD was believed to be there by EVERYONE including Mr Kerry and the former administration."

EXACTLY. What would be so terrible in pointing out the truth--that many, many Democrats, including Bill Clinton, said that they believed there were WMDs and that Saddam was a threat. That's not going negative, it's stating the truth.

And as for Mel's statement--it could be that he's having doubts about Bush's ability to get re-elected.

[WestPoint90]

The best analysis I've seen on FR. What I hear you saying is that there doesn't seem to be much fight in our "leaders". Maybe we are turning the other cheek, which is admirable, but even Christ himself got up and called his attackers and slanderers 'hypocrites' and exposed them for who they were. This is a battle. We need to start fighting. Hopefully we are seeing the start of it. Well said Smitty.

[Steven W.]

Remember Salman Pak

[My2Cents]

I believe Bush hasnt been explaining the WMD situation clearly enough and letting democrats "explain" it their way.

I agree with you 100%! Therein is the biggest problem -- not that the WMD question can't be answered, but that it isn't been adequately addressed.

With all humility, and no pride of authorship, the White House and the BC '04 campaign need to read my post #259. Maybe they're preparing the Mother of All Rebuttals on the WMD charge, but so far, the offense has been pretty weak.

[My2Cents]

Bush SHOULD get on tv, clearly explain that WMD was believed to be there by EVERYONE including Mr Kerry and the former administration.

With all due respect, however, let us remember that the Administration has not yet issued a final report on the hunt for WMDs (Kay's interim report back in October was the most recent official update).

[Ohioan]

Explain the idea behind Iraq and it being a pivitol location for democracy to flourish and hopefully as a result, fester to Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt etc...

Yes, you explain that "idea," and then give me ten minutes with Mel, after you have finished, to remind him what a cruel deception "democracy" is in multi-cultural, multi-ethnic lands, without a dominant middle-class. What you suggest is not a sound way to fight terror. It is precisely the opposite; a red flag to those who feel they will be the victims in such "democracies," to join with those who are already in the field against us.

What you suggest is the absolute antithesis of what we need to be doing to round up the internationalist thugs who are already in the field against us. In that quest, our natural allies are the forces of tradition in every land that values its traditions. With your approach, we would have never curbed the anarchists of a century ago.

For how Democracy actually works out in the Third World, see Democracy In The Third World--Destructive Egalitarian Myth.

William Flax

[visualops]

He said much of that in the MTP interview. He, and others in the administration, have said all these things many many times. The problem is the media keeps harping on the same old crap, makes one forget this has already been gone over a hundred times.