Posted on 10/26/2004 11:02:10 AM PDT by Mark Noonan
This weekend I interviewed Richard Miniter, author of the new book Shadow War: The Untold Story of How Bush Is Winning the War on Terror, out by Regnery Publishing. He also wrote the New York Times bestselling Losing Bin Laden, which is now out in paperback. We discussed his new book as well as other issues pertaining to the war on terror and this election. Are we winning the war on terror? Richard Miniter gives us some valuable insight to help answer that question:
MATT MARGOLIS, BLOGS FOR BUSH: We are now just days away from the election. Americans have a choice between President Bush and Senator John Kerry, and the biggest issue of this campaign has been the war on terror. Is Bush winning the war on terror?
RICHARD MINITER: In my book, Shadow War, I argue that, on balance, America is winning the war on terror.
Here's the key statistic: More 3,000 al Qaeda fighters have been seized or slain since 9-11 in 102 different countries. That shows that the effort is larger than the public has been told--3,000 may be equal to one-quarter of al Qaeda's total strength--and far more global than the public believes. If you destroy a division of the enemy and it does not score a comparable victory against you, you are winning. That is the position of the U.S. today.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogsforbush.com ...
Very, very interesting read...
for later
bttt
Bttt
Since Bin Laden has reappeared via the latest Video Tape, as the author of Shadow War has indicated (that he was live and well ) this book ( Shadow War ) ought to be of interest...
bttt!
Failed to add....living in Iran......
It's great that you got to interview him.
He helps people understand how such a war is waged and that we are winning it.
Thanks for the ping!
Miniter's first book is a must read, and the ultimate indictment of the Clinton legacy.
I can't wait to read this new one. I only wish every voter did.
1. Don't underestimate the shock of a terror attack. "The nation has recovered just enough that a successful terror strike would be psychologically devastating."
2.The oppostion party undermined the prime minister, "constantly questioning his honesty and alleging that he was using the tragedy for partisan advantage." The Spanish prime minister's failure to forcefully respond to the criticism gave credibility to his opponents' allegations. "It is not hard to imagine the often tongue-tied Bush White House making the same errors.
3. The Spanish government had good reason to suspect the E.T.A. When it became obvious it was an al Qaeda attack, the opposition howled about "lies" coming from the government.
4. Prime minister Aznar called on the people to march on March 12, in solidarity with the victims and for the defeat of terrorism. More than 11 million people, out of a nation of 42 million, took to the streets to condemn terrorism. The Socialist Party activists, however, found an opportunity to divide the nation. Well organized anti-war groups shouted at the nation's leaders during the march.
5. The Socialist party spread rumors, while their candidate remained above the fray, "a classic two-sided political strategy."
6. Socialist Party activists staged mass rallies across Spain on March 13, the day before the election. The day before an election is supposed to be a day of reflection, without campaigning. When the conservative candidate pointed out the illegality of the increasingly violent demonstrations, HE was criticized for campaigning during the quiet period.
7. Miniter contends it was the Michael Moore-style campaign of the Socialist Party that determined the election.
8. The Socialists attacked every government announcement, while accusing the government of lying and covering up.
9. The March 12 anti-terror demonstration brought more than 1/4 of the electorate out into the streets, and significantly increased voter turnout, which helped the Socialist Party.
10. Supporters of minority candidates used "tactical voting," as would occur here if a Nader voter voted for Kerry instead.
11. It's plausible that if there is a terror attack in the U.S. before the election, it would be blamed on the president for not preventing it. The democrats would demand an investigation and criticize it constantly.
12. If there is another attack here, it will be another Madrid, with the opposition mobilizing rapidly and using the same techniques:
a. Mass demonstrations led by radicals
b. Constant allegations of government "lies" c. Skepticism of "slow" release of information from the government
d. An increasingly hostile media, which gives more credit to critics than to government officials
e. A Barrage of personal attacks on the leader
f. Questions about "intelligence failures"
g. A cynical attempt to hijack the grief of victims and survivors.
Miniter sees these tactics as typical of the left-wing dominated "antiwar" movement that emerged simultaneously in all Western countries following the liberation of Iraq. They appear to be shifting from opposing the occupation of Iraq to opposing the War on Terror.
They appear to be shifting from opposing the occupation of Iraq to opposing the War on Terror.My quibble would be that they've always opposed the War on Terror. :')
George W. Bush will win reelection by a margin of at least ten per cent
Thank you kindly for the ping...
Bump this dang thing to the top... :)
Going UP!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.