Posted on 10/07/2004 12:05:07 AM PDT by kattracks
When Kerry says we shouldn't have attacked Saddam because he wasn't involved in the 9/11 conspiracy . . .. . . Bush's answer ought to be: "Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor. Hitler had nothing to do with it. But FDR realized we needed to fight all fascism, not just the fascist regime that attacked us. Yes, Hitler made it easy on FDR by declaring war on us. But if he hadn't, does anyone doubt that Roosevelt would have gone to war with Germany anyway?"
[snip]
When Kerry calls the war in Iraq a mistake and a diversion from the War on Terror . . .
. . . Bush should hit him between the eyes: "Al Qeada operatives are congregating in Iraq. We can kill them there before they can spread mayhem around the world. If we can hunt down those who would attack us in the caves of Pakistan and of Afghanistan and the streets of Fallujah and Baghdad, how is that a diversion from the War on Terror? It's not. It is fundamental to success in that war."
[snip]
And when Kerry accuses Bush of neglecting our allies . . .
. . . The president must set the record straight: "We have the single most important ally in the fight against terror: Pakistan is helping us hunt down terrorists who have escaped from Afghanistan. As to France, Germany and Russia, the evidence of the Oil-for-Food scandal suggests that no amount of diplomacy would have induced them to abandon a regime that was paying them vast sums of money to stay loyal."
[snip]
If the presidents works on his moves, he'll be back in the race.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Something else I wish Bush would say...
When Kerry says that OBL attacked us and not Saddam, Bush should make it clear that the capture or killing of OBL will not be the end. The War on Terror is more than OBL and more than Afghanistan. Saddam aided and funded terrorism. Removing him and his regime was a major blow to the global terrorists like Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
I don't think Kerry or a sizeable number of Americans, or most of the "International Community", even understand what the WoT is all about and I will say that Bush and his administration have not been very good at explaining his vision in that respect.
How many people reading this understand how important it is that Iraq become a free and democratic nation? This is what Bush meant by "draining the swamps". We can't kill all of the *mosquitos* but we can alter the landscape so that it's no longer a breeding ground for extremist ideology. Iraq is in the thick of the *swamps*, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Gaza and the West Bank, Yemen, Oman, etc. The greatest *bug spray* known to man is FREEDOM. In the case of Afghanistan and Iraq, in came in a can of whoop-ass.
understood,thanks for clearing that up...over here on the west coast, it seems anything out of new york or washington leans heavily to the left...what are some of the other solid papers/media outlets?
He did better in the town meeting format.
good post. I read another post on here the other day: "WHAT DOES KERRY THINK IS GOING TO HAPPEN WHEN WE GET BIN LADEN? THAT THE REST OF THE TERRORISTS ARE GOING TO ORGANIZE A BOWLING TEAM?"
LOL
don't insult turds by comparing Kerry to them!!
Why would Kerry worry about allies? We had all the allies we wanted in the first Gulf War and Kerry still voted 'no' on it.
i am glad you are not on the President's prep team. He will do just fine without you, thank you.
The DNC would love for him to respond as you have suggested.
As for your first analogy, they would say Osama and Saddam are ideological opposites: Osama an islamo-fascist, Saddam a secular tyrant who had a Christian for a Minister of Defense (Taziz).
Your second point is completely wrong-headed as it suggests there is a static, finite number of A-Q that are being cut down by our troops. The senior leaders of any terrorist network, A-Q or Baathist, are not the ones with AK's in their jammies or the homicide bombers, they are the poor schmucks at the bottom that are easily recruited.
All the President needs to do is tell the American people that it is better to err on the side of over-protection than under-protection. He needs to show his confidence in his judgement to act against Iraq in order to counter a threat that could have/ would have been all too real. If he shows America he is confident in that role as protecter, than he will mop the floor up with floppy.
I am just saying that every darned "undecided" voter shown n TV is anything BUT undecided. If GW can stay on the offense and make Kerry's record the subject then he can make progress. If the audience is filled with ringers he has to recognize it early and take matters into his own hands.
ooops, sorry, it's been added to the header.
Oh, I reread your post and NOW I understand it. Sorry.
You're right, of course.
I don't believe any of them are undecided.
BUSH good, Kerry BAD,, Demotrolls BONK BONK...
If Kerry is not in the news that means he DID BAD.
I agree completely with you. He needs to get Kerry on this. He could score points with exposing Kerry's immature, narrow-minded view of the War on Terror.
Seems the allies Kerry was counting on don't want anything to do with his Iraq "solution". Now what Sen. Kerry?
Dick couldn't suck Carl Rove's toes !
EEEEEWWWWWW! That's a visual I will have to force out of my mind before going to sleep. YUCK!
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.