Operation Spread the Truth (Response to Democrats and Sheehadists attacks)

Earlier today, President Bush launched his first round of response fire to the Democrats and Anti-War bafoons who have been attacking and trying to take down our commander in cheif, as well as dishonoring and attacking our troops. Fellow FReeper CharlesWayneCT and I had an idea...start a thread that would be reposted daily about "Spreading the Truth"

Within the past few hours, Scott McClellan has released attacks on Kennedy and Kerry. It seems something is brewing and we should help out!

This thread will be a place for FReepers to co-ordinate call ins to radio stations, letters to editors, rallies, and any other way of Spreading the truth pretaning to the run up to and the Iraq War...

Please ping anyone who you know might be interested.

Remember:And our debate at home must also be fair-minded. One of the hallmarks of a free society and what makes our country strong is that our political leaders can discuss their differences openly, even in times of war. When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support. I also recognize that some of our fellow citizens and elected officials didn't support the liberation of Iraq. And that is their right, and I respect it. As President and Commander-in-Chief, I accept the responsibilities, and the criticisms, and the consequences that come with such a solemn decision.

While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. (Applause.) Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs.

They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein. They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing his development and possession of weapons of mass destruction. And many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: "When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security." That's why more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate -- who had access to the same intelligence -- voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power. (Applause.)

The stakes in the global war on terror are too high, and the national interest is too important, for politicians to throw out false charges. (Applause.) These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will. As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them. (Applause.) Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough. (Applause.) And our troops deserve to know that whatever our differences in Washington, our will is strong, our nation is united, and we will settle for nothing less than victory. (Applause.) The fifth element of our strategy in the war on terror is to deny the militants future recruits by replacing hatred and resentment with democracy and hope across the broader Middle East. This is difficult, and it's a long-term project, yet there is no alternative to it. Our future and the future of the region are linked. If the broader Middle East is left to grow in bitterness, if countries remain in misery while radicals stir the resentment of millions, then that part of the world will be a source of endless conflict and mounting danger, in our generation and for the next.

Great idea. I can't answer private freepmail during the weekdays, but I'm here. A few general statements, which may be known to most but repetition isn't a crime:

The enemy is a master of deception and misdirection. They will use the truth in a manner which makes it unrecognisable. The best example of this tactic is the "16 words" of the SOTU address. Those words were true when they were said, and are still true today. But by subtly changing what was said, the enemy has, by and large, convinced america that they were false.
- They will argue that it was false because the white house claimed the words should not have been in the SOTU, even though the only reason the WH said that is because they didn't describe a "certainty".
- They claim that this was the ONLY reason we went to war, even though the vote for the war happened 3 months before these words, and they were a minor part of the argument.
- They claim he said Iraq bought uranium from Niger, when the actual claim was that the BRITISH said Iraq TRIED to buy uranium from AFRICA.
- They claim Wilson debunked this, when in fact he provided evidence FOR the claim (Wilson reported that Nigerian officials confirmed that Iraq sent a delegation to Niger in 1999).
It is nearly impossible to fight back on all fronts at once. When answering a critic, it is best to pick a single strong argument, use it to refute a critical point of your enemy, and then note that the enemy is unbelievable.
- A letter-to-the-editor should be simple, direct, and start with facts for your side on ONE issue before pointing out how the facts debunk the opponent.
- In public debate, avoid personal comments, stick to facts -- but that includes the fact that your opponent is misleading.
- The word "liar" is much stronger than it appears, and will often turn off those you are trying to persuade, even if it is accurate. Better to simply note your opponent is WRONG, rather than attributing motive.
The Ombudsman can be your friend, if you speak to him clearly, and on-point, and with your own words. The Washington Post ombudsman discussed in his column this Sunday what gets his attention, you should read this and follow the advice: The Limits of E-Mails En Masse
Make friends with your local opinion columnists. Write them when they say things you agree with, and then tell them you want to read about this war stuff. Encourage them to look at the facts. Send them research material.
Make even better friends with the local opinion page editor. Write whenever a good column appears, and tell him that is why you read the paper. If a conservative writes in your paper, send letters to the editor when you agree, and when you disagree -- it shows that columnist is being read and attracting people.
Your local politicians probably avoid this national stuff. Explain to them how their constituents are effected by the morale-busting speech. If you have local guard troops, explain how the troops are affected. Better yet, if you have a connection to the troops, get those troops to send you e-mails explaining it themselves, and fire that off to politicians, to editors, to columnists, and to letters-to-the-editor.
If you are part of a local republican committee, get the committee to issue a resolution condemning the attacks on the troops, and urging support for "america" and its chosen foreign policy. If possible, hold a public news conference announcing letters sent to politicians about this "resolution". In other words, MAKE NEWS.
Another "make-news" activity. Picket. Show up at candidate forums, with simple slogans. WE NEED SOME GOOD 10-word or less SLOGANS. For those in Virginia, the new governor-elect is having 5 town-hall meetings. If we had pickets outside, and if inside we could get a question to him about how he feels about the democrats lying about the war for political gains, it might make the news.

I know I'm preaching to the choir, or more to the point I'm writing to people who have BETTER ideas, who have been at this a LONG time, longer than I have, and who have real-life experience with picketing and making a difference.

I hope this post has been helpful to some, and I'm certain that those who are more knowledgable than I will correct my mistakes, and expand on any good ideas I might have expressed.

Please don't take this as "criticism", just a different approach some might try.

While it is literally true that Kerry voted against the 87 billion, and it made a great sound bite for the election, I think most of us understand why he did so, and realise that in the end he was not voting to deny troops what they needed. Certainly his vote would have DONE so had it been deciding, but by highlighting that, I think that others who also would understand the reason for his vote will think us partisans rather than truth-seekers.

For me it isn't what money they vote for, or against, because of procedural issues. It is when they claim that the war is illegal, or immoral. It is when they claim that the government is sponsoring torture, that we were lied to to go do war, that the people who voted FOR the war regret their vote and think the troops are dying for nothing.

To the degree we can make this about re-writing history, about how that demoralises the troops, about how fighting over the "VOTE" for a war that we are now fighting, rather than debating alternative ways we can move forward, we can win the public relations battle.

My personal emphasis is on how AMERICA is at war, not just the Bush Administration. Those who work for AMERICA are responsible for the war, not just the president who asked for the vote. When people who are IN THE GOVERNMENT claim that the GOVERNMENT is behaving immorally, they are blaming themselves, and all of us as citizens, for immoral behavior.

And when they do so with no proof, they are not doing the "honorable" thing by "dissenting", they are just lying for personal political gain.

Like I said, I'm not faulting anybody who wants to focus differently, just that I think this approach would work better. I'm just one guy, and not an old-timer to politics.

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.