W's message is still undelivered

New York Daily News ^ | June 15, 2004 | Zev Chafets

[pctech]

On Monday, Vice President Cheney went to Florida, where he reasserted there were "long established ties" between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.

Yesterday, during a Rose Garden news conference with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, a reporter invited President Bush to dissociate himself from this crime against conventional wisdom. "As you know, this is disputed within the U.S. intelligence community," the reporter said. "Would you add any qualifiers? What do you think is the best evidence of it?"

An annoyed look came over the President's face. It was boiling in the midday Washington sun. Poor bald Karzai was standing there without his lambskin hat, sweating. Bush was hot, too, and hungry; He had already mentioned lunch.

"Zarqawi," he snapped at the questioner. "He's the one who's still killing."

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the current jihad commander in Iraq, lived in Baghdad before Saddam's overthrow. No foreigners - certainly no notorious international Islamic terrorist foreigners - lived in the Iraqi capital without connections to Saddam and his regime.

Bush would like the country to take this as prima facie evidence of the Saddam-Osama Bin Laden relationship. But it won't. The President hasn't made the case.

Partly, this is the press corps' fault. As a recent Pew study revealed, journalists who work for elite national organizations are almost entirely liberal or moderate. Most won't vote for Bush. Many want to see him lose.

The idea that Bush invaded Iraq under false pretenses - and that Saddam had nothing to do with Bin Laden - is an integral part of the case against the President. Nothing less than a videotape of Saddam being inducted into Al Qaeda would constitute the sort of proof the press is now demanding.

But Bush has mostly himself to blame for the public's skepticism. He earned it by not telling the truth about why the U.S. went after Saddam. This is what he should have said after 9/11: "The Arab world has declared war on us. For decades, a great anti-American front has been building from North Africa to the Persian Gulf. The Saudi royal family and its Wahhabi missionaries belong to this front. So do the ayatollahs of Iran and their Lebanese surrogates, Islamic and Palestinian terrorist groups and Baathist dictators like the Assads of Syria - and Saddam Hussein.

"Some of these enemies are Shiite; some Sunni. Some secular, some Wahhabi. These are meaningless distinctions. The anti-American forces in the Mideast know one another and cooperate in shifting alliances.

"Our job now is to end this jihad by knocking the wind out of it. We could start in a lot of places, but Iraq -the heart of the Arab world - seems most effective. Everyone in the Middle East knows that this is war and that Saddam is engaged in it. Knocking him off will demonstrate the danger of being on the wrong side."

This is the real reason that Bush went into Iraq. But he didn't say so. It would have sounded too harsh in America's politically correct climate. Worse, such frankness would have offended the Saudis. Bush chose a different approach. He declared war on terrorism. He was being intentionally ambiguous - and now his political rivals have turned that ambiguity against him.

The President would like to intone "Zarqawi" and close the case on Saddam. But it won't work. Before this election is over, he'll to have to name the real enemy -Islamic fascism - or wind up looking like a man who went to war by mistake.

[counterpunch]

I don't understand the constant claim in the elite media that Bush hasn't made the case. He hasn't even ever had to. Americans have known what we're doing and why since before we did it.

So when has Bush "mad his case"? After the media declares he has?

The media reminds me of something from when I was a child.
I was caught taking a cookie by my mother. She said "Put that cookie back!" I said "what cookie?" "The cookie in your hand," said my mother. "I don't have a cookie!" I said, not even trying to hide it...

The media is playing the same frustrating game. They will just deny the evidence, they will deny the justification, no matter how obvious it is to everyone else. We have to just accept this. No matter what, the media will not budge on it, so we might as well give up trying to make them acknowledge the obvious. The best tact to take, rather than getting red in the face over it, is just to begin ridiculing them for their stupidity. The media are the emperors with no clothes here. We are not obligated to play along with their insistence that "Bush hasn't made the case." Afterall, hasn't he made the case to you?

If this had been WWII, the media would be in full holocaust denial, and we'd still be debating whether or not Hitler was a direct threat to America.

The John Kerry Files

[My2Cents]

I agree with you. It's taken me some time to come around to the notion that we aren't at war with "terrorism," per se, but against an ideology of death that uses terrorism as at tactic. It would have been like characterizing WW-2 as a "War on Militarism," not fascism.

There are clearly warring factions within the Administration (State vs. Defense is one obvious conflict), and I fear that "War on Terror" is the best consensus within the Administration that the White House could create. But I wonder if Bush squandered his political capital immediately after 9-11 by not pushing to define this war as one against Islamo-extremism. Then again, I wonder if Bush himself didn't want to define the war in that way, because of his obsession with being moderate in tone.

[My2Cents]

Unfortunately, I do think this is a timing thing. What I hope is that Bush makes a major address to the nation and comes out with a formal "final report" on Saddam's WMD and his links to international terrorism, well before the election. Granted, the bulk of the electorate has an attention span of about 20 seconds, so a major pronouncement of this type probably has its maximum impact just before the election; but I fear that the dopes in the electorate have been so conditioned by the leftist spin that an authoritative report on Saddam's terror links will fall on deaf ears. "Bush lied" is such a conveniently simple-minded reason to vote against the President.

[My2Cents]

These people would likely vote for Joseph Stalin if he ran on the Democrat ticket. They've already elected Caligula!

And that pretty much sums up the state of the modern Democrat Party.

The fate of this nation hangs by a very thin thread of decency, intelligence, and maturity. It could snap at any moment.

[My2Cents]

What I'd like to see is some official publication, perhaps from the Department of Defense, that lists all that we know about Saddam's WMD program and his links to international terrorism. An official one-stop source for all the definitive information we have on these subjects. Give a very high-profile announcement upon publication. Have it published in book form by a major book publisher. Put it on the shelves of every bookstore in America. Serialize it in Time Magazine (granted, they'd probably refuse). Have Rumsfeld do a book tour on all the usual stops (The Today Show, Larry King Live, etc.) The definitive "Saddam's Links to Terrorism, and the Threat of Iraq's WMD Program" report.

True, the information is out there for those willing to put it together, but this drips-and-drabs approach that the Administration has taken, particularly in the face of fierce and unethical opposition and naysaying for political purposes, is frustrating. Stephen Hayes of the WEEKLY STANDARD has his book on the links between Saddam and UBL coming out very soon. Why do we have to rely upon the likes of Stephen Hayes to pull all of this information together? Why isn't the Administration doing it?

[Steve Van Doorn]

We at freerepublic do read this information and are well aware of these ties. The main stream media doesn't do their job so it is completely up to Bush to do the job for them, which he is failing miserably in my opinion. Reagan was a great communicator, I believe Bush assumes too much.

[Peach]

That's what I want to know too. Why isn't the administration doing it?

The PR campaign is abysmal. Has Rove died or something? Has Bush lost his will? Something is wrong and I don't think it's a rope a dope strategy or that it's early yet.

It's never too early to get the truth out and let our troops feel more supported here at home by letting the country and the world know about the ties and connections and how important the war in Iraq was/is.

[Peach]

Yes. I think he assumes too much and he is unwilling to defend himself appropriately. He just takes it and takes it and takes it from the media and lets the leftists keep punching.

It's really making me angry with the president that he is so tone deaf to the importance of this matter.

He doesn't have to get down and dirty - he can tell the truth and still remain above the fray.

[My2Cents]

Well said. You've perfectly summarized my own questions and frustrations. I particularly like your comment that it's never too early to get the truth out, particularly if this would mean greater support for our troops in Iraq.

I back the President 100%, and I can make a case supporting war to get Saddam out of power based on WMD and the link to international terror, but it's a case I've largely put together myself (with the help of frequent posts on FR). The average voter doesn't have the time, resources, smarts, or inclination to connect the dots themselves. The White House has to do it for them, and this hasn't yet happened.

It's isn't good enough for either the White House or folks here to say, "Darn it! We've gotten this information out," because the way the WH is going about it is horribly ineffective, PR-wise.

[Dr. Frank fan]

I'm with you. Article is spot-on.

If there's a fatal defect of Bush, it is his utter inability to communicate his message well - which, fairly or not, is a key part of being an effective leader. Yes part of the blame can be placed on a hostile media, but that excuse only goes so far. If he can't overcome the hostile media (like Reagan did) he will simply lose, whether that's "fair" or not.

[carton253]

I love it...You are all up in arms because you believe that you are right about the link between Al Qaida and Iraq. And, for heaven's sake, if you can see the link, then why can't the President see it also.

To prove your case you have many articles written by many people. You have done research and are firm in your belief that you can link Iraq and Al Qaida. On this thread, you are very vocal and critical about just how this administration has failed.

Of course, your standard of proof is different than what this administration will need to prove the link. When the administration makes that link (and they will when the time is right) it has to be airtight and critic proof.

Your case is not airtight and it is not critic proof. If you went public (besides to the amen corner) you would have a hard time withstanding the criticism that would fall on you.

For every article you post...I could post an article that says the exact opposite.

For every source/expert you produce.... I can produce my own source and expert that says the opposite thing.

Jayna Davis' theory on the OKC and Laurie Mylroie's theory on the the first WTC are just that... theories. Both women make good strong cases....and it sells books.

Yossef Bodansky's book High Cost of Peace is equally compelling.

Yet, for every one of these fine books, I could produce books that say that exact opposite and are just as compelling.

When the President steps forward and says, "here are the links," they have to be rock solid...

Your thread...your posts are not.

Don't get me wrong, you and I believe the same thing...but we both know that we can't build the type of case of the links that the President will need on the proof that you have posted and linked. But, that proof is coming. The longer we have access to Saddam's files, the more we will see that international terrorism is just one big hornet's nest.

So, the President isn't tone deaf... He isn't just taking it and taking it. He is not unwilling to defend himself.

There's just a huge difference between posting on Free Republic and believing that you have solved the case, and having the evidence necessary to present to the nation that proves that you actually did solve the case.

[pctech]

I'm afraid that although Bush is by far the better candidate, that because of the shortcomings of not getting message out, for whatever reason, we could get stuck with a candidate that will further lead this nation to ruin with his liberal policies.

Of course the liberal media will have done it's job and will continue to oppose further conversative elements from trying to acquire public office. Henceforth, though the general populance is conversative by majority, we will be led by the liberal elite. Sounds like Russia to me.

[Peach]

I understand your point and am not angry when I respond, but many of those links contain rock solid evidence about the terrorists who Saddam harbored.

It is rock solid evidence that Saddam knew 9/11 was coming given the article published in his state run newspaper.

It is rock solid that in the 90'd the press was writing about the relationship with alarm. Those articles were written based on intelligence leaks.

Certainly the president's evidence needs to be different than ours. But the articles, most of them, are based on leaks, congressional and intelligence community leaks, and are as rock solid as can be found.

Many of the articles contain pictures and direct quotes from people who found items found in Iraq since the war started which suggests the relationship was undeniable.

Salman Pak - we have satellite proof of terrorists training on a plane. The evidence is there for us to see...certainly the president has even more evidence.

I don't believe he will ever make his case. Ever. I don't know why. I hope I'm wrong.

[pctech]

You know, you are very articulate in what you say, and you make a very good point. I just hope the evidence, when/if it does come out, doesn't come to late to affect the elections for Bush.

[carton253]

No, you are wrong. It is not rock solid evidence. Even the 9/11 Commission has stated that there is no evidence of a link between Al Qaida and Iraq.

No, if there is no link between the two, then there is not rock solid evidence that Saddam knew about 9/11.

Again...newspapers articles are not rock solid evidence. And intelligence leaks are not rock solid evidence. They are leaks. What if your leaks are wrong?

No, until you have proof, undisputable proof, you don't have rock solid evidence.

Salman Pak - Used for 9/11... can you make that link? You can make a compelling case...but I can make a case just as compelling that it wasn't.

I know all the work that you have put into the link between the two. I believe the link is there.

But if I were the President, I would not stand up before the American people with the evidence you think is rock solid and try to convince them that this evidence proves the link. I would fail...and fail miserably.

Your standard of proof and the President's standard of proof are light years away. It can't be based on leaks, articles, and the conspiracy theories of authors who write books.

It cannot be.

[Peach]

I don't believe I have said that Salman Pak is proof of Iraq's link to 9/11.

I am not even trying to link them to 9/11, although I do believe they were at least tangentially involved.

What I am trying to show is the relationship that Iraq had with AQ. That is pretty undeniable. Since this is a war on AQ and terrorism, that is all I'm trying to show.

[Peach]

And, I should have added, although I fully understand your points, there are murders committed for which there is never rock solid proof. People don't often videotape the thing. Often "proof" of guilt is circumstantial and a compilation of evidence, none of which taken alone prove guilt.

[EternalVigilance]

Making a case politically is not the same as making a case in court.

Instinctively, the American people know who the enemy is. They have had ample evidence of what that enemy is capable of.

The demands for some kind of 'proof' of anything are rabbit trails. For our side to go down them is a total waste of our strength and resources.

Better to keep our eyes on the task at hand. We must continue to demonstrate clearly by our actions that the lives and the security of the American people are what is foremost to us.

That is what will win this election.

[Dr. Frank fan]

Of course, your standard of proof is different than what this administration will need to prove the link. When the administration makes that link (and they will when the time is right) it has to be airtight and critic proof.

1. Our standard of proof is different from "what this administration will need" because frankly, given the media's stance, the President would "need" videotapes of OBL and SH signing an official declaration of alliance (at least).

2. This is never, ever going to happen. No amount of evidence could surface to make the media "admit" that links were there. Ever.

3. Which makes the supposed strategy of "waiting until enough evidence surfaces" or "waiting until the right time to release the evidence" or "waiting until the case is airtight", because this will supposedly fare better in the media, quite foolish. There is literally nothing Bush could say that the media would ever admit is "airtight" or "critic proof". If Bush is really waiting to spring an October Surprise of Iraq-AQ Definitive Links (which I doubt BTW), it will flop and the media will not only call it "unconvincing" (whatever it is) but will shift directly into criticizing-Bush-for-trying-a-political-stunt mode. (Think of their reaction to his going to Iraq... or landing on the aircraft carrier...) Count on it.

4. But Bush, being the President, does have what used to be referred to as a "bully pulpit". This has, in times past, been used by Presidents to go over the heads of the media and speak directly to the people, in a way people would understand and believe.

5. Let's face it, Bush is not a skillful enough communicator to be able to pull that off. At least he has not demonstrated this.

6. It is not unreasonable or unfair to wish that he was. Indeed, the reason we wish that he was, is generally because we would like for him to remain President for four more years.

Your case is not airtight and it is not critic proof. If you went public (besides to the amen corner) you would have a hard time withstanding the criticism that would fall on you.

No "case" for anything in the real world, particularly which stems from intelligence, is ever airtight or critic proof. This is an unreasonable standard to be set. And Bush has allowed this standard to persist.

It's probably correct to say that we, laypeople, would have a hard time withstanding media criticism were we to present the "case". However, Ronald Reagan would presumably have an easier time. We are simply lamenting the fact that Bush does not possess the skills of Ronald Reagan and pointing out that it is likely to harm Bush in the election. We lament this because the nation is poorer for it.

When the President steps forward and says, "here are the links," they have to be rock solid...

If that is the case then it is never, ever going to happen. Intelligence is never "rock solid", it simply does not work that way. If we require (because the media has set up these unreasonable ground rules and we have given in to the media) "rock solid" evidence before acting, we are doomed. If it's true that the ground rules are, "you need rock solid evidence of dictator-terrorist group links before acting against a dictator", that is the same thing as saying to all dictators who wish to harm the US, "hey, it's a good idea to use terrorist middlemen, as long as you keep your hands 5% clean, they'll never get 'rock solid' evidence and you'll be safe".

The fact that these are the ground rules (if that is the case) is of course due to the media, to leftists who seek civilizational suicide, to anti-Americans, and so on. However, a stronger President - a better communicator (and thus leader) - would not have allowed those ground rules to be set up in the first place. He would have spoken more forcefully and stood up to the naysayers for placing unattainable goalposts in the way of our national security. That is what we are saying.

we both know that we can't build the type of case of the links that the President will need on the proof that you have posted and linked.

It is the fact that the President "needs" a level of proof which can NEVER BE REACHED in intelligence matters, which shows his weakness in communicating sufficiently well to overcome media bias.

But, that proof is coming.

I would not get my hopes up. Oh I have no doubt that more and more will leak out, one bit after another, all supporting the big picture that you and I both believe. However, at no point will the media ever say "well, that's enough for us then", so if that *really* is the standard, we are doomed.

So, the President isn't tone deaf... He isn't just taking it and taking it. He is not unwilling to defend himself.

So far the evidence for this is lacking, but of course I hope you're right.

There's just a huge difference between posting on Free Republic and believing that you have solved the case, and having the evidence necessary to present to the nation that proves that you actually did solve the case.

The point is, the reason Bush finds himself in a situation where such a huge amount of evidence is "necessary" stems, at least in part, from his failure to communicate as a persuasive leader. I think there's little use denying this. And believe me, I wish it were not the case. But it is. Best,

[EternalVigilance]

Just a related thought...

The fact that the Left is making constant demands for 'proof' is proof in itself of an obvious truth: The Democrats are acting as advocates for the enemy.