Posted on 06/16/2004 10:18:55 AM PDT by 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.
Agreed. The 9/11 Commission has clearly shown that they it is not interested in making this nation safer, nor in finding such connections...they are only interested in finding fault, and to make sure most of it falls on the current Administration. As far as I'm concerned, the 9/11 Commission has discredited itself...However, the media, and the professional 9/11 victims, will continue to use it for their own purposes.
But again, the problem is President Bush says A and VP Cheney says B. It gives the perception that they are not singing off the same page and don't know what they're doing.
I think one of Bush's tendencies is to believe that if information is made available, the people will hear it, and come to the right conclusions. It's an honorable characteristic in Bush, but I think it's naive. While I believe that most of the polls are cooked, the last real poll we can go on showed that there were 49% of voters who voted for Al Gore over Bush, and these people are probably predisposed to doubt anything Bush says. If Bush believes that information about Saddam and AQ and WMDs can be made public in series of unrelated low-profile news releases from the Coalition Authority in Iraq, and that the America people have the wherewithal and the inclination to put 2-and-2 together to get 4, particularly with a hostile press which insists that 2-and-2 is 3, he runs the risk of being run over in this election, and everything he's worked for to secure this nation and to change the calculus in the Middle East will be lost. All because of a naive assumption about the ability and willingness of the American people to assimilate information.
I've thought about this too, and frankly, it's the only explanation that makes sense out of the Administraion's not telling all that it knows.
Sometimes the obvious has to be stated.
The 'emporer has no clothes' kinda thing. ;-)
Of course our media would just be thrilled to make them release top secret information that would absolutely harm our sources.
I am thrilled that the Bush administration does not talk. We have enemies among us and many are those complaining that they are too secretive.
I wish he would do something but I don't know what.
Such a horrible job he has. Surrounded by enemies as he tries to protect their country.
Again, maybe we should just point out to them - what he did, he did to protect this country from a massive attack. If they don't like it - the only alternative is a democrat who will not protect this country. It is their choice.
(Note: I was not talking about you personally when I mentioned this earlier - I was talking "you" in general. Hope you did not think I was jumping on you.)
I think Bush needs to start "hiring" anyone who can start turning the tide to his favor.
Oh I'm sure this will start happening more and more as election day draws nearer. The democrats and their media allies will pull out all the stops in order to keep Bush out of the White House for a second term.
I knew you weren't jumping on me. Somehow, Bush has to start communicating again. He did such a good job after 9/11 and has failed in the last year to make his case.
Republicans desperately need to understand that the entire federal bureaucracy outside the Pentagon is inherently antagonstic towards our policies; we need to get our people in the important positions from the very beginning, and they need to be serious ass-kickers that aren't afraid to take charge.
Impressive compilation, Peach! You're armed with the facts!
Hey sweetie. Thank you!
I just don't think he can make his case. No matter what he says - they will twist, malign or ignore it.
Just like we all worry about what the dems will say if we do this or that. It does not matter because no matter what we do - they will find fault with it, they will malign, twist or ignore.
So why should we care? Just do the right thing and quit worrying with what the dems will do.
Of course, I realize this is an election year and I am hoping for some manner of him getting his message out.
I read your posts, and I really don't don't know how you will make it to election day without having a nervous breakdown. (LOL - that's a joke...I do respect you very much) The American people aren't as stupid as you are making them out to believe. If you and I are able to come to the right conclusions, then why do you believe Voter A and Voter B, who are not as political as you cannot? I think it's selling them short. Way short. I'm looking around at the people at work... I have faith in them.
Please let me know where the President said A and Cheney said B...
No where in my replies to you did I claim to being having a private conversation. I said you jumped into the middle of a conversation and changed the subject.
I'm beginning to worry about your reading comprehension skills. :)
In responding to me and arguing with me, you gave me the impression that you do indeed think he is able to communicate just fine.
Let's see if I can make this simple for you... I do not think that the President is the world's greatest communicator. He is not Ronald Reagan. The first time I heard Mr. Bush speak...I realized that. He has trouble with his words and his syntax. What I'm saying is that I don't care that he isn't the world's greatest communicator. I believe, limits and all, he does a fine job.
I am supplying you with a possible explanation
I don't really need you to supply me with anything. I am able to draw my own conclusions without your help, thank you very much.
but don't tell me that it's irrelevant - because it's not.
There you go again... I didn't say that it's irrelevant.
Q The Vice President, who I see standing over there, said yesterday that Saddam Hussein has long-established ties to al Qaeda. As you know, this is disputed within the U.S. intelligence community. Mr. President, would you add any qualifiers to that flat statement? And what do you think is the best evidence of it?
PRESIDENT BUSH: Zarqawi. Zarqawi is the best evidence of connection to al Qaeda affiliates and al Qaeda. He's the person who's still killing. He's the person -- and remember the email exchange between al Qaeda leadership and he, himself, about how to disrupt the progress toward freedom?
Saddam Hussein also had ties to terrorist organizations, as well.
In other words, he was affiliated with terrorism -- Abu Nidal, the paying of families of suiciders to go kill innocent people. I mean, he was no doubt a destabilizing force. And we did the absolute right thing in removing him from power. And the world is better off with him not in power.
Seems to me that they are not singing from separate pages.
In fact, they have been singing from the same page since 9/11...
I respect what your saying, but it comes down to people being educated and informed. Most people aren't going to spend hours a week surfing the Internet to come up with information on something like the ties between Saddam and AQ. A frighteningly large percentage of people would rather believe the worst about Pres. Bush -- please don't confuse them with the facts. Fortunately, these do not constitute a majority. The swing voters can be convinced, but it will take a concerted effort to overcome the influence of a biased media upon their thinking and attitudes. All is not hopeless, but it gets down, ultimately, to the White House making an effective defense of its policies. It's still 4+ months until the election...plenty of time to make their case. I'll be relieved when they do.
And I explained why this is wrong (what I said was completely relevant). It's not my problem if you don't understand what's relevant to what you're talking about and what's not.
I do not think that the President is the world's greatest communicator. He is not Ronald Reagan. The first time I heard Mr. Bush speak...I realized that. He has trouble with his words and his syntax. What I'm saying is that I don't care that he isn't the world's greatest communicator. I believe, limits and all, he does a fine job.
Ok. That's all very swell.
However, since you AGREE with me then about Bush's communication skills,
1) why did you argue?
2) you might want to consider that his communication skills play at least *some* role in the predicament he's gotten himself into, regarding the whole "what's necessary to prove his case" thing. Just a suggestion. No skin off my nose if you don't.
I don't really need you to supply me with anything. I am able to draw my own conclusions without your help, thank you very much.
Excuse me but:
Why the h**l do you come to Free Republic? To write paragraphs and not have them responded to with any information you don't like, or believe digresses too widely, or adds information you don't want to hear? and tell people to Shut up if they do?
You are aware that this is a discussion site are you not?
There you go again... I didn't say that it's irrelevant.
LOL
You just claimed I "changed the subject" earlier in this very post. If what I did was (as you now seem to be acknowledging) add a relevant comment, how can that be "changing the subject"?
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.