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,
2. This has never been about the media. The 9/11 Commission doesn't believe it. Many Middle Eastern experts don't believe it. Many people working in Intelligence doesn't believe it.
3. Again...not about the media.
4. I'm tired of this. Bush has used the bully pulpit. He has spoken about why we went to war with Iraq. He does go over the media's head... he did so again today.
5. Oh, I get tired of this... Bush may not be a glib, scripted speaker, but he is able to get his point across. Heck, he's President... he was able to convey something.
6. I don't think the President's communication is something the American people get all up in arms about. They recognize that he has integrity even if he does have a fractured syntax.
Again...talking about the strength of Peach's evidence.
Ronald Reagan? come on... stay on topic. We are talking about the post I responded to...Not comparing Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush.
You're right...no intelligence is "rock solid." The WMD are proof of that... but, after the WMD debacle, who can blame the President for not storming forward on the evidence of intelligence leaks... When he does come forward, I think he will want to make sure that his evidence is as "rock solid as possible."
If the White House is waiting for that "air tight" proof, then this is evidence that the Democrats, Joe Wilson, and all the anonymous backstabbers in the CIA who vociferously attacked Bush's "16 words" in the SOTU about Nigerian uranium won the debate. If this is the case, Bush has allowed himself to be backed into a corner where "air tight" proof is the only way out. As you state, that proof is unlikely to materialize.
My desire is this: That rather than rely upon various leaks -- a news report here, a tidbit from Iraqi intelligence papers there -- Bush should come out with a major address that pulls all of the tidbits together into a list of evidence for Saddam's ties to al-Qaeda, and while he's at it, Saddam's active WMD program. The media would likely say, "That's not convincing," but the public would likely respond more positively to such delineation of what we know.
I'm critical of the Administration for not making a bigger deal about the foiled plot in Jordan to use a chemical bomb to hit the US embassy (the perpetrator received his training in Iraq, and the materials clearly came from Iraq as well); and that the Administration didn't trumpet the sarin shell that was attempted to be used as a roadside bomb in Iraq. These are only two examples of Saddam's active WMD program -- examples in the news which the Administration simply believes will connect with the American people. No, the American people have to be told the significance of these examples, and how they justify our effort to topple Saddam as part of the overall war on terror.
My point is I'm frustrating connecting the dots on my own. It's time the Administration kicked it into high gear to connect the dots for the American people. Simply laying out what is already known would be sufficient, and damn the media response.