Posted on 07/03/2004 6:12:31 PM PDT by MAKnight
I have a friend, a wonderful person all round, who happens to have a very annoying habit. He routinely leaves out important details when giving directions or describing something. And what is even more annoying about it is that you could swear it was deliberate. If you ask him to describe Michael Jordan, he would describe everything else perfectly but leave out the fact that Michael Jordan is an African American and bald. If you ask him to describe Big Ben, he would leave out the fact that it has a clock at the top. A group of us, following his directions, passed in front of where he was four times before somebody he was there with, frustrated, snatched the phone away from him to tell us that there was a very noticeable big red neon sign over the door. Apparently he had been told repeatedly to tell us about the sign but he simply did not think it was necessary, so he repeatedly refused to mention it.
George Bush reminds me of this man. He keeps leaving out very important details, thinking they are not neccessary. We have heard him give speech after speech dozens of times reminding us of the importance of fighting the war against terror. But he consistently neglects to explain how Iraq tied into it and how and why that decision was made. Considering the Press' war against his credibility with the American public, something that I find hard to believe that Karl Rove, wunderkind that he is supposed to be, did not predict, the White House should know now that the President simply repeating in speech after forgettable speech that Saddam was a supporter of terror simply would not do. What the American people need to hear is the reasoning behind the President's decision to go to war in clear, concise terms and to be shown the evidence that supported it. What the American people need to hear is how the war in Iraq tied into the war on terror. Even more, what they need to hear is that Afghanistan and Iraq are far from being the unmitigated disasters the Press has worked so hard to portray them as.
There's a reason why incumbents hardly ever lose re-election. Incumbents possess the bully pulpit; in other words, when they talk, people listen. And there is no doubt that no other person on Earth has a bigger bully pulpit than the President of the United States. When Bush made his decision on stem cells, the networks all stopped what they were doing to broadcast it live. If Bush should announce that he would be giving a speech on the war on terrorism, the most important issue in this election, live from the Oval Office, the networks would have no choice but to broadcast it. If Bill Clinton's Monicagate confession could be broadcast live, then so can this.
A tour de force performance that hits all the right points would do wonders for his campaign and wreak serious havok on the efforts of the Press, the Democrats (I repeat myself) and Hollywood to destroy his administration and re-election chances. Here's my general idea of what points the President should alight on in his speech and what he should make sure to include, if he ever decides enough is enough and actually stands up to defend his administration's achievements instead of passively allowing his enemies destroy him.
[1] "Recent events have suggested to me that this administration may not have done enough to communicate our new national security policy in the context of the attacks on America on the eleventh of September, 2001. This is especially so with regard to the War in Iraq and how it ties in to the War on Terrorism. I will now proceed to rectify the situation as best I can and so would other members of my administration at every possible opportunity from here on in."
[2] America is engaged in a War against Terrorism, not just simply a War on Al-Qaeda. There are many other terrorist organizations {list out so-called Islamic Jihad, Abu Sayyaf, etc.} today operating in many nations across the world, many of whom share the same fanatical hatred of the United States and its allies and our traditions of freedom and respect for human life. This is a war against not only the practitioners of terrorism, but also on its facilitators and sponsors, whether they be states or private entities.
[3] As President after 9/11, I realized complacency about state sponsors of terrorism is no longer possible. After Afghanistan which provided a base of operations for Al Qaeda, Iraq, under the despotic rule of Saddam Hussein was the foremost state that sponsored, trained and encouraged terrorists around the world. It provided safe haven for such terrorist masterminds as Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal, Abdulrahman Yasin and Ramzi Yousef (i.e. 1993 WTC Bombing) and Abu Musab Zarqawi. It provided a training ground and training for terrorists including training on hijacking aircraft at Salman Pak {show Salman Pak with the famous aircraft fuselage prominent in the foreground}.
[4] Even more alarming, after 9/11, was evidence from our intelligence agencies and that of our allies that Saddam Hussein had numerous contacts with Al Qaeda from as early as 199X and had even made some progress in coming to a non-aggression pact. According to the Justice Department in the indictment it prepared against Osama bin Laden in the spring of 1998, more than three years before 9/11, and I quote: "Al Qaeda [has] reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq." {produce other quotes, especially from Democrat members of the Congressional Intelligence Committees, the Clinton Administration and if possible foreign intelligence.}
[5] But what truly made Iraq a special case was its Weapons of Mass Destruction programs. In 1998, UNSCOM documented, and Saddam Hussein confirmed that Iraq possessed up to 8500 litres of anthrax, 20,000 litres of botulinum and tonnes of VX gas. When U.N. inspectors left Iraq, later on in 1998, when Saddam ceased co-operating with the inspections, they were unable to account for 550 artillery shells filled with mustard gas, as well as thousands of litres of VX, sarin, tabun and anthrax. This was the primary cause of Operation Desert Fox. Former President Clinton, carefully described Iraq's "offensive biological warfare capability, notably 5000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs". Clinton accurately reported the view of UN weapons inspectors "that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons". {produce other quotes and documents, especially from Democrat members of the Congressional Intelligence Committees, the Clinton Administration and if possible foreign intelligence. Highlight Iraq Liberation Act.}
[6] By early November 2002, more than four years after the last UN inspectors left Iraq, the UN Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441, demanding that Saddam Hussein give a complete and truthful accounting of his weapons of mass destruction programs. But of course, he did not. Hans Blix reported on 27 January 2003 to the Security Council that there were 6500 "chemical bombs" that Iraq admitted producing but whose whereabouts were unknown. Blix's team calculated the amount of chemical agent in those bombs at 1000 tonnes. As Blix reported, "in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for". In addition, Blix also reported that Iraq possessed 650 kilograms of "bacterial growth media", enough "to produce . . . 5000 litres of concentrated anthrax". {hold up copy of reports.} Saddam Hussein's regime continued to obfuscate and decieve, until I was forced to make the decision to remove him from power.
[7] In the end, it was Saddam's word against that of the Clinton Administration, our intelligence agencies, the intelligence agencies of our allies and the United Nations. If only half of all Presidential choices were this easy. This is a man who ordered the mass killing with chemical weapons of five thousand people in Halabja, who ran state sponsored rape squads, sheltered terrorist training camps and provided terrorists with sanctuary, rewarded suicide bombers, put innocent children in prison, murdered scores of thousands of his own countrymen, invaded Kuwait and violated seventeen UN resolutions. By any rational definition, he was a mad man. Considering that we have intelligence going as far back as 1994 showing that Saddam had relationships with many terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda (leading the Clinton Administration to cite this relationship in its indictment of Osama Bin Laden) {cite the 'bipartisan' 9/11 Commission reports that Saddam did have a relationship with Al Qaeda}, could this administration take the risk and assume that Saddam, or any one of his psychotic sons, would not give vials of botulinum, sarin or VX to a terrorist group, and not necessarily Al Qaeda? The answer was and is plainly, no.
[8] So what have we accomplished in Iraq? And how has this helped in the war against terrorism? (i) Destroyed terrorist training camps (ii) Eliminated a source of funds for terrorism (iii) Eliminated the potential threat of WMD from Iraq landing in the hands of terrorists {see [9]} (iv) Eliminated a terrorist regime that terrorized its own people and its neighboring nations (v) Shown that when it comes to combatting terrorism, the United States will definitely kick ass. How about the people of Iraq? What else have we accomplished in improving their standard of living? (i) Built XX schools and hospitals (ii) Built XX roads (iii) Revitalizing the Iraqi marshes (iv) Independent Press (v) Religious freedom (vi) XX thousand Iraqis have returned (vii) Iraq is now a sovereign human rights respecting nation (viii) Closed jails for children (ix) Economy is growing (x) No more mass graves (xi) etc. Saddam Hussein's regime killed over one million people in 24 years of terror, it is clear that while Saddam was in charge, Iraqis were never at peace.
[9] In terms of progress in discovering what happened to Iraq's WMD, a recent report by Demetrius Perricos, UNMOVIC acting executive chairman confirmed that Saddam Hussein shipped weapons of mass destruction components (including missile components, reactor vessel and fermenters – the latter required for the production of chemical and biological warheads) as well as medium-range ballistic missiles before, during and after the U.S. invasion of Iraq. The UNMOVIC report said Iraqi missiles were dismantled and exported to such countries as Jordan, the Netherlands and Turkey. In the Dutch city of Rotterdam, an SA-2 surface-to-air missile, one of at least 12, was discovered in a junk yard, replete with UN tags. In Jordan, UN inspectors found 20 SA-2 engines as well as components for solid-fuel for missiles. Charles Duelfer, head of US Weapons Inspection team has revealed on Fox News that he has found up to a dozen shells containing mustard gas and sarin with hundreds of weapons caches to go. Furthermore, Polish forces operating in Iraq have discovered a cache of chemical weapons. {physically hold up reports}
[10] To those who say the War on Terror or the War in Iraq would only cause more terrorism, I hold up the counter-argument of the attack on the WTC in 1993, the attack on the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 199X, the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen and finally September 11th. And it is clear that if the terrorists had found ways to make their attacks even more deadly, and thereby kill even more people, they would have done so. There is no appeasing these monsters. All they understand is force.
[11] etc.
If Bush were to demand live prime time coverage and deliver a speech hitting on all these points, winning his re-election would be a cinch. I think the entire editorial board of the New York Times, Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, etc. would come VERY close to committing suicide. And if that isn't motivation enough, what is? The only thing they can quibble about is that the President 'unfairly' used his bully pulpit to make his case to the American people when John Kerry can't do the same thing.
Now I am not arrogant enough to think I was the first guy to think of this. In fact, I'm fairly sure that someone working for the Bush campaign has probably thought of it. But I can't be certain. All I know is that if ever there was a time for this, it's now. The Press is going all out to get a Democrat into the White House and its obvious that they are willing to throw away their credibility to accomplish their mission.
So, if anybody here knows anybody who can get this to the Bush Campaign, where it would be seriously considered, you know what to do ...
Maybe not word for word, but that's what I expect. There's more to come, remember. The mood in Iraq is changing. More people will talk. We haven't heard it from the Iraqi scientists yet...it's going to get better and better. Patience, they say, is it's own reward.
Bump.
Frankly, I think the time for patience is over ...
Michael Jordan is bald? Let's discuss!
(Kidding. You're absolutely correct!)
How can Bush can win the election?
Select Rudy Giuliani as his running mate!
That is a slam-dunk victorious ticket (IMO).
Let's say this happened now. It would be news for a day and maybe a week. Then it would be swept under the rug as if it never happened while the media concentrated on more newsworthy events such as who will Lurch select as a running mate.
But let's suppose it worked. The Democrats would simply pull a Torricelli.
Bush has to spar with Lurch only enough to keep the polls close to even. The time for the knockout punch is late September or early October even if the Republicans have to use paid advertising on the alphabet networks to harp on this theme until election day.
Lurch has not pulled ahead in the polls. At best, he is running even. He will probably get a convention bump, but not enough to carry him into September.
Bush needs to respond with sparring jabs until then and save the knockout punch until 4-6 weeks before the election.
It can be done in one bold stroke -- but you have the wrong stroke.
CLOSE THE BORDER! DEPORT ILLEGALS! RESTART AND STEP UP THE SWEEPS! IMPLEMENT A RATIONAL IMMIGRATION PLAN! REMOVE THE AUTOMATIC CITIZENSHIP OF ILLEGALS!
Over 80% of Americans (100% of true Americans) believe in these steps and will support anyone with the stones to put them into place.
"The time for the knockout punch is late September or early October even if the Republicans have to use paid advertising on the alphabet networks to harp on this theme until election day."
Exactly. This is a risky rope-a-dope but will pay off because there is so much ammo and more coming every day. The debates are where the knockout punch will come when W states that Lurch had the same intelligence as he did and as Clinton, Russia, France etc. Then read Kerry's statements about Iraq in 1998 and 2002. It's not a problem of having the ammo but when to shoot it. Closer to the election when people are paying attention is the time-frame.
Sorry, but no way. Giuiani is fine for NY and a pretty good guy. However, his gun rights record is his downfall for national office.
A supporter of partial-birth abortion?
President Bush needs to stick with Chaney. He is a good man and to pick someone else will cause the libs to call him a flip-flopper. The "flip-flop" mantra is one of the strong points the Repubs have against Kerry in this race. Chaney will NOT be replaced by the admin. IMHO.
as John Kerry says, BRING......IT........ON!
The Vice President's name is Cheney.
Actions speak louder than words.
We need to see Osama in chains or dead.
Let's face it. Bush is not and never will be a great communicator.
Personally, I think he's satisfied to have gotten Saddam Hussein and doesn't really care about anything else, not even reelection. People attack me vociferously for saying it, but I think that assessment fits the facts.
i think Bush is getting to be like his father. I believe he doesnt want to win, he is probably sick of being president. I wouldnt blame him.
I think that MAKnight is right. We HAVE been patient and time is growing short...when will the Bush Campaign really get these truths out there?
It should have been done long ago and all along.
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.