How Bush Can Win This Election In One Bold Move ...

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.

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 ...

The problem you describe can more quickly be summarized by saying Bush is a bad teacher. Being a good teacher is a part of being a good (effective) president. I've heard Giuliani speak on all sorts of issues (as far back as 1987 on PBS-type shows). He's a superb teacher. He should tutor Bush on how to do it.

Thanks for writing this. It's excellent. I think this is a message which very much needs to get out, however I wonder if a televised speech is the best medium. It might be that a retrospective Bush speech at this point in time might seem too heavy for some viewers, unfortunately. Also as a speech it might expose the President to a flurry of specious arguments grounded upon nits, half-truths or conjectures. Could the same message be conveyed even more effectively as a documentary or infomercial run by a PAC?

Something else I would like to see is a side-by-side direct comparison of Bush and Kerry on all the major issues.

"...when will the Bush Campaign really get these truths out there? It should have been done long ago and all along."

I understand what you are saying. It's painful to watch and listen to all the sh*te the RATS are throwing around. But I'm trying to put myself into the shoes of the Admin; and here's what I would do...

I would wait until the most opportune time. Gather every ounce of evidence I can. Then make a presentation such as Powel did at the UN.

ONLY THIS TIME I WOULD BE ABLE TO PROVE THAT EVERY WORD HE SAID WAS TRUE.

How? With the mountains of documented information obtained since the fall of Saddam. With the help of the New Iraqi Government. And (possibly) testimony that comes out during his trial.

Why do you think there's so much objection to a quick trial in Iraq? The Dems would rather see a civil war break out. I look forward to the Dems utter demolishment. When? Whenever the Admin thinks it will hurt the most...

Good morning, Fred
What you say sounds so good--and occasionally the White House seems to hit the Dems/Libs with a real whammy that knocks them for a loop--I hope that's the plan going forward.
If so, they will look like geniuses...and I'll be happy to be the one who looks impatient and un-savvy and un-schooled in the way of politics.

Actually, I tend to deal with it very well ... Republicans reflect my moral values far better than Democrats do ... and considering that Islam is very strongly pro-trade, anti-dependency and pro-property rights, the GOP reflects my economic views far better as well.

Etc.

Is yours the same religion as that practiced by the Taliban and Wahhabis? If so, how does one honor that religion and the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights along with the other amendments?

How does the call for death to infidels fit in with the guarantee of freedom of religion?

No hostility meant; I just don't see any compatibility between the two views.

Republican leaders think that people are smart enouhg to figre things out.....Democrats KNOW people are dumb.."It's the Economy ,Stupid"..."stupid" was the people and they were too stupid to figure out that Clinton was calling them stupid. geesh.

Is yours the same religion as that practiced by the Taliban and Wahhabis? If so, how does one honor that religion and the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights along with the other amendments?

Islam, like Christianity, has many diverse sub-divisions. It is very possible to be a muslim and not be a Wahabbist, a Taliban or a Jihadist. Christianity, after all, includes both John Kerry and George Bush.

Islam, like Christianity, has many diverse sub-divisions.

Understood. I just don't hear many of that religion disclaiming the radical islamist factions. Until that happens (a Reformation of mohammadism) the problem is in telling one from another.

I'm not sure where Sgt. Akbar stood on the continuum, but tossing grenades at his former buddies gives me a good idea.

The refusal of groups like CAIR to deny and expose the radical islamists in the U.S. and the continued efforts of the Saudi government to fund the radical clerics around the world make the possibility of tolerance of that religion very unlikely, in spite of the Constitution (it is not a suicide pact, after all.)

Right on. Bush would sew it up by dumping Cheney, and replacing him with McCain or Giuliani. Condoleeza Rice or Bill Owens would give the Dems fits, too. Or former Illinois Governor Jim Edgar, who would bring that state into play. Rick Santorum or Bill Frist, Tommy Thompson (picking up Wisconsin) - the list is endless. Cheney could and should remain a close advisor, but he doesn't need to be veep. But these guys would rather lose than be flexible, or admit that their team is anything less than perfect.

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.