Posted on 03/22/2006 6:23:31 AM PST by Timeout
I've been around FR for 9 years. I've never posted a Vanity before. But I've had a bellyful of the dangerous rhetoric I hear and read every day.
The letter below is a shout out to Republicans who purport to represent me on TV and in the press. It's probably ragged and long, but I think it's imperative for you to read it and consider it when you're developing your daily "talking points".
Do you ever listen to yourselves?
Do you listen to the foundations of the questions you're asked?
Some very insidious "conventional wisdoms" have snuck into the national debate and you're not shooting them down. They are repeated ad-nauseum by Chris Matthews on Hardball every night, from whence they find their way onto the sets of Meet the Press, The Today Show, etc. They have become "established truth" and you've got to start challenging them.
I don't pretend to be smarter than you. I'm no PR expert. I'll leave it to you to boil these down to soundbites.
Here are just a few:
Point 1. BUSH/CHENEY TIED IRAQ TO 9/11:
Chris Matthews is the worst on this. How many times have I heard him snark: "70% of Americans believed that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. They think those were Iraqis on those planes!". Then he accuses Bush/Cheney of causing us to believe that.
First, a minor point. "Iraqis on the planes" is a trope Matthews has developed over time. He used to just spout the first part, but now he always throws in that part about the nationality of the hijackers. Go back and get that 2- or 3-year-old poll Chris is citing. Face him with facts about the poll.
More to the point, I am one of those Americans Chris makes so much fun of. I believe Saddam knew about and/or had some role in 9/11. Do I have concrete evidence? No. Did I hear Bush or Cheney say it? No (they never did). I simply believe it. Kind of like I believe O.J. killed his wife and Ron Goldman---though a court told me he was innocent.
Talking heads need to address this head-on with Chris. He repeats it every night, several times. Challenge his assertions. Just because I believe Saddam was involved, it doesn't have to follow that Bush told me to believe it. Chris makes fun of us, but we think Saddam craved vengeance against the U.S. We believe the old saying: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". Why wouldn't Saddam have kicked in with al Queda? He is extremely cunning. Why wouldn't he have seen al queda as a means to attack us and leave no fingerprints?
Did Mohammed Atta meet with Iraqi intelligence agents? We don't know...it's inconclusive. But Chris apparently knows what no one else knows...it didn't happen! Challenge him to tell us HOW he knows that. Chris and his cohorts repeatedly mis-quote the 9/11 Commision, saying there were NO TIES between Saddam and Al Queda. Not true. The 9/11 Commision says there's NO EVIDENCE of OPERATIONAL ties. The report actually cites many ties between Iraq and al Queda. Bring with you the video of Lee Hamilton and Tom Kean on that very point. When the media first began misinterpreting that section of the 9/11 report, they jointly appeared on TV to correct it. They said there WERE ties, the report is simply saying they found no "operational" ties----meaning they found no joint planning of specific attacks. And why do Chris and his ilk never ponder that "training plane" at Salmon Pac? When Chris smugly makes fun of me for believing Saddam supported terrorists, challenge him with the facts.
Point 2, BUSH LIED
OK, this one is so easy I just can't imagine why you don't jump down the throat of anyone who says it. Bush, like the vast majority of Congress, our allies, and the U.N. relied on the intelligence available. Even Bush-nemesis Joe Wilson believed Saddam had WMD. Saddam's own generals believed he had WMD.
SADDAM LIED. If he didn't have WMD (still an open question in my mind), he certainly WANTED the world to believe he did.
Point 3. BUSH MADE THINGS WORSE BY INVADING IRAQ.
No one ever challenges war critics to say what they believe would have happened if we'd left Saddam alone. Any idiot could see the sanctions regime was short lived. And Oil for Food would still be feeding Saddam's wicked regime right under our noses. Would he have resumed his weapons programs (we do know he retained "capability"). Would Libya have renounced its terror regime? Would we have uncovered the Pakistan nuclear proliferation? What kind of atrocities would be happening every day at Abu Graib----and would we even know about it? Would Afghan terrorists have found safety in Iraq after being routed from their home base? And would they be attacking Afghanistan from their refuge in Iraq? Would Saddam still be firing at our "no fly zone" planes every day---would there even BE a no fly zone (probably not)???
Challenged to paint the alternative picture, they'll inevitably spout their "make love, not war" mentality. They won't be able to resist spouting their naive world view: America is bad, France is good, Saddam was misunderstood, Bush caused 9/11, and so on. Force them to say these things.
Point 4: WE CAN'T WIN IN IRAQ
This one is specifically for Sean Hannity. He says on every program that Dems and the media are deliberately trying to "undermine the morale of the troops". True, but it misses the point.
The constant drumbeat against the war is meant to undermine the will of the American PEOPLE, not the troops. True, the troops rely on support back home and they will be demoralized if we stop supporting their mission. But be specific: the Dems and the media are engaged in a specific effort to erode public support for the war...yes, it's just like Vietnam, only not in the way they usually employ that accusation. Underscore the enemy's strategy: setting off bombs is easy. And the resulting headlines are a gift from Allah!
Oh, and while we're on the subject, when a Dem says "I support the troops", hit him with this: "You only seem to support the troops when you can make them into victims". When did you hear a Dem praise some heroic unit or individual act of bravery? You didn't. Liberals love victims, so after their debacle of villifying troops in Vietnam, they had to figure out how to appear "patriotic". Who does a liberal love? A victim. Voila! They love soldiers who've been maimed or killed (and can be held up as a reason to stop the war). They seek out soldiers who criticize the mission and the president. And oh-how-they-love those national guard troops who whine that they never meant to go to war! They just signed up for the free tuition! In truth, Dems may support an individual soldier, but they hate what soldiers do. They only love the ones who hate their jobs or can be made into fodder for the nightly news.
Point 5: BUSH HAS MADE US SO UNPOPULAR IN THE WORLD!
This one has really taken hold. Pundits: Don't you find it odd that no Dem or media talking head ever faults an ally for failing to live up to its obligations? If France undermines U.S. policy, it's Bush's fault. If Spain loses its will and stops fighting, it's Bush's fault. If bombs go off in London, it's Bush's (and Blair's) fault. If "youths" riot in Paris, it's because Bush stirred up the Muslim street. I could go on, but it's time someone pointed out that the Dems never fault an ally for failing to support us. Nor do they ever praise or thank one who does stand with us (think Australia). Have you heard a single Dem denounce Iran for suppying arms/explosives to the terrorists in Iraq? Point out how they squirm when something good happens (like the Iraqi elections or a reduction in American casualties). Likewise, they seem almost gleeful when something horrible happens---a big explosion or the threat of civil war in Iraq. Call them on it. They're rooting for defeat simply because they despise Bush and can't stand the thought of him being vindicated.
Point 6: THIS WAR IS COSTING SOOOOOOO MUCH (wringing hands).
Please arm yourselves with data showing how much we were spending to keep Saddam "contained". Include the Gulf War and the Keystone inspection regime in your costs. Oh, and throw in Clinton's feckless deployment of troops in 1998...and then his pulling them out after Kofi Annan announced he could "do business" with Saddam. And, going back to point 3, we have no way of knowing what other expensive deployments may have been necessary if Saddam were still in power and we weren't fighting the terrorists in Iraq.
Point 7: YOU'RE CHALLENGING OUR PATIOTISM!
Puh-leeeeze. Just respond: "You can take it any way you want. I thought I was challenging your judgment and fitness to lead this country". Another good retort would be: "Are you anti-war or anti-American? Or maybe they're the same thing".
Point 8: THE UGLY TRUTH ABOUT OUR ENEMIES
This is a tough one. I heard Diane Feinstein last night and her words scared me to death. Out of one side of her mouth she was saying how we have to be tough and fight the war on terror. But the other side of her mouth betrayed what I think is the major faultline in fighting that war. Feinstein engaged in hand-wringing over the NATURE of the enemy. To paraphrase her, this battle in Iraq is so awful that we HAVE to find a way to WITHDRAW! And Chris Matthews was wowed by her, asking why in the world the Dems haven't put forth her arguments as their solid front against Bush and the Iraq war.
Think about that. We're facing terrorists who cut off heads, booby trap dead children, bomb mosques, etc. And Feinstein, Matthews et al are saying: OK, since you're so terrible, we won't fight you. In actuality, they're sending al queda a signal to keep on doing what they're doing. We'll keep our Marquis de Marbury rules (and feel really good about it!) . We won't fight you because "you're not fair!".
Republicans may not like being the bearers of bad news, but someone has to tell Americans how easy it is for our enemies to perpetuate such fears. For example, what's to stop them from taking a pre-school hostage in....let's say, Tulsa? Suppose they proceed to parade a child before the cameras every 2 days and cut off his/her head. Suppose they demand that the president withdraw from Iraq, Afghanistan and the rest of the Middle East. If we storm the school, they've set bombs to ensure that everyone dies. (No one ever talks about Beslan anymore.)
I really hate even thinking about such things. But that's the point. Our enemy knows that their very ruthlessness is the key to sapping American resolve. Who wants to enter a contest or battle with an opponent who ignores all the "rules"? Sadly, we have no choice. And someone has to be the grown up and remind Americans that the "rules" don't always apply in this post-9/11 world.
What would happen in the above scenario? We know the ugly truth. The media would parade weeping, grieving parents before the cameras to plead for their children and blame every atrocity on President Bush. They and the Dems would present this as if BUSH were holding the kids hostage. It would all be turned into a Bush-bashing, rather than a wake-up call as to the deadly seriousness of our enemies. This is perilous territory. Once we signal to terrorists that we haven't the stomach to fight them....well, it's scary in the extreme.
--------------------------------------
There. Do you get it? Your daily talking points aren't getting the job done. It's become fashionable to avoid the hard truth because the media will immediately label you as a "fear monger". Well, folks, I'd rather fight and face the God-awful truth than hide behind niceties like the Geneva Convention (which doesn't even apply here) and the U.N. General Assembly (which wouldn't be unhappy to see the U.S. defeated). The Dems have largely succeeded in portraying Bush as dangerous, incompetent, untrustworthy, etc.
It's time to strike back with a drumbeat of the truth: Dems are dangerously NAIVE and refuse to accept that we face a terribly ruthless, imminently patient, diabolical enemy. The libs and the media will fight back furiously, claiming you're trying to stifle dissent and that our tactics would make the world even more dangerous. But you have to pose this question to the public: If you had to bet your life on who's right, which scenario would you choose? The rosy one which assumes our enemies will play nice if we'd just leave them alone? Or the one that assumes there are monsters in the night and we have to fight them on their ground, using whatever tools and tactics will defeat them? The libs' "peace and love" fantasy brought us to this state. America must reject them. If not, maybe voters should just demand that coffins be made a federal benefit.
I'll probably get flamed for saying it.
Good vanity Timeout.
Ditto on your points.
Dont' hold your breath. The Repubs do not have a reputation for fighting the lies and crime of the left. (understatement). The left continues to set the agenda with little or no opposition.
Amen! Many of the commentators have no historical perspective or experience conducting field operations.
Marquis de Marbury
I think you are conflating the Marquess of Queensberry (boxing rules) with Marbury v Madison (Supreme Court ruling that established the power of the Supreme Court).
Not on the foreign OR domestic fronts.
Think you have done a good job with this vanity.
I just don't understand why the White House staff is not more out front of all the blatherings of the left.the MSM just goes on day after day. And the President takes a couple of a trips a month. That just does not hack it!
General Giap of North Vietnam knew if he could sustain casualties long enough he could win in Vietnam. He did. And I am sure our enemies understand this, altho the American media has not read our own history.
Time will tell.
Good Vanity.
One question: Who is Chris Matthews?
My reference to Marquis of Queensbury rules was meant to point out how we are undermined by having to play by the rules. We have to follow all the conventions while the terrorists laugh at such niceties (except when one is captured!).
As for Marbury vs. Madison, I hate to think how long this rant would've been if I'd included such subjects as: judges using international law to interpret our constitution, gay marriage, Dem obstructism in the Senate, media lies about the economy....it's a long list.
Not to say the talking heads are doing any better on those subjects. I just had to draw the line somewhere and I chose to address war-related subjects.
I think these same thoughts daily. Liked your piece.
"I've been around FR for 9 years"
Thanks to people like you, the 'media' are not completely getting away with their crap anymore. The blogs / talk radio have become the anti MSM. Sure the big three nightly newscasts have large audience numbers, but not like the past. Fox News (still too liberal) has twice the ratings of CNN and four times the ratings of MSNBC.
Rush has a daily radio audience in the tens of millions.
The momentum is changing.
A wonderful vanity, Timeout. You're an excellent writer and really should consider posting more often than once every nine years! Thanks for a clear, well thought out read this morning.
Thank you.
Hit the nail on the head.
keep it up.
tell others
Fred Barnes, please pick up the courtesy phone.
you should shop this around for publication somewhere.
Excellent.
Notice that Rush was the only commentator willing to stand up for the Port deal.
Our own blabber mouths called those who supported the deal lots of nasty words, including kool aid drinkers, etc.
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.