COOPERATORES VERITATIS

I had stated in a previous post that "[w]hile it is good that President Bush is finally responding to the terrorist collaborating rhetoric of the anti-war pigs {1} on the left, his P.R. effort in regards to Iraq still falls way short of the mark."

To begin with I stated that he had to (a) give his speeches in prime time and (b) give them from the Oval Office so as to speak more directly to the American people.

Well, it seems that the President got the memo. Sunday night 9pm EST (6pm out here on the left coast) he spoke from the Oval Office about Iraq. In a speech that last just a hair under twenty minutes he touched all the bases that he needed to touch.

Regarding both the challenge and promise that lie ahead in Iraq he said:

Three days ago, in large numbers, Iraqis went to the polls to choose their own leaders — a landmark day in the history of liberty. In coming weeks, the ballots will be counted, a new government formed and a people who suffered in tyranny for so long will become full members of the free world. This election will not mean the end of violence. But it is the beginning of something new: constitutional democracy at the heart of the Middle East. And this vote — 6,000 miles away, in a vital region of the world — means that America has an ally of growing strength in the fight against terror. All who had a part in this achievement — Iraqis, Americans, and coalition partners — can be proud. Yet our work is not done. There is more testing and sacrifice before us. I know many Americans have questions about the cost and direction of this war. So tonight I want to talk to you about how far we have come in Iraq, and the path that lies ahead.

He rightly stood by his decision to invade Iraq despite the fact that WMD has not yet been found, although they found capacity to restart WMD programs. The only part of that I would take issue is his stating that the intelligence was wrong. That has not yet been proven conclusively. Given the fact that intelligence agencies on "Arab street" nations like Jordan and Egypt, the UN Security Council, and even intelligence agencies for countries like France, who, may I remind, were among the most vehement opponents of the U.S.-led invasion believed Saddam had WMD stockpiles. Also, when we consider the fact that given the pourous borders between Iraq and Syria and that Saddam new we were coming almost a year before we did, they had all the time in the world to move them to Syria. In fact, Charles DuefluerDirector of Central Intelligence Special Advisor for Strategy regarding Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Programs stated his belief in that possibility. Needless to say, the fat lady hasn't even taken her first singing lesson on the subject of WMD in Iraq.

The President then wins the Captain Obvious Award with this one:

That is an important question, and the answer depends on your view of the War on Terror. If you think the terrorists would become peaceful if only America would stop provoking them, then it might make sense to leave them alone. This is not the threat I see. I see a global terrorist movement that exploits Islam in the service of radical political aims — a vision in which books are burned, and women are oppressed, and all dissent is crushed. Terrorist operatives conduct their campaign of murder with a set of declared and specific goals — to de-moralize free nations, to drive us out of the Middle East, to spread an empire of fear across that region and to wage a perpetual war against America and our friends. These terrorists view the world as a giant battlefield and they seek to attack us wherever they can. This has attracted Al Qaeda to Iraq, where they are attempting to frighten and intimidate America into a policy of retreat.

I have two questions for the Maestro Murtha-led Crackpot Chorus chanting the demand for immediate withdraw refrain: (1) Why did Osama Bin Laden say before 9/11 that our premature withdraw from Somolia inspired him to think the U.S. was paper tiger that would cut and run when things got tough, thus giving the impression that al Qaeda could pursue its terrorist activity unabated if taking the fight to the terrorist only makes more terrorists? This, along with repeating the "Iraq is another Vietnam" canard of the "give appeasement another chance" crowd, is a major talking point of the letters sent by Zawahiri to his underlings to "keep up their spirits. This leads right into the second question, how's does it feel to want what the terrorists want?

Bush then followed up his Oval Office speech with a press conference where he pulled no punches on the loaded questions offered by the leftist media. Since, for the most part, he just repeated and elaborated on what he said in the speech the night before, I won't say much about it. But there is one line I thought was brilliant:

Well, the Patriot Act helps us connect the dots. And now the United States Senate is going to let this bill expire. Not the Senate -- a minority of senators. And I want senators from New York [read Chuck Schumer] or Los Angeles [read Barbara Boxer] or Las Vegas [read Harry "Dingy" Reid] to go home and explain why these cities are safer.

Since we are in such an inquistive mood, I would like to ask those same very senators along with a few of their friends ( Sens. Russ Feingold D-WI and Carl Levin D-MI) how leaking news of classified wiretaps, giving our enemies a heads-up as to our tactics for undermining their deadly activity, makes us safer? And how does trying to mislead the American public as to the legality of this make us any safer? Anyone with an I.Q. of an ice cube knows that both of these nonsensical acts of political posturing threatens our national security.

Here's your next memo Mr. President. Now that you got the engine in your Iraq P.R. machine fully tuned up and firing on all cylinders, it's now time to run right up the tailpipe of the machinery of the Axis of Weasels right onto victory.