Bush Wack: Turning personal tragedy to partisan capital
(cont'd from front page)
Al Qaeda's two part strategy
Bush then went on to outline al Qaeda's two part strategy for defeating America:
"According to al Qaeda, their strategy to defeat America has two parts: First, they're waging a campaign of terror across the world. They're targeting our forces abroad, hoping that the American people will grow tired of casualties and give up the fight. And they're targeting America's financial centers and economic infrastructure at home, hoping to terrorize us and cause our economy to collapse.
"Bin Laden calls this his 'bleed-until-bankruptcy plan.' And he cited the attacks of 9/11 as evidence that such a plan can succeed. With the 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden says, 'al Qaeda spent $500,000 on the event, while America… lost -- according to the lowest estimate -- $500 billion… Meaning that every dollar of al Qaeda defeated a million dollars' of America. Bin Laden concludes from this experience that 'America is definitely a great power, with… unbelievable military strength and a vibrant economy, but all of these have been built on a very weak and hollow foundation.' He went on to say, 'Therefore, it is very easy to target the flimsy base and concentrate on their weak points, and even if we're able to target one-tenth of these weak points, we will be able [to] crush and destroy them. '
"For al Qaeda, Iraq is not a distraction from their war on America -- it is the central battlefield where the outcome of this struggle will be decided.
"Now they tell us..."
The President outlines his 5 point plan for victory, or...
he illustrates five reasons why we should NEVER have elected as Commander in Chief someone who skipped out on Vietnam
After briefly sketching spurious parallels between 9/11 and Pearl Harbor, the President laid out his 5 point plan for victory:
"First, we're determined to prevent terrorist attacks before they occur. So we're taking the fight to the enemy. The best way to protect America is to stay on the offense."
(Hear that, Hugo Chavez?)
1a.) total surveillance at home
"When FISA [the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] was passed in 1978, there was no widely accessible Internet, and almost all calls were made on fixed landlines. Since then, the nature of communications has changed, quite dramatically. The terrorists who want to harm America can now buy disposable cell phones, and open anonymous e-mail addresses."
We need to be able to monitor anonymous cell phone calls, and open anonymous e-mail messages. And to those who oppose our efforts to do this, I ask, What's the matter? Have something to hide??? (applause)
"Second, we're determined to deny weapons of mass destruction to outlaw regimes and terrorists who would use them without hesitation."
You may ask, What about Iran, or North Korea?
Next question...
"Third, we're determined to deny terrorists the support of outlaw regimes. America makes no distinction between those who commit acts of terror, and those that harbor and support them, because they're equally guilty of murder."
We DO, however, distinguish these parties from certain Saudi families who continue to support Islamic extremists, who are, after all, business partners of my family...
...the business of America being business, and all , he mumbled. (applause)
"Fourth, we're determined to deny terrorist networks control of any nation, or territory within a nation." Failing that, we're bound and determined to prevent treasonous Democrats from seizing a majority on Capitol Hill!
"Fifth, we're working to deny terrorists new recruits, by defeating their hateful ideology and spreading the hope of freedom -- by spreading the hope of freedom across the Middle East." For this reason, we will be opposing Net Neutrality legislation, which would allow terrorists access to our nation's Internet "Tubes", and prevent Patriotic Americans like Senator Stevens of Alaska from receiving vital communiques, or "internets" from his staff, regarding America's vital infrastructure in Kechikan...
As we stand here today, "[we are] taking the side of democratic leaders [and] reformers across the Middle East. We strongly support... Lebanon's young democracy against the foreign forces that are seeking to undermine [that] country's sovereignty and independence."
Except, of course, as these matters pertain to Saudi Arabia's Royal Family, or Israel's recent invasion of Lebanon...