"No" is Not the Right Answer
Reported by Eleanor - September 21, 2004 -
Special Report with Brit Hume (Sept. 21, 6:00 p.m.), as expected, covered the CBS memo three times. Hume interviewed Allawi for about ten minutes, and he was positive about everything, including that the elections will happen; Fallujah is getting better; and a large number of the terrorists are outsiders.
Jim Angle said there was no applause for Bush except at the end of his speech, although he told them that Iraq is a common fight. Bush's summary of the CIA report on Iraq was "lousy - OK - better." Bush criticized Kerry on his "different" positions, and said he was hardly credible at all.
Carl Cameron quoted Kerry as saying that Bush did not give a true picture of Iraq; he failed to lead the world; he lectured the U.N.; and Bush missed a great opportunity of enormous importance. Kerry is attacking Bush in "increasingly personal terms." He vigorously denied his "flip flops" and he "struggled to clarify his positions." Then Cameron talked about the "mother of all flip flops," citing the one concerning the vote about going to war, knowing what he knows now, and other "before and after" the war comments. Cameron stated that Kerry's comment about not knowing if the war is illegal "pulled the rug from under the troops who are in harm's way."
The panel discussion was on: "Who's Stronger in their stance on Iraq?" Bush: "Freedom always carries a cost." Kerry: "The president missed an opportunity of enormous importance. He has no credibility to lead the world."
Hume: Bush and Kerry framed the issue and the contrast in their positions. Fred Barnes: Bush showed the difference. The proper response is not to retreat, but prevail. Kerry wants to get out, and the terrorists win. Mara Liasson: Kerry didn't say get out. He said get out with honor. Jeff Birnbaum: If all goes well, start getting out 3 months after taking office, with everyone out in 4 years. That raises a dangerous specter - retreat at any cost. Kerry's response about leadership that Bush lacks and he possesses - what does he mean? Hume: No one gets applause during a U.N. speech. Birnbaum: The problem with Kerry is what would he do to persuade allies? Barnes: Kerry's four points are: allies, reconstruction, training and elections. Chirac said he would not change his policy. Hume: Nor Germany or Russia or France. Barnes: Kerry didn't mention defeating terrorists in Iraq. He's avoiding it. Liasson: He said he would destroy them. Hume: Has he addressed the resistance. How he would deal with it? Liasson: No. Hume: Is it a problem that he's not dealing with the military situation? Does it matter? Birnbaum: It matters a great deal. He has no firm footing. Bush has a position. Hume: He said we would be better off if we had not taken out Sadam. Liasson: We'd be better off without Kin Jung Il. Barnes: Kerry wouldn't have taken him out. Liasson: He voted for authority, but would not have removed Hussein. Barnes: He voted for the war.
Comment: When Liasson answered "No" to the question about how Kerry would deal with the resistance, she lost the debate. Kerry has stated clearly how he would deal with the resistance. He would give the U.N. a share in the Iraqi contracts, including the oil contracts, to get U.N. support for humanitarian assistance, guarding the borders, and security. He would also give Iraqis the reconstruction jobs, instead of giving all the jobs to the contractors. He would spend the $18 billion dollars for reconstruction that isn't currently being spent. He would seriously train the Iraqi army and police, of which only 5,000 are currently trained. Why didn't Liasson say that? She either doesn't know what Kerry has proposed, or she doesn't mind looking ignorant to the viewing audience, as long as she fulfills her wimpy role as a Fox All Star. Who knows? She keeps her job doing what she's doing.
