Responding to Dangerous Liberal Lies

After last week's attempt by the media to take a 40 minute speech in which the President outlined the necessity of overseas intelligence gathering programs, which liberals seem intent on demolishing one by one, and portray it as a one minute "admission" of secret prisons, it's become increasing important to respond to the fallacies put forth by liberals. It's truly a shame that conservatives and all common sense people haven't learned how to do so yet.

In the above cited speech the President spent 20 minutes laying out the chain of successful intel gathering that CIA interrogations provided. The media libs, as usual, completely distorted the story, this time making up news in the process. Anyone watching their coverage on any of the networks would have thought that the President had made a one minute speech in which he "admitted" to secret CIA operations. They would have known nothing of the success of the program, which is what the entire speech was about.

It's true that the Administration had never formally acknowledged the existence of CIA prisons (nor did they in that speech) but whenever a major terrorist has been captured they have always announced that he was in US custody and was being interviewed by intelligence officers. The exact location was always kept secret as a security measure but there really was no news in that speech other than the transfer of these terrorists to Guantanamo. But you wouldn't get that from the media reports.

The media libs didn't stop there, further calling the speech "an admission that the well of information has dried up" (the terrorists have been transferred, ergo no new information can be provided). Really?! In truth, the information gathered was useful in capturing many other terrorists, including last week's capture of the second in command of al Qaeda in Iraq. New captures lead to further intelligence gathering. As long as this program remains in place only the end of terrorism would cause "the well to dry up." Of course, that's unless Liberal Democrats and their cohorts in the media succeed in completely shutting down the "well."

In short, within the span of four hours the media had spun a crowning success into abject failure. The Administration has yet to properly respond. It is imperative that the libs' lines, all one liners which ignore crucial facts but ferment their impression in the public's mind, be refuted with equally effective talking points (the only difference being that our's are based solidly on military intel, reasoned calculations and truth whereas theirs are little more than hyped up liberal fiction).

One major problem has been that when most conservatives go on the air they usually detail a well thought out argument. While they show reason and intelligence the argument is lost on 50% of viewers, those who don't care to bother studying the issues and are more receptive to the knee jerk opinions of liberal reporters unless a short, concise and effective argument is made on our side. While it is hard to take a case that involves much thought to understand and is based on reams of intel and break it down to a few sentences, this is precisely what needs to be done to effective reach a majority of voters. Details and facts are, very unfortunately, less effective than idiotic one liners. What's essential is to break down the truth into equally effective talking points.

The following points are all 100% factual. People are receptive to but generally ignorant of their message. Why conservatives aren't better trained to attack liberal spin head on is a mystery. But these can be a good place to start from:

1) Saddam was interested in attacking with whatever he could use as evidenced by his attempted assassination of a former President. He was known to have chemical weapons and UN reports themselves confirmed that he was a threat. Unlike North Korea and Iran, who are both planning thought out and long ranged strategic attacks which make them dangerous but also give us time to deal with them, only Saddam would have been satisfied with attacking us effective on a much smaller scale, as evidenced by his sponsor of suicide bombers in the Mideast. It was a matter of time before he tried to inflict damage within the United States.

2) Since 9/11 the United States hasn't again been the victim of terror although many such attacks have been planned. The total revamping of the intelligence services can be credited solely to this Administration. Democrats have never once even tried to offer effective solutions, being instead content on pointing to what they perceive as failures. In the 8 years before this administration took office the US or US personnel were victims of several attacks including one on the World Trade Center, on the USS Cole and on offices in Khobar. A millennium attack was barely foiled. And Democrats offered no solutions and made no changes to intelligence. These are the same people who are now complaining about the comprehensive changes we have made and once again, they offer no solutions.

3) This one is for when libs sanctimoniously claim that our response has hurt America and emboldened the terrorists: Al Qaeda attacked us on Sept. 11. Cries for the destruction of America, egged on by vicious leaders, have been common place in that region for decades. The only thing that emboldened the terrorists was our failure to properly respond to previous attacks. They hated us before. Of course they're upset with the fact that we responded. They're upset precisely because our actions have produced results.

It's unfortunate but true. The primary failure of this Administration is their failure to respond effectively to liberals whose positions are as dangerous as they are incredulous. Something must be done about this. For starters, all conservatives who go on talk shows or who are interviewed by the media need to use some of the above critical talking points and they need to be distributed effectively.