Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The White House In Focus Report on National Security ^ | Various | The White House

Posted on 08/04/2003 10:23:12 AM PDT by PhiKapMom


With the President in Crawford and the Congress adjourned for the August recess, we are going to change Countdown for the next week to provide you information from White House including In Focus reports that started last Thursday with Iraq at

COUNTDOWN (458 DAYS) TO VICTORY '04 -- Operation Iraqi Freedom -- A White House Special Report -- MANDATORY READING!

These Reports will give you a perspective of where the President stands on the various issues and allow you to defend the President from attacks that are coming from the Democrats and their friends in the media. Today we are using The White House Weekly Review to give you an overview of the President's past week along with other members of his Administration.

Please keep calling talk radio and sending your letters to the editor of your local newspapers using these In Focus Reports as background! The link below is a great resource to use to find media outlets across the Country!

* * * * * * * * * * * *

President George W. Bush speaks to troops during his visit to
Fort Hood in Killeen, Texas, Friday, Jan. 3, 2003. "Our country
is in a great contest of will and purpose. We're being tested. In
times of crisis, we will act decisively," said the President in his
remarks. "And in times of calm, we'll be focused and patient
and relentless in our pursuit of the enemy. That's what we owe
the American people." White House photo by Eric Draper.


During his 2003 State of the Union Address, the President outlined progress in the war on terrorism and announced new initiatives in the fight. Since September 11, America has:

* Disrupted terrorist networks, removed key leaders, and arrested more than 3,000 terrorists in many countries.

Created the Department of Homeland Security to safeguard our citizens, intensified security at our borders and ports of entry and posted more than 50,000 federal screeners in airports.

*The President also outlined initiatives to defend the safety of our people and the hopes of mankind by confronting the international HIV/AIDS Pandemic, guarding against bio-terrorism through Project BioShield, improving intelligence capabilities through the Terrorist Threat Integration Center and disarming Saddam Husein.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

The National Security Strategy of the United States of America

September 17, 2002

The great struggles of the twentieth century between liberty and totalitarianism ended with a decisive victory for the forces of freedom—and a single sustainable model for national success: freedom, democracy, and free enterprise. In the twenty-first century, only nations that share a commitment to protecting basic human rights and guaranteeing political and economic freedom will be able to unleash the potential of their people and assure their future prosperity. People everywhere want to be able to speak freely; choose who will govern them; worship as they please; educate their children—male and female; own property; and enjoy the benefits of their labor. These values of freedom are right and true for every person, in every society—and the duty of protecting these values against their enemies is the common calling of freedom-loving people across the globe and across the ages.

Today, the United States enjoys a position of unparalleled military strength and great economic and political influence. In keeping with our heritage and principles, we do not use our strength to press for unilateral advantage.We seek instead to create a balance of power that favors human freedom: conditions in which all nations and all societies can choose for themselves the rewards and challenges of political and economic liberty. In a world that is safe, people will be able to make their own lives better.We will defend the peace by fighting terrorists and tyrants.We will preserve the peace by building good relations among the great powers. We will extend the peace by encouraging free and open societies on every continent.

Defending our Nation against its enemies is the first and fundamental commitment of the Federal Government. Today, that task has changed dramatically. Enemies in the past needed great armies and great industrial capabilities to endanger America. Now, shadowy networks of individuals can bring great chaos and suffering to our shores for less than it costs to purchase a single tank. Terrorists are organized to penetrate open societies and to turn the power of modern technologies against us.
Click Here for Reminder of Introduction and the Report Contents

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Revitalizing National Defense

Shortly after his inauguration, President Bush called for a review of all U.S. military capabilities setting the goal of how best to achieve the necessary transformation to meet the new challenges of the 21st Century.

Over the past year, the Secretary of Defense has led efforts to transform the way U.S. military forces defend the country while also addressing long-standing management problems at DoD. The terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, underscored the urgency of Secretary Rumsfeld's effort.

The new security environment requires a military force that is balanced to counter both conventional and unconventional threats and is armed with strong intelligence gathering and analysis capabilities. Even so, intelligence gaps will persist, so innovation must be factored into our defense planning and response.

The future, both near- and long-term, presents numerous challenges and great opportunity. When President Bush took office, he inherited a defense program that needed to be strengthened.

As a percentage of the nation's gross domestic product, defense expenditures had shrunk to 2.8 percent. Inadequate funding strained both equipment and people. Recognizing these deficiencies, President Bush provided significant increased resources for defense in 2002.

Much remains to be done. In a post-Cold War world, where freedom and democracy remain imperiled, this budget lays the groundwork for a sustained, long-term investment in the nation's security. The United States must strengthen its defense posture to protect the nation's interests and to assure its lead role in global affairs.

A war on terrorism has begun, and while there has been success in achieving specific military objectives, the shape and dimension of the subsequent phases of the campaign will remain a work in progress for some time to come. The President's 2003 Budget for DoD and the intelligence community reflects the Administration's strong commitment to winning the war on terrorism, sustaining current military readiness, transforming the way the nation defends itself, and enhancing American intelligence capabilities.

To address these needs the President's Budget proposes $369 billion in 2003 for DoD and an additional $10 billion, if needed, to fight the war on terrorism.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

President Bush understands the importance of conveying America's message to the world. The Office of Global Communications (OGC) was formed in 2002 to coordinate strategic communications overseas that integrate the President's themes and truthfully depict America and Administration policies. Since better coordination of our international communications helps convey the truth about America and the goals we share with people everywhere, the President authorized OGC by Executive Order to communicate American policies and values -- with greater clarity and through dialogue with emerging voices around the globe.

The Office of Global Communications
OGC advises the President and his key representatives on the strategic direction and themes that the United States Government uses to reach foreign audiences. The Office assists in the development of communications that disseminate truthful, accurate, and effective messages about the American people and their government. With State Department Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs remaining at the frontlines of international communications, Global Communications coordinates the work of many agencies and Americans to convey a few simple but powerful messages. These messages are intended to prevent misunderstanding and conflict, build support for and among United States coalition partners, and better inform international audiences.

Countering propaganda and disinformation is an important role for the OGC. In January 2003, OGC produced Apparatus of Lies, a collection on the use of propaganda by Saddam Hussein and his regime. This volume was written to counter misinformation about America, the coalition, and Western intentions in Iraq. This collection helped undermine the use of these distortions during the liberation of Iraq.

In addition, Global Communications helps our government inform audiences about positive news stories . Iraqi children, the women of Afghanistan, the President's HIV/AIDS initiative and Millennium Challenge Account, and freedom in Iraq. Other efforts include telling the stories of torture and brutality in Saddam's Iraq and updates on the liberation of the Iraqi people.

OGC works closely with the communications office of the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs and coordinates with public affairs operations at the State and Defense departments, USAID, Justice and Treasury departments, the U.S. military, and America's coalition partners.

America's Message to the World
"This is America's agenda in the world. From the defeat of terror, to the alleviation of disease and hunger, to the spread of human liberty, we welcome and we need the help, advice and wisdom of friends and allies."
-- President George W. Bush, May 31, 2003

The Office assists the President in communicating his message to the world -- dignity, peace and freedom for all people, everywhere. The "non-negotiable demands of human dignity" and the National Security Strategy's focus on peace and freedom are US Government policy, but they are also universal aspirations. As such, they provide a framework for more listening and greater dialogue around the globe, and a framework in which OGC coordinates initiatives on behalf of the President.

As the President says, we value the dignity of all human life. Family, learning and generosity, both here at home and around the world, are central to prosperity and peace for all. Meanwhile, for security's sake, we seek to defend, preserve and extend the peace.

The President's strategy makes clear that peace is defended by fighting terror and tyranny. Peace is preserved with good relations among great powers. And peace is extended by encouraging free and open societies.

And America must always stand for freedom. As the President plainly states, freedom is God's gift to every single person. Freedom is also the one true model for national success. Different circumstances require different methods -- we help societies so they can choose for themselves the rewards of political and economic freedom.

The President's Initiatives
The President understands that reaching global audiences -- especially people who are open to the truth but unsure or critical of some aspects of America -- will take many years, but we must begin to make a difference now. OGC coordination efforts focus on 1) daily messages, 2) communications planning, and 3) long-term strategy.

1) OGC produces The Global Messenger, a one-page fact sheet sent world-wide to disseminate key points and daily activities on global issues. OGC leads a daily conference call of Administration leaders to coordinate near-term and mid-range communications planning. The office also works closely with the State and Defense Departments to ensure rapid response to allegations and rumors in the war on terror, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Road Map, HIV/AIDS, and the Millennium Challenge Account.

2) OGC helps develop and coordinate mid-range themes and events to support Presidential initiatives, such as his drive for Congressional and U.N. support for disarming Saddam Hussein. OGC has coordinated efforts to reveal the disinformation and propaganda of the Iraqi regime. Working closely with the Pentagon and all relevant agencies, OGC facilitates and coordinates the organization of teams of communicators to be sent proactively to foreign or domestic areas of high global interest and media attention. For example, one such team was stationed in Doha, Qatar during the liberation of Iraq and moved to Baghdad after, and another group worked with the international media in Kabul, Afghanistan for the Loya Jirga. These efforts underscore the ongoing US and coalition commitments to fostering freedom and the non-negotiable demands of human dignity.

3) OGC coordinates government-wide efforts to convey America's message to the world by improving communications about US humanitarian and pro-democracy efforts. Drawing on the President's outreach to Arab and Muslim audiences, OGC is working closely with the State Department to increase our interaction with existing pan-Arab news media. Also, the Office is encouraging efforts to reach Muslim audiences directly via US-supported broadcasting, exchanges, and new products.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Please visit the White House website on National Security to read about:

Weapons of Mass Destruction (PDF) -- National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction

Rebuilding Afghanistan with Fact Sheet

Africa -- African Growth and Opportunity

Helping Developing Nations -- A New Compact for Development

These are just a few of the links that deal with National Security. Please visit the White House site for National Security to read more about the President and his Administration initiatives on National Security along with speeches made by the President on this issue!

TOPICS: Activism/Chapters
KEYWORDS: background; national; security

1 posted on 08/04/2003 10:23:13 AM PDT by PhiKapMom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: MeeknMing; onyx; JohnHuang2; Dog Gone; Dog; isthisnickcool; OKSooner; VOA; mhking; ...
Please use this In Focus as well as the one on Iraq to defend the President from ongoing attacks.


2 posted on 08/04/2003 10:25:12 AM PDT by PhiKapMom (Bush Cheney '04 - VICTORY IN '04 -- $4 for '04 -
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom

Click here or on the pic !!
The Good, the bad, and the Ugly

3 posted on 08/04/2003 10:27:18 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP (Bu-bye Dixie Chimps! / Coming Soon !: Freeper site on Comcast. Found the URL. Gotta fix it now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: yall

4 posted on 08/04/2003 10:28:07 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP (Bu-bye Dixie Chimps! / Coming Soon !: Freeper site on Comcast. Found the URL. Gotta fix it now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
Bump to President Bush and all he is trying to do!
5 posted on 08/04/2003 10:28:18 AM PDT by Wait4Truth (God Bless our President!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom

6 posted on 08/04/2003 10:28:45 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP (Bu-bye Dixie Chimps! / Coming Soon !: Freeper site on Comcast. Found the URL. Gotta fix it now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
Why should conservative Americans defend Bush when he wont defend them?
Bush continuously sells out conservatives all in the name of winning liberal votes. Yeah just like Poppy Bush did and we all saw how many liberal votes Poppy Bush received. DOnt you remember the great landslide of 1992 when Bush Sr. won in a landslide and defeated that small governor from Arkansas. With the way Bush continues to sell out conservatives all in the name of winning liberal vote maybe history will repeat it-self and Bush will in a landslide just like his father did RIGHT????
7 posted on 08/04/2003 10:41:19 AM PDT by M 91 u2 K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: M 91 u2 K
Oh, boy, you are one angry person. I honestly doubt that you are a conservative --you prefer to get a democrat in the White House b/c in your thinking the democrat is better than the republican.

What about abortion? I have never met a democrat running for office who elected to go for pro choice.

What about defense? I have never met a democrat who preferred to defend the USA as aggressively as President Bush. Instead the democrats try to compromise and try to appease.

What about taxes? I meet many democrats who think I should work long hours all for the sake of handing over 50% of my income for their pet projects.

President Bush 1 made a mistake when he raised taxes, so the powdy repubs voted for crazy horse Ross Perot or Clinton and what did we get? Highest taxes so far and taxation on the social security checks of the aged.

Yeah, you are so right, let us go down the drain and vote for the opposition b/c my campaign finance wishes didn't come true. Let's vote for another democrat who vetoed the partial birth abortion ban. Yeah, let us vote for another democrat who preferred to dally in personal mischief rather than defend us when we got attacked SO MANY TIMES IN THE 90'S.

Your opinion should really be kept to yourself.
8 posted on 08/04/2003 10:56:32 AM PDT by olliemb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: olliemb
I have never met a democrat running for office who elected to go for pro choice.

Should have read--I have never met a democrat running for office who did not support pro choice.
9 posted on 08/04/2003 10:58:39 AM PDT by olliemb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: olliemb
Excellent response! You nailed it!
10 posted on 08/04/2003 12:02:56 PM PDT by PhiKapMom (Bush Cheney '04 - VICTORY IN '04 -- $4 for '04 -
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
M 91 u2 K is just another case of the right wing loser fringe that never met a Conservative that was Conservative enough.

They have far too little understanding of the real world. they do not know it takes a majority to gain political power. And if they do recognize the need for a majority they have no clue about how to garner a majority.

There are two majorities... a leftist majority and a rightist majority. The left majority extends from the left to just to the right of center. The right majority extends from the right to just left of center. Any candidate who does not get one of those two majorities loses and can effect no influence on anything. The leftist majority when in power will tend to do more leftist things that right. The right majority when in power will tend to do more rightist things than left. But the left will do a few rightist things and the right will do a few leftist things. It is all about gettinng a majority.

The political spectrum is divided into four segments. They are the left, the right, the center, and the registered but don't usually vote groups. The Perot voters of 92 and 96 came out of the "Usually don't vote group." Don't believe me? In 1988 eighty nine plus million people voted for president. But in 1992 with Perot on the ballot about 104 plus million people voted. Perot got 19 million votes in 1992 and about 15 million of them were from the "Didn't vote in 1988 group" In 1996 Perot only got 9 million votes. Perot got half of what he got in 1992... And guess what? Only 95 million people voted. Nine million people who voted for Perot in 1992 did not vote in 1996 and Perot got 9 million fewer votes. That is not a coincidence.

How many times do the fringe people have to tell us they can see no no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans before we believe them? Believe them. They are telling you the truth. We had a perfect example of the fringes seeing no difference in 2000. The left fringe voted for Nader because Gore was not Green enough for them. They saw no difference between Bush and Gore on environmental they voted for Nader. But what would have happened if Nader had not run? Many of them would not have voted at all. But those that did would have split their votes evenly between Dubya and Gore. When they say their is no difference they mean they can see no difference and they split their votes.

The fringes are just not important to the political process at all as long as they are ignored. That is, they are only impoatant when one of the major parties and its workers try to woo them. It is a hopeless task. Green as Gore is not enough to get the fringes on the left, and conservative as Dubya is not enough to get the fringe on the right. We need to remember that fact. If a major candidates changed his positions to appeal to fringe voters, it woud costs at least 10 centrists votes for every fringe vote he got. He would lose some of his base too. Going after fringes costs elections.

In any national election there is no need to even consider the fringe voters. Some of them will vote but they have no bearing on the outcome. The voters that do decide elections are Centrists. Centrists decide all elections. They sometimes vote for the left and sometimes vote for the right and whomever they vote for wins.

Centrists are not ideological. That is a provable assumption. If they held a leftist political philosophy they would be part of the left. And If they held a rightist political philosophy they would be part of the right. But they go from one political philosophey to the other.. often in the same election. They will vote for Dubya for President and vote for a left wing senator in the same election. When centrists are questioned many will tell you they vote for the "MAN" not the party. That is another way of saying they vote for the person they like. To many Centrists likability is a major factor in choosing a candidate for whom to vote. For the remainder of the center, the deciding factor is "What's in it for me."

For much of the 20th century Democrats won the "What's in it for me." voters. Reagan taught us how to win that group by selling the conservative agenda so it has a very effective "What's in it for me." component.

Reagan did not sell the philosophy of low taxes much at all. Reagan made a direct appeal to the "What's in it for me." group by saying "I will let you keep more of your own money." "I will get the government off your back!" is another appeal to the same group of centrists.

I will cut marginal tax rates and reduce government regulations does not have an appeal to the center. That is an ideological argument and has no effect on the center. One needs the center to win and the campaign has to appeal to them.

If a candidate can hold his base,(Fringes are not part of the base), and get most of the likability centrists and some of the "What's in it for me!" group, that candidate will win the election.

Looking back on 2000, Dubya got his base, and nearly all the likability votes. But Gore got nearly all the "Whats in it for me." voters.

It is important to note that to win, a Republicans candidate has to get some voters who are to the left of center.. just as Bill Clinton had to get some to the right of center to win as a Democrat.

Fringers believe that those in the center can be make into ideological people. They need to get a clue. About one third of the people who vote are not ideological. No amount of persuasion will make them ideological. It takes over half the non ideological voters to win. The party and candidates that go after the non ideological with effective non ideological persuasion techinques will always win.

In 2004 it looks like the Democrats have forgotten everything Bill Clinton taught them. And that is a very good thing for our side.

11 posted on 08/04/2003 2:19:05 PM PDT by Common Tator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: M 91 u2 K
Your idea of a conservative is................?
12 posted on 08/04/2003 2:19:46 PM PDT by onyx (Name an honest democrat? I can't either!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom; Common Tator; onyx


13 posted on 08/04/2003 2:34:21 PM PDT by MatthewViti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Common Tator
Good analysis and I agree with it, however, the problem with the republicans in the house and senate is there are not enough fire breathers. The Democrats in the Senate have Daschele, Kennedy and Leahy at the very least. I can not think of one Republican firebreather in the Senate and we need at least three.

The house is a little bit different, but we could use an additional 10 firebreathers/bombthrowers on the right.

Political reality dictates that we will never elect more than a few right-wing idealouges. So my question to you is how do we elect a few?

14 posted on 08/04/2003 3:33:03 PM PDT by FreedomSurge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
Lots of good reading! Thanks, PKM.
15 posted on 08/04/2003 6:14:17 PM PDT by windchime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
"This is America's agenda in the world. From the defeat of terror, to the alleviation of disease and hunger, to the spread of human liberty, we welcome and we need the help, advice and wisdom of friends and allies."
n President George W. Bush, May 31, 2003

Worth repeating.

I've seen Howard Dean doing the talk shows lately. He looks awful and sounds worse.

16 posted on 08/04/2003 6:35:31 PM PDT by Victoria Delsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Common Tator; onyx
It seems you people enjoying being lied to and robbed by RINO's such as Bush.
I am not asking for a President who will do everything perfectly, but I am asking for a President who will keep his promises. Bush keeps flip-flopping and changing his positions to look more liberal for a few elitists in the media. If Bush were to do a few things to advance the liberal agenda I would not mind as long as he advances the conservative agenda further. So far Bush has done NOTHING to advance the conservative agenda except for empty rhetoric. Bush promises conservative judges but cant get a single conservative judge confirmed.
Bush promised tax cuts but delivered puny tax cuts that dont go fully into effect until 2010 but then expire in 2011.
Bush promises to renew the assault weapons ban and continues to defend affirmative action. I can name a million more things Bush has done to advance the liberal agenda can you name a few things Bush has done to advance the conservative agenda. I know you will all say just wait and see after we win in 2004 Bush will begin to act conservative, then you will say 2006 midterms, then you will say 2008 when we elect his brother.
If Bush were to appoint and fight to confirm a few conservative judges I would then forgive all the liberal policies bush has imposed on us and VOTE for him. Bush doesnt need my vote or the votes of millions of conservatives I guess he has all those liberal votes just like his father did.
If Bush wants to win the centrist vote how about he campaign his ideas to them and make them look appealing. On vouchers a idea that could have been the first step towards winning the black vote Bush surrendered in exchange for nothing.
Bush simply does not care about America or conservatives. Bush I predict will win but that does not mean it is good for America. Senator Rick Santorum or Bill Pryor or Tom Tancredo or Tom Delay are fine statesmen who I would gladly vote for.
17 posted on 08/05/2003 11:41:26 AM PDT by M 91 u2 K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: M 91 u2 K


18 posted on 08/05/2003 11:57:45 AM PDT by MatthewViti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
To the top with W

We dare not allow a liberal the opportunity to name the next justices to the Supreme Court of the United States...or any federal bench for that matter!

19 posted on 08/06/2003 7:05:02 PM PDT by jla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson