Remarks by the President and Prime Minister Berlusconi of Italy (MUST READ)

Why don't you interpret the question. He stiffed the world 16 times, why does he get another chance. (Question is translated into Italian.)

My president sets me an example of good manners.

Italy today is playing a role which it wasn't able to play up to some time ago, because Italy finds itself at a center of a series of relationships with the countries of the European Union, with the countries of the Middle East, with the countries of the Mediterranean, and we have a special friendship with the Russian Federation, with our common friend, Vladimir Putin. So Italy is playing its part, and it's able then to play its role in this context.

So...sounds like quite a position indeed. Hope they put that boot in the right place.

Many of the people polled have short attention spans.

Did you read the text of the Cheney interview on Rush? Cheney said we would act on Sadam in WEEKS.

I can't imagine Bush taking an action that would take a very long time and cost a lot of lives. I think Saddam does not have the means to stand up to us for very long. Nerve Gas and biological weapons have little effect on pilots in planes. They have zero effect on missiles. I think we have the air power to destroy his military. Without a military Saddam is toast. He will be treated like the Italians treated Mussilini in late 44 and 45.

Airpower is terrible for ground troops with no air cover. On can stand combat. even terrible combat, when they are are shooting at you and you are shooting at them. As you see your friends die, you react with anger. You fire back. You want to attack and fight. Let me say it this way "there was not a morale problem on either side on D DAY."

There is a terrible morale problem when troops die and can't fight back. When death rains from the sky and all you can do about is be the next to die, it destroys morale. Without air cover Sadam dares not go into a typical border defense against attack. He must dispurse his troops among the civilian population in the cities or we will kill them all from the air. If the mountains fo Afghanistan were no protection agaist our air forces, then the deserts of Iraq are death traps.

I think we have solved the dispursed troop problem. If we have, Sadam will be quick toast. We could take most of the land very quickly anyway. If we can take out the troops spread throughout the civilian population in cities, it will be over quickly.

When Bush Sr. took on the Gulf war his approval was below 50 percent. His victory took him above 90. If Bush Jr. starts at 70 he will be near 100 by election day.

If we do win the war with Saddam by election day, then we will see if Bush has coat tails. It would seem to me that they might be short. But it would take just a little bit of coat tails to give the Republicans a nice cushion in both the house and the senate.

There is a lot of talk about what happens if the Republicans win Missouri. They could take the Senate back just days after the elections. The senerio is the Republicans get the senate from November to January. Then the Democrats get it back. They talk about Daschle refusing to allow it. What they don't seem to speculate on is is the Republicans win both the Senate and have a 3 or 4 vote margin starting in January. With Cheney as VP they may have Republican control of the Senate in November and December as well.

In that case Daschle has to be very very nice. There are ton of angry Republicans in the Senate. If the Republicans get the senate for at least the next 2 years, the Democrats may be out in the woods.

With Bush back in the 90's and in control of the congress, and the UN cowering behind a big tree, Bush control of the world statge may be assured for 2 years. There is little the media could do to help the Democrats.

Bush has taken the first steps to make the UN irrelevant, can the media be far behind.

So Italy is playing its part, and it's able then to play its role in this context.

What speaks volumes is his coming to the USA at this time. If you were a leader of a nation unhappy with what the USA is doing, would you fly accross the Atlantic to be seen with him? The answer is, "Of course not!"

Have you noticed how often bush uses the old Reagan trick or reduced expectations followed by big victory to spin the press? Bush can't handle the UN. Followed by Bush handles UN with ease. Bush has no suport in Europe. Followed by Bush has support in Europe. It sort of puts the media in the position fo saying to us, "Who are you going to believe us or your lying eyes?"

Reagan used it on Domestic issues a lot. Let us say the nose counts showed Reagan had a solid 15 vote margin in the house and 6 vote margin in the senate. Reagan would have the press secretary infer that this was far from over. This could be a Reagan defeat. Reagan would have a constant stream of Senator and Congressmen into see him. The great communicator was descripbed as communicating. Somewhere in the process Reagan would got to the chopper and for once answer the burrning question.. Yes all was in doubt. Yes he was doing his best. That is all he could do. The Democrats would echo that this fight was a long way from over. They just might pull it out.

Then they would vote and Reagans side would win by about 2 more votes than the first nose count said. It was the power of reduced expectations. If you are expected to win and win it is no big deal. If on the other hand the media expects you to lose, and almost predicts your loss because you hinted at your own loss, and then you win, they give you grudging approval.

Bush has played that tune alot. Have you noticed that Biden and others have attempted to thwart it and turn it the other way. They have taken to immediately pointing to a Bush victory while working for his defeat. That way if bush fails it will be a lot worse than if failue was felt to be likely in the first place.

The problem for Joe Biden in international affairs a story that Bush will win translates into Bush has won to the average Joe. It greatly reduces the Democrats abiltiy to win.

If that is the srategy of the Democrats it will be a disaster. It translates into they won't support my President in a time of war. That is not a good place to be.

Perhaps the Democrats have recalled another truth. You can't fight a popular president in times of trouble. If you fight his proposals you will be destroyed. The only stragegy that works is to propose fixes the president can't accept and then demand he do your proposed fixes. That makes the presdient againt fixes. That can work, But you can't fight a president who is offering fixes in a time of trouble.

The problem for the Democrats is that Bush had kept them playing defense. Bush has set the agenda. Except for the failed health care, Clinton did not set an agenda. He in some cases like welfare reform Clinton adopted the Republcian agenda. Clinton felt that to stay credible he had to get somehing passed. All he could get passed is what Trent Lott would pass. So Clinton gulped and proposed what the Republicans wanted to do. IN Clintons case the Republicans proposed and Clinton accepted. Remember Clinton signed most of the contract with America. He never controlled the agenda after year 1 of his administration.

With Bush controlling the agenda the Democrats are reduced to playing negative to Bush's positive. That is a game the Democrats can't win.

Unless the the Democrats find a way to play "We are for" instead of "We are against" they are doomed to failure.

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.