Ok folks, if you had the ear of the president of the US of A on what topic would you converse and what would you advise him to do?

I KNOW Whispering Death would kill for the opportunity so let er rip...

I'd parlay the job into a comfy 6-figure administrative gig and retire early with a huge government pension. Invest all my fat cat money and live on a secluded beach for the rest of my life.

Mr President, you should launch a hunge counterinformation campaign on the media.

(Speaking as the president... HA...)
Ahem!

Whispering Death, you're fired and you're indicted, see you in court.

IG, tell me more, where and how and more importantly WHAT do we need to say?

Originally Posted by bulldogg

IG, tell me more, where and how and more importantly WHAT do we need to say?

Yes, you know I have argued about this in the past on the boards. There is so much unsaid. The world believes the war was unsuccessful because the only justification for it was the WMD, since that was proven to be a lie they say the war has been a total lie. In fact, as I have specified many times before, WMD were not the only justification, it was three reasons for going to war, the other two being democratization and Saddam-terrorism connections, which were strongest as ever. Democratization is succeeding. European media still believe what Michael Moore said was true, now why doesn't Bush take care of promoting an offensive on that level? Why doesn't he show the numbers? Way more people would die when Saddam was in power, I mean daily, than they have been dying daily since March/April 2003. Again, there was a lot of speculation by the left on the Katrina thing. They mocked Bush for inefficiency and "there will be 10 K or 15 K or even 30 K victims", it's a disaster, the whole world made fun of the US because it couldn't stand up to a natural disaster. In fact, 1000 people died, "only". In fact, there was a hurricane exercise, simulation and training last year in NOLA for a hurricane that was conceived to be even weaker than Katrina, and expected victims according to the data were 16 K. Now Katrina was stronger than that and we only had 1000 victims. It means plans have worked. When things didn't work it was because the media had made the gov't think they had to send war troops overthere able to fight a revolution when in fact it wasn't true and all they needed was food and water to deliver. There were so few violence episodes, rapes. Noone actually died because of violence at the Superdome when our media talked of "dozens of people dead at the Superdome". Now why doesn't Bush now make fun of all that?
That's just some examples.

(Speaking as the president again... ya know I COULD get used to this hehehe)

Excellent points IG thanks... any of you other experts like to weigh in, I am all ears.

The post I was going to submit in response to the topic doesn't really need to go on because IG said above, pretty much what I would say and believe - except that I would expand on Saddam's guilt over genocide more and how even the Left Wing Pacifists would have to be outraged at such a leader continuing in power.

It's too late now, but a "Just War" motive existed on Iraq because of past, present and most probably future acts of genocide. I would have advised the President to emphasise that aspect in the pre-war period. My former and beloved boss, Pope John Paul II, condemned the war on Iraq, but from the point of view of WMD threat was not morally serious enough to justify loss of life of both Iraqi civilians and American soldiers (God Bless each and every one of them). Genocide, which wasn't argued enough in my opinion, wasn't presented as the primary reason for liberation of the Iraqi's.

My other advice to the President would be to fill government jobs with more qualified people rather than loyal friends. If you can find both attributes in the same person good, but qualifications before personal friendships/favours. Lastly, i would have gone with a different pick for the current Supreme Court vacancy.

Father, what qualities and/or qualifications would you recommend I (ahem, heheh) look for in a Supreme Court nominee?

Originally Posted by Padre

My former and beloved boss, Pope John Paul II, condemned the war on Iraq

A quick clarification on this, that may have Padre interested. Although the left has misused the words of JP2 when he opposed the 2003 war, most people don't know what his real stances were and why he opposed it.
I'll be short here but anyone who needs some more detailed explanation just feel free to PM me.
John Paul II was not a pacifist. He never was. He opposed the 2003 war because he feared a face-to-face clash of religions if he had endorsed the war. He feared this outcome too much. In fact, he was not a peacenik: He was the one who so loudly called for a military intervention on Belgrade, Serbia and Kosovo in 1998-99. The Kosovo War saw Nato bombing Belgrade and killing 10,000 people there. The UN never gave its consent because Russia and China were allies of Milosevics.
Still, the Pope blessed that war and blessed those bombings because innocents were being slaughtered. Like I said, he called for a military intervention and said it was a shame that the West hadn't intervened yet. He never said that war had been wrong. In fact, he agreed and blessed it.

#2 Not everyone knows that after 2003 John Paul II had been addressing the troops in Iraq (Coalition troops) as "freedom bringers", those who bring about peace, or "supporters of democracy", "friends of the Iraqis".
This for the record.
That the lib's prefer to overlook some things and emphasize others at their own liking is a whole other cattle of fish.

Beck to topic now, sorry Bulldog.

No worries mate, I mean, ahem... (putting on presidential mask) we appreciate the information it is timely and relevant. I for one was not aware that the Pope was a fan of military intervention. (Silently signals the Chief of Staff to cancel the "accidental" bombing of the Vatican) Now Padre about that Justice? And of course any of you other esteemed experts feel free to chime in at any time...