Plans For Fighting Terrorists - Necessary For Hardcore Republicans

You should see the National Defense mailer he sent out here in WV. It's tough.

The headline on the outside of the mailer:
"Going after Osama bin Laden should be JOB #1"
 
How about. "I support withdrawing troops from Iraq and using them to find Bin Laden." "We've never found any WMD's There and Iraq didn't attack us.

I agree. it would help him a lot in my state.
 
Or "we need to go get bin laden, and quit wasting time in Iraq before he attacks us again"
 
"Let me see if I get this straight.

Instead of using our using our military resources

to find Osama Bin Laden and the terrorists who we know were behind the 9-11 attacks,

and to secure our border with Mexico which we know is wide open,

we spend hundreds of billions of dollars

and take 10's of thousands of American casualties

to invade and occupy a foreign country

that never did and never could attack us

so we can create even more terrorists that could attack us in the future?

Where's the sense in that?

And you call me weak on National Defense"
 
If we had just put a 100 million dollar reward on Osama Bin Laden, He would be dead, around 5000 brave Americans would still be alive, and 20,000 more would have all of their limbs, oil would still be around $30 a barrel, and we'd have an extra couple of trillion dollars to spend at home where we need it.
 
Now is not the time to make points against the current policy about Iraq, just say what your plan is. Many Republicans get defensive when you start with criticism of Bush's policy. The first thing to mention is a positive "I agree with Bush's original foreign policy" and move onto "I also agree with the need to fight terrorism", and then express the differences in opinion after that. This "disarms" many people's first impression that you are just against Bush and have been from the beginning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top