Credible Presidential Leadership Would Use Facts, Not Spin

The President is making sweeping assertions about whether or not Americans are or are not safe.

A close reading of his comments shows his arguments are flawed, and contrary to facts.

* * *

Ref Excerpts from the speech:

Fiscal Options

There is no guarantee that the Republicans will keep taxes low. There may or may not be Republican support for continued low taxes, especially as the costs of the illegal war increase.

Bush: "As you go to the polls remember if you want your taxes low vote Republican,''

The President may not have an option, other than raising taxes like his Father. "No New Taxes" was a promise Bush-41 came to regret.

Citizens have a responsibility to be flexible, when government fiscal policy proves unsustainable.

- -

Illegal War

The President, in relying on illegal war, asks the public to say the Republicans are going to protect Americans. Yet, the illegal war has exposed more Americans to greater risks.

Bush: "As you go the the [stet, should be single “the”] polls, remember we are at war and if you want this country to do everything in its power to protect you and at the same time lay the foundation of peace for generations to come, vote Republican.''

If the President was serious about protecting Americans, he would have used the NSA information he collected prior to 9-11 to prevent the original attacks.

American citizens have a right to a responsive government.

- -

Illegal Invasion

The President's advisors no longer support the decision to invade, as there were other lawful, non-military options not used, and Saddam had agreed to resign.

Bush: "My decision to get rid of Saddam Hussein was the right decision, and the world is better for it,'' he said, as the crowd burst into a chant of "USA! USA!''

The President had illegally agreed to invade, regardless the prudence or status of the Iraqi President.

Voters have a right to have leaders who focuse on reality.

- -

Presidential Incompetence

The Americans have not well executed an illegal plan. The DNC has an alternative plan, crafted by Senator Biden.

Bush: "The only way we will not win is if we leave before the job is done,'' he said. "If you listen for the plan from the Democrats, there isn't one.''

The President is pretending that victory is possible. He's defining victory as staying, not as stability or protecting the Iraqis, as is required under Geneva.

Americans have a right to leadership that will respond to the rule of law.

* * *

Revised Comments

Added Comments; deleted

- -

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT

AT ARKANSAS VICTORY 2006 RALLY

Northwest Arkansas Regional Airport

Bentonville, Arkansas

4:23 P.M. CST

==============

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all for coming. (Applause.) You know, Asa, I remember landing at this airport in 2000, on the next to last event of my quest for the presidency. I was then here to ask for your vote for me. I'm coming back, asking for you to vote and work for Asa Hutchinson. (Applause.)

The President hasn't given a reason why voting for the Republican Party is credible.

I want to thank you for the interest in his campaign. I appreciate those of you who are putting up the signs and making the phone calls and turning out the vote. With your help, he'll become the next governor of Arkansas.

It remains to be understood how many people have been discouraged from voting because of false robot-calls, designed to hide the Republicans calls.

(Applause.) And by the way, when you get people going into the polls, make sure they send a great United States congressman back to Washington, John Boozman. (Applause.)

The President hasn't given a reason why Boozman should be elected.

Laura and I are pleased to be here to support the Hutchinsons. We got to know them in Washington. One thing you have to understand is he spent time in Washington, but he never lost his Arkansas values. (Applause.)

The notion of "Arkansas values" doesn't mean anything. It's just a slogan.

I guess that's because he grew up on a farm near Gra-VETTE. GRA-vette. (Applause.) No one has ever accused me of being the best English speaker in America. (Laughter and applause.) But I try to talk plain so people know where I'm coming from. (Applause.)

The President may speak plainly, but that doesn't mean his policy is sound, supportable, or lawful.

And here's where I'm coming from: Asa Hutchinson is the right man to be your governor. (Applause.)

The President hasn't given a reason why his assertion is valid

I liked the fact that he and Susan have been married for 33 years. (Applause.)

Whether someone is married, single, or has a friend as a spouse is irrelevant to whether they are qualified to be a leader.

As a matter of fact, Laura and I celebrated our 29th wedding anniversary. (Applause.) She was in Crawford, and I was campaigning. (Laughter.) We've had quite a week here. She celebrated a birthday, we celebrated the 29th anniversary, and on November the 7th, we're going to celebrate a great victory. (Applause.)

I like the fact that when Asa was called by his government to come and serve, he did. See, he understands that it's important to put service ahead of self. (Applause.)

A claim of "service" is not measured by one's family-status, but by our results.

And I gave him some hard jobs. I didn't ask him to come to Washington just to push paper; I asked him to come to Washington to fight drugs, which he did a fine job of -- and to help us organize the Homeland Security Department so we can better protect you. (Applause.)

Louisiana, and Katrina are not definitions of successful DHS operations. Claiming protection, and providing protection are not the same.

I like the fact that Asa is running on a good platform.

Notice the President hasn't said what the platform is; why it is superior; or how it will achieve credible results.

See, when I was running for governor of Texas, I said, education is to a state what national defense is to the federal government.

This is meaningless and irrelevant.

That's what Asa thinks.

Even if Asa did think something doesn't make it valid; the President only has asserted that Asa thinks something that may be meaningless and irrelevant.

The top priority of your government is to make sure every single child gets a good education. (Applause.)

This may be a goal, but is a meaningless reason why a particular candidate is or is not effective.

He also understands, you need a governor who is going to be strong about eradicating methamphetamines. (Applause.)

This doesn't mean that someone else has the opposing view.

You need a governor who is going to help small businesses flourish. (Applause.)

This is a nice goal, but doesn't mean that a candidate is better positioned to meet this objective.

You need a governor that's going to keep your taxes low. (Applause.)

This may be a nice goal, but not all taxes can be kept low; sometimes taxes have to be increased to pay for things that are not expected. Why aren't all Americans getting tax cuts?

And that governor is Asa Hutchinson. (Applause.)

The President hasn't shown why Asa is a better candidate; or that the criteria Asa has been compared to is or is not relevant to what defines a successful leader.

I'm sure glad to be here with John and Cathy. I appreciate them being up here on the stage. I appreciate your service.

What the President "appreciates" is at odds with what he does: He may appreciate American, but he does not appreciate the Constitution, rule of law, oversight, or his Constitutional duty to enforce the law. This President makes illegal exceptions using unenforceable signing statements.

Boozman is well-respected in Washington. (Applause.)

This assertion, even if it were true, doesn't mean that Boozman can or cannot do something.

People like him up there because they understand he's consistent and he tells everybody where he stands.

The President is making meaningless comments. This President is not consistent: He promises to enforce the law, but doesn't; he promises to protect America, but failed; he promises to lead the country, but has a bungled approach in Iraq.

And the most important thing he tells me is, you make sure you remember northwest Arkansas, Mr. President. (Applause.)

This is a nice statement, but doesn't tell us why a particular candidate is better or worse than the alternatives.

I want to thank state Senator Jim Holt, who's the candidate for lieutenant governor, joining us today. (Applause.) Johnny Key is with us. He's the minority leader of the Arkansas House of Representatives. Johnny, thanks for being here. I want to thank -- welcome Gunner DeLay, running for attorney general. (Applause.) Gunner, you're just going to win on your first name alone. (Laughter.) I want to thank Jim Lagrone, who's running for the secretary of state. (Applause.) Chris Morris is running for treasurer. (Applause.)

The President hasn't said why these candidates are superior to the opposition

I want to thank all the grassroots activists who are here. I want to thank you for what you're going to do here over the next 24 hours. (Applause.)

How many people will they meet with to respond to questions about the President's remarks?

I appreciate the members of the Shiloh Christian Saints Band that's been with us. I want to thank the Pine Bluff Drum Line that's with us. (Applause.) I don't know if you noticed, but I had quite a step coming in from Air Force One, thanks to you all. I want to thank everybody else who's performed here. But I want to really thank you all. Laura and I are so pleased you came out.

Yes, thank you for listening

See, this election is coming soon, but you've probably been reading about the fact that some of the prognosticators have already decided the outcome of the election.

Karl Rove has said something about this. Why does Karl keep calling the election before the voters have a chance to make a decision? Some voters are still not sure whether they will vote for the RNC or DNC. This information doesn't help them.

AUDIENCE: Booo --

Is the audience upset at Karl for calling the election for the RNC? Perhaps they are upset at something else.

THE PRESIDENT: That's not the first time that's ever happened. (Laughter.) Oh, you might remember 2004. (Applause.) As a matter of fact, some of them had already started to pick out their offices in the West Wing in 2004. (Laughter.) But then the people of Arkansas voted, and people voted all around the country and the movers were not needed. (Applause.) Same thing is going to happen this year. (Applause.) They can prognosticate all they want, then the people get to decide. (Applause.)

Notice the President is not consistent: He's saying others were making premature decisions; but in the next line (below) he makes a forecast. Why is the President upset that people have called an election, but he's doing just that:

And the people of Arkansas are going to send John back to Congress and Asa to the statehouse, and we're going to control the House and the Senate. (Applause.)

The GOP may control Congress, but they do not control war crimes prosecutors, or whether the State Attorney Generals issue indictments for war crimes.

And there's a reason why. Over the past five years, we have accomplished great things together. We've taken the economy from recession to one that is strong and growing. (Applause.)

The Federal Reserve, outside the White House control, lowered interest rates. This is not a reason to vote for or against a candidate. Fiscal policy (congressional actions) and monetary policy (Federal reserve actions) are not the same thing.

We have risen to the test of September the 11th, and have taken the fight to the terrorists all around the world. (Applause.)

The Taliban have returned; and the fight in Iraq has failed. War is not simply something that is waged, but must succeed; this can only occur if the war is lawful, and the public will support the objectives. This President has yet to clarify what "staying the course" is; or what "the course" is.

In other words, we've led.

Leading is one thing; achieving results is another.

We've done what the people expected us to do.

This is not correct: We were expected to wage lawful war, this President did not do that. We were expected to only wage war where there was an imminent threat; this President deceived us. We were expected to respect the Iraqi democratic votes; this President plans a military coup to overthrow the democratically elected government in Iraq.

There's another reason we're going to win -- is because we understand the values and the principles of the American people. (Applause.)

Understanding values, and protecting them are not the same. Whether the US leadership does or does not understand values is a different issue than whether military commanders do or do not prevail on the battlefield.

We don't need polls and focus groups to tell us where we stand. (Applause.)

If this is true, why does the RNC use them?

Our principles are the principles of the majority of the people in this country.

"Principles" are not a function of voters, but what is in the Constitution. The majority may vote to defy the Constitution, but they have no lawful power to compel others, or foreigners to accept this defiance as lawful.

We're going to win this election because we're right on the big issues.

This is meaningless: Being "right" on something means getting results, not simply asserting something is right, while ignoring what is illegal.

You know, I knew we were going to finish strong.

This President defines any finish as "strong", but this statement is meaningless.

I knew that we were going to come roaring into Election Day, because we got the right position on taxes, and we got the right position on what it takes to protect you from attack. (Applause.)

If the President has the "right" decision or position on something, wouldn't his action stand on their own, and not require any explanation?

Let me first start talking about taxes. It's a big issue in this campaign.

This is not true: Iraq is the big issue.

We believe that you can spend your money better than the federal government can spend your money. (Applause.)

What happens when the Government spends that money illegally, poorly, but needs more? Where does the government get the money if the lenders will not lend money; and how does the President plan to repay the debts unless there are taxes?

We believe when you have more of your own money in your pocket to save, spend or invest, the economy benefits. (Applause.)

This is true: If people are given a fair chance to save, and make choices this would work. The question is whether there is too much tax burden on those who cannot afford to pay; while too little tax burden on those who could afford to pay more.

The Democrats believe they can spend your money better than you can, and that's why they want more of it.

This doesn't mean anything. The DNC will have to work with the President to agree to a bill. If the President is not happy that Taxes might increase -- why didn't he pass a bill that would make the tax cuts permanent? It is not appropriate to blame the DNC for a flawed Presidential agreement. He freely chose to sign the bill. Nobody made the President.


AUDIENCE: Booo --

THE PRESIDENT: We have a philosophy, but you'll be happy to hear we did more than philosophize. (Laughter.) We acted. I signed the largest tax cut since Ronald Reagan was the President of the United States. (Applause.)

The President has no explanation why he signed a bill he is not happy with -- it has automatic increases. This is not something the DNC made him do. The President has not explained why he agreed to something he is not happy with.

Oh, you might remember the debate in Washington when the Democrats said the tax cuts aren't going to cause any people to find jobs, the tax cuts aren't going to help wages, and the tax cuts will cause the deficit to explode.

Perhaps the President could cite specific people who said this. IT may be true, but he's making generalized comments. This is known as arguing a twisted-argument; it's not a credible platform. What the DNC may or may not have said has nothing to do with why this President is or isn't promoting a particular candidate. The President's comments are not useful for voters to understand or make a better voting decision. This comment is not helpful.

Well, when you're out rounding up the people to vote, remind them of the facts. Our economy is strong, and it's getting better.

The issue is what is the rest of the story: How many illegal wars were waged to achieve this result; how much debt does this result require; and how will the higher debt load be paid. This President hasn't addressed this; nor does this discussion answer why a particular candidate he hopes is re-elected should or should not be elected.

We found out last week that the national unemployment rate is 4.4 percent. (Applause.) These tax cuts are working. Real wages are on the rise, and we cut the deficit in half three years ahead of schedule.

The debt is actually higher than what it was after the Previous President. The President has used a new debt-forecast, but this information doesn't explain why the leadership is or is not accountable for the legal issues.

Whether it's here in Arkansas or around the country, there's a difference in this campaign about taxes.

If the President would like to talk about taxes, he is free. The issue is: Who is most qualified to provide leadership, not make irrelevant arguments.

And one of the interesting things about these national Democrats is they're not going to tell you that they're going to raise your taxes.

The Republican promise not to raise taxes is meaningless.

Let me just give you one example of what I'm talking about. They asked the lady who thinks she's going to be the speaker -- but she's not -- (applause) -- about tax cuts. And she said on TV, "We love tax cuts." Well, given her record, she must be a secret admirer -- (applause) -- because when it came time to reduce the marriage penalty or cut taxes on small businesses, when it came time to lower taxes on families with children, when it came time to reducing taxes on capital gains and dividends, and when it came time to getting rid of the death tax, she and her party voted no.

What Pelosi may or may not have said does nothing to explain why a particular candidate form Arkansas is better or worse than their opponent. The Republicans voted "no" to fairly reduce the taxes of all Americans.

AUDIENCE: Booo --

THE PRESIDENT: If that is their definition of love -- (laughter) -- I'd sure hate to see what hate looks like. (Laughter.)

This doesn't help us understand why a particular candidate is better.

Now, here's the problem we've got if the tax cuts we passed are allowed to expire or are not made permanent -- you're paying more taxes, see. Now, they're going to go around the country, and they say, oh, we're just going to let the tax cuts expire. That means your taxes are going up.

The President agreed to this approach. If he is not happy with what might happen, why did he agree to something? There must have been a good reason for the President to set a deadline, and revisit an issue. Or is the President asking us to believe that he was for a good review, but now he's against it?

Don't take my word for it. Take the word of the person who thinks he is going to be the head of the Ways and Means Committee -- which he's not. (Laughter.) And so they asked him, could you think of any of the tax cuts that you would extend, in other words, keep in place -- he said, I can't think of a one.

Looks like the President has an option: He could work with the current leadership to solve this problem, but he hasn't done that. Why is the President talking about irrelevant things, but not working with the majority -- in his party -- to address this issue? This is not leadership, but making excuses.

Well, let me give you an example of what that means for you. Anybody here got four kids, three kids? You got four? Four. Three, okay. Shhh. All right, wait, wait. (Laughter.) I don't know why I asked that? (Laughter.) Oh, I know why I asked it. When you're at dinner tonight -- and, say, you got four kids -- if the tax cuts are not extended, the child tax credit goes from $1,000 per child to $500, see. And so then you can start counting heads to determine how much the Democrats are going to raise your taxes. If you've got four children, at dinner, you can just go, one child, two, three, four, times $500. That's a $2,000 tax increase.

The President agreed to this result. If he's not happy with it, why did he sign the bill?

Now, that may not seem like a lot to the Democrats in Washington, but it seems like a lot to me, to Asa, and to John. And that's why you need to vote Republican to keep your taxes low. (Applause.)

The Republicans haven't guaranteed they'll renew the same promises. They've only said that something else may or may not happen. That's not a promise, but an irrelevant argument.

And we're closing strong in this election because the American people have finally figured out our tax cuts work, and the Democrats are going to raise your taxes. (Applause.)

A "strong election result" would get increased GOP support. We have the opposite -- in my Party, the GOP, there is less support for this President.

This election is taking place at a historic time for our country.

All candidates say this.

And when our children look back at this period, they're going to have one question: Did we do everything in our power to protect America and win the war on terror?

The President doesn't know what the future will ask: They may ask, "Did America do all it could to protect the Constitution; or enforce the law; or prosecute war criminals; or ensure the Government leadership is responsive.

That's the fundamental question facing this country, and it's a fundamental question in this campaign.

Another question could be: Did American take the time to ask, "Who respected the voters, and the government's commitment to honor their oath to protect the Constitution."

I wish I could report to you here in northwest Arkansas that we were not at war, but we are.

Whether we are or are not at war doesn't make this President's recommendations more or less credible. The issue is, despite the war, has the President achieved results, or made excuses for failures. If you want more of the same, you are free to vote for my party: The GOP. If you would like a change, and new questions about what needs to be reviewed, you are free to vote for the DNC. Either way, your vote will not change whether this President is or is not prosecuted for war crimes; or whether the President is or is not held accountable for violations of the laws of war.

And we're at war because of what we believe and what the enemy believes.

We're at war because the President did not use the information prior to 9-11 that he was given; and because he chose an illegal war to invade Iraq. We're at war in part because of this President's choices, not because of beliefs.

And we're at war because we stand in the way of their ambitions to spread their ideology throughout the world.

The RNC has an ideology of lawlessness, abuse, and defiance of international obligations. American citizens don't stand in the way of anything -- it is the illegal ambition of this President which supports flawed planning.

Their ideology is the exact opposite of what we believe.

What Americans believe is not the same as the law. It doesn't matter what the President says others believe; this information doesn't tell us why a particular candidate is or is not superior.

We believe in the right for people to worship freely.

this doesn't give us information about who is a better leader, or who can achieve better results.

We believe in the right for people to dissent.

What this President says he believes is not the same as what he tolerates -- he openly opposes and targets those who have different views on the rule of law.

We believe in the right for people to participate in politics.

This President's idea of participation is to confuse people, not lead them, or provide credible results.

We believe in government of, by, and for the people.

This may be a stated belief, but it is not how this President operates. He believes in government against the people; a government that ignores the people; and a government that puts itself above the law. That is not of, by , or for the people, but the government.

They don't. (Applause.)

What the enemy does or doesn't believe is irrelevant: The issue is whether we trust this leadership to do what they promised in their oath: To protect the Constitution. Talking about the enemy doesn't give us information about why our leadership should or should not be trusted.

There is -- these are cold-blooded killers. You cannot negotiate with them.

The President is not talking about the secret negotiations he's had with the insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq; or about the talks with Iran and Syria over how to stabilize Iraq. Yet, even if this were true, this statement doesn't tell us anything about which candidate is or is not better.

You cannot hope for the best. Therapy won't work. The best way to protect you is to defeat them overseas so we do not have to face them here at home. (Applause.)

Despite waging illegal war, Americans are less safe. Foreign fighters have more legitimacy in their desire to lawfully remove from power war criminals; and lawfully promise humanitarian assistance to prevent further abuses of Geneva. This President’s war crimes have illegally exposed the American countryside to attacks. An appropriate forum to prosecute this President's war crimes is in court, not the battlefield.

And so that is part of our strategy.

His strategy, however convoluted it is, hasn't been explained; and does nothing to explain why a candidate is better or worse than the opponent.

And the other part of our strategy is to protect this homeland.

This has nothing to do with why a candidate is or is not better.

I've told you Asa was a part of an important reorganization to make sure that we can respond better. Right after September the 11th, I analyzed the laws to determine whether or not our professionals had what they need to protect you.

The President ignored the Geneva Conventions.

And let me talk about three examples. First, there was a wall that prevented the intelligence folks from sharing information with law enforcement.

The DSP combines information from the CIA and FBI. The President's discussion on the firewall is meaningless. Nothing kept the President from looking at a consolidated intelligence product, the Presidential Daily Brief of 6 Aug 2001, which stated clearly Bin Ladin was intent on strikes.

It doesn't make any sense. I understand that, but, nevertheless, that was reality. You can't protect you if our folks who know what the enemy may be doing can't tell the folks on the front line of protecting you -- with that information.

The President's argument is invalid. He had the information from the NSA, but didn’t' protect us. Again, this discussion doesn't explain why a candidate is or is not better; it only explains something that should have been resolved in court.

And so I said to Congress, pass the Patriot Act, to make sure that we can share information across jurisdictions within government.

Whether the Patriot Act did or didn't exist didn't prevent intelligence sharing.

And they passed the Patriot Act. But I want you to remember when this important piece of legislation -- legislation necessary to protect the American people -- came up for reauthorization in the United States House and in the United States Senate, the vast majority of Democrats voted no.

The Patriot Act illegally permitted unconstitutional conduct. The Republicans cannot explain why the passed legislation that was unconstitutional. We can do better.

AUDIENCE: Booo --

THE PRESIDENT: You see, there's a different mind-set in Washington, D.C. They must think it -- one, we're not at war, or it's okay to respond after we're attacked. Our view is let's make sure we're not attacked in the first place. (Applause.)

The President failed. He has the NSA information, but didn't respond.

I believe if al Qaeda or an al Qaeda affiliate is making a phone call into the United States of America from outside our country, we better understand why.

Indeed, the FISA Act permits monitoring agents. It does not allow the President to monitor Americans without getting warrants. Gonzalez knew this requirement, and worked with Congress to get changes. Yet, the Attorney General on 6 Feb 2006 was unable to explain his failure. Indeed, if there was nothing to hide, this President cannot explain why he blocked the DOJ OPR from investigating.

We better make sure that we understand the intentions of the enemy.

This is true, but the FISA statutes require court review. This President and the Attorney General, despite knowing the FISA requirements ignored the court, and violated the States citizens' privacy rights. Nobody is saying the President can't gather intelligence; the only requirement is that he do so lawfully. He ignored the law. This discussion doesn't help us understand why the Republicans are better candidates; only why they are still explaining something that should not have occurred: Violates of the requirements, which the Supreme Court affirmed in Hamdan said clearly: Requirements must be respected. The Republicans ignored the requirements.

When this piece of legislation came up on the floor of the House of Representatives -- the Terrorist Surveillance Program, it's called -- the vast majority of Democrats voted no.

The illegal warrantless surveillance bill has not been signed into law; the Republicans illegally wanted to permit additional surveillance without using warrants. This is not Constitutional. The RNC cannot explain why it wants to retroactively give immunity for something that is not Constitutional. IT should never have occurred in the first place.

AUDIENCE: Booo --

THE PRESIDENT: Your congressman voted yes. (Applause.) We picked up Khalid Sheikh Mohammad.

Rendition does not legalize abuse. The President has yet to explain why, despite the law prohibiting prisoner abuse, he's saying it is acceptable. How does the President know when prisoners should or should not be abused? He has no choice: He has to ensure prisoners are not abused.

If you haven't heard that name, he's the person our intelligence officers believe masterminded the September the 11th attacks. And my attitude is, in order to protect you, we've got to be in a position to question him.

It is permissible to question people. The issue is, after the US decided to wage war after Sept 2001, it had the requirement to comply with the Geneva Conventions. If the President didn't want to follow Geneva, he should not have waged war.

And so I authorized the Central Intelligence Agency, the professionals in the Central Intelligence Agency, to question Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

The President has fatally admitted his involvement in the decision. This is called a fatal admission, and reveals an internal deliberation he may have wished was not disclosed. This means there is a document related to his finding.

I'll tell you why. If he knew about one attack, it's conceivable he might know about another attack. (Applause.)

He may know something. He would have to coordinate with others. Where are the electronic transmissions of that plan; and how was the NSA data -- that was previously ignored -- being used better?

And so when it came time to vote on this valuable program that has prevented attacks on the homeland, the vast majority of Democrats voted no.

The President is incorrectly stating the Position. The republicans wanted to authorize conduct that would violate the law. The issue was not intelligence gathering, but whether the US would or would not respect the Constitution. Also, the question was whether prisoners would or would not be treated in compliance with Geneva. This President, rather than banning abuses, wanted to change the subject to whether torture was or was not permitted. This is an irrelevant smokescreen.

And so when people go to the polls, they have got to understand that we're at war, and if you want to make sure our professionals have the tools necessary to do our most important job, which is to protect the American people, you need to vote Republican. (Applause.)

The President, in asking for your vote, is asking that you illegally authorize the President to do what the President and others have opposed in Yugoslavia. The Yugoslavian leadership similarly voted to immunize themselves from war crimes; the action promoted NATO and the US to conclude the Yugoslavian leadership was not serious about the rule of law. However, if you choose to permit the President and others to continue, state attorney generals and war crimes prosecutors can still prosecute the President and others for war crimes.

This is a global war fought on a variety of fronts.

This is incorrect to argue this is a global war. Unlike WWII where conventional forces were in place, the US has permitted an initial attack to blossom into a world insurgency. The US had many allies after 9-11 willing to work and assist the US, however, the US ignored the law, abused prisoners, and incited greater insurgency.

Where we find the enemy, we will confront them.

The US has failed to do this in Afghanistan. Rather than defeat the enemy which was behind 9-11, the President removed forces from Afghanistan, focused on a irrelevant enemy unrelated to 9-11, and illegally used force to unlawfully invade, occupy, and abuse Iraqis.

One of the lessons of September the 11th is that when this nation sees a threat, it must take those threats seriously before they come home to hurt us.

The President, prior to Sept 2001, had already started illegal NSA monitoring. The President has yet to explain what prompted his monitoring; or why that monitoring did not give him the information he needed. The warning was in the PDB of 06 Aug 2006. Despite seeing the threat, this President and the Republicans did not take the threat seriously. The threat came home to hurt us because this President and the Republicans refused to seriously honor their promise to fulfill their duty. This is malfeasance, and a crime.

I saw a threat in Saddam Hussein; the United States Congress -- people in both parties -- saw the same threat; the United Nations saw the threat.

Richard Perle Pearle admits in Vanity Fair that the US did not exhaust all options. Despite Saddam agreeing to leave, the US still invaded. The basis for war was based on phony evidence, fabricated tales, and unreliable information. The threat was fabricated to justify an illegal war. This is a war crime, and the President and his alleged co-conspirators could be lawfully executed for war crimes.

The decision I made to get rid of Saddam Hussein was the right decision, and the world is better off for it. (Applause.)

Iraq is in chaos; and Saddam had agreed to leave. America is held in greater scorn and contempt. Despite voting for democracy, the Americans plan a coup to topple the uncooperative Iraqi government.

On Sunday we witnessed a landmark event in the history of Iraq: Saddam Hussein was convicted on heinous crimes on his people. (Applause.)

This information doesn't tell us why a particular candidate is or is not better.

This is a country which is going from the rule of a tyrant to rule of law, and we congratulate the Iraqi people.

The same could be said of America -- when will the US be free of this President's abuse of power. Voting for more of the same is not a solution.

And as we do, we remember that this never would have happened without the sacrifices of the United States military. (Applause.)

The American military has not protect the US Constitution. It has sad idly, despite its oath to protect the Constitution, and illegally obeyed unlawful orders.

And Iraq is the central front in this war to protect you.

The President is not serious about protecting Americans. He is serious about making excuses to protect himself from a war crimes indictment and conviction.

Oh, I've heard them in Washington. I know you have, as well. They say, well, Iraq is just a distraction, Iraq is not a part of the war.

Notice the President hasn't cited anyone who says this. Even if it were true, the President isn't giving us a reason why he should not be prosecuted with the DOJ Staff; or why people like Richard Pearle Perle in Vanity Fair said other options are possible.

Well, I don't believe that, our troops don't believe that, and Osama bin Laden doesn't believe that. (Laughter.)

The President is arguing over a point that is not relevant: What someone believes is meaningless: The issue is what is the law; who is accountable; and are there lawful results.

He has called the fight in Iraq the third world war.

This statement, whether it is or is not true, does not give us information about which candidate is or is not better; or who will or will not protect the Constitution.

He has said that victory for the terrorists in Iraq will mean America's defeat and disgrace forever.

Whether this is true or false doesn't help us choose which candidate we can most trust to protect the Constitution.

We need to take his words seriously. It doesn't matter what party you're in, you need to listen to the enemy.

Why are we giving more attention to the enemy than our own Constitution; or what our own leadership is doing? We should pay attention to the disastrous, illegal results and plans of our leadership.

There's people in Washington who believe that when we fight for Iraqi democracy, and when we fight to adhere to the policy, "defeat them there so we don't have to face them here," it creates terrorists.

Putting aside whether or not there is or is not something in Washington who believes something, we aren't getting information that will help us make a better decision: Who do we trust to solve problems, achieve lawful results, pay attention to information, and do what they promise with their oath: Protect the Constitution.

In other words, it makes the world more dangerous.

The President is arguing that "someone" is saying if we fight an enemy -- rightly or wrongly -- that something will or will not happen. Whether this is true, has no bearing on whether the President is accountable; or whether the candidate is or is not qualified. The President's remarks do not help us make an informed voting decision. Rather, they tend to undermine confidence that he is going to help us make any informed decision.

But I want to remind you that the reason we're at war with the terrorists is not because of Iraq.

This is a meaningless statement. The reason this President is at war with the Constitution is because the law is getting in the way of his goals. Again, the President isn't telling us why a particular candidate is or isn't better. He's only talking about Iraq in confusing terms, not in an effort to provide clarity or solutions.

See, we weren't in Iraq when they bombed the World Trade Center in 1993.

This repeats the same speech Bush gave in Georgia. This is a meaningless argument.

We weren't in Iraq when they bombed our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

Despite those warnings, this President ignored PDB 06 Aug 2001

We weren't in Iraq when they bombed the USS Cole.

Despite that warning, the President ignored the NSA prior to Sept 2001.

And we were not in Iraq on the September the 11th, 2001, when they killed nearly 3,000 of our citizens. (Applause.)

Whether we are or are not in Iraq is an irrelevant argument as to whether the US voters do or do not have responsive leaders.

They just think different.

The President fails to explain himself.

The Democrats have a different view of the world.

This is a meaningless assertion, and the President hasn't proven it; nor has he linked this point with why a particular candidate is or is not better positioned, with a track record, to protect the Constitution.

It's an important part of this election.

The rule of law is important.

I'm going to remind our citizens, you do not create terrorists by fighting the terrorists. (Applause.)

Correct, you create insurgents.

The best way to protect this country is to stay on the offense and bring them to justice before they can hurt us again. (Applause.)

If we are going to "bring them to justice," why is the President and the Republican party unwilling to permit trials -- of those in Guantanamo -- of those accused of crimes?

Our goal in Iraq is victory.

Goals are specific results. "Victory" isn't a result, it's a simply an assertion of a desire. Goals are specific, have a definite timeframe, and they are linked with specific action. Victory is vague, like Republican's commitment to the rule of law.

And victory means a country which can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself, and be an ally in the war on terror.

Victory means respecting the rule of law, letting democratically elected governments choose, even if they disagree with us. This "goal" would not be needed had the US accepted Saddam's resignation. How the US defines "war on terror" tells us nothing about which candidate is better positioned to solve this problem.

And it's hard work.

Meaningless. The President freely chose to be President. Nobody put a gun to his head to make him do anything. This President freely took the oath to protect the Constitution. Again, whether something is or isn't hard is irrelevant to whether there are viable alternatives that would make his leadership credible.

It is really hard work because the enemy understands the stakes of a democracy in the midst of a region that desires for liberty.

This is convoluted non-sense. Whether the enemy does or doesn't understand something is irrelevant to whether the US is or is not prevailing; or whether the leaders are or are not credible.

They understand that success in Iraq will be a major blow to their desires.

The US objective is to avoid war crimes accountability; the Iraqis goal is to remove the illegal occupation from Iraq.

They also are willing to use weapons that disturb the American people, and those weapons kill innocent men, women and children.

The US government has done the same, and this reality doesn't help us find better leaders, but enables them to commit war crimes.

And the reason they do so is they have no conscience, and they are convinced it's just a matter of time before the United States loses its will.

The Republicans do not respect the rule of law or the Constitution; the US has already lost. Again, this result does not help us decide which candidate is better positioned to fulfill a Constitutional mandate.

What they don't understand is they don't understand this administration, they don't understand the American people.

The Republicans do not understand the Constitution, rule of law, or the credible threat of a war crimes indictment, or the prospect of State level prosecutors lawfully indicting a sitting President; or state level disbarment efforts directed at DOJ Staff counsel.

We're not going to run from thugs and assassins. (Applause.)

The United Stats ran from Afghanistan.

We've got a strategy for victory where the goal is the same, but the tactics constantly change.

That's not a strategy, it's a convoluted assertion of desire, without a credible statement as to why a particular Republican candidate is or is not more adept to protect the Constitution than their opponent.

I have told our commanders, whatever it takes to get the job done you can have from Washington, D.C.

US combatant commanders have been denied the full resources they require. The troops are not getting the assistance, leadership, or equipment they need. There are insufficient ground combat forces to comply with the US Geneva requirements to maintain security in an occupied country. These are war crimes, and the 5100.77 Laws of War Program is clear.

Our tactics are flexible.

Meaningless, and is not helpful in guiding a voter to make an informed voting decision.

We've got great assets at our disposal, starting with the finest United States military ever assembled. (Applause.)

The US Military is losing in Iraq and Afghanistan; their leadership on the Joint Staff is not willing to protect the Constitution; and the Joint Staff has illegally assented to unlawful war crimes. This is not helpful in defining who is or is not a good leader in the Republican party.

And Boozman and I understand this fact: When you have anybody in harm's way representing the United States of America, our government must give them everything they need in order to get the job done. (Applause.)

The President has failed to deliver what he says he knows should be done. This is called a leadership failure, and no basis to re-elect anyone from his party.

And I'd like to share one other thought with you. Whether or not you agreed with my decision or not to remove Saddam Hussein, you owe it to support our troops. (Applause.)

WE do not owe the troops support when they wage illegal war; when they follow unlawful orders; and when they commit war crimes against Iraqi civilians. It is not appropriate for them to place weapons by civilians to make others believe they were fighters.

We got something else going for us, and those are Iraqis that want to live in a free society.

Free from American occupation, abuse, and war crimes. This information isn't news, nor does it help us decide who is or isn't a better leaders to protect the Constitution; enforce the law; assert 5 USC 3331 oaths of office; or lawfully protect the Constitution from this President's illegal rebellion and insurrection against the rule of law.

These folks are suffering unspeakable violence, yet they are determined to set up a government that will reflect the will of the nearly 12 million people who voted.

The military is suffering losses because they were led into combat using a plan that was inadequate; they have not been given adequate force protection; their training is not adequate; and they are not engaged in warfare they've been credibly trained to prevail. Whether the Iraqis do or do not do something is irrelevant to whether the President is or is not giving us information that may help make an informed voting decision.

Let me say something. I was pleased by the vote, but I wasn't surprised. I'll tell you why I wasn't surprised. I believe that an Almighty's gift to each man, woman, and child is the desire to be free.

Indeed, we are entitled to be free, only if we have leaders who are willing to protect the Constitution.

I believe in the universality of freedom. (Applause.)

Believing in freedom is different than honoring Constitutional freedoms and rights.

And so we'll help this government unify the country, we'll help their economy grow, and we will train Iraqis so they can take the fight to defend their country.

The President has no credible plan to achieve these nice goals; even if he did, despite his failures, his results do not inspire us to trust his republican peers with renewed confidence. We need a new check on what is failing, with better oversight.

I want you to know that if you have a loved one in harm's way, that I wouldn't have your son or daughter there if I didn't believe the cause was noble and just, and if I didn't believe we could win.

What the President believes is irrelevant; the issue is the Geneva conventions, his specific plans to provide support, and lawfully achieve workable objectives.

As a matter of fact, the only way we cannot win is if we leave before the job is done. (Applause.)

The President's comment is meaningless: We are losing, and we're still there.

This is a serious issue, and yet, if you listen to the debate, if you listen for the plan of the Democrats, they don't have one.

The Biden Plan is a plan. The President is lying to the voters, but asking them to trust him and the Republicans.

It's the central front in the war on terror and they have yet to describe to the American people what they intend to do.

The Biden plan outlines an approach. Even if the DNC controls all chambers of Congress, this President remains President and Commander in Chief. His job remains one of leadership which he, Addington, and Yoo asserted he had the power to do without regard to the law. This President, despite having the power to use any resource, and illegally do anything, has still failed, and has yet to find a solution. It is not our job to make him listen to what he ignores: The Constitution. We can only gather evidence, and let the war crimes tribunal impose justice.

Oh, they're beginning to give us glimpses.

The Biden plan has been well discussed.

Some of them have said, just get out now.

This President would like to stay in a quagmire, but offer no real reason why we should vote for or against any candidate.

Others have said, let's just set a date and then get out before the job is done.

The job cannot be done as long as Republicans refuse to finish what can be finished; and letting go of what cannot be solved.

One of the leaders in the House, one of the Democrat leaders, said, why don't we move our troops to an island 5,000 miles away?

The President fails to tell us what alternatives he has; nor why a particular candidate is or isn't better.

Nineteen of them up there of the Democrats introduced legislation that would cut off the funds for their troops.

It is illegal to spend money on unlawful wars.

They don't have a plan, but they have -- they're united on principle, and that is, get out before the job is done.

The President remains Commander in Chief, but has no plan but to point to things other than why his candidates should be trusted. They have no solutions, only criticism, without offering a better alternative.

No, I'm not saying these folks are unpatriotic; I'm just saying they're wrong. (Applause.)

The President, despite his assertion, fails to show or demonstrate why his preferred candidates are correct, credible, or more trustworthy to implement their Constitutional mandate.

You can't win a war unless you're willing to fight the war. (Applause.)

This is a line from the Georgia speech: Indeed, you can't win a war unless you have the right people in place to win the war; execute a winnable plan; and ensure your troops are fully supported to win.

They've taken a calculated gamble.

The President embarked on an illegal invasion, ignored his advisors, and would ask that we celebrate his foolishness. This hardly inspires confidence in his judgment, or any recommendation he may have about political candidates.

They believe the only way they can win this election is to criticize and not offer a plan.

Indeed, the Republicans have no plan, and only blame those who are not Commander in Chief. That is not leadership, but an excuse. Why should we trust this man's judgment: he has no solution except excuses and smokescreens.

You know there's 24 hours left; they still have an opportunity to step up and tell the American people what they intend to do to prevail in this war against these terrorists.

The only obligation of Congress is to either fund or not fund the war. As Commander in Chief, the President has one objective: To lawfully prosecute combat operations to protect the American Constitution and people. This President, despite having not done that, has no plan to correct.

If you happen to run into a Democrat candidate, you might ask him these questions.

When the republicans have no solutions, they will ask irrelevant questions, without providing voters information to help them decide who is or is not a better candidate.

If they say they want to protect the homeland, but oppose the Patriot Act, just ask him this question: What's your plan?

The plan has been what is in the Constitution: To lawfully use warrants; to work with the FISA court; to obey the law; work with Congress to change the laws; and to lawfully prosecute a war. Conversely, the plan is also to lawfully prosecute the President and his alleged co-conspirators for war crimes; and ensure that the troops are fully equipped, protected, and are given the support and training they need to obey the Geneva conventions. America is not stuck with a flawed plan; but with a flawed Republican leadership.

If they say they want to uncover terrorist plots, but oppose listening in on the terrorist conversation, ask them this question: What's your plan?

The President, rather than admit he violated the law, wants to pretend that he's doing something that he's not. Again, despite FISA providing him the option to not get a warrant, this President chose to ignore FISA. His plan is to ignore the law, not do his job. The way to uncover plots is to refuse to take action that will incite insurgents; and lawfully work with those who are working on reasonable solutions to prosecute this President for war crimes. There were no insurgents in Iraq until this President illegally invaded.

If they say they want to stop new attacks on our country, but oppose letting the CIA detain and question the terrorists who might know about those plots, ask them this question: What's your plan?

If America is serious about defending the country and Constitution, the simple thing to do is to lawfully remove from power those who have failed; then find a new leadership skill set that is willing to listen to the intelligence community. Whether the CIA and NSA directors are or are not complicit with war crimes is a separate issue. Despite having NSA information prior to 9-11, this country has yet to have a full accounting of what the NSA knew, what it was doing, or why the President failed to respond. There is nothing stopping this President from using the NSA to interception communications of those who are planning; whether they changed their mode before December 2005 is meaningless. Before starting combat operations, the Commander in Chief's job is to listen. This President failed prior to Sept 2001. The RNC has ignored the plan in the Constitution: Ensure the laws of war, a treaty, are respected.

AUDIENCE: What's your plan?

The plan is to enforce the laws of war; work with the Iranians, Syrians, and regional actors to stabilize Iraq and comply with Geneva; then work with the Iraqis to ensure there is peace. How Hamas and Hezbollah are consulted remains to be understood. Rather than fight in Iraq, it is possible to work with the Chinese, Russians, and others to create export markets in Africa. This plan has been well discussed and known before Sept 2001.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. If they say they want to win the war on terror, but call for America to pull out from what al Qaeda says is the central in this war on terror, ask him a simple question --

AUDIENCE: What's your plan?

A war on terror is not winnable -- this is like having a "war on burglary." American can't defeat a strategy.

THE PRESIDENT: They can't answer. Harsh criticism is not a plan for victory.

Unlawful war has failed.

Second-guessing is not a strategy.

Having no plan, or ignoring the 1999 Iraq plans, as the Republicans have done, is unrelated to whether they are or are not qualified to lead.

We have a plan for victory.

Notice the President has no specifics; has not implemented it; and is losing. The Republicans have not pressed for details. Why is the President not willing to share with his peers in the republican party his secret plan?

We've got a strategy to win.

Without details, nor a track record to believe one exists. This does not help us decide whether the republican leadership will or will not be responsive to their oath of office; or whether they can be trusted with power.

And part of that is to elect Republicans to the Congress and to the Senate. (Applause.)

Why will doing more of the same -- giving Republicans power -- offer us anything but the same: Defeat, inaction, excuses, and war crimes?

Retreat from Iraq before the job is done would embolden the enemy and make this country less secure.

The enemy is emboldened, we are still there, and the US is less secure.

In this war, if we were to leave before the job is done, the enemy would follow us here.

How does the President know this? The only reason we have insurgents in Iraq is that the US is there. Had the US not gone into Iraq, there would be no insurgents; and the possibility of what they may or may not do would not be an issue.

These radicals and extremists would be able to recruit better.

Indeed, waging illegal war permits them to recruit. Lawful war would be more appropriate. Do you trust Republicans to do what is right?

Just imagine their propaganda, when they say, we caused the mighty United States to retreat.

The United States is still in Afghanistan, Iraq, and is losing. This is not propaganda, but a lost cause. This doesn't tell us why the particular candidates are or are not better.

It would dash the hopes of millions of people in the Middle East who want to live a peaceful life.

As opposed to the American's illegal war that has dashed the hopes of millions to be free from illegal, insecure occupation -- as otherwise required under Geneva.

If we were to leave before the job is done, it would dishonor the sacrifice of the men and women who have worn our uniform. (Applause.)

To honor their sacrifice, America's President wants others to make more sacrifices.

This issue on the war on terror -- this issue about Iraq is a vital issue.

The President has not said why it is vital; nor clarified the issues -- merely asserted its vitality, without a credible showing of how vitality will be implemented through credible leadership.

And the victory there, or retreat from Iraq, would be felt for generations.

Indeed, victory or defeat, regardless the outcome, will have implications. These risks should have been considered before waging illegal war. It is too late. The damage has been done. Speculating over what may or may not happen is meaningless -- the potential problem has arrived. This President has no plan to deal with reality.

And that's why we want to make sure that we understand that we're not only talking about this generation, but generations of Americans coming up.

Indeed, Americans must decide: Are you going to vote to protect the Constitution; or are you going to ask the war crimes prosecutors to do what you refuse to do.

And I'll tell you why. The enemy has made it abundantly clear that they want us to retreat so they can have, one, safe haven from which to launch further attacks -- safe havens similar to that safe haven they had in Afghanistan.

Had the US not illegally invaded, the US would not have this risk in Iraq, just Afghanistan. Rather than focus on the known problem in Afghanistan, the US created a bigger problem. And why should we vote to have more of this by voting republican?

Secondly, they want us to retreat so they can topple moderate governments.

The US republicans have already done this.

They want to be able to spread their ideology as far and wide as possible, and they understand our presence prevents them from doing so.

The US presence sways people to their side, and emboldens them to do what may or may not be what we desire. Our recklessness encourages others to make a choice we are not inclined to support. This is not credible leadership nor a viable strategy. The Neoconservatives, especially Mr. Perel Paerle in Vanity Fair admit this.

Thirdly, they would like to control energy resources.

So it is about oil. How will those in Iraq, who have no oil flowing, be able to "control" something that cannot be changed?

Imagine a world in which these extremists and radicals, bound together by a hateful ideology, was able to say to the West, to the United States, for example, if you do not abandon your alliances, if you do not withdraw, we will run the price of oil up to the point that chokes your economy.

Why would others want to block the flow of oil, not get income, when there are other sources of oil in Russia, Africa. The Republicans already did that. What's your point, Mr. president? Perhaps it would have been better to spend time developing oil markets in Africa and Russia, rather than chasing oil where the supply was uncertain.

You can imagine somebody saying, abandon Israel, or we will bring you to you knees.

Or, abandon the Constitution, or we will bring American citizens to their knees in abuse centers. This is speculative future abuse, in exchange for certain abuse today. It is not lawful.

Or, get out of our way, or we'll bring you to your knees.

The US likes to bring people to their knees in Eastern Europe, and lie about war crimes. What does this have to do with deciding which candidate is best to protect American values, the Constitution, or our way of life? No answer.

And couple that with a country which doesn't like us with a nuclear weapon, and people will look back at this period of time, and say, what happened to them in 2006?

What evidence does the US have that Iran has a nuclear weapons program? None.

How come they couldn't see the danger?

The same problem facing this President: AN excuse.

What clouded their vision? Well,

Perhaps the President was drinking alcohol prior to Sept 2001.

I want you to know I clearly see the danger. That is why we will fight in Iraq and win in Iraq. (Applause.)

Seeing danger is different than having plan; asserting a desire to win is different than winning; and solving problems is different than resolving issues. If this was really about oil, why not openly discuss the Cheney Energy Commission visits so all Americans could participate in the lawful discussion of the problem and possible solutions?

I want to share a story with you about the power of liberty.

read the Constitution

Recently, Laura and I had the honor of taking our friend, the former Prime Minister -- he was sitting Prime Minister at the time, of Japan -- to Elvis's place. (Applause.) They said, why did you go? Well, we hadn't been on a vacation lately. (Laughter.) We also went because Prime Minister Koizumi liked Elvis. But I also wanted to tell a story, a tale about history, and the power of liberty.

The founding fathers.

Right after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor thousands and thousands of our citizens -- I'm sure your relatives -- volunteered to fight the enemy.

There was a draft, which this President refused to do, as required, to meet the 1999 Iraq war plan.

See, Japan was the sworn enemy of the United States, and we fought them in a bloody war, and thousands lost their lives.

Millions, also in Europe, Africa.

And here I am on Air Force One with the Prime Minister of the former enemy talking about the peace.

Is it impossible to imagine being friends with Hamas, Hezbollah, or the Taliban? If this is not possible, why does American discuss in secret with these people?

See, we were talking about how do we make sure the Korean Peninsula doesn't have a nuclear weapon.

talk failed: North Korea set off the bomb.

We were talking about the fact that Japan had a thousand troops in Iraq, helping this young democracy.

The Japanese troops aren't carrying weapons.

The Prime Minister knows what I know -- in this ideological struggle, with extremism on one hand and reasonable folks on the other, any time you can help a young democracy survive, you're making the world more peaceful.

How much ideology is behind the RNC-NeoCons? Alot: They did not exhaust all lawful options in Iraq; Saddam agreed to leave peacefully, but the US wanted war.

You're marginalizing the extremists.

Despite promoting democracy, the US has emboldened free people to wage lawful combat, and defeat the US. This doesn't help us make an informed voting decision.

We talked about this concept that whom much is given, much is required -- that's what I believe.

We have been given a Constitution; what is required is for the President to honor the rule of law, his oath, and his responsibility to solve problems, not make excuses, or ask us to vote for more absurdity.

And we talked about how we can work together, for example, to get rid of the pandemic of HIV/AIDS on the continent of Africa.

What is to say that Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Taliban might not also like to work to solve common problems?

In other words, we were talking about our duties as responsible citizens of the world to lay the foundation for peace.

Indeed, why not work for an export market in Africa -- where we can agree to build a common future, develop resources, and help people. That is a vision. It was rejected prior to 2001.

Isn't it interesting? My dad fought the Japanese and his son is sitting down talking about the peace with the Prime Minister of the very same country. (Applause.)

Indeed, today's leaders talk with the Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, and other nations we openly accuse of terrorism. Why not tell the truth?

What happened was Japan adopted a Japanese-style democracy.

No, Japan, because it was permitted to keep it's Emperor had the moral authority to impose a democracy. The same could have been done in Iraq: If Saddam was given a place of respect, he may have compelled the Iraqis to accept Democracy, as the Japanese were forced by the Emperor.

The lesson is that liberty has got the capacity to change an enemy into an ally.

The real lesson is that democracy, when it is imposed, needs to have a higher support than simply the use of force: it requires that there be no other option. The Iraqis have an option: To continue waging lawful war against those who illegally abuse, invade, and occupy their land.

And liberty has got the capacity to change a region of resentment, a region that needs hope, into a place where people can realize the benefits of a rational life, where people can realize the benefits of a free society.

Hope springs from the heart -- a desire to stand up and oppose that which is wrong; a place does not have hope -- people have hope. It is rational to oppose abuse. People do not have to have democracy to be free; nor do they require democracy to live a full life. They can have something that is respectful, not the Democracy of America.

Some day American Presidents will be sitting down with elected leaders from the Middle East talking about keeping the peace, and a generation of Americans will be better off for it. (Applause.)

Indeed, the leaders of the Middle East include Hamas, the Taliban, Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran. But the US refuses to openly discuss with the leaders.

And these are the stakes in this election.

This election is about finding leaders who are willing to oppose abuse; stand up to what is not supportable; and lawfully exercises options to preserve our Constitution. Richard Perle Pearle said it best: He knows the lawful options were not exhausted, and we are not better off.

And I thank you for your interest.

You are welcome. May you have a lovely election day. Even if the GOP makes gains, as Karl predicts, foreign fighters remain poised to lawfully support war crimes investigators; and ensure the US Constitution is protected. If the voters will not oppose abuse, war crimes prosecutors and the states attorney generals have the power to take action to protect the Constitution, and lawfully prosecute and lawfully execute a sitting President for war crimes.

I ask you to go forth and find fellow Republicans, discerning Democrats, and open-minded independents, and convince them, if you want a good governor, vote for Asa Hutchinson. (Applause.)

Indeed, Asa may be a good man, but this speech has not made the case that Asa is or is not the man to elect. But the President is correct: We should discuss what makes a good leader; and what makes someone a better candidate. These Remarks by the President of the United States have not bee helpful in that regard.

Remind them that if they want more money in their pocket, remind them if they want government that trusts you to make the right decisions with your money, you vote Republican. (Applause.)

The Republicans cannot guarantee more money; they can only guarantee that tomorrow will not be today. Trust is not about whether we have more or less money; but whether we trust the leadership to create the conditions that makes earning money in this country more favorable than earning money where the laws are better respected, or where the rule of law is not ignored. Money is not the only thing; there are greater principles of dignity, options, respect, and credible leadership. If Americans choose to not demand excellence, there are other options.

And remind them -- remind them that we're in a tough fight against an enemy that wants to do us harm.

Indeed, there is a tough fight against a President who wishes to do our Constitution harm, ignore his advisors, and not need analysis and military professionals who clearly outlined the risks and requirements. The fight is tougher not because the enemy strengths, but because of our weakness -- lack of resolve to do what is right, prudent, and reasonable.

And if you want government that responds with all assets, a government that will do everything in our capability to protect you, and at the same time, lay the foundation for peace for generations to come, vote Republican. (Applause.)

If you want a government that actually responds to the rule of law, and doesn't talk about something but fails to deliver, vote for change: Leaders provide assets, they don't just talk about it. Real leaders won't talk about possible future protection; they’ll point to the protection they've provided. This leadership cannot credibly ask us to believe they will do something -- they've already failed when they've had the chance. Laying the foundation for peace means starting from reality, focusing on reality, and working with what we know. This leadership ignores reality, charts a course, and continues, regardless the losses. That is not leadership, but folly. We can do better. Vote Democrat, for a change.

Thanks for coming. God bless you. God bless America.


Indeed, may God Bless the US Constitution: It is our plan, our guide, and what we must all protect, even from those in the Republican party who are not willing to defend or honor what they ultimately agreed: The law of prudence, reasonableness, and thinking based on sound plans, creativity, creativeness, and reasoned discourse based on debates and facts. Fact finding is needed; debates are required; and the plans we already have can be challenged and refined to move forward. The Democrats are willing to challenge silence; the Republicans have run out of options, are not credible, and refuse to listen to transformative solutions.

The Democrats are willing to listen. They don’t' have all the answers. The Republicans have the wrong answers. Americans can do better. Even if you choose to continue with what fails, rest assured the rule of law shall prevail; and the war crimes prosecutors will arrive to punish the DOJ Staff counsel, and those in the Republican party who have defied their oath, failed to respect planners, and ignored the analysts who told them what they learned the hard way.



===============

END 4:56 P.M. CST

* * *

Origianl Comments

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT

AT ARKANSAS VICTORY 2006 RALLY

Northwest Arkansas Regional Airport

Bentonville, Arkansas

4:23 P.M. CST

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all for coming. (Applause.) You know, Asa, I remember landing at this airport in 2000, on the next to last event of my quest for the presidency. I was then here to ask for your vote for me. I'm coming back, asking for you to vote and work for Asa Hutchinson. (Applause.)

I want to thank you for the interest in his campaign. I appreciate those of you who are putting up the signs and making the phone calls and turning out the vote. With your help, he'll become the next governor of Arkansas. (Applause.) And by the way, when you get people going into the polls, make sure they send a great United States congressman back to Washington, John Boozman. (Applause.)

Laura and I are pleased to be here to support the Hutchinsons. We got to know them in Washington. One thing you have to understand is he spent time in Washington, but he never lost his Arkansas values. (Applause.) I guess that's because he grew up on a farm near Gra-VETTE. GRA-vette. (Applause.) No one has ever accused me of being the best English speaker in America. (Laughter and applause.) But I try to talk plain so people know where I'm coming from. (Applause.) And here's where I'm coming from: Asa Hutchinson is the right man to be your governor. (Applause.)

I liked the fact that he and Susan have been married for 33 years. (Applause.) As a matter of fact, Laura and I celebrated our 29th wedding anniversary. (Applause.) She was in Crawford, and I was campaigning. (Laughter.) We've had quite a week here. She celebrated a birthday, we celebrated the 29th anniversary, and on November the 7th, we're going to celebrate a great victory. (Applause.)

I like the fact that when Asa was called by his government to come and serve, he did. See, he understands that it's important to put service ahead of self. (Applause.) And I gave him some hard jobs. I didn't ask him to come to Washington just to push paper; I asked him to come to Washington to fight drugs, which he did a fine job of -- and to help us organize the Homeland Security Department so we can better protect you. (Applause.)

I like the fact that Asa is running on a good platform. See, when I was running for governor of Texas, I said, education is to a state what national defense is to the federal government. That's what Asa thinks. The top priority of your government is to make sure every single child gets a good education. (Applause.) He also understands, you need a governor who is going to be strong about eradicating methamphetamines. (Applause.) You need a governor who is going to help small businesses flourish. (Applause.) You need a governor that's going to keep your taxes low. (Applause.) And that governor is Asa Hutchinson. (Applause.)

I'm sure glad to be here with John and Cathy. I appreciate them being up here on the stage. I appreciate your service. Boozman is well-respected in Washington. (Applause.) People like him up there because they understand he's consistent and he tells everybody where he stands. And the most important thing he tells me is, you make sure you remember northwest Arkansas, Mr. President. (Applause.)

I want to thank state Senator Jim Holt, who's the candidate for lieutenant governor, joining us today. (Applause.) Johnny Key is with us. He's the minority leader of the Arkansas House of Representatives. Johnny, thanks for being here. I want to thank -- welcome Gunner DeLay, running for attorney general. (Applause.) Gunner, you're just going to win on your first name alone. (Laughter.) I want to thank Jim Lagrone, who's running for the secretary of state. (Applause.) Chris Morris is running for treasurer. (Applause.)

I want to thank all the grassroots activists who are here. I want to thank you for what you're going to do here over the next 24 hours. (Applause.) I appreciate the members of the Shiloh Christian Saints Band that's been with us. I want to thank the Pine Bluff Drum Line that's with us. (Applause.) I don't know if you noticed, but I had quite a step coming in from Air Force One, thanks to you all. I want to thank everybody else who's performed here. But I want to really thank you all. Laura and I are so pleased you came out.

See, this election is coming soon, but you've probably been reading about the fact that some of the prognosticators have already decided the outcome of the election.

AUDIENCE: Booo --

THE PRESIDENT: That's not the first time that's ever happened. (Laughter.) Oh, you might remember 2004. (Applause.) As a matter of fact, some of them had already started to pick out their offices in the West Wing in 2004. (Laughter.) But then the people of Arkansas voted, and people voted all around the country and the movers were not needed. (Applause.) Same thing is going to happen this year. (Applause.) They can prognosticate all they want, then the people get to decide. (Applause.) And the people of Arkansas are going to send John back to Congress and Asa to the statehouse, and we're going to control the House and the Senate. (Applause.)

And there's a reason why. Over the past five years, we have accomplished great things together. We've taken the economy from recession to one that is strong and growing. (Applause.) We have risen to the test of September the 11th, and have taken the fight to the terrorists all around the world. (Applause.) In other words, we've led. We've done what the people expected us to do. There's another reason we're going to win -- is because we understand the values and the principles of the American people. (Applause.) We don't need polls and focus groups to tell us where we stand. (Applause.) Our principles are the principles of the majority of the people in this country. We're going to win this election because we're right on the big issues.

You know, I knew we were going to finish strong. I knew that we were going to come roaring into Election Day, because we got the right position on taxes, and we got the right position on what it takes to protect you from attack. (Applause.)

Let me first start talking about taxes. It's a big issue in this campaign. We believe that you can spend your money better than the federal government can spend your money. (Applause.) We believe when you have more of your own money in your pocket to save, spend or invest, the economy benefits. (Applause.) The Democrats believe they can spend your money better than you can, and that's why they want more of it.

AUDIENCE: Booo --

THE PRESIDENT: We have a philosophy, but you'll be happy to hear we did more than philosophize. (Laughter.) We acted. I signed the largest tax cut since Ronald Reagan was the President of the United States. (Applause.)

Oh, you might remember the debate in Washington when the Democrats said the tax cuts aren't going to cause any people to find jobs, the tax cuts aren't going to help wages, and the tax cuts will cause the deficit to explode. Well, when you're out rounding up the people to vote, remind them of the facts. Our economy is strong, and it's getting better. We found out last week that the national unemployment rate is 4.4 percent. (Applause.) These tax cuts are working. Real wages are on the rise, and we cut the deficit in half three years ahead of schedule.

Whether it's here in Arkansas or around the country, there's a difference in this campaign about taxes. And one of the interesting things about these national Democrats is they're not going to tell you that they're going to raise your taxes. Let me just give you one example of what I'm talking about. They asked the lady who thinks she's going to be the speaker -- but she's not -- (applause) -- about tax cuts. And she said on TV, "We love tax cuts." Well, given her record, she must be a secret admirer -- (applause) -- because when it came time to reduce the marriage penalty or cut taxes on small businesses, when it came time to lower taxes on families with children, when it came time to reducing taxes on capital gains and dividends, and when it came time to getting rid of the death tax, she and her party voted no.

AUDIENCE: Booo --

THE PRESIDENT: If that is their definition of love -- (laughter) -- I'd sure hate to see what hate looks like. (Laughter.)

Now, here's the problem we've got if the tax cuts we passed are allowed to expire or are not made permanent -- you're paying more taxes, see. Now, they're going to go around the country, and they say, oh, we're just going to let the tax cuts expire. That means your taxes are going up. Don't take my word for it. Take the word of the person who thinks he is going to be the head of the Ways and Means Committee -- which he's not. (Laughter.) And so they asked him, could you think of any of the tax cuts that you would extend, in other words, keep in place -- he said, I can't think of a one.

Well, let me give you an example of what that means for you. Anybody here got four kids, three kids? You got four? Four. Three, okay. Shhh. All right, wait, wait. (Laughter.) I don't know why I asked that? (Laughter.) Oh, I know why I asked it. When you're at dinner tonight -- and, say, you got four kids -- if the tax cuts are not extended, the child tax credit goes from $1,000 per child to $500, see. And so then you can start counting heads to determine how much the Democrats are going to raise your taxes. If you've got four children, at dinner, you can just go, one child, two, three, four, times $500. That's a $2,000 tax increase. Now, that may not seem like a lot to the Democrats in Washington, but it seems like a lot to me, to Asa, and to John. And that's why you need to vote Republican to keep your taxes low. (Applause.)

And we're closing strong in this election because the American people have finally figured out our tax cuts work, and the Democrats are going to raise your taxes. (Applause.)

This election is taking place at a historic time for our country. And when our children look back at this period, they're going to have one question: Did we do everything in our power to protect America and win the war on terror? That's the fundamental question facing this country, and it's a fundamental question in this campaign. I wish I could report to you here in northwest Arkansas that we were not at war, but we are. And we're at war because of what we believe and what the enemy believes. And we're at war because we stand in the way of their ambitions to spread their ideology throughout the world.

Their ideology is the exact opposite of what we believe. We believe in the right for people to worship freely. We believe in the right for people to dissent. We believe in the right for people to participate in politics. We believe in government of, by, and for the people. They don't. (Applause.) There is -- these are cold-blooded killers. You cannot negotiate with them. You cannot hope for the best. Therapy won't work. The best way to protect you is to defeat them overseas so we do not have to face them here at home. (Applause.)

And so that is part of our strategy. And the other part of our strategy is to protect this homeland. I've told you Asa was a part of an important reorganization to make sure that we can respond better. Right after September the 11th, I analyzed the laws to determine whether or not our professionals had what they need to protect you.

And let me talk about three examples. First, there was a wall that prevented the intelligence folks from sharing information with law enforcement. It doesn't make any sense. I understand that, but, nevertheless, that was reality. You can't protect you if our folks who know what the enemy may be doing can't tell the folks on the front line of protecting you -- with that information. And so I said to Congress, pass the Patriot Act, to make sure that we can share information across jurisdictions within government. And they passed the Patriot Act. But I want you to remember when this important piece of legislation -- legislation necessary to protect the American people -- came up for reauthorization in the United States House and in the United States Senate, the vast majority of Democrats voted no.

AUDIENCE: Booo --

THE PRESIDENT: You see, there's a different mind-set in Washington, D.C. They must think it -- one, we're not at war, or it's okay to respond after we're attacked. Our view is let's make sure we're not attacked in the first place. (Applause.)

I believe if al Qaeda or an al Qaeda affiliate is making a phone call into the United States of America from outside our country, we better understand why. We better make sure that we understand the intentions of the enemy. When this piece of legislation came up on the floor of the House of Representatives -- the Terrorist Surveillance Program, it's called -- the vast majority of Democrats voted no.

AUDIENCE: Booo --

THE PRESIDENT: Your congressman voted yes. (Applause.) We picked up Khalid Sheikh Mohammad. If you haven't heard that name, he's the person our intelligence officers believe masterminded the September the 11th attacks. And my attitude is, in order to protect you, we've got to be in a position to question him. And so I authorized the Central Intelligence Agency, the professionals in the Central Intelligence Agency, to question Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. I'll tell you why. If he knew about one attack, it's conceivable he might know about another attack. (Applause.)

And so when it came time to vote on this valuable program that has prevented attacks on the homeland, the vast majority of Democrats voted no. And so when people go to the polls, they have got to understand that we're at war, and if you want to make sure our professionals have the tools necessary to do our most important job, which is to protect the American people, you need to vote Republican. (Applause.)

This is a global war fought on a variety of fronts. Where we find the enemy, we will confront them. One of the lessons of September the 11th is that when this nation sees a threat, it must take those threats seriously before they come home to hurt us. I saw a threat in Saddam Hussein; the United States Congress -- people in both parties -- saw the same threat; the United Nations saw the threat. The decision I made to get rid of Saddam Hussein was the right decision, and the world is better off for it. (Applause.)

On Sunday we witnessed a landmark event in the history of Iraq: Saddam Hussein was convicted on heinous crimes on his people. (Applause.) This is a country which is going from the rule of a tyrant to rule of law, and we congratulate the Iraqi people. And as we do, we remember that this never would have happened without the sacrifices of the United States military. (Applause.)

And Iraq is the central front in this war to protect you. Oh, I've heard them in Washington. I know you have, as well. They say, well, Iraq is just a distraction, Iraq is not a part of the war. Well, I don't believe that, our troops don't believe that, and Osama bin Laden doesn't believe that. (Laughter.) He has called the fight in Iraq the third world war. He has said that victory for the terrorists in Iraq will mean America's defeat and disgrace forever. We need to take his words seriously. It doesn't matter what party you're in, you need to listen to the enemy.

There's people in Washington who believe that when we fight for Iraqi democracy, and when we fight to adhere to the policy, "defeat them there so we don't have to face them here," it creates terrorists. In other words, it makes the world more dangerous. But I want to remind you that the reason we're at war with the terrorists is not because of Iraq. See, we weren't in Iraq when they bombed the World Trade Center in 1993. We weren't in Iraq when they bombed our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. We weren't in Iraq when they bombed the USS Cole. And we were not in Iraq on the September the 11th, 2001, when they killed nearly 3,000 of our citizens. (Applause.)

They just think different. The Democrats have a different view of the world. It's an important part of this election. I'm going to remind our citizens, you do not create terrorists by fighting the terrorists. (Applause.) The best way to protect this country is to stay on the offense and bring them to justice before they can hurt us again. (Applause.)

Our goal in Iraq is victory. And victory means a country which can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself, and be an ally in the war on terror. And it's hard work. It is really hard work because the enemy understands the stakes of a democracy in the midst of a region that desires for liberty. They understand that success in Iraq will be a major blow to their desires. They also are willing to use weapons that disturb the American people, and those weapons kill innocent men, women and children. And the reason they do so is they have no conscience, and they are convinced it's just a matter of time before the United States loses its will.

What they don't understand is they don't understand this administration, they don't understand the American people. We're not going to run from thugs and assassins. (Applause.) We've got a strategy for victory where the goal is the same, but the tactics constantly change. I have told our commanders, whatever it takes to get the job done you can have from Washington, D.C. Our tactics are flexible. We've got great assets at our disposal, starting with the finest United States military ever assembled. (Applause.)

And Boozman and I understand this fact: When you have anybody in harm's way representing the United States of America, our government must give them everything they need in order to get the job done. (Applause.) And I'd like to share one other thought with you. Whether or not you agreed with my decision or not to remove Saddam Hussein, you owe it to support our troops. (Applause.)

We got something else going for us, and those are Iraqis that want to live in a free society. These folks are suffering unspeakable violence, yet they are determined to set up a government that will reflect the will of the nearly 12 million people who voted. Let me say something. I was pleased by the vote, but I wasn't surprised. I'll tell you why I wasn't surprised. I believe that an Almighty's gift to each man, woman, and child is the desire to be free. I believe in the universality of freedom. (Applause.) And so we'll help this government unify the country, we'll help their economy grow, and we will train Iraqis so they can take the fight to defend their country.

I want you to know that if you have a loved one in harm's way, that I wouldn't have your son or daughter there if I didn't believe the cause was noble and just, and if I didn't believe we could win. As a matter of fact, the only way we cannot win is if we leave before the job is done. (Applause.)

This is a serious issue, and yet, if you listen to the debate, if you listen for the plan of the Democrats, they don't have one. It's the central front in the war on terror and they have yet to describe to the American people what they intend to do. Oh, they're beginning to give us glimpses. Some of them have said, just get out now. Others have said, let's just set a date and then get out before the job is done. One of the leaders in the House, one of the Democrat leaders, said, why don't we move our troops to an island 5,000 miles away? Nineteen of them up there of the Democrats introduced legislation that would cut off the funds for their troops. They don't have a plan, but they have -- they're united on principle, and that is, get out before the job is done. No, I'm not saying these folks are unpatriotic; I'm just saying they're wrong. (Applause.)

You can't win a war unless you're willing to fight the war. (Applause.) They've taken a calculated gamble. They believe the only way they can win this election is to criticize and not offer a plan. You know there's 24 hours left; they still have an opportunity to step up and tell the American people what they intend to do to prevail in this war against these terrorists.

If you happen to run into a Democrat candidate, you might ask him these questions. If they say they want to protect the homeland, but oppose the Patriot Act, just ask him this question: What's your plan? If they say they want to uncover terrorist plots, but oppose listening in on the terrorist conversation, ask them this question: What's your plan? If they say they want to stop new attacks on our country, but oppose letting the CIA detain and question the terrorists who might know about those plots, ask them this question: What's your plan?

AUDIENCE: What's your plan?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. If they say they want to win the war on terror, but call for America to pull out from what al Qaeda says is the central in this war on terror, ask him a simple question --

AUDIENCE: What's your plan?

THE PRESIDENT: They can't answer. Harsh criticism is not a plan for victory. Second-guessing is not a strategy. We have a plan for victory. We've got a strategy to win. And part of that is to elect Republicans to the Congress and to the Senate. (Applause.)

Retreat from Iraq before the job is done would embolden the enemy and make this country less secure. In this war, if we were to leave before the job is done, the enemy would follow us here. These radicals and extremists would be able to recruit better. Just imagine their propaganda, when they say, we caused the mighty United States to retreat. It would dash the hopes of millions of people in the Middle East who want to live a peaceful life. If we were to leave before the job is done, it would dishonor the sacrifice of the men and women who have worn our uniform. (Applause.)

This issue on the war on terror -- this issue about Iraq is a vital issue. And the victory there, or retreat from Iraq, would be felt for generations. And that's why we want to make sure that we understand that we're not only talking about this generation, but generations of Americans coming up. And I'll tell you why. The enemy has made it abundantly clear that they want us to retreat so they can have, one, safe haven from which to launch further attacks -- safe havens similar to that safe haven they had in Afghanistan. Secondly, they want us to retreat so they can topple moderate governments. They want to be able to spread their ideology as far and wide as possible, and they understand our presence prevents them from doing so. Thirdly, they would like to control energy resources.

Imagine a world in which these extremists and radicals, bound together by a hateful ideology, was able to say to the West, to the United States, for example, if you do not abandon your alliances, if you do not withdraw, we will run the price of oil up to the point that chokes your economy. You can imagine somebody saying, abandon Israel, or we will bring you to you knees. Or, get out of our way, or we'll bring you to your knees. And couple that with a country which doesn't like us with a nuclear weapon, and people will look back at this period of time, and say, what happened to them in 2006? How come they couldn't see the danger? What clouded their vision? Well, I want you to know I clearly see the danger. That is why we will fight in Iraq and win in Iraq. (Applause.)

I want to share a story with you about the power of liberty. Recently, Laura and I had the honor of taking our friend, the former Prime Minister -- he was sitting Prime Minister at the time, of Japan -- to Elvis's place. (Applause.) They said, why did you go? Well, we hadn't been on a vacation lately. (Laughter.) We also went because Prime Minister Koizumi liked Elvis. But I also wanted to tell a story, a tale about history, and the power of liberty.

Right after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor thousands and thousands of our citizens -- I'm sure your relatives -- volunteered to fight the enemy. See, Japan was the sworn enemy of the United States, and we fought them in a bloody war, and thousands lost their lives. And here I am on Air Force One with the Prime Minister of the former enemy talking about the peace. See, we were talking about how do we make sure the Korean Peninsula doesn't have a nuclear weapon. We were talking about the fact that Japan had a thousand troops in Iraq, helping this young democracy. The Prime Minister knows what I know -- in this ideological struggle, with extremism on one hand and reasonable folks on the other, any time you can help a young democracy survive, you're making the world more peaceful. You're marginalizing the extremists.

We talked about this concept that whom much is given, much is required -- that's what I believe. And we talked about how we can work together, for example, to get rid of the pandemic of HIV/AIDS on the continent of Africa. In other words, we were talking about our duties as responsible citizens of the world to lay the foundation for peace. Isn't it interesting? My dad fought the Japanese and his son is sitting down talking about the peace with the Prime Minister of the very same country. (Applause.) What happened was Japan adopted a Japanese-style democracy.

The lesson is that liberty has got the capacity to change an enemy into an ally. And liberty has got the capacity to change a region of resentment, a region that needs hope, into a place where people can realize the benefits of a rational life, where people can realize the benefits of a free society. Some day American Presidents will be sitting down with elected leaders from the Middle East talking about keeping the peace, and a generation of Americans will be better off for it. (Applause.)

And these are the stakes in this election. And I thank you for your interest. I ask you to go forth and find fellow Republicans, discerning Democrats, and open-minded independents, and convince them, if you want a good governor, vote for Asa Hutchinson. (Applause.) Remind them that if they want more money in their pocket, remind them if they want government that trusts you to make the right decisions with your money, you vote Republican. (Applause.) And remind them -- remind them that we're in a tough fight against an enemy that wants to do us harm. And if you want government that responds with all assets, a government that will do everything in our capability to protect you, and at the same time, lay the foundation for peace for generations to come, vote Republican. (Applause.)

Thanks for coming. God bless you. God bless America.

END 4:56 P.M. CST