Posted on 11/06/2005 9:05:21 AM PST by doug from upland
Edited on 11/06/2005 9:47:26 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Nov. 6, 2005
Washington, D.C.
After many, many months of being a punching bag, the punching bag is ready to fight back. Republicans believe it is long overdue.
On FOX NEWS SUNDAY this morning, Brit Hume reported that he was told at the highest levels that the White House was finally going to engage the Democrats. They will be coming out with a defense of the war in Iraq.
On this forum and around the blogosphere, Republican loyalists have been wondering why the President has allowed the Democrats to get away with calling him a liar. There is a wealth of evidence justifying the war, including 500 tons of yellowcake uranium discovered in Iraq in March of 2003 at the nuclear research center of Al-Tuwaitha. 1.8 tons was enriched. That is not Betty Crocker yellow cake. Hussein wanted a bomb. And yet, a majority of our population does not even know about that find.
The Democrats are doing exactly what they said they would do in their secret memo that was captured by a Republican staffer. They are using the war for political purposes, while they are pretending it is not for political purposes.
If the President will light a fire under his team, support for the war will increase, perhaps dramatically. The President owes it to the troops who have sacrificed and to those who are still out there risking their lives everyday. Step up, Mr. President.
Ditto!
The indictment of Libby and Reid's Rule 21. I can't believe it took that long, but apparently that is what it took. We are, of course, presuming Brit's source is correct and someone is going to show a spine.
DITTO
The Republicans need to be as bold with the truth as the democrats are with lies.
(and BJ Clinton
too, who is way far from Presidential, with his post-
term sabotage of US interests).
Don't forget that drooling relic Jimma Carter who
has savaged this administration, instead of keeping
his whining mouth shut, like almost all Presidents
before him.
Just because you say so on your FReeper page ..??
What I mean is the socialists have taken over the democrat party. That is why Ronald Reagan, Zell Miller and people like myself, who don't like socialists wouldn't vote for so- called democrats who are in fact socialists.
Reagan changed parties and became a Republican. Zell Miller won't change parties but tells it like it is. He would rather support a Bushie for president, than a socialist running as a democrat.
There is no way a right wing democrat can get any nominations to higher office in the democrat party because it is controlled by the socialists and liberal left wing anti- Americans.
The gutless Republicans won't call these people Kennedy, Kerry, Reid, Pelosi, Dashle ad infinatum what they are. They keep calling them democrats.
Maybe you don't think these so-called democrats are socialist,but I do. -Tom
Burnett, et al. v. al Baraka Investment and Development Corp., et al., 1:02CV01616(JR)
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/burnettba81502cmp.pdf <- First Complaint
Burnett v. al Baraka Investment and Dev. Corp. - Third Amended Complaint
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/burnettba112202acmp.pdf
Havlish et al. v. Sheikh Usamah Bin-Muhammad Bin-Laden, et al., 1:02CV00305(JR)
http://www.lexnotes.com/misc/havlish2.pdf
CRS-RL31658 | Terrorist Financing: The U.S. and International Response | Dec. 6, 2002
List of additional cases ...
http://www.lexnotes.com/misc/unilateralism.htm
... and the judge agreed with their findings.
Saudi Charity Dropped From Suit Over Sept. 11 Attacks
Mark Hamblett - New York Law Journal
09-28-2005A Saudi charity that allegedly funded terror activities cannot be sued for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks because of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, a federal judge has ruled. Southern District of New York Judge Richard Conway Casey found that the Saudi High Commission was shielded from suit under the act because it presented a prima facie case that it is a foreign sovereign.
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1127811912376
November 15, 2003
Saudi Princes Dismissed From Burnett v. Al Baraka Investment SuitAn earlier post describes this lawsuit arising from the September 11 terrorist attack. In a recent decision [http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/02-1616c.pdf], U.S. District Judge James Robertson has granted the motions to dismiss filed on behalf of Prince Turki Al-Faisal bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud and Prince Sultan bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud.
http://www.InsuranceDefenseBlog.net/insurancedefenseblog/2003/11/saudi_princes_d.html
August 18, 2003
Sept. 11 suit seeks 1 trillion in damagesIn a memorandum opinion in this case, U.S. District Court Judge Robertson neatly summarizes this remarkable action:
In this action, more than two thousand victims, family members of victims or representatives of victims of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, seek to hold accountable the persons and entities that funded and supported the international terrorist organization known as al Qaeda, which is now generally understood to have carried out the attacks. Plaintiffs have sued nearly two hundred entities or persons -- governments, government agencies, banks, charitable foundations, and individuals, including members of the Saudi royal family -- broadly alleging that each of them, in one way or another, directly or indirectly, provided material support, aided and abetted, or conspired with the terrorists who perpetrated the attacks.Damages claimed exceed one trillion dollars.
In this opinion, Judge Robertson decides the following:
that this Court does have subject matter jurisdiction of plaintiffs' claims; that this Court has personal jurisdiction of MWL, Khudeira, and AHIF; that personal jurisdiction of Al Rajhi is uncertain, and plaintiffs may take limited jurisdictional discovery with respect to that party; that venue is properly laid in the District of Columbia; that plaintiffs' civil RICO claims must be dismissed for want of standing; that the complaint adequately states ATA, ATCA, and common law intentional tort claims against AHIF; that plaintiffs' negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims against AHIF must be dismissed for failure to state a claim; and that Al Rajhi and Khudeira may move for more definite statements of plaintiffs' claims against them before they will be required to answer the complaint or respond to discovery.Burnett v Al Baraka, No. 02-1616 (D.D.C.)
I used to think these sort of lawsuits were futile, but I've seen newspaper reports of a number that ultimately yielded huge damages, and attorney's fee awards to boot, that ultimately were collected.
http://www.InsuranceDefenseBlog.net/insurancedefenseblog/2003/08/sept_11_suit_se.html
Oh yes, they're definitely socialists. They're even listed at the Socialists of America websites.
But .. I'm not so sure name calling accomplishes anything. However, the dems have been doing a lot of the name calling lately .. but this latest attack is just more of the "overplaying of their hand" type of action. As soon as they smell blood they go for the jugglar - and it always bites them in the end [pun intended].
I think Bush may have held back for good reason .. when your enemy is shooting themselves in the foot - don't try to stop them.
Now .. the tide has turned. The dems are overplaying and it's time to reel them in.
Like Rush keeps say .. Bush doesn't seem to understand that he's head of a "conservative movement". Bush doesn't like being partisan - but the time has come and from what Brit said .. the WH realizes it too.
We cannot expect a compete turnaround overnight - if we're willing to allow the WH to play the hand out - I think people are going to be very surprised at what takes place.
Oh yeah, my mom was a democrat for 70 years. She was so disgusted at how the democrats treated Bush, she changed to Republican and voted for him both times. My dad was an Eisenhower Republican.
Exactly right...and he has a better electoral record, including coattails than his critics and their heroes.
"There is a wealth of evidence justifying the war, including 500 tons of yellowcake uranium discovered in Iraq in March of 2003 at the nuclear research center of Al-Tuwaitha. 1.8 tons was enriched. That is not Betty Crocker yellow cake. Hussein wanted a bomb. And yet, a majority of our population does not even know about that find."
If true, it the fault of the administration and party, for not proclaiming this as fact every day since March 2003.
There will be many skeptics, having it come out 32 months later.
Ruling dismissing many defendants, but not dismissing the case ...
http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/rulings/03MDL1570_RCC_011905.PDF
See also 274 F.Supp.2d 86 (D.D.C. 2003) (upholding personal jurisdiction over three defendants and grant of discovery re personal jurisdiction over another defendant)
See also 292 F.Supp.2d 9 (D.D.C. 2003) (dismissing claims against high Saudi government officials based on the FSIA)
See also 349 F.Supp.2d 765 (SDNY 2005) (dismissal of nine defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction)
See also http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/legal/september_11th/docs/summaryofcases2-4-04.pd <- P29-
Brief by the US Government requesting denial of certiorari to appellant in Acree v. Iraq and United States. Appellant desired to maintain a claim against a foreign state based on the Flatlow Act or common law. ...
http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2004/0responses/2004-0820.resp.pdf
DC Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion in Acree v. Iraq and United States - June 4, 2004
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200406/03-5232a.pdf
February 15, 2005University of Cincinnati Law review on the Acree case ...Marine Corps Lt. Col. Clifford Acree was shot down on Jan. 17, 1991, the first day of the war, savagely beaten, and tortured for most of the 47 days of his captivity. Acree and 16 other former POWs, most of them aviators, all of them subject to savage torture at the hands of the Iraqis, filed their suit under the terms of the 1996 Anti-Terrorism Act, in which Congress authorized US courts to award "money damages ... against a foreign state for personal injury or death that was caused by an act of torture, extrajudicial killing, aircraft sabotage [or] hostage taking." In July 2003, a federal judge awarded the former POWs nearly one billion dollars in punitive and compensatory damages. ...
The Americans were tortured in a prison in Iraq called Abu Ghraib.
Their claims against Iraq have been successfully contested by the Bush Administration, which immediately intervened in the case and argued before the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that any and all such claims against the Saddam regime were voided by the US invasion.The judges ruled unanimously in favor of the President and against the American former POWs. The Administration then killed a congressional resolution supporting the POWs.
http://www.lawrence.com/blogs/patrickquinn/2005/feb/15/pows/
MONDAY, APRIL 25, 2005 CERTIORARI -- SUMMARY DISPOSITIONSACREE, CLIFFORD, ET AL. V. IRAQ, ET AL.
The motion of Washington Legal Foundation, et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae is granted. The motion of St. Mary's University School of Law, et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae is granted. The motion of Center for Justice & Accountability and International Law Scholars for leave to file a brief as amici curiae is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/courtorders/042505pzor.pdf
REPEAT....
"The President owes it to the troops who have sacrificed and to those who are still out there risking their lives everyday. Step up, Mr. President."
Highly doubtful, as the posts on FR are all too often laced with hysteria.
More likely they waited until the Dims started to repeat themselves, indicating they'd run out of lies to tell. And now that they're all out there, they can be squashed en masse.
It will be way out of character if Bush calls the cards. He will feel the need others to do so.
If history rukes the day, Bush and the Pubs will fold.
I clearly remember that as well.
Thanks for the ping.
Good grief, where have you been? It was reported on page A13 of nearly every newspaper in the country!
I believe the correct quote is, "A lie gets halfway around the world before Clinton gets his pants off."
How many Brazilians is that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.