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.
Not defense. OFFENSE.
"Infantry must move forward to close with the enemy. It must shoot in order to move…. To halt under fire is folly. To halt under fire and not fire back is suicide. Officers must set the example"
"All men are timid on entering any fight. Whether it is the first or the last fight, all of us are timid. Cowards are those who let their timidity get the better of their manhood."
- General George Patton Jr, "War as I knew it" 1947
Congress has not finished having its say.
H.R.1321
Title: To make funds available to pay the United States prisoners of war that brought suit against the Government of Iraq in the case of Acree v. Republic of Iraq.
Sponsor: Rep Strickland, Ted [OH-6] (introduced 3/15/2005) Cosponsors (10)
Latest Major Action: 3/15/2005 Referred to House committee.
Status: Referred to the House Committee on International Relations.http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR01321:@@@L&summ2=m&
See also Bill text at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.1321:
Hi Peach, looked through your list and didn't see the link for the yellowcake that was found. Do you have that? MAybe I missed it. Thanks
Hi, Peter. I went back and looked at my post, to which you are responding, and I didn't mention yellowcake.
What I mentioned is that in 1998, after Clinton signed the Iraqi Liberation Act, all the Democrats took to the microphones and told us that Iraq's WMD posed grave dangers to the United States.
And, btw, Kerry went on ABC in 1998 and wanted American boots on the ground to force regime change in Iraq and said that the allies wouldn't be with us and he was okay with that. But that was then and this is now.
Here's an oldy but a goody:
Regards,
TS
I hear you. Offense.
Your astuteness knows no bounds. Thanks for noticing. It was supposed to be.
Do you have a cite for the second part of that? Where a judge "agreed with the findings?" I believe the present legal posture is that the trial(s) may go forward against some of the named defendants, but other defendants have been dismissed on various bases.
In considering whether or not a case is to be dismissed as a matter of law, the court will assume the facts are as stated in the complaint. If the facts are arguable and the outcome of the factual argument is material to the outcome of the case, and other requirements such as venue, standing, amenability of defendant to judgement, etc. are met, the case is not dismissed. Those assumptions of fact are not the same as legal findings of fact that occur during the course of trial.
The below posts represent the research I have undertaken to substantiate your assertion that "the judge agreed with their findings." Can you provide more detailed particulars regarding "the judge agreed with their findings." For example, which case, which judge (some cases have bounced from DC to NY), and which findings? Or if you don't have a cite to the legal details, a cite to an article or column might direct further research.
TIA!
Burnett, et al. v. al Baraka Investment and Development Corp., et al. ...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1516791/posts?page=287#287
More on the Burnett case, and introducing the Acree case ...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1516791/posts?page=291#291
More on the Acree case and pending Congressional reaction ...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1516791/posts?page=302#302
Bingo, beyond the sea. :)
But you are absolutely right about "counter". In no way do I disagree with what you've said. One thing, beyond a shadow of a doubt the Bush Admin has been very successful in is NOT doing the liberal "word" thing. Instead this admin are DOERS. Not gassers.
I have no problems understanding what you are seeing and saying. Remember, election 2000 debates with Al Gore. The left is big on appearances. First two, we observed some curiously "stumblings" rhetorically, presentationally by the President. How did the left and their gassers in the MSM respond? "Oh look! He's a chimp!" HA HA HA. And their usual arrogance and elitism and braggadocio arose within them. And then he delivered the slam, taking him all the way to home base, and with the bases loaded. ;)
Actually, the liberals "run" the MSM agenda. That is not the government.
Actually, the liberals can "run" the MSM agenda, but they can only control the "national" agenda when a President fails to use the immense powers of his office and the "bully pulpit" to "SET" the agenda.
"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."
They need more than a defense. The best defense is a good offense. They should also go after the Dems for the years of indolence under Klinton.
They should also make it clear to George II that the coninuing hemorrhaging of our borders is unaccetpabel, must be stopped immediately, and that entire issue is totally independent of his hare-brained "guest worker" scheme.
I see it that he has done exactly that. I try to catch those things the MSM commits by "ommission".
Hi, Cboldt. You've done some good research on this matter.
This NewsMax article says what I read some time ago - that Judge Baer confirmed the findings of the trial - that Iraq had involvement in 9/11.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1517374/posts
Need to execute "Shock and Awe".
"Who was it that said "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth gets its pants on"?"
That was Winston Churchill, a personal hero of mine...
PLEASE........................ PASS IT ALONG to everyone!!!!
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.