Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

BRIT HUME: The White House is ready to fight back
FOX NEWS SUNDAY | 11-6-05 | dfu

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.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: beltwaywarzone; betterlatethannever; bush; fightbalk; hume; iraq; itsaboutdamntime; waronterror; whitehouse
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 321-329 next last
To: Lancey Howard

I am as guilty as anyone in thinking the President need to "do something." And I know as well as anyone else, he plays them close.

Sometimes I just forget.


141 posted on 11/06/2005 10:21:05 AM PST by Protect the Bill of Rights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland
"step across that line"

"Okay, now step across THAT line" (while backing up)

Just how far do we back up before we kick ass?

142 posted on 11/06/2005 10:22:49 AM PST by fish hawk (I am only one, but I am not the only one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland

Kristol is not the source and didn't give the go-ahead. Brit said the info came from the White House.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But Kristol gave the WH permission to defend itself so ultimately, the source was Kristol.


143 posted on 11/06/2005 10:23:07 AM PST by Puppet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: mlo
Over and over and over the RATS have told a lie about this statement. The President never said we were in imminent danger of an attack. This is leadership. This is a commander in chief.

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

144 posted on 11/06/2005 10:24:25 AM PST by doug from upland (David Kendall -- protecting the Clintons one lie at a time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Tees Mom

Do you really think Kristol has that much influence??
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Absolutely. The WH hasn't defended itself against DEMs for several months because Kristol hadn't given the go ahead until this morning.


145 posted on 11/06/2005 10:25:26 AM PST by Puppet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Puppet

What a foolish statement.


146 posted on 11/06/2005 10:25:27 AM PST by doug from upland (David Kendall -- protecting the Clintons one lie at a time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland

I'm in the camp of, "I'll believe it when I see it." Simply because on average they've given half hearted efforts for a week or two, then fallen silent.

IF True, IF consistent, IF long term intense fighting back is on the horizon no hold back by the admin? I'll be cheering and adding my number to the army of voices on offense. We desperately need Our President back, the Cowboy, the straight talker, the bullhorn Prez. he's still there, he just needs to get out of the baletway cage that says doing the right thing and being honest is suicidal.


147 posted on 11/06/2005 10:25:56 AM PST by Soul Seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tazannie
"I asked my lib sister this question.(why did Bush start a "false" war) answer: Bush was mad at Saddam because he threatened his daddy."

This question needs to be asked of the libs more often. They need to be forced to back up their "false war" rhetoric with a rational explanation of why they think Bush would start a war on false pretenses. Where is the motive?
148 posted on 11/06/2005 10:26:51 AM PST by Awgie (truth is always stranger than fiction)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Tees Mom
Whoops. I sent you FReepmail by mistake.

Puppet is a fool. Someone is pulling Puppet's strings, and Puppet is pulling everyone's chain.

149 posted on 11/06/2005 10:27:28 AM PST by doug from upland (David Kendall -- protecting the Clintons one lie at a time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Awgie

Libs are so stupid that it is scary for the future of this nation.


150 posted on 11/06/2005 10:28:39 AM PST by doug from upland (David Kendall -- protecting the Clintons one lie at a time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland

What a foolish statement.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Really? Why hasn't the WH defended itself for the last several months while DEMs and Cindy Sheehan attacked it? The only explanation I could come up with is because Kristol hadn't authorized it--until this morning. If the WH goes on the offensive tomorrow then the foolish statement may have more wisdom then you think.


151 posted on 11/06/2005 10:29:35 AM PST by Puppet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Puppet; doug from upland

"But Kristol gave the WH permission to defend itself so ultimately, the source was Kristol." ~ puppet

Bull.

Tough-guy stuff (Bush's No. 2 gives no quarter and plays for all the marbles)
US News & World Report ^ | 11/05/2005 | Kenneth T. Walsh
Posted on 11/05/2005 6:46:17 PM EST by wjersey
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1516480/posts

Far from being chastened by recent setbacks, including the indictment of his chief of staff, Vice President Dick Cheney is thumbing his nose at his critics--and encouraging President Bush to do the same. "Bush and Cheney are standing as one," says a prominent Republican who regularly advises the White House. "Their strategy is to get the conservative base solidified again, and Cheney is key because he is the administration's main link to the right."

Cheney is described by White House insiders as combative and eager to rally the GOP faithful. As part of that effort, he will continue to ride the Republican fundraising circuit in advance of next year's midterm elections, as he did last Friday, headlining events in Cincinnati and Bloomfield Hills, Mich.

Behind the scenes, Cheney is feeding Bush's instinct never to give ground when under attack, White House advisers say, despite rising concern among Republicans that the president doesn't realize the depth of his political trouble. With Bush's job-approval ratings at historic lows, 52 percent of Americans think the indictment of Cheney's former chief of staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby reflects broader ethics problems in the administration, according to a Washington Post/ABC News Poll.

Bush's decision to nominate Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court is just the latest manifestation of the White House's hang-tough stance, along with Cheney's selection of hard-liner aides John Hannah and David Addington to replace Libby, who held the dual posts of vice presidential chief of staff and national security adviser. A senior adviser to Cheney describes Addington and Hannah as "two people with very long and distinguished careers serving the American people." But they have many critics. Hannah, newly promoted to Cheney's national security adviser, had been Libby's deputy and was instrumental in making exaggerated or questionable prewar arguments that Saddam Hussein's regime had specific links to terrorism. Addington, a longtime Cheney confidant who is now his chief of staff, has advocated limiting the rights of suspected terrorists, argued that torture of suspects might be justified in some cases, and pressed for expanding presidential power. Says a former adviser to a Republican president: "In some ways, Cheney is closing a wall around himself."

The CIA case has Bush aides deeply worried because it has the potential to do far more damage to the White House. The president's top aide, Karl Rove, remains under investigation, and his fate is uncertain. Libby's indictment states that he had multiple conversations with government officials, including people at the White House and the CIA, about Valerie Plame, the CIA operative at the center of the leak investigation. If the case proceeds to trial, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald will try to show that Libby knew Plame was a CIA operative, and to do that, he will have to call as witnesses officials at the White House, the CIA, and presumably the State Department.

According to the indictment, Libby told the grand jury that when he spoke with reporters, he didn't know Plame was a CIA operative. He testified that reporters told him about her CIA ties. Fitzgerald says Libby had confirmed her CIA employment earlier. This brings Cheney into the case. In the event of a trial, Cheney will almost certainly have to testify in some way, assuming the grand jury is correct that Cheney was one of the senior officials who identified Plame to Libby as a CIA employee. Cheney could try to avoid testifying by asserting executive privilege, but more than likely his lawyers would have to work out a way to have him provide his testimony without actually appearing in court.

President Bush, meanwhile, is thinking in bigger terms. Friends say he has decided that he will never catch a break from the Democrats or the media--on the CIA case or anything else--so he will govern from the right, as he did on most issues in his first term. "He seems content to remain a 51-percent president, unlike other presidents who wanted to increase their job approval far beyond that," says a friend. "In fact, as long as he gets one more vote than the other side, he seems happy."


152 posted on 11/06/2005 10:30:06 AM PST by Matchett-PI ( "History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid." -- Dwight Eisenhower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: digger48; Congressman Billybob
"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth gets its pants on"? Churchill I believe.

I don't know, guys...talking about putting pants on...could be that loveable oaf, Billy Bob Clinton?

153 posted on 11/06/2005 10:30:41 AM PST by Cuttnhorse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: All
We went after Milosevic as a mass murderer. He was no threat to us. He had not taken over another country. He was not working on a nuclear program. What about 1.3 million deaths of innocents because of Hussein? What about the rape rooms? What about the child prisoners? What about the real torture chambers? The libs are the ones who constantly scream about human rights. What about Hussein's human rights violations. If we didn't do something about it, who would? The U.N.? France?


154 posted on 11/06/2005 10:34:24 AM PST by doug from upland (David Kendall -- protecting the Clintons one lie at a time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland
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.

I Did not know that.

155 posted on 11/06/2005 10:35:26 AM PST by handy (Forgive me this day, my daily typos...The Truth is not a Smear!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Puppet

Sorry to everyone. Your statement was so inane, I should not have wasted a second to comment on it.


156 posted on 11/06/2005 10:35:31 AM PST by doug from upland (David Kendall -- protecting the Clintons one lie at a time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland
They should lead off with the full public disclosure of the 1.7 metric tins of enriched uranium that was removed from Iraq. Bush giving a speech and inspecting the site where it was taken would be a good start.
157 posted on 11/06/2005 10:37:07 AM PST by Tarpon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: handy
HERE IS THE SONG AND THE INFO LINKS
158 posted on 11/06/2005 10:37:53 AM PST by doug from upland (David Kendall -- protecting the Clintons one lie at a time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland
The machinations of the Democrats are going to get USA citizens killed. This administration needs to take the bully pulpit and focus the nations attention on the deliberate and imo treasonous rhetoric of a party that is more interested in their own power than the security of this nation.

When President Bush told us there is a "Shadow Gov't" at play, I don't think he was referring to the normal course of secrecy in times of war (as a matter of fact, how do you have any Government, so called shadow or not, that is unelected in our Representative Republic?) I actually think he was telling the American people that this country has people in power who are trying their best to bring this country down and that they are for all intensive purposes Communists. Call me a conspiracy hound if you want, but I believe that Communism is embedded at all levels of Gov't and a great many of those Communists go under the banner of a political party that calls itself Democrats. I actually believe the Democratic Party has been so infiltrated that the true Democrat of the past has long since been subdued and over taken. I also believe there are quite a few who run under the banner of Republicans as well, though not as throughly as on the left.

Am I crazy? I suppose an argument could be made, but I can't figure out any other reason for what I see from Government these days. I believe we are not only in a war with Islamofacism but that we are at war in this country against Communists who are elected officials in all branches of Government. One party in particular has been totally over run by them.
159 posted on 11/06/2005 10:37:53 AM PST by Sweetjustusnow (The best minds are not in government. If any were, business would hire them away. Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland

I don't believe it for a second. Why would they change after 5 years? The current White House defines "fighting back" as a couple of short statements at the daily White House briefing.

Don't expect anything exciting or effective.


160 posted on 11/06/2005 10:39:45 AM PST by Poser (Willing to fight for oil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 321-329 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson