[eDebate] confidential house dabait memo
Sun Jun 18 10:31:41 CDT 2006
here's the text. the situation is bleak. i mean fucking bleak, folks.
never as a dabait coach or dabaiter have you seen such degneneration in the
congress. it looks like the al-zarqawi murder was staged to have just one
positive current event to report during the "da bait". who wrote it,
cheney or rove? i think it was cheney b/c of the continued idea that saddam
participated in 9/11:
Confidential Messaging Memo ? Floor Debate on Iraq and the Global War on
To: House Republican Members
From: House Majority Leader John A. Boehner
Date: June 13, 2006
Re: Confidential Messaging Memo ? Floor Debate on Iraq and the Global War on
This week, the House of Representatives will engage in a debate about the
war in Iraq, the Global War on Terror and our efforts to strengthen our
national security in a post-9/11 world.
The past week has brought news of several important, positive developments
in Iraq and the Global War on Terror:
? U.S. military forces eliminated the terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi,
al-Qaeda?s top commander in Iraq and a cold-blooded killer.
? The Iraqi government named new interior, defense and security ministers as
part of the new government?s continued progress.
? Just this morning, President George W. Bush traveled to Baghdad to meet
the newly appointed Prime Minster of Iraq, Nouri al-Maliki and to discuss
our growing partnership with the new democratic ally.
Clearly, these positive developments are the result of steadfast support of
both our military and diplomatic efforts in Iraq and across the globe. We
should not refrain from touting such progress
During this debate, our Republican Conference should be focused on
delivering these key points:
The Importance of Our Actions
It is imperative during this debate that we re-examine the conditions that
required the United States to take military action in Afghanistan and Iraq
in the aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001.
The attacks we witnessed that day serve as a reminder of the dangers we face
as a nation in a post-9/11 world. We can no longer expect oceans between us
and our enemies to keep us safe. The plotting and planning taking place in
terror camps protected by rogue regimes could no longer go unchecked or
unchallenged. In a post-9/11 world, we could no longer allow despots and
dictators like the Taliban and Saddam Hussein to ignore international
sanctions and resolutions passed by the United Nations Security Council.
So, during this debate we must make clear to the American people that the
United States had to take action in the best interests of the security of
our nation and the world community. As Republicans who supported military
action against Saddam Hussein and terrorists around the globe, the United
States had to show our resolve as the world?s premier defender of freedom
and liberty before such ideals were preyed upon, rather than after standing
witness to their demise at the hands of our enemies.
As President John F. Kennedy once stated so eloquently:
?The cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid it. And
one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender, or
A Portrait of Contrasts
This debate in the House of Representatives gives our Republican Conference
the opportunity to present the American people our case for strong national
security policies whose purpose is to protect the nation against another
attack on our own soil.
Similarly, we must conduct this debate as a portrait of contrasts between
Republicans and Democrats with regard to one of the most important political
issues of our era. Articulating and advocating our core principles will
allow the American public to witness Members of Congress debate a
fundamental question facing America?s leaders:
In a post-9/11 world, do we confront dangerous regimes and the threat of
terrorism with strength and resolve, or do we instead abandon our efforts
against these threats in the hopes that they will just fade away on their
Republicans believe victory in Iraq will be an important blow to terrorism
and the threat it poses around the world. Democrats, on the other hand, are
prone to waver endlessly about the use of force to protect American ideals.
Capitol Hill Democrats? only specific policy proposals are to concede defeat
on the battlefield and instead, merely manage the threat of terrorism and
the danger it poses.
These are troubling policies to embrace in a post-9/11 world. During this
debate, we need to clarify just how wrong the Democrats? weak approach is
and just how dangerous their implementation would be to both the short-term
and long-term national security interests of the United States.
Resolve Will Triumph Over Retreat
As a result of our efforts during this debate, Americans will recognize that
on the issue of national security, they have a clear choice between a
Republican Party aware of the stakes and dedicated to victory, versus a
Democrat Party without a coherent national security policy that sheepishly
dismisses the challenges America faces in a post- 9/11 world.
Let there be no doubt that America and its allies in the war in Iraq and the
Global War on Terrorism face difficult challenges. The American people are
understandably concerned about our mission in a post-Saddam Iraq. There have
been many tough days since Iraq?s liberation and transition to a sovereign
Democrats are all too eager to seize upon the challenges we face as their
rationale or motivation for retreat. As Republicans, we understand the
diplomatic and national security hazards of such a move. We must echo the
American public?s understanding of just how great the stakes are in Iraq and
our long-term efforts to win the War on Terrorism.
Building democracies in a part of the world that has known nothing but
tyranny and despotism is a difficult task. But achieving victory there and
gaining democratic allies in the region will be the best gift of security we
can give to future generations of Americans.
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement
More information about the Mailman