Now aren’t those two Democrat “leaders” just priceless. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi…. nutty peas in a pod. Vice President Cheney had his way with Reid earlier Tuesday.
I usually avoid press comment when I’m up here, but I felt so strongly about what Senator Reid said in the last couple of days, that I thought it was appropriate that I come out today and make a statement that I think needs to be made.
I thought his speech yesterday was unfortunate, that his comments were uninformed and misleading. Senator Reid has taken many positions on Iraq. He has threatened that if the President vetoes the current pending supplemental legislation, that he will send up Senator Russ Feingold’s bill to de-fund Iraq operations altogether. Yet only last November, Senator Reid said there would be no cutoff of funds for the military in Iraq. So in less than six months’ time, Senator Reid has gone from pledging full funding for the military, then full funding but with conditions, and then a cutoff of funding — three positions in five months on the most important foreign policy question facing the nation and our troops.
Yesterday, Senator Reid said the troop surge was against the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. That is plainly false. The Iraq Study Group report was explicitly favorable toward a troop surge to secure Baghdad. Senator Reid said there should be a regional conference on Iraq. Apparently, he doesn’t know that there is going to be one next week. Senator Reid said he doesn’t have real substantive meetings with the President. Yet immediately following last week’s meeting at the White House, he said, “It was a good exchange; everyone voiced their considered opinion about the war in Iraq.
“What’s most troubling about Senator Reid’s comments yesterday is his defeatism. Indeed, last week, he said the war is already lost. And the timetable legislation that he is now pursuing would guarantee defeat. Maybe it’s a political calculation. Some Democratic leaders seem to believe that blind opposition to the new strategy in Iraq is good politics.
Senator Reid himself has said that the war in Iraq will bring his party more seats in the next election. It is cynical to declare that the war is lost because you believe it gives you political advantage. Leaders should make decisions based on the security interests of our country, not on the interests of their political party.
Sen. Reid’s response was to say he wasn’t going to engage in “name calling”, but then proceeded to call the Vice President an “attack dog.” I’m wondering if Dr. Leo Spaceman (pronounced “Spi-chemm-in”) has some time on his schedule to check out the capacity of the Senate Majority Leader?
Meantime, (not my) Speaker Pelosi has more important things to do than attend a special Congressional briefing on Iraq from General Petraeus. This is the second time Pelosi has skipped out on a Congressional briefing by the head of US forces in Iraq.
I wonder if the media will ask her what is on her schedule during the time the General will be briefing Members of Congress? (*crickets chirping*)
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
If there is a God, this disrespect for the troops and the Democrats hope that this war will be lost… will cost them dearly in 08. This war and challenge against islamofascists is bigger than one party and one generation. The Democrats should be ashammed. The obvious desire to lose the war exhibited by the hamm handed Pelosi and Reid is so distasteful you’ d think the media would grill them. Rudy finally said tonight that if a Dem is elected in 08 terror on our soil will increase. Because the liberals want to fight this defensively. Rudy promised to continue to take the fight to the terrorists. The Bush doctrine. Not the Chamberlain/Reid/Pelosi doctrine. Sounds like a good easy to understand plan to sell to the public in 08. Republicans= offense. Democrats =defense. When on defense you take punch after punch. I personally don’t think that’s the American way to win. We’ll see.
Hey, why attend the briefing if you’ve already decided the war is lost? The democrat solution is preemptive defeat.
Interesting–the CNN clip in the video on NRO. They picked the most political, least important (to the actual conduct of the war) quote in there to play.
I suppose that was the best sound bite they could find. (I don’t think it’s possible to emphasise the disgust with which I would pronounce “sound bite” using only text.)
I don’t know why anyone is shocked at the democrats’ behavior. I liken them to spoiled children, who, when they don’t get their way, pitch a hissy fit until the adults give-in. Hopefully, the adults in this case will consider who the brats are, and ignore them. See, this is what happens when you elect a bunch of babies to leadership positions. No surprise we have become the laughing stock of the world. Before, we were merely “hated”, which I would take over being laughed at any day (considering the ones who hate us are the maggots of the earth; so, really who cares?). Remember, leftists stand on their heads and tell you you’re the one who’s upside down. So, pay them the mind they deserve – none.
The democrats have only one item on their agenda- Destroy Bush. Nothing else, that’s it. They do not have the best intrest of the country in mind, only how they can hurt a President. I’m not a big Bush fan, but I do agree with the goals of the war on terror. Civil trials are no threat to these Islam-o-nuts, they do not value life, theirs or ours, and will stop at nothing to bring about their worldview. Democrats need to wake up to this fact and realize thier current war on Bush will not only harm them, but take the rest of us along for the ride. Bush on the other hand needs to get off his ass and pursue the war in Iraq with all the force the US military has.
The democrats have only one item on their agenda- Destroy Bush. Nothing else, that’s it. They do not have the best intrest of the country in mind, only how they can hurt a President. I’m not a big Bush fan, but I do agree with the goals of the war on terror. Civil trials are no threat to these Islam-o-nuts, they do not value life, theirs or ours, and will stop at nothing to bring about their worldview. Democrats need to wake up to this fact and realize thier current war on Bush will not only harm them, but take the rest of us along for the ride. Bush on the other hand needs to get off his ass and pursue the war in Iraq with all the force the US military has.
How the Hell do Democrats get away with this? If a Republican had said “Nancy Pelosi is stupid bitch, but I don’t want to get involved in name-calling,” we wouldn’t hear anything else on the news for three weeks.
And, yeah, it’s readily apparent to anyone watching even at a distance that Harry GReid is becoming unhinged. Then again, “unhinged” is the defining characteristic of the Democrat-MoveOn-Kostard base right now, so it comes as no surprise.
John F, did you know you have a tendency to repeat yourself? LOL!! 😉 (#5 & #6)
I actually agree, 100%, with you. Democrats’ hatred and envy is so deep, they care not what it will do to the country. They will never look in the mirror for where to place the proper blame. They have divided this country, for the sole purpose of power-grabbing and poll-pandering. No wonder they love Eurotrash style politics – they are the epitome of trash themselves.
Oh, and John F, I also agree that we have been way to soft in this war. Fallujah, after those people were lynched, should’ve been nuked immediately. That would’ve been the only message the enemy would’ve seen as a serious response. But, since we have to play politically correct wargames, we have more of mess than we should’ve. Thank “the left” for that, too. Just think, if we had a country united, this war may have been over before it actually began. “The left” is so stupid they don’t realize the enemy wants them dead as much as they want real Americans dead.
The only thing I can add to the great comments above is that the Dhimmicrats are enabling our enemies to consider themselves winning the War on Terror (or as we like to call it here, World War III).
The declarations that would warm the hearts of insurgents are spoken everyday on network television and are posted everyday on the Dhimmicrat Party blogs and their many enablers – HuffPo, DailyKaka, DemonicUnderwear, and whatever else 401K decides to cut-and-paste on this site. But I digress.
According to the NYTimes’ own editorial page, declarations that the war is lost contribute to the sense among insurgents that they almost have this thing won.
So who says words don’t have consequences?
Liberals – scribes, Pharisees and hypocrites all.
Regards,
Peter H.
Lindsey Graham, the normally execrable Senator from South Carolina, made a good point on the Senate floor. Harry GReid says the war is lost. OK, if we lost, who won? Obviously, Al Qaeda and the other terrorist groups in Iraq.
#10 – Exactly, V da K. If we lost, who has won? Al-Qaeda? Iran? Muqtada al Sadr?
On this issue, the Dhimmicrats display no sense, and no shame. Sen. Reid should step down as Senate Majority Leader. His comments are more dangerous and disturbing than Sen. Trent Lott’s ever were.
Regards,
Peter H.
How can the Democrats ‘get away’ with these comment? Easy – they’re just echoing what the rest of the nation is thinking.
Nine percent approval rating for Cheney. NINE PERCENT. Do the math.
Another Democrat who thinks it’s more important to be popular than right. Some of us were taught differently.
Meanwhile, come on lefties, if we lost the war, who won? C’mon, it’s not a hard question. Who else but Al Qaeda, the Mullahs, and Muqtada al Sadr benefit from U.S. defeat?
DannieBoi writes at #12: “Easy – they’re just echoing what the rest of the nation is thinking.”
Sorry, DannieBoi, the only echo is yours of Sen gReid… he’s the one using that statistic around the Capitol these days… oh, and sophomoric college intern staffers in Congressional Democrat offices. Great company you keep, eh?
The truth you can’t escape is that voter approval ratings for Congressional Democrats is lower now than it was for Congressional Republicans –and you guys have only had a few months to sink that low.
Yeah, Dan, there is an echo and it’s inside your head.
Kind of tells you all you need to know about whose side the Democrats are on that Air Pelosi will fly all the way to Syria to shake hands with the butchers who are killing our troops… but can’t find it in her schedule to meet with the general who is leading our troops.
V the K – couldn’t have said it better (#16). I also wonder how much global whining those junkets cause? There is no end to the hypocrisy of the elitist left, is there?
Michigan Matt – #15 – great stuff!!
I wonder, if we were at war with the Nazis, which side would the democrat party be on? No replies needed – I think we all know the answer to that one.
#16 – Well LNC, maybe now that Rosie O’Blather has been dropped from “The View,” she can reduce the US carbon footprint by moving to Iraq and tell her “view” to the troops. She’ll be lucky to make it through five minutes with those Special Ops guys before they open fire.
Actually in her case, her carbon footprint is a skidmark.
And I’m sure I’m going to get an earful from lower-case-libtrolls who whine: “She wasn’t FIRED, she QUIT. ABC just couldn’t come to terms with her.”
Think that all you want, kiddos. The evidence is against it, courtesy of ABC Daytime’s press release:
“So here we are a year later, and while we’ve tried to come to terms on a deal that would extend her co-hosting duties on ‘The View,’ we find ourselves unable to agree on some key elements.”
Mhm. One wonders if one of the “key elements” was her personality.
Besides, “tried to come to terms” sounds so much nicer than “fired,” and ABC could avoid the GayLeftMafia attacks that surely would have followed.
Just for the record, I tried to date Lance Bass, but we couldn’t come to terms either.
Regards,
Peter H.
thanks LNC.
Interesting. If Al Q had a vote in our elections, who do you think they’d be voting for? I remember a year or so ago, the leftists were saying that terrorists loved Republicans because their blunders allowed them to recruit and keep killing Americans and Iraquis. Now who can you picture hugging and kissing Osama. Instead of Nancy smiling and shaking hands with the dictator Assad, substitute Osama. Pelosi dissing the Commander of our troops on the ground in Iraq is inexcusable. The media NOT ripping her from pillar to post is amazing. Reid said he wouldn’t believe ANYTHING Gen Petraeus has to say today. How many trips to the front lines has “real estate” Harry ever made? Just like Sen Kerry, he’s afraid he’d be ignored or booed by the troops. Creeps.
Thanks LNC #17.
You got to be kidding me. I have never seen such ridiculous comments. I can only gather all this whining is based on these Republicans being pissed off that their party really screwed up and no longer has power. Republicans are a dying breed. Republicans have destroyed this country and the democrats are sick of it. Since they took power, they ruined our economy, started two wars, we went from having a surplus to the biggest national debt everywhere (what ever happened to republican’s fiscal responsibility?), nearly every republican close to the president has been accused of being in a scandal of some sort. I am ashamed of the current administration and can’t wait for a democratic to lead this country back to having a government that represents the people and not just CEOs and religious fanatics.
We need to get out of Iraq! They don’t want us there, the MAJORITY of Americans don’t want us there. The rest of the world is laughing at us. I am ashamed at our governments refusal to listen to the people. A small minority of people support this selfish war. How many people died in Iraq the same day of the Virginia Tech massacre at our hands? Republicans don’t care.! It is isn’t their children. They think the military is just filled with the poor people that couldn’t afford to go to Virginia Tech. Why worry about the poor citizens of this country?
p.s. you can’t be republican and be poor. It doesn’t make sense.
If i hear one more irrelevent poll number cited I’m going to vomit.
As if war is a popularity contest.. this should tell the brainless thinking of the Democrats.
Did you idiots give Al Qaida a poll? Are you going to poll them on the WMD of their choice to destroy us you dumbfuks?
Guess you don’t want to hear polls that don’t work in your favor? I’m just plain sick of the republicans disregard for the majority and I’m sick all of their shenanigans. I am glad to see Pelosi telling it like it is. We tend to forget that Iraqis have TV and newspapers. Do you think they don’t know how the disgusted the MAJORITY of the world is with BUSH and his cronies? There is no reason for us to be in Iraq. The religious war there is not ending soon and has been active a long time before American existed. How arrogant of Americans to think we could solve it and bring democracy to a country that doesn’t want it. Iraqis look at us as a country that has invaded and will do whatever they can to protect their families from us. This war has nothing to do with them anyways. Bush just wants control of the country and let’s not pretend it is any different than that.
#18 – Considering we spent the whole of WW2 with a democratic president, we don’t have to do much wondering there, now do we?
As for Pelosi not attending the briefing. The link states that she had a discussion on the phone with the general, instead. I don’t agree with this myself. Even if she did talk with Petraeus via phone, missing the briefing sends far to many signals.
If she wants to be seen as being serious on this issue, she needs to get out there with everyone else and not be regarded as “going it alone”. “Scheduling conflicts” ? please. If this issue is core to you and you want to get the American people on your side, you make some room on the schedule – what possibly could be more important? Stupid move, in my opinion.
Cheney should be praised for answering Reid’s erratic drumbeat. While certainly part of the Veep’s traditional, unwritten job description, it’s unfortunate that the President, with his built-in worldwide audience, could not muster the same. Contrast his seeming aversion to a microphone with his opposition’s constant preening, willing media accomplices, and sheer inertia of self-doubt in which cynicism is sewn and lame ducks fly.
A single good response will not win the hearts and minds of the public and it is the obligation of political leaders to attempt to do so. This is because an agenda, no matter how right, must be popular to be enacted. Poseurs like Senator Reid aren’t bothered by ideals because they know the culture doesn’t demand them; a change in culture requires a change in a society’s aspirations, meaning society must be convinced of their merit. It is easy to be popular — Alyaksandar Lukashenka is popular. It is easy to be right — Alexander Karensky was right (mostly). It is far more difficult to be both, but in our system it is simply the only way to effect change and this is as it should be.
President Bush has allowed the Democratic leadership to define defeat, while victory is some vague, future goal without any measurable, accountable terms. It is as if Republicans are frightened, hoping Americans will not pay attention to a misbegotten, poorly executed war rather than listen to the common sense that informs resistance to a premature withdrawal, avoidance of confirmation of the suspicion that Americans cannot be trusted to commit, and the realization that though difficult, the challenges (particularly the domestic challenges of daily life such as water, electricity, travel that have done so much to wear down the Iraqi public) are opportunities to convince all interested parties of the common sense that economic prosperity is key to peace.
My impression of G.W. Bush is one of a well-intentioned, hapless and rather uninformed man who considered changing war policy when political winds such as the then upcoming political upheaval in Congress began to blow. So President Bush really isn’t altogether different from his current Democratic critics and opportunists. We may think Bush is sincere while his opponents are cynical, but the end result (politics above all else) is the same. While most of us accept that political calculation is necessary, much could be accomplished by appealing to the Sensible American and lacking communication skills is no excuse for a deliberately misinformed public, whereupon the President’s discomfort reminds me of someone who expressed wonder at the technology of a supermarket’s optical scanner.
Mr. Bush, we’re listening. Please turn on your microphone.
Wow Chris’ great big plan is to create a new caliphate state in Iraq from which the Global Jihad will be declared.
GREAT PLAN CHRIS!!!
#28: Common sense tells me that the comment was referring to the Democrats OF TODAY. I hate to add… duh.
Chris: It’s really disgusting that you want the US Military to SURRENDER to Al Qaida.. Its beyond disgusting actually…. do you realzie the consequence? You are an idiot. You have no clue what you’re talking about (I hope anyway).
Did you spend two seconds thinking about how Al Qaida will view the US Surrender? And if you haven’t (which I hope you didn’t), then why not?
# 25 – p.s. you can’t be republican and be poor. It doesn’t make sense.
chris – Ummm, so, using your reasoning (or lack thereof) is that supposed to mean all democrats are poor then? Like all of Hollywood? Elitist democrat senators? “Progressive” corporate heads?
Are you retarded, or do you just play one here???
Being a Republican is not just about money. True, most Repubs are economically smarter than the average class-envy liberal, but we all make choices in life. So, get over it, sweet pea. Next thing you’ll say is all black people love chicken and soul food. Or that all Jews are rich (which is funny, since most American Jews are flaming liberals, so that couldn’t be, right?).
You’re a moron.
Actually, what I notice about Chris and the other trolls is they never respond to points made, they just spew their attacks, their talking points, and their poll numbers. Jonah Goldberg wrote a nice piece on relying on polls. Here’s the money quote:
Still waiting for one of the lefty trolls to answer the simple question, if we’ve lost in Iraq, then who won? I think they want to avoid this question because the answer is devastating. If the USA is defeated in Iraq, it’s a victory for people named Zarqawi, al Sadr, Ahmadinejihad, Pelosi, and Reid.
***If the USA is defeated in Iraq, it’s a victory for people named Zarqawi, al Sadr, Ahmadinejihad, Pelosi, and Reid.***
Precisely why leftists refuse delivery of the truth. Much easier to hide one’s head up one’s arse.
Reason repubs should never be in power #534:
Further:
According to the defense dept. Al Qaeda makes up a small percentage of the Iraqi insurgents.
The majority of people we are policing are Iraqi vs Iraqi
So why are our troops there?
– Especially when Iraq will likely not be our ally in the GWOT, and Iraq will never be an ally of Israel anytime soon. And I have serious doubts it will be a unified country ever again
I have yet to see a conservative give a coherent answer on this question that does not invoke the naivety of the conservative movement
further still:
Who cares what that dead-ender Cheney thinks?
Thank goodness his leadership of this country is in the last throes
And in a weirder ironic twist, it turns out that Bin Laden ordered the botched assassination attempt on Cheney in Afghanistan last year.
Let’s review: Bin Laden wants Cheney dead. The Dhimmicrats want Cheney out of office. Ergo, Bin Laden is doing the work of the Dhimmicrat Party.
Whether by an IED or “death by a thousand subpoenas,” it is harder to determine who dislikes the VP more – al-Qaeda or the Dhimmicrats.
Scary thought.
Regards,
Peter H.
I will stay off your blog. I shouldn’t be here instigating trouble anyways.
p.s. my comment about democrats being poor was how I feel republicans think, not what I think. Sorry, I should have been clearer. I don’t think you can peg either party like that. But, I also think it is self-deprecating to be republican and gay. I guess if you hate yourself, might as well hang out with people that agree with hate you as well. But, what do I know? I am just retarded as one of the posters above called me.
And let’s do something the trolls don’t do and put some reason and context into the argument. I also want our troops to be able to leave Iraq and come home. But I don’t want them to leave in the form of running away in defeat, and I don’t want them to leave behind another Iranian puppet-state and terror-incubator. I don’t want to leave al Qaeda so empowered and emboldened that they carry out even more and bloodier attacks and kill still more people. I don’t want a message to be sent to moderate Muslims and potential allies that they can’t count on America to help them resist Islamo-Fascism, because we’ll cut and run if Islamo-Fascism pushes back against us.
Address the consequences of US defeat in Iraq, you leftist trolls. I double-dog dare you.
“But, what do I know? I am just retarded as one of the posters above called me.”
Finally – a liberal who tells the truth. We should bronze this post for posterity.
Regards,
Peter H.
***I am just retarded as one of the posters above called me.***
Chris — finally something we can agree on. You just don’t get it (any of it), which is no surprise. I actually asked you if you were retarded, so thanks for the answer. I DID call you a moron, though.
Chris: yeah you should go. Retard dhimmis are a threat to our safety.
Reason repubs should never be in power #534:
“Fallujah, after those people were lynched, should’ve been nuked immediately”
Further:
According to the defense dept. Al Qaeda makes up a small percentage of the Iraqi insurgents.
The majority of people we are policing are Iraqi vs Iraqi
So why are our troops still policing?
– Especially when Iraq will likely not be our ally in the GWOT, and Iraq will never be an ally of Israel anytime soon. And I have serious doubts it will ever be a unified country ever again.
I have yet to see a conservative give a coherent answer on this question that does not invoke the naivety of the conservative movement
Poor poor keogh!
If we had taken care of business in Fallujah, the enemy would’ve taken it as a serious response. Not like the politically correct crap we’ve had to do, in order to humor the leftists, who think “war is never the answer”. Well, yes, sometimes war is the only answer, and this is one of those cases. Again, this is a simple example of the leftists standing on their heads and telling you you’re the one who’s upside down.
Our troops are there, whether you want to believe it or not, is because the average Iraqi knows the consequences of us leaving too soon. But you can’t see beyond the nose on your face to comprehend that.
I feel nothing but pity and contempt for people like you, because your hatred of the President is so deep, that you will continue to be a useful idiot to the enemy. You do realize that, as much as the enemy hates someone like me, they laugh even harder at someone like you. I happen to agree with them on that point only.
When you start invoking nukes into a police action, you are indeed out of ideas
Further, I never said “war is not the answer”
I said “What are our troops still doing there? When our defense dept. admits Al Qaeda has a small presence in Iraq, Iraq will likely not be our ally in the GWOT, Iraq will likely never be an ally of Israel anytime soon, and I have serious doubts it will ever be a unified country ever again.
To which of course, you have no answer. Only blind obedience
LNC — keogh is a very silly person. He’s denying the presence of Al Qaeda in Iraq, despite the terrorist acts of the Zarqawi organization called ‘Al Qaeda in Iraq,’ (probably just parroting some talking point he heard somewhere), and he’s also pretending that the “insurgents” aren’t being supported by Islamo-fascist regimes like Syria and Iran (Nancy Pelosi’s good friends.)
Nor can he answer why surrendering to these terrorists is a good idea. Nor can he answer why cutting and running from Iraq won’t leave a power vacuum the Islamo-fascists will be only too willing to fill. Nor will he admit what kind of signal it sends to those who might help us in fighting Islamo-Fascism if we cut and run when the going gets tough. Nor will he admit that if the US is defeated in Iraq, that means the terrorists… whether they call themselves Al Qaeda or the Mahdi Army, can claim victory.
I don’t think there’s anyone who thinks the war could not have been handled better. But it takes a special kind of idiot to think that surrender — and forget the word games, when you quit the field and let the enemy achieve his objectives, that is absolutely surrender — is not going to make things worse and bloodier for all of us in the long run.
Now, let’s see the silly person defend why his Dear Speaker, Air Pelosi, has the time to put on her babushka and kiss the bloody hands of terrorists, but no time to talk to the general who is leading the troops she is hellbent on “slow bleeding” to death.
Geez, Chris. If I go from memory what you said was Republicans think the military is made up of poor people, followed by the statement that one can not be Republican and poor. Yet the military votes Republican by something like 75% percent.
When you find a way to make that make sense you’ll be that much closer to understanding how the world really works. Real numbers about military demographics are available. Having a accurate view of how the world works *won’t* result in everyone agreeing with each other, but it ought to help a bit. You make a whole bunch of statements of “fact” that are simply not “fact” at all.
#27 “Guess you don’t want to hear polls that don’t work in your favor?”
Polls in my favor are always pleasant, but they still don’t represent anything other than opinion. They don’t change the facts at all. I remember “polls” on Scott Peterson, is he guilty? His guilt isn’t a matter of opinion, it’s a matter of fact. Just like polls about the war are measuring opinion about something that is not a matter of opinion but a matter of fact.
“I’m just plain sick of the republicans disregard for the majority and I’m sick all of their shenanigans. I am glad to see Pelosi telling it like it is.”
Pelosi took the throne like an ancient Queen. I’m glad she’s saying things that you like to hear, but does she really “tell it like it is?”
“We tend to forget that Iraqis have TV and newspapers.”
No… “we” don’t tend to forget that. They have computers and blogs, too. Al Qaida has a sophisticated media operation. “We” don’t tend to forget that either.
“Do you think they don’t know how the disgusted the MAJORITY of the world is with BUSH and his cronies?”
Do you think they care?
Obviously you care a great deal. It would be a mistake, however, to assume that other people share your opinions about the importance of world popularity. We aren’t running for prom queen so who really cares what the majority of the world thinks about us?
“There is no reason for us to be in Iraq.”
Not true. There are a variety of reasons for us to be in Iraq. That you don’t know about them or don’t feel they are weighty enough does not, by any means, equate to “no reason” for us to be in Iraq.
“The religious war there is not ending soon and has been active a long time before American existed.”
In other words… screw ’em.
“How arrogant of Americans to think we could solve it and bring democracy to a country that doesn’t want it.”
This is an incredible departure from liberalism. It also has little by way of factual support. Iraqis have taken to the democratic process with every indication of willingness. It’s a new idea but not something that is being rejected by the rank and file even though the religious radicals (what allies the anti-war sort choose!) insist democracy is incompatible with Islam.
“Iraqis look at us as a country that has invaded and will do whatever they can to protect their families from us.”
This is a “factual” statement. It is either true or not-true. In this case, not-true. Moreover it betrays complete ignorance about who is doing the fighting over there. It’s not family men.
“This war has nothing to do with them anyways.”
Says who? This belief system of yours is amazing. It has everything to do with Iraqis because the US interest in Iraq is to nurse this seed of *liberal* government and thought in the center of the most problematic region of the world. It depends on social justice and plurality for stability rather than the old-school preference for stability enforced by tyrants.
“Bush just wants control of the country and let’s not pretend it is any different than that.”
Control of which country? This one? Do you *really* believe that or is it all that is left when you get done with the “no reason” denial fest? What a crock, or at least an utter idiot, to work this hard to get control only to lose it in 2008.
And besides, if he just wanted control and power, why NOT just go with public opinion and popularity? Why chose a path that is so incredibly unpopular.
Your first gripe, that he pisses you off by ignoring the majority, totally destroys your last gripe, that it’s a personal grab for power.
These parts of your world view don’t *fit*.
Ok, so using your “logic”, we never should’ve attempted to bring democracy there and overthrow a tyrannical regime? Do the Iraqis or other Middle Eastern peoples not deserve a chance? I guess it’s easy to rationalize your point of view when you take your freedom for granted. So much for that liberal compassion!!
Would you just leave a hornets nest to grow and take over your house, because you fear getting stung a few times? Do you not even remotely understand what is happening in the world? These are rhetorical questions, because it’s glaringly obvious you just don’t “get it”.
Nah, the left would rather see if they could bribe the other hornets (with sugar and honey perhaps) in hopes that the hornets would then be friends with them. And if they still sting you, it just means you’re not giving them enough sugar and honey. As I understand it, this is the theory behind Barack Obama’s foreign policy.
V-
The same article (I think) said that she spoke to him for quite some time already so she likely had little to gain to hear the briefing in a public forum. – But I don’t know her schedule and I don’t care to much about it…
What I don’t get is how you refuse to see the elephant in the room.
This is:
The DOD says Al Qaeda’s presence in Iraq is small. Our soldiers are policing Iraqi v Iraqi
Iraq will likely not be united.
Iraq will likely not be a ally of Israel any time soon.
Iraq will likely not be an ally in the GWOT anytime soon.
And all you can do is talk about the Speaker of the house…
Strange.
V the K – Damn, wish I had thought of that!! Barak HUSSEIN Obama, you mean? Yeah, he sounds just perfect to be the next posterchild of leftist lunacy (redundant, sorry).
“I have yet to see a conservative give a coherent answer on this question that does not invoke the naivety of the conservative movement”
And I have yet to see 401k coherently defend any type of far-left talking points that he cut-and-pastes here on a regular basis.
And as far as your predictions, here are some answers:
Iraq will likely not be united.
(Not as long as you have Dhimmicrats trying to cut-and-run while the job is getting done you won’t.)
Iraq will likely not be a ally of Israel any time soon.
(For that matter, neither is the Dhimmicrat Party with the sole exception of Joe Lieberman, and even that is debatable.)
Iraq will likely not be an ally in the GWOT anytime soon.
(And who said the Dhimmicrats were our allies to begin with?)
Checkmate.
Regards,
Peter H.
“Pelosi took the throne like an ancient Queen.”
Gee, I didn’t know we were discussing Barney Frank. But I digress.
If Pelosi is indeed acting like a queen, we should remind her of what happened to Marie Antoinette when she said “let them eat cake.”
Regards,
Peter H.
Our leadership had no plan for post war Iraq.
Yet the lemmings on the right attempt to say we went there for human rights.
Not a chance. Since our leaders had no psot war plan, you are just “Monday Morning Rationalizing” bad judgment.
That is hardly a checkmate, Peter H.
Talk about a Friday turd at a Saturday market.
Regards,
David K.
DavidK, not as if I care who you are, but unless you can back up your somewhat nauseating retort, you are of no further consideration.
Regards,
Peter H.
#51
– I don’t think the Kurds will ever allow themselves to be governed by the Shiite majority and frankly Kurdistan now exists in name only.
Further, the US mil. Now agrees that unification is unlikely…they are trying to build a wall through Baghdad for crying out loud.
-Your second and third answers just prove my point.
You have no answer for the obvious so you hem and haw with humor.
All the while our troops die for goals that are extraordinarily unlikely.
LOL Peter H. Why did you respond?
#54
Peter is famous for his premature jubilation.
He still has not mastered the start-stop technique.
And just to be clear, I am not calling you a turd, be rather the overuse of “checkmate. If anything is nauseating, it’s that.
#49, Actually, silly person, I have addressed in some detail exactly why surrender in Iraq is wrong. My comments on Air Pelosi were only one small point. Your failure to master basic reading comprehension is not my problem.
A little friendly advice, silly person. If you get a chance to compete on that Are you smarter than a fifth grader? show… don’t. You’ll be spared much embarrassment.
LNC, I prefer to call Barack Hussein Obama by his initials, BO, but I didn’t think anyone would recognize it if I did.
All this taunting from the Left about “Iraq will never be united”, “Iraq isn’t safe for gays”, “Iraq will always be our enemy”, “Iraq doesn’t want us there”, etc. It’s like the Left looks for the differences rather than what unites us as humans seeking a better life. How very “un-global” or responsible of the Left.
It reminds me of the remark of Ambassador Franklin when he landed in France in 1776 and knew that, without the French help, the colonies would continue under the Brit’s tyrannical rule and the drive for independence would be lost.
“To be an ally of a Nation, yearning for freedom and independence, is a far higher calling than to sit and speculate while others labor in vain”.
For the lower case clan here, Franklin curried the support of France’s elite –in money, military leadership, war equipment, troops, and Navy. If we hadn’t had that edge, the War of Independence would have been toast and those brave patriots would have hung and been forgotten as traitors to the Crown.
But that support for the newbie Americans wasn’t universal in France.
Back then, the naysayers argued America was a sectional country that, when the rule of order by British design was removed, would fall into chaos and anarchy. Hmmmmm.
Sort of sounds like the same argument offered by the anti-war Democrats about Iraq today. I’m not a big fan of the French, but thank God they stayed the course and helped our country when needed. I’m not a big fan of the Iraqis either… but we need to see it through and help them –as best we can– to establish their version of self-govt.
To do otherwise is to forget our debt to those who helped make US free. To act as defeatists or undermine our troops is to negate any claim of statesmanship or leadership… gReid, Pelosi, Murtha, Conyers, Lantos, Obama, et al.
Pete, considering the intellectual limits of those with whom you debate, perhaps “King me!” or “Go fish!” would be a better signature exclamation than “Checkmate!”
And just so there is no confusion, I am not a Democrat! I mainly come here to read the postings of M-Matt and Hardhobbit who, in my opinion, are the most articulate posters here.
#61 – Yeah, VdaK, I keep forgetting about the so-called mental capacity of some of our visitors.
Regards,
Peter H.
Also – you brought up a good point about SanFranNan, in that she’d rather genuflect to a Hezbollah ally like Syria than listen to Gen. Petraeus – but don’t you DARE question her patriotism! (Sarcasm)
Meanwhile, we now know that the media partnered with Hezbollah during last summer’s Israeli war and did not accurately report things like Hezbollah’s ties to Iran and Syria for weapons and capital. Click here to check it out.
So 401K, in answer to your query “Iraq won’t be an ally of Israel anytime soon,” the answer is “it depends upon how quickly we can achieve our mission of depriving Iran and Syria with a valuable ally in the region.”
Translation: “Our chances will improve once we win the war.”
Try again.
Regards,
Peter H.
#58 – 401k, I am assuming you are speaking from experience. TMI, dude.
Regards,
Peter H.
VdaK at #60: “… I prefer to call Barack Hussein Obama by his initials, BO….”
Oh please don’t V… as a fellow Wolverine, you of all people should know that name is the saintly province of only one man.
http://media.www.michigandaily.com/media/storage/paper851/news/2006/11/17/CampusLife/Schembechler.Passes.Away-2467786.shtml
V-
You are right I did not see your reply.
Words like surrender, power vacuum and “cut and run” are nice but they don’t solve the fact our stated goals are simply unfeasible.
I don’t think its feasible to remake Iraq into a unified country, that is an ally on the GWOT and pal of Israel.
Further much of what used to be Iraq is already on the verge of becoming a region run on Islamic law.
All of this will happen if our troops are there or not.
So why are we wasting our troops and money on an unfeasible attempt to stop it?
For pride?
This made me laugh out loud at work,, getting stares from the people who hate noise.
Are the black?
j/k
the = they
# 64
You mean Iran OR Syria
And which ever side wins, the Sunnis or the Shites, one side wins.
Its that simple.
I can’t wait for Barack, orate the pants off of whoever the repubs choose…Its going to be fun!
Well, if I can’t be articulate, I can at least make someone laugh.
1) Disrespect for the troops? Do you count the military/government covering up Pat Tillman’s death and faking Jessica Lynch’s story in this desrespect?
Perhaps some of you folks should take a look at the old film of people clawing, scratching climbing over each other to depart in helicopters from Saigon. Bush and company believe that there is some tangible war in Iraq on terrorism, yet we’re smack dab in the middle of a 3 faction civil war. Reports in the last few days indicate tha the current Iraqi government could be showing signs of collapsing. good doctrine Bush has going there.
So, now the silly person is saying, Islamo-Fascism is going to over-run Iraq and we should do nothing to stop it.
Sounds somewhat similar to, “Soviet Communism is going to over-run the world, we should do nothing to stop it.”
Or maybe, “Hitler is going to over-run Europe, we should do nothing to stop it.”
And the question of what happens to us if we hand victory to the likes of Al Qaeda and Mookie al Sadr? Conspicuously left ignored.
If anyone believes Cheney has a 9% approval rating then you are truly a partisan fool.
What ever the Main Stream says, DON’T BELIEVE IT! They are like Iraq’s Information Minister in March 2003. They are the biggest bunch of partisan hacks in history.
& the LEFT are dragging the whole country into the pits as a military force. WE ARE THE ONLY MILITARY FORCE THAT CAN DEFEAT ISLAMOFASCISM.
If we don’t defeat al-queda where they stand and stabalize the Iraqi government we are pitiful. NO ONE SHOULD EVER TRUST US IN ARMED CONFLICT AGAIN…
HELL, WITH DEMOCRATS IN CHARGE, I DON”T TRUST US NOW!
REPUBLICANS NEED TO GET OFF THEIR ASSES HOLD DEMOCRATS ACCOUNTABLE!
This is amazing… the court martial of th Haditha Marines is totally unraveling and it looks like the Marines are not guilty.
The media had already tried and convicted these Marines… where is their apology?
In a nutshell, the case exploded when an intelligence officer dropped a bombshell on prosecutors during a pre-hearing interview when he revealed the existence of exculpatory evidence that appears to have been obtained by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) and withheld from the prosecutors.
This officer, described by senior Marine Corps superiors as one of the best and most dedicated intelligence officers in the entire Marine Corps, was in possession of evidence which provided a minute-by-minute narrative of the entire day’s action — material which he had amassed while monitoring the day’s action in his capacity as the battalion’s intelligence officer. That material, he says, was also in the hands of the NCIS.
Much of that evidence remains classified, but it includes videos of the entire day’s action, including airstrikes against insurgent safe houses. Also included was all of the radio traffic describing the ongoing action between the men on the ground and battalion headquarters, and proof that the Marines were aware that the insurgents conducting the ambush of the Kilo Company troops were videotaping the action — the same video that after editing ended up in the hands of a gullible anti-war correspondent for Time magazine…
Confronted by the massive mounds of evidence that Marine Corps sources tell NewsMax proves conclusively that the cases against the Haditha Marines are baseless, the prosecutors were forced to postpone the Article 31 against Lt. Col. Chessani and two of the enlisted men in an attempt to regroup.
#25 Hum Chris says Republicans have destroyed the counntry. On the day when the Dow hit not 13,000 but 13,089! Unemployment is at 4%, most all are working except the very hard core socialists getting assistance. Thank you President Bush for an amazing economy which allows world record prosperity. Oh and it’s also the day Rosie announced she is leaving the View. We were able to thwart an assassination attempt on the Vice President. What a sunny day in America indeed. Are leftists happy?
Disturbing if true, Vince. The railroading of US soldiers by the Bush Administration for purposes of political correctness is even more vile than the Nifong/Duke Lacrosse case. But it is part of a pattern, including the railroading of border patrol guards under the Bush DOJ to appease the Narco-Democracy south of the border.
The Bush administration has much to be ashamed of, but the abuse of the Justice system in service of political correctness may be the worst.
This was my favorite example of the day.
Republicans have destroyed this country and the democrats are sick of it. Since they took power, they ruined our economy,
All I can say is…. give me more ruining.
#67 “Words like surrender, power vacuum and “cut and run” are nice but they don’t solve the fact our stated goals are simply unfeasible.”
Unfeasible, or hard? Our stated goals are *hard* but they are important. It would help a lot if certain people stopped trying to make it even harder.
“I don’t think its feasible to remake Iraq into a unified country, that is an ally on the GWOT and pal of Israel.”
Asking that Iraq be an ally of Israel is setting goal posts waaaay too far out. That Iraq be stable and have the beginnings of a democracy and rule of law would be fabulous. I wouldn’t expect them to do anything beyond their own borders for years and years.
“Further much of what used to be Iraq is already on the verge of becoming a region run on Islamic law.
All of this will happen if our troops are there or not.”
Doing nothing really isn’t a better option. There’s a great deal of push the *other* way as well, even inside places such as Iran. What our troops *can* do (if they have the support) is provide enough stability to make the difference as the people get used to new ideas.
“So why are we wasting our troops and money on an unfeasible attempt to stop it?”
Hard != unfeasible
“For pride?”
No… seriously, you think so? There’s an element of “reputation” but it has more to do with who we are dealing with and less to do with us. Americans really don’t get all invested in how we are viewed by other people (despite the crying about world opinion from some) but the culture in the middle east is highly invested in honor and appearance. Somalia wasn’t an assault to our *pride* but it was demonstrably a serious assault to our reputation and ciited by Bin Laden as proof of what we could be expected to do. We make people who really *do* want to hurt us badly bold by behaving in a way that they view as weak. They become convinced they can win.
That’s not a matter of *our* pride, it’s a matter of the beliefs of our enemy and the future plans they will make.
But even this very real consideration of reputation (reputation != popularity) isn’t the reason to continue. The reason to continue is that we are not helpless to influence what will develop in the middle east concerning radical Islam and terrorism (that is spreading beyond that region). It’s not an easy thing. It will take work. But we *do* have the ability, and responsibility (in the interest of our own safety if nothing else), to do something about it.
It would help a whole heck of a lot if the creative resources of those who insist that “all is lost” and “there is nothing at all we can do about this problem” were actually focused on making a difference to this vital issue. There’s room for a great deal of effort that can happen *while* our troops work to keep Iraq physically controlled enough that people there have a chance to become accustomed to the ideas of liberty and equality.
Liberals are supposed to be good at ideas? Right? And *certainly* the ideas of social justice, equality, and liberty are ones that liberals view as their domain. So why not try to help? Better to have tried and failed than not tried at all, isn’t it?
Agreed totally.
Liberals have totally betrayed EVERYTHING they once claimed to believe in. They have since turned into narcissist nihilists. All they want is power… there is nothing too sacred that they wont betray to get it.
They are dangerous to our survival and our own values. They complain about Republicans somehow acting contrary to this country’s princiles WHEN IT IS THEM who have stabbed us all in the back. I despise them and have nothing but contempt for leftists.
In other news, yesterday a bipartisan group of House co-sponsors introduced ENDA – for the seventh time.
Maybe this time it’ll pass.
Disrespect for the troops? Do you count the military/government covering up Pat Tillman’s death and faking Jessica Lynch’s story in this desrespect?
Yes, because heaven knows, it’s so disrespectful for the government to call American troops heroes. Democrats prefer people like John Kerry and Jane Fonda, who get up and call the troops baby-killers in front of Congress.
Perhaps some of you folks should take a look at the old film of people clawing, scratching climbing over each other to depart in helicopters from Saigon.
Which was what happened the last time the country listened to racist Democrats who think our troops are baby-killers and that it didn’t matter how many “primitive” people who obviously weren’t ready for democracy were killed by a repressive dictatorial government.
Mr. Yeltsin, you did your level best to ensure some liberty in a time when that seemed an impossibility. Considering the recent and plausibly sinister consolidation of power concocted by this diminutive, pious, ‘former’ KGB and the liberty of the individual Russian receding faster than Madeleine Albright’s hairline, my perspective wishes for some of your courage and openness. Spasibo, Boris.
83 – Synova
Thanks for your comments:
“the ideas of social justice, equality, and liberty are ones that liberals view as their domain”
darn tootin’
especially within our own borders. However, international social justice through force only works when the weight of the world is behind you. Without that, it’s a mess. And that is where we are now.
Somalia and reputation – Clinton was pragmatic and heartless to get out of that mess. He knew we would be bogged down in a horrible police action without world support. Bin Laden will do what any leader will do, spin any development as a victory.
His potential spin can’t be the basis for continual military action. And yes, I do believe a lot of support for the war at this point is simply pride, not good policy.
“Doing nothing really isn’t a better option.” Most mainstream dems arent advocating this. Most talk about stop having our troops police the country and make Iraqis solve their own problems. Since they are headed for Islamic law anyway, I say get our troops out of policing, leave that to the Iraqis and pull back and wait.
“Asking that Iraq be an ally of Israel is setting goal posts waaaay too far out.”
Protection of Israel was one of our stated reasons for the invasion
And getting them on our side in the GWOT is another stated goal of us policing the streets of Iraq.
Since as you say these goals are “years and years” away, then what are we doing there?
And our goals are not “hard” but unfeasible. There is a difference. If it was simply hard I would think that after 4 years we would have more progress. But instead we have seen societal regression in Iraq.
So yes, our stated goals in Iraq are unfeasible.
And therefore we should not be policing the streets of Iraq.
And Synova- occupation has almost always fostered resentment no matter the intentions of the occupier. Never forget how dangerous that can be for our troops.
And our country
86: Tried and true conservative rhetoric. That’s the truth on the matter at hand, yet you try to deflect it cause you know you’re wrong.
[This commenter has been repeatedly banned from this site under a variety of names.]
That’s the truth on the matter at hand, yet you try to deflect it cause you know you’re wrong.
Mhm….and Republicans are all coming to put us in concentration camps too, Kevin.
Given your repeated insistence on that, I think we can safely say that your judgment on what is and isn’t “truth” can be considered at the very least suspect.
Oh, and just in case anyone missed it, here’s the first consequence of Nancy Pelosi’s unquestioning support of Syria.
Ironically, read the convictions:
Tuesday’s ruling convicted al-Bunni of spreading false or exaggerated news that could weaken national morale, affiliating with an unlicensed political association of an international nature, discrediting state institutions and contacting a foreign country, according to defense lawyer Khalil Maatouk.
Of course, Pelosi broke every single one of those — if the United States had had such laws — but still had the temerity to praise Syria and support Assad, while claiming her own country was fascist.
ABC will be on the outs with the Speaker’s office tomorrow; Veruca doesn’t take it well when people publish news that make obvious exactly what the governments she’s supporting are doing.
p.s. you can’t be republican and be poor. It doesn’t make sense.
Sure you can. When all of your income is taken away to support libs who are too lazy to get off their arse and work, any Republican can be poor.
#88 “However, international social justice through force only works when the weight of the world is behind you. Without that, it’s a mess. And that is where we are now.”
It’s also in the realm of self-fulfilling prophecy. Firstly the “world” is never going to be behind social justice. Even the UN is a haven for the enemy in this regard. So say “world” really means “a few good allies with the clout to make a difference.” Primarily (and unfortunately) at the moment that’s US. Resources and the ability to project power on an international scale… is US. Allies help, of course, but through this whole thing and all the coalition building and multiple nation participation the bill has been ours to pay and for the most part it’s our guys taking the most dangerous roles. So what the allies offered was the appearance of international support.
Now, if liberals were interested in international social justice and human rights and that jazz, then it would make sense that while we had that international support they’d have been supportive. They weren’t. And the biggest reason that support has faltered is probably because of all the concerted effort to undermine our efforts here at home… and at home in Britain… and in other countries.
So what came first? Did we have liberal support when we had international support? I don’t think so. What would happen *now* if the “loyal opposition” in the US started supporting democracy and reformation and solutions for plurality in the middle east? Could others be convinced that the lives of those people over there was worth a little bit of effort?
I said: “Asking that Iraq be an ally of Israel is setting goal posts waaaay too far out.”
“Protection of Israel was one of our stated reasons for the invasion”
Perhaps the word “ally” means something different to you than it does to me. I can’t imagine Iraq being an ally to Israel. On the other hand, Saddam is no longer paying big prizes to suicide bomber’s families. Big picture, anything that brings some measure of modernity to politics in the region, and certainly if the economies of countries improve, Israel will be safer. It doesn’t take a hug fest to make things better when it was as bad as it was.
“If it was simply hard I would think that after 4 years we would have more progress. But instead we have seen societal regression in Iraq.”
Have we? And is 4 years really a reasonable expectation to be pretty much done with it?
Still, that’s the biggest reason to get more of our guys working side-by-side with Iraqis and keep them there for a while. It’s training. Training by example of how our commanders and squad leaders organize and interact with their men. Training by example in the principles of police, law enforcement, and the idea of equality under the law.
It is sort of interesting that when the Bush admin was all “small footprint” the Democrats were all “he didn’t put nearly enough troops over there to do the job” and now that Bush is sending more troops over there to do the job the Democrats are all “small footprint”.
Odd how that works.
Reports in the last few days indicate tha the current Iraqi government could be showing signs of collapsing.
Given that there’s hardly a thing the libs and their media darlings have honestly reported in the last several years, you’ll forgive us if we don’t buy it.
And as usual, the libs forgot to tell the Iraqis..
Oh, BTW, Iraq insurgent unity collapses
You know, White House Management 101 taught even a bad student like Slick Willy that you never let a taunting lie go unchallenged.
Harry gReid said that the Secy of State and Secy of Defense “know” the war in Iraq is lost… he allowed the audience to speculate on whether or not the President thought so.
So, where the Hell are Condi and RobertGates? Step up to the mike and pile on the Veep’s comments about the disingenious comments of Harry gReid. Rice should be tsking gReid and telling him to quit putting words in her mouth… BobGates should be sighting-in gReid and underscoring how dangerous the game of partisan upmanship is when our troops are in Harm’s Way. No surrogates; the real talking heads.
Instead, WH Mgt 101 lessons continue to be missed.
Instead, Harry gReid gets to undercut the troops, whittle away at American resolve and still claim, uncontested, “As long as we follow the president’s path in Iraq, the war is lost. But there is still a chance to change course and we must change course. No one wants us to succeed in the Middle East more than I do.”
More than Harry gReid does? Really? Wow.
#92 – Veruca? You lost me there.
Regards,
Peter H.
#97 Veruca Salt, child villain of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory fame.
Gotcha. Somehow, I don’t picture SanFranNan as Veruca Salt. Martha Stewart yes, but Nazi Pelosi no. I picture NotMySpeaker Pelosi more like Leona Helmsley. “Only the little people pay taxes,” you know.
Regards,
Peter H.
#97 – Troll alert! This post sounds like it was written by someone Bruce has banned for community violations! Danger, Will Robinson! Danger!
😉
Regards,
Peter H.
I remember Veruca as the rich spoilage of an industrialist. A real Dahl-baby. Leona is a good fit, though whenever I see Pelosi on the tube, she appears somewhat unhinged, as in a dingbat. The toothy smile that reveals her lower teeth as much as her uppers, the obvious mouth-breathing, the wide, vacant stare that demands deliberate, conscious blinking, the voice that modulates from questioning squeak to a husky, mechanically impossible sensuality that likely satisfied the ’49ers (and I mean the originals, not the football team). She’s a kind of political Norma Desmond: “Back then, we didn’t need fluoridated water — we had braces!” (Only at a gay website would you read that. Peter, don’t let anyone know I own two Doris Day albums.)
Have we? And is 4 years really a reasonable expectation to be pretty much done with it?
What I think is funny, Synova, is that we STILL have troops in Kosovo in the middle of a civil war — nearly a decade after the fact.
Of course, that was a war started by Democrats, without the permission of the UN, to remove a tin-pot dictator who committed a fraction of the genocide Saddam did, but whose major crimes were a) not paying off the UN and European bureaucracies and b) creating the possiblity that leftist welfare-state nations like France and Germany would have to add a few hundred thousand more people to their freebie rolls — sans taxes, of course.
And to me, if you watch the 1971 film version (aka the non-creepy one) of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, you can channel Pelosi quite nicely.
And given her hateful and spiteful behavior that is legendary among the Democrat caucus to those who don’t give her exactly what she wants when she wants it, the picture becomes far clearer.
HH, you are the only poster I know who could fit Norma Desmond, Doris Day and Roald Dahl in one posting. I bow to your gay creativity.
Regards,
Peter H.
So ‘”real estate crook” Harry Reid says he’s not going to get into a spitting match with someone who has a 9% approval rating, Vice President Dick Cheney. Over Reid saying America has lost the war.
#1. That ‘s a lie, Cheney’s approval rating was 25% today in a WSJ poll.
#2. Cheney’s rating was a lot better than “real estate crook”
Harry Reids 21%.
You gotta admit that’s priceless. hehe
#106 – Looks like Gene just took out Dan’s comment (#14) with one swift kick. You go, buddy. Another libtard talking point falls by the wayside.
Regards,
Peter H.
Pelosi has more balls than ten Republican college cheerleaders. And you know which ones I mean.
Doesn’t take much in the way of balls to sell yourself to terrorist leaders like Pelosi does.
I mean, really, sean; how long are you going to try to foist this spoiled-brat rich girl on us as a leader? Haven’t you realized she will ally with groups that consider it their duty to kill all Americans just because the grownups won’t let her put her surrender policy into place?
My suggestion: Get rid of her before she decides to pull your leash and have your party support the amnesty for all illegal immigrants, even blocking enforcement of deportation orders for criminal behavior, as she does here in San Francisco.
Wonder who has the bigger testicles – Pelosi or Shrillary? Would be an interesting topic in a roundtable discussion.
I would particularly like to know the opinions of our resident females: LNC, Julie et al. Which woman is the butcher of the two?
Regards,
Peter H.
I’d say Hillary, but lately she’s a little teste.